Modern Muslim Women and the Verses of the Quran

[Volcanic]

Quran - Sura 4 / Verse 34:
"Men are overseers over women because Allah has given the one more strength than
the other, and because men are required to spend their wealth for the maintenance
of women. Honorable women are, therefore, devoutly obedient and guard in the
husband’s absence what Allah requires them to guard their husband’s property and
their own honor. As to those women from whom you fear disobedience, first
admonish them, then refuse to share your bed with them, and then, if necessary,
beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further actions against them and do not
make excuses to punish them. Allah is Supremely Great and is aware of your
actions."

I am not only sceptic of Islam but also of Catholizism, Judaism, etc... But anyhow, this Quran-Sura really makes me become alert. I don't won't girls or women to ask their fathers or brothers for permission to do this or that. I wan't all women to have the right to live their own lifes and be able to decide what is right for themselfs. Women have all the rights that men have - full stop!

So how is this ancient verse interpreted by modern Islam? And what do emancipated Muslims and sceptical non-muslims think of it? Can it be altered or ignored, or is that verse and it's commandment ultimatly valid?


EDIT:
All following posts that may seem insulting towards the Bible, the Quran, the Dao-De-Jing, the Vedas, Socrates etc.pp or others can be blamed on me, as I am taking the full blame for not respecting the formerly mentioned!

[Shams al-Ma'rifa]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An-Nisa,_34

If you actually care about it rather than trying to start an oft-repeated argument.

[CamilleBonparte]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An-Nisa,_34

If you actually care about it rather than trying to start an oft-repeated argument.

Did you actually just link to the wiki page on the matter? What was that supposed to prove?

Quite the apologetic you.

[Shams al-Ma'rifa]

Did you actually just link to the wiki page on the matter? What was that supposed to prove?

Quite the apologetic you.

I'm not apologizing, I just want you guys to read. Baby steps Camille, when you understand that Wikipedia page, you'll be worthy of my time.

[Volcanic]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An-Nisa,_34

If you actually care about it rather than trying to start an oft-repeated argument.

Did I misquote the Quran? - No, I did not.

That verse is as quoted in the Quran. What a wikipedia article says, is what a wikipedia article says. And what is stated in the Quran is stated there. Or are you saying the Quran doesn't say that?:

"...if necessary, beat..."


PS: I also criticise the bible, but unfortunately most "Christians" in western Europe don't stick to the text of their scripts.


Download link for the Quran:
http://isohunt.com/torrent_details/1...df?tab=summary
http://www.islamway.com/SF/quran/

[Shams al-Ma'rifa]

Did I misquote the Quran? - No, I did not.

Actually you did.. if you're just too lazy to read one Wikipedia article then don't expect me to debate you.

[Volcanic]

Actually you did.. if you're just too lazy to read one Wikipedia article then don't expect me to debate you.

If you are to lazy to read the Quran (which is the prime source for that statement) then don't expect me to debate your comment much further.

Your problem is, that modern society and common sence doesn't go along with old books.

[Shams al-Ma'rifa]

If you are to lazy to read the Quran (which is the prime source for that statement) then don't expect me to debate your comment much further.

Cool, we can close this thread now.

[Sadreddine]

Ah, the classic 4:34.

Even if interpreted to mean 'to strike' (and we know such is only one of the most likely 3 interpretations), it does not mean to 'beat until exhaustion' as you somehow imply, and it in no way justifies you beating your wife with the intention to physically overwhelm and humiliate her. Indeed, the Prophet (s) himself, role model for all muslims, never ever hit his wives, but instead reportedly said that the best of believers are those who best treat their wives.

And yeah, the wiki article is quite explanatory.

[The Dude]

Not necessarily directly related to the topic, but today I was reading a text of Alan Turing, who as you may know has nothing to do with theology or Islam, but he still made the following offhand comment about muslims that raised some question marks with me.

How do Christians regard the Moslem view that women have no souls? But let us leave this point aside and return to the main argument.

He said this in his commentary on the theological objection to the plausibility of AI existing. This was from a text written in 1950 and it seems to fit very well with popular conception of Islam in those days. So it may well be that someone told him this and he took it for granted, but it could also be that this is what he himself is convinced is true based on research. Either option is a possibility. What light can muslims shed on this?

[PointOfViewGun]

So how is this ancient verse interpreted by modern Islam? And what do emancipated Muslims and sceptical non-muslims think of it? Can it be altered or ignored, or is that verse and it's commandment ultimatly valid?

First of all, you asked for how this verse is interpreted by modern Islam then you rejected a link that answered that very same question. So let's cut the crap and you tell me what's your problem?

This link here goes to great length in analyzing the verse and talks about the words themselves and how they're used in other sentences. If you really looking for an answer to your real question then you should read it.

Not necessarily directly related to the topic, but today I was reading a text of Alan Turing, who as you may know has nothing to do with theology or Islam, but he still made the following offhand comment about muslims that raised some question marks with me.

He said this in his commentary on the theological objection to the plausibility of AI existing. This was from a text written in 1950 and it seems to fit very well with popular conception of Islam in those days. So it may well be that someone told him this and he took it for granted, but it could also be that this is what he himself is convinced is true based on research. Either option is a possibility. What light can muslims shed on this?

I believe you're knowledgeable enough to know that that's not the truth. It's even quite offensive that you'd go as far to use it in a discussion other than pointing out the guys lunacy.

[The Dude]

I believe you're knowledgeable enough to know that that's not the truth. It's even quite offensive that you'd go as far to use it in a discussion other than pointing out the guys lunacy.

I'm not using it in a discussion, I'm asking a question about it. I was just reading a text on AI and some excerpts from Turing's writings were included. He made that statement in such an offhand fashion that it just made me curious is all. I can usually recognise complete drivel when I see it, but in this case he wasn't even saying it to make a point against Islam, he used it under the assumption that it was factually accurate in order for a certain analogy of his to aid him in defeating the theological argument against a functional AI.

It is that specific usage, ie in the same fashion that someone would state that the sun is hot and expect no disagreement, that just lead me to post this here.

I absolutely agree with Blaze that it would make absolutely no sense for Islam to treat women as soulless, which is precisely what lead to my surprise. Ibn Rushd's quotes from the Quran also help, so all that remains is the question: what on earth inspired Turing to write this? Because it seems highly unlikely to me that he was somehow bigoted towards Islam, it seems more likely that he's just not very knowledgeable on the subject?

[Sadreddine]

he used it under the assumption that it was factually accurate in order for a certain analogy of his to aid him in defeating the theological argument against a functional AI.

Here, you answered yourself. People make many absurd remarks just for furthering an argument, specially when the audience is absolutely ignorant on the subject.

[PointOfViewGun]

I'm not using it in a discussion, I'm asking a question about it. I was just reading a text on AI and some excerpts from Turing's writings were included. He made that statement in such an offhand fashion that it just made me curious is all. I can usually recognise completely drivel when I see it, but in this case he wasn't even saying it to make a point against Islam, he used it under the assumption that it was factually accurate in order for a certain analogy of his to aid him in defeating the theological argument against a functional AI.

It is that specific usage, ie in the same fashion that someone would state that the sun is hot and expect no disagreement, that just lead me to post this here.

I absolutely agree with Blaze that it would make absolutely no sense for Islam to treat women as soulless, which is precisely what lead to my surprise. Ibn Rushd's quotes from the Quran also help, so all that remains is the question: what on earth inspired Turing to write this? Because it seems highly unlikely to me that he was somehow bigoted towards Islam, it seems more likely that he's just not very knowledgeable on the subject?

Simply shows how clueless he is about Islam.

[Yosemite]

And yeah, the wiki article is quite explanatory.

but its wrong because lolkipedia durr hurr derp

maybe, maybe. Either way it seems important that Islam and arab ideas seperate.

it reminds me of arabs saying that they were born muslims because they have muslim parents, or those that say an arab must be muslim, or those that say in heaven they will all speak arabic

of course it's either all , or can't be proven

[Gromovnik]

Another bad translation...

[Torment]

Another bad translation...

Exactly. Islam isn't misogynous in the slightest, the blame lies with evil white westerners willingly mistranslating verses to make Islam look bad...

[Helm]

You have to the read the Kran in the original Arabic to fully understand it. Any translation will look bad by comparison to the authentic word of Allah.

[The Dude]

I was seriously sort of expecting muslims (or motiv-8) to rush in and debunk Turing's statement...

Why isn't this happening?

[Blaze86420]

Read that question you posted out loud. Repeat that a couple of times. Comment on how ridiculous it sounds. Pat yourself on the back.