Errors in Translations of the Quran... 4:34
-
salaam Edip,
Can you give a summary of the view in the video here, or is it the same as Reformist Quran Translation?
Thanks.
Yes, the same Wakas.
I was interested in reading your article on Masjid al-Haram. But I am currently very busy. Can you please send me its word or pdf version?
Peace,
Edip -
When people refer to 434 in the way of the OP, they usually are referring to the claim of wife beating/striking/etc.
And with regards to evidence, it's rather simple. If one thinks a statement means X, and the other Y - weigh up the evidence for each. If the evidence can only be as per Quran, then things are much easier. Feel free to try it..... assuming you actually wish to determine the truth that is.
Ok, thank you, I was not aware of that. The OP was cryptic and did not refer to anything and did not mention anything specific, which is why I welcomed your request for a summary.
What about what I have said is my statement #4 (As for women of whom you fear rebellion, convince them, and leave them apart in beds, and beat them.) is a claim? I would think it is a command, or a set of commands.
I must have expressed myself wrongly. Evidence is something which points to a fact without being proof of the fact itself. I hope I got that right. You suggested one should weigh up the evidence. I don't understand what the evidence is or could be. What is the fact under dispute which would require evidence?
I am at a loss! "evidence can only be as per Quran". Say what? I quote the Koran verbatim and get told I should try using the Koran?
"assuming you actually wish to determine the truth that is" oh boy, the second time I hear this doubtful undertone. What am I doing wrong? Am I asking direct questions without adhering to some protocol? Am I asking questions I am not allowed to ask? Am I overstepping some invisible line? I am not aware of contravening any rules in the Free-Minds posting guidelines, so what is it? You're an administrator here, so you should be able to answer that. Thanks.
-
Who is embarrassed? Of course I am not embarrassed, tht you would like... Tht is the usual cue of islamophobes when one does not give in into the ignorance and their talking about what they do not know.
By the way, those translations in blue letters in one message of the thread, to me seem pretty awful, with plenty of things that are not in the original and the initial translation also is not particularly faithful.
But never mind Mr Stops, you can continue pouring your superior wisdom on us. Take in in stride if we are not obliging by being embarrassed, specially in front of you who do not have the faintest idea of what you are talking about, nor when you speak about the Qur'an nor anything else.
Salaam
Great!
I don't have a definition if "Islamophobe", so I am ignorant here, sorry.
"translations in blue" submitted by me?
Sarcasm? Have I deserved it? But then again I am with the experts here, who can teach me what I don't know about the Koran, right? I have no idea whether you can teach me anything else.
-
I must have expressed myself wrongly. Evidence is something which points to a fact without being proof of the fact itself. I hope I got that right. You suggested one should weigh up the evidence. I don't understand what the evidence is or could be. What is the fact under dispute which would require evidence?
I am at a loss! "evidence can only be as per Quran". Say what? I quote the Koran verbatim and get told I should try using the Koran?
No, you are in fact quoting a translation of Quran.
A question you have to ask, if you wish to determine the truth of the matter, is does the Arabic words mean what you have translated them as?
Simple.
"assuming you actually wish to determine the truth that is" oh boy, the second time I hear this doubtful undertone. What am I doing wrong? Am I asking direct questions without adhering to some protocol? Am I asking questions I am not allowed to ask? Am I overstepping some invisible line? I am not aware of contravening any rules in the Free-Minds posting guidelines, so what is it? You're an administrator here, so you should be able to answer that. Thanks.
To me, it seems you are claiming the logical/scientific approach, yet when you are questioned, your approach seems to unravel. Maybe its just me who notices that.
-
And why wouldn't you be satisfied with the Authorized translation of Dr. Rashad Khalifa PhD, the messenger of the covenant?
???
Not everyone accepts Khalifa's translation as "authorized" or him as a "messenger". Some do and some have opinions in between. To each his own.
-
No, you are in fact quoting a translation of Quran.
A question you have to ask, if you wish to determine the truth of the matter, is does the Arabic words mean what you have translated them as?
Simple.
Simple indeed. I read a translation of an Arabic text. The people who translated it are all experts in their field and the most knowledgeable scholars on the subject. Why would I doubt their expertise?
To double check I consult the old Tafsirs and find the same explanation. To make sure I read the hadiths on beating and punishment and it confirms it. I tend to disregard the Hadiths, but nevertheless that leaves me with a consistent picture.Now someone comes along who says this is distorted. Should I now drop everything I have learnt and say of course! this guy knows much more than all the experts in their fields and can decide that a word should actually mean something completely different? But then I should also ask myself how much of the rest of the Koran was translated accurately? Maybe everything is distorted? Or maybe not everything but only portions. But what portions? Who decides what is wrongly translated and what is correct? You?
Why would a super-natural being who wants to guide humans to salvation use words which can be "distorted"? Why not make something which is important abundantly clear? Why not, if using a language like Arabic, where words can have multiple meanings, create a context which explains such actions which are considered despicable in the 21st century?
To me, it seems you are claiming the logical/scientific approach, yet when you are questioned, your approach seems to unravel. Maybe its just me who notices that.
If I try and understand what people who believe there is evidence for the existence of a god think, I have only my brain to do so. My brain has evolved into one which primarily uses the "logical/scientific approach" when analysing a situation.
Now it gets confusing when questioned, my approach unravels? To what? How? Revealing what?
I asked some very specific questions. Why not answer them? -
Simple indeed. I read a translation of an Arabic text. The people who translated it are all experts in their field and the most knowledgeable scholars on the subject. Why would I doubt their expertise?
Oh dear.
http//www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
http//www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html
http//www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-tradition.html
My brain has evolved into one which primarily uses the "logical/scientific approach" when analysing a situation.
;D
Now it gets confusing when questioned, my approach unravels? To what? How? Revealing what?
Exhibit A see above.
-
Oh dear.
http//www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
http//www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html
http//www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-tradition.html
;D
Exhibit A see above.
I think we need to leave this. You have some issue which makes you blind with rage somehow and clouds your brain.
You can't even read your own quotes any longer and really confuse stuff. You don't understand what a fallacy is and you are now starting to embarrass yourself.
Just as a pointer if you don't address my points but my person, THAT is a fallacy. I need to enjoy a meaningful discussion. Others here can engage in a civilised conversation.
-
I think we need to leave this. You have some issue which makes you blind with rage somehow and clouds your brain.
You can't even read your own quotes any longer and really confuse stuff. You don't understand what a fallacy is and you are now starting to embarrass yourself.
Just as a pointer if you don't address my points but my person, THAT is a fallacy. I need to enjoy a meaningful discussion. Others here can engage in a civilised conversation.
Selam StopS,
I'm curious to how you can agree that God could tell you as a last resort to beat your woman. Maybe it could be a different upbringing since most men and women in my area believe beating eachother up in general (regardless of sex) is wrong and a more subtle and civilised approach is the way to go. I cannot see how you have come to the conclusion that Allah says "beat them". This is the same verse I read from Yusuf Ali the first time I read the Qur'an and I'll tell you now, looking at the original arabic of the Qur'an is the only way to decipher REALLY what is meant. As for trusting scholars, are you serious? Do you not reckon that maybe these 'scholars' have not a slightly biased view and 'certain things'? I urge you to use the arabic to check what the word could possibly mean in English (or whatever language you want) but bare in mind it has to also fit in the context of the verse. The first time I was relieved and realised how wrong this translation was was when I read an article a very long time ago (can't remember the link).
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9603066.0
That was also a very good topic on the matter. May we all be corrected if our interpretations of things are wrong, however bare in mind Allah does wish for us to use our logic and reasoning... that's what we have it for.
peace
-
Selam StopS,
I'm curious to how you can agree that God could tell you as a last resort to beat your woman. Maybe it could be a different upbringing since most men and women in my area believe beating eachother up in general (regardless of sex) is wrong and a more subtle and civilised approach is the way to go.
Well, if I read a sentence and someone who lives by this book the entire life tells me that a god wrote it, what should I do?
Well, where I come from
434
- Men are in charge of women
- Allah has made some of them excel the others, and because of the wealth they have spent
- Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard.
- As for women of whom you fear rebellion, convince them, and leave them apart in beds, and beat them.
- Then, if they obey you, do not seek a way against them. Surely, Allah is the Highest, the Greatest.
ALL the sentences are a cause for concern. For example in modern societies living in the 21st century, men are NOT in charge of women. Maybe where you live it is normal, but not in my part of the planet.
I cannot see how you have come to the conclusion that Allah says "beat them".
If you can't see it, then you should read it in ancient Arabic and then compare different translations in whatever language you are comfortable in. If I accept that the issue at hand is solely centred around one single word and not any of the rest of these sentences, this is pretty poor and really petty stuff.
This is the same verse I read from Yusuf Ali the first time I read the Qur'an and I'll tell you now, looking at the original arabic of the Qur'an is the only way to decipher REALLY what is meant. As for trusting scholars, are you serious? Do you not reckon that maybe these 'scholars' have not a slightly biased view and 'certain things'?
Actually, no, I don't reckon that scholars and Muslim translators such as Marmaduke Pickthal have a biased view on "certain things" - whatever these "certain things" are. I more suspect and reckon you have a biased view.
I urge you to use the arabic to check what the word could possibly mean in English (or whatever language you want) but bare in mind it has to also fit in the context of the verse. The first time I was relieved and realised how wrong this translation was was when I read an article a very long time ago (can't remember the link).
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9603066.0
That was also a very good topic on the matter. May we all be corrected if our interpretations of things are wrong, however bare in mind Allah does wish for us to use our logic and reasoning... that's what we have it for.
If I concentrate only on this one word and check the Arabic, I come across the same thing beat, scourge. Only in the last couple of years, Muslims who don't like this and are considered backwards for beating women have started looking for alternative explanations and re-interpretations and have come up with inserting "lightly", introducing the miswak and all sorts of funny things, instead of owning up and tackling this head on.
If you liked the topic in the previous edition of this sentence then you prefer a less violent way of solving disputes, which honours you as a person, but in my opinion and from what I have gathered is not what the Koran dictates.
-
Only in the last couple of years, Muslims who don't like this and are considered backwards for beating women have started looking for alternative explanations and re-interpretations and have come up with inserting "lightly", introducing the miswak and all sorts of funny things, instead of owning up and tackling this head on.
This shows your ignorance.
If you had bothered to read the link I gave you www.Quran434.com you'd have known this
Ibn Abbas (alleged companion of prophet Muhammad) gave his view on the severity of hitting, and said it is as with a small stick, e.g. siwak. The famous jurist, Al Shafi (about 200 hundred years after prophet Muhammad's death), interpreted it as a "miswak" which is a small stick used for cleaning the teeth. Another famous commentator, Razi, quotes another early jurist who said it can be a coiled scarf (mindil malfuf).
Please try again.
-
Wakas, are all men in charge of all women?
-
Selam StopS,
I'm curious to how you can agree that God could tell you as a last resort to beat your woman. Maybe it could be a different upbringing since most men and women in my area believe beating eachother up in general (regardless of sex) is wrong and a more subtle and civilised approach is the way to go. I cannot see how you have come to the conclusion that Allah says "beat them". This is the same verse I read from Yusuf Ali the first time I read the Qur'an and I'll tell you now, looking at the original arabic of the Qur'an is the only way to decipher REALLY what is meant. As for trusting scholars, are you serious? Do you not reckon that maybe these 'scholars' have not a slightly biased view and 'certain things'? I urge you to use the arabic to check what the word could possibly mean in English (or whatever language you want) but bare in mind it has to also fit in the context of the verse. The first time I was relieved and realised how wrong this translation was was when I read an article a very long time ago (can't remember the link).
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9603066.0
That was also a very good topic on the matter. May we all be corrected if our interpretations of things are wrong, however bare in mind Allah does wish for us to use our logic and reasoning... that's what we have it for.
peace
I think StopS relishes this kind of thing. He will uphold through thick and thin that the Qur'an says beat, and even more than beat, scourge, and even more than scourge stone. Anything else would disappoint him, so he says we change things in the last couple of years or of decades rather than admit that the meaning of beat was changed centuries ago when it was interesting to keep women in their place.
I really find this attempt at dialogue with that gentleman an exercise in futility. There are a few like him who will feel robbed if the Qur'an is emptied of weird interpretations like the one he upholds. And on top of it he desn't even know Arabic. Beat that.
Salaam
-
I really find this attempt at dialogue with that gentleman an exercise in futility. There are a few like him who will feel robbed if the Qur'an is emptied of weird interpretations like the one he upholds. And on top of it he desn't even know Arabic. Beat that.
Peace huruf,
4358...not darabuhu/beat it to you only disputing nay they people argumentative
434 the men maintainers over the women in what favored The God some of them over others in what they spend from their wealth so the righteous obedient guarding to the unseen/intimate in what keeping The God and the ones whom you fear their recalcitrant so admonish them and leave them in the beds wa-idribuhunna/and strike them (feminine) so if they obey so not seek onto them a way indeed The God is High Great
How to treat high-maintenance, hard to please, attention seeking, demanding women? laugh
http//www.midlifebachelor.com/images/articleimages/hm.jpg
-
Wakas, are all men in charge of all women?
Aaahhh, this is an EXCELLENT question and one that can open the doors for much, much deeper exploration of 434. This is what I was trying to pointing out the last time I had opened a thread here on this verse (but of course to no avail).
While pondering on Farouk's question may I also suggest everyone here who is grounded in Arabic Grammar to utilize as many Arabic Lexicons and Dictionaries they can and really, really EXPLORE the definitions and morphology of EVERY WORD that is in that verse?
-
I think StopS relishes this kind of thing. He will uphold through thick and thin that the Qur'an says beat, and even more than beat, scourge, and even more than scourge stone. Anything else would disappoint him, so he says we change things in the last couple of years or of decades rather than admit that the meaning of beat was changed centuries ago when it was interesting to keep women in their place.
I really find this attempt at dialogue with that gentleman an exercise in futility. There are a few like him who will feel robbed if the Qur'an is emptied of weird interpretations like the one he upholds. And on top of it he desn't even know Arabic. Beat that.
Salaam
I "relish" this? What exactly is the "this"?
Well, I have 2 options take what I like from the Koran and interpret the rest in a way I like it until it reflects my own opinions or take the Koran the way it was written.
Personally I don't appreciate the cowards who run away from the unpleasant sides in whatever there is and at the same time command respect for what they deem benevolent. It's false and dishonest.
If you want to change the word in the Koran, then do so. But please explain why. And explain why every Muslim needs to accept that.
And then, please explain if I can go and re-interpret any word?
-
Let me summarise this to bring this to a factual discussion
in the original and starting post, we are told that the Koran is distorted and one of the worst is 434. That's all.
I later learned that the large, red words "beating women" was not part of the signature, but a link. So I made a mistake of not recognising this. My fault.
So I listed the 5 components of 434 and asked where the distortion was.
This resulted in the more precise claim that the entire discussion should centre around a single word, the word "beat", which is somehow erroneous.
Nobody told me what the alternative should be and why. The person who started this thread came here and instead of explaining his extremely weak formulation just asked about something totally unrelated about some mosque.
So this is a typical example of a thread where people are pussy-footing around, exchanging personal opinions and nobody is presenting any focused or substantiated line of reasoning any longer.
What is the point of opening a thread with a one liner without explaining anything at all?
Let me explain my view
The context of the word "beat" in 434 is that of a chain of levels of punishment. The 3rd and final resort. If, only if, a wife is rebellious (without any definition what is considered as rebellious) the man, who is considered to be in charge of this wife, can initiate proceedings to bring her back in line, which is a 3 stage sequence of an oral admonishment, a physical separation from the matrimonial bed and finally a physical beating.It has been translated as that for centuries. By experts. People who studied Classic Arabic have confirmed to me that it does mean exactly that and contemporary scholars also agree. All literature, whether Tafsir or sunnah or sira all agree that a physical punishment is acceptable.
So it makes contextual sense, etymological sense and all texts I know substantiate that understanding.
Now a guy on some forum rocks up and says he disagrees and I am stupid and a fool to not believe him. Really?
-
Peace StopS.
Quote It has been translated as that for centuries. By experts. People who studied Classic Arabic have confirmed to me that it does mean exactly that and contemporary scholars also agree. All literature, whether Tafsir or sunnah or sira all agree that a physical punishment is acceptable.
How about this the following explanation of
434 God prohibits wife-beating by using the best psychological approach. For example, if I don't want you to shop at Market X, I will ask you to shop at Market Y, then at Market Z, then, as a last resort, at Market X. This will effectively stop you from shopping at Market X, without insulting you. Similarly, God provides alternatives to wife-beating; reasoning with her first, then employing certain negative incentives. Remember that the theme of this sura is defending the women's rights and countering the prevalent oppression of women. Any interpretation of the verses of this sura must be in favour of the women. This sura's theme is ``protection of women.''
peace.
-
How about this the following explanation of
434 God prohibits wife-beating by using the best psychological approach. For example, if I don't want you to shop at Market X, I will ask you to shop at Market Y, then at Market Z, then, as a last resort, at Market X. This will effectively stop you from shopping at Market X, without insulting you. Similarly, God provides alternatives to wife-beating; reasoning with her first, then employing certain negative incentives. Remember that the theme of this sura is defending the women's rights and countering the prevalent oppression of women. Any interpretation of the verses of this sura must be in favour of the women.
Yes, you COULD re-translate or re-interpret it like that. But why would you want that when it is perfectly clear in the original version?
Why would anyone mention a physical beating - or Market X to stay with your analogy - if it should or will never come to that?
Does the Koran contain superfluous sentences or words?This sura's theme is ``protection of women.''
Are you quite sure? In my opinion, it is the opposite. This is where men are told they are allowed multiple wives (not the other way around), that men are allowed sex with female slaves, men are allowed a portion of a woman's wealth, men receive double the inheritance under several circumstances, women are confined to the house for life for "lewdness" - men are not, wives can be "replaced", men are "in charge" of women, need to clean themselves if they have been in contact with women and 90% of the rest of this chapter has nothing to do with women. The only sentence or aya I know of which is different and closer to what you claim is 4128. Other than that women are mainly considered as wombs.
If I am wrong, then please correct me, but that is what I read and understand.
