A portrait of a Muslim womans life, written by a Muslim woman.

[Marcus Aurelius]

A portrait of a Muslim womans life, written by a Muslim woman.

'these are a few of the things she wrote. the inked page is considerably longer.'

http://www.investigateislam.com/my_life_as_muslim_women.htm



I am a Moslem woman. I have no face. I have no identity. At age 9, based on lunar year (a lunar year is twelve months of 28 days each or 336 days) or, when I am actually 8 years and 8 months old, I am considered an adult. Being an adult means that I have to adhere with Islamic laws as stated below.

I have to pray five times a day, fast one month out of the year and cover myself from head to toe in yards of black fabric. I am eligible to be married and can be punished for any wrong doing. I can be incarcerated and, if needed, executed for my crimes, even political ones.

"Men are the managers of the affairs of women because Allah has preferred men over women and women were expended of their Rights". The Koran 4:34

I am not allowed to swim, ski, ride a bike, dance, learn to play musical instruments, practice gymnastics, or any other sport. I am not even permitted to watch men play sports, either in the stadium and/or on television.

I am to be treated by female doctors. Go to female dentists. And if there are none, then I have to go without or I must be examined through some sort of divider.

I cannot get custody of my children. Even if their father dies. In the case of divorce or death I have to surrender my children to their father and/or his family.

I will get arrested, beaten, and sometimes even executed if I wear make-up, nylons, bright colors and specifically the color of red.

[Syrenn]

i treat my pets better then that......

[jafar00]

I call BS on this story.

So many things wrong. For instance, that she said that if she is divorced, she doesn't get custody of the children, when it is quite clear in Islamic law from the Qur'aan that the women if of sound mind, MUST have custody of the children up until the age of decision (9y/o for girls) and from there the children decide if they want to stay with their mother or father.

That is all from me. I am going off to SKI again with my WIFE and DAUGHTERS. (another BS part of this ridiculous story)

[Marcus Aurelius]

I call BS on this story.

So many things wrong. For instance, that she said that if she is divorced, she doesn't get custody of the children, when it is quite clear in Islamic law from the Qur'aan that the women if of sound mind, MUST have custody of the children up until the age of decision (9y/o for girls) and from there the children decide if they want to stay with their mother or father.

That is all from me. I am going off to SKI again with my WIFE and DAUGHTERS. (another BS part of this ridiculous story)

typical. Anything that goes contrary to what YOU say is Islam, is simply wrong or BS, even when it comes from another Muslim... who, in your opinion, isn't 'really' a Muslim and doesn't 'really' follow Islam.

Dumb ass.

[tailfins]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by jafar00 http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=623963#post623963)
I call BS on this story.

So many things wrong. For instance, that she said that if she is divorced, she doesn't get custody of the children, when it is quite clear in Islamic law from the Qur'aan that the women if of sound mind, MUST have custody of the children up until the age of decision (9y/o for girls) and from there the children decide if they want to stay with their mother or father.

That is all from me. I am going off to SKI again with my WIFE and DAUGHTERS. (another BS part of this ridiculous story)




typical. Anything that goes contrary to what YOU say is Islam, is simply wrong or BS, even when it comes from another Muslim... who, in your opinion, isn't 'really' a Muslim and doesn't 'really' follow Islam.

Dumb ass.

It's possible you both could be right. That means that the example you cite could be true AND the particular segment of Islam Jafar has known is totally different. There are over a BILLION Muslims. The issue isn't true or not true, but a representative sample.

[Drummond]

No. Jafar, I believe, is NOT right.

This, extracted from his post, says ..


when it is quite clear in Islamic law from the Qur'aan that the women if of sound mind, MUST have custody of the children up until the age of decision (9y/o for girls)
See this ...

http://islamqa.info/en/ref/153390


The mother has more right to her children – if they are below the age of discernment – that her husband, so long as she does not get married. If she gets married then the children go back to their father.

Once the children reach the age of discernment, they should be given the choice between their parents.

This applies if the father and mother are equal in terms of religious commitment and good character. If one of them is of bad character and not very religiously committed, he or she should not be given the right of custody, because what counts is what is in the best interests of the child, and his interests cannot be served with one who will neglect the child’s rights. This is what is indicated by the hadeeths and this is what was mentioned in fatwas by the most prominent scholars.

Not quite the same as Jafar's assertion .. is it ??

If the mother doesn't get married .. if the mother is 'of good character' .. if she is 'religiously committed' .. then she should be favoured. So there's rather more than just the one condition to meet, which Jafar asserts is true.

My thinking is that the woman quoted in Marcus's example was being entirely truthful. Since she'd gone on record to speak out against Islam's tyrannical truths, so, from Islam's perspective, she'd neither be 'religiously committed', nor even thought to be 'of sound mind'. For this, both she and the child must be made to pay a price.

So ... Islamic tyranny would've kicked in, and the mother would've been denied custody .. no doubt on the basis that what was more important was the allegiance the child MUST have to Islam, rather than to be brought up by a loving and doting mother.

.. Such, I suggest, is Islam's inhumanity.

[aboutime]

I call BS on this story.

So many things wrong. For instance, that she said that if she is divorced, she doesn't get custody of the children, when it is quite clear in Islamic law from the Qur'aan that the women if of sound mind, MUST have custody of the children up until the age of decision (9y/o for girls) and from there the children decide if they want to stay with their mother or father.

That is all from me. I am going off to SKI again with my WIFE and DAUGHTERS. (another BS part of this ridiculous story)


Did anyone really expect jafar to finally AGREE with anyone here?

Calling BS is nothing but another tactic they use to avoid being held responsible, or being caught going against their beloved Religion of Peace(?).

[Marcus Aurelius]

drummond...

Jahil will now claim that the man behind that site is not really Islamic and should not be trusted.


http://www.islamqa.info/en/ref/islamqapages/5

Shaykh Muhammad Saalih al-Munajjid

His shaykhs
He attended the study circles of the following shaykhs:
Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azeez ibn ‘Abdullah ibn Baaz.
Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih al-‘Uthaymeen
Shaykh ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abd ar-Rahmaan al-Jibreen
The one from whom he learnt the most was Shaykh ‘Abd ar-Rahmaan ibn Naasir al-Barraak.
He learned precise Qur’aan recitation from Shaykh Sa‘eed Aal ‘Abdullah.


Jahil will now claim none of these men are really Islamic, and should not be trusted.


r A‘waanan (Cooperate in doing good)
2. The Muslim Home - 40 Recommendations
3. 33 Ways of Developing Khushoo in prayer
4. The Prophet’s Methods for Correcting People’s Mistakes
5. 70 Matters Related to Fasting
6. Dealing with Worries and Stress
7. Disallowed Matters
8. Prohibitions that are taken too lightly
9. What you should do in the following situations
10. Weakness of Faith
11. Means of Steadfastness: Standing Firm in Islam
12. I Want to Repent, But…
13. Problems and Solutions
14. Siraa‘ ma‘a ash-Shahawaat (Fighting Whims and Desires)
Jahil will now claim these books are not Islamic, and should not be trusted.

[jafar00]

This issue is close to my heart as I do have an ex wife and custody/child support issues were dealt with by Islamic laws, not western (french). My ex wife got custody of our two daughters and I am responsible for their financial support. I also agreed to support (as a charitable act) the two children she had before marrying me as their father was involved in child sexual abuse and is no longer on the scene.

It is important not to take any information about Islam from anti Islam websites set up for the purpose of spreading lies. Likewise these fake stories from "former" muslims should not be trusted.

[tailfins]

This issue is close to my heart as I do have an ex wife and custody/child support issues were dealt with by Islamic laws, not western (french). My ex wife got custody of our two daughters and I am responsible for their financial support. I also agreed to support (as a charitable act) the two children she had before marrying me as their father was involved in child sexual abuse and is no longer on the scene.

It is important not to take any information about Islam from anti Islam websites set up for the purpose of spreading lies. Likewise these fake stories from "former" muslims should not be trusted.

You want people not to dismiss you because you're muslim. Why do you want to dismiss people for being a former muslim? Judge each account on it's individual merits. While I admire some characteristics of Islam, it's still a ticket for the "long black train".


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyRZTAmcW7c

[Marcus Aurelius]

drummond...

Jahil will now claim that the man behind that site is not really Islamic and should not be trusted.


http://www.islamqa.info/en/ref/islamqapages/5

Shaykh Muhammad Saalih al-Munajjid

His shaykhs
He attended the study circles of the following shaykhs:
Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azeez ibn ‘Abdullah ibn Baaz.
Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih al-‘Uthaymeen
Shaykh ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abd ar-Rahmaan al-Jibreen
The one from whom he learnt the most was Shaykh ‘Abd ar-Rahmaan ibn Naasir al-Barraak.
He learned precise Qur’aan recitation from Shaykh Sa‘eed Aal ‘Abdullah.




Jahil will now claim none of these men are really Islamic, and should not be trusted.


r A‘waanan (Cooperate in doing good)
2. The Muslim Home - 40 Recommendations
3. 33 Ways of Developing Khushoo in prayer
4. The Prophet’s Methods for Correcting People’s Mistakes
5. 70 Matters Related to Fasting
6. Dealing with Worries and Stress
7. Disallowed Matters
8. Prohibitions that are taken too lightly
9. What you should do in the following situations
10. Weakness of Faith
11. Means of Steadfastness: Standing Firm in Islam
12. I Want to Repent, But…
13. Problems and Solutions
14. Siraa‘ ma‘a ash-Shahawaat (Fighting Whims and Desires)





Jahil will now claim these books are not Islamic, and should not be trusted.




and jahil's response is...


This issue is close to my heart as I do have an ex wife and custody/child support issues were dealt with by Islamic laws, not western (french). My ex wife got custody of our two daughters and I am responsible for their financial support. I also agreed to support (as a charitable act) the two children she had before marrying me as their father was involved in child sexual abuse and is no longer on the scene.

It is important not to take any information about Islam from anti Islam websites set up for the purpose of spreading lies. Likewise these fake stories from "former" muslims should not be trusted.

Jahil claims that my source, from a well known and well respected Muslim, is an anti-Islamic site.

I rest my case. Jahil is delusional.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

and jahil's response is...



Jahil claims that my source, from a well known and well respected Muslim, is an anti-Islamic site.

I rest my case. Jahil is delusional.


Yes, I saw that and thought he is as damn brainwashed as they come!
It is a bit like somebody declaring that the Pope isn't Catholic or religious...Jahil 's blindness is absolute.--Tyr

[Marcus Aurelius]

Yes, I saw that and thought he is as damn brainwashed as they come!
It is a bit like somebody declaring that the Pope isn't Catholic or religious...Jahil 's blindness is absolute.--Tyr

Jahil's ultimate Islamic authority is... Jahil.

I think if Mohammad came down, sat Jahil down and read him the riot act, Jahil would claim Mohammad was not really Islamic and ignore him.

[jafar00]

"Men are the managers of the affairs of women because Allah has preferred men over women and women were expended of their Rights". The Koran 4:34



From 4:34

Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. (4:34)

What kind of mistranslation is your source using?


I am not allowed to swim, ski, ride a bike, dance, learn to play musical instruments, practice gymnastics, or any other sport. I am not even permitted to watch men play sports, either in the stadium and/or on television.

Pics or it didn't happen? Yes, the source is pure and unadulterated BS

No Swimming?
http://sciencenotes.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/burkini.jpg

No Skiing?
http://www.muslimahnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/hijab-ski.jpg

No Bike riding?
http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0059/1592/files/IMG_3159-4_grande.jpg?835

No Dancing?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2109/2103985466_38aa9153b6.jpg

No musical instruments?

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1417/5140721955_b62bd43c5a_m.jpg

No Sport?

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/topstories/2012/03/06/li-620-hijab-cp-8591719.jpg

No watching men play sport in the stadium?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zC1cYyGIbUs/T3ajcIWwqWI/AAAAAAAAA7w/HxK2dLO2QVw/s1600/IMG_0087.JPG

[Marcus Aurelius]

"Men are the managers of the affairs of women because Allah has preferred men over women and women were expended of their Rights". The Koran 4:34



From 4:34

Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. (4:34)

What kind of mistranslation is your source using?



Pics or it didn't happen? Yes, the source is pure and unadulterated BS

No Swimming?
http://sciencenotes.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/burkini.jpg

No Skiing?
http://www.muslimahnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/hijab-ski.jpg

No Bike riding?
http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0059/1592/files/IMG_3159-4_grande.jpg?835

No Dancing?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2109/2103985466_38aa9153b6.jpg

No musical instruments?

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1417/5140721955_b62bd43c5a_m.jpg

No Sport?

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/topstories/2012/03/06/li-620-hijab-cp-8591719.jpg

No watching men play sport in the stadium?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zC1cYyGIbUs/T3ajcIWwqWI/AAAAAAAAA7w/HxK2dLO2QVw/s1600/IMG_0087.JPG

A bunch of photos, taken God knows where, of God knows what... yeah, let's all believe Jahil.:laugh2:

[jafar00]

Women have more right to custody of children than men; in principle custody belongs to them, because they are more compassionate and more kind, and they know better how to raise small children, and they are more patient in dealing with the difficulties involved. The mother has more right to custody of her child, whether it is a boy or a girl, so long as she does not re-marry and so long as she meets the conditions of custody. This is according to scholarly consensus.
http://islamqa.info/en/ref/8189

[Marcus Aurelius]

"Men are the managers of the affairs of women because Allah has preferred men over women and women were expended of their Rights". The Koran 4:34



From 4:34

Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. (4:34)

What kind of mistranslation is your source using?

Here's one... and it specifically allows men to beat women, which YOU claimed was not allowed...


http://quran.com/4/34
Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.

Now, Jahil will claim that QURAN.COM is an anti-Islamic website, or that it is a badly translated passage, and proceed to give us 'his' one true translation.


Here are more translations of 4:34...

http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-wife-beating-koran-4-34.htm


"Men are superior to women on account of the qualities with which God has gifted the one above the other, and on account of the outlay they make from their substance for them. Virtuous women are obedient, careful, during the husband's absence, because God has of them been careful. But chide those for whose refractoriness you have cause to fear; remove them into beds apart, and scourge them: but if they are obedient to you, then seek not occasion against them: verily, God is High, Great!" (Rodwell's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)
"Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Surely God is high, supreme." (Dawood's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)
"Men are in charge of women, because Allah has made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah has guarded. As for those from whom you fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High Exalted, Great." (Pickthall's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)
"Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that God has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for God's guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them. If they then obey you, look not for any way against them; God is All high, All great." (Arberry's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)
"Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in their sleeping places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great. (Shakir's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)
"Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whom part you fear disloyalty and ill conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance) for Allah is Most High, Great (above you all). (Ali's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)

[jafar00]

I will get arrested, beaten, and sometimes even executed if I wear make-up, nylons, bright colors and specifically the color of red.

She gets executed sometimes? She must be a cat with 9 lives.

And what about these women? How shocking for them to wear red! OMG

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-RxpC-e623Bk/T1L6bu0tJTI/AAAAAAAABtc/60ejpWLHi50/s1600/15Bedouins.JPG

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://islamqa.info/en/ref/8189

you missed a part...


The conditions of custody are: being accountable (i.e., an adult of sound mind etc.), being free (as opposed to being a slave), being of good character, being a Muslim if the child concerned is a Muslim, and being able to fulfil all obligations towards the child. The mother should not be married to a person who is a stranger (i.e., not related) to the child. If one of these conditions is not fulfilled and there is an impediment such as insanity or having remarried, etc., the woman forfeits the right to custody, but if that impediment is removed, then the right to custody is restored.

So, accoridng to Islamic law, a woman who remarries is insane and therefore should lose her child.

Nice.

[Marcus Aurelius]

She gets executed sometimes? She must be a cat with 9 lives.

And what about these women? How shocking for them to wear red! OMG

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-RxpC-e623Bk/T1L6bu0tJTI/AAAAAAAABtc/60ejpWLHi50/s1600/15Bedouins.JPG

again, more nonsesne photos from God knows where.

[jafar00]

Here's one... and it specifically allows men to beat women, which YOU claimed was not allowed...

Didn't we already debate that bit at length before? The bit where it says beat is not as you would like to comprehend it. Scholarly consensus is the the "beating" is symbolic and done with a toothbrush or the like and without causing injury and any man who does beat his wife "like a slave", he will answer for this on the day of judgement as it is a sin. Go on. Hit yourself as hard as you can with toothbrush and take a photo of the resulting injury.

http://spa.qibla.com/issue_view.asp?HD=12&ID=612&CATE=10

Question:
<sp:question>1. Does the Arabic word 'daraba' necessarily mean "violent or intense or repeated striking?"</sp:question>
Answer:
http://www.sunnipath.com/img/bism01.jpgNo.

Jurists routinely use the expression "daraba al-ma' `ala wajhihi" - lit. strike water upon the face, for someone accomplishing the first rukn of wudu' (washing the face).

Also in Arabic daraba al-ard "to strike the earth" - as in verse 4:94 {When you strike the earth in the cause of Allah} - means to travel, i.e. walking with a staff.


2. Has the phrase 'wadribuhunna' in 4:34 normally been interpreted as a command or has it been interpreted as more of a recommendation?
Not even a recommendation. Al-Razi said in his Tafsir on 4:34 (1308/1891 edition 3:222): "Al-Shaf`i said: 'wa al-darbu mubah, wa al-tarku afdal - and hitting is permitted, but not hitting is preferable.'"

NB: Al-Shafi`i's position is therefore that it is "permissible", NOT "just barely permissible" as misrepresented by Muhammad Asad. [_The Message of the Qur'an_, translation and commentary of the Qur'an by Muhammad Asad (1980), footnote 45, p. 109 (one of the commentaries on verse 4:34).]

The basic rule (asl) is strict prohibition, followed by dispensation (rukhsa) as explicited by the Prophet in the hadith below, which al-Shafi`i took for his evidence in his ruling:
The Prophet (pbuh) said: "Do not hit the maidservants of Allah!" (la tadribu ima' Allah). Then `Umar (RA) came to the Prophet (pbuh) and said [NB: by way of exaggeration, cf. `Awn al-Ma`bud]: "The women are rebelling (dha'irna) against their husbands!" So the Prophet (pbuh) GAVE A DISPENSATION (rakhkhasa) to beat them. Whereupon women started pouring in to see the family of the Messenger of Allah and complain about their husbands. Seeing this, the Prophet (pbuh)said: "Many women have poured in to see the family of Muhammad, complaining of their husbands, and *the latter are certainly not the best of you*." Narrated from Iyas ibn `Abd Allah ibn Abi Dhubab by al-Shafi`i in his Musnad, Abu Dawud, al-Nasa'i, Ibn Majah, al-Tabarani in al-Kabir, and al-Hakim. Al-Nawawi and al-Suyuti graded it a sound (sahih) narration in Riyad al-Salihin [RS-281] and al-Jami` al-Saghir respectively.
In a version cited by al-Razi in his Tafsir, (3:222) `Umar also states: "We the Quraysh used to have our men holding sway over our women. Then we came to Madina and found that their women held sway over their men. Then our women mixed with their women until they rebelled (dha'irna) against their husbands. So I came to the Prophet (pbuh) and told him: 'The women are rebelling against their husbands!' So he (pbuh) GAVE PERMISSION (adhina) to beat them. Whereupon, etc."
Some people who were influenced by feminism until they forgot the Adab of Islam, tend to badmouth Sayyidina `Umar for what they term his mistreatment of women. While it is true that the Arabs in general and Sayyidina `Umar in particular had a very high sense of self-respect (ghira) as attested by no less than the Prophet (pbuh) (in the hadith where he mentions seeing `Umar's palace in Paradise), nevertheless we should observe Adab so as not to commit a sin whenever mentioning the Prophet (pbuh), his Family, and His Companions, indeed all Muslims as Allah (SWT) made the honor of a Muslim as sacrosanct as his life and property.
The Prophet (pbuh) also expressed astonishment at the cruelty of certain men when he said: "Could any of you beat his wife as he would beat a slave, and then lie with her in the evening?" (Bukhari and Muslim).
The crafty little anti-Islam page on domini.org states:
"The Qur'an states:
"Righteous women are therefore obedient, And those you fear may be rebellious (nushuz) admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them."
"Some translators add the word lightly after 'beat them' in Q 4:34. Others like Mohammed Pickthall and Rodwell translate the word 'edrebouhon - beat them' as 'scourge them'. [...] But "a beating without causing injury" (agreed upon)
"So the man has the right to beat his rebellious wife as long as that beating is not like the whipping of the slave and will not result in injury."
Of course the above is false and tendentious but couched in the syrupy style typical of missionaries.
The hadith in Muslim states that the Prophet (pbuh) in his Farewell Pilgrimage said: "Lo! My last recommendation 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 (fahisha mubina = adultery). If they do, then refuse to share their beds and beat them WITHOUT INDECENT VIOLENCE (fadribu hunna darban ghayra mubarrih*). Then, if they obey you, do not show them hostility any longer. Lo! you have a right over your women and they have a right over you. Your right over your women is that they not allow whom you hate to enter your bed nor your house. While their right over them is that you treat them excellently in their garb and provision."
*** Then he took the covenant from them and from us that they and we all heard and understood this from him, respectively, directly and indirectly, with his forefinger raised, and said: "O Allah! bear witness." ***
After this, whatever Muslim man derogates to the recommendation of the Prophet (pbuh) has violated his covenant with the Prophet and shall be called to account for it; and whoever of the non-Muslim men or women claims - even the Archbishop of Canterbury and his wife - that beating women is allowed in Islam, has belied the Divine witness invoked by the Prophet and shall be called to account for it in the Divine Court.
*"Mubarrih" is defined in al-Mawrid as "violent, intense, severe, acute, sharp, excruciating, tormenting, agonizing." Qatada said as narrated by al-Tabari in his Tafsir (5:68): "Ghayr mubarrih means ghayr sha'in = not disgraceful/ outrageous/ obscene/ indecent [beating]." Muhammad Asad translates it over-figuratively as "not causing pain."

3. What is the evidence for saying that this 'striking' is in fact only supposed to be carried out with something small, like a miswak?
`Ata' said: "I asked Ibn `Abbas: 'What is the hitting that is ghayr al-mubarrih?' He replied: '[With] the siwak and the like'." Narrated by al-Tabari in his Tafsir (Dar al-Fikr reprint 5:68).
Al-Razi (3:222) mentions that as a rule (a) it must be a light beating and (b) the face must be avoided. He added that certain of the Shafi`i jurists said "a coiled scarf (mindil malfuf) (NB: NOT "a folded handkerchief" as mistranslated by Asad) or his hand may be used but not a whip nor a stick."

4. Where is the hadith found in which the Prophet (pbuh) said to a servant-girl who had been extremely late "If I were not afraid of Allah, I would hit you with this" referring to a miswak?
Ibn Sa`d in al-Tabaqat al-Kubra, Al-Tabarani in al-Mu`jam al-Kabir, Abu Ya`la in his Musnad, Abu Nu`aym in Hilyat al-Awliya' and al-Hakim in al-Mustadrak narrated from Umm Salama: "The Prophet (pbuh)was in my house and there was a siwak in his hand. He called for Wasifa [the servant-girl] to come to him or to her [i.e. to serve Umm Salama] but she tarried until anger was visible on his face. So Umm Salama went out to her and found her playing with an animal. She said to her: "You are playing while the Messenger of Allah is calling you?" She replied: "No, by the one who sent you with truth! I did not hear you." Whereupon the Prophet (pbuh) said: "Were it not for fear of exaction (qawad) on the Day of Resurrection, I should surely make you sore (la'awja`tuki) with this toothpick."
Al-Munawi in Fayd al-Qadir mentioned that al-Mundhiri and al-Haythami declared its chain of transmission good. Al-Suyuti graded the hadith "fair" (hasan) in al-Jami` al-Saghir. Al-Muttaqi cited it in Kanz al-`Ummal (#39820, 39821, 39829).

5. What is the exact meaning of 'nushuz'? It is translated as disobedience, but there seem to be others who think it means something more like 'ill-will' or 'hostility' or 'ill-treatment'.
It depends on context and how these terms are themselves understood by those who use them. Ill-treatment on the part of a wife to her husband, for example, is a bit different from ill-treatment on the part of a grocer to his customer.
Nushuz is translated "Recalcitrance, disobedience, violation of marital duties on the part of the wife" in al-Mawrid Ar-Eng Dictionary.
Nushuz in the verse, as shown, is an euphemism for adultery because her primary marital duty is spelled out in the hadith as "not allowing whom you hate to enter your bed nor your house." Al-Maziri also said that another interpretation of the words in that hadith said it referred to a woman sitting in seclusion with a stranger inside her husband's house. (Al-Nawawi, Sharh Sahih Muslim.)

6. Is it not true that slapping someone on the face is not allowed in Islam? Is there a consensus on this point?
It is a transgression requiring exaction (qawad) which can be changed into monetary compensation (diyya) in the Four Schools, and Allah knows best.
Examples: (a) the famous hadith from Mu`awiya ibn al-Hakam in Sahih Muslim of the black woman slave whom her owner slaps and is then obligated to manumit as her compensation.
(b) Also in Sahih Muslim, the example of Suwayd ibn Muqarrin who saw a man slap his female slave and told him: "Do you not know that the face is taboo? (al-sura muharrama) I, whom you see in front of you, the seventh of my brothers, was with the Messenger of Allah and we only had one servant; one of us slapped him, so the Messenger of Allah commanded us to free him."
(c) A man from the Ansar insulted al-`Abbas's father who lived in the Time of Ignorance, whereupon al-`Abbas slapped him. The man returned to his people who said: "By Allah, we shall slap him just as he slapped him," and they girded their weapons. News of this reached the Prophet who ascended the pulpit and said: "O people! Who among the dwellers of the earth is deemed most honorable in the presence of Allah?" They said, "You." He continued: "And al-`Abbas is part of me, and I am part of him. Do not insult our dead, thereby harming our living." The people then came to the Prophet and said: "O Messenger of Allah! We seek refuge in Allah from your anger." Narrated from Ibn `Abbas by Ahmad and al-Nasa'i with a sound chain according to al-`Iraqi in Takhrij Ahadith al-Ihya', also al-Tabarani in al-Mu`jam al-Kabir.
Al-Sindi in his commentary on al-Nasa'i's Sunan said: "Since he had begun with the insult, the slap received was not to obtain retaliation."
Note that the directive of the above hadith was royally ignored by the Wahhabi preacher of the Prophet's Mosque in Madina, Abu Bakr al-Jaza'iri, who used to shout at the top of his lungs, right next to al-Mustafa?: "The father and mother of the Prophet are in hellfire! The father and mother of the Prophet are in hellfire!" and so until his death last year. I wonder, should we believe that Abu Bakr al-Jaza'iri and his parents are in Paradise, while the parents of the Prophet Muhammad are in hellfire? Hasbuna Allah.
The ruling of automatic manumission for striking a slave in the face is established by the following hadith of the Prophet:
(d) "Whoever strikes his slave in the face or beats him unjustly, his expiation is to manumit him." Narrated from Ibn `Umar by Muslim in his Sahih.
The ruling that the face is taboo is established by the following hadith of the Prophet:
(e) "If you fight your brother, avoid striking the face, for Allah created Adam in his image." Narrated from Abu Hurayra by Muslim and al-Bukhari, the latter without the words "your brother." If this is forbidden while fighting or when interacting with a slave, then a fortiori it is forbidden outside fighting and with one's wife.
Do not be misled by the Satanic whispers of domini.org which states:
"The occasion in which Q 4:34 was revealed sheds more light on the meaning of that verse. Most commentators mention that the above verse was revealed in connection with a woman who complained to Mohammad that her husband slapped her on the face (which was still marked by the slap). At first the Prophet said to her: 'Get even with him', but then added : 'Wait until I think about it.' Later on the above verse was revealed, after which the Prophet said: 'We wanted one thing but Allah wanted another, and what Allah wanted is best.' [Razi, At-tafsir al-Kabir, on Q. 4:34.]"
Crafty, crafty, and all for what? lies. Ars longa, vita brevis!
The commentators also mention that this report is narrated only from al-Hasan al-Basri who is NOT a Companion. The most that can be said of it here is that it is a weak, isolated, mursal Tabi`i report that does not have probative force.
What is more, al-Hasan himself flatly contradicts the above as he reportedly explained {wadribu hunna} to mean: "hitting that is not obscene; hitting that *does not leave a trace*" (darban ghayra mubarrih ghayra mu'aththir). Narrated by al-Tabari in his Tafsir (Dar al-Fikr reprint 5:68).
And Allah Most High knows best.
{Wa Makaru wa Makara Allah wAllahu Khayru-l-Makirin}
{Yuridun an yutfi'u Nur Allah bi Afwahihim wa Ya'ba Allah
Illa an Yatimma Nurahu wa law Kariha al-Kafirun}
Blessings and peace of Allah on the Prophet, his Family, and his Companions.
Hajj Gibril
GF Haddad
(Source: http://www.abc.se/~m9783/fiqhi/fiqha_e32.html)

[jafar00]

again, more nonsesne photos from God knows where.

Just dealing with the lies you are spreading with some photographic evidence. Do you have anything with which to disprove the photos?

[Marcus Aurelius]

Didn't we already debate that bit at length before? The bit where it says beat is not as you would like to comprehend it. Scholarly consensus is the the "beating" is symbolic and done with a toothbrush or the like and without causing injury and any man who does beat his wife "like a slave", he will answer for this on the day of judgement as it is a sin. Go on. Hit yourself as hard as you can with toothbrush and take a photo of the resulting injury.

http://spa.qibla.com/issue_view.asp?HD=12&ID=612&CATE=10

[/FONT][/COLOR]

Show me in the Quran where it says this. If it's not in the Quran, it's not 'really' Islamic. That's what you've been saying over and over. Now, you change and want us to believe something that is not in the Quran, and instead comes from 'scholarly interpretation'?

Pathetic how you change your tune whenever you're nailed on something. Mohammad would be disgusted by you.



Oh, and I thought you had me on IGNORE, Jahil :laugh2:

[Marcus Aurelius]

Just dealing with the lies you are spreading with some photographic evidence. Do you have anything with which to disprove the photos?

I post stuff from Islamic websites, from noted Islamic scholars, and you call it lies.

dumb ass.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by jafar00 http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=624150#post624150)
Didn't we already debate that bit at length before? The bit where it says beat is not as you would like to comprehend it. Scholarly consensus is the the "beating" is symbolic and done with a toothbrush or the like and without causing injury and any man who does beat his wife "like a slave", he will answer for this on the day of judgement as it is a sin. Go on. Hit yourself as hard as you can with toothbrush and take a photo of the resulting injury.

http://spa.qibla.com/issue_view.asp?...ID=612&CATE=10 (http://spa.qibla.com/issue_view.asp?HD=12&ID=612&CATE=10)

[/FONT][/COLOR]






Show me in the Quran where it says this. If it's not in the Quran, it's not 'really' Islamic. That's what you've been saying over and over. Now, you change and want us to believe something that is not in the Quran, and instead comes from 'scholarly interpretation'?

Pathetic how you change your tune whenever you're nailed on something. Mohammad would be disgusted by you.



Oh, and I thought you had me on IGNORE, Jahil :laugh2:

Use his own logic on him, and Jahil runs away like a coward.

[Drummond]

Jafar will say anything to sanitise Islam. He'll take any position lending itself to that effort.

Oh, and Jafar ... so-called 'anti-Islamic' sites (to the extent that any have ever been used as reference-points on this forum) aren't automatically dismissable just on those grounds. Websites can take an 'anti' position because, Jafar, THEY ARE RIGHT AND JUSTIFIED IN DOING SO.

By being dismissive of such sites, what you're really saying is that you oppose their very desire to offer opposition. And THAT, Jafar, is about as biased as it gets. I submit to you that TRUTH is what matters, and when it's presented, it shouldn't be discounted because of how its origin is perceived.

TRUTH is TRUTH.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Jafar will say anything to sanitise Islam. He'll take any position lending itself to that effort.

Oh, and Jafar ... so-called 'anti-Islamic' sites (to the extent that any have ever been used as reference-points on this forum) aren't automatically dismissable just on those grounds. Websites can take an 'anti' position because, Jafar, THEY ARE RIGHT AND JUSTIFIED IN DOING SO.

By being dismissive of such sites, what you're really saying is that you oppose their very desire to offer opposition. And THAT, Jafar, is about as biased as it gets. I submit to you that TRUTH is what matters, and when it's presented, it shouldn't be discounted because of how its origin is perceived.

TRUTH is TRUTH.

I LEARNED THIS FROM MY GRANDFATHER , A WISE MAN WAS HE. He was full bloodied American Indian and a Christian.

"The truth , is the truth , is the truth" . That is infinity repeated three times so our limited brain can start to understand its true depth but only to the level in which our mind can understand.-Tyr

[Drummond]

I LEARNED THIS FROM MY GRANDFATHER , A WISE MAN WAS HE. He was full bloodied American Indian and a Christian.

"The truth , is the truth , is the truth" . That is infinity repeated three times so our limited brain can start to understand its true depth but only to the level in which our mind can understand.-Tyr:clap::clap::clap:

Can't better that one, Tyr ...

Jafar, I hope you're taking notes.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

:clap::clap::clap:

Can't better that one, Tyr ...

Jafar, I hope you're taking notes.

You are hoping for a true miracle my friend.
Jafar has me on ignore. As my "supposed rudeness" gave him convenient cause to invoke.--:laugh:

He will only see my words when I am quoted. Should he ever see the light I would welcome him but sho' ain't gonna hold my breath waiting on that one.-;)--Tyr

[Drummond]

You are hoping for a true miracle my friend.
Jafar has me on ignore. As my "supposed rudeness" gave him convenient cause to invoke.--:laugh:

He will only see my words when I am quoted. Should he ever see the light I would welcome him but sho' ain't gonna hold my breath waiting on that one.-;)--Tyr

I've seen that whether Jafar really DOES put people on 'ignore' has been brought into question before.

I don't do that myself .. ever, with anyone. I see it as a form of defeat if I feel I have to. Why blind yourself to anyone's views ... unless, of course, you have a need to ??

Otherwise, it's just a matter of preference, or of lack of personal discipline to do so, maybe. In my view .. pointless, counterproductive.

Anyway - Jafar sees what Jafar chooses to see. It's his right. Just as it's my right to make just such an observation.

Jafar can put me on 'ignore' if he doesn't like it.

[jafar00]

I post stuff from Islamic websites, from noted Islamic scholars, and you call it lies.

dumb ass.

Is the OP from an Islamic website?


Jafar will say anything to sanitise Islam. He'll take any position lending itself to that effort.

Oh, and Jafar ... so-called 'anti-Islamic' sites (to the extent that any have ever been used as reference-points on this forum) aren't automatically dismissable just on those grounds. Websites can take an 'anti' position because, Jafar, THEY ARE RIGHT AND JUSTIFIED IN DOING SO.

By being dismissive of such sites, what you're really saying is that you oppose their very desire to offer opposition. And THAT, Jafar, is about as biased as it gets. I submit to you that TRUTH is what matters, and when it's presented, it shouldn't be discounted because of how its origin is perceived.

TRUTH is TRUTH.

The bias is on the anti Islam websites.

[jafar00]

Show me in the Quran where it says this. If it's not in the Quran, it's not 'really' Islamic. That's what you've been saying over and over. Now, you change and want us to believe something that is not in the Quran, and instead comes from 'scholarly interpretation'?

Pathetic how you change your tune whenever you're nailed on something. Mohammad would be disgusted by you.



Oh, and I thought you had me on IGNORE, Jahil :laugh2:

Islam is not just the Qur'aan alone but come from the Qur'aan and the Sunnah (the sayings of the Prophet Mohammed (saw) who would most certainly not "nail" me on that).

You are still on ignore, however I couldn't let this latest lie go on without challenge.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Islam is not just the Qur'aan alone but come from the Qur'aan and the Sunnah (the sayings of the Prophet Mohammed (saw) who would most certainly not "nail" me on that).

You are still on ignore, however I couldn't let this latest lie go on without challenge.

this is in direct contradiction to your previous statements on the matter.

Every time you get caught, you move the goal posts.

You're a worthless troll.

[Voted4Reagan]

I will ask JAFAR directly.

Should it be up to the women of all Islamic/Muslim countries through out the world, that they be allowed to choose for themselves if they should wear the Burqa, Niqab or Hijab? Should it be a matter of individual choice and not societal or religious mandate?

[Marcus Aurelius]

Islam is not just the Qur'aan alone but come from the Qur'aan and the Sunnah (the sayings of the Prophet Mohammed (saw) who would most certainly not "nail" me on that).

You are still on ignore, however I couldn't let this latest lie go on without challenge.

really?


What the Qur'aan states IS Islam. If someone does something to the contrary, they can't be doing it in the name of Islam can they? Hence my pork roll example. If the Quar'aan IS Islam, then what is NOT in the Qur'aan is NOT Islam. Your logic, not mine.

So, still waiting for you to show us where in the Qur'aan that it says when you beat your wife, do it with a toothbrush.

[Voted4Reagan]

really?

If the Quar'aan IS Islam, then what is NOT in the Qur'aan is NOT Islam. Your logic, not mine.

So, still waiting for you to show us where in the Qur'aan that it says when you beat your wife, do it with a toothbrush.


I ask Jafar this....

DO YOU BELIEVE THE FOLLOWING?


"Shall I seek other than God as a judge when He has sent down to you this book sufficiently detailed?" Those to whom We have given the book know it is sent down from your Lord with truth; so do not be of those who have doubt. The word of your Lord has been completed with truth and justice; there is no changing His words. He is the Hearer, the Knower.

[Quran 6:114-115]


a simple yes or no will suffice

anything else means you refuse to answer.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I ask Jafar this....

DO YOU BELIEVE THE FOLLOWING?


"Shall I seek other than God as a judge when He has sent down to you this book sufficiently detailed?" Those to whom We have given the book know it is sent down from your Lord with truth; so do not be of those who have doubt. The word of your Lord has been completed with truth and justice; there is no changing His words. He is the Hearer, the Knower.

[Quran 6:114-115]


a simple yes or no will suffice

anything else means you refuse to answer.

Jahil will now claim you used an improper translation of the passage, and that you got it from an islamic hate site.

Or he'll run away and hide. After all, Jahil knows MUCH more about what is 'really' Islam than the man who wrote the Qur'aan, and all those pesky scholars... right?

[jafar00]

I will ask JAFAR directly.

Should it be up to the women of all Islamic/Muslim countries through out the world, that they be allowed to choose for themselves if they should wear the Burqa, Niqab or Hijab? Should it be a matter of individual choice and not societal or religious mandate?

It should, but depending on local customs, and/or local laws, there are varying degrees of whether women (and men!) follow the decree from Allah to cover themselves modestly of their own free will or not.


really?

If the Quar'aan IS Islam, then what is NOT in the Qur'aan is NOT Islam. Your logic, not mine.

So, still waiting for you to show us where in the Qur'aan that it says when you beat your wife, do it with a toothbrush.

Read what I quoted above and it will explain it. The Sunnah (hadiths) explain it in more detail along with prohibitions from hitting anyone in the face, treating your wives well and never beating them as you would a slave.


I ask Jafar this....

DO YOU BELIEVE THE FOLLOWING?


"Shall I seek other than God as a judge when He has sent down to you this book sufficiently detailed?" Those to whom We have given the book know it is sent down from your Lord with truth; so do not be of those who have doubt. The word of your Lord has been completed with truth and justice; there is no changing His words. He is the Hearer, the Knower.

[Quran 6:114-115]


a simple yes or no will suffice

anything else means you refuse to answer.

Yes I do believe it. As for following the Sunnah...

He who obeys the Messenger, obeys Allah (4:80)

The Qur'aan is the why, the Sunnah is the howto :)

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Voted4Reagan http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=624317#post624317)
I ask Jafar this....

DO YOU BELIEVE THE FOLLOWING?


"Shall I seek other than God as a judge when He has sent down to you this book sufficiently detailed?" Those to whom We have given the book know it is sent down from your Lord with truth; so do not be of those who have doubt. The word of your Lord has been completed with truth and justice; there is no changing His words. He is the Hearer, the Knower.

[Quran 6:114-115]


a simple yes or no will suffice

anything else means you refuse to answer.




Yes I do believe it. As for following the Sunnah...

He who obeys the Messenger, obeys Allah (4:80)

The Qur'aan is the why, the Sunnah is the howto :)

If the book is sufficiently detailed, there is no NEED for the how to's, as that information would be in the book.

You contradict yourself repeatedly, Jahil.

[Drummond]

If the book is sufficiently detailed, there is no NEED for the how to's, as that information would be in the book.

You contradict yourself repeatedly, Jahil.

... and conversely, if there is insufficient detail, then of what worth IS that book, anyway ??

I don't see how Jafar can continue with this without defying the fundamental premise of his 'religion' !

[Drummond]

The bias is on the anti Islam websites.

1. Labelling material as 'biased' doesn't, of itself, necessarily disprove its worth. Laws biased against murder have considerable worth. Websites which, for example, demonstrate a bias against Islamic terrorism, demonstrate the meritorious worth of their bias !!

2. Are you implying that pro-Muslim sites LACK bias ? Or that the only bias worth consideration just 'happens' to be pro-Islamic ?

Silly question.

Jafar, your propagandising is so transparent that I wonder why you bother.

[Voted4Reagan]

It should, but depending on local customs, and/or local laws, there are varying degrees of whether women (and men!) follow the decree from Allah to cover themselves modestly of their own free will or not.



Read what I quoted above and it will explain it. The Sunnah (hadiths) explain it in more detail along with prohibitions from hitting anyone in the face, treating your wives well and never beating them as you would a slave.



Yes I do believe it. As for following the Sunnah...

He who obeys the Messenger, obeys Allah (4:80)

The Qur'aan is the why, the Sunnah is the howto :)

and yet you admit to following the Hadiths other then that which the prophet (may peace be upon him) Wrote.

and I quote

"Do not write anything from me except Quran. Anyone who wrote anything other than the Quran shall erase it." [Ahmed, Vol. 1, Page 171, and Sahih Moslim, Zuhd, Book 42, Number 7147]

and

From Ibn Hanbal;






Zayd Ibn Thabit (The Prophet's closest revelation writer) visited the Khalifa Mu'aawiyah (more than 30 years after the Prophet's death), and told him a story about the Prophet. Mu'aawiyah liked the story and ordered someone to write it down. But Zayd said. " the messenger of God ordered us never to write anything of his hadith".

and

The farewell Pilgrimage of the prophet Muhammed is a corner stone in the Muslim history. The Final Sermon given by the Prophet during this pilgrimage was witnessed by thousands of Muslims. There are however three versions of this sermon in the hadiths books. This by itself reflects the degree of corruption of the hadith books as this is the most witnessed speech of the prophet Muhammed.



1- First version, " I left for you what if you hold on to, you will never be misguided, the book of God and my family. Moslim 44/4, Nu2408; Ibn Hanbal 4/366; darimi 23/1, nu 3319.






This is the version made up by the Shi'te Muslims.






2-Second version, "I left for you what if you hold on to, you will never be misguided, the book of God and my sunnah" . Muwatta, 46/3






This is the version made up by the Sunni Muslims.






3- Third version, "I left for you what if you hold on to, you will never be misguided, the book of God." Moslim 15/19, nu 1218; Ibn Majah 25/84, Abu dawud 11/56.


so as you see, the Sunni and Shiite have both chnged the original as laid down in:

Moslim 44/4, Nu2408; Ibn Hanbal 4/366; darimi 23/1, nu 3319.



You cant follow both Quran and the Hadiths Jafar. To do so is hypocrisy and shows how both Sunni and Shiite have twisted the true word of the Prophet (may peace be upon him).

[Marcus Aurelius]

and yet you admit to following the Hadiths other then that which the prophet (may peace be upon him) Wrote.

and I quote

"Do not write anything from me except Quran. Anyone who wrote anything other than the Quran shall erase it." [Ahmed, Vol. 1, Page 171, and Sahih Moslim, Zuhd, Book 42, Number 7147]
.

Jahil will now claim the man who said that wasn't 'really' Islamic.

[Voted4Reagan]

Jahil will now claim the man who said that wasn't 'really' Islamic.

I think he was.... even Jafar will admit that.

Either way.. Jafar can not point to any place in the Quran where Allah or his Prophet(may peace be upon him) says that a woman must be veiled or wear the Burqa, Hijab, Niqab or Khimar.

They simply dont exist in the Quran.

To require a woman to wear any of the above is to follow the hadiths of men and not the writings of the prophet(may peace be upon him).

[tailfins]

I will ask JAFAR directly.

Should it be up to the women of all Islamic/Muslim countries through out the world, that they be allowed to choose for themselves if they should wear the Burqa, Niqab or Hijab? Should it be a matter of individual choice and not societal or religious mandate?

Should the Amish have to ride around in horses and buggies be a matter of societal/community mandate? It's the same principle.

[Voted4Reagan]

Should the Amish have to ride around in horses and buggies be a matter of societal/community mandate? It's the same principle.

We are not discussing the Amish...

Please stay on topic and do not derail the discussion.

If you want to make a comparison of the Amish go make a thread about it.

[tailfins]

We are not discussing the Amish...

Please stay on topic and do not derail the discussion.

If you want to make a comparison of the Amish go make a thread about it.

The thread NAZI. No thread for you!

http://hollywoodeastconnection.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Soup-Nazi.jpg

[Voted4Reagan]

as I said before. The wearing of the veil, hijab, niqab, Burqa are NOT prescribed in the Quran.

Do you agree with this Jafar?

[Marcus Aurelius]

as I said before. The wearing of the veil, hijab, niqab, Burqa are NOT prescribed in the Quran.

Do you agree with this Jafar?

he won't answer.

[Voted4Reagan]

he won't answer.

perhaps he will, I am addressing him in a courteous fashion with respect to the Prophet(May peace be upon him).

A simple discussion of the contents of the Quran with a Gentile certainly shouldn't be all that imposing.

[aboutime]

1. Labelling material as 'biased' doesn't, of itself, necessarily disprove its worth. Laws biased against murder have considerable worth. Websites which, for example, demonstrate a bias against Islamic terrorism, demonstrate the meritorious worth of their bias !!

2. Are you implying that pro-Muslim sites LACK bias ? Or that the only bias worth consideration just 'happens' to be pro-Islamic ?

Silly question.

Jafar, your propagandising is so transparent that I wonder why you bother.


Sir Drummond. We all can see how jafar plays his typical games here. He hides behind the Ignore function on one hand, while dodging any responsibility to reply, or answer anyone else. I call it being a COWARD. But even cowards sometimes have the tiny bit of courage to prove others are wrong. So. Without jafar answering here. It proves, without question. How everything all of us say, suggest, or offer any opinion about...with reference to jafar. IS UNQUESTIONABLY TRUE.
We should thank jafar for remaining under the IGNORE aspect. It makes it much easier for us to present the HONEST FACTS.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I think he was.... even Jafar will admit that.

Either way.. Jafar can not point to any place in the Quran where Allah or his Prophet(may peace be upon him) says that a woman must be veiled or wear the Burqa, Hijab, Niqab or Khimar.

They simply dont exist in the Quran.

To require a woman to wear any of the above is to follow the hadiths of men and not the writings of the prophet(may peace be upon him).






http://middleeast.about.com/od/religionsectarianism/f/me080209.htm

The Veil in the Quran

Initially in Prophet Muhammad's life, the veil was not an issue. His wives didn't wear it, nor did he require that other women wear it. As he became more important in his community, and as his wives gained stature, Muhammad began adapting Persian and Byzantine customs. The veil was among those.
The Quran does address veiling explicitly, but only in so far as the Prophet’s wives were concerned. The wives were to be "covered," that is, unseen, when in company of other people. Significantly, the Quran's requirement did not mention a veil as it’s understood in the West—as a face covering—but a hijab, in the sense of a "curtain," or a separation of sorts. Here is the relevant passage in the Quran, best known as the "Verses of the Curtain":
Believers, do not enter the houses of the Prophet for a meal without waiting for the proper time, unless you are given leave. But if you are invited, enter; and when you have eaten, disperse. Do not engage in familiar talk, for this would annoy the Prophet and he would be ashamed to bid you go; but of the truth God is not ashamed. If you ask his wives for anything, speak to them from behind a curtain. This is more chaste for your hearts and their hearts. (Sura 33:53, N.J. Dawood translation).
What Led Muhammad to Require Some Covering

The historical context of that passage in the Quran is instructive. Muhammad's wives had been insulted on some occasions by members of the community, leading Muhammad to see some form of segregation for his wives as a protective measure. One of Muhammad's closest companions, Omar, famously chauvinistic, pressured Muhammad to limit women's roles in his life and to segregate them. The Verses of the Curtain may have been a response to Omar’s pressure. But the event closest connected to the Quran's Verses of the Curtains was Muhammad's wedding to one of his wives, Zaynab, when guests wouldn't leave and acted improperly. Shortly after that wedding, Muhammad produced the "revelation" of the curtain.
Regarding manners of dress, and other than that passage, the Quran requires only that women and men dress modestly. Beyond that, it never requires face or full-body coverings of any form for men or women.


Learn More About the Politics of the Veil



Turkey's Battle Over the Head Scarf (http://middleeast.about.com/od/turkey/a/me080210.htm)
Glossary: Hijab, or Veil (http://middleeast.about.com/od/glossary/g/me080129.htm)
TheVeil and the Law in Europe and North America (http://middleeast.about.com/od/religionsectarianism/a/me080129a.htm)



Jafar will somehow dismiss this as rubbish. As only his interpretation of the Quran is absolutely accurate...-Tyr

[jafar00]

If the book is sufficiently detailed, there is no NEED for the how to's, as that information would be in the book.

You contradict yourself repeatedly, Jahil.

The detail is in the hadeeths. For example how to pray, and how many times per day to do it which isn't in the qur'aan.


1. Labelling material as 'biased' doesn't, of itself, necessarily disprove its worth. Laws biased against murder have considerable worth. Websites which, for example, demonstrate a bias against Islamic terrorism, demonstrate the meritorious worth of their bias !!

2. Are you implying that pro-Muslim sites LACK bias ? Or that the only bias worth consideration just 'happens' to be pro-Islamic ?

Silly question.

Jafar, your propagandising is so transparent that I wonder why you bother.

1) The bias is in using lies or cherry picked out of context or outright fabrications in order to argue their position. Linking terrorism with Islam for example when it is actually forbidden.

2) when they are using truth to teach about Islam, there is no dubious agenda.


and yet you admit to following the Hadiths other then that which the prophet (may peace be upon him) Wrote.

and I quote

"Do not write anything from me except Quran. Anyone who wrote anything other than the Quran shall erase it." [Ahmed, Vol. 1, Page 171, and Sahih Moslim, Zuhd, Book 42, Number 7147]

and

From Ibn Hanbal;






Zayd Ibn Thabit (The Prophet's closest revelation writer) visited the Khalifa Mu'aawiyah (more than 30 years after the Prophet's death), and told him a story about the Prophet. Mu'aawiyah liked the story and ordered someone to write it down. But Zayd said. " the messenger of God ordered us never to write anything of his hadith".

and

The farewell Pilgrimage of the prophet Muhammed is a corner stone in the Muslim history. The Final Sermon given by the Prophet during this pilgrimage was witnessed by thousands of Muslims. There are however three versions of this sermon in the hadiths books. This by itself reflects the degree of corruption of the hadith books as this is the most witnessed speech of the prophet Muhammed.



1- First version, " I left for you what if you hold on to, you will never be misguided, the book of God and my family. Moslim 44/4, Nu2408; Ibn Hanbal 4/366; darimi 23/1, nu 3319.






This is the version made up by the Shi'te Muslims.






2-Second version, "I left for you what if you hold on to, you will never be misguided, the book of God and my sunnah" . Muwatta, 46/3






This is the version made up by the Sunni Muslims.






3- Third version, "I left for you what if you hold on to, you will never be misguided, the book of God." Moslim 15/19, nu 1218; Ibn Majah 25/84, Abu dawud 11/56.


so as you see, the Sunni and Shiite have both chnged the original as laid down in:

Moslim 44/4, Nu2408; Ibn Hanbal 4/366; darimi 23/1, nu 3319.



You cant follow both Quran and the Hadiths Jafar. To do so is hypocrisy and shows how both Sunni and Shiite have twisted the true word of the Prophet (may peace be upon him).

The above hadith was abrogated by later hadeeths. By using it that website is trying top advance their agenda without knowledge of the subject.

And I agree about the shia. They created their own religion.


I think he was.... even Jafar will admit that.

Either way.. Jafar can not point to any place in the Quran where Allah or his Prophet(may peace be upon him) says that a woman must be veiled or wear the Burqa, Hijab, Niqab or Khimar.

They simply dont exist in the Quran.

To require a woman to wear any of the above is to follow the hadiths of men and not the writings of the prophet(may peace be upon him).





http://www.al-islam.org/hijab/3.htm



as I said before. The wearing of the veil, hijab, niqab, Burqa are NOT prescribed in the Quran.

Do you agree with this Jafar?

Nope

[Voted4Reagan]

The detail is in the hadeeths. For example how to pray, and how many times per day to do it which isn't in the qur'aan.



1) The bias is in using lies or cherry picked out of context or outright fabrications in order to argue their position. Linking terrorism with Islam for example when it is actually forbidden.

2) when they are using truth to teach about Islam, there is no dubious agenda.



The above hadith was abrogated by later hadeeths. By using it that website is trying top advance their agenda without knowledge of the subject.

And I agree about the shia. They created their own religion.



http://www.al-islam.org/hijab/3.htm




Nope

well... where in the Quran does it say that they must be worn? Because I never saw it...

[jafar00]

well... where in the Quran does it say that they must be worn? Because I never saw it...

Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them: And Allah is well acquainted with all that they do. And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O ye Believers! turn ye all together towards Allah, that ye may attain Bliss. (24:29-30)

And also...

O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons: that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. (33:59)

The veil or Khumur was worn by the women of Medina at the time which covered their head. Drawing the veil over their bosoms made them like the hijab we know today.

There are also copious hadiths about hijab


Verses that have to do with hijab:
1 – Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And tell the believing women to lower their gaze (from looking at forbidden things), and protect their private parts (from illegal sexual acts) and not to show off their adornment except only that which is apparent (like both eyes for necessity to see the way, or outer palms of hands or one eye or dress like veil, gloves, headcover, apron), and to draw their veils all over Juyoobihinna (i.e. their bodies, faces, necks and bosoms) and not to reveal their adornment except to their husbands, or their fathers, or their husband’s fathers, or their sons, or their husband’s sons, or their brothers or their brother’s sons, or their sister’s sons, or their (Muslim) women (i.e. their sisters in Islam), or the (female) slaves whom their right hands possess, or old male servants who lack vigour, or small children who have no sense of feminine sex. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And all of you beg Allaah to forgive you all, O believers, that you may be successful”
[al-Noor 24:31]
2 – Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And as for women past childbearing who do not expect wedlock, it is no sin on them if they discard their (outer) clothing in such a way as not to show their adornment. But to refrain (i.e. not to discard their outer clothing) is better for them. And Allaah is All‑Hearer, All‑Knower”
[al-Noor 24:60]
“Women past childbearing” are those who no longer menstruate, so they can no longer get pregnant or bear children.
We shall see below the words of Hafsah bint Sireen and the way in which she interpreted this verse.
3 – Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies (i.e. screen themselves completely except the eyes or one eye to see the way). That will be better, that they should be known (as free respectable women) so as not to be annoyed. And Allaah is Ever Oft‑Forgiving, Most Merciful”
[al-Ahzaab 33:59]
4 – Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“O you who believe! Enter not the Prophet’s houses, unless permission is given to you for a meal, (and then) not (so early as) to wait for its preparation. But when you are invited, enter, and when you have taken your meal, disperse without sitting for a talk. Verily, such (behaviour) annoys the Prophet, and he is shy of (asking) you (to go); but Allaah is not shy of (telling you) the truth. And when you ask (his wives) for anything you want, ask them from behind a screen, that is purer for your hearts and for their hearts. And it is not (right) for you that you should annoy Allaah’s Messenger, nor that you should ever marry his wives after him (his death). Verily, with Allaah that shall be an enormity”
[al-Ahzaab 33:53]
With regard to the Ahaadeeth:
1 – It was narrated from Safiyyah bint Shaybah that ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) used to say: When these words were revealed – “and to draw their veils all over Juyoobihinna (i.e. their bodies, faces, necks and bosoms)” – they took their izaars (a kind of garment) and tore them from the edges and covered their faces with them.
Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 4481. The following version was narrated by Abu Dawood (4102):
May Allaah have mercy on the Muhaajir women. When Allaah revealed the words “and to draw their veils all over Juyoobihinna (i.e. their bodies, faces, necks and bosoms)”, they tore the thickest of their aprons (a kind of garment) and covered their faces with them.
Shaykh Muhammad al-Ameen al-Shanqeeti (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
This hadeeth clearly states that what the Sahaabi women mentioned here understood from this verse – “and to draw their veils all over Juyoobihinna (i.e. their bodies, faces, necks and bosoms)” – was that they were to cover their faces, and that they tore their garments and covered their faces with them, in obedience to the command of Allaah in the verse where He said “and to draw their veils all over Juyoobihinna (i.e. their bodies, faces, necks and bosoms)” which meant covering their faces. Thus the fair-minded person will understand that woman’s observing hijab and covering her face in front of men is established in the saheeh Sunnah that explains the Book of Allaah. ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) praised those women for hastening to follow the command of Allaah given in His Book. It is known that their understanding of the words “and to draw their veils all over Juyoobihinna (i.e. their bodies, faces, necks and bosoms)” as meaning covering the face came from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), because he was there and they asked him about everything that they did not understand about their religion. And Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And We have also sent down unto you (O Muhammad) the Dhikr [reminder and the advice (i.e. the Qur’aan)], that you may explain clearly to men what is sent down to them, and that they may give thought”
[al-Nahl 16:44]
Ibn Hajar said in Fath al-Baari: There is a report of Ibn Abi Haatim via ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Uthmaan ibn Khaytham from Safiyyah that explains that. This report says: We mentioned the women of Quraysh and their virtues in the presence of ‘Aa’ishah and she said: “The women of Quraysh are good, but by Allaah I have never seen any better than the women of the Ansaar, or any who believed the Book of Allaah more strongly or had more faith in the Revelation. When Soorat al-Noor was revealed – “and to draw their veils all over Juyoobihinna (i.e. their bodies, faces, necks and bosoms)” – their menfolk came to them and recited to them what had been revealed, and there was not one woman among them who did not go to her apron, and the following morning they prayed wrapped up as if there were crows on their heads. It was also narrated clearly in the report of al-Bukhaari narrated above, where we see ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her), who was so knowledgeable and pious, praising them in this manner and stating that she had never seen any women who believed the Book of Allaah more strongly or had more faith in the Revelation. This clearly indicates that they understood from this verse – “and to draw their veils all over Juyoobihinna (i.e. their bodies, faces, necks and bosoms)” – that it was obligatory to cover their faces and that this stemmed from their belief in the Book of Allaah and their faith in the Revelation. It also indicates that women’s observing hijab in front of men and covering their faces is an act of belief in the Book of Allaah and faith in the Revelation. It is very strange indeed that some of those who claim to have knowledge say that there is nothing in the Qur’aan or Sunnah that says that women have to cover their faces in front of non-mahram men, even though the Sahaabi women did that in obedience to the command of Allaah in His Book, out of faith in the Revelation, and that this meaning is also firmly entrenched in the Sunnah, as in the report from al-Bukhaari quoted above. This is among the strongest evidence that all Muslim women are obliged to observe hijab.
Adwa’ al-Bayaan, 6/594-595.
2 – It was narrated from ‘Aa’ishah that the wives of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to go out at night to al-Manaasi’ (well known places in the direction of al-Baqee’) to relieve themselves and ‘Umar used to say to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), “Let your wives be veiled.” But the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did not do that. Then one night Sawdah bint Zam’ah, the wife of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), went out at ‘Isha’ time and she was a tall woman. ‘Umar called out to her: “We have recognized you, O Sawdah!” hoping that hijab would be revealed, then Allaah revealed the verse of hijab.
Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 146; Muslim, 2170.
3 – It was narrated from Ibn Shihaab that Anas said: I am the most knowledgeable of people about hijab. Ubayy ibn Ka’b used to ask me about it. When the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) married Zaynab bint Jahsh, whom he married in Madeenah, he invited the people to a meal after the sun had risen. The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) sat down and some men sat around him after the people had left, until the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) stood up and walked a while, and I walked with him, until he reached the door of ‘Aa’ishah’s apartment. Then he thought that they had left so he went back and I went back with him, and they were still sitting there. He went back again, and I went with him, until he reached the door of ‘Aa’ishah’s apartment, then he came back and I came back with him, and they had left. Then he drew a curtain between me and him, and the verse of hijab was revealed.
Al-Bukhaari, 5149; Muslim, 1428.
4 – It was narrated from ‘Urwah that ‘Aa’ishah said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to pray Fajr and the believing women would attend (the prayer) with him, wrapped in their aprons, then they would go back to their houses and no one would recognize them.
Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 365; Muslim, 645.
5 – It was narrated that ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) said: “The riders used to pass by us when we were with the Messenger of Allaah (S) in ihraam, and when they drew near to us we would lower our jilbabs from our heads over our faces, then when they had passed we would uncover them again.
Narrated by Abu Dawood, 1833; Ibn Maajah, 2935; classed as saheeh by Ibn Khuzaymah (4,203) and by al-Albaani in Kitaab Jilbaab al-Mar’ah al-Muslimah.
6 – It was narrated that Asma’ bint Abi Bakr said: We used to cover our faces in front of men.
Narrated by Ibn Khuzaymah, 4/203; al-Haakim, 1/624. He classed it as saheeh and al-Dhahabi agreed with him. It was also classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Jilbaab al-Mar’ah al-Muslimah.
7 – It was narrated that ‘Aasim al-Ahwaal said: We used to enter upon Hafsah bint Sireen who had put her jilbab thus and covered her face with it, and we would say to her: May Allaah have mercy on you. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “And as for women past childbearing who do not expect wedlock, it is no sin on them if they discard their (outer) clothing in such a way as not to show their adornment” [al-Noor 24:60]. And she would say to us: What comes after that? We would say: “But to refrain (i.e. not to discard their outer clothing) is better for them”. And she would say: That is confirming the idea of hijab.
Narrated by al-Bayhaqi, 7/93.
http://islamqa.info/en/ref/13998

It's quite clear that women who discard the Hijab, also discard their religion.

The same goes for men who display their Awra (between the knees and navel) publicly. I swim with a tshirt and long shorts that go below the knees for example.

[Voted4Reagan]

Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them: And Allah is well acquainted with all that they do. And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O ye Believers! turn ye all together towards Allah, that ye may attain Bliss. (24:29-30)

And also...

O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons: that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. (33:59)

The veil or Khumur was worn by the women of Medina at the time which covered their head. Drawing the veil over their bosoms made them like the hijab we know today.

There are also copious hadiths about hijab


http://islamqa.info/en/ref/13998

It's quite clear that women who discard the Hijab, also discard their religion.

The same goes for men who display their Awra (between the knees and navel) publicly. I swim with a tshirt and long shorts that go below the knees for example.



But how can you say that ISLAM IS THE QURAN and then quote Hadiths that were written 200+ years after the death of the Prophet (may peace be upon him)?

That in and of itself is a major contradiction, coupled with the fact that both Shiite and Sunni have altered the words of the prophet( may peace be upon him) to suit their ideological and sociological needs.

The Quran does address veiling explicitly, but only in so far as the Prophet’s wives were concerned. The wives were to be "covered," that is, unseen, when in company of other people. The word HIJAB means CURTAIN in the context it is used (meaning they should be UNSEEN in mixed company at home)

It is Sharia law and MODERN CUSTOM that have shrouded muslim women in headscarves, Niqab and Burqa.

It is not a teaching or a writing of the Prophet (may peace be upon him).

You therefor have to follow the hadiths of men and not the Prophet (may peace be upon him) and that directly comflicts with his teachings!

You cant have it both ways Jafar..

[aboutime]

But how can you say that ISLAM IS THE QURAN and then quote Hadiths that were written 200+ years after the death of the Prophet (may peace be upon him)?

That in and of itself is a major contradiction, coupled with the fact that both Shiite and Sunni have altered the words of the prophet( may peace be upon him) to suit their ideological and sociological needs.

The Quran does address veiling explicitly, but only in so far as the Prophet’s wives were concerned. The wives were to be "covered," that is, unseen, when in company of other people. The word HIJAB means CURTAIN in the context it is used (meaning they should be UNSEEN in mixed company at home)

It is Sharia law and MODERN CUSTOM that have shrouded muslim women in headscarves, Niqab and Burqa.

It is not a teaching or a writing of the Prophet (may peace be upon him).

You therefor have to follow the hadiths of men and not the Prophet (may peace be upon him) and that directly comflicts with his teachings!

You cant have it both ways Jafar..


V4R. What jafar wrote in LIGHT GREEN, almost seemed to be coming from the Than Fran Thisco area of California.
And made me begin to wonder whether jafar types on his KEYBOARD....holding his PINKY finger pointing Upward, all the
while hoping his LISP and schoolgirl accent doesn't expose him for the Wuss he is trying to disguise from us.

(Lower their gaze, and Guard their Modesty?) Really jafar?

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=624303#post624303)

really?

If the Quar'aan IS Islam, then what is NOT in the Qur'aan is NOT Islam. Your logic, not mine.

So, still waiting for you to show us where in the Qur'aan that it says when you beat your wife, do it with a toothbrush.


Read what I quoted above and it will explain it. The Sunnah (hadiths) explain it in more detail along with prohibitions from hitting anyone in the face, treating your wives well and never beating them as you would a slave.





I find it hilarious that in one post, Jahil can claim that unless it is specifically in the Qur'aan, it is not from Islam... then in another post, he can claim that things outside the Qur'aan (hadiths) are from Islam.

I wonder if he realizes how stupid he sounds.

[Marcus Aurelius]

The detail is in the hadeeths. For example how to pray, and how many times per day to do it which isn't in the qur'aan.

So, you claim the Qur'aan was incomplete and not detailed enough... even though you said if it is not IN the Qur'aan, it is not Islamic.

The concentric circles you post in are getting smaller and smaller. One of these days you'll fly right up your own ass.

[Marcus Aurelius]

But how can you say that ISLAM IS THE QURAN and then quote Hadiths that were written 200+ years after the death of the Prophet (may peace be upon him)?

That in and of itself is a major contradiction, coupled with the fact that both Shiite and Sunni have altered the words of the prophet( may peace be upon him) to suit their ideological and sociological needs.

The Quran does address veiling explicitly, but only in so far as the Prophet’s wives were concerned. The wives were to be "covered," that is, unseen, when in company of other people. The word HIJAB means CURTAIN in the context it is used (meaning they should be UNSEEN in mixed company at home)

It is Sharia law and MODERN CUSTOM that have shrouded muslim women in headscarves, Niqab and Burqa.

It is not a teaching or a writing of the Prophet (may peace be upon him).

You therefor have to follow the hadiths of men and not the Prophet (may peace be upon him) and that directly comflicts with his teachings!

You cant have it both ways Jafar..

Jahil excels at having it both ways. He's constantly contradicting his own posts, and thinks no one notices.

[jafar00]

I find it hilarious that in one post, Jahil can claim that unless it is specifically in the Qur'aan, it is not from Islam... then in another post, he can claim that things outside the Qur'aan (hadiths) are from Islam.

I wonder if he realizes how stupid he sounds.

When have I ever said that Islam is Qur'aan only?

[stevecanuck]

Hello, I've been invited here by voted4reagan because he knows I've studied the qur'an and islam in general.

To jafar00 I would ask why, if the hadiths are to be followed, did mohamed not say they should be written immediately. The first generations of muslims had to muddle along with only the qur'an to guide them, so if it was god's intention all along for muslims to use mohamed's life as a further guide, what took so long for them to create the hadiths, and why did the qur'an never prescribe it be done?

As an aside, neither the qur'an nor mohamed said that the qur'an should be written either. It was "revealed" to an illiterate man who taught it orally only. Neither god nor mohamed made any provision whatsoever to have it transcribed, so it makes sense that god intended for it to be taught orally. The only reason it took written form was because the oral recitations began to differ. It became clear that in order to preserve mohamed's teachings verbatim they would have to be committed to paper. Don't you think it imperfect of god not to realize that would happen? Bottom line is that a group of muslim clerics had to save god and mohamed from their own lack of foresight and planning. That alone should make you wonder how "all knowing" your god is.

As for verse 4:34, the phrase, "wa idrubu hunna" (and beat them) is plain and simple. No further translation is needed. Any attempt to suggest it means anything other than what it so clearly states is taqiyya (lying to infidels to further the cause of islam).

To suggest that the qur'an needs scholarly interpretation in order to be understood by the masses is contrary to it's stated purpose. Verse 14:4 says, "We have sent no Messenger except in the tongue of his own nation, so that he might make everything plain to them." Verse 19:97 confirms that by adding, "We have made it easy in your own tongue in order that you proclaim the glad tidings to the cautious and give warning to a stubborn nation." It does not say, "So have I sent a cryptogram discernible by only a learned few".

Arguing with a propagandist like Jafar00 can be a tar baby, so I'm not sure how much time I want to devote to his lies. We'll see.
<!-- RESULT ITEM END --><!-- RESULT ITEM START -->

[Marcus Aurelius]

Hello, I've been invited here by voted4reagan because he knows I've studied the qur'an and islam in general.

To jafar00 I would ask why, if the hadiths are to be followed, did mohamed not say they should be written immediately. The first generations of muslims had to muddle along with only the qur'an to guide them, so if it was god's intention all along for muslims to use mohamed's life as a further guide, what took so long for them to create the hadiths, and why did the qur'an never prescribe it be done?

As an aside, neither the qur'an nor mohamed said that the qur'an should be written either. It was "revealed" to an illiterate man who taught it orally only. Neither god nor mohamed made any provision whatsoever to have it transcribed, so it makes sense that god intended for it to be taught orally. The only reason it took written form was because the oral recitations began to differ. It became clear that in order to preserve mohamed's teachings verbatim they would have to be committed to paper. Don't you think it imperfect of god not to realize that would happen? Bottom line is that a group of muslim clerics had to save god and mohamed from their own lack of foresight and planning. That alone should make you wonder how "all knowing" your god is.

As for verse 4:34, the phrase, "wa idrubu hunna" (and beat them) is plain and simple. No further translation is needed. Any attempt to suggest it means anything other than what it so clearly states is taqiyya (lying to infidels to further the cause of islam).

To suggest that the qur'an needs scholarly interpretation in order to be understood by the masses is contrary to it's stated purpose. Verse 14:4 says, "We have sent no Messenger except in the tongue of his own nation, so that he might make everything plain to them." Verse 19:97 confirms that by adding, "We have made it easy in your own tongue in order that you proclaim the glad tidings to the cautious and give warning to a stubborn nation." It does not say, "So have I sent a cryptogram discernible by only a learned few".

Arguing with a propagandist like Jafar00 can be a tar baby, so I'm not sure how much time I want to devote to his lies. We'll see.
<!-- RESULT ITEM END --><!-- RESULT ITEM START -->

First, welcome.

Second, you'll find Jahil is full of self contradictions when you attempt to debate him. He'll tell you you are simply wrong, or misunderstanding, or using an anti-Islamic hate site for material, etc.

For example...

The only reason it took written form was because the oral recitations began to differ. It became clear that in order to preserve mohamed's teachings verbatim they would have to be committed to paper.
Jahil will vehemently claim that this is patently untrue. That the Qur'aan has been recited orally since the beginning, and it has always been 100% identical from the first recitation to the last, and that it is the written forms that differ and are incorrect.

I could go on, but read his posts. You'll get it pretty quick.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Here is another example of Jahil contradicting himself in posts...




http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Voted4Reagan http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=624391#post624391)

as I said before. The wearing of the veil, hijab, niqab, Burqa are NOT prescribed in the Quran.

Do you agree with this Jafar?




Nope

Saying he does not agree means he disagrees, right? Jahil is saying the wearing of the hijab, niqab, Burqa ARE prescribed in the Qur'aan, right?

Which goes against this post...

There is nothing wrong with the kids dressing up to learn about other cultures. I do hope though that they were not told that the Burqa and Niqab are from Islam as they are cultural garb. Only the Hijab is written about in the Qur'aan...
Here, Jahil says theBurqa and niqab ARE NOT from Islam, that they are purely cultural.

If he can't keep his posts straight about something this simple, how can we expect honesty from him about any of his posts???

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Hello, I've been invited here by voted4reagan because he knows I've studied the qur'an and islam in general.

To jafar00 I would ask why, if the hadiths are to be followed, did mohamed not say they should be written immediately. The first generations of muslims had to muddle along with only the qur'an to guide them, so if it was god's intention all along for muslims to use mohamed's life as a further guide, what took so long for them to create the hadiths, and why did the qur'an never prescribe it be done?

As an aside, neither the qur'an nor mohamed said that the qur'an should be written either. It was "revealed" to an illiterate man who taught it orally only. Neither god nor mohamed made any provision whatsoever to have it transcribed, so it makes sense that god intended for it to be taught orally. The only reason it took written form was because the oral recitations began to differ. It became clear that in order to preserve mohamed's teachings verbatim they would have to be committed to paper. Don't you think it imperfect of god not to realize that would happen? Bottom line is that a group of muslim clerics had to save god and mohamed from their own lack of foresight and planning. That alone should make you wonder how "all knowing" your god is.

As for verse 4:34, the phrase, "wa idrubu hunna" (and beat them) is plain and simple. No further translation is needed. Any attempt to suggest it means anything other than what it so clearly states is taqiyya (lying to infidels to further the cause of islam).

To suggest that the qur'an needs scholarly interpretation in order to be understood by the masses is contrary to it's stated purpose. Verse 14:4 says, "We have sent no Messenger except in the tongue of his own nation, so that he might make everything plain to them." Verse 19:97 confirms that by adding, "We have made it easy in your own tongue in order that you proclaim the glad tidings to the cautious and give warning to a stubborn nation." It does not say, "So have I sent a cryptogram discernible by only a learned few".

Arguing with a propagandist like Jafar00 can be a tar baby, so I'm not sure how much time I want to devote to his lies. We'll see.
<!-- RESULT ITEM END --><!-- RESULT ITEM START -->

A fine post.. Quite informative to say the least..
Steve , I have a prediction and that is Jafar will quickly put you on ignore. As too much truth rattles him and his nervous and cowardly Islamic nature then tells him to find a reason to ignore that opponent. This Jafar has done to me with a false justification cited about my rudeness.:laugh:

With your knowledge of the qur'an he will fear debating you....;)--Tyr

[Voted4Reagan]

Waiting to see what Jafar has to say about what Steve posted.

Steve brings a lot to the table as his knowledge of the Quran far exceeds anyone I know.

Jafar.... your answer?

[jafar00]

Hello, I've been invited here by voted4reagan because he knows I've studied the qur'an and islam in general.

Welcome Steve.


To jafar00 I would ask why, if the hadiths are to be followed, did mohamed not say they should be written immediately. The first generations of muslims had to muddle along with only the qur'an to guide them, so if it was god's intention all along for muslims to use mohamed's life as a further guide, what took so long for them to create the hadiths, and why did the qur'an never prescribe it be done?

The Hadiths were recorded in the time of Mohamed (saw) both in written and orally recorded in the Arab tradition. They were not collected together into collections until later which is why some seem confused. Those that were recorded int collections were categorised according to varying degrees of reliability based on chains of transmission from Authentic to Fabrications. The prohibition on recording Hadiths was made early on in order to avoid confusing them with the Qur'aan revelations but it was allowed later on by learned companions such as Abdullah ibn Omar to ensure that they were not recorded by the illiterate thus avoiding errors. But you should know that already right? ;)

Why do we follow Hadiths?

He who obeys the Messenger, obeys Allah (4:80)

God commanded us to do so.


As for verse 4:34, the phrase, "wa idrubu hunna" (and beat them) is plain and simple. No further translation is needed. Any attempt to suggest it means anything other than what it so clearly states is taqiyya (lying to infidels to further the cause of islam).

Please read what I posted http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?39686-A-portrait-of-a-Muslim-womans-life-written-by-a-Muslim-woman&p=624150#post624150

It contains a more thorough explanation of the interpretation of the verse that goes far beyond a mere translation of a word from Arabic to English and if you have studied Arabic as you said, you would know that depending on context, an Arabic word can be translated in up to 7 different ways into English.

And Taqiyya is a Shia concept.


To suggest that the qur'an needs scholarly interpretation in order to be understood by the masses is contrary to it's stated purpose. Verse 14:4 says, "We have sent no Messenger except in the tongue of his own nation, so that he might make everything plain to them." Verse 19:97 confirms that by adding, "We have made it easy in your own tongue in order that you proclaim the glad tidings to the cautious and give warning to a stubborn nation." It does not say, "So have I sent a cryptogram discernible by only a learned few".

The Qur'aan is easy to read if you know how to read Arabic. However, comprehending some of it does need a bit of study. Same with the Bible.


Arguing with a propagandist like Jafar00 can be a tar baby, so I'm not sure how much time I want to devote to his lies. We'll see.
<!-- RESULT ITEM END --><!-- RESULT ITEM START -->

Are you insulting me before we even get to know each other?

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by stevecanuck http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=624657#post624657)

To suggest that the qur'an needs scholarly interpretation in order to be understood by the masses is contrary to it's stated purpose. Verse 14:4 says, "We have sent no Messenger except in the tongue of his own nation, so that he might make everything plain to them." Verse 19:97 confirms that by adding, "We have made it easy in your own tongue in order that you proclaim the glad tidings to the cautious and give warning to a stubborn nation." It does not say, "So have I sent a cryptogram discernible by only a learned few".

The Qur'aan is easy to read if you know how to read Arabic. However, comprehending some of it does need a bit of study. Same with the Bible.
?

So, while the Qur'aan itself says it makes everything plain, and it is easy in your own tongue... Jahil says it needs a bit of study in order to understand it... which goes against what the Qur'aan itself says.

Jahil claims to know more about Islam than the Qur'aan. That's a pretty inflated opinion of yourself there, Jahil.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by stevecanuck http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=624657#post624657)

As for verse 4:34, the phrase, "wa idrubu hunna" (and beat them) is plain and simple. No further translation is needed. Any attempt to suggest it means anything other than what it so clearly states is taqiyya (lying to infidels to further the cause of islam).
Please read what I posted http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthre...150#post624150 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?39686-A-portrait-of-a-Muslim-womans-life-written-by-a-Muslim-woman&p=624150#post624150)

It contains a more thorough explanation of the interpretation of the verse that goes far beyond a mere translation of a word from Arabic to English and if you have studied Arabic as you said, you would know that depending on context, an Arabic word can be translated in up to 7 different ways into English.

Still waiting for Jahil to show me in the Qur'aan where beating your wife is supposed to be with a toothbrush as he claimed.

[Voted4Reagan]

Still waiting for Jahil to show me in the Qur'aan where beating your wife is supposed to be with a toothbrush as he claimed.

I brought in Steve because he is Courteous and Respectful.. I have known him for 5 years (almost 6) and his knowledge is extensive.

we can all learn a lot from his knowledge of the Quran...

Pay attention boys and girls...

[stevecanuck]

Busy day. Probably nothing from me until tomorrow at the earliest.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I brought in Steve because he is Courteous and Respectful.. I have known him for 5 years (almost 6) and his knowledge is extensive.

we can all learn a lot from his knowledge of the Quran...

Pay attention boys and girls...

Except for Jahil, of course, who believes HE is the ultimate authority on all things Islam, even to the point of disagreeing with the Qur'aan itself in regards to how easy it is to understand and how complete it is.

[Voted4Reagan]

Busy day. Probably nothing from me until tomorrow at the earliest.

Understood my friend.... good to have you on board!

[stevecanuck]

Jafar, all you've done with your explanation of the writing of the hadiths is prove that neither god nor mohamed had a plan for preserving them. If qur'an and hadith were god's 1-2 punch to get the message of islam across to the (Arabic speaking) masses, you would think he would have made a scheme to ensure that both were adequately documented, something that never happened during mohamed's lifetime. Opps. Mere mortals had to save god from his own bad planning.

Speaking of bad planning, how about the fiasco of mohamed's succession? Again, if god had intended for mohamed's ministry to carry on after his death, you might think the first detail he and mohamed would have determined is the matter of succession. Because of this spectacular case of incompetence and mismanagement, islam split itself into sunni and shia. Brilliant, just flipping brilliant.

What makes more sense is that mohamed was just making the qur'an up as he went along to satisfy his own lust for power and women, and didn't really care what happened to it after he died. Doesn't that theory fit the sequence of events better than saying a "perfect" god was responsible for that goat rodeo?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Understood my friend.... good to have you on board!

^^^^^^^^^^^^ I will gladly second that... --:beer:

However , Jafar contests even the words in the Koran so he will show Steve no respect for the knowledge of the Koran that Steve has..

[aboutime]

^^^^^^^^^^^^ I will gladly second that... --:beer:

However , Jafar contests even the words in the Koran so he will show Steve no respect for the knowledge of the Koran that Steve has..


All of which is proven, time, and time again. How jafar is like a schoolyard bully who throws mudballs at other kids, then runs to a teacher to complain that "They are picking on him." Whenever anyone here threatens jafar with the Truth. He disappears into the safety of his IGNOREance.

[Voted4Reagan]

what makes Steve different is that he posts from an intellectual point of View and not a religious one...

If I remember correctly he is an Atheist or Agnostic.

So he doesnt have a horse in the religion race except from a scholarly perspective.

This eliminates personal beliefs and Dogma and supplants it with just the facts.

Steve is a formidable debater in this regard.