Aishah's legacy

[cheebu]

firstly very good arguments guys. keep it up, as it is helping me understand islam better.

And secoundly i am getting confused on what is the subject matter,

Are we saying that hitting Women hard is allowed or what is the theme. Coz it is really confusing as Mr Pagal Insan (who said u r pagal man) is saying that in the quran (good on u for picking those mistakes, it give me assurance that what i am reading is quite close to the truth) that women are allowed to be hit if she has done something wrong, which is exactly what nadia is saying.

I have heard of Mr Bedawi and is a very known person. So Pagal(sorry) can e-mail him and tell him his mistakes so he is told that what he has said is a mistake, and say it nicely so he can explain, and then post the reply here.

Basically both of u are fighting over nothing, u both are saying the same thing. so can u like tell me short what u r trying to say.

And hafeez i asked u earlier what religion u belong to.

Guys keep it up. it is good, and yeah can we not discriminate each others as we both are telling what is in our knowledge. So keep it clean and peaceful

[Paaga_nsaan]

Nadia

I know how it feels when you write a long reply and it gets deleted. If were you I’d not even feel like writing everything all over again. the solution: Always make a new text file on your desktop and type all your reply into it and keep saving regularly, then when you’re done paste it on here. You have some fans on here who really want to hear you talk and if your replies get deleted they’d feel majorly disappointed. I know that because I’m one of them.

You weren’t ‘harsh’ really, its just that I didn’t like being taken negatively, plus I keep whining all the time anyway Its good you don’t agree to a lot of people. When you start agreeing you stop learning. I like the way you love your religion and are committed to it, its impressive. Thanx for all the flowers Getting to the argument:

1- I still insist that those writers mistranslated the words of the Koran. I pointed out the exact words that were mistranslated. I wrote them in arabic and told you what they mean, then compared the original meaning with what they were translated as by the authors. If I was wrong, correct me, and post the real meanings of the words that I mentioned. If you can not do that, you cant expect me to correct my misperceptions can you?

2- I did not point out ‘trivial grammar mistakes’ in my post, I pointed our some key words being translated to something they dont’t mean. If you replace the false meaning with the original meaning of the verse, the argument presented in those essays will become invalid.

3- A theorem is based on some axioms. An axiom is a basic logical statement that is assumed true, and the conclusions that we draw from axioms eventually lead us to a proposition, this proposition is known as a theorem. If you look at the mistranslations that I pointed out, they’re the very axioms of the articles, which are faulty. Until you prove me wrong you can’t prove right the propositions of those articles.

4- If the males are allowed to punish their spouses for indecency, why have women not been allowed the same right if their husbands commit indecency?

Okay now take a long breath, calm yourself down and listen to why I’m doing this to you:

I really want to you know that I do not say Islam promotes violence or it is intolerant. That is not my argument. I know that the prophet had never been mean or cruel to his wives, nor has he ever beaten them. I’ve read all the verses in the koran which safeguard the rights of women and talk of gender equality. I do not deny that, but apparently, this verse contradicts the rest of the verses from the koran and the narrations from the hadees. It does not fit in. Its odd, youre going on reading how the sexes mean nothing and are equal in the eyes of God, and we should be kind towards our spouses, then suddenly one verse comes which says god has preferred Men in bounty and they can beat the wives up if they fear rebellion. This sounds odd and doesnt fit in.
We can not just leave the verse alone, because since majority of the Muslim populations are male dominated societies, they use the apparent meaning of this verse as a tool to suppress women. They claim that the religion gives them the right to phsyical abuse of women. It happens around us every day, and we can not just close our eyes to it. We’re educated, we’re progressive, we know its wrong, and its our duty to do our best to stop this cruel practice. There are people belonging to your own religion, who would use this verse to say men are more blessed than the women, and if you don’t believe in this they will question the authenticity of your faith. On one hand the Muslim males misuse this verse to strengthen their dominance and satisfy their ego, and direct the blame to religion, on the other hand, when the nonmuslims look at such behavior, they are believed to think it is Islam that allows physical abuse. You are an educated progressive inteligent Muslim girl and you know both of the parties are mistaken, and something needs to be done. That exactly is the reason why you posted this article in the first place, and then linked to two other articles which you really wanted me to read.
It however is not possible to recitfy the situation by mere stories. You need to have a strong logical argument on what the whole philosophy behind the physical abuse is and how Islam does not approve of it. You can not convince people with stories. And if you translate ‘beat them’ as ‘tap them gently’ that does more harm to the cause. Physical abuse is bad because of what it is, not because of how harsh it is. Even the slightest tap backed by chauvenism intended to supress the woman is as bad. A playful tap, on the other hand, even ifhard, is no big deal. Then if Dr. jamal says yes, Islam does allow physical abuse, but only gentle abuse sparing the face, that does more HARM than good! Allowing physcal abuse of women is bad, its bad if its allowed as the first option, its as bad if it is allowed as the last option. Th articles you mentioned and many others like them are lame,because they do not address the real issue, and they do not disapprove of physical abuse.

All I want you to do is solve this verse out for me. Show me how this does not contradict the verses about gender equality. Think about the verse, read it, see what it means, see where people have been mistaken and figure out how you can explain this verse to be in harmony with the rest of the koran and hadees. I wish to carry on this conversation and provocate you until you come up with a logical explanation.

[Nadia_H]

Paaga| |nsaan,

Thank you for your detailed reply. And thank you for the flowers as well. This time, i am typing out my reply in another window and will save it every few minutes - i hope it will not get deleted.

Well, my knowledge of Arabic is limited; my knowledge of Arabic grammer based within the Quran is even more limited. This is the approximate English translation i have of the verses we are referring to (Yusuf Ali’s translation):

• Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because God has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband’s) absence what God would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For God is Most High, great (above you all). *

Now. A few fundamental points, perhaps, should be evident from the above verse – i’ll deal with these points as they appear in chronological order in the verse:

i) Why are men singled out as the “protectors and maintainers of women”? i can almost hear all the apparent feminists (both male and female) getting agitated by reading this verse. Well, the Quran goes on to explain why: because males are, generally speaking, equipped with comparatively greater physical strength than females. Is this sexist to state, or is it a biological fact? i am sure you will agree with me that it is the latter. Nothing sexist or demeaning about this simple statement. Secondly, it is also a fact that, in Islam, husbands have an obligation – a requirement – to financially support their wives and families. According to Islam, the wife has NO obligation whatsoever to support her husband or indeed even her children, through whatever salary she may earn. That salary is for the wife’s sole enjoyment and personal use. Due to their comparative physical strength and obligation towards familial upkeep, males are hence named as the “protectors and maintainers of women”. Nothing sexist or demeaning about this – heck, as a female, i find it more liberating that (according to Islam) i do not have to spend my personal salary upon my family, not even my children, if i chose not to. If anyone finds that sexist of me, well so be it. For anyone worried that i am being brainwashed by my culture, this is my eleventh year residing in North America. When this year finishes, i will have spent more than half my life in a nonMuslim country, with its nonMuslim, “westernized” cultures. As far as i am able to discern, i am not brainwashed (at least not overtly) nor have i succumbed to whatever Pakistani cultural influences exist vis-a-vis Islam.

ii) Acha. Now - next point. :flower1: You took offence at the use of the words ’first’, ’next’, and ’and last’ (in the Quranic quote above). However i see that it has been reproduced in Yusuf Ali’s approximate English translation as well. The most important qualification i see within this verse is the second-last part of it: but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance)… So – first off, we may observe slightly increasing steps of ‘punishment’; the first step being verbal admonishment; the second step being to refuse to share beds (in several cultures, would be considered an extremely high form of personal and sensitive insult between a husband and a wife), and the last punishment to be utilized is to beat them lightly; however, we are not finished. For the same sentence continues to state that if the wives return to obedience, Allah orders in the same sentence to not continue these forms of punishment. None of the above strikes me as being excessively unfair or unjust. If, God Forbid, i should ever commit such an act, then i would not only expect – but demand – my husband to do the same. Am i being submissive or passive in stating this? Well, no doubt perhaps to some individuals i am. Within myself, i consider this as bearing in mind my fear of Allah and my inevitable accountability on the day of judgement in stating that i would expect my husband to do the same. Does this mean that my husband is free to do whatsoever he wishes? :rolleyes: Not in a million years. Both husbands and wives have equal responsibilities, rights and duties within Islam.

i came across some interesting contextual notes to this verse in Yusuf Ali’s approximate English translation; forgive me for boring you but i am going to copy and paste them here for anyone’s perusal:

…four steps are mentioned, to be taken in that order: (1) perhaps verbal advice or admonition may be sufficient; (2) if not, sex relations may be suspended; (3) if this is not sufficient, some slight physical correction may be administered: but Imam Shafii considers this inadvisable, though permissible, and all authorities are unanimous in deprecating any sort of cruelty, even of the nagging kind, as mentioned in the next clause; (4) if all this fails, a family council is recommended… Temper, nagging, sarcasm, speaking at each other in other people’s presence, reverting to past faults which should be forgiven and forgotten,-all this is forbidden. And the reason given is characteristic of Islam. You must live all your life as in the presence of Allah, Who is high above us, but Who watches over us. How petty and contemptible will our little squabbles appear in His presence!

i am sure you will have noted Yusuf Ali’s contextual notes in that paragraph – …all authorities are unanimous in deprecating any sort of cruelty…

** On one hand the Muslim males misuse this verse to strengthen their dominance and satisfy their ego, and direct the blame to religion, on the other hand, when the nonmuslims look at such behavior, they are believed to think it is Islam that allows physical abuse.**

True. i agree with the above. One aspect that i think, perhaps, i ‘need’ to stress here is that we need to differentiate between religions and cultures. Yes most (if not all) Muslim cultures currently are patriarchal and in several cases, extremely unjust in their treatment of females. What bearing does this have upon the Quran? In my humblest opinion, no bearing whatsoever. Whatever occurs in Muslim cultures has no bearing whatsoever upon the fundamental core principles of Islam, and the actions and words of no Muslim (whether male or female) should be construed as being reflective of Islam. This is akin to my striving to judge the difference between the actual principles of ‘Christianity’ versus the actions of extremely disturbed individuals such as Timothy McVeigh – who profess to carry out devastating atrocities in the name of Christianity. So my point is – yes, cruelty towards females occurs in most (if not all) Muslim countries. Not at all related to Islam, however.

** There are people belonging to your own religion, who would use this verse to say men are more blessed than the women…**

But i cannot be accountable for what every individual belonging to my religion, believes and does not believe, commits and does not commit – due to the simple fact that that is out of my control. i cannot stop every Muslim husband from treating his wife cruelly, just as i cannot stop every male – whether Christian, Muslim, or Hindu - from treating his wife cruelly. All i can do is what i hope against hope that others will also attempt – to seek out knowledge and guidance from the Quran. The most i can try to do is to work as far as is possible with local NGOs that work with implementing positive social changes within society, particularly those that focus towards women.

** I wish to carry on this conversation and provocate you until you come up with a logical explanation.**

My dear friend, who is to determine who is being “logical” in this discussion? Who obtains the privilege of reaching that conclusion? To myself, i am sure i appear extremely logical (or at least logical to a decent degree); and i am sure you feel the same way about yourself and are probably thinking right now, Why did i entangle myself in this debate with this silly person. Perhaps there is no conclusion to this discussion – we both have been moulded by the environments, books, and teachings we have been exposed to and i am sure each of us believes we alone are “right”. As i stated before, however, i will never agree with your beliefs but i respect them to the utmost.

Perhaps there is no conclusion to this discussion, then?

Regards,
nadia

[Galaxy]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
According to Islam, the wife has NO obligation whatsoever to support her husband or indeed even her children, through whatever salary she may earn. That salary is for the wife’s sole enjoyment and personal use. Due to their comparative physical strength and obligation towards familial upkeep, males are hence named as the “protectors and maintainers of women”.

[/QUOTE]

True. Wife has no obligation to ean but she is equally expected to support her husband and children, except when it comes to anti-religion matter. It's fine to spend your salary on yourself but still, she is supposed to support her family. As from your side, you should give your best according to Rasul (pbuh) and Allah. If a woman has to give in to her husband, sometimes because the final decision is his, she should do it willingly for the sake of Allah and to maintain peace in the family.

To Pagal Insaan
Coming back to the argument:
You ask about obedience to the husband and his “right” to beat you. The answer is that he does not have the right to beat you! In fact, the one verse in the Qur’an that mentions this - Surah 4, verse 34 - has to be read in its entirety and understood in Arabic.
Islam prohibits men from hitting women, except in one very limited case when the wife is rebellious and disobedient - not when she disobeys one request or order - and only as a last resort. The husband should first admonish her, then abandon her bed if she continues to be rebellious, and only if those steps have failed “may be” hit, not beat, her. The earliest commentators understood that the hitting was to be light enough, not to leave a mark and should be done with nothing bigger than a miswak (tooth stick).
As for obedience, keep in mind, first of all, that you cannot look at one point in Islam without looking at other related points. Islam is a whole system.

While men and women have equal rights, those rights are not always identical. In marriage, the woman has the right to be financially supported and maintained. The husband has no right to any of her money. In return, the wife should obey her husband in things regarding the marriage - including whether she can work outside the house and who can visit in the house - but he has no say in how she invests or spends her own money as long as it is in a halal (Islamically legal) manner.

But, at the same time that she is to obey her husband, we are all told to conduct our affairs by mutual consultation, as the Qur’an states in Surah 42, verse 38:

{And those who respond to their Lord and keep up prayer, and their rule is to take counsel among themselves, and who spend out of what We have given them.}

[Nadia_H]

Indeed a well-stated and to-the-point reply, Galaxy :k: :k: Thank you so much. Much appreciated.

And you are accurate regarding the wife’s financial contributions - thank you for correcting me.

[BrokenSky]

Very well said by Nadia_H and Galaxy:k:…
Reply’s are appreciated:flower1:…

[Shoki]

Great reply by Galaxy:k:…
contained everything among this topic:flower1:…

[cheebu]

Good on u guys, keep up with this talk.
Thanx for all the notes, and increasing my knowledge. but could u like change the Aisha’s legecy to a more suitable topic, as this is not surrounding her life.

And yeah, Pagal Insan(sorry again) can u tell me which religion u belong to, not to offend u, just want to know where u are coming from

Thats all guys, now i am assured that there are stilll some muslims alive

NAdia keep it up

Allah hafiz

[Paaga_nsaan]

*Originally posted by cheebu: *

And yeah, Pagal Insan(sorry again) can u tell me which religion u belong to, not to offend u, just want to know where u are coming from
Allah hafiz

Cheebu, well, I’m just playing here, playing the nonconformist. I only want to incite some logical argument on this topic to get more out of it for myself and those who read.

[ammarr]

Nadia_H,

With all due respect, let me just point out a couple of things I disagree with.

[quote]

In the period immediately following the death of the Prophet, women were active participants at all levels of community affairs – religious, political, social, educational, intellectual ..... the prophetic legacy

[/quote]

Quite true, but lets not completely disregard that it was said that the best place is at home. She can choose to be actively participating, but its better for her to be taking care of her home (more so if she's married). Just as a man can 'choose' to help out with the home, but whats his main purpose? to be a maintainer and protector for women, and to provide for them. So, his first duty is to provide, next duty is to help around the house. Similarly for his wife, the first duty is to take care of the house, and the next is to further her knowledge, help out in the community, what not.

It says they were discussed in terms of their service to men, society, and family. Thats quite true, simply because they do have an obligation towards these. Similarly men have obligatons towards the women, society, and their family.

[quote]

During the Abbasid period, when Islam’s foundations were developed, leading scholars and thinkers were exclusively male. They had no experience ... antithetical to Islam.

[/quote]

[quote]

Female Islamists representing this viewpoint handed out booklets (written by men) with titles such as ‘The Wisdom behind Islam’s Position on Women’
[/quote]

Now I was fine with the article at the start, but what happened here? At one point Galaxy mentions that 'The earliest commentators understood that the hitting was to be light enough', which you obviously agreed with. The article however claims that these same people 'deprived' women of their true position?

Really, I am all for female participation in the society. But this article takes the feminist approach of saying that muslims a few yrs after the passing away of Aishah (ra) went on to opress women, and interpreted the texts to suit their meanings. This I am afraid is a little bit of slander upon the scholars, and seems like the work of someone who has little to know knowledge of history, but is just trying to use the 'we have been opressed by those who misinterpreted the quran' approach to get to, and misguide, some of us.

In effect, (if you still do agree with the article), can you lay down the exact points which it raises (i.e. the misinterpretations, please can we have some examples of those? Name of biased scholar from the past included!!), and how those are against the spirit of islam? Thanks.

This is from what I have know, and have observed. And Allah alone knows best.

[Edit: whoops, i think i read the face veil thing incorrectly]

[system]

Nadia, with Ammar's point in mind. Are you going to be content with staying at home, only being accompanied outside with some male asigned to you and working in the kitchen to prepare the nihari until Ammar comes along.

[ammarr]

Matsui,

She or any girl can meet up with her potential husband before marriage and sort stuff like this out. She might be happier with staying at home, or being outside, and she can choose a husband appropriately. Nothing wrong with either option.

[Paaga_nsaan]

** PART 1 ** ]

Dear Nadia

My dear friend, who is to determine who is being “logical” in this discussion?

lol ME!! I’ll continue to molest you until as long as I keep getting kicks out of it

The most i can try to do is to work as far as is possible with local NGOs that work with implementing positive social changes within society, particularly those that focus towards women.

Go Nadia! We need you to do that! :biggthumb Infact if you promise me you’ll do that I’ll give you a walk-over in this argument

Well, my knowledge of Arabic is limited; my knowledge of Arabic grammer based within the Quran is even more limited.

But that doesn’t mean you leave everything to the ‘scholars’. You don’t have to be a phd in Arabic to understand stuff. Get hold of some translations, you don’t have to buy them, you can get the Internet. Pickthal, Yousaf Ali, Shakir, Sher Ali and Rashad Khalifa are among the best translators, along with Arberry, Daryabadi, Palmer, Hairat, Mohammad Ali, just to name a few. All you have to do is, compare them with each other and with the text of the Koran. If you can get hold of a word-by-word translation, especially in urdu, then it gets really really easy. I’m not sure how many translations you can find on the Internet. I used to have 11 different translations on my computer some time back, but I lost that harddisk. If i ever get to revive my collection I’ll let you know.

Getting to the discussion:

–== Yousal Ali’s Art of Approximation ==–

I ‘took offense’ in the translator using the words ’first’, ’next’, and ’and last’, in brackets, in an attempt to change the apparent meaning of the verse. You have quoted Yousaf Ali doing the same, but I still insist that doing this is a highly misguiding pratice, and it is an attempt to change the apparent meaning of the verse to something ‘lighter’ for the readers to digest. I do not object in you or Yousaf Ali having a certain point of view on the meaning of this verse, but nobody can give you the right to change the translation of the world to give an impression to the user which is different from the impression originally given by the verse, in the name of approximation. I will quote the following people who will agree to me and disagree to Yousaf Ali:

Pickthal: Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

Shakir: *Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great. *

Arberry: Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that God has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for God’s guarding. And those you fear may be rebelliou admonish, banish them to their couches, and beat them. If they then obey you, look not for any way against them; God is all-high, all-great.

Sher Ali: Men are guardians over women because Allah has made some of them excel others, and because men spend on them of their wealth. So virtuous women are obedient, and guard the secrets of their husbands with Allah’s protection. And as for those on whose part you fear disobedience, admonish them and keep away from them in their beds and chastise them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Surely, Allah is High and Great.

Palmer: Men stand superior to women in that God hath preferred some of them over others, and in that they expend of their wealth: and the virtuous women, devoted, careful (in their husbands) absence, as God has cared for them. But those whose perverseness ye fear, admonish them and remove them into bedchambers and beat them; but if they submit to you, then do not seek a way against them; verily, God is high and great.

Qaribullah & Darwish: Men are the maintainers of women for that Allah has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have spent of their wealth. Righteous women are obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah has guarded. Those from whom you fear rebelliousness, admonish them and desert them in the bed and smack them (without harshness). Then, if they obey you, do not look for any way against them. Allah is High, Great.

Sarwar: *Men are the protectors of women because of the greater preference that God has given to some of them and because they financially support them. Among virtuous women are those who are steadfast in prayer and dependable in keeping the secrets that God has protected. Admonish women who disobey (God’s laws), do not sleep with them and beat them. If they obey (the laws of God), do not try to find fault in them. God is High and Supreme. *

Daryabadi: Men are overseers over women, by reason of that wherewith Allah hath made one of them excel over anot her, and by reason of that which they expend of their substance. Wherefore righteous women are obedient, and are watchers in husbands absence by the aid and protection of Allah. And those wives whose refractoriness ye fear, exhort them, and avoid them in beds, and beat them; but if they obey you, seek not a way against them; verily Allah is ever Lofty, Grand.

Ayub Khan: *Men have authority over women, for that God has exalted one over the other, and for that they expend of their wealth; so the righteous women are obedient and guard the unseen as God has guarded. And those whose rebellion you fear, admonish them and leave them alone in the beds, and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; God is surely High, Great. *

The list could go on forever, its literally Yousaf Ali versus the rest of the world. The people I quoted above are schlars too. They too say that Islam does not allow cruelty against women, but despite that opinion none of them has the courage to mislead the readers by adding such words in brackets which modify the impression of the verse. Its only Yousaf Ali who did that. You may still think I’m wrong in being offended by those brackets but atleast now you know my point isn’t entirely invalid and a lot of people agree to it when they translate the Koran.

[Paaga_nsaan]

Continued ]

--== Invalidity of The Step-by-Step Theory ==--

Since the Koran does not use the words 'frist', 'then' and 'last' but instead uses the word 'and', and other than Yousaf Ali's ''approximate'' translation just everyone else avoids using those misleading words, this invalidates the whole theory of step-by-step punishment found in Yousaf Ali's footnotes. Infact it is apparent that Yousaf Ali first came up with footnotes, and then adjusted the translation of the Koran to make it in accordance with his opinion on the matter.

--== The Reciprocation of the Right to Beating ==--

*> If, God Forbid, i should ever commit such an act, then i would not only expect

– but demand – my husband to do the same.*

And if, God Forbid, your husband commits such an act, will he let you abandon him in bed or hit him?
I agree that a person may have the right to punish his or her spouse upon indecency, but why is this right being given to just the husband, when the fact is that he himself can commit indecency?

--== Of Physical Strength ==--

You have made a claim that since men are physically stronger than women, thy qualify for the right to beat women. Many decades ago, when Yousaf Ali translated the Koran, it was easy to make such a claim. Today you'd have to think twice before saying its a biological truth that men are physically stronger than women. When Yousaf Ali translated the Koran, women probably were physically weaker, therefore he just added one of his notorious brackets to use the word 'Strength' where the koran did not contain any mention of power, strength of physical condition.
Please read all the translations that I have given above, you will see that the original words of the Koran donot mention any physical strength, but talk of a preference or exaltedness that God has given to men over women, which qualifies them for the right of beatng their wives. Whether this exaltedness or the blessing is physical or spiritual, is a seperate discussion for which you need to come up with proofs, but Yousaf Ali or anyone has no right to add a misguiding bracket using a word that the koran has not mentioned. If god had wanted to mention physical strength here, he wouldve done so very directly. He wouldnt have needed Yousaf Ali to add that bracket.

Secondly, if physical strength makes one qualified to beat one's spouse, does that mean if in a couple, the wife happens to be physically stronger than the husband, she will have the right to beat her husband upon fear of indecency or rebellion?

--== The Obligation to Earn ==--

This is one point we may eventually reachand agreement on, but I still have some questions:
1- Where in the Koran does it state that the Husband is under obligation to earn for his family?
2- If in a family, the male does not earn and the female does that, will the role of ''manager'' be reversed and will the right of beating be taken away from the male?

That was too long for one day I guess :) Its always great talking to you. Oh, and you said you respect my beliefs but will not agree to them. That makes me wonder, where on this thread have I ever posted my beliefs? I have commented on yours, I have quoted words from the Koran, I have referred to popular translations, I have asked you questions, but never, not even once, have I stated my own beliefs or opinions on this topic. I have never said ''Islam curel towards woman'', but youre still almost dead sure that is what I believe, just because of the fact that I havent either said ''Islam is not cruel towards women''. Prejudice is not good. Do not jump to conclusions about who I am and what my beliefs are until I state them.

The fact is you are not even sure of your own beliefs. You are sure Islam isn't cruel towards women, but you're not sure why it isn't and how you can prove it isn't. You have come up with a different theorem in each of your posts. You have not stuck to one logic or one stand. Are you right because Islam allows beating only as a last resort in a series of tep-by-step punishments? Or are you right because the beating that Islam allows is only gentle? Or are you right because men are physically stronger and they should be given the right to punish the weaker sex? Or are you right because since men have an obligation to earn for their families they should be given the right to be managers as well? Or are you right because all the points mentoned above are valid?

You know you are right, and I know I will eventually agree to you, but this dicussion will carry on until one of us runs away, or we both get to find out a solid reason why you are right. As for my own beliefs, I'll keep them for after this argument is over, or some other time.

Love & Respect

[Nadia_H]

Paaga| |nsaan,

Thank you for your reply (that may sound hollow but i mean that).

** ….nobody can give you the right to change the translation of the world to give an impression to the user which is different from the impression originally given by the verse, in the name of approximation. …] You may still think I’m wrong in being offended by those brackets but atleast now you know my point isn’t entirely invalid and a lot of people agree to it when they translate the Koran.**

Believe me i understand where you are coming from. Period. Simultaneously i still do not agree with this. (i can almost hear you gritting your teeth in frustration!). Yusuf Ali’s translation is recognized, generally speaking, as one of the ‘best’ approximate English translations of the Quran; Marmaduke Pickthall is probably the only one who comes closest next to him (IMHO). Regarding your assertion that “…Yousaf Ali first came up with footnotes, and then adjusted the translation of the Koran to make it in accordance with his opinion on the matter” – sorry, i really do not intend to be so stubborn – but i fail to understand how it is possibly to rationally state that. My ‘step-by-step theory’ still holds, in my humblest opinion – i do not believe that all three forms of punishment were meant to be taken in any particular order that one wished. At least to myself, it would appear clear that the first step is verbal admonishment and the last step is to be physical punishment. Agree with me or disagree with me, i cannot help that. That is my position and i stick to it.

And if, God Forbid, your husband commits such an act, will he let you abandon him in bed or hit him?

Well, if absolutely tangible evidence exists that he had committed such an act – i would probably feel like leaving him and apply for a divorce.

** You have made a claim that since men are physically stronger than women, thy qualify for the right to beat women.**

Alright, let me make myself clearer here. Just because someone is physically stronger than another individual, DOES NOT give them the right to go around asserting their physical superiority. i am not stating that and i am not justifying that. i re-read my previous reply and i agree i probably gave off that impression. My apologies. It is a biological fact that, generally speaking, males are physically more superior to females. i am not referring to intellectual superiority – simply physical strength. When i was discussing THIS particular biological aspect, it was in reference to the first part of the quote that singled out men as the “protectors and maintainers of women” – the first ‘clause’ of this quote in Surah an Nisa. This is what i wrote in my previous reply:

Why are men singled out as the “protectors and maintainers of women”? i can almost hear all the apparent feminists (both male and female) getting agitated by reading this verse. Well, the Quran goes on to explain why: because males are, generally speaking, equipped with comparatively greater physical strength than females.

i am not stating that physical superiority justifies the second part of the quote (i.e., the increasing steps of punishment).

** If in a family, the male does not earn and the female does that, will the role of ‘‘manager’’ be reversed and will the right of beating be taken away from the male?**

Well, if i remember correctly, the first wife of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) was the predominant breadwinner of the family – and we both are well aware of their marital relationship in terms of the immense love, trust, and respect both had towards each other.

** Do not jump to conclusions about who I am and what my beliefs are until I state them.**

Point taken. i apologize.

** The fact is you are not even sure of your own beliefs.**

aha. In one breath, you (justifiably) tell me “not [to] jump to conclusions”. Yet in the very next sentence, you state I am “not even sure” of my own beliefs. Unless you are utilizing another nick, this is the very first thread in which you and i have participated– so i suggest we both leave off making assumptions about the other Agreed mon ami? You were right, i was wrong to jump to conclusions regarding yourself; i am sorry, i do tend to do that. Nothing personal, i think i do that with almost everyone.

You (and others) are well aware by now of my stance regarding Islam. i like to believe that i have come to this religion ‘on my own’, not solely because my parents happened to be Muslims and raised me under a Muslim household. My knowledge is ongoing and will probably stay so for the rest of my life but – if it is not too arrogant to state - as a Muslim female, i feel i do understand and appreciate some (albeit not all) of my rights under Islam. i know that the best example we have, according to Islam, lies in the example laid down for us by Prophet Muhammad himself (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). If all wives in the world today were to be treated in the same manner as he treated each and every one of his wives – then i believe an issue such as ‘cruelty towards women’ would forever become an issue of the past.

If Islam permitted cruel and unjust treatment towards wives, then that would have been corroborated by the experiences of the wives of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). The fact that it has not, and that he was indeed the kindest, most loving husband any wife could want, is proof enough of Islam’s stance vis-à-vis women.

Regards,
nadia
ps - Were you serious about the following?

** Go Nadia! We need you to do that! Infact if you promise me you’ll do that I’ll give you a walk-over in this argument**

Do you promise the above?

If i state that i worked with an Islamabad-based NGO, “Sach”, during August 2002 (a thread of which by the way dated during that time should still be in the General Forum) that primarily aimed to assist Afghan and Pakistani women and their children, then will you conclude that i’ve ‘won’ this argument? i hope the goalposts towards giving a ‘walk-over’ in this argument have not now been modified subsequent to reading this:p

[system]

To Nadia and Pagal Insaan, I really enjoyed reading this thread, I think this is what a good discussion should be. You both made your points without terribly insulting each other like I’ve seen in other threads.

:k: :k:

[Nadia_H]

*Originally posted by sadya: *
**To Nadia and Pagal Insaan, I really enjoyed reading this thread, I think this is what a good discussion should be. You both made your points without terribly insulting each other like I’ve seen in other threads.

:k: :k:

**

You don’t know how much that means to me, Sadya. There’s a dearth of threads in this Forum where participants aren’t insulting each other openly.
Thanks for your kind words. Quite definitely appreciated.

[Paaga_nsaan]

*Originally posted by sadya: *
To Nadia and Pagal Insaan, I really enjoyed reading this thread, I think this is what a good discussion should be. You both made your points without terribly insulting each other like I’ve seen in other threads.

:k: :k:

Thanx sadya, and do you really think I should give her a walkover? I’m confused

[Galaxy]

Pagal Insaan
Why are you arguing on one single ayah? The Holy Quran supports ayahs by others. If you look at others, they would clarify the point to you.
Maulana Muhammad Ali writes: “No other religious book and no other reformer has done one tenth of what the Holy Qur’an or the Holy Prophet Muhammad has done to raise the position of women. Read the Qur’an and you find good and righteous women being given the same position as good and righteous men. Both sexes are spoken of in the same terms.” (Maulana Muhammad Ali, The Holy Quran: Arabic Text, English Translation and Commentary, Introduction, Section 6)
Allah states in Surah An Nisa:
“And whoever does good deeds, whether male or female, and is a believer, such shall enter the state of Paradise and will not be dealt with unjustly in any respect.” (4:124)

You have come up with a different theorem in each of your posts. You have not stuck to one logic or one stand. Are you right because Islam allows beating only as a last resort in a series of tep-by-step punishments? Or are you right because the beating that Islam allows is only gentle? Or are you right because men are physically stronger and they should be given the right to punish the weaker sex? Or are you right because since men have an obligation to earn for their families they should be given the right to be managers as well? Or are you right because all the points mentoned above are valid?

Well, for your kind information, you are diverting the topic and contradicting with your own advice of not jumping to conclusions.:topic: As Nadia said, you reject your own advice in the very next sentence. At this point, your statement of sticking to one logic or one stand slaps you back at your face. I apolofize for being harsh but you should take your own advices in consideration.

…talk of a preference or exaltedness that God has given to men over women, which qualifies them for the right of beatng their wives.

For Muslim men and women,- for believing men and women, for devout men and women, for true men and women, for men and women who are patient and constant, for men and women who humble themselves, for men and women who give in Charity, for men and women who fast (and deny themselves), for men and women who guard their chastity, and for men and women who engage much in Allah.s praise,- for them has Allah prepared forgiveness and great reward. (33:35)
^Alah has prepared forgiveness and great reward for both men and women equally.

…if physical strength makes one qualified to beat one’s spouse, does that mean if in a couple, the wife happens to be physically stronger than the husband, she will have the right to beat her husband upon fear of indecency or rebellion?

Such instances makes your point hollow. It can be assumed that since you do not have enough points to deny this statement, you are using exaggeration and playing around with the facts.

Regards,
Galaxy:flower1:

[system]

*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
**

You don’t know how much that means to me, Sadya. There’s a dearth of threads in this Forum where participants aren’t insulting each other openly.
Thanks for your kind words. Quite definitely appreciated.

You’re very welcome, Sis, and thank you for the interesting topic.