The verse (4:34) on fear of wife disobedience has been interpreted as a three step process where the husband starts by admonishing the wife, then if that doesn’t work, then the husband sleeps in bed apart, then if that doesn’t work, then the husband beats the wife. In the verse, there is no such process. Any or all of the three actions can be taken. Mohamed, the perfect example of conduct, went directly to the beating in an incident described in muslim Book 004, Number 2127.
Edwin1683says
Mohammed made a mistake when he came up with the second of these “punishments” for disobedient wives.
Very few wives under the Islamic system could have any affection for their husbands. Therefore being banished to a separate bed would be a reward, not a punishment.
mach37says
The way I interpret the Koran, the verses start out with the most vicious actions, the harshest punishments, then if there are any survivors who don’t convert to Islam, the Muslim victor may be more lenient, allowing them to live as long as they pay the Muslims for the privilege of groveling. I don’t see how anyone with an understanding of the meaning of words can believe the frequent closing expressions that “Allah is wise and merciful.”
I believe the correct psychiatric term for the Koran and its authors is “schizophrenic.”
James O''Connellsays
That’s right, although Muslims still find verses that suggest people be kind to others, including unbelievers. I think it is because the Koran is also a political and military guide that it sounds contradictory. There are contradictions in the Bible too but it is less of a directory of how to wage war.
jihad3trackersays
I am putting this comment here rather than at the linked lead to Gavin McInnes’s website.
As readers of Jihadwatch know, Robert’s allies, including the wonderful brilliant David Wood, have posted similar earlier lists.
Please send along your “welcome to the fight” message to Mr. McInnes —- we need everyone everywhere now if Islam’s pathological goal is to be defeated.
Wakeupsays
It would be a cold day in hell if this were to happen but I would love to see a re run of this video with Donald Trump on the right or even better hillary clinton. The bbc are clearly censoring the news to the point of just not reporting some items but they (the establishment) can’t deep a lid on it forever.
dyh_swamisays
God the terrorist…god the killer,,god the war monger…any religion founded on those principals, can’t be all bad…can it?
James O'Connellsays
On my reading of the Koran I had the same impression.
Apologists for Islam will say that the violent directives are in the context of defensive war against non-Muslims rather than a principle for peace time.
A quote about cutting the neck and fingers is seen ns this context of a manual for Muslim warriors. Still, it is a little unusual for a holy text to be a ‘SAS manual’.
iI had a conversation about this on a site called ‘The Conservation’ with a certain Ken Aldington who had studied the Koran. His interpretation of a verse about making captive women into sex slaves and some reference to their husbands was it was actually forbidding the rape. I’d be interested in any comments or interpretations on this. Are many verses ambiguous, like the tooth cleaning stick?
Obviously, as with most religious texts you can quote further to change meaning. I tend to agree with the speaker here though, that basically ‘the vibe’ is intolerance and violence towards non-believers.
Michael Copelandsays
“The context of the time” is a favourite red herring.
“The teachings of the Quran”, explains Imam Ahmad Saad, of North London Central Mosque,”are not restricted by time and space. They are universal and trans-time. They can be applied today as they were applied 1400 years ago, and can still be applied till the end of time.”
The Koran is “valid from eternity to eternity”, says Sam Solomon, former professor of Sharia law. http://libertygb.org.uk/v1/index.php/news-libertygb/6183-extremism-there-is-a-problem-within-islam
mortimersays
M.Copeland wrote: “The context of the time” is a favourite red herring.”
What context?
There is no context in the jumble of the Koran! Any context for the Koran was ‘invented’ by the hadith writers up to 200 years following the text. Scholarship has shown the hadiths to be fanciful and politically motivated interpretations of the Koranic texts, rather than valid history.
In other words, caliphs ‘imposed’ their differing political agendas upon the Koranic texts.
Any context for the Koran is lacking, pending more archeology. The Koran remains incoherent and impenetrable. Speculation and conjecture about the Koran’s meaning is legion! I believe most mullahs know how speculative Islam is and share most of the opinions of Robert Spencer about the Koranic text, but they refrain from expressing their doubts.
PRCSsays
Yes, it prevents rape–not the physical act, of course; for the woman still suffers the rape.
Rather, as the term, the concept, is redefined it is no longer rape in the noble Muslim’s mind.
You see, if she’s someone else’s wife, the noble Muslim is prohibited from sexual relations with her.
But, if she’s war booty, the noble Muslim can do anything he wishes with her, as she is now merely what his right hand possesses.
Thus spake Mo’s sock puppet, Big Al.
pabasays
Don’t worry about raping your sexslaves and/or wife(s) they are just tilth
“Your wives are a tilth for you, so go to your tilth (have sexual relations with your wives in any manner as long as it is in the vagina and not in the anus), when or how you will, and send (good deeds, or ask Allah to bestow upon you pious offspring) before you for your ownselves. And fear Allah, and know that you are to meet Him (in the Hereafter), and give good tidings to the believers (O Muhammad SAW).”
– Hilali-Khan 2:223
James O'Connellsays
Which makes one wonder why Western feminists are not up in arms about such attitudes, rather reserving criticism for Western countries and Christianity.
redjupitersays
by just being non muslim, you are at war. hence the sura applies.
Angemonsays
James O’Connell posted:
“iI had a conversation about this on a site called ‘The Conservation’ with a certain Ken Aldington who had studied the Koran. His interpretation of a verse about making captive women into sex slaves and some reference to their husbands was it was actually forbidding the rape. I’d be interested in any comments or interpretations on this. Are many verses ambiguous, like the tooth cleaning stick?”
Was it 4:24?
And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess. [This is] the decree of Allah upon you. And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these, [provided] that you seek them [in marriage] with [gifts from] your property, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse. So for whatever you enjoy [of marriage] from them, give them their due compensation as an obligation. And there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree to beyond the obligation. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise.
The context for that verse is the following: muslims went on a military expedition and, after a battle (Autas or Hunayn, can’t remember which one), they captured people and took them as slaves, including women and their husbands. Some of the muslim men wanted to have sex with the women they captured, but they were reluctant because a) the muslims weren’t married with them and it would therefore be sex outside a marriage (i.e., adultery), and b) some of the women were married and their husbands were, like, right there with them. Muhammad then had a very convenient revelation telling him that it was ok for muslims to have sex with women they were married with and also with women their right hand possessed – i.e., slaves – even if those slaves were married.
Now, imagine the situation. Those women had witnessed war. They saw their friends and family being killed or captured into slavery. They themselves were taken as slaves, and the people who killed their friends and family, and took them as slaves wanted to have sex with them, even if they were married and had their husbands right there with them. The only scenario where one can argue that forbids rape is if using islamic dual-speak, where “rape” means “unlawful sex” (sex outside a marriage).
Carolynesays
I believe I’ve read that Allah is under no obligation to keep his promises in the hereafter. Even if a Muslim lives the Koran’s teachings to a “T,” Allah can still, on a whim I guess, not allow him entry to paradise. Some God! Some religion!
James O'Connellsays
it sounds very arbitrary. usually, in religion. people at least get rewarded for being ‘good’.
nacazo says
The verse (4:34) on fear of wife disobedience has been interpreted as a three step process where the husband starts by admonishing the wife, then if that doesn’t work, then the husband sleeps in bed apart, then if that doesn’t work, then the husband beats the wife. In the verse, there is no such process. Any or all of the three actions can be taken. Mohamed, the perfect example of conduct, went directly to the beating in an incident described in muslim Book 004, Number 2127.
Edwin1683 says
Mohammed made a mistake when he came up with the second of these “punishments” for disobedient wives.
Very few wives under the Islamic system could have any affection for their husbands. Therefore being banished to a separate bed would be a reward, not a punishment.
mach37 says
The way I interpret the Koran, the verses start out with the most vicious actions, the harshest punishments, then if there are any survivors who don’t convert to Islam, the Muslim victor may be more lenient, allowing them to live as long as they pay the Muslims for the privilege of groveling. I don’t see how anyone with an understanding of the meaning of words can believe the frequent closing expressions that “Allah is wise and merciful.”
I believe the correct psychiatric term for the Koran and its authors is “schizophrenic.”
James O''Connell says
That’s right, although Muslims still find verses that suggest people be kind to others, including unbelievers. I think it is because the Koran is also a political and military guide that it sounds contradictory. There are contradictions in the Bible too but it is less of a directory of how to wage war.
jihad3tracker says
I am putting this comment here rather than at the linked lead to Gavin McInnes’s website.
As readers of Jihadwatch know, Robert’s allies, including the wonderful brilliant David Wood, have posted similar earlier lists.
David has one up on his blog http://www.answeringmuslims.com titled approximately “Top 10 Qur’an verses ISIS Uses”.
Please send along your “welcome to the fight” message to Mr. McInnes —- we need everyone everywhere now if Islam’s pathological goal is to be defeated.
Wakeup says
It would be a cold day in hell if this were to happen but I would love to see a re run of this video with Donald Trump on the right or even better hillary clinton. The bbc are clearly censoring the news to the point of just not reporting some items but they (the establishment) can’t deep a lid on it forever.
dyh_swami says
God the terrorist…god the killer,,god the war monger…any religion founded on those principals, can’t be all bad…can it?
James O'Connell says
On my reading of the Koran I had the same impression.
Apologists for Islam will say that the violent directives are in the context of defensive war against non-Muslims rather than a principle for peace time.
A quote about cutting the neck and fingers is seen ns this context of a manual for Muslim warriors. Still, it is a little unusual for a holy text to be a ‘SAS manual’.
iI had a conversation about this on a site called ‘The Conservation’ with a certain Ken Aldington who had studied the Koran. His interpretation of a verse about making captive women into sex slaves and some reference to their husbands was it was actually forbidding the rape. I’d be interested in any comments or interpretations on this. Are many verses ambiguous, like the tooth cleaning stick?
Obviously, as with most religious texts you can quote further to change meaning. I tend to agree with the speaker here though, that basically ‘the vibe’ is intolerance and violence towards non-believers.
Michael Copeland says
“The context of the time” is a favourite red herring.
“The teachings of the Quran”, explains Imam Ahmad Saad, of North London Central Mosque,”are not restricted by time and space. They are universal and trans-time. They can be applied today as they were applied 1400 years ago, and can still be applied till the end of time.”
The Koran is “valid from eternity to eternity”, says Sam Solomon, former professor of Sharia law.
http://libertygb.org.uk/v1/index.php/news-libertygb/6183-extremism-there-is-a-problem-within-islam
mortimer says
M.Copeland wrote: “The context of the time” is a favourite red herring.”
What context?
There is no context in the jumble of the Koran! Any context for the Koran was ‘invented’ by the hadith writers up to 200 years following the text. Scholarship has shown the hadiths to be fanciful and politically motivated interpretations of the Koranic texts, rather than valid history.
In other words, caliphs ‘imposed’ their differing political agendas upon the Koranic texts.
Any context for the Koran is lacking, pending more archeology. The Koran remains incoherent and impenetrable. Speculation and conjecture about the Koran’s meaning is legion! I believe most mullahs know how speculative Islam is and share most of the opinions of Robert Spencer about the Koranic text, but they refrain from expressing their doubts.
PRCS says
Yes, it prevents rape–not the physical act, of course; for the woman still suffers the rape.
Rather, as the term, the concept, is redefined it is no longer rape in the noble Muslim’s mind.
You see, if she’s someone else’s wife, the noble Muslim is prohibited from sexual relations with her.
But, if she’s war booty, the noble Muslim can do anything he wishes with her, as she is now merely what his right hand possesses.
Thus spake Mo’s sock puppet, Big Al.
paba says
Don’t worry about raping your sexslaves and/or wife(s) they are just tilth
“Your wives are a tilth for you, so go to your tilth (have sexual relations with your wives in any manner as long as it is in the vagina and not in the anus), when or how you will, and send (good deeds, or ask Allah to bestow upon you pious offspring) before you for your ownselves. And fear Allah, and know that you are to meet Him (in the Hereafter), and give good tidings to the believers (O Muhammad SAW).”
– Hilali-Khan 2:223
James O'Connell says
Which makes one wonder why Western feminists are not up in arms about such attitudes, rather reserving criticism for Western countries and Christianity.
redjupiter says
by just being non muslim, you are at war. hence the sura applies.
Angemon says
James O’Connell posted:
“iI had a conversation about this on a site called ‘The Conservation’ with a certain Ken Aldington who had studied the Koran. His interpretation of a verse about making captive women into sex slaves and some reference to their husbands was it was actually forbidding the rape. I’d be interested in any comments or interpretations on this. Are many verses ambiguous, like the tooth cleaning stick?”
Was it 4:24?
The context for that verse is the following: muslims went on a military expedition and, after a battle (Autas or Hunayn, can’t remember which one), they captured people and took them as slaves, including women and their husbands. Some of the muslim men wanted to have sex with the women they captured, but they were reluctant because a) the muslims weren’t married with them and it would therefore be sex outside a marriage (i.e., adultery), and b) some of the women were married and their husbands were, like, right there with them. Muhammad then had a very convenient revelation telling him that it was ok for muslims to have sex with women they were married with and also with women their right hand possessed – i.e., slaves – even if those slaves were married.
Now, imagine the situation. Those women had witnessed war. They saw their friends and family being killed or captured into slavery. They themselves were taken as slaves, and the people who killed their friends and family, and took them as slaves wanted to have sex with them, even if they were married and had their husbands right there with them. The only scenario where one can argue that forbids rape is if using islamic dual-speak, where “rape” means “unlawful sex” (sex outside a marriage).
Carolyne says
I believe I’ve read that Allah is under no obligation to keep his promises in the hereafter. Even if a Muslim lives the Koran’s teachings to a “T,” Allah can still, on a whim I guess, not allow him entry to paradise. Some God! Some religion!
James O'Connell says
it sounds very arbitrary. usually, in religion. people at least get rewarded for being ‘good’.