(October 13, 2018 at 3:09 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Lots of people fear for no reason Atlas and this verse contrary to what you are saying, is saying to ignore your fears, and not to disrespect them by mentioning your fears to them at any time, including the bedroom (leave them alone regarding this) and to continue to have intercourse (athrabuhuna).

What is "athrabuhuna"?
I never heard of such a word and google gave me this when I searched:

Quote:Your search - athrabuhuna - did not match any documents.
Suggestions:

• Make sure that all words are spelled correctly.
  
• Try different keywords.
  
• Try more general keywords.
  

For fear without reason; that is called "paranoia"; it's a psychological issue that a person needs treatment from.
No woman should stay with a dangerous spouse that might cause her or her future children harm.

(October 13, 2018 at 3:01 pm)AtlasS33 Wrote:

(October 13, 2018 at 7:25 am)paulpablo Wrote: Actually the Qur'an says if you fear rebellion. It doesn't say the wife has to actually do something other than cause a fear of rebellion.

If this verse was fair and equal it would just say "If your partner rebels against you then rebel against them in the same way they did to you."

But it doesn't say that at all.

Firstly it gives men the position of being able to judge their wives based in the emotions the husband feels towards his wife, namely fear.
And then the verse allows the husband power to act on these emotions through verbal reprimanding, then forsaking them in the bedroom then violence if the husband still feels fear about the wives rebellion.

What would make me fear rebellion but rebellion itself?

If my wife is not rebelling, then I have no reason to fear her rebellion; or else I will be insane and paranoid.
If I fear her rebellion without her doing anything, then I would need an urgent psychological treatment for paranoia, and moreover I will be abusing the rights Islam gave me.

"Fear" their rebellion means "know" their rebellion according to many interpretation.

Everyone has had/will have fears of things that haven't happened yet. And yes paranoid irrational men exist.
So it's probably not a good idea to give husbands the right to admonish or hit women based on if they fear rebellion.

(October 14, 2018 at 12:50 am)paulpablo Wrote:

(October 13, 2018 at 3:01 pm)AtlasS33 Wrote: What would make me fear rebellion but rebellion itself?

If my wife is not rebelling, then I have no reason to fear her rebellion; or else I will be insane and paranoid.
If I fear her rebellion without her doing anything, then I would need an urgent psychological treatment for paranoia, and moreover I will be abusing the rights Islam gave me.

"Fear" their  rebellion means "know" their rebellion according to many interpretation.

Everyone has had/will have fears of things that haven't happened yet. And yes paranoid irrational men exist.
So it's probably not a good idea to give husbands the right to admonish or hit women based on if they fear rebellion.

Not everyone. Since paranoid irrational men exist; then you said it yourself: no matter how a law is fair, there exists humans who can break it.
When fearing rebellion is three levels; but a man always interpret any action of being "a third degree rebellion"; then it is the problem of that man and the problem of his psychological state.

I have problems with your remark because always, always a portion of the people will use laws to satisfy their needs; let it be evil or good needs.

So how come Islam has to pay for the dishonesty and psychological issues some humans have?

(October 14, 2018 at 7:38 am)AtlasS33 Wrote: I have problems with your remark because always, always a portion of the people will use laws to satisfy their needs; let it be evil or good needs.

So, because (some) people wont listen to Allah anyway, he wont bother to make proper rules at all?

Dude, every single human society that has outlawed some *bad* behaviour (knowing some persons will break the law) is better than Allah. Your argument is bad, i cant even tell how bad, because there are no words for "worse than utter suckage", but on the other hand....your track record of bad arguments is already impressive.

(October 14, 2018 at 10:11 am)Deesse23 Wrote:

(October 14, 2018 at 7:38 am)AtlasS33 Wrote: I have problems with your remark because always, always a portion of the people will use laws to satisfy their needs; let it be evil or good needs.

So, because (some) people wont listen to Allah anyway, he wont bother to make proper rules at all?  

Dude, every single human society that has outlawed some *bad* behaviour (knowing some persons will break the law) is better than Allah. Your argument is bad, i cant even tell how bad, because there are no words for "worse than utter suckage", but on the other hand....your track record of bad arguments is already impressive.

The topic is not about "God" being sloppy in his rules. Our main discussion is about mentioning the beating wives in Islam.

I discussed how it is legal in Islam to treat an eye for an eye, wound for a wound, then how it is legal to treat a wife who beats her husband as a type of rebellion the same way. Unlike the sexist misconception that treats women as if they were "children" or "pets" who can even kill and cheat punishment.

Our OP is not a broad, vague philosophical discussion about God's morals. It's about a certain verse in the Quran, used to bash Islam and Muslims and ironically claim Islam is sexist, while forgetting that the biggest insult ever is to treat women as pets, or sub-humans who are above punishment.

Atlas, the beat them, doesn't mean with hands or miswak or a stick, but is saying to have intercourse, so in case you don't get it. Instead of "miswak", it's suppose to be beat them (with your dick), it's an expression of intercourse, just as "if you touch them" is understood (with your dick) in many verses and not only if you touch them with your hands which would not require major ablution.

So the verse in short is saying Men are to uplift women to the extent even if they fear betrayal/rebellion, they aren't ever to mention to them and leave them regarding this completely and to continue to have intercourse with them. So if they don't disobey them in regards to the two commands men have a right to command, then don't seek a way against them. The next verse shows what to do in the case they do disobey or that there is any breach of agreement which is to go to the Prophet and he will put a judge from each family, and they will try to settle the case.

I don't give a flying fuck whether the Koran supports or condemns beating women. We know better these days. That is why it is against the law in most civilized nations.

(October 14, 2018 at 10:54 am)MysticKnight Wrote: Atlas, the beat them, doesn't mean with hands or miswak or a stick, but is saying to have intercourse, so in case you don't get it. Instead of "miswak", it's suppose to be beat them (with your dick), it's an expression of intercourse, just as "if you touch them" is understood (with your dick) in many verses and not only if you touch them with your hands which would not require major ablution.

So the verse in short is saying Men are to uplift women to the extent even if they fear betrayal/rebellion, they aren't ever to mention to them and leave them regarding this completely and to continue to have intercourse with them. So if they don't disobey them in regards to the two commands men have a right to command, then don't seek a way against them. The next verse shows what to do in the case they do disobey or that there is any breach of agreement which is to go to the Prophet and he will put a judge from each family, and they will try to settle the case.

No no no no..... This is the same bait and switch right wing Christians use.

"Uplift" means to treat like expensive property, not equal human beings. You may not personally view it now that way, but in antiquity that was the social norm. Females BACK THEN were PROPERTY, not human beings. 

Women in America have had a longer history bucking this bullshit, although you wouldn't know it with our current news headlines.

Skip the holy book. Skip any holy book for that matter.

Females are EQUAL TO MEN. You don't beat them for the same reason two men need to learn to settle their differences without violence. BECAUSE THEY ARE HUMANS.

Women ARE capable of leading, in politics and even being the breadwinner of the family. Women do not need men telling them what to do or how to behave based on the patriarchal mythology of antiquity. 

The reason women in Saudi Arabia are getting assaulted for driving now is the same fucking religious bullshit white Christian men used for excuses for beating up Susan B Anthony for fighting for women's right to vote here.

(October 14, 2018 at 10:57 am)chimp3 Wrote: I don't give a flying fuck whether the Koran supports or condemns beating women. We know better these days. That is why it is against the law in most civilized nations.

Tracking back all the sentences in the book; they must have a trigger behind them, if an eye is not for an eye; then the book is contradicting itself. I'm sure it doesn't, so she must hit first. That's not your "usual" domestic abuse.

Uplift = opposite of degrade.

I believe in defining what men are with respect women, God would say, they are to uplift them  (ie. the opposite of degrading them).

The translations including ["beat them" (lightly)] shows over all the people and Muslims included couldn't digest this message.

Even in a verse in which men with regard to women are being emphasized, they make the worse of it... instead of trying to see the verse in the most positive sense in can be seen. They follow instead what Satan cast regarding it, what his minions propagate about it, and are immersed in believing in the sorcery as opposed to the clear bright signs of God's book.