Note on 4:34 and Sam Gerrans.
-
Can someone ask sam if Noah beat his wife or Lot. The quran always give us examples and Noah and Lot both LEFT their wives! The only man given as example of someone who beat his wife is the pharaoh, Asiyas husband.
Red Who is Asiyas? Just curious.
-
Hi,
I haven't reviewed much of his articles since my first 'encounter' with him on facebook, but in case these links are based solely on his own work , then try these, they are of his official textual and video blogs
https//www.quranite.com/salat-in-the-quran/
https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=98tk6uEkBF4
Thank you so much for the link. First link seems quite strange when evaluated against Wakas' articles. Not that it is impossible for two people convey the same view. But not sure what to say when structures of the articles start to look same
Sam
The Traditionalist?s position, in summary, is that his non-Qur?anic literature tells him that the value for alt is equal to x (a certain number of daily rituals, at least five but sometimes more) and that since he does not find x in the Qur?an, he (and we) should understand that the Qur?an requires his non-Qur?anic literature to be understood or implemented.
Wakas
Amongst traditional Muslims, a commonly held belief is that the Arabic word "salat" exclusively means "prayer", and must be done with specific words in a set routine.
http//www.mypercept.co.uk/articles/disproved_traditional_salat.htm
-
Can someone ask sam if Noah beat his wife or Lot. The quran always give us examples and Noah and Lot both LEFT their wives! The only man given as example of someone who beat his wife is the pharaoh, Asiyas husband.
Although thats the methodology to be used to understand the verses you presented it in a funny way.
rotfl
Sam also skipped 434.
Red Who is Asiyas? Just curious.
Let's just call her Mrs Pharaoh.
-
peace all,
Can someone ask sam if Noah beat his wife or Lot. The quran always give us examples and Noah and Lot both LEFT their wives! The only man given as example of someone who beat his wife is the pharaoh, Asiyas husband.
Quran verses?
reel, can you clarify what you mean? I'm not sure I get the comparison.
-
Thank you so much for the link. First link seems quite strange when evaluated against Wakas' articles. Not that it is impossible for two people convey the same view. But not sure what to say when structures of the articles start to look same
He was inspired from other sources since he became interested in the Quran. There is an article on his views on several major translations https//www.quranite.com/a-short-overview-of-translations-of-the-quran-in-english/
He is obviously aware of many outside of traditions views of various important Quranic verses, including salat. It is does not stop him from being a total snob he is though.
-
peace all,
Quran verses?
reel, can you clarify what you mean? I'm not sure I get the comparison.
I have a feeling that he used your articles.
1.
Sam
The Traditionalist claims aqma means establish (and synonyms) where it occurs with alt. However, the form IV verb aqma occurs 54 times (multiple instances of which are not connected with alt) and I looked at them all.Yours
This phrase is used many times (about 40) for believers in 'the reading', some of which are 2177, 2277, 7170, 1322, 2241, 3518, 3529, 4238. And in these occurrences it is taken, by some, to mean "prayer" thus clearly, it is very interesting then, when 'the reading' uses this same phrase for polytheists!Sam
It occurred to me that looking at the verb used with alt here (aqma) in other contexts might shed some light on its meaning, both in combination with alt in this formula, as well as on alt where it occurs with other verbs.Yours
The reason why these verses are important is because the wording used here for polytheists is the same as that used for believers in many other places in 'the reading', with respect to "salat". The wording I am referring to is as follows
"wa aqamoo al salat" = "and uphold/maintain the salat"
Sam's subheading suddenly is too similar to your article title you provided in that link.
His The treatment of alt in the Qur?an
Yours An understanding of salat from Al Quran (The Reading)
He wrote a lot, but strangely, he doesn't quote the important verses despite the fact he claims to have published a Quran translation of his own. He only gives the numbers and that is also in very small amount.
He was inspired from other sources since he became interested in the Quran. There is an article on his views on several major translations https//www.quranite.com/a-short-overview-of-translations-of-the-quran-in-english/
He is obviously aware of many outside of traditions views of various important Quranic verses, including salat. It is does not stop him from being a total snob he is though.
Of course, inspirations can be taken. But an enthusiast has his own way of explaining things or putting citations of the place which gave him that. I am not sure I can take him as genuine. He seems to have the principles of white supreamacists and ISIS. This is what I found under his about section
"He is driven by commitment to ultimate meaning, and focused on authentic approaches to revelation and Realpolitik. He is founder of Quranite.com and author of The Qur?an A Complete Revelation where his consistent, Qur?an-centric hermeneutical methodology is applied to the text of the Qur?an in its entirety.
His principle interests are
The meaning and application of languages
Strategies for authenticity and independence from conformist and authoritarian cults
Objective virtue and meaning within solipsistic and degrading mass culture
The Qur?an as the gateway to individual odyssey and freedom from tyranny"wow
After coming to Quran he takes a U turn to support realpolitik?
This is meaning
"Realpolitik, politics based on practical objectives rather than on ideals. The word does not mean ?real? in the English sense but rather connotes ?things??hence a politics of adaptation to things as they are. Realpolitik thus suggests a pragmatic, no-nonsense view and a disregard for ethical considerations. In diplomacy it is often associated with relentless, though realistic, pursuit of the national interest."
https//www.britannica.com/topic/realpolitikThat's Machiavellian, aka being fake for the sake of selfishness.
-
Let's just call her Mrs Pharaoh.
Wasn't she the one who bravely rebelled the Pharoah's evil tyranny. She has served The Almighty (SWTY) well for standing up against that satanic madman.
-
Of course, inspirations can be taken. But an enthusiast has his own way of explaining things or putting citations of the place which gave him that. I am not sure I can take him as genuine. He seems to have the principles of white supreamacists and ISIS. This is what I found under his about section
"He is driven by commitment to ultimate meaning, and focused on authentic approaches to revelation and Realpolitik. He is founder of Quranite.com and author of The Quran A Complete Revelation where his consistent, Quran-centric hermeneutical methodology is applied to the text of the Quran in its entirety.
His principle interests are
The meaning and application of languages
Strategies for authenticity and independence from conformist and authoritarian cults
Objective virtue and meaning within solipsistic and degrading mass culture
The Quran as the gateway to individual odyssey and freedom from tyranny"wow
After coming to Quran he takes a U turn to support realpolitik?
This is meaning
"Realpolitik, politics based on practical objectives rather than on ideals. The word does not mean real in the English sense but rather connotes thingshence a politics of adaptation to things as they are. Realpolitik thus suggests a pragmatic, no-nonsense view and a disregard for ethical considerations. In diplomacy it is often associated with relentless, though realistic, pursuit of the national interest."
https//www.britannica.com/topic/realpolitikThat's Machiavellian, aka being fake for the sake of selfishness.
I've read Machiavelli and I must say that I cannot but concede that he was the type of politician who openly wrote about how corrupt, dishonest and evil governments are, except he did not just critize such as apporach to tyranny, but rather he adviced the prince to rule by using these age old tactics of political deception and manipulations.
Realpolitik is often applied by the people who tend to use conspirological approaches to understanding politics and social processes, where Sam Gerrans is of prominent examples. He belives in chemtrails conspiracy, flat earth and many other opinions, which oppose official stances on some events. This is not to critisize Sam, but just to point out what kind of person he is.
Therefore, one can argue that realpolitik is a political view which, unlike academic political realism (which is the so-called school of thought or the theory dedicated to the more liberal apporach to viewing politics as a selfish competition between the states as opposite to liberal school views based on the idea of multinational organizational and NGO impact to politics), views social and political processes from conspirological standpoint, which they in fact are.
I do not believe the government either, but at the same time it is clear to me that mainsteam conspirology is mixed with a set of different theories, which range from more or less holistic to straight insane. There is too much of information out there these days, and this information is not blocked for a reason. I myself live in the post-Soviet country and during the Soviet times radio waves such as BBC or Radio Freedom were simply blocked by the government, it was a crime to view or listen to any sort of information which is not consistent with the view of the regime.
Nowadays, however, you can wath, listen to or read anything you want, but not because we live in a more liberal period of time, but simply because it creates a certain paradigm, in which it is nearly impossible for people to unite over some idea. There will be always two, three or more opinions regarding any subject, yet any approach to understanding events, which is assumed to be conspirological, i.e. it does not accept official statement and uses own interpretation regarding certain events, is automatically labeled as flawed or simply dull, which is a special type of passive agressive fascism as I would call it.
But while realpolitik, from what I feel at least, is mostly about a discussion club where people share opinions based on their ideological and ethical views, Sam Gerran's seems to move this on a whole new level, by acting as if his opinion is a supreme one and anyone who disagrees is automatically labaled as a talker rather than doer. How is it even an argument, I don't know. I don't know about his past, but from what I see now he is commenting on the news and making videos, which IS talking. He also used to write for RT, not sure about his contemporary job. That is, however, not only talking, but the process of forming opinions using the media. So who is Mr. Gerrans, a talker, a doer, or a manipulative snob who blocks people but necessarily preserves his 'right' of last word by sending a video about what a doer he is and these noisy talkers, who point out some of the things they do not agree with?
-
Everyone has his/her own views on hypocrisy. I expressed mine. And I believe people who consider themselves Quran alone believers should know about his true personality. If you do not consider him a hypocrite, that's fine with me. As I said in my post - in no way I am asking anybody to abandon his translation. I did so because I have reasons to do so based on Sam's personality and actions . I regret studying his work.
Irony is how he translated the beginning of the 434 - And those from whom you fear haughtiness. Well, that's he who is haughty towards others, based on his "responses" on social media. Such people will never deserve my attention let alone support.
Your issue was with him though? Years back I publicly outed what I considered a bigot, and tbh it didn't do any good, just made me look like a big headed plonker! In hindsight, I would have just given my understanding, with supporting evidence from the Qur'an.
No judgement! Just passing on some advice! jedi
-
Your issue was with him though? Years back I publicly outed what I considered a bigot, and tbh it didn't do any good, just made me look like a big headed plonker! In hindsight, I would have just given my understanding, with supporting evidence from the Qur'an.
No judgement! Just passing on some advice! jedi
First of all, I completely agree with you. In fact, I do not say everything in his translation is wrong and should be burned. And I also copied the message I sent him where I clearly described why I have problems with his interpretation, where my logic was based on the context of other Quranic verses. But I will still explain why I have personal problems with following people like Mr.Gerrans.
In case the author is gone what we are left with is his work/writings. We can agree with some of his views or disagree with the other, but the fact is, what we are left with is his intellectual heritage, that is, his works that the author has left for us to study. This does not necessary apply to scripture translation only. People may argue about views of Dostoyevsky, despite the fact that his novels are second to none, given how he described Russian society of the 19th century.
With Sam that is another story. If I read his work and I accept some of his views, I respect him for doing hard work, but I can still contact him in case I have questions. Perhaps I want him to elaborate something for me, he's the author afterall. This is just what I did. And I can see his is not open to any discussion of his work, let alone criticism, he is acting as someone of supreme origin compared to others. You either praise his work, in which case he calls you brother/sister, or, in case you question some of his position, you are automatically labeled as talker (many comments under his videos prove it, if you thank him and praise his work - you are a brther to him, if not, he tells you to read his book, period), even though I pointed out quite clearly why his view on 434 might be wrong, according to the Quran only. I did not attack him saying "wow dude, how can you possibly write that it is permissible to hit a woman!". That would be non-sense. In fact, I pointed out why his argumentation is flawed and based on the literature outside of the Quran. If you are a Quran follower and ahadith rejector then obviously your work should be 100% Quran only. If after that you refer to the Christian Orthodox Domostroi, that is hypocrisy.
The personality of the author whom I managed to contact played a dominant role in such a situation and eventually lead me to stop following him and his teaching. Quran followers respect Muhammad for being a messenger of God, yet they stopped following hadiths because of the actions he is described doing in these writings. Therefore, obviously in this case the decision to follow or abandon a particular doctrine is based on the attitude towards either the author or the writings which are attributed to the person. Of course other factors also play an important role, such as authenticity of those, but most people do not care about authenticity, otherwise they everybody would be a critical thinkers, yet most people are religious. And I am not just saying religious as Muslims or Christians, most atheists are religious too as they blindly accept their dogmas without critical thinking. If Sam talks about being a doer while talking and describing haughtiness in 434 as something men may fear from their wives, while being haughty himself , what is this other than hypocrisy?
-
Indeed Makaveli! I do understand your frustration and position. This man in my opinion has clearly insulted your intelligence, by stonewalling you. You could also be forgiven for thinking that by him pulling rank, he feels superior to you. Yes of course it is right to think of all those people who will be influenced by him. Unfortunately getting yourself upset will not change his views; however I do appreciate why you felt the need to express this important issue.
-
Indeed Makaveli! I do understand your frustration and position. This man in my opinion has clearly insulted your intelligence, by stonewalling you. You could also be forgiven for thinking that by him pulling rank, he feels superior to you. Yes of course it is right to think of all those people who will be influenced by him. Unfortunately getting yourself upset will not change his views; however I do appreciate why you felt the need to express this important issue.
Na, I don't care about people blocking me ;D, but Quran alone community is quite disorganized to say the least, and I wanted personally to surround myself with people whose opinion I trust and who I believe are spreading good message. There is too much information on the Internet, most of it is useless or straight harmful. Perhaps one day I will myself learn Arabic and devote a work to the study of the Quran and there are reasons why is this impossible right now, including finances, but until then I do study Quran based on observable findings. And to me, it is best to separate good from hypocrisy so as not to fall in deception.
-
Na, I don't care about people blocking me ;D, but Quran alone community is quite disorganized to say the least, and I wanted personally to surround myself with people whose opinion I trust and who I believe are spreading good message. There is too much information on the Internet, most of it is useless or straight harmful. Perhaps one day I will myself learn Arabic and devote a work to the study of the Quran and there are reasons why is this impossible right now, including finances, but until then I do study Quran based on observable findings. And to me, it is best to separate good from hypocrisy so as not to fall in deception.
Disorganized indeed! That sounds like an achievable and very commendable goal! May God keep our feet firmly on the right path, and not let our hearts deviate from that path after God has guided us. sun
-
Disorganized indeed! That sounds like an achievable and very commendable goal! May God keep our feet firmly on the right path, and not let our hearts deviate from that path after God has guided us. ) sun
Regarding the right path, something came to my mind randomly. Studying God's message takes devotion, patience and reason. Reason is especially important. This is what differentiates us from other creatures, which do not possess mind capacity as we do. I can see a lot of people wasting their times getting high or drunk, thinking about having fun from weekend to weekend, dreaming of material wishes (cars, ladies, resorts), doing fake jobs such as betting, currency exchange or making money of parasitic stuff like youtube blogging. Some people get depressed for months over trivial stuff, which does not matter in the first place. People fall for deceitful scams such as patriotism.
I mean, look at this guy , he is totally stupid. He is a complete idiot, his face, everything about him https//www.washingtonpost.com/video/world/russian-reporter-gets-punched-during-live-broadcast/2017/08/03/dc3ff166-7848-11e7-8c17-533c52b2f014_video.html?utm_term=.74973402d0b7
and it is not just because the guy is drunk, there is an article on him, he is like that as usual https//www.rt.com/sport/399354-journalist-thug-punched-tv-reporter/
Funny thing is, the journalist for the Russian propaganda TV who was hit was making a report for Russian's Airborne Troops Day, which is a day when slaves get drunk and swim in the fountains (the guy on the video is reported to be not a soldier, simply a drunkard who likes to fight) https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAuW9hmk_6c , and he was hit by the very target audience of their. They create pro-governmental propaganda for the population of slaves, i.e. exactly those people. The guy who hit the journalist was screaming anti-Ukrainian stuff. Such an irony )
People like this will never use their mind and reason to study God's message, they simply won't, they are not capable of it. Only committed and reasonable believers will try to find truth, and it is impossible without investing in yourself, without actually acquiring knowledge and 'training' your mind. Without work and patience it is not possible. A drunk animal will never understand it, he will only blindly follow what his TV and beer tell him.
That being said, God has chosen a perfect way for people to both, find truth, AND develop themselves at the same time ) God's message creates no blind slaves and this itself is great, it shows there is point in life.
But once you acquire this knowledge, it is easy I guess to fall in the trap of arrogance, this is something smart people should be careful of, that's what I believe. There is a test for everyone. Dull people are tested to find their way out of stupidity, smart people are tested with new challenges, such as arrogance and how to live knowing many things others do not observe. That is my personal problem as I have family members who well, know nothing, they watch TV and some of them consider me to be a member of some cult because I do not accept their blind traditions and what propaganda says D I used to frequently debate with people during nightouts in my city and people several times asked me if I am a Jehovah witness (!), even though there was nothing about Bible or anything in our discussions, it was mostly socio-philosophical, just wow. But that's a reality.
-
Your issue was with him though? Years back I publicly outed what I considered a bigot, and tbh it didn't do any good, just made me look like a big headed plonker! In hindsight, I would have just given my understanding, with supporting evidence from the Qur'an.
No judgement! Just passing on some advice! jedi
I consider this thread to be important. We have the right to know if a person is up to something suspicious in the name of what we believe before that person exploits it and it becomes too late for us to do anything against his atrocity. OP provided some info. It is for us to research the accuracy and come to conclusion. At this point, I don't see honesty in Gerrans. I'll elaborate that in my reply to OP below.
So who is Mr. Gerrans, a talker, a doer, or a manipulative snob who blocks people but necessarily preserves his 'right' of last word by sending a video about what a doer he is and these noisy talkers, who point out some of the things they do not agree with?
I don't think anyone in the community thinks government is always right.
We all criticize our own governments' crimes. But he is silent on Putin and uses the exact words used against those who reject Putin's ideology. One of those words is "liberal".
We are aware of elites and all. We too believe in conspiracy theories. But a Quran follower needs to be genuine in his dealings. That's opposite to Prince text. Realpolitik doesn't care about ethics. So it doesn't make sense for Gerrans to claim to be Qurancentric. His wife-beating verse explanation echos how sectarians approach Quran.
Perhaps, he is a shill? There is a love triangle for natural resources at Middle East. My government usually prefers the hardcore orthodox rulers to make the love possible. To kick that out, Russia would obviously try the opposite, aka, secularism? So far Sam's principles look like he wants people to rebel against the orthodox rulers. But using of Quran only movement seems like a terrible choice. I don't see it working.
Anyways, this is from his youtube link
My note to 434 reads
"Arabic araba. Various imaginative interpretations of this instance of this word exist, particularly among more intelligent and Qur'an-focused Muslims. Their efforts notwithstanding, the verb araba still does mean to beat or spank or strike and in the context here there is little else that it could mean.Comment So intelligent and Quran focused Muslims come up with imaginative interpretations? Any proof? Okay, now Sam will tell us how daraba still means beat in 434.
Naturally, this single sentence can be wrest from its context and made much of by people who feel that they benefit from so doing. I leave such people to enjoy whatever it is they think they gain from their activities. We all go to God.
Comment I thought Quran was sent for the benefit of people. So if they don't accept daraba as beating they have to answer God? Okay, now Sam will tell us how daraba still means beat in 434.
My position is this the judicious spanking of a recalcitrant wife has been practiced by husbands who wished to achieve and maintain domestic harmony since time immemorial. It is recommended in the medieval Russian Orthodox handbook (Domostroi), for example, and was practiced commonly in both ancient and later Western culture prior to the moral degradation which began in earnest following WWI and then with accelerated force following WWII.
However, wife-spanking is still practiced today quite widely within certain Christian circles, and information attesting to its efficacy and value within both religious and non-religious households is not difficult to find.
Comment Sure in many cultures, people have been beating their wives. Okay, now Sam will tell us how daraba still means beat in 434. Or is it more like God is cool with the wife beating because its been happening for a long time?Oh wait, I thought Sam wants independence from conformism.
Contemporary liberals will be outraged by these facts, just as they are outraged by most facts.
Comment Which facts is he talking about? I still don't see how daraba
means beat in 434. Maybe in the next part he will explain.The high divorce rates, confusion of roles, demonstrable dysfunction, moral relativity and celebration of blatant perversion which are standard fare among the victims of Cultural Marxism serve as an indication of the extent to which one should be guided by such people.
Comment And these things are happening because people don't want to beat their wives?
Some women prefer a man who is forceful ? they simply do. If a woman has grown up with a father who is strict, it will be difficult for her to respect a man who lets her manipulate or belittle him.
Comment And beating is a part of that?
In addition, many married couples attest to the fact that when the man takes full charge of his wife it both saves the marriage and infuses it with vital energy and commitment.
Comment And beating is a part of taking full charge of the wife? What's the meaning of full charge?
In the Qur?anic context, one must not forget that this verse is directed to those who heed warning (see 429). Both parties accept the Qur'an and have access to it. The woman will know that if she pushes the man far enough he must ? in keeping with the Qur'an ? respond eventually as outlined at 434.
Comment In the Quranic context, one must not forget that marriage is for living with a person in peace. Both parties accept the Quran and with that they accept
And of His signs is that He created for you from yourselves mates that you may find tranquility in them; and He placed between you affection and mercy. Indeed in that are signs for a people who give thought.3021
In addition, many married couples attest to the fact that when the man takes full charge of his wife it both saves the marriage and infuses it with vital energy and commitment.
What's the definition of pushing him far enough?Looks like God isn't letting the guy beat her if she does immorality openly.
O you who believe! Not (is) lawful for you that you inherit the women (by) force. And not you constraint them so that you may take a part (of) what you have given them except that they commit immorality open. And live with them in kindness. But if you dislike them, then perhaps that you dislike a thing and Allah placed in it much good.419
She can, of course, initiate separation proceedings at any time. If she has not done so and has pushed her husband beyond admonishment and separate sleeping arrangements, it is reasonable to assume that she is in tacit agreement with what is to follow.
As intelligent, reasonable people of good will we can take it for granted that actual crimes against the person are to be responsibly prosecuted; if we are not intelligent, reasonable people of good will, our primary problems reside there and not in the quality of the guidance we are given."
Comment And the husband should also know what he might get if he beats her
And fight in the way of Allah those who fight you and not transgress. Indeed, Allah (does) not like the transgressors.2190
My comment at the end of the book reads
"The Qur?an lists remedial applications in the case of a marriage which is going wrong. The last resort among these remedial applications is for the husband to spank the wife. Some choose now not to read this passage in this way under modern pressures, but the context and the Arabic are clear enough.Naturally, some would see this as a barbaric abuse of a woman?s rights.
Comment I think it is vandalism of God's property.
And people who think this way may take solace in the fact that within a Qur?anic marriage the woman is at all times aware of her rights she knows the list of remedial applications should she treat her husband with contempt and ? should that list be initiated ? where the couple are on that list and what comes next.
Also, naturally, she has the right to initiate divorce at any time before this last stage is reached.
For those who do not consider a man?s exercise of undiluted mastery over his wife anathema to the natural order, the woman has the right ? should she wish to exercise it ? to remain within the marriage and indirectly require her husband to take charge.
This is within a broader legal context where outright violence against someone who has done no violence to you is itself a crime requiring equal requital."
Comment Sam has not given any proof that the word in the verse does mean spanking/beating. His approach to Quran at this point seems not so different from how it is approached in sects. Just like them, his view ignores the verses which contradict his interpretation of 434 and even marriage. Just like them, the view seeks guidance from the past people without considering whether what they did is ethical or unethical. That surprisingly contradicts his principle of getting independence from conformism. Being Muslim means being in a state of peace and not being in a state of robot.
He claims to be consistent, but I do not find that in his work.
I also don't believe Quran followers would say the following for that video unless they are very very new to the idea
Brent Morgan6 months ago
Excellent stuff! Spare the rod, spoil the wife
Reply 2Black Ram1 day ago
women love the bad boy, they also love a real tough man..puts them in there place... face the fact.... this is why nice guys finish last... face it, women like a man who says no and is in control. spank her, she will appreciate it.
Reply 1BRUQBEATS4 weeks ago
Thanks Sam. Interesting Indeed.
Reply 1Me MyselfAndI6 months ago
Lol! I agree with all you said tho!
Reply 1Taz Mirza6 months ago
thanks Sam another brilliant talk well done
Reply 2
Taz Mirza
Taz Mirza6 months ago
Europe is a s*** hole for many reasonsPhilip Voerding6 months ago
Brother Sam Gerrans, if you will let me call you that, I think you hit the ... oops, better not write it that way haha ... you gave a personally reasonable and historically accurate description of the problem revolving around what is nowadays a controversial ayah in the Quran.The first translation I ever read, Pichthal's Translation (Sunni Muslim), translated the passage as "scourge" and yes, back in 1995 that bothered me. Rashad Khalifa had "beat lightly". The 12er Shia Muslim translation by S. V. Mir Ahmad Ali has "beat likely", with commentary from Agha Pooya quoting a 12er Shia Muslim hadith which says that the Prophet commanded believers to love their wives and treat them decently. A naturalized 12er Shia Muslim brother stated that in classic times, if a married woman and a man married to a different woman were caught flirting and carrying on immodestly, the man would be publicly beaten. The woman, on the other hand, would be privately admonished and hit, but no marks were to be left on her skin. I believe this is still the case in some non-Western countries.
You brought up the manual from the medieval Russian Orthodox Church. It reminded me of attending a ROCOR Parish listening to Russians who emigrated to the USA 20 years ago when I was having problems with Western Christianity and checking out Orthodoxy. I remember hearing the mostly immigrant choir at the Parish of Saint Panteleimon, chanting the Lord's Prayer in Old Church Slavonic ... all I could hear were booming Russian baritones voices with Sopranos. It was so beautiful, even more beautiful than the two Psalms and the Beatitudes during the chanting of the Antiphons ... but I have hopelessly digressed.
The British "Rule of Thumb" supports your thesis. I have read some Zen Stories (nope, I'm not a Buddhist) where either the Monk would ask a question, or the Abbot would ask a question and the Monk would give an unenlightened answer or no answer, and the Monk would hit the Monk really hard. This even happened to women who wanted to be enter the monastery in some cases. Why don't Rinzai Zen instructors do this to their Western students anymore?
I'm 57 years old and some of that modernist/Marxist conditioning has had an influence on me, also. I used to defend the ayah in question as meaning "to separate", also, especially after 911, but I do believe it means a spanking used as a last resort to save a marriage, and its not a beating.
God blessed me with a better wife than I deserve, a Filipina woman who likes the current Philippines President Duterte. A strong, conservative woman with old school family values, and a Roman Catholic. I believe she has a better world view than I do, growing up as a working class Filipina. If anyone deserves a good spanking in this marriage, it certainly isn't her, hehe.
peace,
Thanks for clarifying. I guess it's possible.
You're welcome )
Wasn't she the one who bravely rebelled the Pharoah's evil tyranny. She has served The Almighty (SWTY) well for standing up against that satanic madman.
Yeah, she remains nameless. I see a good lesson from her story. She was against him and even wanted God to save her from him, but then realized her love after he was hurt. What I understand from this is that sometimes we may hate someone we have relationship with. We may stand against their unethical behavior, but if we ask for the negative from God as a solution between us and them then along with them we risk suffering. Its like "be careful about what you wish for".
-
I consider this thread to be important. We have the right to know if a person is up to something suspicious in the name of what we believe before that person exploits it and it becomes too late for us to do anything against his atrocity. OP provided some info. It is for us to research the accuracy and come to conclusion. At this point, I don't see honesty in Gerrans.
Agreed! I did actually have a conversation with him a few years back. He invited me to look into his philosophy, and I did. I have since not looked any further, as I disagreed with him more so then I agreed. At that time he was trying to set up a community for like minded people. Haven't a clue whether or not he achieved his goal? peace
-
I'm 57 years old and some of that modernist/Marxist conditioning has had an influence on me, also. I used to defend the ayah in question as meaning "to separate", also, especially after 911, but I do believe it means a spanking used as a last resort to save a marriage, and its not a beating.
That is exactly what is said in the Ayah, if we adhere to the syntax of the sentence.
The perception enfolded in the Arabic Root matches the semantic field of English verb "strike", and both share all the semantic components. One component of "strike" is to remove something away-displace.
Action immediately before is to distance the wife within the bed room. What is implied by distancing away the wife within the bed room is understood - suspension of matrimonial affair.
Next step is the continuation of the previous action if it fails. Separate them from the bed room. It is basic principle of Arabic that every word stemming from the Root must contain in it the basic perception of the Root which is to make something evident for others, understandable by others. Displacing the wife from the bedroom make it understood by others that the couple is not having matrimonial relation.
Thereby, others are asked to intervene to revive the relationship lest it is permanently broken.
Grand Qur'aan has prohibited domestic violence negating erroneous "belief" of beating one's wife.
-
We all criticize our own governments' crimes. But he is silent on Putin and uses the exact words used against those who reject Putin's ideology. One of those words is "liberal".
What my personal stance is, there is no good or bad government, they are all opressors, Putin or the US government, it does not matter, they are all criminals to the core. Putin used to blow houses in Moscow in '99 https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Russian_apartment_bombings and did countless of other crimes / US government faked 9/11 and did countless of other crimes against humanity including nuclear bombings of peaceful citizens in August of '45.
You cannot base the government relying on the Quran alone. You need hadiths and many additional side-literature in order to form the government and bureauracy. Quran is simply not enough to build an oppresive machine. I know what I am talking about. They tried to get me in the army in my country, I had a year long bureaucratic war, and in the end I did not go to army. Next, they wanted to force me for the so called alternative duty, i.e. they wanted me to work for a year in some junkie centre, they lost that too. There is no way I am giving oath and serve the criminals, just because I was born where I was born. It was random I was born in my country, I could be born in the elite family or I could be born in south africa, it does not matter.
Quran is also not about solely personal salvation as Gerrans states, it is about forming the community of believers. Community vs government there is a huge difference. One is ran by the leaders who can be replaced any time by the community, the other is based on electoral scams or scams based on the family right to rule (monarchy). One is about people working together, helping each other, where each member of the community is doing his work, there are no parasites, even disabled people will have place in the community. The government is about slaves and parasites. Slaves work, parasites consume goods by welfare. These devils wanted to get me in just such an organization, in the junkie centre where I would feed and take care of parasites who do not work, but who survive because they are granted welfare from the people who do work.
Why I believe Quran is not solely about personal salvation but also about the community of belivers is because it was revealed to the community and there are multiple verses which state how the communtiy should act in various situation, including punishment of adulturers, dealing with wartime captives, punishing thieves, protecting itself against opressors et cetera.
I consider this thread to be important. We have the right to know if a person is up to something suspicious in the name of what we believe before that person exploits it and it becomes too late for
Regarding Gerran's interpretation of 434, it makes no sense in the context if 'beat' or 'spank' is provided in the verse. My first message to him clearly shows how many questions there occurs in case we use beat. Suddenly, if we use leave, no questions arrise, at least not that many questions, it makes clear sense that after a man stopped sleeping with her and she is still arrogant, they should initiate divorce process, which is described in 435, just after the previous verse. In case we use beat, it does not explain what will happen AFTER that. I mean, what is the point of beating her in case it is about time they signed divorce? There is no point.
Now, regarding Gerran's traditional argument that wife beating helps preserve the families. I believe families are important only in case there are children involved, because growing up in the broken family creates risk of various deviation in child development. Other than that, families are not important in the Quran, it is better to stay celibate and do righteous deeds. The following verse comes to mind 828, 1846, 3437.
But most people fail at celibacy and therefore they are seeking for a spouse, naturally. That is all right but people make mistakes and often marry a wrong person. Just like a woman may marry a wrong man. Can she beat him to counter his arrogance? You can beat the pride out of a woman and make her zombie, but that is not righteous, this is oppression, which will not establish a happy family.
Regarding women who like forceful men. I might say a bizarre thing, but let's be perfectly honest here, a lot of modern women clearly hint they like force, physical force. They also dream of being r-word. I myself have met such women, if you treat them too lightly they abandon you, 100%.
BUT
That is not the way women are created biologically, that is not their nature. This is social programming. In the last century before the 60's reforms, namely sexual revolution, women were raised in patriarchal families and they were, for the most part, obedient to their husbands, but not everywhere it was the same. Chicago of the '20's-30's during the great depression was full of feminists, for instance, who danced in cabaret, drank with men, smoked cigars and had unlimited sex. But fpr the most part families everywhere including the West were patriarchal.
These days, however, women are told they are free, but certain social programming processes, namely dirt such as erotics and pornography, create in them fantasies about being molested, beaten and even raped. That has nothing to do with
A) Biology of women, because that is cultural not biological;
B) Normal. That is not normal, because that is social programming and psychological deviation;
C) It is certainly not Quranic, read 2229, divorces must be peaceful.
I also stated in this thread earlier that I belive some women actually deserve to be beaten not less than men, but what does it have to do with Quranic family? In 2221 Quran clearly says about avoiding marriage with women who are not of Quranic backgrounds, because they may be accostumed to certain cultural practices that are against God's revelation to the people. For instance, women who are not believers can be polygamous, i.e. adulturers. As I pointed out in my message to Gerran's, in 425 Quran says that whoever of believers cannot marry a free believing woman he is allowed to marry a girl of non-Quranic background (that is my personal interpretation, I yet have to look more into 425) , and if she commits adultery, for her it is half of punishment of believing women. What kind of half-beating must they have in 434 then?
Sam also says that his 434 is in the context of 429, that these set of verses are specifically targeted to the people who believe. Is he saying that all other verses, including 425, do not play a role in 434? That is Quranism and that is seldom different from Islamic abrogation of verses, where they abrogated some verses in the name of Sunna and hadiths.
Summing up the above, not only is Gerrans's interpretation of 434 flawed, it is base don TRADITIONAL sources and mindset. In 2170 God clearly says
And when it is said to them, "Follow what Allah has revealed," they say, "Rather, we will follow that which we found our fathers doing." Even though their fathers understood nothing, nor were they guided?
Therefore, following traditions is not a smart move when you have Quran. Wife beating is still practiced even in the liberal west, in some junkie families. There are many totally stupid stuff happening in many places, such as women falsely accuse a man of rape because he ignores her or rejects her, and this man most of the time has no legal ground to be protected of false accusations. But what is happening everywhere does not mean that believers should copy it.
Even if Gerrans is correct, he should establish a more Quranic basis of his argumentation of 434. Right now the only Quranic basis is lingusitic one, but languages do change. Who knows what Arabic roots meant back then. I am sure most of you who speak English natively cannot talk proto-Germanic or Middle English. I am not saying everything in the Quran is about some other Arabic language, but context plays an important role in the analysis of verses, and Gerrans clearly missed the context, despite claiming otherwise.
