Wife-beating Saudi man gets 30 lashes

70 views & no replies? I guess if I posted a link to an article about a Saudi Muslim man beating his wife (without the legal consequences), there would have been many more replies.

x

Also with the wife-beating again this could be justified through translational errors.
Here is a website that explains it:

No, it can't. Since you appealed to Ibn Kathir as tafseer in the same post, I assume you trust that he is a reliable scholar and authority on interpretation. Here's his explanation of the wife-beating instruction:



"Beat them, means, if advice and ignoring them in the bed do not produce the desired results, you are allowed to beat them a beating not severe. Muslim recorded that Jabir said that during the Farewell Hajj, the Prophet said; Fear Allah regarding women, for they are your assistants. You have the right on them that they do not allow any person whom you dislike to step on your mat. However, if they do that, you are allowed to beat them a beating not severe. They have a right on you that you provide them with their provision and clothes, in a reasonable manner."

http://archive.org/stream/ibnkathir/tkather04#page/n25/mode/1up

Contrary to your link's claims, the interpretation is not ambiguous, the word interpreted is the primary meaning of ضرب (beat) not metaphorical (he does not say "cite" or "indicate"), both Classical and Modern Arabic's primary definition of ضرب is to hit/beat (do these people even know Arabic!?), and it does not go against the ahadith since Ibn Kathir based his interpretation on one such hadith described as part of his interpretation where Muhammad instructed a non-sever beating of a wife that crosses you.

but even you are allowed you must do it with the right means and not go overboard. Maybe if the wife is some kind of real bad person who does bad things will need a slap, which is not to hard, to make them understand you are serious.

All of this depended on the circumstances of the time. Can you give me the name of the man that was 'tortured', I will ask my Imam who is much more knowledgeable than.

I ignored it because I did not ask you the question. I very clearly asked another user what her sources were. And then you came barging in thinking it was a "gotcha" moment, when it wasn't. I knew she was naive. I knew what her answer was going to be, and her answer was ridiculous. Nowhere did I ask for, or want, your input. Nowhere did I ever deny that sources such as what you posted existed. My point went much further: that Islam is a fragmented and pathetic religion because its texts are vague and ambiguous nonsense.

There is nothing in Islamic literature about using miswak. The instruction in the Quran is clear about beating your wives (or hit them) if they are not obedient. This whole idea of beating being carried out by something like a miswak is a new concept from Muslims too embarrassed to present a better case for the verse in the Quran.

Lol the very fact that you think Muslims are too ''embarrassed'' of Islam is laughable. If Muslims wanted to please the non-Muslims the Quran/Hadiths would have been rewritten a long time ago and many verses would have been omitted/edited. Of course there are some so-called Muslims that are too ''embarrassed' (idiots like Taj Hargey), but they are recognised as deviants within the Muslim community.

I will ask my Imam about this issue of this execution, as I have limited knowledge upon this and therefore cannot answer this.

Lol the very fact that you think Muslims are too ''embarrassed'' of Islam is laughable. If Muslims wanted to please the non-Muslims the Quran/Hadiths would have been rewritten a long time ago and many verses would have been omitted/edited

You're doing it in this thread; you're making the claim that the beatng instruction has something to do with the miswak and, when questioned on it, you don't even provide a source let alone a reply.

That's called being too embarrassed to recognise or admit the clear interpretation of literally beating a woman for disobedience.

There are indeed muslims too embarrassed of hadith and quran today and if they could have, they would have changed the texts.

But it is not possible to do so now, with such a great record and collection held worldwide. What they can do is re interpret the words to give them new meanings. Something like reinterpreting "darab" to mean sexual intercourse.

It wont work.

Yes I did make that claim. The 'miswak' part was an interpretation by Ibn Abbas, if you are suggesting he tried to sugar-coat Islam then maybe you need to do your research on him.

Ata' said: "I asked Ibn `Abbas: 'What is the hitting that is ghayr al-mubarrih?' He replied: '[With] the siwak and the like'.

Maybe you should start consulting more... objective sources than your local Imam (who is bound to tell you the more generous-to-Islam account of things). If you have little knowledge about an area, perhaps read material on both sides of the fence. It seems like all you've ever heard are the pro- arguments and never encountered the opposition (based on your posts in this thread).

You're doing it in this thread; you're making the claim that the beatng instruction has something to do with the miswak and, when questioned on it, you don't even provide a source let alone a reply.

That's called being too embarrassed to recognise or admit the clear interpretation of literally beating a woman for disobedience.

It's interesting how you've questioned the idea that "beating instruction has something to do with the miswak" and went even further by challenging them to "provide a source". Yet when a source is provided, instead of conceding the point, you give backtalk. Typical of a person who lacks information, you end up being embarrassed like this if you don't know what you're talking about.