Note:
This
is going to be the Final reply to section 1 of TROP reply to DTT, after this I
shall resume my work on the masked arab, the next video I will debunk will be
the “7 reasons why I left islam” I was asked multiple times to take it down so
it’s going to be my next tarfet, after it I shall go after his newest video on
jizyah or his video comparing the prophet Muhammad to a villain
I
rushed out this article because I really wanted to go back to the masked arab, I
will pause my current refutations to TROP for the time being, but then go back
to my major works on the masked arab, the next video I will refute as stated is
his “7 reasons why I left islam”
This
is not however my last reply to TROP, if you check their website they dedicated
3 sections each containing articles to DTT, this is going to be the final reply
to section 1, after I finish with a couple of videos from the masked arab or
sharif gabir, I will go back to TROP based on demand if necessary.
i spent less time working in this short article because i want to rush back to the masked arab project as fast as possible
TROP’s
Argument:
“Critics of Islam who want to undermine the character of the Prophet
Muhammed have accused the Prophet of beating his wife Aisha up”
Why
did I decide to quote this first even though there is no argument here?
The
free dictionary gives the definition of beat up to
“(tr,
adverb) to strike or kick (a person), usually repeatedly, so as to inflict
severe physical damage”
Did
we see any evidence of multiple strikes and hits in the hadith, we shall see
later on
They
used a word that doesn’t even come close to what the words “beat up” means, the
incident insist of only one hit, beating up someone suggest a series of hits
that could cause multiple injuries, to accuse Muhammad of such thing is to show that he delivered more than just one
hit, this argument or lack of from TROP fall flat on it’s face, we didn’t even
start with the article and we are already into a misleading introduction, why
I’m not surprised?
“Although explicitly permitted by the Quran, wife-beating is
extremely unpopular in Western society, to say the least. The character of a man who hits a woman is
judged to be poor, which poses a problem for apologists, given that their
prophet Muhammad not only sanctioned such behavior, but purportedly engaged in
it himself”
Hold
on, Wife beating is extremely unpopular in western society? What kind of a
white washing is that? of course as typical of TROP they cite no sources
no evidence for such nonsense.
Moving
on
“Discover the Truth mostly takes aim at Sahih Muslim 4:2127, a
straight-forward account of Muhammad hitting his favorite wife, Aisha, in the
chest. Since the source of the verse is
Aisha herself and the chain of narration is graded sahih (authentic), the
apologists cannot deny that it occurred.
What they say instead is that the Arabic word used means "pushed
away" rather than "strike".
They actually go so far as to associate it with " conferring
blessings."”
Hold
on, where are the sources?
All
be it the source Does exist and we do have the article from DTT
but
still, Again as typical of TROP, you either cite them directly or give a link
“DTT also quotes several hadith in which Aisha purportedly says that
Muhammad "never hit anything" including "servant or woman."
Much is also made about the weakness of another verse in which
Muhammad says, "a man will not be asked why he beat his wife." It is pointed out that that verse is graded
daif.”
This
is funny at best, this hadith does make it sound as islam allow wife beating,
the problem here is that DTT didn’t cite it as a positive connotation to islam,
let’s see what DTT stated
“Another
Hadith which is frequently quoted by Critics that Prophet Muhammed (p) approved
of wife abuse is:
Narrated
Umar ibn al-Khattab: The Prophet said: A man will not be asked as to why he
beat his wife.(Abu Dawud, Book 11, Number 2142)
This
Hadith is narrated by Umar bin al khattab and it was mentioned in the following
Hadiths books:
Abu
Dawood number 2147, Al-Nasai 5/372, Ibn Majah num/1987 And Ahmed Ibn Hanbal in
his Musnad (1/275) and all these books that is mentioned have the same chain of
narrations. This chain which is narrated from Abu Dawud Bin Abdullah Aloudi
from Abdurahman Al-Measly from Al-Ashath Ben qays from Umar Ibn Al-khattab.
This
Hadith quoted is considered by majority of Scholars to be a ‘weak Hadith”
As
seen above DTT already stated that this hadith is weak
“DTT
is correct about the verb used in Sahih Muslim 4:2127. It can mean "to violently push," as
their own citation states. What they
neglect to address is that Aisha reported that what her husband did to her
caused pain, meaning that it was a physical act that harmed her (ie. spousal
abuse). “
Where
is the evidence that this was a physical harm? There are no connotations no implantation
of physical pain at all, all the citation say that it caused pain, a vague and ambiguous
word mind you, hitting is spousal abuse if done repeatedly, but pushing in no
way an abuse so long as she was not pushed directly to a wall violently,
pushing doesn’t cause injuries or damage
“In this case, the DTT apologist is playing the role of lawyer, who
claims that his client is "innocent" of beating his wife because an
open hand was used instead of a closed fist. What Muhammad did to his underage wife is
still physical abuse. The prophet of
Islam acted in a moment of rage upon finding out that she had left the house
without his permission.”
“Various
individuals and groups have defined domestic violence to include everything
from saying unkind or demeaning words, to grabbing a person's arm, to hitting,
kicking, choking, or even murdering. Domestic violence most often refers to
violence between married or cohabiting couples, although it sometimes refers to
violence against other members of a household, such as children or elderly
relatives. It occurs in every racial, socioeconomic, ethnic, and religious
group, although conditions such as poverty, drug or alcohol abuse, and mental
illness increase its likelihood. Studies indicate that the incidence of
domestic violence among homosexual couples is approximately equivalent to that
found among heterosexual couples.”[1]
To
such we need to put this in context, the prophet never ever beat his wife, nor
did he hit anyone as pointed out by DTT, Yet TROP so irrationaly ignore this
very important hadith that simply refute their allegation that the prophet
continusaly abuse his wife
“Aisha
said: “Allaah’s Messenger (pbuh) never hit anything with his hand ever, except
when fighting in the path of Allaah. Nor did he ever hit a servant or a woman.”
[Recorded In Ibn Majah. Al-Albani graded it Sahih.]”
Much
more attempts from TROP to dehumize the prophet and fail to show one example of
him directly hitting his wife let alone a single hadith that state that the
prophet “USED” to hit his wife, meaning domestic violence, we don’t have a
single hadith giving such account to the prophet, the closest we have is this
hadith, and not even this hadith state that the prophet hit his wife, rather he
simply pushed her, DTT showed screen shots of the same dictionary
“Past translators were more candid about what occurred. Unfortunately, even Sunnah.com has gotten
into the act of massaging the translation to downplay the violence. They now leave out the part about pain, and
refer to the physical act as being a "nudge on the chest." However, this is not how they translate the
text in other verses, such as Sunan an-Nasa'i 3964: "He gave me a shove on
the chest that hurt me." (This verse is also graded sahih).”
While
I agree with the fact that Sunnah.com can get edgy translations, however they
do have different accounts to the incident, citing the word pain
Now
the problem here is that TROP use a Hyperlink https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/games/discover-truth/topics/img/wife-beat-3416.JPG
in this text and refers to a screenshot in sunnan alnisai giving it to number
3964, however the accurate one that contain the translation “hurt me” that they
seek is 3963
“Aisha was also struck by her father, Abu Bakr, when she was with
Muhammad: "Abu Bakr came towards me and struck me violently with his
fist..." (Sahih Bukhari 82:282).
Again, she reports that this caused her pain...
And again, Discover the Truth plays the role of criminal defense
attorney, claiming that the beaten woman was simply "poked" and
asking rhetorically: 'she was still standing wasn't she?':
A woman getting struck by a fully grown man and yet she still stands
there? The fact that Aisha still stood there, not falling down from the assumed
blow, proves that Aisha was not hit by her father’s fist, but poked hard by her
father. (Discover the Truth)
Classy defense, very classy indeed.
Unfortunately for DTT, Aisha was not standing, but laying down:
"Abu Bakr came to me while Allah's Messenger was sleeping with his head on
my thigh..." (Sahih Bukhari 82:827) "I remained motionless as if I
was dead lest I should awake Allah’s Apostle although that hit was very
painful." So much for that.”
Classy
Misquotation, very Classy indeed.
Let’s
take a look at what DTT actually said:
(“Third
Hadith which is quoted by Critics
Narrated
Aisha: Abu Bakr came to towards me and struck me violently with his fist and
said, “You have detained the people because of your necklace.” But I remained
motionless as if I was dead lest I should awake Allah’s Apostle although that
hit was very painful. Volume 8, Book 82, Number 828: Sahih Bukhari 1:7:330, and
Sahih Bukhari 6:60:132
Whoever
translated the Hadiths above has translated it wrong. The word above is
entailing that the Abu Bakr STRUCK Aisha. The word in Arabic that is used is
“Lakazani”. I will now show what the correct translation is:
lakazani[4]
(giving
screen shot)
So
as you see Abu bakr poked Aisha hard. She was never hit with his fist, let me
explain:
If
Abu Bakr, the father of Aisha really hit her, wouldn’t she at least fall on the
floor from such a blow or even stumble? It doesn’t make any sense. A woman
getting struck by a fully grown man (his father) and yet she still stands
there? The fact that Aisha still stood there, not falling down from the assumed
blow, proves that Aisha was not hit by her father’s fist, but poked hard by her
father. Correct translation would be that Abu Bakr poked her hard.”)
As
you can see, nowhere did DTT claimed Aisha was standing still, they simply made
a rhetorical example, however at no point does the hadith state that Aisha
was sleeping, otherwise the statement “and nothing could stop me from moving
except the reclining of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)
(on my thigh)” how could she be moving if she is sleeping, hitting someone
while they sleep will not cause them to move at all, the simple explanation he
is that aisha had her legs rolled while she was posturing her upper body
upward, she was not sleeping at all with the prophet, if she was sleeping why would
she attempt not to move? Abu baker could continually hit her and she won’t move
a bit, as explained she only had her legs rolled in and her upper body
standing, and that is where abu bakir was hitting, she attempted not to move
because if she did she will fall down
It’s
a simple explanation, simple thinking that this so called TROP author didn’t
even thought of?
“So what of the hadith verses that have Aisha saying that Muhammad
"never struck anything?" For
one thing, we don't know when she said this.
Secondly, these verses aren't quite as reliable as the ones in which she
admits to abuse. The collections of
Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari, for example, do not contain these verses,
meaning that Islam's most respected Hadith compilers rejected them as being
reliably authentic. “
That
is a red herring fallacy, these hadiths are classified as Sahih, the same level
of authentic Sahih Bukhari give to his own collection, if these were classified
as Hasan then TROP will have a point there, but these hadiths are sahih in authentic,
TROP replied they are running out of options so they tried this cheap shot at
DTT, but what makes it even more hilarious is that We Do have reference to
these hadiths from Sahih Muslim
“'A'isha
reported that Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)
never beat anyone with his hand, neither a woman nor a servant, but only, in
the case when he had been fighting in the cause of Allah and he never took revenge for anything
unless the things made inviolable by Allah were made violable; he then took revenge
for Allah, the Exalted and Glorious.”[2]
What
a sad attempt at research from TROP
“Interestingly, the word used by Aisha to deny that Muhammad hit
women is daraba. This is ironic because
it is the same word used in verse 4:34 of the Quran, which gives men permission
to beat their wives. There, apologists
bend over backwards to (falsely) claim that it doesn't mean "strike,"
yet, here... they freely acknowledge it.”
Did
TROP just Shoot themselves right in the foot? If this word means Beat and TROP
rightfully admit that this is what it means, then how come they claim that there
is no hadith or verse that claim Muhammad didn’t beat his wives?
“While DTT is correct in pointing out that the verse from Abu Dawud
2142 saying, "A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife" is
graded as "weak", this pertains only to the chain of narration for
that particular verse. It does not mean,
as they claim that, "a Hadith being ‘weak’ means that the Prophet could
not have made the statement." That
is untrue. In fact, there is another
verse from Sunan Ibn Majah 9:1986 which essentially says the same thing and is
graded hasan (sufficient). “
Now
here is where it Ignorance of TROP plays in, you can’t just cite hadiths to criticize
islam without citing explanations, I demand that all the time yet polemicists
insist on using hadiths without further explanations
Let’s
check the following explanation of this hadith:
“”will
not be asked as to why he beat his wife” meaning this is referring to nushoz (disobedient)
meaning don’t ask the man and don’t punish him, but if he managed his
conditions and his limits in beating then say it, However this could be rhetorical
question aswell, meaning that it should not be spread about the man when he
beat his wife it could mean that is will affect his reputation”[3]
This
was actually confirmed by the fact they he was actually beating his wife
“It
was narrated that Ash'ath bin Qais said:
"I
was a guest (at the home) of 'Umar one night, and in the middle of the night he
went and hit his wife, and I separated them. When he went to bed he said to me:
'O Ash'ath, learn from me something that I heard from the Messenger of
Allah" A man should not be asked why he beats his wife, and do not go to
sleep until you have prayed the Witr."' And I forgot the third
thing."”
So
apparently the second interpretation is the more probable, omar was beating his
wife and when Ash’ath came he separated them both when he was beating her (so
much for the claim that wife beating was common) then omar told him this
narration from the prophet right after he beat his wife, which indicate that
this meant to keep the common reputation of a figure from the community
So
we have 2 interpretations, one is your typical TROP interpretation, the other
is to prevent imbalance among community members that could be caused by a
reputation of a single member
“There are also many sahih verses in which Muhammad exhibits
indifference toward spousal abuse, sometimes even laughing at it (Sahih Muslim
9:3506). In one case he ordered a badly
beaten woman to return to her husband (Sahih Bukhari 72:715). Even Aisha stated that Muslim wives suffer
abuse at the hands of their husbands worse than other women (Sahih Bukhari
72:715).”
How
is that related to the topic? The topic is Did Muhammad abuse or beat Aisha,
but TROP with their ill-informed author cites irrelevant hadiths that have no
connections, the first one is where Muhammad replied to Umar statement saying
he have those women around him meaning the daughter of Khadiga, in reply to his
joke, the second is where Muhammad was making a difference between a cheating
wife and her husband, infact the second hadith shoots polemicists in the foot,
if Muhammad truly sanction and allow wife beating then why was aisha shocked? If
this is such a common thing during his time why should aisha be shocked at what
happened to that women, this shows that wife beating was not actually common
during his time and was extremely rare by her own statement “"I have not
seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is
greener than her clothes!"” while the Arabic text doesn’t specifically say
“I have not seen any woman” but simply just believing women, this still refute the
idea that wife beating was common
While
to be fair they do cite at the end one hadith where Muhammad appeared to
contradict himself, at one point he say don’t beat them then later allow it, while still i'm not sure why they cited it, it has no connection to the topic in hand and showing Muhammad contradicting himself (supposedly) doesn't really help their case, did he or did he not approve of wife beating
In
conclusion, TROP misrepresent several quotes from DTT, cited sources that
shoots them right in the foot, went out of the topic from did Muhammad abuse
aisha to how women are treated in islam, ignored an authentic hadith from Sahih
muslim and falsely claimed that it didn’t exist, falsely articulated that Sahih
hadiths from other books are not equivalent to Sahih Bukhari and muslim and so
on
