As usual, conspicuously absent from the discussion is any acknowledgment of Islam's role in encouraging and perpetuating spousal abuse. By lacking the will to face those texts and teachings forthrightly, Robina Niaz is only hobbling her own efforts to help other Muslim women. "Her 'duty' is helping Muslim women heal after abuse," from CNN, September 25:
NEW YORK (CNN) -- Toward the end of her marriage, Rabia Iqbal said she feared for her life.
Iqbal, a native New Yorker, had a strict Muslim upbringing. Her parents immigrated to the United States from the tribal areas of Pakistan and when she was 16, they arranged her marriage to a 38-year-old man. She claims her husband turned violent during their 10 years of marriage.
When she finally left him, she did not know where to turn. Going home wasn't an option, she said.
"My parents ... made clear that they would disown me," Iqbal said. "My father even said ... 'You're lucky you live in America because if you lived back home, you would have been dead by now.'"
She was hiding out in her office at work when a friend put her in touch with Robina Niaz, whose organization, Turning Point for Women and Families, helps female Muslim abuse victims.
"It was such a relief ... to speak about things that ... I thought no one would understand," said Iqbal, who has received counseling from Niaz for more than two years and calls Niaz her "savior."
"Robina understood the cultural nuances ... the religious issues," Iqbal said. Video Watch Iqbal tell her story »
A devout Muslim, Niaz stresses that there is no evidence that domestic violence is more common among Muslim families.
There is violence in every society. There is domestic violence in every society. But Muslims are able to point to chapter and verse of their own scriptures and find direct sanction for it in Qur'an 4:34. It does not matter that the verse prescribes other measures to "discipline" one's wife (not a term that comes up when marriage is partnership, rather than ownership). When all is said and done, Allah says it's okay to hit your wife.
"Abuse happens everywhere," said Niaz. "It cuts across barriers of race, religion, culture."
But, she said, Muslims are often reluctant to confront the issue.
And why might that be?
There's a lot of denial," she said. "It makes it much harder for the victims of abuse to speak out."
There sure is a lot of denial.
When Niaz launched her organization in 2004, it was the first resource of its kind in New York City. Today, her one-woman campaign has expanded into a multifaceted endeavor that is raising awareness about family violence and providing direct services to women in need.
Niaz said she firmly believes that domestic violence goes against Islamic teachings, and considers it her religious duty to try to stop abuse from happening.
"Quran condemns abusive behavior of women," she said, noting that the prophet Mohammed was never known to have abused women. "Allah says, 'Stand up against injustice and bear witness, even if it's against your own kin. So if I see injustice being done to women and children, I have to speak up. It's my duty."...
In order not to be completely disingenuous, the first sentence would have to imply the assumption that it is conceivably justifiable and possible to hit one's spouse without it being abuse. As for Muhammad, Sahih Muslim, a collection of hadith accepted as most reliable (along with Sahih Bukhari) by Sunni Muslims, records the following from his favorite wife (and child bride), Aisha:
"He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you?" (Sahih Muslim, book 4, no. 2127).
Were Muslims free to leave Islam without the death penalty - Islam would collapse.
Were Muslim women free to marry non-Muslim men - Islam would collapse.
Were it not for Koran-sanctioned violence in the Koran - Islam would collapse.
If law enforcement did not make exceptions for Muslims - Islam would collapse.
Ultimately, the Achilles heel of Islam is the Koran itself - the more that people learn about Islam, the weaker it will become.
Thank you Mr. Spencer (Peace Be Upon Him) - your relentless work and selfless dedication is helping the world understand Islam.
Over at Atlas Shrugs, there's some photos of the muhammadan prayer day held today on capitol hill.
I saw all these figures banging their heads on the ground, asses up to God, worshipping muhammad and his arab clan.
Geeez, I looked and looked and looked and looked, and I couldn't find ONE SINGLE FEMALE.
The fact that so few of the expected 50,000 turned up shows me two things:
!. Either there aren't that many moslems or 2. they aren't that moderate.
I laughed when I read in The Washington Post that "..they said many people have been frightened away by the backlash against the event."
Utter cowards or moslem victimhood. If your god is so great would he not have sanctioned the event and protected you?
Unlike your typical islamic societies you would have been afforded non-preferential protective treatment at the rally.
Jew Lover, I don't think women are "allowed" to pray with the men, they have their place somewhere other than with them, probably at the back by the kitchen, lol.
Heh, 50,000 were supposed to show up and the estimate is 1000 actually did.
OOps, I addressed the wrong person..should be Yankel not Jew Lover, sorry.
Female victims of Islam who cling to and praise 'Real Islam' are simply lacking in the imagination to be whole human beings and free themselves once and for all.
The women probably have to tend their wounds!
It makes me suspicious, I don't know why it has never occurred to me before but perhaps all the covering up and hiding of women is (partly at least) a convenient way of hiding all the bruises and scars.
Well unfortunately for Iqbal those peaceful mohammedan teachings haven't seemed to soften the attitudes of her parents nor those inhabitants of her ancestral land............."My parents ... made clear that they would disown me," Iqbal said. "My father even said ... 'You're lucky you live in America because if you lived back home, you would have been dead by now.'".............Probably just more misunderstanders of the profit mo'...That whole family,,,,town,,,,province,,,,,,,,region,,,,,,nation,,,,,ummah?
Muslim women who are continually beaten and refuse to admit that Islam gives the Male Muslims justification to beat them...will probably continue to be beaten only to repeat the lie again...It's not Islam that causes my beatings...
In addition to what happened to Aisha, I remember reading some time ago, I think maybe on this site (not sure), about an incident where Muhammad was supposedly out walking, and passed by a man pounding the living daylights out of his wife. Muhammad simply kept on going. Was I imagining things or is there such an account in the Quran or Hadith? If anyone can tell me. I'd appreciate it. If I recall correctly, the account was mentioned in relation to a discussion about women's rights etc., under Islam.
Explanation (tafsir) of Sura 4:34
“Men are the support of women as God gives some more means than others, and because they spend of their wealth (to provide for them). So women who are virtuous are obedient to God and guard the hidden as God has guarded it. As for women you feel are averse, talk to them suasively; then leave them alone in bed (without molesting them) and go to bed with them (when they are willing). If they open out to you, do not seek an excuse for blaming them. Surely God is sublime and great.”
Meaning of the Words
For the three words fa'izu, wahjaru, and wadribu in the original, translated here 'talk to them suasively,' 'leave them alone (in bed - fi'l-madage'),' and 'have intercourse', respectively, see Raghib Lisan al-'Arab and Zamakhsari. Raghib in his Al-Mufridat fi Gharib al-Qur'an gives the meanings of these words with special reference to this verse. Fa-'izu, he says, means to 'to talk to them so persuasively as to melt their hearts.' (See also v.63 of this Surah where it has been used in a similar sense.)
Hajara - Wahjaru (do not touch or moleste them)
Hajara, he says, means to separate body from body, and points out that the expression wahjaru hunna metaphorically means to refrain from touching or molesting them. Zamakhshari is more explicit in his Kshshaf when he says, 'do not get inside their blankets.'
Daraba (to have intercourse, not to beat)
Raghib points out that daraba metaphorically means to have intercourse, and quotes the expression darab al-fahl an-naqah, 'the stud camel covered the she-camel,' which is also quoted by Lisan al-'Arab. It cannot be taken here to mean 'to strike them (women).' This view is strengthened by the Prophet's authentic hadith found in a number of authorities, including Bukhari and Muslim: "Could any of you beat your wife as he would a slave, and then lie with her in the evening?" There are other traditions in Abu Da'ud, Nasa'i, Ibn Majah, Ahmad bin Hanbal and others, to the effect that he forbade the beating of any woman, saying: "Never beat God's handmaidens."
Source:
Al-Qur'an: a contemporary translation by Ahmed Ali, Princeton University Press, 1988; pp78-79
In the past, some translators of this verse have mistakeningly used the word "beat" to represent the word "" in Arabic. This is not the opinion of all scholars especially Raghib and Zamakhshari as mentioned above and those who are well grounded in both Islam understanding and the English language.
34.
Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allâh has made one of them to excel the other, and because they spend (to support them) from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient (to Allâh and to their husbands), and guard in the husband's absence what Allâh orders them to guard (e.g. their chastity, their husband's property, etc.). As to those women on whose part you see illconduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful), but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance). Surely, Allâh is Ever Most High, Most Great.
The understanding now is that some of the translations are not properly representing the spirit of the meaning. Therefore, they cannot be considered to be the representation of what has been intended by Almighty God.
Now we can properly understand that Almighty God has commanded the men to provide for the women and allow them to keep all of their wealth, inheritance and income without demanding anything from them for support and maintenance. Additionally, if she should be guilty of lewd or indecent conduct, the husband is told to first, admonish her and then if she would cease this lewdness. If she should continue in this indecency, then he should no longer share the bed with her, and this would continue for a period of time. Finally, if she would repent then he would take up sharing the bed with her again.
And Allah is All Knowing of the meanings.
In my opinion everyone is created equal. A man has their place and a women theirs but one is not better than the other. Domestic violence is NEVER ok no matter what the circumstances and no one should be trying to make excuses for the abuser period.
AbdullahMikail | September 25, 2009 2:57 PM ....Great now go explain your take on it to all the moon-worshipers that beat their wives (I do mean wives) the world over. While you're at it kindly explain that they should live in peace with us Kufirs, quit proselytizing by the sword, quit killing apostates from the moon deity, quit screwing 9 year old children, make peace with the Jews, and on and on and on. After all you know the true mohammedanism better than them all! ........And allah is all deceiving in everything.
I will gladly entertain you... But first explain why 440,000 American Christian husbands or boyfriends violently attacked their Christian wives or girlfriends in the US every single year ( US Dept. of Justce / FBI statistic) Can you explain that?
Lesser men have always been this way, and some remain today this way. It is those of us who hear and understand the Quran who rise above that pathetic practice.
Let's hear you reason out your own dirty laundry first.
Peace
Abdullah
From the article: "A devout Muslim, Niaz stresses that there is *no evidence* {my emphasis - dda} that domestic violence is more common among Muslim families."
*No evidence?*
From 'Nine Parts of Desire', by Australian journalist Geraldine Brooks, final part entitled 'Conclusion: Beware of the Dogma', in discussing the trial in London in the early 1990s of a Sudanese Muslim man who murdered his wife Afaf in an 'honor' murder (the wife had not only sought a divorce, but had fallen in love with a British infidel man):
"This [the murder of Afar] was not an isolated case; it merely happened to be the one I heard about. *In a British study of family violence completed not long after Afaf's death, the researchers found that women married to men of Muslim background were eight times more likely to be killed by their spouses than any other women in Britain".
And again, from this article, which we discussed at jihadwatch only a little while ago:
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/09/23/afghanistan.women.abuse/index.html
"Nearly 90 percent of Afghan women suffer from domestic abuse, according to the United Nations Development Fund for Women."
The article pointed out that according to the UN - "Nearly 90 percent of Afghan women suffer from domestic abuse; there are less than a dozen shelters for women in the country; in Afghanistan, women are often beaten, raped and even sold to the highest bidder; abusers are rarely prosecuted; most women are afraid to complain."
I have no less than three bulging electronic files stuffed full of the reports that have appeared here on jihadwatch, from every corner of dar al Islam and from Mohammedan colonies within the non-Muslim world, relentlessly cataloguing what can only be described as the systematic, relentless, sadistic warfare that is waged continually against women within the Ummah; waged by Muslim men, and by Muslim women who have so internalised Islam's cruelty and violence that they actively assist and practise it even against their own daughters and grand-daughters, most notably by assisting in 'honor' murders [de facto human sacrifices of females] and are certainly are only too happy to abuse non-Muslim females themselves [all those Saudi females torturing their helpless non-Muslim or non-Arab maids, even on US soil], or to observe and celebrate and egg on Muslim males' abuse of non-Muslim or non-Arab females (Muslim women have been reported as ululating with glee and singing taunting songs, while watching Sudanese Christian women being gang-raped by the janjaweed jihad 'warriors').
It is interesting to follow this pattern with abused Muslim women. EVERY one of them, in article after article tells of death threats, beatings, acid attacks, slicing and dicing, forced marriage and/or other forms of serious physical abuse, and every one of them says it has nothing to do with Islam.
The intimidation, terror and utter destruction women, body and soul, under Islam reminds me of protection money and threats from the Mafia. "As long as you don't tell anyone we'll let you live, in hell, with us."
Abdullah Mike said: "As to those women on whose part you see ill conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful), but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance)."
So tell us A.M., when would it be useful for a Muslim man to beat his wife?
It is interesting to follow this pattern with abused Muslim women. EVERY one of them, in article after article tells of death threats, beatings, acid attacks, slicing and dicing, forced marriage and/or other forms of serious physical abuse, and every one of them says it has nothing to do with Islam.
The intimidation, terror and utter destruction women, body and soul, under Islam reminds me of protection money and threats from the Mafia. "As long as you don't tell anyone we'll let you live, in hell, with us."
Abdullah Mike said: "As to those women on whose part you see ill conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful), but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance)."
So tell us A.M., when would it be useful for a Muslim man to beat his wife?
Actually if your 440,000 number is correct it would surprise me that only 1/6 of 1 percent of my population is guilty of abusing their spouse(singular here in Dar al Harib). I'll bet that in the ummah's paradise of Afghanistan alone 10 times(4,440,000) Tilths are getting their asses beat regularly. Also one must remember here that under a True God who commands 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' regardless of race or religion, it makes it harder to proclaim your Christianity while beating your wife unlike in mohammedanism. I would imagine that you believe that osama bin laden isn't a true mohammedan by the way..........All things aside we Kufirs could really use a pacifist like you over at Al Anzar, I'll bet the Copts would appreciate that too.
Oops sorry I forgot: And allah is all deceiving in everything.
dsh: I think you are talking about the tafseer for the verse of the beating. It explains how the verse was revealed. Some woman came to Mohammed because her husband had punched her in the face. Mohammed "received" revelation from "Allah" so the woman went away without getting any justice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS5T6Gka2o0
Lots of other knuckle draggers just like you out there...go figure.
This medium is terrible for communication but useful for gathering information. You are so valuable a source...you have no idea.
Peace
Abdullah
Why do you finish with 'Peace' when speaking with a Kufir in the house of war?.....And allah is all deceiving in everything.
Or did you misspell piece? And allah is all deceiving in everything.
I was wondering how long it would take AM to pull out the old "daraba means something else, not 'beat' " excuse. Unfortunately, his excuse goes against the grain of all the tafsirs of eminent scholars of his own tradition. Looks like AM needs to be punished for takfir now.
It is possible that that is the source, but I'm not entirely certain. I could only listen just a couple of minutes of this before my stomach started to heave. Maybe I'll try later. Maybe.
"Knuckle draggers" now is it, AM? Just yesterday I believe your invective du jour was "clowns." Insults, you know, don't constitute arguments. As for accurate sources on how Muslims really think, YOU have no idea how valuable you are to so many of us here at JW. Yes, in the final analysis, even you serve a purpose, though not the one you think you do.
War
Wellington
dsh: I think you are talking about the tafseer for the verse of the beating. It explains how the verse was revealed. Some woman came to Mohammed because her husband had punched her in the face. Mohammed "received" revelation from "Allah" so the woman went away without getting any justice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS5T6Gka2o0
Your ignorance isn't my problem.
You'd be really funny if you weren't so pathetic...an arrogant Orientalist that actually believes he understands better than a believer what a believer lives every day.
It is people like you that our culture is leaving behind in the dustbin of history. There are more people like me here than you could ever imagine...if we all wore white kudfis in NY on the same day you'd probably bust a spring along with Robert & Hugh.
Peace
Abdullah
"War"....Excellent, I love the truth, it's those 'peaceful' lies that piss me off.
What you just wrote if it's true proves the need for this site and many more like it. We Kufirs need to start forming a cadre for the inevitable future struggle with devil worshiping rag-heads like you.........And remember allah is all deceiving in everything. War.
Poor Abdelusional Mike.
Abdullah your "nice" interpretation doesnt align with for example Ibn kathir (who I humbly think is more authoritative than you!) and accepted translations of the Quran (apart from sone adding in "lightly' after beat that is not in the Arabic") So you are being disingenuous. The issue is can a devout Muslim beat his wife and rely on the Quran to do so compared with a devout Christain relying on the New Testamant to beat his wife. Thg latter has no support to do so whereas the Muslim has (and Mohamammad that "perfect" role model demonstrated it by hitting Aisha.
The status of a wife is indicated by Ibn kathir :"The best women is she who when you look at her, she pleases you, when you command her she obeys you, and when you are absent, she protects her honor and your property.) As to those women on whose part you see ill conduct,) meaning, the woman from whom you see ill conduct with her husband, such as when she acts as if she is above her husband, disobeys him, ignores him, dislikes him, and so forth. When these signs appear in a woman, her husband should advise her and remind her of Allah's torment if she disobeys him. Indeed, Allah ordered the wife to obey her husband and prohibited her from disobeying him, because of the enormity of his rights and all that he does for her.
(beat them) means, if advice and ignoring her in the bed do not produce the desired results, you are allowed to discipline the wife, without severe beating."
For anyone new to this site and to this topic, a little more evidence concerning the Mohammedan male perception that wife-beating is OK, and the prevalence of severe domestic violence within the Mohammedan community.
First:
On November 7 2008 Martin Beckford, in the UK newspaper The Telegraph, reported as follows: "Muslim men 'think they have God-given right to beat wives', claims female Muslim medic”. The doctor stated that she had seen pregnant Muslim women with huge bruises on their bellies, inflicted by their husbands.
Here is what that Muslim woman doctor, in the UK, said (she's being somewhat more upfront and honest, than Niaz in NY):
"Domestic violence is supposedly equally divided amongst the various groups *but I get the impression it is more common in Muslims* {my emphasis - dda}.
"*Some Muslim men think they have a God-given right to be physically violent to their spouses* {my emphasis - dda}. I see the result of all this when they are admitted as my patients."
Second:
"The suicide rate of Asian { i.e. Pakistan/Indian/Bangla Desh} women in Britain is four times higher than that among the local population and other immigrant groups".
source = Phyllis Chesler 'The Death of Feminism' 2005, chapter 7 - 'Islamic Gender Apartheid in the West' p.157.
Third: this posting by Mr Spencer, from 14 February this year,
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/02/friends-of-moderate-muslim-leader-who-beheaded-his-wife-hes-a-terrific-guy-he-must-have-just-er-lost.html
pulls together a range of different reports on violence against women within the Muslim world.
Three of the items Mr Spencer mentions:
"The Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences has determined that over ninety percent of Pakistani wives have been struck, beaten, or abused sexually — for offenses on the order of cooking an unsatisfactory meal. Others were punished for failing to give birth to a male child.
"Dominating their women by violence is a prerogative Muslim men cling to tenaciously.
"In Spring 2005, when the East African nation of Chad tried to institute a new family law that would outlaw wife beating, *Muslim clerics led resistance to the measure as un-Islamic* {my emphasis - dda}.
And - "In 2004, an imam in Spain, Mohammed Kamal Mustafa, was found guilty of “inciting violence on the basis of gender” for his book Women in Islam, which discussed the methods and limits of administering “physical punishment” of women."
Her parents immigrated to the United States from the tribal areas of Pakistan...
The problem started here.
Considering that all major religions seem to have a Male erotic believe, which puts women lower than their male counterpart I have to ask, why do women believe in religion at all.
I can understand why men like to believe in something that gives them legitimacy as to their supreme authority, but women boggles my mind.
Other religions have become more tame, but lets not forget inside their believe system they still have women as property. Even if it has been toned down over the last few century do to pressure from intelligent people.
say, Abdu, i'm a little concerned that the translations you've cited employ "men" and "women," instead of "husband" and "wife (wives)," especially in those introductory words. Is #34 speaking of marital relationship (husband and wife,wives), or, general responsibilities of all men over women?
i notice you didn't address this matter of fearing haughtiness, as in fearing the wife (wives) may reveal secrets and fearing you won't get your conjugal due. this it is, which gives the wife (wives) reason to fear the gentle caress of the switch.
incidentally, the best control for domestic understanding in Muslim households, of which i am familiar, had to do with the operation of fear of "run belly and vomit business" because the wife (wives) learned the art of poisons from slaves. the partners lived in fear of what the other(s) could do. these were good Muslims. others lived in fear of brutality (discipline).
As to those women on whose part you see ill conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful), but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance). Surely, Allâh is Ever Most High, Most Great.
So, Abdullah, you're saying that this really means:
As to those women on whose part you see ill conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) rape them (lightly, if it is useful), but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance). Surely, Allâh is Ever Most High, Most Great.
===
So Rape (non-consensual) sexual intercourse is the proper punishment for disobedient women?
The commenter named "Abdullah Mikail" (AM) will not address the substantive challenges and questions of other commenters -- he only cherrypicks what he thinks his tactics of tap-dancing and obfuscation will be able to exploit. Or he simply vanishes from a thread and pretends like he never saw those substantive challenges and questions.
Among them in this thread are two by "dumbledoresarmy":
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/09/new-york-muslim-women-confront-domestic-violence-but-deny-islam-plays-a-role-in-it.html#comment-604397
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/09/new-york-muslim-women-confront-domestic-violence-but-deny-islam-plays-a-role-in-it.html#comment-604450
-- and one from "tommy":
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/09/new-york-muslim-women-confront-domestic-violence-but-deny-islam-plays-a-role-in-it.html#comment-604445
As for AM's response to my comment, he obfuscates. I had written, in response to seeing AM try to argue that the crucial word translated as "beat" in Koran 4:34 really doesn't mean "beat" at all:
I was wondering how long it would take AM to pull out the old "daraba means something else, not 'beat' " excuse. Unfortunately, his excuse goes against the grain of all the tafsirs of eminent scholars of his own tradition. Looks like AM needs to be punished for takfir now.
And AM responded:
Your ignorance isn't my problem.
You'd be really funny if you weren't so pathetic...an arrogant Orientalist that actually believes he understands better than a believer what a believer lives every day.
It is people like you that our culture is leaving behind in the dustbin of history. There are more people like me here than you could ever imagine...if we all wore white kudfis in NY on the same day you'd probably bust a spring along with Robert & Hugh.
Notice how AM expends 80 words and not once addresses the only pertinent part of my comment -- except obliquely with his accusation that my comment's point rests on "Orientalism". The sin of "Orientalism" according to Islam apologists (both Muslim and non-Muslim) is, in a nutshell, the sin of non-Muslim scholars -- either out of ignorance or willfully malevolant enabling of imperialism -- misunderstanding the texts and tenets of Islam. The cure for this sin, evidently, is to rely on what Muslims say about Islam.
The poignant irony here in AM's counter-point that he fails to see is that my point was precisely that other Muslims, not Orientalists, have translated daraba in terms of physical beating, and have assumed that translation is correct. One can find it in the tafsirs of Ibn Kathir, Al-Qortoby, Jalalayn; as well as the hadiths of Bukhari, Muslim and Dawud; as well as Muslim translators of the Koran into English, including Yusuf Ali, Sher Ali, Shakir, and Marmaduke Pickthall -- the latter being a British convert to Islam who, according to this article,
...was aware of the problems of the Christian missionaries' translations and sought to remedy the defects since "some of the translations include commentation offensive to Muslims, and almost all employ a style of language which Muslims at once recognize as unworthy."
http://www.meforum.org/717/assessing-english-translations-of-the-quran
Some "Orientalist" Pickthall was, eh!? In fact, he was the opposite of an Orientalist, a Muslim convert who would make Abdullah Mikail proud. And yet Pickthall used an English word even stronger than "beat" to render daraba:
"and scourge them".
Let's look up the definition of "scourge":
1. To whip severely; to lash
2. To punish with severity
3. To harass or afflict severely.
Meanwhile, the translation of daraba by another Muslim I listed above, Sher Ali, chooses the word "chastise", which in modern colloquial usage has been diluted of its original force:
1. To inflict pain upon, by means of stripes, or in any other manner, for the purpose of punishment or reformation; to punish, as with stripes.
All these Muslims, using the word "beat" (or equivalents or worse) for daraba, and not an "Orientalist" among them! Abdullah Mikail is either not a true Muslim (but follows some kind of marginal heresy of Islam) or he is lying to us. There is no third option here.
Hesperado,
Some students are so poor in their intelligence or are of the type like you that seek not to learn the truth but to shape the perception of it to fit their agenda that he absolutely fail in grasping the truth.
You are either too stupid to grasp it or the second more likely reality, Orientaliat. You're not stupid we both know...so you attempt through cherry picking words out of their meaning and run off with them pyrposely diverting them from their proper contexual meaning.
Now when one learns from a proper teacher one needs to verify ones facts... True, and thus I don't blame an honest effort on a student's behalf ... but your is dishonest.
Case in point, what did the Prophet do when all his wives became defiant and aligned against him?
Recall now your stated Orientalist positin... so according to you he, due to 4:34, swelled up his chest, thrust out his jaw like some dumb red neck hick and said, "Umar, got my stick! I got me some daraba to do!"
But what did the Prophet do? He never laid a hand on hid wives in that instance or any other with the I'll intention you project...never.
So all your pathetic Orientsliat gymnastics fails...the one who relayed the message also became an example in it.
Furthermore the Prophet counsels his Sahabz not to hit their wives, not hurt them not to treat them harshly, and warns them "Who are you to strike the hand maids of God!?"
So in the end you fail to support your spin ad the evidence against your stated position is overwhelming. The one who relayed the message gave us an example to follow in carrying it out.
Peace
Abdullah
Well, well, well. Abdullah has run away without responding to my question. He can't respond because he's been made into a complete fool.
Let's revisit this:
Abdullah posted (above) the following:
Daraba (to have intercourse, not to beat)
Therefore, according to self-named authority on Islam, Abdullah Mikhail, the sura/verse 4:34 should read as follows:
...As to those women on whose part you see ill conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) rape them (lightly, if it is useful)...
So what Abdullah is saying is that "rape" (the proper meaning, according to him of "daraba" in this context)is the proper punishment for severely disobedient wives.
And CAIR pays him for this?
Peace Out
Yankel
Abdullah Mikail (AM) repeats his previous errors, after I already pointed them out to him:
Error #1:
Namely, AM accuses me of putting forth an "Orientalist" position when I point out that daraba is translated as "physically beat". The position I put forth, however, is not merely my position, nor is it merely the position of any non-Muslim "Orientalist": rather, it is the position of other Muslims -- Muslims it is safe to say who were far more knowledgeable about Islam than AM is (Ibn Kathir, etc.).
Error #2:
AM fails to directly respond to the main pertinent points that constitute my exposure of his Error #1, and instead deflects the focus elsewhere.
Both of these errors in this specific regard he has committed not once, but twice -- the second time after they were already pointed out to him clearly.
In my last post, I speculated that "Abdullah Mikail is either not a true Muslim (but follows some kind of marginal heresy of Islam) or he is lying to us. There is no third option here."
Actually, there might be a third option: AM is severely brain-damaged.
AbdullahMikial,
I'm starting to see a pattern with your posts. All rhetoric aside, can I ask an off-topic question?
You clearly have opinions that differ wildly from our experience of Islam. You live and breathe it, we are fed information through the lens of Jihad watch. Frankly, most of us don't care about the great things that are being done in the name of Islam - we can find plenty of examples in other religions, secular groups, business philanthropy and non government organisations. No, our focus is on the many bad things that are being done in the name of Islam. If these were to go away, Jihad watch would cease to exist (wouldn't that be nice?).
But you argue quite passionately about the misinterpretations of Islam. And you don't limit yourself to uneducated peasants, you take potshots at heavy hitters - judges, Imams, government representatives. You're not afraid to stand for what you believe in.
And so to my question: Why not be Islam's Martin Luther and lead the reformation that is so desperately needed? Surely you must see the futility of attacking us. We're not the ones twisting Islam's words.
"Why not be Islam's Martin Luther and lead the reformation that is so desperately needed?"
Islam already had its Martin Luther -- Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab in the 18th century; and along with Wahhab developed many other Muslims in the 19th and 20th century calling Muslims back to the "purity" of Islam. One massive proof in their eyes of the "impurity" of Islam -- or, at least, of Muslims straying from its path -- were the prevalent signs of weakness of Muslims in the face of a West that by that time had become spectacularly superior to Islam, and only increased exponentially in outstripping Islam with each subsequent century. Not only was Islam surrounded by distant Mushrikoon spreading their Fitna, Shirk and Fasad in distant lands, against which, in the good old days of the Golden Age of Islam, they could at least launch periodical invasions or small-scale razzias and piracy, while mostly remaining untouched -- but more and more these Infidels were horning in on Muslim lands and bringing their filth of globalism with them, more and more sucking Muslims in to the global economy and into the diabolical snare of its corrupt, Jewish-controlled politics that compromised the only "pure" goal of Islam: to rule the world in the right way for Allah.
I don't think AM is interested in any other kind of "reform" than that.