Armed Conflict, Violence, and the Quran

oneway

Did you read that oneway????

Your NATURAL INSTINCT will lead you to violence, if threatened.

If natural instinct were the guiding factor for us much of what is considered sin by both our faiths would be permitted.

Cheers,
oneway.

Please do provide an example of our natural instinct being 'sin'

Selfishness, lust, greed...These are parts of human nature that we work to overcome by striving for spiritual maturity.

Regards,
oneway

Selfishness

Yes it is survival of the fittest. But given time, evolution (of thoughts as well) suggests that mankind will form tribes for survival. In consequence they MUST look after each other for better survival. Religion already adopts this technique, i.e. "Do unto others as you'd have done on yourself".

Lust

Lust exists in all situations and is only outlawed in Christianity, not in Islam. In christianity it is called the original sin, when you are born you are born with sin roll . In Islam it is not outlawed, it is a reuirement for the survival of the species.

Greed

See selfishness, it's the same thing.

Lust isn't what is meant by the "original sin" in Christianity, but that really isn't relevant here. If lust were not a sin in Islam and you followed your natural instincts stemming from lust you would fornicate, be promiscuous, etc., without any spiritual concern. That sort of behavior isn't condoned in Islam, right? There's another thread on this forum discussing averting one's gaze to avoid/control lustful tendencies per Quranic instruction, so it seems Christianity and Islam are similar there, but please correct me if I've misunderstood.

Thanks,
oneway

yfn123

Hello Oneway,

I noticed that too. I have read before and after what you wrote. But there was no consensus that "the Quran endorses violence". That's why it is not EXACTLY the case, but you make it look like it is by stating that "We reached consensus". If you concede that it is actually qualified rather than a blanket statement, then there is no consensus that ""the Quran endorses violence", if that is what you are looking for through this thread.

If I sounded like I attacked you, feel free to attack back. smile

Anwar Azim

Hello, yfn123,

Greetings,

We reached consensus here that the Quran endorses violence

This is not EXACTLY the case, but for only those who want to pick and choose like the lawyers who stop the witnesses just after hearing the word they are looking for, without listening the whole story.

Anwar Azim

Interesting perspective considering you did exactly that by extracting only that first point from my post to support your conclusion

We reached consensus here that the Quran endorses violence
We moved from there to discuss the "Koranic rules of fighting" and their general applicability in explaining the qualified circumstances under which the Quran endorses violence

Some like to respond to the fiirst post in a thread ignoring all of the discussion that happened since that first post where the original author may have already conceded the points they wished to argue against or apologized for coming across too harshly, and so on, while clarifying the position in detail through the debate.

Similarly, as in this case, people will extract one point to support an ad hominem argument.

I fully agree that neither approach is useful.

Regards,
oneway

oneway

Hi, Anwar,

Fair enough - I'll edit the original post to make that first point more exact.

Thanks,
oneway

Hello Oneway,

I noticed that too. I have read before and after what you wrote. But there was no consensus that "the Quran endorses violence". That's why it is not EXACTLY the case, but you make it look like it is by stating that "We reached consensus". If you concede that it is actually qualified rather than a blanket statement, then there is no consensus that ""the Quran endorses violence", if that is what you are looking for through this thread.

If I sounded like I attacked you, feel free to attack back. smile

Anwar Azim

Hello, yfn123,

Greetings,

We reached consensus here that the Quran endorses violence

This is not EXACTLY the case, but for only those who want to pick and choose like the lawyers who stop the witnesses just after hearing the word they are looking for, without listening the whole story.

Anwar Azim

Interesting perspective considering you did exactly that by extracting only that first point from my post to support your conclusion

We reached consensus here that the Quran endorses violence
We moved from there to discuss the "Koranic rules of fighting" and their general applicability in explaining the qualified circumstances under which the Quran endorses violence

Some like to respond to the fiirst post in a thread ignoring all of the discussion that happened since that first post where the original author may have already conceded the points they wished to argue against or apologized for coming across too harshly, and so on, while clarifying the position in detail through the debate.

Similarly, as in this case, people will extract one point to support an ad hominem argument.

I fully agree that neither approach is useful.

Regards,
oneway

esimsek100

Lust isn't what is meant by the "original sin" in Christianity, but that really isn't relevant here. If lust were not a sin in Islam and you followed your natural instincts stemming from lust you would fornicate, be promiscuous, etc., without any spiritual concern. That sort of behavior isn't condoned in Islam, right? There's another thread on this forum discussing averting one's gaze to avoid/control lustful tendencies per Quranic instruction, so it seems Christianity and Islam are similar there, but please correct me if I've misunderstood.

Thanks,
oneway

Peace,

My misunderstanding of the original sin.

Using dictionary.com, we are given-

http//dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lust

Intense or unrestrained sexual craving.

An overwhelming desire or craving a lust for power.
Intense eagerness or enthusiasm a lust for life.
Obsolete. Pleasure; relish.

I fail to see how this is banned in the Quran.

oneway

Using dictionary.com, we are given-

http//dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lust

Intense or unrestrained sexual craving.

An overwhelming desire or craving a lust for power.
Intense eagerness or enthusiasm a lust for life.
Obsolete. Pleasure; relish.

I fail to see how this is banned in the Quran.

Hi, esimsek100,

My understanding is that the Quran teaches against "unrestrained sexual craving." Is that not correct?

The point is simply that restraint is called for over our natural urges (in both Christianity and Islam as I understand it) such that our natural urges are not themselves useful in evaluating the righteousness of scriptural teachings. We do not view the scriptures as wrong because they go against our natural urges; rather, we strive to restrain our natural urges as part of following scriptural teachings.

So it is not persuasive to argue that the Quran's qualified approval of violence is right simply because we have natural tendencies toward violence.

Thanks,
oneway

unknownuser

Peace oneway. Unrestrained lust and unrestrained violence are both harmful,immoral activities.

esimsek100

Using dictionary.com, we are given-

http//dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lust

Intense or unrestrained sexual craving.

An overwhelming desire or craving a lust for power.
Intense eagerness or enthusiasm a lust for life.
Obsolete. Pleasure; relish.

I fail to see how this is banned in the Quran.

Hi, esimsek100,

My understanding is that the Quran teaches against "unrestrained sexual craving." Is that not correct?

The point is simply that restraint is called for over our natural urges (in both Christianity and Islam as I understand it) such that our natural urges are not themselves useful in evaluating the righteousness of scriptural teachings. We do not view the scriptures as wrong because they go against our natural urges; rather, we strive to restrain our natural urges as part of following scriptural teachings.

So it is not persuasive to argue that the Quran's qualified approval of violence is right simply because we have natural tendencies toward violence.

Thanks,
oneway

Peace,

If natural instinct were the guiding factor for us much of what is considered sin by both our faiths would be permitted.

This was the statement in question, on my behalf.

Corruption of natural instinct is indeed wrong. I have no issues about that what-so-ever.

The Quran calls for control over natural instinct, but no where does it say that natural instinct, in ALL forms, is a sin.

However, if your life is threatened, do you think it wrong/sinful to protect yourself by fighting to the death????

If you are married, is it wrong/sinful to look at your partner in lust????

Natural instinct is the guide book for the animal kingdom. e.g. A lion kills the cubs of it's newly acquired pride, for the purpose of making sure only his genes survive.

With humans it's a different concept, mainly because we are the homo-sapiens sapiens,i.e. the man who realises that he thinks. Our advanced brain seperates us from the rest of the animal kingdom, hence our society is conducted in a different manner.

What we do is for the benefit of all mankind, but we still do take care of ourselves FIRST. It's a survival of the fittest concept, a natural instinct concept. But it is a natural instinct that is controlled.

We still do reward our most phsycially gifted humans, they are probably the best killing machines, survival machines we have. e.g. Professional wrestlers, football players, boxers, CEO's of multi-billion $ corporations.

The professions I've listed above all earn a hell lot of money.

We (humans) cannot survive if we ban our natural instincts. It is extrememly vital for our species. Also on the other hand we will not survive if we let our natural instincts run wild (nuclear weapons).

The Quran calls for control of our most basic urges but nowhere does it outlaw them.

Bigmo

peace Oneway.
in your thread u posted the link http//www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2702 to Dave Miller's article about the "violent" verses of the Koran .

2190-194 And fight in the cause of God against those who fight you, but do not transgress, God does not like the aggressors. And kill them wherever you find them, and expel them from where they expelled you, and know that persecution is worse than killng. And do not fight them at the restricted Temple unless they fight you in it; if they fight you then kill them, thus is the reward of the disbelievers. And fight them so there is no more persecution, and so that the system is God's. If they cease, then there will be no aggression except against the wicked. What is done in the restricted month may be retaliated in the same month, and murder shall be punishable by execution. Whoever attacks you, then you shall attack him the same as he attacked you; and be aware of God, and know that God is with the righteous.

Remember the Koranic rules of fighting

? fight in the cause of God against those who fight you, but do not transgress
? do not fight them at the restricted Temple unless they fight you in it;
? If they cease, then there will be no aggression except against the wicked
? Whoever attacks you, then you shall attack him the same as he attacked you

Keep these rules in mind while reading all the verses posted in Dave Miller?s article . then tell us if u still find the verses "violent"

474 So, if you encounter those who have rejected, then strike their neck until you capture them, then bind them securely. Then you may either set them free or ransom them, until the war ends. And had God willed, He alone could have beaten them, but He thus tests you by one another. As for those who get killed in the cause of God, He will never let their deeds be put to waste.

2216-217 Fighting has been decreed for you while you hate it; and perhaps you may hate something while it is good for you, and perhaps you may love something while it is bad for you; God knows while you do not know. They ask you about the restricted month "Is there fighting in it?" Say "Much fighting is in it, and to repel from the path of God and to disbelieve in Him, and at the restricted Temple, to drive its inhabitants out is far greater with God, and persecution is worse than killing." And they still will fight you until they turn you back from your system if they are able. And whoever of you turns back from his system, and he dies while disbelieving, then these have nullified their work in this life and the next; these are the people of the Fire, in it they will abide eternally!

91-5 And a declaration from God and His messenger to the people on this day of the extended Pilgrimage "That God and His messenger are innocent from all those who set-up partners." If you repent, then it is better for you, and if you turn away, then know that you will not escape God. And give news to those who have rejected of a painful retribution. Except for those with whom you had a treaty from among those who have set-up partners if they did not reduce anything from it nor did they plan to attack you; you shall continue the treaty with them until its expiry. God loves the righteous. So when the restricted months are passed, then you may kill those who have set-up partners wherever you find them, and take them, and surround them, and stand against them at every point. If they repent, and hold the salat, and contribute towards betterment, then you shall leave them alone. God is Forgiving, Merciful. And if any of those who have set-up partners seeks your protection, then you may protect him so that he may hear the words of God, then let him reach his sanctuary. This is because they are a people who do not know.

.....
...
...

The Sects claim that the concept of defensive war has been abrogated by these verses in Chapter 9

But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Jizya is then explained by the Sects as a tax to be paid by non Muslims to the Muslim ruler. Of course we know that what really these sects believe abrogated the defensive war verses of the Koran is this hadith

Ibn ?Umar related that the Messenger of Allah, upon whom be peace, said, ?I have been ordered to fight the people until they testify that there is no god except Allah, and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer and pay the zakah. If they do that, their blood and wealth are protected from me save by the rights of Islam. Their reckoning will be with Allah.? (Related by al-Bukhari and Muslim.)?

And even a casual glance at that hadith we know must have also abrogated many other verses and not just the defensive war verses like

1753-54 And tell my servants that they should speak in a most kindly manner. Verily, Satan is always ready to stir up discord between men; for verily; Satan is mans foe .... Hence, We have not sent you with power to determine their Faith

1682 But if they turn away from you, your only duty is a clear delivery of the Message

6107 Yet if God had so willed, they would not have ascribed Divinity to aught besides Him; hence, We have not made you their keeper, nor are you a guardian over them

8821 22; And so, exhort them your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel them to believe

3941 Assuredly, We have sent down the Book to you in right form for the good of man. Whoso guided himself by it does so to his own advantage, and whoso turns away from it does so at his own loss. You certainly are not their keeper.

But since some Sunni scholars want to hide behind the Koran and are ashamed to say that the hadith abrogates the Koran, we will go along with it for argument sake.

So what is Jizya anyways

The Arabic term jizya appears in verse Quran 929, but the Qur'an does not specify jizya as a tax per head. According to Paul Heck, the jizya taxation seems to be a developed form of the Sassanian practice of taxation.

Commentators disagree on the definition and derivation of the word jizya
Shakir and Khalifa's English translations of the Qur'an render jizya as "tax", while Pickthal translates it as "tribute". Yusuf Ali prefers to transliterate the term as jizyah.
Yusuf Ali states "The derived meaning, which became the technical meaning, was a poll tax levied from those who did not accept Islam, but were willing to live under the protection of Islam, and were thus tacitly willing to submit to the laws enforced by the Muslim State."
Monqiz As-Saqqar attributes the word jizya to the root word jaza meaning "compensate" and defines it as "a sum of money given in return for protection".
Ibn Al-Mutaraz derives the word from 'idjz?, meaning "substitute" or "sufficiency" because "it suffices as a substitute for the dhimmi's embracement of Islam."
Yusuf al-Qaradawi says the word jizya is derived from the jazaa', meaning "reward", "return", or "compensation", and defines it as "a payment by the non-Muslim according to an agreement signed with the Muslim state".
Edward William Lane, in An Arabic-English Lexicon defines jizya as a "tax that is taken from the free non-Muslim subjects of a Muslim government whereby they ratify the compact that assures them protection.
Ibn Rushd explains that jizya is in fact a broader concept than just a head-tax. It also includes monies exacted in times of war ? what is normally understood in English by the word ?tribute? ? as well as levies (?ushr) on non-muslim merchants who are trading in the Dar al-Harb.

In practice, the word is applied to a special type of tax, levied upon the non-Muslim adult males living under an Islamic state.

After the Norman conquest of Sicily, taxes imposed on the Muslim minority were also called the "jizya".

http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya

Lets look at how they define that term

compensation, reward, substitute, tribute, return.

Well we know from the Koran that there were many Jews and pagans living in Medina. We also know that they interacted with the prophet and that the prophet had political power over them to some degree. Yet there is no mentioning of Jizya except when the believers were just about to enter Mecca. Anotherwords Jizya in the Koran came when talking about the Meccans upon entering that city.

I don't know about you but i know if I was forced into exile and taken from my home and lost my possession and business and whatever else I had and suffered all those years from the pagans of Mecca because of my religious belief

9.13. Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is Allah Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe

I know I would want some compensation, some reward, some substitute, some tribute. Jizya is just like a war reperation and being compensated for damages. The believers entered Mecca where many of them came from, this is no conquest. Conquest(ghazu) has no mentioning in the Koran. Conquest is taking land that was never your homeland. In fact what the hadith tried to do was to pave a way for conquests. Then introduce taxes to create wealth. Take that and prisoners of war sold as slaves, you got yourself a pretty profitable scenario. No doubt all this was useful for the dictators.

It really show us how deviated some aspects of these Sects are.

DaresBears

The majority of people who talk about violent verses of the Qur'an are rampant Islamophobes with an agenda behind them, they don't listen to reason or logic because their mind is already made up, and they resort to the same tactics of posting verses out of context no matter how much you explain it to them, they even go so far as to claim context doesn't matter which is ridiculous. The whole, Robert Spencer, Jihadwatch, Geert Wilders crowd, it should just be ignored, intelligent people will seek answers from both sides, bigots with their minds made up will never listen.

Bigmo

The majority of people who talk about violent verses of the Qur'an are rampant Islamophobes with an agenda behind them, they don't listen to reason or logic because their mind is already made up, and they resort to the same tactics of posting verses out of context no matter how much you explain it to them, they even go so far as to claim context doesn't matter which is ridiculous. The whole, Robert Spencer, Jihadwatch, Geert Wilders crowd, it should just be ignored, intelligent people will seek answers from both sides, bigots with their minds made up will never listen.

Good point. This is why they try to delegitimize us because our Islam is harder to criticize. But then again the Islam that is dominant is an Islam that abroagted the concept of defensive war and replace it with offensive war and abrogated the freedom verses and replaced them with apostasy law. They then abrogated the eye for an eye law of proportional justice to an eye for an eye lash disporportionate jutice. They then abrogated the universal definition of who is a Muslim to a sectarian one.

No longer a Sunna-rejecter

I know that this is from 2006, but for the record...

I think the author of that article laid out the case better than I could, but in response to your question, doesn't the fact that there exist "Koranic rules for fighting" prove that it endorses violence?

474 "So, if you encounter those who have rejected, then strike their neck until you capture them..."

Sure sounds violent to me.

Peace,
oneway.

The fact that there ARE rules (strict ones, at that) for warfare shows that God/the Quran does not endorse fighting as a good measure to end conflict. It is a last measure against those that are violent - against whom words will not work.

Context

471 Those who rejected and repelled from the path of God, He will mislead their works.

Also

Shabbir Ahmed - End Note 4 (474)
837, 3840. Free the captives as an act of kindness or ransom, such as in exchange for your men in their captivity. There is no third option. Fadharb ar-riqaab is usually rendered as 'smite their necks.' A little contemplation, however, makes it plain that in a battle of swords and arrows no commander would order his soldiers to aim for the necks alone. Therefore, the stated term has been used idiomatically, indicating knocking out the command centers. It is interesting to note that even in today's encounters with high technology this principle is given a top priority

Edip-Layth - End Note 1 (474)
The expression "darb al riqab" is traditionally translated as "smite their necks." We preferred to translate it as "strike the control center." The Quran uses the word "unuq" for neck (1713,29; 812; 3433; 3833; 135; 264; 368; 4071). The root RaQaBa means observe, guard, control, respect, wait for, tie by the neck, warn, fear. "Riqab" means slave, prisoner of war, since they are controlled or guarded. Even if one of the meanings of the word riqab were neck, we would still reject the traditional translation, for the obvious reason The verse continues by instructing muslims regarding the capture of the enemies and the treatment of prisoners of war. If they were supposed to be beheaded, there would not be a need for an instruction regarding captives, which is a very humanitarian instruction. Unfortunately, the Sunni and Shiite terrorists have used the traditional mistranslation, and abused it further by beheading hostages in their fight against their counterpart terrorists, Crusaders and their allied coalition, who torture and kill innocent people in even bigger numbers, yet in a baptized fashion that is somehow depicted as non-barbaric by their culture and media. The Quran gives two options regarding the hostages or prisoners of war before the war ends (1) set them free; or (2) release them to get a fee for their unjustified aggression. Considering the context of the verse and emphasis on capturing the enemy, we could have translated the segment under discussion as, "aim to take captives." The Old Testament contains many scenes of beheadings and grotesque massacres. For instance, see 2 Samuel 47-12; 2 Kings 107, and 2 Chronicles 2512.

alikhan0

The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.

Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, the verses of violence in the Quran are mostly open-ended, meaning that they are not restrained by the historical context of the surrounding text. They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subjective as anything else in the Quran.

The context of violent passages is more ambiguous than might be expected of a perfect book from a loving God, however this can work both ways. Most of today's Muslims exercise a personal choice to interpret their holy book's call to arms according to their own moral preconceptions about justifiable violence. Apologists cater to their preferences with tenuous arguments that gloss over historical fact and generally do not stand up to scrutiny. Still, it is important to note that the problem is not bad people, but bad ideology.

Thanks!
Learn Quran Online

Man_of_Faith

Peace,

The warfare in Quran is purely to stand up for your rights. If the quranic verses seem barbaric, then the verses are usually misinterpreted, like people earlier in this thread have already told.

The Quran is also telling us that we can emigrate and that the Earth is spacious.

I do not find the verses any strange as long as you do not take them out of context. The most common colorful slaughter-verse is entirely dependant on the surrounding context. With the whole surah in mind the verse is not so bad.

And if someone yields, muslims should not kill them. Prisoners may be taken just for strategical reasons (such as the yielding person may return to the enemy and fight again next time). I think prisoners should be treated with decency, they are just ignorant and misled.

In other words, I do not understand the war god feelings you have about God.

God bless you

huruf

No, those who blame the Qur'an for "violence", would like that the Qur'an would have supported cowardice and surrender of the defenceless for the sake of coward non violence and for the sake of the benefit of those devoid of scrupels. Of course if you want to kill and maim and rob and do as a god with people and someone comes up oposing that and does not recoil at violence and risk, then, that of course if very inconvenient for the ruthless robber and murderer that would like the others NEVER, under no circumstance, to defend themselves or the defenceless by the means they can get.

Of course, for those bigots, doubletalkers, "meek ones" the Qur'an should condone cowardice and treachery, but not standing up by the means at their disposal against opression, tyrany, falsehood and murder.

Their falsehood and interests are clear.

That is the whole trouble with the Qur'an for those hypocrites the Qur'an does not condone cowardice nor disguises it as meekness or non violence.

Long live courage, and long live the truth and the divine protection.

Salaam

hawk99

The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule.

Peace alikhan0,

Could you please supply Quranic evidence of your statements, and please not 109,
just a few to discuss.

God Bless

Bigmo

The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.

Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, the verses of violence in the Quran are mostly open-ended, meaning that they are not restrained by the historical context of the surrounding text. They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subjective as anything else in the Quran.

The context of violent passages is more ambiguous than might be expected of a perfect book from a loving God, however this can work both ways. Most of today's Muslims exercise a personal choice to interpret their holy book's call to arms according to their own moral preconceptions about justifiable violence. Apologists cater to their preferences with tenuous arguments that gloss over historical fact and generally do not stand up to scrutiny. Still, it is important to note that the problem is not bad people, but bad ideology.

Thanks!
Learn Quran Online

The Quran only recognizes defensive war.

bookish

Bu there a few verses which somewhat bother me, can you explain the following

95 So when the restricted months have passed, then you may kill the polytheists wherever you find them, and take them, and surround them, and stand against them at every point. If they repent, and they hold the contact prayer, and they contribute towards purification, then you shall leave them alone. God is Forgiving, Merciful.

911 If they repent, and they hold the contact prayer, and they contribute towards purification, then they are your brothers in the system. We explain the revelations for a people who know.

839 And fight them all until there is no more oppression, and the entire system/religion is for God. But if they cease, then God is Seer over what they do.

The above verses seem to go against what the Koran says in general. I'd be glad if someone could explain them....

reel

Give us some nonviolent ways to stand up against the following

Mass murder, brutal physical and mental torture for those who wanted to believe that there is only one god and that they won't worship millions of fake deities.
Getting boycotted by all locals which then leads to hunger and poverty
Fleeing country to avoid persecution, but then a time comes when the local government sends letter to the country of refuge compelling its government to send them back.

If you wish to know why the "violent verses" came have a look at what Saudi people did to new Muslims at the time including Prophet Muhammad.
http//www.loonwatch.com/2012/03/when-they-almost-killed-muhammad-the-persecution-of-islams-earliest-followers/

Wakas

I recommend

http//www.tolueislam.org/Parwez/ICR/ICR_16.htm
http//www.misconceptions-about-islam.com/fighting-war-terrorism.htm
http//misconceptions-about-islam.com/jihad-holy-war.htm

And if you want to read in detail about those chapter 9 verses
http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/disproved_traditional_salat.htm

scarface2890

hi Arnold Yasin
u say To avoid the moral and intellectual problems
who is it
maybe i see thing

Among His signs is that He created for you spouses from among yourselves, in order to have tranquility and contentment with each other. He places in your heart love and care towards your spouses. In this, there are signs for people who think." (3021)
Obviously, this mixed messages have bothered many contemporary translators of the Quran. To avoid the moral and intellectual problems, they tried to soften the word "beat" when they translate the verse 434. For instance, Yusuf Ali uses a merciful parentheses after "beat" to save women