Lovely article by Mona Eltahawy. I’m in agreement. Go girl! Those so called “imams” are real buggers. And indeed, multiculturalism has gone way too far in Germany.
Wife Beaters Set The Tone As Backward Imams Threaten To Overwhelm 21st Century Muslims
SudaneseThinker
SudaneseThinker
{ 61 comments… read them below or add one }
When these people say “infidels”, they refer to Christians and Jews and non-violent Muslims, right?
Excellent article Drima, thanks for linking to it.
A couple of my thoughts:
Abuse of women is universal and is not unique to Islam or other honour-shame cultures from the sub-continent. That said, laws in western, supposedly civilized nations, should protect ALL women from abuse.
This is a slap in the face of all people (women and otherwise) who leave their countries in the hope of seeking a better life in the west.
In Canada, we are fortunate enough to have vocal women such as Fatima Houda-Pepin and Homa Arjomand who highlight the danger of such blind and misguided “accommodations”.
Drima,
To clarify, I was referring to the second article, which I found especially relevant to me personally as a Palestinian living in Québec, where the “reasonable accommodations” debate is a hot topic at the moment.
The first article is “lovely” - to use your term, as well.
There is such a thing as respecting the culture and traditions of immigrants. Then there’s this, which is sheer insanity.
“There is such a thing as respecting the culture and traditions of immigrants. Then there’s this, which is sheer insanity.”
There is such a thing as respecting the culture and traditions of violent criminals. Beating women and forbidding them to leave a violent man is not a principal Arab Moroccon tradition. Perhaps the judge should have respected actual Moroccon culture.
Actually, the judge is not supposed to respect any foreign culture when passing judgement, only German law. But that is another problem.
I don’t know Arabic, but I have heard the word “beat” is actually a mis-translation. The husband is supposed to let the woman sleep alone and “beat” her, according to the Qur’an. It seems like an odd combination, as one implies passive resistance and the other implies violence. Either way, the Qur’an states that such is supposed to be punishment for desertion (i.e. the wife leaving the husband); it is not supposed to be the cause for such. The judge must have read the Qur’an from right to left, in German.
“Abuse of women is universal and is not unique to Islam or other honour-shame cultures from the sub-continent.”
Abuse of women has absolutely NOTHING to do with Islam. It is its own (very bad) culture, practiced by violent people who live among Muslims or Christians or atheists or other people. No Abrahamic religion condones abuse of women (although some other religions and/or ideologies do).
The Qur’an did not allow abuse of women, the Qur’an limited earlier traditions of abuse. The status of women before the Qur’an defined their rights was often that of property (not everywhere, certainly not among Jewish and, to a lesser degree, Christian societies of the time, also not among all Arab tribes). The text has to be understood in the context of its time.
“That said, laws in western, supposedly civilized nations, should protect ALL women from abuse.”
Western nations are civilised and the law attempts to protect all women from abuse (and men too). Whether all judges see it the same way is another matter. The reason western nations are civilised is because it is understood that people like that husband or the judge have to change while the law persists.
“I don’t know Arabic, but I have heard the word “beat” is actually a mis-translation. ”
I don’t understand what the controversy is about. Daraba in Arabic simply means “to beat”, as a native Arabic speaker, I’ve never heard of another meaning for that word, although the intensity of the action might be interpreted differently depending on context, the era etc..
Can someone provide another meaning for the word Daraba? Or another situation where it’s interpreted differently?
In any case I agree with the author that even if the abuse is non-physical, it remains abuse, the premise in itself is not one of equality between the genders.
“Abuse of women has absolutely NOTHING to do with Islam. It is its own (very bad) culture, practiced by violent people who live among Muslims or Christians or atheists or other people. No Abrahamic religion condones abuse of women”
I’ve read the Quran but not with a focus on this specific topic, so I cannot comment on women in Islam with the same certainty that you do.
All I can say is that all 3 main Abrahamic faiths (and their books) contain certain misogynistic elements and do place women in second place to differing degrees.
That said, even if no actual abuse is preached (and I’m taking your word for it), some verses can be interpreted to show inequality of the sexes in the favour of men, which in the twisted minds of some justifies their abuse.
And yes, western nations are civilized by virtue of their laws. However, the stupidity of some “accommodations” undermine the rule of law as we saw in the example above.
Fortunately, the judge’s decision lead to an uproar in the whole country, and it became clear that there is a definite limit in being “tolerant” towards other cultures, or better put: there is a difference between tolerance and blindly supporting/accepting criminal offenses misconceived and excused as foreign cultural traits. While I am with Andrew, saying that this is not Arab Morrocon tradition, and with Nizo, that it is not about Islam, my main point here would be, that the judge’s task is to judge according to GERMAN LAW. And a judge, who does not do that, in my eyes, should not be a judge in this country. Especially not, when the decision goes against basic human rights.
The other part of the discussion is important as well. But as a German, this is my main problem with this decision. Luckily, as I said, enough people in this country were of the same opinion. (Even though I am very sorry that this won’t help the victim in this case - and it is a true shame, that this happened.)
“I don’t understand what the controversy is about.”
The controversy is about differences between classical Arabic and modern Arabic. Words changed meaning. A lot in a thousand years. Arabic was always spoken and spoken languages change.
Hebrew and Latin are _very_ close to what they were 2000 years ago on account of both of them only being used for official purposes for two millenia, but Arabic was both official/religious language and vernacular.
I don’t know what thye Arabic word is in that Sura nor do I know what it translates to. “beat” is one of the meanings, but it might not be the only meaning or the primary meaning in classical Arabic or even a correct translation of the classical Arabic at all.
“All I can say is that all 3 main Abrahamic faiths (and their books) contain certain misogynistic elements and do place women in second place to differing degrees. ”
Oh, yes, absolutely. But as I said, the Abrahamic faiths worked with cultures even more uncivilised. What you find in holy scripture is what people then acknowledged as the truth. Whether it is G-d’s truth or not is another question. But the simple fact is that if it had been too revolutionary, people wouldn’t have believed it.
Thus we can assume that anything written and accepted as truth back then was certainly not completely liberal. But that doesn’t mean that it didn’t turn people into the right direction from whence they started.
Can anybody who can read Arabic confirm what the word actually is?
“And yes, western nations are civilized by virtue of their laws. However, the stupidity of some “accommodations” undermine the rule of law as we saw in the example above. ”
Indeed. We are in agreement.
She wrote an absolutely brilliant article..not just the micro issue of cruelty to women…but the macro issue of how we look at some of the insanity of the holy books…the whole “you can’t have it both ways” routine…when in fact, everybody takes and leaves bits and pieces.
The Old Testament talks about stoning kids to death for being disrespectful, death for picking up sticks on Shabbat, people fashioning hemmeroids out of gold, God sending a bear to slaughter a couple of kids for calling Elisha “baldy” and on and on.
This is a critical concept for people like me and Drima…who consider themselves followers of their religion yet…can’t help giving a “say WHAT?” to certain things
In the Jewish holy books, I have found wonders, but there is some pretty strange and even contradictory stuff in there…hell…it even supports slavery…and I don’t…and I am religious.
Great article.
I have to say something about culture…
I don’t particularly give a rat’s ass about people’s cultures…these “habits” are not holy nor ordained by God or anything “revealed” yet so many blindly treat them as such…culture ain’t religion!!! It is just man-made shit..some great…some horrific…but there is nothing transcendant or holy about it…culture is man-made rules, habits, rituals, language, food etc.
Somebody out there tell me…why to we got so hot about culture…should we not focus on universal truths, plain old right and wrong…
Oh yeah dude…you are from Mariturainia…so cool…you can bring a few slaves with you to LA…I mean it IS in your culture…don’t want to look racist now.
It is part of some cultures to rape women as punishment for certain crimes…this was a huge controversy in Pakistan a couple of years ago…”well judge…that is how we do it in OUR culture”.
Judge…”dude…why don’t you go fuck yourself. That is what we say to shit like you in OUR culture”.
Does anybody not see this is screwy?
“In the Jewish holy books, I have found wonders, but there is some pretty strange and even contradictory stuff in there…hell…it even supports slavery…and I don’t…and I am religious.”
The Tanakh supports a milder version of slavery than was practiced before: no slaves from your own people and all slaves must be set free after seven years.
We were supposed to apply these laws according to the circumstances, that’s why there is an oral Tora, the collected principles written down in the Talmud, and that is why there are rabbies.
Jewish law also says that the law of the land is Jewish law, which means that if slavery is illegal according to the country’s law, it is illegal according to Jewish law as well. Furthermore, the Tanakh does not say that slavery must be legal, it only says that if it is, you are still not allowed to enslave your own people and that you must set your slaves free after seven years.
That was a huge improvement over previous ideas.
Fact is that slavery is and has been for a long time illegal according to Jewish law.
As for stoning kids for being disrespectful, I guess it depends on how disrespectful they are. I assume we will never see the level of disrespect required. (And if you stone your child and it turns out you were wrong to do so, you will be in trouble later; so don’t do it!)
G-d sending a bear to kill someone is perfectly all right, I guess. Bears are not moral agents.
Actually, the judge is not supposed to respect any foreign culture when passing judgement, only German law. But that is another problem.
Indeed. Respect for culture is only a matter of tact, rather than a defining part of the verdict. The law is paramount.
Can someone provide another meaning for the word Daraba?
Hans Wehr Arabic-English dictionary (A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic), we also find that dharaba can mean ‘to turn away from,’ ‘leave,’ ‘forsake,’ ‘abandon,’ or ‘avoid.’
Tsedek,
Very good. That is exactly what I expected. “beat” in the sense of “beat it”.
It makes sense now. Recall that I found the two punishments to be an odd combination, one beging passive the other active. If “dharaba” does indeed mean “abandon” and the like, we have a normal repitition, like in so many parts of the Qur’an.
So the husband is supposed to leave her alone and turn away from her, possibly to abandon her. Sounds like a civilised and rational reaction to being abandoned by the woman to me.
AB-
You make my point…
People that have good hearts have a way of finding things like “no slavery” just like people were able to find ways to justify slavery or just about anything you want.
A classic is “you will not loan money to a countryman (Jew) at interest”. Clear as a bell? Nope…we have, for example, Bank HaMizrachi which is a religious institution…lots of high interest loans….
How do they pull that off? They don’t loan at interest…they are “going into business with you” or “investing”.
Interpretation often = manipulation…just another form of intellectual dishonesty and denial…
Why don’t we have the balls to say…”hey…it just don’t make much sense”.
To me…if we would just focus on something like the 10 Commandments…wouldn’t the world be a much better place?
Interpretation often = manipulation…just another form of intellectual dishonesty and denial…
It is often a change of perspective to deal with reality as it is, rather than the ideal we would have liked to be. If that is a form of intellectual dishonesty, then the entire world is built on it. And without it, I daresay we would have had many more interesting holy wars.
Why don’t we have the balls to say…”hey…it just don’t make much sense”.
*shrug* Who said religion has to make sense?
To me…if we would just focus on something like the 10 Commandments…wouldn’t the world be a much better place?
We do on them, Howie. But real life is a bit more complicated than just them, is all.
*we do focus
Tse’s translation is correct
Tse,
Fair enough, this is similar to the verb “to strike”, which can also be used in “strike a pose”.
Dharaba can also be used to say “dharaba mathal” which is to cite an analogy or proverb. That one is obvious but not related to the context being discussed.
In any case, the action of dharaba when involving two people is to beat, that is the traditional meaning of the word. To abandon or avoid are taraka and khasama. But if the dictionary says that dharaba might mean something else, I stand corrected. Arabic is indeed a rich language.
Here’s an article that argues the traditional meaning further.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=27847
A couple of excerpts.
“Likewise we should not bewilder our readers by an allegedly “long list of meanings” of the word “daraba” = to beat. If Mr. Spencer is blamed for insisting on this meaning in the framework of Qur’an 4/34: “…beat them” (the women), this reproach certainly cannot be supported by the established variants of the Arabic language. “Daraba” simply means “to beat” - full stop. If you want another meaning like - for instance - to play (an instrument), to write (on a typing machine), to calculate, to avert, to separate, to delete, you would have to combine each of it with a pertaining conjunction, the Qur’anic text does not offer, however. ”
(Nizo: not necessarily because Dharaba Mathal does not contain a conjunction)
“I find it also extremely disingenuous for Mr. Ghouse to maintain that “wife-beating “is “not in tune with the Qur’an.” Perhaps this is a conscious echo of Laleh Bakhtiar’s new “exegesis” of the Qur’an, most notable in her rendering of Surah Nisa’ [4]:34. For 1,400 years that passage has been understood thus: “As for those women on whose part you fear disloyalty and ill-conduct: admonish them, refuse to share their beds and beat them.” Bakhtiar’s new version has it that the verbal form idrabuhunna does not mean “beat them” but, rather, “send them away.” I’m a historian who reads Arabic, not an expert in pre-modern Arabic, but for the verb daraba to mean “send them away” or “shun them,” there must be a preposition after the verb—which is not the case in the Qur’anic text—as Professor Raddatz observes correctly. ”
——————–
Since I’m at work, I cannot access the websites that discuss the non-beat alternative explanation, I can only see them in google, but the proxy blocks them.
They might be here, but I cannot access so as to confirm:
http://www.quran-islam.org/228.html
http://www.crescentlife.com/thisthat/feminist%20muslims/beating_women_yuksel.htm
onemansblog.com/2007/03/15/the-rules-of-islamic-wife-beating/
And out of all blogs ya Drima yours is the only one that makes it through the office proxy
Drima said:
“Tse’s translation is correct ”
You and I want>/i> it to be correct….
tags gone bad, you know what I mean.
One would assume that G-d would find clearer words to broadcast His will…
Somewhat off-topic:
Can somebody here help me out with Arabic spelling?
The author of the first article consistently spells the Qur’an “Qu’ran”. I myself use the transliteration “Qur’an”.
I cannot read Arabic and usually refer to Hebrew Wikipedia articles to clarify Arabic spelling.
Here, “Qur’an” is spelled “Quf Vav Resh Alef Nun”, which correponds to QVR’N or, with vowels QUR’AN. This, to me, makes sense, as “Qur’an” apparently means “recitation” and is related to/a form of the Semitic root for “read” (Quf Resh Alef).
Is there something in the Arabic spelling that would suggest a transliteration where the glottal stop (Alef with Hamza, perhaps) comes before the R?
“One would assume that G-d would find clearer words to broadcast His will… ”
One would assume, but then again interpretations of any given scripture abound. It also doesn’t necessarily mean that the traditional interpretation of “dharaba” for the last couple of centuries is correct either. We need to remember that we’re all assuming and extrapolating on a blog. At the end of the day, the moderate and enlightened imams need to (more) actively fine-tune the misogynistic / male-dominated discourse that exists today.
. …Nizo ya akhi ya 3ajeeb inta… Arabic is a very rich language, you said it and hence whether or not you and I agree or want the word to mean, is irrelevant. What’s relevant is that it *can* mean multiple things depending on the interpretation.
Maybe it is “beat” as in “smack her”, maybe it’s not. All I know is that most mainstream Muslim scholars always argue for contextualizing the jihad related verses. What about this one? Historically, I’m not sure if during Shura, ijma or qiyas sessions many women were present to debate *their* views and interpretations. There’s no monopoly on interpretation and well educated Muslim women can and should participate in providing their perspectives.
Let’s just take something else that I find very related. There’s a hadith that says “he who speaks Arabic is an Arab”. Now does that make sense? My dad has white American friends with Phds in Arabic who speak and know the language better than me or even him probably. Does that make them Arab? It would sound absurd if the answer was yes. I’m thinking that back then the word “Arab” meant something very different from what it means today.
Andrew, I wish I could help you man but I’m sort of clueless on that whole transliteration thingy.
*attempts to close tag*
testing.
Bah, too late.
And Nizo thanks for visiting again. It’s nice to see you dropping by here. This place needs a balance of Israeli/Jewish and Palestinian commenters.
I’m telling you man, it’s only a matter of time before The Sudanese Thinker gets accused of being a Zionist lounge. LOL.
Andrew,
Qu’ran is a mistake. The gollotal stop comes after the R. It is indeed Qur’an. Or better still: Qur’ān
قرآن
ق = Qaf
ر = Ra
آ = Aleph with Madda (stretches the Aleph)
ن = Noon
Roman, too late bro. I fixed it first. Muahahaha!
Nizo Says:
May 10th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Drima said:
“Tse’s translation is correct ”
You and I want>/i> it to be correct…
Some thoughtful comments all around…I can appreciate Nizo and what I would refer to as “intellectual honesty”. Sometimes we do not like what the holy books say…but we can only spin so much…and then…like I said earlier…if we are honest…we say..”I don’t like that”
I know many of the tricks
1. Oh…that was meant for that particular time (well…then I want to say that about adultery…let’s get this party started!!)
2. Oh…if you take that word…look at it in terms of ancient Hebrew, look at the context of it in that place in the sentence…then consider the numerical values of the second letter…and then stand on your head while eating falafel and you will get “the” true meaning.
3. Oh…of course that is just allegorical…metaphoric
4. Etc. etc.
I always go back to the story of Job….just read the first few verses…there is no moral support that anybody has ever given me for G-d’s conduct…He torments a righteous man and…go look….it is a bet…between G-d and Satan
“bet you I can”
“bet you can’t,”
“yes I can too either”
“no you can’t no you cant”
These present us with huge problems…and what I typically have noted…decent people seem to find ways around orders to stone children and beat wives…and bastards find ways to torment others…all Biblically supported.
He religious Christians in America used “the mark of Cain” as an excuse to enslave blacks….I guess G-d used a very large black marker to get that done.
And Nizo, respect bro. I noticed from your blog that you know about 4 or 5 languages well.
Howieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee, pick up your phone man! I just tried calling and I got your answering machine AGAIN!!
Drima,
thanks akhi,
I’m always learning, it doesn’t mean that I speak all of them well.
“As for those women on whose part you fear disloyalty and ill-conduct: admonish them, refuse to share their beds and beat them.”
)
Doesn’t make sense. Refuse to share their beds and beat them? It is much more logic to refuse to share their beds and ignore them (however that would be yet another arabic word
Anyway, I was thinking as nobody seems to know for sure and this person, who is writing that he has no knowledge of the pre-modern arabic language, is relying on rules of modern arabic (there must be a preposition after the verb) and thus gambling as to these rules would have been applied in those days as well, then maybe everybody is just looking in the wrong direction to find the answer to what was meant with them. (The presumption that For 1,400 years that passage has been understood thus…..[etc.] does not provide for reliable ‘evidence’ - since for 1400 years different sets of schoolings came forth out of the same Quran as well, each claiming to hold the truth, so words to be misinterpreted have many precedents).
Therefore (in short) maybe one should not look at how we interprete the language of then now, and of now - now, but look at the one who is considered by EVERY Muslim to be THE example to follow in Islam…. Mohammed. Now, if there is no evidence that he ever beat women, we might be pretty confident in believing that that word doesn’t mean ‘to beat’ (in that context) -
Just my two cents (although I rather have 50 Cents *love* - but OK, gotta stay realistic here
)
“آ = Aleph with Madda (stretches the Aleph)”
Thank you.
I understand Alef is used as a vowel “a” in Arabic. I assume that is because Alef originally, and in Hebrew still, stood, like most letters in the Aramaic/Arabic alphabet for two consonants: a glottal stop and zero. In Arabic only “zero” survived and “zero” always follows a vowel, hence the letter ultimately represents a vowel.
At the time of the Qur’an, I wonder, was Alef still a glottal stop or a vowel already? One day I will have to learn the Arabic alphabet.
How is the “u” represented in the Arabic for Qur’an? Does Arabic use vav for “u”? (I know about vowel dots, but I still wonder.)
AB
“One would assume that G-d would find clearer words to broadcast His will… ”
We can laugh…but , of course, that is a huge issue…of course we could argue that G-d knew exactly what He was doing and knew the outcomes for mankind of His highly interpretable word.
Round and round
“How is the “u” represented in the Arabic for Qur’an? Does Arabic use vav for “u”?”
u is denoted as a damma (small waw/vav above the Qaf)
damma is one form of “Nikkud”, but not a letter.
This incident underscores the inherent weakness of European civil codes, as opposed to Anglo-American common law codes.
Civil codes are subject to political trends of the times all the more so. No wonder fascism and communism were so easily accommodated in Europe, as the law codes didn’t really have to be commuted when those political systems were institutionalized.
In common law countries, the law codes are an extensive part of the structure of the state, so much so that the codes would have to be abandoned should the democratic foundations of a country be overturned. The codes, in effect, provide a better barrier against dictatorship, unlike in continental Europe.
Tse said:
“Therefore (in short) maybe one should not look at how we interprete the language of then now, and of now - now, but look at the one who is considered by EVERY Muslim to be THE example to follow in Islam…. Mohammed. Now, if there is no evidence that he ever beat women, we might be pretty confident in believing that that word doesn’t mean ‘to beat’ (in that context)”
I hate to say it Tse, but Mohammed married Ayesha who was a child at the time. Whether they consummated their marriage before puberty’s onset is a matter of debate that I will not go into. How many Muslims you know marry 6-year olds in our day and age?
And before I get attacked for singling out Islam, the Bible contains references to other colourful acts such as incest.
That said, I think we should follow these examples with a grain of salt as our context today is very different than it was many years ago. Society evolves, and as I said earlier, we need more clergymen (of all faiths) to seek general direction from the scriptures rather than apply them word for word.
But that’s my opinion, and I’ll stop preaching now. Back to work, Drima’s blog is going to get me fired.
nizo: those times, those traditions.
it were not only the muslims (Mohammed) that married off children.
I’ve read an assyrian blog from iraq that very much told the same thing happening to her parents as well. and, this is early 19hundreds……
i think it’s unfair to look upon the matter with eyes of our days. it simply cannot be denied that women (all over the world) were looked upon as those ‘helpless’ figures that needed ‘men’s protection’ even until the mid-half of the previous century.
so, not 1400 years ago? not with those warrior tribes who committed God knows what in those times?
there are rules of behavior and there are rules of that came into existence lately of feminism. but again: it cannot be denied that women were looked upon (and taken advantage of, thus the ‘protection’ measures) as helpless creatures and the power of the strongest was the only power to be reckoned with.
“nizo: those times, those traditions.”
that’s exactly what I’m saying
Nizo, she wasn’t 5. She was at least 9. Some sources say 11. Plus she was very matured in her way of thinking when compared to the women older than her at the time. And they only engaged in “the act” after she became physically matured. Back then it was a very normal thing. Now we’d expect a girl that young to finish school first, graduate, fall in love, bla bla bla and then get married.
By the way, my grandmother married my grandpa at the age of 11. She had my mom when she was about 16!! I was shocked when I learnt that piece of info. In fact almost any Sudanese my age would be shocked but that was the norm 80-100 years ago.
“Back to work, Drima’s blog is going to get me fired.”
hehehe, same here. I just arrived at work actually and the first thing I do besides checking my email is check my blog!
Hey Drima,
A question for you… I was in KL last summer and I couldn’t help notice how crazy people drive over there, especially the guys on bikes, vespas etc…
One thing I never understood is why they all wear their jackets back to front while riding. Never seen such a phenomenon anywhere else..
Can you explain?
Nizo -
I think your point about different times and changing cultural norms is summed up nicely in Hebrew… “derekh eretz kadma letora” (for non-Hebrew speakers - “way of the land comes before the scriptures”)
You are all some smart mo fo’s.
I feel privileged to have this opportunity to share and explore with y’all.
No joke
we need more clergymen (of all faiths) to seek general direction from the scriptures rather than apply them word for word.
Or perhaps simply fewer clergymen all round.
Just a thought (somewhat delayed, but there you have it …)
Oh, and by the way. Thought you might want to see this
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3399383,00.html
All’s well that ends well (at least for these guys …)
I read that news report recently myself, NC. Having followed that mess since it started on that day, it didn’t come as a surprise to me that our bureaucrats behaved as they always do, trying to throw the responsibility at someone else.
At least our system has enough good people in it for all to end well in the end, even if the process that brings this end sets new records for absurdity.
Agree with you totally about the bureaucrats, RK. Truly absurd. But at least these guys can start living properly again.
Nizo, you’re not the first or last person to make that observation.
I’ve been here for more than 6 years and I still don’t understand why they wear them that way!
Thanx for the link NC.
It sucks that I missed this discussion while it was at its peak.
Anyway, “dharb” only means to leave something or someone, when it’s followed with “3anhom”, so if it was “idhrebo ‘anhom” then that means leave them, if it is “idhrebohon” (which is what it is - see Sura 4, verse 34) then it means to hit. There is nothing ambiguous nor metaphorical in what was written, it is a simple issue of basic grammatical knowledge and you don’t need to have an advanced knowledge of classical Arabic to understand the difference between the two phrases.
The reason why it says to not sleep on the same bed, then says to hit them, is because not sleeping with them on the same bed is meant to be the punishment first time round, and therefore the lighter punishment, hitting them is meant to be the punishment the second time round and is therefore the harsher punishment. However, scholars state that hitting them is meant to be light and not cause injury. This isn’t my own deduction, but the explanation of the text as stated by Ibn Katheer, Al-Tabari and Al-Qurtobi, which are by far the most respected Islamic scholars in Islamic history and the point of reference for modern day scholars.
This link has Ibn Katheer’s explanation in English
http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=4&tid=11037
This link has several scholars’ explanation in Arabic, but only couple of scholars in English
http://www.altafsir.com
With regards to what the article’s author said about not wanting to believe that her testimony is worth half a man’s, well, whether she wants to believe it or not is her choice but it is written in the Quran (sura 2, verse 282). I don’t think it’s at all commendable that she chose to distort what is written in the Quran simply because she disagrees with it. I disagree with it hence I don’t believe in it, but I won’t distort it in order to make it fit my own set of principles and beliefs. Faiths are what they are, simply take them as they are or don’t, distortions are bad when Osama bin Laden does it and bad when Mona El-tahawy does it, simply because you are presenting lies as fact.
“This incident underscores the inherent weakness of European civil codes, as opposed to Anglo-American common law codes. Civil codes are subject to political trends of the times all the more so. ”
Something always struck me as odd with that statement.
It is in fact common law that is subject to political trend because common law uses court decisions as precedence while civil law uses only the written law.
It is the common law UK that has a traditionally unwritten constitution while civil law countries have traditionally very defined constitutions (and very long ones, sometimes).
You got it exactky the wrong way around.
Riham,
You make valid points. I wonder why it is so many people have to rely on books written 1000’s of years ago for guidance. We were all given brains to think with and that is why I disavow religion in general. I will not live for the greed of heaven or the fear of hell. Funny how most religions rely on our baser instincts to make us ‘good ‘people. If i die tomorrow and find there is no afterlife so what?? As for the whole aisha thing, even if it was the custom of the time as a prophet wasn’t Muhammed suppossed to guide his followers away from such despicable practices as marrying a child? just a thought
Actually, the word “dharaba” has several meanings even as used in the quran, such as “give” (dharaba) an example or “move” towards something.
Leave a Comment