@ Rehan Nezami, Sir improve your geographical knowledge. Antarctica is man-less land. Only researchers spend their time there. So there is no question of message of Allah. There is no slightest hint of Antarctica in the Quran or hadith. Would you cast some light on how you will perform roza namaz in long day and night. I witnessed 2 months long day and 2 months long night. At poles day and night are 6 months long alternately. May be jins were/are living there. Be the first to take msg and reap the reward.
@ Aiman Reyaz. A heated discussion is going on. Since I am not scholar in any discipline I paste an article without giving author’s name. Let us hear what the enemies say.
"Wife Beating In Islam
Domestic Violence against Women IS Permitted in Islam
There are many Islamic sites that are directed at non-Arabic speakers. If you speak Arabic, you can’t be fooled and many of the arguments stating that a Muslim man can not beat his wife fall like a deck of cards. They claim that the following verse (4:34) does not mean “to beat them,” but rather to “separate from them” or to “strike them out.”
Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.
Beat them and leave/separate/abandon them are different phrases in Arabic. The Arabic word idribohunna driven from the root word Darab does not have any other meaning than Beat when it comes to mean “Yadreb Ahadan” = Hit someone. Idriboohunna (أضربوهن) means beat them (for female plural). Adriboo Anhunna (اضربوا عنهن) is the one that means abandon or leave them.
According to the Arabic lexicon:
Arabic Transliteration Meaning
ضرب Zarb Beat
أضربوهن (used in 4:34) Idriboohunna Beat them
اضربوا عنهن Adriboo Anhunna abandon them, leave them
Quran 4:34 says Idriboohunna أضربوهن, not Adribu Anhunna اضربوا عنهن. These two phrases have different meanings. All the verses that contain darb against a human are understood to mean “beat” or “strike” that human, by their context, and this is agreed upon by Islamic scholars. Why then do they consider verse 4:34 to be a special case and translate “darb” to mean “separate from them”?
Many Muslims will try to come up with 100 explanations for this. Some will say that the Qur’an says “beat lightly” but in truth, the Qur’an doesn’t say anything about lightly. Others will say that it is only with the stick that was used to clean one’s teeth (miswak) in Mohamed’s times (also not true) while some say it is only in special cases. I can’t imagine what would be a “special case.” If someone is mentally ill, they need mental health care, not a beating. And if Islam is so fair, why can’t a man be beaten by a woman? Of course, this would be barbarian too, but it does illustrate the point!
The Qur’an allows Wife Beating and Muhammad Beat his Wives
… He (Muhammad b. Qais) then reported that it was ‘A’isha who had narrated this: Should I not narrate to you about myself and about the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him)? We said: Yes. She said: When it was my turn for Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) to spend the night with me, he turned his side, put on his mantle and took off his shoes and placed them near his feet, and spread the corner of his shawl on his bed and then lay down till he thought that I had gone to sleep. He took hold of his mantle slowly and put on the shoes slowly, and opened the door and went out and then closed it lightly. I covered my head, put on my veil and tightened my waist wrapper, and then went out following his steps till he reached Baqi’. He stood there and he stood for a long time. He then lifted his hands three times, and then returned and I also returned. He hastened his steps and I also hastened my steps. He ran and I too ran. He came (to the house) and I also came (to the house). I, however, preceded him and I entered (the house), and as I lay down in the bed, he (the Holy Prophet) entered the (house), and said: Why is it, O ‘A’isha, that you are out of breath? I said: There is nothing. He said: Tell me or the Subtle and the Aware would inform me. I said: Messenger of Allah, may my father and mother be ransom for you, and then I told him (the whole story). He said: Was it the darkness (of your shadow) that I saw in front of me? I said: Yes. He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you?…”
Sahih Muslim 4:2127
Many Muslims say that Muhammad never hit a woman or a child. According to Aisha, this is not true.
Muhammad Allowed his Companions to Beat Women
Muhammad allowed for Abu Bakr to slap Aisha
Jabir b. ‘Abdullah (Allah be pleased with them) reported: Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) came and sought permission to see Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him). He found people sitting at his door and none amongst them had been granted permission, but it was granted to Abu Bakr and he went in. Then came ‘Umar and he sought permission and it was granted to him, and he found Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) sitting sad and silent with his wives around him. He (Hadrat ‘Umar) said: I would say something which would make the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) laugh, so he said: Messenger of Allah, I wish you had seen (the treatment meted out to) the daughter of Khadija when you asked me some money, and I got up and slapped her on her neck. Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) laughed and said: They are around me as you see, asking for extra money. Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) then got up went to ‘Aisha (Allah be pleased with her) and slapped her on the neck, and ‘Umar stood up before Hafsa and slapped her saying: You ask Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) which he does not possess. They said: By Allah, we do not ask Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) for anything he does not possess. Then he withdrew from them for a month or for twenty-nine days. Then this verse was revealed to him:” Prophet: Say to thy wives… for a mighty reward” (xxxiii. 28). He then went first to ‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) and said: I want to propound something to you, ‘A’isha, but wish no hasty reply before you consult your parents. She said: Messenger of Allah, what is that? He (the Holy Prophet) recited to her the verse, whereupon she said: Is it about you that I should consult my parents, Messenger of Allah? Nay, I choose Allah, His Messenger, and the Last Abode; but I ask you not to tell any of your wives what I have said He replied: Not one of them will ask me without my informing her. God did not send me to be harsh, or cause harm, but He has sent me to teach and make things easy.
Sahih Muslim 9:3506
Iyas b. Abdullah reported God’s messenger as saying, “Do not beat God’s handmaidens;” but when `Umar came to God’s messenger and said, “The women have become emboldened towards their husbands,” he gave license to beat them. Then many women went round God’s messenger’s family complaining of their husbands, and he said, “Many women have gone around complaining of their husbands. Those are not the best among you.” Abu Dawud, Ibn Majah, and Darimi transmitted it.
Mishkat Al-Masabih: Volume 2, page 692
Al-Muwatta 30 2.13, See also:Al-Muwatta 30 30.213b
Sulayman Ibn `Amr Ibn al-`Ahwas narrated: “Ubai told me that he witnessed the address of departure of the prophet. He thanked God and praised him, and started preaching, saying, “I command you good-will for your wives, for they are captives to you that do not own anything, unless they commit a manifest obscenity [or adultery]. If they do [commit it], then God has given you permission to leave them alone in their beds and give them a bearable beating.”
Abu Dawud 11:2141
Muhammad Ignored the Abuse of Women
It seems that Muhammad was not concerned with the suffering of believing women. Instead, he rebukes her for her words against her husband.
Narrated ‘Ikrima: Rifa’a divorced his wife whereupon ‘Abdur Rahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married her. ‘Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah’s Apostle came, ‘Aisha said, “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!” When ‘Abdur Rahman heard that his wife had gone to the Prophet, he came with his two sons from another wife. She said, “By Allah! I have done no wrong to him but he is impotent and is as useless to me as this,” holding and showing the fringe of her garment, ‘Abdur-Rahman said, “By Allah, O Allah’s Apostle! She has told a lie! I am very strong and can satisfy her but she is disobedient and wants to go back to Rifa’a.” Allah’s Apostle said, to her, “If that is your intention, then know that it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifa’a unless Abdur-Rahman has had sexual intercourse with you.” Then the Prophet saw two boys with ‘Abdur-Rahman and asked (him), “Are these your sons?” On that ‘Abdur Rahman said, “Yes.” The Prophet said, “You claim what you claim (i.e.. that he is impotent)? But by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a crow.”
Sahih Bukhari 7:72:715
I just don’t understand why, if in truth Mohamed was a “mercy to mankind” did he not have mercy on this woman who had bruises all over her body. He believes the man, although it had not been proven that he was not impotent as his wife claimed just because her child looked like his dad. Maybe he had become impotent later on in their marriage. Instead, she is forced to stay with someone she does not want to live with. (As a side note, this Hadith also references the fact that a woman has to have sex with another many before she can return to a husband who has divorced her, an experience which could be very upsetting for anyone wanting to reconcile with someone they love.)
Scholars Agree with Wife Beating
And remember Our servant Ayyub, when he invoked his Lord (saying): “Verily, Shaytan has afflicted me with distress and torment!” (Allah said to him): “Strike the ground with your foot. This is (a spring of) water to wash in, cool and a drink.” And We gave him (back) his family, and along with them the like thereof, as a mercy from Us, and a reminder for those who understand. “And take in your hand a bundle of thin grass and strike therewith (your wife), and break not your oath.” Truly, We found him patient. How excellent a servant! Verily, he was ever oft-returning in repentance (to Us)!
Tafsir Ibn Kathir – Quran 38:41-44
Ayyub, peace be upon him, got angry with his wife and was upset about something she had done, so he swore an oath that if Allah healed him, he would strike her with one hundred blows. When Allah healed him, how could her service, mercy, compassion and kindness be repaid with a beating. So Allah showed him a way out, which was to take a bundle of thin grass, with one hundred stems, and hit her with it once. Thus he fulfilled his oath and avoided breaking his vow.
Tafsir Ibn Kathir – Ayyub
Here’s a question posed online to a sheik…..
Islam Q&A, Fatwa No. 49945
Mohammed Jamjoom – CNN, May 10, 2009
If a person gives SR 1,200 [$320] to his wife and she spends 900 riyals [$240] to purchase an abaya [the black cover that women in Saudi Arabia must wear] from a brand shop and if her husband slaps her on the face as a reaction to her action, she deserves that punishment.
Saudi Judge Hamad Al-Razine : It’s OK to slap spendthrift wives.
A man should not be asked why he beats his wife
Narrated Umar ibn al-Khattab: The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife.
Abu Dawud 11:2142
Therefore, he is not accountable to his community nor to God on Judgment Day as to why he beat his wife. In the Middle East, you don’t even call the police if your husband beats you. It is considered disloyal. There are even YouTube videos which instruct Muslim men on how to beat their wives properly.
A woman would have to be practically dead to even consider calling the police. Although most people say that beating a wife is not good, it seems that it is also understood to be a form of discipline. Thus, women almost have the status of children. I’ll leave it at that."
Please refute the above article. I will paste your response with your permission to source (if you like)
I think mostly we are in agreement. However, I am just adding my views about the language part. The use of the words “conferred a great favour on the believers in sending a Messenger from among themselves” should not surprise or worse still confuse us. I find the idea is most beautifully expressed in these words as indeed the entire language of the holy Quran is most beautifully expressed.
While trying to compose verses I used to face a great dilemma of choosing between beauty and absolute correctness of an expression. Finding a balance is a herculean task. In Quran this balance of beauty and correctness is pervasive which is perhaps why there is a general opinion that the language of Quran as coming from the mouth of an Ummi (the Prophet, PBUH) itself is a ‘muajza’.
That is why Western detractors of Islam are now developing a theory, in the form of Rushdian history of a perverted imagination, that there was no person like Prophet Muhammad, that he was not from Mecca, that a group of scholars wrote the pieces of Quran when the Arab empire was at its zenith and hammered into the consciousness of subjects of the Empire the story of the life of the Prophet etc. After being fed on James Bond farcical stories these fellows are convinced that they can sell any history like the junk American food. I randomly pick up one translation of the verse because all of them convey the same meaning:Wahiduddin khan: Indeed, God has conferred a great favour on the believers in sending a Messenger from among themselves, to recite His revelations to them, and purify them, and teaches them the Book and wisdom, for, before that they were surely in manifest error.
I would like to recall my explanation of this before in these words, “that Prophets were born at all times and in all races (by the grace of Allah, my statement) and they were a grace to those who became believers thereby.” Actually, the verse here describes a social process. Amongst a group (this group is an abstract, and can be very small in size depending on God’s will of the shape of history He designs, or it can be dynamically expanding in size which can be defined only in retrospect so as to include India Indonesia and Malaysia or anything till eternity, again on God’s will) a prophet is born, his birth marks a precipitation in which the believers are on one side and the non-believers remain on another side (there is no concept of conflict here.
In my view, this is according to divine plan of the free will God has given to human beings and the evil He has let out in the form of satanic forces. Remember Satan is a creation of God who or which, does not allow men to move towards righteousness. My past writings on the subject like ‘Existence v. Non-existence’ will help understand how all this could be a divine plan). Through this verse, God has informed those who become believers that the advent of a prophet is a grace to them who teaches them what is right to safeguard from the evil. (The corollary is that if a person without the instruction of a Prophet by using his own free-will corresponds his actions and deeds with what God has ordained as good, then such person may be more credit worthy – just a loud thinking - because once a prophet is there around such person is bound to follow the prophet and if he does not then obviously he never belonged to the credit-worthy category).
Shall I reiterate that this Quranic verse beautifully, majestically and uniquely conveys the idea! Now, if from English translations, I could experience the beatitude of the language of Quran and thereby extract from it a great philosophical message calculated to help the humanity, I wonder why the Saudi Arabs (all the Arabs or only the elites are our targets?), who perhaps know best the original language Arabic of the holy Quran, cannot derive even half of the humanitarian massage? ARE THEY AGAIN IN MANIFEST ERROR? Only an Arab spokesperson can answer or rebut our charge.
About this khilafat thing, we can have any amount of academic discussion and I don’t mind if we fight a couple of wars more, but this should not be linked with our religious faith, I humbly think. How ridiculous this khilafat business can be is found from the Khilafat Movement of India which even Gandhiji had joined! Struggle for temporal powers though by no means redundant, are quite different from the religious struggle within, to look for righteousness. By the way, did not Zakir Naik apologize for calling Yezid as Rahmatullah Alaih? Is he still spreading this calumny? Are there people in the world who do not condemn Yezid for the heinous crimes he committed? Is even this a contentious issue amongst Muslims?!
Dear Mr. Sadaf, I am glad you are willing to engage with the questions that arise in our minds while reading the Holy Quran and trying to understand its message. This is the only way to clarify our thoughts and become true believers. God repeatedly asks us to reflect, so it can’t be wrong to ask questions.
As you know all prophets including ours were raised among non-believers in times of Jahiliya. There would be no point in sending prophets to a good people and believers. Prophets come to preach belief and good behaviour; they come to make us believers and good people. Our prophet (saw) too was raised among people who were disbelievers in the concept of one God and an exploitation-free society. Other societies had already got hundreds of prophets in their history and had been imparted the concept of one God and been asked to conduct themselves in the manner of muttaqees, people who care for the weak, the elderly, the orphan, the wayfarer, the poor and the helpless in their midst, according to the definition of the word in the holy Quran.
So the word “believers” in this verse could not refer to the Meccans’ quality of belief in one God or their goodness; they did not have any at the time the prophet saw was raised among them. Remember, they were going through a period of Jahiliya. Verses in the Quran directly address and refer to the Meccans and helps them solve their day-today problems of those times. Even prophet’s uncle and protector insisted on remaining a disbeliever until his last breath despite the prophet saw own imploring to him to convert at least at the last moment. However, in the time of Prophet Mohammad (saw) himself, Medinans also benefited from Islam, indeed shed their blood in its cause. They were already familiar with the concept of one God and the message of practicing taqwa, as they had a large number of Jews in their midst. So, like Medinans of that time, we non-Arabs too can benefit from the message of Islam, even though we have had many prophets in our midst before Prophet Mohammad (saw).
But we must remember that after the Prophet Meccans did not allow Medinans to become Khalifas, even though they were the ones who actually protected the infant religion of Islam at the time that the Meccans were determined to destroy it at any cost. Even today the Meccans, who must be referred to today as Arabs, as that distinction is no longer valid, do not consider non-Arabs equal to themselves. Ask anyone who has had the misfortune of living among them. You serve them and what they consider “their” religion for a hundred years, they will not even give you so much as a residence permit in “their” land while they preach to you a message which says all land belongs to God and all people are one. And this is true not only of Saudis, but all Arabs. They tell you that if you want to be a Muslim you try and become as much of an Arab as possible, you should pray in Arab-style mosques, wear Arabs beards and Arab dresses, which were meant to protect them and their women from sandstorms.
However, the moot question is: could they be right? Is it possible that they understand the Arabic language of the Holy Quran better than us? Are they correct in looking at us with contempt when we try to appropriate “their” prophet whom God raised among “them” primarily for “their” guidance? I used the expression “our prophet saw” a little while ago. But am I right in doing so? Let us not forget, the Quraish of Mecca did not even consider Ansars of Medina as their equal. They butchered the Prophet saw’s family mercilessly and called the killer Yazid rahmatullillah. The Saudi launched televangelist Zakir Naik does that even today in front of millions of his viewers and apparently wants us to do the same. They do not want us to poke our noses in their “internal” affairs, killing the prophet’s family members, accepting the killer and his progeny as their lord and master and still calling themselves Muslim and so on. I am truly glad, Mr. Sadaf, that unlike most Muslims, you are prepared to engage with questions that arise in your and other people’s minds. Obviously you truly believe that God is rahman and rahim who has asked us to think and reflect and then accept anything and not just become muqallids of our ancestors. Remember the prophet saw did not do so. He spent hours, days and weeks at a stretch, sitting in a little cave and reflecting on questions that bothered him in his ancestral religion and once he found the answers he was not afraid of blaspheming his ancestral gods.
While reading it, I could not sense that the 'them and their' are for Arabs. It sounds to me as if it is about the people in general. I wonder what makes it seem to Dear Mr. Sultan Shahin, like it is about Arabs? "The Prophet (saw) was “a favour upon the ”believers” when He raised up in “their” midst an apostle from among “themselves” to convey His messages unto “them” and to cause “them” to grow in purity and to impart unto “them” the divine writ as well as wisdom."
I guess for an impartial reader, the people of the world are divided into three. One who are good, one who are bad, and one who are indifferent or can say, unaware or even undecided of what is good and what is bad- the 'can't say' people. The good are termed as believers, the bad are unbelievers,and 'can't say' types are general 'them'. What is good and what is bad is outlined in Quran and decided by someone who is not a 'person' whom one can dispute with asking why it is your idea of what is good and what is bad that one should accept. It may sound oversimplistic because it is about making Islam easy dot com.
@Zuma Mohsin Khan uses Sunnah because I think he is trying to propagate the Wahabi Islam and not just Islam. By the way you should read your comments once again, specially the latest one. You said "If the word, Sunnah, should not be in the book of Quran, why should Mohsin Khan's translation indicates a number of time the word, Sunnah, or the phrase, the Sunnah of the Prophet?" Let me ask you a very simple question, who mentioned "Sunnah"?
Mohsin Khan, a human; not Allah. So don't we just follow what Allah tells us to follow. Who are we, humans to put or add or mix in God's word? And the second point is, do you think Mohsin Khan is irrefutable and that he cannor be corrected? May be you have not read my comments. Ok give me one reason why Hadidths should be considered as from Allah, as you have been indirectly claiming in so many comments? If that satisfies me then I will accept, but if it does not satisfies me then I will give you numerous reasons why Hadidths are NOT from God. Please do not think I am rude.
But, to my mind, Mr. Aiman Reyaz, rather than concluding this discussion in a very positive manner, Mr. Manzoorul Haque’s comment, particularly the verse from the Holy Quran he has quoted raises another very contentious issue.
As all the translators appear to agree on the meaning of the verse, this question becomes unavoidable. Here the word “believers” – on which all translators quoted here are agreed – seems to refer only to Meccans or maybe to Arabs at most. The Prophet (saw) was “a favour upon the ”believers” when He raised up in “their” midst an apostle from among “themselves” to convey His messages unto “them” and to cause “them” to grow in purity and to impart unto “them” the divine writ as well as wisdom.”
Now, where does this leave us Indians or Chinese or Europeans or Americans who are not and are not going to become part of “them”? Can we then put ourselves in the category of “believers”? Was Islam meant for us at all? Are we merely victims of Abu Lahab and Abu Sufiyan family’s Arab imperialist project that is being carried on today by the Saudi royals in the name of Islam? Does this also explain why Saudi-funded priests insist that we should be wearing Arab dress, we should look like Arabs and different from our compatriots, our mosques should be built in the Arab architectural style, and so on? Are the Arab rulers of our minds simply being kind to us, knowing as they do that in order to be put in the category of “believers” that we desperately want, we will need to be Arab, if not Meccan? Can we, however, become Arbas?
Mr Zuma, Hadees was compiled 2-3 hundred years after the demise of the Prophet, not 2-3 years after the prophet (SAW), as you write.
Indeed the Holy Quran was itself not compiled then. It was compiled in the period of the third khalifa Hazrat Usman, raziallah ta'ala anha. Indeed, this is itself a mystery why the prophet saw didn't get the Quran compiled in his lifetime. Didn't he and Allah not want to preserve the book? There were several surahs written down by mostly illiterate Arabs in that period differently and Hazrat Usman had to get them burned, yes, verses of the Holy Quran copied in the Prophet's time by our salaf burned down and destroyed, some are said to have even survived.
Hadees began to be compiled after the born enemies of Islam took over Islam and had to rule according to their whims but in the name of Islam. In order to create larger and larger distance between Islam and Muslims, they created two institutions: the Hadees and the so-called ulema. Both these institutions have served and continue to server anti-Islamic rulers of Muslims throughout our history.