You shall beat your wife
-
Ws
immediatly before that though it is very definitely talking about military combat though, not a domestic situation, or any other situation.So, tere you are, if agression is forbidden in a military situation, what on earth makes you think that agression would acceptable in a domestic one? One must be very ravagged in his or her mind to conceive of such think. On the other hand, whatever the context, the statement is indeed a blanket statement and there is no instance whatsoever in which it is condoned in any other case.
And now, since you seem to care about context, please, look at the ayas that follow that which is being wrongly translated as "beat" in aya 4.34. Look at them, the context is clear and I think somewhere along this thread there has been a link to a website concerning this aya 4.34 in which it is made quite clear that in the Qur'an beat is never hit or agres in any physical way. That meaning like, is the case with many expressions in the Qur'an has been forced into it after the Qur'an leaving us with things that lack consistency and logic.
Salaam
-
?? what? it doesnt say 'aggression is forbidden in a military situation', it is saying specifically that if muslims are being oppressed and prevented from worshipping God freely you can fight, but if the opposition then refrains from these activities the Muslims shall not be the agressors (it is to be done in self defense). This cross referencing can be very misleading, it is leading to people taking words out of context so they can justify their own modern, culturally influenced morality by twisting the meaning of Quran, rather than using Quran to inform their morality.
How do you explain the overwhelming traditional interpretation by scholars of the word being translated as 'beat'? -
?? what? it doesnt say 'aggression is forbidden in a military situation', it is saying specifically that if muslims are being oppressed and prevented from worshipping God freely you can fight, but if the opposition then refrains from these activities the Muslims shall not be the agressors (it is to be done in self defense). This cross referencing can be very misleading, it is leading to people taking words out of context so they can justify their own modern, culturally influenced morality by twisting the meaning of Quran, rather than using Quran to inform their morality.
How do you explain the overwhelming traditional interpretation by scholars of the word being translated as 'beat'??Do you mean that beating your wife is a matter of morality?
Salaam
-
It's something that can be wildly morally subjective and culturally influenced. The ambiguity of this word actually supports the need for ahadith to qualify it. Even if you say that the 'beat' translation is arguable, you then have to deal with why a less ambiguous word was not used.
-
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
