Perfectly acceptable to beat your wife in Islam. — tom

According to whom? You? How's your Arabic? Or, which translation are you using?

You are painting a caricature (again). There's exactly one verse in the Qur'an that could be read to say you should beat your wife but the word "idribuhunna" means about 10 different things and there are other interpretations more consistent with the rest of the text and solves the contradiction with at least four other verses being quite clear there should be no harm done to women.

So if you want Muslims to change and want to be effective should you either a) claim a radical reading of the text should be followed (as you seem to do) or b) point out to the alternative, more sensible (fair and just) meaning?

EDIT: Ephesians was/is "abused" by Christian men to defend beating wives. These interpretation debates on the true meaning of a Holy Book are not new and evolve over time as well.

According to whom? You? How's your Arabic? Or, which translation are you using? — Benkei

You can read the Quran(4:34) in whatever language or translation you like.

The political aspects of a religion, though, are a very small portion of what it is. Which is why to claim that "X is violent", when X is a religion, is only the beginning of the story, and it is always influenced by historical aspects. Islam was not particularly violent in the centuries between, say, 1300 and 1900. (The Turks were violent -- not particularly violent, but violent -- in these centuries, but Turks are not "Islam"). — Mariner

The origin of Islam is very similar to the rise of the Mongols. In both cases tribes became fused by the violent actions of one individual and his followers. The Muslims left the Arabian peninsula because of economic pressures that developed specifically because of unification. For a while a divided society existed: Muslims in charge and non-Muslims suppressed. Conversion to Islam was not allowed at this point. Then the non-Muslims rose up and took back over their own territory as Muslims. At this point the ruling Muslims were former Zoroastrians, Christians, and Buddhists.

It's interesting to ponder why the suppressed class adopted Islam during their uprising. There must have been something in it they felt they needed.

Then it can also be ignored as desired, and thus yours (and others') tendentious claims about "racism" against Muslims can be disregarded for the conversation-inhibiting rhetoric that it is. — Arkady

I would sacrifice my life for your right to ignore my claims. And yet.. you can sort of tell if a person thinks of Arabs or Mexicans or whatever as a different race (as fundamentally different).

I would sacrifice my life for your right to ignore my claims. And yet.. you can sort of tell if a person thinks of Arabs or Mexicans or whatever as a different race (as fundamentally different). — Mongrel

And yet it is those who protest so-called "Islamophobia" who break out Muslims into a separate race (at least when it suits their agenda of demonizing any and all critics of Islam). So, perhaps they are the ones who view Muslims as "fundamentally different"?

Gad...that has to be the worst standup comedy routine of all time.

Gad...that has to be the worst standup comedy routine of all time. — Arkady

Not sure I should converse with you, as you have been branded a racist for criticizing an ideology.

And yet it is those who protest so-called "Islamophobia" who break out Muslims into a separate race (at least when it suits their agenda of demonizing any and all critics of Islam). So, perhaps they are the ones who view Muslims as "fundamentally different"? — Arkady

Precisely. I think that if a person has an inner struggle with that kind of racism, rational examination of the question can become impossible. Anytime the issue comes up, a reflexive "I'M NOT RACIST!" will appear. Maybe clothed in more sophisticated language.

You can read the Quran(4:34) in whatever language or translation you like. — tom

Let's take the original then. "idribuhunna" has about 52 distinct meanings and you're sticking to the one meaning "beat women". Whereas one of the meanings is "to separate", which fits in much better with the subsequent verse:

And if you fear dissension between the two, send an arbitrator from his people and an arbitrator from her people. If they both desire reconciliation, Allah will cause it between them. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Acquainted [with all things].

and compare that to 2:231:

And when you divorce women and they have [nearly] fulfilled their term, either retain them according to acceptable terms or release them according to acceptable terms, and do not keep them, intending harm, to transgress [against them].

and 4:19:

O you who have believed, it is not lawful for you to inherit women by compulsion. And do not make difficulties for them in order to take [back] part of what you gave them unless they commit a clear immorality. And live with them in kindness. For if you dislike them - perhaps you dislike a thing and Allah makes therein much good.

and 3:134:

Who spend [in the cause of Allah ] during ease and hardship and who restrain anger and who pardon the people - and Allah loves the doers of good;

So we see there is a much more consistent interpretation possible as is pursued by Muslim feminists and Reformist interpretations of the Qur'an. There is an existing movement against the historically patriarchal interpretation of the Qur'an and then there is the simple reality that many Muslim men (at least in the Netherlands, for which I have the statistics at hand) don't hit their women.

There is therefore not one interpretation of Islam and your suggestions otherwise are misleading.

As an example of Reformist interpretation: http://www.justislam.co.uk/product.php?products_id=198

Once accepted that Islam itself is broadly the problem, the political ramifications are somewhat chilling. in the words of Hirsi Ali :
I think that we are at war with Islam. And there’s no middle ground in wars. Islam can be defeated in many ways. For starters, you stop the spread of the ideology itself; at present, there are native Westerners converting to Islam, and they’re the most fanatical sometimes. There is infiltration of Islam in the schools and universities of the West. You stop that. You stop the symbol burning and the effigy burning, and you look them in the eye and flex your muscles and you say, “This is a warning. We won’t accept this anymore.” There comes a moment when you crush your enemy... In all forms [militarily], and if you don’t do that, then you have to live with the consequence of being crushed

It's interesting that someone so steeped in the harm that religion can cause so carelessly advocates revoking religious freedom to convert to Islam, which might as well be an apostasy law, and goes on to suggest that there should or could be military force used against Islam itself (how I know not). For Ayaan there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim, only lazy ones who don't obey the religion and the radicals which represent true Islam. I'm totally with her that religion in schools is a dumb thing, but it's not as if over-sensitive pro-Islamic curriculum elements have much to do with any violence. — VagabondSpectre

Actually she has mellowed out since then and sees a struggle between the jihadist (Medina Muslims) and Reformists to win the hearts and minds of the average, religious and peace loving Muslim (Mecca Muslims in her book Heretic). Which seems to be the sensible approach but still she intersperses such sensible things with misrepresentations of facts.

One of the best justifications for violence is that the other chap is more violent, and has to be stopped. If I wanted to find out who was more violent as a culture, I would count the corpses, and then count the weapon production.

As to non-lethal violence, I can remember being beaten as a child by the authorities of the avowedly Christian school. That's both primary and secondary school. And wasn't there just a word from the Russian leader, very cosy with the Russian Orthodox church, to the effect that wives should be grateful for being beaten because it makes them more likely to bear sons?

We don't do that any more. Or at least we do not do it with the sanction of parliament, God and tradition any more. But don't get too holier than thou about this, we still justify a deal of violence, but mainly a long way from here, in those benighted heathen countries where they know no better, in the hope that our enlightened attitude will flow through the bombs and devastation.

As an example of Reformist interpretation: http://www.justislam.co.uk/product.php?products_id=198 — Benkei

From the website: "The Prophet did not tell his followers to do anything other than what was reviled in the Qur'an." A delicious Freudian slip.

:D

Who is this "we" you speak of?

"Islam is not the number one paradigm explaining Arab society, hypocrisy is."

My "indirect bashing of the West and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan" senses are tingling:

but mainly a long way from here, in those benighted heathen countries where they know no better, in the hope that our enlightened attitude will flow through the bombs and devastation — unenlightened

And yet they're pouring into Europe by the millions and by the thousands into the US and Canada as we speak. Funny, that. You'd think they'd want to go somewhere else, given our opinion of them as "ignorant, benighted heathens" and our reputation as the Great Satan. Your nasty little comment falls apart as soon as we ask who is dropping the bombs and creating the devastation from which the legitimate refugees and immigrants are escaping.

And yet they're pouring into Europe by the millions and by the thousands into the US and Canada as we speak. Funny, that. You'd think they'd want to go somewhere else, given our opinion of them as "ignorant, benighted heathens" and our reputation as the Great Satan. Your nasty little comment falls apart as soon as we ask who is dropping the bombs and creating the devastation from which the legitimate refugees and immigrants are escaping. — Thorongil

For the Islamophobists, this is what they see as the evil Trojan horse strategy to spread Islam, by first coming to the West as migrants refugees, then have a lot of children and then demand through ignorant leftists and the abuse of democracy to turn Europe into a Muslim continent. Actual demographics don't matter with that crowd, you know.

I think that Atheism and secularism is a bigger threat to the Christianity of Europe than all the Worlds Muslims.

I think that Atheism and secularism is a bigger threat to the Christianity of Europe than all the Worlds Muslims. — ssu

Am I to interpret that as an argument for a Christian Europe in favour of a secular and atheist Europe?

Let's take the original then. "idribuhunna" has about 52 distinct meanings and you're sticking to the one meaning "beat women". Whereas one of the meanings is "to separate", which fits in much better with the subsequent verse: — Benkei

Perhaps you could list those 52 meanings, and show exactly where the word "idribuhunna" appears in the famous wife-beating verse?

Perhaps you could list those 52 meanings, and show exactly where the word "idribuhunna" appears in the famous wife-beating verse? — tom

You can read the Quran(4:34) in whatever language or translation you like. — tom

>:O

I just gave you a translation in English that already compares three distinct meanings.

Edit: in any case, you're missing the point as I've continually repeated: there's not one interpretation of Islam and I showed you another that is better in many ways. That was never to argue your argument doesn't exist and probably still a dominant one.

Who is this "we" you speak of? — jamalrob

Nice people.

Not you of course.

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/alone-through-iran-1144-miles-of-trust#/

I showed you another that is better in many ways — Benkei

Seems kind of arrogant for you present your opinion as superior to that of a Muslim scholar. There is a mass of knowledge that's required to give a legit commentary on the Koran. And even that doesn't make one a religious leader.

I don't see the relevance of any of this. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the Qur'an did say beating your wife was just fine. The Bible says it's OK to stone a child for being a bit cheeky. Are we worried that Christians are actually going to do that? These books were not made for enlightened eyes, which in the west concerning wife beating have not been that enlightened until very recently. See below. (Some dastardly Muslim must have sneaked the Qu'ran into American living rooms...)




Anyway, yes, the holy books have horrible aspects to them, all of them. I'm not going to defend them. But I will keep pointing out the obvious that most Christians and Muslims will find ways to do the exact opposite to what's in the books for good or for ill when it suits them, so scanning them in order to find evidence that Christians or Muslims are generally bad (or good) is fairly pointless.

I just gave you a translation in English that already compares three distinct meanings. — Benkei

Surely you are capable of giving the "about 52 distinct meanings" of "idribuhunna" that you claim to exist. If you can't, I think we will conclude that you are .... shall we be charitable and call it "exaggerating"?

Also, since you claim that the word "idribuhunna" appears in Quran 4:34, perhaps you could point out where?

Sure. Parties on both sides make the mistake of assuming that a religion's tenets must be reflected in the behavior of its adherents. The opposite is likely the case as religion serves the function of tempering some feature of a culture. Protestantism, for instance, is the religion of the European merchant class. You'd never guess that by examining the message of Calvinism.

Parties on both sides make the mistake of assuming that a religion's tenets must be reflected in the behavior of its adherents. — Mongrel

Meanwhile Bangladesh joins it's Islamic brethren Saudi Arabia and Yemen in esuring the Islamic tradition of marrying little girls to old men continues.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/bangladesh-child-marriage-law-minimum-age-zero-reduce-baby-marital-unicef-un-a7619051.html

Progress?

Obviously it's not all bad.

Am I to interpret that as an argument for a Christian Europe in favour of a secular and atheist Europe? — Benkei

Depends on just how you see it.

What is the Christianity of Europe? The good old times of when we talked about a Christendom?

Just what I tried to say earlier, you cannot categorize religion to be either good or bad, it's a far more complex issue. But what is sure is that our society has become more secular, and so has even happened to muslims.

Seems kind of arrogant for you present your opinion as superior to that of a Muslim scholar. There is a mass of knowledge that's required to give a legit commentary on the Koran. And even that doesn't make one a religious leader. — Mongrel

I'm merely representing other existing interpretations and then I do have an opinion on which I think is better from a normative viewpoint (which is personal and subjective) and logical consistency. I don't see how arrogance comes into it, as I've merely compared two different scholarly interpretations and translations. See here for instance as well a collection of translations:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/An-Nisa,_34

@tom you can find the transliteration there as well but slightly different as aḍribūhunna. It's root is "daraba". Have fun doing some work yourself. Apart from whether there are 10 (just in the Qur'an) or 52 different meanings (in a dictionary), the point remains the interpretation I've shown exists and is a valid one disproving yours that Islam approves of beating wives. Even on the basis of the actual text this isn't necessarily supported unless you opt for a specific interpretation.

@Baden I do think it's important to discuss falsehoods otherwise they are left standing but agree it's tangential to the main point that there's no true Scotchman and religion is what people make of it and not the books.

Actually she has mellowed out since then and sees a struggle between the jihadist (Medina Muslims) and Reformists to win the hearts and minds of the average, religious and peace loving Muslim (Mecca Muslims in her book Heretic). Which seems to be the sensible approach but still she intersperses such sensible things with misrepresentations of facts. — Benkei

It's been about ten years since that particular Hirsi Ali quote. I am aware that she has become more moderate on the issue (heh), but I could not resist the opportunity to share a quote which so perfectly described what sentiments you get when you combine an unrealistically simplified definition/description of a religion along with hatred of it.

It's not her hatred that I object to though, she's entitled to that, it's her simplistic and monolithic portrayal of a religion which is in reality vastly complex and internally conflicted. Luckily though, confrontation with reality causes the dissolution of that position rather than the strengthening of it.

Many Christians and deconverted Christian's I've encountered have taken a similar position with respect to Christianity: the former says, "There is only one true Christianity" and the latter says, "Yep, and it's evil". Perhaps due to living ideologically cloistered lives, the Christian only knows their version of Christianity, and perhaps emerging directly from such an ideologically cloistered life, the fresh anti-theist can only oppose what they are aware of, which amounts to a fraction of religious doctrine and practice as it concerns the greater religious world in question.

As anti-theists come to realize that there are many brands of a given religion and that not all of their practitioners are engaged in the same actions, they realize that not all religious brands are worth opposing or that not all of their criticisms apply to all of them. At this point, a new question comes into focus, one that could really do with some exploration in this thread: "What is religion?"

What is the "DNA" of a religion? Is it simply the main tenets of it's main doctrines? Is it the doctrinal body as a whole? Does that include the way doctrines change and diverge over time? To what extent is any given religious behavior a raw expression of doctrine with respect to other factors and circumstance? What is the possible variance in behavior when historical and demographic doctrinal variance along with a variance in changing environments is considered? To what extend does divergence in doctrine and behavior within and between religious groups (Islam) define individual sects as separate and discrete religions altogether?

Answering these questions is critical to delivering a robust and persuasive condemnation against a particular religion. It's really about what can be made to stick, and what the uninitiated don't realize is that in this debate religion is Teflon. Religious individuals constantly re-interpret their script and constantly change their behavior according to pressures put upon them, and when the pressure is widespread it happens en masse. The way religion expresses itself in individuals and society is amorphus; without necessary form. Once you've outlined objectionable tenets, objectionable interpretations of those tenets, and the specific individuals and groups who act on them, and why, then you can coherently and persuasively condemn them/it, but you're then only condemning one behavioral ramification (of many possible ramifications) in one environment (of many possible environments) from one interpretation (of many conflicting interpretations) of one tenant (of many conflicting tenets).

I remember reading a Hirsi quote which I believe came from her "mellowing phase", which read something like "Once [radical] Islam is defeated and dead, what's left can be reborn as a new religion, become something else, that can exist happily with the western world". I'm not exactly sure how implicit the [radical] qualifier was, but it shows that her understanding of religion as a whole was developing. The idea that religion dies and becomes something else when it changes is the beginning of a more holistic understanding of what religion actually is: an ever diverse, ever changing, ever dividing, ever evolving set and series of creatures, many of whom will happily defy even their own logic in the pursuit of survival and advancement, and not all of whom make for worthy enemies.