Quranic affirmation of corporal punishment relating to 4:34 and more
-
Domestic Violence
Grand Qur’ān has prohibited domestic violence negating erroneous "belief" of beating one's wife.
We have history of violence against women which is tied to the history of women being viewed as property and a gender role assigned to be subservient to men.
Grand Qur’ān addressed the subject and condemned self made erroneous perceptions regards the role and relationships of two partners of human species. However, majority of the translators imported in Islam the concept of "beating one's wife to keep her within the bounds of duty" by manipulatively treating and assigning meaning to one Verbal sentence in Ayah 434 as signifying, "You (the husbands) beat them (aforementioned wives)".
http//haqeeqat.pk/Sexuality-DomesticViolence.htm
-
Domestic Violence
Grand Qur’ān has prohibited domestic violence negating erroneous "belief" of beating one's wife.
We have history of violence against women which is tied to the history of women being viewed as property and a gender role assigned to be subservient to men.
Grand Qur’ān addressed the subject and condemned self made erroneous perceptions regards the role and relationships of two partners of human species. However, majority of the translators imported in Islam the concept of "beating one's wife to keep her within the bounds of duty" by manipulatively treating and assigning meaning to one Verbal sentence in Ayah 434 as signifying, "You (the husbands) beat them (aforementioned wives)".
http//haqeeqat.pk/Sexuality-DomesticViolence.htm
Where is 'domestic violence' found in Quran? I don't see the words in the Arabic or the English translation.
Who gets to define what is domestic violence?
I think we need to go back to first principles here
For me the concept that hinges this entire discussion is not 'idriboo' and the Arabic root Dad-Ra-Ba, I'm happy for that to mean something else than what it's traditionally interpreted as if there's solid evidence for that, because my argument and understanding of the matter doesn't hinge upon the meaning of this one word. My understanding of Quran is largely through intertextual analysis and working from the principle of consistency, that the Quran is a consistent book and whatever translation or interpretation you have MUST make sense with everything else the Quran says.
So the really important part of 434 for me is not 'idriboo' but rather what follows right after which in Sam Gerrans translation is 'but if they obey you,'
Because 'but if they obey you' is translated correctly, it would imply that Allah is prescribing measures for men, most likely husbands, to foster obedience in their wives in this verse.
If the whole objective is the obedience of the wife to the husband, that has shocking implications for a modern egalitarian/feminist framework of marriage which would state that a wife owes no special obedience to her husband.
If a wife owes a husband zero obedience, then it's wrong for him to take any measures against her for disobeying him, forget whatever 'idriboo' means, he has not right even to admonish her with words. Admonish her for what? she owes him no obedience according to such a view.
So first we've got to get our understanding of what traditional marriage is straight. Then we can work out exactly what is fair and just in the context of the verses of the Quran and what a figure owed obedience should reasonably do to secure obedience from a party showing signs of rebellion.
-
Where is 'domestic violence' found in Quran? I don't see the words in the Arabic or the English translation.
Who gets to define what is domestic violence?
I think we need to go back to first principles here
For me the concept that hinges this entire discussion is not 'idriboo' and the Arabic root Dad-Ra-Ba, I'm happy for that to mean something else than what it's traditionally interpreted as if there's solid evidence for that, because my argument and understanding of the matter doesn't hinge upon the meaning of this one word. My understanding of Quran is largely through intertextual analysis and working from the principle of consistency, that the Quran is a consistent book and whatever translation or interpretation you have MUST make sense with everything else the Quran says.
So the really important part of 434 for me is not 'idriboo' but rather what follows right after which in Sam Gerrans translation is 'but if they obey you,'
Because 'but if they obey you' is translated correctly, it would imply that Allah is prescribing measures for men, most likely husbands, to foster obedience in their wives in this verse.
If the whole objective is the obedience of the wife to the husband, that has shocking implications for a modern egalitarian/feminist framework of marriage which would state that a wife owes no special obedience to her husband.
If a wife owes a husband zero obedience, then it's wrong for him to take any measures against her for disobeying him, forget whatever 'idriboo' means, he has not right even to admonish her with words. Admonish her for what? she owes him no obedience according to such a view.
So first we've got to get our understanding of what traditional marriage is straight. Then we can work out exactly what is fair and just in the context of the verses of the Quran and what a figure owed obedience should reasonably do to secure obedience from a party showing signs of rebellion.
"Domestic violence" or "intimate partner violence", can be defined as a pattern of behavior in any relationship that is used to gain or maintain power and control over an intimate partner. Abuse is physical, sexual, emotional, economic or psychological actions or threats of actions that influence another person. This includes any behaviors that frighten, intimidate, terrorize, manipulate, hurt, humiliate, blame, injure, or wound someone." (unquote)
Qur'an prohibits this behaviour.
-
//So the really important part of 434 for me is not 'idriboo' but rather what follows right after which in Sam Gerrans translation is 'but if they obey you,'
Because 'but if they obey you' is translated correctly, it would imply that Allah is prescribing measures for men, most likely husbands, to foster obedience in their wives in this verse.
If the whole objective is the obedience of the wife to the husband, that has shocking implications for a modern egalitarian/feminist framework of marriage which would state that a wife owes no special obedience to her husband.//
فَإِنْ أَطَعْنَكُـمْ فَلَا تَبْغُوا۟ عَلَيْـهِنَّ سَبِيلٙاۗ
In response to any of aforesaid options given to you if they accepted your word; thereby, you should not pursue to find excuses against them.
تعلق میں خلیج کی سنگینی کا اظہار ہو جانے پر اگر انہوں(بیویوں)نے تمہاری بات مان لی ہے تو پھر تمہیں چاہئے کہ خواہ مخواہ ان پر رعب ڈالنے کے بہانے مت تلاش کرو
أَطَعْنَكُـمْ is Form-IV Verb from Root ط و ع. Its basic perception is of يدلُّ على الإصحابِ والانقيادِ friend, comrade, and attached to someone; and become soft, docility, flexibility; ductility; and to accept the word affectionately.
-
Yep, The Quran would prohibit that behavior.
So then where is the place for corporeal punishment, if any? If a parent, mother or father, were to spank their child as a method of discipline, is that according to the Quran 'domestic violence' or 'child abuse'.
Or how would we differentiate between the two?
-
peace,
Whilst I understand the point you are trying to make (essentially that since physical punishment is sanctioned elsewhere in Quran this opens up the possibility of physical chastisement in 434) but my first impression is why bother with indirect arguments which are inherently weaker than direct arguments?
I messaged Sam in 2016 with www.Quran434.com but got a generic reply (I think) basically saying his time is limited thus cannot engage in discussion. I am happy to discuss and challenge anyone who has a view that differs from www.Quran434.com (as it is easily the most cogent Quranic understanding).
You may also find this article interesting
https//mypercept.co.uk/articles/Quran-crime-punishment-expiation.html -
peace,
Whilst I understand the point you are trying to make (essentially that since physical punishment is sanctioned elsewhere in Quran this opens up the possibility of physical chastisement in 434) but my first impression is why bother with indirect arguments which are inherently weaker than direct arguments?
I messaged Sam in 2016 with www.Quran434.com but got a generic reply (I think) basically saying his time is limited thus cannot engage in discussion. I am happy to discuss and challenge anyone who has a view that differs from www.Quran434.com (as it is easily the most cogent Quranic understanding).
You may also find this article interesting
https//mypercept.co.uk/articles/Quran-crime-punishment-expiation.htmlI'm not sure what your meaning is regarding indirect arguments and direct arguments.
Yes, Sam shuts down comments on many of his videos, he seems to be a bit self-absorbed at times. I have some trouble with his translation particularly when it comes to his translation of 'jinn' as 'human elite'. I don't think he's established sufficient grounds for this particular translation of 'jinn'.
Part of that self-absorption may have something to do with narcissistic personality traits, but the upshot of that is it allows him to be hyperfocused and tunnel visioned in his work on his projects.
As a side note, I'm also wondering if there is any way of getting in contact with Hamza Abdul malik, as I see his videos on Youtube and I see what is called the 'tawheed conference' but I'm not seeing any other advertising, or other information for that.
Returning to the matter at hand, and the website www.Quran434.com
One point of principle I'd like to state is that the task of translating is not the same as the task of interpreting. When you're partaking in both at the same time, there's a scholarly conflict of interest. One of my biggest concerns for a project or an individual partaking in translation, and interpretation at the same time, would be individuals looking for a particular translation out of wanting to validate a particular interpretation that hinges upon a specific translation of a single verse.
-
... individuals looking for a particular translation out of wanting to validate a particular interpretation that hinges upon a specific translation of a single verse.
Of course that is possible, and relatively common, it's called bias. One must have a robust methodology to mitigate that
http//www.quran434.com/study-method.html -
Yes, well i think one very easy way to mitigate that would be to simply not combine the tasks of translation and interpretation simultaneously, at least not as an individual. If you're apart of a project and one persons task is to translate and another persons task is to interpret, and there is assigned roles and a collaborative effort, thats different.
Undergoing a full, holistic interpretation or exposition of Quran, after undergoing a full, holistic translation into English, as an example, such as what Sam gerrans has done, is also different.
None the less im happy to engage with this particular translation and exposition of 434, and hope to do so after work today or tomorrow.
-
I can't do full justice in my response here but there is a quick thing I can point out with the interpretation of 'cite'.
Much mention in the article is made of courts and authority, and sometimes the two are paired as in the case of "court/authority'
The problem is that neither marriage nor divorce requires any 'court' or 'authority'.
Now I'd have to go back again and do a search, but from memory, courts aren't prescribed anywhere in the Quran, much less in the case of marriage or divorce. The closest thing I can think of which you would be talking about would be 'witnesses'.
Witnesses are not the same thing as a court or an authority.
-
Much mention in the article is made of courts and authority, and sometimes the two are paired as in the case of "court/authority'
The problem is that neither marriage nor divorce requires any 'court' or 'authority'.
By "court/authority" I am simply referring to the one (or those) in a position to do what follows
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.
If you disagree you will have to explain who is doing the appointing of judge/arbiter from his AND her family if not some sort of authority figure, court, community elder, agreed upon 3rd party etc. The obvious question that will follow, for whatever answer you give, is how this person/authority is notified of the problem to such a degree that they can determine fear of breach/disunion. They obviously require notification of some kind. The traditional and other interpretations of Sam and others completely ignore this point..... I wonder why.
-
Logically, if god is talking about judges, he would not be asking for judges from their families who would obviously be biased to their family members, nor would he ask for two judges rather than one, or even three, in a situation where the conflict is already in a deadlock with 2 parties added to by another 2 parties to another equal number.
So god isn't talking about 'judges' here, in the sense of a judge presiding over a court case.
-
Oh dear. You keep digging the hole deeper!
I used my own translation, based on Quranic analysis. Feel free to prove to us why it cant be "judge" and can only be "arbiter/mediator". It doesn't matter to me which is chosen, as their meaning overlaps, but I'm interested how you can rule out one over the other meaning.
Dictionary definition
Arbiter a person who settles a dispute or has ultimate authority in a matter.
Judge a public officer appointed to decide cases in a law court
Mediator a person who attempts to make people involved in a conflict come to an agreement; a go-between.To clarify, when I use the word "judge" I don't mean a person with horse hair, black cloak, sitting in a court room. When I use "judge" I think of someone who judges, arbitrates, considers and decides over a matter, aids in resolving and concluding a matter between parties etc.
My point still stands
If you disagree you will have to explain who is doing the appointing of judge/arbiter from his AND her family if not some sort of authority figure, court, community elder, agreed upon 3rd party etc. The obvious question that will follow, for whatever answer you give, is how this person/authority is notified of the problem to such a degree that they can determine fear of breach/disunion. They obviously require notification of some kind. The traditional and other interpretations of Sam and others completely ignore this point..... I wonder why.
And we are still waiting on your explanation.
Also feel free to re-translate the verse however you wish, as you seem to imply it doesn't mean that. This is a common problem, i.e. what commonly happens when people get stuck, they are forced to re-interpret verse X, which causes another issue elsewhere so they are forced to re-interpret verse Y, which causes another issue elsewhere so they are forced to re-interpret verse Z and so on... etc.
-
Oh dear. You keep digging the hole deeper!
I used my own translation, based on Quranic analysis. Feel free to prove to us why it cant be "judge" and can only be "arbiter/mediator". It doesn't matter to me which is chosen, as their meaning overlaps, but I'm interested how you can rule out one over the other meaning.
Dictionary definition
Arbiter a person who settles a dispute or has ultimate authority in a matter.
Judge a public officer appointed to decide cases in a law court
Mediator a person who attempts to make people involved in a conflict come to an agreement; a go-between.To clarify, when I use the word "judge" I don't mean a person with horse hair, black cloak, sitting in a court room. When I use "judge" I think of someone who judges, arbitrates, considers and decides over a matter, aids in resolving and concluding a matter between parties etc.
My point still stands
And we are still waiting on your explanation.Also feel free to re-translate the verse however you wish, as you seem to imply it doesn't mean that. This is a common problem, i.e. what commonly happens when people get stuck, they are forced to re-interpret verse X, which causes another issue elsewhere so they are forced to re-interpret verse Y, which causes another issue elsewhere so they are forced to re-interpret verse Z and so on... etc.
Refer to comment 14 of this thread as to why it cant logically be ''judge'.
You do not appoint judges from peoples families, you want a neutral party who is able to objectively consider the facts, you want zero conflict of interest.
If it was found that a judge was presiding over a case in which his family member stood to gain from his decision, in any court of law, the case would be thrown out with the judge disqualified and ruled a mistrial.
How would the 2 judges resolve the case if both disagree? How would they resolve a deadlock?
Im trying to work with you here but Im just not sure you've fully thought this through.
As to appointing a mediator/peace broker figure for a conflict between 2 individuals
Anyone can appoint a mediator, you don't have to be anyone special to support people and mediate a conflict, just have patience, good intentions, and competency of the matters at hand.
-
I don't have a translation. Nor do i do piecemeal work when there's a systemic problem.
I read and compare all the mainstream and credible translations and compare that they all have a similar or exact meaning on most verses. Im happy with sahih international or Sam Gerrans translation in this case. All of them are very similar on this verse.
The only translation aside what you've offered which renders the word 'judges' is Dr. Ghali's.
Yet If you read the second half of 435 it doesn't support the idea that judges are intervening and ruling on cases to do with marital dispute.
It says that if THEY (the husband and wife, not the two appointed 'judges' wish to reconcile, Allah will make them reconcile. Its talking about reconciliation or peace. If the judges were to rule against the wishes of the husband and wife, would that cause reconciliation or peace? Or would one or both parties be aggrieved that 3rd parties have ruled against their wishes.
Please think this through brother.
If people cannot be made to marry by judges against their will, nor can they be made to divorce by judges against their will, how could it be the case that judges can rule that they must reconcile if that is not in their hearts?
Does that make sense?
-
Your idea that judges or third parties can intervene and decide on matters concerning marriage and divorce is what the traditionalists believe.
They are the ones who make it difficult for a woman to divorce when they are in a bad marriage, contributing to what you would dislike as oppression of women and sexism.
No court on earth has any sanction from Quran to make a man or a wife marry, or divorce against the wishes of the husband or wife.
If a wife is in a bad, abusive marriage, she does not need a 'court' or an 'authority to leave it.
None of this ideology is from the Quran.
-
peace, fill in the question mark – address is to the community, right?
2229 الطلق the divorce مرتان twice ...
فان so if خفتم fear you (?) الا that not ىقىما they keep dual حدود limits الله the God43 وان and if خفتم fear you (?) الا that not تقسطوا thou just ye of فى in الىتمى the orphans
فانكحوا so betroths ye of ما what طاب seem good لكم to you (?) من of النسا the womenfolk
مثنى twosome/pair (m) وثلث and triplet (m) وربع and quartette (m)فان so if خفتم fear you (?) الا that not تعدلوا thou equitable ye of
فوحده so communally (f) او or ما what ملكت possess اىمنكم right hands (commits) yours (?)2827 قال said انى indeed I ارىد want ان that انكحك betroths you (sing.) احدى one (f) ابنتى daughters two mine
434 والتى and the ones (feminine i.e., wives) تخفون thou fearing نشوزهن recalcitrant theirs (f/pl.)
فعظوهن so admonish ye them
واهجروهن and abandons ye them فى in المضجع the rest places (beds)
واضربوهن wa-idribūhunna/and shuns (repeatedly) ye them (f/pl.)Arabic-English Lexicon by Edward William Lane
اضرب
He turned away from, avoided, shunned, or left, him, or it
He was silent; he spoke not or he lowered his eyes, looking towards the ground
http//www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2002.02.0029%3Aentry%3DADrb+AlfaHola+Aln%7EaAqapa435 وان and if خفتم fear you (?) شقاق schism بىنهما between them dual
فابعثوا so raises ye of حكما judge of (good judgement/wisdom) من from اهله family his
وحكما and judge of من from اهلها family hers ان if ىرىدا desire dual اصلحا reconciliation of4128 وان and if امراه woman خفت fear she من from بعلها husband hers
نشوزا recalcitrant of او or اعرضا antipathies of
فلا so not جنح guilt علىهما upon them dual ان that ىصلحا they reconcile dual
