Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by myzt1kal)
    There was no source provided. I had to provide the source for them and it did not mention the miswak. Ibn Kathir backed his interpretation with a hadith. I'm interested in the source of the miswak claim, whether it's got scriptural backing or just an opinion.

    Why are you and your fellow apologist not responding to Ibn Kathir's tafseer?
    The statement from Ibn Abbas is mentioned in Tabari's tafseer, there is the source for you. You cannot compare Ibn Abbas with Ibn Katheer with utmost respect to them both. One of them sat and learned directly from the Prophet and the other didn't. Those are the facts, I don't want backchat. Just an admission that you were wrong and that you apologise for not knowing your facts before coming here.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't even understand the point you're trying to make with Ibn Kathir. I know Ibn Kathir. What's your point? Are you saying he disagrees with Ibn Abbas?

    I'm not and never will be, an apologist.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by noisy06)
    The statement from Ibn Abbas is mentioned in Tabari's tafseer, there is the source for you.

    You cannot compare Ibn Abbas with Ibn Katheer with utmost respect to them both. One of them sat and learned directly from the Prophet and the other didn't. Those are the facts, I don't want backchat. Just an admission that you were wrong and that you apologise for not knowing your facts before coming here.
    Nonsense. "Tabari says Ata says Ibn Abbas says..." and still no scriptural backing (nor even the original Arabic sources as I have provided for all my quotes).

    Ibn Kathir quoted a hadith - "with utmost respect", you cannot compare Muhammad's words to any of them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not sure people understand what 30 lashes can do, its not just a belt or something that puny...

    its more like this...
    Name:  1417928905.jpg
Views: 24
Size:  59.3 KBName:  1417928905.jpg
Views: 24
Size:  59.3 KB

    with damages like this...
    Name:  lash[1].jpg
Views: 36
Size:  18.2 KB

    2 breaks the skin, 30 is gonna do a bit of damage.....

    Obviously the husband should've treated his wife with more respect, but 30 lashes is quite bad. It also depends on how you think of punishment, would you rather have a painful, scarring and potentially deadly (very rare) lashing? or go to prison with all it entails?:chaplin::chaplin:
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by noisy06)
    I don't even understand the point you're trying to make with Ibn Kathir. I know Ibn Kathir. What's your point? Are you saying he disagrees with Ibn Abbas?
    The official instruction of the Qur'an is "to beat" a disobedient wife. Muhammad's hadith only adds "beat her a beating not severe". No nonsense about miswak or translational errors from the utmost official sources.

    I'm not and never will be, an apologist.
    But you are.

    a·pol·o·gist *(-pl-jst)
    n.
    A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by myzt1kal)
    Nonsense. "Tabari says Ata says Ibn Abbas says..." and still no scriptural backing (nor even the original Arabic sources as I have provided for all my quotes).

    Ibn Kathir quoted a hadith - "with utmost respect", you cannot compare Muhammad's words to any of them.
    What? I've never seen so much BS in my life. What the hell do you mean "no scriptural backing". And what on earth are you talking about in your second paragraph? This is amazing. I sure as hell know now just how much about Islamic literature you really know.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by myzt1kal)
    The official instruction of the Qur'an is "to beat" a disobedient wife. Muhammad's hadith only adds "beat her a beating not severe". No nonsense about miswak or translational errors from the utmost official sources.


    But you are.

    a·pol·o·gist *(-pl-jst)
    n.
    A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution.
    Again, Ibn Abbas is one of the chief interpreters of the Qur'an amongst those who learned directly from the Prophet and the most authoratitive. So for you to continue giving me back talk is just spectacular.

    I'm not defending anything. I report the facts. But again, you're probably going to backchat.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by noisy06)
    What? I've never seen so much BS in my life. What the hell do you mean "no scriptural backing".
    Neither the Qur'an nor the hadith mention the use of the miswak as the wife-beaing instrument.

    And what on earth are you talking about in your second paragraph?
    Ibn Kathir's tafseer relied on Muhammad's words, hence he used the hadith to back his interpretation on the beating of a disobedient wife as instructed by his prophet.

    This is amazing. I sure as hell know now just how much about Islamic literature you really know.
    Funny as I'm the one providing all the sources.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by noisy06)
    Again, Ibn Abbas is one of the chief interpreters of the Qur'an amongst those who learned directly from the Prophet and the most authoratitive. So for you to continue giving me back talk is just spectacular.
    It's a shame he didn't say it himself in his own tafsir that I quoted. He just reiterated the beating instruction adding only that it not be "exaggerated". Can't blame hum though, he's only going by the words of Allah and his prophet.

    I'm not defending anything.
    Yes you are. You're defending your religious doctrines, in this case the instruction on how to beat a disobedient wife.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by myzt1kal)
    It's a shame he didn't say it himself in his own tafsir that I quoted. He just reiterated the beating instruction adding only that it not be "exaggerated". Can't blame hum though, he's only going by the words of Allah and his prophet.



    Yes you are. You're defending your religious doctrines, in this case the instruction on how to beat a disobedient wife.
    I gave you a source directly quoting him, and you're still back chatting? What you need to do is learn Islamic literature properly, like me. I'm here to teach you.

    Right, I'm an apologist because you say so (!) Don't act childishly so that you need to be appeased. Grow a pair.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GPODT)
    X
    There's really no point in engaging with him. His understanding of Islamic literature is poor and his credentials in the field are non-existent.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GPODT)
    http://spa.qibla.com/issue_view.asp?...ID=612&CATE=10

    ''The Prophet (pbuh) also expressed astonishment at the cruelty of certain men when he said: "Could any of you beat his wife as he would beat a slave, and then lie with her in the evening?" (Bukhari and Muslim).'
    There is so much wrong with this hadith you posted. If your intent was to present Islam or Muhammad in a better light,this hadith actually make them worse.

    To start, it would have been far better if Muhammad had told his followers NOT to beat their wives OR slaves in the first place rather than make a comparison. The best would have been if he told Muslims not to buy or enslave anyone in the first place. Is it too much to ask this of god when he chose to deliver his final message to mankind?

    Maybe it is and god thought it best to leave this to humans to figure out that slavery is not good, while concentrating on moral values that have a higher priority. Like how to slaughter animals to make them halal or instructing us all the way down to how we should use our right hand for eating and the left for wiping our arse with. That is probably what makes us better humans. Slavery??? Pffft who cares :whip:

    To be on topic, in the hadith Muhammad does not say not to beat your wives as badly as you might beat your slave which could be pretty bad. But in case you do beat her because she is being incredibly disobedient and naughty :unimpressed: it would be shocking for you to have sex with her in the same evening.

    That is the conclusion I draw from that hadith. Tell me what conclusion you get from it.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    '10 days of training on the art of treating women'

    Gentleman school? :hat:
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by noisy06)
    I gave you a source directly quoting him,
    False. It does not directly quote him whereas my source does (I provided his own tafsir).

    and you're still back chatting? What you need to do is learn Islamic literature properly, like me. I'm here to teach you.
    You can't even tell the difference between a direct and indirect source, let alone official scripture and opinion. What can you teach me, dodgy apologetics?

    Right, I'm an apologist because you say so (!) Don't act childishly so that you need to be appeased. Grow a pair.
    No, you're an apologist by definition as, again, you are defending your religion's doctrines.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by myzt1kal)
    False. It does not directly quote him whereas my source does (I provided his own tafsir).


    You can't even tell the difference between a direct and indirect source, let alone official scripture and opinion. What can you teach me, dodgy apologetics?


    No, you're an apologist by definition as, again, you are defending your religion's doctrines.
    Actually a clear source was provided. You will always be incorrect about this, that will never change. I'm not defending anything, as much as you want me to. This message will be repeated for as long as it takes to sink in.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by noisy06)
    Actually a clear source was provided.
    You said "a source directly quoting him" which is false.

    I'm not defending anything
    Of course you are - unless you're agreeing with the atheists in this thread, you're defending your religion's instruction on how to beat a woman.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by myzt1kal)
    You said "a source directly quoting him" which is false.


    Of course you are - unless you're agreeing with the atheists in this thread, you're defending your religion's instruction on how to beat a woman.
    Actually a clear source was provided. You will always be incorrect about this, that will never change. I'm not defending anything, as much as you want me to. This message will be repeated for as long as it takes to sink in.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Ha, oh dear. I think we broke noisy06.

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think it might have sunk in.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, the fact that you've run out of rebuttals sunk in a while back.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.