Does the Quran promote peaceful values? (I claim it does not.)

[Smart_Guy]

Hi guys, a Muslim from Saudi Arabia here

And I'm non Wahhabi by the way

Okay, here is my contributions that the Qur'an does promote peace (translations only):

1- Chapter 60, verse 8:
God does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes - from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, God loves those who act justly. This covers all people no matter what their beliefs are.

2- Chapter 29, verse 46:
And do not argue with the People of the Scripture (people of the book, the Christians and Jews) except with the best of manners, except for those who commit injustice among them (something universal that applies also to Muslims), and say, "We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you. And our God and your God is one; and we all submit to Him. This is about peace specifically with Christians and Jews.

3- Chapter 17, verses 23&24 in peace with parents:
And your Lord has decreed that you not worship except Him, and to treat your parents with kindness. Whether one or both of them reach old age [while] with you, say not to them "uff" (or similar, a nagging sound) and do not repel them but speak to them kindly. And lower to them the wing of humility out of mercy and say, "My Lord, have mercy upon them as they brought me up [when I was] little.

4- Chapter 16, verse 90:
God orders justice and good conduct and giving to relatives and forbids immorality and bad conduct and oppression. He admonishes you that perhaps you will be reminded.

I'm not really that religious to give a long list about it, and the above was the result of a simple Google search!

Bless you all

 

[icehorse]

Hi Smart_Guy,

I don't think there is any debate that one can cherry pick and find peaceful verses. The bigger question is whether someone coming in from a neutral starting point will tend to find more peaceful themes or more violent themes, and what sort of summary impressions will the neutral, first time reader take away?

 

[Smart_Guy]

Hi there.

I only gave a straight answer to the main question of this thread (subject name)!

That is the problem, we pick what we like and criticize what we don't like without realizing, being just humans that live for a just tens of years, the moral behind it for the greater good!

Sorry I didn't notice this was a debate section as I reached the thread from the "today's posts" selection. I don't like to debate others' beliefs and ideals so I will stop here!

Peace to all (no pun intended)

 

[Truthisnotyourenemy]

I know it's like flogging a dead horse, but I'll respond anyway!

It does, i gave you the reason.
I even show you that they didn't fight them and came back in their land.

This is the reason why verse 9.29 was revealed according to Mohammed companions, you keep ignoring it:

This Ayah means, `this will be your compensation for the closed markets that you feared would result.' Therefore, Allah compensated them for the losses they incurred because they severed ties with idolators, by the Jizyah they earned from the People of the Book.'' Similar statements were reported from Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid, `Ikrimah, Sa`id bin Jubayr, Qatadah and Ad-Dahhak and others. Allah said,

﴿إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلِيمٌ﴾

(Surely, Allah is All-Knowing), in what benefits you,

﴿حَكِيمٌ﴾

(All-Wise), in His orders and prohibitions, for He is All-Perfect in His actions and statements, All-Just in His creations and decisions, Blessed and Hallowed be He. This is why Allah compensated Muslims for their losses by the amount of Jizyah that they took from the people of Dhimmah.

It was revealed to compensate the losses they would suffer from the pagans not visiting the Kabaa. Which is what Allah said he would do in verse 9.28. That is the context, verse 9.29 was revealed in. Muslims feared poverty as explained in verse 9.28.

They didn't fight because because the enemy didn't show up and the muslim army were weak after waiting as Ibn Kathir explains:

The Messenger of Allah marched, heading towards Ash-Sham to fight the Romans until he reached Tabuk, where he set camp for about twenty days next to its water resources. He then prayed to Allah for a decision and went back to Al-Madinah because it was a hard year and the people were weak, as we will mention, Allah willing.

Quran Tafsir Ibn Kathir - The Order to fight People of the Scriptures until They give the Jizyah

There were many jewish and christians tribes that had no desire or capability to attack the muslims, yet they all had to pay jizya to pay the muslims, some who they encountered on the trip to Tabouk.
Some people joined Islam as they didn't want to fight or pay the jizya, they became muslims.

The verse then 9.29 it's the same : God gave permission to fight the people of the Book because they attacked the muslims emissaries first. Not because they were not muslims.

Sorry wishful thinking!!

The Koran says fight those who believe not in Allah.


it doesn't say fight specific non believers who attack you.


Verse 9.30/31 also goes into details about why they don't follow the right religion i.e. their beliefs!


009.030
YUSUFALI: The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!

009.031
YUSUFALI: They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of Allah, and (they take as their Lord) Christ the son of Mary; yet they were commanded to worship but One Allah: there is no god but He. Praise and glory to Him: (Far is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him).



The hadtith says muslims needed compensation for the pagans not being around so fighting them and making them pay jizya was the solution.
This is what the Koran and hadiths say.
Verse 9.29 does not say fight jews and christians who attack you.
It says as you well know fight those who believe not in Allah.
Yet you bizarrely claim the koran is not talking about beliefs! :areyoucra

Several taxes ? They just pay the Jiziya while muslims also pays taxes : Zaket el mal and Zakat el fitr.
Plus muslims should fight if there's a war, not the non-muslims.

I said severe tax. As the Koran did not set the required amount needed to pay the jizya, the Islamic rulers were free to demand what they wanted.
History has shown some people had to pay as much as 50%. The Koran does not state how much jizya should so it's donwn to the discretion of the the muslim leader.

Non muslims have to pay the jizya according to the Koran in humiliation as explained in verse 9.29. Also explained by Ibn Kathir:

Paying Jizyah is a Sign of Kufr and Disgrace
Allah said,

﴿حَتَّى يُعْطُواْ الْجِزْيَةَ﴾

(until they pay the Jizyah), if they do not choose to embrace Islam,

﴿عَن يَدٍ﴾

(with willing submission), in defeat and subservience,

﴿وَهُمْ صَـغِرُونَ﴾

(and feel themselves subdued.), disgraced, humiliated and belittled. Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of Dhimmah or elevate them above Muslims, for they are miserable, disgraced and humiliated.

So you can't comapare paying such high this taxes in humiliation with zakat (2.5%).

This is a specific verse revealed in a specific time.
Even if you don't want to accept it and prefer to forget that it was muslims here who were attacked each time.
I gave you the link of Ibn Kathir who said it was against the Romans and what the Battle was and the reason of the Battle. I gave you everything about this subject.

Ibn Kathir doesn't say verse 9.29 just for the Romans. That's your interpretation and wishful thinking. Otherwise muslims would not have applied this verse to anyone but the Romans and this is not the case.

This is what he said regarding 9.29:

This is why Allah compensated Muslims for their losses by the amount of Jizyah that they took from the people of Dhimmah.

As explained by Ibn Kathir and the hadith verse 9.29 was commanded so muslims would be compensated for and would generate an income.

As mentioned earlier I accept this verse 9.29 may have been revealed around the time they were planning to face the Romans, but this verse is clearly a verse that is applicable in general. After all the Romans were a Christian empire yet the jews were also commanded to be fought against.

It will not be beneficial for them in the Hereafter, we all know that as it's explained many time in the Quran. So yes, and ?

If you ask christians, some of them will say "if you don't accept Jesus as the savior you will go to Hell"
That's the same principle, if you don't accept a prophet of God and his Revelation, then you'll probably go in Hell. We never denied it.

Ibn Kathir's comments are in the context of verse 9.29 and why they should be fought against. Again wishful thinking on your behalf.
Here are the comments again regarding the context of verse 9.29 and why they should be fought:

The Order to fight People of the Scriptures until They give the Jizyah

Allah said,

﴿قَـتِلُواْ الَّذِينَ لاَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَلاَ بِالْيَوْمِ الاٌّخِرِ وَلاَ يُحَرِّمُونَ مَا حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ وَلاَ يَدِينُونَ دِينَ الْحَقِّ مِنَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُواْ الْكِتَـبَ حَتَّى يُعْطُواْ الْجِزْيَةَ عَن يَدٍ وَهُمْ صَـغِرُونَ ﴾

(Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the People of the Scripture, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.) Therefore, when People of the Scriptures disbelieved in Muhammad , they had no beneficial faith in any Messenger or what the Messengers brought. Rather, they followed their religions because this conformed with their ideas, lusts and the ways of their forefathers, not because they are Allah's Law and religion. Had they been true believers in their religions, that faith would have directed them to believe in Muhammad , because all Prophets gave the good news of Muhammad's advent and commanded them to obey and follow him. Yet when he was sent, they disbelieved in him, even though he is the mightiest of all Messengers.

So his comments above are regarding jews and christians are in relation to verse 9.29 which is headlined:

The Order to fight People of the Scriptures until They give the Jizyah


Therefore his comments have nothing to do with the hereafter. It's a justification for why they can be fought despite being people of the book.

The second point is according to you (not Ibn Kathir) it's why muslims fighted them. Not true for that part, this is your own conclusion.

Ibn Kathir says:

Allah compensated Muslims for their losses by the amount of Jizyah that they took from the people of Dhimmah.

So he agrees jizya was compensation for muslims and they were to achieve this by fighting jews and christians. So that's why verse 9.29 was revealed after verse 9.28 which says Allah will not let you fall into poverty.

Because God gave permission to muslims to defend themselfs, you say this is a general verse who prove that muslims should fight the non-muslims and oblige them to take income from them.

Don't you know that arabs were tribes ? The Arabic Peninsula wasn't a State like the Persian or Bizantine Empire.
You think those people living under them didn't pay any taxes ?
Everyone have to pay taxes and participate to the community.

The Koran says make them pay jizya in disgrace and humiliation. Everybody doesn't pay tax in disgrace or humiliation and the rate was much higher than zakat in most cases.


So to summarise what the Koran says:
1. Don't let pagans visit the Kabaa v9.28
2. Don't fear poverty Allah will compensate you. v9.28
3. Collect Jizya by fighting jews and christians. v9.29
4. Because they don't believe in Allah. v9.29
5. They believe in false ideas v9.30/31

This is what the Koran says and the hadiths.
Ibn Kathir also agrees.

 

[icehorse]

wow!!

 

[Debater Slayer]

It's pointless debating when all you reply with is wishful thinking.

I have been following this thread on and off since it was created, and from what I have seen here, the person at whom your above post is directed has been answering questions from her perspective in a respectful and detailed manner. I can understand if you disagree with her interpretation of the religious texts, but it seems to me that you want(ed) specific answers to satisfy your own opinions and just declared the debate and all efforts to answer the questions "pointless" because you haven't received the kind of answers you wanted—the kind of answers that would support the conclusions you had apparently reached even before engaging in this debate.

What answers would you view as not being "wishful thinking" compared to the ones you have gotten so far? Do you have any criteria to determine which interpretations constitute "wishful thinking," or is agreement with your preconceived notions the only standard you rely on to evaluate answers to your questions?

 

[Pastek]

Thanks Debater Slayer.

They didn't fight because because the enemy didn't show up and the muslim army were weak after waiting as Ibn Kathir explains:

The Messenger of Allah marched, heading towards Ash-Sham to fight the Romans until he reached Tabuk, where he set camp for about twenty days next to its water resources. He then prayed to Allah for a decision and went back to Al-Madinah because it was a hard year and the people were weak, as we will mention, Allah
willing.

Yes, so ? Thank you very much, but it was in the Wikipedia link that i also gave you (you probably didn't read it i guess).

As i also said, the majority of the non-muslim arab tribes converted to Islam so : no battle with the Romans : no jiziya.

The hadtith says muslims needed compensation for the pagans not being around so fighting them and making them pay jizya was the solution.

The didn't fight them only because of the money, i talked about this in a previous post (140) and explained how were the ties at that time between muslims and people of the Book (you don't understand this hadith even when i would explain it 100 times) :

It was said concerning them in the previous verses when they were no more allies :

4.51 Have you not seen those who were given a portion of the Scripture, who believe in superstition and false objects of worship and say about the disbelievers, "These are better guided than the believers* as to the way"?

* Believers :the muslims

Also confirmed in Sourate 5 :

5.51 O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are [in fact] allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you - then indeed, he is [one] of them. Indeed, Allah guides not the wrongdoing people.

They were laughting at muslims like the pagans, so they were no more allies :

5.57 O you who have believed, take not those who have taken your religion in ridicule and amusement among the ones who were given the Scripture before you nor the disbelievers as allies. And fear Allah , if you should [truly] be believers.

5.58 And when you call to prayer, they take it in ridicule and amusement. That is because they are a people who do not use reason.
When someone loose in a war, he have to accept the law of the winner.

So this is a subject we already talked about. The jews and christians were not allies with the muslims, some of them even helped the pagans against muslims.
So yes, God said to muslims they'll have a compensation. The reason was not because they weren't muslims but the consequence of their acts which will benefits to muslims with the Jiziya.

History has shown some people had to pay as much as 50% , just as Mohammed demanded from certain jews:

Volume 3, Book 39, Number 521:
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar:
The Prophet concluded a contract with the people of Khaibar to utilize the land on the condition that half the products of fruits or vegetation would be their share.

Non muslims have to pay the jizya according to the Koran in humiliation as explained in verse 9.29. Also explained by Ibn Kathir:
Paying Jizyah is a Sign of Kufr and Disgrace Allah said,(until they pay the Jizyah), if they do not choose to embrace Islam,(with willing submission), in defeat and subservience,(and feel themselves subdued.), disgraced, humiliated and belittled. Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of Dhimmah or elevate them above Muslims, for they are miserable, disgraced and humiliated.

So you can't comapare paying such high this taxes in humiliation with zakat (2.5%).

The exemple of the jews of Khaybtar is a specific one. They were from the tribe called Banu Nadir who betrayed the muslims, so they were expelled and went to the city of Khaybar.
But after they also join the Quraish against the muslims, so muslims fought them.
Anyway, muslims made a deal with them, that's why they had to pay 50%.
This was a specific deal with them because of their betrayal.

Narrated Ibn 'Umar: Allah's Apostle gave the land of khaibar to the Jew's on the condition that they work on it and cultivate it, and be given half of its yield.

So, nothing to do with the Jiziya.

Search the word khaibar in the Hadith (Hadis) Books (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Sunan Abu-Dawud, and Malik's Muwatta)

So to summarise what the Koran says:
1. Don't let pagans visit the Kabaa

Yes.

2. Don't fear poverty Allah will compensate you.

Yes

3. Collect Jizya by fighting jews and christians.

Yes and no

4. Because they don't believe in Allah.

No.They do believe in Him. I really don't understand why you keep saying that.
Muslims can ONLY marry people of the Book BECAUSE they believe in God and in their previous Scriptures which are Revelations from God.

22.40 [They are] those who have been evicted from their homes without right - only because they say, "Our Lord is Allah ." And were it not that Allah checks the people, some by means of others, there would have been demolished monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques in which the name of Allah is much mentioned. And Allah will surely support those who support Him. Indeed, Allah is Powerful and Exalted in Might.

It's pointless debating when all you reply with is wishful thinking.

I used the Quran and the hadiths of Ibn Kathir like you, but i think you have a problem of comprehension from both the Quran and the hadiths.

Anyway believe what you want, you have all the links needed and of course i won't force you to believe like i believe.
So i will stop here as we will just be repeating ourselfs and it's of no use for the thread. People can make their own researchs and have their own interpretations concerning this issue.

 

[Truthisnotyourenemy]

Yes, so ? Thank you very much, but it was in the Wikipedia link that i also gave you (you probably didn't read it i guess).


As i also said, the majority of the non-muslim arab tribes converted to Islam so : no battle with the Romans : no jiziya.

Muslims wanted war the 'enemies' didn't.
Some tribes converted to islam out of fear and couldn't pay the jizya other tribes payed the jizya, read Ibn Ishaq.

The didn't fight them only because of the money, i talked about this in a previous post (140) and explained how were the ties at that time between muslims and people of the Book (you don't understand this hadith even when i would explain it 100 times) :

This verse was revealed when muslims were in control but they feared poverty, so Allah revealed this verse to compensate.
You keep ignoring what the hadith is actually saying.

So this is a subject we already talked about. The jews and christians were not allies with the muslims, some of them even helped the pagans against muslims.
So yes, God said to muslims they'll have a compensation. The reason was not because they weren't muslims but the consequence of their acts which will benefits to muslims with the Jiziya.

Muslims were calling the shots, any acts unbelievers had committed were in the past.
But muslims wanted financial compensation so Allah said fight disbelievers and get it.

No.They do believe in Him. I really don't understand why you keep saying that.

I keep saying that because that's what the Koran says:


009.029
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Jews and christians are bound for hell, because they don't believe in Allah.

Here is what Mohammed said:

Abu Musa' reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: When it will be the Day of Resurrection Allah would deliver to every Muslim a Jew or a Christian and say: That is your rescue from Hell-Fire.
Sahih Muslim 37:6665

Muslims will be rescued from hell as they will replaced by jews and christians. Allah and Mohammed hated the people of the book for not accepting Islam.

Muslims can ONLY marry people of the Book BECAUSE they believe in God and in their previous Scriptures which are Revelations from God.

Only muslim men can marry the women and the children must be raised muslim. So in effect it would be a muslim household.
So there's every chance she would become a muslim anyway. Or accept the probability she won't be seeing her family in the next life.
In fact in can be argued that this command from Allah was also abrogated indirectly, as Allah wasn't cursing the jews and christians when this marriage verse was instructed.
They were not bound for hell at this stage, as Mohammed was in sweet talk mode.
Why would a muslim man marry a women bound for hell? Unless of course she changes her religion.

There is actually a Bukhari hadith which recommends against marrying people of the book:

Narrated Nafi’:
Whenever Ibn ‘Umar was asked about marrying a Christian lady or a Jewess, he would say: "Allah has made it unlawful for the believers to marry ladies who ascribe partners in worship to Allah, and I do not know of a greater thing, as regards to ascribing partners in worship, etc. to Allah, than that a lady should say that Jesus is her Lord although he is just one of Allah's slaves." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 63, Number 209)

But then Mohammed made it clear the majority of people are in hell are women anyway, so maybe it wasn't a big deal if they ended up there anyway:

Sahih Bukhari 1:2:28

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: The Prophet said: "I was shown the Hell-fire and that the majority of its dwellers were women who were ungrateful." It was asked, "Do they disbelieve in Allah?" (or are they ungrateful to Allah?) He replied, "They are ungrateful to their husbands and are ungrateful for the favors and the good (charitable deeds) done to them.

22.40 [They are] those who have been evicted from their homes without right - only because they say, "Our Lord is Allah ." And were it not that Allah checks the people, some by means of others, there would have been demolished monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques in which the name of Allah is much mentioned. And Allah will surely support those who support Him. Indeed, Allah is Powerful and Exalted in Might.

'Nice' verses towards jews and christians were abrogated towards the end.
Sweet talking got Mohammed nowhere, now he was in control there was no reason to play Mr nice guy.
Remember verse 9.29 fight the unbelievers even if they are the people of the book.
As I mentioned previously verse 9.30/31 gives an explanation of why they are cursed by Allah. Because they have false beliefs!

I used the Quran and the hadiths of Ibn Kathir like you, but i think you have a problem of comprehension from both the Quran and the hadiths.

Lol, the Koran says fight those who disbelieve in Allah yet you say fighting is not for disbelief. The hadith says verse 9.29 was revealed to provide financial compensation, you claim it wasn't for the money! :cover:

Anyway believe what you want, you have all the links needed and of course i won't force you to believe like i believe.
So i will stop here as we will just be repeating ourselfs and it's of no use for the thread. People can make their own researchs and have their own interpretations concerning this issue.

Fair enough.

 

[icehorse]

I though about this a bit before responding.

I do not believe the Quran makes clear that women are less than men. In fact, I think it makes clear that Allah considers women equal to men. Of course, I also have hadith to back that up. So perhaps it is possible that just reading the Quran gives a different impression. But I don't remember ever feeling like I was treated as less when I first read the Quran.

I would love to see the passages that support your claim. It's possible that I might see it from your point of view if I look at the isolated verses.

Hi cocolia42,

Well the thread started out just looking at the Quran, but I suppose we could add the Hadith into the discussion as well.

 

[icehorse]

OK. Let me know what your thoughts are.


A few thoughts come to mind...

1- If you like pie and I like cake, I would not find it unfair or unequal that you get pie and I get cake.
GENERALLY SPEAKING, men are more inclined to multiple women, whereas women are more inclined to one man.

2 - Everyone will have whatever pleases them in Paradise. So, as a woman, I am not concerned with how many men I will have in Paradise. There are so many better things I can think of!

Indeed, those who have said, "Our Lord is Allah " and then remained on a right course - the angels will descend upon them, [saying], "Do not fear and do not grieve but receive good tidings of Paradise, which you were promised.
We were your allies in the worldly life and in the Hereafter. And you will have therein whatever your souls desire, and you will have therein whatever you request
As accommodation from a [Lord who is] Forgiving and Merciful." (41:30-32)
​

3 - I will have to read some verses. I'm honestly not sure it mentions in the Quran that each man will have many wives. One passage that comes to mind is:

Indeed, for the righteous is attainment -
Gardens and grapevines
And full-breasted [companions] of equal age
And a full cup. (78:30-34)
​

Here, the word translated as righteous (muttaqeena) is plural. So I don't take that to mean each man gets many women. I'll have to look for other verses and see what they say.



Men are financially responsible for women. A father is financially responsible for his daughters. A husband is financially responsible for his wife. A son is financially responsible for his mother.

So it makes sense that a son have a greater inheritance than a daughter. The son is going to be providing for his wife, children, and widowed mother. The daughter is going to be provided for by her husband (or brother if she is not married). A woman is only financially responsible for herself if she has no one else. For example, if her parents died, she has no brothers, she has no children, and her husband dies. Then the community is obligated to help her.

How would it be fair to say that a man has to pay for a woman, but the woman should get the same amount of money as the man?

As for divorce, off the top of my head I am not aware of any inequality.

Hi cocolia42,

Well it seems that much of your response here has to do your personal preferences. It sounds like you are comfortable with the kind of society that you describe above. But imagine another woman who is not happy with that society - a woman who wants to be independent, how would these verses work for her?

Also, doesn't the Quran say that if a wife does not obey her husband, he can beat her?

 

[TashaN]

Hi cocolia42,

Well it seems that much of your response here has to do your personal preferences. It sounds like you are comfortable with the kind of society that you describe above. But imagine another woman who is not happy with that society - a woman who wants to be independent, how would these verses work for her?

Also, doesn't the Quran say that if a wife does not obey her husband, he can beat her?

It's the contrary, it was meant to restrict wife beating in a wise way. Now secular societies are not free from domestic violence and especially violence against wives. A lot of women live in horror despite the fact it is a crime to do so according to the law.

At that period of time before Islam prevail, it was quiet common to bury women alive, let alone beating them. That's why the Quran tackled this issue in a very wise manner which put into consideration the norms of that time. The Quran says that man can beat his wife as a last resort, so when that verse was revealed Prophet Mohamed explained to people that they can do so under very strict conditions, men are not to hit their wives' faces,not to beat their wives in such a way as would leave marks on their body, and not to beat their wives as to cause pain. I don't know how one can beat without causing pain!!! it gave the illusion of power to furious men of the desert while preventing them from actually harming their wives.

The same methodology was used when prohibiting the wine. Allah said first:

O you who have believed, do not approach prayer while you are intoxicated until you know what you are saying ... (Quran 4:43)

then he stopped there. People started discussing amongst themselves and thinking why would God ask them to pray while being sober. Alcohol was something normal at that time. So they went to Prophet Mohamed and asked and the answer came ...

They ask you about wine and gambling. Say, "In them is great sin and [yet, some] benefit for people. But their sin is greater than their benefit." (Quran 2:219)

Then time pass by and finally ...

O you who have believed, indeed, intoxicants, gambling, [sacrificing on] stone alters [to other than Allah ], and divining arrows are but defilement from the work of Satan, so avoid it that you may be successful.

There you go, alcohol is finally prohibited officially when faith of Muslims became strong. If Allah has bombarded those people with do and don't from the beginning they would have done it out of fear and some wouldn't have done it, and even if they did they might secretly drink it. But when he allowed them to think and increase their faith, gradually they were able to give it up gladly.

We also can find a beautiful example about slavery. The entire world was sinking into slavery and humanity wasn't ready yet for it, so Allah made it in such a way that eventually all will be free, because in Islam when people want to repent from some sins, their only choice to repent is to free a slave, and only if they don't have a slave then they can repent in other ways like fasting or feeding the poor.

And one more last example is when Prophet Mohamed said to one of his wives that if people weren't still new to Islam, he would have made a second door in the Ka'aba but for fearing their disapproval, and since it was not such a significant thing in the religion, so he left it as a it is with a single door.

There are a lot of examples and i mentioned just few of them.

Islam is a very flexible religion and was meant to make people's life better, not the other way around.

 

[cocolia42]

Hi cocolia42,

Well it seems that much of your response here has to do your personal preferences. It sounds like you are comfortable with the kind of society that you describe above.

It's not my personal preference. It's what Allah says. And yes, I am comfortable in a society that follows Allah's will.

But imagine another woman who is not happy with that society - a woman who wants to be independent, how would these verses work for her?

An independent woman can get a job and pay her own way. She can remain single if she wants, or she can look for a husband who holds the same values.

Why would an independent woman cry over the size of her inheritance?

Also, doesn't the Quran say that if a wife does not obey her husband, he can beat her?

See TashaN's answer.

 

[icehorse]

On the topic of wife beating, of course it exists all over the world. The difference is that in a secular society IT IS NOT SANCTIONED. So, yes it occurs, but it is illegal.

That's very different than a Sharia society in which the practice is legal.

Why would an independent woman cry over the size of her inheritance?

It's about fairness. It's about equality.

==

For both TashaN and cocolia42 - Whenever you say that a part of the Quran was written to make sense for the time in history, that seems to be in conflict with the idea that the Quran is supposed to be the perfect, final, eternal word of God. When you claim a verse fit the times, that's the opposite of being eternal, right?

 

[TashaN]

On the topic of wife beating, of course it exists all over the world. The difference is that in a secular society IT IS NOT SANCTIONED. So, yes it occurs, but it is illegal.

That's very different than a Sharia society in which the practice is legal.

It's about fairness. It's about equality.

You exploit women and you call it fairness?

Discrimination in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Male

Gender Inequality in the Labor Market: Don't Call It a Wage Gap | Katie Bardaro

That's in a secular country like the US, and on the other hand, women under Islamic law don't have to pay anything at all. A woman can get a job and keep her salary for herself, ALL OF IT, and her husband is obliged by the LAW to provide for her.

So what do you call this?

It seems you weren't reading what cocolia said to you earlier. I don't know why you ignored it. I hope you will comment this time, otherwise i'll have to call you bias because you only attribute bad things to Islam and ignore any positive things mentioned about Islam.


For both TashaN and cocolia42 - Whenever you say that a part of the Quran was written to make sense for the time in history, that seems to be in conflict with the idea that the Quran is supposed to be the perfect, final, eternal word of God. When you claim a verse fit the times, that's the opposite of being eternal, right?[/QUOTE]

You don't get it, do you?

With the conditions i mentioned a man can't do a thing to a woman or will be punished by law. The most aggressive thing he can do is to use something small and unharmful like a toothbrush or a pen, etc, which is quite ridiculous if you asked me, because there is no way for a man to beat his wife and get away with it based in Islamic LAW.

 

[Scimitar]

The idea that to beat your wife in Islam is a double edged sword. Most non Muslims do not understand this concept of how degrading it is to the man to beat his wife.

Here I will attempt to explain this from a true islamic POV.

The context of the verse in the exegetes provide the ruling for the beating. The man must use a miswak/sewak - which is a twig with brush ends used as a tooth brush - this does not hurt or harm anyone.

This punishment is designed to let the man understand that he has no right to actually hurt his wife, but to admonish her thru the ritual of beating with a tooth brush.

Now, I've come across a case where a husband has beaten his wife with a toothbrush and then told me the story.

He told me that his wife just laughed and told him that he was embarrassing himself. and in that, he found a lesson to be learnt, that this verse in the Quran is actually a double edged sword, which inflicts a metal and emotional pain on the husband, yet no pain of any sort on the wife - it is designed to let him feel he has achieved his goal of admonishing his wife, whilst at the same causing her no harm... if done too often, the wife will lose all respect for the husband and that is not a good thing.

In response to the verse regarding wife beating with a tooth brush - specifically a sewak/miswak, we have the following verse in the Quran:

“And among His Signs is this that He created for you wives (spouses) from among yourselves, that you may find repose in them, and He has put between you affection and mercy. Verily, in that are indeed signs for people who reflect.”
(Aayah No. 21, Surah Ar-Rūm, Chapter No. 30, Holy Qur’an).

So, reflect.

 

[icehorse]

I suspect we won't be able to see eye to eye on this one...

Of course, every society has problems to be solved. You can list 1000 problems with countries in the West, and I'd probably agree with most of your list.

The key difference is that in a secular society, we can make changes. We can amend our constitutions, we can change our laws.

The reason I started this thread in the first place is because Islam places an incredible burden on itself when it declares Sharia to be perfect and eternal.

So you talk about the toothbrush perspective. Well that's great for the few folks who have commented on this thread. But as you well know, there are hundreds of thousands of Imams and Muslim men who BELIEVE that Islam sanctions far more violence than a toothbrush.

So again, the horrible reality of wife beating occurs in every society. But in Islam it is eternally sanctioned. That's a huge difference.

 

[TashaN]

I suspect we won't be able to see eye to eye on this one...

Of course, every society has problems to be solved. You can list 1000 problems with countries in the West, and I'd probably agree with most of your list.

The key difference is that in a secular society, we can make changes. We can amend our constitutions, we can change our laws.

The reason I started this thread in the first place is because Islam places an incredible burden on itself when it declares Sharia to be perfect and eternal.

That's why i said you weren't listening to what we have been saying to you and you just proved me right all over again. Only the Quran is perfect and eternal and Islamic law can always change to fit people's needs.

So you talk about the toothbrush perspective. Well that's great for the few folks who have commented on this thread. But as you well know, there are hundreds of thousands of Imams and Muslim men who BELIEVE that Islam sanctions far more violence than a toothbrush.

The court can sort it out. Those who incite wrong teachings and hatred can be sued in court. Imam is not a judge, he is just a preacher.

So again, the horrible reality of wife beating occurs in every society. But in Islam it is eternally sanctioned. That's a huge difference.

That's a misrepresentation for what we said here, and you know it.

 

[icehorse]

Hi TashaN,

I'm not deliberately ignoring you. I think we just haven't quite found a way to communicate this point. Let me try this from a different angle...

Is it fair to say that - in practice in the world today - Muslims interpret the Quran in different ways? It seems we've both agreed to that?

So when we discuss a verse like 4:34 you have your interpretation. But we can see that in the world, many, many other Muslims have a different interpretation. In fact, the Quranic translation that cocolia42 prefers doesn't even include the word "lightly". It just says:

"But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them."

This verse seems very clear to me. If a person declares himself to be a Muslim, isn't he saying that he believes the Quran to be the perfect word of God? Wouldn't this verse be perfect justification for a man to beat his wife?

And finally, isn't it the case that many, many Muslims DO believe that this verse is very clear, and do feel that wife beating is sanctioned? TashaN, I know that you personally don't interpret things this way. But aren't there many Muslims who would disagree with you?

And this is the problem. In a secular society, laws can change. In Islam, the Quran is eternal, you're stuck with it.

 

[TashaN]

Hi TashaN,

I'm not deliberately ignoring you. I think we just haven't quite found a way to communicate this point. Let me try this from a different angle...

Is it fair to say that - in practice in the world today - Muslims interpret the Quran in different ways? It seems we've both agreed to that?

So when we discuss a verse like 4:34 you have your interpretation. But we can see that in the world, many, many other Muslims have a different interpretation. In fact, the Quranic translation that cocolia42 prefers doesn't even include the word "lightly". It just says:

This verse seems very clear to me. If a person declares himself to be a Muslim, isn't he saying that he believes the Quran to be the perfect word of God? Wouldn't this verse be perfect justification for a man to beat his wife?

And finally, isn't it the case that many, many Muslims DO believe that this verse is very clear, and do feel that wife beating is sanctioned? TashaN, I know that you personally don't interpret things this way. But aren't there many Muslims who would disagree with you?

And this is the problem. In a secular society, laws can change. In Islam, the Quran is eternal, you're stuck with it.

Alright then. Go a head and beat your wife then go to court and you will see which opinion will matter, some guys discussing on the internet or what the court says. You want to speak in legal matters so there you go, i'll drop all the theological discussion and discuss with you only in term of the law. islamic laws criminalize domestic violence and if a maniac thought it was ok to beat the crap out of his wife, his jail time and fine imposed on him will teach him a lesson, that's if he was spared from being lashed and humiliated in public.

 

[icehorse]

Alright then. Go a head and beat your wife then go to court and you will see which opinion will matter, some guys discussing on the internet or what the court says. You want to speak in legal matters so there you go, i'll drop all the theological discussion and discuss with you only in term of the law. islamic laws criminalize domestic violence and if a maniac thought it was ok to beat the crap out of his wife, his jail time and fine imposed on him will teach him a lesson, that's if he was spared from being lashed and humiliated in public.

TashaN, I don't know why in the world, you'd say that. I don't know where you live, but I'm inferring that where you live, wife beating would be a criminal offense, that's the same where I live. So, hooray, you and I are fortunate to live in such places.

But there are many Islam-majority places in the world where wife beating is allowed - in the name of Islam. In those places, the Quran is on their side. Is there some part of what I just said that you disagree with?

==

Back to an earlier point - equality for women. Here's the entire verse from cocolia42's recommended translation:

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.

So just in terms of women's equality, isn't the beginning of this verse abundantly clear? What possible historical context could change the meaning of the first sentence?

If a person believes that the Quran is the perfect word of God, how can he read this verse and feel that women are equal to men?