Religion

[PointOfOrigin]

Can you please give references to both the biblical statement and the law someone tried to pass?

Sure. Just give me time to find the articles, they were all over the internet a couple of months ago.

 

ETA: here are bible references:

 

“Whoever strikes his father or his mother shall be put to death.

 

“If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

 

And I've finally found an article: Charlie Fuqua, Arkansas Legislative Candidate, Endorses Death Penalty For Rebellious Children In Book Sorry, I was wrong about it being pushed as a law, but things do get mixed up with time.

Edited February 3, 2013 by PointOfOrigin

[White Fox]

Yeah, that's actually the opposite of what I meant. You said "yes?" at the end of you post, so I responded "No." to say I didn't agree with you. Thankfully sins here seems to have understood what I meant.

 

a) It is my belief that all souls come to an ultimate day of judgement when they are judged for what is in thier hearts. While I do believe that the best way to maintain a righteous heart is to follow the example Jesus set I do not believe it is the *only* way.

 

See my previous post about hell. In my opinion, it's eternal seperation from God. If you don't believe in that God in the first place, why would this concept bother you?

 

Edit: ruddy emoticons ruining my lists....

Thanks for the clarification.

 

As you can tell I am not Christian. I dont believe the bible is the word so I do not believe in the concept of heaven or hell.

 

 

[Awdz]

Sure. Just give me time to find the articles, they were all over the internet a couple of months ago.

 

ETA: here are bible references:

 

“Whoever strikes his father or his mother shall be put to death.

 

“If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

 

And I've finally found an article: Charlie Fuqua, Arkansas Legislative Candidate, Endorses Death Penalty For Rebellious Children In Book Sorry, I was wrong about it being pushed as a law, but things do get mixed up with time.

The context of the society for which the laws were written matter here. I believe the bible references are to adult children who are expected to care for their parents as they age. Striking the parents would be seen as elderly abuse, which sadly even today exists as adults are overwhelmed by the stress of caring for aging parents. In today's society, physical abusers may be punished by jail time, but are unlikely to be given the death penalty even if they kill those being abused.

 

Those same Old Testament laws speak of stoning adulterers. While I do not condone adultery, again I do not think killing adulterers is appropriate in today's society. The key in both areas of law is to prevent the inappropriate behavior from continuing, apply recompense if possible, and move forward from there.

 

I cannot speak to the individual's interpretation that he would push as the article describes, other than to say I disagree with what was given as his views.

Edited February 3, 2013 by Awdz Bodkins

[Anbu Bee]

From where do people do people get basis for laws that are clearly in contradiction with Quran? I realize that your version of religion (let's face it, every believer has their own version of god and belief that will never be in accordance with all other practitioners of the faith) and a so often talked about religion of peace doesn't support some of this laws. But how did they came into being, and why haven't they been abolished by now? For them to still exist, they would have to have at least some basis in Quran. Add to that luckynicole's post, and all I get is a picture of a book with as many contradictions as bible.

 

Also, I find saying that crimes against women in middle east aren't connected with the Islam to be wrong. Those people think that their faith allows them to commit crimes, and what's more important, laws based on their faith protect them from punishment. I also find the same to be true for pedophile priests - the church protects them and refuses to hand them over to the law. As such, they are in a sense allowing that behavior to happen and should take at least a part of blame for it.

 

I forgot to mention, the Islam I'm talking about is "sunni (or sunnah) islam

it is the original Islam, understood by the Prophet, Muhammed. I follow Only the teaching from the prophet and the scholars who also follow the teachings of the prophet and his companions. this path is the original path of Islam, however some Muslims deviated from this path and chose more "extreme" or "Innovative" paths, the Prophet Mohammed explicitly warned against anyway Innovating anything from the religion because that is how the previous religions became confusing and mixed.

 

sorry for taking awhile to reply back, I was doing some research on that article you pulled up related to sharia heres what I found:

 

this artilcle is not an article from a Sunni Muslim perspective. most of the abusive

statements( like the very first one) is from a man by the name of "Imam Gazzali"

he is a "Sufi" and teaches "Sufism" which often called Islamic Mysticism and is a Innovated branch of Islam, their teachings are usually extreme and violent, without any basses in islamic teachings. they also worship Prophet Muhammed when it had been said in both the hadith and in the Quran that no one is allowed to worship anyone or anything other then Allah (allah is arabic for one true god)

 

"Your Lord has decreed that you worship none save Him, and that you be kind to your parents..." [Noble Quran 17:23]"

 

"Say thou: He is Allah the One. (1) Allah, the Independent. (2) He begets not, nor was He begotten. (3) And never there has been anyone co-equal with him. (4)"

[Chapter 112 in the Holy Quran]

 

Then how do you explain this?

Qur'an (4:34) - "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great."

 

 

Hadith:

Abu Dawud (2142) - "The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife."

 

 

I will never deny anything that is in my Holy Book. I understand me just "stating" that the beating here is not the same as the one in the middle east without any proof is not solid, but I did not study "tafseer" which is the course for understanding the meanings for Islam. so I went to bring proof for this and for my own personal understanding of this verse.

here is a detailed explanation from one of my Sunni Teachers of Islam,

Dr. Bilal Philips, about this verse:

 

ISLAAM ALLOWS MUSLIM MALES TO BEAT THEIR WIVES

 

The finger is often pointed at Muslims as being wife beaters since Islaamic law permits

hitting wives.

1. Domestic violence is not unique to Muslim societies, it is wide spread throughout the

world. In fact the rate of violence is far higher in Western countries in which it is

illegal for husbands to hit their wives. The reason being the extended family

structure’s role in domestic disputes. In the West, the family is reduced to what is

commonly referred to as the “nuclear family”; the husband, wife and kids.

Consequently, relatives have little or no concern in domestic disputes. In Muslim

communities, the relatives are encouraged to interfere, to protect the rights of their

daughter, sister, niece, aunt, or cousin. Families often live together, or in the same

vicinity and family contact remains strong.

 

2. The West’s attitude toward corporal punishment has changed drastically since Dr.

Spock [not of the Enterprise] published his seminal work in the 50’s on the rearing of

children. His book became a standard, not only for parenting, but its principles

became standards for educational institutions. His view was that children should be

treated as little adults. They should be reasoned with, and advised, but not hit. In the

same way that, as adults, one would not hit another adult in order to get them to

follow instructions, nor would they be hit for disobeying orders, children should not

be struck. As a result, the use of corporal punishment in schools was abandoned. It

had already been stopped in prisons in favor of reform. The consequence in schools is

that teachers became hostages in the hands of their students. A number of cases of

students attacking teachers occurred in the late sixties and seventies. As a result, most

inner city schools in America have metal detectors at their gates in order to disarm

students.

 

3. Islaam recognizes corporal punishment for major crimes; 100 lashes for fornication,

80 for drunkenness and slander, etc. Furthermore, regarding children, the Prophet

said, “Teach your children the prayer when they are seven and spank them for it at

the age of ten.”1 There are limitations, in that the Prophet prohibited hitting in the

face, even in the case of animals.

 

4. It is true that the Shareeah does permit a husband to hit his wife. Allaah stated that in

the Qur’aan (Soorah an-Nisaa, (4): 34)2. The Prophet also said, “You have rights

over your women that they do not allow anyone you dislike into your home. If they

disobey you, you may spank them. And the womans right on you is that you clothe

her and feed her justly, according to your means.”3 However, that permission is under

special conditions and with severe limitations. A husband is not permitted to beat his

wife simply because she spilled his tea, burnt his toast, forgot to iron his shirt, etc. for

example. The Qur’aanic permission given is specifically in the case of divorce, as a

last resort to save the marriage. The Qur’aanic verse outlines the procedures which

should be followed in the case of a rebellious and unjustly disobedient wife. She

should first be verbally advised of her obligations. If that fails, the husband should

then cease having sexual relations with her. Failing that, if the husband sees it useful,

and as a final step in order to bring her back into line he is allowed to hit her. What is

meant by the Prophet’s words “...If they disobey you...” is rebellious disobedience to

instructions permitted by Islaamic law.

 

 

As to instructions which contradict the

Shareeah, she is instructed to disobey. The Prophet said, “Creatures should not

be obeyed if it means disobedience to the Creator.” As regards the hit, it should not

be physically damaging and it should not be in the face as the Prophet ® said, “...

Do not hit her in her face nor curse her...”4 and “Do not beat your wives as you

would your servant girls in pre-Islamic times.”5 If the husband abuses this conditional

permission and brutalizes his wife, her male relatives have the right to intervene and

the case can be taken to the courts if it is severe enough.

5. Consequently, the intent of this beating is not inflicting pain and punishment but

merely to bring the woman back to her senses and re-establish authority in the family.

 

 

*“Men are protectors and maintainers of women, because Allaah favored them over women and because

they spend to support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient and

guard what Allaah instructed them to guard in their husbands’ absence. As for those rebellious women,

admonish them, then abandon them in their beds, then beat them. But if they return to obedience, do not

make their way difficult.”

Sahih Muslim, vol. 2, pp. 615-6, no. 2803.

 

My imagination from 'god' is a good one, not somebody who is punishing. That is why I can hardly imagine anybody who is acting well in live, supporting and caring about others, with a good and pure heart, will be punished because he didn't have the right religion.

That sounds really silly to me.

 

And nobody can judge anybody, the judgement belongs only to god!

 

You can't say that a "good" god is not someone punishing, because then that "god" will treat a person who is always praying to him the same as the person who is murdering others. In Islam, god is described as being "Ar-Rahmaan" which means "the All- Merciful"

"And He is the Forgiving, the Loving,..." [the Holy Quran:85:13]

 

He is also decribed as having justice

Take this the verse in the Quran for example:

"Shall we treat that those who have surrendered (as Muslims) as We treat the guilty?" [Noble Quran 68:35]

 

 

I have more to put here but My time (once again ) has ran out. it took me about 2 hours to right this lol

Edited February 3, 2013 by Anbu Bee

[MaggieXawesomeness]

 

 

 

*“Men are protectors and maintainers of women, because Allaah favored them over women and because

they spend to support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient and

guard what Allaah instructed them to guard in their husbands’ absence. As for those rebellious women,

admonish them, then abandon them in their beds, then beat them. But if they return to obedience, do not

make their way difficult.”

Sahih Muslim, vol. 2, pp. 615-6, no. 2803.

 

No offense, but that is one of the most awful things I've read.

[KageSora]

Nope. It advocated killing children if they don't listen to their parents. Just a couple of months ago somebody tried to pass a law based on that.

Yeah, I remember that. But I DID find the ones about beating your kid as chastisement.

 

Proverbs 23:13 advocates hitting a child with a rod as a form of punishment. It's interesting to note that a few translations thought that sounded too harsh, and changed it to spank instead.

 

It's interesting how it's okay for the Bible to advocate using physical force to discipline disobedient and/or disrespectful children but it's horrible abuse for another religion's teachings to advocate physical force being used to discipline women who are disobedient and/or disrespectful.

[PointOfOrigin]

1. Domestic violence is not unique to Muslim societies, it is wide spread throughout the

world. In fact the rate of violence is far higher in Western countries in which it is

illegal for husbands to hit their wives.

 

Just because it exists in other places, it doesn't mean that you shouldn't do anything about it. And to be honest, I doubt that. Do you have any official statistics?

 

In the West, the family is reduced to what is

commonly referred to as the “nuclear family”; the husband, wife and kids.

Consequently, relatives have little or no concern in domestic disputes. In Muslim

communities, the relatives are encouraged to interfere, to protect the rights of their

daughter, sister, niece, aunt, or cousin. Families often live together, or in the same

vicinity and family contact remains strong.

 

While there are examples of families like that, I assure you they aren't the norm - at least not in the Eastern Europe.

The Qur’aanic permission given is specifically in the case of divorce, as a

last resort to save the marriage. The Qur’aanic verse outlines the procedures which

should be followed in the case of a rebellious and unjustly disobedient wife. She

should first be verbally advised of her obligations. If that fails, the husband should

then cease having sexual relations with her. Failing that, if the husband sees it useful,

and as a final step in order to bring her back into line he is allowed to hit her. What is

meant by the Prophet’s words “...If they disobey you...” is rebellious disobedience to

instructions permitted by Islaamic law.

 

Does the wife have same right in case of a rebellious or an unjust husband? That sound to me like a textbook case of a violent relationship. Furthermore, it shows that a wife doesn't really have divorce as a choice - not if their husbands are instructed to beat them as a quick way to fix their relationship.

 

The Prophet said, “Creatures should not

be obeyed if it means disobedience to the Creator.” As regards the hit, it should not

be physically damaging and it should not be in the face as the Prophet ® said, “...

Do not hit her in her face nor curse her...

”

 

And that also sounds like abusing relationship; the whole, "hit them where it can't be seen" deal going on.

 

5 If the husband abuses this conditional permission and brutalizes his wife, her male relatives have the right to intervene and the case can be taken to the courts if it is severe enough.

 

No one should have a permission to beat other people, and certainly not their life partner.

 

5. Consequently, the intent of this beating is not inflicting pain and punishment but

merely to bring the woman back to her senses and re-establish authority in the family.

 

Really? In other words, if a woman is disagreeing with her husband, she is automatically in the wrong and her wishes and decisions don't carry any weight behind it. Not only that, but it promotes the attitude that women aren't capable of thinking.

 

*“Men are protectors and maintainers of women, because Allaah favored them over women and because

they spend to support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient and

guard what Allaah instructed them to guard in their husbands’ absence. As for those rebellious women,

admonish them, then abandon them in their beds, then beat them. But if they return to obedience, do not

make their way difficult.”

Sahih Muslim, vol. 2, pp. 615-6, no. 2803.

 

Everything I said before goes for this too. I can not see any equality in there.

 

Proverbs 23:13 advocates hitting a child with a rod as a form of punishment. It's interesting to note that a few translations thought that sounded too harsh, and changed it to spank instead.

 

It's interesting how it's okay for the Bible to advocate using physical force to discipline disobedient and/or disrespectful children but it's horrible abuse for another religion's teachings to advocate physical force being used to discipline women who are disobedient and/or disrespectful.

 

To be honest, your average believer doesn't even know about those passages. And society still doesn't see spanking children for some offenses as entirely bad. A big number of people think that physical punishment is a best solution in some cases. And of course, translators messing with it to make it sound better do not help in raising attention about those passages.

Edited February 3, 2013 by PointOfOrigin

[Anbu Bee]

No offense, but that is one of the most awful things I've read.

I think you missing the point here,

This is reffering to those women who are ungrateful to their husband, and they do not practice Islam correctly on purpose.

 

For example ,

If the man was working all day long and makes little money the " rebellious" wife would be upset with the lack of Income and to get back at him she could wear scanty clothing outside on purpose to make him mad. He first has to advice her, if she refuses to listen then he must boycott her bed if she still persists then he is allowed to hit her but not in a way that would cause bodily injury or in the face, he is only allowed to this if that is the only option to save the family from her rebellious actions

 

 

 

THIS has nothing to do with a normal wife, even if she is clumsy or they get into an argument the man can't just"hit her" for no reason

[White Fox]

I think you missing the point here,

This is reffering to those women who are ungrateful to their husband, and they do not practice Islam correctly on purpose.

 

For example ,

If the man was working all day long and makes little money the " rebellious" wife would be upset with the lack of Income and to get back at him she could wear scanty clothing outside on purpose to make him mad. He first has to advice her, if she refuses to listen then he must boycott her bed if she still persists then he is allowed to hit her but not in a way that would cause bodily injury or in the face, he is only allowed to this if that is the only option to save the family from her rebellious actions

 

 

 

THIS has nothing to do with a normal wife, even if she is clumsy or they get into an argument the man can't just"hit her" for no reason

Hitting a women for ANY reason is not right no matter how it is spun.

[TikindiDragon]

While there are examples of families like that, I assure you they aren't the norm - at least not in the Eastern Europe.

Just to make a note on this - the 'nuclear family' referred to (without extended family such as aunts, uncles and grandparents in the same house, or the extremely close locality) is the common form in the UK. As far as I can tell the more affluent the society the more likely people are to move around - which does seperate families over larger distances.

[Ashes The Second]

I'm considering to converting into a non-practicing Christian, I would like to know the pros/cons of such a religion/what I should know. Thank you.

 

I've also heard a lot of Christians get flak for taking the bible too literally -- the Greeks used it as a philosophical standpoint to understand their world -- why do Christians/people of other religions take the Bible so seriously?

Edited February 4, 2013 by Ashes The Second

[7Deadly$ins]

As an atheist, I don't understand the point of the Bible if you AREN'T going to take it literally (which would be crazy). I have my own morals without a book to tell me, and most Christians don't follow it word-for-word anyway. So then why follow it at all? If you're going to cherry-pick scripture anyway, just abandon it.

[Ashes The Second]

As an atheist, I don't understand the point of the Bible if you AREN'T going to take it literally (which would be crazy). I have my own morals without a book to tell me, and most Christians don't follow it word-for-word anyway. So then why follow it at all? If you're going to cherry-pick scripture anyway, just abandon it.

Erm, to start up philosophical discussion? The Greeks are a great example, and if you take the bible literally, I think you're doing it wrong.

[NobleOwl]

Proverbs 23:13 advocates hitting a child with a rod as a form of punishment. It's interesting to note that a few translations thought that sounded too harsh, and changed it to spank instead.

 

Can I just point out what Christians think it says and what it actually says are two different things? Kay? Thanks.

 

I don't understand the point of the Bible if you AREN'T going to take it literally (which would be crazy).

 

Erm...hmm. Define literally please. Or what you mean by literally, rather. Are you allowing for figurative language and poetry or allegory?

 

(This would be me assuming you would consider following the Law as crazy as the Christian Bible)

 

PS: Hi everybody. <3

[Anbu Bee]

Does the wife have same right in case of a rebellious or an unjust husband? That sound to me like a textbook case of a violent relationship. Furthermore, it shows that a wife doesn't really have divorce as a choice - not if their husbands are instructed to beat them as a quick way to fix their relationship.

 

what the wife does if the husband is unjust is she abandons him, she speaks with the mosque for help and generally they help her get away from him either by suppling her with a free place to live with her children or her parents taking her in, after that the charges can be brought against the husband, including filing for divource

 

And that also sounds like abusing relationship; the whole, "hit them where it can't be seen" deal going on.

I honestly have no idea what you mean by this, please clarify

 

Really? In other words, if a woman is disagreeing with her husband, she is automatically in the wrong and her wishes and decisions don't carry any weight behind it. Not only that, but it promotes the attitude that women aren't capable of thinking.

 

Disagreements and arguments, especially when the wife brings proof does not give anyone the right to harm another person, like I said before this is only for actions where the wife is acting very unjust or harming in anyway,

 

for instance their are women who when they become mad they beat their children for no reason and they tell their kinds that it was their dads fault she did it (this has really happened before no joke)

in this situation where there is obvious harm going on in the family do you think that after the man talks with his wife and she continues, boycott his wife and she continues he shound't be allowed to hit her? (keep in mind Im not talking about any over the top beating, Im talking about a slap to the arm of something) because while all of this is going on the one who is suffering the most is the child.

 

Just because it exists in other places, it doesn't mean that you shouldn't do anything about it. And to be honest, I doubt that. Do you have any official statistics?

this is not proof that it is okay or it should not be dealt with, this is proof that this type of thing in does not only happen in Islamically govern countires.

 

 

No one should have a permission to beat other people, and certainly not their life partner.

what about people who murder other, or who beat the mess out of others, you don't think the proper punishment is to to beat or lash that person? making them pay "many fees" or keeping them locked up for like 3 months in jail is doing no kind of justice to the person who was harmed unjustly

 

 

 

Hitting a women for ANY reason is not right no matter how it is spun.

 

women can do crimes as just as bad as men, they can murder, they can steal, they can cheat, being a "women" shound't mean that if a man was going to be beaten for stealing the women shound't get the same punishment if she stole too.

 

 

 

My personal experience

 

 

I am a (17-18 Im not allowed to post my real age o.oso I gave a sliding bar of it)

year old female.

 

when I was litttle my dad would drink a lot and ended up hurting me and my mom and my siblings.

 

 

however my mom didn't just sit there and said "oh hes the husband I cant do anything about it he has the right to"

 

 

My mom took action, she went to the mosque and told them her scenario, they rented a hotel room for us while they cleaned a house(this was pretty crazy because I have 4 brothers and 2 sisters so all together counting my mom that was 8 people in one hotel room D)

 

 

my mom had saved money which she used to move us to the northern states (yay Im running on dc time!!!)

 

while we were there she finshed filing her divource. after that the house started to return to normal everyone was laughing harder then ever and enjoying themselves,

 

however after that my heart was still not okay with marriage, I coundn't accept the idea of marriage. my mom and grandma probably thought it was because I was tomboy, because I never told them why I felt like that. the peace continued until I was about 16. at this age I was increasing my knowledge of islam, I began reading several books, I also decided to where the veil (some people call it a ninja mask lol)

which is totally optional by the way. many young girls who were caught up in trying to look fancy usauly look at me perplexed, at why a young girl would where a veil.

then I met a muslim couple. it was a muslim women and man who were a american and had converted to islam 1 year before I met them. even though she had just became muslim she already decided to where the veil, which took me one year to think about it! I was surprised that she could have so much faith in one year!! and I was a muslim my entire life!! me and my family ended becoming extremly close friends with them in just one week. My mom allowed me to vist them with my older brother and I got to see her husband her many times, whether it be in the household or outside. to me they were amazing. they loved to have just like us, she would bake for bake sales with me and her husband would joke with her and they would play.

 

even though this women was extremly cheery she was going through more then anyone can imagine, when she was young she was runned over by a car, the driver got scared and ran over her about 2-3 times. her father was upset with her so when she came out of the hospital he pushed her down the stairs re-injuring her and sending her back in the imfirmary. now she is very senstive to a lot of things and she has a lot of medication to take for the rest of her life. but that man married her knowing that, and to me he take better care of her then anyone I have ever seen.

they both had great knowledge of the quran and the hadtih. and if you asked me, I belive she is a far better muslim then me, she so kind and caring and knowledgeable. she made me want to learn more, she made me think differently about marriage too but ot completely yet. 1 month after meeting her they to move to the lower states because the expanse of living in the higher states was too much.

 

after meeting with them my dad proposed to my mom again. (this is five years after the marriage)

 

you can imagine the chaos in my household everyone except for the youngest siblings who didn't know any better.

 

however somthing was different,

 

 

he gave up drinking, and went back to praying, but I still didn't trust him.

 

 

but my mom did and so she remarried him. he married her the pure islamic way, he even gave her a dowry! (a marriage gift that must be presented to the wife, like a wedding ring) the first 2 months everyone was one edge. we all looking to see if he would blow up with anger like he use to if he lied and he didn't actually give up drinking.

 

but we were wrong.

 

he was much gentler, I mean it. it was just plain weird actually, but he was. and this time he didn't just care about the kids and genrally ignored his wife, he would always buy her little snacks, treat her to outside food and if he was leaving let her know.

not only that but he went out of his way to buy everyone in the house gifts for Eid (islamic holiday)

he prays now, he brings occasionally proofs when he see us doing something wrong and he wants to correct us.

 

don't get me wrong he still gets mad pretty quick, but he never takes out on someone he usually tries to calm down.

 

it has been almost two years since he has moved in and our peace hasn't been broken since. in five year both him and my mom were doing there own kind of research on Islam.

they learned their rights, they learned mercy and forgiveness. and they tried their best to find the truth.

 

it was because of this that made me change my mind on marriage. a true islamic family is not only loving but fun.

 

 

 

 

[KageSora]

Can I just point out what Christians think it says and what it actually says are two different things? Kay? Thanks.

Oh, I know that there are PLENTY of places where that happens~

 

Out of curiosity, what does it actually say?

 

Also, hi!

[catstaff]

And that also sounds like abusing relationship; the whole, "hit them where it can't be seen" deal going on.

I honestly have no idea what you mean by this, please clarify

 

I think I can clarify this.

 

Abusers, especially in the beginning, generally do their best to make sure they don't leave marks on their victims, so that it's her word against his. I myself was once in an abusive relationship, and the man in question was very, very careful to never hit my face, so that no one would see bruises and ask how I got them. He would hit the side of my head instead, or punch me in the stomach.

 

When you, Anbu Bee, referenced the Qu'ran and quoted the bit about a man being allowed to hit a disobedient and rebellious wife as long as he didn't hit her in the face, I suspect you touched a nerve for quite a few people. Especially because in the case of a Muslim woman who wears hijab, not much of her shows in public except her face. I'm sure I'm somewhat cynical, but my first thought on reading that was along the lines of: Of course a man shouldn't hit his wife in the face, it's the only part of her that shows in hijab and someone might ask awkward questions if she has a black eye.

 

Those of us who have been through or witnessed someone close to us in an abusive situation tend to be zero tolerance when it comes to physical violence within a marriage. We also tend to take issue with anything that sounds like blaming the victim, because we've heard it before from our abusers. "If you had just shut up when I told you to, I wouldn't have gotten mad and hit you. If you had just had dinner ready on time, I wouldn't have gotten mad and hit you. If you had been a better wife, I wouldn't have had to hit you."

 

I do understand your point, that the Qu'ran isn't actually condoning beating women for any and no reason. But wording like "rebellious and disobedient" can be interpreted in an awfully wide range of ways, and quite honestly, it sounds far, far too much like the sort of thing an abuser says to justify his actions for my comfort. And I'm sure I'm not the only one.

[Anbu Bee]

I honestly have no idea what you mean by this, please clarify

 

I think I can clarify this.

 

Abusers, especially in the beginning, generally do their best to make sure they don't leave marks on their victims, so that it's her word against his. I myself was once in an abusive relationship, and the man in question was very, very careful to never hit my face, so that no one would see bruises and ask how I got them. He would hit the side of my head instead, or punch me in the stomach.

 

When you, Anbu Bee, referenced the Qu'ran and quoted the bit about a man being allowed to hit a disobedient and rebellious wife as long as he didn't hit her in the face, I suspect you touched a nerve for quite a few people. Especially because in the case of a Muslim woman who wears hijab, not much of her shows in public except her face. I'm sure I'm somewhat cynical, but my first thought on reading that was along the lines of: Of course a man shouldn't hit his wife in the face, it's the only part of her that shows in hijab and someone might ask awkward questions if she has a black eye.

 

Those of us who have been through or witnessed someone close to us in an abusive situation tend to be zero tolerance when it comes to physical violence within a marriage. We also tend to take issue with anything that sounds like blaming the victim, because we've heard it before from our abusers. "If you had just shut up when I told you to, I wouldn't have gotten mad and hit you. If you had just had dinner ready on time, I wouldn't have gotten mad and hit you. If you had been a better wife, I wouldn't have had to hit you."

 

I do understand your point, that the Qu'ran isn't actually condoning beating women for any and no reason. But wording like "rebellious and disobedient" can be interpreted in an awfully wide range of ways, and quite honestly, it sounds far, far too much like the sort of thing an abuser says to justify his actions for my comfort. And I'm sure I'm not the only one.

thank you, really thank you. I had no Idea that was the case. In Islam, your not even allowed to hit animals on the face, it because the face is sensitive. I had no idea abusers purposely don't hit the face so they could get away with it. I had no Idea what kind of emotional reactions this could be taking in. when I witnessed to abuse done to me and my mom and my brother it wasn't planned like that. and when my mom appealed to the mosque for help, they didn't look for marks on her either. Islam though, is very strict when it come to proof, many people were trying to say the could get away with really abusive things in the name of Islam by twisting the meanings or taking things out of context, so proof startedd becoming stricter to keep the original Islam intact.

 

 

My sincerest apologies if I hurt or bothered anyone with my wording.

[Alpha1]

Oh, I know that there are PLENTY of places where that happens~

 

Out of curiosity, what does it actually say?

 

Also, hi! 

 

I believe they think rod = authority.

 

Exodus 21:20 And if a man smite his bondman, or his bondwoman, with a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall surely be punished.

 

vs.

 

Proverbs 23:13 Withhold not correction from the child; for though thou beat him with the rod, he will not die.

 

 

[NobleOwl]

Out of curiosity, what does it actually say?

 

Withhold not correction from the child; for though thou chastise him with the staff (shebet), he will not die.

 

It says about the same thing, as in, the words are the same, but it's not talking about a literal rod. Proverbs are poetry, and intended, for the most part, not to be read literally. Most parents don't have a shebet (a shepherd's crook or staff) Jewish Law explicitly forbids parents from causing any intentional injury to their children, even if it is only injury of the mind. There's also the idea of the "stumbling block" -- ill treatment such as a rod of correction, or even a spanking, may cause the child violating a commandment, (that to honour and respect one's parents) the parent is forbidden from doing any such thing. In fact, spanking any child can be considered a crime in Jewish law, depending, even if it's not considered abusive.

 

So what Proverbs is talking about is literally a shepherd's crook that a shepherd uses on his sheep, to use a crook (the shepherd's rod) away from dangerous situations.

 

[7Deadly$ins]

Can I just point out what Christians think it says and what it actually says are two different things? Kay? Thanks.

 

 

 

Erm...hmm. Define literally please. Or what you mean by literally, rather. Are you allowing for figurative language and poetry or allegory?

 

(This would be me assuming you would consider following the Law as crazy as the Christian Bible)

 

PS: Hi everybody. <3

I can allow for a little bit of figurative or literary language if it's obvious, but I feel like if you're already going to have to look at the book and take what you want out of it anyway, leaving the rest, then you might as well just leave the whole book out of it in the first place.

[NobleOwl]

I can allow for a little bit of figurative or literary language if it's obvious, but I feel like if you're already going to have to look at the book and take what you want out of it anyway, leaving the rest, then you might as well just leave the whole book out of it in the first place.

So...would you call me crazy for following the Torah/Talmud?

[7Deadly$ins]

So...would you call me crazy for following the Torah/Talmud?

This is my personal logic. What I know about the Torah/Talmud is what I've learned from you, so I don't really know if I can make that sort of statement. I don't really know that much about it or what it means, to you, to follow them.

[TikindiDragon]

I feel so sad for you. I feel sad that you have to be in a religion that belittles women. That favors men and gives women little to no rights. That uses women as sex objects. A religion where a wife must obey her husband and if she doesn't, he can beat her. A religion where if a woman says she was raped, no-one believers her unless 4 other people were present.

 

Being a girl myself, this is deeply offensive. And I feel bad that you are sucked into this trap.

 

I can only hope and pray that someday when you get married, your husband wont beat you too.

Uh, wow. I'm not muslim myself but (being a person of faith) I find this deeply offensive. Nothing ever calls for such disrespect and denigration of another's faith.

[PointOfOrigin]

Yup, catstaff has nailed it

for instance their are women who when they become mad they beat their children for no reason and they tell their kinds that it was their dads fault she did it (this has really happened before no joke)

 

Men do the same thing. And no, it's not a joke - my own father did the exact same thing to me. But, in those cases, people like that need to get mental evaluation and go with what their doctors say to them. Beating them won't change a thing.

in this situation where there is obvious harm going on in the family do you think that after the man talks with his wife and she continues, boycott his wife and she continues he shound't be allowed to hit her? (keep in mind Im not talking about any over the top beating, Im talking about a slap to the arm of something) because while all of this is going on the one who is suffering the most is the child.

 

Anything violent done with an intent to hurt, subdue, scare or punish other people is violence.

 

what about people who murder other, or who beat the mess out of others, you don't think the proper punishment is to to beat or lash that person? making them pay "many fees" or keeping them locked up for like 3 months in jail is doing no kind of justice to the person who was harmed unjustly

 

I'm not going to argue that the most commonly used system isn't bad, but more violence is not the answer. For example, the system Nordic countries use is more forgiving, educating and humane then most other prison systems. By the end of it, most of the prisoners are capable of being useful members of society and most of them never come back. Compare that to USA's system, in which about 60% people get jailed again in span of three years.

 

women can do crimes as just as bad as men, they can murder, they can steal, they can cheat, being a "women" shound't mean that if a man was going to be beaten for stealing the women shound't get the same punishment if she stole too.

 

Yes, they should get the same punishment. But being a disobedient wife is not a crime. There are no laws that say what should happen with disobedient husband, even though they are capable of doing the same crimes and mistakes as women. So why aren't they same in the eyes of law? Why do the men who kill and rape their daughters and wives, get punished with only blood money or at most twelve years of jail, while the women can get executed for the same crimes?

 

this is not proof that it is okay or it should not be dealt with, this is proof that this type of thing in does not only happen in Islamically govern countires.

 

Statistics, please? But to be honest, after this conversation I wouldn't find it surprising that there are more reported cases of abuse in western countries. First, in our culture, slightest beatings are abuse. All those things you are describing, are considered abuse. But if women of Islamic upbringing think of that as a man's right they probably wouldn't be inclined to report it.

 

I'm glad thinks are working out for you, right now.

Edited February 4, 2013 by PointOfOrigin