wife beating in quran

[Mark2020]

Not sure what you mean by a reference about Arabic language, but i shared some examples i found in post #65 that cover some other possible interpretations and meanings.

I went through them now.
They are obviously mixing the different contexts where the verb is used.
They either give examples in which the verb is followed by a preposition, or the object is not human.
This is either poor understanding of the language or deliberate dishonesty [by them not you ]
The differences are clear in the lexicon...
What they should show is where the same word was used in the same context.
They should give a serious basis for such a translation.

Yeah

And i was pretty lazy in school

But I'll have to charge you for any further lessons.

Like i tried to indicate earlier, the issue is not as simple as that. I would need to do some serious research before i exclude the possibility of finding that usage for the word.

Again though, like i said earlier, i'm not negating your claim. I am however saying that the word not being there in the lexicon isn't a proof for me that it has no such usage, neither is my failure to find it in a quick search.

Then take your time.
But as it stands, you don't have a basis for your (their) definition, while my definition has strong basis.

Well, i was referring to a part that was addressed to me specifically, and following a statement that suggested that i shouldn't make a certain claim. In any case, though, my apologies if i misunderstood your intentions (which is possible).

It's ok.
I didn't refer to you then. Again, it was a general statement.

 

[waitasec]

You are correct. But both a chair and a table might both be wood but each have different function.

however the function is relative when taking human capabilities into consideration.

And as per my reading, this verse extols women's role and not degrades it. It extols to the extent that women may become arrogant on comprehending this.

how does comprehension of ones capabilities translate to arrogance?
seems to me it is the insecurity of the man that would label it arrogant.
offensive display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing pride. is the definition of arrogance...if a person gives power to that display that is the act of insecurity.

And it extols to the extent that a man on comprehending it can never bear any intention of beating etc.

what if the man doesn't comprehend it the way it was intended to be?

what about when the husband becomes arrogant? who do they answer to?
if your answer would be allah, then why wouldn't the same apply to women?

That is me of course. YMMV.

what does that mean?

 

[atanu]

how does comprehension of ones capabilities translate to arrogance?
seems to me it is the insecurity of the man that would label it arrogant.
offensive display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing pride. is the definition of arrogance...if a person gives power to that display that is the act of insecurity.

what if the man doesn't comprehend it the way it was intended to be?

It was not about capabilities but about given role.

The points highlighted in red can happen from both sides.

YMMV means 'your mileage may vary'.

 

[waitasec]

It was not about capabilities but about given role.

isn't that a bit of an over generalization though?

The points highlighted in red can happen from both sides.

indeed, however it seems to be the mans role to set a women straight, who sets the man straight? are there passages that would imply that to also be the role of a woman?

YMMV means 'your mileage may vary'.

ahhh. thanks.

 

[Sahar]

It is mentioned in the tafsears that I pointed to before.
I don't see much contradiction between this and what you mentioned.
Anyway, if you accept al nasikh wal mansookh (abrogation) in quran, you are refusing this based on apparent contradiction?

Abrogation? How is that relevant to my post? :sarcastic

 

[Sahar]

Like i tried to indicate earlier, the issue is not as simple as that. I would need to do some serious research before i exclude the possibility of finding that usage for the word.

Again though, like i said earlier, i'm not negating your claim. I am however saying that the word not being there in the lexicon isn't a proof for me that it has no such usage, neither is my failure to find it in a quick search.

So Badran, you just follow others' opinions and even defend them without asking for the evidence or the proofs that would support their opinions? How come you defend an opinion without real questioning or understanding?
These are serious questions.

 

[Mark2020]

Abrogation? How is that relevant to my post? :sarcastic

Haven't you questioned the narration based on what you saw as contradiction? :sarcastic

 

[Sahar]

Haven't you questioned the narration based on what you saw as contradiction? :sarcastic

What does that narration have anything to do with "abrogation in the Qur'an"? That story is not in the Qur'an, speaking about the abrogation in the Qur'an is irrelevant.

 

[Mark2020]

What does that narration have anything to do with "abrogation in the Qur'an"? That story is not in the Qur'an, speaking about the abrogation in the Qur'an is irrelevant.

There is abrogation in Sunna too.
But it's the same idea. If you accept abrogation in quran, this wouldn't be too hard to accept.

 

[Sahar]

There is abrogation in Sunna too.
But it's the same idea. If you accept abrogation in quran, this wouldn't be too hard to accept.

Again, irrelevant. Not any issue discussed, we throw the term "abrogation" in the discussion like the way you did. Not to mention that it's one of the highly controversial topics between the specialized scholars.

 

[Mark2020]

Again, irrelevant. Not any issue discussed, we throw the term "abrogation" in the discussion like the way you did. Not to mention that it's one of the highly controversial topics between the specialized scholars.

It's relevant to the argument that you gave. It's not that hard to see really.

 

[Badran]

I went through them now.
They are obviously mixing the different contexts where the verb is used.
They either give examples in which the verb is followed by a preposition, or the object is not human.
This is either poor understanding of the language or deliberate dishonesty [by them not you ]
The differences are clear in the lexicon...
What they should show is where the same word was used in the same context.
They should give a serious basis for such a translation.

I can't defend that of course until i try to look further into this like i said, and see about your claim.

Then take your time.
But as it stands, you don't have a basis for your (their) definition, while my definition has strong basis.

Sure, your definition was never in question though, it was acknowledged from the start.

But I'll have to charge you for any further lessons.

I can't blame you

It's ok.
I didn't refer to you then. Again, it was a general statement.

Cool, thanks

 

[Badran]

So Badran, you just follow others' opinions and even defend them without asking for the evidence or the proofs that would support their opinions? How come you defend an opinion without real questioning or understanding?

I did look for support regarding these possible translations and interpretations, however what mark brought up is something i didn't have in mind. I never saw anything that suggests that when the object is human the meaning would only be beat, or that there is such distinction in the first place.

I had relied on certain things, alongside a basic research to get an idea, until i'm able at some point to do a more serious and extensive research regarding the matter (and others). I wasn't and am not 100% about these translations and interpretations, but i had looked for and found what seemed to be enough to tell that at least they're certainly possible. And because these translations and interpretations made a lot more sense than the more common ones, i defend them and see where that takes me (since debating them is also effectively putting it to the test and leading me to look for certain things).

In this case i was though less skeptical or questioning than usual, because hearing these possible meanings and interpretations for the word and the verse from certain scholars made my skepticism minimal (since i thought there is no reason for them to acknowledge them if there's absolutely no basis whatsoever for that).

 

[A-ManESL]

Surat An-Nisa' [4:34] - The Holy Qur'an - ?????? ??????

how can one justify beating wife for not being obedient to man

Hello Gurusikh. Thank you for your kind words. I am humbled.

Quranic verses are of kinds: one whose message is fundamental and basic, and one whose message is allegorical. ("He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental; they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical.") The basic verses are those which carry the message of the everlasting Reality of God, of turning towards him for everything, things which are imbibed in us by our nature but our baser instincts have made us forget them. The other verses are allegorical and seek to convey the same idea through various allegories and methods.

IMO the verse in question has many layers of meaning, and calls man (man as such and not man/woman) towards God if reflected upon.

The average man is an egoistical creature: his very idea of himself is concentrated and built upon the past experiences of his ego. At this station of ego, the Quran, in the context of the society and the culture within which it came about, tries to set boundaries and gives a process of reconciliation. The "beating" is termed as a part of the reconciliation process in that culture of the 7th C, but today it is not, and the verse should not be understood in that sense today.

There are some, who are spiritually advanced and having understood the duality existing within them between the ego and the spirit are seeking to subdue their egos for the betterment of the spirit. For them the verse is no longer about husbands and wives. Someone translated it as follows:

The Spirit (Ruh) is the protector and maintainer of the Ego...As to the Ego which is prone to disobedience and ill-conduct: First, apply reason (logos) to yourself [in other words, be mentally grounded in the law, ethics, etc.]; second, follow the path of abstinence (including fasting); and finally scourge yourself with ordeals [in order to gain mastery over your flesh]. But if you fear that your ego and spirit are irreconcilable, then call counselors to assist you, individuals of wisdom drawn from both those versed in the law and those of the emotions (e.g. poetry, art, music, etc).

Regards

 

[atanu]

Excellent.

 

[Mark2020]

The Spirit (Ruh) is the protector and maintainer of the Ego...

And does this agree with the context of the verse, with Asbab Al Nuzul and with the fact that it is called Surat Al Nisa' (women) ?