-------------------- If you don't learn from your mistakes, there's no sense making them. Posts: 15090 | From: http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
but I also understand that the words used in that verse can be interpretted differently and since a husband and wife are suposed to be treating each other with kindness, I am only left to my own devices to draw a conclusion on this aspect.
You understand wrong. These kinds of writings are designed to make Quran more western friendly. It works quite well with those who do not speak the language and/or are seriously lacking in critical thinking. I will give you one example and you can apply it to the rest.
The writer stated : "The Arabic word used here, {adriboo}, from the root {d-r-b}, has several dozens of meanings, such as: 'to beat', but also: 'to forsake, to avoid, to leave'."
The reasonable thing to do was to give examples of the word being used to mean "to forsake". An example of {d-r-b} being used to mean "to forsake" would proved that it is a completely different combination of words that changed the meaning, not the word itself.
Idrab al homar = Beat the donkey Idrab Mathal = Give an example
If someone pointed at the donkey and said "idraboo", there's no way I would take that to mean give an example.
You can apply the same principle to the rest of the article. All you need to do is look at the lack of details.
Furthermore, there are those hypocrites who will tell you that Quran is so easy to understand that we do not need translation or interpretation. Well if that is the case, why that running around in circles to make it mean something other than the obvious! Those same hypocrites will argue meaning of words to no end, but will not accept the fundamental concept that a man has any authority to discipline his wife. This is the crux of the matter discussed in that article. Whether he beats her up, "forsake her" or "return to obedience" the "problem is solved". All that song and dance does not change the fact that the verse put the man in a position to discipline his wife. Let the hypocrite address that and then discuss linguistics.
Posts: 406 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
but I also understand that the words used in that verse can be interpretted differently and since a husband and wife are suposed to be treating each other with kindness, I am only left to my own devices to draw a conclusion on this aspect.
You understand wrong. These kinds of writings are designed to make Quran more western friendly. It works quite well with those who do not speak the language and/or are seriously lacking in critical thinking. I will give you one example and you can apply it to the rest.
The writer stated : "The Arabic word used here, {adriboo}, from the root {d-r-b}, has several dozens of meanings, such as: 'to beat', but also: 'to forsake, to avoid, to leave'."
The reasonable thing to do was to give examples of the word being used to mean "to forsake". An example of {d-r-b} being used to mean "to forsake" would proved that it is a completely different combination of words that changed the meaning, not the word itself.
Idrab al homar = Beat the donkey Idrab Mathal = Give an example
If someone pointed at the donkey and said "idraboo", there's no way I would take that to mean give an example.
You can apply the same principle to the rest of the article. All you need to do is look at the lack of details.
Furthermore, there are those hypocrites who will tell you that Quran is so easy to understand that we do not need translation or interpretation. Well if that is the case, why that running around in circles to make it mean something other than the obvious! Those same hypocrites will argue meaning of words to no end, but will not accept the fundamental concept that a man has any authority to discipline his wife. This is the crux of the matter discussed in that article. Whether he beats her up, "forsake her" or "return to obedience" the "problem is solved". All that song and dance does not change the fact that the verse put the man in a position to discipline his wife. Let the hypocrite address that and then discuss linguistics.
I must say I agree with you completly on this one current, all other meanings that apologetics give for "beating" are simply pathetic, and like you said, the message is clear anyway; men are authorized to discipline their wives one way or another! I wonder how any of the ridiculous surrogate meanings can achieve that goal! the mere fact that men are authorized to discipline their wives clearly proves that Quran considers men to be superior to women! There's no point denying the obvious!
Thank you very much current for this useful insight!
Posts: 956 | From: nowhere | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by current: but will not accept the fundamental concept that a man has any authority to discipline his wife. This is the crux of the matter discussed in that article. Whether he beats her up, "forsake her" or "return to obedience" the "problem is solved". All that song and dance does not change the fact that the verse put the man in a position to discipline his wife.
I guess my choice of a Vice President is justified. Good going.
The article says that men and women are equal in punishment, that's true, but are they equal in social rights? If a man inherits double the woman in most cases, and the man's testimony equals the testimony of two women, wouldn't the "equal" punishment then be "unequal" because men had more gains to start with?
If a boy gets an allowance of, let's say, 100 Pounds a week, and his sister gets only 50 Pounds for the same week, would their parents be fair if they deducted 25 Pounds of each of them as a penalty for breaking the living room glass window while playing?
The verse is addressing the male believers apparently because the word "Neshooz-a-huna" only applies to females. My question is: Don't men go astray too? Would the women be allowed to "leave" the martial bed in protest? Or would that be considered "Neshooz" from their part, and here we go back to square one again?
Posts: 657 | From: Cairo | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sub-zero: I guess my choice of a Vice President is justified. Good going.
The article says that men and women are equal in punishment, that's true, but are they equal in social rights? If a man inherits double the woman in most cases, and the man's testimony equals the testimony of two women, wouldn't the "equal" punishment then be "unequal" because men had more gains to start with?
If a boy gets an allowance of, let's say, 100 Pounds a week, and his sister gets only 50 Pounds for the same week, would their parents be fair if they deducted 25 Pounds of each of them as a penalty for breaking the living room glass window while playing?
The verse is addressing the male believers apparently because the word "Neshooz-a-huna" only applies to females. My question is: Don't men go astray too? Would the women be allowed to "leave" the martial bed in protest? Or would that be considered "Neshooz" from their part, and here we go back to square one again?
Good points Sub-zero, I will vote for you in the next elections provided that you'll save a place for me in your cabinet Posts: 956 | From: nowhere | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by misfit: Good points Sub-zero, I will vote for you in the next elections provided that you'll save a place for me in your cabinet
Minister of social affairs is vacant, intrested? Posts: 657 | From: Cairo | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
howwa ana bta3 elkalam dah?![[Mad]](mad.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic