Islamic Wife Beating

A

aaqucnaona

This sentence is a lie
Valued Senior Member
I am currently engaged in a discussion with a muslim on wife beating and its andorsement in Islam. Here it is, for your discussiona and debate. It all started in the comments on this video:
[video=youtube;yl8g8S6F3do]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yl8g8S6F3do&lc=jzz9sxuJqU7zagSdOK3nNCpdmEReI_i_vXLrzOLWIns&feature=inbox[/video]

Here goes -

COMMENTS

annoyingcartman - stupid people and stupid religion, I can' t believe this shit exists

ME - Well, its all pretty much the same. We had our times too, when we burned women and killed blasphemers. I guess they are just a few centuries more retared than us.

Albertanator - Those were rare events and they were misconstrued from the Hebrew Bible teachings which were only for the ancient Hebrew nation....in Islam, it is Quranic to beat wives...and if you get into the Sunnah, then all hell breaks loose....it is uniquely evil and do not morally equivicate with our Judeo/Christian ethic!

ME - Is it indeed quranic to beat wives? I find it hard to believe that one would subscribe to such a scripture. But the bible has shit too like giving away virgin daughters to protect male guests, killing babies [by god himself] and the ultimate creator.... who is a jelous egomaniac! My point is that while they are more radical, our holy books are more or less equally stupid and definately equally unproven. The J/C ethic is actually the result of secular enlightnement philosophy, not our religion.

TXHalabi - yes, it is in the quran, read sura 4:34

ME - HOLY CUNT PICKLE! Its really there. Oh well, we know know that their books are indeed a bit more retarded than ours. I am happy I dont have a book.

LastRambo341 - It says "beat them lightly"

ME - Do you think that the FORCE of the BEATING is the issue here?

LastRambo341 -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1FYvtjH5uM I'll let this video do the talking. Afterall, the woman cheated


MESSAGES-

ME - @LastRambo Would it be okay for your wife to beat you if you cheated? Would you honor kill your son? You dont beat your kid not even if he wants to jump off a building, you explain WHY he shouldn't jump. Besides, a man doesn't own his wife or children, they are equal individuals in a biological and emotional relationship to him and bound by social and civil contract to him. If you cant even respect a woman as an individual, you fail at what it means to be a civil citizen of a society. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1-x1zGb6dM


LastRambo341 - Yes she does. No I don't honor kill. I would hit him (lightly) for discipline. I think you're misunderstanding the concept. Hit her as in her with a toothbrush, doesn't hurt her. If u don't like that way, nobody likes the western way of life where they treat women like sluts


ME - Again you make the error of assuming that the force of the beating is the issue here. The issue is the assumption that physical violence is required to attain the discipline, respect and obedience of those close to us. This assumption fails at both a basic level for civility and at a deeper level for intelligent, tactful and useful conversation to get the point across. Its more difficult than just smacking them in the face but that is the price of living in a society of cars, computers, internet and technology. The fact that you represent the intention not to hurt them is doubly ironic indeed.
I dont judge that way, I dont dislike it. I am simply having a conversation to point out the differnces in our thinking and better understand other cultures.
Lastly, do you have any personal experience of the west? Been to any town or city in the US or europe? In my experiences in Detroit, New Orleans and Amsterdam and elsewhere throughout the west, I found that almost all women are NORMAL. They are good, smart, loving, caring, sensitive, moral and honorable women of responsibility both at home and at work. Do not mistake a minority STYLE of clothing as being represntative of the BEHAVIOUR of the general populance. The image of hoochies everywhere fornicating with every guy they get their eyes on, being a norm is simply not true. The best way to see this would be to see any documentary - on the financial crisis of 2007, the fast food industry, etc - and you will see that your image of western women and their actual reality are in stark contrast.

Ps. Does you opening 'yes it does' mean its acceptable to you for your wife to beat you for cheating? I wonder if that would go down in practice as easily and acceptably one way as the other.


LastRambo341 - Would u like it if your wife is cheating on you and being disloyal and you're not teaching her self-discipline? Again, its hitting her LIGHTLY with a TOOTHBRUSH, not a CANE. and its a LAST RESORT.

I've been to the West. NY city, Boston, London, Paris, Rome, Munish etc. ofcourse they're nice people and I have Western friends but I don't like the mentality there. Again, whats considered modest in your place isn't necessarily modest in mine (dress code, movement etc.)

Keep in mind that I don't lay my hands on women. Here is a video to enlighten you, you have no idea how it feels when your religion is the most misunderstood and hated:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1FYvtjH5uM


Me - The point is not to teach her anything. It is to mutually work in a relationship to reciprocal commitment. You once again show that you have internalised women to be less than you and that you reign supreme over them. THAT is the real issue. You dont see them as equals, neither do you consider your responsibillity and part in the relationship deeper than just hitting her. The point about it being a last resort is quite vague in the quran and definately much more ambiguous in practice.

"YOU DONT LIKE" the mentality. That makes it pretty clear that that is an opinion, not an ethical issue as my point is. If this may come across as arrogant, let me make it clear that the difference comes from the greater happiness and protection offered to women in our culture, not a mere matter of choice, taste or opinion. Modesty must be based on soemthing justifiable, variable, changing and rational. Otherwise we could never move with the times. I mean no offense here, but isnt it obvious that this is one of the reasons why the middle east lags far behind the rest of the world? If you compare development [cultural, economic, human development. arts. science. technology, education] with the west in 2010, Lower Asia is around 1950s, East Asian around 1995, Africa around 1880ss. The middle east alone is stuck around 1600s due a vicious cycle of power-hungry and oil richened elite, general poverty and fundamentalism. Opposition, especially on unjustified and undefined grounds, to progressive values and liberal, secular ideas is severely dangeours to the middle east as well as the rest of the world since it fuels the cycle and hightenes the risk of terrorism and religional conflict. How can a person who finds it acceptable [and considers it granted by the creator at that] find the tolerance and positivity to progress his society and achieve regional peace?

Btw, I did watch the video and it came across as nothing more than ad hoc rationalisation and invalid comparisions coming together in intellecual acrobatics to circumnavigate the modern [and arguably better] ideals for values and ideas centuries of out place. The point is that Naik is very good when preaching to the converted, but third party or non partisan objective observers easily see through his arguments and find his ideas unjustified.


LastRambo341 - I'm just telling you the truth about the last resort, I've read the Quran for more than 10 years. In Islam, women and men are equal, and we men stand up for them and care for them. Heck, if a woman works, I have no right to take money from her but she can take from mine. Islam has taught me to love my mother 3 times more than my father. The fact that a mother suffered having a child in her stomach, that child can do nothing to pay her back, but he should continuously respect her. Again, it's LIGHTLY with a TOOTH BRUSH. The video basically gave u 2+2=4, but ur not convinced, so there's nothing I can do. I think the middle east/Islamic way is perfect, even if it uses a law made 1400 years ago. I submit to the word of God. I don't support man-made laws that American and all other countries make.



The last message, recieved moments ago, does perplex me a bit since it doesnt address my arguments and considers it 2+2=4 and better than man-made. Anyway, discuss and debate away as I think of a reply. Will keep you updated.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Update -
ME - And Again, why do you need to hit at all? Are you so incompetent at conversation that you need to resort to beating or have you never seriously considered the alternative? And I told you why I wasnt conviced, why dont you counter that rather than simply assert it as being 2+2=4? And if you think your way is perfect, why does your region have problems? What is your answer to my arguments? Once more, simply asserting your opinion just doesnt cut it. And why is man-made bad? Your house, vehicles, products are all made by humans, your computers, cell phones and technolgies invented by humans and your food and resouces grown, raised, picked, slaughtered, transported and cooked by humans. We humans practically run the world and yet you consider humans, the most dominant and successful species on this planet, inadequate.

Ps. I see you are getting uncomfortable. If you find my remarks offensive or consider me a lost cause, I wont mind you terminating this discussion.



By the way, I like the new sciforum interface. Please move the poster information Above the posts and not to the Sides though. Just sayin.
 
Update -
LastRambo341 - Conversation is the first thing to do with her and talk to her nicely. My region has problems? What about yours? My region may practice it badly. I follow the law that my God has made. Those things are different because they help me and do not conflict with my beliefs. I think you are completely misunderstanding the whole concept of "hitting".

Hey at least you're the first one who doesn't offend my religion, so thank you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXJBj7Rj0yg

ME - No, your religion is not a problem - religious faith itself is the problem. I am an agnostic [or weak] atheist and an apatheist, hence I said - I am glad I dont have a [holy] book. I dont offend religious people because most religious people are good. In fact, only scientologists are, in my experence, bad in general. You are a smart, good man. You understand the subtleties of the wife beating thing and your wife need not fear your abuse. However, many men use this allowance to beat their wives abusively and when you, as a smart, understanding moderate, defend your beliefs, you inadverntenly defend those abusers as well. THAT is why I am not religious. Because I cannot bring myself to believe without proof and dont want to be the moderate who is used as a shield by extremists such as evangelicals who scam money or creationists who subvert science. However, I do get your concept of htting, its not the problem. The problem is the percieved need and permission to hit another sane, mature adult in a relationship. Yes, Mr.Green does RATIONALISE it nicely, but I assume he is a convert? What does it say of your culture if its most apt defender comes from another one? Surely you see that a strong faith that claims all the answers ultimately saps away the jest for more knowledge, further progress or intellectual development.

In my Opinion, Islam needs to moderates to reform the religion like chrisitianity was reformed and make it less militant and fundamentalist. Islamic culture, in its early days, was a great contributer to arts, trade and maths as well as translating great ancient philosophy books. THe middle east needs to go back to that model. I fear that the scars left by both real and percieved westerm imperialism might be too great for that. Either way, once oil is replaced by renewable energy source in the next half century, the middle eastern economy shall face a crisis. In this case, moderates like you shall have a great responsibilty - to reform Islam and rebuild your culture to its former glory or to risk allowing fundamentalsm to rise and cause a war with the west on a very large scale. By then, its possible that fundamenalist leaders of your could get their hands on WMDs. Even if not, the world population would be around 13 billion then, the strain of a large scale war might severely threaten the global economy while our technology tries to catch up in food production, electricity, etc. And your son maybe [or your grandson almost certainly] will have to face this. What you do, how you think will effect him. The middle east cannot afford to let faith blind it to this and push it into oblivion and by all probability, the rest of civiliisation with it.

Ps. In case you mean region not relgion as I assume, your region is both more backward and more troubled than mine and the people inevitably live worse lives. This is not a critque but a sad fact because a 'strong' religion like Islam divides people into ingroups and outgroups [to the extent where the only acceptable future for a fundamentalist is one where the entire world is either ruled by Islam or converted to it] and makes progress, intergration and good regional and global relationships improbable.
 
Arguing logically with a religious person is like arguing logically with a dog. What you're trying to connect with just isn't there.
 
The verse does not say "lightly beat them with a toothbrush," it says "beat them." It also doesn't specify leaving the face alone. That might be addressed elsewhere, I'm not sure. Though there is something sinister about "not making them ugly." It implies that the reason for leaving the face alone is so that the woman can remain attractive to her husband. The guy in the video has a different interpretation, but he's also the one who said they shouldn't make their women ugly. Is the decision to not make scars or leave marks really made with the woman's best interest in mind, or is it just that scars and marks make the women less attractive?

And I have no idea where this LastRambo fellow gets the idea that men and women are equal in Islam. They're not. Women are second-class citizens in all of the Abrahamic faiths, but particularly and especially Islam. All one has to do is visit a country where they're forced to walk around covered from head-to-toe in cloth. That's not done for the sake of the woman, it's done to appease jealous, woman-fearing men. What better way to keep your woman from straying than to ensure no one can see her face or her figure?

Thankfully, most Muslims (at least in the West) don't adhere to such disgusting injunctions...but there are many who do, and they shouldn't be forgiven just because they're only "lightly" beating them.
 
LastRambo... You are a big chauvanistic & egotistic male!
Why is any beating justified? Why do you condome beating, even if it is so called 'lightly'? If one is angry, one does not beat 'lightly'. So this is soooo illogical & stupid!

And LastRambo... why is wife beating ok & not husband beating?

Cheating on your partner is not good, yes I agree with that. But beat them? How does that make it right? You cannot right a wrong by beating them?

YOU would not condone a wife who cheats, but will you condone a husband who cheats? Then lets all condone husband beating! Ha!
How idiotic is that!?!

Christianity is definitely not perfect! But Islam, as far as it appears to the world, is unforgiving & barbaric.

LastRambo... You can point the finger at western values & Christianity all you want. But any logical person will see that you make no sense!
 
A wife should first be lightly beaten with a tooth brush.
If that does not work, a stick no thicker than one's thumb may be used.
After that a light stoning is allowed.
 
Say for example, a Muslim wife or any wife is being bitchy to her mate. This is a form of psychological abuse, which uses a verbal stick to beat the male and/or make the wife feel better. This does not happen all the time in all cases, but is this verbal beating legal in western cultures? Are there civil penalties so a male can go to court to make it stop without breaking up the marriage? Most married men do not like this verbal beating behavior, even if rare, but many will absorb the beating because they love their spouse. The wife may create limits (don't verbally hit too low) like the Muslim men and stick size.

The question becomes if the wife bitches and the male feels stressed by the verbal stick, does he need to act a Muslim woman and accept the beating, since the system allows no legal options that preserve the marriage while making it stop?

A lot has to do with perception. The western wife bitching at her mate is considered normal and males are requires to take it or it is his fault. Maybe in Muslim cultures the females have learned to accept the bitchy male behavior, which uses a physical stick. If the Muslim wife was to defend herself it gets worse. In western cultures if the male subdues his wife, he goes to court for abuse. Neither are balanced approaches.
 
wellwisher said:
Say for example, a Muslim wife or any wife is being bitchy to her mate. This is a form of psychological abuse, which uses a verbal stick to beat the male and/or make the wife feel better. This does not happen all the time in all cases, but is this verbal beating legal in western cultures? Are there civil penalties so a male can go to court to make it stop without breaking up the marriage? Most married men do not like this verbal beating behavior, even if rare, but many will absorb the beating because they love their spouse. The wife may create limits (don't verbally hit too low) like the Muslim men and stick size.

The question becomes if the wife bitches and the male feels stressed by the verbal stick, does he need to act a Muslim woman and accept the beating, since the system allows no legal options that preserve the marriage while making it stop?

A lot has to do with perception. The western wife bitching at her mate is considered normal and males are requires to take it or it is his fault. Maybe in Muslim cultures the females have learned to accept the bitchy male behavior, which uses a physical stick. If the Muslim wife was to defend herself it gets worse. In western cultures if the male subdues his wife, he goes to court for abuse. Neither are balanced approaches.
Click to expand...

Ah, so the beatings are really the fault of the woman, who brings it upon herself by bitching too much.

Yes, that makes all the sense in the world. As does physical violence as a response to verbal complaining. You know, like for like.
 
Picture this situation. The Muslim men worship many times a day with only the men. If they are not working, they are hanging around with the men talking and not doing their wife's honey-do list. The wife is left home with the kids and the household chores. She is feeling stressed and tries to leverage more her from her mate. She can't use her feminine wiles, fully, due to drab clothes and not being able to flash the flesh.

I can see the women feeling neglected and not appreciated. What would a western women or any woman do? They will begin to bitch which impacts the males away, from their perceived religious duties. These duties are part of their cultural norm and the ole boys club. The mild beating (tooth brush) is just enough to maintain a sense of balance.

The term physical violence is "word play" because it used to induce the projected image of extreme violence, like a Muslim male on top of a women punching her in the face until she is KO'd. The stoning will always be attached. But in reality of 99.9%, it involves a tooth brush. The upgrade to a stick is because some women are not impacted by a loving husband who hits her softly with a tooth brush, since she may be right. The bigger stick is a visual deterrent. Even if he hits softly, there is enogu leverage to send a message.

If you look in western culture, the break up of the family followed the liberation of the female. The women followed the advice of liberal strangers, over their husband, and left the home. This left more women and children in poverty than when it all started. It also created a huge social cost. Also law went the other way as far as a dual standard. This western dual standard makes it appear even more extreme, since these are opposing dual standards. I look in the middle at justice and don't see either system as being optimized.
 
wellwisher said:
Picture this situation. The Muslim men worship many times a day with only the men. If they are not working, they are hanging around with the men talking and not doing their wife's honey-do list. The wife is left home with the kids and the household chores. She is feeling stressed and tries to leverage more her from her mate. She can't use her feminine wiles, fully, due to drab clothes and not being able to flash the flesh.
Click to expand...
Oh dear lord..

I can see the women feeling neglected and not appreciated.
Click to expand...
Or perhaps she may find herself married to a twat and she feels upset that he is a twat.

What would a western women or any woman do?
Click to expand...
Divorce.

They will begin to bitch which impacts the males away, from their perceived religious duties. These duties are part of their cultural norm and the ole boys club.
Click to expand...
As opposed to being an equal partner and parent in a relationship with children, if we are to use the example you cited above of course?

The mild beating (tooth brush) is just enough to maintain a sense of balance.
Click to expand...
This "mild beating" maintains the balance for whom, exactly? The deadbeat father who sees to beating his wife, apparently with a toothbrush, because men who love their wives beat them with toothbrushes?

The term physical violence is "word play" because it used to induce the projected image of extreme violence,
Click to expand...
Possibly because when the words "physical" and "violence" are used together, it usually means any intentional form of physical contact and force that is not consented to..? Perhaps? The mere notion of intentional physical force, and yes, even with a toothbrush, means that it is physical violence and when used in the context of a marriage or domestic situation, is deemed domestic violence because it entails one trying to dominate and control the other through violence and threats of violence or, as you so kindly put it, with a "mild beating"..

Now in non-caveman like societies, this is deemed to be a bad thing.

So bad in fact that it is also a crime to even "mildly beat" one's spouse or partner or anyone else for that matter.

like a Muslim male on top of a women punching her in the face until she is KO'd. The stoning will always be attached.
Click to expand...
Well perhaps if we didn't have individuals such as yourself supporting "mild beatings" of women....

See where I am going with this?

But in reality of 99.9%, it involves a tooth brush.
Click to expand...
Having been unfortunate enough to be involved in many, many domestic violence cases, I can assure you, none involved being beaten with a toothbrush. Although I did have one who was anally raped with a toothbrush and then had the toothbrush rammed into her mouth so it broke her teeth. Does that count as a "mild beating" in your opinion?

I mean how does one "mildly beat" someone and not be deemed as intentional and unwanted physical contact?

But I am 100% sure that you will provide links that in 99.9% of domestic abuse cases, it involves a toothbrush. You have 24 hours to provide links and reports attesting to this supposed "reality".

The upgrade to a stick is because some women are not impacted by a loving husband who hits her softly with a tooth brush, since she may be right. The bigger stick is a visual deterrent. Even if he hits softly, there is enogu leverage to send a message.
Click to expand...
Wow..

I bet you are considered a catch...

For masochists who like some BDSM and being beaten and threatened with sticks of course..

If you look in western culture, the break up of the family followed the liberation of the female. The women followed the advice of liberal strangers, over their husband, and left the home.
Click to expand...
You mean they got educated, and went to work to help support the family and pay the bills and help maintain a roof over their heads? The horror!

Much better to stay home and be beaten with a toothbrush and threatened with sticks!

This left more women and children in poverty than when it all started.
Click to expand...
Going to work and earning money to help feed, clothe and maintain a roof over the heads of one's children meant they were left in poverty? Ermm.. okay..

It also created a huge social cost.
Click to expand...
Those women weren't home to be beaten with a toothbrush and threatened with sticks?

Also law went the other way as far as a dual standard. This western dual standard makes it appear even more extreme, since these are opposing dual standards. I look in the middle at justice and don't see either system as being optimized.
Click to expand...
Well of course you would say that!

Because Western laws deem it criminal to beat women with toothbrushes and threaten them with sticks.
 
Bells said:
Or perhaps she may find herself married to a twat and she feels upset that he is a twat.
Click to expand...

Not to go all PC fascist on you, but maybe you should avoid blatantly sexist slurs while engaged in women's rights advocacy?

Maybe you can argue that you're subverting "twat" by applying it to a male, but I'd still say it's counter-productive...
 
Western society does not have regulations on women at all, thus they pay the price for women taking advantage of this. Divorce allows them to take 50% of wage from their husbands for example, or taking the child almost always for themselves, or getting away with seeing other men because the man of the western country has a hard time on finding a good woman. I strongly suggest that the Western world does not impose its rules and beliefs on other worlds.
 
I strongly suggest that you improve your knowledge of women's rights and family law in the West beyond the level of "craven canards" before venturing forth to issue proclamations on such.
 
wellwisher said:
Picture this situation. The Muslim men worship many times a day with only the men. If they are not working, they are hanging around with the men talking and not doing their wife's honey-do list. The wife is left home with the kids and the household chores. She is feeling stressed and tries to leverage more her from her mate. She can't use her feminine wiles, fully, due to drab clothes and not being able to flash the flesh.
Click to expand...

Spoken like someone who has never had a meaningful conversation with a woman, let alone a relationship.

Is that your idea of how marriage works, wisher? That at her best, the woman would seduce her husband to get what she wants, and without that option she is nothing but shrill harpy? And it isn't just that your view of woman can only be gleaned from other, equally virginal and gynophobic men, it's that you don't even seem to know how such seduction might work. Okay, she's wearing modest clothes...so what? She couldn't, I dunno, take them off? I know this is a petty nitpick, but it illustrates how sheltered your perspective is. You can't even fathom how a Muslim woman could be sexy to her husband.

I can see the women feeling neglected and not appreciated. What would a western women or any woman do? They will begin to bitch which impacts the males away, from their perceived religious duties. These duties are part of their cultural norm and the ole boys club. The mild beating (tooth brush) is just enough to maintain a sense of balance.
Click to expand...

Everything that could be wrong with this passage is wrong with this passage. For one, by condoning violence as an acceptable deterrent against those might distract one from their religious responsibilities, you have done a great deal to explain why religion is a barbaric and dangerous institution. Secondly, how is violence an appropriate response to a verbal complaint? Why, instead of communicating, and trying to work through the problems this couple apparently has, does the man resort to physical aggression? Because the woman in this particular scenario is nothing more than chattel. The wife is the property of the husband, and the husband, according to this disgusting tradition, is by no means obliged to compromise, or anything else that might be considered a healthy practice in a human relationship.

Take away the man's ownership of his wife, and the beatings stop. And everyone is better for it.

The term physical violence is "word play" because it used to induce the projected image of extreme violence, like a Muslim male on top of a women punching her in the face until she is KO'd. The stoning will always be attached. But in reality of 99.9%, it involves a tooth brush. The upgrade to a stick is because some women are not impacted by a loving husband who hits her softly with a tooth brush, since she may be right. The bigger stick is a visual deterrent. Even if he hits softly, there is enogu leverage to send a message.
Click to expand...

The "toothbrush" concept was apparently the invention of this Youtube poster. I've personally never heard of this before, and I can assure you that most Muslim men aren't using toothbrushes to beat their wives. And who says a toothbrush wouldn't hurt? Why don't you get a friend to prod you with one for a while, and tell me how good it feels. At any rate, while the extreme cases of violence are obviously of the most note, that is not what we object to. We object to the notion that the husband has the right--no, obligation--to beat his wife for running her mouth. You want to say a prodding with a toothbrush isn't violence, have at it. You're wrong, but you'd just be one more apologist who has to redefine words to make them suit his purpose. The concept at heart here is the dominion granted to the man over the woman. That's the problem.

Don't worry, I'm not glossing over your disgusting approval of keeping your wife living in fear of you.

If you look in western culture, the break up of the family followed the liberation of the female. The women followed the advice of liberal strangers, over their husband, and left the home. This left more women and children in poverty than when it all started. It also created a huge social cost. Also law went the other way as far as a dual standard. This western dual standard makes it appear even more extreme, since these are opposing dual standards. I look in the middle at justice and don't see either system as being optimized.
Click to expand...

And we're back to blaming women again. It couldn't be the promiscuous male who doesn't have to stick around, could it? Nah, it's the woman!
 
What a title! How does Islamic wife beating stack up against Christian, Buddhist or atheist wife beating? I mean I bet an atheist could administer a real good ass-wooping compared to any of those other groups. I mean at least he wouldn't have a god to answer to. And Balerion when will you learn that its ALWAYS the woman's fault. If it weren't so she wouldn't be having her ass whipped. I mean haven't you ever wondered why its ALWAYS the woman getting her ass whipped? And they must think they deserve it too otherwise we'd hear more cases of husbands dying from crushed glass being ingested with food.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top