Author
|
Topic: Punishing Disobedient Wives
|
Publius
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8829
|
posted 25 August 2005 10:29 AM
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=13§ion=0&article=68889&d=23&m=8&y=2005 "I find it unacceptable when some people twist the meaning of a particular verse in the Holy Qur’an — especially the one which permits a husband to beat his disobedient wife. Those who do the twisting must understand that the permission is only given under certain circumstances and that the beating is intended as a remedy for specific situations. It is unfortunate that some well-known and respected Muslim scholars have either willingly or unwillingly joined a campaign seeking to distort the meaning of that particular verse." Oh, well if it's only intended under certain circumstances and for specific situations, I guess it's OK. "The beating which is only prescribed in the case of disobedient wives is intended to serve as a remedy in an unusual situation. If the husband feels the wife is behaving in a disobedient and rebellious manner, he is required to rectify her attitude — first by kind words, then gentle persuasion and reasoning. Beating as a last resort must never be understood to entail using a stick or any other instrument that would cause pain or injury." Yeah, cause using a stick...now THAT would really cross the line. And besides, it's not like fists would ever cause "pain or injury." I mean, THAT'S never happened before. "The controversy over the beating of disloyal and rebellious women is part of the campaign against Islam. If beating disobedient wives was advocated by Western scientists, it would have been widely supported by the same people who criticize Islam and special centers would have been set up all over the world to train husbands on how to beat their wives. " Yes, and thanks for doing your part to dispell. the "campaign against Islam."
From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mush
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3934
|
posted 25 August 2005 12:34 PM
Yeah- even "Promise Keepers" don't go that far....Seriously, I think there is some merit to the argument that there is an anti-Muslim component to the ongoing discourse about women and Islam. I read a paper by a Laura Nader ("Orientalism, Occidentalism, and the Control of Women") in which she makes a compelling argument that one of the ways in which the West discursively constructs the East as other is through the way "they" treat "their women". I think I remember that she says the reverse happens in Islamic countries, too ("see how the West exploits women"). Not in any way to defend the doofus cited in your post, but just to say that I think there's a point there somewhere. [edited for typos]. [ 25 August 2005: Message edited by: Mush ]
From: Mrs. Fabro's Tiny Town | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 25 August 2005 12:59 PM
Well, there are biblical texts that prescribe the punishment of women by their husbands or fathers (implying an ownership role) -- see, eg, Deuteronomy 22 or Numbers 5 -- and there are ancient cultural and legal traditions in Western societies, some of them not yet fully overcome, whereby both women and children have been considered the property of men and subject to their authority.So it's hardly surprising to find some stupid man somewhere in any society still spouting off stupidly about what men can and should do to women. There are stupid men everywhere still doing stupid things to women -- all war, for instance, always means that at least some of everyone's male soldiers will be raping some of the "enemy's" women. No exceptions, well documented. If all we want to do is demonize others, then we just go looking for these awful occurrences and spend the rest of our lives exclaiming, "Oh, my God, but aren't they barbarians!" There are more practical approaches, however, that can and do lead to change. The first is to turn to the women concerned. Omigosh! Who would think of doing that?!? you say. Well, I would. I doubt that the women concerned are as stupid as the men concerned, and for sure they are unlikely to be as stupid as the spoiled North Americans who condescend to them by assuming that they don't have better ideas than we do about how to heal their cultures. The second would be to look at men who have become less stupid over the last few generations. How did that happen? Should we be treating men in developing nations more harshly than the bastards that women of my age grew up with in Canada, eg? I must say, I don't see why.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Mush
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3934
|
posted 25 August 2005 05:38 PM
I'd heard that too, but I'm now satisfied that this etymology is a myth. Afu and Urban Legend Archive I think it's much more likely that it came from carpentry or printing, or some such. Not that this should deny the historical or current abuse of women, nor their historical position as "posessions" of men. Hey- Makeashorterlink.com is gone!
From: Mrs. Fabro's Tiny Town | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
historymove
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9851
|
posted 25 August 2005 07:45 PM
The Quranic verse that apparently allows men to beat their wives as a last resort has been subject to serious review by contemporary Muslim scholars, who have looked at the Arabic word used and concluded that it does not mean "beat", but proper translation would be "to separate" from them. The Arabic word used is "Adriboo", which in its proper Arabic lexicon, means to "separate from" or "part from". This verse that is quoted below deals when a wife has become completely rebellious against her husband, i.e. not desisting from evil actions. So, a proper translation according to contemporary Muslim scholars would be: Sûrah al Nisa 4:34 (Qur'an) "As for those women on whose part ye fear rebellion (nushuz), admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and last separate (adriboo)from them. Then, if they obey you, seek not a way against them." So, the recourse is: 1) Ask the wife not do it 2) Stop sleeping with your wife in the same bed 3) Leave her Most importantly for Muslims, the Prophet Muhammad told his male followers NEVER to hurt their wives, and said that those who do are NOT good men. [ 25 August 2005: Message edited by: historymove ]
From: Saskatchewan | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yst
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9749
|
posted 26 August 2005 01:18 AM
Nothing so stupid or hateful written in a religious book that revisionist linguistics can't fix it, or so it seems. A good thing, for the most part.Surely this should be taught as a serious subject in theological seminaries: Revisionist Linguistics 101 - reinventing the history of language to suit whatever ideology the styles of the time call for. Well, it's hardly worse than the alternative: refusal to reconsider and put aside overtly malicious religious beliefs, even when progress calls for their abandonment. But I do find it rather hard to comprehend just how it is that so many adherents to the Abrahamic religions can manage to convince themselves of some given new meaning for every second word in the Pentateuch each time the ideological winds of the day blow hither and thither in a new direction. Regardless, from a Christian point of view, this is only a problem for fundamentalist sects who consider the entire Bible to be the inspired word of God and valid as such in perpetuity. Such sects constitute a small minority, and even within said sects, few truly employ such a doctrine. For everyone else, Christianity provides an easy solution to the problem of outdated doctrine, in that Old Testament teachings which contradict Jesus' various New Testament feel-good platitudes may be dismissed off-hand if so desired by any given sect in order to stay up to date. If Jesus said otherwise, or made some wild generalisation about being nice to people which we might assert contradicts Old Testament doctrine, the latter may be thrown away easily enough. The Pauline gospels are another story and a problem to which there is no obvious simple solution. Most Christians try to ignore them, electing not to force women to wear hats at all times while present in church or such Pauline nonsense. It is after all just a missionary's guess-work on what his divine prophet predecessor might have wanted. Not so hard to dismiss. The Quran is even more problematic, however, as Mohammed's doctrine is inherently theologically correct and inherently beyond question or correction (just as is that of Jesus to Christians), being the inspired word of God. Christianity would be in a similar situation if Jesus had delivered the entire law of Leviticus and Deuteronomy to his followers in his own words. But it happens that this is not what occurred (or what believers consider to have occurred). So it's not quite the same at all. Christianity for the most part has a quick fix for the more downright disturbing Old Testament teachings. "Jesus delivered a new law, and Jesus said different", even if he didn't provide a new law quite as such and didn't detail much at all where he felt at odds with the Pentateuch. It certainly makes things easier than they'll ever be for the Orthodox Jews, Christian Fundamentalists and Muslims, for whom etymological mind games and linguistic revisionism are the only solution.
From: State of Genderfuck | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SamuelC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10196
|
posted 26 August 2005 02:24 AM
quote: Originally posted by skdadl: Should we be treating men in developing nations more harshly than the bastards that women of my age grew up with in Canada, eg? I must say, I don't see why.
Not if the men you grew up with are running societies which sanction the murder of women who commit adultery. With respect to "the spoiled North Americans who condescend to them by assuming that they don't have better ideas than we do about how to heal their cultures," would a Western woman's criticism of Saudi culture/society's treatment of Saudi women equal "condescension"? Under that premise of moral relativism, one couldn't criticize anyone from a "different culture". It's too simplistic (and wrong, in my opinion) to dismiss demonstrably worst treatment of women in Saudi Arabia or Iran by saying, gee, "there are stupid men everywhere still doing stupid things to women"...therefore, we should only criticize the behavior of Western (or, preferably, Canadian) men.
From: USofA | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
SamuelC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10196
|
posted 26 August 2005 03:00 AM
quote: Originally posted by anne cameron: Dear Me: Skdadl, how dare you not jump on the bandwagon and curse all Muslims as infidels? You KNOW, woman, that the mere fact they are Muslim means they are wrong wrong wrong. You are to smite them hip and thigh, you are to go unto their highways and byways and preach the word of the one true (christian) God and you are to call the wrath of the righteous down upon their heads, kill their firstborn, and steal their oil.Yeah, Verily, even that oil with which they cook.
What does "curs[ing] all Muslims as infidels" have to do with what I said? Nothing. What does Xianity have to do what what I said? Nothing. If a society sanctions the murder of women for committing adultery (as Iran does) and if that society is, essentially, run exclusively by men, then what difference does it make if the society is "Muslim" or "developing" or whatever? Why would you not want to criticize that society more harshly than the Canadian society which isn't even in the same galaxy as Iran when it comes to the treatment of women?
From: USofA | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 26 August 2005 08:14 AM
quote: Originally posted by SamuelC:
Not if the men you grew up with are running societies which sanction the murder of women who commit adultery. With respect to "the spoiled North Americans who condescend to them by assuming that they don't have better ideas than we do about how to heal their cultures," would a Western woman's criticism of Saudi culture/society's treatment of Saudi women equal "condescension"? Under that premise of moral relativism, one couldn't criticize anyone from a "different culture". It's too simplistic (and wrong, in my opinion) to dismiss demonstrably worst treatment of women in Saudi Arabia or Iran by saying, gee, "there are stupid men everywhere still doing stupid things to women"...therefore, we should only criticize the behavior of Western (or, preferably, Canadian) men.
How dare you charge that I was "dismissing" anything when I quite explicitly said:
quote: There are more practical approaches, however, that can and do lead to change. The first is to turn to the women concerned.
My practical advice to anyone concerned about the abuse of women in Saudi Arabia or Iran or anywhere else on earth is this: there are strong women's organizations in all those places. Sometimes they are working underground, but as we have learned over and over and over again on babble, that often makes them even stronger. Contact them, and offer your services. And by services, I mean: you serve them, not the other way around. They know things you can't possibly know about their cultures. They know that dim Westerners have a bad habit of clomping into dangerous situations and making them a whole bloody lot worse for the most vulnerable. Such organizations have asked Western activists time and time again to learn to listen rather than to take over blithely. You, Samuel, have no practical advice to offer on this topic at all. You get all worked up self-righteously in order to propose -- what? That everyone else should get all worked up self-righteously. That is the beginning and the end of what you have to say. You want people to line up and "criticize." And that is bloody it. You're not speaking out in order to help other people, Samuel, certainly not the women of Saudi Arabia and Iran, about whom you appear to know nothing. You are speaking out in order to preen in public, to stroke your own ego, to pleasure yourself. There are other, more impolite words for such behaviour.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SamuelC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10196
|
posted 26 August 2005 10:26 AM
With regard to your observation that I didn't offer a solution to the poor treatment of women in, say, Iran, you are correct. And, I think you are also correct that the women of Iran very likely have the best insights on how to correct the disparity.But, with regard to your inference that I am merely "speaking out in order to preen in public", that inference is wrong. I am taking issue with two things (1) that the behavior of men in Canada is essentially the same as the behavior of men in Iran (from which it is only logical to infer that the treatment of women in Canada by males is, therefore, as bad as the treatment of women in Iran) and (2) that Canadians (or any non-Muslim, non-Iranians, for that matter) have no right to criticize what is happening in Iran. [ 26 August 2005: Message edited by: SamuelC ]
From: USofA | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|