Muslims - a question about the "wife beating" verse

[Anonymous]

I know this is a controversial and disputed verse. I was reading an article wherein the author said that when the verse says "beat" (also translated as "scourge"), what is meant is actual "gently tapping". But, how do you get "gentle tapping" from "beat/scourge". In addition, the verse tells the husband to "beat" his wife if she is being disobediant - how would "gently tapping" her do any good in bringing her back to obediance? If my husband was gently tapping me, it might annoy me, but it certainly wouldn't make me do what he says.

How do you, as a Muslim, interpret that verse?

[Anonymous]

There are some Muslim theologians that outright dismiss that verse (4:34). Saying that it's a corruption, or was added, is false, and not god's word.

Amina Wadud is famously one of those (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amina_Wadud)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are some Muslim theologians that outright dismiss that verse (4:34). Saying that it's a corruption, or was added, is false, and not god's word.

Amina Wadud is famously one of those (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amina_Wadud)

Interesting, I'll have to put her book on my TBR list.

[Anonymous]

Agree with Amina Wudud in that Islamic law attempts to curb the inherent cultural violence against women at the time. Like making killing of infant daughters illegal. There was (still is) rampant violence against women, and that sura was meant to place restrictions on it. Too bad it doesn't outlaw it completely.

If you take the Quran as a whole, the overarching theme is to be kind and responsible toward your wife. Provide for her financially and let her keep any money she earns for herself. If she is widowed and has no father, her brother must step up and take care of her. And so on. Theoretically nobody is left out on the street. Islam provides economic rights that women never had before.

Of course, people use the verse to justify domestic violence. You can take pretty much anything from any religious book and bend it to suit your needs.

Personally, I just ignore it.

[Anonymous]

If you're interested OP, I'd also recommend reading Fatima Mernissi & Leila Ahmed as some very smart, very learned scholars of women and Islam.

Whether or not I agree with everything they say is another story, but they're both very good in their fields. I believe Leila Ahmed teaches at Harvard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agree with Amina Wudud in that Islamic law attempts to curb the inherent cultural violence against women at the time. Like making killing of infant daughters illegal. There was (still is) rampant violence against women, and that sura was meant to place restrictions on it. Too bad it doesn't outlaw it completely.

If you take the Quran as a whole, the overarching theme is to be kind and responsible toward your wife. Provide for her financially and let her keep any money she earns for herself. If she is widowed and has no father, her brother must step up and take care of her. And so on. Theoretically nobody is left out on the street. Islam provides economic rights that women never had before.

Of course, people use the verse to justify domestic violence. You can take pretty much anything from any religious book and bend it to suit your needs.

Personally, I just ignore it.

I agree with you that you can bend any religious book to suit your needs, but you must agree that people who want to see only the good in any religious book use the same approach - they pick the best interpretation out of a myriad of possibilities. Liberal Muslim thinkers bend over backwards to attribute alternative meanings to the verb "hit", and it's entirely possible that it means "tap" or "leave", but it also quite possible that it means "hit". Presumably people who translated the Quran before hitting women became unfashionable were fluent Arabic speakers, too.

And just as Islam makes men responsible for financial maintenance of women, it likewise gives them the authority to make decisions for women under their authority. So yes, you can keep the money you make to yourself, but you need your husband's permission to get a job in the first place. And the fact that Islam has no concept of marital property leaves non-working married women in a very vulnerable financial position. The only remedy available to a divorced woman, no matter how rich her husband is, is "go back to your father's house."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with Amina Wudud in that Islamic law attempts to curb the inherent cultural violence against women at the time. Like making killing of infant daughters illegal. There was (still is) rampant violence against women, and that sura was meant to place restrictions on it. Too bad it doesn't outlaw it completely.

If you take the Quran as a whole, the overarching theme is to be kind and responsible toward your wife. Provide for her financially and let her keep any money she earns for herself. If she is widowed and has no father, her brother must step up and take care of her. And so on. Theoretically nobody is left out on the street. Islam provides economic rights that women never had before.

Of course, people use the verse to justify domestic violence. You can take pretty much anything from any religious book and bend it to suit your needs.

Personally, I just ignore it.

I agree with you that you can bend any religious book to suit your needs, but you must agree that people who want to see only the good in any religious book use the same approach - they pick the best interpretation out of a myriad of possibilities. Liberal Muslim thinkers bend over backwards to attribute alternative meanings to the verb "hit", and it's entirely possible that it means "tap" or "leave", but it also quite possible that it means "hit". Presumably people who translated the Quran before hitting women became unfashionable were fluent Arabic speakers, too.

And just as Islam makes men responsible for financial maintenance of women, it likewise gives them the authority to make decisions for women under their authority. So yes, you can keep the money you make to yourself, but you need your husband's permission to get a job in the first place. And the fact that Islam has no concept of marital property leaves non-working married women in a very vulnerable financial position. The only remedy available to a divorced woman, no matter how rich her husband is, is "go back to your father's house."

Non-working women are always vulnerable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with Amina Wudud in that Islamic law attempts to curb the inherent cultural violence against women at the time. Like making killing of infant daughters illegal. There was (still is) rampant violence against women, and that sura was meant to place restrictions on it. Too bad it doesn't outlaw it completely.

If you take the Quran as a whole, the overarching theme is to be kind and responsible toward your wife. Provide for her financially and let her keep any money she earns for herself. If she is widowed and has no father, her brother must step up and take care of her. And so on. Theoretically nobody is left out on the street. Islam provides economic rights that women never had before.

Of course, people use the verse to justify domestic violence. You can take pretty much anything from any religious book and bend it to suit your needs.

Personally, I just ignore it.

I agree with you that you can bend any religious book to suit your needs, but you must agree that people who want to see only the good in any religious book use the same approach - they pick the best interpretation out of a myriad of possibilities. Liberal Muslim thinkers bend over backwards to attribute alternative meanings to the verb "hit", and it's entirely possible that it means "tap" or "leave", but it also quite possible that it means "hit". Presumably people who translated the Quran before hitting women became unfashionable were fluent Arabic speakers, too.

And just as Islam makes men responsible for financial maintenance of women, it likewise gives them the authority to make decisions for women under their authority. So yes, you can keep the money you make to yourself, but you need your husband's permission to get a job in the first place. And the fact that Islam has no concept of marital property leaves non-working married women in a very vulnerable financial position. The only remedy available to a divorced woman, no matter how rich her husband is, is "go back to your father's house."

Non-working women are always vulnerable.

At least in environments that recognize marital property they have a shot at a portion of the wealth they have no doubt helped their husbands make. Not in shariah-based legal environments. Three months of alimony and off you go, back to wherever you came from.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with Amina Wudud in that Islamic law attempts to curb the inherent cultural violence against women at the time. Like making killing of infant daughters illegal. There was (still is) rampant violence against women, and that sura was meant to place restrictions on it. Too bad it doesn't outlaw it completely.

If you take the Quran as a whole, the overarching theme is to be kind and responsible toward your wife. Provide for her financially and let her keep any money she earns for herself. If she is widowed and has no father, her brother must step up and take care of her. And so on. Theoretically nobody is left out on the street. Islam provides economic rights that women never had before.

Of course, people use the verse to justify domestic violence. You can take pretty much anything from any religious book and bend it to suit your needs.

Personally, I just ignore it.

I agree with you that you can bend any religious book to suit your needs, but you must agree that people who want to see only the good in any religious book use the same approach - they pick the best interpretation out of a myriad of possibilities. Liberal Muslim thinkers bend over backwards to attribute alternative meanings to the verb "hit", and it's entirely possible that it means "tap" or "leave", but it also quite possible that it means "hit". Presumably people who translated the Quran before hitting women became unfashionable were fluent Arabic speakers, too.

And just as Islam makes men responsible for financial maintenance of women, it likewise gives them the authority to make decisions for women under their authority. So yes, you can keep the money you make to yourself, but you need your husband's permission to get a job in the first place. And the fact that Islam has no concept of marital property leaves non-working married women in a very vulnerable financial position. The only remedy available to a divorced woman, no matter how rich her husband is, is "go back to your father's house."

Non-working women are always vulnerable.

At least in environments that recognize marital property they have a shot at a portion of the wealth they have no doubt helped their husbands make. Not in shariah-based legal environments. Three months of alimony and off you go, back to wherever you came from.

And that's exactly why religion should not be mixed with government.

[Anonymous]

As another poster pointed out if you have any doubts on the anti female and oppressive nature of Islam towards female Google aisha and Mohammed and read on the age of child arranged marriages. This is only in regards to very traditional and strict islamic teachings more modern cultures don't necessarily follow it but it worries me that many countries are ruled under Islamic law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As another poster pointed out if you have any doubts on the anti female and oppressive nature of Islam towards female Google aisha and Mohammed and read on the age of child arranged marriages. This is only in regards to very traditional and strict islamic teachings more modern cultures don't necessarily follow it but it worries me that many countries are ruled under Islamic law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As another poster pointed out if you have any doubts on the anti female and oppressive nature of Islam towards female Google aisha and Mohammed and read on the age of child arranged marriages. This is only in regards to very traditional and strict islamic teachings more modern cultures don't necessarily follow it but it worries me that many countries are ruled under Islamic law.

So what religion is "pro-female" then?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:As another poster pointed out if you have any doubts on the anti female and oppressive nature of Islam towards female Google aisha and Mohammed and read on the age of child arranged marriages. This is only in regards to very traditional and strict islamic teachings more modern cultures don't necessarily follow it but it worries me that many countries are ruled under Islamic law.

You may want to check the date of that marriage. I'm pretty sure it was a long time ago. Moreover, if we are going to go back that many years, you may want to check the ages at which various Western, Christians were married. For instance, Richard II of England married Isabel of France when she was 7. Young Henry, the son of Henry II married Margaret of France when she was only 10 Of course, Young Henry himself was only 13. Similar to what you say about Islam, the marriage practices of the British royal family are not given much concern in most modern cultures. Sadly, modern American culture is not one of those and I'm concerned about the impact of royal marriage traditions on our own culture.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As another poster pointed out if you have any doubts on the anti female and oppressive nature of Islam towards female Google aisha and Mohammed and read on the age of child arranged marriages. This is only in regards to very traditional and strict islamic teachings more modern cultures don't necessarily follow it but it worries me that many countries are ruled under Islamic law.

You may want to check the date of that marriage. I'm pretty sure it was a long time ago. Moreover, if we are going to go back that many years, you may want to check the ages at which various Western, Christians were married. For instance, Richard II of England married Isabel of France when she was 7. Young Henry, the son of Henry II married Margaret of France when she was only 10 Of course, Young Henry himself was only 13. Similar to what you say about Islam, the marriage practices of the British royal family are not given much concern in most modern cultures. Sadly, modern American culture is not one of those and I'm concerned about the impact of royal marriage traditions on our own culture.

Are you trying to liken the issue of child marriage in Islam to child marriage in Europe centuries ago? If so, I don't understand how you can compare the two. Child marriage is illegal in Europe now. Child marriage still happens very frequently in most Islamic countries. It's still an issue in today's world that is going to be really hard to eradicate, given Islam's stance on marriagable age, and Muhammad's marriage to Aisha.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As another poster pointed out if you have any doubts on the anti female and oppressive nature of Islam towards female Google aisha and Mohammed and read on the age of child arranged marriages. This is only in regards to very traditional and strict islamic teachings more modern cultures don't necessarily follow it but it worries me that many countries are ruled under Islamic law.

You may want to check the date of that marriage. I'm pretty sure it was a long time ago. Moreover, if we are going to go back that many years, you may want to check the ages at which various Western, Christians were married. For instance, Richard II of England married Isabel of France when she was 7. Young Henry, the son of Henry II married Margaret of France when she was only 10 Of course, Young Henry himself was only 13. Similar to what you say about Islam, the marriage practices of the British royal family are not given much concern in most modern cultures. Sadly, modern American culture is not one of those and I'm concerned about the impact of royal marriage traditions on our own culture.

Are you trying to liken the issue of child marriage in Islam to child marriage in Europe centuries ago? If so, I don't understand how you can compare the two. Child marriage is illegal in Europe now. Child marriage still happens very frequently in most Islamic countries. It's still an issue in today's world that is going to be really hard to eradicate, given Islam's stance on marriagable age, and Muhammad's marriage to Aisha.

I was comparing the marriage of Aisha and Mohammed centuries ago to marriages in Europe centuries ago. What causes you to object to that comparison? And, if marriages from centuries ago are off limits, why are you yourself bringing up Mohammed?

Where child marriage exists today among Muslims, it has much more to do with local culture than it does with Islam. To suggest that because some Yemeni tribes might engage in child marriage reflects on Islam in general is similar to saying that Warren Jeffs and other Christian wack jobs tarnish the entire Christian religion.