The attack Quran thread

[shivsomashekhar]

It is tiresome to see Islam posters frequently hide behind the excuse that Arabic words have multiple meanings.

It does not matter.

In the context of the verse, the word has a *single* meaning and this meaning can easily be written down in English - which is exactly what the English translations have done. There is no secret; no complexity. This is not rocket science. We are talking medieval (~1400 years) religious poetry. Much older (~2500+ years) texts around the world have been successfully translated into English. And there has been a continuous, unbroken tradition of reading and disseminating the Quran.

We are not talking about reconstructing a language that has been dead for thousand of years.

 

[epronovost]

Not "only" beating? So it could mean "beating"?
And if "in context" the arabic word means "to leave her" instead of "striking her", then why does it in translations say "strike her" instead of "leave her"?

More over, what isn't striking your spouse considered a crime in Islamic countries from the 7th century onward. Many muslim country like Saudi Arabia or Iran and in many other countries, the protection afforded to victims of domestic violence are barebone and cover only the most extreme forms of domestic violence. That seems completely ridiculous and bad apologetics.

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

Actually, its quite not right to say that this interpretation you presented to the word Daraba, Darabthum and Idribuhunna is "nowadays" because it is Fusha Atthurath, which is the oldest arabic language known to mankind. So its not that new, its in fact the oldest. The case is an intransitive/transitive issue, and is a very valid point. I don't know where you got it from but its valid.

Oh yea, I didn't mean nowadays to imply that it is something invented currently, but just that its becoming more popular these days to discuss it and that ancient meaning where in between there had been a long history and still proponents of whatever that little stick beating idea, even though I doubt practically anyone realistically put the little stick into use, but who knows, maybe it was popularly used as well, though it seems highly unlikely and impractical, and much more likely that people were historically slapping, pushing, kicking, and punching one another, and unfamiliar with most of what the Qur'an or Hadith or scholars ever said on the matter. My belief or idea is that the Qur'an and its words and also the Hadith were most likely not very well known by the majority of Muslims or anyone else for the majority of its history so far, and that only vague colloquial notions were popularly widespread and promulgated until much more recently where people from around the world became familiar with the Qur'an and Hadith more than had been ever the case throughout the Muslim world, which also had a lower literacy and comprehension rate most likely until now where these things are both accessible and more easily comprehended with alternative translations available for increased understanding. I think scholars and upper class people may have been the more literate and familiar with the contents of the Qur'an and Hadiths over the years, but much more recently Islam is experiencing its own kind of Protestant revolution where people are accessing the Qur'an more directly and discussing a wide range of ideas among a much wider audience than ever before. What do you think, realistically? I think that the population in general is much bigger now, and the class differences and literacy differences have become more equal between various people, so that nowadays things are a little different than they might have been even 100 years ago when it comes to familiarity with the Qur'an or in-depth knowledge of the Qur'anic Arabic available to the public. So, though I think all humans likely discourage pummeling family members, it was probably something occurring in the world a lot, even among Muslims, and very few probably knew or cared anything for this particular verse regarding daraba or whatever, let alone interpreting it in its most ancient meaning or whatever, considering the writings which interpret it as striking or hitting, which were used by many of the translators based on the interpretation of the Arabic understood for probably quite a while. That is not to say I personally think it means hitting the wife, I think I mainly don't care for some reason, I think if the Qur'an had said certain things, I might do something else instead and in my reading of the Qur'an I feel like there is sufficient leeway in using common sense or doing things differently than the prescribed or suggested methods and facing God regarding every matter, so that if one refrains from beating their wife, or even punishing the proven adulterer as prescribed by the Qur'an when it insists that one should not let it slide, this may be reasonably forgiven or a "whatever" sort of matter, but maybe its very serious and strongly suggesting something. I don't think the Qur'an is as strict as people might think it is, and I interpret it as more about developing a consistent interaction and relationship with God and the miraculous. If Moses (Musa) had been strictly taken to account for his actions, or perhaps that servant of Allah that Musa met, known to some as Al-Khidr, then a lot of the people might be immediately struck down or executed for their errors or crimes (which might not be so bad either), but I feel like the Qur'an gives me the impression at least of having a discussion on matters and being open to other possibilities and facing God regarding the matters on Judgment Day. So even now for example, there are amazingly "homosexual Muslims", people who are active homosexuals who are also attached to Islam, and they will have to face God as well and offer up their arguments, and according to the Qur'an, even their skins and orifices might testify. Will they be for or against?

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

But now your rationale on this point has brought us right back to square one, with my admonishment of the Islamic Quran utilizing words that can be interpretted in various ways like this. And, while a person's life may not be on the line in this instance, their dignity surely is. Earlier when I raised this with the words "aggress" versus "transgress" you cited that the word WAS UNAMBIGUOUS. That was your defense for the discrepancy posed. And now here, you are citing the very same sort of AMBIGUITY as the defense for this passage. This is employment of a very obvious double-standard by you, personally.

The point stands that a text written whereby one or more parties mentioned in the text could be interpreted into a position of danger or physical harm, the text should leave no room for ambiguity. Not changing or amending the text to account for a grave error (such as the one this would imply) is a gross negligence. Your "sacred" texts are simply not as important as whether or not a woman suffers a blow from her husband. This will always be my opinion and a part of my principles, and your text will remain in my crosshairs for the very reason I have listed here.


Let's take this as true then, and though I wanted to firstly point out that the above still stands even in this case, I also asked whether or not the Quran prescribes that a woman might use the withholding of sexual attentions in order to punish or admonish her mate. What does the Quran have to say about a wife's allowance to do this or to not do this? Does the Quran prescribe that a female/wife, under any circumstances, withhold sexual intimacy from her husband?

I think it can't be denied that words, in practically all human languages, are somewhat open to interpretations and arguments. The Qur'an seems to say something like "if God wanted everyone to believe and agree, they would, but they don't, because God doesn't want them to, so that humans compete and conflict with one another, vying against each other in both good and evil works, and it will be made manifest who are the right, and true winners, and who are the wrong, and true losers", which is paraphrasing and interpreting a varying of verses throughout the Qur'an. In other words, the Qur'an seems to excuse itself from the argument that words are vague and can mean different things or have different interpretations, implications, and inflections or colors and tints, but instead suggests that God is manipulating the understandings of people (the organ referred to as the "heart" but seemingly the seat of "reason" in Arabic, so what we would call the "mind" today), and communicates through a variety of means, including language, confusing some and rightly guiding others, but leaving it a matter of dispute as to who really is right and who really is wrong in a great many cases. It even says something like "if it was proven (like by angels coming and giving the message), the matter would be resolved", but there is some kind of deliberate lack of clarity that it suggests is part of the whole ordeal and just as God wills it to be. That doesn't give a picture of a God that is necessarily omni-benevolent, but a power, intelligence, or being that is dealing with life-forms that are not very much high or crucial in its view, since they can be supposedly blown to smithereens or brought back as if nothing happened by an all-powerful being without most limitations. Do you think such a thing exists?

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

This is the problematic verse according to your view and some others

SAHIH INTERNATIONAL
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.

The verse says that men should have the responsibility over women in which
men should spend money on them and even if the woman has money still
he should be the one responsible on spending money on her except if
she's willing to share with him but not obliged.

Regarding the other stuff, striking women which is clearly misunderstood
or meant to be misunderstood as the verse says, if you have problems with
your wife try to talk with her, if you still have problems with your wife then don't sleep
with her in bed, it means avoid sex relationship and then if still not solved leave her alone as kind of objection, the word strike similar to Arabic doesn't mean only beating but it means to leave something to express objection.

Why did so many interpreters and translators take it to refer to hitting her?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

In principle, I agree.

But 10 bucks says that he's going to use his requirement number 1 of the OP as an excuse to hide behind and dismiss practically everything being presented to him at face value, claiming it doesn't meet requirement 1.

If you read it carefully, the way he worded it he can use it in such a way that is basically results in the idea that only islamic scholars who have been studying the quran for a few decades will be able to meet that requirement.

I'll keep an eye on this thread, but that is my prediction. I predict very little, if any at all, discussion about points being raised. Instead, I predict a lot of bare dismissals of such points, on the grounds of requirement 1.

I've had a few discussions with @firedragon before, and found them pretty informative.
If you're trying to convince him the Quran should be discarded, I wouldn't envisage any success, but if it's an exchange of ideas you're after I'm much more optimistic. Only you can answer what you're hoping to get out of this, though.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You know just a curious case? Some one above had questioned a difference between Shia (SHii) and Sunni Quranic translation and who's authority etc etc. You just mentioned Yusuf Ali. Probably the most widely read Quranic translation in the world. Most Sunni's, including Sunni mosques if they carry translations, will carry Yusuf Ali Translation.

This begs it. Yusuf Ali was a Shii. His was not Sunni. But yet, so far, his translation rests as one of the most widely read and respected ones's.

Peace.

Question of ignorance, though...there is absolutely no difference in the Quran itself between Sunni, Shii and even Quranists, right? It's the same Quran. (I understand that translations can be biased, etc, just asking in general terms)

It's questions around succession, and hadiths which are more differentiators in a theological sense.

 

[firedragon]

But now your rationale on this point has brought us right back to square one, with my admonishment of the Islamic Quran utilizing words that can be interpretted in various ways like this. And, while a person's life may not be on the line in this instance, their dignity surely is. Earlier when I raised this with the words "aggress" versus "transgress" you cited that the word WAS UNAMBIGUOUS. That was your defense for the discrepancy posed. And now here, you are citing the very same sort of AMBIGUITY as the defense for this passage. This is employment of a very obvious double-standard by you, personally.

The point stands that a text written whereby one or more parties mentioned in the text could be interpreted into a position of danger or physical harm, the text should leave no room for ambiguity. Not changing or amending the text to account for a grave error (such as the one this would imply) is a gross negligence. Your "sacred" texts are simply not as important as whether or not a woman suffers a blow from her husband. This will always be my opinion and a part of my principles, and your text will remain in my crosshairs for the very reason I have listed here.


Let's take this as true then, and though I wanted to firstly point out that the above still stands even in this case, I also asked whether or not the Quran prescribes that a woman might use the withholding of sexual attentions in order to punish or admonish her mate. What does the Quran have to say about a wife's allowance to do this or to not do this? Does the Quran prescribe that a female/wife, under any circumstances, withhold sexual intimacy from her husband?

A female, as a wife can seek divorce if the man is being Nushuz and not reforming. I gave you the verses already. And these steps, dont take them as different sentences. its one sentence.

Let me make it clear. Men and women in the Quran are not the same.

Okay. Let me tell you something. Quran says that a woman is allowed to suckle the child for two years after divorce without guardianship (even). Is there a verse where it says men are allowed to suckle children?

 

[firedragon]

And you will recognise that this is very misogynistic and liberticide for women as it prevents them from achieving equal social status, political power and personnal freedom.

How? Can you explain with researched data as back up?

 

[firedragon]

Does this mean that it is "un-islamic" for a man to stay home with the kids while the wife has the bigshot carreer?

Nope. Its not said anywhere.

 

[firedragon]

Question of ignorance, though...there is absolutely no difference in the Quran itself between Sunni, Shii and even Quranists, right? It's the same Quran. (I understand that translations can be biased, etc, just asking in general terms)

It's questions around succession, and hadiths which are more differentiators in a theological sense.

Most of these sectarian matters can be inferred into any text if one person tries really hard. And the sectarian people do just that. E.g. The slavers used a verse in the NT to promote their slavery in the U.S. The anti-slavers also used the same verse against slavery.

Shii means "follower". Just a generic word. Later it became a name of a sect. Sunnah means the way. As in the Quran speaks of Sunnathullah, the way of God. Later, after Muhammed died Muawiyah made a group called Jumah ul sunnah. Thats Sunni.

Nothing to do with the Qur'an. Quran is the oldest document in Islam, be it palaeographical, philological or carbon 14 dating so its the most authentic and close to Muhammed. Everything else is secondary. Not only theologically, but also logically.

 

[firedragon]

This is the problem with Islam.

It is inevitable that all religions that have books will lock in the cultural aspects of the authors and their times. Cultural aspects get confounded with religious/spiritual aspects.

But Islam stands out because - in its extreme form - it takes the medieval times of Mohammad too seriously and insist on keeping it alive - refusing progress and change. Other religions struggle with moving on too, but they seem to have fared better at transforming their cultural outlook to be more in sync with changing times. For some reason. Islam struggles more with change and transformation.

Provide specific verses in the Quran and how they support your accusation. One verse at a time is great rather than lists off a website. Your comment is good, but too generic a statement. When some religious people say this kind of statement against Atheists I ask the same thing. I ask for specifics. Whats the research?

Any accusation must have research to back it up.

One verse.
Cheers.

 

[FearGod]

Why did so many interpreters and translators take it to refer to hitting her?

They misunderstood the verse, actually the steps for treating the conflict between the husband
and his wife is clear, first is to talk with her to solve the conflict, if discussion failed and they are
still in trouble then the man shouldn't sleep with her in bed and it means not to have sex relationships
while they still have problems with each other, the last step is to leave her alone completely and not
just in bed, actually it is impossible that beating will solve the trouble, how God asked the husband
not to sleep with her to avoid unpleasant sexual relationships then asking man to beat her.

The last sermon of the prophet just shortly before his death, he asked men to be kind with
their women, he didn't told them beat your women if they didn't listen to you.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nope. Its not said anywhere.

Ok.

But then why does it say what it says, if it doesn't matter who is the caretaker of the kids and who is the earner?

If it can go both ways and if it doesn't matter which, then why mention one and not the other? Why mention anything at all about said subject?

Isn't it misleading then, to only mention one and not comment at all about the other?
I mean, it seems to me that by saying the thing it says, it clearly is dividing up the roles of the various members of a household, right?

So if it is true that it is equally fine to turn the tables, then why identify those roles specifically for males and females?

Doesn't seem to make any sense to me.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Provide specific verses in the Quran and how they support your accusation. One verse at a time is great rather than lists off a website. Your comment is good, but too generic a statement. When some religious people say this kind of statement against Atheists I ask the same thing. I ask for specifics. Whats the research?

Any accusation must have research to back it up.

One verse.
Cheers.

I don't think he is talking about quranic passages, but rather about how it's implemented in the world.
In general, it is quite clear that the muslim world is much more stuck in the past then the christian world.

I'm not aware of any christian countries that don't allow women to go out by themselves, to get an education, to get a job, to drive a car,... As a culture, the muslim world is extremely conservative and extremely opposed to such cultural advancement regarding the emancipation of women and alike.

I don't think you can deny this and keep a straight face.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

They misunderstood the verse

Really? The translators of the quran? The people who actually read, speak and understand the classical arabic from which they translated it?

Sorry, I'm not buying it. ESPECIALLY considering how "up in arms" muslims tend to be when the quran is misrepresented (in their opinion). I think it's even regarded as a serious offence / crime to change the words / meanings of any parts of the quran.

So if translators would make such a HUGE mistake, I'ld expect that it would be extremely protested and rectified very fast.

 

[FearGod]

Really? The translators of the quran? The people who actually read, speak and understand the classical arabic from which they translated it?

Sorry, I'm not buying it. ESPECIALLY considering how "up in arms" muslims tend to be when the quran is misrepresented (in their opinion). I think it's even regarded as a serious offence / crime to change the words / meanings of any parts of the quran.

So if translators would make such a HUGE mistake, I'ld expect that it would be extremely protested and rectified very fast.

It isn't an offence to have your opinion in interpreting the verses of the quran, Arabic is my first language
and the verse to me is clear and very well understood, you can't evaluate my interpretation if you don't
know the Arabic language.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It isn't an offence to have your opinion in interpreting the verses of the quran, Arabic is my first language
and the verse to me is clear and very well understood, you can't evaluate my interpretation if you don't
know the Arabic language.

You seem to be confusing me with the actual translators of the quran.




You also seem to completely ignore my point about how muslims tend to be up in arms whenever the quran is misrepresented, misquoted or even worse: altered.

Why is there no massive protest against this supposed HUGE mistake in the translation?

I'ld expect any translation of the quran to be scrutinized to hell and back by classical arabic speaking muslims, imams and what not.

So how come this "mistake" persists? How come there is no outcry? How come that it isn't rectified?

After all, EVERY non-arabic speaking muslims who relies on this translation, is learning it "wrong" then. That doesn't sound like something that the muslim community would accept.

 

[FearGod]

You seem to be confusing me with the actual translators of the quran.




You also seem to completely ignore my point about how muslims tend to be up in arms whenever the quran is misrepresented, misquoted or even worse: altered.

Why is there no massive protest against this supposed HUGE mistake in the translation?

I'ld expect any translation of the quran to be scrutinized to hell and back by classical arabic speaking muslims, imams and what not.

So how come this "mistake" persists? How come there is no outcry? How come that it isn't rectified?

After all, EVERY non-arabic speaking muslims who relies on this translation, is learning it "wrong" then. That doesn't sound like something that the muslim community would accept.

I explained my point, and you're free to believe it or not.

 

[epronovost]

How? Can you explain with researched data as back up?

Are you seriously asking me to explain to you how a group of people who are under the responsability of another doesn't have the same status?

Are you seriously asking to demonstrate that people who owe obediance to another group of people have a lower hierarchical position than the people they owe obediance too?

Are you then asking me to prove with studies that people who don't work, thus don't make money and don't have political authority are unequal compared to people who can and do?

Are you then asking me to demonstrate that people who don't work, don't have financial authonomy, don't have the same financial freedom and capacity to change their station, control their destiny, as someone who does?

Is that what you need studies to understand? I can provide you with those explanation, but I'm concerned an adult would need them. They seem to me as self evident in the same way 4 isn't equal to 6. What do you think people talk about when they talk about equality?