Is Quranic interpretation misquoted by Muslims?

[Muslim_Brother]

The issues that I want to point out here are related to verses
from Quran and Hadith (mainly Bukhari Sharif). I will state them accordingly:

(1) Adultery:
[Quran 24:2] "The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication-flog each
of them with a hundred stripes. Let not compassion move in their case, in a matter
prescribed by God, if ye believe in God and the Last Day; and let a party of the
Believers witness their punishment".

[Translation of Sahih Muslim,Book 17,The Book Pertaining to
Punishments Prescribed by Islam(Kitab Al-Hudud)(Number 4191)] Ubada
b. as-Samit reported "Allah's Messanger as saying -Receive from me, receive
from me. Allah has ordained a way for these(women).When an unmarried male
committs adultery with an unmarried female(they should receive) one hundred
lashes and banishment for one year. And in case of married male committing
adultery with a married female,they shall receive one hundred lashes and be stoned
to death""

[Translation of Sahih Bukhari,Punishment of Disbelievers at War with
Allah and His Apostle,Volume 8,Book82,Number 824] Narrated
Ash-Shaibani, "I asked Abdullah bin Abi Aufa about Rajam(stoning somebody to
death for illegal sexual intercourse).He replied,'The Prophet carried out the penalty
of Rajam(stoning to death)',I asked,'Was that before or after the revealation of
Surat-an-Nur?(Noble verse 24:2)'. He replied,'I do not Know'."

So the question is which one do we follow? Did the Quranic ayat come before or
after the prophet carried out Rajam? Because this means getting flogged 100
stripes and being stoned to death. It's a difference between life and death.

[Quran 4:59] "Oye who believe! Obey God, and obey the Apostle, and those
charged with authority among you. If ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it
to God and His Apostle, if ye do believe in God and the Last Day. That is best,
and most suitable for final determination."

By this verse , we are ordered to follow Quran and Sunnah.But considering the
above, one of them has to be followed. Is Bukhari Sharif then wrong?

(2) Aisha

[Sahih Bukhari, vol 7:48] "Narrated Hisham's father,'Khaula bint Hakim was one
of those ladies who presented themselves to the Prophet for marriage. Aisha
said,'Doesn't a lady feel ashamed for presenting herself to a man?' But when the
Verse: "(O Muhammad) You may postpone (the turn of ) any of them you wish
and take to yourself any you wish, and if you desire any you have set aside no sin is
chargeable to you"(33:51>qs 33:51) was revealed, Aisha said,"O Allah's Apostle!
I do not see, but that your Lord hurries in pleasing you."

This suggession that Allah comes forward in fullfilling the Prophet's carnal desire,
isn't this considered as blasphemy? Is this hadith weak? Should this be expunged
from the Bukhari Sharif? I have mentioned Bukhari Sharif because majority of the
sunny muslims(like myself) treat this hadith book as authentic.

(3) [Sahih Bukhari, Vol 2:541] Narrated by Abu Said Al-Khudri
On Eid ul Fitr or Eid ul Adha Allah's Apostle (PBUH) went to the Musalla. After
finishing the prayer, he delivered the sermon and ordered the people to give alms.
He said,'O peple! Give alms'. Then he went towards the women ans said,"O
women! Give alms, for I have seen that the majority of dwellers of Hell-fire were
you(women)". The women asked,"O Allah's Paostle! What is the reason for it?"He
replied,"O women! You curse frequently, and are ungrateful to your husbands. I
have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence than you. O women, some of
you can lead a cautious wise man astray." Then he left. And when he reached his
house, Zainab, the wife of Inn Mas'ud, came and asked permission to enter.It was
said,"O Allah's Apostle! It is Zainab" He asked,"Which Zainab?" The reply was
that she was the wife of Ibn Mas'ud. He said,"Yes, allow her to enter." And she
was admitted. Then she said,"O prophet of Allah!" Today you ordered people to
give alms and I had an ornament and intended to give it as alms, but Ibn Mas'ud
said that he and his children deserved it more than anybody else." The Prophet
replied,"Ibn Mas'ud had spoken the truth. Your husband and your children had
more right to it than anybody else."

Although the emphasis is Zakat to relatives, how can we expalin this narration when
we know how higly the Prophet looked upon women and how he respected them?
Is this hadith then weak? If not, are we to assume that the Prophet did say such
things? That women are harmful to men even when we know that both were made
from one entity, women are deficient in mind and religion when they have every
right to pursue knowledge as much as men, that hell is full of women when we don't
know who will go to heaven and hell except Allah Himself?

(4) Testimony

[Quran 2:282] " O you who believe! When you deal with each other in
transactions involving future obligations in a fixed period of time, reduce them to
writing. Let a scribe write down faithfully as between the parties; let not the scribe
refuse to write; As Allah has taught him, so let him write, Let him whi incurs the
liability dictate, but let him fear his Lord, Allah, and not diminish out of what he
owes. If the party liable is mentally deficient, or weak, or unable himself to dictate,
let his guardian dictate faithfully. And get two witnesses out of your own men, and if
there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as you choose for
witnesses so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her."

The history behind this ayat suggests that at the time of this revealation, women in
Arab were not that literate. So they were not familiar with business deals and
contractual jargons. In order to provide justice so that no party suffers, two men or
one man and two women were rendered sufficient so that if one of them women
forgets the other might remind her. Now the Quranic law is to be followed without
question. If there is an answer to the interpretation in Sunnah then that's even
better. But nothing can supersede the Quranic edict. In todays modern era, a
woman is capable enough to draw her own financial contract.Since Quran is not
subjected to change over time but universal for eternity how do we justify this verse
in today's context? Do we then have the power to disregard this verse and have
two capable women as witnesses? Wouldn't that be considered as going against
the Quranic instruction?

(5) Being a judge

Many muslim scholars are of the opinion that since women's testimony is half of that
of the men in financial transactions, therfore they are also prohibited from holding
any position in matters of judgement(such as a judge). Since there is no Quranic
law or Sunnah to support this, shouldn't it be once and for all be annulled. Because
as far as the Quran and Sunnah goes, there is no ruling that bars women from
holding any state position or position of authority except leading a prayer for
apparent reason as they would have to prostrate before rows of men(only allowed
to hold Tarawee prayer with mixed congregation and prayers for women).

(6) Beating the wife

[Quran 4:34] "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, beacuse Allah
has given the one more (strength)(misinterpreted as superior) than the other, and
because they support them from their means. Thereforem the righteous women are
devoutly obedient and guard in(the husband's) absence against what Allah would
have them guard. As to those women on whose part you fear disloyality and ill
conduct, admonish them (first), (next) do not share their beds, (and last) beat (tap)
them lightly; but if they return to obedience ,seek not against them means(of
annoyance); for Allah is Most High, Great (above you all)"

According to hadith, it is not permissible to strike anyone's face, cause bodily harm
or even be harsh. "Dharban ghayra mubarrih" is interpreted (symbolic) as light
striking using a meswak. This striking is supposed to be as a last resort. So which
interpretation should we accept: should the wives be beaten for their lewdness or
refusal to listen to the husbands or is it just a symbolic term meant to warn
husbands not to touch their wives, but if they do so then in a symbolic manner? If
there is no possibility of reconcialation, then it is better to get a divorce. This
interpretation is often hazy no matter what the muslim scholars say. What does
theology say about this verse?

(7) Different versions of Quran

It is a well known fact that Quran was sent down in seven ahrufs. And Allah has
promised to safeguard the Quran itself. However it is also an undeniable fact that
currently in the world there exists four different textual versions of Quran.They
differ only in diacritcal marks, but still they are graphically different. These available
versions are: Hafs, Warsh, Al-Duri and Qalun. These are different recitations of the
seven ahrufs in which the quran was revealed. And the Quran available now are the
texual form of these various recitations from the seven final recitors.

We muslims claim that Quran is one and hasn't been changed since it's revealation.
However from graphical point of view that is not correct. How do we explain these
different recitations when third Caliph Uthman sent an official copy of Quran to all
parts of the muslim world (the reproduction of the copy kept in possession of
Hafsa). Wasn't the whole idea behind it was to have one copy of Quran that
follows the ahruf belonging to the Quraish? If not then what happened to other
types of ahrufs? Isn't it time this common knowledge that Quran is in only one
texual format be laid to rest and acknowledged that several different ahrufs exist at
the present?

(8) Satanic Verses

[Quran 53:19,20] "Have you thought upon Lot and Uzza and Manat, the third, the
other?"
[Satanic Verses] "They are the exalted birds, and their intercession is desired
indeed."

I come from a muslim country so didn't have access to the Satanic verses before. It
is alleged that the following Quranic verse refutes the Satanic verses.
[Quran 53:21,22] "Shall He have daughters and you sons? That would be a fine
division!"

The alleged explanation given by muslim clerics is that at that time girl infants were
buried to hide the parent's shame. This disallowed that practice.

[Quran 22:52,53] "Never sent We a messanger or prophet before thee; but when
He recited(the message) Satan proposed (opposition) in respect of that which he
recited thereof. But Allah abolishes that Satan proposes. Then Allah establishes his
revealations. Allah is knower, Wise. That he may make that which the devil
proposes a temptation for those in whose hearts is a adisease, and those whose
hearts are hardened-Lo! the evil doers are in open schism."

Isn't it suggested that Satan can distort the divine message?
[Quran 2:106 cf. 16:101] "Such of our revealations as we abrogate or cause to
be forgotten. We bring (in place) one better or the like thereof. Knowest thou not
that Allah is able to do all things."

Isn't it suggested that Allah can reveal a better verse in place of another? Or is it
suggesting that in pace of the distorted Divine Books of the Jews and the
Christians, Allah can send a better one? Where in the Quran has a previous verse
been replaced by another? There are references that the Prophet can err (e.g
honey incident, Aisha's chastity incident etc.) too. So why can't such a thing be
even concidered here? As muslims, are we showing dissent or are we trying to put
a bind eye to that?

Muslim Scholars who agree that Satanic verses was revealed are as follows
1."Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir" by Ibn Sa'd, translated by S.Moinul Huq
2."Sirat Rasulullah" (The life of Allah's Prophet) by Ibn Ishaq, translated by A.
Guillaume
3. Tabari's History- published by SUNY and translated by Watt

These muslim scholars are highly regarded in the muslim world. Are we to conclude
that they are lying?

Anybody out there with enough insight, please feel free to get in touch with me at: rkibria@yahoo.com.au