Originally posted by: sam_84
agree with u!bcoz if we open the book of domestic violence in USA, india where majority are non-muslims...it wud be embarassing for everybody 😆
Originally posted by: Believe
The fact is One in three women may suffer from abuse and violence in her lifetime. This is an appalling human rights violation...every religion contempt these kind of acts....😊
Originally posted by: DM01
It's got everything to do with religion when a country bases its laws on religious texts. Saudi implements sharia, some may argue that it's not actually sharia, but it is their interpretation of sharia, and sharia is based on the Quran and Hadeeths.
And the Quran does make it permissible to beat your wife under certain circumstances, let's face it, these religions were made up by people in an era where women had very little rights, and this is evident in religious scriptures.
Originally posted by: DM01
I never said that, and I think I didn't make myself clear enough in the last post. There is no unanimous consensus on Sharia in the Islamic community, what we have are different interpretations of Sharia, no interpretation is more "correct" or "incorrect" than another, because all interpretations are derived from the same sources.
Perhaps, but interpretation is the key. You can interpret the scripture one way and deny the teachings of that faith. I can interpret it another way and believe upon its teachings. So I think that there is a 'correct' and an 'incorrect' interpretation - what is my interpretation may not be your's.
"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." - Quran 004.034
Like I said, women were considered more like slaves in those times.
Yes, but that doesn't mean that they should be treated like that then. And it doesn't mean that just because it was done then it is permissible in the religion.
Common sense takes a back seat when it comes to religion. The problem with faith in a God that dictates how humans should live and how they should be governed, is that it produces societies like Saudi Arabia.
If people really started applying common sense to religion, then more and more people will start leaving
religion, but unfortunately, years and years of religious indoctrination is very hard to break.
Perhaps, but Saudi Arabia should not symbolize Islam. Islam is a separate entity of its own - Saudi Arabia hides under Islam's veil --- many of their practices are culture and not religious as they claim it to be.
If people start applying common sense to religion, this world will be a better place. It is because people think common sense and religion can't go hand in hand that we have the occurrence of such events.
Originally posted by: DM01
"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." - Quran 004.034
Like I said, women were considered more like slaves in those times.
Originally posted by: DM01
Interpretation is subjective, so you may feel that someone else's interpretation is 'wrong', while they'll think that they are 'right' and your'e 'wrong', so what seems like the 'correct' interpretation to you, will not necessarily be the 'correct' interpretation to others.
Exactly my point. Therefore, if I don't agree with someone else's interpretation, it is because I think that there is something wrong with it, therefore it is not the "correct" interpretation. I don't see what the argument here is. Agreed that interpretations are subjective, therefore how one interprets any religious scripture is subjective. But even subjectivity uses common sense, correct? Or is that subjective too? 😉
Well the verse clearly states that you can beat your wife under certain circumstances, so beatings are made permissible by the Quran
It does not clearly state anything. The biggest problem with religious scriptures is that they were written in different languages, and not English. The verse that you picked out is one of the most controversial pieces of text. It is said that although the arabic word is translated to mean "beat", it does not imply the same connotation in Arabic. You will laugh if I tell you that it also implies a "light touch" ---- where you can again argue that a man is perhaps able to "lightly beat" his wife --- but again that is all subjective. You can interpret the text however you want to, it is the intentions that are noteworthy, not the interpretation. I don't think that such scriptures can be taken for literal meanings, the language, the wording, it is so complex that word-for-word interpretations and translations cannot be made. However, arguments can be made on all sides, and I can see that people are going to argue for no reason no matter what.
As long as people think religion is a personal affair, then sure it won't cause a problem, but when people start thinking that they are chosen by God to rule the world and want everyone to adopt their ways, then we'll have problems,
So who's doing that? Who in the present day claims to be chosen by God? Who's forcing their religion upon you? I don't get it, this argument is condeming religion as an institution rather than actually responding to the original topic. If you have a problem with present day faiths, then don't believe upon them, but just remember that even no religion is a religion of its own. 😉
comment:
p_commentcount