Quranic affirmation of corporal punishment relating to 4:34 and more
-
My contention is that the Quran's affirmation of corporeal punishment in 242, 244, and indirectly in 425 and 3330 (whether you think 425 is saying half, or equal, it is referring back to 242 as the only verse explaining what the punishment is), has far deeper implications as a principle than I've seen anyone explicate.
In some sense, it makes some of the reinterpretation of 434 as something other than hitting/striking, redundant, because it establishes a broader principle.
The question is not is physical/corporeal punishment ever prescribed by God for certain people in certain circumstances for certain transgressions?
Because with 242 and 244, that's now been established.
The questions remaining are more like
For what punishments is a physical/corporeal punishment warranted?
Who is permitted to administer corporal punishment?
As far as I know, 242 is the only verse in the Quran that prescribes lashes explicitly, 425 and 3330 links back to the verse but for the same transgression/crime of sexual immorality/zina. Some could interpret this in a reductionist sense to mean that lashes are not permitted at any other time for any other thing, but even that would be problematic because the key words of 425 and 3330 are normally interpreted as 'halving' and 'doubling' respectively, both imply a variable scale of just severity of punishment in relation to a given offense which would only make sense if an even smaller number than 50 lashes were applicable for even lesser transgressions.
Regardless, the question of who is permitted to administer the lashes is extremely important in the context of the reinterpretation of 434 as not hit or strike.
If we establish that there is no Quranic, or logical reason which would prevent a husband from administering the lashes on an adulterous wife, (after having established 4 witnesses to the act) then we already have established a context elsewhere in the Quran from 434 where a husband 'hitting' or 'striking' his wife is lawful, albeit with the caveat that it would also be lawful if the husband were to commit zina, for her to produce witnesses and lash her husband. I have no problem with that, because in the case of Zina I understand it to be an equal crime for men and women of equal status (though it varies with women of different social status)
The fact that Zina is treated as a crime equally punished for men and women is not what you would expect if the framework of values in evaluating gender relations were that of the modern, secular, humanist, feminist worldviews. Because of what the Quran establishes elsewhere regarding the rights of men in marriage.
Namely that men are permitted by Allah to marry up to 4 wives, which increases the number of women a man may lawfully have sex with (though this is certainly not the primary reason for 4 wives being permitted) This being the case, why would the punishment for zina not be greater for men than for women?.
Also, why isn't the social status of men I.E slave men considered in regards to zina as compared to slave women?
Broadly, why would lashing/hitting be prescribed for any transgression if it were not a valid method of punishment?
Even more broadly, why would any differentiation between men and women be made, in what their roles are, what their rights are, how many they can marry, if they have to provide a marital gift, what the rules of divorce are regarding waiting periods, and so on, and so on, if the haqq, the truth, and the best way for humanity were upon the sunnah of the feminist-secular-human traditions of the west which would generally negate such differentiation as backward, and sexist?
Hopefully, that's a redundant question, and no Muslim needs to be convinced of the innate differences between men and women and the different 'salat' duties assigned by Allah in Quran. But I've seen some language that seems to me indicative of superimposing of modern west values upon the Qur'an in a similarly problematic way to traditionalists superimposing of traditionalist values and especially their hadith and tafsir as the tools and principles of their interpretation and hermeneutics of Quran.
Returning to the implications of Quranic affirmation of corporal punishment
What could it mean insofar as the disciplining of children? There is today a movement mainly in the west away from the use of corporeal punishment as a parenting discipline tool, to the extent of criminalizing a parent using spanking/hitting as a method of discipline, in certain places, it's already the case that this is a crime.
What could it mean in regard to the penal system? is the modern penal/correctional system as best practice and civilized, another modern assumption that we ought to question?
Interestingly, prisons are cited in the Quran mainly in the context of Surah Yusuf where Joseph is in Egypt, and in the case of 2629 where Moses is threatened with prison by Pharaoh. Yet nowhere in Quran is prison prescribed either as rehabilitation or as a deterrence. I'm not saying there's no place or time for prisons ever, I'm merely questioning the assumption that 'time out' or 'the naughty chair' is always the best punishment.
I think that prisons go hand in hand with big, bureaucratic states for a handful of reasons. The justice described in the Qur'an in my opinion follows the models of medium population community and town justice, with very simple and efficient ways for holding people accountable and punishing people for crimes. Ways that don't require a complicated judicial system or the involvement of the state in most, if any of the judicial procedures.
This is actually how the traditionalists have treated even something as serious as homicide in much of history as a civil dispute not requiring corrective punishment by the state (even though an Islamic state was around at the time) and is also in alignment with the arguments Maajid Nawaz insofar as he suggests that an authoritarian Islamic state imposing one interpretation of Shariah upon all of society is itself bid'ah (innovation) not concurrent with the decentralization and pluralism of the caliphates (abbasids, umayyads) and even the ottoman empire prior to the Tanzimat reforms, where there were 3 court systems going at the same time, one for Muslims, one for non-muslims (mainly Christians and jews) and the trade court. All the while many people still lived traditionally and resolved matters communally and individually out of court, avoiding and ignoring the court litigation process altogether.
Obviously, in traditionalist interpretations and implementations of shariah and hudud, this system often results in vigilantism, brutality, and unjust mob rule, which no one wants to live in if they have the choice.
So there also needs to be an understanding of why that happens and how to prevent that without requiring the development of a complicated, slow, expensive and prone to corruption judicial system which inevitably enlarges the state apparatus and tax collection scope.
As always, Allah knows best.
Salam
-
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.
