Hit them becomes tap them symbolically?!?

I read David's article below, titled "The Qur'an, Surah 4:34". Doing nothing more than providing some translations and a link, I figured nothing could really be said against it -- he really didn't say anything except quote translations of the Qur'an.

But lo! A Muslim friend responds, telling him to read the actual interpretation of the Quran. Taking a break from my studies, I decided to read this article. What we find is the same methodology that Muslims almost always employ in attemtping to circumvent the obvious: 1 - A labyrinthine reinterpretation of a clear verse, 2 - Examples that might support the reinterpreted view but do not exclude the clear view, 3 - An utter exclusion of evidence that goes contrary to the reinterpreted view, and my favorite part, 4 - An accusation that Christians are prejudiced diabolical Islamophobes, "hell-bent" on using improper methodology to prove their insidious agenda.

1 - The words which say "beat them" are reinterpreted as meaning "tap them lightly, symbolically showing your disproval." Interestingly, Allah saw fit to use the words "hit them" instead of "tap them". But to show that this modern reinterpretation is correct, our Muslim friends give us some supporting examples from the Quran and Islamic history. Let's look at that in point 2.

2 - The prophet Job is mentioned in the Quran as having been self-forced into a position of hitting his wife, and in order to fulfill this requirement, he hit her with some basil. The author of the article says that this is the only verse in the Quran "that categorically refers to what some people wanna label as 'wife beating'." Although I thought the verse that mentions beating wives is also talking about wife beating, apparently this is not the case.

Then, records are used to show what hitting someone without hurting them is like in modern times - Job used grass, but the author of this Muslim article refers to a tradition in which it's okay to hit with a stick used for a toothbrush (siwak).

Another tradition is quoted in which Muhammad says: "there shall be no infliction of harm on oneself or others." The author then goes on to use this gratuitously, as if to say "we cannot harm anyone at all, and that includes women!" but he ingores the fact that this hadith requires context (which he did not provide) and he is clearly using it in a false way (for the infliction of harm on others is allowed in Islam if justifiable, e.g. wars, executions, punishments, etc. Therefore, in Islam, there must be justifiable exceptions to the "do not inflict harm" rule, and wife-hitting could fall into it).

Finally, the author uses quotes from Muhammad which say "If (the women commit a manifest indecency), then refuse to share their beds and hit them without indecent violence". This is used as evidence by our Muslim friend that Muhammad does not condone hitting women! It might say "don't be excessive in your physical punishment" but nowhere does it say "do not use physical punishment." In fact, it clearly says "hitting them is okay, indecent violence is not."

These are the examples that this article uses to show that Islam does not condone physical violence against women. More often than not, they show that it is okay to hit women! Yes, don't hurt them too much, but hit them if necessary. Clearly, the defense's claim that hitting women is not allowed falls extremely short.

3 - But what about all the evidence that supports the view that Islam allows for physical violence against women?

- According to Sahih Muslim, Muhammad hit his wife Aisha, causing her pain! Aisha herself was the authority of this hadith. I always agree with Muslims about Muhammad's sincerity; he practiced what he preached, and this is no exception.

- According to Sunan Abu Dawud, when men complained to Muhammad about their wives, Muhammad allowed them to hit the women. These women came in the morning to Muhammad complaining about their abusive husbands, whom Muhammad proclaimed to be "not the best men among the Muslims". Why did he not just say hit them with basil leaves, or tap them symbolically? Must have slipped his mind.

- According to Tabari and Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad said in his farewell address that it's okay to hit your women, just don't be excessively violent, for women are like domestic animals, given to the men by God (to be taken care of, I'm guessing).

Really, the list goes on and on. The obvious evidence seems to be utterly ignored. Instead of dealing with the evidence, many Muslims use bad examples to try to prove their point. When this does not work, they will often move on to pointing fingers and calling names.

4 - Is it true that Christians are biased Islamophobes? In the article that was referred to by our Muslim friend, Christians are accused of being prejudiced, having a diabolical agenda, and using improper methodology. Let me say it (for the hundredth time): I am not an Islamophobe! If Islam can be shown to be true, I will accept it. But far from proclaiming the truth, we see Muslims reinterpreting the obvious, providing bad arguments, and ignoring the deluge of evidence against them. How can I determine Islam to be true when its defense entirely ignores the obvious?

Fact: Muhammad hit his wife!!! This is according to one of the top two sources of hadith! Do not call this hadith weak, for Imam Muslim himself did not do so! How are we supposed to properly interpret history if Muslims keep throwing out all the history that goes against their preformed conclusions? According to one of the best historical records, Muhammad hit his young wife. According to other books in the Sahih Sitah (the six most authentic books of Islamic tradition) Muhammad allowed many of his men to hit their wives, though he said it was not the best thing to do, and he admonished Muslims right before his death that it's okay for them to hit their wives if the wives are committing open indecency, and that wives are like domestic animals given by God. The early tradition screams the truth: physical violence is allowed in Islam.

My Muslim friends! Defend your religion as it is, not as you want it to be! The stance that should be defended by Muslims is: "Limited physical violence against women is not immoral." You might have a shot at that one. Or you could even say: "Though Islam allows limited physical aggression against women, this does not mean it has a low view of women. This is the way Allah has ordered the world, and it is not wrong." But to say that Islam forbids any violence against women is, yet again, ignoring the obvious, and it's this kind of flawed methodology that led me away from Islam.

Let me say it again, in another way: I never thought that Islam's provision for hitting women was evidence to leave Islam; maybe that is the way Allah intended it, and who am I to say otherwise? I thought "If God says 'If your women have been unchaste, you have the option to hit them, but only lightly' then maybe that's best." It didn't budge me at all. What caused me to wonder was the fact that defenders of Islam were denying the obvious truth: that hitting women is indeed allowed. I soon began to see bad methodology everywhere. It became clear to me, then, that I had to focus on a proper method of investigating the truth.

When I began accepting the truth for what it was, that which had been obvious to me became flawed, and what was hard to believe became the only thing I could believe. The truth set me free.

"I Beg Your Question?"

What I'm about to say applies to many, though not all, Muslims. Disclaimer done.

Having left Islam for Christianity, I constantly receive emails from Muslims urging me to return to Islam. I appreciate the concern that these Muslim friends are displaying for my soul, but I do see a very prominent and recurring theme in these emails. They usually state something along these lines:

"How could you leave the truth for Christianity?!"
"Astaghfar -- how did you, a Muslim boy trained in Islam, leave it for falsehood?"

Now, the people who write these emails are usually responding to my testimony (here) which is full of the reasons why I left Islam. But still, when they email me, they ask me how I could have left Islam for falsehood, as if Christianity were ipso facto false.

Do not be misled - their question is very straightforward and telling: "How could you leave the truth for falsehood?" If this were a statement of disagreement with my conclusions about Islam and Christianity, they'd say so: "How could you believe that Jesus rose from the dead?" or "How can you subscribe to the idea that God would die for our sins?" However, this is not what is asked - such arguments are generally ignored wholesale. Rather, they simply assert that I left the truth for falsehood, insinuating that I left Islam without contemplating the issue of its truth, as if I were blindly attracted to Christian claims and doctrine.

What is often ignored, though, is that I arrived at the conclusion that the truth claims of Islam are not as grounded in evidence as are the truth claims of Christianity. That's why I became a Christian. Even after reading my entire testimony, Muslims will often fail to consider even the possibility that Christianity is true and Islam is false. It's as if, to the Muslim, Christianity can be nothing but falsehood and Islam can be nothing but the truth.

I think it's obvious, but for the record: if we are discussing whether Islam or Christianity is the truth, asking me how I could leave the truth for falsehood is begging the question.

The purpose of this post, though, is not to rant. It's to point out the deep-seated presupposition most Muslims have when studying Islam and Christianity: that Islam is true and that Christianity is false. To the average Muslim, this is not a conclusion but a given. To the average Muslim, then, Islamic apologetics is an exercise of proving a given, something as established as the laws of mathematics, and frustrations mount when someone else starts claiming that 2+2 does not equal 4 after all.

I know because I was there.

To the Christian, let me assure you: there is a breaking point. At some point, your Muslim friend will realize that this very fundamental given is causing him to reinterpret every piece of evidence laid before him. Until that point, his denials will mount and his defiance will grow. You will probably only succeed in making him more Muslim. But when that breaking point is reached and he realizes that his given might not be a given after all, you will see a man who will be faced with the option of truly accepting God. If he does, it will be a beautiful thing, because it will cost him everything: his support, his family, possibly even his job or his life. But this is beautiful because his purpose in life will be serving the Truth.

To the Muslim who may be reading this, humor me for a moment. Can Jesus be God? Your answer is most likely "Surely not!" But note that your response presupposes something: that Islam is true. That God would never become a man is an Islamic idea - taking a simple theistic viewpoint, there is no problem with a divine incarnation whatsoever.

What about the Trinity? Is it possible that God can be three-in-one? Your answer: "That doesn't make any sense - in order to have one God, God must be completely and absolutely indivisible!" But note that your response presupposes something: that Islam's view of monotheism is true. That God cannot be a trinity is an Islamic idea - taking a simple theistic viewpoint, there is no problem if God has revealed that He is more incomprehensible than any other thing we know. If God says He is one, but that there is diversity in His unity, then there's nothing inherently wrong with that unless you already assume Islam is true.

Let us continue with our investigation of the truth, the Muslim on his path and the Christian on his. But let us do it with the knowledge of this underlying presupposition that has been ingrained into the very fiber of almost every Muslim. Is Islam the truth? Make sure you have not assumed an answer while investigating this vital question.

-Nabeel

**P.S. I understand we all have biases, and Christians are not exempt. We should all work past our biases and none of us entirely can. But what I have tried to point out in this post is that the Muslim bias towards their beliefs often goes far beyond a simple bias and comes a lot closer to circular reasoning, and this phenomenon should not be ignored.**