Wife Beating

[Everlasting33]

It's Standard Operating Procedure in this forum. If you were to mention that someone returned a library book late, three people would respond "Oh yeah? Christians do that too!"

You're right. Glad to see others perceive it that way, too.

 

[Belk]

I couldn't watch any more than a few seconds of that religious bastard casually rattling on about the merits of "discipline" and wife beating.

The more you know about Islam and the Koran, the more adamant I am that I don't want Muslims in my western democratic nation. The simple fact is that their "values" (for want of a better word) completely clash with modern democratic values. Their ideology and ways are totally foreign to ours and they do not fit in and belong.

I don't want Muslims immigrating, I don't want mosques and Islamic schools being built. And btw, don't be so stupid and call me a "rascist". I hate the Islamic religion-regardless of who practices it, be it Arab, English, American, British etc.

I know I am right when I say that they do not belong in a free Western democratic nation. I am not ashamed to say that.

And also, I am really impressed by the mentality of people participating in the Ethics and Morality forum-NOT. The amount of absolute stupid threads that go on and on. Stupid subjects such as people neutering themselves, the ethics of men being gyncacologists, thread after thread on yet another variant topic of homosexuality etc. And yet when someone posts a thread on a real ethical dilemma-NO RESPONSES! Is it because you are afraid to face the facts about your precious Islam?

As someone who values American ideals, I disagree.

 

[Beechwell]

After all these years, I am still confused on why atheists/agnostics wish to come on a Christian board, when they obviously object vehemently against its teachings and beliefs. At the core, I really think its their reminder and validation of many things...

but that's for another thread

Anyway, I hope I receive some responses on topic!

I think you missed our (the atheists') point. We are not trying to say that Christianity is bad. What we are trying to say is that just because bad things happen in Islamic societies, doesn't mean that Islam itself is necessarily bad. Evil things happen in all societies - even Christian ones.
We just find it unfortunate that some Christians jump at anything that could incrimate other religions, forgetting that similar things can happen in Christian societies as well.

Islam is as good or evil as the people who practice it make it. The Islamic world (by and large) as in the beginning stages of a social modernization process (which includes rethinking gender roles) that the Christian world has already finished (mostly). I think rather than trying to build walls between those major religions (and cultural traditions) we should encourage this process and support interpretations of Islam that are compatible with modern (western) society. They do exist. Both in the west and in the Islamic world.

Example of a "feminist" interpretation of the Qur'an

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Originally Posted by Chesterton

It's Standard Operating Procedure in this forum. If you were to mention that someone returned a library book late, three people would respond "Oh yeah? Christians do that too!"
​

You're right. Glad to see others perceive it that way, too

Allow me to demonstrate.

> Jews are such irresponsible scumbags this is demonstrated by the fact that jews bring back library books late! how dare those jews bring the books back late it is a disgrace!

< Uhm. You realize christians, hindu's, muslims and atheists bring books back late too right? The issue is not related only to the jewish faith.

>Red herring! this is not the point! the point is jews are irresponsible scumbags that bring books back late!

< ...Oookayyyy... have fun with that.

The point really isnt to make christians look bad.
Its to remind you that jews are not soley responsible for all the late books in the world and should not be treated as such.
If you are dealing with a problem (late books) its better to have a accurate understanding of that problem in order to find a solution. If you where to just believe that jews are responsible you might expect that if you ban jews from getting books you will have solved the problem of late books which in reality is not the case. But upon having this reality pointed out to you the correct response not to get insulted but to accept that indeed the problem is more complicated then you thought and will require a different solution.

 

[Everlasting33]

I think you missed our (the atheists') point. We are not trying to say that Christianity is bad. What we are trying to say is that just because bad things happen in Islamic societies, doesn't mean that Islam itself is necessarily bad. Evil things happen in all societies - even Christian ones.

I mostly definitely understand this point. I am amazed that you would assume I was this naive to believe otherwise. I do not desire to engage in a battle of "well, Christians do it too!" because it's taking away from the discussion and it will only cause us to run in circles.

We just find it unfortunate that some Christians jump at anything that could incrimate other religions, forgetting that similar things can happen in Christian societies as well.

When a Christian wishes to discuss matters of another religion, you assume there must be a forgetfulness on their part?

support interpretations of Islam that are compatible with modern (western) society

Can you elaborate on this?

 

[ebia]

Another thing: Why is it so difficult to keep a topic on Islam?

Because its the nature of the OP that it tries to portray Islam as particularly bad in regard to the way women are treated, so its necessary to compare it to other faith positions to examine objectively to what extent its a particular problem with Islam verses to what extent its generally true. There are people out there teaching the most dreadful things in the name of Christianity and using the bible to back themselves up - if you want to be objective you've got to treat them the same as you treat an Islamic 'leader' teaching this stuff.

I will point out again that the picture on women is not as one-sided as it is made out to be, and that the three largest Islamic countries have all elected female Prime Ministers to run them in the past. Australia has only just managed that, America is yet to elect a woman as President.

 

[Belk]

Totally agree. Last night, I watched this documentary on Netflix:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjq5Vi9Gc68, and it certainly opened my eyes to the fact that Islam is NOT peaceful but rather violent and advocating muder to get domination of Islamic leadership. There is a Muslim member on here who has "Islam treats women well" in his signature. Really? If you look at the texts and what the treatment of women in the Middle East, Islam does not treat women well at all.

What do women like about Islam? I can think of several reasons why a man would find Islam appealing (polygamy, virgins in heaven, control and domination of family).

Just one video from netflix and you know all you need to condemn 1.4 billion people as violent?

 

[BlackSabb]

I'm not sure why this is being posed as a "Muslim" issue. Wife beating is not specific to that religion, there are plenty of Christians who take sections of the Bible seriously which call for no woman to have authority over men and see the role of the woman in much the same way as the OP described - "more like a parent/child relationship: woman knows no better and must be disciplined to obey and keep quiet."

Domestic violence is unacceptable, no matter what "reasoning" there is for it, religious or otherwise.

What a truly ridiculous response. And all the responses in this thread apart from the OP and myself have all ran in the same manner.

Firstly, as the OP stated clearly so that none of you have any excuse, the Koran specifically advocates beating of wives. The Bible does not. All the Bible says is that the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church. And that the wife is to submit to the husband just as the church submits to Christ.

You have all twisted this portion of scripture and stretched it to mean that the Bible can also be interpretated to advocate wife beatings. Well, it doesn't. Wife submission in the Bible is not beatings and discipline. That is your personal spin only. However, the Koran does specifically advocate wife beatings.

And as the OP has said, all you can do to disarm this thread is to claim that wife beatings also occur in other religions. Well, the OP didn't want to discuss other religions-she wanted to discuss Islam. And this is your only limp, weak defense. Well guess what? Wife beatings also occur in non religious marriages.

My 2 counterpoints are:

1. The Koran specifically advocates wife beatings. The Bible does not.
2. This thread is about this issue within Islam.

The fact that you can only resort to skewed interpretations of the Bible to attempt to claim that it is on par with the writings of the Koran show that you have no argument at all.

Stop all this politically correct, touchey, feeley, love and peace, free hugs to all, tolerance for everyone attitude. You cannot face the fact that Islam is a brutal and violent patriarchal religion that has no place in Western democratic nations.

But of course that's not all love and peace, politically correct, is it? But it's the truth. It just doesn't gel with all the hippy free spirit around here.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

What a truly ridiculous response. And all the responses in this thread apart from the OP and myself have all ran in the same manner.

Firstly, as the OP stated clearly so that none of you have any excuse, the Koran specifically advocates beating of wives. The Bible does not. All the Bible says is that the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church. And that the wife is to submit to the husband just as the church submits to Christ.

You have all twisted this portion of scripture and stretched it to mean that the Bible can also be interpretated to advocate wife beatings. Well, it doesn't. Wife submission in the Bible is not beatings and discipline. That is your personal spin only. However, the Koran does specifically advocate wife beatings.

And as the OP has said, all you can do to disarm this thread is to claim that wife beatings also occur in other religions. Well, the OP didn't want to discuss other religions-she wanted to discuss Islam. And this is your only limp, weak defense. Well guess what? Wife beatings also occur in non religious marriages.

My 2 counterpoints are:

1. The Koran specifically advocates wife beatings. The Bible does not.
2. This thread is about this issue within Islam.

The fact that you can only resort to skewed interpretations of the Bible to attempt to claim that it is on par with the writings of the Koran show that you have no argument at all.

Stop all this politically correct, touchey, feeley, love and peace, free hugs to all, tolerance for everyone attitude. You cannot face the fact that Islam is a brutal and violent patriarchal religion that has no place in Western democratic nations.

But of course that's not all love and peace, politically correct, is it? But it's the truth. It just doesn't gel with all the hippy free spirit around here.

Okay let me see if i understand this logic correctly.

I can claim that only christians are rapists and point to the bible where it says a rapist can pay for his victem. And dismiss any attempt at people trying to say that rape occurs outside christianity aswell because I want to keep it focused on the crimes commited by people with the christian faith and not hear about people other faiths doing the same thing?

But I totally agree with your point. People should stop pointing at their holy book and saying it gives them the right to do whatever they read into it.

Oddly enough these 'skewed interpetations' where not so skewed back when it was common practise though. Kinda like with slavery, and womans rights. At the time the bible clearly stated all sorts of things that now apparently turn out to be 'skewed'.

Ill say the koran is as bad a book as the bible. And like the bible people have taken it and used parts of it to just pretty much use it as their security blanket while living their lives like a normal person. Do you want to rip that security blanket away just because you think the original text if followed to the letter is worse then your security blanket? Ofcourse it is. Just like the bibles original text is worse then the muslim security blanket.

Is the original bible/koran bad? probably.
Does that mean the security blanket people have woven out of them into their faith are bad? Not Necessarily.

 

[BlackSabb]

I am not replying to any thread that can only argue with the OP by trying to deflect criticism away from Islam onto other religions as well. This thread is about the advocation of wife beating as per the Koran.

I will not discuss anything else not related to the OP. As I said before, it's your only weak defense because you have no argument to contend with. There it is in the Koran in black and white-that wives are to be disciplined by beatings. You cannot fault the position of the OP and so you wriggle and squirm to deflect this thread.

So I am not replying to any other erroneous response. What do you have to say about Islam that it's holy book, the Koran, specifically advocates the beating of wives?

My guess is that you have no worthy response-just the usual drivel.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

I am not replying to any thread that can only argue with the OP by trying to deflect criticism away from Islam onto other religions as well. This thread is about the advocation of wife beating as per the Koran.

I will not discuss anything else not related to the OP. As I said before, it's your only weak defense because you have no argument to contend with. There it is in the Koran in black and white-that wives are to be disciplined by beatings. You cannot fault the position of the OP and so you wriggle and squirm to deflect this thread.

So I am not replying to any other erroneous response. What do you have to say about Islam that it's holy book, the Koran, specifically advocates the beating of wives?

My guess is that you have no worthy response-just the usual drivel.

Ill humor you.

If the Koran specifically advocates the beating of woman.
Then that passage has no place within western civilization and is inexcusable.
Anyone that chooses to follow that passage has no place in western civilization, or technically they do. Jail.

I do not think it means that everyone that follows their own idea of how to follow a islamic faith should be held accountable for passages they choose not to follow however.

Seems fair I reckon?

 

[BlackSabb]

Ill humor you.

If the Koran specifically advocates the beating of woman.
Then that passage has no place within western civilization and is inexcusable.
Anyone that chooses to follow that passage has no place in western civilization, or technically they do. Jail.

I do not think it means that everyone that follows their own idea of how to follow a islamic faith should be held accountable for passages they choose not to follow however.

Seems fair I reckon?

Now we're getting somewhere-sticking to the subject and not deflecting the issue. So I'll respond.

Now, what the OP and I would ask is this: what is the reason that Western Muslim men don't follow their own Koran if they don't discipline and beat their wives? Is it because they don't agree with tha portion of the Koran? Or is it only because it is a criminal offense in Western nations?

Let me put it another way. Would a reasonable person say that there is a far higher percentage of Muslim men that beat their wives in actual Islamic nations than Western nations? I would think so. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that more Muslim men beat their wives in Iran than in say Britain.

I would argue it's only because in Western nations, it's illegal-and the husband would go to jail. If militant Sharia law become the rule in Britain tomorrow, I would expect wife beatings to suddenly escalate.

So yes, not all Muslims follow this. But the fact is it is in the Koran and therefore part of the Islamic faith-there is no escaping it. And I argue that many Muslim men don't beat their wives only because they don't have that luxury living in a non fundamentalist Islamic state. But the big problem with Islam is that the beating of wives and many other things are in the Koran and part of the official creed. There is no way around that.

I believe my argument has credibility because you only have to look at the vast differences between Islamic practice between Islamic and non Islamic states. In Islamic states, there's not only wife beatings, but beheadings, amputations, floggings, honor killings etc. The only difference between all the Muslims in the Islamic and non Islamic states is that in the former, they are allowed to do all these things.

Or putting it another way. Does anyone seriously suggest that all the Muslims in the U.S., Britain, Canada, Australia etc just happen to be moderates that don't beat their wives and don't practice honor killings, beheadings, floggings etc? And all the Muslims in Iran just happen to be hardline fundamentalists that practice these things? Would it not be more reasonable to assume that these things are not practiced in Western nations because they happen to be outlawed there? A reasonable person would suggest the latter.

So, the "Islam" of the West is not the real Islam that is practiced. It is only a mild, watered down version. The Muslim men that don't beat their wives or kill their daughters to protect the family honor are not practicing real Islam-and are not practising what the Koran teaches.

By that reasoning, I argue that your point that not all Muslim men beat their wives is invalid. That is not the true Islam, that is not what is practised in Islamic nations and given half a chance, Muslims would quickly rise up to practise the real form of Islam if they could.

 

[Cabal]

You're right. Glad to see others perceive it that way, too.

Yeah, it's not like Jesus condemned hypocrisy when judging others.

Oh wait, he totally did!

Also, I would really love to know how when people are criticising a religion they believe to be false that they can still hold that there is a "right" way of practising Islam - and it just happens to be the one that backs up their prejudices. If it's a false religion, no interpretation or way of practising it is inherently any more valid than another.

 

[BlackSabb]

Yeah, it's not like Jesus condemned hypocrisy when judging others.

Oh wait, he totally did!

Also, I would really love to know how when people are criticising a religion they believe to be false that they can still hold that there is a "right" way of practising Islam - and it just happens to be the one that backs up their prejudices. If it's a false religion, no interpretation or way of practising it is inherently any more valid than another.

The "right" way of practising Islam is what is written in the Koran. It's not "my interpretation"-it just is. When the OP stated that the Koran advocates the beating of wives as discipline, she was directly quoting the holy Islamic text.

So, the "right" way is what is written in that same text. It's a no brainer.

 

[Cabal]

The "right" way of practising Islam is what is written in the Koran. It's not "my interpretation"-it just is. When the OP stated that the Koran advocates the beating of wives as discipline, she was directly quoting the holy Islamic text.

So, the "right" way is what is written in that same text. It's a no brainer.

And just as there are literalists and non-literalists in Christianity, and that everyone loves to insist that their interpretation is the "right" one, I can only surmise the same is the case within Islam, so generalisations on the basis of one approach are unfounded.

I think it's hilarious that some will condemn Islam for being false but if people deviate from their idea of it they'll start complaining that they're "doing it wrong!"

 

[BlackSabb]

And just as there are literalists and non-literalists in Christianity, and that everyone loves to insist that their interpretation is the "right" one, I can only surmise the same is the case within Islam, so generalisations on the basis of one approach are unfounded.

I think it's hilarious that some will condemn Islam for being false but if people deviate from their idea of it they'll start complaining that they're "doing it wrong!"

You and I are debating on 2 completely different perspectives. You are debating from a philosophical point of view, claiming that there are different interpretations of Islam.

I however am debating from a practical point of view. Saying:


1. Look at how Islam is practised in actual Islamic countries.
2. That these same practises are advocated in the Koran.


Therefore concluding that the Western version of Islam where men don't beat their wives is not true Islam practised. I speak from reality, of what is actually going on in the world today-no hypotheticals or philosophy but actual Islamic practice.

 

[BlackSabb]

I think it's hilarious that some will condemn Islam for being false but if people deviate from their idea of it they'll start complaining that they're "doing it wrong!"

You know what I think is "hilarious?" That you think Muslim men in Western nations just happen to be, by sheer coincidence, moderates. Whilst Muslim men in Islamic nations just happen to be, also by sheer coincidence, hardline fundamentalists.

I find that incredibly "hilarious" actually.

 

[Cabal]

Therefore concluding that the Western version of Islam where men don't beat their wives is not true Islam practised. I speak from reality, of what is actually going on in the world today-no hypotheticals or philosophy but actual Islamic practice.

As am I - or are you denying that Muslim moderates exist?

You're speaking from an assumption that how a religion is practised by a state claiming to operate by the mores of that religion is the true practice of that religion, which is hardly justifiable, given how easily politics can corrupt religious practice.

You'll get no argument from me that the outworking of this in Islamic states is often not a good thing at all, but using those negatives to tar all practice of Islam with the same brush is just facile.

 

[Cabal]

You know what I think is "hilarious?" That you think Muslim men in Western nations just happen to be by sheer coincidence moderates. Whilst Muslim men in Islamic nations just happen to be also by sheer coincidence hardline fundamentalists.

I find that incredibly "hilarious" actually.

Er, nope - never claimed that. Just because it's fashionable to broad-brush all Muslims doesn't mean I will.

Here, I'll make it simple.

There are moderates and fundamentalists in both sets of nations.
Moderates good.
Fundies bad.
Just because fundies are bad, does not mean we get to whale on the moderates by the same reasoning.

Better? Or do you need diagrams?

 

[BlackSabb]

Er, nope - not what I said. Just because it's fashionable to broad-brush all Muslims doesn't mean I will.

Here, I'll make it simple.

There are moderates and fundamentalists in both sets of nations.
Moderates good.
Fundies bad.
Just because fundies are bad, does not mean we get to whale on the moderates by the same reasoning.

Better? Or do you need diagrams?

Yeah, better draw me a picture. But seriously, I understand your point. I am saying however that Muslim "moderates" in Western nations will not remain "moderate" when they have an opportunity to pass their laws and decrees.

Now, let me put it to you another way. At the moment in your country where you live, you can go out to clubs and pubs, buy and drink alcohol as much as you like. No Muslim can stop you.

If tomorrow your country was declared as Islamic state, do you think that the current status quo of alcohol freedom would prevail? I don't think so. Before long, the clubs and pubs would be closed down and you could be jailed or flogged for drinking even in your own home. You would find the Muslim "moderates" would quickly disappear.

How is that? Can I draw YOU a diagram?