Jump to content

Wife Beating As Instructed In The Quran


KT45
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

The Quran allows men to beat their wifes. After watching this debate, you will no longer be able to claim ignorance of Islam.

 

QURAN 4:34 - "Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Surely God is high, supreme." ... (more)

I didn't even know that this an actual scripture in the koran. In the video I posted I'm amazed that a man would try to defend why it is okay to beat his wife. I guess to christians will look at this and say "see islam is evil!!!" Well they are right, it is. But don't forget your bible "spare the rod, spoil the child"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Fellows;

 

The above cited reference is having a mistranslation. Most of the muslims have made this mistranslation in their translations. The correct translation is as follow;

 

"Men traditionally take care of women, since God has endowed each of them with certain qualities and men spend from their financial resources. The righteous women are obedient (to God) and during the absence (of their husband) they honor them according to God's commandment. As for those women whom you are experiencing a fear of disloyalty from, you shall first advice them, then (if they continue) you may desert them in bed, then you may strike them out. If they obey you then don't transgress against them. God is Most High, Supreme." (4:34).

 

Beating women who are cheating is not an ultimate solution; but "striking them out" from your house is the best solution. And it is fair too. I do hope, it would have been cleared to you that what Quran actually meant and what people made out of ignorance.

 

Regards

A well wisher

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gonna be funny when a shit pot of muzzie ladies figure that a 38 Special doesn't allow their asses and legs be beaten with electrical cables..

 

Will be funny when a culture of female self worth and Self Protection happens where the IslamikBoys are now free to beat shit out of their ladies..

 

When there is a massive predominance of cable wielding men with smoking holes in their foreheads happening, discussions by well fed, water fattened, over fleshed, shitheads in suits will cease..

 

Figure as soon as the girls in the socieities run by assholes like those in the Youtube vid are clued in on how to prevent the beatings, and find a way to find self protective devices, that particular society will fall..

 

kFL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Fellows;

 

The above cited reference is having a mistranslation. Most of the muslims have made this mistranslation in their translations. The correct translation is as follow;

 

"Men traditionally take care of women, since God has endowed each of them with certain qualities and men spend from their financial resources. The righteous women are obedient (to God) and during the absence (of their husband) they honor them according to God's commandment. As for those women whom you are experiencing a fear of disloyalty from, you shall first advice them, then (if they continue) you may desert them in bed, then you may strike them out. If they obey you then don't transgress against them. God is Most High, Supreme." (4:34).

 

Beating women who are cheating is not an ultimate solution; but "striking them out" from your house is the best solution. And it is fair too. I do hope, it would have been cleared to you that what Quran actually meant and what people made out of ignorance.

 

Regards

A well wisher

 

Muslims are just like Christians... if they don't like the way something is written just claim it was translated wrong and offer your own translation. I'm not making judgement as to which is correct (maybe neither) but just how "convenient" the whole religion thing can become.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Fellows;

 

The above cited reference is having a mistranslation. Most of the muslims have made this mistranslation in their translations. The correct translation is as follow;

 

"Men traditionally take care of women, since God has endowed each of them with certain qualities and men spend from their financial resources. The righteous women are obedient (to God) and during the absence (of their husband) they honor them according to God's commandment. As for those women whom you are experiencing a fear of disloyalty from, you shall first advice them, then (if they continue) you may desert them in bed, then you may strike them out. If they obey you then don't transgress against them. God is Most High, Supreme." (4:34).

 

Beating women who are cheating is not an ultimate solution; but "striking them out" from your house is the best solution. And it is fair too. I do hope, it would have been cleared to you that what Quran actually meant and what people made out of ignorance.

 

 

Given the context, the first translation seems more likely to me, especially given the violent nature of other passages in the Koran. If the translation really is "strike them out," giving you the benefit of the doubt that there is such a phrase that means to kick them out, then why would there be another sentance afterward saying not to transgress against them if they obey you? How could they obey after you've kicked them out of your house? Also, why would the part about deserting them in bed be added -- if you kick them out obviously you're deserting them in bed. Having it mean that they obey you after you send them to bed and beat them sounds more believable to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not the first time I have seen this particular passage from the Q'ran and discussed it. It is ALWAYS the thing that makes me wonder why ANY woman would volunteer for this bullshit.

 

It IS the first time I have seen a muslim state that that particular translation is in error.

 

To be honest I have never had the priviledge of discussing the matter with a muslim woman. I have been stupid enough to try and have a rational conversation about it with a number of muslim males. Of course, each of them did their best to defend it.

 

One man actually tried to convince me that Islam is the one religion that is most progressive in it's treatment of women. 1)The fact that women go to prison for being raped and cannot meet the Islamic requirments for witnesses to the crime 2)Are left to starve when they are divorced for petty reasons and not required to contribute to the woman's support or even pay the dowry they were promised when they first married. 3)Treated like dogs by their school age sons who are still utterly dependent on them for basic needs. If this is progressive, I would hate to see what they would consider unfair.

 

I have been told that beating a disobedient wife is an act of mercy because it teaches the women to be obedient to Allah and discourages them from sinning further.

 

I have been told that the beatings are not severe enough to leave a mark which I take to mean to be a caution to men that if you are going to beat your wife make sure it doesn't show. It puts a whole new light on their dress requirements being for the sake of modesty. There are actual restrictions, as I understand it, about the implements that can be used to beat one's wife.

 

I have been told that these beatings are allowed only after a number of other methods are used to get the wife to submit. In other words, the man is forced to beat his wife because she chooses NOT to submit otherwise. Further, women are justifiably treated this way because males are rational and women are emotional. I always wonder why if the man is superior intellectually why is it that he has to resort to beating his wife in order to get her to do what he wants. Depending on the situation I have actually asked the question which has a tendency to illicit a rather emotional response. I LOVE IRONY!

 

I have been told that because I am a woman there is simply NO WAY I can understand the spiritual reasoning for this and that is why Allah wants the man to be the spiritual head of the household.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My copy of the Qu'ran contains the first translation and is supposedly an authorized translation.

 

I'll say it once, I'll say it again. For better or for worse, I do think some of the appeal of modern Paganism is that us ladies are not inferior whores/chattel/dirt. I'll be just as quick to add that most atheists are also relatively egalitarian, recognizing the worth of women. Certainly it is difficult to find anyone of Christian (or Jewish or Muslim) thought who actually considers the wife to be their equal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Fellows;

 

The above cited reference is having a mistranslation. Most of the muslims have made this mistranslation in their translations. The correct translation is as follow;

 

"Men traditionally take care of women, since God has endowed each of them with certain qualities and men spend from their financial resources. The righteous women are obedient (to God) and during the absence (of their husband) they honor them according to God's commandment. As for those women whom you are experiencing a fear of disloyalty from, you shall first advice them, then (if they continue) you may desert them in bed, then you may strike them out. If they obey you then don't transgress against them. God is Most High, Supreme." (4:34).

 

Beating women who are cheating is not an ultimate solution; but "striking them out" from your house is the best solution. And it is fair too. I do hope, it would have been cleared to you that what Quran actually meant and what people made out of ignorance.

 

Regards

A well wisher

So basically instead of hitting them, you treat them like the dog that pissed on the carpet. They disobey you so you kick them out of the house like a dog. And I think that the verse you modified says that you can "strike them out" if "you are experiencing a fear of disloyalty". So it's okay to kick your wife out of the house because the man is being insecure.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i've heard that the passage should be translated "beat them lightly" ie, spank them.

 

but i'm no expert in Islamic studies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The_Omniscient is correct that the verb daraba can indeed mean"to strike out" or "to set apart" (for usage see Q 2:58 & 57:43, I think--I'm writing this in a hurry) but the fact of the matter is that more Muslim commentators translate it as "hit" than choose a more peaceable option for the term. I think questioning that would be more productive and get at the heart of the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, first we need to see tht what thing is called "disloyalty". It is adultery. The adultery is termed as disloyalty. No man would be happy to know tht his wife is adulteress or not faithful to him. Even in this extreme situation, Quran provides three ways;

 

1. to talk and discuss the matter

2. to seperate the bed.

3. to ask her to leave the house.

 

Now, if after leaving the house, the woman realizes her mistake and is willing to repent and come back, then the man is directed to not to "transgress". Means, to accept her and to forgive her on wht she would have done. WHERE IS THE VIOLENCE? Please, we all should try to read the scriptures with a positive appraoch.

 

The disobedience in this verse, does not mean every trivial and minor disobedience. It only refers to the grave disobediences. And i am sure tht if such method would be applied, it would surely help minimizing the divorce rate. By the way, somewhat similar method of mediation is used in many family courts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, first we need to see tht what thing is called "disloyalty". It is adultery. The adultery is termed as disloyalty. No man would be happy to know tht his wife is adulteress or not faithful to him.

The verse you gave us says

 

As for those women whom you are experiencing a fear of disloyalty from
It doesn't say for the woman that is being disloyal, it says for the woman you fear is disloyal. So basically you can kick a woman out because of a insecure feeling.

 

Oh and what translation of the Quran do you feel has the "true" interpretation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Omni...

 

Let us understand something from a Man raised in a culture that loves the individual, worships Freedom, and where the ultimate Civil Right is self protection.

 

Self protection from in this case, some fool with an electrial whipcord, using it to 'correct thinking' that does not align squarely with what he 'thinks' is correct.

 

Here, the women I know would have the man bound with his whipcord, ass up and something unpleasant shoved to his diaphram as quick as his pissy little temper flared.

 

That or any time the so.called.man attempted to use his *scriptural processes* to try and cow down the girls I know, the first reaction would be for the man to be picking his gear off the roadside. When and if he did not catch that clue, then being sued totally in to bankruptcy and taken for everything he has seems to let him know physical and mental torture is not acceptable.

 

If the Lady is a friend.of.daFatmans then the man would have a few acceptable venues, most of which would require him to go far away. There is no "or.else".

 

Do as you want to do Omni. If some religious zealot hit Mrs.Fatman or her Lady, that man would soon be laying in a pool of his own blood whilst the girls were reloading...

 

 

kFL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Taylork45;

 

First consider the following part of the verse:

 

The righteous women are obedient (to God) and during the absence (of their husband) they honor them according to God's commandment. As for those women whom you are experiencing a fear of disloyalty from

 

In this part of verse, the God has described that of wht kind of disloyalty actually he is discussing here. Remember, he is God, the Omniscient, the loving and merciful. It is not appropriate for him to make allegations thats why he uses the phrase " a fear of disloyalty". As we know many a times, what we see by our eyes is may not be true similarly, by using a doubtful phrase, God has given the woman a benefit of doubt and instructed the man to first discuss the matter not to straight away take the action on wht he might have seen.

 

So, to conclude, in the absence of husband, if the wife committs adultery or it appears to the husband tht might be she is not faithful to him, then all they do is to discuss the matter. Not to take actions before speaking which actually forbids and prevents the honor killings.

 

Should u need any clearrification, no need to hesitate.

 

Regards

A Well wisher

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Honor killings" my aching asshole...

 

Here is one point where your savage culture and mine clash..

 

The brutal bloodthirsty maniacs that Founded the American Nation provided that everyone would have the ability to prevent some asshole bent on murder from doing so to them.

 

Understand Omni, you come at my women with steel in your hands, bent on putting it under their skin, they reserve the ability to place medium velocity lead and copper under yours.

 

We'll quickly see whose version of diety works better.

 

John Moses Browning has a much better track record than allah the goatfucker.

 

kFL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr Nivek.

 

You are crossing your limits . Be advised to not to use vulgar language while communicating with me. When I have not at all used any mean words for you or your beliefs, why do I listen such words from ur side again and again. Beware of honoring the freedom of expression and not to use it for the sake of freedom of abuse. Both are highly identical. I fyou would continue using base language, I would refuse to make any further replies to you, either directly or indirectly.

 

Regards

A well wisher

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Fellows;

 

The above cited reference is having a mistranslation. Most of the muslims have made this mistranslation in their translations.

Which translation is right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Taylork45;

 

Regretfully, the translation which I find the msot accurate is not available on internet, however the one which i would recommend you is available on the site of Ministry of Islamic Affairs, Saudi Arabia. Tht translation is much much better then all others. Hope, it would be of help for you.

 

Regards

A well wisher

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Taylork45;

 

Regretfully, the translation which I find the msot accurate is not available on internet, however the one which i would recommend you is available on the site of Ministry of Islamic Affairs, Saudi Arabia. Tht translation is much much better then all others. Hope, it would be of help for you.

 

Regards

A well wisher

I was thinking of something more along the lines of a book off of amazon or something with commentary to go along with the text.

 

-EDIT-

Omni, why do you feel your translation is correct? Do the majority of muslims follow your translation? If not why do you feel this is so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr Nivek.

 

You are crossing your limits . Be advised to not to use vulgar language while communicating with me. When I have not at all used any mean words for you or your beliefs, why do I listen such words from ur side again and again. Beware of honoring the freedom of expression and not to use it for the sake of freedom of abuse. Both are highly identical. I fyou would continue using base language, I would refuse to make any further replies to you, either directly or indirectly.

 

Regards

A well wisher

 

Omni,

 

You sir are simply "On my turf" where the owner and webmaster grants me the wide discretion to do fairly well as I please doing his business.

 

In discussions with the sectarians, such as yourself, who insist on polluting the grounds and carpets with your versions of "god_speach", my ire knows few limits.

 

Pay attention Omni, in a Free America, not ruled by your koran, muhhamd the dead asshole's dead ghost, and the mullahs, Men and Women are able to make their own fucking decisions on damn near anything they desire.

 

We are a Nation of Rebels and the sons and daughters of those who were either brought over in chains and bondage, or those excaping the black robed whores of churches and mosques.

 

I choose to 'pick on you' as you've come to my Home on Net and made choice to try and gain converts with your knowledge and wisdom made from the works of a demented sand diety worshipping fool.

 

Not gonna argue with you, nor allow you unfettered access to the Boards without a fight.

 

Feel very Free to do a websearch for "First Amendment" and find why this area is a "Free Fire Zone".

 

Reply to me or do not, it is of no matter to daFatman, I will slap your posts in public until you wake the fuck up and see that there are other thoughts and foundations' thinking that make your sandblown camel humping book look like the fiction it is.

 

Keep trying, and I'll keep replying...

 

kFL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nivek,

 

I don't think Omni has acted in anyway on these forums like the muslims your protray in your posts. The violence you so much condemn in fanatical "Islam" seems to mirror the barely suppressed violence in your own posts. If you have grounds for objecting to Omni's writing then why not do it with reasoned arguments much like Omni ? As it stands it is you who appears the fanatic and not him and the religion he represents - IMO.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nivek,

 

I don't think Omni has acted in anyway on these forums like the muslims your protray in your posts. The violence you so much condemn in fanatical "Islam" seems to mirror the barely suppressed violence in your own posts. If you have grounds for objecting to Omni's writing then why not do it with reasoned arguments much like Omni ? As it stands it is you who appears the fanatic and not him and the religion he represents - IMO.

 

Golden,

 

I *am* a fanatic. Let us agree on that that particular line of thought.

There is no middle ground with me and Freedom. I'll use whatever is needed to prevent them from encroaching on me and mine. If that is *violent*, then it is what it needs to be.

There is little whitewashing in my life and world, the *violence* is up front and not hidden in pretty words and perfumed actions.

 

 

Gentlemen like Omni are the fronts, the folks who go out and put a happy face on islam and the work of their mullahs.

 

Granted the uS nooze puts a shitty face on *moozie extremists*, showing *every* person of ME/Arab decent a terrorist and bomber in the making.

 

Understand this, anything that islam has, you simply do not want.

If you are male, you will either be a boss, or a drone.

Female? Forget choice, rights, and abilities.

 

Your every thing is regulated by religion and its proctors under anything islamic.

 

I may be a fanatic and very ugly to Omni, however refusing the intrusion of the moozie life, philosophies and direction is part of the stand I take against the incremental Theocracy, xtian and mooze seen happening worldwide is what I do.

 

There is nothing polite about what the theocrats have planned for we who do not believe. Make no mistake, they will not permit *unbelievers* to exist in their spaces.

 

I've made my choices, and do not apologize for opening both barrels up on the advance troops of the moozie occupiers.

 

k F L

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, first we need to see tht what thing is called "disloyalty". It is adultery. The adultery is termed as disloyalty. No man would be happy to know tht his wife is adulteress or not faithful to him. Even in this extreme situation, Quran provides three ways;

<snip>

The disobedience in this verse, does not mean every trivial and minor disobedience. It only refers to the grave disobediences. And i am sure tht if such method would be applied, it would surely help minimizing the divorce rate. By the way, somewhat similar method of mediation is used in many family courts.

 

Woah, woah woah...are we talking about disloyalty or disobedience? Because those are 2 different things, my friend. And where here does the text refer to adultery? It's not anywhere in the passage. And yes, I'm working directly from the Arabic, not a translation.

 

 

As for those women whom you are experiencing a fear of disloyalty from
It doesn't say for the woman that is being disloyal, it says for the woman you fear is disloyal. So basically you can kick a woman out because of a insecure feeling.

 

Yeah, that's what has always gotten me about this particular verse: if you fear. That gives too much leeway.

 

Dear Taylork45;

 

Regretfully, the translation which I find the msot accurate is not available on internet, however the one which i would recommend you is available on the site of Ministry of Islamic Affairs, Saudi Arabia. Tht translation is much much better then all others. Hope, it would be of help for you.

 

Regards

A well wisher

 

Uh, so you accept a translation from a govt. authority of a country that doesn't even let women DRIVE?????? Please explain to me how that's not biased.

 

To be honest, I did a lot of work on women in the Qur'an...how they're talked about, how they are adressed, how they are instructed by God. And pretty much most stuff, when looked at historically and contextually, makes sense. If it wasn't for 4:34, I really would have to say that the Qur'an (and I mean the text, not Islam in general) is the most egalitarian in terms of gender of all the montheistic scriptures. I mean, nobody's daughters get offered up for rape, or anything close to it. But this verse...why? After giving women property rights, guaranteed inheritance and maintainence, and a slew of other major reforms considering it was the 7th century, why make is permissible to beat one's wife? Why does this verse not stand out as a screaming injustice? And why does this commit orthodox Islam to 7th c. Arabian gender dynamics?

 

This is the problem with taking divine texts literally. The believers cannot "explain away" difficulties such as these because then they are changing God's word.

 

The _Omniscient, I understand your frustration with Nivek. But I also see his point. It seems that no matter how much Muslims try to soften the issue of women in the Qur'an, the fact of the matter is that it does not always translate into reality. If all of these passages can be legitimately translated to show women in a better light, how come there are so many instances of people accepting the harshest translation in shari'ah? I mean, whole countries accept this stuff. It's not just a few people here and there. If what you say is what God intended, why is there so much evidence to the contrary?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fine. Reasoned arguments. Suppress the temper. I shall try.

 

Hubby and I were having a discussion about women in religion on our way down to donating some gear to a Greyhound adoption group. (long drive).

 

We came to the conclusion that the lack of balance in Abrahamic religion (in regards to gender) is at the root of much misery. When women are valued as the givers of new life, sex was celebrated, not repressed. Where women led the clan, there was a better sense of community, rather than competition. When men took over, sex became a narrowly defined act of procreation, and many things become wrong, as everyone is an adversary rather than a complement. There is absolutely no difference between women and men in their ability to connect with Deity-- but for political and control reasons, the Abrahamic religions generally bar the way for women to be priests and scholars in relgious ideas.

 

So it really irks me that the Muslim solution to disharmony in the marital bed (which most marriage therapists will tell you usually has both parties at fault, so the men are usually partly responsible) is to beat the woman into submission, I see but another example of a religion becoming ever more unbalanced. What if the woman has a point and the man is too egotistical to admit it? Men aren't always right! She deserves to be beaten, because her man can't admit to a fault? Sorry, that crosses my line.

 

Remember that here in the West, where women sometimes get their chance, we have women who have become great scientists and philosophers, artists and writers, engineers and geeks. My husband works elbow to elbow with women at his job, and I can tell that several of them respect him greatly and he is friends (platonic!) with them. His mind is able to treat them as equals, and they know it! One of them was worried about possible mysogny coming from her boss, and his words of support meant so much to her.

 

Women are the complement and balance of a man, not the repressed, beaten-down property of them. I'd say that the whole thing sounds barbaric. but I know that would be an unjustified insult to most actual barbarians, not a few of whom are heathens with healthy gender attitudes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fine. Reasoned argumed say that the whole thing sounds barbaric. but I know that would be an unjustified insult to most actual barbarians, not a few of whom are heathens

 

Please resist 'whole quote' posting when original is right above yours.

kFL

 

 

 

with healthy gender attitudes.

 

Hi Gaura,

Much wisdom in your post. The book of Genisis says: "And God created man to his own image; to the image of God he created him.Male and female he created them" This part of the bible I do accept as being Gods word. The Abrahmic religions, outwardly, promote heavily the masculinity of God and downplay the feminine imagery alluded to in the above passage. I say outwardly because the divine feminine is still there throughout the OT but its not something ever really promoted in organised Christianity, indeed heresy is the common response to anybody who tries to bring it up. The way I see it the nearest Christianity get's is through the veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the orthodox and catholic church's. Just recently I have come across the divine feminine in Islam through Sufism, but its early days yet and I await a book I have ordered to find out more about it. With paganism there is no barriers, the divine feminine alluded to in the bible can be worshipped through the Goddess as it was for thousands of years before the Abrahmic religions appeared. I suppose though its equally in error, though more understandble, to promote the divine femininity whilst denying the masculine side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.