Does Islam condone domestic violence?

Recently there was an article about a secular Muslim TV personality's response to seeing a video about two "radical" female Muslims explaining how Muslim men are permitted to hit their wives as a sign of symbolism. Of course, in wilfully ignorant false outrage he criticises the "radicals" because they were harming the reputation of moderates who would NEVER even entertain such an idea, right? He even suggests that it is a tragedy that more people don't watch another video with prominent Muslim clerics discussing how there is "no" excuse for a husband to abuse his wife, emotionally or physically. See, the matter is closed. It's just the radicals. There is no basis for such a thing in Islam. So, let's move on.

(Waleed Aly slams ‘absolutely atrocious’ views on domestic violence of some Muslims)

Hold up a minute. Were those women in Saudi Arabia? No, they were in Australia. So they are in a Western country advocating that men hitting their wives is permitted as an act of symbolism. No government theocracy encouraging them or cultural pressure either. Does Australian culture encourage or permit such behaviour? No? So where does this idea come from that it is ok to do?

Here's a hint: the most scared, central and valuable scripture according to the Islamic faith. The Quran.

Domestic violence in Islam

Before you berate me for using an "Islamophobic" source, the reason I did use this page is because it is clearly objective and accurate in its analysis. If you think other pages from this website are BS or tying to demonise Muslims — you are free to think that, but it is irreverent to this particular issue. Go look up the relevant passages from the Quran from an official Islamic website with an English translation, or if you have a Quran near you, then pick it up and read the verses referenced in the link yourself.

"Out of context", "Cannot be properly translated into English", "That website is inherently Islamophobic"...NO that will not work.

Explain how "radical" female Muslims living in Australia can justify domestic violence against women as permitted within Islam...have a fellow Australian Muslim say he can't believe these radicals could give justification from something NOT justified by Islam...and forget that the primary, most sacred text which is supposed to unite all Muslims permits such behaviour.

Does Waleed Aly really think we are all stupid?

a reply to: Dark Ghost

aren't there conflicting quotes in the Quran
on how to treat women ?

I haven't read it all
but I remember something like " honour your wives , treat them with respect "

originally posted by: kibric
a reply to: Dark Ghost

aren't there conflicting quotes in the Quran
on how to treat women ?

I haven't read it all
but I remember something like " honour your wives , treat them with respect "

Somebody once said something like: "be careful how interpretation is handled in the Quran. Passages that come after other passages can supersede the proceeding verses."

Either the above, or: "honour your wives, treat them with respect...[as long as they don't disrespect you or your authority over them]"

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Of course, wife beaters never justify their behavior.

How many excuses will they dream up?

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.

Quran 4:34

This is the verse in relation to the topic.

In my research, I have seen some websites try to claim that English is not capable of accurately describing the meaning of the verse in its proper meaning (which MAY be true), but they only say that in relation to the word "strike", which would be understandable IF that were the only problem with the verse.

In the following example, I have pasted the exact verse translation from above to here, removed all square brackets (but did NOT remove the words that they enclosed) and added my own square bracket commentary:

Men are in charge of women [says who?] by right of what Allah [the God whose existence has not been proven] has given one over the other and what they spend for maintenance from their wealth [what if the wife has her own job?]. So righteous women are devoutly obedient [must follow Islamic beliefs], guarding in the husband's absence what Allah would have them guard [a second best option?]. But those wives from whom you fear arrogance [note the word FEAR] - first advise them; then if they persist, forsake them in bed [is the wife playing hard to get?]; and finally, strike them [is "strike them" the ONLY problem with this verse?]. But if they obey you once more, seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand. [So exalted and grand that there is no clear, universal translation of what he said in the most contentious part of the verse — LOL].

Can somebody please explain to me what reality we are living in where not only do Muslim feminists exist, but non-Muslim feminists can show support and solidarity for Muslims when the above verse should infuriate them to no end. How can it be?

originally posted by: intrptr
Of course, wife beaters never justify their behavior.

How many excuses will they dream up?

*********************

Deuteronomy 22:23-24

“If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor's wife. So you shall purge the evil from your midst."

Please show me an example of two Jewish women today who are living in a predominately non-Jewish country discussing Jewish attitudes that support the above verse.

Then show me a video of a secular Jewish TV personality crying about how these extremist Jews are giving all Jews a bad name and that the act they are describing is vehemently rejected by most Jews and not permitted according to Judaism.

Then show me a video of him linking a video featuring various Rabbis speaking about how true Judaism would never condone the above verse.

Then show me all Jewish groups rushing to denounce the words of the extremist Jewish women mentioned first.

What are the odds you could find all 4 of those examples in the span of one day? How about we make the odds more realistic and give you a full week to find a single example from the above 4. Up to the challenge?

Don't deflect just because you don't like the content.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Blah blah, anti religious rhetoric. Lets overlook the bombing of women and children by the west in unjust aggressive wars in the name of humanity, democracy.

Then deflect away from that with some crimes 'in the name of' some other God (namely Islam). Always Islam.

originally posted by: intrptr
Blah blah, anti religious rhetoric. Lets overlook the bombing of women and children by the west in unjust aggressive wars in the name of humanity, democracy.

Then deflect away from that with some crimes 'in the name of' some other God (namely Islam). Always Islam.

What does "the bombing of women and children by the west in unjust aggressive wars" have to do with a video featuring two female Muslims living in AUSTRALIA condoning domestic violence against women?

Forget everything else I said. What you just said, what does that have to do with this topic in any capacity?

Even if the West does what it does, you think the attitudes of these people are going to change?

Either you are:
1) Throwing in the "but it's all the Wests fault" card because you believe inherently problematic religious beliefs are somehow connected
2) Or you are trying to say "don't worry about such a trivial issue, there are bigger things to worry about!"

Which is it? If it is number 2, then why don't you go into EVERY other thread that does NOT mention the plight of 3b+ people starving to death and mention that, you know, because if that issue is not being addressed at EVERY moment, then people simply have their priorities wrong.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

because if that issue is not being addressed at EVERY moment, then people simply have their priorities wrong.

Pot meet kettle

originally posted by: intrptr

because if that issue is not being addressed at EVERY moment, then people simply have their priorities wrong.

Pot meet kettle

If you correctly comprehended the point I made in my last reply, it seems impossible you would post those three words as a valid response.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

I put judaism, christianity, and islam in the same bucket. All of them prescribe terrible ideas and actions equally. Killing people for minor offences, forced marriage to the man who rapes a girl, intolerance and murder for those who do not accept the rules put forth by ancient barbaric tribesmen.

One should never talk about them as separate entities. They are different factions of the same books. Each of them with not enough redeemable qualities.

Christianity condones wife beating, child beating and slave beating. Give me a break.
Most every religion condones beating women. Isn't it a great place to be smaller and weaker?

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Dark Ghost

Blah blah, anti religious rhetoric. Lets overlook the bombing of women and children by the west in unjust aggressive wars in the name of humanity, democracy.

Then deflect away from that with some crimes 'in the name of' some other God (namely Islam). Always Islam.

What does that have to do with the OP? Keep up with the convo would ya?

originally posted by: Woodcarver
I put judaism, christianity, and islam in the same bucket. All of them prescribe terrible ideas and actions equally. Killing people for minor offences, forced marriage to the man who rapes a girl, intolerance and murder for those who do not accept the rules put forth by ancient barbaric tribesmen.

One should never talk about them as separate entities. They are different factions of the same books. Each of them with not enough redeemable qualities.

O.o

Even when one of them is still acting in accordance with believing their most sacred Holy text must be followed fully in the literal sense? Please tell me you are just being cautious as not to come across as Islamophobic...please tell me that at least!

originally posted by: Sillyolme
Christianity condones wife beating, child beating and slave beating. Give me a break.
Most every religion condones beating women. Isn't it a great place to be smaller and weaker?

Incorrect. Christianity did condone wife beating to such an extent that there never used to be a law against it. Does Christianity now condone wife beating to such an extent that Christians openly beat their wives without expecting punishment from the law?

Are you seriously not seeing the difference when comparing this to Islam today as of this moment?

Judaism, Christianity and Islam ALL have barbaric scripture that were all used as justification to commit those deeds in the past. But only one of them still does this today.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Gender inequity and violence are major reasons I left the religion of Islam. Here are some alternative translations and exegeses from well-known and trusted Islamic sources:


Sahih International: "strike them"

Yusuf Ali: "beat them (lightly)"

Pickthall: "scourge them"

Abdul Hakeem: "hit them"

Dr. Ghali: "strike them, (i.e. hit them lightly)"

Mushin Khan: "beat them (lightly, if it is useful)"

Shakir: "beat them"

Mufti Taqi Usmani: "beat them"

Abul Ala Maududi: "beat them"

Tafsir ibn Kathir

‎وَاضْرِبُوهُنَّ

(beat them) means, if advice and ignoring her in the bed do not produce the desired results, you are allowed to discipline the wife, without severe beating. Muslim recorded that Jabir said that during the Farewell Hajj, the Prophet said;

‎«وَاتَّقُوا اللهَ فِي النِّسَاءِ، فَإِنَّهُنَّ عِنْدَكُمْ عَوَانٍ، وَلَكُمْ عَلَيْهِنَّ أَنْ لَا يُوطِئْنَ فُرُشَكُمْ أَحَدًا تَكْرَهُونَهُ،فَإِنْ فَعَلْنَ ذَلِكَ فَاضْرِبُوهُنَّ ضَرْبًا غَيْرَ مُبَرِحٍ، وَلَهُنَّ عَلَيْكُمْ رِزْقُهُنَّ وَكِسْوَتُهُنَّ بِالْمَعْرُوف»

(Fear Allah regarding women, for they are your assistants. You have the right on them that they do not allow any person whom you dislike to step on your mat. However, if they do that, you are allowed to discipline them lightly. They have a right on you that you provide them with their provision and clothes, in a reasonable manner.) Ibn `Abbas and several others said that the Ayah refers to a beating that is not violent. Al-Hasan Al-Basri said that it means, a beating that is not severe.

Tafsir Al-Qushairi

And those you fear may be rebellious, admonish them, and share not beds with them, and strike them: i.e. increase your correction of them gradually and with kindness, for if the matter can be reconciled with admonition there is no need to use the rod to strike.

Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi - Tafhim al-Qur'an

If the wife is defiant and does trot obey her husband or does not guard his rights, three measures have been mentioned, but it does not mean that all the three are to be taken at one and the same time. Though these have been permitted, they are to be administered with a sense of proportion according to the nature and extent of the offense. if a mere light admonition proves effective, there is no need to resort to a severer step. As to a beating, the Holy Prophet allowed it very reluctantly and even then did not like it. But the fact is that there are certain women who do not mend their ways without a beating. In such a case, the Holy Prophet has instructed that she would not be beaten on the face, or cruelly, or with anything which might leave a mark on the body.

Asbab Al-Nuzul by Al-Wahidi

Said Muqatil: "This verse (Men are in charge of women") was revealed about Sa"d ibn al-Rabi", who was one of the leaders of the Helpers (nuqaba"), and his wife Habibah bint Zayd ibn Abi Zuhayr, both of whom from the Helpers. It happened Sa"d hit his wife on the face because she rebelled against him. Then her father went with her to see the Prophet, Allah bless him and give him peace. He said to him: "I gave him my daughter in marriage and he slapped her". The Prophet, Allah bless him and give him peace, said: "Let her have retaliation against her husband". As she was leaving with her father to execute retaliation, the Prophet, Allah bless him and give him peace, called them and said: "Come back; Gabriel has come to me", and Allah, exalted is He, revealed this verse. The Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, said: "We wanted something while Allah wanted something else, and that which Allah wants is good". Retaliation was then suspended".

A man slapped his wife and she complained about him to the Prophet, Allah bless him and give him peace. Her family who went with her said: "O Messenger of Allah! So-and-so has slapped our girl". The Prophet, Allah bless him and give him peace, kept saying: "Retaliation! Retaliation! And there is no other judgement to be held". But then this verse (Men are in charge of women") was revealed and the Prophet, Allah bless him and give him peace, said: "We wanted something and Allah wanted something else".

"Around the time when the verse on retaliation was revealed amongst the Muslims, a man had slapped his wife. She went to the Prophet, Allah bless him and give him peace and said: "My husband has slapped me and I want retaliation". So he said: "Let there be retaliation". As he was still dealing with her, Allah, exalted is He, revealed (Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other"). Upon which the Prophet, Allah bless him and give him peace, said: "We wanted something and my Lord wanted something different. O man, take your wife by the hand".

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Dark Ghost

Blah blah, anti religious rhetoric. Lets overlook the bombing of women and children by the west in unjust aggressive wars in the name of humanity, democracy.

Then deflect away from that with some crimes 'in the name of' some other God (namely Islam). Always Islam.

What does that have to do with the OP? Keep up with the convo would ya?

Way ahead

a reply to: Sahabi

You are a prime example of why there is a grave problem with ISLAM, not with Muslims who follow their religion, but ISLAM itself.

You were a Muslim in the past, and now you are not an adherent of Islam. This PROVES that Muslims as people are NOT the problem. It's Islamic beliefs that ARE the problem.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

This PROVES that Muslims as people are NOT the problem. It's Islamic beliefs that ARE the problem.

So, more bombing then?

www.landoverbaptist.net...