Islam: male superiority and wife beating?

[Faint]

I was wondering about chapter 4 part 34 in the Quran which (one translation) says: "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them, refuse to share their beds, beat them; but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means: For Allah is Most High, Great."

Am I reading this correctly? Is this a good translation? I ask because what I see here is:
1) Islam sets the men above women
2) Women are meant to be obedient to men (to obey)
3) Men are given divine permission to beat women

Any truth to that?

 

[Mike182]

within the last century in England, men were allowed to both rape their wives, and beat them with a stick no thicker than their thumb - this changed in the 1960's i think, i shall check

my point is, we have really only just started aquiring equality for women in our own cultures, and we certainly haven't reached equality yet it is not just islam that teaches this

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

my point is, we have really only just started aquiring equality for women in our own cultures, ...

Therefore?

 

[michel]

An excerpt From:-http://students.washington.edu/neenee31/Eggers%20Spousal%20Abuse%20in%20Islam.htm

Nicole Eggers

Philosophy 338 – Human Rights

Final Paper

It is my intention to augment Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As the right stands, it states “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” I wish to add an addendum that states “No person shall be subject to physical harm of any kind, even if the justifications for this physical harm are religious in nature. All persons have the right to protection under the law from physical harm.” This would be a positive right for anyone to have police protection if they are beaten by someone based merely on religious grounds which stated they were justified due to a religious authority’s sanctification. If a wife has been beaten by her husband, and she brings the matter to the police, her husband cannot claim he was merely following the guidelines of his religion as justification for the physical abuse. His wife should be allowed to have the opportunity to ‘press charges’ against her husband as he has physically abused her, and his defense on religious grounds would be completely null and void. This supplement to Article 3 comes from my research into the Islamic practice of spousal abuse, namely the verses in the Quran that state a man is justified religiously by the teachings of Allah to beat his wife if she is disobedient to him.

In Islamic culture, the male gender is considered to be superior to the female gender. It is stated in the Islamic holy text, the Quran, that "Men are superior to women on account of the qualities with which God has gifted the one above the other." Men are given overarching power in any and all situations because their religious authority has dictated that men are inherently greater than women. Men are seen as the “protectors and maintainers” of women as God has endowed the male gender with greater strength and thus a greater ability to care for the female. The website islamonline.net, which was created to inform both Islamic and Non-Islamic scholars alike on the teaching of the Quran, which states their God, Allah, dictated to his prophets, "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more strength than the other, and because they support them (females) from their (males) means.”

Author Silas states on the website answeringislam.org, a website designed to create dialogue between Christians and Muslims, that according to these passages, males in Islam believe that such passages confirm the mindset that the male of the household “should always be honored and respected in his home as if he were ‘god.’” Allah’s definition of the male as superior over the female allows the male to see themselves as the ‘god’ of their household, and therefore their wives are to serve and obey them as if they were actual ‘gods.’

The Quran presents steps for a husband to follow when dealing with a rebellious wife. First, he is to “verbally admonish” her, and if this fails he is to desert her sexually. If both of these attempts fail, then the male is advised by the Islamic religious authority, Allah, to beat his wife in order to correct her dissident behavior. Female disobedience is wholly despised by Islam as the males are the dictated leaders and holders of all overarching power. The Islamic holy text, the Quran, states that according to their supreme religious authority, Allah, a man is permitted to physically harm his disobedient wife in order to correct her actions as he is the superior sex and has the ability to control her actions as he sees fit. M. Rafiqul-Haqq and P. Newton, two prominent Islamic authors wrote in their online essay, The Place of Women in Pure Islam, “…in his private home, a man is to be seen as a ‘god’ who must be obeyed by his wife as if he was truly a ‘ruling god’.” Sheikh Yousef Qaradhawi, the chief of the European Council for Fatwa and Research, states "Because of his natural ability and his responsibility for providing for his family, the man is the head of the house and of the family. He is entitled to the obedience and cooperation of his wife.”

 

[Mike182]

Therefore?

therefore although i agree we should all push for equality, its a bit tongue in cheek to down right criticise another religion/culture when ours is not all that much better

 

[Faint]

therefore although i agree we should all push for equality, its a bit tongue in cheek to down right criticise another religion/culture when ours is not all that much better

As far as I know, our culture doesn't have mores which advocate beating women. But (as you know) I will openly criticize any religion which is not good for humanity--no matter when it was written.

 

[Mike182]

As far as I know, our culture doesn't have mores which advocate beating women. But (as you know) I will openly criticize any religion which is not good for humanity--no matter when it was written.

If you deem the islamic beliefs on this as being morally wrong, then fair enough, but change happens over time, as it did in our cultures

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

therefore although i agree we should all push for equality, its a bit tongue in cheek to down right criticise another religion/culture when ours is not all that much better

If you seriously believe that, when it comes to attitudes toward and the treatment of women, the culture in Nottingham is "not all that much better" than the culture in Teheran, you are both naive and delusional.

 

[Mike182]

If you seriously believe that, when it comes to attitudes toward and the treatment of women, the culture in Nottingham is "not all that much better" the culture in Teheran, you are both naive and delusional.

yea, but 50 years ago, women were treated like @#/? in nottingham! what im trying to say is yes we should campaign for women everywhere to get equal rights, but if we come over in a massively condeming way, we will achieve nothing - which not what any of us wants.

for instance, if you argue to persuade people to come round to your way of thinking, you are more likely to suceed that if you go barging in saying "do you seriously believe the crud you've been believing all your lifes??!! get real!" which is how faint came across in her original post

 

[Faint]

yea, but 50 years ago, women were treated like @#/? in nottingham! what im trying to say is yes we should campaign for women everywhere to get equal rights, but if we come over in a massively condeming way, we will achieve nothing - which not what any of us wants.

I'm glad you agree that things need to improve for women in the Islamic world (perhaps everywhere). But I wouldn't be so quick to discount radical thoughts and condemning words...they usually appeal to the youth of a nation, which would be the best target for a paradigm shift (since older generations tend to die off).

for instance, if you argue to persuade people to come round to your way of thinking, you are more likely to suceed that if you go barging in saying "do you seriously believe the crud you've been believing all your lifes??!! get real!" which is how faint came across in her original post

Gently align and redirerct their way of thinking? Sure, that works sometimes. Or... you can use strong words to rally anyone else who's listening and then all come barging in together. In my observations, raw emotion tends to persuade masses of people far better than reason or logic given in polite conversation. I like the "force the enemy into submission" approach, which seems to do well in the animal kingdom (of which we are still a part). But I'm not really trying to do either here.

 

[Jaymes]

Short answer: No.

Long answer: Read this.

"God does not judge you according to your bodies and appearances, but He looks into your hearts and observes your deeds."
[The man asked] "Who is more entitled to be treated with the best companionship by me?" The Prophet said, "Your mother." The man said. "Who is next?" The Prophet said, "Your mother." The man further said, "Who is next?" The Prophet said, "Your mother." The man asked for the fourth time, "Who is next?" The Prophet said, "Your father."

* Sahih al-Bukhari, 8:2

I think that's pretty clear.

 

[Mike182]

I'm glad you agree that things need to improve for women in the Islamic world (perhaps everywhere). But I wouldn't be so quick to discount radical thoughts and condemning words...they usually appeal to the youth of a nation, which would be the best target for a paradigm shift (since older generations tend to die off).

Gently align and redirerct their way of thinking? Sure, that works sometimes. Or... you can use strong words to rally anyone else who's listening and then all come barging in together. In my observations, raw emotion tends to persuade masses of people far better than reason or logic given in polite conversation. I like the "force the enemy into submission" approach, which seems to do well in the animal kingdom (of which we are still a part). But I'm not really trying to do either here.

so after you have used your strong words, and they have used their strong back, and everyone thinks everyone else is an arrogant fool, where do you go from there?

 

[Faint]

so after you have used your strong words, and they have used their strong back, and everyone thinks everyone else is an arrogant fool, where do you go from there?

Find a new target. Repeat the process. Listen, there are some traditions (meme-complexes) that are no good for the world. Once those are eliminated, the world be much better off. Trust me on this one--I'm a doctor.

 

[Mike182]

Find a new target. Repeat the process.

im sorry, i must have been blind to not see, that splitting people up with blind heated arguments is actually the best way to reconcile the nations :banghead3

Listen, there are some traditions (meme-complexes) that are no good for the world. Once those are eliminated, the world be much better off. Trust me on this one--I'm a doctor.

meme-complex
:A meme is a cultural element or belief, whose replication and persistance in human culture can be studied in an analogous way to the replication and persistence of genes in a population's gene pool. A meme-complex is a group of related memes which reinforce each other and cooperate for their common survival. “The existence of Hell” is a meme, but “Christianity” is a meme-complex.

(taken from http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Meme )


so you believe that doing away with organised religions like christianity and islam is the way in which the world can be made a better place - well, fair enough, your oppinion and your entitled to it, but i don't think im gonna subscribe to it

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

I was wondering about chapter 4 part 34 in the Quran which (one translation) says: "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them, refuse to share their beds, beat them; but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means: For Allah is Most High, Great."

Am I reading this correctly? Is this a good translation? I ask because what I see here is:
1) Islam sets the men above women
2) Women are meant to be obedient to men (to obey)
3) Men are given divine permission to beat women

Any truth to that?

Well I hate to do anything so banal as to bring this thread back on topic, but I fear I must. Does this seem to be giving divine permission to men to beat their wives? Yes.

Does that make it right? Well I guess that depends upon whether you beleive in Allah. If you do, then you have to say it is a good thing, and accept your beatings. I personally don't care much for many of the verses of both the Old Testament Bible, and the Koran. The verse of the sword stands out as one I particularly dislike.

B.

 

[linwood]

so you believe that doing away with organised religions like christianity and islam is the way in which the world can be made a better place - well, fair enough, your oppinion and your entitled to it, but i don't think im gonna subscribe to it

Thats ok, she`s got company already.



As to the Op.
Yes, the verse orders the submission and physical abuse of women.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

yea, but 50 years ago, women were treated like @#/? in nottingham!

Would you provide a few examples of honor killings and Church support of wife beating in 1955 Nottingham?

 

[Mike182]

Would you provide a few examples of honor killings and Church support of wife beating in 1955 Nottingham?

why does it need to be supported by the church? in 1955 the church did not run this country

anyway, http://www.uelsu.net/main/FUEL/diversity/ellis

She was the last woman to be hung in this country on 13th July 1955. She was hung for shooting her former lover, David Blakely

Ellis had several factors in her life that questioned her mental stability at the time of the murder. At the time of the murder Ellis was addicted to anti depressants and was drinking heavily which combined has nothing but a major effect on the individual's mental judgement. Ellis was also still dealing with the effects of being raped by her father as a child. This was not the first man to abuse Ellis during her life. She had countless boyfriends and husbands who witnessed her to domestic violence, Blakely was no exception. 10 days prior to her shooting him, a fight had occurred whereby Blakely had punched her in the stomach resulting in Ellis miscarrying their baby.

my point is that to change a culture, it takes time

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

my point is that to change a culture, it takes time

No, your point was: "its a bit tongue in cheek to down right criticise another religion/culture when ours is not all that much better", which is an appeal for silence in the face of the most serious civil rights abuses. Perhaps we should have likewise ceased condemnation of South African Apartheid because of our earlier slave trade.

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

Sounds as if liberal's hatred of their own culture/country is not confined to America. We have lots of "blame America first" people here in the U.S. They love to tell anyone who will listen how lousy their fellow Americans are.

This attitude is especially prolific at another board I post on www.thenausea.com/forum a few posters there are big into defending all kinds of deplorable behavior, as long as it is not being committed by an American, but go nuts at the least thing any American soldier does.

If you have a strong stomach, take a look at some of the vids on that site, and you will see the horrific things that are being done by one semi-human to another human. Lots of disgusting behavior caught on film in North Africa, Middle East, Chechnya, China, North Korea, etc. . . But in this age of political correctness, we are not supposed to talk about such things, I suppose.

Religious/totalitarian regimes are infamous for horrendous treatment of women and anyone who does not fall into the pattern of what the religious/political leaders deem to be acceptable. There is substantial verbage in both the Bible and Q'uran advocating violence up to and including mass genocide.

And looking back at the history of Western Culture and some of the attocities committed therein, such as the Salem Witch trials, The Inquisition, many many pogrommes, the treatment of women and blacks as chattel, etc. . . does not excuse such barbaric behaviors going on in other cultures at the present time. Those things were wrong when they happened, and often occured because of ignorance of secular humanistic ideas, and due to hyper religiosity and hyper nationalism.

We realize that our ancestors did wrong by engaging in such behaviors, and they are no longer tolerated by western civilization, nor should they be tolerated elsewhere.

B.