Paedophilia in Islam

4. I dont need religion to teach me any of that. When I realised that God doesnt exist, it instilled in me a greater desire to help the needy as I realised that only we humans are here to help each other.

Meanwhile Islam teaches me some good things which admittedly I dont have cuz I am not a muslim.

- Women are just inferior *****s

- The non-believers should be be-headed

- An apostate of Islam should be killed

- You can beat your wife no problem

- In a victorious war you can rape the women of the conquered land as much as you want but dont do it all night as it may become too stressful for them

- Muslims are your brothers but non-muslims dont matter

Are all fantastic things. What a world I dont live in.:(

5. Getting irritated by something is an impulse action, it can happen to anyone. Having sex with a 9 year old multiple times is a fully conscious decision. Sorry ghoklebutter you really shouldnt be an apologetic about this. Muhammad is declared as THE model for all times, there is no running away from this. Pedophilia is something unacceptable for such an extraordinary claim of ultimate model.

Gambler_3

No censor-bypassing.

1. I wasn't saying religion is better than lack thereof. I just mentioned the teachings of Islam, that's all.

2. Misquoting verses and hadiths, lacking knowledge in Arabic, and using broad generalizations sure are fun to use when studying Islam. I would have to agree.

3. You don't seem to understand. This was the 7th century, you cannot apply that action to today's standards. Just because he's considered a great role model doesn't mean you have to do everything he did. Some vegetarians can call Muhammad evil because he ate meat from time to time. The problem though is that almost no one in Arabia was vegetarian.

Ok Metalgear, I'll try.

 Ghokle you should go back, read and respond to all of Sanitarium's posts.

Ok Metalgear, I'll try.

 Ghokle you should go back, read and respond to all of Sanitarium's posts.

 

 

Maxstar1

Why should I? He made the same points you made.

What has changed between then and now to mean that we can behave differently? Why is it that your cultural background thinks incest is wrong, when people elsewhere in the world feel no problem in following the absolute word of the Quran and marrying young?

Who decides what we can do differently to Mohammad?

What has changed between then and now to mean that we can behave differently? Why is it that your cultural background thinks incest is wrong, when people elsewhere in the world feel no problem in following the absolute word of the Quran and marrying young?

Who decides what we can do differently to Mohammad?

 

RationalAtheist

I don't know why the culture was different back then, since I can't pin down what the exact origin is.

People change, times change.

No censor-bypassing.

ghoklebutter

Just because he's considered a great role modelghoklebutter

Seriously ghoklebutter how come you are such a staunch defender of Islam when you arent even sure what you believe in? One day you are louding the tafsir for having saved you from being an apostate and the next day you call the tafsir a biased joke.

Why havent you converted to judaism since you realised that the tafsir decieved you?

I believe you actually lied about the whole tafsir being biased thing as you were pinned in a corner with the pedophilia debate and had to surrender your tafsir.

If you are in a phase of doubtfulness than I can understand your position. I also used to defend Islam very late even when I was no longer actually a muslim, the biasedness in the debates had still not evaded me and I often ended up defending Islam. I couldnt just accept and just couldnt stomach seeing myself speaking against Islam. 

There is a big difference between great model and perfect ultimate model. It is seriously annoying how you intentionally ignore things.:roll:

Seriously ghoklebutter how come you are such a staunch defender of Islam when you arent even sure what you believe in? One day you are louding the tafsir for having saved you from being an apostate and the next day you call the tafsir a biased joke.

Why havent you converted to judaism since you realised that the tafsir decieved you?

I believe you actually lied about the whole tafsir being biased thing as you were pinned in a corner with the pedophilia debate and had to surrender your tafsir.

If you are in a phase of doubtfulness than I can understand your position. I also used to defend Islam very late even when I was no longer actually a muslim, the biasedness in the debates had still not evaded me and I often ended up defending Islam. I couldnt just accept and just couldnt stomach seeing myself speaking against Islam. 

Gambler_3

1. Intentionally? It's like you think I'm trying to decieve you.

2. I trusted the tafsirs for a very long time. I just admitted that you were right about the tafsirs being biased. I don't like switching between stances. Granted I gave a referrence to Yusuf Ali's tafsir but that was because everyone else was using tafsirs. I don't hate the tafsirs either but they tend to sugarcoat things. The only scholars I really trust are the converts because they tend to know about Islam more than the born Muslims. I like sufi-sunni scholars as well.

3. I wouldn't say that I'm doubtful but a lot of things are not clear to me. Hopefully I'll find the answers in the future.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

What has changed between then and now to mean that we can behave differently? Why is it that your cultural background thinks incest is wrong, when people elsewhere in the world feel no problem in following the absolute word of the Quran and marrying young?

Who decides what we can do differently to Mohammad?

 

ghoklebutter

I don't know why the culture was different back then, since I can't pin down what the exact origin is.

People change, times change.

Beliefs change too. Why are you believing in beliefs 1400 years old? Times change, right?

By the way quoting from what you said earlier:

-This is a pretty good indication that hurting a woman is not allowed

Quran 4:34 asks a man to beat his wife if she doesnt obey him. But wait if I got the Quran verse to show you and 11 Islamic scholars you would still insist thats not what the Quran says because it was talking about a man beating his wife in chess or something.

4:34 was something that Sanitarium brought up too and you didnt respond to that too. Let me just ask you: how do you know that Muhammad was telling the truth when he said he was getting messages from God?

Beliefs change too. Why are you believing in beliefs 1400 years old? Times change, right?

By the way quoting from what you said earlier:

-This is a pretty good indication that hurting a woman is not allowed

Quran 4:34 asks a man to beat his wife if she doesnt obey him. But wait if I got the Quran verse to show you and 11 Islamic scholars you would still insist thats not what the Quran says because it was talking about a man beating his wife in chess or something.

4:34 was something that Sanitarium brought up too and you didnt respond to that too. Let me just ask you: how do you know that Muhammad was telling the truth when he said he was getting messages from God?

Maxstar1

I'm not talking about the validity of religion right now, I'm talking about the teachings.

I didn't talk about 4:34 because that had nothing to do with the topic. But if you insist...

I spent some time on this:

Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has made one of them to excel the other, and because they spend (to support them) from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient (to Allah and to their husbands), and guard in the husbands absence what Allah orders them to guard (e.g. their chastity, their husbands property, etc.). As to those women on whose part you see illconduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful), but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance). Surely, Allah is Ever Most High, Most Great. 4:34

The verb there is DaRaBa (daad-raa-baa) which means "to beat". The verb also means to set-apart, to separate, to go forth, to beat a drum, and many other meanings. In this verse it is "idribuhunna" which means "beat them (f pl.)".

Nushuz is "rebellious" in this verse. It also means "recalcitrance", or (from my dictionary) "Marked by stubborn resistance to and defiance of authority or guidance."

In the context of the above verse the most appropriate meaning for nushuz is "marital discord" (ill-will, animosity etc), and for "idribuhunna" is "to separate" or "to part".   Otherwise, it is inviting the likelihood of a divorce without any reconciliation procedure.  Such a step would blatantly contravene the Qur'anic guidance shown in verse 4:35 below.  Therefore, a more accurate and consistent translation of the above verse would be:

As to those women on whose animosity or ill-will you have reason to fear, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) separate...

Adding to weight to this interpretation:

O you who believe! You are forbidden to inherit women against their will, and you should not treat them with harshness, that you may take away part of the Mahr you have given them, unless they commit open illegal sexual intercourse. And live with them honourably. If you dislike them, it may be that you dislike a thing and Allah brings through it a great deal of good. 4:19

And if a woman fears cruelty or desertion on her husbands part, there is no sin on them both if they make terms of peace between themselves; and making peace is better. And human inner-selves are swayed by greed. But if you do good and keep away from evil, verily, Allah is Ever Well-Acquainted with what you do. 4:128

Unless the wife doesn't mind getting beaten up by her husband (in a bad way, of course), this totally contradicts the interpretation of wife-beating.

The commentators and translators experience problems with the verb "DaRaBa" in the Qur'an not just in this verse but in others, as it is used in different contexts in ways which appear ambiguous and open to widely different translations into English.  "DaRaBa" can be translated in more than a hundred different ways. Go look up an Arabic dictionary and you'll see.

The translation of adribu as 'to strike' in this particular verse (4:34) is founded upon nothing more than: The authority of hadiths (Abu Daud 2141 and Mishkat Al-Masabih 0276) that this is what "idribuhunna" means in this context. 

Also, the prejudices and environment of the early commentators of the Qur'an which led them to assume that 'to strike', given the overall context of the verse, was the most likely interpretation of the many possible interpretations of "DaRaBa".

Supporting hadith:

"He who believe in Allah and the Hereafter, if he witnesses any matter he should talk in good terms about it or kep quiet. Act kindly towards women, for woman was created from a rib, and the most crooked part of the rib is its top. If you attempt to straighten it, you will break it, and if you leave it, its crookedness will remain there. So act kindly towards women." Sahih Muslim

This is my evidence that wife-beating is not allowed.

Answering-christianity is not a hateful site. It was created in response to answering-islam which is a christian site dedicated to attack Islam.

[QUOTE="Maxstar1"]

Its funny by the way when Muslims find faults in Christianity when it was just another religion revealed by ALLAH.

Gambler_3

And from what I have seen, the site mostly attacks christians by finding double standards in their arguments. Like a christian can never attack muhammad for being a pedo as the All-Holy Mary married a 90 year old when she was just 12.:shock:

That' absolute BS. Answering Christianity uses 2nd century AD non-canonical (not considered to be Christian scripture) writings, to 'prove' their point, while Muhammad's pedophilia is taken from Sahih Bukari (which is second only to the Qur'an for reliabilty among 90% of all Muslims) If you click on the "source" they provide, it says " the non-admittance of these works into the Canon of the Sacred Books casts a strong suspicion upon their contents"

Unlike Muhammad, Joseph is not considered the uswa hasana (perfect human). Joseph's moral character holds no importance within Christian theology. He could have been insane axe murderer and it would not matter to a Christian. Moreover, according to both the Christian scriptures and the Islamic ones, Mary was a virgin when she conceived and gave birth to Jesus; therefore, her relationship with Joseph was not a sexual one until after the birth of Christ, if ever. In fact, Mary's Perpetual virginity is an essential article of faith for the majority of Christians (including the Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Christians), and the same non-canonical writings which are used to gather information on Joseph and Mary's age, also confirm Mary's status as "ever virgin" (in "The History of Joseph the Carpenter", Jesus says on Joseph's death "my mother, virgin undefiled") , thus completely destroying the argument (which is a crappy tu quoque logical fallacy, anyways).

Well well it looks as if this thread has attracted a few new contributors. Welcome to Gamespot and the atheism union Ibn_Kaafir. Hello also to Sanitarium1 and Maxstar1.

Keep at it folks. This isn't my area of expertise (or interest for that matter) but it seems like there's lots of good discussion going on.

2. I don't know, but rules are rules. Maybe I'm misguided but I learned the very rules with negation (lam and laa) when I was studying Arabic. Just because they are great scholars doesn't mean that they are perfect you know.
ghoklebutter

3. Pretty much every single scholar and every Imam I asked said that Ibn Ishaq's ahadith are mostly corrupted.
ghoklebutter

4. Well I wasn't aware that he did that. I was just giving you an example. I'm not cherry picking scholars, so if I am then I apologize. Muhammad Al-Ghazzali is another scholar who said such about those verses.
ghoklebutter

5. I understand that. I appreciate debating with you since you aren't filled with hate and you use logical arguments compared to many other "scholars".
ghoklebutter

I don't speak full Arabic, but I at least know how negation (and the negative particles) works in Arabic. I'm learning a bit of both since I'm taking this extra course for Qur'an exegesis and normal everyday talk.
ghoklebutter

1. Let me elaborate. I certainly don't know as much as the scholars. I found MYSELF that translating part 65:4 as "and those who never menstruate" is wrong because lam is used, not laa! Prove me wrong grammatically, don't tell me about 10 scholars and their opinions. Give me evidence that I'm wrong about the negation.
ghoklebutter

The tafsirs basically fooled me. They tried to sugarcoat things but they failed. They're all biased. For the longest time I have relied on tafsirs. You yourself made a point that the tafsirs were biased. I denied it since I was trying to be a goody-goody Muslim. But after awhile I realized that the tafsirs were a joke.
ghoklebutter

I'm sorry but it appears that no one has won. You still have yet to prove that the usage of lam in that verse translates as "never".
ghoklebutter

The truth is, if this translation of 65:4 is grammatically incorrect, so are those scholars. ghoklebutter

If you read the Arabic, you'll see these two translations are wrong. There is no indication of "yet" in the verse, if "yet" was there it would be:

Wa-al-la'iy lam yahidna ba'd

As for the second one, it is also incorrect. If it was, however, it would say this in Arabic:

Wa-al-la'iy laa tahidna

So these two translations are incorrect. Prove me wrong.
ghoklebutter

The culture was different back then. There is no reason to judge everything that he did by today's standards. Do you think that the whole world set the standard age of marriage at 18 from the beginning of time?
ghoklebutter

Why should I? He made the same points you made.
ghoklebutter

The verb there is DaRaBa (daad-raa-baa) which means "to beat". The verb also means to set-apart, to separate, to go forth, to beat a drum, and many other meanings. In this verse it is "idribuhunna" which means "beat them (f pl.)".
ghoklebutter

And if a woman fears cruelty or desertion on her husbands part, there is no sin on them both if they make terms of peace between themselves; and making peace is better. And human inner-selves are swayed by greed. But if you do good and keep away from evil, verily, Allah is Ever Well-Acquainted with what you do. 4:128
ghoklebutter

This is my evidence that wife-beating is not allowed.
ghoklebutter

That' absolute BS. Answering Christianity uses 2nd century AD non-canonical (not considered to be Christian scripture) writings, to 'prove' their point, while Muhammad's pedophilia is taken from Sahih Bukari (which is second only to the Qur'an for reliabilty among 90% of all Muslims) If you click on the "source" they provide, it says " the non-admittance of these works into the Canon of the Sacred Books casts a strong suspicion upon their contents"

Unlike Muhammad, Joseph is not considered the uswa hasana (perfect human). Joseph's moral character holds no importance within Christian theology. He could have been insane axe murderer and it would not matter to a Christian. Moreover, according to both the Christian scriptures and the Islamic ones, Mary was a virgin when she conceived and gave birth to Jesus; therefore, her relationship with Joseph was not a sexual one until after the birth of Christ, if ever. In fact, Mary's Perpetual virginity is an essential article of faith for the majority of Christians (including the Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Christians), and the same non-canonical writings which are used to gather information on Joseph and Mary's age, also confirm Mary's status as "ever virgin" (in "The History of Joseph the Carpenter", Jesus says on Joseph's death "my mother, virgin undefiled") , thus completely destroying the argument (which is a crappy tu quoque logical fallacy, anyways).

Ibn_Kaafir

Yes I agree, it doesn't mean that they are perfect. But here's the problem - to find this many scholars who all say the EXACT same thing? If they're all mistaken in the exact same way, it's a heck of a coincidence, don't you agree?

Good point. But like I said it's just their opinion. They only became famous because they all made commentaries on the Qur'an.

The Arabic has been analysed in the article on WikiIslam - here is a portion of it for you:

The imperfective aspect, by itself lacks any tense feature. The tensed negatives like lam ( 4;َ5;ْ  ) (negation in past tense), lan ( 4;6; ) (negation in future tense), laa ( 4;َ ) (negation in present tense) combined with imperfectives decide the tense in this case.

Thus lam Yadrus = He did not study.

In the verse 65:4, Lam Yaĥiđna = 'those who did not menstruate'.

Further the imperfective verb in the context of lam ( 4;َ5;ْ ) (past tensed negatives) is in the Jussive mood.

So the article does not ignore lan/laa, but goes through each point.

To my view, it seems that you have seen the tafsirs, and you do not like them, so you discard them. You have seen the ahadith on this issue, and you do not like them, so you discard them. Now you are arguing what you perceive to be a technicality, all the while ignoring all the evidence to the contrary.

Is it really true that you think your scholars are truly wrong on this, or is it that you are uncomfortable with what they have to say about 65:4?

I didn't discard the hadiths or the tafsirs, but everyone knows that they are the least accurate sources (they still have importance though).

Well the problem is not that Ishaq is corrupted, but that Ishaq did not use Bukhari's criteria (because Bukhari collected hundreds of years later) so Ishaq as a whole is not considered "Sahih." This is not to say it's all "corrupt", but that usually there is no isnad - and this is where you gotta bring in the 'hadith science' to work out the status for different narrations. I think 'corrupt' is also the wrong word to use - it's not like someone came along and changed Ishaq's work (Ishaq's manuscript was lost in its entirety) but portions of it still exist in Tabari (who quoted from it when compiling his collection). I agree that one should not trust Guilliame's translation of Hisham's work (the life of Muhammad) because that HAS been corrupted because it has been censored, padded out and of course translated "nicely."

Thanks for elaborating.

[QUOTE="Ibn_Kaafir"]

That' absolute BS. Answering Christianity uses 2nd century AD non-canonical (not considered to be Christian scripture) writings, to 'prove' their point, while Muhammad's pedophilia is taken from Sahih Bukari (which is second only to the Qur'an for reliabilty among 90% of all Muslims) If you click on the "source" they provide, it says " the non-admittance of these works into the Canon of the Sacred Books casts a strong suspicion upon their contents"

Unlike Muhammad, Joseph is not considered the uswa hasana (perfect human). Joseph's moral character holds no importance within Christian theology. He could have been insane axe murderer and it would not matter to a Christian. Moreover, according to both the Christian scriptures and the Islamic ones, Mary was a virgin when she conceived and gave birth to Jesus; therefore, her relationship with Joseph was not a sexual one until after the birth of Christ, if ever. In fact, Mary's Perpetual virginity is an essential article of faith for the majority of Christians (including the Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Christians), and the same non-canonical writings which are used to gather information on Joseph and Mary's age, also confirm Mary's status as "ever virgin" (in "The History of Joseph the Carpenter", Jesus says on Joseph's death "my mother, virgin undefiled") , thus completely destroying the argument (which is a crappy tu quoque logical fallacy, anyways).

Gambler_3

And (assuming there is) how does that effect anyone's ability to criticise the founder of Islam?

[QUOTE="Sanitarium1"]

Oh cool so you're learning! Congratulations! However the problem I see is that the article has cited TWO Arabic dictionaries and this is where we get the meaning of the words/verse; Lane's Lexicon & (from the footnote on the article): Elabbas Benmamoun, Arabic morphology: The central role of the imperfective, Lingua 108 (1999) 175-201

I use the Hahns Weir dictionary.

You have already been proven wrong. From "Lane's Lexicon of Quranic Words and phrases" (clas-sical arabic Dictionary):

Lam = 4;
lam = Negative particle giving to the present the sense of the perfect; not.


So on the one hand, we have a highly respected ****ical Arabic (language of the Quran) dictionary, and on the other hand we have what you say. I'm sorry, but if I had to take the authority of one or the other, I'd take the dictionary.

I trust that the dictionary is good. However, it's not very clear on what lam is used for. That's why I use Hahn's Weir so that I can see some examples of the word in the sentence:

"lam"; not ("lam yaktubu") he did not write...

According to the examples it's clear that lam changes the tense of the verb.

Maybe I was wrong with "those who did not menstruate yet", but it doesn't really indicate that those women never menstruated either. It seems that this verse is ordering the women who haven't had a regular menstruation yet to wait three months before marriage. Hence why the translation says "yet".

I'd be very interested in what you mean by saying the tafsirs are "biased" - can you please elaborate?

I guess it's because they are very opinionated. I still use them I but take them with a grain of salt.

Why do we have to do that? The WikiIslam articles does NOT posit that the translation SAYS that in the first place! Here from the Wiki article:

In the verse 65:4, Lam Yaĥiđna = 'those who did not menstruate'.

It's the ACCOMPANYING information - the tafsirs, the ahadith & Quran 2:228 that make it clear WHO the verse is referring to (peri/post menopausal, pre-pubescent and pregnant). But I guess if you dump all that evidence in the bin then you are free to say it means anything you like.

See above reply.

You appear to have misread the article, or think we're (at WikiIslam) saying something that we are not. We do NOT say the translation of the verse says "never" - so unfortunately you need to find a new argument.

I have realized that.

http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Beat_your_wives_or_%22separate_from_them%22%3F

it is NOT "separate from them" because Quran 4:35 SAYS SEPARATE FROM THEM.

Quite frankly I don't care WHAT justifcations you're going to spin for this. GOD saying "beat your wife" under ANY circumstances is WRONG. But hey, you go ahead and justify it to yourself there. Hope you make yourself feel better.

The Qur'an also reiterrates statements a lot.

This verse has nothing to do with men's "rights" in a marriage - it was "revealed" regarding the Muhammad and Sawda situation - she gave up some of her OWN rights in order to appease Muhammad and avoid being divorced. Fair, right? (NOT):
http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Unjust_treatment_of_wives

That verse is a general statement that if the wive fears ill-treatment (notice: just how the husband fears"disobedience") from her husband, she can temporarliy move out. This is contradictory to the interpretation of beating. But I must tell you that this interpretation of mine (that wive beating isn't allowed) isn't what I'm really trying to get accross.

Read the article I gave above please. Also, would you like the ahadith showing beating IS allowed? Muhamamd even hit Aisha (his favourite wife).

About Aisha being pushed by Muhammad, he used to have an anger problem in his life due to stress (from being a prophet and all). So I'm guessing he did it out of frustration. This makes sense because this marriage happened during the early days of Islam. Eventually he became a very calm person and got rid of his anger problem. He also said that "the strongest man is not the one who is strong (in strength), but the one who controls his anger". There are other hadiths where he warned against becoming angry and furious with lack of self control. Also, except for a few incidents (in the early days of Islam), Muhammad never hurt his wives. Which brings me to another point...

Many scholars agree that "wife-beating" should only be done with a miswak (thumb-length, tree branch toothbrush) so that it's more of a sign of impatience rather than a full-out physical punishment. It's sort of like me tapping someone's arm with an object in such a way to deliver a message signifying impatience. Also, considering that (mindless) anger is not allowed in Islam, it couldn't possibly hurt at all.

Muhammad may have allowed this, but he also disapproved of it. In other words it is Makruh (disapproved). He said that the best among you (men) are the one's who don't hurt their wives. He also said "how do you sleep with your wife after beating her like an animal?". He also commanded husbands not to hurt their wives. 

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"][QUOTE="Ibn_Kaafir"]

That' absolute BS. Answering Christianity uses 2nd century AD non-canonical (not considered to be Christian scripture) writings, to 'prove' their point, while Muhammad's pedophilia is taken from Sahih Bukari (which is second only to the Qur'an for reliabilty among 90% of all Muslims) If you click on the "source" they provide, it says " the non-admittance of these works into the Canon of the Sacred Books casts a strong suspicion upon their contents"

Unlike Muhammad, Joseph is not considered the uswa hasana (perfect human). Joseph's moral character holds no importance within Christian theology. He could have been insane axe murderer and it would not matter to a Christian. Moreover, according to both the Christian scriptures and the Islamic ones, Mary was a virgin when she conceived and gave birth to Jesus; therefore, her relationship with Joseph was not a sexual one until after the birth of Christ, if ever. In fact, Mary's Perpetual virginity is an essential article of faith for the majority of Christians (including the Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Christians), and the same non-canonical writings which are used to gather information on Joseph and Mary's age, also confirm Mary's status as "ever virgin" (in "The History of Joseph the Carpenter", Jesus says on Joseph's death "my mother, virgin undefiled") , thus completely destroying the argument (which is a crappy tu quoque logical fallacy, anyways).

Ibn_Kaafir

And (assuming there is) how does that effect anyone's ability to criticise the founder of Islam?

Because it's hypocritical. 

Because it's hypocritical.

ghoklebutter

No it is not. To be hypocritical, you need to show evidence that Jesus was a pedophile. Only then would it be hypocritical for a Christian to criticise the founder of Islam for being a pedophile.

Ok Metalgear, I'll try.

Maxstar1

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]

No censor-bypassing.

Gambler_3

Hello Ghokle

- The verb there is DaRaBa (daad-raa-baa) which means "to beat". The verb also means to set-apart, to separate, to go forth, to beat a drum, and many other meanings. In this verse it is "idribuhunna" which means "beat them (f pl.)".

Yes you got it. Thats what the verse says. This is why all famous translators have translated the verse to mean "beat them". You also have to look at other places where the word is used and as you say, the context has to be considered:

http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Beat_your_wives_or_%22separate_from_them%22%3F (same link as given by Sanitatirum already)

In addition, as Sani said, 4:35 already talks about "seperate from them". Sure Quran repeats itself but you have to look at verses before and after. If I said something in spanish and two people translated it to "1. It is raining and water is falling down" and "2. It is raining and it is also raining", then #2 makes more sense. And then when you have multiple translators agreeing with each other, then the meaning is confirmed. These translators knew arabic, trust me.

- Many scholars agree that "wife-beating" should only be done with a miswak (thumb-length, tree branch toothbrush) so that it's more of a sign of impatience rather than a full-out physical punishment. It's sort of like me tapping someone's arm with an object in such a way to deliver a message signifying impatience. Also, considering that (mindless) anger is not allowed in Islam, it couldn't possibly hurt at all.

So you ignore 11 Islamic scholars who explained 65:4 and say they are all wrong but you listen to those who say its to beat a wife with a misvak. You're picking and choosing again. Tapping a wife with misvak? What woman in her right mind today in 2009 would be OK with her husband "tapping" her lightly with miswak? Islam is a religion for all times.

- About Aisha being pushed by Muhammad, he used to have an anger problem in his life due to stress (from being a prophet and all). So I'm guessing he did it out of frustration. This makes sense because this marriage happened during the early days of Islam. Eventually he became a very calm person and got rid of his anger problem.

Interesting that you think Muhammad had an anger problem. I would ask you for hadith and evidence of that but you will never give me any. If you did I would consider myself lucky. Muhammad was a false prophet. When he told people he was getting messages from God, he was simply lying.

Supporting hadith that directly mention wife beating (and beating up of women in general):

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Muhammad struck Aisha:

Abu Bakr struck Aisha

Narrated 'Aisha: (the wife of the Prophet) We set out with Allahs Apostle on one of his journeys till we reached Al-Baida' or Dhatul-Jaish, a necklace of mine was broken (and lost). Allah's Apostle stayed there to search for it, and so did the people along with him. There was no water at that place, so the people went to Abu- Bakr As-Siddiq and said, "Don't you see what 'Aisha has done? She has made Allah's Apostle and the people stay where there is no water and they have no water with them." Abu Bakr came while Allah's Apostle was sleeping with his head on my thigh, He said, to me: "You have detained Allah's Apostle and the people where there is no water and they have no water with them.

So he admonished me and said what Allah wished him to say and hit me on my flank with his hand. Nothing prevented me from moving (because of pain) but the position of Allah's Apostle on my thigh. Allah's Apostle got up when dawn broke and there was no water. So Allah revealed the Divine Verses of Tayammum. So they all performed Tayammum. Usaid bin Hudair said, "O the family of Abu Bakr! This is not the first blessing of yours." Then the camel on which I was riding was caused to move from its place and the necklace was found beneath it. - Sahih Bukhari 1:7:330

Narrated Aisha: A necklace of mine was lost at Al-Baida' and we were on our way to Medina. The Prophet made his camel kneel down and dismounted and laid his head on my lap and slept. Abu Bakr came to me and hit me violently on the chest and said, "You have detained the people because of a necklace." I kept as motionless as a dead person because of the position of Allah's Apostle ; (on my lap) although Abu Bakr had hurt me (with the slap). Then the Prophet woke up and it was the time for the morning (prayer). Water was sought, but in vain; so the following Verse was revealed:-- "O you who believe! When you intend to offer prayer.." (5.6) Usaid bin Hudair said, "Allah has blessed the people for your sake, O the family of Abu Bakr. You are but a blessing for them." - Sahih Bukhari 6:60:132 

Muhammad allowed for Abu Bakr to slap Aisha

Jabir b. 'Abdullah (Allah be pleased with them) reported: Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) came and sought permission to see Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him). He found people sitting at his door and none amongst them had been granted permission, but it was granted to Abu Bakr and he went in. Then came 'Umar and he sought permission and it was granted to him, and he found Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) sitting sad and silent with his wives around him. He (Hadrat 'Umar) said: I would say something which would make the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) laugh, so he said: Messenger of Allah, I wish you had seen (the treatment meted out to) the daughter ofKhadija when you asked me some money, and I got up and slapped her on her neck. Allah's Messenger (mav peace be upon him) laughed and said: They are around me as you see, asking for extra money. Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) then got up went to 'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) and slapped her on the neck, and 'Umar stood up before Hafsa and slapped her saying: You ask Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) which he does not possess. They said: By Allah, we do not ask Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) for anything he does not possess. Then he withdrew from them for a month or for twenty-nine days. Then this verse was revealed to him:" Prophet: Say to thy wives... for a mighty reward" (xxxiii. 2 8 ). He then went first to 'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) and said: I want to propound something to you, 'A'isha, but wish no hasty reply before you consult your parents. She said: Messenger of Allah, what is that? He (the Holy Prophet) recited to her the verse, whereupon she said: Is it about you that I should consult my parents, Messenger of Allah? Nay, I choose Allah, His Messenger, and the Last Abode; but I ask you not to tell any of your wives what I have said He replied: Not one of them will ask me without my informing her. God did not send me to be harsh, or cause harm, but He has sent me to teach and make things easy. - Sahih Muslim 9:3506

Iyas b. Abdullah reported God's messenger as saying, "Do not beat God's handmaidens;" but when `Umar came to God's messenger and said, "The women have become emboldened towards their husbands," he gave licence to beat them. Then many women went round God's messenger's family complaining of their husbands, and he said, "Many women have gone around complaining of their husbands. Those are not the best among you." Abu Dawud, Ibn Majah, and Darimi transmitted it.
Mishkat Al-Masabih: Volume 2, page 692 Yahya related to me from Malik that Abdullah ibn Dinar said, "A man came to Abdullah ibn Umar when I waswith him at the place where judgments were given and asked him about the suckling of an older person. Abdullah ibn Umar replied, 'A man came to Umar ibn al-Khattab and said, 'I have a slave-girl and I used to have intercourse with her. My wife went to her and suckled her. When I went to the girl, my wife told me to watch out, because she had suckled her!' Umar told him to beat his wife and to go to his slave-girl because kinship by suckling was only by the suckling of the young.' " - Al-Muwatta 30 2.13, See also:Al-Muwatta 30 30.213b

Muhammad Permited Muslims to Beat their Wives

Narrated Umar ibn al-Khattab: The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife.
Abu Dawud 11:2142 Sulayman Ibn `Amr Ibn al-`Ahwas narrated: "Ubai told me that he witnessed the address of departure of the prophet. He thanked God and praised him, and started preaching, saying, "I command you good-will for your wives, for they are captives to you that do not own anything, unless they commit a manifest obscenity [or adultery]. If they do [commit it], then God has given you permission to leave them alone in their beds and give them a bearable beating."

Narrated Abdullah ibn AbuDhubab: Iyas ibn Abdullah ibn AbuDhubab reported the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) as saying: Do not beat Allah's handmaidens, but when Umar came to the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) and said: Women have become emboldened towards their husbands, he (the Prophet) gave permission to beat them. Then many women came round the family of the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) complaining against their husbands. So the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) said: Many women have gone round Muhammad's family complaining against their husbands. They are not the best among you. Abu Dawud 11:2141

Allah permits you to shut them in separate rooms and to beat them, but not severely. If they abstain, they have the right to food and clothing. Treat women well for they are like domestic animals and they possess nothing themselves. Allah has made the enjoyment of their bodies lawful in his Qur'an. - Tabari:9:113 

-------------------------------------------
See more quotes like these from Islam's own sources: http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Women

Ghokle, this is my evidence that Islam condones wife-beating. I expect you to reject all of this evidence so its ok.

- A true Muslim would follow the commands of the Quran, examples of his prophet and the hadith and would not hesitate to beat his wife like in all the historical situations above in the time of Muhammad.
- A good human being would not beat up his wife
- Can a true Muslim be a good human being? I dont believe so.
- Can you remain a Muslim while disagreeing that wife-beating is wrong and (falsely thinking) that Islam doesnt support wife-beating? Sure, there are millions of Muslims around the world like that. If one doesnt believe in some parts of Islam, that doesnt mean they're not a Muslim. People pick and choose all the time and give all kinds of justifications. Thats what you've been doing throughout this thread. I'm not going to spend any more time debating with you so I wish you good luck.

Sanitarium did a GREAT job of talking about 65:4, thanks Sani!

I didn't discard the hadiths or the tafsirs, but everyone knows that they are the least accurate sources (they still have importance though).

ghoklebutter

OK firstly you ARE discarding them - you called the tafsir's 'biased' and you ignore what they say in favour of your own interpretation. The tafsir's are the 'least accurate sources'? The ahadith (Sahih) also? Since when? The tafsirs, AFAIK are second only to the Quran - the ahadith come after them.

I use the Hahns Weir dictionary.

ghoklebutter

Two things to note:

1. The Hans Wehr dictionary is a dictionary of MSA, and not clas-sical Arabic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionary_of_Modern_Written_Arabic

2. Lane's Lexicon is a Clas-sical Arabic dictionary:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic-English_Lexicon

Since the Quran is in Clas-sical Arabic and not MSA, Lane's Lexicon takes precedence over the Hans Wehr Dictionary when discussing what words/phrases mean in the Quran. Furthermore, I'd just like to state that Lane's Lexicon is THE most authoratative dictionary for clas-sical Arabic.

(sorry have to get past the censor so I have to hyphenate clas-sical).

 I trust that the dictionary is good. However, it's not very clear on what lam is used for. That's why I use Hahn's Weir so that I can see some examples of the word in the sentence:

ghoklebutter

I gave the summary of the meaning of the word. Of course you can download Lane's Lexicon in it's entirety, or page by page if you wish to have examples of the usage of any particular word as used in the Quran. let me know if you'd like the link.

Maybe I was wrong with "those who did not menstruate yet", but it doesn't really indicate that those women never menstruated either. It seems that this verse is ordering the women who haven't had a regular menstruation yet to wait three months before marriage. Hence why the translation says "yet".

ghoklebutter

Oh no I understand your point, but you have to read the entire verse to understand what it's saying. When talking about women it's clearly talking about those who do not have menstruation, I agree; but 3 specific groups:

1. Those too old

2. Those too young

3. The pregnant.

Those who DO menstruate, even IF it is irregular are ordered in Quran 2:228 to wait '3 menstrual cycles.' So it doesn't matter if their periods are erratic, they still gotta wait the 3. 65:4 is for those who have absence of menstruation entirely.

I guess it's because they are very opinionated. I still use them I but take them with a grain of salt. 

ghoklebutter

OK.

The Qur'an also reiterrates statements a lot. 

ghoklebutter

Sure, but reading 4:34-35 in context shows that it's not merely a repetition. 4:34 gives you 3 things to do if you FEAR dischord/disloyalty; so 3 'steps for resolution' if you will. THEN 4:35 says: "but if you fear a breach, then LEAVE THEM." So it's not merely a repetition but the 'last resort' if you will - divorce your wives if they don't do as you wish, you know?

That verse is a general statement that if the wive fears ill-treatment (notice: just how the husband fears"disobedience") from her husband, she can temporarliy move out. This is contradictory to the interpretation of beating. But I must tell you that this interpretation of mine (that wive beating isn't allowed) isn't what I'm really trying to get accross.

ghoklebutter

No, the article I linked to gives you the ahadith and tafsir about this. If a wife thinks her husband doesn't want her anymore and might divorce her, she can give up some of HER rights - ie right to financial support, right to sex, etc... in order to appease him. HE can accept this deal and not divorce her, OR he can divorce her anyway.

About Aisha being pushed by Muhammad, he used to have an anger problem in his life due to stress (from being a prophet and all).

ghoklebutter

It doesn't really matter. He hit his favourite wife, allowed others to beat their wives and did not prevent anyone from hitting Aisha either, etc.. 

Many scholars agree that "wife-beating" should only be done with a miswak (thumb-length, tree branch toothbrush) so that it's more of a sign of impatience rather than a full-out physical punishment. It's sort of like me tapping someone's arm with an object in such a way to deliver a message signifying impatience. Also, considering that (mindless) anger is not allowed in Islam, it couldn't possibly hurt at all.

ghoklebutter

No, it doesn't HAVE to be with a miswak - but even if it WAS, a miswak can be toothbrush size (30cm) or up to 2 metres long - and it is very similar to a green willow switch. Those REALLY HURT. The ONLY restrictions I have found so far in the ahadith re: wife beating are:

1. Don't beat your wife and then sleep with her in the same day (ie. after beating her)

2. TRY not to hit her in the face or break any bones.

So you ignore 11 Islamic scholars who explained 65:4 and say they are all wrong but you listen to those who say its to beat a wife with a misvak. You're picking and choosing again. Tapping a wife with misvak? What woman in her right mind today in 2009 would be OK with her husband "tapping" her lightly with miswak? Islam is a religion for all times.

I was just giving you a referrence. I don't follow their opinion. I don't ignore those 11 scholars either. I think they are all great scholars. But like I said, their interpetation of 65:4 seems to have some faults. 

Interesting that you think Muhammad had an anger problem. I would ask you for hadith and evidence of that but you will never give me any. If you did I would consider myself lucky. Muhammad was a false prophet. When he told people he was getting messages from God, he was simply lying.

There is no specific hadith that mentions his anger problem. But as you look through the hadiths he was generally calmer towards the end of his life than when he first became a prophet. I guess "anger problem"  was an exaggeration, but it seems that in the early days of Islam, he was somewhat irritable. Again this is just my opinion.

1. Those too old

2. Those too young

3. The pregnant.

Those who DO menstruate, even IF it is irregular are ordered in Quran 2:228 to wait '3 menstrual cycles.' So it doesn't matter if their periods are erratic, they still gotta wait the 3. 65:4 is for those who have absence of menstruation entirely.

I think there is something wrong here. Why would a 7-year-old (for instance) have to wait three months? This is why I see 65:4 as a reiterration because it's asurring that women who have unusual menstrual cycles should just waith three months. If you wanted to you could count little girls in that category, but the verse itself doesn't seem to permit it. (Though not prohibiting it.) Good point though.

Sure, but reading 4:34-35 in context shows that it's not merely a repetition. 4:34 gives you 3 things to do if you FEAR dischord/disloyalty; so 3 'steps for resolution' if you will. THEN 4:35 says: "but if you fear a breach, then LEAVE THEM." So it's not merely a repetition but the 'last resort' if you will - divorce your wives if they don't do as you wish, you know?

I see the difference between the translation of Daraba as "separate" and "separate" in 4:35 as follows:

4:34-the wife separates with her husband, i.e. interracting (and things talking, holding hands, etc.) little or none of the time with her husband. 

4:35-if there is a strong indication that the marriage is breaking apart (divorce), send two people to make a reconciliation between the husband and wife.

- I think there is something wrong here. Why would a 7-year-old (for instance) have to wait three months?

There's usually something wrong with the whole Quran. The first part of the verse says:

- Such of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the prescribed period, if ye have any doubts, is three months (65:4)

According to your logic, those who dont have any menses, why should they have to wait 3 months too? Did you not read the verse fully? Please answer that question. The answer is that Quran is not a book from God. Its a book from an arab who lived 1400 years ago and pretended to be a prophet so he could have power and sex with as many women as possible. According to atleast one Bukhari hadith he used to have sex with 9 of his wives in the same night

-4:34-the wife separates with her husband, i.e. interracting (and things talking, holding hands, etc.) little or none of the time with her husband. 

Holding hands doesnt mean beating her. The tonnes of hadith I gave you all showed that Muhammad beat his wives himself. In addition, translators translated the verse correctly (beat her, scourge her). Even your favourite Yusuf Ali said "beat her". All this "tapping her lightly with Misvak/toothbrush" stuff is fake and was invented by scholars themselves and is not mentioned in the Quran. "Tapping her lightly with a toothbrush or misvak?" Sounds like spanking or a line in a comedy standup, dont you think?

Is this wife beating order surprising? No. Once again Muhammad beat his wives. See the hadiths above that you ignored.

Everyone can see the obvious truth here, Ghokle, except you because you're still a Muslim. Gambler_3 has left Islam as you know. I hope you will too although its unlikely because of your personality. People who make attempts to hide the truth or justify something can do that to themselves to any extent therefore preventing apostasy from Islam. Most people are like that because its very hard to change faiths which is why, almost no one is able to do it.

Those who believe first in commonsense and what is right are the only ones able to leave Islam.

1. This is why the translation doesn't make sense: women who don't menstruate regularly should just wait three months instead of three mentstrual cycles. So that she doesn't have to wait a long time before getting married. But the same doesn't make sense for little children, why do they need to wait three months? They don't have menses. 

2. Thank you for completely missing the point. I never said that holding hands is a form of physical abuse. When I meant separate, I meant as in not interracting little or none of the time. If the couple holds hands and smiles, etc. that's a sign that they are in harmony with each other. Of course that isn't always true, either.

Like I've implied many times before, I don't know all of Islam, let alone Arabic. So yes I've probably contradicted myself somewhere in this topic. I don't intentionally hide the truth, at least not knowingly. I'll have to do more research on this topic. But as for now, I have learned things from you and (hopefully) vice versa. I'm done here.

- 1. This is why the translation doesn't make sense: women who don't menstruate regularly should just wait three months instead of three mentstrual cycles.

Sorry you're not qualified to reject or criticize multiple well-known translators of the Quran.

- 2. Thank you for completely missing the point. I never said that holding hands is a form of physical abuse. When I meant separate, I meant as in not interracting little or none of the time. If the couple holds hands and smiles, etc. that's a sign that they are in harmony with each other. Of course that isn't always true, either.

No, you missed the point by ditching tafsirs of 11 Islamic scholars and recognized translations of the Quran.

- So yes I've probably contradicted myself somewhere in this topic.

Most certainly, in multiple places.

- But as for now, I have learned things from you and (hopefully) vice versa. I'm done here.

Cognitive dissonance is what you're going through. You have a modern outlook on life, something that doesnt exist in the Quran. When you come across these contradictions in Islam and your own thought, the easier thing for you to do is to justify them in some way or try to make sense out of it. The harder thing is to just say: Ah, f_ this, this is all crap. I'm leaving Islam and I'm my own person from now on. Like what Gambler_3 did.

Good luck in your search for separating the truths, falsehoods and the unknowns.

Sorry you're not qualified to reject or criticize multiple well-known translators of the Quran.

Well-known=/=best. Sure they are good scholars but their opinion is not absolute.

No, you missed the point by ditching tafsirs of 11 Islamic scholars and recognized translations of the Quran.

I didn't ditch them, I recognize their tafsirs as valuable (though not unbiased), however, they are not absolute in authority. Not a single tafsir has authority over another.

Good luck in your search for separating the truths, falsehoods and the unknowns.

Ofcourse no one is perfect. But when you say someone made a mistake, you have to be specific in where they made a mistake and you have to be qualified to point out that mistake. Otherwise vague statements like "no one has absolute authority" dont mean anything. Fine, to your "misvak can be gently tapped on the woman to discipline her", to that also - those scholars also dont have absolute authority. How does it feel now?

No one has absolute authority, not even you. For you to thus say that the scholars were all wrong for 65:4 and the translators were wrong for 4:34, do you have absolute authority? No. Look at you. You're some anonymous person on the internet (like all of us) who started learning arabic a year ago and according to his own admissions:

- knows less than the scholars
- has contradicted himself: ("So yes I've probably contradicted myself somewhere in this topic." - the question is where and how? You should look into that.)

And who are these scholars and translators? They are well known scholars and figures representing knowledge of Islam - enough said. If they werent, we wouldnt be here talking about them and quoting them. So you're not even 5% qualified to reject their work or say they're all wrong. At the least you need another scholar to say that.

- I didn't ditch them, I recognize their tafsirs as valuable (though not unbiased), however, they are not absolute in authority. Not a single tafsir has authority over another.

You said they were biased and crap. That means you ditched them.

- But as for now, I have learned things from you and (hopefully) vice versa. I'm done here.

You've said you're done here so you dont need to reply to my next message if you dont want to.

Let me just clarify some things:

I have many tafsirs, but I don't use them often because they tend to be biased and opinionated.

Of course even the scholars that suggest the use of miswak are not of absolute authority. I see your point, and it's a good one at that. I just think that the translation of 65:4 is incorrect. It's only my opinion though, and your entitled to yours, obviously.

This was a good discussion, though. I appreciate your arguments.

I want to make some points here, so I'm bumping this topic. My apologies if no one wants this topic to be updated.

I'll admit that my previous arguments were flawed. I was cherry-picking scholars, and I nagged about a grammatical "error". I was very misinformed. I didn't do any research on this topic. 

Also, I DO use tafisrs for some things, but as a whole I try to avoid using them. They tend to be biased.

Let me adress the arguments:

Argument 1: Paedophilliac relationships are allowed according to verse 65:4 in the Qur'an (just pronouce it as "Koraan").

Here is the verse:

And (as for) those of your women who have despaired of menstruation, if you have a doubt, their prescribed time shall be three months, and of those too who have not had their courses; and (as for) the pregnant women, their prescribed time is that they lay down their burden; and whoever is careful of (his duty to) Allah He will make easy for him his affair.

It's often mentioned that this verse doesn't allow paedophilia, rather it mentions the waiting period of women who haven't menstruated yet (not necessarily including little girls). But it seems that there's another verse that already mentions that:

And the divorced women should keep themselves in waiting for three courses; and it is not lawful for them that they should conceal what Allah has created in their wombs, if they believe in Allah and the last day; and their husbands have a better right to take them back in the meanwhile if they wish for reconciliation; and they have rights similar to those against them in a just manner, and the men are a degree above them (in responsiblility), and Allah is Mighty, Wise.   (2:228)

If that's the case, then the above interpretation is invalid, and there's no other way around it. You could mention that the Qur'an often reiterates statements (such as this one), but

But if you look closely, 2:228 doesn't say the same thing at all. It only mentions the waiting the period for ordinary women: Three menstrual courses. 

As for verse 65:4, I interpret "those who haven't menstruated yet" as pertaining to women who haven't menstruated at the time of divorce. This is a very practical and logical. One could say that it's an inaccurate interpretation, but this whole surah is about divorce, not marriage in particular. I guess that's a weak argument, but the context of the surah is important (with exceptions, of course).

Also, there's a hadith where a woman asks Muhammad "who are the nisaa' (women)?" Muhammad he included young, prepubescent (not spefically mentioned, but implied) girls in his definition of women. This is more of an honorary title than anything else. Remember that the culture was different back then.

According to the article from wikiislam, 10 highly-esteemed Islamic scholars agreed that 65:4 allows paedophiliac marriages. Now, it's considered improper to denounce the opinions of the scholars, right? So we may not have much room to think here. One must know, however, that these scholars were in a different time period, and may have thought that paedophiliac marriages were okay. 

Argument 2: Muhammad's marriage to Aisha strongly suggests that paedophilliac marriages are allowed.

The culture was different back then, so Muhammad did nothing wrong by marrying her. One could say that Muhammad is supposed to be the ultimate role model of mankind. So therefore, he's a bad role model, since he commited a great crime. However, marriage is different in Islam than the typical love marriages (marriages that happen as a result of a long relationship) commonly seen in non-Muslim societies. Marriage is supposed to be an institution of piety and partnership. Love is obviously important, but having a faithful partner is more important. The reason why such marriages were allowed, is perhaps because young girls were considered to be old enough for marriage. After all, it's not like 18 was the absolute age of marriage everywhere. In short, the age didn't matter back then; only the person himself/herself was important. Also, it may be relevant to note that people as young as 16 can marry each other in Islam.

I'd like to see a reply to my post.