Women in Islam please explain

Medina

In the Qur’an, God appears to allow men to beat their wives –

And those (wives) you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them - Qur’an 4:34


The Qur’an, speaking figuratively about s*x, says of women –

Women are your fields: go, then, into your fields whence you please - Qur’an 2:223

God gave strong warnings to women who would not accommodate their husband’s or master’s desire –

When a man calls his wife to satisfy his desire, she must go to him even if she is occupied at the oven.

If a man invites his wife to sleep with him and she refuses to come to him, then angels send their curses on her til morning.

Marriage in Islam binds a woman to one man but not the man to that woman.

And those (men) who preserve their chastity save with their wives and those whom their right hands possess, for thus they are not blameworthy. - Qur’an 70:29-30

Mental Capacity: The Qur’an says that the testimony of a woman is not equal to that of a man. It says that the testimony of two women is required to be equal to the testimony of one man.

Call in two male witnesses from among you, but if two men cannot be found, then one man and two women whom you judge fit to act as witnesses - Qur’an 2:282


Other beliefs , supported by people who research and write of Islam, included:

- There are more women in hell and less in heaven

- Virgin women are a reward in heaven

babyvaio

Medina wrote:

In the Qur’an, God commanded that beating was part of the process for controlling a rebellious wife –

And those (wives) you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them - Qur’an 4:34


The Qur’an, speaking figuratively about s*x, says of women –

Women are your fields: go, then, into your fields whence you please - Qur’an 2:223

God gave strong warnings to women who would not accommodate their husband’s or master’s desire –

When a man calls his wife to satisfy his desire, she must go to him even if she is occupied at the oven.

If a man invites his wife to sleep with him and she refuses to come to him, then angels send their curses on her til morning.

Marriage in Islam binds a woman to one man but not the man to that woman.

And those (men) who preserve their chastity save with their wives and those whom their right hands possess, for thus they are not blameworthy. - Qur’an 70:29-30

Mental Capacity: The Qur’an says that the testimony of a woman is not equal to that of a man. It says that the testimony of two women is required to be equal to the testimony of one man.

Call in two male witnesses from among you, but if two men cannot be found, then one man and two women whom you judge fit to act as witnesses - Qur’an 2:282


Other beliefs , supported by people who research and write of Islam, included:

- There are more women in hell and less in heaven

- Virgin women are a reward in heaven

This is a whole set of questions and a very important topic and I hope we can come to the point where all of them are properly answered and answers understood. It is however important that this view should be extended not only by The Qur'an and The Sunnah, but also by muslim women, who are free to say how they feel about being muslims.
So for start to understand what some muslim women say about themselves (i.e. muslim in Europe, which is much closer to us than Middle East) I recommend this article from UK's Guardian Unlimited.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4314573,00.html

babyvaio

Medina wrote:

Mental Capacity: The Qur’an says that the testimony of a woman is not equal to that of a man. It says that the testimony of two women is required to be equal to the testimony of one man.

Since this is a huge topic, I'll firstly answer this one by pointing to The Tafsir of The Qur'an (the explanation or the commentary).

In the verse 2:282 Qur'an did not say that the testimony of a woman is not equal to that of a man. Let's read the verse a bit more carefully.

O ye who believe! When ye contract a debt for a fixed term, record it in writing. Let a scribe record it in writing between you in (terms of) equity. No scribe should refuse to write as Allah hath taught him, so let him write, and let him who incurreth the debt dictate, and let him observe his duty to Allah his Lord, and diminish naught thereof. But if he who oweth the debt is of low understanding, or weak, or unable himself to dictate, then let the guardian of his interests dictate in (terms of) equity. And call to witness, from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not (at hand) then a man and two women, of such as ye approve as witnesses, so that if the one erreth (through forgetfulness) the other will remember. And the witnesses must not refuse when they are summoned. Be not averse to writing down (the contract) whether it be small or great, with (record of) the term thereof. That is more equitable in the sight of Allah and more sure for testimony, and the best way of avoiding doubt between you; save only in the case when it is actual merchandise which ye transfer among yourselves from hand to hand. In that case it is no sin for you if ye write it not. And have witnesses when ye sell one to another, and let no harm be done to scribe or witness. If ye do (harm to them) lo! it is a sin in you. Observe your duty to Allah. Allah is teaching you. And Allah is Knower of all things.

So it's not question about equality here. Now why Qur'an mentiones forgetfulness? Lately there have been some new researches on this topic of woman's forgetfulness (and this applies to the period when she's having a menstrual period - it's a known fact that women's emotions change within most of the women when they have their periods, but this is another topic now - whoever wants to find these findings might find something on the net).

The actual Tafsir of this verse (Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs) is shown below.

Allah then taught them what they ought to learn in their dealings, saying: (O ye who believe) in Allah and His Messenger! (when ye contract a debt for a fixed term, record it) i.e. the debt (in writing. Let a scribe record it in writing between you) the indebted person and the creditor (in (terms of) equity) justice. (No scribe should refuse to write) the contract between the creditor and the debtor (as Allah hath taught him) how to write, (so let him write) the contract without addition or omission, (and let him who incurreth the debt dictate) i.e. the indebted person should explain to the scribe the debt he owes, (and let him observe his duty to Allah his Lord) let the indebted person fear his Lord, (and diminish naught thereof) and not diminish any amount of debt he owes upon dictation. (But if he who oweth the debt is of low understanding) is ignorant of dictation, (or weak) unable to dictate, (or unable himself to dictate) does not know how to dictate to the scribe, (then let the guardian of his interests dictate) the guardian of his wealth who is the creditor (in (terms of) equity) without any addition. (And call to witness) for your rights, (from among your men, two witnesses) from among your free, Muslim men who are of good character. (And if two men be not (at hand) then a man and two women, of such as ye approve as witnesses) from among people who are reliable in their witness, (so that if the one erreth (through forgetfulness)) so that if one of the women forgets (the other) who did not forget (will remind her. And the witnesses must not refuse) to give witness (when they are summoned) to court. (Be not averse) disinclined (to writing down) i.e. the debt (whether it be small or great, with (record of) the term thereof. That) i.e. that which I mentioned regarding the writing down of the debt (is more equitable) more correct and fairer (in the sight of Allah and more sure for testimony) clearer for the witness when he gives his testimony if he happens to forget, (and the best way of avoiding doubt between you) concerning the debt and the fixed term of its payment; (save only in the case when it is actual merchandise which you transfer among yourselves from hand to hand. In that case it is no sin) there is no harm (for you if ye write it not) the transaction. (And have witnesses when ye sell one to another) on credit, (and let no harm be done to scribe) by committing the transaction to writing (or witness) by giving his witness, that is, do not coerce them to do so. (If ye do (harm to them)) if you harm them, (lo! It is a sin in you. Observe your duty to Allah) fear Allah for causing such harm. (Allah is teaching you) what is best for you regarding your dealings. (And Allah is Knower of all things) what is good for you as well as other things.

the_new_mr

As babyvaio said, it's a very important topic and one that deserves a lot of attention because of the wide and ridiculous miconceptions that exist. One word of a Muslim woman is probably worth about 1000 words of a Muslim man which makes it difficult for me here but I shall try my best and I hope that everyone here understands that Muslim women share my opinion.

The article was pretty good by the way (thanks for that babyviao! ). There were a couple of things that need commenting on later God willing.

Anyway, one at a time.

Medina wrote:

In the Qur’an, God commanded that beating was part of the process for controlling a rebellious wife –

And those (wives) you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them - Qur’an 4:34

There are really two answers to this question. I'm honestly not sure which is correct but both are satisfying answers to the question.

Taking the first answer:

First of all, it's very important to clarify what exactly "beating" means. The Arabic word daraba which is the root word for the word udrubuhin used in the verse is actually closer to "hit" than it is to "beat".

Firstly, not every imperative tense in the Quran is a command to be followed. It can be only as an allowance. Another example of this is in the following verse:

Al-Hajj:28
"That they may witness things that are of benefit to them, and mention the name of Allah on appointed days over the beast of cattle that He hath bestowed upon them. Then eat thereof and feed therewith the poor unfortunate.

Secondly, the "hitting" (if any) is to be very light in nature and basically impossible to inflict any harm or pain.

Thirdly, the Prophet (peace be upon him) is well known for saying:
"The best of you would never hit their wives"
and
"The best of you are the best to their families and I am the best to mine"
and
"How does anyone of you beat his wife as he beats the stallion camel and then embrace (sleep with) her?”

Fourthly, the use of "their couches" in the translation you quoted is incredibly inaccurate. The proper one is "beds apart".

The explanation I've heard for it is that it is just to be a few taps by the husband to the wife (very very light) to signify that "this is now the end of the previous period of not sharing our beds" and that the situation in the marriage has become very critical. It's meant to be a physical interaction that can have absoultely no ambiguity associated to it because some people may say "Why doesn't he just tell her?" but the truth is that people say things like "This marriage is on the ropes" or "I'm going to divorce you" all the time. A couple of light taps is a well understood gesture that can have no ambiguity.

This is much better than the FedEx guy coming to the door with the divorce papers.

Now, the other answer. I find it quite interesting. It's certainly one I'd like to verify with some schoalars but it seems very feasible indeed. I shall copy & paste it from the page I read it for convenience.

(4:34) [...]as for those women on whose part ye fear rebellion (nushuz), admonish them and banish them to beds apart, (and last) beat (adriboo) them. Then, if they obey you, seek not a way against them.

The key to the problem is the mistranslation of the two key words nushuz and adriboo. Some of the possible meanings for both the words, according to the lexicon,3 are given below. Again, the appropriate meaning will depend on the context of the verse.

Nushuz: Animosity, hostility, rebellion, ill-treatment, discord; violation of marital duties on the part of either husband or wife.

Adriboo (root: daraba): to beat, to strike, to hit, to separate, to part.

In the context of the above verse the most appropriate meaning for nushuz is 'marital discord' (ill-will, animosity etc), and for adriboo is 'to separate' or 'to part'. Otherwise, it is inviting the likelihood of a divorce without any reconciliation procedure. Such a step would blatantly contravene the Qur'anic guidance shown in verse 4:35 below. Therefore, a more accurate and consistent translation of the above verse would be:

(4:34) [...]as for those women whose animosity or ill-will you have reason to fear, then leave them alone in bed, and then separate; and if thereupon they pay you heed, do not seek a way against them.

The separation could be temporary or permanent depending on the reconciliation procedure. Such as construction is legitimate within the terms of the language and fits in very well with the divorce procedure outlined in the Qur'an (see 8.5).

The verse following the above verse gives further weight to the above translation.

(4:35) And if ye fear a breach between them twain (the man and the wife), appoint an arbiter from his folk and an arbiter from her folk. If they desire amendment Allah will make them of one mind. Lo! Allah is ever Knower, Aware.

Added weight to the meanings outlined above is given by verse 4:128 quoted below. Here, in the case of a man, the same word nushuz is used, but it is rendered as 'ill-treatment' as against 'rebellion' in the case of a woman as shown earlier in the traditional translation of verse 4:34. One find oneself asking whether since the ill-treatment is on the part of the husband, a process of reconciliation is here to be encouraged!

(4:128) If a wife fears ill-treatment (nushuz) or desertion on her husband's part, there is no blame on them if they arrange an amicable settlement between themselves; and such settlement is best[...]

This, obviously, is a double standard and the only way to reconcile the meanings of the two verses, in the contexts they are being used, is to accept the meaning of adriboo as: 'to separate' or to 'part'. In this connection I would like to refer the reader to an excellent article by Rachael Tibbet from which I quote:

(a) Qur'anic commentators and translators experience problems with the term Adribu in the Qur'an not just in this verse but in others, as it is used in different contexts in ways which appear ambiguous and open to widely different translations into English. 'Daraba' can be translated in more than a hundred different ways.

(b) The translation of adribu as 'to strike' in this particular verse (4:34) is founded upon nothing more than:

(i) The authority of hadiths (Abu Daud 2141 and Mishkat Al-Masabih 0276) that this is what Adribu means in this context.

(ii) The prejudices and environment of the early commentators of the Qur'an which led them to assume that 'to strike', given the overall context of the verse, was the most likely interpretation of the many possible interpretations of adribu.

Medina wrote:

Women are your fields: go, then, into your fields whence you please - Qur’an 2:223

This isn't a very good translation of the verse. A better one:

"Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will, and send (good deeds) before you for your souls, and fear Allah, and know that ye will (one day) meet Him. Give glad tidings to believers, (O Muhammad)."

This verse does nothing more than outline the sexual relationship between a man and his wife. The same goes the other way around.

Al-Baqara:187
"Permitted to you, on the night of the fasts, is the approach to your wives. They are your garments and ye are their garments. Allah knoweth what ye used to do secretly among yourselves; but He turned to you and forgave you; so now associate with them, and seek what Allah Hath ordained for you, and eat and drink, until the white thread of dawn appear to you distinct from its black thread; then complete your fast Till the night appears; but do not associate with your wives while ye are in retreat in the mosques. Those are Limits (set by) Allah. Approach not nigh thereto. Thus doth Allah make clear His Signs to men: that they may learn self-restraint."

So, the relationship between a husband and wife is nothing to be ashamed of. It is the rights of both.

the_new_mr

Medina wrote:

God gave strong warnings to women who would not accommodate their husband’s or master’s desire –

When a man calls his wife to satisfy his desire, she must go to him even if she is occupied at the oven.

If a man invites his wife to sleep with him and she refuses to come to him, then angels send their curses on her til morning.

These are hadith and not Quran. I would say weak hadith at that... especially the second one.

Medina wrote:

Marriage in Islam binds a woman to one man but not the man to that woman.

And those (men) who preserve their chastity save with their wives and those whom their right hands possess, for thus they are not blameworthy. - Qur’an 70:29-30

Polygamy (more accurately, polygany) in Islam is very well handled on a number of websites.

First of all, it's not an obligation.

Second of all, it's rarely practiced.

Third of all, it may be needed in some cases. I'd like to take this opportunity to comment on something in the guardian article. It correctly stated that war widows are often married to men who are already married due to the surplus of women at the time and is done as a mercy towards them. The article then went on to state that the advent of welfare state ends such a use. Something the article didn't mention is that marriage isn't just for financial security. It's a companionship betwen two people where love and respect are even more important factors in a relationship.

In fact, the reason for revelation for this verse was after the battle of Uhud after a number of Muslim men had lost their lives.

Fourthly, it's a restricted practice. Men are told in the Quran that if they are to have more than one wife then they are to try to be completely equal with each of them. This goes for material things as well as with the amount of time that they spend with each wife. Not an easy task. Indeed, God says:

An-Nisa:3
"And if you have reason to fear that you might not act equitably towards orphans, then marry from among [other] women such as are lawful to you - [even] two, or three, or four: but if you have reason to fear that you might not be able to treat them with equal fairness, then [only] one - or [from among] those whom you rightfully possess. This will make it more likely that you will not deviate from the right course."

and men are also told that they won't be able to be equal no matter how hard they try.

An-Nisa:129
"And it will not be within your power to treat your wives with equal fairness, however much you may desire it; and so, do not allow yourselves to incline towards one to the exclusion of the other, leaving her in a state, as it were, of having and not having a husband. But if you put things to rights and are conscious of Him - behold, God is indeed much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace."

So, there is the option there for having more than one wife but it's not easy to do and God makes that aware for people in the Quran.

Also, it's a good point to note that a very small amount of the Muslim population actually practice polygany. It's the exception to the norm rather than the norm.

I recently heard of a story of a husband and wife who couldn't have kids as the woman was infertile. The woman actually recommended to her husband that he marries another woman because she herself wanted to have kids in the family and she knew how much he wanted to have kids. So, she found a woman who was having trouble finding a husband and he married her. Now, there is a young boy who is about to start school and the two wives are essentially bringing up the child together and are both thrilled along with their husband.

So there you have a very real problem with a very real solution and who is anyone to stop people like that from doing it if they're happy with it.

And here's some interesting statistics.

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, the USA, Russia, the UK and Brazil all have more women than men with:
48%/52%
46%/54%
48%/52%
49%/51%
respectively. Is this not also a very real solution to a very real problem?

And here's another interesting statistic, according to Peggy Vaughan in "The Monogamy Myth", conservative researchers found that 60%-75% of men in the west have or have had at least one mistress during their marriage. An astonishing statistic!!

So, when women find themselves with less men to choose from and extra marital relations that leave these women with no rights at all come around as a result, would it not be better to have an avenue where this problem can be solved in a completely legal way?

As for the term "right hands possess", that is quite a large topic. Once again, I have promised to type up that chapter on how Islam abolished slavery gradually. One of these days Wibbs Anyway, it's covered quite well here and I'd ask you to please read it.
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam/AskAboutIslamE/AskAboutIslamE&cid=1123996015526

Medina wrote:

Mental Capacity: The Qur’an says that the testimony of a woman is not equal to that of a man. It says that the testimony of two women is required to be equal to the testimony of one man.

Call in two male witnesses from among you, but if two men cannot be found, then one man and two women whom you judge fit to act as witnesses - Qur’an 2:282

Babyvaio already mentioned this one I believe. It's very important to note that in other cases, a women's testimony is equal to that of a man's or, in some cases, greater than a man's. A good link on the subject:
http://www.islamicity.com/Mosque/w_islam/witness.htm

Medina wrote:

Other beliefs , supported by people who research and write of Islam, included:

- There are more women in hell and less in heaven

- Virgin women are a reward in heaven

The first one is based on a hadith whose authenticity I'm not sure of. The explanation of it, if it is true, is that the women in question were there for being unappreciative of their husbands. God is certainly not being discriminatory here.

With respect to the second one. The main problem is actually peoples' idea of what heaven actually can be. People need to ask themselves where they get their ideas from heaven from and if they're reliable. Heaven doesn't necessarily have to be something thought of where a place that the senses are deprived. Why does it have to be that way if it is happening in a legal sense in the eyes of God? And who said that the same is not true for women?

There's one last thing I want to address from the guardian article. The idea that the Prophet (peace be upon him) glimpsed the sight of his adopted son and then wanted to marry her is completely and utterly false. Unfortunately, we even have one Muslim scholar relating such a story!

The opinion of the rest of the scholars and the one very clear from reading the Quran is that the Prophet himself was very reluctant to marry his adopted son's wife.

It will take a while to explain but it's very much worth it.

The Prophet (peace be upon him) had adopted his servant Zaid as his son during his time in Mecca thus Zaid was no longer his servant and was now considered his son. The custom back then in those days was that the adopted son would take the name of the man adopting him (so, in this case he became Zaid ibn Mohamed after having been Zaid ibn Haritha) and would be seen as if he was the birth son.

God later outlawed this practice by revealing verses in the Quran saying that each person must be named their name followed by their actual father's name so Zaid became Zaid ibn haritha again.

Among the pagans, it was a huge taboo for any man to marry the wife of his adopted son since the son was considered like marrying a former wife of a real son. So, to put an end to this, God made the Prophet marry Zaid's wife so that the message would be clear. It can be shown that the Prophet was a little concerned about what people in the community would think when he knew this was what was going to happen and God can be found to be admonishing the Prophet for such a feeling. The verse:

Al-Ahzab:37
"And when thou saidst unto him on whom Allah hath conferred favor and thou hast conferred favor: Keep thy wife to thyself, and fear Allah. And thou didst hide in thy mind that which Allah was to bring to light, and thou didst fear mankind whereas Allah had a better right that thou shouldst fear Him. So when Zeyd had performed the necessary formality (of divorce) from her, We gave her unto thee in marriage, so that (henceforth) there may be no sin for believers in respect of wives of their adopted sons, when the latter have performed the necessary formality (of release) from them. The commandment of Allah must be fulfilled."

Now Medina, I get the feeling that the stuff in your post is a copy & paste from an anti-Islam website. Would I be correct in that? It's just that the wording, the structure and the translation of the verses seems to be the kind used on these kind of sites. I would advice you (and everyone else here) to stay well away from these sites. They are nothing but a waste of time and are full of lies.

Anyway, I hope that the answers here and the material provided are sufficient God willing. God knows best.

Wibbs

the_new_mr wrote:

And here's some interesting statistics.

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, the USA, Russia, the UK and Brazil all have more women than men with:
48%/52%
46%/54%
48%/52%
49%/51%
respectively. Is this not also a very real solution to a very real problem?

And here's another interesting statistic, according to Peggy Vaughan in "The Monogamy Myth", conservative researchers found that 60%-75% of men in the west have or have had at least one mistress during their marriage. An astonishing statistic!!

Had to jump in here. That's hardly a good argument. The fact is that study(and others like it) found that women have extra marital affairs as well. The studies that have been done on DNA in families, have shown that a startlingly high proportion of men are unaware that they are raising children that are not their own(often found when matches for transplants are needed from family members). Yet women can't have 4 husbands.

babyvaio

Wibbs wrote:

Had to jump in here. That's hardly a good argument. The fact is that study(and others like it) found that women have extra marital affairs as well. The studies that have been done on DNA in families, have shown that a startlingly high proportion of men are unaware that they are raising children that are not their own(often found when matches for transplants are needed from family members). Yet women can't have 4 husbands.

I'm sure that some do have affairs, but would you mind posting the results of those studies here? What I would like to see is how many men/women jump into non-marital beds or whatever of the like, and it would be very interesting to see what those stats show for countries where Muslims are in majority and what do they show for countries where non-muslims are in majority.

Yet another disgust of the society we live in.

Wibbs

Well you can google it, but the rate appears to be 60% for men and 40% for women. This has been disputed and other studies show it to be less. Obviously it would also vary with cultural background and access to potential non marital partners. In a society where the sexes have less freedom to mix it would of course happen less. It would still happen however. It seems universal. Look at the fictional literature, classical and modern that considers adultery as it's subject. The point I was making is that both men and women can have affairs, why just legitimise the male version? It seems to suggest that one woman may not satisfy a man. Again there's no female equivalent.

Also as has been pointed out that the Quran says it is near impossible to treat or love your wives equally. In fact even Mohammed had a favourite wife Ayesha it seems(sp). As an emergency legislation in the aftermath of a war and a shortage of men to go around I can see the logic. To extend it to peacetime I'm not so sure. Let's reverse the idea. If a disease or some other disaster killed a large proportion of women of marriage age. What would happen then? Would they be allowed to take more than one husband? I doubt it.


As for the "disgust". Many things in many societies have an element of disgust for me. No one system has the monopoly there. Personally I've never cheated and don't intend to do so, regardless of temptation. It's bad manners if nothing else(cue halo over wibbs ).

the_new_mr

Wibbs wrote:

Personally I've never cheated and don't intend to do so, regardless of temptation.

Good on ya man! Keep it up!! Although, I'd suggest that your wife doesn't see the "regardless of temptation" part or she'll likely get very paranoid

Wibbs wrote:

The point I was making is that both men and women can have affairs, why just legitimise the male version? It seems to suggest that one woman may not satisfy a man. Again there's no female equivalent.

It's not supposed to be legitimising the male version, it's just making a point that the societies that go on about how marriages are supposed to be with one partner and point fingers at Islam for having polygany are actually being quite hypocritical.

Also, it's not suggesting that one woman can't satisfy a man. It's just an option open. And from the words of a close Muslim friend of mine when giving an interview to a non-Muslim journalist "One wife is more than enough"

Wibbs wrote:

Also as has been pointed out that the Quran says it is near impossible to treat or love your wives equally. In fact even Mohammed had a favourite wife Ayesha it seems(sp).

Just for the record, it says that it is impossible not nearly impossible. This is because an individual has no control over his heart. Even if you have a favourite, you mustn't make it clear in your actions or words.

Wibbs wrote:

To extend it to peacetime I'm not so sure.

Please refer to the example I gave of the infertile woman, her husband and a woman who was finding it difficult to find a husband. Also, note that a very small percentage (something like 1% or less) of the Muslim world actually practice polygany.

Wibbs wrote:

If a disease or some other disaster killed a large proportion of women of marriage age. What would happen then?

Good question Can't see it happening though.

Medina

It appears to me that people I have talked to and seemingly on Boards too when trying to explain the Qur'an verse 4:34 about the 'beating' of wives, always fall on the same explanations, that it the Arabic word for 'beat' has multiple meanings and therefore it could mean 'separate'. But why does every English translation come out with 'beat' or 'scourge' then? It seems to me that all of the English translations I've come across all have a variation of this but most it is translated as 'beat'. So I don't know why people try and get around it by proposing other translations since those translations are not the ones in print.

Now The_New_Mr, you said

First of all, it's very important to clarify what exactly "beating" means. The Arabic word daraba which is the root word for the word udrubuhin used in the verse is actually closer to "hit" than it is to "beat".

Personally I still don't see any greater benefit to women by it being explained as 'hit'. The idea is still appears the same to me...physical violence towards women.

I have the Rodwell translation of the Qur'an which translates it as 'beat' and also on the following website http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/004.qmt.html which I have pasted below it gives three translations of it which give approximately the same meaning.

To be honest, saying that you can hit lightly is as negative to me as hitting hard. In my opinion it is giving the man the right to use his physical strength against a woman. Who is to define exactly what 'lightly' is?


004.034
YUSUFALI: 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).
PICKTHAL: 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.
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.


From the following website http://www.oneummah.net/quran/quran.html

004.034 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).

To be honest, I know of Hadith which say something like (and this is my own words) that Muhammed said that the best among people are the best of those to their wives, and also another one which says Muhammed said something like 'How can you beat your wives during the day and then sleep with them at night?'.

So to a (probably ignorant) non-Muslim such as myself, this appears to contradict each other.. Muhammed and the Qur'an that is.
I just don't see why hitting or beating or scourging your wife either strongly or lightly is allowed. Muslims accept it as allowed because of their faith in the Qur'an, but it is these kinds of verses which make many non-Muslims uneasy about Islam.

Medina

Sorry Babyvaio you haven't actually gotten my point at all and have only embarked on a mission to do exactly what I said doesn't make sense to me...and that is to explain other meanings of the Arabic word used despite the fact that nearly all the translations take the same meaning.

What you have not addressed is that if there are all these other meanings to the word, how come they are not used in the translations printed by so many different publishing houses and so many translators?

The quotations I used have shown that be the translator non-Muslim or Muslim, the word 'beat' or 'scourge' always appears. Rarely is it translated differently as 'leave' or anything else. Why is that? It appears that the translators all seem to think that the most valid interpretation is 'beat'.

And if that is what Muslim scholars (who translated it) think, then are they wrong?

I hope you can understand now why I feel it is a contradiction. If it was consistently translated as 'Leave' or something not to do with hitting then I would say there is no contradiction. I just don't understand why everyone translates it as 'Beat' and then its explained that 'thats not really what is meant'

Medina

You are right Babyvaio, it was incorrect of me to state that 'God commanded' so I will edit it and remove it.

However, you have not been able to answer why 'beat' is almost always used as the translation instead of any of the other meanings. This implies that though it is not commanded, it is definitely allowed. Which I don't like.

Ok, back to the contradiction here, I can kind of see your perspective please make an effort to see mine.

Here is what I mean basically...Why does the Qur'an allow beating of wives, when Muhammed said that its not a good thing to do, recommending that you do not beat your wives? To me it's like on one side the Qur'an is saying it is ok, and on the other side Muhammed is saying 'don't do it'.

Please don't get irritated by my posts, I actually just don't understand this.

Medina

Sorry it won't let me edit my first post.

Moderators if you can edit it, then you can change it to 'God appears to allow men to beat their wives'.

the_new_mr

Well, I think I see what you mean Medina.

Let's consider both possibilities.

The first possibility (and the most likely in my honest opinion) is that the word udrubuhin is indeed mistranslated all those numbers of times. There are a few reasons why something like this could have happened.

One reason is that all the translators likely used the same books of reference for such an opinion. Another reason is that it is very likely that they used each other as a reference too.

Taking music as an analogy to this situation, the idea that any credible scholar would have the guts to say that music is not forbidden in the 70s and 80s seemed incredibly strange at the time and out of the question. However, Dr. Yusuf Al-Qaradawi did it all the same. The first line is his book "Diversion and Arts in Islam" reads:
"The truth has been lost as a result of negligence"

So, I honestly think that the same thing is happening now where a new interpretation and a new understanding is beginning to be understood by scholars and non-scholars alike and it may well be that in another 20 years or whatever that this will be the standard and obvious one and people will look back and say "How did we not see this before?"

Now, considering the other possibility that it really does mean beat/hit. It's never meant to be anything more than a tap really which is why I have a particular problem with the word "beat". I'd say that because someone used "beat" a while ago that a lot of them decided to use it. Even the ones that do indeed use the word "beat" or "beat (lightly)" all agree that it's supposed to be a light tap like taking a biro between your index finger and thumb and going tap, tap like you would whilst playing with a pen when talking on the phone or something.

And even if the correct interpretation is hit/beat then the hadith don't necessarily contradict the Quran. As said already, not every imperative tense is a command. There are other verses in the Quran that state that, if someone is wronged then they have the right to do to the other as was done to them (death penalty for murder for example) but if someone chooses to forgive the other then that is better. In the same way, the Prophet (peace be upon him) can be saying that although it's allowed (that's assuming that it is allowed), it's not recommended and it's better not to if youo know what I mean?

I've been thinking about this a lot lately and I'm becoming more and more convinced that the first possibility is the more accurate one (especially considering verse 4:128). Also, babyvaio's posts were very educational (nice one babyvaio! ) in showing how other words from the root word of "daraba" are used with different meanings in other parts of the Quran.

the_new_mr

HAHA!

You beat me to it there babyvaio with your post (#18) while I was writing mine (#19)

Medina

Where exactly does it say that you if you hit her it shouldn't cause her any pain?

And are we talking purely physical pain? It's not just that a man should be even allowed to hit his wife in my opinion , however hard or light. Punishment is for God alone.

You say there is no contradiction because:
God only recommended it in this instance
Its not supposed to cause any pain - (even though it does not state that in the Koran).
No one said it was a good thing.

I say there is a contradiction because
God recommended it (even if it is not pleasing to Him), Muhammed recommended against it.

And I also say that I don't think its right that a man has that option over a woman.

We will just have to agree to disagree because I don't want this getting out of hand.

Medina

babyvaio wrote:

There are lots of things in life that we don't like but we have to do them. I'm sure all of us would like to get a good morning sleep and not go to work every single day.

But that still does not mean that just because we cannot understand every single thing that what we cannot understand = wrong. It simply is not so.

You don't have to beat your wife, but if you want to you can.
Thats just brilliant.

I wonder how you would feel if you were a Muslim woman?

the_new_mr

Medina wrote:

God only recommended it in this instance

There's a difference between recommend and allow (assuming it is even allowed).

Medina wrote:

We will just have to agree to disagree because I don't want this getting out of hand.

I don't think there's a disagreement because I think that both babyvaio and I are of the opinion that the meaing is seperate or leave rather than beat or hit.

the_new_mr

Warning to everyone.

Don't let this thread degenerate.

Medina

the_new_mr wrote:

There's a difference between recommend and allow.

I don't think there's a disagreement because I think that both babyvaio and I are of the opinion that the meaing is seperate or leave rather than beat or hit.

And you are disagreeing with all the Muslim scholars who translated those verses. So the disagreement is between the Islamic world here , not between ye and me.

It is both recommended and therefore allowed, don't try to split hairs, I know ur intelligent enough to figure it out.

Medina

Well you need to decide what you think it is....

Is it 'separate' or 'leave' or is it 'beat' or is it 'hit with a toothbrush'.

You and the_new_mr seem to be unable to decide what ye think it means and adapt your answer depending on my argument.

And tell me, do you honestly think that a tap on the arm with a toothbrush would solve a problem that talking about the problem couldn't?

And the question can still be posed ...why did Muhammed recommend against it, when it is the final of three recommended recourses in the Qur'an?

To me it appears that Muslims are unable to accept that anything might be a contradiction because it is said that you cannot find contradictions in the Qur'an.

But I'm sorry this definitely looks like a contradiction to me.
And nor is it fair to me that a man has that option over a woman.
And nor does it seem sensical.

I'm not attacking Islam here, I have a lot of respect for it, but I am allowed my opinion.

I wouldn't expect devout Muslims to agree with me, but I think I have a fair and logical point.

the_new_mr

Please edit your post babyvaio as verbatin postings are not allowed. Just leave the link and maybe one or two paragraphs.

Medina wrote:

It is both recommended and therefore allowed, don't try to split hairs, I know ur intelligent enough to figure it out.

Don't mean to be funny but I know I'm intelligent enough to not need someone to tell me I am.

Recommend and allow are not the same thing. I'm sure if you think about it, you'll see it. For example, I might say to a young child "You're allowed to eat 5 sweets this evening but I'd recommend you don't eat any".

Medina wrote:

And you are disagreeing with all the Muslim scholars who translated those verses. So the disagreement is between the Islamic world here , not between ye and me.

There is a disagreement between scholars themselves.

Medina wrote:

Well you need to decide what you think it is....

Is it 'separate' or 'leave' or is it 'beat' or is it 'hit with a toothbrush'.

I think it's pretty clear what I think already. I think that it's seperate/leave but there is always the possibilty that it's beat/hit in which case there is ample explanation for it showing that it's not "wife beating" as done by some corrupt individuals.

Medina wrote:

You and the_new_mr seem to be unable to decide what ye think it means and adapt your answer depending on my argument.

We present answers for both possibilties.

Medina wrote:

And tell me, do you honestly think that a tap on the arm with a toothbrush would solve a problem that talking about the problem couldn't?

Assuming that that is what the verse is talking about (and as I've already said a number of times already, I don't think it is) then this would largely depend on the situation in question. As I said in my first post on this thread, if the beat/hit/tap is the correct interpretation then it is for nothing more than to just signify that "this is the end of the previous period of not sharing beds and we are now in the final stage before divorce becomes inevitable".

Medina wrote:

And the question can still be posed ...why did Muhammed recommend against it, when it is the final of three recommended recourses in the Qur'an?

Honestly Medina, this has already been covered a number of times already so if you would just please re-read above posts and everything up to now in this post and think about it then I think you'll see what I mean.

Medina wrote:

To me it appears that Muslims are unable to accept that anything might be a contradiction because it is said that you cannot find contradictions in the Qur'an.

Well, first of all, Muslims believe that there are no contradictions in the Quran. If a hadith clearly contradicts the Quran then the hadith must be unauthentic but, as we've already shown, regardless of what meaning is used for the interpretation of udrubuhin, none of the hadith mentioned actually contradict the Quran if you understand the difference between recommend and allow.

Hobbes

I'm not attacking Islam here, I have a lot of respect for it, but I am allowed my opinion.

You are allowed your opinion, however I refer you (and anyone else who continues with the thread) to the main rule of the forum. Before any defensive posts start, the thread has been fine to date and I would prefer it to continue that way.

Medina

the_new_mr wrote:

Recommend and allow are not the same thing. I'm sure if you think about it, you'll see it. For example, I might say to a young child "You're allowed to eat 5 sweets this evening but I'd recommend you don't eat any".
.

It is both recommended in the Qur'an and therefore allowed so I don't see any point in what you're saying.

the_new_mr wrote:

There is a disagreement between scholars themselves.
.

I'm glad you said that

the_new_mr wrote:

I think it's pretty clear what I think already. I think that it's seperate/leave but there is always the possibilty that it's beat/hit in which case there is ample explanation for it showing that it's not "wife beating" as done by some corrupt individuals.
.

Strange then that almost all should translate it the same as 'beat' especially if Muhammed never meant that when he spoke about these things. Sumthin's fishy...

the_new_mr wrote:

We present answers for both possibilties.
.

Not satisfactory answers in my humble opinion. Apart from the fact that its not really fair and I doubt a tap on the arm is going to resolve anything if the couple are on the way to divorce anyway..I really don't see the point.

the_new_mr wrote:

Honestly Medina, this has already been covered a number of times already so if you would just please re-read above posts and everything up to now in this post and think about it then I think you'll see what I mean.
.

I see what you mean but to me it doesn't make any sense, Muhammed appears to contradict the Qur'an, none of your answers are sufficient for me. As I said before, if all the translators used the word 'leave' instead of 'beat' your arguments would stand with me.

the_new_mr wrote:

Well, first of all, Muslims believe that there are no contradictions in the Quran. If a hadith clearly contradicts the Quran then the hadith must be unauthentic but, as we've already shown, regardless of what meaning is used for the interpretation of udrubuhin, none of the hadith mentioned actually contradict the Quran if you understand the difference between recommend and allow.

Anything that is recommended is allowed. If you are trying to say that this is allowed but not recommended, then I would wonder why it appears in the Qur'an at all, surely its presence there implies recommendation.

Medina

Hobbes wrote:

You are allowed your opinion, however I refer you (and anyone else who continues with the thread) to the main rule of the forum. Before any defensive posts start, the thread has been fine to date and I would prefer it to continue that way.

Understood Hobbes.

the_new_mr

Medina wrote:

Strange then that almost all should translate it the same as 'beat' especially if Muhammed never meant that when he spoke about these things. Sumthin's fishy...

Well, I'm not sure what you mean by sumthin's fishy exactly but...

As has been said before elsewhere on this forum, any translation into English of the Quran (or any other language for that matter) is NOT the Quran. Every translation must include some interpretation because the translator must first interpret what he sees in Arabic and then translate what he has interpreted, not the Arabic itself. So, just because a whole bunch of translators translated udrubuhin as beat doesn't mean that's what God intended.

Let me give you an example of how scholars had it one way for ages before changing their interpretation after new evidence became apparent to them.

In Surat Al-'Alaq, verses 13 to 16, which read as follows according to Yusuf Ali:

Al-'Alaq:13-16
"Seest thou if he denies (Truth) and turns away?; Knoweth he not that Allah doth see?; Let him beware! If he desist not, We will drag him by the forelock,- ; A lying, sinful forelock!"

Now, we can see here the word forelock. This was the word translated from the arabic word nasaya by both Ali and Pickthal.

dictionary.com defines forelock as follows.

dictionary.com wrote:

A lock of hair that grows from or falls on the forehead, especially the part of a horse's mane that falls forward between the ears.

Now, the correct meaning of the word nasaya is actually forehead (or front of the head) and not forelock. However, it appears that both Ali and Pickthal thought to themselves that since the forehead is attached to the forelock then God meant that they would be dragged by their forelock since that made more sense to them at the time with the information they had available to them at that time (Ali and Pickthal are relatively old translations).

Recent discoveries in science have shown that the part of the brain responsible for controlling whether one's actions will be good or bad, whether they will perform good deeds or bad deeds and whether or not they will tell the truth or lie is the frontal part of the brain (another of the scientific miracles in the Quran). Looking at verse 16 again with this knowledge, we should see:
A lying, sinful forehead!

So, the word nasaya meaning forehead was all along the most accurate meaning. When you think about it, God would have no bother pulling someone by their forehead instead of their forelock since He is, after all, God and is able to do all things.

Both Shakir and Asad use the word forehead instead of forelock. Verses 13-16 according to Shakir:

Al-'Alaq:13-16
"Have you considered if he gives the lie to the truth and turns (his) back?; Does he not know that Allah does see?; Nay! if he desist not, We would certainly smite his forehead,; A lying, sinful forehead."

There is no question now that the most apparent correct meaning at this time is forehead and not forelock.

So, this situation with beat I believe is the same. Just because such an opinion was simply passed on from generation to generation without thought doesn't necessarily mean it was right. As I said, there are discussions amongst Muslim scholars and Muslim intellectuals about the meaning of udrubuhin these days. I believe how this shows that translations cannot be relied upon and should never really be used as a point of reference in such cases where we are trying to reflect on the original meaning of the verses in Arabic.

Now, of course there is no scientific knowledge like there was with the forehead/forelock case but there are new ideas, thoughts and discussions going on which are changing the way scholars see it.

Medina wrote:

I see what you mean but to me it doesn't make any sense, Muhammed appears to contradict the Qur'an, none of your answers are sufficient for me. As I said before, if all the translators used the word 'leave' instead of 'beat' your arguments would stand with me
....

Anything that is recommended is allowed. If you are trying to say that this is allowed but not recommended, then I would wonder why it appears in the Qur'an at all, surely its presence there implies recommendation.

Okay, so I think we've established once and for all that I think that the word udrubuhin means leave and not hit but, just for the record, recommend and allow are not the same thing and, if God did intend for udrubuhin to mean hit (and, like I said, I don't think He did) then just because it's there doesn't mean it's a recommendation.

Every recommendation is an allowance but not every allowance is a recommendation. That's pretty clear I think.

Some examples showing this in the Quran.

Al-Baqara:271
"If you do deeds of charity openly, it is well; but if you bestow it upon the needy in secret, it will be even better for you, and it will atone for some of your bad deeds. And God is aware of all that you do."

Spending in charity openly is allowed but doing it in secret is recommended.

We can also consider that the Prophet Mohamed (peace be upon him) said
"Give with your right hand in charity in a way that your left hand doesn't know (what the right gave)"

Ash-Shura:40-43
"The guerdon of an ill deed is an ill the like thereof. But whosoever pardoneth and amendeth, his wage is the affair of Allah. Lo! He loveth not wrong doers.; And whoso defendeth himself after he hath suffered wrong for such, there is no way (of blame) against them.; The way (of blame) is only against those who oppress mankind, and wrongfully rebel in the earth. For such there is a painful doom.; And verily whoso is patient and forgiveth, lo! that, verily, is (of) the steadfast heart of things."

Equality in action for justice is allowed but forgiveness is recommended.

These were just meant as examples of how not everything allowed is recommended since there can be an action better than it. Anyway, the point is somewhat moot in this case since I don't believe udrubuhin means hit but if it did, then we can see here that it's not necessarily recommended and the hadith and the verse do not contradict.

But I say once again finally that I don't believe that udrubuhin means hit and I do believe that it means seperate.

Medina

the_new_mr wrote:

As has been said before elsewhere on this forum, any translation into English of the Quran (or any other language for that matter) is NOT the Quran. Every translation must include some interpretation because the translator must first interpret what he sees in Arabic and then translate what he has interpreted, not the Arabic itself. So, just because a whole bunch of translators translated udrubuhin as beat doesn't mean that's what God intended. .

I understand and agree and therefore you have highlighted a dangerous weakness in Islam..which applies also to Christianity and maybe other religions but as Islam is the religion in point here...the weakness being that translations are not being monitored.

I don't know what the central board of authority is in Islam, but considering that millions of Muslims worldwide cannot read or speak Arabic, and that it is in these non-Arabic countries that Islam is on the rise, I would have thought the Islamic central authority would have been more careful about how it monitors these translations. After all, these people rely on English or other language translations of the Qur'an. Many live in countries where there is no great standard of education or where Arabic is simply not a schooling subject. Therefore hundreds of translators translating difficult and controversial content should surely be regulated? I would think that many Muslims who are not well educated or who don't speak/read Arabic would use this verse to justify beating their wives and would be 100% sure that it is ok to do so, despite what is written to the contrary in Hadith.

the_new_mr wrote:

Let me give you an example of how scholars had it one way for ages before changing their interpretation after new evidence became apparent to them.

In Surat Al-'Alaq, verses 13 to 16, which read as follows according to Yusuf Ali:

Al-'Alaq:13-16
"Seest thou if he denies (Truth) and turns away?; Knoweth he not that Allah doth see?; Let him beware! If he desist not, We will drag him by the forelock,- ; A lying, sinful forelock!"
Now, we can see here the word forelock. This was the word translated from the arabic word nasaya by both Ali and Pickthal.
dictionary.com defines forelock as follows.
Now, the correct meaning of the word nasaya is actually forehead (or front of the head) and not forelock. However, it appears that both Ali and Pickthal thought to themselves that since the forehead is attached to the forelock then God meant that they would be dragged by their forelock since that made more sense to them at the time with the information they had available to them at that time (Ali and Pickthal are relatively old translations).

Recent discoveries in science have shown that the part of the brain responsible for controlling whether one's actions will be good or bad, whether they will perform good deeds or bad deeds and whether or not they will tell the truth or lie is the frontal part of the brain (another of the scientific miracles in the Quran). Looking at verse 16 again with this knowledge, we should see:
A lying, sinful forehead!

So, the word nasaya meaning forehead was all along the most accurate meaning. When you think about it, God would have no bother pulling someone by their forehead instead of their forelock since He is, after all, God and is able to do all things..

I understand but a misinterpretation such as this has no bearing on any one individual unlike the issue of beating/leaving. So the seriousness of a mistranslation on beating/leaving has much more severe consequences and thus, should call for a final fatwa on its real meaning, and translations worldwide should be updated. The Islamic authority has to take responsibility for what is published in its name. The same applies to all religions and all flounder and fail in this, not just Islam.

the_new_mr wrote:

Okay, so I think we've established once and for all that I think that the word udrubuhin means leave and not hit but, just for the record, recommend and allow are not the same thing and, if God did intend for udrubuhin to mean hit (and, like I said, I don't think He did) then just because it's there doesn't mean it's a recommendation.

Every recommendation is an allowance but not every allowance is a recommendation. That's pretty clear I think. ..

It is pretty clear. I never thought that recommend and allow do mean the same thing, my point is that if it starts as a recommendation it is therefore naturally allowed. We both understand now that you mean that it (if it means beat) is allowed but not recommended. That is an irrelevant issue to be honest, a Muslim woman on the receiving end wouldn't be able to stop it happening to her by telling her husband it is allowed but not recommended.

the_new_mr wrote:

Anyway, the point is somewhat moot in this case since I don't believe udrubuhin means hit but if it did, then we can see here that it's not necessarily recommended and the hadith and the verse do not contradict.

I agree with you completely, if it is interpreted as 'leave' there is no contradiction. And I would be extremely happy to see it translated as 'leave'. But the ambiguity allows for an alternate interpretation that then can subject women to this abuse. To eradicate the ambiguity would help Islam and help women and stop so much of this anti-Islamic behaviour that we see around the world. It would be such a benefit that I have to wonder why it has been allowed to continue being translated this way. I can think of no other reason other than that there may be people at the centre of Islamic authority who think that it must mean 'beat'.

wes

There is no centrai authority in Islam. There a varoius leaders, but I don't really see any of them having absolute authority. Then you got the different sects who have there own leaders. So basically there is no real leadership that a majority of Muslims recognise.

As for the beating issue, well my father use to hit my mother and lets just say her family were none to happy about it (my parents are both Muslim) and neither was I, but then I was a small child and unable to defend her. My father was thrown out of our home several times, because of this. Its is wrong to beat your wife and I really could care less what a scholar says, its common sense as far as I am concerned.

the_new_mr

Sorry to hear about your experience Wes. That really sucks. I hope that your father stopped and seeked forgiveness from God for doing what he did and I hope that your mother found enough forgiveness in her heart to forgive him.

Although I've already stated earlier that I believe that udrubuhin means seperate and not hit/beat. Considering the possibility that it does mean beat, no man ever has the right to commit violent wife beating and anyone who does so is sinning without question. I think it's already been shown in this thread already that, if it does mean hit then it is no more than a light symbolic tap.

As Wes mentioned, there is no central authority in the Islamic world. Some people count this as a weakness but I, and others like me, consider this to be one of the greatest strengths possible. It is actually better not to have one central authority because if this central authority makes a mistake and doesn't see that they have then anyone who argues with them would be seen as going against Islam rather than discussing a point in the religion and having a possibly valid but different point of view.

Besides, there's nothing in Islam that says that any one individual is infallible so even if there was a central authority, there are no guarentees that they would be right all the time.

There can be said to be a number of main sources of Islamic knowledge in Islam. Al-Azhar in Cairo is one of them. The university in Medina is another. But the truth is that religion belongs to God and that everyone has the right to educate themselves on religion.

However unlikely it might seem, it may be possible that since the Quran started being translated, it just never occurred to them that the word udrubuhin meant seperate and not beat.

As I said in a previous post, this is something that is being currently discussed in the Islamic world at the moment so it's quite likely that you'll find a translation some time in the future with seperate instead of beat.

Medina

the_new_mr wrote:

As Wes mentioned, there is no central authority in the Islamic world. Some people count this as a weakness but I, and others like me, consider this to be one of the greatest strengths possible. It is actually better not to have one central authority because if this central authority makes a mistake and doesn't see that they have then anyone who argues with them would be seen as going against Islam rather than discussing a point in the religion and having a possibly valid but different point of view.

Besides, there's nothing in Islam that says that any one individual is infallible so even if there was a central authority, there are no guarentees that they would be right all the time.
.

Thats great but I was talking more about an administrative council or something, made up of several individuals who issue final fatwas together. I thought this did exist as myself and my fiancee found an official fatwa that was made by an international council in Dublin some years ago on the issue of getting a mortgage in a non-Muslim country.

Also then, why are these Islamic website allowed to have a 'fatwa' section? If one scholar on one website differs from another scholar on another website, this is confusing for people. People's lives actually change because of what these scholars advise..does no one monitor these websites?

the_new_mr wrote:

However unlikely it might seem, it may be possible that since the Quran started being translated, it just never occurred to them that the word udrubuhin meant seperate and not beat. .

I seriously doubt it in fairness. If you figured it out why can't thousands of 'scholars'? It makes no sense why it wouldn't occur to any of them. And how are we to trust their translations of verses on other matters either? Even if they all agree, then this could still be a mistake, if you apply this logic.

wes

The translation issue is a messy one. There are people who will disagree violently if you contradict there translation or reading of certain passage. I remember reading an article about a German linguist who has a different view on some of the translations due to Arabic roots in Aramaic and he never gave out his real name because he feared for his life.

Unfortunatly Islam is saddled with its fair share or nutjobs.

Medina

Quote from Qu'ran

2:79
Therefore woe be unto those who write the Scripture with their hands anthem say, "This is from Allah", that they may purchase a small gain therewith. Woe unto them for that their hands have written, and woe unto them for that earn thereby.

I'm sure the Muslim scholars take their translations very seriously, and truly believe it means 'beat'.

wes

I don't doubt for a second. It would be nice if they practised some common sense as well, but sadly these people refuse to keep up with the times and tend not to consider they might be wrong.

Medina

I agree that they don't appear to consider they are wrong.

I don't think the times as such should change the meaning, so in that I give them their due.

Wibbs

Medina wrote:

I'm sure the Muslim scholars take their translations very seriously, and truly believe it means 'beat'.

I would suspect most Muslim men would be like the new mr who I reckon that even if it truly was beat written in large letters would read it as seperate. Wife beaters are everywhere and of all faiths and no faiths. It doesn't take any message from any God to stop or start them.

I would also say that in the context of the time the instruction and the later hadeeth which suggest strongly that beating a wife is a bad thing would be unusual when you consider the rights of women in some other societies of the time. It's not an excuse, but it bears thinking about.

Medina

Wibbs wrote:

I would suspect most Muslim men would be like the new mr who I reckon that even if it truly was beat written in large letters would read it as seperate. Wife beaters are everywhere and of all faiths and no faiths. It doesn't take any message from any God to stop or start them..

I understand, but the world doesn't need scriptures that appear to advocate wife beating no matter the religion or philosophy. So I don't understand why they all share this common translation. Saying 'it doesn't really mean that' is great, but because it IS there, if a Muslim man wanted to do it, he may consider himself justified and how is a wife supposed to argue with it? At the end of the day the Qur'an is a more reliable source than any hadith.

Wibbs wrote:

I would also say that in the context of the time the instruction and the later hadeeth which suggest strongly that beating a wife is a bad thing would be unusual when you consider the rights of women in some other societies of the time. It's not an excuse, but it bears thinking about.

Thats even more worrying because the Qur'an is supposed to be an instruction for all times, not just the one it was revealed in. At least thats what I've been told.

the_new_mr

Medina wrote:

Thats great but I was talking more about an administrative council or something, made up of several individuals who issue final fatwas together. I thought this did exist as myself and my fiancee found an official fatwa that was made by an international council in Dublin some years ago on the issue of getting a mortgage in a non-Muslim country.

Well, what you're suggesting would be a kind of central authority.

A fatwa is the opinion of a religious scholar whom someone has asked of their opinion and they have agreed to give you their opinion. When asking for a fatwa from a scholar, you should make sure that you're asking someone who knows enough about the subject at hand in order to be able to apply their religious knowledge to it.

So, any respected scholar or group of scholars can give a fatwa. By the way, literally thousands of fatwas are being given out all over the world every day as people ask questions of all kinds. There are literally hotlines that people can call up and get the answer to particular questions (which would make monitoring all these fatwas by some "central authority" somewhat of an impossible task). These hotlines are usually reserved for "run of the mill" type questions. If you want a more specific answer on a more difficult topic, you can ask a scholar who knows something about that particular topic or search for a fatwa that maybe someone else has asked before.

You can have conflicting fatwas. This may be because the two situations are slightly different or not. In any case, you can choose the one that rests best with your conscience (and not just makes life more convenient for the individual asking the fatwa).

Medina wrote:

I seriously doubt it in fairness. If you figured it out why can't thousands of 'scholars'? It makes no sense why it wouldn't occur to any of them. And how are we to trust their translations of verses on other matters either? Even if they all agree, then this could still be a mistake, if you apply this logic.

Well, I didn't figure it out that's for sure. It did occur to some of them and that's why there is a debate about it going on in the Muslim world. I think this is a very new debate going on in the Muslim world. I understand that there are only two hadith that say that udrubuhin means beat but I understand that neither of these are in either of the books of Bukhari or Muslim and might not have a very strong classification of strength associated to them. When putting forward the very logical explanation that I quoted on the previous page of this thread (and keeping in mind that a number of hadith recommend against hitting), it seems to make a great deal of sense to me that udrubuhin means seperate. Just have to let the debate take it's course I guess.

And on the point of how are we to trust etc...
As said before, any translation is also an interpretation. There are some things which are more clear cut than others. All we can do is ask God to guide us to what is right.

Al-Imran:7
"He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding."

I pray to God to be one of those.

Medina wrote:

I'm sure the Muslim scholars take their translations very seriously, and truly believe it means 'beat'.

I'm sure that they would all say that they are only men and that "God knows best".

Wes wrote:

It would be nice if they practised some common sense as well, but sadly these people refuse to keep up with the times and tend not to consider they might be wrong.

Common sense is the product of the human mind and prone to error. Different people can have differing opinions that they have both reached through "common sense". Also, Islam is a religion for all times.

Wibbs wrote:

Wife beaters are everywhere and of all faiths and no faiths. It doesn't take any message from any God to stop or start them.

Nail BANG on the head there.

Medina wrote:

Wibbs wrote:

I would also say that in the context of the time the instruction and the later hadeeth which suggest strongly that beating a wife is a bad thing would be unusual when you consider the rights of women in some other societies of the time. It's not an excuse, but it bears thinking about.

Thats even more worrying because the Qur'an is supposed to be an instruction for all times, not just the one it was revealed in. At least thats what I've been told.

I think that what Wibbs meant here was that it's more likely that the Quran was against beating considering how it was liberating women in all sorts of ways completely in the face of what was being commonly practiced all over the world. I could be wrong in thinking what Wibbs meant there but even if Wibbs didn't mean to say this, I like it so I am saying this The Quran is indeed meant to be an instruction for all time.

Dave!

It really appears in this thread that the_new_mr is making excuses to get around the Koran being politically incorrect! You can't just blame the bad parts of the book on the translation, and then swear by the good parts -- you can't have it both ways.

I think it would be best to accept that the book was written in more primitive times, and that some sections are obsolete.

the_new_mr

Well, you are free to have your own opinion of course but I do indeed disagree with that opinion.

I think I've already made my opinion pretty clear in this thread.

SimpleSam06

the_new_mr wrote:

I recently heard of a story of a husband and wife who couldn't have kids as the woman was infertile. The woman actually recommended to her husband that he marries another woman because she herself wanted to have kids in the family and she knew how much he wanted to have kids. So, she found a woman who was having trouble finding a husband and he married her.

So it was too much trouble to adopt? Or possibly they didn't qualify, for some who knows what reason?

the_new_mr wrote:

And here's some interesting statistics...Is this not also a very real solution to a very real problem?

No, no, no, no, no. I was just floating around and this thread caught my eye, but heres the first rule of statistics: If you must use them, use the correct ones.

Although fewer females than males are born (the ratio is around 1:1.05), due to a longer life expectancy there are only 81 men aged 60 or over for every 100 women of the same age, and among the oldest populations, there are only 53 men for every 100 women.

So not only are there fewer women born, the reason there might be more of them is because large numbers of them are senior citizens. EDIT: Just checked that, out of the total human population, there are 101.3 men for every 100 women (source: 2001 World Almanac). Using this as a justification for polygamy is one of the more ludicrous things I've heard this week, and if you knew about my week, you would grasp the entirety of that concept.

the_new_mr wrote:

And here's another interesting statistic, according to Peggy Vaughan in "The Monogamy Myth", conservative researchers found that 60%-75% of men in the west have or have had at least one mistress during their marriage. An astonishing statistic!!

And even more astonishing that you managed to pull it out in support of your point! For one, I thought this was why you people wrapped women up head to toe in burkhas, so men wouldn't feel temptation. Second, its just as much a justification for polyandry as anything else, since quite obviously it is statistically impossible that its just the men having affairs.

So let the women have several husbands if they want. This idea has several advantages. First of all, as I have already shown, there are more men of a young and virile age than there are women. Lack of a wife or girlfriend leads them to all sorts of antisocial behaviour and troublesome acts, possibly so far as to ruining their lives.

If they wanted to they could divorce later and get one wife for themselves.

Secondly, the child or children of such marraiges would have the resources of several fathers to call upon, making it much much easier to, for example, buy a home (which many couples are struggling with in the west), get an education, essentially have the best of opportunities to succeed.

Thirdly, overpopulation is becoming an issue in today's world. By ensuring that there are several men to each woman in a relationship, the actual number of children that could be produced would be lessened, easing the strain on resources for society as a whole. I don't think anyone can argue with that.

And fourthly, it would be one hell of a lot of fun for the women.

So there's really no reason for Islam not to embrace polyandry wholsale; I just gave four good reasons for it, as opposed to the two originally put up.

Oh and on the wife beating issue, striking another person in modern societies is a crime, and subject to criminal penalties including but not limited to a visit to a correctional facility, regardless of what it says in your religion.

the_new_mr

SimpleSam06 wrote:

So it was too much trouble to adopt? Or possibly they didn't qualify, for some who knows what reason?

Obviously, they didn't want to. Also, adoption in this case would not have solved the problem of the woman who couldn't find a husband.

SimpleSam06 wrote:

out of the total human population, there are 101.3 men for every 100 women (source: 2001 World Almanac).

This statistic is for the whole world and not for particular countries.

I think you're missing the point somewhat. The larger number of women in any society is not supposed to be a justification for polygany. It's just meant to prove that there are some situations where polygany solves problems.

SimpleSam06 wrote:

And even more astonishing that you managed to pull it out in support of your point! For one, I thought this was why you people wrapped women up head to toe in burkhas, so men wouldn't feel temptation. Second, its just as much a justification for polyandry as anything else, since quite obviously it is statistically impossible that its just the men having affairs.

Once again, you're missing the point here. The point was that it's somewhat hypocritical of a society that doesn't actually practice monogamy to accuse others of not being able to stick with one wife.

Also, more often than not, these extra marital affairs are between married men and unmarried women.

And another thing, burkhas are not a requirement in Islam. The reason for women covering themselves up is to obey the command of modesty given to both males and females.

Polyandry isn't a good idea because just like every woman has the right to have a husband, every child has the right to know who their father is.

And a statistic you're missing here is that only about 1% of the Muslim population actually practice polygany. This is because
a) The conditions required are very difficult (a man must be equal in every way (time and finances) with each wife
b) Most of the time, there is no need for a second wife
c) A situation where wars killed many of the men thereby leaving a large female majority in the society hasn't come around for a while

SimpleSam06 wrote:

Oh and on the wife beating issue, striking another person in modern societies is a crime, and subject to criminal penalties including but not limited to a visit to a correctional facility, regardless of what it says in your religion.

Please re-read my previous posts.