Quran434.com - open invitation to all - $1000

The rights of, or lack thereof, and problems faced by women in Islam
Post Reply
quran434
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 8:24 pm

Quran434.com - open invitation to all - $1000

Post by quran434 »

Peace be upon you all,

I am the webmaster for http://www.Quran434.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The above work is a detailed study of chapter 4, verse 34 of The Quran – the alleged “wife-beating” verse. Its conclusion however is not a physical hit/strike/beat.

The author of the above work would like to offer an open invitation to all:
Anyone who is able to refute the above work will receive $1000.

Conditions:
The deadline for submissions will be 30 days from today, i.e. 10th December 2011.
The refutation must be written in English, and based upon The Quran itself. Use of external sources should be kept to an absolute minimum. An over-reliance on such sources may invalidate your submission.
To post a refutation, simply post it in this thread, or upload it to a site such as scribd.com then post the link here. The title of your rebuttal should be “Response to Quran434.com” in bold. Multiple submissions by the same author will not be accepted – please incorporate all your points into one submission/post only.

By “refute” it is meant that to offer another explanation other than the one given in Quran434.com that is more probable. All submissions will be reviewed by the author and a response given. If no wholesale refutation occurs but some minor points in the work are corrected, then a nominal amount will be given, or donated to charity on their behalf.

Thank you for your attention.

User avatar
pr126
Posts: 5354
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 9:24 am
Location: Blighty

Re: Quran434.com - open invitation to all - $1000

Post by pr126 »

There are just too many to list.







Islam: an idea to kill and die for.

frankie
Posts: 2608
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 6:10 pm

Re: Quran434.com - open invitation to all - $1000

Post by frankie »

quran434 wrote:Peace be upon you all,

I am the webmaster for http://www.Quran434.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The above work is a detailed study of chapter 4, verse 34 of The Quran – the alleged “wife-beating” verse. Its conclusion however is not a physical hit/strike/beat.

The author of the above work would like to offer an open invitation to all:
Anyone who is able to refute the above work will receive $1000.

Conditions:
The deadline for submissions will be 30 days from today, i.e. 10th December 2011.
The refutation must be written in English, and based upon The Quran itself. Use of external sources should be kept to an absolute minimum. An over-reliance on such sources may invalidate your submission.
To post a refutation, simply post it in this thread, or upload it to a site such as scribd.com then post the link here. The title of your rebuttal should be “Response to Quran434.com” in bold. Multiple submissions by the same author will not be accepted – please incorporate all your points into one submission/post only.

By “refute” it is meant that to offer another explanation other than the one given in Quran434.com that is more probable. All submissions will be reviewed by the author and a response given. If no wholesale refutation occurs but some minor points in the work are corrected, then a nominal amount will be given, or donated to charity on their behalf.

Thank you for your attention.
Quran 434:
If the word beat is wrong,why has is been left in the Quran by the Islamic scholars who allowed the Quran to be translated in this way?

If the Islamic scholars are wrong to have left this word beat, then they have greatly transgressed Allahs literal words to mankind,allegedly for all times and places.

So which is it. Has mankind has been grealty mis-led,for 1400 years,or not.?

Or is it that Muslims are extremely unhappy with what they see as domestic abuse,being permitted by Allah,(for the benefit of mankind for all times and places),and wish to
"move the goal posts"?

User avatar
pr126
Posts: 5354
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 9:24 am
Location: Blighty

Re: Quran434.com - open invitation to all - $1000

Post by pr126 »

Or is it that Muslims are extremely unhappy with what they see as domestic abuse,being permitted by Allah,(for the benefit of mankind for all times and places),and wish to "move the goal posts"?
Not at all.
What they are unhappy about is that the kuffar is reading their holy books and daring to criticize their religious customs.
Islam: an idea to kill and die for.

User avatar
MesMorial
Posts: 1572
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:15 am

Re: Quran434.com - open invitation to all - $1000

Post by MesMorial »

He is Qur'an-aloner from Free-Minds. It is nice article.
FEED MORE MORE - WAKE UP!
- Ryback

http://allpoetry.com/Noctifer" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
pr126
Posts: 5354
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 9:24 am
Location: Blighty

Re: Quran434.com - open invitation to all - $1000

Post by pr126 »

MesMorial wrote:He is Qur'an-aloner from Free-Minds. It is nice article.
Now that' an oxymoron!

:lol:
Islam: an idea to kill and die for.

quran434
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 8:24 pm

Re: Quran434.com - open invitation to all - $1000

Post by quran434 »

peace be upon you all,

Thanks for the replies.

Please note that no-one provided a refutation to the article: http://www.Quran434.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

frankie, I recommend reading the actual article for answers to your questions.


This 'challenge' was posted here to expose those who think The Quran allows a husband to hit/strike/beat his wife. This 'challenge' will now also be posted in various Traditional Islam forums.

Thank you for your time.

frankie
Posts: 2608
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 6:10 pm

Re: Quran434.com - open invitation to all - $1000

Post by frankie »

quran434 wrote:peace be upon you all,

Thanks for the replies.

Please note that no-one provided a refutation to the article: http://www.Quran434.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

frankie, I recommend reading the actual article for answers to your questions.


This 'challenge' was posted here to expose those who think The Quran allows a husband to hit/strike/beat his wife. This 'challenge' will now also be posted in various Traditional Islam forums.

Thank you for your time.
quran434:
Thanks for the recommendation.However, even with all its elaboration,this document does not explain fully why,if the word "beat" ,is so mis-leading, it has been left in the Quran by the Islamic scholars,through their translations,or understanding, to be read as something which could be taken as permitted domestic abuse.Although,try as it may,to distance this verse 4.34 from wife beating(hitting),by saying it is after all to be used as a "last resort",the hitting of wives is still allowed,by the Islamic god.

Even if Muslims still refuse to accept wife hitting as a divinely commanded option,they can still excuse this diabolical behaviour as bona fide,because Allahs best example to mankind performed this action on his favourite wife,Aisha,documented in Muslim sources,Sahih Muslim volume 4:2127:

… 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?…”

iffo
Posts: 4692
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 3:29 am
Contact:

Re: Quran434.com - open invitation to all - $1000

Post by iffo »

Pr126 is correct. Because of Internet non-Muslims are reading Quran and now Muslims living abroad are deeply embarrassed and coming up with all sorts of justifications for different quran statements.

Muslims living in Islamic countries are embarrassed about nothing because they do not interact with non-Muslims. They say what's the big deal, yea beating is allowed , yes Aisha was 9, yes all non-Muslims will burn in hell, yea 4 wives are allowed, yes homo woman should be house arrested for life but man can be forgiven etc.

Quran/Islam kills human brain cell and ability to differentiate between right and wrong.

User avatar
ygalg
Posts: 5427
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 11:51 am
Location: israel
Contact:

Re: Quran434.com - open invitation to all - $1000

Post by ygalg »

the challenge should be addressed to beating wives muslims. not to us.
the verse, interpreted by translators similarly. leaving out the parenthesis, which inserted to mislead the readers.

the verse suggest women who are disobedient and refuse to have sex with you beat them unless the surrender themselves to the men.

Yusuf Ali "beat them" misleading parenthesis (lightly)
Shakir "beat them"
Mohsin Khan "beat them" misleading parenthesis (lightly, if it is useful)
Pickthal "scourge them"
http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_disp ... ?chapter=4

muslims in western states know about islam better than muslims who live in islamic states??? how odd.
“a true believer as a person so fanatically committed to a cause that no amount of reality can make him abandon it” Eric Hoffer

User avatar
ygalg
Posts: 5427
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 11:51 am
Location: israel
Contact:

Re: Quran434.com - open invitation to all - $1000

Post by ygalg »

and about the $1000, keep it. I rather have my head intact. :wink:
“a true believer as a person so fanatically committed to a cause that no amount of reality can make him abandon it” Eric Hoffer

darth
Posts: 492
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 2:16 pm

Re: Quran434.com - open invitation to all - $1000

Post by darth »

The article in question reeks of one of ahmad bahgat convoluted gibberish.

Consider the following sentence -
even when body parts are mentioned as what to DRB with or what to do DRB to/upon (e.g. 8:12, 8:50, 18:11, 24:31, 37:93, 47:4, 47:27) it doesn't mean a physical hit/strike, or at least there is not one clear example showing it does.
and
Thus, this claim is only based on a wrong or poor interpretation of some verses of The Quran, most notably 2:73, 8:12, 8:50, 38:44, 47:4, and 47:27.
Consider just 8:12. This author would have us believe that the word is not physical strike (even though that is how it is translated in most cases). Then he goes into a convoluted explanation of why it is not a physical strike and then claims that this verse too is wrongly translated and actually means 'put forth'. This is absurd - 'put forth upon their neck'? In other words according to him, 4:34 is wrongly translated; and this is true only if scores of other quranic verses are also translated wrongly. :roflmao:

The basic flaw in the quraners approach. They depend on other verses to explain each verse. But those other verses also need to be creatively reinterpreted. In other words the entire quran must be creatively reinterpreted.

Let us take the case of 4:34.

4:34 talks specifically with the dealings between a husband and wife and how husband is to deal with a disobedient wife. The only "authority" here is the husband over the wife. There is no 3rd person in 4:34. How can you bring in some absurd "authority" to 'cite to' when this verse is only related to a husband and wife. Maybe the husband should 'cite' to himself? Third party arbiters are only mentioned in 4:35 which is something that happens only when the last resort of 4:34 fails - when she is disobedient after اضربوهن idribuhanna.

Bottom line the simplest explanation is the best. No need for convoluted word play.

اضربوهن idribuhanna means 'beat them' and is the one that fits this verse the best.

Your fancy reinterpretations does not take away the base meaning, in other words 'beat them' is still a valid meaning. This is also backed by explanations from islamic scholars dating back to mo's time. One has to wonder how long the "clear" quran requires these kinds of convoluted explanations for the quraners.

Jimi
Posts: 552
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 4:55 am

Re: Quran434.com - open invitation to all - $1000

Post by Jimi »

The Muslim apologist can slither around this verse all they want. But most people read it as god commanding the faithful to beat their wife's to preserve the family.

In the Hadith, Mohammed beat aisha. So anyway you look at it, hitting your wife is Islamic. This is one issue we can point to showing the ridiculousness of Islam. It is too easy with the wife's beating verse and it is why some go to great lengths to justify it, very much like the sex slave verse and hadiths that go with it. Slavery is another one. The Muslims go on and on about how Islam actually discouraged slavery. This is ridiculous. Slavery was openly legal in Saudia Arabia until 1964 and reports suggest it is still going on there. We know that the imported domestic help are treated like slave reguarlly there.


We can just go on and on.
May the example of pbuh guild you to the truth.

User avatar
charleslemartel
Posts: 2884
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 2:01 pm
Location: Throne Of Allah

Re: Quran434.com - open invitation to all - $1000

Post by charleslemartel »

iffo wrote:Pr126 is correct. Because of Internet non-Muslims are reading Quran and now Muslims living abroad are deeply embarrassed and coming up with all sorts of justifications for different quran statements.

Muslims living in Islamic countries are embarrassed about nothing because they do not interact with non-Muslims. They say what's the big deal, yea beating is allowed , yes Aisha was 9, yes all non-Muslims will burn in hell, yea 4 wives are allowed, yes homo woman should be house arrested for life but man can be forgiven etc.

Quran/Islam kills human brain cell and ability to differentiate between right and wrong.
It doesn't "kill" human brain cells, Iffo, otherwise it wouldn't have been possible for a Muslim to see the falsehood of his/her belief ever. It simply conditions them very strongly. And it also doesn't kill the ability to differentiate between right and wrong; it simply confuses Muslims about what is right and what is wrong. What it damages the most is the intellectual courage in Muslims. It makes them courageous as far as losing or taking of life is concerned, but makes them greatly fearful of the imaginary afterlife turning them into cowards as far as the imaginary afterlife is concerned.

It muddles their sense of reality.
Islam is a funny religion which is misunderstood by its scholars and correctly understood by ordinary Muslims.
Faith is keeping your eyes shut when looking at the world, and/or keeping your eyes open only for the beauty of the world.

User avatar
charleslemartel
Posts: 2884
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 2:01 pm
Location: Throne Of Allah

Re: Quran434.com - open invitation to all - $1000

Post by charleslemartel »

Damn the facebook! I am missing the "Like" button too much :)
Islam is a funny religion which is misunderstood by its scholars and correctly understood by ordinary Muslims.
Faith is keeping your eyes shut when looking at the world, and/or keeping your eyes open only for the beauty of the world.

darth
Posts: 492
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 2:16 pm

Re: Quran434.com - open invitation to all - $1000

Post by darth »

It is interesting to see that the quran-only-ers come up with different explanations. The author of this thread would have us believe it is "cite". I have already stated why it cannot be "cite". Now we have -
MesMorial wrote: Set them forth (separate from them) via legal avenues. I have said this multiple times.
The verse already speaks of separating from her (forsaking her in bed). Legal separation that you talk about involves 3rd party that comes into picture only in 4:35. 4:34 is related only to relation between husband and wife. No third party is in picture in 4:34 yet. Moreover, this idea of "trial separation" is a modern construct. In islam (as per quran), such separation is only possible after issuance of the first talaq and before the third talaq. This verse is definitely not talking of divorce. There are other verses that talk of divorce. idribuhanna is not used anywhere to indicate "divorce". Thus we have have to rule out divorce and since the only other separation (forsaking her in bed etc.) is already dealt with, the traditional meaning for idribuhanna holds.


MesMorial wrote: She can separate (4:130). Whoever owns the home can stay. The context is about dowry, but it applies to injustice in general.
Here we go again. Owning a home etc. are not mentioned in 4:130. Do you see why I call your explanation a "fraud"?
4:130 But if they separate [by divorce], Allah will enrich each [of them] from His abundance. And ever is Allah Encompassing and Wise.
MesMorial wrote: It is quite obvious. Verse 4:34 can be understood as instructing to strike one’s wife under a particular circumstance, or it can be understood as banishing/setting them forth through official channels (e.g. arbitration).
You can understand it the way you want to understand it. But as long as the word is idribuhanna "beat them" is a very valid meaning.

But even if it is banish them, it is still quite bad. Compare 4:34 and 4.128 -

If a husband is suspicious of his wife he can advice her, forsake her in bed and then idribuhanna (beat them/banish whatever)

But if a wife fear her husband's contempt, she can enter into some sort of agreement with him (she can't advice him, forsake him in bed or idribuhanna - beat/banish whatever) (BTW, this entering into agreement is also uneven treatment. If you go by the hadiths, mo's and sauda's "agreement" was an example. Sauda was afraid of being divorced because she was old and mo had younger wives. So she entered into an "agreement" so that her "day" was given to ayesha and she would remain a "wife". Thus this "agreement" is a kind of a desperate measure that perpetuates the wife's secondary status in islam).

Only a brain dead muslim will find the treatment of a wife by husband and treatment of husband by wife equivalent.

But a person that accepts your explanation will need to ask himself what kind of a brain dead ass the author must have been that he was unable to use a word that did not translate to beat/strike.
MesMorial wrote: Harry would have to explain why the Qur’an says to do three things all at once, these things being admonishment, separation in beds and striking.
That is very easy to explain - because quran is a idiotic book. Remember it punished any lahab 3 times over for a crime that it does not explain. So why do you find it hard to believe that it would allow a woman to be punished for mere suspicion?
MesMorial wrote:
Now physically striking one’s wife based on unproved reasons runs counter to the need for proof (e.g. 24:4).
24.4 is irrelevant here. It has to do with accusing a woman. Here the wife is not being accused of anything. 4.34 simply related to the dealings between a husband and wife, of a husband's authority over the wife.


MesMorial wrote:
Thus a Muslim really has no choice but to reject “wife-beating”.
Best choice for muslims is to reject the quran completely.

User avatar
MesMorial
Posts: 1572
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:15 am

Re: Quran434.com - open invitation to all - $1000

Post by MesMorial »

With lack of arguments, you are going to use the difference between my explanation and the above. There is no difference.
It is interesting to see that the quran-only-ers come up with different explanations. The author of this thread would have us believe it is "cite". I have already stated why it cannot be "cite". Now we have –
But it need not be permanent. For instance, if the marital discord is severe enough, they may divorce forever and thus he would be setting her forth via legal means.

If they were having specific problems and it was her fault, he should talk to her (admonish her) and separate whilst the divorce is being decided upon or against.
The verse already speaks of separating from her (forsaking her in bed).
Separating in the bedroom is different to separation. As I mentioned, this separation is akin to the sexual separation after divorce is decided on (but not confirmed) (2:226).
The verse already speaks of separating from her (forsaking her in bed). Legal separation that you talk about involves 3rd party that comes into picture only in 4:35. 4:34 is related only to relation between husband and wife. No third party is in picture in 4:34 yet. Moreover, this idea of "trial separation" is a modern construct. In islam (as per quran), such separation is only possible after issuance of the first talaq and before the third talaq. This verse is definitely not talking of divorce. There are other verses that talk of divorce. idribuhanna is not used anywhere to indicate "divorce". Thus we have have to rule out divorce and since the only other separation (forsaking her in bed etc.) is already dealt with, the traditional meaning for idribuhanna holds..
4:35 refers to someone ELSE fearing that they cannot work it out for themselves, therefore getting mediation for them. 4:34 is on the same subject, but from the perspective of the husband. He must admonish and separate physically either as a result of mediation (temporary), or divorce. During that process they should not share beds.

The Qur’an does not refer to divorce because as per 4:35, it is the least favoured option. Divorce is if all the other steps do not work.
Here we go again. Owning a home etc. are not mentioned in 4:130. Do you see why I call your explanation a "fraud"?
If the woman experiences the same problem from her husband, they talk it through, and if the problem is not solved, obviously they separate. I mentioned “owning a home” for clarification for your comprehension skills.
You can understand it the way you want to understand it. But as long as the word is idribuhanna "beat them" is a very valid meaning.
Every usage of the word in the Qur’an makes sense by “set forth”. The only reason it can mean “strike” is by inference. For example, when you hit someone, you have to set forth something against them. This basically debunks your case.
But even if it is banish them, it is still quite bad. Compare 4:34 and 4.128 -

If a husband is suspicious of his wife he can advice her, forsake her in bed and then idribuhanna (beat them/banish whatever)

But if a wife fear her husband's contempt, she can enter into some sort of agreement with him (she can't advice him, forsake him in bed or idribuhanna - beat/banish whatever) (BTW, this entering into agreement is also uneven treatment.
Which is why I said that 4:128 refers to dowry (in context). In the same circumstance as 4:34, she should undergo the same process (whoever owns the home would leave).
But a person that accepts your explanation will need to ask himself what kind of a brain dead ass the author must have been that he was unable to use a word that did not translate to beat/strike.
The word never means “strike”. It naturally conveys “set forth”.
That is very easy to explain - because quran is a idiotic book. Remember it punished any lahab 3 times over for a crime that it does not explain. So why do you find it hard to believe that it would allow a woman to be punished for mere suspicion?
Abu Lahab’s punishment was merely described in detail.

24.4 is irrelevant here. It has to do with accusing a woman. Here the wife is not being accused of anything. 4.34 simply related to the dealings between a husband and wife, of a husband's authority over the wife.[/quote]

I see. Your explanation explains it, but does not make it logical. Which is why we should stick with the actual meaning of “idhrib”.

Best choice for muslims is to reject the quran completely.


Okay.
FEED MORE MORE - WAKE UP!
- Ryback

http://allpoetry.com/Noctifer" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

darth
Posts: 492
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 2:16 pm

Re: Quran434.com - open invitation to all - $1000

Post by darth »

MesMorial wrote:
Separating in the bedroom is different to separation. As I mentioned, this separation is akin to the sexual separation after divorce is decided on (but not confirmed) (2:226).
There is no separation in islam other than that initiated by the first talaq. That of course makes no sex mandatory.

4:34 has not reached the first talaq point. But the husband can "choose" to separate from her in the bedroom as a punishment. Divorce is not mentioned here and in fact the husband is told not take further action if wife becomes obedient.
MesMorial wrote: 4:35 refers to someone ELSE fearing that they cannot work it out for themselves, therefore getting mediation for them. 4:34 is on the same subject, but from the perspective of the husband. He must admonish and separate physically either as a result of mediation (temporary), or divorce. During that process they should not share beds.
You are right in that 4:34 is only between a husband and wife without involvement of 3rd party.
But, 4:34 is all about a husband's choice. He can "choose" to banish her from his bed. This is different from the mandatory banishment in case of a talaq. 4:34 is not a mandatory banishment, but one that the husband exerts at will. That is why it cannot mean a separation as initiated before a divorce.

MesMorial wrote:
If the woman experiences the same problem from her husband, they talk it through, and if the problem is not solved, obviously they separate. I mentioned “owning a home” for clarification for your comprehension skills.
Sorry, no equivalence. A woman cannot advice her husband, forsake his bed or idribuhanna him. All she can do is enter into some sort of "agreement" (which of course is dependent upon the husband granting her this "agreement")
MesMorial wrote: Every usage of the word in the Qur’an makes sense by “set forth”. The only reason it can mean “strike” is by inference. For example, when you hit someone, you have to set forth something against them. This basically debunks your case.
:???: Do you know what you are saying, mess? When you hit someone in a passion or rage, you are not actually setting forth something against them....

MesMorial wrote: Which is why I said that 4:128 refers to dowry (in context). In the same circumstance as 4:34, she should undergo the same process (whoever owns the home would leave).
4:128 says nothing about dowry. Another "fraud" interpretation, mess.
MesMorial wrote:
I see. Your explanation explains it, but does not make it logical. Which is why we should stick with the actual meaning of “idhrib”.
And the actual meaning of idhrib إضرب is beat/whack etc.

User avatar
MesMorial
Posts: 1572
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:15 am

Re: Quran434.com - open invitation to all - $1000

Post by MesMorial »

There is no separation in islam other than that initiated by the first talaq. That of course makes no sex mandatory.
Where are you getting that? The other separation is seen in 4:34.
4:34 has not reached the first talaq point. But the husband can "choose" to separate from her in the bedroom as a punishment. Divorce is not mentioned here and in fact the husband is told not take further action if wife becomes obedient.
Perhaps you have missed my replies:
Separating in the bedroom is different to separation. As I mentioned, this separation is akin to the sexual separation after divorce is decided on (but not confirmed) (2:226).
The Qur’an does not refer to divorce because as per 4:35, it is the least favoured option. Divorce is if all the other steps do not work.
But, 4:34 is all about a husband's choice. He can "choose" to banish her from his bed. This is different from the mandatory banishment in case of a talaq.
Where are you getting that?
4:34 is not a mandatory banishment, but one that the husband exerts at will. That is why it cannot mean a separation as initiated before a divorce.
I never said it was the same, but the principle is the same. There is no official “talaq”, only that a man should wait four months to confirm divorce.
Sorry, no equivalence. A woman cannot advice her husband, forsake his bed or idribuhanna him. All she can do is enter into some sort of "agreement" (which of course is dependent upon the husband granting her this "agreement")
A woman can advise her husband, because she has vocal cords. She can enact a situation where they should not share the bed, and she can separate from him if she really wants to. The context of the verse is about dowry, which is why it mentions “agreement”. If the man were shirking his obligations as a husband, she would complain, refuse to share bed (since nowhere is rape allowed) and together they could go to the authorities (to hear both sides of the story). The best solution (i.e. best for both) could be decided on.
Do you know what you are saying, mess? When you hit someone in a passion or rage, you are not actually setting forth something against them....
I know, and because the word does not mean “strike” but “set forth”, it confirms 4:34 does not allow wife-beating. For example, 4:12 tells angels to “set forth” above the necks, which means “hit them above the necks”. Moses is told to “set forth” the sea, and he does.
4:128 says nothing about dowry. Another "fraud" interpretation, mess.
The previous verse is talking about exactly that, and in fact 4:128 mentions “shuha” (greed). The next verse talks about such problems with polygamy, although 4:128-129 is general but inclusive of dowry.
And the actual meaning of idhrib إضرب is beat/whack etc.
No, the word is used for “set forth” so many times. This is because it means “set forth”.

http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp? ... 4&verse=34" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
FEED MORE MORE - WAKE UP!
- Ryback

http://allpoetry.com/Noctifer" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

darth
Posts: 492
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 2:16 pm

Re: Quran434.com - open invitation to all - $1000

Post by darth »

MesMorial wrote: Where are you getting that? The other separation is seen in 4:34.
:roflmao: You are kidding, right? 4:34 is what we are discussing. It is you that claims idribuhanna is "separate". You cannot use 4.34 as an example for itself. Talk of logical fallacies.


I never said it was the same, but the principle is the same. There is no official “talaq”, only that a man should wait four months to confirm divorce.
What is the "same" principle? This verse gives directions to deal with a wife that he is suspicious about before any separation (the only kind in the quran is that initiated by the talaq)


A woman can advise her husband, because she has vocal cords. She can enact a situation where they should not share the bed, and she can separate from him if she really wants to. The context of the verse is about dowry, which is why it mentions “agreement”. If the man were shirking his obligations as a husband, she would complain, refuse to share bed (since nowhere is rape allowed) and together they could go to the authorities (to hear both sides of the story). The best solution (i.e. best for both) could be decided on.
mess, the quran does not tell the wife to idribuhanna. Anything else that you suppose that she can do is again speculation. All that the verse allows her is to enter some sort of agreement.
I know, and because the word does not mean “strike” but “set forth”, it confirms 4:34 does not allow wife-beating. For example, 4:12 tells angels to “set forth” above the necks, which means “hit them above the necks”. Moses is told to “set forth” the sea, and he does.
:roflmao: (That is 8:12 actually). The angels are asked to "strike" them above the neck. You are on very flimsy ground. You translate it to set forth and then claim that set forth means "hit". Actually, the word is "strike" and is translated correctly as such.
Mesmorial wrote:
4:128 says nothing about dowry. Another "fraud" interpretation, mess.
The previous verse is talking about exactly that, and in fact 4:128 mentions “shuha” (greed). The next verse talks about such problems with polygamy, although 4:128-129 is general but inclusive of dowry.
Mess, I am a purist. Let us stick to what the quran actually says, not what you wish it said.
No, the word is used for “set forth” so many times. This is because it means “set forth”.

http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp? ... 4&verse=34" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The word by word translation on this site - wa-iḍ'ribūhunna = and [finally] strike them.
In arabic dictionary إضرب is translated as beat.
Incidentally, the word is used for strike many times in the quran

Post Reply