Wife beating? (Brief article)

Book review continued: 

WALLACE TOM Jr. (2015) Refuting Islam, The Christian Patriots Guide to Exposing the Evils of Islam, Bellingham, Fundamental Publishers.

This will be a quite controversial section from Mr. Wallace's book, but please remember I am reviewing his text, while at the same time attempting to document from primary sources with English translations, the Qur'an and the Sunnah.

Primary Islamic law and scripture is found within the law (s) from the Qu'ran and/or the Sunnah. (58).

Mr. Wallace states that in Islam beating a disobedient wife is consistent with what the Qur'an teaches. (88). Again I will go to the Qur'an and let it speak for itself, of course translated into English.

Quote:

The Noble Qur'an

Qur'an: Surah 4: 34

SAHIH INTERNATIONAL

Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.
---

Based on this English translation, wife bearing within orthodox, fundamentalistic Islam, reads as an intellectual, theological, worldview possibility. Although if striking the wife does not work, the husband is to seek no means against them. But how many times will a wife have been struck and how much physical damage done? What happens to a supposed continually disobedient wife?

I reason there is plenty of room with this Scripture for religious, culturally based interpretation and action.

Islam & women (Brief)

Book review continued: 

WALLACE TOM Jr. (2015) Refuting Islam, The Christian Patriots Guide to Exposing the Evils of Islam, Bellingham, Fundamental Publishers.

The Noble Qur'an

Cited

Qur'an in Surah 2:223

YUSUF ALI

Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will; but do some good act

SHAKIR

Your wives are a tilth for you, so go into your tilth when you like, and do good beforehand for yourselves

PICKTHALL

Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will, and send (good deeds) before

MUHSIN KHAN

Your wives are a tilth for you, so go to your tilth when or how you will, and send (good deeds, or ask

SAYYID ABUL ALA MAUDUDI (2:223)

Your wives are your tilth; go, then, into your tilth as you wish1
---

Wallace references this section from the Qur'an in Surah 2:223 and explains that the meaning of tilth is a plowed field. (87). He writes that Islamic scholars interpret this as meaning that the wife is the field for the husband to plant his seed, whenever and however he desires. (87).

Does this means that all within Islam follow this teaching in a conservative fashion? No. Perhaps it will be interpreted less strictly and more liberally by many. But will many strict Muslims interpret this in a more conservative, fundamentalistic way? Yes, indeed.

Brief on contradiction

Northern Canada

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy)

Langer uses the example of the wife of King Arthur (122) as in there is at least one element under this concept. (122). One element is within this class. Class is also defined as 'sort'. (122). If there is no wife of King Arthur, then there is nothing of the sort. (122). This is null class.

This operation generates the complement (-a). 'Null' class means that means 'all its members' equals none at all. This null class could be 'No wives of King Arthur'. (123).

Langer explains that for every (a) there is at least one (-a). (192). The proposition which defines the nature (-a) is stated to describe the operation (-), upon the element (a). (192).

She further goes on to explain that the element might of course (as it is symbolic logic) have any name we like. The symbols (b) or (c) could be used. Wherever there is (a), there is the operation (b), or wherever there is (a), there is the operation (c). (192). But she explains that this type of symbolism would be correct but not helpful. (193).

From page 199:

'For every a there is at least one element -a such that the sum of a and -a is the universe class, and their product is the null class.' (199). If a is a universe class of Christians and -a is the universe class of no Christians, their product would be a null class. This means there is nothing of the sort that is a class of both Christians and not Christians. This would be contradiction.

a=Christian (s)
-a=No Christian (s)

a+-a = 0

Christian universe class plus no Christian universe class equals null class.

(a) ⊨ (-a) = 0

Christian universe class entails (would entail) no Christian universe class equals null class.

Practically, it can be reasoned that if one is sorted out as the category of Christian, there needs to be theological and philosophical consistency with premises that would define one as Christian in contrast to contradictory premises of one that is not Christian. 'Null' class means that means 'all its members' equals none at all. (123). The null class of Christians not Christians.

Now I will opine that if this was just a class of human beings, then it would not be null class, but if no human beings was introduced as a class then again it would be null class. The product would be null class.

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications,
New York. (Philosophy)

Key symbols

≡df = Equivalence by definition
: = Equal (s)
 ε = Epsilon and means is
⊃ = Is the same as
 ⊨ is Entails
 ˜ = Not
∃ = There exists
∃! = There exists
∴ = Therefore
. = Therefore
< = Is included
v = a logical inclusive disjunction (disjunction is the relationship between two distinct alternatives).
x = variable
= Conjunction meaning And
0 = Null class
cls = Class
int = Interpretation

John 21: 24-25 Briefly

COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville.

ELLIS, DAVID J. (1986) 'John' in F.F. Bruce (gen.ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/ Zondervan.

Jon Courson

From Pastor Courson's website he has a recent sermon from May 30 on John 21.

As I have noted, I have listened to Pastor Courson on radio/online since 1987. He takes a rather dispensational, plain literal, perhaps fundamentalistic hermeneutic, in general with his interpretation of Scripture. This is quite useful for straight bible reading and basic interpretations, but in my mind does not always produce a more correct theology:

John 21:24-25

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

24 This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true. 25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they *were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself *would not contain the books that *would be written.

Pastor Courson does not deal with the contextual issues with this section of Scripture. Notice the stars with the New American Standard Version. Scholarship will provide explanation shortly. Courson does not deal with contextual problems, but also takes the idea that the world could not contain all the books that could be written about Jesus Christ as plain literal.

From his commentary:

The world could not even hold all that could be written about Jesus Christ. (605).

It seems to me that over the years I have come across two atheistic critics which use this claim from John 21: 25 as a premise that demonstrates that the Gospel of John is ridiculous and false.

Ellis suggests that this concept is exaggerated metaphor and hyperbole. (1263). The ideas and stories in the gospels could basically, based on what Ellis writes, continue on to infinitude. But they never would.

Ellis reasons that verse 25 may have been added by a scribe at a later date. (1263). It may or may not be inspired Scripture.

Bible Hub

Examples from two commentaries:

Meyer's NT Commentary

Cited

Not only is the inharmonious and unspiritual exaggeration in John 21:25 un-Johannean (unsuccessfully defended by Weitzel, loc. cit. p. 632 ff., and softened down by Ewald, with a reference also to Coh xii. 12), it is also apocryphal in character (comp. similar hyperboles in Fabricius, ad Cod. Apocr. I. p. 321 f., and Wetstein in loc.), but also the periodic mode of expression, which does not agree with the Johannean simplicity, as well as the first person (οἶμαι), in which John in the Gospel never speaks; moreover, nowhere else does he use οἴεσθαι, which, however, is found in Paul also only once (Php 1:17). The variations are (see the critical notes) of no importance for a critical judgment.

Benson Commentary

John 21:25. And there are also many other things which Jesus did — Many which none of the evangelists have recorded; which, if they should be written every one — Every fact, and all the circumstances thereof; I suppose — This expression, which softens the hyperbole, (if this be one,) shows that John wrote this verse; the world itself could not contain the books that should be written — The construction of this verse, in our present translation, is fully justified by adducing from the Old Testament expressions equally hyperbolical. 

Cited

“I agree perfectly,” says Dr. Campbell, “with those interpreters who think that the hyperbole contained in this verse is much more tolerable than the torture to which some critics have put the words, in order to make them speak a different sense.” “Perhaps,” says the pious Dr. Doddridge, referring to what St. John here declares respecting the many other things done by Jesus, which have not been recorded, “it may be a most delightful part of the entertainment of the heavenly world, to learn from our blessed Lord himself, or from those who conversed with him on earth, a multitude of such particulars of his life as will be well worthy our everlasting admiration.

A reasonable contextual approach would be to view this explanation as figurative literal. In other words, the Apostle John (or scribe) is explaining that there would be a virtually endless supply of Jesus Christ stories. Writers could produce material on Jesus Christ as God-man, endlessly. But this will not happen. The science and common sense would not allow an endless supply of books to fill the earth in a plain literal way, but it is fanciful metaphor.