Wife Beating

[lawtonfogle]

Shook my head a more than a few times watching this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nUI3TUd[wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]


While not every Muslim obeys the rule of wife beating, it's obvious that a marriage is more like a parent/child relationship: woman knows no better and must be disciplined to obey and keep quiet.

*Let me know if the video does not work. I have refreshed the page and for some reason, its not showing up.

Copy/Paste, "Debate on Wife Beating as instructed in Quran" in youtube search and its the first video on the list.

I predict that there will be a quick forgetting that Christian groups do this as well. Secondly, as long as it is consensual and doesn't cost my tax money, meh... (though I will say anyone into consensual wife beating is merely trying to hide a BSDM fetish).

 

[lawtonfogle]

I agree that as individuals and as a society that we cannot advocate any type of domestic violence, religious or not.

However, while domestic violence is not specific to a single religion, Islam is the only religion I know that encourages and teaches about it.

Do you understand the difference of an authority,a religion telling their people "light beatings" are justified vs a man who gets upset and hits his wife?

Christians teach beating a child who cannot consent is acceptable. I don't know about you, but I rank 'masked BSDM' between two adults far far more acceptable than 'masked BSDM' between a parent and child.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Another thing: Why is it so difficult to keep a topic on Islam? It seems that whenever one discusses one religion, another is brought up. It takes away from the discussion and it is essentially a red herring.

Because there is a lingering idea that this is only a problem with religion X, when it is actually a problem with religion X, Y, Z. For example, I could point out all about how Christians have killed other religions (and even other denominations) all throughout history, and if I didn't mention that this was common among any religions being used as a form of government, it would appear as if I am saying this is a problem only with Christianity.

Not to mention there is some level of hypocrisy in saying 'People of X are violent, so X is wrong' but then saying 'People of Y are violent, but Y isn't wrong', which while not directly stated in the post, is implied by other things (signatures, faith icon, ect.).

 

[lawtonfogle]

Now you have relented to put downs?

That was a compliment.

 

[Auburn88]

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."

Would you mind pointing out those specific verses in the Bible that teach that we should beat our wives?

 

[lawtonfogle]

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?

Sigh, so we are going to throw consenting adults in jail for engaging in BDSM? Great...

It is wrong if they don't consent, but if it is consensual... we might as well go and start throwing homosexuals back in jail again as well, because homosexuality has no part in Western Civilization (based off the assumption BDSM has not part in Western Civ).

 

[lawtonfogle]

Would you mind pointing out those specific verses in the Bible that teach that we should beat our wives?

Spare the rod, spoil the child + no verse that prohibits child marriage.

Yeah, so you are commanded to beat all wives, only if you take a child wife.

 

[Cabal]

Yeah, better draw me a picture.

Sorry.

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.

Again, why should one consider the way a state (that claims to follow a particular religion) practices its religion as the "true" way to interpret that religion? Why should that be standard for any religion, when most religions are practiced on a personal level rather than on a governmental level?

I'm not bringing this up as a "Christians-do-it-too" excuse, but just as a more familiar counterexample - but some claimed Christian theocracies have been as vile as current Islamic theocracies can be. I wouldn't want to live in any kind of theocracy, nor would most people, so I hardly think the track record of a religious theocracy is a valid standard for judging a religion as they tend to universally make for lousy governments. I suspect this is because theocracies attract a certain kind of people who hold to a specific negative interpretation of that religion within the adherents of that religion as a whole, rather than the theocratic standpoint being "the" correct standpoint on that religion.

In addition, not all who practice a particular religion are necessarily going to want it being the basis for the government - I consider myself a Christian secularist, as I've never really held that just because I personally hold a set of beliefs that I should enforce them on everyone else - and not least because many can claim to be part of a particular religion and yet have wildly differing interpretations, not all of them positive.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

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.

Cabal brought up a few things I was going for already so Ill not make you repeat yourselfs.

Fundamentalist religions are always a frightening thing. We are very lucky that we managed to break away from that for the most part. I agree that fundamenlist islam does not fit here. Even if it might be a viable model to keep a society running <as we can see>

I understand you would want to call it a watered down version. I would argue though that most religions that we currently have in the west are watered down versions and we have done a fairly good job keeping them from having any impact on others with the separation of church and state and secular goverment.

Weither they are following what one might call 'true islam' is not our concern so long as we have the current rules in place to keep them from getting any great ideas to get sharia implemented. (Though there are experiments being run have some of the minor aspects implemented I have not kept up with how this resulted)

There is also a cultural difference that I think we should take into account when comparing our lifestyle to that of another culture. Most people here are raised with the idea of equality and I do not find it likely that supose we removed the laws prevent violence against woman that we would get a explosive rise in violence. Much like how if you go on family vacation to iran you do not suddenly begin beating your wife just because its legal.

I tried to keep it on topic and away from other religions, did it work?

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Sigh, so we are going to throw consenting adults in jail for engaging in BDSM? Great...

It is wrong if they don't consent, but if it is consensual... we might as well go and start throwing homosexuals back in jail again as well, because homosexuality has no part in Western Civilization (based off the assumption BDSM has not part in Western Civ).

Ofcourse we are! BDSM is of the devil!

Come on.
Do I really need to put the disclaimer "non-consensual beatings" in there?

 

[Auburn88]

Spare the rod, spoil the child + no verse that prohibits child marriage.

The fact that "spare the rod and spoil the child" isn't found in scripture aside, the verse you're referring to say nothing about beating anyone.

 

[Beechwell]

The core of this matter is the verse 4:34 of the Koran:

"Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whom part you fear disloyalty and ill conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance) for Allah is Most High, Great (above you all). (Ali's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)

The problem, as often with ancient text (including the Christian bible) lies both in the proper translation and its dependence on a certain cultural setting.
So for example, the Egyptian (! not Western) grand mufti Sheik Ali Gomaa said (source) that the verse needs to be seen "through the prism of the era". Beating ones wife was pretty certainly a common and frequent occurance in the society that Muhammed lived in. This verse actually restricts the beating of a wife in that society to a last resort. In a modern muslim society, Gomaa suggests, the beating has no place anymore.
This view is also supported by several other verses of the Koran and some Hadiths speaking out against harsh treatment of wives (inlcluding verse 4:128 which allows a woman to leave her husband if she fears abandonment or cruelty; and Hadith No 2139 (?) in which the prophet clearly advises men not to beat their wives). (source)

Other interpretation go as far as to say that the word commonly translated as "to beat" actually means "to leave/abandon" (the same NYT article as the first source)

Of course many muslims would disagree with such interpretations, and claim them to be modernists excuses not to follow disagreeable parts of Islam. Maybe they are right. But maybe they just want to use faulty translations of the Koran to stick to their own questionable ways.
But does it really matter? If the Koran is not a divine revelation (as both Christians and atheists surely agree), but just a manmade religion based on what some man named Muhammed may or may not have said some 800 years ago, then there is no "true" Islam, just different traditions with a common, somewhat obscure root. What "real" Islam mean in a modern world, therefore, depends on what modern muslims believe to be true.

Obviously some muslims believe that the Koran does not support beating your wife. And in the interest of muslim wifes - if nothing else, I think we should honor and promote this reading of the Koran, whether it was intended by Muhammed or not.*


*Personally I think - based on the verses and Hadiths I read - that Muhammed indeed sought to protect women from abusive husbands in a society where beatings were an all too common occurance.

 

[keith99]

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.

Bolding mine.
As best I can see you are the first to make that point. Lacking that point I thing the comparisons to Christianity are perfectly valid, all that was claimed was that individuals within Islam did things we consider unacceptable.

BUT at this point all I see is a claim. Verse please.

 

[keith99]

Spare the rod, spoil the child + no verse that prohibits child marriage.

Yeah, so you are commanded to beat all wives, only if you take a child wife.

My quote fetish cuts both ways. Chapter and verse please. Or might it be you have picked one of the often 'quoted' but never cited verses from Scripture.

 

[keith99]

The core of this matter is the verse 4:34 of the Koran:

"Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whom part you fear disloyalty and ill conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance) for Allah is Most High, Great (above you all). (Ali's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)

The problem, as often with ancient text (including the Christian bible) lies both in the proper translation and its dependence on a certain cultural setting.
So for example, the Egyptian (! not Western) grand mufti Sheik Ali Gomaa said (source) that the verse needs to be seen "through the prism of the era". Beating ones wife was pretty certainly a common and frequent occurance in the society that Muhammed lived in. This verse actually restricts the beating of a wife in that society to a last resort. In a modern muslim society, Gomaa suggests, the beating has no place anymore.
This view is also supported by several other verses of the Koran and some Hadiths speaking out against harsh treatment of wives (inlcluding verse 4:128 which allows a woman to leave her husband if she fears abandonment or cruelty; and Hadith No 2139 (?) in which the prophet clearly advises men not to beat their wives). (source)

Other interpretation go as far as to say that the word commonly translated as "to beat" actually means "to leave/abandon" (the same NYT article as the first source)

Of course many muslims would disagree with such interpretations, and claim them to be modernists excuses not to follow disagreeable parts of Islam. Maybe they are right. But maybe they just want to use faulty translations of the Koran to stick to their own questionable ways.
But does it really matter? If the Koran is not a divine revelation (as both Christians and atheists surely agree), but just a manmade religion based on what some man named Muhammed may or may not have said some 800 years ago, then there is no "true" Islam, just different traditions with a common, somewhat obscure root. What "real" Islam mean in a modern world, therefore, depends on what modern muslims believe to be true.

Obviously some muslims believe that the Koran does not support beating your wife. And in the interest of muslim wifes - if nothing else, I think we should honor and promote this reading of the Koran, whether it was intended by Muhammed or not.*


*Personally I think - based on the verses and Hadiths I read - that Muhammed indeed sought to protect women from abusive husbands in a society where beatings were an all too common occurance.

Not unlike how many view OT verses regarding slavery. Or how 'An eye for an eye' can be seen not as an endorsement of revenge but a limit on revenge.

Yuor post also raises the question, is Islam the cause of wife beatings in what we consider priomitive societies or does it serve to help limit the degree of such beatings.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

The core of this matter is the verse 4:34 of the Koran:

"Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whom part you fear disloyalty and ill conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance) for Allah is Most High, Great (above you all). (Ali's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)

The problem, as often with ancient text (including the Christian bible) lies both in the proper translation and its dependence on a certain cultural setting.
So for example, the Egyptian (! not Western) grand mufti Sheik Ali Gomaa said (source) that the verse needs to be seen "through the prism of the era". Beating ones wife was pretty certainly a common and frequent occurance in the society that Muhammed lived in. This verse actually restricts the beating of a wife in that society to a last resort. In a modern muslim society, Gomaa suggests, the beating has no place anymore.
This view is also supported by several other verses of the Koran and some Hadiths speaking out against harsh treatment of wives (inlcluding verse 4:128 which allows a woman to leave her husband if she fears abandonment or cruelty; and Hadith No 2139 (?) in which the prophet clearly advises men not to beat their wives). (source)

Other interpretation go as far as to say that the word commonly translated as "to beat" actually means "to leave/abandon" (the same NYT article as the first source)

Of course many muslims would disagree with such interpretations, and claim them to be modernists excuses not to follow disagreeable parts of Islam. Maybe they are right. But maybe they just want to use faulty translations of the Koran to stick to their own questionable ways.
But does it really matter? If the Koran is not a divine revelation (as both Christians and atheists surely agree), but just a manmade religion based on what some man named Muhammed may or may not have said some 800 years ago, then there is no "true" Islam, just different traditions with a common, somewhat obscure root. What "real" Islam mean in a modern world, therefore, depends on what modern muslims believe to be true.

Obviously some muslims believe that the Koran does not support beating your wife. And in the interest of muslim wifes - if nothing else, I think we should honor and promote this reading of the Koran, whether it was intended by Muhammed or not.*


*Personally I think - based on the verses and Hadiths I read - that Muhammed indeed sought to protect women from abusive husbands in a society where beatings were an all too common occurance.

Now THIS is a rational response. Which means it has absolutely no place in this discussion. This discussion is why Islam is bad.

USA! USA!

 

[Everlasting33]

Would you mind pointing out those specific verses in the Bible that teach that we should beat our wives?

If you could, please keep this focused on Islam. Threads tend to lose focus quickly due to individuals who really want to derail the thread and make it a contest between Christianity and Islam.

 

[Everlasting33]

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

If you watched the video, it clearly says NOT all Muslims are violent and many are not. But, that the Quran commands violence and treating Non-Muslims as second class citizens.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Ofcourse we are! BDSM is of the devil!

Come on.
Do I really need to put the disclaimer "non-consensual beatings" in there?

There are enough people who think all wife beating should be outlawed because they don't even think of consensual BDSM. Once they think about it, they will often say that is an exception, but up till that point, they don't even consider it. And possibly, if they were making a law off of it, they might not consider it till too late. We have a few laws where some obvious exceptions were forgotten to be added until someone had their life ruined by it (even if they were found innocent, the fear, disruption, ect. will still cause major stress, the arrest could cause job loss, bills pile up, ect.).

 

[lawtonfogle]

The fact that "spare the rod and spoil the child" isn't found in scripture aside, the verse you're referring to say nothing about beating anyone.

Well the whole pro-spanking movement just died in the space of a single sentence.