Case Study 5: Wife-Beating? Why Beat Around the Bush When There is No Validation in Quran!
The words wa-ḍribū hunna, used in the verse 4:34 of the Quran, are mistranslated as "and beat them" to justify wife-beating. Wa means "and", the word translated as "beat" is iḍribū, and hunna means "them" in the feminine tense. Translating iḍribū as "beat" is one of the most flagrant slaughters of a word in Quran.
(Note on terminology: The imperative iḍribū is a command in the plural to carry out the action known as ḍarb. Whenever a word occurs before an imperative such as iḍribū, the last vowel of that word replaces the initial i of the imperative; thus we have here: wa–ḍribū. Note also that the Arabic letter represented by ḍ in modern transliteration used to be represented as dz, and is sometimes written as just d, as in some references below.)
The action of ḍarb has several meanings and connotations including to ‘seek away’ or ‘turn them away.’ Ignoring the Quran and Sunnah, some of the translators have chosen to use the most violent and the most out of context meaning of this word. Reading verse 4:34 in context of the immediately following verse 4:35, it becomes crystal clear, and leaves no room for any doubt, whatsoever, that this word is used here in its most non-violent and its most reconciliatory sense. Furthermore, all other verses in Quran addressing the exact same topic of a discord between a husband and a wife, one and all, in unison, prescribe civilized, community-based solutions and not violence.
The Prophet himself is on several records to have harshly condemned any and every sort of violence towards one’s wife. Since it is established that Prophet Muhammad was the ‘the Quran walking,’ it follows that he would never have condemned any act permitted by the Quran.
This word in itself is not the root cause of pain and suffering for women. Rather, the wrong meaning attached to it is what can become a justification for human rights violation in the name of Allah. Below are quoted its root, forms and meanings, all of which are far removed from its misuse to beat one’s wife:
Dzaraba – This word admits a great variety of meanings and interpretations as: To heal, strike, propound as an example, put forth a parable, go, make a journey, travel, mix, avoid, take away, put a cover, shut, mention, state, propound, set forth, compare, liken, seek away, march own, set, impose, prevent, fight, traffic with anyone’s property for a share in the profit, leave for sake, take away thing (with ‘an). Dzaraba bi arjulihî: He travelled. Dzarab al-ardza: Without fî or with fî: To travel. Dzaraba fulânun al-gha’ita: To go to relieve the bowels, go to privy, go for earning livelihood. Lâ tudzrabu akbâd al-ibili illa alâ thalâthati masâjida: La Turkal flâ yusaru ilaihâ: One must not ride to go but for three mosques. Adzrabu: To go and sworm. Dzârib: Depressed ground; Hard ground in a plain; sandy valley; Commissioner as he has to travel much. Dzarabtu lahû al-ardza Kullahâ: I went searching him everywhere. Dzarbun: Kind Manner; Lean; Thin; Similar; Alike; The act of striking; A blow; Going from place to place; Vicissitude of life; Affliction especially that which relates to one's person, as disease, death, degradation is common and general suffering. Dzaraba (prt. 3rd. p.m. sing.): He set forth, coined, propounded, compared, gave, mentioned, traveled, took away, avoided (with ‘An). Dzarabû (prf. 3rd. p.m. plu.): They set forth. Dzarabtum (prf. 2nd. p. m. plu.): Ye went forth, set forth. Dzarabnâ (prf. 1st. p. plu.): We have set forth. We put over a cover (with ‘Alâ). Yadzribu (imp. 3rd. p. m. sing.): He illustrates, sets forth, compares, likens. Confirms. Yadzribûna (imp. 3rd. p. m. plu.): They smite, travel. Yadzribna (imp. 3rd. p. f.plu.): She draws over, strikes. Lâ Tadzribû (prt. neg. m. plu.): Coin not. Nadzribu (imp. 1st. p. plu.): We set forth, narrate, will leave (with ‘An). Idzrib (prt. m. sing.): Strike; Go; Seek a way; March on. Idzribû (prt. m. plu.): You strike. Dzuriba (pp. 3rd. p. m. sing.): Held up; Will be set up. Dzuribat (pp. 3rd. p. f. sing.): They are smitted. Dzarbun (v.n. used in the sense of imperative to emphasize the command). Dzarban (v.n. acc.): Going about; Striking. (L; T; R; LL) The root with its above forms has been used in the Holy Qur’ân about 58 times.1
The linguistic spread of the word Dzaraba is so extensive that the ‘Arabic-English Lexicon’ by Edward William Lane (London: Willams & Norgate 1863) allocates to it six pages of three columns each i.e. pages 1777 – 1783.2
At the end of this chapter are listed all the verses from Quran, a total of 53, in which the usage of Dzaraba is identified with all its variations and none of which mean corporal punishment. Even where Dzaraba is used for being ‘smitten’ or a physical ‘strike,’ that usage is fully qualified in the same or adjoining verses, with what, how to, how much and why, to smite or strike. However, it is never, ever used in the sense of beating or corporal punishment.
Wife-beating is an example where a disgusting behavior by men is justified by fishing in Quran for its validation. A barbaric meaning is injected ‘into’ Quran, rather than reading the decent rules of a civil society ‘out of’ Quran. Such abhorring reasoning is found not in Quran, but in certain translations, one of which is quoted below from Sayyid Abul A'la Mawdudi, the translator:
Men are the protectors and maintainers of women because Allah has made one of them excel over the other, and because they spend out of their possessions (to support them). Thus righteous women are obedient and guard the rights of men in their absence under Allah's protection. As for women of whom you fear rebellion [Arabic: nushūzahunna], admonish them, and remain apart from them in beds, and beat them [Arabic: iḍ’ribūhunna]*. Then if they obey you, do not seek ways to harm them. Allah is Exalted, Great (4:34).
* This does not mean that a man should resort to these three measures all at once, but that they may be employed if a wife adopts an attitude of obstinate defiance. So far as the actual application of these measures is concerned, there should, naturally, be some correspondence between the fault and the punishment that is administered. Moreover, it is obvious that wherever a light touch can prove effective, one should not resort to sterner measures. Whenever the Prophet (peace be on him) permitted a man to administer corporal punishment to his wife, he did so with reluctance, and continued to express his distaste for it. And even in cases where it is necessary, the Prophet (peace be on him) directed men not to hit across the face, nor to beat severely nor to use anything that might leave marks on the body. (See Ibn Majah, 'Nikah', 3 – Ed.)
If you fear a breach between the two, appoint an arbitrator from his people and an arbitrator from her people. If they both want to set things right, Allah will bring about reconciliation between them. Allah knows all, is well aware of everything (4:35).3
Irrespective of who said what in their translation and then tried to reconcile the stated meaning of allowance for beating of wife with lengthy apologies, the fact remains the same, that they all advocate wife beating. Additionally, even if for the sake of an argument ‘beat them’ is assumed to be the correct meaning, then nowhere in Quran will one find the extent and limits of the allowed beating of wives by their husbands. Such translations essentially give a vengeful husband the ‘license’ to beat his wife into disfigurement or death? It only nurtures the evil of ‘honor killings.’
Before we take the translation of verse 4:34, sanctifying wife beating, seriously, we also read in the same translation and in the same chapter –“Do they not ponder about the Qur'an? Had it been from any other than Allah, they would surely have found in it much inconsistency (4:82)”4 With this standard of Quran we have to make sure if this translation of verse 4:34 is inconsistent with other verses, which factually it is. We do not have to remind the translator of verse 4:34 above that according to his own translation of another verse‘…They [–wives] are as a garment to you [–husbands] and you [–husbands] are as a garment to them [–wives] … (2:187).’5 If both spouses are garments of protection and grace for each other and if per chance, according to verse 4:34, the wife sheds her obligation of being a garment for her husband, it still remains obligatory for the husband to remain the garment of protection and grace, not that of violation, for his wife and resort to beating her. In another verse from the same translator it states “…Live with your wives in a good manner. If you dislike them in any manner, it may be that you dislike something in which Allah has placed much good for you (4:19).”6 Unless someone can justify wife beating as being consistent with living with good manner (that is enjoined on the husbands) translation of verse 4:34 flagrantly contradicts 4:19. In another place in the same translation we find “…who restrain their anger, and forgive others. Allah loves such good-doers (3:134).”7 According to this translation, on the one hand Quran encourages suppression of anger and promotes forgiveness while on the other in verse 4:34 it perpetuates anger when it gives the option to beat one’s wife. By the standards of Quran, where there is no inconsistency therein (4:82), this translator woefully creates inconsistency when he allows beating of a wife by her husband and thus leaves us no option but to reject his translation of verse 4:34.
Inflicting physical punishment on women was sadly common in many societies, and, unfortunately, some men derive the legitimacy of punishing their wives from the word Adzribu stated in this verse [4:34]. Adzribu is derived from dzaraba a word with a great variety of meanings and interpretations in the Arabic language and in the Holy Qur'an. Such meanings include to heal, strike, put forward an example, put forth a parable, make a journey, move away, travel, mix, cover, impose, prevent, or take something away. This word has been used in the Holy Qur'an fifty-eight times with different meanings (cf. 30:28; 43:5; 2:273; 2:60; 2:61;18:11;57:13). Thus, adzribu does not mean here [in verse 4:34] to strike physically and it certainly does not mean to inflict physical punishment on women. Meanings such as “take something away” or “put forth an example” (symbolically) can be used as the translation of this word here. The Holy Prophet (pbuh) [–the first and foremost exegete of Quran,] is reported to have said, "You will not find these men as the best among you who punish their wives" (Daud 12/42). Also, He rhetorically asked, "Could any of you beat his wife and then lie with her in the evening?" (Bukhari).8
If the verse 4:34 allows for physical punishment of one’s wife in a marital dispute, no matter how mild the punishment inflicted, then such a husband who beats his wife is merely following the injunction in Quran. How is it then even possible for the Prophet to abhor such a follower of Quran, if the Quran allowed wife beating in the first place. We have two choices in this example, either Quran as translated above is wrong or the Prophet is misquoted, but not both could be right simultaneously. Obviously, neither Quran can be wrong for its actual message of non-violence towards anyone, especially the women, nor the Prophet could be wrong for hadith attributed to him of non-violence towards wives. Once again, without even discussing the linguistics, we are left with no choice but to reject wife beating as the utterly wrong meaning attributed to Quran. On the reverse we have the following hadith about the Prophet:
Abu Abdullah Al-Jadali narrated: "I asked 'Aishah about the character of the Messenger of Allah. She said: 'He was not obscene, nor uttering obscenities, nor screaming in the markets, he would not return an evil with an evil, but rather he was pardoning and forgiving."[Tirmidhi]9
We also have another verse from Quran about the sublime nature of the Prophet and a corresponding hadith attributed to Aisha, the wife of the Prophet, that the Prophet was “the Quran walking” in his character:
68:4. And you possess outstandingly high standard of moral (excellence).10
Narrated Sa'd bin Hisham: “…I said: Mother of faithful [-Aisha], tell me about the character of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ). She asked: Do you not recite the Quran ? The character of Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) was the Qur'an…” [Sunan Abu Dawud’]11
How is it possible for a walking talking Quran to not have followed its injunction, and allowed wife beating? Rather on the reverse, we have hadiths from Aisha which only prove that he was a man far removed from violence and follower of Quran in this matter:
"The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) never beat any of his servants, or wives, and his hand never hit anything." [Ibn Majah]12
"Rasulullah Sallallahu 'Alayhi Wasallam did not hit anything with his mubaarak hands, besides the time when he made jihaad in the Path of Allah. He did not hit a servant nor a women (wife, slave girl etc.)"[ Shama’il Muhammadiyah (–Tirmidhi)]13
“Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) never hit anything with his hand neither a servant nor a woman but of course, he did fight in the Cause of Allah. He never took revenge upon anyone for the wrong done to him, but of course, he exacted retribution for the sake of Allah in case the Injunctions of Allah about unlawful acts were violated.” [Muslim]14
In marital discord, no matter how egregious, and alleged on the wife, it cannot be left in the hands of a husband to inflict corporal punishment. In another place a verse from the same translation removes the authority to arbiter in a dispute from individuals and vests it with the government, relegates to the example of the Prophet and if the matter is beyond the former two, it shifts it into the hands of Allah:
Believers! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger, and those from among you who are invested with authority; and then if you were to dispute among yourselves about anything refer it to Allah and the Messenger if you indeed believe in Allah and the Last Day; that is better and more commendable in the end (4:59).15
At least in the example of the Prophet, there is no wife beating to be found, but this translator did find it in Quran. One of the worst allegations in a marriage is that of a charge of adultery on a spouse, especially the wife, which for an arrogant ‘honor killer’ husband is a trigger happy moment. Even in such an extreme situation Quran does not allow beating of one’s wife, as conceded by Mawdudi (see his translation of verse 24:6-10 below). But, none-the-less, ignoring this, Mawdudi, allows for violence for merely “rebelling” against the husband in verse 4:34, whereas in Quran the matter is required to be referred to Allah, as explained in the verses from the same translator:
As for those who accuse their own wives but have no witness except themselves, the evidence of one of them is that he shall swear four times by Allah and declare that he is true (in his charge). Then the fifth time he shall declare that Allah's curse be upon him if he be false (in his charge). (As for the woman), it shall avert the punishment from her if she swears four times by Allah that the man is false (in his charge) and the fifth time she invokes Allah's wrath upon herself, if he be true (in his charge). If Allah had not shown you His grace and mercy and if Allah had not been most Forgiving and All-Wise, (you would have been in a great fix because of accusing your wives)(24:6-10).16
Even if the adultery is witnessed or falsely alleged, the authority to punish is not in the hands of individuals, but can only be carried out by the state:
The woman and the man guilty of fornication, flog each one of them with a hundred stripes – and let not any pity for them restrain you in regard to a matter prescribed by Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day, and let, some of the believers witness the punishment inflicted on them (24:2).17
As for those persons who charge chaste women with false accusations but do not produce four witnesses, flog them with eighty stripes and never accept their evidence afterwards, for they themselves are transgressors, except those who repent and reform themselves; Allah is Forgiving and Merciful (24:4-5).18
Under any law, there cannot be a double punishment for a given crime because according to the translator under discussion “…do not commit aggression because Allah does not like aggressors (2:190).”19 However, according to the same translation it may be allowed so, first beating of the wife by the husband (4:34) and later lashing by the state (24:2).
The weakness of the translation of verse 4:34 quoted above can be ascertained for its meaning of another word ‘Nashuz’ which is also referred to in the same verse and also in another place quoted below from the same translation:
If a woman fears either ill-treatment [Arabic: nushūzan] or aversion from her husband it is not wrong for the husband and wife to bring about reconciliation among themselves (by compromising on their rights), for settlement is better. Man's soul is always prone to selfishness, but if you do good and are God-fearing, then surely Allah is aware of the things you do (4:128).20
This translation reeks of double standards. The word ‘Nashuz’ is taken for rebellion by a wife in verse 4:34 and ill-treatment by a husband in verse 4:128. In the former case, when allegedly wife is at fault, the quoted translation sanctions violence against wife first which essentially defeats any chance of reconciliation in the subsequent verse 4:35. In the latter case, in verse 4:128, it advocates reconciliation alone when the alleged fault lies with the husband. Whereas, we know that in Quran a wife has equal rights and at par with the husband ‘… And women have rights similar to those against them in a just manner…(2:228)’.21 Should we then presume that to reclaim their equal rights, denied by said translator in marital discord, wives too must resort to inflict spousal abuse? This self-created contradiction in Quran can be expunged merely by using the correct and contextual implications of the word ‘Adzribu’ in verse 4:34 for its non-violent meanings e.g. ‘seek away’ or ‘turn them away’. These meanings pave way for reconciliation between the estranged couple enjoined in the subsequent verse 4:35. By such appropriate meanings for ‘Adzribu’, both verses 4:34 and 4:128 are normalized and their mutual contradiction is thus resolved along with the contradiction with verse 2:228 and many other verses that specifically mention kind treatment of wives in general any specifically in marital discord. Such sensible approach does not diminish message of Quran. It only diminishes violence in the society and increases reconciliation in a household in which the consequent victims might not only be the spouses themselves, but also the children and other family members.
Quran addresses marital discord from both ends of the spectrum. It addresses the view point of the husband, the likely head of household, in verses 4:34-35 and the aggrieved wife in verse 4:128.
Aggrieved husband – The ignorant justify violence towards women while relying on verse 4:34 which according to them allows wife beating. This assertion is similar to stoning to death. The sources for both maybe found elsewhere, but not in Quran. The following is a plain reproduction of verses 4:34-35 and their footnotes from English Translation of the Holy Quran, by Maulana Muhammad Ali in its revised edition by Zahid Aziz. By contrasting Muhammad Ali’s translation to Mawdudi’s, readers can judge for themselves how ignorantly Quran is misused by some, the likes of which include Mawdudi, to condone an ignominious behavior of wife beating for which there is no room in Quran in its plain read below:
4:34. Men are the maintainers of women22, with what Allah has given some of them above others and with what they spend out of their wealth. So the good women are obedient (to Allah)23,…
Obedience here signifies obedience to Allah. This significance of the word is made clear by a comparison with 33:31, 33:35, and 66:5.
33:31. And whoever of you [– Prophet’s wives] is obedient to Allah and His Messenger and does good, We shall give her a double reward [– greater reward], and We have prepared for her an honourable sustenance.
…guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded…
This refers to their guarding the husband’s rights. The two qualifications of a good wife as given here are her obedience to God and chastity.
…And (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish24 them, and leave them alone in the beds25…
The word translated here as desertion, when used about a woman in connection with her husband, means her rising against her husband. This is explained by the commentators in a number of ways; for example, her leaving the husband’s place and taking up an abode which he does not like or that the wife resisted her husband and hated him and deserted him. The remedy for her correction is that she is to be admonished, but if she persists in the wrong course, her bed is to be separated, i.e. a cessation of sexual relations.
…and turn them away (from wrongdoing)…
Editor’s Note: The words translated as “turn them away” use the term darb, and have often been translated as “beat them”. Maulana Muhammad Ali rendered them as “chastise them” and explained that very slight chastisement was allowed only in extreme cases, which should not leave an impression, and further that this permission is meant only for the crass type of people in society among whom such chastisement is acceptable. However, as he pointed out in his footnotes on verses 2:60 and 2:73, the verb darb signifies “all kinds of actions except a few”; and apart from striking it is used to mean, for example, marching on, setting forth a parable, and likening. In these other senses it is commonly used in the Quran. It is used in 43:5 as meaning to turn (something) away: “Shall We then turn away the Reminder from you…?”, which is how Maulana Muhammad Ali and many other translators have rendered this verse. This sense seems to be applicable here. Thus the meaning here would be that by admonishing and, if necessary, breaking off sexual relations, the husband should turn the wife away from her wrong course, or it may mean that if these measures fail he should turn her away from himself, i.e. divorce her. It may be added that the Quran clearly forbids a man from causing injury to his wife. In its rules for divorce, husbands are told about their wives: “retain them with kindness or let them go with kindness and do not retain them for injury” (2:231), “retain them with kindness or part from them with kindness … do not injure them in order to impose hardship upon them” (65:2, 6). In fact, only a few verses prior to v. 34 above, in v. 19, husbands have been instructed as follows about their wives: “Nor should you cause them hardship… And treat them kindly. Then if you hate them, it may be that you dislike a thing while Allah has placed abundant good in it”.
…So if they obey you, do not seek a way against them. Surely Allah is ever Exalted, Great.
4:35. And if you fear a breach between the two, appoint an arbiter from his people and an arbiter from her people. If they both desire agreement, Allah will effect harmony between them. Surely Allah is ever Knowing, Aware.26
This verse lays down the procedure for divorce. It is not for the husband to put away his wife; it is the business of the judge to decide the case. He is required to appoint two arbiters, one belonging to the wife’s family and the other to the husband’s. These two arbiters will find out the facts, but their objective must be to effect a reconciliation between the parties. If all hopes of reconciliation fail, a divorce is allowed, but the final decision for divorce rests with the judge who is legally entitled to pronounce a divorce. Cases were decided in accordance with these directions in the early days of Islam.
Of note is that verses 4:34-35 outline progressive steps in a married relationship gone sour, where each step essentially gives a pause to rethink, forebear and reconcile i.e. to give a verbal advice – admonish them; temporary separation – and leave them alone in the beds; symbolic termination of certain privileges – turn them away; mediation – if you fear a breach between the two, appoint an arbiter from his people and an arbiter from her people. If there was any remote possibility of allowance for ‘wife beating’ in verse 4:34, then for sure there is no residual chance for mediation as outlined in verse 4:35.
One of the criticism levelled against verse 4:34 is that it is male centric. Like any statue of law its narrative is that of male gender, but in no way negates the rights of the female gender. The reverse is equally applicable:
2:228. … And women have rights similar to those against them in a just manner…27
The rights of women against their husbands are here stated to be similar to those which the husbands have against their wives. The change in this respect was really a revolutionizing one, for the Arabs hitherto regarded women as mere property. Women were now declared to have rights similar to those which were exercised against them. The equality of the rights of women with those of men was never previously recognized by any nation or any reformer.
Similarly, as pointed out in the footnotes quoted from Maulana Muhammad Ali above, other verses ensure as an injunction, explicit kindness towards wife even during the divorce process when each party might be expectantly hateful towards the other:
4:19. O you who believe, it is not lawful for you to take women as heritage against (their) will…
Among the pre-Islamic Arabs, when a man died his elder son or other relations had a right to possess his widow or widows, marrying them themselves if they wished, without settling a dowry on them, marrying them to others, or prohibiting them from marriage altogether. This is abolished by these words.
…Nor should you cause them hardship by taking part of what you have given them, unless they are guilty of manifest indecency…
This passage remedies another evil. Some husbands who were dissatisfied with their wives gave them trouble in order to force them to claim a divorce and remit the dowry (i.e., the legally-due nuptial gift from the husband to the wife). This is disallowed. If the judge finds that the fault lies actually with the husband, he will not allow the dowry to be remitted in his favour. It can only be taken back if the woman is guilty of immoral conduct. In such cases, when the fault is with the woman, she may be required to return it wholly or in part.
…And treat them kindly. Then if you hate them, it may be that you dislike a thing while Allah has placed abundant good in it.28
If per chance verse 4:34 is interpreted to allow ‘wife beating’ then such a deduction will create contradiction in Quran as the verse 4:19 above enjoins the husband quite clearly to treat them kindly always, even when there is property dispute during the divorce process:
4:20. And if you wish to have (one) wife in the place of another and you have given one of them a heap of gold, take nothing from it. Would you take it by slandering (her) and (doing her) manifest wrong?
Another social evil was that a husband, wanting to marry another woman instead, would accuse his wife of adultery or other gross immorality, thus compelling her to obtain a divorce by paying a large sum of money.
4:21. And how can you take it when you have been intimate with each other and they have taken from you a strong covenant?29
Marriage is here called a covenant or agreement between the husband and the wife. As there can be no agreement unless both parties give their consent to it, marriage in Islam can only be entered into with the free consent of the husband and wife.
In another place Quran ensures the kind behavior towards wife even at the conclusion of the divorce, a time when mutual hatred and apathy might run amok:
2:231. And when you divorce women and they reach their prescribed time, then retain them with kindness or let them go with kindness and do not retain them for injury so that you exceed the limits…
If the husband is proved to give injury to the wife, he cannot retain her, and she can claim a divorce. Injury to the wife may be of a general nature or one given with the object of compelling her to remit her dowry to obtain a divorce. It is for the judge to see that the husband is not taking undue advantage of his position. On the other hand, the husband is enjoined to show liberality to the divorced wife, and the judge would no doubt see that the injunctions of the Quran were observed. It is made clear in 4:35 that decision in matters of divorce rests with the judges appointed, not with the husband or the wife.
…And whoever does this, he indeed wrongs his own soul. And do not take Allah’s messages for a mockery,…
The injunctions relating to the kind treatment of women must not be taken lightly, we are told here. Retaining women to cause them injury has already been declared to be a transgression and emphasis is now laid on the proper observance of these injunctions by stating that these are most serious matters relating to the welfare of society as a whole.
…and remember Allah’s favour to you, and what He has revealed to you of the Book and the Wisdom, instructing you by it. And keep your duty to Allah, and know that Allah is the Knower of all things.30
If we read the above verses on a range of behavior expected of the husband towards his wife, then these verses quite vividly put the husband at the service of the wife i.e. Men are the maintainers of women (4:34) and treat them kindly (4:19). This benevolence is enjoined on husbands towards their wives even after divorce i.e. if…you have given one of them a heap of gold, take nothing from it (4:20) and when you divorce women and they reach their prescribed time, then retain them with kindness or let them go with kindness and do not retain them for injury (2:231).
Aggrieved wife – Similar to verses 4:34-35 for aggrieved husband, the aggrieved wife is also given her equal and similar rights:
4:128. And if a woman fears ill-usage from her husband or desertion, there is no blame on the two of them if they effect a reconciliation between them. And reconciliation is better. And greed is met with in (people’s) minds. And if you do good (to others) and keep your duty, surely Allah is ever Aware of what you do.31
Quran addresses both husband and wife to be just in their marital dispute the cause of which might be beyond the individual spouses and extend to involve relatives and others, and the consequent arbitration requiring testimony, which it mandates in verses 4:35 and 4:128:
4:135. O you who believe, be maintainers of justice, bearers of witness for Allah, even if it is against your own selves or (your) parents or near relatives — whether he is rich or poor, Allah has a better right over them both. So do not follow (your) low desires, that you deviate. And if you distort (the truth) or turn away (from it), surely Allah is ever Aware of what you do.32
In conclusion, there is no basis for aggression towards one’s wife in Quran and Sunnah. Quran does not allow any maltreatment of women even after their divorce. On the contrary, kind treatment must be shown towards women under all circumstances. If the dispute is beyond the prerogative of a household, the matter is referred to authorities, communal or governmental, who then have to arbiter in light of Quran and Sunnah.
—————————-
Listed below are all the verses from Quran, a total of 53, in which the usage of Ḍaraba is identified with all its variations and none of which mean corporal punishment:
2:26. Surely Allah does not disdain to set forth [Arabic: yaḍriba] any parable — a gnat or anything above that. Then as for those who believe, they know that it is the truth from their Lord; and as for those who disbelieve, they say: What is it that Allah means by this parable? Many He leaves in error by it and many He leads aright by it. And He leaves in error by it only the transgressors,33
2:60. And when Moses prayed for water for his people, We said: March on [Arabic: iḍrib] to the rock with your staff. So twelve springs flowed from it. Each tribe knew their drinking-place. Eat and drink of the provisions of Allah, and do not act corruptly, making mischief in the land.34
2:60. And (recall the time) when Moses prayed for water for his people and We said (to him), `Go with your people and smite [Arabic: iḍrib] that particular rock with your staff.' So (when he did so) there gushed forth from it twelve springs so that every tribe came to know of its drinking place. (We said,) `Eat and drink of sustenance provided by Allâh and commit not transgression in the land like peace-breakers.'35
2:61. And when you said: Moses, we cannot endure one food, so pray your Lord on our behalf to bring forth for us out of what the earth grows, of its herbs and its cucumbers and its garlic and its lentils and its onions. He said: Would you exchange what is better for what is worse? Enter a city, so you will have what you ask for. And degradation and humiliation were stamped [Arabic: ḍuribat] upon them, and they incurred Allah’s wrath. That was so because they disbelieved in the messages of Allah and would kill the prophets unjustly. That was so because they disobeyed and exceeded the limits.36
2:73. So We said: Strike him [Arabic: iḍribū-hu] with it partially. Thus Allah brings the dead to life, and He shows you His signs that you may understand.37
2:273. (Charity is) for the poor who are confined in the way of Allah, they cannot go about [Arabic: ḍarb-an] in the land; the ignorant man thinks them to be rich on account of (their) abstaining (from begging). You can recognize them by their mark — they do not beg of people demandingly. And whatever good thing you spend, surely Allah is Knower of it.38
3:112. Degradation will be [Arabic: duribat] their lot wherever they are found, except under a covenant with Allah and a covenant with people, and they shall incur the wrath of Allah, and humiliation will be made to cling [Arabic: duribat] to them. This is because they disbelieved in the messages of Allah and killed the prophets unjustly. This is because they disobeyed and exceeded the limits.39
3:112. Smitten [Arabic: ḍuribat] are they with ignominy wherever they are found unless they have a bond (of protection) from Allâh, or a bond (of security) from the people. They have incurred the displeasure of Allâh and have been condemned [Arabic: ḍuribat] to humiliation. That is so because they would disbelieve in the Messages of Allâh and would seek to kill the Prophets without any just cause. And that is so because they rebelled and had been transgressing as usual.40
3:156. O you who believe, do not be like those who disbelieve and say of their brethren when they travel [Arabic: ḍarabū] in the earth or engage in fighting: If they had been with us, they would not have died, or been killed; that Allah may make it a regret in their hearts. And Allah gives life and causes death. And Allah is Seer of what you do.41
4:34. Men are the maintainers of women, with what Allah has given some of them above others and with what they spend out of their wealth. So the good women are obedient (to Allah), guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded. And (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the beds and turn them away [Arabic: iḍ’ribūhunna] (from wrongdoing). So if they obey you, do not seek a way against them. Surely Allah is ever Exalted, Great.42
4:94. O you who believe, when you go forth [Arabic: ḍarabtum] (to fight) in Allah’s way, make investigation, and do not say to anyone who offers you salutation, You are not a believer, seeking the good of this world’s life. But with Allah there are abundant gains. You too were such before, then Allah conferred a benefit on you; so make investigation. Surely Allah is ever Aware of what you do.43
4:101. And when you journey [Arabic: ḍarabtum] in the earth, there is no blame on you if you shorten the prayer, if you fear that those who disbelieve will give you trouble. Surely the disbelievers are an open enemy to you.44
5:106. O you who believe, call to witness between you, when death draws near to one of you, at the time of making the will, two just persons from among you, or two others from among others than you, if you are travelling [Arabic: ḍarabtum] in the land and the calamity of death befalls you. You should detain them after the prayer. Then if you doubt (them), they shall both swear by Allah (saying): We will not take for it a price even for a relative, nor will we hide the testimony of Allah, for then certainly we shall be sinners.45
7:160. And We divided them into twelve tribes, as nations. And We revealed to Moses when his people asked him for water: March on [Arabic: iḍ’rib] to the rock with your staff; so out flowed from it twelve springs. Each tribe knew its drinking-place. And We made the clouds to give shade over them and We sent to them manna and quails. Eat of the good things We have given you. And they did not do Us any harm, but they wronged their own souls.46
8:12. When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, so make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. So strike [Arabic: iḍ’ribū] above the necks and strike [Arabic: iḍ’ribū] every finger-tip of them.47
8:50. And if you could see when the angels cause to die those who disbelieve, striking [Arabic: yaḍribūna] their faces and their backs, and (saying): Taste the punishment of burning.48
13:17. He sends down water from the clouds, then watercourses flow according to their measure, and the torrent bears along the swelling foam. And a scum like it arises from what they melt in the fire for the sake of making ornaments or tools. Thus does Allah compare [Arabic: yaḍribu] truth and falsehood. Then as for the scum, it passes away as a worthless thing; and as for that which benefits people, it remains behind in the earth. Thus does Allah set forth [Arabic: yaḍribu] parables.49
14:24. Do you not see how Allah sets forth [Arabic: ḍaraba] a parable of a good word as a good tree, whose root is firm and whose branches are high,50
14:25. yielding its fruit in every season by the permission of its Lord? And Allah sets forth [Arabic: ḍaraba] parables for people that they may be mindful.51
14:45. And you dwell in the abodes of those who wronged themselves, and it is clear to you how We dealt with them and We made (them) [Arabic: waḍarabnā] examples for you.52
16:74. So do not coin [Arabic: taḍribū] likenesses for Allah. Surely Allah knows and you do not know.53
16:75. Allah sets forth [Arabic: ḍaraba] a parable: There is a slave, the property of another, controlling nothing, and there is one to whom We have granted from Ourselves a goodly provision, so he spends from it (on good works) secretly and openly. Are the two alike? Praise be to Allah! But most of them do not know.54
16:76. And Allah sets forth [Arabic: ḍaraba] a parable of two men: One of them dumb, controlling nothing, and he is a burden to his master; wherever he sends him, he brings no good. Is he equal with him who enjoins justice, and he is on the right path?55
16:112. And Allah sets forth [Arabic: ḍaraba] a parable: A town safe and secure, to which its means of subsistence came in abundance from every quarter; but it disbelieved in Allah’s favours, so Allah made it taste a pall of hunger and fear because of what they did.56
17:48. See, what they liken [Arabic: ḍarabū] you to! So they have gone astray, and cannot find the way.57
18:11. So We prevented [Arabic: faḍarabnā] them from hearing in the Cave for a number of years,58
18: 11. So We sealed [Arabic: faḍarabnā] up their ears (to cut them off from the outside world) in their Place of Refuge for (only) a number of years.59
18:32. And set forth [Arabic: wa-iḍ’rib] to them the parable of two men — for one of them We made two gardens of grape-vines, and We surrounded them with date-palms, and between them We made corn-fields.60
18:45. And set forth [Arabic: wa-iḍ’rib] to them the likeness of the life of this world as water which We send down from the cloud, so the vegetation of the earth becomes luxuriant by it, then it becomes dry, broken into pieces which the winds scatter. And Allah is the Holder of power over all things.61
20:77. And certainly We revealed to Moses: Travel by night with My servants, then strike [Arabic: iḍ’rib] for them a dry path in the sea, not fearing to be caught, nor being afraid.62
22:73. O people, a parable is set forth [Arabic: ḍuriba], so listen to it. Surely those whom you call upon besides Allah cannot create a fly, though they should all gather for it. And if the fly carry off anything from them, they cannot take it back from it. Weak are (both) the invoker and the invoked.63
24:31. And say to the believing women that they lower their gaze and restrain their sexual passions and do not display their adornment except what appears of it. And they should wear [Arabic: walyaḍrib’na] their head-coverings over their bosoms. And they should not display their adornment except to their husbands or their fathers, or the fathers of their husbands, or their sons, or the sons of their husbands, or their brothers, or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or those whom their right hands possess, or harmless male servants, or the children who do not know women’s nakedness. And they should not strike [Arabic: walā yaḍrib’na] their feet so that the adornment that they hide may be known. And turn to Allah all, O believers, so that you may be successful.64
24:35. Allah is the light of the heavens and the earth. A likeness of His light is as a pillar on which is a lamp — the lamp is in a glass, the glass is as it were a brightly shining star — lit from a blessed olive-tree, neither eastern nor western, whose oil gives light, even though fire does not touch it — light upon light. Allah guides to His light whom He pleases. And Allah sets forth [Arabic: yaḍribu] parables for mankind, and Allah is Knower of all things —65
25:9. See what parables they set forth [Arabic: ḍarabū] for you — they have gone astray, so they cannot find a way.66
25:39. And to each We gave [Arabic: ḍarabnā] examples and each did We destroy with utter destruction.67
26:63. Then We revealed to Moses: March on [Arabic: iḍ’rib] to the sea with your staff. So it parted, and each side was like a huge mound.68
29:43. And these parables, We set them forth [Arabic: naḍribuhā] for people, and none understand them but the learned.69
30:28. He sets forth [Arabic: ḍaraba] to you a parable about yourselves. Do you have, among those whom your right hands possess, partners in what We have given you, so that you are equal in it, you fearing them as you fear each other? a Thus do We make the messages clear for a people who understand.70
30:58. And certainly We have set forth [Arabic: ḍarabnā] for people in this Quran every kind of description. And if you bring them a sign, those who disbelieve would certainly say: You are only deceivers.71
36:13. And set out [Arabic: wa-iḍ’rib] to them a parable of the people of the town, when messengers came to it.72
36:78. And he strikes out [Arabic: waḍaraba] a likeness for Us and forgets his own creation. Says he: Who will give life to the bones, when they are rotten?73
37:93. So he turned upon them, striking [Arabic: ḍarban] with the right hand.74
38:44. And take in your hand [a] few worldly goods and earn goodness [Arabic: fa-iḍ’rib] therewith and do not incline to falsehood. Surely We found him patient; most excellent the servant! Surely he (ever) turned (to Us).75
38:44. And (We commanded him,) `Take in your hand a handful of twigs and strike [Arabic: fa-iḍ’rib] (the riding beast) therewith. And do not ever incline towards falsehood. Indeed, We found him steadfast. An excellent servant was he. He was always turning (towards God) in obedience.76
39:27. And certainly We have set forth [Arabic: ḍarabnā] for people in this Quran examples of every sort that they may be mindful.77
39:29. Allah sets forth [Arabic: ḍaraba] a parable: A man belonging to partners differing with one another, and a man (devoted) wholly to one man. Are the two alike in condition? Praise be to Allah! But most of them do not know.78
43:5. Shall We then turn away [Arabic: afanaḍribu] the Reminder from you altogether because you are a people committing excesses?79
43:17. And when one of them is given news (of the birth) of that the like of which he ascribes [Arabic: ḍaraba] to the Beneficent, his face becomes black and he is full of rage.80
43:57. And when the son of Mary is mentioned [Arabic: ḍuriba] as an example, lo! your people raise a clamour at it.81
43:58. And they say: Are our gods better, or is he? They set it forth [Arabic: ḍarabūhu] to you only by way of disputation. Indeed, they are a contentious people.82
47:3. That is because those who disbelieve follow falsehood, and those who believe follow the Truth from their Lord. Thus does Allah set forth [Arabic: yaḍribu] their descriptions for people.83
47:4. So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, strike [Arabic: ḍarba] the necks; then, when you have overcome them, make (them) prisoners, and afterwards (set them free) as a favour or for ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (shall be so). And if Allah please, He would certainly exact retribution from them, but that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are killed in the way of Allah, He will never allow their deeds to perish.84
47:27. But how will it be when the angels cause them to die, striking [Arabic: yaḍribūna] their faces and their backs?85
57:13. On the day when the hypocrites, men and women, will say to those who believe: Wait for us, that we may borrow from your light. It will be said: Turn back and seek a light. Then a wall, with a door in it, will be raised [Arabic: faḍuriba] between them. Within it shall be mercy, and outside of it punishment.86
59:21. If We had sent down this Quran on a mountain, you would certainly have seen it falling down, splitting apart because of the fear of Allah. And We set forth [Arabic: naḍribuhā] these parables to people that they may reflect.87
66:10. Allah sets forth [Arabic: ḍaraba] an example for those who disbelieve — the wife of Noah and the wife of Lot. They were both under two of Our righteous servants, but they acted treacherously towards them, so they (the husbands) did not avail them at all against (the punishment of ) Allah, and it was said: Enter the Fire with those who enter.88
66:11. And Allah sets forth [Arabic: ḍaraba] an example for those who believe — the wife of Pharaoh, when she said: My Lord, build for me a house with You in the Garden and deliver me from Pharaoh and his work, and deliver me from the wrongdoing people.89
73:20. Your Lord knows indeed that you pass in prayer nearly two-thirds of the night, and (sometimes) half of it, and (sometimes) a third of it, as do a group of those with you. And Allah measures the night and the day. He knows that (all of) you are not able to do it, so He has turned to you (mercifully); so read of the Quran whatever is easy for you. He knows that there are sick among you, and others who travel [Arabic: yaḍribūna] in the land seeking of Allah’s bounty, and others who fight in Allah’s way. So read as much of it as is easy (for you), and keep up prayer and give the due charity and offer to Allah a goodly gift. And whatever of good you send on beforehand for yourselves, you will find it with Allah — that is best and greatest in reward. And ask forgiveness of Allah. Surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.90
NOTE: Many aspects of this chapter have been compiled with the help of online resource: http://corpus.quran.com/
From ikram:
For those of us who understand Urdu, below is the link to a TV discussion where in the first part the “learned” ignorant – the Maulanas, Allamas and scholars, validate wife beating (the current topic above) and in the second part the concubinage from Quran.
http://www.zemtv.com/2013/07/04/kharra-sach-does-islam-allows-to-beat-a-women-4th-july-2013/
In comparison, read: Case Study 4: Slavery, Concubines, Extra-Marital Relations – Zilch, Nada In Quran! (Link).
From T Ijaz:
is there an example from the Arabic literature that dzarabuhu means anything other than physical hitting, where the subject (doer of action) and object (to whom action is done) of the root daraba is human being and not qualified by a preposition words like 'with' or 'upon'
those that defend the view the Quranic verse only speaks of hitting compare it to one hadith (narrated by Abu Hurairah) about a drunk man who was brought to the Holy Prophet and the Prophet told his companions to beat him (dzarabahu). so the companions were obviously humans beating the man (also human) and was not qualified by a preposition (words like with, upon or against)
From Zahid Aziz:
T Ijaz must be referring to the hadith which can be read at this link.
But as you will observe, while the Holy Prophet only said idribu-hu, or "beat him", the report goes on to say that some beat him "with hands" (daribu bi-yadi-hi), some "with shoes", some "with garments".
Since in this hadith people chose different implements with which to hit the culprit, does it mean that the instruction in verse 4:34 (which also doesn't specify with what the beating should be done) allows any implement to be chosen, e.g. stick, rock, iron bar!
From Zahid Aziz:
1. The expression fulān-un ḍarīb fulān-in means "so-and-so is the likeness of so-and-so". (Lane' Lexicon, p. 1781, col. 2).
Ḍarīb is one who has had ḍarb done to him (or if you like, the one who has been "hit" or "beaten"). This expression says that person A is ḍarīb of person B. Taking ḍarb as meaning hit or beaten, it means: "A has been hit or beaten by B". But the meaning of the expression is that A is like B.
A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic by Hans Wehr, edited by J. Milton Cowan, says under the main entry ḍrb:
"ḍarīb beaten, struck, smitten, hit; similar, like", and gives this example: ḍarīb al-Shaikh fulān, which, it says, means: "one of the calibre of Shaikh so-and-so".
Obviously, both the Shaikh and the man of his calibre are human beings. And that man is the ḍarīb of the Shaikh, i.e., the one to whom the Shaikh has done the action of ḍarb.
2. ḍuriba ‛alai-him al-ba‛th (Lane's Lexicon, p. 1778, col. 2) means "an army was imposed on them". The imposer or sender of the army might be a king, it is imposed upon a people, and that act is the passive voice of ḍarb.
3. Most interestingly there is the verse of the Quran: "And set out to them a parable of the people of the town…" (36:13). There is in fact no "of" in it, as I realized when seeing it in Lane's Lexicon, p. 1779, col. 3. This is why some translators render it as follows:
Asad: "And set forth unto them a parable – [the story of how] the people of a township …"
Pickthall: "Coin for them a similitude: The people of the city…"
Yusuf Ali: "Set forth to them, by way of a parable, (the story of) the Companions of the City…"
Here the command iḍrib, meaning "set out", "coin" etc., has two objects: (1) mathal-an or a parable, and (2) aṣhāb-al-qariya or people of a town. Not only is the Holy Prophet commanded to "set out" (or "hit") the parable, but also the people of the town!
The construction is: aṣhāb-al-qariya. If it had been aṣhāb-il-qariya, then, being preceded by "parable", it indeed would mean: parable of the people of the town.
From Zahid Aziz:
Here are two examples from ch. 43 of the Holy Quran, and I wonder if they meet the requirements that have been asked for.
The verse 43:17 mentions the contradiction that on the one hand pre-Islamic Arabs attributed daughters to God, but on the other they regarded it as a shame for them to have daughters. It says that when one of them is given the news of "what he strikes (ḍaraba) as a likeness for God", he feels disgraced. Man is the subject, and the daughter is the object which he "strikes", as a likeness for God. So a man commits act of ḍarb on a female, and it is not hitting her.
Verse 43:57 says: "And when the son of Mary is mentioned (ḍuriba) as an example…". The one who mentions (the subject) is the reader of the Quran, or any Muslim, and the one who is "mentioned", on whom the act of ḍarb is performed is Jesus. Both are human. Of course, you can say that there is no possibility of anyone striking Jesus physically, and therefore ḍarb here obviously has another meaning, but still the act of ḍarb is mentioned, performed by one human on another, without being "beating".
From Bashir:
Its funny how you guys compare arabic words…however, you avoid the occurrence of Waffa in 39:42. SMH. 39:42 breaks the entire case of the Ahmadis and other Quranists like Noorudin and Sir Syed. Muhammad Ali totally avoided it in his alleged scholarly commentary on the Quran, as did the MGF.
I totally disagree with wife beating, however, I know that ALL cultures/religions allowed it until recently..so why not just tell the truth? Why be apologetic and try perform the gymnastics required to attempt to explain this away? The truth is, Muslims and all other people on the known planet practiced a lifestyle wherein the majority of their women were seen as incapable of explanation and hence beating became a normal part of life.
Bashir
From Zahid Aziz:
Maulana Muhammad Ali deals with 39:42 and the occurrence of the word tawaffa in it in his English commentary of the Quran. He also deals with it in a little more detail in his Urdu commentary (but that's because he knew that Bashir & co. wouldn't be able to read Urdu).
The question is not what Muslims practised, but what the Quran teaches.
Blog readers should be reminded that Bashir has repeatedly expressed his standpoint that Islam is a primitive, backward, outdated, and violent religion, a religion of ignorance, superstition, myths and fables, and its teachings have no place in the modern world. His complaint about us is that our Movement has (in his view) tried to falsely represent it as enlightened, rational and liberal. So he argues that the Quran advised Muslim men that they can beat their wives whenever they feel so inclined, and he says we are wrong to argue against this.
Addendum: Muhammad Asad writes in his note on 39:42:
"As to the operative verb yatawaffa; it primarily denotes "He takes [something] away in full"; and because death is characterized by a disappearance of all vital impulses (the "soul") from the once-living body – their being "taken away in full", as it were – this form of the verb has been used tropically, since time immemorial, in the sense of "causing to die", and (in its intransitive form) "dying" or (as a noun) "death": a usage invariably adhered to in the Qur'an. The traditional likening of sleep to death is due to the fact that in both cases the body appears to be devoid of consciousness, partially and temporarily in the former case, and completely and permanently in the latter." (Bolding is mine.)
From Zahid Aziz:
Dear T. Ijaz: You asked a question, to which I gave a reply after some study. Please comment on whether my reply was to any extent satisfactory in your opinion.
From ikram:
Below is the verse in question by Bashir. The verse and its corresponding footnote are quoted from the translation and exegesis by Nooruddin:
While referring to verse 39:42 with the sole purpose to create doubts, Bashir skipped the verse before it:
If we read verse 39:41 in light of the comment by Bashir, it only comes across that Bashir is ‘perfect’ in his own created belief when he states – ‘I totally disagree with wife beating.’ Implied in his statement is that in this matter Quran (verse 4:34) is imperfect because, according to him, it allows for wife beating merely because some ignorant Muslims practice(d) this abomination and attributed to Quran, no matter how falsely. He is factually rejecting the claim of Quran about itself in verse 39:41 – We have revealed to you the perfect Book, it comprises the truth and wisdom. (It is) for the good of humankind.
On the contrary, the case of Lahori Ahmadis is exactly the opposite of that of Bashir. The Ahmadis do not advocate wife beating merely because they believe so out of their own wishes, fancies or formulations. Rather, they believe in non-violence towards wives, or for that matter towards anyone, because the Quran enjoins them so. It is no brainer as to who is perfect, Bashir or Quran. To Bashir we only requote from the stated verse – So he who follows (this) guidance will do so for the good of his own soul, and he who goes astray will do so to its own detriment (and so will himself suffer the loss). You are not responsible for them (9:41).
Nowhere do we find Quran contrary to a just human nature. Beating of wives is not in the nature of humankind but it is pathology, a sickness, an illness of the mind. In verse 4:34 discussed above, Quran cures that illness, else according to Bashir, Quran is wrong when it states the following about itself:
If a person, who doesn’t know anything about the Quran, out of one’s natural goodness, condemns wife-beating, that person will find such thinking and behavior supported in Quran. That person is factually following Islam, because according to Quran such rationality suits the requirements of which He has made the nature of humankind. That is the right and most perfect Faith, yet most people do not know it:
From Bashir:
Mr. Aziz,
I am trying to be civil with you and exchange ideas, however, you wont play fair. I do not believe """ that Islam is a primitive, backward, outdated, and violent religion, a religion of ignorance, superstition, myths and fables, and its teachings have no place in the modern world."""
^^ That is false and is simply a biased response to what I have wrote. Again, IMHO, all cultures and races and religions treated women terribly until the recent century. This is a FACT. We are talking about average women, not the exceptional cases. In the past I have referred to people from 3rd world countries as ignorant, primitive and etc based on their dealings with children, women, equality, and many other things…I was lucky enough to grow up in the USA and hence my ideas are groundbreaking and confusing to most immigrants. However, to most liberals and my peers, they make lots of sense.
[Paragraph deleted by admin as Bashir is using ‘foot in the door’ strategy.]
Moreover, MGA wrote Izala Auham in 1891 wherein he presented 30 verses that supposedly prove the death of Esa, Sir Syed used 4-5, however, MGA and his team were bold, however, in that year and the few years later he remained silent on Waffa in 39:42, my question is why? Further, how many times did MGA write about 39:42?? And what did he say?? Every Ahmadi on social media seems to be in the dark on this question…I am trying to fill in the gaps..
Then, you mention that Muhammad Ali dealt with Waffa in 39:42 in his urdu commentary but not his english commentary..thats very odd. And why arent you forthcoming to quote what he said? It seems that Muhammad Asad writes that it was used tropically or metaphorically, well, thats becasue he disbelieved in the return of Esa and had to make an Ahmadi-like statement. Muhammad Asad used Muhammad Ali's quran as the basis for his…and thus formed one of the very first englishj translations of the Quran in the world…
For clarification, 39:42 proves that God causes WAFFA in people even if they arent fully dead, and it happens every night to every single person. I qouted the verse below also. This proves that Waffa can mean something other then death..which kills the entire Ahmadi/Quranist argument. Further, since Mutawafeeka is a unique phraseology in the history of the Arabic language, this proves that Esa (as) didnt die fully…
""Allah takes (((WAFFA))the souls at the time of their death, and those that do not die [He takes] during their sleep. Then He keeps those for which He has decreed death and releases the others for a specified term. Indeed in that are signs for a people who give thought.39:42. ""
From Bashir:
Mr. Ikram,
You Quote Noorudin, however, as we know, he never wrote any tafsir of the Quran that was published in his lifetime..if so show me. Secondly, this quote doesnt address the main point…which is, WAFFA doesnt mean a full death, and it can mean something othe then death, in terms of the context.
Secondly, why dont you quote MGA in this regard? Did MGA ever comment on this verse? I have found one instance in all of his and his teams writings..have you seen it?
Thirdly, you quote some other verses and then argue that the Quran is perfect, however, as we know, most Sunni's believe in Abrogation and fact that Islam=Quran+hadith and in some cases the hadith even supercedes the Quran per classical Islam.
Fourthly, I live in california, beating women and children, the elderly and animals is against the law. In all previous cultures it was a norm, in fact, on Native American reservations, most of the men are guilty of domestic violence, hence, I call this behavior as a normal part of human behavior, which is being eradicated. And yes, the Quran endorsed it. However, I dont live in an Islamic country, so those rules dont apply, moreover, there can be an Islamic country that accepts that its in the Quran, but who places so many restrictions on it, that its never practiced. And thats what we need…not this apologetic attitude wherein you lie about whats in the Quran.
Bashir
From Zahid Aziz:
From both of Bashir's responses above, it is clear that he does believe Islam to be primitive, backward etc. He says the Quran endorses wife-beating, which he (quite rightly) calls a terrible treatment of women, and he says Western law has legislated against it. Plainly, this makes Islam a backward religion, which needs to be taught civilized values by the modern world.
Also, Bashir seems unable to read!
I wrote: "Maulana Muhammad Ali deals with 39:42 and the occurrence of the word tawaffa in it in his English commentary of the Quran."
Bashir responds: "Then, you mention that Muhammad Ali dealt with Waffa in 39:42 in his urdu commentary but not his english commentary..thats very odd."
What can I say!
As to Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's writings, he has fully dealt with tawaffa in 39:42 (and indeed with the similar verse 6:60) in his book Izalah Auham. He has also discussed 39:42 in his last book Chashma-i Ma`rifat, translating it fully and explaining it with reference to the soul being taken by Allah at death and in sleep.
Bashir is unable to understand that tawaffa means the taking of the human soul away from the body, and those who believe Jesus is still alive believe that Allah raised him to Himself body and soul together. Verse 39:42 uses this word to mean the taking of the human soul from the body, at death and during sleep. According to the act of tawaffa as described in 39:42, Jesus's body remains on this earth, either as a dead body or sleeping.
Bashir's comment "this proves that Esa (as) didnt die fully" of course raises the question what exactly is "not dying fully"? Is it being brain dead or in a coma perhaps, and still alive by means of modern medical technology?
Bashir says: "Muhammad Asad used Muhammad Ali's Quran as the basis for his". But CAIR in the USA has been distributing Asad's translation! Has he warned them of the dangers of distributing his translation?
From ikram:
The topic of verse 39:42 is irrelevant to the topic at hand of wife-beating. The issue that Bashir is injecting deals with a wholly different subject. The following is the response to the four points of Bashir:
Firstly, both the translation and exegesis of The Quran, on their covers, state – “As Explained by Nooruddin.” Inside each of these books, it is clearly mentioned up front that these books are based upon lectures, sermons and seminars of Nooruddin, which were published during his lifetime.
Secondly, Bashir’s skepticism of HMGA not addressing the verse 39:42 has been answered by Dr. Zahid Aziz above.
Thirdly, Bashir pits the beliefs and practices of “Sunnis” vs. the Quran. Logically only one of them can be ‘perfect’ in the matter of wife-beating, but not both. Obviously, Bashir seems to be advocating for the perfection of the former.
Fourthly, Bashir confused the term ‘norm’ vs. ‘normal’ of human behavior. According to him wife-beating is ‘norm’ of certain cultures but he ignores that according to Quran it is not ‘normal’ to do so, and Quran expunges that practice in its Message. Further, it is the ‘norm’ of Christians and Sunnis to believe in a physically alive Jesus. But according to Quran it is not ‘normal.’
In summary, anxiety and irritation is the ‘norm’ for a skeptic but is not ‘normal’ and healthy. It is ‘norm’ for Bashir to segue away from the topic of current thread of discussion but is not ‘normal’ for the issue at hand which is focused on the repugnant wife-beating.
From Bashir:
Mr. Aziz,
I understand your tactics, and what it is that you want me to say, however, I see Islam as a political system more then anything, and I analyze it from that perspective. You are from those people who think that IF islam allows wife beating, then it is primitive and thus false, i call it a normal phase of human development. I dont think you are capable of understanding that, since your perspective on Islam is to adjust it in the face of adversity.
You wrote that he deals with the occurence of 39:42 a bit more in his Urdu commentary, that is what I was referring to…and you knew that, however, you choose to be difficult. The issue of Waffa in 39:42 is that it means "taking" and all muslims believe in this fact about 39:42, so this proves that waffa CAN also mean "taking" instead of "die", and that is the major point that Ahmadis avoid. This disproves that the idea that Waffa can only mean death or die. Do you understand my point here?? If not, I can clarify…
So again, post what MGA wrote about 39:42 and lets analyze it. Did he address the issue that I have repeatedley brought up or did he side step that issue like Muhamamd Ali and Mahmud Ahmad did??
Finally, you continue to harp on CAIR and their use of Asad's Quran. However, the majority of Muslims in CAIR dont believe in the death of Esa as Ahmadis and Quranists do. So why bring this up??
And remember to play fair…
Bashir
From Zahid Aziz:
Bashir is unable to admit that he is wrong even when he is plainly wrong. He attributed to me the opposite of what I had written ("Then, you mention that Muhammad Ali dealt with Waffa in 39:42 in his urdu commentary but not his english commentary..thats very odd."), but he is claiming that I should have known what he meant!
In his first comment he stated it as a fact that: "Muhammad Ali totally avoided it in his alleged scholarly commentary on the Quran, as did the MGF."
This is his usual tactic of making allegations without having any substantiation. When the baseless allegation is refuted, he misreads the answer. When he is told that he misread it, he says we should have known what he meant!
Then he keeps on repeating the same false allegation by saying that Maulana Muhammad Ali "side stepped that issue". Even without knowing what the Maulana wrote, Bashir knows he side stepped the issue! He could have easily found in English what the Maulana wrote about it in his Quran commentary and other books.
Does he know the difference between waffa and tawaffa?
To learn the meaning of tawaffa just read the long statement of Shaikh Mahmud Shaltut, Professor at Al-Azhar, within which he writes:
"The word tawaffa is used in so many places of the Qur’an in the sense of death that it has become its foremost meaning. … The word tawaffaytani in this particular verse primarily means natural death which is known to everybody. The Arabic-speaking people understand this and only this meaning of the word with reference to the context. Therefore, had there been nothing else to indicate the end of Jesus in this verse even then it would have been improper and wrong to say that Prophet Jesus was alive, and not dead."
It is because tawaffa means death that some Muslims believed that in case of Jesus it refers to his death after his return.
Bashir wants me to post what Hazrat Mirza sahib wrote about this. Well, it is easily available online! If he is the great and unique researcher he claims to be, he should be able to find it. It is in Urdu, but Bashir claims to be working with anti-Ahmadiyya activists and they know Urdu. It seems Bashir has alienated the anti-Ahmadiyya as well by denigrating them as inferior persons of the third world, and also by his statements of Western ideological and intellectual superiority over Islam.
Bashir says that the majority of CAIR members don't believe Asad's interpretation on the death of Jesus. This seems a dangerous allegation because the question would then arise: on what other issues do CAIR members disagree with Asad? For example, on Asad's interpretation of jihad or tolerance of other religions. So while CAIR distributes Asad's Quran to show the true teachings of Islam to the American public, there is no guarantee that CAIR's own members believe any of his interpetations!
From ikram:
If we read Bashir in sum-total, both on this thread and elsewhere on this blog or other websites, it becomes crystal clear that he is either an implant of people like Jihad Watch or a closet Jihad Watcher himself. He positions himself as a mainstream Muslim. Although he distances himself from the “evils” of the Muslims, the Sunnis and wife-beating as an example, yet he makes sure to emphasize that the interpretation and practices of Sunnis are openly permitted by Quran. He shuns any sensible translation and interpretation of Quran (Asad, Muhammad Ali), and stubbornly clings to his erroneous belief that these certain “evil” practices and beliefs of such Muslims are endorsed by Quran. He will not consider any evidence from within Quran that expunges such nonsensical extra-Quranic beliefs. Why this resistance? One would have expected a “mainstream” Muslim to at least have an open mind to ideas which emanate from Quran itself and not a by-product of double /triple hearsay and in contravention of Quran. He and Jihad Watch fully know that the only bulwark against their anti-Islam campaign is Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement and its literature that cleanses the closet of Islam with the foremost means of Quran and then Sunnah and Hadith. They also know that LAM can also turn the tide against them. He is now alleging, without any sliver of evidence, that LAM is practicing Taqqiya, i.e. lying in the face of adversity, a core argument of Jihad Watch. He writes:
Bashir does not fully understand logical reasoning. He is twisting the logic of LAM. LAM believes that Quran prohibits wife-beating because wife-beating is primitive, and thus false. Quran prohibits all false beliefs and practices. Sorry Bashir, you will not find Taqqiya in LAM. Please do not try to make the evil ‘norms’ of certain cultures as ‘normal’ for Quran.
From Bashir:
Mr. Aziz,
Let me clarify, it was a typo, unfortunately, in Ahmadiyya discussion circles, clarificaiton is not allowed. If only Ahmadis would allow this, then, maybe, the persecution would end…And yes, I expect you and all other people who want civil discussoin to ask for clarification before you/they make sweeping judgement and assumptions, you have already assumed that I hate Islam and many other things…stop it! Ask!!
1. Muhammad Ali didnt address the main issue of Waffaa in 39:42. The main issue is as follows:
A–Waffa, or "tawaffa" in 39:42, means "taking", not "to die" or "death", since it would make the entire sentence grammatically incorrect. All schools of thought agree, Ahmadis and Sunnis/Shias, etc etc. FACT.
B–M. Ali side stepped this issue, instead he discussed how souls are allowed to return by the leave of Allah, well, he needed to address how the root WAFFA means "take" in this verse, which is similar to the classic interpretation of WAFFA in 5:117 and 3:55.
C–Again, 39:42 proves conclusivley that WAFFA can also mean TAKE, similar to how the word Khatam has many meanings, like FINAL, LAST, Best, etc etc etc, in fact, in the arabic language many words can be adjusted in this manner, most likely because the language wasnt as fully developed as we are in todays day and age, in other words, there were less words available…
2. Then, you quote an old professor at Al-Azhar, who also believed that Esa was dead…you were better off quoting Allama Iqbal, since he held the same belief and Muhammad Asad, and many other reformist who were looking to change Islam. For example, Christians also believe that Esa will physically return, however, they arent denying it in an attempt to start a plausible business..
2.a. And lets remember, Noorudin also believed that Esa was dead before he met MGA..so this idea has been going around Islam since the Mutazalites.
3. Then, you quote some Muslims who surmize that even if waffa means FULL DEATH, it can only mean that upon Esa (as)'s return..again, this was an idea..since Muslims werent actually 100% sure as to what happened to Esa (as) since allah told us that NO ONE KNOWS..see 4:157. It was all guess work..
4. I want you to post what MGA wrote about 39:42 and why WAFFA means TAKE and not die like MGA asserted in 1891, in his generalized statements in terms of WAFFA. However, you wont, FYI, on the aaii.org, portions of Izala Auham are published in english, in fact 30 verses are quoted..however, 39:42 is not mentioned in that abridged version.
4.a. And FYI, Sunni's/Shias love me…stop trying to create a rift.
4.b. And I say again, 99% of people from the 3rd world, especially India and Pak are backwards in terms of critical thinking, treatment of women, children, the elderly, the diabled and etc etc etc. Its a cultural problem, which can also lead to a reliigous problem.
5. Since we have seperated Church/Mosque from State, in the USA, we are 200+ years ahead of everyone else who hasnt..and we can out produce any nation..which makes us a world changer, in fact, I live in the Bay Area..we have changed the world many times and continue to do so..
6. I know many many lawyers who work for CAIR, none of them believe that Esa (as) died…they are all mostly Ahle Sunnah wa Jamaah, aka Sunni. Why have they circulated a Quran that claims that Esa (as) died?? Well…thats a possibility, however, he never went to India, and even if died and then was physically lifted to Allah afterwards and its a type of temporary death which is seen in sci-fi movies and etc.
Bashir
From Zahid Aziz:
Bashir confirmed his so-called "typo" by writing in the same line: "thats very odd". Was it also a typo when he wrote: ""Muhammad Ali totally avoided it in his alleged scholarly commentary on the Quran"? (Bolding mine).
His points:
1. According to 39:42, when Allah takes a soul, which is the act of tawaffa, one of two things must happen: either it is retained permanently in case of death or returned to the body in case of sleep. This was exactly what was to happen when Allah said to Jesus that he would do the act of tawaffa to him: either Jesus' soul would thereafter remain with Allah or be returned to his body on earth after completing his sleep. It cannot be that Allah promised Jesus that he would sleep (presumably Jesus must already have slept every night up to that point).
Bashir writes: "most likely because the language wasnt as fully developed as we are in todays day and age, in other words, there were less words available". So Bashir is saying that the Quran was revealed in a less developed language! Please read the Quran about what it says about its language: verses made plain in an Arabic Quran (41:3), a Quran revealed in Arabic that people may understand (43:3). Even the word arab means clear and eloquent in language and expression.
2. The old professor (later Rector of Al-Azhar) was a scholar of Islam and Arabic, more so than Allama Iqbal. Bashir says Iqbal like Asad believed Jesus had died. Can he send us one or two quotes from Iqbal in this regard?
2.a. We don't need Bashir to tell us that since the very early days of Islam the idea has been going around that Jesus died. Hazrat Mirza sahib also wrote exactly this and presented examples when his opponents said that there was an ijma (consensus) in Islam that Jesus was alive in heaven. But when Hazrat Mirza sahib writes this, people such as Bashir question whether he is correct and ask for proof. But if Bashir says the same thing, he is right!
3. Bashir has misunderstood. Some Muslims weren't surmizing that "even if tawaffa means death". Knowing that it means death, some said he died for a few hours and then came to life, and others said the order of the words of 3:55 should be taken as raf (ascending) first and then tawaffa afterwards, after his return to earth.
Bashir says: "since allah told us that NO ONE KNOWS..see 4:157. It was all guess work."
What is stated in that verse is that those who claim that Jesus was murdered "have no knowledge of it, but only follow a conjecture".
4. As I wrote before, Bashir is the great and unique researcher into Ahmadiyyat, and apparently he has the support of a huge number of anti-Ahmadiyya activists, and both Sunnis and Shias love him. Why is he then relying on me to post an easily available reference? Why not call on their support? Yes, in Izala Auham 39:42 is not included in those thirty verses. It is included in that book in the list of the occurrences of tawaffa in the Quran.
4.a. "And FYI, Sunni's/Shias love me…stop trying to create a rift."
Can Bashir provide any evidence of their "love" for him? Do they know of his views expressed in 4b ("99% … are backwards…").
6. "…and its a type of temporary death which is seen in sci-fi movies and etc….".
So we now interpret the Quran on the basis of sci-fi movies! Is it any different from the commentators who interpret the Quran on the basis of myths and legends?
From ikram:
To quote Bashir
No Bashir we are not quoting an “old professor," (obviously being old is a crime in sight of Bashir) we are quoting – Imâm Mâlik, Imâm Bukhârî, Imâm Ibn Hazm, Imâm ibn Qayyim, Qatâdah, Ibn ‘Abbâs, Muftî ‘Abduh al-i-Marâghî, Shaltût of Egypt, Asad. (Bukhârî, Chapters on Tafsîr and Bad‘aul khalq; Majma Bihâr al-Anwâr by Shaikh Muhammed Tâhir of Gujrât; al-Muwatta; Zâd al-Ma‘âd by Muhammad ibn Abû Bakr al-Dimashqî; Dur al-Manthûr by Allâmah Sayûti; Commentary of the Holy Qur’ân by Abû al-Fidâ’ Ismâ‘îl ibn al-Kathîr)
Below is the root, meanings and forms of the word that are being contravened by Bashir:
[Ref: Dictionary of The Holy Quran, (c) 2010, Abdul Mannan Omar, p.615-616]
From Rashid Jahangiri:
@Bashir,
Bashir you wrote:
“You Quote Noorudin, however, as we know, he never wrote any tafsir of the Quran that was published in his lifetime..if so show me. Secondly, this quote doesnt address the main point…which is, WAFFA doesnt mean a full death, and it can mean something othe then death, in terms of the context. “
Some information on Holy Quran translations and commentaries published, and to be published by Noor Foundation
Allama Nooruddin use to give Dars (lectures) on Holy Quran. His students use to transcribe them and some of them even got published, under his name, in his life time. Eighteen different complete transcribed versions (hand written notes) and at least one complete published version (from Hyderabad Deccan) of his lectures were handed down by Allama Nooruddin students to his son marhoom Abdul Mannan Omar sahib. These are the original sources of Holy Quran translations and commentaries published and in process of publication by Noor Foundation International. Website: islamusa.org
http://ahmadiyya.org/WordPress/2015/12/14/the-exegesis-of-the-holy-quran-commentary-and-reflections-by-allamah-nooruddin/
Bashir FYI:
Qadiani Jamaat even published ONE VERSION of Allama Nooruddin Holy Quran Dars under title HAQAIQ UL FURQAN
http://www.alislam.org/quran/tafseer/guide.htm?region=H1
You wrote:
“Finally, you continue to harp on CAIR and their use of Asad's Quran. However, the majority of Muslims in CAIR dont believe in the death of Esa as Ahmadis and Quranists do. So why bring this up?? “
Are you saying CAIR people are DISHONEST and HYOPCRITE?
I hope Americans who received Muhammad Asad translation of Holy Quran distributed free of charge do NOT read your comment. They will lose respect for CAIR and CAIR people will be very mad at you. Are you saying following websites of CAIR are pack of lies and CAIR project of HQ distribution is only a political move by them??
http://www.cair.com/press-center/press-releases/12812-cair-respond
http://www.explorethequran.com/index.php
From Bashir:
Mr. Aziz,
You have totally avoided my question. I will ask it again:
Why does Waffa literally mean "take" in 39:42?
1. I dont follow in this entire line of assumptions…they are irrelevant, whatever they are, again, why does Waffa mean take in 39:42, thats the the most important part of my question and its connection with Ahmadiyya/quranist/sirsyed ideology.
1.a. The verses that you quoted Chapters 41 and 43, they dont contradict what I wrote about the development of the Arabic language. Sorry..stop assuming about me. Answer the same question that I keep posting.
2. In terms of Allama Iqbal, his beliefs were almost identical to Sir Syeds and Noorudins…as were MGA and his teams. Iqbal wasnt as vocal..in fact, he gave one public statement and Im sure there are others out there..and if you need help understanding Quranists in India…google Sir Syed..there is a common belief structure..and Noorudin had it…and tempted MGA to use it, in the guise of reform.
2.a. Why are you still quoting this professor? It seems like an underhanded tactic by you?? As we all know, Shaikh Hamza Yousaf accidentally called you Muslim, then changed his statement, then deleted them. You know the story….1 professor from Al-Azhar liked you, most likely because he never read aobut the life of MGA and other books. So stop mis-representing information.
2.b. Not the "early-days",,thats another underhanded statement by you….The Mutaziles were the some of the first, thats 3rd century, so stop with the wordplay.
2.c. moreover this entire thread has been an attempt to literally translate certain words of the Quran, or reinterpret them…so are you saying that for 1000 years all Muslims misunderstood the Arabic?? Were there any scholars who viewed wife-beating as a translation error prior to the 17th century CE?? So stop it…
3. No Muslim ever wrote that Esa (As) died and then came back to life in a few hours before Sir Syed and then other Quranist.
3.a. Again..since Muslims weren't 100% sure of what happened to esa…so they gave explanations, case in point, see the "substitution-theory". Now look, they didnt know how Esa (As) ascended to heaven..so they gave explanations…of what they thought may have happened, they surmized.
3.b. So..its not just those who attempted to Kill Esa (as)…its the whole world…since most Muslims adopted the Substituion theory..do you understand?
4. There is no such thing as "anti-Ahmadiyya" activists…thats like me calling you an "anti-Islam" activist. So stop it.. I am asking the only Lahori blog on the internet if they are capable of explaining why Waffa means take in 39:42 and ……what did MGA write about this usage which totally contradicts everything MGA (or his team) ever wrote…and you wont answer.
4.b. I visit many local mosques..everyone knows that immigrants need time to adjust. We dont live in the UK..we live in the most diverse place on the planet..in fact, most of Hindu/Sikh associates also have trouble dealing with womens values…and they have nothing to do with Islam..however, they practice child abuse regualrly..
6 Mr. Aziz..you wont live to see time travel…i feel bad for you…it will disprove all of the notions of the Ahmadi…in fact, when we start travelling via gravitational waves.."invisible gravitational waves"…then what??
I will ask again..and dont avoid the question..Why does Waffa mean "take" instead of death/die in 39:42??
Bashir
From Bashir:
Mr. Ikram,
You are misrepresenting Imam Malik and others, they believed in the physical return of Esa (As)…and you dont…when they write that Esa (As) may have died…they mean, he died, and then was physically lifted and will physically return, not that he died in India and 90 years later. Whats sad…you know all this…but remain quiet and act like you dont..why? For Ahmadiyya?
Further, your ref comes from an Ahmadi…why would I accept it? Again, "Mutawafeeka" is unique phraseology that explains what happened to Esa…this phraseology has never been repeated in any Arabic writings….hence, something unique happened. FYI, the most common word for death is maut..
From Bashir:
@ Rashid
You dont understand how diverse the Muslim community in the USA is…we are different schools of thought…CAIR, has obviously, chose Asad's quran, that doesnt mean we have to believe it…Islam is not a cult, its regional, its what muslims do, we arent globally connected or anything like that…there is freedom and independence…I hope you understand…if not..let me know..
Moreover, Noorudin never said anything about his commentary on the Quran…in fact, he commissioned Muhammad Ali to write an official commentary for the Jamaat in urdu and english. So..I have problems believing that Noorudin wrote these…moreover, Mahmud Ahmad never wrote anything in his life…he had friends aka maulvis as scribes and editors…im sure, he just spoke, and they wrote it down, just like MGA did, since we know his right arm was disabled and Masroor recently admitted that MGA had paid scribes..
Bashir
From Zahid Aziz:
In reply to Bashir, waffa does not occur in 39:42. It (waffa) occurs in, for example, 53:37 and 24:39 (perfect), 24:25 and 11:15 (imperfect), 2:272 and 8:60 (passive), etc. If Bashir doesn't know the difference between the root verb wafa and its derived forms waffa and tawaffa he is too lacking in knowledge to make his comments.
The verse 39:42 doesn't consist of just one word, it tells us what its application is. The act of tawaffa by Allah to a human, as described in 39:42, is what was done by Allah to Jesus. He slept every day and eventually died.
Bashir believes that tawaffa about Jesus is "unique phraseology that explains what happened to Esa…this phraseology has never been repeated in any Arabic writings". He says that "allah told us that NO ONE KNOWS..see 4:157. It was all guess work." He says "its the whole world" which doesn't know and cannot know what happened. And this, he says, is because Allah revealed the Quran in a language which "wasnt as fully developed as we are in todays day and age, in other words, there were less words available".
How does one know that the use of tawaffa is "unique" about Jesus? Is it stated somewhere that this word when used about Jesus has a different meaning from when it is used about anyone else? And it is so unique that no one can ever know what it means about Jesus!
In fact, the Holy Prophet Muhammad said that the same word would apply to his own death (fa-lamma tawaffaita-ni — You caused me to die). Under the Holy Prophet's instructions Muslims are everyday repeating in prayer before Allah that tawaffa about themselves means their death.
Bashir writes: "3. No Muslim ever wrote that Esa (As) died and then came back to life in a few hours before Sir Syed and then other Quranist."
I hope he won't later claim that he made a typo here and didn't mean to say this. Can he get any of his anti-Ahmadiyya co-thinkers to endorse this statement? They will have more sense than to endorse it. It seems they are using him as the "fall guy" to make himself look ridiculous by making statements they would not dare to make.
Bashir hasn't provided a shred of evidence for his absurd claim that Sunnis and Shias "love" him.
His mental level can be well gauged from his final comment, number 6. How does he know he will live to see time travel, if I won't? So "time travel" will take us to the future when Jesus will have descended to the earth and then we will know that Ahmadiyyat is false! Let us then wait for that invention and find out!
From ikram:
Vow! Did anybody notice in the recent posts above the pressure of speech, tangentially of thoughts, the delusion of riding the gravitational waves, circumstantiality of making of Jesus into another asleep Rip Van Winkle or an un-dead Zombie, discovery of imperfections of Arabic language, grandiosity of self-righteousness, utopia of California, derogatory view of other cultures, disgust of ‘old’ professors, the ego dystonic personal beliefs, and contradictorily disparaging the scripture while at the same time trying to defend it? How can one sensibly argue with such a state of mind?
Only to simplify the discussion and bring to light the hidden objective of Bashir which is to bodily raise Jesus like Christianity, let’s ignore all other sources, authorities, references, dictionaries, commentaries discussed so far and re-read the translation of the verse as posted by Bashir himself (bolding is mine).
I wonder where is the problem? The verse is a plain discussion of daily experience of ‘temporary death’ during sleep and final death at the end of life, and their interrelationship. Interesting aspect is that those who do not satisfactorily experience the ‘temporary death,' the sleep, they suffer from a condition called – Insomnia. The insomniacs pay their doctors to give them pills so that they can ‘die temporarily’ on a daily basis.
In light of this verse, the lack of consciousness is either temporary e.g. sleep or coma while body is alive and in need of air/water/nutrition, or, it is permanent when the body too dies. Coma is no exception to the rule. If body systems fail, e.g. kidneys/liver etc, then the extended unconsciousness of coma transitions into death.
This verse tells us that there is only one biologically conscious state and two unconscious states – sleep and death. Besises these, there are no other states for humans to exist in i.e. humans cannot form spores or disappear into heavens. Rest of the states are found only after death and in the afterlife where they transition from Barzakh into Hell and Heaven. Afterlife states are dealt with in detail throughout the Quran.
This verse (39:42) only confirms that there is no exception to the rule above nor is there is any room of a temporary state that Bashir is trying secure for Jesus. Such mythical states are only found in “Twilight Zones” and “Dog Heavens” of Hollywood, not in Quran.
Additionally, the same verse tells us that state of consciousness of any person, including Jesus, is for a ‘specified term’ i.e. in circadian rhythm one returns to sleep daily and in terms of total life one too has ‘specified term.’ That specified term in limited and not unusually long – And We did not grant living forever to any mortal before you. If you die, will they live forever? (21:34.).
For Jesus, no matter where Bashir may wish him to be, to be physically alive for 2000 years and still counting is living forever and definitely against Quran. Once again, here, either Bashir is right or the Quran is truthful, but not both. Quran removes such nonsense for Jesus and moves him from being un-dead to dead (a separate discussion).
In sum-total, the daily experience of sleep is a “sign for people” to experience ahead of time the expectations and philosophy of death.
From Rashid Jahangiri:
@Bashir,
Your lack of knowledge does NOT mean, what you say or believe is true and rest all is false. Actually, i believe you're expereincing something more than what manifests as Pressured Speech, as pointed out by Ikram. You're talking absolute nonsense.
From Bashir:
Mr. Aziz,
IMHO, you have disproved MGA and his notions, WAFFA can have many many meaning…obviously. This is my point, this is the question that MGA, M. Ali, Mahmud ahmad and MGF have avoided. I understand the root Waffa and how it can be adjusted to have multiple meanings, that is exactly what I am discussion here. Quranists, in the late 20th century, in India, they were the ones who tried to make Waffa only mean death, or by adding some weird stipulation, like, only when referring to the human body and etc, these people have tried their level best to twist this word to serve their economic needs.
2. Again, Tawaffa was used in 39:42 to mean TAKE..the rest of the verse is another topic altogether…stop harping on that part of it..simple acknowledge that Waffa can have multiple meanings, from Die to take to etc etc. This root is not limited to one thing…just like the word Khatam can mean last, best, sealed etc etc etc..
2.a. When one word can have multiple meanings…this is the cover up of the Quranist, who has motives of reform and wants to change Islam, which is OK, they are free to do so..however, MGA went a step further and claime dto be Esa (as) himself and then exempted his family from chanda…that, is what I have a problem with. As you know, I consider Lahoris as a liberal form of Ahmadyya, whereas Qadianis dont even consider you people as Ahmadi..see the deabte with Ansar Raza in Canada
3. I wrote that "Mutawafeeka" is unique phraseology in Arabic, and thats a FACT, it appears to be taken from 2 words conjoined, maut+waffa, and hence indicates that something unique happened to Esa (as). Then you switch to 4:157 abruptly, well, its all conjecture..and thats how muslims understood that verse…not just for the Jews..but for everyone..no one really knows..we can give opinion…but nothing certain, India is just ridiculous and makes you guys look really bad..in fact, your brother even said that it was possible to deny this part of Ahmadiyya..have you seen the video?
3.a. Muhammad (saw) said Tawaaffitaini, not Mutawafeeka..remember? And yes, Jesus will use Tawafitaini in a future event…which has happened yet, however, this doesnt solve the unqiueness of Mutawafeeka. Try again..
4. Your other questions and assertions are heinous attempts at mud slinging and question avoidance, and personal jesting..
5. And again..Ahmadiyya is based on 20th century science..before Einstein..hence, Sir Syed's Quranism fails…in fact, a man was on the moon about 40 years ago…and we have robots on Mars…and gravitational waves were detected..and etc etc..
From Bashir:
@ Ikram
There are animals that fall into a place of suspended animation, in fact the Quran even talks about, do you need the verse? im sure you know it..
Stop trying to put a limit on humans…here is an article that supports my view..http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4655035.stm
Again, your sect is stuck in the pre-Einstein era of science…
Bashir
From Bashir:
@ Rashid
Of course this sounds inconcievable to you…in fact, you are even a Lahori Ahmadi…you are some type of rogue who has been on the Ahmedi.org forum for like 10+ years…so stop playing games…obviously, you arent capable of any discussion..and it most likely has a connection with your life as an immigrant
Bashir
From Zahid Aziz:
No wonder Bashir cannot get anyone with any knowledge to support him. I will concentrate on his complete and laughable ignorance which shows he is utterly unfit and incompetent to continue this discussion.
He writes that mutawafeeka "appears to be taken from 2 words conjoined, maut+waffa and hence indicates that something unique happened to Esa (as)."
This is totally laughable! Mutawafee is one word, the active of tawaffa, meaning 'the one who does the act of tawaffa'. The subject of the verb is inni meaning "I" (Allah), and the object of the action is ka, meaning "you" (Jesus).
It is the height of ignorance to say that mutawaffee consists of "maut+waffa"!
Then he writes: "Muhammad (saw) said Tawaaffitaini, not Mutawafeeka ..remember?"
This is even more ridiculous! How could the Prophet Muhammad say to Allah: "I will cause you to die" (Mutawafeeka)! ? And the only difference between mutawaffee-ka and tawaffaita-ni is the latter is uttered by the one to whom tawaffa has been done. It is like the difference between, for example, the statements "I am going to employ you" and "you employed me". Will anyone say that "employ" in the first statement is a different word from "employ" in the second statement?
The Holy Prophet Muhammad is saying that he will quote to Allah what Jesus said: "You did the act of tawaffa to me." So how does it become unique about Jesus?
And under the Holy Prophet's instructions Muslims are everyday repeating in a prayer before Allah that He does tawaffa to them, meaning their death.
Bashir hasn't responded to my point that no one will endorse his claim: "3. No Muslim ever wrote that Esa (As) died and then came back to life in a few hours before Sir Syed and then other Quranist."
He tells us how Muslims, both Sunnis and Shiahs, "love" him. But, as I said, he fails to provide a shred of evidence for it. In a previous incarnation Bashir (under a different false name about 5 years ago) wrote:
“All the ahmadiyya awareness people on the internet know me very well. They all love me for the work that I have done. I attend a local mosque in Dallas and the muslims love me more than any ahmadis could ever do so. You see, ahmadis support the white man, whereas muslims support Islam–there is a difference.”
Muslims "loving" him is just a false claim. (Also false is his claim that somehow Ahmadis are on the side of the oppressing "white man" while he is on the side of the oppressed.)
It appears that Bashir, besides being arrogant (as you see from his "talking down" tone) and ignorant (which I have conclusively proved), also suffers from some multiple personality and obsessive disorder.
From ikram:
If we follow the line of arguments of Bashir, it comes to fore that he is repeatedly advancing Catholic views. Previously the ongoing argument was limited to physical rising of Jesus into heavens. Now, by using the example of frozen embryos (a cluster of a few multi-potent cells, 2-3 days old) Bashir is advocating Vatican doctrine that life starts at conception. He considers embryo as living humans when he tried to put forth the argument that Jesus can be in a state of “suspended animation” with the example of an embryo. Probably Bashir does not know that according to Quran, life starts only after a maturation stage is reached for the implanted embryo. Since we know that he rejects all Ahmadi works we quote the translation from Maududi:
By knowledge of embryology we know that final stage of verse 23:14 is reached after about a month of implantation in the womb. We apply the above verses further for Jesus:
Once born, then the length of life for any individual is the sum-total of daily sleep/awake cycles that are referred to in verse 39:42 (the source of controversy for Bashir). The length of life is limited, and not unlimited like Jesus of Bible and Bashir. Quran testifies to this fact:
Since Jesus is like Adam (3:59) in his birth and life, then verse 23:15 also tells us that anyone, including Jesus and the frozen embryos that Bashir refers to, once born, must die in the same manner as Adam because they all come under the same laws, both spiritual and physical. If Adam died after a limited lifetime then so must Jesus. How was it even possible for Prophet Muhammad to hold the exclusive office of world prophet-hood while Prophet Isa (Jesus) was physically alive and vice versa?
However, if Bashir insists on “Take away” of soul of Jesus and Allah is keeping him alive, no matter even in a state of "suspended animation" according to Bashir, somewhere, for an indefinite time by relying on verse 39:42, then (God forbid) Allah will be breaking His-Own law of a limited human life-span mentioned in verse 21:34.
No human once born, whether riding a gravitational wave or not, living in a post-Einstein world or not, cannot go into a “suspended animation” that Bashir believes in. Unless, that “suspended animation” is like the one mentioned in verse 39:42 as temporary or permanent sleep. The “temporary death” i.e. loss of consciousness of a physical body can occur in a sleep, anesthesia or coma. Permanent physical death occurs at end of one’s life.
Going forward can we assume that by “suspended animation” Bashir meant Cryogenics of fully formed humans (not embryos)? Probably not, as it will be an argument beyond Catholicism for Bashir. If so, then the pledge of “death do us apart” will never happen for any couple.
Before I close, I want to draw attention of all those who live in post-Einstein world and believe in science that "neologism" is a symptom of a serious condition. According to Wikipedia – In psychiatry, the term neologism is used to describe the use of words that have meaning only to the person who uses them, independent of their common meaning. This tendency is considered normal in children, but in adults it can be a symptom of psychopathy or a thought disorder (indicative of a psychotic mental illness, such as schizophrenia). People with autism also may create neologisms. Additionally, use of neologisms may be related to aphasia acquired after brain damage resulting from a stroke or head injury (link).
Is “maut+waffa” an example of neologism?
From Bashir:
Mr. Aziz,
You have succeeded in totally avoiding the question again. I asked about Waffa in 39:42 and you wont answer, since you and MGA and M. Ali and Mahmud Ahmad understand how it deflates all Ahmadi arguments. Waffa has a few meanings, die, take and etc. Ahmadis will always run from this.
As for your other arguments…they are tactical and Ahmadi-type. You dont care about the truth of Ahmadiyya, you were raised in this environment and refuse to leave it. As a Muslim, you would be free to be a Quranist and believe whatever you like about Esa (as), however, since you are an Ahmadi, MGA went tooo far and has created an evil family business and you still support that in one way or the other.
From Bashir:
@ Ikram,
Firstly, the Quran refers to Esa (as) as the like of Adam (As)..If I remember correctly, this is in terms of the miraculous birth of Esa (as) without a father and Adam (as) without any parents..and obviously, Lahori Ahmadi's and Noorudin and Sir Syed were the first Muslims ever to deny that…Moreover, MGA talks of revelations that date back to 1884-85 about him becoming pregnant miraculously and etc..Noorudin appears to have been silent on them, however, he silently objected to them?? Please enlighten me..
Further, Esa (as) will not live forever, he will die upon his return, so, Im not sure why you brought this up..since you should already know this.
Maybe you dont know…if someone lives on the moon, they age different…in they space travel, they age different..and etc etc..and Ahmadiyya is based on pre-Einstein science.
I know that Mutawafeeka is based on verbs and etc that are needed to signify from who or what, nonetheless, its unique phraseology in the Arabic language..Allah never ""took"" anyone in that manner.
From T Ijaz:
Yes, good points and excellent references regarding the expanded meanings of daraba. Thanks
From ikram:
Earlier it was advocacy of Jesus rising in body, and then came the argument for life at conception. Now we have the promotion of third Catholic belief, the myth of Creationism i.e. Adam came into the world without parents and Jesus was born without a father. Anyone adamantly advocating Jesus travelling in space at speed of light or close to it, of course without oxygen, food, water and a space suit is preaching nothing but a hair ball of nonsense. This make belief fairytale destroys the attributes of God in that Jesus physically had to travel from here, the earth, to there, into heaven, because God is not present in the earthly realm. On the contrary Quran tell us that Allah is omnipresent and even closer to one’s Jugular vein:
Suddenly these dogmas paint a limitless God into a physical entity confined in some corner of the space and His interaction with humans on the earth is like that of Greek Gods watching from heavens down. Anyone professing these beliefs while claiming to belong to Einstein era is either an ignorant to the bone or hypocrite or both.
Keeping in view the narrow vision of the disputant, only the translations from Maududi are quoted, even though we fully know that his translation limits the essence of the Quran.
Quran is not a book of science but all its arguments are in step with science. Because Allah is the author of all laws, both physical and spiritual, hence there is no mutual incongruence between these laws. Discovery of laws of science is merely a human experience of His Laws. The more one knows science, the more depth one develops into Quran:
Overall, the modern life on earth evolved over four billions years, from unicellular into multicellular forms. Adam did not drop out of heavens; he evolved from an earlier humanoid form not worth mentioning for its intelligence and faculty of speech. Modern humans evolved merely a hundred thousand years ago:
In current cycle of our universe, first there was Big Bang. Then over period of time galaxies/solar systems/planets formed and finally life evolved first in the oceans before it came onto the land:
The lifeform from oceans initially crawled onto the land before it became bipedal or quadruped:
DNA studies of plants and animals tell us that we are all encoded similarly for core functions e.g. sugar metabolism. But if we reverse the argument that humans have no relationship with other animals or trees then we can equally state that except identical twins, even humans have different DNAs from each other, hence unlike from each other:
One of the most farfetched dogmas is the fatherless birth of Jesus. Birth of a child has a requirement of both parents, male and female gametes, an exception that, hypothetically, even Allah cannot afford for Himself, but dogma pushers have no qualms in their beliefs of a fatherless Jesus:
Even Mary, mother of Jesus, testifies to the law in verse 6:101:
While answering Mary, God validates His own Law of parental requirements before conception of a child, outlined in verse 6:101. In answer to the quizzical response of Mary in verse 3:47, she is foretold of her marriage:
Thus Mary’s marriage was arranged by her guardian:
Dogmas and dogma pushers alike, as discussed above are one and all a disgrace to common sense, religion and science. According to Einstein “The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.” Here we see the unlimited stupidly of bodily rise of Jesus, life starting at conception, and birth of Jesus and Adam without parents.
I would like to remind Bashir that according to Einstein “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” These dogmas that you are pushing are neither a religion nor a science, but pure blind myths and LAM stands against any nonsense in the name of Islam.
Arguments of Bashir are a façade in name of Einstein while they contradict the fundamental laws of science including evolution. LAM knows Einstein; LAM is a friend of Einstein for his scientific discoveries. Bashir, by your arguments, neither you know Einstein nor are you a friend of his science.
From Zahid Aziz:
Bashir is obviously not capable of understanding, even after being told more than once, that when Allah "takes" a human being, where the verb used is tawaffa, it means taking that person's soul, while leaving his body in our physical world. That is how 39:42 describes that action. Bashir has run away from the following points which I have made above:
1. The Holy Prophet Muhammad said that he would say the same as what Jesus said. He then quoted Jesus' statement to Allah from the Quran: You (O Allah) did tawaffa to me. So the tawaffa mentioned for Jesus was going to happen to him as well.
2. The Holy Prophet taught Muslims a certain prayer and made it binding on them to say it. In that prayer Muslims apply that same word tawaffa to their own death.
3. Bashir claimed: "3. No Muslim ever wrote that Esa (As) died and then came back to life in a few hours before Sir Syed and then other Quranist."
Does he still stand by this?
4. He made non-sensical statements about mutawaffi-ka.
5. Bashir claims Muslims support him, in fact "love" him. He can't show us any Muslim at all "loving" him. He claims support from anti-Ahmadiyya posters. But they are clever enough to remain in the background and let him make a fool of himself.
All the above points, he is running away from.
Bashir's "scientific" approach is to put forward unsubstantiated claims as facts, which even he isn't sure are true, and see if he can get away with it. Unless it is disproved, it becomes the truth according to his principles.
Incidentally, my respected elder, the late Mr N. A. Faruqui, has in his Urdu book on Prayers of the Holy Prophet (Masnoon Dua'ain) mentioned 39:42 in connection with the prayer to be said on waking up. That prayer is: "Praise be to Allah Who has given us life (ahya-na) after causing us to die (amata-na)…". Mr Faruqui writes in his note:
"Let no one think that the Holy Prophet has referred to sleep here as maut (death) merely as a metaphor. In fact, our Creator has said in the Quran [… here 39:42 is quoted with translation…]. This is the knowledge revealed by the Quran 1400 years ago, while scientists do not even now know what is sleep. In sleep the animal life of man remains, but his spirit (ruh), which develops within his body and becomes his nafs or personality, is taken away temporarily just as it is taken away permanently at the time of his death when the animal life comes to an end as well."
From Bashir:
Mr. Aziz,
You see, this entire thread was spawned by a discussion on the application of a certain arabic word. I responded with giving information on "other" arabic words and how Ahmadiyya has exploited them for their own sustenance. For example, before 1891, MGA knew that Waffa meant "taking" in terms of Esa (as) and he believed that for 50+ years of his life, however, Noorudin did not, Noorudin believed that Esa (As) was dead and had a bio father in 1889 and well beforet that, however, Nooruddin still did the ba'it at MGA's hands in 1889.
Moreover, as you know that Qadiani side of the house also went on to purposely mis-translate the word Khatam and Akhir (see chapter 2:4). So this is what I was trying to show you. However, this discussion never really got off the ground, and for obvious reasons.
1. Ahmadis took the statement of the HP out of context, as they made their argument in 1891. Sir Syed and Noorudin hadnt previously made that argument, since Quranist dont rely on hadith. Moreover, it isnt documented anywhere in Islam that anyone used that argument before the Ahmadis adjusted its meaning.
2. Again, tawaffa can have multiple meanings, as you have admitted, and without quoting MGA, why dont you tell us what MGA wrote about the occurrence of Waffa in 39:42? I am asking for a full research paper on all occurrences, that would be progress. That would fill in the gaps..however, ahmadis dont want to do this..
3. I need to elaborate on this before we go further..you are trying to purposely misunderstand what I wrote…
4. No matter what you say or write on "Mutawafeeka" it is a unique and singular expression (phraseology) of the arabic language which was meant to explain a unique situation, i.e. Allah taking Esa (as) to him (heaven).
Some of the other things you write are spurious and indicative of malice.
Then, you quote Faruqi as he explains Waffa in 39:42 as a metaphor, which is a common Ahmadi tactic, in fact, MGA wrote the same in one of his books, which you still havent quoted yet…
Bashir
From Zahid Aziz:
There is no parallel between our discussion that daraba means something other than beating in 4:34 and Bashir's argument about tawaffa. So this thread wasn't "spawned" by that discussion, but rather by Bashir's obsession to prove us to be false. Our discussion was that daraba means other actions than "beat" in many places in the Quran and we applied that fact to 4:34. Bashir's argument is that tawaffa always means death except in 39:42 and "uniquely" for Jesus.
In any case, the discussion on daraba has no bearing on any claims of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad whatsoever, and in fact our opinion on this differs from previous Ahmadiyya literature including LAM. If the traditional meaning of it in 4:34 is right, then Bashir would have to acknowledge that previous Ahmadiyya literature is right (something he politically can't afford to say "for his own sustenance"!).
1. If we have taken that hadith out of context, then give us the context! Bashir says Maulana Nur-ud-Din "hadn't previously made that argument" because he was one of those who don't rely on hadith. He used to give a daily dars on Bukhari. He instructed Maulana Muhammad Ali to translate Bukhari into Urdu: "Maulvi sahib, the Quran has been done but Bukhari still remains" were his instructions and his expression of regret that the work of translating Bukhari had not started in his lifetime. Maulana Muhammad Ali then completed that work in the 1930s.
He says: "it isnt documented anywhere in Islam that anyone used that argument before the Ahmadis adjusted its meaning." Well, Bukhari himself used that argument by the fact of including this hadith in his collection, and just before this hadith adding the comment from Ibn Abbas that mutawafeeka means death.
2. I never said tawaffa has multiple meanings. Allah's doing tawaffa to a human being is to take his soul, detaching it from his body.
Just read this arrogant and lofty directive from Bashir: "I am asking for a full research paper on all occurrences, that would be progress."
He is the great researcher, who has support of all Muslims who know him and "love" him, and the support of all anti-Ahmadiyya zealots online. Why can't Bashir do it himself or ask any of them to do it?
3. Bashir is unable to substantiate his false claim that "3. No Muslim ever wrote that Esa (As) died and then came back to life in a few hours before Sir Syed and then other Quranist."
4. How do we know that mutawafeeka is used in a unique way about Jesus and not meaning death in his case? We can only apply its meaning as found in other instances of its usage. Otherwise, someone could say when Jesus is called a human being, it is in a unique sense and not in the sense in which other humans are humans!
Any questions about himself, Bashir calls "spurious and indicative of malice". But his reviling of us is not malice! This proves that his claims are totally groundless. There are no Muslims "loving" him, and the anti-Ahmadiyya don't want to be associated with him but stay in the shadows behind him.
Bashir is incapable of reading! He writes: "you quote Faruqi as he explains Waffa in 39:42 as a metaphor,". But that quotation begins:
"Let no one think that the Holy Prophet has referred to sleep here as maut (death) merely as a metaphor."
Bashir, if a sentence begins "let no one think" it means that the author is rejecting what follows, not affirming it. Try doing an elementary course in comprehension.
From Zahid Aziz:
Translations of fa-dribu-hunna ("beat them") by some other English translators of the Quran:
Dr Tahir-ul-Qadri, famous Pakistani religious scholar has it as: "striking a temporary parting." So darb is striking, not the wife but a parting!
Dr Laleh Bakhtiat: "go away from them".
Ahmed Ali (of Karachi): "go to bed with them (when they are willing)".
Shabbir Ahmed (opponent of Ahmadiyya Movement): "keep admonishing them with examples".
Dr Kamal Omar (Karachi): "bring forward to them (suggestion for dissolution of marriage)".
From Bashir:
Mr. Aziz,
1. Daraba isn being re-translated in the 20th-21st century to adjust to the times..Waffa means "taking" and "death"…there are many instances wherein the root Waffa means "taking" or some variation of taking…
1.a. In 1880 and before that, Sir Syed and his group of Quranist began re-interpretting Arabic words so as to move Islam forward…in an attempt to remove the backwardness that haunts 3rd world culture. This is what I disagree with. Moreover, the Qadianis went a step forward..as you know.
1.b. Are you saying that MGA translated daraba as "beating"??? Why hadnt you brought that up as your major argument in the above essay? Why do Ahmadis run away from the writings of MGA? This is very odd…
1.c. Ok..so whats the context? What year was it "said"?? Anyhow, every prophet will have to answer as such, not just Jesus and Muhammad. Ahmadis have tried desperately to make this mean that Muhammad's death happened exactly like Esa (As)..of natural causes..and that is an absolute farce!
1.d. Again, it seems that you havent met many Quranist…some Quranist, they only use hadith that match "their" version of the Quran. remember?? Maybe you havent met them..I have. Some Quranist, they totally deny hadith. Nooruddin was the former as was MGA, as is Ahmadiyya today, all branches.
1.e. Noorudin wanted to make money..hence, he wanted those books translated…its so sad, that he didnt learn english, even though he grew up in British India. He could have done it himself..smh
1.f. Imam Bukharee never said Mutawafeeka means death…again, another hadith taken out of context..the arabic word that he used wasnt Maut in that hadith..remember?? Or did you forget..it was another unique word..you have heard our counter arguments for 40+ years..yet, you standfast on your argument…thats unbelievable..
2. You wont show us what MGA wrote…you know it wil hurt you..you know it…hence, you avoid it. Your religions translation of "Khutbah-Ilhamia" is another example of gross distortion, as you people left out the controversial things there…From what I remember, MGA wrote that WAFFA in 39:42 was a metaphor or something like that…and I know you wont post it…smh
3. You are again not answering…if you have some data post it…these weird challenges are only indicative of your culture..I mean, I expect you to submit a Mubahila also….Learn how to properly discuss with other humans…this isnt a 3rd world country.
4. Mutawafeeka only occurs once in the Quran…then it appears 300 years later in Bukhari..and then disappears again…prove this wrong.
Again…stop mudslinging..we are civil. And finally, Faruqi seems to be saying that its a metaphor..but not simply a metaphor, it has additional meaning…and he got the metaphor idea from MGA…look it up..
Bashir
From ikram:
Thank you Dr. Zahid Aziz by clearly laying out the whole matter and those who do not agree with what you wrote, to them Quran explains their state:
Dr. Aziz summed up with a pertinent advice to them to seek an – “elementary course in comprehension.” To them we say:
Taking away of soul and returning to Allah is the death and final obituary of Jesus. To the disputants we remind them to leave in their wills that no one should recite their obituary, because when their souls are taken away then they might be returning to someone other than Allah. Obviously the following oft recited prayer at the time of news of their deaths does not fit them:
From Bashir:
@ Ikram
Your messiah believed that Esa (as) was alive in heaven for the majority of his life…did u forget? So stop making it look like its obvious..its a gray area that was exposed in the past and continues to be exposed by opportunists..
From Zahid Aziz:
In response to Bashir:
1. "isn being re-translated". Do you mean daraba "isn't being re-translated" or "is"? It certainly is being re-translated now from "beat" or "hit". Just compare pre-1980 translations of the Quran with the latest ones.
And how often will I have to repeat that according to Arabic lexicons the act of Allah doing tawaffa to a human means only the taking of his soul?
1a. Bashir says Islam was backward and in his opinion Sir Syed was trying to move it forward in a wrong and invalid manner. What is Bashir's solution to the "backwardness" of Islam? Obviously, he wants Muslims to discard Islam.
1.b This shows Bashir's lamentable ignorance! Muslims, including Ahmadis, have traditionally translated that word in 4:34 as "beat", and then given various explanations of what is meant by it. They were all mortal, fallible human beings. Ikram, others and I differ from the previous translation because understanding of the Quran advances. Of course, (unlike Bashir) we are also fallible.
1.c It is Bashir's accusation that we are taking that hadith (about Holy Prophet applying Jesus's words about tawaffa to himself) out of context. He should prove that by providing the context, not ask us. The hadith can be easily read in Sahih Bukhari (book: 'Commentary on the Quran', under Surah 5, hadith number 4625). Isn't it the accuser who provides the evidence?
1.d Bashir says we are the type of "Quranist" who only use hadith that match their interpretation of the Quran. But you can read in books of Hadith that the sahaba sometimes rejected hadith reported by other sahaba, and sometimes they quoted the Quran to refute a reported hadith. Hazrat Aishah once rejected a hadith reported by Hazrat Umar, she quoted the Quran in refutation and said to the enquirer: The Quran is sufficient for you.
1.e How could Maulana Nur-ud-Din make money from books? People wouldn't buy them on any scale because (a) they consider him a kafir and (b) the books like Bukhari are so big and scholarly that they attract only a few readers. But I, by the grace of Allah, am continuing that work ("The Quran has been done, but Bukhari still remains"). Instead of defaming the dead like a coward, Bashir should have the courage to attack the living ones. Am I also doing that work to make money? Have I made money from my previous publications?
As to making money, if the Qadiani Khalifa offered Bashir enough money, you can be sure he will run to embrace the Khalifa's feet like a slave.
As to Maulana Nur-ud-Din missing opportunity to learn English, why doesn't Bashir learn Urdu? Yes, that's "so sad"! Born in a Pakistani Qadiani family and able to speak Urdu, he can't be bothered to learn to read it.
1.f Imam Bukhari added a note to quote the opinion of a Companion that mutawaffi-ka means the one who brings about maut.
Bashir writes: "you have heard our counter arguments for 40+ years". But he is under 40 years of age himself and has not been anti-Ahmadiyya for even ten years! So what is this "our" group that he belongs to, who have been working for 40+ years?
2. Learn Urdu, or get the help of those whose arguments we have been hearing for 40+ years, and you will find out exactly what Hazrat Mirza sahib wrote.
3. A mubahila is used to prove conclusively who is a liar. With Bashir, he is already a proven liar and in fact he has confessed to telling falsehoods. Just one example of his lies is that he has appeared on this forum under different names claiming to be what he certainly is not.
4. To say mutawaffee-ka occurs only once in the Quran is laughable ignorance. For a start, Jesus himself repeats elsewhere that Allah did the act of tawaffa to him. Then Allah says three times to the Holy Prophet Muhammad that He will do the act of tawaffa to him.
Bashir's last sentence is that Mr Faruqui's words "not merely metaphor" mean it is not simply a metaphor but has additional meaning. Bashir has done very limited reading of the English language. In well-known English religious literature we find a statement: "God is not a mere mortal". To anyone with a grain of commonsense this means: God is not at all a mortal. To Bashir's restricted intellect it means: God is a mortal with some extra characteristics that mortals don't have!
From ikram:
Peace and blessings be on the Messiah who made a mortal out of Jesus (–Isa PBUH) based upon the Quran and Hadith. With this one stroke he brought forth the pristine Godliness of Allah and gave a deathblow to the son-ship and the dogma of Christianity forever, thus he broke the cross and slew the swine.
With the same stroke he established the absolute finality of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) without any ifs, ands or buts. He showed us that Allah never was and never will be deaf nor mute, rather a ‘living’ God who communicates with mankind. He showed to the world the ‘man-God’ connection via the medium of prayer. He removed Jesus from Bible and gave to the world the Isa of Quran. He brought all Muslims under one unifying standard – La ilaha ill-Allah, Muhammad-ur rasul-ullah– "There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah".
He expunged the nonsense of abrogation in Quran and restored it as the center of gravity for Islam. With a personal example, he imbued the love of Quran as the foremost source of human guidance. He made Sunnah supreme over human recollections of Hadiths and set the guidelines to accept Hadith in light of the benchmarks of Quran and Sunnah. He cleaned the closet of Islam by removing the misconception of Jihad from aggressive wars to a peaceful struggle and war in self-defense only. He removed the hatred from the hearts and filled it with love of humankind i.e. Islam. He cleared the minds of the evil of death for apostasy. He expunged the bane of humanity, the concubinage, and restored women to their full dignity.
He established a tree, the fruits of which the world of Islam saw in the form of lives and written works of Nooruddin, Muhammad Ali, Kamaluddin, Abdul Haq Vidyarthi, Basharat Ahmad, Naseer Ahmad Farouqi, Abdul Manan Omar, and many others, one and all, prolific writers who were, and many who are lost in awe of Allah and in love of Quran and Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). We would not expect any less from a Messiah of a determined and an unflinching reform based upon Quran and the example of Prophet Muhammad that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad gave to the world.
From Zahid Aziz:
Hearts that are human melt, but hearts that are hard remain unmoved, when they read:
“It was my good fortune that I had the opportunity to learn the Quran from him even in those days when he was on his death bed. I used to read out to him notes from my English translation of the Holy Quran. He was seriously ill, but even in that state he used to be waiting for when Muhammad Ali would come. And when I came to his presence, that same critically ailing Nur-ud-Din would turn into a young man. The service of the Quran that I have done is just the result of his love for the Holy Quran.” (Maulana Muhammad Ali on Maulana Nur-ud-Din)
Maulana Nur-ud-Din's doctor recorded in his published diary for the last month before the Maulana's death:
"16 February 1914 … His love for the Quran is beyond description, so much that even in this state of extreme weakness all he can think of is giving classes in the Quran and his mind keeps working on the deep meanings of the Holy Quran.
When Maulvi Muhammad Ali sahib comes to read the notes of the Holy Quran to him, sometimes even before he begins Hazrat sahib gives a discourse about the topic of the translation of the day and says that throughout the night he had been consulting books and thinking about it. (He does not mean that he actually reads books; what he means is that he keeps running over in his mind what is written in commentaries of the Quran and books of Hadith.) Sometimes he quotes from books of Hadith or the Bible, and does it perfectly accurately. He says again and again that his mind is fully healthy and it never stops working on the Quran.”
"18 February 1914 — While he was in a state of extreme weakness, showing few signs of life except pulse and breathing, and his body was cold, Maulvi Muhammad Ali sahib came as usual to read out notes from the Holy Quran. … [While instructing him regarding certain verses of the Quran] he spoke with pauses, sometimes of a minute or two. … Then he addressed Maulvi Muhammad Ali sahib and said: ‘Seeing you every day is also food for my soul’."
From Zahid Aziz:
Bashir has submitted four comments, using his usual strategy of spreading smears to obscure and change the topic of discussion, haughtily dismissing our valid points with no argument, and boasting and bragging — smh. There is no point in posting his repeated, re-cycled nonsense, but if anyone wants to hagl (have a good laugh) please contact me and I will send you his latest rantings.
He makes baseless and irrelevant false allegations to get away from the subject. He now wants to discuss if Maulana Nur-ud-Din's leg was amputated after his accident in 1910 and that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was physically incapable of writing and could not have written any of his books by hand. How is this relevant to the meaning of daraba or even to the topic of tawaffa (the topic Bashir introduced)?
Bashir alleges that to make money, Ahmadis in time of Hazrat Mirza sahib published the Review of Religions in such a way that no one would know it was Ahmadis-related, so that people would buy it. Well, that's strange because at the same time our opponents allege that in the same magazine Maulana Muhammad Ali presented Hazrat Mirza sahib as a prophet! And people seeing its address written in it as "Qadian, Punjab, India" had no idea that it was Ahmadi-related!
Bashir says he "represents every person who stood up against Ahmadiyya". So one could call him Anti-Ahmadiyya personified (AAP). If the AAP could write a book, or even a long document, containing all his allegations, it would be a ridiculous and absurd production because the allegations would be self-contradictory. I suggest that instead of posting snippets here, he should write such a book, and that book would, of course, be on behalf of every living person who is standing up against Ahmadiyya.
It does make matters simpler for us to have to deal with one representative of all anti-Ahmadiyya. When other anti-Ahmadiyya, such as Akber Choudhry or anyone else, ask us to respond to any allegation, we will ask them to come through the AAP.
From Zahid Aziz:
Here are two questions from Bashir contained in his comments that I mentioned above.
Question: "Mr. Aziz, Can you explain how MGA was ignorant of Waffa til he was given some dreams about it?? If it is soooo obvious, why didnt MGA know til he was 50-56 years old? And this you will never answer properly.."
Answer: It is our daily experience that the solution of a problem is only obvious in hindsight, and when we find the solution or someone tells us what it is, we say: Why didn't I think of it before? Even many great scientists experienced this.
Question: "Mr. Aziz, Furthermore, in the case of the Ahmadis, you people have to explain why it took MGA to get revelations to finally change his stance on what you call obvious translations. And why is that Sir Syed didnt get those revelations…how did he figure it out with academic work and not dreams and whispers."
Answer: The guidance that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad received from Allah on this issue did not only inform him that the Quran teaches that Jesus has died. He was informed by Allah that the belief that Jesus is dead is crucial and key, firstly, to the defence of Islam against attacks by Christian proselytisers, and secondly, to the spread of belief in the Oneness of God in the world and refutation of the doctrine of Jesus' Divinity. Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad then established a movement to perform these two tasks. Sir Syed served Muslims in a different way, which we also respect.
From ikram:
There is a simple verse in Quran in which Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is told by Allah to declare –Say: I am only a mortal like you — it is revealed to me that your God is one God. So whoever hopes to meet his Lord, he should do good deeds, and make no one a partner (with God) in the service of his Lord (18:110 – Maulana Muhammad Ali, Ed. Dr. Zahid Aziz).
On a cursory read, this verse only repeats unity of God that Quran is replete with. However, this verse is profound. It tells us that in doctrinal matters, even Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) just could not declare that Allah is Wahid (-uniquely One and Singular) unless and until he was personally instructed by Allah to say so. On the face of it the unity of God prevailed in Judaism and Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) only repeated it. But, he did not repeat it just because it was the same in Judaism; rather the source of his declaration was Allah Himself. Initial verses of Quran that were revealed to the Prophet do not declare unity of God in the manner that other sections of Quran do and a later surah, Ikhlas, does. The stated verse is not the first verse revealed either. A prophet builds upon the message in Divine process of sequential revelations.
This rule holds true for any appointed, Mujaddid, after the Prophet, who too, in doctrinal matters, cannot put forth interpretations of Quran unless he is told so by Allah. Others might reach similar interpretations of Quran, but their source is their own thinking, whereas for a Mujaddid the source is Allah and his interpretation becomes part of a belief. It is very easy for skeptics to put forth the following questions, while failing to understand that these questions pertain to doctrinal matters in Quran and HMGA's explanations of these issues were not mere conjectures:
Obviously, HMGA could not put forth doctrinal interpretation of Quran unless he was instructed by Allah to do so. Else, eyebrows too might be raised that the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was repeating what Judaism was already preaching. Similarly, HMGA is stating what Sir Syed might also have written. Interestingly, HMGA did not question Hazrat Nooruddin’s explanation that Jesus had a father for the mere fact that he probably was not instructed by Allah about it.
From Zahid Aziz:
Around the time that Sir Syed Ahmad Khan died, a highly scurrilous book against the Holy Prophet, entitled Umahaat-ul-Momineen, written by a Christian, was published. A Muslim Association appealed to the government to have it banned. Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad urged Muslims to publish a comprehensive refutation of this book, instead of appealing for a book to be banned which was already in circulation. He wrote:
"(Sir) Syed sahib agreed with me in three matters. Firstly, as regards the issue of the death of Jesus. Secondly, when I published the announcement that the British government has a greater call on our duty than the Sultan of the Ottomon empire, Syed sahib supported my article and wrote that everyone should abide by it. Thirdly, as regards this book Umahaat-ul-Momineen, his view was that a refutation should be written, and no petition be sent (to the government to ban it). His practical actions show this because he started writing a refutation as his preferred way of response. Ah! If Syed sahib were alive today he would most certainly have openly supported my view. Anyhow, in such matters (i.e., responding to abusive literature against Islam) the method of action adopted by Syed sahib is an excellent example to all decent Muslims which they must follow." (Ruhani Khaza'in, v. 13, p. 402; bolding as in original.)
From imama:
I am agree with your post, a husband who beat his wife is not brave enough to deal with his wife.
From T Ijaz:
I read this commentary of 4:34 as being, “As for women you feel are averse, talk to them suasively; then leave them alone in bed (without molesting them) and go to bed with them (when they are willing).” (Translation by Ahmed Ali) This translation of اضربوهن as “go to bed with them” is based on the phrase "ضرب الفحل الناقة" found in classical Arabic literature, which means that the male camel had intercourse with the female camel.
From T Ijaz:
https://quranx.com/Hadith/Bukhari/USC-MSA/Volume-1/Book-7/Hadith-335
Here the same word daraba is translated as light touch, a symbolic gesture of touching the earth for tayammum. Of course no one beats up the earth