Quranic affirmation of corporal punishment relating to 4:34 and more
-
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
-
-
Corpus of the Grand Qur’ān - the Sustainer of truly living life
Translating Grand Qur’ān in the 21st century through Triplet Theory of Translation
http//haqeeqat.pk/Quran.Corpus-1.htm
So I'm reading here in this translation "Thereat, politely and lovingly advise them"
I'm just wondering if there are words there in the Arabic root etymologically corresponding to 'politely' and 'lovingly' and 'advising' in the case of what is seeming to correspond to فَعِظُوهُنَّ
And is there root etymological, word for word correspondence in the translation for "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." to the Arabic فَإِنْ أَطَعْنَكُـمْ فَلَا تَبْغُوا۟ عَلَيْـهِنَّ سَبِيلٙاۗ ?
Peace
-
So I'm reading here in this translation "Thereat, politely and lovingly advise them"
I'm just wondering if there are words there in the Arabic root etymologically corresponding to 'politely' and 'lovingly' and 'advising' in the case of what is seeming to correspond to فَعِظُوهُنَّ
And is there root etymological, word for word correspondence in the translation for "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." to the Arabic فَإِنْ أَطَعْنَكُـمْ فَلَا تَبْغُوا۟ عَلَيْـهِنَّ سَبِيلٙاۗ ?
Peace
Root و ع ظ
Ibn Faris stated
(مقاييس اللغة)
الواو والعين والظاء كلمةٌ واحدة. فالوَعْظ التخويف.
والعِظَة الاسمُ منه؛ قال الخليل هو التَّذكير بالخير وما يرقُّ له قلبُهThat it signifies discouragement; reminding, counseling with something good, benefaction and that which softens someone's heart.
http//haqeeqat.pk/roots/(1569).htm
فَإِنْ أَطَعْنَكُـمْ فَلَا تَبْغُوا۟ عَلَيْـهِنَّ سَبِيلٙاۗ
Particle فَ conjuncts to previous clauses, cause and effect.
-
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
Peace everyone..
I don't understand why complicating a manifest verse into complicated verse.. Remember brothers and sisters this was an instruction to common folk especially believers who had issues in family life. There is no rocket science in here to discuss for ages..
434 is very manifest..
Nushuz is kind of illconduct it could be anything that doesn't help at all for better family life being united unless mend it.. Nushuz for me is not kind of illconduct which is related to extra marital sexual relationship .it cannot be.. Coz for extra marital sexual relationship there is separated rule in Quran..So.. Here in 434 God has given the authority to men when I'm case he finds Nushuz (illconduct) in their married women.. So obvious.. First advise them..... Second try to keep them away from bed.. Third very important part for all you people is Move on... Three steps. Advice, free her from bed.. And then move on from her.. It means with time divorce.. Dharab here absolutely move on. Coz relationship cannot be bonded unless reform take place.. But in case they obey you during first and second steps ie. After advice and freeing her from bed then don't go agaisnt her don't harm her.. But if you have moved on then that's over.. That's the the end..
Same for women. In verse 4128 if women fear Nushuz (illconduct) from men then story little different.. Others I mean family members or even friends do advise and try to make the relationship to become good.. But if all fail Gof had given always divorce equally fir men and women. End it and find another partner..
This is a common message for common folk in that era and why drag it to this much intricate topic I have no idea..
Thank you.. -
peace,
Peace Wakas
My argument is based on logic, not grammar or linguistics.
I believe we've heard a sufficient linguistic argument from Mazhar if that is the avenue you wish to pursue.
By relying heavily on your logic presupposes your logic to be sound. Risky. An argument can be composed of many angles.
Unfortunately Mazhar has a habit of claiming something with no evidence. He often thinks a certain grammatical construct rules out this or that meaning when it doesn't. In any case it's irrelevant because let's look at what I actually wrote on www.Quran434.com
"...then appoint a judge..." (Arabic ibAAatho hakaman, roots Ba-Ayn-Thal, Ha-Kaf-Miim), literally means to put in motion or send/appoint a judge/arbiter. The Arabic confirms that the plural "you" can ONLY refer to someone/something in a position to put this in motion, so it cannot mean either side's family for example. Also, appointing an arbiter from each side is not a simple task as it would require representations from husband and wife or each side of the family, and suggests the process has become formalised, i.e. judicial. This clearly confirms the court/authority is involved at this stage.
Note the word in red above.
So for sake of argument let's say according to your "logic" you have managed to rule out "judge" here and thereby use of courts etc and somehow thereby my understanding of 434, so let's assume we go with "arbiter" as the meaning of "hakaman" here. Tell us how my understanding of 434 fails now?
-
Quote
"...then appoint a judge..." (Arabic ibAAatho hakaman, roots Ba-Ayn-Thal, Ha-Kaf-Miim), literally means to put in motion or send/appoint a judge/arbiter. The Arabic confirms that the plural "you" can ONLY refer to someone/something in a position to put this in motion, so it cannot mean either side's family for example. Also, appointing an arbiter from each side is not a simple task as it would require representations from husband and wife or each side of the family, and suggests the process has become formalised, i.e. judicial. This clearly confirms the court/authority is involved at this stage.Marriage cannot continue by any decree of any court of law. It is the will and consent of both husband and wife. Here the issue is resolving the issues between wife and husband out of the court at families level to save the marriage bond since husband and wife have failed to resolve their differences between themselves and are not presently maintaining "intimate relationship" which is open secret when both are not sharing the bed room. As for Court, any spouse can go to court for dissolving the marriage at any time.
-
peace,
By relying heavily on your logic presupposes your logic to be sound. Risky. An argument can be composed of many angles.
Unfortunately Mazhar has a habit of claiming something with no evidence. He often thinks a certain grammatical construct rules out this or that meaning when it doesn't. In any case it's irrelevant because let's look at what I actually wrote on www.Quran434.com
Note the word in red above.
So for sake of argument let's say according to your "logic" you have managed to rule out "judge" here and thereby use of courts etc and somehow thereby my understanding of 434, so let's assume we go with "arbiter" as the meaning of "hakaman" here. Tell us how my understanding of 434 fails now?
Well its not just my logic alone, its also the majority opinion as far as mainstream translations into English, and Sam Gerrans translation into English. As i said, the only other offering aside yours which I've seen render the word 'judges' is Dr Ghalis.
But even if the mainstream view was in your favor, yes, i personally would value a logically consistent interpretation over something which better fitted a personal linguistic argument, but causes numerous logical and practical problems.
I actually don't have a problem with the word judge except in the case where its shoehorned into a very specific, very dependent, minority opinion argument for retranslation and reinterpretation of a singular verse.
In a sense, im a judge of this conversation, you are too. We all are. I have no problem with judge in that sense, we are all judges.
But we aren't engaging with any particular legal system here, we aren't ruling on cases deciding matters which would benefit ourselves or our families from a ruling we would make, perverting the course of justice.
'cite' requires there to be someone to cite to, who's lawful role and application involves concerning himselves with the interpersonal relationships between husbands and wives even in 7th century tribal and village Arabia context, and that it makes sense that a husband would be invoking such an authority in his tribe or village, in the case he fears nushuz from his wife.
-
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.
Yes I agree "mediator" fits best and you are correct when you say "mediator is better choice since the purpose is to engage in creative problem solving."
me·di·a·tor
/ˈmēdēˌādər/
Learn to pronounce
noun
a person who attempts to make people involved in a conflict come to an agreement; a go-between.Similar
arbitrator
arbiter
negotiator
conciliator
go-between
middlemanJust my two cents
God bless peace
-
peace,
'cite' requires there to be someone to cite to, who's lawful role and application involves concerning himselves with the interpersonal relationships between husbands and wives even in 7th century tribal and village Arabia context, and that it makes sense that a husband would be invoking such an authority in his tribe or village, in the case he fears nushuz from his wife.
I'm a little confused as ii seems like you are agreeing that "cite" is a possibility.
