Muhammad (pbuh), the Last Prophet

[quantumDeus]

You forgot. The generation can be mislead unless you learn from the history.

We have learned from history. It’s why we pretty much frown on beating women, killing those who decide to leave the faith and why we think separating any particular denomination of a religion should be entwined with the state government.

Think on this a moment, for its impact is quite profound.

Now that you have thought, perhaps you’ll see why one faith went on to economic prosperity and greatness (including landing men on the moon), and the other (except in certain instances of oil-rich countries, Kuwait being the prime example) generally lives in abject poverty, illiteracy and hopelessness.

Though I am having a good laugh at my own expense. It was Protestant mercantilism and colonialism that drug the Catholics along on the ride for the most part in the industrialized West.

 

[BelFarfalla]

‘Miswaq’ is mentioned in the details of the verse.

Miswaq is not mentioned in the details of the verse. I’ve seen the mention of Miswaq before… It is not a tooth brush, it is a stick of wood that is used for cleaning one’s teeth. People all over the world use to use the same thing before modern tooth brushes were invented. One end of the stick is frayed like a ‘brush’. It is then used to scrape the teeth. We used them sometimes when I was a child.

*For those who do not know what a Miswaq tooth brush looks like… there is a photo of some. They are just short sticks.
*http://www.djibnet.com/photo/photo.php?id=407335100&k=qat
*The issue though is that the use of the world Miswaq can be used for several things… it is not only the tooth-cleaning-stick.

The word is also used to refer to the tree, or a branch of the tree… not just a small portion of the tree. The Miswaq ‘toothbrush’ is about as fat around as a man’s finger. Saying that a man should hit is wife a Miswaq could mean to use a switch from the tree that would otherwise be cut into smaller pieces for a ‘tooth-brush.”
004.034
*
YUSUFALI: 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 whose 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).

PICKTHAL: 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.

SHAKIR: Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.

 

[BelFarfalla]

That is not what Muhammed himself asserts, both in the Qur’an and in ahadith. He did imagine a world of true Muslims. And unfortunately, those who came after “defended the faith” all the way to the gates of Vienna, across the Pyranees into the south of France.

You left out the ‘defending the faith’ into the Indian Subcontinent at the cost of 80 million Hindu lives. The after the end of the Crusades ‘defending the faith’ into the Balkans and to Germany’s back door.

 

[BelFarfalla]

Would you agree beating woman is right, if I provide equal right granted for woman?

What? you cannot prove that women in Islam have equal rights to men? No suprise there.

 

[quantumDeus]

Ding! Khalfan gets a standing eight count. You and Bel return to your corners and get ready for the next round.

 

[BelFarfalla]

I like you. You never learn from answers

Oh I learn … and you have taught me and many others who are reading here that Islam does indeed not only support wife beating but instructs men to do it and to use a stick to do it with.

You want to prove the beating of woman as wrong so you never quite.

I don’t have to prove that wife beating is wrong. Any decent human knows that it is wrong and unjustifiable. Remember that Jesus taught to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Men do not want their wives to beat them. So they have no right to beat their wives. It is also taught that a man must love and serve his wife as Jesus loved and served the Church. Jesus never used violence against his followers. A man must never beat his wife.
You are right, I will never quite standing up for the poor women who Islam who laws allow them to be brutalized. I do it in the name of the many wives of the Muslim man who lived down the street form me when I was a child… I still get sick when I think of how those poor souls were mistreated.

You picked up a wrong hadees to prove where the wife was guilty. You do your interpretations on that hadees as you do with Bible to prove the divinity of Jesus (pbuh). But at the end you find nothing but Zero.

LOL, I picked the wrong hadees? You defended it for crying out loud. It is not a ‘wrong’ Hadith, it goes along with your and Islam’s belief of wife beating being a wonderful things. You say that there are other Hadiths that do not support wife beating? Why didn’t you provide those as proof that the Qur’an does not really mean it when it says that a man should beat his wife? From you list below it is clear that there are no stories that show Muhammad stopping a man from beating his wife. Instead you hand picked some things in Islam that are sort of favorable or at least not oppressive to women. I’ll address them.

When I said there are instance where prophet favoured woman, it is copied from Christians and Jews.
Islam never said Woman is guilt of eating the fruit at garden.

The Bible blames both Adam and Eve for eating the fruit in the garden. Both were punished.

Islam never taught woman can’t speak in Mosque.

Here you refer to a verse from Corinthians taken out of context. Earlier in Corinthians it speaks about women prophesizing and preaching in the Church. Later it makes mention of women not speaking and discussing things with their husbands at home. In those days Christians worshiped by Muslims…. Men on one side of the Church and women on the other side. So when a woman wanted to talk to her husband during worship she had to yell across the Church. This party of Corinthians was addressing the issue of some women being disruptive during the church services. So if you take both parts of Corinthians it is telling women to participate in worship, to speak out with prophesy and in worship. But it is telling them to not try to hold private conversations with their husbands… by yelling to the other side of the church… during services.

 

[BelFarfalla]

Islam never taught the woman abused by husband has to suffer entire life.
All abused women suffer… As would an abused man or and abused child. Again you have not provided anything stating that the woman has equal rights or any recourse against an abusive husband.
Catholicism does not expect an abused woman to suffer for her entire life.

Khalfan:
Islam never taught marrying divorced woman is adultry.
The model God gave for marriage was Adam and Eve. One man, One woman for life. Islam allows divorce. The idea of divorce does not exist in the Catholic Church based on the bible. What is allowed is annulment of a marriage when there are grave circumstances. Thus is does not matter if being married to a divorced woman is adultery… she gets an annulment if she has a valid case. Then no marriage ever exited.
Islam never taught woman is the glory of Man.
Islam teaches that women are ruled by man.
Corinthians says that man is the glory of God and women are the Glory of man. It also states that men were created first and the woman (Eve) was made form man (Adam). What does it mean to be the glory? It means that something is the best. Man is the best creation of God… the glory of God. Women are also the glory of God since Eve was made from Adam… A sort of cloning that allows for the cloned to be gender different. This is way beyond modern science’s capabilities. But when something is cloned, it maintains the attributes of that from which it was cloned/created. So women are also part of God’s glory. However it takes things further stating that women are the glory of men… meaning that women are the best part of man. It’s a huge complement to women.

Khalfan:
I can keep on quoting.
Please do. I’ll be glad to clear up all of your misinterpretations.

 

[BelFarfalla]

Do you know, when the woman in a Christain dominated country like UK, got the right to open a bank account?

Since banks did not exist in the UK until the mid 1600’s it was after that. In old English law, an unmarried women (never married or windowed) had total control of their own assets… land, money, businesses, and all else. A window inherited the a portion of the martial estate, the rest went to the children. In marriage all assets of both the man and the woman became marital property, controlled by the husband. Since marriage was to be for life this made sense to them at the time. TO protect their daughters, the daughters were given their inheritance in things other than land… things that would remain in the woman’s control. Like expensive jewelry. This is one of the reasons women like jewelry so much. In all societies this has been on of their main sources for keeping their personal wealth.
Up until the time of actual banks, the money lenders and hock shops were the main source of banking… women could used them as they pleased.
If you want to delve into the history of women’s financial rights we need start back in Jewish law where women had rights of inheritance equal to that fo their brothers, their husbands could not touch their inheritance since ti was his obligation to support her and their children. Were had independent wealth with total control of it for at least 2000 years before the advent of Islam. Christianity followed(follows) this same law.
The problems came in countries where the old Judeo Christian laws were not historical and they fell back on old laws… like old English laws. Let’s fact it, old English law was good for the husband, not so much for the wife. It took a long time to change it.

Khalfan:
Do you know, when woman got legal right in property in any Christian country?
I’m sue that you have some horrificaly recent date for this one. But does it reflect reality … such as the old English law that allowed single women and windows to own land… this has always been the law.

What matters to us today are the laws we live under today. In all western countries women have the same rights as men.
In Islamic countries women have fewer rights then men. And they way Islam is, this can never change. There is no room for full human rights under Islam.

 

[Sir_William]

All I have to say is:

Will the real Islam please stand up.

This whole thread started with a link to a juvenile video attempting to prop-up Mohammedanism as a wonderful religion that will save the world. The video is an insult to the intelligence of anyone beyond grade school.

The arguments presented to support Islam fail just as the arguments to support every other ‘religion’ fail; just as every other religion fails. There is no Islam, there are many Islams. Just like there are many (allegedly) Christian churches. There is only ONE religion that exists today that is the divinely protected synthesis of its originator: the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church. Its mere existence and unity is de facto evidence enough that it is what it claims to be. People certainly couldn’t accomplish that. We are inept. The Catholic Church continues simply because HE wills it, not because of any other reason. It will be here until HE returns.

“The gates of hell shall not prevail” (ergo, there will be much effort to do so)

Islam: another attempt to prevail.

The one thing it reeks of is paranoia. I apologize if I sound less than charitable. Here’s why I may: I am tired of Muslims pimping out there religion as something that it is not. When we call it for what it is, whether that be violent, warlike, backward, paranoid, superstitious or whatever…a would be apologist says that we in the West have a distorted understanding of Islam, that it is NOT what the Taliban, Osama bin Laden, or their ilk say that it is. They say that the violent jihadists have usurped their peaceful religion for their own nefarious purposes. If so, then deal with them, once and for all. Authoritatively chastise them for what they are doing. It can’t and won’t happen because there is no one in authority to do it. See, that is one of the differences between Catholicism and everything else…there is ONE voice of correction that can speak.

That is why each one of us is a member of this group, because we are Catholics. Stop wasting your time pasting links to silly and childish Islamic apologetics sources. If they serve to reinforce your own beliefs then great. Give up trying to convert us, we were here 600 years before Mohammed was born and 2000 years before you were born. If the god you call Allah really does torture people in Hell like the qu’ran says over and over and over again, then I don’t want to know him. You should get to know the real God who doesn’t trick people (though there is still accountability) and only allows people to be in eternal solitude (the real hell) by refusing to go to him. Don’t you get it? God doesn’t condemn people to hell, they send themselves there. You are going to find that out if you are sincere in your search for HIM. You may very well be saved, and I hope that you are. How do I know this? Because the Church tells me so. Funnily enough, it makes sense too. It’s really weird how what this Church teaches, actually makes sense. It’s not about houses of war, houses of submission, for some drinking boiling fluids and burning in fire with renewable flesh; and for others plucking ripe fruit from trees whilst being surrounded by eternally nubile and chaste Britney Spearseses.

That’s it. I am done. I meant to write one sentence. Damn.

Despite the fact that I felt the need to say that stuff, now I must confess my lack of charity.

 

[BelFarfalla]

Can you prove it?
.

6 Million Muslims LEAVE Islam every year!!! in africa alone…

formermuslims.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=972

75% of all westerners who concert to isalm leave it withing 5 years.

 

[Khalfan]

Where did Bel say the OT was blasphemy?

I am sorry. it is my mistake. It was Booklover who said incest story is blashphemy.

anyway, don’t feel shame to say your God is an offspring of incest?

I don’t think you will. The people that believe God is a barbar, a Cherob riding cowboy, a murderer of innocent girls and boys (sorry not all girls, only those who knew man. they had to keep alive the girls who never knew man. I wonder, how that test was done?), a girl user that took his share from those captured virgin girls (for what?), will never feel shame.

Feel pity on you.

 

[Khalfan]

No, two wrongs don’t make a right. Several lefts can, however.

Then you don’t deserv an answer.

 

[eleonardo]

You do justify the act of God as Love. Why he create Dumb and blind? Why he create handicapped? Why he create painful deceases? you call that Love?

I don’t know why God did that. This is a common question asked with a great deal of frustration by many people. What is your view on this? I saw you already hinted that it certainly has something to do with love:

Can I ask you a question, why the loving merciful God giving painful diseases to some people? God indeed have some good intention behind that.

God looks into your heart. Husbands are allowed to beat the wife with intention to correct her, maximum with a tooth brush. If the intention is wrong, it is a sin and husband will be punished for that.

If the husbands do wrong, wife too have rights that she can do to her husband.

I understand you’re trying to justify the beating of a women (/man). I’m telling you for the nth time, it’s futile. So it’s best if you use that energy for other purposes.

You quoted some bad muslim’s event. So I quoted Hitler as a bad Christian. As much as we have bad muslims, you too have bad Christians.

You mentioned Pakistan, I just commented on it. I agree that there’s good and bad in both camps.

Shiites and Wahabis are mislead from true Islam. I suggest Sunni to be a true Muslim.

Shi’ite say the same about Sunni

I am sorry. it is my mistake. It was Booklover who said incest story is blashphemy.
anyway, don’t feel shame to say your God is an offspring of incest?

I think this was explained to you already? But keep throwing insults, it’s very productive.

 

[dolphinlove]

I think this was explained to you already? But keep throwing insults, it’s very productive.

How else do you expect muslims to keep going with a conversation??
When they cant find an answer, they start with the insults… typical

 

[Khalfan]

What? When did I say that the OT is blasphemy?

Someone else said that it was blasphemy to say that Jesus was the product of incest. I think they thought you were accusing Mary of incest. Not sure.

I believe in the virginity of Mary (ra) better than you my friend. Remember, I am a Muslim.

The OT does have a lot of history in it. The story of Judah and Tamar definitely is historical as well as scriptural. The Qur’an has a lot of history in it too… like when it tells of all the battles… That’s history as well as scripture.

No. Quran doesn’t teach any incest stories. Because God knows the truth.

Mathew gives a genealogy for Joseph that traces back to Perez, the son of Judah and Tamar. There are several bits of info related to this.

Giving genealogy to someone who doesn’t have a genealogy!!!

1. Joseph is not the biological father of Jesus. However by law, Joseph was the father of Jesus. So it was tracing back Jesus’ legal lineage, not his biological lineage.

You impose a legal father to Jesus (pbuh)? No wonder. You said Joseph is not the biological father of Jesus. But Bible teaches, Jesus (pbuh) came from the seed of david (Romans 1:3). And you are supposed to believe that.

1. The coupling of Judah and Tamar was 38 generations before Jesus. Get over it. You have no idea what your family was doing 38 generations ago. Your ancestors were pagans… we know about the sexual habits of those pagans … It was pretty rank to put it mildly .

I don’t like to impose incest stories to my ancestors. But you do that to your God.

1. According to the old ways every woman had the right to bear children. Her husband had to give them to her. Tamara was gypped out of her marriage right…. Judah and his sons did her a grave injustice. So she did something to get what the Judah and his sons owed her.

Yes. I agree that. And that is what usual men call incest. Doing sex with father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, father in law, mother in law etc.

1. Technically the coupling of Judah and Tamar was not incest… This all occurs in the book of genesis… BEFORE the law. According to Genesis the entire human race started from two people… Adam and Eve. Do you believe this? If you do then you have to agree that in the beginning there was a lot of incest going on. Otherwise where did the children of Adam and Eve get spouses? Further in those days it was custom, when a woman’s husband died, his brother had to give his widow children. That could be considered incest by the newer laws. But in those days God commanded it.

Yes. God cammanded it to Adam and Eve and to their children. But how long? Do you say Adam and judah was living in same time? How much generations were in between?

Thats another point. You are supposed to believe earth is only 6000 year old. Another nonsence. Get over it my friend. I have nothing else to say.

1. If you think that Jesus having Perez in his ancestry look bad for Jesus, the how does the fact that Ishmael was an illegitimate son look for Muhammad? Remember that Abraham threw out Ishmael and his mother Hagar. Let’s face it Hagar committed fornication and Abraham commited adultery. Those are by the later laws grave sins, punishable by death. So why do you insult Muhammad by admitting that he had a illegitimate ancestor?

Who says that Ishmael was an illegitimate? Muslims or Christians? It is you my dear. You want to promote Ishaaq (pbuh) to the position of ishmael (pbuh) to demote arabs as children of illegitimate and Israelis as choosen people. We don’t have that problem to get choosen as israeli. So that we don’t go after Ishmael and Ishaaq (pbut) and make differences between them.
Having child from slave was legal even at the period of prophet muhamed (pbuh). But conditions applied. If they bear children they were entitled for legal rights in property and could demand protection of the father.

Sarah was jelous of hagar (ra) for bearing child of Abraham. So that God commanded Abraham to leave hagar in the desert. He did so because he knew God will do fair with them. God saved them. It wasn’t that Abraham threw out Ishmael and his mother Hagar out of anger or something.

 

[didididi]

–Off topic—

Interesting, you put a blessing (i assume?) after Hagar but not after Sarah.

Any reason why?

 

[Khalfan]

Yes. But give the matter some research on your own, it is more fruitful for you to arrive at the answer led only by the premise. If you struggle and cannot find the sources, I will then be glad to supply them.

In your pursuit of this, you will also be shocked to see the brutality that Arab muslims are treating black muslims as well as Christians. No wonder they are leaving the flock in droves.

The preceding also gives you a hint where to start looking. Another hint: try searching the archives of Reuters and the BBC first.

No. It is your allegations. You prove it. Since I don’t agree your claims, I may do research on it but i don’t have to prove it you.

And they would say the same about Sunnis. Having studied the history as well as the theology of Islam, I understand what the original schismal difference was (hint: look to Ali’s fourth caliphate).

I said we have our own differences. That doesn’t prove Islam is wrong. Rather it is a study who follows the true Islam. There is another point. God doesn’t demand the accuracy of our acts, but the faith in One God and the messenger (pbuh). Study and acts that teaches in Sunni and shiites, demands accuracy only as mech as possible until it doesn’t go against the Basic teachigs of Islam. Unintentional mistakes will get forgiven. In that way being a Sunni or Shiite or Wahabi is not wrong until he/she keep study and search for true Islam.

That is not what Muhammed himself asserts, both in the Qur’an and in ahadith. He did imagine a world of true Muslims. And unfortunately, those who came after “defended the faith” all the way to the gates of Vienna, across the Pyranees into the south of France.

That is a clear lie. Prophet (pbuh) himself said Islam will be sected in to 73 groups, but only one will be the true followers. All those ideas (Hindus says Whole wolrd will be hindus in future) are from other religions. We think practically, we don’t expect whole world to be full of Muslims. But I wish if it is.

 

[dessert]

I believe in the virginity of Mary (ra) better than you my friend. Remember, I am a Muslim.

No. Quran doesn’t teach any incest stories. Because God knows the truth.

Giving genealogy to someone who doesn’t have a genealogy!!!

1. Joseph is not the biological father of Jesus. However by law, Joseph was the father of Jesus. So it was tracing back Jesus’ legal lineage, not his biological lineage.

You impose a legal father to Jesus (pbuh)? No wonder. You said Joseph is not the biological father of Jesus. But Bible teaches, Jesus (pbuh) came from the seed of david (Romans 1:3). And you are supposed to believe that.

1. The coupling of Judah and Tamar was 38 generations before Jesus. Get over it. You have no idea what your family was doing 38 generations ago. Your ancestors were pagans… we know about the sexual habits of those pagans … It was pretty rank to put it mildly .

I don’t like to impose incest stories to my ancestors. But you do that to your God.

1. According to the old ways every woman had the right to bear children. Her husband had to give them to her. Tamara was gypped out of her marriage right…. Judah and his sons did her a grave injustice. So she did something to get what the Judah and his sons owed her.

Yes. I agree that. And that is what usual men call incest. Doing sex with father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, father in law, mother in law etc.

1. Technically the coupling of Judah and Tamar was not incest… This all occurs in the book of genesis… BEFORE the law. According to Genesis the entire human race started from two people… Adam and Eve. Do you believe this? If you do then you have to agree that in the beginning there was a lot of incest going on. Otherwise where did the children of Adam and Eve get spouses? Further in those days it was custom, when a woman’s husband died, his brother had to give his widow children. That could be considered incest by the newer laws. But in those days God commanded it.

Yes. God cammanded it to Adam and Eve and to their children. But how long? Do you say Adam and judah was living in same time? How much generations were in between?

Thats another point. You are supposed to believe earth is only 6000 year old. Another nonsence. Get over it my friend. I have nothing else to say.

1. If you think that Jesus having Perez in his ancestry look bad for Jesus, the how does the fact that Ishmael was an illegitimate son look for Muhammad? Remember that Abraham threw out Ishmael and his mother Hagar. Let’s face it Hagar committed fornication and Abraham commited adultery. Those are by the later laws grave sins, punishable by death. So why do you insult Muhammad by admitting that he had a illegitimate ancestor?

Who says that Ishmael was an illegitimate? Muslims or Christians? It is you my dear. You want to promote Ishaaq (pbuh) to the position of ishmael (pbuh) to demote arabs as children of illegitimate and Israelis as choosen people. We don’t have that problem to get choosen as israeli. So that we don’t go after Ishmael and Ishaaq (pbut) and make differences between them.
Having child from slave was legal even at the period of prophet muhamed (pbuh). But conditions applied. If they bear children they were entitled for legal rights in property and could demand protection of the father.

Sarah was jelous of hagar (ra) for bearing child of Abraham. So that God commanded Abraham to leave hagar in the desert. He did so because he knew God will do fair with them. God saved them. It wasn’t that Abraham threw out Ishmael and his mother Hagar out of anger or something.

The tale of two sons again!
Why can’t we let this drop!
So that is what this is all really about Is vs Is , there you see you can’t tell who is who.
I’m glad I had a daughter born first, made my life less complicated.
Dessert

 

[Khalfan]

We have learned from history. It’s why we pretty much frown on beating women, killing those who decide to leave the faith and why we think separating any particular denomination of a religion should be entwined with the state government.

Think on this a moment, for its impact is quite profound.

Now that you have thought, perhaps you’ll see why one faith went on to economic prosperity and greatness (including landing men on the moon), and the other (except in certain instances of oil-rich countries, Kuwait being the prime example) generally lives in abject poverty, illiteracy and hopelessness.

Though I am having a good laugh at my own expense. It was Protestant mercantilism and colonialism that drug the Catholics along on the ride for the most part in the industrialized West.

Wow… another discovery. The economic prosperity and greatness in European country because of Christian faith, abject poverty, illiteracy and hopelessness because of Islamic faith.

When you are laughing, you are laughing at you only. Why more than half you Europeans are atheists? Why there many Christian dominated countries are poor? Why So many African countries are poor where they don’t practice Islam as faith?

Colonialism was a baby of Christian Europeans. Slavery in America was Christian contribution. Economic prosperity in Europe is the result colonization, capturing and looting other countries. History can tell you more about it.

Scientifical development is not Christian contribution. But they used the wealth they earned from looting. Why most of sceintists are atheists? Christian faith doesn’t work with science at all. It is already proven.

We Muslims are more concerned about human values which you can’t even imagine. While bible promotes slavery, Islam came with a concept that depreciate slavery and announced freeing a slave as righteous deed. While Bible promotes Interest on money poorty, Islam promotes Interst free banking. While bible teaches marrying divorced woman as adultry, Islam allows it. While Christians don’t know what is legal right on property for woman, Islam delares it. While Bible restricts the learning right of woman in church, while it asks to remain silent at church, Islam promotes learning right to woman. It may don’t develop the country, but the culture.

 

[Khalfan]

Miswaq is not mentioned in the details of the verse. I’ve seen the mention of Miswaq before… It is not a tooth brush, it is a stick of wood that is used for cleaning one’s teeth. People all over the world use to use the same thing before modern tooth brushes were invented. One end of the stick is frayed like a ‘brush’. It is then used to scrape the teeth. We used them sometimes when I was a child.

*For those who do not know what a Miswaq tooth brush looks like… there is a photo of some. They are just short sticks.
*http://www.djibnet.com/photo/photo.php?id=407335100&k=qat
*The issue though is that the use of the world Miswaq can be used for several things… it is not only the tooth-cleaning-stick.

The word is also used to refer to the tree, or a branch of the tree… not just a small portion of the tree. The Miswaq ‘toothbrush’ is about as fat around as a man’s finger. Saying that a man should hit is wife a Miswaq could mean to use a switch from the tree that would otherwise be cut into smaller pieces for a ‘tooth-brush.”
004.034
*
YUSUFALI: 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 whose 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).

PICKTHAL: 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.

SHAKIR: Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.

Since Islam doesn’t teach to beat a woman that she get hurt, leave a mark, to use something solid, in intention to hurt her than correcting her, your arguements are vain. You are arguing from nothing.

If your argument is, beating a woman with a Miswaq, a tooth brush, a pencil, a folded cloth is wrong, then I can argue with you. If you are arguing on something islam doesn’t teach, i am not interested.