Beating women in Islam

[The Grand Nudger]

---

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

• 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.

The Great Satan!

Notice, however, that even the great satan rejects the validity of domestic violence.  It is a crime.  Magic book, otoh... approves. 

I'll ask again, do you actually think that god put his seal of approval on domestic violence..or is it at least possible that some wifebeater snuck that shit in there?

(I'm not even going to touch what is entirely likely to be a giant ball of crazy regarding your thoughts on feminism, it would take a person far more patient than myself to handhold your silly ass on that one)

[Angrboda]

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.

I made three objections. You responded to only one. Moreover, that there are three different responses adds to the case that it's not lex talionis.

[WinterHold]

I made three objections.  You responded to only one.  Moreover, that there are three different responses adds to the case that it's not lex talionis.

Apologies

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?

Deriving the rebellion types from the punishments:
1-Abusing the husband verbally (reply: admonishing the wife)
2-Abusing the husband using sexuality (reply: abandon the wife in bed)
3-Abusing the husband  using beating (reply: beat the wife; the same amount and strength she beats the husband; i.e eye for an eye).

The grade of the 3 replies seem satisfying very much for lex talions. Special conditions in the Quran -in my personal opinion- are all revealed in distinct verses with a clear explicit order: for example take the lashing of adulteress and the cutting of the thieve hand:

https://quran.com/24/2-12?translations=20
Sahih International

Sura 24, The Quran:
(2) The [unmarried] woman or [unmarried] man found guilty of sexual intercourse - lash each one of them with a hundred lashes, and do not be taken by pity for them in the religion of Allah, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a group of the believers witness their punishment.

https://quran.com/5/38?translations=
Sahih International

Sura 5, The Quran:
(38) [As for] the thief, the male and the female, amputate their hands in recompense for what they committed as a deterrent [punishment] from Allah . And Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise.

On the other hand; the wife beating verse is nothing like that. It sounds more like giving husbands a right in marriage, insuring the keeping of male rights in the affair; while also protecting the female by specifying only 3 levels of disloyalty.

So if verse is wide in meaning; unlike the penalty verses like adultery and robbery, it requires an "eye for an eye" rule to make sense out of it.

[Angrboda]

I made three objections.  You responded to only one.  Moreover, that there are three different responses adds to the case that it's not lex talionis.

Okay

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?

Deriving the rebellion types from the punishments:
1-Abusing the husband verbally (reply: admonishing the wife)
2-Abusing the husband using sexuality (reply: abandon the wife in bed)
3-Abusing the husband  using beating (reply: beat the wife; the same amount and strength she beats the husband; i.e eye for an eye).

The grade of the 3 replies seem satisfying very much for lex talions. Special conditions in the Quran -in my personal opinion- are all revealed in distinct verses with a clear explicit order: for example take the lashing of adulteress and the cutting of the thieve hand:

Very good, except for the fact that you're just pulling this from your ass and have no support in the Quran or the Hadith. Nice try. Do over.

[The Grand Nudger]

Beaty beat beat...beaty beat....  





BUT NOT IN THE FACE! Hurts her resale value.

[WinterHold]

Okay


Deriving the rebellion types from the punishments:
1-Abusing the husband verbally (reply: admonishing the wife)
2-Abusing the husband using sexuality (reply: abandon the wife in bed)
3-Abusing the husband  using beating (reply: beat the wife; the same amount and strength she beats the husband; i.e eye for an eye).

The grade of the 3 replies seem satisfying very much for lex talions. Special conditions in the Quran -in my personal opinion- are all revealed in distinct verses with a clear explicit order: for example take the lashing of adulteress and the cutting of the thieve hand:

Very good, except for the fact that you're just pulling this from your ass and have no support in the Quran or the Hadith.  Nice try.  Do over.

That's my own personal understanding of the Quran; I can digest this with more tolerance.

[Scientia]

I've read all these 16 pages of shit and all I saw was deflection and dodging.

Once the muslims were "cornered", the answer given was "it depends on how you interpret it!".

I've already talked to many muslims and one of the main "selling points" of their religion was exactly that their religion was devoid of ambiguity. I'll quote one of their response:
"Islam is not like christianity where every passage is left to interpretation and people can give whatever meaning they want. Islam is precise and unambiguous, it's the truth, you don't have to interpret anything, it is what it is and we even memorize the text, this is how great Allah is".

So now you tell me that even the quran is left to interpretation and its message depends on whether you see it positively or negatively?. Which one is it? Unambiguous magic book or general guidelines with free interpretation?

To me it all sounds as if you are trying to defend the undefendable. The true muslim would indeed literally follow that book and proceed to beat their women after that 3-step procedure. It is YOUR choice to see a further message and interpret it differently, such as only act if the woman beats you or to smack her with your dick, just so you can sugarcoat the savage message written in your book, but that is not written anywhere. And again, if you need to stretch your braincells in order to adapt your religion to your own inner moral thinking, then it's no longer unambiguous and precise and wondefurl and perfect as you preach.

Also, if your book is so ambiguous and freely interpretable as you say to the point that it generates such violent behaviours, brutal laws, silly practices, unless you properly interpret it, then wouldn't we be better off without islam at all? Look at the big picture, for the greater good of everyone, if islam can be properly interpreted only by a minority and everyone else is just misinterpreting it, wouldn't it be more functional and practicll to just delete it completely? Is it really worth it to keep islam at the cost of many people misinterpreting it and dispensing violence and creating chaos and terror? Is there really any point to keep it at all and not just ditch it?

That book was written by a savage for savages and is not compatible with any civilized country. How do we, ignorant and ungrateful unbelievers, know that we are better off without islam, christianity, induism or whatever religion? Because those things only create confusion, chaos, hatred, violence and what not. The only "positive" message preached by religions could be reached by simply teaching everyone basic concepts such as common sense without further mythical meaning behind them. You don't need to believe in Christ or Allah or whatever in order to understand that killing everyone is not functional, useful or natural and only brings you disadvantages in life. You don't need any religion to understand that teaming up with your fellow human can help you both reach greater results, and all these things are easily explained with practical and factual examples. Religions just needlessly complicate something that is simple at its basic level with magical bullshit that is not backed up by any factual evidence and should just disappear.

[WinterHold]

I've read all these 16 pages of shit and all I saw was deflection and dodging.

Once the muslims were "cornered", the answer given was "it depends on how you interpret it!".

I've already talked to many muslims and one of the main "selling points" of their religion was exactly that their religion was devoid of ambiguity. I'll quote one of their response:
"Islam is not like christianity where every passage is left to interpretation and people can give whatever meaning they want. Islam is precise and unambiguous, it's the truth, you don't have to interpret anything, it is what it is and we even memorize the text, this is how great Allah is".

That's a lie.
Interpretation is a whole science called "Tafsir" and has schools that teach it too. You even have "Sunni Tafsir" and "Shiite Tafsir" along with their respective books and scholars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tafsir

Tafsir (Arabic: تفسير‎, translit. Tafsīr, lit. 'interpretation') is th Arabic word for exegesis, usually of the Qur'an. An author of a tafsir is a [i]mufassir[/i] (Arabic: مُفسّر‎; plural: Arabic: مفسّرون‎, translit. mufassirūn). A Qur'anic tafsir attempts to provide elucidation, explanation, interpretation, context or commentary for clear understanding and conviction of God's will.[1]

Advertising for lies is a very bad habit.

[Scientia]

My post gave you two points, of course you addressed the only one that was convenient for you.

One possibility was that the muslims I've been talking to are right and you proved it wrong. This means that I've been talking to clueless muslims all this time. All people  firmly convinced that their religion is the perfect story that doesn't need to be subjectively interpreted but just blindly followed. Oh well, not like I'm surprised to see opposing views on religion and this was exactly why I immediately followed with the other alternative, which I'll quote again

Also, if your book is so ambiguous and freely interpretable as you say to the point that it generates such violent behaviours, brutal laws, silly practices, unless you properly interpret it, then wouldn't we be better off without islam at all? Look at the big picture, for the greater good of everyone, if islam can be properly interpreted only by a minority and everyone else is just misinterpreting it, wouldn't it be more functional and practicll to just delete it completely? Is it really worth it to keep islam at the cost of many people misinterpreting it and dispensing violence and creating chaos and terror? Is there really any point to keep it at all and not just ditch it?

That book was written by a savage for savages and is not compatible with any civilized country. How do we, ignorant and ungrateful unbelievers, know that we are better off without islam, christianity, induism or whatever religion? Because those things only create confusion, chaos, hatred, violence and what not. The only "positive" message preached by religions could be reached by simply teaching everyone basic concepts such as common sense without further mythical meaning behind them. You don't need to believe in Christ or Allah or whatever in order to understand that killing everyone is not functional, useful, practical or natural and only brings you disadvantages in life. You don't need any religion to understand that teaming up with your fellow human can help you both reach greater results, and all these things are easily explained with practical and factual examples. Religions just needlessly complicate something that is simple at its basic level with magical bullshit that is not backed up by any factual evidence and should just disappear.

Go ahead

[Angrboda]

I've read all these 16 pages of shit and all I saw was deflection and dodging.

Once the muslims were "cornered", the answer given was "it depends on how you interpret it!".

I've already talked to many muslims and one of the main "selling points" of their religion was exactly that their religion was devoid of ambiguity. I'll quote one of their response:
"Islam is not like christianity where every passage is left to interpretation and people can give whatever meaning they want. Islam is precise and unambiguous, it's the truth, you don't have to interpret anything, it is what it is and we even memorize the text, this is how great Allah is".

That's a lie.
Interpretation is a whole science called "Tafsir" and has schools that teach it too. You even have "Sunni Tafsir" and "Shiite Tafsir" along with their respective books and scholars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tafsir

Tafsir (Arabic: تفسير‎, translit. Tafsīr, lit. 'interpretation') is th Arabic word for exegesis, usually of the Qur'an. An author of a tafsir is a [i]mufassir[/i] (Arabic: مُفسّر‎; plural: Arabic: مفسّرون‎, translit. mufassirūn). A Qur'anic tafsir attempts to provide elucidation, explanation, interpretation, context or commentary for clear understanding and conviction of God's will.[1]

Advertising  for lies is a very bad habit.

The existence of Tafsir proves nothing. I don't even know why you think it would. That would be like saying that Kalam proves that one can reach God through reason alone.

But we don't need to rely on your strange arguments, we can go to the Quran itself.

Alif-Lãm-Ra. ˹This is˺ a Book whose verses are well perfected and then fully explained. ˹It is˺ from the One ˹Who is˺ All-Wise, All-Aware.

Surah 11:1