B
Booklover
Guest
Preposterous to say the least!
- Status
O
Ortho
Guest
Could you tell us what is preposterous? I think he did a pretty good job.Preposterous to say the least!
B
Booklover
Guest
The whole thing about beating wives, what else! All these complex explanations to justify everything they do!
D
discipleofJesus
Guest
And when used in context of a human doing it to another human it pretty much close to always, if not always, means hit in a painful way!
R
r.gonzales
Guest
yet to you, “nushooz” is “highhandedness”? suuuuureee…
the word “idriboo” is in the form of a command to a group of males. it’s directed at the husbands telling them to “beat, strike, hit” their wives after the previous methods have failed. btw, thanks for the reference, i have the dictionary at home on my desk.
and that’s exactly the reason why all these masters of the arabic language who wrote exegeses for the Quran have explained it as i’ve quoted them?
let’s see, the verse says, “and those whose discord you fear” the word used in the verse is the word “nushooz” (and those whose nushooz you fear…) which means “discord, disunity, animosity, hostility, antipathy, dissonance, violation of marital duties, recalcitrance”.
at-tabaree states in his exegesis, “some of them (the people of interpretation) say its meaning is, 'and those whose discord you know of.” and the word khawf (fear) is changed in this place to 'ilm (knowledge) in this saying of theres … a group from the people of interpretation said, ‘the meaning of fear in this place is the fear that is the opposite of hope.’ they say, 'the meaning of that is if you see from them what you fear, that they are hostile towards you."
in tafseer al-muyassar, it states, “and those from whom you fear haughtiness from your obedience, then advise them with the good word. if the good word does not bear fruits from them, then boycott them in the bed and do not go near to them. then if the action of boycotting them leaves no effect, then hit them with a hitting that contains no harm. so if they obey you, then beware of oppressing them. for indeed, Allah, the High, the Great is their protector.”
as i said, this verse outlines a method of dealing with a wife who is causing discord within the family. obviously, if advising her has failed, boycotting her in the bed has failed, and it has reached to the point where hitting is now permitted, it’s not merely “fear of her causing problems”.
O
Ortho
Guest
Sometimes issues are complex. Try reading documents issued by the Vatican.
F
Faith101
Guest
I dont believe the girl should be executed for defending herself.
Now, you can post *another * bogus article defining what Islam is through the actions of a small number of people.
S
shockerfan
Guest
r.gonzales said:
Here is a summary of what I have learned so far:
- hitting your wife is OK, as long as you leave no marks and she deserved it.
- Allah blessed the marriage of a man in his fifties to a pre-pubescent child…and if you don’t understand the beauty of that then its due to the evil western influences
- It takes the word of two women to equal the word of one man due to PMS and other psycological conditions.
D
discipleofJesus
Guest
r.gonzales, your attempt to refute what I wrote on
post #47 forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1226045&postcount=47 and
post #48 forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1226065&postcount=48 under
(see posts #47 and #48 for details)
Men are allowed to hit their wives
Muhammad consumated marriage with a nine year old girl (Aisha) when he was 54 years
**
A woman is deficient in intelligence and religion and a woman’s testimony counts for half of a man’s testimony**
has failed.
Also, no one has attempted to refute what I wrote on post #47 under these headings
The Quran even permits men to men to marry prepubescent girls
Slave-girls as sexual property in the Quran and Muslims can rape their slave-girls
(see post #47 for details)
I would like to repeat what I wrote in post #47 here.
Muhammad consumated marriage with a nine year old girl (Aisha) when he was 54 years old and thus **not only ** commited this horrible/immoral act but also set the precedent for future Muslims to be allowed to marry young girls (since according to Islam, Muhammad is a excellent/good exemplar)
(see post #47 for details)
post #47 forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1226045&postcount=47 and
post #48 forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1226065&postcount=48 under
(see posts #47 and #48 for details)
Men are allowed to hit their wives
Muhammad consumated marriage with a nine year old girl (Aisha) when he was 54 years
**
A woman is deficient in intelligence and religion and a woman’s testimony counts for half of a man’s testimony**
has failed.
Also, no one has attempted to refute what I wrote on post #47 under these headings
The Quran even permits men to men to marry prepubescent girls
Slave-girls as sexual property in the Quran and Muslims can rape their slave-girls
(see post #47 for details)
I would like to repeat what I wrote in post #47 here.
Muhammad consumated marriage with a nine year old girl (Aisha) when he was 54 years old and thus **not only ** commited this horrible/immoral act but also set the precedent for future Muslims to be allowed to marry young girls (since according to Islam, Muhammad is a excellent/good exemplar)
(see post #47 for details)
D
discipleofJesus
Guest
on this thread forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=89778, r.gonzales told me (bold and underline emphasis mine) read it carefully
r.gonzales:
yet, r.gonzales wants to refute me by quoting scholars when he said “just because a **particular scholar or group of scholars ** say that the verse is abrogated doesn’t necessitate that this is truly the case. the evidence is what is to be followed” and that “to say that a particular verse has been abrogated requires proof, **whether from the Quran ** itself or from authentic hadeeths.”
I have provided the evidence from the Quran and the Hadith. r.gonzales has pretty much attempted to refute me by quoting scholars.
it seems that r.gonzales just chooses to teach from the Hadith when he thinks (in his opinion) it makes Islam look better, but when he thinks (in his opinion) that it makes Islam look worse he puts it aside and prefers to teach from scholars giving us the impression that scholars are more authoritive than the Hadith!
But guess what r.gonzales, not all Muslims follow what scholars say, in fact Muslims often dismiss what scholars say without hesitation, when you show them something from a scholar, saying things like ‘i don’t care about what this scholar said, show me from the Quran or Hadith’
well take your own advice r.gonzales
“just because a **particular scholar or group of scholars ** say that the verse is abrogated doesn’t necessitate that this is truly the case. the evidence is what is to be followed” and that “to say that a particular verse has been abrogated requires proof, **whether from the Quran ** itself or from authentic hadeeths.”
r.gonzales:
where in the Quran and/or where in the Hadith (narrating what Muhammad said) does it say to not hit your wife in a way that “does not break the bones” and “does not leave an effect” and “does not injure” and “do not strike her face” and to even " restrain themselves from beating their wives to a pulp"? Where is this “procedure to be followed and restrictions” in the Quran and/or Hadith?
also, if what you claim is true, why didn’t the author of the Quran mention this “procedure to be followed and restrictions” in the Quran so no one misunderstands this verse about hitting their wife/wives?
If you follow my posts on this thread carefully, you will see all my evidence pretty much comes from the Quran and the Hadith (and mainly from the Hadith collections that are considered most authentic by Sunni Muslims, Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim)
yet, r.gonzales wants to refute me by quoting scholars when he said “just because a **particular scholar or group of scholars ** say that the verse is abrogated doesn’t necessitate that this is truly the case. the evidence is what is to be followed” and that “to say that a particular verse has been abrogated requires proof, **whether from the Quran ** itself or from authentic hadeeths.”
I have provided the evidence from the Quran and the Hadith. r.gonzales has pretty much attempted to refute me by quoting scholars.
it seems that r.gonzales just chooses to teach from the Hadith when he thinks (in his opinion) it makes Islam look better, but when he thinks (in his opinion) that it makes Islam look worse he puts it aside and prefers to teach from scholars giving us the impression that scholars are more authoritive than the Hadith!
But guess what r.gonzales, not all Muslims follow what scholars say, in fact Muslims often dismiss what scholars say without hesitation, when you show them something from a scholar, saying things like ‘i don’t care about what this scholar said, show me from the Quran or Hadith’
well take your own advice r.gonzales
“just because a **particular scholar or group of scholars ** say that the verse is abrogated doesn’t necessitate that this is truly the case. the evidence is what is to be followed” and that “to say that a particular verse has been abrogated requires proof, **whether from the Quran ** itself or from authentic hadeeths.”
So here are some questions for you r.gonzales
where in the Quran and/or where in the Hadith (narrating what Muhammad said) does it say to not hit your wife in a way that “does not break the bones” and “does not leave an effect” and “does not injure” and “do not strike her face” and to even " restrain themselves from beating their wives to a pulp"? Where is this “procedure to be followed and restrictions” in the Quran and/or Hadith?
also, if what you claim is true, why didn’t the author of the Quran mention this “procedure to be followed and restrictions” in the Quran so no one misunderstands this verse about hitting their wife/wives?
C
Cyber_Knight
Guest
not makes difference but I have seen more than twice you winging about your conversion on this forum.
First, I know what adhominem is… I asked because you looked desperately trying to refute Bivar
and adhominem here and there
C
Cyber_Knight
Guest
Small number of people? they do it based on your Quran and hadith for gods sake!
D
discipleofJesus
Guest
Sahih Muslim
Book 004, Number 2127:
"Muhammad b. Qais said (to the people): Should I not narrate to you (a hadith of the Holy Prophet) on my authority and on the authority of my mother? We thought that he meant the mother who had given him birth. He (Muhammad b. Qais) then reported that it was 'A’isha who had narrated this: Should I not narrate to you about myself and about the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him)? We said: Yes. She said: When it was my turn for Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) to spend the night with me, he turned his side, put on his mantle and took off his shoes and placed them near his feet, and spread the corner of his shawl on his bed and then lay down till he thought that I had gone to sleep. He took hold of his mantle slowly and put on the shoes slowly, and opened the door and went out and then closed it lightly. I covered my head, put on my veil and tightened my waist wrapper, and then went out following his steps till he reached Baqi’. He stood there and he stood for a long time. He then lifted his hands three times, and then returned and I also returned. He hastened his steps and I also hastened my steps. He ran and I too ran. He came (to the house) and I also came (to the house). I, however, preceded him and I entered (the house), and as I lay down in the bed, he (the Holy Prophet) entered the (house), and said: Why is it, O 'A’isha, that you are out of breath? I said: There is nothing. He said: Tell me or the Subtle and the Aware would inform me. I said: Messenger of Allah, may my father and mother be ransom for you, and then I told him (the whole story). He said: Was it the darkness (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?.."
Did Aisha deserve to be hit for this? Why was she hit for?
Book 004, Number 2127:
"Muhammad b. Qais said (to the people): Should I not narrate to you (a hadith of the Holy Prophet) on my authority and on the authority of my mother? We thought that he meant the mother who had given him birth. He (Muhammad b. Qais) then reported that it was 'A’isha who had narrated this: Should I not narrate to you about myself and about the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him)? We said: Yes. She said: When it was my turn for Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) to spend the night with me, he turned his side, put on his mantle and took off his shoes and placed them near his feet, and spread the corner of his shawl on his bed and then lay down till he thought that I had gone to sleep. He took hold of his mantle slowly and put on the shoes slowly, and opened the door and went out and then closed it lightly. I covered my head, put on my veil and tightened my waist wrapper, and then went out following his steps till he reached Baqi’. He stood there and he stood for a long time. He then lifted his hands three times, and then returned and I also returned. He hastened his steps and I also hastened my steps. He ran and I too ran. He came (to the house) and I also came (to the house). I, however, preceded him and I entered (the house), and as I lay down in the bed, he (the Holy Prophet) entered the (house), and said: Why is it, O 'A’isha, that you are out of breath? I said: There is nothing. He said: Tell me or the Subtle and the Aware would inform me. I said: Messenger of Allah, may my father and mother be ransom for you, and then I told him (the whole story). He said: Was it the darkness (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?.."
Did Aisha deserve to be hit for this? Why was she hit for?
D
discipleofJesus
Guest
and it physically hurts them too.
S
stanley123
Guest
According to a sworn document filed in court by a Catholic p;riest, Father Robert Hoatson, the percentages are not small:"* The Vatican continues to describe homosexuality as a mental disorder when the Vatican is aware that over two-thirds of bishops, priests and religious in the United States are homosexual and are living homosexual lives."*
michnews.com/artman/publish/article_10804.shtml
michnews.com/article_12_13_05.shtml
*"*Pedophiles and predators in ministry and religious life have successfully sexually abused children for decades because of or due to the fear of exposure of actively homosexual bishops, archbishops, cardinals and a massive amount of and high percentage of actively homosexuals in ministry."
**
**
**
C
Cyber_Knight
Guest
Yes and those prists were commited sin. It is againts the law and church. They should get detention or something. Child molestation by the priests have become very controversial in the Catholic church nowdays. How ever, I know you were just trying to explain but you just plain tu quoque here. You could probably open a new thread about Child molestation by Priest and see how it goes in the catholic’s point of view here. it would be wise I guess. Thank you!
D
discipleofJesus
Guest
Within Sunni Islam, there are four Schools of Jurisprudence, Maliki, Shafi`i, Hanafi and Hanbali founded by four Imams. These Imams are Imam Malik, Imam Shafi, Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal.
Two of the the above (Imam Malik and Imam Shafi) believed sodomy with women was permissible or halal (lawful). Read the following quotes excerpted from answering-ansar.org/answers/private_lives/en/chap2.php
Imam of Ahl’ul Sunnah Abu Maleeka suggested ‘in times of trouble’ use a stick!
(underline emphasis mine)
B
Booklover
Guest
Bogus article?
D
discipleofJesus
Guest
my previous quote regarding Imam Sha’afi from answering-ansar.org/answers/private_lives/en/chap2.php i.e.
should be
R
r.gonzales
Guest
seems like you didn’t understand the purpose of my posts… perhaps you should re-read post #87. and so far, you’re proving my observations to be true.
nice bit of selective quoting there. if you notice, my statement there is with specific regard to the issue of abrogation. abrogation is a ruling that can only be made by Allah and His messenger, thus, if anyone wants to claim that a particular verse or hadeeth is abrogated, they need to bring evidence from the Quran and the authentic hadeeths to prove that.
we’re not talking about verses being abrogated here, we’re talking about Quranic interpretations. for that you turn to the books of Quranic exegesis written by competent muslim scholars such as ibn katheer, as-sa’dee, at-tabaree and others. you look to the statements made by prophet muhammad’s companions that are authentically attributed to them.
of those quotes i provided from the exegetes, ibn katheer quotes hadeeths, including narrations from ibn 'abbaas (prophet muhammad’s cousin and one of the most authoritative scholars in Quranic exegesis). as well, a good number of the 18 narrations quoted by at-tabaree in his exegesis of this verse are attributed to ibn 'abbaas and those who studied under him.
ibn katheer quotes (which i did not include in my posts above), from jaabir, from the prophet (s), that during the farewell pilgrimage he said, “fear Allah concerning the women. for surely, they are an aid for you. and you have a right upon them that no one who you dislike sets foot on your mats. for surely, if they do that, then hit them with a hitting that is not severe. and they have a right upon you; their provision and their clothing in what is customary.” saheeh muslim (1218).
and what is meant by “not severe” is explained in one of the narrations reported by at-tabaree which i alluded to above. in narration #9386 at-tabaree says: … from 'ataa, he said: i said to ibn 'abbaas, “what is hitting that is not severe?” he said, “the siwaak and similar to it, one hits her with it.” and in narration #9389 at-tabaree reports: … hajjaaj narrated to me, he said: Allah’s messenger (s) said, “do not boycott the women except in the beds, and hit them with a hitting that is not severe.” he says, “without effect.”
the procedure is outlined in the verse itself. that should be obvious to anyone who reads the verse. it says, “those whose nushooz (see various definitions for this word above) you fear, then admonish them, then boycott them in the beds, then hit them. so if they obey you, then do not seek againt them any means.”
no one is saying that islam doesn’t allow a husband to hit his wife, what is being said is that your assertions regarding this hitting are skewed and inaccurate and false. islam allows a husband to hit his wife as a last resort before divorce if she is displaying animosity and hostility, causing discord within the family. this hitting is not to be severe, should not break any bones, or leave any effects. then added to this is the general forbiddance in islam for hitting the face. there is also the principle in commanding the good and prohibiting the evil which states that if the harms outweigh the benefits, then commanding the good is prohibited. and these two points mentioned are applicable 100% of the time.
as for the stuff about sodomy, amusing how you’d turn to the shee’ah, a sect who allows sodomy despite the clear verse in the Quran regarding its forbiddance. even if what the information they convey is accurate—which i doubt—both imaam maalik and imaam ash-shaafi’ee said that if they say something contrary to what’s found in Allah’s book and in prophet muhammad’s sunnah, that their statements are to be rejected.
- Status