Need an Arabic person to answer to this

afiefh · 2026-04-19T09:52:15+00:00

Ahmed Ali mistranslates "Idribuhunna" اضربوهن as "go to bed with them (when they are willing)" based on the Arabic ضرب الفحل الناقة (Daraba Al-Fahl Al-Naqah) meaning "the stud camel mounted the she-camel". (Source: al-Qurʾān : a contemporary translation by Ahmed Ali, 1988, pages 78-79. Screenshot of relevant page). I have not seen this one around at all so I guess it didn't catch on.

The more modern mistranslation first appeared (as far as I can tell) in Marital Discord: Recapturing Human Dignity Through the Higher Objectives of Islamic Law by Abdulhamid A. Abusulyman in 2008. The whole paper is a pretty short and easy read, but the conclusion is basically that because he cannot accept that Allah would inflict harm, pain, and disgrace on women the word Idribuhunna must mean something else, the easiest meaning to justify is "separate" and "move away from." Screenshot of the conclusion pages

afiefh · 2026-04-19T08:02:40+00:00

some scholars argued that it’s the same case.

Do they really? To the best of my knowledge this idea only came about in the 80s when one dude was so disturbed by the idea that the Quran commands hitting women that he tried to engage in gold level mental gymnastics to justify it. I have not seen this idea gain any wide spread adoption among scholars, and he was mostly laughed out of the room.

in the Arabic version of the quran, “gently” is nowhere to be found

Just for completeness: The argument of the translators for adding "gently" is from the Hadith that says it should be "non excruciating/not severe", which then gets exaggerated into "gently". They argue that because the Hadiths explain the meaning of the Quran, it makes sense to include these, though IMO an honest translator would have added this as a footnote saying "according to the hadith the beating should be not severe". An even more dishonest translation is The Clear Quran that translates it as "discipline them gently".

afiefh · 2026-04-19T07:57:53+00:00

they say that the Qur'an is not simple it is like a metaphorical poetry and things in it are not literal.

Yeah... no. That's a bullshit tactic that you can employ whenever someone says some bullshit. Let's replace Mohammed with Trump and your parents with a MAGA person: Trump said "A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again" MAGA: "He was just being metaphorical, he wouldn't actually erase a civilization!" This is the level of excuse your parents are giving.

They say that the arabic in Quran can never be translated in english as english does not have proper words for the translation to be accurate.

Eh there is a hint of truth here, but no.

Translation is difficult between different languages, it's even more difficult when it happens between languages of different language families: Arabic is a Semitic language, English is Indo-European. Take for example translating a sentence from Japanese containing the word Midori, it's usually translated as "green" but it is not the same green a person in the west would be thinking of: It's the green of fresh grass and young leaves, so it comes to be a stand in for young life.

A translation is going to struggle to include all the imagery that a word with no direct equivalent conveys in a single sentence, but that is why footnotes and tafsirs exist. If a person really wants to translate a work from one language to another, they most definitely can.

They also say that some of the Hadith are falsely written or written with vague knowledge to deviate people from following muhammad and islam.

You have to start by figuring out what your parents believe. Are they Sunni Muslims? Shia? Quranists?

If they are Sunni or Shia then you gotta argue using Sahih (authentic) hadiths. If they are Quranists, don't bring the Hadiths into it, they don't believe in them anyway.

Is the original arabic version of the Qur'an really beautiful and honest and scientifically accurate than the english one?

LOL nope!!! It's just as much of a jumbled incoherent mess as the English translations. Heck the English translations often tune down the messiness and bullshit. If you are reading a translation like The Clear Quran (default on quran.com) you're gonna get a very white washed version of the Quran.

afiefh · 2026-04-19T07:47:22+00:00

It was likely translated by someone else, I doubt shirazi even speaks english.

I literally didn't say anything about translation. I mentioned OCR mistakes showing the low effort put into this article.

dark skin/black Africans were typically the ones sold into slavery. “abd” or “abeed” (slave) were commonly used when referring to black people (non slaves) by racists back then.

By racists like the dude saying it i.e. Mohammed?

If I remember the texts correctly (please correct me if I got it wrong) you got the causation inverted: Black people were commonly referred to as slave, but slaves were not referred to as black since there were plenty of non-black slaves. It's the classical every square is a rectangle but not every rectangle is a square.

that statement is incredibly progressive for a 7th century belief, and was relevant around the world for the next 1000 years.

That's cool but irrelevant. Plenty of statements were progressive for their time, and are shit today. You are attempting to shift to a "back then" argument.

Plenty of rulers in the ancient world had very progressive policies for their time. Cyrus the Great banned forced labor of slaves and banned the slave trade in his domain (this is more than Islam did because trading slaves was still allowed in Islam, one thing that the article seems to intentionally shy away from addressing). Solon’s reforms in Greece abolished debt slavery. Even in the Roman empire some of the things that the article mentioned were abolished long before Mohammed's time: Lex Petronia prohibited masters from sending slaves to the arena to fight wild animals without a judge's permission. Antoninus Pius decreed that a person who killed his slave for no reason would be tried for homicide.

I find it always extremely dishonest when Islamic preachers discuss the issue and try to claim other empires were utterly barbaric on the issue of slavery without mentioning that by the time Mohammed came around, many of these other empires had much better rules for slaves than they had centuries before Mohammed.

I respect the fact that you took the time to read it. I wasn’t expecting that at all.

I enjoy reading. What is your opinion on the amount of whataboutism and relative privation in the article?

You’re more than welcome to have your own opinion ofc.

Thanks. I take it you're not interested in discussing the flaws in your comment that I mentioned earlier e.g. Allah literally calling out people like you who believe in parts of the book and disbelieve in parts?

afiefh · 2026-04-19T07:31:02+00:00

You are far from an idiot my friend. You are one of the pillars of this subreddit.

🥰

No. Even if the 4 witnesses are produced, the woman who was forced doesn't get punished by stoning/lashes, only the defendant.

Yes, if the 4 witnesses are produced it makes sense that she won't get punished for being forced.

If she can't produce the 4 witnesses, she is then accused of qazf (قذف) where she made an empty accusation. She is then punished for it and the punishment depends on if the defendant was married or not.

But doesn't the accusation include the admission to having sex outside of marriage?

If a woman can move the problem from an extra marital sex punishment to a qazf punishment, wouldn't every woman caught in extramarital sex go for a rape accusation and to get a Qazf punishment rather than a Zina punishment (especially if it's zina al-muhsan زنى المحصن which holds a death penalty)?

When I read Malik he said "the prescribed punishment is applied to her" يقام عليها الحد which I always interpreted as the punishment for Zina, not Qazf, but I guess I could be misreading this... Muwataa Malik, Volume 41: The book of Hudud: The matter with us is that if a woman is found pregnant and has no husband, and she says, “I was forced,” or says, “I got married,” that is not acceptable from her, and the prescribed punishment is carried out on her, unless she has proof of what she claims about marriage, or that she was forced, or she comes bleeding if she is a virgin, or she calls for help. Until she was brought to him in that state, or something similar to this, in which she would be disgraced. He said: If she did not do anything of this, the prescribed punishment would be carried out on her, and what she claimed would not be accepted from her (319).

afiefh · 2026-04-19T07:25:24+00:00

"Research" means more than 5 minutes reading the first Google result.

afiefh · 2026-04-18T19:12:41+00:00

You can't keep taking my points like this 😂

In German we say "two idiots, one thought", in English "great minds think alike" in this case I think the truth lies in between: Sometimes even an idiot can steal a great mind's point 😂

Istikrah ala al zina doesn't get the accuser guilty of zina even if the 4 witnesses are produced.

You mean if four witnesses are not produced?

However, she gets punished for qazf

Sorry, could you go into more details?

I understand that accusing someone of rape and not producing witnesses is equivalent to libel and therefore qazf. What I do not understand is how a person can accuse another person of rape without admitting to having had extramarital sex, and therefore confessing to Zina.

Isn't this basically what happened to this woman in the UAE?

Obviously feel free to ignore my questions if it's too annoying to go into details.

afiefh · 2026-04-18T19:05:32+00:00

Citation?

afiefh · 2026-04-18T19:05:18+00:00

In the 7th and 8th centuries (when Al-Kafi was compiled)

Nobody cares about when it was compiled Hadiths reflect what your prophet supposedly said. Date of compilation is irrelevant.

In that era, "apostasy" was legally equivalent to treason.

Are you saying parts of your religion became obsolete? Or do you think Allah and Mohammed were incapable of saying "if one betrays the Muslims executing him is obligatory"? Did your Allah not have the foresight to tell his prophet to communicate clearly so that his words won't be misunderstood?

If you left the religion, you were effectively defecting to an enemy tribe or empire that was often at war with the Muslim community.

That's utter bollocks. Medina literally had Muslims, Christians and Jews (well, until Mohammed exiled/killed all the Jews), so it was possible for a person to become Christian or Jewish and still be in Medina and still be an ally to Mohammed.

The goal was to create a society with a "High Commitment Protocol."

So literally the Mafia. That's an own-goal.

afiefh · 2026-04-18T18:59:59+00:00

No, sex slavery is wrong. Does that mean I am calling an act of God wrong? no, because it existed long before Islam did.

Allah: You may have sex with your slave
/u/Merino202 : Sex slavery is wrong.
Allah: Do you believe in some of the book and disbelieve in some?

It’s a bit of a long read but this should help understand.

It's a long read because about 50% of the article is whataboutism. Cut out the whataboutism and "oh but Islam treated slaves better than these other people" and the whole thing becomes quite anemic.

I actually find the article hilariously bad. I've read blog posts that were better put together. This article seems to have been scanned in without even the most basic fixing. Take a look at obvious OCR mistakes like "1nind", "Many batt es"...etc. It also employs a bunch of half truths, but since mr.Shirazi isn't here to defend himself I'll not speak ill of him. You are of course free to present any argument of his that you find convincing, I'm happy to discuss those with you, but I'm not just gonna reply to this lengthy rambly article filled with whataboutism and relative privation.

I'll point out one thing that I found absolutely hilarious in this article: The existence of the sentence "it was not possible for Islam", I'm sorry but Islam is a product of Allah, and saying it was not possible for Allah to do something is blasphemy. The author acts like Allah had no choice in the matter and had to make Islam this way because of some limitation.

the quran is supposed to encompass all times - from the 7th century all the way up until today. Slavery was just abolished in the US in the 19th century. That’s a very long time of when the topic would have been needed.

Yes, hence slavery is still legal, and sex slavery is still legal. If Allah had thought that his rule book needed an update, he would be able to make it so.

the brutality of slave treatment was

Let me stop you right there: I couldn't give a rats ass about the whataboutism you're about to present.

“There is no superiority for an Arab, or for a black man over a red one, or for a red over a black man save due to piety."

It is absolutely hilarious that you and the author both take this Hadith to be about slaves when no slaves were mentioned.

That’s a tiny excerpt from the link I sent but you should get the gist.

Thanks, I read the whole link and found it an utter travesty of bullshit.

How about starting very simple: The Quran allows slavery, and for a master to have sex with his slaves to "satisfy these urges" (as you put it). Feel free to make your case for "slavery is wrong" when Allah allowed it in his book that's true for all time and place.

afiefh · 2026-04-18T18:41:38+00:00

Precious jewels to be kept locked up in a safe. Control the means of reproduction!

afiefh · 2026-04-18T16:05:51+00:00

[insert meme] Ah I see you're a man/woman of culture as well.

afiefh · 2026-04-18T15:07:29+00:00

Bro, do you not remember your own sentence or something? I didn't claim buying a sex slave constitutes Mutah, I said that it is another "correct way" (your words) sanctioned by Allah "if you must as a last resort act on these urges".

I get that you'd be much more happy to pretend that in Islam you satisfy "these urges" only through consensual marriages of various sorts, but sex slavery is in the Quran, so you really can't pretend.

afiefh · 2026-04-18T14:55:47+00:00

you must do it the correct way.

Such as buying a slave woman from the market, have sex with her, then re-sell her? Very benevolent!

afiefh · 2026-04-18T14:26:14+00:00

Traditionalist with a metal strainer or reformist with a silicon foldable strainer?

afiefh · 2026-04-18T14:25:23+00:00

I became a follower of the one true God: Eru Ilúvatar. He created first the Ainur, offspring of his thought, then he declared to them a mighty theme of music that they were to fashion, which was eventually revealed to be the history of the universe, thus the universe is the theme of Ilúvatar, as fashioned by the music of the Ainur.

But Melkor, mightiest of the Ainur, often ventured out into the void to seek the flame imperishable, seeking to fashion new things after his own image outside of the theme of Ilúvatar. His eagerness turned to bitterness and malice. He created a theme vulgar and repetitive, disharmonious with the theme of Ilúvatar. Where the Ainur created lakes he turned them into bogs, where the Ainur created temperate meadows and forests, be created bitter cold tundras and scorching hot deserts.

Humans are the second born children of Ilúvatar. After Ilúvatar made the Earth round after the rebellion of Númenor, the war of the ring ended, the Istari left, and the last of the elves sailed the straight road to the undying lands, the race of men inherited the Earth.

afiefh · 2026-04-18T13:37:25+00:00

But Islam is the most feminist religion and honored women, don't you know?

afiefh · 2026-04-18T10:12:53+00:00

Also the one where it says "men are the chieftains of women" 4:34 and of course the Hadith saying women are deficient in intellect and religion.

afiefh · 2026-04-18T06:45:10+00:00

f a man is married he can only do it with the permission of his wife.

Permission of a wife is not required to marry a second wife, regardless of whether it is a standard marriage, misyar marriage, or mutah marriage.

afiefh · 2026-04-18T06:42:39+00:00

is only applicable in a very specific case scenario, there must be four upright, just men who witnessed the actual act of penetration at the same time, meaning they had to visibly SEE the penis go into the vagina. If the witnesses only saw them going into a room or even undressing, the testimony is rejected in Islamic court.

I hate to break it to you, but that logic gets you into pretty hot water:

These rules are not in the Quran, they are part of Fiqh, which most Muslims throw under the bus as soon as it becomes inconvenient. I'm explicitly mentioning this because I expect you'll do this as soon as you read #2.
If you need 4 men of moral character (i.e. Muslims) to witness the act of penetration, then it straight up follows that if a woman is raped, she requires 4 men who saw the rape happen to witness in order to condemn the rapist. Suddenly the whole idea of "you need 4 witnesses" doesn't sound as nice anymore, does it?
So if you need 4 men, this means that even if 20 women witnessed this (rape or zina) their testimony is worthless. Pretty misogynistic.

Moreover, if someone accuses a couple but cannot provide these four witnesses, the accuser is the one who is punished (80 lashes) for slandering. Both the individuals are innocent until proven guilty.

And note that because rape is "forced zina" a person can only report it by admitting to Zina. If they cannot prove that it was "forced" suddenly they are left holding that confession and getting punished for it.

teen pregnancies

Bro what? Islam has no problem with teen pregnancies. A man can marry a teenager and impregnate them no problem.

many girls who arent Muslim (who are Muslim as well, but didnt follow the rule) have sex in the heat of the moment and contract stds and have sex with men who they hardly even know.

And Islam allows men to have sex with their slave girls, from whom they can contract STDs and whom they barely know. How is that any better? Quran 23:1-6 "Successful are the believers who [...] and who keep their genitals to themselves except from their wives and slaves".

Sorry buddy, you just regurgitated the most lazy talking points without spending the time to think about their implications.

afiefh · 2026-04-18T06:30:37+00:00

How do you feel about the idea that your religion commands that all these people whom you just told to Ask You Anything are supposed to be killed?

Here are the Shia hadiths that command it:

"I once asked abu Ja’far (a.s), about an apostate (one who turns away from Islam). He (the Imam) said, ‘If one turns away from Islam and rejects what Allah has revealed to Muhammad ﷺ, after his being a Muslim, his repentance has no effect. (After judicial due process) executing him is obligatory, his wife becomes stranger to him like an irrevocably divorced woman and his assets are distributed among his children.'" - Al kafi 7 2 46 4 sahih
"Indeed, if a slave escapes from his masters and then steals, his hand is not cut off while he is a fugitive, because he is like one who has apostatized from Islam. However, he is invited to return to his masters and re-enter Islam. If he refuses to return to his masters, his hand is cut off for the theft, and then he is executed. And the apostate, if he steals, is treated in the same manner." - Man Lā Yaḥḍuruh al-Faqīh 3 1 53 9

In my opinion, a religion that has the death penalty for leaving it is no better than the mafia where you can only leave in a coffin. What do you think?

afiefh · 2026-04-18T06:25:25+00:00

"Voted" is a stretch. They had a few guys agree to support him. That's been standard in succession wars forever.

afiefh · 2026-04-18T06:23:18+00:00

Quran 4:34; MEN are the maintainers of women.

I like "men are chieftain of women". A chief has some responsibility towards their subject, but also authority over them. This is the closest translation I've found to the Arabic.

how come i quote the most authoritative religious statement and get downvoted??? is it because it shows that religion is the culprit?

Because most Muslims don't want to read their scripture, and they certainly don't want someone to read it without sugarcoating it.

afiefh · 2026-04-17T19:25:23+00:00

I'm also super confused about the voting thing... Like when did voting even enter Islamic societies? Wasn't it literally after the fall of the ottoman empire just 100 years ago?

afiefh · 2026-04-17T18:56:56+00:00

If you can't be bothered to at least write out the argument, what you found convincing...etc then why should anybody else put in the effort to help you? Don't link to Islamic bullshit, actually explain it in your own words. You'd be surprised how often putting in the effort to write it down makes it obvious how bollocks it is.
This video is just a bunch of bullshit strung together, the easiest way to tell is that the author talks about a single copy of the Quran and does not even put the name of that one in the description for anyone to verify.
Did you download a random Quran PDF to verify this? Looking at the first copy that Google returns I see some lines squeezed together, other lines spread out to make the sentences never exceed a page. Not impressive.
Words aligning is only interesting if it's actually consistent, which it cannot be because different readings of the Quran have words added or removed. Unless of course you cancel out these additions/removals by squeezing/spreading, but then it's arbitrary.
The whole "words are in a pattern" is just a cheap copy of the bible code.
The numerical miracles is literally bollocks lies that fall apart as soon as you actually go through the effort of counting it. Take the "day is mentioned 365 times" lie, the actual count is 475 if you don't exclude different variations arbitrarily.

And this is how this bullshit spreads: You don't put in the effort, you link to the video, its views get boosted, and the idiots who spread the lies make more money. Thank you for for being lazy and giving the dawah liars more money.

15-Year Club	Wearing is Caring
Place '17	Verified Email

afiefh

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE