Taj: An expected response. But why does Allah and his apostle allow women to be beaten?

Submitted by Plato (India), Jun 26, 2008 at 04:51

Taj, you wrote:

>>There is a good reason why biographies are generally absent in al fiqh - they are generally recensions of earlier works by individuals whose original works are lost and thus not subject to scrutiny of veracity...additionally, the methodologies of authors such as At Tabari differ greatly from classic scholars(ship) and are looser and not the most reliable…

His work, like ibn Hisham's, is an edit of Ibn Ishaq's, so to cite Ishaq and Tabari as separate sources is indicative of a bit of ignorance on the issue...<<

Not unexpectedly you have chosen to cast aspersions on a scholar of Tabari's caliber. Bukhari's hadith on which you place reliance were compiled more than 200 years after the prophet's death relying on the memory of people who had heard it from others. How much more reliance can you place on them than what comes at the end of the Chinese whisper game.

Let me illustrate with Bukhari. Did your prophet encourage casual sex with captured slave girls? No? How about these Bukhari hadith:

Volume 5, Book 59, Number 637:

Narrated Buraida:

The Prophet sent 'Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (of the booty) and I hated Ali, and 'Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave-girl from the Khumus). I said to Khalid, "Don't you see this (i.e. Ali)?" When we reached the Prophet I mentioned that to him. He said, "O Buraida! Do you hate Ali?" I said, "Yes." He said, "Do you hate him, for he deserves more than that from the Khumlus."

Volume 8, Book 77, Number 600:

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:

That while he was sitting with the Prophet a man from the Ansar came and said, "O Allah's Apostle! We get slave girls from the war captives and we love property; what do you think about coitus interruptus?" Allah's Apostle said, "Do you do that? It is better for you not to do it, for there is no soul which Allah has ordained to come into existence but will be created."

Did the prophet's favourite companions indulge in indiscriminate killing? How about this hadith:

Volume 5, Book 59, Number 628:

Narrated Salim's father:

The Prophet sent Khalid bin Al-Walid to the tribe of Jadhima and Khalid invited them to Islam but they could not express themselves by saying, "Aslamna (i.e. we have embraced Islam)," but they started saying "Saba'na! Saba'na (i.e. we have come out of one religion to another)." Khalid kept on killing (some of) them and taking (some of) them as captives and gave every one of us his Captive. When there came the day then Khalid ordered that each man (i.e. Muslim soldier) should kill his captive, I said, "By Allah, I will not kill my captive, and none of my companions will kill his captive." When we reached the Prophet, we mentioned to him the whole story. On that, the Prophet raised both his hands and said twice, "O Allah! I am free from what Khalid has done."

Did the prophet order assassinations of his critics? How about this hadith:

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 271:

Narrated Jabir:

The Prophet said, "Who is ready to kill Ka'b bin Ashraf (i.e. a Jew)." Muhammad bin Maslama replied, "Do you like me to kill him?" The Prophet replied in the affirmative. Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say what I like." The Prophet replied, "I do (i.e. allow you)."

Did the Prophet of Islam approve of the massacre of the Banu Quraiza? Bukhari:

Volume 5, Book 59, Number 447:

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:

The people of (Banu) Quraiza agreed to accept the verdict of Sad bin Mu'adh. So the Prophet sent for Sad, and the latter came (riding) a donkey and when he approached the Mosque, the Prophet said to the Ansar, "Get up for your chief or for the best among you." Then the Prophet said (to Sad)." These (i.e. Banu Quraiza) have agreed to accept your verdict." Sad said, "Kill their (men) warriors and take their offspring as captives, "On that the Prophet said, "You have judged according to Allah's Judgment," or said, "according to the King's judgment."

>>….In seeing two separate quotations of the same Sermon, by 2 people rescending the same work, one might wonder, why does one say that women are "domestic animals" and the other say "captive"...? These are not synonomous terms... and this problem is a clear indicator of the problem of such works...<<

They are not synonymous but aren't domestic animals our captives and weren't captives treated like domestic animals for all practical purposes (slaves). I see no reason why you make such a big thing out of this difference in translation.

You seem to think that this slight difference with very little difference in intended meaning is a problem with such works. This would put the so-called shahi hadiths also into similar trouble when reporting the same incident/matter.

>>…. The Farewell Sermon can be found in various hadith - which were extant and compiled before Tabari or Hisham's works - so the opinion that Tabari or Ishaq is "as early as you can get" to Muhammad or the Sahaba is not accurate...<<

Were the hadith compiled before Ishaq's work? This is the first I have heard this (Was not Hisham's work a rescension of Ishaq's who lived before the compilers of the hadith?). Thehadith may have been extant (in people's memories) but compiled?? You could enlighten us with some references.

>> I would then note to you that while you have taken "captive" in the perjorative sense, it bears no such implication in the Sermon- this metaphor describes how a woman is "taken" from her father's house (ie "family"), a common consideration of marriage in arab culture...

The non perjorative sense of this term is contextually clear with regard to the subsquent sentence:

"You have taken them only as a trust from God "

So...while you assume that women are considered "captives" or "domestic animals", the Prophet makes clear that they are a trust from God...

BIG difference... <<

You have told us that Ishaq and Tabari are not to be trusted so why have you gone back to quibbling about the intended meaning of ‘captive'?

Saying that ‘captive' has no pejorative sense in the sermon is your ‘tafsir' of the word.

After trying to devalue the works of Ishaq, Tabari, Guillaume to cast doubt on their versions of the sermon and touting Bukhari as the correct one why this comment? After all the Bukhari version does not have either ‘captive' or ‘domestic animal', which, if you are to be believed, the others included without proper authentication (to defame the prophet??). Remember according to the trustworthy Bukhari the prophet never talked about women as either captives or domestic animals.

You have taken pains to show that in the context of the time the word ‘captive'/prisoner appearing in Ishaq's report on the sermon does not have a pejorative meaning using his version which says that women are a trust from God. But why have you avoided comment on the statement in the sermon which allows women to be beaten?

You wrote:>> There are a couple of things you seemingly are ignorant of when it comes to tenets of Islam…..<<

I have no hesitation in admitting I am ignorant about not just a couple but many tenets of Islam.

I amuse myself by trying to shoot down the convoluted and twisted logic used by Muslims to justify the shenanigans of a man who claimed to be revealing the eternal words (amusingly, most of these eternal words were temporally and spatially limited to the environs of Mecca and Medina) of someone who claims to be the creator of the universe.

Regards

Plato

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".