Reasons to Believe in the corruption of the Gospels

Asalamualaykum,

In a previous post three reasons to believe in the corruption of the Torah were offered. In this post the same will be done for the four Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.


1- Christological Evolution

There’s disagreement surrounding exactly when the four gospels were written, but if we were to be generous with the dates:

Mark, written ~60 CE
Matthew and Luke, written ~75 CE
John, written ~90 CE

For reference, 'Isa (عليه السلام) is believed to have died sometime after the year 30 CE.

If one were to compare earlier gospels with later ones, one will find that there is a general trend of embellishing Jesus’ character over time, from Mark, to Matthew and Luke, to John. I.e. Jesus is evolving with every passing account to become more and more god-like. Three examples will be given:

1.1 “God” or “Father”?

We read in Mark 3:35 that Jesus says:
Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.

The same statement is reported in Matthew 12:50, but with an important twist:
For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.

The earlier gospel (Mark) has Jesus saying “God” where the later gospel (Matthew) has this changed to Jesus calling God “Father”. Such an embellishment serves to portray Jesus as more than just a human who is subservient to his Lord.

1.2 Peter’s Response

In the gospels of Mark and Matthew, Jesus is reported to have asked his disciples: “Who do you say I am?”

In Mark 8:29 Peter’s response was:
“You are the Messiah.”

In Matthew 16:16 Peter’s response is recorded as:
“You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

Notice how the later gospel (Matthew) adds the phrase “the Son of the living God”, which is lacking from the earlier gospel (Mark). Ask yourselves, which is more likely: Mark simply choosing not to record this very significant phrase? Or Matthew coming along and deliberately adding it onto the text to make a point?

1.3 Judas’ Betrayal

The gospels record the moment when Judas betrays Jesus, and calls for the soldiers to come and arrest him. Let us take the accounts of Mark, Luke and John for comparison:

According to Mark 14:44-46:
Now the betrayer [Judas] had arranged a signal with them [the guards]: “The one I kiss is the man; arrest him and lead him away under guard.” Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, “Rabbi!” and kissed him. The men seized Jesus and arrested him.

According to Luke 22:47-48:
While he [Jesus] was still speaking a crowd came up, and the man who was called Judas, one of the Twelve, was leading them. He approached Jesus to kiss him, but Jesus asked him, “Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?”

According to John 18:3-6:
So Judas came to the garden, guiding a detachment of soldiers and some officials from the chief priests and the Pharisees. They were carrying torches, lanterns and weapons. Jesus, knowing all that was going to happen to him, went out and asked them, “Who is it you want?”
“Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied.
“I am he,” Jesus said. (And Judas the traitor was standing there with them.) When Jesus said, “I am he,” they drew back and fell to the ground.

Again a huge difference between the three accounts, where Jesus is portrayed as more powerful according to the later gospels when compared to the earlier ones.

According to the earliest account found in Mark: The soldiers did not know who Jesus was, so Judas had to single him out for them by kissing Jesus’ hand. Judas approaches Jesus, kisses his hand, and immediately afterwards the guards seize Jesus. That's it for Mark's version of the story.

Then comes the account in Luke. According to Luke, when Jesus sees Judas approaching he immediately realizes that Judas was betraying him. Before Judas could even kiss his hand, Jesus asks him: “are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?” A clear embellishment from Mark’s depiction, implying that Jesus is more knowledgeable.

Finally we have the latest account in John. According to John, Judas doesn’t even get to approach Jesus, let alone kiss him. As soon as Jesus sees Judas he immediately knows of his treachery. In fact, John explicitly states that Jesus knew exactly what was going to happen to him. The gospel of John then takes this story one step further- according to John the soldiers don’t arrest Jesus, rather it is implied that he gives himself up to them. Jesus is the one who asks the approaching soldiers “Who is it you want?” and when he proclaims that he is indeed Jesus of Nazareth, they all fall to the ground in awe of his power. According to John, Jesus is completely in control of the entire situation.

1.4 Jesus being called “Lord” by his disciples

In Mark 4:38 we read:
Jesus was in the stern, sleeping on a cushion. The disciples woke him and said to him, “Teacher, don’t you care if we drown?”

The same event is reported in Matthew 8:25, but again with a twist:
The disciples went and woke him, saying, “Lord, save us! We’re going to drown!”

The wording of the earlier gospel of Mark has the disciples calling Jesus “Teacher”. The later gospel of Matthew has the disciples calling Jesus “Lord”.

1.5 God as the “Father in Heaven”

As we move away from the time of Jesus, the number of times God is referred to as “Father” by him increases in each account.

In the earliest gospel, Mark, Jesus refers to God as “Father” only 5 times.

Between Matthew and Luke, Jesus refers to God as “Father” a total of 41 times (14 times in Luke, 27 in Matthew)

In the latest gospel of John, Jesus refers to God as “Father” 117 times- more times than the other three gospels combined.

Implying a theological agenda on the part of the later gospel authors to depict Jesus as the Son of God, the emphasis for this increasing over time. Source for the count.

1.6 Prayer of Gethsemane

Before his arrest, Jesus is reported to have entered the garden of Gethsemane, and prayed to God to save him.

In Mark 14:35-36 we read:
Going a little farther, he fell to the ground and prayed that if possible the hour might pass from him. “Abba, Father,” he said, “everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.”

A similar prayer is found in Matthew (26:39) and Luke (22:42).

However, this prayer- which depicts Jesus as weak and helpless before God, and most importantly unwilling to be crucified- is missing from the latest Gospel of John. Again, an embellishment which serves to portray Jesus as more able than he is. Instead what we have in the gospel of John, is Jesus entering the garden and then the episode of his arrest begins immediately after. The only mention of the Garden goes by very quickly:

In John 18:1 we read:

When he had finished praying, Jesus left with his disciples and crossed the Kidron Valley. On the other side there was a garden, and he and his disciples went into it.

1.7 Matthew’s Donkey Mess-up

In the earliest Gospel of Mark, we read of Jesus asking his disciples to bring him a colt (young donkey) so that he could ride into Jerusalem on its back. Mark 11:2 reads:
[Jesus] saying to them [the disciples], “Go to the village ahead of you, and just as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, which no one has ever ridden. Untie it and bring it here.”

In Matthew however this is changed to TWO donkeys. We read in Matthew 21:2:
[Jesus] saying to them [the disciples], “Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me.”

Later on in verse 7 of the same chapter, Matthew has Jesus riding into Jerusalem on top of both animals:
They [the disciples] brought the donkey and the colt and placed their cloaks on them for Jesus to sit on.

Two donkeys are better than one, right? Well things get even funnier. This is actually a serious attempt at an embellishment on the part of Matthew’s author. Matthew evidently was skimming through the Old Testament, trying to see what in there he can squeeze into his story about Jesus (so that he can then turn around and say: “Aha! See? The Old Testament hundreds of years ago prophesied about Jesus here!”). Matthew comes across a passage from the book of Zechariah (9:9) which reads:
Rejoice greatly, Daughter Zion! Shout, Daughter Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you, righteous and victorious, lowly and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

Matthew (being someone who obviously doesn’t understand the Old Testament very well) thought Zechariah 9:9 depicted the King of Jerusalem riding on a donkey AND a colt. In an attempt to project this image from Zechariah 9:9 onto Jesus, Matthew in his Gospel then has Jesus riding on both an adult donkey and a colt.

Obviously Matthew misunderstood Zechariah 9:9. For example, if I said: “Billy is a good Christian, an honest man” the intended meaning is that there is a single person named Billy, and that this single person is both a good Christian, and an honest man. I do not mean that there are two people, the first being a Christian named Billy, and the second being an honest man. Likewise with Zechariah 9:9. When the author of Zechariah says the King of Jerusalem will be “riding on a donkey, on a colt” he does not mean the King of Jerusalem will be riding on both an adult donkey AND a colt. Rather on a single animal, who is both a donkey and a colt (i.e. a young donkey).

What does Matthew’s terrible mess-up tell us? It tells us that the gospels were written in retrospect of the Old Testament- that the gospel authors did not mind perverting the story of Jesus’ life for theological reasons. In other words, that the authors of the Gospels were more interested in selling the reader Christian theology, than they were in relaying historical events accurately.


1.8 Jesus Stabbed

In the first three Gospels (Mark, Matthew and Luke) Jesus is allegedly put on the cross on a Friday. The following day being the Sabbath, the Jews had to take him down on Friday’s eve. This meant Jesus was put on the cross for only a few hours. This is very strange, because crucifixion is supposed to be a long and agonizing death. The person being crucified is supposed to suffer on the cross for several days before dying from exhaustion/starvation. But Jesus was only up there for a few hours. In fact this was so strange, that even Pontius Pilate (the governor who had sentenced Jesus to death) was surprised at Jesus’ early death. In Mark 15:44 we read:
Pilate was surprised to hear that he [Jesus] was already dead. Summoning the centurion, he asked him if Jesus had already died.

This is very problematic for Christian theology. Jesus had to have died on the cross for the entire religion to make sense, and there can be no doubts about this pivotal event. So what does the author of the last Gospel (John) do? He has a guard stab Jesus with a spear for good measure. And to not leave readers with any doubts about Jesus’ death on the cross, John describes how blood and water flowed out of Jesus’ stabbed body. In John 19:34:
Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water.

John's gospel is the only one that mentions this stab.

Of course, this is amongst the many other examples one can give to highlight this evolutionary trend, from the earlier gospels to the later ones. The main point is however, if one extrapolates this trend of embellishing Jesus backwards, to even before Mark was complied, you'd probably get a very human Jesus. A Jesus that’s even more human than Mark’s depiction. And a Jesus that fits perfectly with how Islam sees him.


2- The New Testament says there were earlier Gospels

The New Testament reports that Paul had heated debates against ‘false’ apostles who were teaching ‘false’ gospels.

We read in Galatians 1:6-7:
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel, which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ.

And in 2 Corinthians 11:13:
For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ

This is significant for obvious reasons. It suggests there were alternative, competing, Christian traditions to the Pauline narrative. Moreover, those alternative traditions were contemporaneous with Paul himself. What’s even more significant, is that Paul’s material predates the four Gospels. This means those ‘false apostles’, preaching the ‘false gospel’ (according to Paul) predate the four canonical Gospels!

So how can the Christian today prove that the Pauline narrative is the theologically correct one amongst the other early traditions that were competing against it? Why does the Christian trust the Pauline narrative at all? What if one of those - now lost - gospels preached by those who Paul called ‘false apostles’ is actually the true gospel of Christ?

Obviously the modern Christian cannot appeal to the four Gospels to support Paul’s narrative. This is because the four Gospels were written after Paul's work (possibly deliberately crafted to conform with his teachings). All the Christian today has to appeal to, is the Old Testament. And this problematic for two reasons:
-A- Because the Old Testament itself is not reliable (as discussed in another post found here).
-B- There is a huge difference between how Jews have traditionally interpreted the Old Testament, and how Christians interpret it.


3- Fabricated Verses

Modern scholarship had already detected (and removed) many fabricated verses from the New Testament.

Those include, but are not limited to:

3.1 The Pericope de Adultera

The story, where Jesus refuses to stone a woman for committing adultery. Where Jesus famously declares: “Let those without sin cast the first stone”… turns out this story is a fabrication.

The story is found in John 8. Most modern English translations of the Bible will now warn you about this fabrication.

3.2 The Ending of Mark
Verses 16:9-20 of the gospel of Mark, are now considered fabrications by most New Testament scholars. Once again, you will find a warning about this in most modern English translations of the Bible.

What this means is that the Gospel of Mark (or what we have left of it) ends at Mark 16:8:
Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.

So according to Mark, no one is informed of Jesus’ resurrection… he doesn’t appear to his disciples after his alleged death… nothing. The greatest pillar of Christianity, the resurrection, is not supported by the earliest Gospel.

3.3 The verse of the Trinity

Not part of the gospels per se, but significant nonetheless. The only verse in the entire New Testament which explicitly mentions the trinity is a fabrication.

1 John 5:7 used to read:
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

But this verse has now been taken out from the translations that utilize the earliest manuscripts.

The implications are huge. Not only are those fabrications of great theological importance to the Christian, but the fact fabrications even exist also casts doubt on the veracity of the New Testament’s preservation. If one knows fabrications have crept into their scriptures, how can one be certain that nothing else is a fabrication?


Conclusion:

There are many other reasons to doubt in the preservation of the New Testament (anonymous authorship, contradictions between the gospel accounts, the fact none of the authors even claim to have been inspired…etc.) but those were just the three most interesting ones in my opinion.

Read More

Reasons to believe in the corruption of the Torah

Asalamualaykum,

Many arguments have been offered against the authenticity of the Gospels, but there has been- comparatively- less discussion on the authenticity of the Torah. In this topic I will be highlighting some of my reasons for doubting the preservation of the Torah specifically.

For the purposes of this discussion, the Torah here refers to the first five books of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.


1- Lack of Evidence for Preservation

Unlike the Quran which depended mainly on oral mass-transmission (Tawatur) for preservation, believers in the Bible claim that it has been mainly preserved via manuscripts. Likewise with the Torah, which is claimed to be supported by reliable manuscript evidence. But is this true?

In the case of the Torah, the manuscript evidence is scant. The Torah is attributed to Musa (عليه السلام), who is said to have died sometime before 1 Millennia BC. The earliest manuscripts for the Torah are the recently discovered Dead-Sea Scrolls. At the earliest (being very generous here) the Dead-Sea Scrolls date to around 400 BC. So even if the Dead Sea Scrolls were complete (which they aren't), and perfectly matched the Torah as we have it today (which they don't), there's still over a 600 year difference between them and the life of the alleged author.

This is absolutely, not good evidence to believe that the Torah is preserved.

PS: I also believe exclusive dependency on manuscripts for preservation is not very reliable, but for reasons beyond the scope of this topic. Those may be discussed upon request.


2- Discrepancies Between Codices

There are several Codices for the Torah, but there are discrepancies between the different Codices. So how do the various Jewish and Christian sects determine which codex to base their scripture on?

Let us demonstrate this using an example:

One of the key differences between the Torah and the Quran is each book's position on Ismail (عليه السلام). In the Quran he is a blessed Prophet from Allah, whose lineage will eventually lead to the Prophet Muhammed ﷺ. Modern Bibles however, close the door on this lineage and belittle Ismail (عليه السلام) compared to Isaac (عليه السلام). For the average Jew/Christian, Prophethood is exclusive to the descendants of Isaac (عليه السلام). There is a clear bias towards Isaac (عليه السلام) throughout the Bible, which Jews and Christians claim to be because God favored him over his brother.

In several instances in the Torah, Ismail (عليه السلام) is denounced as lesser than Isaac (عليه السلام). One such instance is Genesis 16:12, where the Torah explicitly insults Ismail (عليه السلام). In most Bibles today, if one were to open Genesis 16:12 one would read (referring to Ismail عليه السلام):

And he will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be upon all, and everyone's hand upon him, and before all his brothers he will dwell.

However, what those Bible translations don't tell you, is that this text is based on the Masoretic Script. The Samaritan Pentateuch on the other hand, reads:

And he will be a fruitful man; his hand will be with all, and everyone's hand with him, and before all his brothers he will dwell.

As you can see, huge difference and of a theological significance. Given the context of Genesis 16, the Samaritan Pentateuch also makes more sense.

And do not be fooled into thinking that there are only two variant Codices. There are at least five; we have the Masoretic Text, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Latin Vulgate, the Septuagint, and the Peshitta. Many differences between them all.

What's more, the Dead-Sea Scrolls do not consistently confirm one Codex over the others. They confirm a few passages from each. So if the Dead-Sea Scrolls are used as the standard for truth, not a single one of the Codices can be said to be completely true. They would all, only be partially true, and partially fabrications. But of course, we have no good reason to believe that the Dead-Sea scrolls match that which was revealed to Musa (عليه السلام) either.


3- The Bible says the Torah was lost

Some Jews have claimed that the Torah, like the Quran, was preserved by Tawatur. They claim that there is an unbroken chain of narrators, consisting of faithful Jews over the generations, continuously memorizing the text and passing this knowledge down- from the days of Musa (عليه السلام) until present time. But this claim is inconsistent with what the Bible says. That is because the Bible tells us that there were periods in history when the Torah was lost (if there is a break in transmission, Tawatur cannot be claimed).

The most obvious evidence for a gap in transmission is from Second Kings, Chapter 22. In this Chapter of the Bible, we are told that the Priest Hilkiah 're-discoveres' the Torah during the reign of King Josiah. Upon hearing about this discovery, the King rips his clothes and begins reforming his policies to fit the commands of the Torah. In the following chapter, 2 Kings 23:4, we also read about how King Josiah destroys the idols in the temple upon reading the newly discovered Torah. The implication is of course, that the Jews had fallen so far away from the Torah, that they started to worship idols in the temple of God!

How can the Jews have ignored the most pivotal commandment of the Torah (monotheism), if it had been preserved with them all this time? And if the Jews had been faithfully memorizing the Torah, one generation after the other, how could they allow their most precious scripture to become forgotten? Why did the Torah need to be re-discovered for the Jews to finally realize that what they were doing was wrong? Most significantly, how can we know that this Torah that Priest Hilkiah found, matches that which was revealed to Musa (عليه السلام)?


Conclusion

There are many further reasons for doubting the preservation of the Torah, and the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament more generally. Those include: explicit passages talking about corruption (Jeremiah 8:8), anonymity of authorship, and canonization differences between the various Jewish and Christian sects. Nevertheless, the above are the main reasons that I think many Muslims may not be aware of. 

source

Read More

Jesus according to Quran

Sahih International

"O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, "Three"; desist - it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs."

Abridged Ibn Katheer:

Prohibiting the People of the Book From Going to Extremes in Religion

 

Allah forbids the People of the Scriptures from going to extremes in religion, which is a common trait of theirs, especially among the Christians. The Christians exaggerated over `Isa until they elevated him above the grade that Allah gave him. They elevated him from the rank of prophethood to being a god, whom they worshipped just as they worshipped Allah. They exaggerated even more in the case of those who they claim were his followers, claiming that they were inspired, thus following every word they uttered whether true or false, be it guidance or misguidance, truth or lies. This is why Allah said,

﴿اتَّخَذُواْ أَحْبَـرَهُمْ وَرُهْبَـنَهُمْ أَرْبَاباً مِّن دُونِ اللَّهِ﴾

(They took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allah.) 

 Imam Ahmad recorded that Ibn `Abbas said that `Umar said that the Messenger of Allah said,

«لَا تُطْرُونِي كَمَا أَطْرَتِ النَّصَارَىِ عِيسَى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ. فَإِنَّمَا أَنَا عَبْدٌفَقُولُوا: عَبْدُاللهِ وَرَسُولُه»

(Do not unduly praise me like the Christians exaggerated over `Isa, son of Maryam. Verily, I am only a servant, so say, `Allah's servant and His Messenger.')
This is the wording of Al-Bukhari.

Imam Ahmad recorded that Anas bin Malik said that a man once said, "O Muhammad! You are our master and the son of our master, our most righteous person and the son of our most righteous person...'' The Messenger of Allah said,

«يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ عَلَيْكُمْ بِقَوْلِكُمْ، وَلَا يَسْتَهْوِيَنَّكُمُ الشَّيْطَانُ،أَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبْدِاللهِ، عَبْدُاللهِ وَرَسُولُهُ، وَاللهِ مَا أُحِبُّ أَنْ تَرْفَعُونِي فَوْقَ مَنْزِلَتِي الَّتِي أَنْزَلَنِي اللهُ عَزَّ وَجَل»

(O people! Say what you have to say, but do not allow Shaytan to trick you. I am Muhammad bin `Abdullah, Allah's servant and Messenger. By Allah! I do not like that you elevate me above the rank that Allah has granted me.)

Allah's statement,

﴿وَلاَ تَقُولُواْ عَلَى اللَّهِ إِلاَّ الْحَقَّ﴾

(nor say of Allah except the truth.) means, do not lie and claim that Allah has a wife or a son, Allah is far holier than what they attribute to Him. Allah is glorified, praised, and honored in His might, grandure and greatness, and there is no deity worthy of worship nor Lord but Him. Allah said;

﴿إِنَّمَا الْمَسِيحُ عِيسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ وَكَلِمَتُهُ أَلْقَـهَا إِلَى مَرْيَمَ وَرُوحٌ مِّنْهُ﴾

(Al-Masih `Isa, son of Maryam, was (no more than) a Messenger of Allah and His Word, which He bestowed on Maryam and a spirit from ﴿created by﴾ Him;) `Isa is only one of Allah's servants and one of His creatures. Allah said to him, `Be', and he was, and He sent him as a Messenger. `Isa was a word from Allah that He bestowed on Maryam, meaning He created him with the word `Be' that He sent with Jibril to Maryam. Jibril blew the life of `Isa into Maryam by Allah's leave, and `Isa came to existence as a result. This incident was in place of the normal conception between man and woman that results in children.

This is why `Isa was a word and a Ruh (spirit) created by Allah, as he had no father to conceive him. Rather, he came to existence through the word that Allah uttered, `Be,' and he was, through the life that Allah sent with Jibril. Allah said,

﴿مَّا الْمَسِيحُ ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ إِلاَّ رَسُولٌ قَدْ خَلَتْ مِن قَبْلِهِ الرُّسُلُ وَأُمُّهُ صِدِّيقَةٌ كَانَا يَأْكُلاَنِ الطَّعَامَ﴾

(Al-Masih ﴿`Isa﴾, son of Maryam, was no more than a Messenger; many were the Messengers that passed away before him. His mother ﴿Maryam﴾ was a Siddiqah. They both ate food.)

And Allah said,

﴿إِنَّ مَثَلَ عِيسَى عِندَ اللَّهِ كَمَثَلِ ءَادَمَ خَلَقَهُ مِن تُرَابٍ ثُمَّ قَالَ لَهُ كُن فَيَكُونُ ﴾

(Verily, the likeness of `Isa before Allah is the likeness of Adam. He created him from dust, then (He) said to him: "Be! ـ and he was.)

﴿وَالَّتِى أَحْصَنَتْ فَرْجَهَا فَنَفَخْنَا فِيهَا مِن رُّوحِنَا وَجَعَلْنَـهَا وَابْنَهَآ ءَايَةً لِّلْعَـلَمِينَ ﴾

(And she who guarded her chastity, We breathed into her (garment) and We made her and her son ﴿`Isa﴾ a sign for all that exits.) (21:91)

﴿وَمَرْيَمَ ابْنَةَ عِمْرَانَ الَّتِى أَحْصَنَتْ فَرْجَهَا﴾

(And Maryam, the daughter of `Imran who guarded her chastity,) and Allah said concerning the Messiah,

﴿إِنْ هُوَ إِلاَّ عَبْدٌ أَنْعَمْنَا عَلَيْهِ﴾

(He ﴿`Isa﴾ was not more than a servant. We granted Our favor to him.)

`Abdur-Razzaq narrated that Ma`mar said that Qatadah said that the Ayah,

﴿وَكَلِمَتُهُ أَلْقَـهَا إِلَى مَرْيَمَ وَرُوحٌ مِّنْهُ﴾

(And His Word, which He bestowed on Maryam and a spirit from ﴿created by﴾ Him;) means, He said,

﴿كُنَّ﴾

(Be) and he was. Ibn Abi Hatim recorded that Ahmad bin Sinan Al-Wasiti said that he heard Shadh bin Yahya saying about Allah's statement,

﴿وَكَلِمَتُهُ أَلْقَـهَا إِلَى مَرْيَمَ وَرُوحٌ مِّنْهُ﴾

(and His Word, which He bestowed on Maryam and a spirit from ﴿created by﴾ Him;) "`Isa was not the word. Rather, `Isa came to existence because of the word.'' Al-Bukhari recorded that `Ubadah bin As-Samit said that the Prophet said,

«مَنْ شَهِدَ أَنْ لَا إِلهَ إِلَّا اللهُ، وَحْدَهُ لَا شَرِيكَ لَهُ، وَأَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا عَبْدُهُ وَرَسُولُهُ، وَأَنَّ عِيسَى عَبْدُاللهِ وَرَسُولُهُ وَكَلِمَتُهُ أَلْقَاهَا إِلى مَرْيَمَ وَرُوحٌ مِنْهُ، وَأَنَّ الْجَنَّةَ حَقٌّ، وَالنَّارَ حَقٌّ، أَدْخَلَهُ اللهُ الْجَنَّةَ عَلَى مَا كَانَ مِنَ الْعَمَل»

(If anyone testifies that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah Alone Who has no partners, and that Muhammad is His servant and Messenger, and that `Isa is Allah's servant and Messenger and His Word which He bestowed on Maryam and a spirit created by Him, and that Paradise is true and Hell is true, then Allah will admit him into Paradise with the deeds which he performed.) In another narration, the Prophet said,

«مِنْ أَبْوَابِ الْجَنَّةِ الثَّمَانِيَّةِ يَدْخُلُ مِنْ أَيِّهَا شَاء»

(...through any of the eight doors of Paradise he wishes.) Muslim also recorded it. 

Therefore, `Ruh from Allah', in the Ayah and the Hadith is similar to Allah's statement,

﴿وَسَخَّرَ لَكُمْ مَّا فِى السَّمَـوَتِ وَمَا فِى الاٌّرْضِ جَمِيعاً مِّنْهُ﴾

(And has subjected to you all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth; it is all from Him.) meaning, from His creation. `from Him' does not mean that it is a part of Him, as the Christians claim, may Allah's continued curses be upon them. Saying that something is from Allah, such as the spirit of Allah, the she-camel of Allah or the House of Allah, is meant to honor such items. Allah said,

﴿هَـذِهِ نَاقَةُ اللَّهِ﴾

(This is the she-camel of Allah...) and,

﴿وَطَهِّرْ بَيْتِىَ لِلطَّآئِفِينَ﴾

(and sanctify My House for those who circumambulate it.) An authentic Hadith states,

«فَأَدْخُلُ عَلَى رَبِّي فِي دَارِه»

(I will enter on my Lord in His Home) All these examples are meant to honor such items when they are attributed to Allah in this manner. Allah said,

﴿فَـَامِنُواْ بِاللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ﴾

(so believe in Allah and His Messengers.) believe that Allah is One and Alone and that He does not have a son or wife. Know and be certain that `Isa is the servant and Messenger of Allah. Allah said after that,

﴿وَلاَ تَقُولُواْ ثَلَـثَةٌ﴾

(Say not: "Three!") do not elevate `Isa and his mother to be gods with Allah. Allah is far holier than what they attribute to Him. In Surat Al-Ma'idah (chapter 5), Allah said,

﴿لَّقَدْ كَفَرَ الَّذِينَ قَالُواْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ ثَـلِثُ ثَلَـثَةٍ وَمَا مِنْ إِلَـهٍ إِلاَّ إِلَـهٌ وَحِدٌ﴾

(Surely, disbelievers are those who said: "Allah is the third of the three.'' But there is none who has the right to be worshipped but One God.) Allah said by the end of the same Surah,

﴿وَإِذْ قَالَ اللَّهُ يعِيسَى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ أَءَنتَ قُلتَ لِلنَّاسِ اتَّخِذُونِى﴾

(And (remember) when Allah will say (on the Day of Resurrection): "O `Isa, son of Maryam! Did you say unto men: `Worship me''') and in its beginning,

﴿لَّقَدْ كَفَرَ الَّذِينَ قَآلُواْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ هُوَ الْمَسِيحُ ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ﴾

(Surely, in disbelief are they who say that Allah is the Messiah, son of Maryam.) The Christians, may Allah curse them, have no limit to their disbelief because of their ignorance, so their deviant statements and their misguidance grows. Some of them believe that `Isa is Allah, some believe that he is one in a trinity and some believe that he is the son of Allah. Their beliefs and creeds are numerous and contradict each other, prompting some people to say that if ten Christians meet, they would end up with eleven sects!

 

 Sa`id bin Batriq, the Patriarch of Alexandria and a famous Christian scholar, mentioned in the year four hundred after the Hijrah, that a Christian Council convened during the reign of Constantine, who built the city that bears his name. In this Council, the Christians came up with what they called the Great Trust, which in reality is the Great Treachery. There were more than two thousand patriarchs in this Council, and they were in such disarray that they divided into many sects, where some sects had twenty, fifty or a hundred members, etc.! When the king saw that there were more than three hundred Patriarchs who had the same idea, he agreed with them and adopted their creed. Constantine who was a deviant philosopher -- gave his support to this sect for which, as an honor, churches were built and doctrines were taught to young children, who were baptized on this creed, and books were written about it. Meanwhile, the king oppressed all other sects. Another Council produced the sect known as the Jacobites, while the Nestorians were formed in a third Council. These three sects agreed that `Isa was divine, but disputed regarding the manner in which `Isa's divinity was related to his humanity; were they in unity or did Allah incarnate in `Isa! All three of these sects accuse each other of heresy and, we believe that all three of them are disbelievers. Allah said,

﴿انتَهُواْ خَيْراً لَّكُمْ﴾

(Cease! (it is) better for you.) meaning, it will be better for you,

﴿إِنَّمَا اللَّهُ إِلَـهٌ وَحِدٌ سُبْحَـنَهُ أَن يَكُونَ لَهُ وَلَدٌ﴾

(For Allah is (the only) One God, hallowed be He above having a son.) and He is holier than such claim,

﴿وَللَّهِ مَا فِى السَّمَـوَتِ وَمَا فِى الاٌّرْضِ وَكَفَى بِاللَّهِ وَكِيلاً ﴾

(To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is All-Sufficient as a Disposer of affairs,) for all are creatures, property and servants under His control and disposal, and He is the Disposer of the affairs. Therefore, how can He have a wife or a son among them,

﴿بَدِيعُ السَّمَـوَتِ وَالاٌّرْضِ أَنَّى يَكُونُ لَهُ وَلَدٌ﴾

(He is the originator of the heavens and the earth. How can He have children.) 

http://www.islamicstudies.info/ibnkathir/ibnkathir.php?sid=4&tid=13003

Commentary

The word: : Kalimatuh used in this verse tells us that Sayyidna 'Isa (A.S) is the 'word' of Allah. Commentators have given different meanings of this expression:

1. Imam al-Ghazzali has said that two factors operate in the birth of a child: One is the sperm, the other is the saying of the word or 'be' by Almighty Allah after which the child comes to exist. Since the first factor is out of question in the case of Sayyidna 'Isa (A.S), therefore, it was by attribution to the second factor that he was called (the word of Allah). It means that he came into existence solely through the word: (be) without the mediacy of material means. In this case, the statement which follows immediately, that is, would mean that Almighty Allah delivered this word to Maryam (A.S) as a result of which the birth of Sayyidna 'Isa (A.S) came to be.

2. Some have said that the expression: (the word of Allah) has been used in the sense of: (the glad tiding of Allah) and it refers to Sayyidna 'Isa (A.S). It will be recalled that the glad tiding of the coming of Sayyidna 'Isa (A.S) given to Maryam (A.S) by Almighty Allah through the angels carries the expression: Kalimah or word: (When the angels said, "O Maryam, Allah gives you the good news of a word ... 3:45).

3. Some have said that kalimah (word) has been used here in the sense of 'ayah or sign, as it has appeared elsewhere in the same sense: 'She (Maryam) testified to the word of her Lord as true.' (66:12)

Let us now consider the statement: (... and a spirit from Him.) in this verse. Worth attention here are two aspects of our probe. Firstly, why has Sayyidna 'Isa (A.S) been referred to as ruh or spirit? Secondly, since by saying 'from Him' the spirit has been attributed to Almighty Allah what, then, would be the sense of such an attribution?

In this connection, several exegetical stances of commentators have been reported. Their gist is being given below:

1. Some of them explain it on the basis of lexical usage. They say that, according to the rule of 'urf or recognized customary practice, the word 'ruh' or 'spirit' is used in the sense of 'essence' to enhance the effect of pristine purity in something. Since the birth of Sayyidna Isa (A.S) was totally unrelated to the mediation of any father and he was the outcome of nothing but the will of Allah, in His supreme majesty, and a result of the word: (Kun: be), therefore, he Was blessed with the most perfect degree of purity. This is the reason why he was called 'a spirit' or 'essence' as admitted by recognized practice. As for the attribution to Allah, it is there to hold him in esteem. This is like attributing Masajid (mosques) to Allah in order to enhance the respect in which they are held. Hence, the expression: Masajidullah or the Mosques of Allah. Or, the Holy Ka'bah, by attributing it to Allah, is called: Baytullah or the House of Allah. Or, by attributing someone religiously observing and worshipfully obedient to Allah, he is called: 'Abd Allah' or the servant or slave of Allah. Thus, it is in accord with this formulation that the Holy Prophet has been referred to in Surah Bani Isra'il in the wordings: (carried His servant) (17:1) where the attribution to Allah reflects honour given to him.

2. Some commentators have said that the purpose behind the coming of Sayyidna 'Isa (A.S) was that he should infuse spiritual life into the dead hearts of people and make them alive once again (familiar as born-again Christians in the West). Since he was the cause of spiritual life very much like the spirit is the cause of physical life, therefore, it was in this light that he was called a spirit. In fact, this word has been used for the Holy Qur'an as well: (and thus We have revealed to you a spirit of Our Command - 42:52) because the Holy Qur'an too blesses people with spiritual life.

3. Some others have said that ruh (spirit) is also used in the sense of secret. Since Sayyidna 'Isa (A.S) was, because of his unusual birth, a sign and secret of Allah, therefore, he was called: Ruhullah (the spirit of Allah).

4. Some say that the adjunct is understood here since the statement was to be read as: (the possessor of a spirit from Him). However, since all rational beings are equal as the possessors of a spirit, the distinction of Sayyidna Isa (A.S) was made manifest when Almighty Allah turned his attribution towards Himself.

5. According to yet another exegetical view, the word: Ruh has been used in the sense of nafkh or the blowing of breath. Sayyidna Jibra'il (A.S) had, as commanded by Allah, blown his breath on the collar of Sayyidah Maryam (A.S) and that became the conception. Since only a blow of breath had caused the birth of Savyidna 'Isa (A.S) as a miracle, therefore, he was called: Ruhullah or the spirit of Allah. Another verse of the Holy Qur'an: (then, We blew Our spirit in her - 21:91) points out in this direction.

In addition to these, several other probabilities have also been suggested. However, none of these come to mean that Sayyidna 'Isa (A.S) is a part of Allah or a divine person on the basis of which it could be suggested that this very spirit we are talking about has manifested itself in the human form, of Sayyidna 'Isa (A.S).

A Telling Repartee

'Allamah Al-Alusi, the author of the famous Tafsir Ruh al-Ma'ani has reported an episode from the court of Caliph Harun al-Rashid where a Christian physician entered into a debate against the scholar 'All ibn al-Husayn al-Waqidi challenging him that his Book (the Qur'an) has a particular word which indicates that Sayyidna 'Isa (A.S) is a part of Allah. And as a proof, he read out the verse (171) which carries the words: (a spirit from Him). 'Allamah al-Waqidi came up with a rejoinder and recited another verse (45:13) of the Qur'an: (The meaning of the verse is that everything that there is in the heavens and the earth is from the same Allah where the word - minhu: from Him - serves to attribute everything to Allah) and said: (ruhim-minhu: a spirit from Him) means, as you think, that Sayyidna 'Isa (A.S) is a part of Allah, then, the verse I have just recited would mean that every thing in the heavens and the earth is also a part of Allah?' Thus, silenced, the Christian physician chose to become a Muslim.

 

The Qur'an and the Doctrine of Trinity

Reflected in the statement of the Qur'an: (And do not say "Three") is the state of the major sects among Christians in which they were divided at the time of the revelation of the.Qur'an. The doctrine of Trinity they adhered to was base on three separate principles. One sect maintained that Masih is God and it is God Himself who has appeared in the world in the form of Masih. The second sect believed that Masih is the son of God while the third sect claimed unity in trinity - the father, the son and Mary. Even this group was split in two. The second group said that the Holy Spirit (Ruhul-Quds) and not Sayyidah Maryam (Mary) was the third person (hypostasis). So, these people acknowledged Sayyidna Masih (A.S) as the third of the three. Therefore, all the three sects have been addressed, separately and jointly in the Holy Qur'an whereby the Christians have been clearly told that there is just one truth and that truth is that Masih (A.S) is a human being born to Maryam (A.S), and a true Messenger of God. Whatever is said beyond that is all false and ineffectual - whether it be loaded with the excess of under-estimation, as believed by the Jews, viz., God forbid, he was an imposter and fabricator: or, be a case of the excess of over-estimation as believed by the Christians, viz., God forbid, he is God or the son of God or the third of the three.

In many of its verses, the Holy Qur'an has, on the one hand, pointed out to the strayings of the Christians and Jews while, on the other, it has focused brightly on the exalted station of Sayyidna 'Isa (A.S) in the sight of Almighty Allah so that the true path of moderation could emerge clearly from out of the mazes of excess and deficiency.

Those interested in detailed information about various aspects of Christian beliefs vis-a-vis the veracity of Islam may wish to study the world-famous book, Izharul-Haqq by Maulana Rahmatullah Kiranawi. This original work in Arabic has been translated and published by Darul-Uloom, Karachi, Pakistan in three volumes with detailed annotations. [An English translation of this work has been recently completed by Maulana Muhammd Wali Raazi, son of Hadrat Mufti Muhammad Shafi and is presently under the process of publication under the auspices of the translator himself.]

Towards the end of the verse, it was declared: (To him belongs what is in the heavens and what is in the earth. And Allah is enough to trust in.). The drive of the meaning is: When everything has been created by Him, when everything falls under the domain of His mastery and when everyone is a servant ofAllah, who and how could anyone become His partner or associate or son? The fact is that Almighty Allah is the dispenser of all our needs and the sole caretaker of everyone's wants - He is universally and perennially sufficient, all by Himself. He needs nobody. How, then, could He need to have a partner or son?

To sum up, we can say that no created being has the ability or qualification to become His partner, nor does His most sacred Being have the room or need for it. This much is enough to tell us that suggesting a partner to God or ascribing a son to Him can be accomplished by none but the one who is deprived of faith and reason both.

Excess in Faith

Let us now go back to the opening statement of the verse: . In this verse, the People of the Book have been asked not to indulge in excess in matters relating to their Faith. Lexically, the Qur'anic word: : al-Ghuluww means to cross the limits or transgress. In Ahkam al-Qur'an, Imam al-Jassas says:

Excess in Faith is crossing the limit set therein.

The People of the Book, that is, the Jews and the Christians were both made addressees of this injunction because excess in Faith is the common factor between them. Both groups have fallen victims to nothing but excess in matters of Faith. The Christians committed excess in believing and honouring Sayyidna 'Isa (A.S) when they went on to the extreme of taking him to be God or son of God or the third God. As for Jews, they committed excess in disbelieving and rejecting him - not simply that they did not accept him even as a prophet, they were audacious enough to, God forbid, impute a false accusation to his revered mother, Sayyidah Maryam (A.S) and to cast a slur against her parentage.

Since the disasterous deviation of Jews and Christians in matters of Faith was a common scene of the time, the Holy Prophet especially instructed his community to be very careful about it. According to a report from Sayyidna 'Umar appearing in the Musnad of Ahmad, the Holy Prophet said:

Do not exaggerate in my praise as was done by Christians in the case of 'Isa son of Maryam (A.S). Beware, I am only a servant. So, call me a servant of Allah and His messenger. (This narration has also been reported by al-Bukhari and Ibn al-Madini rating it as sound and authentically reported)

In brief, the sense of what he said is: I am one with everyone in being a servant of Allah and a human being. The highest rank I have is that I am a Messenger of Allah. Raising it higher to the limit that you go about taking me as partner in the attributes of Almighty Allah is excess and I do not want you to fall into this excess like the Christians. This excess in Faith practiced by the Jews and Christians did not remain limited to prophets only. Once used to it, they extended this attitude of theirs to the apostles, followers and deputies of the prophets. They had already assigned Godhood to their prophet, now they invested the followers of the prophet with immunity from sin. While doing so, they did not even take the trouble of investigating and making sure if such followers were genuine followers of the prophet and who correctly and firmly adhered to his teachings, or they were no more than hereditary religious scholars and guides. This resulted in the emergence of a leadership which was astray in itself and could do nothing but keep adding to the strayings of others. So, they ruined their Faith by practicing it erroneously from within. The Holy Qur'an has described this very condition of these people in the verse: (that is, these people took their religious leaders as objects of worship, other than Allah). It means that they had already been excessive in making their prophet a God, then, they started worshipping later-day religious leaders in the name of following the prophet!

The lesson to be learnt is that excess in Faith is a dangerous attitude which has destroyed the Faiths of earlier religious communities all in the fair name of Faith. So serious were the implications that our noble master devised perfect defences to keep his community safe against this terrible epidemic.

It appears in Hadith that the Holy Prophet asked Sayyidna'Abdullah ibn 'Abbas on the occasion of Hajj that he should go and collect pebbles which he could use to throw at the Jamarat. He returned with average-sized pebbles and presented them to the Holy Prophet who liked them very much and said twice: (like these, like these) which means that one should do his or her ramy at Jamarat using average-sized pebbles litfe these. Then, he said:

It is your duty to avoid excess in Faith for communities before you were destroyed because of being excessive in their Faith.

The Ideal Solution

The Shari'ah of Islam has wisely shielded Muslims from falling into the trap of excess. The middle course in between the two extremes it has suggested is: Learn the Book of Allah (Kitabullah) from the Men of Allah (Rijalullah) and recognize the Men of Allah from the Book of Allah. In other words, one should first recognize those who are engaged in learning and communicating the true knowledge of the Qur'an and Sunnah through the all too well-known teachings of these twin sources of Islamic Faith. Once this is settled, no intricate problem relating to Qur'an and Sunnah will ever bother you - if you give precedence to their explanation above your own opinion, and follow them.

Read More

Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics

Muslims too will be shocked to learn just how much of the New Testament is forged. Leading experts in the field of ancient forgery have given the book highly favourable reviews as you can discover below (follow the link).

Few books have so effectively challenged the basis of scriptural authority in Christianity. (London Review of Books)

“Arguably the most distinctive feature of the early Christian literature,” writes Bart Ehrman, “is the degree to which it was forged.” The Homilies and Recognitions of Clement; Paul’s letters to and from Seneca; Gospels by Peter, Thomas, and Philip; Jesus’ correspondence with Abgar, letters by Peter and Paul in the New Testament – all forgeries. To cite just a few examples.

Forgery and Counterforgery is the first comprehensive study of early Christian pseudepigrapha ever produced in English. In it, Ehrman argues that ancient critics–pagan, Jewish, and Christian–understood false authorial claims to be a form of literary deceit, and thus forgeries. Ehrman considers the extent of the phenomenon, the “intention” and motivations of ancient Greek, Roman, and Jewish forgers, and reactions to their work once detected. He also assesses the criteria ancient critics applied to expose forgeries and the techniques forgers used to avoid detection. With the wider practices of the ancient world as backdrop, Ehrman then focuses on early Christian polemics, as various Christian authors forged documents in order to lend their ideas a veneer of authority in literary battles waged with pagans, Jews, and, most importantly, with one another in internecine disputes over doctrine and practice. In some instances a forger directed his work against views found in another forgery, creating thereby a “counter-forgery.” Ehrman’s evaluation of polemical forgeries starts with those of the New Testament (nearly half of whose books make a false authorial claim) up through the Pseudo-Ignatian epistles and the Apostolic Constitutions at the end of the fourth century.

Shining light on an important but overlooked feature of the early Christian world, Forgery and Counterforgery explores the possible motivations of the deceivers who produced these writings, situating their practice within ancient Christian discourses on lying and deceit.

See academic reviews here 

Read More

Take care of your wife

Here is exegesis of

In the shades of Ayat 4:34 

Regulation of Family Affairs
The  sūrah  also outlines themeasures to be taken in order to protect this social institution against the effects of quarrels and disputes so as to eliminate, as far as possible, any negative effects that could destroy it.
Men shall take full care of women with the bounties with which God has favoured some of them more abundantly than others,  and with what they may spend of theirown wealth. The righteous women are devout, guarding the intimacy which God has ordained to be guarded. (Verse 34)
Before we comment on these verses and  outline their psychological and social objectives we need to speak briefly about  the Islamic view of the institution of the family and its method of building, protecting and promoting it.
God, who has created mankind, is the One who has made duality part of man’s nature, as it is indeed ingrained in all creation: “And of everything We have created pairs, so that you may bear in mind [that God alone is One].”  (51: 49) He then willed to make the human pair two halves of the same soul: “Mankind, fear your Lord, who has created you from a single soul, and from it created its mate.” (Verse 1)
Part of His purpose behind the meeting between the two halves of the same soul is that it should lead to peaceful existence and be a comfort to body and soul. It is also a means to protect purity and chastity and provides a secure, clean way for human reproduction and the continuity and promotion of human life, under the watchful care of parents.
Different verses in the Qur’ān stress these facts:
“Among His signs is that He creates for you mates from among yourselves, so that you might incline towards them, and He engenderslove and compassion between you.”  (30: 21)

“They are as a garment to you as you are to them.”  (2: 187)

“Your wives are your tilth; go, then,  to your tilth as you may desire, but prepare well for yourselves and fear God.” (2: 223)
“Believers, ward off from yourselves and your families that fire [of the hereafter] whose fuel is human beings and stones.” (66: 6)
“As for the believers whose offspring will have followed them in faith, We shall unite them with their offspring; and We shall not let aught of their deeds go to waste.” (52: 21)
 Because the two mates are two halves of  the same soul, they  stand in the same position in God’s sight. Since God has given mankind a position of honour, He has honoured women, assigning to them the same reward for their good deeds, the same rights of ownership and inheritance, and  the same rights of independence.
Similarly, as regards the great responsibility of the family, which results from the meeting of the two halves of the same soul, God has taken care to detail a complete set of elaborate measures which regulate all aspects of the family institution and all its affairs.
Together, these measures provide a complete and perfect system for the family. Their comprehensive outlook and attention to detail reflect the great importance Islam attaches to this crucial institution.
We hope that the reader may recall what we have said in earlier volumes about the length of the childhood period
With this in mind, the next verse makes it clear that the man  is in charge of the family institution, as God has given him  the necessary qualities and training to undertake this task and assigned to him the duty of meeting the family’s living expenses. It also outlines man’s additional task to protect the family against collapse as a result of fleeting whims, delineating  the way to deal with these, should they occur. It also explains other “external” measures to which recourse may be made when all “internal” efforts have failed, and a total breakdown threatens not only the spouses but also the young ones who are more vulnerable. We will now look at these measures in some detail.
The Partner in Charge
Men shall take full care of women with the bounties with which God has favoured some of them more abundantly than others,  and with what they may spend of their own wealth. (Verse 34)
We have already said that the family is  the first institution in human life in the sense that its influence is felt at every stage of human life. Moreover, it derives its importance from the fact that  it is within the family that man, the most noble of all creatures according to the Islamic concept of life, is brought up. The running and administration of much inferior institutions, such as those engaged in financial,industrial and commercial affairs is normally assigned to those who are most qualified for the job by their education, training and natural abilities. It is only logical that the same rule be applied to the family, the institution that looks after the upbringing of the noblest creature in the universe, namely, man.
The Divine code of living takes human nature into consideration, as well as the natural abilities given to both man and  woman to enable them to discharge the duties assigned to each of them. It maintains justice in the distribution of duties, giving to each of them only the type of duties to which they are suited.
Needless to say, both man and woman are the creation of God, who does not wish to do injustice to anyone He has created. Indeed, He gives each of His creatures the abilities and talents that befit the duties assigned to them.
God has created human beings as males and females, following the “dual” rule which is central to the system of creation. He has given the woman the great tasks of childbearing, breast-feeding and looking after her children. These are not tasks which can be fulfilled without careful preparation, physically, psychologically, and mentally. It is only just, therefore, that the other part, i.e. the man, should be assigned the task of providing the essential needs and the protection required for the woman to fulfill her highly important duties. She could not be given all those tasks and still be required to work in order to earn her living. It is only fair as well that the man be given the physical, mental and psychological qualities which enable him to fulfill his duties in the same way as the woman is given the abilities to fulfill hers. All this is clearly seen in real human life, because God maintains absolute justice among all.
Among the qualities the woman has been  given are tenderness, quick reaction, and an instinctive response to the needs  of children, without the need for much deliberation and reflection. The essential human need of even a single individual are not left to be deliberated upon at leisure. Response to them is made instinctively, so that they may be met more or less involuntarily. There is no external compulsion in this. It is an impulsive reaction, which the woman mostly enjoys despite the fact that it requires sacrifice from her. This is part of God’s work, which is always perfect.
These are not superficial qualities. Indeed, they are implanted in the woman’s physical, mental and psychological constitution. Some leading scientists believe that they are present in each cell in the woman’s constitution, because they are rooted in the first cell that multiplies to form the foetus and the child.
On the other hand, among the qualities a man is given are toughness, slow reaction and response, as well as proper thought and reflection before action. All his functions, from the early days of being  a hunter- gatherer, to fighting for the protection of his wife and children, to earning his living in any way, require some deliberation and consideration before taking a decision and implementing it. These qualities are also deeply rooted in man’s constitution.
Man’s qualities make him more able and better equipped to take charge of the family. Similarly, his duty to support his family, as part of that general distribution of functions, makes him more suited to overall authority. That is because earning his family’s living is part of being in charge. Moreover, looking after the finances of the family is closer to his family duties.
In highlighting these two elements, the Qur’ān states that in Islamic society men are required to look after women. It is an assignment of duties on the basis of natural abilities and the fair distribution of responsibilities. Each party is assigned the duties most suited to its nature.
The man has the proper natural abilities to take charge of the family affairs, a role essential for the proper progress of human life. It is a simple fact that one party is properly equipped for this role and assigned the duty to play it while the other is not.
Hence, it is totally unfair that the latter party should be required, in any situation, to take up these responsibilities in addition to its own. If women are given the necessary practical and scientific training to fulfil these duties, then their ability to play the other role, i.e. that of motherhood, is undermined.
These very serious questions should not be left to human beings to determine at will. When they have been left to human beings to decide, in both past and modern societies, the very existence of mankind was threatened and essential human qualities which distinguish man from other creatures were in danger of extinction.
There is plenty of evidence to demonstrate that the rules of human nature force themselves on man, even when people deny them altogether. One aspect of this is the decline in the quality of human life and the serious danger to which it is exposed whenever this rule, which gives man the task and the authority to look after the family, has been violated. Such violation leads to confusion within the family, and is bound to have serious repercussions.
Moreover, women prefer for the man to assume authority and responsibility for the family. Many women worry, feel dissatisfied and unhappy, when they live with men who relinquish their role for any reason. Even women who try to challenge the man’s role readily admit to this.
Another example of the social repercussions brought about by this unnatural family situation is one whereby children suffer from instability. This happens when the father does not play his role, either because of his weak character which allows the mother to overshadow or control him, or because of his early death or in one-parent families. This, in turn, can lead to mental perversion and behavioural deviation.
These are only a few examples through which human nature indicates its presence and the need to organise human life according to its laws.
To elaborate more on the role of the man as the one in charge of the family and its justification is beyond the scope of this commentary. What we need to state here, however, is that it does not by any means lead to the negation of the woman’s character and role in the family home and in society at large. Nor does it mean the cancellation of her civil status. It simply defines her role within the family and how it is run. This is necessary, because the family is a very important institution, and one which must be protected and maintained.  In any institution, the observance of certain values does not mean the abrogation of the character or the rights of the partners or the workers. Islam defines the role of the man and what his being in charge means, as well as his duties as the one who takes care of his family, protects it and earns its living.
In Recognition of Women’s Virtues
Men shall take full care of women with the bounties with which God has favoured some of them more abundantly than others,  and with what they may spend of their own wealth. The righteous women are devout, guarding the intimacy which God has ordained to be guarded. (Verse 34)
The verse moves on to explain the qualities of righteous women, their behaviour and duties within the family.  “The righteous women are devout, guarding the intimacy which God has ordained to be guarded”  (Verse 34) It is, then, in the nature of the righteous, believing woman and part of her essential characteristics to be devoted and obedient. Devotion means willing obedience, motivated by love, not the sort of obedience enforced against one’s will. Hence, the Qur’ān uses the term “devout”, or qānitāt to stress its pleasant psychological connotations, which fit perfectly with the sort of affectionate and compassionate relationship which exists between man and woman, the two parts of the single soul from which all mankind descend. Islam stresses that this relationship is essential in the family home where young ones are reared.
It is also part of the nature and essential characteristics of a devoted, believing woman to guard the sanctity of her relationship with her husband. This she maintains in his presence as well as in his absence. She does not reveal what belongs only to him, as one half of the single  soul which combines  both of them, even inasmuch as a passing look, let alone a  full dishonourable relationship. What is forbidden to reveal is decided neither by him nor by her. It is determined by God. It is “the intimacy which God has ordained to be guarded”. It  is not a matter of pleasing a husband or allowing what he does not mind to be revealed or what society requires to be exposed, should the husband or society deviate from the Divine code of living.
There is only one rule to determine the limits of what must be guarded. She has to guard that “which God has ordained to be guarded”.
We note that the Qur’ān does not put this in the imperative form. It places much stronger emphasis on it by saying that this guardianship is part of the nature of righteous women and one of their essential characteristics. This statement exposes the flimsiness of the excuses advanced  by some mentally defeated Muslims advocating ways and methods that are certain to lead to the collapse of the family only because these are practised in other communities. What must be guarded, willingly and obediently, is that which God has ordered to be guarded.
The ones who are not righteous are described here as rebellious. Their rebellion is given a physical description derived from standing on a high position to declare their mutiny. Islam does not wait for such a rebellion to take place, nor for the roles to become so confused that the family institution splits  into two camps. When the situation reaches that point, it is almost impossible to sort out. The treatment must be administered before the rebellion gathers momentum. Once rebellion establishes its roots, the family home is deprived of  the peace and affection necessary for the upbringing of children. The whole setup collapses and the young become the victims divided between the two parents or brought up in an atmosphere which makes the family home a fertile place for psychological, mental and physical disorders to multiply and a suitable place for perversion to establish itself.
It is, then, a very serious matter. Gradual treatment must be administered when the early signs of rebellion become apparent. In order to preserve the family and protect it from destruction, the one who is placed in charge is allowed to take some disciplinary steps that are often effective. He does not take them as retaliatory measures or to humiliate or torture his  partner, but to achieve reconciliation and preserve the family in the very early stages of dispute.
When Family Life Is Endangered
As for those women from whom you have  reason to fear rebellion, admonish them [first]; then leave them alone in bed; then beat them. Then, if they pay you heed, do not seek any pretext to harm them. God is indeed Most High, Great. (Verse 34)
Before we consider these measures and  how they progress from one stage to another, we need to remember what we have already said about the honour God gives to both men and women, giving  women their rights for which they are qualified by being human. We should also remember that a Muslim woman retains her independent civil status. The fact that  the man is placed in charge of the family does not deprive the woman of her right to choose her partner and to administer her personal and financial affairs. This, as also the great importance Islam attaches to the family, helps us to understand clearly why these disciplinary measures have been allowed and the nature of their application.
They are indeed pre-emptive measures aimed at achieving an early reconciliation when rebellion is feared. There is no question of trying to aggravate the situation or increase hatred. There is no battle between the man and the woman. These measures are not aimed at knocking the woman on  the head when she begins to rebel and confining her again to her prison cell. No such thoughts are ever condoned by Islam.
They might have crept into the traditions of certain societies at certain stages. Such measures, however, are an indication that mankind, not merely one sex, have sunk to a very low depth. In Islam the situation is widely different in form, substance and aim.
“As for those women from whom you have reason to fear rebellion, admonish them (first).” (Verse 34)
Admonition, then, is the first stage. It is a responsibility of the one who is in charge of the family to admonish against untoward tendencies. Such admonition is required in a variety of situations: “Believers, ward off from yourselves and your families that fire [of the hereafter] whose fuel is human beings and stones.” (66: 6) In this particular instance, admonition has a definite aim, which is to treat the symptoms of rebellion before it develops and takes root.
In some cases, admonition may not bring about the desired results. This is possibly because of strongly held views, uncontrolled reactions, too much consciousness of one’s beauty, wealth, family position or the like. Any of these reasons may make a wife forget that she is a partner in an institution, not an adversary in a contest. At this stage the  second measure is employed, which is in effect a gesture of dignity, stressing that everything in which a certain woman takes pride, such as beauty or wealth, to stress her superiority does not count for much with him:
“ Then leave them alone in bed.” (Verse 34)
It is in bed that a woman’s temptation is most effective. A rebellious, self-conscious woman exercises her true power. When a man is able to overcome this temptation, he deprives the woman of her most effective weapon. In the majority of cases, a woman becomes more ready to give way when the man demonstrates a good measure of will-power in the most difficult of situations. There are, however, certain rules that apply as to how this measure is taken. It is confined to the room where the couple is alone. It should not be taken in  front of the children, this so that they are not adversely affected by it. Nor can it be exercised in front of strangers, because it becomes very humiliating for the woman who may, consequently, be hardened in her rebellion. This is a measure which aims at dealing with rebellion, and does not aim to humiliate the wife or to bring about a bad influence on the children.
Nevertheless, this measure may not be effective in certain cases. Are we, then, to leave the family institution to collapse? There is another measure, admittedly more severe, but it may protect the family:
“Then beat them.” (Verse 34)
When we remember the aim behind all these measures, we realise that this beating is not a form of torture motivated by seeking revenge or humiliating an opponent. Nor is it aimed at forcing the wife to accept life under all unsatisfactory conditions. It is rather a disciplinary measure akin to the punishment a father or a teacher may impose on wayward children. Needless to say, there is no question of any of these measures being resorted to in the case of a healthy relationship between a man and his wife. They are preventive measures taken in an unhealthy situation in order to protect the family against collapse.
When neither admonition nor banishment from one’s bed is effective, the situation may need a different type of remedy. Practical and psychological indications suggest that in certain situations this measure  may be the appropriate one to remedy a certain perversion and to bring about satisfaction. Even when such a pathological perversion exists, a woman may not sufficiently feel the man’s strength for her to accept his authority within the family, at least not unless he overcomes her physically. This is by no means applicable to all women. What we are saying is that such women do exist and that Islam considers this measure a last resort used necessarily to safeguard the family. We have to remember here that these measures are stipulated by the Creator, who knows His creation. No counter argument is valid against what the One who knows all and is aware of all things says. Indeed to stand against what God legislates may lead to a rejection of the faith altogether. What we  have to understand is that God has laid down these measures within a context that describes, in absolute clarity, their nature and aim and the intention behind them.
Hence, mistaken concepts developing in periods of ignorance cannot be ascribed to Islam. In such periods, a man may become a jailer and a woman a slave under the pretext of following religious teachings.  It may also happen that the man and the woman may exchange roles or that both of them are transformed into a third sex which is midway between man and woman claiming that this is the result of a new understanding of religious teachings. All such situations are not difficult to distinguish from the true sense and proper guidance of Islam.
These disciplinary measures have been approved of in order to deal with early signs of rebellion and before attitudes are hardened. At the same time, they are accompanied by stern warnings against misuse.
The practical example given by the Prophet in his treatment of his own family and his verbal teachings and directives serve  as a restraint against going to excess in either direction.

The Prophet answers Mu`āwiyah ibn Ĥaydah, who asked him what rights a wife may claim against her husband, by saying:
“To provide her with food when you eat, and with clothes when you dress. You are not allowed to slap her on her face, insult her or banish her from your bed anywhere except at home.” (Related by al-Tirmidhī, Abū Dāwūd, al-Nasā’ī and Ibn Mājah.)

The Prophet is reported to have given this general directive: “ Do not beat up the women servants of God.” `Umar later went to the Prophet and said that many women had become rebellious. The Prophet then allowed that they be beaten. Many women then came to the Prophet with  complaints against their husbands. The Prophet addressed his Companions saying: “Many women have called at Muĥammad’s home complaining against their husbands. Certainly these men are not the best among you.” (Related by Abū Dāwūd, al- Nasā’ī and Ibn Mājah.)

The Prophet portrays this horrid picture of a man who beats up his wife: “Do not beat your wife like you beat your camel, for you will he flogging her early in the day and taking her to bed at night.”
 He also says:
“The best among you are those who are best to their family, and I am the best of you to my family.” (Related by al-Tirmidhīand al- Ţabarānī.)

Taken in their proper context, these reports and directives give us a good idea of the conflict that existed in the early days of Islam between old habits inherited from the days of ignorance and Islamic directives. The same sort of conflict also took place in all other spheres before the new Islamic order managed finally to impress its values on human conscience.
God has, however, defined a limit when  such measures must stop. Once the objective is reached with any one of these measures, then recourse to them is over:  “Then, if they pay you heed, do not seek any pretext to harm them. God is indeed Most High, Great.” (Verse 34)
The aim is, thus, stated clearly: it is  obedience based on positive response, not forced obedience. This latter type of obedience is not suited to the establishment of a healthy family. Moreover, the Qur’ānic verse states clearly that to continue to resort to any of these measures after the goal of obedience is achieved takes the husband beyond his allowed limits:  “Do not seek any pretext to harm them.”  (Verse 34) This prohibition is followed by a reminder of the greatness of God so that people submit to His directives and repress any feeling of might or arrogance which they mayentertain.

so this verse came down, and he clarified even more saying:

خَيْرُكُمْ خَيْرُكُمْ لأَهْلِهِ وَأَنَا خَيْرُكُمْ لأَهْلِي
The best of you is the best to your wives, and I'm the best to my wives

And I can keep posting examples, such as in the Qur'an

وَعَاشِرُوهُنَّ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ فَإِنْ كَرِهْتُمُوهُنَّ فَعَسَى أَنْ تَكْرَهُوا شَيْئاً وَيَجْعَلَ اللَّهُ فِيهِ خَيْراً كَثِيراً
And live with them honorably, if you dislike them, perhaps you dislike a thing which Allah brings through a great deal of good 4:19

The prophet went on to say about spending money, and emphasizing the treatment of wives

وإنك لن تنفق نفقة إلا أجرت عليها حتى اللقمة ترفعها إلى في امرأتك
And you never spend in the way of good and are not rewarded even if it is simply lifting food into your wife's mouth

He said
اسْتَوْصُوا بِالنِّسَاءِ خَيْرًا
I enjoin the good treatment of women

So again I must ask how do we reconcile this? The prophet is literally saying treat women good, he's literally saying if you touch them you cannot hurt them, the Quran is giving wives rights for the first time over their husbands

I disagree with using the word "beating" for this ayah
The word "idribuhuna" does not mean to beat up the wife.
It means to hit her lightly (avoiding the face because hitting the face is forbeddin in Islam) a hitting that is ghayr mubarrih, which does not cause harm to the body, like bruising or breaking a bone.


حدثنا المثنى قال حدثنا حبان بن موسى قال أخبرنا ابن المبارك قال أخبرنا ابن عيينة عن ابن جريج عن عطاء قال : قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم في خطبته : ضربا غير مبرح قال : السواك ونحوه

the messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said in a khutba [public speech/address] the beating is without harming and said by Siwak and the like

حدثنا القاسم قال حدثنا الحسين قال حدثني حجاج قال : قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم : لا تهجروا النساء إلا في المضاجع واضربوهن ضربا غير مبرح يقول : غير مؤثر

the messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم
said do not abandon women except in bed [don't leave them without support] and beating is a non-harming beating and said that is can't be felt/sensed

Ata' said: "I asked Ibn Abbas: 'What is the hitting that is ghayr al-mubarrih?' He replied: '[With] the siwak and the like'." Narrated by al-Tabari in his Tafsir.




And this is the last resort for the husband.
  This fits with the Qur’ānic method of combining temptation with warning:
“God is indeed Most High, Great.”
Last Resort to Save Troubled Marriages . All the measures so discussed apply in  a situation where rebellion has not yet taken place. These measures are meant to deal with its early signs. When rebellion is brought out into the open, these measures are useless. At that stage there is a war between two hostile parties, each of them going out to smash the other. Similarly, these measures should not be used if it is felt that they will be ineffective or even  counterproductive. In all such situations, Islam recommends a different process of saving this great institution, the family, from collapse:
“If you have reason to fear that a breach may occur between a (married) couple, appoint an arbiter from among his people and an arbiter from among her people. If they both want to set things aright, God will bring about their reconciliation. God is indeed All-Knowing, Aware of all things.” (Verse 35)
The Islamic method, then, does not favour an early split when signs of rebellion and hostility begin to appear. Nor does it approve that this institution be left to collapse over the heads of its other members who may be caught in a situation over which they have no control. This institution is very dear to Islam because it supplies the society with its new members whom it needs for its continued development and progress. Islam recommends that this last measure be resorted to when a breach is feared, not after it takes place. An arbiter from each of the two families of the husband and the wife meet in a friendly atmosphere, away from the influences which have caused the relationship between the husband and the wife to be strained and free from all the complications which overshadow the constructive elements in the life of the family. These arbiters must be keen to protect the reputation of both families. They care for the welfare of the children. Neither of them may entertain thoughts of forcing a submission by the other party. They must try to achieve what is best for the husband, the wife and their children.
They must also keep the family secrets because they belong to the two immediately concerned families. Neither of them has an interest in publicising these secrets. Indeed, it is in their interest to keep them secret, unknown to other people.The arbiters meet in order to try to achieve reconciliation. If the man and his wife truly desire such a reconciliation, but are  only prevented from doing so by strong feelings of anger, then a serious effort by the arbiters will he successful, with God’s help:  “If they both want to set things aright, God will bring about  their reconciliation.”
(Verse 35) Their own desire to bring about reconciliation is endorsed by God, who responds favourably to their serious wish. This is the relationship between people’s efforts and God’s will. It is indeed by God’s will that events take place in people’s lives. People, however, are free to try and exert efforts. The end result is decided by
God on the basis of His knowledge of people’s inner secrets and His awareness of what is best for them: “God is indeed All-Knowing, Aware of all things.” (Verse 35)
Having studied this passage, we have now  a good idea of the seriousness with which Islam views the relationship between man and woman and the institution of the family and the social ties that are established through the family. We can see how Islam has taken care to organise this highly important aspect of human life in order to elevate mankind to the high standard achievable only by the implementation of Divine guidance. That is indeed the only true and right guidance.
Imam Sayed Kutb


---------------------

I went to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and asked him: What do you say (command) about our wives? He replied: Give them food what you have for yourself, and clothe them by which you clothe yourself, and do not beat them, and do not revile them. (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 2139)"

Narrated Abu Huraira: "Allah's Apostle said, 'The strong is not the one who overcomes the people by his strength, but the strong is the one who controls himself while in anger. (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Good Manners and Form (Al-Adab), Volume 8, Book 73, Number 135)"

Narrated Abu Huraira: "A man said to the Prophet , 'Advise me! 'The Prophet said, 'Do not become angry and furious.' The man asked (the same) again and again, and the Prophet said in each case, 'Do not become angry and furious.' (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Good Manners and Form (Al-Adab), Volume 8, Book 73, Number 137)"

Abu Huraira reported: "I heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: One is not strong because of one's wrestling skillfully. They said: Allah's Messenger, then who is strong? He said: He who controls his anger when he is in a fit of rage. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Virtue, Good Manners and Joining of the Ties of Relationship (Kitab Al-Birr was-Salat-I-wa'l-Adab), Book 032, Number 6314)"

Allah Almighty loves those who restrain anger: "Those who spend (freely), whether in prosperity, or in adversity; who restrain anger, and pardon (all) men; for Allah loves those who do good. (The Noble Quran, 3:134)"




Narrated Mu'awiyah ibn Haydah: "I said: Apostle of Allah, how should we approach our wives and how should we leave them? He replied: Approach your tilth when or how you will, give her (your wife) food when you take food, clothe when you clothe yourself, do not revile her face, and do not beat her. (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 2138)"

Abu Huraira (Allah be pleased with him) reported Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) as saying: "He who believes in Allah and the Hereafter, if he witnesses any matter he should talk in good terms about it or keep quiet. Act kindly towards woman, for woman is created from a rib, and the most crooked part of the rib is its top. If you attempt to straighten it, you will break it, and if you leave it, its crookedness will remain there. So act kindly towards women. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Book 008, Number 3468)

"O ye who believe! Ye are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should ye treat them with harshness, that ye may take away part of the dower [money given by the husband to the wife for the marriage contract] ye have given them, except where they have been guilty of open lewdness;on the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing, and God brings about through it a great deal of good. (The Noble Quran, 4:19)"

 
Firstly Islam forbids hitting anyone on the face. This is established by the following hadith of the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) Narrated by Abu Hurraira:
" Avoid striking the face, for Allah created Adam in his image." (Muslim and al-Bukhari). So to slap ones wife is forbidden in Islam.

If the wife committs indecency or becomes rebellious against her husband then only in exceptional circumstances and as a last resort when all else has failed is it is permissable for the husband to lightly strike her but it is forbidden to cause her any injury, similar to the proper disciplining of a child. It is never lawful for him to strike her face or cause her any bruise or injury. The Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) said regarding this:

"So beware of Allah regarding women for you have taken them as a trust from Allah and you have made their bodies lawful with the word of Allah. You have the right over them that they should not allow anyone on your furnishings who you dislike. If they do that, hit them in a way which causes no injury. And, they have the right over you to provision and clothing according to custom." (Bukhari & Muslim)

So the hitting is subject to the condition that it should not be harsh or cause injury. Al-Hasan al-Basri said: this means that it should not cause pain.

‘Ata’(Ra) said: I said to Ibn ‘Abbaas, what is the kind of hitting that is not harsh? He said, Hitting with a siwaak and the like. [A siwaak is a small stick or twig used for cleaning the teeth - Translator]

The purpose behind this is not to hurt or humiliate the woman, rather it is intended to make her realize that she has transgressed against her husband’s rights, and that her husband has the right to set her straight and discipline her.

Also one must keep in mind that hitting the wife is ONLY if she is doing something very wrong and you have already tried to speak to her about it, and that has failed, AND you have abandoned her bed and that has failed, ONLY then is it permissible to hit her lightly, as a last resort.

In no way does Islam allow men to hit out at their wives in a moment of anger, to take out their frustration on them or simply because he felt like it, as some people wrongly claim. As Muslims we must protect the sanctity of our religion and also it is upon us to protect women from abusive husbands - we therefore must be very assertive in establishing the fact that NO, Islam does not in anyway way allow a man to abuse his wife!

It is a fact that our beloved Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) never hit nor did he even ever shout at any of his wives or servants. He was the best towards his wives and was the perfect example for mankind. The Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) stated:

"The best among you is the one who is the best towards his wife"

(Hadith - Muslim, #3466)

So a Muslim must be the best towards his wife and must never hurt nor injure her whether mentally nor physically.

And Allah knows best in all matters
So, Does muslim countries allow wife beating ?

Wife-beating husband gets 30 lashes

A man in Saudi Arabia who beat up his wife so badly that he left bruises on her face has been sentenced to 30 lashes, ten days of community services and ten days of training on the art of treating women at a specialized institute.

The court in Al Qatif in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia said that the lashes would be given in a public place while community services would be “volunteered” for three hours a day at a hospital in the city of Dammam on the shores of the Arabian Gulf. A report by the hospital manager will be included in the case file to be submitted to the court at the end of the services.

In his verdict, the judge ruled that the accused would sit for a written exam at the end of the training on how a husband should treat his wife, with the final score submitted to the court, local news site Sabq reported on Wednesday.

The case reached the court after the battered wife complained to the police in Al Qatif.

 http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/saudi-arabia/wife-beating-husband-gets-30-lashes-1.1117591

Husband to be flogged for slapping wife in Saudi Arabia

Manama: A man in Saudi Arabia charged with slapping his wife was sentenced to 10 days in prison and 30 lashes.

The court in Al Qateef in the Eastern Province said that the wife could witness the flogging in retribution for the physical pain her husband caused her, Saudi daily Al Sharq reported on Wednesday.

The husband will also have to take part in special sessions on marriage counseling and on how to treat and deal with spouses, the judge ruled.

According to the court documents, the wife, in her 30s, filed the case after her husband slapped her on the face during an argument.

He admitted the act, arguing that she had been impolite with his relatives, the daily said.

http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/saudi-arabia/husband-to-be-flogged-for-slapping-wife-in-saudi-arabia-1.1192906

The question that the anti Islam pushers bring up is the right to do so, saying it's wrong,and it is frowned upon in Islam, but the man has been given more strength than the woman so it makes sense that one will be given the responsibility to ensure order, if the Quran said to women, if you fear disobedience on your husband's part,1,2,3 ......beat them. even the atheists would laugh. and if it instructed the children to correct their parents in such a way it would also be laughable.
This is the last step mentioned and there is always the option of divorce.

The so called western "civilizations" also have the same type of law, but they delegate it to the politicians and army and cops i.e the state holds authority to practice violence but citizens don't, even minor cases are often seized upon as a threat to their authority.
it is called "monopoly on violence", and the governments claim that only they have a right to practice such an action.
i'm sure an arab would laugh if you told them that it is ok for them to call the police to taser their wife or slam her onto the floor face first and sit on her or on his children.
but that is exactly the type of thing that happens.

The Christian movement that tells husbands to SPANK their wives ‘to correct misbehavior’

google "monopoly on violence" and you may be enlightened somewhat.