Another Glaring Factual Discrepency in the Quran

[moose7237]

Hi again Barn,

And here I'll reply both to you and to heisonly1.

Surah 7/133 : So We sent (plagues) on them: Wholesale death, Locusts, Lice, Frogs, And Blood: Signs openly self-explained: but they were steeped in arrogance,- a people given to sin.

When you read this verse and the other related ones like them, understand that God worked supernaturally in 2 ways.

One - was when He challenged the egyptian pagans to a duel of sorts - with Moses as the man on God''s side. Here, twice the pagans were defeated by God through Moses-but not by the plagues, but only by the miracles.

Two - IN SPITE of such clear defeat, the pagans refused to submit and pharoah refused to let Israel free from captivity.

THATS WHEN God decided to punish their belligerance and stubborness WITH PLAGUES OR CALAMITIES!

The first 2 signs were not calamities of any kind!! They were NOT PLAGUES BY ANY MEASURE!

What caused pharoah to give in finally, were not the 'signs' of Moses confrontation with the egyptians, but it was the plagues that befell the people and ultimately the event of the Passover which broke pharoah's back and opened the gates for the Israelites final release!

What I am asking or stating is, that the Quran is also incomplete factually and inaccurate historically to ignore, or leave out such a momentous and decisive as the Passover event that actually led to the Exodus of the Jewish people.

Its the same kind of error as in surah 28 and surah 40, with Pharoah asking HAMAN - who never existed in his time, to build a tower for Pharoah :

And Pharaoh said, "Council, I know not that you have any god but me. Kindle me, Haman, a fire upon the clay, and make me a tower, that I may mount up to Moses' god; for I think that he is one of the liars."
Sura 28:8,38

Pharaoh said, "Haman, build for me a tower, that haply so I may reach the cords, the cords of the heavens, and look upon Moses' God; for I think that he is a liar."
Sura 40:36-37

Wassalaam, Dan.

Salam Wal Rahma Dan,

We haven't spoken in a while. I hope all is going well for you and that you are doing ok. I would like to respond to the problem that you have.

Ok, I think you said that sign=plagues correct? I would say that sign=miracles as well. So when Allah said that he sent 9 signs some were miracles and some were plagues. But both are considered signs regardless. I would say that if the Quran said 9 signs and the bible said 10, I would take the word of the Quran personally, of course we differ on that. Now on to Haman:

Now Haman existed in the book of Esther correct? Who is the author of the book of Esther?

"Although we do not know who wrote the book of Esther, from internal evidence it is possible to make some inferences about the author and the date of composition. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 707)"

So Dan I think you are putting your faith in a book who has an unknown author. Now Even Jewish Scholars who know Hebrew I'm sure state that the book of Esther is fictional and not historical!!!

As to the historical value of the foregoing data, opinions differ. Comparatively few modern scholars of note consider the narrative of Esther to rest on an historical foundation. The most important names among the more recent defenders of the historicity of the book are perhaps Hävernick, Keil, Oppert, and Orelli. The vast majority of modern expositors have reached the conclusionthat the book is a piece of pure fiction, although some writers qualify their criticism by an attempt to treat it as a historical romance. The following are the chief arguments showing the impossibility of the story of Esther:

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi...&search=Esther

So Dan, not only are you taking the word of a book who the author is unknown, but you are taking the word of a book that is fiction! So I think the evidence is quite clear that the Quran has its historical accounts correct, unless you are going to try and show us that a book that is FICTION is correct. Good luck with that one Dan and Take care friend!

Wasalam Wal Rahma

[heisonly1]

Dan Zebiri - Hi again Barn,

And here I'll reply both to you and to heisonly1.

Surah 7/133 : So We sent (plagues) on them: Wholesale death, Locusts, Lice, Frogs, And Blood: Signs openly self-explained: but they were steeped in arrogance,- a people given to sin.

When you read this verse and the other related ones like them, understand that God worked supernaturally in 2 ways.

One - was when He challenged the egyptian pagans to a duel of sorts - with Moses as the man on God''s side. Here, twice the pagans were defeated by God through Moses-but not by the plagues, but only by the miracles.

Two - IN SPITE of such clear defeat, the pagans refused to submit and pharoah refused to let Israel free from captivity.

THATS WHEN God decided to punish their belligerance and stubborness WITH PLAGUES OR CALAMITIES!

The first 2 signs were not calamities of any kind!! They were NOT PLAGUES BY ANY MEASURE!

Okay Dan let's try this again!

It's very simple.

THE FACT THAT THE FIRST TWO SIGNS WERE NOT CALAMITIES BY YOUR DEFINITION, DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT THEY WERE SIGNS OF GOD ALMIGHTY

Again the Quran clearly stipulates that Moses displayed 9 signs, which include plagues ASWELL !

THE PLAGUES ARE CATEGORIZED AS SIGNS, ACCORDING TO THE QURANIC SCRIPTURES!!! HENCE WHY IT CLEARLY STIPULATES AS A GENERAL CLASSIFICATION DESCRIBING ALL THE EVENTS AS SIGNS !!

Now re-read post below and hopefully it will make some sense, InshAllah !

Dan Zebiri - Heisonly1,

I was actually refering to the PLAGUES THAT AFFLICTED Pharoah and the Egyptians!

I honestly cannot consider verses 107 & 108 of surah 7 to be PLAGUES AS SUCH!!

My contention, Badger boy, if you had read properly, was that the Quran is in error to state only 5 PLAGUES in its record!

A large snake eating up the smaller snake is NOT a plague, and neither is the hand that did not get diseased from someones body!

Verses 107/108 are merely acts done to convince and open the hearts and minds of Pharoah and his people. When they (he-pharoah) still refused to capitulate, THEN God sent THE PLAGUES AS Punishment to his/their stubbornness and hardness of heart.

The Quran still cannot enumerate 9 PLAGUES! Because I cannot consider the first 2 you proposed as plagues [/B]BY ANY MEASURE..!!

[b]That is still an internal contradiction for the Quran - the missing Plagues..!

Wrong again Danny boy, wrong wrong wrong !!!!!!!

Again referring to your false and miscontrued mode of argumentation, logic and interpretation regarding the 9 SIGNS stipulatd in the Quran.

Pay close attention now Danny boy, the Quran explicitly proclaims 9 SIGNS of Moses, NOT 9 PLAGUES of Moses. This is a compelling critical difference, which you comprehend not that totally debunks your erroneous internal Quranic contradiction myth !!!!!!

The 9 SIGNS of moses INCLUDE the PLAGUES of Moses Danny boy.

In other words, QURANICALLY, each miracle or plague presented by MOSES is COLLECTIVELLY referred to as 'SIGNS', NOT 'PLAGUES' !!!!!

In order for an apparent INTERNAL QURANIC CONTRADICTION to exist danny boy, you need to illustratre that 'PLAGUES' and 'SIGNS' mean one and the same thing according to Quranic interpretation and meaning !!!!

Again, here are the 9 SIGNS for you Danny boy!!!

106. (Pharaoh) said: "If indeed thou hast come with a SIGN, show it forth,- if thou tellest the truth."

107. Then (Moses) threw his rod, and behold! it was a serpent, plain (for all to see)! (ONE)

108. And he drew out his hand, and behold! it was white to all beholders! (TWO)

130. We punished the people of Pharaoh with famine (THREE) and shortness of crops (FOUR); that they might receive admonition.

133. So We sent [plagues] on them: Wholesale death (FIVE), Locusts (SIX), Lice (SEVEN), Frogs (EIGHT), And Blood (NINE): SIGNS openly self-explained: but they were steeped in arrogance,- a people given to sin.

Pay close attention to verse 7:133. The Quran describes the following plagues "Wholesale death, Locusts , Lice , Frogs , And Blood" as "SIGNS" OPENLY SELF EXPLAINED", NOT 'PLAGUES' , Just as the Quran also describes the events regarding the rod of Moses that became a serpent and his hand that became illuminated in white, AS 'SIGNS' NOT 'PLAGUES' !!

106. (Pharaoh) said: "If indeed thou hast come with a Sign, show it forth,- if thou tellest the truth."

107. Then (Moses) threw his rod, and behold! it was a serpent, plain (for all to see)!

108. And he drew out his hand, and behold! it was white to all beholders!

Therefore, Danny Boy the only internal conradiction that exists is in your faulty and deceptive interpretations and argumentation. I'm not lauging this time because your arrogance and mode of argumentation has gone beyond the joke !! Seriously !!!

Then of course, the Quran has completely left out the event of the Passover - which was the real and critical reason Phaoroah was finally forced to release Moses and the Israelites out of Egypt for good! - The Exodus event.

THIS was THE PLAGUE THAT broke pharoah's stubborn back. It was not merely a sign, but a God-sent plague turned into personal tragedy for Pharoah that clinched the matter and released the jews.

There were TEN plagues in all ACTUALLY, and not merely just NINE, in the historical records of Israelite and Jewish history. Thus the Quran is again in error and inaccurate, historically .

Because the Quran chooses not to stipulate the tenth biblical plague, does not mean its a contradiction or an historical error danny boy.

Going by your own dubious logic danny boy, the fact that the synoptic Gospels record sayings or events in the life of Jesus that are not included in the Gospel of John and visa versa, would imply/translate, by your own bogus logic, that both the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John are in error, inaccurare and historically flawed !!! hahahahhahaah sorry I couldn't help not laughing May God Almighty forgive me !!!



What caused pharoah to give in finally, were not the 'signs' of Moses confrontation with the egyptians, but it was the plagues that befell the people and ultimately the event of the Passover which broke pharoah's back and opened the gates for the Israelites final release!

What I am asking or stating is, that the Quran is also incomplete factually and inaccurate historically to ignore, or leave out such a momentous and decisive as the Passover event that actually led to the Exodus of the Jewish people.

Its the same kind of error as in surah 28 and surah 40, with Pharoah asking HAMAN - who never existed in his time, to build a tower for Pharoah :

And Pharaoh said, "Council, I know not that you have any god but me. Kindle me, Haman, a fire upon the clay, and make me a tower, that I may mount up to Moses' god; for I think that he is one of the liars."
Sura 28:8,38

Pharaoh said, "Haman, build for me a tower, that haply so I may reach the cords, the cords of the heavens, and look upon Moses' God; for I think that he is a liar."
Sura 40:36-37

Wassalaam, Dan.

[/QUOTE]

[heisonly1]

Dan Zebiri

Its the same kind of error as in surah 28 and surah 40, with Pharoah asking HAMAN - who never existed in his time, to build a tower for Pharoah :

And Pharaoh said, "Council, I know not that you have any god but me. Kindle me, Haman, a fire upon the clay, and make me a tower, that I may mount up to Moses' god; for I think that he is one of the liars."
Sura 28:8,38

Pharaoh said, "Haman, build for me a tower, that haply so I may reach the cords, the cords of the heavens, and look upon Moses' God; for I think that he is a liar."
Sura 40:36-37

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: Apologiaphoenix

Plagiarism is to be avoided.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[Dan Zebiri]

Six translations of Qur'an 4:34:

1. "Men are superior to women on account of the qualities with which God has gifted the one above the other, and on account of the outlay they make from their substance for them. Virtuous women are obedient, careful, during the husband's absence, because God has of them been careful. But chide those for whose refractoriness you have cause to fear; remove them into beds apart, and scourge them: but if they are obedient to you, then seek not occasion against them: verily, God is High, Great!"
- Rodwell's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34

2. "Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Surely God is high, supreme."
- Dawood's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34

3. "Men are in charge of women, because Allah has made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah has guarded. As for those from whom you fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High Exalted, Great."
- Pickthall's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34

4. "Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that God has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for God's guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them. If they then obey you, look not for any way against them; God is All high, All great."
- Arberry's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34

5. "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in their sleeping places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.
-Shakir's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34

6. "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whom part you fear disloyalty and ill conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance) for Allah is Most High, Great (above you all).
-Ali's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34

Ali's additions of words (in brackets) to the Koran in order to change the obvious meaning, from beating and scourging, to merely 'beating lightly' only, is a clear example of how farcical and deceptive some of these English translations of the Quran can degenerate into, here, just to give the impression that its just a so-called 'light beating' that the Quran instructs - when the very OPPOSITE is the CASE!

Pickthall-who is a Muslim, is much more honest and sticks to the text by stating the REAL MEANING of Surah 4/34- SCOURGE THEM!

So, wifes courging and wife-beating is a clear injunction of the Quran enjoined to Muslim MEN.

This is another clear proof and example that there is no real nor true equality for Women in the Quran or in Islam.

Regards, Dan.

[barnasha]

Six translations of Qur'an 4:34:

1. "Men are superior to women on account of the qualities with which God has gifted the one above the other, and on account of the outlay they make from their substance for them. Virtuous women are obedient, careful, during the husband's absence, because God has of them been careful. But chide those for whose refractoriness you have cause to fear; remove them into beds apart, and scourge them: but if they are obedient to you, then seek not occasion against them: verily, God is High, Great!"
- Rodwell's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34

2. "Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Surely God is high, supreme."
- Dawood's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34

3. "Men are in charge of women, because Allah has made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah has guarded. As for those from whom you fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High Exalted, Great."
- Pickthall's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34

4. "Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that God has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for God's guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them. If they then obey you, look not for any way against them; God is All high, All great."
- Arberry's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34

5. "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in their sleeping places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.
-Shakir's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34

6. "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whom part you fear disloyalty and ill conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance) for Allah is Most High, Great (above you all).
-Ali's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34

Ali's additions of words (in brackets) to the Koran in order to change the obvious meaning, from beating and scourging, to merely 'beating lightly' only, is a clear example of how farcical and deceptive some of these English translations of the Quran can degenerate into, here, just to give the impression that its just a so-called 'light beating' that the Quran instructs - when the very OPPOSITE is the CASE!

Pickthall-who is a Muslim, is much more honest and sticks to the text by stating the REAL MEANING of Surah 4/34- SCOURGE THEM!

So, wifes courging and wife-beating is a clear injunction of the Quran enjoined to Muslim MEN.

This is another clear proof and example that there is no real nor true equality for Women in the Quran or in Islam.

Regards, Dan.

This argument was already shown to be terribly unfounded in previous posts.

the word which is translated as 'beat' does not have the same meaning as "to beat someone" as it does in English. so, the text does not say "beat" as you so dearly wish to intepret it.

Either this argument is incredibly disingenuous or you simply do not read the replies to your posts in which people show you to be incorrect and misinformed.


Sorry to disappoint you, but Islam is not the backwards religion like you hope it is.

Only ignorant people who behave the way you do, like the terrorists, make it so. So stop supporting them by sharing their backwards ideas.

Muhammad said,

"How does anyone of you beat his wife as he beats the stallion camel [i.e. unscrupulously] and then he may embrace (sleep with) her?"

and

"Do not beat the female servants of Allah;" "Some (women) visited my family complaining about their husbands (beating them). These (husbands) are not the best of you;"

If you wish to ignore the facts, I cannot stop you, but please listen to the arguments presented to you, or else yours cannot be taken seriously.

[barnasha]

If you would like a clearer understanding of Quran 4:34, I suggest you read over this translation by Muhammad Asad, a European who translated the Quran.

MEN SHALL take full care of women with the bounties which God has bestowed more abundantly on the former than on the latter,* and with what they may spend out of their possessions. And the righteous women are the truly devout ones, who guard the intimacy which God has [ordained to be] guarded.**

And as for those women whose ill-will*** you have reason to fear, admonish them [first]; then leave them alone in bed; then beat them;**** and if thereupon they pay you heed, do not seek to harm them. Behold, God is indeed most high, great!

*Lit., "more on some of them than on the others".- The expression qawwam is an intensive form of qa’im ("one who is responsible for" or "takes care of" a thing or a person). Thus, qama ala l-mar’ah signifies "he undertook the maintenance of the woman" or “he maintained her" (see Lane VIII, 2995). The grammatical form qawwam is more comprehensive than qa’im, and combines the concepts of physical maintenance and protection as well as of moral responsibility: and it is because of the last-named factor that I have rendered this phrase as "men shall take full care of women".

**Lit., "who guard that which cannot be perceived (al-ghayb) because God has [willed it to be] guarded".

***The term nushuz (lit., “rebellion”- here rendered as "ill-will") comprises every kind of deliberate bad behaviour of a wife towards her husband or of a husband towards his wife, including what is nowadays described as "mental cruelty"; with reference to the husband, it also denotes "ill-treatment", in the physical sense, of his wife (cf. verse 128 of this surah). In this context, a wife's "ill-will" implies a deliberate, persistent breach of her marital obligations.

****It is evident from many authentic Traditions that the Prophet himself intensely detested the idea of beating one's wife, and said on more than one occasion, "Could any of you beat his wife as he would beat a slave, and then lie with her in the evening?" (Bukhari and Muslim). According to another Tradition, he forbade the beating of any woman with the words, "Never beat God's handmaidens" (Abu Da’ud, Nasa’i, Ibn Majah, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Ibn Hibban and Hakim, on the authority of Iyas ibn ‘Abd Allah; Ibn Hibban, on the authority of ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Abbas; and Bayhaqi, on the authority of Umm Kulthum). When the above Qur’an-verse authorizing the beating of a refractory wife was revealed, the Prophet is reported to have said: "I wanted one thing, but God has willed another thing - and what God has willed must be best" (see Manar V, 74). With all this, he stipulated in his sermon on the occasion of the Farewell Pilgrimage, shortly before his death, that beating should be resorted to only if the wife "has become guilty, in an obvious manner, of immoral conduct", and that it should be done "in such a way as not to cause pain (ghayr mubarrih)"; authentic Traditions to this effect are found in Muslim, Tirmidhi, Abu Da’ud, Nasa’i and Ibn Majah. On the basis of these Traditions, all the authorities stress that this "beating", if resorted to at all, should be more or less symbolic - "with a toothbrush, or some such thing" (Tabari, quoting the views of scholars of the earliest times), or even "with a folded handkerchief" (Razi); and some of the greatest Muslim scholars (e.g., Ash-Shafi’i) are of the opinion that it is just barely permissible, and should preferably be avoided: and they justify this opinion by the Prophet's personal feelings with regard to this problem.


-------------
Notice how the verse here says try to do everything except physically touch your spouse - and only if you must, to hit them (lightly, in an admonishing sense, not in a physically abusive sense, as you are arguing).

Please note the underlined excerpt of the footnote wrt to the translation of the word which you are interpreting as "beat" (as in physically abuse)

Do you still think the verse here is God telling us to physically abuse our wives?

[Dan Zebiri]

Barn,

The verse states and says clearly and unmistakably what it states!

All your attempts at embellishing and 'refining it' to make it sound less than actually 'BEATING YOUR WIVES' are merely additionaly man-made qualifications to what is very clearly the Quran's instructions and injunction to physically beat Muslim wives for 'rebellion'!

Are any of the writers you quote - Razi, Shafii, Ibn Abbas etc, etc recipients of the Quran like Muhammad was??

All their words are merely additions, embellishments to what is the fixed injunction of the Quran, permanantly fixed for eternity in Surah 4/34 - 'Scourge your wives' as some of the more honest translators ACCURATELY Translate!

In fact your defense of Surah 4/34 is indicative of making rather lame excuses for the glaringly unequal and unfair treatment upon Women when theres actually no way out except to realize that the Quran does teach 'stone age' practices - thats quite incompatible with this day and Age!

Strip away all those qualifications upon qualifications those 'scholars' make for watering down the true inpact of Surah 4/34!

And finally you do get the true picture -NOT merely my 'interpretation', that is really promoted by the Quran. When you scourge someone, you dont and cannot do it with 'handkerchiefs' or toothbrushes - its no mere symbolic scourging or beating - but done UNTIL the Woman or wife knows her place! UNTIL she submits again and becomes obedient to her man (husband), something hankies etc can never achieve!!

Do call a spade a spade, Barn!

Regards, Dan.

[barnasha]

Barn,

The verse states and says clearly and unmistakably what it states!

yes, and it does not say what you assert it does

All your attempts at embellishing and 'refining it' to make it sound less than actually 'BEATING YOUR WIVES' are merely additionaly man-made qualifications to what is very clearly the Quran's instructions and injunction to physically beat Muslim wives for 'rebellion'!

You have just ignored plenty of valid and irrefutable points that show you are wrong, and you have not refuted a single one of them

Are any of the writers you quote - Razi, Shafii, Ibn Abbas etc, etc recipients of the Quran like Muhammad was??

No. Are you?

All their words are merely additions, embellishments to what is the fixed injunction of the Quran, permanantly fixed for eternity in Surah 4/34 - 'Scourge your wives' as some of the more honest translators ACCURATELY Translate!


In fact your defense of Surah 4/34 is indicative of making rather lame excuses for the glaringly unequal and unfair treatment upon Women when theres actually no way out except to realize that the Quran does teach 'stone age' practices - thats quite incompatible with this day and Age!

your whole arugment relies on the assumption that those translations are 100% precise, when that is not true.

Strip away all those qualifications upon qualifications those 'scholars' make for watering down the true inpact of Surah 4/34!

so are you saying Muhammad ignored the Quran when he taught people not to hit their wives?

And finally you do get the true picture -NOT merely my 'interpretation', that is really promoted by the Quran. When you scourge someone, you dont and cannot do it with 'handkerchiefs' or toothbrushes - its no mere symbolic scourging or beating - but done UNTIL the Woman or wife knows her place! UNTIL she submits again and becomes obedient to her man (husband), something hankies etc can never achieve!!

Do call a spade a spade, Barn!

you are assuming that daraba means scourge, which you have not proven, you only assert it and show absolutely no justification to back such a theory up

to save you some time, here are some more meanings from arabic lexicons:

to heal, strike, propound as an example, put forth a parable, go, make a journey, travel, mix, avoid, take away, put a cover, shut, mention, state, propound, set forth, compare, liken, seek a way, march own, set, impose, prevent, fight, traffic with anyone's property for a share in the profit, leave for sake, take away thing (with 'an).
Depressed ground, hard ground in a plain, sandy valley, commissioner as he has to travel much.
Kind manner, lean, thin, similar, alike, the act of striking, a blow, going from place to place, vicissitude of life, affliction especially that which relates to one's person, as disease, death, degradation is common and general suffering.
beat, struck, smote, hit, the making a thing fall upon another thing, discipline/train, to cast forth, threw or flung it, seal/stamp, veil/curtain/cover/barrier, to point or make a sign, prohibit/hinder/prevent/withheld/restrain, collision, corrupted/disordered/disturbance/unsettled/confused, turn away, avoid, shun, fashion/mould/adapt, mention or set forth (e.g. a parable/example), explain, make a way, multiplying, go/travel, went away, it was or became long, excite/incite/urge/instigate, contend, dispose/accommodate, retract/digression/transition, to silence, tremble/shiver, share/portion.
Location where something is struck, wool or goat's hair separated or plucked or beaten with a mallet, sword, tent-peg, mallet.

[Dan Zebiri]

Barn,

"You are assuming that daraba means scourge, which you have not proven, you only assert it ..bla bla bla"

Hey man, take such of your lame objections to Pickthall, Dawood and Shakir, just to name a few, who are all MUSLIMS AND MUSLIM TRANSLATORS for the English speaking Muslims..!

NONE of the ABOVE have ever shied away from calling it for what it actually is - To scourge and to beat! the Muslim wives.

Just you and other embarassed muslims like you, who in the light of such violent Quranic injunctions, have the need to quickly water them down, embellish and refine them - like Yusuf Ali does, to make the meaning less violent for westerners.

Its quite desperate, truly, Barnasha..!

Regards, Dan.

[barnasha]

Barn,

"You are assuming that daraba means scourge, which you have not proven, you only assert it ..bla bla bla"

Hey man, take such of your lame objections to Pickthall, Dawood and Shakir, just to name a few, who are all MUSLIMS AND MUSLIM TRANSLATORS for the English speaking Muslims..!

they are not the one making YOUR argument, which YOU cannot back up...

so don't shift your burden of proof off to other people who you blindly followed instead of doing your own research.

[heisonly1]

Dan Zebiri

Its the same kind of error as in surah 28 and surah 40, with Pharoah asking HAMAN - who never existed in his time, to build a tower for Pharoah :

And Pharaoh said, "Council, I know not that you have any god but me. Kindle me, Haman, a fire upon the clay, and make me a tower, that I may mount up to Moses' god; for I think that he is one of the liars."
Sura 28:8,38

Pharaoh said, "Haman, build for me a tower, that haply so I may reach the cords, the cords of the heavens, and look upon Moses' God; for I think that he is a liar."
Sura 40:36-37

Apparently I plagiarised by not stipulating the source of my quote and argument.I know I did stipulate the source clearly. God Almighty knows best. I'll do the right thing here and provide the source as required.

The following extract is from an article (cited below) provides a direct refutation of the false claims conjectured by Dan.

"Many western scholars have concluded that Haman is unknown to Egyptian history. The name Haman is first mentioned in the Biblical book of Esther, some 1,100 years after Pharaoh. The name is said to be Babylonian, not Egyptian. According to the book of Esther, Haman was a counsellor of Ahasuerus (the Biblical name of Xerxes) who was an enemy of the Jews. It has been suggested that Prophet Muhammad mixed Biblical stories, namely the Jewish myths of the Tower of Babel and the story of Esther and Moses into a single confused account when composing the Qur'an."

Consequently, it is not surprising to find Christian missionaries[12] and atheists like Ibn Warraq[13] exploiting these comments in order to "prove" that the Qur'an contains serious contradictions. Yet all of the above statements are based on the misrepresentation of the historical value of the Biblical book of Esther, a misunderstanding of the Qur'anic narrative in general and the unproven assumption that Muhammad copied and in some cases altered the Biblical material while he was allegedly composing the Qur'an. It can be said with certainty that this is the most "celebrated" contradiction in the Qur'an among the Christian missionaries on the internet." SOURCE- http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Qur...nal/haman.html

peace,

heisonly1

[Dan Zebiri]

What another lame exercise of your, Barny boy, you still have not offered clear or convincing proofs that the word in Surah 4/34 means anything other than 'TO BEAT' and 'TO SCOURGE' the so-called rebellious wives in Islam.

What Pickthall and other scholarly translators like him have done, is the truly honest thing - to use the best English word that represents the original Arabic word, and they have all chosen-BEAT (NOT 'lightly') and SCOURGE (whihc means heavy, physical beating AND NOTHING ELSE).

It is a well-known fact around the islamic world, and from ages past EVEN UNTIL NOW, that muslim men do beat their wives with impunity, NO DOUBT due to this verse of Surah 4/34.

Truly and realistically, without any exception, all the Qur’anic expositors agree upon the meaning of this verse because it is so obvious. In their famous commentary, page 69, the Jalalan said:

"Those of you who are afraid of their disobedience which symptoms become evident to you, threaten them with the fear of God and banish them to beds apart and scourge them."

The Zamakhshari reiterates the same opinion (al-Kash-Shaf Vol. 1, p. 524). Both Imam Baydawi (p. 111), and Al-Tabari (p.92) repeat the same explanation. If we also search Ahkamal-Qur’an (the Ordinances of the Qur’an) by the Imam Shafi’i (Vol. 1, p.211), we read:

"In case of a husband’s ill-treatment [of his spouse], the Qur’an permits reconciliation of the spouses and arbitration, but in the case of the wife it allows scourging her."

At the inception of Islam, we come across a very famous incident which all the Muslim chroniclers record (refer to Imam al-Nawawi: Riyad al-Salihin, "The Orchards of Righteous Men", p. 107-108),

"Umar Ibn al-Khattab came to Muhammad saying, ‘Women have dared to disobey husbands.’ He allowed their husbands to scourge them. Many women approached Muhammad complaining against their husbands because Muhammad received a verse for the Qur’an which commands their husbands to scourge them."

In the Kash-shaf (the revealer) of al-Zamakhshari (Vol. 1, p. 525), we read the following,

"On the authority of Muhammad (peace and blessing of Allah be upon him), he said: ‘Hang up your scourge in a place where your wife (or wives) can see it.’

Also, on the authority of Asmaa the daughter of Abu Bakr El Sedik:

"I was the fourth wife (among four) of al-Zabayr Ibn al-Awwam. Whenever he became angry at one of us he struck us with a hook rod until it was broken."
This hemistich was composed by al-Zabayr:

"If it were not for her children, I would have hit her."

The command to scourge women is repeated in Sahih al-Bukhari, "The Sound Tradition of al-Bukhari" (Vol. 7, p. 100). Ponder for a moment over Muhammad’s order to the husband: "Hang up your scourge where your wife can see it." This is intimidation and threat, as if a husband were telling his wife: "Beware of disobedience, for this is the scourge which is ready to fall upon you!"

There is no security or love in Muhammad’s words or in the deeds of al-Zobayer Ibn al-Awwam, who was a relative of Muhammad, one of his companions, and one of those models whom every Muslim imitates and vies with all over the world. He was one of the ten whom Muhammad assured of paradise and one of the six whom Umar recommended for the Caliphate. This man used to scourge his wife until the wooden hook was broken, as Asmaa (the daughter of Abu Bakr El Sedik who was one of his four wives) tells us. Is there greater wife abuse than that?

Contemporary Scholars

All contemporary scholars attest to this fact which is obvious in the Qur’an. In the book, "You Ask and Islam Answers" (p. 94 for example), Abdul–latif Mushtahiri says,

"If admonishing and sexual desertion fail to bring forth results and the woman is of a cold and stubborn type, the Qur’an bestows on man the right to straighten her out by way of punishment and beating provided he does not break her bones nor shed blood. Many a wife belongs to this querulous type and requires this sort of punishment to bring her to her senses!"

In his book, "The Individual Guarantee In the Islamic Law" (p. 63), Ahmad Ahmad, a professor at the college of Law at the University of Qatar, denotes the following under the title of "Family Problems’ Solution",

"If a woman is afraid that her husband may turn away from her or detest her, she will hasten to bring understanding and reconciliation. But if the husband is afraid that his wife may rebel against him, he hastens to bring mutual understanding by means of exhortation, then by abandonment of the bed, then by the scourging which deters."

Did you read it?—"By the scourging which deters" This is if the symptoms of disobedience became apparent exactly as the Jalalan, Baydawi, Zamakhshari have said and as the Saudi scholars indicated in Al-Muslimun magazine in its issue of March 17, 1989 (page 12). I can also easily list dozens of references, both ancient and contemporary, which explain this verse (4/34). Actually, it does not need any exposition because it is self-explanatory—"and scourge them."

It is evident that Christian countries regard wife abuse as a crime punishable by law because nature itself (as well as the simplest human principle) teaches us that it is not permissible for a man to beat an animal—much less his wife!

Yet according to the Islamic faith and by distinct orders issued by the Qur’an and Muhammad, a man is allowed to scourge his wife with a peaceful conscience because he is carrying out God’s command as recorded in the Qur’an

Yes, Barny boy, IT IS SCOURGING, FLOGGING AND ACTUAL BEATING, and nothing much else. Anything else is just your fooling yourself and others here.

Open your eyes to see the reality, Barn. Wake up before it is too late!

Regards, Dan.

[barnasha]

What another lame exercise of your, Barny boy, you still have not offered clear or convincing proofs that the word in Surah 4/34 means anything other than 'TO BEAT' and 'TO SCOURGE' the so-called rebellious wives in Islam.

then you must have missed where I pasted literally dozens of meanings of teh verb daraba, above, please revisit the thread

What Pickthall and other scholarly translators like him have done, is the truly honest thing - to use the best English word that represents the original Arabic word, and they have all chosen-BEAT (NOT 'lightly') and SCOURGE (whihc means heavy, physical beating AND NOTHING ELSE).

Of course, previous statements of mine have shown this assertion to be utterly false; you have not said a single scholarly thing to support your view regarding the translation, except to say "those other MUSLIM people translated it like this!"

The weakest form of an argument is when you have to say, "that other guy said so," it means you ran out of arguments and you have to rely on a mythical third-person one.

anyone can copy an argument from an anti-Islamic website, but not everyone can back their conclusions up with scholarly arguments.

by your refusal to argue your own point and to shrug that point off on Quranic translators, you have refused to argue your own point, so for your sake, it would be best to stop arguing this point altogether.

Here are some places in the Quran where 'daraba' means something other than "to scourge", as you so vehemently hope it does not:

# To travel, to get out: 3:156; 4:101; 38:44; 73:20; 2:273
# To strike: 2:60,73; 7:160; 8:12; 20:77; 24:31; 26:63; 37:93; 47:4
# To beat: 8:50; 47:27
# To set up: 43:58; 57:13
# To give (examples): 14:24,45; 16:75,76,112; 18:32,45; 24:35; 30:28,58; 36:78; 39:27,29; 43:17; 59:21; 66:10,11
# To take away, to ignore: 43:5
# To condemn: 2:61
# To seal, to draw over: 18:11
# To cover: 24:31
# To explain: 13:17

It is a well-known fact around the islamic world, and from ages past EVEN UNTIL NOW, that muslim men do beat their wives with impunity, NO DOUBT due to this verse of Surah 4/34.

it is a well known fact that many people in prison are christians, and that christians have committed many crimes over the last millenia, whether or not it was in the name of their faith.
GUESS THAT MEANS CHRISTIANITY IS BAD, according to you, anyway....



it is a well known fact that you paste arguments from anti Islamic propogandist websites and then lack any sound arguments of your own to back them up.

Once refuted, you simply go find another argument to paste until we tear it to bits and it is shown to hold no water.

Then you move on to the next...

Now, if you spend this time studying the bible or feeding the hungry or tending to the sick, maybe you would be doing something good in the cause of God.

Truly and realistically, without any exception, all the Qur’anic expositors agree upon the meaning of this verse because it is so obvious. In their famous commentary, page 69, the Jalalan said:

"Those of you who are afraid of their disobedience which symptoms become evident to you, threaten them with the fear of God and banish them to beds apart and scourge them."

The Zamakhshari reiterates the same opinion (al-Kash-Shaf Vol. 1, p. 524). Both Imam Baydawi (p. 111), and Al-Tabari (p.92) repeat the same explanation. If we also search Ahkamal-Qur’an (the Ordinances of the Qur’an) by the Imam Shafi’i (Vol. 1, p.211), we read:

"In case of a husband’s ill-treatment [of his spouse], the Qur’an permits reconciliation of the spouses and arbitration, but in the case of the wife it allows scourging her."

At the inception of Islam, we come across a very famous incident which all the Muslim chroniclers record (refer to Imam al-Nawawi: Riyad al-Salihin, "The Orchards of Righteous Men", p. 107-108),

"Umar Ibn al-Khattab came to Muhammad saying, ‘Women have dared to disobey husbands.’ He allowed their husbands to scourge them. Many women approached Muhammad complaining against their husbands because Muhammad received a verse for the Qur’an which commands their husbands to scourge them."


In the Kash-shaf (the revealer) of al-Zamakhshari (Vol. 1, p. 525), we read the following,

"On the authority of Muhammad (peace and blessing of Allah be upon him), he said: ‘Hang up your scourge in a place where your wife (or wives) can see it.’

Also, on the authority of Asmaa the daughter of Abu Bakr El Sedik:

"I was the fourth wife (among four) of al-Zabayr Ibn al-Awwam. Whenever he became angry at one of us he struck us with a hook rod until it was broken."
This hemistich was composed by al-Zabayr:

"If it were not for her children, I would have hit her."

The command to scourge women is repeated in Sahih al-Bukhari, "The Sound Tradition of al-Bukhari" (Vol. 7, p. 100). Ponder for a moment over Muhammad’s order to the husband: "Hang up your scourge where your wife can see it." This is intimidation and threat, as if a husband were telling his wife: "Beware of disobedience, for this is the scourge which is ready to fall upon you!"

There is no security or love in Muhammad’s words or in the deeds of al-Zobayer Ibn al-Awwam, who was a relative of Muhammad, one of his companions, and one of those models whom every Muslim imitates and vies with all over the world. He was one of the ten whom Muhammad assured of paradise and one of the six whom Umar recommended for the Caliphate. This man used to scourge his wife until the wooden hook was broken, as Asmaa (the daughter of Abu Bakr El Sedik who was one of his four wives) tells us. Is there greater wife abuse than that?

Contemporary Scholars

All contemporary scholars attest to this fact which is obvious in the Qur’an. In the book, "You Ask and Islam Answers" (p. 94 for example), Abdul–latif Mushtahiri says,

"If admonishing and sexual desertion fail to bring forth results and the woman is of a cold and stubborn type, the Qur’an bestows on man the right to straighten her out by way of punishment and beating provided he does not break her bones nor shed blood. Many a wife belongs to this querulous type and requires this sort of punishment to bring her to her senses!"

In his book, "The Individual Guarantee In the Islamic Law" (p. 63), Ahmad Ahmad, a professor at the college of Law at the University of Qatar, denotes the following under the title of "Family Problems’ Solution",

"If a woman is afraid that her husband may turn away from her or detest her, she will hasten to bring understanding and reconciliation. But if the husband is afraid that his wife may rebel against him, he hastens to bring mutual understanding by means of exhortation, then by abandonment of the bed, then by the scourging which deters."

Did you read it?—"By the scourging which deters" This is if the symptoms of disobedience became apparent exactly as the Jalalan, Baydawi, Zamakhshari have said and as the Saudi scholars indicated in Al-Muslimun magazine in its issue of March 17, 1989 (page 12). I can also easily list dozens of references, both ancient and contemporary, which explain this verse (4/34). Actually, it does not need any exposition because it is self-explanatory—"and scourge them."

It is evident that Christian countries regard wife abuse as a crime punishable by law because nature itself (as well as the simplest human principle) teaches us that it is not permissible for a man to beat an animal—much less his wife!

Yet according to the Islamic faith and by distinct orders issued by the Qur’an and Muhammad, a man is allowed to scourge his wife with a peaceful conscience because he is carrying out God’s command as recorded in the Qur’an

Yes, Barny boy, IT IS SCOURGING, FLOGGING AND ACTUAL BEATING, and nothing much else. Anything else is just your fooling yourself and others here.

Open your eyes to see the reality, Barn. Wake up before it is too late!

Regards, Dan.

Now these arguments saddens me, because many people today, while Muslim, ignore or misinterpret the core meanings of the faith. Some Muslims are misogynistic. While it is bad that the reflect poorly on their faith, the worst part is there are people like you, to lap it up, and to agree with them that their backwards opinions actually reflect a pure way of life.

You are supporting the interpretation that obeying God includes physical domestic abuse. You are ON THEIR SIDE. YOU AGREE that Islam (submission to divine will) includes domestic abuse!!

If only you could see that.

Just because someone is 'Christian' does not mean he represents Jesus, remember?

[barnasha]

Since it is still not clear to you, I will reiterate something in my previous post which refutes your entire argument. There are clear traditions which show that physical abuse is sinful and was not practiced by the prophet or his companions. If you want me to re-cite those authentic sources, I will be glad to provide the information.

Until you address those points, you are really just grasping at straws to try to defame all those who follow the prophet Muhammad, a rather sinister aim in my opinion.

[Dan Zebiri]

Too bad Barny, I must honestly say, and with a very clear conscience, that none of your 'arguments' have refuted my posting of the fact that the QURAN itself DOES INDEED TEACH Wife-BEATING!!

In fact, I have read your 'refutations', and am forced to conclude, that they are AT BEST, merely EXCUSES trying to minimise and to water-down the fact of the QURANIC INJUNCTION TO MUSLIM MEN TO BEAT AND TO SCOURGE THEIR WIVES - Physically, into submission.

The references to the valid and authentic Islamic and expository sources above do support this point quite irrevocably. This is not something that happened just only yesterday, last week or even over the last decade. It has been there ever since this Verse Surah 4/34 was placed into your precious Quran! - Centuries ago since the very inception of Islam!

No! Its NOT just MY 'interpretation' as you wish to point out - erroneously, but it is valid fact and reality in the Quran and duly observed BY THE Faithful Muslimin (muslim men).

You just have got to come to terms with this fact - painfully, Barnesha..!

Regards, Dan.

Since it is still not clear to you, I will reiterate something in my previous post which refutes your entire argument. There are clear traditions which show that physical abuse is sinful and was not practiced by the prophet or his companions. If you want me to re-cite those authentic sources, I will be glad to provide the information.

Until you address those points, you are really just grasping at straws to try to defame all those who follow the prophet Muhammad, a rather sinister aim in my opinion.