You shall beat your wife
-
Oh but it is not ambiguous, but any word can become ambifuous if you decide tomake it so, and even if you decide to completele change its jedimeaning.
Youhave to check the Qur'an and you will se that it is not ambiguous.
Salaam
What is your evidence that it is not ambiguous? It is traditionslly translated as 'beat', overwhelmingly so and there are ahadith that prove that ppl have traditionally translated it as 'beat' for many hundreds of years, not just in one sect, but universally. How do you account for such a strong history of interpretation of this word? You think the vast majority of muslim scholars were deliberately mistranslating this word and risking the repercussions of that? What makes you qualified to interpret it differently? What makes you think some 21st century self styled scholar can make a better determination about that than the most educated scholars more than a thousand years closer to the time of its original revelation? This isnt a sectarian issue, its a 'what is more likely' issue given the wait of evidence that this word has always been interpretated as 'beat'.
So it seems to me you have 2 choices, you either accept the wait of historical evidence and there fore liklihoid that it is 'beat', or accept that it was an ambiguous word to use in the first place.
-
read the site that I guess has been cited in this thread and if not in other threads I think it is
http//www.quran434.com/wife-beating-islam.htmlOn the other hand I can't see what you find so surprising about. The Qur'an is full of such instances in which things have been, since very long ago, twisted to unrecognition.
And not such unanimity on the thing either. That is what is always purported when one wants to impose a certain vew of things.
Look at that site.
Most of the things that could be said are there.
On the other hand, you insist on what people have said, look at what the Qur'an said, it is there it is complete, it has nto disappeared.
Salaam
Salaam -
Peace,
Thats a weird statement to me. Nisa is already used in plural form in the 12th chapter.
Quran 1230 & 1231, transliteration
Waqala niswatun fee almadeenati imraatu alAAazeezi turawidu fataha AAan nafsihi qad shaghafaha hubban inna lanaraha fee dalalin mubeeninFalamma samiAAat bimakrihinna arsalat ilayhinna waaAAtadat lahunna muttakaan waatat kulla wahidatin minhunna sikkeenan waqalati okhruj AAalayhinna falamma raaynahu akbarnahu waqattaAAna aydiyahunna waqulna hasha lillahi ma hatha basharan in hatha illa malakun kareemun
May God guide us all
I think WITT means that nisaa' does not necessrily mean only females.
Look at this verse and see the ctegories of "nisaa'"( 4127)
Verse 434 definitely does not speak of men and women, but of bread winners and those who do not work for a reason or another. Expenditure is a prerequisite of guardianship/ qiwama. Immediately the verse gives example of two female rijaal. Remember that God gave an example of 2 females for the "mu'minuun" and an example of 2 females for the "kafiruun". Since verse 434 is talking about "rijaal", we should presume that the 2 examples of females are for these rijaal who are qawwamuun.
-
I seek refuge in God from Satan the rejected
Peace,
I don't need anyone to tell me what nisaa means. I use it too often to refer to women in my language.
In verse 41 we see that both rijal and nisaa are used.Telling me nisaa is not about women is like telling me a female is not a woman!
Peace
-
Peace
A female is not necessarily a woman!!
But they have the same gender. You probably got what I meant. But somehow you try to escape the interpretation of nisaa to mean women, because you don't like what God has revealed?
Don't worry I don't even have a wife and even if I had I would never beat her because the word tharaba is used in different ways. 1424 is one of such example. I would keep her undamaged so I can have lunch and dinner with her eat.
By the way, what holds you back from returning back greetings?
Peace
-
I'm not an Arabic speaker, but surely there must be an arabic word that means 'separate' that is not so ambiguous that it could be interpreted as 'beat'? i cant seem to get away from that confusion about this verse. If it doesnt mean 'beat' or 'strike', then why was a word used that is so open to interpretation to be interpreted as 'beat' in the first place. If an ambiguous word is used youre going to have that risk.
Is there a less ambiguous word than adribu that could have been used to indicate separate? if so, how can this be reconciled?
-
peace,
WhereIsTheTruth,
sorry, didn't see your question. Determining whom it is referring to is primarily based on context/logic, not the use of a certain word. For example, if one researches use of "nisa/women" this is commonly used in Quran as a reference to one's wife. Also research the word "imraat". Some have said 434 is not referring to wife, but then they are forced to come up with explanations for various issues, creating other problems, e.g. see here.chickpea,
In my view, by far, the most comprehensive article on the subject is www.Quran434.com -
Chickpea
peace,
-
The fault is not with the text, using words that people find confusing. The problem lies with the person, all of us,who interprets it. The issue lies in one's understanding. Some people don't want to understand. Some people are too lazy to find out and just follow the masses. Some people can't get past their current understanding due to some specific hang-up/belief that acts as a block. We can all advance in understanding and knowledge, as long as we sincerely desire to... and give it time. We have to get close to the text. It is not the text that is expected to get close to us. The responsibility is on us, not on the text. The text will not be clear to absolutely everyone. Why? Because we are all different. This means WE have to work on our comprehension. The text is what it is, and it is fine.
-
Even if many people understood a thing in a certain way, e.g. as "beat", and it has been recorded in "history", then this does not make it the correct understanding. It just makes it the prevalent and common understanding, but not necessarily the correct one. Those are two very different things. We must be very careful not to associate credibility with the number of people following a certain idea.
E.g. violence, wife-beating, killing, robbery, theft, fraud... is very very common. Does it make it right? Just because some people don't mind that 'daraba' would mean "beat", it doesn't make it fine. It just makes it sad. Sad that people don't mind the idea of beating wives.
Another example... if we should go by numbers, then we should all convert to christianity, or perhaps atheism... so numbers don't mean a thing. Just because history if FULL of christians, must we take it as the correct set of beliefs?
All the best!
sun -
-
- Even if many people understood a thing in a certain way, e.g. as "beat", and it has been recorded in "history", then this does not make it the correct understanding. It just makes it the prevalent and common understanding, but not necessarily the correct one. Those are two very different things. We must be very careful not to associate credibility with the number of people following a certain idea.
It's not an idea though it's language. It's a word's meaning. The common usage is exactly what allows language to function.
If "soda" is used as a word for a carbonated soft drink for thousands of years and then all of a sudden a small group of people decide that "soda" actually means a type of hamburger that makes no sense.
When I go to a restaurant and order a soda they know I want a drink.
If they come to my table and bring me a hamburger when I ask for a soda I'm going to wonder what the hell is going on. If they tell me that the common usage of "soda" is wrong and that in their restaurant "soda" means hamburger I'm going to think they're crazy.
-
It's not an idea though it's language. It's a word's meaning. The common usage is exactly what allows language to function.
If "soda" is used as a word for a carbonated soft drink for thousands of years and then all of a sudden a small group of people decide that "soda" actually means a type of hamburger that makes no sense.
When I go to a restaurant and order a soda they know I want a drink.
If they come to my table and bring me a hamburger when I ask for a soda I'm going to wonder what the hell is going on. If they tell me that the common usage of "soda" is wrong and that in their restaurant "soda" means hamburger I'm going to think they're crazy.
rotfl
sun
-
Many words in every language through history have acquired through different means a different sense from the one they had. I can't see why this sudden impossibility for a word from Qur'an to do so especially when there are vested interests for it to undergo that change.
This impossibility for some people to see that and to use their head to extract the meaning of a word when the whole context is there to make it clear and the whole usage of Qur'an is also there is their impossibility. To go on erring that it is the language and not them shows they just have made up their mind and that is it.
Well no, that is not it. Since they want it to be that, but must deep down be unsure themselves that they are right, they keep on and on and on like a battery ad, persisting that they are right and all the others are wrong. They need that reinforcement.
Well, faithful-jinn, you want to believe something, go ahead, but the insistence that every one should agree with you, if anything, goes to show that you are not sure and need others to applaud your cleverness.
If, as you say, the majority believe what you believe, why should you need that absolutely everybody should agree with you? Be happy with your majority. It is the majority, what more do you want?
Salaam
-
Dear all
Last night when I was trying to sleep I started wondering about verse 434 and there has been a lot of debate about "beating" of the wife. The Quran found on f-m has translated it as "separated"
The men are to support the women with what God has bestowed upon them over one another and for what they spend of their money. The upright females are dutiful; keeping private the personal matters for what God keeps watch over. As for those females from whom you fear desertion, then you shall advise them, and abandon them in the bedchamber, and separate from them. If they respond to you, then do not seek a way over them; God is Most High, Great.
But alot of other Qurans it says beat, although with brackets explaining "lightly" or "with a toothbrush" or "symbolic". All those are interpretations with hadith influence.
But yesterday it came into my mind "It doesn't matter what the right translation is. It could be "beat" or "separate" because the level of force allowed is already mentioned in the Quran"
God does not allow for aggression. Next part I took from the submitters since they collected all verses in one place
You may fight in the cause of GOD against those who attack you, but do not aggress. GOD does not love the aggressors.
You may kill those who wage war against you, and you may evict them whence they evicted you. Oppression is worse than murder. Do not fight them at the Sacred Masjid, unless they attack you therein. If they attack you, you may kill them. This is the just retribution for those disbelievers.
If they refrain, then GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.
You may also fight them to eliminate oppression, and to worship GOD freely. If they refrain, you shall not aggress; aggression is permitted only against the aggressors.*All fighting is regulated by the basic rule in 608-9. Fighting is allowed strictly in self-defense, while aggression and oppression are strongly condemned throughout the Quran.
O you who believe, do not prohibit good things that are made lawful by GOD, and do not aggress; GOD dislikes the aggressors.
If they resort to peace, so shall you, and put your trust in GOD. He is the Hearer, the Omniscient.
... if they leave you alone, refrain from fighting you, and offer you peace, then GOD gives you no excuse to fight them
If you raise your hand against your wife, it is aggression. Therefore not permissable. There are no contradictions in the Quran. So if there is any debate what "beat" really means, you know the absolute limit Allah has shown. A strike or inflicting of pain or any form of aggression is not allowed.
If you read the beginning of that verse it talks about fear. yet the Quran when talking about sexual misconduct specifically mentioned accusation. Yet even then it said bring forth witnesses and said spousal accusations should also be dealt with in the same manner. So how can the Quran demand you to take punitive action on fear alone?
-
I think that historically, the reason why the whole aya 4.34 was twisted and given the interpretation that has been handed down as "the" interpretation was to give a foundation to the assertion of marital authority. Marital authority has been asserted and recognized in many civilisations. It has been one of the basic juridical structures of them, certainly in European Christian civilisation. The woman was put under the tutelage of the husband just as if she was one more child. Paternal authority and marital authority were practically one unit.
It was also so amongst most of the people in which islam came into contact. It was amonst the Arabs.
The Qur'an nowhere establishes such authority, nowhere does it give any ground, whether tehological or of any other kind for such thing, and white the opposite, literally establish equality amongs all people and consultation as the basis for human undertakings.
This seemed to be inadmissible for the societies to which the Qur'an came, and therefore, jurists applied to find in the Qur'an those ayas that could lend themselves to be taken to grant marital authority. The reesponsibility, the duty to give material support to the women, was transformed in the tutelage of the women, and thir coming under the authority of the husband. Conveniently later in the aya the admonition to self explanation and communication with the wife of whatever grievance was tranformed en beat in spite of grammar and usage, and the trick was played. There you have the marital authority, enthronized. The idea was not to give anybody the authority to beat anybody, because as others have already pointed out, that would be agression, but it was a matter of principle, a matter of setting the authority of the male. I have never met muslims of whatever denomination who honestly think that the authority authorises the husband to beat the wife... Such idea of having the right to beat the wife at will is quite recent, just as some others bizarre ideas. But the important thing was setting the principle of male authority and that was attained.
So it makes a lot of sense, from an historical point of view in most patriarchal societies to subject any sacred text to some "treatment" so as to uphold what should be upheld.
But, by the miracle of the preservation of the Qur'an, we have the whole text. We have the whole ayas, and that aya 4.35 following 4.34 which makes it very clear, if anything else was needed, what 4.34 cannot mean. And whoever does not want to see that really has a problem with him or herself.
Tehre is also that aya in the Qur'an, which should be a guido for everything which says to take from the Qur'an, for each part of it, the best meaning. I somebody wants to take at all costs the wrost meaning, really that is his or her problem, not a problem of the Qur'an. And if they are a majority, good, for them, let them enjoy the satisfaction of being a majority. The Qur'an also says something about the "goodness" of the majority.
Many of us do not need a majority for anything. Nor the permission of anybody to think for ourselves, specially since the Qur'an keeps insisting on and on that we should use our heads, ponder, think, reflect. But if a majority keeps pounding that they KNOW and are sure of something, may be we should disobey the Qur'an and let that majority dictate what we should think and believe.
Really, for that kind of outcome, we doi not need a forum nor a discussion, nor need anything, just hear and be a good robot.
Salaam
-
I don't follow an immoral book just because it claims to be from a higher power. Now as for me needing others to believe what I believe? That's wrong. I don't care if other people don't believe what I do I'm simply voicing my own opinions and counter-arguments and will continue to do so. I don't seek anyone's approval. If I did I wouldn't be on this forum. I find it interesting that so many "Muslims" on this board feel the need to personally make jabs at me when I present counter-arguments. Are you unable to attack my argument without attacking me? Very humble of you all angel
Now as for this statement
Many words in every language through history have acquired through different means a different sense from the one they had. I can't see why this sudden impossibility for a word from Qur'an to do so especially when there are vested interests for it to undergo that change.
I'm not disputing this and it's a credible argument. Word meanings change over time. Is this the case here though or is there a vested interest in consciously changing the meanings of words to be more accepted? I mean if a word changed down the line of history that's one thing but if a word changed because of the personal interests of a small group who wanted to change the meaning of Qur'an that's another one.
As for patriarchal societies trying to change the Qur'an... I don't think it's that simple. The Qur'an is a patriarchal and misogynistic book and Islam is a patriarchal and misogynistic religion. It's right there in the text. Patriarchal societies create patriarchal religions.
Your argument is that the Qur'an had to be "treated" to become patriarchal. It's actually the opposite. The Qur'an has to be "treated" to reinterpreted in a way that doesn't devalue women under men.
But for now I'll accept the position that this verse doesn't necessarily have to mean beat or strike women. Though that then begs the question is there multiple interpretations of verses according to our whims or personal interpretation or is there only one true interpretation. And if there is one true interpretation then why do the words of the Qur'an change meaning?
Can you offer an alternate translation for this verse?
2228
Yusuf Ali
Divorced women shall wait concerning themselves for three monthly periods. Nor is it lawful for them to hide what Allah Hath created in their wombs, if they have faith in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands have the better right to take them back in that period, if they wish for reconciliation. And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable; but men have a degree (of advantage) over them. And Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise. -
Peace Faithful Jinn.
It s me again. I am here to provide you with a different translation of
The divorced women shall wait three menstruations (before marrying another man). It is not lawful for them to conceal what God creates in their wombs, if they believe in God and the Last Day. (In case of pregnancy,) the husband's wishes shall supersede the wife's wishes( because of the pregnancy/ a child at stake), if he wants to remarry her. The women have rights, as well as obligations, equitably ( two parents are a better alternative for the child). Thus, the man's wishes prevail (in case of pregnancy). God is Almighty, Most Wise.
Peace.
-
Salam good logic
Let me now read the translation you provided without the man made insertions in brackets.
The divorced women shall wait three menstruations. It is not lawful for them to conceal what God creates in their wombs, if they believe in God and the Last Day. The husband's wishes shall supersede the wife's wishes, if he wants to remarry her. The women have rights, as well as obligations, equitably. Thus, the man's wishes prevail. God is Almighty, Most Wise.
In both cases the man's wishes are over the woman's.
Even if you take the perspective of this verse pertaining ONLY to pregnancy (which I don't know why you would), this verse still is questionable to my human reason.
Does it make ANY sense to you that in today's world a man should have any right to tell a woman what do with her own body? I mean in cases of pregnancy more than anything this woman is putting her life on the line and is carrying a life in her body for 9 MONTHS in order to bring a child into this world.
I cannot believe that this is divine wisdom.
