(November 6, 2018 at 9:25 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Why couldn't god dictate a book that was unequivocally, clearly, and undeniably against the beating of women?  Why leave it up to interpretations and prone to translation errors?  Surely god is capable of that.

Because then his followers couldnt deny at the same time any responsibility for others beating (up) their wifes while making sure there is enough leeway for those to do it in the first place.

Its all about plausible deniability.

Hey Atlas: If actually no muslim is suposed to actually beat his wife, ever, why not drop the paragraph about theoretically being allowed to do so?

After all last week we just had a referendum in the state i live. Its constitution still had the death penalty, although there is none in the constitution of my country. So theoretically my state could sentence someone to death, but actually it wont happen, because its against Germanys constitution and any death sentence would be revoked by german supreme court. After nearly 70y we finally figured that the paragraph in the state constitution was useless and so it was abandoned.
Do you think that would be possible in the Quran too, after .......1500y, dropping a useless paragraph about theoretically being allowed to beat (up) your wife?

Insane rationalisation coming in
3
...
2
..
1
.

But why do you complicate a direct, official command in a verse in the Quran?
Nothing is theoretical, rather everything is absolute in the Quran unless stated otherwise. It is an Arabic book, subject to Arab language and its laws.

This means: if you do "x", you will get "y".

Eg: if you rebel against your husband, and the rebellion is physical, he can meet the physical abuse with a similar physical abuse.
if you didn't rebel against your husband, he doesn't have the right to punish your action.

I think it's pretty clear; unlike human-made constitutions. I'm not seeing a gray area, rather a white/black situation, with white/black response.

You're assuming and building upon your own personal assumption; that is wrong.

Every time I see this thread's title I want to write "isn't that the national sport there?" But I don't because that would be so islamaphobic and I'd rather not have to own that. There, glad to get that off my chest.

LOL, @ "human made constitutions".

You honestly think that god has a stake in wife beating..that the very decision to include this bit of nonsense wasn't some cat named akbars idea.....on account of how he beat the shit out of his wife?

(November 6, 2018 at 7:26 pm)AtlasS33 Wrote:

(November 6, 2018 at 9:25 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Why couldn't god dictate a book that was unequivocally, clearly, and undeniably against the beating of women?  Why leave it up to interpretations and prone to translation errors?  Surely god is capable of that.

But he did, the Quran made it very clear -with explicit words- that:

Quote:https://quran.com/5/45?translations=20

Sahih International

Sura 5, The Quran:
(45) And We ordained for them therein a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, and for wounds is legal retribution. But whoever gives [up his right as] charity, it is an expiation for him. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the wrongdoers.

So did the woman in the video take any life, or any eye, or any nose, or any ear, or cause any wound ?
I think he went against his own holy book by threatening the woman with a weapon for unveiling her face.

The second verse needed is this:

---

Quote:https://quran.com/4/34?translations=


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 Quran is obvious. You don't get to hold a stick and threaten people with it; if our friend in the video tried to defend his action the two verses above will put him in a tight spot because it is obvious: what kind of rebellion and ill treatment did she do him? did she threaten him with a stick?

If the wife or the woman didn't satisfy the "eye for an eye" verse; how are we going to beat her?
The rebellion doesn't have 1 punishment, that means it is "coming in different forms". 3 actually; and they are mentioned in the verse above.

And if the rebellion is violent; the husband can also reply with violence or forgive.

I believe God was very clear. But this man has no justification for threatening a woman with a stick for unveiling her face.
Which is expected from the Wahhabi, Saudi religious institution. They read in reverse.

The expression that "the exception proves the rule," supposedly originally meant that the existence of an exception implies the existence of a more general rule. In this case, a more general rule exists (maybe). However, the existence of the more general rule does not itself testify as to whether the wife beating passage is intended to be conformant to the general rule, or is pointing out an exception which, justifiably violates the general rule. You are arguing that it is simply another case of the more general rule. That does not appear to be the case, as lex talionis does not appear to be involved in the wife beating surah, so it wouldn't be an example of such. An example of that is that the surah says to respond to feared rebellion with deprival of sex. That is not repaying kind in kind, so the verse has already departed from lex talionis. So what is your argument that the wife beating surah is an example of lex talionis and not an exception to it based on? It appears to read as if it were an exception. If husbands were expected to treat their wives the same way that their wives treat them, then why are there three graded responses to the same offense? It doesn't read as a confirmation of the lex talionis verse, but as an exception to it.

The translation posted by Atlas, is one of the reasons I left Islam.

I will translate it as I truly believe it ought to be now:

"Men regarding woman are to be lifters (moral supports), by what God has made some of them excel others in and by what the spend of their wealth, so the righteous woman are obedient, guarding the hidden by which God has guarded, and regarding those who you fear betrayal, advise them but do leave them alone regarding this in the beds and continue to have intercourse (beat is take an expression by me as to sex, Quran never mentions sex directly once) with them, therefore if they obey you (ie. your advice) do not seek a way against them, verily God is exalted, great."

There is another verse that explicitly says "do not treat them harshly" - let alone the question of beating them because you fear they are betraying you!

(November 7, 2018 at 7:23 am)Whateverist Wrote: Every time I see this thread's title I want to write "isn't that the national sport there?"  But I don't because that would be so islamaphobic and I'd rather not have to own that.  There, glad to get that off my chest.

Not a "national sport" for Muslim countries only; but it is a national sport for fucked up men allover the world:

https://ncadv.org/statistics

https://www.thehotline.org/resources/statistics/

The links above are from America only, but it's obvious that the whole world has this problem, but it doesn't get reported in other places as it is in the U.S . I believe if the Quran is practiced, domestic violence would decrease so much.

---

(November 7, 2018 at 7:29 am)Khemikal Wrote: LOL, @ "human made constitutions".

You honestly think that god has a stake in wife beating..that the very decision to include this bit of nonsense wasn't some cat named akbars idea.....on account of how he beat the shit out of his wife?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_v...ted_States

Quote:

• According to a report by the United States Department of Justice in 2000, a survey of 16,000 Americans showed 22.1 percent of women and 7.4 percent of men reported being physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, boyfriend or girlfriend, or date in their lifetime.[1]
  

7% is a big big number, so let's not be feminists !

I would have second thoughts about respecting God if he forgot the "7%" in the matter of domestic abuse. But he didn't; I personally believe he gave both men and women the chance to fight back, and the chance to defend themselves.

---

(November 7, 2018 at 10:15 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: The expression that "the exception proves the rule," supposedly originally meant that the existence of an exception implies the existence of a more general rule.  In this case, a more general rule exists (maybe).  However, the existence of the more general rule does not itself testify as to whether the wife beating passage is intended to be conformant to the general rule, or is pointing out an exception which, justifiably violates the general rule.  You are arguing that it is simply another case of the more general rule.  That does not appear to be the case, as lex talionis does not appear to be involved in the wife beating surah, so it wouldn't be an example of such.  An example of that is that the surah says to respond to feared rebellion with deprival of sex.  That is not repaying kind in kind, so the verse has already departed from lex talionis.  So what is your argument that the wife beating surah is an example of lex talionis and not an exception to it based on?  It appears to read as if it were an exception.  If husbands were expected to treat their wives the same way that their wives treat them, then why are there three graded responses to the same offense?  It doesn't read as a confirmation of the lex talionis verse, but as an exception to it.

I think pin-pointing the trigger for the punishment is the key; and the trigger is "the rebellion".
"Rebellion" in itself is a very loose word; for example you can rebel on the norm by wearing emo style, or rebel on the norm by cutting yourself, or rebel on the norm by killing masses. Thus rebellion's meaning is missing if you don't specify its "kind".

Completing the example, let's say I see Agatha. Agatha has scars on her hands. So I assume that she rebelled on her norm and society by choosing the self-inflicted wounding.
That way, I specified what her rebellion is.

In the wife-beating verse; the word "rebellion/نشوز" is also loose without a specification.

There are 3 graded responses for 3 kinds of rebellions, the rebellion kinds are implicit (in my view) and I derived them from the punishments for each, putting "the eye for an eye" as my standard for deriving the types.

It's not the same offense. It's 3 degrees of the offense, and each punishment suit the degree.

(November 8, 2018 at 7:31 pm)AtlasS33 Wrote:

(November 7, 2018 at 7:23 am)Whateverist Wrote: Every time I see this thread's title I want to write "isn't that the national sport there?"  But I don't because that would be so islamaphobic and I'd rather not have to own that.  There, glad to get that off my chest.

Not a "national sport" for Muslim countries only; but it is a national sport for fucked up men allover the world:

https://ncadv.org/statistics

https://www.thehotline.org/resources/statistics/

The links above are from America only, but it's obvious that the whole world has this problem, but it doesn't get reported in other places as it is in the U.S . I believe if the Quran is practiced, domestic violence would decrease so much.

Fair enough. Of course they generally don't get stoned or set on fire here but I don't suppose that will be much comfort to a woman who has been raped, bludgeoned and buried in the woods.

Quote:I believe if the Quran is practiced, domestic violence would decrease so much

(November 8, 2018 at 9:34 pm)Whateverist Wrote:

(November 8, 2018 at 7:31 pm)AtlasS33 Wrote: Not a "national sport" for Muslim countries only; but it is a national sport for fucked up men allover the world:

https://ncadv.org/statistics

https://www.thehotline.org/resources/statistics/

The links above are from America only, but it's obvious that the whole world has this problem, but it doesn't get reported in other places as it is in the U.S . I believe if the Quran is practiced, domestic violence would decrease so much.

Fair enough.  Of course they generally don't get stoned or set on fire here but I don't suppose that will be much comfort to a woman who has been raped, bludgeoned and buried in the woods.

It doesnt mean that here is "paradise". The customs and norms in the Middle East are very abusive to women. It exists everywhere, but the Middle East -as with many other things today- is worse by far.