That verse in the Koran saying men are superior to women only means ....

YUSUFALI: Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).

PICKTHAL: Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.
SHAKIR: 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. 

All this means, people, is that if a man provides and protects his wife, she should defer to him.

The Christian version is "love, honour and obey".

If he does not, then she shouldn't and wouldn't.

Why would a man provide and protect a woman who is bossing him around?

Doesn't sound like a good deal for him.

That's why men aren't getting married these days.  Are the ladies getting it at last?


Leos Tomicek said…
The traditional Christian idea is in fact not far from the Muslim one. It is defined in the Pauline epistles.
Claire Khaw said…
My point is that it is not really so unusual. Look up "the rule of thumb". Wife-beating is not an exclusively Islamic practice. The awful truth is that a lot of wife-beating (and husband-beating too) takes place, whatever one's religion or lack of it.

The Koran makes it clear that we are all tempted by extra-marital sex, intoxication, behavioural addictions, the urge to wage war on each other, give short measure, bear false witness, take slaves etc, and exhorts us not to give in to temptation, or, if we must wage war, take slaves and beat wives, how to do it without doing too much harm.

The temptation to give anyone who is seriously annoying you a smack is very tempting indeed, whatever your religion and your sex.

The Koran allows you to put your wife on notice that she is seriously annoying you, before you completely lose your rag and do her an injury.
Claire Khaw said…
I am delighted to hear it is a myth, pjanus.
Anonymous said…
It must have been very painful to either
a) watch you mother get beaten
b) watch your mother prostitute herself
c) watch your mother walk out on you

because that's the only way anyone comes to these conclusions. Why would you want religion, a destructive and borrowed religion, to dictate violence?

In my mind the prophet stories are the most damaging pieces of fiction ever written, the marriage to children, the endorsement of violence and hatred of other religions (besides the one they stole their ideas from) could only come from a violent and underdeveloped society.

No wonder these nations still scream and howl in the streets, it's like the last 500 years have never happened. Such a shame the idiocy spreads.

Claire Khaw said…
I hope C L Villiers will us which Koranic laws she fears.

I must make it clear that I reject anything in the Hadith that contradicts the Koran.

What I am proposing is an Anglican Islam unique to this country.
Anonymous said…
Why would a compassionate nation choose Islam?
Claire Khaw said…
Please give examples of the uncompassionate nature of Islam.

Of course it does not tolerate every single thing that is mad, silly and societally-destructive like liberals do.
Anonymous said…
Beatings, death, basically retarded religion that relies on mass brainwashing.
Claire Khaw said…
Corporal and capital punishment was and is hardly confined to the Muslims. In fact, this country in more enlightened times used to practise these forms of punishment. And then it was stopped. That is why the Britain is now full of paedophiles, single mums and illegitimate children.

Any ideology can brainwash people when most people are the unquestioning simple creatures they are.
Anonymous said…
Paedophilia is rife everywhere, just in the West we like to actually deal with it and give the crime a name. The Prophet himself married a child.
Claire Khaw said…
Whatever you think the Prophet might have done with his child bride, the Koran does not recommend having sex with children or marrying children.

Perhaps this is one of the finer examples of "Do as I say, not as I do."

Popular posts from this blog

Divorced women who literally turn their sons into women

The 30 second rapist

Religion and Recreational Sex: sharia-compliant threesomes and mini-orgies?