Conventional knowledge is death to our souls,
and it is not really ours. It is laid on.
Yet we keep saying we find "rest" in these "beliefs."

We must become ignorant of what we have been taught
and be instead bewildered.

-Rumi

He was so right.

Peace Rami,

I agree. The great reading doesn't specify a calendar and doesn't state exactly when a month that has the meaningless name of Ramadan is. Human calendars are ultimately dependent on when the era was made to start, which month it started with, the order of the months and the meaningless names of the months. This is the same as for the week. When religious holy days occur is also 100% arbitrary and manmade. For example, when Friday, Saturday and Sunday occur depends on when the 7 day week was adopted, which day it started with and the arbitrary order and assigned labels of the days. The great reading doesn't specify any of the above either for months or for weeks. So yes, it certainly doesn't specify a calendar. However, what is abundantly clear is that it specifies and keeps telling us to pay attention to clear cosmic phenomena for timing. This is why based on this correct understanding we are now and at any time in the future able to know with certainty when to fast no matter what happened or did not happen in the past. Those who are arguing for the sectarian manmade calendar cannot get this point and cannot experience this.

Peace and all best wishes,

Ayman

Ayman, this makes a lot of sense but I'd like to know how it was determined what 'abstaining' (as it is translated) means/covers? How do we know it refers to fasting? And if it does, how do we know it's food AND water, since going without water all day--especially if you happen to be working out in the fields or outside in the scorching sun all day--can be quite unhealthy; people can become very dehydrated. As far I know, the following verses are the only ones that touch on this subject. Again, as with many other important topics, these verses are also vague/unclear and open to interpretation, not to mention scattered throughout the Qur'an. I can't help but wonder why God would not have made them a bit more specific/clear. These are your translations, taken from your first couple of posts.

2185. The full moon of scorching heat is when the reading was descended as a guidance for people and clarifications from the guidance and the criterion, so whomever witnesses the full-moon, let him abstain it. And whomever was sick or traveling so a count of other days. The God wants to facilitate and not make it hard on you. And so complete the count and magnify The God for what He guided you and perhaps you would be thankful.

2186. And We appointed for Moussa thirty nights, and We completed with ten thus was completed the timing of his Lord, forty nights...

10.5. It is He who made the sun a shining brightness and the moon a light and made it stages; so that you might know the number of years and the calculation. The God didn't create this except with the truth, He explains His signs to people who know.

17.12. We have made the night and the day as two signs the sign of the night We have obscured, while the sign of the day we have made visible so that you may seek favors from your Lord, and so that you may know the number of years and the calculation, and We have explained all things in detail.

If 2185 is translated correctly, and if 'witness' is indeed the word used, it becomes clear that one cannot witness a month; however, one can witness the moon. But how does one 'abstain' it? How does one abstain or even fast a moon?

If you understand idribuhunna as beat the problem is that it is an absurdity. What does daraba mean in this case? You go and beat the hell out of her? Is that going to save the marriage? How does that fit with the rest of the Qur'an? The fact that you have problems with her does it make out of her a sharika, a hypocrite, and idolater? Even in that case does the Qur'an make a case for beating shuraka', hypocrites or idolaters if you have personal problems with them? Aren'you rather advised no to take them as compannions? Or it doesn't mean that you beat the hell out her, but rather that you just go, stop in front of her and very seriously say "I hereby comply with the third level and smack you so?" and then smack her once on the buttocks? If you understand daraba as beat it lacks any precision, it is as good as not saying anything, and if you understand it as beating the hell out her, you certainly will solve the marriage problem with an immediate break. But that could also be done without beating. Psychollogically also it is bullshit. You keep them apart for a time and then go and smack them. My God? that should make her think? If being kept apart for some time hasn't made her think, then surely, the final smack will do the trick. Mind you it might do if she had sense of humour. And we are talking about smacking once, because we must bear in mind that daraba is not darrab you really cannot go and beat her at leasure, no way, that is outside the scope of daraba, which is a "once" verb. So in purity that is all a person is authorized to do according to this understanding of the word. Of course you can even kill her with that once hit if it is karatekalike dispensed. Even because of this imprecision the beat understanding is useless as and meaningless as an injunction.

Those tafsir people who have understood and explained daraba in this instance as beating usually have done so in the sense of beating lightly, as a symbolical deed and not as a means of physical compulsion, because general contents of the Qur'an do not warrant anything else. To start with, a husband is not a judge doubled of a an executor, therefore he may act unilateraly as an interested person in a conflict and as such do whatever he deems suitable, but never as an executor of any legal punishment. That is aboherrent and unwarranted in the Qur'an, it doesn't matter whether he is right or he has been wronged or not. Those who uphold the beating lightly version justify it in the events that purportedly brought about this revelation which were certain discussions between the Prophet and some people regarding disagreements in their marriages and wife-beatings. I do not think that that inference is right. If such a thing existed, they are two different things, those exchanges and the aya.

Be it as it may, we do not have a reason to believe without doubt that that was the reason and that the Qur'an has not cared to state that reason or circumstance. However, there are other readings of the daraba word, like for instance to impress something upon somebody. Make a firm statement of determination to somebody, like daraba mathal, putting the disjunctive before her, as she see he can live without her, so...

Farida wrote somewhere sometime on the merits of the daraba interpretion not to say that it was meant so, but to make psychollogically plain, the absurdity of wife-beating to men who would otherwise be prone to resort to that. That may be a possibility as a way to disuade of wife-beating. But it is out of the question that it is of any use to make a woman ply who hasn't plied to the two previous steps. And would automatically put the wrong on the husband.

Things must make sense in general and within the Qur'an as a whole.

Salaam

This is great, Huruf; thank you. But it still does not answer my question. This verse has been discussed so many times in the past and although most people seem to agree that "beating" is not the correct translation, the verse remains unchanged and no one has offered a new and complete translation of it. So the question remains What does it really mean? Huruf, if you (or anyone else here with knowledge of Classical Arabic) were given authority to rewrite (correctly translate) 434, how would you write it?

Guy meets girl, tells girl how beautiful she is; tells her he loves her. Girl falls for guy. Guy is not serious about girl. Girl eventually realizes this. Girl is heartbroken and spends the rest of her life alone, never able to trust a man again.

Woman at work asks guy what he thinks of her new haircut. Guy thinks she looks worse but sees how much she seems to like it and says, ?You look mahvelous, dahling, simply mahvelous!? Woman walks away with a smile on her face.

It depends on intention.

peace Scheherezade,

StudyQuran is a resource site, and contains about 30 different English translations, some of which translate it as "beat" and some which do not. No translation represents StudyQuran.

No. If all goes to plan, this issue will be better clarified in another project currently being worked on.

Thank you for your reply, Wakas, and good luck with your project. I certainly hope that you will be able to better clarify this issue, but for now, can you or anyone else here who is familiar with classical Arabic (Samia? Huruf?) correctly translate 434? And I don't mean words here and there but the entire verse.

Wakas, I'm not sure if you realize this but the link in your signature to StudyQuran.co.uk contains the traditional translation of Surah 4, Verse 34 which states husbands have the right to beat their wives (if they are disobedient). Do you agree with this translation?

34. Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance) For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).

35. If ye fear a breach between them twain, appoint (two) arbiters, one from his family, and the other from hers; if they wish for peace, Allah will cause their reconciliation For Allah hath full knowledge, and is acquainted with all things.

I don?t see how this verse has anything to do with ?refusing to share their beds? or ?beating them.? It doesn?t make any sense. As I mentioned above, when one reads the verse following it, it becomes clear that the man and woman are being told to temporarily separate from each other so that they may reflect on their actions and decide whether it is best to stay together or permanently separate.

In my opinion, the entire verse is badly translated and in desperate need of a rewrite.

I have read the Torah and Bible and now am in the process of reading the Quran. To believe in their truth, one must believe in all that is written in them. So far I am not convinced that any of them come from God since they all discriminate against women and place women in a subordinate role. I can?t possibly believe in something that discriminates against me or says that I should be beaten if I don?t ?obey? another human being. This places the wife under the authority of her husband. Critics of Islam and of this particular verse claim that this translation places the man as master and woman as slave. I was surprised to see it in the Quran since quite a few times I have heard Muslim men talk about how Islam promotes equality between men and women.

My sister says this as well, claiming that some verses about women are incorrectly translated and so-called scholars who don?t like women much refuse to let go of old interpretations even when the real meaning is crystal clear.

So now I ask you ladies and gentlemen, if they are incorrectly translated why do they still remain unchanged? She reads this forum and told me that many of you also claim that the translation of 434 is not entirely correct. The Quran on three different websites had the traditional translation. I went to the library and checked that verse in the two books I found, same translation. It is this particular verse that the critics of Islam point to here in the US, noting that how can this be a ?religion of peace? when it encourages domestic violence? It doesn?t matter if it?s as a last resort or if it?s ?light,? it?s still violence and beating someone is certainly not a peaceful way to solve a problem.

Peace Salim,

If peace means injusice, so Islam is against peace. Only religions without principle will sell justice for peace. Beating of the wives is only a punishment for disobedience and rebellion, nothing more nothing less. And anyone who will beat his wife out of this context and without performing the two procedures before this, then he has wronged himself and must repent.

Peace,

Rami

There is nothing there about beating anyone. It's all in the minds of the men who interpreted and translated this verse. When one reads the verse following it, it becomes apparent that the man and woman are being told to temporarily separate from each other. This time alone would give them an opportunity to reflect on their actions and decide whether it is best to stay together or permanently separate. Beatings, no matter how ?light,? serve no purpose other than to make the wife hate the husband.