[Variable]

Originally Posted by Revert

This is the danger of Translations and misguided people trying to translate Gods words.

I don't think the danger here is translation. I think the danger is people not acknowledging that every source, no matter how divine or 'clear' - is open to interpretation. Each translation is just the interpretation of another scholar.

People who think they have a monopoly on Quranic understanding, who refuse to be open to the fact that they might be wrong about something - are what come out of this mind set.

That's the danger.

[Jamroll]

Originally Posted by Bluestar

I think it would be good for any man who hits his wife to have a surgical operation which transforms him into a eunuch. I would be happy to enforce this law.

I've seen this kind of suggestion quite a few times before on Islamica. I always find it quite disturbing.

[AceOfHearts]

In interpreting this multiple meaning term in 4:34, I think it is very important to heed the following advice of the Qur'an itself:

"The ones who listen to what is being said, and then follow the BEST of it. These are the ones whom God has guided, and these are the ones who possess intelligence." [Qur'an39:18]

In that we follow the BEST interpretation if the Verse, NOT the worst one.

And the best interpretation is the most logical and rationale one, 'beat/scourge/hit' is not.

[Laimuun]

Originally Posted by Variable

I don't think the danger here is translation. I think the danger is people not acknowledging that every source, no matter how divine or 'clear' - is open to interpretation. Each translation is just the interpretation of another scholar.

People who think they have a monopoly on Quranic understanding, who refuse to be open to the fact that they might be wrong about something - are what come out of this mind set.

That's the danger.

must spread reps..

[IbnMardhiyah]

Originally Posted by Variable

I don't think the danger here is translation. I think the danger is people not acknowledging that every source, no matter how divine or 'clear' - is open to interpretation. Each translation is just the interpretation of another scholar.

Not exactly.

In the Qur'an itself it clearly states that some verses are clear cut and straightforward, while others are allegorical, or have hidden meanings known to none bu God alone. It also goes on to say that only those men who seek discord are the ones who make a fuss about the unclear / allegorical verses.

People who think they have a monopoly on Quranic understanding, who refuse to be open to the fact that they might be wrong about something - are what come out of this mind set.

That's the danger.

There are individuals in Muslim history who could truly, with a straight face, say that they had a better understanding of the Qur'an that anyone else [except the Prophet]. One example was Ibn Mas'oud who was a servant in the household of the Prophet from a very young and was always with the Prophet up until his death. He once made a claim that he knew where, when, why, and about what, each and every single verse was revealed for. When the 2nd Caliph [Umar] heard this claim from third-party sources, he became extremely upset until it was told to him that Ibn Mas'oud was the one who made the claim, and upon hearing that Umar calmed down - because he knew it was true. And he knew that Ibn Mas'oud didn't say it to brag or to show-off, either.

There were also less than a handful of other mufassireen who could make a similar claim. It is their exegetical works that are taken as the top authority in Islam when it comes to the Qur'an [after the Prophet's own comments, if any] for obvious reasons.

Of course some verses are open to different understandings - many of the Companions had differing yet valid views on a wide variety of subjects - but the views of those top-ranked exegetists are taken as a base anchor.

The real danger is ignorant or uneducated laypersons coming along and claiming all sorts of stuff about this verse or that hadith or that event, and people actually believing him or her.

That is why in Islam, we've always been taught that Satan fears the lone educated servant of God far more than a thousand uneducated zealots. Not without reason was our first command the command to read.

[Variable]

Originally Posted by IbnMardhiyah

There are individuals in Muslim history who could truly, with a straight face, say that they had a better understanding of the Qur'an that anyone else [except the Prophet]. One example was Ibn Mas'oud who was a servant in the household of the Prophet from a very young and was always with the Prophet up until his death. He once made a claim that he knew where, when, why, and about what, each and every single verse was revealed for. When the 2nd Caliph [Umar] heard this claim from third-party sources, he became extremely upset until it was told to him that Ibn Mas'oud was the one who made the claim, and upon hearing that Umar calmed down - because he knew it was true.

So because he said it... that's how we know it's true?

There were also less than a handful of other mufassireen who could make a similar claim. It is their exegetical works that are taken as the top authority in Islam when it comes to the Qur'an [after the Prophet's own comments, if any] for obvious reasons.

Of course some verses are open to different understandings - many of the Companions had differing yet valid views on a wide variety of subjects - but the views of those top-ranked exegetists are taken as a base anchor.

The real danger is ignorant or uneducated laypersons coming along and claiming all sorts of stuff about this verse or that hadith or that event, and people actually believing him or her.

That is why in Islam, we've always been taught that Satan fears the lone educated servant of God far more than a thousand uneducated zealots. Not without reason was our first command the command to read.

Then who are these guys and what do they say on wife beating?

[IbnMardhiyah]

Originally Posted by Variable

So because he said it... that's how we know it's true?

If Ibn Mas'oud said something and it was written down / transmitted through a verified chain of transmission, then yes. The integrity of his character was widely known, so it is not possible for a handful of people to conspire and manufacture up reports on his integrity and character. We know he was an authoritative source on the exegesis of the Qur'an, so that's why his word is top-ranked. That was his specialty. Other Companions had other areas of specialization.

Then who are these guys and what do they say on wife beating?

I don't know what their specific statements are on that ayah.

[Bluestar]

Originally Posted by Variable

I don't think the danger here is translation. I think the danger is people not acknowledging that every source, no matter how divine or 'clear' - is open to interpretation. Each translation is just the interpretation of another scholar.

People who think they have a monopoly on Quranic understanding, who refuse to be open to the fact that they might be wrong about something - are what come out of this mind set.

That's the danger.

That's a really good post and i agree with you but if the quran is meant to be a guideline on how to live your life then having a million possibilities of interpretation may make life a little confusing.

[Arabesque]

Why is everybody so worked up about this verse? It exists. Dharaba means to hit. To strike. No matter how much we twist it, it's not going to change. Dharaba can have different meanings, but it all depends on the context. Even those with basic knowledge of Arabic and tasreef will know that in this particular context, dharaba means to hit or strike.

I'm not sure why some people seem to be ashamed of this verse (and I hope my observation is wrong). Maybe if we look at the historical and cultural context, we'll understand that in those days, marrying a woman from a certain tribe meant forging an alliance with that tribe (it is very much the same today, in this part of the world). Though it was a patriarchal society, a form of matriarchy existed in the sense that women had power derived from their tribe and community. At a certain point, it seems an increasing number of women started abusing this power, and men were reduced to being bed-partners with no rights over their spouses. It may be that because of this phenomenon (and I could be wrong), this ayah was revealed to make a point; i.e. after marriage, a woman's loyalty lies with her husband, not her family or tribe.

[AbuAlAbbas]

Wife Beating in Islam - The Rules
YouTube - Re: Wife Beating in Islam - The Rules

[m_ali_qazi]

Originally Posted by Bluestar

I'm not trying to be awkward, i'm just tired of excuses. Bringing other hadith which are all really sweet to cover this one isn't going to make it go away,

but those hadiths also exist with certainty, and they're meanings are not ambiguous, they exist, and they're not there to cover what many seem to view as a blemish. They are there to teach people to be kind, kindness is central tenent of this religion.

[ChotooMotoo]

Originally Posted by Arabesque

Why is everybody so worked up about this verse? It exists. Dharaba means to hit. To strike. No matter how much we twist it, it's not going to change. Dharaba can have different meanings, but it all depends on the context. Even those with basic knowledge of Arabic and tasreef will know that in this particular context, dharaba means to hit or strike.

I'm not sure why some people seem to be ashamed of this verse (and I hope my observation is wrong). Maybe if we look at the historical and cultural context, we'll understand that in those days, marrying a woman from a certain tribe meant forging an alliance with that tribe (it is very much the same today, in this part of the world). Though it was a patriarchal society, a form of matriarchy existed in the sense that women had power derived from their tribe and community. At a certain point, it seems an increasing number of women started abusing this power, and men were reduced to being bed-partners with no rights over their spouses. It may be that because of this phenomenon (and I could be wrong), this ayah was revealed to make a point; i.e. after marriage, a woman's loyalty lies with her husband, not her family or tribe.

It has to do with the western understanding of the term "beat" where beating ones wife means to beat her until she's half dead (or all the way dead). The western mind is a violent one that cannot comprehend hitting lightly, such that no mark is made. That's why people who translate the Quran for western audiences usually translate the word as "chastise" instead of "beat" Some things just don't translate.

[Variable]

Originally Posted by ChotooMotoo

The western mind is a violent one that cannot comprehend hitting lightly, such that no mark is made.

That generalization is absolutely untrue. The "violent Western mind" isn't the reason why some men passionately defend their Islamic right to hit a woman if he fears she's disobedient.

[Revert]

Originally Posted by Variable

I don't think the danger here is translation. I think the danger is people not acknowledging that every source, no matter how divine or 'clear' - is open to interpretation. Each translation is just the interpretation of another scholar.

People who think they have a monopoly on Quranic understanding, who refuse to be open to the fact that they might be wrong about something - are what come out of this mind set.

That's the danger.

This is true to an extent. Many people assume or think that scholars are infallible, which is obviously not true. This mindset is the most dangerous of all as people leave their brains at the door and allow others to think for them.

All sources should be critisized not only against your own knowledge but against reliable people of knowledge. The Quran is clear however it seems to me anyway that people have made it complicated.

There is a wealth of knowledge out there but people only choose to go one path, this to me is unfathomable, take each path and see if it brings you to the truth.

As for the verse in question, i cannot say which "interpretation" is the most reliable, I can say which one makes the most sense to me.