There have been a number of reactions to Fitna:
From Muslim countries: Seething, with threats of violence.
From Western nations: Condemnation and cowardice. The freedom of speech that we hold dear is discarded at the slightest threat.
No political body seems to speak for me. Internet bloggers and Youtubers are the only ones that are being honest and direct. My favorite...Pat Condell:
Showing posts with label muslims. Show all posts
Showing posts with label muslims. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Fitna : Geert Wilders' film
Click and watch.
So the movie is finally out. Finally...after the Dutch parliament requested that Dutch MP Geert Wilders not show it, after the EU went to censor it, and after Network Solutions prevented even an announcement that the film was coming.
Watch it. In its entirety. You'll have to do it on the Internet because the MSM will try to hide this film, even though it's only 15 minutes. You'll join the 1 million viewers who saw it in only the first 30 minutes of its release!
Then watch for the seething violence that will follow.
Update:
Apparently, Sarkozy has “officially declared that France would provide every necessary support to aid the Netherlands in the suppression of any Muslim violence” that may result from the release of Dutch MP Geert Wilders’ controversial documentary film called “Fitna.”
Further update:
After threats of violence, LiveLeak was forced to take down the film. The great thing is that through their death threats, Muslims have demonstrated exactly what Geert Wilders is trying to prove. Islam is clearly a violent, sick religion whose followers have lost their ability to reason.
The good news is that the Youtube link is still working, and I've added that at the top of the page. Watch the LiveLeak version underneath to hear the official statement from the company.
Another update:
LiveLeak decided not to cower in the face of violent Islam. The video is back up!
Friday, March 7, 2008
Wafa Sultan vs. Islamists on Al-Jazeera
Nothing needs to be said. This words of this brilliant woman are enough.
Update - Al-Jazeera apologizes
Al-Jazeera apologized ( also YNET) because their male Muslim speakers got their collective asses handed to them by a woman, an atheist woman no less. Hilarious.
Update - Wafa Sultan in hiding
Still embarrassed by Wafa Sultan's amazing performance on Al-Jazeera, Muslims have issued enough death threats for Wafa Sultan to go into hiding. Don't you love discussing Islam with Muslims?
Update - Al-Jazeera apologizes
Al-Jazeera apologized ( also YNET) because their male Muslim speakers got their collective asses handed to them by a woman, an atheist woman no less. Hilarious.
Update - Wafa Sultan in hiding
Still embarrassed by Wafa Sultan's amazing performance on Al-Jazeera, Muslims have issued enough death threats for Wafa Sultan to go into hiding. Don't you love discussing Islam with Muslims?
The following are excerpts from a debate between Arab-American psychiatrist Wafa Sultan and Egytian Islamist Tal'at Rmeih, which aired on Al-Jazeera on March 4, 2008. Egyptian Islamist Tal'at Rmeih: "The West only understands the language of force. Contacts with the West which are not based on real force are futile. One day, America declared that the North Korean nuclear dossier would be referred to the U.N. Security Council. North Korea issued a one-line declaration: 'Korea will consider this to be a hostile act of war.' The Americans bit their tongues, and that was it. The West understands nothing but the language of force, and attacks nobody but the weak. Therefore, our nation – with all its people, and organizations, institutions, rulers, and subjects – is required to adopt a resolute stand of resistance and confrontation in the face of these criminal and hostile acts. The West, in this confrontation, which is not divorced from the massacres that are taking place in Palestine and Iraq…The embassies of Denmark, Holland, France, and the U.S. are not more precious to us than Iraq, which has been destroyed, or than Palestine, which is experiencing a real – not fabricated – holocaust. These countries are subject to a holocaust and a massacre. How can we confront this? By Allah, if we issued a communiqué, signed by all the Arab and Islamic organizations and institutions, the West would bite its tongue and stop all this. By Allah, if the Arab summit decided to boycott Denmark, they would all be disgraced. By Allah, if the masses of the nation would gather for one hour only around the embassies of Denmark, those despicable lowlifes would be in a position of retreat, not attack." […] Arab-American Psychiatrist Wafa Sultan: "All religions and faiths, throughout the history of humanity, have been subject to criticism and affronts. With time, this has helped in their reform and development. Any belief that chops off the heads of its critics is doomed to turn into terrorism and tyranny. This has been the condition of Islam, from its inception to this day. Islam has sentenced [its critics] to prison, and whoever crosses the threshold of that prison meets his death. The Danish cartoons have managed to break down the first brick in the wall of that prison, and to open up a window, through which the sunrays enter, after a lengthy darkness. The Danish newspaper exercised its freedom of speech. Liberties are the holiest thing in the West, and nothing is more important. But if Islam were not the way it is, those cartoons would never have appeared. They did not appear out of the blue, and the cartoonist did not dig them out of his imagination. Rather, they are a reflection of his knowledge. Westerners who read the words of the Prophet Muhammad 'Allah has given me sustenance under the shadow of my sword' cannot imagine Muhammad's turban in the shape of a dove of peace rather than in the shape of a bomb. The Muslims must learn how to listen to the criticism of others, and maybe then they will reexamine their terrorist teachings. When they manage to do so, the world will view them in a better light, and consequently, it will draw them in a better light. The reactions of the Muslims, which were characterized by savageness, barbarism, and backwardness, only increased the value of these cartoons, and gave them more importance than they merited, simply because they proved that these cartoons were true, and that the message they were conveying was true. The Muslim is an irrational creature ruled by instincts. Those teachings have deprived him of his mind, incited his emotions, and reduced him to the level of an inferior creature that cannot control himself or react to events rationally." […] Tal'at Rmeih: "God help me. First, Islam is too great to be harmed by the publisher of the cartoon, or by that woman who is talking over there. The truth is that everything she said is 100% false, I'm sad to say. It seems to me that the American and Zionist intelligence agencies have begun to produce people who are hostile to their own nation." […] Dr. Faysal Al-Qassem, Moderator: "How come freedom of expression in the West is sacred only when it comes to degrading the Muslims? Are they allowed to talk about the Holocaust? Are they allowed to talk about Christianity? That is the question. Cinemas were burned down in the West when they talked about Christ." Wafa Sultan: "I live in America, and I never heard of a single cinema that was burned down here. Where do you get your information from? It sounds as if you are living in America, not me." Moderator: "In France." Wafa Sultan: "This is completely baseless. You should criticize your own beliefs just as Christians criticize their beliefs." […] Moderator: "Don’t you think that you are treating the viewers like fools? You present some trivial reactions as barbaric. Have you forgotten that the country in which you live destroyed Iraq in its entirety, killing 1.5 million Iraqis and driving five million out of their homes? Didn't you see the dozens of children annihilated in Gaza, in a holocaust, as Israel itself admits? When a man blows himself up, he becomes a terrorist, but when you annihilate an entire people, whole countries, it is considered a humanitarian act?! Who are you kidding?" […] Wafa Sultan: "Why are they upset about what is going on in Gaza, while the Koran says to them: 'They shall kill and be killed.' So here they are – killing and being killed. What's wrong with that?" Tal'at Rmeih: "Leave the Koran out of it. If you want to talk politics, go ahead." Moderator: "I beg you to stick to politics. He talked only about politics." Wafa Sultan: "Dr. Faysal, you know that you cannot separate Islam from politics. Islam is not a religion, but politics. You must let me express my views the way I want. When you called me, you didn't say I was not allowed to discuss Islam or the Koran. Islam says to them that they will 'kill or be killed', and here they are—killing and being killed. So what's wrong with that? They want to be martyred and to meet their black-eyed virgins, and Israel is merely helping them get what they want. What's wrong with that? If you want to change the course of events, you must reexamine your terrorist teachings, you must recognize and respect the right of the other to live, you must teach your children love, peace, coexistence, and productive work. When you do that, the world will respect you, will consider you in a better light, and will draw you in a better light." Moderator: "Can you denounce the Zionist massacres in Gaza? That's a simple question. Do you have the courage to do so?" Wafa Sultan: "I can denounce the Palestinians and the Israelis alike. Hamas chose this path, and you have to pay the price for your choices. When you decide you want peace – I am sure that Israel wants peace, but as long as you keep reciting those teachings, which are full of hatred, rancor, and terrorism, you will be unable to make peace with others. You must recognize and respect Israel's right to live. You must teach your children love, peace, and coexistence. Only then will there be peace." […] Moderator: "Do you dare to say that the number of people who died in the Jewish Holocaust is even one less [than what they claim]? Do you dare to say that? Why don't you dare to even touch on Jewish history – let alone on Jewish religion and sanctities? Why do you flex your muscles only against the oppressed Muslims?" Wafa Sultan: "Why do you want me to deny historical documents that confirm that the Holocaust took place? If there was no proof, I would deny it. But I cannot deny history, knowledge, and documents confirming that the Holocaust indeed took place. Why do you want me to deny the facts?" Moderator: "From what she says, it is clear that she has no problem denying the holy books, but she is adamant about not denying historical documents." Wafa Sultan: "Can you as a Muslim deny the massacre of the Jews of the Bani Qureyza tribe, by Muhammad and his followers?" […] Tal'at Rmeih: "There is a gang that controls [the West], and you are not allowed to criticize Israel or the Holocaust. Anyone who criticized the Holocaust was placed on trial. Noam Chomsky wrote one line about the Holocaust in a book, and the book was recalled from the market. Bernard Lewis – that great philosopher – said something about the Holocaust and was placed on trial. What did the American president say to the U.S. forces sent to the Philippines? He gave them two orders: 'Kill all people above the age of ten, and convert [the rest] to Christianity.'" […] Wafa Sultan: "Did you invite me to the show to hear hollow speeches, which have been around for 1,400 years?" Tal'at Rmeih: "Allah be praised, we have an identity and a culture." Wafa Sultan: "How can someone who believes in killing people who do not pray possibly criticize liberties in the West? This is a farce. What past is he defending? Is he defending the invasions and lootings?"Tal'at Rmeih: "I am defending the past of the Islamic nation, which was the beacon of knowledge for the entire world…" Wafa Sultan: "…polygamy, beheadings, chopping of heads and feet on alternate sides, accusing people of heresy, and drinking camel urine, as a cure for all ailments – is this the past he is defending?" Tal'at Rmeih: "No, I am defending a magnificent past of a magnificent nation, which was the cradle of knowledge and civilization, at a time when the most that people in the West could do was to catch a rabbit and scurry back to their caves. This nation has made the greatest contribution to civilization and humanity. Our religion is not complete without recognition of other religions. We are the ones who have called for tolerance and respect for religions." | |
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Muslim honor killings and Sharia family violence
With Muslim immigration to the West continuing, Westerners have learned about honor killings the hard way (Aqsa Pervez, 16 in Canada, Amina Yaser Said, 18, and Sarah Yaser Said, 17 in Texas, Ghazala Khan in Denmark, Hina Saleem, 21 in Italy ). Many have asked if they are connected with Islam. Muslims have been quick to deny it. Rather than going through a long explanation, I will leave the reader with two sets of facts: a UN report on the prevalance of honor killings in certain (mostly Muslim) countries and the Quran and Hadith that incite the activity. The reader can then make up their own mind. My final comment is that although Muslims will try to avoid discussing the horrific penalties for lewd activities and adultery, it is interesting to find that my inspiration for this post was comments posted to me by a Muslim supporting stoning and 100 lashes as the correct solution from Sharia law to America's decadent society (check comments to this post on violent sexism and wife beating).
The UN estimates that there are thousands of honor killings every year. They also have some ideas where they are from (United Nations High Commission for Human Rights (2002)):
Quran- 4:15 “If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, take the evidence of four (reliable) witness from amongst you against them; if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them. Or God ordain for them some (other) way.”
Quran-24:2 “The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication—flog each of them with hundred stripes: Let no compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by God, if ye believe in God and the last day.”
Quran-17:32 “ Nor come nigh to adultery: for it is a shameful (deed) and an evil, opening the road (to other evils).
Quran-33:33 “stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display.”
Now some sahih hadiths:
Bukhari: Volume 7, Book 63, Number 196:
Narrated Abu Huraira: A man from Bani Aslam came to Allah's Apostle while he was in the mosque and called (the Prophet ) saying, "O Allah's Apostle! I have committed illegal sexual intercourse." On that the Prophet turned his face from him to the other side, whereupon the man moved to the side towards which the Prophet had turned his face, and said, "O Allah's Apostle! I have committed illegal sexual intercourse." The Prophet turned his face (from him) to the other side whereupon the man moved to the side towards which the Prophet had turned his face, and repeated his statement. The Prophet turned his face (from him) to the other side again. The man moved again (and repeated his statement) for the fourth time. So when the man had given witness four times against himself, the Prophet called him and said, "Are you insane?" He replied, "No." The Prophet then said (to his companions), "Go and stone him to death." The man was a married one. Jabir bin 'Abdullah Al-Ansari said: I was one of those who stoned him. We stoned him at the Musalla ('Id praying place) in Medina. When the stones hit him with their sharp edges, he fled, but we caught him at Al-Harra and stoned him till he died.
(See also Bukhari: Volume 7, Book 63, Number 195.)
Sahi Bukhari: 8:6814:
Narrated Jabir bin Abdullah al-Ansari: “A man from the tribe of Bani Aslam came to Allah’s Messenger [Muhammad] and informed him that he had committed illegal sexual intercourse; and he bore witness four times against himself. Allah’s Messenger ordered him to be stoned to death as he was a married person.”
Sahi Muslim No. 4206:
“A woman came to the prophet and asked for purification by seeking punishment. He told her to go away and seek God’s forgiveness. She persisted four times and admitted she was pregnant. He told her to wait until she had given birth. Then he said that the Muslim community should wait until she had weaned her child. When the day arrived for the child to take solid food, Muhammad handed the child over to the community. And when he had given command over her and she was put in a hole up to her breast, he ordered the people to stone her. Khalid b. al-Walid came forward with a stone which he threw at her head, and when the blood spurted on her face he cursed her.”
Sahih Al-Bukhari Vol 2. pg 1009; and Sahih Muslim Vol 2. pg 65:
Hadhrat Abdullah ibne Abbaas (Radiallahu Anhu) narrates the lecture that Hadhrat Umar (Radiallaahu Anhu) delivered whilst sitting on the pulpit of Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wa Sallam). Hadhrat Umar (Radiallahu Anhu) said, "Verily, Allah sent Muhammad (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) with the truth, and revealed the Quran upon him. The verse regarding the stoning of the adulterer/ess was from amongst the verse revealed (in the Quraan). We read it, secured it and understood it. Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) stoned and we stoned after him. I fear that with the passage of time a person might say, ‘We do not find mention of stoning in the Book of Allah and thereby go astray by leaving out an obligation revealed by Allah. Verily, the stoning of a adulterer/ress is found in the Quraan and is the truth, if the witnesses are met or there is a pregnancy or confession."
Al-Bukhari:
The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Whoever guarantees me that he will guard his chastity, I will guarantee him Paradise”.
Al-Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, An-Nisa’i and others:
Abu Hurayrah reports that the Messenger of Allah said, “No one commits adultery while still remaining a believer, for faith is more precious unto Allah than such an evil act!” In another version, it is stated, “When a person commits adultery he casts away from his neck the bond that ties him to Islam; if, however, he repents, Allah will accept his repentance”.
Al-Bayhaqi:
The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “O mankind! Beware of fornication/adultery for it entails six dire consequences: three of them relating to this world and three to the next world. As for the three that are related to this world, they are the following: it removes the glow of one’s face, brings poverty, and reduces the life-span. As for its dire consequences in the next world they are: it brings down the wrath of Allah upon the person, subjects him to terrible reckoning, and finally casts him in hell-fire.”
Update:
Here's a nutty, but scary story from NY about a woman who met an Al Qaeda-connected imam on a Muslim dating site. Already sounds loony, but it gets worse. Notice that the newspaper decides to defend the imam immediately without even researching the matter:
The UN estimates that there are thousands of honor killings every year. They also have some ideas where they are from (United Nations High Commission for Human Rights (2002)):
"The report of the Special Rapporteur ... concerning cultural practices in the family that are violent towards women (E/CN.4/2002/83), indicated that honour killings had been reported in Egypt, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Pakistan, the Syrian Arab Republic, Turkey, Yemen, and other Mediterranean and Persian Gulf countries, and that they had also taken place in such countries as France, Germany and the United Kingdom, within migrant communities."Hmm...migrant communities. Now from the Quran and Hadith (thanks to FaithFreedom.org )
Quran- 4:15 “If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, take the evidence of four (reliable) witness from amongst you against them; if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them. Or God ordain for them some (other) way.”
Quran-24:2 “The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication—flog each of them with hundred stripes: Let no compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by God, if ye believe in God and the last day.”
Quran-17:32 “ Nor come nigh to adultery: for it is a shameful (deed) and an evil, opening the road (to other evils).
Quran-33:33 “stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display.”
Now some sahih hadiths:
Bukhari: Volume 7, Book 63, Number 196:
Narrated Abu Huraira: A man from Bani Aslam came to Allah's Apostle while he was in the mosque and called (the Prophet ) saying, "O Allah's Apostle! I have committed illegal sexual intercourse." On that the Prophet turned his face from him to the other side, whereupon the man moved to the side towards which the Prophet had turned his face, and said, "O Allah's Apostle! I have committed illegal sexual intercourse." The Prophet turned his face (from him) to the other side whereupon the man moved to the side towards which the Prophet had turned his face, and repeated his statement. The Prophet turned his face (from him) to the other side again. The man moved again (and repeated his statement) for the fourth time. So when the man had given witness four times against himself, the Prophet called him and said, "Are you insane?" He replied, "No." The Prophet then said (to his companions), "Go and stone him to death." The man was a married one. Jabir bin 'Abdullah Al-Ansari said: I was one of those who stoned him. We stoned him at the Musalla ('Id praying place) in Medina. When the stones hit him with their sharp edges, he fled, but we caught him at Al-Harra and stoned him till he died.
(See also Bukhari: Volume 7, Book 63, Number 195.)
Sahi Bukhari: 8:6814:
Narrated Jabir bin Abdullah al-Ansari: “A man from the tribe of Bani Aslam came to Allah’s Messenger [Muhammad] and informed him that he had committed illegal sexual intercourse; and he bore witness four times against himself. Allah’s Messenger ordered him to be stoned to death as he was a married person.”
Sahi Muslim No. 4206:
“A woman came to the prophet and asked for purification by seeking punishment. He told her to go away and seek God’s forgiveness. She persisted four times and admitted she was pregnant. He told her to wait until she had given birth. Then he said that the Muslim community should wait until she had weaned her child. When the day arrived for the child to take solid food, Muhammad handed the child over to the community. And when he had given command over her and she was put in a hole up to her breast, he ordered the people to stone her. Khalid b. al-Walid came forward with a stone which he threw at her head, and when the blood spurted on her face he cursed her.”
Sahih Al-Bukhari Vol 2. pg 1009; and Sahih Muslim Vol 2. pg 65:
Hadhrat Abdullah ibne Abbaas (Radiallahu Anhu) narrates the lecture that Hadhrat Umar (Radiallaahu Anhu) delivered whilst sitting on the pulpit of Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wa Sallam). Hadhrat Umar (Radiallahu Anhu) said, "Verily, Allah sent Muhammad (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) with the truth, and revealed the Quran upon him. The verse regarding the stoning of the adulterer/ess was from amongst the verse revealed (in the Quraan). We read it, secured it and understood it. Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) stoned and we stoned after him. I fear that with the passage of time a person might say, ‘We do not find mention of stoning in the Book of Allah and thereby go astray by leaving out an obligation revealed by Allah. Verily, the stoning of a adulterer/ress is found in the Quraan and is the truth, if the witnesses are met or there is a pregnancy or confession."
Al-Bukhari:
The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Whoever guarantees me that he will guard his chastity, I will guarantee him Paradise”.
Al-Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, An-Nisa’i and others:
Abu Hurayrah reports that the Messenger of Allah said, “No one commits adultery while still remaining a believer, for faith is more precious unto Allah than such an evil act!” In another version, it is stated, “When a person commits adultery he casts away from his neck the bond that ties him to Islam; if, however, he repents, Allah will accept his repentance”.
Al-Bayhaqi:
The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “O mankind! Beware of fornication/adultery for it entails six dire consequences: three of them relating to this world and three to the next world. As for the three that are related to this world, they are the following: it removes the glow of one’s face, brings poverty, and reduces the life-span. As for its dire consequences in the next world they are: it brings down the wrath of Allah upon the person, subjects him to terrible reckoning, and finally casts him in hell-fire.”
Update:
Here's a nutty, but scary story from NY about a woman who met an Al Qaeda-connected imam on a Muslim dating site. Already sounds loony, but it gets worse. Notice that the newspaper decides to defend the imam immediately without even researching the matter:
Dr. Yasser Shalaby, editor in chief of Al Zalzala, an Arabic-language paper, said he also ran an article to protect Saleh. "I felt it was very dangerous for someone to come to the mosque and try to get the leader in trouble," he saidThe imam dishonored her, and now she's fearing an honor killing:
"This is a dishonor to my entire family, every member. My parents disowned me. Basically, he's ruined my life," she told The Post. "I have to clean my name."
Worst of all, she fears she is now a target for an "honor killing" by al Qaeda, according to court papers. Saleh admitted to The Post that a distant relative is a member of the terrorist organization, but said he has had no communication with him.
Typical of Muslims, the imam uses the adjective "Jewish" freely to insult her without realizing that other non-Muslims don't get it:
sheik sent her an e-mail describing her as "a trashy and lustful woman, a weeping and cursed Jewish woman."
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Ezra (Uzair) and the next Quran error
Let's go to the third Quran (Koran) error I use in my opening with Muslims:
009.030
YUSUFALI: The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!
PICKTHAL: And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they!
SHAKIR: And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!
The Quran claims that Jews called Ezra (Uzair) "the son of Allah." BTW, you'll notice Yusuf Ali trying to soft-pedal the point by using "a son" instead of "the son." Clearly, this is an attempt to obfuscate the matter because here's the original Arabic:
It is common knowledge that Jews do not have a specific person who they believe in "the son of God." This is a key contentious point between Jews and Christians, and a blasphemous comment for a Jew to make. The closest you can get in the Bible are references to one of three things (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_God):
Even the coming of Messiah is referred to as God or "king. " Let's even consider the blasphemous thought that maybe, possibly, the Messiah could be referred to as the "son" of God...still, there is no mention of Ezra as either the Messiah or "The Son of God" in modern or ancient Judaism. None. Thus, a clear mistake.
I think Edward Henry Palmer said it best
Muslim Apologetics
What do the Muslim apologists have to say? Has anybody found a single Jew in history that said Ezra was the son of God? Funny enough, I can only find one response on the Net: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/ezra.html
Unfortunately for Muslims, not even this response is able to quote a single Jew referring to Ezra as the son of God. Basically, the best part of this response is just a quote of another Muslim apologist, this one from the 300 years after Mohammad. Apologists quoting apologists do not quite solve a critical mistake made in a supposedly "perfect" book by a supposed infallible God.
Let me take this response apart in more detail:
It opens with a discussion of Ezra's life, and a quote discussing where he might be buried. The point here is that Ezra was a key figure in reforming Jewish law.
G. D. Newby
Next, it continues with a quote from Newby where an attempt is made to place a connection between Ezra, the human, and Enoch, the angel:
Ibn Hazm
Next, we get another quote that appears to be the most damaging at first light:
Now, let's look at the quote. The quote speaks of Muslim converts not "The Jews"!
OK, even then, the text says "proposed another assumption" - so it is not a well-known conclusion among Jews, but an assumption. Second, it says, "based on the words of Ibn Hazm" - Ibn Hazm was a Muslim philosopher who was born in Spain 300 years after Mohammad. Using the words of a Muslim apologist to prove Islam without a fact basis is called circular reasoning.
George Sale (or Al-Baidawi)
OK, now the last major quote from George Sale, and 18th century orientalist. This quote, funny enough, actually looks to disprove the Quran by saying that it was not "The Jews," but "some ancient heterdox Jews, or else of some Jews of Medina" that declared Ezra were the Son of God. And it gets worse because it is not George Sale declaring this fact, rather he is repeating "the commentators" that "endeavour to support" the charge against the Jews. Who are the commentators? Let's go to the original source to find out who is claiming the Jews declared Ezra the Son of God. In the original source, you will find that George Sale footnotes Al Beidawi (Baidawi) making the claims. Who is Al Baidawi? A 13th century Muslim scholar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baidawi). This 13th century scholar claims to know "this verse was read to the Jews and they did not contradict it." That's the best he has to offer. So, we are back to circular reasoning again because we see just hearsay by Muslim apologists and no new facts.
The conclusion: an error
So what are we left with? A bunch of smoke and mirrors from Muslim apologists. There is no proof from a single Jew in history that "The Jews" refer to Ezra as "the Son of God." Moreover, there is proof that ancient and modern Jews do not refer to Ezra as the Son of God. Thus, we can only conclude that the Quran is in error again.
Finally, if Allah was all-knowing, he would have created a perfect book. A perfect book would be timeless and always perfect. Thus, even if the Muslim apologists were correct, the Quran should've said, "some Jews at the time of Mohammad believed that Ezra could have been a son of God." The Quran is not perfect for two reasons, 1. It incorrectly asserts that "the Jews" believe Ezra to be "the son of God." 2. It is not timeless in its assertions. The Quran is just a book.
009.030
YUSUFALI: The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!
PICKTHAL: And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they!
SHAKIR: And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!
The Quran claims that Jews called Ezra (Uzair) "the son of Allah." BTW, you'll notice Yusuf Ali trying to soft-pedal the point by using "a son" instead of "the son." Clearly, this is an attempt to obfuscate the matter because here's the original Arabic:
Waqalati alyahoodu AAuzayrun ibnu AllahiNotice that the phrase referring to the Jews (al yahoodu) and the phrase referring to the Christians (al nnasara) look exactly the same.
waqalati alnnasara almaseehu ibnu Allahi
It is common knowledge that Jews do not have a specific person who they believe in "the son of God." This is a key contentious point between Jews and Christians, and a blasphemous comment for a Jew to make. The closest you can get in the Bible are references to one of three things (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_God):
- Angels are sometimes referred to as sons - "Benei Elohim"
- The real king of Israel -( II Samuel 7: 14, with reference to King David and those of his descendants who carried on his dynasty; comp. Psalm 89:27, 28)
- Israel as a people (comp. Exodus 4: 22 and Hosea 11:1)
Do not have any other gods before Me. Do not represent [such] gods by any carved statue or picture of anything in the heaven above, on the earth below, or in the water below the land. Do not bow down to [such gods] or worship them. I am God your Lord, a God who demands exclusive worshipIt's blasphemous to refer to any other gods but YHWH. That's it.
Even the coming of Messiah is referred to as God or "king. " Let's even consider the blasphemous thought that maybe, possibly, the Messiah could be referred to as the "son" of God...still, there is no mention of Ezra as either the Messiah or "The Son of God" in modern or ancient Judaism. None. Thus, a clear mistake.
I think Edward Henry Palmer said it best
The Moslem tradition is that Ezra, after being dead 100 years, was raised to life, and dictated from memory the whole of the Jewish Scriptures which had been lost during the captivity, and that the Jews said he could not have done this unless he had been the son of God. There is no Jewish tradition whatever in support of this accusation of Mohammed's, which probably was entirely due to his own invention or to misinformation.
Muslim Apologetics
What do the Muslim apologists have to say? Has anybody found a single Jew in history that said Ezra was the son of God? Funny enough, I can only find one response on the Net: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/ezra.html
Unfortunately for Muslims, not even this response is able to quote a single Jew referring to Ezra as the son of God. Basically, the best part of this response is just a quote of another Muslim apologist, this one from the 300 years after Mohammad. Apologists quoting apologists do not quite solve a critical mistake made in a supposedly "perfect" book by a supposed infallible God.
Let me take this response apart in more detail:
It opens with a discussion of Ezra's life, and a quote discussing where he might be buried. The point here is that Ezra was a key figure in reforming Jewish law.
G. D. Newby
Next, it continues with a quote from Newby where an attempt is made to place a connection between Ezra, the human, and Enoch, the angel:
It is easy, then, to imagine that among the Jews of the Hijaz who were apparently involved in mystical speculations associated with the merkabah, Ezra, because of the traditions of his translation, because of his piety, and particularly because he was equated with Enoch as the Scribe of God, could be termed one of the Bene Elohim. And, of course, he would fit the description of religious leader (one of the ahbar of the Qur'an 9:31) whom the Jews had exaltedSo Newby is trying to explain the verse by equating Ezra to Enoch, and angel. Now, "Benei Elohim" literally means "sons of God," and refer to angels, as described above. Nowhere is he saying that Jews referred to Ezra as "the Son of God." Also, as the reader can easily see, Newby is engaging in a rather convoluted train of thought to help him understand the verse not to assert that "the Jews" believe Ezra is "the Son of God."
Ibn Hazm
Next, we get another quote that appears to be the most damaging at first light:
"H. Z. Hirschberg proposed another assumption, based on the words of Ibn Hazm, namely, that the 'righteous who live in Yemen believed that 'Uzayr was indeed the son of Allah.' According to other Muslim sources, there were some Yemenite Jews who had converted to Islam who believed that Ezra was the messiah. For Muhammad, Ezra, the apostle (!) of messiah, can be seen in the same light as the Christian saw Jesus, the messiah, the son of Allah.[4]"Let's look at the Quran again:
"The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah."It doesn't say some Jews, it says "The" Jews.
Now, let's look at the quote. The quote speaks of Muslim converts not "The Jews"!
OK, even then, the text says "proposed another assumption" - so it is not a well-known conclusion among Jews, but an assumption. Second, it says, "based on the words of Ibn Hazm" - Ibn Hazm was a Muslim philosopher who was born in Spain 300 years after Mohammad. Using the words of a Muslim apologist to prove Islam without a fact basis is called circular reasoning.
George Sale (or Al-Baidawi)
OK, now the last major quote from George Sale, and 18th century orientalist. This quote, funny enough, actually looks to disprove the Quran by saying that it was not "The Jews," but "some ancient heterdox Jews, or else of some Jews of Medina" that declared Ezra were the Son of God. And it gets worse because it is not George Sale declaring this fact, rather he is repeating "the commentators" that "endeavour to support" the charge against the Jews. Who are the commentators? Let's go to the original source to find out who is claiming the Jews declared Ezra the Son of God. In the original source, you will find that George Sale footnotes Al Beidawi (Baidawi) making the claims. Who is Al Baidawi? A 13th century Muslim scholar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baidawi). This 13th century scholar claims to know "this verse was read to the Jews and they did not contradict it." That's the best he has to offer. So, we are back to circular reasoning again because we see just hearsay by Muslim apologists and no new facts.
The conclusion: an error
So what are we left with? A bunch of smoke and mirrors from Muslim apologists. There is no proof from a single Jew in history that "The Jews" refer to Ezra as "the Son of God." Moreover, there is proof that ancient and modern Jews do not refer to Ezra as the Son of God. Thus, we can only conclude that the Quran is in error again.
Finally, if Allah was all-knowing, he would have created a perfect book. A perfect book would be timeless and always perfect. Thus, even if the Muslim apologists were correct, the Quran should've said, "some Jews at the time of Mohammad believed that Ezra could have been a son of God." The Quran is not perfect for two reasons, 1. It incorrectly asserts that "the Jews" believe Ezra to be "the son of God." 2. It is not timeless in its assertions. The Quran is just a book.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
The inheritance mistake in detail - Part 4
Usual responses to Quran inheritance math mistakes
Inheritance math mistakes are very cut and dry. The apologetic responses are, frankly, not very good here, which is why it's a good place to start in a logical discussion on Islam. Let me go further, I have shown just a fraction of the total math mistakes that exist here (go here for some more: http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/i001.html and http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/inheritance.htm ). Here's a fun one - what do you do for pregnant wife? Anyway, if you have an afternoon free, find some more on your own. I encourage you to do so and comment on this blog post.
Here are the standard responses:
You have not looked at all the verses. This is my favorite response because it actually opens up more issues. The other verses are 2:180-182, 2:233, 2:240, 4:33. None of them go through any math except for 2:240:
Men should get more than women. This excuse is funny because, you may have noticed already, I don't bring this up as an issue. I just focus on the math mistake. However, I get this one a lot. My theory is that Muslims are just repeating apologetics without even listening to the issue.
Unfortunately for the Muslim, another contradiction pops up when taking this angle. 4:11 states:
In 4:11, it says, "if only daughters, two or more, their share is two-thirds of the inheritance; if only one, her share is a half." What happens if there are sons? Do they get 4/3 and 2/2? You can quickly see the problems. What happens if there are sons and daughters? Say 1 son and 3 daughters.
3 daughters: 2/3
1 son: twice that of the female or 2 x ( (2/3)/3) = 4/9
Total = 10/9. Another contradiction!
I think you can see that it's possible to do this all day long. What about if it's the reverse, 3 sons and 1 daughter? It's not even clear because the verse seems to specify the split for just daughters, but we know that sons get twice that of daughters. You can clearly see, though, that the daughter will get nothing close to 1/2. More confusion!
Anything left over goes to the nearest male relative. This excuse is also funny because Muslims have stated this is a counterargument when my two simple cases were for situations where the opposite occurred (more than 100% given away). Anyway, this is the law of "Usbah" from the following Hadith:
If we continue, I'm sure the reader can come up with quick examples of unfairness and contradiction. For unfairness, imagine the widow has 5 children to support and will receive only 1/4 of the inheritance while the distant male relative (maybe even wealthy) receives 3 X that amount or 3/4! For a contradiction, imagine the case where there is only a widower - he should receive 1/2, but now has 2/2 because he also receives the remainder. This is a clear contradiction between the Quran and the Hadith.
You need to interpret properly. This one is a fallacy, and has already been discussed. Either the Quran is a word of a God and, therefore, perfect for all time or it's not. Additionally, in these inheritance verses, the Quran even states, "Allah makes clear to you." So we get one more contradiction...if three Muslims give three different answers and all three answers require changing the text of the Quran to make it work, well, then...Allah didn't make it clear.
Inheritance math mistakes are very cut and dry. The apologetic responses are, frankly, not very good here, which is why it's a good place to start in a logical discussion on Islam. Let me go further, I have shown just a fraction of the total math mistakes that exist here (go here for some more: http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/i001.html and http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/inheritance.htm ). Here's a fun one - what do you do for pregnant wife? Anyway, if you have an afternoon free, find some more on your own. I encourage you to do so and comment on this blog post.
Here are the standard responses:
You have not looked at all the verses. This is my favorite response because it actually opens up more issues. The other verses are 2:180-182, 2:233, 2:240, 4:33. None of them go through any math except for 2:240:
002.240So, if you include this verse in your calculations. You have to make sure that you leave behind one year's provisions for their wives. And now we have another contradiction! Remember, 4:12 is very detailed;
YUSUFALI: Those of you who die and leave widows should bequeath for their widows a year's maintenance and residence; but if they leave (The residence), there is no blame on you for what they do with themselves, provided it is reasonable. And Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.
PICKTHAL: (In the case of) those of you who are about to die and leave behind them wives, they should bequeath unto their wives a provision for the year without turning them out, but if they go out (of their own accord) there is no sin for you in that which they do of themselves within their rights. Allah is Mighty, Wise.
SHAKIR: And those of you who die and leave wives behind, (make) a bequest in favor of their wives of maintenance for a year without turning (them) out, then if they themselves go away, there is no blame on you for what they do of lawful deeds by themselves, and Allah is Mighty, Wise.
In what ye leave, their share is a fourth, if ye leave no child; but if ye leave a child, they get an eighth; after payment of legacies and debts.So which is it, one year's provisions or 1/8? What if the 1/8 didn't include enough for even a fraction of a year? What if you had to take away a portion from somebody else to provide that one year provision? Well, you get a contradiction between verse 2:240 and 4:12.
Men should get more than women. This excuse is funny because, you may have noticed already, I don't bring this up as an issue. I just focus on the math mistake. However, I get this one a lot. My theory is that Muslims are just repeating apologetics without even listening to the issue.
Unfortunately for the Muslim, another contradiction pops up when taking this angle. 4:11 states:
as regards your Children's (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females:So the men always get twice as much as the women according to silly Allah. First of all, I believe all readers can see that this makes no sense as a definitive rule for all times (simple example: the son is wealthy and the daughter is an extremely poor widow with 5 kids). Let's follow on, though, and see if there's another contradiction.
In 4:11, it says, "if only daughters, two or more, their share is two-thirds of the inheritance; if only one, her share is a half." What happens if there are sons? Do they get 4/3 and 2/2? You can quickly see the problems. What happens if there are sons and daughters? Say 1 son and 3 daughters.
3 daughters: 2/3
1 son: twice that of the female or 2 x ( (2/3)/3) = 4/9
Total = 10/9. Another contradiction!
I think you can see that it's possible to do this all day long. What about if it's the reverse, 3 sons and 1 daughter? It's not even clear because the verse seems to specify the split for just daughters, but we know that sons get twice that of daughters. You can clearly see, though, that the daughter will get nothing close to 1/2. More confusion!
Anything left over goes to the nearest male relative. This excuse is also funny because Muslims have stated this is a counterargument when my two simple cases were for situations where the opposite occurred (more than 100% given away). Anyway, this is the law of "Usbah" from the following Hadith:
Before we take one step further, let's immediately recognize that the "perfect" Quran is again imperfect and therefore false. We have to go to the Hadith to find the answer because the Quran can't stand on its own.Sahih Bukhari 8. 80. 724
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:
The Prophet said, "Give the Fara'id (the shares of the inheritance that are prescribed in the Qur'an) to those who are entitled to receive it. Then whatever remains, should be given to the closest male relative of the deceased."
If we continue, I'm sure the reader can come up with quick examples of unfairness and contradiction. For unfairness, imagine the widow has 5 children to support and will receive only 1/4 of the inheritance while the distant male relative (maybe even wealthy) receives 3 X that amount or 3/4! For a contradiction, imagine the case where there is only a widower - he should receive 1/2, but now has 2/2 because he also receives the remainder. This is a clear contradiction between the Quran and the Hadith.
You need to interpret properly. This one is a fallacy, and has already been discussed. Either the Quran is a word of a God and, therefore, perfect for all time or it's not. Additionally, in these inheritance verses, the Quran even states, "Allah makes clear to you." So we get one more contradiction...if three Muslims give three different answers and all three answers require changing the text of the Quran to make it work, well, then...Allah didn't make it clear.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
The inheritance mistake in detail - Part 3
The next mistake and more
Second math mistake
How would you split the inheritance if a woman dies, leaving behind a husband and a brother but no children or parents?
Husband: x%
Brother: y%
Let's go to the verses for an answer:
4:12 "In what your wives leave, your share is a half, if they leave no child"
Husband: 1/2
4:12 "If the man or woman whose inheritance is in question, has left neither ascendants nor descendants, but has left a brother or a sister, each one of the two gets a sixth; "
Brother: 1/6
4:176 "Allah directs (thus) about those who leave no descendants or ascendants as heirs. If it is a man that dies, leaving a sister but no child, she shall have half the inheritance: If (such a deceased was) a woman, who left no child, Her brother takes her inheritance"
Brother: 1/1 (100%)
So the final numbers are:
Husband: 1/2 or 50%
Brother: 7/6 or 117%, already over 100 because 176 and 12 contradict each other
One silly discussion I had with a Muslim ended up with him asserting that a wife was different than a woman. So his excuse for the Quran was that verse 12 refers to a wife and verse 176 refers to a woman. Hmmm, so a wife is not a woman in Islam? Seriously, if this were true, then why would it say "If (such a deceased was) a woman, who left no child"? There should be no reason to say "who left no child."
And there's more issue with these set of verses. Verse 176 directly contradicts 12 in that it provides a different inheritance for the brother when the woman has no parents or children...in one case it's 1/6 and in the other it's 6/6 or 100%. This second issue has been formally recognized by Muslims, and has been a source of significant debate(www.muslim.sh/text/hq/comm/mali/4/c4s2.shtml):
You may have also noticed another solution proposed in that long bit of apologetics: "Commentators are of opinion that by a brother or a sister here is meant a brother or a sister on the mother’s side and that the case of real brothers and sisters, or brothers and sisters on the father’s side, is dealt with in v. 176 of this chapter. "
However, this solution still does not solve the problem starting the post, and actually causes more problems. Without going through the math, imagine dividing the inheritance among a many sisters from the mother's side and many "real" sisters from the father's side plus spouse and/or parent. You're over 100% pretty quickly.
All of this is quite funny when considering that 176 also states "Allah makes clear to you." Apparently silly Allah has quite a sense of humor.
More debunking of Muslim apologetics on the inheritance mistakes to come in the next post because I ran out of time and space here.
Second math mistake
How would you split the inheritance if a woman dies, leaving behind a husband and a brother but no children or parents?
Husband: x%
Brother: y%
Let's go to the verses for an answer:
4:12 "In what your wives leave, your share is a half, if they leave no child"
Husband: 1/2
4:12 "If the man or woman whose inheritance is in question, has left neither ascendants nor descendants, but has left a brother or a sister, each one of the two gets a sixth; "
Brother: 1/6
4:176 "Allah directs (thus) about those who leave no descendants or ascendants as heirs. If it is a man that dies, leaving a sister but no child, she shall have half the inheritance: If (such a deceased was) a woman, who left no child, Her brother takes her inheritance"
Brother: 1/1 (100%)
So the final numbers are:
Husband: 1/2 or 50%
Brother: 7/6 or 117%, already over 100 because 176 and 12 contradict each other
One silly discussion I had with a Muslim ended up with him asserting that a wife was different than a woman. So his excuse for the Quran was that verse 12 refers to a wife and verse 176 refers to a woman. Hmmm, so a wife is not a woman in Islam? Seriously, if this were true, then why would it say "If (such a deceased was) a woman, who left no child"? There should be no reason to say "who left no child."
And there's more issue with these set of verses. Verse 176 directly contradicts 12 in that it provides a different inheritance for the brother when the woman has no parents or children...in one case it's 1/6 and in the other it's 6/6 or 100%. This second issue has been formally recognized by Muslims, and has been a source of significant debate(www.muslim.sh/text/hq/comm/mali/4/c4s2.shtml):
Commentators are of opinion that by a brother or a sister here is meant a brother or a sister on the mother’s side and that the case of real brothers and sisters, or brothers and sisters on the father’s side, is dealt with in v. 176 of this chapter. The reason for this is that here as well as in v. 176, the property to be inherited is that of a kalalah, and it is generally supposed that a kalalah is one who has neither parents nor children. But as a matter of fact kalalah bears two meanings. It means the person who has no children whether he has parents or not, and it also means the person who has neither children nor parents. It is derived from kalla which means he became tired or f a t i g u e d, and therefore its primary significance would be the person who has no c h i l d r e n. I‘Ab is reported to have explained this word as meaning one who does not leave offspring whether he leaves parents or not. ‘Umar also is reported to have said that kalalah is one who has no children, that is all; see Ghara’ib al-Qur’an. Hence it is more reasonable to take the kalalah spoken of here as being different from the kalalah spoken of in v. 176. The kalalahin the present case is one who has no children but has parents, and therefore the brothers and sisters are not the only heirs and their share is only one-sixth, while the kalalahspoken of in v. 176 is one who leaves neither children norparents, and therefore the brothers and the sisters take the whole of the inheritance.Now if you had the patience to follow the apologetics, you will see that this author has decided that the same word, kalalah, has two different meanings for 12 and for 176. In 12, he decides (against all three translations that USC uses) that the prescriptions are for one that has parents and 176 refers only to one that has parents and children. While this has no basis in the translations, it still does not solve the problem that started this blog post.
You may have also noticed another solution proposed in that long bit of apologetics: "Commentators are of opinion that by a brother or a sister here is meant a brother or a sister on the mother’s side and that the case of real brothers and sisters, or brothers and sisters on the father’s side, is dealt with in v. 176 of this chapter. "
However, this solution still does not solve the problem starting the post, and actually causes more problems. Without going through the math, imagine dividing the inheritance among a many sisters from the mother's side and many "real" sisters from the father's side plus spouse and/or parent. You're over 100% pretty quickly.
All of this is quite funny when considering that 176 also states "Allah makes clear to you." Apparently silly Allah has quite a sense of humor.
More debunking of Muslim apologetics on the inheritance mistakes to come in the next post because I ran out of time and space here.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
The inheritance mistake in detail - Part 2
Two historical attempts at the mistake
Now, what happened when Muslims discovered the inheritance math mistake in the Quran? They needed to follow Sharia law in order to divide the inheritance, yet they took the Quran as divine with no mistakes. There could only have been two results: mass deconversion from Islam or "fixes" that allowed for peaceful division of the inherited property.
Al-Awl (or Aul)
Well, it turns out, I wasn't the first to discover this mistake. In fact, the 4th Caliph, Ali, saw it in 7th century A.D. His attempted fix, known as Al-Awl (or Aul), is basically a normalization. So, let's look at this example from the last post: A man dies and leaves behind 3 daughters, 2 parents and 2 wives. Let's see how Ali would change things (http://www.muslim.org/english-quran/quran.htm under section 4:11):
"The ‘aul was first legalized by ‘Ali, the fourth Caliph, who, being questioned about the share of a wife, the other heirs being the two parents and two daughters, gave the answer “without premeditation” that the wife’s one-eighth had become one-ninth, for the two parents should take one-third, the two daughters two-thirds, and the wife one-eighth, which make up nine-eighths, and hence ‘Ali decided that each of the heirs should take less than was due,
so that the proportion might remain the same "
Now, keeping in mind that nowhere in the Quran does it say to normalize, let's look at the resultant math:
Quran's literal words give a total of 9/8:
3 daughters: 2/3
2 parents: 1/3
2 wives: 1/8
Using Al-Awl rules to normalize, you get:
3 daughters: 16/27
2 parents: 8/27
2 wives: 1/9
The first set of numbers were multiplied by 8/9 so that the total could equal 100%. That's it folks. A quick fix with no basis in the Quran.
Residues and Remainders
Another idea was to take remainders after each calculation. Let me be more clear by quoting from the same Muslim website above:
"In this case the parents first take their respective shares,
and the residue goes to the children, if there are any, failing which, the share of the
parents is increased. "
So, instead of following the Quran literally, that "Allah makes clear to you," Muslims invented words that didn't exist in the 4:11, 4:12 and 4:176 of the Quran...specifically, "first take" and "residue." There is no mention of order in the Quran's inheritance calculation, nor is there a mention of residue. Just for fun, let's go through the calculation:
2 parents first: 1/3, then daughters? No, actually, those who follow this fix actually calculate the 2 wives first at 1/8 total. Yes, I know that the wives are mentioned in a whole other (later) verse, so it's even sillier for them to get their share first but so be it. OK, so now, we've given away 1/3 + 1/8 = 11/24, leaving a balance of 13/24. Now, the daughters get their 2/3 of 13/24 = 13/36. In summary:
3 daughters: 13/36
2 parents: 1/3
2 wives: 1/8
Now, 13/36 + 1/3 + 1/8 = 59/72 <1 style="font-style: italic;" size="2">"The balance (i.e., 1-59/72 = 13/72) shall be given to the person bequeathed by the deceased; in the absence of such a person, it shall be given to the closest male relative of the deceased; in the absence of such a relative, the balance shall be distributed as per the regulations of the state of residence of the deceased."
I interpret this to mean "we don't know because we just made up the fix anyway." LOL Seriously, there is still a math problem, and, I imagine, some very angry relatives.
Let's revisit this fix. An order was added to the calculation whereby shares were taken of residues rather than the whole. However, this solution also has no basis in the Quran. Nowhere does it say to follow a particular order, especially in reverse of how shares are presented in the Quran (children first, then parents, then wives as opposed to parents and wives then children in the fix).
Islamic Math Mistakes With Fixes
Now, even if we were to accept the fixes, and even if we believed that the justification (of which there is none within the "perfect" Quran). Are we still left with a contradiction? Yes. Simply put, the followers of said fixes are not following the perfect Quran. Muslims who you debate actually know this, and will therefore refuse to give you the final percentages in a debate. If they do, go through this:
"4:11 says "if only daughters, two or more, their share is two-thirds of the inheritance," does it not?"
The answer: yes
"OK, well you're giving those 3 daughters in this example 16/27 or 13/26 (depending on which fix they're using). Doesn't that violate the Quran?"
The answer: uhh...but...uhh...you have to calculate shares after normalizing (or based on residues).
"OK, but the Quran never says to calculate shares after normalizing (or based on residues). In fact, there isn't even a word that is close to normalizing (or residues, nor any mention of order in the calculation). Let's return to 4:11..."
And so the debate will go on ad infinitum. The point stays though - silly Allah can't do math.
In the next post, I will go through some of the other rebuttals and lead into more inheritance mistakes.
Now, what happened when Muslims discovered the inheritance math mistake in the Quran? They needed to follow Sharia law in order to divide the inheritance, yet they took the Quran as divine with no mistakes. There could only have been two results: mass deconversion from Islam or "fixes" that allowed for peaceful division of the inherited property.
Al-Awl (or Aul)
Well, it turns out, I wasn't the first to discover this mistake. In fact, the 4th Caliph, Ali, saw it in 7th century A.D. His attempted fix, known as Al-Awl (or Aul), is basically a normalization. So, let's look at this example from the last post: A man dies and leaves behind 3 daughters, 2 parents and 2 wives. Let's see how Ali would change things (http://www.muslim.org/english-quran/quran.htm under section 4:11):
"The ‘aul was first legalized by ‘Ali, the fourth Caliph, who, being questioned about the share of a wife, the other heirs being the two parents and two daughters, gave the answer “without premeditation” that the wife’s one-eighth had become one-ninth, for the two parents should take one-third, the two daughters two-thirds, and the wife one-eighth, which make up nine-eighths, and hence ‘Ali decided that each of the heirs should take less than was due,
so that the proportion might remain the same "
Now, keeping in mind that nowhere in the Quran does it say to normalize, let's look at the resultant math:
Quran's literal words give a total of 9/8:
3 daughters: 2/3
2 parents: 1/3
2 wives: 1/8
Using Al-Awl rules to normalize, you get:
3 daughters: 16/27
2 parents: 8/27
2 wives: 1/9
The first set of numbers were multiplied by 8/9 so that the total could equal 100%. That's it folks. A quick fix with no basis in the Quran.
Residues and Remainders
Another idea was to take remainders after each calculation. Let me be more clear by quoting from the same Muslim website above:
"In this case the parents first take their respective shares,
and the residue goes to the children, if there are any, failing which, the share of the
parents is increased. "
So, instead of following the Quran literally, that "Allah makes clear to you," Muslims invented words that didn't exist in the 4:11, 4:12 and 4:176 of the Quran...specifically, "first take" and "residue." There is no mention of order in the Quran's inheritance calculation, nor is there a mention of residue. Just for fun, let's go through the calculation:
2 parents first: 1/3, then daughters? No, actually, those who follow this fix actually calculate the 2 wives first at 1/8 total. Yes, I know that the wives are mentioned in a whole other (later) verse, so it's even sillier for them to get their share first but so be it. OK, so now, we've given away 1/3 + 1/8 = 11/24, leaving a balance of 13/24. Now, the daughters get their 2/3 of 13/24 = 13/36. In summary:
3 daughters: 13/36
2 parents: 1/3
2 wives: 1/8
Now, 13/36 + 1/3 + 1/8 = 59/72 <1 style="font-style: italic;" size="2">"The balance (i.e., 1-59/72 = 13/72) shall be given to the person bequeathed by the deceased; in the absence of such a person, it shall be given to the closest male relative of the deceased; in the absence of such a relative, the balance shall be distributed as per the regulations of the state of residence of the deceased."
I interpret this to mean "we don't know because we just made up the fix anyway." LOL Seriously, there is still a math problem, and, I imagine, some very angry relatives.
Let's revisit this fix. An order was added to the calculation whereby shares were taken of residues rather than the whole. However, this solution also has no basis in the Quran. Nowhere does it say to follow a particular order, especially in reverse of how shares are presented in the Quran (children first, then parents, then wives as opposed to parents and wives then children in the fix).
Islamic Math Mistakes With Fixes
Now, even if we were to accept the fixes, and even if we believed that the justification (of which there is none within the "perfect" Quran). Are we still left with a contradiction? Yes. Simply put, the followers of said fixes are not following the perfect Quran. Muslims who you debate actually know this, and will therefore refuse to give you the final percentages in a debate. If they do, go through this:
"4:11 says "if only daughters, two or more, their share is two-thirds of the inheritance," does it not?"
The answer: yes
"OK, well you're giving those 3 daughters in this example 16/27 or 13/26 (depending on which fix they're using). Doesn't that violate the Quran?"
The answer: uhh...but...uhh...you have to calculate shares after normalizing (or based on residues).
"OK, but the Quran never says to calculate shares after normalizing (or based on residues). In fact, there isn't even a word that is close to normalizing (or residues, nor any mention of order in the calculation). Let's return to 4:11..."
And so the debate will go on ad infinitum. The point stays though - silly Allah can't do math.
In the next post, I will go through some of the other rebuttals and lead into more inheritance mistakes.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
The inheritance mistake in detail - Part 1
The verses
There are a number of verses that tell Muslims how to manage inheritance: 2:180, 2:233, 2:240, 4:12, 4:13, 4:176 and 5:106. However, the verses that go through the detailed mathematics are 4:12, 4:13, and 4:176:
"Allah makes clear to you, lest you err; and Allah knows all things."
OK, so let's all remember that Allah makes it all clear to you because he knows all things. So, if we notice that three Muslims give three different answers (and they will), then there must be another contradiction...simply that Allah is not clear after all.
The Math and the mistake
So let's go back to the original question:
Now, calculate how to split the inheritance for a man how dies and leaves behind: 3 daughters, 2 parents and two wives.
3 daughters: x%
2 parents: y%
2 wives: z%
Here's the answer with the supporting quotes.
3 daughters: 2/3
4:11 : "if only daughters, 2 or more, their share is 2/3 of the inheritance"
2 parents: 1/6+1/6=1/3
4:11 : "For parents, a 1/6 share of the inheritance to each, if the deceased left children"
2 wives: 1/8
4:12 : "in what ye leave, their share is 1/4, if ye leave no child; but if ye leave a child, they get an 1/8"
Now, let's add up the inheritance divisions up:
2/3+1/3+1/8 = 9/8 >1
Mistake! Allah can't do math. How can you possibly give away more inheritance than you have? Now, I pointed out just one math mistake, but there are many. In the next set of posts I will go through the typical, albeit false, objections to Islamic mathematics.
There are a number of verses that tell Muslims how to manage inheritance: 2:180, 2:233, 2:240, 4:12, 4:13, 4:176 and 5:106. However, the verses that go through the detailed mathematics are 4:12, 4:13, and 4:176:
004.011
YUSUFALI: Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children's (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females: if only daughters, two or more, their share is two-thirds of the inheritance; if only one, her share is a half. For parents, a sixth share of the inheritance to each, if the deceased left children; if no children, and the parents are the (only) heirs, the mother has a third; if the deceased Left brothers (or sisters) the mother has a sixth. (The distribution in all cases ('s) after the payment of legacies and debts. Ye know not whether your parents or your children are nearest to you in benefit. These are settled portions ordained by Allah; and Allah is All-knowing, Al-wise.
PICKTHAL: Allah chargeth you concerning (the provision for) your children: to the male the equivalent of the portion of two females, and if there be women more than two, then theirs is two-thirds of the inheritance, and if there be one (only) then the half. And to each of his parents a sixth of the inheritance, if he have a son; and if he have no son and his parents are his heirs, then to his mother appertaineth the third; and if he have brethren, then to his mother appertaineth the sixth, after any legacy he may have bequeathed, or debt (hath been paid). Your parents and your children: Ye know not which of them is nearer unto you in usefulness. It is an injunction from Allah. Lo! Allah is Knower, Wise.
SHAKIR: Allah enjoins you concerning your children: The male shall have the equal of the portion of two females; then if they are more than two females, they shall have two-thirds of what the deceased has left, and if there is one, she shall have the half; and as for his parents, each of them shall have the sixth of what he has left if he has a child, but if he has no child and (only) his two parents inherit him, then his mother shall have the third; but if he has brothers, then his mother shall have the sixth after (the payment of) a bequest he may have bequeathed or a debt; your parents and your children, you know not which of them is the nearer to you in usefulness; this is an ordinance from Allah: Surely Allah is Knowing, Wise.
004.012
YUSUFALI: In what your wives leave, your share is a half, if they leave no child; but if they leave a child, ye get a fourth; after payment of legacies and debts. In what ye leave, their share is a fourth, if ye leave no child; but if ye leave a child, they get an eighth; after payment of legacies and debts. If the man or woman whose inheritance is in question, has left neither ascendants nor descendants, but has left a brother or a sister, each one of the two gets a sixth; but if more than two, they share in a third; after payment of legacies and debts; so that no loss is caused (to any one). Thus is it ordained by Allah; and Allah is All-knowing, Most Forbearing.
PICKTHAL: And unto you belongeth a half of that which your wives leave, if they have no child; but if they have a child then unto you the fourth of that which they leave, after any legacy they may have bequeathed, or debt (they may have contracted, hath been paid). And unto them belongeth the fourth of that which ye leave if ye have no child, but if ye have a child then the eighth of that which ye leave, after any legacy ye may have bequeathed, or debt (ye may have contracted, hath been paid). And if a man or a woman have a distant heir (having left neither parent nor child), and he (or she) have a brother or a sister (only on the mother's side) then to each of them twain (the brother and the sister) the sixth, and if they be more than two, then they shall be sharers in the third, after any legacy that may have been bequeathed or debt (contracted) not injuring (the heirs by willing away more than a third of the heritage) hath been paid. A commandment from Allah. Allah is Knower, Indulgent.
SHAKIR: And you shall have half of what your wives leave if they have no child, but if they have a child, then you shall have a fourth of what they leave after (payment of) any bequest they may have bequeathed or a debt; and they shall have the fourth of what you leave if you have no child, but if you have a child then they shall have the eighth of what you leave after (payment of) a bequest you may have bequeathed or a debt; and if a man or a woman leaves property to be inherited by neither parents nor offspring, and he (or she) has a brother or a sister, then each of them two shall have the sixth, but if they are more than that, they shall be sharers in the third after (payment of) any bequest that may have been bequeathed or a debt that does not harm (others); this is an ordinance from Allah: and Allah is Knowing, Forbearing.
004.176
YUSUFALI: They ask thee for a legal decision. Say: Allah directs (thus) about those who leave no descendants or ascendants as heirs. If it is a man that dies, leaving a sister but no child, she shall have half the inheritance: If (such a deceased was) a woman, who left no child, Her brother takes her inheritance: If there are two sisters, they shall have two-thirds of the inheritance (between them): if there are brothers and sisters, (they share), the male having twice the share of the female. Thus doth Allah make clear to you (His law), lest ye err. And Allah hath knowledge of all things.
PICKTHAL: They ask thee for a pronouncement. Say: Allah hath pronounced for you concerning distant kindred. If a man die childless and he have a sister, hers is half the heritage, and he would have inherited from her had she died childless. And if there be two sisters, then theirs are two-thirds of the heritage, and if they be brethren, men and women, unto the male is the equivalent of the share of two females. Allah expoundeth unto you, so that ye err not. Allah is Knower of all things.
SHAKIR: They ask you for a decision of the law. Say: Allah gives you a decision concerning the person who has neither parents nor offspring; if a man dies (and) he has no son and he has a sister, she shall have half of what he leaves, and he shall be her heir she has no son; but if there be two (sisters), they shall have two-thirds of what he leaves; and if there are brethren, men and women, then the male shall have the like of the portion of two females; Allah makes clear to you, lest you err; and Allah knows all things.
"Allah makes clear to you, lest you err; and Allah knows all things."
OK, so let's all remember that Allah makes it all clear to you because he knows all things. So, if we notice that three Muslims give three different answers (and they will), then there must be another contradiction...simply that Allah is not clear after all.
The Math and the mistake
So let's go back to the original question:
Now, calculate how to split the inheritance for a man how dies and leaves behind: 3 daughters, 2 parents and two wives.
3 daughters: x%
2 parents: y%
2 wives: z%
Here's the answer with the supporting quotes.
3 daughters: 2/3
4:11 : "if only daughters, 2 or more, their share is 2/3 of the inheritance"
2 parents: 1/6+1/6=1/3
4:11 : "For parents, a 1/6 share of the inheritance to each, if the deceased left children"
2 wives: 1/8
4:12 : "in what ye leave, their share is 1/4, if ye leave no child; but if ye leave a child, they get an 1/8"
Now, let's add up the inheritance divisions up:
2/3+1/3+1/8 = 9/8 >1
Mistake! Allah can't do math. How can you possibly give away more inheritance than you have? Now, I pointed out just one math mistake, but there are many. In the next set of posts I will go through the typical, albeit false, objections to Islamic mathematics.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
The mathematical, scientific and historical errors
There are almost too many errors and contradictions in the Quran from which non-Muslims must choose. Here is my favorite opening salvo when messaging a Muslim:
"1. Let's start with a mathematical mistake. This one is best to do on your own so that you can see the problems yourself. Go to the inheritance verses (4:11, 4:12 and 4:176), read them here: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/004.qmt.html
Now, calculate how to split the inheritance for a man how dies and leaves behind: 3 daughters, 2 parents and two wives. It should take about 15 minutes.
3 daughters: x%
2 parents: y%
2 wives: z%
--------------
2. Historical mistake. The Quran plagiarizes much of the Bible. In the process of copying, sometimes Mohammad and his buddies got creative. In the following example, their creativity caused them to leave behind an obvious historical error. From the story of Joseph...
Here's the Bible:
40:18 Then Joseph answered and said, "This is its interpretation: the three baskets are three days;
40:19 within three more days Pharaoh will lift up your head from you and will hang you on a tree, and the birds will eat your flesh off you."
Now, here's the Quran (different translations listed below to make it easy):
012.041
YUSUFALI: "O my two companions of the prison! As to one of you, he will pour out the wine for his lord to drink: as for the other, he will hang from the cross, and the birds will eat from off his head. (so) hath been decreed that matter whereof ye twain do enquire"...
PICKTHAL: O my two fellow-prisoners! As for one of you, he will pour out wine for his lord to drink; and as for the other, he will be crucified so that the birds will eat from his head. Thus is the case judged concerning which ye did inquire.
SHAKIR: O my two mates of the prison! as for one of you, he shall give his lord to drink wine; and as for the other, he shall be crucified, so that the birds shall eat from his head, the matter is decreed concerning which you inquired.
Did you see the difference? The Bible talked about decapitation followed by hanging. The Quran talked about crucifixion. That's where the error occurs. You see, archaeologists point out 6th century BC Persia as the earliest occurrence of crucifixion, yet the story of Joseph was over 10 centuries before that. The ancient Egyptians did not do crucifixion before the Roman's brought the practice over. Mohammad should be more careful when he plagiarizes.
------------------------
3. How about another obvious one. You see Mohammad knew that the Christians believed in a son of god, so he assumed the Jews did too:
009.030
YUSUFALI: The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!
PICKTHAL: And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they!
SHAKIR: And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!
Mistake! Find me a Jew that talks about Ezra. You can't. Especially one that talks about Ezra being the son of god. You see, the Jews find the whole son of god thing to be blasphemous. They would not say it. Another Quran mistake."
There is enough here to start a conversation. In the next set of posts, I will go through the common counterarguments from Muslims and show you why they are false. First the Quran inheritance mistakes.
"1. Let's start with a mathematical mistake. This one is best to do on your own so that you can see the problems yourself. Go to the inheritance verses (4:11, 4:12 and 4:176), read them here: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/004.qmt.html
Now, calculate how to split the inheritance for a man how dies and leaves behind: 3 daughters, 2 parents and two wives. It should take about 15 minutes.
3 daughters: x%
2 parents: y%
2 wives: z%
--------------
2. Historical mistake. The Quran plagiarizes much of the Bible. In the process of copying, sometimes Mohammad and his buddies got creative. In the following example, their creativity caused them to leave behind an obvious historical error. From the story of Joseph...
Here's the Bible:
40:18 Then Joseph answered and said, "This is its interpretation: the three baskets are three days;
40:19 within three more days Pharaoh will lift up your head from you and will hang you on a tree, and the birds will eat your flesh off you."
Now, here's the Quran (different translations listed below to make it easy):
012.041
YUSUFALI: "O my two companions of the prison! As to one of you, he will pour out the wine for his lord to drink: as for the other, he will hang from the cross, and the birds will eat from off his head. (so) hath been decreed that matter whereof ye twain do enquire"...
PICKTHAL: O my two fellow-prisoners! As for one of you, he will pour out wine for his lord to drink; and as for the other, he will be crucified so that the birds will eat from his head. Thus is the case judged concerning which ye did inquire.
SHAKIR: O my two mates of the prison! as for one of you, he shall give his lord to drink wine; and as for the other, he shall be crucified, so that the birds shall eat from his head, the matter is decreed concerning which you inquired.
Did you see the difference? The Bible talked about decapitation followed by hanging. The Quran talked about crucifixion. That's where the error occurs. You see, archaeologists point out 6th century BC Persia as the earliest occurrence of crucifixion, yet the story of Joseph was over 10 centuries before that. The ancient Egyptians did not do crucifixion before the Roman's brought the practice over. Mohammad should be more careful when he plagiarizes.
------------------------
3. How about another obvious one. You see Mohammad knew that the Christians believed in a son of god, so he assumed the Jews did too:
009.030
YUSUFALI: The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!
PICKTHAL: And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they!
SHAKIR: And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!
Mistake! Find me a Jew that talks about Ezra. You can't. Especially one that talks about Ezra being the son of god. You see, the Jews find the whole son of god thing to be blasphemous. They would not say it. Another Quran mistake."
There is enough here to start a conversation. In the next set of posts, I will go through the common counterarguments from Muslims and show you why they are false. First the Quran inheritance mistakes.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Violent sexism and wife beating in Islam - Part 2
Mohammad found wife beating quite alright, almost a fan you might say. Let's go to the Hadith: (read it carefully, a wife is bruised so green that she matches her clothing, but it is ok...Mohammad actually criticizes the woman in the end!). A thank you to answering-islam.org for finding it.
"Narrated Ikrima: 'Rifaa divorced his wife whereupon Abdur-Rahman married her. Aisha said that the lady came wearing a green veil and complained to her (Aisha) and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by the beating. It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah's messenger came, Aisha said, "I have not seen any woman suffering as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes! When Abdur-Rahman heard that his wife had gone to the prophet, he came with his two sons from another wife. She said, "By Allah! I have done no wrong to him, but he is impotent and is as useless to me as this," holding and showing the fringe of her garment. Abdur-Rahman said, "By Allah, O Allah's messenger! She has told a lie. I am very strong and can satisfy her, but she is disobedient and wants to go back to Rifaa." Allah's messenger said to her, "If that is your intention, then know that it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifaa unless Abdur-Rahman has had sexual intercourse with you." The prophet saw two boys with Abdur-Rahman and asked (him), "Are these your sons?" On that Abdur-Rahman said, "Yes." The prophet said, "You claim what you claim (that he is impotent)? But by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a crow.""
Notice that the believing women suffer more than the rest. They get green bruises, but the prophet is ok with it.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Violent sexism and wife beating in Islam
Battered Saudi TV Host, Ranya Al-Baz and Abusive Husband
Posted Nov 14, 2005A glimpse into women's rights in Saudi Arabia.
As I said in an earlier post, a great way to get a Muslim woman thinking is by starting with Mohammad's pedophilia or Islam's violent sexism. Muslim's will generally deny the first (in the face of all evidence), but eventually succumb to the existence of sexism although twisting and turning with respect to the violent aspect.
General sexism
The sexism is obvious, as can be found in the Skeptics Annotated Quran's section on Women. It's quite a long list, here is a subset of really loony verses:
- A woman is worth one-half a man. 2:282 ; and males are to inherit twice that of females. 4:11
- Lewd women are to be confined to their houses until death. 4:15 ; but the wives of Mohammad will be punished double for lewdness! 33:30
- You can't have sex with married women, unless they are slaves obtained in war (with whom you may rape or do whatever you like). 4:24
- Don't pray if you are drunk, dirty, or have touched a woman lately. 4:43
- A husband can accuse his wife of adultery with only one witness. 24:6
- The wives of Mohammad are not like other women. They must not leave their houses. 33:32-33 [a little controlling, aren't we Mohammad?] ; oh, and Allah says it is lawful for Muhammad to marry any women he wants. 33:50-51
- If men must speak to Muhammad's wives they must speak from behind a curtain. And no one must ever marry one of his wives. 33:53
- The single-minded slaves of Allah will enjoy a Garden filled with lovely-eyed virgins. 37:40-48
- Allah will reward faithful Muslims after they die with "fair ones with wide, lovely eyes." 44:54
- Those in the Garden will be attended by immortal youths with wide, lovely eyes. 56:17-23
- Believing women must lower their gaze and be modest, cover themselves with veils, and not reveal themselves except to their husbands, relatives, children, and slaves. 24:31
- Men are in charge of women, because Allah made men to be better than women. Refuse to have sex with women from whom you fear rebellion, and scourge them. 4:34
The last verse mentioned is responsible for some horrific domestic violence, so let's examine further with the full translation:
004.034
YUSUFALI: Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).
PICKTHAL: Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.
SHAKIR: Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, 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 sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.
For those doubters, I bolded the key parts. If you fear disloyalty, desertion or rebellion...beat your wives (of course after admonishing them and not sleeping with them). Now, in Yusuf Ali's version, the word "lightly" is added, but this was added for palatability not because the word is actually there. In the video at the top, you can see how "lightly" some are beaten.
In fact, the word in the Quran in 4:34 used for "beat" is "idreb". It is a conjugate of the word "daraba" which primarily means "to beat, strike, to hit" - Hans Wehr Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, page 538.
Here is a Quranic verse in which "idreb" is used:
8:12 - ""Strike" off their heads, "strike" off the very tips of their fingers!"
Don't believe the Muslim apologists. In the next post, I'll go through what Mohammad actually thought when "revealing" the Quran.