Quranic affirmation of corporal punishment relating to 4:34 and more
-
-
Corpus of the Grand Qur’ān - the Sustainer of truly living life
Translating Grand Qur’ān in the 21st century through Triplet Theory of Translation
http//haqeeqat.pk/Quran.Corpus-1.htm
So I'm reading here in this translation "Thereat, politely and lovingly advise them"
I'm just wondering if there are words there in the Arabic root etymologically corresponding to 'politely' and 'lovingly' and 'advising' in the case of what is seeming to correspond to فَعِظُوهُنَّ
And is there root etymological, word for word correspondence in the translation for "In response to any of aforesaid options given to you if they accepted your word; thereby, you should not pursue to find excuses against them." to the Arabic فَإِنْ أَطَعْنَكُـمْ فَلَا تَبْغُوا۟ عَلَيْـهِنَّ سَبِيلٙاۗ ?
Peace
-
So I'm reading here in this translation "Thereat, politely and lovingly advise them"
I'm just wondering if there are words there in the Arabic root etymologically corresponding to 'politely' and 'lovingly' and 'advising' in the case of what is seeming to correspond to فَعِظُوهُنَّ
And is there root etymological, word for word correspondence in the translation for "In response to any of aforesaid options given to you if they accepted your word; thereby, you should not pursue to find excuses against them." to the Arabic فَإِنْ أَطَعْنَكُـمْ فَلَا تَبْغُوا۟ عَلَيْـهِنَّ سَبِيلٙاۗ ?
Peace
Root و ع ظ
Ibn Faris stated
(مقاييس اللغة)
الواو والعين والظاء كلمةٌ واحدة. فالوَعْظ التخويف.
والعِظَة الاسمُ منه؛ قال الخليل هو التَّذكير بالخير وما يرقُّ له قلبُهThat it signifies discouragement; reminding, counseling with something good, benefaction and that which softens someone's heart.
http//haqeeqat.pk/roots/(1569).htm
فَإِنْ أَطَعْنَكُـمْ فَلَا تَبْغُوا۟ عَلَيْـهِنَّ سَبِيلٙاۗ
Particle فَ conjuncts to previous clauses, cause and effect.
-
My contention is that the Quran's affirmation of corporeal punishment in 242, 244, and indirectly in 425 and 3330 (whether you think 425 is saying half, or equal, it is referring back to 242 as the only verse explaining what the punishment is), has far deeper implications as a principle than I've seen anyone explicate.
In some sense, it makes some of the reinterpretation of 434 as something other than hitting/striking, redundant, because it establishes a broader principle.
The question is not is physical/corporeal punishment ever prescribed by God for certain people in certain circumstances for certain transgressions?
Because with 242 and 244, that's now been established.
The questions remaining are more like
For what punishments is a physical/corporeal punishment warranted?
Who is permitted to administer corporal punishment?
As far as I know, 242 is the only verse in the Quran that prescribes lashes explicitly, 425 and 3330 links back to the verse but for the same transgression/crime of sexual immorality/zina. Some could interpret this in a reductionist sense to mean that lashes are not permitted at any other time for any other thing, but even that would be problematic because the key words of 425 and 3330 are normally interpreted as 'halving' and 'doubling' respectively, both imply a variable scale of just severity of punishment in relation to a given offense which would only make sense if an even smaller number than 50 lashes were applicable for even lesser transgressions.
Regardless, the question of who is permitted to administer the lashes is extremely important in the context of the reinterpretation of 434 as not hit or strike.
If we establish that there is no Quranic, or logical reason which would prevent a husband from administering the lashes on an adulterous wife, (after having established 4 witnesses to the act) then we already have established a context elsewhere in the Quran from 434 where a husband 'hitting' or 'striking' his wife is lawful, albeit with the caveat that it would also be lawful if the husband were to commit zina, for her to produce witnesses and lash her husband. I have no problem with that, because in the case of Zina I understand it to be an equal crime for men and women of equal status (though it varies with women of different social status)
The fact that Zina is treated as a crime equally punished for men and women is not what you would expect if the framework of values in evaluating gender relations were that of the modern, secular, humanist, feminist worldviews. Because of what the Quran establishes elsewhere regarding the rights of men in marriage.
Namely that men are permitted by Allah to marry up to 4 wives, which increases the number of women a man may lawfully have sex with (though this is certainly not the primary reason for 4 wives being permitted) This being the case, why would the punishment for zina not be greater for men than for women?.
Also, why isn't the social status of men I.E slave men considered in regards to zina as compared to slave women?
Broadly, why would lashing/hitting be prescribed for any transgression if it were not a valid method of punishment?
Even more broadly, why would any differentiation between men and women be made, in what their roles are, what their rights are, how many they can marry, if they have to provide a marital gift, what the rules of divorce are regarding waiting periods, and so on, and so on, if the haqq, the truth, and the best way for humanity were upon the sunnah of the feminist-secular-human traditions of the west which would generally negate such differentiation as backward, and sexist?
Hopefully, that's a redundant question, and no Muslim needs to be convinced of the innate differences between men and women and the different 'salat' duties assigned by Allah in Quran. But I've seen some language that seems to me indicative of superimposing of modern west values upon the Qur'an in a similarly problematic way to traditionalists superimposing of traditionalist values and especially their hadith and tafsir as the tools and principles of their interpretation and hermeneutics of Quran.
Returning to the implications of Quranic affirmation of corporal punishment
What could it mean insofar as the disciplining of children? There is today a movement mainly in the west away from the use of corporeal punishment as a parenting discipline tool, to the extent of criminalizing a parent using spanking/hitting as a method of discipline, in certain places, it's already the case that this is a crime.
What could it mean in regard to the penal system? is the modern penal/correctional system as best practice and civilized, another modern assumption that we ought to question?
Interestingly, prisons are cited in the Quran mainly in the context of Surah Yusuf where Joseph is in Egypt, and in the case of 2629 where Moses is threatened with prison by Pharaoh. Yet nowhere in Quran is prison prescribed either as rehabilitation or as a deterrence. I'm not saying there's no place or time for prisons ever, I'm merely questioning the assumption that 'time out' or 'the naughty chair' is always the best punishment.
I think that prisons go hand in hand with big, bureaucratic states for a handful of reasons. The justice described in the Qur'an in my opinion follows the models of medium population community and town justice, with very simple and efficient ways for holding people accountable and punishing people for crimes. Ways that don't require a complicated judicial system or the involvement of the state in most, if any of the judicial procedures.
This is actually how the traditionalists have treated even something as serious as homicide in much of history as a civil dispute not requiring corrective punishment by the state (even though an Islamic state was around at the time) and is also in alignment with the arguments Maajid Nawaz insofar as he suggests that an authoritarian Islamic state imposing one interpretation of Shariah upon all of society is itself bid'ah (innovation) not concurrent with the decentralization and pluralism of the caliphates (abbasids, umayyads) and even the ottoman empire prior to the Tanzimat reforms, where there were 3 court systems going at the same time, one for Muslims, one for non-muslims (mainly Christians and jews) and the trade court. All the while many people still lived traditionally and resolved matters communally and individually out of court, avoiding and ignoring the court litigation process altogether.
Obviously, in traditionalist interpretations and implementations of shariah and hudud, this system often results in vigilantism, brutality, and unjust mob rule, which no one wants to live in if they have the choice.
So there also needs to be an understanding of why that happens and how to prevent that without requiring the development of a complicated, slow, expensive and prone to corruption judicial system which inevitably enlarges the state apparatus and tax collection scope.
As always, Allah knows best.
Salam
Peace everyone..
I don't understand why complicating a manifest verse into complicated verse.. Remember brothers and sisters this was an instruction to common folk especially believers who had issues in family life. There is no rocket science in here to discuss for ages..
434 is very manifest..
Nushuz is kind of illconduct it could be anything that doesn't help at all for better family life being united unless mend it.. Nushuz for me is not kind of illconduct which is related to extra marital sexual relationship .it cannot be.. Coz for extra marital sexual relationship there is separated rule in Quran..So.. Here in 434 God has given the authority to men when I'm case he finds Nushuz (illconduct) in their married women.. So obvious.. First advise them..... Second try to keep them away from bed.. Third very important part for all you people is Move on... Three steps. Advice, free her from bed.. And then move on from her.. It means with time divorce.. Dharab here absolutely move on. Coz relationship cannot be bonded unless reform take place.. But in case they obey you during first and second steps ie. After advice and freeing her from bed then don't go agaisnt her don't harm her.. But if you have moved on then that's over.. That's the the end..
Same for women. In verse 4128 if women fear Nushuz (illconduct) from men then story little different.. Others I mean family members or even friends do advise and try to make the relationship to become good.. But if all fail Gof had given always divorce equally fir men and women. End it and find another partner..
This is a common message for common folk in that era and why drag it to this much intricate topic I have no idea..
Thank you.. -
peace,
Peace Wakas
My argument is based on logic, not grammar or linguistics.
I believe we've heard a sufficient linguistic argument from Mazhar if that is the avenue you wish to pursue.
By relying heavily on your logic presupposes your logic to be sound. Risky. An argument can be composed of many angles.
Unfortunately Mazhar has a habit of claiming something with no evidence. He often thinks a certain grammatical construct rules out this or that meaning when it doesn't. In any case it's irrelevant because let's look at what I actually wrote on www.Quran434.com
"...then appoint a judge..." (Arabic ibAAatho hakaman, roots Ba-Ayn-Thal, Ha-Kaf-Miim), literally means to put in motion or send/appoint a judge/arbiter. The Arabic confirms that the plural "you" can ONLY refer to someone/something in a position to put this in motion, so it cannot mean either side's family for example. Also, appointing an arbiter from each side is not a simple task as it would require representations from husband and wife or each side of the family, and suggests the process has become formalised, i.e. judicial. This clearly confirms the court/authority is involved at this stage.
Note the word in red above.
So for sake of argument let's say according to your "logic" you have managed to rule out "judge" here and thereby use of courts etc and somehow thereby my understanding of 434, so let's assume we go with "arbiter" as the meaning of "hakaman" here. Tell us how my understanding of 434 fails now?
-
Quote
"...then appoint a judge..." (Arabic ibAAatho hakaman, roots Ba-Ayn-Thal, Ha-Kaf-Miim), literally means to put in motion or send/appoint a judge/arbiter. The Arabic confirms that the plural "you" can ONLY refer to someone/something in a position to put this in motion, so it cannot mean either side's family for example. Also, appointing an arbiter from each side is not a simple task as it would require representations from husband and wife or each side of the family, and suggests the process has become formalised, i.e. judicial. This clearly confirms the court/authority is involved at this stage.Marriage cannot continue by any decree of any court of law. It is the will and consent of both husband and wife. Here the issue is resolving the issues between wife and husband out of the court at families level to save the marriage bond since husband and wife have failed to resolve their differences between themselves and are not presently maintaining "intimate relationship" which is open secret when both are not sharing the bed room. As for Court, any spouse can go to court for dissolving the marriage at any time.
-
peace,
By relying heavily on your logic presupposes your logic to be sound. Risky. An argument can be composed of many angles.
Unfortunately Mazhar has a habit of claiming something with no evidence. He often thinks a certain grammatical construct rules out this or that meaning when it doesn't. In any case it's irrelevant because let's look at what I actually wrote on www.Quran434.com
Note the word in red above.
So for sake of argument let's say according to your "logic" you have managed to rule out "judge" here and thereby use of courts etc and somehow thereby my understanding of 434, so let's assume we go with "arbiter" as the meaning of "hakaman" here. Tell us how my understanding of 434 fails now?
Well its not just my logic alone, its also the majority opinion as far as mainstream translations into English, and Sam Gerrans translation into English. As i said, the only other offering aside yours which I've seen render the word 'judges' is Dr Ghalis.
But even if the mainstream view was in your favor, yes, i personally would value a logically consistent interpretation over something which better fitted a personal linguistic argument, but causes numerous logical and practical problems.
I actually don't have a problem with the word judge except in the case where its shoehorned into a very specific, very dependent, minority opinion argument for retranslation and reinterpretation of a singular verse.
In a sense, im a judge of this conversation, you are too. We all are. I have no problem with judge in that sense, we are all judges.
But we aren't engaging with any particular legal system here, we aren't ruling on cases deciding matters which would benefit ourselves or our families from a ruling we would make, perverting the course of justice.
'cite' requires there to be someone to cite to, who's lawful role and application involves concerning himselves with the interpersonal relationships between husbands and wives even in 7th century tribal and village Arabia context, and that it makes sense that a husband would be invoking such an authority in his tribe or village, in the case he fears nushuz from his wife.
-
Now I think word "mediator" is better choice since the purpose is to engage in creative problem solving. Mediator helps the parties define and understand the issues and each side's interests. The mediators are not to render an award while arbitrator listens to facts and evidence and renders an award.
Yes I agree "mediator" fits best and you are correct when you say "mediator is better choice since the purpose is to engage in creative problem solving."
me·di·a·tor
/ˈmēdēˌādər/
Learn to pronounce
noun
a person who attempts to make people involved in a conflict come to an agreement; a go-between.Similar
arbitrator
arbiter
negotiator
conciliator
go-between
middlemanJust my two cents
God bless peace
-
peace,
'cite' requires there to be someone to cite to, who's lawful role and application involves concerning himselves with the interpersonal relationships between husbands and wives even in 7th century tribal and village Arabia context, and that it makes sense that a husband would be invoking such an authority in his tribe or village, in the case he fears nushuz from his wife.
I'm a little confused as ii seems like you are agreeing that "cite" is a possibility.
