Wife Beating

[Timber Loftis]

If they're a minority interpretation then they're way too vocal. And I certainly don't buy that they're minority interpretations in Palestine and Iran.

[robertthebard]

I still don't get why, if it's such an insignificant part of their traditions, they feel that they have to have several different people discussing it, on their own television stations.

On a side note, do you think very many people would survive 100 lashes, if they were applied by somebody that knew what they were doing? Unless my conception of using a typical bullwhip style instrument is off base.

[Morgeruat]

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Index/...toning%20verse

This may shed a bit of light on the problem. and please Neb, discuss the article on it's own merits, as well as the references cited rather than discounting aswering-islam.org out of hand, hell CHECK some of the references yourself, or go to www.askimam.com and ask about it (heck you can pose as a muslim to ask, and ask as a kuffir and see what answers you get, an invitation I've made to people here before, and done myself)

[dhalgren]

Originally posted by 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 don't have a particularly complete response to this but it seems apparent to me on the whole that Western muslims don't practice the lashes, removal of hands, and hopefully the beatings as well (although I can't speak as generally here). So I'm reasonably sure there is a cognizant response to this. Addendum: If you watch the third video, it gives clear rules about what it means to beat your wife (leave no trace, avoid the face etc..) if you choose (it isn't demanded as previously stated in this thread) to deal with her in that manner. Again, I don't agree with the sentiment nor do I think it's okay to condone that behavior. I can agree that I don't think there should be beatings at all nor should there be implications of them and I don't think Islam is defined by these actions.

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: If they're a minority interpretation then they're way too vocal. And I certainly don't buy that they're minority interpretations in Palestine and Iran.

Firstly, Palestine is almost eighty percent Jewish so I think you may of made a mistake. Iran is over ninety percent Twelver Shi'a muslim and has been condemed many times for what are considered human rights offenses inherent in their practice of Sharia law.

Originally posted by robertthebard: I still don't get why, if it's such an insignificant part of their traditions, they feel that they have to have several different people discussing it, on their own television stations.

Once again, I'm not sure if I'm actually in a posistion to respond to this in a way that accurately and completely represents the diverse interpretations and practices of Islam but. I wouldn't assume these issues as insignificant in anyway. It's obvious they are carry a significance because of what they dictate. They are also very controversial issues currently and there is lots of talk about them. I was attempting to communicate (and maybe wrongly) that I didn't think these practices truly represented the substance of Islam nor the practices of muslims.

[robertthebard]

If Palestine is 80% Jewish, why are they not in control of the 20% of Muslims? Hamas is a Muslim organization, not a Jewish one. If that were the case, they would ally themselves with Israel, instead of against them.

In regard to the videos, after watching them all, I came away with the express feeling that it is expected if the man is married to a woman. The three types of women that require the punishment, according to one of the videos sums up just about any woman that isn't a complete slave to their husband.

[Morgeruat]

Originally posted by dhalgren: quote: Originally posted by 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 don't have a particularly complete response to this but it seems apparent to me on the whole that Western muslims don't practice the lashes, removal of hands, and hopefully the beatings as well (although I can't speak as generally here). So I'm reasonably sure there is a cognizant response to this. Addendum: If you watch the third video, it gives clear rules about what it means to beat your wife (leave no trace, avoid the face etc..) if you choose (it isn't demanded as previously stated in this thread) to deal with her in that manner. Again, I don't agree with the sentiment nor do I think it's okay to condone that behavior. I can agree that I don't think there should be beatings at all nor should there be implications of them and I don't think Islam is defined by these actions.
[/QUOTE]There is a difference between condoning something on a scriptural basis and recognizing that practicing it would get your ass thrown in prison where it isn't law (yet). from this thread (and specifically this article quoted in the thread) we can see that it is a goal. CAIR's (the Council on American Islamic Relations) leader is called out constantly on little green footballs, jihad watch, atlas shrugs, and other websites and blogs for stating that he would like to see sharia law implemented in the US, in which case these instructions will become a fact of life among the civilised west.

[ 02-09-2007, 08:53 AM: Message edited by: Morgeruat ]

[Larry_OHF]

On a side note from Morgeruat's post about the West being taken over and rules changing...I wanted to ask about something that I read or heard elsewhere.

It is said that in order for a culture to survive in a given country, the birthrate has to be at a certain number, I think it was 1.3 average; I may be slightly off. The fact that Spain and France are seeing a decline in birthrate (0.7 and 0.6) while Muslim birthrate is more than 1.3 average indicates that soon France and Spain may be in the hands of Muslims, meaning that they will be in charge of the government and laws made in that country. I heard that this this is one way that Muslims can take over a region, waiting out the decades it takes to become the dominant culture in the area. I heard that this has already happened to Belgium (is that right?) where the dominant names for children are Muslim names.

We all know that France has had some hard times dealing with some teenager rebellions recently, but our news shows in the US were not telling us that these kids were all Muslims. From what I hear, France will soon be overrun, but not by outside force, rather inside culture change. Spain used to be in the hands of Muslims and once a territory is given a Muslim name, they claim it forever. They do not recognize the country as called "Spain", and are seeking recontrol everyday (my Spanish professor from Spain confirmed that).

This really does concern me, especially if the population of Spaniards is as low as 0.7% or France with .6%.

Can anyone confirm or deny these things I have heard or read with real proof? I would like to know that what I heard is fiction, but I have yet no reason to not believe it.

[ 02-09-2007, 09:48 AM: Message edited by: Larry_OHF ]

[johnny]

About Belgium, that's partly true, Mohammed was the most picked birthname in Brussels last year, other than that the muslims are still a minority in Belgium and will never be anything else BUT a minority. I don't know about France, but the muslims can also forget about Spain turning islamic, the Spanish are too much of a proud people, and VERY much roman catholic minded to let the muslims claim too much influence in their lands. I'd see ethnic cleansings happen sooner than Spain turning muslim.

[Morgeruat]

But what happened the last time someone figured out what was going on and started an ethnic cleansing *coughMilosovichcough*

[Lucern]

A few things to consider Larry, since you brought up the C word (culture), which happens to be both product of and long time object of elucidation of my chosen field: anthropology. In the spirit of said discipline, I'm not giving you a yes/no, but questioning some of the base assumptions. These are just the thoughts off the top of my head, and are likely flawed as is the scenario posted [img]smile.gif[/img]

Population percentage does not equal the influence of one's culture. Consider the influence of European colonials in places like India, West Africa, and Mexico. If population percentage determined the influence of one's culture, these places wouldn't have changed much at all. The reasons they did were historically contingent, but to simplify, those colonizers had power. The populations at these times had real political 'binding decisions' kind of power looking out for them, and real social power as new classes of society.

Also consider that culture isn't static. It never has been, and it never will be. I can cite over 100 full ethnographic accounts of this being the case. Hell, I've probably even read a few of em . The implications of this is that French muslims aren't the same as muslims elsewhere, nor are Muslims in France necessarily 'the same'. Nor are 'the French' an uncomplicated bunch of people sharing the same beliefs.

Given this, consider the discourse (what people say, what the arguments are) around the issue. We know that some people gain from (discursively) constructing a vast base of people with similar goals: some to profit from their political influence, some to incite fear of said population to another population for any of the reasons people might do that. This fear can be deeply rooted, and has historically been based on race, class, religion, and the like, usually more than one. This creation of populations 'against' (as some might say, the creation of 'others') is very common, but it happens for diverse reasons.

People are different, that much is elementary, but consider the social processes which work to differentiate people further (class, race, gender being three common ones, and yes, they are processes in that they are made and remade) as well as those which work to convince people of their similarities (nationalism comes to mind). These things can be highly political, as I think the discourse of population ecology/cultures in danger (to simplify the aforementioned scenario) is. Someone gains from alarming French people of european ancestry that France as they know it is in danger. Someone gains from convicing Muslim youths that there is an international network with a historical/religious mandate to 1)identify not with their nation but with that identity, and 2)act on behalf of that ideology.