Human Rights in Islamic Countries

Originally posted by scherzo
The Qur'an states that husbands have the right to beat unfaithful wives in one verse. I don't follow that one personally.

Do you think it is true that husbands have the right to beat unfaithful wives, even though you choose not to exercise that right?

I believe you are also underestimating the number of passages in the Koran that prescribe wife beating in various circumstances.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Strawmen don't speak.

One last try.

You should either defend what you said or people get to mark your card as a common or garden variety charlatan, if they haven't done so already.

How do you attribute the purpose and activity of Indonesia's Detachment-88 to Islam?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
But isn't the Koran the veritable word of Allah himself? Do you know better than Allah how homosexuals ought to be treated?

Like I said, there is more than one way to interpret the Qur'an. The "crusaders" follow it literally. I follow parts of it metaphorically. The majority of pro-gay-rights activists are Christian, but the Bible says some horrible things about homosexuals.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Do you think it is true that husbands have the right to beat unfaithful wives, even though you choose not to exercise that right?

I believe you are also underestimating the number of passages in the Koran that prescribe wife beating in various circumstances.

Do you think it is true that husbands have the right to beat unfaithful wives, even though you choose not to exercise that right?

No. I do not.

The passage (along with the passage about the hijab) has been interpreted too literally.

I believe you are also underestimating the number of passages in the Koran that prescribe wife beating in various circumstances.

I can only think of one right now. There's more in the Hadith, but that's not really the word of God.

Originally posted by scherzo
[b]Do you think it is true that husbands have the right to beat unfaithful wives, even though you choose not to exercise that right?

No. I do not.

The passage (along with the passage about the hijab) has been interpreted too literally.

I believe you are also underestimating the number of passages in the Koran that prescribe wife beating in va ...[text shortened]... nly think of one right now. There's more in the Hadith, but that's not really the word of God.

[/b]

I can only think of one right now. There's more in the Hadith, but that's not really the word of God.

There is only one—and I have seen 2 or 3 translators/commentators (including Ahmed Ali) who argue that the Arabic word used cannot be construed literally there, pointing out that it is used elsewhere in the Qur’an idiomatically (e.g., to strike out on a journey). However, I think women have been far more marginalized over time than they were, say, in the period of the Caliphate (when one woman was known to have argued, publicly, with Umar over an interpretation of the Qur’an; and Umar acknowledged that she was correct and he was wrong).

Muhammad, based on all my reading, is not known to have ever struck a woman; and he strongly disapproved of it, saying (in one hadith): “The worst among us are men who beat their wives.” [Rough quote from memory.] He is also reputed to have said to a servant-woman with whom he was angry: “If it were not for fear of Allah, I would beat you with this [cloth napkin]!”

There are Muslims who use hadith to “abrogate” passages in the Qur’an, though others think that is quite wrong: that hadith (regardless of the strength of their putative isnad) ought to be tested against the Qur’an, and not the other way around. (A case in point: the Qur’an does not permit the death penalty for adultery, but 100 “strikes”—which some historians have said could not mar the skin, but were more in the line of a public shaming.)

The Qur’an greatly liberated women vis-a-vis their conditions and treatment in the surrounding culture—whether or not it went “far enough” is another question. Many Muslims (the majority? I don’t know), rather than continuing in the direction of the Qur’an, have “backslid” (as it were); often, as you note, using hadith to support their (male dominated) position. That kind of thing is not confined to Islam, of course.

And Muslims should not be seen as having monolithic views on such matters. There are Muslim feminists, for example. (You might be interested in Fatima Mernissi’s book The Veil and the Male Elite for a scholarly exploration; Mernissi is a sociologist, a Muslim, and a feminist.)

Originally posted by vistesd


I can only think of one right now. There's more in the Hadith, but that's not really the word of God.

There is only one—and I have seen 2 or 3 translators/commentators (including Ahmed Ali) who argue that the Arabic word used cannot be construed literally there, pointing out that it is used elsewhere in the Qur’an idiomatically (e.g., to st ...[text shortened]... Elite[/i] for a scholarly exploration; Mernissi is a sociologist, a Muslim, and a feminist.)[/b]

I agree with you on many points, but I disagree with you that Mohammed wasn't anti-feminist (and I do condemn this on his part, but it wasn't at all strange for the time period). He reputedly said "When Eve was created, Satan rejoiced." I find that ridiculous. But Muslims don't follow Mohammed as much as they follow God, unlike Christians with Jesus. To us, Mohammed is to be honored, but his every word is not to be taken as fact.

I am, of course, aware of the presence of many Muslim feminists. I think that for them to try to interpret the Hadith in a feminist way is a waste of time; the Hadith is rarely consulted by true Muslims, and it is antifeminist. The Qur'an is not a waste of time, and many Muslim feminists have (very effectively, in my opinion) shown that many of the passages constructed in the Qur'an to be antifeminist can be interpreted many different ways.

Originally posted by scherzo
I agree with you on many points, but I disagree with you that Mohammed wasn't anti-feminist (and I do condemn this on his part, but it wasn't at all strange for the time period). He reputedly said "When Eve was created, Satan rejoiced." I find that ridiculous. But Muslims don't follow Mohammed as much as they follow God, unlike Christians with Jesus. To us, ...[text shortened]... ages constructed in the Qur'an to be antifeminist can be interpreted many different ways.

Abu Bakr, upon the death of Muhammad, is supposed to have said: “If any of you worship Muhammad, Muhammad is dead; if any of you worship Allah, Allah is alive and will never die.”

___________________________________________________

I made no sweeping claim about whether Muhammad was anti-feminist; I merely said that, based on my readings, he did not believe in beating women. I also claimed that the Qur’an greatly liberated women vis-à-vis the surrounding culture (and Arab society prior to Islam; and possibly most societies of the time).

…the Hadith is rarely consulted by true Muslims…

If you define “true Muslims” as (in part, anyway) those who do not rely much on hadith, then that’s simply a tautology. Since I am not a Muslim, I would not try to say who are, and who are not, “true Muslims”. Some Muslims I have encountered (Ahosyney, on here, for one) rely quite heavily on hadith and the sunnah generally. Others do not; some reject them altogether (although I think that is a minority).

I would tend to agree about attempting a feminist interpretation of the hadith; Mernissi’s approach was to examine some of those hadith to show that they were not sustainable at all. I would think that the Qur’an is amenable to progressive readings, however—especially given its broad dialectical structure (at least that’s how I would characterize it). This undoubtedly raises the issue of ijtihad, which I am not qualified to address at all.

Be well.

Originally posted by vistesd
Abu Bakr, upon the death of Muhammad, is supposed to have said: “If any of you worship Muhammad, Muhammad is dead; if any of you worship Allah, Allah is alive and will never die.”

___________________________________________________

I made no sweeping claim about whether Muhammad was anti-feminist; I merely said that, based on my readings, he did no ...[text shortened]... edly raises the issue of ijtihad, which I am not qualified to address at all.

Be well.

I agree with you on more things than you think. And you merely said that the Prophet Mohammed was too scared of what God would do to punish him if he beat women, not per se the concept of beating women.

If you define “true Muslims” as (in part, anyway) those who do not rely much on hadith, then that’s simply a tautology. Since I am not a Muslim, I would not try to say who are, and who are not, “true Muslims”. Some Muslims I have encountered (Ahosyney, on here, for one) rely quite heavily on hadith and the sunnah generally. Others do not; some reject them altogether (although I think that is a minority).

I believe that Ayosyney is a Sunni. I am a Shi'a, and as a Shi'a, I place first priority on the Ten Commandments, then the Qur'an, then the Old Testament, then maybe the Hadith if the other three yield no results.

I would tend to agree about attempting a feminist interpretation of the hadith; Mernissi’s approach was to examine some of those hadith to show that they were not sustainable at all. I would think that the Qur’an is amenable to progressive readings, however—especially given its broad dialectical structure (at least that’s how I would characterize it). This undoubtedly raises the issue of ijtihad, which I am not qualified to address at all.

Jihad is not inherently violent, nor is it even inherently external.

Originally posted by scherzo
I agree with you on more things than you think. And you merely said that the Prophet Mohammed was too scared of what God would do to punish him if he beat women, not per se the concept of beating women.

[b]If you define “true Muslims” as (in part, anyway) those who do not rely much on hadith, then that’s simply a tautology. Since I am not a Muslim, I wou o address at all.

Jihad is not inherently violent, nor is it even inherently external.[/b]

Thank you for clearing some of that up for me. Appreciated.

You're right: Ahosyney is Sunni. I know far less about Shi'a. There is a Sufi tradition within Shi'a as well, isn't there?

Agreed about jihad. But I was referring to ijtihad, a kind of reasoned interpretation based on circumstances, rather than, say, strict adherence to precedents in Islamic jurisprudence.

Originally posted by vistesd
Thank you for clearing some of that up for me. Appreciated.

You're right: Ahosyney is Sunni. I know far less about Shi'a. There is a Sufi tradition within Shi'a as well, isn't there?

Agreed about jihad. But I was referring to ijtihad, a kind of reasoned interpretation based on circumstances, rather than, say, strict adherence to precedents in Islamic jurisprudence.

You're right: Ahosyney is Sunni. I know far less about Shi'a. There is a Sufi tradition within Shi'a as well, isn't there?

Yes, but it's not as strong. Shi'a Islam in general is a lot more liberalized than Sunni Islam, although it hasn't always been that way.

Agreed about jihad. But I was referring to ijtihad, a kind of reasoned interpretation based on circumstances, rather than, say, strict adherence to precedents in Islamic jurisprudence.

Aaah ... misread. Sorry.