[mariachi]

My conclusion is this :

revealing the "wife-hitting verse" (4:34) was an obvious error by God. This verse has been (rightly or wrongly) interpreted as authorizing husbands to hit their wives.

Women, for centuries, have uselessly and wrongly suffered as a consequence.

God should have avoided any ambiguities. He should have delivered, in the Quran, a clear guideline, such as : "don't ever hit your wife (except in self-defence) , or I'll zap you".

A lot of suffering would have been avoided, had God been more considerate and careful.

[Haagen-Dazs]

(Original post by Perseveranze)

It's not "skirting around the issue", it's telling you how it is. It's not a beat, or a hit or anything.

And now you've gone from "hitting" to "degradation".



That's exactly the point, so why would a man hit his wife then? The Prophet(pbuh) never did it, so why would any Muslim do it, if it won't help his marriage or anything?



Well then, if you feel degraded, and you know it'll make you worst, your husband isn't really going to "tap" you then is he? Kills a point doesn't it?




Then don't tap lol, it's not hard. Islamic principle states that if it makes matters worse, why do it?



Then you havn't read the book at all. Like the actions of a narrow minded person, you've just gone and quoted selective verses, and made your own interpretations upon them.



If you did a little more research into the matter, as to why it was revealed in the first place, why are there even "stages" (why not go straight to the "degrading" tap?), then you wouldn't make such confirmation-bias based judgements.

Islam came down on a society that wouldn't tap women, but get out thick and long branched sticks, and if she ever went out of line, they would immediately beat her black and blue. Some may even end up dying from it, or being betted off (since betting your family is what they would sometimes do). If not that, then after the man died, his brother was allowed to "inherit" the wife for himself. Having guests around? Oh, why not have my wife pleasure you whilst you wait?

I think you really are clueless and ignorant, whether you want to admit it or not.



Firstly, that's long distances that they require a Mahram. And secondly, even when they escape, they should get help from anyone they possibly can, be it the police etc. And they will then arrest the man and his case will go on with a Qadi.



None of this is true and has been refuted above.

Love how you ignored this one from my previous post;


“As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.” (I Corinthians 14:34-35)

So let me do a .exe IQ.

"UM, IF WOMAN CAN'T TALK IN CHURCHES, THEN DOES THAT MEAN THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SPEAK IF THEY FEEL THAT THEIR HUSBAND IS GOING TO KILL THEM AFTER?"

lmao

The issue is whether there is degradation in Islam, referring to the title of this thread. And thus saying that it's not hitting, only tapping, is to skirt around the issue. Either way you slice it, it's a degrading way to treat someone who is an adult, as I have said. Treating them like an animal.

Moreover, regardless of whether the prophet did it or not, it doesn't matter. It's still included in the Qur'an as advice solely for men. So to say that it won't be done is another great cop out. It's there. Furthermore, you cannot predict the outcome of the action before you're done it. So some will do it.

You can't make judgements about me not having read the book. That's a naive way of thinking. I am debating a single verse, which applies only to men, and not to women. It includes actions that I consider degrading for adults and that is my point. No other verse is being debated yet, and doesn't need to (unless it's a verse telling women to do the exact same). Moreover, the Qur'an is all about own interpretations. Your reading is also your own interpretation.

Indeed there are stages, and it is the last stage against which I object. After the previous diplomacy, men are then exhorted to treat women like a disobedient animal.

Even if society was like that before the burst of Islam onto the scene, Islam could easily have left it at the first few stages. Why the tap?

It's sweet that you want to sling around accusations of me being narrow-minded and clueless, and ignorant. But I warn you, emotional defences won't help you here. Nor will your case be strengthened by attacking me, an internet stranger about whom you know next to nothing about. Let's debate it civilly, alright? I am as of yet, unconvinced by your argument - sticking the baseless assertion that I am ignorant etc just makes me question your sensibility and does nothing for your case.

[akj08]

(Original post by At peace)
I'm raised with this sort of a thing

Just a few things:

if he doesn't want to, he's forced into by the judge. Second, when I said sacrifice I mean career, careless life etc. You may have to sacrifice that when you settle in for family [NOT because he asks you but because you prefer to give your full attention to one of two jobs you now do]. Also, "Obedience" is there but that doesn't mean she has no say. You haven't heard the Muslim women speak to their husbands It's been like that right from the beginning. Omer, second Khalifa, was a king, but not in his home when his wife was upset. Muslim men are gentle, they too want to attain Jannah. And the Prophet of Allaah said:"The best amongst you is the one who is best to his wife". That is enough to keep them driving.

tbh I don't really see much difference between what you said your family is like and how our families are like. It's about harmony within the family and everyone being at ease and with each other and being there for one another. All praise is due to Allaah, we have that in the practicing families. No body really mentions or cares to mention about who is high and who is not. It's already understood. Everyone knows there job. yeah we do get cranky sometimes with mom, when she makes us do extra stuff. At that point it's dad who turns around and lecture us about the mother's status

Actually you cannot use the term equality for Islam. Islam is not a religion of equality but of justice. When you say x=y that means x and y are exactly the same. A man is not equal to a woman because they are not the same, physically, psychologically, physiologically etc they are different. But should justice be maintained between the two, or between rich and poor, or black or white, then yes, Islam maintains it at the best of the best. And it maintained it long before anyone even thought of such a thing.

Hmm. See I don't think women should be under any expectation to give up a career when they have children...nowadays there is no reason for a husband/religion/culture whatever to pressure women into this, and keeping women at home is a way of reducing their power. It should be their personal choice, with no implicit pressures.

As for the comment about the best husband treating his wife best, that comes off as a bit patronising tbh. It makes it seem like women are passive and powerless in this and it's up to the man to decide how to treat 'his' wife. Women can and should stand up for themselves; they don't 'need' the man to survive. Also, men shouldn't need a religious reason to behave well!

Yes, men and women are physiologically different but in today's society these differences are no longer so important in the application of such roles, as described previously.

But is justice maintained between the two when you have rules such that a woman's testimony is worth half that of a man's?

[mariachi]

(Original post by Haagen-Dazs)
The issue is whether there is degradation in Islam, referring to the title of this thread. And thus saying that it's not hitting, only tapping, is to skirt around the issue. Either way you slice it, it's a degrading way to treat someone who is an adult, as I have said. Treating them like an animal..

actually, what works with disobedient wives is this : take a newspaper, roll it up, and then slap it strongly on the ground, shouting : "no, no"

this avoids you having to hit them, or even "tap" them, and solves many obedience problems

[I love shopping]

(Original post by mariachi)
actually, what works with disobedient wives is this : take a newspaper, roll it up, and then slap it strongly on the ground, shouting : "no, no"

this avoids you having to hit them, or even "tap" them, and solves many obedience problems

Even so, why do women have to obey their husbands? No matter how much you deny it, the idea that women are obliged to obey their husbands, and are not given the freedom to think for themselves and make their own decisions, IS degrading.

[Acumen]

I want to ask something to all of those here.

Before Islam, there was christianity, judaism e.t.c but lets focus on the rights of women.

In the age of pharoah, women were thought to be the sign of devil.
In the age of romans, homosexuality was common, male married male. But female were left not to marry, but they were used as toys. If a male commited and error, then the person had the right to take the revenge through abusing the female of his household.
In the pre-islamic time, baby girls were buried alive.

And soo much more, just open the book of history. Now where was christianity, judaism e.t.c, or special man-made "human rights" law that solved this problem?

Now I want to ask, after islam where did these all practices were gone that were held before islamic time?

why is it after islam gave the "due" rights to women? why not before? where were others?

and this is why Islam degrade women? is it wrong way around, that others degrade women, but islam gives "rights" to women, rather then degrade.

[Haagen-Dazs]

(Original post by mariachi)
actually, what works with disobedient wives is this : take a newspaper, roll it up, and then slap it strongly on the ground, shouting : "no, no"

this avoids you having to hit them, or even "tap" them, and solves many obedience problems

Haha, where did you hear that?

[I love shopping]

(Original post by Acumen)
I want to ask something to all of those here.

Before Islam, there was christianity, judaism e.t.c but lets focus on the rights of women.

In the age of pharoah, women were thought to be the sign of devil.
In the age of romans, homosexuality was common, male married male. But female were left not to marry, but they were used as toys. If a male commited and error, then the person had the right to take the revenge through abusing the female of his household.
In the pre-islamic time, baby girls were buried alive.

And soo much more, just open the book of history. Now where was christianity, judaism e.t.c, or special man-made "human rights" law that solved this problem?

Now I want to ask, after islam where did these all practices were gone that were held before islamic time?

why is it after islam gave the "due" rights to women? why not before? where were others?

and this is why Islam degrade women? is it wrong way around, that others degrade women, but islam gives "rights" to women, rather then degrade.

Maybe it did back in those days. But our society has made a huge progress in terms of gender equality since then. Women now have the freedom to work and support their families financially, if they so wish. Women do not need to rely on men to provide of them and their children anymore and are very capable of doing so themselves. So I fail to see how the rights you are talking about help women in any way in this day and age. They take freedom of choice away from women, which is disrespectful and degrading.

[Acumen]

(Original post by I love shopping)
Maybe it did back in those days. But our society has made a huge progress in terms of gender equality since then. Women now have the freedom to work and support their families financially, if they so wish. Women do not need to rely on men to provide of them and their children anymore and are very capable of doing so themselves. So I fail to see how the rights you are talking about help women in any way in this day and age. They take freedom of choice away from women, which is disrespectful and degrading.

That is not only in islam then.

You have a male toilet and female toilet. By law female can not go in the male toilet, and this "takes away the freedom of choice from women, which is disrespectul and degrading" right?

[I love shopping]

(Original post by Acumen)
That is not only in islam then.

You have a male toilet and female toilet. By law female can not go in the male toilet, and this "takes away the freedom of choice from women, which is disrespectul and degrading" right?

What a ridiculous argument. It would only be degrading or disrespectful if one of the genders was deprived of toilet facilities, which is obviously not the case. Having separate toilets is a completely different issue altogether. It has nothing to do with gender equality.

People are allowed to choose what they believe. But if you want to defend your beliefs, please come up with sensible arguments.

EDIT: Also, you can't justify by saying "this is not only in Islam". It doesnt make it any better.

[Acumen]

(Original post by I love shopping)
What a ridiculous argument. It would only be degrading or disrespectful if one of the genders was deprived of toilet facilities, which is obviously not the case. Having separate toilets is a completely different issue altogether. It has nothing to do with gender equality.

People are allowed to choose what they believe. But if you want to defend your beliefs, please come up with sensible arguments.

EDIT: Also, you can't justify by saying "this is not only in Islam". It doesnt make it any better.

The argument here which you wrote :

"They take freedom of choice away from women, which is disrespectful and degrading."

Either my argument is valid or your point is invalid. If there was "freedom of choice" then why not female can go in males toilet? So in your book this is also disrespctful and degrading.

[I love shopping]

(Original post by Acumen)
The argument here which you wrote :

"They take freedom of choice away from women, which is disrespectful and degrading."

Either my argument is valid or your point is invalid. If there was "freedom of choice" then why not female can go in males toilet? So in your book this is also disrespctful and degrading.

I am aware of what I wrote. You're using it out of context. If you read my previous post, I have clearly stated that having separate toilets for men and women is a completely different issue, and has nothing to do with gender inequality. There are various reasons behind it, which I'm not going to go into because it's irrelevant to the thread. I don't understand how you can even begin to draw parallels between the two issues.

Instead of using ridiculous examples in a vain attempt to discredit my point, why don't you try and defend your own point? Tell me, how is depriving someone freedom of choice based on their gender an acceptable thing to do in the modern society? Why are you okay with this? I have seen no attempt on your behalf to answer these questions.

[akj08]

(Original post by Acumen)
The argument here which you wrote :

"They take freedom of choice away from women, which is disrespectful and degrading."

Either my argument is valid or your point is invalid. If there was "freedom of choice" then why not female can go in males toilet? So in your book this is also disrespctful and degrading.

The toilet example would only be disrespectful and degrading if the men were allowed to go into the female toilets, but not vice versa. The fact that there is an equal rule for men regarding the women's toilets makes it appropriate, fair and not degrading to either sex.

[kunoichi]

(Original post by zubz91)
[Noble Quran 2:232]

How much does this book say that people ignore perhaps?

Just because the book says it should happen like that doesnt mean it does.


Also lets face the fact here, no men would like to be in the womans situation of having to share a husband. Why the **** should women have to put up with it? It is basically a legal way of cheating. And that is whats derogatory about it.

[aarora]

(Original post by Ama2007)
BULL****....excuse my language.

Why is there so many threads about why?what in islam? is it because its the only long standing true religion.

Look at budhists and sikhs they burn thier wives alive and do all sorts of ****

Anyway i feel this argument is a waste of time. Islam respects women like no other religion wether you believe or not. Its the truth. you just gotta search for the truth there is far too many people oblvious base thier judement on what they hear/see on local papers/news, friends...since when was that good evidence to base facts on? eh?

disgrace

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJCG4XK8kNk

You do the same ****.

[...mo...]

(Original post by FrigidSymphony)
Which part of my vernacular did you find "preposterous"? That word alone has more syllables than any in the post of mine you quoted.

the word it self was not presented in its entirety and as letters were replaced by *'s. Also the content of your speech needs to be evaluated as you demonstrate a lack clarity in your speech and content displayed.

[...mo...]

(Original post by PandyAndy)
Oh no, not revealing flesh! However will the baying hordes of men stop themselves from violating a young gymnast as she dismounts from the parallel bars? If you can't stop yourself from looking at "certain areas" when gymnasts are performing, then that's your problem not theirs. Small kids will be doing what most other people will be doing; being amazed and inspired as people perform feats that us ordinary folk would find impossible. The children will be fine, honestly.

If the government, parents or be it your self took this advice, what prospects are their for our future generation? Merely defending your claims and saying that the children will "be fine" demonstrates the lack of awareness you have on the education required. If younger children grow up seeing people pose on a pummle horse with their thighs revealed or even occasionally swamped with glitter it will lead to the children unfortunately trying to replicate this. If young children see adults in particular their parents wearing appropriate clothing, acting maturely and playing a positive role within society than it these examples that act as salvation to future generations, not some chalked up lycra wearing women flicking her legs around.

[PandyAndy]

(Original post by ...mo...)
If the government, parents or be it your self took this advice, what prospects are their for our future generation? Merely defending your claims and saying that the children will "be fine" demonstrates the lack of awareness you have on the education required. If younger children grow up seeing people pose on a pummle horse with their thighs revealed or even occasionally swamped with glitter it will lead to the children unfortunately trying to replicate this. If young children see adults in particular their parents wearing appropriate clothing, acting maturely and playing a positive role within society than it these examples that act as salvation to future generations, not some chalked up lycra wearing women flicking her legs around.

People have been "posing" on a pommel horse in glitter for years, and I'm still yet to see groups of children running around dressed in leotards doing backflips off cars. What's wrong with children being inspired by the gymnasts they watch? They can be a positive role model for children, showing them that with hard work they can reach the peak of their sport. They're not stupid, I'm sure they understand that flicking your legs round whilst wearing lycra is restricted to the gymnasium. Would it make you happier if gymnasts wore a bin-liner and dark glasses?

[PandyAndy]

(Original post by ...mo...)
the word it self was not presented in its entirety and as letters were replaced by *'s. Also the content of your speech needs to be evaluated as you demonstrate a lack clarity in your speech and content displayed.

The word itself was not presented in its entirety, as letters were replaced by *s. Also, the content of your speech needs to be evaluated, as you demonstrate a lack of clarity in your speech and content displayed.

Fixed it for you

[...mo...]

(Original post by PandyAndy)
The word itself was not presented in its entirety, as letters were replaced by *s. Also, the content of your speech needs to be evaluated, as you demonstrate a lack of clarity in your speech and content displayed.

Fixed it for you

WOW. I have a spell checker with an attitude. Anyone want to try it out?