This week in Islam

[Marocc]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

to give women equal standing with men, and are coming to understand that previously marginalized people are also deserving of God's love,

As stated in the Qur'an.

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

while still asserting they are following God's law. 

Asserting means nothing. It's the following of God's commands that is important foremost. Who are you referring to? Christians in the world is an extremely vague term. Western society by no means follows God's law, generally speaking, if the general public does not follow God's law, isn't that so?

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

I'm sure Muslims can do as well.

It isn't entirely clear what you're referring to, but to follow Islam, it doesn't suffice to say one follows it.

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

it's nonetheless true that Islam is patriarchal in teaching and in practice.

I am under the impression your knowledge of Islam isn't sufficient enough for you to make that statement.

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

This means that unless you are a Muslim man, you'll find yourself on the losing side of rules, laws, discrimination and persecution in any majority Muslim country. 

I imagine this is a generalisation.

I think I've said it many times already, but not all the laws applied in Muslim majority countries are applied according to Islam. You cannot –and it certainly isn't fair to do so – define Islam by peoples.

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

If God, by whatever name he's called, truly loved humanity and wanted peace and prosperity for his creation, he would not have devised "laws" that divided people and that gave them reason to judge, criticize and condemn others- whether its over a hijab or an individual's gender or sexuality.  

It is as though you assume God is like a man, thinks like a man, needs what a man needs and feels like a man feels.

Islam has strict rules on how an individual is to behave in society, regarding the things mentioned above. In Western society it is a rule that people are divided, that they judge, criticize and condemn others in just about anything and everything. Does it often have to do with religion – or a religious background?

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

loses the "laws" that create division,

You want religious countries to apply the same laws as secular countries so that the division would be slightly different? Surely you don't claim it would do away with division? Surely you don't think there is more division in religious countries than in secular countries? If you do I'd like to hear why.

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

hatred and violence against others,

This is not something Islam brings into society.

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

your religion supports those beliefs

You don't know what Islam commands. I would not say it supports any beliefs. The word support sounds out of place.

[dialamah]

24 minutes ago, Marocc said:

I am under the impression your knowledge of Islam isn't sufficient enough for you to make that statement

It is sufficient enough.  Its one if the Abrahamic religions and they are remarkably similar, despite each religion's adherents thinking they are unique in the world and uniquely favored in God's plan.  

27 minutes ago, Marocc said:

You don't know what Islam commands.

I do not know what it commands you, that is true. But I know it 'commands' different things from different people, else there would be no division among Muslims, no Sunni vs. Sharia, no controversy about how women should be attired, no disagreement about when or how a caliphate will come about - or anything else over which Muslims disagree.

I understand that as a believer, you have to be blind to other truths, to other experiences, to other perspectives.  No different than evangelical Christians, who believe as fervently as you that they are the ones special to God, that non-believers have neither the comprehension nor the right to criticize the teachings of their religion.  

[Marocc]

29 minutes ago, dialamah said:

It is sufficient enough.

No, it's not.

There were so many more important points in your last post and in my response. Why do you only hold onto my notion that you don't know much about Islam when it is obviously true?

Why not explain the strange idea you have of division in religious countries and devision in Western countries? You make it sound like there is no division in western countries.

Here's the reason I say you don't know enough. You make claims, but I think you cannot explain them because you haven't thought them through. You can't think them through when they involve Islam and you don't understand exactly how they involve Islam. The claims you make are not small. They are significant. Would you really turn the whole world upside down if you could, without thinking it through?

37 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Its one if the Abrahamic religions and they are remarkably similar

Yes, but also not at all. Definitely not an excuse to not define things you see as a problem before pointing them out.

38 minutes ago, dialamah said:

despite each religion's adherents thinking they are unique in the world and uniquely favored in God's plan.  

A good example of that you don't know enough about Islam.

39 minutes ago, dialamah said:

But I know it 'commands' different things from different people,

First I thought you mean individual prophets. Apparently you don't and I'm confused. Why would you think that?

40 minutes ago, dialamah said:

no Sunni vs. Sharia,

Shia? God doesn't harm people. Making laws yourself to replace God's law and saying they are from God is harmful. Can we not assume God could not have commanded anyone to do so?

43 minutes ago, dialamah said:

anything else over which Muslims disagree.

This is not God commanding different things. This is people doing different things. If someone breaks the law in the west do you say the law in the west has commanded that person to break that law?

44 minutes ago, dialamah said:

the ones special to God,

I suggest you search words such as "do Muslims believe they are the chosen people".

46 minutes ago, dialamah said:

that non-believers have neither the comprehension nor the right to criticize the teachings of their religion.  

I've never heard of anyone religious saying their religion cannot be criticized. On the other hand, your criticism doesn't have to be accepted as valid.

[dialamah]

11 hours ago, Marocc said:

A good example of that you don't know enough about Islam.

Then perhaps you could take the time to more clearly explain why I am wrong.  Your responses, to me and others, rather than clarifying, come across as non-responses or deflections.  For example, if the verse at al-Nisa 4:34 is not explicitly a command or permission to beat their wives, perhaps you could explain how it is not.  Or explain how verse 2:282 does not make women's testimony less valuable then men's.  Or how verse 4.11 does not award twice as much inheritance to sons as to daughters.  These verses are pretty explicit in setting women as under the authority of men, and of less intrinsic value.  This is the kind of thing that makes wife-beating religiously "acceptable" whether its Islam or Christianity.

Mohammed and the Qu'ran may have been ahead of their time in their treatment of women 1500 years ago, but now these teachings simply support an outdated way of viewing women.  If there is some explanation you, or any devout Muslim, can offer as to why these teachings should not be considered at best patriarchal and at worst misogynistic, I'd be interested in hearing it. 

[Marocc]

You didn't answer any of my questions.

If China says there is a problem in Japan, but Japan denies it, it should be China who will explain the problem, not Japan who is required to explain why this non-problem is not a problem. You make claims without supporting them against what you don't understand and is it my fault that, after all this time, you still don't understand?

42 minutes ago, dialamah said:

I'd be interested in hearing it. 

Then why have you not searched it? If you really wanted to know you would have searched it. You would know the answer. Whether you would accept it or not, I don't know. But you would know what it is.

42 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Then perhaps you could take the time to more clearly explain why I am wrong.

I think I've taken time. You usually don't return to the topic again. What might make it difficult to understand is that you don't study about Islam. You rely at least partly – apparently – on western media to tell you about Islam and the surrounding politics. I cannot speak in such simplistic terms. Salafi this, Saudi Arabia that, terrorism, apostasy etc. These are complicated topics. I cannot put them into boxes like you do.

42 minutes ago, dialamah said:

For example, if the verse at al-Nisa 4:34 is not explicitly a command or permission to beat their wives, perhaps you could explain how it is not.

You really don't know?

https://www.islamweb.net/en/fatwa/89480/explanation-of-quranic-verse-434

[Marocc]

This is a long article, but you can scroll to "the 'controversial' verse" which is about 4:34.

https://yaqeeninstitute.org/tesneem-alkiek/islam-and-violence-against-women-a-critical-look-at-domestic-violence-and-honor-killings-in-the-muslim-community/

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, Marocc said:

Then why have you not searched it? If you really wanted to know you would have searched it. You would know the answer. Whether you would accept it or not, I don't know. But you would know what it is.

I have researched and this is why I continue disputing the anti-Islam crowd here because.  My research has also demonstrated that Islam is no less patriarchal than Christianity and that there is support to be found for and against almost anything a Muslim may practice today.  Stoning adulterers and FGM being two exceptions that I can think of right now.

1 hour ago, Marocc said:

You usually don't return to the topic again.

I can understand this might be frustrating for you, but I don't have unlimited time so I do tend to default to responding to what is easiest.  I will have some time this weekend, and will try to address those questions you've.

1 hour ago, Marocc said:

What might make it difficult to understand is that you don't study about Islam

True, my interest in studying Islam is limited to trying to offset as much of the extreme bigotry I run across online as I can.  I am starting to see similar bigotry offline though, which is sad and I may have to step up my game.

1 hour ago, Marocc said:

You rely at least partly – apparently – on western media to tell you about Islam and the surrounding politics.

I seek out Islamic sources wherever possible, and I talk to my sister.  My example is my sister's husband and bros-in-laws, who treat my sister extremely well, who disapprove so strongly of wife abuse that my bros-in-law refuses to allow people in his home if he thinks the husband is not treating his wife as he should - and that doesn't mean actual physical abuse, simple disrespect is unacceptable.  Nonetheless, the patriarchal attitudes of of Islam are apparent to both myself and my sister in all of the men and their wives.  

 

1 hour ago, Marocc said:

You really don't know?

https://www.islamweb.net/en/fatwa/89480/explanation-of-quranic-verse-434

Thanks.

So, this is a discussion forum and so it's perfectly normal and acceptable to ask people to provide clarification of their views, along with support for those views. 

In addition, while I can present alternative intrepretations of controversial teachings in Islam, I'm not Muslim so my research/understanding is spotty at best, as you have pointed out.  I think it's worth pushing back against Islamophobic attitudes and beliefs, so in my opinion, clarification coming from a devout and practicing Muslim is more credible than anything I can say - even if I do argue some of the things brought out simply because any religion, in my opinion, has flaws.  I think its good to get more information and perspectives added to the mix, even though I know it won't change the mind of the die-hard haters.

 

 

[Goddess]

1 hour ago, Marocc said:

 

https://www.islamweb.net/en/fatwa/89480/explanation-of-quranic-verse-434

This link shows that wife beating is definitely sanctioned in Islam.

33 minutes ago, Marocc said:

 

https://yaqeeninstitute.org/tesneem-alkiek/islam-and-violence-against-women-a-critical-look-at-domestic-violence-and-honor-killings-in-the-muslim-community/

This  link is basically an apologist piece.

Quote

 

Human rights defenders who criticized the order argued that the use of the term “honor killings,” versus simply addressing domestic homicide in general, was a thinly veiled attack on Muslims as prone to violence against women, and therefore served as a justification for the so-called “Muslim ban.”

Vilifying Muslim cultures as especially prone to misogyny and violence against women to justify anti-Muslim oppression, including state violence against women in the form of war, has been a tactic of Western powers for centuries.

 

This seems like Islam wanting it's cake and eating it too.  On the one hand - very open about the fact that wives in Islam can be beaten and that women are inferior to men and should be treated as inferior.  On the other hand - do not like being called on the fact that women are treated like trash in Islam and want to deny the effects of this teaching.

Honour killings are different than domestic violence in several ways:

They are not the same as "crimes of passion" which are abrupt, impulsive and unpremeditated acts of violence committed by people who have faced something unacceptable to them and are rendered incapable of self-control during the killing.  Honour killing are none of those things - they are premeditated, usually with the help of other family members.

Honour killings are planned in advance, usually at a family conference and can involve multiple family members.'

Perpetrators of honour killings also often do not face any negative stigma from their families or religious community.

You don't get to relegate women to this stone-age position and then deny that your religion that sanctions and advocates violence against women has more than the average problems with violence against women.

 

[scribblet]

A British Muslim and  serving British Police Officer along with 15 other Muslim men all part of a grooming gang  arenow charged for abusing young White Girls aged as young as 11 years old.

This guy was chosen and picked by the West Yorkshire Police for a created new role within the force: Amjad was chosen to be the new “Positive Action Co-ordinator” to help recruit, maintain and promote under-represented groups. Guess diversity didn’t work out too well this time .   Yes, this can happen with other people but not to the extent that 'Asian' grooming gangs are operating in the U.K.   https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-50838823

This is dated but speaks to the issue of the conspiracy of silence on U.K. Asian grooming gangs, not sure how much it has improved  as they are still operating across the country.   https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/grooming-gangs-uk-britain-newcastle-serious-case-review-operation-sanctuary-shelter-muslim-asian-a8225106.html

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/revealed-conspiracy-of-silence-on-uk-sex-gangs-gpg5vqsqz9h

[dialamah]

3 hours ago, Marocc said:

You really don't know?

https://www.islamweb.net/en/fatwa/89480/explanation-of-quranic-verse-434

So I've read that, and it does support the hitting of a wife.  'Leaving no marks" and "lightly striking her" and "only if you think it will do some good" do not excuse the fact that in Islam, hitting women is explicitly acceptable.  And I would bet that there is no corresponding verse allowing women to strike their husbands, eh?  Not that spousal abuse in any form is acceptable, but surely a religion that claims equality and fairness would allow equal punishment for misbehaving husbands and wives.

Islam, like any patriarchal system, treats women as second class citizens.  This is wrong.

 

Edited December 19, 2019 by dialamah

[Marocc]

3 hours ago, dialamah said:

Or explain how verse 2:282 does not make women's testimony less valuable then men's.  Or how verse 4.11 does not award twice as much inheritance to sons as to daughters.  These verses are pretty explicit in setting women as under the authority of men,

That doesn't need to be done. I don't see that it has anything to do with authority.

https://quranx.com/tafsirs/2.282

https://quranx.com/Tafsirs/4.11

3 hours ago, dialamah said:

This is the kind of thing that makes wife-beating religiously "acceptable" whether its Islam or Christianity.

Nonsense. This kind of talk is what you never actually explain. What is the reasoning?

3 hours ago, dialamah said:

If there is some explanation you, or any devout Muslim, can offer as to why these teachings should not be considered at best patriarchal and at worst misogynistic

I'm sure many many explanations can be given, but at the core of it all is that they are commandments from God. And no matter how well it were reasoned for you, if you don't want to accept it you will reject it.

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

will try to address those questions you've.

If it is at the back of your list of priorities, you don't need to exert yourself.

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

to ask people to provide clarification of their views,

No one almost ever asks me about my views. If you want something, say so. Don't expect me to run around offering you what it available and has been and will continue to be, without me offering it to you.

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

think it's worth pushing back against Islamophobic attitudes and beliefs,

I'm not sure you're doing that. I have little doubt that is your intention.

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

clarification coming from a devout and practicing Muslim is more credible than anything I can say -

And credible sources from credible Islamic scholars are better than anything an average practising Muslim can say, imo.

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

You don't get to relegate women to this stone-age position and then deny that your religion that sanctions and advocates violence against women has more than the average problems with violence against women.

Your personal opinion to it has no value.

[Goddess]

6 minutes ago, Marocc said:

Your personal opinion to it has no value.

Laughable that you think it's only me that views Islam's treatment of women as barbaric and misogynistic.

[Goddess]

This is from the previously posted apologist piece:

Quote

 

there has been an attempt to argue for the permissibility of domestic violence based on an interpretation of a specific verse from the Quran (4:34). Contention ultimately arises on the issue of spousal abuse in Islam from a misreading of this particular verse. This verse states that if a husband fears his wife’s egregious or defiant behavior, he should follow a three-step procedure to solve the situation.^[16] First, he must verbally advise her against her actions and correct her mistakes. If this does not improve the situation, he must then “abandon” her bed as a display of his disapproval. If that too does not prove effective, then the final measure has been translated as administering a symbolic gesture of physical discipline (ḍaraba). This multi-step procedure was arguably instituted as a means to regulate an initial surge of anger by requiring the husband to essentially cool down and not impulsively inflict harm upon his wife.

According to the famous early Makkan jurist ʿAṭāʾ ibn Abi Rabah (d. 732 AD), ḍaraba does not refer to hitting at all; rather, it is a symbolic gesture that reflects one’s anger.

 

It makes no sense that the first 2 steps are concrete, while the third step - the beating -  is "symbolic."

[Marocc]

11 minutes ago, Goddess said:

This is from the previously posted apologist piece:

It makes no sense that the first 2 steps are concrete, while the third step - the beating -  is "symbolic."

Because there must be a fault in it?

[Marocc]

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

Laughable that you think it's only me that views Islam's treatment of women as barbaric and misogynistic.

I never said that. You must stop putting words in my mouth.

[Marocc]

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

So I've read that, and it does support the hitting of a wife.

If you would call the action in its whole context — including hadith — hitting, then it does permit that. There is no reason to do that as there are so many words to choose from and if none fits one can describe the act.

imagine your boss at work hitting you with a pencil on your arm because you made a mistake that caused his company money. Would it be accurate to go home and say, "I made a mistake at work so my boss hit/beat me."? Or would that be likely to give the wrong impression?

[Goddess]

13 minutes ago, Marocc said:

imagine your boss at work hitting you with a pencil on your arm because you made a mistake that caused his company money. Would it be accurate to go home and say, "I made a mistake at work so my boss hit/beat me."? Or would that be likely to give the wrong impression?

If I hit my boss with anything on any part of her body, I'd be fired.

ETA:  This kind of explains why almost every Muslim I've met likes to hit, push, shove and throw things at others.

Edited December 19, 2019 by Goddess

[Goddess]

1 hour ago, Marocc said:

Because there must be a fault in it?

Anything that advocates hitting or beating your wife is at fault.  Yes.

[dialamah]

42 minutes ago, Marocc said:

imagine your boss at work hitting you with a pencil on your arm because you made a mistake that caused his company money. Would it be accurate to go home and say, "I made a mistake at work so my boss hit/beat me."? Or would that be likely to give the wrong impression?

Most likely I'd say "hit me", not beat me, and it would still be unacceptable.

Ask yourself what it would say about an employer who thought it acceptable to hit their employee, even lightly and even with a pencil, in order to "correct" them.  Ask yourself what it would say about an employee who would accept that.  Would you think it acceptable in a workplace environment?

[Marocc]

32 minutes ago, Goddess said:

If I hit my boss with anything on any part of her body, I'd be fired.

She must own the company. And be a bit of an ass.

[DogOnPorch]

28 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Anything that advocates hitting or beating your wife is at fault.  Yes.

 

The Hadiths have an account by Aisha (the child bride) being struck by Big Mo on the chest or something akin. It was enough to knock her down, etc.

http://hadithcollection.com/sahihmuslim/Sahih Muslim Book 04. Prayer/sahih-muslim-book-004-hadith-number-2127.html

[Marocc]

Just now, dialamah said:

even lightly and even with a pencil, in order to "correct" them

I never said it was to correct them in my hypothetical situation. You saying he hit me would be misleading.  Such a manner of correcting someone in Islam is only for family members to do. In that situation in that sense it would be unacceptable. But if I was hit with a pencil by a coworker, I'd think nothing of it. I'm not made of glass.

[Marocc]

2 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

The Hadiths have an account by Aisha (the child bride) being struck by Big Mo on the chest or something akin. It was enough to knock her down, etc.

Nice try. We talked about that in the last pages of the locked thread.

Edited December 19, 2019 by Marocc

[Goddess]

4 minutes ago, Marocc said:

She must own the company. And be a bit of an ass.

WTF are you talking about?  What part of "Don't hit other people." is difficult for you to comprehend?  Good lord, even children are taught that.

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, Marocc said:

Nice try. We talked about that in the last pages of the locked thread.

 

Nice try. It's still an account of your pedophile prophet hitting a woman...a child at that...after he f**ked her.