Are you familiar with Sura 4:34? There, the Qur'an directs husbands to beat their recalcitrant wives; albeit, as a last resort and to do so
Yes, i'm familiar with that verse. It is a verse which is often brought up to show how "cruel" islam is.
I have two parts to the reply of this.
Firstly, the full context of the verse is as follows:
"Men are in charge of (or overseers of - qawwamuna) women, as Allah has given them more (strength) than the other (sometimes translated as made them
superior to the other), and because they spend of their wealth (to provide for them). Therefore women who are virtuous are obedient to God, and guard
in (the husband’s) absence what God would have them guard. As for those women on whose part you fear rebellion (nushuz), admonish them and banish
them to beds apart, (and last) beat (adribu) them. Then, if they obey you, seek not a way against them. For God is Most High, Great (above you
Although qawwamuna has been interpreted by many to imply that women should occupy an inferior position in Islam, this is not the intention at all.
Some translators of the Qur’an have used the word ‘guardian’, as if suggesting women were indeed inferior, but this is not the chief implication
of the word qawwam. Rather than a domineering boss or master, it implies ‘one who stands firm in the business of others, protects their interests,
and looks after their affairs’. The same word is used elsewhere in the Qur’an, as later in the same Surah, 4.135: ‘O you who believe, stand out
firmly (qawwamina) for justice as witnesses to Allah…..’
The Arabic word "nushuz" which many translators translate into "rebellion" is actually a word which means "ill-treatment".
Going back to the original idea for this thread, it can be shown in this clear example how translators sometimes deliberately put in different
This is proven by a verse which occurs later in this same surah:
"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…..’ (Surah 4.128)
So, once we have that out of the way, lets turn to the word "adribu" which translators, scholars etc, have taken to mean "beat". This word can
also be translated as "to separate, to part, to set out (on the road), to shroud (in darkness), and many more. Just as in english, when one says
"beat it", it could mean physically hitting something, or telling someone to leave, arabic words also sometimes have more than one meaning.
If you take the verse which follows into context also, it talks about seperation. So one could argue that it doesnt even mean beat anyway.
Secondly, lets say it does mean to beat. What is God telling men? That they can beat their wives whenever they want?
Is it telling them they can beat their wives if their wives ill treat them?
IN an age where women getting beaten by their husbands daily, in the western world and elsewhere (i speak from experience here too), God is telling
men....calm down...first....talk to them.
Now if my ex husband had employed this verse, i would never have been hit. And i think in most circumstances, if man and wife were to sit and he were
to talk to her gently and persuasively, then the matter would be resolved.
Even if its not, God still doesnt give that right. There is yet another thing he must do first. Which is refuse to sleep in the same bed.
If that doesnt work either, and the wife is still ill-treating him (remember, ILL-TREATING him, NOT disobeying him, or rebelling against him), then
God finally gives that right.
Elsewhere in the Quran, God tells us that men and women are protectors of one another.
I am personally of the opinion that it does not mean beat.
My reasons for such is the verse that immediately follows it talks of getting arbitrators to act in seperation. (what would be the point if he beat
her?...that would be it wouldnt it?...there would be no need)
ANd my second reason is that word "nushuz" (ill-treatment). Women are told that if she fears ill-treatment from her husband, she can seek divorce.
What better example of ill-treatment can you think of, than beating?
So why would God on the one hand advise men to beat their wives and then tell the wives to divorce their husbands when they do so?
I dont mind to answer such questions. I will never shy away from answering such things, because i DO believe in this conspiracy against islam. And i
DO believe that over 1400 years, it has been changed to oppress women. There are many instances of this.
And to be a good Muslim you must follow the path of the prophet. The Hadith provide the guidance by which Muslims are to live--or they're not
Who says i am not a muslim if i reject the hadith?
I dont care.
I dont know where you got this particular quote/idea from, but it sounds to me you are merely parroting what you have heard. Which is exactly what i
am trying to fight against here.
People should look things up for themselves and not rely on what other people tell them. I dont care if it has become, by way of this method, an
I remember watching soemthing on tv, and one of the characters was speaking to her husband, and she said:
"when i was young, i used to watch my mother cooking sunday dinner, and she would cut the ends off the pot roast before putting it into the oven.
When i finally asked her why she did this, she replied that she did it, because HER mother had done it. So i went to my grandmother and asked
her...why do you cut the ends off the pot roast before you cook it?...she replied...because MY mother used to do it. So finally i went to see my
great-grandmother, and asked her...why did you used to cut the ends off the pot roast before you put it into the oven?...and her reply?....'because
the pan was too small'"
And that, to me, sums up perfectly the practise of most muslims today.....they have no idea why they do things.
That doesnt mean i should be the same.
I AM a muslim and i dont need you or some guy in saudi arabia or some guy here in the uk, telling me i'm not, just because i dont follow the
Maybe your status is "fine" because you're a Muslim living under constitutional law; not under Sharia law. If you we're living in a Muslim
nation your opinion of your status might be very different
Exactly. WHich is why i fear these idiots as much as other people do. I would love for the world to be run according to Gods law.
But it would never happen. Because even if these "extremists" ever got their wish, we would all be under shariah law. Which has sod all to do with
I prefer the law which states that people can repent, that people have no compulsion in religion, over a law which kills people for apostasy,
blasphemy, adultery, etc.
I was on a forum the other day, for people who think like me, and we were saying....if that ever happened, then we would be like the French
Resistance....passing secret messages, learning about the Quran in secret meetings etc.....lol
And while its a romantic notion, i also have no wish to be killed because of what i beleive in.
YOu have to understand, i have been on forums (sunni forums) where people have called for the death of "hadith-rejectors".
And you're right, i am in a position where i can be complacent about that right now. BUt many people arent.
If you are truly interested in islam, i urge you, to seek less orthodox means of studying it. Forget the scholars, the imams, the sunni and shia way.
Read the quran yourself, arm yourself with even a limited knowledge of arabic. And i promise you, it will take you about a week to discover that all
is not what it seems.