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.

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

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

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

1. You didn't read my post, did you? Translating that verse as "girls who have never menstruated" is not in accordance with Arabic grammar. LAM is used for negating in the past tense. LAA is used for negating every tense. There is a difference and it's clear. Don't you know any Arabic? Aisha is irrelevant right now.

ghoklebutter

Are you a native Arabic speaker? The reason I ask is because that portion of the article (the Arabic Analysis) was written by native speakers who speak this language every day. Furthermore it is backed by classical Arabic lexicons. Also no native speaker has been able to fault that article yet, so I wish to know if you speak Arabic.

If you do speak Arabic, is it MSA or Classical? Thanks muchly :)

@MaxStar: Excellent points thank you!

1. Well that's just shameful if you ask me. There is a hadith where a rape victim came to Muhammad and he said "go now, for Allah has pardoned you". Then the women took Muhammad to the perpetrator and he said "the punishment is stoning to death". 

ghoklebutter

Not quite. The man who raped the woman said he was sorry and Muhammad let him go. If I recall correctly, the narration is in Dawud. Would you like me to hunt it down for you? Yes I agree it is a shameful thing to demand 4 witnesses (male) to prove a rape under Shariah law, but this is how it is in Islam. I am not an expert on hadith science, so I cannot speak to the veracity of the Dawud narration, but I can surmise since it did not supercede the "4 witnesses to prove rape" requirement for Shariah, it was deemed to be doubtful in some way.

 

2. That's very strange people think that "lam" is used for the same purpose as "laa". I'll give another example: the shahada.

ghoklebutter

Well my questoin to you would be; how come all the scholars got it wrong? And all in the exact same way? These are experts in classical Arabic and Islam - why didn't they realize this error?

I respect the scholars opinion but I think they made a mistake here.

ghoklebutter

All of them? Experts in Islam and Arabic? tey all made the same error that you managed to find quickly? That is highly doubtful, don't you think?

I don't listen to most commentators and scholars because tend to be biased. Al-Tabari, for example, seem to be sexist and misogynistic in his commentary. And Ibn Ishaq's hadiths are mostly corrupted.

ghoklebutter

What is your basis for saying Ishaq is 'mostly corrupted'? 

3. I know about that verse (2:228). Thanks for posting it though.

ghoklebutter

Oh no problem; I was posting it for the benefit of others.

This is how I take both verses:

2:228-Self explanitory

65:4-Same thing but clarifies that those who have not menstruated in due time should wait three calendar months.

ghoklebutter

What do you mean 'due time'? The verse is clear and I have explained it for you (both 2:228 & 65:4). If they do not menstruate 'in due time' then they must be pregnant Then their 'iddat is spelled out in 65:4 as "until they drop their burden" (give birth).

Yusuf Ali, a great commentator and the most famous translator, agrees with the above.

ghoklebutter

Ok now you talk about Bias and you expect us to accept Abdullah Yusuf Ali? yusuf Ali is an Islamic apologist who made his Quran translation to be more "palatable" to Western readers - hence the abundance of (bracketed statements) that are not in the original Arabic. He softened up the Quran to fool the Westerners. I'm sorry but you will have to bring someone else if you wish to convince us - I do not trust Yusuf Ali as far as I can throw him.

I rarely follow tafsirs too because they are usually biased. But I'm not picky with Hadiths (even though I don't trust most of them) because that's what those apologetics do.

ghoklebutter

This is not an issue of "what you would follow" - you are free to innovate your religion in any way you so choose! No one here is saying that you personally want to go marry children - this is about what the texts and scholars say and what they don't say. You are free to leave such practices in the past, and that's fine - but that does not mean your Quran does not have this allowance in there, you know?

Rape is a crime in most Muslim countries. Only places like Saudi Arabia and Somalia punish rape victims (the mere mention of that makes me cringe).

ghoklebutter

No, this is not true. I can't post a link for some reason, but google Pakistan Rape Laws to see. Pakistan requires witnesses to prove rape too. This is because it's Shariah law, and not an 'anomaly' in KSA etc....

 

 

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]

"and those who never had menses"

This is wrong. "Lam" is not used for "never". Laa would be used instead. Examples:

Zayd laa ya'lamu = He doesn't know

Zayd lam ya'lamu = He didin't know

In the first sentence, Zayd is described as not knowing (something in particular). This implies that he never knows (the thing) in the past, present, or future.

ghoklebutter

I have given the Arabic analysis in my article, although I appreciate you giving examples here. However I used the Arabic dictionaries to get the Arabic of this verse, and also got the input of native Arabic speakers (Muslims, non-Muslims and Ex-Muslims). Secondly, the translation in the article agrees with what the scholars (all of them) have said about the verse. The verse is talking about those who are too young for menstruation, so those who have never menstruated is the correct translation (as far as I see it).

You translated it the same way: "and those who didn't have their menses yet". This does NOT imply that those women never menstruated. It only implies that they have yet to menstruate in the near past. 

 ghoklebutter

AGAIN, Quran 2:228 ALREADY COVERS those who menstruated in "the near past" - this verse is not about them. Again, 65:4 was clarification for those who do NOT menstruate (menopause, pre-pubescent and pregnant) - it's an addendum to Quran 2:228.

So unfortunately your argument still falls due to Quran 2:228 which was revealed BEFORE 65:4.

Here is Quran 2:228 for everyone:

Quran 2:228: Divorced women shall wait concerning themselves for three monthly periods. Nor is it lawful for them to hide what Allah Hath created in their wombs, if they have faith in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands have the better right to take them back in that period, if they wish for reconciliation. And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable; but men have a degree (of advantage) over them. And Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.

Hey Sanitarium1 impressive posts you got there, welcome to the union.

Post in the atheistic dogma sticky thread so we can know more about your views.:)

Gambler_3

Thanks for the welcome! Shall do :)

You are right that the verse you quoted does give women the right to choose their husbands, so it is a good verse and fixes a problem with Judaism (as it was practiced at the time - I am not that familiar with Judaism so I don't know how it is now).

Regarding 30:21, this doesn't really indicate that you shouldn't 'hurt' your wives: From Tafsir 'Ibn Kathir (excerpt):

=====

﴿8;َ5;ِ6;ْ ءايَ0;تِ7;ِ أَ6;ْ خَ4;َ2;َ 4;َ3;ُ5; 5;ِّ6;ْ أَ6;1;ُسِ3;ُ5;ْ أَزْ8;َجاً﴾

(And among His signs is this that He created for you wives from among yourselves,) meaning, `He created females of your own kind, to be wives for you.'

﴿4;ِّتَسْ3;ُ6;ُ8;اْ إِ4;َيْ7;َا﴾

(that you may find repose in them,) This is like the Ayah,

﴿7;ُ8;َ ا4;َّذِ9; خَ4;َ2;َ3;ُ5;ْ 5;ِّ6; 6;َّ1;ْسٍ 8;َحِدَةٍ 8;َجَعَ4;َ 5;ِ6;ْ7;َا زَ8;ْجَ7;َا 4;ِيَسْ3;ُ6;َ إِ4;َيْ7;َا﴾

(It is He Who has created you from a single person, and He has created from him his wife, in order that he might enjoy the pleasure of living with her) (7:189). This refers to Hawwa'. Allah created her from Adam, from the short rib on his left. If Allah had made all of Adam's progeny male, and created the females from another kind, such as from Jinn or animals, there would never have been harmony between them and their spouses. There would have been revulsion if the spouses had been from a different kind. Out of Allah's perfect mercy He made their wives from their own kind, and created love and kindness between them. For a man stays with a woman because he loves her, or because he feels compassion towards her if they have a child together, or because she needs him to take care of her, etc.

 =====

So, to my reading, it's simply stating that Male & Female were both created as human beings - and that human men were not made to procreate with other species.

Now, moving on. My take on the issue of rape in islam is that it is a non-issue (Islamically speaking). This is because Islam is a patriarchal religion - and it was created (from my view) by men FOR men. If women are mentioned, it's only to tell them what to do to please the men (or Allah). Since rape is a crime from the woman's point of view (usually the case) then it is not mentioned, and not a crime in Islam.

Furthermore, in an Islamic marriage, rape does not exist. This is because the Mahr (dowry) that the woman accepts from the man when they get married, guarantees the man the full (and exclusive) use of her vagina for the duration of the marriage. This is why, when a man triple talaq's his wife (divorce) she does not have to pay back the Mahr - because he has decided he is "finished with it." If a woman seeks a Khula (divorce that has to be agreed apon by male judges) then she must pay back part/all of the Mahr - she is depriving the man of his right - ie. he did not get 'what he paid for." From the ahadith we can see that Muhammad himself spells out EXACTLY what the purpose of the Mahr is. For example:

=======

 Sahih Muslim Book 009, Number 3557

Ibn Umar (Allah be pleased with them) reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) saying to the invokers of curse: Your account is with Allah. One of you must be a liar. You have now no right over this woman. 'He said: Messenger of Allah, what about my wealth (dower that I paid her at the time of marriage)? He said: You have no claim to wealth. If you tell the truth, it (dower) is the recompense for your having had the right to intercourse with her', and if you tell a lie against her, it is still more remote from you than she is. Zuhair said in his narration: Sufyan reported to us on the authority of 'Amr that he had heard Sa'id b Jubair saying: I heard Ibn Umar (Allah be pleased with them) saying that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) had said it.

======

There are many more narrations like the one above, please let me know if you would like more. 

But my point in posting that is again, rape does not exist in Islamic marriage, because by accepting the Mahr (dowry) she has already granted the husband full use of her body whenever he wishes. Let us look at Quran 2:223 for further evidence:

Quran 2:223: Your wives are a tilth for you, so go into your tilth when you like, and do good beforehand for yourselves, and be careful (of your duty) to Allah, and know that you will meet Him, and give good news to the believers.

In the above verse, we see that the woman's consent does not come into the deal at all. Go to YOUR wives WHEN YOU like - not "when you both like" etc...

======

Lastly, I am rather perturbed by your statement that "hurting women is not allowed" (perhaps it was your choice of words?), because I can bring one verse that shows that men ARE allowed to "hurt" their wives. Let us look to Quran 4:34 as evidence:

Quran 4:34: Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

Please pay careful attention to the word "fear" there - it's not that the wife has to actually DO anything wrong - but ONLY that the husband may FEAR she might (paranoia much?). So, if a man FEARS his wife might do something wrong, he can BEAT HER.(the correct word is BEAT and not Scourge)

It should be noted that the Arabic in this text does say wa for the three things you can do, and wa means "and" - although this can be translated as a comma; so it could also read: amonish them, banish them to their beds, beat them. So you don't necessarily have to do all 3 things - it can be multiple (or one) choice. You can go straight to the beating if you wish (and indeed many Muslim men do).

This of course is NOT to say that all Muslim men go around beating their wives (that would be a mass generalization and in error), but if you are the kind of man who would do such a thing, then the Quran ALLOWS you to beat your wife on the SUSPICION she might do something wrong.

So I do not think that the Quran says that you should not hurt your wife, because the above verse alone makes it abundantly clear that you CAN hurt your wives by beating them.

ghoklebutter: No worries mate. I look forward to reading your reply when you have time to post it.

peace :)