Is it permitted to beat women per Quran? (challenge for one on one debate with anyone)

[Link]

I wrote this 3 years ago on another site with respect to this question:

No, it’s a bad translation. It really means “Men regarding women are to be up lifters by what he has made some excel others and by what they spend their money, so the good women are obedient, guarding that which is hidden as God has guarded, and as for those you fear rebellion, admonish them while leaving them alone in their bed rooms (regarding this) and (continue to) have intercourse with them therefore if they obey you (by what you admonish them) don’t seek a way against them.”

As for why I translate as intercourse, the word literally for that is Nikah and God only uses that regarding marriage, as in he uses to term marriage which is ironically the same word, however, when God talks about else where, he says “touched women” and other expressions, and here to me it’s obviously not about beating women, but saying, if you fear rebellion - don’t act on your fears, but just admonish them and don’t even bring this up in the bed rooms and continue to have intercourse.

The one place where God is going to tell us about the role men play with respect to women is not going to be them as tyrants over them, that get to beat them as soon as they fear rebellion.

God the exalted, the great, has made men regarding women to be up lifters, suppose to morally support them, to the extent, if we fear rebellion, not to act on it, but just admonish them while leaving them alone in their bed rooms, and to continue to have intercourse with them.

The next verse shows really what should be done if there is a genuine breech between the two to be feared, which is to get one judge from one family and another judge from another.

The Quran else where says it’s not permitted to treat women harshly so let alone beat them!

-------


I would like someone who genuinely believes I am mistranslating or deceiving regarding the Arabic, to have one on one debate.

I say this because there are many expressions of intercourse in Quran (touching them, entering them, etc), and so to me this also a sign that dark magic prevents people from reflecting properly.

I argue this another verse that dark magic has blinded majority of Muslims, their scholars, and humans towards.

If someone really believes Quran should be translated in a way that permits beating of woman and not how I just said it, I would like a one on one debate about it.

 

[ChristineM]

And this is one objection i have to islam. Women are equal, obedience works both ways and it's not up to the guy to dictate when intercourse occurs.

 

[Link]

And this is one objection i have to islam. Women are equal, obedience works both ways and it's not up to the guy to dictate when intercourse occurs.

It's actually that it does work both ways and that is why it's emphasized to work contracts and if there is breaches, to make a treaty which is an agreement between them and they both have to obey it, that is why malakat aymanihim describes both husband and wife as well the 2nd case of it, is muta, and applies that both Muta partners are that to each other.

Malakat aymanihim is not, was not, and will never be about slaves, except in the minds of people effected by dark magic.

 

[Link]

That said, it's off-topic to this verse.

 

[CBM]

Withholding intercourse from a woman because she was not “obedient” is cruel. (That is what I understand you are saying.)
This is in stark contrast to Judaism where a husband is obligated in the mitzva (commandment) of onah (fulfilling his wife as she desires). Women have no such commandment.

Also, is this your interpretation or is there a general consensus that this is the correct interpretation?
Because if the beating interpretation is given any validity in Islam, does it really matter how you personally interpret it? (And like I said, your interpretation is not very nice either.)

 

[Link]

Withholding intercourse from a woman because she was not “obedient” is cruel. (That is what I understand you are saying.)
This is in stark contrast to Judaism where a husband is obligated in the mitzva (commandment) of onah (fulfilling his wife as she desires). Women have no such commandment.

Also, is this your interpretation or is there a general consensus that this is the correct interpretation?
Because if the beating interpretation is given any validity in Islam, does it really matter how you personally interpret it? (And like I said, your interpretation is not very nice either.)

Did you read the OP? I think not, but I will just say my translation is not to withhold, but to continue to have intercourse with them.

And rebellion here is a nice way of saying cheating on the husband, but it doesn't say, the husband actually knows she did, it says if he fears her, suspects. And so this is saying honor them to the extent if you suspect them, don't act according to your suspicions, but rather leave them (alone about it) in the bedrooms and don't speak (about this matter even at all) and instead hit them (with your dick) (continue to have intercouse)...

It's saying never tell them your suspicions and don't apply your fears to them.

I hope I've made it clearer if it was not clear in the OP.

 

[CBM]

Yes, you made your interpretation clearer.
It seems far fetched to me, but what do I know?

What about my second point?

 

[Link]

Yes, you made your interpretation clearer.
It seems far fetched to me, but what do I know?

What about my second point?

I don't know any commentary or scholar with this view. But this is not the only thing that would be clear in the Quran, but there is mass blindness to. It's one of many proofs that natural more clear recitations are blocked by dark magic.

 

[Link]

This is in stark contrast to Judaism where a husband is obligated in the mitzva (commandment) of onah (fulfilling his wife as she desires). Women have no such commandment.

Per Quran, they both owned by each other by their oaths, and so it works both ways as already explained to @ChristineM

 

[Brickjectivity]

Wife beating was quite common in Europe and here in USA up until...maybe the middle of 20th century. It was just assumed that a man could spank his wife. I don't know why, and I don't know why we stopped thinking about marriage in this way, either.

 

[Link]

Wife beating was quite common in Europe and here in USA up until...maybe the middle of 20th century. It was just assumed that a man could spank his wife. I don't know why, and I don't know why we stopped thinking about marriage in this way, either.

I've seen many Shiite hadiths, they are explicit in saying it's forbidden to hit kids, wives, or any human for that matter. Imam Ali (a) put's it nicely, it's only animals that need to beat to be taught, while humans can always be taught through reason.

And this is why even cutting their hands is crazy, it's obviously metaphorical in Quran, to cut of their ability from stealing till they reform themselves per the next verse and then be let go. And it's same with other crimes, language has metaphors, and concerning wife being caught by four witnesses, in 4th Surah, it says to put them in their own houses...the question is how long till "death takes them" or "God finds another way for them"? Forever is crazy talk, and so the amount of lashes is metaphorical for days and part of their punishment is they are shamed for it and so believers witness their inward turmoil. Then they can leave their houses.

This is of course if you combine the verses, use reason, and also give the hadiths that make more sense a chance with Quran as opposed to what we been imposed by sorcerers/deceivers/worshippers of Jinn and their taking over our religion and corrupting the Shariah.

 

[ChristineM]

Per Quran, they both owned by each other by their oaths, and so it works both ways as already explained to @ChristineM

As i understand it the value of a man is greater than the value of a woman.

 

[Link]

As i understand it the value of a man is greater than the value of a woman.

Where do you get this notion, from which verse. I know verses can be translated like this or misunderstood, but there is no such thing. I will leave Islam if you can prove this.

 

[sun rise]

The topic is covered in great detail with various interpretations both by scholars and in law in Wikipedia: Islam and domestic violence - Wikipedia

You clearly hold one position that other Muslims do. But many don't and laws in Muslim countries vary widely. I have nothing to add outside of you should establish your credentials as an Islamic scholar and debate other scholars not us.

But one additional note:

Men regarding women are to be up lifters by what he has made some excel others and by what they spend their money,

Since women now are breadwinners, that verse in the Quran is obsolete. But even in Muhammad's time, Khadija, his first wife, ran a business so it could be argued that the verse does not apply in any situation where women earn money.

 

[Link]

They can still spend money on their wives and children and morally uplift by kind gifts to their women be they bread winners or not.

 

[sun rise]

Where do you get this notion, from which verse. I know verses can be translated like this or misunderstood, but there is no such thing. I will leave Islam if you can prove this.

Status of women's testimony in Islam - Wikipedia discusses this in great detail. And again, it's the same issue of translation and interpretation.

 

[sun rise]

They can still spend money on their wives and children and morally uplift by kind gifts to their women be they bread winners or not.

And if a woman spends money on her husband and morally uplifts him by kind gifts?

 

[ChristineM]

Where do you get this notion, from which verse. I know verses can be translated like this or misunderstood, but there is no such thing. I will leave Islam if you can prove this.

In court 2 women are required as witness wheres onlybone mans testimony carries the same weight

 

[Link]

And if a woman spends money on her husband and morally uplifts him by kind gifts?

The verse didn't say they aren't suppose to uplift each other or it's one way street, they suppose to morally uplift each other, what's the point of marriage, if you going to put the other down???

 

[Link]

In court 2 women are required as witness wheres onlybone mans testimony carries the same weight

This should not be the case and it's misunderstanding of an option woman have and suggestion they bring an extra person, because their minds are wired differently and they can benefit from another witness if they were writing down financial dealings. This is because men think in boxes and women by wiring relationships, and so this advantage a woman has she can remember easily with another witness, while a man will suspect the other witness of lying and accuse him, because if he forgot, that box is gone, he forgot, there is no finding it.

But it was invalid Qiyas and misunderstanding to apply this to all other verses, and say you need twice as much more women witnesses.

A woman seeing a crime testimony is just as valid as testimony of a man. This is why Qiyas (applying one ruling to another "similar" situation) is invalid.