Quranic affirmation of corporal punishment relating to 4:34 and more
-
... 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 -
Ok, so let's use Sam Gerrans translation since you're happy with it here
And if you fear a breach between them, raise up an arbitrator from his family and an arbitrator from her family. If they desire right ordering, God will reconcile them; God is knowing and aware.
Here is Sam's translation for 6114 wherein the exact same word "hakaman" appears, only appears elsewhere here, let's see what Sam translates it as
“Is it other than God I should seek as judge when He it is that sent down to you the Writ set out and detailed?” And those to whom We gave the Writ know that it is sent down from thy Lord with the truth; so be thou not of those who doubt.
So do you agree or disagree with Sam here, is it "judge" in 6114 - yes or no? Tell us how you judge it (see what I did there).
Remember "arbitrator" specifically requires two (or more) parties to make sense - so tell us who the two parties are here.Not that it makes any difference to my view but I'm just interested how you have confidently ruled out "judge" in 435 based on your "logic" and now you will have to explain its use in 6114.
And then we can get back to 434-35.
-
Ok, so let's use Sam Gerrans translation since you're happy with it here
And if you fear a breach between them, raise up an arbitrator from his family and an arbitrator from her family. If they desire right ordering, God will reconcile them; God is knowing and aware.
Here is Sam's translation for 6114 wherein the exact same word "hakaman" appears, only appears elsewhere here, let's see what Sam translates it as
“Is it other than God I should seek as judge when He it is that sent down to you the Writ set out and detailed?” And those to whom We gave the Writ know that it is sent down from thy Lord with the truth; so be thou not of those who doubt.
So do you agree or disagree with Sam here, is it "judge" in 6114 - yes or no? Tell us how you judge it (see what I did there).
Remember "arbitrator" specifically requires two (or more) parties to make sense - so tell us who the two parties are here.Not that it makes any difference to my view but I'm just interested how you have confidently ruled out "judge" in 435 based on your "logic" and now you will have to explain its use in 6114.
And then we can get back to 434-35.
وَإِنْ خِفْتُـمْ شِقَاقَ بَيْـنِـهِـمَا
And if finding the wife excluded from the bed room you the elders of family apprehended that it might lead to separation between the husband and the wife —
لیکن اگر تم (خاندان کے بڑوں) ان (خاوند بیوی) کے مابین چپقلش کے عیاں اور بدستور قائم رہنے کی وجہ سے ان کے مابین علیحدگی ہو جانے کا خدشہ محسوس کرو۔
فَٱبْعَثُوا۟ حَكَمٙا مِّنْ أَهْلِهِۦ وَحَكَمٙا مِّنْ أَهْلِهَآ إِن يُرِيدَآ إِصْلَٟحٙا يُوَفِّقِ ٱللَّهُ بَيْـنَـهُـمَآۗ
Thereat, you are directed to appoint a reconciliatory arbiter from husband's family and a reconciliatory arbiter from wife's family. Should the husband and wife both have the intention of straightening the affairs Allah the Exalted would foster harmony amongst the couple.
چونکہ تم بزرگ لوگ تو جانتے ہو کہ جب عقد کے فریق آپس میں بضد ہوں تو معاملے کو سلجھانے کے لئے بڑوں کا کردار لازم ہو جاتا ہے اس لئے تم ایک فیصلے کا مختار اس(خاوند)کے خاندان میں سے اور ایک مختار اس(بیوی) کے خاندان میں سے مقرر کرو معاملے کو سلجھانے کے لئے۔اگر ان دونوں (خاوند بیوی)کا اصلاح کا ارادہ ہوا تو اللہ تعالیٰ ان کے مابین ہم آہنگی اور موافقت کا جذبہ پیدا فرما دیں گے۔
إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ كَانَ عَلِيـمٙا خَبِيـرٙا .٣٥
Indeed Allah the Exalted is eternally the Knowledgeable and absolutely aware of what is secreted and manifest.
خبردار رہو؛ یہ حقیقت ہے کہ اللہ تعالیٰ ہر بات اور معاملے کا مطلق علم رکھتے ہیں، ہر لمحہ باخبر ہیں
Here the prepositional phrase coupled with possessive phrase is related to elided adjectival description of "hakaman". And they are two, one each from the family of husband and wife who intend to resolve and reconcile their differences. The word "judge" is not equivalent here.
أَفَغَيْـرَ ٱللَّهِ أَبْتَغِى حَكَمٙا
You the Messenger question the polytheists "Sine you people aspire judicial system of zealotry - hot headedness of the Age of Passion and Pride do you people think that I will too carry out an hectic search for finding someone who could persistently act as a judge other than Allah the Exalted?
آپ (ﷺ)ان مشرکین کو یوں سمجھائیں"کیا محض اس وجہ سے کہ آپ لغو جذباتیت اورحمیت پر مبنی زمانہ جاھلیت کے پنچائتی فیصلوں کی جستجو میں ہیں یہ سمجھتے ہیں کہ میں بھی اللہ تعالیٰ کے علاوہ محنت و مشقت سے کسی کو بطور منصف تلاش کرنے کی جستجو کروں گا۔
Here the word حَكَمٙا is not the object of verb but disambiguation or circumstantial adverb. Therefore, it has only the meaning of judge.
-
Now I think word "mediator" is better choice since the purpose is to engage in creative problem solving. Mediator helps the parties define and understand the issues and each side's interests. The mediators are not to render an award while arbitrator listens to facts and evidence and renders an award.
-
Quote 13
Which translation are you getting 'judge' from? Im getting arbitrator or mediator, which is not the same thing as a judge presiding over a courtLogically, 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.
It is something same as grammar/syntactic and semantic analysis.
-
I'm okay with how the thread has gone so far because these are important micro-issues although it's not really moving toward the big picture here as I see it and would have hoped. As a sidenote, I'm hoping to start a Youtube channel soon where I can expound more on these issues for anyone interested.
I guess my intentions and hopes with this thread were to open up a broader discussion about crime, disobedience to authority, and punishment in the light of Quranic guidance. Not everyone here may be ready for that or interested in it and hence focus on more sub-points.
I'm not saying I'm not interested in talking about 434 or other specific verses and going case by case, I'm just saying that my intention and my method of drawing together different verses illustrative of principles is not to disregard the benefit or necessity of 'getting into the weeds' so to speak on particular issues, but more to highlight the interconnectedness and consistency of the Quran when it comes to overarching principles.
So I guess I'll just throw out there for anyone interested where I'm sort of headed here and see if anyone is following me.
When it comes to authority this is a general principle that needs to be addressed. This is partly why the most interesting and profound part of 434 for me is not 'idriboo' but rather 'but if they obey you,'. Because if the object or goal of whatever these 3 steps are is a degree (not absolute) of 'obedience', that has profound implications as a principle for how a marriage is supposed to work on the basis of Quranic principles. It implies that the real issue here is disobedience/disloyalty/dishonesty. In the case of Zina, what actual content of the act of Zina is warranting the punishment of lashes? is it the consequences? If we could negate what we perceive as the harm associated with Zina, would punishment for Zina no longer be just?
I would contend that a person who is punished for Zina is mainly punished not for the harm, or the consequences of the act but for the disloyalty and dishonesty in their heart. Punishment for disloyalty in this life is a small taste of the punishment in the hereafter for disloyalty to god. The one who falsely accuses one of Zina (how common are false rape accusations today?) is almost as severely punished, for the same primary reason The disloyalty and rebellion in their heart.
But these principles go beyond marriage they really apply to every institution in society. What sort of institutions would we create for governance at the level of a state, or at the level of a family, for guidance, and for enjoining good and forbidding evil, if we were to truly study and understand what the Quran has to say about how human beings work and how society ought to function?
Traditionally, the 'tent-pole' or the pillar of the family is the father and the institution of the family under the guidance of a father forms a microcosm of a state, with its own internal jurisprudence and punishment for crimes and transgressions.
Everyone knows this even in cases where people grew up without being spanked. You didn't do your homework or you got home late or you were disobeying your parents when they said to clean your room, and there was some response or accountability for that transgression, maybe you had to do extra chores, maybe you had to clean the dishes or whatever it may be.
The family has its own internal frameworks and constitutions as a self-sufficient, building block for all societies.
Now if we're going to understand authority generally we should look at an often misused verse for understanding the Quran's position on authority as it often relates to sunni arguments and justification for sunnah and hadith 459 the "obedience verse"
"O you who believe! Obey God and obey the Messenger and those in authority (uli al-amr) among you. And if you differ among yourselves concerning any matter, refer it to God and the Messenger, if you believe in God and the Last Day. That is better, and fairer in outcome."
Hamza Abdul Malik had a great point in one of his videos when he said Obey God and obey the messenger applied to the prophet Muhammad too. Prophet Muhammad had a messenger he had to obey, too. Jibreel. There's no good reason for believing that the prophet was exempt from this verse or that prophet Muhammad had to be obeyed in a special way different from any other prophet or messenger beyond his normal span of life and his natural role as leader and guide (as he himself was lead and guided by God) of a fledgling monotheist community.
My understanding is that in light of the Quran we are all free individual human beings who are able to enter into contracts and treaties at our own will and judgment, there is also an implicit social contract in a Quranically guided society just as there is in any society which establishes norms and expectations for behavior and custom. Such a society pre-emptively heavily invests in caring for the young and in socially beneficial policies, before, and sometimes without, asking or receiving any compensation for the societal cost of doing so upon those not yet ready, (children) or otherwise unable to pay back or contribute to society.
If we are to turn back on our heels or become of the munafiqun after entering contracts and treaties or enjoying the benefits of social prosperity of a Quranically guided society without giving back or fulfilling social contract, then we will of course come to meet the full force of breach of contract, which in certain cases can be severe.
Beyond that, any entity or institution which we are engaging is according to our free will, judgment and inclination. Whether it be a state or a marriage, we are able to abandon institutions and situations of subservience to authority insofar as those institutions have ceased to be righteous and internally consistent with their stated principles and values, and insofar as we proceed with Quranic principles in disengaging from these institutions.
I remember having discussions with my Sunni friends on the issue of emigration to a more religious, conservative society. I was told that it was more 'Islamic' or in alignment with the Sunnah to stay in a corrupt society and try to change it from within.
I wondered then why did prophet Muhammad peace be upon him leave with his followers to Medina? Why didn't he stay in Mecca and just be martyred while trying to change the society from within?
If we're supposed to obey authorities and obey governments regardless of their righteousness and merit as leaders, why didn't Muhammad obey the pagan authorities in mecca and do as the pagans did?
It seems too often that people prefer to rip singular verses out of context to support a singular, one-track argument-agenda that they've got going, than to holistically look at the whole book.
In the case of Sunnis/Shias or Christians justifying theocracy and other forms of authoritarianism, the Sunnis and Shias love 459 just as some of the Christians love Romans 13 1-2.
Despite the fact that in the Quran there's a verse that explicitly clarifies the matter
331-3
-
O Prophet! Fear God, and do not obey the unbelievers and the hypocrites. God is Knowledgeable and Wise.
-
And follow what is revealed to you from your Lord. God is fully aware of what you do.
-
And put your trust in God. God is enough as a trustee.
and a contextual understanding of the life of Jesus and even of many of the early martyrs and saints of the church clearly demonstrates that they did not unquestioningly obey authority. When those authorities put them on the path of misguidance and idolatry, they rebelled. The early Christians were martyred for not bending the knee and sacrificing to the Roman emperor and the gospel narrative itself recounts Jesus ignoring/refusing to answer Herod, king of the jews. Was that in subjection to worldly authority?
So to try to loop this back to everyone's favorite topic here let's ask
Can a righteous authority physically discipline those subject to their jurisdiction physically?
Muslims must say yes. You can't fence-sit on corporeal punishment. If you're going to say no you're going to have to explain 242. 242 isn't even an option, it's a prescription and If you're going to say beating or other forms of corporeal punishment is bad, primitive, backward etc for transgressions and disobedience, then you're taking issue with what god has prescribed for us in the case of Zina.
From what I've seen on this forum in this and other threads, the whole discussion has been couched in terms of 'domestic violence' and 'wife beating' and 'abuse', to the extent of disingenuity and poor framing of the discussion.
The verse in question clearly isn't talking about a passionate, spontaneous violent outburst upon the whim of a man and I think that we can ALL agree that unjustified and unprovoked striking of anyone in any context is by definition wrong, and not sanctioned by Quran, and I think people on both sides want the verse to mean that for the purposes of their own arguments when it clearly does not and has never meant that, but rather describes a dispassionate, orderly step-based process.
The other reason the whole discussion is improperly framed is because 434 isn't 'the wife beating verse'. Whether or not it means strike/beat or not there is completely irrelevant insofar as the broader principles and intertextual context of Quran apply
There may not be an explicit "'wife beating" verse aside 434 if not interpreted as strike/hit/beat, but there's also no verse anywhere describing hitting/striking children as a method of discipline. Does that mean that Quranically guided parents cannot spank their children as a matter of forthrightness and guidance upon a way, because it is not there in the Quran as an explicit thing sanctioned verbatim?
Nor is it appropriate to say "well if he hits her, she can hit him back" for very simple logic.
Self-defense and retaliation is not valid in the case where you are lawfully receiving an earned (for your deeds and behavior), procedural punishment from a valid authority.
Otherwise, the one who is lashed for committing Zina should also be able to lash the one who lashed them, despite that they who punished the fornicator did not commit Zina themselves.
Now, you may be of the way of thinking that the way of a father is not to be a valid authority in the home, that it is not his part to set order and guidance in the home or punish anyone for doing anything. That is a view.
You may also be of the way of thinking that even if there is such a thing as a valid authority who can punish others for disobedience and transgression, it is better not to punish people with striking. Better it be by taking something away from them, going to the naughty chair, no more Xbox, no more freedom because you go to prison etc, there are many good parents who do not believe in smacking their kids, as an example, and many good kids have been raised without being spanked on a regular basis if at all.
434 actually concurs with this because it doesn't prescribe getting physical as the first option for anybody.
The first step in any disagreement or conflict is dialogue, which is the first prescription. The second prescription is leaving, leaving the situation permanently or temporarily, this is almost like taking something away from someone, the very last step is striking and It's actually like that with nearly everything in life in the real world. If you can't talk it out, it either becomes a situation where you have to leave it be, and get out of there, or it becomes a matter of asserting dominance.
From nowhere in Quran can we derive principles that would create systems and institutions which we have as an example in the Westminister system what's called a 'hung parliament. There's no prescribed deadlock between two absolutely equal parties to be found.
That's why the idea of assigning two absolutely equal judges, equally biased from their respective families, doesn't make sense. That's why there are unequal obligations in marriage and why the idea of a completely equal marriage which results in a deadlock when the husband and wife disagree, doesn't make sense.
It just facilitates bureaucracy, external dependency, and unnecessary complexity for what is simple and salat (assigned duty), and a blueprint for building civilization bottom-up from the individual, to the family, to the town, the community, the city, and the whole country. If the system doesn't scale all the way up the chain, at every level it's not a sustainable system for sustaining human life, I.E, broken families, demographic crisis, declining fertility etc etc.
It's also why we have to deal with different people, male and female, people from other nations and backgrounds and means, and why in another sense we all have our own path in life and don't fully belong to any party or faction on this earth, our home is in the next life.
2148
"Each of you chooses the direction to follow; you shall race towards righteousness. Wherever you may be, God will summon you all. God is Omnipotent. "
And why we all have our own communities and national customs
1047
"And for every Ummah (a community or a nation), there is a Messenger; when their Messenger comes, the matter will be judged between them with justice, and they will not be wronged".
548
"Then we revealed to you this scripture, truthfully, confirming previous scriptures, and superseding them. You shall rule among them in accordance with God's revelations, and do not follow their wishes if they differ from the truth that came to you. For each of you, we have decreed laws and different rites. Had God willed, He could have made you one congregation. But He thus puts you to the test through the revelations He has given each of you. You shall compete in righteousness. To God is your final destiny - all of you - then He will inform you of everything you had disputed".
Whenever there's a deadlock the parties in that deadlock always have to adhere to parties or principles outside and above themselves and their institution, and if you're going to say that's authorities but those authorities are two in number and also completely equal, then those authorities will also have to defer to other authorities ad infinitum.
But I don't believe people really have a problem with authority, they're just uncomfortable with the idea of a patriarch, a father wielding authority in the context of his home concerning his family. When I see the attitudes and behaviors of the masses of western populations over the past 2 years, I see a people who have for the most part welcomed and applauded the assertive, strong hand of government coming in and deciding things in an incredibly decisive, swift, strong-handed manner.
If a father were to set rules for his family, that they are not to go out from the home but that they have a lawful reason, that if they do go out they must be back home by a certain time (curfew), that they are not authorized to leave the country or even the local government area, that they must take a privately produced American pharmaceutical product that this is not a discussion matter, we insist. I believe most people experiencing different degrees of moral outrage at 434 meaning to 'strike' or to 'beat' would put this behavior in a similar category of domestic violence extreme abusive-controlling-manipulative behavior. But do they wonder? I'm obviously riffing here but this is how I see it.
We don't see many people who genuinely dislike and disrepute authority, or the punishments and arbitration meted out by authority as a principle, we don't have to go back to Nazi-Germany or Stalinist Russia to see western populations getting on board with unbelievably rapid and piercing government overreach into personal lives with serious consequences for people not getting on board with the program straight away, or otherwise finding themselves on the wrong side of history.
People love authority and command when it agrees with them.
The indirectness, the over-litigation, and the hyper-institutionalization and hence factioning of justice and society haven't made us better people, more moral, more upright, more disciplined, more long-suffering than our forebears. What we have is a more dishonest, passive-aggressive society, where justice is either miscarried or unnecessarily delayed and complicated, and where people have issues with each other, even adult men, they would rather do underhanded, spiteful, and sabotage-like measures than simply have a direct confrontation defending their honor and be out with it.
The sorts of societies we live in partly come out of who and what we choose to trust and to what degree. I'm not saying put your faith in man, put your trust in God and his message. but if we're to have societies and institutions and civilizations, let's try to make sure we recognize what the basis for that is, what scales, and that we're not undermining it if we want it to stay around for posterity.
-
-
//Hamza Abdul Malik had a great point in one of his videos when he said Obey God and obey the messenger applied to the prophet Muhammad too. Prophet Muhammad had a messenger he had to obey, too. Jibreel. There's no good reason for believing that the prophet was exempt from this verse or that prophet Muhammad had to be obeyed in a special way different from any other prophet or messenger beyond his normal span of life and his natural role as leader and guide (as he himself was lead and guided by God) of a fledgling monotheist community.//
"Logic" without semantic analysis of the involved words will always lead to invalid conclusions. The English word obey distorts what is said or commanded.
وَأَطِيعُوا۟ ٱللَّهَ وَٱلرَّسُولَ
And You people listen and affectionately and wholeheartedly accept the word of Allah the Exalted and the Messenger (Muhammad [Sal'lallaa'hoalaih'wa'salam) —
اور اللہ تعالیٰ اور رسول(کریم محمدﷺ)کے فرمان کو صدق دل سے تسلیم کرو
The perception and meanings infolded in Root "ت ب ع" are distinct and absolutely different from that infolded in the Root "ط و ع" which is translated by English word "obey"; and Root "ت ب ع" by English word "follow" by most of the writers. This is how both the Roots are inadvertently/incorrectly brought closer and at par, as if they both convey similar meanings. English word "Obey" means and conveys the perception "to do as told; be controlled by somebody or something" and the word "follow" means "to obey something, act in accordance with something or instructions and directions given by somebody else". It is thus evident that English word "obey" and "follow" are in proximity of synonymous and both refer to an act while Arabic Roots "ت ب ع" and "ط و ع" are not synonymous and are distinct from each other.
Root "ط و ع" has a theoretical/ideological aspect while "ت ب ع" has practical/physical aspect/connotation. It means translating/implementing into action what was accepted. This will also show and prove to others the truthfulness and faithfulness and sincerity of the person that he had accepted that concept/idea/fact/saying/news/Book truly and wholeheartedly. In sequence/time frame "ت ب ع" is after "ط و ع" and not conversely.
http//haqeeqat.pk/roots/(912).htm
