For People Who Think

[ibkc]

Sister Amy, there are still things about this that I do not agree with, but I see you’re giving answers in good faith and that you think this is the right thing. So thank you for explaining it because it does give me a perspective I had never thought of before.

 

[kalt]

What has been allowed in Islam could never, even in the strongest feminist court in the world, be considered domestic violence.

He is forbidden to hit her face.
Forbidden to leave a mark, anywhere on her body.
He is really only supposed to resort to this once, after which comes divorce.

What you call beating is something so light that scholars have likened it to being hit with a toothbrush.

On the other hand, what is seldom considered domestic violence is if a man chooses to emotionally destroy his wife, by insulting her, restricting her freedoms, mocking her, or just being in general mean… and even that is not allowed in Islam.

Frankly, I would rather my husband follow the procedure in the Qur’an, which is to first tell me I’m wrong, then leave my bed, and then possibly hit me (or according to some scholars, it actually means to return and sleep with his wife). I would much rather that, then if he were to insult me, and mock me, and continually make me feel bad.

Hit me means returning to your bed to sleep with you? That doesn’t sound very loving to me.

At one time, Islam was a leader in women’s rights. That time passed a long time ago. They’re lagging far behind now.

“What have you done for me lately” is the song that always comee to mind when I hear about how women are treated in many Islamic countries – forced to cover their heads, sometimes even their faces, killed for being raped, etc.

I think Muslims in American have it easy. I wonder how many American Muslim women would choose to live in those countries that kill them if they’re raped.

 

[Sister_Amy]

Hit me means returning to your bed to sleep with you? That doesn’t sound very loving to me.

The Hanbali opinion is that this refers to renewing marital relations (after the husband has left the bed) and not any kind of hit.

At one time, Islam was a leader in women’s rights. That time passed a long time ago. They’re lagging far behind now.

I think this statement demonstrates a poor understanding of the rights of women in general, and the rights of children and the rights of society, the nature of humanity and Islam.

I think Muslims in American have it easy. I wonder how many American Muslim women would choose to live in those countries that kill them if they’re raped.

I just want to remind you that it is absolutely against Islam for a rape victim to be killed. There is NO BASIS WHATSOEVER in Islam for this practice.

 

[kalt]

It might seem that way… or “smack” that way as you put it… lol…

But really, the Qur’an actually commands men to live in good relations with their wives. In good relations, with compassion and kindness. My fiance is actually writing a research paper on that topic specifically, how men are supposed to treat women with dignity and compassion.

You see, Muhammad never hit a woman. And he told his followers that the best among them is the oen who is the best to his women (meaning to his mother, his sisters, wife, daughters, aunts, nieces, etc!). So the fair and good treatment of women is a far more emphasized point in Islam than this business of dispute.

The problem that Islam faces is that naturally women are oppressed–men take the tyrannical route, they act out of anger, they mistreat their wives. This is universal. Has nothing to do with religion, just that men mistreat women in general. So Islam tells the man that if his wife does something she shouldn’t (like, it’s not allowed in Islam) then instead of getting angry and hitting her (like a lesser man might do) he must follow these steps… first this, and then that, and so on, before he can hit her at all. And then if it ever gets to that point it’s so light as to merely be symbolic. So really it’s more about preventing domestic abuse and encouraging good relations and cooperation, but preventing the men from acting impulsively out of anger.

If mistreating women has nothing to do with religion, why is it that in countries where Islam is the rule of law, women are treated horribly. They’re forced to cover their heads, bodies, even their faces. They’re killed if they are raped. The father’s can kill their daughters if he thinks she has shamed the family.

I think religion has everything to do with that. How could it not? It’s the religion that is making these laws.

That might be a very radical form of Islam. But it is Islam.

This would be like saying that religion had nothing to do with the child sexual abuse at the so-called LDS compound in Texas. That is their religion. They consider themselves a branch of LDS. Maybe they think they’re the real, orthodox LDS church. At any rate, they live the way they do, allowing men to have multiple under-age wives, to rape the little children, and to forbid the people to leave the 17-acre site, because of their religions beliefs.

It has everything to do with religion, when it’s the religion that is making the laws.

 

[AgnosTheist]

You see, Muhammad never hit a woman.

what do you call this then:

According to Aisha,

He struck me on the chest which caused me pain

usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/004.smt.html#004.2127

take note that there was no toothbrush involved.

 

[Sister_Amy]

kalt:

Let me be perfectly, crystal clear.

What you described is not in any way, shape, or form, Islam.

It is not a radical, fundamental, extreme or ANY OTHER KIND of ISLAM.

It is TOTALLY FORBIDDEN in ISLAM.

You can’t say it has to do with religion because THE RELIGION OF ISLAM FORBIDS WHAT YOU DESCRIBE.

 

[kalt]

The Hanbali opinion is that this refers to renewing marital relations (after the husband has left the bed) and not any kind of hit.

I think this statement demonstrates a poor understanding of the rights of women in general, and the rights of children and the rights of society, the nature of humanity and Islam.

I just want to remind you that it is absolutely against Islam for a rape victim to be killed. There is NO BASIS WHATSOEVER in Islam for this practice.

According to many Muslims, they have a god-given right to kill the women. Sorry, but some Islamists are nuts, imo.

You want to believe that Islam is one thing. The evidence proves that it isn’t. In the countries where Islam is the relgion and the law, horrible things happen to women–legally.

I don’t have a poor understanding of what some Muslims believe Islam is. I have a good understanding of how it (Islam) is practiced in some countries.

They might have it wrong, but they call it Islam, and it is the law in those countries.

 

[AgnosTheist]

You see, Muhammad never hit a woman.

what do you call this then:

Sahih Muslim Hadith Book 004, Number 2127:

According to Aisha,

He struck me on the chest which caused me pain

usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/004.smt.html#004.2127

take note that there was no toothbrush involved.

 

[Sister_Amy]

what do you call this then:

According to Aisha,

He struck me on the chest which caused me pain

usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/004.smt.html#004.2127

take note that there was no toothbrush involved.

ROFL!!

You know I thought of this when I typed that, wondering if anyone would bring this up. This hadith is narrated from his wife Aisha.

What I said is also based on a hadith, though I can’t find it right now. It is also from Aisha, saying that Muhammad never hit a woman… so from the same source. She must not have included that account so neither will I.

 

[AgnosTheist]

It is also from Aisha, saying that Muhammad never hit a woman… so from the same source. She must not have included that account so neither will I.

I hope you find it. I really want to know what it says.

here use this search engine:

usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/searchhadith.html

type in the key words. each word should be separated with the word and

 

[Sister_Amy]

According to many Muslims, they have a god-given right to kill the women. Sorry, but some Islamists are nuts, imo.

Frankly, I don’t care what they say, they are WRONG. And stupid too.

You want to believe that Islam is one thing. The evidence proves that it isn’t. In the countries where Islam is the relgion and the law, horrible things happen to women–legally.

No, no, no, no. I’m not the one with blinders on here, I’m the one who is actually studying the teachings–the Qur’an, the Hadith. I am telling you that in 56 Muslim countries in the world today there is NOT ONE that rules by Islam. They all have various degrees of non-Islamic secular influence, and THAT is why some EVIL MEN get away with this HORRID ACT. It is FORBIDDEN in Islam. Absolutely forbidden, there isn’t even dispute on this fact.

I don’t have a poor understanding of what some Muslims believe Islam is. I have a good understanding of how it (Islam) is practiced in some countries.

You are trying to explain Islam by what you see. Shall I say that Catholicism teaches what I see Catholics do?

They might have it wrong, but they call it Islam, and it is the law in those countries.

It doesn’t matter what they call it. Like I said, Islam is NOT the law, every single state from Saudi Arabia to Turkey to Indonesia to Morocco has some amount of Islam and some secular influence therefore it is NOT Islam.

I’m not going to even budge on this point.

I don’t mean to attack you personally, by the way, but it disgusts me to no end that such evil is perpetrated in the name of Islam and I think it needs to be condemned and corrected in the strongest, most forceful terms.

 

[AgnosTheist]

It is also from Aisha, saying that Muhammad never hit a woman… so from the same source. She must not have included that account so neither will I.

I hope you find it. I really want to know what it says.

here use this search engine:

usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/searchhadith.html

type in the key words. each word should be separated with the word and

 

[Sister_Amy]

I hope you find it. I really want to know what it says.

here use this search engine:

usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/searchhadith.html

type in the key words. each word should be separated with the word and

Well here it is: 'A’isha reported that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) never beat anyone with his hand, neither a woman nor a servant, but only, in the case when he had been fighting in the cause of Allah and he never took revenge for anything unless the things made inviolable by Allah were made violable; he then took revenge for Allah, the Exalted and Glorious.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/030.smt.html#030.5756

Just like I said. From 'Aisha.

I usually look in Riyadh Us Saliheen, which is the book that I have been studying with my sheikh, but I don’t have a search engine for it. It compiles hadith from all 4 canonical hadith books and has commentary, etc.

 

[Sister_Amy]

By the way, the reason we brought up this hadith in my class is that a hadith like this wouldn’t be so authoritative coming from someone other than 'Aisha, because she was the wife of Muhammad and saw how he lived in his house.

Regarding his behavior, ahadith narrated from his wives and servants is considered the strongest, because they had the most contact with him and would best know.

 

[AgnosTheist]

.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/030.smt.html#030.5756

Just like I said. From 'Aisha.

there are 2 logical explanations.

1. that hadith PREDATES the hadith i posted.

or

1. she did not consider being struck once as a form of beating. like us today, when we say ‘beat’ we get the idea of a series of serious blows.

 

[Sister_Amy]

there are 2 logical explanations.

1. that hadith PREDATES the hadith i posted.

or

1. she did not consider being struck once as a form of beating. like us today, when we say ‘beat’ we get the idea of a series of serious blows.

Okay, let’s think about this. The hadith I gave has to have been narrated after the death of Muhammad–so it’s not possible for yours to occur later, because Muhammad was dead. So that knocks the “predating” theory out.

 

[AgnosTheist]

because Muhammad was dead.

how do you know he was already dead when she said that?

Anyway how do YOU reconcile those two hadiths?

 

[dolphinlove]

Come clean, you’re really an anti-Catholic, aren’t you? Aren’t all these nasty posts of yours parody? Of course they are.

It’s a nice schtick you’ve got.

Talk about coming clean, why dont you change your profile from lds to muslim?

 

[ibkc]

It doesn’t matter what they call it. Like I said, Islam is NOT the law, every single state from Saudi Arabia to Turkey to Indonesia to Morocco has some amount of Islam and some secular influence therefore it is NOT Islam.

I’m not going to even budge on this point.

I don’t mean to attack you personally, by the way, but it disgusts me to no end that such evil is perpetrated in the name of Islam and I think it needs to be condemned and corrected in the strongest, most forceful terms.

I like your attitude, actually. Can you tell me what kind of secular influences were present in Afghanistan under the Taliban? My perception was that the Taliban enforced a society that was pretty close to what ‘pure’ Sharia might be, but I am admittedly not an expert in this (at all.)

Thanks for your time.

 

[Sister_Amy]

how do you know he was already dead when she said that?

Can’t you tell from the hadith? “He never…” More to the point, she wasn’t really narrating hadith while he was still alive, that I know of.

Anyway how do YOU reconcile those two hadiths?

Like your second point, mostly. When he hit her chest she didn’t consider that to be beating.

You know that there are some really wonderful stories about how he treated her. They would drink from the same cup and he would put his lips over the same place hers had been. Once she got angry at a dinner with a lot of people and broke a pot or a plate or something, and Muhammad (saws) remains very calm and just goes about his business, not embarrassing her in public. Just very sweet.