Let's talk Surah 4:34. When it's okay to strike your wives.

[drac16]

Oh man I may get in trouble for this but I am Orthodox and we are taught very clearly that the man is the head of the household. Completely unambiguous.

The man is the head and the woman is the neck. Without the neck, the head cannot see in all of the directions. The head and the neck must work as if they are a single member, even though they are technically two members.

 

[otterman]

The man is the head and the woman is the neck. Without the neck, the head cannot see in all of the directions. The head and the neck must work as if they are a single member, even though they are technically two members.

Both the “head and neck” deserve to be equally respected, and treated with dignity if they are to function correctly.

In the case of this particular verse, this does not apply.

 

[Petaro]

I cannot accept that a husband has a right to hit their wife. I have a duty in my marriage to love, protect and care for my wife. This is my primary role. I have a second but equally important role to be a good father to my child of our marriage. To be a poor father is to be a poor husband given the rightly overwhelming love both of us have for our child.
But if my wife was ever afraid of me, I have lost her trust irrevocably, where she should rightly be looking to me to protect her with my life.
No, a good husband must always be patient with his wife, (even if at times she drives one mad!!!) Just as she puts up with your silly ways, repeated stories, irritating habits. etc etc etc.
God will judge me as a husband, but I fear the judgement of my wife as she is not as merciful. Hee! Hee!

 

[Catholic_farmer]

This is appalling. I feel terrible for the wives of Muslim men. These writings clearly violate the Ten Commandments and I pray that Muslim men have more sense than this and treat their wives with the respect and dignity that God gives us all.

 

[rossum]

I’ve never heard the Western Muslim interpretation of this, so I would love some opinions.

Sahih International
Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband’s] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.

What is arrogance and when does it constitute striking?

Maybe a common Jewish/Christian/Muslim interpretation can be found in Proverbs 10:6

Blessings are for the head of the just, but a rod for the back of the fool.

A wife (or husband) can be beaten when they are foolish.

rossum

 

[dronald]

Maybe a common Jewish/Christian/Muslim interpretation can be found in Proverbs 10:6

Blessings are for the head of the just, but a rod for the back of the fool.

A wife (or husband) can be beaten when they are foolish.

rossum

Out of all the attempts to turn a discussion of Islam into a comparison of Christianity (and it happens every time) this has got to be the worst.

Compare the tenants of Islam (which is clear in this Surah) to the NT if you like. Don’t try to take a Psalm and twist it. Certainly Paul has some controversial things to say about women; why not try that out? Maybe you can somehow twist Paul’s words to mean “Beat your wives.” But you’re really digging here.

 

[JustaServant]

Before we get all high and mighty, the more extreme KJV-only fundamentalists Christians would often brag, and sometimes preach, about “spanking thier wives”.

 

[otterman]

Before we get all high and mighty, the more extreme KJV-only fundamentalists Christians would often brag, and sometimes preach, about “spanking thier wives”.

Maybe so, but nowhere will they find justification in the N.T.for “beating a wife for fear of disobedience”

Remember, the Quran is (allegedly) the literal word of Allah, given for the benefit of mankind,and “wife beating” is therefore fully justifiable.

 

[Catholic_farmer]

Before we get all high and mighty, the more extreme KJV-only fundamentalists Christians would often brag, and sometimes preach, about “spanking thier wives”.

In countries where the Islamic law sets the rules, this is allowed. That’s why I think praying for Muslim women is warranted.

Anyone in the US or Europe can be arrested for abusing his wife.

 

[JustaServant]

Maybe so, but nowhere will they find justification in the N.T.for “beating a wife for fear of disobedience”

Remember, the Quran is (allegedly) the literal word of Allah, given for the benefit of mankind,and “wife beating” is therefore fully justifiable.

I don’t remember the verse or verses they would use, but fundies can read almost anything into an obscure Bible verse.
My point is simply that we have our nutters too. Their spiritual fore-bearers were the Puritans. And we all know how well that worked out.

 

[otterman]

I don’t remember the verse or verses they would use, but fundies can read almost anything into an obscure Bible verse.
My point is simply that we have our nutters too. Their spiritual fore-bearers were the Puritans. And we all know how well that worked out.

Good correlation with the Puritans, oppression was their operative word.

However, anything written in the Quran is said to be clear, and easy to understand, making this verse as “clear as day.”

 

[rossum]

Out of all the attempts to turn a discussion of Islam into a comparison of Christianity (and it happens every time) this has got to be the worst.

Your first error, I compared three religions, not just two. Strike one.

Compare the tenants of Islam (which is clear in this Surah) to the NT if you like.

So, the OT is not Christian scripture? Your second error. Strike two.

Don’t try to take a Psalm and twist it.

The Book of Proverbs is not the Book of Psalms. The Book of Psalms is not the Book of Proverbs. Your third error. Three strikes and you are out.

rossum

 

[dronald]

Your first error, I compared three religions, not just two. Strike one.

So, the OT is not Christian scripture? Your second error. Strike two.

The Book of Proverbs is not the Book of Psalms. The Book of Psalms is not the Book of Proverbs. Your third error. Three strikes and you are out.

rossum

Sorry on the Proverbs. The rest of what you said remains silly.

 

[rossum]

Sorry on the Proverbs. The rest of what you said remains silly.

So, is the Old Testament, including the Book of Proverbs, Christian scripture or not?

I hardly think that the question is silly, since you required an answer from the New Testament, excluding the Old Testament.

rossum

 

[dronald]

So, is the Old Testament, including the Book of Proverbs, Christian scripture or not?

I hardly think that the question is silly, since you required an answer from the New Testament, excluding the Old Testament.

rossum

Well, the main reason I find your objections silly is that I mentioned that you were making a comparison between Islam and Christianity, and just for the sake of arguing you had to say “Nope! Judaism too (insert baseball metaphore).” That’s silly to me, but may not have been to you.

Your main objection however (which I also find silly but is a common one among non-Christians) is that you have quoted the OT in order to compare it to Islam. Look at Youtube comments, read Islamic apologists, read any anti-Christian blog and you’ll quickly find them quoting the OT; and quoting it out of context. The issue with this however, is that Christians don’t look at those Scriptures as obviously condoning the words within. Your example given was a proverb.

“Blessings are for the head of the just, but a rod for the back of the fool.”

Now, your objection (again silly to me) is that it can easily be interpreted just like the Surah in question: “If they continue in arrogance then strike them.” To me, the idea is so ridiculous that you can even draw a comparison, that I didn’t feel the need to get into a deep discussion about why we are no longer bound by the OT. But what the hey, you quoted it and I’m sure you’ll have 100 more for us.

Knowing that Psalms and Proverbs are often a collection of wise sayings I immediately know it’s out of context. If Jesus had said, “verily I say unto you, strike your wives on the back with a rod whilst acting in foolishness.” I may say you have a case, but instead you quoted Proverb 10:6

Blessings are for the head of the just, but a rod for the back of the fool.

Now I was looking for that translation and here they are on biblehub:

New International Version
Blessings crown the head of the righteous, but violence overwhelms the mouth of the wicked.

English Standard Version
Blessings are on the head of the righteous, but the mouth of the wicked conceals violence.

New American Standard Bible
Blessings are on the head of the righteous, But the mouth of the wicked conceals violence.

King James Bible
Blessings are upon the head of the just: but violence covereth the mouth of the wicked.

Douay-Rheims Bible
The blessing of the Lord is upon the head of the just: but iniquity covereth the mouth of the wicked.

I control + f’d “Rod” but couldn’t find yours. Here:

biblehub.com/proverbs/10-6.htm

Regardless, you want to take an OT passage and say, “That’s what Christians believe!” It’s not. We don’t repay violence with violence, or evil talk with violence, Jesus taught explicitly against it. So while the OT is Scripture in our Canon, we do not take all the sayings in a literal way that would cause us to be violent.

 

[Pythons]

Yes, based off my observance of Islamic culture ( Desert Storm ), beating ones wife is within Islamic Orthodoxy…
…In fact it’s expected.

 

[rossum]

Well, the main reason I find your objections silly is that I mentioned that you were making a comparison between Islam and Christianity, and just for the sake of arguing you had to say “Nope! Judaism too (insert baseball metaphore).” That’s silly to me, but may not have been to you.

It is silly to realise that the Old Testament is also the Jewish Tanakh?

Your main objection however (which I also find silly but is a common one among non-Christians) is that you have quoted the OT in order to compare it to Islam. Look at Youtube comments, read Islamic apologists, read any anti-Christian blog and you’ll quickly find them quoting the OT; and quoting it out of context. The issue with this however, is that Christians don’t look at those Scriptures as obviously condoning the words within. Your example given was a proverb.

“Blessings are for the head of the just, but a rod for the back of the fool.”

Now, your objection (again silly to me) is that it can easily be interpreted just like the Surah in question: “If they continue in arrogance then strike them.” To me, the idea is so ridiculous that you can even draw a comparison, that I didn’t feel the need to get into a deep discussion about why we are no longer bound by the OT. But what the hey, you quoted it and I’m sure you’ll have 100 more for us.

We disagree. Why do Christian Bibles include the OT if Christians are no longer bound by it? Has the Church changed the canon of scriptures recently? If they have, then I have not seen it in the news.

Some parts of the OT are still followed, such as the Ten Commandments. Other parts are not, like men not shaving. Some parts are followed by some Christians but not by others. As has been pointed out in this thread, there are some conservative Protestant sects who accept that husbands may use corporal punishment on their wives.

Regardless, you want to take an OT passage and say, “That’s what Christians believe!”

Correct. Also, unless you have studied the Qur’an in the same way as a theologian studies the Bible, you cannot take a passage from the Qur’an and say “That’s what Muslims believe.” Both the Bible and the Qur’an have long histories of interpretation that go with the original text. You are taking a single sentence from the Qur’an and ignoring the standard interpretation. I took a single sentence from the Bible, and ignored the standard interpretation. You seem to agree with what you did, yet disagree with me doing the same thing.

We don’t repay violence with violence, or evil talk with violence,

The history of religious wars in Europe, from 1500 to Northern Ireland in the 20th century say that you are wrong. Members of a religion may not always act in the best way that their religion demands. “It is easy to get a bad man to do bad things. It is easy to get a good man to do good things. But to get a good man to do bad things, you need a religion.”

rossum

 

[otterman]

It is silly to realise that the Old Testament is also the Jewish Tanakh?

We disagree. Why do Christian Bibles include the OT if Christians are no longer bound by it? Has the Church changed the canon of scriptures recently? If they have, then I have not seen it in the news.

Some parts of the OT are still followed, such as the Ten Commandments. Other parts are not, like men not shaving. Some parts are followed by some Christians but not by others. As has been pointed out in this thread, there are some conservative Protestant sects who accept that husbands may use corporal punishment on their wives.

Correct. Also, unless you have studied the Qur’an in the same way as a theologian studies the Bible, you cannot take a passage from the Qur’an and say “That’s what Muslims believe.” Both the Bible and the Qur’an have long histories of interpretation that go with the original text. You are taking a single sentence from the Qur’an and ignoring the standard interpretation. I took a single sentence from the Bible, and ignored the standard interpretation. You seem to agree with what you did, yet disagree with me doing the same thing.

The history of religious wars in Europe, from 1500 to Northern Ireland in the 20th century say that you are wrong. Members of a religion may not always act in the best way that their religion demands. “It is easy to get a bad man to do bad things. It is easy to get a good man to do good things. But to get a good man to do bad things, you need a religion.”

rossum

I would like to respond to several points in your post.

You are taking a single sentence from the Qur’an and ignoring the standard interpretation. I took a single sentence from the Bible, and ignored the standard interpretation. You seem to agree with what you did, yet disagree with me doing the same thing.

The Quran cannot be read as the Bible, as the words written within it are held as the literal, unchanging word of Allah, eternally binding upon Muslims for their guidance and benefit. Whatever the Quran says then is held to be true for ALL time, and therefore not to be read as an historical book.
The Bible on the other hand is a collection of books, held within an historical context,holding amongst other things, stories, prayers,poems,and the prophesy of the forthcoming Messiah, Jesus, who is spoken about at its completion in the New Testament.

However, the words in the N.T. spoken by Jesus,are held to be eternally binding upon Christians, as Jesus has the message of eternal life, given as the Gospel,literally Good News.

Christians are not bound by the sacrificial law of the O.T.as Jesus came to fulfill this by His own death, and resurrection, but they are still bound by the moral Law, found within the Ten Commandments

Any Christian who has used the Bible to justify violence,has no authority from his scriptures, as Jesus is a man of peace, who advocates and condones only spiritual combat against the forces of evil, unlike a Muslim who can find justification for violence, as both the Quran and Sunnah support it.

 

[dronald]

It is silly to realise that the Old Testament is also the Jewish Tanakh?

No, the main reason I find your objections silly is that I mentioned that you were making a comparison between Islam and Christianity, and just for the sake of arguing you had to say “Nope! Judaism too (insert baseball metaphore).” That’s silly to me, but may not have been to you.

We disagree. Why do Christian Bibles include the OT if Christians are no longer bound by it? Has the Church changed the canon of scriptures recently? If they have, then I have not seen it in the news.

Why don’t you make a thread?

Some parts of the OT are still followed, such as the Ten Commandments. Other parts are not, like men not shaving. Some parts are followed by some Christians but not by others. As has been pointed out in this thread, there are some conservative Protestant sects who accept that husbands may use corporal punishment on their wives.

Can you point me to the website of said Protestant sect that accepts beating their wives based on Scripture. And if you dodge this I can only assume you’re being dishonest and I can move on.

Correct. Also, unless you have studied the Qur’an in the same way as a theologian studies the Bible, you cannot take a passage from the Qur’an and say “That’s what Muslims believe.” Both the Bible and the Qur’an have long histories of interpretation that go with the original text. You are taking a single sentence from the Qur’an and ignoring the standard interpretation. I took a single sentence from the Bible, and ignored the standard interpretation. You seem to agree with what you did, yet disagree with me doing the same thing.

I asked what Muslims believe, you took a passage (and I’m still not sure what passage it was; did you check biblehub) and made something up.

The history of religious wars in Europe, from 1500 to Northern Ireland in the 20th century say that you are wrong. Members of a religion may not always act in the best way that their religion demands. “It is easy to get a bad man to do bad things. It is easy to get a good man to do good things. But to get a good man to do bad things, you need a religion.”

rossum

You’re not a big fan of Jesus’s words are you? I suggest you read what he taught.