The attack Quran thread

[epronovost]

The last sermon of the prophet just shortly before his death, he asked men to be kind with
their women, he didn't told them beat your women if they didn't listen to you.

Then why is beating your wife legal in theocratic islamic countries and why is it tolerable except in its most extreme version in pretty much every muslim majority countries and in history.? Did every arab speaking person from the death of the Prophet onward was incapable of reading ancient arabic even if they were speaking and reading ancient arabic themselves?

 

[firedragon]

But then why does it say what it says, if it doesn't matter who is the caretaker of the kids and who is the earner?

Who said it doesnt matter? Is there any statement like that anywhere? Please point out.

 

[firedragon]

I don't think he is talking about quranic passages, but rather about how it's implemented in the world.
In general, it is quite clear that the muslim world is much more stuck in the past then the christian world.

I'm not aware of any christian countries that don't allow women to go out by themselves, to get an education, to get a job, to drive a car,... As a culture, the muslim world is extremely conservative and extremely opposed to such cultural advancement regarding the emancipation of women and alike.

I don't think you can deny this and keep a straight face.

Yeah. But that's not relevant to the thread. So if this is what you wish to discuss about countries and what people do, its not relevant to this thread.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I explained my point, and you're free to believe it or not.

You explained "your" point, but you didn't address mine.

It's not about what I believe or not. It's about what is sensible.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Who said it doesnt matter?

Well, you kind of did, by saying that it isn't un-islamic, and thus not a problem, for a household where these roles, as established by the quran, are reversed: where the woman is the earner and the man is the caretaker.

If it doesn't matter, if islam is totally cool with that, then by definition it doesn't matter who is the earner and who is the caretaker.

Hence my question: if that is the case, then why establish such roles in the first place?

Is there any statement like that anywhere? Please point out.

Your own post?

Or are you now taking it back and saying that it actually DOES matter if the man in the household is not the earner but a stay-at-home dad, while the wife is the worker who earns a living?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yeah. But that's not relevant to the thread. So if this is what you wish to discuss about countries and what people do, its not relevant to this thread.

It's not a point I am making. I was just clarifying what that other dude meant, because you seemed to have misunderstood it.

 

[firedragon]

Are you seriously asking me to explain to you how a group of people who are under the responsability of another doesn't have the same status?

Nope. You misrepresented your own statement that I replied to.

And you will recognise that this is very misogynistic and liberticide for women as it prevents them from achieving equal social status, political power and personnal freedom.

Thats your statement.

So my question is, if the husband, and father is given the responsibility of providing for the family, can you provide well researched data that proves your statement above?

Maybe you misunderstood the whole matter. There is no where, where I claimed that "women cannot work, be equal in society, in politics, in personal freedom, etc". You have inferred it into the statement "the husband, and father is given the responsibility of providing for the family".

So if you have some data that proves your assertions that comes as an aftermath of this statement please provide

Hope you understand.

 

[firedragon]

Well, you kind of did, by saying that it isn't un-islamic, and thus not a problem, for a household where these roles, as established by the quran, are reversed: where the woman is the earner and the man is the caretaker.

Nope. Never did.

 

[firedragon]

It's not a point I am making. I was just clarifying what that other dude meant, because you seemed to have misunderstood it.

Oh okay. Thanks for that. I may have misunderstood. Yet again, if that is the case its not relevant to this discussion. Its a great discussion honestly but not for this thread. Im sorry I misunderstood your clarification.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nope. Never did.

Dude.....

Thats the first objective question in this thread so far so that's a well done.

Yes, the men are given the position of "supporter" of the household. Thats not "guardianship" as in the owner.

Kawwamun simply means the steadfast one, the supporter, the upright. Yes. The men are the responsible one to be all of that to the family. It is his responsibility to earn for the family and feed them.

Does this mean that it is "un-islamic" for a man to stay home with the kids while the wife has the bigshot carreer?

Nope. Its not said anywhere.

I took that answer to my question to mean that "no, it's not un-islamic for a woman to be the earner while the man stays home to take care of the kids. It's not said anywhere that this is a problem".

If that isn't what you meant, then please clarify.
If that is what you meant... well... then you are contradicting yourself.


Please clear up this issue in unambiguous terms.

Is it a problem, yes or no? And why?

 

[firedragon]

Why is there no massive protest against this supposed HUGE mistake in the translation?

What do you mean by "massive protest"? Can you explain what you expect as a protest?

 

[firedragon]

Dude.....









I took that answer to my question to mean that "no, it's not un-islamic for a woman to be the earner while the man stays home to take care of the kids. It's not said anywhere that this is a problem".

If that isn't what you meant, then please clarify.
If that is what you meant... well... then you are contradicting yourself.


Please clear up this issue in unambiguous terms.

Is it a problem, yes or not?

Hold on.

So what you are saying is that if I said "it's not un-islamic for a woman to be the earner while the man stays home to take care of the kids. It's not said anywhere that this is a problem" I am contradicting myself?

In order to contradict myself, I have to say something opposite to this right?

See you doing the fallacy of false dilemma. When I say "Yes, the men are given the position of "supporter" of the household. Thats not "guardianship" as in the owner. Kawwamun simply means the steadfast one, the supporter, the upright. Yes. The men are the responsible one to be all of that to the family. It is his responsibility to earn for the family and feed them." that doesnt mean it contradicts the statement "it's not un-islamic for a woman to be the earner while the man stays home to take care of the kids. It's not said anywhere that this is a problem". No one said women cannot work. No one said the husband can be a homemaker. It is the husbands appointed responsibility to feed the family, but if it works the other way around, its all good for them. Its their prerogative. No one is said to have ended in hellfire for that mate.

The man is born with responsibility. Thats the whole point. The man has to give the wife money to live, to provide for the kids, and household. He has to do the hard work. But given a situation the wife is the one or that she is the one who makes more money, that's completely irrelevant to this statement. Its their prerogative.

False dilemma. Hope you understand.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I think it can't be denied that words, in practically all human languages, are somewhat open to interpretations and arguments. The Qur'an seems to say something like "if God wanted everyone to believe and agree, they would, but they don't, because God doesn't want them to, so that humans compete and conflict with one another, vying against each other in both good and evil works, and it will be made manifest who are the right, and true winners, and who are the wrong, and true losers",

Well, then you'll have to excuse me if I continue to believe that I, myself, am among the "right and true winners." After all... it's simply open to interpretation, correct?

Do you think such a thing exists?

I haven't started thinking such a thing yet, and I doubt I ever will. Based on the evidence and arguments I have seen thus far in my life, there is absolutely no good reason to believe in such a thing.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

A female, as a wife can seek divorce if the man is being Nushuz and not reforming. I gave you the verses already. And these steps, dont take them as different sentences. its one sentence.

Let me make it clear. Men and women in the Quran are not the same.

Okay. Let me tell you something. Quran says that a woman is allowed to suckle the child for two years after divorce without guardianship (even). Is there a verse where it says men are allowed to suckle children?

I specifically cited "non-gender-related differences." Do you understand what I meant by that? Apparently you did not, because you are bringing up this "suckling" bit. I specifically noted "non-gender-related" because I didn't want you to do something stupid - like cite something like "men don't get periods." But you did it anyway. Do you understand what I am saying?

A woman can use sex as a bargaining chip just as well as a man can, if not even more effectively - because an ACTUAL gender-related difference is that men tend to want sex more and naturally have stronger urges. Which, I truly believe, is why the writers of the Quran would NEVER even hint at the idea that a woman should/could deny their husband sex in order to try and reform some aspect of their behavior. Fine and dandy for the husband - even prescribed by the religious text! Not mentioned for the wife - and I believe that to be for very specific reasons. What do you think that I might think those reasons are? Are you too bashful to answer a question like that? Well, I'll tell you one thing... it's not because women are instead allowed to suckle their infants - that's for damn sure.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What do you mean by "massive protest"? Can you explain what you expect as a protest?

Any public outcry will do.
Not sure what you don't understand about that.

Short of that, any sign at all of half decent attempts at rectifying the mistranslation and distributing new, corrected, copies.
Not seeing either.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hold on.

So what you are saying is that if I said "it's not un-islamic for a woman to be the earner while the man stays home to take care of the kids. It's not said anywhere that this is a problem" I am contradicting myself?

In order to contradict myself, I have to say something opposite to this right?

First you said it doesn't matter / isn't a problem and then you said it matters. Or at least, you denied that you said it doesn't matter / isn't a problem.

It seems to me that you are dancing all around the issue. Why can't you just come out and be clear about it without all this confusion and ambiguity?

Is it a problem for a woman to be the earner and the man to be a stay-at-home dad, yes or no?
No extra requirements, no extra parameters, no "buts" or "ifs" or what have you.

See you doing the fallacy of false dilemma. When I say "Yes, the men are given the position of "supporter" of the household. Thats not "guardianship" as in the owner. Kawwamun simply means the steadfast one, the supporter, the upright. Yes. The men are the responsible one to be all of that to the family. It is his responsibility to earn for the family and feed them." that doesnt mean it contradicts the statement "it's not un-islamic for a woman to be the earner while the man stays home to take care of the kids. It's not said anywhere that this is a problem". No one said women cannot work. No one said the husband can be a homemaker. It is the husbands appointed responsibility to feed the family, but if it works the other way around, its all good for them. Its their prerogative. No one is said to have ended in hellfire for that mate.

Please respond to the post chain I provided instead of adding other responses to other people into it. I never made any claims or points about "quardians" and "owners" and whatnot.

Bottom line:
First you told me it's not a problem. Then when I asked follow up questions, you ignored them all and instead backpaddled and you pretty much denied that you said it's not an issue, by claiming that you never said that it didn't matter.

Either it matters, or it doesn't. Pick one so we can move on instead of dancing all around.

The man is born with responsibility. Thats the whole point. The man has to give the wife money to live, to provide for the kids, and household. He has to do the hard work. But given a situation the wife is the one or that she is the one who makes more money, that's completely irrelevant to this statement. Its their prerogative.

Yes, you said that already. I then asked follow up questions. And then you back paddled while ignoring those questions. Either that, or you are being incredibly unclear in your responses.

So, to sum up:
- the quran established different roles for different genders
- if a household does the exact opposite of those established roles, that's totally fine.
- from this follows, that households can just ignore those things established by the quran in those verses.
- this raises the question: why then does the quran establish these roles, if they don't matter anyway?

Here are my follow up questions again:

But then why does it say what it says, if it doesn't matter who is the caretaker of the kids and who is the earner?

If it can go both ways and if it doesn't matter which, then why mention one and not the other? Why mention anything at all about said subject?

Isn't it misleading then, to only mention one and not comment at all about the other?
I mean, it seems to me that by saying the thing it says, it clearly is dividing up the roles of the various members of a household, right?

So if it is true that it is equally fine to turn the tables, then why identify those roles specifically for males and females?


Please address those questions. I'm just trying to figure it out and you established yourself as a quranic authority in this thread, so please explain it to me.

False dilemma. Hope you understand.

Not false about it. Just trying to find the exit of this labyrinth of words you seem to building.

 

[epronovost]

So my question is, if the husband, and father is given the responsibility of providing for the family, can you provide well researched data that proves your statement above?

Hope you understand.

If a a husband is given responsability for providing for his family and is given authority over his wife, which is the case since she owes him obediance, a wife isn't on equal footing when it comes to financial independance and authority in society. She depends on someone else to provide for her and that person has authority over her and the finance of the familly. This is misogynistic since it place a woman in a position of subserviance and dependance toward her husband who holds a higher social status. With responsabilities comes power.

All societies in which men are given authority over their wives (ie those in which wives owe obediance to their husband) and where husband must provide for their wives impeed the freedom, social status and authority of adult women. The more a country holds to such religious idea, the more women suffer for it.

Help or Hindrance? Religion’s Impact on Gender Inequality in Attitudes and Outcomes - ScienceDirect

Religion and gender inequality: The status of women in the societies of world religions in: Moravian Geographical Reports Volume 23 Issue 2 (2015)

 

[firedragon]

I specifically cited "non-gender-related differences." Do you understand what I meant by that? Apparently you did not, because you are bringing up this "suckling" bit. I specifically noted "non-gender-related" because I didn't want you to do something stupid - like cite something like "men don't get periods." But you did it anyway. Do you understand what I am saying?

A woman can use sex as a bargaining chip just as well as a man can, if not even more effectively - because an ACTUAL gender-related difference is that men tend to want sex more and naturally have stronger urges. Which, I truly believe, is why the writers of the Quran would NEVER even hint at the idea that a woman should/could deny their husband sex in order to try and reform some aspect of their behavior. Fine and dandy for the husband - even prescribed by the religious text! Not mentioned for the wife - and I believe that to be for very specific reasons. What do you think that I might think those reasons are? Are you too bashful to answer a question like that? Well, I'll tell you one thing... it's not because women are instead allowed to suckle their infants - that's for damn sure.

Brother. If the male has a larger urge, that would be the reason to tell the woman to deny sex. The man having a larger urge, and the woman not, then telling the man to stay away from sex as a deprivation to a woman, not the other way round is an oxymoron.

Because your questions are honestly objective, I will entertain your subtle disparages. No problem. So lets assume I am too bashful, or otherwise. What ever you please.

You didnt understand the point. Women and men are different according to the Quran. They are not the same. There are different rulings for men and women all over the Quran. But if you look at them specifically there is reasoning behind them. What a lot of people do is make simple and generic statements without going into specifics. Thus the analogy I gave about suckling is to show that difference in Quranic regulations. You have assumed its something like "periods". Nope. Thats not it. In a case of a divorce, whoever gets custody is a civil matter, but no matter what happens the woman is allowed to suckle the child for two years even if the man is married again, or the woman is married again. Thats the right of the woman and the child. That was the point.

When you presume that one person is "Stupid" you have made your foundation already so after that its a genetic fallacy because you have already determined the source will say something stupid. But rather, analyse whats being said and if you are in doubt clarify.

Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

Any public outcry will do.

You mean like hold placards and hit the streets?

Mate. It seems like you have no clue of how far Muslims have been doing this kind of criticism since the beginning of documented thought in the post Muhammedan era.

 

[firedragon]

But then why does it say what it says, if it doesn't matter who is the caretaker of the kids and who is the earner?

Even if it doesnt matter, it is the mans responsibility. You are liable.