Support NeoGAF

[plovie]

Men have high "authority" over women in regards to responsibility (traditional family with male as the general leader of the household, the provider). They do not have authority over women in any other way and cannot force them to do anything. This essentially means to man up and take care of your family and responsibilities. However, the rest of the quote is correct, albeit often misunderstood. It does say to admonish, but admonish could be anything from reciting a scripture or consoling. Yes, it does say to put them in their rooms, because it gives them time to think.

Superior isn't a right for it, and neither is "beat". As that word is a direct contradiction of the grounds laid by the Quran. The woman has a right to divorce or separate herself from any man who does any harm to her. So why would the Quran teach men that they should "beat" their wives?

You say that "admonish" is the correct meaning, not "beat" or "scourge." Strange that so many muslim men would get the idea that it means otherwise. How do you explain this?

The most likely explanation to me is that it does in fact prescribe scourgings/beatings. Here's an article on the subject of translating this passage from religioustolerance.org:

Overview:
There is one passage in the Qur'an which has traditionally been interpreted as instructing husbands to beat their "rebellious" wife/wives under specific circumstances. The Qur'an is the holy book of Islam, and is believed by Muslims to be the Word of Allah that was dictated to the prophet Muhammad by the archangel Gabriel. Since the Qur'an is believed to be the words of God in Arabic, Muslims believe that it is inerrant (without error) in its original language.

Most English translations of Verse 34 say that a rebellious woman should initially be admonished. Then she is to be left alone and cut off from sexual activity with her husband. Finally, if she does not end her rebelliousness, she is to be beaten. Some translations state that only light corporal punishment is to be used. However, if they do end their rebelliousness and obey, then they are to be forgiven and not further harmed or harassed.

Some interpretations/translations of the Qur'an, Verse 4:34:
"The Meanings of the Holy Qur'an," by Yusuf Ali:

Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all). 5

"The Meaning of the Glorious Qur'an," by M.M. Pickthall:

Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great. 6

"The Holy Qur'an," by M.H. Shakir:

Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great. 7



Some translations of the Qur'an, Verse 4:34:
The Noble Quran, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Ministry of Islamic Affairs, Endowments, Da'wah and Guidance:

"As to those women on whose part you see ill conduct, admonish them (first), (next) refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly if it is useful); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance). Surely Allah is Ever Most High, Most Great."

"The Message of the Qur'an" by Muhammad Asad

"And for those women whose ill-will you have reason to fear, admonish them (first); then leave them alone in bed; then beat them; and if thereupon they pay you heed, do not seek to harm them. Behold, God is indeed most high, great!"

"The Sublime Quran," a new translation by Laleh Bakhtiar from a woman's point of view:

"But those whose resistance you fear, then admonish them and abandon them in their sleeping place then go away from them; and if they obey you, surely not look for any way against them; truly God is Lofty, Great." 8

Reactions to the new translation by Laleh Bakhtiar:
Her translation is clearly at variance to the other five cited above. The five use terms like "beat" and "scourge." Wikipedia define "scourge: as:

"A scourge (from the Italian scoriada, ultimately from the Latin excoriare = 'to flay' and corium = 'skin') is a whip or lash, especially a multi-tong type used in order to inflict severe corporal punishment or self-mortification on the back." 9

However, Bakhtiar's translation includes no corporal punishment at all. The woman is to be admonished, and abandoned only.

Bakhtiar, 68, is an Islamic scholar and educational psychologist from Chicago, IL. She spent seven years preparing her translation of the Qur'an into English, described by Leslie Scrivener of the Toronto Star as "a version that is written from a woman's point of view and is also welcoming to non-Muslim readers."

Bakhtiar said:

"When I got to chapter four I had to really look at this carefully. ... It took a lot of research time to see what it means. ... It's a command in the Qur'an -- an imperative -- and the point is the Prophet never did it, It meant something else to him. Why choose the word to harm somebody, when that's not what the Prophet did? He was a model for humanity."

She determined that the critical word "idrib," has 26 possible different meanings, was best translated as "to go away" or "to leave," rather than "to beat."

She said:

"I just hope we keep the dialogue going so that one less Muslim woman is beaten in the name of God. That's my prayer, to get more women aware that there is an alternative. This has not been sanctioned by God; it's a criminal act."

Reporter Leslie Scrivener writes:

"Besides giving the text a female perspective, another strong motivator was her desire to offer a new English translation for non-Muslims and new Muslims. Instead of Allah, she uses God; instead of Isa, she uses the more familiar Jesus. Non-Muslims are not infidels or disbelievers, words she says are 'loaded,' but instead are those who are 'ungrateful to God for his blessings'."

" 'I tried to develop an inclusive translation so people from other faiths may read it and feel like it speaks to them as well, as a sacred text'."

"Some of her critics have cited her lack of fluency in modern Arabic as a shortcoming, a criticism that has not been applied to other translators who also are not native speakers, she maintains. 'It's not a valid criticism, because the Qur'an is written in classical Arabic ... If you go through all the criticisms, when it comes down to it, the only difference is because I'm a woman. Obviously'." 8

Mohammad Ashraf, secretary general of the Islamic Society of North America (Canada) [ISNA] discounts the translation because Bakhtiar was not trained at an institution accredited in the Muslim world. (She trained in classical Arabic in Tehran, Iran, and obtained her doctorate at the University of New Mexico.) He indicated that he would not permit her translation to be sold in ISNA's bookstore. He said:

"Our bookstore would not allow this kind of translation. I will consider banning it. ... This woman-friendly translation will be out of line and will not fly too far. Women have been given a very good place in Islam."

Walid Saleh, an associate professor of religion at the University of Toronto, commented that Bakhtiar's translation is not unique. It is one of many attempts by Muslims living in a changing world to come to terms with their holy text. Saleh said:

"She belongs to a long line of Muslim feminists, since the late 19th century, who have been attempting to make the Qur'an and Islam far more, in a sense, gender-equal than people think it is."

So the one translation that leaves out corporal punishment was written by a person that has an agenda to make Islam appear less frightful than it really is.

 

[IronicallyTwisted]

You say that "admonish" is the correct meaning, not "beat" or "scourge." Strange that so many muslim men would get the idea that it means otherwise. How do you explain this?

The most likely explanation to me is that it does in fact prescribe scourgings/beatings. Here's an article on the subject of translating this passage from religioustolerance.org:

Its only a light beating plovie, be reasonable!

 

[Instigator]

I have been destroying myself slowly for a long time because of my mind could never understand the answers Christian feed me.

Instead of beating around the bush, how about posing those questions here?

Who knows, maybe the answers you seek are not religious at all.

 

[Earthstrike]

man my whole life is a counterpoint and I do not have much time left to allow others to continue to think for me. I asked questions and made up my mind on something I am drawn to that I feel would add great value to my life. That is really all it takes for me. I am a painter I have been an artist all my life and critical thinking is very important to me and a strong part of my personality.

I have been destroying myself slowly for a long time because of my mind could never understand the answers Christian feed me.

I feel like I can breathe now

This was a bit of an unexpected response, but I find it interesting that your objection to inquiring further was that you wanted to be able to make up your own mind, in light of the fact that religious conversion is pretty much relinquishing that same ability to make up your own mind about issues to some set of dogmatic principles.

Besides, its not like you have become Muslim to leave christianity. If you're not satisfied with the answers christianity gave you, you can just leave.

For all you know, you may be trapping yourself into a position where you soon destroy yourself because you can't understand the answers Islam gives you. Suffice it to say there is still much you do not know about it, am I correct?

man my whole life is a counterpoint and I do not have much time left to allow others to continue to think for me.

Then don't allow that to occur. Don't let the Bible think for you. Don't let the Qu'ran think for you. Don't let the talmud think for you. Don't let earthstrike think for you. Don't let AmMortal think for you. Don't let Neogaf think for you. Embrace your philosophy man. I seriously want you to. It sounds like liberty of thought is something thats important to you. You'll make your life better if you do what you really want.

 

[Nocebo]

I could never get into religion because of how they describe creation.

 

[Feep]

The stuff plovie posted is extremely disturbing. That's a direct quote from the Quran, with multiple translations all agreeing on the purported treatment of women in a standard marital relationship. I can see no ambiguity here.

That people truly believe that they've picked the correct religion out of so many, that they are justified because millions of others join them...what folly.

"Finally, I would like to assure my many Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jewish, and Muslim friends that I am sincerely happy that the religion which Chance has given you has contributed to your peace of mind (and often, as Western medical science now reluctantly admits, to your physical well-being).

Perhaps it is better to be un-sane and happy, than sane and un-happy. But it is best of all to be sane and happy.

Whether our descendants can achieve that goal will be the greatest challenge of the future. Indeed, it may well decide whether we have any future."

- Arthur C. Clarke

This man was far, far smarter than us. That said...think for yourselves, my friends.

 

[AmMortal]

The stuff plovie posted is extremely disturbing. That's a direct quote from the Quran, with multiple translations all agreeing on the purported treatment of women in a standard marital relationship. I can see no ambiguity here.

That people truly believe that they've picked the correct religion out of so many, that they are justified because millions of others join them...what folly.

"Finally, I would like to assure my many Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jewish, and Muslim friends that I am sincerely happy that the religion which Chance has given you has contributed to your peace of mind (and often, as Western medical science now reluctantly admits, to your physical well-being).

Perhaps it is better to be un-sane and happy, than sane and un-happy. But it is best of all to be sane and happy.

Whether our descendants can achieve that goal will be the greatest challenge of the future. Indeed, it may well decide whether we have any future."

- Arthur C. Clarke

This man was far, far smarter than us. That said...think for yourselves, my friends.

Uhm, what he said wasn't a direct quote from the Qur'an, unless he specify and quote, and elaborate, the Arabic in the Qur'an. There is no subject of debate.


2nd, I can understand your stance on religion. However, it occurs to me that many atheists, at least here on gaf, do not know sufficient about all religion, yet they deem all religion to be equally bad.

A famous companion, of The Prophet once said to a persian king " We have come to free the people from the oppression of religion, and free them with Islam".

Every single religion on this earth is oppressive, to a certain group of people. Except Islam. When people like the once on gaf, do extensive research and dwell in the depths of the Qur'an and its history. You will see why The Prophet Muhammad, was the most influential human being known to man.

But I respect your decision, and we will all die.

 

[Ydahs]

You say that "admonish" is the correct meaning, not "beat" or "scourge." Strange that so many muslim men would get the idea that it means otherwise. How do you explain this?

The most likely explanation to me is that it does in fact prescribe scourgings/beatings. Here's an article on the subject of translating this passage from religioustolerance.org:



So the one translation that leaves out corporal punishment was written by a person that has an agenda to make Islam appear less frightful than it really is.

Here is another interpretation of the verse:
http://www.flwi.ugent.be/cie/bogaert/bogaert4.htm

It might be a long read, but it's a good defense of the verse bringing up some good points. It links other verses in the Quran to try and come up with a conclusion and the writer does a pretty decent job.

 

[Feep]

Uhm, what he said wasn't a direct quote from the Qur'an, unless he specify and quote, and elaborate, the Arabic in the Qur'an. There is no subject of debate.


2nd, I can understand your stance on religion. However, it occurs to me that many atheists, at least here on gaf, do not know sufficient about all religion, yet they deem all religion to be equally bad.

A famous companion, of The Prophet once said to a persian king " We have come to free the people from the oppression of religion, and free them with Islam".

Every single religion on this earth is oppressive, to a certain group of people. Except Islam. When people like the once on gaf, do extensive research and dwell in the depths of the Qur'an and its history. You will see why The Prophet Muhammad, was the most influential human being known to man.

But I respect your decision, and we will all die.

The meaning construed from those words, whether in Arabic or English, is the same. The text may lose its poeticism, as we stated above, but the meaning is the same in either language. Words and grammar are irrelevant; it is the message that matters. If the Qur'an claims those things, then the faith isn't so wonderfully magnanimous as you claim.

Also, who do the Jews oppress? Having been raised Jewish, I can assure you the answer is pretty much nobody. Israel may have its head up its ass sometimes, but they don't speak for everyone. There isn't even a Jewish hell! And though I am not nearly as familiar with Buddhism, Shintoism, or any of the eastern religions, I have a hard time believing that they "oppress" any group of people either.

Religion oppresses the mind, the ability to question the world and explore the answers on your own. Supposing there is a divine being, why is it so important to worship him in the same way as billions of other people, rooted in traditions that the human race has so clearly outgrown over the last 1000+ years? I don't suppose he'd much care, that loving and just God, how you prayed. You'd think living a good life and helping others would be just fine.

 

[IronicallyTwisted]

The meaning construed from those words, whether in Arabic or English, is the same. The text may lose its poeticism, as we stated above, but the meaning is the same in either language. Words and grammar are irrelevant; it is the message that matters. If the Qur'an claims those things, then the faith isn't so wonderfully magnanimous as you claim.

The book is perfect in their eyes. You are wasting your time.

 

[SoulPlaya]

Here is another interpretation of the verse:
http://www.flwi.ugent.be/cie/bogaert/bogaert4.htm

It might be a long read, but it's a good defense of the verse bringing up some good points. It links other verses in the Quran to try and come up with a conclusion and the writer does a pretty decent job.

Here is another interpretation of the verse:
http://www.flwi.ugent.be/cie/bogaert/bogaert4.htm

It might be a long read, but it's a good defense of the verse bringing up some good points. It links other verses in the Quran to try and come up with a conclusion and the writer does a pretty decent job.

This may be an American Muslim thing but this is the first time I've ever heard this verse in dispute. It means to beat man, it is not under dispute in the Middle East, it means beat. Hell, here is a great video over the discussion of the verse: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z11_vm7W5FE. And here's another one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROXihUoOz2Q&feature=related . Hell, here is one describing the rules that Mohammed and hadiths specify for wife beating: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp3Eam5FX58 . Accept it for what it is, it means beating, it's part of the religion. The only thing under debate is how severe is the beating, that's it. Hell, here's a list of videos on youtube about the subjects (rules, how often the beatings should be). Leave them? Come on man, Mohammed believed that it shouldn't be done without cause, but even he hit Aisha. Oh man, I wish sometimes I was back in Iraq just so I could tell the Muslim Scholars there what the Muslims back in the west were saying, they would laugh their heads off.

 

[AmMortal]

The meaning construed from those words, whether in Arabic or English, is the same. The text may lose its poeticism, as we stated above, but the meaning is the same in either language. Words and grammar are irrelevant; it is the message that matters. If the Qur'an claims those things, then the faith isn't so wonderfully magnanimous as you claim.

Also, who do the Jews oppress? Having been raised Jewish, I can assure you the answer is pretty much nobody. Israel may have its head up its ass sometimes, but they don't speak for everyone. There isn't even a Jewish hell! And though I am not nearly as familiar with Buddhism, Shintoism, or any of the eastern religions, I have a hard time believing that they "oppress" any group of people either.

Religion oppresses the mind, the ability to question the world and explore the answers on your own. Supposing there is a divine being, why is it so important to worship him in the same way as billions of other people, rooted in traditions that the human race has so clearly outgrown over the last 1000+ years? I don't suppose he'd much care, that loving and just God, how you prayed. You'd think living a good life and helping others would be just fine.

The Meaning is construed, that is the main reason why it's never considered the Qur'an. For instance, have a look at that " wife beating" verse you were refering to:

"Men are the {qawwam} of women, because Allah has given the one more than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are {qanitat}, and guard in the husband's absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear {nushuz}, admonish them first, then refuse to share their beds, and finally {adriboo} them; but when they {ataa:} to you, then seek not against them means of annoyance: For Allah is Most High, great above you all. "


Disobedient women?

The key word to answer this question is {qanitat}, which is a feminine plural of {qanit}, based on the root {q-n-t}. This word appears on many other occasions in the Holy Qur'an 2, where it is used exclusively in the sense of 'submissive, obedient to Allah'. Verse 4:34 contains no reason at all to depart from this meaning and to change it into 'obedience to a husband'. This verse is about pious women who, just like pious men, are obedient to Allah. And a wife (husband) who is obedient to God, must live up to her (his) marital duties.

Superior husband and inferior wife?

Throughout the Holy Qur'an, Allah emphasizes that men and women are equal for Him – Allah will judge them in exactly the same way 3. So it would be strange indeed if a verse would contradict this equality. But is that really the case here? The Arabic word used is {qawwam}, an intensive form of {qaim}, meaning: 'to take care of, to look after'. Therefore, does this verse say that men are superior to women? Not at all. It says: men must look after women. In Islam, men are obliged to financially provide for their wife and children. They have to pay for their housing, clothing, food, medicines, etc. That is what {qawwamoona} means: men must take care of women.

Misbehaviour?

Is this verse about what a man should do when his wife 'misbehaves'? The exact word used here, {nushuz}, means 'discord, hostiliy, dissonance'. In this context it could be interpreted as 'marital problems'.

Beating his wife?

The verse instructs a husband whose wife causes problems in their marriage to first talk to her about it, then leave the marital bed, then {adriboo} his wife, and all of this in view of pursueing a reconciliation as is evident from the subsequent verse 4:35.

The Arabic word used here, {adriboo}, from the root {d-r-b}, has several dozens of meanings, such as: 'to beat', but also: 'to forsake, to avoid, to leave'.

How do we know which interpretation to choose? One way to find out, is to relate this verse to other verses in the Holy Qur'an and to check if the meanings make sense. In this case, let us look at verse 24:2, which describes what should be done in case of adultery :

"The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes..." (Holy Qur'an 24:2)4

This verse establishes the principle that for men and women, equal actions lead to equal punishment. When for adultery men and women must receive equal punishment, surely there is no reason why they should be treated differently for any lesser marital problem.

Now let us take a look at the consequences of interpreting {adriboo} one way or another.

Suppose {adriboo} means: 'to beat'.

In this case, verse 4:34 says that when a wife causes a problem in the marriage, her husband should first talk to her about it, then leave their bed, then beat her and all of this in view of increasing his chances of a reconciliation. On the emotional level, this certainly does not sound like a very promising course of action. So let us check this meaning against the bigger framework and in particular against the principle of 'equal behaviour leads to equal punishment'. This would imply that when a husband causes a problem in the marriage, his wife can beat him. At which he could invoke verse 4:34 to beat her again, so that the result would be a perpetual physical fight between spouses! Surely, this makes no sense at all. And indeed, it is not what Allah prescribes for the situation where a husband causes a rift, as will be explained in a moment.

Suppose {adriboo} means: 'to forsake, to avoid', possibly, 'to separate, to part' .

Now what do we get? Verse 4:34 now says that when a wife causes a problem in the marriage, her husband should first talk to her about it, then leave their bed (forsaking his sexual satisfaction), then avoid her even more (not talking to her anymore, leaving the room when she enters it, and possibly even leaving the house for a while), in order to prevent things from getting worse, and on the contrary to let things cool down and create enough space in view of increasing chances of a reconciliation.

http://www.flwi.ugent.be/cie/bogaert/bogaert4.htm

courtesy of the post by Y-dahs

 

[AmMortal]

This may be an American Muslim thing but this is the first time I've ever heard this verse in dispute. It means to beat man, it is not under dispute in the Middle East, it means beat. Hell, here is a great video over the discussion of the verse: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z11_vm7W5FE. And here's another one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROXihUoOz2Q&feature=related . Hell, here is one describing the rules that Mohammed and hadiths specify for wife beating: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp3Eam5FX58 . Accept it for what it is, it means beating, it's part of the religion. The only thing under debate is how severe is the beating, that's it. Hell, here's a list of videos on youtube about the subjects (rules, how often the beatings should be). Leave them? Come on man, Mohammed believed that it shouldn't be done without cause, but even he hit Aisha. Oh man, I wish sometimes I was back in Iraq just so I could tell the Muslim Scholars there what the Muslims back in the west were saying, they would laugh their heads off.

These are people who are using the religion for their own gain,must we specify again, how middle eastern countries are currently very far from what Islam had ever introduced?

The racism their is the heighest among anywhere on earth, does that mean Islam is a racist religion?
No, because the prophet Muhammad's adopted son was black.

Do not confuse these men for islam. There are quite a number of organizations and individuals on tv that clearly go against anything these weirdos say.

The book is perfect in their eyes. You are wasting your time.

But why are you wasting your time here?

 

[SoulPlaya]

These are people who are using the religion for their own gain,must we specify again, how middle eastern countries are currently very far from what Islam had ever introduced?

The racism their is the heighest among anywhere on earth, does that mean Islam is a racist religion?
No, because the prophet Muhammad's adopted son was black.

Do not confuse these men for islam. There are quite a number of organizations and individuals on tv that clearly go against anything these weirdos say.



But why are you wasting your time here?

Racism? Mohammed had a black son? When? So, what you're saying, is that Arabs don't know their own language and can't read right, ok. Dude, it means beat, get over it. It is what it is. IT MEANS BEAT. Hell, Aisha even said that Mohammed hit her.

Muhammad b. Qais said (to the people): Should I not narrate to you (a hadith of the Holy Prophet) on my authority and on the authority of my mother? We thought that he meant the mother who had given him birth. He (Muhammad b. Qais) then reported that it was 'A'isha who had narrated this: Should I not narrate to you about myself and about the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him)? We said: Yes. She said: When it was my turn for Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) to spend the night with me, he turned his side, put on his mantle and took off his shoes and placed them near his feet, and spread the corner of his shawl on his bed and then lay down till he thought that I had gone to sleep. He took hold of his mantle slowly and put on the shoes slowly, and opened the door and went out and then closed it lightly. I covered my head, put on my veil and tightened my waist wrapper, and then went out following his steps till he reached Baqi'. He stood there and he stood for a long time. He then lifted his hands three times, and then returned and I also returned. He hastened his steps and I also hastened my steps. He ran and I too ran. He came (to the house) and I also came (to the house). I, however, preceded him and I entered (the house), and as I lay down in the bed, he (the Holy Prophet) entered the (house), and said: Why is it, O 'A'isha, that you are out of breath? I said: There is nothing. He said: Tell me or the Subtle and the Aware would inform me. I said: Messenger of Allah, may my father and mother be ransom for you, and then I told him (the whole story). He said: Was it the darkness (of your shadow) that I saw in front of me? I said: Yes. He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you? She said: Whatsoever the people conceal, Allah will know it. He said: Gabriel came to me when you saw me. He called me and he concealed it from you. I responded to his call, but I too concealed it from you (for he did not come to you), as you were not fully dressed. I thought that you had gone to sleep, and I did not like to awaken you, fearing that you may be frightened. He (Gabriel) said: Your Lord has commanded you to go to the inhabitants of Baqi' (to those lying in the graves) and beg pardon for them. I said: Messenger of Allah, how should I pray for them (How should I beg forgiveness for them)? He said: Say, Peace be upon the inhabitants of this city (graveyard) from among the Believers and the Muslims, and may Allah have mercy on those who have gone ahead of us, and those who come later on, and we shall, God willing, join you.

And according to Al-Tabari, this is what Mohammed said about women:

Now then, O people, you have a right over your wives and they have a right over you. You have [the right] that they should not cause anyone of whom you dislike to tread your beds, and that they should not commit any open indecency (fahishah). If they do, then God permits you to shut them in separate rooms and to beat them, but not severely. If they abstain from [evil], they have the right to their food and clothing in accordance with custom (bi’l-maruf). Treat women well, for they are [like] domestic animals (‘awan) with you and do not possess anything for themselves. You have taken them only as a trust from God, and you have made the enjoyment of their persons lawful by the word of God, so understand and listen to my words, O people. I have conveyed the Message, and have left you with something which, if you hold fast to it, you will never go astray; that is, the Book of God and the sunnah of His Prophet. Listen to my words, O people, for I have conveyed the message and understand [it]. Know for certain that every Muslim is a brother of another Muslim, and that all Muslims are brethren. It is not lawful for a person [to take] from his brother except that which he has given him willingly, so do not wrong

According to you, Mohammed didn't actually say don't beat them too severely, but rather don't leave them too severely. Ok, once again, he didn't believe that women should be beatenw ithout cause, but he did believe that was a right men had.

 

[SoulPlaya]

Here's another, Book 11 Hadith 2142: "Narrated Umar ibn al-Khattab:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife."

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/011.sat.html

 

[Feep]

(laugh) Meaning is construed from words, no matter what language they are in. I am construing meaning from the strange phoenician symbols appearing as pixels on my screen. You're failing to address the real issue. A native Arabic speaker could read the Quran, understand it perfectly, and then tell me what it means. The only thing lost is the "beauty". Which has nothing to do with meaning.

The only defense for this passage is that several of the words might mean different things, but we have several independent translators arriving on "beat", many of whom, I'm sure, are Muslim. SoulPlaya is providing further evidence.

It's irrelevant, anyway. Thousands of passages in both the Bible and Qur'an contradict my own personal views. War and death are never good things. You do not "free men from religion" by teaching them religion. Someone split a sea for me. Until then, I'll be hanging on the side of logic. Good luck, everyone.

 

[AmMortal]

Racism? Mohammed had a black son? When? So, what you're saying, is that Arabs don't know their own language and can't read right, ok. Dude, it means beat, get over it. It is what it is. IT MEANS BEAT. Hell, Aisha even said that Mohammed hit her.



And according to Al-Tabari, this is what Mohammed said about women:


According to you, Mohammed didn't actually say don't beat them too severely, but rather don't leave them too severely. Ok, once again, he didn't believe that women should be beatenw ithout cause, but he did believe that was a right men had.

Cunning, very cunning.

It is widely known that the Prophet never hit anyone, except in the cause of Jihad.


Let's destroy this myth once and for all.

"hit " is a bad translation here. The word used is 'lahaza' , which could be translated as "Push". A correct translation would be:

He pushed me (lahadani) in the chest (fi sadri) with a push (lahdatan)which made me sore (awja'atni).

It is narrated that the prophet had physical power beyond an average man. He was very strong.

he pushed her as to remove any ill doubts or suspicion out of her heart of him not being fair with her(which is proven by the question he asks her in the hadith.

He did the same to some companions and to many others, he would put his hand on their heart, and pray for them, push their chest, and other proximity methods in order to remove the doubts or ill thoughts from their heart.

Here's another, Book 11 Hadith 2142: "Narrated Umar ibn al-Khattab:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife."

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/011.sat.html

This hadith is so weak, that it doesn't even conform to Islamic belief.
Allah will question you on everything, every single thing you did.

 

[AmMortal]

(laugh) Meaning is construed from words, no matter what language they are in. I am construing meaning from the strange phoenician symbols appearing as pixels on my screen. You're failing to address the real issue. A native Arabic speaker could read the Quran, understand it perfectly, and then tell me what it means. The only thing lost is the "beauty". Which has nothing to do with meaning.

The only defense for this passage is that several of the words might mean different things, but we have several independent translators arriving on "beat", many of whom, I'm sure, are Muslim. SoulPlaya is providing further evidence.

It's irrelevant, anyway. Thousands of passages in both the Bible and Qur'an contradict my own personal views. War and death are never good things. You do not "free men from religion" by teaching them religion. Someone split a sea for me. Until then, I'll be hanging on the side of logic. Good luck, everyone.

No, just no.

and good luck to you

 

[Nocebo]

About the creation of the earth and all of its living creatures and plants, how did it happen?

No, just no.

What? Religion is a concept, a idea, it should transcend language. You think God is arabic then?

 

[SoulPlaya]

I just don't understand. I've lived around Arab Muslims my whole life, have read Arab scholars, and no one pointed this out. Dude, I am telling you, in the Arab world, this isn't even under dispute. It means beat, Mohammed didn't push her, no "push" causes someone to feel severe pain or get sore. That's abuse.

If you bring this up in Mecca, around Muslim scholars, you will be laughed at. IT MEANS BEAT. I'm arab, and I'm telling you, it is beat.

Hell, here is another instance where Mohammed was confronted with a horrible wife beating (probably the most famous one). From Bukhari, vol 7, #715

"Narrated Ikrima: 'Rifaa divorced his wife whereupon Abdur-Rahman married her. Aisha said that the lady came wearing a green veil and complained to her (Aisha) and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating. It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah's messenger came, Aisha said, "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes! When Abdur-Rahman heard that his wife had gone to the prophet, he came with his two sons from another wife. She said, "By Allah! I have done no wrong to him, but he is impotent and is as useless to me as this," holding and showing the fringe of her garment. Abdur-Rahman said, "By Allah, O Allah's messenger! She has told a lie. I am very strong and can satisfy her, but she is disobedient and wants to go back to Rifaa." Allah's messenger said to her, "If that is your intention, then know that it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifaa unless Abdur-Rahman has had sexual intercourse with you." The prophet saw two boys with Abdur-Rahman and asked (him), "Are these your sons?" On that Abdur-Rahman said, "Yes." The prophet said, "You claim what you claim (that he is impotent)? But by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a crow."

Mohammed didn't condemn the man for the beatings but rather the women for her lies about her impotence. Hell, I remember last year when I brought this up with a Palestinian friend of mine who had no idea it even existed. We went to his uncle who spent years studying the Qu'ran, in his native Arabic in both Palestine and saudi Arabia, and he told his nephew that it was "beat".

EDIT: Isn't this what castle007 got banned for? He would agree with me on the translations here.

 

[AmMortal]

I just don't understand. I've lived around Arab Muslims my whole life, have read Arab scholars, and no one pointed this out. Dude, I am telling you, in the Arab world, this isn't even under dispute. It means beat, Mohammed didn't push her, no "push" causes someone to feel severe pain or get sore. That's abuse.

If you bring this up in Mecca, around Muslim scholars, you will be laughed at. IT MEANS BEAT. I'm arab, and I'm telling you, it is beat.

Hell, here is another instance where Mohammed was confronted with a horrible wife beating (probably the most famous one). From Bukhari, vol 7, #715

"Narrated Ikrima: 'Rifaa divorced his wife whereupon Abdur-Rahman married her. Aisha said that the lady came wearing a green veil and complained to her (Aisha) and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating. It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah's messenger came, Aisha said, "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes! When Abdur-Rahman heard that his wife had gone to the prophet, he came with his two sons from another wife. She said, "By Allah! I have done no wrong to him, but he is impotent and is as useless to me as this," holding and showing the fringe of her garment. Abdur-Rahman said, "By Allah, O Allah's messenger! She has told a lie. I am very strong and can satisfy her, but she is disobedient and wants to go back to Rifaa." Allah's messenger said to her, "If that is your intention, then know that it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifaa unless Abdur-Rahman has had sexual intercourse with you." The prophet saw two boys with Abdur-Rahman and asked (him), "Are these your sons?" On that Abdur-Rahman said, "Yes." The prophet said, "You claim what you claim (that he is impotent)? But by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a crow."

Mohammed didn't condemn the man for the beatings but rather the women for her lies about her impotence. Hell, I remember last year when I brought this up with a Palestinian friend of mine who had no idea it even existed. We went to his uncle who spent years studying the Qu'ran, in his native Arabic in both Palestine and saudi Arabia, and he told his nephew that it was "beat".

EDIT: Isn't this what castle007 got banned for? He would agree with me on the translations here.

As I said before, the notion that some scholars, who are by nurture from a culture that treats women differently to what we see as coherent today. Does not mean that Islam dictates it in any shape, way or form.

As I said before, do not judge islam by muslims, and what they do.

If I as an African were to go to Plastine, or any arab country today, I would be treated very, very badly. I have an Iranian friend that was wintess to this, and a Pakistinian friend who has been subject to it.

Saudi arabia, today doesn't allow women to drive. Does that mean the Qur'an or any hadith commands it?
No, even authorities will tell you this, yet that doesn't stop some men who claim to be scholars to try and back it up with the Qur'an or hadith.
A huge amount of ignorance is present in today's islamic middle east, the same ignorance that lead to the demise of the Islamic world.

However, none of this can validly be attributed to what Allah has taught us.

 

[SoulPlaya]

As I said before, the notion that some scholars, who are by nurture from a culture that treats women differently to what we see as coherent today. Does not mean that Islam dictates it in any shape, way or form.

As I said before, do not judge islam by muslims, and what they do.

If I as an African were to go to Plastine, or any arab country today, I would be treated very, very badly. I have an Iranian friend that was wintess to this, and a Pakistinian friend who has been subject to it.

Saudi arabia, today doesn't allow women to drive. Does that mean the Qur'an or any hadith commands it?
No, even authorities will tell you this, yet that doesn't stop some men who claim to be scholars to try and back it up with the Qur'an or hadith.
A huge amount of ignorance is present in today's islamic middle east, the same ignorance that lead to the demise of the Islamic world.

However, none of this can validly be attributed to what Allah has taught us.

WTF are you talking about? I'm talking about the actual text of the Qu'ran, that's what my post was about. It is written in Arabic, and in arabic, it means beat. I'll repeat my post:

I just don't understand. I've lived around Arab Muslims my whole life, have read Arab scholars, and no one pointed this out. Dude, I am telling you, in the Arab world, this isn't even under dispute. It means beat, Mohammed didn't push her, no "push" causes someone to feel severe pain or get sore. That's abuse.

If you bring this up in Mecca, around Muslim scholars, you will be laughed at. IT MEANS BEAT. I'm arab, and I'm telling you, it is beat.

Hell, here is another instance where Mohammed was confronted with a horrible wife beating (probably the most famous one). From Bukhari, vol 7, #715

"Narrated Ikrima: 'Rifaa divorced his wife whereupon Abdur-Rahman married her. Aisha said that the lady came wearing a green veil and complained to her (Aisha) and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating. It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah's messenger came, Aisha said, "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes! When Abdur-Rahman heard that his wife had gone to the prophet, he came with his two sons from another wife. She said, "By Allah! I have done no wrong to him, but he is impotent and is as useless to me as this," holding and showing the fringe of her garment. Abdur-Rahman said, "By Allah, O Allah's messenger! She has told a lie. I am very strong and can satisfy her, but she is disobedient and wants to go back to Rifaa." Allah's messenger said to her, "If that is your intention, then know that it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifaa unless Abdur-Rahman has had sexual intercourse with you." The prophet saw two boys with Abdur-Rahman and asked (him), "Are these your sons?" On that Abdur-Rahman said, "Yes." The prophet said, "You claim what you claim (that he is impotent)? But by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a crow."

Mohammed didn't condemn the man for the beatings but rather the women for her lies about her impotence. Hell, I remember last year when I brought this up with a Palestinian friend of mine who had no idea it even existed. We went to his uncle who spent years studying the Qu'ran, in his native Arabic in both Palestine and saudi Arabia, and he told his nephew that it was "beat".

EDIT: Isn't this what castle007 got banned for? He would agree with me on the translations here.

 

[the_zombie_luke]

As I said before, do not judge islam by muslims, and what they do.

"We are men of action, lies do not become us."

 

[AmMortal]

WTF are you talking about? I'm talking about the actual text of the Qu'ran, that's what my post was about. It is written in Arabic, and in arabic, it means beat. I'll repeat my post:

You know exactly, what I am talking about. I was refering to your portion about the palestinian friend you had.

What I did was put the sentence in the hadith into a transliteration that is correct. You never countered that. The notion hat it means hit, as you say, and keep enforcing. I had already addressed, and also mentioned why this is not in conjuction, with both, what the Prophet had done throughout his life, and what the Qur'an commands.

Let alone the new hadith, that needs to be A: Tested according to its validity.
B: Formed a correct frame of comprehesion within the context of its occurrence.

"We are men of action, lies do not become us."

 

[SoulPlaya]

You know exactly, what I am talking about. I was refering to your portion about the palestinian friend you had.

What I did was put the sentence in the hadith into a transliteration that is correct. You never countered that. The notion hat it means hit, as you say, and keep enforcing. I had already addressed, and also mentioned why this is not in conjuction, with both, what the Prophet had done throughout his life, and what the Qur'an commands.

Let alone the new hadith, that needs to be A: Tested according to its validity.
B: Formed a correct frame of comprehesion within the context of its occurrence.

Wait, wait wait. I just don't get what you're saying? The sexism in Arab culture causes us to misread our own language? And I did address what you said, it isn't a "push" if you cause severe pain and swelling. And Mohammed is a man who waged wars, was a general, and did harm to others. Yet, that was all "jihad". Outside of that, he was a peaceful guy. Yet, he was the one that defined what jihad essentially meant. By that logic, anything violent the man did, he oculd simply call it jihad and it would be ok by you. But why are we even talking about this. The point was the actual translation of the passage, and I;m telling you it means beat.

 

[SoulPlaya]

I just read the actual translation in Arabic, and had my dad help as well. It is more like a slap to the chest than a push. This would explain the pain and the swelling.

 

[SoulPlaya]

BTW, maybe you should rea dthis thread. http://www.islamicboard.com/clarifi...fe-beating-verse-4-34-quick-simple-reply.html

They come to the same conclusion I do, it means beat. Lightly, but beat nonetheless.

 

[Ydahs]

Just to set things straight, SoulPlaya, the link I posted was merely to show the other GAFer that there are many interpretations on this issue. I don't agree with it, but I also don't deny it.

I haven't read too much into it to make my own personal judgment, but I think from that article this quote sums it all up.

"Yet of course, this is only an interpretation. Allah knows best."

 

[Ydahs]

Anyone?

A guide for various foods containing pork? Uhmm, I'm sorry but I've never heard of such a thing. Normally when my sister is suspicious of a product, she basically just calls the company and asks for the ingredients with them giving honest replies, but I cannot imagine many things that can contain pork (well maybe that's becuase I've always avoided it...).

I'm living in Australia, so I wouldn't really know the types of food products available in the US, but wouldn't it be easy to spot a product which contains pig?

 

[Baron Doggystyle von Woof]

oh I just saw on Youtube that MJ just converted to Islam good for him

I love languages so I would take it up as a personal challenge although I have been trying to learn Japanese for many years english was not my first language
I feel good about this.

Dave Chapelle is also a muslim, probably the funniest muslim in the world

 

[Witchfinder General]

I've got a question for you folks.

When I caught the bus today a women garbed in a full burqa (black, with only a slit for her eyes to peer through) was sitting in a seat next to another women. Noticing this, I proceeded to the only spare seat which sat me next to a man. This fellow appeared to be a Muslim given that he was reading what looked to be a holy book written in arabic and had the tell-tale signs of a deeply religious Muslim, wiry beard and all. At first I assumed he had some connection to the lady in the burqa but dismissed that thought on the grounds that if she were his wife then they would be seated next to each other. However, a few stops later they both got off and appeared to be walking in lock step.

So what's the deal here?

If they are married (or at the very least are familiar with each other) why aren't they at each other's side? When I travel with my wife on a bus or train we're always inseparable regardless of any seating arrangement. Perhaps when they got on the bus the only available seats were separate from each other and prior to my getting on the bus the person who sitting next to the Muslim gentleman vacated his seat thus leaving the impression that the Muslim couple were separate. Still, even if that was the case why didn't the the burqa-sporting lady not move to her husband's(?) side?

Is there some sort of religious precedent for this? Or maybe they just can't stand each other?

Sorry to ask such a long winded and seeming inane question but it's been bugging me all day.

Cheers.

 

[Earthstrike]

Uhm, what he said wasn't a direct quote from the Qur'an, unless he specify and quote, and elaborate, the Arabic in the Qur'an. There is no subject of debate.


2nd, I can understand your stance on religion. However, it occurs to me that many atheists, at least here on gaf, do not know sufficient about all religion, yet they deem all religion to be equally bad.

A famous companion, of The Prophet once said to a persian king " We have come to free the people from the oppression of religion, and free them with Islam".

Every single religion on this earth is oppressive, to a certain group of people. Except Islam. When people like the once on gaf, do extensive research and dwell in the depths of the Qur'an and its history. You will see why The Prophet Muhammad, was the most influential human being known to man.

But I respect your decision, and we will all die.

Except your specific interpretation of Islam. Many people have interpreted the Qu'ran in different ways and there are interpretations which are oppresive.

Also I find it interesting you talk about atheists deeming all religion equally badly, yet you throw out this blanket generalization that every religion (except the one you believe in) oppresses some group of people.

 

[Smiling Bandit]

Cunning, very cunning.

It is widely known that the Prophet never hit anyone, except in the cause of Jihad.

He pushed me (lahadani) in the chest (fi sadri) with a push (lahdatan)which made me sore (awja'atni).

It is narrated that the prophet had physical power beyond an average man. He was very strong.

:lol He pushed her? So he was her pusher? Why would he push a girl? :lol

 

[Witchfinder General]

It's got little to do with the religion and more to do with the ridiculous cultural beliefs tied to sexual relations.

I can dig that. Care to elaborate on the cultural climate that would be responsible for this? I mean, I'm aware it exists and even the reasons but are there any places where such misogynistic rules are written down? Perhaps some Muftis who inappropriately encourage or even preach such actions?

 

[Nocebo]

:lol He pushed her? So he was her pusher? Why would he push a girl? :lol

Like a shove is any better than a light slap. It's still not treating the woman like an equal if you're going to get physical.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

How accurate is this?

http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/essays/comp/cw11sunnishiitesplit.htm

According to the Sunnis, Allah has a body, although it is not exactly human. They interpret parts of the Quran literally where it talks about his leg, face, and hand. The Shiites say Allah does not have a body. Shiites say that Allah will never be seen, and the Sunnis believe Allah can be seen, on earth and in the afterlife. Another theological difference is the Shiites believe Allah commands something because it is a good thing (and does not command something because it is bad). Sunnis think that because Allah orders it, it makes it good. So, according to the Sunnis, if Allah orders you to murder someone it is not a sin. Shiites believe that Allah does not do anything that does not have a purpose, while their counterparts say Allah does some things aimlessly. Another important item is that the Shiites say Allah knows what we will do but does not make us do it. Sunnis say he creates all our acts. Shiites also believe that all prophets are sinless. Sunnis are split: Are they sinless their whole life or just since the beginning of their ministry? Do all sins count, or only infidelity? Does he have to sin intentionally or can it be unintentionally? These are major theological differences, but there are also differences in culture.

So how do the Sunnis know if Allah orders it, it makes it good? Does the Quran say this? If Sunnis say Allah created all of their acts, then would that mean killing innocent people was an act of Allah?

Also, if Shiites believe that Allah doesn't command the bad things, then how do they justify the killing of innocents? Wouldn't that go against their beliefs?

 

[CHYME]

How accurate is this?

http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/essays/comp/cw11sunnishiitesplit.htm


Also, if Shiites believe that Allah doesn't command the bad things, then how do they justify the killing of innocents? Wouldn't that go against their beliefs?

Duh? Last I checked, Shiites don't believe that killing innocents is justified.

It seems pretty accurate from what I can tell.

 

[Prine]

Smiles and Cries, congratulations.

x10!!

Remember to do your own research and make this decision for yourself. If you truly believe this is what you want then do what you must.

Quick question, do you have or are you surrouding yourself with muslims? As a muslim you should really seek as much knowledge as you can and reflect on yourself and others around you. Dont listen to one viewpoint, go and do your own research.

Im surrounded by narrow minded muslims and its hard for them to accept other reasons or justifucation for many issues that face muslims today. I go back to basics and understand islam is perfect but humans are humans and we fall so easily! Anyway reflect upon creation look and look again!


edit: Thanks for mentioning Islam in America Documentry. I've got some friends that are also interested in Islam (but are not muslims). Will foward this on to them

 

[Mash]

How accurate is this?

http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/essays/comp/cw11sunnishiitesplit.htm



So how do the Sunnis know if Allah orders it, it makes it good? Does the Quran say this? If Sunnis say Allah created all of their acts, then would that mean killing innocent people was an act of Allah?

Also, if Shiites believe that Allah doesn't command the bad things, then how do they justify the killing of innocents? Wouldn't that go against their beliefs?

That's the Euthyphro problem, it's not specifically perculiar to Islam. It's a tricky pickle for the religious that one.

 

[AmMortal]

How accurate is this?

http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/essays/comp/cw11sunnishiitesplit.htm



So how do the Sunnis know if Allah orders it, it makes it good? Does the Quran say this? If Sunnis say Allah created all of their acts, then would that mean killing innocent people was an act of Allah?

Also, if Shiites believe that Allah doesn't command the bad things, then how do they justify the killing of innocents? Wouldn't that go against their beliefs?

According to the Sunnis, Allah has a body, although it is not exactly human.

Sorry, but I stopped reading there, Allah has no shape or form Allahu Sammad & Lahu kufu'an ahad
Clear expressions of Allah, detailing His Uniqueness.

He is beyond our comprehension, Unique.


Not an article that seems credible at all.

 

[youngleaves]

Oh, by the way,Muslims invented the guitar!
Which is why it's so prevalent in spanish culture.
/OT

That's quite untrue, the guitar, like almost every instrument, evolved over centuries. The Oud, from the moors, was part of the history of the development of the guitar, but only a part of it.

The earliest "guitar" seen is from Gaetano Vinaccia, with the dimensions of the classical guitar as we know it today invented by Antonio Torres Jurado. To my knowledge, both of these men were at least ethnically Christian.

 

[youngleaves]

Lol, Hamas.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7754946.stm

"Meanwhile, the Hamas authorities in control of the Gaza Strip have threatened to prevent Muslim pilgrims leaving Gaza to attend the annual Hajj pilgrimage in Saudi Arabia, unless a dispute over visas is resolved."

In other words, if you don't do what we want we'll make our people suffer and then everyone will feel bad!

 

[AmMortal]

Jokers:lol

 

[youngleaves]

My Lol was sarcastic, I don't actually find them funny at all. Do you?

 

[AmMortal]

My Lol was sarcastic, I don't actually find them funny at all. Do you?

The messed up thing is, I actually do :lol

I can't believe how stupid some people can get.

 

[youngleaves]

I don't find this funny at all. And while stupid, it's far more sickening.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtsvjB8efKE

 

[Prine]

No, because the prophet Muhammad's adopted son was black.

The first person to call for prayer was black, he was one of the prophets (pbuh) companions. A great companion at that.

 

[SoulPlaya]

Can anyone provide information about his adopted black son, that's really unique.

 

[SoulPlaya]

Just to set things straight, SoulPlaya, the link I posted was merely to show the other GAFer that there are many interpretations on this issue. I don't agree with it, but I also don't deny it.

I haven't read too much into it to make my own personal judgment, but I think from that article this quote sums it all up.

"Yet of course, this is only an interpretation. Allah knows best."

My problem is that AmMortal seems to make it seem as if this verse is under serious dispute, which it isn't. For some reason, he seems to think that Arabs don't know their own language. The word is beat, there is no dispute. Once again, light beating, but beat nonetheless.

 

[ice cream]

A guide for various foods containing pork? Uhmm, I'm sorry but I've never heard of such a thing. Normally when my sister is suspicious of a product, she basically just calls the company and asks for the ingredients with them giving honest replies, but I cannot imagine many things that can contain pork (well maybe that's becuase I've always avoided it...).

I'm living in Australia, so I wouldn't really know the types of food products available in the US, but wouldn't it be easy to spot a product which contains pig?

Man, Islam doesn't care about such petty things.