View Single Post
  #26  
Old 10 June 2007, 07:48 PM
andak01
 
Posts: n/a
Default

It's a funny game to pretend that Islam supports wife beating in our western sense of the word, but almost to a person, every scholar, even the most extreme ones forbid violence against women. That fact goes unnoticed because of the single word beat translated from the Arabic. But that verse has been clarified and commented upon by numerous sources, and what we come up with isn't wife beating at all. It isn't physically harmful. It isn't chronic. It isn't something that would drive a woman to fear for her safety.

Quote:
Originally Posted by King_Crimson View Post
(a) Are you going to stick to your interpretation even though I have shown you Islamic texts that contradict your claims?
Are you going to stick to your claims even though I've shown you a noted Sheikh and internationally renowned Islamic scholar saying Islam doesn't allow wife beating.

Now on to the hardline interpretation.

Take this Sheikh that defines beating as something that, causes no injury and makes it clear that anything injurious to the woman would be against Islam.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp3Eam5FX58

Here's a better clarification of what a siwak or miswak is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xct8w...elated&search=

Sheikh Qaradawi, who is often quoted in this matter was asked to lead the Muslim Brotherhood. He is hardly a moderate. Even he says:

The respectable and honest Muslim man does not beat his wife, and his hand is not accustomed to beating.

The Prophet said:

"It was reported to the Prophet (pbuh) that some of his Companions beat their wives, whereupon he said, 'Certainly those are not the best among you [as reported by Ahmad, Abu Daoud, and al-Nisai. Ibn Hibban and Al-Hakim classify it as sound, as narrated by Iyas ibn 'Abdullah ibn Abu Dhiab].'

Saudi Law states:

As defined by the Hadith, it is not permissible to strike anyone's face, cause any bodily harm or even be harsh. What the Hadith qualified as dharban ghayra mubarrih, or light beating, was interpreted by early jurists as a (symbolical) use of the miswak.


Sheikh Siddiqi says:

It is important to read the section fully. One should not take part of the verse and use it to justify one's own misconduct. This verse neither permits violence nor condones it. It guides us to ways to handle [a] delicate family situation with care and wisdom. The word 'beating' is used in the verse, but it does not mean 'physical abuse.' The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) explained it 'dharban ghayra mubarrih,' which means 'a light tap that leaves no mark.' He further said that [the] face must be avoided. Some other scholars are of the view that it is no more than a light touch by siwak, or toothbrush.

http://www.ummah.net/forum/archive/i...p/t-33857.html

Further explainations I've seen is that only a woman's arms or legs can be touched and then again only with the siwak.

Of course again we are obsessing over the end point of what is really a pretty long journey. A woman must be ill behaved (in a religious sense). That is, she could be stealing, committing adultry, slandering her husband. After being admonished, she refuses to mend her ways. The man refuses to share his bed. So another day has passed. At that point, he is permitted to tap her with a toothstick on her arm or leg.

Quote:
(b) Which sites were you referring to as "Christian missionary sites"?
Faithfreedom isn't Christian, although it is vociferously anti-Islam.

Quote:
(c) Are you a Muslim? (this would answer a lot)
Are you Christian, Atheist? This would answer a lot.

The Muslim opinion of what our own beliefs are doesn't seem to hold any weight among Christians and Atheists, who; while informing us of how intolerant we are insist that we must conform to their own stereotypes of who we are.



Please address my posts properly; claiming they are 'quotes out of context' is ludicrious! Do you have anything to say at all??

Thanks

-KC[/QUOTE]
Reply With Quote