Beating wife theory is negated by Qur'aan=4:34
-
Is this supposed to be a response to my question?
How does "dharaba" become "punish"? Can you find such a meaning in classical arabic dictionaries?
The translator simply couldn't say "strike them/beat them up", because he will have to say which part of the body and with what, and even then, it will no more be "dharaba", but "latama", sakka", rafasa"...many many words. The meaning "strike/beat" does not stand for "dharaba" by itself. Every strike or "dharba" has a diffrent word, depending on what part to strike and using what. The verb "dharaba" by itself means to strike with a sword, cane or whip; and this is from all arabic dictionaries. That's what they say in the beginning of the entry Dharaba known. I donot think "strike" in such ambiguity would be described as "known", but fighting and killing is.Also, who will punish her? The husband? he is the victim, the prosecutor, the judge and the executer? nope
The community? Why punish her, then go for the mediation/court? nopeIt is more "value for money", to borrow the market's expression, for the wife to go straight for a full relation and the husband cannot lay a hand on her (246)
As for those who accuse their spouses but have no witnesses except themselves; let the testimony of one of them be four testimonies, (swearing) by Allah that he/she is of those who speak the truth;
Peace
MUHAMMAD ASADAnd as for those women whose ill-will44 you have reason to fear, admonish them ; then leave them alone in bed; then beat them;45 and if thereupon they pay you heed, do not seek to harm them. Behold, God is indeed most high, great!
HIS EXPLANATORY NOTE
45 It is evident from many authentic Traditions that the Prophet himself intensely detested
the idea of beating one's wife, and said on more than one occasion, "Could any of you beat his
wife as he would beat a slave, and then lie with her in the evening?" (Bukhari and Muslim).
According to another Tradition, he forbade the beating of any woman with the words, "Never
beat God's handmaidens" (Abu Da'ud, Nasa'i, Ibn Majah, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Ibn Hibban and
Hakim, on the authority of Iyas ibn 'Abd Allah; Ibn Hibban, on the authority of 'Abd Allah
ibn 'Abbas; and Bayhaqi, on the authority of Umm Kulthum). When the above Qur'an-verse
authorizing the beating of a refractory wife was revealed, the Prophet is reported to have
said "I wanted one thing, but God has willed another thing - and what God has willed must
be best" (see Manar V, 74). With all this, he stipulated in his sermon on the occasion of
the Farewell Pilgrimage, shortly before his death, that beating should be resorted to only
if the wife "has become guilty, in an obvious manner, of immoral conduct", and that it should
be done "in such a way as not to cause pain (ghayr mubarrih)"; authentic Traditions to this
effect are found in Muslim, Tirmidhi, Abu Da'ud, Nasa'i and Ibn Majah. On the basis of these
Traditions, all the authorities stress that this "beating", if resorted to at all, should
be more or less symbolic - "with a toothbrush, or some such thing" (Tabari, quoting the
views of scholars of the earliest times), or even "with a folded handkerchief" (Razi); and
some of the greatest Muslim scholars (e.g., Ash-Shafi'i) are of the opinion that it is just
barely permissible, and should preferably be avoided and they justify this opinion by the
Prophet's personal feelings with regard to this problem.Regards
-
So prophet Mohammed beat his slaves?
And you can beat your wife with a toothbrush? How can you beat someone up without causing any pain?I don't think he beat slaves, he'd set them free!
-
Beating is humiliation, no matter how, from the moment a hand is raised. Try do it to a child, just touching them with one finger. They will burst crying, not because it was painful, but because they know you are angry and are punishing them.
Moreover, why respond to me with the silly traditionalist justification? Where does it say in the verse (lightly) or with anything? Just as I guessed, they water down their sick explanation by adding mitigating words to the verse such as "lightly", "not painful", "with a handkershief"...his
With all this, he stipulated in his sermon on the occasion of
the Farewell Pilgrimage, shortly before his death, that beating should be resorted to only
if the wife "has become guilty, in an obvious manner, of immoral conduct",Does this mean the prophet did know the qur'aan, and could not recollect that the quraan explains what to do in case of the obvious manner of immoral conduct (246)?
And why are you quoting hadith? -
So prophet Mohammed beat his slaves?
How can you beat someone up without causing any pain?it is difficult but not impossible. it needs lil practice. peace
-
Peace
MUHAMMAD ASADHIS EXPLANATORY NOTE
Regards
rotfl looooooooooooool Q_s.... you get mad at me for quoting Hadiths when I mock them bu then quote Hadiths with a silly explanation of a Quarnic verse.
-
rotfl looooooooooooool Q_s.... you get mad at me for quoting Hadiths when I mock them bu then quote Hadiths with a silly exmplanation of a Quarnic verse.
give him another chance he would come with better explanation inshaAllah.
-
Peace
I am not quoting Hadiths. I am quoting "Muhammad Asad".
Regardsyes that is not same, its different when you quote one of the most latest authorities.
-
I am not quoting Hadiths.
Of course not...
-
Is this supposed to be a response to my question?
How does "dharaba" become "punish"? Can you find such a meaning in classical arabic dictionaries?
The translator simply couldn't say "strike them/beat them up", because he will have to say which part of the body and with what, and even then, it will no more be "dharaba", but "latama", sakka", rafasa"...many many words. The meaning "strike/beat" does not stand for "dharaba" by itself.Salaam,
what do you think about 273 and 3793 in these verses there is no mention of any specific part of body
http//www.submission.org/efarsi/arabic/Surat2_files/2_73.gif
http//www.submission.org/efarsi/arabic/Surat37_files/37_93.gif
I havn't seen any example where darb mean "beat" without mentioning of "with what" so you seem right about that though.
-
Salaam,
what do you think about 273 and 3793 in these verses there is no mention of any specific part of body
I havn't seen any example where darb mean "beat" without mentioning of "with what" so you seem right about that though.
That is truly a very interesting observation. This alone would prove that "idribuhunne" in 434 does not say "beat them".
-
Most Christians believe in one God, they just get a little confused with this trinity thing (which, of course was not in the early Christian Church, was put there by the Church of Rome about 900 years ago)
Actually, that happened a bit less than 1700 years ago.
-
Salaam,
what do you think about 273 and 3793 in these verses there is no mention of any specific part of body
http//www.submission.org/efarsi/arabic/Surat2_files/2_73.gif
http//www.submission.org/efarsi/arabic/Surat37_files/37_93.gif
I havn't seen any example where darb mean "beat" without mentioning of "with what" so you seem right about that though.
Peace ;
Brother ! your observation is not correct.It is not essential to describe the "weapon" with which to do "dharaba".Regards
-
Which chapter number is that verse in?
-
Peace ;
Brother ! your observation is not correct.It is not essential to describe the "weapon" with which to do "dharaba".Regards
yes here the part of body is mentioned. do you have any example where darb mean beat without the mention of "where" or "with what"?