Wife beating?

beating is beating, physically or non-physic.

Don't you think your word or action doesn't beat yoru wife, sometimes?
 
there are women who said beaten at the heart (by husband cheats sort of) is more painful because it will chronically kill them compared to accute effect of slamming on the face.
 
samcdkey said:
There is no qualification to write on the internet is there?

Do you believe everything thats written on the net?

If my website was, say, TRUTH.ORG, would you believe everything that was written on it?

The best way of course is to learn the language and DIY, but another course would be to examine several interpretations and look at the most objective ones (from unbiased educated scholars who have studied the Quran). And not confuse cultural habits with religious belief.:)
Click to expand...

No, I wouldn't believe everything that's written on the Internet but with the same logic somebody told you, samcdkey, that Quran is the truth and you believed it.:)

Here is a couple of questions if you want to answer: Is physically beating one's wife wrong? Is it a fact that there has been wife beatings due to misinterpretations?

If you answered Yes to those than what kind of Allah is this that allows misinterpretations? There should have been another sentence for the hard knocks that said 'thou shalt not smack thy wife'.

Therefore:

A) Allah is not perfect
B) Lost in Translation
C) The whole thing is Muhammad's imagination and he screwed up big time there.(which I think what really happened)
 
boa said:
No, I wouldn't believe everything that's written on the Internet but with the same logic somebody told you, samcdkey, that Quran is the truth and you believed it.:)

Here is a couple of questions if you want to answer: Is physically beating one's wife wrong? Is it a fact that there has been wife beatings due to misinterpretations?

If you answered Yes to those than what kind of Allah is this that allows misinterpretations? There should have been another sentence for the hard knocks that said 'thou shalt not smack thy wife'.

Therefore:

A) Allah is not perfect
B) Lost in Translation
C) The whole thing is Muhammad's imagination and he screwed up big time there.(which I think what really happened)
Click to expand...

Ah another reformer!

I suggest you go through my 10,000 posts, son.

All will be revealed. :p
 
boa said:
Ah another non-answer.

Ok, mom, let me put some coffee in the pot.
Click to expand...

Thanks dikra.
It gets tedious answering the same question over and over, y'know.:p

Suffice to say, I've already satisfied myself where all these questions are concerned, and if you're really interested, its available on the forums somewhere.:)

edit: okay I'm going to take pity on you.

1. The nature of God is not the purpose of Islam
2. Translation can be overcome by studying the language
3. Without understanding 1 and 2, 3 is a premature conclusion.
 
samcdkey said:
Thanks dikra.
It gets tedious answering the same question over and over, y'know.:p

Suffice to say, I've already satisfied myself where all these questions are concerned, and if you're really interested, its available on the forums somewhere.:)

edit: okay I'm going to take pity on you.

1. The nature of God is not the purpose of Islam
2. Translation can be overcome by studying the language
3. Without understanding 1 and 2, 3 is a premature conclusion.
Click to expand...

Thanks your highness,:p

Go ahead, knock yourself out with your delusion.
 
Well, the best thing is to look back at ancient Arabs, lean a little more towards the non-Jewish tribal traditions and customs. Then think: Whomever wrote the Qur’an needed to write these traditions into the book (think: like walking a around a squared desert rock – of which there used to be many).

That’s it really – there’s your answer.

Did ancient Arabs beat their wives? If so then the verse means to beat her - as in hit (probably not too hard though, just enough to make a point). If they did not then it means to leave as in exit the situation count to 10 come back and discuss again.

#2 two sounds better – as it’s really all up to us, we wrote it anyway, lets go with that shall we!

Michael
 
Last edited:
Michael said:
Well, the best thing is to look back at ancient Arabs, lean a little more towards the non-Jewish tribal traditions and customs. Then think: Whomever wrote the Qur’an needed to write these traditions into the book (think: like walking a around a squared desert rock – of which there used to be many).

That’s it really – there’s your answer.

Did ancient Arabs beat their wives? If so then the verse means to beat her - as in hit (probably not too hard though, just enough to make a point). If they did not then it means to leave as in exit the situation count to 10 come back and discuss again.

#2 two sounds better – as it’s really all up to us, we wrote it anyway, lets go with that shall we!

Michael
Click to expand...



Thats a rather narrow way to look at things.

Think TODAY. Is it legal to beat your wife in the US? Is it legal to rape her?

Do the Americans do it? Just look at the statistics for domestic violence and rape.

The laws merely provide a framework, they don't really underscore the values of the people only idealistic notions of what those values should be.
 
samcdkey said:
Thats a rather narrow way to look at things.

Think TODAY. Is it legal to beat your wife in the US? Is it legal to rape her?

Do the Americans do it? Just look at the statistics for domestic violence and rape.

The laws merely provide a framework, they don't really underscore the values of the people only idealistic notions of what those values should be.
Click to expand...
I'm confused. I meant mearly to find out what the original intended meaning was as it was written 1000+ years ago. Whatever that meaning was, it should in no way affect the way a woman is treated today, well at least in the USA or AU. If some book says it’s OK to “gently” bitch smack your wife - well that should still be banned – in the same way polygamy is banned even though the Mormons’ God-Book says it’s ok (polygamy for men only of course!).

TODAY no one should be allowed to hit their dog or their woman!!!
;)


Michael II
 
TODAY no one should be allowed to hit their dog or their woman
Click to expand...

Good. That is what everyone wants, unfortunately many do hit.
And still you allow the government to 'hit' (I mean sentence to prison, death, or whatever the punishment would be) those who are proven guilty in the court. How do you come to allow government to do this kind of 'hit'?

Disallowing hit by allowing other kind of 'hit'?
 
Michael said:
Did ancient Arabs beat their wives? If so then the verse means to beat her - as in hit (probably not too hard though, just enough to make a point).
Michael
Click to expand...

I believe they did. And hitting is natural effect when one is in such position couldn't control oneself.

Then it needs to be controlled, and regulated.

As for the world progress, and qur'an is open to interpretation, some still interpret it with literally hit, others could make more acceptable interpretations as required by social system. Anyone could promote this interpretation to be a discussion materials in Islamic scholars.
 
LiveInFaith said:
Good. That is what everyone wants, unfortunately many do hit.
And still you allow the government to 'hit' (I mean sentence to prison, death, or whatever the punishment would be) those who are proven guilty in the court. How do you come to allow government to do this kind of 'hit'?

Disallowing hit by allowing other kind of 'hit'?
Click to expand...
I'm not quite sure where you are coming from? What is your question?

Society works best if there are socially agreed upon laws. Yes, members of said society (ie: Citizens) understand that if we break these laws then we will be punished. Guilt and punishment is decided upon by a group of fellow Citizens who use the law as guidelines as to what is acceptable punishment.

I personally think this is the most fair system as it evolves over time as society evolve. The worse sort of system, IMHO, would be one that strives to build a stagnate “perfect” State where much of the law is for now and forever – these sorts of fantasy ideal societies tend to crumble into dictatorships within a generation or so because this is the only way to maintain the stagnation… errrr I mean perfection.

Why – what are you proposing as an alternative?

Michael
 
Michael said:
I'm not quite sure where you are coming from? What is your question?

Society works best if there are socially agreed upon laws. Yes, members of said society (ie: Citizens) understand that if we break these laws then we will be punished. Guilt and punishment is decided upon by a group of fellow Citizens who use the law as guidelines as to what is acceptable punishment.

I personally think this is the most fair system as it evolves over time as society evolve. The worse sort of system, IMHO, would be one that strives to build a stagnate “perfect” State where much of the law is for now and forever – these sorts of fantasy ideal societies tend to crumble into dictatorships within a generation or so because this is the only way to maintain the stagnation… errrr I mean perfection.

Why – what are you proposing as an alternative?

Michael
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to give alternative. Agreed with you.
Beating is unavoidable to those are deserved to be punished which is acceptable by their social system.
I'm looking at a family as a mini social system, which have a head of the family to punish one of the found guilty member.
That was an analogy.
 
samcdkey said:
Your appreciation of my majesty is noted. NEXT!
Click to expand...

Hardly. Actually it's really hard to do this at work.:)

A lot of the "scholars" still today think it should be translated as in "to beat"(lightly, big deal), which is atrocious. I looked at the Quran translated to my language and it clearly said "to beat", no mention of lightly. I bet you they asked a "scholar" while translating.

I think Islam treats women unequally and badly, there is a lot of brainwashing, and I want to hear your justification(brainwashed version).
 
boa said:
Hardly. Actually it's really hard to do this at work.:)

A lot of the "scholars" still today think it should be translated as in "to beat"(lightly, big deal), which is atrocious. I looked at the Quran translated to my language and it clearly said "to beat", no mention of lightly. I bet you they asked a "scholar" while translating.

I think Islam treats women unequally and badly, there is a lot of brainwashing, and I want to hear your justification(brainwashed version).
Click to expand...

Well since you're convinced I'm brainwashed, just consider me delusional and we can both live happily ever after!:p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top