Wife Beating

[robertthebard]

Originally posted by PurpleXVI: www.bible.ca is where you got your information on the Qu'ran, judging by your link, I am not talking about your Bible quotes. It supports creationism and states that homosexuality is an abomination. I do not trust a fundamentalist website to provide accurate info on another religion. I'd also like to state that in a lot of highly religious Christian societies, you'll probably find the cops covering up for what happens behind closed curtains, women not wanting to tell what happened and punishment being rare. The only difference is that the Christian communities are generally more prosperous, but prosperity has little to do with morality. A lot of women in fundamentalist Christian societies may have the option of getting educated, but that doesn't mean many of them will take it if their husband feels it's their job to stay at home and produce babies. You have a good point on the lacking data, but it's still possible to assemble some. Until I see any of this data, inaccurate or otherwise, I'm not going to judge Muslims as being more wife-beating than Christians. Even if the Qu'ran does permit it, that doesn't mean all Muslim men are savages who think it's a fun idea to beat their wives.

Ok, big question here. Are you justifying the behavior of Muslims by saying that other cultures do it too? So it's ok to use the "they did it first", or, "they do it too" when it comes to wife beating, but not for going to war? What kind of moral turnaround is that? Oh, wait, I understand completely. It's the persecuted culture syndrome. I've seen it before. Point to order, I do believe that you will find very few Bhudist wife beaters. Find another analogy.

@ Lady Z, oh no you didn't...

[dhalgren]

ignorance, prejudice, extrapolation etc..

Same old production in this thread. For the majority of muslims (estimates over a billion worldwide from some sources) the "beating", "assault" etc.. are symbolically represented by a tap of the finger on the back. While I still disagree with the intent here, it's a far cry from what is portrayed by the radical minority through our mediascope.

[Ladyzekke]

OK, Tap of the finger on the back? What does that do? I mean, if it does not hurt and is nothing, then it will do exactly that, nothing. I mean, is that some sort of symbolic beating then? Like a threat of what it could be if they don't shape up?

Punishment using physical means usually only works if it hurts, to be blunt. Otherwise it is symbolic and will only work with those that respect said symbol.

Of course hurting people, men or women, for whatever reason, is despicable to me, so even if that sort of punishment works, it's only because the victim does not want to be hurt anymore, so will obey, not out of respect mind you, or love, just cause they don't want to be hurt anymore.

As a woman I can only reply to this type of topic in a personal way according to my own life's experiences. I'm not saying I am right or wrong in any general manner. For me, I personally respond to gentleness and respect way more than aggressive disrespect. I think most people do.

[johnny]

Originally posted by dhalgren: ignorance, prejudice, extrapolation etc.. Same old production in this thread. For the majority of muslims (estimates over a billion worldwide from some sources) the "beating", "assault" etc.. are symbolically represented by a tap of the finger on the back. While I still disagree with the intent here, it's a far cry from what is portrayed by the radical minority through our mediascope.

*sigh*

[robertthebard]

Originally posted by dhalgren: ignorance, prejudice, extrapolation etc.. Same old production in this thread. For the majority of muslims (estimates over a billion worldwide from some sources) the "beating", "assault" etc.. are symbolically represented by a tap of the finger on the back. While I still disagree with the intent here, it's a far cry from what is portrayed by the radical minority through our mediascope.

I have to agree with Lady Z here. What does the symbolic tap represent? "If you don't come around to my way of thinking, I'm going to tap you again"? Or is it something more severe next time? I'm sorry, but I feel that a culture that convicts the rape victim of being raped, instead of the rapist(s), has a definite problem.

Shoe on the other foot; if your sister was raped, and then stoned to death for being raped, would you still feel that you lived in a non-violent, tap of the finger on the back culture? These aren't just the extremists we're talking about here, these are the run of the mill "moderates".

The defence has to be four witnesses that can testify, or would testify, that she wasn't dressed provacatively. What exactly does that mean? Some people have a foot fetish, so if she was wearing her full regalia, but barefoot, would she be dressed provacatively? Too many things about the culture in general point to "a tap of the finger on the back" not being the end all of the punishment.

[Memnoch]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Jesus, Purple, can you possibly be more emo? WTF dude.

I think Neb, aside from being a bleeding heart liberal, is trying to provide some sort of balance to the discussion. As long as we all keep our tempers (Neb included) and accept that differences of opinion exist, and not force each others' opinions on each other, I think we'll do fine. It's getting more difficult to maintain this discussion and the socio-economic and political behaviours that Islam has institutionalised in its worshippers, much like Christianity in the Middle Ages, while still maintaining our religious moratorium, but we'll see how we go. As long as we don't get into the "my faith is better than your faith" stuff we should be ok.

In fact, I was planning to provide a counterpoint as well as I have debated this issue, and many other issues regarding Islam, to death with Muslims on ESPNSTAR (there, as part of a Christian minority I find myself challenging Islamic beliefs, while here, ironically, I find myself defending them), but I couldn't be bothered - one debate was enough for me.

In fact, if we didn't have the moratorium, I was hoping that I could entice a good Muslim mate of mine from that forum (he's Pakistani and works for a big bank in Hong Kong) to come and provide a Muslim perspective, which we are unfortunately lacking on this forum. He and I still disagree on many, many issues but he was extremely patient in explaining his perspective to me even though when talking to him, I was more smart-assy than Timber, more one-eyed than Morguerat and nowhere near as big a bleeding heart, "I take in beaten kittens" pinko as Neb. (Have I managed to insult everyone yet?)

As I said, I still disagree with him on many aspects of his religion, but I have a better understanding of it now at least, not in the least the divisions within it.

If we can maintain a cordial level of discussion here without anyone starting to take things personally, there may be a very, very, very, very, very remote chance that we will re-evaluate this religious moratorium. But no promises, and only if there is absolutely zero chance that it's not going to create more work for me/us.

[ 02-07-2007, 01:29 AM: Message edited by: Memnoch ]

[robertthebard]

I read through that first link you provided, and I can understand part of what's going on. In regard to being glad to see debate, anyway. In a forum where things are not discussed, it's written this way, and that's the way it is, the fact that people are debating something is promising. It shows just a little glimmer of wanting to change. I really don't have the inclination to register on another board, but the law was set in '79 to Islamize the country. That's a line snuck in, it seems, at the end of a very long paragraph. Evidently, there is something in it that did/does fit in with Islam. I have no real idea.

[dhalgren]

Originally posted by ladyzekke: OK, Tap of the finger on the back? What does that do? I mean, if it does not hurt and is nothing, then it will do exactly that, nothing. I mean, is that some sort of symbolic beating then? Like a threat of what it could be if they don't shape up? Punishment using physical means usually only works if it hurts, to be blunt. Otherwise it is symbolic and will only work with those that respect said symbol.

I don't have the answers to your questions. I suppose that since both women and men are Muslims, and strive to surrender before G-D, that the participation in the ritual itself is what enforces the discipline - not any actual punishment.

I disagree with the symbolic representation (although, the little I may understand, I think the acknowledgement of future punishment isn't intended to be an inherent operating concept within the symbolism). I also disagree with the reactionary ignorance of some responses to minority interpretations of Islam and the Qu'ran.

[ 02-08-2007, 02:50 AM: Message edited by: dhalgren ]

[dhalgren]

Originally posted by robertthebard: Shoe on the other foot; if your sister was raped, and then stoned to death for being raped, would you still feel that you lived in a non-violent, tap of the finger on the back culture? These aren't just the extremists we're talking about here, these are the run of the mill "moderates". The defence has to be four witnesses that can testify, or would testify, that she wasn't dressed provacatively. What exactly does that mean? Some people have a foot fetish, so if she was wearing her full regalia, but barefoot, would she be dressed provacatively? Too many things about the culture in general point to "a tap of the finger on the back" not being the end all of the punishment.

Firstly, the symbolic action of using your finger to tap a wife's back is most common among muslims in Western nations so I'm not exactly sure what conclusion you're attempting to draw from that (rhetorical?) question. It's also very late for me. Historically, Islam is a heterogeneous society (much like contemporary Christianity) which may contribute to explaining how it has spread so wide. Many of the leading Islamic theologians, such as Tariq Ramadan, have called for an extensive review (and in some cases a complete halting) of all physical punishments due to the incorrect application of Sharia law (as far as they're concerned there isn't a single country where Sharia law is correctly administrated).

Secondly, the Qu'ran never condones stoning as a form of punishment (afaik this is cultural baggage of the time period). It's mentioned in one of the Haddiths (basically, oral to written accounts of witnesses of what the Prophet did - although regarded skeptically by many muslims some Haddiths have been fiercely researched for hundreds of years). I've read that it was instituted as Sharia law by one of the later Caliphs. Currently the Haddiths are closed to reinterpretation, according to many muslims, but there is a lot of pressure from both the 'good' and 'bad' sectors of the muslim community to reopen them. I think it's also important to note that there are four different schools of Islamic law which are the result of several hundred years of debate on interpretation which resulted in the writings of the books of Islamic jurisprudence. And this is only of Sunni law. Shi'a Islam has it's own school of law as well as the many other denominations usually possessing their own.

As for the foot fetish ordeal. I am no expert on Arabic culture but I suspect that having barefeet would not be seen as dressing provocatively if one person fetishized it. Similar situation would be a person whom fetishized persons wearing sandals. Probably not an issue.

[Morgeruat]

Stoning in the quran no (other than the stones that fell upon Sodom and Gomorrah), but it does specify 100 lashes for adulterers and adulteresses, cutting off the hands of thieves, orders the beating of disobedient wives, etc etc.

I can pm you specifics or you can go to http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm and check for yourself, then do a quick google search for other translations and compare them to that one.