How To Beat Your wife Proper rules From Quran

so Christians do not follow "barbaric" bible teachings, what are they following then now? and is it possible to still call them Christians despite they do not follow Bible teachings?

or are you saying that Bible has some errors that should not be followed? and a true Christians is the one who does not follow Bible? or at least does not follow everything in Bible?

also, if I do not understand something in Bible, whom should I ask, a Muslim, a Jew, or a Hindu?

besides you seem like you know a lot about Quran teachings, mind if you pointed what you believe is "barbaric" there? and how do you understand it?

 

Don't beat your wife...... Period

 

Take these quotes posted by guahrjakre:

None of this would fly in the western civilized world. And anyone who even tries to hint that these teachings should be observed would be immediately marginalized and seen as a religious nut. We have people like this, they're called the Phelps.

Um. The bible should not be followed because it is fanstasy, not because it has errors.

 

this did not answer any of my questions but it created new ones, now, and please correct me if I was wrong, what is your definition for a Christian again, and also what is the civilized world? or how can we say a country is civilized or not?

for a country to be civilized it has it to be a Western country? even if 3 women get killed by their husbands, bf's everyday? and 600 women get raped daily in that country?

or it has to stop following religious texts?

 

Some overlook that simple point and instead feel the need to justify or explain it away. Islam sure has some odd followers. It is hard to respect anyone who can't simply say it is wrong, without at the same trying to spin it so Islam does not look bad.

 

I hope you know that there is a difference between something look bad, and something is bad, when something looks bad for somebody, more info will be needed to make sure if it is bad, or not,

are you saying here Islam is bad?

 

Of course, it is an out-dated custom and should not have any place in the new world. The point I was trying to make was that it is not religion that is to blame, but the people.

P.S. You have poor cognitive ability to grasp spellings. You should work on improving it.

 

I would say a country is defined as civilized or not by its laws. Bad shit happens in every country, but it's the expectations of behavior by the citizens as a whole that determines if a country is civilized. Of course there may be no established, objective way to determine a civilized country, but there seem to be a few things that are positively correlated like technological advancement, average comfort of living, how the society as a whole reacts to individual acts of unprovoked or undeserved cruelty and the ability for someone to reject the teachings believed by most of the populous without a serious or reasonable fear of retaliation(especially without legal recourse if there is retaliation).

Did you see the graph showing the negative correlation between a nations iq and its importance on religion that was posted the other day in here? I would imagine that a similar correlation could be found between the more developed countries and importance of religion. Am I saying how developed a country is determines whether it should be deemed civilized or not? No, but it's probably another one of the correlatives.

 

this can go on and on for long, now a civilized country is a rich country, hmm, this might hold some truth, because, it's a known fact, that wherever there is poverty, there is less morals, even inside what you believe is a civilized country,

for sure raping 600 women every day in one civilized country is not a civilized behavior, shit happens as you said, but here it happens much more than in an uncivilized country according to your definitions.

and for sure there is a link between religion and civilization, for example, Europe and West in its dark ages, was controlled by religion, East and Arabia in its golden age was also controlled by religion, when religion stopped being the ruler in West it thrived, became rich ..etc and when religion took a less effect in the East, it became in a dark age..

so in other words, does the relation between religion and civilization have to be the same no matter what was the religion?

and why there are some nations in this world, who do not follow any religion, are still far from following the train of civilization, not even in having some educational or health care system? or even transportation system?

 

So what exactly did Muhammad do to Aisha? It was a push? Are you saying it was a mental push, and not a physical push? I did read your post, but still not sure exactly what he did to her.

Regarding the Quran stating Muslim men are allowed to beat their wives lightly under certain circumstances. You posted two links to explain that further, and both of them reinforced what the Islamic religious leaders said in the video, only in a nicer more palatable way. I quoted from the links you provided that said the Quran does allow for light physical punishment of wives, and asked if that's what you believe. Instead of answering that question, you diverted the thread to talking about Jewish people.

If you must try to change topic, why don't you start with providing proof for your statement, "fact that 1 of 6 or 7 Jewish women" as I'm not willing to take you at your word. Domestic violence occurs in all cultures, but it's even more shocking when religious leaders are condoning it. Don't you think?

 

Let's just say if you're name was part of a wheel of fortune puzzle I'd fail hard.

 

Do you know what correlative means? Or when I used correlatives as a noun, what I meant?

This seems like one of your not-so-good English days imad, I can hardly make it out. Can you put the other guy on who does it better?

Sure if you go back throughout history and graph relationships, the correlation coefficient would probably be all over the place(including shifting between positive and negitive and possibly even approaching zero) over a long period of time due to the influence of a multitude of other factors. But I'm talking either now or recent history.
Let's just say, today when I think of a civilized country I'm much more likely to think of Sweden than Egypt or Jordon.

I'm kind of sick today. And this sentence made my brain hurt.

Below is the sample of countries used for that study on IQ vs Religiosity.

(taken from here: http://hypnosis.home.netcom.com/iq_vs_religiosity.htm )

I've put them in OpenOffice and sorted by importance of religion in ascending order. Now, of course this isn't all of the world's nations, but just from this sample, it's clear that the most prosperous nations from the list tend to be in the upper half.
The US is an anomaly in regards to IQ vs Religion and its distance from the regression line.

Country Percent who say religion is very important (Pew survey) IQ (from Lynn & Vanhanen)
Czech Republic 11 97
France 11 98
Japan 12 105
Bulgaria 13 93
Russia 14 96
Germany 21 102
Vietnam 24 96
South Korea 25 106
Italy 27 102
Slovakia 29 95
Canada 30 97
Great Britain 33 100
Uzbekistan 35 87
Ukraine 35 96
Poland 36 99
Argentina 39 96
Mexico 57 87
United States 59 98
Venezuela 61 88
Turkey 65 90
Bolivia 66 85
Peru 69 90
Honduras 72 84
Brazil 77 87
Angola 80 69
Guatemala 80 79
Tanzania 83 72
Ghana 84 71
Uganda 85 73
Kenya 85 72
South Africa 87 72
Bangladesh 88 81
Philipines 88 86
Mali 90 68
Ivory Coast 91 71
Pakistan 91 81
Nigeria 92 67
India 92 81
Indonesia 95 89
Senegal 97 64

 

in your post, and after mentioning that he never hit a female, which is true, you posted this Hadith to say he hit here, the post I did after that with the link explains exactly what did he do, and it is very obvious that it is unlike what you suggested, he did not hit her, and he did not physically punish her, so now after you got your answer and knew that he did not physically punish her, you try to imply that he mentally punished her? take this is the general, physical punishment is not allowed, and punishment in general is not allowed, no matter what type it was, in the worse cases if two can't live together they can divorce, and still the man can't punish his ex-wife after divorce, he will still be requested to pay her, even if she has no kids, and she will has custody on her kids if they had any,

the two links I posted explains in details that verse that been referred to in the OP post as

which also suggests that all rest is ok, somebody from reading the OP post may understand that ... all the rest can be, kick her, but not in the face as that holy man in my earlier post did to the woman in the bus maybe?

burn her with a heated iron can also be included in all the rest as the OP suggested,

of course this is not the case, and you asked for more info, that's why I posted the two links, it was very clear, and let me make it more clear for you, this is not a physical punishment, this works as a signal that there is something wrong that needs fixing, no more than this.

as for changing the topic, I think I answered you in full before opening a very related subject, I also think that I have the right to question some posters intentions here, do they really care about women? I would believe it if they do or say something about the shocking women abusing statistics in their societies, I understood from your comment when you said

that you did not know I m very surprised as you seemed like a person who is very concerned about women rights everywhere, yet you failed to notice this in your own society,

as for a proof... i m also surprised, you found that hadith and did not find all these???

In Israel, 200,000 women may be abused every year

and it is not new, it is 11 years ago, from 1998, we are in 2009, any idea of how it looks like now? better worse? no idea?

this is from 2000

source

They were not interested in all these women getting killed every week by their husbands, they were more interested in killing Palestinians!


Women Against Rape against Israel, too

no comment about the above, just it was from 2003


ok enough as I do not want to sound like some here, I m more interested in knowing what can be done for these poor women? and now since you know, what are you going to do about it to help them?

and in order not to change the topic, since you know now, and since you also know about women rights in Islam now, I would recommend as a start that you let them know about women rights in Islam

here is a summarized list

 

else than that IQ list you pasted here, and moaning about not being able to understand my post suddenly, despite you are replying it, or this is what it seems,

can you tell what are you trying to say exactly? mind if you put it in points, so I and maybe readers, can keep on following the discussion?

you said what means people behavior decide whether a country is civilized or not, and what means the living level, and what means, the achievements, not sure which one or if you mean all of them together,

later you also made something unclear when you said, what can be understood as a civilized country is the country who does not follow religious texts, still can't find what religion has to do with civilization as YOU see it, this is what I was asking, and I made an example from mid ages, where Europe and Western world was in dark ages, and Arabia and the East was in its golden age.

in a try to make it more close to you, most of my questions above were asking you to provide more info about what do you mean by a Christian, and a civilized country, do you mean that a civilized country is a Christian country?

 

Light disciplinary action= Take away her credit cards.

Most women will become very nice after that.

 

LOL. What? I'm not trying to imply anything, I'm asking what that verse meant when it said he hit her in the chest. You said it was mistranslated, and it meant push, as if that's just a world of difference. Since pushing women hard in the chest would also be considered domestic violence, I was wondering if the word push actually meant something else to you. Ok, so exactly what did Muhammed do to her?

Did you even read your own links? You made the claim, stating that it's a fact that 1 of 6 or 7 Jewish women are the victim of domestic violence. I asked for proof, and you provide three long articles without any proof of your statement. In your first link it says, "Arab communities, which have their own shelters, face other complications. For example, if a woman is viewed as bringing disgrace upon her family through premarital pregnancy or infidelity, some husbands or fathers may feel a moral obligation to abuse or murder her, Schneidman said. About one-third of the women murdered in Israel last year by their spouses or male relatives were Arab, she said. Moreover, because Arab society is paternalistic, the husband is likely to get custody of the children if there's a divorce." Is that really your proof? Article #2 or #3 don't substantuate your 1 of 6 or 7 claim either. Domestic violence is wrong whether it's by perpetuated by Muslims, Jewish, Christian, atheist, whatever. Why is it so hard for you to just say "It's wrong to beat women".

I'm still waiting for proof of your claim that "1 of 6 or 7 Jewish women are the victim of domestic violence". Hurry up on that, after all it's certain to make your religious leaders look SO much better for going on youtube to advise Muslim men how to beat their wives.

 

No. My point is that western democracies, which I think are predominantly christian, limit the negative influence or bad behavior which can come about through religion. In fact the influence of religion is limited in general in these countries, which is probably what is helping to cause an overall decline in the importance of religion(in these countries). Countries in the muslim world tend to have no such limiter.

I really don't think it has a lot to do with christianity being inherently better than islam. If you were that other guy who logs in under your username that speaks better English and has better debating skills, you'd know that I'm not a big fan of christianity either.
Think I've wasted enough time here today.

Good luck fighting the Jihad, bro.

 

Rebecca did you check this website out?

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com

 

it was the civilized whites that kept the uncivilized africans as slaves and civilized british that tried to control the uncivilized indians and other colonies. civilized aryans that killed the inferior jews and gypsys, civilized africanas had the aparthe to keep the uncivilized blacks at their place, and the civilized spaniards killed all the uncivilized mayans. lets not forget the civilized turks and japanese. if i was uncivilized i would be very worried to know civilized people are interested in my life. just an observation
as far as imad is concerned i am with logic

 

LOL. Why not make it easier for yourself, and just say what do you like him to do to her? slap, punch, hit, stuck, mental push, physical punishment? umm, none of these, and your question already been answered in the links I provided you, though you should make even if little effort to be accurate because:

1- the verse did not say he hit her in chest, you said so with the text you pasted, something which says he stuck her on chest.

2- I did not say mistranslated, I pasted the hadith from a Muslim source, with detailed info about the word that is the point of ths subject, and which they mentioned it in Arabic, and it's all possible meanings in English, none of them was hit, stuck, physical punishment, mental punishment, or else of what you have mentioned,

of course you can take that word in Arabic and confirm it yourself.

and this is very easy to grasp with the two other provided hadiths in which the same word and the same action been used in two different occasions, it did not seem like they have a fight there? or exchanging punchs, or mental push? did they?

the proof that 1 out of 6 or 7 Israeli women, already been included in the first link I posted about this, which you confused it with the second link I posted, before I provide it again, I need to mention, that I m still surprised, because you as a Jewish women should know this better than anybody else, here it is again,

notice how it says the minimum without Arab community, and the maximum with Arab community, now the max without Arab could be anything between 100k to 199,999 right? but we can understand that in its worse it is happening more in Jewish community than in Arab community, this can be confirmed below in the 1/3 quote you mentioned, what about the rest 2/3? who killed them?


source

again surprising that you noticed 1/3 by Arab and did not even ask what about the other 2/3? and it does not seem like a recent problem so I can maybe understand why you never heard about it, it goes back since very long.

now for my second link I had in another post, which is for you the first link because for some reason you did not notice the first link and kept asking for a proof ... in this link, you quoted:

this means about 2/3 of the other victims were murdered by ....?

Non-Arabs.

whether 1/3 or 2/3 or even 1 case, you should stand the same against any of these incidents, and not ignore them if they were done by Jews, because you know, silence is killing in this case, so if you are truly concerned about women rights, you should have noticed all, not 1/3 done by Arab, and ignore the 2/3 because it was done by Jews, right?

even if you are in US you should be active in y our community there, because .... Domestic violence is no stranger in Jewish life, anywhere,, even if it was US, did you hear about this, imagine if it was a Muslim man who did so there, I expect you would have made a thread about it:

Domestic violence no stranger to Jewish life

and this is a religious man!

not sure what do you call this, hypocrisy? lying?

maybe ChaosTrivia will come and tell us women are not Jews.

now, do you still deny that there is a problem there which is much bigger than in Arab community? do you need more proofs so you can move? feel free to ask