OK, Mr PakistaniAbroad, apologetic guy. Here is one good rebuttal to ur Arabic translation:
Good Grief Sarah and free mind!
There is a huge difference b/w "hitting lightly" than "physical abuse"?
Also, ppl have referenced quite a few sources explaining the words. If you still don't get it , learn the arabic language and don't read translations and make up your minds for yourselves. Don't come to *ignorant conclusions *. A lot of meaning is changed in translations.
Why is there a discussion here? Sarah asked a question, several ppl have answered it, Sarah if you're not happy with the answers you can claim whatever u want but your threads get so redundant.
[This message has been edited by Muni (edited March 03, 2002).]
.
[quote]
Originally posted by FreeMind:
- How do u know prophet did not lay hands on his wives? Was every domestic/personal details made available to the outside world? Is not the Quranic verse enough? [/quote]
To me it is. To Sarah it may not be. So even the concocted hadith stories don't have one that prove that the Prophet 'beat' his wives. Doesn't prove much. I agree.
[quote]
2. You r re-interpreting quranic verse which has been and is interpreted by main stream islam in 'beating is allowed' way.
[/quote]
Well show me where my logic falters. Don't tell me half the world is against me cuz I can't follow a point of view just because a larger number of morons agree to it.
[quote]
3. women r not allowed to go to hajj without relative. They r not allohwed to have 50-50% part in heritage. What is female sex slave ('londi')? What does that indicate about her social position in society?
[/quote]
You ask questions that require separate threads for discussions. Please stick to the current topic of 'Physical Abuse' being allowed in Islam.
[quote]
Do not try to make islam what it is not. if u do not want to belive in islam because of ill treament of women, leave it. why distort it?
[/quote]
Don't blame the books for failing your exams.. Maybe you didn't study hard enough. Who's 'distorting' Islam?? Me?? or the ones' who interpret divine text 'in the light of' man written stories??
My argument is there for you to review.. Argue logically if you have the urge to participate.
There is No Spoon
Sarah,
As I know my two cents really don't matter here, so I will keep them to myself. IMHO you are not looking for the right words but the right actions--which are ever harder to find these days anyway, so any discussion is meaningless.
Though, just to quench my curiosity, what do you consider disobedience? Or maybe obedience?
Oh Yeah … when all else fails run to daddy Ali Sena for help!!
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/rolleyes.gif
When are you going to stop copy pasting and start arguing using your own arguments??
My points and my research are MINE. I’m not here to defend some Mr. Badawi, whoever the hell he is. Could I care less what he thinks about this verse? Obviously I do NOT agree that Qur’an sanctions beating of women, why should I defend someone’s criticism of Mr. Badawi’s wrong interpretations?
And do I even give my time of day to that loser Ali Sena who’s only good enough to confuse little boys and girls like yourself and Sarah.
He says idrib is used 12 times and you happily agree with his deductions? Did you even cross check it?? Did you try and find out what the actual root word is? and how many times THAT has been used and in what sense??
Oh nooooo ‘honorable’ Mr. Ali Sena says it and since it’s against Islam it HAS got to be true!!
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/rolleyes.gif
Cross Checking and verifying it requires getting off your whining behinds and doing original research.. something more than cutting and pasting… and that’s such a no no.. just sit there and criticize Islam… that’s sooo easy.
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/rolleyes.gif
There is No Spoon
>>>1. How do u know prophet did not lay hands on his wives? Was every domestic/personal details made available to the outside world? Is not the Quranic verse enough?
If you had read the history or Islam or about the beloved man you wouldn't have dared asked that question.
The truth is that none of the prophets, east or west, had the life as documented as AnHazoor (saw). People shamelessly used to ask questions about minute details of his life and him well known to be a private person (who would blush more than a newly wed woman) used to answer them, so the generations to come will know the conduct.
This is not to say that the documentation is flawless. Even those who compiled it admit that their could be errors!
Still .. here is an open challenge to those who question, to go find even a remote instance of Prophet's mistreatment of his household among the thousands of documentations compiled by secular or religious scholars.
If you can't or don't think it's necessary then keep your mudslinging to yourself, as your conduct is no better than the ignorant Mullah of today who can't stop at anything less than the total domination of his own twisted ideologies.
PakistaniAbroad: Well Sarah, I’m only happy that I got my message across. I never wanted you, or anyone else to change their minds. At least their decision would now be their own and they can’t say they never heard the other side of the argument.
[al-A`raf 7:28] And when they commit an indecency they say: We found our fathers doing this, and Allah has enjoined it on us. Say: Surely Allah does not enjoin indecency; do you say against Allah what you do not know?
I’d request you to be so courteous as to read my posts with the same effort that I write them. We’ve already discussed this issue in the translation of (4:128) where society is instructed to intervene whenever the woman fears such ill conduct.
That is precisely in line with the Qur’anic message for men to go a step further in kindness to women.
When women fear bad treatment.. they are allowed the separation. When men fear the same, they’ve been instructed to work it out by discussion, no sexual intimcacy and THEN a separation.
Proves my point doesn’t it. Let me restate then..
“Your Qur’an teacher is a MORON. Tell HER to show you where it’s written that menstruating women can’t pray or touch the Qur’an.. of course SHE’D refer you to Bukhari and Muslim Inc.”
There is No Spoon
Well, My dear Sarah it seems to me, people are taking the exit on Religious highway here!!
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/wink.gif
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/wink.gif
1.Ahmedjee claims that sice the Prophet didn’t abuse any woman so it is right to infer Islam doesn’t allow it.
2.Pakabroad is doing his usual routine, namely split the verse down to a few Arab words and debate on what the meaning is and what the ‘context’ is!!
Neither of them seem to deny that there are loony interpretations to Koran being sanctioned by equally loony Mullahs !!
However you will do better to quote the actual verses in Koran that state in black and white that men are superior to women.
I easily can, but the book I have, a celebrated translation of Koran by NJ Dawood doesn’t seem to be acceptable here
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/wink.gif
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/wink.gif
So there you go. I wish you better luck!!
PA And other apologists
The way u r interpreting Islam to conform it to the new world order, some ppl in hindus and christianity r also doing that. I do not have problem with it because it changes religions to adapt it with human values. But admit it that u r diverging from mainstream islam, and dont tell me that it has been and is being interpreted thsi way by all muslims.
Christianity is coming up with gay priests, gay marriages, and hindus r coming up with more human burhamans and sec-less society. I was talking to an educated hindu person (who used to live in Soutrh Africa) a long time ago, and the way he interpreted hinduism was quite astonishing to me (given the fact that i was brainwashed by pakistani syllabus and PTV for almost 20 years), as his interpretions were very liberal. So every thing is going on.
But what is original christianity, hinduism or islam, can only be determined by what has been inferred and interpreted of them in the original time, or even now by main stream islam (99.99999% muslims).
Tell me one Quranic interpeter/translation, lets say 100 years ago, which has interpreted the Quranic verse the way u r doing? And not just one verse....I remember Maudodi interpretation of the Quranic verse whoch talks about the gender of inborn child. He wrote one definition in 1971, and the other in 1980 in the new edition, because utlro sonic method can detrmine the gender of child in the mid of pregnancy.
Similarly, tell me one christian preist who has approved of gay marriages, like 20 years ago?
So u see, religion changes to conform to human needs and new world order, not the human beings in the reverse order. This is what my point is.
u may discount all other Quranic interpreters who may not agree with u, but hey is Quran not for all the human beings to interpret in their own ways? If it is, and if 99.99999999% ppl has interpreted a verse in their 'beat harshly' way, then we can determine what main stream islam is, right? Just like we can say that main stream christianity still does not approve gays or abortions.
u may be the same fringe group as the ppl condoing gay marriages in christianity. I am not sure, after 20-50 years, some more muslim ppl like u would be approving gay marriages based on some Quranic verse (by changing the context of the verse) like u r doing. TO me, this is good. And islam needs that to be adjusted in new world order.
keep up the good work. As far as i am concerned, I have taken the exit from this mindframe of adjusting my life according to interpretation and re-interpretation of some thousands of years old verses. Does not make any sense to me, to be honest. A man has to decide what is best for society and himself based on what his conscience says. This is what u r doing, so y take the pains of distorting/re-interpreting something so old???
[This message has been edited by FreeMind (edited March 04, 2002).]
[This message has been edited by FreeMind (edited March 04, 2002).]
Here's some hadeeths as a back-up to what freemind has correctly stated or women are:
deficient in intelligence;
deficient in religion;
ungrateful;
majority in hell;
etc.
Volume 1, Book 2, Number 28:
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:
The Prophet said: "I was shown the Hell-fire and that the majority of its dwellers were women who were ungrateful." It was asked, "Do they disbelieve in Allah?" (or are they ungrateful to Allah?) He replied, "They are ungrateful to their husbands and are ungrateful for the favors and the good (charitable deeds) done to them. If you have always been good (benevolent) to one of them and then she sees something in you (not of her liking), she will say, 'I have never received any good from you."
Volume 1, Book 6, Number 301:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
Once Allah's Apostle went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) o 'Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, "O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women)." They asked, "Why is it so, O Allah's Apostle ?" He replied, "You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you." The women asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?" He said, "Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?" They replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?" The women replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her religion."
Volume 7, Book 62, Number 124:
Narrated Usama:
The Prophet said, "I stood at the gate of Paradise and saw that the majority of the people who entered it were the poor, while the wealthy were stopped at the gate (for the accounts). But the companions of the Fire were ordered to be taken to the Fire. Then I stood at the gate of the Fire and saw that the majority of those who entered it were women."
faceup bhai,
I already alluded to the 'Exits' on Religious Highway. Please don't show them the Exits.
The answer to your post is going to be that,
'It is All Hadith' NOT 'Koran'. Hadiths are open to interpretation anyway. They corrupted Prphet's words yada, yada!!
So please quote from the Koran!!!
[quote]
Originally posted by ahmadjee:
If you had read the history or Islam or about the beloved man you wouldn't have dared asked that question.
If you can't or don't think it's necessary then keep your mudslinging to yourself, as your conduct is no better than the ignorant Mullah of today who can't stop at anything less than the total domination of his own twisted ideologies. **
[/quote]
well, i think this attitude needs to be changed too. I have not shown any hostility towards anyone, and yet I get this attitude because i am differing on some argument in very peaceful way.
All I am saying is that, prophet mohammaed and his wives were not forthcoming about each and every detail of their private lives. What happened there and what not, can not be judged based on what you 'want' to prove. So there is no point even in going there.
we know of one particular incident in which Muhammed separated from one of his wives, but then the matter got resolved before the next phase ('socurge them') came up.
And do u think that any of his wives could go to some elder (who else?) in the tribe and complain against beating?
And can Muhammed tell the ummah that one of their solmen mothers (ummahat-il-momenin, remember) needs beatings ????
defies any logic to me.
[This message has been edited by FreeMind (edited March 04, 2002).]
[quote]
Originally posted by Andhra:
**faceup,
Hadiths are open to interpretation anyway. They corrupted Prphet's words yada, yada!!
So please quote from the Koran!!!**
[/quote]
That's a lot of crock.
The sunnis(incl their pets whabis) and the iranian shias a.k.a 12'er shias base their creed or practise of faith entirely upon these hadeeths (authenticated).
And, they are literalists for both the quran & hadeeths, so if they claim the hadiths are spurious then their whole creeds or practise of faith is spurious being based upon them.
[quote]
But what is original christianity, hinduism or islam, can only be determined by what has been inferred and interpreted of them in the original time, or like 100 years ago.
[/quote]
Such contradiction FreeMind!
First you say don't interpret & then re-interpret Quran/teachings according to the modern time and then later you want to justify your notion by what some Maulvies interpret Quran as 100 from now? Why give the people 100 years back so much importance?
[quote]
As far as i am concerned, I have taken the exit from this mindframe of adjusting my life according to interpretation and re-interpretation of some thousands of years old verses. Does not make any sense to me, to be honest. A man has to decide what is best for society and himself based on what his conscience says. This is what u r doing, so y take the pains of distorting/re-interpreting something so old???
[/quote]
So basically,
Cruel is the God who was so showering towards the people of the old era by sending them direct guidance through prophets but for later days he is as silent!
Religion can't be eternal as Human needs are changing and God should send us some New World Order or no deal!
[quote]
well, i think this attitude needs to be changed too. I have not shown any hostility towards anyone, and yet I get this attitude because i am differing on some argument in very peaceful way.
[/quote]
The attitude is not towards your due right to question but towards your baseless insulting decree about a subject matter of which you haven't probed into.
You can call me an idiot all day long but think twice before bad mouthing Muhammad, Jesus, Krishna or any other prophet for that matter.
[quote]
All I am saying is that, prophet mohammaed and his wives were not forthcoming about each and every detail of their private lives.
[/quote]
What kind of details would suffice to make a judgment? Have you read the details that are there? That's what I asked, go read and if you find a few that make doubt in your heart then you are justified in your assumption. Actually there are many accounts where his wives misbehaved/disobeyed & he dealt with them in extreme kindness. Such kindness that the feminists of today consider ideal.
Just because I don't know your private life well enough, do you give me the right to assume that you must beat your wife?
- contradiction:
no, there is no contradiction. All I am saying is that accept that u r re-interpreting Quran. It is not what and how its was interpreted earlier, and even now by mainstream islam. Were all the Mullahs 100 years ago rotting in hell? Not one translator/interpretaor went to paradise? And only u will go to paradise?
To me, there is no rational basis to believe in God. And if He is there, He does not expect us to buy any human words for his words. We should be kind to others, is/can be the only divine message.
Religion is opiate for masses.
I have not bad mouthed Muhammed. In fact, of all the spiritual personalities, he is the 2nd one I respect most (after Budha). Maybe, it is years of brainwashing, but I think he was a very fine man, who made changes in the world according to the hostile conditions there at that time. Even treatment to women was very good compared with that time. But applying his statements to this day, is absolutely WRONG. You can not take female POWs to ur bedroom, citing holy verses in defence.
I have questioned the wisdom of juding His personal life with his wives on two points. u have not answered these two points. It is very important to read/interpret history carefully, as it is usually written by conquerors and biased ppl. A cross-examination of eye-witness account in the given context is a legal procedure in our daily lives. History is no exception. It is ironic that most of the documented things in islamic history (like multiple wives, beating wives, enslaving female POWs, unequal division of heritage, etc.) weere deemed appropriate in that time, and that is why islamic practises become the target of objections. But how many things were there that could not be documented because they were deemed inappropriate/mistakes/erros of judgement and the biased historians filtered them out on religous compulsions.
The incidents that u mentioned, did not go beyond His seperating from his wives. The next phase never reached, atleast in history. And if it did, do u think that muslims would admit that some of their solmen mother needed beating to be stengthened up? can u? unimaginable
As long as I am saying that I do not insult any spiritual personality, my word should be taken as such. Do not show me ur anger to threaten me. Only ignorant, insecure and uneducated ppl threaten adversaries to pressurise them. This is not Pakistan (but anonymous web site) where ppl r stoned to death for saying something against the established beliefs.
[This message has been edited by FreeMind (edited March 04, 2002).]