Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →
↑ ↓
CEMB → Forum → Life, The Universe & Everything → Religions and Gods → 4:34 To Hit or not to Hit, that is the question

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts

New Britain
Yesterday at 05:41 PM
اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
Yesterday at 09:02 AM
Marcion and the introduct...
by zeca
November 19, 2024, 11:36 PM
Lights on the way
by akay
November 19, 2024, 06:36 AM
Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
November 18, 2024, 05:41 PM
Dutch elections
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 10:11 PM
Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 08:46 PM
AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
November 07, 2024, 09:56 AM
Do humans have needed kno...
November 04, 2024, 03:51 AM
The origins of Judaism
by zeca
November 02, 2024, 12:56 PM
Tariq Ramadan Accused of ...
September 11, 2024, 01:37 PM
France Muslims were in d...
September 05, 2024, 03:21 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: 4:34 To Hit or not to Hit, that is the question

 (Read 55639 times)
  • Previous page 1 2 3 45 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • 4:34 To Hit or not to Hit, that is the question
     Reply #90 - July 06, 2014, 08:05 PM
    Quote from: Bigmo on July 06, 2014, 05:21 PM
    But the verses about adultery says that both the adulterer and adulteress should be punished if adultery is proven.

    So why can't men also be beaten if a woman has suspicion and fear about his behavior?

    And if the slanderer or accuser who makes the allegation against someone of adultery can get 80 lashes for not providing four witnesses to prove his allegation, why can't we also demand the man who beats his women to provide four witnesses to justify his fear and suspicion.

    This all makes no sense and you all know that. The Quran is not a comic book talking out of his head.

    Why is it OK to beat a women with no supporting evidence and not do the same with adultery even if its witnessed?




    Bigmo I am repeating again. I am not a tyrant. Beating my husband and forcing him to stay with me afterwards is silly. Let him go his way. He doesn't love me that's why he committed adultery. And what about fornication? What's wrong with that if the partners consent? Even as a Muslim I didn't find anything wrong with that. Sex is one of the greatest expressions of love. You just have to do it safe.
  • 4:34 To Hit or not to Hit, that is the question
     Reply #91 - August 09, 2014, 08:47 PM
    Quote from: Abu Ali on July 04, 2014, 10:08 AM



    There is one example of the verb daraba used in a non-literal sense without any preposition:

       يضرب الله الحق والباطل " Thus doth Allah show forth Truth and Vanity..." (43:5)

    But it is still explicitly shown that it is non-literal. Firstly Truth and Falsehood are abstract nouns so one can't literally "hit" them and secondly the verse goes on to say: كذلك يضرب الله الأمثال  "Likewise does God set forth parables." Can't really get clearer than that.

    Interestingly, the translation I use translates that as ''So God strikes both the true and the false.'' and ''Even so God strikes His similitudes.'' making the meaning even more blatent.
  • 4:34 To Hit or not to Hit, that is the question
     Reply #92 - August 12, 2014, 04:27 PM
    Quote from: Rubaya on July 06, 2014, 08:05 PM
    Bigmo I am repeating again. I am not a tyrant. Beating my husband and forcing him to stay with me afterwards is silly. Let him go his way. He doesn't love me that's why he committed adultery. And what about fornication? What's wrong with that if the partners consent? Even as a Muslim I didn't find anything wrong with that. Sex is one of the greatest expressions of love. You just have to do it safe.


    I think we sometimes need to think of society as a whole at times.

    1. Just because someone commits adultery does not mean they don't love you. It might be totally unacceptable for you and thus the marriage should end. It might be that the adulterer is horny, has low self-control, doesn't associate sex with love as much as yourself...

    2. Marriage is fundamentally a social contract. All social contracts need to be enforced. Otherwise what is the point of marriage? Why even have it? Why have rules about it if it needs to end. Every society develops some kind of rules on sexuality/family because that is what we spend most of our time doing. Social rules have a purpose. They might not seem all that valid today, but in their time it probably was. Life was pretty harsh back in the day. Just trying to eat enough and not get robbed, killed, enslaved... was probably a luxury.

    Maybe the family unit was for the 'greater good' and so it was both socially and legally enforced. Kids got a home, taken care of, raised... Having such strict rules against adultery might have decreased violence as well. Again life was much harsher back then. Heck, rules against massive polygamy might be said to also decrease violence as you have more men with a family, instead of roaming in packs.

    I'm a very libertarian minded person, but I think we do need to recognize society exists. These rules existed for a reason. They might not be valid anymore, especially since our material needs are decreased and we have increased order from government. But there are still lessons there.

    Do we have any idea what a society of free sex and not based on the family unit will look like?
    I sure don't. It might be a good transformation. It might not. But it's not as simple as being individuals and doing what we want. Social rules exist. legal rules also exist.

    My own personal view is that while we have liberated ourselves of many oppressive legal rules, there is definite historical wisdom in social rules. They can and should change, but I'm pretty careful about it.

  • 4:34 To Hit or not to Hit, that is the question
     Reply #93 - August 12, 2014, 06:36 PM
    Sorry but I will never allow my partner to have sex with someone else while in a relationship. It doesn't matter to me whether they are in love with me or not. If they want me they have to prove their love by being monogamous. And I don't find marriage binding. That's just me.
  • 4:34 To Hit or not to Hit, that is the question
     Reply #94 - August 12, 2014, 09:22 PM
    I'm just having a conversation here for the sake of it Tongue
    Obviously cheating is bad and I too would reject someone based on it.

    As I said. That is entirely your right to place that as a condition. But it does not mean they don't love you.

    You might think 'love' has to be proven to you by your spouse to only have sex with you. Which is perfectly valid. No one can force you to be in a relationship under terms you don't want. But your spouse might still love you, but doesn't think that is a part of love.

    Consider the parent-child relationship.

    Do us ex-Muslims love our parents? Most would say so. Yet, to many of us, we should 'prove' our love for them by obeying them, staying a part of Islam. They would call us selfish for doing what we want. To us, we don't think THEY should have that condition. But they do. So depending on the parent, some disown their kids, others just distance themselves, and others manage it in other ways.

    Similarly a cheater doesn't think you should have that condition. They think the family part is important. They would wonder why you're selfish for insisting on monogamy. You would of course call them selfish for doing what they want no matter how it would affect you. In the end, we're all selfish.

    Only the person knows if they love another. And it is up to the recipient of that love to accept it or not.
    In your case, you would not accept the love of another if they had relations with someone else. Perfectly acceptable and what most people would do.

    You might not think marriage is binding, but I guarantee you the courts would.
    If marriage is not binding, then why even get married? Just date and live together.

  • 4:34 To Hit or not to Hit, that is the question
     Reply #95 - August 13, 2014, 12:33 PM
    I can do that too. I like both as an option. And I admit living separately but with commitment has its perks- freedom.
  • 4:34 To Hit or not to Hit, that is the question
     Reply #96 - December 07, 2014, 10:42 AM
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xALBTb4uSs
  • 4:34 To Hit or not to Hit, that is the question
     Reply #97 - December 07, 2014, 11:04 AM
    regarding the idea of beating them "lightly", is there any basis for interpreting the verse as such, ie, that it calls for only "light" beating? I wonder this because the whole idea of "beating lightly" is sort of an oxymoron. how can you beat someone lightly? and if you do beat "lightly", when read in the context of the verse, the beating is carried out as a means of disciplining the woman. how can beating her "lightly" put her in place? also the whole "you can only use a miswak" or "you must not leave any marks" argument. since there's a hadith that states a companion beat his wife until her skin is greener than her clothes, and Mo didn't say a damn. so where did the whole "lightly" explanation came from?
    "we stand firm calling to allah all the time,
    we let them know - bang! bang! - coz it's dawah time!"
  • 4:34 To Hit or not to Hit, that is the question
     Reply #98 - December 07, 2014, 11:20 AM
    The words of the Qur'an don't imply that the hitting should be light or harsh - it just says "hit". (I always use the word "Hit" as it is more accurate than "Beat" which implies a harshness that the word "daraba" does not necessarily imply. "Daraba" simply means "Hit" - without implying how harsh or light that should be.

    The interpolation by some commentators of the word "light" comes from Hadith where the prophet said the hitting should be "Ghayr mubarrih (غير مبرح) which means "not harsh", in other words light. Plus as the video explains the hadith also says; no breaking of bones, drawing blood, disfigurement etc...

    Regarding the actions of the companion, I also recall a hadith of a companion who beat his wife so harshly the stick broke, but that and the one you mention don't have the same force in Islamic Law as direct sayings/actions of the prophet, so will be superseded by the saying of the prophet that the beating must not be harsh etc...
  • 4:34 To Hit or not to Hit, that is the question
     Reply #99 - December 07, 2014, 09:05 PM
    This is the biggest issue I had when I was looking into Islam, I find this also to be one of the most frustrating topics to talk about with Muslims. At first I simply accepted what I heard from the Muslims I talked to, that the beating was so light that it was barely anything, with a miswack or something similar for a symbolic gesture.

    When I looked into the topic in more detail I was quite shocked, I still remember the moment I realised that there is no scriptural evidence that it has to be something so light that it is symbolic, there are plenty if scholarly opinions that simply say you can beat her as long as it is not too harsh. I then realised that in order to be honest with myself and be a Muslim at the same time I would have to accept that God would not only allow but encourage domestic violence.

    I tried to discuss this issue I was having with Muslims but I was met more or less unanimously with denial and often had my intentions questioned.
  • 4:34 To Hit or not to Hit, that is the question
     Reply #100 - December 07, 2014, 09:15 PM
    Quote from: laico on December 07, 2014, 09:05 PM
    I tried to discuss this issue I was having with Muslims but I was met more or less unanimously with denial and often had my intentions questioned.


    Ahhh yes... if you ask difficult questions you must have an evil agenda and have bad intentions.
  • 4:34 To Hit or not to Hit, that is the question
     Reply #101 - December 07, 2014, 10:14 PM
    Quote from: Abu Ali on December 07, 2014, 09:15 PM
    Ahhh yes... if you ask difficult questions you must have an evil agenda and have bad intentions.


    I think I was accused of bad intentions more than the average Muslim because after all, I was still a kaffir.

    This topic really hit a nerve with me, I simply was not able to swallow the apologetics that Muslims use to justify why God's final message to man kind states a man can physically discipline his wife when he sees fit.

  • 4:34 To Hit or not to Hit, that is the question
     Reply #102 - December 07, 2014, 11:01 PM
    According to QuranX.com only the Wahihuddin Khan translation uses "hit". Almost all use "beat". A few use "smack" or "strike":

    http://www.quranx.com/4.34?allTranslations=y?hl=beat,strike,smack,hit

    And then there is the Ahmed Ali translation:

    Quote
    Ahmad Ali
    Men are the support of women as God gives some more means than others, and because they spend of their wealth (to provide for them). So women who are virtuous are obedient to God and guard the hidden as God has guarded it. As for women you feel are averse, talk to them suasively; then leave them alone in bed (without molesting them) and go to bed with them (when they are willing). If they open out to you, do not seek an excuse for blaming them. Surely God is sublime and great.


    Make up sex? Shocked
    Danish Never-Moose adopted by the kind people on the CEMB-forum
    Ex-Muslim chat (Unaffliated with CEMB). Safari users: Use "#ex-muslims" as the channel name. CEMB chat thread.
  • 4:34 To Hit or not to Hit, that is the question
     Reply #103 - December 07, 2014, 11:12 PM
    It's not even funny how far off some translations are. Maybe people should have to learn basic Arabic before being allowed to convert, just like leaving Islam apparently requires experties in Classical Arabic in order not to be "emotional" and based on our desires and whatnot Roll Eyes
    "The healthiest people I know are those who are the first to label themselves fucked up." - three
  • 4:34 To Hit or not to Hit, that is the question
     Reply #104 - December 08, 2014, 12:20 AM
    Quote from: laico on December 07, 2014, 10:14 PM
    I think I was accused of bad intentions more than the average Muslim because after all, I was still a kaffir.


    Oh, being a Muslim doesn't much exempt you, I was being called a kafir when I was still a Muslim, my husband was being called a kafir when he was still so religious it was annoying, and any critic who winds up doubting or leaving Islam is bound to catch accusations of never having been a Muslim at all, or at least not a real one. Or, if you're really unlucky, you'll be accused of being paid for your criticisms by shadowy figures who are bent on destroying the Islamic faith, something which I am very much okay with if any shadowy figures out there want to compensate me right about now.
  • 4:34 To Hit or not to Hit, that is the question
     Reply #105 - December 08, 2014, 12:27 AM
    ^

    You were a quranist right ?   How did you go about interpreting quranic verses ? 

    It's pretty much impossible to do that without the tafsirs and hadiths.
    In my opinion a life without curiosity is not a life worth living
  • 4:34 To Hit or not to Hit, that is the question
     Reply #106 - December 08, 2014, 12:31 AM
    ^

    Never mind, I just remembered you wrote about it one of the older threads.  I'll dig it up.
    In my opinion a life without curiosity is not a life worth living
  • 4:34 To Hit or not to Hit, that is the question
     Reply #107 - December 08, 2014, 12:42 AM
    Well, that really depends on the Quranist. Some Quranists like pretty much all of the hadith, they just don't accept that any of them can be used for law. I was never ready to believe that the Islam that you'd get by applying every reliable hadith to the modern age could be true, so, as was the fate of many a convert, I wound up there pretty quickly.

    But anyway, to give a short answer to your question in particular, I and many of the Quranists I knew did use the hadith to better understand certain parts of the Quran, like the verses in reference to the story of Aisha and the necklace which, without the hadith, we'd never understand. But we'd disagree that the hadith were as reliable as the Quran or that the word choices could be taken literally and have rulings made on them, could ever oppose the Quran, or could ever add to the law. In other words, they were nice for understanding more of the history, but not relevant in a practical sense.

    Yes, this waters down "sharia" so that there are very few punishable crimes, yes, this affords a lot more freedom and doubt, but this is what many Quranists would consider a strength of the interpretation rather than a weakpoint, and we'd consider it to be us playing it safe rather than overstepping our powers on Earth and punishing/forbidding things that were supposed to be left alone. Leaving it up to God and what have you.

    Edit: Oops, you tried to abort. Sorry, you don't have to read it. Grin
  • 4:34 To Hit or not to Hit, that is the question
     Reply #108 - December 08, 2014, 01:17 AM
    ^

    When interpreting the quranic verses did you follow any of the classical tafsirs or do quranists have their own official commentary interpreatation ?
    In my opinion a life without curiosity is not a life worth living
  • 4:34 To Hit or not to Hit, that is the question
     Reply #109 - December 08, 2014, 01:44 AM
    I never ran into any official Quranist resource or anything, I think a lot of us just considered the Arabic dictionary to be our best friends. I suppose it really depends on the person. I might've followed a tafsir, but another Quranist could have rejected it.

    But a good example of this is the dress code for women. The rules in the Quran are pretty vague and brief, and Quranists often take advantage of this. But if you accept the tafsiir, you're going to be covering a bunch of different things. Some tafsiirs will say everything but the face and hands, others say everything but the eyes, some interpretations suggest you should only show one eye so that you don't go around bumping into stuff.

    It gets complicated fast, so a lot of Quranists just don't bother with it, and if they do, there's still a variety. Most stick to the bare minimum that the Quran suggested. Although I did have a Quranist friend who was very much a mentor to me who believed that this verse required the khimar as known to us today. I disagreed.
  • 4:34 To Hit or not to Hit, that is the question
     Reply #110 - December 08, 2014, 01:47 AM
    It's interesting, I have never met a Quranist before, where can you find them? They are pretty much shunned by all other Muslims it seems.
  • 4:34 To Hit or not to Hit, that is the question
     Reply #111 - December 08, 2014, 01:57 AM
    There are dozens of us. Dozens!

    I don't know, it's really hard to find them just walking about, but there's a building online presence of them these days. A lot of liberal Muslims and feminists and converts (or, perhaps more commonly, all three combined in one desperate specimen), in my observation seem to be turning more to Quran-alone interpretations, and I do think it is becoming somewhat more acceptable.

    Or maybe that's just my personal bias? Take whatever I say about this with a grain of salt, since I did surround myself more with like-minded individuals, especially towards the end, so my perspective may be off. I could just be looking precisely where they're cropping up and thinking we're much more significant than we are.
  • 4:34 To Hit or not to Hit, that is the question
     Reply #112 - December 08, 2014, 02:30 AM
    They are hard to find though.

    I've run into muslims from a whole bunch of sects. Sunnis, shias, ahmadis, ismailis but have never ran into a quran only muslim.

    Do you guys have your own mosques or something ?   I mean there must be some sort of physical mosque or community centre where quranists gather.

    Maybe an an LGBT mosque perhaps ?
    In my opinion a life without curiosity is not a life worth living
  • 4:34 To Hit or not to Hit, that is the question
     Reply #113 - December 09, 2014, 03:30 PM
    I am sure there's some Quranist centers or mosques somewhere on Earth, but I don't know them and I never went there. I and the others I knew in person just went to local ones, more liberal ones, probably. But I've lived on islands where there is only one mosque to choose from no matter what. Grin
  • 4:34 To Hit or not to Hit, that is the question
     Reply #114 - December 09, 2014, 03:58 PM
    Just gotta butt in you guys ^ but as a former quranist, I looked to www.quran-islam.org for quran interpretations without the hadith. I also indentified as a Muslim feminist and progressive Muslim  grin12 and I was of the opinion also that while hadith should not be accepted as a form of religious law, they are still relevant historical sources. I suppose they are really, if you want to know how people thought back then. Anyway I was part of a large online group spanning from that website. Never met anyone in person who identified as quranist, though.

    With regards to this verse, the creator of that site published a whole article on how it actually meant to strike them out, as in give them the silent treatment or something. As a quranist, I was thrilled to hear this interpretation and for me, that was the end of it. But looking around as I started to doubt Islam, it became pretty obvious that 4:34 meant exactly what it said. Boo.
    Don't damn me when I speak my mind, 'cause silence isn't golden when I'm holding it inside. - Guns n' Roses

    3 koiraa 1 kissa <3
  • 4:34 To Hit or not to Hit, that is the question
     Reply #115 - December 09, 2014, 04:13 PM
    You're welcome to!

    Yeah, it is really rare to find them in person. A couple of the ones I knew in person were ones I'd persuaded myself! Grin I guess online's really where it's at for now.
  • 4:34 To Hit or not to Hit, that is the question
     Reply #116 - December 09, 2014, 04:48 PM
    Quote from: omena on December 09, 2014, 03:58 PM
    Just gotta butt in you guys ^ but as a former quranist, I looked to www.quran-islam.org for quran interpretations without the hadith. I also indentified as a Muslim feminist and progressive Muslim  grin12 and I was of the opinion also that while hadith should not be accepted as a form of religious law, they are still relevant historical sources. I suppose they are really, if you want to know how people thought back then. Anyway I was part of a large online group spanning from that website. Never met anyone in person who identified as quranist, though.

    With regards to this verse, the creator of that site published a whole article on how it actually meant to strike them out, as in give them the silent treatment or something. As a quranist, I was thrilled to hear this interpretation and for me, that was the end of it. But looking around as I started to doubt Islam, it became pretty obvious that 4:34 meant exactly what it said. Boo.


    Welcome to CEMB  Afro

    I have sympathy for Quranists because they want to apply their humanity to Islam. But ultimately they get caught up in all sorts of twists and turns and linguistic acrobatics that just tie themselves in knots and they then they end up being dogmatic and somewhat cultish.

    I suspect that for most Qur'anists the strain of the cognitive dissonance must wear them down and eventually the dam will burst sooner or later.

    Good to have you on board Smiley
  • 4:34 To Hit or not to Hit, that is the question
     Reply #117 - December 09, 2014, 04:53 PM
    At the moment I'm translating a review from a Quranist website - of the "My Ordeal with the Qur'an..." book - and they are really quite vicious to the author and a great deal is just ad hominem and claims that this word doesn't mean what everyone thinks it means etc..

    I'm finding tough going because I keep falling asleep lol  grin12
  • 4:34 To Hit or not to Hit, that is the question
     Reply #118 - September 09, 2015, 12:14 PM
    Please make this thread a sticky as I can never find it when I want to quote the OP.

    Thanks Smiley
  • 4:34 To Hit or not to Hit, that is the question
     Reply #119 - September 09, 2015, 12:16 PM
    Done  Smiley
  • Previous page 1 2 3 45 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »