May It Not Happen Again!

[abu afak]

May It Not Happen Again!
Jan Willem van der Hoeven

Saddam Hussein grew up in the shadow of a giant portrait that hung on the wall of his father's house, a portrait of a man his father adored above every other political leader. It was the face of Adolph Hitler! Writing in Inside Asia, John Gunther said: "The greatest contemporary hero in the Arab world is Hitler." Even Anwar Sadat, a man deemed by many in the West to be a moderate Arab leader, as a young man wrote the following words to the leader of the Third Reich:

"My dear Hitler, I congratulate you from the bottom of my heart. Even if you appear to have been defeated, in reality you are the victor. You succeeded in creating dissensions between Churchill, the old man, and his allies, the Sons of Satan. Germany will win because her existence is necessary to preserve the world balance. Germany will be reborn in spite of the Western and Eastern powers. There will be no peace unless Germany once again becomes what she was."

Anis Mansour, editor of the Egyptian magazine October and a Sadat confidant who accompanied the Egyptian leader to Jerusalem wrote: "The world is now aware of the fact that Hitler was right, and that the cremation ovens were the appropriate means of punishing [the Jews]."

Hitler's book, Mein Kampf, is still required reading in various Arab capitals and universities, and is widely distributed by others. And as Shmuel Katz writes in The Hollow Peace: "The Arab attitude is pointedly and incisively expressed in modern Arabic literature, which is chock-full of unbridled hatred of Israel, of Zionism and of the Jewish people. The idea of the destruction of Israel is expressed in hundreds of books published on the subject of the dispute itself, and anti-Israeli and anti-Zionist teaching has been incorporated in school text-books, even, improbably enough, in arithmetic books."

The only reason that the Arabs have not yet done to the Israeli Jews what Hitler did to their forefathers in Europe is that they have thus far lacked the military means and weapons of mass destruction which were at Hitler's disposal. Had there not been an Israeli Army to defend the remnant of European Jewry that immigrated to Israel, the Arabs would have gladly fulfilled Hitler's dream a long time ago by finishing off those Jews the Nazi megalomaniac had left alive.

This deeply entrenched hatred of the Jews and love for Hitler and the Nazis surfaced during the time of one of the first Palestinian leaders, the Grand Mufti Haj Amin el Husseini, during the 1930s. As Hitler's guest in Germany, the Mufti said on Berlin radio: "Kill the Jews--kill them with your hands, kill them with your teeth--this is well pleasing to Allah!"

No, contrary to popular belief, the crux of the Middle East problem has never been the Palestinian Arab problem. It has been and still is the Palestinian Jewish problem. It was this problem that had to be solved by the Arabs. They have used the Palestinian Arabs as their front and excuse to achieve their Hitler-like goal: the extinction of a sovereign Jewish nation in their Muslim midst. .."""

Ex From and read the rest at http://www.afsi.org/OUTPOST/2001MAR/mar5.htm

[jcsd]

That article seems a little suspect to me. Saddam Husseins father, depending on who you believed died before he was born or deserted him before he was a year old. Infact, Saddam would probably not be alive today if it wasn't for the kindness of an Iraqi Jewish family (now living in Israel), who helped his mother through the difficult period just before he was born, when she tried to kill herself and also attempted to abort him. Also Saddam Husseins personal hero is Josef Stalin (not any better than Hitler I suppose).

[MichaelC]

.....Saddam would probably not be alive today if it wasn't for the kindness of an Iraqi Jewish family (now living in Israel), who helped his mother through the difficult period just before he was born, when she tried to kill herself and also attempted to abort him.

There must be a special place in hell reserved for those guys!!


Also Saddam Husseins personal hero is Josef Stalin (not any better than Hitler I suppose).
Duh.....ya think!?

[Micah]

Originally posted by MichaelC
There must be a special place in hell reserved for those guys!!


I find this extremely offensive. How were they suppose to be psychic and know that the baby they would save would be an evil person?

Hashem doesn't reward kindness with Gehinem. You'd do well to remember that.

[jcsd]

Micah, I think Micheal C is being ironic, as rather than actually making a point, he prefers to use innuendo :rolleyes: .

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by Micah
I find this extremely offensive. How were they suppose to be psychic and know that the baby they would save would be an evil person?

Hashem doesn't reward kindness with Gehinem. You'd do well to remember that.

Lighten up Micah.

You think it wouldn't be better that savage was dead this minute? You really think it wouldn't have been better for him to have left before he got here?

By the way, You speaking for G-d now?

Wow!

[Mediocrates]

Misplaced pronouns I think - who is the 'they' that deserve to be in hell? I think we have some confusion about that.

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Misplaced pronouns I think - who is the 'they' that deserve to be in hell? I think we have some confusion about that.

jcsd came the closest. I was being ironic, though I do not consider the irony to have been accomplished by innuendo.

I did not think a worn adage like," there must be a place reserved in hell for........" was open to misinterpretation. If I have offended anyone's deeply held religious sensibilities, I apologize. Where I come from, this is a common expression not open to much misunderstanding.

The couple who preserved Saddam's life thereby assuring the world of plenty of trouble are obviously not to blame for his subsequent stature as a threat to millions, but I certainly do wonder at the irony of it.

I still maintain that speaking for the Divine in my general direction is a bit of a stretch.

And, speaking of confusion sown by the use of unfamiliar words, phrases, idioms, etc, what does Gehinem mean?

[Mediocrates]

Gehenna - one name given for what could loosely be called Jewish hell though it's a pretty different place than Milton's "Pandemonium".

[Agnosthiest]

hey guys, check out this interesting debate between arabs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nUI3TUdFCk

Doesnt that confirm the correctness of this translation:

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.


The woman had great points. Like do men always have the better judgement?

[Mediocrates]

I'm guessing they don't sell a lot of guns to women.

[Justcurious]

I'm guessing they don't sell a lot of guns to women.

I wonder what would happen, if a woman came to a car retailer and wanted to buy a car. Laughter or penalty?

[Mediocrates]

I wonder what would happen if you gave them a few million handguns. Probably end this radical nonsense in 60 days.

[Parsi]

Beating one's wife (as opposed to wife beating) is very clearly stated in Quran as part of the process of dealing with the non-obeying wife.

This doesn't mean that Mulisms should beat their wife routinely or that all Muslims are wife-beaters, but Islam does certainly prescribe it if needed.

[Abdul Rahman]

Amazing the number of non-Muslims experts on what the teachings of Islam are.

Keep chanting to yourself that your evil thoughts are true and maybe that will make it so... right?

[Parsi]

Amazing the number of non-Muslims experts on what the teachings of Islam are.

Keep chanting to yourself that your evil thoughts are true and maybe that will make it so... right?


Prove me wrong Abdul Raham. Tell me that Quran does not prescribe hitting the wife if she refuses to obey. You be the expert please.

[Abdul Rahman]

Prove me wrong Abdul Raham. Tell me that Quran does not prescribe hitting the wife if she refuses to obey. You be the expert please.
It does not. I am not an expert and make no claims to be such, what I do is relay authentic teachings from the ulema to the best of my ability.

[Parsi]

It does not. I am not an expert and make no claims to be such, what I do is relay authentic teachings from the ulema to the best of my ability.
How do you know it does not?

But surely you read Quran. Haven't you come across the famous verses?

How could you tell who is and isn't expert when you don't consider yourself knowledgeable/qualified enough to respond to a simple objection?

[andak01]

Prove me wrong Abdul Raham. Tell me that Quran does not prescribe hitting the wife if she refuses to obey. You be the expert please.

Then no. The way you ask the question is like this: Can you be raped for speeding??? Yes or no. Well you could get stopped by a policeman, who could let you go with a warning or write you a ticket. You could start an argument with him and you could end up in jail where you get raped. So I suppose the answer is yes???

In the same sense, I must protect and support my wife as the VERY SAME verse says. The verse doesn't say my wife didn't obey. It says I fear disloyalty or ill-conduct. In the state I live in, you can shoot your wife with another man and the police will often look the other way. Murder is often the way that disloyal wives and husbands end up. So, disloyalty is pretty serious today. But the Quran doesn't allow us men to come home and hit our disloyal wives.

It tells us to admonish them. But that isn't enough. After admonishing, they return to their old ways. Can you beat them? NO! More time has passed and we must refuse our beds. By this time days have passed. Can you beat them? IN SUCH A WAY THAT DOESN'T CONTRADICT THE FIRST PART OF THE VERY SAME VERSE!

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.

Tell me how to beat my wife WHILE I protect and maintain her. Because that is AFTER ALL OTHER CONDITIONS are met, the type of beating I can administer. The English language fails to provide us with a word to describe such a beating. I will give her that kind of beating the day you find me four modest, pious, honest witnesses to sexual insertion during adultry carried out in a Sharia state. Or how about you show me the man who can treat two wives equally in every respect?

And BTW, when I exceed the bounds of what the Quran allows and I get put in the slammer, I'll say hello to the ten thousand Christian wife beaters I meet there.

[Agnosthiest]

adultry

oh must you always equate "ill-conduct" with adultery? arent you being a bit too extreme? :(

watch the video again and see what is the arab scholar's idea of "ill-conduct".


And BTW, when I exceed the bounds of what the Quran allows and I get put in the slammer, I'll say hello to the ten thousand Christian wife beaters I meet there.

christian wife beaters get thrown in the slammer. In Islam, like in egypt --the electric cord culture, what muslim wife beaters get is social tolerance. thanks to the quran. As such wife beating is much much more serious in the muslim world.

[andak01]

oh must you always equate "ill-conduct" with adultery? arent you being a bit too extreme? :(

The words as translated are "disloyalty or ill-conduct". What does disloyalty in your wife mean to you? Either she's cheating on you or, and I'm not sure this isn't worse, doing something deliberately against your interests. Cheating could be a physical thing that passes, but if she is working to bring you down, you've got a permanent problem that even a marriage conselor is unlikely to resolve.

Even so, the Quran doesn't allow a man to touch her without passing other hurdles. She must be admonished and then continue ill-conduct, the man must refuse his bed and she still continues. By this time days have passed and the man's displeasure has clearly been communicated. And before, during and after, the man must continue to protect and provide for her.

At the point of daraba, the Sunna and fiqh take over and it is further specified what constitutes hitting. The man is confined to use a small three inch by quarter inch tooth stick (miswak) to tap her with. He can't use his fist or his open hand. It can't leave a mark. So ASSUMING all of the above, do you still call that a license to beat??? Tell you what, I'll do that anyday in front of a policeman and tell him I'm beating my wife and see if he takes me in or falls over laughing.

watch the video again and see what is the arab scholar's idea of "ill-conduct".

Yeah, I get all my Islamic "scholarship" from MEMRI! :(

christian wife beaters get thrown in the slammer. In Islam, like in egypt --the electric cord culture, what muslim wife beaters get is social tolerance. thanks to the quran. As such wife beating is much much more serious in the muslim world.

I'd like some proof that wife beating is more tolerated in third world Muslim countries than in Sub-saharan Africa or Eastern Europe or Mexico. The police are so corrupt in those places that the public has to protect themselves from them. The countries don't even pay the policeman's salary and you want them to start up other social programs. Good luck!

[Arjunn]

Andak, what you have in mind is "UNFAITHFUL".

From Webster

Main Entry: dis·loy·al
Pronunciation: (")dis-'loi(-&)l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French desleial, desloial, from des- dis- + leal loyal
: lacking in loyalty; also : showing an absence of allegiance, devotion, obligation, faith, or support <his disloyal refusal to help his friend>

Main Entry: un·faith·ful
Pronunciation: "&n-'fAth-f&l
Function: adjective
: not faithful: a : not adhering to vows, allegiance, or duty : DISLOYAL <an unfaithful friend> b : not faithful to marriage vows <suspected her husband of being unfaithful> c : INACCURATE, UNTRUSTWORTHY <an unfaithful copy of a document>


You really have no basis of interpreting that verse as concerning unfaithfulness. In fact other translations use the words "rebellion", "desertion". Nothing there that is necessarily about cheating.


ofcourse. i know this fact even before the first time you told me about it.


LOL! Beat someone with a toothpick? We have yet to see that in actual practice. Well maybe muslims do use a stick that thick (1/4 inch), but its obviously much much longer. Enough to cause enough pain to dicipline an adult!



How about Turkey?

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engeur440132004


"At least a third and up to a half of all women in the country are estimated to be victims of physical violence within their families. They are hit, raped, and in some cases even killed or forced to commit suicide. Young girls are bartered and forced into early marriage."


Thats what you get when your religion teaches you to treat adult women as intellectually deficient & inferior to men's moral judgments.

You beat me to it Agno:D ; i was about to reply saying that "disloyalty" and"unfaithful" are two different things.

[andak01]

Main Entry: dis·loy·al
Pronunciation: (")dis-'loi(-&)l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French desleial, desloial, from des- dis- + leal loyal
: lacking in loyalty; also : showing an absence of allegiance, devotion, obligation, faith, or support <his disloyal refusal to help his friend>

Main Entry: un·faith·ful
Pronunciation: "&n-'fAth-f&l
Function: adjective
: not faithful: a : not adhering to vows, allegiance, or duty : DISLOYAL <an unfaithful friend> b : not faithful to marriage vows <suspected her husband of being unfaithful> c : INACCURATE, UNTRUSTWORTHY <an unfaithful copy of a document>

You can't define one word without using the other. And we are talking about a translation in the first place!

[Agnosthiest]

You can't define one word without using the other.

So? The point still stands that disloyalty does not equate to unfaithfulness.


And we are talking about a translation in the first place!
and other translations used the words "Rebellion" and "Desertion", things that are not necessarily about unfaithfulness.


Anyway can you please show me where in the Hadith it says to use a Miswak to beat a wife? Thanks. :)

[Abdul Rahman]

You smart alecs can say what you like about this but it doesn't make you right. Just keep feeding your evil whisperings and then maybe it will become true just because you believe it.

There are four basic types of people, the fourth are those who don't know and think they do... avoid them like the plague because they are fools. [to paraphrase a famous scholar of the past]

[Agnosthiest]

You smart alecs can say what you like about this but it doesn't make you right. Just keep feeding your evil whisperings and then maybe it will become true just because you believe it.

Well you can say all your excuses and that does not change the reality of severe oppression of women in the muslim world. Isnt that what happens when you put these islamic ideas into practice:

http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Quotations_from_the_Quran_and_the_Hadith_Women


Its your beliefs, its your reality.

Dont underestimate what non-muslims can learn about Islam.

[andak01]

So? The point still stands that disloyalty does not equate to unfaithfulness.

and other translations used the words "Rebellion" and "Desertion", things that are not necessarily about unfaithfulness.

Desertion? If she deserted you, then denying her the bed would be rather redundant! ROFL.

Anyway can you please show me where in the Hadith it says to use a Miswak to beat a wife? Thanks. :)

Striking is only permissible, according to traditional authorities, in cases where the husband has already admonished the wife and abandoned her in bed without any change in the wife’s behavior. Under these circumstances, he may strike her. There are limitations placed on how he may do so, including that he must hit her in a way that is “non-violent” (“ghayr mubarrih”) and must not break bones, leave bruises, or cause blood to flow. Additionally, based on the Prophet Muhammad’s order in another context that one should never hit another Muslim’s face, he must not strike her face. A minority place additional limits, such as that the striking must be done with a miswak (a twig used for a toothbrush) a folded cloth, or a blade of grass.

A number of contemporary authors writing from moderate positions, such as Jamal Badawi, have stressed these limitations, arguing that the striking referred to in the Qur’an is a “more of a symbolic gesture than a punitive one.” These commentators frequently note that of the Muslim men who strike their wives, few do so after admonition and a period of sleeping apart, nor do they follow the limits that exegetes have imposed, such as not striking the wife’s face. Thus, such authors argue, one cannot blame the existence of “true violence” among Muslims on Q. 4:34.

Yet for others, this explanation is insufficient. Rendering the husband’s right to strike his wife merely symbolic leaves open the question of why it is permitted at all. If verbal appeals and a cooling off period of sexual separation both fail, it seems unreasonable to expect that “a gentle tap” “may save the marriage,” as Badawi also states. Thus, some have argued that we must understand the verse differently. It has been proposed that daraba in this context does not mean strike, but rather “separate” or even “have sex with” (one of the term’s metaphorical meanings). Others have suggested that rather than permission for husbands to strike their wives, the verse refers to punishment that can be imposed by the public authorities for certain transgressions.


http://www.brandeis.edu/projects/fse/Pages/adifficultverse2.html

Mit dieser Übersetzung erübrigt sich auch die von Muslimen oft empfohlene Alternative, das „Schlagen mit einem Miswak“ oder ähnliche symbolische Handlungen.

Roughly ~ With this translation the following alternative is suggested, to tap with a miswak or other symbolic item.

http://www.huda.de/zeitschrift/aktuelleausgaben/50121195ea071e505.html

[Parsi]

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.

Like I said before "pick and choose".

This is Ali Yusef's translation of the verse 4:34, which CONTINUES with 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).

Notice the bits in brackets. These people just can't help it.

And BTW, when I exceed the bounds of what the Quran allows and I get put in the slammer, I'll say hello to the ten thousand Christian wife beaters I meet there....

Going by the same logic when a suicide bomber "exceeds the bounds of what the Quran allows and they put in the slammer they'll say hello to ten thousand Muslim killers who among ordinary civilians".

Andak01,
There is HUGE difference between personality-motivated crimes and those authorised by one's religions. Those 10 thousand Christians don't hit their wife to follow their religion.

A broader study of Quran can show you clearly that the position of women in Islam is questionable, but I don't want to get into that.

As I said, it would be wrong to conclude that Muslims are wife beaters or that Islam encourages wife beating. I simply wanted to demonstrate one of the many hidden teachings of Islam. I respect Muslims by default, but I do question Islamic teachings.

[Agnosthiest]

Desertion? If she deserted you, then denying her the bed would be rather redundant! ROFL.

"those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them"

isnt one permanent (desertion) and the other one temporary ("leave them alone"). The change of address would also be considered.

but anyway what does that have to do with your interpreation about 'cheating'?


http://www.brandeis.edu/projects/fse/Pages/adifficultverse2.html

Nothing in there supports your original idea that: "the Sunna and fiqh take over and it is further specified what constitutes hitting. The man is confined to use a small three inch by quarter inch tooth stick (miswak) to tap her with".

Is this really in the hadith or what?

[andak01]

A broader study of Quran can show you clearly that the position of women in Islam is questionable, but I don't want to get into that.

No. Please continue. And make sure you ignore the place of women in Orthodox Judaism and in the Vatican and in Hinduism and in Mormonism.

As I said, it would be wrong to conclude that Muslims are wife beaters or that Islam encourages wife beating. I simply wanted to demonstrate one of the many hidden teachings of Islam. I respect Muslims by default, but I do question Islamic teachings.

It isn't hidden at all. The misrepresentation of this verse is publicly available to all non-believers. I'd be surprised if everyone doesn't know about that and our "moon worship".

I expect you to question Islamic teachings even if you were Muslim. As a Muslim, we question because we wish to learn more. As a non-Muslim you may have curiosity or simply a bad preconception that you want to confirm. You will find what you are looking for whatever that is. If you look for evil, you'll find it, if you look for good, you'll find it. If you keep an open mind, you might be surprised.

[Parsi]

No. Please continue. And make sure you ignore the place of women in Orthodox Judaism and in the Vatican and in Hinduism and in Mormonism.
Wrong approach.
First I don't have enough knowledge of those religions and wouldn't want to pretend so.

Secondly, two wrongs don't make a right.
Thirdly, Islam claims to be the ultimate (most complete) religion of all. What's the point of a new religion if it's to follow the same power-orientated principle of the older religions.


It isn't hidden at all. The misrepresentation of this verse is publicly available to all non-believers. I'd be surprised if everyone doesn't know about that and our "moon worship"...

It's not the question of misrepresentation, mistranslation, or misinterpretation. Some of the very fundamental teachings of Quran is based on hatred and intolerance and this in itself has been a threat to my life. You may be a nice law-abiding gentleman who believes in civility, but there are those who go by the book and want to dominate the world at any cost.

[bararallu]

Hog wash. A super religious Jewish Woman can spit in her husbands eye, drive away in her own car, get to a civil court void her marriage, eventually force her husband via Rabbinical court to give her a religious divorce if she wants it; she can publically become an atheist or convert to another religion even, if that's what she wants; she can burn her hair net or any clothes she wants and go around in a bikini in her own neighborhood, and get custody of all her children to boot, this is in Jerusalem/Israel.... All of that is LEGAL and do-able, and some in fact do it.

In juxtaposition- lets go across the border to Cairo Egypt or Amman Jordan or any sand dune in Saudi Arabia... and try that with a Muslim woman. Her own brother or father would catch her and put a bullet in her head just not to "disgrace" the family. nice try at moral equivalence though. Israel is a western country with real morals not a shame based society that keeps women in bonds, any woman can get up and leave their traditional life on her terms just like Amish women can, or any nun can, or any other Luddite in the rest of the West can.

[andak01]

Wrong approach.
First I don't have enough knowledge of those religions and wouldn't want to pretend so.

Secondly, two wrongs don't make a right.
Thirdly, Islam claims to be the ultimate (most complete) religion of all. What's the point of a new religion if it's to follow the same power-orientated principle of the older religions.

That's our own claim as adherrents to the faith. Western globalization also claims to be the most complete lifestyle of all. I think it's time for all this absolutism to drop by the wayside. It's killing people everyday.

There is something to be learned in a culture where there is a > 50% divorce rate and where schoolchildren go on shooting sprees, which children are killed for their sneakers and where some tens of thousands women are raped each year. There is something to be learned in a culture where 2000 highschool aged kids are in prison for life without parole, where more people are imprisoned per capita than in any other Western country.

In 2005, there were 191,670 victims of rape, attempted rape or sexual assaults according to the 2005 National Crime Victimization Survey (http://www.rainn.org/docs/statistics/ncvs_2005.pdf?PHPSESSID=a27b21fd6e219dfb0c03e44d7b d557a6) (PDF, 287KB).

It is this culture, the one that proposes torture and spying as a solution to security that looks down its nose and claims a moral highground against Islam. Laughable.

http://www.rainn.org/statistics/index.html

It's not the question of misrepresentation, mistranslation, or misinterpretation. Some of the very fundamental teachings of Quran is based on hatred and intolerance and this in itself has been a threat to my life. You may be a nice law-abiding gentleman who believes in civility, but there are those who go by the book and want to dominate the world at any cost.

I go by the Book too. There isn't anything in the Quran that permits me to kill innocent women and children to achieve any aim whatsoever. In fact, there is plenty to prohibit it. There isn't a word in the Quran that justifies killing a Jew or anyone else who isn't actively attacking Muslims. There isn't a word in the Quran that justifies disrespect or mistreatment of women. You can take that to the bank. It's a fact.

[Abdul Rahman]

...

Dont underestimate what non-muslims can learn about Islam.
Try this for starters then...

Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "Whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day should not hurt (trouble) his neighbor. And I advise you to take care of the women, for they are created from a rib and the most crooked portion of the rib is its upper part; if you try to straighten it, it will break, and if you leave it, it will remain crooked, so I urge you to take care of the women."

From YOUR link.
But then my contention (and that of the scholars of Islam) is that you can pile up all this decontextualised evidence untill it reaches the moon. Until you are trained to process it properly your conclusions are worthless. So until you start taking your Islamic knowledge from actual Sunni scholars of the four madhabs you actually know nothing about Islam.

...I'd be surprised if everyone doesn't know about that and our "moon worship".
That's right we worship the moon anyone could tell you that.

... You can take that to the bank. It's a fact.
What has that got to do with anything? We don't know anything about our own religion, they know better than we do.

[Abdul Rahman]

.,..
Some of the very fundamental teachings of Quran is based on hatred and intolerance and this in itself has been a threat to my life. You may be a nice law-abiding gentleman who believes in civility, but there are those who go by the book and want to dominate the world at any cost.You have yet to prove the Islamic basis for those actions. Asserting that it has an Islamic basis just because it was done by Muslims really does not stack up. You are essentially calling Andak a guy that picks what he wants from this Deen, which is really quite insulting just so that you can maintain your illusion that Islam is a barbaric and hate filled religion.

You are yet to respond to my contentions from the great scholars of Islam, that every deviant sect uses the sources especially the Qur'an to justify their deviance. Yet they do it in a selective and ignorant way. Show me how the sects that you describe are not doing just that?

[Abdul Rahman]

This is what an isnad (chain) looks like for someones ijaza(license)...

01. Prophet Muhammad (Salla Allah ta'ala alayhi wa sallam)
02. Hazrat Imam Ali bin Abi Talib (Karrama Allah wajhah)
03. Hazrat Sayyid Imam Hussain (Alayihis-salam)
04. Hazrat Imam Sayyid Zain al-Abideen
05. Hazrat Imam Sayyid Muhammad bin Ali al-Baqir
06. Hazrat Imam Sayyid Jafar as-Sadiq
07. Hazrat Imam Sayyid Musa al-Kazim
08. Hazrat Imam Sayyid Ali al-Ridha
09. Hazrat Shaikh Sayyid Maruf al- Karkhi
10. Hazrat Shaikh Sayyid as-Sari as-Saqati
11. Hazrat Shaikh Abul Qasim al-Junaid Baghdadi
12. Hazrat Shaikh Abu Bakr ash-Shibli
13. Hazrat Abdul Wahid at-Tamimi
14. Hazrat Shaikh Abul Faraj at-Tarsusi
15. Hazrat Shaikh Abul Hasan al- Quraishi (Hakkari)
16. Hazrat Abu Said al- Mukharrimi (Makhzumi)
17. Hazrat Sayyiduna Abdul Qadir Jilani
18. Hazrat Sayyid Abd ar-Razzaq
19. Hazrat Sayyid Abu Salih Nasr
20. Hazrat Sayyid Muhi-uddin Nasr
21. Hazrat Sayyid Ali
22. Hazrat Sayyid Musa
23. Hazrat Sayyid Hassan
24. Hazrat Sayyid Ahmad Jilani
25. Hazrat Shaikh Baha-uddeen
26. Hazrat Ibrahim Irji
27. Hazrat Shaikh Bhikari (dont know real name or the anecdote behind his laqab)
28. Hazrat Qazi Zia-uddeen
29. Hazrat Jamal-ul-Aulia
30. Hazrat Sayyid Muhammad Kalpavi
31. Hazrat Sayyid Ahmad
32. Hazrat Shah Fazlullah
33. Hazrat Shah Sayyid Barkatullah
34. Hazrat Sayyid Ale Muhammad
35. Hazrat Sayyid Hamza
36. Hazrat Sayyid Ale Ahmed
37. Hazrat Sayyid Ale Rasul Ahmedi *
38. Hazrat Sayyid Abul Husain Ahmad Nuri
39. Sheikh Ahmad Raza Khan
40. Sheikh Dhia-ud-Deen
41. Sheikh Abdus Salam
42. Sheikh Waqar-ud-Deen
43. Sheikh Ilyas Attar Qadiri (my current sheikh, lives in Karachi and Dubai)

May Allah preserve the current sheikh and bless the souls and raise the ranks of all those preceeding him.

* nephew of sheikh above him, adopted Ahmadi after his uncle/sheikh's name, nothing to do with Ahmadi-ism maadh'Allah, the blessed sheikh passed away 1296 Hijri, the Ghulam Ahmad la3natullahi alaih died 1325 Hijri.

This is for the sheik of one of my friends. Without one of these, anyone who tries to teach anything about Islam from their own knowledge is just leading people astray. So Parsi, your contentions about authority have no basis, since this is a well established system that is virtually impossible to forge. All a believer or interested person needs to do is find out if a person can produce one of these or not.

[Parsi]

Andark01 & Abdul Rahman, I'll come back and respond to your post in about 8 hours time.

[redcake]

In the meantime, that will give you some time to respond to these verses pertaining to women's rights, and the rights of young girls. There is an institutionalized abuse sanctioned by clerics, and there is absolutely no defense for it. So you can fall back on the lamest defense ever, by talking about other religions, or quoting statistics for how depraved American society is, but it doesn't explain why these verses are being used in Muslim communities in Muslim Sharia courts to abuse women and children under the protection of Islam. Two major sects believe in it, and one doesn't. So how can you say it doesn't exist or pretend it's a fabrication by non-believers?


Sunni
http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/Fatwa/ShowFatwa.php?lang=A&Id=56312&Option=FatwaId
http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/Fatwa/ShowFatwa.php?lang=A&Id=23672&Option=FatwaId
http://saaid.net/Doat/Najeeb/f122.htm
http://hadith.al-islam.com/display/Display.asp?Doc=0&Rec=7644

Shi'ite
http://www.rafed.net/books/fegh/menhaj3/menhaj1.html
http://www.ansar.org/arabic/radee3ah.htm
http://www.alshirazi.com/compilations/jar/horryat/part7/1.htm
http://www.makaremshirazi.org/books/arabic/resaleh/r26.htm

[Agnosthiest]

Try this for starters then...

Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "Whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day should not hurt (trouble) his neighbor. And I advise you to take care of the women, for they are created from a rib and the most crooked portion of the rib is its upper part; if you try to straighten it, it will break, and if you leave it, it will remain crooked, so I urge you to take care of the women."

From YOUR link.

(wow thats like dealing with the disabled. they are broken "so I urge you to take care of them") :(

And you agree with that. Amazing what religion can do to people. As if Women are more crooked than men. Take a look at prisons, man! Arent there a lot more men than women? From China to Pakistan to Chile. I tell you we guys are more screwed.


But then my contention (and that of the scholars of Islam) is that you can pile up all this decontextualised evidence untill it reaches the moon. Until you are trained to process it properly your conclusions are worthless. So until you start taking your Islamic knowledge from actual Sunni scholars of the four madhabs you actually know nothing about Islam.

You wish.

[andak01]

There is an institutionalized abuse sanctioned by clerics, and there is absolutely no defense for it.

You're absolutely right about that. Which is why I am pleased whenever I hear of Muslim women's rights groups which point out the errors in interpretation by using Islamic scholarship to prevent abuse of women.


So you can fall back on the lamest defense ever, by talking about other religions, or quoting statistics for how depraved American society is, but it doesn't explain why these verses are being used in Muslim communities in Muslim Sharia courts to abuse women and children under the protection of Islam.

For the exact same reason that the Christian church allowed women to be abused for a thousand years.

Two major sects believe in it, and one doesn't. So how can you say it doesn't exist or pretend it's a fabrication by non-believers?

What I can say is that there are loud highly politicized Islamic groups trying to promote an extreme philosophy while at the same time being assisted by the Western media which thrives on their extremism. At the same time, there are Muslim women's rights groups and moderates like Hamsa Yusef who hardly get any press at all.

http://www.karamah.org/home.htm

http://uanews.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects/UANews.woa/6/wa/MainStoryDetails?ArticleID=13562

http://www.islamic.org.uk/womright.html

http://www.feminismeislamic.org/eng/

[Agnosthiest]

It is this culture, the one that proposes torture and spying as a solution to security that looks down its nose and claims a moral highground against Islam. Laughable.

America is a well documented country. So a lot crimes are written down and reported. Heck they even classify forced sex within marriages as rape! And these things get reported too! Sure bloats the figures. So a document country with figures, compared to an undocumented country like Saudi Arabia without figures, that creates the illusion that the former is worst. But is it? Just look at the overall achievements between the two. Look at the rights given to its citizens. The opportunities available to a person. The person's opportunities to reach his/her potential.

Thats what makes the west morally higher than Islam. Thats why muslims love to go here even if they can hardly speak our language. Thats why you prefer to stay here. Right? You will never migrate to a muslim country because Islamic state practices suck.

[Agnosthiest]

What I can say is that there are loud highly politicized Islamic groups trying to promote an extreme philosophy while at the same time being assisted by the Western media which thrives on their extremism. At the same time, there are Muslim women's rights groups and moderates like Hamsa Yusef who hardly get any press at all.

Friend, the Media thrives on anything that is called a "Media Event". For moderates to attract attention they should created their own media event. How? Well maybe if you 'moderates' can gather by the thousands and condemn Saudi Arabia's inhumane practices. We would also love to see you by the thousands condemning the killing of muslim apostates.

What say you?

[andak01]

America is a well documented country. So a lot crimes are written down and reported. Heck they even classify forced sex within marriages as rape! And these things get reported too! Sure bloats the figures. So a document country with figures, compared to an undocumented country like Saudi Arabia without figures, that creates the illusion that the former is worst.

I didn't say Saudi Arabia. However, there are many, many more opportunities for rape to occur in a country where women routinely get drunk in public while wearing skimpy clothing versus a society where women dress modestly, tend to stay at home and are chaparoned whenever they are in public. If Saudi men are indeed committing more rapes, I'd be curious as to how they have an opportunity to do so.


But is it? Just look at the overall achievements between the two. Look at the rights given to its citizens. The opportunities available to a person. The person's opportunities to reach his/her potential.



Thats what makes the west morally higher than Islam.

It makes us morally higher than Ethiopia and the Congo and any other country that doesn't have the economy to afford leisure time. That's why the Romans under Caligula were Romans and the rest of the world were barbarians.

Thats why muslims love to go here even if they can hardly speak our language.

I venture that per capita many more Muslims speak the language than Mexicans. English is a second language in most of the Muslim world. In fact, most of the Muslims I know speak more than two languages.

Thats why you prefer to stay here. Right? You will never migrate to a muslim country because Islamic state practices suck.

I stay here because it's where I was born and where my family is. But in fact I may well retire to a Muslim country. I wouldn't like Saudi Arabia or Iran, but Dubai or Morocco wouldn't bother me a bit. There aren't any Islamic practices that bother me. It's so-called Sharia where the practices are in conflict with Islam that bother me.

[redcake]

Make up your mind Andak:

There isn't a word in the Quran that justifies disrespect or mistreatment of women. You can take that to the bank. It's a fact.

You're absolutely right about that. Which is why I am pleased whenever I hear of Muslim women's rights groups which point out the errors in interpretation by using Islamic scholarship to prevent abuse of women.

Are you sure it's an error of interpretation or just contradictory language which allows an observant Muslim to justify it. Either way, it exists, in the form of a scripture and not just from one or two crazy clerics.

At the moment, today, right now it's pretty clear how POPULARIZED and MAINSTREAM Islamic scriptures are being used for purposes of oppression instead of protecting human rights. By the way, since Christians aren't doing it on a massive instutionalized scale, today, right now, we're left with addressing Islam.....and the fact that the Muslims in this thread have denied the existance of religious inspired abuse towards Islamic women is really problematic and by default makes you part of the problem.

[Agnosthiest]

oops

[andak01]

Make up your mind Andak:

Are you sure it's an error of interpretation or just contradictory language which allows an observant Muslim to justify it. Either way, it exists, in the form of a scripture and not just from one or two crazy clerics.

I am sure that the Quran does not promote wife beating. I would stake this life and the next one on that. Again, you'd have to show me how wife beating can be protective. Show me how someone can be beaten and protected at the same time.

At the moment, today, right now it's pretty clear how POPULARIZED and MAINSTREAM Islamic scriptures are being used for purposes of oppression instead of protecting human rights. By the way, since Christians aren't doing it on a massive instutionalized scale, today, right now, we're left with addressing Islam.....and the fact that the Muslims in this thread have denied the existance of religious inspired abuse towards Islamic women is really problematic and by default makes you part of the problem.

I'm sure. The fact that I have no intention of beating my wife makes me a wife beater too. The fact that I think wife abuse is criminal makes me a criminal.

Redcake, I assure you. My opinion of people who abuse their wives differs not one crumb from your own. They belong behind bars. I've yet to hear of a Muslim using the Quran as a defense for wife beating. I'm quite familiar with your own opinion that, without the Quran and Islam, one fifth of the world would be practically crime free. I'm aware that you believe everything Muslims do, we do because of the Quran, unless, God forbid, we do something good. Then it's just a fluke.

[Agnosthiest]

However, there are many, many more opportunities for rape to occur in a country where women routinely get drunk in public while wearing skimpy clothing versus a society where women dress modestly, tend to stay at home and are chaparoned whenever they are in public. If

There is a little bit of tradeoff there. Women in true democracies are free, and with that freedom comes more rapes. Women in Islamist countries are not free and with that the prevention of rapes, but at what cost? The reduced values of women, honor oppressions, discrimination, higher domestic violence.

So overall where are women happier? Tell me. In Japan or in Pakistan? In America or Turkey?


It makes us morally higher than Ethiopia and the Congo and any other country that doesn't have the economy to afford leisure time. That's why the Romans under Caligula were Romans and the rest of the world were barbarians.

compare the worst with the worst, the best with the best.

Mexico vs Congo.
Philippines vs Indonesia.
Switzerland vs Turkey.
America vs Saudi.
Israel vs Palestine.

Its obvious who always get the upper moralities.


I venture that per capita many more Muslims speak the language than Mexicans. English is a second language in most of the Muslim world. In fact, most of the Muslims I know speak more than two languages.

And why do Muslims love to migrate here? Why bother be ruled by infidels than by muslims?


I stay here because it's where I was born and where my family is. But in fact I may well retire to a Muslim country. I wouldn't like Saudi Arabia or Iran, but Dubai or Morocco wouldn't bother me a bit. There aren't any Islamic practices that bother me. It's so-called Sharia where the practices are in conflict with Islam that bother me.

You stay there because you are comfortable there. Otherwise origin of birth is no good reason to stay in an unjust & unsafe country, not if you can afford to flee along with your family. Face it, America is still way better than Dubai or Morocco.

[Mediocrates]

Did you know that Brazil has no specific laws against domestic violence? About 4 women every minute in Brazil suffer domestic violence including assault, murder and rape? Legally it's considered a minor offense if it results in the victim's hospitalization up to 20 days. It's in practical terms, in Brazil, it's not against the law to murder your wife if she's cheating on you. I just want to point that out. It could be your mother or your sister or your child getting beat up, stabbed, shot and there isn't much in the way of laws to stop it. I really don't want to hear any more about what the Quran does or does not say. No one needs a holy book to beat down the mother of his children.

[Mediocrates]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4465916.stm

Sexual violence in the home. A cross cultural study.

In Africa it's particularly sad. Not only do women get raped, they get AIDS.

[Parsi]

OK, I'm going to focus on a the main topics here:

- Andark01, you're confusing to issues:
1. The crimes and social problems you mentioned are not the results of the teachings of any particular problem. If there were caused by a religious framework, then we could criticise that framework/religion just the same way.

There is a HUGE difference between a man who beats his wife due to behavioural/personal problems and one who's just following his multi-stage religious teachings. The same is true about other crimes or social conducts. I don't know why this is so difficult to distinguish, but I'm finished with part anyway.

2. As I said before the topic of this thread is not suitable. Wife beating (routine) is different to beating one's wife as part of the process of "protecting" her. Please don't twist/replace my words. Again, I believe there are decent Muslim gentlemen who never lay a finger on their wife, but there are also those who do beat up their wife because Islam has authorised them.

3. This is mainly to respond to Abdul Rahman's post asking me to show evidence of Islam's hatred teachings. I'll just mention a couple of verses to illustrate the point, but I can go on forever. Being a victim of Islam's teachings, I've done enough research into the subject. Here we go:

Hatred and intolerance

3: 118-120 (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/003.qmt.html#003.118)
O you who believe! Take not as (your) bitaanah (advisors, consultants, protectors, helpers, friends, etc.) those outside your religion (pagans, Jews, Christians, and hypocrites) since they will not fail to do their best to corrupt you. They desire to harm you severely. Hatred has already appeared from their mouths, but what their breasts conceal is far worse. Indeed We have made clear to you the aayaat (proofs, evidence, verses), if you understand. Lo! You are the ones who love them but they love you not, and you believe in all the Scriptures [i.e., you believe in the Tawraat and the Injeel, while they disbelieve in your Book (the Qur’an)]. And when they meet you, they say, ‘We believe.’ But when they are alone, they bite the tips of their fingers at you in rage. Say: ‘Perish in your rage. Certainly Allah knows what is in the breasts (all the secrets).’ If a good befalls you, it grieves them, but some evil overtakes you, they rejoice at it…


005.051 (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/005.qmt.html#005.051)
O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.



009.029 (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html#009.029)
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

There's much more of course...

[redcake]

Andak -Please don't take this conversation to a 1st grade level.

I know you're aware of how Shari'a laws are being applied to sanction the abuse, and killing of women, and children, because this forum has made you aware of it.

...and yes, a "good Muslim" lives his life according to the Koran.
...and yes, the basis for oppressive theocratic laws where Arab, and Islamic women are taking this abuse can be found in Islam itself, and yes it's rationalized as righteous manifested through a sort of Islamic "tough love".

...an by the way, it' THEIR interpretation which we are discussing, not the American-Muslim convert's.

I've given you versus....try and refute their existance.

[Agnosthiest]

No one needs a holy book to beat down the mother of his children.

Of course. With or without religion, we men are already violent beasts by nature. But religion does play a role in inhibiting or promoting our very basic human desires, yes?

[serdar]

In Africa it's particularly sad. Not only do women get raped, they get AIDS.
They are cutting women's clitoris in somalia.. religion stuff, you know...
having sexual fan is forbidden for somalian women.

[redcake]

No one needs a holy book to beat down the mother of his children.

No one *needs* a holy book to do anything, but that doesn't void out the sheer fact that a certain people, in a certain region do use a holy book for these purposes purpose.

I'm no less horrified because some other country has managed to one up Muslims.

[Mil]

Posted by Andak:

I didn't say Saudi Arabia. However, there are many, many more opportunities for rape to occur in a country where women routinely get drunk in public while wearing skimpy clothing versus a society where women dress modestly, tend to stay at home and are chaparoned whenever they are in public. If Saudi men are indeed committing more rapes, I'd be curious as to how they have an opportunity to do so.

You know in USSR the crimes of Andrei Chikatilo did not get reported to the public by the authorities in any way until Chikatilo was practically caught. In fact in USSR many things were with-held from the public, media or from the outside unless it was simply impossible to with-hold or was needed to be used by authorities for some political reason. I am very sure they would have kept quite about Chernobol if it wasn't too big to hide.

Nobody knows of what the f*** is happening in Saudi Arabia. It's a dictatorship with government controlled media and government controlled information. Nobody keeps track of the crimes, statistics or anything else of the sort. In fact most of the women are afraid to even speak out for obvious cultural, traditional and religious reasons. Plus the definition of abuse in Saudi Arabia is definetly different from what is considered abuse in the West.

[andak01]

OK, I'm going to focus on a the main topics here:

- Andark01, you're confusing to issues:
1. The crimes and social problems you mentioned are not the results of the teachings of any particular problem. If there were caused by a religious framework, then we could criticise that framework/religion just the same way.

So, if the framework isn't there then no more wife abuse, right? And thus, among Muslim apostates, no more abuse? Among Christian men, no abuse? Oh, I forgot, we aren't allowed the concept of sin.

There is a HUGE difference between a man who beats his wife due to behavioural/personal problems and one who's just following his multi-stage religious teachings.

Hmm. Let's see, protects and provides for wife while beating her??? Seems like those stages can't be carried out in tandem.

The same is true about other crimes or social conducts. I don't know why this is so difficult to distinguish, but I'm finished with part anyway.

As I said, whatever you go looking for, you're going to find. You've gone to read the Quran with the preconception that everything you find there will be evil. Therefore, the words protect and provide are entirely ignored. The word that has a multitude of meanings becomes beating, as in spousal abuse, and you provide your own stereotype as the wife beating Arab. Then you completely ignore the fact that spousal abuse was and is a worldwide problem in every single country in the world since long before the birth of Muhammad. You discount the possibility that any Muslim can have any motivation whatsoever that doesn't come from the Quran. How bloody convenient.

2. As I said before the topic of this thread is not suitable. Wife beating (routine) is different to beating one's wife as part of the process of "protecting" her. Please don't twist/replace my words.

I'm not twisting your words at all. I'm stating what THAT VERSE says. It isn't in some book of commentary or just me saying it. It's the SAME VERSE.

Again, I believe there are decent Muslim gentlemen who never lay a finger on their wife, but there are also those who do beat up their wife because Islam has authorised them.

And I suppose they also protect their wives at the same time and follow days of waiting and refusing their bed LIKE THE VERSE SAYS. Because, if they are throwing out all but the last word and then interpret that in its worst aspect, then they do as vile a job of cherry picking as you have done.

3. This is mainly to respond to Abdul Rahman's post asking me to show evidence of Islam's hatred teachings. I'll just mention a couple of verses to illustrate the point, but I can go on forever. Being a victim of Islam's teachings, I've done enough research into the subject. Here we go:

Then you are like a rape victim who sees evil in all men. It's a pity how a bad experience can permanently cloud your judgement.

[andak01]

I know you're aware of how Shari'a laws are being applied to sanction the abuse, and killing of women, and children, because this forum has made you aware of it.

And I know you are aware that Sharia doesn't sanction the killing of women and children, because I've posted from the Sunna and the Quran directly showing that such things are forbidden.

I also know you want to grandstand against Islam because it is easy to do these days.


...and yes, the basis for oppressive theocratic laws where Arab, and Islamic women are taking this abuse can be found in Islam itself, and yes it's rationalized as righteous manifested through a sort of Islamic "tough love".

Not even vaguely possible that these extremist imams are on a Jim Baker style, self-serving power trip and they get off by ordering others how to live their lives? That they recognize what political power they will gain by stirring hatred in the mob?

...an by the way, it' THEIR interpretation which we are discussing, not the American-Muslim convert's.

Or the Australian Muslim who studied under a Sheikh or my Pakistani imam. Or my Moroccan father-in-law who is a hafith (memorized the Quran) and an imam or the scholar I know with a degree in hadith study from Saudi Arabia who lectures. None of them holds to the MEMRI/FOX version of Islam.

[redcake]

Or the Australian Muslim who studied under a Sheikh or my Pakistani imam. Or my Moroccan father-in-law who is a hafith (memorized the Quran) and an imam or the scholar I know with a degree in hadith study from Saudi Arabia who lectures. None of them holds to the MEMRI/FOX version of Islam.

I don't know Andak, which one of them thinks Kohmeini speaks the truth?
Which one out of your list believes a woman should be the ward of her father, until she gets married and becomes the ward of her husband?
Which one supports polygamy?
Which one condones sex with underage girls?

You let me know. Otherwise, you're still not relevant....and while that's a good thing, it does mean you should stop defending how popular Islam is applied in the Arabic/Islamic states.

There is finally pressure in Arabic countries for these psuedo debates concerning women's rights, and soon enough we'll see actual reform... but not if we pretend these acts are occuring seperate from the very scriptures they are using to outline jsutification of such behavior.

Oh, and by the way...MEMRI just makes their reports and direct translations available as a resource - there is no "MEMRI version of Islam". Feel free to translate the links to Arabic sources I provided earlier and you'll see MEMRI is pretty darn accurate.

[andak01]

I don't know Andak, which one of them thinks Kohmeini speaks the truth?

You know that I'm not Shiite and don't claim to know much about them. But of any Shiites I've met, they hate Kohmeini as much as I do. On the other hand, the political policies that you so strongly support have done more to raise the power of Kohmeini supporters than anything I ever did. You must be very proud of yourself. Those policies have created more exiled Sunni refugees from Iraq than all the Jews that were exiled from there in history. What an accomplishment!

Which one out of your list believes a woman should be the ward of her father, until she gets married and becomes the ward of her husband?

Possibly my Pakistani Imam and my Christian father and a couple of my coworkers who are Baptist.

All of my father-in-law's daughters have a college education and they all work with the exception of my wife.

Which one supports polygamy?

None of them has a polygamous relation. None of them that I am aware of believes the Quran supports polygamy.

Which one condones sex with underage girls?

None.

You let me know. Otherwise, you're still not relevant....and while that's a good thing, it does mean you should stop defending how popular Islam is applied in the Arabic/Islamic states.

We aren't talking about Islam. Most of what you post about are human rights issues that are practiced in Muslim countries because of extremists. It isn't the Quran that causes people to act that way. The Quran didn't cause Saddam to gas the Kurds.

There is finally pressure in Arabic countries for these psuedo debates concerning women's rights, and soon enough we'll see actual reform... but not if we pretend these acts are occuring seperate from the very scriptures they are using to outline jsutification of such behavior.

Why not??? Why can't the pressure be done in such a way that it doesn't come across as a Crusader's threat? "Give equality to women and throw down your Korans or we'll invade you?" "Give equality to women by ripping off their hijabs and making them senators or we'll send spys in to topple your government!"

Oh, and by the way...MEMRI just makes their reports and direct translations available as a resource - there is no "MEMRI version of Islam". Feel free to translate the links to Arabic sources I provided earlier and you'll see MEMRI is pretty darn accurate.

Of course not. Why would an ex-Israeli Colonel and a neo-con set up a propaganda tool to convince people that the worst headlines available in the Arab world are the norm? That just doesn't seem likely that a women married to an advisor to Dick Cheney would go around trying to convince people to invade every regiem in the Middle East like so many dominoes. Looking at the tremendous successes of that half billion dollar policy, it shouldn't take any such convincing. Ask any of the Shiite Imams who now have untold political power because of it! Ask the Halliburton execs. Ask Chalabi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yigal_Carmon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meyrav_Wurmser

[Abdul Rahman]

In the meantime, that will give you some time to respond to these verses pertaining to women's rights, and the rights of young girls.

Pile them up to the moon, they don't mean a thing without qualified opinion to guide you.

...
but it doesn't explain why these verses are being used in Muslim communities in Muslim Sharia courts to abuse women and children under the protection of Islam.
...

There are no legitimate Sharia courts.
Two major sects believe in it, and one doesn't. So how can you say it doesn't exist or pretend it's a fabrication by non-believers?

Seeing as you posted in Arabic I have no idea what you are trying to prove. What two major sects? Unless the scholars of the Sunni are from the four madhab with ijaza to make fatwa and transmit knowledge based on unbroken isnad going back to The Prophet of God :saws:, you have proved nothing of importance about Islam.
(wow thats like dealing with the disabled. they are broken "so I urge you to take care of them") :(
And you agree with that. Amazing what religion can do to people. As if Women are more crooked than men.

Ho ho. Take it that way if you must. Obviously there is only one way most of you seem to be able to process any Islamic thought.

You wish.If you want correct information, yes I do wish, that way you could actully have a sound basis for discussion. As to whether or not you embrace Islam, well that is your issue with our Lord, not mine. My job is to just tell the truth about it, what you do with it is up to you.


...
Thats what makes the west morally higher than Islam. Thats why muslims love to go here even if they can hardly speak our language. Thats why you prefer to stay here. Right? You will never migrate to a muslim country because Islamic state practices suck.
Stop conflating Islam with these kufr states. There are no Islamic states, this is not just my opinion but the opinion of the scholars of Islam.

To say that a woman forced to have sex with her husband is not rape in Islam is a lie. Sex may be a right of marriage for both men and women, but this does not equate to force being permissible.

If you say no, and your husband keeps on going, then this is considered marital rape, and no woman should tolerate this.


...
However, this does not in any way mean that the husband may force himself over her for sexual gratification.
...


“Do not begin intercourse until she has experienced desire like the desire you experience, lest you fulfill your desires before she does.” [Mentioned by Imam Ibn Qudama in his Mughni]

It is grounds for divorce and a crime.



...and the fact that the Muslims in this thread have denied the existance of religious inspired abuse towards Islamic women is really problematic and by default makes you part of the problem.
...
You lie with facts so readily. If this behaviour is not countenanced by the orthodox scholars according to their exalted understanding of the scriptures then it is not permissible. No ifs or buts.

There is a little bit of tradeoff there. Women in true democracies are free, and with that freedom comes more rapes.
...

Interesting concept of freedom. The freedom to be raped.

So overall where are women happier? Tell me. In Japan or in Pakistan? In America or Turkey?

How about you tell me, and provide proof.

Its obvious who always get the upper moralities.

Excellent proof there, totally objective.

And why do Muslims love to migrate here?

40% of US Muslims are converts, when you factor in their kids and second generation immigrant Muslims, how many of them actually migrated? Fact is the number one reason is the same as for everyone else. $$$$ and lots of it.

Why bother be ruled by infidels than by muslims?
So what do the [western supported] dictatorships and hereditary petty tyrants have to do with being ruled Islamically? Stop misusing words, you must know that it is haram to call Christians and Jews infidels, last I looked Bush and just about every member of Congress was a Christian, however dubious [or is that dubya'is] in their practise.


...
I know you're aware of how Shari'a laws are being applied to sanction the abuse, and killing of women, and children, because this forum has made you aware of it.
...

By simple definition Sharia cannot be used to oppress anyone, it is from God and an attribute of God is infinite Justice. There is no legitimate application of Sharia laws pertaining to state's rights (to chastise imprison, coerce in any way or execute) anywhere in the world today. At all. Full stop.


...an by the way, it' THEIR interpretation which we are discussing, not the American-Muslim convert's.

There is only correct and incorrect interpretation. If it falls outside of what is permitted then it is not Islamic.
They are cutting women's clitoris in somalia.. religion stuff, you know...
having sexual fan is forbidden for somalian women.
What has this got to do with Islam?

FGM, or other harmful practices, which have become culturally widespread, none of these are in any way permitted.

What kind of weird device is a sexual fan?

...
Most of what you post about are human rights issues that are practiced in Muslim countries because of extremists. It isn't the Quran that causes people to act that way. The Quran didn't cause Saddam to gas the Kurds.
...


Apart from the fact that I reject the use of the term "extremists" in this context as it implies an Islamic basis for unIslamic activity I totally agree with this. What do you boneheads not get about this simple fact? If something is not recognised as Islamic by the scholars of Ahl us-sunnah wal-jammat then it is not Islamic no matter how a deviant sect might try to justify it on the basis of sacred scripture. Every deviant group uses the scriptures to justify its deviation by picking and choosing, which is just what you lot are doing, in effect making the argument for those deviants.

[Agnosthiest]

Ho ho. Take it that way if you must.

well then how do you understand that message about women being crooked?


Stop conflating Islam with these kufr states. There are no Islamic states, this is not just my opinion but the opinion of the scholars of Islam.

Everyone's attempt to create an islamic state sucks, huh?

Islam is like Communism. Looks good in paper, sucks in reality.

Tough luck. This is another proof that Islam is a backward manmade ideology.

[Mil]

Posted by Abdul:

Interesting concept of freedom. The freedom to be raped.

? Rape is not a choice. It's the matter of how society approaches the issue and how it protects its citizens. Women in Saudia Arabia, Iran, Morocco, Turkey, Egypt get raped all the time. Nobody talks about it and women are not protected.

[Abdul Rahman]

well then how do you understand that message about women being crooked?
...

Not the way you do. Do you get poetry at all? Is there something evil or deficient about a rib just because it has a curve in it? Is not a common understanding of the story of the creation of woman in the Hebrew scriptures (whether this is an accurate understanding of it aside), that she was made from a rib?

Which is why you need to take understanding from the scholars and not just your own fancy.

[KettleWhistle]

However, there are many, many more opportunities for rape to occur in a country where women routinely get drunk in public while wearing skimpy clothing versus a society where women dress modestly, tend to stay at home and are chaparoned whenever they are in public.
Really? I didn't know that rapes occur in public or that modest clothes were a rape-preventative measure. And there may be more opportunities, in some ways, but far less likelihood in a society where a person can go out and get laid fairly easily and isn't frustrated about his sexual needs, and where women have enough self-esteem to assert themselves and fight off those who assault them.

[andak01]

Posted by Abdul:

Interesting concept of freedom. The freedom to be raped.

? Rape is not a choice. It's the matter of how society approaches the issue and how it protects its citizens. Women in Saudia Arabia, Iran, Morocco, Turkey, Egypt get raped all the time. Nobody talks about it and women are not protected.

In order to rape a women, it requires opportunity. Which presents greater opportunity, a Saudi girl in modest clothing being chaparoned by her father or a bikini clad drunk American teenager passed out on the beach in Mexico? So, in order for the Saudis to live up to our vile preconceptions as far as rape goes, they must go around with nothing else on their minds plotting to take advantage of the extremely rare opportunities that they have available.

But I understand from having read this forum, the Saudis rape their women in the morning, kill them in the afternoon and resurrect them at night so they can start all over again the next day!

[Abdul Rahman]

...
Islam is like Communism. Looks good in paper, sucks in reality.
...
Communism sucks on paper. Islam in reality which is when practised according to the Sunnah of The Prophet of God :saws: is the only way of life that enobles the human being and fulfills our purpose. Everything else is an illusion of success.
To get pedantic, Islam as submission to God in reality is sucess. this must be beyond dispute for any believer in God, which I doubt you are. You are a proof of the Mercy of God, you slander Him azzawajal yet He swt still feeds and clothes you and permits you the illusion of being in control of your own life.

[Agnosthiest]

Not the way you do. Do you get poetry at all? Is there something evil or deficient about a rib just because it has a curve in it? Is not a common understanding of the story of the creation of woman in the Hebrew scriptures (whether this is an accurate understanding of it aside), that she was made from a rib?

Which is why you need to take understanding from the scholars and not just your own fancy.

Please dont answer questions by asking me questions. How do you explain the equivalence of women to the crookedness of ribs?

Now the hebrew scriptures did say the woman was created from Adam's rib, but nowhere did it highlight the rib's crookedness. Without it, Christians (i dont know about jews) see a different significance:

Woman was not created from Adam's foot that he may trample her.

Woman was not created from adam's head that she may rule over him.

No, woman was created from Adam's rib...from his SIDE...

That she may be equal with him, his partner.

Close to his heart that he should love her dearly.

Admit it, such a lovely interpretation! right? Anything like that in the muslim world? :D


Interesting concept of freedom. The freedom to be raped.

You said that, not me. Its your concept.


How about you tell me, and provide proof.

I asked first. So you tell me. Then you provide your proof and I'll provide mine. Fair & Square. :D


40% of US Muslims are converts

Your claim is outlandish. Whatever gave you that idea? proof?


Fact is the number one reason is the same as for everyone else. $$$$ and lots of it.

Fact is $$$ is just one of the many reasons. Name the rest.

As for me, the reasons I came here are:

$$$
Freedom
Excellent Human Rights record.
Respect
Stable Government



So what do the [western supported] dictatorships and hereditary petty tyrants have to do with being ruled Islamically?

Well the original Islamic Caliphates was a form of dictatorship.



Stop misusing words, you must know that it is haram to call Christians and Jews infidels, last I looked Bush and just about every member of Congress was a Christian, however dubious [or is that dubya'is] in their practise.

oh c'mon now, its you muslims who popularized the idea that jews & christians are infidels. you even call them apes & pigs. now where on earth did you get that idea? please blame your own.

[Abdul Rahman]

How do you explain the equivalence of women to the crookedness of ribs?

Do you get poetry at all?

Now the hebrew scriptures did say the woman was created from Adam's rib, but nowhere did it highlight the rib's crookedness. Without it, Christians (i dont know about jews) see a different significance:

Actually my theology lecturers one of whom is a world recognised expert in the Hebrew scriptures say rib is a bad translation and understanding, "side" as in half is btter.

Admit it, such a lovely interpretation! right? Anything like that in the muslim world? :D

Have you read the Qur'an or just the bits that "experts" point out to you as "the dirt"? Try seeing what the Qur'an says about the creation of the first man and woman. Then see what the scholars say about it.

...
Your claim is outlandish. Whatever gave you that idea? proof?
...

Imam Zaid Shakir, a man in a position to know.

Well the original Islamic Caliphates was a form of dictatorship.

What rot. A dictatorship whose very definition was basd on an oath of allegience freely given by the whole community.

oh c'mon now, its you muslims who popularized the idea that jews & christians are infidels. you even call them apes & pigs.

That's funny becasue the only one's who say it with such certainty are self professed kaffirs. Don't pretend you have no understanding of the context of that verse.

now where on earth did you get that idea? The very fact that I dare to use the word haram means that it comes from authentic Islamic sources. IE The greatscholars of Islam. We can't marry infidels, yet we can marry Christians and Jews. It is haram to call Christians and Jews infidels because they are monotheists, whereas the infidel is a complete denier of God.

What then does the Qur'an say about "infidels?" First, what does the term infidel mean? It is not a Qur'anic term. It is a term that Christians have historically applied to non-Christians, particularly Muslims. Christian doctrine simply did not recognize the legitimacy of Islam. Hence, Muslims were "infidels," and usually placed in the same category as "pagans" and "savages."
...
The Qur'an talks about a group of non-Muslims called "Ahl al-Kitab," or People of Scripture. These are people who have received divine revelation, particularly Christians and Jews. Therefore, the Qur'an automatically recognizes previous Abrahamic faiths and accords special status to the adherents of Christianity and Judaism. What is ironic is that Christian and Jewish doctrine makes no provision for the recognition of Islam; however, Islam recognizes both Christianity and Judaism as divinely-revealed religions. But it is Islam that is always accused of intolerance!

There is more I cannot quote like this but Sheik Hamza Yusuf says we cannot say that Jews and Christians are infidels outright along with Imam Zaid Shakir.
Keep deluding yourself like this if you like but it doesn't change the reality on the ground.

[Agnosthiest]

Do you get poetry at all?

Sure. Now please explain that verse. Tell me what crookedness symbolizes in women.


Actually my theology lecturers one of whom is a world recognised expert in the Hebrew scriptures say rib is a bad translation and understanding, "side" as in half is btter.

And thats how christians understand that. "Side".

Speaking of which, Mohammad had a poor understanding by mentioning "rib".


Have you read the Qur'an or just the bits that "experts" point out to you as "the dirt"? Try seeing what the Qur'an says about the creation of the first man and woman. Then see what the scholars say about it.

I Ive read it alright. I even have one. Now you would probably say that a translation of the koran isnt ......:o


Imam Zaid Shakir, a man in a position to know.

You think its true that 40% are converts just because this Zaid muslim guy told you so?


What rot. A dictatorship whose very definition was basd on an oath of allegience freely given by the whole community.

Oh like Saddam Hussein? My friend, most dictators have been ELECTED into power. But with regards to 'allegiance', you know that Monarchy too is a form of dictatorship. And when Monarchs take their seat the people were asked to 'freely' give their allegiance. And most of the time they do too. Because most of the time they didnt know any better.


That's funny becasue the only one's who say it with such certainty are self professed kaffirs. Don't pretend you have no understanding of the context of that verse.

I have an understanding of the context and I disagree on how many muslims are using it. But who am I to tell your muslim brethren to stop calling christians and jews as monkeys & apes?


The very fact that I dare to use the word haram means that it comes from authentic Islamic sources. IE The greatscholars of Islam. We can't marry infidels, yet we can marry Christians and Jews. It is haram to call Christians and Jews infidels because they are monotheists, whereas the infidel is a complete denier of God.

there are too many muslims who say that christians today are not what the koran calls as "people of the book", because the 99% of christians today believe that Jesus is God. And jews are based on a corrupted torrah? What do you think about these things?

[Abdul Rahman]

Sure. Now please explain that verse. Tell me what crookedness symbolizes in women.

What about the word curve? There are several translations you know.
Take out the pejorative associations to the word crooked, but you will only view the words on The Prophet :saws: in one way.

Speaking of which, Mohammad had a poor understanding by mentioning "rib".

I made the connection to the Jewish scripture here. Seeing as we have a different creation story to the Jews and Christians for human beings you are taking a blind stab in the dark here.

I Ive read it alright. I even have one. Now you would probably say that a translation of the koran isnt ......:o

So what does the creation story say?
What do the scholars of Islam say about what that story means about relations between men and women?

You think its true that 40% are converts just because this IMAM Zaid muslim guy told you so?

He is not just "some guy".
Just because you don't know who he is doesn't mean he is a liar or has no access to statistical data.

Oh like Saddam Hussein? My friend, most dictators have been ELECTED into power. But with regards to 'allegiance', you know that Monarchy too is a form of dictatorship. And when Monarchs take their seat the people were asked to 'freely' give their allegiance. And most of the time they do too. Because most of the time they didnt know any better.

Whatever.

But who am I to tell your muslim brethren to stop calling christians and jews as monkeys & apes?
No one just like me. Except where we transmit an authentic teaching from a qualifed scholar. Doesn't matter who you are Muslim or non-Muslim, if you do that.

I have never heard a single Muslim use that verse in the way you insinuate not even among the Salafi. In Australia the closest we have is "Sheik" Feiz (a Salafi imam of Lebanese background) who snorted during a lecture when referring to Jews at a time of hostilities between Israel and Lebanon because he was angry. He regreted doing that as despite his continued opposition to Israel, he admits it was a wrong insinuaton based on a false understanding of the text.


there are too many muslims who say that christians today are not what the koran calls as "people of the book", because the 99% of christians today believe that Jesus is God. And jews are based on a corrupted torrah? What do you think about these things?This is garbage. Christian doctrine was in its corrupt form by the time of the Prophet Muhammad :saws: these are the people He :saws: was refering to likewise the Jews. This is the opinion of the scholars of Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jammat. Otherwise we couldn't intermarry.

For the marriage to even be valid, 3 conditions of validity must be fulfilled. She has to believe (without doubts) in:


a) God;

b) A recognized revealed Book; and

c) A recognized Prophet. [Durr al-Mukhtar Sharh Tanwir al-Absar]


(And, yes, today’s Christians and Jews are considered from the People of the Book, if the above 3 conditions are met.)

[Mil]

Posted by Andak:

In order to rape a women, it requires opportunity. Which presents greater opportunity, a Saudi girl in modest clothing being chaparoned by her father or a bikini clad drunk American teenager passed out on the beach in Mexico?

I don't know. Did you take statistics?


So, in order for the Saudis to live up to our vile preconceptions as far as rape goes, they must go around with nothing else on their minds plotting to take advantage of the extremely rare opportunities that they have available.

Can you prove it?


But I understand from having read this forum, the Saudis rape their women in the morning, kill them in the afternoon and resurrect them at night so they can start all over again the next day!

You make assumptions. Now can you provide me the exact statistics.

[Agnosthiest]

What about the word curve? There are several translations you know.
Take out the pejorative associations to the word curve, but you will only view the words on The Prophet :saws: in one way.

thats up to you. so how do you explain the entire passage?


He is not just "some guy".
Just because you don't know he is doesn't mean he is a liar or has no access to statistical data.

I know he is an imam, and I never said he is a liar. First of all I just wanted to know if this guy is your only basis for saying that thing about 40%. If he is, then I want to know his basis for doing so. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here. :)


I have never heard a single Muslim use that verse in the way you insinuate not even among the Salafi.

Hey you are the one who implied that this have something to do with a verse. Remember I only asked you where your brethren got that idea about apes & monkeys.


This is garbage. Christian doctrine was in its corrupt form by the time of the Prophet Muhammad :saws: these are the people He :saws: was refering to likewise the Jews. This is the opinion of the scholars of Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jammat. Otherwise we couldn't intermarry.

But some muslims say that during Mohammad there were true christians and there were false christians. So guess what, to them whenever the Koran speaks nicely of christians it was referring to true christians (whatever that is), and whenever it speaks against it was referring to false christians who believe that jesus is god.

And the scholars of Islam have different opinions on the same issues. You can pick & choose according to your agenda.

What matters to me is what happens in reality. The things that happen in common. And anti-jew and anti-christian hostilities are common in the muslim world. And many muslims do use the islamic papers to support such hatred.

[Mil]

Posted by Abdul:

Communism sucks on paper. Islam in reality which is when practised according to the Sunnah of The Prophet of God :saws: is the only way of life that enobles the human being and fulfills our purpose. Everything else is an illusion of success.

Lets substitute Islam to Sex and Muhammed to Dr. Ruth.

"Sex in reality which is when practised according to Dr. Ruth; saws; is the only way of life that annables the human being and fulfills our purpose. Everything else is an illusion of sucess."


To get pedantic, Islam as submission to God in reality is sucess. this must be beyond dispute for any believer in God, which I doubt you are. You are a proof of the Mercy of God, you slander Him azzawajal yet He swt still feeds and clothes you and permits you the illusion of being in control of your own life.

To get pedantic, sexual pleasure in reality is sucess, this must be beyound dispute for any believer in sex, which I doubt you are.


Are all Muslims so f** on the head or just you Abdul? Andak, who the hell is this guy?

[Abdul Rahman]

...I know he is an imam, and I never said he is a liar. First of all I just wanted to know if this guy is your only basis for saying that thing about 40%. If he is, then I want to know his basis for doing so. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here. :)

OK, now we are getting somewhere. He is my only source so far seeing as I live in Australia, but he is a very well informed man whom I trust implicity to only speak from what he knows, like the scholar that he is. If approached he would be happy to provide his source. I am willing to trust him on his word, if you aren't he can be contacted via the Zaytuna institute.

Hey you are the one who implied that this have something to do with a verse. Remember I only asked you where your brethren got that idea about apes & monkeys.

Let's not be disingenuous now.


But some muslims say that during Mohammad there were true christians and there were false christians. So guess what, to them whenever the Koran speaks nicely of christians it was referring to true christians (whatever that is), and whenever it speaks against it was referring to false christians who believe that jesus is god.

And the scholars of Islam have different opinions on the same issues. You can pick & choose according to your agenda.

No, the scholars of Islam are pretty unanimous on this actually. Except for the deviants who have no authority to make such rulings.

What matters to me is what happens in reality. The things that happen in common. And anti-jew and anti-christian hostilities are common in the muslim world. And many muslims do use the islamic papers to support such hatred.What matters to me is the truth about Islamic teaching. If Muslims don't follow that, it is to their loss ultimately. Not anyone elses as God is Just and recompense will be paid in full except through His Mercy. Anti-Muslim sentiment seems to be pretty common too based on prejudice and misconception. Not that two wrongs make a right.

[Abdul Rahman]

...


Are all Muslims so f** on the head or just you Abdul? Andak, who the hell is this guy?You are a rude and base man. I hope you are proud of the way you waste the gifts God has given you. My name is Abdul Rahman, if you are too lazy at least write AR instead to show you have the least level of manners fit for civil society.

[Agnosthiest]

Hey arent you even gonna try to explain that verse about ribs and women?


He is my only source so far seeing as I live in Australia, but he is a very well informed man

Even very informed men are ignorant on many things. Anyway looks like this is a dead end. Your claim is simply baseless. 40% are converts, yeah right!

[Mil]

You are a rude and base man.

Actually I am very nice and cuddly.

I hope you are proud of the way you waste the gifts God has given you.

What if my God is Zeus?


My name is Abdul Rahman, if you are too lazy at least write AR instead to show you have the least level of manners fit for civil society.

Supercalofredelisticexpealodocious.

[redcake]

These conversations always leave me wondering what the connection is between dishonesty and manipulation with Islam.

One one side of their mouth they demand a total suspension of belief to disconnect the reality of the existance of Islamic Shari'a courts and the role Islam plays in the oppression of women.... it's not like a man in Saudi Arabi has the perfect right to discipline his wife without any requirements of reporting it to authorities or Amnesty International or anything....and it's not like if anyone disputes it, they go to an Islamic court which will reference several Hadiths for guidance, right? Gosh, no! That's obviously MEMRI propaganda....or a result of the US policies in the mid-east (as Andak suggested to me).

Then on the other side of their mouth, we're told of the advantages of imposed modesty, and reminded that the heathen sluts in the western world are in far worse danger for rape then if they lived in Saudi Arabia, where we're to believe being suh-human comes with it's advantages!

[Mil]

One only wanders why with so much God advantage most of the Muslim world is third world cra***phole.

Apparently the local Muslims are telling us that apparently our virtue of CHOICE are wrong.

I am sorry but this is far below the levels of my personal believes or standards. Abdul my advice for you is to leave the nice heaven of Sydney and go back to where you came from. Saudi Arabia is pure Islam and your success in that country is guaranteed.

[andak01]

These conversations always leave me wondering what the connection is between dishonesty and manipulation with Islam.

Kind of the same as the concept of the "lying Jew". And the people who claim that we are somehow genetically prone to dishonesty are of the same ilk as the "lying Jew" cannard slingers. Although it is patently clear in both the Quran and the Sunna that Allah hates the dishonest and loves the honest, they continue with this taqqiyya nonsense. Though it is clear to any intelligent person that lying is part of the human condition, they single out Muslims as particularly and singularly dishonest.

One one side of their mouth they demand a total suspension of belief to disconnect the reality of the existance of Islamic Shari'a courts and the role Islam plays in the oppression of women.... it's not like a man in Saudi Arabi has the perfect right to discipline his wife without any requirements of reporting it to authorities or Amnesty International or anything....

I had that same right as a Christian in American society. So long as the neighbors or the wife don't go to the police anything is permissible. Do American Christian men call Amnesty International when they beat their wives??? Whose being dishonest now?

and it's not like if anyone disputes it, they go to an Islamic court which will reference several Hadiths for guidance, right? Gosh, no! That's obviously MEMRI propaganda....or a result of the US policies in the mid-east (as Andak suggested to me).

What I suggested is that effecting change for these issue is seemingly worth hundreds of thousands if not millions of deaths to you and fifty Iraqs. You are all for violent regiem change so that women will be forced not to wear a hijab anywhere ever even if they wish to. You don't care what the human cost of such regiem change is, so long as the Muslims of the world are forced to act exactly like good Americans, despising their own religion and praising Israel at every opportunity.

What do you have to say about the Orthodox Jewish stance on women's equality? Anything? Would you be OK if we invaded Israel and started ripping off Jewish women's wigs, telling them they are "free"?

Then on the other side of their mouth, we're told of the advantages of imposed modesty, and reminded that the heathen sluts in the western world are in far worse danger for rape then if they lived in Saudi Arabia, where we're to believe being suh-human comes with it's advantages!

Heathen slut is your term. Why don't you attend a crime prevention seminar and ask about stumbling through the streets drunk in the middle of the night wearing skimpy clothing? I know, I know. I'm just an extremist for mentioning such a thing. You'd really be in just as much danger if you stayed home sober at night behind locked doors. That's why I revel in my freedom by going to the worst part of town with a handful of credit cards and cash singing "We're in the money!"

[Agnosthiest]

Though it is clear to any intelligent person that lying is part of the human condition, they single out Muslims as particularly and singularly dishonest.

Lying is when you KNOWINGLY assert false things as true. The way I see it muslims are rather MISINFORMED than liars. Muslims are also commonly UNFOCUSED. Like you, Andak. Like we were discussing Yemen history and you shift it to cold war. Sometimes this gives the illusion of dishonesty.

[Mil]

What do you have to say about the Orthodox Jewish stance on women's equality? Anything? Would you be OK if we invaded Israel and started ripping off Jewish women's wigs, telling them they are "free"?

Ah, it's because women in Israel have a CHOICE!!!! Those Orthodox women might decide to take up Islam tomorrow, then switch to Hinduism, then back to Judaism, and then spit on everything and open a bordello. See the difference?


As to my Jewish identity God forbid some rebbi will start telling me of what is or what is not Jewish and threaten me with physical consequences. I will tell that rebbi to go suck his own.....

[bararallu]

Kind of the same as the concept of the "lying Jew".

No not realy. We don't have a theological (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/004628.php) directive to lie, mislead, obfuscate and whitewash.

"“Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish it through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible..., and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory. ...One should compare the bad consequences entailed by lying to those entailed by telling the truth, and if the consequences of telling the truth are more damaging, one is entitled to lie…"

and talking of obligatory, violent genocidal Jihad is obligatory to all Muslims if what they consider Dar-Al-Islam is usurped by dhimmis and other infidels.

[Agnosthiest]

Why don't you attend a crime prevention seminar and ask about stumbling through the streets drunk in the middle of the night wearing skimpy clothing?

Getting drunk, dressed like a hooker, walking all alone in the middle of the night in a dangerous neighborhood.

My friend, a fool like that would get in trouble regardless of anything. Even if its a muslim woman living in saudi arabia, such a fool would find ways to bring harm to herself.

[Mediocrates]

Considering most of those women are

Pros
Cops
Men


I wouldn't worry about it too much.

[redcake]

Though it is clear to any intelligent person that lying is part of the human condition, they single out Muslims as particularly and singularly dishonest.

That would be an oh so great response if I had insinuated that Muslims were predisposed to lies as some form of genetic malady as had been the libel against Jews... but irregardless of the human condition, or the Koran's two faced take on fibbing, I am telling you that with each and every post I read on message boards where Muslims snake around the issues, it forces me to wonder if even you are aware how deceptive and contradictory you come off. In the end, you're as unapologetic as any extremist.

So long as the neighbors or the wife don't go to the police anything is permissible. Do American Christian men call Amnesty International when they beat their wives??? Whose being dishonest now?

You Andak. You are. We have battered women hotlines, women's shelters, and laws which are meant to stop the very behavior that Saudi Arabia has legalized. We have justice prevention statistics, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/rape.htm, and studies by independent organizations http://www.rainn.org/statistics/index.html and there is nothing even remotely close to that which exists under Islamic rule. You know this, but you play dumb, because you say dumb things which you feel momentarily support your arguments. Now if you really want to put the accuracy of a human rights report on the USA, with one of Saudi Arabia, or Iran, then obviously your question about who is being dishonest was meant to be rhetorical and self deprecating.

You are a self clowning oven.



What I suggested is that effecting change for these issue is seemingly worth hundreds of thousands if not millions of deaths to you and fifty Iraqs. You are all for violent regiem change so that women will be forced not to wear a hijab anywhere ever even if they wish to.

Huh? Please don't put words into my mouth.
I do think the liberation of women as third class citizens is an important issue but if you think I've suggested military action, then quote me on it, or hush up.

The hijab should be a matter of choice, not government enforced law based on ISLAMIC TEXTS. Rather then take the side of humanity and just agree with that statement, your response has been to claim these laws have nothing to do with Islam. Say what?


You don't care what the human cost of such regiem change is, so long as the Muslims of the world are forced to act exactly like good Americans, despising their own religion and praising Israel at every opportunity.

You're obviously on auto-pilot.


What do you have to say about the Orthodox Jewish stance on women's equality? Anything? Would you be OK if we invaded Israel and started ripping off Jewish women's wigs, telling them they are "free"?

a) The treatment of Orthodox women is not even close to the epidemic of abuse in the Arab Muslim communities, and your knee jerk equivalency is tiring and desperate. You will never substantiate the comparison, so don't make it.

b) It's a shame you can only reduce the issue to head coverings, because in your warped brain, you found a vague similarity and decided to run with it. Sorry, but there is nothing close to Shari'a law imposed on Israeli women. There are no online petitions for teenage girls facing death sentences in Israel, like in Iran.

c) Nobody has even suggested an invasion in context with head coverings, so again when faced with facts you can not refute, and your own contradictory words, you resort to hyperbole. I guess you read a great defense of the Hijab, and you're hungry to use it, but it's of no help to you in this discussion no matter how randomely you try and fit it in.



Heathen slut is your term. Why don't you attend a crime prevention seminar and ask about stumbling through the streets drunk in the middle of the night wearing skimpy clothing? I know, I know. I'm just an extremist for mentioning such a thing. You'd really be in just as much danger if you stayed home sober at night behind locked doors. That's why I revel in my freedom by going to the worst part of town with a handful of credit cards and cash singing "We're in the money!"

All lunacy aside, you might want to step away from that particular gender rights issue, since feminism clearly isn't your strongpoint. Hate to break it to you, but chastising women for the consequences of their personal right to wear what they want, is hardly a strong argument for the Burqa, which is in actuality just another form of objectification.

Let's revisit what you said:
However, there are many, many more opportunities for rape to occur in a country where women routinely get drunk in public while wearing skimpy clothing versus a society where women dress modestly, tend to stay at home and are chaparoned whenever they are in public. If Saudi men are indeed committing more rapes, I'd be curious as to how they have an opportunity to do so.

Are you actually arguing that Islamic countries where women have no rights at all have less hate crimes against women? Wow, let's hope you're not a reflection of Islams more moderate teachings either then.

[redcake]

My friend, a fool like that would get in trouble regardless of anything. Even if its a muslim woman living in saudi arabia, such a fool would find ways to bring harm to herself.

I know right! Totally asking for it.

What percentage of the hundreds of thousands of yearly sexual assualts against women do you estimate are due to wanton behavior, and short skirts? According to RAINN, 73% were victimized by someone they knew, and 40% of rape victims are under aged.

So there you go! We're talking about the horrible treatment of women in America... now can you cite some RAINN like stats for Saudi Arabia? Otherwise that makes this whole comparison point of yours kinda incomplete.

Or better yet, can you tell us what the Koran might say about those wanton women crawling around dark alleys in short skirts? That would probably offer us some more insight into your statements about these "fools" who "bring harm to themselves".

[Agnosthiest]

I know right! Totally asking for it.

You seem to have missed my point. I am not talking about rape. Certainly not generalizing it! I am talking about a fool. Fools always get in trouble.

In the west a foolish girl dress like a hooker, stay in bars up to the wee hours and get drunk and walk home all alone in a dangerous neighborhood, carelessly exposing herself to every imaginable horrors.

In arabia a foolish girl will carelessly fornicate, and open herself up to being stoned to death.


Thankfully those kinds of fools are rare in both places. Right? :)

[redcake]

So you're taught to blame the victims of sexual assualt and stonings, both in the US and Saudi Arabia?

What do you think is more foolish? Some careless fornication, or stoning a girl for it, hmm?

[Agnosthiest]

So you're taught to blame the victims of sexual assualt and stonings, both in the US and Saudi Arabia?

For me, a little blame goes to the victims in those scenarios.

[andak01]

That would be an oh so great response if I had insinuated that Muslims were predisposed to lies as some form of genetic malady as had been the libel against Jews... but irregardless of the human condition, or the Koran's two faced take on fibbing, I am telling you that with each and every post I read on message boards where Muslims snake around the issues, it forces me to wonder if even you are aware how deceptive and contradictory you come off. In the end, you're as unapologetic as any extremist.

It is snaking around the issue when you say: "Talk about the MUSLIM obligation of wife beating." and I deny that there is such a thing. Then I try to talk about any aspect of Islam that doesn't prove that there is an obligation of wife beating (which there isn't).

Suppose I start a thread Jewish Debate on Judaic Matzo made of Children's Blood and refuse to allow you to deny that such a thing exists. I'm sure I could cherry pick something out of the Torah or Talmud to bolster the point. Would you be dishonest to defend yourself?

You Andak. You are. We have battered women hotlines, women's shelters, and laws which are meant to stop the very behavior that Saudi Arabia has legalized.

The Saudi Royalty also drinks alcohol. Are you going to prove to us that alcohol is Halal as well?


We have justice prevention statistics, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/rape.htm, and studies by independent organizations http://www.rainn.org/statistics/index.html and there is nothing even remotely close to that which exists under Islamic rule.

Nor in most of the third world. I'm not aware of such studies in Thailand for example, or the Congo or Brazil or China or India.

Huh? Please don't put words into my mouth.
I do think the liberation of women as third class citizens is an important issue but if you think I've suggested military action, then quote me on it, or hush up.



The hijab should be a matter of choice, not government enforced law based on ISLAMIC TEXTS.[/qutoe]

If they are basing it on Islamic text then forcing the woman to do it cannot be part of that. "There is no compulsion in Religion." That is an Islamic text.

[quote]Rather then take the side of humanity and just agree with that statement, your response has been to claim these laws have nothing to do with Islam. Say what?

Oh. So now there is the side of humanity versus the side of Islam? Is that it? How blatantly condescending can you get?

All lunacy aside, you might want to step away from that particular gender rights issue, since feminism clearly isn't your strongpoint. Hate to break it to you, but chastising women for the consequences of their personal right to wear what they want, is hardly a strong argument for the Burqa, which is in actuality just another form of objectification.

I've never argued for the burqah or even the hijab. What I'm arguing for is a woman's right to wear what she wants without social stigma, and that includes a hijab.

Are you actually arguing that Islamic countries where women have no rights at all have less hate crimes against women? Wow, let's hope you're not a reflection of Islams more moderate teachings either then.

Specific to rape, I'm quite certain that the incidence of rape is comparable to any other third world country and that economics and education play a much greater role than religion. Fact is, neither of us can do more than speculate minus some solid statistics.

I would absolutely love to see the rape statistics of India versus Pakistan. One statistic we do have is AIDS levels. They are pretty well documented and they are lower throughout the Muslim world. By 400% over North America and close to 1800% over Sub Saharan Africa.

Middle East and North Africa Adult HIV prevalence (%), 2005 0.2
http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/global?page=cr06-00-00
Sub Saharan Africa %5.9
http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/global?page=cr09-00-00
Caribbean %1.2
Eastern Europe and Central Asia %0.9
North America %0.8
Western Europe %0.3

[redcake]

One statistic we do have is AIDS levels. They are pretty well documented and they are lower throughout the Muslim world.

None of these nations are accurately reporting cases of HIV.


Suppose I start a thread Jewish Debate on Judaic Matzo made of Children's Blood and refuse to allow you to deny that such a thing exists. I'm sure I could cherry pick something out of the Torah or Talmud to bolster the point. Would you be dishonest to defend yourself?]

Go for it, and see how it plays out.
Hope you can find a Jewish theocracy with these laws on their books, and endless cases of oppression in the modern world to back it up!

If you honestly believe the Islamic subjugation of women is made up fiction meant to libel Muslims, akin to the myth that Matzoh is made from Jewish blood... then we can add that to the list of reasons you should not be taken seriously.

[andak01]

If you honestly believe the Islamic subjugation of women is made up fiction meant to libel Muslims, akin to the myth that Matzoh is made from Jewish blood... then we can add that to the list of reasons you should not be taken seriously.

Good grief. You don't know your own religion. That's blood from little Christian kids!

Seriously, you've told me on this forum that Islam promotes the killing of young girls. That is the sickest sh(t i've ever heard. Some of the things you say are just as libelous as the Matzoh myth.

If you want to heap scorn on the Saudi Royal family from dawn to dusk, call for the imprisonment of Bin Laden or the end of terrorism, I'm with you. But stop telling lies about my religion. Admit that it is just possible that we are subject to scheisters as bad or worse than Jim Jones or David Koresh.

But you can't can you. You think the Quran is evil and we are evil and you are willing to turn your gaze from any suffering that we must endure until Islam is no longer Islam. BTW, how's that project in Iraq going? In Afghanistan? Have they achieved women's rights after two invasions and forced democracy? How many entire families will have to die before they can understand how humane we are?

Make sure you live up to what you say you do. Otherwise you're next. 200,000 troops are going to enter Israel. Destroy the infrastructure, fire the police force and send the IDF home with no pay and their guns and ammo. There won't be any jobs and foreign fighters will be streaming across your borders to disrupt the invasion, loot your museums and kidnap your citizens. Of course, with no jobs and no money and no food, the IDF, decent folk that they are will allow their families to starve to death rather than fight the occupation army. And to top it all off, if they do fight, we'll call them terrorists and treasonous barbarians. If you don't like it, then you just don't have the stomach for democracy. So you'd better take the scaps we give you and meet security goals, or you'll be called cowards or worse. Sounds fair to me.

What gets me is, you can't conceive of any of that as inhumane, but keeping a woman from working is.

[redcake]

Get a grip.

Your attempts to marginalize several soveriegn nations and their active Islamic courts as nothing more then cults is immature and uneducated.
Jonestown resulted in 1000 deaths, at most. It's membership was regional, and far from a worldwide militarized movement run by organizations with dilpomatic ties. Unlike Islamic clerics who rapidly champion Islamic texts, Jim Jones discredited the scriptures.

Google the name Atefeh Rajabi and let me know if you can figure out how Islam played a role.

[andak01]

Get a grip.

Your attempts to marginalize several soveriegn nations and their active Islamic courts as nothing more then cults is immature and uneducated.

In fact, it is quite inconvenient for you. If there are moderate Muslims, after all, how can you destroy us? You might have to resort to political and legal rather than military means, and that could just take FOREVER! Instead, why not marginalize us all to the point that we must take up guns? After all, you've got assistants on the other side who are more than willing to accept us after we've been driven from polite society. I'll tell you why not, because the facts will not hold up your illusions of the future. THERE WILL BE NO CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS! The neo-con cause is dying. Bin Laden's cause is dying.


Google the name Atefeh Rajabi and let me know if you can figure out how Islam played a role.

And why don't you google Meir Kahane. If you don't agree with every word he says, you're not a Jew. What a ridiculous load of cr#p. You telling me that I can't be Muslim unless I follow the words of someone I frankly couldn't care less about. Is Atefeh Rajabi a Sahaba of the Prophet (SAW)? Is he of the tabeyeen? The next generation? I thought so.

[redcake]

Atefeh Rajabi was a 16 year old girl sentenced to death by an Islamic court for "crimes against chastity".

[andak01]

Atefeh Rajabi was a 16 year old girl sentenced to death by an Islamic court for "crimes against chastity".

Interesting case. First of all, it was in Iran. While I can't speak for Shiite Sharia laws, particularly those enacted by the extremist revolutionaries since Khomeini's return, I can report the reaction of the Muslim townspeople. They were shocked and appalled.

I can also ask, were there four reliable witnesses to sexual insertion and was the man charged equally to the woman? Because, if those conditions were not met, then the punishment cannot be carried out under Sunni Sharia. BTW, I haven't heard of a single execution in the Arab world where those conditions have been met. Executing people that do not meet the conditions for execution is contrary to Sharia. In fact, it's nothing more than a fear tactic aimed at terrorizing the populous. And that sort of tactic is clearly against Islam.

I would ask again. Were the policemen who rape prisoners stoned to death as is the punishment of the Prophet (SAW)?

No. No. No. and No. Every aspect of Sharia law as misinterpreted by these tyrants is to the disadvantage of women. Men who commit crimes against women are given a free ride and that is in direct contradiction to the Sunna.

[redcake]

Mullah's sentenced her to death in an Islamic country.
67 million Iranians are victimized by life under these laws.

The rest is trivial.

No discussion over the validity of the death or the number of witnesses changes that.. but it is interesting that your response implies such an execution would have been acceptable if certain conditions had been met.

p.s. maybe you should have googled before you compared her to Meyer Kahane?

[KettleWhistle]

And why don't you google Meir Kahane. If you don't agree with every word he says, you're not a Jew.
Care to back up this statement?

[andak01]

Mullah's sentenced her to death in an Islamic country.
67 million Iranians are victimized by life under these laws.

The rest is trivial.

The rest is not trivial. I am with you being against such laws, but I don't have to throw out my religion to do so. That execution was contrary to Islam and they are not practicing Sharia, but rather a government operated oppression of women.

No discussion over the validity of the death or the number of witnesses changes that..

It changes the LEGALITY of the procedings under Sharia law. So, if you can provide that there were the required witnesses to sexual insertion and that the man was punished same as the woman, I will admit this example as a legal Sharia. As it is, you can't and it is contrary to Sharia.

but it is interesting that your response implies such an execution would have been acceptable if certain conditions had been met.

Yes. Four reliable, pious witnesses to sexual insertion would essentially equate to treason in a theocracy whose very basis is modesty.

[redcake]

You apparently don't understand what she was executed for. She confessed to unchastity. They killed her because "she liked sex". No witness needed....but truthfully, I could care less if there were 4 witnesses or 40 witnesses required by Islam...it's wrong either way. Your admission seems to be that this is sanctioned though unlikely... well it's happening, and that's the proof.

I'm not a Muslim, so the purity of your religion concerns me very little. That's your battle, not mine, and from the sound of your theory on short skirts, it's pretty clear where your empathy lies when it comes to tarty little girls.

This is how Islam is being practiced in nations ruled under Sharia law, and that's all that matters. Whether it's your personal belief in sharia has little relevance to the 35 children currently awaiting execution in Iran.

It doesn't help your case to lump a ruling from a Shari'a court in as "government operated oppression", like say, that of Morroco's penal code Article 418, does it? "Murder, injury and beating are excusable if they are committed by a husband on his wife as well as the accomplice at the moment in which he surprises them in the act of adultery."

[Parsi]

People often think that Islam is an all-good religion or that it's only some Muslims or cultures that implement/practice the religion badly.

Well it's certainly true that different cultures have certain influences on the way they practice Islam, but the problem still has a deep root elsewhere.

The main problem is Islam itself. Islam does NOT look "good on the paper" at all as some of you mentioned. The more you study (as oppose to humming the Arabic without understanding) Quran, the more you can see the contradictions and the intolerant nature of the religion.

I can confidently say that many of the problems (religious-motivated terrorism, religious-motivated abuse, hatred, etc...) that are often associated with Muslims can be attributed to Islam itself.

I must also say that MANY Muslims who are unaware of the dark spots in Quran/Islam are very decent people and I'd have no problem with them whatsoever.

It would be wrong to say that Muslims are wife-beaters, but it's also a legitimate objection to say that Quran authorises beating a disobedient wife once all other measures have been exhausted. Yes, Islam is full of such recipes.

[bararallu]

People often think that Islam is an all-good religion and that it's some Muslims all cultures that implement/practice the religion badly. Well it's certainly true different cultures have certain influences on they way they practice Islam, but the problem is not here. The main problem is Islam itself. Islam does NOT look "good on the paper" at all. The more you study (as oppose to humming the Arabic) Quran, the more you can see the contradictions the in intolerant nature of the religion.

This is a point that many post Muslims like Ibn Warraq and Ali Sina make but it's not wholly compelling, since it comes real close to anthropomorphising a belief system. The Quran, like the Bible is a rambling assortment of quotes that can promote or denote all sorts of proscriptions and taboos. Islam itself is not a living entity, and the Quran, objectively, does not come ex nihlo. The concerning part of it, from an outsiders perspective, is at the foundation it's a short history of a militarily and politically ambitious pseudo tribe of Arabs coming in contact with more advanced civilizations, and then given the accident of geopolitical circumstances (mistaken for providence) they are able to defeat said civilizations and trumpet the success.

Then the whole affair is crystallized in pious canon and propagated as a model life. Amidst all the metaphysics and legalities of it, there is a sure thread of cultural norms and acceptable, even proscribed behavior, that was not invented by Mohamed (in fact it anti dates him by many millennia), but for the most part sanctioned by his example to his ideological progeny. Just pick up any history of pre Islamic Araby and it's plain as day. Look at the Nabatean Arabs circa 200 BCE, a polity grown fat by raiding and extortion of Egyptians, Judeans and Greeks. The fundamentalist reading of the Quran then becomes a formula for endless warfare and oppression, much like life was in the hard sands of Arabia, me and my brother against my cousin and so on.

[andak01]

but truthfully, I could care less if there were 4 witnesses or 40 witnesses required by Islam...it's wrong either way.

It's a theocracy. When the Catholic Church ruled, women were also executed for that sort of thing. In a theocracy, a moral crime equates to treason. And treason is generally a capital crime. Even so, witnesses are required.

Your admission seems to be that this is sanctioned

No. In fact I said that the execution that took place would not be sanctioned under Sunni Sharia. A woman saying she likes sex is not a capital offense.

I'm not a Muslim, so the purity of your religion concerns me very little. That's your battle, not mine, and from the sound of your theory on short skirts, it's pretty clear where your empathy lies when it comes to tarty little girls.

It should be. I don't think she should have been executed. On top of any other objection I may have, it was not an Islamic act to do so, not within Sunni Islam, and not; to my knowledge within Shia.

This is how Islam is being practiced in nations ruled under Sharia law, and that's all that matters. Whether it's your personal belief in sharia has little relevance to the 35 children currently awaiting execution in Iran.

No. I'm not just stating my opinion on this matter. This requirement of four witnesses to sexual insertion was confirmed to me by a scholar who studied in Saudi Arabia. That madame is Sharia. This incident is something else.

It doesn't help your case to lump a ruling from a Shari'a court in as "government operated oppression", like say, that of Morroco's penal code Article 418, does it? "Murder, injury and beating are excusable if they are committed by a husband on his wife as well as the accomplice at the moment in which he surprises them in the act of adultery."

That is the unwritten law in some states here. They've codified what many American police assist in. However, let me remind you that Morocco is not a Sharia state, even by claiming to be.

Now, let's talk about admissions. You obviously think that the laws of Morocco and Iran and every other state run by Muslims are wrong whether or not you've actually read their statutes. How do you propose to change those laws? Would that be through invasion or by plotting coups with ex-patriots? And do you think that such a course will, in the end save more lives than it will destroy?

[redcake]

That is the unwritten law in some states here. They've codified what many American police assist in.

"Many American police assist" in it? Laughable. I think it's safe to say you have officially just replaced SteveK as the most succesful joke profile ever...you can not be for real.

Morocco's Article 418 has no unspoken equivalent in the US, not even in a "crimes of passion" defense...but your attitude towards a law permitting men to kill their cheating wife in the act as something that's commonplace is...well sadly typical.

The point is, that while Morocco isn't a full on Shari'a state, it is officially a Muslim country, with sharia family codes, and perosnal law, which are full of misogynist restrictions even after reformed the law books. (cas.uchicago.edu/workshops/mehat/past_conferences/Masid.pdf) Rape is again treated as a moral issue, women have to get permission to marry, their are cases of forced marriage, forced virginity exams, divorced women lose gaurdianship of their children, women are subject to employment restrictions and there have been cases of honor killings in the smaller more backwards villages....and it goes on and on. Article 8, which is meant to protect womens rights is worded improperly, which means in some cases, women aren't even considered full citizens.


Now, let's talk about admissions. You obviously think that the laws of Morocco and Iran and every other state run by Muslims are wrong whether or not you've actually read their statutes. How do you propose to change those laws? Would that be through invasion or by plotting coups with ex-patriots? And do you think that such a course will, in the end save more lives than it will destroy?

Yeah...Anyway.

Parsi's post above sums it up well, and I think it's a bit late since you've already made several ranting posts calling me a neo-con, and all the other hysteria.

[andak01]

Morocco's Article 418 has no unspoken equivalent in the US, not even in a "crimes of passion" defense...but your attitude towards a law permitting men to kill their cheating wife in the act as something that's commonplace is...well sadly typical.

I'm interested in where you get your information about Moroccan statutes. Is that a Moroccan legal site? Who is combing through their laws and to what end?

The point is, that while Morocco isn't a full on Shari'a state, it is officially a Muslim country, with sharia family codes, and perosnal law, which are full of misogynist restrictions even after reformed the law books.

Whether you've actually read them or not, they must be full of it. I'll have to take your word for it. Or I could ask my sister-in-law who is studying to be a lawyer in Morocco. Do you want to undergo that kind of scrutiny? Does it bother you that a woman can be a lawyer in Morocco? Or to be more specific, the daughter of an imam can be a lawyer in Morocco and her father has no objections. Oh gosh! Sorry to pop your stereotypes.

Rape is again treated as a moral issue, women have to get permission to marry, their are cases of forced marriage, forced virginity exams,

There are cases, there are cases? Are these according to Sharia law?

[redcake]

Read the article I linked to, THEN reply.
cas.uchicago.edu/workshops/mehat/past_conferences/Masid.pdf
Try this one too, while you're at it:
http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=178

It works better that way, and then you don't accidently compare kids who were executed by Islamic courts to Meyer Kahane.

Morocco has been updating their laws, and things are improving, but The Moudawana is based on Maliki Law, Shaira, Fikh, http://www.pbs.org/hopes/video.html#morocco and Morocco's criminal codes show Islamic influence as well.

Here are the revised family codes as of 2004:
http://friendsofmorocco.org/Family%20Code.htm

The problem is these revised rights aren't complete, and cotnradict other laws on the books, and most of all, they aren't being extended to smaller poor villages where many women aren't even aware of any change on the books http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=178.

Remember, Morocco has a 40% illiteracy rate, and 60% of that are women.

[andak01]

Remember, Morocco has a 40% illiteracy rate, and 60% of that are women.

Which is worse than it was a thousand years ago when they did live under Sharia. Illiteracy is not part of a religion whose first revealed word is "READ!"

[bararallu]

Then there's that little Berber (http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/people/highlights/010423_berbers.shtml) problem...

[andak01]

Unbelievable hypocrisy here.

http://www.freedomhouse.org/ccrfiles/Website/CACMap/index.html

Look at this map where Freedomhouse has undertaken to rank human rights by nation. Morocco BTW falls in the middle somewhere. America, Europe and Israel don't receive any rating. India doesn't receive a rating, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Mexico, Panama don't get any rating. This is a map of Americas enemies and allies. Columbia gets a BEST rating! Guyana, which has a very high Muslim population also gets a BEST. Panama, Chile, Argentina get a free ride. India and Israel get another free ride. Countries like Tajikistan that we use for rendering the tortured get a free ride.

[andak01]

Then there's that little Berber (http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/people/highlights/010423_berbers.shtml) problem...

There's a little Native American problem here.

http://gbgm-umc.org/news/2001/may/oildrilling.htm

http://indianz.com/News/2006/014138.asp

[redcake]

That's the best refutation you could muster, Andak?

Ignore the subjective information in the Moroccan report, and pay attention to the penal codes.

Speaking of which, why is a dowry required by law before one can marry a woman? Ever hear of the Ulema Council?

[bararallu]

Forgot the last time the US or Canada forbid the use of inuit or cognate, or forced good anglo-saxon and french names onto aboriginal populations to make them more caucasian, but hey ethnic cleansing is ethnic cleansing. :rolleyes:

Now I'm just waiting for Berber casinos to arrive... :)

[andak01]

Forgot the last time the US or Canada forbid the use of inuit or cognate, or forced good anglo-saxon and french names onto aboriginal populations to make them more caucasian, but hey ethnic cleansing is ethnic cleansing. :rolleyes:

Now I'm just waiting for Berber casinos to arrive... :)

I know Berbers. They consider themselves Moroccan first, at least those who are Moroccan. Any Berber "cause" is coming externally as a means of forcing regiem change. There isn't a single Berber culture. Everyone from the inhabitants of the Atlas mountains to the blue men of Timbuktu are Berber. Their dialects are mutually incomprehensible and they have no common shared culture. My own father-in-law speaks a dialect of Berber and probably has Berber blood.

[bararallu]

I know Berbers.

I too know Berbers or rather Amazighs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazigh) as many of them prefer to be called.


They consider themselves Moroccan first, at least those who are Moroccan.

Sure, as much as Chechens consider themselves Russian, or Kurds consider themselves Turks or Persians consider themselves Arabs.

Any Berber "cause" is coming externally as a means of forcing regime change.

All the causes in the press and from their own mouths seem to be "internal," or at least pan-Berber (Algerian, Libyan, Mauritanian, and most of all Moroccan) unless you have proof of external agitation... if anything the internal Arabist Islamists will try to agitate the ethnic unrest for their own cynical reasons rather than some other African cause or Bush or THE JOOS. But I for one cant find any valid source to substantiate external funding, organization or training, unlike say Saudi, Syrian, Jordanian, Iranian, and Egyptian hands in Israel's internal affairs. Or do you mean the issue of Western Sahara and Moroccan attempts at disenfranchising the Berbers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahrawi) there?

There isn't a single Berber culture.

There isn't a single Jewish culture, or a single "Moroccan" culture either.

Everyone from the inhabitants of the Atlas mountains to the blue men of Timbuktu are Berber

And far more so before the invaders came, both European and Arab. Many have been brainwashed, like some Kurds (http://www.cfr.org/publication/9237/ansar_alislam_iraq_islamistskurdish_separatists_.h tml) have been by the Arabs. Most are not.

Their dialects are mutually incomprehensible and they have no common shared culture.

Ashkenazi and Yemenite Hebrew are mutually incomprehensible in speech (unless you've gotten used to both) but are 100% so on paper. Han Chinese speak Mandarin and Cantonese, mutually incomprehensible in the same manner. Both represent one people.

My own father-in-law speaks a dialect of Berber and probably has Berber blood.

Funny enough so do some relatives of mine by marriage, a whole family that speaks Judeo-berber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-Berber) at home. They also have a thing to say about Arab Moroccan treatment of their other former countrymen. Thats how, in fact, I was introduced to the whole Berber culture.

The fact is, in the Middle East AND the Maghreb the more Arab you are the more rights you enjoy and, conversely, the more suffering you face as minority, even a Muslim one. We need not only look to the Maronites and the Copts, the Berbers can and will eventually speak for themselves, in however many dialect they choose to speak. ;)

[andak01]

I too know Berbers or rather Amazighs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazigh) as many of them prefer to be called.

Oh really? Name two. You've stayed at their homes? Worked with them? Prayed with them? I have.

Sure, as much as Chechens consider themselves Russian, or Kurds consider themselves Turks or Persians consider themselves Arabs.

No comparison to the Chechens.

Or do you mean the issue of Western Sahara and Moroccan attempts at disenfranchising the Berbers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahrawi) there?

Western Sahara is Arab imperialism versus Spanish imperialism.

There isn't a single Jewish culture, or a single "Moroccan" culture either.

There is a single Moroccan dialect of Arabic. That is not so of Amazigh.

And far more so before the invaders came, both European and Arab. Many have been brainwashed, like some Kurds (http://www.cfr.org/publication/9237/ansar_alislam_iraq_islamistskurdish_separatists_.h tml) have been by the Arabs. Most are not.

No more or less brainwashed than American Indians and certainly not treated any worse.

Ashkenazi and Yemenite Hebrew are mutually incomprehensible in speech (unless you've gotten used to both) but are 100% so on paper. Han Chinese speak Mandarin and Cantonese, mutually incomprehensible in the same manner. Both represent one people.

Why is it that an Arab conglomaration of multiple cultures is up for regiem change and a non-Arab one such as one finds in Spain is not? Certainly the Basques are angrier and struggling harder for separation than the Berbers.

Funny enough so do some relatives of mine by marriage, a whole family that speaks Judeo-berber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-Berber) at home. They also have a thing to say about Arab Moroccan treatment of their other former countrymen. Thats how, in fact, I was introduced to the whole Berber culture.

OK. But I wager that's much more of a religious anti-semitism than anti-Berber sentiment. Not that that doesn't make me sad too.

[redcake]

There is a single Moroccan dialect of Arabic. That is not so of Amazigh.


That is an ignorant and unintetionally antisemitic statement.
Ever hear of Judeo-Arabic? Il‘arabiyya dyalna shares it's lineage with the Maghrebi style Arabic, and accounts for the Sefriwi JA dialect, and the Fez-Laslau and Tafilalt dialects to name three. There are specific phrases, like "Hi how are you" which are comepletely unique, blend both hebrew, and arabic together and would require translation for your Moroccan-Arabic speaking family.


Now back to the topic at hand.... this article confirms much of the Freedom House report:

http://www.qantara.de/webcom/show_article.php/_c-478/_nr-545/_p-1/i.html?PHPSESSID=5

There further confirmation from this LA Time travel section article based on eyewitness reports in 2005, a year after the laws were revised in favor of Women's rights:

"My companion, a European who lives in Marrakech, spoke sharply to the man, then ruefully told me that wife-beating was still perceived to be a husband's right in Morocco. And that's in the rapidly modernizing city. In the countryside, women live as they did in the Middle Ages, Herbecq, the founder of Atelier Beldine, told me.
I suspect you can gauge the true economic and spiritual success of a community by whether its women thrive." travel.latimes.com/articles/la-tr-spano23oct23

But if you still refuse to accept the validity of these claims, how about the Islamic Human Rights Commission? Here's a case of an Islamist being targeted for his affiliation to a radicalist Muslim group known for lobbying stricter islamic laws, and sentenced him for..... adultery!

http://www.ihrc.org.uk/show.php?id=2583
http://www.metimes.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20070331-070426-5019r

So now we have conclusive evidence that in Morocco a) adultry is illegal, and b) a dowry is required for women before a marriage license is issued.
All lawmakers, and the ruling party credit this to Islamic law.

Then we see how these laws effect Morrocan's even outside their country:

www.spiegel.de/international/ germany/0,1518,473017,00.html
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/03/22/europe/EU-GEN-Germany-Quran-Divorce.php

So what are we to make of Muslims in this forum who swear this stuff is just biased, or outright fictional, because it conflicts with popularized modern Islam's attitude towards women, all while implying that women can be responsible for the abuse against them?

[bararallu]

Oh really? Name two. You've stayed at their homes? Worked with them? Prayed with them? I have.

The nature of the Internet precludes this sort of courtesy, but admittedly I do not pray with them but rather from whom I buy groceries (and take a car service now and again). There surprisingly are a few in Williamsburg living on the outskirts of the big Hasidic community. If you're in NY, you can find them yourself, many happily and vocally supporting Israel at the chagrin of their Arab co-religionists. Ironically, from my experience, they are more Zionist than their Satmar neighbors LOL. A comparable point can be made for the few Israeli Beduins that live in likewise proximity to another Hasidic neighborhood.

No comparison to the Chechens.

Not yet anyway. Hopefully what it wont take on is Wahhabi style religious overtones. It really depends more on the long term integrity of the Berber leadership than anything else.

Western Sahara is Arab imperialism versus Spanish imperialism.

Agreed, with the Berbers stuck in between. Not an unfamiliar sounding story to the Jews.

There is a single Moroccan dialect of Arabic. That is not so of Amazigh.

True but not altogether relevant. My simple point was, & I don't think it warrants further debate: Amazigh is a culture and an ethnicity, not exclusively a linguistic self defining concept. Even so, ALL Amazigh dialects are closely related, as a distinct subgroup of hamito-semitic, or more recently typed Afro-Asiatic, certainly not Arabic, Western or Eastern.

No more or less brainwashed than American Indians and certainly not treated any worse.

Sure why not, and each have a path and prerogative for self determination. I hope the best for both.

Why is it that an Arab conglomeration of multiple cultures is up for regiem[sic] change and a non-Arab one such as one finds in Spain is not?

I don't know about "regime change" are you poking fun at a bushism? If you're talking self determination, I totally would voice support for the Basque or even the Catalan succession from Spain, or Corsica and Alsace-Lorraine from France or Sicily from Italy or Scotland & Wales from Britain... if it was not violent and represented the majority will. Smaller, more directly responsible states, ethnic based or not, in loose economic development zones are far better, in my opinion than gigantic, unrepresentative bureaucracies that, say, the EU was gearing up to become. In "voicing support" I wouldn't want to have Israel, say, sending arms to violent revolutionaries anywhere, perhaps except to those places that directly or indirectly support insurrection against the territorial integrity of my country. Only fair.

Certainly the Basques are angrier and struggling harder for separation than the Berbers.

Basques are way richer and have been organized for hundreds of years and have things like their linguistic and cultural heritage protected from further Hispanic attrition (not sure how the French contingent fares). The Basques will definitely have their day, will the Berbers?

[andak01]

I tell you bararallu, my first Moroccan friend was a Jew from Fez. He still goes back there every year buying artifacts from around the country. In some ways I owe him my marriage. He explained to me the steps for getting my wife's visa and recommended a lawyer for me to consult.

All this talk reminds me that we haven't spoken in some time.

[andak01]

Redcake, I suggest you read your own articles. Paragraph 1:

BERLIN: A German judge cited the Quran in arguing that a Muslim woman seeking a divorce came from a cultural background in which men may use corporal punishment against their wives, drawing condemnation Thursday from political and Muslim leaders.

Why would Muslim leaders object to a judge citing the Quran if the citation was done in an accurate manner? According to you, all us Muslims love beating our wives because the Quran tells us to. Why would any of us be offended to hear it? BECAUSE NONE OF US INTERPRET IT THAT WAY!!! This is a non-Muslim interpretation of the Quran that we can beat our wives with impunity. It is a non-Muslim interpretation that we must kill all infidels if they don't convert. It is a non-Muslim interpretation that the Quran tells us we get 72 virgins.

from the same article
Representatives of Germany's Muslim population were also critical of the ruling. The country's Central Council of Muslims said that the judge "absolutely should have ruled in line with the German constitution."

"Violence and abuse of people — whether against men or women — are, of course, naturally reasons to warrant a divorce in Islam as well," the group said in a statement.

I'm sorry, how could you possibly overlook that Muslims in Germany made a public stance against violence and abuse?

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/03/22/europe/EU-GEN-Germany-Quran-Divorce.php

[Gunther]

Does anyone notice that people like andak seem to keep pointing out the good things Islam says about women but have not commented on the negative things(that beating your wife is OK). I would like to ask the Muslims on this site this. Do you think its ok to beat you wives(including if you have already gone through you steps of refusing her your bed etc)? If you don't then do you think what the Koran says is wrong?

In my opinion I dought that the Muslims on this site beat their wives. But I do wonder if thier religioun makes them more likely to condone it in others.

[bararallu]

Do you think its ok to beat you wives(including if you have already gone through you steps of refusing her your bed etc)? If you don't then do you think what the Koran says is wrong?

mein freund, get ready to receive one convoluted answer. :D

[redcake]

Andak - we're debating the EXISTANCE of Islamic laws which protect and even encourage violence.... approval for such laws is secondary. We're still arguing over their existance, remember?




Why would Muslim leaders object to a judge citing the Quran if the citation was done in an accurate manner? According to you, all us Muslims love beating our wives because the Quran tells us to. Why would any of us be offended to hear it? BECAUSE NONE OF US INTERPRET IT THAT WAY!!! This is a non-Muslim interpretation of the Quran that we can beat our wives with impunity. It is a non-Muslim interpretation that we must kill all infidels if they don't convert. It is a non-Muslim interpretation that the Quran tells us we get 72 virgins.

Wow, so it's all one great big conspiracy, huh?
How do you spell apologist, Andak?

[andak01]

Does anyone notice that people like andak seem to keep pointing out the good things Islam says about women but have not commented on the negative things(that beating your wife is OK).

I have commented many, many, many times. Beating your wife is not OK. The Quran doesn't say that it is. And if there is any doubt about it, the Sunna has clarified it further. You are not permitted to do anything resembling beating your wife. Nothing permitted by fiqh would get you arrested if you did it directly in front of a policeman.

I would like to ask the Muslims on this site this. Do you think its ok to beat you wives(including if you have already gone through you steps of refusing her your bed etc)? If you don't then do you think what the Koran says is wrong?

What the Quran says isn't wrong. If I act as a protector to my wife, I cannot beat her in any sense of the word that is abusive. Put another way, I simply can't beat her. What is permitted by fiqh is a tap, not a punch or a slap.

In my opinion I dought that the Muslims on this site beat their wives. But I do wonder if thier religioun makes them more likely to condone it in others.

It doesn't. And if I knew of a man beating his wife, I would be as likely to turn him in as anyone of any other faith. It's absolutely reprehensible to believe that, by virtue of our religion, we have a lowly regard for women. It's also exceedingly naive to believe that wife beaters of any ilk are driven by religious duty rather than stupid rage and their own upbringing. Wife beaters are sons of wife beaters and the victims are daughters of victims regardless of their religion.

[redcake]

So Islam authorizes "taps", which created a climate where women can be severely beaten, or killsed at the order of a religious cleric. A study was done recently which said 25% of women polled in Syria admitted to domestic abuse. Look it's great that moderate interpretations exist, but it doesn't erase the behavior of tens of millions of Muslims.

It's absolutely reprehensible to believe that, by virtue of our religion, we have a lowly regard for women.

Is it reprehensible that the Koran doesn't authorize women to "tap" their husbands?

Is it reprehensible that women are restricted to less inheritance then a male?

Is it reprehensible that a male's testimony is valued above a woman's, and that two female witnesses make up the value of one man?

Is it reprehensible that financial compensation paid for a woman who is murdered or injured is less then that paid for a man?

[bararallu]

I wonder how many rings one can wear and still give out these toughlove taps?

Now on a completely different but, strangely enough related, matters: has any one seen two older Arabs get in a scuffle? If the answer is no, then you've got a great bit of entertainment coming your way. One time, I was at one of the gates of the old city, and there was loud shouting so I decided to investigate. I found two Arabs both in their mid to late 40's "fist" fighting. Now folks this was not the UFC, not even the squared shoulders and old school Irish style fist rolling. No, it was exaggerated slapping, & back slapping. I mean like combos, but instead of a jab and an uppercut or a straight, two grown men were doing the hay maker pimp dance. It floored me. Ok, sorry about that, had to share.

[Mil]

I don't know about Muslim wives but God forbid you mess with our lovely Jewish ones... :) And especially with our mother-in-laws....

[andak01]

A study was done recently which said 25% of women polled in Syria admitted to domestic abuse.

Why don't you study fiqh and see if there is a causal relationship before spreading lies. Again, Syria is not a Sharia state. And please, please, please be honest about your motives. You don't give a rat's a$$ about Syrian women who get killed or abused. All you crave is some excuse to invade Syria or have it invaded for you.

Because if you cared about women's rights, you'd complain about abuse in Liberia, the Congo, Thailand, Poland. You'd care about human traf in India. You'd care about the MILLIONS of female abortions there. You'd care about sweat shops. You'd care about women being raped and tortured to death and set on fire near the border of Mexico by POLICE! You'd care about child molestation here in the US. But you don't. you want to make the Arabs the bad guys of the world and pray that every Arab regiem will be toppled.

Look it's great that moderate interpretations exist, but it doesn't erase the behavior of tens of millions of Muslims.

It doesn't have to. If 100% of the Muslims in the world killed their wives (an act that you seem to relish), that wouldn't change a word of the Quran. There was a time when most of the able bodied Christian men were raping their way to Allepo. I wouldn't judge Christianity based on that. But that's me. There was a time when almost all the Jews under Joshua were busy committing total genocide on the 12,000 of the tribe of Ai, including the women, children and animals. I don't judge Judaism based on that. But that's me.

Is it reprehensible that the Koran doesn't authorize women to "tap" their husbands?

The Quran requires a dowery of the woman's chosing from the man and the equivalent of a prenuptual agreement so that the woman can be protected financially. The Quran does not allow the man to sleep around. The Quran requires that a man protect and support his wife while also allowing her to work and keep whatever money she makes for herself if she wishes.

Is it reprehensible that women are restricted to less inheritance then a male?

Males don't receive a dowery and are not promised a roof by their parents.

Is it reprehensible that a male's testimony is valued above a woman's, and that two female witnesses make up the value of one man?

That isn't always the case. With rape, there is only the witness of the woman required.

Is it reprehensible that financial compensation paid for a woman who is murdered or injured is less then that paid for a man?

I can't speak on this matter, because I'm not sure of the rules there. But again, the woman has other venues for financial security that are not available to a man.

[Agnosthiest]

Andak - we're debating the EXISTANCE of Islamic laws which protect and even encourage violence.... approval for such laws is secondary. We're still arguing over their existance, remember?

Originally Posted by andak01

Why would Muslim leaders object to a judge citing the Quran if the citation was done in an accurate manner? According to you, all us Muslims love beating our wives because the Quran tells us to. Why would any of us be offended to hear it? BECAUSE NONE OF US INTERPRET IT THAT WAY!!! This is a non-Muslim interpretation of the Quran that we can beat our wives with impunity. It is a non-Muslim interpretation that we must kill all infidels if they don't convert. It is a non-Muslim interpretation that the Quran tells us we get 72 virgins.

Wow, so it's all one great big conspiracy, huh?
How do you spell apologist, Andak?

Technically Andak is correct here. The highlighted text is simply ridiculous.

Islam tolerates wife beating, but that doesnt mean that all muslims love doing it, nor does it mean they do it with impunity.

[andak01]

I don't know about Muslim wives but God forbid you mess with our lovely Jewish ones... :) And especially with our mother-in-laws....

God does forbid it. Under Sharia, Jews are not subject to Muslim family law, whatever you may conceive that to be.

[redcake]

Uh. Show me where I've said ALL Muslims beat their wives? Meanwhile Andak is saying these laws are 100% non-existant in Islam.
Show me where I've supported military action on behalf of womens rights?

Andak, you keep trying to attack me personally....when I questioned Moroccan laws, you asked if I really "wanted that scrutiny" as if *I'm* the one being scrutinized rather then the laws in question, and you've gone on multiple rants about me and how blood thirsty I am. Now you're claiming I have a bias against Arabs, when I've been arguing on behalf of Arab Israelis in other threads in this forum. It's silly, just like talking about Christians in Allepo, or Jews at the time of Joshua is contextually silly. Of course there are tons of crimes against women and children worldwide, but right now, and right here, we're talking about an epidemic of abuse towards women in Arab/Islamic nations. I think that topic is important and deserves some intellectual honesty without distraction. So I suggest you stop putting words in my mouth, and start accounting for your own.

[andak01]

Uh. Show me where I've said ALL Muslims beat their wives? Meanwhile Andak is saying these laws are 100% non-existant in Islam.
Show me where I've supported military action on behalf of womens rights?

You haven't supported ANYTHING on behalf of women's rights. You aren't interested in women's rights except as they relate to defaming Islam.

Andak, you keep trying to attack me personally...

You get what you give. I felt a little bit emboldened the tenth time you called me a liar and the fifth time you called me an anti-semite.

when I questioned Moroccan laws, you asked if I really "wanted that scrutiny" as if *I'm* the one being scrutinized rather then the laws in question,

The laws are being scrutinized to an extraordinary degree if they are in Muslim countries. What about the laws of China, Thailand, Peru? Women suffer in all of those places, often in slavery conditions. But it doesn't matter to you if they aren't Muslim.

and you've gone on multiple rants about me and how blood thirsty I am.

Bloodthirsty? Well let's say you are good at turning your back on Muslim suffering if that doesn't serve your politics. A woman being beaten for not wearing a hijab makes your radar, a woman attacked in Florida for wearing one does not.

She was physically and verbally assaulted by three people who told her to "get out of (America)" and said her religion is "hateful and violent." ... During the assault, one of the attackers allegedly grabbed the victim's throat and attempted to remove her head scarf. The perpetrators fled when the victim ran to find mall security officers.

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/077880.htm

An Iraqi woman was struck across the face with a toolbox and her hijab was tugged in a racist attack in Kilburn, north-west London.

The 25-year-old was was attacked on Kilburn High Road on 5 December. As she turned, her attacker spat on the ground and shouted racial abuse before hitting her with the toolbox and attempting to pull off her hijab.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/4074647.stm

The woman was attacked in Liverpool by a man shouting racist abuse, the day after the former foreign secretary criticised veils that cover the face.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/5415478.stm

In one incident a Muslim woman aged in her 20s had her hijab or headscarf pulled off her head and thrown to the ground by a young white man while she was at Canning Town Tube station in east London. The attack happened on the same day that a Muslim woman had the veil torn from her face by a white man who uttered racial abuse as she waited at a bus- stop in Liverpool's Toxteth district. Both incidents occurred last Friday - the day after Mr Straw described the veil as, "a visible statement of separation".
There were also reports that a young Muslim girl wearing a veil in Mr Straw's Blackburn constituency was confronted by three youths last Friday night. One allegedly threw a newspaper at her and shouted: "Jack has told you to take off your veil."

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article1870842.ece

Now you're claiming I have a bias against Arabs, when I've been arguing on behalf of Arab Israelis in other threads in this forum. It's silly, just like talking about Christians in Allepo, or Jews at the time of Joshua is contextually silly.

Those two are unrelated. A) You do have a bias against Arabs. I don't care about that a whit. You have a bias against Islam. I don't care about that either. You detest violent crimes committed against Muslim women. I'm with you. You want to convince us that Islam supports violence against women. That's what I have a problem with. Nothing more. B) That point about Allepo concerns condemning a religion based on the actions of people who claim to follow it.

My problem is, a claim of violence as a core belief creates an unshakeable stigma for Muslims, the sort of thing that make people rip the hijabs off pious women's faces, pious women who were the hijab by choice. And I wonder would you care if they were ripping the habits off of nuns instead, or the yarmulkes off Jews?

Of course there are tons of crimes against women and children worldwide, but right now, and right here, we're talking about an epidemic of abuse towards women in Arab/Islamic nations. I think that topic is important and deserves some intellectual honesty without distraction.

Of course you do. It is distracting to note that among third world countries and women's rights, Arab countries fall in the middle somewhere.

[redcake]

You haven't supported ANYTHING on behalf of women's rights.

You have no idea who I am, or what I do outside this forum, and my posts here are consistant enough that you called me "Madaam" and long term members here have assumed my gender must be female. Ultimately, what I do to support women's rights shouldn't be in question, but you couldn't refute my posts pertaining to Morocco, so you're trying to attack my character.


You aren't interested in women's rights except as they relate to defaming Islam.

That would be what this thread is about, eh? Defaming Islam? Kind of shows where your priorities are. This may be confusing to you, but when people want to discuss the human rights violations of the Islamic nations, it's not out of a desire to defame the Islamic religion. Muslims do a fine job defaming it all on their own.



The laws are being scrutinized to an extraordinary degree if they are in Muslim countries. What about the laws of China, Thailand, Peru? Women suffer in all of those places, often in slavery conditions. But it doesn't matter to you if they aren't Muslim.

Start a thread about China, Thailand, and Peru if you would like. Your constant attempts to derail any thread about politicized Islam, whether it's talking about other religions, or shallow comparisons to cults, is incredibly transparent, and hurts your cause more then it helps.



Bloodthirsty? Well let's say you are good at turning your back on Muslim suffering if that doesn't serve your politics.

You've already demonstrated that you haven't a clue what my politics are when you called me a neo-con.




A woman being beaten for not wearing a hijab makes your radar, a woman attacked in Florida for wearing one does not.

You then go on to post some articles about hate crimes towards women who wear a Hijab. Still desperate to work in this Hijab angle? Frankly, it's offensive that you would pick some sporadic incidents of intolerance towards women wearing a head scarf and equate it to the issue we're attempting to confront here: institutionalized oppression towards women in Islamic states. You're right though, I'm much more concerned with women being abused in accordance to a soveriegn nations laws then I am of some random hate crimes. Good one!


A) You do have a bias against Arabs.

You're a White Christian born Muslim convert, and I have Iraqi ancestry and family who only speak Arabic. I think my bias is against idiots.

My problem is, a claim of violence as a core belief creates an unshakeable stigma for Muslims, the sort of thing that make people rip the hijabs off pious women's faces, pious women who were the hijab by choice.

Yeah, it's a problem huh? Instead of pretending it's a conspiracy theory, or Muslim nations aren't Muslim, why don't you try another strategy and admit to the problems, and their influences within the religion, and confront them. Your denial isn't helping the stigma. You just reaffirm a slew of stereotypes instead. As did your short skirt theories.


Of course you do. It is distracting to note that among third world countries and women's rights, Arab countries fall in the middle somewhere.

It's kind of irrelevant. If you wanted to talk about NABLA and pedophilia in the USA, why would I insist on trying to change the topic to sex tours in Thailand or the Phillipines? At some point it represents a certain dishonesty that you refuse to talk about the poor human rights climate in Islamic nations without taking it as an afront to your religion...the afront to your religion was supposed to be the whole Shari'a system itself...but you can't keep your apologist defense straight.

[andak01]

You have no idea who I am, or what I do outside this forum, and my posts here are consistant enough that you called me "Madaam" and long term members here have assumed my gender must be female. Ultimately, what I do to support women's rights shouldn't be in question, but you couldn't refute my posts pertaining to Morocco, so you're trying to attack my character.

What you do to support women's rights is neither in question nor in conflict with what I believe, up to the point that you tell me that the Quran is in conflict with decent treament of women.

That would be what this thread is about, eh? Defaming Islam? Kind of shows where your priorities are. This may be confusing to you, but when people want to discuss the human rights violations of the Islamic nations, it's not out of a desire to defame the Islamic religion.

Except when it is clear that human rights violations in general don't interest them. Because a woman raped by a Muslim is more raped than one raped by a non-Muslim and one killed by a Muslim is more dead than one killed by a non-Muslim.

Start a thread about China, Thailand, and Peru if you would like. Your constant attempts to derail any thread about politicized Islam, whether it's talking about other religions, or shallow comparisons to cults, is incredibly transparent, and hurts your cause more then it helps.

I have indeed attempted such a thing and members felt it extremely insulting to be drawn off target from slinging mud at Islam, even when the comparison to ten million female abortions by Hindus or six million dead Jews in Christian hands causes Muslim crimes to pale in comparison. Mentioning such facts is simply insulting to those wishing to portray a myth of Muslims as a monolithic and singular evil.

You've already demonstrated that you haven't a clue what my politics are when you called me a neo-con.

I see. So you wouldn't support an invasion of Iran to save all the sixteen years old from being hung?

You then go on to post some articles about hate crimes towards women who wear a Hijab. Still desperate to work in this Hijab angle? Frankly, it's offensive that you would pick some sporadic incidents of intolerance towards women wearing a head scarf and equate it to the issue we're attempting to confront here: institutionalized oppression towards women in Islamic states.

As you know, I'm against institutionalized oppression of women. I'm against it whether or not it occurs in Islamic states. What you're implying is I can't continue to be Muslim and not support oppression of women. That's a load of dung.

You're right though, I'm much more concerned with women being abused in accordance to a soveriegn nations laws then I am of some random hate crimes. Good one!

Random? If those were non-Muslim women abused on the street by Muslim men, we'd never here the end of it! In fact we never do. Every single crime committed by a Muslim in Europe hangs around in the news for years.

[Gunther]

Because if you cared about women's rights, you'd complain about abuse in Liberia, the Congo, Thailand, Poland. You'd care about human traf in India. You'd care about the MILLIONS of female abortions there. You'd care about sweat shops. You'd care about women being raped and tortured to death and set on fire near the border of Mexico by POLICE! You'd care about child molestation here in the US. But you don't. you want to make the Arabs the bad guys of the world and pray that every Arab regiem will be toppled.

Andak01, I think you have a very good point, but the motives of the person presenting the facts does change wether they are facts, and the fact is that this is a major problem in the Muslim world. Also in my opinion wife beating is not even the worst problem Muslim women face, at least if you get beat you will probably survive, what about "honor killings", what about the fact that women who get raped are often killed by thier family's and have to run often causing them to get raped again. I am not trying to defame Islam or say its evil, all I am saying is that thier are problems that must be addressed.

[andak01]

Welcome to Israel forum. The problems of human rights and women's rights are issues that Muslims can grapple with. We certainly recognize those things as problems. But I will not sit and attribute Muslim crimes to our religion. Further, as I have had years to read and reread the verses of the Quran and the Hadiths that non-Muslims constantly point to, I've discovered that their meaning in no way resembles what I'm being told by them and much more resembles what I'm being told by my own Muslim sources. That is, oppression of women is not Islamic, period.

What redcake is loudly and repeatedly screaming is that I can't say that, that it's insulting, that if I don't come out and slam the Quran and spit on the Sunna, I'm not fit for decent society, that it's not enough to be against abuse of women, one must also be against the Quran and the Sunna and every institution built from them. Sorry, no deal!

You want me to donate to my local women's shelter, write a letter of protest to the King of Syria, house an abused woman? Fine. But demand that I omit verses from the Quran or refuse to interpret them the way that you think I must? No deal!

[redcake]

What redcake is loudly and repeatedly screaming is that I can't say that, that it's insulting, that if I don't come out and slam the Quran and spit on the Sunna, I'm not fit for decent society, that it's not enough to be against abuse of women, one must also be against the Quran and the Sunna and every institution built from them. Sorry, no deal!

Seriously, show some maturity. I haven't said anything close to that.

There are problems in the Islamic countries. That is what we're addressing, not your personal beliefs or paranoia.

[Gunther]

set on fire near the border of Mexico by POLICE!
The US system of immigration has a lot of problems, but I find it hard to believe that the police are setting people on fire. Can you post the source?

[andak01]

320 women tortured and murdered, the police do nothing and may even be involved. That sounds more or less precisely the sort of thing you are complaining about in Arab countries (except this is on a much larger scale). The Sharia aspect of honor killing is nil. As you can see, the legal right to it is protected in several non-Arab countries, including Israel. So I'll stand by you redcake completely to repeal such laws wherever they exist. But I won't do so on the dishonest grounds that it is protected by Islam.

Honor killing is forbidden in mainstream interpretations of Islam.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing#_note-9) There is no specific mention of the practice in the Qur'an (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur%27an) or Hadiths (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadiths) except in so far as the custom of killing baby girls to protect the family honor, which is specifically condemned in the Qur'an, was a form of honor killing. An honor killing refers specifically to extra-legal punishment by the family against the woman, and it is often argued that this is technically forbidden by the Sharia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia) (Islamic law).

The Special Rapporteur indicated that there had been contradictory decisions with regard to the honor defense in Brazil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil), and that legislative provisions allowing for partial or complete defence in that context could be found in the penal codes of Argentina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentina), Bangladesh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh), Ecuador (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecuador), Egypt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt), Guatemala (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemala), Iran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran), Israel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel), Jordan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan), Lebanon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanon), Peru (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peru), Syria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria), Venezuela (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuela) and the Palestinian National Authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_National_Authority).[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing#_note-11)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing

More than 320 girls and women have been killed in Juarez in the past nine years. About 90 of the murders involved methods associated with serial killers, according to FBI profilers and other experts who have examined the cases.

"Unfortunately, our authorities, they don't have the desire or the capacity to stop this," De Garcia said.
The murders have included mutilation, torture, rape, stabbing, and shooting, and bodies have been found in clusters. The murders continue despite official assurances each time that the perpetrators have been caught.
Cover-ups, contaminated evidence, witness intimidation, and a corrupt system filled with incompetent officials -- eager to charge someone so they can declare the cases closed -- have sabotaged the investigations, critics say.

"We were asked to help plant evidence against two bus drivers who were charged with the murders," former Chihuahua state forensic chief Oscar Maynez Grijalva told the El Paso Times in a copyright story in its Sunday editions.



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,59373,00.html

[Agnosthiest]

320 women tortured and murdered, the police do nothing and may even be involved.

Now that is culture specific.


Yeah muslims try blame the Ummah's honor killings on culture too. But how come these things are popular among muslims? Partly because of culture? No problem. But it is also PARTLY due to Islams averse opinion of women. Like this...


Narrated 'Aisha: The things which annul the prayers were mentioned before me. They said, "Prayer is annulled by a dog, a donkey and a woman (if they pass in front of the praying people)." I said, "You have made us (i.e. women) dogs. I saw the Prophet praying while I used to lie in my bed between him and the Qibla. Whenever I was in need of something, I would slip away. for I disliked to face him." - Sahih Bukhari 1:9:490

[Illuminatus]

[.. Men are (meant to be righteous and kind) guardians of women because Allah has favored some more than others and because they (i.e. men) spend out of their wealth.

(In their turn) righteous women are (meant to be) devoted and to guard what Allah has (willed to be) guarded even though out of sight (of the husband).

As for those (women) on whose part you fear ill-will and nasty conduct, admonish them (first), (next) separate them in beds (and last) beat them.

But if they obey you, then seek nothing against them. Behold, Allah is most high and great. ..]

----------------

If she fails/refuses to obey, wife beating in order to force compliance is permitted - as a last resort.

Case closed. You may lock the thread.

^_^

[redcake]

Here's the next sentence of the Wiki entry Andak linked to:

Though Israel is mentioned in the report, Israeli law does not allow for "family honor" as a defense in murder, partially or completely[15].

The wiki also states these acts have occured "within (within the Arab, Druze and Bedouin communities)[7]". Meanwhile, Honor Killings in Israel are followed up by murder investigations, because they don't have any equivalent to Article 418 in Morocco.

So again, Andak relies on distortions and lies to make his argument.

As you can see, the legal right to it is protected in several non-Arab countries, including Israel. So I'll stand by you redcake completely to repeal such laws wherever they exist. But I won't do so on the dishonest grounds that it is protected by Islam.


In addition to the verses in the posts above mine, the Koran is full of stuff like this which has given license to Islamic countries. These aren't obscure translations or verses, either, these are popularized and accepted to the degree that clerics utilize them within Islamic nations.

"... And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable; but men have a degree (of advantage) over them. And Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise." Sura 2:22

[andak01]

Case closed. You may lock the thread.


It seems now you are an expert on fiqh, as well as an expert on the Arab language, by virtue of having read a single verse in translation! What an accomplishment! Again, it seems inconvenient and insulting to you that any Muslim would interpret this verse as other than wife beating is acceptable, desireable, etc. We don't just use a translation of the Quran to tell us what it means, although it would be impossible to beat one's wife while following that verse to the letter. How can one be a guardian and an abuser at the same time?

[andak01]

In addition to the verses in the posts above mine, the Koran is full of stuff like this which has given license to Islamic countries.

Full of stuff? You are full of stuff. By the time you or anyone else reads the Quran after being preconditioned to hate Islam, you are sure to find nothing but evil in it.

A perfect example is how you zeroed in on a single word of the verse cited. Daraba! Aha, must mean the worst form of wife beating, because it's in the Quran. Though Arabic allows it ten or twelve other meanings, that MUST be the one. And though the same verse says a man must be a Guardian, let's think Abu Graib. It's a Muslim after all, must be a prison guard! So you mull over every single word looking for the worst possible connotation, and voila! You succeed.

[Illuminatus]

It seems now you are an expert on fiqh, as well as an expert on the Arab language, by virtue of having read a single verse in translation! What an accomplishment! Again, it seems inconvenient and insulting to you that any Muslim would interpret this verse as other than wife beating is acceptable, desireable, etc. We don't just use a translation of the Quran to tell us what it means, although it would be impossible to beat one's wife while following that verse to the letter. How can one be a guardian and an abuser at the same time?One of the most common and convenient responces from Muslims regarding the Qu'ran is when a non-Muslim reads or points out a Quranic verse, it's suddenly a "translation". No real surprise in what was an anticipated responce. If it's a "translation" and its used by a non-Muslim than its wrong. How convenient.

The University of Southern California provided the translation, (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran) along with this disclaimer:Please keep in mind that ANY translation of the Qur'an will most definitely contain errors (e.g. see our online list of corrections). We have provided three translations here to emphasize this point. In its natural language (Arabic), the Qur'an is the direct Word of Allah (God) to mankind through the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Any translation of the Qur'an no longer retains that 'official' and perfect status, however it can be tremendously helpful to beginning students wanting to learn more about Islam.

Since Allah only speaks Arabic, here's a remider that my own Bible is translated in 1,400 languages and dialects including dozens of tribal-Arabic dialects. The Bible speaks loud and clear to each and every one of us. Any personal relationship with God in any language is " 'official' and perfect status".

The side show on translations is nice -- now back on topic --

Wife beating in any language or translation means exactly that - you beat your wife to enforce obedience ("not in the face, lightly and only as a last resort"). Of course slamming her head into the wall is not "the face" -- and as long as it doesn't break her skull you can consider that "lightly" -- last resort? hey.... whose going to tell?

^_^

[.. How can one be a guardian and an abuser at the same time? ..] Whether its mass-homicide bombings or Islamo-Fascism, How many times can I enumerate the contradictions?

[Agnosthiest]

How can one be a guardian and an abuser at the same time?

When the Guardian cant see his own actions as abusive?

What do you think...is the last resort of hitting a disobedient wife without leaving a mark non-abusive?


Full of stuff? You are full of stuff. By the time you or anyone else reads the Quran after being preconditioned to hate Islam, you are sure to find nothing but evil in it.

A perfect example is how you zeroed in on a single word of the verse cited. Daraba!

andak, please. why are you blaming us when we only show you how arabs are using those verses. we dont just read the koran out of our whims. we read the violent verses in the koran and we see its mirror in the actual muslim-arab world. wife beating, veils, half inheritance, half testimony, amputation, dhimmification, jihad-wars. Thats reality, my friend. Dont blame us. Blame your own.

Please. :)


I see some nice teachings in the koran. Like this..

Your Lord has decreed that you should worship none but Him and that you should show kindness to your parents. Whether one or both of them reach old age with you, do not say "Ugh!" to them out of irritation and do not be harsh with them, but speak to them with gentleness and generosity. Take them under your wing, out of mercy, with due humility and say: "Lord, show mercy to them as they did in looking after me when I was small." (Qur'an, 17:23-24)

very nice. :)

[andak01]

One of the most common and convenient responces from Muslims regarding the Qu'ran is when a non-Muslim reads or points out a Quranic verse, it's suddenly a "translation".

It isn't suddenly a translation, it is always a translation. A translation from a 14 century old text to a language not in the same language family.

No real surprise in what was an anticipated responce. If it's a "translation" and its used by a non-Muslim than its wrong. How convenient.

What is no real surprise is, I'm not allowed to interpret the Quran by Islamic methods, only by your method. There is nobody out there saying that we should go home and beat our wives because of what the Quran says except for people like yourself. It says more about you and your own desires and stereotypes for Muslims than anything about the Quran.

Since Allah only speaks Arabic, here's a remider that my own Bible is translated in 1,400 languages and dialects including dozens of tribal-Arabic dialects.

The Bible speaks loud and clear to each and every one of us.

Which Bible??? The Catholic Bible or one of several versions of the Protestant Bible?

Any personal relationship with God in any language is " 'official' and perfect status".

Wife beating in any language or translation means exactly that

Sorry, but the verse doesn't mention wife beating.

Of course slamming her head into the wall is not "the face"...

Neither is killing her, eating her liver and making her into a lampshade. Are you going to prove to us that the verse says that as well?

.. How can one be a guardian and an abuser at the same time? ..] Whether its mass-homicide bombings or Islamo-Fascism, How many times can I enumerate the contradictions?

Oh, so you think Islamo-Fascism is a contradition of the Quran? So do I! A terrorist who takes innocent lives is not a guardian to anyone.

[Illuminatus]

Sorry, but the verse doesn't mention wife beating.

....and you are using what to back up that claim?

-- I have dozens including IslamOnline.net that says its there.

^_^

[Illuminatus]

Mufti of Egypt Sheik Ali Gum'a:

Wife-Beating Is Permitted by Islam in Muslim Countries, but Is Forbidden in the West.

Memri TV put this clip of this debate on YouTube >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4mpwqwg2MY

^_^

[Agnosthiest]

What is no real surprise is, I'm not allowed to interpret the Quran by Islamic methods, only by your method.

the methods we use usually come from Yusufali, Pikthal & Shakir. thats not ours. the egyptian imam who got in trouble in spain for writing a book on islamic wife beating...has nothing to do with us.

how you interpret the koran is your business. but as long as your POV is in the tiny minority, you cannot expect us to side with you. :)

[Illuminatus]

004.034

YUSUFALI: 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 whose part ye 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).

PICKTHAL: Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

SHAKIR: 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.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/004.qmt.html

[Agnosthiest]

Even Rashad Khalifa (founder of the 19er sect), translated it as beat:


34. The men are made responsible for the women,** and GOD has endowed them with certain qualities, and made them the bread earners. The righteous women will cheerfully accept this arrangement, since it is GOD's commandment, and honor their husbands during their absence. If you experience rebellion from the women, you shall first talk to them, then (you may use negative incentives like) deserting them in bed, then you may (as a last alternative) beat them. If they obey you, you are not permitted to transgress against them. GOD is Most High, Supreme.

http://www.quran.org/sura4.htm

Notice how userfriendly was his choice of words, and yet couldnt go around the 'beat' part.

[andak01]

And I read it like this (see below). How could you seek to harm one of God's creatures and still respect Him? How could you fail to be a protector and guardian by harming your wife? How could you follow the prerequisites, all of them and still arrive angry enough to beat a woman in any sense of the word?

But what I think and what other Muslims think has no importance, particularly when it clashes with the MEMRI centric view of Islam that is being pushed out to the web. If Islam is indeed a religion of peace then you can't easily destroy it. If we don't stand for something that borders on insanity, then you can't denigrate us. You'll have to deal with us within your own communities instead of shoving us to the very edge of society. And that's exactly what you will have to do, because the lies you are telling are being exposed everyday.


004.034

YUSUFALI: 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 whose part ye 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).

PICKTHAL: Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

SHAKIR: 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.

[Illuminatus]

And I read it like this

Now I see how you read the Qu'ran.

You read (and like) some parts and ignore the parts not agreeable to Westernized, "moderate" Muslims living in the West.

........explains everything.

"if they obey you"

^_^

[redcake]

Andak, for the billionth time, the way you read it only effects what goes on in your household. We're talking about the way another substantial group of Muslims read it.

The people we're talking about are pretty easy to identify. How? Because they are pretty up front with their beliefs. We're not talking about all Muslims, but we are talking about Muslims.

Oh and in case you forgot, we still don't have to deal with translations at all:

Sunni
http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/Fatwa/ShowFatwa.phplang=A&Id=56312&Option=FatwaId
http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/Fatwa/ShowFatwa.php?lang=A&Id=23672&Option=FatwaId
http://saaid.net/Doat/Najeeb/f122.htm
http://hadith.al-islam.com/display/Display.asp?Doc=0&Rec=7644

Shi'ite
http://www.rafed.net/books/fegh/menhaj3/menhaj1.html
http://www.ansar.org/arabic/radee3ah.htm
http://www.alshirazi.com/compilations/jar/horryat/part7/1.htm
http://www.makaremshirazi.org/books/arabic/resaleh/r26.htm

There goes that excuse.

[andak01]

Andak, for the billionth time, the way you read it only effects what goes on in your household. We're talking about the way another substantial group of Muslims read it.

It's the way I read it and my imam and my father-in-law and everyone I know. We aren't a race of wife beaters. But excuse me, I'm getting in the way of your attack.

The people we're talking about are pretty easy to identify. How? Because they are pretty up front with their beliefs. We're not talking about all Muslims, but we are talking about Muslims.

If the imam says that a man can't leave a mark, that is not beating in any criminal or other sense of the word. When women go to shelters, they are photographed for bruises. If what was done doesn't leave a mark (and I don't mean internal injuries), then it's not wife beating. She wasn't punched, she wasn't slapped, there isn't even a red mark. And forget about what the women would have to do to arrive at even that point, how many days would have to pass, how many times she would be enjoined not to desert, not to be unfaithful, not to be disloyal. Evidently a woman is to have no responsibilities at all within the marriage according to you.

You ignore the responsibilities accorded to a man by the Quran. The marriage can be dissolved if the man doesn't provide full financial support to his wife. In return, his wife has zero responsibility to support him.

Again, I'll take a fuqaha (expert in figh), have him tell me precisely the extent of this verse and perform daraba on my wife as a policeman watches. We'll see if I could be charged with anything. I'd have to get my wife to stop laughing first.

[Illuminatus]

If the imam says that a man can't leave a mark, that is not beating in any criminal or other sense of the word.

SAY AGAIN?? "no mark - no beating"? as in Billy-boy Klintoon saying "no intercourse, so we had no sex"?

-------------

There's a best seller making its rounds in the Middle East called "Women in Islam" written by the Learned and Highly Esteemed Imam Mohamed Kamal Mustafa (of Fuengirola, Spain) -- 122 pages in Arabic.

excerpt:The blows should be concentrated on the hands and feet using a rod that is thin and light so that it does not leave scars or bruises on the body.As andak01 explained - no mark no beating.

[andak01]

SAY AGAIN??!?!? no mark? no beating?

HUH?

I'll say again, in front of a policeman. And if he so much as stops me, I'd be shocked. It's tapping her shoulder with a toothbrush is what it ammounts to. That is Sharia. Pure Sharia. Not a decision arrived at by reading a verse and interpreting it yourself.

You are saying more about your own violent nature than anything about Islam by your interpretation.

[Illuminatus]

We went from bad translations, to

the words wife "beating" not being in the Qu'ran, to

all that it amounts to is just a harmless [.. tapping her shoulder with a toothbrush ..]

we're slowly getting there ^_^

[andak01]

we're slowly getting there ^_^

Just where is it you want to go? Anywhere that freedom of religion is allowed? Anywhere that respects God? Is your motivation love and respect for women? I seriously doubt it.

We haven't come from anywhere or arrived at anywhere. You began with a sick, hateful opinion of Islam, you're still filled with sickness. It isn't disagreement, it's a sort of repulsion that wouldn't allow you to see me or anyone of my religion as human beings. Disagreement is something different. It isn't dehumanizing or attacking.

Fortunately people like you don't run things. I know, because I've met politicians and business leaders on the local and national level and (in business) international. None of them resemble you and your pathetic bigotry.

[Illuminatus]

this toothbrush should do the trick -- guaranteed to maintain obedience in the house!

http://www.greatbigstuff.com/toothbrush.html

^_^

[redcake]

Andak - this may be a puzzling to you, but that whole thing about the male being soley responsible for contributing to an Islamic marriage?... in a modern society, that's considered to be another form of MISOGYNY. Now what were you saying about the Koran's bias aganist women?

By the way, I'm much more partial to the folded hankercheif over the toothbrush. What props does the Koran authorize women to use as lashing props towards their husbands?

[andak01]

Andak - this may be a puzzling to you, but that whole thing about the male being soley responsible for contributing to an Islamic marriage?... in a modern society, that's considered to be another form of MISOGYNY. Now what were you saying about the Koran's bias aganist women?

Well so is any public display of orthodox religion of any sort. I doubt you would put up with Orthodox Judaism as regards prohibitions. A man is not allowed to marry a non-Jew. Dating is under the same restrictions as it is in Islam. Modest dress is required at all times. Women only were allowed to be rabbis very recently 1972, and that was reformed Jew, not orthodox.

http://www.jwa.org/exhibits/wov/frank/firstwoman.html

What props does the Koran authorize women to use as lashing props towards their husbands?

She is allowed to leave the husband after saying "I divorce you." three times. She is permitted to declare an ammount of her choice to be paid her upon divorce. If he commits adultery and there are witnesses, it is a capital offense. If she is raped, her witness is sufficient, and it is a capital offense. When she becomes a mother, she is accorded three times the respect given to a man. That's pure Sharia. There is no deadbeat dad, because by the time the marriage ends, the husband has already paid dowery and divorce settlement. He still is responsible for the children.

[redcake]

Well so is any public display of orthodox religion of any sort. I doubt you would put up with Orthodox Judaism as regards prohibitions. A man is not allowed to marry a non-Jew. Dating is under the same restrictions as it is in Islam. Modest dress is required at all times. Women only were allowed to be rabbis very recently 1972, and that was reformed Jew, not orthodox.


Who cares? Does any of that bother you? Because it sure doesn't bother me. The problem isn't that women can't become Mullahs, and nobody is bringing up anything close to your examples (ie. modesty of dress) so much as the fact that women can't live in Muslim countries without risking some nutjob Husband coming at them with a Braun electric toothbrush to tap the common sense into them.

If she is raped, her witness is sufficient, and it is a capital offense.

Is that accurate with the Muslim nations which have imposed Sharia law? Yes or no?

[Illuminatus]

The following are excerpts from a lecture by the Bahraini cleric, Sheik Abdullah Latif Aal Mahmoud. Bahrain TV aired this lecture on June 20, 2005

quote:

If the husband wants to use beatings to treat his wife, he must never ever do it in front of the children. It must remain between him and her.

--- It must be done according to the following conditions:

1) He must not cause bleeding or bruise her body.

2) He should avoid her face and other sensitive parts of her body.

--- As we've said, the limitations on beating are:

1) They must not cause bleeding,

2) they should not break any bones,

3) they should not be on the face, and

4) they should not bruise her.

If the husband violates these rules, he violates the rules of Allah. If she has been hurt, the husband is held liable for what he has done, because the woman is not his merchandise. He cannot do to her whatever he wants. Even if the wife forgives the husband, it does not mean Allah will do the same on Judgment Day. ..]

click to see and hear the Sheik's lecture: (http://technorati.com/videos/youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DWp3Eam5FX58)

^_^

[andak01]

Who cares? Does any of that bother you? Because it sure doesn't bother me. The problem isn't that women can't become Mullahs, and nobody is bringing up anything close to your examples (ie. modesty of dress) so much as the fact that women can't live in Muslim countries without risking some nutjob Husband coming at them with a Braun electric toothbrush to tap the common sense into them.

A miswak is not an electric toothbrush. It's a stick about half the size of a toothbrush. And if a women living in a Sharia state according to the strictest possible interpretation of fiqh doesn't wish to be tapped, her obligation is not to threaten dessertion, act disloyalty or exhibit ill-behavior after being warned and after her husband is refusing to sleep with her. If she can't stop sleeping around, or slandering her husband or destroying him financially or destroying his reputation then she still has the option of divorce by saying "I divorce you." three times. At that point, she will receive the agreed upon sum of her divorce settlement and she's free. That is Sharia. And that is NOT the way it has been working in Muslim countries, which is why Muslim women's groups are upset and are protesting what has passed for Sharia.

So you see, Sharia actually affords women many more rights than they receive under so-called Sharia states. One blatent example is forcing women to wear hijab against their will. There is zero religious value for such an act as it prevents a woman from having intention.

Is that accurate with the Muslim nations which have imposed Sharia law? Yes or no?

No. Which is why Abdul Rahman, who has studied under a Sheikh and I, who have given these questions over to a Sheikh with a master's degree in hadith studies from Saudi Arabia both say that laws oppressing women are against Sharia. It doesn't frankly matter that a government wishes to call it that. By the Sunna, a woman can't be executed for being raped. She is not only permitted, but has a duty to be educated.

[redcake]

It doesn't frankly matter that a government wishes to call it that.

Is Saudi Arabia an Islamic state with an Islamic court?
Is Iran an Islamic state with an Islamic court?

Yes, or no?

[andak01]

Is Saudi Arabia an Islamic state with an Islamic court?
Is Iran an Islamic state with an Islamic court?

Yes, or no?

Saudi Arabia has called itself an Islamic state. The Congo has called itself the People's Democratic Republic. It isn't names that define one, it's actions. According to my scholarly sources, many of the actions of the Saudi government are not in line with Sharia. At least one of the Saudi Kings was known to have a taste for wine for example.

And once again, I won't comment on Iran, because the Shiite Sharia differs from our own in ways that I'm not qualified to speak about. In fact, their Sharia is based on, among other things, a different set of Hadiths ascribed to a different chain of narration.

You are well aware that I do not hold Saudi Arabia or Iran above criticism, particularly when it comes to treatment of women. But I would like to be accurate in my criticism. To be accurate is not to say that they are behaving according to Sharia, but rather that they are defiling Sharia.

[redcake]

You didn't answer my question. I'm glad we can agree that it isn't the name that defines a nation so much as their actions, but I'll add that it's also their stated rule of law, and governing beliefs.

If I were to ask if Cuba was a nation with a Communist ideology, the answer would be yes. Rapid Communist fans with subscriptions to Workers World Daily will argue that there isn't a real Communist country, because none of them meet their utopian ideals....but they sound pretty ridiculous don't they? If Islamic clerics are setting laws, and enforcing them according to their interpretations of Islamic scriptures, then what else should we call it? Is Mecca under Islamic rule?

So once again, is Saudi Arabia an Islamic nation?

[andak01]

You didn't answer my question. I'm glad we can agree that it isn't the name that defines a nation so much as their actions, but I'll add that it's also their stated rule of law, and governing beliefs.

Frankly I couldn't say. But my Sheikh who lived in Mecca for some years and can trace his teachers back to the Prophet and has a degree in hadith study from Saudi Arabia is as certain that it isn't Sharia as I am. He's obviously a much better source of information on the subject.

If I were to ask if Cuba was a nation with a Communist ideology, the answer would be yes. Rapid Communist fans with subscriptions to Workers World Daily will argue that there isn't a real Communist country, because none of them meet their utopian ideals....but they sound pretty ridiculous don't they?

I don't think so. What Stalin practiced has almost nothing whatsoever to do with Marx and Lenin. I don't have to like Marx and Lenin to be able to see the difference.

[Agnosthiest]

I'll say again, in front of a policeman. And if he so much as stops me, I'd be shocked. It's tapping her shoulder with a toothbrush is what it ammounts to. That is Sharia. Pure Sharia. Not a decision arrived at by reading a verse and interpreting it yourself.


Hey that video at the top of the thread implies nothing about a toothbrush. Anyway there are many sharias. Can you show us a toothbrush-beater sharia from an actual muslim community?

And how about the hadith that supports that?

[andak01]

Hey that video at the top of the thread implies nothing about a toothbrush. Anyway there are many sharias. Can you show us a toothbrush-beater sharia from an actual muslim community?

And how about the hadith that supports that?

There are two Sharias, that of Sunnis and that of Shiites. Each is a legal system with its equivalent to lawyers and judges. What I'm hearing here is that Sharia must be interpreted in such a way that it is detrimental to women. I know that isn't true and there are millions of Muslims that agree with me.

Fiqh is the part of Sharia that takes place in one's personal life. It is not governed by the courts. The entire question of this thread is a matter of Fiqh, not of the courts. Due to the nature of the act, it would not be a matter of the courts in the United States either. If a man taps his wife, it is a private matter. If he abuses her, he is no longer acting as a guardian or maintainer according to that verse and he is subject to arrest in the west.

A so-called Sharia state that allows a woman to be beaten or killed for disloyalty without punishing the man who did it is acting outside of Sharia. So I would be in agreement that those laws should be revised, not because they are Sharia, but because such laws have given a bad name to Sharia and are a contradiction to it.

I do not wish to see Sharia enacted in the West. However, I wonder at the human cost of forbidding people to practice it, versus the human cost of permitting it. It seems that some people in the west would think nothing of invading, fomenting rebellions and civil wars and assassinating leaders at a cost of hundreds of thousands of lives so that women can wear skimpy dresses, go to bars and sunbathe naked at the beach.

This (destruction of 57 regiems by subversion, coup or invasion) will (in theory) prevent some honor killings and female executions. I say "in theory" because that was exactly the premise of invading Afghanistan and Iraq, bring western style government to those poor Muslim bastards! As Dr. Phil says: "How's that working out for you?"

[Agnosthiest]

There are two Sharias, that of Sunnis and that of Shiites. Each is a legal system with its equivalent to lawyers and judges. What I'm hearing here is that Sharia must be interpreted in such a way that it is detrimental to women. I know that isn't true and there are millions of Muslims that agree with me.


Lets take a look at this popular sharia...

According to Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, head of the European Council for Fatwa and Research:

If the husband senses that feelings of disobedience and rebelliousness are rising against him in his wife, he should try his best to rectify her attitude by kind words, gentle persuasion and reasoning with her. If this is not helpful, he should sleep apart from her, trying to awaken her agreeable feminine nature so that serenity may be restored, and she may respond to him in a harmonious fashion. If this approach fails, it is permissible for him to smack her lightly with his hands, avoiding her face and other sensitive parts. In no case should he resort to using a stick or any other instrument that might cause pain and injury.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia

By popular opinion, smacking (even lightly) a spouse is detrminental. So when the quran makes that advise, it is promoting a detrimental opinion of women.

Realistically small amounts of violence leads to much violence. A smacked spouse gets insulted and smacks back. (EYE FOR AN EYE), but usually gets a little harder. Then goes on a cycle of violence that eventually ends when one person gets badly hurt and is forced to surrender.

It would have been better had Mohammad shut his mouth on that matter. Its enough to say that men are the protectors of women...STOP! Right?

[andak01]

By popular opinion, smacking (even lightly) a spouse is detrminental.

Which is more detrimental, a tap or dishonesty, disloyalty or dissertion? Is a tap worse than divorce and destruction of the family unit? Is a tap worse than the social and financial ruin of the husband? You always make the assumption that the woman can do whatever she wishes with no consequence. What about the consequences to the marriage and to the children of a woman who is actively ill-behaved and disloyal to her husband? Does that outweigh communicating displeasure, followed by refusing the bed, followed by a tap?

So when the quran makes that advise, it is promoting a detrimental opinion of women.

And, I suppose along the same lines, the western alienation of broken families is not detrimental? Children growing up with visitation rights, shuttled from one parent to another and living with a dating single parent is not detrimental?

Realistically small amounts of violence leads to much violence.

If a man has violent intentions towards his wife, nothing the Quran says or doesn't say could make him stop. After all, he's ignoring being a guardian and maintainer when he harms his wife. So he would have to contradict the Quran to do so.

A smacked spouse gets insulted and smacks back.

I guess that's where he's out of luck.

It would have been better had Mohammad shut his mouth on that matter. Its enough to say that men are the protectors of women...STOP! Right?

Well you're naming yourself God now. Go write your own book! Let's see how many people are still living according to it fourteen centuries from now.

[Maimonides]

Anyone can see how women are treated in Muslim countries and communities.

wife-beating
honor killing
burqas
genital mutilation
polygamy
denied basic rights and privileges granted to men

Defenders of this type of treatment claim it is rare and/or applied moderately.

When it is shown that is not true, they always resort to the excuse that the same thing occurs in Judeo-Christian societies. "You do it too."

When it is shown that these abuses are much more common (and often tolerated) in Muslim communities and countries, they try to deflect attention by changing the subject to other Western ills.

No matter which argument or excuse is offered, however, the fact remains that Islam condones unjust treatment of women.

Know this.

Maimonides

[Agnosthiest]

Which is more detrimental, a tap or dishonesty, disloyalty or dissertion?

Your logic is flawed. It is senseless to compare the problem to a solution. What you should compare are the different alternative solutions. Instead of smacking a disloyal wife, why don’t you listen to her and think about what you did that made her behave that way? Instead of hitting her why don’t you compromise? Compromise is always the best solution to marital problems. For like it or not half of the time the wife is smarter, wiser and more capable than the man. Learn to listen.




And, I suppose along the same lines, the western alienation of broken families is not detrimental? Children growing up with visitation rights, shuttled from one parent to another and living with a dating single parent is not detrimental?

I suppose it is less detrimental. Why? Because western societies are better than muslim societies in almost every aspect. We are happier, free, progressive and more respectful of differences.


If a man has violent intentions towards his wife, nothing the Quran says or doesn't say could make him stop. After all, he's ignoring being a guardian and maintainer when he harms his wife. So he would have to contradict the Quran to do so.


I often have violent intentions towards my wife, but in the end my self control wins out. What use is religion if it cannot curve man’s beastly nature? What good is it if it serves as an excuse to be violent.


Well you're naming yourself God now. Go write your own book! Let's see how many people are still living according to it fourteen centuries from now.

Eh? I don’t think god had anything to do with the koran. So saying that some of its verses are useless does not make me a god.

Seriously, what good did that verse ever do? Wouldn’t it be better if that verse did not exist at all? Jews don’t have that kind of teaching, and their family lives have been better than muslim ones.

[andak01]

Anyone can see how women are treated in Muslim countries and communities.

wife-beating
honor killing
burqas
genital mutilation
polygamy
denied basic rights and privileges granted to men

Defenders of this type of treatment claim it is rare and/or applied moderately.

I assume you're refering to me. You're welcome to browse my posts and show me a single one where I defended any of the above. I have neither denied the existence of any of the above. In fact, regards wife-beating, it's a crime here and it should be anywhere. Honor killing is a cultural crime that doesn't appear throughout the Muslim world and does appear in many non-Muslim areas. Would you deny that Hindus have honor killings? Do you have examples of Chinese honor killings among the tens of millions of Muslims there?

When it is shown that is not true, they always resort to the excuse that the same thing occurs in Judeo-Christian societies. "You do it too."

I couldn't say that about honor killings. And I can't think of an example of an Arab being killed for designer sunglasses, or because someone "dissed" him.

Genital mutilation is a practice among both Muslims and non-Muslims in the parts of the world where it is practiced.

Polygamy isn't a common practice even in those places that permit it. Many Muslims feel that it is a practice made impossible by it's prerequisite of equal treatment.

When it is shown that these abuses are much more common (and often tolerated) in Muslim communities and countries, they try to deflect attention by changing the subject to other Western ills.

Well yes, cultural proclivities are more often found among the people who practice them. You won't find honor killings among native born American Muslims.

I happen to be a Westerner. I'm well aware of Western ills, because my own ancestors participated in them. They owned slaves. They took land from the Indians. My in-laws on the other hand have never been involved with terrorism, none of them wears a burkah, none of them was involved in an honor killing, none of them is a polygamist, my wife never heard of genital mutilation till she came to America, all of her sisters work, her father is no wife beater nor am I (though my Christian father did beat my mom a couple of times).

Thankfully, that's all behind me now, because since I became Muslim, I'm exempt from any guilt about Jim Crow laws, slavery, lynchings, etc. Instead, I get to be blamed for crimes that nobody in my family ever was involved in. Goody!


No matter which argument or excuse is offered, however, the fact remains that Islam condones unjust treatment of women.

Know this.

Maimonides

You're wrong. Know this. Read a book.

[andak01]

Your logic is flawed. It is senseless to compare the problem to a solution. What you should compare are the different alternative solutions. Instead of smacking a disloyal wife, why don’t you listen to her and think about what you did that made her behave that way?

That verse would require me to communicate my displeasure. That is the opportunity for her to say what she has to say and for me to listen. And, if that isn't enough, at least a day must pass for me to refuse my bed. That's still more opportunity for her to state her case.

Then again, there are, as you yourself have pointed out, other verses of the Quran that I can base my behavior on as well. I don't have to limit myself, as we are doing here to tunnel vision.

Instead of hitting her why don’t you compromise? Compromise is always the best solution to marital problems. For like it or not half of the time the wife is smarter, wiser and more capable than the man. Learn to listen.

There are days worth of opportunity for such a thing to happen if I follow the verse literally. Of course, if I use your interpretation, I'll be thinking of nothing but hitting her and ignoring any other points of that verse.

I suppose it is less detrimental. Why? Because western societies are better than muslim societies in almost every aspect. We are happier, free, progressive and more respectful of differences.

Until the western system comes into conflict with another society. Then it seems many people give themselves over to mob mentality.

I often have violent intentions towards my wife, but in the end my self control wins out. What use is religion if it cannot curve man’s beastly nature? What good is it if it serves as an excuse to be violent.

Or you could follow the advice of the verse and wait several days. The natural thing would be to demonstrate one's temper immediately. I don't see this verse as an excuse to be violent, rather as a prevention on violent behavior. The reason you and redcake can't do likewise is more about your preconceptions about Muslims and Islam than about what the verse actually says.

Eh? I don’t think god had anything to do with the koran. So saying that some of its verses are useless does not make me a god.

No. It says that you don't believe. Saying that I should believe the verses you think are useless are useless is intolerance. You don't have to believe a word of the Quran. Just don't tell me how to relate to my own scripture.

As far as telling me how I should behave towards my wife, we are both in agreement on that. As far as I can tell, anything you think is abusive, I'd also think is abusive. My wife is not chattle.

[Agnosthiest]

That verse would require me to communicate my displeasure. That is the opportunity for her to say what she has to say and for me to listen. And, if that isn't enough, at least a day must pass for me to refuse my bed. That's still more opportunity for her to state her case.

I agree, the verse does require you to communicate...to admonish...it stresses a one way communication. The verse does not require you to listen. And the wife's plea may as well fall on deaf ears. Too bad. Mohammad should have stressed out "Listen".


Then again, there are, as you yourself have pointed out, other verses of the Quran that I can base my behavior on as well. I don't have to limit myself, as we are doing here to tunnel vision.


Good for you.


Of course, if I use your interpretation, I'll be thinking of nothing but hitting her and ignoring any other points of that verse.

I AGREE! If I am a muslim that verse would give me the excuse I need to violently force my wife into submission. Afterall my beautiful wife is not only very intelligenct & wise, but she also has a very strong personality. When she knows shes right & im doing wrong she would rebel...admonishment and abanondonment in bed will never work. It would always come to the "final" islamic straw. SMACK! A forceful "markless" humiliating blow at the back of her head. Ooooh Im bad baby!!! Whos the man!!! :D


Or you could follow the advice of the verse and wait several days.

huh? where on earth does it say there to wait several days? refusing a bed only takes a minimum of one day.


The reason you and redcake can't do likewise is more about your preconceptions about Muslims and Islam than about what the verse actually says.


so far you are the one who goes beyond what the verse actually say. like about that "several days" thingie. or the toothbrush thingie that you cant even back up with hadiths. personally i rely on what muslims actually say & do. like that video.



No. It says that you don't believe. Saying that I should believe the verses you think are useless are useless is intolerance. You don't have to believe a word of the Quran. Just don't tell me how to relate to my own scripture.

I am only reasoning with you. I am not forcing you in any way.

Intolerance is when I actually limit the equal freedom that you deserve.


So, what good did that verse actually do in reality? Did that serve to make muslim family lives better than the jews, buddhists & christians? Or does it serve more to make it miserable?

[andak01]

So, what good did that verse actually do in reality? Did that serve to make muslim family lives better than the jews, buddhists & christians? Or does it serve more to make it miserable?

That really isn't a fair statement. Does some single verse from the Bible or the New Testament or the Book of Mormon make family lives "better"? How do you quantify that?

I think the assumption here is that women in Muslim societies are more miserable than in the West. Outside of war zones and places where anarchy reigns, that's not such an easy case to make. It's all based on a Western-centric perspective of the world that Muslim women may not have. A western woman looks at a woman in hijab and says: "I'd be miserable in that, therefore she must be." A western man looks at my own prohibition on alcohol and says: "I'd be miserable if I couldn't hang out at the bar every night."

So yes, from your own perspective, you are better and happier. Do you imagine that everyone in the world wants to change places with you? Do you imagine that everyone would? If given the chance? If forced to?

[Agnosthiest]

That really isn't a fair statement. Does some single verse from the Bible or the New Testament or the Book of Mormon make family lives "better"? How do you quantify that?

The only basis I used is the level of domestic violence between them & the muslim world. Now if you are wondering whats that got to do with their holy books, then consider that its likely not a matter of what it says but a matter of WHAT IT DOES NOT SAY regarding marital disputes.


I think the assumption here is that women in Muslim societies are more miserable than in the West. Outside of war zones and places where anarchy reigns, that's not such an easy case to make. It's all based on a Western-centric perspective of the world that Muslim women may not have. A western woman looks at a woman in hijab and says: "I'd be miserable in that, therefore she must be." A western man looks at my own prohibition on alcohol and says: "I'd be miserable if I couldn't hang out at the bar every night."

Its not really an assumption, rather a result of concerned muslims finally being heard:

Indonesia

http://www.thejakartapost.com/Outlook/pol10b.asp

One of the contributing factors to such conditions is a reading of religious texts which lacks sensitivity to women and is biased to the male perspective. In the case of Islam, the most often cited Koranic verse to support male "superiority" over woman and his "permission" to beat his wife is Q.S. al-Nisa'/4:34. Others verses include al-Nisa'/4:4 on polygamy, al-Nur/24:31 on hijab (veil), or al-Baqarah/2:282 on witness.

Saudi Arabia:

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE230732000?open&of=ENG-SAU

Turkey

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGEUR440132004

Egypt

http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/egm/vaw-gp-2005/docs/experts/khafagy.honorcrimes.pdf

Pakistan

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2958050.stm




Andak, verse 4:34 is practically worthless. It does a lot of harm and no good at all.

[redcake]

Andak: What I'm hearing here is that Sharia must be interpreted in such a way that it is detrimental to women.

Correction. What you be hearing is that Sharia HAS and CAN be easily interpreted by REAL MUSLIM scholars of varied sects in such a way that it HAS BEEN detrimental to women.

[andak01]

Andak, verse 4:34 is practically worthless. It does a lot of harm and no good at all.

Now that you've appointed yourself God's editor, you can go after the Torah and the Upanishads. I'm sure nobody will object.

There are over 6000 verses in the Quran. Muslims find all of them useful. Non-Muslims don't find any of them useful. No surprise there. It's when we are told that we shouldn't find them useful that we find it a bit offensive.

Agno, you do see the difference between, "I find it useless" and "it is worthless". It's like the difference between, "I disagree with you" and "your hopelessly wrong and your views are worthless".

[andak01]

Andak: What I'm hearing here is that Sharia must be interpreted in such a way that it is detrimental to women.

Correction. What you be hearing is that Sharia HAS and CAN be easily interpreted by REAL MUSLIM scholars of varied sects in such a way that it HAS BEEN detrimental to women.

If it HAS and CAN be interpreted by real Muslims, such as my scholar Sheikh, or my imam or the other Muslims I associate with, in a way that is not detrimental to women, why not celebrate that? Why must you abolish the Quran in order to effect change? Oh! I almost forgot who I'm talking to. Right. The Quran hates women, full stop, end of sentence. Only interpretation possible. Therefore, we Muslims must hate women.

[Agnosthiest]

Now that you've appointed yourself God's editor, you can go after the Torah and the Upanishads. I'm sure nobody will object.


Dont get upset. I am only using my God-given gift for insight. :)



There are over 6000 verses in the Quran. Muslims find all of them useful. Non-Muslims don't find any of them useful. No surprise there. It's when we are told that we shouldn't find them useful that we find it a bit offensive.


I agree. For good or ill, those verses are all usefull. But I am referring to the Worth as measured by the sum total of its assets & liabilities. 4:34 simply had no realistic asset, only real-time liabilities. Its worthless. See, you cant come up with any actual positive application of this verse. all theories and no practice, because all muslims can do is make apologies for this verse. Nobody could realistically use this as a promotion for doing something good.

[andak01]

Dont get upset. I am only using my God-given gift for insight. :)

I'm not upset. You aren't worth worshipping.

I agree. For good or ill, those verses are all usefull. But I am referring to the Worth as measured by the sum total of its assets & liabilities. 4:34 simply had no realistic asset, only real-time liabilities. Its worthless. See, you cant come up with any actual positive application of this verse. all theories and no practice, because all muslims can do is make apologies for this verse. Nobody could realistically use this as a promotion for doing something good.

Maintaining and protecting my wife is a pretty useful goal. Holding my temper when I suspect disloyalty or ill-behavior is a pretty useful goal. Talking, waiting and delaying prior to action are useful. I'm waiting for you to explain why a woman acting disloyal with impunity is a good thing. I'm waiting for you to explain why ill-behavior with no consequences is a good thing. It seems you've taken the woman's behavior wholly out of the equation.

[redcake]

Why must you abolish the Quran in order to effect change? Oh! I almost forgot who I'm talking to. Right. The Quran hates women, full stop, end of sentence. Only interpretation possible. Therefore, we Muslims must hate women.


Quote me where I ever said any of that, and form a proper rebutal.

You can't so you misrepresent my words because you really wish you were arguing with a buncha Arab hating crazed extremists instead of moderate sensible people who have you backed into a corner.

[andak01]

Quote me where I ever said any of that, and form a proper rebutal.

I'm stopping right here. You can tell me and I'll listen to what Muslims can do to appease you. Is there anything we can do that doesn't involve apostating, ripping verses out of the Quran, disrespecting Prophet Muhammad (SAW)? How can we, as Muslims make you happy?

You can't so you misrepresent my words because you really wish you were arguing with a buncha Arab hating crazed extremists instead of moderate sensible people who have you backed into a corner.

I'm not backed into a corner at all. I assume you will allow me and millions of others to interpret the Quran in a way that doesn't disrespect women, in a way that doesn't violate Western laws. I assume you will allow me to agree with you that many laws in the Middle East regarding women are unjust. I assume you would allow me to support increased women's rights in those countries.

See, I'd be backed into a corner if I thought that you wouldn't allow such an interpretation, because then you'd be implying that Islam itself is beyond redemption. You'd be implying that I must change religion or I won't be acceptable to you. But I'm sure you'll correct me on this. I'm waiting.

[Maimonides]

I assume you're refering to me. You're welcome to browse my posts and show me a single one where I defended any of the above. I have neither denied the existence of any of the above. In fact, regards wife-beating, it's a crime here and it should be anywhere...

...Thankfully, that's all behind me now, because since I became Muslim, I'm exempt from any guilt about Jim Crow laws, slavery, lynchings, etc. Instead, I get to be blamed for crimes that nobody in my family ever was involved in. Goody!

You're wrong. Know this. Read a book.

I wasn't referring to you personally.

I also did not accuse you of defending "any of the above" or blame you "for crimes that nobody in my family ever was involved in." I could understand if you said I implied you defended such things (that's open to interpretation), but to say I accused you of crimes is outrageous.

And what evidence do you have that I'm uneducated?

There was one other point I could have made and didn't, but I'll say upfront that you do provide a wonderful example. Many Muslims in the West are quick to take personal offence the moment anyone criticizes Islam or Islamic radicals. Fortunately, there are other Muslims who understand that these practices from the Dark Ages are wrong and that they aren't going to be changed until more Muslims acknowledge they exist.

Know this.

Maimonides

[Agnosthiest]

You aren't worth worshipping.

If you are not upset then whats up with your emotional rant about me being God's editor?

And seriously I am worth worshipping, at least by wife & 6yr old daughter who loves me dearly. I worship them too. Love & worship goes hand in hand you know. :D


Maintaining and protecting my wife is a pretty useful goal. Holding my temper when I suspect disloyalty or ill-behavior is a pretty useful goal. Talking, waiting and delaying prior to action are useful.


I want to see it in actual. Show me an instance where your interpretation of 4:34 was actually used as sharia in a community, and that community is not involved in a country with an alarming domestic violence issue.


I'm waiting for you to explain why a woman acting disloyal with impunity is a good thing.


Disloyalty is a good thing because it is a woman's way of letting the husband know that there is a problem. Its her way of unleashing pressure, instead of keeping things bottled up and ending up in a nervous breakdown.


I'm waiting for you to explain why ill-behavior with no consequences is a good thing.

it is a good thing because half of the time the ill-behavior you see in your spouse is actually a reaction to your own self being an a-hole. so its not always wise to resort to consequences when you see ill-behavior in a loved-one. especially a spouse who is equally mature as you are. there is a mighty good chance that you are the a-hole, not her.


It seems you've taken the woman's behavior wholly out of the equation.

this is all about the woman's behavior. your problem is, you & islam are quick to assume that its her fault entirely.

[andak01]

There was one other point I could have made and didn't, but I'll say upfront that you do provide a wonderful example. Many Muslims in the West are quick to take personal offence the moment anyone criticizes Islam or Islamic radicals. Fortunately, there are other Muslims who understand that these practices from the Dark Ages are wrong and that they aren't going to be changed until more Muslims acknowledge they exist.

Whether or not they are practices from the Dark Ages, of your list, wife-beating, honor killing, burqas, genital mutilation are not Islamic practices. And even polygamy is not recognized by many Muslims as permissible. I won't argue that some rights alloted to men are not alloted to women. However, Islam also makes prohibitions to men that don't apply to women. When you find, as is the case, that women are treated unfairly and unfairly punished, every case is in contradiction to Sharia. That is why there are Muslim women's groups active in trying to change that situation, and I support them.

[andak01]

Show me an instance where your interpretation of 4:34 was actually used as sharia in a community, and that community is not involved in a country with an alarming domestic violence issue.

Another impossible request. I can't, because even if I point to Muslims in the United States, it is a country with an alarming domestic violence issue.

Nearly one-third of American women (31 percent) report being physically or sexually abused by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives, according to a 1998 Commonwealth Fund survey.4

http://www.endabuse.org/resources/facts/

[Illuminatus]

The highly respected, esteemed and honored Sheik Ali Gum'a The Mufti of Egypt - the largest Arab nation - says that Wife-Beating Is Permitted by Islam in Muslim Countries, but Is Forbidden in the West.

Here the Great Mufti issues his insights and findings on Al-Risala TV on May 26, 2006.

quote:

Wife-beating is associated with the cultural status of women in the different societies. Women in some cultures are not averse to beatings.

They consider it as an expression of masculinity, and as a kind of control, which she herself desires.

In other societies, it is the exact opposite. We must follow reason. When we are dealing with certain societies...

I got a question from Canada. The man said: "Here, it is a crime to beat a wife, even with a toothbrush. Is this prohibition acceptable in Islam? Yes. Islam accepts that the beating of Canadian wives, in this culture and ambience... From childhood they are taught that beating women is a type of barbarism, savagery, and so on. There is nothing wrong with taking this into consideration, and adapting to society, because Islam did not command us to be aggressive towards women.

If in their culture, this constitutes aggression towards women, then we are forbidden to be aggressive towards women. In this situation it is inevitable but to consider this way, and accepting the society, because Islam did not come and command me to be aggressive towards women.

[b]But when Allah permitted wife-beating, He permitted it to the other side of culture, which considers it as one of the means to preserve the family, and as one of the means to preserve stability. ..]

again, for more details and rules on wife beatings in Islam,

click --> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hcQTmcgkKA

^_^

[redcake]

Is there anything we can do that doesn't involve apostating, ripping verses out of the Quran, disrespecting Prophet Muhammad (SAW)? How can we, as Muslims make you happy?

I don't know Andak, if you can't figure out how Muslims can retain the Koran, and respect your prophet without the most devout Muslim nations in the world violating human rights, then I'd say your religion has a problem.

Since you're prone to talking about the horrors of the bible, why not use that as a case study...by and large, Jews don't live their lives by the barbaric examples of the Bible, and we've figured out how to live in a modern society, while personally observing Jewish laws, and we don't break laws or infringe on others to do it. We know Muslims can function in modern democratic free societies just fine without apostating.... we also know that tens of millions of Muslims in a specific region called the mid-east refuse to do the same. Every thread you're involved in on this site that has gone beyond 10 pages poses this same equation to you.


How can we, as Muslims make you happy?

Who is "we" ? You say "We" Muslims.... and last I heard, you and your family weren't doing anything to make me unhappy. Right? You need to make up your mind...am we talking about all Muslims, or are we talking about a minority fringe group cult who don't even practice Islam, or represent Islam, or exist outside of MEMRI reports. You seem to be arguing all the above at the same time. That's not even counting your lack of credebility when it comes to discussing the various problematic verses in Islamic scriptures. It's a wonderful tizzy you've worked yourself into.

[Agnosthiest]

Another impossible request. I can't, because even if I point to Muslims in the United States, it is a country with an alarming domestic violence issue.

Nearly one-third of American women (31 percent) report being physically or sexually abused by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives, according to a 1998 Commonwealth Fund survey.4

http://www.endabuse.org/resources/facts/

Thats based on a very high standard where forcing your wife to have sex with you is considered as rape. And take note thats based on "some point in their lives". Most of us got physically abused at some point in our lives, big deal.

You know the point Andak, the idea of "alarming domestic violence" is when the harm is severe and rampant and the nation is listed in amnesty.org for its violence.

Thats not an impossible request at all when used on other religions. Actually its quite easy. Why is it so difficult for Islam? because of this?

One of the contributing factors to such conditions is a reading of religious texts which lacks sensitivity to women and is biased to the male perspective. In the case of Islam, the most often cited Koranic verse to support male "superiority" over woman and his "permission" to beat his wife is Q.S. al-Nisa'/4:34. Others verses include al-Nisa'/4:4 on polygamy, al-Nur/24:31 on hijab (veil), or al-Baqarah/2:282 on witness.

http://www.thejakartapost.com/Outlook/pol10b.asp

[andak01]

I don't know Andak, if you can't figure out how Muslims can retain the Koran, and respect your prophet without the most devout Muslim nations in the world violating human rights, then I'd say your religion has a problem.

I already did, and I presented that solution to you. Muslims can and do interpret the Quran in a way that doesn't violate human rights. Millions of us live that interpretation everyday. We neither work for nor support the governments that do not. But, I've stated that, and you still feel that my RELIGION has a problem. So again, specify your proposal? It just doesn't seem like I'm doing enough.

We know Muslims can function in modern democratic free societies just fine without apostating.... we also know that tens of millions of Muslims in a specific region called the mid-east refuse to do the same. Every thread you're involved in on this site that has gone beyond 10 pages poses this same equation to you.

And I answer it in one post and spend the rest of the thread being called a liar. My religion has a problem because women are beaten. My religion has a problem because there are honor killings. But Christianity doesn't have a problem because women are beaten. Christianity doesn't have a problem because Christians kill abortion clinic doctors or put try and kill their children.

GALVESTON, Texas -- A 19-year-old was arrested and charged after police said his 2-month-old daughter was burned when he placed her in a microwave, KPRC Local 2 reported Wednesday.

According to police reports, Mauldin told investigators God ordered him to go to Galveston to look for work as a minister.

http://www.click2houston.com/news/13329125/detail.html

Who is "we" ? You say "We" Muslims.... and last I heard, you and your family weren't doing anything to make me unhappy. Right?

I don't know, we're not willing to admit that Islam is the cause of all evil in the Middle East. We are not willing to admit that Islam is the cause of cultural excesses such as honor killings, genital mutilation or the burqa. That seems to make you excessively unhappy.

[andak01]

Thats based on a very high standard where forcing your wife to have sex with you is considered as rape. And take note thats based on "some point in their lives". Most of us got physically abused at some point in our lives, big deal.

Good Lord! I'm glad I didn't say that! Not that I could have.

You know the point Andak, the idea of "alarming domestic violence" is when the harm is severe and rampant and the nation is listed in amnesty.org for its violence.

Maze of Injustice
The failure to protect Indigenous women from sexual violence in the USA
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engAMR510352007?open&of=eng-USA

[Illuminatus]

as we all know, an ahadith is really an oral tradition of Muhammed, which is usually a story or anecdote about his reponse to a situation.

Muhammad's followers and household kept a careful account of his life, deeds, sayings and examples, and these have been gathered together as the Hadith.

The Hadith also forms part of the literature informing shari'ah.

Therefore, a hadith is considered authoritative based on its original source; those attributed to A'ishah are among the most authoritative. The term for the transmitters of hadith is isnad or sanad. Ahadiths provide the Sunnah or "way" of the prophet.

The Sunan Abu Da'ud is one of the 6 major Sunni Hadith collections (this one collected by Abu Da'ud)

1. Sahih al-Bukhari
2. Sahih Muslim
3. al-Sunan al-Sughra
4. Sunan Abu Da'ud
5. Sunan al-Tirmidhi
6. Sunan Ibn Maja/Al-Muwatta

In the fifth book entitled, Kitab al-Nikah (Marriage) are two interesting verses (numbers) that shed light on wife beating in Islam.

number 2141 as narrated by Abdullah ibn AbuDhubab:

quote:

Iyas Dhubab reported the apostle of Allah as saying:

"Do not beat Allah's handmaidens", but when Umar came to the apostle of Allah and said:

Women have become emboldened towards their husbands", he (the prophet), gave permission to beat them.

Then many women came round the family of the apostle of Allah complaining against their husbands. So the apostle of Allah said, "Many women have gone round Muhammad's family complaining against their husbands. They are not the best among you". ..]

number 2142 as narrated by Umar ibn al-Khattab:

quote:

Umar reported the prophet as saying:

"A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife". ..]

courtesy of The International Islamic University of Malaysia which provides the English translation (http://www.iiu.edu.my/deed/hadith/abudawood/index.html)
--------------------------

The above and many more ahadiths illustrate facets of the husband & wife relationship and mention or depict physical violence against the wife within Islam. They clearly demonstrate the wife’s lower position in the marriage and the exact type of wife beating that occurred in Muhammad’s time, with his approval.

^_^

[andak01]

as we all know, an ahadith is really an oral tradition of Muhammed, which is usually a story or anecdote about his reponse to a situation.

No. Ahadith is the Arabic plural of Hadith. Not all of them are the words of Muhammad (SAW). Some are descriptions of something he did.

Muhammad's followers and household kept a careful account of his life, deeds, sayings and examples, and these have been gathered together as the Hadith.

The Sunna.

Therefore, a hadith is considered authoritative based on its original source; those attributed to A'ishah are among the most authoritative. The term for the transmitters of hadith is isnad or sanad. Ahadiths provide the Sunnah or "way" of the prophet.

There is no word Ahadiths. It is already plural.

In the fifth book entitled, Kitab al-Nikah (Marriage) are two interesting verses (numbers) that shed light on wife beating in Islam.

Nun is a shams letter and thus is elided. Better transliteration would be an-Nikah.

[andak01]

Interpretation of the Sunna is a full time profession. There are advanced degrees in the subject and it takes years to learn. It isn't just what was said or what collection it's in, interpretation rests on a number of things such as corroberating evidence from other collections, etc.

Imagine yourself being followed around by people listening to and memorizing everything you say. Now, take that out of context and put it to paper. So, to reconstruct the true meaning, we'd have to know very intimate details of your life. Hadith experts do. There are very accurate biographies of the Prophet as well as full biographies of every single narrator. Reading those sayings with no context is a hit or miss operation.



Book 11, Number 2139: Narrated Mu'awiyah al-Qushayri: I went to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and asked him: What do you say (command) about our wives? He replied: Give them food what you have for yourself, and clothe them by which you clothe yourself, and do not beat them, and do not revile them.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/011.sat.html#011.2139

[Illuminatus]

Shortly before he died (as a result of poisoning by a Jewish woman), Muhammad addressed a crowd of Muslims in Mecca.

He commented on several issues including the treatment of women in 632 C.E. (9th day of Dhul al Hijjah, 10 A.H.) in the 'Uranah valley of Mount Arafat.

quote:

O people: verily you owe your women their rights, and they owe you yours.

They may not lay with another men in your beds, let anyone into your houses you do not want without your permission, or commit indecency.

If they do, Allah has given you leave to debar them, send them from your beds, or [finally] strike them in a way that does no harm.

But if they desist, and obey you, then you must provide for them and clothe them fittingly.

The women who live with you are like captives, unable to manage for themselves:

you took them as a trust from Allah, and enjoyed their sex as lawful through a word [legal ruling] from Allah.

So fear Allah in respect to women, and concern yourselves with their welfare. Have I given the message? — O Allah, be my witness. ..]

Mohammed instructions to men when beating their wife (or wives) is clear:

1. Wife beating is not to be vicious or severe.

2. Women are "captives" under men’s control because they cannot control themselves. The Islamic definition of "captive" means a person who has been legally placed under the care of a guardian or court, or a person who is under the protection and control of another. Muslim wives are placed under their husband’s control.

It is interesting to note that the students and professors at the University of Southern California whose translation is used in this thread, refused to provide the complete farewell address. No surprise that many Muslims living in the west are too embarrassed with Mohammed's final sermon.

Nonetheless, I've still found two translations that provided the full text without shame.

1) In pdf format: http://muslim-canada.org/farewell.pdf

2) The Farewell Address of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (http://talkislam.wordpress.com/2006/07/05/the-farewell-address-of-the-holy-prophet-muhammad/)

^_^

.......and there you have it folks! -- case closed -- you may lock the thread.

[andak01]

That is not the content of the Farewell Address or Last Sermon. I know because it is one of my favorite examples of moderate Islam. There is no mention of wife beating or anything of the sort.

O People, it is true that you have certain rights over your women, but they also have rights over you. Remember that you have taken them as your wives only under God's trust and with His permission. If they abide by your right then to them belongs the right to be fed and clothed in kindness. Treat your women well and be kind to them, for they are your partners and committed helpers. It is your right and they do not make friends with anyone of whom you do not approve, as well as never to be unchaste...

http://www.themodernreligion.com/prophet/prophet_lastsermon.htm

http://abdurrahman.org/seerah/lastsermonreflections.html

Illuminatus, I'm sure it doesn't matter to you whether you are lying or not, and given you're hatred for Muslims why should you try and find the truth. But that isn't the Farewell address.

Frankly, I'm embarrassed for you and a couple of other posters on this forum who are acting like the worst bigots and spreading lies.

[Illuminatus]

Speaking on Syrian TV, the Highly Respected, Scholar, Iman and Esteemed Sheikh Abd Al-Hamid Al-Muhajir, explained that the Qu'an clearly stipulates when a husband can beat his wife:

quote

A woman looks for power and security in a man. He should be strong and rough. He should be masculine and defend her. She wants protection. A woman, any woman, feels in the depths of her heart the need for male protection. Notice this point. This is the reason that, as the Koranic verse says, "Men have authority over women." They don't have this authority in order to beat women but in order to protect the women's rights.

As for wife-beating in Islam, as the claims and accusations go ? these accusations are false, because even the Koranic verse refers only to a disobedient wife, "As for those from whom you fear disobedience admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them."

Meaning, first you must admonish, and this refers to a disobedient wife. A disobedient wife is a wife who's arrogant regarding the truth; she opposes truth, justice and loyalty, and endangers her family.

The admonishing of a wife may take months and years. If the admonishing doesn't help and the wife continues to behave whimsically and continues with her falsehood, this endangers the progress of humanity.

Then comes the stage of sending her to a separate bed. In this case, the man fights her using her femininity. It is said, "Send them to beds apart." If this does not help either, and the wife does not return to the path of truth, it is said, "And beat them." The beatings must not be hard, and according to some interpretations, the beatings are done with a toothpick.

But when does the beating come? The beating comes after the admonition, which lasts a long period of time, and after sending the wife to another bed. Only after this does the beating come. And to whom? To the disobedient wife and disobedience is disregard for the truth. A wife who endangers her husband and her own life ?

What's better, that she gets slapped or that she ruins her family, herself, and society? .....]

--> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJkmRBEOC3o

^_^

[redcake]

Hey Andak.... considering you've already accused me of bigotry in this thread, and I've accused you of being a liar... let's be blunt here....

We all agree there are multiple interpretations out there. Even you have admited that. Well, some of them confirm all of our worst claims. So let us talk about the problematic observances of your religion and be honest. There are Muslims, born into Islam, living in Arabic/Islamic nations who disagree with you. If these are lies, they're coming out of YOUR religion. In Arabic. Which you don't even speak. People have used Muslim source material, and yet you still take it as a personal afront. So that's on you.

[andak01]

Hey Andak.... considering you've already accused me of bigotry in this thread, and I've accused you of being a liar... let's be blunt here...

You can be as blunt and as rude as you want. It becomes you. The most recent thing you posted says exactly what I've said throughout the thread, that there is a long waiting period, that the woman must continuously be ill behaved and that a toothstick is the only means of dispensing a tap. Still, you have it in red that it's a slap, from the same Sheikh that tells us it's done with a toothpick. How does one slap with a toothpick.

We all agree there are multiple interpretations out there. Even you have admited that. Well, some of them confirm all of our worst claims. So let us talk about the problematic observances of your religion and be honest.

I'm not sure that we do. You seem to think mine is wrong and Bin Laden or whatever extremist you can find is correct. You don't hope that more people are moderate, you seem to take delite in thinking there are no moderates, like it's some victory for you.

There are Muslims, born into Islam, living in Arabic/Islamic nations who disagree with you. If these are lies, they're coming out of YOUR religion.

No. They are coming from THEIR interpretation. Two lawyers can read the same law and come to different interpretations. They didn't rewrite it and it doesn't make the law wrong if someone interprets it wrongly.

In Arabic. Which you don't even speak. People have used Muslim source material, and yet you still take it as a personal afront. So that's on you.

You take my interpretation as an afront. And BTW, you don't have any problem with Illuminatus posting a total wrong Last Sermon. You seem to have an attraction to liars so long as they make Muslims look bad.

[redcake]

that the woman must continuously be ill behaved and that a toothstick is the only means of dispensing a tap. Still, you have it in red that it's a slap, from the same Sheikh that tells us it's done with a toothpick. How does one slap with a toothpick.

No Hadith mentions a toothpick or a toothbrush in Arabic.



You seem to think mine is wrong and Bin Laden or whatever extremist you can find is correct. You don't hope that more people are moderate, you seem to take delite in thinking there are no moderates, like it's some victory for you.

The victory would be getting a self declared moderate Muslim to fixate on the Bin Laden's for a change so I didn't have to. I'd love knowing there are a ton of moderate Muslims out there... I don't love when said moderates freak out whenever I try and discuss the Bin Ladens, and play up how their religion is being bashed. There is no seperation between mosque and State in certain countries, and obviously it's the Bin Laden-esque interpretation which is the rule of the land.



Two lawyers can read the same law and come to different interpretations. They didn't rewrite it and it doesn't make the law wrong if someone interprets it wrongly.

Actually laws are revised, and ruled according to precedence. So this is yet another Andak trainwreck of an example. That also implies there is a legtimacy to varied interpretations, since judicial laws are known to enforce laws at their discretion with different empahsis from court to court.

You take my interpretation as an afront.

No, I take you interpretation as inconsequential.
Not to mention, you're not a Muhaddith.

I know there are Muhaddith's who allow what goes on, and that's the concern. That's what we're talking about. Otherwise, I have no interest. Toothbrush your wife any way you want. No matter to me.

[andak01]

No, I take you interpretation as inconsequential.
Not to mention, you're not a Muhaddith.

I know there are Muhaddith's who allow what goes on, and that's the concern. That's what we're talking about. Otherwise, I have no interest. Toothbrush your wife any way you want. No matter to me.

First off, if you know Muhaddiths that allow what goes on, your last example was poor. That sheikh didn't say to go beat your wife. Secondly, I can't imagine all of the conditions for tapping her would ever come up. It would take an incredible lack of communication and mutual lack of respect over a long period for things to ever come to that, and THAT'S THE POINT.

Yes, and there are those, like my Sheikh and my imam and Hamsa Yusef and many others who do not. The Sheikh is a muhadith with a degree from Saudi Arabia. I did check these things out a long time ago. In fact, years ago it's been. I haven't seen anything to contradict what I've told you. When any imam says daraba, you picture broken arms and legs and women in the hospital. It doesn't matter to you how that sheikh specifies what it is.

It's not my interpretation that there is a long waiting period followed by a tap with a toothstick. It's not my interpretation that what is described is not wife beating in any sense that you imagine it. It's not my interpretation that pious people don't beat their wives. I've shown you a hadith where the Prophet says not to, there are a couple. Unlike what you may imagine, there aren't books and books devoted to the subject. Though you'd love that we never talk about anything else, Islam is a broad subject.

Finally, you seem to consider yourself an expert on the subject and actually you are. You are an expert at hating Muslims. I can't imagine a single wrinkle of that subject that you haven't uncovered.

[redcake]

You are an expert at hating Muslims. I can't imagine a single wrinkle of that subject that you haven't uncovered.

Yes, I'm an expert at hating the Muslim fundamentalists who are void of tolerance for women, gays, Jews, small farm animals, and anyone else on their list. I find their morals reprehensible, and I believe any honest upstanding adult should agree. If you're naive enough to mistake that for hating them BECAUSE they're Islamic, then that's curious, and reads like you're defending them from what you perceive as unfair criticism. Again, if you can't seperate yourselves from "Islamic radicals" or whatever you want to call them, and refuse to be resonsible for your brothers...then at least don't act as if they're being picked on.

In the meantime, I trust the many Muslim women who are speaking out with guts, and honesty, even risking their lives to do it. They're not liars.
Here's one of many:
http://www.homa.org/Details.asp?ContentID=2137352779&TOCID=2083225414

[andak01]

Yes, I'm an expert at hating the Muslim fundamentalists who are void of tolerance for women, gays, Jews, small farm animals, and anyone else on their list. I find their morals reprehensible, and I believe any honest upstanding adult should agree.

I find the morals of Jim and Tammy Baker, Jimmy Swaggert and Reverend Al Sharpton reprehensible. I am able to separate that from Christian doctrine.

If you're naive enough to mistake that for hating them BECAUSE they're Islamic, then that's curious, and reads like you're defending them from what you perceive as unfair criticism.

I must have made that mistake because you said it again and again and again and again. That ISLAM has a problem, not Muslims, ISLAM.

Again, if you can't seperate yourselves from "Islamic radicals" or whatever you want to call them, and refuse to be resonsible for your brothers...then at least don't act as if they're being picked on.

They aren't being picked on, they are being assassinated, tortured and bombed. If ISLAM has a problem and that's how the west deals with problems, then I'm wondering when I'll be next. On the other hand, if it's a matter of going after criminals who destroy women because they are following corrupt cult leaders, I can actually get behind that.

In the meantime, I trust the many Muslim women who are speaking out with guts, and honesty, even risking their lives to do it. They're not liars.

Of course, and those who chose not to attack these issues from the outside, but rather women who become muhadith and with to ammend Sharia laws, you have no respect for.

You really can't imagine how insulting it is to have you hold up role model after role model of what you demand in moderate Muslims only to find out that they've all apostated. Ali Hirsi and Ibn Warraq are not Muslim role models. It's like someone telling you that the Jews they like the best are Jews for Jesus and Neutri Karti.

[Illuminatus]

btw, Qatar is home to al-Jaze'era TV, IslamOnline.net (Sheik Al-Qaradhawi's website) and parts of the US 5th Fleet.

Like many of todays modern Muslim imans, he like to compare the West with Islam and blasts the media. Still he concludes that With Some Women, Life is Impossible Unless You Carry a Rod.

quote:

We must know that wife beating is a punishment in Islamic religious law.

No one should deny this because this was permitted by the Creator of Man, and because when you purchase an electric appliance or a car you get instructions - a catalogue, explaining how to use it. The Creator of Man has sent down this book [the Koran] in order to show Man which ways he must choose.

We shouldn't be ashamed before the nations of the world who are still in their days of ignorance, to admit that these are part of our religious law. We must remind the ignorant from among the Islamic Nation who followed the [West], that those [westerners] acknowledge the wondrous nature of this verse. There are three types of women with whom life is impossible without beatings.

In America six million women are beaten by their husbands every year. These are their own official statistics. 4000-6000 women die as a result of their husbands' beatings. London police, every year, answer 100,000 phone calls and complaints of attacks against wives. In France, their slogan is, "Beat the wife morning, noon and night, and don't ask her why – she knows the reason." But they use their media to blow this out of proportion.

They blow what is happening in the Muslim countries out of proportion. They bring a woman from South-Eastern Asia with a swollen face and present her on TV, claiming this was done by a Muslim who attacked his wife. They forget that Islam is a religion that forbids beating the face even of beasts. It is forbidden to beat even a donkey on its face.

The intelligent people in the [West] admit that a woman does not feel comfort and is not happy unless she's under a man who commands, forbids, controls, and leads. This is the nature of people according to Allah's creation. Allah has created woman, whether Muslim or infidel, so she is happy under a strong man who will protect her and lives with her.

It is not surprising, then, that a French woman came before a judge in the land of false freedom and equality and said: "I don't want this husband." The judge asked her: "Why?" and she replied: "He didn't lead me, didn't oppress me, didn't castigate me, didn't talk to me violently, didn't say: Don’t do this, do that." The judge replied: "Don't [his actions] support those who call for equality between man and woman?" The infidel woman answered, "No, no, I don't want him to compete with me, I want a man who leads and rules me."

This is the nature according to which Allah created people, but they contaminated and replaced it with licentiousness and evil. A woman there knows that she lost the battle, and was mislead in the worst way, and she became like gum that the husband chews and throws into the filthy garbage can.

[The Koran says:] [b]"and beat them." This verse is of a wondrous nature.

There are three types of women with whom a man cannot live unless he carries a rod on his shoulder.

The first type is a girl who was brought up this way. Her parents ask her to go to school and she doesn't – they beat her. "Eat" – "I don't want to" – they beat her. So she became accustomed to beatings, she was brought up that way. We pray Allah will help her husband later. He will only get along with her if he practices wife beating.

The second type is a woman who is condescending towards her husband and ignores him. With her, too, only a rod will help.

The third type is a twisted woman who will not obey her husband unless he oppresses her, beats her, uses force against her, and overpowers her with his voice. ..]

--> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWGA8i6scYY

^_^

( hmm.... maybe he means this kind of "rod" ) (http://www.greatbigstuff.com/toothbrush.html)

[andak01]

Let's find out about Qaradawi.

Qaradawi was a follower of Hasan al-Banna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasan_al-Banna) during his youth and was imprisoned first under the monarchy in 1949,

Qaradawi was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood), and has turned down offers to be the Muslim Brotherhood leader various times.

That is to say, he represents the Muslim Brotherhood view of Islam which supports Palestinian martyr operations.

Among many Muslims, al-Qaradawi is considered a moderate conservative offering balanced opinions and issuing religious edicts ("fatwah") based on his interpretation of the Qur'an. Others consider him as a dangerous islamist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamist), someone who rejects universal human rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights) and democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy). He is particularly noted for his support of Palestinian martyrdom operations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyrdom_operations).

You pull this guy out as a representative of a singular monolithic view of Islam? I guess you just can't help yourself.

On the other hand, Qaradawi has some views which I think you would agree with. We won't hear this on MEMRI.


"The Muslim world needs democracy. It wants democracy. But it should be real democracy and not just democracy by name only... Democracy has done some good things. It has saved humanity from despots and dictators who act like gods. The details should be left to the people. Let them decide for themselves"[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yusuf_al-Qaradawi#_note-7)

[Illuminatus]

photos of the Eminent Sheikh Youssuf Al Qaradawi (http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=al-Qaradawi&btnG=Search+Images&gbv=2)

Not even a slight resemblemce of the Imam who gave the Friday prayers sermon on Qatar TV and who said -- quote --

[The Koran says:] "and beat them." This verse is of a wondrous nature. ..]

^_^

[andak01]

I'm sure he is emminent, to those who support martyrdom operations in Palestine and the Muslim Brotherhood. They want him to be their leader. And nobody is arguing that the Muslim Brotherhood doesn't exert pressure. But they don't represent a sole point of view from which we all take our cue.

[Illuminatus]

May 9th, 2007 -- Saudi Expert on Family Affairs Dr. Ghazi Al-Shimari Explains Wife Beating in Islam

quote:

Ghazi Al-Shimari: Beating is undoubtedly one of the methods to reform [wives]. However, it should be preceded by admonishment.

The husband should remind his wife of the will of Allah. He should say: "Wife, if you pray your five daily prayers, maintain your chastity, and obey your husband – you will enter Paradise."

He should tell her to be like the woman about whom the Prophet said: "Any woman whose husband is pleased with her when she dies enters Paradise."

[...]

If this doesn't work, he should move to the phrase of "abandonment," which refers to sleeping in separate beds.

Abandonment could mean that he would sleep in a separate room, wouldn't talk to her, and so on.

If abandonment doesn't work, we move to beating, but as the religious scholars have said, beating in this case is not the kind that draws blood or breaks teeth.

They said it is similar to beating with the edge of his garment or a toothpick. But as you said, some people misunderstood this, and so, many poor women had their legs broken.

Interviewer: Of their heads.

Ghazi Al-Shimari: Yes. According to a hadith, Umm Zar' said to 'Aisha: "My husband is the epitomy of stupidity and impotence. He is afflicted with every possible defect. Either he wounds me, or breaks my bones, or both." This poor woman said that her husband was a stupid idiot, and that on top of that, he didn't even know how to have sex. But "when he talks to me, he wounds me, breaks my [bones], or both."

Interviewer: Someone like that reads the verse as "bite them," instead of "admonish them."

Ghazi Al-Shimari: Nice. So when some people understood the beatings this way, the women of the Quraysh tribe went to the Prophet to complain.

They said: "Oh, Prophet of Allah, the men have begun beating us." So the Prophet decided: "Don't beat the women who serve Allah."

Then Omar came and said: "Oh Prophet of Allah, the women have become insolent. We cannot take it anymore. You said not to beat women who serve Allah, so what should we do with them?"

So the Prophet approved [beatings], but said that those who beat "are not the best among you."

[...]

The Prophet said: "If I were to order anybody to bow before anyone, I would order the wife to bow before her husband." The husband's rights are very great.

Therefore, according to a reliable Hadith, a woman said: "Oh Prophet of Allah, I will not marry before you tell me what my husband's rights from me are." The Prophet said: "Do you really want to know?" She said: "Yes." He said: "If pus or blood comes out of your husband's nose and you lick is up, you still will not have observed all his rights." The rights of the husband are great, and you must observe them. ..]

--> video Saudi Expert on Family Affairs Dr. Ghazi Al-Shimari Explains Wife Beating in Islam (http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=214&ar=1447wmv&ak=null)

^_^

[redcake]

I find the morals of Jim and Tammy Baker, Jimmy Swaggert and Reverend Al Sharpton reprehensible. I am able to separate that from Christian doctrine.

Then it's a shame you can't seperate yourself from the Islamic doctrine we speak of, all while claiming it's entirely different then yours. See, all those controversial Christians you named could still throw down when it comes to Bible talk, on any given Sunday. What you are asking for is a supsension of belief, for a world made up of cotton balls.

[andak01]

May 9th, 2007 -- Saudi Expert on Family Affairs Dr. Ghazi Al-Shimari Explains Wife Beating in Islam

quote:

Ghazi Al-Shimari: Beating is undoubtedly one of the methods to reform [wives]. However, it should be preceded by admonishment.

Wow! It's like he's a rock star for Jewish bloggers! I did Yahoo and Google search on this guy who I never heard of and what do I get?

Yahoo
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Ghazi+Al-Shimari+&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8
1. MEMRI TV, founded by an IDF Colonel
2. MEMRI TV
3. FreeRepublic, Right wing blog, heavily anti-Islam
4. IMRA.org.il
5. Congoo, news org
6 - 8 friendfinder, feedblitz
9, 10. Solomonia, right-wing blog specializing in defending Israel

I went past twenty links and was still looking for a Muslim site interested in him.

[andak01]

What you are asking for is a supsension of belief, for a world made up of cotton balls.

The cotton balls are what you have in your ears when I tell you that a card carrying Muslim Brotherhood member doesn't represent the majority of Muslims.

[Illuminatus]

a Hadith from Bukhari (Bukhari, Muhammad, “Sahih Bukhari”, Kitab Bhavan, New Delhi, India, 1987, translated by M. Khan) details wife beating.

Narrated Ikrima: 'Rifaa divorced his wife whereupon Abdur-Rahman married her. Aisha said that the lady came wearing a green veil and complained to her (Aisha) and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating.

It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah's messenger came, Aisha said, "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women.

Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes! When Abdur-Rahman heard that his wife had gone to the prophet, he came with his two sons from another wife.

She said, "By Allah! I have done no wrong to him, but he is impotent and is as useless to me as this," holding and showing the fringe of her garment. Abdur-Rahman said, "By Allah, O Allah's messenger! She has told a lie. I am very strong and can satisfy her, but she is disobedient and wants to go back to Rifaa."

Allah's messenger said to her, "If that is your intention, then know that it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifaa unless Abdur-Rahman has had sexual intercourse with you."

The prophet saw two boys with Abdur-Rahman and asked (him), "Are these your sons?" On that Abdur-Rahman said, "Yes." The prophet said, "You claim what you claim (that he is impotent)? But by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a crow. ..]

http://islamic-knowledge.com/Saheeh_Bukhari/Sahih_Bukhari/Bukhari/072.sbt.html

-----------so what happened?

1) A woman was beaten by her husband because of marriage discord. The women did not commit any illegal sexual act. She was beaten and bruised because her husband said she was "disobedient" and he thought she wanted to go back to her former husband.

2) Aisha said, "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!

The woman was badly bruised. Her skin was green. Aisha acknowledged that the Muslim women were suffering (from being beaten) more than the non-Muslim women. Muslims today proclaim that Islam gave women rights but Aisha, the "mother of the believers" said otherwise.

She said that the Pagan women were treated better.

3) Muhammad did not rebuke the man for beating his wife. In fact, he reproached the women for saying Rahman was impotent. Even though she was hurt Muhammad accepted her bruises and beating because to Muhammad it was not abuse. In Muhammad’s eyes she deserved the beating.
------------------------------------------------

Sahih Bukhari is a collection of sayings and deeds Muhammad, also known as the sunnah.

Bukhari lived a couple of centuries after Muhammad's death and worked extremely hard to collect all of his hadiths. Each report in his collection was checked for compatibility with the Qur'an, and its my understanding that the veracity his reports had to be painstakingly established.

I also understand that Bukhari's collection is recognized by a overwhelming majority of the Muslim world to be one of the most authentic collections of the 6 major Sunni Hadith collections of Muhammad.

Bukhari (full name Abu Abdullah Muhammad bin Ismail bin Ibrahim bin al-Mughira al-Ja'fai) was born in 194 A.H. and died in 256 A.H. His collection of hadith is considered second to none. He spent sixteen years compiling it, and ended up with 2,602 hadith (9,082 with repetition). His criteria for acceptance into the collection were amongst the most stringent of all the scholars of the ahadiths.

Of course it's important to realize that Bukhari's collection is not complete: there are other scholars who worked as Bukhari did and collected other authentic reports.


^_^

[Maimonides]

There is a simple answer to this debate:

Let's accept the claim that under Islam a husband can only beat his wife lightly with a toothpick after he has repeatedly tried non-violent solutions.

What are the real issues?

This all takes place in private homes. If a wife complains to the authorities that her husband was not reasonable, did not give her sufficient chance to repent and/or change her behavior, or beat her severely, he can just say that she was unfaithful and is now covering up her crime. In some Muslim countries and communities, that would be a death sentence.

The other more obvious issue is why would Islam ever permit a husband to hit his wife? The assumption seems to be that a wife is like a young child and the husband is a responsible adult. The worst part is that this process, which sets up the husband as his wife's master, is an invitation to abuse.

So while officially Islam makes it almost impossible for a husband to get to the point where corporeal punishment is permitted, and the form of that punishment is so moderate that it is more like spanking than beating, by giving the husband the power of the policeman, chief prosecutor, judge, and prison warden, and leaving the wife in a position that she can only win by convincing the chief prosecutor of her innocence, she is almost entirely at her husband's mercy.

And I think you can see why so very, very few abused women in Muslim societies come forward.

[andak01]

This all takes place in private homes. If a wife complains to the authorities that her husband was not reasonable, did not give her sufficient chance to repent and/or change her behavior, or beat her severely, he can just say that she was unfaithful and is now covering up her crime. In some Muslim countries and communities, that would be a death sentence.

Let me make this clear. If a woman feels the need to complain to authorities, then those authorities should protect her. There is a wide range of stances on this issue, but no woman should be without recourse for abuse. There should be women's shelters in every Muslim community just as there are here. Women are being treated unfairly in ways that are contrary to Sharia in these so-called Sharia states. What's more, men are not being punished in many cases where they would be if Sharia was enforced.

The other more obvious issue is why would Islam ever permit a husband to hit his wife? The assumption seems to be that a wife is like a young child and the husband is a responsible adult. The worst part is that this process, which sets up the husband as his wife's master, is an invitation to abuse.

Even if we assumed exactly the opposite. The lack of attention to women's rights in some of those countries is an invitation to abuse.

So while officially Islam makes it almost impossible for a husband to get to the point where corporeal punishment is permitted, and the form of that punishment is so moderate that it is more like spanking than beating, by giving the husband the power of the policeman, chief prosecutor, judge, and prison warden, and leaving the wife in a position that she can only win by convincing the chief prosecutor of her innocence, she is almost entirely at her husband's mercy.

Which is terribly unfair. But it's entirely possible to protect those women without being at odds with the Quran or the Sunna.

And I think you can see why so very, very few abused women in Muslim societies come forward.

Or it may simply be that records aren't kept. Whatever the reason, assuming that abuse is worse than the high level found in the West is conjecture, not science. Pretending that there is no problem with wife abuse in the West is contrary to the facts to the same degree that assuming no statistics means no problem in the Middle East would be.

[Illuminatus]

Iqra TV (Saudi Arabia)

Moderator: We have received an unsigned fax saying, "my husband always beats, abuses, and curses me in front of the children and then hastens to make up with me. When I reproach him for this, for his bad behavior towards me, he says, 'I don't think or feel the things I say to you, it is only a temporary anger.

Allah has ordered us in the Koran to beat in order to discipline the wife.' I would like to know the Islamic ruling on this issue and what to tell my husband."

Sheikh Al-Massir: Dear Sir, marital life must be based on love, affection and good values. This man, this husband who hurts his wife with curses and abuse to the point of beatings does not behave justly.

However, if he gets so aggravated that he cannot even remember why,
I advise the wife not to annoy him so much.

The relationship between them should be such that she will not irritate him and he will take some control over his nerves and try to be tolerant towards his wife.

As for beatings, Islam is innocent. The claim that Islam orders unrestrained beating of one's wife is wrong. The Prophet said, "The evil among you are those who beat."

The stage of beatings comes when we despair of reforming the ways of some women by good advice or by abandoning them in the bed.

Moderator: What are the beatings allowed in Islam?

Sheikh Al-Massir: Beatings that are not hard and do not harm the face or leave marks. And not in front of the children.

Yes, but it's important to know what kind of a woman is beaten?

Moderator: Yes, who is she?

Sheikh Al-Massir: She is a wife who rebelled against her husband's advice and abandoning her in bed did not help.

Moderator: According to the verse, "Those of them on whose part you apprehend disobedience?"

Sheikh Al-Massir: They were preached, abandoned in the bed and beaten.

But when do you beat? When the wife is not good.

If the wife is good, talking is enough. If talking does not help, abandoning her in bed is enough. A woman for whom marital life is important suffers when she is left alone in the bed.

If we get to a point where abandonment does not pain her and words do not deter her, we may have come to the stage of beatings.

But when and what kind of beating? I advise the brother to repent, ask his wife for forgiveness and try not to be angry. ..]

click to see video (http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=214&ar=102wmv&ak=null)

^_^

[redcake]

Sorry Andak, when I hear Ghada Jamsheer, I see someone taking responsibility and being honest...If that's what you call "apostating" then good. You can't say she didn't say it, in Arabic, on Arabic television, and you can't say that I haven't provided you with the actual text she is referencing, in Arabic (about three times in this thread) to back up her claims.

Interviewer: Some people say that Ghada Jamshir is a Sunni, and that this is why she is leading the battle against (mut'ah) marriages, which are authorized by religious law among the Shiites.>/p>

Ghada Jamshir: Authorized by religious law?!

Interviewer: Among the Shiites, yes.

Ghada Jamshir: Does the Islamic Shari'a authorize mut'ah marriages? Does the Islamic Shari'a authorize mut'ah according to the following classification: "Pleasure from sexual contact with her thighs." They have: "Pleasure from sexual touching." "pleasure from sexual contact with her breasts." "Pleasure from a little girl." Do you know what "pleasure from a little girl" means? It means that they derive sexual pleasure from a girl aged two, three, or four.

Interviewer: Let's not go into details...

Ghada Jamshir: Let me tell you what "Pleasure from sexual contact with her thighs" means...

Interviewer: Don't give me the details...

Ghada Jamshir: This is a violation of children's rights! This constitutes sexual assault of the girl. What does "pleasure from sexual contact with her thighs" mean? It means deriving sexual pleasure from an infant. How old is an infant? One year, a year and a half, a few months?

Is it conceivable for a grown man to have sex with an infant girl? And you people tell me that the Islamic Sharia authorizes this? Forget about the mut'ah. Let's talk about misyar. What do misyar marriages mean? You said that I'm a Sunni and that's why I'm attacking the Shiites. No!

Interviewer: Some people claim that.

Ghada Jamshir: No, no. What does the misyar marriage mean? A man marries a woman from another town, and goes to her once a month. He "visits" her. He calls her his "wife." from an interview with Bahraini women's rights activist Ghada Jamshir , which aired on Al-Arabiya TV on December 21, 2005.http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=978

[andak01]

a Hadith from Bukhari (Bukhari, Muhammad, “Sahih Bukhari”, Kitab Bhavan, New Delhi, India, 1987, translated by M. Khan) details wife beating.

Narrated Ikrima: 'Rifaa divorced his wife whereupon Abdur-Rahman married her. Aisha said that the lady came wearing a green veil and complained to her (Aisha) and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating.

Which contradicts what all the Sheikhs and the Quran says since a green spot would not be caused by a toothpick or by any sort of light beating, since the Sheikhs and all four medhabs agree that no mark should be made.

Since there already are ahadith specifying not to beat or mistreat wives, this would contradict all of them ASSUMING that the point of the quote is wife beating. But there is another subject entirely, what are the rights of divorce and a proclamation is made on that.

-----------so what happened?
3) Muhammad did not rebuke the man for beating his wife. In fact, he reproached the women for saying Rahman was impotent. Even though she was hurt Muhammad accepted her bruises and beating because to Muhammad it was not abuse. In Muhammad’s eyes she deserved the beating.
------------------------------------------------


This is your own interpretation and assumes that the man wasn't rebuked in private. The saying is there to demonstrate one point and you have used it to demonstrate another which is contradicted by several other ahadith.

It may very well be that he wished to reestablish the woman's faith in her marriage as his primary concern and that publicly rebuking the man would not achieve that.

Sahih Bukhari is a collection of sayings and deeds Muhammad, also known as the sunnah.

Bukhari lived a couple of centuries after Muhammad's death and worked extremely hard to collect all of his hadiths. Each report in his collection was checked for compatibility with the Qur'an, and its my understanding that the veracity his reports had to be painstakingly established.

So for example, if someone gives a speech about A) and doesn't mention B) then that fact cannot be used as proof that they never said B). In this case, we know that Muhammad (SAW) said:


<B>Book 11, Number 2139: Narrated Mu'awiyah al-Qushayri: </B>

I went to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and asked him: What do you say (command) about our wives? He replied: Give them food what you have for yourself, and clothe them by which you clothe yourself, and do not beat them, and do not revile them.




Your own assumption that this hadith is contradicted by the other one is just that, an assumption.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/011.sat.html#011.2139

[andak01]

Sorry Andak, when I hear Ghada Jamsheer, I see someone taking responsibility and being honest...If that's what you call "apostating" then good.

What I call apostating is when someone no longer wants to be Muslim and starts attacking the Quran and Sunnah. Since the Shahada or avowel of faith contains the words "I swear that Muhammad is a servant and a messenger of Allah" then attacking the message is a fundamental attack on Islam. She's not saying the interpretation is wrong, she's saying the message is wrong. You obviously think that's good and I've said that you do all throughout this thread. A Muslim woman that isn't willing to attack the Quran and Sunnah is, to you, not being honest. A Muslim like myself that refuses to interpret the Quran and Sunnah as an afront to women's rights is, you've said repeatedly, dishonest. So when are you going to start being honest and admit that you think all Muslims are dishonest unless they hold views which you find reprehensible??? That is, to you, there are two kinds of Muslims, liars and morally reprehensible people. You've made yourself perfectly clear.

[Maimonides]

Originally Posted by andak01
Pretending that there is no problem with wife abuse in the West is contrary to the facts to the same degree that assuming no statistics means no problem in the Middle East would be.

I was very pleased with your response until I came to the last sentence.

Who is "Pretending that there is no problem with wife abuse in the West" and how does this exonerate Islam?

The difference is that in the West neither religious nor secular law permits wife beating, while under Islam religion permits it and corrupt and unjust governments second that motion with a wink and a nod.

There are now millions of Muslims living in the West. We've seen examples of Muslims in Western countries not just engaging in slavery and wife abuse, but insisting upon being caught that they are the victims of religious persecution.

[andak01]

I was very pleased with your response until I came to the last sentence.

Who is "Pretending that there is no problem with wife abuse in the West" and how does this exonerate Islam?

If we weren't seeing this thread as a statement that Islam has a unique problem with women's rights, then I think we could stand together on the issue that women should not be abused. Instead, it is assumed that, while the West and everyone else adopts what is acceptable and arrives at a superior state, Muslim countries adopt something repugnant that they must because of their repugnant religion and then arrive at something unacceptable.

It is for that that I disaggree and not because I am supportive or excusing of men who abuse their wives. It should go without saying that I am not. But it never does. So I'll say it again. I don't support spousal abuse.

We see this pretending everyday. Despite the millions of abused wives in America, we look at countries which actually we have no data on and assume that their issue with this is much, much worse than our own, much, much worse than that spousal abuse found in India or non-Muslim Africa or Southeast Asia. This is just that, an assumption. But the assumption is never questioned because of preexisting stereotypes of Arab culture.

To be certain, there is a problem. We know that there is a problem because this problem exists everywhere else in the world. Stating that it's simply a problem of religion doesn't explain why Christians and Hindus and Jews and Mormons beat their wives too.

What really is a problem is awareness and accountability. A man who injures his wife should be held accountable whether he is living in America, Costa Rico, Thailand, Bahrain or Jordan. No local legislation, corruption of police or anything else should protect him from that accountability.

The difference is that in the West neither religious nor secular law permits wife beating, while under Islam religion permits it and corrupt and unjust governments second that motion with a wink and a nod.

Islam doesn't permit anything that would be illegal in the West. And if corrupt governments wish to allow that which is not allowed here, then you and I are in agreement as to how it should be handled. Women's shelters should be created in those places and laws should protect abused and battered women. Those laws do not have to conflict with Sharia since it is the act of injuring a woman that is itself in conflict with the Hadith I've quoted from Abu Daud as well as various fatwas on the subject.

There are now millions of Muslims living in the West. We've seen examples of Muslims in Western countries not just engaging in slavery and wife abuse, but insisting upon being caught that they are the victims of religious persecution.

Do we? Do you have an example of a Western Muslim pleading this in court? Examples? Has anyone been convicted of slavery in the west, then turned around and said they were victims of religious persecution?

[redcake]

A Muslim woman that isn't willing to attack the Quran and Sunnah is, to you, not being honest. A Muslim like myself that refuses to interpret the Quran and Sunnah as an afront to women's rights is, you've said repeatedly, dishonest. So when are you going to start being honest and admit that you think all Muslims are dishonest unless they hold views which you find reprehensible???

First of all, you've made this about interpretation, we consider this about the existance and action of traditions which are problematic. The only time you will admit there is a problem here, is when you qualify it with a disconnect from Islamic scripture. That is being dishonest. These verses exist, and are taught, from religious books, in their native tongue. If you can not admit that, and refuse to admit this is coming from the mainstream within the same religion, then yes you are being dishonest. I could care less how you interpret anything, as long as you aren't editing reality to suit your arguments.

Your attempt to argue that one has to believe in wife beating or I call them dishonest, is a intentional distortion, and a personal attack. You make this personal, and keep discussing your own personal beliefs, and nobody has tried to change those beliefs so much then argue that it's irrelevant to what a chunk of the Arab world believes. To prettend you would have to believe IN it to believe it exists is just playing dumb. It's clear that I've said, MANY times here that irregardless of your personal interpretation, it should not void out the ability to recognize the dangerous beliefs some hold, and the text that inspires them. For you to characterize this as hateful on our parts is an unfortunate manipulation that only benefits the darker sides of Islam.

Secondly, I think we can keep this in the thread. There is no reason to send me any more private messages about how I hate Muslims once you've already insisted on it in this thread. I consider that harrassment.

[Illuminatus]

Dr. Mabruk 'Atiya, professor of Islamic studies at Al-Azhar University, who hosts a religious show on Dream TV explains the necessecity of beating your wife in Islam.

------quote

Host: Dr. Mabruk, why did you laugh?

Dr. 'Atiya: I laughed at the claim that an honorable man doesn't beat [his wife], because only an honorable man would beat her.

A man with no honor would beat his wife in a way I'd call "barbaric."

There are disciplinary beatings that are permitted by Islam, which are practiced by honorable men.

Host: Just a minute, an honorable man would beat his wife?

Dr. 'Atiya: Of course, an honorable man beats [his wife] in the manner decreed by Allah.

Dr. 'Atiya: Of course, of course.

Dr. 'Atiya: A man who comes to admonish his wife shouldn't behave like a Friday preacher, but he should say: "Be God fearing, you have a duty towards me."

The admonishing is over! He shouldn't go: "God says…," "the Prophet says…," "as the poet says," "So-and-so says…," "you're not observing your religion…," "you're an infidel..." This is not admonishing. He should say: "Be God fearing, you have a duty towards me."

Dr. 'Atiya: The Koranic verse "and beat them" means he should lift a toothpick to her.

It is enough to lift a toothpick or the like in order to humiliate her. The Koran doesn't say he should beat her with his fists. Such a man should be taken to the police. He shouldn't have been allowed to marry her in the first place. We must understand the words of our Lord: "…and beat them" means that he says to his wife: "what you did was wrong." These are the beatings. The beatings are over.

Dr. Zarrar: What is happening in the Arab and Islamic societies has nothing to do with Islam, because this law, decreed by Allah was not intended for discipline, but to straighten out the wife's deviance.

There is a big difference between straightening out and disciplining. Allah made laws for human beings, who have inclinations and urges, strengths and weaknesses. Not all women are alike. There are good women for whom a glare is enough. It is enough for her husband to glare at her, and she feels the whole world is angry with her. But there are women who are not deterred by anything - not by words, not by admonishing…

Dr. 'Atiya: And not by beatings...

Dr. Zarrar: And not by beatings.

Dr. Zarrar: Allah knows his creations best, explains and makes it clear that according to the rules of straightening out [the wife], the moment a man feels… The moment he senses any kind of deviance in his wife – and the early signs of deviance are clearly evident in a wife – he shouldn't wait until she is entirely deviant, and only then come and say to her: "You did this and that." No way.

Dr. 'Atiya: If she says "no" when he calls her to bed, this will lead to… What Mrs. Iqbal is saying - and it's a shame you don't give a chance to finish a sentence… This "no" is the beginning of a snowball effect. She starts by saying "no" when he calls her to bed. This will lead to condescension, and then to her corruption.

Iqbal Baraka: This interpretation is your own. The story that he tells her to come and she says "no" cannot be found in the Koran.

I have encountered this interpretation many times. We must understand the reasons for the wife's behavior. The wife is exhausted, falling off her feet, and the master comes in from the coffee shop and wants to "exercise" his marital rights. If she says "no" and he forces her to do it, it is more of a rape than exercising rights, because she needs to comply.

Dr. 'Atiya: Throughout Islamic history there has never been a case like the things that are happening today and were mentioned by Dr. Malka. Not a line has been written about this, not even in the most exceptional stories. By Allah, never in Islamic history has a man grabbed a woman and beaten her black and blue, because he asked her to bring him water.

Iqbal Baraka: In Ibn Kathir's commentary on this verse, there is a Hadith, attributed to the prophet Muhammad, according to which a women was beaten by her husband. She went to the Prophet and said: "My husband beats me," and the Prophet said, "He must be punished." Then the verse came down without the word "punishment", and this story is repeated six times. In the commentary of Ibn Hadith, which I'm presenting to everyone…

Iqbal Baraka: Can anyone say I'm lying?!

Dr. 'Atiya: I can give you the man's name. You don't even know the man's name. The name of Muhammad's friend who beat his wife is Sa'ad bin Al-Rabi', who was one of the martyrs of the battle of Uhud, and he slapped her, and didn't beat her harshly. She went to her father, and her father brought her before the Prophet and said to him: "Oh messenger of Allah, Sa'ad bin Al-Rabi'a slapped me." Slapped her, like this… And then the Prophet decreed that he must be punished.

Iqbal Baraka: How do we know if he slapped her this way or that way?

Dr. 'Atiya: I'll tell you how we know that he slapped her…

Iqbal Baraka: Were you there?

Iqbal Baraka: The problem is not Sa'ad bin Abi Rabi'a or his likes.

Dr. 'Atiya: Not Rabi'a, it's bin Al-Rabi'.

Iqbal Baraka: The problem is that the commentators encourage wife beating.

The problem is that the early commentators believed that beating is one of the husband's rights, and this opinion is now spreading in the Mosques. ..]

---> http://memritv.org/Search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=440#

^_^

[Illuminatus]

Ibn Kathir was also a Shafi’i scholar and is one of the distinguished Islamic scholars. His commentary (tafseer) is a favorite of Sunni Muslims. Excerpts from his commentary on 4:34 follow.

I apologize that the quote is very long, but it is of great value in describing how the woman is positioned in Islam, and it provides the theological justification for her beating.

-------

Allah said,

[وَاللَّـتِى تَخَافُونَ نُشُوزَهُنَّ]

(As to those women on whose part you see ill conduct,) meaning, the woman from whom you see ill conduct with her husband, such as when she acts as if she is above her husband, disobeys him, ignores him, dislikes him, and so forth. When these signs appear in a woman, her husband should advise her and remind her of Allah's torment if she disobeys him. Indeed, Allah ordered the wife to obey her husband and prohibited her from disobeying him, because of the enormity of his rights and all that he does for her. The Messenger of Allah said,

«لَوْ كُنْتُ آمِرًا أَحَدًا أَنْ يَسْجُدَ لِأَحَدٍ، لَأَمَرْتُ الْمَرْأَةَ أَنْ تَسْجُدَ لِزَوْجِهَا، مِنْ عِظَمِ حَقِّهِ عَلَيْهَا»

(If I were to command anyone to prostrate before anyone, I would have commanded the wife to prostrate before her husband, because of the enormity of his right upon her.) Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Hurayrah said that the Messenger of Allah said,

«إِذَا دَعَا الرَّجُلُ امْرَأَتَهُ إِلى فِرَاشِهِ فَأَبَتْ عَلَيْهِ، لَعَنَتْهَا الْمَلَائِكَةُ حَتَّى تُصْبِح»

(If the man asks his wife to come to his bed and she declines, the angels will keep cursing her until the morning.) Muslim recorded it with the wording,

«إِذَا بَاتَتِ الْمَرْأَةُ هَاجِرَةً فِرَاشَ زَوْجِهَا، لَعَنَتْهَا الْمَلَائِكَةُ حَتَّى تُصْبِح»

(If the wife goes to sleep while ignoring her husband's bed, the angels will keep cursing her until the morning.) This is why Allah said,

[وَاللَّـتِى تَخَافُونَ نُشُوزَهُنَّ فَعِظُوهُنَّ]

(As to those women on whose part you see ill conduct, admonish them (first)). Allah's statement,

[وَاهْجُرُوهُنَّ فِى الْمَضَاجِعِ]

(abandon them in their beds,) `Ali bin Abi Talhah reported that Ibn `Abbas said "The abandonment refers to not having intercourse with her, to lie on her bed with his back to her.'' Several others said similarly. As-Suddi, Ad-Dahhak, `Ikrimah, and Ibn `Abbas, in another narration, added, "Not to speak with her or talk to her.'' The Sunan and Musnad compilers recorded that Mu`awiyah bin Haydah Al-Qushayri said, "O Allah's Messenger! What is the right that the wife of one of us has on him'' The Prophet said,

«أَنْ تُطْعِمَهَا إِذَا طَعِمْتَ، وَتَكْسُوَهَا إِذَا اكْتَسَيْتَ، وَلَا تَضْرِبِ الْوَجْهَ، وَلَا تُقَبِّحْ، وَلَا تَهْجُرْ إِلَّا فِي الْبَيْت»

(To feed her when you eat, cloth her when you buy clothes for yourself, refrain from striking her face or cursing her, and to not abandon her, except in the house.) Allah's statement,

[وَاضْرِبُوهُنَّ]

(beat them) means, if advice and ignoring her in the bed do not produce the desired results, you are allowed to discipline the wife, without severe beating. Muslim recorded that Jabir said that during the Farewell Hajj, the Prophet said;

«وَاتَّقُوا اللهَ فِي النِّسَاءِ، فَإِنَّهُنَّ عِنْدَكُمْ عَوَانٍ، وَلَكُمْ عَلَيْهِنَّ أَنْ لَا يُوطِئْنَ فُرُشَكُمْ أَحَدًا تَكْرَهُونَهُ،فَإِنْ فَعَلْنَ ذَلِكَ فَاضْرِبُوهُنَّ ضَرْبًا غَيْرَ مُبَرِحٍ، وَلَهُنَّ عَلَيْكُمْ رِزْقُهُنَّ وَكِسْوَتُهُنَّ بِالْمَعْرُوف»

(Fear Allah regarding women, for they are your assistants. You have the right on them that they do not allow any person whom you dislike to step on your mat. However, if they do that, you are allowed to discipline them lightly. They have a right on you that you provide them with their provision and clothes, in a reasonable manner.)

Ibn `Abbas and several others said that the Ayah refers to a beating that is not violent. Al-Hasan Al-Basri said that it means, a beating that is not severe. ..]

--> http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=4&tid=11037

^_^

[Illuminatus]

Secondly, I think we can keep this in the thread. There is no reason to send me any more private messages about how I hate Muslims once you've already insisted on it in this thread. I consider that harrassment.

you're being harrassed? by the moderator?

^_^

[andak01]

Let's put the RED in a different place, you dishonest troll. So, in the final analogy, Mabruk 'Atiya says that the Prophet punished a man for beating his wife, that the example of the Prophet was to punish a man for beating his wife, not to encourage it. And the hadith I posted twice quotes the Prophet saying not to beat ones wife. And AGAIN, Dr. Mabruk says that "beating" consists of a tap with a toothstick.

But then you have to prepare your prejudiced audience by coloring the phrase you want them to focus on in red, the phrase that contradicts the rest of what is said. Next time, I suggest you just omit the rest of the quote so we won't know.

Any apology for posting a false version of the Farewell Address? I thought not.


Dr. 'Atiya: The Koranic verse "and beat them" means he should lift a toothpick to her.

It is enough to lift a toothpick or the like in order to humiliate her. The Koran doesn't say he should beat her with his fists. Such a man should be taken to the police. He shouldn't have been allowed to marry her in the first place. We must understand the words of our Lord: "…and beat them" means that he says to his wife: "what you did was wrong." These are the beatings. The beatings are over.

Dr. Zarrar: What is happening in the Arab and Islamic societies has nothing to do with Islam, because this law, decreed by Allah was not intended for discipline, but to straighten out the wife's deviance.

There is a big difference between straightening out and disciplining. Allah made laws for human beings, who have inclinations and urges, strengths and weaknesses. Not all women are alike. There are good women for whom a glare is enough. It is enough for her husband to glare at her, and she feels the whole world is angry with her. But there are women who are not deterred by anything - not by words, not by admonishing…

Dr. 'Atiya: And not by beatings...

Dr. Zarrar: And not by beatings.

Dr. Zarrar: Allah knows his creations best, explains and makes it clear that according to the rules of straightening out [the wife], the moment a man feels… The moment he senses any kind of deviance in his wife – and the early signs of deviance are clearly evident in a wife – he shouldn't wait until she is entirely deviant, and only then come and say to her: "You did this and that." No way.

Dr. 'Atiya: If she says "no" when he calls her to bed, this will lead to… What Mrs. Iqbal is saying - and it's a shame you don't give a chance to finish a sentence… This "no" is the beginning of a snowball effect. She starts by saying "no" when he calls her to bed. This will lead to condescension, and then to her corruption.

Iqbal Baraka: This interpretation is your own. The story that he tells her to come and she says "no" cannot be found in the Koran.

I have encountered this interpretation many times. We must understand the reasons for the wife's behavior. The wife is exhausted, falling off her feet, and the master comes in from the coffee shop and wants to "exercise" his marital rights. If she says "no" and he forces her to do it, it is more of a rape than exercising rights, because she needs to comply.

Dr. 'Atiya: Throughout Islamic history there has never been a case like the things that are happening today and were mentioned by Dr. Malka. Not a line has been written about this, not even in the most exceptional stories. By Allah, never in Islamic history has a man grabbed a woman and beaten her black and blue, because he asked her to bring him water.

Iqbal Baraka: In Ibn Kathir's commentary on this verse, there is a Hadith, attributed to the prophet Muhammad, according to which a women was beaten by her husband. She went to the Prophet and said: "My husband beats me," and the Prophet said, "He must be punished." Then the verse came down without the word "punishment", and this story is repeated six times. In the commentary of Ibn Hadith, which I'm presenting to everyone…

Iqbal Baraka: Can anyone say I'm lying?!

Dr. 'Atiya: I can give you the man's name. You don't even know the man's name. The name of Muhammad's friend who beat his wife is Sa'ad bin Al-Rabi', who was one of the martyrs of the battle of Uhud, and he slapped her, and didn't beat her harshly. She went to her father, and her father brought her before the Prophet and said to him: "Oh messenger of Allah, Sa'ad bin Al-Rabi'a slapped me." Slapped her, like this… And then the Prophet decreed that he must be punished.

Iqbal Baraka: How do we know if he slapped her this way or that way?

Dr. 'Atiya: I'll tell you how we know that he slapped her…

Iqbal Baraka: Were you there?

Iqbal Baraka: The problem is not Sa'ad bin Abi Rabi'a or his likes.

Dr. 'Atiya: Not Rabi'a, it's bin Al-Rabi'.

Iqbal Baraka: The problem is that the commentators encourage wife beating.

The problem is that the early commentators believed that beating is one of the husband's rights, and this opinion is now spreading in the Mosques. ..]

---> http://memritv.org/Search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=440#

^_^

[andak01]

First of all, you've made this about interpretation, we consider this about the existance and action of traditions which are problematic. The only time you will admit there is a problem here, is when you qualify it with a disconnect from Islamic scripture. That is being dishonest.

It's not being dishonest. It's being Muslim. When I made the declaration of faith, I swore that I believe that Muhammad is Allah's messenger. If I find fault with the message of Allah, then I am am denying the declaration of faith and would no longer be Muslim. Your insisting that I find fault with the Quran and Sunna and with the Prophet is the same as saying that I must quit Islam. I asked you previously what I must do to make you happy and I now have my answer. I must find fault with the same verses of the Quran that you find fault with.

These verses exist, and are taught, from religious books, in their native tongue. If you can not admit that, and refuse to admit this is coming from the mainstream within the same religion, then yes you are being dishonest. I could care less how you interpret anything, as long as you aren't editing reality to suit your arguments.

I'm reading the same verses you are. But I don't have the same presumption that Muhammad (SAW) was a murderous, violent beast. Therefore, when I see a hadith saying that wife beating is prohibited, I take that one seriously, and when the Quran says that a man is protector of his wife, I put more emphasis on that than on beating. Since you are predisposed to think of Muhammad (SAW) as some sort of animal, you also are predisposed to stress certain portions of text out of proportion to their true importance. You cannot separate a cultural and unfortunately all to common disrespect for women from what you feel is the meaning of the verses.

Your attempt to argue that one has to believe in wife beating or I call them dishonest, is a intentional distortion, and a personal attack. You make this personal, and keep discussing your own personal beliefs, and nobody has tried to change those beliefs so much then argue that it's irrelevant to what a chunk of the Arab world believes.

A chunk is just that, a chunk. I've made clear what my beliefs are and neither you nor Illuminatus have posted anything to contradict them. I said that the Quran condones tapping with a toothstick and so has every single Sheikh you've presented. I've said that Sharia prohibits what we would agree is wife beating, and every Sheikh you've brought forth has said the same thing.

Another large chunk are like myself, opposed to violence against women.

It's clear that I've said, MANY times here that irregardless of your personal interpretation, it should not void out the ability to recognize the dangerous beliefs some hold, and the text that inspires them.

Dangerous beliefs are dangerous interpretations. If you are stating, and I think you are, that these verses only allow for an interpretation that you find unacceptable, then you are, in essence finding us unaccaptable too.


For you to characterize this as hateful on our parts is an unfortunate manipulation that only benefits the darker sides of Islam.

If you are saying that I must find fault in my scriptures or I am dishonest or following something dark, then you are being intolerant.

[Illuminatus]

They say (and practice?) it even in America? - a prominent American Muslim, Islamic scholar, theologian and chairman of the Fiqh Council of North America says: 'Beating Does Not Mean Physical Abuse'

Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzammil_H._Siddiqi) at one time the president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) saying that wife beatings are not abuse.

In answering the question: "Does Islam allow wife-beating?" on IslamOnline.net, Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi said that:

[.. It is important that a wife recognizes the authority of her husband in the house. He is the head of the household, and she is supposed to listen to him. But the husband should also use his authority with respect and kindness towards his wife. If there arises any disagreement or dispute among them, then it should be resolved in a peaceful manner. Spouses should seek the counsel of their elders and other respectable family members and friends to batch up the rift and solve the differences.

However, in some cases a husband may use some light disciplinary action in order to correct the moral infraction of his wife, but this is only applicable in extreme cases and it should be resorted to if one is sure it would improve the situation. However, if there is a fear that it might worsen the relationship or may wreak havoc on him or the family, then he should avoid it completely.

The Qur'an is very clear on this issue. Almighty Allah says: ' 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 to guard. As to those women on whose 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 and Great (above you all). If you fear a breach between them twain, appoint (two) arbiters, one from his family and the other from hers. If they wish for peace, Allah will cause their reconciliation; for Allah has full knowledge and is acquainted with all things. (4:34-35)'

"It is important to read the section fully. One should not take part of the verse and use it to justify one's own misconduct. This verse neither permits violence nor condones it. It guides us to ways to handle [a] delicate family situation with care and wisdom. The word 'beating' is used in the verse, but it does not mean 'physical abuse.' The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) explained it 'dharban ghayra mubarrih,' which means 'a light tap that leaves no mark.' He further said that [the] face must be avoided. Some other scholars are of the view that it is no more than a light touch by siwak, or toothbrush."

Generally, the Prophet (pbuh) used to discourage his followers from taking even this measure. He never hit any female, and he used to say that the best of men are those who do not hit their wives. In one Hadith he expressed his extreme repulsion from this behavior and said, ' How does anyone of you beat his wife as he beats the stallion camel and then embrace (sleep with) her?' (Al-Bukhari, English Translation, vol. 8, Hadith 68, pp. 42-43)"

It is also important to note that even this 'light strike' mentioned in the verse is not to be used to correct some minor problem, but it is permissible to resort to only in a situation of some serious moral misconduct when admonishing the wife fails, and avoiding from sleeping with her would not help. If this disciplinary action can correct a situation and save the marriage, then one should use it." ..]

Islam Online.net: 'Wife Beating in Islamic Perspective' (http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503544256)

^_^

[andak01]

Your emphasis is meant to shock. BTW, I respect the opinion of Dr. Siddiqi. If I were to follow what he is saying then physical abuse would not be permitted.

"It is important to read the section fully. One should not take part of the verse and use it to justify one's own misconduct. This verse neither permits violence nor condones it. It guides us to ways to handle [a] delicate family situation with care and wisdom. The word 'beating' is used in the verse, but it does not mean 'physical abuse.' The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) explained it 'dharban ghayra mubarrih,' which means 'a light tap that leaves no mark.' He further said that [the] face must be avoided. Some other scholars are of the view that it is no more than a light touch by siwak, or toothbrush."

Generally, the Prophet (pbuh) used to discourage his followers from taking even this measure. He never hit any female, and he used to say that the best of men are those who do not hit their wives. In one Hadith he expressed his extreme repulsion from this behavior and said, ' How does anyone of you beat his wife as he beats the stallion camel and then embrace (sleep with) her?' (Al-Bukhari, English Translation, vol. 8, Hadith 68, pp. 42-43)"

[redcake]

I'm not insisting you do anything. You don't have to find fault in Islamic scriptures...but don't lie about what they say. I may not like everything in Hebrew scriptures, but I won't deny it's there. Jews will argue the meaning and application, but there are plenty of instances where modern Jews shrug shoulders, and grin, because we don't have an excuse or answer - it's just not how we do things anymore. We've modernized. Well, I'm sorry Andak, because there are dozens of nations with laws on their books inspired by their religious scriptures. I do believe as a rational human being you probably should find fault with the same verses I do.... but I don't even require that of you.

Therefore, when I see a hadith saying that wife beating is prohibited, I take that one seriously, and when the Quran says that a man is protector of his wife, I put more emphasis on that than on beating.

Good for you. Other Muslims put the emphasis on the beating. Nobody is trying to contradict YOUR beliefs. They're YOUR beliefs. I'm not entirely sure I know or care what you personally believe, because it's unique and personal to you...and that has been made abundantly clear to you. So stop acting offended or as if you are the victim of a bigoted attack. You don't know how to defend your own religion, and that's all this comes down to. It's your fault for even trying to defend what ultimately is indeffensible. You know your knee jerk argument about how all scriptures are flawed? Denying that the Koran is flawed now would involve some major backsliding.

[Illuminatus]

Remember: - No more than 10 blows.

--> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh7qiO3Ygnk

^_^

[andak01]

I can do this all day.

Ibn Kathir was also a Shafi’i scholar and is one of the distinguished Islamic scholars. His commentary (tafseer) is a favorite of Sunni Muslims. Excerpts from his commentary on 4:34 follow.

I apologize that the quote is very long, but it is of great value in describing how the woman is positioned in Islam, and it provides the theological justification for her beating.


There is no theological justification for wife beating. Every single commentator specifies that the action is light, is non-violent, doesn't involve a fist or a slap, leaves no mark, is performed with a toothstick. It is NOT givin' her a beating. That you believe that it is contradicts the very sources that you are providing.

IF Islam defended wife beating, then the commentators and Sheikhs would be the first to defend it as well. They would not bother to specify what a beating is, since; presumably they wouldn't care.

[andak01]

Remember: - No more than 10 blows.

--> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh7qiO3Ygnk

^_^

WITH A TOOTHPICK! Great ommission! Note that the Sheikh in the film also described the size of the toothpick about the size of your index finger. Take a pencil, break that in half. Then hold it and hit yourself as hard as you can with it. THAT might leave a red mark. Imagine something lighter than that, not in the face or neck but on the shoulder or arm. Remember that a Muslim woman is wearing loose clothing on her shoulders and arms. Now, this time in front of a policeman. Tell him you are beating your wife with a half a pencil. Judge Wapner, he tapped me 10 times on my thickly clothed arm with a half a pencil! I want that man thrown in prison!

Of course this is assuming that anything goes that far. Judge Wapner might ask what caused the man to act that way, in which case the woman would have to say that she was ill-behaved and disloyal, that he had voiced his disapproval, that he had refused his bed and that she had continued to behave that way.

Remember, this judge and this policeman are used to seeing non-Muslim women with black eyes, broken bones, hospitalized and killed. Here comes the victim of a half a pencil, the MAXIMUM sentence Sharia allows. That's your Arab Sheikh's interpretation.

[Illuminatus]

You said earlier that you'd like to keep this thread open?

I'd like to commend your patience and moral clarity on this subject. You haven't fell into the ad homimem trap (despite the insults) or the "strawmen" arguments. That says alot about you and says alot the moderator.

Until the thread is closed, I'd like to pose a few questions to you and of course, the thread starter -- Agnosthiests -- in light of all the imams, Hadiths, pictures of battered Muslim women and teachings revealed on this subject, if not.... at least they're food for thought:

1. Why does Allah tell men to beat their wives before seeking family council?

2. Why does Allah command wife beating in the Quran but does not command men to love their wives?

3. How does Muhammad's statement that women lack self-control and placing men over them effect a woman's self esteem?

4. How does 4:34 and Muhammad’s "women are in-between slave and free" comment affect how women are viewed in society and culture?

5. What is the social and psychological significance for women in the long run knowing they are physically subjected to men and can be beaten by their husbands if men begin to merely suspect that their wives are disobedient?

^_^

gotta run

[andak01]

1. Why does Allah tell men to beat their wives before seeking family council?

In fact, family council is established in Islam through what is known as a Wali.

2. Why does Allah command wife beating in the Quran but does not command men to love their wives?

Why doesn't Allah command the women to go get jobs and support their lazy a$$ husbands? Why doesn't Allah tell them to go grab a beer while the man watches Sunday football? Why doesn't Allah tell them to screw their way up the ladder at work?

I really don't know, it's your book, you write it your way. Obviously our way is unacceptable to you. You and redcake feel free to judge us as morally reprehensible.

3. How does Muhammad's statement that women lack self-control and placing men over them effect a woman's self esteem?

Come again?

4. How does 4:34 and Muhammad’s "women are in-between slave and free" comment affect how women are viewed in society and culture?

I missed that one. When did Muhammad say that?


5. What is the social and psychological significance for women in the long run knowing they are physically subjected to men and can be beaten by their husbands if men begin to merely suspect that their wives are disobedient?


The verse doesn't say disobedient, it says disloyal or ill-behaved. Disloyal means to me she's sleeping around or she's actively tearing down her husband's reputation.

[Maimonides]

Speaking of wife beating, the Islamic Republic of Iran has decided to take action against women who do not "cover" properly.

Here is a picture of a woman who was sick of walking around in hot and oppressive clothing and apparently was hit with a very sharp toothpick after all attempts to reason with her came to nought.

http://www.thememriblog.org/blog_personal/en/1656.html

She probably doesn't realize how lucky she is to live in an Islamic Republic, where she is safe from all of the ills of Western society.

[Illuminatus]

Let's put the RED in a different place, you dishonest troll. .......

wait a minute..... is the Forum Moderator now addressing me ?

^_^

[andak01]

Here is a picture of a woman who was sick of walking around in hot and oppressive clothing and apparently was hit with a very sharp toothpick after all attempts to reason with her came to nought.

Good example. Let's look, was she hit in the face? That's not allowed. Did they make a mark? I'd say they did. That's not allowed. Doesn't appear like she was very well protected from anything either. Three counts. No. Let's go for four. Would you say that constitutes COMPULSION to religion?

Yet we know from Surah Baqara, : "THERE IS NO COMPULSION IN RELIGION"

You know of any Hadith or saying in the Quran to beat a woman bloody for not wearing a hijab? I'm waiting.

[Maimonides]

Good example. Let's look, was she hit in the face? That's not allowed. Did they make a mark? I'd say they did. That's not allowed. Doesn't appear like she was very well protected from anything either. Three counts. No. Let's go for four. Would you say that constitutes COMPULSION to religion?

Yet we know from Surah Baqara, : "THERE IS NO COMPULSION IN RELIGION"

You know of any Hadith or saying in the Quran to beat a woman bloody for not wearing a hijab? I'm waiting.

You could play a very positive and constructive role by delivering that message to Muslims.

[andak01]

You could play a very positive and constructive role by delivering that message to Muslims.

Avec plaisir! Even if I didn't do it, they can get it simply by reading the Quran and Sunna.

[andak01]

I'm not insisting you do anything. You don't have to find fault in Islamic scriptures...but don't lie about what they say.

I haven't changed what I've said a bit. The Sheikhs that Illuminatus has given example from with the exception of Qaradawi said exactly the same thing. That is, the strictest interpretation of the scripture does not allow for violence or abuse of women. So if you're saying that I'm the only one who believes this, then you are the one lying.

I may not like everything in Hebrew scriptures, but I won't deny it's there. Jews will argue the meaning and application, but there are plenty of instances where modern Jews shrug shoulders, and grin, because we don't have an excuse or answer - it's just not how we do things anymore. We've modernized.

Reformed Jews are modernized. Then you have your Orthodox Jews. But even among Orthodox Jews there are differences of interpretation. I don't think they toss out sections of the Torah when it suits them.

Well, I'm sorry Andak, because there are dozens of nations with laws on their books inspired by their religious scriptures. I do believe as a rational human being you probably should find fault with the same verses I do.... but I don't even require that of you.

So, put simply, I either agree with you or I'm irrational?

Good for you. Other Muslims put the emphasis on the beating. Nobody is trying to contradict YOUR beliefs. They're YOUR beliefs. I'm not entirely sure I know or care what you personally believe, because it's unique and personal to you...and that has been made abundantly clear to you.

Unique? I don't think so.

You don't know how to defend your own religion, and that's all this comes down to. It's your fault for even trying to defend what ultimately is indeffensible.

And you're upset with me for saying that you hate Muslims? You just said it. Islam, in your opinion is indefensible! The Quran is, in your opinion, indefensible! YOUR WORDS! If only we'd chuck out a section of Allah's revealed word here and there, we'd be rational enough to join civil society. Until then, we are morally repugnant!

Islam is indefensible and I'm a liar for trying to defend it. BUT, according to Illuminatus, I'm the one who is ad homming, and you are the one who is patient. You two deserve each other.

[Maimonides]

Avec plaisir! Even if I didn't do it, they can get it simply by reading the Quran and Sunna.

If it's that simple, why do so many Muslims not get it? You would think that even if they don't read the Koran, their religious leaders would. But often it's the imams preaching violent jihad.

[Illuminatus]

The Muslim Wheel of Domestic Violence was developed by Dr. Sharifa Alkhateeb for Canadian-Muslims by the Canadian government.

It conveys some of the ways religion can be distorted to justify abuse against women and children in the family context. It is an adaptation of the Power and Control Wheel developed by the Domestic Abuse Project of Duluth, Minnesota.

Using Isolation

• husband says that as the "qawwamun" (manager) of his wife, he has the Allah-given right to control her every movement, who she sees and talks to, what she thinks, what she reads
• wives are made to get permission to use the telephone, go grocery shopping, visit parents
• even if marriage contract gives her full mobility, husband ignores it

Minimizing, Denying, Blaming

• directing children to lie about/trivializing the abuse
• denying the abuse by calling it "discipline"
• saying the wife caused the abuse
• tells wife that divulging episodes of abuse equals violation of her Islamic responsibility to respect her husband's privacy and God will condemn her for it

Using Children

• children told they are being beaten to prevent becoming too "American"
• father threatens to get custody from Islamic court, send children overseas, marry them off young or kidnap them
• children's trauma symptoms used as excuse to batter wife
• father encourages children to insult, disrespect mother
• husband says he has to abuse mother to stop child abuse

Using Male Privilege

• husband's dominance and inflexibility extolled as Qu'ranically mandated requiring obedience in all matters
• wife's opinions, aspirations, plans considered as "Western" and un-Islamic
• children verbally/physically abused as "right" of Muslim father
• wife encouraged to fear husband
• repeats bogus Hadith [religious text] about women bowing to men

Using Economic Abuse

• refusing to allow wife to get education or training
• refusing to let her get a job
• demanding she quit a job
• taking her entire paycheck while Islam allows her to keep it all
• hiding family income

Using Coercion and Threats

• threatening to marry another wife
• threatening "Allah-ordained" wife beating (Qu'ran 4:34)
• threatening to leave her without money
• threatening to spread the word that she is an adulteress
• making her drop charges to preserve extended family's reputation

Using Intimidation

• grossly dirtying her kitchen several times a day
• having the local Imam [clergyman] tell the wife that the abuse is her fault
• customs are disguised as religion
• hiding/destroying important documents
• taking all her jewelry and selling it
• apologizing to others for her disobedience
• collecting, displaying weapons
• stalking

Using Emotional Abuse

• belittling/calling wife unfit Muslim mother
• making fun of her inadequate Islamic knowledge
• calling her names/calling her crazy
• making her believe she is incapable of directing her own life
• telling abused women they must be quiet, docile, obedient to uphold family honor
• lying to her extended family in letters
• saying her lovemaking is inferior to Americans

download --> http://www.lfcc.on.ca/muslim_wheel_of_domestic_violence.pdf

© 2006 Centre for Children and Families in the Justice System

^_^

[redcake]

That is, the strictest interpretation of the scripture does not allow for violence or abuse of women. So if you're saying that I'm the only one who believes this, then you are the one lying.

I think it's the part where you say something to the effect of everyone believes what I believe, nobody believes the things you are quoting and saying, they don't exist in Islam, no clerics are sanctioning beatings, which is the problem. You're now arguing that clerics don't sanction beating and other abuse against women....but the many examples of children being executed at the an order of MUSLIM mullahs kind of discredit your word. So there.



Reformed Jews are modernized. Then you have your Orthodox Jews. But even among Orthodox Jews there are differences of interpretation. I don't think they toss out sections of the Torah when it suits them.

Correction. All denominations of Judaism have modernized to some extent, even the Hasidim. We read every letter of the Torah as it is written, without discriminating.... the difference? There are no Jewish communities violating human rights to the extent we see under Sharia rule. Sorry you missed the point.


So, put simply, I either agree with you or I'm irrational?

If you think you sound rational going off about HITTING women with "toothsticks", then by all means have at it. It's irrational to claim this behavior is fit for modern society under religious law. It sets a poor precedence for other societal behavior, and puts women at a great disadvantage....and you misgynist rants about "women in short skirts" or "women getting off their lazy" rear ends expresses a type of resentment towards women that you should probably have left at home for this discussion. Either way, there is nothing rational about defending what goes on in Saudi Arabia, which is exactly what you're doing when you start arguing that this stuff isn't sanctioned by Islamic leadership at all.

Unique? I don't think so.

Frankly, I was being respectful, but I forgot that Islam doesn't allow for free thinking. Where no two Jews can arrive at a single concept without debate, Muslims aren't afforded that opportunity and you're all a bunch of robots then, I guess? Since you don't think your view of Islam is unique, that is. Maybe that explains your insistance that we define the beliefs of crazy Muslims by what you believe, rather then differentiate between both groups. All I know is, you use the same Koran, and study the same words, and getting something different out of it...right? Isn't that your plea? It's the part where you want us exhonorate religion, and religious clerics, and religious laws, and politicized religion, and fundamentalist religion, and radicalized Muslims, and Islamists.



And you're upset with me for saying that you hate Muslims? You just said it. Islam, in your opinion is indefensible! The Quran is, in your opinion, indefensible! YOUR WORDS! If only we'd chuck out a section of Allah's revealed word here and there, we'd be rational enough to join civil society. Until then, we are morally repugnant!
Islam is indefensible and I'm a liar for trying to defend it.

Since that's not what I said, I'm going to assume you're purposely distorting my words, rather then suffering from some sort of learning dissability. If you would like me to clarify my argument, let me know, but as I've repeated dozens of times in this thread alone, it's hard to believe you're still trying to misrepresent my words out of context with red font and all.

p.s. Has it occured to you that it's your methodology for defending Islam which makes you a liar, rather then the act of defending it yourself.

[andak01]

You're now arguing that clerics don't sanction beating and other abuse against women....but the many examples of children being executed at the an order of MUSLIM mullahs kind of discredit your word. So there.

We are talking about beating and you're saying that children being executed proves that clerics sanction wife beating? Is your vertical hold working?

There are no Jewish communities violating human rights to the extent we see under Sharia rule. Sorry you missed the point.

Yeah me too. Still, I'm glad I don't live in a refugee camp behind a twenty foot high concrete wall with tanks and bulldozers rolling through my neighborhood.

If you think you sound rational going off about HITTING women with "toothsticks", then by all means have at it.

I've taken the strictest possible view, the one the most conservative Sheikhs take. By that, nothing a man is allowed to do would get him arrested.

It's irrational to claim this behavior is fit for modern society under religious law.

I'll go a step farther and claim it wouldn't be against secular law. I suppose if the woman files a complaint, anything could be considered abuse, but I still don't believe a man would be arrested for tapping a woman with a toothpick. He might be put under observation, and the women treated for hysterical laughter.

It sets a poor precedence for other societal behavior, and puts women at a great disadvantage....and you misgynist rants about "women in short skirts" or "women getting off their lazy" rear ends

support their lazy a$$ husbands?

I distinctly said men's lazy rear ends, which shows my hatred for lazy men. Hatred for men is OK, right? So long as I don't hate women? Again, it doesn't surprise me that you miss those details. You've substituted your misogynist view of who you think I must be for who I really am.

Either way, there is nothing rational about defending what goes on in Saudi Arabia, which is exactly what you're doing when you start arguing that this stuff isn't sanctioned by Islamic leadership at all.

Illuminatus is acting against your case. He's posted at least three separate Sheikhs saying that Islam doesn't support violence against women.

Frankly, I was being respectful, but I forgot that Islam doesn't allow for free thinking. Where no two Jews can arrive at a single concept without debate, Muslims aren't afforded that opportunity and you're all a bunch of robots then, I guess? Since you don't think your view of Islam is unique, that is.

No. There are Sheikhs that believe a man should use his fist. I think the Sheikh in the film alluded to that. He himself didn't appear to be of that school, but of the toothpick school. I don't consider a fist protective, but rather destructive and violent. As I've stated, what's wife abuse under Western law is and should be wife abuse anywhere.

Maybe that explains your insistance that we define the beliefs of crazy Muslims by what you believe, rather then differentiate between both groups. All I know is, you use the same Koran, and study the same words, and getting something different out of it...right?

Than you and your cadre of MEMRI videos, yes. Than the majority of Sunnis, no.

Isn't that your plea? It's the part where you want us exhonorate religion, and religious clerics, and religious laws, and politicized religion, and fundamentalist religion, and radicalized Muslims, and Islamists.

It isn't intended to exonerate people who abuse their wives.

Since that's not what I said, I'm going to assume you're purposely distorting my words, rather then suffering from some sort of learning dissability. If you would like me to clarify my argument, let me know, but as I've repeated dozens of times in this thread alone, it's hard to believe you're still trying to misrepresent my words out of context with red font and all.

They are there for anyone to read.

p.s. Has it occured to you that it's your methodology for defending Islam which makes you a liar, rather then the act of defending it yourself.

No, I'm being honest. You just haven't established a rapport with your inner hate. Once the denial goes away, you can get on with the project.