Abu I don't think we ever got a straight answer from you in this thread:


abu_rashid wrote on Oct 14^th, 2010 at 6:56pm:

Quote: And since when has beating your wife become non-abusive? Do Muslims have to attach a dual meaning to everything? Hitting need not be abusive. Parents often hit their children to discipline them, and it's usually not abusive, even when it causes bruising sometimes. [quote]He said nothing of the abuse and he did not reprimand the husband for his actions

Yes, he was wise enough to enquire as to why.


Quote:

Therefore he allowed it

In this particular case he did not take action against the man for it, does not mean it's a permissible action. Assuming it was even abuse, which I don't think is established anyway.
[/quote]

When is hitting not abusive?

What are the limits (if any) placed on wife beating by Islamic law?

When Muhammed 'examined the reasons' for his comrades beating their wives until their skin turned green, what was his reason for not criticising them or taking action against them?

Can you explain the reason why it may not be permissable if it went unpunished? What is the difference?

You're seriously a loser fd.

I think you'd be better off spending your time addressing the 15,000 women raped by Christian/Democratic soldiers that I posted about in the Extremism Exposed forum. Seems you've been worried all this time about semantics and definitions in Islamic jurisprudence, and forgotten all about your own people and the horrors they're living with...

Thanks for the advice Abu. I often wonder what the best use of my time would be.

Now, any chance of an 'open and frank' answer?

Quote:

Thanks for the advice Abu. I often wonder what the best use of my time would be.

A word of advice: it ain't on the net.

"do as I say, not as I do"

Seriously, the topic has been done to death, I've stated on _numerous_ occasions in no uncertain terms the Islamic viewpoint on it, and yet time and time again, you claim there's been no discussion on it, you haven't been "satisfied" with what you want to take place in any discussion on the issue, and then you cry that Muslims obfuscate and won't tell you the truth or something.

I am at a loss to understand how you ask it again and again with a straight face.

I guess it's part of your "Muslims never tell the truth" so there's "Always more to come out" fantasy isn't it?

Quote:

I've stated on _numerous_ occasions in no uncertain terms the Islamic viewpoint on it

Would you mind linking to one of those examples? Just one will do. Because all I see are contradictions and ambiguity.


Quote:

and yet time and time again, you claim there's been no discussion on it

Again Abu, you put words in my mouth. Try quoting me instead of just making things up. There has been plenty of discussion. Just not open and frank discussion.

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 17^th, 2010 at 8:49pm:

You're seriously a loser fd. I think you'd be better off spending your time addressing the 15,000 women raped by Christian/Democratic soldiers that I posted about in the Extremism Exposed forum. Seems you've been worried all this time about semantics and definitions in Islamic jurisprudence, and forgotten all about your own people and the horrors they're living with...

OH FFS .. MORE MADE UP RUBBISH NOW!!!

And YOU think FD is the loser here??? Pffft!

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 17^th, 2010 at 9:21pm:

Seriously, the topic has been done to death, I've stated on _numerous_ occasions in no uncertain terms the Islamic viewpoint on it, and yet time and time again, you claim there's been no discussion on it, you haven't been "satisfied" with what you want to take place in any discussion on the issue, and then you cry that Muslims obfuscate and won't tell you the truth or something. I am at a loss to understand how you ask it again and again with a straight face. I guess it's part of your "Muslims never tell the truth" so there's "Always more to come out" fantasy isn't it?

Brian, you know full well that Islam suppoprts DV.

Who the hell is Brian LMAO ????

Islam supports physical discipline in extreme cases where a wife takes to rebelliousness and does not listen to her husband.

On the contrary it's the Western societies which promote and support Domestic Violence, through the rampant abuse of alcohol and the degrading view of women as hyper-sexualised objects of lust, to be used and abused to serve the interests of men.

You cannot change the cold hard facts on the ground by merely peddling misguided and ignorant stereotypes that you've been duped into believing by your immoral and shameless sensationalist media.

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 18^th, 2010 at 10:52pm:

Islam supports physical discipline in extreme cases where a wife takes to rebelliousness and does not listen to her husband.

Enough said.

So FD was right all along.

Quote:

Islam supports physical discipline in extreme cases where a wife takes to rebelliousness and does not listen to her husband.

That is domestic violence, and if you advocate it you are no better than the perpetrator.
I have always stood up for you here Abu, as I think you get a hard time just because you're a Muslim, but making statements like that makes me think I was wrong, you are no better, if you condone domestic violence, which you obviously do, you are a  [mod: expletives removed, keep it clean]

skippy. wrote on Oct 19^th, 2010 at 12:29pm:

Quote: Islam supports physical discipline in extreme cases where a wife takes to rebelliousness and does not listen to her husband. That is domestic violence, and if you advocate it you are no better than the perpetrator. I have always stood up for you here Abu, as I think you get a hard time just because you're a Muslim, but making statements like that makes me think I was wrong, you are no better, if you condone domestic violence, which you obviously do, you are a  [mod: expletives removed, keep it clean]

Much respect Skippy. You are a decent man for calling a spade a spade.

Domestic violence against women is exactly that .. and there is NO EXCUSE for it WHATSOEVER!

And  .. in Oz it's a CRIME!

I'm out of here!

Yes, it is true.  It is also sanctioned by the Law in Arabia!

This is not a very encouraging thread. It seems that everyone has their own uninformed opinion of what is the case. Seriously, it seems that Muslims are being held to account to a higher standard than what goes on in everyday society. Domestic violence is rife in Australia. No one group owns it or most of it. Recall the campain against it? Australia says no?

Most anyone if asked would say they don't condone domestic violence. I did a few searches on the net. I googled, "Does Islam condone Domestic violence". Seems not. I suppose if I googled , "Does Christianity" condone DV, I'd get similar. I bet if I plugged in "Does the TWUA condone DV", I'd get the same.

And then there is the reality of what goes on.

The only people who can hold their heads high in this sort of "debate" are those who do not engage in such behaviour.

Well said Axle.

You're 100% correct, it exists amongst all societies, and it's reprehensible, merely having a public policy condemning it does not change the obvious reality.

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 19^th, 2010 at 7:32pm:

Well said Axle. You're 100% correct, it exists amongst all societies, and it's reprehensible, merely having a public policy condemning it does not change the obvious reality.

Abu....the distinction is that while here in Australia the Law outlaws it, within Islam the Law confirms that a Husband may beat his Wife.

[mod: enough of the profanity]

Quote:

That is domestic violence, and if you advocate it you are no better than the perpetrator.

So long as you're willing to accept smacking children is child abuse, then I'll give you this one.


Quote:

I have always stood up for you here Abu, as I think you get a hard time just because you're a Muslim...

Much appreciated skip, doesn't mean I'm going to be herded into holding the same views as you though. I think if you honestly took the time to think about what I've said, you'd not so strongly disagree. Islam does not permit domestic abuse, it permits only disciplining a wife, as it permits disciplining a child. Both are under the care and authority of the head of the family according to Islam (lack of this solid family structure in the West has actually led to far more grief for families than a little discipline has).

Obviously you'd never come to agree that the man is the head of the family, since you don't believe in that kind of family oriented society, but at least be rational about examining Islam's stance on discipline. Don't jump to conclusions and lump discipline with abuse, since they are not the same.


Quote:

if you condone domestic violence, which you obviously do

No I do not.

Aussie, Islam gives the husband the right to discipline his wife and children, not to abuse them.

Your inability to distinguish between the two is only a sign of your inability to think.

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 19^th, 2010 at 7:45pm:

Aussie, Islam gives the husband the right to discipline his wife and children, not to abuse them. Your inability to distinguish between the two is only a sign of your inability to think.

I am pretty good at thinking, I reckon.  It seems you have a problem trying to distinguish between who has the right to discipline, and the method used.  Two issues there.

Why is it (a) that the Arab Male is given the right to discipline his Wife, as opposed to the Wife disciplining him with violence providing no visible signs are left, and  (b) why is it that you Muslims want to retain/defend the notion that it is okay to beat up children?

Quote:

Why is it (a) that the Arab Male is given the right to discipline his Wife

I don't remember saying anything about Arab males. In case you didn't realise the vast majority of Muslims are _not_ Arabs, and there's plenty of Arabs who are for instance Christians.


Quote:

why is it that you Muslims want to retain/defend the notion that it is okay to beat up children?

The only one here claiming it's ok to beat up children is you ya goose.

Nowhere have I stated anything of the kind. I've said a smack is allowed by Islam to discipline, not beating up. If you don't know the difference, then I'm really wasting my time even recognising you as a sentient being.

The only people who can hold their heads high in this sort of "debate" are those who do not engage in such behaviour.

- Axle

NO!

You forgot these groups of people:

Those who do not engage in such behaviour,
Those who condemn such behaviour
Those who don't excuse or condone such behaviour!

Perhaps you may NOW be able to appreciate where MY stance on violence and abuse is coming from !!!

skippy. wrote on Oct 19^th, 2010 at 12:29pm:

Quote: Islam supports physical discipline in extreme cases where a wife takes to rebelliousness and does not listen to her husband. That is domestic violence, and if you advocate it you are no better than the perpetrator. I have always stood up for you here Abu, as I think you get a hard time just because you're a Muslim, but making statements like that makes me think I was wrong, you are no better, if you condone domestic violence, which you obviously do, you are a  [mod: expletives removed, keep it clean]

And there you have it .. take a good hard look at it everyone ..

the practice of physically abusing another family member is masked under the euphemism and cover of  PHYSICAL DISCIPLINE

.. and under what EXTREME circumstances???

in extreme cases where a wife takes to rebelliousness and does not listen to her husband.


I rest my case.

And I hold my head up high as a proud Australian woman because I have the courage of my conviction to stand up against this type of religious institutionalisation of domestic violence.

In fact I abhor it and totally condemn it.

Kind regards

Lisa

Lisa,


Quote:

The only people who can hold their heads high in this sort of "debate" are those who do not engage in such behaviour. - Axle NO! You forgot these groups of people: Those who do not engage in such behaviour

Well someone forgot something...  ;D


Quote:

the practice of physically abusing another family member is masked under the euphemism and cover of  PHYSICAL DISCIPLINE

When you can learn to understand the difference between abuse and discipline, perhaps then your viewpoint will have some meaning here.

Anyway, regardless, this whole topic is complete moot. Islam does not prescribe even disciplining a wife (it merely permits it as a last resort in desperate situations), and since it's against Australian law to do so, then any Muslim in Australia doing it, would be doing it outside the bounds of Islam, since Islam does not permit someone to break the law of a country they live in, if it is not for something Islam prescribes.

Lisa Jones wrote on Oct 19^th, 2010 at 9:09pm:

skippy. wrote on Oct 19th, 2010 at 12:29pm: Quote: Islam supports physical discipline in extreme cases where a wife takes to rebelliousness and does not listen to her husband. That is domestic violence, and if you advocate it you are no better than the perpetrator. I have always stood up for you here Abu, as I think you get a hard time just because you're a Muslim, but making statements like that makes me think I was wrong, you are no better, if you condone domestic violence, which you obviously do, you are a  [mod: expletives removed, keep it clean] And there you have it .. take a good hard look at it everyone .. the practice of physically abusing another family member is masked under the euphemism and cover of  PHYSICAL DISCIPLINE .. and under what EXTREME circumstances??? in extreme cases where a wife takes to rebelliousness and does not listen to her husband. I rest my case. And I hold my head up high as a proud Australian woman because I have the courage of my conviction to stand up against this type of religious institutionalisation of domestic violence. In fact I abhor it and totally condemn it. Kind regards Lisa

Oh and the encouraging thing in all this???

Irrespective of what Islam states or what Abu has stated above ... THE LAW OF AUSTRALIA .. THE COUNTRY OF MY BIRTH and CITIZENSHIP PROTECTS ME AS AN AUSTRALIAN WOMAN AGAINST THIS RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE .. and as such I am able to press charges against my "husband" and he may even be sent to prison IF he lays a finger on me.

Thank you!

Quote:

and as such I am able to press charges against my "husband" and he may even be sent to prison IF he lays a finger on me.

How about you actually find someone willing to marry you first, and then we'll take that one on board?

How about you actually find someone willing to marry you first, and then we'll take that one on board?

- Abu


YOUR ignorance is clearly MY bliss Abu :)

Oh and I noticed (in passing) you weren't able to rebut anything else I stated .. then again if you had .. it would have made you look an even bigger fool I suppose.

One last thing Abu .. given YOU mentioned marriage in relation to me .. it must really be difficult for you as a Muslim male in Oz to marry anyone .. given the law of Australia clearly protects women against what Islam proudly preaches wrt to physical abuse oops physical discipline hey.

Which brings me to my question .. is that why you're not married yet Abu .. ie is it because of this inherent conflict btwn Oz law and Islam law/teaching wrt physical abuse oops physical discipline of your future wife?

wooooow, what a religion, if im correct, the koran allows muslims to lie to non muslims if it further advances there religion.

SO HOW DOES ANYONE BELIEVE A MUSLIM WITH THAT IN MIND

I guess Abu rashid has taken that to HEART,  ;D ;D ;D

Lisa Jones wrote on Oct 19^th, 2010 at 9:47pm:

How about you actually find someone willing to marry you first, and then we'll take that one on board? - Abu YOUR ignorance is clearly MY bliss Abu :) Oh and I noticed (in passing) you weren't able to rebut anything else I stated .. then again if you had .. it would have made you look an even bigger fool I suppose. One last thing Abu .. given YOU mentioned marriage in relation to me .. it must really be difficult for you as a Muslim male in Oz to marry anyone .. given the law of Australia clearly protects women against what Islam proudly preaches wrt to physical abuse oops physical discipline hey. Which brings me to my question .. is that why you're not married yet Abu .. ie is it because of this inherent conflict btwn Oz law and Islam law/teaching wrt physical abuse oops physical discipline of your future wife?

....Well Abu???

Seems you're suddenly quiet.

And that's probably the best thing you could do right now my dear friend.

Coz you've done enough damage to yourself, your reputation and that of the religion you follow for one night.

Good night and sweet dreams.

Lisa Jones wrote on Oct 19^th, 2010 at 9:03pm:

The only people who can hold their heads high in this sort of "debate" are those who do not engage in such behaviour. - Axle NO! You forgot these groups of people: Those who do not engage in such behaviour, Those who condemn such behaviour Those who don't excuse or condone such behaviour! Perhaps you may NOW be able to appreciate where MY stance on violence and abuse is coming from !!!

I haven't been here long enough to appreciate your stance. I believe I've mentioned one of those groups you've listed. The last two groups you've mentioned are fine as long as they're members of group one: those who do not engage in such behaviour, which happens to be the one I mentioned.

stryder wrote on Oct 19^th, 2010 at 9:52pm:

wooooow, what a religion, if im correct, the koran allows muslims to lie to non muslims if it further advances there religion. SO HOW DOES ANYONE BELIEVE A MUSLIM WITH THAT IN MIND I guess Abu rashid has taken that to HEART,  ;D ;D ;D

Unless your some kind of Islamic expert, hearsay like that doesn't count for much. Maybe you could support that comment with something. Most probably, you'll find that disagreeable passages are interpreted out of existence by clerics referring to context and other passages or whatever. There are a number of Biblical passages, which, if you're being genuine would have you remarking, "SO HOW DOES ANYONE BELIEVE A CHRISTIAN WITH THAT IN MIND".

While you're looking up something and hopefully have talked it over with some Islamic expert, you might like to consult some Christian expert on:

"And Jehovah said, “Who shall entice Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?” And one said on this manner; and another said on that manner. And there came forth a spirit, and stood before Jehovah, and said, “I will entice him.” And Jehovah said to him, “Wherewith?” And he said, “I will go forth, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.” And he said, “Thou shalt entice him, and shalt prevail also: go forth, and do so.” Now therefore, behold, Jehovah hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets; and Jehovah hath spoken evil concerning thee (22:20-23)."

Seems that old Jollysticks is winking at the odd fib or two to get his way. Of course, Biblical experts will probably jump up and down saying that you missed this and that and didn't understand and so on.........

I wouldn't be as presumptuous as you in either case.

As it is , religion isn't my thing, but what I do care about is honest debate or discussion.

you might like to consult some Christian expert on:

"And Jehovah said, “Who shall entice Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?” And one said on this manner; and another said on that manner. And there came forth a spirit, and stood before Jehovah, and said, “I will entice him.” And Jehovah said to him, “Wherewith?” And he said, “I will go forth, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.” And he said, “Thou shalt entice him, and shalt prevail also: go forth, and do so.” Now therefore, behold, Jehovah hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets; and Jehovah hath spoken evil concerning thee (22:20-23)."

Seems that old Jollysticks is winking at the odd fib or two to get his way. Of course, Biblical experts will probably jump up and down saying that you missed this and that and didn't understand and so on.........

- Axle

1stly .. this has nothing at all to do with this topic .. and right now Abu is probably thanking his lucky stars that you've introduced this so as to detract from the mess he has made of this topic ( on the previous 2 pages ).

2ndly .. I will say this:

If you had read/understood the Bible you would know that GOD  didn't have to use a lying spirit in this instance but rather He chose to do so. It was His will to punish Ahab and He chose to use a lying spirit to deceive him through his false prophets. Interestingly, it was a true prophet of God who told the king about the deception and so he had all the opportunity in the world to change his mind.

Now if you don't mind .. could we get back to Islam and wife beating <-- the topic .. please???

I was just responding to a comment made by the poster called Stryder. I take it that I'm allowed to respond to what's written here? However, if you need to blame someone for getting away from the topic, I suggest that you admonish the poster I responded to.

You have obviously missed my point in quoting that passage. I did say that I wouldn't be presumptuous enough to base any judgement on it  because I understand that interpretation  of one passage without knowledge of the whole religion or its texts could be dangerous. Accordingly, I would not draw any conclusion as to how I should treat a member of any religion based on some hearsay about the religion or some passage(s) in its texts -unlike the poster I brought to task on the issue. I hope you see nothing wrong in that.

Thank you for putting that Biblical passage into context. It just demonstrates the above point I wanted to make. A person shouldn't pass judgement unless he/she is very well acquainted with the subject matter.

Even so, and I grant that  it is off topic, you  personally haven't exonerated Jollysticks.

You wrote:


Quote:

It was His will to punish Ahab and He chose to use a lying spirit to deceive him through his false prophets

He chose to use a lying spirit even if he didn't have to and even though later he got one of his prophets to fess.

I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate anyone saying that you shouldn't be trusted because of the above passage, assuming that you are a Christian. You would also be more unappreciative if they made some comment without any reference to support them. And even more so, if they had no context with which to understand what they were reading.

I would go further to say that no reasonable person would judge an individual soley on some religious text or group that they happen to be associated with. I would think how they personally conduct themselves in real life would be the real testimony.

I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate anyone saying that you shouldn't be trusted because of the above passage ..

- Axle

I seriously couldn't care less to be brutally honest.



The fact remains .. on THIS very topic Abu has stated:

Islam supports physical discipline in extreme cases where a wife takes to rebelliousness and does not listen to her husband.



To which I responded thus:

And there you have it .. take a good hard look at it everyone ..

the practice of physically abusing another family member is masked under the euphemism and cover of  PHYSICAL DISCIPLINE

.. and under what EXTREME circumstances???

in extreme cases where a wife takes to rebelliousness and does not listen to her husband.


I rest my case.

And I hold my head up high as a proud Australian woman because I have the courage of my conviction to stand up against this type of religious institutionalisation of domestic violence.




Oh and the encouraging thing in all this???

Irrespective of what Islam states or what Abu has stated above ... THE LAW OF AUSTRALIA .. THE COUNTRY OF MY BIRTH and CITIZENSHIP PROTECTS ME AS AN AUSTRALIAN WOMAN AGAINST THIS RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE .. and as such I am able to press charges against my "husband" and he may even be sent to prison IF he lays a finger on me.




THAT IS WHERE THIS TOPIC IS AT RIGHT NOW....

PROUD AUSTRALIAN WOMAN

you are not australian shut up

this is a rightfully nordic country get lost go back to italia

lisa is con the fruiterers wife

Lisa Jones wrote on Oct 19^th, 2010 at 11:28pm:

I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate anyone saying that you shouldn't be trusted because of the above passage .. - Axle I seriously couldn't care less to be brutally honest. The fact remains .. on THIS very topic Abu has stated: Islam supports physical discipline in extreme cases where a wife takes to rebelliousness and does not listen to her husband. To which I responded thus: And there you have it .. take a good hard look at it everyone .. the practice of physically abusing another family member is masked under the euphemism and cover of  PHYSICAL DISCIPLINE .. and under what EXTREME circumstances??? in extreme cases where a wife takes to rebelliousness and does not listen to her husband. I rest my case. And I hold my head up high as a proud Australian woman because I have the courage of my conviction to stand up against this type of religious institutionalisation of domestic violence. Oh and the encouraging thing in all this??? Irrespective of what Islam states or what Abu has stated above ... THE LAW OF AUSTRALIA .. THE COUNTRY OF MY BIRTH and CITIZENSHIP PROTECTS ME AS AN AUSTRALIAN WOMAN AGAINST THIS RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE .. and as such I am able to press charges against my "husband" and he may even be sent to prison IF he lays a finger on me. THAT IS WHERE THIS TOPIC IS AT RIGHT NOW....

Thank you for making me fully acquainted with your stance. Now I'll give you mine.

I entered into the topic and stated that the only people who should reasonably be allowed to hold their heads high are those who do not engage in domestic violence. I would therefore say that any Muslims, Christians, Unionists, footballers  or netballers etc who do not resort to physical or verbal abuse of their partners are to be lauded. However, I would not be so unreasonable as  to assert that physical or verbal abuse has the assent of an entire religion.

I did say that I did a search on whether or not Islam condoned domestic violence. On the first page of hits there were Muslims saying that they didn't condone it with apparent reliance on their teachings.

I went on to say that probably most people if asked would denounce DV. However, the reality is that DV is rife in Australia across the board. Otherwise, I wouldn't have seen the point in the government launching an anti-domestic violence campaign if it wasn't a significant issue.

I find the fingerpointing a futile exercise. There's no point in saying one group condones it and another doesn't because the reality of it is that concrete individuals are perpetrating it in virtually all groups you care to name let alone religion.

In as far as anyone condoning physical or verbal abuse then I'm against such declarations.

I did note that Abu made a distinction. He said that  Islam condones physical discipline of wives but he himself did not. I have no reason at this point to doubt what he says about himself. I take it, therefore, if you similarly don't have any reasonable doubt about his honesty then your attack, in as far as it is on him, is without foundation.

However, in as far as his understanding of Islam is concerned you have grounds.

Now whether you have grounds in saying that DV is institutionalised within Islam. I think you might be on less solid ground.From my internet search it would appear, on a cursory glance that this view that DV is acceptable is not universally held amongst Muslims.

Therefore, at this point, I would not be resting any case against Islam as a whole. In fact, like in any group, you would expect to find a diversity of interpretations, selected references to justify any particular stances, and practices.

I think it's pointless to rail against a religion and that there is merit in looking at what any particular person does, says or condones.

You ought to read posts more diligently Axle ... because in my previous post .. I know perfectly well what I said and about whom.

.... that is why Abu has fled in disgrace.

In as far as anyone condoning physical or verbal abuse then I'm against such declarations.

- Axle

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287049789

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287239342/22#22

Happy reading!

Soren captures the essence of the issue quite well here ..

Rashid the Ridiculous says on his sharia-governed Forum:

"it [domestic violenc] exists amongst all societies, and it's reprehensible, merely having a public policy condemning it does not change the obvious reality."

The point, completely over his head and over the heads of all Islamic propagandists, is that if mere public condemnation does not change behaviour, how much worse is public endorsement, which is exactly what sharia does regarding wife beating. It condones it. Is that the way to stop domestic violence - to say that it is, like a curate's egg, good in parts????


I am most pissed off by seeing that there are complete smacking ijits in our midst, Mohammedans and kuffars, who will accommodate this sort of abolutely craven soft-headedness just to apper sharia-compliant or multiculturally virtuous (often the same thing in these 'post 9/11 days' as they say.)


- Soren

And Abu himself stated this .. in such very clear terms too!

Hitting need not be abusive. Parents often hit their children to discipline them, and it's usually not abusive, even when it causes bruising sometimes.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1285753174/135#137

Quote:

This is not a very encouraging thread. It seems that everyone has their own uninformed opinion of what is the case. Seriously, it seems that Muslims are being held to account to a higher standard than what goes on in everyday society. Domestic violence is rife in Australia. No one group owns it or most of it. Recall the campain against it? Australia says no?

Yea well when your IQ reaches 50 you might realise the difference is MUSLIMS CONDONE THE BASHING OF WOMEN, NO other religion does, retard.

aikmann4 wrote on Oct 20^th, 2010 at 12:20am:

lisa is con the fruiterers wife

OH lol ,still flirting with lisa ,Imp,lol.

Lisa is lovely!

How in God's name has this topic suddenly become all about me???

Behave you lot .. esp you Imp!

Two posts and the thread is somehow about you? You wish people cared about you that much, Mrs. Fruiterer.

Far be it for me to moderate on someone else's forum .. BUT some things do need to be overtly stated ..

It appears that you've not yet realised that this is a very serious topic Imp. Now that you've been made aware of it  .. do you think you could you leave your offtopic, immature (and tiresome) stupidity driven nonsense at the door ... please?  <-- NB I've asked nicely.

What's the matter, Lisa, having a cry because you can't delete posts or derail the thread without moderating power?

How does it feel?

Quote:

It appears that you've not yet realised that this is a very serious topic Imp. Now that you've been made aware of it  .. do you think you could you leave your offtopic, immature (and tiresome) stupidity driven nonsense at the door ... please?

Maybe I'll do it..

in a coupladays

Coupladays!

Actually, no one's mentioned wife beating in the Mafia yet.

Quote:

Now that you've been made aware of it  .. do you think you could you leave your offtopic, immature (and tiresome) stupidity driven nonsense at the door ... please?

Do you think you could leave your whining there too?

skippy. wrote on Oct 20^th, 2010 at 7:48am:

Quote: This is not a very encouraging thread. It seems that everyone has their own uninformed opinion of what is the case. Seriously, it seems that Muslims are being held to account to a higher standard than what goes on in everyday society. Domestic violence is rife in Australia. No one group owns it or most of it. Recall the campain against it? Australia says no? Yea well when your IQ reaches 50 you might realise the difference is MUSLIMS CONDONE THE BASHING OF WOMEN, NO other religion does, retard.

Muslims condone the bashing of women?

Really?

Here I was thinking that people within Islam were using their faith to justify acts of violence. I certainly didn't think for one moment that interpretations of an ancient text were representative of some 1 billion people. I mean, there are Christian texts that allude to such behaviour, but we don't say that Christians condone the bashing of women - because it would be reasonable to suggest that the majority don't.

there are Christian texts that allude to such behaviour ... Jay

Oh really???

Keep going .. don't stop there.

Here I was thinking that people within Islam were using their faith to justify acts of violence .. Jay

Are you saying Abu ie the Moderator of this board .. is using his Muslim faith to justify violence and given the particular context of this discussion (and topic title) .. the bashing of women ?

Lisa Jones wrote on Oct 21^st, 2010 at 4:55pm:

there are Christian texts that allude to such behaviour ... Jay Oh really??? Keep going .. don't stop there.

Doesn't take long too find.

Friar Cherubino wrote in 1475 (in the 'Rules of Marriage')"

When you see your wife commit an offense, don't rush at her with insults and violent blows . . . Scold her sharply and terrify her. And if that still doesn't work . . . take up a stick and beat her soundly, for it is better to punish the body and correct the should than to damage the soul and spare the body . . . Readily beat her, not in rage but out of charity and concern for her soul, so that the beating will redound to your merit and her good

Of course that's an old (very old) text. Most Christians, even the most dedicated, have moved beyond such language and behaviours. As have many Muslims living outside of cultures that condone it (Saudi culture being amongst those that does appear to condone such behaviour).

Lisa Jones wrote on Oct 21^st, 2010 at 4:57pm:

Here I was thinking that people within Islam were using their faith to justify acts of violence .. Jay Are you saying Abu ie the Moderator of this board .. is using his Muslim faith to justify violence and given the particular context of this discussion (and topic title) .. the bashing of women ?

I'm not saying Abu in particular, though I do take issue with the notion that a husband has any right whatsoever to 'discipline' his wife (not least of all physically).

I understand that he's drawn a line between causing serious physical damage or assault and a 'smack' similar to that you might give your child. However, a grown woman is not a child. The reasoning that suggests smacking a child - albeit lightly - might make them aware that their behaviour is unacceptable, does not hold when you're talking about a fully grown, primarily independent woman.

Ultimately, it's a weak line to draw.

My post about people using Islam to justify acts of violence generally extends to more extreme cases.

Though the principle remains.

Apologies if that didn't make perfect sense.

I'm smelling chicken soup, and have gotten all hungry and delirious. Peace.

I'm not saying Abu in particular, though I do take issue with the notion that a husband has any right whatsoever to 'discipline' his wife (not least of all physically).

- Jay

So .. not JUST Abu eh? And you do concede there are issues even where he is concerned.


I understand that he's drawn a line between causing serious physical damage or assault and a 'smack' similar to that you might give your child. However, a grown woman is not a child. The reasoning that suggests smacking a child - albeit lightly - might make them aware that their behaviour is unacceptable, does not hold when you're talking about a fully grown, primarily independent woman.

- Jay

Oohh ... seems you're in for a little shock then ..

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287049789

Happy reading!

Friar Cherubino wrote in 1475 (in the 'Rules of Marriage')" ....

- Jay

Huh???

Haven't you noticed that we're talking KORAN and BIBLE here? Let's retain context .. please!!!

We're not interested in what some vague Friar Tuck might have written one night ..

Lisa Jones wrote on Oct 21^st, 2010 at 10:50pm:

Friar Cherubino wrote in 1475 (in the 'Rules of Marriage')" .... - Jay Huh??? Haven't you noticed that we're talking KORAN and BIBLE here? Let's retain context .. please!!! We're not interested in what some vague Friar Tuck might have written one night ..

He wasn't a 'vague Friar Tuck', and his writings were held in high regard.

And I DID write 'religious texts'. However, even if we were talking about the Bible, the principle remains i.e. there are things that are written that are today not practiced.

Lisa Jones wrote on Oct 21^st, 2010 at 10:45pm:

I'm not saying Abu in particular, though I do take issue with the notion that a husband has any right whatsoever to 'discipline' his wife (not least of all physically). - Jay So .. not JUST Abu eh? And you do concede there are issues even where he is concerned. I understand that he's drawn a line between causing serious physical damage or assault and a 'smack' similar to that you might give your child. However, a grown woman is not a child. The reasoning that suggests smacking a child - albeit lightly - might make them aware that their behaviour is unacceptable, does not hold when you're talking about a fully grown, primarily independent woman. - Jay Oohh ... seems you're in for a little shock then .. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287049789 Happy reading!

I concede there are issues. Abu and I do not see eye to eye on everything, not even close.

And I'm not necessarily opposed to a parent giving their child a little 'smack'. I do however believe that anything that causes serious physical harm crosses a line.

If a child is bruised, as mentioned in the link you provided above, then I'd question the capacity of that parent to exercise constraint (at the very least).

In no circumstances is the bruising of a child acceptable, intentional or otherwise.

skippy. wrote on Oct 20^th, 2010 at 7:48am:

Quote: This is not a very encouraging thread. It seems that everyone has their own uninformed opinion of what is the case. Seriously, it seems that Muslims are being held to account to a higher standard than what goes on in everyday society. Domestic violence is rife in Australia. No one group owns it or most of it. Recall the campain against it? Australia says no? Yea well when your IQ reaches 50 you might realise the difference is MUSLIMS CONDONE THE BASHING OF WOMEN, NO other religion does, retard.

In any case, it seems that you were answered by Jaykaye09. However, you might like to improve your arguments by refraining from ad hom attacks, screaming caplocks, and emotive language. They count for zip.

How is it that Muslims who don't condone it and don't do it get lumped in with your implied ALL Muslims condone it? You seem to be riddled with fallacious argument right down to the last turtle.

I found this:

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2010/07/11/2950543.htm

Unfortunately, it seems some like to run with some populist notions of what is the case about what all  Muslims are about and never bother to see if there's anything contrary or to bother giving individuals the benefit of their own merits

I find that really sinister. That's the kind of thinking that led to internment camps, pogroms, gas chambers and killing fields.

I concede there are issues. Abu and I do not see eye to eye on everything, not even close.

And I'm not necessarily opposed to a parent giving their child a little 'smack'. I do however believe that anything that causes serious physical harm crosses a line.

If a child is bruised, as mentioned in the link you provided above, then I'd question the capacity of that parent to exercise constraint (at the very least).

In no circumstances is the bruising of a child acceptable, intentional or otherwise.

- Jay

I merely provided you with a link which detailed Abu ie this message board Moderator's construction of acceptable child disciplining ...

and if you read that link in its entirety .. you will also note that the Koran is the basis .. the authority in forming such a construction.

Oh you may have noticed my condemnation in that link .. but apparently I was being an over emotional female.

Interesting what you read on these boards .. wouldn't you say Jay???

He wasn't a 'vague Friar Tuck', and his writings were held in high regard.

And I DID write 'religious texts'. However, even if we were talking about the Bible, the principle remains i.e. there are things that are written that are today not practiced.

- Jay

Did you read my previous post wherein I stated that:

We're talking KORAN and BIBLE here? Let's retain context .. please!!!

We're not considering little bits and pieces written here and there by friars (or nuns for that matter).

So could we stick with the program .. and continue the consideration of primary religious documents here as we have been for the entirety of this topic?

Oh and we're talking wife beating in particular .. we're not discussing other general practices just wife beating... hence the title???

Lisa Jones wrote on Oct 21^st, 2010 at 11:21pm:

He wasn't a 'vague Friar Tuck', and his writings were held in high regard. And I DID write 'religious texts'. However, even if we were talking about the Bible, the principle remains i.e. there are things that are written that are today not practiced. - Jay Did you read my previous post wherein I stated that: We're talking KORAN and BIBLE here? Let's retain context .. please!!! We're not considering little bits and pieces written here and there by friars (or nuns for that matter). So could we stick with the program .. and continue the consideration of primary religious documents here as we have been for the entirety of this topic? Oh and we're talking wife beating in particular .. we're not discussing other general practices just wife beating... hence the title???

No love, YOU'RE talking about the Bible and Quran.

I was pointing out just how stupid skippy's comment was, that explicitly said "Muslims condone the bashing of women". If you bothered to read my post, you would see the overall point i.e. that the followers of a faith cannot be entirely defined by interpretations of ancient religious texts (be it the Quran, Bible, or the Rules of Marriage), as people's adherence/reaction to those texts change over time.

Clearly, you're looking for an argument.

You're not getting one. Peace.

Lisa Jones wrote on Oct 21^st, 2010 at 11:14pm:

I concede there are issues. Abu and I do not see eye to eye on everything, not even close. And I'm not necessarily opposed to a parent giving their child a little 'smack'. I do however believe that anything that causes serious physical harm crosses a line. If a child is bruised, as mentioned in the link you provided above, then I'd question the capacity of that parent to exercise constraint (at the very least). In no circumstances is the bruising of a child acceptable, intentional or otherwise. - Jay I merely provided you with a link which detailed Abu ie this message board Moderator's construction of acceptable child disciplining ... and if you read that link in its entirety .. you will also note that the Koran is the basis .. the authority in forming such a construction. Oh you may have noticed my condemnation in that link .. but apparently I was being an over emotional female. Interesting what you read on these boards .. wouldn't you say Jay???

Yes, and I told you what I think of that.

I disagree with Abu.

Simple.

Jay,


Quote:

I concede there are issues. Abu and I do not see eye to eye on everything, not even close. And I'm not necessarily opposed to a parent giving their child a little 'smack'. I do however believe that anything that causes serious physical harm crosses a line. If a child is bruised, as mentioned in the link you provided above, then I'd question the capacity of that parent to exercise constraint (at the very least). In no circumstances is the bruising of a child acceptable, intentional or otherwise.

That's 100% my view as well, and I believe the view of Islam. A controlled, rational disciplining smack is acceptable (and sometimes required) but not out of control beatings, that would be abuse, domestic, wife, child, whatever it is to be called, it is abuse.

That's 100% my view as well, and I believe the view of Islam. A controlled, rational disciplining smack is acceptable (and sometimes required) but not out of control beatings, that would be abuse, domestic, wife, child, whatever it is to be called, it is abuse.

- Abu 22 /10/2010

You know Abu .. I'm beginning to think there is something seriously deficient in your cognitive reasoning area  ..

1) You have learned nothing even after everyone on here condemned your Islam based views on child beating and wife beating

2) You are NOW attempting to both backpeddle AND strangely enough MAINTAIN what you stated before even though you're contradicting yourself left, right and centre.

3) The fact remains .. YOU posted hell for leather for days on end trying to assert THIS view and I quote ...


Hitting need not be abusive. Parents often hit their children to discipline them, and it's usually not abusive, even when it causes bruising sometimes.  stated by Abu - Oct 14th, 2010, 6:56pm:


http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1285753174/135#137



The full text is in that link .. and it doesn't look good for you given you used Islam and the Koran as the basis for asserting the above ridiculous statement which was responded to with utter condemnation by the rest of this message board. .

You've taken a break from this topic and the boards to think about damage control .. and you've come back still using Islam and the Koran as the basis for what you say .. and remember Islam and the Koran says/supports this:

Parents often hit their children to discipline them, and it's usually not abusive, even when it causes bruising sometimes.


And you have asserted for months now that YOUR view is ISLAM's view because it was based on the KORAN.

It's both sad and pathetic to see that you still can't reconcile the fact that these views have no place in Australia and not only that .. they break the law here in Australia.

Lastly .. your latest posts reveal the utter turmoil and confusion in your mind at this moment .. and that may very well be a good thing for you. Hopefully you will FINALLY see the mess your mind is in .. and start to sort yourself out.

Kind regards

Lisa

Lisa Jones wrote on Oct 19^th, 2010 at 9:27pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Oct 19th, 2010 at 9:09pm: skippy. wrote on Oct 19th, 2010 at 12:29pm: Quote: Islam supports physical discipline in extreme cases where a wife takes to rebelliousness and does not listen to her husband. That is domestic violence, and if you advocate it you are no better than the perpetrator. I have always stood up for you here Abu, as I think you get a hard time just because you're a Muslim, but making statements like that makes me think I was wrong, you are no better, if you condone domestic violence, which you obviously do, you are a  [mod: expletives removed, keep it clean] And there you have it .. take a good hard look at it everyone .. the practice of physically abusing another family member is masked under the euphemism and cover of  PHYSICAL DISCIPLINE .. and under what EXTREME circumstances??? in extreme cases where a wife takes to rebelliousness and does not listen to her husband. I rest my case. And I hold my head up high as a proud Australian woman because I have the courage of my conviction to stand up against this type of religious institutionalisation of domestic violence. In fact I abhor it and totally condemn it. Kind regards Lisa Oh and the encouraging thing in all this??? Irrespective of what Islam states or what Abu has stated above ... THE LAW OF AUSTRALIA .. THE COUNTRY OF MY BIRTH and CITIZENSHIP PROTECTS ME AS AN AUSTRALIAN WOMAN AGAINST THIS RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE .. and as such I am able to press charges against my "husband" and he may even be sent to prison IF he lays a finger on me. Thank you!

As I said Abu .. it doesn't look good (for you).

Have a nice day!

Kind regards

Lisa

Yeah - Abu - take your 5th century barbaric ways & go & live in Iran.

We don't want your ways in the West.
It's a criminal offence to hit a woman here.

Bobby. wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2010 at 11:30am:

Yeah - Abu - take your 5th century barbaric ways & go & live in Iran. We don't want your ways in the West. It's a criminal offence to hit a woman here.

Not to abu its not, he doesn't worry about Australian law, Islam is all that matters
did you learn your censorship from the Koran ,Abu?
It shows what sort of person you are when you delete my posts yet condone bashing women.

skippy. wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2010 at 12:25pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 22nd, 2010 at 11:30am: Yeah - Abu - take your 5th century barbaric ways & go & live in Iran. We don't want your ways in the West. It's a criminal offence to hit a woman here. Not to abu its not, he doesn't worry about Australian law, Islam is all that matters did you learn your censorship from the Koran ,Abu? It shows what sort of person you are when you delete my posts yet condone bashing women.

Of course - the Koran overides our laws.
God overides laws from mere mortals. ;)

Bobby. wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2010 at 1:49pm:

skippy. wrote on Oct 22nd, 2010 at 12:25pm: Bobby. wrote on Oct 22nd, 2010 at 11:30am: Yeah - Abu - take your 5th century barbaric ways & go & live in Iran. We don't want your ways in the West. It's a criminal offence to hit a woman here. Not to abu its not, he doesn't worry about Australian law, Islam is all that matters did you learn your censorship from the Koran ,Abu? It shows what sort of person you are when you delete my posts yet condone bashing women. Of course - the Koran overides our laws. God overides laws from mere mortals. ;)

That's just it, there is no god, Allah or anything else, yet these retards base their whole life on worshiping a fictitious character who lives in the clouds.
I'm glad I'm not so insecure that I have to resort to such rot.

:o

Quote:

You know Abu .. I'm beginning to think there is something seriously deficient in your cognitive reasoning area  ..

Coming from you that's not much of an insult. You ain't the sharpest tool in the shed it seems.


Quote:

1) You have learned nothing even after everyone on here condemned your Islam based views on child beating and wife beating

So far the only religious-based views I've seen mentioned on these forums are those muso posted from the Bible. I shall re-quote them for clarity:

Proverbs 22:15 Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child, but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.

Proverbs 23:13 Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.

Proverbs 23:14 Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.

Proverbs 29:15 The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame.

So you approve of beating a child with a rod, so long as it doesn't quite kill him? Instill in him a bit of wisdom will it and avert him from foolishness...

I'm sorry but the Qur'an teaches no such thing, and neither have I. Your botched attempts to sensationalise my statements have only worked on a few of the more feeble minded forummers, most have seen them for what they were.

Nowhere did I ever state beating/abusing a child is right, I'll leave that up to your 'holy' book.


Quote:

2) You are NOW attempting to both backpeddle..

The only reason you misidentify my statements as backpeddling is because you failed to actually read my initial statements.

In your rush to sensationalise them, create posts dedicated to them, and then link frantically to them in every thread you're involved in, you actually forgot to read them... Nowhere did I ever claim it's good to beat a child.


Quote:

Hitting need not be abusive. Parents often hit their children to discipline them, and it's usually not abusive, even when it causes bruising sometimes.  stated by Abu - Oct 14th, 2010, 6:56pm:

And I'm sure most sane, rational, thinking forummers here agree that a disciplinary smack is sometimes necessary when raising kids. The only reason I mentioned bruising is because as a child my parents sometimes caused minor bruising when smacking, yet it was quite obvious they never intended it to be so, and it was not in an abusive manner, but a corrective one. And I'm sure for many others the experience has been the same, probably even for you yourself. Enough of the hype and overdone reactions... please, and let's get back to reality.


Quote:

The full text is in that link .. and it doesn't look good for you given you used..

You're seriously off your rocker if you think you've created some kind of "thread of shame" there. Honestly, wake up to yourself.


Quote:

Parents often hit their children to discipline them, and it's usually not abusive, even when it causes bruising sometimes.

An indication of just how un-powerful this quote really is, you had to repeat it only a few lines later, in order to re-hash it's supposed effectiveness.


Quote:

And you have asserted for months now that YOUR view is ISLAM's view because it was based on the KORAN

Nevermind my view of the Qur'an (which doesn't speak about beating kids with rods), how about you tell us your view of the Bible, and specifically the passages from Proverbs above? After all, you claimed to be an expert on the Bible did you not? So please tell us all about beating kids with rods, so it doesn't cause death of course.


Quote:

It's both sad and pathetic to see that you still can't reconcile the fact that these views have no place in Australia and not only that .. they break the law here in Australia.

They do no such thing.


Quote:

Lastly .. your latest posts reveal the utter turmoil and confusion in your mind...

Well at least there's a mind here to be confused and in utter turmoil, more than can be said for some.

Bobby. wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2010 at 11:30am:

Yeah - Abu - take your 5th century barbaric ways & go & live in Iran. We don't want your ways in the West. It's a criminal offence to hit a woman here.

Given the many topics which have seen this message board's total condemnation of his posts .. I don't think Abu is capable of listening AND understanding the message Bobby.

In short .. you are talking to a brick wall when it comes to Abu.

And of course .. posts like this from Abu don't help much ...

Hitting need not be abusive. Parents often hit their children to discipline them, and it's usually not abusive, even when it causes bruising sometimes.  stated by Abu - Oct 14th, 2010, 6:56pm:


http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1285753174/135#137

Quote:

It's both sad and pathetic to see that you still can't reconcile the fact that these views have no place in Australia and not only that .. they break the law here in Australia.

Quote:

They do no such thing

Get this straight Abu - for your own good.

It is illegal to bash people up in Australia - FULLSTOP.

Lisa Jones wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2010 at 11:07am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Oct 19th, 2010 at 9:27pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Oct 19th, 2010 at 9:09pm: skippy. wrote on Oct 19th, 2010 at 12:29pm: Quote: Islam supports physical discipline in extreme cases where a wife takes to rebelliousness and does not listen to her husband. That is domestic violence, and if you advocate it you are no better than the perpetrator. I have always stood up for you here Abu, as I think you get a hard time just because you're a Muslim, but making statements like that makes me think I was wrong, you are no better, if you condone domestic violence, which you obviously do, you are a  [mod: expletives removed, keep it clean] And there you have it .. take a good hard look at it everyone .. the practice of physically abusing another family member is masked under the euphemism and cover of  PHYSICAL DISCIPLINE .. and under what EXTREME circumstances??? in extreme cases where a wife takes to rebelliousness and does not listen to her husband. I rest my case. And I hold my head up high as a proud Australian woman because I have the courage of my conviction to stand up against this type of religious institutionalisation of domestic violence. In fact I abhor it and totally condemn it. Kind regards Lisa Oh and the encouraging thing in all this??? Irrespective of what Islam states or what Abu has stated above ... THE LAW OF AUSTRALIA .. THE COUNTRY OF MY BIRTH and CITIZENSHIP PROTECTS ME AS AN AUSTRALIAN WOMAN AGAINST THIS RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE .. and as such I am able to press charges against my "husband" and he may even be sent to prison IF he lays a finger on me. Thank you! As I said Abu .. it doesn't look good (for you). Have a nice day! Kind regards Lisa

And there's no escaping this online slaughter ....

Quote by Abu:
Parents often hit their children to discipline them, and it's usually not abusive, even when it causes bruising sometimes.



An indication of just how un-powerful this quote really is, you had to repeat it only a few lines later, in order to re-hash it's supposed effectiveness.

- Abu to me a few minutes ago


Well ... there's the lame comeback everyone. Abu in pathetic damage control mode.

Bobby, Skippy,


Quote:

Of course - the Koran overides our laws. God overides laws from mere mortals.

You two do a good job of displaying nothing but ignorance about Islam and thereby undoing all the "good work" done thus far by Lisa for your side of the discussion.  ;D

Whilst it is indeed true that Islamic laws are superior to man made laws, in this situation it's moot. There's no Islamic law commanding people to discipline their wives physically. Therefore doing it would not be according to Islamic law. If Australian law said it's forbidden to pray, and Islamic law commands I pray, then yes there's a case for using this argument.

Also Islamic law forbids a Muslim living under non-Islamic law from breaking the non-Islamic law unnecessarily, but instead to abide by it, so long as it is not evil.


Quote:

did you learn your censorship from the Koran ,Abu?

Profanity is not permitted in this forum, please read the forum rules if you still don't comprehend that.

If you wish to continue posting here, then I'd suggest you get used to leaving your potty mouth at the door.

Quote:

Get this straight Abu - for your own good. It is illegal to bash people up in Australia - FULLSTOP.

Right... and nowhere have I said otherwise.

Seems you're not too good at reading through that mask of yours batty boy.

Quote by Abu:

Hitting need not be abusive. Parents often hit their children to discipline them, and it's usually not abusive, even when it causes bruising sometimes.  stated by Abu - Oct 14th, 2010, 6:56pm:


And I'm sure most sane, rational, thinking forummers here agree that a disciplinary smack is sometimes necessary when raising kids. The only reason I mentioned bruising is because as a child my parents sometimes caused minor bruising when smacking, yet it was quite obvious they never intended it to be so, and it was not in an abusive manner, but a corrective one. And I'm sure for many others the experience has been the same, probably even for you yourself. Enough of the hype and overdone reactions... please, and let's get back to reality.

- Abu to me a few moments ago.


AHHHHHH FINALLY! There we have it .. as I thought .. Abu himself is an abused victim of Islamic parents himself and doesn't know any better. For him .. it's ALL normal and thus all about getting back to reality.

I rest my case!

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2010 at 10:11pm:

Quote: Get this straight Abu - for your own good. It is illegal to bash people up in Australia - FULLSTOP. Right... and nowhere have I said otherwise. Seems you're not too good at reading through that mask of yours batty boy.

Watch out Abu -
I wear my underwear on the outside of my trousers!
That's a true Batman - the dark knight.

Listen & watch Abu.

[mod: no thanks]

Quote:

AHHHHHH FINALLY! There we have it .. as I thought .. Abu himself is an abused victim of Islamic parents himself and doesn't know any better. For him .. it's ALL normal and thus all about getting back to reality.

My parents are both non-Muslims you half wit, so even if your further sensationalism here were correct, then it'd be an evidence against non-Muslim Australians, not Muslims.

Your case just keeps going down the gurgler doesn't it?

The only reason I mentioned bruising is because as a child my parents sometimes caused minor bruising when smacking

,... - Abu

FINALLY .. WE GET TO THE BOTTOM OF ALL THIS MADNESS ..

Abu ..a free tip. GET SOME COUNSELLING AND BLOODY FAST! YOUR POSTS TO DATE INDICATE HOW BADLY YOU NEED IT!

YOU CANNOT HELP ANOTHER PERSON ANYWHERE .. UNTIL YOU LEARN TO GET SOME HELP FOR YOURSELF FIRST!

YOU HAVE NO MESSAGE TO OFFER ANYONE UNTIL YOU DO SO!

Good night!

Abu - I put the song for you on the chat forum -
in case you change your mind & will listen
to decadent western music.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1279424905/435#435

Quote:

Abu - I put the song for you on the chat forum - in case you change your mind & will listen to decadent western music.

No thanks, probably heard that song more times than you anyway.

In my young pre-Islamic days, I was a musician myself, and we used to cover quite a few Stones songs, so I'm well acquainted with them... thanks anyway :)

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2010 at 10:43pm:

Quote: Abu - I put the song for you on the chat forum - in case you change your mind & will listen to decadent western music. No thanks, probably heard that song more times than you anyway. In my young pre-Islamic days, I was a musician myself, and we used to cover quite a few Stones songs, so I'm well acquainted with them... thanks anyway :)

What!
You played decadent western music!  :o

You had better pray for redemption at your mosque.

Quote:

What! You played decadent western music!

Yeh hard to believe eh?

In fact I've come across quite a lot of converts to Islam who were formerly musicians. There was actually an entire band here in Melbourne who left it behind to become Muslims. There's also Yusuf Islam, Dawud Wharnsby-Ali and quite a few others who were famous musicians before Islam.


Quote:

You had better pray for redemption at your mosque.

Not at all. Upon embracing Islam, all previous sins are erased and in fact converted into good deeds, so no need whatsoever in that respect :)

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2010 at 10:21pm:

Quote: AHHHHHH FINALLY! There we have it .. as I thought .. Abu himself is an abused victim of Islamic parents himself and doesn't know any better. For him .. it's ALL normal and thus all about getting back to reality. My parents are both non-Muslims you half wit, so even if your further sensationalism here were correct, then it'd be an evidence against non-Muslim Australians, not Muslims. Your case just keeps going down the gurgler doesn't it?

I'll bet you're a HUGE disappointment to them.

Don't delete my posts either Abu.

I'd never heard of Dawud Wharnsby until you mentioned him, Abu. I just did a quick search and he sounds really interesting - especially what I read about his religious views.

His nasheeds are beautiful for kids.

Lisa Jones wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2010 at 10:12pm:

Quote by Abu: Hitting need not be abusive. Parents often hit their children to discipline them, and it's usually not abusive, even when it causes bruising sometimes.  stated by Abu - Oct 14th, 2010, 6:56pm: And I'm sure most sane, rational, thinking forummers here agree that a disciplinary smack is sometimes necessary when raising kids. The only reason I mentioned bruising is because as a child my parents sometimes caused minor bruising when smacking, yet it was quite obvious they never intended it to be so, and it was not in an abusive manner, but a corrective one. And I'm sure for many others the experience has been the same, probably even for you yourself. Enough of the hype and overdone reactions... please, and let's get back to reality. - Abu to me a few moments ago. AHHHHHH FINALLY! There we have it .. as I thought .. Abu himself is an abused victim of Islamic parents himself and doesn't know any better. For him .. it's ALL normal and thus all about getting back to reality. I rest my case!

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287798490/0#0

For those who wish to LEARN by the sharing of experiences, viewpoints and concerns IRRESPECTIVE OF YOUR STANCE .. (RELIGIOUS OR OTHERWISE).


There you go Abu .. I'm taking the heat off you in here.

You owe me BIG TIME!

Another post bites the dust ,another post bites the dust ,another ones gone another ones gone another one bites the dust,mmmmmmmmm.

Quote:

There you go Abu .. I'm taking the heat off you in here. You owe me BIG TIME!

Honestly get over yourself. You've done nothing here but show yourself to be a completely irrational nutcase.

The few halfwits who've humoured/supported you probably did so in the heat of the moment, and now realising how ridiculous you are have started to distance themselves from you.

Apart from Skippy who's just happy to have another venue in which to grind his anti-religious axe.

Quote:

Apart from Skippy who's just happy to have another venue in which to grind his anti-religious axe

Its called reality ol son, you ought to try it some time.

Abu .. do you think it would be possible for you to abide by your OWN forum rules please?

We wouldn't want to start labelling you a hypocrite ALSO!  

Lisa Jones wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 2:06pm:

Abu .. do you think it would be possible for you to abide by your ON forum rules please? We wouldn't want to start calling you a hypocrite ALSO!

LOL a hypocritical god botherer, noooooooooo way, lol hahahahahaha. ;D ;D ;D

You two ought to do lunch, you're made for each other.

You two ought to do lunch, you're made for each other.

- Skippy

How do you know we haven't already lol?

Oh and shhh keep it quiet .. don't let Imperium know .. he'll probably get jealous ... again lol :P

You probably should delete the above post Abu .. given it was totally offtopic.

Come to think of it .. I don't believe you have ever modified or deleted anything I've ever posted Abu. Correct lol?

Quote:

Its called reality ol son, you ought to try it some time

Quote:

LOL a hypocritical god botherer, noooooooooo way

Actually I'm finding you more irritating any any religious doorknocker I've ever come across. No matter which thread you enter, you have to some how splice your anti-religious atheist drivel into it.

Personally I'd prefer to talk with a coupla yankee lads from Salt lake city on their cycles than you. No matter how annoying their accents are.

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 3:39pm:

Quote: Its called reality ol son, you ought to try it some time [quote]LOL a hypocritical god botherer, noooooooooo way

Actually I'm finding you more irritating any any religious doorknocker I've ever come across. No matter which thread you enter, you have to some how splice your anti-religious atheist drivel into it.

Personally I'd prefer to talk with a coupla yankee lads from Salt lake city on their cycles than you. No matter how annoying their accents are.
[/quote]
The feeling is mutual, you have a whole forum dedicated to religious drivel that condones violence in the name of your fictional god. I'm glad you find me annoying, pity your head is too thick to realise how dumb your belief is.
As for the idiots on their Malvern Stars, I used to love it when I lived in Sydney and those tards would knock on my door, I'd invite them in for beers ,bongs and porno's but they always declined.You idiots never know when you're onto a good thing.

Quote:

The feeling is mutual, you have a whole forum dedicated to religious drivel that condones violence in the name of your fictional god. I'm glad you find me annoying, pity your head is too thick to realise how dumb your belief is.

Right, but you know it's the Islamic forum when you enter here. And I don't just attack and oppose everyone who doesn't share my beliefs as you do.


Quote:

As for the idiots on their Malvern Stars, I used to love it when I lived in Sydney and those tards would knock on my door, I'd invite them in for beers ,bongs and porno's but they always declined.

Yeh that's really funny man... I'm sure you felt really proud of yourself for doing that.

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 7:09am:

Quote: What! You played decadent western music!   Yeh hard to believe eh? In fact I've come across quite a lot of converts to Islam who were formerly musicians. There was actually an entire band here in Melbourne who left it behind to become Muslims. There's also Yusuf Islam, Dawud Wharnsby-Ali and quite a few others who were famous musicians before Islam. [quote]You had better pray for redemption at your mosque.

Not at all. Upon embracing Islam, all previous sins are erased and in fact converted into good deeds, so no need whatsoever in that respect :)[/quote]


Then why did you delete & then refuse to watch the video that I posted.
It was a very entertaining video from the Rolling Stones.
Allah would have forgiven you.
I put in the chat forum as well.

see link:
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1279424905/435#435

Quote:

Yeh that's really funny man... I'm sure you felt really proud of yourself for doing that.

Yeah, it was. I feel bad for you Abu. Islam seems to have the uncanny ability to suck the sense of humor right away from people.

(god is fake)

Abu .. I've noticed something .. you never amend/alter/delete anything I post in your forum.

Hmmm ...

Lisa,

You have not posted anything that is against the forum rules, therefore there's been nothing to moderate.

Quote:

Anyway, regardless, this whole topic is complete moot. Islam does not prescribe even disciplining a wife (it merely permits it as a last resort in desperate situations)

You mean desperate, like if your wife stops listening or becomes rebellious? How is that desperate?

Can you elaborate on what you mean by rebellious? For example, if your wife fails to ask your permission to leave the house, is that rebellious? If your wife refuses to satisfy you sexually, and does not produce the relevant doctors note, is that rebellious?

Axle:


Quote:

Unless your some kind of Islamic expert, hearsay like that doesn't count for much. Maybe you could support that comment with something. Most probably, you'll find that disagreeable passages are interpreted out of existence by clerics referring to context and other passages or whatever. There are a number of Biblical passages, which, if you're being genuine would have you remarking, "SO HOW DOES ANYONE BELIEVE A CHRISTIAN WITH THAT IN MIND". ... I would go further to say that no reasonable person would judge an individual soley on some religious text or group that they happen to be associated with.

Axle, we are not criticising Abu because he is misrepresenting Islam. We are criticising him because of what he himself says about Islam - his own belief system. Furthermore, from the mouths of Muslims on this site, we have the concept of abrogation - they claim that Muhammed mislead Muslims about the nature of Islam because they would not have initially adopted Islam otherwise.


Quote:

I would think how they personally conduct themselves in real life would be the real testimony.

Are you suggesting that promoting the right of men to beat their wives is OK so long as you don't do it yourself?


Quote:

I did say that I did a search on whether or not Islam condoned domestic violence. On the first page of hits there were Muslims saying that they didn't condone it with apparent reliance on their teachings.

Just as Abu did here - but then he went on to state that beating your wife for not listening or not doing what she is told is not domestic violence.


Quote:

I find the fingerpointing a futile exercise. There's no point in saying one group condones it and another doesn't because the reality of it is that concrete individuals are perpetrating it in virtually all groups you care to name let alone religion.

Axle, this is a very strange position to take. You are basically saying it is OK to promote domestic violence because everyone does it anyway. The first step to solving a problem is admitting you have one. If you deny that wife beating is a problem, how is it going to be prevented?


Quote:

I did note that Abu made a distinction. He said that  Islam condones physical discipline of wives but he himself did not. I have no reason at this point to doubt what he says about himself. I take it, therefore, if you similarly don't have any reasonable doubt about his honesty then your attack, in as far as it is on him, is without foundation.

You sure about that? What do you think would happen if Abu found himself in the position of having a wife who did not listen or did not do as she was told? I think you'd find that the only thing standing between his fist and his wife is Australian law. I suppose that is better than nothing, but hardly the moral high ground, especiually from someone who would prefer to live under Sharia law.

Once again, it is what Abu says himself that we criticise.


Quote:

Now whether you have grounds in saying that DV is institutionalised within Islam. I think you might be on less solid ground.From my internet search it would appear, on a cursory glance that this view that DV is acceptable is not universally held amongst Muslims.

True. Most Muslims ar hypocrits. It's just ironic that their hypocrisy involves adopting a higher standard than their religion imposes. However, I think you will still find that thre majority would be glad to have sharia law imposed upon all of us against our will.


Quote:

How in God's name has this topic suddenly become all about me??? Behave you lot .. esp you Imp!

Lisa, you have become rebellious and have stopped listening. Of course it is going to be about you. You also seem to have misplaced your tent.

Jaykaye:


Quote:

Here I was thinking that people within Islam were using their faith to justify acts of violence. I certainly didn't think for one moment that interpretations of an ancient text were representative of some 1 billion people. I mean, there are Christian texts that allude to such behaviour, but we don't say that Christians condone the bashing of women - because it would be reasonable to suggest that the majority don't.

We are not judging Abu based on verses in the Koran, but by his own words.


Quote:

As have many Muslims living outside of cultures that condone it (Saudi culture being amongst those that does appear to condone such behaviour).

Yet here we have an Australian Muslim of Anglo descent who grew up in a society that opposes domestic violence, who since taking up the religion has come to support it in 'extreme' cases where the wife does not listen or do as she it told.

Quote:

I understand that he's drawn a line between causing serious physical damage or assault and a 'smack' similar to that you might give your child.

I think you'll find that he has not. The only distinction he has made is based on justification - ie you can only beat her up to make her obey you, not just because your punching bag fell of it's chain.


Quote:

He wasn't a 'vague Friar Tuck', and his writings were held in high regard.

So were plenty of other misguided people throughout history. That doesn't make it relevant. In fact it is enlightening in that it demonstrates how far you have to wander in order to find anything similar on other religions.


Quote:

And I DID write 'religious texts'. However, even if we were talking about the Bible, the principle remains i.e. there are things that are written that are today not practiced.

My philosophy is to let people like Abu decide for themselves what their religion is and to judge them on that. So, I suggest you ignore the bible and the koran and start with what Abu has posted right here.


Quote:

How is it that Muslims who don't condone it and don't do it get lumped in with your implied ALL Muslims condone it?

Unfortunately I have become a bit suspicious of what Muslims say. After all, we had Abu insist for a very long time that Islam does not in any way condone domestic violence, only to turn around and say wife beating is OK if she stops listening. Obviously, there are plenty of self identified Muslims who reject this sort of thing, but I think you'll find they remain silent on the issue because they also acknowledge that the higher moral grounds makes them a hypocrit. Put them face to face with someone like Abu who is slightly less shy to be honest about Islam, and they will either very quickly change the topic, or Abu will come out on top.

Lisa:


Quote:

It's both sad and pathetic to see that you still can't reconcile the fact that these views have no place in Australia and not only that .. they break the law here in Australia.

Not exactly. We are allowed to promote the changing of a law (for example to permit wife beating if she doesn't do as she is told). This alone is not breaking the law.

Abu:


Quote:

Nowhere did I ever state beating/abusing a child is right

Abu, all you have done is change the definition of abuse.


Quote:

In your rush to sensationalise them, create posts dedicated to them, and then link frantically to them in every thread you're involved in, you actually forgot to read them... Nowhere did I ever claim it's good to beat a child.

Whether you say it is good or should be legalised makes little difference in the long run. You are still enabling it.


Quote:

Nevermind my view of the Qur'an (which doesn't speak about beating kids with rods),

It saves them for the wives? What does it say about using a green tree branch?


Quote:

If you wish to continue posting here, then I'd suggest you get used to leaving your potty mouth at the door.

I don't see anything warranting the reference to potty mouth.

Quote:

[quote]Quote: I find the fingerpointing a futile exercise. There's no point in saying one group condones it and another doesn't because the reality of it is that concrete individuals are perpetrating it in virtually all groups you care to name let alone religion.

Axle, this is a very strange position to take. You are basically saying it is OK to promote domestic violence because everyone does it anyway. The first step to solving a problem is admitting you have one. If you deny that wife beating is a problem, how is it going to be prevented?[/quote]

That's not what I  "basically said". What I'm basically saying, to use the vernacular, is that taking a holier than thou position is total BS.

DV happens in all groups. That's not the same as saying that it's ok because it exists. And for your benefit it's not ok.


Quote:

Most Muslims ar hypocrits. It's just ironic that their hypocrisy involves adopting a higher standard than their religion imposes.

How do you know that most Muslims are hypocrites? How do you know the level of hypocrisy in any group? How do you know that any other group is better with respect to hypocrisy? I'd like to know how you went about measuring hypocrisy in groups.

What standard are you referring to? Wouldn't you say that current ethical thinking surpasses the Bible in some respects? For example, I think today women would be treated a hell of a lot better than if left to the words of the Bible. Therefore, would Christians conforming to such higher ethical standards attract your ire and be deemed hypocrites.?


Quote:

However, I think you will still find that thre majority would be glad to have sharia law imposed upon all of us against our will.

Where did you get your knowledge of this from?

I'd say you'd have all sorts of groups that would like to impose their ideas on "us" against our "will". There are many 'usses" and "wills" running around. Which "us" and "will" are you talking about?

fd,


Quote:

we have the concept of abrogation - they claim that Muhammed mislead Muslims about the nature of Islam because they would not have initially adopted Islam otherwise.

Don't you feel any shame in peddling this absolute garbage? Abrogation occurs where a revelation is replaced by another because it's no longer relevant. The vast majority of Arabs rejected Islam no matter what it preached.


Quote:

I think you'll find that he has not.

More of the same bovine faeces. I've stated openly and plainly on many many occasions fd that Islam does NOT permit domestic violence and abuse, but only permits a disciplinary 'slap on the wrist'. If you continue to choose to ignore this and instead peddle your tripe, then you are testament to your own lack of integrity.

The ironic thing is that most Australians would not be opposed to the kind of discipline Islam permits for children, yet they'd probably oppose the kind the Bible prescribes. Yet in your deluded little world it's all upside down, inside out and backside to front isn't it?

You are a confused little man, and I pity you.


Quote:

I don't see anything warranting the reference to potty mouth.

Right.. because it was deleted.

Quote:

That's not what I  "basically said". What I'm basically saying, to use the vernacular, is that taking a holier than thou position is total BS. DV happens in all groups. That's not the same as saying that it's ok because it exists. And for your benefit it's not ok.

So DV is not OK, but it's also not OK to take the higher moral ground when someone promotes the legalisation of DV?


Quote:

How do you know that most Muslims are hypocrites?

Because the world would be a much worse place if they weren't. Either that, or they'd all be dead.

Also, from Muslims I have met in real life. They describe themselves as 'bad' muslims for not adhering to all the tenets of their faith. I can't imagine these people standing in the way of Sharia law. They aren't exactly pulling out the stones either, but when push comes to shove they will choose to be a 'good' muslim.


Quote:

How do you know that any other group is better with respect to hypocrisy?

I don't recall making any such general comparisons.


Quote:

I'd say you'd have all sorts of groups that would like to impose their ideas on "us" against our "will". There are many 'usses" and "wills" running around. Which "us" and "will" are you talking about?

Hang around here for a bit. You'll see what I'm talking about.

Abu:


Quote:

More of the same bovine faeces. I've stated openly and plainly on many many occasions fd that Islam does NOT permit domestic violence and abuse, but only permits a disciplinary 'slap on the wrist'.

This is true Abu, you do contradict yourself frequently, and redefine words like violence. BTW, can you explain how a 'slap on the wrist' causes bruising?

If it only permits a disciplinary slap on the wrist, why won't you clarify what a miswak is for? And what about the use of green tree branches for beating women?


Quote:

The ironic thing is that most Australians would not be opposed to the kind of discipline Islam permits for children, yet they'd probably oppose the kind the Bible prescribes. Yet in your deluded little world it's all upside down, inside out and backside to front isn't it?

How do you think most Aussies would feel about your take on domestic violence Abu? What is the difference between rebelliousness and disobedience?

[edit]
freediver wrote on Oct 29^th, 2010 at 10:29pm:

Quote: That's not what I  "basically said". What I'm basically saying, to use the vernacular, is that taking a holier than thou position is total BS. DV happens in all groups. That's not the same as saying that it's ok because it exists. And for your benefit it's not ok. So DV is not OK, but it's also not OK to take the higher moral ground when someone promotes the legalisation of DV?[/edit]

You keep putting words in my mouth. Could you please refrain from doing that. It's a neat trick to keep inventing what someone else has said but it's a crooked one.


[edit]quote]How do you know that most Muslims are hypocrites

Because the world would be a much worse place if they weren't. Either that, or they'd all be dead.[/edit]

I'm sure you find something worthwhile in that statement.

[edit]Also, from Muslims I have met in real life. They describe themselves as 'bad' muslims for not adhering to all the tenets of their faith. I can't imagine these people standing in the way of Sharia law. They aren't exactly pulling out the stones either, but when push comes to shove they will choose to be a 'good' muslim.[/edit]

When did you start thinking that your imagination was infallible? Do you think your sample might have any problems with it?

[edit]
Quote:

How do you know that any other group is better with respect to hypocrisy?

I don't recall making any such general comparisons.[/edit]

You made a fallacious generalisation though.  


Quote:

[quote]I'd say you'd have all sorts of groups that would like to impose their ideas on "us" against our "will". There are many 'usses" and "wills" running around. Which "us" and "will" are you talking about?

Hang around here for a bit. You'll see what I'm talking about.[/quote]

Will do but I think I'd just confirm what I said. There's no shortage of people trying to impose their view on everyone else. It's a fact of life. Advertisers love doing it, politicians love doing it, sects love doing it, special interest groups love doing it etc etc..

I find the fingerpointing a futile exercise. There's no point in saying one group condones it and another doesn't because the reality of it is that concrete individuals are perpetrating it in virtually all groups you care to name let alone religion.

- Axle

Axle, this is a very strange position to take. You are basically saying it is OK to promote domestic violence because everyone does it anyway. The first step to solving a problem is admitting you have one. If you deny that wife beating is a problem, how is it going to be prevented?

- Free Diver to Axle

That's not what I  "basically said". What I'm basically saying, to use the vernacular, is that taking a holier than thou position is total BS.

DV happens in all groups. That's not the same as saying that it's ok because it exists. And for your benefit it's not ok.

- Axle to Free Diver

--------------------------------------------

Axle .. when individuals take a stance against a criminal act (in this instance domestic violence) .. how on earth does that translate to taking "a holier than thou" position in your mind?

A protest against something illegal is simply that .. a protest. What has made THIS particular instance even more amazing is the fact that the particular acts of domestic violence we've been examining .. have been religiously institutionalised, euphemised (into terms such as wife discipline) and thus maintained and protected WITHIN AUSTRALIA.

The other interesting point I'd like to highlight is this .. OUR LAWS here in Australia contravene these acts of domestic violence.

As an Australian citizen .. I have every right to be concerned and to voice my protest against all this.

If you wish to brand me holier than thou for doing so then meh .. I can live with that.

In the final analysis .. it's not going to alter the disturbing inherent conflict which exists (as outlined above).

A final word of advice .. it may help to keep in mind the context of this discussion .. reading the title of this topic may assist you.

I'd say you'd have all sorts of groups that would like to impose their ideas on "us" against our "will".

- Axle (to Free Diver)

Axle .. the LAW of Australia imposes itself on our behaviour and our will here in Australia.

A major concern/inherent conflict which we've looked at in this topic is this: we cannot allow particular religious/cultural groups or enclaves within our society here in Australia .. demand/expect exemptions from the law esp wrt to crime.

Quote:

Axle .. when individuals take a stance against a criminal act (in this instance domestic violence) .. how on earth does that translate to taking "a holier than thou" position in your mind?

I think this has been entirely pushed out of context and has turned into a straw man. In as far as the finger is pointed at Muslims as the only perpetrators of this act then it's being holier than thou. It's rife in society. And before some more  reinvention of what I say occurs. It's not ok and it is to be denounced. I think I made that clear earlier in the thread.

I hope we don't keep on going in circles here.

Lisa Jones wrote on Oct 30^th, 2010 at 12:43am:

I'd say you'd have all sorts of groups that would like to impose their ideas on "us" against our "will". - Axle (to Free Diver) Axle .. the LAW of Australia imposes itself on our behaviour and our will here in Australia. A major concern/inherent conflict which we've looked at in this topic is this .. we cannot allow particular religious/cultural groups or enclaves within our society here in Australia .. demand/expect exemptions from the law esp wrt to crime.

That particular comment was used for something Freediver said that was not related to DV.  You've totally wrenched it out of its context.

Axle, I would appreciate it if you could quote me properly/correctly.

THIS is what I actually stated:


Axle .. when individuals take a stance against a criminal act (in this instance domestic violence) .. how on earth does that translate to taking "a holier than thou" position in your mind?

A protest against something illegal is simply that .. a protest. What has made THIS particular instance even more amazing is the fact that the particular acts of domestic violence we've been examining .. have been religiously institutionalised, euphemised (into terms such as wife discipline) and thus maintained and protected WITHIN AUSTRALIA.

The other interesting point I'd like to highlight is this .. OUR LAWS here in Australia contravene these acts of domestic violence.

As an Australian citizen .. I have every right to be concerned and to voice my protest against all this.

If you wish to brand me holier than thou for doing so then meh .. I can live with that.

In as far as the finger is pointed at Muslims as the only perpetrators of this act then it's being holier than thou ..

- Axle

Umm if you care to read my post yet again.. you will notice that I never mentioned the word MUSLIM. That may possibly be because I'm more concerned with the contravention of Australian law aspect and how the crime in question has been euphemised/hidden/protected within Australia.

Oh and could you please read the topic of the title again .. I am hoping the penny will drop insofar as discussion context is concerned.

Axle wrote on Oct 30^th, 2010 at 12:56am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Oct 30th, 2010 at 12:43am: I'd say you'd have all sorts of groups that would like to impose their ideas on "us" against our "will". - Axle (to Free Diver) Axle .. the LAW of Australia imposes itself on our behaviour and our will here in Australia. A major concern/inherent conflict which we've looked at in this topic is this .. we cannot allow particular religious/cultural groups or enclaves within our society here in Australia .. demand/expect exemptions from the law esp wrt to crime. That particular comment was used for something Freediver said that was not related to DV.  You've totally wrenched it out of its context.

No I haven't .. if anything .. I've brought it back in line with this discussion and the topic title which IS THE CONTEXT within which we should be posting.

Lisa Jones wrote on Oct 30^th, 2010 at 12:57am:

Axle, I would appreciate it if you could quote me properly/correctly. THIS is what I actually stated: Axle .. when individuals take a stance against a criminal act (in this instance domestic violence) .. how on earth does that translate to taking "a holier than thou" position in your mind? A protest against something illegal is simply that .. a protest. What has made THIS particular instance even more amazing is the fact that the particular acts of domestic violence we've been examining .. have been religiously institutionalised, euphemised (into terms such as wife discipline) and thus maintained and protected WITHIN AUSTRALIA. The other interesting point I'd like to highlight is this .. OUR LAWS here in Australia contravene these acts of domestic violence. As an Australian citizen .. I have every right to be concerned and to voice my protest against all this. If you wish to brand me holier than thou for doing so then meh .. I can live with that.

I'm not altogether sure that it has been religiously institutionalised. There are articles on the net  from Muslim scholars that don't  take that view. Of course, there may be others who do condone it. But let's be fair about this, and I made a similar point earlier.,you will find a diverse range of opinion - agreeable and disagreeable - in large groups.

And I have already stated that DV is not ok and it is to be denounced.

What I find obnoxious from some commentary here is the  underlying subtext of stereotyping. Muslims aren't one big monolithic group  in which everyone in it thinks the same.

In as far as you have particular Muslim groups or individuals that condone DV , then , sure , speak up against it.

Lisa Jones wrote on Oct 30^th, 2010 at 1:05am:

In as far as the finger is pointed at Muslims as the only perpetrators of this act then it's being holier than thou .. - Axle Umm if you care to read my post yet again.. you will notice that I never mentioned the word MUSLIM. That may possibly be because I'm more concerned with the contravention of Australian law aspect and how the crime in question has been euphemised/hidden/protected within Australia. Oh and could you please read the topic of the title again .. I am hoping the penny will drop insofar as discussion context is concerned.

I was referring to some things that have been going on in this thread.

Lisa Jones wrote on Oct 30^th, 2010 at 12:57am:

Axle, I would appreciate it if you could quote me properly/correctly.

[edit]THIS is what I actually stated:


Axle .. when individuals take a stance against a criminal act (in this instance domestic violence) .. how on earth does that translate to taking "a holier than thou" position in your mind?

A protest against something illegal is simply that .. a protest. What has made THIS particular instance even more amazing is the fact that the particular acts of domestic violence we've been examining .. have been religiously institutionalised, euphemised (into terms such as wife discipline) and thus maintained and protected WITHIN AUSTRALIA.

The other interesting point I'd like to highlight is this .. OUR LAWS here in Australia contravene these acts of domestic violence.

As an Australian citizen .. I have every right to be concerned and to voice my protest against all this.

If you wish to brand me holier than thou for doing so then meh .. I can live with that.[/edit][/quote]

You were properly quoted and addressed.

I'm not altogether sure that it has been religiously institutionalised. There are articles on the net from Muslim scholars that don't  take that view. Of course, there may be others who do condone it. But let's be fair about this, and I made a similar point earlier.,you will find a diverse range of opinion - agreeable and disagreeable - in large groups.

- Axle

I strongly suggest you read back through this topic and those surrounding it .. you may find it will enlighten you as to who is apparently allowed to comment/interpret what certain religious texts state.

And I have already stated that DV is not ok and it is to be denounced.

- Axle

That's not what's at issue in this discussion. However .. it's still good to see you concur with Australian law.

What I find obnoxious from some commentary here is the  underlying subtext of stereotyping. Muslims aren't one big monolithic group  in which everyone in it thinks the same.

- Axle

Perhaps you're confusing the particular context within which this discussion is functioning (hence my earlier remarks in reference to the topic title).

In as far as you have particular Muslim groups or individuals that condone DV , then , sure , speak up against it.

- Axle

Actually .. I'm against and will protest against ANY group or individual who condones DV.

Quote:

You keep putting words in my mouth. Could you please refrain from doing that. It's a neat trick to keep inventing what someone else has said but it's a crooked one.

I'm just trying to figure out what you are trying to say Axle. For example, you said the following:


Quote:

What I'm basically saying, to use the vernacular, is that taking a holier than thou position is total BS.

in reference to someone who promotes the legalisation of domestic violence. I am at a loss to figure out what this means, if not claiming we shouldn't take the moral high ground. Perhaps you should explain, rather than criticising others for having no idea what you are on about.


Quote:

You made a fallacious generalisation though.

How about you stick to the one I actually made then?


Quote:

I think this has been entirely pushed out of context and has turned into a straw man. In as far as the finger is pointed at Muslims as the only perpetrators of this act then it's being holier than thou. It's rife in society.

Axle, the finger is being pointed at everyone who promotes wife beating. It's just so happens that muslims are the only people doing so. If you recall, my approach to this is to let Muslims themselves decide what Islam is and to criticise them for their own views. Thus, my criticism of Abu need not have anything at all to do with Islam. He promotes wife beating. I criticise him for it. Simple. You would be hard pressed to find other people promoting wife beating, and I think you would find that Australians in general would be more openly critical of a non-Muslim promoting wife beating than a Muslim promoting it. You in fact demonstrate this. If Abu was just some violent redneck wife beater you would not hold back. But because he is a Muslim you expect everyone to walk on eggshells in case Islam is tainted merely because it's followers (and Muhammed himself) promote domestic violence.


Quote:

And before some more  reinvention of what I say occurs. It's not ok and it is to be denounced

...unless it is part of a religious indoctrination, in which case you must defend the religion at the same time. It is kind of hard to denounce something when you spend all your time defending it. Even when people completely ignore the fact that Abu is a Muslim and focus only on his promotion of wife beating, you seem compelled to step in and defend Islam and place all kinds of caveates on your criticism before you can bring yourself to actually denounce anything. This is the sort of limp wristed approach to human rights that sees society stand by while the weak get beaten into submission because you are afraid of upsetting or misreprepresenting the wife beaters. You seem to think it is more important to avoid upsetting Muslim men than to protect the victims of domestic violence.


Quote:

I'm not altogether sure that it has been religiously institutionalised. There are articles on the net  from Muslim scholars that don't  take that view.

Abu also takes that view. According to him, domestic violence is not institutionalised. Islam merely allows the 'reasonable' use of force to correct a wife who has stopped listening or rebelled against her husbands commands. Abu is very shy about going into details - what you see here is the culmination of about 30 pages of discussion with him, where he occasionally lets another detail slip, only to find it backfires and makes him look even worse. I suggest that without asking your 'scholars' for the same details of what they actually mean, you don't know what they actually mean. Remember, Islam is more than a religion. It is a state, political, financial and economic system. Islam's representatives should be viewed in the same way as a politicians defending their own set of policies. Anything less is naive.


Quote:

In as far as you have particular Muslim groups or individuals that condone DV , then , sure , speak up against it.

According to Abu he is a mainstream Muslim and his views are representative.

Quote:

You keep putting words in my mouth

You'll soon find that's the only way fd and many others here know how to discuss issues.

They are adept at arguing everything you didn't say, and little that you did.

Quote:

I'm just trying to figure out what you are trying to say Axle. For example, you said the following

I have  repeatedly explained.


Quote:

Quote: What I'm basically saying, to use the vernacular, is that taking a holier than thou position is total BS. in reference to someone who promotes the legalisation of domestic violence. I am at a loss to figure out what this means, if not claiming we shouldn't take the moral high ground. Perhaps you should explain, rather than criticising others for having no idea what you are on about.

YOU have made the claim that Islam promotes DV . In fact, you say that it's part and parcel of their religious-political- legal philosophy. That's just a wild claim which you haven't supported. In fact, it seems from what I have found contrary to their position, at least in some quarters.  I found the following link which contradicts your assertion:

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2010/07/11/2950543.htm

I would also add that in a large religion like Islam you will obtain a diversity of opinion, interpretation, practice. This alone circumvents any attempt to tar the lot with one brush.


[edit]Quote:

You made a fallacious generalisation though.

How about you stick to the one I actually made then?[/edit]

Come on mate, your whole diatribe is one gross generalisation.

It's there for anyone to see to scroll back . However, I will render it in a nutshell. You have contended that Islam's a political-religious philosophical system promotes DV.  You have also gone beyond the DV issue and have hystrionically stated that if push came to shove they would all want to see Sharia law introduced -with no evidence that would stand anywhere outside a mob with a noose. We've only got your imaginings of would be the case and maybe some odd conversations you purportedly have had with some Muslims.  

Do you see anything wrong with that? If not, then your not rationally discussing the issue.

As far as I've been able to ascertain from my net searches. There seems to be about 46 "Muslim" countries. Of that lot some have a few elements of this Sharia law, one country says that it has pure Sharia law- Saudi Arabia, and then there's probably Iran.

Yeah right, the Muslim hordes are going to give Australia Sharia law. Also given the fact that they're only about 1% of the population, it's hardly likely, is it?


Quote:

Axle, the finger is being pointed at everyone who promotes wife beating. It's just so happens that muslims are the only people doing so. If you recall, my approach to this is to let Muslims themselves decide what Islam is and to criticise them for their own views. Thus, my criticism of Abu need not have anything at all to do with Islam. He promotes wife beating

.

Again, I refer you to that link on ABC.net which contradicts your assertion.  I suggest that you read it.

Umm ,no, the finger isn't being pointed at everyone who promotes it, it's being squarely pointed at Muslims as a whole and not particular Muslims . I remind you of the title you gave to this thread - "Wife Beating In Islam"- contradicts what you have said there.

In any case, I had already said near my entry into this thread that if Abu is supporting DV then he is to be criticised for it.  Again, I would point out that Muslims are a diverse lot and obviously not all of them believe that their faith or system condones DV.

Quote:

[quote]Quote: And before some more  reinvention of what I say occurs. It's not ok and it is to be denounced

...unless it is part of a religious indoctrination, in which case you must defend the religion at the same time. It is kind of hard to denounce something when you spend all your time defending it. Even when people completely ignore the fact that Abu is a Muslim and focus only on his promotion of wife beating, you seem compelled to step in and defend Islam and place all kinds of caveates on your criticism before you can bring yourself to actually denounce anything. This is the sort of limp wristed approach to human rights that sees society stand by while the weak get beaten into submission because you are afraid of upsetting or misreprepresenting the wife beaters. You seem to think it is more important to avoid upsetting Muslim men than to protect the victims of domestic violence.[/quote]

Rubbish.  I have clearly stated that anyone who promotes DV is to be denounced. What part of that don't you understand? I have only taken umbrage where there has been an attempt to stereotype an entire group- which you, unfortunately, do.  

Freediver, you forgot to add that the Muslims eat their children too.  ::)

There is no standing back, as far I know Muslims in Australia are subject to the same laws as everyone else.


Quote:

[quote]Quote: In as far as you have particular Muslim groups or individuals that condone DV , then , sure , speak up against it.

According to Abu he is a mainstream Muslim and his views are representative. [/quote]

According to Joe from Westboro Baptists his views are mainstream and representative. Do you reckon that we condemn all Christians on what Joe from Westboro says or just Joe and his particular nook of the Christian faith?

If Abu has said what he is accused of saying then he  falls on his own words and the same to anyone who so subscribes. But that's where it ends. Those Muslims who do not condone it should not be tarred

OK then Axle, I challenge you to find a sinlge Muslim who is willing to say that Abu is wrong about wife beating in Islam.


Quote:

You'll soon find that's the only way fd and many others here know how to discuss issues.

Abu what I mostly post here are questions that go unanswered. There is no need to put words into your mouth. The words coming out are more than enough, even though it is such a long time between open and frank answers.

In any case, I had already said near my entry into this thread that if Abu is supporting DV then he is to be criticised for it.  

- Axle

What do you mean IF?? Go back and read this topic .. and the topics surrounding this one. It's unwise to jump into a topic mid stream and start telling other posters who have been travelling along in here for weeks now .. what the state of play is. And your posts to date have done just that.

You state he is to be criticized for it .. but I don't see YOU bothering to look back and read the relevant disturbing posts NOR do I see you bothering to criticise or even challenge such posts.

If anything I've only seen you sit there being apologetic and dismissive. One can hardly be blamed for concluding you're a lazy hypocrite of epic proportions.

You'll soon find that's the only way fd and many others here know how to discuss issues.

They are adept at arguing everything you didn't say, and little that you did.

- Abu

I much prefer quoting you directly .. and so does Free Diver from what I've seen.

Lisa,


Quote:

What do you mean IF??

Perhaps Axle is referring to statements of mine like this one:

Quote:

I've stated openly and plainly on many many occasions fd that Islam does NOT permit domestic violence and abuse, but only permits a disciplinary 'slap on the wrist'.

Where it's CLEARLY stated Islam does not permit domestic violence and abuse. Your only attempt to hang onto this argument is to try and blur the idea of a disciplinary slap on the wrist with domestic violence, and so far you've failed quite miserably.


Quote:

I much prefer quoting you directly .. and so does Free Diver from what I've seen.

Yeh we can see that...

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 30^th, 2010 at 8:51pm:

Where it's CLEARLY stated Islam does not permit domestic violence and abuse. Your only attempt to hang onto this argument is to try and blur the idea of a disciplinary slap on the wrist with domestic violence, and so far you've failed quite miserably.

Do you think that a slap on a wrist will be able to coerce a woman into following the husband?

Quote:

try and blur the idea of a disciplinary slap on the wrist with domestic violence

Trust me Abu, you are doing a good enough job of blurring that distinction yourself.

Can you explain again for us how a 'slap on the wrist' causes bruising?

When you say Islam permits wife beating for rebelliousness, does this basically mean disobediance - if a wife doesn't do as she is told?

Does Islam say anything about what you can and cannot use to beat your wife with? Can you explain the role of the soggy miswak and the green tree branch in maintaining domestic bliss?

According to Islam, how far is 'too far' when it comes to disciplining your wife? You have mentioned that you see no problem with bruising - can you elaborate?

Does "I hit you because I love you" sum up in a fair way the Islamic philosophy on disciplining rebellious wives?

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 30^th, 2010 at 8:51pm:

Lisa, Quote: What do you mean IF?? Perhaps Axle is referring to statements of mine like this one: [quote]I've stated openly and plainly on many many occasions fd that Islam does NOT permit domestic violence and abuse, but only permits a disciplinary 'slap on the wrist'.

Where it's CLEARLY stated Islam does not permit domestic violence and abuse. Your only attempt to hang onto this argument is to try and blur the idea of a disciplinary slap on the wrist with domestic violence, and so far you've failed quite miserably.


Quote:

I much prefer quoting you directly .. and so does Free Diver from what I've seen.

Yeh we can see that...[/quote]


Abu .. I'm going to give you a few moments to reflect on the rubbish you've just posted.

I strongly urge you .. to do so and to also modify/delete your post.

You see ..  in about 10 minutes .. I'm going to come back in here and make an absolute fool of you again.

And I'm getting tired of doing this .. in fact .. I've told you many times I don't particularly enjoy reprimanding you .. nor do I relish the thought of scolding you online.

I'm not your wife Abu ..

Now now Lisa, you are being rebellious and not listening. Where is your tent?

Liifræd,


Quote:

Do you think that a slap on a wrist will be able to coerce a woman into following the husband?

The aim is to bring her to her senses. Yes I think it would work in most cases.

fd,


Quote:

Can you explain again for us how a 'slap on the wrist' causes bruising?

Since I've never claimed it can, why would I explain it?


Quote:

When you say Islam permits wife beating...

Since I didn't claim it does, why would I answer such a question?


Quote:

Does Islam say anything about what you can and cannot use to beat your wife with?

Again, Islam doesn't say can beat your wife.


Quote:

Can you explain the role of the soggy miswak and the green tree branch in maintaining domestic bliss?

No I cannot. Since Islam does not state any of these things. Like the rest of your post it's concocted from your own delusions.

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 30^th, 2010 at 9:20pm:

The aim is to bring her to her senses. Yes I think it would work in most cases.

Doesn't this count as assault under Australian law?

I know that it's not unheard of for the reverse to happen, but what does Islam say of women slapping a man to bring him to his senses?

freediver wrote on Oct 30^th, 2010 at 9:15pm:

Now now Lisa, you are being rebellious and not listening. Where is your tent?

LMAO !!!!

Actually FD .. I was just reflecting on how good it would be for Abu to be married to me .. even for 10 mins ... he'd never be the same lol :)

Quote:

Since Islam does not state any of these things.

Any of what things? It was a question Abu.


Quote:

Since I've never claimed it can, why would I explain it?

You brought up bruising Abu, not me. I am only asking for clarification. Do you need me to quote you? Am I supposed to make sense of your contradictions myself, or would that be putting words in your mouth?


Quote:

Again, Islam doesn't say can beat your wife.

Opps, sometimes I forget to speak Islamic instead of English to you. How about this:

Does Islam say anything about what you can and cannot use to 'discipline' your wife with?

When you say Islam permits 'disciplining' your wife for rebelliousness, does this basically mean disobediance - if a wife doesn't do as she is told?

According to Islam, how far is 'too far' when it comes to 'disciplining' your wife? You have mentioned that you see no problem with bruising - can you elaborate?

Does "I hit you because I love you" sum up in a fair way the Islamic philosophy on 'disciplining' rebellious wives?

Perhaps Axle is referring to statements of mine like this one:

Quote:
I've stated openly and plainly on many many occasions fd that Islam does NOT permit domestic violence and abuse, but only permits a disciplinary 'slap on the wrist'.

Where it's CLEARLY stated Islam does not permit domestic violence and abuse. Your only attempt to hang onto this argument is to try and blur the idea of a disciplinary slap on the wrist with domestic violence, and so far you've failed quite miserably.

- Abu

Ok Abu .. you still stand by this post?

The only reason I'm asking is because I'm about to come in here and kick your arse big time sweetie lol. I'm kinda giving you some warning here lmao :)

Lisa Jones wrote on Oct 30^th, 2010 at 9:37pm:

The only reason I'm asking is because I'm about to come in here and kick your arse big time sweetie lol. I'm kinda giving you some warning here lmao :)

I think you had better throw your shoes at him instead.
That's more of an insult for for Islamic men.
Make it with high heels  ;D

I have added 'discipline' to the Islamic lexicon, so that people know how to ask a question of Abu and get an 'open and frank' answer, rather than a deflection about what Abu considers to be wife beating vs 'loving correction'.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islamic_lexicon

I just read it freediver



Quote:

Discipline - used as a verb to describe the process of discouraging rebellious (disobedient) wives from ignoring the commands of their husband. Often called 'wife beating' by less politically correct people, however in Islam it is not considered abuse because the woman deserves it

OUCH!!! Wonder where Abu is right now lol :)

Before I go to sleep, and in addition to my previous questions (please reply to those too)...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E30kBYzPEoA


Quote:

The honoring of the wife in Islam is also evident in the fact that the punishment of beating is permissible in one case only: when she refuses to sleep with him.

You've probably seen this before. Do you think this is a reasonable interpretation of what Islam says on this matter, and do you agree with it?

Ah .. just as I thought .. Abu has fled in fear once more lol :)))

Abu, if those questions are too hard, perhaps you could give some examples of people who have been punished under Islamic law for taking the 'disciplining' of a strong willed wife too far?

Which questions fd? All we've seen so far here are nonsensical ramblings and sensationalist claims.

As I've told you all along, ask sensible and adult answers, and I'm more than happy to oblige. Make ridiculous claims and outright fabrications (eg. your quoting of me about the Bible's attitude to men's ownership of their wife's body, claiming it's the Islamic viewpoint) and I'm not even going to dignify it with a proper response.

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 10^th, 2010 at 12:32am:

Which questions fd? All we've seen so far here are nonsensical ramblings and sensationalist claims. As I've told you all along, ask sensible and adult answers, and I'm more than happy to oblige. Make ridiculous claims and outright fabrications (eg. your quoting of me about the Bible's attitude to men's ownership of their wife's body, claiming it's the Islamic viewpoint) and I'm not even going to dignify it with a proper response.

Are men and women equal in your interpretation of the Koran? Within your personal belief/faith.

Obviously the answer is broad and relates to more than a mans right/ability/obligation to discipline his wife or female relatives.
That is of course if he has the right/ability/obligation to do so.
It would relate also to your definition of equal. It would be beneficial to compare you’re beliefs with western ideals about equality. Please understand that i am not suggesting that the western ideals work or that they are even present in practice. But i am sure that you are aware of the majority western view and belief about equality of the sexes.

Sorry if you have already answered somewhere, if you have i would very much appreciate a link.

freediver wrote on Oct 30^th, 2010 at 9:31pm:

Quote: Since Islam does not state any of these things. Any of what things? It was a question Abu. [quote]Since I've never claimed it can, why would I explain it?

You brought up bruising Abu, not me. I am only asking for clarification. Do you need me to quote you? Am I supposed to make sense of your contradictions myself, or would that be putting words in your mouth?


Quote:

Again, Islam doesn't say can beat your wife.

Opps, sometimes I forget to speak Islamic instead of English to you. How about this:

Does Islam say anything about what you can and cannot use to 'discipline' your wife with?

When you say Islam permits 'disciplining' your wife for rebelliousness, does this basically mean disobediance - if a wife doesn't do as she is told?

According to Islam, how far is 'too far' when it comes to 'disciplining' your wife? You have mentioned that you see no problem with bruising - can you elaborate?

Does "I hit you because I love you" sum up in a fair way the Islamic philosophy on 'disciplining' rebellious wives? [/quote]

Also, can you give some examples of people who have been punished under Islamic law for taking the 'disciplining' of a strong willed wife too far?

jame-e,


Quote:

Are men and women equal in your interpretation of the Koran? Within your personal belief/faith.

In the general sense, yes men and women are equal. In specific issues, they are not equal, each has different rights and responsibilities. Islam firmly believes in the concept of the man being in authority over the house, yet at the same time it gives more rights to the woman over the day to day running of the family. A child for instance has more responsibility to obey their mother than their father, from the famous hadith when a man asked who has more right to his obedience after God, to which Muhammad (pbuh) answered "your mother", the man then asked "and then who?" to which he again replied "your mother" until he'd said it 3 times, then he finally said "your father".

Personally I think the lack of a strong family structure like this is what is leading to the breakdown of Western societies. All the emphasis on equality is just ruining society as we've always known it. Does that mean anyone should be oppressed? downtrodden? ignored? excluded from decision making? No. Only people who go to extremes would make such accusations. Those who believe it's either men and woman are exactly the same in all things, or someone must be oppressed.


Quote:

But i am sure that you are aware of the majority western view and belief about equality of the sexes.

Of course I am aware, since I did spend the vast majority of my life so far as a non-Muslim Westerner.

[mod: Propaganda & slander have been removed, and direct quotes only left]

"Islam Channel breaks British broadcast rules, regulator says," by Richard Allen Greene for CNN, November 8

"just to make her feel that you are not happy with her."

"To refuse relations would harm a marriage," a guest on the program said.

Stripped of all the embellishment that post doesn't really have much of an impact does it?

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 10^th, 2010 at 8:48pm:

jame-e, Quote: Are men and women equal in your interpretation of the Koran? Within your personal belief/faith. In the general sense, yes men and women are equal. In specific issues, they are not equal, each has different rights and responsibilities. Islam firmly believes in the concept of the man being in authority over the house, yet at the same time it gives more rights to the woman over the day to day running of the family. A child for instance has more responsibility to obey their mother than their father, from the famous hadith when a man asked who has more right to his obedience after God, to which Muhammad (pbuh) answered "your mother", the man then asked "and then who?" to which he again replied "your mother" until he'd said it 3 times, then he finally said "your father". Personally I think the lack of a strong family structure like this is what is leading to the breakdown of Western societies. All the emphasis on equality is just ruining society as we've always known it. Does that mean anyone should be oppressed? downtrodden? ignored? excluded from decision making? No. Only people who go to extremes would make such accusations. Those who believe it's either men and woman are exactly the same in all things, or someone must be oppressed. [quote] But i am sure that you are aware of the majority western view and belief about equality of the sexes.

Of course I am aware, since I did spend the vast majority of my life so far as a non-Muslim Westerner.[/quote]


I totally and devoutly agree with you on you’re beliefs about equality. The essence of that belief in you and the Islamic faith is very positive. Women and men are not equal when compared with any mutual scale, and nor should they be. Except under the law, secular law of course.

The specifics of you’re beliefs being derivative of the Koran i do find concerning. Coupled with that concern are the conditions that exist in some nations governed using various forms of Islamic law. As you have spent the majority of you’re life as a non-Muslim westerner, and have participated in this thread, you must have an idea of the concerns i am referring to.

What do you feel are the biggest misunderstanders the non-Muslim criticisers have of Koranic law?  

Do you wish to live under a form of Koranic Law? How does your version compare to the other active examples?

Lastly, are you progressive in some way? Do you wish to see an end to some aspects of Islamic law that are currently in practice? Do you try/want to separate you’re self from any common ideas/beliefs in Islam?


A lot of questions, please try you’re best.  

In considering the beating of wives that Islam permits it might be good to once again consider the relevant verses in the Koran.


Quote:

Verse 2:2: This is the Book, whereof there is no doubt, a guidance to those who are the pious and righteous persons who fear Allah much, abstain from all kinds of sins and evil deeds which He has forbidden and love Allah much. Verse 4:34: Men are in charge of women by what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in the husband's absence what Allah would have them guard. But those wives from whom you fear arrogance - first advise them; then if they persist, forsake them in bed; and finally, strike them. But if they obey you once more, seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.

Perhaps those versed in hermeneutics might point out where the word ‘lightly’ appears in the words passed to mankind by Allah. According to the words used by Allah, wives may be disciplined with a baseball bat, a hand, or a belt and all such beatings conform with the words ‘strike them’.  Attempts to explain the degree of force that may be used are silly attempts to civilise Islam.

It's worth noting that Allah in v2:2 (and others) grants no dispensation to any imam or individual muslim to provide an interpretation of the koran for a 'feel good' moment. The words in the koran are the immutable words from Allah, who by the way is the all-seeing and all-knowing one as well as being Exalted and Grand.

The verse about the woman being beaten until she was green may give some guidance. Ultimately I think the best guide to the practice of Islam is how people were actually prosecuted under Islamic law for overstepping the mark. Personally, I find it hard to imagine someone being prosecuted for wife beating in a court that holds itself as Islamic, no matter how excessive, when they can point to that verse.

Seriously guys, Abu is not a monkey.
If you wish to see one dance, go to the zoo.

Abu surly appears to most to be a man driven by his conviction. He has pride in himself and his beliefs. Attacking him with passages contained within his holy book do nothing but strengthen his belief that you’re ignorant. Ignorant of him. I would strongly defend Abu and his assertion that western ideas about equality between the sexes is flawed. Thats not to say that i will not argue against the totalistic principles and commands of the Koran.

My suggestion would be to find common ground, and then explore the differences. Not damn a man to fight against you. Freely attack Islam, but don’t let Abu become you’re attack.    



I also want to apologise to you Abu for the vomit comment (if you read it). I don’t associate you with the men in that book, just sometimes i over emotionalise  :).

fd,


Quote:

The verse about the woman being beaten until she was green may give some guidance.

There is no verse at all about women being beaten until they're green. Once again you've got it all inside out, upside down, face about.

There was a story from a hadith about a woman complaining of this, and her complaints were taken seriously, until it was revealed she had been slandering her husband, at which point she ceased being considered to have a case against him.

jame-e,


Quote:

Abu surly appears to most to be a man driven by his conviction. He has pride in himself and his beliefs. Attacking him with passages contained within his holy book do nothing but strengthen his belief that you’re ignorant. Ignorant of him. I would strongly defend Abu and his assertion that western ideas about equality between the sexes is flawed. Thats not to say that i will not argue against the totalistic principles and commands of the Koran.

Great to see we have another member with some reason and common sense here.


Quote:

I also want to apologise to you Abu for the vomit comment (if you read it). I don’t associate you with the men in that book, just sometimes i over emotionalise

No problem at all, apology accepted.

Quote:

Attacking him with passages contained within his holy book do nothing but strengthen his belief that you’re ignorant. Ignorant of him.

So what do you suggest? Ask him some simple questions about what he actually believes? Gee, why didn't I think of that?


Quote:

I would strongly defend Abu and his assertion that western ideas about equality between the sexes is flawed.

Western ideals about equality mean equality before the law, not that women have penises. Islamic ideals about equality between the sexes seem to begin at death.


Quote:

There was a story from a hadith about a woman complaining of this, and her complaints were taken seriously, until it was revealed she had been slandering her husband, at which point she ceased being considered to have a case against him.

So wife beating is OK if the woman deserves it?

Quote:

Axle, the finger is being pointed at everyone who promotes wife beating. It's just so happens that muslims are the only people doing so. If you recall, my approach to this is to let Muslims themselves decide what Islam is and to criticise them for their own views. Thus, my criticism of Abu need not have anything at all to do with Islam. He promotes wife beating. I criticise him for it. Simple. You would be hard pressed to find other people promoting wife beating, and I think you would find that Australians in general would be more openly critical of a non-Muslim promoting wife beating than a Muslim promoting it. You in fact demonstrate this. If Abu was just some violent redneck wife beater you would not hold back. But because he is a Muslim you expect everyone to walk on eggshells in case Islam is tainted merely because it's followers (and Muhammed himself) promote domestic violence.

Due to my slow connection, going back through this whole thread (forum) is very time consuming. Please excuse my assumptions FD. If Abu's convictions do accommodate wife beating, than he is indeed a monkey to be taunted.

Please could you give me a link that demonstrates the basis of you're belief that he does condone 'wife beating'. it would be much appreciated.

Does/would Abu oppress his wife? i hope not.

In the meantime (while i have time), i will read what i can.   

Quote:

If Abu's convictions do accommodate wife beating, than he is indeed a monkey to be taunted.

Islam does not permit beating. It permits a disciplinary slap on the wrist for a wife who has gone beyond all bounds with rebelliousness, and there are other measures which must be tried before resorting to physical discipline. Nowhere does it condone abuse or beating in the sense that we know it in the West.


Quote:

Does/would Abu oppress his wife? i hope not.

God has said in the Islamic texts "I have forbidden oppression for myself and for you, so do not oppress one another".

Anyone who oppresses another human being is considered a criminal in Islam, full stop.

Gawd .. this topic's like The Young and the Restless .. you can check back once a week and still not miss anything lmao :))

jame-e wrote on Nov 10^th, 2010 at 11:52pm:

What do you feel are the biggest misunderstanders the non-Muslim criticisers have of Koranic law?   Do you wish to live under a form of Koranic Law? How does your version compare to the other active examples? Lastly, are you progressive in some way? Do you wish to see an end to some aspects of Islamic law that are currently in practice? Do you try/want to separate you’re self from any common ideas/beliefs in Islam? A lot of questions, please try you’re best.

Quote:

Please could you give me a link that demonstrates the basis of you're belief that he does condone 'wife beating'. it would be much appreciated.

See Abu's post immediately prior to yours. The story is that a woman complained via Muhammed's wife that her husband had beaten her until her skin was greener than the dress she wore. Muhammed did not take any action against the husband. Abu 'justifies' this by saying the wife had slandered her husband and Muhammed investigated and found this out.

In earlier posts Abu also explained that bruising your wife or child in the act of disciplining them is OK. In my opinion, the really interesting bit here is not the physical abuse he condones, but the power relationship between husband and wife that he promotes.


Quote:

Does/would Abu oppress his wife? i hope not.

My understanding is that he is not married and looks down upon wife beaters (while defining what is normally considered abuse out of existence), on the basis that you should be able to control your wife without going that far. However, he would have it effectively legalised under shariah law, and one can only speculate how he would respond peronsally in the heat of the moment, given that he views the role of the husband to discipline the wife.

That is why he cannot answer such simple questions.

Parenthetically, Islam is silent on the issue of the wife 'lightly' slapping the husband. Much has been made about the issue of equality in Islam so why isn't the wife allowed to administer a bit of punishment? Where is the equality that mainstream muslims trumpet?

My wife beats me but it is allowed if you are a New Age Muslim like my wife and myself.

I have heard it suggested by Muslims that the wife should be able to beat her husband in return if it is found that the husband has beaten her without cause. That way everyone is happy.  :o Though I'm not sure if these 'wives who didn't deserve it' ever existed in practice.

jame-e wrote on Nov 12^th, 2010 at 12:54pm:

jame-e wrote on Nov 10th, 2010 at 11:52pm: What do you feel are the biggest misunderstanders the non-Muslim criticisers have of Koranic law?   Do you wish to live under a form of Koranic Law? How does your version compare to the other active examples? Lastly, are you progressive in some way? Do you wish to see an end to some aspects of Islamic law that are currently in practice? Do you try/want to separate you’re self from any common ideas/beliefs in Islam? A lot of questions, please try you’re best.

:)

Sorry didn't notice these questions, which I assumed are for me?


Quote:

hat do you feel are the biggest misunderstanders the non-Muslim criticisers have of Koranic law?

There's a few.

1) The idea that Islamic law is still implemented, it is not. It ceased being implemented on March 3rd. 1924 (with the final abolition of the Ottoman Caliphate) and has not been re-implemented since. Those governments often paraded around as Islamic by the West are merely colonialist puppets, who misuse Islam to obscure their status as agents of the Western powers in front of their people.

2) The idea that Islamic law is somehow a threat to a Western secular society. Muslims have struggled to even have it re-implemented in their own lands (as is witnessed by the point above, that it's almost a century now since it was last implemented). The hysteria about Muslims forcing shari'ah law into the West is just absolute mindless garbage. Merely being able to settle family matters by tribunals, or having 'halal banks' is not shari'ah law, and only a real simpleton could ever think it was.

3) The idea that Islam is 'incompatible' with the West, and therefore Muslims cannot live in the West. Islam consists of a 3-tier structure when it comes to how it is laid out. It defines 3 relationships for the human being, and offers guidance/regulation in all 3. The first is between an individual and his creator. This relationship has no bearing on where a person lives really, since it's merely related to personal acts of worship and the like. The second relationship is between a person and themself. The way they conduct themselves, what they wear, eat, drink etc. Again doesn't really have any major impact on the society around them. The third is the relationship between a person and others, ie. societal transactions. Obviously this area does effect the way in which a person fits into a society and their relationship with the state. Religion as it's understood in the West pretty much only consists of the first two aspects, touching slightly into the third (be good to your neighbour etc). If a state were to impinge upon the rights of an individual Muslim to practice the first two aspects, then they would be required to disobey the state, but in the case of the third category, then a Muslim must abide by the laws of the state in which they reside. So in reality there is no conflict.


Quote:

How does your version compare to the other active examples?

There are 4 mainstream schools of Islamic jurisprudence and they differ very little (on the main issues). Personally I follow that of Imam ash-Shafi', but consider all 4 valid, and would have no problem living under any of them.


Quote:

How does your version compare to the other active examples?

As above, there are no active examples.


Quote:

Lastly, are you progressive in some way?

That's a pretty vague question. what exactly is meant by progressive? Will I change the laws and rules of Islam to appease others? Do I see that conditions in the world have changed and that things must adapt? Do I drive a car instead of a camel? This question needs to be defined a lot better.


Quote:

Do you wish to see an end to some aspects of Islamic law that are currently in practice?

Since I don't believe Islamic law is currently in practice, no.


Quote:

Do you try/want to separate you’re self from any common ideas/beliefs in Islam?

No. Islam is pure and perfect, and separating oneself from it would be misguidance.

Quote:

2) The idea that Islamic law is somehow a threat to a Western secular society. Muslims have struggled to even have it re-implemented in their own lands (as is witnessed by the point above, that it's almost a century now since it was last implemented). The hysteria about Muslims forcing shari'ah law into the West is just absolute mindless garbage. Merely being able to settle family matters by tribunals, or having 'halal banks' is not shari'ah law, and only a real simpleton could ever think it was. 3) The idea that Islam is 'incompatible' with the West, and therefore Muslims cannot live in the West. Islam consists of a 3-tier structure when it comes to how it is laid out. It defines 3 relationships for the human being, and offers guidance/regulation in all 3. The first is between an individual and his creator. This relationship has no bearing on where a person lives really, since it's merely related to personal acts of worship and the like. The second relationship is between a person and themself. The way they conduct themselves, what they wear, eat, drink etc. Again doesn't really have any major impact on the society around them. The third is the relationship between a person and others, ie. societal transactions. Obviously this area does effect the way in which a person fits into a society and their relationship with the state. Religion as it's understood in the West pretty much only consists of the first two aspects, touching slightly into the third (be good to your neighbour etc). If a state were to impinge upon the rights of an individual Muslim to practice the first two aspects, then they would be required to disobey the state, but in the case of the third category, then a Muslim must abide by the laws of the state in which they reside. So in reality there is no conflict.

You appear to be arguing that Islam's impotence is a redeeming value. Yet you also argue it is growing stronger. Islam is only compatible while it is not implimented and muslims only follow steps 1 and 2. But it is dishonest to generalise this to pretending it is compatible with the west and no threat. can you explain to us how muslims 'should' respond to the inability to impliment Shariah law?


Quote:

Personally I follow that of Imam ash-Shafi', but consider all 4 valid, and would have no problem living under any of them.

Even Shia? Didn't you claim that malik is an apostate (=death penalty)? Or is shia not a 'main' branch?

Wife beating is against the law in civilised societies we throw people in Jail for bashing women.

Quran 4:34 allows wife beating if you fear disobedience.

Click on the link to read more about Quran 4:34

www.wikiislam.net/wiki/Wife_Beating_in_Islam

Abu-
Do you think women will consider reverting to Islam after reading Quran 4:34?

If they read the fine print on the exit policy with Islam (apostasy) do you think they will be happy?

Quote:

Do you think women will consider reverting to Islam after reading Quran 4:34?

Yes, they quite obviously do.


Quote:

If they read the fine print on the exit policy with Islam (apostasy) do you think they will be happy?

Well I read it before embracing Islam, and discussed it at length with knowledgeable Muslims, and was quite happy with it.

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 21^st, 2011 at 3:20pm:

Quote: Do you think women will consider reverting to Islam after reading Quran 4:34? Yes, they quite obviously do. [quote]If they read the fine print on the exit policy with Islam (apostasy) do you think they will be happy?

Well I read it before embracing Islam, and discussed it at length with knowledgeable Muslims, and was quite happy with it.[/quote]

It appears Lauren Booth did not know Mohammad had a 6 yo wife listen to her response.

Wait till she finds out how old Aisha was when the marriage was consummated.

It does not sound like they told her about Quran 4.34.

Is it the muslim way to avoid answering questions and divert the topic?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjnetrFzVIQ

I see a lot of people who are 'closer' to Islam actively try to discourage discussion of the issues that get Abu so wound up, so it is no surprise to me that Lauren was completely unaware of this.

I bet she also does not know about Muhammed personally excusing wife beaters.

shockresist wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 2:22pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 2:15pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 2:13pm: Discouraging the mistreatment of women was something of a theme for the prophet. Can you explain the example of the woman being beaten until her skin was green, and Muhammed not taking any action? Where did you read this story? Any links?

Here you go shocky, and entire thread devoted to Islamic wife beating.


freediver wrote on Oct 17^th, 2010 at 6:49pm:

Abu I don't think we ever got a straight answer from you in this thread: abu_rashid wrote on Oct 14th, 2010 at 6:56pm: Quote: And since when has beating your wife become non-abusive? Do Muslims have to attach a dual meaning to everything? Hitting need not be abusive. Parents often hit their children to discipline them, and it's usually not abusive, even when it causes bruising sometimes. [quote]He said nothing of the abuse and he did not reprimand the husband for his actions Yes, he was wise enough to enquire as to why. [quote]Therefore he allowed it

In this particular case he did not take action against the man for it, does not mean it's a permissible action. Assuming it was even abuse, which I don't think is established anyway.
[/quote]

When is hitting not abusive?

What are the limits (if any) placed on wife beating by Islamic law?

When Muhammed 'examined the reasons' for his comrades beating their wives until their skin turned green, what was his reason for not criticising them or taking action against them?

Can you explain the reason why it may not be permissable if it went unpunished? What is the difference?[/quote]


polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 2:13pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 2:02pm: Do any of those orders, rulings etc involve any example of Muhammed punishing someone for raping their wife or concubine, or even beating them? Probably. Discouraging the mistreatment of women was something of a theme for the prophet. Its got nothing to do with substantiating the claim that concubinage in islam must necessarily, absolutely, no question mean slave rape though.

Gandalf, can you explain how excusing a man beating his wife until her skin turned green fits in with you spiel about "Discouraging the mistreatment of women was something of a theme for the prophet"? Are you saying the Muhammed protected women the same way he protected Jews, ie they deserved their mistreatment? Perhaps it was fair punishment for the incident with the apple?

Wife-beating is prevalent in many if not most cultures. It existed amongst pre-Islamic Arabs, and there was no prohibition or conditions on how a man could beat his wife.

This all changed when Prophet Muhammed established the Islamic state in Madina. The Prophet personally abhorred the mistreatment of women, so he issued an order banning husbands from beating their wives. Maybe for the first time in history a state banned men from beating their wives.

This prohibition led to disharmony amongst the Arabs, who complained to the Prophet that their women became disobedient and rebellious. The Prophet was persuaded to allow men to discipline their wives, but then God revealed to the Prophet that there should be strict conditions for it.

These conditions laid out in the Quran are that before a husband disciplines his wife he must giver her warning, and then after issuing a warning he must give up sex and leave the marital bed.

The Prophet instructed that if a beating was carried out, it should be done with a toothbrush - so that no injury should occur. What is allowed is only for a husband to show that he is severely displeased, not to cause any physical injury. Hitting on the head was also prohibited.

So the Arab world went from a free-for-all in attacking women to a situation where there were strict conditions and limitations on what could be done.

Do we find any prohibition or limitations on wife-beating in the Bible? No! In Christianity it is a free-for-all.

True Colours wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 3:20pm:

The Prophet was persuaded to allow men to discipline their wives, but then God revealed to the Prophet that there should be strict conditions for it.

... but then....   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Now I understand why the ululate at the drop of a stick (not thicker than yer thumb, of course)!!!

Quote:

Wife-beating is prevalent in many if not most cultures.

What about religions? Are there any other religions that accomodate wife beating to the extent that Islam does?


Quote:

This all changed when Prophet Muhammed established the Islamic state in Madina. The Prophet personally abhorred the mistreatment of women, so he issued an order banning husbands from beating their wives. Maybe for the first time in history a state banned men from beating their wives.

So why do so many Muslims say it is permissable, and disagree only on the extent to which wife beating is acceptable? Are you playing Abu's trick of defining it as not wife beating if it is permitted by Islam?


Quote:

This prohibition led to disharmony amongst the Arabs, who complained to the Prophet that their women became disobedient and rebellious.

Were these just the Jewish sex slave women? Why do Muslims have so many issues with people disobeying them and rebelling against them? Is God playing tricks on them, or just testing their faith?


Quote:

The Prophet was persuaded to allow men to discipline their wives, but then God revealed to the Prophet that there should be strict conditions for it.

So wife beating is legal if she deserves it?


Quote:

These conditions laid out in the Quran are that before a husband disciplines his wife he must giver her warning, and then after issuing a warning he must give up sex and leave the marital bed.

So this differentiates Muslims from other Arabs, who beat their wives in bed and used surprise beatings to keep their women on their toes?


Quote:

The Prophet instructed that if a beating was carried out, it should be done with a toothbrush - so that no injury should occur. What is allowed is only for a husband to show that he is severely displeased, not to cause any physical injury. Hitting on the head was also prohibited.

So how do you reconcile this with the woman who ended up with skin that was green from bruising? Does that not count as injury? Are you allowed to sharpen the toothbrush first, or only if you are in prison?

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 3:54pm:

Quote: Wife-beating is prevalent in many if not most cultures. What about religions? Are there any other religions that accomodate wife beating to the extent that Islam does?

accomodate? Islam is the only religion that puts limits and restriction on wife-beating. In other religions it is a free-for-all. Can you give example of any other religion that restricts a husband from beating his wife?



freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 3:54pm:

Quote: This all changed when Prophet Muhammed established the Islamic state in Madina. The Prophet personally abhorred the mistreatment of women, so he issued an order banning husbands from beating their wives. Maybe for the first time in history a state banned men from beating their wives. just the Jewish sex slave women?

Do you not tire of lying?

"...do not compel your slave girls to sexual servitude, seeking the temporary pleasures of the world, if they desire chastity"
- The Quran, al-Noor, v. 33



Quote:

The Prophet instructed that if a beating was carried out, it should be done with a toothbrush - so that no injury should occur. What is allowed is only for a husband to show that he is severely displeased, not to cause any physical injury. Hitting on the head was also prohibited.

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 3:54pm:

how do you reconcile this with the woman who ended up with skin that was green from bruising?

Got a source for that?

Quote:

accomodate? Islam is the only religion that puts limits and restriction on wife-beating.

Only if she deserves it right? And no surprise beatings? Do you see any Christians arguing that Christianity permits wife beating if she deserves it?


Quote:

In other religions it is a free-for-all.

How about you let other people decide for themselves what their religion is? I hardly think that princples like "do unto others..." equates to a free for all. Your understanding of Islam and common sense seem fragile enough.


Quote:

Can you give example of any other religion that restricts a husband from beating his wife?

I doubt any other religions see the need to distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable wife beating.


Quote:

Got a source for that?

Yes TC. That is why I bumped this thread for you. That is what was under discussion in the opening post, which is why I quoted it for you the first time you asked me this.

True Colours wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 5:13pm:

Do you not tire of the lie? .do not compel your slave girls to sexual servitude, seeking the temporary pleasures of the world, if they desire chastity - The Quran, al-Noor, v. 33 Quote: The Prophet instructed that if a beating was carried out, it should be done with a toothbrush - so that no injury should occur. What is allowed is only for a husband to show that he is severely displeased, not to cause any physical injury. Hitting on the head was also prohibited.

That quran verse means you cannot make your slave work as a prostitute which is different to forcing her to have sex with her muslim owner.

The shia allow prostitutes in a temporary marriage, its called a mutah marriage which differs in name from the sunni version called misyar marriage.

Do you have a cite for Mohammad saying hit your wife with a miswak?
Does sunnah.com or quran.com have this verse or is it one plucked from the asses of muslims?

Quote:

That quran verse means you cannot make your slave work as a prostitute which is different to forcing her to have sex with her muslim owner.

Is this true Gandalf?

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 5:20pm:

Quote: accomodate? Islam is the only religion that puts limits and restriction on wife-beating. Only if she deserves it right? And no surprise beatings? Do you see any Christians arguing that Christianity permits wife beating if she deserves it? [quote]In other religions it is a free-for-all.

How about you let other people decide for themselves what their religion is? I hardly think that princples like "do unto others..." equates to a free for all. Your understanding of Islam and common sense seem fragile enough.


Quote:

Can you give example of any other religion that restricts a husband from beating his wife?

I doubt any other religions see the need to distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable wife beating.


Quote:

Got a source for that?

Yes TC. That is why I bumped this thread for you. That is what was under discussion in the opening post, which is why I quoted it for you the first time you asked me this.[/quote]

Maybe it is in the bible.But how can you believe the bible when it has been changed, altered, modified, contents refused, full of contradictions and mistakes.

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 5:20pm:

Quote: accomodate? Islam is the only religion that puts limits and restriction on wife-beating. Only if she deserves it right? And no surprise beatings? Do you see any Christians arguing that Christianity permits wife beating if she deserves it? [quote]In other religions it is a free-for-all.

How about you let other people decide for themselves what their religion is? I hardly think that princples like "do unto others..." equates to a free for all. Your understanding of Islam and common sense seem fragile enough.


Quote:

Can you give example of any other religion that restricts a husband from beating his wife?

I doubt any other religions see the need to distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable wife beating.


Quote:

Got a source for that?

Yes TC. That is why I bumped this thread for you. That is what was under discussion in the opening post, which is why I quoted it for you the first time you asked me this.[/quote]

Wife Beating In Bible And Christianity

"To the woman he said,  "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." Genesis 3:16

"Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior." Ephesians 5:22-23 

The Bible doesn't only provoke beating but also instructs husbands to cut their hands if they think thier wife defend him in a wrong way.

"And in case men struggle together (in a fight) with one another, and the wife of the one has come near to deliver her husband out of the striking one (to save her husband), and she has thrust out her hand and grabbed hold of his private (the other man's groin), she must then get both her hands cut off, and the eyes of the men must feel no sorrow." [Deuteronomy 25:11-12]

Bible states women were created to serve men and is glory of men not Lord,

" If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man." [1 Corinthians 11:6-7]

But what if women doesn't serve the man?

Well a Bible says beating can fix this problem!

"Young people take pride in their strength, but the gray hairs of wisdom are even more beautiful. A severe beating can knock all of the evil out of you! 
[From the Contemporary English Version (CEV) Bible, Proverbs 20:29-30]"

Well whatever it is better for husband to live alone or in desert, wilderness than sharing house with quarrelsome wife

"It is better to live in a corner of the housetop than in a house shared with a quarrelsome wife." [Proverbs 25:24]

"Better to live in a desert than with a quarrelsome and ill-tempered wife." [Proverbs 21:19]

We don't live by biblical law and do not want to implement world-wide biblical law.


You, on the other hand, want sharia law, based on the principles of Islam which endorse violence against all sorts of people, including wives.


But this is too subtle a difference for you, I know. What matters to you is the fetish of the written word. It is the fetish of the semi-literate Mohammedan: it's written, so it MUST be law. You actually pride yourself on not moving on from the 7th century and think anyone who has is a distorter and a corrupter.

Shocky do you have anything to say about Muhammed pardoning the guy who beat his wife until her skin was green with bruises? (other than the inevitable deflections of course)

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 10:17pm:

Shocky do you have anything to say about Muhammed pardoning the guy who beat his wife until her skin was green with bruises? (other than the inevitable deflections of course)

We've been over this before. As I said then, there is no evidence he was pardoned, you literally made that part up - again. It wasn't mentioned in that hadith because it was about a separate matter. What the prophet did about the beating - if anything - is not mentioned.

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 10:17pm:

Shocky do you have anything to say about Muhammed pardoning the guy...

The hadeeth doesn't say that he was pardoned. The woman's testimony was questionable and likely unreliable. You have to look at the whole context of the matter which was that that particular woman was sad that her first husband had divorced her, and the implication was that she was conniving to get back with the first husband.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 12:22am:

freediver wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 10:17pm: Shocky do you have anything to say about Muhammed pardoning the guy who beat his wife until her skin was green with bruises? (other than the inevitable deflections of course) We've been over this before. As I said then, there is no evidence he was pardoned, you literally made that part up - again. It wasn't mentioned in that hadith because it was about a separate matter. What the prophet did about the beating - if anything - is not mentioned.

So let me get this straight. A woman comes to the prophet complaining about her husband beating her. Her skin is green with bruises. But the important thing is that Muhammed investigates the husband's complaints about what the woman did to deserve the beating?


Quote:

You have to look at the whole context of the matter which was that that particular woman was sad that her first husband had divorced her, and the implication was that she was conniving to get back with the first husband.

;D

It's all about the context with Islam isn't it? Does Islam only forbid wife beating without context? Is that why it forbids surprise beatings?

freediver wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 8:26am:

Muhammed investigates the husband's complaints about what the woman did to deserve the beating?

Another lie. The hadeeth doesn't say that at all. Why do you consider it acceptable to lie FD? Is it your religion? Does you religion permit you to lie? What religion are you on anyway?

OK, so give us your 'interpretation' of it.

Also, if this event is not representative of Muhammed's response to wife beating, can you give an example where you think he did respond appropriately, say to violence against women in general, or to rape in a situation where Islam permits 'consensual' sex?

freediver wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 8:26am:

So let me get this straight. A woman comes to the prophet complaining about her husband beating her. Her skin is green with bruises. But the important thing is that Muhammed investigates the husband's complaints about what the woman did to deserve the beating?

Thats not the issue FD, the issue is that you state that he was "pardoned" for the alleged beating - which is a complete and utter fabrication.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 9:31am:

freediver wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 8:26am: So let me get this straight. A woman comes to the prophet complaining about her husband beating her. Her skin is green with bruises. But the important thing is that Muhammed investigates the husband's complaints about what the woman did to deserve the beating? Thats not the issue FD, the issue is that you state that he was "pardoned" for the alleged beating - which is a complete and utter fabrication.

OK, so give us your 'interpretation' of it.

my interpretation is that the hadith was about a ruling about divorce and remarriage. The prophet said nothing for or against the beating in that hadith - but that doesn't mean that he didn't act on it. It would be just as baseless for me to say he did something about the beating, as you saying he was "pardoned".

What the prophet DID say about wife beating:

Quote:

I said: Apostle of Allah, how should we approach our wives and how should we leave them? He replied: Approach your tilth when or how you will, give her (your wife) food when you take food, clothe when you clothe yourself, do not revile her face, and do not beat her.

Quote:

How does anyone of you beat his wife as he beats the stallion camel and then he may embrace (sleep with) her

Quote:

Imam Ahmad recorded that `A'ishah said, "The Messenger of Allah never struck a servant of his with his hand, nor did he ever hit a woman. He never hit anything with his hand, except for when he was fighting Jihad in the cause of Allah.

These are from the thread linked to in the opening post. There are more examples there.


Jibreel wrote on Oct 13^th, 2010 at 6:45pm:

Annie Anthrax wrote on Oct 13th, 2010 at 10:57am: You're full of it, Jibreel. Where in this does it say Muhammad 'allowed' the beating? Quote: Volume 7, Book 72, Number 715: Narrated 'Ikrima: Rifa'a divorced his wife whereupon 'AbdurRahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married her. 'Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah's Apostle came, 'Aisha said, "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!" When 'AbdurRahman heard that his wife had gone to the Prophet, he came with his two sons from another wife. She said, "By Allah! I have done no wrong to him but he is impotent and is as useless to me as this," holding and showing the fringe of her garment, 'Abdur-Rahman said, "By Allah, O Allah's Apostle! She has told a lie! I am very strong and can satisfy her but she is disobedient and wants to go back to Rifa'a." Allah's Apostle said, to her, "If that is your intention, then know that it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifa'a unless Abdur-Rahman has had sexual intercourse with you." Then the Prophet saw two boys with 'Abdur-Rahman and asked (him), "Are these your sons?" On that 'AbdurRahman said, "Yes." The Prophet said, "You claim what you claim (i.e.. that he is impotent)? But by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a crow," Aisha is protesting and Muhammad says nothing, even to the abusive husband. In fact he sides with the abuser. If you don't think thats allowing abuse, what is? Muhammad is the equivalent of a judge in that situation. What sort of a judge would do that? His indifference towards her suffering proves that her beatings were within the bounds of Islamic law. How about this one where Abu Bakr informs Muhammad he slapped Khadijah’s daughter, and he responds by laughing and allows the mother of believers to be hit by the companions? [quote]Jabir b. 'Abdullah (Allah be pleased with them) reported: Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) came and sought permission to see Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him). He found people sitting at his door and none amongst them had been granted permission, but it was granted to Abu Bakr and he went in. Then came 'Umar and he sought permission and it was granted to him, and he found Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) sitting sad and silent with his wives around him. He (Hadrat 'Umar) said: I would say something which would make the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) laugh, so he said: Messenger of Allah, I wish you had seen (the treatment meted out to) the daughter ofKhadija when you asked me some money, and I got up and slapped her on her neck. Allah's Messenger (mav peace be upon him) laughed and said: They are around me as you see, asking for extra money. Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) then got up went to 'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) and slapped her on the neck, and 'Umar stood up before Hafsa and slapped her saying: You ask Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) which he does not possess. They said: By Allah, we do not ask Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) for anything he does not possess. Then he withdrew from them for a month or for twenty-nine days. Then this verse was revealed to him:" Prophet: Say to thy wives... for a mighty reward" (xxxiii. 28). He then went first to 'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) and said: I want to propound something to you, 'A'isha, but wish no hasty reply before you consult your parents. She said: Messenger of Allah, what is that? He (the Holy Prophet) recited to her the verse, whereupon she said: Is it about you that I should consult my parents, Messenger of Allah? Nay, I choose Allah, His Messenger, and the Last Abode; but I ask you not to tell any of your wives what I have said He replied: Not one of them will ask me without my informing her. God did not send me to be harsh, or cause harm, but He has sent me to teach and make things easy. (Sahih Muslim Book 009, Number 3506)

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/muslim/009.smt.html#009.3506

And of course, I'm "full of it" and sahih narrations must be false when you don't like what they tell us.[/quote]

GH wrote on Oct 13^th, 2010 at 7:26pm:

Qur'an (4:34) - "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great." Qur'an (38:44) - "And take in your hand a green branch and beat her with it, and do not break your oath..."  Allah telling Job to beat his wife. From the Hadith: Bukhari (72:715) - A woman came to Muhammad and begged her to stop her husband from beating her.  Her skin was bruised so badly that she it is described as being "greener" than the green veil she was wearing.  Muhammad did not admonish her husband, but instead ordered her to return to him and submit to his sexual desires. Muslim (4:2127) - Muhammad struck his favorite wife, Aisha, in the chest one evening when she left the house without his permission.  Aisha narrates, "He struck me on the chest which caused me pain." Muslim (9:3506) - Muhammad's father-in-laws (Abu Bakr and Umar) amused him by slapping his wives (Aisha and Hafsa) for annoying him.  According to the Hadith, the prophet of Islam laughed upon hearing this. Abu Dawud (2141) - "Iyas bin ‘Abd Allah bin Abi Dhubab reported the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) as saying: Do not beat Allah’s handmaidens, but when ‘Umar came to the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) and said: Women have become emboldened towards their husbands, he (the Prophet) gave permission to beat them."  At first, Muhammad forbade men from beating their wives, but he rescinded this once it was reported that women were becoming emboldened toward their husbands.  Beatings are sometimes necessary to keep women in their place. Abu Dawud (2142) - "The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife." Abu Dawud (2126) - "A man from the Ansar called Basrah said: 'I married a virgin woman in her veil. When I entered upon her, I found her pregnant. (I mentioned this to the Prophet).' The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: 'She will get the dower, for you made her vagina lawful for you. The child will be your slave. When she has begotten (a child), flog her'"  A Muslim man thinks his is getting a virgin, then finds out she is pregnant.  Muhammad tells him to treat the woman as a sex slave and then flog her after she has delivered the child.

Jibreel wrote on Oct 14^th, 2010 at 5:41pm:

Annie Anthrax wrote on Oct 14th, 2010 at 9:19am: The Quran clearly states that a man must live with a woman in kindness - beating a woman until she's 'green' can hardly be called kindness in anyone's book. The Qur'an also clearly states that a man can beat a women. Beating a women at all is hardly kindness or equality, but our definition of kindness or equality is irrelevant. Its Allah's and Muhammad's. Annie Anthrax wrote on Oct 4th, 2010 at 1:25pm: I don't know where you get the "payment for young brides" thing. There is a dowry paid to the bride in an Islamic marriage which is hers to keep throughout the marriage or to help support her in case of a divorce. Incidentally, there's also a divorce payment that is agreed upon before the marriage which offers further security in the event of a marriage breakdown. Are you also aware that if sexual intercourse has not taken place, then the payment must be returned to the man? Mahr is for all intents and purposes a payment for the use of your wifes vagina. Quote: Ibn Umar (Allah be pleased with them) reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) saying to the invokers of curse: Your account is with Allah. One of you must be a liar. You have now no right over this woman. 'He said: Messenger of Allah, what about my wealth (dower that I paid her at the time of marriage)? He said: You have no claim to wealth. If you tell the truth, it (dower) is the recompense for your having had the right to intercourse with her', and if you tell a lie against her, it is still more remote from you than she is. Zuhair said in his narration: Sufyan reported to us on the authority of 'Amr that he had heard Sa'id b Jubair saying: I heard Ibn Umar (Allah be pleased with them) saying that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) had said it. (Sahih Muslim Book 009, Number 3557) http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/muslim/009.smt.html#009.3557

Jibreel wrote on Oct 14^th, 2010 at 5:41pm:

Annie Anthrax wrote on Oct 6th, 2010 at 2:02pm: A woman has to consent to a marriage, FD. She can't be forced, but even if she could I've already made it clear that I think both forced marriages and rape in any form are wrong. Just so others are aware. The Islamic definition of "consent" is different. A virgins silence is her consent. Quote: Narrated Abu Haraira: Allah's Apostle said, "A lady slave should not be given in marriage until she is consulted, and a virgin should not be given in marriage until her permission is granted." The people said, "How will she express her permission?" The Prophet said, "By keeping silent (when asked her consent)." Some people said, "If a man, by playing a trick, presents two false witnesses before the judge to testify that he has married a matron with her consent and the judge confirms his marriage, and the husband is sure that he has never married her (before), then such a marriage will be considered as a legal one and he may live with her as husband." (Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 86, Number 100) http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/086.sbt.html#009.086.100

Jibreel wrote on Oct 12^th, 2010 at 9:17pm:

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 12th, 2010 at 8:34pm: Jibreel, The Prophet (pbuh) said:  الناس مستوون كأسنان المشط Just because one has authority over another does not mean they are not equal. There is equality and there is sameness, people are not all the same, but they are all equal in the broad sense of the term. Obviously one who has authority over another will enjoy different rights to them, but it doesn't mean they are more valuable or worthy to their creator, only their taqwa decides that. As I've said, the Islamic definition of equality differs from what most understand it to mean. Equality between sexes is having the same rights regardless of your gender. Therefore women are not equal in Islam. freediver wrote on Oct 12th, 2010 at 8:33pm: Quote: And BTW the "miswak' or 'light beating' defense is not from the Qur'an. Can you explain this please Jibreel? Sura 4:34 says nothing of a “light” beating. Yusuf Ali added it to his popular translation in parenthesis. Generally other translation do not use it. There are rules and limits (for example; hitting your wife in the face is not allowed), but the miswak defense is not from the hadith literature. Thats simply from commentary by some scholars. And the definition of “light beating” itself is dependant on what Muhammad saw as light. In sahih narrations he allowed men to beat their wives until they were “green” (Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 72, Number 715)

Thats all well and good FD, but my only beef here was your patently false claim that in the 'green bruise' hadith, the alleged abuser was "pardoned" by Muhammad.

Its these sorts of lies that are so important for creating the image of islam that you and others project. You have to admit, that when these lies are exposed (and I'm not saying you are guilty of making it, merely relaying it), its not a good look is it?

Freediver.

Do you think muslims have studied every single aspect of islam?

You make it seem that muslims know every detail, story, hadith and every verse in the Koran when on the contrary most of the stories you dig up 99% of muslims have never heard of even ive never heard the stories that you post on the forum.

Muslim members here aren't Islamic scholars, we are just the average muslim worshipper who try to follow the basic Islamic tenets of islam.

So im sorry we cant answer every question you pose and im sorry we cant give you a answer which happened in a era of 1400 years ago.

When Mohammed brought islam into the lime light, it didn't come over 1-2 years, it came over 23 years and a lot of things changed and evolved over the 23 years of Mohammeds mission.

For example back in Mohammeds days, Muslims and arabs used to drink alcohol.Later on few years later, he ordered the muslims not to come to the mosque if you are drunk, and a few years later he totally forbad alcohol.

He gradually over years and years forbade alcohol.

So this is only my personal opinion regarding wife beating in islam, and only my opinion,

Yes maybe there was incidents of mistreatment by muslims when islam was first founded, but again it changed as islam progressed in the 23 years Mohmmed founded islam.

I personally wouldn't hit my wife, cause I love her dearly, she looks after my children, I get home from work and the house is clean, I got food on the table, im not the kind of person to mistreat women.

There are many things in islam which says you should treat women with respect,

"on the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing, and God brings about through it a great deal of good.” (The Noble Quran, 4:19)

Riyad as Saliheen, chapter 34, ‘treating women well’ Nr. 279. Iyas ibn 'Abdullah ibn Abi Dhubab reported that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Do not beat the female slaves of Allah." Then 'Umar came to the Prophet and said, "The women have become bold towards their husbands," and so he made an allowance to beat them. Then many women surrounded the family of the Messenger of Allah to complain about their husbands. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "The people of the household of Muhammad have surrounded by many women who are complaining about their husbands. Those men are not among the best of you."

Narrated Mu'awiyah al-Qushayri: "I went to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and asked him: What do you say (command) about our wives? He replied: Give them food what you have for yourself, and clothe them by which you clothe yourself, and do not beat them, and do not revile them.”                                                                                                         
(Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 2139)

Quote:

Its these sorts of lies that are so important for creating the image of islam that you and others project. You have to admit, that when these lies are exposed (and I'm not saying you are guilty of making it, merely relaying it), its not a good look is it?

Still not sure what your problem actually is with what I said. It looks like a perfectly reasonable interpretation of what happened, especially given the verse that a husband must not be asked why he beat his wife.

Also, don't you think Islam's wife-beating image problem might have more to do with Muhammed beating his wives, laughing when other men beat his wives, and specifically permitting wife beating?


Quote:

Do you think muslims have studied every single aspect of islam?

I certainly hope not. If they knew all this and still thought Muhammed was God's messenger and an example to all mankind, then we have a serious problem.


Quote:

You make it seem that muslims know every detail, story, hadith and every verse in the Koran when on the contrary most of the stories you dig up 99% of muslims have never heard of even ive never heard the stories that you post on the forum.

Perhaps you should get a version in English and read it, rather than throwing your hands in the air because you can't read Arabic yet. After all, Muhammed commands it (more often than killing people apparently).


Quote:

There are many things in islam which says you should treat women with respect,

"Islamic respect"


Quote:

Those men are not among the best of you

I don't hold wife beaters in high esteem either. So what? Muhammed himself was a wife beater. Admittedly he had a lot of wives to keep in line, but still, does that mean he is among the worst of Muslims?