ho hum, another week, another muslim regression to 1400 years ago, another denial by "moderates"




Quote:

A SELF-STYLED Islamic cleric has told his male followers they can force their wives to have sex and also hit them if they are disobedient. Samir Abu Hamza said despite Australian rape laws it was impossible for a man to rape his wife even if she refused to have sex with him. In a recorded lecture entitled "The Keys to a Successful Marriage", delivered to his male worshippers but now broadcast on the internet and viewed by several thousand people, Mr Hamza from Melbourne said Islamic law allowed men to hit their wives as a last resort but they were not to make them bleed or become bruised. He said under Islamic law, as described in a Koranic verse, it was a man's right to demand sex from his wife whenever he felt like it. He then mocked Australia's criminal laws which required consent for sex to be lawful. "In this country if the husband wants to sleep with his wife and she does not want to and she hasn't got a sickness or whatever, there is nothing wrong with her she just does not feel like it, and he ends up sleeping with her by force ... it is known to be as rape. Amazing, how can a person rape his wife?" Mr Hamza asked. In the contradictory sermon, delivered in Melbourne or Sydney about 2003 but posted late last year, Mr Hamza initially instructs his listeners "don't hit your wife". But he goes on to say exactly how men should hit their wives, according to his interpretation of Islamic teachings. "After you have advised them (not to be disobedient) for a long, long time then you smack them, you beat them and please brothers, calm down, the beating the Mohammed showed is like the tooth brush that you use to brush your teeth," he said. "You are not allowed to bruise them, you are not allowed to make them bleed." Mr Hamza runs the Islamic Information and Services Network of Australasia which offers spiritual advice, prayer facilities and boxing, karate and gym classes for Muslims. He yesterday stood by his comments and blamed controversy caused by them on a hidden zionist agenda run by the media. Islamic Women's Welfare Council of Victoria executive director Joumanah El Matrah said Mr Hamza's interpretation was bigoted. "Abu Hamza's interpretation of this Koranic verse (on beatings) is no longer an accepted interpretation of the verse," she said. Islamic Council of Victoria vice-president Sherene Hassan said Islam did not condone domestic violence. "The Prophet Mohammed stated 'The best of you is he who is kindest to his wife'," Ms Hassan said. "The ICV is deeply concerned that there are individuals who may interpret this lecture as condoning violence against women."

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24945456-952,00.html

This is nothing new. What is NEW is that it has hit the mainstream media. Normally such things are hushed up.

Kayser Trad will be on the news to say something like this:

'Everyone knows that the learned Sheikh was in fact talking about Rap, not rape. He was saying, that you can rap with your wife homeboy, play that funky beat and jive to the music. Only racist bigots would have said that he was saying 'rape', but that shows their ignorance and hatred. We all know that if he was talking about rape, he would have mentioned cats and uncovered meat. Where is the discussion of meat, or cats? There is none, so clearly we are talking about funky disco rap beats and not rape. And the beating he is speaking of is musical beats, not actual violence..LOL! The racists and Islamaphobes never give up trying to defame Islam.'

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/731632/cleric-endorses-beating-rape-of-wives

http://video.msn.com/?mkt=en-au&brand=ninemsn&playlist=videoByUuids:uuids:084fbdcc-6e5e-4554-b2ce-8ad76ba95884&showPlaylist=true&from=articleinline&fg=news^national^731632


he explains the beating thing as being a tap with a toothbrush

as to the rape thing- WHAT THE HELL

A Muslim man shouldn't have to rape his wife. She is supposed to 'look after him'....

he should get together with that female judge who said this a few years back

I can't find the judge (although I'm pretty sure there was one) but maybe I'm thinking of this woman

Phyllis Schlafly: "By getting married, the woman has consented to sex, and I don't think you can call it rape," she has said

"Could you clarify some of the statements that you made in Maine last year about martial rape?
I think that when you get married you have consented to sex. That's what marriage is all about, I don't know if maybe these girls missed sex ed. That doesn't mean the husband can beat you up, we have plenty of laws against assault and battery. If there is any violence or mistreatment that can be dealt with by criminal prosecution, by divorce or in various ways. When it gets down to calling it rape though, it isn't rape, it's a he said-she said where it's just too easy to lie about it.

Was the way in which your statement was portrayed correct?

Yes. Feminists, if they get tired of a husband or if they want to fight over child custody, they can make an accusation of marital rape and they want that to be there, available to them.

So you see this as more of a tool used by people to get out of marriages than as legitimate-

Yes, I certainly do."


argh

gaybriel lastworder - do you have a point there ??

f/d - maybe a muslim man should nto have to rape his wife, but he is allowed to. :-)

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2009 at 12:15pm:

gaybriel lastworder - do you have a point there ?? f/d - maybe a muslim man should nto have to rape his wife, but he is allowed to. :-)

sprint- stop changing my username

secondly- yes, my point is that anyone saying a man can't rape his wife (as in if he forces her to have sex it's not rape) is an idiot

as to your last point- no that's incorrect

I almost predicted it....


Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Islamic leaders have condemned a Melbourne Muslim cleric who told followers it was permissible to hit their wives and force them to have sex.

But Coburg mosque cleric Samir Abu Hamza has told a confidant his message has been taken out of context and that he was referring to hitting wives in a metaphorical sense.

Mr Rudd told reporters Mr Hamza's comments had no place in modern Australia.

During a 2003 lecture also posted on the internet late last year, Mr Hamza told followers that under Islamic law, men could demand sex from their wives.

Despite Australian law requiring consent, it was impossible for a man to rape his wife even if she refused to have sex, he said.

"Under no circumstances is sexual violence permissible or acceptable in Australia - under no circumstances," Mr Rudd said.

"Under no circumstances are other forms of violence, physical violence, acceptable towards women in Australia nor are they acceptable in my view to mainstream Muslim teachings.

"Australia will not tolerate these sort of remarks. They don't belong in modern Australia, and he should stand up, repudiate them and apologise."

The President of the Islamic Council of Victoria (ICV) Ramzi Elsayed said he had spoken with Mr Hamza about the lecture, titled The Keys to a Successful Marriage.

"He told me he was speaking in a metaphorical sense," Mr Elsayed said.

"In regards to hitting your wife, his position is that it has always been metaphorical - it's not a whack, it's not a slap, it's a wake-up call."

He said Islam did not condone violence against women or making a wife have sex with her husband against her will.

"He believes he was taken out of context insofar as he was talking about people who censure their spouses - it was not so much a physical hit as a metaphorical one to say wake up, we're heading for a divorce kind-of-thing," Mr Elsayed said.

But the senior honorary legal adviser to the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, Haset Seli, hit out at Mr Hamza, calling him a lunatic.

"His lecture was absolutely ludicrous, unIslamic and highlighted the ignorance of the man," Mr Seli said.

He said anyone who thinks he can force his wife to have sex with him is a lunatic and certainly not a Muslim.

Mr Seli said he went through a similar episode with the former Mufti, Sheik Taj Aldin Alhilali, who caused a national uproar in a 2006 Ramadan speech when he likened scantily clad women to uncovered meat, suggesting they were to blame for sexual attacks on them.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/wife-beating-metaphor/2009/01/22/1232471481094.html

I'd be interested to read a transcript of the two lectures.

sorry but I've watched the whole video and it actually is not only taken out of context but also inflated

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=M2z_2dMecFM

you can watch the whole thing here- this one doesnt have to footage of him talking about rape though. yet to find it

some interesting points in the video to those who don't want to watch the whole thing

8-13
17:50- 20
21- 25
24:30 – where he talks about hitting
26:30
28-32
32-37
40:30 – says same for men as women before

you can see he says the hitting is to the extent of hitting with a toothbrush - it cannot leave a mark or make someone bleed. it is also a very last result after much much consultation.

when you think about it - at a time when violence against women would have been considered fairly commonplace- doesn't this highlight the extent to which you cannot beat your wives? instead of giving permission to beat, it actually says the exact opposite. that the most you could ever do was tap your wife on the arm or leg with the same force as hitting someone with a folded scarf (as pointed out by scholars)

then you do have problems gaybriel as fo your article..  ROTFLMAO  remind me never to have you as a lawyer.

Grendel wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2009 at 5:48pm:

then you do have problems gaybriel as fo your article..  ROTFLMAO  remind me never to have you as a lawyer.

what article?

Not an article?
paraphrase?
made up?

you've confused me-what are you referring to- quote it please

 Re: muslim men allowed to rape wives
Reply #4 - Today at 11:26am

This is one area I don't like about Islam.  There could be nothing worse than being a Muslim woman.  You are such second class citizens - not to all Muslim men - but to many of them.

If I was hit with a toothbrush and had to stand there and take it - I would consider myself oppressed.  The same goes for sex.  That idiot that made the news today might only be one of a few that believe this, although I find it unlikely especially as the Koran condones men hitting their wives and having sex when they please.

I know Australia is not a Muslim country - but I was watching a documentary the other day about Muslim women in Afghanistan and their lives are terrible.  It seems that many of the women don't like the men and who could blame them.  One woman giggled when the reporter joked with her and she was immediately told to control herself by some man in an office.  Her embarrassment, frustration and feelings of futility were so obvious.

The females in Muslim countries have my pity.

Quote:

you can see he says the hitting is to the extent of hitting with a toothbrush - it cannot leave a mark or make someone bleed. it is also a very last result after much much consultation.

Well I guess that makes it ok then. Pardon us overly concerned westerners.

sprint,

Perhaps you should read your Bible a little more often, and not just the fuzzy wuzzy cuddly bits that get the most airtime.

"Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control." (1 Corinthians 7:3-5)

Note: this is NT not OT, so don't give me any of this "It's from the OT we don't believe in that anymore" crap.

Also if we look at this map of which countries have laws regarding  'spousal rape', you'll see quite a lot of Christian countries there don't recognise it.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/be/MaritalRapeMap.gif

Also note that the UK didn't have a law for spousal rape until 1991.

Spousal rape is also considered to be quite common in the US, although it's outlawed there, but this has only been the case since 1993, and even today 33 of the 50 US states treat spousal rape as a 'lesser crime', not as rape:


Quote:

David Finkelhor and Kersti Yllo's 1985 study estimated that 10 to 14 per cent of all married American women have been or will be raped by their husbands. (Finkelhor and Yllo, 1985)

Mantra,


Quote:

This is one area I don't like about Islam.  There could be nothing worse than being a Muslim woman.

Strangely Muslim women don't agree with this sentiment. There's no doubting some Muslim women are oppressed and treated poorly, then again so are some Christian women (as mentioned above, 10-14% of them are raped by their own husbands in some countries) and some Hindu women and some Chinese women etc. The issue seems to be that oppressiion of Muslim women just makes better headlines, but the fact is the majority do not live like we see in the documentaries from Afghanistan. For a start, the largest Muslim nation in the world is Indonesia, and you'd be hard pressed to find any Indonesian women living like that. Also surveys of Muslim women pretty much always show that they don't consider themselves oppressed. Unless we don't consider their opinions valid? In which case we'd be just as demeaning and belittling of them as we accuse others of being. Please see this thread which I've started in the Islamic forum that mentions a survey carried out on Muslim women from all around the world.


Quote:

If I was hit with a toothbrush and had to stand there and take it - I would consider myself oppressed

Is that because of the humliation? Islam does consider a woman to be under the charge of her husband, much as the children are under both their charges. So the husband is permitted to 'smack' his wife in order to disclipine her (as a child would be smacked for disclipine), but only AFTER he has exhausted all other avenues. Domestic violence as we know it, is certainly not what we're talking about here. Domestic violence is abuse and is strictly forbidden in Islam.


Quote:

The females in Muslim countries have my pity

The vast majority of Muslim women would probably just consider this  sentiment to be patronising and degrading to them, and would probably resent you for it, and consider it unawarranted.

Quote:

Is that because of the humliation? Islam does consider a woman to be under the charge of her husband, much as the children are under both their charges. So the husband is permitted to 'smack' his wife in order to disclipine her (as a child would be smacked for disclipine), but only AFTER he has exhausted all other avenues

Not only would it be humiliating, it would make the average western woman very angry - but a Muslim woman has to stand there and accept it.  She can't throw an object back at her husband in retaliation or lodge a complaint with the police.  

I know these laws are usually only strictly adhered to by certain socio economic groups in Muslim countries and it's also obvious that women from other religions are oppressed in many developing countries as well.

Admittedly my knowledge is only through documentaries and what I read - but take Iran for example.  These lovely young girls with their faces made up like models which by Iranian law is perfectly acceptable, but if they let too much hair escape from their hijab - they have moral male police standing around the streets either giving them warnings or arresting them.

We are so lucky to live in a country like Australia where it is not only morally and socially unacceptable, but usually illegal for a male to oppress a female.

Maybe some Muslim women in Islamic countries would feel offended at being pitied, but there are probably just as many who would give anything to live in a Western country where they could have as many rights as their male counterparts.

ROTFLMAO

mod


"Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control." (1 Corinthians 7:3-5)

Oh dear forgot to highlight tat bit didn't you.

As for NT...  yes it is...  but it is not a teaching of Christ is it.  Corinthians is a letter to people by a disciple, it responds to a letter.

The important message in Corinthians is in these lines...

1 Corinthians 13:4-7
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Practice that in your relationships and there is no need for rape.  I'm always astonished that all things return to sex with you people.  Wassup?  Got no self control?  Nothing better to do with your time?

As for your map you are kidding right...  you saying the US and Canada do not recognise spousal rape?   ROTFLMAO.

Rape isn't about love and sexuality...  it's about power over another and is an abuse of that power.

I've probably got the names wrong, but some Muslim man was on the radio this morning saying that most Muslims don't agree with this Abu Hamza - the rebel Cleric and that he belongs to a group called the Wahibi sect - which isn't part of mainstream Islam.

Obviously Muslims are broken up into different divisions - but do they still follow the same teachings in the Koran?

So what happens next?  If this bloke doesn't apologise - will he be deported - that's if he isn't an Australian Muslim?

In his lecture - he also said this.

"The Australian community is in desperate need for me and you (Muslims), the Australian community is in a state of loss, they don't know how to enjoy themselves," Mr Hamza said.

Abu - hi, I was quite surprised when I first read that area of corinthians.
Becuase of its equality and setting down ideas for sex in a marriage.


"Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband.
The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does.
And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control." (1 Corinthians 7:3-5)


Whats good for the goose is good for the gander !!!!
But, this idea for a marriage would avoid a lot of problems.
often when couples are disagreeing, sex is withheld.
That worsens the situation.

Quote:

Whats good for the goose is good for the gander !!!! But, this idea for a marriage would avoid a lot of problems. often when couples are disagreeing, sex is withheld. That worsens the situation.

Sprintcyclist - most women can't have sex on tap the way men do.  So if they're both angry - it's usually only the male that doesn't let his fury interfere with his sex drive.

What you think men don't have feelings that way either mantra...  ROTFLMAO.

I suppose you think a normal man thinks taking sex from an unwilling partner is also enjoyable?

Grendel wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2009 at 9:08am:

I suppose you think a normal man thinks taking sex from an unwilling partner is also enjoyable?

I'd be very surprised if you've ever experience otherwise. :D

I note we once again are regaled by your giant intellect.  oh joy.  :D

maybe I'm celibate lester...
Trolling from the gutter once more I see.

If you're going to follow me around and snipe at least have something intelligent to say.

Spousal rape in ISLAM,
Koran quotes regarding this 'activity' and the status of women,
and an example of the spousal rape of an 8 yr old girl in Yemen, given here.....

Taking Jews and Christians as friends
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1231993677/36#36

Abu, instead of trying to explain Biblical law to Christians, perhaps this would be a good time to explain what the status of a Muslim wife is in the Koran. Is she allowed to deny her husband sex? What recourse does he have if this happens? Is she expected to have sex with him whenever he wants?


Quote:

Is that because of the humliation? Islam does consider a woman to be under the charge of her husband, much as the children are under both their charges. So the husband is permitted to 'smack' his wife in order to disclipine her (as a child would be smacked for disclipine), but only AFTER he has exhausted all other avenues. Domestic violence as we know it, is certainly not what we're talking about here. Domestic violence is abuse and is strictly forbidden in Islam.

So you're changing the definition of domestic violence so that Islam appears to fit in with western values? Haven't you seen the ads on TV about domestic violence? They make it pretty clear that "It was just a smack and she deserved it anyway, and I tried to reason with her first" simply does not cut it.

Quote:

What you think men don't have feelings that way either mantra...  ROTFLMAO. I suppose you think a normal man thinks taking sex from an unwilling partner is also enjoyable?

;D

You are funny sometimes Grendel.  I was responding to Sprintcyclist's post - did you read it?  But in regard to a "normal" man enjoying taking sex from an unwilling partner - it's not that uncommon.  There are plenty of women who could vouch for that.

mantra - good nonpersonally abusive posting !!
thanks, phew

imho,  us men do not like loving when we are not happy with someone.

Quote:

Islam does consider a woman to be under the charge of her husband, much as the children are under both their charges. So the husband is permitted to 'smack' his wife in order to disclipine her (as a child would be smacked for disclipine), but only AFTER he has exhausted all other avenues. Domestic violence as we know it, is certainly not what we're talking about here. Domestic violence is abuse and is strictly forbidden in Islam.

Well that's progressive. Grown women need to be disciplined like little kids in playgroup, and that's evidence of womens' equality in Islam. I guess it's better than the usual Al Taqiyaa of denial.

Where is that list of Islamic 'wifely duties' that someone posted a while back?

I posted it somewhere - can't remember exactly where though - possibly in the Islam forum.  I got it off a Muslim site.

freediver wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2009 at 9:39am:

Abu, instead of trying to explain Biblical law to Christians, perhaps this would be a good time to explain what the status of a Muslim wife is in the Koran. Is she allowed to deny her husband sex? What recourse does he have if this happens? Is she expected to have sex with him whenever he wants? Quote: Is that because of the humliation? Islam does consider a woman to be under the charge of her husband, much as the children are under both their charges. So the husband is permitted to 'smack' his wife in order to disclipine her (as a child would be smacked for disclipine), but only AFTER he has exhausted all other avenues. Domestic violence as we know it, is certainly not what we're talking about here. Domestic violence is abuse and is strictly forbidden in Islam. So you're changing the definition of domestic violence so that Islam appears to fit in with western values? Haven't you seen the ads on TV about domestic violence? They make it pretty clear that "It was just a smack and she deserved it anyway, and I tried to reason with her first" simply does not cut it.

if someone tapped you on the forearm with a toothbrush would you call the police? stop over reacting

mantra- I agree, I think it's condescending. I understand it as a symbolic gesture- and look in relationships people do stuff like that, someone might grab your arm or wrist to stop you walking away, or bang pots or pans around- that doesn't mean they're abusive.- but I find the condescension offensive.

Thanks Mantra, I found it. Wifely duties:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1227877786/1#1

wife beating:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1227877786/35#35


Quote:

if someone tapped you on the forearm with a toothbrush would you call the police? stop over reacting

A miswak is not a toothbrush. The beating should convey the level of anger and frustration. Many muslim jurists think that beating women in the conventional sense is 'permitted, but discouraged'.

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2009 at 11:42pm:

Is that because of the humliation? Islam does consider a woman to be under the charge of her husband, much as the children are under both their charges. So the husband is permitted to 'smack' his wife in order to disclipine her (as a child would be smacked for disclipine), but only AFTER he has exhausted all other avenues. Domestic violence as we know it, is certainly not what we're talking about here. Domestic violence is abuse and is strictly forbidden in Islam.

my understanding was that it was not a 'discipline' as one would dole out to a child- but that it is a symbolic gesture to say "I've tried everything else and this is the mutually recognised gesture of me being at the end of my rope, there's no more I can do to try and sort this out so you need to think about what's happening here."

still- I honestly think in most couples it's unneccessary. I would think that this would only apply when you're married to someone who is completely nuts and won't listen to any kind of reason.

I also don't think it's something that would be applied over a minor matter- like who's going to do the dishes

freediver wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2009 at 11:52am:

Thanks Mantra, I found it. Wifely duties: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1227877786/1#1 wife beating: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1227877786/35#35 Quote: if someone tapped you on the forearm with a toothbrush would you call the police? stop over reacting A miswak is not a toothbrush. The beating should convey the level of anger and frustration. Many muslim jurists think that beating women in the conventional sense is 'permitted, but discouraged'.

why did you not also post the list of husbandly duties which basically mirrors those of the wife?

Because they don't 'mirror' those of the wife. And because I did not post the list. I posted a link.

Gaybriel - I know this is a bit off topic and you are not a Muslim - but just out of curiosity why are you doing Islamic studies?  Are you going to do some sort of social work involving Muslim women?

mantra wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2009 at 12:29pm:

Gaybriel - I know this is a bit off topic and you are not a Muslim - but just out of curiosity why are you doing Islamic studies?  Are you going to do some sort of social work involving Muslim women?

no I'm doing my phd in english lit- and I'm studying australian identity and islamaphobia. I didn't really know a lot about islam so I learnt a bit about it as a part of my research :P

What's the definition of Islamophobia?

Gaybriel wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2009 at 12:48pm:

mantra wrote on Jan 23rd, 2009 at 12:29pm: Gaybriel - I know this is a bit off topic and you are not a Muslim - but just out of curiosity why are you doing Islamic studies?  Are you going to do some sort of social work involving Muslim women? no I'm doing my phd in english lit- and I'm studying australian identity and islamaphobia. I didn't really know a lot about islam so I learnt a bit about it as a part of my research :P

Islamaphobia - a made up word, for a lobby group - the Islamic Industry, hijacked from another lobby group, being the gay lobby, with Homophobia that was used to raise attention for the AIDS lobby.

Want to stop Islamophobia? Stop muslims having violent protests, being involved in terror, and having a religion that is dedicated to war against unbelievers, together with a large movement of followers that is committed to ensuring such wars occur. Get rid of that - no more 'Islamophobia.'

Maybe Islamophobia means fearing 'Submission' - yes I am concerned about being a submitting dhimmi under an Islamic state and sharia. Why shouldnt I be. Just because allah says I have to be a dhimmi under Islamic rule, doesnt mean I am going to go quietly.

freediver wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2009 at 9:39am:

Abu, instead of trying to explain Biblical law to Christians, perhaps this would be a good time to explain what the status of a Muslim wife is in the Koran. Is she allowed to deny her husband sex? What recourse does he have if this happens? Is she expected to have sex with him whenever he wants? Quote: Is that because of the humliation? Islam does consider a woman to be under the charge of her husband, much as the children are under both their charges. So the husband is permitted to 'smack' his wife in order to disclipine her (as a child would be smacked for disclipine), but only AFTER he has exhausted all other avenues. Domestic violence as we know it, is certainly not what we're talking about here. Domestic violence is abuse and is strictly forbidden in Islam. So you're changing the definition of domestic violence so that Islam appears to fit in with western values? Haven't you seen the ads on TV about domestic violence? They make it pretty clear that "It was just a smack and she deserved it anyway, and I tried to reason with her first" simply does not cut it.

If Muslim men are in fact not allowed to rape their wives, does anyone else know what the actual Islamic law on this is?

hahahah, so, after the husband has "exhausted ALL other avenues", he can tap her with a toothbrush ?

That'll do what ?

hahahhahahah, would HAVE to be a muslim to do that and expect anything.
i guess, after the toothbrush warning, it is drag her off to be stoned by the mob at the local soccer park ??

I wonder if 'all other avenues' includes divorce?

mantra,


Quote:

Not only would it be humiliating, it would make the average western woman very angry - but a Muslim woman has to stand there and accept it.  She can't throw an object back at her husband in retaliation or lodge a complaint with the police.

Actually some Arab women are  known for being quite vicious with their pots and pans. Don't be so sure about the stereotype you seem to have adopted.

There is no doubt that in Islam the husband has control over the family, and therefore he is able to disclipine the wife. I've never come across a Muslim women who's ever  spoken against that idea. However they do oppose domestic violence, as does any normal person with half an iota of decency in them. Domestic violence is a disease which must be stamped out of all societies. But it has nothing to do with giving your wife a 'smack' when she's gotten out of control (if that ever were to happen, I can gladly say it's never been a problem for me). Likewise, I think most people would make a distinction between smacking children with a disclipinary smack, and abusing them... No?


Quote:

I know these laws are usually only strictly adhered to by certain socio economic groups in Muslim countries and it's also obvious that women from other religions are oppressed in many developing countries as well.

I think very few men would ever need to disclipine their wives. So whhat you'd probably be referring to is domestic violence, which is nothing to do  with the disclipine Islam permits. They are two completely seperate phenomena. Domestic violence exists amongst some Muslims, probably no more than in any other society, probably less actually, due  to the absence of alcohol, and all peoples should work to stamp it out from their societies and provide support for women who are escaping it.


Quote:

but if they let too much hair escape from their hijab - they have moral male police standing around the streets either giving them warnings or arresting them.

If it was an Islamic ruling, then it wouldn't permit any hair nor makeup, so it sounds a bit strange if you ask me.

Anyway, the situation in Iran is really shrouded in a lot of propaganda at the moment, as the West has been trying to paint it as a nasty 'axis of evil' type of place. Here's a few interesting facts about the roles of women in Iran:


Quote:

Iranian women today serve an active role in society. Peace activists such as Shirin Ebadi have pushed for greater rights for women, while many Iranian women exiles have set examples of excellence that have no doubt inspired many Iranian women to strive for change in the conservative society prevalent in today's Iran. Even with the current climate of religious conservativism, Iranian women still tend to take a more active role in social, religious and family affairs than their Arab or Turkish counterparts.[citation needed] Despite the barriers imposed by the Revolution, Iranian women can be seen working in a variety of areas such as politics, law enforcement, transportation industries, etc. Universities still tend to be dominated by women in Iran and one may find a large number of female legislators in the Iranian Majlis (parliament),[citation needed] even by western standards. Former Vice President Masoumeh Ebtekar, noted for her eloquence in dealing with western media, set a new standard for aspiring Iranian female politicians while serving under President Khatami. Outstanding Iranian female academics, such as Laleh Bakhtiar have forever left a mark in the fields they contribute to.

Demographics of Iran

Note: Ebtekar was Vice President of Iran before Australia was graced with the lovely Julia Gilliard.


Quote:

We are so lucky to live in a country like Australia where it is not only morally and socially unacceptable, but usually illegal for a male to oppress a female.

I don't know  if things have changed a lot since I grew up, but when I was growing up, I knew of some families plagued by it (all alcohol related) and it was fairly acceptable. Nobody ever said anything about it nor attempted to solve it, or prevent it. It was just "the way it was".


Quote:

Maybe some Muslim women in Islamic countries would feel offended at being pitied, but there are probably just as many who would give anything to live in a Western country where they could have as many rights as their male counterparts.

Most of those wishing to come to the West are males, not females, and they wish to come for the economic situation, that's about it. I've spoke about this with a lot of people in Arab countries, and all of them say the same thing. They'd hate to leave their country, their socciety etc. but they want to go because of the economic and perhaps educational (which is related to the economic future of their children) situation. I've never come across a person in a fairly decent financial situation who wants to leave their country. Even with the bad political situation (which is actually anti-Islamic more than anything), they'd still rather be there than here.

Grendel,


Quote:

Oh dear forgot to highlight tat bit didn't you.

The second part does not detract one iota from the part I highlighted, in fact it just gives the green light for women to rape their husbands as well (don't laugh, this has happened before). It states a man has authority over his wife's body, this means he could have sex with her whenever he pleased, does it not? It means that no consent would be required in order to have sex, as he has authority, not her.


Quote:

As for NT...  yes it is...  but it is not a teaching of Christ is it.  Corinthians is a letter to people by a disciple, it responds to a letter

Can you possibly anchor those goal posts down somewhere? Christians believe in the Bible.. but if we mention the OT... no we don't believe in that, if we mention the NT... oh no we don't believe in that part of it... Please, that's just pathetic, which part of the Bible do you actually believe in? If any.

No wonder so many Christians are leaving such an illogical and inconsistent doctrine to embrace Islam in this country.


Quote:

Practice that in your relationships and there is no need for rape.

Agreed 100%. It completely dumbfounds me how any man could even consider raping anyone at all, let alone his supposed soulmate, the thought is just bizarre.


Quote:

I'm always astonished that all things return to sex with you people.  Wassup?

It does? News to me. If anything, it's your side's 'spin' on what Muslims  supposedly believe which is full of all the sexual innuendo.


Quote:

As for your map you are kidding right...  you saying the US and Canada do not recognise spousal rape?   ROTFLMAO.

Read it again, a little more slowly this time. It might get through the second time.. we hope.

I'll give you a little hint... "map of which countries have laws regarding  'spousal rape'" ...the word in red is key to the sentence.

But also if you read on, you'll see that the US didn't make it a crime in all states until 1993. Not that long ago you know.

freediver,


Quote:

Abu, instead of trying to explain Biblical law to Christians, perhaps this would be a good time to explain what the status of a Muslim wife is in the Koran. Is she allowed to deny her husband sex?

Let's just say it's the same as the NT.


Quote:

So you're changing the definition of domestic violence so that Islam appears to fit in with western values?

Nope just telling you how it is, something you seem to dislike, especially when it doesn't conform to your preconceived notions. Just put it down to Taqiyyah if you like... that's what you'd most like do anyway.


Quote:

They make it pretty clear that "It was just a smack and she deserved it anyway, and I tried to reason with her first" simply does not cut it.

Well then I guess our definitions of smack are very different. As I said, I liken it to the smack of disclipine a child receives when they need to be brought into line. Do you also consider that abuse?

Either way, Muhammad (pbuh) never hit his wives, nor his children, even softly, and he's the best example for ALL of humankind. Let's leave it at that, it suffices for me.

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 24^th, 2009 at 12:57am:

freediver, Either way, Muhammad (pbuh) never hit his wives, nor his children, even softly, and he's the best example for ALL of humankind. Let's leave it at that, it suffices for me.

Habibi, habibi, Al Taqiyya, or surely you remember the story of Aisha following Mohammed to the graveyard without his permission? They teach it to the little kiddies about how to be obedient etc....

From Sahih Muslim, Book 4


Quote:

Book 004, Number 2127: Muhammad b. Qais said (to the people): Should I not narrate to you (a hadith of the Holy Prophet) on my authority and on the authority of my mother? We thought that he meant the mother who had given him birth. He (Muhammad b. Qais) then reported that it was 'A'isha who had narrated this: Should I not narrate to you about myself and about the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him)? We said: Yes. She said: When it was my turn for Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) to spend the night with me, he turned his side, put on his mantle and took off his shoes and placed them near his feet, and spread the corner of his shawl on his bed and then lay down till he thought that I had gone to sleep. He took hold of his mantle slowly and put on the shoes slowly, and opened the door and went out and then closed it lightly. I covered my head, put on my veil and tightened my waist wrapper, and then went out following his steps till he reached Baqi'. He stood there and he stood for a long time. He then lifted his hands three times, and then returned and I also returned. He hastened his steps and I also hastened my steps. He ran and I too ran. He came (to the house) and I also came (to the house). I, however, preceded him and I entered (the house), and as I lay down in the bed, he (the Holy Prophet) entered the (house), and said: Why is it, O 'A'isha, that you are out of breath? I said: There is nothing. He said: Tell me or the Subtle and the Aware would inform me. I said: Messenger of Allah, may my father and mother be ransom for you, and then I told him (the whole story). He said: Was it the darkness (of your shadow) that I saw in front of me? I said: Yes. He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you? She said: Whatsoever the people conceal, Allah will know it. He said: Gabriel came to me when you saw me. He called me and he concealed it from you. I responded to his call, but I too concealed it from you (for he did not come to you), as you were not fully dressed. I thought that you had gone to sleep, and I did not like to awaken you, fearing that you may be frightened. He (Gabriel) said: Your Lord has commanded you to go to the inhabitants of Baqi' (to those lying in the graves) and beg pardon for them. I said: Messenger of Allah, how should I pray for them (How should I beg forgiveness for them)? He said: Say, Peace be upon the inhabitants of this city (graveyard) from among the Believers and the Muslims, and may Allah have mercy on those who have gone ahead of us, and those who come later on, and we shall, God willing, join you.

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/muslim/004.smt.html

Quote:

The second part does not detract one iota from the part I highlighted,

No but it does balance it up doesn't it...  oh dishonest one.


Quote:

in fact it just gives the green light for women to rape their husbands as well (don't laugh, this has happened before).

Well know it doesn't.  Doesn't mention rape anywhere nor does it specify sex, but that seems to be a Muslim obsession.


Quote:

It states a man has authority over his wife's body, this means he could have sex with her whenever he pleased, does it not?

See above.


Quote:

It means that no consent would be required in order to have sex, as he has authority, not her.

See above.  BTW would you force your wife to have sex if she didn't want to/  If she wasn't in the mood?  Is that love? Is that respectful?

Quote:

Can you possibly anchor those goal posts down somewhere?

Never moved them.  Your problem is your utter ignorance of the religion.  One you ran away from because of your ignorance.


Quote:

Christians believe in the Bible.. but if we mention the OT... no we don't believe in that, if we mention the NT... oh no we don't believe in that part of it... Please, that's just pathetic, which part of the Bible do you actually believe in? If any.

I've already explained this to you.  Get an adult to explain it to you.  Not a Muslim...  they are clueless.


Quote:

No wonder so many Christians are leaving such an illogical and inconsistent doctrine to embrace Islam in this country.

Well its still the biggest Religion in the Western world.  Not that that matters.  It isn't in a competition with islam.  I don't think Islam will ever become a major religion in this country short of importing or breeding more Muslims.


Quote:

Agreed 100%. It completely dumbfounds me how any man could even consider raping anyone at all, let alone his supposed soulmate, the thought is just bizarre.

So why have you just supported such a proposition.  Oh because a Muslim said it.  That's the problem with you people.  that's why the world has a problem with Muslims.

I'm always astonished that all things return to sex with you people.  Wassup?


Quote:

It does? News to me. If anything, it's your side's 'spin' on what Muslims  supposedly believe which is full of all the sexual innuendo.

You just made statements supporting that proposition.  You need to take a good look at yourself.  

As for your map you are kidding right...  you saying the US and Canada do not recognise spousal rape?   ROTFLMAO.


Quote:

Read it again, a little more slowly this time. It might get through the second time.. we hope.

once was enough.


Quote:

I'll give you a little hint... "map of which countries have laws regarding  'spousal rape'" ...the word in red is key to the sentence.

yep got that...  made no difference.

Rape is rape spousal or NOT.  if you have laws against RAPE it don't matter who does it.


Quote:

But also if you read on, you'll see that the US didn't make it a crime in all states until 1993. Not that long ago you know.

Yet they did have rapes laws...  see above,

Not winning are you... oh deluded one.

rape is rape....

---

Quote:

No but it does balance it up doesn't it...  oh dishonest one.

Balance is irrelevant, it still quite clearly states that the husband has authority over the body of his wife. This quite clearly means he is free to have sex with her whenever he pleases, as he's in the position of authority to do so.

Unless of course you have a new definition for authority?


Quote:

Well know it doesn't.  Doesn't mention rape anywher..

Thank you, and neither do the Islamic texts. Doesn't stop you from making wild accusations though.


Quote:

BTW would you force your wife to have sex if she didn't want to/  If she wasn't in the mood?  Is that love? Is that respectful?

Of course I would not, I find the idea repulsive, as I'm sure so would Abu Hamza, that doesn't appear to have been the intent of his speech, anymore than it was the intent of Paul in the Letter to the Corinthians.


Quote:

One you ran away from because of your ignorance.

I never ran away from it, because I never even practised it. Like most Australians I couldn't have cared less about religion in my youth, I just thought it was a waste of time and load of fairytales from ancient times.


Quote:

Well its still the biggest Religion in the Western world.

Maybe by official statistics, but as far as actual practise goes, I'd dispute that. And that's why Christians in the West are worried. When churches start getting sold to Muslims to turn into Mosques, they get all up in arms... well nobody attends church, that's why they end up selling them! Whilst Muslims are attending mosques at ever increasing rates.

I don't blame you for being jealous of Islam, after all, it's actually in such a period of growth and revival, whilst Christianity is nothing but a fading memory for most, a reminder of a long gone past.


Quote:

I don't think Islam will ever become a major religion in this country short of importing or breeding more Muslims.

If Muslims keeping coming and breeding at their current rates, we wouldn't become a majority for about another 1000 years, so I wouldn't worry too much about that... oops, hate to spoil your delusions of being ;swamped' and 'outbred'.

The fact is a lot of Aussies are embracing Islam, and you know this is what concerns you about Islam... believe me, don't waste your time being concerned, find out why.


Quote:

So why have you just supported such a proposition

Care to show where I did that?


Quote:

That's the problem with you people.  that's why the world has a problem with Muslims.

You're such a bigot Grendel. You just made this statement based on the false premise I'm supposed to have supported spousal rape, which I most certainly DID NOT. this is a clear indication that your bigotry is based on nothing but irrational fears and falsehoods.


Quote:

once was enough.

Obviously it wasn't. You didn't seem to have grasped the concept that "have" means the countries marked in red HAVE spousal rape laws. Don't you feel ashamed, not for the fact of the original oversight, but for not having the basic decency to admit your oversight? Instead continuing on in your ignorance, as if nothing happened? Something you seem to do a lot, like the kid who wouldn't "go out" when playing cricket in the backyard.


Quote:

Rape is rape spousal or NOT.  if you have laws against RAPE it don't matter who does it

What it means is that in those countries (not marked red, just so you're clear on what the map means), marriage is considered consent, and a husband cannot be charged with rape.


Quote:

Yet they did have rapes laws...  see above,

Yes but standard rape laws excluded sex inside marriage, as marriage was considered consent for sex. That's why they introduced new legislation, to address this issue. They wouldn't have introduced new legislation, if the existing legislation covered it, as you appear to be claiming.

Quote:

Balance is irrelevant

WELL THAT SAYS IT ALL DOESN'T IT.

SEEMS TO BE THE ISLAMIC WAY TO ME.

Quote:

Balance is irrelevant, it still quite clearly states that the husband has authority over the body of his wife. This quite clearly means he is free to have sex with her whenever he pleases, as he's in the position of authority to do so. Unless of course you have a new definition for authority?

Sex...?  It says sex where?
Could mean over what she wears?
Whether or not she gets a tattoo?
Ears pierced?
Other piercings?
Breast enlargement?
Abortion?
Medical attention?
Make-up?
Plastic surgery?

The list is endless.  However in Western society women are not chattels.
Marriage today is seen as a partnership, not ownership.

When will the Muslims enter the 20th century.

ah ha...  finally youre getting around to answering a question many of us asked you months ago...

Took a bit of goading to finally get it out of you..

Quote:

I never ran away from it, because I never even practised it. Like most Australians I couldn't have cared less about religion in my youth, I just thought it was a waste of time and load of fairytales from ancient times.

So you were never really a Christian and you had if anything just a rudimentary understanding of it.  Yet you condemn it.  ROTFLMAO.

made up lies (How NOT unusual) and converted to Islam...  why?

well we don't know because apparently you don't know.

Quote:

Maybe by official statistics, but as far as actual practise goes, I'd dispute that. And that's why Christians in the West are worried. When churches start getting sold to Muslims to turn into Mosques, they get all up in arms... well nobody attends church, that's why they end up selling them! Whilst Muslims are attending mosques at ever increasing rates.

So you refute official statistics...  because it doesn't suit your belief.  that's called living in denial.

Christians, athiests and others...  see we don't just think in terms of what religion you belong to in the WEST...  are worried because our governments are importing you imbiciles into our countries, without a thought to the social consequences.

We don't care if Moslems go to mosques.  The thought never crosses my mind.  


Quote:

I don't blame you for being jealous of Islam, after all, it's actually in such a period of growth and revival, whilst Christianity is nothing but a fading memory for most, a reminder of a long gone past.

Not jealous at all.  I like being a free-thinking individual.
As for your thoughts on Christianity...  you are deluding yourselves.  Even athiests would rather live in a Christian society than an islamic one.

As for the rest of your tripe...  you wouldn't know what you support, your arguments are so contradictory.

Your attempts to squirm and wriggle out of things so convoluted you lose track of what you said.  Your bigotry (not mine) so entrenched you fail to see the errors in your arguments.

Not to mention the lies misquotes and strawmen you are so fond of creating.

Quote:

He said: Was it the darkness (of your shadow) that I saw in front of me? I said: Yes. He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you? She said: Whatsoever the people conceal, Allah will know it.

He missed that bit too. He needs to work on his hadith.

Zing!

Calanen,

A strike on the chest could mean many things. It could mean pointing with your finger (most likely if it's on the chest).

Grendel,


Quote:

The list is endless...

Yes it is endless, and would also include sex. Most likely, during that time period, it would've referred to sex rather than breast enlargements, whatever helps you avoid the inevitable though...


Quote:

However in Western society women are not chattels. Marriage today is seen as a partnership, not ownership.

That's nice, but still doesn't change what's clearly written in the NT.


Quote:

When will the Muslims enter the 20th century.

Are you still stuck in the 20th? We're in the 21st now..


Quote:

Took a bit of goading to finally get it out of you..

I've stated this before, didn't take any goading at all.


Quote:

So you were never really a Christian and you had if anything just a rudimentary understanding of it.

Prior to Islam I had little knowledge about Christianity. However, when embracing Islam, I was encouraged to look at Christianity... I'd say I have a much deeper grasp of what Christianity is about now than you do, and you're a Christian.


Quote:

made up lies (How NOT unusual) and converted to Islam...  why?

Because it is pure monotheistic belief in the one true all powerful Creator of all existence. Anyone denying Islam would be denying their own existence.


Quote:

So you refute official statistics...  because it doesn't suit your belief.  that's called living in denial.

I refute them because I know most Christians are just Christian by name, on paper, in the statistics. In reality most don't goto Church, don't even know the basic fundamental beliefs of Christianity, nor do they care about them.


Quote:

We don't care if Moslems go to mosques.  The thought never crosses my mind.

Obviously some Australians do, as they constantly try to block building of mosques, especially when it involves converting a former Church. This has happened in so many cases recently.


Quote:

you are deluding yourselves.  Even athiests would rather live in a Christian society than an islamic one.

You are the one deluding yourself. You live in an atheist society, not they live in a Christian one. Australia is completely secular, the laws are not based on Christianity whatsoever.

Sooo  when are you going to face reality and stop telling lies Abu?

I have better things to do than continually point them out and correct you.

ROTFLMAO.

Secularism and athieism are not the same thing.  You need a non-Muslim dictionary to check that?

Also our laws are based in christian morality.  History a little dodgey Abu?  Of course it is...  it's the Muslim version.

I just love how you twist quotes around and run off on tangents.  ;D ;D ;D

Oh and Abu...  your posts keep pointing out just how deluded you are.  That translates to me that the rest of so called moderate Muslims are equally deluded.

Quote:

Also our laws are based in christian morality...

This is an oft-quoted phrase, yet if it were true, then you'd have to concede:

Homosexuality
Prostitution
Adultery
Fornication
Gambling

Are all considered ok by Christian morality... is that so?

Thou shalt not steal...  oh dear theft is against the law.

Thou shalt not kill...  oh dear murder is against the law.

Here's one you need to personally address...  thou shalt not bear false witness...  slander, libel, fraud, etc, etc...  are covered by laws.  

Just from these 3 Christian tenets many other laws have been formed.

Jesus said...  turn the other cheek... so revenge and retribution  are other things frowned upon and against the laws and rules in many things.  

He also said... Render unto Caesar...  which speaks to secularism.  Which is another tenet of our society.

The list goes on and on and on...  much like your ignorance.  ::)

http://th00.deviantart.com/fs22/150/i/2007/323/0/c/Shikamaru_Nara_by_Vinnie14.jpg
Man, who cares?

Try to be reasonable here. You get married, you never have sex, wth?! What's the point of getting married without sex?! That's like ordering a value meal at Burger King and it's missing a key component like the onion rings. I don't care what your excuse, I want my onion rings damnit!

And if your husband hits you, hit him back. You're a grown woman, defend yourself. You'd be surprised how many physical fights end up turning into passionate sex. Relationships are funny that way..

And no, I don't hit my girlfriend. So before anyone whines about it, I'm actually really good at centering my anger. (Mainly on the thing that's troubling me. Which is never Julz)

That's why we have such a succesful relationship. So we know what the bugger we're talking about.. We have both been in abusive relationships, and we know that the problem was mostly us for not asserting ourselves.

And if I don't feel up to having sex, Julz is in the right to play with my genitals and force herself on me as she sees fit. When I agreed to this relationship we share everything. My body is her body. Her body is my mind. Our minds, souls, and everything else work as one. We don't think of ourselves, we think of eachother's needs and wants.

Yeah, she got kind of screwed there lol! She's gorgeous and I'm...I'm not lol! XP

But all this neo-femmenist bullcrap isn't helping anybody. If you want to empower women, stop treating them like glass. Tell them to either getup and defend themself or shut the hell up. If it's good enough for my friends and my pets, it's good enough for some stranger with a vagina.


Quote:

Australia is completely secular, the laws are not based on Christianity whatsoever.

http://th09.deviantart.com/fs12/150/f/2006/333/c/5/Nara_Shikamaru_by_l___Nami___l.jpg
Maybe that's why you can't do anything!

When there is no God, government takes on the role of morality. And that always endsup ten times worse...

I mean take for example your strict firearm laws. You live in a country with all these creepy animals straight out of HP Lovecraft.

Why in the hell would your government take away the guns when you could get attacked by some five foot scorpion?!

And you can't even look at porn on the internet. You're going to talk to me about Christianity being backward when your government doesn't even let you spank your whank to lolicon?!

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but your country sucks. It might not be the worst, but it's not nearly the best. I'd say you rank somewhere above England, but below America.

And that's pretty low.. France is doing better then us for crying outloud!

And the best western countries are probably The Vatican City and Ireland.

But even better then them are countires like El Salvador and The Dominiquin Republic.

Quote:

Thou shalt not steal...  oh dear theft is against the law. Thou shalt not kill...  oh dear murder is against the law. Here's one you need to personally address...  thou shalt not bear false witness...

Aren't they all from the OT? So you accept the OT when it suits you?

Either way, those laws predate the Bible (the first detailed mention of them is to be found in the code of Hammurabi), and EVERY single society on earth has pretty much those same laws. Even godless Soviet Russia had them, as do Muslim countries, Hindu countries, Buddhist countries etc.

ROTFLMAO....

I knew you were gonna be dumb enough to try that crap.

Jesus actually taught these things ABU...  oh dear...  therefore they are Christian moral tenets...  just like the others I quoted..  get an adult to explain it to you.

Your Koran is confused and contradictory in its messages about killing, lying etc...  Jesus isn't.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Quote:

There is no doubt that in Islam the husband has control over the family, and therefore he is able to disclipine the wife. I've never come across a Muslim women who's ever  spoken against that idea.

Of course not. If they did, they wouldn;t be Muslim, right?


Quote:

However they do oppose domestic violence

Yeah, keep redefining domestic violence as violence that exceeds what Islam allows.


Quote:

Domestic violence is a disease which must be stamped out of all societies. But it has nothing to do with giving your wife a 'smack' when she's gotten out of control

 :o ;D :o


Quote:

Likewise, I think most people would make a distinction between smacking children with a disclipinary smack, and abusing them... No?

Plenty of people oppose smacking children. Plenty don't. It's a grey area. Smacking your wife on the other hand is a different matter. Only Muslims and scum seem to support that.


Quote:

So what you'd probably be referring to is domestic violence, which is nothing to do  with the disclipine Islam permits. They are two completely seperate phenomena.

Only because you insist on defining it that way to make Islam seem more PC. It's just an attempt to mislead people. Once youj redefine it you can say Islam opposes domestic violence and only those who push the issue impolitely find out you support smakcing your wife to keep her in line.


Quote:

It states a man has authority over his wife's body, this means he could have sex with her whenever he pleased, does it not? It means that no consent would be required in order to have sex, as he has authority, not her.

:o


Quote:

Let's just say it's the same as the NT.

Maybe you could stop assuming that everyone here knows about, or even cares what the NT says or what your interpretation of it is. Whatever vile tripe you can dig up from that book or your interpretation of it is not any kind of justification for your ideology. You'd be the last person I'd ask for advice about other religions.

Quote:

Nope just telling you how it is, something you seem to dislike, especially when it doesn't conform to your preconceived notions.

But that's not how it is Abu. Slapping your wife to keep her in line is domestic violence. The fact that your religion premits it is irrelevant. It just means that islam permits domestic violence, just like it permits spousal rape. The fact that Islam says men don't need their wive's consent for sex does not mean it isn't rape. The fact that it permits a bit of a slap does not mean it isn't domestic violence. These words have actual meanings and it is a lie to change their meaning merely to make it more convenient for you.


Quote:

Just put it down to Taqiyyah if you like... that's what you'd most like do anyway.

You don't really leave me much choice if you claim that smacking isn't domestic violence and non-consensual sex isn't rape.


Quote:

As I said, I liken it to the smack of disclipine a child receives when they need to be brought into line. Do you also consider that abuse?

If you treat your wife as a child in that manner then yes it is an abusive relationship.

Quote:

You don't really leave me much choice if you claim that smacking isn't domestic violence

So you think a light smack, the same as what a child would receive is domestic violence? You're off your rocker. You might be able to push the point that it's humiliating to the lady to be treated like a child, and I agree, that's the intended purpose of it, to make her feel like a naughty child, who should grow up and stop acting immaturely. But to try and claim it is domestic violence is just ridiculous. Domestic violence actually needs to be violent, a disclipinary smack ISN'T violent, not in my definition of violence anyway.

You really devalue the legitimate complaints of women in domestic violence situations, by associating a disclipinary smack with their plight.


Quote:

and non-consensual sex isn't rape.

Can you quote me on that Mr. Ventriloquist? Or just content throwing your voice my way, as you seem to be doing with ever increasing frequency?

This time I'm not going to let it slide, provide a quote, or apologise, you've done this one time too many times now freediver, without owning up like a man and admitting your error.

Quote:

So you think a light smack, the same as what a child would receive is domestic violence? You're off your rocker. You might be able to push the point that it's humiliating to the lady to be treated like a child, and I agree, that's the intended purpose of it, to make her feel like a naughty child, who should grow up and stop acting immaturely. But to try and claim it is domestic violence is just ridiculous. Domestic violence actually needs to be violent, a disclipinary smack ISN'T violent, not in my definition of violence anyway.

Abu I don't often disagree with your political posts, but in regard to Islam's subjugation of women I disagree.  You have to understand a light smack is considered domestic violence here, not just physically but emotionally.  It's a form of control and abuse and a disciplinary smack is violence.  A wife is a partner - not a child to be disciplined.

But does it stop even at a light smack?  There would be many who take advantage of this law and would push it even further.

Mantra,


Quote:

Abu I don't often disagree with your political posts, but in regard to Islam's subjugation of women I disagree.

Well it wouldn't be much fun if we all always agreed now would it?

Yes Islam does place the husband in the position of authority in the family, and some women do have a problem with that, but there's actually a lot, surprisingly, who don't. Islam holds the position that no social grouping can exist (or actually, function harmoniously) without the establishment of leadership. The Prophet (pbuh) even said "Three people should not go out, without appointing one of them as leader". And some people, not just Muslims, attribute a lot of the family problems in most Western societies to this lack of clear leadership, and the failed attempts to establish some kind of false equality and 'sameness' between men and women, especially in family roles.

Just out of curiousity Mantra, do you consider an employee and an employer to be in an unfair relationship? Do you consider a student (an adult one, let's say) and his teacher to be in an unfair relationship? Do you consider a soldier and his commanding officer to be in an unfair relationship?

Although it's often painted as an abusive and oppressive arrangement, it does not have to be and in fact shouldn't be.


Quote:

You have to understand a light smack is considered domestic violence here, not just physically but emotionally

I doubt we're talking about the same thing here. Domestic violence implies a continual release of anger by one spouse against another (as far as I see it), Islam does not permit that at all. Also, in the Australian context anyway, Islam requires Muslims to follow the 'law of the land' in which they live, except when it forces them to break the rules of Islam. Since Islam does not require disclipining of the wife, then it's actually irrelevant anyway.


Quote:

A wife is a partner - not a child to be disciplined.

She  is not a child, and she is a partner, but that doesn't mean the family should be deprived of leadership.


Quote:

But does it stop even at a light smack?

If it doesn't stop at a light smack, then it's nothing to do with Islam, it's to do with a person having anger management problems, which he must comes to terms with.


Quote:

There would be many who take advantage of this law and would push it even further.

That's not really an argument. Exact same can be said for giving children a disclipinary smack also. Just out of interest what is your view on smacking children Mantra?

LoL  light smacks...  this from the man who says pots and pans are part of the womans arsenal.


Quote:

This time I'm not going to let it slide, provide a quote, or apologise, you've done this one time too many times now freediver, without owning up like a man and admitting your error.

Well then ABU lets not be a total hypocrite eh...  have you restored my post and did you apologise for lying about me and what I said yet?  Feel like owning up like a man yet?

Quote:

Just out of curiousity Mantra, do you consider an employee and an employer to be in an unfair relationship? Do you consider a student (an adult one, let's say) and his teacher to be in an unfair relationship? Do you consider a soldier and his commanding officer to be in an unfair relationship? Although it's often painted as an abusive and oppressive arrangement, it does not have to be and in fact shouldn't be.

Some of these relationships could be considered unfair if the person in authority is verbally abusive, but the relationship still doesn't permit smacking.  It would be violating their work charter of behaviour and ethics.


Quote:

She  is not a child, and she is a partner, but that doesn't mean the family should be deprived of leadership.

In many relationships of course, one person does become the leader - through dominance or necessity - one being weaker than the other, but this is "usually" by mutual acceptance, although not in all cases.  When a person is dominated against their will it is abuse.  

Islam automatically gives the role of leader to the man, regardless of whether he is weak, strong, brutal or sadistic.  It is not given through natural selection as is the case in many relationships.  Although in an ideal relationship there is no leader, but a team.


Quote:

Exact same can be said for giving children a disclipinary smack also. Just out of interest what is your view on smacking children Mantra?

I have never believed in smacking children.  There are other ways of disciplining them, although a couple of times under extreme pressure, I resorted to hitting them on the legs with a rolled up newspaper, which fortunately they took in good humour.  It put a stop to their bad behaviour, simply because it was an aberration.  If it had been a regular occurrence, no doubt it would have been ineffective and they would have become resentful.

If my partner or husband had done similar when I "misbehaved", no doubt I would have been enraged at not only the humiliation but because he used his physical strength to exert dominance and control over me.

Violence begets violence, no matter how reasonably it's portrayed or justified.  i

Well well well.
After 5 pages of people saying how they are against muslims beliefs in treating women we have Abu still saying, "it's in the koran, therefore it is right."

No surprise there. Abu, you are a human and permitted to progress past the year 500 ad.

Quote:

So you think a light smack, the same as what a child would receive is domestic violence? You're off your rocker. You might be able to push the point that it's humiliating to the lady to be treated like a child, and I agree, that's the intended purpose of it, to make her feel like a naughty child, who should grow up and stop acting immaturely. But to try and claim it is domestic violence is just ridiculous. Domestic violence actually needs to be violent, a disclipinary smack ISN'T violent, not in my definition of violence anyway.

You cannot physically discipline an adult without it being violent, especially if you are trying to discipline them for 'not behaving'. It's just not possible. It is violent subjugation.


Quote:

Can you quote me on that Mr. Ventriloquist? Or just content throwing your voice my way, as you seem to be doing with ever increasing frequency? This time I'm not going to let it slide, provide a quote, or apologise, you've done this one time too many times now freediver, without owning up like a man and admitting your error.

Sorry. Does Islam permit marital rape?


Quote:

Yes Islam does place the husband in the position of authority in the family, and some women do have a problem with that, but there's actually a lot, surprisingly, who don't.

Likewise, in times of slavery, there are a lot of slaves who claim not to have a problem with slavery. They repeat the dominant propaganda that being fed and clothed and not having to think for yourself is a good thing and that what they give in return is fair. People tend to accept the reality they are given. But if you give those slaves and women freedom for a few years, they won't want to go back.


Quote:

She  is not a child, and she is a partner, but that doesn't mean the family should be deprived of leadership.

Yet you also claim she should be treated like a child. Partnership implies some level of equality, but under Islam the husband dominates the wife. That isn't partnership, that is servitude under physical oppression and humiliation.


Quote:

If it doesn't stop at a light smack, then it's nothing to do with Islam

Not true. An ideology that permits domestic violence but draws some kind of arbitrary line must be responsible for the inevitable crossing of that line. you cannot tell men that it is acceptable to slap their wives but expect them to take it no further. That is why our society rejects all domestic violence. That is why what Islam permits is domestic violence. That is why this fruitloop from Melbourne was encouraging his followers to break the law.


Quote:

In many relationships of course, one person does become the leader - through dominance or necessity - one being weaker than the other, but this is "usually" by mutual acceptance, although not in all cases.  When a person is dominated against their will it is abuse.   Islam automatically gives the role of leader to the man, regardless of whether he is weak, strong, brutal or sadistic.  It is not given through natural selection as is the case in many relationships.  Although in an ideal relationship there is no leader, but a team.

Genuine teamwork does not involve leaders and followers, but leadership roles. Who is the leader at any given time depends on the situation. Thus when it comes to cooking, one partner may take charge, when it comes to finances, the other might, and so on. This happens naturally. This is the opposite of the institutionalisation of men as the dominant partner in a relationship. Islam basically cedes its authority to the barbarity of brute strength.


Quote:

If my partner or husband had done similar when I "misbehaved", no doubt I would have been enraged at not only the humiliation but because he used his physical strength to exert dominance and control over me.

Exactly. That sort of thing is an abusive relationship between adults. There is no other spin you can place on it. It uses brute force and humiliation to put women in their place.

freediver wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2009 at 12:50pm:

What's the definition of Islamophobia?

it's just a more specific way of discussing discrimination against muslims, also the effects of fear that have occurred most specifically since 9/11 but also before in regards to islam- it formed around the time that there occurred what many would call a 'moral panic' in regards to islam and muslims

a lot of people dislike using the word 'racism' to describe discrimination against muslims (as seen here) so the word islamaphobia is a kind of substitute.

the word itself has its drawbacks (something I'll probably also look at)- as it connotes the idea of an irrational fear- whilst in some cases this is true, people do have an irrational fear of islam- some do not fear it all and just hate it, some don't hate it but disagree with it etc

like any label or descriptor it tends to obliterate shades of grey which is why in my study I would analyse the term- discussing its pros and cons etc etc

freediver wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2009 at 2:06pm:

I wonder if 'all other avenues' includes divorce?

I believe said 'tap' is supposed to be an indicator of 'we're now heading towards divorce'

gaybriel - how ludicrous.
Whsat idiots do you take us for ??

when in islam women canot drive or venture outside without appropriate male supervision, women are 2nd class citizens at best.

a tap means "its the sword for you next time"

You can't be racist against a religion, especially one where many races are part of it.  

Considering ABU claims that Muslim women are know to use pots and pans against their men do you suppose a "tap" of any variety is appropriate?

I believe I've expressed my views about it several times before

sprint- I never said I subscribed to that belief now did I- I just said what I know of this issue

grendel- yes like I said many people don't like the use of the term racism when talking about religion hence why terms like antisemitism, islamaphobia etc are used

Quote:

Considering ABU claims that Muslim women are know to use pots and pans against their men do you suppose a "tap" of any variety is appropriate?

I think it's a natural response to the husband beating them with a soggy saliva soaked miswak. If someone did that to me I can't imagine I'd respond very nicely. It's like spitting on someone and punching them at the same time.

Well the term racism is incorrect, wrong, inappropriate...  etc, etc, etc...  if one uses English one should use it correctly.  Perhaps "dislike" is not why people use other terms...  perhaps proper usage is.

well they dislike it because they believe it not to be proper usage

I'm not looking to reignite the debate over this terminology- I'm just recognising the fact that people have a problem with using the term racism when it cmes to religion

No...  they know it is NOT THE PROPER USE...   :)

Dont use it re religion...  it's inappropriate and probably 100% of the time wrong.

May be muslim women like to be raped because they don't have enough of it wit all the koranic polygamy's going on in their sub society?

Gaybriel rather than attributing your avoidance of the term to people's 'bad reaction' to it, you should attribute it to the fact that it is simply the wrong term to use. This is especially true for an academic publication where "but you know what I meant to say" just doesn't cut it. You are confusing awareness of incorrect usage of the term with an actual change in the term's meaning. If you look at any word closely enough you will find incorrect usage. This doesn't mean the meaning of every single word is undergoing rapid change in many directions. That would defeat the purpose of language. It merely means that words do get used incorrectly. Correcting such incorrect use is critical to maintaining a language to the extent that communication remains effective.

FD- you know what there is an entire thread on this where I have discussed why I don't feel it is an incorrect usage but rather one of the many wys in which language has evolved.

you're not willing to accept that and that is fine- but please don't sit there and reiterate the same crap over and over and over- it's just boring

I could quote a million passages from shakespeare and give you examples of words and phrases that have changed since their original meaning as used by him (and seeing as he invented half the words I think we can take that as truth)- but you dont go around weeing your pants about those. language changes. sure, words may be misapplied originally but this does not invalidate their usage in common society from then on.

you say it would defeat the purpose of language- but the very NATURE of language is that it is constantly evolving and constantly changing.

I know where you stand, you know where I stand. we don't agree. wonderful- let's leave it at that

however, please don't sit there and lecture me on what an academic publication should and should not be like. I am well aware of the criteria but if you think I am going to sit here and write out my entire mother *&(*ing thesis for some anonymous people on the internet then you are kidding yourself

I do not avoid the term as a matter of fact- I actually do use it, I just also use the term islamaphobia.

I see islamaphobia as almost a subcategory of racism (as I have explained my definition of racism before)- hence my use of the descriptor is to communicate more effectively the specificity of my phd topic.

do not condescend to me and pretend like I would actually write something akin to"but you know what I mean" in my thesis.

and no I should not attribute something to something else - IF I DON'T ACTUALLY BELIEVE THAT TO BE TRUE

respect that I have a different opinion even if you don't agree with it- but for the love of everything holy do not sit there and presume that you can condescend to me and tell me what is required of me in my degree.

got it?

tallowood wrote on Jan 27^th, 2009 at 3:14pm:

May be muslim women like to be raped because they don't have enough of it wit all the koranic polygamy's going on in their sub society?

no woman likes to be raped by the very definition of rape. what an incredibly filthy and inhumane thing to say. shame on you

Quote:

FD- you know what there is an entire thread on this where I have discussed why I don't feel it is an incorrect usage but rather one of the many wys in which language has evolved. you're not willing to accept that and that is fine- but please don't sit there and reiterate the same crap over and over and over- it's just boring

But the language hasn't 'evolved' and people's tendency to correct your incorrect use is evidence of that. It would only be evidence of true evolution if no-one thought to correct your mistake.


Quote:

I could quote a million passages from shakespeare and give you examples of words and phrases that have changed since their original meaning as used by him

Again, you are confusing two issues. Yes language evolves, but that does not mean that all misuse of language is an example of evolution. Sometimes it is just a mistake. If the mistake sticks, then you might be justified in calling it evolution, but not otherwise. The reason that some mistakes stick while others remain as mere mistakes is that the mistakes make communication more difficult, whereas language evolves where it aids communication. Criticism of religion will never be correctly called racism because it would just screw with communication.

Or two put it more simply, the fact that apples are red does not mean all red things are apples.


Quote:

sure, words may be misapplied originally but this does not invalidate their usage in common society from then on.

Nor does it validate it. You are not arguing an absence of invalidation, you are claiming validation through error. You are claiming that it is an apple merely because it is red.


Quote:

you say it would defeat the purpose of language- but the very NATURE of language is that it is constantly evolving and constantly changing

.

Actually, for the most part it remains the same. The change is slow. The words I use have the same meaning today as they did yesterday. 99.99999999% of the errors people make remain errors. Otherwise it would defeat the purpose of language.


Quote:

I know where you stand, you know where I stand. we don't agree. wonderful- let's leave it at that

I'd rather keep pointing out that you are wrong, so that people know what racism actually is. You show no signs of dropping the 'red things are apples' fallacy, so I can only assume you haven't grasped it.


Quote:

I see islamaphobia as almost a subcategory of racism

I hope you didn't put that in your thesis.  :P

Gaybriel wrote on Jan 27^th, 2009 at 5:52pm:

I see islamaphobia as almost a subcategory of racism (as I have explained my definition of racism before)- hence my use of the descriptor is to communicate more effectively the specificity of my phd topic.

Do you see uncompromising hate of and contempt for communism as also a subcategory of racism? Unreserved hatee, fera, conteempt for fascism, capitalism, western liberal democracy?
All hate and fear and contempt are now thought crimes under the bizarre 'subcategory of racism'. And you are going to churn this and related absurdities for 120,000 words.

good point soren.

Is any comment against anyone at all going to be plastered with the logo "Wacist"

wadda unileftardsocialist lack of reality

Soren wrote on Jan 27^th, 2009 at 11:59pm:

Gaybriel wrote on Jan 27th, 2009 at 5:52pm: I see islamaphobia as almost a subcategory of racism (as I have explained my definition of racism before)- hence my use of the descriptor is to communicate more effectively the specificity of my phd topic. Do you see uncompromising hate of and contempt for communism as also a subcategory of racism? Unreserved hatee, fera, conteempt for fascism, capitalism, western liberal democracy? All hate and fear and contempt are now thought crimes under the bizarre 'subcategory of racism'. And you are going to churn this and related absurdities for 120,000 words.

it's more about studying certain patterns of behaviour in society. australian society went through a big fear of communism whereby people would accuse others of being communist, behaviour that would otherwise be seen as unacceptable was excused under the guise of protecting the country from communism etc etc- the 'reds under the bed' period of time., and hate was excused as acceptable because of the 'threat of communism'.

and yes I also think that this is worthy of study, and people have studied it as well.

whether you label it as a subcategory of racism or not, it certainly fits within the definition of a moral panic.

Quote:

The Wife's Marital Obligations: It is obligatory for a woman to let her husband have sex with her immediately when: (a) he asks her; (b) at home; (c) and she can physically endure it; (d) another condition that should be added is that her marriage payment (mahr) has been received or deferred to a term not yet expired. As for when sex with her is not possible, such that having it would entail manifest harm to her, then she is not obliged to comply. If she asks him to wait, she is awaited to a maximum of three days.

[m 5.0 Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, Reliance of the Traveller, A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law.]

calanen - thanks for clarifying that.
She has 3 days mod: inappropriate

Calanen wrote on Jan 28^th, 2009 at 2:41pm:

Quote: The Wife's Marital Obligations: It is obligatory for a woman to let her husband have sex with her immediately when: (a) he asks her; (b) at home; (c) and she can physically endure it; (d) another condition that should be added is that her marriage payment (mahr) has been received or deferred to a term not yet expired. As for when sex with her is not possible, such that having it would entail manifest harm to her, then she is not obliged to comply. If she asks him to wait, she is awaited to a maximum of three days. [m 5.0 Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, Reliance of the Traveller, A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law.]

What if she is on her period?

I believe it's haram to have sex when you have your period

What idiotic pointless modding. classic muslim attitude

So no matter how much she hates him, she has 3 days till he can take what he wants.

ie in a western world, rape her

It sounds like she is required to give ip up on demand. Not sure what the 3 days thing is about.

Quote:

What if she is on her period?

I'll look that up tomorrow for you, however, there was a helpful section that said you could still have sex during post-natal bleeding.

freediver wrote on Jan 28^th, 2009 at 6:05pm:

It sounds like she is required to give ip up on demand. Not sure what the 3 days thing is about.

Seems there is Islamic jurisprudence which suggests she can get the guy to wait for up to 3 days.  There is a lot of other stuff which says no way right now. The Reliance of the Traveller has lots of footnotes from different sources, which I obviously cant show u on line because its a book in my office. But if you can beat your wife, couldnt you beat her for making you wait 3 days?

calanen -oh, it all sounds a bit complex to me.
Society has no crime against it, I am henned in by religion in its worst form, why not ?

Calanen wrote on Jan 28^th, 2009 at 8:28pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 28th, 2009 at 6:05pm: It sounds like she is required to give ip up on demand. Not sure what the 3 days thing is about. Seems there is Islamic jurisprudence which suggests she can get the guy to wait for up to 3 days.  There is a lot of other stuff which says no way right now. The Reliance of the Traveller has lots of footnotes from different sources, which I obviously cant show u on line because its a book in my office. But if you can beat your wife, couldnt you beat her for making you wait 3 days?

not if it's her islamic right- and again the 'beating' you refer to is only supposed to occur if there is an unresolvable issue and you have tried all other avenues to solve it. so that would hardly fit into the 3 day period anyway

Calanen wrote on Jan 28^th, 2009 at 8:26pm:

Quote: What if she is on her period? I'll look that up tomorrow for you, however, there was a helpful section that said you could still have sex during post-natal bleeding.

really? I find that hard to believe considering 1) islam's view on hygeine and 2) the stipulation that you cannot have sex if it will cause the female physical damage

http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/43028

“It is essential to refrain from having intercourse with a menstruating women because doing so leads to an increase in the flow of menstrual blood, because the veins of the uterus are congested and prone to rupture, and get damaged easily; and the wall of the vagina is also susceptible to injury, so the likelihood of inflammation is increased, which leads to inflammation in the uterus and in the man’s penis, because of the irritation that occurs during intercourse. Having intercourse with a menstruating woman may also be off-putting to both the man and his wife, because of the presence and smell of blood, which may make the man impotent (i.e., uninterested in sex).

Dr. Muhammad al-Baar said, speaking of the harm that may be caused to the menstruating woman: The lining of the uterus is shed during menstruation, and the uterus is scarred as a result, just like when the skin is flayed. So it is vulnerable to bacteria and the introduction of the bacteria that are to be found at the tip of the penis poses a great danger to the uterus.  

Hence the penetration of the penis into the vagina at the time of menstruation is no more than the introduction of germs at a time when the body is unable to fight them.

Dr. al-Baar thinks that the harm is not limited to what he describes of the introduction of germs into the uterus and vagina which is difficult to treat, rather it also extends to other things, namely:
1.     The spread of infection to the fallopian tubes, which may then become blocked, which in turn may lead to infertility or ectopic pregnancy, which is the most dangerous kind of pregnancy.

2.     The spread of infection to the urethra, bladder and kidneys; diseases of the urinary tract are usually serious and chronic.

3.     Increase of germs in the menstrual blood, especially gonorrhea germs.

The menstruating woman is also in a physical and psychological state that is not conducive to intercourse, so if it takes place it will harm her a great deal and cause her pains during her period, as Dr. al-Baar said:

1.     Menstruation is accompanied by pains, the severity of which varies from one woman to another. Most women experience pains in the back and lower abdomen. For some women the pain is unbearable and has to be treated with medication and painkillers.

2.     Many woman suffer depression and stress during their period, especially at the beginning, and their mental and intellectual state is at the lowest level during menstruation.

3.     Some women suffer migraines just before their period starts, and the pain is severe and causes visual disturbances and vomiting.

4.     Women’s sexual desire decreases, and many woman have no interest at all in sex during their periods. The entire reproductive system is in a state that is akin to sickness, so intercourse at this time is not natural and serves no purpose, rather it can cause a great deal of harm.

5.     A woman’s temperature drops during menstruation, as does her pulse and blood pressure, which makes her feel dizzy, exhausted and lethargic.

That is probably the three day thaing.

http://www.submission.org/women/period.html

http://muslim.families.com/blog/sex-in-the-muslim-marriage

No Sex During Menstruation
Although a woman is not considered "dirty" during her menstrual period, she does have certain restrictions. For example, a menstruating woman is not allowed to have sexual intercourse. About this, the Koran says, "They ask you about menstruation; say, it is 'a kind of hurt'; so abstain from sexual intercourse with them until (their period expires and) they have purified themselves." (Al-Baqarah: 222)

This does not mean that a woman is isolated during her period. She is still allowed to share her husband's bed. The couple is still free to hug, kiss, cuddle, and express their love and desire in any way besides intercourse.

Aussie wrote on Jan 28^th, 2009 at 9:21pm:

That is probably the three day thaing.

I don't think so- cause women's periods can last up to 10 days....or longer but usually that means there is a medical problem

I can't believe what I'm reading.  Does the bible have all these instructions in it as to when to have sex and when not to?

Why do Muslims need instructions anyway?

And Abu if you're reading this - as you are a fairly recent convert to Islam - what would you have thought if you'd seen your father treating your mother this way and demanding sex whenever he needed it and then hitting her if she misbehaved?  Don't you find all this very unnatural?

mantra wrote on Jan 28^th, 2009 at 9:27pm:

I Quote: can't believe what I'm reading.  Does the bible have all these instructions in it as to when to have sex and when not to? Not that it matters, but yes it does. OT. [quote]Why do Muslims need instructions anyway

?

Because an infinitely divine being that is the creator of the entire universe cares deeply about whether and in what fashion the clothed apes on the Planet Terra in the Outer Spiral Arm of this particular galaxy, being one of billions, are having sex with their clothed ape wives, especially when she's bleeding, and in terms of cosmic outcomes, this is very very important to supreme beings. They keep a log of all this stuff that is very detailed.


Quote:

And Abu if you're reading this - as you are a fairly recent convert to Islam - what would you have thought if you'd seen your father treating your mother this way and demanding sex whenever he needed it and then hitting her if she misbehaved?  Don't you find all this very unnatural?

He says its a very light smack you would give a child, which is somewhat farcical. As two adults circle around a room with the husband giving his wife a light smack every now and again.

Quote:

I'll look that up tomorrow for you, however, there was a helpful section that said you could still have sex during post-natal bleeding.

Oh that's nice. I know there's nothing a new mother craves more after giving birth than sex. Although I don't see the point if she isn't going to get pregnant. Is it only permitted in cases where the offspring dies? Then again, Islam does have more of a 'man takes what he pleases' approach to relationships than other religions.

mantra - as far as I am aware, the new testament (ie christians) do not think that.
It is not in the NT therefore not applicable.

Jesus thought highly of the women in his life.
Though at that time they were 2nd class citizens.

freediver wrote on Jan 28^th, 2009 at 10:11pm:

Quote: I'll look that up tomorrow for you, however, there was a helpful section that said you could still have sex during post-natal bleeding. Oh that's nice. I know there's nothing a new mother craves more after giving birth than sex. Although I don't see the point if she isn't going to get pregnant. Is it only permitted in cases where the offspring dies? Then again, Islam does have more of a 'man takes what he pleases' approach to relationships than other religions.

dude- did you read any of the links I posted? or try googling it? I've seen nothing supporting what calanen said, so your rant is really unsupported

gaybriel - thats an aspect, not a rant.

It's surprising you have not deleted it yet !!! It being critical of your islamic jihad

lol- sprint it's been too long since we've caught up. how you doing? how's life?

" muslim men allowed to rape wives"

Considering how "straight muslim" abu moderates I am not surprised that the rape is all they can do when it comes to such natural thing as sexual intercourse.

Mantra,


Quote:

I can't believe what I'm reading.  Does the bible have all these instructions in it as to when to have sex and when not to?

Yes it does. In fact the Jewish regulations relating to sex and marriage are much more restrictive than the Islamic ones. A Jewish woman is unclean and may not even sleep in the same bed with her  husband, she usually stays in an "Out House", she also isn't allowed to directly hand him anything, she must put it down before he picks it up.

Also I posted the NT text relating to a man having control over his wife's body, she has no authority over it, so it's completely up to him when he wishes to have sex with her... there's not even a restriction on menstruation, although in reality most of the OT restrictions still stood for the early Christians, it's only the modernists who've done away with them.


Quote:

Why do Muslims need instructions anyway?

Just relating  to the issue of sex during menstruation, many non-Muslims think this is quite acceptable, so obviously they do need instructions regarding it.

Mankind is misguided in many issues, and requires right guidance in order to regulate his life, that's what Islam is all about. As were all religions once upon a time... until they were just reduced to 'spiritual wisdoms'.


Quote:

And Abu if you're reading this - as you are a fairly recent convert to Islam

Actually I've been a Muslim for about 10 years now, I wouldn't exactly call that recent.


Quote:

what would you have thought if you'd seen your father treating your mother this way and demanding sex whenever he needed it and then hitting her if she misbehaved?  Don't you find all this very unnatural?

Firstly, it's not suitable for parents to involve their children in their sexual relationship, that's just bizarre that yo'd ask such a question.

Secondly, as has been stated enough times already, Islam does NOT permit a husband to hit his wife in any violent manner. It is purely a disclipinary smack. Anything beyond that is nothing to do with Islam. It's the same as it is  in Australian law, it's someone committing an act which is forbidden. Also, it is only a last resort, not merely for a little misbehaving, and all other avenues MUST have been exhausted first. It cannot just be used at any minor difficulty encountered as you seem to think.

Quote:

Also I posted the NT text relating to a man having control over his wife's body, she has no authority over it, so it's completely up to him when he wishes to have sex with her... there's not even a restriction on menstruation, although in reality most of the OT restrictions still stood for the early Christians, it's only the modernists who've done away with them.

I do wish you'd stop being so disingenuous.  You can't claim ignorance its already been explained to you several times.

Yet the lies persist ABU...

It quite clearly says she has no authority over her body, her husband has authority. There's very little ambiguity about that. About the best you could do to distance yourself from it, was to claim it was "a letter from Paul" not the words of Jesus (pbuh). Well I hate to break it to you, but most of the teachings of Christianity emanate from Paul, not from Jesus (pbuh), but being a Christian yourself, you should already know this right?

Quote:

Secondly, as has been stated enough times already, Islam does NOT permit a husband to hit his wife in any violent manner. It is purely a disclipinary smack. Anything beyond that is nothing to do with Islam.

Again Abu attempts to redefine violence as being anything otuside of what islam allows. Abu, if you hit your wife, it is violent. The fact that the violence is intended as disciple through humiliation does not mean it isn't violent.


Quote:

It's the same as it is  in Australian law, it's someone committing an act which is forbidden.

Wrong Abu, we do not define violence by what is legally allowed. Never have. We do not make our language an extension of our law.

Quote:

It's the same as it is  in Australian law, it's someone committing an act which is forbidden.

Really, please tell me all about this Australian law. You can edumacate me.

freediver wrote on Jan 29^th, 2009 at 9:59am:

[quote]Wrong Abu, we do not define violence by what is legally allowed. Never have. We do not make our language an extension of our law.

that is completely incorrect on every level

Could you expand on "this" please  :)

Gaybriel wrote on Jan 28^th, 2009 at 2:23pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 27th, 2009 at 11:59pm: Gaybriel wrote on Jan 27th, 2009 at 5:52pm: I see islamaphobia as almost a subcategory of racism (as I have explained my definition of racism before)- hence my use of the descriptor is to communicate more effectively the specificity of my phd topic. Do you see uncompromising hate of and contempt for communism as also a subcategory of racism? Unreserved hatee, fera, conteempt for fascism, capitalism, western liberal democracy? All hate and fear and contempt are now thought crimes under the bizarre 'subcategory of racism'. And you are going to churn this and related absurdities for 120,000 words. it's more about studying certain patterns of behaviour in society. australian society went through a big fear of communism whereby people would accuse others of being communist, behaviour that would otherwise be seen as unacceptable was excused under the guise of protecting the country from communism etc etc- the 'reds under the bed' period of time., and hate was excused as acceptable because of the 'threat of communism'. and yes I also think that this is worthy of study, and people have studied it as well. whether you label it as a subcategory of racism or not, it certainly fits within the definition of a moral panic.

So to say that communism, fascism and islamism are dangerous and toxic ideologies are to be so named and resisted are mere 'moral panic'?  There are no enemies of freedom, only misunderstood friends whose grievances we haven't yet addressed?

Gaybriel wrote on Jan 29^th, 2009 at 9:25pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 29th, 2009 at 9:59am: [quote]Wrong Abu, we do not define violence by what is legally allowed. Never have. We do not make our language an extension of our law. that is completely incorrect on every level

For example? Is boxing a 'non-violent' sport because it is not illegal?

freediver wrote on Jan 29^th, 2009 at 9:59am:

Wrong Abu, we do not define violence by what is legally allowed. Never have. We do not make our language an extension of our law.

you gave the example of boxing. yes boxing is a violent sport, but it is legal within the confines of it being a sport. without the sport affix it becomes illegal.

even within boxng there are rules and limits that constrict it


ahhhh I'm too distracted by how I met your mother to write this now

I'll come back to it

It's just that "completely incorrect on every level" seems like such a strong way to put it, given that you also appear to be conceding I was right.

nope I'm not conceding- just coming back to it.

yes it was a strong statement- which simply reflects my frustration

Gaybriel wrote on Jan 28^th, 2009 at 10:21pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 28th, 2009 at 10:11pm: Quote: I'll look that up tomorrow for you, however, there was a helpful section that said you could still have sex during post-natal bleeding. Oh that's nice. I know there's nothing a new mother craves more after giving birth than sex. Although I don't see the point if she isn't going to get pregnant. Is it only permitted in cases where the offspring dies? Then again, Islam does have more of a 'man takes what he pleases' approach to relationships than other religions. dude- did you read any of the links I posted? or try googling it? I've seen nothing supporting what calanen said, so your rant is really unsupported

Same section as from where I posted, in the Reliance of the Traveller. Surely you have his book, Ms PHD in training?

Quote:

yes it was a strong statement- which simply reflects my frustration

So it doesn't reflect reality?

freediver wrote on Jan 30^th, 2009 at 11:39am:

Quote: yes it was a strong statement- which simply reflects my frustration So it doesn't reflect reality?

Reality?

Why don't you tell us once again how anti-abortion groups in the west are not Christian based.

:D:D:D

Again? I didn't say it the first time. You seem to be having trouble reading what people actually say.

Do Muslims support abortion?

freediver wrote on Jan 31^st, 2009 at 10:04am:

Again? I didn't say it the first time. You seem to be having trouble reading what people actually say.

Oh the irony.

Oh...don't bother asking anymore questions Fd...your a waste of time.

Do Muslims support abortion?

Where did I say that anti-abortion groups in the west are not Christian based? You seem to be having great difficulty today comprehending what I actually post. I know it would be convenient for you if you could go around putting words into other people's mouths so you didn't have to think about what theya ctually said, but as you can see that gets you nowhere.