Saudi Marriage 'Expert' Advises Men in 'Right Way' to Beat Their Wives

[jerry_h_1700]

Have you read verse 9:29 of the Quran? That is the verse by which Muhammad told his followers to persecute Christians.

darvish.wordpress.com/2006/10/20/the-prophets-letters-to-christians/

Letter to the Monks of St. Catherine Monastery

In 628 C.E. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) granted a Charter of Privileges to the monks of St. Catherine Monastery in Mt.Sinai. It consisted of several clauses covering all aspects of human rights including such
topics as the protection of Christians, freedom of worship and movement, freedom to appoint their own judges and to own and maintain their property, exemption from military service, and the right to protection in war. An English translation of that document is presented here:

“This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them.

“Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them. No compulsion is to be on them. Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries. No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims’ houses. Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God’s covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate. No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight. The Muslims are to fight for them. If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray. Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants. No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (end of the world).”

 

[jerry_h_1700]

A Letter from the Prophet Muhammad To The Assyrian Christians

“God has told me in a vision what to do, and I confirm His command by giving my solemn promise to keep this agreement.

“To the followers of the Islam I say: Carry out my command, protect and help the Nazarene nation in this country of ours in their own land. Leave their places of worship in peace; help and assist their chief and their priests when in need of help, be it in the mountains, in the desert, on the sea, or at home. Leave all their possessions alone, be it houses or other property, do not destroy anything of their belongings, the followers of Islam shall not harm or molest any of this nation, because the Nazarenes are my subjects, pay tribute to me and will help the Muslims. No tribute, but what is agreed upon, shall be collected from them, their church buildings shall be left as they are, they shall not be altered, their priests shall be permitted to teach and worship in their own way-the Nazarenes have full liberty of worship in their churches and homes. None of their churches shall be torn down, or altered into a mosque, except by the consent and free will of the Nazarenes. If any one disobeys this command, the anger of God and His Prophet shall be upon him.

“The tribute paid the Nazarenes shall be used to promote the teachings of Islam and shall be deposited at the treasury of Beth Almal. A common man shall pay one denar (piece of money), but the merchants and people who own mines of gold and silver and are rich shall pay twelve denars. Strangers and people who have no houses or other settled property shall not have taxes levied upon them. If a man inherits property he shall pay a settled sum to the Baitulmal treasury. The Christians are not obliged to make war on the enemies of Islam, but if an enemy attacks the Christians, the Muslims shall not deny their help, but give them horses and weapons, if they need them, and protect them from evils from outside and keep the peace with them. The Christians are not obliged to turn Muslims, until God’s will makes them believers.

“The Muslims shall not force Christian women to accept Islam, but if they themselves wish to embrace it, the Muslims shall be kind to them.

“If a Christian woman is married to a Muslim and does not want to embrace Islam, she has liberty to worship at her own church according to her own religious belief, and her husband must not treat her unkindly on account of her religion. If any one disobeys this command, he disobeys God and his prophet and will be guilty of a great offense.

“If the Nazarenes wish to build a church, their Muslim neighbors shall help them. This shall be done, because the Christians have obeyed us and have come to us and pleaded for peace and mercy.

“If there be among the Christians a great and learned man the Muslims shall honor him and not be envious of his greatness.

“If any one is unjust and unkind to the Christians he will be guilty of disobeying the Prophet of God.

“The Christians should not shelter an enemy of Islam or give him horse, weapon or any other help. If a Muslim is in need the Christian shall for three days and nights be his host and shelter him from his enemies. The Christians shall, furthermore, protect the Mohammedan women and children and not deliver them up to the enemy or expose them to view. If the Nazarenes fail to fulfil these conditions, they have forfeited their right to protection, and the agreement is null and void.

“This document shall be entrusted to the Christian chief and head of their church for safe keeping.”

The peace of God be over them all! This agreement is written by Moavijah Ben Sofian, according to the dictates of Muhammad, the Messenger of God, in the 4th year of the Hegira in the city of Medina.

Qur`an says: “And abuse not those whom they call upon besides Allah, lest exceeding the limits, they abuse Allah through ignorance. Thus to every people have We made their deeds fair-seeming; then to their Lord is their return so he will inform them of what they did” (6:109)

Qur’an says: “Those who restrain their anger and pardon men. And Allah loves the doer of good (to others)” (3: 133)

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Sorry but 9:29 trumps that. Muhammad was a hypocrite who said many conflicting things. Despite his ‘mercy’ to the Nazarene Christians, he persecuted Christians using 9:29.

Fight (to kill) all those who do not believe in Allah or the Last day, except if they are Christians and Jews who pay the Jizyah with HUMILIATION.

He persecuted the Christians by making them second-class citizens.

That is in the Quran. End of story.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Jerry,
Please provide the source reference to that letter to the Nazarenes. I’d like to check it out.

Thank you.

Rodrigo Bivar

 

[jerry_h_1700]

people often use the following verses to justify that all Islam is a religion of violence:

Sura 8.12 "Remember thy lord has inspired the angels with the message. Give firmness to the believers and instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. Smite them above their necks and smite the fingertips of them."

Sura 9.5 "When the sacred months have passed, kill the idolaters whereever you find them."

Sura 47.4 "When you encounter the unbelievers, Strike off their heads. Untill you have made a wide slaughter among them tie up the remaining captives."

Sura 8 is about a BATTLE - the Battle of Badr - not just some daily affair. A battles take two side to occur. Are you under the impression that while these ‘horrid’ Muslims were fighting, the enemies were simply standing there like good little peaceful men?

Sura 47 was revealed during the first year of Hijrah when the Muslims were under threat of extinction by invasion from Makkah.

Sura 9 is interesting. Non-Muslims almost invariably quote verse 5 but leave out verse 4 and 6. Why? Because verse 4 says, “But the treatires are not dissolved with those Pagans with whom you have entered into alliance and who have you subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided anyone against you. So fulfill your engagements with them to the end of their term: for God Loves the righteous.”

And verse 6 says, “If one among the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him so that he may hear the Word of God; and then escort him to where he can be secure.”

So basically what has been done above is:

1. The background to each sura was shown. One cannot take a verse revealed for a battle and insist it is if for the daily affairs of Muslims.
2. It was shown how Non-muslims who wish to attack Islam, conveniently leave out verses before and after their quoted verse.

 

[jerry_h_1700]

Also here are scriptures which forbid compulsion:

2:256 There is no compulsion in religion, for the right way is clearly from the wrong way. Whoever therefore rejects the forces of evil and believes in God, he has taken hold of a support most unfailing, which shall never give way, for God is All Hearing and Knowing.

16:82 But if they turn away from you, (O Prophet remember that) your only duty is a clear delivery of the Message (entrusted to you).

6:107 Yet if God had so willed, they would not have ascribed Divinity to aught besides him; hence, We have not made you their keeper, nor are you (of your own choice) a guardian over them.

4:79, 80 (Say to everyone of them,) 'Whatever good betides you is from God and whatever evil betides you is from your own self and that We have (O Prophet) sent you to mankind only as a messenger and all sufficing is God as witness. Whoso obeys the Messenger, he indeed obeys God. And for those who turn away, We have not sent you as a keeper."

11:28 (Noah to his people) He (Noah) said "O my people! think over it! If 1 act upon a clear direction from my Lord who has bestowed on me from Himself the Merciful talent of seeing the right way, a way which you cannot see for yourself, does it follow that we can force you to take the right path when you definitely decline to take it?°

17:53, 54 And tell my servants that they should speak in a most kindly manner (unto those who do not share their beliefs). Verily, Satan is always ready to stir up discord between men; for verily; Satan is mans foe … Hence, We have not sent you (Unto men O Prophet) with power to determine their Faith.

21:107 to 109 (O Prophet?) ‘We have not sent you except to be a mercy to all mankind:" Declare, "Verily, what is revealed to me is this, your God is the only One God, so is it not up to you to bow down to Him?’ But if they turn away then say, “I have delivered the Truth in a manner clear to one and all, and I know not whether the promised hour (of Judgment) is near or far.”

22:67 To every people have We appointed ceremonial rites (of prayer) which they observe; therefore, let them not wrangle over this matter with you, but bid them to turn to your Lord (since that is the main objective of religion). You indeed are rightly guided. But if they still dispute you in this matter, (then say,) `God best knows (the value of) what you do."

88:21, 22; also see 24:54 And so, (O Prophet!) exhort them your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel them to believe.

48:28 He it is Who has sent forth His Messenger with the (task of spreading) Guidance and the Religion of Truth, to the end that tie make it prevail over every (false) religion, and none can bear witness to the Truth as God does.

36:16, 17 (Three Messengers to their people)Said (the Messengers), "Our Sustainer knows that we have indeed been sent unto you, but we are not bound to more than clearly deliver the Message entrusted to us.’

39:41 Assuredly, We have sent down the Book to you in right form for the good of man. Whoso guided himself by it does so to his own advantage, and whoso turns away from it does so at his own loss. You certainly are not their keeper.

42:6, 48 And whoso takes for patrons others besides God, over them does God keep a watch. Mark, you are not a keeper over them. But if they turn aside from you (do not get disheartened), for We have not sent you to be a keeper over them; your task is but to preach …

64:12 Obey God then and obey the Messenger, but if you turn away (no blame shall attach to our Messenger), for the duty of Our Messenger is just to deliver the message.

67:25, 26 And they ask, “When shall the promise be fulfilled if you speak the Truth?” Say, “The knowledge of it is verily with God alone, and verily I am but a plain warner.”

60:8 Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just.

60:9 Allah only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection). It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong.

 

[jerry_h_1700]

Jerry,
Please provide the source reference to that letter to the Nazarenes. I’d like to check it out.

Thank you.

Rodrigo Bivar

The letter to the Nazarenes is kept in a museum in Damascus (not sure of the name of it), The letter to the St. Catherine Monastery is kept in the Monastery itself in their collection (which at one time was one of the largest collections of books in the world at the time after the Roman empire fell)

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Hoaxes. Neither of them are mentioned in the Islamic historical texts.

The St Catherine letter is only a ‘copy’ and a bad one at that. I have seen it with my own eyes. It is not real. The ‘original’ was supposed to have been taken back to Damascus but it doesn’t exist.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Jerry, before you quote the Quran willy-nilly please read the biography of Muhammad and the Quran.

Surah 9:29 is very clear - it compels Muslims to persecute Christians, and abrogates anything that was revealed before it.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

For crying out loud, read the rest of the thread, would you? Every assertion you just made has already been shot down.

I can’t help it that Ecclesiasticus 30 says what it does - or isn’t that in the Bible ? The CC thinks it is.​

As for what you quoted - if I’m so completely wrong, you should have no trouble whatever in proving it.

Or is the assertion that corporal punishment has played a part - & a big part at that - in child-rearing among Christians (Catholics included) a fantasy of this one poster, based on no historical evidence whatever ? You may have some trouble in “shooting down” that particular “assertion”; I don’t envy you the effort.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Okay, then show me something evil that the Church has done, or commanded its followers to do. You’re missing the point. Regardless of the evil a few Christians have done in the past, the Catholic Church has never advocated or commanded it. Those Christians were in breach of their faith.

And derail the thread ? That would be the result, because for some people it is axiomatic that the Church cannot do wrong. No amount of evidence can prevail against that sort of position - not even Papal apologies & Papal recognitions of wrongdoing, of which there are about 90.​

Your definition and mine are not mutually exclusive. If you want an actual dictionary definition, here’s one that supports us both:

hyp-o-crite
–noun

1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

A dictionary is hardly the best place to look, & that’s not exactly unambiguous - but you’re welcome to the point.​

I see a recommendation to spank your kid if he misbehaves. Oh, and just so you know, I’m not opposed to spanking, but I am opposed to actual beating.

How do you define them ? I think hitting children is despicable - especially so, if one is using an implement of some kind (which is my understanding of what is meant by “beating”). To deny that latter was routine in Christian countries for many centuries would simply be ignorant.​

It’s only fallacious if it’s untrue or you can’t back it up with evidence. And challenging those who slander you does not poison the wells, but letting those lies go unchallenged does.

It is fallacious even so, because it starts by blackening the character of the other erson or persons involved in the exchange of ideas & assertions. As is clear from J. H. Newman’s objection to a remark of Charles Kingsley’s, discussed here: philosophicalsociety.com/Logical%20Fallacies.htm#poisoning If I call someone a liar because his assertions are unacceptable to me for some reason (for instance, I might not like his politics) then I have “poisoned the well” - by branding him a liar, I need listen to nothing he says from then on, because all his attempts to clear his character or to make his case can be dismissed as more lies. That is why PTW is fallacious: it makes all attempts to show that one is not lying, utterly impossible; it kills all civilised argument stone dead.​

Um, it’s possible that I have completely lost my mind, but the last time I checked, lying automatically makes you wrong. Have the rules changed? If you meant something else by this, please clarify.

You’re collapsing the issue of truthfulness into that of accuracy - they are not the same. Nor are rules are the issue - drawing a distinction between two things that not identical, is. It is perfectly easy to say what is formally a lie (because it is intended to be a deceit) while saying what (unknown to the speaker) is in fact true. I hope that explains things. The assertion is in fact accurate - it is also untrue. Accuracy belongs to the statement, untruthfulness to the intention of the speaker; they can be found together.​

 

[cyberjacques]

It is fallacious even so, because it starts by blackening the character of the other erson or persons involved in the exchange of ideas & assertions. As is clear from J. H. Newman’s objection to a remark of Charles Kingsley’s, discussed here: philosophicalsociety.com/Logical%20Fallacies.htm#poisoning If I call someone a liar because his assertions are unacceptable to me for some reason (for instance, I might not like his politics) then I have “poisoned the well” - by branding him a liar, I need listen to nothing he says from then on, because all his attempts to clear his character or to make his case can be dismissed as more lies. That is why PTW is fallacious: it makes all attempts to show that one is not lying, utterly impossible; it kills all civilised argument stone dead.​

If someone has said something that is completely untrue, unless I have reason to believe that they said it out of true ignorance, I will call them a liar. I will also give them the chance to stop lying. I will not assume that everything they say henceforth is also a lie. But to ignore a lie or treat it as something else is immoral, and I won’t do it. Ignoring the lie is what makes civilized debate impossible, because you are allowing falsehoods to enter the conversation unchallenged, which poisons the well more than any hurt feelings ever could. And I never call someone a liar if they are merely expressing an opinion, since opinions are subjective. Lying only applies to facts.

You’re collapsing the issue of truthfulness into that of accuracy - they are not the same. Nor are rules are the issue - drawing a distinction between two things that not identical, is. It is perfectly easy to say what is formally a lie (because it is intended to be a deceit) while saying what (unknown to the speaker) is in fact true. I hope that explains things. The assertion is in fact accurate - it is also untrue. Accuracy belongs to the statement, untruthfulness to the intention of the speaker; they can be found together.​

This is essentially the same argument that Dan Rather and his supporters made after the memos regarding President Bush’s military service were shown to be forgeries. Their argument was that even though the documents were forged, the contents were the truth. Nobody bought that argument, and I’m not buying yours. How many times in the history of mankind do you think it has actually occurred that someone has told what they think is a lie, but it turns out to be true after all? Certainly not enough to base a logical argument on.

It sounds like you’re saying that not only can I not challenge liars because it might hurt their feelings, but that there’s an infinitesimal chance that they might actually be right and not know it, so I should just let it slide. Please tell me that’s not what you’re saying.

 

[ThomasLB]

This is essentially the same argument that Dan Rather and his supporters made after the memos regarding President Bush’s military service were shown to be forgeries. Their argument was that even though the documents were forged, the contents were the truth

Not exactly.

Not a single document was “proven” to be a forgery. Three documents, out of the scores that were presented, could not be verified. Even with the questionable documents thrown out, the preponderance of evidence showed that GWB used family influence to evade combat duty and “serve” in the cushy “champagne unit,” and was given preferential treatment even there.

Now back to your topic…

 

[cyberjacques]

Not exactly.

Not a single document was “proven” to be a forgery. Three documents, out of the scores that were presented, could not be verified. Even with the questionable documents thrown out, the preponderance of evidence showed that GWB used family influence to evade combat duty and “serve” in the cushy “champagne unit,” and was given preferential treatment even there.

Now back to your topic…

If you would like more information on the memo forgeries, I would suggest starting here:
creativepro.com/story/feature/21939.html?cprose=5-39
I stand by my comparison. It is logically flawed to say that the information is correct even if the source is lying.

I do agree, however, that the topic has begun to stray yet again.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

I see my post was either deleted or it is on another thread covering this same topic. What I was getting at was simply that if a man like Muhammad married a child, then it would make sense that he would discipline his child wife. And, I was wondering if this was the context of the command to discipline one’s wife came about in?

Aisha the Child Wife of Muhammad
By Ali Sina

The thought of an old man becoming aroused by a child is one of the most disturbing thoughts that makes us cringe as it reminds us of pedophilia and the most despicable people. It is difficult to accept that the Holy Prophet married Aisha when she was 6-years-old and consummated his marriage with her when she was 9. He was then, 54 years old.

faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/ayesha.htm

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

The Quran does not differentiate between beating adult as opposed to child wives. It just allows Muslims to beat their wives.

 

[dolphinlove]

This thought had crossed my mind, if a women does not respond to the ‘beatings’ what is the next step for the husband to take?

 

[famdigy]

This thought had crossed my mind, if a women does not respond to the ‘beatings’ what is the next step for the husband to take?

divorce

 

[AbeOman]

I see my post was either deleted or it is on another thread covering this same topic. What I was getting at was simply that if a man like Muhammad married a child, then it would make sense that he would discipline his child wife. And, I was wondering if this was the context of the command to discipline one’s wife came about in?

faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/ayesha.htm

Who is Ali Sina…? have you read or try to find any rebuttals to his lies and what he claims…? come on I expect more than that from you… or when slander Islam and Muslims anything goes…?

By the way, I have a question, don’t you realise that I can also do the same thing and slander Catholism or Christianity and use sordid and untruthful sources…! anyway, I would not do it since it’s forbidden by Islam in the first place…just get your facts and reasons right and think for yourself instead of folks like Ali Sina as he never being a Muslim…and I don’t think you can proof otherwise.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

None of the ‘so-called’ rebuttals to Ali Sina is even plausible.