Non-Muslims around the world have been cheering the bold stand taken by Nujood Ali, a ten-year-old girl who just divorced a man more than three times her age. Nujood reports that her husband raped and beat her. This is yet another instance of the conflict between Muhammad's teachings and basic human rights. Why was this man having sex with a ten-year-old girl? Because he's a Muslim, and Muhammad allowed his followers to have sex with young girls. (For more on Muhammad's marriage to Aisha, click here.) Why did the man beat Nujood when she resisted? Because he's a Muslim, and the Qur'an (4:34) allows husbands to beat rebellious wives. (Note: I'm not saying that all Muslim men marry young girls and beat their wives. I'm simply saying that those who are attracted to young girls are free to marry them, and that those who have rebellious wives are free to beat them--according to the teachings of their prophet.)
"Child Bride Gets Divorced after Rape, Beatings"
"Yemen Child Bride Nujood Ali Gets Divorce"
David, I thought you were more than this. You keep rehashing the same old worn and torn arguments.
The man RAPED the girl. She wasn't ready for it and he FORCED her. Her parents were also careless in marrying her to him, since they didn't properly investigate who this man was and they only did it because they couldn't afford taking care of her.
Now, did that happen with Muhammad and Aisha's case???? UMMMM, NOOOOO.
Her being 10 has nothing to do with it, the man she married was a sick freak who liked to rape women. Even if she was 20, he still would have raped her.
Atleast this shows that Islam grants our women the freedom to get a divorce whenever their rights are being abused or are disatisfied with their husbands.
What does Christianity say? Doesn't your religion say that the woman can only seek a divorce when her husband cheats on her? What if she marries some guy who turns out to be a lazy bum and his personality sucks? Is she FORCED to remain patient and be his wife?
Also, don't you feel sorry for the women who the God of the Old Testament had ordered to be raped? I bet some of them were as young as that girl shown in the article.
As for the beating, how many times do we have to repeat ourselves? Can you find any quote from any well respected classical scholar that understood or interpreted Surah 4 as allowing injurious wife abuse? That the beating is injurious and causes physical harm and leaves bruises and marks? Can you? And even if you do, this would only be appealing to authority since this will go against the majority scholarly position and wouldn contradict the statement of the Prophet regarding this issue.
How many times do we have to quote scholars from the four schools of thought that have stated that the beating can't leave marks, must not be injurious, must not be on the face, etc. and it should/could only be done if the husband thinks that it can stop the matter from leading to a divorce. The whole purpose of the light beating is to inflict a spiritual punishment on the wife so that she can see how angry her husband is with her so that she can stop disobeying him and treating him disrespectfully.
And on top of all that, it is not even the first step one takes in this matter and this step is not even encourage to begin with. It is only in a situation where it really gets narrowed down to either divorce or a light beating. If the man in the situation feels that the light beating can't help, then he is forbidden from doing it. He can't just do it for the heck of doing it, since it goes against the whole logic of the Qur'an putting it forth as an option to begin with.
And the evidence piles on and on and it seems like it doesn't get through to you.
IF and EVEN IF you still don't like what is being said here (as if that proves anything... not liking something does not mean that it is wrong) you would still have to admit that your analogy of Prophet Muhammad to that Yemeni case is seriously flawed.
Oh man, I sure hope you don't bring this kind of stuff up after a couple of weeks in our debate. i was hoping for a scholarly exchange with you.
amazing how the four schools of Islam are improving on the Quran and Sunna since none of these details are mentioned in it, e.g. not severe, not in the face. And yet Bassam claims to follow Salafism which discourages taqlid (imitation)and encourages basing everything on the Quran and Sunna. So can Bassam reference a sound narration showing where Muhammad mentioned these clarifications and qualifications? I have one that says a woman was hit so hard that it left a green mark on her body and Muhammad did nothing to censure her husband.
Hey Bassam - you really want to get into a discussion about women in Islam? Please man, pleeaaasseee, quit while you're ahead!
I had to laugh at your line about women having the right to divorce in Islam haha! I guess if the survive an honour killing attempt form their families they can get on with their lives form then, huh? In all my years growing up in a Muslim society I didn't see a woman divorce a man ONCE - NOT ONCE!!! I knew of many cases of men dismissing their wives with a "talaq-talaq-talaq" though...
Oh yeah and with beating - I like the way your scholars talk about it "beating with a toothpick". Light beating??? HAHAHAHAHAHA. Listen man, beating is beating. You might as well say "a light killing". Try another one buddy cuz that's something you just can't write out of the Qur'an! Your holy book INSTRUCTS husbands to beat their wives. I don't know any other religious tradition that does - so that makes Islam very unique in my book!
God instructs rape in the Bible? Which Bible are you reading? Please give me a reference.
Wait, you guys believe in some imaginary books called the Injil and Zabur, of which there is ABSOLUTELY NO HISTORICAL EVIDENCE and scorn our historical religious texts. I guess in your upside-down world that somehow makes sense...
Since Ben and Jay have already addressed your claims, there isn't much I need to say. I'll simply add that I don't think you have adequately responded to these issues, and so I see no reason to stop pointing to the fruit of Muhammad's teachings. (I'll also note that I do at least allow Muslims to post responses to every claim I make.)
You said you hope that I don't bring up these issues in our debate. Well, I'm not planning on it. I figured I'll be using my time to respond to the arguments you'll be bringing up. If I have extra time, there are other problems I'd like to point out. However, if you use what I call the "Argument from Moral Excellence," I'll certainly bring up everything I can think of concerning Muhammad's morality.
Ben Malik, its interesting that you or your buddy Shamoun (assuming you two are not the same people) would quote from the four madhabs to support your position but ignore them when it refutes it. How nice.
The general principle is that one is good to his wife...
Abu Hurayra narrate that the Prophet said: The most perfect of the believers in their
belief are those with the best manners, and the best of you are those who are best with
their wives (Musnad Ahmad 7396)
However, there is an exception to this general rule. That is when they commit a manifest indecency.
The Prophet Muhammad said:
My last recommenfation to you is that you should treat women well. Truly they are your
helpmates, and you have no right over them beyond that - "except if they commit a manifest indecency" (Sahih Muslim, see also Jam ’a al-Fawa’i ,kitab al-Iman,akham al-Li ’an ,(Meerut,n..),vol.1 ,p.14)
However, the Prophet clarified that the beating is not violent...
The Prophet said...
and hit them "without indecent violence "
Also, we understand this how the companions of the Prophet understood this. They understood that the beating should not even leave marks or bruises.
And it is not like beating is encouraged in the first place...
The Prophet said...
Narrate by Mu'awiyah al-Qushayri:I went to the Apostle of Allah [ saaws ] and asked him:What do you say [ command ] about our wives? He replied: Give them food what you have for yourself,and clothe them by which you clothe yourself, and do "not" beat them ,and do not revile them. (Sunan Abu Dawud ,Book 11,Number 2139)
Because the whole point is to avoide the divorce from happening.
Ben Malik asked for those narrations regarding not hitting the face.
Well, he can visit this article
and scroll down to page 13 and find atleast four narrations from the Prophet regarding not hitting the face.
One can also scroll down to page 17 and see that hadith, which David usually brings up about the Prophet supposedly hitting Aisha being addressed.
As for the issue of divorce, women in Islam do have a right to seek "khulla" and ask for a divorce if her rights are being abused. There is no difference of opinion from any scholar on this issue. There are also hadith in which women went up to the Prophet and they said that they wanted to divorce and he agreed to it.
But nooooooo...... let's judge Islam according to the Muslim countries today who don't properly excerise Shariah. Right?
As for the hadith on the green marks of the lady just because the hadith does not say that the Prophet (peace be upon him) reproved the man that does not mean that he didn't. We have already clearly established with evidence that injurious wife beating is forbidden. The point of this hadith was not to emphasize wife beating but the law regarding a woman having to have sex with another man in order for her to return to the husband she divorced twice from. The narrator felt like that it was the important part to narrate. Maybe the Prophet (peace be upon him) reproved him in private, you don't know and that was not the main point that was needed to be communicated from that hadith.
But again.......... let me guesss....... we still didn't answer you? Hmmmm, seems like people have already made up their minds.
So you really do insist that Muhammad is similar to that guy in the Yemeni case in this regards? Oh dear.
Naah David, i won't bring up the moral argument, since i don't believe in using it. Rather I was hoping you bring it up as evidence against Muhammad's Prophethood and see how good you do.
Yes yes I've heard your scholars talk about how gently Muhammad beat Aisha... and for her own good too. You should hear Ali Ataie's explanation of this - I dont' knwo how David kept a straight face during that debate! :D
Now, do you want me to pull up the youtube clips of Saudi clerics expounding ont he topic of wife beating? Funny, how you have to rely so much on the Hadiths to wriggle your way out of the clear Qur'anic injunctions to beat your wives. Only with a toothpick, with a toothpick!
Oh and about Muslims societies and their practice of Shariah - the point is that the societies derive their norms from Islamic law. If there was one or two Islamic societies in which wife beating was the national hobby, I'd say "ok fine, that's an exception". But when you have wife-beating at epidemic levels everywhere from Indonesia to Morocco AND THEN JUSTIFIED BY APPEALING TO ISLAM (let's not get into honour killings... we'll save that for another day shall we?) well I'm sure that you'll excuse me if I think that this may have something to do with Islam.
just because the hadith does not say that the Prophet (peace be upon him) reproved the man that does not mean that he didn't.
... and so just because the hadiths never say that Muhammad endorsed Coca Cola, it doesn't mean that he didn't. C'mon, you're stretching here...
By the way, it's "Ciao" not "Chow"
"Funny, how you have to rely so much on the Hadiths to wriggle your way out of the clear Qur'anic injunctions to beat your wives."
The Qur'an (16:44) says that the duty of the Prophet is to explain the Qur’an to us. If this is the way it is explained, then that is authoritative. It seems like you don't even understand what sources of Islamic authority Muslims appeal to. That is a basic kindergarten introduction to Islam.
Secondly, I never denied that Islam says that you can beat your wives. I was only explaining under what circumstances and how.
As for the toothbrush, that was Ibn Abbass who said that and his statement is authoritative. Again, this shows your ignorance of Islamic exegesis.
As for honour killings that go on in countries like Jordan, let’s not leave it for another day, prove it right now that their method of "honour killing" is in line with Islamic regulations.
Are you willing to condemn the honour killing injunctions found in the Old Testament?
Your logic is soo weak regarding there being many Muslims who justify actions by appealing to the Qur’an. Well, what about the so many Muslims who say that they are wrong and still appeal to Islamic teachings to justify their point such as my self? Would that be evidence for you? Clearly not, it seems like you selectively cite whom you please.
Clearly, your shallow level of argumentation has been demonstrated and Muslims won’t really take you seriously. Sure, you can continue to entertain your Islamophobic buddies with your comments, but if you are serious in evangelizing to Muslims, go get some knowledge.
Well don’t feel so bad, at least you corrected my spelling, so it turns out that your comments are not so useless after all. :)
"... and so just because the hadiths never say that Muhammad endorsed Coca Cola, it doesn't mean that he didn't. C'mon, you're stretching here..."
You are arguing from silence. We have already shown that the Prophet said that the beating must be light. The whole point of the hadith was to speak about the law of re-marriage and that is what the narrator wanted to emphasize.
Also, in Islam we are advised to rebuke people in private and not in public since it might embarrass the person. So it is not hard to believe that the Prophet Muhammad followed that method and rebuked that person in private.
Clearly, your shallow level of argumentation has been demonstrated and Muslims won’t really take you seriously.
Bassam, when I was young some of my Muslim friends, for better or worse, introduced me to the melifluous argumentation of Monsieur Ahmed Deedat. Back then, and even today, I think Deedat's level of argumentation (and that of his impersonator Zakir Naik) brought inter-religious dialogue to a laughable new low point. So rather than take the high road, I now apply the same standards to my dialogues with muslism "apologists" who are so keen to talk about a Christian tradition that, if Mr. Deedat is the standard, they are sadly ignorant of. So thanks for your concern about me being not taken "seriously" and allow me to reciprocate that muslim apologists like you are hardly taken any more seriously by Christians.
Also, please don't give me lectures about Qur'anic exegesis. Go learn some Greek and Hebrew, take a few courses in Biblical exegesis, go read up on Church history (Dan Brown doesn't count) before you and your friends start posing as some sort of Muslim "experts" on Christianity.
The Qur'an (16:44) says that the duty of the Prophet is to explain the Qur’an to us.
You know what my problem with that is? Muslim apologists appeal to this to get out of difficult passages in the Qur'an but then conveniently dismiss it when it causes problems for them. Let's take one small example:
We used to participate in the holy wars carried on by the Prophet and we had no women (wives) with us. So we said (to the Prophet ). "Shall we castrate ourselves?" But the Prophet forbade us to do that and thenceforth he allowed us to marry a women (temporarily) by giving her a garment, and then he recited: "O you who believe! Do not make unlawful the good things which Allah has made lawful for you."
Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 139
Now, would you care to exaplain this prophetic "clarification" to me?
Argument from silence??? Your argument is "just because the prophet didn't condemn violence about women when he had the perfect opportunity to, doesn't mean that he didn't condemn violence against women". Well if this is what you call a rebuttal then I guess we can agree to disagree becasue I cannot engage someone who is in denial.
"I now apply the same standards to my dialogues"
it's nice to see people who are motivated to lower their standards.
I don't have time to deal with red herrings. we were talking about wife beating, not mut'ah marriage.
yeah, i think this conversation is over.
Well your guru Deedat set the bar so low years ago, I think it will be hard for any of us to reach it any time soon - but I'll keep trying and insha' allah some day I will get there!
So now mut'ah is a red herring? I'm just trying to give a holistic picture of marriage in the Islamic tradition.
Tell me, is Sahih Bukhari unreliable here? So how is he more reliable in other places? Please I'm dying to understand - especially since muslim apologists seem to take the same cherry picking attitude towards the Christian scriptures. (let me guess -- you're going to argue that it's the chain of narrators right?)
Some "clarifications" from the Hadith on wife-beating:
volume 7, #132
Narrated Zam'a, "The prophet said, "None of you should flog his wife as he flogs a slave and then have sexual intercourse with her in the last part of the day."
Implication - you may flog your wife as a slave as long as you don't have intercourse with her
vol. 7, # 715
.. Aisha said, "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!
So said the "mother of all believers"
Abu Dawud (709)
Iyas Dhubab reported the apostle of Allah as saying: "Do not beat Allah's handmaidens", but when Umar came to the apostle of Allah and said: "Women have become emboldened towards their husbands", he (the prophet), gave permission to beat them. Then many women came round the family of the apostle of Allah complaining against their husbands. So the apostle of Allah said, "Many women have gone round Muhammad's family complaining against their husbands. They are not the best among you".
Umar reported the prophet as saying: "A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife".
"but I'll keep trying and insha' allah some day I will get there!"
I think you already made it buddy, since your post makes it pretty clear that you stooped low.
Congragulations! Let's celebrate!
"So now mut'ah is a red herring? I'm just trying to give a holistic picture of marriage in the Islamic tradition."
umm, we were specifically talking about wife beating. This is a different topic.
"Implication - you may flog your wife as a slave as long as you don't have intercourse with her"
umm nooo, that is your distorted interpretation. The whole point of the hadith is to point out the stupidity of those who abuse their wives and at the end they make love to her. The whole point is that abusive wife beating is forbidden.
Secondly, abusing slaves is forbidden...
The Prophet's statement does not indicate that it is permissible to abuse slaves either. The Prophet (peace be upon him) was just using the beating of a slave as a figure of speech for the Muslims to learn from. Because it used to be common back then for people to harmfully beat their slaves up. However, Islam came and stopped this. So the Prophet (peace be upon him) was only emphasizing that the beating for the woman should not be harmful and physically injurious.
Plus, it would be useful if you can cite any evidence that the companions of the Prophet understood his statement just as you have understood it.
Plus, you are ignoring the evidence that I have already laid out, which states that the beating must be light and cannot be on the face. On top of that, the Prophet's companions understood that it should not leave marks. Who are you to come 1400 years later and say otherwise and that you really got the right interpretation?
".. Aisha said, "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!
So said the "mother of all believers""
And your point is.........?? okay fine so Aisha was speaking about a woman who was beaten by her husband and that proves what.......? Did the Prophet approve of it? Haven't we already shown that the Prophet said that the beating must not be abusive and injurious? Didn't we state that one of the greatest scholars of the Muslims Ibn Abbass stated that the beating should not leave marks?
"Umar reported the prophet as saying: "A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife"."
Yes, but how have people of knowledge (i.e. not you) understood this?
Muhammad Shams al-Haqq al-Adhim Abadi in his commentary on this hadith states that a man "not being asked" means that he would not be punished or be held accountable for beating his wife. However, the beating is only if it is according to the limitations set in Islam. (no injury, bruises, physical pain etc.) (See Muhammad Shams al-Haqq al-Adhim Abadi, Awn al-Mabud Sharh Sunan Abu Dawud, Kitab: Al Hudood, Bab: Fil Rajam, Commentary on Hadith no. 1835)
So yes, the man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife, meaning he will not punished IF AND ONLY IF IT IS WITHIN islamic regulations.
But we have already demnostrated that the regulations of Islam states that the beating must not be injurious and only done in order to prevent a divorce from occuring and to deter the wife's open disobedience.
So much for your "arguments".
You mean I've gone as low as my hero Ahmed Deedat? Yay!!! Pop open the camel's milk and pass the dates!
that is your distorted interpretation
No I think my interpretation is just fine, but thank you for the clarification.
So even if I accept your interpretation, I still fail to understand why:
a) Muhammad does not just say -- DUDE, STOP BEATING YOUR WIFE! Actually, he said that once and then when Umar complained to him, he retracted it. Talk about peer pressure!
b) It says don't flog your wife like a slave - leaving it wide open to still beat her... just not like a slave.
c) If beating a slave was forbidden then why is Muhammad using this figure of speech? Is this a contradiction? Also, I thought it was only Muslim slaves that couldn't be beaten.
Who are you to come 1400 years later and say otherwise and that you really got the right interpretation?
Ummm, ok so you have a problem with this and the fact that your prophet comes 500 years after the events of the life of Jesus and contradicts historical facts about His life is... naaaaaaaaaaah I won't do this right now - too easy.
Oh and by the way, Islamic societies for 1400 years and even today do all of the interpreting I need to be able to back up my reading of this.
Did the Prophet approve of it?
Did he disapprove of beating wives? Please show me a place where he categorically says "don't beat your wives!"
the man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife... islamic regulations... Plus, you are ignoring the evidence that I have already laid out
And you're ignoring the argument that to differentiate between "lightly beating" your wife and beating your wife is absurd! You might as well say that you can "lightly steal" or "lightly drink" or "lightly kill".
So keep twisting and turning because this one is not going to go away -- toothpicks, scars, whips and "islamic regulations" aside. In Islam, the teaching is that men may beat their wives. Period.
Here's a scenario to consider - let's say a man goes to the mosque asking for advice on a difficult situation with his wife. A religious leader (like imam Jamal Badawi) could very well advise a husband to beat his wife if "all else has failed". Just think about that for a second.
We are going in circles here.
"a) Muhammad does not just say -- DUDE, STOP BEATING YOUR WIFE! Actually, he said that once and then when Umar complained to him, he retracted it. Talk about peer pressure!"
Where did Umar make him retract any statement?
Secondly, you are committing the fallacy of arguing from silence. How do you know that the Prophet didn't rebuke him? It was only him, Aisha, the woman and her husband present there. How do you know that he didn't later on take him to the side and rebuke him?
It is not wise to rebuke people in public and you know that. it is usually best to take people to the side. So how do you know that the Prophet didn't do that?
Also, for how long do I have to remind you that I already presented evidence where the Prophet said that the beating must be light? You keep ignoring this. You cherry pick your narrations.
"b) It says don't flog your wife like a slave - leaving it wide open to still beat her... just not like a slave."
Yes, but we have given the other narrations which clarify that it also must not be injurious and not be on the face. Deal with that.
"c) If beating a slave was forbidden then why is Muhammad using this figure of speech? Is this a contradiction?"
He is saying this to illustrate a point.
For example, there is another hadith where the Prophet said that one must obey his ruler even if he is a black slave.
Now the Prophet is not discriminating against blacks. Rather, because back at those times, blacks were looked down upon, so he was using that figure of speech to illustrate that point.
For example, I might say "I don't care if he even was a garbage man, you still gotta show him some respect"
That doesn't mean that I look down upon garbage men, however many if not most people do. So i am using that expression to strengthen a point.
Plus, you ignored the link that I sent you which provides evidence that one cannot harm his slave.
"Also, I thought it was only Muslim slaves that couldn't be beaten."
You thought wrong. Stop being so skeptical and start proving things.
I recommend you check out my article regarding the status of non-Muslims in an Islamic state...
"Ummm, ok so you have a problem with this and the fact that your prophet comes 500 years after the events of the life of Jesus and contradicts historical facts about His life is... naaaaaaaaaaah I won't do this right now - too easy."
Yeah, but we argue back that the sources that you appeal to in the first century are not reliable and what you call "facts" really aren't facts at all.
Let's not change the subject. I won't get into the details of this, because you are comparing apples with oranges and you are also commiting the tuo quo que fallacy here.
"Oh and by the way, Islamic societies for 1400 years and even today do all of the interpreting I need to be able to back up my reading of this."
Yeah, but what are the sources of Islamic authority? They are the Qur'an and Prophetic traditions as understood by the Prophet and his companions.
I have appealed to these sources to prove my point. What have you done? Cherry picked out of context what suits you?
"In Islam, the teaching is that men may beat their wives. Period."
Are you blind and can't read what I have been saying all this time or did you make a career out of attacking straw men?
Show me where I have said that Islam doesn't allow wife beating? I was only saying that it doesn't allow wife abuse, that the beating must not be injurious, that it must be done in order to serve a better cause and not just for the sake of punishing the woman.
"You might as well say that you can "lightly steal" or "lightly drink" or "lightly kill"."
Lightly kill still results in killing the person. Lightly steal still results in stealing from the person. However, lightly beating does not still result in injuring or harming a person as compared to abusive wife beating.
Answer this for me...
How hard can you hit a woman and injure her if you can't leave any marks or bruises on her body and can't hit her on the face? The Prophet said "darban ghayra mubbarihh" (i.e. an uninjurious beating). DRILL IT INTO YOUR HEAD, IT IS NOT WIFE ABUSE.
That was the whole point I was trying to make and I was showing how David's analogy of Prophet Muhammad to that Yemeni guy is flawed and based on ignorance.
Quit it with the strawmen and deal with the facts. There is nothing wrong with admitting that you are wrong.
Me cherry picking? Hello Mr. Kettle, meet Mr. Pot. Ahmed Deedat would be very dissapointed with you right now.
So the prophet says - "how can you beat your wives like you beat your slaves" and I'm supposed to derive from this "figure of speech" that what it really means is that slaves are nto to be beaten and therefore wives are not to be beeaten. And you're accusing ME or misinterpreting? Look I think that this passage is pretty clear in what it implies - creative readings aside. If you don't agree that's fine with me. I take your point on slave beating etc - let's save that one for a rainy day.
Argument from silence? I think you're confusing categories here. I might as well argue that Muhammad taught the divinity of Christ - just because the Qur'an and Sunnah don't say this doesn't mean that he didn't. How do you know that? Maybe he taught it in private. Maybe he abrogated his earlier teaching on the subject. Maybe he finally came to his senses. You're using the argument from silence if you say that he didn't. Look - you can argue anythign with this approach. This is not an "argument from silence" - your'e confusing categories.
Oh, here is the passage about Muhammad changing his mind:
CHAPTER 709 #2141
Iyas Dhubab reported the apostle of Allah as saying: "Do not beat Allah's handmaidens", but when Umar came to the apostle of Allah and said: "Women have become emboldened towards their husbands", he (the prophet), gave permission to beat them...
DRILL IT INTO YOUR HEAD, IT IS NOT WIFE ABUSE
No drill this into your head - beating someone (even lightly and by Islamic principles) is still beating someone. You're defense of the practice is like saying that stealing or fornicating is acceptable up to the point that the victims are not permanantely harmed in the process - i.e. go ahead and steal but don't bankrupt the person; go ahead and fornicate but don't make someone pregnant. Sorry - if something is immoral then it is not right to do it, even "lightly". That's the whole point!
As always, Bassam thinks he is really answering the objections when he really is embarrassing himself and refuting his own religion. When I have time I will go through his post and refute his selective citations and cover-up operations. In the meantime, Jay, you are doing a great job handling him. This makes me wonder why he is even debating Wood since the outcome won't be good for him.
P.S. What's your fascination with Sam Shamoun? Do you guys look around and see Shamoun everywhere? I know that he is your nightmare but, man, get pass that already.
Our convo is over Jay, you keep doing your little dance around the arguments.
Shamoun, me and Sami Zaatari have already exposed you as you being Ben Malik 2 years ago ok. It is so obvious it is you. We aren't stupid. At least be smart enough to change the way you speak when impersonating yourself.
Even over here http://www.formermuslims.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1082&p=12412 your name is ben malik and you link to your article at answerin g islam. How much more obvious can it possibly be? There's no point to keep denying it.
It is unfortunate that while most of the world has got rid of social evils like child marriage, we continue to see child marriages like this due to religious sanction.
Add to this, explicit allowance of polygamy, wife-beating, divorce by merely uttering words, mode of trail in rape cases, value of womans testimony etc it gets worse. Hopefully some reformer will come along to correct all this.
you keep doing your little dance around the arguments
Haha, you know what these comments are up for everyone to read. Let's let them decide because as far as I'm concerned, if I'm a "dancer", you're Michael Jackson.
Islam permits husbands to beat wives. You feel that toothpicks and "regulations" make this more acceptable. It doesn't! Even the prophet's favorite wife agrees, calling the wives of the believers the most miserable of women.
Oh and by the way, Malik, Shamoun and I are different people and others on this website know this - but if you want to continue making that accusation be my guest. It's only you that ends up looking foolish.
>> Only a Year Older than Aisha, and Already Divorced
It is tragic that a child has to go through this. Instead, if the child gets a good higher education and can manage herself, she would not have to go through the harassment or be "under the feet". My country also used to have the practice of child marriage, but there were social reformers who enlightened the people to the social evil, that is opens the door for exploitation, abuse, demeaning of women etc and it is now rightly banned by the law. Even the most backward of places are moving away from such practices. It is really a matter of basic common sense. But alas, religious indoctrination can blind people to not see even the most basic of common sense.
Bassam never accused you of being Shamoun, he said that Ben Malik is Shamoun. I personally wouldn't be surprised if he's right, they share a similar writing style.
As for Shamoun being any Muslim Apologist's nightmare.......lol.
How do you know for certain I am Shamoun? Just because he uses the same nic on another forum? Maybe I am? Maybe I am a good friend of his who happens to know him personally? Maybe he uses my nic, or maybe I am using his? Whatever the case may be, WHO CARES. Deal with my points, not my person.
And Yahya, you seem very brave so do you mind I set up something between Shamoun and you so I can see how much laughing you will be doing in his face? Please let me know, since I am sure you have some courage and don't just strut around with such bravado without backing it up with actions.
Erm "set up something" between myself and Shamoun? ....Nah sorry, mate I'm married and my religion forbids that kinda stuff.
As for Shamoun's face, I wouldn't want to see it in person, insincerity and dishonesty and vile behaviour repulse me from Christianity. However I hope David brings him to London for comic relief, I can take photos with him in his fight pose.
How amazing. A Shiite calling Shamoun vile and dishonest when his brand of Islam has perfected the art of lying and deception. Taqiyya anyone?
BTW, since Jay mentioned Muta would you care to chime in and defend Islam's version of prostitution and whoredom? Since Shiites still practice this, whereas Sunnis like Bassam don't, can you please defend the immorality of such a practice, one that takes your mothers,
sisters and whores them around and calls this temporary marriages?
And we are not going buy your lie that you don't want to divert the focus of this thread since this thread is now all about muta.
lol Shamoun..... you crack me up. However I don't enter into debates with Comedians. Which lie are you talking about? Deluded man.... go find some more converts to Islam to intimidate, some more apologists to swear at or go phone your buddy Nadir Ahmed and debate with him, you're perfect for each other.
Man, it is amazing that you accuse Shamoun of being a comedian and yet you do nothing but run away anytime you are cornered to defend your beliefs such as prostituting Muslim women and treating them as nothing more than cheap sexual objects for your filthy pleasure, and then having the audacity of calling this evil temporary marriages.
Maybe you should be the one trying stand up comedy and enlist Nadir to help you, since your "defense" of Islamic immorality is hilarious.
No wonder your scared to face Shamoun. I would be too if I responded to criticisms to Islam like you... by running away.
Respond when you have the courage to defend Muta, which should really be called Islamic whoredom and prostitution.
I had said that I would respond to Bassam's feeble attempts of defending Islamic wife abuse. Here, I will address some of the things he said.
First let me correct your distortion of what I actually requested of you:
"Ben Malik asked for those narrations regarding not hitting the face."
No, that's not the only thing I asked for. Here is what I actually said:
"amazing how the four schools of Islam are improving on the Quran and Sunna since none of these details are mentioned in it, e.g. not severe, not in the face. And yet Bassam claims to follow Salafism which discourages taqlid (imitation)and encourages basing everything on the Quran and Sunna. So can Bassam reference a sound narration showing where Muhammad mentioned these clarifications and qualifications? I have one that says a woman was hit so hard that it left a green mark on her body and Muhammad did nothing to censure her husband."
I wasn't merely asking where Mo forbade hitting in the face, but where he also forbade marking or bruising a woman's body. I even highlighted it for you so you can see it for yourself.
Bassam then whines and says:
"The Prophet said...
and hit them 'without indecent violence'"
"As for the beating, how many times do we have to repeat ourselves? Can you find any quote from any well respected classical scholar that understood or interpreted Surah 4 as allowing injurious wife abuse? That the beating is injurious and causes physical harm and leaves bruises and marks? Can you? And even if you do, this would only be appealing to authority since this will go against the majority scholarly position and wouldnt contradict the statement of the Prophet regarding this issue."
We already did that, we cited a hadith where a woman was so badly beaten that she had a green bruise on her body. Your prophet Mo didn't do anything to censure her husband for what he did. You don't get any higher than Muhammad so we have proven our case.
Yet you did have a lame excuse for this severe beating. You claimed we were arguing from silence:
"You are arguing from silence. We have already shown that the Prophet said that the beating must be light. The whole point of the hadith was to speak about the law of re-marriage and that is what the narrator wanted to emphasize.
"Also, in Islam we are advised to rebuke people in private and not in public since it might embarrass the person. So it is not hard to believe that the Prophet Muhammad followed that method and rebuked that person in private."
Talk about a guy who will say anything to justify his prophet's immorality and abuse of women!
First of all, if you are insinuating that Mo didn't rebuke the person in public but in private then why did he shame the man's wife in public for claiming that her husband was impotent? If he could humiliate her publicly then he could have also done the same to the man, especially when knowledge of his wife's bruise became public knowledge.
If you claim that this was a private event which al-Bukhari narrated, then why didn't Bukhari also narrate Muhammad rebuking the man for abusing his wife in that manner? The reason he didn't? Because Muhammad did nothing to chastise the man for this violent abuse of his wife, that's why.
Secondly, how do you know what light beating is? Why can't we assume that leaving a green bruise comes under the category of light beating especially when Muhammad didn't censure or rebuke the husband for marking or bruising his wife's body in that way?
You then say:
"Also, we understand this how the companions of the Prophet understood this. They understood that the beating should not even leave marks or bruises."
First, please provide the report where Mo's companions said that a person cannot leave marks or bruises on the body of the woman when beating her.
Second, even if you do this simply proves that your hadiths are filled with errors and contradictions since we have one example where a companion bruised his wife with Mo's tacit approval.
Now I went to the link to see the "defense" of Mo hitting a minor on the chest, Aisha, who also happened to be his wife! This is what I found:
"He pushed my chest with a push that made me sore." [translation by Shayk G.F. Haddad]
I really couldn't stop myself from laughing at this translation. In order to show you why let me simply insert Haddad's preferred way of translating the hadith into the report in order to see what happens:
Muhammad b. Qais said (to the people): Should I not narrate to you (a hadith of the Holy Prophet) on my authority and on the authority of my mother? We thought that he meant the mother who had given him birth. He (Muhammad b. Qais) then reported that it was 'A'isha who had narrated this: Should I not narrate to you about myself and about the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him)? We said: Yes. She said: When it was my turn for Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) to spend the night with me, he turned his side, put on his mantle and took off his shoes and placed them near his feet, and spread the corner of his shawl on his bed and then lay down till he thought that I had gone to sleep. He took hold of his mantle slowly and put on the shoes slowly, and opened the door and went out and then closed it lightly. I covered my head, put on my veil and tightened my waist wrapper, and then went out following his steps till he reached Baqi'. He stood there and he stood for a long time. He then lifted his hands three times, and then returned and I also returned. He hastened his steps and I also hastened my steps. He ran and I too ran. He came (to the house) and I also came (to the house). I, however, preceded him and I entered (the house), and as I lay down in the bed, he (the Holy Prophet) entered the (house), and said: Why is it, O 'A'isha, that you are out of breath? I said: There is nothing. He said: Tell me or the Subtle and the Aware would inform me. I said: Messenger of Allah, may my father and mother be ransom for you, and then I told him (the whole story). He said: Was it the darkness (of your shadow) that I saw in front of me? I said: Yes. He struck me on the chest which caused me pain
(Haddad's version - he pushed me with a push that made me sore), and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you? She said: Whatsoever the people conceal, Allah will know it. He said: Gabriel came to me when you saw me. He called me and he concealed it from you. I responded to his call, but I too concealed it from you (for he did not come to you), as you were not fully dressed. I thought that you had gone to sleep, and I did not like to awaken you, fearing that you may be frightened.
To show just how laughable Haddad's translation is all we need to do is ask a series of questions. What was the context of the pushing or hitting? Why did Mo do that? Because Aisha had secretly left the house in order to follow Muhammad and then ran back in order to hide this from her husband. Was Mo angry because of what she did? You bet. Is this why he "pushed" her? Yes, he was so angry that he decided to "discipline" her for lying and secretly following him in order to check up on him.
In other words, unless we assume that Mo intended to play patty-cake with Aisha it is obvious that the push was intended as a strike in order to hurt and punish Aisha. Therefore, the English version David Wood used, which is the one I just sourced, correctly translated the Arabic since it best captures the intention behind the push, to punish Aisha for angering Mo by lying to him and secretly following him.
So Bassam, do you see what happens to your case when you come up with such pathetic replies to defend what simply cannot be morally defended or justified?
Bassam, I guess your sensitivity to women isn't developed enough to grasp the concept that Aisha was in dreadful pain due to her relationship to her abusive husband Muhammad, so just let me spell this out for you.
I lost my virginity at the age of nineteen, to a decent husband who was as tender with me as he knew how to be--and it hurt like the dickens!
I can't imagine having to undergo that anguish at the age of 9, before I had even come close to developing the mature body a woman needs to have a healthy physical relationship with a man.
You sound okay with what Mohammad did with a tiny little girl. Do you want one too?
That wasn't the only evil thing Mohammad did to poor little Aisha. He neglected her, until she cried with jealosy over the other wives. He made her defend herself, when Zainab was physically attacking her, and he forced her at the young age of 18 to live out the rest of her life unloved, and forsaken. Always a widow.
No wonder that poor girl tried to make a run for it, after Muhammad died.
Based only on what Muhammad did to his wives--based solely upon that, I would live as a pagan, with my ancesters' druids as my spiritual guide, before I ever embraced Islam.
What would be the difference in my destiny, except that in Islam, my hell would begin on earth. Muhammad turned women's lives into hell on earth.
And that needs to make you ashamed
Hello, i am a woman, muslima from Indonesia. Someone mentioned about wife-beating in Indonesia. That is non-sense. Indonesia has more than 90% muslim people and we dont have husbands who bite wives, only sick husbands. I like to see Oprah Winfrey Show and i found out so many violations against women (wives and daughters) in the USA, and they are non-muslim. Qur'an has to be translated and interpreted carefully. Do you know that camel has 5000 arabic words? The beating in Qur'an is an idiomatic for warning/telling, not for beating. Sometimes when your friend, spouse or kids are not nice, you warn them or simply telll them for not doing that again. This is told by our famous scholar in my country.
I love Islam, i am a magistrate, a muslim feminist, and i love Islam.
Jenna. It's nice to meet you. I'm glad for you and your country women that your husbands are not beating you. However, I'm not sure that Indonesia is exactly as strongly Islamic as countries like Saudi Arabia, and so I would hardly think it speaks for what Islam teaches. (I'm not thinking about numbers, I'm thinking about doctrine.)
Just coming to my mind, several months ago, there was a tiny little news article about a Mosque in Indonesia in which the Quibla was pointed the wrong way. Of all people, the godly people in Indonesia should begin to see the larger picture of our Heavenly Father, that He rewards everyone who seeks Him.--even if it is by stumbling around in the dark. This is what the bible teaches.
The bible isn't hard to understand at all. Even the bible translated in Arabic has the same meaning as it does translated into any other language, and that takes into account that Arabic has so many different words for camel. The bible is very easy to read and understand.
The bible is also beyond comparison in it's commandments to husbands. You should read Ephesians 5, starting about about 21, and compare it to anything Mohammad said. It is a very good deal for women who are lucky enough to be married to one of these great guys! Notice that in this passage, women don't have to "deserve" great treatment. A woman can be in a bad-tempered mood, not feel like cleaning, or cooking, or minding the children, and the Christian husband can't lay a hand on her, or divorce her. There is simply no way to misinterpret the verses related to men in marriage. There is no debate. You will not find any such debate on the world wide web
Do you see how different that is in comparison to the arguments going on here,about what Mohammad meant?
the online translation of the Quaran by Marmduke Pickthall translates Surah 4:34 as "scourge" When I was a girl, my mother used to threaten to scourge the meanness out of me with a switch. She did use a switch. And let me just say this. I'm glad she never got around to scourging me with the thing.
Post a Comment