Muslims are always blaming other Muslims for this "misconception"
It would be refreshing to hear just one Muslim admit that this "misconception"
is actually the fault of the idiot who said that a man can hit his wife.
Who was that now... ?
Oh yeah, I remember. It was Allah.
If you have a look at the reformist translation of the Quran:
The men are to support the women by what God has gifted them over one another and for what they spend of their money. The reformed women are devotees and protectors of privacy what God has protected. As for those women from whom you fear disloyalty, then you shall advise them, abandon them in the bedchamber, and separate them; if they obey you, then do not seek a way over them; God is High, Great.
With the following footnotes:
004:034 As I discussed extensively, in Turkçe Kuran Çevirilerindeki Hatalar (Errors in Turkish Translation of the Quran, Istanbul, 1992-1998) and in English article, Beating Women or Beating Around the Bush (Unorthodox Articles, Internet, 1998), four key words or phrases have been mistranslated by traditional translators. To justify the misogynistic and patriarchal practices, deliberately or unknowingly, a majority of translators render the phrase kawamuna ala al-nisa as "in charge of women" rather than "providers for women" or "observant of women." Interestingly, the same translators translate the same verb mentioned in 4:135; 5:8; 4:127; 2:229; 20:14; 55:9 as "observe/maintain." When the same verb is used to depict a relationship between man and woman, it somehow magically transforms into a prescription of hierarchy and authority.
The second key word that is commonly mistranslated is iDRiBuhunna. In almost all translations, you will see it translated as "scourge," or "beat" or "beat (lightly)". The verb DaRaBa is a multiple-meaning verb akin to English ?strike? or ?get.? The Quran uses the same verb with various meanings, such as, to travel, to get out (3:156; 4:101; 38:44; 73:20; 2:273), to strike (2:60,73; 7:160; 8:12; 20:77; 24:31; 26:63; 37:93; 47:4), to beat (8:50), to beat or regret (47:27), to set up (43:58; 57:13), to give (examples) (14:24,45; 16:75,76,112; 18:32,45; 24:35; 30:28,58; 36:78; 39:27,29; 43:17; 59:21; 66:10,11), to take away, to ignore (43:5), to condemn (2:61), to seal, to draw over (18:11), to cover (24:31), and to explain (13:17). It is again interesting that the scholars pick the meaning BEAT, among the many other alternatives, when the relationship between man and woman is involved, a relationship that is defined by the Quran with mutual love and care (30:21).
The third word that has been traditionally mistranslated is the word NuSHuZ as "rebellion" or "disobedience" or "opposition" to men. If we study 4:34 carefully we will find a clue that leads us to translate that word as embracing a range of related ideas, from "flirting" to "engaging in an extramarital affair" ? indeed, any word or words that reflects the range of disloyalty in marriage. The clue is the phrase before nushuz, which reads: ". . . they honor them according to God's commandments, even when alone in their privacy." This phrase emphasizes the importance of loyalty in marital life, and helps us to make better sense of what follows. Interestingly, the same word, nushuz, is used later in the same chapter, in 4:128 ? but it is used to describe the misbehavior of husbands, not wives, as it was in 4:34. In our view, the traditional translation of nushuz, that is, "opposition," will not fit in both contexts. However, the understanding of nushuz as marital disloyalty, in a variety of forms, is clearly appropriate for both 4:34 and 4:128.
The fourth word is the word QaNiTat, which means "devoted to God," and in some verses it describes both man and woman (2:116,238; 3:17,43; 16:120; 30:26; 33:31,35; 39:9; 66:5,12). Though this word is mostly translated correctly as "obedient," when read in the context of the above-mentioned distortion it conveys a false message as if to imply that women must be "obedient" to their husbands as their inferior, while the word refers to obedience to God's law. The word is mentioned as a general description of Muslim women (66:12), and more interestingly the description of Mary who, according to the Quran, did not even have a husband! (66:12).
The traditional distortion of this verse was first questioned by Edip Yuksel in his book, "Kuran Çevirilerindeki Hatalar" (Errors in Turkish Translations) (1992, Istanbul). For a detailed discussion on verse 4:34, see the Sample Comparisons section in the Introduction.
After the revelation of the Quran, Muslim scholars turned back to the days of ignorance and they were supported by some Jewish and Christian scholars who apparently converted to Islam yet did not experience a paradigm change. These semi-converts and those Arabs who longed for the old culture of ignorance combined their forces together to take back the rights of women recognized and promoted by the Quran. The rights of women in the West have been recognized through the separation of church and state; however the culture is still basically a male dominant one and thus western women are objectified and exploited tremendously in the business world. The western culture is deeply influenced by the teaching of Christianity originating from the misogynistic authors of Old Testament and St. Paul (not Jesus) who subordinates women to men. For instance, see Ephesians 5:22-33; Colossians 3:18- 19; 1 Peter 3:1-7.
"Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says" (I Corinthians 14: 34). "For a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man" (I Corinthians 11:6-9). "Let a women learn in silence with all submission. And do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Nevertheless, she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love and holiness, with self-control" (I Timothy 2:11- 15).
St. Paul's misogynistic teaching is a reflection and extension of a historical trend. The Old Testament contains many man-made misogynist teachings. For instance, a woman is considered unclean for one week if she gives birth to a son, but unclean for two weeks if she gives birth to a daughter (Leviticus 12:1- 5).
The Quran prohibits a sexual relationship with a menstruating woman, not because she is dirty, but because menstruation is painful (2:222). The purpose is to protect women's health from being burdened by the sexual desires of their husbands. However, the male authors of the Old Testament, exaggerated and generalized this divine prohibition so much so that they turned menstruation into a reason for a woman?s humiliation, isolation, and punishment (Leviticus 15:19-33).
Christianity puts all the blame on the shoulders of women for the troubles in this world. Yet, according to the Quran, we are created from one person (nafs), not one man (4:1). Furthermore, it was not Eve, but it was both Adam and his spouse who were deceived in the Paradise (2:30-39; 7:19-27).
But the translation is the exception rather than the rule; given how much Muslims love to hold onto tradition over re-interpretation it is doubtful that the reformist translation will ever see the light beyond the avant garde of Muslims.
Topic: I think his guy is on about Surah 4:34