Liberal Tafsir of 4:34

1« Previous thread | Next thread »
- TheDashingRabbit
- Politics and Literature Junkie
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Liberal Tafsir of 4:34
OP - June 11, 2014, 11:57 AM

Ok So I came across this article in which the progressive muslim author argues that it is possible to interpret 4:34 in a way so that it doesn't allow any beating whether heavy or light.

The verse

Quote
Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.

An excerpt from the article

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/its-muslims-who-give-voice-to-verse/article17684163/

Quote
Many Islamic scholars have quietly been offering compelling non-violent and non-hierarchical interpretations of 4:34 for years. One alternate reading posits that if a couple experiences marital troubles, they should first discuss the matter reasonably. If that does not resolve the problem, the couple should experiment with a trial separation. If that fails, the couple ought to separate, but if it works, then they should have makeup sex.

In my opinion a life without curiosity is not a life worth living
- Quod Sum Eris
- King of the
- Pub Regular
- offline
Liberal Tafsir of 4:34
Reply #1 - June 11, 2014, 12:04 PM

Yeah that's something I've come across a number of times. The separation comes before the violence, and if it's just not working you should divorce so the violence can't happen anyway. I think if that's what the quran actually meant that's what it'd say. Here's my take on what it would say if it actually meant that.

Quote
[first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], if you fear you shall strike them, divorce them before you are given to anger

Or something like that.

`But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
`Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.'
`How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
`You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
- BerberElla
- Class A'sexual
- Creator Goddess
- offline
Liberal Tafsir of 4:34
Reply #2 - June 11, 2014, 12:08 PM

I have heard another liberal but wholly based on US and UK colloquialisms about beat her meaning, to beat it, as in hit the road jack, and leave her.

But of course that one only works if 'beat it' remains in use to mean the same thing.

Liberal interpretations sure do give me a chuckle.

Inhale the good shit, exhale the bullshit.
- Quod Sum Eris
- King of the
- Pub Regular
- offline
Liberal Tafsir of 4:34
Reply #3 - June 11, 2014, 12:16 PM

Well, we've proven two things. Number one, the quran can be improved upon, and number two, despite what some claim it is possible to reinterpret islam. Bring on the liberal muslims.

I've actually seen people on this site annoyed at people like you described for whitewashing and being dishonest. I can't really get behind them in that. While I agree it's lying to yourself to claim that a clear instruction saying plain as day "Beat your wife" actually means the exact opposite, I personally am glad it's happening and encourage such reinterpretations.

`But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
`Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.'
`How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
`You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
- BerberElla
- Class A'sexual
- Creator Goddess
- offline
Liberal Tafsir of 4:34
Reply #4 - June 11, 2014, 12:20 PM

True. I understand where you are coming from too.

I'm on the fence to be honest. I think it's dishonest to need to change a religion to make it fit ones own morality, but if people want to, then I'm all for it.

But like anything, you will always have nut elements who stick to the literal interpretations. Have them in all the Abrahamic religions.

Still though, I guess taking away their religion, would only result in those nut jobs finding something else to be fundamentalist over.

Inhale the good shit, exhale the bullshit.
- Quod Sum Eris
- King of the
- Pub Regular
- offline
Liberal Tafsir of 4:34
Reply #5 - June 11, 2014, 12:25 PM

I'm not sure it is changing their religion. Religion isn't static, it's something that is in a constant state of flux and evolution. When someone says that they look at a verse and see it completely differently than you or I, I can easily believe they are telling the truth. Religion, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. If you are a peaceful warm kind hearted person who would never dream of hurting anyone, that is islam to you. If you're a psycho abusive bigoted piece of shit, islam gives you divine licence to be that way.

Islam will never be one solid unified thing for this reason.

`But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
`Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.'
`How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
`You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
- BerberElla
- Class A'sexual
- Creator Goddess
- offline
Liberal Tafsir of 4:34
Reply #6 - June 11, 2014, 12:31 PM

But that is scary to me, that Islam can give license to someone who is cruel.

Unless the actual wording of the quran is dealt with. It needs to be dealt with.

Then cruelty can no longer masquerade as religion.

Why can't 4.34 simply state that if you are having marital problems you should first discuss it calmly, then if need be take a short break, and then if need be, separate.

I don't mean someone else's interpretation, which you have to seek it out, but clearly and unequivocally state that under no circumstances is violence towards either partner acceptable.

Wouldn't that help stop cruel people from finding religious license and feeling guilt free? meaning those who are cruel, would know they were outside of Islam once and for all.

Inhale the good shit, exhale the bullshit.
- Quod Sum Eris
- King of the
- Pub Regular
- offline
Liberal Tafsir of 4:34
Reply #7 - June 11, 2014, 12:37 PM

It's something to be concerned about definitely. It's a reason to encourage reinterpretation. They won't be able to hide behind religion as an excuse for their own wickedness. The thing about islam is that it doesn't have a pope or a dali lama. There is no figurehead of the entire religion to say this is what it means. That's why I'm all for the general consensus being benign.

It's also the best argument for secularism, i.e. religion being a personal thing. I was actually saying to my uncle's girlfriend the other week how I can't help but notice that when these peaceful tolerant loving religions get any actual power, quality of life plummets and human rights abuses skyrocket.

I do think that secularism and religious liberalism go hand in hand. I freely admit I could be wrong but it's something I'm currently of the opinion of. Separation of church and state, the yanks were bang on with that one.

`But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
`Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.'
`How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
`You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
- Cornflower
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Liberal Tafsir of 4:34
Reply #8 - June 11, 2014, 12:55 PM

The real issue here is that the Quran is deemed to be the literal word of god, therefore to discard or ignore certain verses or to say that they are no longer relevant will always be a non-existing opinion. The Quran even warns people to "believe in one verse, and disbelieving in another". I mean, even these "liberal Muslims" work day and night in order to twist and turn the verses to some better "correct" meaning, just because they can't simply do away with allah's verses. As long as this belief is mainstream and orthodox, the problem will still remain.

Just because a couple of Western liberal Muslims try to come up with some cozy new interpretations, doesn't change the reality. I wouldn't even think they constitute 1 % of the world's Muslim population, and nobody listens to them. You have 1400 years of classical Islam saying you can beat your wife. You have Mo and his companions saying you can beat your wife. Nothing's gonna change that, except if these apologists change strategy. Give up the whole "new correct interpretation" bullshit, admit that the Quran is filled with shitty verses, but dismiss them as being part of that time and coming to terms that the Quran is not the literal word of allah, it has not been unchanged, and at best it was "inspired" by their deity. Then we can have some positive changes like we've seen in Christianity for example.

THEN we can talk about Islam going through change and reinterpretation. Until then, these handful of Western liberal or modernist Muslims can eat my shit because the only thing they contribute to is silencing and denying there is a problem, meanwhile millions of Muslim women suffer from Islamic oppression and misogyny.

"The healthiest people I know are those who are the first to label themselves fucked up." - three
- BerberElla
- Class A'sexual
- Creator Goddess
- offline
Liberal Tafsir of 4:34
Reply #9 - June 11, 2014, 01:02 PM

Yea, I have to say I agree more with cornflower here than with just reinterpretation.

The Quran is the word of god. Prior to leaving Islam I had lived believing that it was the only unchanged religious script. As a child I believed it was handed down exactly as it was.

Imagine my surprise to find out that it has been changed, that verses could be missing, and that even more shocking, it was a word of mouth religion for many many years before becoming a book.

Challenging the text itself, it's so called history, it's protected status and superiority over all other changed religious texts, well I believe that is the only workable route in the whole literal vs liberal interpretation argument.

Of course I am not knocking those who personally to follow a softer version, but maybe their kids will choose to follow the literal, as many Moroccan second generation immigrants in the UK have. Their parents were softer muslims, but they are harder muslims. The face covering is still seen with shock in Morocco, yet many many UK born Moroccan girls have been exposed to hardline literal interpretations, and the things their parents believe no longer mean anything in the grand scheme of things.

Inhale the good shit, exhale the bullshit.
- Cornflower
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Liberal Tafsir of 4:34
Reply #10 - June 11, 2014, 01:19 PM

Quote from: BerberElla on June 11, 2014, 01:02 PM

Of course I am not knocking those who personally to follow a softer version, but maybe their kids will choose to follow the literal, as many Moroccan second generation immigrants in the UK have. Their parents were softer muslims, but they are harder muslims. The face covering is still seen with shock in Morocco, yet many many UK born Moroccan girls have been exposed to hardline literal interpretations, and the things their parents believe no longer mean anything in the grand scheme of things.

And that will always be a high risk and problem as long as the literal and more extremist interpretation in fact and reality has more support and legitimacy in the religious scripts themselves. Once you establish that the Quran is not the literal word of god, but instead a man-made literary work, the more fundamental, literal and extremist groups will become fewer and eventually frowned upon by the majority of Muslims. This is what happened to Christianity in large parts...

"The healthiest people I know are those who are the first to label themselves fucked up." - three
- yeezevee
- Pub Regular
- offline
Liberal Tafsir of 4:34
Reply #11 - June 11, 2014, 02:00 PM

Quote
Liberal Tafsir on 4:34 ... liberal..liberal.. Quran

well people should have freedom to translate Quran whatever is the way they want but what is more important is preaching that Liberal Tafsir from the Mosques of Saudi Arabia.. Pakistan.. Indonesia Sudan.. Somalia and many other countries., Mosques of the west should be the LAST PLACE to preach Liberal Tafsir

Anyways let me put this statement here
Quote
"There are many contradictory verses in the Quran that can be quite confusing. This ambiguity allows Muslims to have their personalized “divine guidance” based on their own preferences. Those who like tolerance or want to present Islam as a tolerant religion can quote parts of the Quran that advocates tolerance, while the hardliners, the fundamentalists and the terrorists can quote those parts or some time same verses of the Quran but preach differently which foments hate and killing of the disbelievers. Ironically everyone can find what he is looking for in that book. And they call this the “miracle” of Quran! "

That is not me saying ., That is from an article written by a guy in 2002 whom many CEMB folks hate (damn that was 12 years back.)

Anyways there he is indeed right

Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything
I renounced my faith to become a kafir,
the beloved betrayed me and turned in to a Muslim
- Rubaya
- Pub Regular
- offline
Liberal Tafsir of 4:34
Reply #12 - June 11, 2014, 07:04 PM

This sort of twisting the verse to give a nice meaning is especially prevalent among the Quranists. I have been to some sites of such types and if you believe them then it seems that Islam is better than Judaism or Christianity.

Whatever the case might be, I am not going to bash liberal Muslims for being hypocritical. We need them more in this world than the fundamentalists.
- moi
- Pub Regular
- offline
Liberal Tafsir of 4:34
Reply #13 - June 11, 2014, 07:18 PM

It is the first bit that matters, the permission to beat is there and is a direct consequence of the first part -
It is actually very clear.

Quote
Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard.[/quote

When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.

A.A. Milne,

"We cannot slaughter each other out of the human impasse"
- three
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Liberal Tafsir of 4:34
Reply #14 - June 11, 2014, 10:59 PM

I wonder what the Ahmadiyya make of this verse. They have a Caliph, so they can innovate. I think they do innovate more than the Shia, with their Ayatollah, and that is why they are declared Kaffir by most Sunni. I think I want to research this.

Don't let Hitler have the street.
- David
- Pub Regular
- offline
Liberal Tafsir of 4:34
Reply #15 - June 11, 2014, 11:40 PM

Quote from: BerberElla on June 11, 2014, 01:02 PM
Of course I am not knocking those who personally to follow a softer version, but maybe their kids will choose to follow the literal, as many Moroccan second generation immigrants in the UK have. Their parents were softer muslims, but they are harder muslims. The face covering is still seen with shock in Morocco, yet many many UK born Moroccan girls have been exposed to hardline literal interpretations,

You lived this,

Even just witnessing it on the streets of London, I could feel the change. It was awful. Still is.
- David
- Pub Regular
- offline
Liberal Tafsir of 4:34
Reply #16 - June 11, 2014, 11:40 PM

Quote from: Cornflower on June 11, 2014, 01:19 PM
And that will always be a high risk and problem as long as the literal and more extremist interpretation in fact and reality has more support and legitimacy in the religious scripts themselves. Once you establish that the Quran is not the literal word of god, but instead a man-made literary work, the more fundamental, literal and extremist groups will become fewer and eventually frowned upon by the majority of Muslims. This is what happened to Christianity in large parts...

Yes yes yes.
- Skywalker
- Pub Regular
- offline
Liberal Tafsir of 4:34
Reply #17 - June 12, 2014, 01:23 AM

The Quran is to Islam what Jesus is to Christianity. He is seen as the Word of God. You'll have an easier time convincing christians that Jesus was not divine in anyway, than convincing muslims that the Quran isn't really literal word of God. There is as close to consensus as you can get to a religion as old and as large as Islam on this issue. I think reinterpretation, which has its own problems, is easier.

Also, muslims do not consider the hadith to be the literal word of God or even the prophet's in many cases, yet the majority of the problems that you see in Islamic law stems from the hadith.
- yeezevee
- Pub Regular
- offline
Liberal Tafsir of 4:34
Reply #18 - June 12, 2014, 04:00 AM

Quote from: three on June 11, 2014, 10:59 PM
I wonder what the Ahmadiyya make of this verse. They have a Caliph, so they can innovate. ..........

Those guys will confuse the readers by adding or subtracting verses from usual Quran. For e.g. that chapter-4 Surah An-Nisa (WOMEN) has 176 verses in most of the translations but these guys add one more verse to it and make it 177.. off course it is not that much difference from other translations..

anyway here is their Quran.. http://www.alislam.org/quran/tafseer/guide.htm?region=EN

and that 4.34 says

I guess they moved that verse to 4:35...

Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything
I renounced my faith to become a kafir,
the beloved betrayed me and turned in to a Muslim
1« Previous thread | Next thread »