Topic: Islamism

[Corkboy]

Religion in education in the UK here ... http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=255816.0

I seem to have managed Buddhist bashing in that one.

[Corkboy]

There haven't been too many of these Christians that I can remember willing to join the debates and argue their perspective though.

You're forgetting the great Bob Sacamano, who felt that no thread couldn't be improved with a lashing of impenetrable Biblical "scholarship".

I wonder, and not a mean way hopefully, whether Bob would have more in agreement with Doc Red than with me.

[The Gulleysucker]

Ah yes, I'd forgotten his name.

Bob is still around and posted yesterday.

[electricghost]

Surah An Nisa (women)

Verse 4:34
 1)"Men are the protectors and maintainers of women because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means

The scene is set for inequality right here. The fact that usually men have more strength than women is no sound basis to elevate men to this role. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard

The word "qanitat" in Arabic (obedient), means one who is a) devoted to someone and b)out of love and devotion obeys him or her.

I don't think it is a wise instruction to abandon one's critical faculties in the name of devotion, and obey commands or instructions having done so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3)As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next) refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly)

Note that former part of this verse highlights a wife with characteristics  that are directly opposite to those mentioned in the previous verse  (instead of "qanitat", they become "nushuz"). The word used to describe "fear" is more akin to meaning "strongly believe" as opposed to just"feeling" or "guessing" or "assuming" she may have done so. i.e "I have very bad news for you, I fear you will not like it"

It doesn't make any difference if you take the word fear literally or we use the term "strongly believe". Neither actually requires an action on the part of the wife. The husband can fear or strongly believe the wife will carry out an action in the future, but he can believe or fear this for good or bad reasons.

 
The latter part of this verse gives specific steps that a husband can take if the wife is "disloyal", or shows "ill-conduct" or things along those lines.

You have added the crucial word "is" there. "Is disloyal". That is not what is said in the quote as mentioned above.

Step 1: Verbal advice and or admonition.  If this still doesn't solve the issues, you move on to step 2.

Ok so the wife hasn't necessarily actually done anything at this stage, the husband only has to have formed an idea in his mind of some form of future disloyalty or ill conduct, but he can admonish his wife over it, hopefully in the milder interpretation of that word.

Step 2: This is quite clear, sleep in separate rooms. It may not mean like much, but it's a sign that things starting to get difficult in the marriage. If this step also doesn't solve the issues, you move on to step 3.

After being admonished for something she may or may not have thought of doing she is probably pleased by step 2, so fine.

Step 3: And beat them .This has been one of the most analysed verse in the Quran, especially the context of the word "beat. The Arabic word "dharb" (translated here as beat or strike) has two meanings; strike and divide (separate) and has been interpreted in two ways.

Some of the scholars accept the use of "dharb" as meaning "separate". They've considered that the word "dharb" was used in another verse to describe the dividing of the Red Sea (in the story of Moses). In this context, they understand this 3rd step to mean "separate from her". Considering the next verse directly following this one (4.35) discusses the use of arbiters from each family as a final step to prevent divorce, this understanding of "dharb" to mean "separate" makes sense.

Additionally, some of the scholars accept the use of "dharb" as "strike". They've considerd that the word "dharb" has been used several times in the Quran in the context of  a"strike or beat", such as in the in the story of Lot, when (I'll keep a long story short) he was upset and in a fit of anger promised to beat his wife (spur of the moment, reaction), and immediately rejected the thought. But because he was worried about breaking a promise (whilst also knowing he wasn't allowed to beat his wife) he picked up some grass with his fingers and lightly "struck/bea t" (dharb) his wife. This latter use of the word "dharb" is what has become understood to mean "beat or lightly beat". Especially when taking another hadeeth into account that stated "do not make a mark on your wife" (i.e via violence). So this intepretation considers this action as "symbolic" as opposed to physical. If you wife doesn't heed you, inspite of steps 1-2, it stands to reason she won't heed you if you "lightly" strike her with grass or cloth.

The version of this passage you have provided has the word "lightly" added after beat. It makes far more sense that this is with regard to a physical action of hitting rather than with a separation.

The following passage that discusses this would still be relevant as it may well be the next step in the story anyway.

It doesn't matter to me what level of force is used, it is completely unacceptable to lay hands on your wife in an attempt to control her, make her obedient to you, or to prevent some act you think she might commit that will offend you. It is an entirely immoral instruction. It is immoral if she has actually done something, but as mentioned before, and I stand by it,  it can be a punishment for thoughtcrime alone.

It's important to note that a wife does not, in any circumstance, have a religious oblication to accept a beating , instead she can ask for, and get, a divorce at any time in this situation. Considering she can get a divorce, especially on the grounds of being beaten, it stands to reason that it cannot be the right of a husband to beat his wife as an attempt to solve an issue .

Whichever interpertation is used, both sides agree that physical violence to a wife is unaccepted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think all that this really demonstrates is that the scriptures are incredibly contradictory.

Also the fact that it is possible to get a divorce doesn't mean it is at all an easy process for a woman to go through.

4)but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).
 

Pretty much, if the issue is resolved, move on. All past faults are forgiven and forgotten, and you shouldn't bring up past faults in future arguments

So issue being resolved in this case would be if she has demonstrated, to the husband's satisfaction, that he has his wife under his control .   




As you can no doubt tell I am not convinced that the explanations given make the instructions any more moral, but thanks for your time in providing the information Doc 

[Corkboy]

This may be of some comfort to Doc. From the more religious of the US political parties...

Republicans really don’t like atheists and Muslims.

[BoRed]

Sorry for interjecting but I would answer yes to those questions. I have asked Catholics if they still give money to their child abusing priests or kiss the rings of their crime occluding bishops. I have asked American bible bashers to accept responsibility for Ugandan gay haters. I regularly ridicule the likes of Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann for their paleolithic views on "gay conversion therapy" and their insistence that their God put fossil fuels there for white Christians to use. If you're implying that I am solely an Islam basher, you're wrong.

I have no doubts that you would, which is why I only asked yorky. In fact, if I'm totally honest, I did a lot of this in my younger days, but it was always with the sole purpose of entertaining myself and pissing others off. And, as you say, it could be considered both baiting and bashing. I've never done it to really discuss, learn or even debate.

The topic of Fundamentalist Christians and also modern day Evangelicalism have been discussed in quite a few threads including issues to do with their attitudes to Gay members of society, as well as the situation in Uganda.

I didn't say these issues weren't discussed, nor did I say that those who hold these views weren't challenged on them. I said that those "in the same tent" that don't hold these views are not held responsible nor asked to either explain them or considered to have an obligation to intervene, which seems to be the case here.

If the Doc agrees with me that the enterprise of 'political Islam' (ie the desire to create a society in the image of the Koran) is flawed then we have nothing else of interest to argue about. We can agree that religion is a private matter that is best kept out of politics altogether.

I think he's made that plain a number of times, yet you keep on arguing.

In fact, in your very next sentence ...

If Christians in this country had sympathy with fundamentalist Christians abroad who wish to bring theology right back into the centre of politics I'd be asking the same question of them too.

... you seem to imply that he has sympathy with Islamists, when he has done nothing but denounce them.

[Corkboy]

I have no doubts that you would, which is why I only asked yorky. In fact, if I'm totally honest, I did a lot of this in my younger days, but it was always with the sole purpose of entertaining myself and pissing others off. And, as you say, it could be considered both baiting and bashing. I've never done it to really discuss, learn or even debate.

I know what you mean. I don't get involved in these things to learn about any religion but I do want to learn about the why, why people believe, how they can blind themselves to the contradictions, how they can place such tremendous importance in demonstrably flimsy evidence.

The other thing I should say is as follows. I don't discuss religion with people who don't want to discuss it. My mother is very religious, I've long since stopped talking to her about it because she doesn't want to. I just met a Muslim friend of mine a while ago, offered him a sweet and he refused because it was Ramadan. I then told him a story I had read about ice cream trucks operating through the night for Ramadan in Dearborn, Michigan. We wouldn't ever discuss the nuts and bolts of his religion, he has never intimated that he wants to and I would respect that wish.

Anyone who joins in a discussion thread like this, on the other hand, is fair game.

[Yorkykopite]

I think he's made that plain a number of times, yet you keep on arguing.

I have no idea what the Doc feels about the idea of the Koran being a good basis on which to build a modern State. Nor have you. Maybe he'll tell us.

[electricghost]

Surely 'I just don't know' is a third option (the option that you yourself claim to be the most intellectually sensible option)

No that deals with knowledge, as you mention in the first instance. If you say you do not know then you are agnostic, which is the most intellectually honest position as there is no good mechanism we have to get the stage where you can call it knowledge.  I am happy to label myself as an agnostic atheist.

But even that is not so simple. There must be a scale where at one end you have people who absolutely believe in a god, whilst at the other there's people who are adamant there isn't a god.

If you had a scale such as this it wouldn't make any sense as in the middle there would be a point where you are neither believing or not believing, which is an absurd prospect as you must do one or the other on any claim. To say "I don't know" isn't an option as it is addressing a different question to the one posed.

Neither can be factually correct with the level of evidence we have. However, it is the most empirically logical position to conclude that it is highly probable there is no such thing as a god. But, given one cannot know this for certain, it is folly to claim that without doubt there is no god. Therefore, pure & absolute atheism is not a sensible position to take. My own position is pretty much what Dawkins' is (or what he claims it is in The God Delusion), and that is that I'm 99% along the scale toward the 'god doesn't exist' end.

By pure and absolute atheism I think you mean gnostic atheism, the claim of knowledge again, not belief. Belief comes first, as knowledge is a sub set of belief, and on the question of believing something its an either or, a true dichotomy as you cannot simultaneously believe and not believe something. So once someone is in a position of holding a belief or not holding a belief then there can be a scale to determine the strength or confidence of this belief until the claim of knowledge can be reached at the end of the scale.

The best analogy I have come across to explain the beliefs of theism/atheism is the jar of sweets.

Imagine a big jar full of sweets that nobody has counted how many are in it. The theist position(God exists) is equivalent of claiming that there is an odd number in there. The atheist position (default) is to say I reject that claim as you cannot demonstrate its true. What the atheist is NOT saying is that the jar has an even number in it (no God exists).

The atheist can of course then make that claim if they wish but it no longer is the default position as a positive claim has been made, which like the theist claim, carries a burden of proof.

And then, on top of all this, those that do believe in the existence of 'a god' need to then decide which of the conflicting/sometimes overlapping organised religions is the correct one.

Indeed 

[Bob Sacamano]

You're forgetting the great Bob Sacamano, who felt that no thread couldn't be improved with a lashing of impenetrable Biblical "scholarship".

I wonder, and not a mean way hopefully, whether Bob would have more in agreement with Doc Red than with me.

Yes, it's a terrible shame that I generally prefer to learn about Christianity (or at least its history) from the people who have devoted their lives and careers to studying it, and even worse that I suggest Fundamentalism doesn't speak for every Christian.

Yorky I think (and not that anyone cares what I think) diagnosed the heart of the disagreement here. For him, the grand metaphysical narratives espoused by the bible and the Koran are clearly false. Allah does not exist. Christ was not raised from the dead. The Enlightenment finally put those silly myths to rest. If there is a God, he is ineffectual and of the Deist variety, and hence irrelevant.

Progress will therefore be achieved by embracing humanism and democracy. Civilization can be good without believing in sky daddies, and by casting out the last vestiges of religiously motivated politics, society will be less violent and more tolerant. Christianity and Islam may retain some cultural and artistic value, but they are not to be granted any political influence.

Indeed, there is no point in quibbling over alternative interpretations of ancient texts. Humanism and democracy can replicate all of the best attributes of religion without all the metaphysical baggage.

If I've understood the argument correctly, then I'm not sure the conclusion follows from the premises.

[BoRed]

The other thing I should say is as follows. I don't discuss religion with people who don't want to discuss it. My mother is very religious, I've long since stopped talking to her about it because she doesn't want to. I just met a Muslim friend of mine a while ago, offered him a sweet and he refused because it was Ramadan. I then told him a story I had read about ice cream trucks operating through the night for Ramadan in Dearborn, Michigan. We wouldn't ever discuss the nuts and bolts of his religion, he has never intimated that he wants to and I would respect that wish.

That's fair enough in a private conversation, but it doesn't quite work on here. There have already been occasions where Doc took a while to answer, and you immediately pounced. If he, at any point, said "I don't want to talk about it", it would almost certainly be interpreted as conceding defeat in a debate.

I have no idea what the Doc feels about the idea of the Koran being a good basis on which to build a modern State. Nor have you. Maybe he'll tell us.

I thought he said "to you your religion, to me mine", or words to that effect. In any case, he never expressed dissatisfaction with the society (or state) he lives in, nor an intention to rebuild it. Sounds pretty conclusive to me, to be honest.

[Hazell]

Some excellent posts in here, Doc Red.

[Doc Red]

I think trying to interpret aspects of an ideology that one doesn't believe in (or has doubts towards), and presenting that interpretation as THE intended interpretation of the ideology, or AN interpretation of the ideology is really a slippery slope of analysis. We interpret things through the prisms of our ideologies and our personal bias.  In a way, we've already decided before we've even decided. You can never really see something from "someone else's point of view" if your ideologies are completely opposite (or if they conflict).  That's why I'm more comfortable understanding the interpretations of ideologies as per the opinions of those that strongly believe, and are deeply versed, in it. I can't use my own interpretation and consider that as THE interpetation because I can freely admit I have a bias.

Whether an ideology is more, or less, correct (or logical) than another is considered a deeply personal opinion. Ideologies are not quantitative, and as such, very difficult to prove or disprove via hypothesis either way. The likes of Cork and Yorky are trying to provide a narrative (and apparently, not just on this thread, but in other threads that discuss religion) in an attempt to "prove" the hypothesis that supports their ideology (by attempting to "disproving" other hypothesis). 

If this was a debate with the scientific context, there wouldn't be a problem with this. We simply present our hypothesis, the facts that support it, explain how we derived our data and information that built up to our conclusion, and leave it open for the floor to discuss. Considering the subject of religion can't be tied down scientifically, and there aren't any hard facts that can support a hypothesis (for anyone).

It therefore  stands to reason that presenting interpretations of texts/scrolls/verses of an ideology that we ourself disagree with, as per our understanding of the interpretation, and  passing that of as the interpretation the ideology is attempting to teach, is a flawed argument. Because we've used opinions instead of facts. Because we've processed actions and information via our own ideologies.  And because regardless of how intelligent, moral, and tolerant we are, we're inherently biased to our own ideologies.

If I've understood the argument correctly, then I'm not sure the conclusion follows from the premises.

Pretty much that.
On on that note, I'll be exiting this thread

[Corkboy]

That's fair enough in a private conversation, but it doesn't quite work on here. There have already been occasions where Doc took a while to answer, and you immediately pounced.

Once. He didn't post for a day and I made one comment. Doc said he was a busy man, working and family man. So am I. We both post when it suits us.

If he, at any point, said "I don't want to talk about it", it would almost certainly be interpreted as conceding defeat in a debate.

He did, at one point.

I've explained my general reluctance to abide by your "questioning" a couple of posts up. It's the stance I have for the time being.

I didn't interpret it as defeat. You seem to be inching towards telling me I'm bullying him. Yet, when I ask for people to tell me if my questions are unfair, there isn't a peep. This is a thread for adults and it's about touchy subjects. No room for the overly sensitive. There a reason why most reasonable adults know not to discuss religion or politics in polite society (unless everyone agrees with each other) but this is a internet discussion thread so....

[Devon Red]

Interesting post. So following this path of reasoning I take it that we agree religion is best confined to the personal space and not the public? In other words, are you also essentially a secularist? If I'm understanding you correctly then ones own ideology (religious ideology to be specific) is only truly understood by the individual, therefore the individual cannot expect anyone else to live by these personal guidelines.

[Corkboy]

Whether an ideology is more, or less, correct (or logical) than another is considered a deeply personal opinion. Ideologies are not quantitative, and as such, very difficult to prove or disprove via hypothesis either way. The likes of Cork and Yorky are trying to provide a narrative (and apparently, not just on this thread, but in other threads that discuss religion) in an attempt to "prove" the hypothesis that supports their ideology (by attempting to "disproving" other hypothesis). 

As to the rest of it, here's a clue. You have an ideology. I don't, not unless the meaning of ideology just got way broader. But the idea that you think rational analysis and reasoned argument is "providing a narrative"? You're clogging up the thread with 1500 year old half heard fireside tales and I'm constructing a narrative? The absence of an ideology is not an ideology, and the rejection of fiction is not a narrative and falsifying a hypothesis is not itself a hypothesis. Up is indeed up and down is down.

On on that note, I'll be exiting this thread

Don't forget the Fave LFC Centre Half thread.

[Corkboy]

The version of this passage you have provided has the word "lightly" added after beat. It makes far more sense that this is with regard to a physical action of hitting rather than with a separation.

[TepidT2O]

These kind of rules come form Hadith (iirc).

There is no historical link between Hadith and Muhammed, so it is surprising how much credence some give to them.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

As to the rest of it, here's a clue. You have an ideology. I don't, not unless the meaning of ideology just got way broader. But the idea that you think rational analysis and reasoned argument is "providing a narrative"? You're clogging up the thread with 1500 year old half heard fireside tales and I'm constructing a narrative? The absence of an ideology is not an ideology, and the rejection of fiction is not a narrative and falsifying a hypothesis is not itself a hypothesis. Up is indeed up and down is down.

Perhaps not an ideology but an axe to grind.  For sure. 

[Corkboy]

Perhaps not an ideology but an axe to grind.  For sure. 

I prefer "hobby horse", thank you very much.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

I prefer "hobby horse", thank you very much.

A hobby horse hitched to a cart full of axe grinding equipment

[vagabond]

As to the rest of it, here's a clue. You have an ideology. I don't, not unless the meaning of ideology just got way broader. But the idea that you think rational analysis and reasoned argument is "providing a narrative"? You're clogging up the thread with 1500 year old half heard fireside tales and I'm constructing a narrative? The absence of an ideology is not an ideology, and the rejection of fiction is not a narrative and falsifying a hypothesis is not itself a hypothesis. Up is indeed up and down is down.

How are you defining ideology?

[The Fletcher Memorial]

How are you defining ideology?

A belief based upon the unproven.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

A belief based upon the unproven.

All beliefs are unproven. Otherwise they would be facts.

[TepidT2O]

All beliefs are unproven. Otherwise they would be facts.

depends what you mean by proven ......

The only real proof is a mathematical proof....  Based on that most facts are just beliefs.

[Devon Red]

A belief based upon the unproven.

An ideology is simply a set of beliefs, ideally consistent (but most peoples aren't) which guide our approach to one specific sphere; so a political ideology would relate to the old left-right axis for example. A religious ideology is just a set of religious beliefs that the individual subscribes to.

It's totally possible (I would say preferable) for an ideology to be based on proven facts, for example someone with an environmentalist ideology would point to scientific evidence as a rational basis for their ideology. But most people, perhaps everyone, hold beliefs which don't have a factual basis in order to fill in the gaps of knowledge or understanding.

When Corkyboy says that he doesn't have an ideology I'm assuming he means a religious ideology, as he certainly holds ideologies in other areas. Some people would argue that he also holds a religious ideology, but he might argue that (sorry Corkyboy for putting words in your mouth) a total rejection of religion is not an ideology, it's a dismissal of that entire sphere.

EDIT: So back to Islamism; this is an ideology which combines the religious, political and social.

[Sir Harvest Fields]

Surely beliefs are just a mindset? I believe in Heaven and Hell, i just see them as a state of mind. I could call them Lidl and Harrods if i liked i guess.

[Yorkykopite]

These kind of rules come form Hadith (iirc).

There is no historical link between Hadith and Muhammed, so it is surprising how much credence some give to them.

I don't think you did remember correctly.

What this religious expert is saying here is pretty much what the Koran says in verse 4:34 which we were all arguing about above (admonish, separate then beat your wife for potential or actual disobedience). I agree with you that the hadiths were composed 200 years or so after Mohammed had died and therefore "it is surprising how much credence some give to them"*. But you're not actually helping the Doc here since he needs the hadiths to rescue verses like 4.34 from the obscenities they are. If you remember, with the help of the hadiths, the Doc was able to say that this verse meant no more than stroke your wife with a piece of grass.

I thought (the Doc) said "to you your religion, to me mine", or words to that effect. In any case, he never expressed dissatisfaction with the society (or state) he lives in, nor an intention to rebuild it. Sounds pretty conclusive to me, to be honest.

You are now becoming the Doc's hadith writer! Better to look at what he actually said than make stuff up yourself and then pronounce that it "sounds pretty conclusive to me".

The Doc abjured violence, he was happy that his neighbour worshipped a falling stone if that's what he wanted, at least in this country. But if he has expressed any opinion on the Islamist objective of building a state and society in the image of the Koran - which is what I was talking about - then I must have missed it. I'd be absolutely delighted of course if he came out and said that such an objective is foolhardy and dangerous.

*Although an atheist would say no more surprising than the credence they give to the Koran itself which, after all, was taken down verbatim from an angel.

[Corkboy]

You're right, I missed that earlier.

Additionally, some of the scholars accept the use of "dharb" as "strike". They've considerd that the word "dharb" has been used several times in the Quran in the context of  a"strike or beat", such as in the in the story of Lot, when (I'll keep a long story short) he was upset and in a fit of anger promised to beat his wife (spur of the moment, reaction), and immediately rejected the thought. But because he was worried about breaking a promise (whilst also knowing he wasn't allowed to beat his wife) he picked up some grass with his fingers and lightly "struck/bea t" (dharb) his wife. This latter use of the word "dharb" is what has become understood to mean "beat or lightly beat". Especially when taking another hadeeth into account that stated "do not make a mark on your wife" (i.e via violence). So this intepretation considers this action as "symbolic" as opposed to physical. If you wife doesn't heed you, in spite of steps 1-2, it stands to reason she won't heed you if you "lightly" strike her with grass or cloth.

With his fingers, no less. If it had been with his hands or arms, it might have been a fearful amount of grass, grass that could certainly, if not maim or injure, exacerbate a pre-existing susceptibility to hay fever. But with his fingers? Why, it's playful, almost erotic.

It isn't. It's disgusting, and it's a coward's justification for a barbaric act. The fact that a religion has rules on how to beat your wife is bad enough but trying to explain it away as trivial or symbolic is worse.

[Haemoglobin]

^ To be fair, I think what he was getting at is that it was not meant to be an actual violent act, but to 'shame' the miscreant ladyfriend.

Guess it's preferable to the whole village having a bukkake party on her face (again, depending on the woman in question, this may not be an effective punishment but rather a well-earned reward).

[Yorkykopite]

An attempt in Brummie schools to impose hardline Sunni agenda on kids

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jul/17/leaked-report-aggressive-islamist-agenda-birmingham-schools

Clarke's report is backed up by graphic evidence, including social media exchanges between senior staff, and disagrees with the council's previously expressed view, saying the offending ideology "manifests itself as the imposition of an aggressively separatist and intolerant agenda incompatible with full participation in a plural secular democracy".

"Rejecting not only the secular and other religions, but also other strains of Islamic belief, it goes beyond the kind of social conservatism practiced in some faith schools which may be consistent with universal human rights and respectful of other communities. It appears to be a deliberate attempt to convert secular state schools into exclusive faith schools in all but name."

Clarke said that he neither sought nor found evidence of terrorism, but there was "very clear evidence that young people are being encouraged to accept unquestionably a particular hardline strand of Sunni Islam that raises concerns about their vulnerability to radicalisation in the future".

[Corkboy]

Clarke said that he neither sought nor found evidence of terrorism, but there was "very clear evidence that young people are being encouraged to accept unquestionably a particular hardline strand of Sunni Islam that raises concerns about their vulnerability to radicalisation in the future".

To the Hadiths!

[KUNGFUDANCER]

^ To be fair, I think what he was getting at is that it was not meant to be an actual violent act, but to 'shame' the miscreant ladyfriend.

Guess it's preferable to the whole village having a bukkake party on her face (again, depending on the woman in question, this may not be an effective punishment but rather a well-earned reward).

Maybe until just 70 years ago it was mostly acceptable even in western countries to hit your wife. So we can fairly guess what translation of beating your wife had been in use since quran was written.

[SamAteTheRedAcid]

Maybe until just 70 years ago it was mostly acceptable even in western countries to hit your wife. So we can fairly guess what translation of beating your wife had been in use since quran was written.

*resists urge to reference popular chant at derby games when we're smashing the bitters*

[jooneyisdagod]

DocRed, I'll first apologise since living in a different part of the world doesn't allow me to return posts in a timely fashion sometimes.

You posted several long and detailed posts about how the most widely used translation of the Quran by Yusuf Ali didn't actually say the things that most people like us has misinterpreted. For example, the example of the wife-beating. While to us it seems like a barbaric thing to do, you explained that it had nothing to do with wife-beating at all. Instead, it was simply a case of taking a bit of grass and hitting the woman's buttocks lightly. I hear wife-beaters are now beginning to use bamboo sticks to belt their wives and dismissing it as a gentle stroking of their buttocks with a bit of grass to embarrass them.

But I digress. The point I really wanted to make was that each translation it appears is actually an interpretation. I found numerous other translations including 'official' ones handed out by the Saudi government which has come under sharp criticism from Western muslims. So it does seem a bit disingenuous to suggest that according to the one translation/interpretation that you follow, the Islamists' own interpretation is a misinterpretation and therefore their actions have nothing to do with the Quran when the Islamists might be using an entirely different translation/interpretation. Now, until and unless there is an objective measure for which one is the most accurate translation/interpretation, there is simply no way you can suggest that the version they use is inaccurate and the version you use is correct. For the record, I found out that the translation used in academic circles is neither the one presented by the Saudi government nor the Yusuf Ali translation that you posted bits and pieces from. The academic circles prefer using 'The Koran interpreted' by Arthur Arberry which agrees with what I've stated above that the Quran can only be interpreted and not translated.

The point I'm getting at is that there are numerous interpretations of the Quran. Some of these lend directly towards violent acts whether be it in international terrorism or towards women. The translations/interpretations seem to hinge on the person writing it as much as anything. Yusuf Ali being a highly educated man probably knowingly or unknowingly left his own footprints on his translation. The Saudi government with markedly different views on several matters seems to have left their own footprints on their official translation/interpretation. To cut a long story short, it all comes down to source material in that case. There seems to be enough ambiguity about some of the things that are said in there so that an Islamist can easily use the Quran as the fundamental basis and reason behind some despicable actions.

I also noted that you raised a parallel with a constitution earlier that I wanted to counter. Sure, a man might read some complex idea in the constitution and use the law to kill people and cause a lot of harm. But if that happens even once, there is a system whereby elected representatives of the people can sit together and discuss rationally to address this loophole and pass a constitutional amendment. None of that will happen with the Quran. None of that CAN happen with the Quran. 5 years down the line, new laws will be added, constitutions around the world will be amended and this will continue on as long as the democratic principles continue. If you picked up the Quran in its original arabic form, the words would still be the same. The interpretations would have varied greatly of course but the original would remain the same. That is a huge problem.

[jooneyisdagod]

You're right, I missed that earlier.

With his fingers, no less. If it had been with his hands or arms, it might have been a fearful amount of grass, grass that could certainly, if not maim or injure, exacerbate a pre-existing susceptibility to hay fever. But with his fingers? Why, it's playful, almost erotic.

It isn't. It's disgusting, and it's a coward's justification for a barbaric act. The fact that a religion has rules on how to beat your wife is bad enough but trying to explain it away as trivial or symbolic is worse.

Bamboo is a grass too Corkbboy. And gently is a subjective term. One man's gentle might consist of a wild swing while another man's gentle is a caress. In other words, even accepting that all the book says is that a man has the right to gentle caress his wife with a bit of grass, it could easily be an absolute thump with a stick made out of bamboo. I didn't see any notes about how the grass has to be unprocessed for example. And I didn't see any definition of gentle in terms of the amount of force applied. So yeah, feel free to cane the bitches and teach them some respect.

Frankly, I find the thought that someone has to embarrass women into 'obeying' a disgusting thought.

[Doc Red]

You've argued some really great points. Just one key issue though, the Arthur Arberry translation is not the accepted translation used in the Islamic academic circles, it really is Yusuf Islam's translations that are used. I can quite comfortably say that if you visit the nearest Mosque in your region and ask for an English translation of the Quran, they'll offer you a Yusuf Islam translation. In Western acadamies they used a translation via the likes of Pickthall (probably right up until the 70s), but they've moved on from then, and it may be they use Arberry's translation at this moment.

Back to on topic.
There are statements in the Quran (and Islam in general) that are unanimously agreed on as being understood as meaning "X", and then there are others that allow for different interpretations. I don't always want to be discussing the jurisprudence contained within Islam as per the subject of wife beating, but maybe one last example. Whereas there is an unanimous understanding that you can't leave a mark on your wife, and a wife isn't obligated to "accept" a beating (she's not more religious if she puts up with an abusive husband as opposed to divorcing him), the issue becomes about the interpretation of the word "dharb".  I mentioned that "dharb" has two meanings "strike" or "separate" as the word can mean both actions.

If you follow the premise that "dharb" means "strike", you can interpret the verse as meaning "strike gently-but without leaving a mark" or "as a symbolic gesture". If you follow the premise that "dharb" means "separate", than you can interpret that as sign that both parties should take a "break" from one another (the next verse discusses intervention via a third party, such as Imam, or family members from both sides).

Note that neither of the above interpretations allow for physical abuse. Additionally, I never mentioned the action of using "grass" as an interpretation of that verse. The story of Prophet Lot and his action is used as an additional proof that "dharb" does not mean a physical blow, specifically by those that follow the hypothesis that the word means "strike" and not "separate". There is no hypothesis that states wife beating is acceptable as long as you use grass. I've never stated that, and it's just a case of people trying to twist the main points that I've raised.

The verses quoted are important because it provides a discussion on the subject of wife abuse within Islamic communities. Wife abuse has always been in play throughout all societies, and is still active in today's era. Scandinavian countries, for example, are among the countries at the forefront of Women Rights in the world, yet they have the highest rate of domestic abuse in Europe. There is far more emphasis in handing down the punishment than there is in explaining "how do we resolve these conflicts without reaching the stage of violence". What this verse helps to provide is a start for conflict resolution, with the following verse adding the next stage of conflict resolution (via an intervention).

Some posters are arguing that the word "fear" pretty much means "guesses", or comes to a conclusion "without proof", but again, I would argue that they interpret it that way because of their preconcieved opinions (or bias) on the subject, as opposed to looking at the verse from a "neutral" angle. Quite frankly, if a husband decides to accuse his wife of something (without caring to have proof) and willfully ignores ALL her counter claims and defences, whilst following all the steps mentioned above simply for spite (or to punish her), than I'd argue he ALREADY has his own agenda in play (and is not concerned about being deeply religious). Thankfully, the verse DIRECTLY following this one, discusses intervention (the first stage of which is to bring family members from both sides), in which case he'll get found out.

Finally, if a man has an abusive personality, the above verse probably isn't going to stop him. Physical abuse is the way he solves problems, and words in a text aren't going to stop him if he's already decided on his actions. He'll probably even use confirmation bias to justify beating his wife senseless, but that wouldn't be the stance of his local Imam, or the Islamic academic community as a whole. Additionally, if someone outside of Islam was to read the above verse and interpret it as the Quran granting "permission for a Muslim man to physically abuse his wife" than would be their opinion. But the Islamic community (academic or otherwise) wouldn't be agreeing with you. One might even consider it as a form of confirmation bias on your part.

[Doc Red]

I also noted that you raised a parallel with a constitution earlier that I wanted to counter. Sure, a man might read some complex idea in the constitution and use the law to kill people and cause a lot of harm. But if that happens even once, there is a system whereby elected representatives of the people can sit together and discuss rationally to address this loophole and pass a constitutional amendment. None of that will happen with the Quran. None of that CAN happen with the Quran. 5 years down the line, new laws will be added, constitutions around the world will be amended and this will continue on as long as the democratic principles continue. If you picked up the Quran in its original arabic form, the words would still be the same. The interpretations would have varied greatly of course but the original would remain the same. That is a huge problem.

Firstly, if it did happen once, they wouldn't be dicussing ammendments in congress/senate/ or the Supreme courts. They would simply consider it a misinterpretation of the constitution and move on. Not everytime a person makes a defence as per what he considers as his constitutional rights, and his defense is subsequently rejected, will the constitution be ammended. And it would be a gross misrepresentation of the American Constitution, if I decided to claim that his misinterpretation of the constitution is just another interpretation of the constitution.

Secondly, lot of the actions carried out by extremist religious fanatics has been condemmed by Muslims all over the world, as well as Islamic Religious institutions and academics. I'm not in the minority in stating that the actions of groups like ISIS amounts to a gross misinterpretation (and plenty of cherry picking) of the Quranic verses. And the general rulings among the Islamic Religious institutions (among the main scholars) is almost akin to a form of ammendments and clarification of the Islamic constitution. That is why I mentioned in an earlier post, that it wasn't my place, or your place, to determine what the accepted interpretation of a verse is as per our opinions. The accepted interpretation (or choice of interpretations) has already been discussed and debated among the scholars whom have far more knowledge and understanding of the subject than the average person.

It's only for me to make a decision on whether I want to follow an action or not (as per the accepted rulings), and if so,which of the accepted interpretations I chose to follow, and how I choose to follow it. The "want" concerns refusing to do things such as "I refuse to believe that there were Prophets (such as Jesus, Moses, etc)", which is considered as a mandatory part of Islam. The "which" concerns the choice of actions such as "do I pray with my hands clasped at the chest or at the naval". The "how" is a case of Muslims following the same interpretation but at various degrees i.e ultra conservative, conservative, moderate, liberal (and yes, I hated having to use that grading classification ).

And finally, I am not a scholar or expert on Islam. So whether you say it in jest, or otherwise, kindly refrain from tagging me with that distinction.

[Corkboy]

Welcome back, Doc.



You are of course right when you say domestic abuse isn't solely a Muslim thing, as the pic above shows. I'm guessing 1930s America?

The difference is this. There is no mention of God in the above quotes, and that's rather important because it means that you can argue with them, as people obviously did over time, as those views are no longer acceptable. These men were reasoned with, and their sons and their sons until this sort of cowardly bullshit was beaten down. But when you've got men with the Supreme Defence, their holy book, well they can't be reasoned with. If the rules have been the same for 1,500 years, who are modern men to change them? The only way for a gentle Muslim to defend it is to indulge in the kind of highly fanciful interpretation that you do, whipping gently with grass which might be bamboo and nonsense like that.

Jooney hit the nail on the head. Constitutions and laws are designed to change but if a religion changes, it undermines itself fundamentally. If it could be wrong once....

Incidentally, in the course of my reading on apostasy, I came across the same defence several times in Muslim writings. Harsh penalties such as death are apparently justified because although one person thinking for themselves is not in itself a huge crime, the effect of that on the society around him is what must be guarded against. If one guy starts thinking like that, it could spread and then where would we be? Seriously. The justification for apostasy being a capital offence is literally that it might give the game away.

[24/7]

Ziggy great post. As an avowed atheist I admit to having antipathy in equal measure to all religions but your point about reasoning and interpretation hit the nail on the head. Education is key which is also why I advocate secular education that is as all-encompassing as possible. If however religions insist on educating their own, they should and I am told often do pull people up on using religion as a justification for behaviour that is abhorrent by any reasonable and human definition. Bashing one religion over another is counter productive and I am enjoying reading some quality contributions in this thread.