Does Qur'an say husbands can HIT their wives?
-
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.)
-
Well, a person who skim reads will often not see any 'internal problem' or mismatch or be unsure of the point another is trying to make, thus, I reiterate, I recommend improving your skim reading skills.
Hey Wakkas - off topic I know, forgive me - but have you always held these views? Were your parents more traditional Muslims? Have you ever wondered whether the Qur'an is in fact man-made - and God (if there is one) has not sent down holy books but just left us to do the best we can and he will not be judging anyone harshly?
-
Also where are you from/live? How old are you? And what languages do you speak?
I am from UK - my dad was from Egypt - my mum from England. I'll be 51 in May. I speak Arabic and English. I was Muslim all my life but eventually rejected Islam about 3 years ago.
If you or anyone is interested I wrote my life story here (and link to it in my sig)
http//abooali.wordpress.com/
-
We have something in common then, I also reject Islam (capital "I" that is).
Care to elaborate? I'm not trying to catch you out or score points, Wakkas - I'm genuinely interested and would also like to hear more about you - eg the questions I asked above.
-
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?
Unbelievable...For someone who is such an expert in Arabic, you are seeming quite clueless in this debate. Just a hint, if a non hit definition of daraba requires a preposition or an abstract noun, you do not want me to be right about 287.
Peace -
Unbelievable...For someone who is such an expert in Arabic, you are seeming quite clueless in this debate. Just a hint, if a non hit definition of daraba requires a preposition or an abstract noun, you do not want me to be right about 287.
PeaceSo your saying that your whole argument on 4.34 hangs on that interpretation by Muhammad Asad?
I understand now your obsession with Muhammads Asad's translation of this verse, sorry - but I have never come across it before and it never occured to me anyone could translate it this way.
So let me see if I understand you correctly - you are saying that this verse
So We said "Strike the (body) with a piece of the (cow)."
really means this
"So we said apply this (principle) to some of those (cases of unresolved murder)"
And because daraba is used directly without any qualification to mean something non-literal that shows that 4.34 is also non-literal.
Is that right?
Putting aside the fact that it doesn't prove 4.34 is non-literal - it's easy to see why traditional scholars understood the pronoun it after hit means the body of the deceased since it is talking about a murdered person - and it is obvious why the pronoun it after some refers to the cow - because the preceding 5 verses are all about sacrificing this cow.
So what is the evidence or reason for assuming it means principle and cases of unresolved murder?
And what principle is it talking about?
-
off topic I know, forgive me - but have you always held these views? Were your parents more traditional Muslims? Have you ever wondered whether the Qur'an is in fact man-made - and God (if there is one) has not sent down holy books but just left us to do the best we can and he will not be judging anyone harshly?
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.)
Salaam,
Sorry to butt in and answer your questions even though the questions were not directed to me. First, you stated in your blog that you are not telling anyone what to believe and that everyone should re-examine their beliefs and embrace it with their hearts and mind. Anyway, it appears to me, that you are actually doing the opposite. You have a problem of a Qur'anic verse where it says the men are allowed to 'hit' their wives if they are not obedient. In case you are not aware already, we believe that verse is not about hitting the wives physically, like many traditional Muslims like to believe. We wouldn't think that God will allow such treatment to wives, especially when 419 tells the husbands not to treat their wives with harshness.
Therefore we re-examine that verse, and come to conclusion that the word has different meanings other than 'hitting'. Most translators translate it as 'hitting' not because that's what it actually means, but they already have pre-conceptions that the word means 'hitting' as they have been exposed to many hadiths that say about husbands hitting the wives. Let me give you an analogy, even though it's a silly one. There are two girls talking to each other and one of them (Anna) says, "You know, my dress is so hot." The other one (Maria) is led to think that Anna means, "the dress is hot, temperature wise" because Maria is raised in an environment where the temperature is constantly hot in temperature, whereas Anna might actually say that her dress is in-fashion/cool (hot being the colloquial term for in-fashion/cool). Since the girls have different frame of minds, their take of certain words are different. The same case may apply to translators, because they grow up learning about hadiths and the experience has shaped their way of thinking.
That being said, we did our re-examination of the Al-Qur'an, that's way in some cases, our understanding differs from the 'scholars'. We come to understanding that there is not such thing as hitting the wives and any other injustice. However, you kept insisting that the scholars can NOT be wrong, you insist that the word MUST mean hitting. You insist that the Qur'an allows men to hit their wives. It seems that you want the word to mean hitting because that way, you can raise an argument that the Qur'an is man made since it promotes injustice. It seems that you want us to abandon the Qur'an rather than 're-examining our beliefs'. We already have re-examined and still in the process of separating God's words and human's interpretations. On the other hand, you told us that our re-examination is not the same as classical commentators and scholars.
It is up to you if you believe that God has left it up to us to be good. However, the definition of good is different in one environment to another, one period of time to another. Up to few hundred years ago, people do not have problems with slavery and yet, we now condemn slavery. Qur'an has already encouraged the people to free the slaves 1400 years ago. We live in an era where most people are okay with paying ridiculous amount of interest by using credit card, thinking it's just how the society works. Yet many people suffer from this economic system. Qur'an condemns devouring usury 1400 years ago. People few hundred years ago thought it was honourable and good to sacrifice their female children, and Qur'an condemns such practice. And we know believe that human sacrifice is barbaric.
I believe God sent down Qur'an to give general outline what we should do to improve our society, leaving us to determine how much we want to commit. Qur'an tells to give charity, and yet it doesn't specify how much (contrary to the widely-believed view of 2.5% charity), and tells us not to be stingy and not to be too generous.
That is my view anyway, feel free to not read or disregard everything I have said because I do not understand Arabic like you do
Salaam.
-
double post.
