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

reply to post by logical7


Explain myself? What am I supposed to explain?
It's recorded history, friend.

reply to post by logical7

by retaliatory do you mean that christians had some kind of right to take back the lands?

Seriously?
Did they not?

Just like Palestinians today are trying to do with Israel?

Did you not read of all the destruction of things like the "Colossus", and other world heritage sites?

At least you admit to the atrocities that you claim were "un-Islamic". They did it anyway, though, didn't they? Yes, from the VERY BEGINNING. And it's still going on.

I am well aware that MOST modern Muslims living in Western (horror of horrors!) societies are peaceful and simply trying to survive and raise their families. But history does not get rewritten by "nice modern Muslims." The earliest Muslims WERE warlords and brutal invaders, destroyers and conquerors. They were not "moving in" with olive branches of peace.

Nothing you can say will change that. It happened. The Sunnis and Shiites have NEVER stopped hating each other.
for 1400 years. You can give us all sorts of platitudes about "real Islam", logical7, but what "Islam" caused those conquerors to do is NOT REFUTABLE.

reply to post by wildtimes

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.

This is incorrect, although it is certainly how things may have looked to the Frankish and Visigothic knights fighting against the Muslims in Andalusia. In fact those knights were the beneficiaries of internecine struggles among the Muslims, first between Arabs and Berbers in Andalusia itself, later among factions within the Ummayid Caliphate, which caused the fragmentation of the Muslim empire. As soon as that happened, the European portion of that empire was doomed, through it was to resist fragmentation and ultimate collapse for more than 250 years.

Yes, the Crusades were retaliatory in some sense, but the expansion of Islam into Europe (the Muslim invasions you speak of) was really halted by the empire's own internal weaknesses. No doubt the constant pressure from Christian forces did help contain it somewhat – most notably at Tours in 732.

Granada, the last Muslim bastion in Europe, finally fell in 1492, well over two hundred years after the last Crusade. Its conquerors were Ferdinand and Isabella, joint monarchs of the kingdom of Castile and Aragon, who thereby became the rulers of all Spain. You will recall that these same monarchs had, a year previously, sent a certain Genoese adventurer on a rather wild expedition across the Atlantic...

reply to post by Astyanax


Thanks for providing a more detailed description of the situation.

I posted that very brief timeline for the benefit of logical7's understanding of Western Civilization. I'm "schooled" in these things beyond my ability to share here without boring people to tears. Your posts are excellent, Asty. I'm learning from you. It helps SO MUCH to have input from those who are NOT in the USA struggling to figure out what's happening and why.

reply to post by wildtimes

The Muslim invasions would have continued unless they had been STOPPED by those who did not them coming in and conquering them.

it was the age of Empires, defending and expanding was acceptable norm. Muslims expanded when they were powerful and the christian kings expanded their kingdoms when they could. How do you blame it on Islam? Do you think that if Muslim empire remained confined to arabia, the other empires wouldn't attack it? Read history and you'l know that the Roman empire was already preparing to attack muslims because it felt "threatened" by an empire rising in arabia, so maybe your suggestion is that muslims should have just peacefully died when that attack would have come.
I do not agree to your singling out muslims as aggressors and that to in an age when it was acceptable and practiced by all and then even suggesting that the western agression taking place NOW cannot be blamed as muslims too did it!
Well if aggression is acceptable even today then muslims can answer that as well, lets cancel all the international borders! shall we?

reply to post by wildtimes


Well the details matter and yes i also thank Astyanax for it.
Its not black and white as you try to show it by over simplifying history into good guy-bad guy stuff.

reply to post by logical7

I'm grateful for your appreciation but must respectfully disagree . The details don't matter. Neither does the big stuff.

What matters is what we are left with now, and how we deal with it. Raking over past wrongs does no good whether one is Muslim, Christian or atheist. Besides, there are any number of present wrongs to be righted, among all kinds of people, Muslims and Christians (and atheists) included.

Our current problems are more than enough to be going on with – we don't have to add to our burden by brooding over what our dead ancestors did to one another. They are dust, and what's done is done. Let them lie.

reply to post by logical7

it was the age of Empires, defending and expanding was acceptable norm. Muslims expanded when they were powerful and the christian kings expanded their kingdoms when they could. How do you blame it on Islam?

The Muslims' entire lives revolve around Islam.

My point is that the same thing is still going on, and as long as religions 'fight' for control, it will continue.

Before the "Age of Empires", people from all over the place, each with their own Gods, met and traded peacefully at Mekka (or however you want to spell it). There were statues built for EACH of those different Gods....
like: "oh, hi, nice silk you have there! Where are you from? Oh, that place? Who's your tribal "God"? Coolio, okay, since you're trading with us, we'll put up a statue of your "God" here alongside all the others. That way all of us can still do our duties to our Gods while we're here trading. "

For more information:
The Evolution of God by Robert Wright.

also, what do you make of this essay: The Myth: Muhammad was Persecuted by the Meccans for Preaching Islam - vs - The Truth:

According to Muslim historians, the Meccans were actually quite tolerant of Muhammad preaching his new religion. Mecca was an open society where different religions were respected. Polytheists, Jews and Christians lived and worshipped side-by-side, especially during the holy months, when pagan pilgrims would travel long distances from beyond the city to perform their rituals at the Kaaba.

Muhammad brought on the resentment of the local people not by preaching Islam, but by breaking with Meccan tradition and cursing other religions:

When the apostle openly displayed Islam as Allah ordered him, his people did not withdraw or turn against him, so far as I have heard, until he spoke disparagingly of their gods. When he did that, they took great offence and resolved unanimously to treat him as an enemy. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 167),
"[Muhammad] declared Islam publicly to his fellow tribesmen. When he did so, they did not withdraw from him or reject him in any way, as far as I have heard, until he spoke of their gods and denounced them." (al-Tabari Vol.VI, p.93)

Although asked to stop, Muhammad continued to stir up trouble by “condemning” the local religion, causing the Meccans great anxiety:
[The Meccans] said they had never known anything like the trouble they had endured from this fellow. He had declared their mode of life foolish, insulted their forefathers, reviled their religion, divided the community and cursed their gods (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 183).
"We [the Meccans] have never seen the like of what we have endured from this man [Muhammad]. He has derided our traditional values, abused our forefathers, reviled our religion, caused division among us, and insulted our gods. We have endured a great deal from him." (al-Tabari, Vol.VI p.101)

True?
Or false?

Do you see why we have such a hard time with this 'sketchy' history? What are we to do??
Can't we all just get along??? Like it "used to be"?
Apparently not.

There was a time (we are told) when Mecca was a melting pot and trade center and EVERYBODY's Gods were welcome. They did fine before Muslims "sacked it" (after being outcast to Medina where Muhammed amassed 10,000 people to go and conquer it.)

Not very tolerant. Sorry, but, I have only the internet and scholars and a few individuals to "go to".

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by logical7

 

I'm grateful for your appreciation but I disagree with you. The details don't matter. Neither does the big stuff.

What matters is what we are left with now, and how we deal with it. Raking over past wrongs does no good whether one is Muslim, Christian or atheist. Besides, there are any number of present wrongs to be righted, among all kinds of people, Muslims and Christians (and atheists) included.

Our current problems are more than enough to be going on with – we don't have to add to our burden by brooding over what our dead ancestors did to one another. They are dust, and what's done is done. Let them lie.

edit on 25/6/13 by Astyanax because: of sleeping dogs.

well i completely agree and thats exactly what i was objecting to at two levels.
1) blaming muslims as the only aggressors in the past.
2) using it to somehow keep blaming them for whats happening to them NOW!

The problems that are affecting the world now can be solved but the changes and determination it requires needs to come from the powerful world leaders and i am very skeptical about that as it directly conflicts their interests!
So the other way is a grass root change that will either replace these leaders or make them bow down to the will of their people and act accordingly.

reply to post by logical7

The problems that are affecting the world now can be solved but the changes and determination it requires needs to come from the powerful world leaders and i am very skeptical about that as it directly conflicts their interests!
So the other way is a grass root change that will either replace these leaders or make them bow down to the will of their people and act accordingly.

Right.
True.

So, you would do well, as I've suggested before, to go at it from a grass-roots level and spread the "education" you say is lacking among so many "ill-behaved" Muslims. You telling us is not really educating them. It is "apologetics" for a faith that has perennially been strife-ridden.

reply to post by Astyanax


Yes, Norway and Finland come closest to the ideals. But the part about never attaining the equal world, not sure I agree. If even 1-10% or more woke up within them, they would hold nothing but Love and Equality and would rewrite every negative they see here, seeing a positive solution instead and hold that. Earth is a testing ground, and the goal to progression is Love and Equality and Freedom. They all go hand in hand. That is the outer ideal energies of Mother and Father united. But there is an inner metaphor for this as well....I never give up on posting for equality and actually post to those in some form of position, one of the "hats" of the world, mainly gandalf the greys hoping to bring the prodigal sons to the people to work out a wonderful world with them. They're the prodigal son. When everyone is Love and caring, then we can all join forces and meditate and seek healing for the smaller core of dark hats.

reply to post by logical7

I don't think you can be in agreement with me and go on participating in this quarrel, logical7. Same goes for you, wildtimes.

The problems that are affecting the world now can be solved but the changes and determination it requires needs to come from the powerful world leaders and i am very skeptical about that as it directly conflicts their interests!

So the other way is a grass root change that will either replace these leaders or make them bow down to the will of their people and act accordingly.

The change you seek will not come about in either of these ways. It is not the leaders who are the problem in this case. It is the people themselves. Anyone with a little discernment can see it, right here on this thread. These disagreements, these hatreds, are deep-rooted and irrational. They drive the people, and the people drive the leaders. Democrat or despot, they must go where they are driven, pressed forward by the crush in their rear.

The only hope for the people of the Middle East is that time will make its present troubles and divisions irrelevant and ultimately trivial. For the nations and factions involved this will not happen for a very long time, if ever; but for any individual man or woman, it could happen whenever they will it. All they have to do is adjust their point of view.

But, as we see in this thread, people just hate doing that.

reply to post by Astyanax


I'm not taking sides here, Astyanax. I'm learning. I do however, have a background in "change" methods - on a micro- as well as a macro-level.

You are articulate and clearly educated, and I've already given you admiration for that. You choose to dismiss my ideas, and you are adept at pointing out history - but what are your 'suggestions' for immediate intervention?

At least I'm trying to come up with reasonable options and solution suggestions. But fine, I'll step out of your way.
Have at it.

reply to post by wildtimes


here is what Karen Armstrong, a "real" scholar has to say
www.islamicity.com/articles/articles.asp?ref=IC1002-4090

We have a
long history of Islamophobia in
Western culture that dates back to the time of the Crusades. In the twelfth
century, Christian monks in Europe
insisted that Islam was a violent
religion of the sword, and that
Muhammad was a charlatan who
imposed his religion on a reluctant world by force of arms; they called him
a lecher and a sexual pervert. This
distorted version of the Prophet's life
became one of the received ideas of
the West, and Western people have
always found it difficult to see Muhammad in a more objective light.
Since the destruction of the World
Trade Center on September 11th,
2001, members of the Christian Right
in the United States and some sectors
of the Western media have continued this tradition of hostility, claiming that
Muhammad was irredeemably
addicted to war. Some have gone so
far as to claim that he was a terrorist
and a pedophile. We can no longer afford to indulge
this type of bigotry, because it is a gift
to extremists who can use such
statements to "prove" that the Western
world is indeed engaged on a new
crusade against the Islamic world. Muhammad was not a man of violence.
We must approach his life in a
balanced way, in order to appreciate
his considerable achievements. To
cultivate an inaccurate prejudice
damages the tolerance, liberality, and compassion that are supposed to
characterize Western culture. Strangely, events that took place in
seventh-century Arabia have much to
teach us about the events of our time
and their underlying significance-far
more, in fact, than the facile sound
bites of politicians. Muhammad was not trying to impose religious
orthodoxy- he was not much
interested in metaphysics-but to
change people's hearts and minds. He
called the prevailing spirit of his time
jahiliyyah. Muslims usually understand this to mean the "Time of Ignorance,"
that is, the pre-Islamic period in
Arabia. But, as recent research shows,
Muhammad used the term jahiliyyah to
refer not to an historical era but to a
state of mind that caused violence and terror in seventh-century Arabia.
Jahiliyyah, I would argue, is also much
in evidence in the West today as well
as in the Muslim world. Paradoxically, Muhammad became a
timeless personality because he was
so rooted in his own period. We
cannot understand his achievement
unless we appreciate what he was up
against. In order to see what he can contribute to our own predicament,
we must enter the tragic world that
made him a prophet nearly fourteen
hundred years ago, on a lonely
mountain top just outside the holy city
of Mecca.
Excepted from "Muhammad: A
Prophet for Our Time" by Karen
Armstrong.

the site you posted is in the same league as the video documentary by those "scholars"
i am forced to doubt your ability to find authentic sources when it comes to islam!

reply to post by logical7


Don't you even DARE go there, logical7. It was I who asked YOU to read Karen Armstrong's book "The History of God." I have read it cover to cover. Do you need the link AGAIN? You can NOT use "Karen" as a weapon to fight me - I'm ahead of you with her - and you know it.

I KNOW what she teaches, she's one of my heroes, and you know that very well. But here you go: A History of God: The 4000 year Quest of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. FREE. Right there. At your leisure.
MONTHS ago, I suggested it. Have you read it yet??

Whatever. Make your own bed. You think you know so much better than everyone else. I don't have "Islamophobia", I have "Islam-o-Mistrustfulness." BASED ON WHAT I SEE HAPPENING.

I'm done asking, or offering, any more suggestions. Do whatever you want.

I wash my hands of it.
I'm tired of you alternately insulting my intelligence, denigrating my own research, and trying to portray me as an ignorant "hater." Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go cry out of feminine frustration.
Have a great day.

reply to post by logical7

it was the age of Empires, defending and expanding was acceptable norm. Muslims expanded when they were powerful and the christian kings expanded their kingdoms when they could.

True. And the Moors invaded Spain and the Crusades came later when the Christians wanted to regain lands conquered. This is not rocket science is it? Do you know what happened when the Moors invaded Spain? Do you think it was merely about lands? Do you think the conquest never included women? (back when women seemed to be considered chattel everywhere)

reply to post by Astyanax

Madam, are you feeling quite well? And sober?

Yes I was quite well and sober when I posted that you were bashing two religions with one stone last night. It's all in your own post if you want to reread it. Why did you have to resort to the insult of insinuating someone is drunken?

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?

Again, when did I support interfering in another culture? Can I apply the same principle of drunkenness in your assessment of people's statements?
I have explained exactly that it is the UN and Elites of all stripes who are using the UN to impose their will upon the entire planet through Totalitarian measures. That's pretty simple isn't it?

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.

Have I not explained myself clearly in these matters? Have I not already explained to you that the UN and Human rights commissions and various organizations connected to the UN are involved in ruling the earth and that I do not support that? You are still carrying this odd point that you think I am for telling Saudis what to do in their own land, when I have clearly stated I do not but that the UN does to some extent but only when it suits their Totalitarian model to do so. If you think it is paranoid of me to assume such a thing, that is why I referred to the document for your to see and proceeded to inform you that it is not my idea.
Would you like to discuss our current POTUS, whom I did not vote for, and his interventions in Libya and Syria, which I do not support in terms of telling people what to do in their own lands? Have I not already explained that the UN is also not even adept at controlling foreign conflicts around the world?
You see, while you are bashing me as some kind of person supporting interference the world around, you then turn around and ridicule me as a paranoiac for not supporting the UN doing so...you simply CANNOT have it both ways here.
Have I made myself clear?
On the other hand, It does not mean I will support Sharia Law overruling the US Constitution HERE In the STATES.
Now have I made myself very clear?

reply to post by Astyanax

This is incorrect, although it is certainly how things may have looked to the Frankish and Visigothic knights fighting against the Muslims in Andalusia. In fact those knights were the beneficiaries of internecine struggles among the Muslims, first between Arabs and Berbers in Andalusia itself, later among factions within the Ummayid Caliphate, which caused the fragmentation of the Muslim empire. As soon as that happened, the European portion of that empire was doomed, through it was to resist fragmentation and ultimate collapse for more than 250 years.

It may or may not be true that the lands conquered by the Moors and by Islam in various parts of the globe were completely reconquered by the Crusades. But it is unlikely that it would have been accomplished without the help of the Crusades. But what difference does it make in the general scheme of things? Al Andalous still went back to the Christians, although to this day the name is used profusely in places like Tunisia.

reply to post by Astyanax


On the witch burning, I saw a reference in your post to Leviticus.

I would say that Leviticus is Old Testament, and while Jesus said he came not to change the laws, he did bring forgiveness. Indeed he stopped a stoning from taking place by putting the people's focus on their own sins instead of anothers. This is what contemporary Christians behold as one of Jesus' great teachings.
Totalitarianism is about forcing or engineering change by force and indoctrination, not by love and that is what the UN is primarily doing at present.

But I'll tell you what, as modern Christians do not stone adulterous women today, I believe honor killings still do exist in certain parts of the globe. So have stonings stopped due to secular intervention? The same is really true for the abolition of slavery, which early abolitionists were quite often Christians who thought slavery was a sin. Democrats today like to take credit for the abolition of slavery and yet it was Democrats who originally had the Jim Crow laws. They explain this away by suggesting that the two parties merely switched sides. This is a completely bogus attempt to get votes through lies and misrepresentation. So again, it is not seculars and not Democrats who accomplished much of this work.
Ever hear of the renowned Frederick Douglass?

Thirteen-year-old Frederick Douglass longed for a protector. He was a slave in Maryland, working as a house servant and as a ship calker in Baltimore. A white Methodist minister showed him that God could be his father. "He thought that all men, great and small, bond and free, were sinners in the sight of God; that they were by nature rebels against his government; and that they must repent of their sins, and be reconciled to God through Christ."

www.christianity.com...

reply to post by Kali74


mmmhmmm and again, did you read your second link carefully?

Even conservative Christians aren’t behind this trend

And that would be me, as I am pretty conservative and fairly Christian though I believe there are elements of truth in most of the major religions.
I am not nearly so cut and dried as you have tried to insist. I can agree or disagree with various elements of the major religions without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Is that cut and dried or is it rational?

I do however understand that the Communists since the Bolshevik Revolution have tried to demonize, minimize, oppress, and even eliminate religion, as dear old Karl Marx thought that religion was the opiate of the masses and to be looked down upon. This is still going on today through the secular humanist movement and used to indoctrinate young children in the secular schools. And they are replacing the old religious institutions with some kind of humanist Unitarian and utilitarian version which I do not care for. This is going on over at the UN now through the World Council of Churches.