@Siunaa Maailmaa
The word used means to beat/strike/hit, not cite, assign or present. The misconception from musilms here is that sometimes the word is used in constructs like in 66:10
http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=66&verse=10#%2866:10:1%29Literally its "strikes allah an example for those who disbelieved". The context however informs that 'struck' cannot be physical as you can't physically hit someone with an example so we have an understanding akin to "presents allah" instead of "(literally) strikes allah". Note that the word in question doesn't intrinsically have this definition but instead was used in conjunction with other words and context for a phase that gives the meaning "Here's an example for the disbelievers".
This is akin to a teacher saying "I beat my students over the head with this lesson". The sentence however means "I went over this lesson rigorously with my students". How can this be? How can we get that understanding when the basic definition of 'beat' is as follows?
https://www.google.com/search?q=beat+definition&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sbBecause the word beat is not exclusive but added together with other words to create an idiom in the form of "beat over the head". This idiom is then applied in a sentence construct to give a meaning altogether different from each individual words definition! That's how language works. The basic definition of a word often times informs the meanings of phrases even though the phrase might lack some of the literal nature of its words. The opposite however is untrue. You can't take the meaning of a phrase and then apply that meaning to its individual words. Just take the previous example I
struck you with (hehe!)
The takeaway was that:
"I beat my students over the head with this lesson" = "I went over this lesson rigorously with my students"
Relating this to the Islamic apologetics being done, the argument would be that considering the phrase means 'to go over intensely', the individual word 'beat' carries that same meaning. This is obviously incorrect. The phrase "I beat him" doesn't mean "I went over something intensely with him". It's just the same as in 4:34 "And strike them" doesn't mean "And present them with an example"
Does that make sense?Now to some of the specific arguments:
"There is not one clear occurrence of this word meaning "beat" anywhere else in The Quran, and in almost all cases, this meaning is problematic or would not make sense."
8:12 [Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, "I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so
strike [them] upon the necks and
strike from them every fingertip."
No Classical Arabic (the language The Quran is written in) dictionary gives the meaning of "beat" in a comparable example and none reference 4:34 at all.
http://ejtaal.net/aa/img/br/5/br-0573.png Look at #2 hehe! Every dictionary will relate that the literal meaning of the word is beat btw
When The Quran uses this word to mean a literal/physical strike/hit, the preposition "bi" (with/by) is always used, but there is no such use in 4:34.
Whoa... wasn't their argument that the quran doesn't use the word literally? "There is not one clear occurrence of this word meaning "beat" anywhere else in The Quran" ? So I guess they're accepting that's what the word means? As for "bi" this doesn't make sense as an argument. "bi" prefix essentially means "with". Such as "strike with a staff". You don't need it if you aren't saying what to hit with... Regardless, 8:12 is such an example without it.
This understanding causes internal contradictions within The Quran, and this is also probably why no commentator, past or present, uses The Quran itself to justify this view.
http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=4&tAyahNo=34&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2There is no consensus amongst traditional commentators on the origin and interpretation of this verse, except on perhaps the basic points.
The meaning is easy to grasp. All you need is a little bit of intellectual honesty. Oh right... now I know why this has been so confusing for these people!
If "beat/strike" is chosen, it would cause inconsistencies amongst Traditional Hadith (narrations) and Classical Arabic dictionaries, which show a variance in view.
I don't know what their argument is as for as hadith goes, but the dictionary bit is bullshit as I've demonstrated.
It contradicts the alleged reaction of prophet Muhammad to wife beating, in which he is reportedly to have found it unjust and said woman have the right to retaliate. The traditional story goes that he was over ruled by 4:34, apparently.
So... quran overrules sunnah? what's the problem here?
The evidence from The Quran suggests the correct meaning of the word in this case would be "cite" or "indicate" them to the authority, hence authority involvement in 4:35. This also fits in with its usage elsewhere with direct objects.
Not a single piece of evidence was given. The overwhelming definition of the word along with the overwhelming consensus among commentators was completely disregarded for a figurative meaning pulled haphazardly from a construct not used in 4:34. These people have no idea what they're talking about.
It is strongly recommended to weigh and consider the following study which presents a very detailed and comprehensive analysis of the claim of wife beating and domestic violence in Islam (
www.Quran434.com). It also notes that the vast majority take it to mean hit/strike/beat with varying degrees of application.
This is hilarious. They start pretty much every entry with "traditionally commentators say it means beat/strike/hit but they're wrong and let us post nonsense on how it's wrong". Particularity when they attempted to say 8:50 and verses like it about angels taking people and beating them up as they go to hell don't really mean to beat them up... that was unfollowable in it's idiocy.
Anyway, this was long but I hope it clears some thing up for you
Topic: Help Me!