You shall beat your wife
-
Muslim men only beat their wives with their "short rods" (205 of the video) because they want to HONOR them. I know this because this very intelligent and logical Saudi Sheikh told me. Check the video. You will not regret it
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-Tw7WhH_aQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player
"Yo girl. What chu doin after the Halaqa? You wanna come back to my place, have a glass of mango juice, listen to some Nancy Agram records & if things go well, maybe I could honor you by beating you with my small rod?" -Sheikh Yahbuti
-
peace,
Israfeel, THE SECOND STEP in 434 is only to ABANDON from BEDCHAMBER / ROOM.
And the 3rd step is to separate COMPLETELY.Abandon in bedchambers and separating totally are two different things.
Unfortunately "separating" does not fit.
You may be interested in the following (click button)
http//quran434.com/promo/DV-banned.gif
-
If parents spanking their children is not a crime (spanking out of love to discipline the children), then how is husband physically disciplining his wife a crime??
What kind of stupidity is this?
Anyway, seek help ASAP..
And yes, spanking/hitting your own children is a crime as well.
-
Muslim men only beat their wives with their "short rods" (205 of the video) because they want to HONOR them. I know this because this very intelligent and logical Saudi Sheikh told me. Check the video. You will not regret it
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-Tw7WhH_aQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player
"Yo girl. What chu doin after the Halaqa? You wanna come back to my place, have a glass of mango juice, listen to some Nancy Agram records & if things go well, maybe I could honor you by beating you with my small rod?" -Sheikh Yahbuti
This is what is wrong with "Islam". "When a woman is beaten she is honoured"-and there are probably millions of people hanging on to this guy's every word because he is "Sheikh", "he is learned".
Muslim women wear niqaab because they are not like the "whores" who don't cover up. They are not objects. Yet they are objectified when they refuse their husbands sex. Surely, these inanimate objects cannot refuse sex to their owner, for who else will their keeper have sex with. How about, the collection of four wives to satiate his "overpowering" sexual desire-after all, that is the way God made him. If that doesn't "satisfy" him, then how about his harem of women. But of course, Islam does not objectify women!
So, rape is fine. Beatings are fine (as long as it's not the face, of course because that's a very important point. We cannot have any visible physical damage on this beautiful toy object). We must just walk around wearing a black tent on our heads. This is what honours us, us lowly, feeble creatures.
-
This is what is wrong with "Islam". "When a woman is beaten she is honoured"-and there are probably millions of people hanging on to this guy's every word because he is "Sheikh", "he is learned".
Muslim women wear niqaab because they are not like the "whores" who don't cover up. They are not objects. Yet they are objectified when they refuse their husbands sex. Surely, these inanimate objects cannot refuse sex to their owner, for who else will their keeper have sex with. How about, the collection of four wives to satiate his "overpowering" sexual desire-after all, that is the way God made him. If that doesn't "satisfy" him, then how about his harem of women. But of course, Islam does not objectify women!
So, rape is fine. Beatings are fine (as long as it's not the face, of course because that's a very important point. We cannot have any visible physical damage on this beautiful toy object). We must just walk around wearing a black tent on our heads. This is what honours us, us lowly, feeble creatures.
I love how the justify all the eff'd up stuff in their religion like beating women, marrying six year old girls, etc. These Sheikhs should be stand up comedians. Their explanations are hilarious! It's Islamic Comedy Night at the Improv!
-
"Why are you playing with Qur'an? The word clearly means beat them"
LOL?
First of all go and read what sectarian-free MUSLIMS arguments against wife-beating in 434 first.
Learn what in 434 which comes from the root word first.
"it clearly means beat them"
If you give me traditionalist translations such as Marmaduke Pickthall (he used the word SCOURGE, which means beat severely), Mohsin Khan, Yusuf Ali, Shakir, Ghali et cetera, then yes.The Arabic word is a multi-meaning word which can also mean explain, separate from.
Why don't you read the next verse 435 which is about reconciliation if both the husband and the wife fear a permanent rift?
I read the traditionalist translations and their translations are funny and ridiculous because they make the verse 434 and 435 not consistent by translating the word in 434 into beat/hit/scourge them.Yes, separating means divorce. And verse 435 is about reconciliation.
-
All the above are just emotional replies and personal attacks
Lol in fact you have made many emotional and whimsical replies
The fact of the matter is the Holy Quran gives explicit permission for the husband to beat his wife when necessary
ARBERRY
And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat themPICKTALL
As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge themMUFTI TAQI USMANI
...beat themYUSUF ALI
As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their, beds (and last) beat them (lightly)DARYABADI
And those wives whose refractoriness ye fear, exhort them, and avoid them in beds, and beat themDR MOHSIN
As to those women on whose part you see ill?conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful)SHER ALI
And as for those on whose part you fear disobedience, admonish them and leave them alone in their beds, and chastise themASAD
And as for those women whose ill-will you have reason to fear, admonish them ; then leave them alone in bed; then beat themFunny. You made a fallacious argument. The fallacy that you made is called argumentum ad populum (appeal to majority).
And furthermore it's not God who says that. But MEN.Even the Quranist Rashad Khalifa translated it thus
If you experience rebellion from the women, you shall first talk to them, then (you may use negative incentives like) deserting them in bed, then you may (as a last alternative) beat them
Virtually every published translation of the Holy Quran says "Beat". Are they all wrong??
You don't have any better arguments to support your claim. You just copy and paste traditional Qur'an TRANSLATIONS.
And made argumentum ad populum.
EDIT I meant the traditional translations are the translations that you posted on here except Rashad Khalifa's translation.
You don't bring lexical arguments to back up your claims. -
peace,
Unfortunately "separating" does not fit.
You may be interested in the following (click button)
http//quran434.com/promo/DV-banned.gif
Salaam,
I have read it.
But I still hold the view that separation is closed to 'citing' in this verse.
-
peace,
Why don't you read the next verse 435 which is about reconciliation if both the husband and the wife fear a permanent rift?
This is incorrect. The Arabic is clear
From www.Quran434.com
And if you (plural) feared disunion/breach/rift between them two, then appoint a judge from his family and a judge from hers. If they both want to reconcile, then God will bring agreement between them. God is Knowledgeable, Expert.
"And if YOU feared disunion/breach/rift between them..." (Arabic shiqaqa, root Shin-Qaf-Qaf), and the "feared" before it is in the perfect form, i.e. an action done/completed. The "you" is in the plural form and can only refer to the community/court/authority/etc.
Yes, separating means divorce. And verse 435 is about reconciliation.
If "separating means divorce" then it would upset the standard divorce/release procedure, as per Quran discussed on Quran434.com however it is possible perhaps you know of an alternative procedure.
But I still hold the view that separation is closed to 'citing' in this verse.
Everyone is entitled to their view, but "separation" is not close to "cite".
Of course, this is only some of the problems for "separate". One main issue would be the lack of coherence with the other usage of DRB when the direct object is a human like in 434 (see 4357, 273). Of course one can have the view 434 is the odd one out. Again, this is discussed in the link.
-
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.
women like being beat it shows affection. also people who are not punished become worst spank your kids too!!!!!
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.
-
The Quran is actually coherent in its use of DaRaBa, e.g. with preposition "bi" it means a physical usage, or with a human object without preposition it always means "cite" etc. As far as I'm aware this is the only analysis which results in perfect coherence.
-
I have written an article on verse 434 of the Qur'an, a verse which has commonly been misinterpreted to justify violence against women. I have created a website to publish this article www.quranverse434.com
-
salaam aqua,
Your article suffers from multiple problems as highlighted here
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599954.msg347142#msg347142"withdraw/turn away / go away from them"
Requires the tashkeel of present day Arabic Quran to be incorrect
This alleged usage in 434 occurs in 435 with the preposition "Aan", thus making Quran seems inconsistent IF it did mean that in 434
No identical example of this DRB usage in Quran
No explanation of how the authority are notified
It is unclear to what extent one separates, how they can do so without being unjust etc
No supporting marital example in Quran
My view Impractical result when inserted into 4128-130 and somehow requires iAAradan to be a positive thing and potentially makes Drb/3rD similar"cite them" www.Quran434.com
Works perfectly with the tashkeel in the present day Arabic Quran
Several identical examples of this DRB usage in Quran, including when humans are the direct object as in 434
Explains how the authority is notified by 435, and provides perfect logical/sequential coherence
DRB use is clear and simple to implement practically
581-4 provides perfect coherence in terms of marital example
When inserted into 4128-130 provides a complementary practical and coherent solutionIn fact there were more issues in your article. If you begin your own thread for your article I'd be happy to highlight them for you to respond to.
Interestingly, in your work you do not reference www.Quran434.com where you clearly got a lot of information from.
