My point, and I’ll say it just for those reading at home, is that saying you should do such and such because a book says so is not a good plan. You end up with circular morality, where the book says what is good, and that is good because the book says so.

Presenting an argument for not beating women because it doesn’t say so requires admitting that you would advocate hitting them if it did say so. Otherwise your whole argument falls apart.

(October 12, 2018 at 8:23 am)robvalue Wrote: My point, and I’ll say it just for those reading at home, is that saying you should do such and such because a book says so is not a good plan. You end up with circular morality, where the book says what is good, and that is good because the book says so.

Presenting an argument for not beating women because it doesn’t say so requires admitting that you would advocate hitting them if it did say so. Otherwise your whole argument falls apart.

The really sad bit is how many people think words written in the Dark Ages are a complete moral handbook for living in the 21st century.

Boru

The Quran never argued it was complete by itself, rather Quran is perfect and religion is perfected and it's leadership is a true guidance when coupled with the family of the reminder, the leaders of guidance, the Twelve Navigating Captains who succeeded Mohamad.

The guidance in the past never was just books, it was always to be coupled with Prophets. When God put an end to revelations, he did so, so he can unite people on those who hold the Authority (4:59).

There is no way to account for every dynamic possibility that a society can structure itself in, so some laws are meant for all times, and some are dynamic ways that were meant for a certain situation and context.

That is why there are hadiths that say hadiths are abrogated by other hadiths just as Quran verses are sometimes abrogated by other verses.

Messengers all came with their own path and code of law, why is that?

This was true even if when they came in quick succession, why is that?

Some aspects of the application light are static, they don't change, no matter what situation.

Other aspects depend on the situation.



The thing is without a leader to guide us and show us the truth in God's book, we are going to make the book into a mess and yes remain backwards.



We need Baqiyatallah (may God hasten his relief), we need the 12th Successor, the Mahdi.

(October 12, 2018 at 8:46 am)MysticKnight Wrote: The Quran never argued it was complete by itself, rather Quran is perfect and religion is perfected and it's leadership is a true guidance when coupled with the family of the reminder, the leaders of guidance, the Twelve Navigating Captains who succeeded Mohamad.

The guidance in the past never was just books, it was always to be coupled with Prophets. When God put an end to revelations,  he did so, so he can unite people on those who hold the Authority (4:59).

There is no way to account for every dynamic possibility that a society can structure itself in, so some laws are meant for all times, and some are dynamic ways that were meant for a certain situation and context.

That is why there are hadiths that say hadiths are abrogated by other hadiths just as Quran verses are sometimes abrogated by other verses.

Messengers all came with their own path and code of law, why is that?

This was true even if when they came in quick succession, why is that?

Some aspects of the application light are static, they don't change, no matter what situation.

Other aspects depend on the situation.



The thing is without a leader to guide us and show us the truth in God's book, we are going to make the book into a mess and yes remain backwards.



We need Baqiyatallah (may God hasten his relief), we need the 12th Successor, the Mahdi.

All you need is a few friends, note pads, and several dice and you got a game of Dungeons and Dragons.

(October 12, 2018 at 7:33 am)Deesse23 Wrote:

(October 11, 2018 at 7:30 pm)AtlasS33 Wrote: The degree men have over women is in marriage -as the context of the verse suggests-; and we already know that this "degree" that men have over women in marriage is because they -the men- spend from their money & protect their wives

So unlike what feminism suggests, men are not slaves to women and men deserve this degree. It's essential for the balance of the family. Please see the divorce rates in the non-Muslim western world where this verse is unknown..

Breaking news: The medieval times are over. where the fuck are you living? Did you ever consider to move to the civilized part of the world.
Men and woman make earnings and are feeding their families, by having a job. I have several co-workers who earn less than their wifes, whose wife are the main source of income.
By the way read my very first sentence and please not my powers as a prophet.  

That is not breaking at all; we do live in a different era. I live in Saudi Arabia and I hate the guts of this place. I can't move because immigration is very hard and costly, I have no extra cash. So I remain here.
Women work even here, but where are you living to not know that the main person responsible for spending is usually the man?
That's like rule number 1 in dating: a gentleman spends on his lady.

Quote:

(October 11, 2018 at 7:30 pm)AtlasS33 Wrote: Why don't you quote the whole verse?

Would that change the meaning of what is said here, or would it only be a kind of backpedaling like with beating wifes, which is totally cool.....but of course noone would seriously consider it.  

Of course it would. And it did.

Quote:

(October 11, 2018 at 7:30 pm)AtlasS33 Wrote: So the verse is about "debts".
How many women in ancient Arabia used to know math or even memorize complex calculations and rights? I mean they didn't used to work on caravans like men.

So two women, with very limited knowledge is better than one. .

So it was ok to discriminate against women, because they were uneducated because of discrimination in the first place?   BRAVO
Why didnt Allah tell people "do fucking eduate your fucking women"?
Almost like YHWH telling people not to eat shellfish, but forgot to tell tell them not to have slaves.
Weak ass, stupid gods i say.
Or, almost as if YHWH and ALLah were both made up by the same fucking stupid ancient, ignorant, MEN.

?
No, I wrote that women's educational level was poor back then, so two women were required to testify so if one forgot, the other would remind her.

Quote:AtlasS33 Wrote:

Quote: Wrote:4:11 Allah chargeth you concerning (the provision for) your children: to the male the equivalent of the portion of two females

Yes, because in most societies -even today- men are the ones responsible for feeding their family, so they deserve a little bit of extra cash to start with..Not in my society. Probably because its more civilized than yours (at least in this one aspect of life).
Remider: We have left the middle ages......hundreds of years ago. You need to catch up.  

Yes it's probably more civilized. In the society I live in; the government hack you with a chainsaw if you criticize it (see the Kashuggi murder case).

They also torture you with quite  medieval ways.

Quote:AtlasS33 Wrote: Remember that the real miracle is that women were a part of the heritage; that is so rare -or even non existent- in the ancient world.Oh you could inherit a woman? How..............medieval.  

Thank you for confirming all my points so clearly and explicitly, visible for all, yet you didnt notice at all. If i would have told someone that a real muslim would anser like oyu did, they probably would have written it of as "anti muslim propaganda", but no, you went "full retard".

Look at him kids: Thats what religion can make out of you. His mind is so poisoned, his moral compass is sverving like a carousel. He has no clue anymore whats right and wrong, which is a good state, if you are the one who needs a puppet like him. All you need is to stick your hand up his ass and make him talk (misogynist) nonsense, all day long.

Yes, i am brutal in my assessment, just as brutal as his claims about the perceived roles of women and men (even in todays societies!) are and should be. I treat everyone and every idea with respect, if the deserve respect. His position, dont, not a single one of them, not.a.single.one.

You are welcome, but I don't think I confirmed anything.

---

(October 12, 2018 at 7:40 am)robvalue Wrote:

(October 12, 2018 at 7:37 am)AtlasS33 Wrote: I won't answer an "what if scenario", and this goes to all serious cases I'm interested in. Frankly I only find it useful to do so (think about the if scenarios) if it served my understanding of a certain fact, otherwise it's just energy burned at circling the same spot over and over.

If I married and my wife beat me someday, I would chose forgiving her over hurting her back; but that's a personal preference that the verse gave me; I would choose to invest in forgiveness for the sake of the love between me and her, but it doesn't mean that I don't know what some other women do or the amount of sad damage they cause to their husbands.

I will know very well if my mate is just being "emotional"; or if she is waging a crusade on me.

God created us both, and woe to me if I ever hurt somebody that doesn't deserve it.

Okay. You seem to have burned a lot of energy writing all that, when you could have just said yes or no. To me, the fact that both answers produce big problems in your description of learning morality is why it’s an important question.

But I’ll leave you alone now. I think you know the answer already.

The question needed this answer, because I can see the image you're painting in your head for me. I'm not a woman abuser who treats women like slaves, and this verse doesn't tell me to do that.

No, you didn’t answer the question, because you realise either answer undermines your position.

I answered for you, and I said you wouldn’t hit women even if the book said so. Therefor the picture I have in my head is clearly not of you as a beater. I am actually being more charitable towards you than you are to yourself. You can’t bring yourself to simply say you wouldn’t do it, regardless of what it says.

(October 12, 2018 at 11:16 am)robvalue Wrote: No, you didn’t answer the question, because you realise either answer undermines your position.

I answered for you, and I said you wouldn’t hit women even if the book said so. Therefor the picture I have in my head is clearly not of you as a beater. I am actually being more charitable towards you than you are to yourself. You can’t bring yourself to simply say you wouldn’t do it, regardless of what it says.

Truth be told, I wish I knew I would believe in peace, compassion, and forbearance without Quran, but perhaps, I wouldn't.

Truth be told, I wish I knew I would never have became a terrorist without Quran, but I don't know.

I am thankful Quran has lead me to reflect enough to realize important morals and shine upon me bright stars of the past, and the luminaries from Mohammad time to now, mainly Ali and Fatima and the leaders of guidance from their offspring.

I wish I can claim I would have found God and believe in heaven and hell without a divine book, but I don't know.

I am thankful, God has guided me through it in many regards.

I wish I could say I would be on the side of oppressed and stand against oppressors without Quran, but I don't know.  I don't even know if I would do it if it were not that I was born into the family I was born into, let alone the need of Imam Hussain and his revolutionary martyrdom.

As the darkness comes, as the shadow makes it way, and the dark night intensifies, and the dark magic covers the heart, I hold to God's rope and call to it.

(October 11, 2018 at 4:03 pm)AtlasS33 Wrote: There is no doubt that humanity through its history faced a civil war between the both variations of humans: males and females.
It was mostly a male dominated war with men winning time after time due to their numbers and having higher muscle percentage.

But why does the Quran gives permission for men to hit their wives ? notice that I used the word "wives" and not the word "women".
The verse which gave the permission says:

Quote:Sura 4, The Quran:
https://quran.com/4/34?translations=

Abul Ala Maududi(With tafsir)

(4:34) Men are the protec-tors and maintainers of women6 because Allah has made one of them excel over the other,7 and because they spend out of their possessions (to support them). Thus righteous women are obedient and guard the rights of men in their absence under Allah's protection.8 As for women of whom you fear rebellion, admonish them, and remain apart from them in beds, and beat them.9 Then if they obey you, do not seek ways to harm them. Allah is Exalted, Great.

The original Arabic word for "protectors and maintainers" is "Qawamoon قوامون", so you can google that up to make sure I didn't play or change the translation.

So it makes total sense that due to God's gifting men and males with the gift of bigger muscle index and strength and making the spending of money on the mate falling on their hands most of the time, they are the protectors and maintainers of women. Of course, even historically wars are dominated by men, and almost by 99.9999999 % husbands go to battlefields to protect their wives.

The verse then speaks about women who rebel against their husbands; and goes to define 3 levels of rebellion:

1-The first is dealt with by admonishing.
2-The second is dealt with by abandoning the wife in bed
3-The third is dealt with by beating.

Bolded and underlined by me in reference to what I'm talking about.

The quran actually doesn't talk about different levels of rebellion.

It's different stages of reaction against what is feared to be rebellion/ arrogance.

It says it here in the link you gave.....

 But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.


There's only talk of the husband fearing arrogance, whatever the cause may be, that isn't defined.

What is defined is when each reaction is to take place.  Firstly advise them after you have judged them to be arrogant, then forsake them in bed, and if you still judge them to be rebellious you strike them.

Yeah, it does talk about beating for sure, but Atlas being a nonviolent person manages to rationalise it away. He does the same with all the vile nonsense in the book, because he’s better than that. Good on him.

But imagine if his wife came into the room with his Quran, and it fell open at a certain page, and there was a passage they had never seen before. Somehow, everyone had overlooked it up to this point. Or maybe allah himself just magically inserted it into the book. A hasty internet search shows that this new verse has somehow become assimilated everywhere.

It reads: "Beat your wife into unconsciousness every single day. I mean it. Do it. No excuses. This overrides any other part of the book that may indicate otherwise."

"You’re not going to really do this, are you my love? Robvalue thinks you will have the courage to make a stand against this!"

I thought the OP was still suggesting that wives be beaten by their husbands, but only if they rebel in the most severe way. At least that's how I understand it. Am I getting something wrong here?