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

Gaza assault
by zeca
Today at 07:13 PM
What music are you listen...
by zeca
November 24, 2024, 06:05 PM
Lights on the way
by akay
November 22, 2024, 02:51 PM
Do humans have needed kno...
November 22, 2024, 06:45 AM
Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
November 21, 2024, 05:07 PM
New Britain
November 20, 2024, 05:41 PM
اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
November 20, 2024, 09:02 AM
Marcion and the introduct...
by zeca
November 19, 2024, 11:36 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
The origins of Judaism
by zeca
November 02, 2024, 12:56 PM

Theme Changer

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

 (Read 55885 times)
  • 12 3 ... 5 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • 4:34 To Hit or not to Hit, that is the question
     OP - July 04, 2014, 10:08 AM

     ٱلرِّجَالُ قَوَّٰمُونَ عَلَى ٱلنِّسَآءِ بِمَا فَضَّلَ ٱللَّهُ بَعْضَهُمْ عَلَىٰ بَعْضٍ وَبِمَآ أَنْفَقُواْ مِنْ أَمْوَٰلِهِمْ فَٱلصَّٰلِحَٰتُ قَٰنِتَٰتٌ حَٰفِظَٰتٌ لِّلْغَيْبِ بِمَا حَفِظَ ٱللَّهُ وَٱلَّٰتِي تَخَافُونَ نُشُوزَهُنَّ فَعِظُوهُنَّ وَٱهْجُرُوهُنَّ فِي ٱلْمَضَاجِعِ وَٱضْرِبُوهُنَّ فَإِنْ أَطَعْنَكُمْ فَلاَ تَبْغُواْ عَلَيْهِنَّ سَبِيلاً إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ كَانَ عَلِيّاً كَبِيراً


    Yusuf Ali: 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).

    Shakir: Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.

    M. Pickthall: Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

    The verb daraba ضرب means "To Hit" but can also have non-literal meanings, just like the word "Hit" in English can have non-literal meanings, (I hit upon an idea, Hit the road, Hit the sack, Hit it off, etc...)

    There are examples in the Qur'an of  daraba used in a non-literal/metaphorical sense such as to "Strike a similitude/parable", "To keep away from", "To go forth" etc... but in each case it is always made clear when it is used in a non-literal/metaphorical sense because of the use of qualifying particles such a preposition or explicitly stating it is a مثل = similitude/parable.

    In the case of 4:34 there is no such qualifying particle or mention that it is a parable/similitude and so it can only means "Hit" and simply cannot have a figurative meaning like "Avoid them" "Set forth for them a parable" etc...

    Here are some verses from the Qur'an where the verb daraba means "Hit". I want you to notice how the verb takes its object directly and is not qualified by any preposition or word like parable/similitude etc... In each case it means "Hit"

     اضْرِبُوهُنَّ  "Hit them" (4.34)

     يَضْرِبُونَ وُجُوهَهُمْ وَأَدْبَارَهُمْ  "They hit their faces and their backs" (8.50)

     ضَرْبَ الرِّقَابِ "Hit the necks" (i.e. chop their heads off) (47.4)

     اضْرِبُوهُ  "Hit it" (2.73)

    Now in the following verses the verb daraba doesn't mean Hit - at least not in a literal sense - but notice that it - and/or it's object - are qualified by a preposition and/or a word like مثل similitude/parable or في in the Earth/Land...

      ضَرَبَ اللَّهُ مَثَلًا Allah strikes a parable  (14:24)

      ضَرْبًا فِي الْأَرْضِ "Going forth in the land" (2:273)

    أَفَنَضْرِبُ عَنْكُمُ الذِّكْرَ صَفْحًا   "Should we turn away the reminder from you?" (43.5)

     ما ضربوه لك إلا جدلا  "They do not set it forth for you save by way of disputation" (43:58)

    1. If 4:34 meant "Leave them alone/Go away from them" it would have to have a preposition like عن (From/Away).  So it would be  واضربوا عنهن

    2. If 4:34 meant "Strike up a similitude for them" it would have to have a preposition like ل (to/for) and a qualifying word like "Parable" مثلا.  So it would be:   واضربوا لهن مثلا

    3. If 4:34 meant "and go forth in the land" it would have to have a preposition like في and a qualifying word like "Earth" الارض.  So it would be:   واضربوا في الارض

    4. If 4:34 meant "set forth for them by way of dispute" it would have to have a preposition like ل (to/for) and a qualifying word like "disputation" جدلا.  So it would be:   واضربوا لهن جدلا

    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.
  • 4:34 To Hit or not to Hit, that is the question
     Reply #1 - July 04, 2014, 11:54 AM
    We're focussing on the wrong word here, never mind what "daraba" translates into or what apologists (quranists) have decoded it into, obviously the word is meant as a physical force.  The offending word that has created a battlefield within muslim and non muslim marriages is "obey, obedient, obedience"  it was eventually ommited from womens marriage vows in the west a good while ago thankfully, think it was replaced by promising to love and honour each other as equals ?   
  • 4:34 To Hit or not to Hit, that is the question
     Reply #2 - July 04, 2014, 12:02 PM
    Bear in mind, also, that the list in 4:34 is an escalating series of actions. You first talk to her, then you get mad and refuse to sleep in the same bed, etc. etc. The final stage is when you lose it altogether and bash her across the face with a cry of: “You flipping tart!” (or words to that effect).

    The fact that actions grow progressively more extreme is, in itself, enough to disprove that the hit should be 'with a miswak' or something equally soft.
  • 4:34 To Hit or not to Hit, that is the question
     Reply #3 - July 04, 2014, 12:11 PM
    Daraba isn't the only problematic word, as suki mentioned. What about the definition of "al-qawwaamah"? The whole verse is a fuck up and should be put in the trash bin, problem is you can't do that with the word of god can you? So apologist try their best to come up with silly re-interpretations of words that are pretty clear... but you know, then that would mean allah is a woman-hating prick.

    But seriously, this verse goes wrong from the get go when the Quran dictates the hierarchy with men on top with women being perpetual minors. That's bad enough without the hitting part.
    "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 #4 - July 04, 2014, 12:16 PM
    All good points.

    Another problematic word is Nushuz - the actual act of disobedience. What is it? Traditionally it was as little as; 'Not beautifying herself for hubby' - or going out without hubby's permission!! Quranists and many modern Muslims of course find this rather embarrassing so make out it is actions tantamount to adultery - or indeed adultery itself. Which of course it isn't since that is dealt with elsewhere.
  • 4:34 To Hit or not to Hit, that is the question
     Reply #5 - July 04, 2014, 04:45 PM
    I've showed these verses to my mother and it was like I was doing something wrong...all I hear from Muslims to defend this is that "the verse was interpreted wrong" or "it doesn't mean that"....
    "You're time is limited. Don't waste it by living someone else's life. Don't be trapped by dogma - which is living with the results of other people's thinking. Don't let the noise of other people's opinions drown out your own inner voice. -Steve Jobs
  • 4:34 To Hit or not to Hit, that is the question
     Reply #6 - July 04, 2014, 06:41 PM
    Quote from: Kodanshi on July 04, 2014, 12:02 PM
    Bear in mind, also, that the list in 4:34 is an escalating series of actions. You first talk to her, then you get mad and refuse to sleep in the same bed, etc. etc. The final stage is when you lose it altogether and bash her across the face with a cry of: “You flipping tart!” (or words to that effect).

    The fact that actions grow progressively more extreme is, in itself, enough to disprove that the hit should be 'with a miswak' or something equally soft.


    First of all Shakir had it right when he translated it as"Allah has made some of them to excel others" because some have translated as "one over the other" which is not the right translation. Plus excel is not the right word actually because fadala usually means preference.

    So some to excel or given preference does not mean that men always have the higher charge of affairs in a marriage as we know is usually the case in this life, but some time it can be the other way like when a woman is richer or more well connected to her man. But this as we know is usually rare in human history and even in modernity. Also notice the Quran talks about spending, meaning men usually have the spending power and the resources giving them somewhat of a higher authority in the house. Hence the phrase "man of the house". Its the spending power of men that gives them a stronger authority in a house. Which is why the Quran established some from of dowry or financial arrangement given to the woman.

    Lets look at the verse

     "those on whose part you fear desertion,"

    Fear is the word used or suspicion could also be used.

    So let me ask a question.

    If its OK to beat a women because you fear disobedience or sexual misconduct from her could you also beat her if you saw her committing adultery and banging the next door neighbor in your bedroom?

    Yes or no?

  • 4:34 To Hit or not to Hit, that is the question
     Reply #7 - July 04, 2014, 08:05 PM
    Would You?
  • 4:34 To Hit or not to Hit, that is the question
     Reply #8 - July 04, 2014, 08:51 PM
    Quote from: Bigmo on July 04, 2014, 06:41 PM
    First of all Shakir had it right when he translated it as"Allah has made some of them to excel others" because some have translated as "one over the other" which is not the right translation. Plus excel is not the right word actually because fadala usually means preference.

    So some to excel or given preference does not mean that men always have the higher charge of affairs in a marriage as we know is usually the case in this life, but some time it can be the other way like when a woman is richer or more well connected to her man. But this as we know is usually rare in human history and even in modernity. Also notice the Quran talks about spending, meaning men usually have the spending power and the resources giving them somewhat of a higher authority in the house. Hence the phrase "man of the house". Its the spending power of men that gives them a stronger authority in a house. Which is why the Quran established some from of dowry or financial arrangement given to the woman.

    Lets look at the verse

     "those on whose part you fear desertion,"

    Fear is the word used or suspicion could also be used.

    So let me ask a question.

    If its OK to beat a women because you fear disobedience or sexual misconduct from her could you also beat her if you saw her committing adultery and banging the next door neighbor in your bedroom?

    Yes or no?



    What has any of this to do with my post that you quoted? Or did you mistake the word I used - 'escalate' - for 'excel'?
  • 4:34 To Hit or not to Hit, that is the question
     Reply #9 - July 04, 2014, 09:04 PM
    Shakir: Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great. And if you fear dissension between the two, send an arbitrator from his people and an arbitrator from her people. If they both desire reconciliation, Allah will cause it between them. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Acquainted [with all things].

    As Quranist we look at the context it appears in the Quran. And not look at the verse in isolation.



  • 4:34 To Hit or not to Hit, that is the question
     Reply #10 - July 04, 2014, 09:28 PM
    So you disagree with equal rights and women being able to forge their own lives and take charge of their own destinies? You'd rather their fate depend on the whims, beliefs and desires of another?
    `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.'
  • 4:34 To Hit or not to Hit, that is the question
     Reply #11 - July 04, 2014, 10:16 PM
    Quote from: Bigmo on July 04, 2014, 06:41 PM
    Lets look at the verse

     "those on whose part you fear desertion,"

    Fear is the word used or suspicion could also be used.

    So let me ask a question.

    If its OK to beat a women because you fear disobedience or sexual misconduct from her could you also beat her if you saw her committing adultery and banging the next door neighbor in your bedroom?

    Yes or no?




    Hi Bigmo,

    I'm afraid you are still committing the same logical fallacy of circular reasoning. You are trying to prove your point by arguing that the Qur'an wouldn't contradict itself or that the Qur'an would not be inconsistent or illogical or incoherent.

    Maybe that's because you are used to discussing these points with Muslims who also believe the Qur'an to be the work of a divine and infallible God.

    However we don't believe the Qur'an is infallible. Quite the contrary. We believe the Qur'an is the very fallible product of a human author - from the 7th century.

    So it makes absolutely no difference to us if the Qur'an is inconsistent or contradicts itself.

    In fact that is par for the course for us.

    Also you have yet to respond to the glaring contradiction between an All-Merciful God and Excessively cruel torture. As I said before, this has got to be one of the most blatant contradictions of all time.

    You can't be "Most Merciful of those who show Mercy" while also torturing people in the most insanely grotesque and excessively cruel way - keeping them alive just for that purpose - burning off their skin and replacing it - so they can feel the horrible agony over and over again.

    And please don't tell me I am just focussing on a word or a verse.

    As I said perviously the Quran spends an enormous amount of time detailing the horrors of Hell and threatening disbelievers with it.
  • 4:34 To Hit or not to Hit, that is the question
     Reply #12 - July 04, 2014, 10:23 PM
    Quote from: Bigmo on July 04, 2014, 09:04 PM
    Shakir: Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great. And if you fear dissension between the two, send an arbitrator from his people and an arbitrator from her people. If they both desire reconciliation, Allah will cause it between them. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Acquainted [with all things].

    As Quranist we look at the context it appears in the Quran. And not look at the verse in isolation.


    What point you are making here?

    How does this disprove that wadriboohunna means "and Hit them!" ??
  • 4:34 To Hit or not to Hit, that is the question
     Reply #13 - July 04, 2014, 10:32 PM
    Quote from: Hassan on July 04, 2014, 10:16 PM
    Hi Bigmo,

    I'm afraid you are still committing the same logical fallacy of circular reasoning. You are trying to prove your point by arguing that the Qur'an wouldn't contradict itself or that the Qur'an would not be inconsistent or illogical or incoherent.

    Maybe that's because you are used to discussing these points with Muslims who also believe the Qur'an to be the work of a divine and infallible God.

    However we don't believe the Qur'an is infallible. Quite the contrary. We believe the Qur'an is the very fallible product of a human author - from the 7th century.

    So it makes absolutely no difference to us if the Qur'an is inconsistent or contradicts itself.

    In fact that is par for the course for us.

    Also you have yet to respond to the glaring contradiction between an All-Merciful God and Excessively cruel torture. As I said before, this has got to be one of the most blatant contradictions of all time.

    You can't be "Most Merciful of those who show Mercy" while also torturing people in the most insanely grotesque and excessively cruel way - keeping them alive just for that purpose - burning off their skin and replacing it - so they can feel the horrible agony over and over again.

    And please don't tell me I am just focussing on a word or a verse.

    As I said perviously the Quran spends an enormous amount of time detailing the horrors of Hell and threatening disbelievers with it.



    But me being a Quranist you can understand why I can not accept the beat them term the way you do since as a Quranist I  can not accept that the Quran will tell us to beat a woman physically out of mere speculation but demand four witness when it comes to an actual adultery allegation. So it is not me sugar coating or playing mental gymnastics. Its just me being a Quranist.

    As far as God being merciful well the Quran also says God does not commit even a molecule of injustice and that every deed done by a human is recorded and he or she will witness their every deed big or small.  Every human will be shown their record and their deeds will be put to a scale. No lawyers needed and no witnesses needed.

  • 4:34 To Hit or not to Hit, that is the question
     Reply #14 - July 04, 2014, 10:38 PM
    Quote from: Quod Sum Eris on July 04, 2014, 09:28 PM
    So you disagree with equal rights and women being able to forge their own lives and take charge of their own destinies? You'd rather their fate depend on the whims, beliefs and desires of another?


    I don't think that is the intention of the verse. I think its the way creation on Earth operates. We see in the animal kingdom also. Most species are male dominated but not all. It does not affect a person's salvation whether they are a male or female. Its talking about resource ownership and the relative power that comes with that. The Quran encourages communication and dialogue and does not like to see people separated. You can not say that the Quran on one side encourages physical beating and on the other side encourages an arbiter to resolve matters. That is a contradiction if I ever seen one.
  • 4:34 To Hit or not to Hit, that is the question
     Reply #15 - July 04, 2014, 10:41 PM
    So let me ask this question again:

    If its OK to beat a women in the Quran because you fear disobedience or sexual misconduct from her could you also beat her if you saw her committing adultery and banging the next door neighbor in your bedroom?

    Yes or no?

    What does the Quran say if you saw your wife having sex with another man in your bedroom.

  • 4:34 To Hit or not to Hit, that is the question
     Reply #16 - July 04, 2014, 10:50 PM
    Quote from: Bigmo on July 04, 2014, 10:32 PM
    But me being a Quranist you can understand why I can not accept the beat them term the way you do since as a Quranist I  can not accept that the Quran will tell us to beat a woman physically out of mere speculation but demand four witness when it comes to an actual adultery allegation. So it is not me sugar coating or playing mental gymnastics. Its just me being a Quranist.


    Oh yes, I understand what you're saying - in fact if you remember I explained what you were saying to others on the previous thread. However of course I think you're wrong and there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the Qur'an meant "Hit them" in 4:34 and whether it appears to contradict the verse about 4 witnesses to prove adultery is irrelevant because in our opinion the Qur'an does contradict itself and is often inconsistent.

    Quote from: Bigmo on July 04, 2014, 10:32 PM
    As far as God being merciful well the Quran also says God does not commit even a molecule of injustice and that every deed done by a human is recorded and he or she will witness their every deed big or small.  Every human will be shown their record and their deeds will be put to a scale. No lawyers needed and no witnesses needed.


    Again you are resorting to circular reasoning. It doesn't matter one iota that the Qur'an says; God does not commit even a molecule of injustice - the facts speak for themselves.

    A brutal and sadistic tyrant might go around saying he is kind and just - but it doesn't mean he is.

    So I repeat again: we don't believe in the Qur'an as God's word so it's no use bringing it as evidence.

    And are you claiming that repeatedly torturing people over and over again for a very long time* - is a just punishment for not believing?

    *The Qur'an says Hell is forever, but I'm going along with the Quranist view for the sake of argument.
  • 4:34 To Hit or not to Hit, that is the question
     Reply #17 - July 04, 2014, 10:57 PM
    Quote from: Bigmo on July 04, 2014, 10:41 PM
    So let me ask this question again:

    If its OK to beat a women in the Quran because you fear disobedience or sexual misconduct from her could you also beat her if you saw her committing adultery and banging the next door neighbor in your bedroom?

    Yes or no?

    What does the Quran say if you saw your wife having sex with another man in your bedroom.




    How many times do I have to say it Bigmo?

    You can't prove Qur'an with Qur'an?

    What you are saying is completely irrelevant to 4:34

    Don't you get it?
  • 4:34 To Hit or not to Hit, that is the question
     Reply #18 - July 05, 2014, 12:17 AM
    Quote from: Bigmo on July 04, 2014, 10:38 PM
    I don't think that is the intention of the verse. I think its the way creation on Earth operates. We see in the animal kingdom also. Most species are male dominated but not all. It does not affect a person's salvation whether they are a male or female. Its talking about resource ownership and the relative power that comes with that. The Quran encourages communication and dialogue and does not like to see people separated. You can not say that the Quran on one side encourages physical beating and on the other side encourages an arbiter to resolve matters. That is a contradiction if I ever seen one.

    I didn't mention an arbiter. I think you're saying you do disagree with equal rights but I'm not 100% sure. If possible it would be simpler if you could reply yes or no when I ask a direct question. Even something as simple as "No I do not, and I also don't believe that's the meaning" or "Yes I do because (however you justify it)".

    i.e. If I ask if you believe ex-muslims should be murdered, it would be clearer is you could say something like "Yes I do, my reason for that is..." or "No I don't, my reason for that is it's not explicitly commanded in the quran only hadith and I don't accept anything apart from the quran itself".

    Simple. Smiley
    `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.'
  • 4:34 To Hit or not to Hit, that is the question
     Reply #19 - July 05, 2014, 12:25 AM
    Quote from: Bigmo on July 04, 2014, 10:41 PM
    So let me ask this question again:

    If its OK to beat a women in the Quran because you fear disobedience or sexual misconduct from her could you also beat her if you saw her committing adultery and banging the next door neighbor in your bedroom?

    Yes or no?


    In the real world, no.

    The fact it says so and so in the quran means nothing to me in this context. It is not my guide or my instruction book. Though I could perhaps find things in the quran I do agree with and decide to apply to my own life, I am free to pick and choose based on my own sense of right and wrong. The fact that a book I consider a fairy tale says something does not affect what's right and wrong in real life.

    In the context of your question, yes, I would say that if you can beat your wife for fear of adultery or her saying no, I can't see why you wouldn't have that same allowance if she goes through with the adultery or says no to a demand.
    `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.'
  • 4:34 To Hit or not to Hit, that is the question
     Reply #20 - July 05, 2014, 01:06 AM
    Quote from: Bigmo on July 04, 2014, 10:41 PM
    So let me ask this question again:

    If its OK to beat a women in the Quran because you fear disobedience or sexual misconduct from her could you also beat her if you saw her committing adultery and banging the next door neighbor in your bedroom?

    Yes or no?

    What does the Quran say if you saw your wife having sex with another man in your bedroom.




    What does Quran say about my husband having sex with another women in my bedroom? What do I do with him if he won't obey me? What does Quran say about that? Can I beat him?
    Don't let Hitler have the street.
  • 4:34 To Hit or not to Hit, that is the question
     Reply #21 - July 05, 2014, 01:21 AM
    Don't be silly, only one of you is the slave is this relationship. parrot
    `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.'
  • 4:34 To Hit or not to Hit, that is the question
     Reply #22 - July 05, 2014, 01:51 AM
    Can you imagine taking bigmo's question to it's extreme logical conclusion?
    Quote
    you fear disobedience


    "Hmm, I think I'd like an egg sandwich. The wife said her ankles are sore, she might say no and I should make it myself." So, then a beating as "you fear disobedience",
    `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.'
  • 4:34 To Hit or not to Hit, that is the question
     Reply #23 - July 05, 2014, 06:43 AM
    Bigmo: where is the Quranic verse entitling women to beat and discipline their disobedient husbands?
    "Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused."
  • 4:34 To Hit or not to Hit, that is the question
     Reply #24 - July 05, 2014, 04:04 PM
    Quote from: Bigmo on July 04, 2014, 10:41 PM
    So let me ask this question again:

    If its OK to beat a women in the Quran because you fear disobedience or sexual misconduct from her could you also beat her if you saw her committing adultery and banging the next door neighbor in your bedroom?

    Yes or no?

    What does the Quran say if you saw your wife having sex with another man in your bedroom.

    According to the Quran, adultery is an actual crime. The punishment of which is 100 lashes.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • 4:34 To Hit or not to Hit, that is the question
     Reply #25 - July 05, 2014, 04:20 PM
    I really want to understand the Quranist approach to this, because I find the whole discussion silly.

    So when should isolation until death (or until some new revelations from allah is revealed, which came in the form of hadeeth, but Quranist don't follow them so it's still until death takes them) for women committing unlawful sexual activity? Also, why are only women affected by this, what should be done with the men who commit unlawful sexual activity? And how many witnesses should there be?

    And when should the men/women who commit unlawful sexual activity be punished with 100 lashes after four witnesses have been produced?

    - Why did allah mention two different punishments, and one only specific to women?

    And how does this "Quranic law" about "unlawful sexual activity" go together with the Quranist definition of nushooz (which you obviously only interpret to mean "unlawful sexual activity", even though I don't understand your reasoning since it is linguistically flawed)? I mean, all of a sudden a man should punish his wife himself by talking to her, leaving her bed and finally give her a good whooping? And if she still doesn't stop having an affair, you bring in arbitrators? So when is she being confined/whipped?

    You do see that there is a clear contradiction within the Quran if you take a Quranist stand point, you do realize that? Muslims in general solved this by abrogating the confinement verse, and then rightly defining nushooz as it should be defined, and not try to only make it mean "unlawful sexual activity".
    "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 #26 - July 05, 2014, 04:24 PM
    To me, I think the most useful way to read such a text is to read it as those who created it would have understood it.

    1400 years ago in the desert of Arabia:
    Were women generally the property of men? Yes.
    Was it expected that a women obey her husband? Yes
    If she disobeyed could you beat her? Yes.

    This is in line with history as well as the hadith and the koran.

    This extended well into the modern age. Only becoming controversial in the last few decades.
    The same is true of almost every culture and religion on Earth.

    Unless you view the koran as a document of history and is not fully applicable today, I think it's rather uncontroversial to think the koran sanctions wife beating.
  • 4:34 To Hit or not to Hit, that is the question
     Reply #27 - July 05, 2014, 04:33 PM
    ^agreed, i think it took us until the 70's early 80's for attitudes to change toward women, we no longer need to be kept by a man, and we certainly don't need to obey them for once having the upper hand ewe !  it all just proves that the quran was hand written by some guy in a desert tent, if it was real revelation from a god then it would never have become outdated..
  • 4:34 To Hit or not to Hit, that is the question
     Reply #28 - July 05, 2014, 05:35 PM
    Quote from: Hassan on July 04, 2014, 10:50 PM
    Oh yes, I understand what you're saying - in fact if you remember I explained what you were saying to others on the previous thread. However of course I think you're wrong and there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the Qur'an meant "Hit them" in 4:34 and whether it appears to contradict the verse about 4 witnesses to prove adultery is irrelevant because in our opinion the Qur'an does contradict itself and is often inconsistent.

    Again you are resorting to circular reasoning. It doesn't matter one iota that the Qur'an says; God does not commit even a molecule of injustice - the facts speak for themselves.

    A brutal and sadistic tyrant might go around saying he is kind and just - but it doesn't mean he is.

    So I repeat again: we don't believe in the Qur'an as God's word so it's no use bringing it as evidence.

    And are you claiming that repeatedly torturing people over and over again for a very long time* - is a just punishment for not believing?

    *The Qur'an says Hell is forever, but I'm going along with the Quranist view for the sake of argument.


    I have no problem with you saying that God will punish the disbelievers and maybe eternally and that you think that is unacceptable and cruel. The Quran says that. But to tell me about beating wives and slavery and killing disbelievers than the Quran does not say that and in many cases says the opposite.
  • 4:34 To Hit or not to Hit, that is the question
     Reply #29 - July 05, 2014, 05:40 PM
    Quote from: Cornflower on July 05, 2014, 04:20 PM
    I really want to understand the Quranist approach to this, because I find the whole discussion silly.

    So when should isolation until death (or until some new revelations from allah is revealed, which came in the form of hadeeth, but Quranist don't follow them so it's still until death takes them) for women committing unlawful sexual activity? Also, why are only women affected by this, what should be done with the men who commit unlawful sexual activity? And how many witnesses should there be?

    And when should the men/women who commit unlawful sexual activity be punished with 100 lashes after four witnesses have been produced?

    - Why did allah mention two different punishments, and one only specific to women?

    And how does this "Quranic law" about "unlawful sexual activity" go together with the Quranist definition of nushooz (which you obviously only interpret to mean "unlawful sexual activity", even though I don't understand your reasoning since it is linguistically flawed)? I mean, all of a sudden a man should punish his wife himself by talking to her, leaving her bed and finally give her a good whooping? And if she still doesn't stop having an affair, you bring in arbitrators? So when is she being confined/whipped?

    You do see that there is a clear contradiction within the Quran if you take a Quranist stand point, you do realize that? Muslims in general solved this by abrogating the confinement verse, and then rightly defining nushooz as it should be defined, and not try to only make it mean "unlawful sexual activity".


    I think its the opposite. Your understanding is contradictory and in fact already someone here said he has no problem with contradiction since he believes the Quran contradicts itself. I think this can only happen to protect the beat them explanation.

    Whats good about all this is the debate started with the Quran is filled with silliness and sadistic stuff and so on to the debate now about two words. Dharaba and Ma malakat aymanukum. They are not explicit verses. No smoking gun here.

    For a scripture with over 6000 verses for the debate to be confined to two terms I think i can live with that. yes
  • 12 3 ... 5 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »