Are these allegations true? (Genuine question.)

[Broken Arrow]

I'm sure there have probably been many threads of this kind, so apologies. Nevertheless....I recently finished reading 'Infidel' by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, in which (I imagine the book is already familiar/infamous to many) she tells her life story; raised as a Muslim in Somalia, then her later loss of faith, emigration to Holland and entrance into the Dutch parliament. She went from being a devout Muslim to an uncompromising critic not only of Muslim people/countries/way of life, but of the Qu'ran, the Prophet Muhammad and Islam itself. The two main reasons for this, as far as I could see, were that (according to her) Islam itself involves promotion of;

a) Aggression towards non-Muslims
b) Subservience of women and their ill-treatment by men.


She mentions injunctions in the Qu'ran to wage holy war on infidels, and for husbands to beat wives who are not sufficiently submissive. She also relates a story that the Prophet Muhammad was promised a girl for a wife when she was age six, the marriage being consummated when the girl was nine, the Prophet being around age fifty-three.




Before reading this book, I generally preached tolerance towards all lifestyles, and that no-one really has the right to arrogantly and patronizingly criticise another culture, unless the oppressed in that culture were calling out for help (or could be assumed to be.) Now I'm not so sure. While I respect Islam as a religion and a cultural tradition, I would feel enjoined to speak out critically of the aforementioned elements if they are indeed true.

So that is my question, before I enter truly into this opinion; are the above fair accusations to level at Islam, or are they not representative of some/most/all Islam?

[Malaikah]

Firstly, I would like to thank you for being open minded enough to ask for the Muslims perspective before believing it unquestioningly.

I haven't got time to provide you with a complete answer, but the women is not truthful. She lies, exaggerates, takes thing out of context and goes completely out of her way to make the most decent things in Islam look bad. She mixes up culture and religion. She is foul-mouthed and does nothing but incite hatred.

a) Aggression towards non-Muslims

Context is important. If the non-Muslims are attacking the Muslims, then you can't possible expect us to let then go on with it without fighting back.

In general however Muslims are to treat non-Muslims well. The classic example sited here is that of the Prophet Muhammad's pbuh jewish neighbour. He used to throw insults at him and put his rubbish in his yard. But the Prophet didn't retaliate. One day the Prophet noticed the absence of the man (and his abuse) and so inquired about him, found that he was sick, and so went to visit him. The Jewish man was so astounded that he converted to Islam.

b) Subservience of women and their ill-treatment by men.

That is false. No one is allowed to treat any one badly. It is true that between husband and wife (only) husband is given the role of the leader of the family, so his word goes, however he must consult with his wife, consider her opinion and treat her well. Ill treatment is forbidden.

She mentions injunctions in the Qu'ran to wage holy war on infidels,

Probably taken out of context, and wars always have a reason. They never happen "just because".

and for husbands to beat wives who are not sufficiently submissive.

False, hitting the wife lightly in a way that does not cause harm and not on the face has been made permissible only as a last resort in the case of a manifestly disobedient wife who is indulging in some very wrong action.

She also relates a story that the Prophet Muhammad was promised a girl for a wife when she was age six, the marriage being consummated when the girl was nine, the Prophet being around age fifty-three.

That is correct, (although I am not sure how old the Prophet was, certainly 40+) however this was the cultural norm of the time, and was completely accepted. Age gaps didn't mean much to the Arabs of that time. Therefore we can't judge him based on the standards of our own time. Not to mention his wife loved him dearly, so I don't see one what bases anyone can object to this.

Hope that helps. :)

[The_Prince]

I'm sure there have probably been many threads of this kind, so apologies. Nevertheless....I recently finished reading 'Infidel' by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, in which (I imagine the book is already familiar/infamous to many) she tells her life story; raised as a Muslim in Somalia, then her later loss of faith, emigration to Holland and entrance into the Dutch parliament. She went from being a devout Muslim to an uncompromising critic not only of Muslim people/countries/way of life, but of the Qu'ran, the Prophet Muhammad and Islam itself. The two main reasons for this, as far as I could see, were that (according to her) Islam itself involves promotion of;

a) Aggression towards non-Muslims
b) Subservience of women and their ill-treatment by men.


She mentions injunctions in the Qu'ran to wage holy war on infidels, and for husbands to beat wives who are not sufficiently submissive. She also relates a story that the Prophet Muhammad was promised a girl for a wife when she was age six, the marriage being consummated when the girl was nine, the Prophet being around age fifty-three.




Before reading this book, I generally preached tolerance towards all lifestyles, and that no-one really has the right to arrogantly and patronizingly criticise another culture, unless the oppressed in that culture were calling out for help (or could be assumed to be.) Now I'm not so sure. While I respect Islam as a religion and a cultural tradition, I would feel enjoined to speak out critically of the aforementioned elements if they are indeed true.

So that is my question, before I enter truly into this opinion; are the above fair accusations to level at Islam, or are they not representative of some/most/all Islam?

that is abit of a paradoxal statement, since you live in a society full of what you just said your against, which is being bad to women and treating them as low class people, and on top of that your culture has a huge history up to this day of being agressive to minorities and people not of white origin.

so go on and speak out against it in your society, go speak out against strip bars, sex slaves, women selling themselves like trash on tv, the large number of assaults by men on women etc, on top of that go speak out against the daily racism that happens in scotland. that would be a good start for you instead of conerning yourself with Islam from the words of a lady who faked her citizenship and got deported by the netherlands! sheesh.

[Broken Arrow]

that is abit of a paradoxal statement, since you live in a society full of what you just said your against, which is being bad to women and treating them as low class people, and on top of that your culture has a huge history up to this day of being agressive to minorities and people not of white origin.

so go on and speak out against it in your society, go speak out against strip bars, sex slaves, women selling themselves like trash on tv, the large number of assaults by men on women etc, on top of that go speak out against the daily racism that happens in scotland. that would be a good start for you instead of conerning yourself with Islam from the words of a lady who faked her citizenship and got deported by the netherlands! sheesh.

Hey, steady on! As the previous poster was good enough to notice, I have obviously come here with an open mind, asking this question. The racism and sexism that has been, and still is (although to a lesser extent) prevalent in Britain is a great source of embarrassment and regret to both myself and the majority of the population. However, there is a difference; Britain today condemns any type of discrimination, whereas, at least as I was led to believe by Ali, this is not necessarily the case in Islam/Islamic countries. I do not deny that racism and sexism exist in Britain and/or the West generally, they certainly do. But the majority of people are appalled by these injustices, and the governments strongly condemn them. While I recognize the need to speak out against such things in my own country (and I do, thanks) what would be of more concern to me would be a state that actually sanctions such injustice, because in such a society there would not even be the chance of moving towards fairness.

Firstly, I would like to thank you for being open minded enough to ask for the Muslims perspective before believing it unquestioningly.

And you for answering me fairly.

It is true that between husband and wife (only) husband is given the role of the leader of the family, so his word goes, however he must consult with his wife, consider her opinion and treat her well.

False, hitting the wife lightly in a way that does not cause harm and not on the face has been made permissible only as a last resort in the case of a manifestly disobedient wife who is indulging in some very wrong action.

For the other things, I'll try and look up the scripture that was cited. For now, though, I have enough to disagree about in the above quotes! My main question is simply: why? Why would a man automatically take this role? Why is he more qualified to make decisions than his wife? And why is it permissible for a man to (however gently) strike his wife if she is 'disobedient'?

That is correct, (although I am not sure how old the Prophet was, certainly 40+) however this was the cultural norm of the time, and was completely accepted. Age gaps didn't mean much to the Arabs of that time. Therefore we can't judge him based on the standards of our own time.

Here it seems you almost commit yourself to agreeing with what I am about to say: If we can't judge things from a millennium and a half ago based on today's standards, and if the Prophet Mohammad merely reflects the 'cultural norm of his time', then why should we not judge all of Islam in this way? Why would we not apply the same reasoning to a strongly patriarchal system that was maybe suited to a desert-dwellers' society around 1500 years ago, but to many now seems to give women an unfair deal?

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Malaikah]

For the other things, I'll try and look up the scripture that was cited. For now, though, I have enough to disagree about in the above quotes! My main question is simply: why? Why would a man automatically take this role? Why is he more qualified to make decisions than his wife?

It isn't so much about qualification and the like. It is based on division of responsibilities based on what the genders are more capable of doing. I can't give you a definite answer to this one, however, in Islam the husband is given the duty of taking care of the family. He is responsible other his wife and children. He has to provide for them, so he is the one responsible for making the money and making sure everything is running well. This is the responsibility given to the husband. And I think you would appreciate that part of fulfilling this responsibility is having the rest of the family take you seriously and listen to you and let you have the final say. Otherwise how else can you fulfil your role?

That role can't be given to women, they have their own things to worry about, specifically looking after the kids. I don't think anyone in their right minds can doubt that it is the women who are innately built for this role, especially in early years. It would be a great burden then for the women to have the role of being mother and having authority and responsibility other the whole family.

But I would like to emphasis that in no way does this mean that the husband has to right to abuse his authority. That is clearly against the way of the Prophet. He used to treat his wives very well, always valued their opinions and would consult them and would go to great lengths to avoid hurting them. This is part of the husbands responsibility.

And why is it permissible for a man to (however gently) strike his wife if she is 'disobedient'?

But why not? If the alternative is divorce? The purpose of him hitting her (lightly) is a last resort effort to get the wife to come back to her senses, in a case where the alternative would be divorce, and the negative consequences of divorce would be much worse than that of a light hit.

Also note that the hitting can only take place when the husband is clearly in the right and the wife is wrong, and wrong is something very serious that it would require the husband to go to great lengths to try to correct, that the husband has already tried talking to his wife and failed, he has abandoned her bed in the attempt to make her see the seriousness of the situation and this has also failed, and then, and only then would it be permissible for him to hit her lightly as a last resort.

What you should notice here is that Islam has actually places a major restriction on domestic violence and totally forbids it, thereby protecting women. If you understand this you should also be able to understand why it is a blatant lie for people to claim that Islam allows wife beating.

Here it seems you almost commit yourself to agreeing with what I am about to say: If we can't judge things from a millennium and a half ago based on today's standards, and if the Prophet Mohammad merely reflects the 'cultural norm of his time', then why should we not judge all of Islam in this way? Why would we not apply the same reasoning to a strongly patriarchal system that was maybe suited to a desert-dwellers' society around 1500 years ago, but to many now seems to give women an unfair deal?

Not quite. :) Islam is a religion that Allah intended to last until the last day, and it was designed as such.

In principle a man is perfectly with in his rights to marry a girl of any age as long as she has reached puberty (I don't know if this applies to very extreme cases where the girl might reach puberty at say, five because of a defect). Similarly an older woman may marry a much younger boy as well, provided he has reached the age of puberty.

Some may argue that this can lead to abuse of the child, and that is rather correct. In the context of the Prophets society, there was nothing to worry about. The context of most modern societies, most people would be worried that the man is a paedophile, and rightly so because it is something extremely unusual for this day and age. Islamic law is flexible enough to take into account such social variations, and it would be permissible for government institutions to place restrictions on the age of marriage based important social elements, in order to protect the young girl.

But keep in mind that this does not mean we are changing Islam to suit something else, rather such flexibilities are already a part of Islamic law.

Oh, and by the way, I am a Muslim woman and I have never ever felt like Islam has given me an unfair deal. Rather I am proud of the protection and honour Islam has bestowed upon women, and had given us important rights well before other societies received them.

Hope that helps!:)

[Broken Arrow]

It isn't so much about qualification and the like. It is based on division of responsibilities based on what the genders are more capable of doing. I can't give you a definite answer to this one, however, in Islam the husband is given the duty of taking care of the family. He is responsible other his wife and children. He has to provide for them, so he is the one responsible for making the money and making sure everything is running well. This is the responsibility given to the husband. And I think you would appreciate that part of fulfilling this responsibility is having the rest of the family take you seriously and listen to you and let you have the final say. Otherwise how else can you fulfil your role?

That role can't be given to women, they have their own things to worry about, specifically looking after the kids. I don't think anyone in their right minds can doubt that it is the women who are innately built for this role, especially in early years. It would be a great burden then for the women to have the role of being mother and having authority and responsibility other the whole family.

But I would like to emphasis that in no way does this mean that the husband has to right to abuse his authority. That is clearly against the way of the Prophet. He used to treat his wives very well, always valued their opinions and would consult them and would go to great lengths to avoid hurting them. This is part of the husbands responsibility.

I appreciate that you say you can't give me a definite answer, but then....there does indeed seem to be no answer as to how it is fair that it will always be assumed that the man is 'head of the family' and has the final say. You say that it is based on what the different genders are more capable of doing, but I don't really see the basis for such an assumption. Can there not be women who are suited to earning the family's income and making important decisions? Can there not be a couple who work best as equal wage-earners and decision-makers? Surely it's not written in stone what men and women's natural 'roles' are? And why may men have more than one wife, but not vice versa? (Unless that isn't true?)

Quote:
And why is it permissible for a man to (however gently) strike his wife if she is 'disobedient'?

But why not? If the alternative is divorce?

This I strongly disagree with. Firstly, I think that there is no situation between two people that cannot be solved by mature and equal discussion. If there is a situation that cannot be resolved, then a parting of the ways is far preferable to resorting to violence. Firstly, I think that domestic violence has at least as many bad consequences as divorce; it can (and should, really) lead to resentment on the part of the person being subjected to violence, it is deeply traumatic for the children if they are aware of their parents physically fighting, it teaches children that if a conflict cannot be resolved through words, violence will do, and it also leaves substantial room for abuse of the rule and thus abuse of the wife. Secondly, it doesn't actually solve anything at all - a husband hitting a wife to make her obey is a very different thing to a solution; it is simply a wife obeying, without anything being resolved. I don't really understand the horror towards divorce - sure its a terrible and sad thing, but I think that a situation where feelings are pressed down and the wife simply obeys a husband following the use of hitting is a much less healthy alternative for both the couple and the children.

Also note that the hitting can only take place when the husband is clearly in the right and the wife is wrong, and wrong is something very serious that it would require the husband to go to great lengths to try to correct, that the husband has already tried talking to his wife and failed, he has abandoned her bed in the attempt to make her see the seriousness of the situation and this has also failed, and then, and only then would it be permissible for him to hit her lightly as a last resort.

I'm sorry, but I just don't think that it should ever need to go to those lengths. If a wife has done something sufficiently offensive to the husband - had an affair, beaten a child etc. then perhaps a divorce is for the best. Plus, if a man had been similarly bad - would it be ok for the wife to hit him to 'bring him to his senses'?

[aamirsaab]

:sl:

...Can there not be women who are suited to earning the family's income and making important decisions? Can there not be a couple who work best as equal wage-earners and decision-makers?

Yes for both questions

Surely it's not written in stone what men and women's natural 'roles' are?

No they are not. However certain genders are more suited to certain jobs in terms of phsyiology and psychology.

And why may men have more than one wife, but not vice versa? (Unless that isn't true?)

Ah polygamy - this always manages to get into a thread. Basically, 4 is the maximum one CAN have, provided one is actually able to fund/care for each of the wives. It is not obligatory to have more than one wife. Polyandery (many husbands to one wife) generally occurs in low economical areas so it is more of a cultural thing - I'm not sure what the islamic ruling is on this though (I don't think there is one at all)

This I strongly disagree with. Firstly, I think that there is no situation between two people that cannot be solved by mature and equal discussion.

Absolutely.

If there is a situation that cannot be resolved, then a parting of the ways is far preferable to resorting to violence.

Indeed. I believe the verse you are refering to actually has different interpretations, one of them being that it doesn't mean literally hit them. Unfortunately not everyone who reads that verse actually understands it properly.

I'm sorry, but I just don't think that it should ever need to go to those lengths. If a wife has done something sufficiently offensive to the husband - had an affair, beaten a child etc. then perhaps a divorce is for the best.

Indeed. It is not comulsory to hit your wife :p.

Plus, if a man had been similarly bad - would it be ok for the wife to hit him to 'bring him to his senses'?

It would be equally wrong.

[جوري]

we get a new one of these every few weeks... a new avant-garde crusader comes to ask the questions that us Muslims like to hide in the closet... eh I think I'll sit this one out while assuming an incurably servile "female-type" role...

peace!

[Bittersteel]

a) Aggression towards non-Muslims

search for Misquoted verses of the Quran in the forum search.
about the military conquests done by Muslims,imposition of religion/culture it was done by everyone else centuries ago even by the noble Dutch and the British.
I am not trying to justify.It's that those military conquests and aggression were rather the personal ambition of leaders.
The Spread of Islam has not always been by the sword.There had been many peaceful conversions like in the SouthEast regions of Asia if I am not mistaken.

[Malaikah]

Before I continue, I would like to point out something very important here. A person does not choose a religion, or follow a religion based on secondary issues, such as those that we are discussing here. It would be impossible, our minds are way to limited and subjective to ever be able to tell which religion is best based on these kinds of issues, especially because only God knows best what it is better for us. Rather we choose a religion based on which religion has the best theology, i.e. the belief system. Islam wins in that respect, hands down. Once a person accepts that Islam is a divine religion sent down to humanity by God, then they have no choice but to accept that the rulings of the religion come from God and are best for us, even if we can not always see it that way.

I appreciate that you say you can't give me a definite answer, but then....there does indeed seem to be no answer as to how it is fair that it will always be assumed that the man is 'head of the family' and has the final say. You say that it is based on what the different genders are more capable of doing, but I don't really see the basis for such an assumption. Can there not be women who are suited to earning the family's income and making important decisions? Can there not be a couple who work best as equal wage-earners and decision-makers? Surely it's not written in stone what men and women's natural 'roles' are? And why may men have more than one wife, but not vice versa? (Unless that isn't true?)

How are women meant to provide for the family when they are prgnant and looking after their little babies? To force them to would be just cruel. That doesn't mean they can't work, they have the right to, but they can't be forced to.

And no, women can not have multiple husbands mainly for the simple reason of not being able know who the father of the child is. Now one might argue that we have genetic testing now to be able to tell, but this is only a new invention and is not accessible to much of the world anyway, and does not solve many other issues. For example, if the husbands both want to have kids they have to wait for the wife to finish with the first child, which is about nine months for the pregnancy about at least a month before another child can be conceived, and the rivalry between the husbands would be unbelievable, and difficult for the woman to control, especially during emotional times such as pregnancy and when the child is still young. There are many other reasons, which I am sure should be obvious if you just think about it a little more.

Also, through history you will find that the norm has always been for men to have multiple wives, never the other way around. This is because men are more able to fulfil their role of as head of the family, protector and provider even if they have multiple wives, but it just doesn't work the other way around.

This I strongly disagree with. Firstly, I think that there is no situation between two people that cannot be solved by mature and equal discussion.

I think it would be impossible for you, or anyone else, to know that.

If there is a situation that cannot be resolved, then a parting of the ways is far preferable to resorting to violence.

Not always.

Firstly, I think that domestic violence has at least as many bad consequences as divorce; it can (and should, really) lead to resentment on the part of the person being subjected to violence, it is deeply traumatic for the children if they are aware of their parents physically fighting, it teaches children that if a conflict cannot be resolved through words, violence will do, and it also leaves substantial room for abuse of the rule and thus abuse of the wife.
Secondly, it doesn't actually solve anything at all - a husband hitting a wife to make her obey is a very different thing to a solution; it is simply a wife obeying, without anything being resolved. I don't really understand the horror towards divorce - sure its a terrible and sad thing, but I think that a situation where feelings are pressed down and the wife simply obeys a husband following the use of hitting is a much less healthy alternative for both the couple and the children.

Firstly, the husband and wife would be idiotic to let the children see. Secondly, we are talking about very light hitting only, in a manner that doesn't cause harm and as a last resort, wife the aim of knocking her wife back into her senses, and only if the husband thinks it will be effective. This is not domestic violence.

There is no room to abuse this rule with out deliberately twisting it and knowing that what he is doing is wrong. Such a person clearly doesn't care about following the religion properly and would probably hit his wife just to satisfy his anger, whether the religion forbade it or not. (and no, he is not allowed to hit his wife just to satisfy his anger).

I'm sorry, but I just don't think that it should ever need to go to those lengths. If a wife has done something sufficiently offensive to the husband - had an affair, beaten a child etc. then perhaps a divorce is for the best. Plus, if a man had been similarly bad - would it be ok for the wife to hit him to 'bring him to his senses'?

But no one has made you a spokesperson for the billion or so couples out there and their billion or so different situations. At least statistically speaking there would be situations where this would be effective. If you really think divorce is better than a light hit than you clearly don't understand how traumatic and negative the effects of divorce can be, especially on the children.

As you have already mentioned, in most cases, all it really takes is for the husband and wife to sit down and talk things over to fix the problem. This is what Islam tells couples to do first, and only if that doesn't work are they to move on to stage two. So then even you would have to admit that it would very rare for couples to even reach the step about hitting lightly.

And no, the wife doesn't hit the husband, any one should be able to understand why. Many men are arrogant that way and are likely to hit back. How is that a protection for women?

[Intisar]

LOL Ayan Hirsi herself has proven to be a money-hungry idiot to not only to Muslims, but not to Non-Muslims as well. You can find many contradictions between all of her books, you should take nothing she says into consideration.

She is just repeating the same b/s we Muslims hear all the time, and it falls on deaf ears each time. :D

I doubt she actually took the time to think through her allegiations towards Islam. She's just another blind idiot in it for the money.

As for your above statements, I was going to take the time to rebut each of them..but I see the work is already done. :D

[Malaikah]

:sl:

^That is right sis. :) Honestly, after she started describing herself as a "Muslim atheist", I can't believe that anyone actually takes anything she says seriously.

[Trumble]

Secondly, we are talking about very light hitting only, in a manner that doesn't cause harm and as a last resort, wife the aim of knocking her wife back into her senses, and only if the husband thinks it will be effective. This is not domestic violence.

Yes it is. It really is terribly sad you seem think otherwise.

[rav]

And no, the wife doesn't hit the husband, any one should be able to understand why. Men are arrogant that way and a re likely to hit back. How is that a protection for women?

Excuse me? Are you labeling men as so arrogant that they will hit a women if she ever hit us? I'm not sure what kind of assumptions you have of men, but I assure you that it is insulting for you to label me (as a male), as someone who would ever be so "arrogant" as you put it.

Could you also provide me with such an Islamic text of how men are labeled "arrogant"?

[Malaikah]

Sorry rav I don't mean to offend.

I didn't mean it as a sweeping generalisation (although I realise now that is how it came across).

I just meant to say there a some men, and I believe they are a significant amount, who will hit back if a woman ever dared to hit them, especially those very influenced by their culture where they see men as superior to women.

And I am sure we can all appreciate that the danger to the wife of a husband hitting back is much greater than that danger to the husband if the wife were to hit back (in general).

Yes it is. It really is terribly sad you seem think otherwise.

Well, I will take God's law over man's law any day.

[Broken Arrow]

we get a new one of these every few weeks... a new avant-garde crusader comes to ask the questions that us Muslims like to hide in the closet... eh I think I'll sit this one out while assuming an incurably servile "female-type" role...

peace!

I'm just going to re-post this there so you can read it back to yourself and see how immature it is.

If all you feel you can manage is to be presumptuous and offensive then why not just keep your thoughts to yourself? I have not come here with some petty hope of 'making Muslims feel uncomfortable' or something. I have just read some things that trouble me, and I would like to hear it from 'the horse's mouth' as it were, before I come to any conclusions. Reading the OP (and charitably) would have helped.

For example, aamirsaab if what you say is true then I am indeed heartened. How representative do you think what you describe is of all Islam? I mean, are the accusations just total fabrications, or do they apply to only certain parts of the world or what? (I appreciate that you've given me answers largely to do with the Qu'ran and I'm now asking about various cultures.)

But no one has made you a spokesperson for the billion or so couples out there and their billion or so different situations.

Well I won't make the obvious reply here, since I appreciate that then the debate soon becomes about the existence of Allah, and that isn't (strictly) what this is about. All I can do is try and speak genuinely about how I see things. I don't see a problem with people doing that if it can lead to enlightened discussion and sharing of ideas.

She is just repeating the same b/s we Muslims hear all the time, and it falls on deaf ears each time.

When criticisms 'fall on deaf ears each time' is perhaps when people start to mutter about 'dogmatism' etc.

I doubt she actually took the time to think through her allegiations towards Islam. She's just another blind idiot in it for the money.

Well look...I'm not going to get all righteously indignant on Ali's behalf, I don't really know anything about her or her motivations. But this is someone who fled things that (to me, at least, with respect) seem horrific ie. female circumcision, arranged and unwilling marriage, and that, at least in her life experience, appeared to be directly sanctioned by Islam. To call her a 'blind idiot in it for the money' and to say that her criticisms will always fall on deaf ears serves to make her argument appear much more cogent.

Honestly, after she started describing herself as a "Muslim atheist", I can't believe that anyone actually takes anything she says seriously.

I have never seen that description, but I'll take your word for it. Nowadays, as far as I can see, she refers to herself simply as 'atheist'. Perhaps she was referring to her being culturally 'Muslim' but in terms of belief, athiest?


Malaikah, my main problem is that your arguments, reasonable as they are, seem largely to be based around what will 'work out best' or something. It works best if a man is the head of the house, it solves a problem if a man gently hits his wife to end a dispute, and this is better than divorce, which is messy, sad and riven with bad consequences....

Obviously I cannot claim to be objectively right, as I said, I can only say how I feel....and I'm just being painted a picture of a marriage where the functioning of the family unit is put above all else. Perhaps you think this is right; I am not so sure. If a man has hitting, even only as a very last resort, to resolve disputes, and a woman will always be expected to demur to her husband, then I can't see how a healthy and loving marriage can arise from this. I know this is just my opinion, I can't speak for etc etc...but my experience of relationships is that the only healthy way for them to function is if neither person has precedence, and arguments are allowed to happen. (I know you'll say that this can happen in Islamic marriages as well.) But if an argument seems never-ending, then perhaps an impasse has been reached between the two people, at which point it would be healthier to separate rather than sidestep or repress the problem.

[glo]

we get a new one of these every few weeks... a new avant-garde crusader comes to ask the questions that us Muslims like to hide in the closet... eh I think I'll sit this one out while assuming an incurably servile "female-type" role...

peace!

By the very nature of this forum, newcomers will come with their individual questions ... some of which will be repeated over and over.
(Believe me, I feel like that when with every thread that is started about the trinity ... you get that sinking feeling ... :D )

It looks to me like Broken Arrow is asking some genuine questions, and we should give him a chance to do so, and reply with patience and kindness. :)

I think you are very wise, Ambrosia - if someone is not in the right frame of mind to enter discussions with patience and kindness, it may be better to stay out of it.

Welcome, Broken Arrow!
I hope you enjoy your stay here, and find some answers to your questions.

Peace

[IbnAbdulHakim]

a) Aggression towards non-Muslims

First of all thank you for taking time to find out the truth, may Allah bless you with his divine guidance.

The Quran has many quotes such as "kill the disbelievers wherever you see them", an ayyat quoted very infamously yet seems to always be out of context. You see this was actually during a war in which the jews betrayed the muslims, so naturally the general of the muslim army feared for the muslims being slaughtered and thus called for the traitors to be executed. It is understandable for traitors to be executed, especially those who betray the trust of God and his Messenger sallallahi alaihi wasallaam.

Other then that islam teaches to be merciful, just, and forebearing. But dont expect the muslims to hold patience too long, we are also taught to stand up for ourselves against oppression, and stand up for our brothers and sisters (other muslims around the world) if they be oppressed ! Standing up here could indeed mean fight for them, but for that we need a whole state ready and we need scholars to research on the matter and declare it. So far this hasnt happened for a long time... so relax :p.

If you read history of islam you may find that during the caliphate of Umar ibn Al-Khattab the ummah had expanded far to the east and west submitting all the countries to islam, this happened when muslims all over where being oppressed and could not follow their religion properly, they were forced to either hide their faith or follow the religion of the country in which they abided so the muslims had no choice but to spread islam, and muslims always gave a choice for those under their protection to practise their religion freely. This was only to stop oppression and spread the message, you see the people were given a choice, they could either pay the jizya (which is a tax which goes COMPLETELY to the poor and needy and only the rich may pay this, and try to understand that this jizya goes even to non-muslims in all fairness, this was a plan from Allah to stop world hunger if only the people would submit) and if the people did not pay jizya then they must be prepared to fight! (look at this noble cause, the muslims are willing to fight for the better of all the poor people, is this not beautiful?)

b) Subservience of women and their ill-treatment by men.

lol sorry i find this one so funny, i recall jewish womens treatment, and even secular womens treatment and when i compare and contrast i cant help but laugh at this statement. We are taught to treat our women with the utmost dignity, love them, take care of them. Please take some time out to read how the prophet sallallahi alaihi wasallaam treated his beloved fatimah (his daughter radhiallahu ta'ala anhu) and how he treated his wives and how he encouraged the treatment of the mother. He would always get up for his daughter out of respect, once his suckling mother approached at old age and he stepped back to lay the shawl for her out of respect so she sits comfortably, he would always keep his breath fresh with siwaak out of love for his wives so they do not get harmed. These are just a few petty examples, but it amazes me that when islam allows a light hitting due to excessive disobedience and indulgence in whats forbidden people start getting shocked. why do people always love to question Gods divine knowledge like they know it all, do you not know the treatment of other men, how common is wifebeating even amongst the non-muslims, how common is the ill-treatment and idolising of women. treating women like objects etc, islam diminishes all of this yet people slander it.
and it is indeed slander for it is taken completely out of context and taken out of its frame, it is twisted and perverted what they say. May Allah grant us all guidance and keep us away from their lies.

Ameen ya rabb..

[Malaikah]

I have never seen that description, but I'll take your word for it. Nowadays, as far as I can see, she refers to herself simply as 'atheist'. Perhaps she was referring to her being culturally 'Muslim' but in terms of belief, athiest?

She mentioned it in an interview once, and she explained it to mean roughly what you said- but just that attitude, to think someone can be Muslim by culture just goes to show that she doesn't understand what it means to be Muslim at all. At the end of the day being Muslim is about how you feel inside before anything else, it doesn't matter how Muslim you feel or look, if you are not Muslim on the inside then it means nothing.

Malaikah, my main problem is that your arguments, reasonable as they are, seem largely to be based around what will 'work out best' or something.

I am not really sure what you mean here. :)

Obviously I cannot claim to be objectively right, as I said, I can only say how I feel....and I'm just being painted a picture of a marriage where the functioning of the family unit is put above all else.

If you mean that you are getting the impression that Islam gives high priority to the function of the family, then yes that is indeed the case.

Perhaps you think this is right; I am not so sure. If a man has hitting, even only as a very last resort, to resolve disputes, and a woman will always be expected to demur to her husband, then I can't see how a healthy and loving marriage can arise from this. I know this is just my opinion, I can't speak for etc etc...but my experience of relationships is that the only healthy way for them to function is if neither person has precedence, and arguments are allowed to happen. (I know you'll say that this can happen in Islamic marriages as well.) But if an argument seems never-ending, then perhaps an impasse has been reached between the two people, at which point it would be healthier to separate rather than sidestep or repress the problem.

But of course you are correct. No one is implying that the hit itself is actually meant to do anything other than try to get the wife to see the seriousness of the situation at hand. The hit isn't meant to solve the problem itself, how can it? And if after that things still do not work out, then of course they can divorce. The hit might or might not be effective at softening the wife, and if it doesn't work, and the couple can't see how they can continue together with such a difference between them, then it is up to them to seek divorce if they feel that is what they need.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

(Believe me, I feel like that when with every thread that is started about the trinity ... you get that sinking feeling ... :D )

lol respected Glo, i never get this feeling, infact i get happy and think, time to tell someone else the TRUTH!! may Allah guide one and all Ameen! :D

[aamirsaab]

:sl:
I like building bridges, I like building bridges. Wooooyeah!

[snip]...For example, aamirsaab if what you say is true then I am indeed heartened.

I have a habit of getting that reaction from people. Blessing not a curse :p.

How representative do you think what you describe is of all Islam? I mean, are the accusations just total fabrications, or do they apply to only certain parts of the world or what? (I appreciate that you've given me answers largely to do with the Qu'ran and I'm now asking about various cultures.)

The thing is I can only go on what I have seen/experienced so I cannot and do not speak for every muslim on this planet (that is worthy of an entire new thread). But I will attempt an answer. From my experiences the stuff I have stated in my previous post stands true - I know of atleast 250 or so muslims who pretty much follow Islam the way I and my family does. Though I also stated and do readily admit that not every muslim interprets the teachings in the appropriate way (i.e. one that promotes equity amongst all).

So the accusations are kinda half and half in regards to being fabrications; for some it is merely fabrication and for others it is not - the exact amount I could not tell you though. However, I do have relatives in other cultures and those also have the same understanding of Islam as I do (truth be told, it was I who adopted the understanding from them).

I guess it's kind of a mixture between culture and one's own interpretation.
I myself just go into situations with the understanding that Islam promotes equity no matter the gender, race or colour and I know for a fact that how I am with people (in general) IS part of the teachings of Islam and that I'm not only fulfilling my duties as a muslim, but as a human being. It's all good :D

I hope I provided you with an answer.

[glo]

lol respected Glo, i never get this feeling, infact i get happy and think, time to tell someone else the TRUTH!! :D

That's a very admirable attitude, brother.
Perhaps I am getting to old and tired to have that kind of energy ... :D

may Allah guide one and all Ameen!

Amen to that! May He indeed guide us all, and lead us in His true ways ...

Peace

[Malaikah]

Indeed. I believe the verse you are refering to actually has different interpretations, one of them being that it doesn't mean literally hit them. Unfortunately not everyone who reads that verse actually understands it properly.

:sl:

I am just curious, what basis does this opinion have? Because the Quran is meant to be taken literally unless their is a reason not to, so for them to say that it does not to hit them, then there must be an edivence for that.

Looking forward to your reply.

[aamirsaab]

:sl:

:sl:

I am just curious, what basis does this opinion have? Because the Quran is meant to be taken literally unless their is a reason not to, so for them to say that it does not to hit them, then there must be an edivence for that.

Looking forward to your reply.

Ah sorry that was my mistake. I meant that the ''beat'' part of that verse is not to be taken literally (i.e. you don't attack your wife with a barge pole or something stupid like that) - the interpretation that I have been taught is you basically touch your wife i.e. hand on their shoulder type of thing.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

:sl:
Because the Quran is meant to be taken literally unless their is a reason not to, .

to take it literally many times means take it out of context tho... like if you just took the verse i quoted out of context at face value your taking it way to literally thus misleading lots of people.

but in the case of the hitting, im sure theres a story behind it, and i wish i knew what it was...

[Umar001]

I don't think there's time for me to try answer the points plus many are better than I at this, I'm sure you will see them scattered through the forum.

I will say though, when we see such topics arise, what I see, is that they are emotional topics, 'wife beating' that alone is sure to send alot of people's heart racing, but when one does look at it in its totality, they'd be hard pressed to refer to it as wife beating. Or the issue of pedophilia, as soon as someone hears '9 year old' their hair raises on ends, it's the emotional side of us, which happens to a non muslim as well as a Muslim when they hear 9 year old wife. But in my experience it has been more accepted once explained. The issue of Jihad, again is a similar matter.

That's something I try to bare in mind when speaking on such topics.

[Basirah]

You see this was actually during a war in which the jews betrayed the muslims, so naturally the general of the muslim army feared for the muslims being slaughtered and thus called for the traitors to be executed.

Can you explain to me how the treaty was signed? Please check out Abi Dawud. Thanks in advance.

[Malaikah]

Ah sorry that was my mistake. I meant that the ''beat'' part of that verse is not to be taken literally (i.e. you don't attack your wife with a barge pole or something stupid like that) - the interpretation that I have been taught is you basically touch your wife i.e. hand on their shoulder type of thing.

:sl:

Oh, right, I get you now.

to take it literally many times means take it out of context tho... like if you just took the verse i quoted out of context at face value your taking it way to literally thus misleading lots of people.

but in the case of the hitting, im sure theres a story behind it, and i wish i knew what it was...

Are you sure? :? I thought being taken literally takes into account the context too?

Also, I checked ibn kathirs tafsir and no story is mentioned.

[asadxyz]

:sl:


The Ayah which is usually referred to for "beating or wives " is as follows :
وَاللاَّتِي تَخَافُونَ نُشُوزَهُنَّ فَعِظُوهُنَّ وَاهْجُرُوهُنّ َ فِي الْمَضَاجِعِ وَاضْرِبُوهُنَّ

As for women of whom you fear rebellion, admonish them, and remain apart from them in beds, and beat them. (4:34)

First of all we should know background of Islamic society. Then we will be able to understand the exact meaning of this Ayah.

Islam believes in "Family unit" in which there is must be harmony and understanding so that the children which are the future asset of the Islamic Umma, are grown up in a conducive atmosphere. This atmosphere is essential for the psychological and moral health of the children.
Now coming back to Ayah ,let me say there are two important words in it
Nashooz = نشوزWazriboohunna = واضربوهن
Unless we exactly understand these words we will not be able to conceive the exacting message which this ayah wants to convey;
Nashooz = نشوز

Mufradaat Ul Quran by Imam Raghib Isfahaani .
This word has been derived from this root
- نشز=النشز: المرتفع من الأرض-
Literal meaning is rising from the Earth .Now coming to the meaning in the Ayah. In Arabic it is said ;
- نشزت المرأة = The woman became Recalcitrant
-

وقوله تعالى: {واللآتي تخافون نشوزهن} <النساء/34> ونشوز المرأة: بغضها لزوجها ورفع نفسها عن طاعته، وعينها عنه إلى غيره،
Hatred for the husband,became disobedient and neglecting him and looking to anyone else.
This attitude clearly indicates the immoral and rebellious on the part of the wife.
Now what is the remedy??

Remedy No 1:
Divorce her right away: Is this correct attitude that without an attempt to treat the disease you amputate the limb? I do not think it is considered to be a rational approach.
Remedy No 2:
Involve the Court and Society: Naturally in this attempt dignity and honor which Islam has given to woman is compromised .Her reputation is going to be affected.So this is also not very much acceptable.
Remedy No : 3
Take some remedial steps in the premises of the house , so that problem is solved without letting others know So here comes the steps which the Quran has mentioned.
Firstly =
Make her understand with love and examples
Secondly:
If the first fails then you can leave the bed rooms
Thirdly: = واضربوهن

Now the question is what is ضرب
According to محيط المحيط
الضرب= ايقاع الشئ علي الشئ وباقى المعاني متفرع منه
Alzarab = Dropping of anything on another thing. Rest of meanings branch from this concept.

According to AlMawrid (Arabic to English Dictionary)
ضرب = To beat ,strike, hit; to knock punch; to slap.flap; to TAP
Now we need to decide which meaning to adopt. For it we need to interpret it in the light of teachings of the Holy Quran and Sunna.
The Holy Quran says :
وَلَقَدْ كَرَّمْنَا بَنِي آدَمَ(17:70)
It is a favour that We have honoured the sons(all off springs of ) Adam.
The Holy Prophet (PBUH) explained it very nicely

&#171;وَاتَّقُوا اللهَ فِي النِّسَاءِ، فَإِنَّهُنَّ عِنْدَكُمْ عَوَانٍ، وَلَكُمْ عَلَيْهِنَّ أَنْ لَا يُوطِئْنَ فُرُشَكُمْ أَحَدًا تَكْرَهُونَهُ،فَإِنْ فَعَلْنَ ذَلِكَ فَاضْرِبُوهُنَّ ضَرْبًا غَيْرَ مُبَرِحٍ، وَلَهُنَّ عَلَيْكُمْ رِزْقُهُنَّ وَكِسْوَتُهُنَّ بِالْمَعْرُوف&#187;
(Fear Allah regarding women, for they are your assistants. You have the right on them THAT THEY DO NOT ALLOW ANY PERSON WHOM YOU DISLIKE TO STEP ON YOUR MAT. However, if they do that, you are allowed to DISCIPLINE THEM LIGHTLY. They have a right on you that you provide them with their provision and clothes, in a reasonable manner.)
(Ibne kathir)
So in the light of these clarifications it can be said very confidently that word ضرب does not means "Beating or striking '. Rather it means "tapping".
Now the question is what is the use of this "tapping"? Will it correct the situation? The answer is may be or may not be. Because it is just a toke of resentment or anger or warning for the wife that her action is detrimental for the family and it should be rectified.
:w:

[جوري]

I'm just going to re-post this there so you can read it back to yourself and see how immature it is.

If all you feel you can manage is to be presumptuous and offensive then why not just keep your thoughts to yourself? I have not come here with some petty hope of 'making Muslims feel uncomfortable' or something. I have just read some things that trouble me, and I would like to hear it from 'the horse's mouth' as it were, before I come to any conclusions. Reading the OP (and charitably) would have helped.
.

I share my thoughts for the same reasons you share yours ( and besides it is a public forum!)... in fact when you come asking stereotypical questions no matter how genuine, I too form a stereotypical ideas of you no matter how genuine... I am not at all uncomfortable, I chose not to debate simply because there is a search button on the forum that will enable you to have an in depth analysis of almost any topic well before rehashing it. I wish you well on your endeavors -- but I won't descend into a cyber squabble with you..
have a good one!

By the very nature of this forum, newcomers will come with their individual questions ... some of which will be repeated over and over.
(Believe me, I feel like that when with every thread that is started about the trinity ... you get that sinking feeling ... :D )

It looks to me like Broken Arrow is asking some genuine questions, and we should give him a chance to do so, and reply with patience and kindness. :)

I think you are very wise, Ambrosia - if someone is not in the right frame of mind to enter discussions with patience and kindness, it may be better to stay out of it.

Welcome, Broken Arrow!
I hope you enjoy your stay here, and find some answers to your questions.

Peace

indeed and I didn't enter into the discussion, I added my two cents on what I thought of the topic and stayed out of it..

peace!

[Broken Arrow]

If you read history of islam you may find that during the caliphate of Umar ibn Al-Khattab the ummah had expanded far to the east and west submitting all the countries to islam, this happened when muslims all over where being oppressed and could not follow their religion properly, they were forced to either hide their faith or follow the religion of the country in which they abided so the muslims had no choice but to spread islam

Do you mean that Muslims were being oppressed in Syria, Egypt, Palestine, Mesopotamia etc before those countries were invaded? I was under the impression that it was more just a straightforward expansionist campaign? (In which, I hasten to add, Umar ibn Al-Khattab would only be the same as many rulers throughout world history.)

This was only to stop oppression and spread the message, you see the people were given a choice, they could either pay the jizya (which is a tax which goes COMPLETELY to the poor and needy and only the rich may pay this, and try to understand that this jizya goes even to non-muslims in all fairness, this was a plan from Allah to stop world hunger if only the people would submit) and if the people did not pay jizya then they must be prepared to fight!

But this itself seems somewhat oppressive. I understand that it is in the name of a noble cause, but firstly, the jizya, if I remember correctly, was only levied on non-Muslims, and plus, although charity is obviously a good thing, 'give charity or be prepared to fight' doesn't seem particularly fair. I appreciate that the jizya was more a tax to allow non-Muslims to live in Muslim countries and practice their own religion and still enjoy the protection of the state. By the standards of much of history this is very reasonable, but by today's standards (or at least mine, I don't know about anybody else) a group of people shouldn't have to pay any tax that other ordinary citizens don't have to pay, on the basis of buying freedom to practice their religion.

As for the women issue, I accept that behaviour seems to vary greatly all over the Islamic world. There certainly are at least reports of beatings justified with scripture, but if you would tell me that this is contrary to Islam then I am happy and glad to believe you. (If it is indeed true.) Nevertheless, there are still just some things that I find hard to swallow, such as the idea that a wife can be 'disobedient'.

just that attitude, to think someone can be Muslim by culture just goes to show that she doesn't understand what it means to be Muslim at all.

But maybe she was just referring to the fact that, although she is now an atheist, she is 'demographically Muslim' ie, born to a Muslim family, in a Muslim country, imbued with Muslim moral values (originally, lol) and so on. (Not that I would want to start grouping people 'demographically'.)

I am not really sure what you mean here.

If you mean that you are getting the impression that Islam gives high priority to the function of the family, then yes that is indeed the case.

What I mean is that what appears, practically, to work out best, is not always best, or right. Yes, the functioning of the family is very important, I would never disagree, but I don't think that disagreements between wife and husband should be brushed over or subdued for the sake of the stability of the family. First of all, I think that in the long run, this could lead to festering, underlying tension, and secondly, I just don't think its right, to push your feelings under for the sake of something else. They need to be aired!

I will say though, when we see such topics arise, what I see, is that they are emotional topics, 'wife beating' that alone is sure to send alot of people's heart racing, but when one does look at it in its totality, they'd be hard pressed to refer to it as wife beating. Or the issue of pedophilia, as soon as someone hears '9 year old' their hair raises on ends, it's the emotional side of us, which happens to a non muslim as well as a Muslim when they hear 9 year old wife. But in my experience it has been more accepted once explained. The issue of Jihad, again is a similar matter.

That's something I try to bare in mind when speaking on such topics.

Sound advice.

[Dionysus]

But why not? If the alternative is divorce? The purpose of him hitting her (lightly) is a last resort effort to get the wife to come back to her senses, in a case where the alternative would be divorce, and the negative consequences of divorce would be much worse than that of a light hit.

Does that go both ways?

[Malaikah]

You mean the hit? No, I already explained that a woman can't hit her husband because of the possibility he might back- and harder.

[Dionysus]

You mean the hit? No, I already explained that a woman can't hit her husband because of the possibility he might back- and harder.

If I'm understanding this right. The woman is prohibited form doing something that is ok (extreme situation understood) for a man to do because of what the man might do back?

With that logic, shouldn't the man also be prohibited from this action because the woman might stab him in return?


My personal stance is (like anyone cares)... If you have enough ass to hit, you have enough ass to be hit. But that's just the redneck in me.

[Malaikah]

:?

I doubt being stabbed back is anywhere near as likely as the man hitting back.

[asadxyz]

Does that go both ways?

Peace/:sl:
The answer is yes but modus operandi is different.
Woman being physically weak cannot do this.Naturally she needs the help of someone more powerful who can stop man from going astray.Now islamic state will come for help.She will complain to state about the attitude of her husband and state will address the issue.There are examples that wives complained to the Holy Prophet :arabic5: against the the attitude of their husbands.Sura Mujaadila is one example.
Nashooz is not acceptible in the family no,matter it is from the wife or husband.
Hope it helps.

[Dionysus]

:?

I doubt being stabbed back is anywhere near as likely as the man hitting back.

Stabbed, kicked, bit, punched, whatever... It is possible, just like it is possible that the man will hit her back.

It's human nature to attack when being attacked.

I apologize for my ignorance, this just seems one sided.

[Dionysus]

Peace/:sl:
The answer is yes but modus operandi is different.
Woman being physically weak cannot do this.Naturally she needs the help of someone more powerful who can stop man from going astray.Now islamic state will come for help.She will complain to state about the attitude of her husband and state will address the issue.There are examples that wives complained to the Holy Prophet :arabic5: against the the attitude of their husbands.Sura Mujaadila is one example.
Nashooz is not acceptible in the family no,matter it is from the wife or husband.
Hope it helps.

Now that makes more sence. I understand the 'being weaker' logic. But I've seen some little women that I wouldn't want to tangle with (275lb man here).

I don't agree with this. I think no one should be allowed to assult another person for any reason other than defence. This doesn't make me right or wrong. Just my opinion.

Thank you for the answer.

[Malaikah]

But the husband isn't allowed to harm his wife. I think we already clarified it is only meant to be a light hit that doesn't cause harm.

[asadxyz]

But the husband isn't allowed to harm his wife. I think we already clarified it is only meant to be a light hit that doesn't cause harm.

:sl:
You are absolutely right my sister but word "hit" is not correct.You can say it is "Tapping".
Hitting ,beating ,kicking are not correct translation for this aya.

Thirdly: = واضربوهن

Now the question is what is ضرب
According to محيط المحيط
الضرب= ايقاع الشئ علي الشئ وباقى المعاني متفرع منه
Alzarab = Dropping of anything on another thing. Rest of meanings branch from this concept.

According to AlMawrid (Arabic to English Dictionary)
ضرب = To beat ,strike, hit; to knock punch; to slap.flap; to TAP
Now we need to decide which meaning to adopt. For it we need to interpret it in the light of teachings of the Holy Quran and Sunna.
The Holy Quran says :
وَلَقَدْ كَرَّمْنَا بَنِي آدَمَ(17:70)
It is a favour that We have honoured the sons(all off springs of ) Adam.
The Holy Prophet (PBUH) explained it very nicely

«وَاتَّقُوا اللهَ فِي النِّسَاءِ، فَإِنَّهُنَّ عِنْدَكُمْ عَوَانٍ، وَلَكُمْ عَلَيْهِنَّ أَنْ لَا يُوطِئْنَ فُرُشَكُمْ أَحَدًا تَكْرَهُونَهُ،فَإِنْ فَعَلْنَ ذَلِكَ فَاضْرِبُوهُنَّ ضَرْبًا غَيْرَ مُبَرِحٍ، وَلَهُنَّ عَلَيْكُمْ رِزْقُهُنَّ وَكِسْوَتُهُنَّ بِالْمَعْرُوف»
(Fear Allah regarding women, for they are your assistants. You have the right on them THAT THEY DO NOT ALLOW ANY PERSON WHOM YOU DISLIKE TO STEP ON YOUR MAT. However, if they do that, you are allowed to DISCIPLINE THEM LIGHTLY. They have a right on you that you provide them with their provision and clothes, in a reasonable manner.)
(Ibne kathir)
So in the light of these clarifications it can be said very confidently that word ضرب does not means "Beating or striking '. Rather it means "tapping".

\:w:

[Dionysus]

But the husband isn't allowed to harm his wife. I think we already clarified it is only meant to be a light hit that doesn't cause harm.

Regardless. It's aggresive physical contact he is allowed, but she is not (according to you, asadxyz stated otherwise). Hence, once sided.

[Malaikah]

Well, are you going to go on a rampage now about how God created men physically stronger than women? Seems pretty one sided to me too. :)

It is also one sided that only the wife is allowed to become pregnant and that the husband is denied this opportunity? :?

oh, and by the way, it is NOT aggressive! That is not allowed.

p.s. Have you read the whole thread?

[Dionysus]

so hostile... tisk tisk...

*moves the the big-kid table*

asadxyz, again, thank you for the answer.

[Malaikah]

I was not trying to be hostile! You asked us in your introduction thread to give you the benefit of the doubt if we thought you were trying to be offensive, well the least you can do is return the favour.

My point was that you seem to have a problem with men being allowed to hit in certain circumstances but not women. I want to know if you also have a problem with men being denied the right to become pregnant?

[Dionysus]

I was not trying to be hostile! You asked us in your introduction thread to give you the benefit of the doubt if we thought you were trying to be offensive, well the least you can do is return the favour.

My point was that you seem to have a problem with men being allowed to hit in certain circumstances but not women. I want to know if you also have a problem with men being denied the right to become pregnant?

Fair enough.

It don't stop some from trying... lol, sorry, had to throw that joke in...

I don't agree with it (as stated above). I'm simply trying to understand why some people do.

[جوري]

I believe these questions were answered here before... here is a post by bros. No name.. I don't know why he hasn't been on for a while? so we'll post his post in absentia and give him full credit
:w:

| Home Page | Email | LIVE Broadcasts | Order Tapes, Videos & CDs | EZ-Islam |
| Free Quran |
Author:
Br. Estes

RasulAllah P.B.U.H. Said:
"Never beat God's handmaidens."
"Could any of you beat your wife as he would a slave, and then lie with her in the evening?"


Question:
Could you please tell me why the Quran tells men to "beat them" meaning their wives? (chapter 4, verse 34)

Answer:
Thank you for asking about Islam. It is our committment to try our best to provide answers to questions to the best of our ability. However, sometimes we come across questions for which we do not have answers. In this case we will refer you to others who may be able to provide you with proper answers.

Please be aware that we as Muslims, must never lie about anything, especially our religion.

Secondly, we do have the original text of the Quran and the preserved teachings of Muhammad, peace be upon him. This enables us to verify exactly what was said, intended and taught by Muhammad, peace be upon him, as being the religion of Islam.

Third, I would like to remind myself and all who read this in the future that not all questions are purely questions. Some contain statements and implications, that may or may not be true.

Finally, it is important to keep in mind anytime we discover something in the answers to actually be better than what we already have, we should be committed to change our position and accept that which is true over that which is false and take that which is better for that which is inferior.

After taking all of the above into consideration, if we find that the answer to this question provides us with a better approach to understanding what Almighty God has provided us with as a way of life on this earth and in the Next Life, we should then make the logical decsion to begin to worship Him on His terms.

Having said that, let us now look to the particular verse in question in the original text (Arabic), followed by the phonetic sounds in Latin letters and then finally, followed by a translation of the meaning to the English language by experts in both Arabic and in Quranic meanings.




Transliteration
Alrrijalu qawwamoona AAala alnnisa-i bima faddala Allahu baAAdahum AAala baAAdin wabima anfaqoo min amwalihim faalssalihatu qanitatun hafithatun lilghaybi bima hafitha Allahu waallatee takhafoona nushoozahunna faAAithoohunna waohjuroohunna fee almadajiAAi waidriboohunna fa-in ataAAnakum fala tabghoo AAalayhinna sabeelan inna Allaha kana AAaliyyan kabeeran

Explanation (tafsir) of Sura 4:34
Here is the translation of meaning of the verse as best can be defined according to the rules of understanding Quran with the explanations following this translation:
“Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has made one of them to excel the other, and because they spend (to support them) from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient (to Allah), and guard in the husband's absence what Allah orders them to guard (e.g. their chastity, their husband's property, etc.). Regarding the woman who is guilty of lewd, or indecent behavior, admonish her (if she continues in this indecency then), stop sharing her bed (if she still continues doing this lewd behavior, then), [set forth for her the clear meaning of either straighten up or else we are finished and when she returns to proper behavior take up sharing the bed with her again], but if she returns in obedience (to proper behavior and conduct) then seek not against them means (of annoyance). Surely, Allah is Ever Most High, Most Great.”

Meaning of the Words
For the three words fa'izu, wahjaru, and wadribu in the original, translated here ‘speak to them in a persuasive manner’, ‘leave them alone (in bed - fi'l-madage'),’ and ‘have intercourse’, respectively, see Raghib Lisan al-'Arab and Zamakhsari. Raghib in his Al-Mufridat fi Gharib al-Qur'an gives the meanings of these words with special reference to this verse. Fa-'izu, he says, means to 'to talk to them so persuasively as to melt their hearts.'
(See also v.63 of this Surah where it has been used in a similar sense.)
Hajara - Wahjaru (do not touch or moleste them)
Hajara, he says, means to separate body from body, and points out that the expression wahjaru hunna metaphorically means to refrain from touching or molesting them. Zamakhshari is more explicit in his Kshshaf when he says, 'do not get inside their blankets.'
Here is the translation of meaning of the verse as best can be defined according to the rules of understanding Quran with the explanations following this translation:
“Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has made one of them to excel the other, and because they spend (to support them) from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient (to Allah), and guard in the husband's absence what Allah orders them to guard (e.g. their chastity, their husband's property, etc.). Regarding women guilty of lewd, or indecent behavior, admonish her (if she continues in this indecency then), stop sharing her bed (if she still continues doing this lewd behavior, then), [set forth for her the clear meaning of either straighten up or else we are finished and when she returns to proper behavior take up sharing the bed with her again], but if she returns in obedience (to proper behavior and conduct) then seek not against them means (of annoyance). Surely, Allah is Ever Most High, Most Great.”

Let me begin by explaining the English language is not powerful enough when it comes to translating the meanings of the Arabic of the Quran. Nor for that matter, is any other language on earth. So, all we have is translations of meanings according to the best understanding of the translators.

The operative word in this verse in Arabic is "daraba." While there are literally hundreds of uses for this word varying from "tap" to "walk in stride" to "strike at something" to "set a clear example", the only meaning that can be assigned to something in the Quran must be according to the rules of Quran. And Allah has used the same word a number of times with a consistent meaning. Let us examine them.

Here is what we find from the scholars of the Arabic language:
Daraba (to have intercourse, not to beat)

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).' 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?" 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."

Source: al-Qur'an: a contemporary translation by Ahmed Ali, Princeton University Press, 1988; pp78-79

Daraba (to set forth, to make a clear statement or proclamation)
One of the key rules of understanding words of the Quran is to go to other places in the Quran to investigate the usage in other places. This word is used by Allah in other places in the Quran to mean "set forth" or "sets up for you" or "makes known to you" - as is demonstrated in the following verses:
Surah Ar-Ra'd (13:17) yadribu Allahu al-amthala “Thus Allah sets forth a parable”
[here the word "yadirbu" is from the exact same root da-ra-ba]
Surah Ibrahim (14:24): Alam tara kayfa daraba Allahu mathalan .. “Don’t you see how Allah sets forth a parable?..”
And again in the next verse: Surah Ibrahim (14:25) wa yadribu Allahu al-amthala li-naasi
“..and Allah sets forth parables for mankind..”
[again the word yadirbu is from da-ra-ba]
Surah An-Nur (24:35) wa yadribu Allahu al0amthala lin-naasi
“And Allah sets forth parables for mankind..”
Surah Ar-Rum (30:28) Daraba lakum mathalan min anfusikum
“He sets forth for you a parable from yourselves..”
Surah At-Tahreem (66:10) Daraba Allahu mathalan lillatheena kafaroo..
“Allah sets forth an example for those disbelievers..”
In fact, the word daraba has not been translated to mean (beat) or (hit) or (strike) in any other verse of the Quran except this one.
The words for (beat) as in [to hit] found in Surah Baqarah 2:275 ... kama yaqoomu allathee yatakhabbatuhu ash-shaytanu mina almassi..
"..like the standing of someone beaten by the devil (Satan) leading him to insanity."

And in Surah Ta Ha 20:18 Allah Says, “Qala hiya Aasaya atawakkao Aalayha waahushshu biha Aala ghanamee waliya feeha maaribu okhra.”
"This is my stick, whereon I lean, and wherewith I beat down branches for my sheep and wherein I find other uses."

As you can see, these are not even related to the word (daraba).
Verses 34 and 35 in Surah An-Nisaa' need to be read together to understand this is the proper relationship between men and women in general and husband and wife specifically.

Islam seeks to hold the family together and to make peace and reconciliation between spouses. The next verse makes it clear what to do in the case where it seems that divorce may be the result of the uncorrected bad behavior. It stresses appointing arbitrators from both sides and seeks reconciliation.

The first part of 34 deals with all men taking care of all women. Then goes on to explain the wife's proper obedience to Allah because He is the One Who has ordained this relationship of provision and protection for her and to be appreciative and respectful of her husband, guarding herself and his property in his absence. The man is told the proper way to behave when he finds his wife not complying with decency and proper behavior of a Muslim wife. He has a direct order to begin with admonishing her and then if there is compliance to leave her be and don't give her a hard time about it.

However, if this continues, he should not have sex with her and this makes it clear to her that he is most serious and this not a joke. Again, if she comes around then he is to let it go and not bother her about it. Finally, if she still insists on such lewdness and bad conduct, he is to make it clear to her in no uncertain terms that they are going to be heading for separation or even divorce unless she comes back to proper behavior. Again, if she complies, then he should not bring it up and return to the bed with her.
And of course, this is all in an effort to translate one short but powerful phrase from Arabic to English. The sources are quoted herein and there may be other interpretations but the only acceptable ones are those based on the teachings of the Quran and the prophet, peace be upon him.
And as always, Allahu 'Alim (Allah is the Knower)

Source: al-Qur'an: a contemporary translation by Ahmed Ali, Princeton University Press, 1988; pp78-79

In the past, some translators of this verse have mistakeningly used the word "beat" or "hit" or even "scourge" (as in the case of an old translation) to represent the word "daraba" in Arabic. This is not the opinion of all scholars especially Raghib and Zamakhshari as mentioned above and those who are well grounded in both Islam understanding and the English language.
34.
Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because All&#226;h has made one of them to excel the other, and because they spend (to support them) from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient (to All&#226;h and to their husbands), and guard in the husband's absence what All&#226;h orders them to guard (e.g. their chastity, their husband's property, etc.). As to those women on whose part you see ill*conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful), but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance). Surely, All&#226;h is Ever Most High, Most Great.
The understanding now is that some of the translations are not properly representing the spirit of the meaning. Therefore, they cannot be considered to be the representation of what has been intended by Almighty God.

Now we can properly understand that Almighty God has commanded the men to provide for the women and allow them to keep all of their wealth, inheritance and income without demanding anything from them for support and maintenance. Additionally, if she should be guilty of lewd or indecent conduct, the husband is told to first, admonish her and then if she would cease this lewdness. If she should continue in this indecency, then he should no longer share the bed with her, and this would continue for a period of time. Finally, if she would repent then he would take up sharing the bed with her again.

And Allah is All Knowing of the meanings.



| Home Page | Email | LIVE Broadcasts | Order Tapes, Videos & CDs | EZ-Islam |
| Free Quran |

refrence post and I suggest everyone looks at it since some portions couldn't be cut and pasted...
http://www.islamicboard.com/refutati...tml#post711125

[جوري]

I was not trying to be hostile! You asked us in your introduction thread to give you the benefit of the doubt if we thought you were trying to be offensive, well the least you can do is return the favour.

My point was that you seem to have a problem with men being allowed to hit in certain circumstances but not women. I want to know if you also have a problem with men being denied the right to become pregnant?

Sister M. Allow me to digress and say.. I love how you brits. add an extra vowel to everything :lol:
:w:

[Dionysus]

Thank you PurestAmbrosia. That answered a few questions for me.

[جوري]

Thank you PurestAmbrosia. That answered a few questions for me.

my pleasure :welcome:
:w:

[Malaikah]

Sister M. Allow me to digress and say.. I love how you brits. add an extra vowel to everything :lol:
:w:

:sl:

Which word? I'm not british, just bad at spelling. :X

[جوري]

:sl:

Which word? I'm not british, just bad at spelling. :X

not a bad speller at all... it was favor, you wrote with a "u" (favour), as brits do.. I laugh so heartily whenever I pick up the lancet or any British journal.. seems like even the words are dressed up and starchy?..I mean why does everything need an extra vowel?
"foetus" instead of fetus
"oestrogen" instead of estrogen
"colour" instead of color
but I like it so please keep it up it tickles me :-[ :wasalambo

[snakelegs]

ancient people (like me) who were taught by even more ancient teachers were taught the british spellings - they used to be used here also.

[shible]

Assalamu alaikkum,

Good Q & A with lot of informations

Since i am signing after 3 weeks due to work

[glo]

ancient people (like me) who were taught by even more ancient teachers were taught the british spellings - they used to be used here also.

Ha! That proves it:
It is not so much the case that the Brits have added vowels, but the the Americans have dropped them! :D

That's the one thing that niggles me about the New International Bible version ... the spelling is American. How did that happen??! :mmokay:

It's not 'the Lord's favor' ... it 'the Lord's favour'!!!

Sorry, I'm completely off topic here ... :thankyou:

[asadxyz]

:sl:
[QUOTE=PurestAmbrosia;788815:[/QUOTE]
First of all I appreciate your effort to bring forward another aspect of the word "Dharaba"(ضرب ).But let me say that no doubt this word has been under discussion extensively.People have tried to attribute its meaning which are much lighter in intensity.But the vital question is whether the Arabic literature allow those meanings or not.
I know you have copied pasted this explananation.But I would like to draw your attention towards the mistakes comitted in the post concerning the word "dharab.
The author says :

The operative word in this verse in Arabic is "daraba." While there are literally hundreds of uses for this word varying from "tap" to "walk in stride" to "strike at something" to "set a clear example", the only meaning that can be assigned to something in the Quran must be according to the rules of Quran. And Allah has used the same word a number of times with a consistent meaning. Let us examine them.

I agree 100&#37;

The author says:

Here is what we find from the scholars of the Arabic language:
Daraba (to have intercourse, not to beat)

Let us see:

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

Absolutely not correct reference;Raghib has not mentioned (though this expression does exist meaning we will discuss later);Below is the copy paste of Raghib under the heading of "Dharaba".

Mufradaat ul Quran by Raghib Isphahaani
‏*** Browsing in book: ***
كتاب الضاد.

ضرب
-الضرب: إيقاع شيء على شيء، ولتصور اختلاف الضرب خولف بين تفاسيرها، كضرب الشيء باليد، والعصا، والسيف ونحوها، قال: {فاضربوا فوق الأعناق واضربوا منهم كل بنان} <الأنفال/12>، {فضرب الرقاب} <محمد/4>، {فقلنا اضربوه ببعضها} <البقرة/73>، {أن أضرب بعصاك الحجر} <الأعراف/160>، {فراغ عليهم ضربا باليمين} <الصافات/93>، {يضربون وجوههم} <محمد/27>، وضرب الأرض بالمطر، وضرب الدراهم، اعتبارا بضرب المطرقة، وقيل: له: الطبع، اعتبارا بتأثير السمة فيه، وبذلك شبه السجية، وقيل لها: الضريبة والطبيعة. والضرب في الأرض: الذهاب فيها وضربها بالأرجل. قال تعالى: {وإذا ضربتم في الأرض} <النساء/101>، {وقالوا لإخوانهم إذا ضربوا في الأرض} <آل عمران/156>، وقال: {لا يستطيعون ضربا في الأرض} <البقرة/273>، ومنه: {فاضرب لهم طريقا في البحر} <طه/77>، وضرب الفحل الناقة تشبيها بالضرب بالمطرقة، كقولك: طرقها، تشبيها بالطرق بالمطرقة، وضرب الخيمة بضرب أوتادها بالمطرقة، وتشبيها بالخيمة قال: {ضربت عليهم الذلة} <آل عمران/112>، أي: التحفتهم الذلة التحاف الخيمة بمن ضربت عليه، وعلى هذا: {وضربت عليهم المسكنة} <آل عمران/112>، ومنه استعير: {فضربنا على آذانهم في الكهف سنين عددا} <الكهف/11>، وقوله: {فضرب بينهم بسور} <الحديد/13>، وضرب العود، والناي، والبوق يكون بالأنفاس، وضرب اللبن بعضه على بعض بالخلط، وضرب المثل هو من ضرب الدراهم، وهو ذكر شيء أثره يظهر في غيره. قال تعالى: {ضرب الله مثلا} <الزمر/29>، {واضرب لهم مثلا} <الكهف/32>، {ضرب لكم مثلا من أنفسكم} <الروم/28>، {ولقد ضربنا للناس} <الروم/58>، {ولما ضرب ابن مريم مثلا} <الزخرف/57>، {ما ضربوه لك إلا جدلا} <الزخرف/58>، {واضرب لهم مثل الحياة الدنيا} <الكهف/45>، {أفنضرب عنكم الذكر صفحا} <الزخرف/5>.
والمضاربة: ضرب من الشركة. والمضربة: ما أكثر ضربه بالخياطة. والتضريب: التحريض، كأنه حث على الضرب الذي هو بعد في الأرض، والاضطراب: كثرة الذهاب في الجهات من الضرب في الأرض، واستضراب الناقة: استدعاء ضرب الفحل إياها.

Only at the end he has used the derivative of Dharab which is "Istidhraab" without Reference to Lisaan Ul Arab.
No doubt in Arabic,the word " Dharaba "is used for intercourse but ONLY FOR ANIMALS (Stallions /she -camel) Not for human beings.As all the dictionaries of Arabic have mentioned it.

Lisaan ul Arab;‏
وضَرَبَ الفحلُ الناقةَ يضْرِبُها ضِراباً: نكحها.
قال سيبويه: ضَرَبها الفحْلُ ضِراباً كالنكاح. (ج/ص: 1/546)
قال: والقياس ضَرْباً، ولا يقولونه كما لا يقولون: نَكْحاً، وهو القياس.
وناقةٌ ضارِبٌ: ضَرَبها الفحلُ،
Almisbah ul Munir :
وَضَرَبَ الْفَحْلُ النَّاقَةَ ضِرَابًا بِالْكَسْرِ
Taajul Aroos :

ضَرَب الفَحْلُ الناقَةَ يَضْرِبُها ضِرَاباً بالكَسْرِ : نَزَا عَلَيْهَا أَي نَكَح . وأَضْرَبَ فُلاَنٌ ناقَتَه أَي أَنْزَى الفحْلَ عَلَيْهَا
Maqabees ul Lughat :
ومن الباب ضِراب الفَحل النّاقة. ويقال أضْرَبْت النّاقةَ: أنْزَيت عليها الفحل


The same expressions have been mentioned by Muhitul Muhit and Lane's lexicon.Ferozabadi has mentioned all possible meanings of the word Dharba used in Quran but he has not mentioned its use as "Intercourse".

النصوص الواردة في ( بصائر ذوي التمييز / الفيروز أبادي - مصنف ومدقق ) ضمن الموضوع ( الباب
السادس عشر - فى الكلمات المفتتحة بحرف الضاد ) ضمن العنوان ( بصيرة فى ضرب )

ورد الضَّرب فى اللغة والقرآن على وجوه:
الضَّرْب: الخفيف من المطر. والضَّرْب: الصفة والصّنف من الأَشياء. والضَّرْب: الرجل الخفيف اللحم. قال طَرَفة بن العبد.
أَنا الرجل الضَّرْب الذى تعرفوننى خِشاشٌ كرأس الحيَّة المتوقِّدِ
الضَّرْبُ الإِسراع فى السّير: {لاَ يَسْتَطِيعُونَ ضَرْباً فِي ٱلأَرْضِ}، {وَآخَرُونَ يَضْرِبُونَ فِي ٱلأَرْضِ}.
الضَّرْب: الإِلزام: {وَضُرِبَتْ عَلَيْهِمُ ٱلذِّلَّةُ وَٱلْمَسْكَنَةُ} ، أَى أُلزموهما.
الضَّرب بالسّيف وباليد: {فَٱضْرِبُواْ فَوْقَ ٱلأَعْنَاقِ} ، أَى بالسّيف، {وَٱضْرِبُوهُنَّ} ، أَى باليد.
الضرب: الوصف: {ضَرَبَ ٱللَّهُ مَثَلاً} ، أَى وَصَفَ، {نَضْرِبُهَا لِلنَّاسِ} ، أَى نَصِفها.
الضرب: البيان: {وَكُلاًّ ضَرَبْنَا لَهُ ٱلأَمْثَالَ}، {وَضَرَبْنَا لَكُمُ ٱلأَمْثَالَ} أَى بيّنَّا.
ويقال: ضرب على يديه: إِذا أَفسد عليه أَمرًا أَخّذ فيه. وضرب القاضى على يده: حجره. وضرب على المكتوب. وضَرَبَ الجُرْحُ والضِّرْسُ: اشتدّ وجعه. وضرب الشىءَ بالشىء: خلطهُ.
وقوله تعالى: {فَضَرَبْنَا عَلَىٰ آذَانِهِمْ} أَى أَنمناهم، وقيل: منعناهم السّمع؛ لأَنَّ النَّائم إِذا سمع انتبه.
وضرب العِرْقُ ضَرَبانا: نَبَض، ولَحىَ الله زمانًا ضرب ضربانَهُ، حتى سلّط علينا ظَرِبانه.
وضرب خاتَمًا. وضرب اللبِن. وضرب مثلاً.
وأَضْرَبَ فى بيته: إِذا لم يبرح منه، وأَضرب عن الأَمر: عَزَف عنه. والضريبة: الطبيعة.
وضرب الدّهرُ بينهم: فرّق.وضربته العقرب: لدغته. وضَرَبَ مناقب جَمّة واضطربها: حازم. وهم ضُرَباء أَى قرناءُ. وأَضرب البردُ النباتَ: أَفسده. ورأَيت ضَرْب نساء، أَىْ نساء. قال الراعى:
وضَرْبُ نساءٍ لو رآهنَّ راهبُ له ظُلّة فى قُلّة ظلّ رانِيا
وضرب الزمان: مَضَى. وقال ذو الرمة:
فإِن تضرب الأَيّام يا مىّ بيننا فلا ناشِرٌ سِرًا ولا متغيّر
وضَرَبَ الدّراهم اعتبارًا بضربه بالمِطرقة. وضرب الخَيْمَة لضرب أَوتادها بالمطرقة. وضَرْب العُود والناى والبُوق يكون بالأَنفاس.
والمضاربة: ضرب من الشركة. والمضرَّبة: ما أَكثر بالخياطة ضَرْبه.
والتضريب: التحريض والإِغراءُ، كأَنَّه حَثٌّ على الضرب.
والضَّرَبُ محركة: العسل.
Source : http://altafsir.com/MiscellaneousBooks.asp
I being non Arabic might have comitted some mistake.If anyone of You finds it please do correct me.It will be welcomed whole heartedly .Because the purpose is not to debate but to reach exact meanings of the Aya.
:w:

[جوري]

hmmmmmmmmmn.. well I do speak Arabic.. I am not sure what to tell you?.. it is best to ask ahel il3ilm, the sheikh above is (bros. estes' reply to someones query)-- to be honest with you I wouldn't want to pass my own judgement on what I think it means.. perhaps we can ask another scholar from this board? maybe bros. Ansar?
:w:

[Basirah]

Dear IbnAbdulHakim, you wrote this:

You see this was actually during a war in which the jews betrayed the muslims, so naturally the general of the muslim army feared for the muslims being slaughtered and thus called for the traitors to be executed.

I then wrote:

Can you explain to me how the treaty was signed? Please check out Abi Dawud. Thanks in advance.

It would be great if you could answer this, or point me towards where you did answer it. Remember, I would like your own words please.