Islam and Women

oceanclub

Suff wrote: »

Women are not equal to Men, each share general rights and a bit extra over their own rights.
Why not have maternity leave for Men?

It's a biological fact that men don't have wombs. You've yet to prove it's a biological fact that women are only half as rational as men.

P.

Suff

Jack Sheehan wrote: »

I didn't say you said anything, what I said was that this law implies that women are incapable of rational thinking.

edit*
I'm Sorry if it seemed to implies this, but it really doesn't. My point was that women are more passionate than men. And for your information the source of most of the Prophet (PBUH) teachings and his daily life activities were taken from his wife "Aeisha". So her testimony that helped preserve the teachings.

As for your second point, OK Women and men are not equal on some issues but as regards the law and human rights they are or at least should be totally equal.

I AGREE with you 100% on this.
When Islam came it gave women more rights than any other institution. the right of freedom (pre-Islam women were bought, sold and even inherited), education and inheritance.
Social backround and cultural differences play a major role in how a society treat its members whether they are women , children or the eldery.
example;
If an abusive husband/father is the topic of an domestic issue the blame always falls on the faith (Islam) but is the same person was from another faith... the faith issue is never addressed.
Also I would like to note that women in some of the ME countries are as free as women in Ireland, they enjoy full freedom to life their life as they see. Education is compulsory for all children, you can hardly find a girl in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Kuwait that doesn't hold third level education qualifications.
With all honesty, all the girls in my family are as free as they want. No one in our family ever forced them into arranged marrige or any other social misconception of our society.

The Arabic society is not as closed or backward as most people think, just because its Modest doesnt mean its under oppression.

IMHO the faith is perfect but the people who practise it aren't.

Jack Sheehan

Suff wrote: »

edit*
I'm Sorry if it seemed to implies this, but it really doesn't. My point was that women are more passionate than men. And for your information the source of most of the Prophet (PBUH) teachings and his daily life activities were taken from his wife "Aeisha". So her testimony that helped preserve the teachings.


IMHO the faith is perfect but the people who practice it aren't.

Since when is it an accepted fact that women are more passionate than men? And if this was true why would it mean that their opinion and judgement should be valued less?

In addition, the fact that Mohammed's wife helped create many of these teachings has no relevance to matters today. Mohammed's wife, while I'm sure she was a wise woman, is not the representative of all women on earth

Medina

Hi Jack
I think you are putting words into Suff's mouth here...
He never said nor implied (as far as I can see) that women are not rational thinking creatures.
Have you read the article I linked to?
I think it expresses just one of various reasons why a woman's testimony would be less reliable than that of a man's.

Its not that we are more forgetful than men, but science has proved that our biological cycles can affect our concentration and memory which is a factor a man doesn't have to contend with.

Also in my opinion, if a woman was to see some crime taking place, she is more likely to run away than a man I would say. Most crime seems to be committed by men (why is that?) and a women is rarely going to stand there and watch. A man might be more likely to watch or try to intervene etc

Jack Sheehan

Medina wrote: »

Hi Jack
I think you are putting words into Suff's mouth here...
He never said nor implied (as far as I can see) that women are not rational thinking creatures.
Have you read the article I linked to?
I think it expresses just one of various reasons why a woman's testimony would be less reliable than that of a man's.

Its not that we are more forgetful than men, but science has proved that our biological cycles can affect our concentration and memory which is a factor a man doesn't have to contend with.

Also in my opinion, if a woman was to see some crime taking place, she is more likely to run away than a man I would say. Most crime seems to be committed by men (why is that?) and a women is rarely going to stand there and watch. A man might be more likely to watch or try to intervene etc

I did read the article you posted and again I apologize for being rude but I can't accept any of what you are saying.

Unless you are willing to post a link to a proper, peer reviewed scientific study proving that 'biological cycles can affect our concentration and memory which is a factor a man doesn't have to contend with.' I have to disagree with your statement. From any Scientific study I have ever heard, women are in fact at least as capable or more capable of remembering details and specifics about events that they have witnessed.

If you can show me such a study disproving this I will be happy to eat my words. Until then however I still argue that it is an unjust and sexist system.


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2294/is_2002_Dec/ai_98125314

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/gendiff.htm

oceanclub

Medina wrote: »

Its not that we are more forgetful than men, but science has proved that our biological cycles can affect our concentration and memory which is a factor a man doesn't have to contend with.

Do you have any citations of studies for this "proof"? I can come up with studies that show the exact opposite:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2294/is_2002_Dec/ai_98125314

Gender-Linked differences in everyday memory performance: effort makes the difference - Brief Report

To quote:

For example, in Lindholm and Christianson's study (Lindholm & Christianson, 1998), women outperformed men in eyewitness memory for a violent murder, and the investigators suggested that women's memory of such events may be assisted by more elaborate categories for encoding information about people.

Also in my opinion, if a woman was to see some crime taking place, she is more likely to run away than a man I would say. Most crime seems to be committed by men (why is that?) and a women is rarely going to stand there and watch. A man might be more likely to watch or try to intervene etc

In that case, if the woman didn't witness the crime, then obviously they wouldn't make a good witness. But the exact same applies to a man who ran away from the crime.

What about the case of a rape, where the only witnesses were the woman raped and the rapist. In this case, the woman would never be believed. Is this right?

P.

Medina

The link I posted has various scientific studies quoted, which came from independent sources?

Psychiatry in Practice, April 1983 issue states:

"Forty percent of women suffer from pre-menstrual syndrome in some form and one in if our women have their lives severely disrupted by it. Dr Jill Williams, general practitioner from Bury, gives guidelines on how to recognise patients at risk and suggests a suitable treatment." [Psychiatry in Practice, April 1993, p.14]

In the same issue, George Beaumont reporting on the workshop held at the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in London on pre-menstrual syndrome, says:

"Some authorities would argue that 80 percent of women have some degree of breast and abdominal discomfort which is pre-menstrual but that only about 10 percent complain to their doctors - and then only because of severe tenderness of the breasts and mental depression... Other authorities have suggested that pre-menstrual syndrome is a new problem, regular ovulation for 20 years or more being a phenomenon caused by 'civilisation', 'medical progress', and an altered concept of the role of women." [Psychiatry in Practice, April 1993, p.18]

In its examination of the occurrence of physical and psychological change during the period just prior to the onset of menstruation we read in Psychological Medicine:

"Many studies have reported an increased likelihood of various negative affects during the pre-menstrual period. In this affective category are many emotional designations including irritability, depression, tension, anxiety, sadness, insecurity, lethargy, loneliness, tearfulness, fatigue, restlessness and changes of mood. In the majority of studies, investigators have found it difficult to distinguish between various negative affects, and only a few have allowed themselves to be excessively concerned with the differences which might or might not exist between affective symptoms." [Psychological Medicine, Monograph Supplement 4, 1983, Cambridge University Press, p.6]

In the same article dealing with pre-menstrual behavioural changes we read:

"A significant relationship between the pre-menstrual phase of the cycle and a variety of specific and defined forms of behaviour has been reported in a number of studies. For the purpose of their review, these forms of behaviour have been grouped under the headings of aggressive behaviour, illness behaviour and accidents, performance on examination and other tests and sporting performance." [Psychological Medicine, Monograph Supplement 4, 1983, Cambridge University Press, p.7]

The lengthy review portrays how female behaviour is affected in these situations. In 'The Pre-menstrual Syndrome', C. Shreeves writes:

"Reduced powers of concentration and memory are familiar aspects of the pre-menstrual syndrome and can only be remedied by treating the underlying complaint."

This does not mean, of course, that women are mentally deficient absolutely. It just means that their mental faculties can become affected at certain times in the biological cycle. Shreeves also writes:

"As many as 80 percent of women are aware of some degree of pre-menstrual changes, 40 percent are substantially disturbed by them, and between 10 and 20 percent are seriously disabled as a result of the syndrome."

Furthermore, women face the problem of ante-natal and post-natal depression, both of which cause extreme cycles of depression in some cases. Again, these recurring symptoms naturally affect the mind, giving rise to drowsiness and dopey memory.

On the subject of pregnancy in Psychiatry in Practice, October-November 1986, we learn that:

"In an experiment 'Cox' found that 16 percent of a sample of 263 pregnant women were suffering from clinically significant psychiatric problems. Eight percent had a depressive neurosis and 1.9 percent had phobic neurosis. This study showed that the proportion of pregnant women with psychiatric problems was greater than that found in the control group but the difference only tended towards significance." [Psychiatry in Practice, October-November, 1986, p.6]

Regarding the symptoms during the post-natal cycle Dr. Ruth Sagovsky writes:

"The third category of puerperal psychiatric problems is post-natal depression. It is generally agreed that between10 to 15 percent of women become clinically depressed after childbirth. These mothers experience a variety of symptoms but anxiety, especially over the baby, irritability, and excessive fatigue are common. Appetite is usually decreased and often there are considerable sleep difficulties. The mothers lose interest in the things they enjoyed prior to the baby's birth, and find that their concentration is impaired. They often feel irrational guilt, and blame themselves for being 'bad' wives and mothers. Fifty percent of these women are not identified as having a depressive illness. Unfortunately, many of them do not understand what ails them and blame their husbands, their babies or themselves until the relationships are strained to an alarming degree." [Psychiatry in Practice, May, 1987, p.18]

" ... Making the diagnosis of post-natal depression is not always easy. Quite often the depression is beginning to become a serious problem around three months postpartum when frequent contact with the health visitor is diminishing. The mother may not present with depressed mood. If she comes to the health centre presenting the baby as the patient, the true nature of the problem can be missed. When the mother is continually anxious about the baby in spite of reassurance, then the primary health care worker needs to be aware of the possibility of depression. Sometimes these mothers present with marital difficulties, and it is easy to muddle cause and effect, viewing the accompanying low mood as part of the marital problem. Sometimes, only when the husband is seen as well does it become obvious that it is a post-natal depressive illness which has led to the deterioration in the marriage." [Psychiatry in Practice, May, 1987, p.18]*

Again there is a need to study the effects of the menopause about which very little is known even to this day. This phase in a woman's life can start at any time from the mid-thirties to the mid-fifties and can last for as long as 15 years.

Writing about the pre-menopausal years, C.B. Ballinger states:

"Several of the community surveys indicate a small but significant increase in psychiatric symptoms in women during the five years prior to the cessation of menstrual periods... The most obvious clinical feature of this transitional phase of menstrual function is the alteration in menstrual pattern, the menstrual cycle becoming shorter with age, and variability in cycle length become very prominent just prior to the cessation of menstruation. Menorrhagia is a common complaint at this time, and is associated with higher than normal levels of psychiatric disturbance." [Psychiatry in Practice, November, 1987, p.26]

On the phenomenon of menopause in an article in Newsweek International, May 25th 1992, Dr. Jennifer al-Knopf, Director of the Sex and Marital Therapy Programme of North-western University writes:

" ... Women never know what their body is doing to them ... some reporting debilitating symptoms from hot flashes to night sweat, sleeplessness, irritability, mood swings, short term memory loss, migraine, headaches, urinary inconsistence and weight gain. Most such problems can be traced to the drop-off in the female hormones oestrogen and progesterone, both of which govern the ovarian cycle. But every woman starts with a different level of hormones and loses them at different rates. The unpredictability is one of the most upsetting aspects. Women never know what their body is going to do to them ... "

Then there are the psychiatric aspects of infertility and miscarriage. On the subject of infertility, Dr. Ruth Sagovsky writes:

"Depression, anger and guilt are common reactions to bereavement. In infertility there is the added pain of there being nobody to grieve for. Families and friends may contribute to the feeling of isolation by passing insensitive comments. The gynaecologist and GPs have to try to help these couples against a backdrop of considerable distress." [Psychiatry in Practice, Winter, 1989, p.16]

On the subject of miscarriage the above article continues:

"Miscarriage is rarely mentioned when considering abortion. However, miscarriage can at times have profound psychological sequelae and it is important that those women affected receive the support they need. Approximately one-fifth of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion and the effects are poorly recognised. If however, the miscarriage occurs in the context of infertility, the emotional reaction may be severe. The level of grief will depend on the meaning of pregnancy to the couple." [Psychiatry in Practice, Winter, 1989, p.17]

Also, the fact that women are known to be more sensitive and emotional than men must not be overlooked. It is well known, for example, that under identical circumstances women suffer much greater anxiety than men. Numerous medical references on this aspect of female behaviour can be given but to quote as a specimen, we read in 'Sex Differences in Mental Health' that:

"Surveys have found different correlates of anxiety and neuroticism in the two sexes. Women and men do not become equally upset by the same things, and being upset does not have the same effect in men as in women. Ekehammer (1974; Ekehammer, Magnusson and Ricklander, 1974) using data from 116 sixteen-year-olds, did a factor analysis on self-reported anxiety. Of the eighteen different responses indicating anxiety (sweating palms, faster heart rate, and so on) females reported experiencing twelve of them significantly more often than males. Of the anxiety-producing situations studied, females reported experiencing significantly more anxiety than males reported in fourteen of them." [Katherine Blick Hoyenga and Kermit T. Hoyenga in Sex Differences in Mental Health, p.336]

Jack Sheehan

Well I can see that the study you have referenced (link please?) directly contradicts the study I referenced.

As I'm no scientist I can't decide which is right but I would be more inclined to believe the Study that was conducted in 2002 rather than 1983. I think superior research methods would give more accurate results.

jam_mac_jam

Medina wrote: »

Hi Jack
I think you are putting words into Suff's mouth here...
He never said nor implied (as far as I can see) that women are not rational thinking creatures.
Have you read the article I linked to?
I think it expresses just one of various reasons why a woman's testimony would be less reliable than that of a man's.

Its not that we are more forgetful than men, but science has proved that our biological cycles can affect our concentration and memory which is a factor a man doesn't have to contend with.

Also in my opinion, if a woman was to see some crime taking place, she is more likely to run away than a man I would say. Most crime seems to be committed by men (why is that?) and a women is rarely going to stand there and watch. A man might be more likely to watch or try to intervene etc

This is the exact type of inaccuracy and attitude which creates the impression that Islam does not treat women well. The idea that hormones are going to prevent a woman being able to report or witness a crime is laughable. You have answered the original question asked, when non muslims hear such laughable ideas being defended they can sometimes (inaccurately in my opinion) think that all muslims believe such nonsence.

Medina

oceanclub wrote: »

What about the case of a rape, where the only witnesses were the woman raped and the rapist. In this case, the woman would never be believed. Is this right?

P.

I can't state how a court of islamic law would go about ascertaining truth/falsehoold but I would imagine that witness testimony would only be the crux of the case if there was no medical evidence of force or other evidences etc.

And if there is no medical evidence, then it comes down to what a woman says versus what a man says. And then the requirement for witnesses can come both ways...

For example:
From the accounts (hadith) of the Prophet peace be upon him:

Sahih Al Bukhari
Volume 3, Book 48, Number 837:
Narrated Ibn Abbas:

Hilal bin Umaiya accused his wife before the Prophet of committing illegal sexual intercourse with Sharik bin Sahma.' The Prophet said, "Produce a proof, or else you would get the legal punishment (by being lashed) on your back." Hilal said, "O Allah's Apostle! If anyone of us saw another man over his wife, would he go to search for a proof." The Prophet went on saying, "Produce a proof or else you would get the legal punishment (by being lashed) on your back." The Prophet then mentioned the narration of Lian (as in the Holy Book). (Surat-al-Nur: 24)

oceanclub

Medina wrote: »

The link I posted has various scientific studies quoted, which came from independent sources?

Psychiatry in Practice, April 1983 issue states:

"Forty percent of women suffer from pre-menstrual syndrome in some form and one in if our women have their lives severely disrupted by it. Dr Jill Williams, general practitioner from Bury, gives guidelines on how to recognise patients at risk and suggests a suitable treatment." [Psychiatry in Practice, April 1993, p.14]

(snip)

Medina, those studies you quote are not as relevant to the question at hand as the one I posted. The question was - are women as reliable witnesses as men? The study I post says they are in fact more reliable.

Your studies talk about "breast discomfort" and vaguely reference "psychological changes". None of the text you've quoted deals with women's suitability as witnesses - none of it. Posting irrelevant chunks of text may look impressive, but not once you read it.


Also, can anyone answer my question about the evidence from a raped woman? I presume this must always be considered false if the (male) rapist denied the rape, even if the woman's evidence seems more convincing?

P.

Jack Sheehan

Medina wrote: »

And if there is no medical evidence, then it comes down to what a woman says versus what a man says. And then the requirement for witnesses can come both ways...

(Surat-al-Nur: 24)

But (and correct me if I'm wrong here) if it came down to the mans word vs the womans word, the man would automatically be believed because there is an inherent sexual inequality in the sharia law system that favors men.

Medina

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

The idea that hormones are going to prevent a woman being able to report or witness a crime is laughable. .

Where did I say that?
You interpreted what I did say a certain way to retro fit it to your preconceived notions of how Islam treats women. No one said women can't report or witness a crime

btw Jack the scientific quotes came from the link I quoted from.
I leave it to yourself to source the original studies if you feel the need to.

Medina

Jack Sheehan wrote: »

But (and correct me if I'm wrong here) if it came down to the mans word vs the womans word, the man would automatically be believed because there is an inherent sexual inequality in the sharia law system that favors men.

Doesn't the example I quoted show that there is no sexual inequality? A man is just as much required to produce witnesses as much as a woman is.

jam_mac_jam

Medina wrote: »

Where did I say that?
You interpreted it a certain way to retro fit it to your preconceived notions of how Islam treats women

btw Jack the scientific quotes came from the link I quoted from.
I leave it to yourself to source the original studies if you feel the need to.

I do not have any notions of how Islam treats women at all, I think its more to do with the culture of a country then the religion of it to be honest. Dont assume my preconceived notions about Islam when I know a little more about it having been to many differing muslim countries and seen the vast differences in the treatment of women.

I am explaining to you why others may get these notions from.

Jack Sheehan

Medina wrote: »

Doesn't the example I quoted show that there is no sexual inequality? A man is just as much required to produce witnesses as much as a woman is.

Ok another example, If a Woman is raped by a man and the man produces one witness. The woman also produces one witness. According to sharia law does or does the man not win because of he gender inequality present?

Medina

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

I do not have any notions of how Islam treats women at all, I think its more to do with the culture of a country then the religion of it to be honest. Dont assume my preconceived notions about Islam when I know a little more about it having been to many differing muslim countries and seen the vast differences in the treatment of women.

I am explaining to you why others may get these notions from.

Well I am very glad to hear you don't have preconceived notions, I apologise sincerely.

You are right in that cultures treat women very differently, and that is what we want to distinguish, that its the culture not Islam who can treat women as inferior beings

oceanclub

Medina wrote: »

Doesn't the example I quoted show that there is no sexual inequality? A man is just as much required to produce witnesses as much as a woman is.

In that case, the quote you posted doesn't bear much resemblance to how Islamic law is actually implemented in real life.

From Wikipedia:

The status of women's testimony in Islam is disputed. Some jurists have held that certain types testimony by women will not be accepted.[22]. In other cases, the testimony of two women can equal that of one man.[22][Qur'an 2:282][23] The reason for this disparity has been explained in various manners, including women's lack of intelligence,[24] women's temperament and sphere of interest,[25] and sparing women from the burden of testifying.[26] In other areas, women's testimony may be accepted on an equal basis with men's.[22][27]

So in the best case, a woman's testimony is only worth half that of a man's. I find it hard to know how you square this with "sexual equality".


P.

Medina

Jack Sheehan wrote: »

Ok another example, If a Woman is raped by a man and the man produces one witness. The woman also produces one witness. According to sharia law does or does the man not win because of he gender inequality present?

As I said Jack, I have no idea how an Islamic court would rule on this however I can't see that the ruling would hinge on number of witnesses unless there are no other evidences.

In the case you have quoted you have already ascertained it as a truth that the woman was raped, this is the flaw.

If you were a member of a jury for this case, and there were no evidences except witnesses, how would you decide on this? From a non-Islamic point of view they have produced equal witnesses.
From an Islamic point of view , he has produced more.
In either way he would probably be deemed innocent.

Jack Sheehan

In an Irish court they would be thouroghly cross examined and not taken on a 2:1 basis.

Anyway I'm off.

the_new_mr

On the issue at hand, I believe the 2:1 ratio thing is only required when witnessing something of a financial transaction where memory of fine details is required and, as the article from the link that Medina posted to pointed out, women may have trouble remembering things if it is during their cycles. The verse in full:

Al-Baqara:282
"O you who have attained to faith! Whenever you give or take credit for a stated term, set it down in writing. And let a scribe write it down equitably between you; and no scribe shall refuse to write as God has taught him: thus shall he write. And let him who contracts the debt dictate; and let him be conscious of God, his Sustainer, and not weaken anything of his undertaking. And if he who contracts the debt is weak of mind or body, or, is not able to dictate himself, then let him who watches over his interests dictate equitably. And call upon two of your men to act as witnesses; and if two men are not available, then a man and two women from among such as are acceptable to you as witnesses, so that if one of them should make a mistake, the other could remind her. And the witnesses must not refuse [to give evidence] whenever they are called upon. And be not loath to write down every contractual provision, be it small or great, together with the time at which it falls due; this is more equitable in the sight of God, more reliable as evidence, and more likely to prevent you from having doubts [later]. If, however, [the transaction] concerns ready merchandise which you transfer directly unto one another, you will incur no sin if you do not write it down. And have witnesses whenever you trade with one another, but neither scribe nor witness must suffer harm; for if you do [them harm], behold, it will be sinful conduct on your part. And remain conscious of God, since it is God who teaches you [herewith] - and God has full knowledge of everything."

As for the questions in Windsock's post:

Windsock wrote:

Does that mean a Woman is only half of what a Man is by physique?

Please allow me to be so lazy as to quote myself from a previous post on this forum:

the_new_mr wrote:

The inheritance thing has also already been covered. Women may get half of that of a man in some cases but they may also get more in others. In yet other cases, a woman may receive a share and a man doesn't.

There are two main factors when in it comes to inheritance. These are:
a) Closeness to the deceased
b) Responsibility.

The man is religiously obligated in front of God to provide for his family whereas the woman isn't. And, as mentioned, there's the dowry.

Consider the following example.

A man dies leaving 150,000 to one son and one daughter. Let's call them, Ali and Sally (it rhymes ). Ali gets 100,000 while Sally gets 50,000.

Then, later on, they get married. Ali may pay 25,000 as dowry to his future wife. Let's say that Sally's future husband also pays her 25,000 as dowry. Now they're on 75,000 each.

Sally, unlike Ali, doesn't have to spend anything out of her 75,000 except on herself. Ali, on the other hand, is obligated to support his new family with this money. Add to that the fact that Sally receives the reward of someone giving to charity in God's eyes if she decides to spend a single cent on her own family and it's clear that it's not as unfair as people think.

Windsock wrote:

I personally have some issues regarding the highlighted text.

This question will, God willing, be answered by Medina in this thread soon.

Windsock wrote:

So a womans role in heaven is to be a young virgin? What happens when she is no longer a celestial virgin? Does she become a heavenly sex slave? ..... What is this bit about?

The women spoken of here are not those of earth but separate entities. Who is to say that women don't also get pure companions in heaven? As MeditationMom already said:

MeditationMom wrote:

Sex is not the problem. Our attitudes that we bring to it, are.

Why should sex only be seen as something dirty? Is it not a beautiful thing between two people who love each other on earth? Can it not also be something to be enjoyed in heaven if condoned by God?

happybee

moe_sizlak wrote: »

you have a right to your opinion but your statement that the treatment of women in theese places is due to the culture of the country and not islam, well i do not buy that
i believe it is down to islam , im entitled to my opinion and it is a widely held one too i might add

Unless you know Islam,then you do not know what you are talking about.You, like a vast majority of the ignorant,assume Islam to be dominating when in fact the very basics of the religion clearly state a woman is equal to that of a man.However,it is without a doubt a cultural issue that women are mis-treated.
Please take a minute to think of the Bible Belt of the United Sates.Think of the extreme Christians there,who also are known to take more then one wife.And who are also known for their abusive towards women.Now I presume they are not of Islamic faith????
Saudi Arabia is the main focus of "all that is bad" for women in Islam, because thats what gets the most attention.Media coverage over the past few years has rarely focused on strong,positive,modern Muslim women.And why would it?? Its way more fun to feed people's morbid misconceptions.
I am a Christian by birth.I'm engaged to a Muslim man.I have met a lot of Irish Muslim women.And not one of them are mis-treated.In fact they are as loud,boisterous and out-going as any other Irish woman,only they dress modestly and adhere to respecting themselves and those around them.So how is Islam an oppresive faith?
And as someone who had little knowledge of the religion before choosing to study it, I also had the opinions that Islam was an extreme religion that thought nothing of beating its women to a pulp,and that was AFTER I lived in the Middle East for a couple of years.It took me seeing it from an Irish perspective to realise the difference between religion and culture.And to see that they are by no means the same thing at all.

normar

DaveMcG wrote: »

(Posted by normar)


AN-NISA (WOMEN)

004.011
Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children's (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females:

004.034
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).


AL-WAQIA (THE EVENT, THE INEVITABLE)

056.035
We have created (their Companions) of special creation.
056.036
And made them virgin - pure (and undefiled), -
056.037
Beloved (by nature), equal in age,-
056.038
YUSUFALI: For the Companions of the Right Hand.


AN-NABA (THE TIDINGS, THE ANNOUNCEMENT)
078.031
Verily for the Righteous there will be a fulfilment of (the heart's) desires;
078.032
Gardens enclosed, and grapevines;
078.033
And voluptuous women of equal age;


The Book of Women 4:15

"As for those of your women who are guilty of lewdness, call to witness four of you against them. And if they testify (to the truth of the allegation) then confine them to the houses until death take them or (until) Allah appoint for them a way (through new legislation)."

Any Muslims able to justify these quotes? Or will it just end up with ye trying to argue that it's a mistranslation and it actually means that women are the same as men and everything's hunky dory?

The he_new_mr responds thus:

the_new_mr wrote: »

The women spoken of here are not those of earth but separate entities.

This is about as good as it gets when women are considered by the Qu'ran.

They are "separate entities" who are also "voluptuous women" but hey not real women mind you. And they are only "for the Righteous"

Are men seperate entities? Do "Righteous women" get "voluptuous men"


This is why I am and will remain an Athiest. To live and to work to further the rights of all humans here on the real and tangible earth which sustains us all here and now.


..

MeditationMom

by normar - here and now.

That is all that ever needs to be learned. Here and Now is eternal and infinite. It is where God resides. Anyone who does not learn that in this lifetime will, when he or she gets to heaven, instantly leave heaven again.

God is not in the past (Jesus, Moahmmed, Buddha) nor in the future - in heaven. God is Here Now - just wake up to it. No need to even believe in God.

PDN

happybee wrote: »

Please take a minute to think of the Bible Belt of the United Sates.Think of the extreme Christians there,who also are known to take more then one wife.And who are also known for their abusive towards women.Now I presume they are not of Islamic faith????

So do you really believe that the Bible Belt in the US is full of "extreme Christians who are known to take more than one wife"?

Polygamists in the US are predominantly found among breakaway offshoots of Mormonism and are found in the West (mainly Utah) not in the Bible Belt. In fact the 'extreme Christians' of the Bible Belt see Mormonism as a cult and do not accept its validity as Christian at all.

Even if your information was correct (which it is not) your argument would still be illogical. The fact that a tiny number of non-Muslims in America practice polygamy has no relevance whatsoever to whether Islam treats women well or not.

the_new_mr

normar wrote:

This is about as good as it gets when women are considered by the Qu'ran.

Shockingly misleading. Perhaps you should refrain from making wild accusations.

Some verses from the Quran showing the opposite:

Al-Imran:195
"And their Lord hath accepted of them, and answered them: "Never will I suffer to be lost the work of any of you, be he male or female: Ye are members, one of another:..."

An-Nisa:19
"O you who have attained to faith! It is not lawful for you to [try to] become heirs to your wives [by holding onto them] against their will; and neither shall you keep them under constraint with a view to taking away anything of what you may have given them, unless it be that they have become guilty, in an obvious man*ner, of immoral conduct. And consort with your wives in a goodly manner; for if you dislike them, it may well be that you dislike something which God might yet make a source of abundant good."

And some hadith (sayings) of the Prophet Mohamed (peace be upon him):

"Heaven lies at the feet of your mothers."

"O’ ye men. Fear Allah and treat your women with kindness."

normar wrote:

Are men seperate entities? Do "Righteous women" get "voluptuous men"

Why not?

normar

MeditationMom wrote: »

........ Anyone who does not learn that in this lifetime will, when he or she gets to heaven, instantly leave heaven again.

God is not in the past (Jesus, Moahmmed, Buddha) nor in the future - in heaven. God is Here Now - just wake up to it. No need to even believe in God.

Sorry Medatation Mom.

That above makes absolutely no sense to me at all.

Of course you can believe it as is your right but it does not make it a fact. I mean a real provable fact.

normar

the_new_mr wrote: »

An-Nisa:19
"O you who have attained to faith! It is not lawful for you to [try to] become heirs to your wives [by holding onto them] against their will; and neither shall you keep them under constraint with a view to taking away anything of what you may have given them, unless it be that they have become guilty, in an obvious man*ner, of immoral conduct. And consort with your wives in a goodly manner; for if you dislike them, it may well be that you dislike something which God might yet make a source of abundant good."

This is also a verse from the Qur'an.


004.034
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).



I would like to emphasize this part of the verse " ......As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct,....."

This verse gives men a religious basis to beat women simply because men may "fear" that women are disloyal. It is enough apparently for men just to fear women are disloyal to render a beating justified.

This is what the verse is saying. You can take no other meaning from it.

It demonstrates unequivocally the dangerous contradictions that can be found in the texts of all revealed religions, Islam included. If you want justification for something than it can be found in the passages in the Bible and in the Qur'an.


I also raised the question " Are men seperate entities? Do "Righteous women" get "voluptuous men" " when they go to heaven, to paradise?

The answer from The New Mr was..... 'why not"


By this logic this would seem to make paradise a place of full sexual liberty for both men and women.

Why id it then that sex on earth is so repulsive to god, yet in paradise or heaven it is freely available.

That just don't figure.

To me such glaring contradictions and double standards simply show religions are all made made, and without any basis in fact.

normar

normar wrote: »

This is also a verse from the Qur'an.


004.034
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).



I would like to emphasize this part of the verse " ......As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct,....."

This verse gives men a religious basis to beat women simply because men may "fear" that women are disloyal. It is enough apparently for men just to fear women are disloyal to render a beating justified.

This is what the verse is saying. You can take no other meaning from it.

Whaaat?
It clearly says beating - if beating at all, I'm sure you've seen the argument on that translation by now - is a last resort. It most certainly doesn't say you beat them for a fear.

MeditationMom

by normar -
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeditationMom View Post
........ Anyone who does not learn that in this lifetime will, when he or she gets to heaven, instantly leave heaven again.

God is not in the past (Jesus, Moahmmed, Buddha) nor in the future - in heaven. God is Here Now - just wake up to it. No need to even believe in God.


Sorry Medatation Mom.

That above makes absolutely no sense to me at all.

Of course you can believe it as is your right but it does not make it a fact. I mean a real provable fact.

Normar - I'll try to explain. Heaven is absolute contentment, infinite bliss and eternal life. Would you agree?

If, when you get to heaven and for one instant have a thought about lets say virgin number 64.972 who has become boring and you think you are ready for virgin number 64,973 - or if for a moment you think now you would like to eat a sandwich - you destroy "absolute contentment and infinite bliss as well as eternal life" Even the idea of eternal life could fill you with dread of infinite boredom.

So learning to be here, now with no thought of past or future - is important to learn before getting to heaven. Maybe it is a silly idea.

I also think that heaven and hell is the same, but how we experience it is what makes it heaven or hell to us. As in - what is a prison cell to a murderer is a sanctuary to a monk. What do you think?

Schuhart

normar wrote: »

It is enough apparently for men just to fear women are disloyal to render a beating justified.

I’m a bit surprised at the reading you are putting on this, given the discussion here. I think it’s clear that no responsible source see that quote as a mandate for regular beatings. But I think it is fair to take it to mean that mild physical chastisement is mandated by the Quran in the one instance of an unrepentant habitually disobedient wife. That's a quite a distance from 'fear'. People opt for a far higher level of submission and physical chastisement if they choose to become Koatians, because they want to live out a lifestyle depicted in fiction. In that context, what in particular is wrong with people being a bit old-fashioned if they want?

The key issue is, of course, those three words ‘if they want’ to the extent that any of us have a choice. And, indeed, Islam does have a bit of an issue over that as traditionally persons born Muslim are not regarded as having the right to leave the faith if they feel it’s not for them. In fairness, I don’t think anyone posting here has ever sought to defend that position. But countries that align their laws, to a greater or lesser extent, to the Sharia do have a problem, to a greater or lesser extent, with Muslims who convert to another faith or just leave the faith.

That, to my mind, is a legitimate complaint about the coherence of the faith. There’s no problem expecting people to fulfil this or that religious obligation, so long as they have a clear ability to leave it all behind them. Once that is present, it’s just a lifestyle choice. There might be a residual issue in terms of public space. I doubt if anyone would be comfortable with a primary school teacher leading his Koatian slave by a chain into the classroom. Equally (to pick your own interest) I can’t imagine people being comfortable with a primary teacher turning up naked in class if he’s a naturist. Presumably, if you were a Turkish secularist, you might have similar feelings about veiling. That said, in our context, it’s probably only veils covering the face (which generally do not seem to be mandated by Islam) that we’d regard as equivalent to exposing children to fetish wear.

All of which long and wandering reasoning still leaves me trying to express that idea that, for productive discussion, statements need to be solidly grounded and not amplified beyond what they are. For the sake of argument, it is absolutely true that many Islamic scholars justify a death penalty for apostasy. It’s also true that some Islamic countries have a death penalty on their statute books to that effect. However, it’s also true that some countries that would equally regard themselves as Muslim don’t have such a penalty, and that it’s rarely applied in practice – although, presumably, that’s because people don’t particularly advertise the fact they no longer regard themselves as Muslim if there’s a prospect of execution. But the point is to focus on what the factual position is, rather than address arguments as if every day atheists were being slaughtered by the dozen.

By the same token, the fact that the Quran, as commonly understood, permits a husband to hit a disobedient wife should not be stretched beyond that meaning. You might still have a problem with that conception of gender relations – but that's another matter entirely.

normar wrote: »

By this logic this would seem to make paradise a place of full sexual liberty for both men and women.

Why id it then that sex on earth is so repulsive to god, yet in paradise or heaven it is freely available.

That just don't figure.

To me such glaring contradictions and double standards simply show religions are all made made, and without any basis in fact.

I think here you are on firmer ground, but bear in mind that Islam sees no problem with sex when its lawful. Lawful sex can include multiple wives, slave girls and women captives taken in battle. On the face of it, there’s no logical problem if it includes such partners as you might be given in paradise – it’s just another category of lawful partner.

Schuhart

MeditationMom wrote: »

I also think that heaven and hell is the same, but how we experience it is what makes it heaven or hell to us. As in - what is a prison cell to a murderer is a sanctuary to a monk. What do you think?

I think you're on your way to heaven.

Can I come?

MeditationMom

MeditationMom wrote: »

Normar - I'll try to explain. Heaven is absolute contentment, infinite bliss and eternal life. Would you agree?

If, when you get to heaven and for one instant have a thought about lets say virgin number 64.972 who has become boring and you think you are ready for virgin number 64,973 - or if for a moment you think now you would like to eat a sandwich - you destroy "absolute contentment and infinite bliss as well as eternal life" Even the idea of eternal life could fill you with dread of infinite boredom.

So learning to be here, now with no thought of past or future - is important to learn before getting to heaven. Maybe it is a silly idea.

Sounds a lot more likely that heaven wouldn't have time at all

normar

Schuhart wrote: »

By the same token, the fact that the Quran, as commonly understood, permits a husband to hit a disobedient wife should not be stretched beyond that meaning.....

......I think here you are on firmer ground, but bear in mind that Islam sees no problem with sex when its lawful. Lawful sex can include multiple wives, slave girls and women captives taken in battle. On the face of it, there’s no logical problem if it includes such partners as you might be given in paradise – it’s just another category of lawful partner.

I could never accept that beating a woman under any circumstances is permissable. That a "perfect" religious text allows it as "permissible" because men may "fear" disobedience, not just actual disobedience, blows me away.
In our Democracy the beating of a woman is a criminal offence, and very rightly so. And there are no "excuses" allowed.

As to " Lawful sex can include multiple wives, slave girls and women captives taken in battle." That applies only to men. Women can be and are stoned to death for multiple partners in some Islamic countries. That is some Lawful

You say "On the face of it, there’s no logical problem if it includes such partners as you might be given in paradise". The problem arises because the Qur'an only mentions the voluptious women who are available for the righteous in paradise.

So if there is " no logical problem if it includes such partners as you might be given in paradise" why can't Islamic " voluptious women " have multiple partners on earth?


..

Schuhart

normar wrote: »

I could never accept that beating a woman under any circumstances is permissable. That a "perfect" religious text allows it as "permissible" because men may "fear" disobedience, not just actual disobedience, blows me away.

I’d suggest you could make much the same statement, but actually stick to how the text is understood – presumably you would be equally ‘blown away’ by the notion that it is permissible for a husband to hit an unrepentant wife for repeated disobedience once he has clearly signalled his displeasure by non-violent means? If you express it this way, you avoid a whole load of pointless ‘but that’s not what it says’ stuff and actually get to engage on what I think is the issue you want to talk about.

normar wrote: »

In our Democracy the beating of a woman is a criminal offence, and very rightly so. And there are no "excuses" allowed.

I don’t know if there are any excuses allowed – seriously, I’m not aware of the legalities of the situation. But boxing seems to be a legal sport, as are various forms of martial arts. Women are certainly active in martial arts and I’ve a vague memory of seeing a news item about a womens’ boxing club in Trinity College.

I’m also not aware of people who practice bondage having any legal issues. I don’t see how this is qualitatively different to a couple who feel that one has a right to hit the other for disobedience on religious grounds. The only issue I can see is that both would have to share that view of marriage. Clearly, a marriage where only the husband feels he has this right is an accident waiting to happen.

normar wrote: »

As to " Lawful sex can include multiple wives, slave girls and women captives taken in battle." That applies only to men. Women can be and are stoned to death for multiple partners in some Islamic countries. That is some Lawful

Just to clarify, I think any adulterer will be punished under Islamic law. But, absolutely, men are allowed multiple wives and (while of limited value in the modern world) potential lawful access to other partners like slaves and captives. But, then, Islam holds that men and women are different, and only promises a sort of parity of esteem. The problem you see only emerges if we feel men and women should have substantially the same rights.

normar wrote: »

You say "On the face of it, there’s no logical problem if it includes such partners as you might be given in paradise". The problem arises because the Qur'an only mentions the voluptious women who are available for the righteous in paradise.

Indeed, and maybe the women get nothing voluptuous in paradise. I take the_new_mr’s comment to be purely speculative. But, again, if the role of men and women in this life is seen as different, there’s nothing illogical about seeing those differences maintained in the next life.

normar wrote: »

So if there is " no logical problem if it includes such partners as you might be given in paradise" why can't Islamic " voluptious women " have multiple partners on earth?

But surely you can see there’s no conflict at all here – maybe women are allowed multiple voluptuous partners in heaven and not in this life. Maybe they don’t get multiple voluptuous partners in heaven, and have much the same gig as here. It’s only illogical if you expect men and women to have substantially the same rights.

the_new_mr

Please forgive me normar for expressing some frustration at the fact that no matter how many times I (or someone else) clarifies a particular verse or text, we find you right back where you started making out that Islam condones wife-beating etc. I shall ask people to go back and read the previous posts on this subject instead of repeating myself here. I remember someone once telling me that if you feel the need to constantly repeat yourself in a discussion then your points are already rock-solid.

As Schuhart has already touched upon, sex in Islam is considered a beautiful thing if it's done lawfully. It's not to be frowned upon and is not considered just for procreational reasons as some other religions view it to be. I haven't had the privilege of experiencing it yet but my understanding is that it's an experience to be treasured when with someone you love. As someone once told me, the problem is not with Islam's view of sex, it's mainly with peoples' view of sex.

And one other thing I do feel compelled to discuss though is the point of slave girls/captives. I decided to prepare by reading first but decided that the link itself does a better job than I ever could.

Sex with slaves: What's the deal?

Please pay particular attention to the mention of the gradual eradication as opposed to the system done in America that was the main cause of the American civil war.

donaghs

While its a separate issue, I'd have to pick you up on a few things on the slavery issue, as slavery is such a terrible injustice. First off slavery is unacceptable and should be abolished where ever it still exists.

While the ending of slaving in the US was very problematic, sudden and and with very little support for the slaves after freedom - its still better to be free than a slave. A better planned system was what happened in Russia, where the freeing of the serfs was debated and planned for decades before it happened (but still not ideal). But Russia was more of an autocracy which could enforce this changes. America was a democracy that split over the issue.

While the Islamic world is not a single entity like a nation state, I'd dispute the idea that there was a planned gradual end to slavery. There had been shifts in Islamic thought towards more liberal views on slavery, but it was mainly the British Navy that ended much of the Islamic slave trade in the 19th c (e.g. Zanzibar in 1897). It could be argued that it was the abolition of slavery in all Western states in the 19th c that led to most states in the Islamic world to re-examine the issue. The Saudis (always behind the curve), kept internal slavery going until 1962, when it was finally abolished and the slave owners receiving government compensation. The slaves didn't fare as well.

normar

Schuhart wrote: »

– presumably you would be equally ‘blown away’ by the notion that it is permissible for a husband to hit an unrepentant wife for repeated disobedience once he has clearly signalled his displeasure by non-violent means? .

Yes I absolutely would consider it an abhorrance.

Schuhart wrote: »

–
I’m not aware of the legalities of the situation. But boxing seems to be a legal sport, as are various forms of martial arts. Women are certainly active in martial arts and I’ve a vague memory of seeing a news item about a womens’ boxing club in Trinity College.

This is some comparison you make.

That the beating of a wife against her will is similar to recognised voluntary sports like boxing and martial arts.

As to the bondage thing, what consenting adults do in thier own homes and clubs is their own business. Note I say consenting adults.


[/QUOTE]

....sex in Islam is considered a beautiful thing if it's done lawfully.

The_New _Mr.
[/QUOTE]


That would depend of what the lawmakers consider lawful. Sex with a slave girl is considered lawful in Islam as in Christianity ( Numbers. Old Testament). But it is still an ugly criminal attack on another human being in my reasoning.

But you dont answer my question, the_new_mr.

If various sexual activity is lawful in paradise (where one assumes there can be no sin) why can't it be lawful on earth? If its not a sin in paradise it can't really be a sin on earth.

The question can be put generally: can anything thats allowed in heaven be considered a sin on earth?

.

Schuhart

normar wrote:

This is some comparison you make. That the beating of a wife against her will is similar to recognised voluntary sports like boxing and martial arts.

I’m afraid you’re answering a point you wish I’d made, rather than any point I actually made. In case there is some confusion, allow me to explain:

You said

normar wrote:

In our Democracy the beating of a woman is a criminal offence, and very rightly so. And there are no "excuses" allowed.

I’m pointing out that there do seem to be excuses allowed. Participation in violent sporting contests seems to be a valid excuse for beating a woman. You are absolutely right that a sporting contest is not the same as a husband disciplining a wife, particularly if she contests his right to do so. But, then, I’m not saying it is.

However, a couple engaging in bondage are in exactly the same situation as a couple who believe their marriage includes a right of the husband to discipline a wife. In fact, the bondage practitioners could well be engaged in more painful activities than those described in the Quran, and doing it more frequently. So it would seem that activities directly comparable to those at issue are legal. Hence, you seem to be simply wrong when you say beating a woman is always a criminal offence.

Cutting to the chase, what I think you needed to say is beating a woman against her will is a criminal offence. 'Against her will' being the key point.

normar wrote:

As to the bondage thing, what consenting adults do in thier own homes and clubs is their own business. Note I say consenting adults.

Note that I also say consenting adults, although perhaps my comment was too oblique

schuhart wrote:

The only issue I can see is that both would have to share that view of marriage. Clearly, a marriage where only the husband feels he has this right is an accident waiting to happen.

In other words, if two people freely contract a marriage on the basis that one must submit to the authority of the other and expect to be disciplined if they disobey, then it is presumably entirely their affair.

Which, I think, means your argument has rather run out of steam.

I’m not sure you are really confronting that issue of consent. No woman in Ireland can be forced into a marriage that obliges her to submit to her husband and accept his discipline. No woman in Ireland can be forced to follow her parents religion if she decides to leave it. This would be more of an issue in countries that apply the Sharia. A Muslim cannot leave the faith, and a Muslim woman can only marry a Muslim man. Hence, the option of contracting a marriage where the Quran is irrelevant is not open to her. That’s really where the issue sits, as I see it.

However, before banging on about apostasy I suggest that you actually read and digest some material on the topic. These articles, written by scholars with different views of the situation, have been linked here before. Taken together, they provide a 'warts and all' account of the matter.

Schuhart

Schuhart wrote:

A Muslim cannot leave the faith, and a Muslim woman can only marry a Muslim man. Hence, the option of contracting a marriage where the Quran is irrelevant is not open to her.

Do many muslim women in such countries not get married, I wonder?

MeditationMom

by bluewolf - Sounds a lot more likely that heaven wouldn't have time at all

That's right. Infinity means no space, (not lots and lots of space),Eternity means no time (not lots and lots of time). So, any notions of anything happening in heaven, are false. Nothing happens in heaven. That is why it would be heaven for some, hell for others. Just being with God, that's all. Bliss or torture - it depends on us.

All these ideas - angles, music, virgins, food.... are analogies as to the peace and contentment we feel here on earth when we have those things in abundance. Heaven is as if full of willing virgins, heavenly music. That is quite different from heaven is full of willing virgins and heavenly music. Heaven is this peace and contentment, bliss beyond description. People get confused between poetry and actuality.

And yes, Schuhart - come with me to nowhere

As far as beating women is concerned - the Quran is old. In those days women were possessions like donkeys. Some men still feel this way and don't think they are doing anything wrong. (Not limited to Muslims either) It is up to the women to defend themselves. There are many Muslim women rejecting the Quran, arguing it is the cause of faulty thinking. Too bad to throw out the baby with the bathwater as there is so much beauty in the Quran, but many of these women make valid points.

Any religion that does not allow freedom to leave the religion is suspect, especially since the people who the religion is based on, left theirs!!! It makes no sense religiously - only politically - and could in no way have been the intention of the original teacher.

normar

Schuhart wrote: »

.........if two people freely contract a marriage on the basis that one must submit to the authority of the other and expect to be disciplined if they disobey, then it is presumably entirely their affair.

A Muslim cannot leave the faith, and a Muslim woman can only marry a Muslim man. Hence, the option of contracting a marriage where the Quran is irrelevant is not open to her. That’s really where the issue sits, as I see it.

.

How sad. The only option available then to the Muslin woman is to

"contract a marriage on the basis that one must submit to the authority of the other and expect to be disciplined if they disobey",



Fortunately in our pluralist democracy such "contracts" as above are illegal and the beating of a woman by a man in any circumstances is a criminal offense.

Women participating against women in boxing and other sporting events bares no comparison to a man beating a woman against her will. To suggest so as you have done in you posts above above is to reduce this discussion to a complete farce.



..

Schuhart

normar wrote: »

How sad. The only option available then to the Muslin woman is to

"contract a marriage on the basis that one must submit to the authority of the other and expect to be disciplined if they disobey",

That's my understanding of the situation, based on such scholarly articles as I've read. I think it is fair to point out that the husband is seen as having obligations to treat his wife decently and not abuse his authority. But, ultimately, I understand the text you have highlighted to be correct.

normar wrote: »

Fortunately in our pluralist democracy such "contracts" as above are illegal and the beating of a woman by a man in any circumstances is a criminal offense.

As I said above, I simply don't know the legal position. However, I have twice mentioned couples who engage in bondage. I'm not conscious of that being a criminal offence, but it presumably does involve men beating women (and vice versa). And its not as if the Garda don't know where these activities can be found.

We met some lovely people who were so friendly and we were both amazed at the trust and care between the partners who were being spanked and doing the spanking. You could see the closeness of their relationship even when one was getting spanked.

Are all those people criminals?

normar wrote: »

Women participating against women in boxing and other sporting events bares no comparison to a man beating a woman against her will. To suggest so as you have done in you posts above above is to reduce this discussion to a complete farce.

I have quite clearly exposed your straw man argument for what it is. To be honest, I'm more than a little surprised to see you repeat it. I don't intend to repeat the refutation I already posted here.

AckwelFoley

Would it be a reasonalbe assumption that some western laws are perhaps not compatible with Islamic laws or vice versa?

Filan

So what then is the attraction in Islam for female reverts?.

PDN

Filan wrote: »

So what then is the attraction in Islam for female reverts?.

Many cases seem to be in order to marry Muslim men.

Medina

normar wrote: »

How sad. The only option available then to the Muslin woman is to

"contract a marriage on the basis that one must submit to the authority of the other and expect to be disciplined if they disobey",

This is not true at all Normar

I didn't want to get involved in this debate but as a Muslim woman maybe it helps.

If the Quran is interpreted to mean it allows the hitting of the wife, then that is all it is, 'allowed'. It is not an instruction to hit the wife and the various other evidences from Islamic sources of law (the Hadith) point out the teachings of the Prophet to NOT hit your wife. The two are not in opposition I believe, but rather more like 'its allowed but should be avoided'.

Therefore it is allowed in the case of the extreme only.

Personally as a muslim woman, if I was considering a man for marriage, I would be questioning him about his attitudes to this matter. I would also make it clear that if he laid a finger on me, I'd be out of that marriage. Therefore it is not the case where being muslim, female and married equals your acceptance to be hit. And there is no need to throw out the baby with the bathwater as MeditationMom phrased it.

The Prophet peace be upon him left many teachings about how best a man can treat his wife and family and included in this was not to beat wives, he never hit his own wives and it is the duty of all Muslims to follow the Sunnah (example left by the Prophet). So one could say that it is a man's duty to NOT hit his wife although it is not a punishable act by God under extreme circumstances when all the prior means of reconciliation have been exhausted.

DinoBot

Medina wrote: »

This is not true at all Normar

I didn't want to get involved in this debate but as a Muslim woman maybe it helps.

If the Quran is interpreted to mean it allows the hitting of the wife, then that is all it is, 'allowed'. It is not an instruction to hit the wife and the various other evidences from Islamic sources of law (the Hadith) point out the teachings of the Prophet to NOT hit your wife. The two are not in opposition I believe, but rather more like 'its allowed but should be avoided'.

Therefore it is allowed in the case of the extreme only.

Personally as a muslim woman, if I was considering a man for marriage, I would be questioning him about his attitudes to this matter. I would also make it clear that if he laid a finger on me, I'd be out of that marriage. Therefore it is not the case where being muslim, female and married equals your acceptance to be hit. And there is no need to throw out the baby with the bathwater as MeditationMom phrased it.

The Prophet peace be upon him left many teachings about how best a man can treat his wife and family and included in this was not to beat wives, he never hit his own wives and it is the duty of all Muslims to follow the Sunnah (example left by the Prophet). So one could say that it is a man's duty to NOT hit his wife although it is not a punishable act by God under extreme circumstances when all the prior means of reconciliation have been exhausted.

Hang on a minute. You admit that the quran may say it is allowed to hit your wife. So if the quran allows it, that means god has allowed it. So on what grounds would you seek divorce from your husband ? who is simply following what is allowed by god ?

Plus, I believe you would only have that right within a secular country because if this was an Islamic country I don't think you would have that right. I dont think you would even ask for it tbh.

But that aside you imply your comfortable with it in " the case of the extreme only ". So what case could you think of where you would feel your husband had this right over you ?

Medina

DinoBot wrote: »

Hang on a minute. You admit that the quran may say it is allowed to hit your wife. So if the quran allows it, that means god has allowed it. So on what grounds would you seek divorce from your husband ? who is simply following what is allowed by god ?

It is not allowed to just go around hitting your wife because you feel like it. You have forgotten the context. She would have to be disobedient in terms of her religion or on a serious matter where her behaviour is unacceptable according to Islam. As a practising muslim woman, I do not foresee myself in that position! Also all other means of trying to resolve the situation have to be fully exhausted and there are stages outlined to deal with a conflict. I also believe that it is not as a slap but as scholars say 'like as with a toothbrush' and of course a man I would marry would have to also have this opinion in advance. If your marriage is so bad that it was at that point, this tap is a symbolic warning he is on the verge of divorcing you, a slap certainly isn't going to resolve anything.

These issues would be discussed before marriage therefore it would be understood between us both that a hard physical hit is not acceptable.
As for grounds of seeking a divorce, if he is at the point of hitting me, then chances are if I asked him to divorce me, he gladly would. If he refused then you seek one from the sheikh. My grounds? He himself is not following Islamic law since I myself would not do anything so extreme as to warrant it.

DinoBot wrote: »

Plus, I believe you would only have that right within a secular country because if this was an Islamic country I don't think you would have that right. I dont think you would even ask for it tbh.

What right? I don't understand what you are talking about. The right to divorce? Of course women have the right to divorce, read the Quran!

DinoBot wrote: »

But that aside you imply your comfortable with it in " the case of the extreme only ". So what case could you think of where you would feel your husband had this right over you ?

In my personal opinion he has the right to tap me to symbolise his nearness to divorce on an issue where I am breaking the laws of shariah or not upholding the sunnah and all his attempts to resolve the issue (as per the phases outlined in the Quran) have been exhausted.

DinoBot

Medina wrote: »

What right? I don't understand what you are talking about. The right to divorce? Of course women have the right to divorce, read the Quran!

I suppose I was speaking more from women in Islamic countries, they don't seem to understand Quran as you do. In some cases to ask for divorce is seen as being against Islam and shameful.
But that aside, I believe Islam creates a mindset of submission, firstly to god and then your husband. With this in place sometimes its difficult for a woman to practice her rights.
Plus its really unattractive as well as the woman will forgo her right to the children. While in non islamic countries its not set in stone and the kids will be put where they are best looked after.

Medina wrote: »

In my personal opinion he has the right to tap me to symbolise his nearness to divorce on an issue where I am breaking the laws of shariah or not upholding the sunnah and all his attempts to resolve the issue (as per the phases outlined in the Quran) have been exhausted.

Why is the same right not given to women, What laws are in place to help you if your husband is breaking shariah law.
Plus, if it got to the stage that you decided to break shariah law, in spite of your husbands protests and attempts to stop you, would this "tap" help in any way, really ??