Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

"Gender Jihad"

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
Super Goat (^_^) View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 22-Oct-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 180
  Quote Super Goat (^_^) Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: "Gender Jihad"
    Posted: 29-Oct-2005 at 21:35
infact, if anything, i consider this pro women. you have to consider that this verse was introduced at a time where beating women was a common practice throughout the world. its a breakthrough in  that it suggests the men cant simply beat women before considering other alternatives such as talking their differences out.
Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
  Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Oct-2005 at 21:36
Yes, I acknowledge the social/cultural thing, but the verse doesn't say that the couple should discuss friendly whatever is about but that the man has the autority over the woman, like if she was a child.

Conceptually such a verse is very-very machoist, even if for the time was maybe even progressive. Of course I'm not going to judge a whole book on just one verse, and probably other verses are much more productive - I hope.

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Spammer

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595
  Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Oct-2005 at 00:33

I certainly agree that the religion has been perfected. My arguement is this: are we following religion as it says or did we add stuff along the way. Since the notion of women leading prayer is not mentioned specifically (that is why I am open to discussion on it) are we not open to historical precedents and/or analytical proofs. I am not only advocating research for only 'prevention' from hegemony but other sensible possibilities. No need to go into examples unrelated to this topic.

The beating issue is an area that reflects this question as well. Are we to accept that this is truth or did we miss something along the way. This is what I found: 'Idrubuhunne' (4-34) can mean 'beat those women' or it can have other meanings.  Can't it also mean to compel a seperation. How about 'striking out' disloyal wives. Isn't this the same meaning as seperating from them? Other examples of the root of (Idrubuhunne) DaRaBa - to condemn 2:61, to get out 3:156, 4:101, 73:20, and Idrib- to get out. In effect, doesn't 'getting them out' make more sense for a cheating partner than 'beating them' as a last resort?  

If any of these possibilities make sense then it shows that we can benefit from researching meanings as accurately as possible.

 



Edited by Seko
Back to Top
ok ge View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 29-Aug-2005
Location: Saudi Arabia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
  Quote ok ge Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Oct-2005 at 01:43

Originally posted by Seko

I certainly agree that the religion has been perfected. My arguement is this: are we following religion as it says or did we add stuff along the way. Since the notion of women leading prayer is not mentioned specifically (that is why I am open to discussion on it) are we not open to historical precedents and/or analytical proofs. I am not only advocating research for only 'prevention' from hegemony but other sensible possibilities

Yes, we should search for sensible possibilities as long as there is a room for it. However, we are not debating a law governing wordly matters. We are discussing an issue of rituals, which belongs to Allah. Allah wants five prayers during the day as obligatory, then no point of looking into its logic. It is just an obligated ritual. Now, rituals or worship in Islam are defined by Quran and his prophet's conducted worships. Both are needed to fullfill each others. It is like as if the Quran a source book, and Sunnah is a detailed description manual. Quran will say pray 5 times a day, the Sunnah will cover its details of how many Rak'ahs, its times, and so on. Quran says we should conduct a prayer in groups, Sunnah comes to define who is the leader in that group, how to stand in lines...etc. Not everything that is not covered in details in Quran means its missing, we have Sunnah and we do have various works that study the relevance and confirmity of each Hadith with the Quran. I will talk more in details about this down discussing the Super Goat's example.

Originally posted by Maju

Yes, I acknowledge the social/cultural thing, but the verse doesn't say that the couple should discuss friendly whatever is about but that the man has the autority over the woman, like if she was a child.

I'm not sure what is the relevance of the example of the Quranic verse that has been stated earlier. However, I find it an interesting example that Quran itself cannot give us always the details of that rule. Here comes the Sunnah to clarify what is exactly meant in that verse.

Originally posted by Seko

The beating issue is an area that reflects this question as well. Are we to accept that this is truth or did we miss something along the way.

Seko actually started the first step of finding the exact meaning of that verse. However, the various interpretation of Darab are wide from physical use of Darab to literature use of Darb. Actually the Surah 2, verse 61 that carries "Daraba" as condemn is only correct if you combine "Darab al dhul" or "stroke subjegation and inferiority" which will become to condemn. The verse just above it, number 60 carries the physical use of Daraba which is to come in contact hitting. 

So, what we are missing then to interpret it is: 1- the Prophet comment on this verse that it has been revealed to him, 2-the languistic expectation of that verse in the Arabic language and in that position which is definitely dealing with an object and not a literature use.

First, I will start upside down by discussing the languistic interpretation of the used word "Darb"

The word Darb means a lot in Arabic: from severe strike, hit, flunk, and a score of an anger by body contacts, as the use in Arabic "Darb min al mathl" which means "for instance" but literally translated "a score of an example"

Second, after defining the various meanings that are possible to the word Darb, we look into what the Prophet have done in his life after the revelation of this verse. First, keep in mind that it must be seen as a rare exception to the repeated exhortation of mutual respect, kindness and good treatment discussed earlier. How did the prophet then beat? It was narrated by Aisha (BPUH) that he used Miswak (a small natural toothbrush from a plant roots). So the last solution for the prophet was a Miswak hit, which is not as similar as a light pinch on its effect. Though it does not serve any purpose of hitting because it is not even anything that is to beat, but it symbolizes the anger at least.

 It is interesting that this latter fourteen centuries old qualifier of "Darb" is the criterion used in contemporary American law to separate a light and harmless tap or strike from "abuse" in the legal sense. This makes it clear that even this extreme, last resort and "lesser of the two evils" measure that may save the marriage does not meet the definitions of "physical abuse," "family violence," of "wife battering" in the twentieth century laws in liberal democracies, where such extremes are commonplace that they are seen as national concerns.

Aslo note that permissibility of such symbolical expression of the seriousness of continued refraction does not imply its desirability. This is clear in taking into account several Ahadeeths, where Prophet Muhammad discouraged this measure. Among his sayings: "Do not beat the female servants of Allah," and "How does anyone of you beat his wife as he beats the stallion camel and then he may embrace (sleep with) her?" Shaheeh Al Bukhari

Originally posted by Seko

This is what I found: 'Idrubuhunne' (4-34) can mean 'beat those women' or it can have other meanings.  Can't it also mean to compel a seperation. How about 'striking out' disloyal wives. Isn't this the same meaning as seperating from them?

"can't it also mean to compel a seperation?" > are you asking or it is part of the definition of the word?

The options we are discussin above are in regards to continious marriage problems. Seperation is highly disrecommended even more than symbolic express of anger that doesn't harm.  Disloyal wives are dealt with differently. Quran points to a term called "counter-swearing" where a disloyal spouse is taken an oath that he has not commited disloyality to the other partner, during a court trial. If any of the two spouse are not satisfied and trust cannot be rebuilt, then Seperation is ordered by the court and the spouse has no right even to touch the other spouse.

Originally posted by Maju

I recall reading an interview with an Afro-Dutch woman (Ayan Hirsi Ali), that is a former Muslim and now is a polemic member of Dutch parlament, with strong anti-Islamic message on the grounds that Islam is mysoginic and machoist to a point that can't be blended with Western humanistic values nor rights of women

Yes Maju, she is originally Somalian. According to her, she has been mistreated severly. Her husband is to be blamed for her extreme reaction in which she decided that her husband represents what a Muslim husband can be. Instead of criticizing Islam and its prophet, who didn't even let anyone to wash his clothes, i hope she used that energy and anger in prosecuting animal-behaving husbands in poor Islamic and non-Islamic countries, Africa, or any part of the world.



Edited by ok ge
D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.
Back to Top
Tobodai View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Antarctica
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4310
  Quote Tobodai Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Oct-2005 at 02:33
It is normal ofr societies heavily influenced by Abrahamic faiths to culturally enslave half of their people.  It is not even a natural way to live as before settles socities women were equals in the society.  Much of the world has had to work long and hard to undo the damage that has been going on first with agriculture and then with religion.  Obviously only some societies have been successful at retaining the advances of their ancestors while rejected what is foolish.
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton
Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Spammer

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595
  Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Oct-2005 at 09:20
Originally posted by ok ge

Originally posted by Seko

I certainly agree that the religion has been perfected. My arguement is this: are we following religion as it says or did we add stuff along the way. Since the notion of women leading prayer is not mentioned specifically (that is why I am open to discussion on it) are we not open to historical precedents and/or analytical proofs. I am not only advocating research for only 'prevention' from hegemony but other sensible possibilities

We are discussing an issue of rituals, which belongs to Allah. Allah wants five prayers during the day as obligatory, then no point of looking into its logic. It is just an obligated ritual. Now, rituals or worship in Islam are defined by Quran and his prophet's conducted worships. Both are needed to fullfill each others. It is like as if the Quran a source book, and Sunnah is a detailed description manual. Quran will say pray 5 times a day, the Sunnah will cover its details of how many Rak'ahs, its times, and so on. Quran says we should conduct a prayer in groups, Sunnah comes to define who is the leader in that group, how to stand in lines...etc. Not everything that is not covered in details in Quran means its missing, we have Sunnah and we do have various works that study the relevance and confirmity of each Hadith with the Quran.

The Idea that Sunnah takes such importance in Islam makes me question the value of Sunnah. In the Koran we have no contradictions. In the Sunnah we have a plate of dishes that suits anyone's fancy, just depends on who does the tasting. You seem to have covered alot of ground in dismissing women and prayer yet you have no specific proofs nor links. I do not want to hear about conforming to the ancients unless they can back it up with original points of reference and a reason perhaps for it. In the Koran it says that everything you need is clearly detailed. Yet according to you it is not and we need Sunnah of Muhammad. We are told to follow God and the Messenger. All Muhammad did was utter words that God provided. That is the Koran. Otherwise God would have cut his jugular. NO? His duty was to provide the message and lead by example. We have his message in blackj and white letters. HIs example left a long time ago. We have records and we have conflicting records. These records were not guarded and protected by Allah as was the Koran. That's why I have a hard time accepting sunnah of people instead of Sunnah of Allah. All my points are visible ayats from the holy book. I did not make them up. However, we have a slew of how to do this and that and have the nerve to say that this is Islam. In summary, if it is in the Koran then we can examine it. If it is from people then it is only one of many religious possibilities that is open to inspection. How can we challenge anything if we are told to only accept and not question? When does one become aware that certain beliefs may or may not stand to reason? Please do not place reasonable questions into the catagory of inventions and make it sound like this is 'bida'. We have had too many (restictions) by past pious moslems that led to an innner seclusive and non-inquisitive mentality for too long.

As regards 'beat', thanks for the info. I am not only looking at verse 2:61 but others as well. In 13:17 'Allah beats truth and falsehood..' The word Darab here is beat. Yet sounds illogical. It could just as well mean - "Allah explains truth and falshood..."

Other quoted usages of Darab: 

  • 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 chemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" />>>>>
  • To beat: chemas-microsoft-comfficemarttags" />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; ,58;  36:78; 39:27,29; 43:17; 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>>

    According to one of your explanations, beating lightly is permissible since we have ahadith that says so? A gentle touch (brush) is supposedly symbolic of venting anger? Solves the problem sufficiently then! Heres a look at that in action.

    - "Honey, you cheated last week with MR. X. First I'll tell you what I think (advise her) and if the problem is not resolved then I'll  tell you to sleep in another bed and lastly, if that doesn't work, I will gently touch (beat) you (with a twig like object)!!!"

    or

    4:34 The men are to support the women by what God has gifted them over one another and for what they spend of their money. The upright women who are attentive, and keep private the personal matters for what God keeps watch over. As for those women from whom you fear a desertion, then you shall advise them, and abandon them in the bedchamber, and separate from them; if they obey you, then do not seek a way over them; God is High, Great.

     

    The counterswearing arguement is a Koranic dictate too. It can be used for adultry in choosing guilt or innocence. With witnesses. Disloyalty is also dealt with here, by married couples, in the 4:34 ayat.

    Cok Gec you mentioned that seperation is not recommended. Says who? The only seperation we are discussing is after a husband lacks trust in a wife after failures in discussion, seperate beds and eventually either a light beating (the orthodox view) or telling her to get out. Did the wife repent after a light admonishment? Beating. Does that actually save the marriage and allow one to not face consequences? Whereas a seperation (can be temporary too) actually can lead to counseling, respect, reunification or demise. However unpleasant, If the phrase is intended to mean 'beat'  then it only makes sense that men could take this ayat and suit it to there own desires and commit harrassment and physical abuse. This behavior is the unfortunate circumstance we have in the moslem world today. Just like stoning, moslems have accepted tradtions (inventions) without verifying the reliability and sensibility of them. 



  • Edited by Seko
    Back to Top
    ok ge View Drop Down
    Arch Duke
    Arch Duke
    Avatar
    Retired AE Moderator

    Joined: 29-Aug-2005
    Location: Saudi Arabia
    Online Status: Offline
    Posts: 1775
      Quote ok ge Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Oct-2005 at 13:18

    Originally posted by Seko

    The Idea that Sunnah takes such importance in Islam makes me question the value of Sunnah. In the Koran we have no contradictions. In the Sunnah we have a plate of dishes that suits anyone's fancy, just depends on who does the tasting. You seem to have covered alot of ground in dismissing women and prayer yet you have no specific proofs nor links.
     

    I think we are arguing apple versus orange here. I believe in the doctorine of Quran suplimented with Sunnah. Whereas, you believe only in Quran only as a source of jurisdiction. Therefore, obviously we will disagree on a lot of matters because the fact is Quran does not cover everything.  That verse has proved the limitation on applying only the Quran regarding jurisdictions. Remember that to "strike" is not like "to strike out". You cannot say strike in the first sentance can be the same strike of the second sentace, because basically the word is different. "Strike out" or "Rip off"..etc all give different meanings to the original word. Darab with object, is different than Darab Al Dhulah (which is a symbolic use). Darab can have tons of meaning, but when it comes to objects dealing, you can do only Daraba as physical. That is why all Quran translations in English use that interpretation. You won't find one Quran translation that says Darab in that verse as to seperate. Because in this usage it is obvious it is not, we dont have to twist around it. You are free to take that verse and ask any Arab languist.

    Originally posted by Seko

    In the Koran it says that everything you need is clearly detailed. Yet according to you it is not and we need Sunnah of Muhammad. .
     

    Koran has a verse that at the end of the Prophet life announced the perfection of the religion. No verse talk about that everything we need will be " clearly detailed". Also, we have this verse:" Whatever the Prophet ordered you to do, you should do, and whatever he forbids you, you should reject " (Quran 59: 7)

    No two persons can doubt that it means that we are ordered to follow what the prophet has been conveyed in the message with revelation of Koran, his conducts and orders too as it is clear in the verse.

    Originally posted by Seko

    We have records and we have conflicting records. These records were not guarded and protected by Allah as was the Koran..
     

    Do you know "Mansukhat" verses or "copied verses" in the Quran? For anyone who is not very well knowledgable about the content and timing of those verses, he will assume they are conflicting. Quran and Sunnah didn't come lump summed in one night. It came gradually and stepby step for people to follow. Therefore,there are copied verses in the Quran and Sunnah that are subtitued later with time according to the development of the believer's faith. If you searched under "Quran conflicting verses" you will find tons of them. But people fail to see they are Mansukhat or copied verses. We keep the original rule because we don't edit the Quran. We just know which rule comes higher according to its time and sequence.

     

    Originally posted by Seko

    Please do not place reasonable questions into the catagory of inventions and make it sound like this is 'bida'. ..
     

    Seko, no one told you that you cannot question and investigate reasons in Islam. However, we are not talking about mattes that deal with us in which we seek its wisdom. I was talking about Rituals and worships. However, you are free to waste your time searching why God wants five prayers per day and not three or ten. Notice too that I didnt tell you that your interpetation of the verse dealing with women  is Bida because that is a wordly matter and we can discuss. I only brought that point regarding your question why women cannot lead a mixed gender prayer in a mosque. That is worship here. Got it now?

    Originally posted by Seko

    Other quoted usages of Darab: 

  • 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 chemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" />>>>>
  • To beat: chemas-microsoft-comfficemarttags" />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; ,58;  36:78; 39:27,29; 43:17; 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>> ..
  •  

    All of those are different meaning of Darab in their context. You cannot take out Daraba out of Daraba Mathalan. This will yeiled a different meaning. In basic simple plain English, the usage of a word in a specific context, does not constitue necessarily a similar meaning in a different context.  That is just a simple languistic rule.

  • Originally posted by Seko

    According to one of your explanations, beating lightly is permissible since we have ahadith that says so? A gentle touch (brush) is supposedly symbolic of venting anger? Solves the problem sufficiently then! Heres a look at that in action...
     

  • Seko, the Hadith and the Quranic verse is not telling you to start using your tooth stick, it is setting the limit to that. Basically it says : Seko, if you are so mad and cannot do anything and filled with anger, your maximum show of that anger cannot exceed using this stick. Basically it says again: YOU CANNOT BEAT HER which the other following hadiths have proved it too.

  • Originally posted by Seko

      Whereas a seperation (can be temporary too) actually can lead to counseling, respect, reunification or demise....
     

  • I meant by seperation here as divorce, not temporarily one. My followed explaination stressed on that too. Also, since you mean seperation physically and for temporarily, some scholars still insist that it is highly not recommened. They argue that: you can leave the house and come back when you thought about your behavior or her behavior. When you meet your wife again after a short disappearance, you might appreciate her or might fix stuff actually just for the sake of having time in the bed . You are married Seko and you know what I mean by this, sounds funny but it works.  However, you and her seperating for long distance might not always work since no opportunities can rise for both to face each others again and reconcile. Everyone has his anger distant and won't speak with the other partner. This principle is also universally accepted as when you get two friends who have fought togather, you get them both to be in situation where they meet and have to deal with the other person and thus, clearing the matter.

  • However, whatever method is upt to each circumistance and situation. I only was concerned with the word Seperation as in Divorce.

  • D.J. Kaufman
    Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.
    Back to Top
    ok ge View Drop Down
    Arch Duke
    Arch Duke
    Avatar
    Retired AE Moderator

    Joined: 29-Aug-2005
    Location: Saudi Arabia
    Online Status: Offline
    Posts: 1775
      Quote ok ge Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Oct-2005 at 15:29
    Originally posted by Seko

  • 4:34 The men are to support the women by what God has gifted them over one another and for what they spend of their money. The upright women who are attentive, and keep private the personal matters for what God keeps watch over. As for those women from whom you fear a desertion, (1) then you shall advise them, and (2) abandon them in the bedchamber, (3)and separate from them; if they obey you, then do not seek a way over them; God is High, Great.

  • Frogot to ask you for your link, Im just curious why your English translation is different than mine.

    http://www.submission.org/suras/sura4.htm

    [4:34] The men are made responsible for the women, and GOD has endowed them with certain qualities, and made them the bread earners. The righteous women will cheerfully accept this arrangement, since it is GOD's commandment, and honor their husbands during their absence. If you experience rebellion from the women, you shall first talk to them, then (you may use negative incentives like) deserting them in bed, then you may (as a last alternative) beat** them. If they obey you, you are not permitted to transgress against them. GOD is Most High, Supreme.

    ** We discussed that issue and the exact meaning of it.

    Aslo under http://www.islamicity.com/MOSQUE/ARABICSCRIPT/AYAT/4/4_34.ht m

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

    Turkish:
    4:34 Allah'in, bazisini bazisina stn kilmasi ve onlarin kendi mallarindan harcamasi nedeniyle erkekler, kadinlar zerinde 'sorumlu gzeticidir.' Saliha kadinlar, gnlden (Allah'a), itaat edenler, Allah nasil koruduysa grnmeyeni koruyanlardir. Nsuzundan korktugunuz kadinlara (nce) gt verin, (sonra onlari) yataklarda yalniz birakin, (bu da yetmezse hafife) vurun. Size itaat ederlerse aleyhlerinde bir yol aramayin. Dogrusu Allah ycedir, byktr.

     

    D.J. Kaufman
    Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.
    Back to Top
    Seko View Drop Down
    Emperor
    Emperor
    Avatar
    Spammer

    Joined: 01-Sep-2004
    Online Status: Offline
    Posts: 8595
      Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Oct-2005 at 16:01

    Darab does have certain meaning. And the Idrubuhunne meanings show that all Koranic English translations are not equal otherwise I would not have presented my case.

    4:34 - '...seperate from them' , Progressive translation.

        The men are to support the women by what God has gifted them over one another and for what they spend of their money. The upright women who are attentive, and keep private the personal matters for what God keeps watch over. As for those women from whom you fear a desertion, then you shall advise them, and abandon them in the bedchamber, and separate from them; if they obey you, then do not seek a way over them; God is High, Great.

            - '...e vden karn/bulunduklar yerden baka yere gnderin!' (remove them from your home/send them somewhere else)-Yasar Nuri Ozturk translation. 

             - '...004.034
    YUSUFALI: Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).
    PICKTHAL: Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.
    SHAKIR: Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.

    That is why all Quran translations in English use that interpretation. You won't find one Quran translation that says Darab in that verse as to seperate. Because in this usage it is obvious it is not, we dont have to twist around it. You are free to take that verse and ask any Arab languist.

     

    I just showed you many translations of the ayat in question. A few of them do say seperate!

     

    No verse talk about that everything we need will be " clearly detailed".

     

    6:114 "Shall I seek other than God as a judge when He has sent down to you this Scripture fully detailed?" Those to whom We have given the Scripture know it is sent down from your Lord with truth; so do not be of those who have doubt.

    Whatever the Prophet ordered you to do, you should do, and whatever he forbids you, you should reject " (Quran 59: 7)

    And where is that written? In the Koran. He was chosen to warn mankind. You say no two people can argue over following of the Koran and the Prophet. Good. I agree. I say two people can argue over what the meaning of it is though. It seems preposterous that most moslems believe that we are to follow the Sunnah of Muhammad because the Koran tells us to follow the prophet. Well, Abu Hurairah also tells us many things about the prophet. Is this Sunnah too? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Hurairah

    Isn't he a popularlly quoted compatriot of the prophet mentioned in hadith and in the Bukharri books? Is this how you determine your religion? I think I already know the answer.

    'Following the prophet' is listed many times. And it all means to follow the messenger and his mission. Tell me How many times does it tell us to follow Mohammed? In clear writing. None! (We all know his mission was the religion of Islam. Not how to grow a beard or brush one's teeth or whether to urinate while standing or sitting.) The interesting thing is that hadith was created against the prophets will too. But we do have contrasting accounts on this as well. Just pick your favorite hadith for or against. Whatever one fancies moslems have delivered in the 'historically' accurate accounts of Muhammad (Of course I am being sarcastic. We also know that people tempted for intelligence reach out at sources contrary to reason sometimes. Thanks to the rich Hadith collections).

    3:144 And Mohammed is but a messenger, like many messengers that have passed before him. If he dies or is killed will you turn back on your heels? And whoever turns back on his heels, he will not harm God in the least. And God will reward the thankful.
    33:40 Mohammed was not the father of any man among you, but he is the messenger of God and the seal of the prophets. And God is fully aware of all things.
    47:2 And those who believe and do good works, and believe in what was sent down to Mohammed, for it is the truth from their Lord, He cancels for them their sins, and relieves their concern.

    48:29 Mohammed is the messenger of God, and those who are with him are severe against the rejecters, but merciful between themselves. You see them kneeling and prostrating, they seek God's blessings and approval. Their distinction is in their faces, as a result of prostrating. Such is their example in the Torah. And their example in the Injeel is like a plant which shoots out and becomes strong and thick and it stands straight on its trunk, pleasing to the farmers. That He may enrage the rejecters with them. God promises those among them who believe and do good works a forgiveness and a great reward.

    He was clearly a messenger.

    46:9 Say: "I am no different from the other messengers, nor do I know what will happen to me or to you. I only follow what is inspired to me. I am no more than a clear warner"

    What did he warn with? The reliable Koran or the unreliable Sunnah? (But I am still waiting for someone to clearly tell me what sunnah we are talking about and what that really is.)

    Yes, we are different no doubt. I respect you Cok Gec for your knowledge and motivation in your intelligent discussions. No question about that.

    I have been from the Sunni path and I am, obviously, coming out of it and towards a more simple view of things. This is why I also have motivation to question and doubt the many things I have. Of course the inquiry is not finished. God willing we can all rest on the notion that we tried to understand as genuinely as possible the meanings of our history of religious edicts from Allah and the Messenger versus those from Allah plus Mohammed plus the Sahaba, and the Hadith, plus the schools of thought, and the historical fatwas, plus the Mullahs, Hodjas and all knwoing scholars, etc.

    Lastly, mention is given about the importance of Sunnah. I am alerting myself about an overreliance on Sunnah. I want to know where this information comes from and if it is to be trusted. Mention is given to conflicting versus, but I remember God telling us that the Koran has no contradiction. Finally, you never did answer why women cant lead prayer. Where is the historical quotes for this? If not then why not? 

    The 'tooth stick' matter is a metaphor against physical abuse. Actually, I can accept that watered down understanding. It sounds better than 'BEAT', doesn't it. Wish you or someone else would have made this statement in the first place. Too many people think beating is sanctioned and thus ok. The last part about divorce and seperation is definately bordering on personal opinions between me, you or scholars. This liberty of thought and realm of possibility is available within a ruling from common sense. We do not need other books to tell us (divorce/seperation) is ok or not. Such a decision is dependant on each and every case by the couples themselves. If it comes to divorce so be it. Divorce and seperation are allowed in Islam. Sepration for a period of time can also produce productive qualities in a relationship and test its worth as well.

    As you said apples and oranges.

     

     



    Edited by Seko
    Back to Top
    ok ge View Drop Down
    Arch Duke
    Arch Duke
    Avatar
    Retired AE Moderator

    Joined: 29-Aug-2005
    Location: Saudi Arabia
    Online Status: Offline
    Posts: 1775
      Quote ok ge Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Oct-2005 at 19:53

    Originally posted by Seko

       - '...004.034
    YUSUFALI: Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).
    PICKTHAL: Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.
    SHAKIR: Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.

    Well all of these various translations in English are saying: your limit to in your anger with her is to beat her. So all of the three sources (and probably the vast majority of English translated Qurans) will carry the full meaning and translation of "to beat". However, the degree of that beat is what we are disputing. Most of these translations will dispute the degree that limit is set, but I haven't seen any translation that carried a different meaning that "to beat" except your translation that Im gladly looking for its source for deeper look.

    Going back again, so all agree that a man limit is to beat. But the question is what is that beat? Scourge? Flunk? Touch? all of them are "to beat" in arabic. Here were I showed with Sunnah that that limit is definitely not "scourge" and not close to "light beating". It is more of metaphoric challenge that tells you, "Ok, you are so angry and want to explode, then remember that your maximum limit is a beat of a Miswak flunk!".

    Originally posted by Seko

    I just showed you many translations of the ayat in question. A few of them do say seperate!

    Yes, I asked why is it different because I requested the link if you don't mind. This will enable me to understand why this particular translation is different.

    Originally posted by Seko

    6:114 "Shall I seek other than God as a judge when He has sent down to you this Scripture fully detailed?" Those to whom We have given the Scripture know it is sent down from your Lord with truth; so do not be of those who have doubt.]!

    Sorry for redundancy, but I have to repeat my answer here:No verse talk about that everything we need will be " clearly detailed".  This actually include this verse you posted. Not everything we need in our religion is detailed in the Quran. The "Fully detailed" is following the "scripture" and it indicates clarity in its message. Its message is detailed and clear. Remember that we are not disputing Quran's message bieng detailed, we are saying while this message in itself is detailed, it is not sufficient. For instance: You have a book in Geography that talks in its chapter are written in extreme details. Does this mean all what you need regarding Geography is that book?

    This is why there is a messanger to explain. Otherwise, God can just send a book for us to read and that is enough. You will understand more what I mean looking too in this same verse translation:

    http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=DIV0& ; ;byte=190943

     [6.114] Shall I then seek a judge other than Allah? And He it is Who has revealed to you the Book (which is) made plain; and those whom We have given the Book know that it is revealed by your Lord with truth, therefore you should not be of the disputers.
    .

    Originally posted by Seko

    Following the prophet' is listed many times. And it all means to follow the messenger and his mission. Tell me How many times does it tell us to follow Mohammed? In clear writing. None! (We all know his mission was the religion of Islam.!

    And what do you suggest Mohammed is? a Prophet maybe?

    Also, you said "and it all means to follow the messenger and his mission" So we have two things to follow here. 1- messenger 2-his mission. They must be two seperate things because no redundancy can exist in the same verse. Then you proceed saying "All know his mission was the religion of Islam". Ok, that was his mission, which is the number (2) to follow. What about the messenger then, which is number (1).?

    Originally posted by Seko

    3:144 And Mohammed is but a messenger, like many messengers that have passed before him. If he dies or is killed will you turn back on your heels? And whoever turns back on his heels, he will not harm God in the least. And God will reward the thankful......(to the end of all verses)

    Seko, all these verses talks about not valuing the prophet more than his status as a prophet and not to direct any kind of worship as he is a human messenger and not divine as what happened to Jesus (PBUH), however, Mohammed is indeed a messenger. Hence, if you are ordered to follow the (1)messenger and (2) his mission, then it should be obvious that this includes following the prophet Muhammed. What is following him? is it his orders? his acts? his reactions? those all are Sunnah.

    Originally posted by Seko

    What did he warn with? The reliable Koran or the unreliable Sunnah? (But I am still waiting for someone to clearly tell me what sunnah we are talking about and what that really is.

    The prophet was a messenger. If you meant that Sunnah is unrealiable because there are contradicting weaker hadiths. I explained to you the "Naskh" and "Mansoukh" or "Mansoukhat" in the Quran. We are able to identify strong hadiths from weak ones, as much are we are able to identify copied Quranic verses. The fact they exist, does no mean we have to delete them out of history as much as again, we don't edit the Quran. The Quran is not unreliable with those copied verses, and the Hadith is not unreliable with the other weaker hadiths. 

    Originally posted by Seko

    Yes, we are different no doubt. I respect you Cok Gec for your knowledge and motivation in your intelligent discussions. No question about that..

    Same here. You have my full respect for your knowledge and I hope you learn something form me as Im learning from you too. Being different is actually a blessing as we are not all born in a rigid unquestionable view of the world. Muslim scholars say "the difference of opinions in the Ummah is a mercy from God".

    Originally posted by Seko

    the meanings of our history of religious edicts from Allah and the Messenger versus those from Allah plus Mohammed plus the Sahaba, and the Hadith, plus the schools of thought, and the historical fatwas, plus the Mullahs, Hodjas and all knwoing scholars, etc...

    No source of our religion except Allah and his messenger, which is the same as the first part of your second group "Alllah plus Mohammed".

    Originally posted by Seko

    Finally, you never did answer why women cant lead prayer. Where is the historical quotes for this? If not then why not?...
     

    I did seko. If you returned to my earlier posts, I explained to you that worships and rituals are to be observed as exactly as done as duirng the prophet. You cannot add or substract. Rituals and worships are revealed by God only to his messenger. No scholar, analyst, or a student of any school of thought can say, we can alter the following ritual.

    Regarding the historical quoet on this, the prophet peace be upon him did not approve for a woman to lead a prayer except Umm Waraqa, an Ansari woman who was well versed in the Quran, who led her family member only(Hadith, Sunan of Abu Dawud); (Musnad Ahmed Ibn Hanbal) << that something you might be interested to look in.

    So, the idea of a woman leading a prayer wasn't absent. It was there and it was clearly constrained. Otherwise, we would have seen Aisha the prophet's wife lead a prayer with the Sahabah since she was so knowledgable that many companions come to study on her hand. But it didn't happen that she led them in a prayer.

    Another point to mention, if you are going to ignore the above historical evidance and continue looking for Quran to clearly tells you that a woman cannot lead a mixed-gender prayer, you might as well try to find a verse that says woman can lead a mixed-gender prayer.  You won't find it too. So the Quran is silent on both. You won't find your answer.

    Originally posted by Seko

    The 'tooth stick' matter is a metaphor against physical abuse. Actually, I can accept that watered down understanding. It sounds better than 'BEAT', doesn't it. Wish you or someone else would have made this statement in the first place. Too many people think beating is sanctioned and thus ok

    Definitely it is not beating. However, neither it is watered down. In my earlier post, I explained to you that it is the maximum you can do in your anger being challenged to hit with a Miswak (which is useless anyhow unless it helps putting out your anger away) and I right away cited to you two hadiths that clearly stated that beating (the harm beat as it is known in the usage of English language) a woman is forbidden. The second hadith even said that you cannot harm physically any person. period!

    If you would have read them and took those two hadiths seriously, the delimma of "Daraba" would have been solved already as the messenger of God already told us what is that "Daraba". However, you decided to go the tougher & longer in reconciling the verse.



    Edited by ok ge
    D.J. Kaufman
    Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.
    Back to Top
    SearchAndDestroy View Drop Down
    Caliph
    Caliph
    Avatar

    Joined: 15-Aug-2004
    Location: United States
    Online Status: Offline
    Posts: 2728
      Quote SearchAndDestroy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Oct-2005 at 22:04

    Originally posted by Mortaza

    Infact If we want to create equality with woman, we should to protect them. They have not enough force(as a whole) to live alone. Our first priority should to increase their education and protect them, until they can stand alone.

    In America women do fine on their own. Many women actually like to be on their own. And women can be very tough, while my sister doesn't look like a tough person she I'd feel bad for anyone to ever lay a finger on her. If her b/f ever hit her I'd had to wait until he got out of Critical Care before I can do anything about it.

    Originally posted by cok gec

    A woman has to dress modestly. they cannot demand equality in dress by asking to allow them to wear mini skirts.

    Why does a women have to dress a certain way. I believe they should dress anyway they feel, it's their life let them live. Men can dress anyway they want, it's only fair for women.

    "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
    Back to Top
    Seko View Drop Down
    Emperor
    Emperor
    Avatar
    Spammer

    Joined: 01-Sep-2004
    Online Status: Offline
    Posts: 8595
      Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Oct-2005 at 00:15
    Looks like its my turn to respond to this topic again, peacefully. I'll do so soon enough.
    Back to Top
    Illuminati View Drop Down
    General
    General
    Avatar

    Joined: 08-Dec-2004
    Location: United States
    Online Status: Offline
    Posts: 949
      Quote Illuminati Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Oct-2005 at 00:45
    hmm... very interesting article.

    I think women's rights should be a bigger deal in the world today. I think women should have every right that a man has. If a woman wants to dress against the "norm" then by all means, let her dress against the norm. people can scowl at her all they want, but no laws should exist that state how a woman can and cannot dress. It's ridiculous to force people to act and behave a certain way merely because the majority of people act and dress that way.

    And one thing that I strongly disagree with, is the outlawing of adultery in certain nations. I believe a woman should be free to committ adultery. While certainly not a respected behavior, it is a person's inherent right to do as they please with their own body. I think it is foolish to have laws forbiding adultery. A woman's body belongs to the woman, not some holy book.


    Edited by Illuminati
    Back to Top
    Seko View Drop Down
    Emperor
    Emperor
    Avatar
    Spammer

    Joined: 01-Sep-2004
    Online Status: Offline
    Posts: 8595
      Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Oct-2005 at 17:00

    Caution: Heavy dose of religious terminology and reference to scripture. For muslims mostly, though anyone interested should stick along.

     

    Ok now. Where did we leave off? Ah! Yes. The quotes on beating women versus leaving (seperating from) them.

    4:34
    Trke
    Edip Yksel 4:34 Erkekler kadınları gzetirler. Zira ALLAH her birine farklı yetenekler ve zellikler vermiştir. Nitekim erkekler evin geiminden sorumludur. Erdemli kadınlar, (Tanrı'nın yasasına) boyun eğer ve ALLAH'ın korumasını emrettiği (onur ve iffetlerini) tek başlarına bile olsalar korurlar. İffetlerinden endişe duyduğunuz kadınlara ğt verin, yataklarınızı ayırın ve nihayet onları ıkarın. Size itaat ederlerse onlara karşı bir yol aramayın. ALLAH Ycedir, Byktr.
    Yaşar Nuri ztrk 4:34 Erkekler; kadınları gzetip kollayıcıdırlar. Şundan ki, Allah, insanların bazılarını bazılarından stn kılmıştır ve erkekler mallarından bol blo harcamışlardır. İyi ve temiz kadınlar saygılıdırlar; Allah'ın kendilerini koruduğu gibi, gizliliği gereken şeyi korurlar. Sadakatsizlik ve iffetsizliklerinden korktuğunuz kadınlara nce ğt verin, sonra onları yataklarında yalnız bırakın ve nihayet onları evden ıkarın/bulundukları yerden başka yere gnderin! Bunun zerine size saygılı davranırlarsa artık onlar aleyhine başka bir yol aramayın. Allah ok ycedir, sınırsızca byktr.
    Muhammed Esed 4:34 ERKEKLER, kadınları, Allahın kendilerine onlardan daha fazla bağışladığı nimetler ve sahip oldukları servetten yapabilecekleri harcamalarla koruyup gzetirler. Drst ve erdemli kadınlar, gerekten Allahın koru(nmasını buyur)duğu mahremiyeti koruyan sadık ve itaatkar kadınlardır. Kt niyetlerinden korktuğunuz kadınlara gelince, onlara (nce) nasihat edin; sonra yatakta yalnız bırakın; sonra dvn; ve bundan sonra itaat ederlerse onları incitmekten kaının. Allah gerekten ycedir, byktr.
    Transliterasyon 4:34 Er rical kavvamune alen nisai bi ma faddalellah ba'dahm ala ba'dıv ve bi ma enfeku min emvalihim fes salihat kanitatn hafizatl lil ğaybi bi ma hafızallah vellatı tehafune nşzehnne fe ızuhnne vehcruhnne fil medaciı vadribuhnn fe in eta'nekm fe la tebğu aleyhinne sebıla innellahe kane aliyyen kebıra
    English
    Progressive Muslims 4:34 The men are to support the women by what God has gifted them over one another and for what they spend of their money. The upright women who are attentive, and keep private the personal matters for what God keeps watch over. As for those women from whom you fear a desertion, then you shall advise them, and abandon them in the bedchamber, and separate from them; if they obey you, then do not seek a way over them; God is High, Great.
    Rashad Khalifa 4:34 The men are made responsible for the women, and GOD has endowed them with certain qualities, and made them the bread earners. The righteous women will cheerfully accept this arrangement, since it is GOD's commandment, and honor their husbands during their absence. If you experience rebellion from the women, you shall first talk to them, then (you may use negative incentives like) deserting them in bed, then you may (as a last alternative) beat them. If they obey you, you are not permitted to transgress against them. GOD is Most High, Supreme.
    Transliteration 4:34 Alrrijalu qawwamoonaAAala alnnisa-i bima faddalaAllahu baAAdahum AAala baAAdin wabimaanfaqoo min amwalihim faalssalihatu qanitatunhafithatun lilghaybi bima hafithaAllahu waallatee takhafoonanushoozahunna faAAithoohunna waohjuroohunnafee almadajiAAi waidriboohunna fa-in ataAAnakumfala tabghoo AAalayhinna sabeelan inna Allaha kanaAAaliyyan kabeeran
    Arabic
    Original Text 4:34 الرجال قومون على النساء بما فضل الله بعضهم على بعض وبما انفقوا من امولهم فالصلحت قنتت حفظت للغيب بما حفظ الله والتى تخافون نشوزهن فعظوهن واهجروهن فى المضاجع واضربوهن فان اطعنكم فلا تبغوا عليهن سبيلا ان الله كان عليا كبيرا

    http://19.org/km/PM/4/34

    These are the translations that were part of the original five I presented and then some.

     

    The next issue I am defending has to do with our only holy Book as protected and approved of by God.

    The Koran is the Criterion (Al-Furqan) 2:185. With this in mind muslims are to see God as an arbriter of his holy Book. We see words like Tafseer (detailed explaination) throughout its pages. When doubters were asking the Prophet for miracles he told them that he came as a clear warner and that the Koran is enough of a reminder. (29:51)

    This book alerts its readers that it's a scripture which clarifies everything one needs for guidance and mercy. (16:89) It contains clear revelations. 54:17 - "And We made the Koran easy to learn. Do any of you wish to learn?" 2:242 - "It is such that God clarifies to you his revelations that you may comprehend." 

    ____________________________________________________

    Cok Gec wrote:

    Sorry for redundancy, but I have to repeat my answer here:No verse talk about that everything we need will be " clearly detailed".  This actually include this verse you posted. Not everything we need in our religion is detailed in the Quran. The "Fully detailed" is following the "scripture" and it indicates clarity in its message. Its message is detailed and clear. Remember that we are not disputing Quran's message bieng detailed, we are saying while this message in itself is detailed, it is not sufficient. For instance: You have a book in Geography that talks in its chapter are written in extreme details. Does this mean all what you need regarding Geography is that book?

    This is why there is a messanger to explain. Otherwise, God can just send a book for us to read and that is enough. You will understand more what I mean looking too in this same verse translation:

    http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=DIV0& ; ; ; ; ; ; ;byte=190943

    _______________________________________________________

    You seem to say that we cannot find the enough details for our rituals in our Book and that the message in the Koran is not sufficient. I think he would have been more acurate if had just  remained aware of the following: That God explains revelations (24:61, 6:55, 6:98, 9:11, 7:174). That God is the teacher of it too. 55:1-2 - "The Almighty. Teacher of the Quran." 

    Instead Cok Gec shows us that the only way to recieve extra information is to get it from the messsenger. Unfortunately for us, the Messenger/Prophet Mohammed is deceased. If we prayed to him he would not answer at all. Dead people can't do that. However, If we wanted to know what he taught while he was here on this earth we could research a few references. Mainly the Koran. For many the Sunnah (Hadith-Sayings, Sharia) too. And let's not forget history books. Lets see what God says about this issue:  69:43-46 - "This is the utterance of an honorable messenger. A revelation from the Lord of the Worlds. Had he (Mohammed) uttered any other teachings. We would have punished him. Then We would have severed his life-line (stopped sending him revelations)." As we can clearly see, the revelations were given to the Messenger so he could share them with people. But he was not to cross his boundaries. If he did he would have been removed from his position. The Messenger may be away in heaven, but his message is well preserved in the Koran.

    4:80 - 'Whoever obeys the Messenger has obeyed God."

    So what is a messenger? Besides receiving revelations what else does he do? Let's take a look.

    5:48 - "Judge by what God has sent down - the Scripture." We know who received this scripture. And we are supposed to judge by it! What else? Messengers were the bearers of good news and were warners 6:48. Mohammed was not a fortune teller. He did not know what the future holds. However, some of the Sunni faithfull still hold onto unsubstantiated predictions (46:9). 7:188 - "Say, I do not posses for myself anyy benefit or harm, except what God wills. And if I could know the future, then I would have increased my good fortune, and no harm would have come to me. I am but a warner and a bearer of good news to people who believe."

    Messengers warned the proud too. "And similarly, We did not send a warner to a town, except its carefree ones said: We found our fathers following a certain way, and we are being guided in their footsteps". 43:23

    Most of the muslims need Hadith books and answers from scholars to explain their religion to them. After all the verses on clarity and explaining, detail and warning why is this still so? Here is on e reason why the Koran is not good enough for most (17:46).

    If a book contained many lies and contradictions what would you think of that book? Would you still accept it? Or would you want to go to one that is truthfull?

    Over the course of this debate, I have stressed that the office of the Messenger and the mission is one and the same. Yet some insist that they must mean two different things. News Flash! An engineer does engineering. A attorney provides legal representation. A messenger provides good news believers and gives clear warnings to offenders. He delivers the message. That is the mission. Oh yes, he does go into detail on many issues. God did give him that inspiration and wisdom. Guess where it is all written? In the Koran. It is a book about religion, history, life and  afterlife among many other things. It's not a book about total etiquette. That is left to us. It does go into moral behavior between the sexes and about hygeine. But it does not go into detail about how to shake ones hand with a member of the opposite sex or how to avoid certain music or improve your sex life. Those kind of details are found in bookd of hadith. Try Sahih Bukhary Vol.7 Book 62 No.17 for starters or Vol.7, Book 62, No. 33 - "Narrated by Usama bin Zaid: The Prophet said, "After me I have not left any affliction more harmful to men than women."

    The Koran is open to questioning. God, in fact, encourages it. The hadiths, on the other hand, may appear helpfull but they are not necessary. Does it pass the test under closer scrutiny. Is it consistent? Is it moral? Is it contradictory? Is it even healthy?

    So how does one judge between usefull hadith and the weak and wrong hadiths? Well, once upon a time a bunch of scholars got together and collected thousands upon thousands of extra-Koranic sayings floating aroung the world. This happened around 180 years after messenger/prophet Mohammed's departure to the next world. The land was full of new converts. Schools were opend by these converts so as to make sense out of the numerous sayings. They were motivated muslims. From the circulated sayings at the time of the prophet to almost two centuries later a book was made in Persia. The author discarded the majority of them and only accepted a few tried and 'true' ones. Still they were in the thousands. The most important factor in determining 'weak' from 'strong' hadiths was determined by concensus. That's right. A popular vote of sorts. In comparison we have a Book (Koran) sanctioned by the one and only God and then we have another outlaw book(s) judged worthy because a few 'scholars' said so. Which book is preserved from distortion? Which one has a mathematical code built into it to verify its supernatural authenticity? Which book(s) are without these guarentees?

    We have been told to judge by what God has sent us. The messenger will complain on the day of judgement that his people have foresaken the Koran.

    4:136

    O you who believe; believe in God and His messenger, and the Scripture which was sent down to His messenger, and the Scripture that was sent before. And whoever rejects God, and His Angels, and His Scriptures, and His messengers, and the Last Day; then he has strayed a far straying.

     

    In clear language we are told to believe in God then accept the scripture which was provided to and by the messenger(s). -Past messengers brought previous scriptures.

    In conclusion we are told to either go with one written source of reilgious doctrine or we are told to accept its limitations and go with the extra help and judgements from the Hadith books. Personally I see value in Hadith only when I want to get an idea about the story behind the scenes. A picture of the workings of people at the time. Not for religious duties but for history. I firmly will stay with the notion that we are to remain inquisitive towards God. That He will provide answers and that His religion is presented to us in the Koran by a wonderful messenger named Mohammed.

    Side Note - Here is a list of the 6 important collectors of Hadith. Can be hazzardous to your health.

    1) Ismail al Bukhari

    2) Muslim ibn Al-Hajjaj al-Qushayri

    3) Tirmidhi

    4) Abu Daud al-Sijistani

    5) Majal

    6) Ahmad ibn Shuyayt an-Nasal

     

     

     

     



    Edited by Seko
    Back to Top
    Maju View Drop Down
    King
    King
    Avatar

    Joined: 14-Jul-2005
    Online Status: Offline
    Posts: 6565
      Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Nov-2005 at 08:47
    I think the theological discussion is somehow exausted. What about the relative weight of civil law vs religious law. In western societies seems pretty clear that civil law is above any religious one (in fact, religious law has none or almost no relevance at all in daily affairs). Civil society is the one to set up the rules an not any priest or mullah or rabbi (though of course these can have some influence on civil society). Is this model appliable to Muslim societies? Turkey and others have tried to do it.

    I mention it because, it would seem like if all the question on women's rights is a theological one when actually has nothing to do with it: it is a civil (secular) matter... and let religion stay in the houses of worship and the hearts of the believers.

    Thoughts?

    NO GOD, NO MASTER!
    Back to Top
    ok ge View Drop Down
    Arch Duke
    Arch Duke
    Avatar
    Retired AE Moderator

    Joined: 29-Aug-2005
    Location: Saudi Arabia
    Online Status: Offline
    Posts: 1775
      Quote ok ge Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Nov-2005 at 09:24
    Originally posted by Seko

    These are the translations that were part of the original five I presented and then some.

    Thank you for the link. As you said earlier, most of the translations will render the literal meaning of "Daraba" or "to beat". While you can find couple translations that disagree with this Tafseer, all Quran Arabic translations will not deviate from the literal interpretation of Daraba. I personally would believe that going with the norms is expected rather than the exceptions. You always can find what you like in the hundreds and hundreds of Quran meaning's translation books, however, the majority will stick on the exact interpretation of the verse and rather come back to explain the verse in association to its application during the Prophet time. Which makes more sense than working on finding loopholes in the language because we Muslims simply don't water down our religion, for there is nothing to be embarrased with at all.

    Anyhow, I think we consumed a lot of time on that verse and It is clear to both sides that the verse does not illustrate Daraba as the physical harm. Note please that the reason we keep Quran in its original text (Arabic one) is for a reason which is to be able to come back to those original words that god sent. If Daraba does not mean "to seperate" in Arabic then definitely it does not mean "to seperate" in any language because God does not send his message to people in different tongue than theirs and neither he sends his message to have them understand it better only when they translate it to a different language!

    Now we shall leave this issue of Daraba forever as we have already answered it, let us go back to the real issue, Quran & Sunnah Vs. Quran.

    Originally posted by Seko

    The Koran is the Criterion (Al-Furqan) 2:185. With this in mind muslims are to see God as an arbriter of his holy Book. We see words like Tafseer (detailed explaination) throughout its pages. When doubters were asking the Prophet for miracles he told them that he came as a clear warner and that the Koran is enough of a reminder. (29:51).

    Notice Seko I underlined your phrase "Koran is enough of a reminder". Can you remind someone of something he does not know? No. This means the Quran is a reminder of an older thing that has been forgotten. That thing is simply the message of monothiesm and the day of judgement. Therefore, you cannot remind people of jurisdiction and laws because these are not forgotten, these are taught new to all mankind.

    Finally, The Quran being a miracle does not means the sufficiency without Sunnah. Crossing the sea, dividing the moon...etc All miracles but does not fullfill anything in driving laws and jurisdictions.

    Originally posted by Seko

    This book alerts its readers that it's a scripture which clarifies everything one needs for guidance and mercy. (16:89) It contains clear revelations. 54:17 - "And We made the Koran easy to learn. Do any of you wish to learn?" 2:242 - "It is such that God clarifies to you his revelations that you may comprehend.".

    Also guidance and mercy are not laws and jurisdictions. If it was for the Quran to give us all laws and jurisdictions we need in Islam, why would Allah asks us to ask people of knoweldge? Quran even instruct you to ask people of knowelde and the messenger.

    http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/016.qmt.html

    016.043
    YUSUFALI: And before thee also the messengers We sent were but men, to whom We granted inspiration: if ye realise this not, ask of those who possess the Message.
    PICKTHAL: And We sent not (as Our messengers) before thee other than men whom We inspired - Ask the followers of the Remembrance if ye know not! -
    SHAKIR: And We did not send before you any but men to whom We sent revelation-- so ask the followers of the Reminder if you do not know--

    howAya(16,43)"> (:43):

    howAya(16,43)">

    Originally posted by Seko

    Instead Cok Gec shows us that the only way to recieve extra information is to get it from the messsenger. Unfortunately for us, the Messenger/Prophet Mohammed is deceased. If we prayed to him he would not answer at all. Dead people can't do that..

    Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) is deceased but not his Sunnah and the Quran that has been revealed. You don't have to knock on his tomb and ask as much as you don't have to claimb the sky and ask God. There is Quran and there is Sunnah.

    Also refer back to above verse of 16:43 as we discussed that God instructs you to ask those of knoweldge and the messenger.

    Originally posted by Seko

    4:80 - 'Whoever obeys the Messenger has obeyed God."..

    I'm not sure why did you use this verse. This verse says that obeying the messenger is also obeying the God. Whereas you say obeying God is obeying the messenger. Sorry, not exactly the same. This verse works against you in fact.

    Originally posted by Seko

    .If a book contained many lies and contradictions what would you think of that book? Would you still accept it? Or would you want to go to one that is truthfull?.

    I think we are going in circles here. So far, none of the verses say that you should follow the revelation of God only and NOT the messenger. In fact the opposite. I guess the issue that is clear and we should focus on is: Is Hadith something to trust or not as Quran is already protected? That is the real issue.

    Originally posted by Seko

    .Over the course of this debate, I have stressed that the office of the Messenger and the mission is one and the same. Yet some insist that they must mean two different things. News Flash! An engineer does engineering. A attorney provides legal representation. A messenger provides good news believers and gives clear warnings to offenders. He delivers the message. That is the mission. Oh yes, he does go into detail on many issues. God did give him that inspiration and wisdom. Guess where it is all written? In the Koran. It is a book about religion, history, life and  afterlife among many other things?

    Actually the messenger is different than the message. This is a very basic concept. You Seko as a person is totally different than the book of engineering you have or the book of law. What you talk about engineering or law is your product and not necessary the book product. Same for the messenger. Prophet Muhammed has the book (Quran) words by words as you have your engineering book or whatever source you have. Prophet Muhammed at the same time is not the Quran! There is a (1) Mission and (2) messenger. I think you are confusing between Mission and Message. We are talking here about Mission and Messenger.

    Originally posted by Seko

    .Try Sahih Bukhary Vol.7 Book 62 No.17 for starters or Vol.7, Book 62, No. 33 - "Narrated by Usama bin Zaid: The Prophet said, "After me I have not left any affliction more harmful to men than women."

    So because you don't like what he says you refuse accepting that he said it? Or maybe you believe he really said it but let us ignore him and focus on the Quran? Which way?

    Anyhow, eventhough, the Hadith above is not that hard. You have to know the story and the situation it was said in, as much as we did for the Quranic verse. In the same book, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 31: Narrated Ibn 'Umar: Evil omen was mentioned before the Prophet: The Prophet said, "If there is evil omen in anything, it is in the house, the woman and the horse." Volume 7, Book 62, Number 33: Narrated Usama bin Zaid: The Prophet said, "After me I have not left any affliction more harmful to men than women."

    As you see, they are even in the same chapter of Hadith classification. Basically the prophet says to his fellow men, the wordly matters for you are an attachment to this life and bad (evil) for you. The word used in Arabic (shar) which means bad. Women, horse, and the house cannot be evil entities!! It is a description that should have been translated as "bad". A lot of things that are good in general are bad for you in a specific time. I like peanuts, if i have an allergy to peanuts, peanuts are bad (evil if you want to you use it). But peanuts are not evil in their nature.

    If the prophet would have been setting with women today, he would have said to them in that context: there are wordly matters for you that distract your attention from God and they are bad (evil), Men, TV, and shopping.  

    Look to the statement of Allah in his Quran: 'Truly, among your wives and your children, there are enemies for you (i.e may stop you from the obedience of Allah)' (64.14) >> Does this mean they are enemy? I guess you got the point.

    Just a request Seko, let us focus on debating the "reliability of Sunnah to our religion" as a criteria to decide if Sunnah is reliable or not. That is better than attacking Hadiths and Quranic verses.

    Originally posted by Seko

    " O you who believe; believe in (1)God and (2)His messenger, and (3)the Scripture which was sent down to His messenger, and (4)the Scripture that was sent before. And whoever rejects God, and His Angels, and His Scriptures, and His messengers, and the Last Day; then he has strayed a far straying."

    In clear language we are told to believe in God then accept the scripture which was provided to and by the messenger(s). -Past messengers brought previous scriptures..

    So you decided that "told to believe in God then accept the scripture which was provided to and by the messenger". Clearly here you indicate that God is different than the scripture which was provided to and by the messenger. Otherwise, why did you use the word "then" indicating a hierarchy? Which is obsolutely right and I agree with, that God is different than "the scripture which was provided" to the messenger. However, you missed couple points in this logic:

    1- If we are instructed to believe in God, then, the scripture that was sent to his messenger, where is His messenger? You left this out. And clearly the messenger is different than the "scripture that was sent to his messenger" as "God" is different to both. Refer back to the my Quote of your verse above where I numbered them and underlined them.

    2- If as you say, the messege is also the scripture sent by god, which is the Quran, why do we have the messenger here as a seperate entity as God is a seperate entity? Why the verse was not for example: " O you who believe; believe in (1)God and (2)the Scripture which was sent down to His messenger or the mission, and (3)the Scripture that was sent before ???

    I guess I gave you a lot of issues to go over, I'm not in a hurry. So enjoy those points on your weekend

    Maju, I think me and Seko already have hijacked this thread



    Edited by ok ge
    D.J. Kaufman
    Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.
    Back to Top
    Maju View Drop Down
    King
    King
    Avatar

    Joined: 14-Jul-2005
    Online Status: Offline
    Posts: 6565
      Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Nov-2005 at 09:48


    It seems that the theological discussion is not as exausted as I thought.

    Anyhow, I would also like to discuss the relative weight of secular and religious law and the possibility of secular law overriding religious one for civil matters as happen, at least nominally, in most Muslim countries, where Sharia (sharias?) is not oficial.

    NO GOD, NO MASTER!
    Back to Top
    Seko View Drop Down
    Emperor
    Emperor
    Avatar
    Spammer

    Joined: 01-Sep-2004
    Online Status: Offline
    Posts: 8595
      Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Nov-2005 at 10:07

    Cok Gec you often mix the messenger and his message as seperate entities and give all kinds of rational for your beliefs. They are technically seperate in that one was a human being and the other a physical book. They are both reflections of speech and behavior. You tend to turn good questions into frivolous ones. The messenger brought, recited and presented the scripture. Why do you make a simple reality look puzzling? We know messenger and God are two different things. The messenger and the act of providing the message are one and the same when it comes to information as provided by the Koran. His actions are either religious behaviors or not. Not all of his daily lifestyle decisions and behaviors are part of Islam. That is unless you or others have creatively built a religion of Islam that contains such frivolous matters.

    The difference between us is that you want to focus on jurisdictions and laws apart from the Koran and I don't. This is evident from both of our posts. Sunni versus Progressive. I am not entering a popularity contest and I do not necessarily accept the popular view if it goes against my conscience. Hence my support of my stated position even though only three out of seven Koranic translations of verse 4:34 are in the minority.

    You know the Hadith I presented was a very kind and gentle one. But it gets to the point of the matter about women. I could have provided real gruesome ones too. Do not ecpect people to read this issue as the way it may have been intended. To say that women, horses, and houses are worldly attachments that needs to be shunned leaves room for naive people to abuse women, horses, houses etc. Let alone dogs too (another hadith). Just the mention against women can be taken concretely instead of figuratively. Does the Koran talk about women as possesions to be shunned because they lead to blasphemy?

    Most of my reference mentions the clarity of the Koran. To seek God directly. We have a book, dirceted by God and written by a messenger who practiced the meaning of the book. Instead you focused on tangents and not the whole picture. The tangents are not even refuted correctly. Your appeal to opinion does not prove your arguement.

    My didactic discusion is hereby over. I think we both have presented our case and are willing to only back them up instead of mutually agree.

     



    Edited by Seko
    Back to Top
    ok ge View Drop Down
    Arch Duke
    Arch Duke
    Avatar
    Retired AE Moderator

    Joined: 29-Aug-2005
    Location: Saudi Arabia
    Online Status: Offline
    Posts: 1775
      Quote ok ge Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Nov-2005 at 10:35

    Originally posted by Seko

    Cok Gec you often mix the messenger and his message as seperate entities and give all kinds of rational for your beliefs. They are technically seperate in that one was a human being and the other a physical book. They are both reflections of speech and behavior. You tend to turn good questions into frivolous ones.
      

    If you believe that the messenger and the message as "They are both reflections of speech and behavior" then I don't see where is it a problem to believe that those speech and behaviors are part of the message? If you believe that I should not "mix the messenger and his message as seperate entities"

    Originally posted by Seko

    You know the Hadith I presented was a very kind and gentle one. But it gets to the point of the matter about women. I could have provided real gruesome ones too. Do not ecpect people to read this issue as the way it may have been intended. To say that women, horses, and houses are worldly attachments that needs to be shunned leaves room for naive people to abuse women, horses, houses etc. Let alone dogs too (another hadith). Just the mention against women can be taken concretely instead of figuratively. Does the Koran talk about women as possesions to be shunned because they lead to blasphemy?

    Yes, the Quran does. What is the differenet between the Hadith you posted and this Quranic verse? 'Truly, among your wives and your children, there are enemies for you (i.e may stop you from the obedience of Allah)' (64.14) 

    Originally posted by Seko

    The difference between us is that you want to focus on jurisdictions and laws apart from the Koran and I don't.

    Im not sure what do you mean by me focusing on jurisdiciton and laws apart from the Koran.  Ive always stressed on the fact that both Koran and Sunnah complete each others for our jurisdiction and laws.

    By the way, my last post had 4 questions to be answered. But anyhow, we presented our cases. I'm still up for further qualrification but I don't think I can add anything to this point without further inquiries



    Edited by ok ge
    D.J. Kaufman
    Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.
    Back to Top
    Seko View Drop Down
    Emperor
    Emperor
    Avatar
    Spammer

    Joined: 01-Sep-2004
    Online Status: Offline
    Posts: 8595
      Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Nov-2005 at 10:40

    Originally posted by Maju



    It seems that the theological discussion is not as exausted as I thought.

    Anyhow, I would also like to discuss the relative weight of secular and religious law and the possibility of secular law overriding religious one for civil matters as happen, at least nominally, in most Muslim countries, where Sharia (sharias?) is not oficial.

    I would like to know who those muslim countries, where shria is not law, are too! I could onoy think of Turkey. But I may be in the dark here. As Cok Gec and I have discussed laws are a major part of Islam. Some believe that the religious laws should be Koranic. Others want to add heresay which considers what the prophet might have done in a similar position. Yet not all of a states laws pertain to religion.

    I think we do agree that laws left out of the Koran can be decided upon by consensus amoung those who are knowledgeable. This is a point where perhaps Cok Gec and I believe in but we represented our views from different angles. Such as religious laws based on reference to the Koran and other texts (plus problem solving debates and discussions) or laws based on the Koran and just problem solving debates and discussions.

    I think that religious laws are an influence guiding secular debates. This type of jurisdiction is healthy in that it promotes inquiry into topics that may not be religiously sanctioned and can promote concensus amoung politicians. Most importantly this religious angle should not become abused or used as the sole philosophy in creating laws. Secularism protects from such an abuse.

    Originally posted by Cok Gec

    Notice Seko I underlined your phrase "Koran is enough of a reminder". Can you remind someone of something he does not know? No. This means the Quran is a reminder of an older thing that has been forgotten. That thing is simply the message of monothiesm and the day of judgement. Therefore, you cannot remind people of jurisdiction and laws because these are not forgotten, these are taught new to all mankind.

    Two more items on this and another matter. 'The' reminder is not only for believers of past scriptures. Current and future societies will need reminders and they will find it in the Koran. Why use the word reminder for followers of past scriptures? Because it reminds them of duties and rituals that were forgotten or used innappropriately. Who had these acts and rituals before Muhammed's contemporary muslims then? Good question. Look into it. Islam has been around for generations. Rituals before Muhammed too. If you haven't found the answer ask and I will provide. The answer is in the Koran. So look it up there first.

     

    Originally posted by Cok Gec

    Yes, the Quran does. What is the differenet between the Hadith you posted and this Quranic verse? 'Truly, among your wives and your children, there are enemies for you (i.e may stop you from the obedience of Allah)' (64.14) 

    This quote follows previous ayat that talks about the importance of accepting God's revelations. Anyone may be a disbeliever, even wives and children. Money and children are a test. Therefore, the importance to be steadfast in belief in God. The hadith mentions that women are the biggest affliction to men (And that men should not show too much attention to worldly and vain things like sex, riches etc). The first part is pure hadith falacy. In fact, God tells us to forgive family members so that God can show his mercy. So which one is most detailed. Koran or Hadith? If you think it is means the same thing (I don't) then why have both? Isn't one book good enough? Does hadith really clarify this issue or create confusion? The Koranic example raises the point about difficulties men face with disbelievers. It makes no wholesale claims that women are evil omens who are an affliction to mankind. It only cautions believers to be mindfull that family members can even become enemies of the faithful. Not character assasination and prejudism to half the worlds population because of man's human desire.



    Edited by Seko
    Back to Top
     Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>

    Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

    Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
    Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

    This page was generated in 0.152 seconds.