It is not wrong and I am not lying. Be civilized please. You can point out where I made an error in a respectable way.Again stop with this please.
I pointed it to you in the Second statement which was a contradiction of your First.
The verse in question does not mean to hit.
Wrong. The verse means to hit. You can try to infer a secondary meaning, or an allegory. And the reason, you desperately need to infer an allegory, is ONLY, because the verse means to hit. If the verse did not mean 'to hit', then you would not have needed to squander around trying to jam the square in a circle, looking for an allegory.
The Quran commands us in several verses to treat women humanely.
The Koran contains many insults to women here on Earth. And even in heaven, the koran will *only* reward women who agrred and accepted to lived by the insults here on Earth.
Idrib as "hit" becomes inconsistent with this, but as "to separate" the whole text becomes meaningful.
Liar. Stop lying.
No, idribu can mean to separate or put forth
Wrong. The word idrab means to hit. It only means to hit. What you are trying to say is, if we put the word 'hit' in a sentence, then we can infer something else.
Hit an Example.
Hit the Point.
Hit the Road.
Hit it for them.
Hit the wives.
So far so good, so far we all agree.
Now it is quite sad, that in verse 4:34, the word 'hit' can ONLY mean: "Hit the Wives". It is also quite sad that, you do not like and accept what Allah transcribed to you. That you are trying to finagle and manipulate what Allah wishes for.
And anyone who disagrees with you that idrib means to separate will be of course labelled a liar.
Jeebus christ, I already told you this is not an Ajami mosque.
Even if, for the sake of the argument, I did not bring any scholar, that would not prove anything because your demand is based on a logical fallacy.
I do not give a rat about scholars. If you can not understand for yourself, then you should go do something else.
The Quran was enough material for Muslims during the first two centuries of Islam. If they could live by it alone,
Crappy analogy. Who cares about what is enough for a desert dweller from the 7th century. And I mean the term 'desert dweller' in a respectful way.
Quranis could have just adopted the good Hadiths and rejected the bad ones, which are few and disparate.
So now quranis are accepting hadith. Sorry but, the hadith you have in your hand, does not contradict the quoran. The hadith that contradicts is already gone centuries ago. So what hadith is it that the quaranis are accepting?
That is their fault.What do you mean exactly here?Muslims do know their stories and verses inside out.
No they do not. They spend their time reciting the verses without understanding them. They even take pride in memorizing without understanding. And when their head hurts too much, they will go and read a web page, instead of understanding what they read in a 'muslim book'.
They end up reading pages full of lies and hidden parts. Just like the fibs you have done nothing but utter since I knew of your existence. What we end up is muslims with mostly holes in their knowledge.
There is a ton of literature on this.
Literature? Screw literature. You might as well read porn if it makes you so comfortable. Just read and understand the koran, in several translation if you have to. Then read the hadith, in whatever language you can.
A Muslim, or few Muslims, being ignorant of an issue does not mean that ..
You mean the vast majority of the islamic world. I am half-Egyptian & half-Palestinian, Arab through and through. And I am One of the few people in the Egyptian society that I interact with that actually decided to understand the books. I place my knowledge of the islamic material in the top 1% which is quite sad.
there are no people who got the answers. Sometimes some Jews or Christians fail to give rational justifications of some of their verses or stories.
Yes. You are correct.
Regards,
Topic: Famous Muslim to infamous Murtad