Violence towards wives and children in Islam

138 posts / 0 new
Last post
Algebe's picture
Al-Fartihah:

Al-Fartihah:

"if the violence is just" "there is no pain or scars"

Who's the judge?

"it is perfectly okay in any relationship"

You've confirmed my view that Islam, like Christianity, is a religion founded on violence and dominance. I pity any family headed by tappy-men like you. I'll stick to my godless morality of non-violence and mutual respect between men and women.

Al-Fatihah's picture
@Algabe

@Algabe

You've just confirmed that the violence used in Islam is just since you still cannot show how the violence prescribed is barbaric or unjust. Thanks for the assistance.

As for "who is the judge" , the judge is the same judge that determines that 2+2 is 4. Common sense. So I pity any family headed by ambiguois justice men like you. You cannot even determine just from unjust and need a judge to help you, which means that any family headed by your logic can get their head crushed for something as small as watching tv and think it's morally okay, since there is no judge or objective morality. I'll stick to the true justice and morality set by Islam.

CyberLN's picture
Men are heads of the family?

Men are heads of the family? Why not women?

Al-Fatihah's picture
@CyberLN

@CyberLN

At no time on history has there ever been an oppression of men by women. Always the other way around. This shows that men by nature are less sensitive and more inclined to fight than women so it is better to prescribe a man to be in charge when it comes to protection and provision of the family. If for whatever reason you live in a gamily or society where men are weak, then it is perfectly fine for a woman to be the head of the family in protection and provision.

LogicForTW's picture
Well taking what you say

Well taking what you say literally, you can not do anything that cause any pain. And the person that knows if it causes pain is the person receiving the "tapping."

If a women (or anyone) can say hey you tapped me on my shoulder to hard and caused me a small amount of pain our religion states you cannot do that. And they stop. That is awesome, I can get behind that. Basically you can never do anything to hurt anyone in any way. Spanking is out, slapping is out, sounds good to me.

Very contrary to what I have heard men do to their spouses that also believe Islam. If I were to take you literally, it sounds like you well meaning Islamic people have some serious policing and clean up to do within your own religion. Many of your fellow followers of Islam are breaking the rules.

Al-Fatihah's picture
@LogicForTW

@LogicForTW

Battery is commited by peoole of all ideologies. So based on your own logic, atheists and other non-Muslims need to clean up their ideology as well.

LogicForTW's picture
We atheist do not have some

We atheist do not have some book/god telling us it is okay to hit women as long as it does not hurt them or leave a mark, with lots of abuses occurring on different interpretations of "hurt/pain". We just say it is wrong. Atheist also do not have responsibility for other atheist. We are not a religion. We are simply a group of people that agree there is no god(s). Just like a group of people can agree that donuts taste good, they don't and atheist do not have a book that says "these are the rules."

But I do agree, everyone everywhere no matter their religious/non religious background should work towards ending physical violence/abuse everywhere. It is never necessary or a good thing.

Men tend to be physically stronger and more violent then women. Women tend to be smarter and more socially adept then men, modern science has shown this to be well supported fact. We are trying to break away from our baser instinct that the physically strong and dominant personalty ones in our society get to do what ever they like.

Al-Fatihah's picture
@LogicForTW

@LogicForTW

Yes, you atheists accept it's wrong to use a tap that causes no pain or scars as a form of punishment with no logical basis, except for "I don't like it", which only proves that the punishment is just. For it's a punishment so it's not supposed to be liked. So it only suppports the fact that Islam is just to women and of the best in upholding morality and decency.

LogicForTW's picture
If a tap has no pain and

If a tap has no pain and scars, how is it punishment? I will tap someone on the shoulder when I want their attention and they have not noticed my presence. Certainly not meant to be punishment.

If we are talking simply gently placing your hand on your wife, and telling her sternly I do not appreciate that, I doubt anyone has a problem with that. But I believe you are not talking about that at all. You are talking about using physical force as punishment on someone. Something that hurts, or you would not do it.

Al-Fatihah's picture
@LogicForTW

@LogicForTW

A tap is a punishment to someone who cannot subdue you. No one can subject their self to being tapped repeatedly and the annoyance of such tapping is the punishment since they cannot subdue you to prevent it. Thus it can convince the person to change their ways.

If you live with me and I take care of you and I am bigger and stronger than you and to convince you to stop stealing I start tapping you repeatedly, it can convince you not to steal because there is nothing you can do to resist me except leave or find another place to live. If you choose not to leave and at the same time dislike that I repeatedly tap you, then the tapping just disciplined you from not stealing.

Algebe's picture
Al-Fatihash: "need a judge to

Al-Fatihash: "need a judge to help you"

No. You deliberately misunderstood me when I asked "Who's the judge." When a man "taps" his wife, he might judge it to be just a "tap" but she might feel it as a painful punch. Who's the judge, the tapper or the tappee? Of course it's not morally okay to crush someone's head for watching TV. Does that happen often where you live? Our objective morality is to treat other people as we want them to treat us. Most people don't want to feel the pain and humiliation of being "tapped." Do you?

There seems to be a cultural tendency in Islam to treat women as children. Is that because your so-called prophet married a 9-year-old girl?

Al-Fatihah's picture
@Alge

@Algebe

As already stated, the judge in determining whether a tap hurts or not is the same judge that determines 2+2 is 4. It's called common sense. There seems to be a lack of it in atheism. For if you do not understand or possess it, there is a problem, which highlights the reason why Islam remains more sensible to atheism. The very fact you distinguish love for a child as something bad as implied by your own dissent if a woman is treated like a child is quite telling. Treatment of a child requires loves, protection and provision. So why would you be against doing the same for women? Why does atheism look down upon a child? Is this because the lack of love for God prevents you to love a child?

Algebe's picture
Al-Fatihah: "The very fact

Al-Fatihah: "The very fact you distinguish love for a child as something bad"

Do you equate love for a child with marrying a child and having sex with her? That's what your so-called prophet did. I find it totally sickening.

Pain is not a matter of "common sense." It's subjective. Only the person who feels it can really understand its intensity. The person inflicting it certainly doesn't feel it. So I ask you again, who judges whether the "tap" is too hard, the victim or the perpetrator?

You believe that the world was created by a disembodied spirit living in a sky palace, and that this all-powerful sky-fairy could only communicate with humanity by dictating a book to an illiterate man in a cave. You seem to think that sex with children is acceptable. And you say atheism has no common sense.

Al-Fatihah's picture
@Algebe

@Algebe

The Judge does not determine whether it is right or wrong so your question is invalid since your original objection to tapping is whether it is right or wrong. The intention of an act and common sense determines whether it is right or wrong, which are both objective. If you lack the common sense and intent to be able to objectively tap a person without hurting them, that once again only highlights the senseless injustice of atheism.

As for the Prophet, he married a girl. Nothing says she had sex and the consummation of the marriage refers to living together. Not sex. So when you as an atheist read the word marriage and think "sex with a child", that exposes the perversion of atheism. Not the Prophet or Islam.

LogicForTW's picture
And how did a typical

And how did a typical marriage between a man and a 9 year old child go like back then? Why would someone like this marry a little girl at all?

If you had a 9 year old daughter how would you feel about this child marrying some supposed prophet guy today? Would you take the guys word for it that he was divine, without any real evidence?

Al-Fatihah's picture
@LogicForTW

@LogicForTW

I don't take the word of anything as truth without evidence. So any person claiming to be a Prophet today would have to provide more than their word.

As for the Prophet's marriage, he married her because it was revealed in a dream to do so. In those times, a contract can be made with the parents of a young girl to marry a man, and only when she reaches maturity and puberty can sexual relations begin through consent. This was the prophet's marriage with Aisha.

Diotrephes's picture
LogicForTW,

LogicForTW,

When discussing child marriages remember that according to the Jewish Babylonian Talmud guys could marry toddlers when the kids reached three years and a day. In one passage it was two years and a day. Now imagine the kids' parents sitting around pimping out their toddlers to each other. You can bet that the old buzzards were eager when the magic day came up at three years and a day.

And in America in the State of Delaware in 1895 the age of consent was seven (7) years of age. In slavery times there was no minimum. Child prostitutes were common in brothels in America in the 19th Century.

Pijo's picture
The word in the Quran does

The word in the Quran does not translate to "tap". That is your interpretation that you have come to because you feel you must defend your barbaric religion. I guess it is a good thing that modern Muslims abhor domestic violence so much that they create these new apologetic interpretations of the violent text, but on the other hand I would like more honesty from you.

But while you keep interpreting the text like this, there really is no point in discussing this with you. Obviously the main problem are the millions of Muslims who do not limit the hitting to symbolic gestures like you seem to.

mbrownec's picture
@ Al-Fatihah

@ Al-Fatihah

The very fact that it does not makes it not barbaric.

It is barbaric because it creates and enforces a superior-inferior, master-slave, and dominant-submissive relationship instead of a relationship built upon mutual respect and equality.

While you can claim that such treatment of women is not barbaric because the "light hitting" does not cause pain or leave marks, you totally ignore that mental pain and anguish caused by forced servitude. Mental violence can be just as abusive as physical violence.

No man (or woman) has the right to rule over another.

Al-Fatihah's picture
@mbrownec

@mbrownec

It is not barbaric because the definition of barbaric is not master-slave or any other term or expression you used. The definition of barbaric is that which is savagely cruel and since a tap that leaves no pain or scars is savagely cruel, then it cannot be defined as barbaric.

Secondly, she can leave if she wants, so there is no mental pain and anguish from force.

Now to address your logic. No woman voluntarily goes to jail. That means they are FORCED to go when they are accused of a crime and jail causes more mental anguish than a tap. So since doing so is wrong because it causes such mental anguish, then your logic implies a woman can do whatever wrong and atrocities she likes since it is wrong to use any force to prevent it and put her in jail. That shows your ideology is barbaric. Not Islam.

Harry Truman's picture
You're missing the point. It

You're missing the point. It isn't a mans PLACE to "punish" his wife.

Algebe's picture
Al-Fatihah: "So when you as

Al-Fatihah: "So when you as an atheist read the word marriage and think "sex with a child"

And what do Islamic scholars say about Aisha's age when Mohammed consummated the marriage? I've seen figures ranging from 6 to 10, any of which I find totally repugnant. I've also seen weasel-word apologetics about "consummation" just meaning cohabitation. Whatever the truth, the whole sordid story has the effect of justifying pedophilic behavior. Young children aren't ready emotionally or physically to engage in sexual relationships with adults. That's why we have laws based on the age of consent.

"Tapping" is wrong if it hurts or humliates. Who can judge whether a person has been hurt or humiliated other than the person herself? The only way to ensure that she is not hurt or humiliated is not to "tap" (punch, hit, slap) her.

I understand that "tapping" makes you feel big and powerful, but really you should grow up and try conversing with women as an adult. Don't be scared.

Al-Fatihah's picture
@Algabe

@Algabe

A punishment is supposed to cause discomfort. So everytime you respond by saying that a tap causes humiliation or anything else that is not liked, you only make my point that the tap is just. For it's a punishment so it's not supposed to be liked, regardless of the judge. Once again demonstrating Islam is just.

As for the Prophet, sex with a child is wrong, but since the source never refers to sex but to living together and the same source says she was loved and treated kindly and grew to be a leader and scholar, all show once again that the Prophet was utmost in morality and decency.

LogicForTW's picture
I am very happily married. I

I am very happily married. I never even close had to tap, or in other way punish my wife. We deeply respect each other, and can converse like adults if an issue comes up. The same was true of my parents. Me and my siblings all grew up well behaved and succesful. No physical punishment needed.

Small sample size, I know. But for kids still learning right and wrong, a time out is all that is needed, nothing physical. For a wife a mutual relation of respect where both know right and wrong already precludes the need of any sort of punishment, especially physical punishment.

Algebe's picture
@LogicForTW "a time out is

@LogicForTW "a time out is all that is needed"

Exactly right. True discipline is based on respect, not fear of "tapping". In New Zealand it's actually illegal to "tap" kids. If you do it in public, you'll get arrested.

Al-Fatihah's picture
@LogicForTW

@LogicForTW

Nor have I ever tapped any woman either and every relationship I have been in are with women who were not Muslims but became Muslims from my love and protection of them and seeing the truth, and still uphold me as the best example of a man.

That does not change the reality or just effectiveness of a tap as a form of discipline, especially when it is a last resort in a relationship one is trying to save from falling apart despite several counseling.

Algebe's picture
@Al-Fatihah: "everytime you

@Al-Fatihah: "everytime you respond by saying that a tap causes humiliation or anything else that is not liked"

I'm not talking about liking or disliking. You're again deliberately missing the point. Is it moral for you to inflict any kind of pain on another human being? Your misguided religion obviously tells you it is.

My godless morality tells me it's wrong to initiate any kind of violence for any reason other than self-defense. Children can be disciplined without physical violence. It just takes a little patience, character, and intelligence. You have to work through respect rather than fear.

Adults have no right to inflict punishments on each other, except through due process of law leading to fines or imprisonment (not flogging, stoning, branding, or amputations).

Al-Fatihah's picture
@Algabe

@Algabe

Yet I am talking about liking or disliking because all of your points regarding right or wrong or moral or immoral, barbaric, etc..are all invalid and irrational. So you are deliberately trying to avoid the fact that you have no valid argument, other than it's wrong because "I don't like it", which only makes the point that it is just. For it is a punishment so it's not supposed to be liked. If you liked or enjoyed being tapped, and it leaves no pain or scars, would it be wrong? No. So you make my point.

Adults have the right to inflict whatever punishment they like, provided it is just and equal to the crime or act that is committed, which is ecactly what a tap that leaves no pain or scars does.

Responses like "it's wrong because I don't like it" or "it's wrong to initiate any kind of violence for any reason other than self-defense" because you say so only highlights the senseless logic of the ungodliness of atheism.

Algebe's picture
@Al-Fatihah "Responses like

@Al-Fatihah "Responses like "it's wrong because I don't like it"

I don't think I've said that. You on the other hand seem to be saying that "tapping" a woman is right because you like it.

"Adults have the right to inflict whatever punishment they like"

Where does that right come from? Did you invent it yourself? That statement actually makes you sound insane.

I've never seen your "right to inflict whatever punishment you like" in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the US Bill of Rights, the Constitution of Japan, or in the constitutions and laws of any civilized country. In civilized countries, the right to punish is strictly limited to the judicial system under the due process of law. Those punishments are limited to incarceration and financial penalties, or community service for minor offenses.

The name for extra-judicial physical punishment in the home is domestic violence. It's a crime committed by cowards.

Al-Fatihah's picture
@Algabe

@Algabe

You don't have to say it is wrong because you don't like it when it's implied. You clearly do not like the punishment of tapping. So it is implied. Whereas I have said repeatedly that it is right because a just punishment is the intent to discourage a behavior by applying a form of discipline that is equal to the discomfort in act committed. Notice I gave an objective definition to measure right from wrong. Whereas you provide none and just repeat that it's wrong.

Then you continue to say where does the right come from, as if this was not answered repeatedly. As stated before, common sense. What is wrong with atheism that there seems to be a serious lack of it?

So since there is a clear lack of common sense, it is no wonder why your moral compass is based on what the constitution says and since something only becomes just because according to your logic "that's what the constitution says", then your same moral compass also approved of segregation and hate crimes in the 50's in the US because that is what the constitution said. It also implies that if the constitution says to kill all babies, you would accept it because it is in the constitution. So we see the cowardice and hypocrisy of atheism and its moral deficiency. Not Islam.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.