Do Muslim women believe that Islam protects women's rights more than other religions?

[Notanumber]

The original post was - Do Muslim women believe that Islam protects women's rights more than other religions? If so why?

I replied with - Only if they have been brainwashed.

So far, I have not seen any evidence that contradicts my statement.

 

[Curious George]

The original post was - Do Muslim women believe that Islam protects women's rights more than other religions? If so why?

I replied with - Only if they have been brainwashed.

So far, I have not seen any evidence that contradicts my statement.

Logic contradicts your statement.

 

[Sakeenah]

Muslims women have no voice in the matter of rights in Islam.women are to do as they are told no matter what it is.

And of course you as a christian are a expert on women's rights in Islam.

 

[Notanumber]

And ofcourse you as a christian are a expert on women's rights in Islam.

We follow logic, refer to, and provide links to experts.

 

[Sakeenah]

Does this process make it permissible for Muslim men to engage in polygamy and beating ones wife? Let's ignore secular sources of law for the moment and let's discuss Islamic law and what is allowed in it.

If you say these are not allowed, could explain how one can come to that conclusion?


Quotes from Quran from Surah of Women

If you fear that you will not deal fairly with orphan girls,c you may marry
whichever [other]women seem good to you, two, three, or four. If
you fear that you cannot be equitable [to them], then marry only one,
or your slave(s): that is more likely to make you avoid bias.
do.





129You will never be able to treat your wives with equal fair-
ness, however much you may desire to do so, but do not ignore one
wife altogether, leaving her suspended [between marriage and
divorce]. If you make amends and remain conscious of God, He is
most forgiving and merciful, 130but if husband and wife do separate,
God will provide for each out of His plenty: He is inf i nite in plenty,
and all wise. 131Everything in the heavens and the earth belongs
to God.


34Husbands should take good care of their wives, with[the boun-
ties] God has given to some more than others and with what they
spend out of their own money. Righteous wives are devout and guard
what God would have them guard in their husbands’ absence. If you
fear high-handedness from your wives, remind them [of the teach-
ings of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them.
If they obey you, you have no right to act against them: God is
most high and great. 35If you [believers] fear that a couple may break
up, appoint one arbiter from his family and one from hers. Then,
if the couple want to put things right, God will bring about a
reconciliation between them: He is all knowing, all aware.

Polygamy is permissible in Islam, and as a woman I don't have an issue with that. As long as those involved are treated fairly and are okay with it.
Polygamy is practiced in different cultures and religions, so why do you act as if this is an Islamic issue?

Women are allowed to divorce their husband if they feel that they can't be part of a polygamous marriage, so the woman has the power to decide. Majority of Muslim men do not marry more than one wife.If they do ,they have to treat both wives with love,respect and give them their marital rights. If they can't treat them equal they shouldn't marry more than one.
This is mentioned in the verse you quoted
" If you fear that you cannot be equitable [to them], then marry only one."

The last verse you quoted doesn't allow the beating of women.
This verse needs two clarifications. The first one is that it doesn’t apply to any women, but to only those women who are “rebellious” to their husbands for example in adultery. Second, the issue of hitting is a symbolic tapping of the hand as a serious gesture of from the husband towards the wife. Even this light tap on the hand is discouraged.
It's not permissible for the husband to abuse this verse of the Quran to his advantage.

There are narrations and Quran verses which clearly discourage and even prohibit beating,hitting.

“Retain them in kindness or release them in kindness. But do not retain them to their hurt so that you transgress (the limits). If anyone does that he wrongs his own soul. Do not take God’s instructions as a jest” (Qur’an 2:231).

Islam encourages good treatment towards women. Islam teaches that a husband’s treatment of his wife reflects a Muslim’s good character, which in turn is a reflection of his faith.

The prophet muhammad said
" The most perfect of believers in belief is the best of them in character. The best of you are those who are the best to their women. And in another tradition, “The best among you are those who are kindest to their wives.”

I know you might disagree with me,but I believe it would be worthwhile to look at these issues in a larger perspective. Try to avoid viewing human culture, across space and time, through the colored lenses of modern, western culture. A bit of familiarity with anthropology is enough to convince one that there has been, and still is, variety in human cultural practices and norms.

 

[Sakeenah]

We follow logic, refer to, and provide links to experts.

You provide links to self-proclaimed experts on Islam.

 

[sayak83]

As for beating one's wife here is an example: Explainer: what Islam actually says about domestic violence

As for polygamy, I do not believe one exists. Moreover, most religioms lack a legitimate argument to not allow for polygamy as any attempt is ofyen contradicted in other portions of the texts. I believe even secularists have made arguments for polgamy. The problem regarding womens rights is that these arguments favor only polygyny and seem to disfavor polyandry. Do religious text fail in this respect to protect womens rights? Sure. But the question we come back to is does islam fail moreso than all other religions. I suggest not.

Strangely the entire article does not say what the word is actually supposed to mean, just saying "strike her" is not precisely accurate. If a single word does not do the trick, explain it with examples. Thus the article ducks the problem.

I will say this again. Many religions do not give out laws as parts of their direct revelatory literature, putting the domain of legal codes into the hands of political authorities as long as they obey basic principles like golden rule, non violence to others etc. Thus no one can justify not adapting older laws to new ideals that promote equality and wellbeing by saying "God had directly told action X is permissible".

 

[Faithofchristian]

And of course you as a christian are a expert on women's rights in Islam.

I know what the Q'uran will say about women and how women are to do as they are told to do. And yes I do have a q'uran.

 

[Sakeenah]

I know what the Q'uran will say about women and how women are to do as they are told to do. And yes I do have a q'uran.

So because you have a translation of the Quran on your bookshelf, and you read a few verses you are now an expert on women in Islam,makes sense.
Maybe I should read medical handbook and become a doctor, no idea why people bother studying.

 

[Sakeenah]

Strangely the entire article does not say what the word is actually supposed to mean, just saying "strike her" is not precisely accurate. If a single word does not do the trick, explain it with examples. Thus the article ducks the problem.

I will say this again. Many religions do not give out laws as parts of their direct revelatory literature, putting the domain of legal codes into the hands of political authorities as long as they obey basic principles like golden rule, non violence to others etc. Thus no one can justify not adapting older laws to new ideals that promote equality and wellbeing by saying "God had directly told action X is permissible".

The arabic word used in the verse does not mean beat, according to Quran exegesis it means a light tap. I've explained that in my last post.

 

[sayak83]

Polygamy is permissible in Islam, and as a woman I don't have an issue with that. As long as those involved are treated fairly and are okay with it.
Polygamy is practiced in different cultures and religions, so why do you act as if this is an Islamic issue?

Women are allowed to divorce their husband if they feel that they can't be part of a polygamous marriage, so the woman has the power to decide. Majority of Muslim men do not marry more than one wife.If they do ,they have to treat both wives with love,respect and give them their marital rights. If they can't treat them equal they shouldn't marry more than one.
This is mentioned in the verse you quoted
" If you fear that you cannot be equitable [to them], then marry only one."

The last verse you quoted doesn't allow the beating of women.
This verse needs two clarifications. The first one is that it doesn’t apply to any women, but to only those women who are “rebellious” to their husbands for example in adultery. Second, the issue of hitting is a symbolic tapping of the hand as a serious gesture of from the husband towards the wife. Even this light tap on the hand is discouraged.
It's not permissible for the husband to abuse this verse of the Quran to his advantage.

There are narrations and Quran verses which clearly discourage and even prohibit beating,hitting.

“Retain them in kindness or release them in kindness. But do not retain them to their hurt so that you transgress (the limits). If anyone does that he wrongs his own soul. Do not take God’s instructions as a jest” (Qur’an 2:231).

Islam encourages good treatment towards women. Islam teaches that a husband’s treatment of his wife reflects a Muslim’s good character, which in turn is a reflection of his faith.

The prophet muhammad said
" The most perfect of believers in belief is the best of them in character. The best of you are those who are the best to their women. And in another tradition, “The best among you are those who are kindest to their wives.”

I know you might disagree with me,but I believe it would be worthwhile to look at these issues in a larger perspective. Try to avoid viewing human culture, across space and time, through the colored lenses of modern, western culture. A bit of familiarity with anthropology is enough to convince one that there has been, and still is, variety in human cultural practices and norms.

Can a wife beat her husband if he is rebellious? Where did you get the idea of light tapping as the interpretation.
You and I disagree strongly regarding whether a society that allows polygamy can ever create equality between man and woman in private and public spheres of life.
I understand anthropology, but I have set ideas about which kinds of moral systems are more advanced than others. Different cultures have different practices does not imply all are equally praiseworthy.

 

[Notanumber]

You provide links to self-proclaimed experts on Islam.

Which ones are self-proclaimed?

Is this true heroine self-proclaimed?

 

[sayak83]

The arabic word used in the verse does not mean beat, according to Quran exegesis it means a light tap. I've explained that in my last post.

OK. Cool. I will keep that in mind. Can you provide an English translation that says this?

 

[Sakeenah]

OK. Cool. I will keep that in mind. Can you provide an English translation that says this?

I can provide you with a research paper called " Islam and violence against women. The verse is explained in this research paper.


"The “Controversial” Verse
Despite the Prophet’s inherent distaste for harm towards women, there has been an attempt to argue for the permissibility of domestic violence based on an interpretation of a specific verse from the Quran (4:34). Contention ultimately arises on the issue of spousal abuse in Islam from a misreading of this particular verse. This verse states that if a husband fears his wife’s egregious or defiant behavior, he should follow a three-step procedure to solve the situation.[16] First, he must verbally advise her against her actions and correct her mistakes. If this does not improve the situation, he must then “abandon” her bed as a display of his disapproval. If that too does not prove effective, then the final measure has been translated as administering a symbolic gesture of physical discipline (ḍaraba). This multi-step procedure was arguably instituted as a means to regulate an initial surge of anger by requiring the husband to essentially cool down and not impulsively inflict harm upon his wife.

On initial reading of this verse, many readers tend to be frustrated with the ostensible permissibility of a husband hitting his wife. For this reason, scholars have discouraged laypersons from seeking legal answers from the Quran unguided as comprehension of the text requires expert interpretation and contextualization.[17] In fact, most Muslim sects agree that verses of the Quran can only properly be understood when read in light of other Quranic verses and the Prophetic model, as well as the interpretations and legal implementations of the scholarly elite. It was the scholars of each community who determined how this verse was not only understood, but what consequences could potentially follow if a husband wronged his wife in any way (i.e., physically or mentally).

In reality, the majority of scholars shared the Prophet’s aversion to domestic violence and took measures to limit the apparent meaning of ḍaraba or physical discipline in verse 4:34.[18] According to the famous early Makkan jurist ʿAṭāʾ ibn Abi Rabah (d. 732 AD),ḍaraba does not refer to hitting at all; rather, it is a symbolic gesture that reflects one’s anger.[19] He firmly contended, “A man does not hit his wife. He simply expresses that he is upset with her.”[20] Al-Darimi (d. 869 AD), a prominent early Persian scholar and the teacher of the two most renowned compilers of Prophetic narrations, Bukhari and Muslim, composed an entire chapter ofhadith (Prophetic narrations) that objected to domestic violence titled ‘The Prohibition on Striking Women.’[21] Some scholars even went as far as challenging the authenticity of narrations that supposedly allowed men to hit their wives. Ibn Hajar, a scholar considered a medieval master of hadith, asserted that in spite of the apparent meaning of the Quranic verse, the example set by the Prophet is sufficient proof that hitting one’s wife is reprehensible. The nineteenth-century Syrian jurist, Ibn Abidin, moreover, declared that any harm that left a mark on the wife could result in the physical punishment of the husband."

read the rest here :
https://yaqeeninstitute.org/en/tesneem-alkiek/islam-and-violence-against-women/

 

[Curious George]

Strangely the entire article does not say what the word is actually supposed to mean, just saying "strike her" is not precisely accurate. If a single word does not do the trick, explain it with examples. Thus the article ducks the problem.

I will say this again. Many religions do not give out laws as parts of their direct revelatory literature, putting the domain of legal codes into the hands of political authorities as long as they obey basic principles like golden rule, non violence to others etc. Thus no one can justify not adapting older laws to new ideals that promote equality and wellbeing by saying "God had directly told action X is permissible".

There is a paper linked in my link that can give you a better understanding. Don't you speak another language? I honestly do not know what the correct translation is. You wanted to see that there was a different one than that you were reading... you have it. Whether you choose to ignore it, rationalize it, or accept it...doesn't really matter. It is there.

Yet you seem to think that the bible doesn't have versus that can be used to promote domestic abuse including abuse against children that will likely lead to abuse against future spouses.

I am an atheist, yet I would say any religion protects womens rights more than atheism. Why, because atheism literally says nothing to protect womens rights. I would also hold that most religions do more to harm womens rights than atheism as well. Why? Because atheism literally says nothing about womens rights.

Perhaps you have asserted a position and now are trying to stick with that position? You would agree that islam protects some concept of property rights for women? Also some concept of inheiritance? Are these protected in all other religions?

 

[Notanumber]

From the link - "Like me, many Muslim women are asylum seekers. They have fled their home country to live a safe life, they are running away from oppression and persecution that they suffered in their home country. They should not arrive in the UK to be met with further oppression through the operation of Sharia law. The Government should ensure that everyone in the UK abides by the English legal system.

For these reasons I am totally against Sharia law in the UK. The law should not be left to religious men to manipulate women in a democratic state. It is the responsibility of the Government to make sure that everyone in the UK submits to the law equally. I am worried because the Government and people outside the Muslim community are frightened to address sensitive issues like Sharia law, when the wellbeing of the majority is more important that the sensitivity of the minority".

Sami’s Story: ‘My marriage was dictated by Sharia law in the UK’ | Equal and Free?



All Case Studies

• Miri's Story: ‘I felt demeaned, just for being a woman’
• Nasrin’s story: ‘...the consequences could have been life threatening’
• Roma’s story: ‘…written briefly on a plain piece of paper was “I divorce you” three times’
• Sami's Story: ‘My marriage was dictated by Sharia law in the UK’
• Sania's Story: ‘They refused to accept I was in fear of my life’
• Sara's Story: ‘They pressurised me to go back to him’

 

[LuisDantas]

You provide links to self-proclaimed experts on Islam.

That is a significant tangent to pursue: that of expertise and authority to criticize Islaam.

It is of course necessary and unavoidable that Islaamic doctrine to be scrutinized and judged. Muslims themselves do that quite a lot, arguing among them for the validity and comparative methods of various interpretations of Islaam.

What is interesting is how little ability of dealing with criticism there is across the board among, far as I can tell, all varieties of Islaam. It is not even all that hard to make Shias and Sunnis say that the other sect is not "true Islaam". Many Muslims seem to actually hope non-Muslims to concede that ISIS are "obviously not Muslims", even.

Of course, that is also one of the many reasons why Muslims are so often at odds and up at arms against each other.

In essence, there is no consensual way for telling who is a true Muslim and who is a false one. And that, IMO, is a major reason why the doctrine has survived this long. People who are disappointed by the doctrine can so very easily be told that the fault was in the "imperfect" or even "fraudulent" grasp and implementation, not in the doctrine itself.

Another consequence is that it is apparently all-out impossible to criticize Islaam "fairly". Anything that strays even slightly from blind submission seems to be automatically branded "hate speech".

There is even considerable circunstantial evidence that dwelling much in Islaam actually harms the ability to discern truth from tale.

 

[sayak83]

I can provide you with a research paper called " Islam and violence against women. The verse is explained in this research paper.


"The “Controversial” Verse
Despite the Prophet’s inherent distaste for harm towards women, there has been an attempt to argue for the permissibility of domestic violence based on an interpretation of a specific verse from the Quran (4:34). Contention ultimately arises on the issue of spousal abuse in Islam from a misreading of this particular verse. This verse states that if a husband fears his wife’s egregious or defiant behavior, he should follow a three-step procedure to solve the situation.[16] First, he must verbally advise her against her actions and correct her mistakes. If this does not improve the situation, he must then “abandon” her bed as a display of his disapproval. If that too does not prove effective, then the final measure has been translated as administering a symbolic gesture of physical discipline (ḍaraba). This multi-step procedure was arguably instituted as a means to regulate an initial surge of anger by requiring the husband to essentially cool down and not impulsively inflict harm upon his wife.

On initial reading of this verse, many readers tend to be frustrated with the ostensible permissibility of a husband hitting his wife. For this reason, scholars have discouraged laypersons from seeking legal answers from the Quran unguided as comprehension of the text requires expert interpretation and contextualization.[17] In fact, most Muslim sects agree that verses of the Quran can only properly be understood when read in light of other Quranic verses and the Prophetic model, as well as the interpretations and legal implementations of the scholarly elite. It was the scholars of each community who determined how this verse was not only understood, but what consequences could potentially follow if a husband wronged his wife in any way (i.e., physically or mentally).

In reality, the majority of scholars shared the Prophet’s aversion to domestic violence and took measures to limit the apparent meaning of ḍaraba or physical discipline in verse 4:34.[18] According to the famous early Makkan jurist ʿAṭāʾ ibn Abi Rabah (d. 732 AD),ḍaraba does not refer to hitting at all; rather, it is a symbolic gesture that reflects one’s anger.[19] He firmly contended, “A man does not hit his wife. He simply expresses that he is upset with her.”[20] Al-Darimi (d. 869 AD), a prominent early Persian scholar and the teacher of the two most renowned compilers of Prophetic narrations, Bukhari and Muslim, composed an entire chapter ofhadith (Prophetic narrations) that objected to domestic violence titled ‘The Prohibition on Striking Women.’[21] Some scholars even went as far as challenging the authenticity of narrations that supposedly allowed men to hit their wives. Ibn Hajar, a scholar considered a medieval master of hadith, asserted that in spite of the apparent meaning of the Quranic verse, the example set by the Prophet is sufficient proof that hitting one’s wife is reprehensible. The nineteenth-century Syrian jurist, Ibn Abidin, moreover, declared that any harm that left a mark on the wife could result in the physical punishment of the husband."

read the rest here :
https://yaqeeninstitute.org/en/tesneem-alkiek/islam-and-violence-against-women/

Thanks. That was good.

 

[sayak83]

I can provide you with a research paper called " Islam and violence against women. The verse is explained in this research paper.


"The “Controversial” Verse
Despite the Prophet’s inherent distaste for harm towards women, there has been an attempt to argue for the permissibility of domestic violence based on an interpretation of a specific verse from the Quran (4:34). Contention ultimately arises on the issue of spousal abuse in Islam from a misreading of this particular verse. This verse states that if a husband fears his wife’s egregious or defiant behavior, he should follow a three-step procedure to solve the situation.[16] First, he must verbally advise her against her actions and correct her mistakes. If this does not improve the situation, he must then “abandon” her bed as a display of his disapproval. If that too does not prove effective, then the final measure has been translated as administering a symbolic gesture of physical discipline (ḍaraba). This multi-step procedure was arguably instituted as a means to regulate an initial surge of anger by requiring the husband to essentially cool down and not impulsively inflict harm upon his wife.

On initial reading of this verse, many readers tend to be frustrated with the ostensible permissibility of a husband hitting his wife. For this reason, scholars have discouraged laypersons from seeking legal answers from the Quran unguided as comprehension of the text requires expert interpretation and contextualization.[17] In fact, most Muslim sects agree that verses of the Quran can only properly be understood when read in light of other Quranic verses and the Prophetic model, as well as the interpretations and legal implementations of the scholarly elite. It was the scholars of each community who determined how this verse was not only understood, but what consequences could potentially follow if a husband wronged his wife in any way (i.e., physically or mentally).

In reality, the majority of scholars shared the Prophet’s aversion to domestic violence and took measures to limit the apparent meaning of ḍaraba or physical discipline in verse 4:34.[18] According to the famous early Makkan jurist ʿAṭāʾ ibn Abi Rabah (d. 732 AD),ḍaraba does not refer to hitting at all; rather, it is a symbolic gesture that reflects one’s anger.[19] He firmly contended, “A man does not hit his wife. He simply expresses that he is upset with her.”[20] Al-Darimi (d. 869 AD), a prominent early Persian scholar and the teacher of the two most renowned compilers of Prophetic narrations, Bukhari and Muslim, composed an entire chapter ofhadith (Prophetic narrations) that objected to domestic violence titled ‘The Prohibition on Striking Women.’[21] Some scholars even went as far as challenging the authenticity of narrations that supposedly allowed men to hit their wives. Ibn Hajar, a scholar considered a medieval master of hadith, asserted that in spite of the apparent meaning of the Quranic verse, the example set by the Prophet is sufficient proof that hitting one’s wife is reprehensible. The nineteenth-century Syrian jurist, Ibn Abidin, moreover, declared that any harm that left a mark on the wife could result in the physical punishment of the husband."

read the rest here :
https://yaqeeninstitute.org/en/tesneem-alkiek/islam-and-violence-against-women/

If I understand this correctly, this implies verses in Quran have to be interpreted through the lens of the Hadith and its incorrect to use it alone. Would that be the general principle?

 

[Notanumber]

David Wood might be self-proclaimed but he knows his subject.