Yeah I did mean to say "don't".
Do you believe that a man should be entitled to his full rights when he responds to "nushuz" (translated to disloyalty, disobedience, opposition, and several other related terms that are debated) by beating his wife violently?
Firstly I would like to say that this is a law based on someones (not everyones) interpretation of the religion. It is also localised to a particular area, there are practicing Muslims in America who would consider such things as barbaric.
Secondly when I am saying you should be entitled to your rights, I am refering to basic human rights.
As I am talking about human rights, and not the legal rights of that area;
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."
The man would be in direct violation of that right, as he is treating the woman as inequal, without dignity and is not acting in conscience with a spirit of brotherhood.
I was not referring to the law of any country or all countries. I am well aware that many laws or (perhaps all) justice systems in areas could be considered directly in conflict with human rights; and that many of these laws are derrived from the religions that were prominate at the time of the laws creation. It's also important to remember people flat out ignore parts of the Bible and other religious texts as well as laws to better support the ideals of modern times.
...Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty. [1 Timothy, chapter 2]
In this quote from the Bible, the religon most of the western world's laws were heavily influenced by, sexism is being promoted. Of course as a whole we don't advocate such things. I could throw out numerous quotes from the bible that are just bizzare or seem to condone; slavery, sexism, ethnic cleansing, etc. But we (as a whole) don't follow these quotes as we have evolved as a society and strive to live by the premise that every man, woman and child; regardless of race or religion should be treated as equals. Remember how women had to 'win' their right to vote. This demonstrates how the inequality that was once so prominent is progressively becoming less so. It also shows that peoples values change over time and that the writtings of someone, however long ago it may be, do not necassarily reflect the views of it's reader.
A state law from Illinois;
A man's female companion shall call him "master" while out on a date. The law does not apply to married couples.
This law is not upheld for obvious reasons. But many such laws exist in America and other parts of the world, and are merely ignored either because they are dated or just strange due to the reason behind them being long forgotten.
New York;
A fine of $25 can be levied for flirting. This old law specifically prohibits men from turning around on any city street and looking "at a woman in that way." A second conviction for a crime of this magnitude calls for the violating male to be forced to wear a "pair of horse-blinders" wherever and whenever he goes outside for a stroll.
So in short, no I don't condone the beating of a women, or treatment of a women as an inferior in any regard. If you feel your religion condones such a thing then your
interpretation of your religion is wrong. Regardless of whether the religion at it's core is 'violent' you are the only one who can control how you read the religous text, and chose to follow it (or whether to follow it at all).
So again:
It is the interpretations people bring to their religions that promote violence, whether or not the religion is violent at it's core.
