Islam and woman - can a muslim woman beat a man with a toothpick

[take it or leave it]

Islam and woman

I just cant seem to understand I have spoken to a few of my muslim friends who say woman have more rights and are made higher than men , well if that’s the case can someone pls answer these questions for me:

Why does the quran say woman are made a degree lower than men ? ,

Why does the quran say woman only get half in a divorce ?

Why does the quran teach men are allowed 4 wifes , woman are only allowed one husband ? (please don’t use the excuse that in war time there were more woman its weak , since there are more men now , so that should change )

Why does the quran state that men can scourge(severly beat) woman if the disobey quran 4:34 , but does not say woman can beat men , if they disobey ? can a woamn beat a man with a toothpick ?

Islam teaches that woman are made lower that man - instructs and approves of physical punishment .That woman should be beaten as a last resort if they are disobedient. Many Muslims will try and say its not true and it only means beat with a toothpick ( I know how ridicules) in reality I have studied every instance in the use word used in Islam , the verb “darb” , they all mean beat , and 3 of the 5 versus actually say scourge – which is a much worse punishment that beat – here is the meaning of scourge:

1. A source of widespread dreadful affliction and devastation such as that caused by pestilence or war.
2. A means of inflicting severe suffering, vengeance, or punishment.
3. A whip used to inflict punishment.
tr.v. scourged, scourg·ing, scourg·es
1. To afflict with severe or widespread suffering and devastation; ravage.
2. To chastise severely; excoriate.
3. To flog.

I just cant understand where in the quran does it say woman are made higher than me , moghammed compares woman to dogs and ***** , a dog is one of the most hated anmimal in islam , yet man calls it his best friend , please can one send me versus that say a man is higher than a woman , I mean what did mohammed mean when he said : Treat women well, for they are [like] domestic animals with you and do not possess anything for themselves and A'isha said [to Muhammad]: 'You have made us equal to the dogs and the *****'"

Qur'an (2:228) - "and the men are a degree above them [women]"

Qur'an (4:3) - (Wife-to-husband ratio) "Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four" Inequality by numbers.

Muslim (4:1039) - "A'isha said [to Muhammad]: 'You have made us equal to the dogs and the *****'"

Tabari Vol 9, Number 1754 - "Treat women well, for they are [like] domestic animals with you and do not possess anything for themselves." From Muhammad's 'Farewell Sermon'.

 

[Muhktar]

In Islam, there a lot of things that have to be viewed contextually.

I am not fully learned in Islam but I am getting there, and will do best to answer questions to the best of my ability.

Why does the quran say woman are made a degree lower than men ?
The degree men have been placed in does not refer to how 'important' they are, it is as such more like a degree of responsibility and care. A wife is the most beautiful and precious thing alive on Earth to a husband so a husband will step up a degree to do whatever he can to care and provide for her.

Why does the quran say woman only get half in a divorce ?
When married, a man will give a dowry to the wife equivalent to what he can afford, and this is so if he does divorce her at any time she can use this to support herself until she can get things rolling again. There are many more rights for women regarding divorce, Women in Islam-Marriage, Divorce, Childbirth, abortion,rights, politics-Marriage, Divorce, Childbirth, abortion,rights, politics-Best resource for Women issues in Islam (Submission ) on the Internet. Women in Islam-Submission-Muhammed-Allah-Qur'an-Ko, has some good info.

Why does the quran teach men are allowed 4 wifes , woman are only allowed one husband ?
This one definately has to be looked at contextually. Before Islam, many men were marrying many, many more women. Some had dozens of wives, this made it impossible for them to be treated equally. Also at this time, much work was related to physical labour, and men were the main money earners. This meant that it was good for a man to have more than one wife, in order to help and support them. With this though were strict conditions, which included: They must all be treated equally and any previous wife must agree to the following marriage.

Why does the quran state that men can scourge(severly beat) woman if the disobey
I will not lie, the Quran and Hadith permit a light beating as a final resort, permitted reasoning and comprimise cannot be reached. If the wife acknowledges the disagreement and that she has gone against the Law, she is then not to be beaten. It is also noteworthy that any man to abuse this is severely punished.

I hope I helped in any explainations, if I knew more I would tell in higher detail. Blessing to you.

 

[Badran]

I just cant seem to understand I have spoken to a few of my muslim friends who say woman have more rights and are made higher than men

You probably will never understand as well, because neither gender is "made higher" than the other.

well if that’s the case can someone pls answer these questions for me:

Too bad they aren't really questions, but i'll answer anyway, i have some free time to kill.

Why does the quran say woman are made a degree lower than men ?

This one's easy, like i indicated above, it doesn't actually say that.

Why does the quran say woman only get half in a divorce ?

Half of what? Which verse are you referring to?

If you're talking about money issues, women are actually favored in this case, in regards to the rights they're given.

Why does the quran teach men are allowed 4 wifes , woman are only allowed one husband ? (please don’t use the excuse that in war time there were more woman its weak , since there are more men now , so that should change )

Well, obviously, the only way it would change now is by Muslims. Changed in the sense that its not followed anymore since the conditions supposedly don't apply. So your 'question' is whats weak, since you asked "why does the Quran teach...". You know, it might just have something to do with this being the case THEN, when the quran was revealed.

That aside, thats not the only possible explanation as to why this teaching was given.

Why does the quran state that men can scourge(severly beat) woman if the disobey quran 4:34 ,

I see that you've added your own little touch on it, by adding the word "severely". It doesn't say that. That aside, like i pointed out to you in the other thread, this is not the only possible interpretation for the verse, and i linked to you a thread dealing with the issue, and i'll link it again here, just in another more relevant part of this post.

but does not say woman can beat men , if they disobey ?

That question of course is based on the assumption that the verse does mean to beat women, which i don't accept, so i'm not answering this one.

can a woamn beat a man with a toothpick ?

Thats not from the Quran by the way, its from a Hadith. Its supposed to be meaning 'symbolic beating'. There are also other Hadiths contradicting this one and indicating that men shouldn't beat women.

Islam teaches that woman are made lower that man-instructs and approves of physical punishment.That woman should be beaten as a last resort if they are disobedient.

So, like i said, i was fair in saying that you aren't really asking questions, as amazingly demonstrated by you in the very same post.

I mean you basically asked a couple of questions, and then offered in the same post all the answers, just like your other thread. The thread where you were asking about the differences between Islam and Christianity and then clarified for us that Christianity is actually much better, and how terrible Islam really is.

Many Muslims will try and say its not true and it only means beat with a toothpick ( I know how ridicules) in reality I have studied every instance in the use word used in Islam , the verb “darb” , they all mean beat , and 3 of the 5 versus actually say scourge – which is a much worse punishment that beat – here is the meaning of scourge:

Well, i don't know how to put this nicely, but your studies unfortunately have been pretty fruitless, as you're flat out wrong. Here are a couple of posts dealing with the many possible meanings of the word in question here. And one of them provides an example from the Quran where the word is used actually in a meaning that has nothing to do with beat. In fact, thats how the word is used most of the time in the Quran, not to mean beat.

Here's the first post. Here's the second, and here's the third.

And here's the entire thread, again:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/100207-six-translations-quran-4-34-can.html

I'll get back to the rest of your post later.

 

[Penumbra]

Why does the quran say woman are made a degree lower than men ?
The degree men have been placed in does not refer to how 'important' they are, it is as such more like a degree of responsibility and care. A wife is the most beautiful and precious thing alive on Earth to a husband so a husband will step up a degree to do whatever he can to care and provide for her.

Responsibility is often linked to ability. Ideally, those with greater ability achieve greater responsibility, and those with lesser ability typically achieve lesser responsibility.

I very much disagree with the concept that one gender should inherently have more responsibility than the other.

That question of course is based on the assumption that the verse does mean to beat women, which i don't accept, so i'm not answering this one.

Thats not from the Quran by the way, its from a Hadith. Its supposed to be meaning 'symbolic beating'. There are also other Hadiths contradicting this one and indicating that men shouldn't beat women.

4:34
Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.

4:34
Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.


The first issue to me is that although I don't understand the original language,every translation I've seen seems pretty clear to me. There's an escalating series of options there and it ends with getting physical.

The second issue is that even if it is some sort of symbolic beating, it's still extremely patronizing and asymmetrical. Women are proposed to be obedient, and if they are arrogant or rebellious, an escalating series of options is allowed until they obey.

 

[Badran]

4:34
Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.

4:34
Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.


The first issue to me is that although I don't understand the original language,every translation I've seen seems pretty clear to me. There's an escalating series of options there and it ends with getting physical.

That however doesn't negate neither of the facts i mentioned, that the word does have many meanings, and that most of the time in the Quran it doesn't actually mean beat. There are many possible reasons for why it might have been interpreted mostly that way (resulting in it of course being also translated that way).

I understand that the number of translations makes it hard for you to see it that way though.

The second issue is that even if it is some sort of symbolic beating, it's still extremely patronizing and asymmetrical. Women are proposed to be obedient, and if they are arrogant or rebellious, an escalating series of options is allowed until they obey.

I agree, and thats why i don't accept neither this interpretation nor the common translations.

 

[beenie]

I'm with Badran on this one.
I can't imagine how beating a woman would solve the marital issue. In fact, it would be counterproductive to physically force your wife into submission.

I find it very hard to believe that Allah, who is All-Wise, would allow men (who are generally bigger and physically stronger) to beat their wives into submission.

 

[Penumbra]

That however doesn't negate neither of the facts i mentioned, that the word does have many meanings, and that most of the time in the Quran it doesn't actually mean beat. There are many possible reasons for why it might have been interpreted mostly that way (resulting in it of course being also translated that way).

I understand that the number of translations makes it hard for you to see it that way though.

I agree, and thats why i don't accept neither this interpretation nor the common translations.

In one of the posts you linked to, you said:

This word "ضرب" has so many meanings in arabic, and it has so many translations in english. It is from which the word "واضروبهن" is derived. This is translated to "beat", because that is how it is mostly interpreted in arabic.

However, the fact is, this word like i said has many meanings, some of them are to cut some one off or separate them, let go, cut out.... In the Quran, this word is used according to the scholars who hold the opinion i'm explaining here in 17 usages, most of them was not to mean beat, but like i said separate or cut off.

So, the interpretation i believe for this verse, the first part is that men are responsible to provide and care for women and protect them, and the last part means that the procedures are to first talk to women and advice them and try to resolve this, then to abandon them in bed, then this last part can mean either separate them, or cut them off. There are also other possibilities including the main interpretation, that says that the last resort is to beat them. Which is explained in the Hadiths to be something like a symbolic thing, like if you smack someone on the hand with a ruler or so. However, in other Hadith, beating is discouraged, so due to this contradiction, and the fact that the idea of discipline even if it is so light doesn't sound very convincing, and that the word is used in the quran in different fashion like i said earlier, i believe the correct interpretation is the one that says separate them or cut them off.

In response to the blue part, going back to the second issue I brought up, is that the verse is extremely patronizing and asymmetrical. Why is it proposed to men to take all of these potential measures against their wives, rather than giving the same advice to wives against their husbands? The Qur'an in some instances tells men to treat women justly, but it seems to be a very old-school, one-sided "men are superior" sort of treatment.

Do you find the translated word "obedient" to be an incorrect translation as well?

 

[HiddenDjinn]

I'm with Badran on this one.
I can't imagine how beating a woman would solve the marital issue. In fact, it would be counterproductive to physically force your wife into submission.

I don't know, rakhel seems to enjoy it.

I find it very hard to believe that Allah, who is All-Wise, would allow men (who are generally bigger and physically stronger) to beat their wives into submission.

Even if she's been a dirty ***** and needs a little 'punishment'?

 

[Rakhel]

I don't know, rakhel seems to enjoy it.


Even if she's been a dirty ***** and needs a little 'punishment'?

I swear, I will find a snip-snip instruction manual!!


Beware. The web is my playground.

 

[Badran]

In one of the posts you linked to, you said:
In response to the blue part, going back to the second issue I brought up, is that the verse is extremely patronizing and asymmetrical. Why is it proposed to men to take all of these potential measures against their wives, rather than giving the same advice to wives against their husbands? The Qur'an in some instances tells men to treat women justly, but it seems to be a very old-school, one-sided "men are superior" sort of treatment.

That of course is your impression of the verse based on how its translated, what its mostly proposed to mean and the fact that it is addressed to men, i take it in a different way but i can certainly understand how easy it is to take it like you did, and i think your observation is quite fair based on the situation.

The thing is though before i start explaining what i think this verse mean, i should clarify that this verse is one of those verses that many scholars have differing and opposing views on, and not just in its general message but in each line from the verse. There are many opposing opinions regarding more than one instance in the same verse, and there are some words and expressions that aren't easy to understand or interpret in any definitive way.

The reason i'm saying this first is because i think you might get the impression there is an attempt to over complicate things, and/or attempts to read things into the verse that are not there just to try and supposedly justify it or take it to mean something else than it appears to be meaning. In other words, this verse is in reality a controversial verse and a very difficult one to understand, interpret and translate. So i'm just making it clear that usually things aren't like that with verses of the Quran (this complicated i mean), however there are many reasons that makes this verse needing of more effort in attempt to understand than other ones.

In regards to your question about why is this addressed to men, that obviously can be taken in more than one way, i personally assume that men were more needing of this direct instruction as to how to deal with problems in marriage, how to deal with their wives. As from my understanding and view men in general are more tending to mistreat women, and in that particular time and place they were extreme in their view of women and their treatment towards them. I think such limits and clear stages proposed were a necessity to clarify to those men what are they advised and allowed to do, and what is not.

In general i think putting into context to whom are verses addressed helps in understanding it more. The men in question here were people who viewed giving birth to a girl as a shame, and they used to bury those daughters alive. In other words a culture that was extremely against women, and incredibly mistreating of them. Treatment in general in Islam is clarified in many instances, but i think such direct instruction was much more needed to be aimed towards those men, and men in general.

To put it in a different way, the equality of men and women in general is clarified in other instances in the Quran, however when it comes to certain instructions in detail as to how to treat each other, it may be regarding or taking into notice the situation its addressing.

Do you find the translated word "obedient" to be an incorrect translation as well?

No, however there are differing opinions between scholars in regards to whether that obedience is to god or supposedly to the husband. I take it to be to god. I can understand if you feel there is no reason to take it to mean obedience to god, and i would also understand if you think thats rather unlikely considering what the verse is addressing and how it is supposedly worded, but please put the following into consideration. First, that you're reading the translated words, not the real actual words, thats just a point to keep in mind. Second, here is why i think it actually means obedience to god. That part of the verse was describing what are the attributes of good women, of course not in general, as that is too wide, but it seems rather in regard to whats being talked about. There are two attributes given to those good women from the Quran's prospective in this situation, both of which aren't very clear, and both of which have many options as to what they possibly mean and what they are referring to, especially the second attribute.

One of the main attributes in Muslims perspective that defines a good person is their relation to god (if they believe in god of course), people who do things according to God's instructions or are obedient to god, are very good people. The same word used in Arabic describing those women in the verse which is translated to obedient, is also used in another instance and applied to both men and women, in them being obedient to god.

This alongside many other things that are opposed to the concept of women supposedly having to be obedient to men, are reasons to dismiss the interpretation of it as being obedient to the husband. That leaves one more thing, that actually in the verse, it does say afterwards if they 'obey you' indicating the men, which might be taken as also a sign to the first one also referring to the husbands. First, this is said after its clarified that the women is mistreating her husband (which is translated to her being 'arrogant' which i find very simplistic, especially considering that the word translated to 'arrogant' has a wide possibility of actions to be done so that a person can be labeled as such), you supposedly now advise them, then 'leave them in bed' which also by the way is interpreted in many ways, and finally the last part which we addressed being possibly holding many meanings as well. In this context, and considering that the concept of obedience in the Quran in general is not as simple as doing as you're told, and that the man is supposedly now advising the woman and trying to convey the message to her in different ways including of course saying in one form or another that she shouldn't be doing whatever it is she's doing, i don't think this at all indicates what might be took from the term, but rather something along the lines of "listen to you".

In the end however, again, i must say that the situation is that we're talking about something that is very complicated, have many possible meanings. Something which scholars have a wide variety of differing and opposing views in its regards, so i'm only of course speculating, or in other words this my own understanding. Also, please put in mind that we're starting off from the position of this supposedly being bad, and me trying to 'defend' it, which might contribute to me seemingly trying too much to avoid the supposed obvious meaning of the verse.

Sorry about the length by the way, but i couldn't explain this in any less words.

 

[Yukon]

My son I suggest you do a quick check in the King James version of the Holy Bible. With respect to control over women the Bible and Koran are very similar.

 

[take it or leave it]

That however doesn't negate neither of the facts i mentioned, that the word does have many meanings, and that most of the time in the Quran it doesn't actually mean beat. There are many possible reasons for why it might have been interpreted mostly that way (resulting in it of course being also translated that way).

I understand that the number of translations makes it hard for you to see it that way though.



I agree, and thats why i don't accept neither this interpretation nor the common translations.

mate -fact is the quran condones and instructs some sort of physical punishment for woman - thats sick , secondly why cant beat men lightly - surley isshould go both ways

 

[beenie]

mate -fact is the quran condones and instructs some sort of physical punishment for woman - thats sick , secondly why cant beat men lightly - surley isshould go both ways

Who says they can't? IF YOU ACCEPT THE COMMON TRANSLATION AS BEATING (which I personally DO NOT): There are NO rules restricting how hard/often/severely a woman can physically attack their husbands, the husbands, however, have restrictions placed upon them. Such restrictions include supposed beatings being an absolute last resort and supposed "lightly". Where are the restrictions on women? Since there are none, who says a woman can't strike her husband first? Find me a verse restricting or prohibiting women hitting their husbands in either the Qur'an or Hadith.

Quite frankly, I am disturbed that any holy book, be it Qur'an, Bible, etc. has to discuss physical abuse at all, but unfortunately reality is reality.

 

[Badran]

mate -fact is the quran condones and instructs some sort of physical punishment for woman - thats sick , secondly why cant beat men lightly - surley isshould go both ways

I'm not surprised that you didn't bother reading what i posted.

 

[waitasec]

That of course is your impression of the verse based on how its translated, what its mostly proposed to mean and the fact that it is addressed to men, i take it in a different way but i can certainly understand how easy it is to take it like you did, and i think your observation is quite fair based on the situation.

The thing is though before i start explaining what i think this verse mean, i should clarify that this verse is one of those verses that many scholars have differing and opposing views on, and not just in its general message but in each line from the verse. There are many opposing opinions regarding more than one instance in the same verse, and there are some words and expressions that aren't easy to understand or interpret in any definitive way.

The reason i'm saying this first is because i think you might get the impression there is an attempt to over complicate things, and/or attempts to read things into the verse that are not there just to try and supposedly justify it or take it to mean something else than it appears to be meaning. In other words, this verse is in reality a controversial verse and a very difficult one to understand, interpret and translate. So i'm just making it clear that usually things aren't like that with verses of the Quran (this complicated i mean), however there are many reasons that makes this verse needing of more effort in attempt to understand than other ones.

In regards to your question about why is this addressed to men, that obviously can be taken in more than one way, i personally assume that men were more needing of this direct instruction as to how to deal with problems in marriage, how to deal with their wives. As from my understanding and view men in general are more tending to mistreat women, and in that particular time and place they were extreme in their view of women and their treatment towards them. I think such limits and clear stages proposed were a necessity to clarify to those men what are they advised and allowed to do, and what is not.

In general i think putting into context to whom are verses addressed helps in understanding it more. The men in question here were people who viewed giving birth to a girl as a shame, and they used to bury those daughters alive. In other words a culture that was extremely against women, and incredibly mistreating of them. Treatment in general in Islam is clarified in many instances, but i think such direct instruction was much more needed to be aimed towards those men, and men in general.

To put it in a different way, the equality of men and women in general is clarified in other instances in the Quran, however when it comes to certain instructions in detail as to how to treat each other, it may be regarding or taking into notice the situation its addressing.



No, however there are differing opinions between scholars in regards to whether that obedience is to god or supposedly to the husband. I take it to be to god. I can understand if you feel there is no reason to take it to mean obedience to god, and i would also understand if you think thats rather unlikely considering what the verse is addressing and how it is supposedly worded, but please put the following into consideration. First, that you're reading the translated words, not the real actual words, thats just a point to keep in mind. Second, here is why i think it actually means obedience to god. That part of the verse was describing what are the attributes of good women, of course not in general, as that is too wide, but it seems rather in regard to whats being talked about. There are two attributes given to those good women from the Quran's prospective in this situation, both of which aren't very clear, and both of which have many options as to what they possibly mean and what they are referring to, especially the second attribute.

One of the main attributes in Muslims perspective that defines a good person is their relation to god (if they believe in god of course), people who do things according to God's instructions or are obedient to god, are very good people. The same word used in Arabic describing those women in the verse which is translated to obedient, is also used in another instance and applied to both men and women, in them being obedient to god.

This alongside many other things that are opposed to the concept of women supposedly having to be obedient to men, are reasons to dismiss the interpretation of it as being obedient to the husband. That leaves one more thing, that actually in the verse, it does say afterwards if they 'obey you' indicating the men, which might be taken as also a sign to the first one also referring to the husbands. First, this is said after its clarified that the women is mistreating her husband (which is translated to her being 'arrogant' which i find very simplistic, especially considering that the word translated to 'arrogant' has a wide possibility of actions to be done so that a person can be labeled as such), you supposedly now advise them, then 'leave them in bed' which also by the way is interpreted in many ways, and finally the last part which we addressed being possibly holding many meanings as well. In this context, and considering that the concept of obedience in the Quran in general is not as simple as doing as you're told, and that the man is supposedly now advising the woman and trying to convey the message to her in different ways including of course saying in one form or another that she shouldn't be doing whatever it is she's doing, i don't think this at all indicates what might be took from the term, but rather something along the lines of "listen to you".

In the end however, again, i must say that the situation is that we're talking about something that is very complicated, have many possible meanings. Something which scholars have a wide variety of differing and opposing views in its regards, so i'm only of course speculating, or in other words this my own understanding. Also, please put in mind that we're starting off from the position of this supposedly being bad, and me trying to 'defend' it, which might contribute to me seemingly trying too much to avoid the supposed obvious meaning of the verse.

Sorry about the length by the way, but i couldn't explain this in any less words.

i think the reason some of these passages you say are very controversial is because of the nature of it's context. you admitted that women were not seen as equal to men yet you do not want to see that these very words are a byproduct of that view...but i understand how you are trying to reconcile the treatment of women in the quran because it contradicts your personal views of women and you are forced to reconcile this very obvious flaw by learning how to live with this very large pink elephant in your living room.
another thing i find rather interesting is that god seems to be a monoglot, and the interpretations of the true meaning is lost because it is interpreted into another language...seems rather exclusive...limiting and very human like

 

[Marble]

Nobody should be beaten by anybody and any scripture allowing this is wrong.

 

[beenie]

Nobody should be beaten by anybody and any scripture allowing this is wrong.

Can't argue with that.

 

[Badran]

i think the reason some of these passages you say are very controversial is because of the nature of it's context.

There are many reasons like i said for why this verse is controversial. That includes the many possible meanings for more than one word used, grammar, and putting in mind other teachings in Islam, which are all part of the things that go into interpretation amongst other things.

you admitted that women were not seen as equal to men

Its not much of admitting anything rather than stating things the way they are, i have no problem with saying that men back then viewed women as inferior. Why would i have any problem with saying that?

This doesn't include people who supposedly embraced Islam as i understand it, or the prophet of course. Both did not view women in the same light as they were viewed by many other people, as to me part of Islam's advancements encouraged or taught back then was regarding women. The Quran teaches that both men and women are equal, that all people in general are equal, and that the only difference between people is through their actions.

yet you do not want to see that these very words are a byproduct of that view...but i understand how you are trying to reconcile the treatment of women in the quran because it contradicts your personal views of women and you are forced to reconcile this very obvious flaw by learning how to live with this very large pink elephant in your living room.

Well, no, i'm afraid you're wrong on all accounts. There is nothing that i don't want to see, there is no obvious flaw, and i'm not forced to reconcile anything.

First, saying that those words are a byproduct of the view of people back then is of course partially based on your view of this book as another mere man made supposed scripture of god etc... which is a view i don't share, so we are starting off from different points. Secondly, if the Quran contradicted my views there are only two things that i accept doing, either changing my views or dropping my belief in the Quran, anything else to me is a waste of time. There is no "cultural" values or emotional attachments that are worth embracing something i feel is wrong, if that was actually how i felt.

Finally, continuing on what i just said, i'm not of course reconciling the meaning of the verse or any supposed flaw. We're starting off with translations based on the same supposed meaning and interpretation, and that this verse needs defending. That, however, in fact, is not what the verse necessarily means, or should be translated into. That part, is not a mere opinion, its a fact. The verse does hold many possible meanings, however one was assumed correct by enough people and has been interpreted and translated and taught based on that.

I however have a different understanding of the verse.

another thing i find rather interesting is that god seems to be a monoglot, and the interpretations of the true meaning is lost because it is interpreted into another language...seems rather exclusive...limiting and very human like

Thats a topic for another thread.

 

[Oneatatime]

One of the more frustrating things about religion is that passage of scripture which clearly state what they mean are then subject to dubious reinterpretation to make them sound nicer if by modern standards they are considered unnaceptable. Why not just accept that the scipture is wrong in some aspects of how it states women are to be treated instead of going throught this pantomine of reinterpretation when the meaning is abundantly clear in the first place?

Its about time religious scipture was updated to reflect modern times.

 

[waitasec]

Its not much of admitting anything rather than stating things the way they are, i have no problem with saying that men back then viewed women as inferior. Why would i have any problem with saying that?

even though we are going to agree to disagree i just wanted to clarify...
i didn't mean to intend you were hiding anything...instead of using the word admitted, i should have said, "you yourself said..."

interpretation, however, is an important thing to consider