Women in Islam please explain

Medina

Quote from Qu'ran

2:79
Therefore woe be unto those who write the Scripture with their hands anthem say, "This is from Allah", that they may purchase a small gain therewith. Woe unto them for that their hands have written, and woe unto them for that earn thereby.

I'm sure the Muslim scholars take their translations very seriously, and truly believe it means 'beat'.

wes

I don't doubt for a second. It would be nice if they practised some common sense as well, but sadly these people refuse to keep up with the times and tend not to consider they might be wrong.

Medina

I agree that they don't appear to consider they are wrong.

I don't think the times as such should change the meaning, so in that I give them their due.

Wibbs

Medina wrote:

I'm sure the Muslim scholars take their translations very seriously, and truly believe it means 'beat'.

I would suspect most Muslim men would be like the new mr who I reckon that even if it truly was beat written in large letters would read it as seperate. Wife beaters are everywhere and of all faiths and no faiths. It doesn't take any message from any God to stop or start them.

I would also say that in the context of the time the instruction and the later hadeeth which suggest strongly that beating a wife is a bad thing would be unusual when you consider the rights of women in some other societies of the time. It's not an excuse, but it bears thinking about.

Medina

Wibbs wrote:

I would suspect most Muslim men would be like the new mr who I reckon that even if it truly was beat written in large letters would read it as seperate. Wife beaters are everywhere and of all faiths and no faiths. It doesn't take any message from any God to stop or start them..

I understand, but the world doesn't need scriptures that appear to advocate wife beating no matter the religion or philosophy. So I don't understand why they all share this common translation. Saying 'it doesn't really mean that' is great, but because it IS there, if a Muslim man wanted to do it, he may consider himself justified and how is a wife supposed to argue with it? At the end of the day the Qur'an is a more reliable source than any hadith.

Wibbs wrote:

I would also say that in the context of the time the instruction and the later hadeeth which suggest strongly that beating a wife is a bad thing would be unusual when you consider the rights of women in some other societies of the time. It's not an excuse, but it bears thinking about.

Thats even more worrying because the Qur'an is supposed to be an instruction for all times, not just the one it was revealed in. At least thats what I've been told.

the_new_mr

Medina wrote:

Thats great but I was talking more about an administrative council or something, made up of several individuals who issue final fatwas together. I thought this did exist as myself and my fiancee found an official fatwa that was made by an international council in Dublin some years ago on the issue of getting a mortgage in a non-Muslim country.

Well, what you're suggesting would be a kind of central authority.

A fatwa is the opinion of a religious scholar whom someone has asked of their opinion and they have agreed to give you their opinion. When asking for a fatwa from a scholar, you should make sure that you're asking someone who knows enough about the subject at hand in order to be able to apply their religious knowledge to it.

So, any respected scholar or group of scholars can give a fatwa. By the way, literally thousands of fatwas are being given out all over the world every day as people ask questions of all kinds. There are literally hotlines that people can call up and get the answer to particular questions (which would make monitoring all these fatwas by some "central authority" somewhat of an impossible task). These hotlines are usually reserved for "run of the mill" type questions. If you want a more specific answer on a more difficult topic, you can ask a scholar who knows something about that particular topic or search for a fatwa that maybe someone else has asked before.

You can have conflicting fatwas. This may be because the two situations are slightly different or not. In any case, you can choose the one that rests best with your conscience (and not just makes life more convenient for the individual asking the fatwa).

Medina wrote:

I seriously doubt it in fairness. If you figured it out why can't thousands of 'scholars'? It makes no sense why it wouldn't occur to any of them. And how are we to trust their translations of verses on other matters either? Even if they all agree, then this could still be a mistake, if you apply this logic.

Well, I didn't figure it out that's for sure. It did occur to some of them and that's why there is a debate about it going on in the Muslim world. I think this is a very new debate going on in the Muslim world. I understand that there are only two hadith that say that udrubuhin means beat but I understand that neither of these are in either of the books of Bukhari or Muslim and might not have a very strong classification of strength associated to them. When putting forward the very logical explanation that I quoted on the previous page of this thread (and keeping in mind that a number of hadith recommend against hitting), it seems to make a great deal of sense to me that udrubuhin means seperate. Just have to let the debate take it's course I guess.

And on the point of how are we to trust etc...
As said before, any translation is also an interpretation. There are some things which are more clear cut than others. All we can do is ask God to guide us to what is right.

Al-Imran:7
"He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding."

I pray to God to be one of those.

Medina wrote:

I'm sure the Muslim scholars take their translations very seriously, and truly believe it means 'beat'.

I'm sure that they would all say that they are only men and that "God knows best".

Wes wrote:

It would be nice if they practised some common sense as well, but sadly these people refuse to keep up with the times and tend not to consider they might be wrong.

Common sense is the product of the human mind and prone to error. Different people can have differing opinions that they have both reached through "common sense". Also, Islam is a religion for all times.

Wibbs wrote:

Wife beaters are everywhere and of all faiths and no faiths. It doesn't take any message from any God to stop or start them.

Nail BANG on the head there.

Medina wrote:

Wibbs wrote:

I would also say that in the context of the time the instruction and the later hadeeth which suggest strongly that beating a wife is a bad thing would be unusual when you consider the rights of women in some other societies of the time. It's not an excuse, but it bears thinking about.

Thats even more worrying because the Qur'an is supposed to be an instruction for all times, not just the one it was revealed in. At least thats what I've been told.

I think that what Wibbs meant here was that it's more likely that the Quran was against beating considering how it was liberating women in all sorts of ways completely in the face of what was being commonly practiced all over the world. I could be wrong in thinking what Wibbs meant there but even if Wibbs didn't mean to say this, I like it so I am saying this The Quran is indeed meant to be an instruction for all time.

Dave!

It really appears in this thread that the_new_mr is making excuses to get around the Koran being politically incorrect! You can't just blame the bad parts of the book on the translation, and then swear by the good parts -- you can't have it both ways.

I think it would be best to accept that the book was written in more primitive times, and that some sections are obsolete.

the_new_mr

Well, you are free to have your own opinion of course but I do indeed disagree with that opinion.

I think I've already made my opinion pretty clear in this thread.

SimpleSam06

the_new_mr wrote:

I recently heard of a story of a husband and wife who couldn't have kids as the woman was infertile. The woman actually recommended to her husband that he marries another woman because she herself wanted to have kids in the family and she knew how much he wanted to have kids. So, she found a woman who was having trouble finding a husband and he married her.

So it was too much trouble to adopt? Or possibly they didn't qualify, for some who knows what reason?

the_new_mr wrote:

And here's some interesting statistics...Is this not also a very real solution to a very real problem?

No, no, no, no, no. I was just floating around and this thread caught my eye, but heres the first rule of statistics: If you must use them, use the correct ones.

Although fewer females than males are born (the ratio is around 1:1.05), due to a longer life expectancy there are only 81 men aged 60 or over for every 100 women of the same age, and among the oldest populations, there are only 53 men for every 100 women.

So not only are there fewer women born, the reason there might be more of them is because large numbers of them are senior citizens. EDIT: Just checked that, out of the total human population, there are 101.3 men for every 100 women (source: 2001 World Almanac). Using this as a justification for polygamy is one of the more ludicrous things I've heard this week, and if you knew about my week, you would grasp the entirety of that concept.

the_new_mr wrote:

And here's another interesting statistic, according to Peggy Vaughan in "The Monogamy Myth", conservative researchers found that 60%-75% of men in the west have or have had at least one mistress during their marriage. An astonishing statistic!!

And even more astonishing that you managed to pull it out in support of your point! For one, I thought this was why you people wrapped women up head to toe in burkhas, so men wouldn't feel temptation. Second, its just as much a justification for polyandry as anything else, since quite obviously it is statistically impossible that its just the men having affairs.

So let the women have several husbands if they want. This idea has several advantages. First of all, as I have already shown, there are more men of a young and virile age than there are women. Lack of a wife or girlfriend leads them to all sorts of antisocial behaviour and troublesome acts, possibly so far as to ruining their lives.

If they wanted to they could divorce later and get one wife for themselves.

Secondly, the child or children of such marraiges would have the resources of several fathers to call upon, making it much much easier to, for example, buy a home (which many couples are struggling with in the west), get an education, essentially have the best of opportunities to succeed.

Thirdly, overpopulation is becoming an issue in today's world. By ensuring that there are several men to each woman in a relationship, the actual number of children that could be produced would be lessened, easing the strain on resources for society as a whole. I don't think anyone can argue with that.

And fourthly, it would be one hell of a lot of fun for the women.

So there's really no reason for Islam not to embrace polyandry wholsale; I just gave four good reasons for it, as opposed to the two originally put up.

Oh and on the wife beating issue, striking another person in modern societies is a crime, and subject to criminal penalties including but not limited to a visit to a correctional facility, regardless of what it says in your religion.

the_new_mr

SimpleSam06 wrote:

So it was too much trouble to adopt? Or possibly they didn't qualify, for some who knows what reason?

Obviously, they didn't want to. Also, adoption in this case would not have solved the problem of the woman who couldn't find a husband.

SimpleSam06 wrote:

out of the total human population, there are 101.3 men for every 100 women (source: 2001 World Almanac).

This statistic is for the whole world and not for particular countries.

I think you're missing the point somewhat. The larger number of women in any society is not supposed to be a justification for polygany. It's just meant to prove that there are some situations where polygany solves problems.

SimpleSam06 wrote:

And even more astonishing that you managed to pull it out in support of your point! For one, I thought this was why you people wrapped women up head to toe in burkhas, so men wouldn't feel temptation. Second, its just as much a justification for polyandry as anything else, since quite obviously it is statistically impossible that its just the men having affairs.

Once again, you're missing the point here. The point was that it's somewhat hypocritical of a society that doesn't actually practice monogamy to accuse others of not being able to stick with one wife.

Also, more often than not, these extra marital affairs are between married men and unmarried women.

And another thing, burkhas are not a requirement in Islam. The reason for women covering themselves up is to obey the command of modesty given to both males and females.

Polyandry isn't a good idea because just like every woman has the right to have a husband, every child has the right to know who their father is.

And a statistic you're missing here is that only about 1% of the Muslim population actually practice polygany. This is because
a) The conditions required are very difficult (a man must be equal in every way (time and finances) with each wife
b) Most of the time, there is no need for a second wife
c) A situation where wars killed many of the men thereby leaving a large female majority in the society hasn't come around for a while

SimpleSam06 wrote:

Oh and on the wife beating issue, striking another person in modern societies is a crime, and subject to criminal penalties including but not limited to a visit to a correctional facility, regardless of what it says in your religion.

Please re-read my previous posts.