refuting misconceptions:1-women in Islam

[AtheistPhil]

37:22-23
Bring ye up", it shall be said, "The wrong-doers and their wives, and the things they worshipped besides Allah, and lead them to the Way to the (Fierce) Fire!

it says they worshipped besides Allah

I disagree, if it were so, the sentence would be: "The wrong-doers and the things they worshipped besides Allah, and lead them to the Way to the (Fierce) Fire!" because the word wrong-doers refers to both men and women.
Most translations write: "The wrong-doers and their wives". It emphasizes again that women are subordinated to men, and will have the same fate as their masters, even though they did not directly do anything wrong. And we do NOT see the same thing in the other way around, which means that women are chained to their husband's in fate but not the other way around.

The bold part is subject to interpretation as for the translation, I found 3 other english translations: "treat them kindly", "treat them honourably", "consort with them in kindness". I also found 2 French translations and 1 German with no mention of "equity" at all. Your translation seems to be minor.

ok the arabic words are so rich only one word can have different meaning so when translating to english you must really choose the words to be close to the original meaning i usually use abdallah yusuf ali as he have the best understanding of the arabic words and if its not clear he clarify it between brackets.

But do you realize that this particular verse has multiple mainstream interpretations that goes against the declaration of human rights ?
Also it means that the Qur'an leaves the arabic reader the choice for the meaning that seems the best to him. This is a major failure for a so-called divinely inspired book....It is up to personal interpretation. To me this is the end of Truth in the Qur'an.
You say abdallah yusuf ali is the best to understand the Qur'an, but saying that your interpretation is true because it comes from an expert scholar is an argument from authority. That guy may be "the best" he still remains faillible, therefore his interpretation is not the Truth.

And as the year passes the exact understanding of ancient arabic words is lost. The "true" meaning (if it ever existed) of the Qur'an is condemned to disappear in the void. So much for a divine book...

4:34 "and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard.", "and guard in the husband's absence what Allah orders them to guard (e.g. their chastity, their husband's property)"

lol that doesnt mean guard the house it means themselves its referring to not cheat on the husband

If you're right and that property does not refer to material possessions then it means that husbands own their wive's chastity. But amazingly I can't find the same "owning" in the other way around. This is again proof that men have authority and ownership over their wives (but women have none of this over their husbands)

I forgot previously to talk about that verse by the way:
2:223 "Your wives are a tilth for you, so go to your tilth, when or how you will, and send (good deeds, or ask Allah to bestow upon you pious offspring) for your ownselves beforehand."
Again the husband seems to own his wife and can dispose of her any time he wants.

---

I also found:
2:227-228
And if they have resolved on a divorce, then Allah is surely Hearing, Knowing.
And the divorced women should keep themselves in waiting for three courses; and it is not lawful for them that they should conceal what Allah has created in their wombs, if they believe in Allah and the last day; and their husbands have a better right to take them back in the meanwhile if they wish for reconciliation; and they have rights similar to those against them in a just manner, and the men are a degree above them, and Allah is Mighty, Wise.

"and they have rights similar to those againest them in a just manner and the men are a degree above them" by reading in the context it means that have a more degree in responsibility not in rights

---

If i quoted 2 verses it was explicitly to get the context right, but let's see what other translations say about it to make a cross-examination of this verse:
- The one I used above was by Muhammad Habib Shakir.
- "And they (women) have rights (over their husbands as regards living expenses) similar (to those of their husbands) over them (as regards obedience and respect) to what is reasonable, but men have a degree (of responsibility) over them."[Mohsin Khan]
- "And they (women) have rights similar to those (of men) over them in kindness, and men are a degree above them."[Muhammad Pickthal]
- "And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable; but men have a degree (of advantage) over them."[Abdullah Yussuf Ali]
- "They(women) have rights equivalent to their obligations, according to justice. But men are a degree above them."(french version (that I translated in English), André Chouraqui)
- "Concerning them(women), They have rights equivalent to their obligations, correspondingly to propriety. But men have however an ascendancy over them(women)."(french version, ???)
- "The wives have as much rights as duties which must be respected according to good usage, although a certain precedence remains acquired by husbands."(french version, Tawhid editions?)

This verse seems crystal clear to me. Could you provide this "context" explaining the "degree" in an other way than "being superior" ? The only way to avoid it could be to use Mohsin Khan's translation, but he's the only one to make the comment about degree of responsibility, and he only put it in parenthesis...

And if he's right, then most translations are misleading.

---

5-inheritance:
Inheritence is so complicated in islam so that it assure justice to everyone but always the young generation is taking more percentage(wether male or female) sometimes man take more than woman,woman take more than a man,sometimes they are equal. and in some situations the girl gets a share and the man get nothing(if I start explaining different situations it will take a lot of time so u can search it or u can ask me later I will answer it in details)

There are three verses in the Quran that broadly describe the share of close relatives chapter 4 verses 11, 12 and 176 if it still not clear i will give you the situation where the man doesnt inherit and the woman does in details

Inheritance seems pretty self-explanatory on the contrary:

4:11 Allah chargeth you concerning (the provision for) your children: to the male the equivalent of the portion of two females, and if there be women more than two, then theirs is two-thirds of the inheritance, and if there be one (only) then the half.

there is something i want to add as in case of two children the man get doubles the woman as he has to pay dawery when getting marriage and she recieves dowery which are probably similar amounts i see that is really fair

---

So you do agree that in a quite common case, the males get twice as much as females. The fact that in some other cases the females get more than males does NOT excuses or justifies the first injustice. It is wrong by any western standard and according to the human rights, and it is no misconception unfortunately.

I don't buy your explanation on men's responsibilities for financial stuff. It doesn't excuse the fact that a woman's testimony is half worth of a man's.
And if it really were so that men deals with financial stuff and are knowledgable about it and the women are not so knowledgable about it then no women testimony would be taken into account at all, or at the very least should count very few, the 1 for 2 figure comes out of nowhere in 2:282 and has no logical justification.

i mentioned another cases where the men testimony not taken.

Same thing here, an injustice does not undo another injustice.

And it's not just for financial stuff according to a hadith by Abu Said Al-Khudri :
The Prophet said, "Isn't the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?" The women said, "Yes." He said, "This is because of the deficiency of a woman's mind."

mind not brain its not talking about smartesness its because women are more emotional but still in some cases 4 men witnesses are needed not only 2.

So you still agree with this hadith that a woman's mind is deficient due to helplessness against their own emotions...................you know that the resemblance with mysogynistic discourses by macho men in the West one or two centuries ago is striking ?

"

there is no compulsion in religion"; but disbelievers will burn hell .... what a choice !
Also, how do you reconcile 2:256 with this:

thats not compulsion that punishment by Allah.

Let's have an example: I'm in a room with some guy, I have a gun, I tell him that if he tries to leave the room I'll kill him (because my religion demand that I do such a thing). Is there (or not) a constraint imposed on the guy ? Is there a compulsion on his choice wether to leave the room ?

---

24:30-31
Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them: And Allah is well acquainted with all that they do.
And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O ye Believers! turn ye all together towards Allah, that ye may attain Bliss.
(And what is up with the slave owning being OK in this verse ????)

its not ok but in this time there was a lot of people still having slaves i think my next thread will be about how islam ended slavery

---

First, the slavery comment was secondary, but you're actually saying that chosing to regulate slavery instead of condemning it 1400 years ago is ok ??? Do you realize that this can be used nowadays to authorize slave trade if properly regulated ???
Secondly, you did not adress my real question here. 2:256 says no compulsion in religion/belief, which means you can choose your religion, but inside religions there are compulsory thing and that compusion is ok. This means that, according to 33:59 and 24:30-31, muslim women MUST cover their body, and it's compulsory.
And if you take 2:256 as a general statement inside the religions then it contradicts with all compulsory things in Islam such as 33:59 and 24:30-31 .

I think Islam's problem is not only that some muslims ignore certain verses or interpret them in a bad way, it is mainly that the meaning of ancient arabic words is uncertain and that there is no consensus about it.

its really certain but when translating to english in sometimes you cant translate to only one word you have to write a whole explanation for the meaning so my advice that you get Quran with commentary.

That doesn't solve the problem, I still have to trust the author of the commentary, that his knowledge of ancient Arabic is absolutely complete.

i use the arabic Quran with translation of abdallah yusuf ali as i see he is the closest to the arabic words
even without commentary and i really dont know about the others but i have read some bad translations.

So you're basically basing your entire faith on the accuracy of the knowledge of one guy...
Also, you talk about "bad translations", but compared to what ? To another translation of course. It's all relative.

the last thing
“O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things)”.(quran 49:13)
this is the base in any form of relation between any human beings.

And I notice that the important words are between parenthesis: it's Abdullah Yussuf Ali's personal interpretation, and I can't find them in other translations. It is again sadly up to one's own interpretation.

My opinion on what you consider to be the real Islam is that its division of responsibilities between men and women is pretty strong thus limiting the freedom of both genders (but a lot more for women).
It is not an explicitly agressive Islam but it constrain people in a slow move, it acts kindly but condescendingly toward women. It installs a system where violence is not physical and out in the open but social and psychological.
What your Islam say about women could be in some ways compared to the status of women in the Western world 100-150 years ago, where women were respected but were seen as inferior (with no hatred against them whatsoever) and were to have therefore less rights than men (because this is how nature goes).

The problem you'll face if you want to convince other muslims, that your interpretation is the right one, is that in 1400 years certain knowledges have disappeared and you're left in the end with confronting your "best" scholar against the "best" scholars of proponents of other interpretations on the accurate meaning of the ancient arabic words (and all "teams" will claim to have the best knowledge).

There is no way to test the different interpretations and find the truth. No matter what you do to convince other muslim to join your interpretation you will inevitably fail to do so.
The Ummah is condemned to be divided. The only solution to get an Ummah united with an unique and true (in appearence) interpretation is violence, war, political struggle, the use of every means possible to impose your interpretation. It has been done in the past and it is being done today and it will be done in the future.

Moreover, the passing of time doesn't help as it slowly erases the evidences of the initial meaning and consensus (if it ever happened) about the Truth of the Qur'an. This is what happened to every claimed truth that is not verifiable using science (and even with science we see problems arising, but that's another story)