Islamic wife beating
SILAS778
[[[I have followed criticisms of the
Prophet for years now, and not even the most virulent critics have said
anything like this. This would have been plastered all over Jochen Katz'
website years ago if there were any basis to it. Well, we're waiting for the
evidence that the Prophet(s) hit Aisha in the chest...]]]
Let me ask Omar a question. Would it really matter to you if Mahammad stuck
Aisha in the chest? Would it really matter it he had kicked her, beat her with
a stick, slapped her face, or ?
I've dialoged with Muslims and no matter what dubious action Muhamamd
committed, Muslims find a way to justify it.
So, does it really matter to you?
Earlier, I said that Muhamad struck Aisha in the chest and it caused her pain.
Sahih Muslim, Vol. 2, # 2127. It is a long hadith and I will not type the whole
thing out. But her is what is relevant...
"(Mohamad speaking to Aisha)
"Was it the darknes of your shadow that I saw in front of me? I said: Yes.
He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think
that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you? ...
So, he gave her a punch in the chest - the poor girl. Maybe she was only 13
then.
Earlier we had the hadith of Abu Bakr coming in when she's in bed and punches
her on the leg, and hurts her, now we get this story.
Hey, isn't there a Hadith that says that Muhammud was "the best towards his
wives", or something like that? Well, if the best is punching the women, what
do the worst do?
And, if you bother to read the entire hadith, you find that the reason he
punched her was that she was worried that he might sleep with another wife when
it was his turn. Isn't there a ayah that allows him to sleep with whoever he
wants to and not follow the turns? It was just for him because he was special.
Aisha didn't lie, she didn't act lewdly, she wasn't disobedient, she was just
insecure - no wonder. And for that, ... Mahamud had his ego challenged, and
"whap", his wife gets it.
And, if Aisha was his favorite wife, I wonder how much worse his other wives
had it?
this hadith...
[[[Allah's Messenger never beat anyone with his hand neither a woman nor a
servant, but only in the case when he had been fighting in the cause of Allah
and he never took revenge for anything unless the things made inviolable by
Allah were made violable; he then took revenge for Allah, the Exalted and
glorious.]]]
Well, I guess Mohammad had Allah's approval to smack her, something like taking
revenge for Allah - for Aisha doubting him.
This leads to what Aisha had stated in the case of another Muslim woman being
beaten by her husband
a Hadith from Bukhari vol. 7, # 715
"Narrated Ikrima: 'Rifaa divorced his wife whereupon Abdur-Rahman married
her. Aisha said that the lady came wearing a green veil and complained to her
(Aisha) and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating. It was the
habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah's messenger came, Aisha
said, "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women.
Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!
"I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women."
Therefore, the Christian, Jewish, and Pagan women were all treated better than
the Muslim women. And it was obvious to even the Muslim women.
Terry Taalib-Din
(that's if you have one) instead of these feeble attempts to insult
prophet Mohammed (pbuh) you might contribute something to up lift human
decency and
respect.Muslims could easily say ugly,nasty hateful things on this site
about Christianity, but they don't,and if's because the love and respect
for G'Ds way and the belief in all the prophets.We are all traveling by
faith and we really don't know anything when it comes to certainty. IS
THEIR WIFE BEATING IN CHRISTIANITY? ?? DO YOU WANT THE STATS ON THE
FREQUENCY OF THESE INCIDENTS IN CHRISTIANITY AND THE SCRIPTURE THAT
BACKS THIS BEHAVIOR UP. We can go back and forth on name calling and
insults but where does this leads to, nothing but more insults.What's
your purpose for being on this site??? Some might say you are acting the
role of the shaitan(Devil) or you're some frustrated miscreant who
haven't anything else to do but spread mischief and rancor.Those who are
weak in faith might be effected by your efforts but only ALLAH KNOWS AND
WE DO NOT.Your conduct and deeds tells much of your history and the
success of the Deen of Islam is mostly due to that, so if you want your
own faith to be seen as the one and only way, have some respect for
others and self. If Muslims were to go on Christian sites with the
mischievous garbage that you come to this site with i can say that we
wouldn't be tolerated.
peace
saty...@my-deja.com
Ta...@webtv.net (Terry Taalib-Din) wrote:
> If you spend halve the time criticizing and edifying your own faith
> (that's if you have one) instead of these feeble attempts to insult
> prophet Mohammed (pbuh) you might contribute something to up lift
human
> decency and
> respect.
Did he say anything that was not correct? Can you correct him?
Muslims could easily say ugly,nasty hateful things on this site
> about Christianity, but they don't,and if's because the love and
respect
> for G'Ds way and the belief in all the prophets.We are all traveling
by
> faith and we really don't know anything when it comes to certainty. IS
> THEIR WIFE BEATING IN CHRISTIANITY? ?? DO YOU WANT THE STATS ON THE
> FREQUENCY OF THESE INCIDENTS IN CHRISTIANITY AND THE SCRIPTURE THAT
> BACKS THIS BEHAVIOR UP.
U can say what u want about christiianity, we dont mind! You are
sister ideologies.
We can go back and forth on name calling and
> insults but where does this leads to, nothing but more insults.What's
> your purpose for being on this site??? Some might say you are acting
the
> role of the shaitan(Devil) or you're some frustrated miscreant who
> haven't anything else to do but spread mischief and rancor.
He is asking questions. Do you want blind obedience and yes master
types?
Those who are
> weak in faith might be effected by your efforts but only ALLAH KNOWS
AND
> WE DO NOT.Your conduct and deeds tells much of your history and the
> success of the Deen of Islam is mostly due to that, so if you want
your
> own faith to be seen as the one and only way, have some respect for
> others and self.
Hinduism is not a faith but a way of llife based on conduct and
knowledge.
If Muslims were to go on Christian sites with the
> mischievous garbage that you come to this site with i can say that we
> wouldn't be tolerated.
>
> peace
Pl think and talk of real peace. It is not a one way traffic. Pl tell
ur mislim friends to desist from very obscene postings here. See for
yourself.
Real peace.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
SILAS778
[[[If you spend halve the time criticizing and edifying your own faith (that's
if you have one) instead of these feeble attempts to insult prophet Mohammed
First, these boards are for Islamic topics, they are not for me to propagate
Christianity. Christianity is a superior religion, but I have to limit my
comments regarding it.
Second, I do think I contribute to human decency by pointing out question
practices, such as wife beating. Don't criticise me for pointing out that
Muhammad forcefully struck Aisha in the chest and hurt her. Most Muslims are
unaware of this. I am only contributing to "Islamic Awareness".
[[[Muslims could easily say ugly,nasty hateful things on this site
about Christianity, but they don't,and if's because the love and respect for
G'Ds way and the belief in all the prophets.We are all traveling by faith and
we really don't know anything when it comes to certainty.]]]
Muslims have posted many ugly, nasty, hateful things about Christianity on
these boards. And, I know with certainty that I will enjoy heaven.
Terry Taalib-Din
>>Again! show me, convince me with your proof and knowledge.
SILAS wrote;
I know with certainty that I will enjoy heaven.
>> If the sun raises from the east are you saying you can make it raise
>from the west?? when death visits you(and it will) are you saying you
can tell death you are not ready or you would like to have gone
sooner?!? I think you think just a little much of your ability. Do not
Christians say when it comes to things of the future(G'D willing)??
peace
omar...@my-deja.com
> Sahih Muslim, Vol. 2, # 2127. It is a long hadith and I will not type
the whole
> thing out. But her is what is relevant...
>
> "(Mohamad speaking to Aisha)
>
> "Was it the darknes of your shadow that I saw in front of me? I
said: Yes.
> He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did
you think
> that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you? ...
>
> So, he gave her a punch in the chest - the poor girl. Maybe she was
only 13
> then.
> Earlier we had the hadith of Abu Bakr coming in when she's in bed and
punches
> her on the leg, and hurts her, now we get this story.
>
> Hey, isn't there a Hadith that says that Muhammud was "the best
towards his
> wives", or something like that? Well, if the best is punching the
women, what
> do the worst do?
The English translation of the hadith says "strike". Silas
writes "punch". This is a minor point, but it is worth drawing
attention to the way that missionaries twist evidence to make anything
in the hadith sound as bad as possible. Obviously "slap" which is at
least as plausible in the circumstances, would not convey the same
level of aggression as "punch" in English -- so Silas uses the latter
to conjure up images of unwarranted aggression on the part of the
Prophet(s). This doesn't change the issues here, but it is useful to be
aware of this debating trick.
> And, if you bother to read the entire hadith, you find that the
reason he
> punched her was that she was worried that he might sleep with another
wife when
> it was his turn. Isn't there a ayah that allows him to sleep with
whoever he
> wants to and not follow the turns? It was just for him because he
was special.
So what's your point?
If we accept this hadith, then obviously the incident took place
*before* the revelation of the permission not to follow turns. That is
why the apostle asked "Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would
deal unjustly with you?"
> Aisha didn't lie, she didn't act lewdly, she wasn't disobedient, she
was just
> insecure - no wonder. And for that, ... Mahamud had his ego
challenged, and
> "whap", his wife gets it.
Wrong. Aisha was the wife of God's final apostle. The Quran stresses
that his wives are not like other women. They have a special status and
standing in the community. The standard of behaviour expected of them
was much higher than for other people. Aisha of all people should have
known that Allah's apostle would never treat her unjustly by secretly
spending her turn with another wife. She should have known better than
that. Yet her heart was clouded by suspicion, which is described by
Allah as a grave sin.
So yes, she was disobedient to God by being absurdly and unwarrantedly
suspicious of God's messenger, something unacceptable in a person of
her standing. And since God's messenger was charged with conveying the
prohibition of such suspicion, she was clearly disobedient to him too.
We have to stop and wonder at the state of mind of the girl who would
be so full of suspicion that she got up and stalked her husband in the
middle of the night as he went out to pray. Clearly she was in an
intensely emotionally disturbed state, her mind full of absurd fantasies
caused no doubt, by satanic insinuations and whisperings. (Marital
jealousy can be like that.) The Prophet , out of concern
for her state, wanted to shake her out of it, to bring her back to her
senses, and at the same time to bring home to her the seriousness of her
being suspicious of God's messenger, since even ordinary cases of
suspicion can be sinful. He struck her not out of cruelty or
aggression, but out of concern for the stalker's mentality she
was temporarily exhibiting. We've heard of cases where a hysterical
person needs to be slapped to bring them to their senses. Aisha's case
is similar.
But should we accept this hadith? Well, if there is another hadith, at
least as authentic as this one is, which contradicts it, then this
incident becomes seriously doubtful.
And in fact there is....
> this hadith...
>
> [[[Allah's Messenger never beat anyone with his hand neither a woman
nor a
> servant, but only in the case when he had been fighting in the cause
of Allah
> and he never took revenge for anything unless the things made
inviolable by
> Allah were made violable; he then took revenge for Allah, the Exalted
and
> glorious.]]]
We learn the following from the above hadith, also included by Imam
Muslim in his collection:
(1) Allah's apostle never beat anyone except when he had been fighting
in the cause of Allah, that is engaging in battle with the kuffar.
(2) In particular, he never beat any woman or servant. There are other
hadiths which confirm this last point, although I don't have the
references handy.
(3) He never took revenge except for the sake of Allah.
This hadith thus flatly contradicts the earlier one, casting grave
doubts on it. Moreover, it is narrated by Aisha.
Silas tries to paper over the obvious contradiction by writing
> Well, I guess Mohammad had Allah's approval to smack her, something
like taking
> revenge for Allah - for Aisha doubting him.
which misses the point. The hadith cited makes it clear that he never
struck any woman or servant. Though he took revenge for the sake of
Allah on some occasions, the hadith cited implies that he never did so
by striking a woman or a servant. That is the point of the
phrase "neither woman nor servant".
There is also a hadith from Anas bin Malik in which he notes that, in
ten years of service, the Prophet never said so much as "uff" to him,
nor did he ever ask him "Why did you not do so-and-so?". In another
hadith, the Prophet is kept waiting by a servant girl, and becomes
angry with her, so that when he sees her, he picks up a toothpick and
tells her "if I did not fear Allah, I would strike you with this."
These hadiths cast further doubt on the incident recorded, by showing
us the character of the Prophet.
OBJECTION:
"But aren't you attacking Muslim for recording a dubious hadith?"
Not necessarily. The hadith in question appears in a section about
prayers at the graveyard. We know that Muslim included weak hadiths to
corroborate the principal sahih ones. It is quite possible that only
the first hadith in this section is sahih, and this one is included,
although weak, for its corroboration of the earlier one (see the end of
the hadith about the prayer at the graveyard).It is thus quite possible
that Muslim did not think that the hadith was strong enough to
constitute an independent proof.
To settle the issue, we would have to examine the isnad, or check the
authoritative commentaries of Sahih Muslim.
CONCLUSION
Silas' "proof" that Muhammad struck his wife is a nostarter.
He hasn't dealt adequately with all the relevant hadiths.
Even if we accept the story as recorded in the hadith cited,
there is no reason to think that the Prophet behaved unjustly or
cruelly towards Aisha.
omar...@my-deja.com
> Let me ask Omar a question. Would it really matter to you if Mahammad
stuck
> Aisha in the chest? Would it really matter it he had kicked her, beat
her with
> a stick, slapped her face, or ?
If it could be shown that the Prophet had committed an unjust action,
then yes, it would matter to me. It would cause me to seriously
re-evaluate my faith. It is for this reason that I pay attention to what
the critics of Islam say. Islam will not do anything for me if I don't
sincerely believe it,and I can't sincerely believe it if there are
reasons that, in all honesty, ought to lead me to doubt it.
I am still a Muslim, since I haven't come across any such proof.
With regard to the hadith about the striking of Aisha in the chest,
which caused her pain, I would have to evaluate it in the light of all
the hadith available to me on the subject, as well as different
transmissions of the same hadith, if any. As was well-known to all the
great muhaddithun, a hadith with a single chain of transmission can
sometimes contain a mistake, even if it satisfies the criteria of a
sahih hadith. We can discover such a mistake by comparing all the other
hadiths. Sometimes, Bukhari and Muslim would record discrepant hadiths
side by side to allow their readers to discover such mistakes.
Moreover, I would have to check out a copy of Sahih Muslim, which I
haven't had access to so far, to evaluate your interpretation of the
events: I have often found that Christian critics interpret events in
the hadith by presupposing negative ideas of the Prophet. In their
endeavours to attack Islam, they often beg the question, and overlook
other possible interpretations of the event in question.
It should be noted that although Sahih Muslim is an important text, the
translations available to us are very poor. We might easily miss
important subtleties in the text -- one reason why traditional scholars
warn against amateurs making deductions from hadith without the guidance
of an authorised shaikh.
Finally, according to Siddiqui's introduction to hadith literature,
Muslim explicitly stated that he had included a number of nonsahih
hadiths in his collection for various reasons -- sometimes to
corroborate the sahih hadiths, sometimes to highlight for fellow experts
a weakness in the nonsahih hadiths. The possibility that this hadith is
not sahih is thus real, even if it is included in Sahih Muslim.
Sahih Muslim is a text for hadith experts, not for missionary amateurs.
In the classical Islamic tradition, it was said "Whoever has no sheikh
has the devil for a sheikh." That is because much Islamic literature was
written to be studied with a qualified sheikh, who could explain the
intentions of the author because he was authorised by a chain of
transmission going back to the author.
I hope to ask scholars more knowledgeable than myself what the great
commentators of Sahih Muslim have said about this hadith. But on the
face of it, in the light of what you've written, there is not the
slightest reason to suppose that the Prophet had his "ego challenged".
His wife was meant to adopt a far higher standard of behaviour than
other people, and she was required to have a greater level of faith in
Allah's messenger. Sometimes people become hysterical, or emotionally
disturbed, and they need to be shaken out of their state, and striking
with moderate force can be helpful. Perhaps Satan and his minions had,
by their whisperings and insinuations, caused Aisha to reach an intense
state of emotional disturbance, and the striking was necessary to bring
her back to her senses. Jealousy in a marital situation can easily cause
a person to lose all sense of balance and proportion. If that was the
case with Aisha, then she needed to be shaken out of her emotionally
unhealthy state.
> I've dialoged with Muslims and no matter what dubious action Muhamamd
> committed, Muslims find a way to justify it.
Probably the influence of Christianity on us-- no matter what dubious
actions are attributed to Jehovah in the Bible, Christians find a way to
justify them. No matter what implausible events are alleged in the
Gospels, Christians find a way to believe them.
MENJ
surprised at his insistence to go on with this baseless bashing
of the deen. It seems that Christian Missionaries have nothing
to bash Islam with after all.
Salaam
Visit my homepage at http://bismikaallahuma.cjb.net
"He who obeys the messenger has indeed obeyed Allah ..."
Sura' An-Nissa:80
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
omar...@my-deja.com
when we're discussing 4:34. This is as follows.
The phrase "wife beating", as used in contemporary English, has become
virtually synonymous with injustice, cruelty, and abuse. In the minds of
English speakers, the phrase "wife beating" immediately conjures up
images of deranged husbands attacking their wives with no basis
whatsoever. This is clearly not what the Shariah has in mind at all. The
Shariah recommends justified corporal punishment under specific
circumstances, when other measures have failed. The Quran adds "Do not
seek a way against them" regarding wives who repent of their ill-will
towards, and rebellion against, their husbands.
Obviously, Silas wants us to hear the phrase "wife beating" over and
over again, as this casts Islam in the worst light possible. However,
given the images conjured up by this phrase, and the fact that it has
become virtually synonymous with injustice, this phrase is seriously
misleading in a discussion of 4:34.
So I suggest we all replace this phrase with one less charged, but
nevertheless accurate: "corporal punishment".
Now we know that in certain circumstances, corporal punishment is a
part of Islam, both in certain domestic situations, and in criminal law.
So what's the problem? Is corporal punishment necessarily a bad thing? Is
it bad in all circumstances? It's humiliating, for sure, but then so is
any form of punishment. The ulama of Islam have been very careful to
state that damage to, or bruising of ones' wife is not allowed
( see Tabari's tafsir for a sampling of the views of early Muslims on
this matter -- many of them saw the beating as more or less symbolic).
They based their judgement on their knowledge of the authentic hadith
literature as a whole, not just, as with Silas, on a single hadith.
SILAS778
following Muhammad. Omar replied:
[[[If it could be shown that the Prophet had committed an unjust action, then
yes, it would matter to me. It would cause me to seriously re-evaluate my
faith.]]]
Oh really? I doubt it. Muslims believe that Muhammad never did any unjust
actions, so, as I stated before, it really wouldn't matter.
Previously, Omar challenged me to produce proof that Muh. stuck Aisha in the
chest. From a post on 6/3 - {{{"Please back this up with evidence:
references etc. otherwise, in the light of much available evidence, it is very
dubious, if not outright false."}}}
I produced the proof. The Sahih Hadith clearly states that Mo struck Aisha in
the chest and it caused her pain. The reason for striking her? She doubted
his fidelity - she was afraid he was going to sleep with another women that
night, when it was her turn. So, when he got up and went outside, she snuck
out and followed him. It probably scared him. When he came back he questioned
her about it, and she confessed. Then he struck her - and hurt her.
Omar then responded:
[[[With regard to the hadith about the striking of Aisha in the chest, which
caused her pain, I would have to evaluate it in the light of all the hadith
available to me on the subject, as well as different
transmissions of the same hadith, if any. As was well-known to all the great
muhaddithun, a hadith with a single chain of transmission can sometimes contain
a mistake, even if it satisfies the criteria of a
sahih hadith. We can discover such a mistake by comparing all the other
hadiths. Sometimes, Bukhari and Muslim would record discrepant hadiths side by
side to allow their readers to discover such mistakes.]]]
So its back to the typical Muslim shell game, doubt and deny the hadith.
Instead of at least admitting that I produced proof of Mo striking Aisha, he
decries the hadath.
You'll have to take your arguement up with Muslim, or another scholar. Neither
of us are scholar of Hadith. For me, since it is in a Sahih collection, and it
is not contradicted by any other Hadith, it stands.
[[[But on the face of it, in the light of what you've written, there is not the
slightest reason to suppose that the Prophet had his "ego challenged".]]]
Sure their is. She doubted him, he stuck her. He hurt her. She did no wrong.
She was insecure, and rightly so. I don't blame her for doubting his
integrity. That is why he asked her, "did you think Allah and His apostle
would deal with you unjustly"? He knew she doubted him.
[[[His wife was meant to adopt a far higher standard of behaviour than other
people, and she was required to have a greater level of faith in Allah's
messenger.]]]
So you saying it is okay for Mo to punch his wives if they doubt him? What
about it they lie to and deceive him? How brutally could he be allowed to hurt
them? I mean, didn't Allah have to tell Mo to break his vow, because of the
deception his wives played upon him?
[[[Sometimes people become hysterical, or emotionally disturbed, and they need
to be shaken out of their state, and striking
with moderate force can be helpful. Perhaps Satan and his minions had,
by their whisperings and insinuations, caused Aisha to reach an intense
state of emotional disturbance, and the striking was necessary to bring
her back to her senses. Jealousy in a marital situation can easily cause
a person to lose all sense of balance and proportion. If that was the case with
Aisha, then she needed to be shaken out of her emotionally unhealthy state.]]]
You need to read the entire hadith before making up excuses for Mo's brutal
behavior. By the time Mo came back to bed, she was already laying down
pretending to be asleep. Since he was back, she was no longer wondering about
his actions. She was not in a "unhealthy state." So, before you comment, get
the hadith and read it.
I wrote:
{{{I've dialoged with Muslims and no matter what dubious action Muhamamd
committed, Muslims find a way to justify it.}}}
Omar responded:
[[[Probably the influence of Christianity on us-- no matter what dubious
actions are attributed to Jehovah in the Bible, Christians find a way to
justify them. No matter what implausible events are alleged in the Gospels,
Christians find a way to believe them.]]]
I doubt if Christianity is rubbing off on you. After all, Jesus didn't teach
to beat your wives, Mo did. Instead of blaming others, why not take
responsibility for your own shortcomings?
omar...@my-deja.com
argue, among other things, that his "proof" fails.
Silas wrote:
> Previously I asked Omar if it would really matter to him what Mo did
>w/r to his
> following Muhammad. Omar replied:
>
> [[[If it could be shown that the Prophet had committed an unjust
action, then
> yes, it would matter to me. It would cause me to seriously re-evaluate
my
> faith.]]]
>
> Oh really? I doubt it. Muslims believe that Muhammad never did any
unjust
> actions, so, as I stated before, it really wouldn't matter.
That's right. I do believe that he never did any unjust actions. One
reason for that is that all of the "proofs" that he did some unjust
action or the other presented by nonMuslims are based on feeble
reasoning, or the failure to take into account all relevant information
transmitted to us, or are based on blatantly question-begging
assumptions about his character. This "proof" , that the Prophet--may
Allah bless him and grant him peace-- hit Aisha is similar. It fails to
take into account relevant information, namely another hadith from Aisha
to the effect that, outside of warfare in the cause of Allah, he never
beat anyone, "neither woman nor servant".
Silas then continues:
So it's back to the typical missionary game of focussing on one bit of
evidence, the bit that could be useful in denigrating the Prophet, to
the exclusion of everything else.
Muslim scholars have long known that the Prophet himself intensely
detested the idea of beating one's wife. When verse 4:34 was revealed,
he is reported to have said " I wanted one thing, but Allah wanted
another-- and what Allah wants is best." In other words "It is not my
own inclination at all that men should strike their wives. But Allah,
Who knows all and has wisdom greater than I do, has decreed something
else altogether." There are several hadiths which contain flat
prohibitions of striking women, many of them in the most respected
collections ( See Muhammad Asad's "The Message of the Quran" for
references.) And Imam Shafi'i, one of the greatest scholars and a
universally recognised Sunni authority, held that such an action was
just barely permissible, if resorted to at all--- he justified his
opinion by the Prophet's own attitude and character. (See Asad, op.cit.)
There is also a general consensus among Muslim authorities(Sunni
and Shia) to the effect that the Prophet forbade striking one's wife, if
resorted to at all, except with a toothbrush, or something similar.
Moreover, there is the awkward matter of the hadith of Aisha, also
in Sahih Muslim, quoted by Surayya earlier in the discussion, in which
she flatly denies that the Prophet ever struck a woman or servant--- see
below.
In the light of all these points, the story about the Prophet
striking Aisha becomes more than doubtful. That is one reason why it
would be important to check out what other scholars and commentators
have said about this hadith.
Silas continues:
> You'll have to take your argument up with Muslim, or another scholar.
>Neither
> of us are scholar of Hadith. For me, since it is in a Sahih
>collection, and it
> is not contradicted by any other Hadith, it stands.
Oh, really?
Here is the relevant part of the hadith of Aisha from Sahih Muslim,
quoted by Surayya earlier in this discussion.
"Allah's messenger never beat anyone with his hand, neither woman nor
servant, except when he had been fighting in the cause of Allah..."
We learn two things from this hadith:
(1) Allah's messenger never beat anyone with his hand except in battle.
(2) In particular, he never beat a woman or servant.
This hadith thus clearly contradicts the one quoted by Silas. It
renders his "proof" worthless, since he has not taken into account all
relevant hadiths.
But let's leave all that aside for now. What if we accept this
hadith? I commented:
> [[[But on the face of it, in the light of what you've written, there
>is not the
> slightest reason to suppose that the Prophet had his "ego
>challenged".]]]
Silas responded:
> Sure their is. She doubted him, he stuck her. He hurt her. She did
>no wrong. She was insecure, and rightly so. I don't blame her for
>doubting his
> integrity.
I say, yes, she was thoroughly blameworthy for doubting his integrity.
The early biographers of the Prophet all noted that he had been called
"Al-Amin", the trustworthy one, on account of his integrity, honesty,
and sound character, even before his mission . It was precisely these
qualities that led Khadija to propose to him, despite the difference in
their ages. It was precisely these qualities that led her to believe him
when he had his first revelatory experiences. It was precisely these
qualities that led the pagans to deposit their valuables wth him, even
as they were persecuting him. It was precisely these qualities that led
that first small band of Muslims to believe in him, icluding Aisha's
father, Abu Bakr, despite the intense persecution they faced. It was
also these qualities that led those Muslims to forsake their homes,
forsake their wealth, separate themselves from husbands and wives, and
fight against fathers and sons, thus creating the most significant,
explosive, and dynamic socio-politico-religious movement in history.
Yes, Aisha should never have doubted him. She was suspicious.
Suspicion is characterised in the Quran as a grave sin. How much graver
a sin when one is suspicious of God's apostle, sent as "a mercy to the
worlds"? That is why the Prophet--may Allah bless him and grant him
peace-- said
>... "did you think Allah and His apostle
> would deal with you unjustly"? He knew she doubted him.
In particular, we should remember that, because of her closeness to him,
> [[[His wife was meant to adopt a far higher standard of behaviour than
>other
> people, and she was required to have a greater level of faith in
>Allah's
> messenger.]]]
Silas responds:
> So you saying it is okay for Mo to punch his wives if they doubt him?
I am saying that we should examine the context carefully, rather than
jumping to the conclusions for which missionaries are so eager (in
passing, note that nowhere does the hadith mention "punching", which is
Silas' twist). In particular, we have to wonder about the state of mind
of the girl who would get up secretly in the middle of the night to
stalk her husband as he went outside to pray. This behaviour suggests
she was in an emotionally disturbed state, her mind filled with
unwarranted suspicions caused, no doubt, by satanic whisperings and
insinuations -- marital jealousy can be like that, sometimes with tragic
consequences (remember Othello?). The Prophet, out of concern for her
state, wanted to shake her out of it, to bring her back to her senses,
and at the same time to bring home to her the seriousness of her
behaviour: she was after all suspicious of Gods' messenger, which is a
grave sin, and if left unchecked, could be a sure path to Hellfire. The
Prophet was so concerned with the fate of his people in the afterlife
that even the Quran gently rebukes him for "consuming himself with grief
because they will not believe". If he struck her (which I doubt-- see
above) it was not an expression of cruelty or aggression, but rather out
of concern for the sinful, disturbed, stalker's mentality she was
temporarily exhibiting.
Silas responds:
> You need to read the entire hadith before making up excuses for Mo's
>brutal
> behavior.
Been there, done that. You need to consider alternative possible
interpretations of the event in question, rather than jumping to the
conclusion that seems most likely to cast doubt on the Prophet's
character. Striking someone need not be "brutal" at all -- it may be
necessary to shake someone out of a dangerously disturbed state, as I've
explained above.
>By the time Mo came back to bed, she was already laying
>down
> pretending to be asleep. Since he was back, she was no longer
>wondering about
> his actions. She was not in a "unhealthy state."
A nonsequitur. She was still in the unhealthy state which produced her
stalking behaviour in the first place. Her suspicions were unconfirmed,
but the suspicious cast of her mind, her proneness to unwarranted and
absurd doubts, was still present. The Prophet could see that. This state
was bad for her. The Prophet wanted to shake her out of it, that's all.
He was not trying to hurt her, anymore than a loving mother wants to
hurt her young child when he does something which is dangerous and she
feels the need to punish him to deter him from it in the future.
Finally, Silas wrote:
> I wrote:
> {{{I've dialoged with Muslims and no matter what dubious action
>Muhamamd
> committed, Muslims find a way to justify it.}}}
>
> Omar responded:
> [[[Probably the influence of Christianity on us-- no matter what
dubious
> actions are attributed to Jehovah in the Bible, Christians find a way
>to
> justify them. No matter what implausible events are alleged in the
Gospels,
> Christians find a way to believe them.]]]
>
> I doubt if Christianity is rubbing off on you. After all, Jesus
>didn't teach
> to beat your wives, Mo did. Instead of blaming others, why not take
> responsibility for your own shortcomings?
Do we really know what Jesus taught and did not teach? The Gospels are
hardly a comprehensive account of all of Jesus' teachings. Doesn't John
say that Jesus said and did many more things than could be written down,
or something to that effect? So how do we know that Jesus *didn't*
accept that moderate corporal punishment could be justified in certain
circumstances, which is the Shariah's teaching? After all, isn't Jesus
supposed to be one and the same as the deity who commanded massacres of
entire tribes, men , women, and children included?
Finally, note that by the rigorous standards of classical Muslim
jurisprudence, the Gospels are simply not acceptable as a basis for
religious thought and practice: they are a collection of weak,
unreliable hadiths, from which one can gather at best only the very
broadest outlines of his teachings-- may Allah bless him and his pure
mother and all the messengers and prophets.
So yes, I'm grateful that Christianity isn't rubbing off on us. In
particular, I'm grateful that we have far higher standards of rigour in
assessing evidence used to draw conclusions about prophets in the
distant past. Those standards dictate that one should take into account
all available hadiths in drawing a conclusion. In particular, one needs
to take into account the following hadith from Sahih Muslim:
" Allah's Messenger never beat anyone with his hand, neither woman nor
servant, but only in the case that he had been fighting in the cause of
Allah."
Silas has not dealt adequately with this hadith. His "proof" that the
Prophet struck Aisha fails.
SILAS778
[[[ So I suggest we all replace this phrase with one less charged, but
nevertheless
accurate: "corporal punishment".]]]
Another Muslim euphemism to hide the cruelty of the Quran's command to beat
wives. Well, at least you haven't said, "beat with a feather, beat with a
large toothpick". Or have you?
Tell it like it is - If the wife persists in disobedience, beat her.
SILAS778
[[[The English translation of the hadith says "strike". Silas writes "punch".
attention to the way that missionaries twist evidence to make anything in the
hadith sound as bad as possible. Obviously "slap" which is at least as
plausible in the circumstances, would not convey the same
level of aggression as "punch" in English -- so Silas uses the latter to
doesn't change the issues here, but it is useful to be aware of this debating
Strike: to deliver a blow, to come into contact forcefully.
That means that Muhammad could have punched her, backhanded her, karate chopped
her, or slapped her. Remember, he hurt her. Probably bruised her. Ever been
slapped on the chest? Perhaps he also struck her breast, or if you prefer,
slapped her breast. Would that be alright with you? Not me. I can't justify
striking a teenage girl, his own wife, in the chest for just mental doubt.
[[[So what's your point?]]]
My point is that Aisha was right in doubing Muhammad's integrity. Just because
Muhammad got yet another revelation justifying his willy - nilly behavior,
doesn't mean that it went down well with his followers. Like Aisha said, "I
see that Allah is always quick to give you your desires."
{{{Aisha didn't lie, she didn't act lewdly, she wasn't disobedient, she was
just insecure - no wonder. And for that, ... Mahamud had his ego challenged,
and "whap", his wife gets it.}}}
[[[Wrong. Aisha was the wife of God's final apostle. The Quran stresses that
his wives are not like other women. They have a special status and standing in
the community. The standard of behaviour expected of them was much higher than
for other people. Aisha of all people should have known that Allah's apostle
would never treat her unjustly by secretly spending her turn with another wife.
She should have known better than that. Yet her heart was clouded by suspicion,
which is described by Allah as a grave sin.]]]
Grave sin? Where does it say that for Aisha to doubt Muhammad's sexual
integrity it is a grave sin? In any event, you're saying she deserved to be
beaten because she doubted him? What about Omar and Abu Bakr when they doubted
Muhammad at Hudaybiyya? Should they have been beaten as well? They were far
more outspoken about their humilation at the hands of the pagans, yet nothing
happened to them.
[[[So yes, she was disobedient to God by being absurdly and unwarrantedly
suspicious of God's messenger...]]]
I don't buy it. Nothing happened to Hafsa, Sawda or Aisha when they lied to
and fooled Muhammad about eating honey. The Quran even had to have a verse to
tell Muhammad to break his vow. That's a big deal isn't i?. Yet no wife was
beaten. And that was a conspiracy.
[[[ We have to stop and wonder at the state of mind of the girl who would be so
full of suspicion that she got up and stalked her husband in the middle of the
night as he went out to pray. Clearly she was in an
intensely emotionally disturbed state, her mind full of absurd fantasies caused
no doubt, by satanic insinuations and whisperings.]]]
I don't blame her for doubting him. I would doubt a guy who abrogates his word
at the drop of a hat. I would doubt a guy who gets "revealtions" to break his
word. I would doubt a guy who says he has to take turns with his wives, and
then gets revelations that he doesn't have to. I would think, "what's he gonna
come up with next?"
And, I don't think Satan had to be involved. Don't blame the devil for natural
human behavior. What women wouldn't doubt Muhammad? Just to assure her place
in > paradise as Muhammad's wife, to prevent him from divorcing her, old and
fat Sawda gave up her sexual turn to Aisha, so she wouldn't be divorced.
That's legitimate
doubt and suspicision!
[[[The Prophet , out of concern for her state, wanted to shake her out of it,
to bring her back to her senses, and at the same time to bring home to her the
seriousness of her being suspicious of God's messenger, since even ordinary
cases of suspicion can be sinful. He struck her not out of cruelty or
aggression, but
out of concern for the stalker's mentality she was temporarily exhibiting.
We've heard of cases where a hysterical person
needs to be slapped to bring them to their senses. Aisha's case is similar.]]]
Totally wrong. She was already in bed, pretending to be asleep. When he
returned, she didn't need to be in doubt any longer. When they talked, she was
fine. He hit her because his ego was challenged. Typical of him - to always
respond in anger when his ego is challenged. Like when he wanted Sarh killed,
but he gave no indication his followers to kill Sarh. Afterwards he yells at
them for not killing Sarh,and they ask him, "Why didn't you give us a sign?"
He replied, "a prophet does not kill by giving a sign." Yeah right, and his
followers were not mind readers. So yes, he couldn't keep his ego in check.
[[[Allah's Messenger never beat anyone with his hand neither a woman nor a
servant, but only in the case when he had been fighting in the cause of Allah
and he never took revenge for anything unless the things made inviolable by
Allah were made violable; he then took revenge for Allah, the Exalted and
glorious.]]]
(2) In particular, he never beat any woman or servant. There are other
hadiths which confirm this last point, although I don't have the references
handy.
This hadith thus flatly contradicts the earlier one, casting grave doubts on
it]]]
You misquote the Hadith, it says he didn't beat a women "unless the things made
inviolable by Allah were made violable;". It was permissible for Mo to strike
a woman with Allah's will. Now where do we find Muhammad's Allah? In his hip
pocket. Just as Aisha said, "I see that Allah is quick to give you your
desires".
[[[Silas tries to paper over the obvious contradiction by writing
{{{Well, I guess Mohammad had Allah's approval to smack her, something like
taking revenge for Allah - for Aisha doubting him.}}}]]]
[[[which misses the point. The hadith cited makes it clear that he never struck
any woman or servant. Though he took revenge for the sake of Allah on some
occasions, the hadith cited implies that he never did so
by striking a woman or a servant.]]]
No, the hadith allows him to strike a woman for Allah's revenge.
CONCLUSION
The Sahih hadith contains proof that Muhammad struck Aisha. It goes along with
Muhammad striking a woman with Allah's permission. Devout Muslims will say
that it was a just striking, for how could Muhammad do anything unjust? He did
it with Allah's permission.
I say, that the same Allah that commands men to beat their wives, would
certainly allow his prophet to beat his wife. I would venture that others had
been stuck as well. Punching, slapping, striking, backhanding, or chopping a
young teenage girl, for doubting him is not justified. A good husband, would
have comforted his wife, and spoke words of love to her, not give her a shot in
the chest.
SILAS778
proof. I asked him if it would really matter if I produced proof because I've
found that Muslims would justify any action Muhammad did, even if he poked
Aisha in the eye with a stick. Well, I produced the proof, and, as expected,
it didn't matter to Omar. Why? Because to admit that Muhammad had many
failings would lower the rating of the man he follows and cast doubt upon the
integrity of the religion he has given his life to. The cost is too great.
Omar wrote:
[[[That's right. I do believe that he never did any unjust actions. ... This
"proof" , that the Prophet-may Allah bless him and grant him peace-- hit Aisha
is similar. It fails to take into account relevant information, namely another
hadith from Aisha to the effect that, outside of warfare in the cause of Allah,
he never beat anyone, "neither woman nor servant".]]]
You misquote the hadith, it does not say he never hit a women, he says he never
hit a women w/o Allah's approval. Just as it is easy to say, "the devil made
me do it", so it is easy to say, "Allah gave me His permission to do it.".
And, there are many examples of Muhammad using this trick to justify anything
he wanted to do. For instance, there is the case of abrogation of the Quran,
there is the case of Muhammad breaking his vow (sura 33?), there is the case of
Muhammad breaking the treaty of Hudaybiyya, there is the case of Muhammad
breaking his treaties with the pagans, there is the case of Muhammad carrying
out violence in Mecca - for just a few hours, there is the case of Muhammad
burning down the fruit trees, etc. Quite frequently,whenever Muhammad really
wanted to do something, he did it, and put the blame on Allah's shoulders.
It's an old standard cop out people have used before and after Muhammad.
W/r to the hadith I provided as proof - one that says that Muhammad struck
Aisha for doubting him, Omar replied:
[[[So it's back to the typical missionary game of focussing on one bit of
evidence, the bit that could be useful in denigrating the Prophet, to the
exclusion of everything else.]]]
I've studied Muhammad's life extensively, and I've found many examples of bad
behaviour in Muhammad's life. I would rate Muhammad ahead of Saddam Hussein,
Mao, and Stalin, etc. But he certainly is not in Jesus', Ghandi's, or even
Bill Clinton's league.
[[[Muslim scholars have long known that the Prophet himself intensely detested
the idea of beating one's wife. When verse 4:34 was revealed, he is reported to
have said " I wanted one thing, but Allah wanted another-- and what Allah wants
is best." ]]]
If you read the context of the story behind 4:34, Muhammad referred to an
earlier command he gave prohibiting wife beating because women complained to
him. Once the husbands complained that women were acting up, Muhammad said to
beat them, (now based on "revelation". Muhammad was not disagreeing with
Allah, he was saying his first call was wrong, and now he was changing his
mind. Muhammad was in full accord with wife beating.
Additionally, I don't think that Muhammad's striking Aisha falls under the
context of 4:34. That context deals with beating a persistently disobedient
wife. Aisha did not disobey Muhamad by doubting him. She questioned his
integrity. He did not follow the steps he had laid out in 4:34. He did not
verbally admonish her, he did not sexually seperate from her. Instead, in a
fit of uncontrolled emotion, Muhammad punched her in the chest.
[[[There is also a general consensus among Muslim authorities(Sunni and Shia)
to the effect that the Prophet forbade striking one's wife, if resorted to at
all, except with a toothbrush, or something similar.]]]
Ahh yes, the ol, "toothbrush or toothpick" ploy. Where is the proof? Instead,
I read about women being beaten, bruised, to the point that Aisha has to say
that even the pagan women are treaten better than the Muslim women.
Here is the Hadith in full from Muslim:
Book 29, Number 5756:
Narrated Aisha:
Allah's Messenger never beat anyone with his hand neither a woman nor a
servant, but only in the case when he had been fighting in the cause of Allah
and he never took revenge for anything unless the things made inviolable by
Allah were made violable; he then took revenge for Allah, the Exalted and
glorious.
Omar wrote:
[[[We learn two things from this hadith:
(1) Allah's messenger never beat anyone with his hand except in battle.
(2) In particular, he never beat a woman or servant.
This hadith thus clearly contradicts the one quoted by Silas. It renders his
"proof" worthless, since he has not taken into account all relevant hadiths.]]]
First of all, we are dealing with a "Sahih" collection of Hadith. It is not a
simple collection of hadith that was thrown together w/o regard for integrity.
Rather it is a collection of Hadith that Muslim sifted through and only
included those hadith that he considered to be authentic and sound. Some may
be more strongly attested to, but that does not mean they are false, rather, it
means that the supporting evidence is not as great as it could be. This in no
way means that Muslim chose fake hadith to put into his collection; he choose
hadith that had integrity and validity. To glibly state that his hadith is
contradicting each other, without understanding the context, is to do what you
accuse others of doing - i.e., twisting the hadith to suit your own purpose.
If you take the contexts of the hadith in question you see that there is no
contradiction between the two (2127 vs. 5756). Obviously, this was apparant to
Iman Muslim. For Muhammad to have stuck Aisha in the chest does not qualify as
a "beating" that a man would give his wife according to 4:34, or a beating one
would give to a disobedient slave. Aisha was struck, but that did not qualify
as a beating in her mind - because for Muhamad to have stuck his wife, one
time, in the chest, would not qualify that action as giving a beating to her.
That was why she could relate both hadith. And, in battle, Muhammad didn't
simply punch an enemy in the chest, he used his sword for fighting. The above
hadith states that Muhammad didn't beat his wives, as other Muslims did, say
like Rahman did in bruising his wife. It does not contradict the Hadith that
says, "He struck me on the chest which caused me pain,..."
Second, even Sidiqqi accepts the Hadith. He has several notes on it and he
does not comment that it contradicts other hadith. Surely he was aware of
Muhammad's striking Aisha, and he passes it on w/o criticism. In fact, Sidiqqi
goes to lenghts to justify Aisha's actions, going against what is plain - that
she was doubting Muhammad, (and ignoring Muhammad's question to Aisha).
Siddiqi diligently makes many comments on what he believes are errors in
Muslim's hadith. Here, he accepts the validity of Aisha being struck.
Back to the justification for Muhamad striking his wife. Omar justifies it
because...
[[[I say, yes, she was thoroughly blameworthy for doubting his integrity. ...
Yes, Aisha should never have doubted him. She was suspicious. Suspicion is
characterised in the Quran as a grave sin. How much graver a sin when one is
suspicious of God's apostle, sent as "a mercy to the worlds"? That is why the
Prophet--may Allah bless him and grant him
peace-said]]]
Siddiqi, the translator of Sahih Muslim disagrees with you. In his notes
(1915), on Hadith 3450, he says that "it was the natural desire of a woman (to
be the object of the prophet's love for that night"). Hence, Aisha was right
in worrying and doubting Muhammad's actions when he left the house that night.
And, as previously noted, it was thoroughly justifiable for Aisha to doubt
Muhammad's integrity. Remember, Muhammad had a "revelation" that he didn't
have to take turns with his wifes if he didn't want to. So often, whenever
Muhammad wanted to rules changed, Allah changed them for him.
I asked Omar:
{{{So you saying it is okay for Mo to punch his wives if they doubt him?}}}
Omar responded:
[[[I am saying that we should examine the context carefully,...]]]
I agree.
[[[In particular, we have to wonder about the state of mind of the girl who
would get up secretly in the middle of the night to stalk her husband as he
went outside to pray. This behaviour suggests she was in an emotionally
disturbed state, her mind filled with
unwarranted suspicions caused, no doubt, by satanic whisperings and
insinuations -- marital jealousy can be like that, sometimes with tragic
consequences (remember Othello?). ]]]
If we are going to examine the hadith carefully, I would point out that she did
not know he was going to pray. And, knowing about Muhammad's sexual habits, it
was understandable and justifiable for her to wonder what he was up to. Satan
didn't need to be involved, as Siddiqui stated, it was natural for Aisha to
feel jealous.
[[[The Prophet, out of concern for her state, wanted to shake her out of it, to
bring her back to her senses, and at the same time to bring home to her the
seriousness of her
behaviour: ... If he struck her (which I doubt-see above) it was not an
expression of cruelty or aggression, but rather out of concern for the sinful,
disturbed, stalker's mentality she was temporarily exhibiting.]]]
Again, after he returned to her house, she was no longer doubting his actions.
She had seen him pray, she ran quickly back home to beat his arrival. She was
not in an irrational state of mind.
And, if we carefully read the Hadith that records Muhammad punching Aisha, we
find that he struck her, immediately after he asked her the question, "Was it
the darkness of your shadow that I saw in front of me?, and Aisha answered
"yes". Wam! She caught it in the chest. I'm sure that when he saw her
shadow, it scared him. And I'm sure that he didn't like being doubting -
i.e., his lack of sexual integrity questioned.
So, despite Omar's long winded, fictional, account of Aisha needing to be
slapped to be brought back into her senses, the Hadith records something quite
different. We read about a man striking his wife for scaring him, and doubting
him. He was not concerned about her frame of mind.
The conclusion is the same as before: Muhamad struck Aisha in the chest, not
because he was concerned for her frame of mind, not because he was worried
about her "sin", but because he was probably scared by her, and his ego was
challenged because she rightly doubted him.
If the creator of the religion of Islam can punch his wife, a teenage girl, in
the chest, for simply doubting him, can't the rest of the Muslim men do
likewise?
Food for thought - Aisha said that the Christian, pagan, and Jewish women were
treated better than the Muslim women. Why were the Muslim women so brutally
treated at the hands of the early Muslims - i.e. Muhamad's companions?
Imran Razi
Salaam,
Why are we discussing Christianity on this newsgroup?
Fariduddien Rice
> Another Muslim euphemism to hide the cruelty of the Quran's command to beat
> wives. Well, at least you haven't said, "beat with a feather, beat with a
> large toothpick". Or have you?
>
> Tell it like it is - If the wife persists in disobedience, beat her.
All words are open to interpretation, which also leaves them open to
misinterpretation. Unfortunately, there is a group of Christians
who persist in finding misinterpretations in other religions whenever they
can, in order to try to bolster their own faith. (This kind of behavior
is not unique to Christianity, of course.)
In my opinion, this characteristic is a sign of their own weak faith in
their own religion. If Silas's faith in Christianity was really as strong
as he likes to portray, then he wouldn't feel the need to spread
misinformation about other religions to bolster his own faith the way he
does. Silas clearly feels he needs to put other religions down, in order
for him to feel like he has made the best choice in being a Christian.
This is a sign of his own weak faith in his own religion.
There has been much discussion about this verse of the Qur'an in the past,
and I'm sure there will be much in the future.
One interesting point of view I have come across is that the verse 4:34
does not mention "striking" at all, but that it is talking metaphorically
about sexual intercourse. Here is the translation, using this
interpretation:
Men are the support of women as God gives some more means than others,
and because they spend of their wealth (to provide for them). So women
who are virtuous are obedient to God and guard the hidden as God has
guarded it. As for women you feel are averse, talk to them suasively;
then leave them alone in bed (without molesting them) and go to bed with
them (when they are willing). If they open out to you, do not seek an
excuse for blaming them. Surely God is sublime and great.
[Ahmed Ali's translation.]
According to what I read, this interpretation is based on the work of
linguist and lexicographer of the Qur'an, Imam Raghib (d. 503 H). More
details about this interpretation can be found on the web page
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Spa/3879/wife.html
To add to this, during the Farewell Pilgrimage, the Prophet (peace and
blessings of Allah be with him) said that it is prohibited to "cause pain"
to women (as reported by Muhammad Asad in his commentary on 4:34). If it
is prohibited to cause pain, it is clear that if any "striking" does occur
then it must only be symbolic. This is why there's the suggestion, of
some Islamic scholars, of using a tooth-cleaning stick (miswak) (Tabari,
quoting the earliest scholars) or folded handkerchief (Razi). [More
discussion about this can be found in Muhammad Asad's commentary on this
verse, in his translation and commentary of the Qur'an.]
"Wife-beating" -- that is, harming your wife in any way -- is prohibited,
to my knowledge, based on the fact that it is prohibited to cause pain to
women according to the Prophet's instructions during the Farewell
Pilgrimage. Harming women at all is also prohibited in several other
hadiths.
Wassalam,
__________________________________________________________________________
Fariduddien Rice Email : farid @ stormcity.com
Australian web site http://homepages.haqq.com.au/salam/
US mirror site http://www.stormcity.com/salam/
"And how many Signs in the heavens and the earth do they pass by?
Yet they turn (their faces) away from them!" - Qur'an 12:105
__________________________________________________________________________
SILAS778
involving Islamic beating of women.
Muhammad's wives had upset him, notably Aisha and Hafsa were involved. Umar
was very concerning about it, and spoke with Muhammad. He told him a story of
slapping his daughter on the neck. Muhammad found this humorous and laughed
about it.
So, shortly thereafter, Muhammad, Aisha, Hafsa, Umar and Abu Bakr were all
together. The fathers were angry with their daughter - (both wives of
Muhammad), and both fathers struck their girls in the neck. Obivously Muhammad
approved, and no doubt, found it humorous!
All of these Hadith illustrate the FACT, that women in Islam are inbetween
slave and free (a term Muhammad used in his farewell adress). Accordingly,
they can be beaten and treated as second class. This is a position that
Muhammad put them in.
I agree with and echo what Aisha stated: Muslim women are treated worse than
the Pagan, Jewish, and Christian women.
omar...@my-deja.com
>
> [[[ So I suggest we all replace this phrase with one less charged, but
> nevertheless
> accurate: "corporal punishment".]]]
>
> wives. Well, at least you haven't said, "beat with a feather, beat with a
> large toothpick". Or have you?
The phrase "corporal punishment" is literal and accurate.
Whether or not a certain command is cruel is the whole point of the
discussion. It can't be settled as long as the very words we use are
misleading us.
Certain phrases can come to carry connotations that go beyond their literal
meanings. "Wife beating" is one such phrase, which has so come to be
associated with injustice ( largely as a result of the feminist movement)
that it prejudices the discussion right at the beginning. One cannot hear the
phrase without images of injustice being conjured up in one's mind. It
therefore should be avoided in an impartial discussion. But, that would be
bad for the Christian missionary project of bullying Muslims out of their
faith and into a bizarre mix of pagan philosophy and Jewish heresy based on
inauthentic sources.
> Tell it like it is -
Sure--- if the husband fears ill-treatment from his wife, he ought to
admonish her, separate from her sexually, and then impose moderate corporal
punishment. If all else fails, he can get arbitration.
Punishing with something small, like a toothbrush, so as to avoid injuries,
is a widely accepted practise, noted by Tabari, Razi, Tabatabai and many
other Islamic scholars.
omar...@my-deja.com
two stand out clearly: failure to take into account available evidence,
and biased interpretation of basic texts.
Both of these problems can be demonstrated in the work of Silas778. In
this post, I will focus on
SILAS' POOR USE OF EVIDENCE
Earlier on, Silas claimed that the Prophet -- may Allah bless
him and grant him peace!! -- struck Aisha. Based on the general
character of the Prophet, I had grave doubts about this and demanded
proof.
To show why Silas' proof fails, I quoted a hadith from Sahih
Muslim, one which has been used many times by Muslims in their dawa
writings to show the Prophet never hit a woman in a domestic situation.
It has also been used by feminist critics of Islam, such as Fatima
Mernissi, who think that problems of abuse in the Muslim world could be
overcome if men were MORE like their prophet, because, they say, *he*
never hit a woman.
Nevertheless Silas manages to misunderstand it.
Here is the hadith:
"Aisha(r) reported that Allah's messenger never beat anyone
with his hand neither a woman nor a servant but only inthe case when he
had been fighting in the cause of Allah and he never took revenge for
anything unless the things made inviolable by Allah were made violable;
he then took revenge for Allah, the Exalted and Glorious."
I commented:
> [[[That's right. I do believe that he never did any unjust actions.
... This
> "proof" , that the Prophet-may Allah bless him and grant him peace--
hit Aisha
> is similar. It fails to take into account relevant information, namely
another
> hadith from Aisha to the effect that, outside of warfare in the cause
of Allah,
> he never beat anyone, "neither woman nor servant".]]]
Silas responded with:
> You misquote the hadith, it does not say he never hit a women, he says
>he never
> hit a women w/o Allah's approval.
To which my initial response is: eh, what? The hadith doesn't
say anything of the sort. Look at it again. ( And if it did, Aisha would
be wasting her time on redundancies, because her listeners already knew
that the Prophet never did *anything* without Allah's approval.)
The text of the hadith above is quite plain. To a normal
English speaker, reading the text without bias, it says two things:
(1) Allah's messenger never beat anyone with his hand, neither woman
nor servant, but only in the case when he had been fighting in the cause
of Allah.
(2) Allah's messenger never took revenge for anything unless the
things of Allah were made violable; he then took revenge for Allah's
sake.
The hadith is elegant and simple. It naturally breaks into
two parallel parts, separated by a conjunction. The first part tells us
about the times when the Prophet beat someone with his hand (ONLY in
battle.) The second part tells us about something more general, namely
the times when the Prophet took revenge for something (ONLY when the
things made inviolable by Allah were made violable). To use the
terminology of logic, the first part gives us a necessary condition for
the Prophet's beating someone with his hand ( he did it while fighting
in the cause of Allah and not otherwise), and the second part gives us a
necessary condition for the Prophet's taking revenge on someone (when
the things made inviolable by Allah were made violable.)
(1) clearly entails that he never beat anyone with his hand
NEITHER WOMAN NOR SERVANT outside of warfare in the cause of Allah.
Period.
How could Silas so totally misunderstand such a simple
sentence?
As a Christian, Silas HAS to believe that there are no
prophets after Jesus. If he has doubts about that, he has doubts about
his religion: and then he can't go around smugly claiming that he knows
for sure he will get into heaven, as he did in an earlier post. If his
attacks on the Prophet are baseless, weak, and sloppy ( which they are)
then there is a serious possibility that the Prophet had the character
that Muslims say he did. Christians coming across the majesty of Islam
for the first time are often thrown into doubt about their faith. Silas
can't afford that kind of debilitating doubt. He has staked his life on
this faith, (which is based on little more than weak hadiths.) He can't
afford to accept the Muslims' view of their Prophet's character, as that
would come dangerously close to accepting that the Prophet was who he
said he was. No, the risk of accepting that the Prophet had no moral
failings is far too great.
Moreover, Silas has committed himself to defaming the Prophet
for the benefit of Muslims. He tries to protray himself as a
careful researcher into Islam. So he can hardly back down in the face of
some upstart young Muslim who challenges his "thorough research" in
public! His reputation would never survive that!! The cost is too
great...
So when Surayya first posted the above hadith, he misunderstood
it, despite the plainness of its English, and despite the fact that any
of my beginning logic students would have no trouble understanding it.
And he still does. And probably it will continue.
The above hadith flatly contradicts Silas' claim that the
Prophet struck Aisha. It renders his 'proof' worthless since he is not
able to account for it. So we have a clear instance of
[[.....the typical missionary game of focussing on one bit
of
evidence, the bit that could be useful in denigrating the Prophet, to
the
exclusion of everything else.]]]
Even without the hadith above, silas 'proof' is more than
doubtful, because, as I noted
[[[Muslim scholars have long known that the Prophet himself intensely
detested
the idea of beating one's wife.]]
Obviously the Prophet recognised the need for corporal
punishment in very specific circumstances, because it had been revealed.
But his NATURAL INCLINATION was strongly averse to it, and he
was known to be the gentlest of men in his private conduct and domestic
affairs, more shy than a bashful virgin -- so gentle that an old
slavewoman could take him by the hand and lead him wherever she wanted.
Anas reported that in ten years of serving M he never once heard him say
"uff!" nor even ask "Why did you do such-and-such?" Another report from
Anas tells us that on one occasion, a rough bedouin seized M so
forcefully that marks were left on his neck; the Prophet merely smiled
and ordered that the man be given what he wanted.
This gentleness and mildness of the Prophet's character was one
of the reasons why he was so deeply loved by his followers, who
were ready to sacrifice all for him. It was so well-known that it was
used as a legal proof: although 4:34 has the form of a command, one of
thye greatest of Muslim scholars, namely Imam Shafi'i, regarded the
striking involved as just barely permissible -- he based his position on
the Prophet's own feelings and character. The very fact that he wanted
to stress this in his crucial Farewell Sermon, when there were so many
other things he could have talked about (trade, international relations,
children, and so on.) shows how concerned he was that, if men had to
punish their wives in accord with 4:34, they should do so moderately
(ghayr mubarrih):
Amr hear the prophet say... he cautioned his followers: "Listen!
Treat women kindly; they are like prisoners in your hands. Beyond this
you do not owe anything from them..... Then if they obey you, do not
have recourse to anything else against them.
Listen! You have rights over your wives, and they have rights
over
you...."
As a further example of his mild disposition and aversion to
domestic violence, there is a hadith that tells us that on one occasion
a slave girl had been sent by the Prophet on an errand, and she made him
wait all day long for her. He was very upset, so he picked up a
toothpick and said to her "If I did not fear Allah, I would strike you
with this." Here the Prophet tells her that even if he lost his fear of
God and struck her out of anger, he would only do so with a toothpick.
If this is how he behaved with a slavegirl who wronged him, then how
much more gentle he must have been with his favourite wife, the daughter
of his best friend.
There are also many authentic hadiths, a few of which were
posted by Surayya earlier, in which the Prophet either tells you flat
out not to beat women, or stresses the need to punish them moderately.
There is also the fact that
[[When verse 4:34 was revealed, he is
reported to
have said " I wanted one thing, but Allah wanted another-- and what
Allah wants
is best." ]]]
What he says here is that "It is not at all my inclination to allow men
to beat their wives. But Allah is All-Wise, and his commands must be
obeyed, since he knows what is best."
His attitude here is that of the humble servant, submitting to his
Lord even aganst his own inclinations, just as Abraham submitted to
Allah in the matter of his son's sacrifice, even though it was against
his natural inclination. So we can see that Silas has completely missed
the point when he writes
[[Muhammad was in full accord with wife beating.]]
His NATURAL INCLINATION was strongly averse to domestic violence,
but he SUBMITTED to God's commands and recognised that there were
certain situations in which corporal punishment might become justified.
Nevertheless, he set limits on this punishment, limits which have been
transmitted by the unanimous opinion of the jurists. For example, he
forbade striking the face or below the belt. Muhammad Asad, in his
commentary on the Quran, notes that " All the authorities are unanimous
that the 'beating' (of 4:34) is more or less symbolic." He goes on to
quote Tabari who sums up the views of earlier scholars by saying that
the beating should be conducted with "a toothbrush or something
similar", and Razi, who thinks that it should be done with a
handkerchief. Moreover top Shia scholars like Allama Tabatabai have
reported a consensus among their ranks that the beating should be
carried out with a toothbrush. They quote from the great-grandchildren
of the Prophet, who are universally recognised authorities in Islam
themselves. I summed all this up when I said:
[[[There is also a general consensus among Muslim authorities(Sunni
and Shia)
to the effect that the Prophet forbade striking one's wife, if
resorted to at
all, except with a toothbrush, or something similar.]]]
Silas' response was:
> Ahh yes, the ol, "toothbrush or toothpick" ploy. Where is the proof?
Let me ask Silas a question at this point.
Would it really matter to you if the Prophet had forbidden punishing
one's wife except with a toothbrush? I have debated with Christians, and
no matter what proofs you present them, they always prefer to focus on
isolated, relatively weak bits of evidence that support their
prejudices, rather than taking all the evidence into account. Silas does
this when he writes
[[Instead,
I read about women being beaten, bruised, to the point that Aisha has
to say
that even the pagan women are treaten better than the Muslim women.]]
So, let me ask: does it matter to you?
There is a consensus among the scholars on the toothbrush rule, which is
why Asad tells us that "All the authorities are unanimous in seeing the
'beating' as more or less symbolic." This consensus cuts across
sectarian divisions among Muslims, and includes even the Shia, who make
it a cardinal point of their fiqh to disagree with the Sunnis. And it is
a far stronger proof than the isolated hadiths that Silas is so fond of
quoting, and from which he makes the same feeble deductions over and
over again. The great jurists based their judgements on more hadiths
than Silas could hope to learn about even if he bothered to learn Arabic
before defaming Islam.
The Prophets' own character and natural disposition make Silas' 'proof'
that the Prophet struck Aisha more than doubtful. But let us return to
the hadith which all by itself renders Silas' 'proof' null and void.
Here is the Hadith in full from Muslim:
Book 29, Number 5756:
Narrated Aisha:
Allah's Messenger never beat anyone with his hand neither a woman nor
a
servant, but only in the case when he had been fighting in the cause
of Allah
and he never took revenge for anything unless the things made
inviolable by
Allah were made violable; he then took revenge for Allah, the Exalted
and
glorious.
In an earlier post, I had written
[[[We learn two things from this hadith:
(1) Allah's messenger never beat anyone with his hand except in
battle.
(2) In particular, he never beat a woman or servant.
This hadith thus clearly contradicts the one quoted by Silas. It
renders his
"proof" worthless, since he has not taken into account all relevant
hadiths.]]]
Silas responded initially with the hopelessly inadequate claim that
5756 only says that M never hit a woman without Allah's approval. Now,
if he were really convinced about this, why was there any need for him
to go through the lengthy, barely coherent rigmarole below? I suspect
that Silas himself is dimly aware that his earlier response will not
work, and so he takes another shot at reconciling 5756 with 2127.
In order to save face, Silas is going to try to wriggle out of the
flat and obvious contradiction between 2127 and 5756. He starts off by
appealing to the authority of Imam Muslim:
First of all, we are dealing with a "Sahih" collection of Hadith. It
is not a
> simple collection of hadith that was thrown together w/o regard for
integrity.
True enough.
> Rather it is a collection of Hadith that Muslim sifted through and
only
> included those hadith that he considered to be authentic and sound.
This is an oversimplification that is acceptable in the layman, but not
in one who claims to be basing his work on 'thorough research', (the
boast at the head of Silas' website, "Islam Unveiled".) In fact, Muslim
explicitly states in his introduction that he includes a number of
hadiths which are not sound, because they corroborate his sound hadiths.
Sahih Muslim is divided into sections. Each section makes a particular
point by means of sahih hadiths, and corroborates those by non-sahih
hadiths.
We should bear in mind that for the classical scholars, a hadith can be
sufficiently reliable to corroborate some point of law, even if it is
not reliable enough to stand on its own as a source of evidence. Such
hadiths are used by Muslim as corroborations for his principal sahih
hadiths, and they are acceptable for his purposes. Such hadiths may even
contain flaws, but are acceptable as long as they corroborate the
principal point in his section.
I should think Muslim was well aware of the weakness of 2127, because of
its flat contradiction with 5756. So it wasn't sound enough to be an
independent source of evidence (the way Silas tries to use it). But he
included it because it corroborates Muslim's point about prayers at the
graveyard, which is the title of the section in which it is included.
Silas, still trying to appeal to the authority of Muslim says:
[[Some may
be more strongly attested to, but that does not mean they are false,
rather, it
means that the supporting evidence is not as great as it could be.]]
And in some cases may not be strong enough to be an independent basis
for proof.
[[This in no
way means that Muslim chose fake hadith to put into his collection; he
choose
hadith that had integrity and validity.]]
He chose hadith that were suitable for his purposes. When it came to
hadiths whose function was to corroborate the sahih ones, he was quite
happy to use weak hadiths which would be unacceptable as independent
sources of information. That is why you will find quite a few
contradictions in Sahih Muslim.
Silas now struggles to reconcile 2127 and 5756, in the following
longwinded, repetitive, and barely comprehensible passage.
[[For Muhammad to have stuck Aisha in the chest does not
qualify as
a "beating" that a man would give his wife according to 4:34, or a
beating one
would give to a disobedient slave.
Aisha was struck, but that did not
qualify
as a beating in her mind - because for Muhamad to have stuck his wife,
one
time, in the chest, would not qualify that action as giving a beating
to her.]]
Eh, what? Of course it would. It was a strike, and it caused pain, and
as Silas said in an earlier post "I'll bet it even bruised her!" In
other posts, Silas chastises Muslims for not calling a spade a spade,
and shying away from using the term "wife beating". So come on, Silas ,
why don't YOU call a spade a spade, and TELL IT LIKE IT IS: 2127 depicts
a beating, the same situation which is claimed never to have existed in
5756.
2127 says he beat Aisha on the chest with his hand. What could be a
clearer example of beating someone with your hand? 5756 says he never
beat anyone with his hand outside of battle. Could any contradiction be
clearer? What exactly is the problem?
I suspect Silas is getting confused by his use of the phrase 'giving a
beating', which in English suggests more than one strike -- although one
strike definitely does count as a beating. But there is not the faintest
reason for thinking that this is what Aisha had in mind in 5756. The
Arabic word 'daraba', which is usually translated by 'beat' and 'strike'
certainly has no such connotation.
Silas seems to be trying to claim that the word 'beat' in 5756 has a
different meaning from what 2127 relates. But this is not at all
plausible. In 2127, a beating takes place, consisting of a single
strike, which causes pain. And this is exactly the kind of situation we
normally call a 'beating'. Where's the problem?
Silas is also wide of the mark when he writes
[[And, in battle, Muhammad
didn't
simply punch an enemy in the chest, he used his sword for fighting]]
because the Arabs had a tradition of duelling before the melee of a
major battle, and very often, the combatants would agree to drop their
weapons and fight hand-to-hand. Moreover, if a person loses his sword in
a battle, he has to use his bare hands somehow-- this is the situation
for which martial arts like karate were first designed.
Silas than continues:
[[The above
hadith states that Muhammad didn't beat his wives, as other Muslims
did, say
like Rahman did in bruising his wife. It does not contradict the
Hadith that
says, "He struck me on the chest which caused me pain,..."]]
The above hadith, 5756, says nothing of the sort. It is not at all
concerned with whether or not M beat his wives the way other Muslim men
did. It is not primarily concerned with women or servants at all -- they
are mentioned parenthetically, ('neither woman nor servant') to
emphasise the fact that the Prophet never beat *anyone* with his hand
outside warfare. The hadith concerns the Prophet's actions, and it tells
us that he never performed a certain action --beating someone with his
hand, whether once or repeatedly -- outside of the battlefield.
So the contradiction stands, as does the fact that Silas' 'proof' is a
failure.
In desperation, Silas even tries to appeal to the authority of Siddiqi,
who confesses he is an amateur, who had no training in hadith, and who
is generally held in contempt by qualified Muslim scholars for the poor
quality of his commentary!!!
The rest of Silas' response to me will have to wait for another
occasion, and another post. It illustrates the second problem I
mentioned above: biased
interpretation of texts.
Omar.
omar...@my-deja.com
>
> Strike: to deliver a blow, to come into contact forcefully.
>
> That means that Muhammad could have punched her, backhanded her,
karate chopped
> her, or slapped her. Remember, he hurt her. Probably bruised her.
And that's why this hadith is doubtful. Because there is another hadith
which flatly denies it,and which is transmitted through two chains of
transmissions, as opposed to just one (29:5756). It is truly amazing
that you have failed to understand this hadith; the way you read it is
artificial and forced and not the way that normal readers would.
omar...@my-deja.com
[[Muhammad's wives had upset him, notably Aisha and Hafsa were
involved. Umar
was very concerning about it, and spoke with Muhammad. He told him a
story of
slapping his daughter on the neck. Muhammad found this humorous and
laughed
about it.
So, shortly thereafter, Muhammad, Aisha, Hafsa, Umar and Abu Bakr were
all
together. The fathers were angry with their daughter - (both wives of
Muhammad), and both fathers struck their girls in the neck. Obivously
Muhammad
approved, and no doubt, found it humorous!]]
Again, we'd need to see the evidence of this to assess it properly.
The missionary is usually either blind to the need to properly assess
the reliability of the report in question, or is blind to alternative
interpretations. No wonder their writings lack credibility.
[[[All of these Hadith illustrate the FACT, that women in Islam are
inbetween
slave and free (a term Muhammad used in his farewell adress).
Accordingly,
they can be beaten and treated as second class.]]
The position of the mother with respect to her children in Islam is
hardly 'second class'!!
Islamic society, like every normal society, is hierarchical. There are
leaders and followers; and leadership involves both responsibility and
the authority to take punitive action if necessary. The children follow
their parents, especially the mother. Everyone follows the caliph. The
wife follows the husband. The soldiers follow the generals.
These relationships are based on the nature of things: for example, it
can be conclusively demonstrated from history that every society in the
past has had a massive dominance of men over women in the social
structure. This is rooted in biology, and hence in the design plan of
our Maker.
So, now what's the problem?
[[I agree with and echo what Aisha stated: Muslim women are treated
worse than
the Pagan, Jewish, and Christian women.]]
I agree with and echo what was once said to Aisha: Your devil seems to
have taken over you.
omar...@my-deja.com
[[I can't justify
striking a teenage girl, his own wife, in the chest for just mental
doubt.]]
'For just mental doubt'???! Do you have any idea how destructive and
dangerous mental doubt can be??It can lead to suicide, murder,
destruction of relationships, loss of faith in our Maker, and loss of
eternal bliss.
And it can lead to the dangerous stalking of one's husband in the middle
of the night. Even when that husband's trustworthiness is proverbial.
Wasn't he called "Amin", the TRUSTWORTHY ONE, even before his mission,
may Allah bless him and grant him peace?? Funny how Silas never
mentions THAT fact in his writings :)
Such behaviour can easily be the product of a destructive, disturbed
form of mental doubt.
What is the cure for the more severe, and pathological, cases of mental
doubt? It will vary from person to person: everyone needs a different
medicine. Rarely, someone will need to be shocked out of it, to make
them realise where they're going wrong. And this could, in some rare
cases, take the form of a slap, administered out of concern and not
aggression.
I also wrote:
[[ Aisha of all people should have known that Allah's apostle
would never treat her unjustly by secretly spending her turn with
another wife.
She should have known better than that. Yet her heart was clouded by
suspicion,
which is described by Allah as a grave sin.]]]
And Silas responded
[[Grave sin? Where does it say that for Aisha to doubt Muhammad's
sexual
integrity it is a grave sin?]]
Suspicion is counted as a sin in the Quran. And some cases can easily be
cases of grave sin.
[[In any event, you're saying she deserved to be
beaten because she doubted him?]]
I'm saying you're wide of the mark when you say that she was not being
disobedient. She clearly was. And the fact that you don't know that
suspicion is characterised as a sin casts grave doubt on your claim to
have based your writings on 'thorough research'.
[[What about Omar and Abu Bakr when they doubted
Muhammad at Hudaybiyya? Should they have been beaten as well? They
were far
more outspoken about their humilation at the hands of the pagans, yet
nothing
happened to them.]]
Like I said, everyone needs a different medicine. Knowing which medicine
they need will require intimate contact with the person in question.
This can't be decided at the distance of 14 centuries. It's only in very
rare cases that someone will need to be slapped to bring them back to
their senses. The Prophet had such intimate contact with his companions.
We don't.
[[I don't buy it. Nothing happened to Hafsa, Sawda or Aisha when they
lied to
and fooled Muhammad about eating honey. The Quran even had to have a
verse to
tell Muhammad to break his vow. That's a big deal isn't i?. Yet no
wife was
beaten. And that was a conspiracy.]]
I agree. Striking someone was totally uncharacteristic of the
Prophet, even under cases of stress. That's one reason why I doubt the
story we're discussing.
As Aisha pointed out, in a hadith reported by Muslim with two
chains of transmission, the Prophet never struck anyone, neither woman
nor servant, except when he had been fighting in the cause of Allah, and
he never took revenge except for the sake of Allah.
I presented the following account of the hadith Silas uses to show that
the Prophet struck Aisha, assuming, what I do not believe, that it is
true. My aim is to show that there is an interpretation of these alleged
events at least as plausible as that of Silas, who attributes them to
the Prophet's "ego being challenged" -- may Allah protect us from these
fantasies!
[[[ We have to stop and wonder at the state of mind of the girl who
would be so
full of suspicion that she got up and stalked her husband in the middle
of the
night as he went out to pray. Clearly she was in an
intensely emotionally disturbed state, her mind full of absurd
fantasies caused
no doubt, by satanic insinuations and whisperings.]]]
Silas responded:
[[I don't blame her for doubting him. I would doubt a guy who
abrogates his word
at the drop of a hat. I would doubt a guy who gets "revealtions" to
break his
word. I would doubt a guy who says he has to take turns with his
wives, and
then gets revelations that he doesn't have to. I would think, "what's
he gonna
come up with next?"]]
The distortions in this passage probably derive from an inadequate
use of the evidence presented in Islamic sources. More on that below.
I continued :
[[[The Prophet , out of concern for her state, wanted to shake her out
of it,
to bring her back to her senses, and at the same time to bring home to
her the
seriousness of her being suspicious of God's messenger, since even
ordinary
cases of suspicion can be sinful. He struck her not out of cruelty or
aggression, but
out of concern for the stalker's mentality she was temporarily
exhibiting.
We've heard of cases where a hysterical person
needs to be slapped to bring them to their senses. Aisha's case is
similar.]]]
Silas responded as follows
[[.... She was already in bed, pretending to be asleep. When he
returned, she didn't need to be in doubt any longer. ]]
This is very wide of the mark. Cases of unhealthy, pathological doubt
don't end like that.
Suppose I'm a paranoid who thinks people are out to sell me into
slavery. I wake up one morning and I think that my roommate is trying to
do the same. I follow him hoping to see him visiting the slavers. But
no-- he's just going shopping. Will I be alright all of a sudden? Will I
suddenly no longer need to be in doubt? Of course not! I'll still be a
paranoid.
Aisha's case is similar ( assuming it happened at all-- which, as I say,
I rather doubt).
If I really thought that I was being sold into slavery, I should hope
someone would knock some sense into me.
Even if that meant slapping me on the chest.
[[When they talked, she was
fine.]]
Very unlikely. She was probably ready to stalk him again at the drop of
a hat. She was in the same unhealthy mental state that led to her
stalking behaviour in the first place. Like a paranoid.
[[He hit her because his ego was challenged.]]
It is hard to see how anyone who knows the Prophet's life well could
take this seriously.
But Silas' comments show us how someone can become this confused about
the Prophet.
He writes:
[[Typical of him - to always
respond in anger when his ego is challenged. Like when he wanted Sarh
killed,
but he gave no indication his followers to kill Sarh. Afterwards he
yells at
them for not killing Sarh,and they ask him, "Why didn't you give us a
sign?"
He replied, "a prophet does not kill by giving a sign." Yeah right,
and his
followers were not mind readers. So yes, he couldn't keep his ego in
check.]]
The incident reported is recorded in Ibn Ishaq.
I wonder if Silas knows that the story above is prefaced by the words
"they allege". This is a phrase of suspicion from Ibn Ishaq. II uses it
to cast doubt on the story he presents, and to say that he isn't sure of
its truth. II transmits everything he hears, like a good reporter, but
doesn't always believe what he hears. And he sometimes tells us he
doesn't believe what he has heard by use of the phrase "they allege".
The story has no isnad. It is reported for the first time by II, who
himself is suspicious of it, some 100 years after the alleged event. And
we're supposed to believe this?
Typical Christian missionary. Picking on baseless tales to attack the
Best of Creation -- may Allah bless him and grant him peace.
Oh yeah, which reminds me. On Silas' website "Islam Unveiled" there is
the comment "We are not ashamed to present our findings because they are
based on thorough research." Silas' use of Ibn Ishaq shows us what kind
of "research" is going on.
"Thorough Research".
Yeah, right.
omar...@my-deja.com
omar...@my-deja.com
[[I can't justify
striking a teenage girl, his own wife, in the chest for just mental
doubt.]]
'For just mental doubt'???! Do you have any idea how destructive and
dangerous mental doubt can be??It can lead to suicide, murder,
destruction of relationships, loss of faith in our Maker, and loss of
eternal bliss.
And it can lead to the dangerous stalking of one's husband in the middle
of the night. Even when that husband's trustworthiness is proverbial.
Wasn't he called "Amin", the TRUSTWORTHY ONE, even before his mission,
may Allah bless him and grant him peace?? Funny how Silas never
mentions THAT fact in his writings :)
Such behaviour can easily be the product of a destructive, disturbed
form of mental doubt.
What is the cure for the more severe, and pathological, cases of mental
doubt? It will vary from person to person: everyone needs a different
medicine. Rarely, someone will need to be shocked out of it, to make
them realise where they're going wrong. And this could, in some rare
cases, take the form of a slap, administered out of concern and not
aggression.
I also wrote:
[[ Aisha of all people should have known that Allah's apostle
would never treat her unjustly by secretly spending her turn with
another wife.
She should have known better than that. Yet her heart was clouded by
suspicion,
which is described by Allah as a grave sin.]]]
And Silas responded
[[Grave sin? Where does it say that for Aisha to doubt Muhammad's
sexual
integrity it is a grave sin?]]
Suspicion is counted as a sin in the Quran. And some cases can easily be
cases of grave sin.
[[In any event, you're saying she deserved to be
beaten because she doubted him?]]
I'm saying you're wide of the mark when you say that she was not being
disobedient. She clearly was. And the fact that you don't know that
suspicion is characterised as a sin casts grave doubt on your claim to
have based your writings on 'thorough research'.
[[What about Omar and Abu Bakr when they doubted
Muhammad at Hudaybiyya? Should they have been beaten as well? They
were far
more outspoken about their humilation at the hands of the pagans, yet
nothing
happened to them.]]
Like I said, everyone needs a different medicine. Knowing which medicine
they need will require intimate contact with the person in question.
This can't be decided at the distance of 14 centuries. It's only in very
rare cases that someone will need to be slapped to bring them back to
their senses. The Prophet had such intimate contact with his companions.
We don't.
[[I don't buy it. Nothing happened to Hafsa, Sawda or Aisha when they
lied to
and fooled Muhammad about eating honey. The Quran even had to have a
verse to
tell Muhammad to break his vow. That's a big deal isn't i?. Yet no
wife was
beaten. And that was a conspiracy.]]
I agree. Striking someone was totally uncharacteristic of the
Prophet, even under cases of stress. That's one reason why I doubt the
story we're discussing.
As Aisha pointed out, in a hadith reported by Muslim with two
chains of transmission, the Prophet never struck anyone, neither woman
nor servant, except when he had been fighting in the cause of Allah, and
he never took revenge except for the sake of Allah.
I presented the following account of the hadith Silas uses to show that
the Prophet struck Aisha, assuming, what I do not believe, that it is
true. My aim is to show that there is an interpretation of these alleged
events at least as plausible as that of Silas, who attributes them to
the Prophet's "ego being challenged" -- may Allah protect us from these
fantasies!
[[[ We have to stop and wonder at the state of mind of the girl who
would be so
full of suspicion that she got up and stalked her husband in the middle
of the
night as he went out to pray. Clearly she was in an
intensely emotionally disturbed state, her mind full of absurd
fantasies caused
no doubt, by satanic insinuations and whisperings.]]]
Silas responded:
[[I don't blame her for doubting him. I would doubt a guy who
abrogates his word
at the drop of a hat. I would doubt a guy who gets "revealtions" to
break his
word. I would doubt a guy who says he has to take turns with his
wives, and
then gets revelations that he doesn't have to. I would think, "what's
he gonna
come up with next?"]]
The distortions in this passage probably derive from an inadequate
use of the evidence presented in Islamic sources. More on that below.
I continued :
[[[The Prophet , out of concern for her state, wanted to shake her out
of it,
to bring her back to her senses, and at the same time to bring home to
her the
seriousness of her being suspicious of God's messenger, since even
ordinary
cases of suspicion can be sinful. He struck her not out of cruelty or
aggression, but
out of concern for the stalker's mentality she was temporarily
exhibiting.
We've heard of cases where a hysterical person
needs to be slapped to bring them to their senses. Aisha's case is
similar.]]]
He writes:
[[Typical of him - to always
respond in anger when his ego is challenged. Like when he wanted Sarh
killed,
but he gave no indication his followers to kill Sarh. Afterwards he
yells at
them for not killing Sarh,and they ask him, "Why didn't you give us a
sign?"
He replied, "a prophet does not kill by giving a sign." Yeah right,
and his
followers were not mind readers. So yes, he couldn't keep his ego in
check.]]
The incident reported is recorded in Ibn Ishaq.
I wonder if Silas knows that the story above is prefaced by the words
"they allege". This is a phrase of suspicion from Ibn Ishaq. II uses it
to cast doubt on the story he presents, and to say that he isn't sure of
its truth. II transmits everything he hears, like a good reporter, but
doesn't always believe what he hears. And he sometimes tells us he
doesn't believe what he has heard by use of the phrase "they allege".
The story has no isnad. It is reported for the first time by II, who
himself is suspicious of it, some 100 years after the alleged event. And
we're supposed to believe this?
Typical Christian missionary. Picking on baseless tales to attack the
Best of Creation -- may Allah bless him and grant him peace.
Oh yeah, which reminds me. On Silas' website "Islam Unveiled" there is
the comment "We are not ashamed to present our findings because they are
based on thorough research." Silas' use of Ibn Ishaq shows us what kind
of "research" is going on.
"Thorough Research".
Yeah, right.
YOUSAIDWHAT1
clearly and unmistakenly to hit, beat in Arabic.
The attempt to make the act of beating into an act of sex is not supported by
actual linguistics. Nice attempt on the part of writers to attempt to put a
velvet glove on an iron fist....but it just doesn't pan out.
ALL muslims, ALL Arabic speakers know that DaRaBa means to strike a blow, to
hit, to beat. The exact phrase in the Qur'an is 'aDRiBuhunna', which means
(imperative) 'beat them' (female plural).
Hans Wehr's dictionary of Arabic (which includes secondary uses of words (such
as the assertion that DRB is also used for sex) states:
DaRaBa: to beat, strike, hit.
the noun (DaRBa) is a blow, punch, thrust, push,lash, trial, punishment.
Its usually western reverts, and those who are trying to convert westerners
(esp women) who want it to mean something else.
Fariduddien Rice
> Sorry, but the root of the word properly translated into 'beat' (ie. D-R-B) is
> clearly and unmistakenly to hit, beat in Arabic.
> The attempt to make the act of beating into an act of sex is not supported by
> actual linguistics.
You seem to have completely ignored what I wrote. I pointed out that,
apparently, one of the early linguistic experts of the Qur'an disagrees
with you, and considers this to be a possible interpretation.
Here is the relevant quote from Ahmed Ali's translation of the Qur'an
(quoted from http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Spa/3879/wife.html )
"Raghib points out that daraba metaphorically means to have intercourse,
and quotes the expression darab al-fahl an-naqah, 'the stud camel
covered the she-camel,' which is also quoted by Lisan al-'Arab. It
cannot be taken here to mean 'to strike them (women).' "
Imam Raghib was a linguist and lexicographer of the Qur'an, who lived in
the 5th century Hijra.
> ALL muslims, ALL Arabic speakers know that DaRaBa means to strike a blow, to
> hit, to beat. The exact phrase in the Qur'an is 'aDRiBuhunna', which means
> (imperative) 'beat them' (female plural).
> Hans Wehr's dictionary of Arabic (which includes secondary uses of words (such
> as the assertion that DRB is also used for sex) states:
> DaRaBa: to beat, strike, hit.
> the noun (DaRBa) is a blow, punch, thrust, push,lash, trial, punishment.
The point is that this is not the only meaning of the term in classical
Arabic.
Are you talking about "The Hans Wehr Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic"?
Clearly, it is a dictionary of MODERN Arabic -- it is not a lexicon of
Qur'anic Arabic.
In contrast, Imam Raghib wrote a lexicon of QUR'ANIC Arabic.
While I am no expert in Arabic, I do know that Qur'anic Arabic is not
always identical to Modern Arabic.
> Its usually western reverts, and those who are trying to convert westerners
> (esp women) who want it to mean something else.
If you really think that the 5th century Hijra scholar Imam Raghib is a
"western revert" then I need say no more.
YOUSAIDWHAT1
>apparently, one of the early linguistic experts of the Qur'an disagrees
>with you, and considers this to be a possible interpretation.
>
I understood your point and I have stated that there is no basis for this
"expert's" claim. The term is clear, and has been translated clearly and
directly in all translations of the Qur'an since the beginning, and is
understood by Arabic speakers for what it is. To make a word something other
than what it clearly is can only be seen as an attempt to instill fitna in the
community, to deceive many, and to interject bida' into the translation of the
Qur'an.
The scholars contracted by the Islamic University in Al-Madina Al-Munawwara
(Dr. Muhammad Taqi ud-Din Al-Hillali and Dr. Muhamad Muhsin Khan) have agreed
and certified for an official translation of the Qur'an into English that the
phrase >Adribuhunna< means "beat them." One "wild" so-called expert will have
to do more than just state a fantasy position to overthrow 1400 years of
Qur'anic translation and exegesis.
So, in essence....prove your point with more than quick attempts at belittling
me, or be silent.
omar...@my-deja.com
DaRaBa has an enormous variety of uses in classical Arabic
-- just look at the entry in Lane's lexicon. So Raghib's interpretation
should come as no surprise.
The verb "daraba" should also be distinguished from the
intensive form "darraba", which, according to Lane, is used to convey
violent hitting, or repeated hitting. Clearly, the word used in the
Quran is "daraba", not "darraba". The Quran does *not* command the
injustice we normally associate with the term "wife beating". That is
why our scholars, may Allah be pleased with them all, have stressed the
need for moderation. As Asad says "All authorities are unanimous that
the 'beating' should be more or less symbolic."-- remember the
well-known rules about using a toothbrush or something similar.
Finally, the Prophet told us "If you love God, follow me;
God will love you and forgive you your sins." So his example is our
ideal and our guide in all things. And for his example we have only to
look at this hadith from Aisha, recorded by Imam Muslim with two chains
of transmissions in his Sahih:
"Never did the Messenger of Allah strike anyone with his
hand, not even once, (ma daraba Rasulallah shayan qattu biyadihi),
neither woman nor slave, but only in the case when he had been fighting
in the cause of Allah..."
NOTES:
(1) In the above translation I have replaced Siddiqi's translation
'beat' with 'strike' because 'beat' in contemporary English is often
used to mean repeated striking, or violent striking, a sense which is
not conveyed by the Arabic term 'daraba'. And I have added the words
'not even once' to convey the strongly emphatic character of the
original Arabic, which is lost in Siddiqi's translation.
By the way, Silas, in a number of posts you have claimed that the
above hadith only says that the Prophet never struck a woman without
Allah's approval. Have you corrected this, or do you still need help
with this elementary point?
________________________________________________________________________
_
malik
Maybe or maybe not this is related to the discussion, but isn't the Indian
(Hindi/Sanskrit/Bengali?) word "Sangam" understood to mean "war", "fight",
"battle", but also "lovemaking"? Could someone please correct me if I am
wrong?
Wassalaam
malik
"Fariduddien Rice" <dr...@see.text.for.email.address> wrote:
<---->
> One interesting point of view I have come across is that the verse 4:34
> does not mention "striking" at all, but that it is talking metaphorically
> about sexual intercourse. Here is the translation, using this
> interpretation:
>
> Men are the support of women as God gives some more means than others,
> and because they spend of their wealth (to provide for them). So women
> who are virtuous are obedient to God and guard the hidden as God has
> guarded it. As for women you feel are averse, talk to them suasively;
> then leave them alone in bed (without molesting them) and go to bed with
> them (when they are willing). If they open out to you, do not seek an
> excuse for blaming them. Surely God is sublime and great.
>
> [Ahmed Ali's translation.]
<---->
Fariduddien Rice
> I understood your point and I have stated that there is no basis for this
> "expert's" claim. The term is clear, and has been translated clearly and
> directly in all translations of the Qur'an since the beginning, and is
> understood by Arabic speakers for what it is.
You can't use Qur'an *translations* as the basis for the real meaning of a
word. This is like saying to understand what Shakespeare really meant, we
shouldn't look at the English words, but we have to look at translations
of Shakespeare into Spanish, which is clearly ridiculous. Understanding
does not come from how words are translated, but the meanings of the
words, and that is the purpose of dictionaries, such as the lexicon of
Qur'anic Arabic compiled by Imam Raghib.
> To make a word something other
> than what it clearly is can only be seen as an attempt to instill fitna in the
> community, to deceive many, and to interject bida' into the translation of the
> Qur'an.
This is irrelevant to the meaning of the passage. You seem to be
trying to change the topic.
> The scholars contracted by the Islamic University in Al-Madina Al-Munawwara
> (Dr. Muhammad Taqi ud-Din Al-Hillali and Dr. Muhamad Muhsin Khan) have agreed
> and certified for an official translation of the Qur'an into English
What is an "official translation of the Qur'an into English?" Was it
approved by Allah? Of course not. The "official translation of the
Qur'an into English" is a meaningless phrase -- no such thing exists
according to Islam. The Qur'an is in Arabic, and that is the only
"official" Qur'an there is. All attempted translations are also
interpretations.
> that the
> phrase >Adribuhunna< means "beat them." One "wild" so-called expert will have
> to do more than just state a fantasy position to overthrow 1400 years of
> Qur'anic translation and exegesis.
While that is also a possible translation, my point is to note that it is
apparently not the only one which has been put forward.
> So, in essence....prove your point with more than quick attempts at belittling
> me, or be silent.
I have no interest in belittling you, but it would be nice if you could
actually use some solid arguments. Let's look at your arguments so far:
* You have argued about the meaning of QUR'ANIC ARABIC by referring to a
dictionary of MODERN ARABIC -- showing that you do not understand there is
a difference between the two.
* You argue that the meanings of words have to be understood by looking at
TRANSLATIONS -- which is ridiculous, since understandings should come by
looking at the words in the original language, not in the translations.
* You believe there is an "official" English translation of the Qur'an for
Muslims -- another false belief, since the only "official" Qur'an is the
Qur'an in Arabic, and all translations are also interpretations.
It seems to me that your arguments are based on a pile of incorrect
assumptions.
Furthermore, you dismiss the evidence from Imam Raghib for a possible
alternative interpretation without giving any solid reason for doing so.
So, I don't hold anything personally against you, but I think it is not
unreasonable for me to expect a certain minimum standard of scholarship
>from you if you wish to argue this point.
omar...@my-deja.com
> >You seem to have completely ignored what I wrote. I pointed
out that,
> >apparently, one of the early linguistic experts of the Qur'an
disagrees
> >with you, and considers this to be a possible interpretation.
> >
>
> I understood your point and I have stated that there is no
basis for this
> "expert's" claim. The term is clear, and has been translated
clearly and
> directly in all translations of the Qur'an since the beginning,
and is
> understood by Arabic speakers for what it is.
Go get a copy of Lane's lexicon, and you will see that 'daraba'
can be used in a huge number of different ways. For example, it
is used in the Quran to describe Allah 'setting' an example
before the believers. So Raghib's interpretation is not terribly
surprising.
Translation of the Quran is a relatively recent phenomenon; are
you going to believe modern translators who didn't have Arabic as
a first language, and then not believe Raghib, who lived 9
centuries or so ago, at a time when the Arabic was closer to
ancient Arabic, and who grew up immersed in the language, and has
been a recognised authority for centuries?
And have you dealt with the arguments Raghib presents? For
example the fact that 'daraba' IS used to mean sexual intercourse
( Raghib gives examples)?
To make a word something other
> than what it clearly is can only be seen as an attempt to
instill fitna in the
> community, to deceive many, and to interject bida' into the
translation of the
> Qur'an.
How sweet of you! I didn't know you were so concerned!! :)
> The scholars contracted by the Islamic University in Al-Madina
Al-Munawwara
> (Dr. Muhammad Taqi ud-Din Al-Hillali and Dr. Muhamad Muhsin
Khan) have agreed
> and certified for an official translation of the Qur'an into
English that the
> phrase >Adribuhunna< means "beat them."
Muhsin Khan is incompetent, as anyone who has read his Sahih
Bukhari knows, and as qualified Muslim scholars are never tired
of pointing out. He appears to be incompetent in English as well
as Arabic, judging by his translation. I'll take Imam Raghib over
him any day.
One "wild" so-called expert will have
> to do more than just state a fantasy position to overthrow 1400
years of
> Qur'anic translation and exegesis.
Imam Raghib presented examples of actual Arabic usage. He did not
merely 'state a fantasy position'; whether or not you agree with
him, at least address his argument.
YOUSAIDWHAT1
>(Hindi/Sanskrit/Bengali?) word "Sangam" understood to mean "war", "fight",
>"battle", but also "lovemaking"?
We're not arguing IF a word MIGHT also have a secondary meaning in a street
dialect. We're discussing if a particular word, used in a sacred text, has a
meaning that is not related to gutter usage.
SILAS778
correct term, "beat", Omar wrote:
[[[ The phrase "corporal punishment" is literal and accurate.]]]
"corporal punishment": "physical injury inflicted on the body of one convicted
of a crime, and including the death penalty, flogging, sentence to a term of
years".
Omar, you're saying that Muslim women who disobey their husbands are guilty of
a crime, and deserve to be physically injured or flogged. I disagree with you.
Islamic wife beating is not meant to severely injure the wife. Muhammad
clearly taught that the beaten women were not to be severely injured. However,
they could be slapped, struck, and bruised.
OTOH, the term "corporal punishment" most often refers to children being
spanked by their parent. Omar, do you feel that Muslim women are like
children, who need to be spanked by their husbands when they are disobedient?
I think that in Muhammad's eyes, this is closer to the truth than most Muslims
realize. Since he stated that Muslim women have little self control, and that
men are the managers of women, and are superior to women, then perhaps your use
of "corporal punishment" related to a man controlling his wife as parents
control children, is a good one technically.
How do the Muslim women feel about having to be spanked by their husband when
they are bad wives? "You've been a bad wife, you need a spanking!"
But actually, I think that corporal punishment is not the best term.
"Corporal punishment" would be misleading in our society today because it
relates to spanking a child. Stick with the word as it is most often
translated, and is referred to in the Hadith - "BEAT". Don't hide your shame
by euphemisms. After all, it is your religion.
[[[Whether or not a certain command is cruel is the whole point of the
discussion. It can't be settled as long as the very words we use are misleading
us.]]]
Sounds like the argument from Drice - "misleading". I don't think there is
any misleading on my part. After all, I am the one, not you, who is using the
most frequent translation "beat", or another word used for physically striking.
And, I am the one, not you, using the word in the manner it is most often used
in the Quran - a physical striking.
I would suspect that some Muslims are appalled at your apparent "corruption"
i.e. "tahreef", of your Quran - in an attempt to make it more acceptable to a
Western audience.
[[[Certain phrases can come to carry connotations that go beyond their literal
meanings. "Wife beating" is one such phrase, which has so come to be associated
with injustice ( largely as a result of the feminist movement) that it
prejudices the discussion right at the beginning. One cannot hear the phrase
without images of injustice being conjured up in one's mind. It therefore
should be avoided in an impartial discussion. But, that would be bad for the
Christian missionary project of bullying Muslims out of their faith and into a
bizarre mix of pagan philosophy and Jewish heresy based on inauthentic
sources.]]]
Much of what you say is true - words do carry a connotation and can prejudice
the reader. However, as stated above, it is I who is using the accepted
interpretation of the word, not you. And, if you read the Hadith related to
wife beating, you find that Muslim women were physically beaten and hurt. I'm
not saying that Muslim men beat their wives with rods of iron, broke bones, or
disfigured their wives, but they did hurt their wives. And, in an American
context, the beating the Muslim men gave their wives would be regarded as
assault, and the Muslim man would be arrested for beating his wife according to
the Quran's commands. Muhammad clearly intended his followers to beat wives
that were disobedient to their husbands. Consequently, I am not using a term
that goes beyond what is meant by the original meaning of 4:34.
Here are some examples of wife beating in Islam today:
"THE SAUDIS"
Islamic wife beating has been observed in the Mideast. Sandra Mackay in her
book "The Saudis", comments on the amount of wife beating that goes on there:
"Women survive by totally placing themselves in the hands of men. It is in
this basic relationship of master and servant that a woman's physical needs are
met..... Restlessness is repressed.... Obedience is security.
"The man's absolute authority over the women in his family is maintained
through fear - the fear of physical brutality, the fear of economic insecurity"
(page 138).
"My translator lowered her head and quietly said that if the men found out
about the women's disobedience, they would be beaten." page 139.
There are more references to wife abuse in Mackay's book.
"PRINCESS"
In 1992, the book "Princess" was published. The author, Jean Sasson, used the
writings of a close Saudi friend of hers and penned this book. Some quotes
that illustrate the subjection and physical abuse of women are:
From page 21: "Although the Koran does state that women are secondary to
men...
From page 22: "The authority of the Saudi male is unlimited; his wife and
child survive only if he desires. ...From an early age, the male child is
taught that women are of little value: they exist only for his comfort and
convenience..... Taught only the role of master to slave, it is little wonder
that by the time he is old enough to take a mate, he considers her his chattel,
not his partner."
Throughout the book, there are many stories of the abuse of women. Some of
these concern women being put to death, abused by their husbands, locked away
in solitary confinement by their families, beaten by male family members, etc.
While "Westernized" Muslims will argue that what the Saudis are doing is
cultural, not Islamic, I feel that this is either deliberate denial or
ignorance on the part of Muslims living in the West. Saudi Arabia is he
birthplace of Islam. Muhammad grew up in Mecca. Saudi has been the heart of
Islam ever since. I would think that if any place in the world practiced real
Islam, it would be Saudi Arabia.
Here is the reference for the background of 4:34.
"A women complained to Muhammad that her husband slapped her on the face,
(which was still marked by the slap). At first the prophet said to her: "Get
even with him", but then added: "Wait until I think about it". Later on,
Allah supposedly revealed 4:34 to Muhammad, after which the prophet said: "We
wanted one thing but Allah wanted another, and what Allah wanted is best".
[To beat your wife is best.]
The above quote comes from Razi's "At-Tafsir al-Kabir" on 4:34. Razi is one
of the best known Muslim scholars.
So, the context of 4:34 deals with a women being slapped on the face by her
husband. Physical striking accepted by Muhammad - and that at Allah's command!
If Muslim men are allowed to slap around their wife, then that would get them
thrown in jail.
How do Muslim women feel about being allowed to be slapped around by their
husbands? They have to accept it, because it is allowed by Allah.
Remember, it is not I who invented this institutionalized element of Islam. I
do not advocate wife beating, Muhammad did. I do not justify wife beating,
Omar does. I say it is wrong to allow women to be slapped by their husbands
because the wife is disobedient to her husband, or displeases him (as in the
case of Aisha and Hafsa pestering Muhammad).
{{{Tell it like it is -}}}
[[[Sure--- if the husband fears ill-treatment from his wife, he ought to
admonish her, separate from her sexually, and then impose moderate corporal
punishment. If all else fails, he can get arbitration.]]]
So I guess that means he can slap her on the face? Or bruise her as Rahman
did. Didn't Omar state that he beat his wife? And, there are other very
notable Muslim wife beaters described in the Hadith as well.
[[[Punishing with something small, like a toothbrush, so as to avoid injuries,
is a widely accepted practice, noted by Tabari, Razi, Tabatabai and many other
Islamic scholars.]]]
Well, maybe, but obviously, when that women got slapped in the face, and when
Rahman bruised his wife, no "toothbrush" was used. Well, maybe Rahman used a
real big toothbrush - like maybe 3 feet long?
So Omar, do you approve of the slapping and bruising of disobedient wives?
The recorded facts from early Islam are that these women were struck, hurt,
and bruised. This is what Muhammad did, this is what the early Muslims did.
This is the example left for Islam. I know of no Hadith that states that a
husband beat his wife with a toothpick.
SILAS778
beat disobedient wives, Drice wrote:
[[[All words are open to interpretation, which also leaves them open to
misinterpretation. Unfortunately, there is a group of Christians who persist
in finding misinterpretations in other religions whenever they can, in order to
try to bolster their own faith. (This kind of behavior is not unique to
Christianity, of course.)]]]
First of all, the most common translation of the word "idreb" in 4:34 is
"beat" or another similar form of physically striking the woman. Your
complaint should be with those scholars who did the translating, not me. To
accuse me of "misinterpretation" is deceitful on your part (a moderator no
less). I am using the most common interpretation from scholars who surpass
both you and I in translation of Arabic. Shame on you for saying that I am
misinterpreting your Quran when even Muslims translate idreb as "beat". It is
you who are guilty of "tahreef" or corrupting your Quran, not me.
Further, the word "idreb" is most commonly translated as a physical striking
or beating throughout the Quran. If you accept that one should allow "the
Quran to interpret the Quran", or if you look at how a word is most often
translated in the Quran to help understand its meaning, then you have to accept
that according to the numbers "beat" is the best translation of the word.
Second, I am not persisting in finding misinterpretations in other religions
(other than Islam). I am focusing on Islam. Why? Because I believe that
Islam is a backwards religion that damages humanity. I believe it has done a
great deal of harm to humanity, more so than many other religions. I have seen
its fruit up close and personal, and its fruit tastes bad. I know Islam, I've
studied it extensively, and am continuing to study it. And, I judge it by a
higher standard than most. In fact, isn't there an Egyptian up on blasphemy
charges now in Egypt, because he stated that Islam is responsible for the
backwardness of the Islamic nations? He arrived at the same conclusion that I
did. And wasn't he born "Muslim"? No doubt he opened his eyes and thought
for himself. Now, his life is on the line because he criticized Islam!
Additionally, I don't need to bolster my own faith by criticizing Islam.
Islam fails miserably in comparison to Christianity. It's not even a contest.
I am glad that you stated that bad behavior is not unique to Christianity.
Why not say that Muslims are guilty of bad behavior? My goodness, I can rarely
read a post by a Muslim without him personally attacking a contrary poster. It
is so hard for Muslims to stay focused on the topic. Case in point - Drice, a
Muslim moderator, has to start out attacking me instead of addressing the
topic.
[[[In my opinion, this characteristic is a sign of their own weak faith in
their own religion. If Silas's faith in Christianity was really as strong as
he likes to portray, then he wouldn't feel the need to spread misinformation
about other religions to bolster his own faith the way he does. Silas clearly
feels he needs to put other religions down, in order for him to feel like he
has made the best choice in being a Christian. This is a sign of his own weak
faith in his own religion.]]]
Talk about weakness of faith, why not just address the topic instead of
wondering off into the personal stuff? Can't you do any better? As stated
above, I criticize Islam because I see the damage it has done to humanity. If
allowed, I could easily preach Christ over Islam and Muhammad on this board,
but the post would be rejected because that is not the purpose of this board.
As I understand it, the purpose is to discuss Islamic topics, so D Rice, why
not be a good moderator and stick to the topic? If you want to call names, go
to the Alt Islam Forum.
[[[One interesting point of view I have come across is that the verse 4:34 does
not mention "striking" at all, but that it is talking metaphorically about
sexual intercourse....]]]
If there were support for this, then would entertain that POV. But there
isn't. Here is a Hadith from Abu Dawud:
#2141 - Iyas Dhubab reported the apostle of Allah as saying:
"Do not beat Allah's handmaidens", but when Umar came to the apostle of Allah
and said: "Women have become emboldened towards their husbands", he (the
prophet), gave permission to beat them.
This clearly deals with physically beating the woman.
The commentary of Razi states for the reference for 4:34.
"A women complained to Muhammad that her husband slapped her on the face,
(which was still marked by the slap). At first the prophet said to her: "Get
even with him", but then added: "Wait until I think about it". Later on,
Allah supposedly revealed 4:34 to Muhammad, after which the prophet said: "We
wanted one thing but Allah wanted another, and what Allah wanted is best".
[To beat your wife is best.]
The above quote comes from Razi's "At-Tafsir al-Kabir" on 4:34.
So, the background deals with a women being struck by her husband, something
accepted by Muhammad. There is nothing of "no sexual relations" between the
two.
[[[To add to this, during the Farewell Pilgrimage, the Prophet said that it is
prohibited to "cause pain" to women (as reported by Muhammad Asad in his
commentary on 4:34). ]]]
Muhammad did not say it was prohibited to "cause pain" to women. Here is the
translation of the farewell address taken from Ibn Ishaq's "Sirat Rasulallah",
Guillaume's translation, page 651:
"You have rights over your wives, and they have rights over you. You have the
right that they should not defile your bed and that they should not behave with
open unseemliness. If they do, God allows you to put them in separate rooms
and to beat them, but not with severity. If they refrain from these things and
obey you, they have right to their food and clothing with kindness. Lay
injunctions on women kindly, for they are your wards having no control of their
persons."
Clearly, women can be beaten, but not with severity. Causing pain is a part
of beating, otherwise it is not "beating". Instead, Muhammad was telling them
to beat, and cause pain to the wife, but not to break bones, leave scars, etc.
But bruises are acceptable, and according to Razi, slapping them in the face is
as well.
Muhammad intended that women be obedient to their husbands. If they persisted
in disobedience, they were to be beaten. This beating allows for causing pain,
bruises, and humiliation of the wife. As Aisha stated to Muhammad, the Muslim
women were treated worse than all the other women.
SILAS778
their daughters in front of him.
Omar asked
[[[Again, we'd need to see the evidence of this to assess it properly.]]]
First of all Omar, you are not qualified to assess it properly. You can rend
your opinion, but so what.
Second, here is the evidence that the women were slapped.
Sahih Muslim, #3506
Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah:
Abu Bakr came and sought permission to see Allah's Messenger. 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 sitting sad and silent
with his wives around him.
He (Umar) said: I wanted say something which would make the Holy Prophet laugh,
so he said: Messenger of Allah, I wish you had seen (the treatment meted out
to) the daughter of Kharijah when she asked me for some money, and I got up and
slapped her on her neck. Allah's Messenger laughed and said: They are around
me as you see, asking for extra money.
Abu Bakr then got up, went to Aisha and slapped her on the neck, and Umar stood
up before Hafsah and slapped her saying: You ask Allah's Messenger for that
which he does not possess. They said: By Allah, we do not ask Allah's
Messenger for anything he does not possess. Then he withdrew from them for a
month or for twenty-nine days.
Here Muhammad was upset with his wives. They wanted more money than he said
he had and he was disturbed by their requests. To cheer him up, Umar told him
about slapping a woman (his wife I assume), because she asked for money.
Muhammad laughed about it and told Umar that his wives were doing the same
thing. Up jumped Bakr, and "slap" Aisha got it, and up jumped Umar, and Hafsah
got it. "Access" it anyway you like. Here is another example of how women
were treated in Islam - they got slapped around, just because they asked for
money, and poor Muhammad was upset. And, since Muhammad found Umar slapping
around his wife? humorous and after hearing Umar's story he laughed and
immediately told them, "hear are my wives around me, asking for extra money",
he no doubt found it humorous as well.
One has to ask, why did Muhammad so often get someone else to do his dirty
work? If it was appropriate to slap his wives, why didn't he do it himself?
He approved of it, and found it humorous.
Further, do you really think that this type of behavior is good Islamic
behavior? A wife pesters her husband, and for that she gets slapped around?
Are all Muslim women treated that way? "My wife is getting on my nerves, so I
slapped her around!".
{{{All of these Hadith illustrate the FACT, that women in Islam are in-between
slave and free (a term Muhammad used in his farewell address). Accordingly,
they can be beaten and treated as second class.}}}
[[[The position of the mother with respect to her children in Islam is hardly
'second class'!!]]]
Women are 2nd class in Islam, w or w/o children. They may rule over the
children, but in Islamic society, they are below, not equal to, the man. As
Muhammad said, they are a man's "wards", having no control over their persons
(i.e., they lack self control). That is why men rule over the women, Muhammad
thought them to be inferior, weak, and undisciplined.
[[[Islamic society, like every normal society, is hierarchical. There are
leaders and followers; and leadership involves both responsibility and the
authority to take punitive action if necessary. The children follow their
parents, especially the mother. Everyone follows the caliph. The wife follows
the husband. The soldiers follow the generals. . .]]]
Being hierarchical society does not justify the abuse and social denigration
of women. In Christianity, men are given the leadership role. But that does
not give them the right to beat their wives when they are disobedient to the
husband. OTOH, in Christianity, the NT commands men to love their wives, in
Islam, the Quran commands to beat their wives. There is no command to "love"
your wife in the Quran.
In Afghanistan and Saudi, and other fundamentalist Muslim societies, you have
women brutalized and oppressed. But in many Western societies, which are
hierarchical, you do not have that type of established treatment. Wife abuse
does occur, but it is not institutionalized as it is in Islam. So,
hierarchical does not bring with it institutionalized wife beating as Islam
does.
[[[So, now what's the problem?]]]
The problem is that women are degraded in Islam. It isn't just a question of
male leadership, it is a problem of women subjected to men's dominance, and the
physical abuse they suffer as a result. There are even Islamic websites,
maintained by Muslims, that try to deal with wife abuse in America.
And, as an illustrative anecdote, I've read a recent article about a man in
Iran who underwent a sex change. He lasted as a "she" for about a month or so
there. He wanted to be re-made back into a man (don't know if that's possible)
because he said living like a women there was a living hell. He couldn't stand
it. He was oppressed as the early Muslim women were under Muhammad's rules.
And, the latest reports on your beloved Taliban show that Afghani society is
continuing to sink further down. The oppression of women is getting worse.
How come the other Muslims are so silent on the situation there? Is it because
they agree with it?
{{{I agree with and echo what Aisha stated: Muslim women are treated worse
than
the Pagan, Jewish, and Christian women.}}}
[[[I agree with and echo what was once said to Aisha: Your devil seems to have
taken over you.]]]
Who said this to Aisha? Do you have a reference?
In any event, don't miss Aisha's point Omar. It was obvious to her that the
Muslim women were being oppressed. No one objected to her statement when she
said so. Things were so bad for the Muslim women that they had to support each
other. If things were great, Aisha would not have had to get involved. Aisha
was just trying to help one of the oppressed women. She had every right to
make her accurate comment on how badly her fellow Muslim females were being
treated.
SILAS778
[[[Among the many problems with Christian missionary criticisms of Islam
two stand out clearly: failure to take into account available evidence,
I say that one of the biggest games Muslims play is their denial of authentic,
historic, sources of Islam. Islam is built upon two things: the Quran, and
the Sunnah. Today, the Sunnah rests primarily upon the teachings of Hadith,
especially the Sahih Hadith. Addition information is taken from the Sira and
other collections of Hadith. But when presented with information from those
fundamental texts that upsets their pristine view of Muhammad and Islam, many
Muslims are quick to deny their authenticity. They play the deny, dodge, and
duck game.
[[[Earlier on, Silas claimed that the prophet struck Aisha.]]]
Remember, it is not so much a "claim" on my part, as it is a statement of
record, from Sahih Muslim. Your argument should be with Imam Muslim, and the
other Muslims who believe his collection to be Sahih.
[[[To show why Silas' proof fails, I quoted a Hadith from Sahih Muslim, one
which has been used many times by Muslims in their dawa writings to show the
Prophet never hit a woman in a domestic situation. It has also been used by
feminist critics of Islam, such as Fatima Mernissi, who think that problems of
abuse in the Muslim world could be overcome if men were MORE like their
prophet, because, they say, *he* never hit a woman.]]]
What you are doing is quoting from the same source that I quote from. You are
saying that my source is corrupted, but my source is your source. Therefore,
according to your logic, your source contains corruption. You are using a
"corrupted" source as a basis for authentic truth.
BTW, Mernissi may not take many shots at Muhammad, but she severely criticizes
the system he put in place. On page 71 of "Beyond the Veil", she writes,
"Amina recognized that women were much happier before the prophet's time".
Mernissi goes on and describes why women were happier - they were not oppressed
2nd rate people as they became under Muhammad's Islamic system. They had more
rights and dignity. Mernissi just doesn't want to state the obvious - it was
Muhammad and his teachings (Islam) who made the women unhappy.
And, interesting enough - this echoes what Aisha said, "the Muslim women
suffer more than the non-Muslim women". Yes, Aisha got that right. Her
prophet subjected women like a man subjects his pet dog. He maintains it,
feeds it, cares for it, and beats it when it disobeys him.
Omar wrote:
[[[Here is the Hadith:
"Aisha reported that Allah's messenger never beat anyone with his hand
neither a woman nor a servant but only in the case when he had been fighting in
the cause of Allah and he never took revenge for anything unless the things
made inviolable by Allah were made violable; he then took revenge for Allah,
the Exalted and Glorious."
The text of the Hadith above is quite plain. To a normal English
speaker, reading the text without bias, it says two things:
(1) Allah's messenger never beat anyone with his hand, neither woman
nor servant, but only in the case when he had been fighting in the cause
of Allah.
(2) Allah's messenger never took revenge for anything unless the
things of Allah were made violable; he then took revenge for Allah's
sake.]]]
I understand the Hadith as saying that Muhammad never beat anyone with his
hand unless he had been doing it in Allah's cause, and it was permitted by
Allah. By Aisha saying women or servant, she was stressing that he had the
right to beat them, as wife and servant beating was established in Islam, but
he did not do so unless it was in accordance with Allah.
[[[As a Christian, Silas HAS to believe that there are no prophets after Jesus.
If he has doubts about that, he has doubts about his religion: and then he
can't go around smugly claiming that he knows for sure he will get into heaven,
as he did in an earlier post.]]]
Depends on how you define "prophet". There were "prophets" after Jesus. And,
I was not smug when I said I know for sure I will enter heaven. I know it for
a fact, I have no doubt about it. I know I will one day hear God say to me,
"Well done thou good and faithful servant". I'm not being smug or prideful
when I state that. I'm not sinless either, but I will fellowship with Christ
and worship Him in heaven one day.
[[[If his attacks on the Prophet are baseless, weak, and sloppy ( which they
are)]]]
If they were so weak and sloppy, I would not attract as much attention as I do
on these boards. If they were so bad, I would have been soundly refuted long
ago. I make mistakes, and I usually admit them, and I have been wrong at
times, but not too often. I am still learning, and modifying my understanding
of Muhammad and Islam. But let me state, as I study the Hadith, Sira, and
Quran, my appreciation of Muhammad continues to sink to new lows. I cannot,
for the life of me, understand how anyone could entrust their eternal future so
such a dubious man. I would bet on Bill Clinton before I'd bet on Muhammad.
[[[So he can hardly back down in the face of some upstart young Muslim who
challenges his "thorough research" in public]]]
Well, based upon your comments on the Sarh story, I think you should go back
and hit the books.
[[[The above Hadith flatly contradicts Silas' claim that the Prophet struck
Aisha. It renders his 'proof' worthless since he is not able to account for
it.]]]
We are both quoting Hadith from Sahih Muslim. Thus, you are quoting Hadith as
proof from a source you say is corrupted, or weak, or filled with
contradictions. You are saying that Imam Muslim screwed up and included bogus
Hadith. Now, is it logical to state that you are using a book with
contradictions to determine the truth?
Why not do some thinking and thorough research instead of shouting
"contradiction" at this point - to cover up the fact that there is proof that
Muhammad struck Aisha in the chest. You didn't want to accept it, but it is
there.
Let's start with Imam Muslim's work. I'll begin Siddiqi's introduction on
Sahih Muslim. Page v states that it is one of the 6 genuine and reliable
collections, and Muslim's is held in particularly high esteem. Your comments
regarding Muslim's work are not one of esteem. You said that he mixed unsound
and sound Hadith in his collection, and that it contains many contradictory
Hadith. Below is your quote:
[[["In fact, Muslim explicitly states in his introduction that he includes a
number of Hadiths which are not sound, because they corroborate his sound
Hadiths. Sahih Muslim is divided into sections. Each section makes a particular
point by means of Sahih Hadiths, and corroborates those by non-Sahih
Hadiths."]]]
Where does Muslim say that he included non-Sahih Hadith into his collection?
I have never heard this. Can you provide a reference?
OTOH, Siddiqi states: (quotes from pages v, vi, vii, vii, ix, of Siddiqi's
introduction)
"The Hadith which are recognized as absolutely authentic are included in these
two excellent compilations." Imam Muslim considered only such traditions to be
genuine and authentic as had been transmitted to him by an unbroken chain of
reliable authorities and were in perfect harmony with what had been related by
other narrators who trust worthiness was unanimously accepted and who were free
>from all defects."
"Imam Muslim takes particular care in according he exact words of the narrators
and points out even the minutest difference in the wording of their reports."
"Imam Muslim has taken great pains in connecting the chain of narrators. He
has recorded only that hadith which, at least, two reliable tabinin had heard
>from two Companions and this principle is observed throughout the subsequent
chain of narrators."
"Imam Muslim took great pains in collecting 300,000 Traditions, and then after
a thorough examination of them retained only 4000, the genuiness of which is
fully established."
"Sahih (sound). This name is given to the absolutely faultless hadith in
which there is on weakness either in the chain of transmission (Isnaad), or in
the text (Matn), and in which there is no tendency to contradict any
established doctrine of Islam."
Further, the Ency. Of Islam states, under "Hadith":
"Only traditions which are recognized as absolutely Sahih are included in
these works."
And, in "Hadith Literature", by M. Siddiqi, (not the same Siddiqi who
translated Muslim's work), it says on pages 59, 60, regarding Muslims Sahih
collection:
"In his Sahih he examined a third of a million hadiths form which he selected
only about four thousand which the traditionalists unanimously regarded as
sound."
"He adopted a three fold classification of Hadiths. Firstly, there were those
which had been related by narrators who were straightforward and steadfast in
their narration, did not differ much in them from other reliable narrators, and
did not commit any palpable confusion in their reports. Secondly, there were
traditions whose narrators were not distinguished for their retentive memory
and steadfastness in narration. Thirdly there were the hadiths narrated on the
authority of people whom all or most traditionalists declared were of
questionable reliability. According to Imam Muslim, the first group makes up
the bulk of his book; the second is included as corroborative of the first,
while the third is entirely rejected." [1]
"Unlike Bukhari, he appears not to have committed any mistake or confusion in
the text or isnad of any tradition."
"Upon completing his Sahih, Muslim presented it to Abu Zara of Rayy, a
traditionalist of great repute, for his comments. Zara inspected it closely
and Muslim deleted everything which he thought was defective, and retained only
such traditions as were declared by him to be genuine."
"Some traditionalists hold it to be superior to the work of Bukhari in every
respect."
So, not only did Muslim meticulously sift through thousands of Hadith, and
scrutinized each one, rejecting any that had any legitimate doubt, he also
submitted his work to another great hadith scholar who further scrutinized it.
And, here Omar wants to throw out "contradiction" off the top of his head,
because he refuses to take into account the context, or different meanings of
what Aisha said. Remember, Aisha is said to be involved in both narrations of
these Hadith.
NOTE 1 The second group of hadith that he uses are corroborative of
other Hadith. However, all of them are Sahih and sound. Muslim did not mix
unsound with sound hadith.
I say, give Muslim the benefit of the doubt. It is the basis for much of
Islam today, it should not be described as "sound and unsound" unless you have
some strong proof. And, your proof would have to be something that the great
Muslim traditionalists have missed!
So Omar, based upon that, and other writings I've read, written by Muslims on
the topic of Hadith, Muslim did not include "hadiths which are not sound", as
you claim.
Omar, please present the evidence in which you claim that Imam Muslim included
unsound Hadith in his collection. Can you do better than merely saying, "it
says in his introduction"?
I went to all this trouble of typing this out to establish that according to
Islamic scholarship, Muslim did not mix sound and unsound hadith. His
collection is supposed to be entirely sound.
With that in mind, I want to challenge Omar's claim of "contradiction" in
Muslim's collection. Omar wants to pit one hadith 2127 against 5756. I say
that taken in context, there is no contradiction. In one, Aisha says:
"Aisha reported that Allah's messenger never beat anyone with his hand neither
a woman nor a servant but only in the case when he had been fighting in the
cause of Allah and he never took revenge for anything unless the things made
inviolable by Allah were made violable; he then took revenge for Allah, the
Exalted and Glorious."
And the other, "He struck me on the chest which caused me pain and then said,
"Do you think Allah and his apostle would deal unjustly with you?"
I say that what Aisha means in "beat" in 5756, is not what happened to her in
2127. Muhammad struck her in the chest, and hurt her. He did not give her a
beating as he would a slave or persistently disobedient wife. She knew that.
That is why she could say that (as far as she knew) he never beat a woman or
slave, but he did strike her.
And I think that this is how Muslim and Zara understood this hadith as well.
Words can have different meanings, depending on their contexts and usage. One
person could say that Muhammad was not a "bad" man. Another could say that
Muhammad was a "bad" man. There would not be a contradiction if you understand
how the word "bad" was being used. Or, if you will, use Bill Clinton as an
example, he said he did not have sex with Monica. Other people would say that
he did. Is there a contradiction there? It depends on how you define "sex".
Clinton chose the most technical definition, others choose a more loose
definition. So too, Aisha did not consider being struck by Muhammad as being
"beat".
I state this bearing in mind that for Omar to state that Sahih Muslim
collection is unsound and has contradictions greatly weakens Islam. If he
wants to call his books corrupt, that's fine with me as well. As the Sahih
Hadith tumbles, so does Islam.
Regarding Muhammad's benevolence, Omar wrote:
"As a further example of his mild disposition and aversion to domestic
violence, there is a Hadith that tells us that on one occasion a slave girl had
been sent by the Prophet on an errand, and she made him wait all day long for
her. He was very upset, so he picked up a toothpick and said to her "If I did
not fear Allah, I would strike you with this." Here the Prophet tells her that
even if he lost his fear of God and struck her out of anger, he would only do
so with a toothpick. If this is how he behaved with a slavegirl who wronged
him, then how
much more gentle he must have been with his favorite wife, the daughter of his
best friend."
Again, can you provide a reference? It would be much more meaningful to the
discussion if you provide one.
Muhammad was not too averse to domestic violence. When the situation with
Aisha's fidelity (funny how her fidelity is in question, and not Muhammad's?
After all, he was the one sleeping with all those women!) came to pass, Ali,
Muhammad's son in law, one of the later "Rightly Guided Caliphs", (yeah right)
took Aisha's slave and gave her a hellacious beating, right in front of
Muhammad. Why did he give her that beating? Not because she had done any
wrong, but because he wanted to insure she tell the truth! So he beat that
women because he wanted to be sure that if Aisha were guilty, it would be out
in the open. Muhammad, the gentle, stood by and watched the entire beating
take place.
Here is the quote from Sirat Rasulallah, page 496:
"So the apostle called Burayra to ask her, and Ali got up and gave her a
violent beating saying, "Tell the apostle the truth".
Note, as this woman was being beaten by Ali, Muhammad said nothing. He just
watched a slave women get beaten by Ali. So much for Muhammad the gentle. He
was like other men, he could be gentle at times, and he could be brutal at
times.
{{{Muhammad was in full accord with wife beating.}}}
[[[His NATURAL INCLINATION was strongly averse to domestic violence, but he
SUBMITTED to God's commands and recognized that there were certain situations
in which corporal punishment might become justified.
Nevertheless, he set limits on this punishment, limits which have been
transmitted by the unanimous opinion of the jurists.]]]
I agree that he was initially opposed to wife beating. But, after the
revelation, he was in full accord with it. Since "Allah knows best", Muhammad
would naturally change his mind to be in accord with Allah command for wife
beating - don't you agree?
Or are you saying that Muhammad continued in disagreement with Allah?
Wouldn't Muhammad confidently say, as you say Omar, that "wife beating is
justified", even desirable, what was your rational - oh yes, if the wife is
emotionally unstable? I see that when Muhammad's ego was challenged, he had
just grounds to smack his wife.
[[[Let me ask Silas a question at this point.
Would it really matter to you if the Prophet had forbidden punishing one's wife
except with a toothbrush? I have debated with Christians, and no matter what
proofs you present them, they always prefer to focus on isolated, relatively
weak bits of evidence that support their prejudices, rather than taking all the
evidence into account.]]]
Gee, now where did I hear that question before? Oh yes, it was one I asked
you. If you debate Christians, can you be original?
To answer your question, yes, it would matter somewhat. I am still studying
Islam, and my ideas change as I come across new material. I am wrong
sometimes. I have been wrong in the past, and I suspect I will be wrong in the
future. There are several collections of Hadith, and I am still reading and
learning. But I have not come across one, from a Sahih collection, that states
that beat only with a toothpick. And, in light of the bruised wife by Rahman,
of Muhammad punching Aisha in the chest, in light of Bakr slapping Aisha, Umar
slapping Hafsa, in light of other early Muslims known as wife beaters, I would
question the integrity of the Hadith that says, "only use a toothpick", because
it goes against the evidence of so many other Hadith.
So, again Omar, Ahh yes, the ol, "toothbrush or toothpick" ploy. Where is the
proof?
I'm sure that somewhere there maybe a hadith that states "only use a
toothpick", but I'd like a reference, and I'd like to see how it stands up to
the other Hadith, from Sahih collections. So bring forth your proof. I've
presented mine.
[[[We should bear in mind that for the classical scholars, a Hadith can be
sufficiently reliable to corroborate some point of law, even if it is not
reliable enough to stand on its own as a source of evidence. Such Hadiths are
used by Muslim as corroboration for his principal Sahih Hadiths, and they are
acceptable for his purposes. Such Hadiths may even contain flaws, but are
acceptable as long as they corroborate the principal point in his section.]]]
Where did you get this? I've not read that Muslim included unsound hadith in
his collection, (as stated earlier). Since everything I've read tells me that
Muslim only used sound hadith, you have to understand why I doubt your
statement above. I'm not calling you a liar, but you may be misunderstanding
something you read, or what someone told you. Or, perhaps, Muslim did include
unsound, unreliable hadith in his collection, and his statement as such has
been missed by many people. So again, give us a reference please. Otherwise
your argument has no basis.
[[[I should think Muslim was well aware of the weakness of 2127, because of
its flat contradiction with 5756. So it wasn't sound enough to be an
independent source of evidence (the way Silas tries to use it). But he included
it because it corroborates Muslim's point about prayers at the graveyard, which
is the title of the section in which it is included.]]]
Actually, in this section of hadith deals with taking revenge, not Muhammad's
beating women or slaves. Likewise the graveyard hadith deal with prayer at
graveyards. However, one notable difference, the graveyard hadith provides
more detail than the other hadiths. This gives it the edge.
{{{And, in battle, Muhammad didn't simply punch an enemy in the chest, he used
his sword for fighting}}}
[[[because the Arabs had a tradition of dueling before the melee of a major
battle, and very often, the combatants would agree to drop their weapons and
fight hand-to-hand. Moreover, if a person loses his sword in a battle, he has
to use his bare hands somehow-- this is the situation for which martial arts
like karate were first designed.]]]
Again, where's the proof? I've read about all of Muhammad's battles, and I
don't remember any one in which he slugged it out with an enemy. He did stab
and kill one man in battle didn't he? All this rhetoric about Arab dueling is
nice, but doesn't address the issue.
The rest of Omar's comments were answered earlier.
Now then, I don't want to lose sight of the issue at hand. Islam teaches that
disobedient wives are to be beaten. Women are treated much like property in
Islam. Or, they are treated as in-between slave and free. The whole gamut of
these hadith illustrate that. A women is slapped in the face by her husband,
and Muhammad gets a revelation establishing wife beating. If women are
disobedient to husbands, beat them, but not too severely. Abu Bakr is mad at
Aisha, he punches her (in the leg?), Muhammad is mad at Aisha, he punches her
in the chest, Aisha and Hafsa get Muhammad upset, they get slapped on the neck,
Umar's wife gets Umar upset, she gets slapped on the neck. Doesn't the Quran
even have a verse that tells Job to fulfill his vow and beat his wife? (Isn't
that interesting? Job makes a vow to beat his wife, but doesn't want to do it,
but Allah tells him to beat her, Muhammad makes a vow not to eat honey, or was
it not to sleep with Maryiam, but Allah tells him to break it. How
convenient).
Disobedient wife beating is part and parcel of Islam. It comes with the
package. We can see, that aside from the rules of 4:34, Muslim men can smack
(at least once) their wives for merely upsetting them. Therefore beating them
for disobedience is one allowed thing, and striking the wife (at least once)
for upsetting the husband is another allowed thing.
As Muhammad said, "A man is not to be asked why he beat his wife". And, again
Aisha's words ring true, "The Christian, Jewish, and Pagan women are treated
better than the Muslim women."
Omar, you've attacked me for interpreting the hadith with bias. I want to
remind you that I am not the object of this discussion. I didn't invent the
Sahih Hadith I use. If it were permissible for Muslim men to bruise their wives
during Muhammad's time, it is now. If it were permissible for Muslim men to
slap their wives in Muhammad's time, it is now. If Muhammad could punch Aisha
in the chest, Muslim men can do the same today.
If I interpret the Hadith with a bias that you claim is too strong, then you
must look to your millions of Muslim "brothers" who do exactly what I claim
Muhammad taught. Muslim women all around the world today, even in America now,
are subjected to brutal treatment, at the hands of their husbands, because
Muslim men use 4:34 as a command to follow. Some men may go beyond what I say
is the limit established by Islam, but others don't. They slap, punch, and
bruise their wives, just as the early Muslims did. They are following
Muhammad's commands.
Why is the Islamic world so silent on the abuse their women suffer? A quick
reading of any of the books I've quoted - written by women who were initially
unbiased on the subject, shows that in the Islamic world today, women are truly
suffering. From Afghanistan, to Yeman, they are suppressed, subjected, and
suffering.
I don't need to be insecure in my faith to speak out about a barbaric practice
created and established by Muhammad. It's the right thing to do, it's the
humane thing to do.
SILAS778
Drice writes:
[[[You can't use Qur'an *translations* as the basis for the real meaning of a
word. ]]]
It is obvious that all the translations of the word state a physical beating.
Ali adds his own word to the Quran - (lightly) to make it more palatable for
the Western reader.
Usually, translations are done by language scholars. Since both Muslim and
non-Muslim have translated it as "beat" or equivalent, I say go with what they
have written.
Drice, are you saying that all those translators were dummies when they used
"beat"?
Drice wrote:
[[[Understanding does not come from how words are translated, but the meanings
of the words, and that is the purpose of dictionaries, such as the lexicon of
Qur'anic Arabic compiled by Imam Raghib.]]]
The most common use of idreb in the Quran involves physical striking. Do a
word search.
YOUSAIDWHAT wrote:
{{{To make a word something other than what it clearly is can only be seen as
an attempt to instill fitna in the community, to deceive many, and to interject
bida' into the translation of the Qur'an.]]]
Drice replied:
[[[This is irrelevant to the meaning of the passage. You seem to be trying to
change the topic.]]]
It may be irrelevant to the meaning of the passage, but you Drice, have a bad
track record when it comes to staying on the topic. You rarely are able to not
make a personal comment against a person, say me, who disagrees with you.
YouSaid's point is an accurate one concerning your attempt to corrupt the
Quran.
YouSaid wrote:
{{{that the phrase >Adribuhunna< means "beat them." One "wild" so-called
expert will have to do more than just state a fantasy position to overthrow
1400 years of
Qur'anic translation and exegesis.}}}
Drice replied:
[[[While that is also a possible translation, my point is to note that it is
apparently not the only one which has been put forward.]]]
Anyone can create a new way to translate a word. What we should be concerned
with it the most accurate translation. And as YouSaid notes, it's been "beat"
for 1400 years. And now some dude wants to replace it with what?
Again, go study the contexts for the term and for the background of 4:34. I've
provided them on a previous post.
There is no justification for using "go to bed with them" when you take into
account the stories' contexts that deal with Islamic wife beating.
SILAS778
translation of "idreb". The dictionary defines corporal punishment as
"physical injury inflicted on the body of one convicted of a crime, and
including the death penalty, flogging, sentence to a term of years".
I addressed his attempt.
Now, Omar is leaning towards, "and go to bed with them" as the translation of
the passage.
Quite a big change! Reminds me of Muhammad getting a revelation to abrogate a
verse!
And I find it funny that the site that drice gave for Raghib's translation is
affliated with Saudi Arabia! They're the ones who pay men to walk around the
town to beat people, including women, who do not toe the line! This sci-fi
rhetoric is just the Muslim way to make "dawa" towards the West. Do one thing,
but say another.
Omar wrote:
[[[Translation of the Quran is a relatively recent phenomenon; are you going to
believe modern translators who didn't have Arabic as a first language, and then
not believe Raghib, who lived 9 centuries or so ago, at a time when the Arabic
was closer to ancient Arabic, and who grew up immersed in the language, and has
been a recognised authority for centuries?]]]
Being a recent phenomen does not mean it is inaccurate. There have been
English translations of the Quran for over 100 years, and all of the
translations I am familar with (I own 6 Qurans in English), all translate the
word in 4:34 as "beat" or equivalent, such as scourge. I don't think it candid
on your part to suggest that all of these scholars, some of them Muslim, all
translated their Qurans incorrectly.
Here is another Hadith that supports the physical "beating".
#2141 - Iyas Dhubab reported the apostle of Allah as saying:
"Do not beat Allah's handmaidens", but when Umar came to the apostle of Allah
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 complaining against their husbands. So the apostle of
Allah said, "Many women have gone round Muhammad's family complaining against
their husbands. They are not the best among you".
Note here that Muhammad commented on the women who were complaining to his
wives: "they are not the best among you". Muhammad was not commenting on the
husbands who beat their wives.
So, it we try to insert Raghib's "have intercourse" there it would read
"Women have become emboldened towards their husbands", he (the prophet), gave
permission to "have intercourse" with them.
I can see Umar now, "Hey Muhammad, my wife is giving me and the other Muslim
men a hard time, asking me for extra money, upsetting me, what should I do?"
"Have intercourse with them."
Yeah, right, that really makes a lot of sense.
Omar, you'd be better off sticking with, "corporal punishment", or "spanking",
instead of "have intercourse".
[[[And have you dealt with the arguments Raghib presents? For example the fact
that 'daraba' IS used to mean sexual intercourse ( Raghib gives examples)?]]]
The web page that Drice provided states:
{{{"Raghib points out that daraba metaphorically means to have intercourse, and
quotes the expression darab al-fahl an-naqah, 'the stud camel covered the
she-camel,' which is also quoted by Lisan al-'Arab. It cannot be taken here to
mean 'to strike them (women).' }}}
What's wrong with Raghib's picture? He first states that a metaphorical
meaning of daraba is to have intercourse. "Metaphorical", that's really solid
ground to build an argument upon.
Second, the actual term in question is "idreb", which is a form of daraba. The
most common use of this word "idreb" in the Quran relates to physical striking,
not having intercourse. For example, in 8:12, it says regarding the infidels,
"Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers"
According to Raghib, Allah is telling the angels to have intercourse with their
heads and fingers!
No, it doens't fly, and we know it. Why? Because the context of the passage
does not allow for that meaning.
If you allow the Quran to interpret the Quran, then you should go with context
and convention. The context is a women being slapped by her husband, the
convention is "idreb" is most often a "striking" not a love making term, in the
Quran.
Another comment -
In order to find a base to build his case upon, Raghib uses a idiom using
daraba for camels havig sex. Sounds like he is grasping at straws.
Drice's webpage continues:
[[[This view is strengthened by the Prophet's authentic hadith found in a
number of authorities, including Bukhari and Muslim: "Could any of you beat
your wife as he would a slave, and then lie with her in the evening?"]]]
This does not support Raghib's bogus interpretation at all. Who is he? The
Hadith is Muhammd telling his followers not to beat their wives as they do
slaves and then use them for sex at night. It goes along with the correct
meaning of 4:34 - beat them, and Muhammad's words in his farewell address - "do
not beat them with severity".
Drice's website continues:
[[[There are other traditions in Abu Da'ud, Nasa'i, Ibn Majah, Ahmad bin Hanbal
and others, to the effect that he forbade the beating of any woman, saying:
"Never beat God's handmaidens."]]]
Here we have another case of shoddy Islamic scholarship. He cites Abu Dawud.
I can't answer for the other collections of Hadith, but I can answer for Abu
Dawud.
Abu Dawud's hadith clearly states that Muhammad commanded his followers to beat
their wives, after he said not to beat them. Consequently, the final command
stands. Beat them.
Some scholarship on Drice's website huh? And you criticize a website that puts
up my articles while your own scholars won't tell you the truth!
Mushrooms.
YouSaid wrote:
{{{The scholars contracted by the Islamic University in Al-Madina Al-Munawwara
(Dr. Muhammad Taqi ud-Din Al-Hillali and Dr. Muhamad Muhsin Khan) have agreed
and certified for an official translation of the Qur'an into English that the
phrase >Adribuhunna< means "beat them."
Omar answered:
[[[Muhsin Khan is incompetent, as anyone who has read his Sahih Bukhari knows,
and as qualified Muslim scholars are never tired of pointing out. He appears to
be incompetent in English as well as Arabic, judging by his translation. I'll
take Imam Raghib over him any day.]]]
So, here we have several Islamic University professors who worked on
translating Bukhari, but our expert here - Omar states that they are
incompetent. Well maybe they are! They're Islamic professors.
But I'd like to think that with all of those Arabic speaking, scholars of
Islam, working on a translation of Bukhari, that they had some competence.
Wouldn't you Muslims like to think that your best profs had some ability to
translate your esteemed texts?
YouSaid wrote:
{{{One "wild" so-called expert will have
to do more than just state a fantasy position to overthrow 1400 years of
Qur'anic translation and exegesis.}}}
Omar responded:
[[[Imam Raghib presented examples of actual Arabic usage. He did not merely
'state a fantasy position'; whether or not you agree with him, at least address
his argument.]]]
Raghib's argument is very weak. Perhaps you should teach him some logic. I
have to agree with YouSaid - the 1400 years of established scholarship stands
over some dufus interpretation.
SILAS778
{{{I can't justify striking a teenage girl, his own wife, in the chest for just
mental doubt.}}}
Omar responded:
[[['For just mental doubt'???! Do you have any idea how destructive and
dangerous mental doubt can be?? It can lead to suicide, murder, destruction of
relationships, loss of faith in our Maker, and loss of eternal bliss.]]]
Spare me the sanctimonious outrage. As Siddiqi stated, it was a natural
reaction for Aisha to be jealous. Especially of someone with the dubious
character of Muhammad. He had "revelations" that allowed him to change his
sexual habits - as
Aisha said, "Allah is quick to give you what you want." All Aisha did was to
doubt a man who should be doubted.
[[[Wasn't he (Muhammad) called "Amin", the TRUSTWORTHY ONE, even before his
mission, may Allah bless him and grant him peace?? Funny how Silas never
mentions THAT fact in his writings]]]
Muhammad was also called demon possessed when he was a child - before his
mission. And, at the start of his mission, he thought he was demon possessed -
he was! As far as Islamic records calling Muhammad many wonderful things,
well, even Kermit the Frog said Jim Henson was a wonderful man.
[[[What is the cure for the more severe, and pathological, cases of mental
doubt? It will vary from person to person: everyone needs a different medicine.
Rarely, someone will need to be shocked out of it, to make them realize where
they're going wrong. And this could, in some rare cases, take the form of a
slap, administered out of concern and not aggression.]]]
Aisha did not have severe pathological doubt, she rightly doubted Muhammad's
fidelity. After all - he was the one changing the rules with his spurious
"revelations". Muhammad was the one with the real problem. So, your
justification for Muhammad punching Aisha in the chest falls to the ground.
And, again, read the entire Hadith. You'll find that she was calmed, trying to
go to sleep, before Muhammad punched her. You talk so much about "scholarly"
work, why not read the Hadith before you made up rhetorical excuses for
Muhammad's abuse of Aisha?
[[[Suspicion is counted as a sin in the Quran. And some cases can easily be
cases of grave sin.]]]
Aisha had a right to be suspicious of Muhammad. And in this case, no real
harm was done, except to Muhammad's ego. Muslims who followed Muhammad doubted
him from time to time, and it was accepted, he was, after all, human. Didn't
he make mistakes? Shouldn't he be doubted? Doesn't the Quran tell him to lie
and break his word? Well? If that is the case - that he made many mistakes,
so many that he said he prayed for forgiveness 70000 times a day, Aisha was
certainly justified in doubting him.
{{{In any event, you're saying she deserved to be beaten because she doubted
him?}}}
[[[I'm saying you're wide of the mark when you say that she was not being
disobedient. She clearly was. And the fact that you don't know that suspicion
is characterized as a sin casts grave doubt on your claim to have based your
writings on 'thorough research'.]]]
I don't think she was being disobedient. Muhammad gave her no commands not to
follow him in the night. She didn't doubt he was a prophet, she didn't disobey
the commands he made up in the Quran. She did question what he was up to - and
understandably so. Muhammad's track record is not a good one.
Further, you didn't answer the question - you say that Muslims should be
beaten, or at least slapped and bruised, because they had some doubt about
Muhammad? Gee, Muhammad would have been punching out a lot of women if that
was his real standard.
On the other hand, in this specific case, we have Muhammad, perhaps being
scared by Aisha's shadow, and in any case, having his ego challenged. She
doubted him (based upon his poor track record), and Muhammad didn't like it.
The poor fellow. So, after she admitted that she followed him in the night,
doubting him, he struck her in the chest! He wasn't concerned about her
"state of mind". If that was the case, he would not have held a question and
answer secession with her and then punched her. If she were frantic, as Omar
alleges (to make up an excuse for Muhammad's brutality), he would have had to
slap her around as soon as he got back to the bedroom. Instead, he carries on
a conversation with her, one in which she is quite composed, and then strikes
her. Some psychologist he was. "Now that we had this conversation, and you
told me the truth, I'm going to have to smack you around - its for your own
good, this is gonna hurt me more than its going to hurt you". Please, give it
a rest. Just read the Hadith, and discuss the details; drop the fiction.
In questioning Omar's fictional story about Aisha's frame of mind, and
Muhammad's punching people, I asked about other Muslims who did worse than
Aisha, Omar responds:
[[[Like I said, everyone needs a different medicine. Knowing which medicine
they need will require intimate contact with the person in question. This can't
be decided at the distance of 14 centuries. It's only in very rare cases that
someone will need to be slapped to bring them back to their senses. The Prophet
had such intimate contact with his companions. We don't.]]]
This case, of Aisha having doubted Muhammad, and gone back to bed to sleep,
then being stirred, questioned and answered, then punched - does not require
that she be struck for any reason. She needed no brutal Islamic medicine.
That's bad medicine! What she needed was a husband who established his
fidelity more consistently. Muhammad should have re-assured her that he was
true to his word, (he wasn't). Muhammad should have spoken words of love to
her (funny how the Quran commands men to beat their wives, not love them).
Instead, she got punched. If that is Islamic medicine, I'd say Muhammad was a
quack!
Attempting to justify Muhammad's punching of Aisha, Omar wrote:
[[[Suppose I'm a paranoid who thinks people are out to sell me into slavery. I
wake up one morning and I think that my roommate is trying to do the same. I
follow him hoping to see him visiting the slavers. But no-- he's just going
shopping. Will I be alright all of a sudden? Will I suddenly no longer need to
be in doubt? Of course not! I'll still be a paranoid. Aisha's case is similar
( assuming it happened at all-- which, as I say, I rather doubt).]]]
Suppose you are a rational, logical, and natural human being. Suppose you
knew your roommate had a history of selling people into slavery. Suppose you
knew some of them. Then you would be justified in wondering if he was going to
sell you into slavery. Aisha knew about Muhammad's sexual proclivities. There
is one Hadith in Bukhari which says that Muhammad had sex with all 9 wives in
one night! There are Quranic verses which tell Muhammad that he does not have
to rotate equally with his wives for sex, that he can do it with whoever he
pleases. Since Muhammad was known for having multiple sex partners on a given
night, and since Aisha knew he didn't have to follow the rules, or that he
could change the rules whenever he wanted, then she was justified in doubting
him. Most certainly she was justified.
Don't you think Hillary wonders what Bill is up to when they're apart? Don't
you think she "doubts" him? In the same way, Aisha would wonder about Muhammad
getting up in the middle of the night and appearing to sneak away. After all,
she wanted to be the one that night.
[[[If I really thought that I was being sold into slavery, I should hope
someone would knock some sense into me.]]]
If you were really a paranoid person, beating you would not help you. You
would need professional help. You may be typifying Muhammad's frame of mind,
"knock them around", but people with legitimate psychological problems do not
get them cured by being beaten up. If you were paranoid, I would take you to
see a psychologist, not a boxer.
Hey, if you go to Sudan, Mali, Mauritania, watch your step. It could happen to
you. Back in 1960 one could buy black slaves in Mecca.
Regarding Muhammad's willy - nilly approach to having Sarh killed, Omar wrote:
[[[The incident reported is recorded in Ibn Ishaq. I wonder if Silas knows that
the story above is prefaced by the words "they allege". This is a phrase of
suspicion from Ibn Ishaq. II uses it to cast doubt on the story he presents,
and to say that he isn't sure of its truth. II transmits everything he hears,
like a good reporter, but doesn't always believe what he hears. And he
sometimes tells us he doesn't believe what he has heard by use of the phrase
"they allege".
The story has no isnad. It is reported for the first time by II, who himself is
suspicious of it, some 100 years after the alleged event. And we're supposed to
believe this?]]]
>From the Sunan of Abu Dawud - the third highest collection of Hadith in Islam
-
Number 2677:
Narrated Sa'd:
On the day when Mecca was conquered, the Apostle of Allah gave protection to
the People except four men and two women and he named them. Ibn Abu Sarh was
one of them.
He then narrated the tradition. He said: Ibn Abu Sarh hid himself with Uthman
ibn Affan. When the Apostle of Allah called the people to take the oath of
allegiance, he brought him and made him stand before the Apostle of Allah . He
said: Apostle of Allah, receive the oath of allegiance from him. He raised his
head and looked at him thrice, denying him every time. After the third time he
received his oath. He then turned to his Companions and said: Is not there any
intelligent man among you who would stand to this (man) when he saw me
desisting from receiving the oath of allegiance, and kill him? They replied: We
do not know, Apostle of Allah, what lies in your heart; did you not give us an
hint with your eye? He said: It is not proper for a Prophet to have a
treacherous eye.
And
Number 4346:
Narrated Sa'd ibn AbuWaqqas:
On the day of the conquest of Mecca, Abdullah ibn Sa'd ibn Abu Sarh hid himself
with Uthman ibn Affan.
He brought him and made him stand before the Prophet , and said: Accept the
allegiance of Abdullah, Apostle of Allah! He raised his head and looked at him
three times, refusing him each time, but accepted his allegiance after the
third time.
Then turning to his companions, he said: Was not there a wise man among you who
would stand up to him when he saw that I had withheld my hand from accepting
his allegiance, and kill him?
They said: We did not know what you had in your heart, Apostle of Allah! Why
did you not give us a signal with your eye?
He said: It is not advisable for a Prophet to play deceptive tricks with the
eyes.
Yes, Omar, you're supposed to believe it. Does it make a difference? With
you, no. But it only serves my point that I asked before the debate on
Muhammad punching Aisha, - if Muhammad would have poked her eye out with a
stick, it would not matter to you. There are Muslims out there that would
justify Muhammad if he murdered 6 million Jews.
I can get you more references to Sarh if you like. The story is found in
several places.
[[[Typical Christian missionary. Picking on baseless tales to attack the Best
of Creation.
Oh yeah, which reminds me. On Silas' website "Islam Unveiled" there is the
comment "We are not ashamed to present our findings because they are based on
thorough research." Silas' use of Ibn Ishaq shows us what kind of "research" is
going on. "Thorough Research". Yeah, right.]]]
Well, not so baseless eh? "Best of Creation"? chuckle. Certainly not the
best, not by a long shot. I'd say close to the worst of creation. Not the
worst, but near the bottom.
Thorough research? Apparently so. Yes, correct. So let me encourage you to
do some "thorough research" before replying.
GF Haddad
1. Does the Arabic word 'daraba' necessarily mean "violent or intense or
repeated striking?"
No.
Jurists routinely use the expression "daraba al-ma' `ala wajhihi" - lit.
strike water upon the face, for someone accomplishing the first rukn of
wudu' (washing the face).
Also in Arabic daraba al-ard "to strike the earth" - as in verse 4:94
{When you strike the earth in the cause of Allah} - means to travel, i.e.
walking with a staff.
2. Has the phrase 'wadribuhunna' in 4:34 normally been interpreted as a
command or has it been interpreted as more of a recommendation?
Not even a recommendation. Al-Razi said in his Tafsir on 4:34 (1308/1891
edition 3:222): "Al-Shaf`i said: 'wa al-darbu mubah, wa al-tarku afdal -
and hitting is permitted, but not hitting is preferable.'"
NB: Al-Shafi`i's position is therefore that it is "permissible", NOT "just
barely permissible" as misrepresented by Muhammad Asad. [_The Message of
the Qur'an_, translation and commentary of the Qur'an by Muhammad Asad
(1980), footnote 45, p. 109 (one of the commentaries on verse 4:34).]
The basic rule (asl) is strict prohibition, followed by dispensation
(rukhsa) as explicited by the Prophet (SAWS) in the hadith below, which
al-Shafi`i took for his evidence in his ruling:
The Prophet (SAWS) said: "Do not hit the maidservants of Allah!" (la
tadribu ima' Allah). Then `Umar (RA) came to the Prophet (SAWS) and said
[NB: by way of exaggeration, cf. `Awn al-Ma`bud]: "The women are rebelling
(dha'irna) against their husbands!" So the Prophet (SAWS) GAVE A
DISPENSATION (rakhkhasa) to beat them. Whereupon women started pouring in
to see the family of the Messenger of Allah and complain about their
husbands. Seeing this, the Prophet (SAWS) said: "Many women have poured in
to see the family of Muhammad, complaining of their husbands, and *the
latter are certainly not the best of you*." Narrated from Iyas ibn `Abd
Allah ibn Abi Dhubab by al-Shafi`i in his Musnad, Abu Dawud, al-Nasa'i,
Ibn Majah, al-Tabarani in al-Kabir, and al-Hakim. Al-Nawawi and al-Suyuti
graded it a sound (sahih) narration in Riyad al-Salihin and al-Jami`
al-Saghir respectively.
In a version cited by al-Razi in his Tafsir, (3:222) `Umar also states:
"We the Quraysh used to have our men holding sway over our women. Then we
came to Madina and found that their women held sway over their men. Then
our women mixed with their women until they rebelled (dha'irna) against
their husbands. So I came to the Prophet (SAWS) and told him: 'The women
are rebelling against their husbands!' So he (SAWS) GAVE PERMISSION
(adhina) to beat them. Whereupon, etc."
Some people who were influenced by feminism until they forgot the Adab of
Islam, tend to badmouth Sayyidina `Umar for what they term his
mistreatment of women. While it is true that the Arabs in general and
Sayyidina `Umar in particular had a very high sense of self-respect
(ghira) as attested by no less than the Prophet (SAWS) (in the hadith
where he mentions seeing `Umar's palace in Paradise), nevertheless we
should observe Adab so as not to commit a sin whenever mentioning the
Prophet (SAWS), his Family, and His Companions, indeed all Muslims as
Allah (SWT) made the honor of a Muslim as sacrosanct as his life and
property.
The Prophet (SAWS) also expressed astonishment at the cruelty of certain
men when he said: "Could any of you beat his wife as he would beat a
slave, and then lie with her in the evening?" (Bukhari and Muslim).
The crafty little anti-Islam page on domini.org states:
"The Qur'an states:
"Righteous women are therefore obedient, And those you fear may
be rebellious (nushuz) admonish; banish them to their couches,
and beat them."
"Some translators add the word lightly after 'beat them' in Q 4:34.
Others like Mohammed Pickthall and Rodwell translate the word
'edrebouhon -
beat them' as 'scourge them'.
[...] But "a beating without causing injury" (agreed upon)
"So the man has the right to beat his rebellious wife as long as that
beating is not like the whipping of the slave and will not result in
injury."
Of course the above is false and tendentious but couched in the syrupy
style typical of missionaries.
The hadith in Muslim states that the Prophet (SAWS) in his Farewell
Pilgrimage said: "Lo! My last recommendation to you is that you should
TREAT WOMEN WELL. Truly they are your helpmates, and you have no right
over them beyond that - EXCEPT IF THEY COMMIT A MANIFEST INDECENCY
(fahisha mubina = adultery). If they do, then refuse to share their beds
and beat them WITHOUT INDECENT VIOLENCE(fadribuhunna darban ghayra
mubarrih*). Then, if they obey you, do not show them hostility any longer.
Lo! you have a right over your women and they have a right over you. Your
right over your women is that they not allow whom you hate to enter your
bed nor your house. While their right over them is that you treat them
excellently in their garb and provision."
*** Then he (SAWS) took the covenant from them and from us that they and
we all heard and understood this from him, respectively, directly and
indirectly, with his forefinger raised, and said: "O Allah! bear witness."
***
After this, whatever Muslim man derogates to the recommendation of the
Prophet (SAWS) has violated his covenant with the Prophet (SAWS) and shall
be called to account for it; and whoever of the non-Muslim men or
women claims - even the Archbishop of Canterbury and his wife - that
beating women is allowed in Islam, has belied the Divine witness invoked
by the Prophet (SAWS) and shall be called to account for it in the Divine
Court.
*"Mubarrih" is defined in al-Mawrid as "violent, intense, severe, acute,
sharp, excruciating, tormenting, agonizing." Qatada said as narrated by
al-Tabari in his Tafsir (5:68): "Ghayr mubarrih means ghayr sha'in = not
disgraceful/ outrageous/ obscene/ indecent [beating]." Muhammad Asad
translates it over-figuratively as "not causing pain."
3. What is the evidence for saying that this 'striking' is in fact only
supposed to be carried out with something small, like a miswak?
`Ata' said: "I asked Ibn `Abbas: 'What is the hitting that is ghayr
al-mubarrih?' He replied: '[With] the siwak and the like'." Narrated by
al-Tabari in his Tafsir (Dar al-Fikr reprint 5:68).
Al-Razi (3:222) mentions that as a rule (a) it must be a light beating and
(b) the face must be avoided. He added that certain of the Shafi`i jurists
said "a coiled scarf (mindil malfuf) (NB: NOT "a folded handkerchief" as
mistranslated by Asad) or his hand may be used but not a whip nor a
stick."
4. Where is the hadith found in which the Prophet (SAWS) said to a
servant-girl who had been extremely late "If I were not afraid of Allah, I
would hit you with this" referring to a miswak?
Ibn Sa`d in al-Tabaqat al-Kubra, Al-Tabarani in al-Mu`jam al-Kabir, Abu
Ya`la in his Musnad, Abu Nu`aym in Hilyat al-Awliya' and al-Hakim in
al-Mustadrak narrated from Umm Salama: "The Prophet (SAWS) was in my house
and there was a siwak in his hand. He called for Wasifa [the servant-girl]
to come to him or to her [i.e. to serve Umm Salama] but she tarried until
anger was visible on his face. So Umm Salama went out to her and found her
playing with an animal. She said to her: "You are playing while the
Messenger of Allah is calling you?" She replied: "No, by the one who sent
you with truth! I did not hear you." Whereupon the Prophet (SAWS) said:
"Were it not for fear of exaction (qawad) on the Day of Resurrection, I
should surely make you sore (la'awja`tuki) with this toothpick."
Al-Munawi in Fayd al-Qadir mentioned that al-Mundhiri and al-Haythami
declared its chain of transmission good. Al-Suyuti graded the hadith
"fair" (hasan) in al-Jami` al-Saghir. Al-Muttaqi cited it in Kanz
al-`Ummal (#39820, 39821, 39829).
5. What is the exact meaning of 'nushuz'? It is translated as
disobedience, but there seem to be others who think it means something
more like 'ill-will' or 'hostility' or 'ill-treatment'.
It depends on context and how these terms are themselves understood by
those who use them. Ill-treatment on the part of a wife to her husband,
for example, is a bit different from ill-treatment on the part of a grocer
to his customer.
Nushuz is translated "Recalcitrance, disobedience, violation of marital
duties on the part of the wife" in al-Mawrid Ar-Eng Dictionary.
Nushuz in the verse, as shown, is an euphemism for adultery because her
primary marital duty is spelled out in the hadith as "not allowing whom
you hate to enter your bed nor your house." Al-Maziri also said that
another interpretation of the words in that hadith said it referred to a
woman sitting in seclusion with a stranger inside her husband's house.
(Al-Nawawi, Sharh Sahih Muslim.)
6. Is it not true that slapping someone on the face is not allowed in
Islam? Is there a consensus on this point?
It is a transgression requiring exaction (qawad) which can be changed into
monetary compensation (diyya) in the Four Schools, and Allah knows best.
Examples: (a) the famous hadith from Mu`awiya ibn al-Hakam in Sahih Muslim
of the black woman slave whom her owner slaps and is then obligated to
manumit as her compensation.
(b) Also in Sahih Muslim, the example of Suwayd ibn Muqarrin who saw a man
slap his female slave and told him: "Do you not know that the face is
taboo? (al-sura muharrama) I, whom you see in front of you, the seventh of
my brothers, was with the Messenger of Allah and we only had one servant;
one of us slapped him, so the Messenger of Allah commanded us to free
him."
(c) A man from the Ansar insulted al-‘Abbas’s father who lived in the Time
of Ignorance, whereupon al-‘Abbas slapped him. The man returned to his
people who said: “By Allah, we shall slap him just as he slapped him,” and
they girded their weapons. News of this reached the Prophet (SAWS) who
ascended the pulpit and said: “O people! Who among the dwellers of the
earth is deemed most honorable in the presence of Allah?” They said,
“You.” He continued: “And al-‘Abbas is part of me, and I am part of him.
Do not insult our dead, thereby harming our living.” The people then came
to the Prophet (SAWS) and said: “O Messenger of Allah! We seek refuge in
Allah from your anger.” Narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas by Ahmad and al-Nasa’i
with a sound chain according to al-‘Iraqi in Takhrij Ahadith al-Ihya’,
also al-Tabarani in al-Mu`jam al-Kabir.
Al-Sindi in his commentary on al-Nasa'i's Sunan said: "Since he had begun
with the insult, the slap received was not to obtain retaliation."
Note that the directive of the above hadith was royally ignored by the
Wahhabi preacher of the Prophet's Mosque in Madina, Abu Bakr al-Jaza'iri,
who used to shout at the top of his lungs, right next to al-Mustafa
(SAWS)?: “The father and mother of the Prophet are in hellfire! The father
and mother of the Prophet are in hellfire!” and so until his death last
year. I wonder, should we believe that Abu Bakr al-Jaza'iri and his
parents are in Paradise, while the parents of the Prophet Muhammad (SAWS)
are in hellfire? Hasbuna Allah.
The ruling of automatic manumission for striking a slave in the face is
estalished by the following hadith of the Prophet (SAWS):
(d) “Whoever strikes his slave in the face or beats him unjustly, his
expiation is to manumit him.” Narrated from Ibn ‘Umar by Muslim in his
Sahih.
The ruling that the face is taboo is established by the following hadith
of the Prophet (SAWS):
(e) “If you fight your brother, avoid striking the face, for Allah created
Adam in his image.” Narrated from Abu Hurayra by Muslim and al-Bukhari,
the latter without the words “your brother.” If this is forbidden while
fighting or when interacting with a slave, then a fortiori it is forbidden
outside fighting and with one's wife.
Do not be misled by the Satanic whispers of domini.org which states:
"The occasion in which Q 4:34 was revealed sheds more light on the meaning
of that verse. Most commentators mention that
the above verse was revealed in connection with a woman who
complained to Mohammad that her husband slapped her on the face
(which was still marked by the slap). At first the Prophet said
to her: 'Get even with him', but then added : 'Wait until I think
about it.' Later on the above verse was revealed, after which the
Prophet said: 'We wanted one thing but Allah wanted another, and
what Allah wanted is best.'[Razi, At-tafsir al-Kabir, on Q. 4:34.]"
Crafty, crafty, and all for what? lies. Ars longa, vita brevis!
The commentators also mention that this report is narrated only from
al-Hasan al-Basri who is NOT a Companion. The most that can be said of it
here is that it is a weak, isolated, mursal Tabi`i report that does not
have probative force.
What is more, al-Hasan himself flatly contradicts the above as he
reportedly explained {wadribuhunna} to mean: "hitting that is not obscene;
hitting that *does not leave a trace*" (darban ghayra mubarrih ghayra
mu'aththir). Narrated by al-Tabari in his Tafsir (Dar al-Fikr reprint
5:68).
And Allah Most High knows best.
{Wa Makaru wa Makara Allah wAllahu Khayru-l-Makirin}
{Yuridun an yutfi'u Nur Allah bi Afwahihim wa Ya'ba Allah
Illa an Yatimma Nurahu wa law Kariha al-Kafirun}
Blessings and peace of Allah on the Prophet, his Family, and his
Companions.
Hajj Gibril
--
GF Haddad
Qas...@cyberia.net.lb
GF Haddad
GF Haddad
(Sigh)
>Sahih Muslim, #3506
>Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah:
...
> and I got up and
>slapped her on her neck.
Poked her in her neck.
...
>Abu Bakr then got up, went to Aisha and slapped her on the neck
Poked her in the neck.
The term used is the trisyllabic verb w-j-' or waja'a, yaji'u. Don't
bother looking in Wehr, you will not find it. But try Lane. I found it in
Lisan al-`Arab.
It means to jab or poke. Not hit, not beat. Jab or poke, like a one
year-old jabs or pokes his mummy in the cheek.
(sigh)
--
GF Haddad
Qas...@cyberia.net.lb
omar...@my-deja.com
punishment"
as an
translation of "idreb". The dictionary defines corporal punishment
as
"physical injury inflicted on the body of one convicted of a crime,
and
including the death penalty, flogging, sentence to a term of years".]]
And what dictionary are you using? Webster's New American
Dictionary says nothing of the sort. It says "punishment imposed on the
body of an offender". And yes, that is a literal, accurate way of
describing what is meant by the words "corporal punishment", which is
less emotionally charged, and less misleading than "wife beating". The
Shariah prescriptions for corporal punishment do not lead to the kind
of brutality that we normally associate with the phrase "wife beating".
hence, the latter term is seriously misleading in this context.
[[Now, Omar is leaning towards, "and go to bed with them" as the
translation of
the passage.]]
Not at all. Raghib's argument had better be good to displace the
consensus of the scholars. But it needs to be addressed, with reference
to the original source; and certainly, Muhammad Muhsin Khan is not an
authority to cite in this connection!!
> Omar wrote:
> [[[Translation of the Quran is a relatively recent phenomenon; are
you going to
> believe modern translators who didn't have Arabic as a first
language, and then
> not believe Raghib, who lived 9 centuries or so ago, at a time when
the Arabic
> was closer to ancient Arabic, and who grew up immersed in the
language, and has
> been a recognised authority for centuries?]]]
> Being a recent phenomen does not mean it is inaccurate.
And I have not said anything of the sort.
There have been
> English translations of the Quran for over 100 years, and all of the
> translations I am familar with (I own 6 Qurans in English), all
translate the
> word in 4:34 as "beat" or equivalent, such as scourge. I don't think
it candid
> on your part to suggest that all of these scholars, some of them
Muslim, all
> translated their Qurans incorrectly.
I agree with their translation, up to a point. For the word 'beat' in
English conveys a sense of violent, intense or repeated hitting which
is not conveyed by 'daraba'.
But Raghib's interpretation should not be so flippantly dismissed,
either. According to many of the scholars, the Quran can have many
different interpretations. Why could not Raghib's be one of them?
> Omar, you'd be better off sticking with, "corporal punishment",
or "spanking",
> instead of "have intercourse".
Thanks for your concern. "Corporal punishment" is appropriate, and
accurate. I reject the claim that it primarily refers to the punishment
of children. The term is extensively used in the context of punishment
of offenders generally. And it doesn't carry the connotations of
injustice that "wife beating" does, which prejudice the discussion from
the start.
I stated:
> [[[And have you dealt with the arguments Raghib presents? For example
the fact
> that 'daraba' IS used to mean sexual intercourse ( Raghib gives
examples)?]]]
Silas goes on to quote the website provided by F. Rice. Well, fair
enough, but does the website even attempt to provide a comprehensive
picture of the man's view? I'd like to see it analysed from the
original Arabic. It won't displace the standard meaning, but it
shouldn't be dismissed on the sayso of modern translators either!!
Silas continues:
> According to Raghib, Allah is telling the angels to have intercourse
with their
> heads and fingers!
Raghib is doing nothing of the sort. There's not a shred of evidence
that he interpreted the verse in this way. He did interpret 4:34 in
that way, but I doubt his argument ended with just stating some
examples. If it did, then it's a bad argument, but I doubt it.
Silas continues:
> No, it doens't fly, and we know it. Why? Because the context of the
passage
> does not allow for that meaning.
>
> If you allow the Quran to interpret the Quran, then you should go
with context
> and convention. The context is a women being slapped by her husband,
the
> convention is "idreb" is most often a "striking" not a love making
term, in the
> Quran.
As for the context of slapping the face, that hadith has been rejected
in an article by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, who says that neither Baghawi nor
Tabari can produce an acceptable isnad for the event. Where are you
getting it from? Razi? Whose translation?
Drice's website continues:
[[[There are other traditions in Abu Da'ud, Nasa'i, Ibn Majah, Ahmad
bin Hanbal
and others, to the effect that he forbade the beating of any woman,
saying:
"Never beat God's handmaidens."]]]
[[Here we have another case of shoddy Islamic scholarship. He cites
Abu Dawud.
I can't answer for the other collections of Hadith, but I can answer
for Abu
Dawud. ]]
Oh, really? Whose translation are you using? Does he admit to having no
competence either, like Siddiqui? I was amazed when I read Siddiqui's
passage in his introduction... amazed that you take his translations so
seriously, relying on them for your so-called 'proofs'. Now that's what
I call shoddy scholarship!!
For example, did you know that the translation of Siddiqui "he struck
me in the chest" is misleading, and that the more likely reading of the
word he renders 'strike' does not mean strike at all? You can find this
out by reading Nawawi's authoritative commentary on Sahih Muslim, or
checking any Arabic text of it.
And this of course means that your 'proof' of the Prophet striking
Aisha has not a leg to stand on!
Which leaves us with the following hadith:
"Allah's messenger never struck anyone with his hand, neither
woman nor servant, but only in the case when he had been fighting in
the cause of Allah..."
I wrote;
> [[[Muhsin Khan is incompetent, as anyone who has read his Sahih
Bukhari knows,
> and as qualified Muslim scholars are never tired of pointing out. He
appears to
> be incompetent in English as well as Arabic, judging by his
translation. I'll
> take Imam Raghib over him any day.]]]
Silas comments:
> So, here we have several Islamic University professors who worked on
> translating Bukhari, but our expert here - Omar states that they are
> incompetent. Well maybe they are! They're Islamic professors.
Muhsin Khan is incompetent in English for sure, although he is
doing better than Christian missionaries like Silas who for over a week
had trouble understanding the simple hadith just quoted--- and it's
still not clear that he's figured it out.
And I don't criticise Muhsin Khan out of my 'expertise', but
because of the testimony of many, many genuine experts.
> But I'd like to think that with all of those Arabic speaking,
scholars of
> Islam, working on a translation of Bukhari, that they had some
competence.
So would I!!!
> Wouldn't you Muslims like to think that your best profs had some
ability to
> translate your esteemed texts?
Most of the best profs don't speak English. Muhsin Khan does not count
among them. Who on earth told you they were our best profs? For further
reading, see Haddad's post on the Shame of the Islamic University in
Madina.
YOUSAIDWHAT1
* You have argued about the meaning of QUR'ANIC ARABIC by referring to a
>dictionary of MODERN ARABIC -- showing that you do not understand there is
>a difference between the two.
I understand very well. So far no one has shown any evidence that the
translation used for this term in English is wrong. Stating that one person has
a varied opinion isn't the same as actually proving it. So, my position is that
the scholars at Islamic University are correct.
>* You argue that the meanings of words have to be understood by looking at
>TRANSLATIONS -- which is ridiculous, since understandings should come by
>looking at the words in the original >language, not in the translations.
Since, as you so rightly stated, there is no translation into English approved
by Allah, English speakers have to rely on the scholars who have an appropriate
level of understanding of Qur'anic Arabic and the English language. All the
translations I've ever encountered have correctly translated that phrase into
its best fitting English equivalent. Since I've studied the Qur'an for over 12
years, studied Qur'anic Arabic, and studied three dialects of modern spoken
Arabic I happen to know that the phrase under study is best translated (and has
been translated) as "beat them". Never once has an Islamic scholar, imam, etc.
that I have discussed this issue with ever even hinted that Allah may have
meant for that phrase to indicate sex with a woman.
>* You believe there is an "official" English translation of the Qur'an for
>Muslims -- another false belief, since the only "official" Qur'an is the
>Qur'an in Arabic, and all translations are >also interpretations.
No, I do not believe that there is an official English translation (even if the
Imam of al-Harimayn ash-Sharifayn says so). However, I do know that many
Qur'anic scholars do believe that they have produced good translations. As we
all know, the Qur'an is only the Qur'an in the original script. That does not
mean that an English-speaker cannot come to a good understanding of what Allah
means by the Arabic by studying an English translation.
>It seems to me that your arguments are based on a pile of incorrect
>assumptions.
You can think whatever you choose, but so far your arguments have convinced me
of nothing. You're simply playing "tennis" with words. So far you've failed to
even begin to argue anything of any remote meaning.
>Furthermore, you dismiss the evidence from Imam Raghib for a possible
>alternative interpretation without giving >any solid reason for doing so.
I've already given my solid reason. Islamic law rightly holds that one scholar
is not permitted to impose his beliefs on the community as a whole if the
majority of scholars hold a different opinion. So, by the very fact that one
scholar wants the meaning to be different, but the majority of Islamic scholars
('ulema and others) hold that the phrase refers to striking a blow to a woman
means that it is the dissenting "scholar" who must prove himself right...not
that I must prove him wrong.
>So, I don't hold anything personally against you, but I think it is not
>unreasonable for me to expect a certain minimum standard of scholarship
>>from you if you wish to argue this point.
You've shown no scholarship thus far, although I don't hold this against you
personally, of course. :-)
GF Haddad
Q. Did the Prophet (SAWS) strike `A'isha in the chest as claimed in the
Siddiqi translation of Sahih Muslim, Kitab as-Salah, roughly the seventh
hadith from the end (no. 2127): "...then he struck me on the chest which
caused me pain... (fa lahadani fi sadri lahdatan)"?
A. No. The translation of lahadani as strike is incorrect.
Al-Nawawi in Sharh Sahih Muslim said the lexicographers said lahada means
to push (dafa`a).
The correct translation is therefore:
"He pushed me in my chest with a push that made me sore."
Al-Nawawi added that the word was also narrated [i.e. in some copies of
Sahih Muslim] "lahazani," where lahaza means to slap or smack with the
palm of the hand. I.e.:
"He slapped my chest with a slap that made me sore."
It appears the latter wording is a weaker version, as per al-Nawawi's
nonattributive way of bringing it up (wa ruwiya = "It was also narrated"
in the passive mode).
It would seem Siddiqui was working with an edition that has the latter
wording, but he apparently cites the former!?
Even so, the latter wording does not qualify as hitting in the sense meant
in the hadith of the qualities of the Prophet (SAWS): "Allah's Messenger
never struck anyone with his hand, neither woman nor slave, but only in
the case when he had been fighting in the cause of Allah...." ( Ma daraba
Rasul Allah shayan qattu biyadihi...)( Kitab al-Fadail, 5756 in Siddiqi's
numbering)
I.e. yes, in war, just as the Gospels mention that Jesus drove out the
merchants from the Temple by striking them all indiscriminately with a
whip. WAllahu a`lam.
Furthermore, the gesture of pushing/slapping/hitting the chest has a
particular meaning in the hadith and in early Muslim culture.
The placing of the palm over the heart region in Islam carries two senses:
blessing, and driving away evil.
An example of the first sense of simply blessing through touch, is given
in Sahih Muslim again:
Sahih Muslim, Book 7, Number 2803:
Ja`far ibn Muhammad reported on the authority of his father: We went to
Jabir ibn Abdullah and he began inquiring about the people (who had gone
to see him) till it was my turn. I said: I am Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Husayn.
He
placed his hand upon my head and opened my upper button and then the lower
one and then placed his palm on my chest (in order to bless me), and I
was, during those days, a young boy, and he said: You are welcome, my
nephew.
Ask whatever you want to ask. ... [a long hadith about Hajj...]
The beneficial touch of the Prophet's hand (SAWS) is mentioned or alluded
to in many hadiths:
- The first hadith Imam Ahmad related from Anas ibn Malik in his Musnad
Anas is: "The whole Community of the people of Madina used to take the
hand of the Prophet and rush to obtain their need with it."
- Narrated `A'isha the Mother of the Believers: "The Messenger of Allah,
may Allah bless him and grant him peace, when he had a complaint, would
recite the last three suras of Qur'an, over himself and blow." She said,
"When his pain was great, I would recite it over him and wipe him with his
right hand hoping for its blessing." Narrated by Malik in al-Muwatta',
Book 50, Number 50.4.10.
- Usama ibn Sharik narrates: "I came to see the Prophet while his
Companions were with him, and they seemed as still as if birds had
alighted on top of their heads. I gave him my salam and I sat down. ...
The Prophet then stood up and the people stood up. They began to kiss his
hand, whereupon I took his hand and placed it on my face. I found it more
fragrant than musk and cooler than sweet water." Narrated by Abu Dawud
(#3855), Tirmidhi (2038 -- hasan sahih), Ibn Majah (3436), al-Hakim
(4:399), and Ahmad (4:278).
- Abu Malik al-Ashja`i said that he once asked another Companion of the
Tree, Ibn Abi Awfa, "Give me the hand that swore bay`at to the Messenger
of Allah, Peace be upon him, that I may kiss it." Ibn al-Muqri related
it.
- Bukhari in al-Adab al-mufrad also relates that Suhayb saw Sayyidina `Ali
kiss both the hand and feet of the Prophet's uncle al-`Abbas, and that
Thabit kissed the hand of Anas because it had touched the Prophet's hand.
Examples of the second type, the chest-slap intended to drive away evil
influence:
Ibn Kathir in his Tafsir (1981 Dar al-Fikr ed. 4:412) cites the report
>from `Abd Allah ibn `Amir:
`Amir ibn Rabi`a and Sahl ibn Hunayf went out to bathe... `Amir took off
his woolen robe (jubba). He [Sahl] narrates: "I looked at him and I cast
the evil eye on him. He went down into the water then I heard a noise
coming from him. I called out to him three times but there was no answe.I
went to call the Messenger of Allah (SAWS) who came on foot and waded his
way in the water. Then he struck his chest with his hand, then he said: "O
Allah! drive away from him its heat and its coolness and its harm." Then
he (SAWS) rose up and said: "If one of you sees something that pleases him
in his brother - whether in his person or his property - let him invoke
blessing for him, for the evil eye is a reality."
Another example: In the beginning of Tafsir al-Tabari, the chapter on the
dialects in which the Qur'an was revealed, a report from Talha states: A
man recited [the Qur'an] before `Umar ibn al-Khattab (RA) who corrected
him, so the man said: "I recited before the Messenger of Allah (SAWS) and
he did not correct me. They went for arbitration before the Messenger of
Allah (SAWS) where the man said: "O Messenger of Allah, did you not made
me recite such-and-such a verse?" He said yes. Whereupon something stirred
in `Umar's breast. Realizing this from `Umar's face, the Prophet (SAWS)
hit his chest (daraba sadrah) and said: "Off, devil!" saying it three
times. Then he said: "O `Umar! The Qur'an is, all of it, correct (sawab),
as long as you do not change mercy into punishment or punishment into
mercy."
Following is the translation of the same report by John Burton in "The
Collection of the Quran" citing al-Tabari's Tafsir, vol.1, p. 25 and
vol.1, p. 32:
"A man recited in the presence of Umar who corrected him. The man,
incensed, claimed to have recited for the Prophet and he had not corrected
him. They carried their dispute to Muhammad. When the Prophet endorsed the
man's claim that Muhammad had personally taught him, doubts sprang up in
Umar's mind. Reading Umar's expression, the Prophet struck him on the
chest, exclaiming "Out, devil!" Muhammad then explained "All the modes of
reciting are correct so long as you don't change a statement on mercy into
one on wrath and vice versa."
(Burton, p. 148, "The Uthman Collection").
Observe, by the way, the subtle addition that "the man was incensed and
said...", when all the original says is, "the man said..."
I have observed our Shuyukh often place their right hand on the chest of
the (male) person they are reciting a supplication for. In the case of
someone afflicted with a problem, they would actually slap the hand on the
chest at the closure of du`a. This, like `A'isha' hadith cited in the
first lines of this post in which she was beset by doubt, would qualify as
the second type to drive away evil.
WAllahu a`lam.
Hajj Gibril
GF Haddad
Qas...@cyberia.net.lb
SILAS778
[[[It means to jab or poke. Not hit, not beat. Jab or poke, like a one year
-old jabs or pokes his mummy in the cheek.]]]
Well, the translator of Sahih Muslim (Siddiqi) uses slap. I'm not saying
you're wrong, but it is interesting that he used "slap". And, given the
context of the passage, Umar upset with his wife "poked her like a child pokes
his mummy", doesn't fit.
Neither does it fit when Umar was so upset at Hafsa for upsetting Muhammad.
Umar was angry, if he poked her, he poked her hard. Perhaps he gave her a
"poke", or took a "poke" at her?
Perhaps the word has a wider range of meaning then GFH, or Lane is aware of?
SILAS778
repeated striking?"
No.]]]
Isn't the actual term in question idreb? And, isn't it used for Allah
commanding angels to strike unbelievers?
So, the word is used for painful striking.
[[[2. Has the phrase 'wadribuhunna' in 4:34 normally been interpreted as a
command or has it been interpreted as more of a recommendation?
Not even a recommendation. Al-Razi said in his Tafsir on 4:34 (1308/1891
edition 3:222): "Al-Shaf`i said: 'wa al-darbu mubah, wa al-tarku afdal -
and hitting is permitted, but not hitting is preferable.'"]]]
The verse clearly commands men to beat their disobedient wives. There is no
option added to the verse.
[[[The Prophet also expressed astonishment at the cruelty of certain
men when he said: "Could any of you beat his wife as he would beat a slave, and
then lie with her in the evening?" (Bukhari and Muslim).]]]
Obviously slave beating was allowed to be much worse than wife beating - as
when Ali brutally beat Aisha's slave in front of Muhammad. Muhammad did not
want the women brutaly beaten.
{{{"So the man has the right to beat his rebellious wife as long as that
beating is not like the whipping of the slave and will not result in
injury."}}}
[[[Of course the above is false]]]
What's false about it? Even you said that men have the permission to beat the
women.
[[[*"Mubarrih" is defined in al-Mawrid as "violent, intense, severe, acute,
sharp, excruciating, tormenting, agonizing." Qatada said as narrated by
al-Tabari in his Tafsir (5:68): "Ghayr mubarrih means ghayr sha'in = not
disgraceful/ outrageous/ obscene/ indecent [beating]." Muhammad Asad translates
it over-figuratively as "not causing pain."]]]
Sounds like they are not supposed to beat the women like a slave. But as
already quoted, {{{"So the man has the right to beat his rebellious wife as
long as that beating is not like the whipping of the slave and will not result
in injury."}}}
I'm not trying to be cantankerous, but I see no problem with the above in light
of what the Islamic writings say.
[[[3. What is the evidence for saying that this 'striking' is in fact only
supposed to be carried out with something small, like a miswak?
or his hand may be used but not a whip nor a stick."]]]
His hand may be used - what is most often recorded is the hand being used. No
problem.
If Muhammad were worried about Allah's retribution against beating a slave girl
with a toothpick, then I'd say the toothpick beating would have to hurt to some
degree.
6. Is it not true that slapping someone on the face is not allowed in
Islam? Is there a consensus on this point?
[[[Examples: (a) the famous hadith from Mu`awiya ibn al-Hakam in Sahih Muslim
of the black woman slave whom her owner slaps and is then obligated to manumit
as her compensation.
(b) Also in Sahih Muslim, the example of Suwayd ibn Muqarrin who saw a man
slap his female slave and told him: "Do you not know that the face is taboo?]]]
Can you provide the references?
[[[(d) “Whoever strikes his slave in the face or beats him unjustly, his
expiation is to manumit him.” Narrated from Ibn ‘Umar by Muslim in his
Sahih.]]]
Again a ref? And isn't "unjustly" the key word here?
[[[(e) “If you fight your brother, avoid striking the face, for Allah created
Adam in his image.” Narrated from Abu Hurayra by Muslim and al-Bukhari,
the latter without the words “your brother.” If this is forbidden while
fighting or when interacting with a slave, then a fortiori it is forbidden
outside fighting and with one's wife.]]]
Doesn't read that way to me. It tells me that Muslim men are not to strike
each other's faces when they fight.
[[[the above verse was revealed in connection with a woman who complained to
Mohammad that her husband slapped her on the face (which was still marked by
the slap). At first the Prophet said to her: 'Get even with him', but then
added : 'Wait until I think about it.' Later on the above verse was revealed,
after which the
Prophet said: 'We wanted one thing but Allah wanted another, and what
Allah wanted is best.'[Razi, At-tafsir al-Kabir, on Q. 4:34.]"]]]
Crafty, crafty, and all for what? lies.]]]
Lies? They're your writings, not mine.
I'll take the event, and Muhammad's words and actions over Hasan's opinion.
SILAS778
"physical injury inflicted on the body of one convicted of a crime, and
including the death penalty, flogging, sentence to a term of years".}}}
[[[And what dictionary are you using?]]]
That def. comes from "The American College Dictionary" pub. by Random House.
It stands.
[[[Webster's New American Dictionary says nothing of the sort. It says
"punishment imposed on the body of an offender".]]]
that definition goes hand in hand with 'physical injury inflicted on the body
of one convicted of a crime, etc."
As YouSaid said earlier, you're just playing tennis with the words. Corporal
punishment w/r to Islamic wife beating is plainly beating her.
[[[And yes, that is a literal, accurate way of describing what is meant by the
words "corporal punishment", which is
less emotionally charged, and less misleading than "wife beating".]]]
I understand your point about "emotionally charged", but even beating a wife
according to Islamic rules (Shariah), would land a man in jail. Smacking her
around with your hand is wife beating. It's not as bad as beating her with a
stick, I agree, but it is still beating her. And don't forget, we have a
bruised women in the Hadith, and we have Muhammad striking Aisha in the chest
causing her pain, and we have Umar and Abu Bakr slapping their daughters around
(no, I don't think "poke" works).
{{{Now, Omar is leaning towards, "and go to bed with them" as the translation
of
the passage.}}}
[[[Not at all.]]]
Good, glad to see you're off that tangent. What a waste of time.
[[[Raghib's argument had better be good]]]
It ain't; give it a rest.
[[[I reject the claim that it primarily refers to the punishment of children.
The term is extensively used in the context of punishment of offenders
generally. And it doesn't carry the connotations of
injustice that "wife beating" does, which prejudice the discussion from the
start.]]]
In American society, "corporal punishment" is most often used w/r to child
spanking. And, I think you hit on something here. Since Muhammad considered
women to be unstable, like children, it taught his followers to spank them, a
bit more physically than spanking a small child on the bottom when he
misbehaves.
[[[As for the context of slapping the face, that hadith has been rejected in an
article by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, who says that neither Baghawi nor Tabari can
produce an acceptable isnad for the event.]]]
I've learned long ago that Muslim opinions on isnaads et al are about as
valuable as limestone. And, even GF Haddad quoted Razi as I did. If Muhammad
could strike in the chest, and Umar slap the neck, and Rahman bruise his wife,
I think we got enough examples of how women were treated.
I also want to say that I've had my opinion of Islamic wife beating changed
since we've started this discussion. I used to think that the Quran laid out 3
rules for wife beating - 1) verbally warn them, 2) stop sleeping with them, 3)
beat them. Now I see that, depending on the circumstance, a male can jump to
step 3 if required. I'm still reflecting on this. I just never expected to
see Muhammad smack around Aisha, and their fathers doing likewise. I've only
recently come across those Hadith. I still having cited the hadith related to
a muslim being a prominent wife beater.
{{{I can't answer for the other collections of Hadith, but I can answer for Abu
Dawud.}}}
[[[Oh, really? Whose translation are you using? Does he admit to having no
competence either, like Siddiqui?]]]
I'm using Prof. Ahmad Hasan's. Do you think he is incompetent also? Siddiqi's
comments on his "incompetence" are simple humility. Many great men, in all
fields often comment on their inabilities. I'm not saying Siddiqi is a great
translator, but I think he really was competent. Additionally, if you actually
read his entire introduction, you'll find that he had a number of "scholars" of
Hadith looking over his shoulders. One of them edited the entire manuscript.
Even Maududi guided Siddiqi. Omar, are you saying that these men are also
incompetent? I hope not.
[[[Now that's what call shoddy scholarship!!]]]
Yeah yeah, read the entire intro. A lot of prominent Muslims helped him.
[[[For example, did you know that the translation of Siddiqui "he struck
me in the chest" is misleading, and that the more likely reading of the
word he renders 'strike' does not mean strike at all?]]]
Yeah, I read GF Haddad's post. So far, it doesn't wash. Let's see, he "poked"
her in the chest and it caused her pain? Enough pain for her to remember it
and repeat it? Guess so. Hey, call a spade a spade, he struck her.
OTOH, a strong man could poke a woman in the chest, hurt her, bruise her, make
her cry, say with only a finger or two. Ahh, don't bother, stay with "struck".
[[[For further reading, see Haddad's post on the Shame of the Islamic
University in
Madina.]]]
Haddad who?
SILAS778
[[[The translation of lahadani as strike is incorrect.
Al-Nawawi in Sharh Sahih Muslim said the lexicographers said lahada means
to push (dafa`a).
The correct translation is therefore:
"He pushed me in my chest with a push that made me sore."
Al-Nawawi added that the word was also narrated [i.e. in some copies of
Sahih Muslim] "lahazani," where lahaza means to slap or smack with the
palm of the hand. I.e.:
"He slapped my chest with a slap that made me sore."
It appears the latter wording is a weaker version, as per al-Nawawi's
nonattributive way of bringing it up (wa ruwiya = "It was also narrated"
in the passive mode).]]]
I think GFH makes a good point. Earlier I used the term "punch" to describe
what Muhammad did to her, and, in the light of what GFH defined, I do not think
that "punch" is valid anymore. Apparently Muhammad thrust his palm into
Aisha's chest and shoved her. It hurt her and probably bruised her. And,
GFH's definition does address the difference betw. 2127 and 5756 quite nicely.
As far as Muhammad pushing her in the chest to ward off evil from her goes, I
don't think that stands up to the context of he passage. As soon as she
admitted that it was her shadow he saw, he "pushed" her. It was an angry
reaction on his part, followed by his retort, "Do you think Allah and His
apostle would deal unjustly with you?"
[[[ Examples of the second type, the chest-slap intended to drive away evil
influence:]]]
One does not painfully "chest slap" a teenage girl in the to metaphorically
drive away evil. And I think to say that Muhammad pushed her in the chest to
ward off her evil reads something into the text that is not there.
omar...@my-deja.com
> GF Haddad wrote regarding the term "b w-j-' or waja'a, yaji'u"
>
> [[[It means to jab or poke. Not hit, not beat. Jab or poke, like a
one year
> -old jabs or pokes his mummy in the cheek.]]]
>
> Well, the translator of Sahih Muslim (Siddiqi) uses slap.
The translator of Sahih Muslim explicitly says, in his
introduction "I claim no competence for myself in either Arabic or
English".
>I'm not saying
> you're wrong, but it is interesting that he used "slap".
Not interesting at all. It merely confirms what Siddiqi tells us-- his
competence is doubtful.
>And, given the
> context of the passage, Umar upset with his wife "poked her like a
child pokes
> his mummy", doesn't fit.
I don't have the hadith in front of me, but I seem to recall that Umar
wanted to make the Prophet laugh. Telling him he poked his wife when he
was angry does seem rather incongruous, and hence funny.
> Neither does it fit when Umar was so upset at Hafsa for upsetting
Muhammad.
> Umar was angry, if he poked her, he poked her hard. Perhaps he gave
her a
> "poke", or took a "poke" at her?
Typical missionary. Making mountains out of molehills.
> Perhaps the word has a wider range of meaning then GFH, or Lane is
>aware of?
I'd trust GFH , Lane over Siddiqi. The former two never never said "I
do not claim to have any competence in Arabic..."
omar...@my-deja.com
> {{{The dictionary defines corporal punishment as
>
> "physical injury inflicted on the body of one convicted of a crime,
and
> including the death penalty, flogging, sentence to a term of
years".}}}
>
> [[[And what dictionary are you using?]]]
>
> That def. comes from "The American College Dictionary" pub. by Random
House.
> It stands.
It is plainly false that corporal punishment necessarily implies
injury. You can see this by checking dictionaries more aurhoritative
than Random House.
> [[[Webster's New American Dictionary says nothing of the sort. It says
> "punishment imposed on the body of an offender".]]]
>
> that definition goes hand in hand with 'physical injury inflicted on
the body
> of one convicted of a crime, etc."
but does not imply it, or even make it likely.
> I understand your point about "emotionally charged", but even beating
a wife
> according to Islamic rules (Shariah), would land a man in jail.
Even with a toothbrush? :) American law also demands that a man who
divorces his wife for adultery, even if he didn't do anything wrong,
should nevertheless pay her alimony!! So the laws of this land are not
a good guide to justice (although they're not generally this unjust
either.)
>And don't forget, we have a
> bruised women in the Hadith, and we have Muhammad striking Aisha in
the chest
> causing her pain,
I looked at the Arabic, and the word used is 'lahada'. According to the
authoritative commentary on Muslim by Nawawi, this means to 'push', not
strike.
>and we have Umar and Abu Bakr slapping their daughters around
> (no, I don't think "poke" works).
Parents in all cultures slap their children . I recently saw a minister
defending his beating of his boy, based on the Bible. Do you have any
information on that by the way? Does the Bible actually tell you to
beat your children, like this minister claimed?
And yes, 'poke' works just fine. It is merely a gesture which adds
emphasis, of a kind people use when they are upset, but which does not
amount to abuse. It works fine in this context.
I commented:
> [[[As for the context of slapping the face, that hadith has been
rejected in an
> article by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, who says that neither Baghawi nor
Tabari can
> produce an acceptable isnad for the event.]]]
> I've learned long ago that Muslim opinions on isnaads et al are about
as
> valuable as limestone.
Nuh Ha Mim Keller is a trained scholar, unlike most of the people on
s.r.i. I suggest you read his works to get a sense of how difficult it
is to draw conclusions from hadiths. See www.ds.dial.pipex.com/masud
for his articles.
>And, even GF Haddad quoted Razi as I did.
Commentators typically quote a variety of views before making up their
minds. Did Razi actually think that this hadith was sound, or did he
mention it only to reject it later on? How do you know?
Haddad gives compelling reasons for thinking that the hadith is
unacceptable as evidence-- it is mursal, and related by only one person.
>If Muhammad
> could strike in the chest,
The most likely reading of the word is 'push'. A somewhat weaker
reading ( I'm following Nawawi's comments) is 'lahaza' which
means 'slap with the open palm of the hand' (not 'punch'!!!). So the
evidence is *against* the claim that the Prophet-- may Allah bless
himand grant him peace!!-- struck Aisha, which ties in perfectly with
her other hadith 5756.
>and Umar slap the neck
'Poke' is perfectly plausible here.
>and Rahman bruise his wife
Here you argue that the Prophet never said anything to Rahman, and
therefore that this was acceptable. But remember, this hadith was
related years after the event by an eyewitness who may well not have
remembered every detail, or who may well not have heard everything the
Prophet said. To conclude that the Prophet didn't say anything to
Rahman just because the hadith doesn't record it is a weak inference.
Especially when you consider that Ibn Abbas defined the hitting in 4:34
as 'with a toothbrush or the like'.
> I think we got enough examples of how women were treated.
Let's not forget the most important example of all:
Aisha related that the messenger of Allah never struck anyone with his
hand, neither woman nor servant, but only in the case when he had been
fighting in the cause of Allah.... (sahih Muslim)
> I used to think that the Quran laid out 3
> rules for wife beating - 1) verbally warn them, 2) stop sleeping with
them, 3)
> beat them.
Remember, this last step is neither a command, nor a prohibition. It is
merely a permission, a dispensation for cases of nushuz.
Now I see that, depending on the circumstance, a male can jump to
> step 3 if required. I'm still reflecting on this. I just never
expected to
> see Muhammad smack around Aisha, and their fathers doing likewise.
Well, fathers slap their children in every culture, don't they? In any
case they may have only poked them, as a gesture of emphasis.
> I still having cited the hadith related to
> a muslim being a prominent wife beater.
Go ahead and cite it. Maybe we'll discover more problems with Siddiqi's
translation.
> {{{I can't answer for the other collections of Hadith, but I can
answer for Abu
> Dawud.}}}
>
> [[[Oh, really? Whose translation are you using? Does he admit to
having no
> competence either, like Siddiqui?]]]
>
> I'm using Prof. Ahmad Hasan's. Do you think he is incompetent also?
I'm not sure. With Muhsin Khan's job on Bukhari, and Siddiqi's job on
Muslim, who knows what to expect?
>Siddiqi's
> comments on his "incompetence" are simple humility. Many great men,
>in all
> fields often comment on their inabilities.
I've never heard a translator comment,out of humility, on his not
having competence in the language. Siddiqi is a little too emphatic
about it as well. And Siddiqi's translation has had many flaws pointed
out. I'll send you examples if you like. In private letters, GFH has
called it "sloppy and slipshod" and has given examples. So I suspect
that his humility is more than justified!!!
>I'm not saying Siddiqi is a great
> translator, but I think he really was competent.
Who told you that? Many people have told me the opposite, many who know
Arabic well.
>Additionally, if you actually
> read his entire introduction, you'll find that he had a number
of "scholars" of
> Hadith looking over his shoulders. One of them edited the entire
manuscript.
> Even Maududi guided Siddiqi. Omar, are you saying that these men are
also
> incompetent? I hope not.
Sad to say, yes, I don't trust Maududi at all. He is *very*
controversial among Muslims, even if the ones you've come across may
like him. There is, to put it roughly, a kind of "Reformation" movement
underway in the Muslim world. Maududi is "Protestant", I'm
more "Catholic". This is very rough, but just don't be surprised at my
criticising what seem to you to be respected Muslims. They're not
respected by all of us, not by a long shot.
> OTOH, a strong man could poke a woman in the chest, hurt her, bruise
her, make
> her cry, say with only a finger or two. Ahh, don't bother, stay
with "struck".
My mother gives me a hug, and it is so vigorous I get sore. My friend,
who is a wrestler gives me a handshake, and inadvertently hurts me ( I
must tell him to stop!!). I could multiply these examples easily. In
none of these cases is there any abuse, nor any intention to harm.
Coudn't it be the case that the push the Prophet gave Aisha was nothing
more than an expression of exasperation combined with amusement at her
silly behaviour that night? Just a case of playing around, as if to
say "Silly girl! How could you think that?" She remembered it for the
same reason that Muslims remembered many trivial details of their
Prophet's life.
> [[[For further reading, see Haddad's post on the Shame of the Islamic
> University in
> Madina.]]]
Go read it. It's good. This university is not widely respected by
Muslims. YOUSAID was way off base in quoting it as an authority.
Fariduddien Rice
[...]
> And I find it funny that the site that drice gave for Raghib's translation is
> affliated with Saudi Arabia!
Even if it were true, it would be irrelevant, since I am referring
essentially to a reported quote from Imam Raghib, who lived in the 5th
century Hijra, long before the creation of Saudi Arabia.
However, I couldn't find any evidence for Silas's claim anyhow.
(The web page I referred to was
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Spa/3879/wife.html )
It seems a shame that Silas seems to feel a need to write a post that
twists the truth like this, in order to try to bolster his own weak faith
in his religion. Silas appears to have a very weak faith in Christianity,
and it is obvious that he seeks to strengthen his own weak faith by trying
to belittle others.
By the way, I have never denied the more traditional interpretation of
the ayat in question -- I am simply pointing out an alternative which I
read has been suggested by a significant authority.
[...]
> [[[And have you dealt with the arguments Raghib presents? For example the fact
> that 'daraba' IS used to mean sexual intercourse ( Raghib gives examples)?]]]
>
> The web page that Drice provided states:
>
> {{{"Raghib points out that daraba metaphorically means to have intercourse, and
> quotes the expression darab al-fahl an-naqah, 'the stud camel covered the
> she-camel,' which is also quoted by Lisan al-'Arab. It cannot be taken here to
> mean 'to strike them (women).' }}}
>
> What's wrong with Raghib's picture? He first states that a metaphorical
> meaning of daraba is to have intercourse. "Metaphorical", that's really solid
> ground to build an argument upon.
>
> Second, the actual term in question is "idreb", which is a form of daraba. The
> most common use of this word "idreb" in the Quran relates to physical striking,
> not having intercourse. For example, in 8:12, it says regarding the infidels,
>
> "Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers"
>
> According to Raghib, Allah is telling the angels to have intercourse with their
> heads and fingers!
No, that's a different verse, in case you didn't notice. You can't just
simply apply one meaning from one place to another irrespective of
context.
I shouldn't have to do this since I thought Silas was smarter than to
need this. But it seems a basic lesson is in order.
Silas, words can sometimes have multiple meanings. For example, the noun
"hit" can mean a physical strike against someone ("he gave me a hit"), or
it can mean something that is very popular ("that song is a hit").
In one context, "hit" could have one meaning, but not the other. So in
the sentence, "that song is a hit," doesn't mean that the song is
physically striking people. Similarly, in the phrase "he clenched his
fist and gave me a hit," that doesn't mean that he gave me something very
popular.
Now, Silas, this is very basic language knowledge. It embarasses me how
low your apparent comprehension of language is, that you apparently do not
realize these basic facts.
Now, going to "daraba," it means that this word could have multiple
meanings, and those meanings could be different in different contexts.
That is why your argument is ridiculous.
I think the fact that you would embarass yourself by giving such a
ridiculous argument is also further evidence of how weak your own faith in
Christianity really is, by showing the desperate degree you'll go to in
order to put down other faiths to try to bolster your own.
[...]
SILAS778
[[[It means to jab or poke. Not hit, not beat. Jab or poke, like a one year
-old jabs or pokes his mummy in the cheek.]]]
OTOH the translator of Sahih Muslim (Siddiqi) uses slap.
I'm grateful that we have been able to get GF Haddad's input. He brings more
to the table. His ability with Arabic adds much.
But there are two sides to a debate, or difference of opinion. I believe that
Sidiqqi may have died a number of years ago, so he is not here to defend his
translation, and my Arabic skills are certainly not up to it.
Consequently, there may be reasons that Siddiqi used "slap" instead of "poke"
that we are not aware of.
Further, Siddiqi published a number of books all related to Hadith. Certainly
he was no amatuer. And I believe I remember reading another Muslim author
lamenting his passing because his work was so valuable for "dawa" to the West.
His self depreciating comments aside, Siddiqi's work was thoroughly reviewed by
a number of other Islamic scholars. It causes me more doubt about the ability
of "Islamic scholars" when other intelligent Muslims so quickly call them
incompetent.
What does it say if Islamic scholarship is so flawed?
omar...@my-deja.com
geting up in the middle of the night to stalk her husband -- may Allah
bless him and grant him peace and give his detractors exactly what they
deserve!!
If she was concerned with what he was doing, she could have just
asked him. She knew that even before his mission he was known
as "Amin", the trustworthy one, she knew his honesty and fairness, so
she could have just asked him. Instead, her heart was clouded by
suspicion. Silas writes in this connection:
>All Aisha did was to
> doubt a man who should be doubted.
I say: may Allah guide us away from these absurdities.
Why does Silas think he 'should be doubted'?
Well, one reason is obviously that as a Christian, it is impossible for
Silas to seriously contemplate the possibility that the Prophet's
character was just what Muslims say it was. If he were to accept that,
he would be moving dangerously close to accepting Islam. To protect
against such a possibility, Christians constantly look for ways to
attack the Prophet, whether plausible or not. It shores up their faith.
But Silas says that given his pattern of behaviour, she was right to
doubt him. Having become familiar with Silas' approach, we know that
his reasons for thinking this will be rooted in : excessive reliance on
the small details of sloppy translations; a blindness to any
interpretation which could make Islam look attractive; blowing trivial
matters out of proportion; and so on. I don't have the time to
speculate about the probable confusions that have made their way into
Silas' opinion. Here, I will content myself with a few brief remarks
about the main reasons Silas puts forward to justify Aisha's (ra)
bizarre behaviour.
In previous posts he mentions 'abrogation'. Now abrogation is a
necessity when new laws are being gradually introduced to replace pagan
customs. It is unavoidable. And nowhere did it lead to the Prophet
treating anyone unfairly, in the way Aisha suspects in this hadith.
Silas needs to provide actual examples of such unfairness to justify
Aisha's bizarre conduct. Then his use of abrogation can be critically
assessed.
He also mentions the fact that the Prophet(s) was given permission not
to observe a strict rotation with his wives, as if this would be a
reason to doubt him. What he fails to mention is that despite this
permission, the Prophet continued to treat his wives with scrupulous
fairness, right to the end of his life. Muhammad Asad, in his
commentary on the verse where the Prophet was given such permission,
states that Aisha herself transmitted a hadith, recorded in Ibn
Hanbal's collection, explaining that he was always equitable with his
wives. And even on his deathbed, when he was suffering and it was
becoming obvious to all that he was longing to be with his favourite,
Aisha,he did not use that permission to put aside anyone's turn.
Instead, the other wives voluntarily gave up their turns to Aisha.
Moreover, this event (2127) may well have happened before the
revelation of the above verse, and probably did, given the Apostle's
comment to Aisha.
He says that the Prophet(s) received revelations to break his word. I
presume he refers to sura 66(?) where a verse to that effect is
recorded. But this was not a special dispensation for the Prophet, as
if he were making things up to suit himself. For one thing, the Prophet
was far too convinced of the reality of his mission to do such a thing.
Moreover, the verse in question shows that this was merely an
application to the Prophet of a general command, and a very reasonable
one, TO ALL MUSLIMS, to break and expiate their oaths under certain
circumstances. Once again, such a fact would not provide Aisha the
slightest reason for her doubts.
I noted:
> [[[Wasn't he (Muhammad) called "Amin", the TRUSTWORTHY ONE, even
before his
> mission, may Allah bless him and grant him peace?? Funny how Silas
never
> mentions THAT fact in his writings]]]
And Silas replied:
> Muhammad was also called demon possessed when he was a child -
before his
> mission. And, at the start of his mission, he thought he was demon
possessed -
> he was! As far as Islamic records calling Muhammad many wonderful
things,
> well, even Kermit the Frog said Jim Henson was a wonderful man.
Ahhh yes, the old missionary gambit of : if it makes Islam look bad, it
must be true, and if it makes Islam look good, we just won't pay
attention. So much for fairness and intellectual honesty.
As I said, Aisha knew very well, because she knew the man, that he
would not behave in such a contemptible way. The fact that he, like any
normal man, had healthy sexual desires, and fulfilled them in the way
allowed him by God's law, is neither here nor there. The question is,
would he treat her unfairly: the answer is a resounding NO.
So if she stalked him, she probably did so because she was in the grip
of neurotic tendencies. And, I say, this provides a clue to the
Prophet's action recorded in the sentence which Siddiqi misleadingly
translates as "he struck me ..." If you look at the Arabic text, you
will see that the word translated as 'strike' is lahada, which means
to 'push', according to Nawawi, the great commentator of Sahih Muslim.
A weaker, and less probable reading, is that the word is 'lahaza' which
means to slap with the open palm of the hand.
The correct translation here would be
"He pushed me (lahadani) in the chest (fi sadri) with a push (lahdatan)
which made me sore (awja'atni)." ( Thanks to Dr. Haddad for this
translation.)
Or the same but with 'slap' replacing push, but from Nawawi's
commentary we know this is somewhat weaker.
Note here the fact that just because Aisha was no longer in doubt about
the Prophet's actions that night, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT SHE WAS FINE.
Her behaviour was likely the manifestation of deeper neurotic
tendencies which persisted, even if temporarily abated, eveb after she
was in bed. Explaining this, I commented:
> [[[Suppose I'm a paranoid who thinks people are out to sell me into
slavery. I
> wake up one morning and I think that my roommate is trying to do the
same. I
> follow him hoping to see him visiting the slavers. But no-- he's just
going
> shopping. Will I be alright all of a sudden? Will I suddenly no
longer need to
> be in doubt? Of course not! I'll still be a paranoid. Aisha's case
is similar
> ( assuming it happened at all-- which, as I say, I rather doubt).]]]
Silas doesn't seem to have seen my point, which leaves me
flabberghasted because it seems so obvious: if a person doubts
another's actions, and finds out she was wrong, there are 2
possibilities: either she backs off and everything is OK; or, her doubt
was a manifestation or symptom of deeper, neurotic tendencies, which
don't disappear. I say it is perfectly possible, and even rather likely
that the latter was the case with Aisha.
But what about the slap, or more likely, push? Why was that necessary
because Aisha exhibited paranoid tendencies? Silas comments:
> If you were really a paranoid person, beating you would not
help you. You
> would need professional help. You may be typifying Muhammad's frame
of mind,
> "knock them around", but people with legitimate psychological
problems do not
> get them cured by being beaten up. If you were paranoid, I would
take you to
> see a psychologist, not a boxer.
Here we need to know a certain feature of the Islamic tradition. In
Islam, placing a hand over the heart can have two meanings: conveying
blessings and driving out evil. For example, a Sufi shaykh will place
his hand over the heart of a person for whom he is praying. If the
person needs help with a problem, then he will (sometimes) conclude his
prayer by slapping the chest of the person. Why does he do that?
Because in the Islamic spiritual tradition, such a slap is meant
to 'drive away the evil afflicting a person's breast.' This is not
something for which I can offer any references, it's something I've
known for a long time, and has been confirmed for me recently by the
testimony of people who've seen it done. I'm not making this up, such a
practice continues to this day at the hands of those meant to be
qualified to put it into practice ( not everyone can do it!)
The same practice is recorded by hadiths:On p. 148 of the "Collection
of the Quran", John Burton cites two hadiths from Tabari which I won't
type out in full. The relevant passages are
"...Reading Umar's expression, the Prophet struck him on the chest,
exclaiming 'Out, devil!'..."
"....The Prophet struck him on chest and prayed 'Oh God! Cause doubt to
depart!..."
Obviously, in these cases, the Prophet used the strike to the chest
merely as a therapeutic device, and not an expression of anger. Whether
or not this is being a quack is irrelevant here, as is the question of
whether or not sch a stike would actually work. The point is the
intention is therapeutic. And, I say, the same was the case with Aisha
in 2127.
So we have a perfectly plausible explanation of the Prophet's actions
here. Silas' latest attack has failed.
Finally there are these hadiths:
Well, Silas, you got me there! I only knew of the Ibn Ishaq and
Ibn Sad versions.
However, a number of questions will have to be answered before thse
hadiths can be accepted:
(1) Is the translation competent?
(2) What are Abu Dawud's own comments on these? He recorded weak
hadiths to point out their weakness.
(3) According to the introduction to the web version of Abu Dawud, he
recorded some weak hadiths without pointing them out. Are these among
them?
(4) Have other great hadith scholars criticised these hadiths? Likely,
since the content is absurd as it stands.
(5) Is there a plausible explanation of the behaviour recorded here? It
does seem very had to understand why the Prophet didn't just explicitly
order his men to kill Ibn Abu Sarh. Unless this can be explained, in a
way free from the kind of bigotry which sees the worst in the Prophet's
actions no matter what, the hadith is dubious. Ibn Sad's version, let
me note, is very different, and much easier to understand.
> Yes, Omar, you're supposed to believe it.
Wrong.
>Does it make a
difference? With
> you, no. But it only serves my point that I asked before the debate
on
> Muhammad punching Aisha, - if Muhammad would have poked her eye out
with a
> stick, it would not matter to you.
Sure it would.
>There are Muslims out there that
would
> justify Muhammad if he murdered 6 million Jews.
I'm not one of them.
> Well, not so baseless eh?
Not SO baseless. The above questions need to be answered first, at a
minmimum. Until that time, the hadith is suspicious.
> Thorough research? Apparently so. Yes, correct.
Oh, don't pat yourself on the back just because you had done a bit more
reading on this point than your posts had led me to expect. Big deal.
malik
Not originally subject to soteriological projects, Eastern ideologies,
cultures, and therefore their languages are not 'narrow' like most western
languages.
BTW, Sanskrit and Pali, from which Bengali is derived, are 'sacred'
languages, languages of scripture. I don't see what you mean by 'street
dialect' and 'gutter usage'. Perhaps you can elaborate?
malik
omar...@my-deja.com
>
> Al-Nawawi in Sharh Sahih Muslim said the lexicographers said lahada
means
> to push (dafa`a).
> The correct translation is therefore:
> "He pushed me in my chest with a push that made me sore."
> Al-Nawawi added that the word was also narrated [i.e. in some copies
of
> Sahih Muslim] "lahazani," where lahaza means to slap or smack with the
> palm of the hand. I.e.:
>
> "He slapped my chest with a slap that made me sore."
Silas comments:
[[I think GFH makes a good point. Earlier I used the term "punch" to
describe
what Muhammad did to her, and, in the light of what GFH defined, I do
not think
that "punch" is valid anymore. Apparently Muhammad thrust his palm
into
Aisha's chest and shoved her. It hurt her and probably bruised her.
And,
GFH's definition does address the difference betw. 2127 and 5756 quite
nicely.]]
Your addition 'and probably bruised her' is nothing more than your own
speculation .
And no,the fact that Aisha remembered this does not
show, in the slightest, that she was therefore treated brutally or
abusively. I can remember many trivial incidents from my childhood with
great detail and clarity for no apparent reason whatsoever. Human memory
is
like that. Aisha,like all Muslims,was fascinated with the Prophet(s) so
she naturally remembered many details that might be insignificant in
other contexts. This just happened because when a person is fascinated
with another,they tend to remember more details of their interactions
with that person than normally.Just talk to a fan who's just met a movie
star or a rock star.
So don't read so much into her statement 'it made me sore'!! Even very
trivial incidents can make one sore,or hurt one. I have just now,as an
experiment, slapped my arm by raising my left hand 2 feet above,and
bringing it down quickly. This was not a hard blow,but it certainly made
me sore,and the pain lingers on. A vigorous pat would make me sorer
still.
Yes,Aisha got a vigorous push.No,it wasn't abusive,or brutal, or
anything of the sort.
> As far as Muhammad pushing her in the chest to ward off evil from her
goes, I
> don't think that stands up to the context of he passage. As soon as
she
> admitted that it was her shadow he saw, he "pushed" her.
Why is "pushed"in inverted commas? Don't you believe the hadith?
The timing of the push is a very weak basis for inferring his intentions
-- may Allah bless him and grant him peace. His questioning of her
was likely just to find out what was going on,and to gauge her state of
mind. When he had satisfied himself that she really was afflicted by
some evil tendencies,( both by her statements and by observing her
--how much one can learn from a tone of voice,or the way someone's eyes
move as they speak!), he warded off the evil from her in the way
described. Not much more to it than that.( I have explained in other
posts, BTW, why her being in bed doesn't mean she was "fine".)
It was an
angry
> reaction on his part, followed by his retort, "Do you think Allah and
His
> apostle would deal unjustly with you?"
>
It was not an angry reaction. That is part of what you're reading
into the hadith. And the question was not a retort,merely a reminder.
> [[[ Examples of the second type, the chest-slap intended to drive away
evil
> influence:]]]
>
> One does not painfully "chest slap" a teenage girl in the to
metaphorically
> drive away evil.
You now know what such a gesture means in Islam. Why could it not be
done,with the best of intentions,(in the formof a push) by someone
close, to a young girl?
There is nothing metaphorical about it at all. The hand is meant
to convey some of the blessings, or spiritual energy of the person doing
the slap,and therefore to ward away the evil. It is meant to be a very
real gesture,with very real effects. Nothing metaphorical about it.
As for the pain, well,isn't medicine often unpleasant?
And I think to say that Muhammad pushed her in the
chest to
> ward off her evil reads something into the text that is not there.
Only to the extent that your own reading of the incident reads something
into the text which is not there.The reading presented by Haddad, and
myself in another post, is just as reasonable as yours. So drop this
latest attack, it isn't working out, it just sounds strained right now.
SILAS778
point that GF Haddad also commented on:
[[[Remember, this last step is neither a command, nor a prohibition. It is
merely a permission, a dispensation for cases of nushuz.]]]
Actually, it comes across more like a command than anything else:
RODWELL: "Men are superior to women on account of the qualities with which God
hath gifted the one above the other, and on account of the outlay they make
from their substance for them. Virtuous women are obedient, careful, during
the husband's absence, because God hath of them been careful. But chide those
for whose refractoriness you have cause to fear; remove them into beds apart,
and scourge them: but if they are obedient to you, then seek not occasion
against them: verily, God is High, Great!"
['Refractoriness' means hard or impossible to manage, stubbornly disobedient'].
DAWOOD: "Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior
to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women
are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As
for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds
apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against
them. Surely God is high, supreme."
PICKTHALL: "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."
Arberry: "Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that God has
preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended
of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret
for God's guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them
to their couches, and beat them. If they then obey you, look not for any way
against them; God is All high, All great."
ALI: "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has
given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them
from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and
guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those
women on whom part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first),
(next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly); but if they
return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance) for Allah is
Most High, Great (above you all).
Above are five translations of this verse. None of them provide any "option"
to beat. Beating the wife is instructed. It is plain, it is simple.
Muslims today have a black eye, and rightly so, because their religion allows
the man to beat his wife if she is persistently disobedient to him. So,
Muslims make a great effort to hide the truth of their religion by corrupting
Muhammad's texts and teachings. They use interpretations like "make love", or
they inject words like "lightly" into the text, or they say, "only use a
toothpick to beat". Instead, the examples we have from Islamic literature
demonstrate that Muslim men bruised their women, slapped them in the face, and
hurt them. Some Muslim men had reputations for being wife beaters - and all
the while Muhammad said, "A man is not to be asked why he beat his wife".
omar...@my-deja.com
> Consequently, there may be reasons that Siddiqi used "slap" instead of "poke"
> that we are not aware of.
That is possible. It is also possible that he thought they were good
reasons. But we have to make a judgement based on what we know. And this
hadith does not support your image of women in Islam.
> Further, Siddiqi published a number of books all related to Hadith. Certainly
> he was no amatuer.
I don't see how that follows. He seems to have been an amateur who
produced many amateurish works.
And I believe I remember reading another Muslim author
> lamenting his passing because his work was so valuable for "dawa" to the West.
Well, it can't be that helpful for 'dawa', since it has given you tools
with which to attack Islam !!! :)
> His self depreciating comments aside, Siddiqi's work was thoroughly reviewed by
> a number of other Islamic scholars. It causes me more doubt about the ability
> of "Islamic scholars" when other intelligent Muslims so quickly call them
> incompetent.
There are incompetent ones to be sure. There are many others of
unquestionable competence. As you said, we're lucky to have GFH to guide
us.
> What does it say if Islamic scholarship is so flawed?
It says that Muslims are going through a phase right now in which the
traditionally high standards of Islamic scholarship have been thrown away
in certain circles, particularly in the West. This is partly to do with
colonialism, and partly to do with modernist, reforming movements in
Islam. It does not say anything at all about Islamic scholarship as a
whole.
omar...@my-deja.com
Verse 4:34 has always been used to attack Islam. In this post, I try to
clear away some of the misunderstandings on which these attacks are
based.
I commented with reference to 4:34 of the Koran
> [[[Remember, this last step is neither a command, nor a prohibition. It is
> merely a permission, a dispensation for cases of nushuz.]]]
Silas responds with:
> Actually, it comes across more like a command than anything else:
He then proceeds to cite a number of translations of 4:34 to illustrate
his point.
And he concludes:
> Above are five translations of this verse. None of them provide any "option"
> to beat. Beating the wife is instructed. It is plain, it is simple.
They do not provide any "option" to beat, because the option is
understood. The reason is as follows. 4:34 describes a situation in which
the husband's rights are violated, by 'nushuz' on the wife's part. That
means that the only person's rights that are at stake are those of the
husband. Now, in Islam, it is generally understood that if a person is
wronged, or his rights are violated, and his are the *only* rights at
stake, then whether or not he takes punitive/retaliatory action or
foregoes such action is entirely up to him. As a rule, he is under no
obligation to punish/retaliate. In fact, it is better not to retaliate,
but to forgive, says the Quran in a well-known passage.
This presumption, that a person has the right to choose whether or not to
retaliate/punish, is also operative in understanding this verse. It leads
Muslims to understand the verse as containing an implicit clause to the
effect that "If you want to punish, this is what you can do." Thus, there
is no command, merely a description of the course of action available to
one should one choose to take it. This description is couched in
imperative form, but is not a command for all that. After all, we often
say things in imperative form which are not commands ( think of giving
someone directions to the highway-- are you commanding them to do
anything?)
>From Haddad's post, I gather that *nobody*, no Muslim scholar, has ever
tried to claim that physical punishment of a wife from whom one fears
'nushuz' is either obligatory or recommended. And one of the greatest of
them, Imam Shafi'i, may Allah have mercy on him, has stated that it is
preferable not to do it, even when it is permitted. If the 'command' was
anywhere near as clear as Silas would have us believe, it would have been
widely recognised as an obligation, or even a meritorious act, to beat
one's wife. And it has not been so recognised.
The consensus of traditional Muslim scholars is a powerful proof that
this verse is meant to be understood in something like the way I
described above. Silas' reading of it is way off base.
Silas then comments:
> Muslims today have a black eye, and rightly so, because their religion allows
> the man to beat his wife if she is persistently disobedient to him.
I think that Dr. Haddad has presented a strong case for thinking that
'nushuz' is to be understood as an euphemism for 'adultery'. He bases
himself on the Prophet's final sermon. There, the Prophet said men do not
have "any right over them [women] beyond that EXCEPT IF THEY COMMIT A
MANIFEST INDECENCY (fahisha mubina)", and then goes on to describe the
steps of 4:34. He also, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, defines
a woman's primary marital duty as that of not allowing unwanted people
into her husband's bed or home.
Now, in the light of this, we can say the following. As a normal rule,
beating one's wife is strictly forbidden. In the special circumstance of
manifest indecency on the part of the wife, physical punishment is
permitted as a last option, and even then only a very light form of
punishment.
I have just thought of a way in which this might be understood. I haven't
thought it through, but here goes.
The danger that adultery poses to a man is far greater than the danger it
poses to a woman. If a woman's spouse cheats on her, then that is very
painful, naturally. If a man's spouse cheats on him, there is not just
the pain and humiliation, there is also the danger that she will bear
someone else's children. Now a man is traditionally the one who works for
his family. Thus, if his wife cheats on him, then there is a serious
danger he will end up working, sweating, and emotionally investing in a
child who is not his, who is in fact a product of the violation of his
deepest trust. This is a truly horrible injustice. So when there is a
danger of such a horrible situation arising, because the wife commits a
manifest indencency, the man is given a dispensation to use harsher
measures than would otherwise be available to him. Why? Because the
injustice that might result from the wife's actions in this case would be
truly horrible and repulsive.
The rest of Silas' post is redundant whining.
omar...@my-deja.com
intense or
> repeated striking?"
>
> No.]]]
>
> Isn't the actual term in question idreb? And, isn't it used for Allah
> commanding angels to strike unbelievers?
> So, the word is used for painful striking.
Idreb is just a form of the verb daraba. And the point GFH is making is
that it can't be inferred,merely from the use of 'daraba',that what the
speaker has in mind is a violent or intense beating.
> [[[2. Has the phrase 'wadribuhunna' in 4:34 normally been interpreted
as a
> command or has it been interpreted as more of a recommendation?
>
> Not even a recommendation. Al-Razi said in his Tafsir on 4:34
(1308/1891
> edition 3:222): "Al-Shaf`i said: 'wa al-darbu mubah, wa al-tarku afdal
-
> and hitting is permitted, but not hitting is preferable.'"]]]
>
> The verse clearly commands men to beat their disobedient wives. There
is no
> option added to the verse.
It is not a command. As a general rule in Islam, when someone has
their rights violated, and it's only *their* rights that are violated,
they have the option to forego retaliation/punishment. They are not
*required* to punish/retaliate. This general presumption still operates
here. Thus,the verse ought to be read as "(if you want to take action
against your wives from whom you fear nushuz,) warn them,and separate
from them, and strike them,...."
Don't be misled by the use of the imperative form. If you reflect
carefully, you will see that we often use the imperative form in cases
where we are not commanding. For example, I usually give directions in
the imperative form ("Take a right at the next light...), but
I'm not commanding or making a moral recommendation.
I gather from Dr. Haddad's response that *nobody* has interpreted this
verse as a command. And certainly not one of the greatest of
Muslim scholars, Shafi'i. I think we should pay attention to this
consensus.
> {{{"So the man has the right to beat his rebellious wife as long as
that
> beating is not like the whipping of the slave and will not result in
> injury."}}}
>
> [[[Of course the above is false]]]
>
> What's false about it? Even you said that men have the permission to
beat the
> women.
What's false about it is that it doesn't recognise that nushuz is an
euphemism for adultery,as clarified by the Prophet's final sermon
(fahishah mubinah).--- se GFH's post on this point.
The basic, normal rule is strict prohibition,and in cases of adultery, a
dispensation is given to follow the three steps of 4:34.
>
> [[[3. What is the evidence for saying that this 'striking' is in fact
only
> supposed to be carried out with something small, like a miswak?
>
> or his hand may be used but not a whip nor a stick."]]]
>
> His hand may be used - what is most often recorded is the hand being
used. No
> problem.
Ibn Abbas is a universally recognised authority in Islam. His opinion
should be given a lot more weight than this ("No problem." ,"No
problem"???) since he knew a great many more hadiths about the subject
than we do, and he wasn't dependent on Siddiqi's and Khan's incompetent
translations, and he was a Companion who met the Prophet. He was
legendary for his learning
Perhaps Ibn Abbas merely meant to point out the kind of punishment
required,whether the hand is used or not --it's the kind that one might
expect to give with a siwak. That is, very light.
> 6. Is it not true that slapping someone on the face is not allowed in
> Islam? Is there a consensus on this point?
>
> [[[Examples: (a) the famous hadith from Mu`awiya ibn al-Hakam in Sahih
Muslim
> of the black woman slave whom her owner slaps and is then obligated to
manumit
> as her compensation.
>
> (b) Also in Sahih Muslim, the example of Suwayd ibn Muqarrin who saw a
man
> slap his female slave and told him: "Do you not know that the face is
taboo?]]]
>
> Can you provide the references?
Look at Book 15, Book of Oaths, chapter 8. You'll find a number of
hadiths of the above kind.
> [[[(d) “Whoever strikes his slave in the face or beats him unjustly,
his
> expiation is to manumit him.” Narrated from Ibn ‘Umar by Muslim in
his
> Sahih.]]]
>
> Again a ref? And isn't "unjustly" the key word here?
Other hadiths establish a strict prohibition, including one that GFH
cites.-- the face is forbidden ('sura muharrama')
> [[[(e) “If you fight your brother, avoid striking the face, for
Allah created
> Adam in his image.” Narrated from Abu Hurayra by Muslim and
al-Bukhari,
> the latter without the words “your brother.” If this is forbidden
while
> fighting or when interacting with a slave, then a fortiori it is
forbidden
> outside fighting and with one's wife.]]]
>
> Doesn't read that way to me. It tells me that Muslim men are not to
strike
> each other's faces when they fight.
This is an argument by analogy. If wine is forbidden,because of
intoxication, then by analogy, cocaine is forbidden. Similarly if
striking the face is forbidden in the case of a fight, then by analogy
it is forbidden to strike one's wife in the face.
>
> [[[the above verse was revealed in connection with a woman who
complained to
> Mohammad that her husband slapped her on the face (which was still
marked by
> the slap). At first the Prophet said to her: 'Get even with him', but
then
> added : 'Wait until I think about it.' Later on the above verse was
revealed,
> after which the
> Prophet said: 'We wanted one thing but Allah wanted another, and
what
> Allah wanted is best.'[Razi, At-tafsir al-Kabir, on Q. 4:34.]"]]]
>
> Crafty, crafty, and all for what? lies.]]]
>
> Lies? They're your writings, not mine.
And you have to know how to use those writings properly. For one
thing,the great commentators frequently quoted views and hadiths they
disagreed with, in order to give their readers the chance to make up
their own minds. This was a product of their deep passion for
objectivity.
The 'lie' GFH is referring to is the insinuation, from domini.org, that
the commentators actually believed the above hadith. I assume GFH's
point is that they didn't.
> I'll take the event, and Muhammad's words and actions over Hasan's
opinion.
Hasan's opinion shows that he didn't take the hadith seriously himself.
Since he is the only person to have reported this hadith, why should we
take it seriously?
GF Haddad
[[[As for the context of slapping the face, that hadith has been
rejected in an
article by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, who says that neither Baghawi nor
Tabari can
produce an acceptable isnad for the event.]]]
I was unaware that Shaykh Nuh had also researched al-Hasan' mursal and
concluded the same thing about its weakness. It is nice to see one's
documentation confirmed by others, even if the conclusion was clear enough
from the start, in the light of established evidence.
--
GF Haddad
Qas...@cyberia.net.lb
omar...@my-deja.com
[[[As for the context of slapping the face, that hadith has been
rejected in an
article by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, who says that neither Baghawi nor
Tabari can
produce an acceptable isnad for the event.]]]
I was unaware that Shaykh Nuh had also researched al-Hasan' mursal and
concluded the same thing about its weakness. It is nice to see one's
documentation confirmed by others, even if the conclusion was clear
enough
from the start, in the light of established evidence.}
He wrote this in his article "What does the word 'qawwamuna' mean in
4:34?".
You can find this at Masud Ahmed Khan's website at
I think this article is a useful antidote to the poisonous hate-speech
currently being spread about Islam by certain people on s.r.i. I
recommend it to those who have been following this discussion.
On the same website, you can find an article in the Miscellaneous section
called "My Argument Against Boxing". In it, the author quotes a hadith
from Bukhari to the effect that even striking an animal on the face was
forbidden by the Prophet. If this is right, then the same obviously goes
for *any* human being, without question.
Omar
SILAS778
[[[Idreb is just a form of the verb daraba. And the point GFH is making is that
it can't be inferred,merely from the use of 'daraba',that what the speaker has
in mind is a violent or intense beating.]]]
My point is that when "idreb" is used, it most often refers to physical
striking. And, when you put that together with the already discussed Hadith,
there are no options left for interpretation. 4:34 - "idreb" means to
physically "beat".
[[[It is not a command. This general presumption still operates here. Thus,the
verse ought to be read as "(if you want to take action against your wives from
whom you fear nushuz,) warn them,and separate
from them, and strike them,...."]]]
I think you are right on this. By my using the term "command" I am overstating
the case. I think permission is more accurate.
[[[What's false about it is that it doesn't recognise that nushuz is an
euphemism for adultery,as clarified by the Prophet's final sermon (fahishah
mubinah).--- se GFH's post on this point.]]]
I disagree on this.
First - If the women were commiting adultery - they would either be whipped or
stoned, depending on what viewpoint you have on the Islamic punishment for
adultery.
Second - no one translates "nushuz" as "adultery. In all cases it is
translated as rebellion, refractoriness, disloyalty or ill conduct, etc. Thus,
this word cannot be regulated to only mean something linked to a sexual
context.
Third, let the Quran interpret itself. The only other place in the Quran where
this word is used (4:128) it references "ill treatment", or "cruelty or
desertion".
Fourth, in the already posted Hadith from Abu Dawud, # 2141, the context of the
passage deals specifically with women behaving stubbornly towards their
husbands.
Fifth, even in 4:34 itself, the reason given to Muslim men to back off is "if
the women return to obedience". "Obedience" is the key.
In sum, a the basis for wife beating in Islam is a wive's persistent
dis-obedience towards her husband.
[[[The basic, normal rule is strict prohibition,and in cases of adultery, a
dispensation is given to follow the three steps of 4:34.]]]
I think you are way off base here. If a women is committing adultery, I
believe her punishment is far more severe than being verbally admonished by her
husband. Didn't Muhammad have a women stoned to death about two years after
she committed adultery, gave birth, and weaned the child?
[[[ 6. Is it not true that slapping someone on the face is not allowed in
Islam? Is there a consensus on this point?]]]
Examples: (a) the famous hadith from Mu`awiya ibn al-Hakam in Sahih
Muslim of the black woman slave whom her owner slaps and is then obligated to
manumit as her compensation.]]]
This hadith does not deal with wife beating.
[[[Also in Sahih Muslim, the example of Suwayd ibn Muqarrin who saw a man
slap his female slave and told him: "Do you not know that the face is taboo?]]]
{{{Can you provide the references?}}}
[[[Look at Book 15, Book of Oaths, chapter 8. You'll find a number of hadiths
of the above kind.]]]
>From Muslim, vol 3, # 4079, Book of Oaths:
"I heard Allah's Messenger as saying: "He who beats a slave without cognizable
offence of his or slaps him (without any serious fault), then expiation for it
is that he should set him free."
So, it is permissible to beat and slap the slave for justified reasons.
Additionally, this deals with slave beating, not wife beating.
{{{Doesn't read that way to me. It tells me that Muslim men are not to strike
each other's faces when they fight.}}}
[[[This is an argument by analogy. If wine is forbidden,because of
intoxication, then by analogy, cocaine is forbidden. Similarly if striking the
face is forbidden in the case of a fight, then by analogy it is forbidden to
strike one's wife in the face.]]]
I don't think the analogy holds in this case. Slapping a face is quite
different than "striking" a face. Men can kill with one punch to the face.
Muslim men are not permitted to brutally plummel their wives, or punch them in
the face. But, as previously shown in this
Here is the reference for the background of 4:34 - from Razi women can be
slapped in the face.
"A women complained to Muhammad that her husband slapped her on the face,
(which was still marked by the slap). At first the prophet said to her: "Get
even with him", but then added: "Wait until I think about it". Later on,
Allah supposedly revealed 4:34 to Muhammad, after which the prophet said: "We
wanted one thing but Allah wanted another, and what Allah wanted is best".
{{{I'll take the event, and Muhammad's words and actions over Hasan's
opinion.}}}
[[[Hasan's opinion shows that he didn't take the hadith seriously himself.
Since he is the only person to have reported this hadith, why should we
take it seriously?]]]
Obviously Razi did take it seriously enough to comment on it. Since there are
no hadith that forbid slapping the wife in the face, and this one is provided,
it stands.
And, I want to add, that slapping on the face goes hand in hand with the other
treatment dished out to Muslim women. Aisha gets shoved in the chest and hurt
by Muhammad, Aisha and Hafsa get slapped on the neck by their fathers, Aisha
gets punched in the leg by her father, Rahman bruises his wife. And so on.
SILAS778
at first Cathrine said she wouldn't post this because she objected to me using
"Drice". Then when I pointed out that I've been using it for a long time and
many other people use abbreviated names as refs, she said it was acceptable.
So, I am re-submitting it.
++++++++++++++++++===========
Drice plays at being a psychologist. Below is a shallow attempt:
[[[It seems a shame that Silas seems to feel a need to write a post that twists
the truth like this, in order to try to bolster his own weak faith in his
religion. Silas appears to have a very weak faith in Christianity, and it is
obvious that he seeks to strengthen his own weak faith by trying to belittle
others.]]]
LOOK! Drice believes that those who criticize other faiths are weak in faith.
Well, let's take Muhammad as an example. Remember, his quran tells
Muslims that 'in him you have a good example". Well let's see how good.
Q: Did Muhammad criticize other people's faith? YES!
Sura 9:30
The Jews call Uzair a son of Allah and the Christians call Christ the son of
Allah. That is a saying from their mouths; (in this) they but imitate what the
unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are
deluded
away from the truth!
Dawood's translation states: "How perverse they are!".
Now then, would I be allowed to post an article stating that Muslims are
"perverse" for following Muhammad?
Let's continue.
In the Sirat Rasulallah, Muhammad constantly called the pagan religions false
and insulted their faith - page 119:
"O abu Talib, your nephew has cursed our gods, insulted our religoin, mocked
our way of life, and accused our forefathers of error"
Page 131:
"he had declared their mode of life foolish, insulted their forefathers,
reviled their religoin, divided hte community, and cursed thieri gods....
"Are you the one who said so and so against our gods and our religoin? The
apostle said, "Yes I am the one who said that".
there are more examples I could cite. In fact, the pagans told Muhammad that
if he would stop insulting them, they would stop persecuting him, but he said
no.
So then Drice, take the example of your own insecure prophet. He said worse
about the pagan's religions than I've been allowed to
say on SRI. :-)
If you believe that people who criticize other faiths are weak in their
religion, then Muhammad was certainly very weak and lame. He couldn't keep
quiet!
Drice, since I know you don't think that about Muhammad, I suggest you stick
to
what you do best, whatever that is.
Your prophet was every bit the critic, and worse. Muhammad even had people
murdered just for making fun of him.
SILAS778
I've stated that I don't view it as a direct command, such as is found in the
10 Commandments. OTOH, I do find it to be more of a mere option. Start with
the Quran itself -
RODWELL: "Men are superior to women on account of the qualities with which
God hath gifted the one above the other, and on account of the outlay they make
from their substance for them. Virtuous women are obedient, careful, during
the husband's absence, because God hath of them been careful. But chide those
for whose refractoriness you have cause to fear; remove them into beds apart,
and scourge them: but if they are obedient to you, then seek not occasion
against them: verily, God is High, Great!"
Note in 4:34 - there is a progression of how the husband is to deal with the
rebellious wife - admonish, sexually desert, then beat. What is not laid out
is the length of time that this is to occur over.
Now examine wife beating in light of the following Hadith:
#2141 - Iyas Dhubab reported the apostle of Allah as saying:
"Do not beat Allah's handmaidens", but when Umar came to the apostle of Allah
and said: "Women have become emboldened towards their husbands", he gave
permission to beat them. Then many women came round the family of the apostle
of Allah complaining against their husbands. So the apostle of Allah said,
"Many women have gone round Muhammad's family complaining against their
husbands. They are not the best among you".
Here the word used is "permission". Additionally, there is this from Razi's
Tafsir:
"A women complained to Muhammad that her husband slapped her on the face,
(which was still marked by the slap). At first the prophet said to her: "Get
even with him", but then added: "Wait until I think about it". Later on,
Allah supposedly revealed 4:34 to Muhammad, after which the prophet said: "We
wanted one thing but Allah wanted another, and what Allah wanted is best".
Allah wanted the best thing - wife beating. Argueably she was disobedient to
her husband so the wife beating was justified.
So, we have the time question still, but if one takes all three passages above,
you can only conclude that Allah does want disobedient wives to be beaten. In
order to keep the household in order - under the rule of the man, the husband
is to beat the wife is she is disobedient to him.
How is this "optional"?
I think it is optional only over time and perhaps circumstance. Certainly at
the start of a disagreement, the man should not take to smaking his wife. But
if he waits a day or two - he certainly would be justified in beating her
towards submission to him.
And remember, it is what Allah wanted.
So to call wife beating a mere "option" isn't true the mark. And to call it a
"command" as with regard to the 10 Commandments is off a little as well.
What is it? A preferred step. If the wife is going to persist in
disobedience, and if Allah hates divorce (another issue), then perhaps, the
husband is to beat the wife to save the Islamic marriage.
Certainly a happy marriage is preferred above all, but women do have a way of
thinking for themselves and often want to do things there way, in disagreement
with their husbands.
Omar wrote:
[[[They do not provide any "option" to beat, because the option is understood.
The reason is as follows.]]]
This "option" is urged by Allah. It is not a simple "option" like, "would you
like chocolate or vanilla ice cream". It is rather, "if you want to continue
to deal with your rebellious wife, and you've already admonished her, and
sexually deserted her, then beat her."
So, it is a directed option.
GF Haddad
>Further, Siddiqi published a number of books all related to Hadith.
Certainly
>he was no amatuer. And I believe I remember reading another Muslim
author
>lamenting his passing because his work was so valuable for "dawa" to the
West.
Abd al-Hamid Siddiqi the translator of Sahih Muslim is not the scholar of
hadith history, Muhammad Zubayr Siddiqi.
--
GF Haddad
Qas...@cyberia.net.lb
SILAS778
[[[Abd al-Hamid Siddiqi the translator of Sahih Muslim is not the scholar of
hadith history, Muhammad Zubayr Siddiqi.]]]
This is correct, MZS wrote "Hadith Literature". In it he writes on page 60:
"Unlike Imam Bukhari, he appears not to have committed any mistake or confusion
in the text or isnaad of any tradition."
MZS, a "scholar of Hadith history", verifies the work of Imam Muslim. He does
not state it contains "contradictions and mistakes". Rather, he states that
his work is sound, according to Islamic standards.
On the other hand, AHS has translated several works of Hadith into English. In
his translation of Hadith, he includes many notes and comments from either his
own POV or from many other Islamic scholars.
The reader is free to judge the quality of those notes.