Does Qur'an say husbands can HIT their wives?
-
I do not know when in the history of the Arabic language daraba came to have the meaning of beating someone, BUT what I know is that in the generous Qur'an never appears with that meaning...
If you don't know then how can you be so sure it doesn't mean hit?
I not only speak, read and write Arabic but studied classical Arabic and Qur'anic Tafseer was my specialist subject that I took to Phd level. Darba can have several meanings - both metaphorical and literal. Depending on the context, the object/predicate and the preposition or lack of it can mean to hit, strike, bang, beat, smite, sting, strike up a similitude/proverb/example, avoid, pass over, go forth, travel, divide, perform, mix, play (a musical instrument), impose (a tax), pitch a tent, fix, seize, prevent from hearing, multiply, lean/incline and more...
In my first post I gave examples in the Qur'an where it means "hit/strike"
-
And I would say even more, that while historically muslim misoginy may have needed that "beat" to make it look as the husband had some authority so that such an authority nowhere else to be fouund in the qur'an could be upheld, in fact it wa always on the understanding that it was a mere simbolical hitting with a toothbrush or the like. Only recently there seems to be plenty of people who seem to want to include in the "beat" any range of abuse. THAT IS NEW. Abd again that does not reveal anything about the Qur'an but does reveal about those who uphold that kind of readings.
Salaam
All the scholars for 1400 years up to today - said it means hit. Most Muslims follow the hadith of the prophet that says the hitting must be "Ghayr Mubarrih" not harsh - and so interpret it as a light hit/tap with a miswak or a feather or whatever - that's is fine! But this is not the point under discussion here - the point is that it says "hit". If it were to have another metaphorical meaning it would need some qualification. But there is no evidence in that verse to show it has some other meaning.
If it is so clear that it doesn't mean "hit" but has some other metaphorical sense then why is it not one single scholar for 1400 years ever said that?
Do you know more than them and more than most Arabic scholars today?
btw - what does the verse mean to you?
-
Ok. Start with the oldest scholar you know with name and cite him or her with acknowledged source. We will see about those 1400 years. However, you have no answe to the fact that of all the uses of daraba in the Qur'an none means beat, physical beat. So no matter what scholars hoy have not brought to bear on the question, the Qur'an is there and it doesn't support you. And yes, the "scholars" can be wrong. Everbody can be wrong and of course scholars have been provenly wrong on other things. But the Qur'an is not wrong.
And you seem to derive an awful amount of enjoyment out of having the Qur'an meaning beat and you do not want the fun to be spoilt. Understandable.
Salaam
-
Ok. Start with the oldest scholar you know with name and cite him or her with acknowledged source. We will see about those 1400 years. However, you have no answe to the fact that of all the uses of daraba in the Qur'an none means beat, physical beat. So no matter what scholars hoy have not brought to bear on the question, the Qur'an is there and it doesn't support you. And yes, the "scholars" can be wrong. Everbody can be wrong and of course scholars have been provenly wrong on other things. But the Qur'an is not wrong.
And you seem to derive an awful amount of enjoyment out of having the Qur'an meaning beat and you do not want the fun to be spoilt. Understandable.
Salaam
Every single scholar without exception says it means "Hit" (I avoid using the word beat as it is a little 'loaded'. For example Tabari, Ibn Kathir, Qurtubi, Zamakhshari, Baydawi, Suyuti....
I said that in my first post I quoted verses in qur'an that mean "hit" here they are again
"They hit their faces and their backs"
(8.50)
"Hit the necks" (chop their heads off)
(47.4)
"Hit it"
-
All the scholars for 1400 years up to today - said it means hit.
And have you studied the hundreds of scripts from various early commentators to make such a claim?
Perhaps you meant most popular or well known commentators, which is fair enough.
Of course, if you had read the article, you would have seen the part mentioning this, with source. But I guess your skim reading aint so hot.
Most Muslims follow the hadith of the prophet that says the hitting must be "Ghayr Mubarrih" not harsh - and so interpret it as a light hit/tap with a miswak or a feather or whatever - that's is fine!
Are you sure they follow the hadith on this issue? Perhaps if you read the article, which cites the contradictions within the traditional sources, you'd see what I mean. But I guess your skim reading aint so hot.
-
Every single scholar without exception says it means "Hit" (I avoid using the word beat as it is a little 'loaded'. For example Tabari, Ibn Kathir, Qurtubi, Zamakhshari, Baydawi, Suyuti....
I said that in my first post I quoted verses in qur'an that mean "hit" here they are again
"They hit their faces and their backs"
(8.50)
"Hit the necks" (chop their heads off)
(47.4)
"Hit it"
Of course nobody here is out t convince you of anything. We realise you enjoy the Qur'an saying beat the wife. Why, I do not know, but oddly you seem to. That is your business. But if you are out to convince some others, the point is that this answer of yours is wrong as you would have realised, had you read the site that was given to you at the begining of the thread.
And if you are out to convince anybody else you should have answered the question I put and not evaded it with generalities. It is was very clear. I, unlike you, am a very ignorant person and I do not have much idea of the century in which all those peoplo you mentioned lived. So again, to start orderly I repeat the question and ask you to "Start with the oldest scholar you know with name and cite him or her with acknowledged source".
Also some proof that at the time of revelation the common use of daraba was indeed to beat. You have also skipped that. You see may be you are right. I have no prejudice one way or the other. But I do need to know whether that is for a fact or mere conjecture. From the Qur'an I do not get that for a fact, but if you can bring any other proof, I am certainly interested to know.
Salaam
-
Of course nobody here is out t convince you of anything. We realise you enjoy the Qur'an saying beat the wife. Why, I do not know, but oddly you seem to. That is your business. But if you are out to convince some others, the point is that this answer of yours is wrong as you would have realised, had you read the site that was given to you at the begining of the thread.
And if you are out to convince anybody else you should have answered the question I put and not evaded it with generalities. It is was very clear. I, unlike you, am a very ignorant person and I do not have much idea of the century in which all those peoplo you mentioned lived. So again, to start orderly I repeat the question and ask you to "Start with the oldest scholar you know with name and cite him or her with acknowledged source".
Also some proof that at the time of revelation the common use of daraba was indeed to beat. You have also skipped that. You see may be you are right. I have no prejudice one way or the other. But I do need to know whether that is for a fact or mere conjecture. From the Qur'an I do not get that for a fact, but if you can bring any other proof, I am certainly interested to know.
Salaam
How about Muhammad himself saying that this "Hitting should not be a harsh hitting."
Or companions such as Ibn ?Abbaas who said "the hitting should be with a siwaak and the like."
Or Tabari one of the earliest Mufassirs "The type of hitting allowed by Allah upon the wife is a hitting that is not severe."
Or Ibn Kathir who said that "this verse means that if they don't respond to the admonishment or separating in bed then one can hit them a hitting that is not severe."
And I could go on and show you every single tafseer or book of the scholars because they ALL say it means "hit" - but I hope that is enough...
Maybe you should read what they say for yourself instead of making Islam suit your own desires?
-
How about Muhammad himself saying that this "Hitting should not be a harsh hitting."
Or companions such as Ibn ?Abbaas who said "the hitting should be with a siwaak and the like."
Or Tabari one of the earliest Mufassirs "The type of hitting allowed by Allah upon the wife is a hitting that is not severe."
Or Ibn Kathir who said that "this verse means that if they don't respond to the admonishment or separating in bed then one can hit them a hitting that is not severe."
And I could go on and show you every single tafseer or book of the scholars because they ALL say it means "hit" - but I hope that is enough...
Maybe you should read what they say for yourself instead of making Islam suit your own desires?
No, that is not it. First you have not put a date on anything and we know that hadith cannot be traced further back than close to two centuries after revelation. Besides, just for throughness sake you should have put the Arabic of those texts you are giving, because we are not talking about "hitting" but about daraba. You haven't put a date on those tafsirs either and you have not brought any proof that daraba at the time of revelation meant beat, and since the Qur'an does not support "beat" really you have to do better than that. And also, If I don't remember wrong those tafsirs have already been taken care of in the text that you were advised to read and that you found too long. So you are telling us on the other hand that you read those whole tafsirs you mention? I think you are serving us cold some rests of the "Aswering islam" or similar.
Also you know that you are in Quranist forum and that is not for nothing, that is because simply hadiz are not unimpeachable sources of anything. How do you expect to clinch the question serving us some hadith as well.
I think you already have shown that you cannot bring up any evidence to support you rlove for the beating wife formula, so unless you can come with some outrageous miracle I wont' add any more messages to this thread.
Salaam
-
Peace,
I'll copy and paste one analysis of a verse from Wakas's paper that should show the flaw with how you interpret cases of Daraba. It includes a Muhammad Asad note as well. But, you should still read Wakas's entire paper (or skim it for reals).
Also, we keep talking about tafseers and what not as foundational sources in and of themselves when we have to understand how far detached these folks were from the actual formation of the quran. They are offering their own interpretations as well. I am not that convinced that these traditionalists have any more insight (other than their own intelligence and creativity) in understanding the Quran than others do.
The above is commonly translated as "strike him (the murdered person) with part of it (the heifer/cow)" taken from the previous verses. The traditional commentators say this act brought the murdered person back to life and he identified his murderers in this case. However, this understanding becomes extremely weak when all the evidence is taken into account, which we will now analyse, beginning with an accurate translation according to the Arabic
M=masculine
F=feminine
P=plural
S=singularAnd when you (M,P) killed a soul (F,S), then you (M,P) accused each other in it (F,S), and God shall bring out what you (M,P) were hiding/concealing.
So We said "idriboo him (M,S) with some of it (F,S)." Like this God revives the dead (P) and He makes you realise His signs/revelations, maybe you reason/comprehend.Please read M.Asad's notes on the above
Muhammad Asad - End Note 57 (273)
The phrase idribuhu bi-ba'diha can be literally translated as "strike him with something of her " -and this possibility has given rise to the fanciful assertion by many commentators that the children of Israel were commanded to strike the corpse of the murdered man with some of the flesh of the sacrificed cow, whereupon he was miraculously restored to life and pointed out his murderer! Neither the Qur'an, nor any saying of the Prophet, nor even the Bible offers the slightest warrant for this highly imaginative explanation, which must, therefore, be rejected-quite apart from the fact that the pronoun hu in idribuhu has a masculine gender, while the noun nafs (here translated as "human being" is feminine in gender from which it follows that the imperative idribuhu cannot possibly refer to nafs. On the other hand, the verb daraba (lit., "he struck" is very often used in a figurative or metonymic sense, as, for instance, in the expression daraba fi 'l-ard ("he journeyed on earth", or daraba 'sh-shay' bi'sh-shay' ("he mixed one thing with another thing", or daraba mathal ("he coined a similitude" or "propounded a parable" or "gave an illustration", orala darb wahid ("similarly applied" or "in the same manner", or duribatalayhim adh-dhillah ("humiliation was imposed on them" or "applied to them", and so forth. Taking all this into account, I am of the opinion that the imperative idribuhu occurring in the above Qur'anic passage must be translated as "apply it" or "this" (referring, in this context, to the principle of communal responsibility). As for the feminine pronoun ha in ba'diha ("some of it", it must necessarily relate to the nearest preceding feminine noun-that is, to the nafs that has been murdered, or the act of murder itself about which (fiha) the community disagreed. Thus, the phrase idribuhu bi-ba'diha may be suitably rendered as "apply this to some of those " for it is obvious that the principle of communal responsibility for murder by a person or persons unknown can be applied only to some and not to all such cases.Muhammad Asad - End Note 58 (273)
Lit., "God gives life to the dead and shows you His messages" (i.e., He shows His will by means of such messages or ordinances). The figurative expression "He gives life to the dead" denotes the saving of lives, and is analogous to that in 532 . In this context it refers to the prevention of bloodshed and the killing of innocent persons (Manar I, 351), be it through individual acts of revenge, or in result of an erroneous judicial process based on no more than vague suspicion and possibly misleading circumstantial evidence. -
Also, we keep talking about tafseers and what not as foundational sources in and of themselves when we have to understand how far detached these folks were from the actual formation of the quran...
And then you quote a modern tafseer that is even more removed from the time of Muhammad lol
Muhammad Asad... the fact that the pronoun hu in idribuhu has a masculine gender, while the noun nafs (here translated as "human being" is feminine in gender
That's because it's not referring to nafs = soul.
It's referring to the body of the person murdered.
In English you wouldn't say "he killed a soul". Then they hit it with part of it - meaning the soul - it is obviously referring to the body of the murdered person.
But hey I'm just following the majority of the classical tafseers - and not the modern tafseer of Muhammad Asad.
Here's the tafseer of Tabari (I know it only dates back to the 9th Century when Muhammad Asad is from the 20th Century - but hey! )
{ } { }
So is this the great link that explains all - that you guys have been banging on about? lol
-
cosmicdancer,
Nice to see you ignore my reference to contradiction in hadith.
Putting aside your assumption of the murdered person being male, hence male body, hence masculine, let's analyse your weird translation
That's because it's not referring to nafs = soul.
It's referring to the body of the person murdered.
In English you wouldn't say "he killed a soul". Then they hit it with part of it - meaning the soul - it is obviously referring to the body of the murdered person
.So they hit the murdered person's dead body with part of the soul?
Please clarify your nonsensical translation.
Thanks. ;D
ps - yget only part quoted the article on 273. He didn't even quote the best part of the analysis, I dont know why.
-
cosmicdancer,
Nice to see you ignore my reference to contradiction in hadith.
Putting aside your assumption of the murdered person being male, hence male body, hence masculine, let's analyse your weird translation
.So they hit the murdered person's dead body with part of the soul?
Please clarify your nonsensical translation.
Thanks. ;D
ps - yget only part quoted the article on 273. He didn't even quote the best part of the analysis, I dont know why.
Not sure what you don't understand - do you understand Arabic?
And when you killed a soul
So We said "Strike it (the body) with a piece of it (the cow).
-
ps - yget only part quoted the article on 273. He didn't even quote the best part of the analysis, I dont know why.
Peace Wakas,
Our friend was being stubborn and has an infatuation with authority so I thought I would quote the portion with the Muhammad Asad endnote. I will restate what I said initially; this part I quoted is a small part of a comprehensive case that should actually be read, not "skimmed.". No slight intended.
Peace -
And then you quote a modern tafseer that is even more removed from the time of Muhammad
Peace cdancer,
I hate to act like i know you but you seem to have characteristically missed the point again. What I have gleaned from many of your posts is that you believe that a bunch of tafseers that agree adds to the truth value of your belief concerning the translation of daraba. My point was that these tafseers writing fellas were just as detached from the formation of the Quran as we are. So, they do not have some insight other than their own genius that we do not. Thus, your argument from consensus does not support the truth value of your claim. To do that you have to address others arguments.
I'm going to sum this up for you since you love to skim. Just because a lot of people said the world is flat did not make it truthful. The tafseers folks are interpeting just like us.Peace
P.S. I think Wakas is quite right. Your interpretation of 287 leads to an awkward translation but wakas is far better equipped to argue there than myself.
-
Sorry, it seems that I did something wrong and the text I wrote for reply 64 did not come out.
What I said amounted to that for someone who criticises somebody else's Arabic, post 63 is a real treat to free expression, free cows, free parts of cows or heifers, free souls, free bodies, free grammar, free concordances, free transgendering and free nonsensing. And the final result of those allfree efforts, as to meaning, is hilarious. At least I have enjoyed it.
Salaam
-
cosmicdancer,
Thanks for clarifying with
So We said "Strike it (the body) with a piece of it (the cow).
As previously you said this which was worded poorly, hence the clarification request
Then they hit it with part of it - meaning the soul - it is obviously referring to the body of the murdered person
I can understand why you and commentators choose the cow as the feminine referred to, but since you know Arabic, you will know exactly what the closest preceding feminine actually is, just as I do. Not only does choosing "cow" cause an internal problem within The Quran, it does not match the logic/grammar/flow/etc. All of which is discussed in the article.... so, as I said, I recommend improving your skim reading skills.
-
cosmicdancer,
Thanks for clarifying with
As previously you said this which was worded poorly, hence the clarification requestI can understand why you and commentators choose the cow as the feminine referred to, but since you know Arabic, you will know exactly what the closest preceding feminine actually is, just as I do. Not only does choosing "cow" cause an internal problem within The Quran, it does not match the logic/grammar/flow/etc. All of which is discussed in the article.... so, as I said, I recommend improving your skim reading skills.
I don't see any 'internal problem' - nor any mismatch in logic, grammar, flow etc... in the translation that has been the recognised one by all the scholars and still is today. To me it looks spot on!
But I'm not sure what point you are trying to make and how that has any bearing on whether the Qur'an allows a man to hit his wife or not?
btw - just in case anyone here doesn't realise I do NOT for one minute actually believe that God would allow a man to hit his wife. I believe a man from the 7th century allowed it though. A man who genuinely believed he was in communication with God. (He wasn't the first and wont be the last.)
