Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

[bonk]

Hey bonk, glad to see ur posts in most parts of forums, keep this going on!

.

[shafique]

What I think is that all physical abuse is an offence against humanity, and is especially offensive when the abuser is physically stronger than the abusee, and is even more especially offensive when the abuser uses some form of authority to justify the abuse (for example law or religion), and is even more especially offensive when the abuser is in a position of authority themselves.

No arguments there.I share exactly the same principle.

I personally do not view corporal punishment as abuse - but I understand the opposing view that a State applying physical punishment is actually carrying out abuse against a weaker member of society.

Would there be ANY circumstance where the man would be found not guilty of abuse/murder - i.e. where the court will justify this action?

Yes, I'm sure there are. That's why there are courts.

So, you'll therefore agree that the law will allow for exceptional cases where physical contact is made, hurt is received, and yet the man is found not guilty. I view the Quranic verse in question as merely codifying this exception in Islamic law.

If religious authorities take a verse from a holy book and say that it gives permission to men to beat their wives then some men who rely on religious authorities for guidance will think it's ok to beat their wives.

Yes. I agree. 100%.

My point is that this verse doesn't actually give men the right to batter wives, nor does it in practice translate into Muslims using it as such.

The men who do batter their wives do it despite this verse.

I'm still waiting for instances where this verse is actually applied - but thus far, I've not met anyone or read of anyone actually applying it (but I assume that out there there must be some man who has done so).

My whole argument is that Islam's teachings are in total accordance with this. The fact that Islam also prescribes corporal and capital punishments - eg lashes and executions - does not change this. The harsher the crime, the harsher the punishment - this is what we believe God ordains as justice for society and the victims.

Corporal and capital punishment is physical abuse as far as I am concerned. And yes, I can think of scenarios where I would want to see capital punishment carried out but that does not make me a better human being, that is a reflection of my desire for vengance as a human weakness.

I understand your point of view. I don't think we should relish capital or corporal punishment - but sometimes for justice's sake (for society and the victims) it is a necessary tool when the alternative would be to cause more harm/hurt. Forgiveness is also an integral tool.

If men (or women) want to use religion to justify abusing other people, that does not make them better humans, it just makes it easier in their eyes to be less human.

Yes. However, you'd have to agree that it is also unfair to unjustifiably condemn a religion over a single verse that doesn't actually cause the harm that people are ascribing to it (as I'm arguing).

I have read other arguments (from what I assume are Islamic scholars or authorities) that that particular verse in the Koran does not give permission for men to beat their wives. I don't know whether it does or does not but I do know that their are many men in this world who think it does.

Ergo, why we must read the verse and make up our minds - that is the 'Part 1' and then we look to see whether there are actually men out there who use the verse as an excuse to beat women. Is this line of reasoning illogical?

You sound like you are looking for a way to justify or defend wife-beating. I'm glad I'm not your wife.

So am I

Cheers,
Shafique

[bonk]

So, you'll therefore agree

However, you'd have to agree

I don't "therefore" or "have to" agree with anything you or anyone else says.

You're saying the Koran justifies wife-beating in certain circumstances, but you don't know of anyone who has used the Koran to justify the beating of their wife.

I'm saying .... what I said already.

[shafique]

^Well, I was merely assuming a line of logic. If you disagree with the logic, then that would be interesting.

My argument is that the Quran does not condone wife beating - neither in the words of this one verse or in actual practice.

cheers,
Shafique

[melika969]

You're saying the Koran justifies wife-beating in certain circumstances, but you don't know of anyone who has used the Koran to justify the beating of their wife.

Good point and still unanswered!


BTW, Event horizon stop personal attacks to Shafique, I am very strict MOD and I will behave you!

[shafique]

You're saying the Koran justifies wife-beating in certain circumstances, but you don't know of anyone who has used the Koran to justify the beating of their wife.

Good point and still unanswered!

Well, my answer to that has been:
The Quran does not allow wife battery under any circumstances and I do not consider the corporal punishment described (as the end result of a process) to be 'wife beating'.


(Hey, Melika - I hope you enjoy being a Mod!

Cheers,
Shafique

[Berrin]

bonk wrote:
That plays right into the hands of a violent husband looking for a convenient excuse to justify their beatings.

So far our atheist friends couldn't find any sound argument against Allah other than giving these "so called" violent verses into the hands of violent husbands as convenient excuse to beat..

However the picture in the west is more dramatic then in the muslim world(sure there is no quran in their life)

In the western world, has anyone ever thought how having direct and strict laws, restricting men from self- expression against women destroying relationships and do harm to the social fiber of the society..
Especially in America where lawyers trading themselves, making fortunes through minial things by using laws as excuse for anything.

You may think secular laws are in favour of women but I tell you it's all in favour of men, threatening the well being of women, family life as well as future of kids and their behavioural pattern...

I'll make you a small list..

1) Men avoid marriage under threat of divorce or incase of a court file against a laughable excuse ,

2) Men avoid divorce with huge compensations, even in the case of a mild smack or raising hand/voice or what have you....

3) It's less troublesome and cost effective to have free s.ex and relationship outside marriage, as they can dump as fast as they can once they've got what they wanted from women.

4)Having kids outside marriage and their denial after birth is a better and more affordable solution and is probably the best way to avoid having a row or wife upset, (as noone knows whether law protected -loving wife can be a negligent one in a marriage)

5) Gay relationships are cheaper in cost, can still get the same satisfaction one would get from wife..less hassle, less troubles and no laws regulating man to man abuse in relationships or in marriage as yet.

6) If you fear verbal of physical abuse of a partner then these days you don't need a relationship either, you can just visit the sperm and egg banks and order kids to surrogate mothers. No problems, in future you can continue incestuous relations as you can never determine who is what. But someone has to make sure that this will not lead to deformities in future generations, as muslims will be waiting at the corner to watch, mock and blame..hmm I can see muslim authors making fortunes writing books about incest relations and deformities of western nations!..ring the ears of herve..

see if I push myself I can find many more..., and more reasons to justify why american women turn to islam as well...

[event horizon]

Berrin, if every dispute between a husband and a wife ends with the husband being right (or else), how exactly would that be considered a functional marriage?

I also love how some are comparing a husband beating his wife to criminals being sentenced in a court of law.

I guess husbands are the judge, jury and executioner.

[bonk]

bonk wrote:
That plays right into the hands of a violent husband looking for a convenient excuse to justify their beatings.

So far our atheist friends couldn't find any sound argument against Allah other than giving these "so called" violent verses into the hands of violent husbands as convenient excuse to beat..

Where did I say I'm an atheist? Or for that matter, any other faith or non-faith?

[shafique]

Berrin, if every dispute between a husband and a wife ends with the husband being right (or else), how exactly would that be considered a functional marriage?

It wouldn't - you are right, eh.

But let me clarify with you - do you think that any teaching that says a man is the head of a family and that woman needs to submit to his authority is not be a teaching you would consider being from God, and should be ignored?


I've heard many Christians compare marriage to a ship which needs a captain, or a company which has a president - but there are many who say that this is old fashioned and out dated. A woman should be able to do what she wants in a relationship and shouldn't submit to her husband in all disputes. (I make the point, because on this particular aspect, the Quran says pretty much what the Bible says in a number of clear verses - men are given authority over women eg,

Ephesians:
5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife."
5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

And the verse we are discussing says 'Good women are obedient' (4.34)

What's your opinion eh?

I don't win every argument with my wife and she would hit me with a stick if I told her that God wants her to back down!

Edit: Let's be clear - the Judaeo-Christian religions all have verses/practices/beliefs which look misogynistic. Eh's pious Jewish friends, for example, say a prayer every morning where they thank God for not making them a gentile (non-jew), a slave or a woman. Given eh does not condemn Jewish people when they commit acts of terrorism (whether it is Baruch Goldstein in 1994 or the Israelites who enslaved 32,000 virgins after slaughtering all the married women, children and men) - I would be surprised if he condemned this prayer of pious Jews. But I could be wrong - but if not, it would interesting to read the justification of this prayer from him.

Cheers,
Shafique

[event horizon]

Hey, I'm glad we both agree with you that the Koran tells women to be obedient towards their husbands.

The Koran backs this up by giving men some leverage against their wives if they persist in their disobedience.

Strange that shafique would bring up the New Testament in a thread about the Koran. I mean, I really didn't see that happening.

But I'm glad we have an expert scholar to pontificate for us what the New Testament actually says about husbands and wives. I thought the New Testament says that wives have authority over their husbands, but perhaps our resident New Testament scholar could pontificate some more???

In any event, perhaps our resident scholar could also stay on track and explain to the rest of us whether he views the passage in the Koran that says that wives are to be obedient to their husbands as misogynist or backwards?

Of course, since shafique has already stated that he supports *wife beating*, I won't expect him to come to the same conclusion that the Koran is sexist because wives are told to obey their husbands even though he seems to think differently based on what he believes the New Testaments says.

Grant it, all that shafique knows of the NT comes from dot COM websites, so shafique's analysis of what the New Testament actually teaches will be deficient.

But hey, shafique prides himself in fooling others in how learned he is. I'll let him pontificate for a few more pages on the New Testament before I bury him.

[shafique]

Hey, I'm glad we both agree with you that the Koran tells women to be obedient towards their husbands.

Well, it says Good women are obedient - not quite the same. However, as I said above for the purposes of this discussion, we can take it as the same as the Biblical commandment for women to submit to their husbands (quoted above).

My question to you was what is your view on these commandments?

Is my asking for your view really 'pontificating'? Do you have a view, or are you just obfuscating?

For my part, I view the Judaic prayer of men thanking God for not making them women (or slaves or gentiles) pretty mysoginistic, and I see no difference between your opinion of what 4.34 says about women (that they should be obedient to their husbands) and what Ephesians says.

Given that they say the same thing, do you apply the same logic to the Bible that you do to Quran 4.34? (But I'm asking first what your view of these verses is first).

Cheers,
Shafique

[event horizon]

Using big words today?

Your post on the New Testament is off topic and has already been answered.

Hopefully a moderator will go ahead and delete your spam posts.

As for the Koran, I agree with you that the Koran is misogynist.

As I said to berrin, in Islam, any dispute between a husband and wife will end with the husband being correct, etc.

The threat of violence and the fact that a husband can treat his wife as if she were a child (a husband may hit his wife or ground her) truly speaks volumes.

[shafique]

Ok - I understand you consider the Quran to be misogynistic. For the purposes of this question, I agree that 4.34 says the same thing as Ephesians in relation to women being told to be subservient to men.

Does your intpretation of 4.34 mean you consider the Quran is not the word of God because it contains misogynistic verses?

If so, why does this logic not apply to the Bible?

(I've tried not to use big words - but happy to explain if still unclear).

Cheers,
Shafique

[event horizon]

So you agree with my comment to berrin regarding the Koran?

Berrin, if every dispute between a husband and a wife ends with the husband being right (or else), how exactly would that be considered a functional marriage?

I also love how some are comparing a husband beating his wife to criminals being sentenced in a court of law.

I guess husbands are the judge, jury and executioner.

Let me know if it's 'unKoranic' for a Muslim husband to ground or eventually slap his wife if she doesn't do the dishes, as he requests.

[shafique]

So you agree with my comment to berrin regarding the Koran?

Berrin, if every dispute between a husband and a wife ends with the husband being right (or else), how exactly would that be considered a functional marriage?

I actually said I did above - please actually try and read what I post - I said:

It wouldn't - you are right, eh.

I've been pretty clear where I stand on your interpretation of 4.34 in terms of wife beating - again re-read the numerous posts above on it.



So... without wasting more time, will you (or will you not) answer the simple questions that I posed:

[Ok - I understand you consider the Quran to be misogynistic. For the purposes of this question, I agree that 4.34 says the same thing as Ephesians in relation to women being told to be subservient to men.

Does your intpretation of 4.34 mean you consider the Quran is not the word of God because it contains misogynistic verses?

If so, why does this logic not apply to the Bible?

If the questions are still unclear, let me know and I'll try to simplify even further.

[event horizon]

You're not the only one repeating yourself.

I explained my position clearly in my last post or so:

Let me know if it's 'unKoranic' for a Muslim husband to ground or eventually slap his wife if she doesn't do the dishes, as he requests.

[shafique]

Yes, it is unislamic for a husband to eventually slap his wife for not doing the dishes as he requests.

(It would also be a bit stupid of the man for him to banish his wife, not sleep with her for a few days and then tell her that he is now going to slap her because she doesn't do the dishes - but hey, when you come across such a stupid Muslim man, let me know and we'll both tell him how unIslamic his actions were - go on, find me one that has done this, I dare you. All Mouth, No Trousers - perchance?).

So, now how about the questions I posed?

Cheers,
Shafique

[event horizon]

Yes, it is unislamic for a husband to eventually slap his wife for not doing the dishes as he requests.

Really? To me, it sounds completely Islamic (based on what the Koran says) for a husband to ground then slap his wife around if she does not wash the dishes.

Care to support your argument from the Koran, perchance?

[shafique]

It's only fair that you now answer my questions. I'll happily return to this question and explain to you why it is unIslamic (and actually stupid and never actually happens) for a man to impose the punishment in 4.34 for the 'crime' of 'not doing dishes'. (But if you think about it, you'll get to the answer - and I won't be referring to anything outside the Quran for this argument either).

So, let me repeat the questions for you..

I understand you consider the Quran to be misogynistic. For the purposes of this question, I agree that 4.34 says the same thing as Ephesians in relation to women being told to be subservient to men.

Does your intpretation of 4.34 mean you consider the Quran is not the word of God because it contains misogynistic verses?

If so, why does this logic not apply to the Bible?

Cheers,
Shafique

[event horizon]

Yes, I'm definitely against the passage in the Koran which instructs husbands to treat their wives like children - disobedient wives may be beaten or grounded if they don't obey their husbands.

Seems pretty backwards to me. No question about it.

But hey, maybe I'm biased. Who do you think most members who commented in this thread believed was grasping at straws the most to defend their viewpoint - you, or me?

[shafique]

Thanks for sharing your views. I've answered your question and will happily give you the clarifications you request, after you've answered my straightforward questions:

I understand you consider the Quran to be misogynistic. For the purposes of this question, I agree that 4.34 says the same thing as Ephesians in relation to women being told to be subservient to men.

Does your intpretation of 4.34 mean you consider the Quran is not the word of God because it contains misogynistic verses?

If so, why does this logic not apply to the Bible?

Patiently waiting now.

Cheers,
Shafique

[event horizon]

The Bible doesn't say to beat your wife.

I thought that was pretty simple.

[shafique]

Berrin, if every dispute between a husband and a wife ends with the husband being right (or else), how exactly would that be considered a functional marriage?

It wouldn't - you are right, eh.

But let me clarify with you - do you think that any teaching that says a man is the head of a family and that woman needs to submit to his authority is not be a teaching you would consider being from God, and should be ignored?


I've heard many Christians compare marriage to a ship which needs a captain, or a company which has a president - but there are many who say that this is old fashioned and out dated. A woman should be able to do what she wants in a relationship and shouldn't submit to her husband in all disputes. (I make the point, because on this particular aspect, the Quran says pretty much what the Bible says in a number of clear verses - men are given authority over women eg,

Ephesians:
5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife."
5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

And the verse we are discussing says 'Good women are obedient' (4.34)

What's your opinion eh?

..

[event horizon]

Spamming this thread won't get you anywhere. Your question has been answered numerous times - Muslims should not follow the Koran where it allows for husbands to beat or ground their disobedient wives.

To tell you whether or not allah really revealed that passage is a bit of a dumb question.

Rather, it is irrelevant if allah revealed the misogynist passages in the Koran. Even if she did, these verses should still not be followed and allah is not worthy of worship.

[shafique]

So, you won't answer the question whether you think the Quran is NOT the word of God because it contains misogynistic verses?

Speaks volumes that you think this question is 'spam'.

You really don't have the courage of your convictions - do you eh.


For me, it shows that your arguments rely on hypocrisy - as you argue that the Bible's openly misogynistic verses need to be 'interpreted' but that only your interpretation of the Quranic verse 4.34 can apply.

Cheers,
Shafique

[event horizon]

Err, your logic would have to make sense, first of all.

Just because something is racist or misogynist or homophobic doesn't mean that it's not from a deity.

That isn't a 'rule' that I am aware. (But if it is, care to share it for the rest of us???)

I thought that was pretty obvious.

[shafique]

Thanks - so you think God's words can be homophobic and anti-women.

As a believing Christian you have to take this view.

Therefore, how is criticising the Quran for saying 'Good women are obedient' not hypocritical when the Bible says

Ephesians:
5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife."
5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Do you agree that if you don't criticise the Bible for this verse you will be hypocritical if you criticise the Quran for saying women should be obedient?

Cheers,
Shafique

[event horizon]

Man, you're really delusional.

You obviously didn't understand what I actually said in my last post.

Go back and re-read what I wrote rather than responding for the sake of responding.

[shafique]

Back to name calling rather than addressing the points raised? Hmm.

Is there a flaw in my logic? You say God's words can contain homophobic and misogynistic writings - the Bible says women should be subservient - why would you NOT be hypocritical if you criticise the Quran for saying good women should be obedient?

Perhaps I am delusional for thinking you may follow through on some of your arguments - this is your thread, after all?

Cheers,
Shafique