"The Rod for the Disobedient" - Wife Beating in Islam

reply to post by Kali74


Kali, I understand your point, but my point was more that it is against the law in the US. It was the last time I checked anyways. So if it's against the law it cannot be considered acceptable right? It doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
Amazingly, passing laws hasn't stopped it has it?

reply to post by logical7


Actually, Wildtimes is correct on this historic thing about the conquest of Islam and the Crusades. The Moorish invasion of Spain was in 711 and the Crusades came after.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

You sure it's not acceptable in the US?

Christian Domestic Discipline (Huffington Post)

It claims to be consensual and I'm sure some of it is but I'm also sure some of it is not. Many Islamic women also consent to being submissive to their husbands including physical 'discipline'. Wife/Girlfriend beating sadly isn't that rare at all even without religious dogmas in place.

Christianity is no different than Islam. It has it's peaceful moderate worshippers and it's extremists, just like Islam. There's gender equality in both and male dominance in both. The comparisons go on and on...

And yet your own citation has this:

"This is a horrifying trend -- bizarre, twisted, unbiblical and un-Christian," Fischer, a former pastor, said in an email. "Christian husbands are taught to lay down their lives for their wives (Ephesians 5:25) and to treat them with honor as fellow-heirs of the gift of eternal life (1 Peter 3:7)."

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Again, your post is another comparison between Christianity and Islam in order to attack Christians.
I have never said I support such behavior. Leave it to Huffpo to find the most atypical thing and represent it as common practice. Can you not see how you actually support my claim that Progressives bash Christians while supporting Islam in their strange pursuit of politically correct "tolerance"? We could go on all day long like this, and I could cite the Oprah Winfrey show where it was exposed that Hindu men often burn their wives in the kitchen for not having a big enough dowry. Do you support that just because it's done in another country?
However, my claim is correct that it is the UN who is policing the cultures in other places. They seem to pick and choose what to police though. I mean they do overlook the One Child Policy in China as it seems to gel with their depopulation agenda. Although I do think their preferred method is giving financial assistance to couples who have fewer children.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

I think maybe you are not correct, as I have seen Progressives here on this very site defending Sharia Law.

And did these people self-identify themselves as 'Progressives' (love that capital P!), or did you simply decide the label fitted and slap it on them? Is Progressive a religion like Christian, or a political affiliation like Republican? Or is it just someone who happens to disagree with the infallibly righteous views of Ms. ThirdEyeOfHorus?

In their rush to appear tolerant of other cultures, they end up defending something they supposedly fought against in the last century.

How hard is it for you to understand that fighting cruelty and injustice in one's own society are not the same thing as interfering in a culture you do not belong to or understand?

If you don't like wife-beating, or female circumcision or whatever it is, there is something you can do about it, even when it occurs in a culture not your own. You can devote your own time and/or money to the many international efforts to abolish these wrongs through education and diplomatic pressure, or to help their victims find care, support and justice. Many such efforts are led or supported by the United Nations, but if you're one of those paranoiacs who thinks the UN is an Illuminati world-domination scheme or something equally absurd, there are plenty of efforts run by other organisations, private individuals, charities and even governments.

But the Islam-haters on this thread won't do that, will they, because they don't actually give a damn how many wives are beaten in Saudi Arabia or anywhere else. All they really care about is the pleasure of ventilating their hatred of Muslims on internet forums like this behind the cowardly anonymity of false names and avatars. What grand moral examplars they make of themselves, to be sure.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

I see you have now changed your tune and are pretending only to be concerned with wife-beating in America. Well, you're off topic and irrelevant in that case, because this thread is about a video concerning wife-beating that ran on Saudi Arabian television recently, and which is actually trying to reduce violence against women in that country. It has absolutely bug-all to do with the United States.

I don't recognize the right to beat wives here.

If that is truly the case, then do something for the three million women who are assaulted by their husbands and boyfriends in the United States every year.

The difference here would be that in that video it appears acceptable in that culture, and in America you can go to jail for it.

According to official statistics, three out of four Americans knows a domestic-violence victim. But how many know someone who was convicted as a perpetrator? What does that imply?

On average, 21% of female victims and 10% of male victims of nonfatal partner violence contact an outside agency for assistance. Of those females and males contacting an outside agency, 45% contact a private agency.
(Bureau of Justice Statistics, Intimate Partner Violence in the U.S. 1993-2004, 2006.)

On average, only 70% of nonfatal partner violence is reported to law enforcement. Of those not reporting, 41% of male and 27% of female victims (34% average) stated victimization being a private/personal matter as reason for not reporting, 15% of women feared reprisal, 12% of all victims wished to protect the offender, and 6% of all victims believed police would do nothing.
(Bureau of Justice Statistics, Intimate Partner Violence in the U.S. 1993-2004, 2006.)

The majority of wife-beating Americans don't go to jail for it. They get off scot-free.

Meanwhile, in Saudi Arabia,

Though there is currently no law that punishes a man for beating his wife, the King Khalid Foundation has prepared legislation that would do just that. In fact, it is the pending bill, which would decide the punitive measures abusers could face (a mix of imprisonment, financial restitution and loss of custody), that spurred the [media] campaign to begin with.

Last year, the Shura Council pushed through similar legislation the foundation helped pen protecting the rights of children in abusive situations. Al-Faisal is confident that the drafted legislation will meet with the same level of success.Source

It's a lie and you know it.

Here is what I actually wrote:

Astyanax: Yet some of you approve of doing much worse than that to Muslims, in the name of the values of your culture. You want to go over there and force them to abandon sharia law, to throw their holy book out into the trash.

Did you miss that 'some of you'? In fact, the person wanting to do this was Unity_99. In eight years of membership, I have never told a lie on ATS. I don't need to; the truth always serves me well enough.

Well, I'm not sure if you think that wife beating is just another culture or if you were talking about tasting different foods or a different kind of dress. I happen to like Harissa, but I don't have to accept being beaten. See what I mean?

I am not using the meaning of the word 'culture' in the tabloid sense. What do you think the Koran is if not a cultural artifact? What do you think a patriarchal tradition is if not an element of culture?

I also would like you to cite the particular passage in the Bible that recommends burning witches.

I already did. Pay attention, for heaven's sake!

reply to post by Astyanax

And did these people self-identify themselves as 'Progressives'

Do you really question the ACLU as a Progressive activity? Yes, many of those on the forums here have identified as Progressive in one way or another if not outright. Is McCain Progressive? I think so. Soros funded his Presidential campaign. I doubt there would have been a whole lot of difference if he had won. He is signed on to NDAA and other things. All that is just testimony that the agenda is beyond labels. Current POTUS was first against surveillance of American citizens and now he is somehow for it, and defending it. How do we explain this turnaround? Did POTUS become a Republican or a conservative? Not on your life, because the agenda is a Progressive one whether it is Republican or Democrat.

reply to post by Astyanax

By contrast, intolerance and self-righteous bigotry help nobody.

Wait a minute, aren't you the one bashing two different religions with the same stone, and yet it's Christians who are the bigots....it looks to me more like a secular who hates religion but out of a sense of duty to their fellow politically correct tolerance police someone who defends wife beating because it's in another culture. Did I read your intent wrong?

I'm still waiting for your citation on the witch burning.

I see you have now changed your tune and are pretending only to be concerned with wife-beating in America.

No, I have not changed my tune. I was always against wife beating, regardless of where it happens. The point here being domestic abuse of all kinds is against the law in the States. I never said I supported anyone telling the Saudis or other countries what to do, hence since you appeared to be defending these guys in the video, I cited the UN on gender abuse, then you decided because of that I must be defending the policing of other cultures and to that I replied that it was the UN and the Progressives who are pushing this kind of Totalitarian control. Then Unity 99 decided that I must be representing darkness because I do not support Totalitarian World government, and apparently you agree with Unity, even though at the same time you think I'm a bigot for not accepting the culture of wife beating at face value in a foreign country. You have not followed this at all, and thus I had to recap it for you.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Here's a link you maybe more comfortable with. It's also been FOX, Drudge, Raw Story

Again, your post is another comparison between Christianity and Islam in order to attack Christians.

I don't deal in absolutes like you do and have no interest in attacking anyone, only pointing out that negatives in Islam can be found in another major religion... I cite Christianity because I was raised Christian and am most familiar with it.

A media outlet practising bias probably would not have included quotes of a Christian pastor speaking against it.

Can you not see how you actually support my claim that Progressives bash Christians while supporting Islam in their strange pursuit of politically correct "tolerance"?

No, I don't see it. I see no Christian bashing at all. What I see is bashing one religion while ignore that something considered unacceptable goes on in other religions as well. It has nothing to do with politically correct tolerance, just knowledge.

Do you support that just because it's done in another country?

I don't support violence of any kind from any people, pointing out that much of what Westerners complain about with Islam or try to use to paint it as bad, occurs in the Wests dominant religion as well, Christianity... doesn't automatically lend my support to the matter.

The UN has nothing to do with this. This about religious dogma and my post was pointing out that the particular dogma in question exists outside of Islam. Why single out one above the others? What were you saying about bias again?

reply to post by Kali74


Well, let's talk about absolutes shall we? Or would you rather deal in relatives? Secular humanism is famous for dealing in relative morality.
I merely was trying to point out a dichotomy in the lack of moral absolutes in Progressive thinking. As the OP stated here, the subject was the use of rather large rods in a video. It was not the burning of witches in Salem or eating Halal meat.
In defending the men in the video, Progressives here simply attacked Christians and said Christians are the same. The implication is that Christian men were beating their wives just as much. I wonder how many secular men were represented in those stats?
In America, I don't believe that religion is the main factor in who hits his or her spouse. I believe it is more rooted in uncontrolled anger, alcoholism, and patriarchal tendencies in general. I am not convinced that a completely secular society would do any better. But seculars love to implicate Christians in just about any issue.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


The only thing that bugs me is your constant vilification of "Progressives" - a theme extraordinaire with you. You don't understand what "Progressivism" is - and you fling the word around AS AN INSULT, when you don't understand what it is.

You THINK you do, because of your "source choices" - but you do not. Do you know who Jane Addams was? Hull House in Chicago?

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


I'm pretty sure physical domestic abuse falls outside of every single labeled group on the planet and even gender. But the OP is trying to claim that Islam is a bad religion because they beat their wives. If it's wrong in Islam should it not also be wrong in any other religion, since religion is what we're talking about?

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

Wait a minute, aren't you the one bashing two different religions with the same stone, and yet it's Christians who are the bigots....it looks to me more like a secular who hates religion but out of a sense of duty to their fellow politically correct tolerance police someone who defends wife beating because it's in another culture. Did I read your intent wrong?

Madam, are you feeling quite well? And sober? Where on this thread did I bash anybody's religion? I stated some facts about the Koran and the Bible. The Koran is not Islam, neither is the Bible Christianity – though bibliolatrous fools of both faiths sometimes delude themselves that the map is indeed the territory.

Hate religion? How can you hate something as vast, multifarious and complex as a religion? Actually, how can you hate anything that cannot be personified?

There is much I love about religion: the earthiness and spectacle of Hindu ritual, the architecture of Middle Eastern mosques and European cathedrals, the ethereal wail of a muezzin calling at dawn from a tall minaret, the incense-scented, petal-strewn calm of a Buddhist shrine at lamplighting time. The mental insight and pragmatic understanding encapsulated in Buddhist thought is mind-blowing; it anticipates Western psychology by two thousand years, and much of Western philosophy too.

As for Christianity, it is in essence a noble attempt to transform Platonic idealism and Greek humanism into something comprehensible by simple folk; insofar as it succeeds, it may be the greatest single moral advance ever made by humanity. I have spoken out against cultural imperialism on this thread, but there is no doubt that missionary Christianity has done much good and averted much evil in the world, even though it is far from blameless. By the same token, Islam spread the concept of human equality before God and the law, together with much of the science and philosophy of the Classical period and much else of what we now call civilisation, across the known world between the seventh and tenth centuries AD. Western civilisation would not exist if not for Islam. There was a lot of bloodshed, mutilation, enslavement, etc., associated with its spread, but the same may be said of any religion, even Buddhism; the history of Southeast Asia bears witness to it.

I suspect my attitude towards religion is a little too recondite for you to grasp, but perhaps I can put it in a nutshell for you: religion, to me, is a human creation – it is, in fact, a key aspect of human culture. Hating it is neither possible nor to the point – one may regard some of the actions committed by some in its name as evil and hateful, and deplore those aspects of religion that appear to mandate such actions, but to condemn religion outright for this is to ignore all the good that is done in the name of that same religion, and the comfort so many people take from it.

I'm still waiting for your citation on the witch burning.

Please be so kind as to read the thread. Carefully.

Frankly, madam, you can go on arguing till your wooden horse succumbs to dry rot, but your position is hopeless. I am not here in pursuit of any agenda but that of truth and justice. My purpose is to bear witness to, and expiate upon, the ill-informed, visceral hatred of Islam exhibited by so many on this thread, that they may be properly ashamed of their words and, perhaps, be less hasty in their utterance another time. I am here to turn your eyes into your soul, that you may see there such black and grainèd spots as will not leave their tinct. Be warned.

I thought this was a very nice, reflective piece, not condemning Islam, but not condoning violence.

www.themodernreligion.com...

It's going to be my final point in this thread, since some here are determined to make it an issue of religion whereas I think it is an issue of longstanding in the evolution of man.

reply to post by wildtimes


It's a trend I've noticed of a particular mindset, any politician or politically outspoken person someone with that particular mindset doesn't like, is a progressive... even conservative republicans. Typically these people are authoritarian but only like their brand of authoritarianism or don't even recognize that they are authoritarian, so any authoritarian that doesn't jive with how things should be in their mind, is a progressive.

Then it devolves further into an 'agenda', totally ignoring the fact that any person pushing for controlling others has abandoned their ideology in favor of authoritarianism. Using an example from an earlier post, John Mccain... signed the NDAA 2012, he didn't become a progressive, he became an authoritarian. A progressive that signed the NDAA... became an authoritarian not a more extreme progressive.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
I thought this was a very nice, reflective piece, not condemning Islam, but not condoning violence.

www.themodernreligion.com...

It's going to be my final point in this thread, since some here are determined to make it an issue of religion whereas I think it is an issue of longstanding in the evolution of man.

i read the article and i agree with it. Good to see that at least some people here understand the difference between what Islam teaches and what muslims do!

reply to post by logical7

Chronology of the Crusades
Have a peek at this one to see what people know about "Western Civilization" that you ed me about.

Timeline of "how it happened" from 350 A.D.(Current Era) to 1095.

Before the Crusades: 350 - 1095

Even ThirdEye, who has NO fondness for me at all, backed me up on that one. Thanks, ThirdEye.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

I never said I supported anyone telling the Saudis or other countries what to do, hence since you appeared to be defending these guys in the video, I cited the UN on gender abuse, then you decided because of that I must be defending the policing of other cultures and to that I replied that it was the UN and the Progressives who are pushing this kind of Totalitarian control. Then Unity 99 decided that I must be representing darkness because I do not support Totalitarian World government, and apparently you agree with Unity, even though at the same time you think I'm a bigot for not accepting the culture of wife beating at face value in a foreign country. You have not followed this at all, and thus I had to recap it for you.

Oh dear. What confusion. In fact, you first appeared on this thread citing nothing but a paragraph from a post of mine, and telling me I have a nerve.

Now do please stop wriggling: it's so undignified.

I don't agree with Unity_99. The only point we seem to have in common is that you seem to disagree with both of us. Because of your rather – shall we say, idiosyncratic – way of looking at things, you think people who disagree with you must agree with one another, but this is simply an illusion. For the record, Unity_99 thinks I'm the Devil's disinfo agent.

Now, this business of 'accepting the culture of wife beating at face value in a foreign country'. Perhaps you missed it last time, dear lady, but I did mention that I am actually from a foreign country (somewhere in Asia, as it happens). Notwithstanding that awful black mark against me, I no more 'accept the culture of wife beating' than you do. For a start, wife-beating isn't cultural, it's universal; the cultural aspect in this case concerns the Koran, which is the subject of the video all of us except you are talking about on this thread. I am just as opposed to wife-beating as you are – and with rather more practical effect, because I am a man. I have lived in the Middle East, I have lived in India, I am well aware of how terrible it is to be a woman in patriarchal Asia, and I do not condone one iota of it. I loathe wife-beating and despise men who strike women. I give you no ground when it comes to my condemnation of and opposition to violence agains women.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this thread. Nor is it the reason why I call some of the responses in this thread bigoted. What else could I call them, when their authors are judging the video, pretending to know what it's about, without even having watched it (did you watch it, by the way)? And what else am I to call those who don't even bother with the thread topic at all, but just steam in to sound off about the evils of Islam and the wickedness of Muslim culture? Do you have another word I can use?

As for calling you, personally, a bigot, I don't see where I did that, though if the cap fits, well then, by all means...

reply to post by logical7

Good to see that at least some people here understand the difference between what Islam teaches and what muslims do!

Which is why we are confused and reluctant. Because what Muslims "do" affects us. What Islam "teaches" does not reflect it in many, many cases. Therefore we do feel it is worrisome and questionable.

Look at the link I gave you above to read about all the mayhem, slaughter, destruction and barbarity that was brought by the Muslims and the spread of Islam from earliest known history. NOT a peaceful picture. Sorry. You don't get to make up your own "facts."

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by logical7

 

Chronology of the Crusades
Have a peek at this one to see what people know about "Western Civilization" that you

ed me about.

Timeline of "how it happened" from 350 A.D.(Current Era) to 1095.

Before the Crusades: 350 - 1095

Even ThirdEye, who has NO fondness for me at all, backed me up on that one. Thanks, ThirdEye.

edit on 25-6-2013 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

you called the Crusades "retaliatory"
well in the link you posted, muslims took Jerusalem in 637 and crusades started in 1095. So how is that retaliatory? the crusaders massacred the jews and also orthodox christians and ofcourse muslims(70,000 jews and muslims in Jerusalem)
by retaliatory do you mean that christians had some kind of right to take back the lands?
I would like that you explain yourself.

Also after the 1st four Caliphs, the Islamic empire was more of a kingdom, a monarchy whose rulers happened to be muslims but their goals were as that on any king.
I feel disgusted at some of the actions that the Ottoman empire did because they were very Unislamic, the killing of christians, the conversion of Aya Sophia to a masjid etc.
You are interpreting history to suit yourself and your assumptions about Islam, which i cannot accept as they are not true.

Trying to conquer and expand one's territory/influence is a very human trait, be it conquests, colonisations and now neo-colonisations, the excuses are always grand and rosy. It does affect our discussions if you buy those excuses blindly.

reply to post by logical7

Read through the timeline. The Muslim invasions would have continued unless they had been STOPPED by those who did not them coming in and conquering them. And you blame "the West" for being aggressive NOW, when this all started back in the time of Muhammed and your Umar guy.

It was a slowly built up process of invasion after invasion for centuries.

I'm not going to recite the timeline for you - just read through the early history for how it LED TO the Crusades BECAUSE of the Muslim invasions. Religious wars. Still going on. Sucks. And stupid.