Is this for real?

http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2007/wife-beating-p1.php

Its not wife beating, its wife adjusting.

Oh, it's for real. I remember - was it the same twat? - on Syria TV talking about how thick a stick you were allowed to use for a good beating in islam. He had different gauges up. I think he settled on about a 1" diameter stick, seemed to think that was all right.

Gentlemen - and especially ladies - I give you: the ummah.

Silly Moslems...

They need to -learn- how to beat women?

Clearly, our superior Western culture is proven to be so again!

Now excuse me: My supper is late.

Well lets just send them our fashion of wife beater t-shirts!

The restrictions are for husbands. Its better if wives follow these guidlines while beating their hubbies.

They regulated this verse:

الرِّجَالُ قَوَّامُونَ عَلَى النِّسَاء بِمَا فَضَّلَ اللّهُ بَعْضَهُمْ عَلَى بَعْضٍ وَبِمَا أَنفَقُواْ مِنْ أَمْوَالِهِمْ فَالصَّالِحَاتُ قَانِتَاتٌ حَافِظَاتٌ لِّلْغَيْبِ بِمَا حَفِظَ اللّهُ وَاللاَّتِي تَخَافُونَ نُشُوزَهُنَّ فَعِظُوهُنَّ وَاهْجُرُوهُنَّ فِي الْمَضَاجِعِ وَاضْرِبُوهُنَّ فَإِنْ أَطَعْنَكُمْ فَلاَ تَبْغُواْ عَلَيْهِنَّ سَبِيلاً إِنَّ اللّهَ كَانَ عَلِيًّا كَبِيرًا {34}

Leaving obligation as a wife;
talk to her, if not work then separate bed, eventualy beat when all efforts apparently useless. For the beating not to make such excessive harm, it is required to regulate how to execute it. It is regulated as a means to give hard warning, avoiding injury.

They regulated this verse:

الرِّجَالُ قَوَّامُونَ عَلَى النِّسَاء بِمَا فَضَّلَ اللّهُ بَعْضَهُمْ عَلَى بَعْضٍ وَبِمَا أَنفَقُواْ مِنْ أَمْوَالِهِمْ فَالصَّالِحَاتُ قَانِتَاتٌ حَافِظَاتٌ لِّلْغَيْبِ بِمَا حَفِظَ اللّهُ وَاللاَّتِي تَخَافُونَ نُشُوزَهُنَّ فَعِظُوهُنَّ وَاهْجُرُوهُنَّ فِي الْمَضَاجِعِ وَاضْرِبُوهُنَّ فَإِنْ أَطَعْنَكُمْ فَلاَ تَبْغُواْ عَلَيْهِنَّ سَبِيلاً إِنَّ اللّهَ كَانَ عَلِيًّا كَبِيرًا {34}

Leaving obligation as a wife;
talk to her, if not work then separate bed, eventualy beat when all efforts apparently useless. For the beating not to make such excessive harm, it is required to regulate how to execute it. It is regulated as a means to give hard warning, avoiding injury.

This is an exercise in the nuances of the Arabic language:

The Arabic word used in verse 4:34 above is "idribuhunna", which is derived from "daraba" which means "beat". The thing with all of the Arabic words that are derived from the word "daraba" is that they don't necessarily mean "hit". The word "idribuhunna" for instance, could very well mean to "leave" them. It is exactly like telling someone to "beat it" or "drop it" in English.

The word "daraba" in verse 14:24 "Seest thou not how Allah sets (daraba) forth a parable? -- A goodly Word Like a goodly tree, Whose root is firmly fixed, And its branches (reach) To the heavens". "daraba" here meant "give an example". If I say in Arabic "daraba laka mathal", it means "give you an example".

The word "darabtum", which is derived from the word "daraba" in verse 4:94, which mean to "go abroad" :

"O ye who believe! When ye go abroad (darabtum) In the cause of Allah, Investigate carefully...

Hence it need not mean "beat" as in hit, but beat as in beat it for some time. (they are all in the same chapter).

The more accurate translation would be:
(4:34) [...]as for those women whose animosity or ill-will you have reason to fear, then leave them alone in bed, and then separate; and if thereupon they pay you heed, do not seek a way against them.

This is how this verse is interpreted by Islamic scholars.

This is corroborated by verses that forbid harsh treatment of wives:

"...Do not retain them (i.e., your wives) to harm them...(2:231)"

"If a wife fears cruelty or desertion on her husband's part, there is no blame on them if they arrange an amicable settlement between themselves; and such settlement is best; even though men's souls are swayed by greed. But if ye do good and practise self-restraint, God is well-acquainted with all that ye do. (4:128)"

Those who believe that this verse refers to wife beating are those who stop thinking at a place where the verse meets their expectations.

Those who believe that this verse refers to wife beating are those who stop thinking at a place where the verse meets their expectations

Such as Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall ("Faithfully represents the sense of the original") and Yusuf Ali ("it stands out above other translations as a highly readable rendering of the Qur'an into English. Copious notes are reflective of Yusuf Ali's vast learning. Nonetheless, some of his notes, particularly, on the Qur'anic eschatology and angelology smack of apologia and pseudo-rationalism", no less)?

http://www.quran.org.uk/articles/ieb_1st_annotated.htm

The word "idribuhunna" for instance, could very well mean to "leave" them. It is exactly like telling someone to "beat it" or "drop it" in English.

You're telling me that the ancient interpretation of "beat" as in "strike" is the same as the 20th century English slang to "beat it"? That's some etymology.

quoteThe word "idribuhunna" for instance, could very well mean to "leave" them. It is exactly like telling someone to "beat it" or "drop it" in English.[/i]

You're telling me that the ancient interpretation of "beat" as in "strike" is the same as the 20th century English slang to "beat it"? That's some etymology.

Hey, it's sam, what'd you expect?

Key phrase:

"This is how this verse is interpreted by Islamic scholars."

Sam's rationale is very similar to LG's, one must be "educated" in religion to be authoritative.

Hey, it's sam, what'd you expect?

Key phrase:

"This is how this verse is interpreted by Islamic scholars."

Sam's rationale is very similar to LG's, one must be "educated" in religion to be authoritative.

I'm guessing you don't take lessons in physics from your neighborhood high school dropout.:D

e.g.

Me: I have never read anything about evolution but my views on it are xyz (contrary to yours, who have read widely on subject)

You: Rubbish

Me: Q's rationale is very similar to LG's, one must be "educated" in evolution to be authoritative.

You: ?

You're telling me that the ancient interpretation of "beat" as in "strike" is the same as the 20th century English slang to "beat it"? That's some etymology.

No I'm saying there are other meanings of the same word in the same chapter, so you don't have to explore the etymology to know that there is more than one meaning.

Such as Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall ("Faithfully represents the sense of the original") and Yusuf Ali ("it stands out above other translations as a highly readable rendering of the Qur'an into English. Copious notes are reflective of Yusuf Ali's vast learning. Nonetheless, some of his notes, particularly, on the Qur'anic eschatology and angelology smack of apologia and pseudo-rationalism", no less)?

http://www.quran.org.uk/articles/ieb_1st_annotated.htm

So, are you using the argument of authority here?:)

No I'm saying there are other meanings of the same word in the same chapter, so you don't have to explore the etymology to know that there is more than one meaning.

Well, was that verysame meaning exigent in Mohammed's lifetime, or 100 years thereafter? How would it have been interpreted then? The authors I cited all interpreted it as "whack the stuffing (out of)". Do they not speak from authority?

(I hesitate to point out that you already explored the etymology.)

Well, was that verysame meaning exigent in Mohammed's lifetime, or 100 years thereafter? How would it have been interpreted then? The authors I cited all interpreted it as "whack the stuffing (out of)". Do they not speak from authority?

(I hesitate to point out that you already explored the etymology.)

Well if you get a time machine,we'll go back and find out. The Quran says:

[39:27] We have cited for the people every kind of example in this Quran, that they may take heed.


The rest is up to you.

So, are you using the argument of authority here?:)

Geez. You argued from authority just now, ya punk.

Anyway, I always speak from authority: a deep-throated, broad-chested authority, with a rumbling, bass inflection. I flex my deep muscles as I chop firewood, the sweat dappling my chest, glancing up to see who calls my attention, my blousy shirt hung over a log nearby that I severed with my sheer manliness.

And, they translated it. They don't seem to think 4:34 is an alliteration of "make like a tree - and leave!"

("huh huh, good one Vinnie!"

"let's get this jalopy running! It's axiomatic!")

So whither now?

Well if you get a time machine,we'll go back and find out.

Patent pending. Surely there must exist those literal time machines, known improbably as "books"?

The rest is up to you.

And what if they don't heed? That's the broader issue.

Geez. You argued from authority just now, ya punk.

Anyway, I always speak from authority: a deep-throated, broad-chested authority, with a rumbling, bass inflection. I flex my deep muscles as I chop firewood, the sweat dappling my chest, glancing up to see who calls my attention, my blousy shirt hung over a log nearby that I severed with my sheer manliness.

Anyway, they translated it. They don't seem to think 4:34 is an alliteration of "make like a tree - and leave!"

("huh huh, good one Vinnie!"

"let's get this jalopy running! It's axiomatic!")

So whither now?

Ah but I had to translate because none of you know the language, if you did it would be sufficient for me to simply indicate the other places where the word occurs with a different meaning.

You need not accept any authority if you don't choose to.:)

Patent pending. Surely there must exist those literal time machines, known improbably as "books"?

Language is merely abstract thought.


And what if they don't heed? That's the broader issue.
Education.

But really what does it say about people that they prefer the less salutary choices?

Ah but I had to translate because none of you know the language, if you did it would be sufficient for me to simply indicate the other places where the word occurs with a different meaning.

Naughty hairsplitter. Very well. *bows*

You need not accept any authority if you don't choose to.:)

M'lady, I would, and your earnesty also.

...Earnesty? Earnestness. Meh. Geoff no care.

Language is merely abstract thought.

And beer belches the abstraction of language.

Education.

But really what does it say about people that they prefer the less salutary choices?

To my mind, that they have a healthy dose of doubt. The history of humanity is not replete with humanism.

To my mind, that they have a healthy dose of doubt. The history of humanity is not replete with humanism.

And they say "we are secular humanists".:)

Sometimes I think that needs more faith than religion.

Ah! Ye will judge them by their acts, indeed.

No I'm saying there are other meanings of the same word in the same chapter, so you don't have to explore the etymology to know that there is more than one meaning.

It looks like the scholars are stretching to save the day.

So, aren't there other words instead of "idribuhunna" that will clearly translate to "beat it" or "drop it"? Why Allah didn't use that exact word to avoid the misinterpretations? Let me guess, maybe he's not so perfect after all.

Sam may be right. I found these lyrics in an ancient scroll buried in the Sands of Arabia just a few minutes ago.

"Beat It"

(aka "Idribuhunna")

- Mohammed

Meccans told him "don't you come 'round here"
Don't wanna hear your da'wa, better disappear
But the fire's down in Hell 4:34 is really clear
So idribuhunna, idribuhunna

You better go to Medina, better do what you can
Spilling kufr blood makes you real halaal, man
But the ladies think you're punkass, so you got to raise th' hand -
- And do a runn-ah; idribuhunna

[groin grabbing, thrusting etc.]

Chorus:

Just beat it, beat it
No one wants to be defeated
Show her how funky and fard is your fight
Give her two lefts when she mentions her rights
Just beat it, beat it
Just beat it, beat it
Just beat it, beat it
Just beat it, beat it (idribuhunna)

Infidels are out to get you, better war while you can
Got a Message to deliver, got to take a stand
But the chicks have got you beat, so you run from ol' Shai'tan
So beat it, idribuhunna

You have to show them that you're really not scared
They're laughing at your manhood while they primp and do their hair
They don't listen and they spend lots
It would almost seem 'bout fair -
But beat it, 'cause they're all uncovered

Just beat it, beat it
No one wants to be defeated
Show her how funky and fard is your fight
Give her two lefts when she mentions her rights
Just beat it, beat it
Just beat it, beat it
Just beat it, beat it
Just beat it, beat it (idribuhunna)

This is an exercise in the nuances of the Arabic language:


....

Hence it need not mean "beat" as in hit, but beat as in beat it for some time. (they are all in the same chapter).

....

This is how this verse is interpreted by Islamic scholars.

....

Those who believe that this verse refers to wife beating are those who stop thinking at a place where the verse meets their expectations.


Here is a scholar:

"Most women in the world today do not enjoy the protection verse 4:34 grants them. Instead they are unjustly abused, verbally and physically, by unrighteous men in unrighteous ways, and get beaten up for the most trivial of reasons, or for no reason at all. According to 4:34 even if the husband has a good reason, he is not allowed to lay a hand on his wife until he has passed all the previous steps.

The woman's responsibility in a marriage starts the day she chooses a husband. If she wants to enjoy her God given rights, she must obey her God given commands, and choose a believing husband. Thus, she can expect from him to treat her in accordance with God's decree, and not transgress against her. She can expect from a believing husband that he will heed any reminder she gives him, if he forgets. If she chooses to disregard God's commands, she has to know that there will be consequences. "

submission.org/women/beating.html

:eek:

Here is a scholar:

"Most women in the world today do not enjoy the protection verse 4:34 grants them. Instead they are unjustly abused, verbally and physically, by unrighteous men in unrighteous ways, and get beaten up for the most trivial of reasons, or for no reason at all. According to 4:34 even if the husband has a good reason, he is not allowed to lay a hand on his wife until he has passed all the previous steps.

The woman's responsibility in a marriage starts the day she chooses a husband. If she wants to enjoy her God given rights, she must obey her God given commands, and choose a believing husband. Thus, she can expect from him to treat her in accordance with God's decree, and not transgress against her. She can expect from a believing husband that he will heed any reminder she gives him, if he forgets. If she chooses to disregard God's commands, she has to know that there will be consequences. "

submission.org/women/beating.html

:eek:

What qualifies this author as a scholar?

What qualifies this author as a scholar?

Ok, I'm new to the forum, and I need to know your qualifications of a scholar.

The point is that this verse can be interpreted in the way this person has and the way it is being published on the Internet is horrifying.

So the real question is how has this verse been interpreted throughout the centuries and how many women were the victim of it, and who is responsible of the misinterpretation. The Imam? Muhammad? Allah? Communication breakdown?

Oh, I got it. Lack of qualified scholars...

Ok, I'm new to the forum, and I need to know your qualifications of a scholar.

The point is that this verse can be interpreted in the way this person has and the way it is being published on the Internet is horrifying.

So the real question is how has this verse been interpreted throughout the centuries and how many women were the victim of it, and who is responsible of the misinterpretation. The Imam? Muhammad? Allah? Communication breakdown?

Oh, I got it. Lack of qualified scholars...

Its interpreted as people choose to interpret it. All interpretations are available, so why is the one about wife beating most popular?:)

Sam may be right. I found these lyrics in an ancient scroll buried in the Sands of Arabia just a few minutes ago.

Oh goanboylyeread:mad::p

Its interpreted as people choose to interpret it. All interpretations are available, so why is the one about wife beating most popular?:)

Because wife beating is wrong Sam, why is there a wrong thing in Quran? (It's not the only one)

If I were god/God/Allah and were to send a book I wouldn't give a chance to misinterpretation and have the women suffer, why subtlety?

Sam may be right. I found these lyrics in an ancient scroll buried in the Sands of Arabia just a few minutes ago.

If you wrote that Geoffp, that is quite skilled! :)

Oh goanboylyeread:mad::p

Hehe - g'anylzeyerpoothan. ;)

Because wife beating is wrong Sam, why is there a wrong thing in Quran? (It's not the only one)

If I were god/God/Allah and were to send a book I wouldn't give a chance to misinterpretation and have the women suffer, why subtlety?

Is the wrong thing in the Quran or are people using the Quran to justify their wrongdoings?

After all, if there is an interpretation which does not indicate wrong doing, why select one that does? Why even have an interpretation that indicates wrong doing?

Its only subtle if you want to do wrong and then justify it. A man with no insidious motive would KNOW the right interpretation, given how often both reason and mercy are stressed as being the ultimate quality of a Muslim.

If you wrote that Geoffp, that is quite skilled! :)

*bows* I thankee!

Me own work, by the craft o' me own hands, and the rot o' me own brain, har har!

...sorry, watching Pirates of the Carribbean 2. Quite like the Davy Jones character - excellent accent. Need to introduce it into many, many conversations.

If you wrote that Geoffp, that is quite skilled! :)

He's an artist.:)

Is the wrong thing in the Quran or are people using the Quran to justify their wrongdoings?
They don't know it's wrongdoing because the interpretation(by others) tells them to do so.

After all, if there is an interpretation which does not indicate wrong doing, why select one that does? Why even have an interpretation that indicates wrong doing?
Because of the subtlety, get it?

Its only subtle if you want to do wrong and then justify it. A man with no insidious motive would KNOW the right interpretation, given how often both reason and mercy are stressed as being the ultimate quality of a Muslim.
So this Fathima Khaldoon (a woman presumably) wants to do wrong to who, herself? Why doesn't she just beat herself up?

How many wrong interpretations do you think has been done since 622 AD?
If you say one I'll say that's one too many.

Ah, yes - a sensitive soul, I am, to be sure. The very soul of an artist. ;)

They don't know it's wrongdoing because the interpretation(by others) tells them to do so.


Because of the subtlety, get it?


So this Fathima Khaldoon (a woman presumably) wants to do wrong to who, herself? Why doesn't she just beat herself up?

How many wrong interpretations do you think has been done since 622 AD?
If you say one I'll say that's one too many.

There is no qualification to write on the internet is there?

Do you believe everything thats written on the net?

If my website was, say, TRUTH.ORG, would you believe everything that was written on it?

The best way of course is to learn the language and DIY, but another course would be to examine several interpretations and look at the most objective ones (from unbiased educated scholars who have studied the Quran). And not confuse cultural habits with religious belief.:)

There is no qualification to write on the internet is there?

Absolutely not! Thank goodness.

Do you believe everything thats written on the net?

Only the plausible bits. And alien abduction.

If my website was, say, TRUTH.ORG, would you believe everything that was written on it?

...well it does say "truth.org". I mean, duhr. :rolleyes:

The best way of course is to learn the language and DIY, but another course would be to examine several interpretations and look at the most objective ones (from unbiased educated scholars who have studied the Quran). And not confuse cultural habits with religious belief.:)

And when the scholars are confused? What then?

And what's with that frigging cat anyway? Ain't natural.

this is wrong on so many levels

I agree. Cats should be banned.

And when the scholars are confused? What then?

Scholars only provide information. Decision making is a personal process.:p

this is wrong on so many levels

No its not, discussion is never wrong (at least not where I come from)

No its not, discussion is never wrong (at least not where I come from)

that last video...the guy discussing the definition of light beatings.

Under my own belief...I will transcend into another life when I die, but I will not know that...so I can be this muslim woman...And I dont want to be beaten...with definitions like lightly beaten: dont cause death or bleeding and not on the head. THAT IS SO WRONG.

All right, so scholars are not the final say.

And your cat is still wrong. It's like dogs and cats living together; t'ain't nat'rul.

All right, so scholars are not the final say.

And your cat is still wrong. It's like dogs and cats living together; t'ain't nat'rul.

No self appointed scholar should be the final say for a Muslim.

The first verse that was revealed said Read, for your Lord is most benevolent. Then around 13 times in the Quran there is an admonition to travel all over the world and learn by experience. There is also an admonishment that discussion is essential for arriving at a consensus and one must take the advice of those who have studied deeply on the subject (this is a general admonishment for any knowledge gathering).

So yes, one scholar is not the final say.

And leave my puddy alone.:)

No self appointed scholar should be the final say for a Muslim.

The first verse that was revealed said Read, for your Lord is most benevolent. Then around 13 times in the Quran there is an admonition to travel all over the world and learn by experience. There is also an admonishment that discussion is essential for arriving at a consensus and one must take the advice of those who have studied deeply on the subject (this is a general admonishment for any knowledge gathering).

So yes, one scholar is not the final say.

And leave my puddy alone.:)

All right, no need to get your colostomy bag in a knot. I believe that it is indeed possible to get a peaceful worldview from the Quran. It's just that the order of revelation and the change in world view from the Medinan to Meccan phases doesn't strike me as peaceful.

Evil catlover.

I was going to write something worse but, neh, I've got enough points for the week.

I was going to write something worse but, neh, I've got enough points for the week.

No you haven't:p

No you haven't:p

You know, however much you beg for a verbal accosting, you're not going to get it. :D

O very well: I was going to say "I never even touched your puddy." Happy now?

This is an exercise in the nuances of the Arabic language:

The Arabic word used in verse 4:34 above is "idribuhunna", which is derived from "daraba" which means "beat". The thing with all of the Arabic words that are derived from the word "daraba" is that they don't necessarily mean "hit". The word "idribuhunna" for instance, could very well mean to "leave" them. It is exactly like telling someone to "beat it" or "drop it" in English.

The word "daraba" in verse 14:24 "Seest thou not how Allah sets (daraba) forth a parable? -- A goodly Word Like a goodly tree, Whose root is firmly fixed, And its branches (reach) To the heavens". "daraba" here meant "give an example". If I say in Arabic "daraba laka mathal", it means "give you an example".

The word "darabtum", which is derived from the word "daraba" in verse 4:94, which mean to "go abroad" :

"O ye who believe! When ye go abroad (darabtum) In the cause of Allah, Investigate carefully...

Hence it need not mean "beat" as in hit, but beat as in beat it for some time. (they are all in the same chapter).

The more accurate translation would be:
(4:34) [...]as for those women whose animosity or ill-will you have reason to fear, then leave them alone in bed, and then separate; and if thereupon they pay you heed, do not seek a way against them.

This is how this verse is interpreted by Islamic scholars.

This is corroborated by verses that forbid harsh treatment of wives:

"...Do not retain them (i.e., your wives) to harm them...(2:231)"

"If a wife fears cruelty or desertion on her husband's part, there is no blame on them if they arrange an amicable settlement between themselves; and such settlement is best; even though men's souls are swayed by greed. But if ye do good and practise self-restraint, God is well-acquainted with all that ye do. (4:128)"

Those who believe that this verse refers to wife beating are those who stop thinking at a place where the verse meets their expectations.

HA, HA
this is sams response to post 7, ol' liveinfaith hasn't been seen since.

as to the question of "wife beating":
can you imagine being beaten?
it's your choice, but don't get mad if i try and stop you.

HA, HA
this is sams response to post 7, ol' liveinfaith hasn't been seen since.

as to the question of "wife beating":
can you imagine being beaten?
it's your choice, but don't get mad if i try and stop you.

Is that supposed to make sense?:confused:

Is that supposed to make sense?:confused:

what part of, liveinfaith hasn't been seen since, and, "wife beating" sucks, don't you understand?

what part of, liveinfaith hasn't been seen since, and, "wife beating" sucks, don't you understand?

Probably just hasn't been online since?:rolleyes:

Me was responding to the video.
I haven't made any interpretation of 'beat', whcih could be literally 'hit' or a symbol of hard warning (like leaving as sam said).

As the video talks, it was regulating the way to execute WHEN it is interpreted as literal hit.

The interpretation could be literal or symbolic, depend on who does it. Both have their own background to hold the interpreation.

I myself, considering the whole soul of the teachings in Qur'an, would not interpret it as hitting, but hard warning by all means. One can 'hit' the brain and feelings, considering one know how to beat their wifes by words and actions. Leaving (divorce) is the ultimate action, which is an act of 'allowed but strongly not recommended'.

Talk about timing!

I myself, considering the whole soul of the teachings in Qur'an, would not interpret it as hitting, but hard warning by all means. One can 'hit' the brain and feelings, considering one know how to beat their wifes by words and actions. Leaving (divorce) is the ultimate action, which is an act of 'allowed but strongly not recommended'.
no, you are not allowed to beat your wife.
anybody that advocates otherwise is sexist.

beating is beating, physically or non-physic.

Don't you think your word or action doesn't beat yoru wife, sometimes?

there are women who said beaten at the heart (by husband cheats sort of) is more painful because it will chronically kill them compared to accute effect of slamming on the face.

There is no qualification to write on the internet is there?

Do you believe everything thats written on the net?

If my website was, say, TRUTH.ORG, would you believe everything that was written on it?

The best way of course is to learn the language and DIY, but another course would be to examine several interpretations and look at the most objective ones (from unbiased educated scholars who have studied the Quran). And not confuse cultural habits with religious belief.:)

No, I wouldn't believe everything that's written on the Internet but with the same logic somebody told you, samcdkey, that Quran is the truth and you believed it.:)

Here is a couple of questions if you want to answer: Is physically beating one's wife wrong? Is it a fact that there has been wife beatings due to misinterpretations?

If you answered Yes to those than what kind of Allah is this that allows misinterpretations? There should have been another sentence for the hard knocks that said 'thou shalt not smack thy wife'.

Therefore:

A) Allah is not perfect
B) Lost in Translation
C) The whole thing is Muhammad's imagination and he screwed up big time there.(which I think what really happened)

No, I wouldn't believe everything that's written on the Internet but with the same logic somebody told you, samcdkey, that Quran is the truth and you believed it.:)

Here is a couple of questions if you want to answer: Is physically beating one's wife wrong? Is it a fact that there has been wife beatings due to misinterpretations?

If you answered Yes to those than what kind of Allah is this that allows misinterpretations? There should have been another sentence for the hard knocks that said 'thou shalt not smack thy wife'.

Therefore:

A) Allah is not perfect
B) Lost in Translation
C) The whole thing is Muhammad's imagination and he screwed up big time there.(which I think what really happened)

Ah another reformer!

I suggest you go through my 10,000 posts, son.

All will be revealed. :p

All will be revealed. :p

No. Where is your much talked about boobs pics posted?

No. Where is your much talked about boobs pics posted?

Some revelations are better left undisturbed.:p

Ah another reformer!

I suggest you go through my 10,000 posts, son.

All will be revealed. :p

Ah another non-answer.

Ok, mom, let me put some coffee in the pot.

Ah another non-answer.

Ok, mom, let me put some coffee in the pot.

Thanks dikra.
It gets tedious answering the same question over and over, y'know.:p

Suffice to say, I've already satisfied myself where all these questions are concerned, and if you're really interested, its available on the forums somewhere.:)

edit: okay I'm going to take pity on you.

1. The nature of God is not the purpose of Islam
2. Translation can be overcome by studying the language
3. Without understanding 1 and 2, 3 is a premature conclusion.

Thanks dikra.
It gets tedious answering the same question over and over, y'know.:p

Suffice to say, I've already satisfied myself where all these questions are concerned, and if you're really interested, its available on the forums somewhere.:)

edit: okay I'm going to take pity on you.

1. The nature of God is not the purpose of Islam
2. Translation can be overcome by studying the language
3. Without understanding 1 and 2, 3 is a premature conclusion.

Thanks your highness,:p

Go ahead, knock yourself out with your delusion.

Well, the best thing is to look back at ancient Arabs, lean a little more towards the non-Jewish tribal traditions and customs. Then think: Whomever wrote the Qur’an needed to write these traditions into the book (think: like walking a around a squared desert rock – of which there used to be many).

That’s it really – there’s your answer.

Did ancient Arabs beat their wives? If so then the verse means to beat her - as in hit (probably not too hard though, just enough to make a point). If they did not then it means to leave as in exit the situation count to 10 come back and discuss again.

#2 two sounds better – as it’s really all up to us, we wrote it anyway, lets go with that shall we!

Michael

Well, the best thing is to look back at ancient Arabs, lean a little more towards the non-Jewish tribal traditions and customs. Then think: Whomever wrote the Qur’an needed to write these traditions into the book (think: like walking a around a squared desert rock – of which there used to be many).

That’s it really – there’s your answer.

Did ancient Arabs beat their wives? If so then the verse means to beat her - as in hit (probably not too hard though, just enough to make a point). If they did not then it means to leave as in exit the situation count to 10 come back and discuss again.

#2 two sounds better – as it’s really all up to us, we wrote it anyway, lets go with that shall we!

Michael



Thats a rather narrow way to look at things.

Think TODAY. Is it legal to beat your wife in the US? Is it legal to rape her?

Do the Americans do it? Just look at the statistics for domestic violence and rape.

The laws merely provide a framework, they don't really underscore the values of the people only idealistic notions of what those values should be.

Thanks your highness,:p

Go ahead, knock yourself out with your delusion.

Your appreciation of my majesty is noted. NEXT!

Thats a rather narrow way to look at things.

Think TODAY. Is it legal to beat your wife in the US? Is it legal to rape her?

Do the Americans do it? Just look at the statistics for domestic violence and rape.

The laws merely provide a framework, they don't really underscore the values of the people only idealistic notions of what those values should be.I'm confused. I meant mearly to find out what the original intended meaning was as it was written 1000+ years ago. Whatever that meaning was, it should in no way affect the way a woman is treated today, well at least in the USA or AU. If some book says it’s OK to “gently” bitch smack your wife - well that should still be banned – in the same way polygamy is banned even though the Mormons’ God-Book says it’s ok (polygamy for men only of course!).

TODAY no one should be allowed to hit their dog or their woman!!!
;)


Michael II

TODAY no one should be allowed to hit their dog or their woman

Good. That is what everyone wants, unfortunately many do hit.
And still you allow the government to 'hit' (I mean sentence to prison, death, or whatever the punishment would be) those who are proven guilty in the court. How do you come to allow government to do this kind of 'hit'?

Disallowing hit by allowing other kind of 'hit'?

Did ancient Arabs beat their wives? If so then the verse means to beat her - as in hit (probably not too hard though, just enough to make a point).
Michael

I believe they did. And hitting is natural effect when one is in such position couldn't control oneself.

Then it needs to be controlled, and regulated.

As for the world progress, and qur'an is open to interpretation, some still interpret it with literally hit, others could make more acceptable interpretations as required by social system. Anyone could promote this interpretation to be a discussion materials in Islamic scholars.

Good. That is what everyone wants, unfortunately many do hit.
And still you allow the government to 'hit' (I mean sentence to prison, death, or whatever the punishment would be) those who are proven guilty in the court. How do you come to allow government to do this kind of 'hit'?

Disallowing hit by allowing other kind of 'hit'?I'm not quite sure where you are coming from? What is your question?

Society works best if there are socially agreed upon laws. Yes, members of said society (ie: Citizens) understand that if we break these laws then we will be punished. Guilt and punishment is decided upon by a group of fellow Citizens who use the law as guidelines as to what is acceptable punishment.

I personally think this is the most fair system as it evolves over time as society evolve. The worse sort of system, IMHO, would be one that strives to build a stagnate “perfect” State where much of the law is for now and forever – these sorts of fantasy ideal societies tend to crumble into dictatorships within a generation or so because this is the only way to maintain the stagnation… errrr I mean perfection.

Why – what are you proposing as an alternative?

Michael

I'm not quite sure where you are coming from? What is your question?

Society works best if there are socially agreed upon laws. Yes, members of said society (ie: Citizens) understand that if we break these laws then we will be punished. Guilt and punishment is decided upon by a group of fellow Citizens who use the law as guidelines as to what is acceptable punishment.

I personally think this is the most fair system as it evolves over time as society evolve. The worse sort of system, IMHO, would be one that strives to build a stagnate “perfect” State where much of the law is for now and forever – these sorts of fantasy ideal societies tend to crumble into dictatorships within a generation or so because this is the only way to maintain the stagnation… errrr I mean perfection.

Why – what are you proposing as an alternative?

Michael

I'm not trying to give alternative. Agreed with you.
Beating is unavoidable to those are deserved to be punished which is acceptable by their social system.
I'm looking at a family as a mini social system, which have a head of the family to punish one of the found guilty member.
That was an analogy.

Your appreciation of my majesty is noted. NEXT!

Hardly. Actually it's really hard to do this at work.:)

A lot of the "scholars" still today think it should be translated as in "to beat"(lightly, big deal), which is atrocious. I looked at the Quran translated to my language and it clearly said "to beat", no mention of lightly. I bet you they asked a "scholar" while translating.

I think Islam treats women unequally and badly, there is a lot of brainwashing, and I want to hear your justification(brainwashed version).

Hardly. Actually it's really hard to do this at work.:)

A lot of the "scholars" still today think it should be translated as in "to beat"(lightly, big deal), which is atrocious. I looked at the Quran translated to my language and it clearly said "to beat", no mention of lightly. I bet you they asked a "scholar" while translating.

I think Islam treats women unequally and badly, there is a lot of brainwashing, and I want to hear your justification(brainwashed version).

Well since you're convinced I'm brainwashed, just consider me delusional and we can both live happily ever after!:p

Well since you're convinced I'm brainwashed, just consider me delusional and we can both live happily ever after!:p

Are those wedding bells I hear!

Ding-dong-ding-dong.

Your appreciation of my majesty is noted. NEXT!

Change yer colostomy bag and water yer, m'lady?

* touches fetlock *

Well since you're convinced I'm brainwashed, just consider me delusional and we can both live happily ever after!:p

Unfortunately, that will never happen since your religion must see fit to have everyone indoctrinated, so as it is with Christians.

Unfortunately, that will never happen since your religion must see fit to have everyone indoctrinated, so as it is with Christians.

Then let me indoctrine you some more: :p

The Disbelievers (http://www.jamiat.org.za/kids/suras/surah_al_kafiroon.html)


Whoever obeys the Messenger, he has indeed obeyed Allah; and as for he who turns away, We have not sent you [O Muhammad!] as a keeper over them (4.80).

Therefore do [O Muhammad!] remind [with the Message that We revealed to you], for you are only a reminder (88.21). You are not a controller over them (88.22).

But if they turn away, then We have not sent you [O Muhammad!] as a keeper over them; only deliverance [of the Message] is your duty (from 42.48).

And if you [O disbelievers!] deny [the truth], then nations before you did indeed deny [the truth]; and nothing is incumbent on the Messenger other than plain deliverance [of the Message] (29.18).

Are those wedding bells I hear!

Ding-dong-ding-dong.

Do you think she has the hots for me by now.:)

"039.033
YUSUFALI: And he who brings the Truth and he who confirms (and supports) it - such are the men who do right.
PICKTHAL: And whoso bringeth the truth and believeth therein - Such are the dutiful.
SHAKIR: And he who brings the truth and (he who) accepts it as the truth-- these are they that guard (against evil).

039.055
YUSUFALI: "And follow the best of (the courses) revealed to you from your Lord, before the Penalty comes on you - of a sudden while ye perceive not!-
PICKTHAL: And follow the better (guidance) of that which is revealed unto you from your Lord, before the doom cometh on you suddenly when ye know not,
SHAKIR: And follow the best that has been revealed to you from your Lord before there comes to you the punishment all of a sudden while you do not even perceive;

039.066
YUSUFALI: Nay, but worship Allah, and be of those who give thanks.
PICKTHAL: Nay, but Allah must thou serve, and be among the thankful!
SHAKIR: Nay! but serve Allah alone and be of the thankful.

039.071
YUSUFALI: The Unbelievers will be led to Hell in crowd: until, when they arrive, there, its gates will be opened. And its keepers will say, "Did not messengers come to you from among yourselves, rehearsing to you the Signs of your Lord, and warning you of the Meeting of This Day of yours?" The answer will be: "True: but the Decree of Punishment has been proved true against the Unbelievers!"
PICKTHAL: And those who disbelieve are driven unto hell in troops till, when they reach it and the gates thereof are opened, and the warders thereof say unto them: Came there not unto you messengers of your own, reciting unto you the revelations of your Lord and warning you of the meeting of this your Day? they say: Yea, verily. But the word of doom of disbelievers is fulfilled.
SHAKIR: And those who disbelieve shall be driven to hell in companies; until, when they come to it, its doors shall be opened, and the keepers of it shall say to them: Did not there come to you messengers from among you reciting to you the communications of your Lord and warning you of the meeting of this day of yours? They shall say: Yea! But the sentence of punishment was due against the unbelievers."

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/039.qmt.html

"039.033
YUSUFALI: And he who brings the Truth and he who confirms (and supports) it - such are the men who do right.
PICKTHAL: And whoso bringeth the truth and believeth therein - Such are the dutiful.
SHAKIR: And he who brings the truth and (he who) accepts it as the truth-- these are they that guard (against evil).

039.055
YUSUFALI: "And follow the best of (the courses) revealed to you from your Lord, before the Penalty comes on you - of a sudden while ye perceive not!-
PICKTHAL: And follow the better (guidance) of that which is revealed unto you from your Lord, before the doom cometh on you suddenly when ye know not,
SHAKIR: And follow the best that has been revealed to you from your Lord before there comes to you the punishment all of a sudden while you do not even perceive;

039.066
YUSUFALI: Nay, but worship Allah, and be of those who give thanks.
PICKTHAL: Nay, but Allah must thou serve, and be among the thankful!
SHAKIR: Nay! but serve Allah alone and be of the thankful.

039.071
YUSUFALI: The Unbelievers will be led to Hell in crowd: until, when they arrive, there, its gates will be opened. And its keepers will say, "Did not messengers come to you from among yourselves, rehearsing to you the Signs of your Lord, and warning you of the Meeting of This Day of yours?" The answer will be: "True: but the Decree of Punishment has been proved true against the Unbelievers!"
PICKTHAL: And those who disbelieve are driven unto hell in troops till, when they reach it and the gates thereof are opened, and the warders thereof say unto them: Came there not unto you messengers of your own, reciting unto you the revelations of your Lord and warning you of the meeting of this your Day? they say: Yea, verily. But the word of doom of disbelievers is fulfilled.
SHAKIR: And those who disbelieve shall be driven to hell in companies; until, when they come to it, its doors shall be opened, and the keepers of it shall say to them: Did not there come to you messengers from among you reciting to you the communications of your Lord and warning you of the meeting of this day of yours? They shall say: Yea! But the sentence of punishment was due against the unbelievers."

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/039.qmt.html

If you don't believe in the message there is nothing to worry about.

Its not anyone's job here on earth to convince you otherwise either.

Do you think she has the hots for me by now.:)

No, you're not my type.

"039.062
YUSUFALI: Allah is the Creator of all things, and He is the Guardian and Disposer of all affairs.
PICKTHAL: Allah is Creator of all things, and He is Guardian over all things.
SHAKIR: Allah is the Creator of every thing and He has charge over every thing.

039.052
YUSUFALI: Know they not that Allah enlarges the provision or restricts it, for any He pleases? Verily, in this are Signs for those who believe!
PICKTHAL: Know they not that Allah enlargeth providence for whom He will, and straiteneth it (for whom He will). Lo! herein verily are portents for people who believe.
SHAKIR: Do they not know that Allah makes ample the means of subsistence to whom He pleases, and He straitens; most surely there are signs in this for a people who believe."

Every year 15 million children die of hunger

The Indian subcontinent has nearly half the world's hungry people. Africa and the rest of Asia together have approximately 40%, and the remaining hungry people are found in Latin America and other parts of the world. Hunger in Global Economy

Half of all children under five years of age in South Asia and one third of those in sub-Saharan Africa are malnourished.

http://library.thinkquest.org/C002291/high/present/stats.htm

Praise Allah!

"039.062
YUSUFALI: Allah is the Creator of all things, and He is the Guardian and Disposer of all affairs.
PICKTHAL: Allah is Creator of all things, and He is Guardian over all things.
SHAKIR: Allah is the Creator of every thing and He has charge over every thing.

039.052
YUSUFALI: Know they not that Allah enlarges the provision or restricts it, for any He pleases? Verily, in this are Signs for those who believe!
PICKTHAL: Know they not that Allah enlargeth providence for whom He will, and straiteneth it (for whom He will). Lo! herein verily are portents for people who believe.
SHAKIR: Do they not know that Allah makes ample the means of subsistence to whom He pleases, and He straitens; most surely there are signs in this for a people who believe."

Praise Allah!

You can't have it both ways you know.

And we've so been over this before. :bugeye:

You can't have it both ways you know.

And we've so been over this before.

Yes, we have, with the inevitable conclusion that Muhammedism contradicts itself, over and over and over...

Yes, we have, with the inevitable conclusion that Muhammedism contradicts itself, over and over and over...

Interesting how you copy paste a couple of verses from here and there and expect them to represent the ideology and philosophy of a whole religion. In translation.

But then, people get out of religion only what they want. So you get exactly what you want. A confirmation of your beliefs. Which is all what anyone really gets out of scriptures.

Interesting how you copy paste a couple of verses from here and there and expect them to represent the ideology and philosophy of a whole religion. In translation.

Pot. Kettle. Black. Do not the parts make up the whole? Can not any one aspect of Islam stand in the face of reality?

But then, people get out of religion only what they want. So you get exactly what you want. A confirmation of your beliefs. Which is all what anyone really gets out of scriptures.

How convenient. And utter bullocks.

Pot. Kettle. Black. Do not the parts make up the whole? Can not any one aspect of Islam stand in the face of reality?

Well if it doesn't it will eventually diminish, so again there is no cause for concern

How convenient. And utter bullocks.
You did not find confirmation of your beliefs? Then I was mistaken.

Well if it doesn't it will eventually diminish, so again there is no cause for concern

Thank you for your vote of confidence, but since you are a pseudo-Muslim yourself, I have serious doubts as to there not being concerns.

Then I was mistaken.

Yes, you are, were and will continue to be.

Thank you for your vote of confidence, but since you are a pseudo-Muslim yourself, I have serious doubts as to there not being concerns.




So if I have a positive view of the religion, I must be a pseudo-Muslim. And to be a "good" Muslim, I must be an extremist. All this is based on your idea of what Islam and religion MUST be. It could not possibly be otherwise because you don't believe in it.

Yes, you are, were and will continue to be.

With convoluted reasoning like that, I'm not surprised.:rolleyes:

So if I have a positive view of the religion, I must be a pseudo-Muslim. And to be a "good" Muslim, I must be an extremist. All this is based on your idea of what Islam and religion MUST be. It could not possibly be otherwise because you don't believe in it.

It's wonderful how you twist what you read, does that help you when you try and translate Islamic scriptures, too? Or, is it just a side-effect of reading the Quran?

With convoluted reasoning like that, I'm not surprised.

You said it, not me, but I completely agree.

It's wonderful how you twist what you read, does that help you when you try and translate Islamic scriptures, too? Or, is it just a side-effect of reading the Quran?

You said it, not me, but I completely agree.

*yawn* was there a point in there somewhere?

*yawn* was there a point in there somewhere?

Yes, but as usual, you missed it.

Yes, but as usual, you missed it.

I do believe you're trolling, sweetheart! You must be really bored!:p

I do believe you're trolling, sweetheart! You must be really bored!

No, just responding to one.

Strange that I copied/pasted quotes from the Quran that state one should beat their wives, and you consider that trolling, in a thread about wife beating?

Curious.

Strange that I copied/pasted quotes from the Quran that state one should beat their wives, and you consider that trolling, in a thread about wife beating?

Curious.

Did you copy paste it from the Quran or a translation of the Quran?

And yes unless you want to tell me why my explanation of the verse makes me a pseudo-Muslim based on objective evaluation of the translation, you most certainly are trolling. :bugeye:

Then let me indoctrine you some more: :p

The Disbelievers (http://www.jamiat.org.za/kids/suras/surah_al_kafiroon.html)

However, those phrases are also abrogated by Sura 9, which was revealed later.

However, those phrases are also abrogated by Sura 9, which was revealed later.

sez who?

Did you copy paste it from the Quran or a translation of the Quran?

Didn't I provide the link?

And yes unless you want to tell me why my explanation of the verse makes me a pseudo-Muslim based on objective evaluation of the translation, you most certainly are trolling

Whose objective evaluation, yours?

Didn't I provide the link?

Which proves what?
What decides which is one is right?


Whose objective evaluation, yours?


No yours. Why don't you look at both translations and let me know if both are equally plausible; in which case, you could also let me know which one you think is more likely to be correct? Seeing as you're such an expert?

sez who?

Sez Allah.

Sura 2: 106 None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?

"But" in this case having the obvious meaning of "unless".

Sez Allah.



"But" in this case having the obvious meaning of "unless".

Sura 2: 106 None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?

The word is aayaateen which means complete verses or revelations, so its not applicable within the Quran. It indicates abrogation of earlier revelations.

I wish people would stop using the internet as an Arabic translation resource for the Quran.:bugeye:

I wish people would stop using the internet as an Arabic translation resource for the Quran.

Pot. Kettle. Black. Again.

Pot. Kettle. Black. Again.

Booyah!:p

Then let me indoctrine you some more: :p

The Disbelievers (http://www.jamiat.org.za/kids/suras/surah_al_kafiroon.html)Whoever obeys the Messenger, he has indeed obeyed Allah; and as for he who turns away, We have not sent you [O Muhammad!] as a keeper over them (4.80). Therefore do [O Muhammad!] remind [with the Message that We revealed to you], for you are only a reminder (88.21). You are not a controller over them (88.22). But if they turn away, then We have not sent you [O Muhammad!] as a keeper over them; only deliverance [of the Message] is your duty (from 42.48). And if you [O disbelievers!] deny [the truth], then nations before you did indeed deny [the truth]; and nothing is incumbent on the Messenger other than plain deliverance [of the Message] (29.18).


Who are these individuals? Or is this a case of the Royal "we"?

Who are these individuals? Or is this a case of the Royal "we"?

There is no explanation why "We" and "I" used interchangeably in the qur'an.

There is an obeservation however, to differentiate these first singular and first plural usages, which :
- When the verse is focusing or directing to god itself, it's character, or intention, or decision, or possession, then 'I', NORMALLY first singular is used.
- When the verse is using active transitive verb, which has interaction and direct effects to creatures (the verse is more directing to the predicates or the objects), NORMALLY "We" is used.

I said normally, I didn't say always. I haven't made scrutiny check word by word, just random observation here and there.

The word is aayaateen which means complete verses or revelations, so its not applicable within the Quran. It indicates abrogation of earlier revelations.

I wish people would stop using the internet as an Arabic translation resource for the Quran.:bugeye:

Well, I regret to say that what I indicate is indeed used by Arabic speakers themselves to refute peace with the kufr - Wahhabis being the most notable. Perhaps the good people of Saudi Arabia do not understand Arabic so fully as thee, Samwise?

Well, I regret to say that what I indicate is indeed used by Arabic speakers themselves to refute peace with the kufr - Wahhabis being the most notable. Perhaps the good people of Saudi Arabia do not understand Arabic so fully as thee, Samwise?

But they also claim to belong to Hanafi madhab and thus ahlus sunnah wal Jamaah, which is the majority opinion and does not subscribe to abrogation of verses. They really should make up their minds huh?:)

Unless of course YOU believe that Wahabbism is the best model of Islam and should be promoted worldwide?

But they also claim to belong to Hanafi madhab and thus ahlus sunnah wal Jamaah, which is the majority opinion and does not subscribe to abrogation of verses. They really should make up their minds huh?:)

Unless of course YOU believe that Wahabbism is the best model of Islam and should be promoted worldwide?

The abrogation does tend to get taken a little...loosely...in that they tend to go for it wherever it allows beating on people. So, as others have said, the Quran allows a range of possibilities when dealing with "the other" that do indeed get used to the advantage of the believer. One could ascribe interpretation or the failure of collective heirarchy to this, but at the same time the Christian churches are not uniformly integrated either and they do not endorse violence, or not in any significant quantity. One might argue that the failure of separation between mosque and state is to blame. In that case, I must take mosque to task, since state is based on the truest of human convictions: selfishness. No philosophy has managed to convince humans aside from that particular meme.

(Exceptions, notable arguments and ad homeinem attacks on my person in vengeance or exception of this point may be posted here____________________________________________)

Anyway, far from believing that Wahhabism is the best one worldwide, I deplore it. But they have a belief system, and the other side no collectively reasonable answer, and no support. And how far is the leadership of islam from them anyway? Is the President of al-Ahzar closer to you or Riyadh in his beliefs? How about the Ayatollah? The MCB? CAIR? The islamic parties of Pakistan? I appreciate that these views are termed "extreme" and not party to that "vast majority of moderates" in the ummah, but at the same time those views carry on and if they are attacked, there seems to be a certain tribalist mentality that turns a blind eye to their message on the basis of inclusion. Demographic mass has it's own inertia, you know, and I for one am not willing to wait.

and the other side no collectively reasonable answer

Would you prefer an organised worldwide hierarchy controlled by a few people?

Like a Caliphate, telling all Muslims worldwide how they should behave and react?

"Beware of what you want for you may get it" :)

Hmm...ups and downs. Hard to say.