Acts17apologetics agree with Quran; Bible is authentic?

In answer to the video "Answering Islam 12: What Does the Quran Say about the Bible?"

Now we get to the verse supposedly endorsing the current Bible's authenticity

5:47"Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel"

While in the present tense, is actually a describing past events. The whole passage from v43 to v47 follows the same pattern and culminates with the new reality, the superseding of the previous sytems with the latest revelation, the Quran. This is a common feature of classical Arabic, where tenses are often shifted for rhetorical purposes, and do not necessarily imply the respective time frame. For example, the Quran says that Allah kaana/was mighty, wise, forgiving, merciful 48:7,14 to mean that these attributes "are ever" with Allah or in 17:67 it is said that man kaana/was ungrateful to convey the idea of a persistent trait found in him. The Quran also refers to events that happen ON the Day of Judgement in the PAST TENSE, conveying the notion of inevitability of the events happening. The usage is still present in common speak when conveying the idea of certainty.

The passage thus starts at v43 and condemns the attitude of the Jews in Muhammad's time, bringing their internal matters to him for judgement, while they disbelieve in him, instead of upholding the scriptures in their hands which they claim is the absolute truth

5:43"And how do they make you a judge and they have the Taurat wherein is Allah's judgment?".

This rethorical question points to their straying throughout their history, and following their low-desires although they had the guidance from Allah with them all the time. To make them heed the portent of this sinful attitude, the Quran reverts to the past in 5:44 with the revelation of the Torah and reminds them how the successive prophets raised from among them based all their judgements on it

"for those who were Jews".

These judgements were only intended for the Israelites, and were never meant to have universal validity. They were therefore bound to judge by what Allah had revealed to them

5:44"and whoever did not judge by what Allah revealed, those are they that are the unbelievers".

Then verse 45 gives an example of a law they did everything to circumvent and manipulate through hairsplitting conjecture, so as to render it inapplicable, the law of retribution. It emphasizes that these people had no choice but to judge by what Allah revealed

5:45"and whoever did not judge by what Allah revealed, those are they that are the unjust".

This attitude towards their own books which they claimed to uphold against all others, was one that they had in the prophet's time. They often came to him seeking judgement in matters that were clearly defined in their own books, hoping for a different ruling. To illutrate that hypocrisy further, the Quran in v46 reminds them of the revelation of the Injeel to Jesus as a confirmation of the Torah and the next verse 47 is again a statement in the past, telling them they were bound by the Injeel when it was revealed, not simply what is in the Torah, which they had already distorted by that time. This is precisely why certain famous translators like Shakir, when translating this verse as he did with the preceding ones, uses the past tense, though the Arabic is in the present tense

5:47"And the followers of the Injeel should have judged by what Allah revealed in it; and whoever did not judge by what Allah revealed, those are they that are the transgressors".

The sequence of events, revelation of the Torah; Jews are bound by it, then revelation of the Injeel confirming the Torah; Jews and Christians are bound by it, then revelation of the Quran confirming Torah and Injeel; Jews, Christians and Muslims are bound by it. The sequence thus leads to the last revelation sent to humanity, in a series of revelations and now all mankind is bound to judge by it:

5:48-49"And We have revealed to you the Book with the truth, declaring true what is before it/musaddiqan lima bayna yadayhi of the Book and a guardian (Muhayminan) over it, therefore judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and do not follow their low desires (to turn away) from the truth that has come to you; for every one of you did We appoint a law and a way..And that you should judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and do not follow their low desires, and be cautious of them, lest they seduce you from part of what Allah has revealed to you.."

The final revelation has now descended in the form of the Quran:
1. It CONFIRMS the truth of what came before it
2. It GUARDS what came before it. The term Muhayminan, derived from H-M-N means witness and arbiter where the arbiter would be the one to let know which is right and wrong. Besides witnessing and arbitrating it carries at the same time the notion of protecting. So, when the book that came to Muhammad is declared as muhayminan upon the book it means it is the ultimate arbiter in case of dispute or potential misunderstanding in regards to whatever came before it. It declares what truly came from God vs what truly is not from God

45:16-8"And We did certainly give the Children of Israel the Scripture and judgement and prophethood, and We provided them with good things and preferred them over the worlds. And We gave them clear proofs of the matter [of religion]. And they did not differ except after knowledge had come to them - out of jealous animosity between themselves. Indeed, your Lord will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection concerning that over which they used to differ. Then We put you, [O Muhammad], on an ordained way concerning the matter [of religion]; so follow it and do not follow the inclinations of those who do not know". 

We see the same pattern of Allah revealing a system, those supposed to uphold it end up turning away from it, in addition causing its corruption. Hence the need for the religion to be restored through the revelation of a new system.

Acts17apologetics seek evidence; Quran verses challenging Bible authenticity?

In answer to the video "Answering Islam 12: What Does the Quran Say about the Bible?"

3:78"There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues: (As they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it is no part of the Book; and they say, "That is from Allah," but it is not from Allah. It is they who tell a lie against Allah, and (well) they know it" 

6:91"the Book which Musa brought, a light and a guidance to men, which you make into scattered writings which you show while you conceal much".

Just to corroborate what this verse is saying, The rabbinical world is divided up to this day on whether their sacred texts should be shared with non-Jews. There is consensus that non-Jews may study the Torah as far as the noachide laws are concerned. These laws are considered binding on all of humanity. The mosaic laws on the other hand concern strictly the Jewish people, hence the oddity of Pauline doctrine and its obsession with freeing mankind from a cursed law that isnt binding on anyone but Jews. Rabbinic opinion suggest that besides the noachide laws, only general and vague answers may be provided to a non-Jew inquiring about the Torah. The prohibition is discussed in the Talmud, which is considered God-given to Moses. The Talmud itself is on a higher level of restriction with even Jewish women forbidden from attempting to learn it due to the household activities they are expected to fulfill

2:75"but when they find themselves alone with one another, they say. "Do you inform them of what God has disclosed to you, so that they might use it in argument against you, quoting the words of your Sustainer?"  

3:187"And when Allah made a covenant with those who were given the Book: You shall certainly make it known to men and you shall not hide it; but they cast it behind their backs and took a small price for it; so evil is that which they buy".

2:75-79 "..and a party from among them indeed used to hear the Word of Allah, then altered it after they had understood it, and they know (this)..And there are among them illiterates, who know not the Book, but only lies, and they do but conjecture. Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from Allah," to traffic with it for miserable price!--Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby".

The Quran in those verses points to several types of misusing the scriptures;

-those who conceal the greater part of the book, reluctantly sharing as little as they can 6:91

-those who throw it completely behind their backs, ignoring it so as to not compromise some worldly profit. In the process, they are also guilty of failing to make it known to the world, as per their function of being the torch bearers of the truth to mankind 3:187.

-those who misinterpret the word of Allah after having fully understood it 2:75. Whether that information was canonized or not is irrelevant. This misinterpretation thus concerns both oral and written material. In Medina, members of the Jewish community were sent to the prophet Muhammad, by their religious authorities, with a hidden agenda. They were trying to settle grave disputes in matters heavily punishable in the light of the Torah. This was just another of their ploys to avoid its harsh laws, which they perfectly understood, hoping that the prophet might have a different ruling 

"they alter the words from their places, saying: If you are given this, take it, and if you are not given this, be cautious".  

This compromising, complacent attitude is a deeply ingrained transgression they have been committing ever since the law was bestowed upon them and throughout their history, despite the scolding of the prophets and the few righteous remnants among them whom the Quran mentions and praises 

7:169-170"Then there came after them an evil posterity who inherited the Book, taking only the frail good of this low life and saying: It will be forgiven us. And if the like good came to them, they would take it (too). Was not a promise taken from them in the Book that they would not speak anything about Allah but the truth, and they have read what is in it; and the abode of the hereafter is better for those who guard (against evil). Do you not then understand? And as for those who hold fast by the Book and keep up prayer, surely We do not waste the reward of the righteous"  

Virtually all prophets that came to them decried the corruption of their elite, their neglect towards their own justice system. Yet the prophet was not under any obligation to judge their matters when their intent was to use him as a pawn for their low desires 5:41-43. The prophet was nevertheless commanded to judge between them with equity should he decide so, notwithstanding their severe enmity towards him and the fact they were always plotting with the enemies of Islam with the hope of uprooting and exterminating it. One famous incident is that of 

"A Jew and a Jewess were brought to Allah's Apostle on a charge of committing an illegal sexual intercourse. The Prophet asked them. "What is the legal punishment (for this sin) in your Book (Torah)?" They replied, "Our priests have innovated the punishment of blackening the faces with charcoal and Tajbiya." 'Abdullah bin Salam said, "O Allah's Apostle, tell them to bring the Torah." The Torah was brought, and then one of the Jews put his hand over the Divine Verse of the Rajam (stoning to death) and started reading what preceded and what followed it. On that, Ibn Salam said to the Jew, "Lift up your hand." Behold! The Divine Verse of the Rajam was under his hand. So Allah's Apostle ordered that the two (sinners) be stoned to death, and so they were stoned. Ibn 'Umar added: So both of them were stoned at the Balat and I saw the Jew sheltering the Jewess".  

According to another version, when the Torah was brought to the prophet who was now seeking to expose the innovations of the rabbis in the specific matter of punishment for adultery, he first respectfully put it on a cushion then said 

"I believed in you and in Him Who revealed you". 

 A holistic understand of both the hadith corpus and the Quran demonstrates that this statement of the prophet is not to be taken in the absolute sense. When in Medina he noticed that Jews would come and read the Torah and explain it to the Muslims, he advised them to adopt a neutral stance, neither believing nor disbelieving in it 

"Do not believe the people of the Book, nor disbelieve them, but say, 'We believe in Allah and whatever is revealed to us, and whatever is revealed to you.' " 

This is because the scriptures of the Jews are an amalgam of truth and falsehood, the truthful parts being covered by the statement "whatever is revealed to you". Ibn Abbas would reprimand the Muslims who would seek information from the people of the book in religious matters, on the basis that

 "Allah has told you that the people of the scripture changed their scripture and distorted it, and wrote the scripture with their own hands and said, 'It is from Allah,' to sell it for a little gain. Does not the knowledge which has come to you prevent you from asking them about anything?" 

The Quran, the prophet, the companions therefore all advise caution when approaching the previous scriptures, as they contain both truth, which the prophet confirmed and revered in the aforementioned statements, and falsehood.

The prophet then proceeded with exposing the learned ones by making them read by themselves the truthful part of the Torah which they had been hiding 

"Bring me one who is learned among you. Then a young man was brought. The transmitter then mentioned the rest of the tradition of stoning". 

This hadith depicting the prophet's reverence for the Torah should this be understood in light of other ahadith, as well as the many Quran passages stating that the Torah isnt absolutely corrupt, that despite the manipulations it still contains remnants of truth, hence the Quran being its guardian/muhaymin. The prophet declared his belief not in the entire Torah, but in the specific ruling on the punishment for adultery, and which Ibn Salam, the Jewish convert to Islam instantly recognized as the "divine verse".

It is this corruption in the absolute sense, which some scholars might have been referring to when they said, while commenting on the above report 

"if the Torah was corrupted he would not have placed it on the pillow and he would not have said: I believe in you and in the one who revealed you". 

This is speaking of complete corruption, which is not what the Muslims believe happened to previous scriptures and traditions. 

-those who misinterpret the book after having fully understood it 2:75

-the uneducated/ummiyun, who have no access to the text and therefore only know the distorted lies of the learned ones 2:78

-those who alter the book physically, passing off their modifications as coming from God 2:79. These alterations may be additions and/or subtractions. Al-kitab, the writing/book alludes to a specific text, as the definite article implies, which is subjected to physical corruption. Al kitab is used for the Bible in the same sura. The Quran accuses the Jews of misinterpreting Al kitab while claiming it is from God 3:78 in reference to the HB, just as it exposes the physical corruption of Al kitab 2:79 in reference to the HB. This accusation the Quran makes is the climax of scriptural abuse, fitting into its overall polemic against Jews and Christians. Interestingly, we find similar statements  as regards the integrity of the biblical text among early Christians themselves. Justin Martyr in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew made that exact accusation against the Jewish elite whose responsibility was to preserve the Hebrew Bible.

Ibn Abbas, in comment to the verse said

"O the group of Muslims! How can you ask the people of the Scriptures about anything while your Book which Allah has revealed to your Prophet contains the most recent news from Allah and is pure and not distorted? Allah has told you that the people of the Scriptures have changed some of Allah's Books and distorted it and wrote something with their own hands and said, 'This is from Allah, so as to have a minor gain for it".

However there is another statement attributed to ibn abbas saying 

“No one can corrupt the text by removing any of Allah’s words from his Books, but they corrupted it by misinterpreting it”.  

This is a known defective narration, without any chain of reporters, as noted by the scholars of hadith, including Al Asqalani. What can at most be construed from that statement, assuming it is authentic for argument's sake, is that the incorruptibility is in reference to the heavenly tablet. It can obviously not be speaking of the worldly text which anyone can change. The Quran says all the revealed scriptures are inscribed in umm al kitab/the mother book, inscribed on the heavenly tablet. None can change the words therein but only twist their meaning. Ibn Kathir understood that nuance between the 2 ahadith of ibn Abbas very well. He quotes the weak hadith in his tafsir of 3:78 which speaks of oral misinterpretation. But he also refers to ibn Abbas' authentic comment on 2:79 that speaks of textual corruption by the people of the book. Ibn Kathir quotes other companion views on 2:79, including that of Uthman saying that 

"they (the Jews) distorted the Torah. They added to it what they liked and erased from it what they hated and they erased the name of Muhammad peace be upon him from the Torah and for that Allah became angry". 

Ibn Kathir and the earliest Muslim belief regarding the oral and textual corruption of the Bible is therefore clearly established, based on the Quran itself. That Muslim position is even reflected in the polemical writings of John of Damascus, some 100 years after the prophet's death 

"But some of them say that it is by misinterpretation that we have represented the Prophets as saying such things, while others say that the Hebrews hated us and deceived us by writing in the name of the Prophets so that we might be lost". 

As already noted, anyone can remove and alter words from any worldly text at any point in time. And if that is done when not enough human and textual witnesses can independently detect that corruption, then it can easily be disseminated and passed off as true. That is what happened during the successive destructions of the Israelite nation, followed by the attempts of their scribes to re-write what was lost. Al-Razi rightly noted 

"It is impossible to have a conspiracy to change or alter the word of God in all of these copies without missing any copy. Such a conspiracy will not be logical or possible".  

Al-Razi here is talking of a time when previous scriptures, although in their corrupt state (see his commentary on 5:41), were already widely disseminated and could be independently attested by countless witnesses. Nobody could remove Allah's word nor any other man-made word from it then, without being detected. Corruption of the Torah at that point became only possible through misinterpretation. 

Similarly, some stated that the Torah cannot be corrupted, based on the verse saying God's words cannot be changed 6:115. Again, any worldly copy of the Torah can be altered. But so long as there exists the possibility for the original to be reproduced, God's words remain unaffected, only the copy of these words. 

The Quran is the speech of Allah, and that speech is with Allah, uncreated, eternal, unchanged like any other attribute of His. The analogy of God's speech to the Quran we touch with our hands or recite from our minds, is as God's mercy which manifests in tangible and abstract things. Both types of manifestations are created means through which God's uncreated attributes of speech and mercy are made known to humans. These attributes arent limited to those particular manifestations 

31:27"and If all the trees on the earth were pens, and the sea replenished with seven more seas [were ink], the words of Allah would not be spent". 

God's speech is therefore unexhaustive. It can potentially bring into existence a limitless number of words of revelation, among them the Hebrew Torah of Moses or the Arabic Quran of Muhammad 

14:4"And We did not send any messenger but with the language of his people, so that he might explain to them clearly". 

Allah further states about the revelation to Muhammad, that He 

43:3"made it an Arabic Quran". 

The eternal speech of Allah takes on in this world the form that is relevant to the divine purpose. The Arabic Quran was thus not continuously spoken since eternity. It is the manifestation in time of God's eternal attribute of speech. Just like we may say a healthy newborn is the manifestation in time of God's eternal attribute of mercy.

Assuming for argument's sake that all things in the heavens and the earth are destroyed, including all Torahs and Qurans, the mother of the book that contains all revelations, and even the preserved tablet/lawh mahfuz. So long as the potential to generate a true Quran and Torah exists, then Allah's words that were revealed to Moses and Muhammad remain unaffected. As stated earlier, the physical and abstract things in which God's attributes manifest in this world do not exhaust the attributes themselves, neither do these manifestations share the uncreated essence of the attributes they are representing. This is the problem of Trinitarians. Jesus, a created being, is not merely a manifestation of God's word, rather he incarnates it fully, becoming this divine "person" with contradictory attributes Trinitarian thinkers have been struggling to explain for over 2000 years. Christians are quick to try and parallel the notion of uncreatedness of God's speech as manifested in the Quran, with their idea derived from the Gospel of John where God's uncreated word manifested in Jesus. The two concepts, arent comparable.  Further, why would trinitarians even need the Quran to explain the logical and philosophical problems of their theology.

Not a single group within Islam says the Quran was a separate entity floating around next to God since eternity past. This is how some Christians, with their trinitarian worldview, misrepresent the statement that the word of Allah is uncreated. In Christianity, the word is not an attribute but a divine person among others like the father and holy spirit, each with distinct attributes. One man with multiple attributes isnt many men just as One God with multiple attributes isnt many gods. This is tawhid. Yet Trinity says each person is divine but with different attributes, resulting in 3 different gods. The analogy Christians attempt between tawhid and trinity stops at the word of God being eternal. Christians made that word a person with attributes among other distinct persons, while Muslims kept the word as an attribute among others within the essence of the One God. As an aside, since the word or speech of God is not an attribute within the divine essence but a separate divine entity along with 2 others, does it mean that only this divine entity called "word or speech" has the ability to speak and that the other 2 divine entities are mute?

 If God's word is a separate divine entity that became flesh in Jesus, what about the words uttered by Jesus who is now divine? Are his words separate divine entities? Further, if the Torah is God's word, as Jews and Christians believe, does that make it divine as Jesus is? These are the kinds of problems Trinitarians are entangled with due to their conjectures on ambiguous matters, instead of relying on firm statements on God's oneness and unity. Muslims on the other hand, despite the early disputes as to whether the Quran was created or not, never went out of the way to declare the attributes of God, like His word, separate divine entities. No Muslim ever believed God's speech to be a separate conscious part. The reason why this issue is often brought up by Trinitarians is that the Quran is the only book that claims to be Allah's direct speech. The Bible doesnt make that claim. The closest one finds is an anonymous claim made about Jesus being God's word. Muslims on the other hand stick to clear and firm statements of scriptures to define their cardinal beliefs, including that "nothing is like a likeness of Him".

2:79 is a timeless warning, addressed to any corrupt scribes among the Jews who would in addition reap profit from such an evil deed. It is not specific to the Jews of the time of the prophet. This means, although that type of corruption did occur, it may have happened before or during the prophet's time as well as both. No contemporary 7th century Jewish writing has survived so as to compare with older manuscripts to know whether this was done during the time of the prophet. And even if such 7th century writing is found, agreeing with older manuscripts, then it still does not negate that the corruption might have occured much longer before the prophet's time. Another thing to note is that this verse doesnt target the writings of the Christians. The books that these groups follow are not the singular Gospel of Jesus of which the Quran speaks. As the Quran repeatedly says, they follow but mere conjecture. This conjecture has taken the shape of the Greek writings compiled as the New Testament. They are writings that interpret and re-interpret Jesus' words and singular Gospel, giving them a completely different intent. Sometimes this conjecture doesnt take for basis Jesus' Gospel at all, such as with the notion of human depravity and sin atonement. The Quran thus appropriately tells the Christians to abide by the singular Gospel of Jesus to find the right path that will lead them to the truth of the Quran.

When they did so, in contrast to the corrupt aforementioned groups, when they remained truthful to the scriptures in anyway, shape or form it reached them, trying to follow it to the best of their ability, then their sincerity, unprejudiced reading and understanding of their books led them to inevitably believe in the revelation bestowed on the prophet Muhammad 2:121,83,3:113-115,199,4:162,5:13,66,69,83,7:159-170,17:107-9,28:52-4. This is what occured in the times of the prophet, even among their most learned figures, just as it occured throughout time and in our days. The Quran thus expects the Jews and Christians to recognize the truth based on what is in their hands first and foremost. The prophethood of Muhammad and the truth revealed to him make ample theological sense within their own written and oral traditions.

When they behaved with insincerity, hypocrisy towards their books 2:85, then despite having sources of light and guidance in their hands, it availed them nothing "The Torah and the Gospel are with the Jews and the Christians but what do they avail of them?" (Tirmidhi 2653). They become followers of deliberate corruption and lies, or mislead by conjecture.

Acts17apologetics find consolation; Allah cannot change His word?

In answer to the video "Answering Islam 12: What Does the Quran Say about the Bible?"

Kalimatullah in these contexts is simply the word of God in the sense of His promise as amply used in the Quran 6:34,115,10:64,18:27 etc. Such divine word is a command that can never be reversed or altered once issued 13:41, it can be the promise of victory and assistance to the messengers and their followers 37:171-2 or the promise of chastisement to the rejecters 58:21 or again the promises of miracles or blessings whether in this life or the next. This is because, as repeatedly said in the Book, Allah's statement is truthful and He never breaks His promise

10:55,33:4,38:34"The truth then is and the truth do I speak"  

39:20"Allah will not fail in (His promise)".

Apostate prophet confronted to pragmatism; necessary beating?

In answer to the video "Islamic wife beating"

We have seen until now how the Quran, contrary to any other religious scripture, deals with the issue of domestic violence in such a way that impulsive men cannot reach the point where they will use force. 

Secondly, it is a deterrant to an emotionally abusive woman willing to live in a household and be maintained by a man while being inclined to backstab him. 

The 3rd purpose for allowing a husband to beat his wife is to address the issue of passionate, toxic relationships. In these types of unions, common to any time and culture, both may separate at any time, but instead, the abusive wife chooses to remain despite knowing the husband is about to resort to physical punitive measures and the husband chooses to remain despite having tried reforming an emotionally abusive wife. None can be forced to divorce and only one option remains to reform the abusive party, physical punishment. This, again is an extreme case of passionate love where an abused husband wants to make his wife come back to her senses after having tried all peaceful avenues. Neither he wants to let go of her nor she wants to leave him despite both having the right to do so. The word used is IDRIBOOHUNNA, derived from the root Dhad-R-B and it means hitting of the limbs to serve a function. That function in this case is not only striking, but striking to encourage change of attitude and that cannot happen by a severe beating. It is a kind of physical action that brings back the person to the senses and causes a change of behavior. This is how all the commentators understand the striking that is meant, as a noninjurious form of physical force.

This verse was revealed in ancient Arabia, in a time when the world as a whole viewed beating one’s wife as a right in the male dominated patriarchal society. If it reflected the mentality of its contemporaries then it wouldnt have addressed the issue from such an intricately psychological perspective.

In terms of misogyny, nothing in Islam remotely resembles what is found in Judeo-Christian texts and traditions, whose background is, the events of the garden painting Eve as the first to sin, then leading Adam to sin, and because of that was condemned to be "restrained" through subjection to the rule of her husband forever Gen3. Prior to the modern era, that notion was interpreted as warranting physical punishment for marital disobedience, in both Jewish and Christian traditions. In Christian texts, through the writings attributed to Paul, male rulership is associated with physical coercion in case of disobedience. This includes disobedience of subjects to their ruler, slaves to their masters, children to their fathers, and by obvious analogy, wives to their husbands. Rom13:1-5,Titus2:9-10,Eph6:5,Heb12:5-11,1Tim3:4,Ex21:20-21,Prov23:13-14,20:30,13:24 etc.

The prophet himself never beat his wives, abusive or not. Had it been his habit or had the Quran condoned domestic abuse, we would have seen a pattern in the prophet's life. In fact his wives had the option to divorce him anytime they wished and be graciously helped so as to start their new life unbothered. Not only was this pattern absent from his life, but we even see one of his wives, Umm Habiba asking him to marry her own sister so she can "share with her of the prophet's goodness", which he declined. 

The prophet approved of a woman's divorce request following physical and verbal domestic abuse from her husband. It was only expected by him given that he would not tolerate even the beating of women maid-servants

"one of us slapped her and Allah's messenger ordered us to set her free".

In fact it is said that this wife beating verse 4:34 was revealed in relation to the case of a woman that came complaining to the prophet that her husband had hit her. The prophet disliked that behavior, he was known for his good treatment of his wives. He was about to punish the perpetrator based on the law of retaliation then the verse came to educate husbands and wives on the matter. The prophet said

"I wanted one thing and God wanted another".

This is because, as shown earlier, there is wisdom in allowing corrective physical punishement in the intricate way that the Quran does.

Apostate prophet wont allow it; Does Quran give free license to wife beating?

In answer to the video "Islamic wife beating"

Beating is not promoted nor did the Quran invent domestic violence. The Quran canalizes such behavior by preventing an immediate jump to beating, by giving a very stringent procedure to prevent reaching to that point. Men, if they beat their wives, they do so out of anger, and afterwards try and justify it by saying religion allows it.

What the Quran is doing is preventing this impulse, and it does so in a context where it reforms women status and appeals to men's taqwa, their God consciousness, with verses setting the natural order of Men-Women relationships. Verses such as 30:21 and others

"And one of His signs is that He created mates for you from yourselves that you may find rest in them, and He put between you love and compassion; most surely there are signs in this for a people who reflect".

Men and women naturally deal in terms of love and compassion, meaning domestic violence is against the natural order of things.

In 4:34 the Quran uses the word qawwam, from Q-W-M and it means standing upright. It covers the meaning that the entity stands upright and that it helps others stand upright. Man is referred to as being qawwam over the woman by means of the bounties which he has been bestowed with, the bounties which he must use responsibly in the maintenance of his household. In other words, man cannot stand upright over the woman if he does not care and maintain his base, his wife.

Qawwam in addition is in a grammatical form of siratul mubalagha, denoting a pattern of behavior. In this case, the verse's opening is stating the husband is one behaving with a pattern of care towards his wife. The word carries also the notion of qima/value, making the qawwam the one who gives value ie to his wife, which negates emotional abuse, a domestic issue often addressed in the Quran.

As is obvious, domestic violence has nothing to do with the notion of qawwam, meaning the verse itself stipulates that proper treatment of a woman is exactly the opposite of hurting a women. This is why the Quran then goes on to provide an exhaustive means to prevent hitting in the first place, and even when one reaches the point where striking becomes a valid option, it must be done in a way that encourages a change of course and can never contradict the fundamental notion of man being qawwam over the woman. This will be shown a little later.

This passage, like many others where the divine law is expounded, the Quran wraps the passage with a message that connects the divine law with spiritual awareness. This is done so that man never loses sight of the spirit of the law. In this case, the passage ends with a mention of certain attributes of God; He is the High and Mighty.

There is a greater Being, with more authority than man and he should therefore not abuse of his position. The attribute of Might is also well suited to the context; men may be stronger than woman, but there is One stronger than man. And if men abuse their power, then let them know that they will have to face the Almighty. This style is used in other instances, such as when a man is told of his superiority over a wife in certain aspects of divorce procedures but reminded that this superiority is based on absolute wisdom and should that superiority be misused outside the bounds of wisdom, then there is One mightier than all

2:228"and the men are a degree above them, and Allah is Mighty, Wise".

Prior to the "beating" portion, first, the verse urges admonishement. This reveals the Quran engages the situation rationally, appealing to the intellect of the woman which was considered lower than a man's.

"those on whose part you fear nushuz"  

KHAWF means fear of credible danger, as is consistent with all its occurrences in the Quran. So, it is not fear as in suspicion/Dhann. Dhann is to hold an opinion upon uncertain evidence. KHAWF is a fear about probable significant danger but it still does not refer to something obvious/blatant, and there is an element of relativity/subjectivity to it which is why the Quran tells to ITHOOHUNNA/advise them.

Even though the reasons for fear are credible, they can still be incorrect. This advising will not be in a harsh manner, as can be seen by its occurrences in the Quran, for example 31:13-19. When you give advice, you give the advice and listen to what they have to say. Therefore if the reason for the fear is diffused, then the problem is diffused. Another thing worth mentioning is that the word khawf denotes a significant threat in terms of marriage ties, it cannot be speaking of normal disagreements and disputes.

This is corroborated by the life of the one that embodied the Quran, the prophet had many reported disputes with his wives but always kept his composure and patience, remaining of gentle character, neither did he qualify their behavior as nushuz. Nushuz from the root N-SH-Z means elevated. It is used, among other things, for when a person elevates themselves above others, as in rebellion or arrogance or disdaining others. This isnt about typical disagreements that arise normally during a marriage. One isnt disdainfully arrogant and disrespectful during such disputes. That is why the verse then says that if the wife desists from her nushuz

"do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great".

Further, this kind of attitude is one that threatens the preservation of the private, ie the intimate conjugal matters which the verse states should never be compromised, hence the parallel made between the preservation of these issues with the manner in which Allah preserves the unseen, a realm and knowledge which is shared only partially and with a select few

"the righteous women (are) dedicated, preservers of the private, by what Allah preserved".

If that first step, of engaging the situation rationally doesnt work, the Quran tells the husband to resort to step 2, distance himself physicaly. This can be done by not sharing the bed for example which is an appeal to the emotion of the woman.

Most men, the vast majority, will not even think of beating their wife even after these 2 steps, rational, then emotional, aiming at stoping her nushuz have failed. 99% of couples will simply divorce at that point. However, the verse has specifically mentionned the option of beating in order to address 3 extreme situations. First, as said in introduction, the issue of men who become violent due to impulsive anger. The verse offers them the option of beating, but after a gradual procedures precisely aimed at smoothly blocking their impulse and ultimately prevent beating. This is much more efficient than telling them from the get go that they cannot hit at all. One cannot expect a person behaving irrationaly and emotionally to want to listen to a forceful instruction.

It is well known that the best manner to deal with impulsive behavior is through mindful and calming steps. In a situation where a husband fears nushuz from his wife in matters of transgression of the bounds of "guarding the unseen" which is a grave situation for any man of any culture, equal to backstabbing, an impulsive husband will immidiately want to beat his wife, but the verse prevents that impulse, telling him to engage the situation rationaly by first reasoning with his wife then refrain from physical contact

"admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places".

These 2 successive steps are crucial and effective at curbing a violent man's impulses and give him, as well as his wife, the time to cool-down and think.

At that point, the wife who stubbornly wants to keep going with her highly injurous attitude towards her husband knows that she just waisted 2 chances at solving the situation peacefully and rationaly and that now, if she wants to stay in the same household she has no choice but to mend her ways or face corrective physical punishement.

So even before resorting to beating, the wife with whom the appeal to her intellect and emotion through steps 1 and 2 did not work, who wants to stay in the same household and knows that her attitude was highly injurious will refrain by herself, thus settling the dispute. This is the second objective to allow beating, it serves as a deterrent to that type of woman. But if at that point, the woman genuinely did nothing wrong, decides not to change anything from her attitude while staying in the same household then she still knows that her husband, who believes to have been morally injured can resort to beating her. So what will she do at that point and what option does the Sharia give her? Will she let her husband beat her while she thinks she has done nothing wrong? The Quran says

4:35"And if you fear a breech between the two, then appoint a judge from his people and a judge from her people; if they BOTH desire agreement, Allah will effect harmony between them; surely Allah is Knowing, Aware".

The words are clear and give her the right to appeal to a judge who will in turn designate an arbitrer from her side and her husband's, to settle the dispute and prove her right, or if she is proven wrong then she either mends her way and returns to the same household or simply divorce

"if they BOTH desire agreement".

The verse however clearly prefers reconciliation, as pointed in the words

"Allah will effect harmony between them; surely Allah is Knowing, Aware".

This is reiterated in 4:128 which states that in case a wife fears nushuz from her husband, the same word used previously for a rebellious, disdaining wife, then

"there is no blame on them, if they effect a reconciliation between them, and reconciliation is better".

4:128 also stresses that attempts at reconciliation should be undertaken as soon as signs of nushuz appear, not when the wife is already abused

"And if a woman FEARS nushuz".

Another thing worth noting is that nushuz, the attitude of disrespectful disdain and arrogance, when used in the context of marriage, applies to both men and women, with a tendency for adultery. The word is used in that connotation in pre- as well as post Islamic texts. For instance when a case of domestic dispute was brought to the prophet, the husband claimed that his wife 

"is nashiz and wants to go back to Rifa`a (another man)". 

In a report believed to have been uttered towards the end of the prophet's life, he emphasized that the option of striking is in the context of sexual transgression, thus further pointing that nushuz, the action which allows several punitive measures including striking, is related to adultery 

"Surely, I enjoin you to treat women well, for they are like your captives. You do not have any right to treat them otherwise, unless they commit a clear obscenity/fahisha. If they do so, you may forsake their beds and then strike them without violence".

A woman isnt required to go through successive corrective steps to reform her husband, even if she only fears that her husband might become disrespectful, disdainful and arrogant. As soon as she sees the signs, she may appeal to a judge and only if she accepts reconciling, then the relationship may resume. Here is the verse again

"if they BOTH desire agreement".

Apostate prophet wont have several mothers; Who were the mothers of believers?

In answer to the video "The Funniest Quran Verse (Crazy Quran Verses: 2)"

The prophet's wives had the title of mothers of the believers

33:6"The Prophet is closer to the Believers than their own selves, and his wives are their mothers".

That sanctified title carried several implications to those that were willing to uphold it. It is not a title of nobility but rather denotes responsibility and care towards the community. For example Zaynab one of the prophet's wives was called Barrah/pious. The prophet told her to keep her name instead of that nickname to avoid her

"giving herself the prestige of piety".

He further told his wives

"Don't hold yourself to be pious. It is God alone who knows the people of piety among you".

They had to restrain their social activities to their own houses as much as possible in order to dedicate themselves to piety and religious study, pray intensely, solidify in their memories the recitations and wisdom of the revelation so that they become means of preserving the right way 33:33-4. During their spiritual counseling activities, they had to watch for the tone of their voice when addressing the opposite sex so that they leave no ambiguity as to their intentions, or cause those with an indecent inclination to harbor inapropriate thoughts. They had to speak to males outside their close relatives from behind a curtain 33:32,53-55.

This injunction, besides it being a logical demand of modesty whenever opposite sexes interract, becomes all the more relevant if one considers the Quran's description in sura ahzab/33 of the atmosphere of rumour mongering, provocations and other verbal abuses the prophet, and the righteous members of the Muslim community at large were either already the targets of, or were potentially at risk of. There were elements within the community and outside of it that were on the look out for any opportunity to spew their malice and discredit and dishearten the Muslims.

Consequently the prophet's household and the Muslims at large are given reassurance of the nobility of their status in God's eyes, and told in which manners to fend off those with evil inclinations. The best way to fend off these attacks were with ethics becoming of the nobility of their moral status as well as by adopting a modest dresscode.

The religious duties the prophet's wives had to shoulder were such, that willingly faltering in that respect would make them deserving of a more severe chastisement in the hereafter 33:30. This was meant to stress their spiritual responsibilities and the fact they had to exemplify piety, and so their moral conduct should be corresponding.

As stated in 33:32, their difference with other Muslim women consisted in them maintaining and propagating moral, ethical and spiritual uprightness. On the other hand their reward will be more intense than regular people due to their higher sacrifices 33:31. This is just like Allah's addressing the prophet warning him not to falter in his righteousness and upright conduct lest he should face a double/more severe punishement than regular people 10:15,17:73-4,39:65,68:9.

There is a simple reason behind that principle, leaders in a society are the ones that establish moral standards and are emulated. Their evil does not remain their own but spreads fast and creates further evil, just as their goodness. One and the same sin may thus be requited according to different levels of severity depending on the person comitting it as well as the social repercussions of that sin.

Finally, in consequence of their designation and duties as mothers of the believers, they were not allowed to remarry after the prophet's death, contrary to regular muslim women divorcees 33:53.
The difference between the prophet's wives and others is that obviously none would ever marry and sleep with Moses', Solomon's, Abraham's or Muhammad's wives had the prophets passed away. This sanctified status is not one that was decreed because some believers would potentially desire to unite with one of them after the prophet's demise, it was addressed to the wives he already had and those in the future that would enter into a marriage with him, making clear to them the conditions of marrying him, and the consequences.

To those that were already married to him, they could at anytime prior to his death, relinquish that status and be given the opportunity to leave this life of sacrifices and socio-religious responsibilities. Some of them did, prior to even consuming the marriage, unable to bear the burden of responsibility and an austere life. In 33:28-29 they are told that if their desire for this world and its adornment is preferable in their eyes than a life of sacrifices dedicated to their spiritual duties

"say to your wives: If you desire this world´s life and its adornment, then come, I will give you a provision and allow you to depart a goodly departing".

After divorce the woman would have stood excluded from the category of "mothers of believers", and she would not be forbidden to any other Muslim; for she would have chosen divorce from the prophet only for the sake of the world and its adornments of which she had been given the choice. The prophet's wives had thus the option of requesting and getting a just and kind divorce for even such petty reasons like their desire to pursue this wordly life which God's prophet could not afford giving them in his household.

No shame or stigma was put on those that did nor on those that would afterwards. Divorces with prophet occured, as already said. Also, enemies of Islam were all around Medina and within the city itself. Had there been such a potential negative consequence on a divorced woman's personal life she could have joined any opposing community just as former polytheist Meccan women joined the Medina Muslims for shelter after conversion to Islam. Furthermore, in relation to 33:28-9 referred to earlier, no muslim, and no man of any culture is required to go out of his way and ask his wife if she is happy and satisfied enough in all material aspects, especially when one is just with the wife in relation to one's financial capabilities. Further, no muslim or man in general is required to offer divorce if the wife is unhappy. On top of it, not simple divorce, with each partner going his/her way, which would be fairest in this case, but a "gracious" divorce, where the wife is free to leave as well as receive compensation if she chooses to. Yet this is what was required of the prophet, contrary to all muslims, a man supposedly seeking multiple marriages of lust.

By the time this verse was revealed, and as shown in the direct context, the Muslims had conquered the rich agricultural region of Khaybar, and the community had grown more prosperous. But while life was becoming easier for most of its members, this ease was not reflected in the household of the Prophet. As was always his habit, he only allowed himself and his family only the absolute minimum necessary for the most simple living

28:83"that future abode, We assign it to those who have no desire to exalt themselves in the earth nor to make mischief and the good end is for those who guard (against evil)".

His prestigious status as a prophet and ruler never came in the way of that humble principle of living. Not only was he not ever one to ask for any kind of reward from his addressees 6:90,12:104etc, his reward and compensation being simply that people might be guided 

25:57"Say: ‘No reward do I ask of you for this. All I ask is that he who so wills may find a way leading to his Lord" 

but every occasion where he could make use of his status and deep knowledge for material benefit, he would do it for the sake of the needy

58:12"when you consult the Messenger, then offer something in charity before your consultation; that is better for you and purer". 

The prophet's wives on the other hand naturally were longing for a share in the comparative luxuries which other Muslim women could now enjoy. His wives often stated that they had little on their shelves besides bread flour and dates. But it is reported that all of them rejected a possible seperation with the prophet and resumed their spiritual duties as "mothers of the believers", and were promised a great reward in the Hereafter for having denied themselves the ordinary comforts of life by remaining in the Prophet's house 33:31. Their voluntary worldy sacrifices can only be understood from a spiritual perspective. 

Umm Habiba, one of the prophet's wives had such awareness for that spiritual favor despite the sacrifices that she even proposed the hand of her own sister to the prophet 

“Are you interested in my sister, Apostle of Allaah?” He said “What should I do?” She said “You marry her” He said “Your sister?” She said “Yes”. He said “Do you like that?” she said “I am not alone with you of those who share me in this good, my sister is most to my liking. He said “She is not lawful for me.”