Question to arabic speakers
Nima Rezai
I am in the middle of a current discussion with nonmuslims about the end of
the verse 4:34, regarding beating women.
The word in debate is "idribuhunna" with the root "dharaba".
No matter, whether 4:34 is really 100% correctly translated as "beat them"
or not, I want to know whether "dharaba" can also have other meanings, such
as "seperate", "go away", "leave", "give", etc.?
I offered the following link, but this was not enough for them:
http://www.answering-christianity.com/beating_no.htm
Best regards
Nima
Altway
"Nima Rezai" <Ni...@ngi.de> wrote
Comment:-
No proof to the contrary is enough for people who have prejudices
and have some vested interest in an idea.
(1) The purpose of the verse is to contol violence against women which was
very common.
(2) The verse applies only to those who have commited wrong. It limits
retaliation.
(3) The intention of the word is to show disapproval.
(4) The Quran also tells us to be kind to women, merciful and forgiving.
(5) We have the example of the Prophet - he did not beat his wives.
(6) The verses of the Quran should be understood in the context of the rest
of the Quran and the rules of Islam apply to the total way of life created
by Islam.
(7) The scholars who study, apply and live by the Quran should know better
what the Quran says then one who reads it casually and interprets it in a
naive manner. In all other departments of life people place greater
confidence in experts.
However, I am not an Arabic speaker though I have studied what Arabic
speaking scholars have had to say.
Hamid S. Aziz
M.S.M. Saifullah
> I am in the middle of a current discussion with nonmuslims about the end of
> the verse 4:34, regarding beating women.
> The word in debate is "idribuhunna" with the root "dharaba".
See Ibn Kathir's tafsir of this verse at:
http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=4&tid=11037
Wassalam
Saifullah
Colin
convinced by this web page. It's author presumes that the Qu'ran couldn't
possibly contradict itself, a presumption which is demonstrably false.
The logic goes something like this : Elsewhere in the Qu'ran, Allah forbids
beating women, therefore 4:34 does not condone beating women, therefore it
must mean something else. This sort of logic is often used by Muslims
defending their faith.
A more rational approach would be to accept that the Qu'ran contradicts
itself, therefore can't be, and isn't, the word of God.
Colin
Uncle_Sinbad
There is the literal meaning and contextual meaning of a word. The
contextual meaning can be plit in (a) historical meaning and (b)
textual meaning (in light of rest of the Quran or other sources like
hadiths).
I remember this verse appears at end of surah 59 I think, I quote from
memory:
Wa tilkal amthoulou "nadribouha" li nass, la3alahoum yatafakaroun
My own translation would be
And so we "give" similtudes for people, so that they learn to think
So you see the word daraba has a different meaning here than beat.
Anyway even if it does mean wifebeating you can explain it historically
that in those days wifebeating was so widelyspread that this verse was
a limitation for men, asking them to talk first, then sleep appart and
that beating face or to injure was not allowed anyway, according to
hadiths.
SAo historically this verse can be justified in that context, but we
have no reason to apply it nowadays in a totally new context where men
and women are raised up as equals.
There's a hadith that the prophet says about this verse, " I wanted one
thing but Allah wanted something else". Maybe the prophet was totally
againts wifebeating as can be seen from many hadiths but Allah revealed
it in a more progressive, limiting to let people adapt to it.
So you can see a progressive line and you dont need to defend the
literal meaning everytime.
Slavery, childbeating and childlabory weren't wiped out in one time in
the west either.
Wa-salam
Kamal
Nima Rezai
I found this apparently anti-muslim site:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/ArabChristian30907.htm
I admit the writer is disgusting and without any class, but what I want to
know from arabic native speakers is whether his claims regarding the
different usages of "dharaba" are correct.
Can it grammatically and linguistically be 100% ruled out that the "
idriboohunna " from 4:34 means anything else than "beat them"?
It is a different thing when there is general agreement about something or
100% sure linguistic proof as this guy claims.
Could you please help?
Best regards
Nima
Altway
"Colin" <no...@wc.funnel.revenuedirect.com.akadns.net> wrote
> A more rational approach would be to accept that the Qu'ran contradicts
itself, therefore can't be, and isn't, the word of God.
Comment:-
If you make that assumption then you interpret the Quran
in a manner it was NOT meant to be interpreted.
And you will not understand the Quran, and what you read is not the Quran
If you do not understand it, then your opinions about it are irrelevant.
"Those unto whom We have given the Scripture, who read it with a right
reading, those believe in it. And whoso disbelieves in it, those are the
losers." 2:121
The Quran tells you how it is to be read.
Hamid S. Aziz
Uncle_Sinbad
When you study a text one must ALWAYS assume that a writer does NOT
contradict himself.
That is the rational position. We give the author the benefit of the
doubt. That is the scientifical method of studying a text. Historians
and philosophers reading for eg a text of an ancient or more modern
philosopher (for eg Aristotle) hold the same assumption.
This makes sense. For if we were to start with the assuming that an
author DOES contradict himself you will have a big chance of
misunderstanding the text and the intention of the author.
Only if all possibilities have been looked at, trying to make a book or
text consistent one may hold the position that the author made a
mistake. But even then, a rational person should hold the option open
that he misunderstood the author's text.
In the Quran however people have not found a genuine contradiction
since there are rational explanations for apparant contradictions.
Peace,
Kamal