baqar

Salaam,
Someone sent me this explanation when I enquired about this particular verse:
It is also true that those who believe that Surat an-Nisaa (4:34) endorses hitting women to 'discipline' them are quite mistaken. Islam does not sanction — let alone encourage — the beating of women! Sadly, this misunderstanding is widespread in English translations of the Holy Qur'an. Yusuf Ali, for instance, translates this ayah as follows:
"34. Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because God 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 God 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 God is Most High, great (above you all)."
A contemporary Qur'an translator, Sr. (& Dr.) Laleh Bakhtiar argues forcefully that the original meaning of the Arabic verb usually translated as “to beat” in English, in 4:34, was “to go away.” The translator gives three arguments for why this is so:
The words “beat them” in 4:34 are a command, an imperative form of the verb. Yet the Prophet, peace and the mercy of God be upon him, never carried out this command. Even if one were to say that just because a word in the Quran is grammatically a command does not mean that the Prophet had to carry it out; it means it is permissible for him to do or not to do. The retort: He chose not to do it. Therefore, whoever follows the Sunnah of the Prophet should also choose not to do it.
The word interpreted as “to beat” for over 1400 years in the Islamic world has over 25 meanings. Why chose a meaning that goes against both the legal and moral principles of the Quran and the Sunnah of the Prophet?
The strongest argument for why the Arabic word does not mean "to beat"� but rather means “to go away” is because interpreting the Arabic word as "to beat"� contradicts another verse in the Quran. We start with a premise: Islam encourages marriage and while divorce is allowed, it is discouraged. The Prophet said: Marriage is half of faith. He also said: Divorce is deplorable.
In 2:231 the Quran says as translated in the Sublime Quran: "When you divorce wives, and they (f) are about to reach their (f) term, then hold them (f) back honorably or set them (f) free honorably; and hold them (f) not back by injuring them so that you commit aggression, and whoever commits that, then indeed he does wrong to himself; and take not the Signs of God to yourselves in mockery; remember the divine blessing of God on you and what He sent forth to you of the Book and wisdom; He admonishes you with it; and be Godfearing of God and know that God is knowing of everything."� All English translations translate this verse in a similar way.
That is, a husband may not hold back his wife from divorce by hurting, harming, injuring her or using force against her. Reading this verse as if for the first time, it suddenly occurred to the translator that what the Quran says in 2:231 contradicts the way 4:34 has been interpreted over the centuries by everyone except the blessed Prophet. The translation in the Sublime Quran of 4:34 reflects the interpretation as the blessed Prophet understood it: "Men are supporters of wives because God has given some of them an advantage over others and because they spend of their wealth. So the ones (f) who are in accord with morality are the ones (f) who are morally obligated, the ones (f) who guard the unseen of what God has kept safe. But those (f) whose resistance you fear, then admonish them (f) and abandon them (f) in their sleeping place, then go away from them (f); and if they (f) obey you, surely look not for any way against them (f); truly God is Lofty,
Great."
In 4:34, as translated in a similar manner by all present English translations except the Sublime Quran translation, Muhammad Asad, for example translates 4:34 in the following way: "Men shall take full care of women with the bounties which God has bestowed more abundantly on the former than on the latter, and with what they may spend out of their possessions. And the righteous women are the truly devout ones, who guard the intimacy which God has [ordained to be] guarded. And as for those women whose ill-will you have reason to fear, admonish them [first]; then leave them alone in bed; then beat them; and if thereupon they pay you heed, do not seek to harm them. Behold, God is indeed most high, great."�
What this tells us (and all present English translations) is that if a woman wants a divorce, a husband is forbidden from harming, hurting, injuring or using force against her while for a woman who wants to stay married, it is permissible for her husband to beat her!!! Recall our premise: Islam encourages marriage. If women were aware of this contradiction, what woman would chose to stay married and be beaten rather than be divorced and unharmed?
The Arabic Word of God was, is and remains the Word of God. There is no change in the Arabic. The change is in our perception, our interpretation. The understanding of saying "go away" is a revert interpretation to how the blessed Prophet understood it. Whoever believes in and follows the Sunnah should logically agree with reverting the interpretation to the way that the blessed Prophet understood it.
We refer back to the first two arguments: 1. The word “beat” is a command which the Prophet chose not to carry out; and 2. The Arabic word "beat" has 25 meanings so why chose a meaning that does not follow the legal and moral principles of the Quran and the Sunnah of the Prophet? 3. Interpreting the word as "beat"� contradicts 2:231 and fosters divorce rather than marriage, commands to immorality and prohibits morality which is one of the definitions of a hypocrite in the Quran (see 9:67).
While I have personally been blessed by my contacts with the most understanding and compassionate of men in my lifetime, and I have never found myself in a situation of being physically threatened or beaten, reading about and hearing first hand stories of women who have, I felt the deep sense that I am essentially and spiritually one with them by my very existence. The question I kept asking myself during the years of working on the translation: How could God, the Merciful, the Compassionate, sanction husbands beating their wives?
The feeling, however, did not rise to the surface until the day I first publicly presented the results of this translation of the Sublime Quran at the WISE (Women's Islamic Initiative in Spirituality and Equity) Conference (November, 2006), in particular in reference to 4:34. There were 150 Muslim women from all over the world who had gathered to discuss the possibility of forming a Women's Islamic Council. I gave the logic as to why the word "to beat" in 4:34 has to revert to its original interpretation as understood by the Prophet Muhammad, peace and the mercy of God be upon him.
At the end of the session, two Muslim women approached me. They said that they work in shelters for battered women and that they and the women in the shelters have been waiting for 1400 years for someone to pay attention to this issue through a translation of the Quran. The heavy weight of responsibility suddenly fell upon my shoulders. I had to publish my findings as soon as possible so that, with the Will of God, one less woman: wife, mother, sister, daughter, cousin, friend, in general, or Muslim wife, in particular, would be beaten at all and especially not in the Name of God; so that by initiating a dialogue, the minds of the exclusivists will awaken to consciousness and conscience; they will counsel those husbands who place their hand on the Word of God and give themselves permission to beat their wives, that they have neither the legal nor the moral right to do that. It is the prayer of all women throughout the world that all future translations
of the Quran, in whatever language, will revert the interpretation back to the legal and moral principles of the Quran and Sunnah of the blessed Prophet, inshallah. God knows best.

Absolutely
 
In fact, the Quran asks men to forgive their wives and children even when they turn against them. 
 
[64:14] Believers, indeed, among your wives and children, you (may) have an enemy.  Therefore beware of them. And if (at the same time), you forgive (them) and overlook (their faults), and are forbearing, (well, then remember that) God is also very forgiving and merciful.
 
The 'beating' does not quite fit in with the general drift of the Quran.
 
And even if beating is implied, it is clear that the beating must not exceed the touch of a twig, as God instructs Job to do
 
[38:43] And We gave him (Job) his family and the like of them as a mercy from us and as a reminder to those with understanding.
 
[38:44] And take a green twig in your hand and strike her with it (so that) you do not break your oath. Indeed we found him patient. Most excellent (was he), this servant! He turned to God frequently.
 
I am not aware if there is a specific historical context for this verse but I think it is believed to apply to situations of unfaithfulness or near-unfaithfulness. 
 
Also if 'beating' is indeed implied, the power to 'beat' may not necessarily be vested with the husband but with the court.
 
 
 
Ask Sunnis, they will tell you that Shias have understood lots of things incorrectly for 1400 years. 
 
Ask Shias. They will likewise tell you that Sunnis have understood lots of things incorrectly for 1400 years. 
 
At least one of them has certainly misunderstood heaps, for a very long time.
 
And just because I am a Shia, I do not assume that everything understood by us is absolutely perfect. 
 
There surely are things that have been wrongly understood by both Shias and Sunnis and will continue to be, until our Imam (as) comes.

Im not generalising 1700 years of Christian warfare.
 
 
 
'Europe'? It was mostly the north of india and the byzantine empire which suffered throughout the course of history from the invasions, most European land under Ottoman rule surrendered without a fight. 
 
Haha you think it was just the invasions that made them think Islam is a false religion? Their biggest concern was that Islam rejected a divine nature for Jesus (as), besides other differences in social and marital relations (polygamy and the acceptance of sex as a virtue in itself). Their only protest against the nature of the invasions was that the muslims weren't attempting a rational debate to prove the truth of Islam, and just proceeded to invade for supremacy; as if it was a proof Islam is a false religion that it conquers to spread the faith, even though many living under muslim rule began converting over the centuries (they didn't want to accept there was rational proofs for Islam...naturally).
 
 
 
 
 
I don't care for the purpose of this thread, these sentiments are predictable from any faith battling for supremacy against another; I actually think its wrong to whine about 'anti Islam sentiment'.  Instead we should continuously debate and seek Truth.
 
 
 
 
He wanted to bring back dominion to muslims naturally, the progress of islamization is nothing a muslim would want to impede. And the crusaders actually made a very foolish mistake by attacking the trade caravans from the Hejaz (Arabia), breaking their peace treaty with muslims.

That's why I recommend throw (from a safe distance) a whole bunch of Siha-e-Sitta volumes at her. That will sure to produce a bump on her head.  
 
Use the rest of the pages to make paper planes for your kids.
 
As far as tooth brush, the directions are vague so for safekeeping, I'll duct tape my toothbrush at the end of my baseball bat. How does that sound :shaytan:
 
...... or I'll follow the Qur'an and 'move away' thumping my feet on the wood floor and go tie a mutah knot while I've my 'proverbial back at her' and 'not sharing the bed'. :D  :D :D  :D  

Unfortunately, many expat Indians and Pakistanis have lost any real interest in the welfare of the stricken people back in their homeland.
 
Muslims or not, Shias or not - it is the duty of every one of us -  wherever we might be - to spare a thought for those in stress and distress, for the oppressed and depressed, for the hungry and the deprived - wherever they might be. Be they Muslims or non-Muslims.
 
And how much more right do our fellow-countrymen  have over us.
 
But alas, when all goes well our way, we detach ourselves from those we leave behind, gloating over our own good fortune.
 
Nothing else seems to matter.  Very sad indeed!   

Brother Hasan 404, I truly pray for everyone  in pain and anguish, for Shias, who are the target of cowardly attacks in Pakistan and for the hungry, the destitute, the abused and the exploited in India and everywhere in the world.
 
May God give you and all of us the courage to turn the tables on enemies of peace.
 
Insha 'Allah

This thread should be deleted. The very title of the thread is reprehensible.
 
How on earth can the killing of an innocent person, which every civilian is, be justified, in any manner or in any code of law?
 
And how can anyone even ask such a question? Allowing such threads to 'live' their  term shows that the killing of civilians could possibly be permitted.
 
But it just cannot be.

Only a few decades after the death of the Prophet, the caliphate passed into the hands of unscrupulous men,  It was a man's world. Kindness and compassion for the disadvantaged in society including women had all but ceased to exist.
 
Do you think it mattered to them how accurate the translation was? 
 
Women were at the base of society. No harm done in keeping it that way.
 
And by the way, there is not one single instance in the life of the Prophet, the Imams or even any of the Prophet's companions, when anyone is known to have beaten his wife.
 
There must have been 'nagging' and 'mischievous' women even then.
 
Surely men could have used this verse to 'beat' their wives.
 
But not once instance is on record.
 
Is there any specific  reference that the Imams say that it meant 'beating'? 

Unfortunately, many expat Indians and Pakistanis have lost any real interest in the welfare of the stricken people back in their homeland.
 
Muslims or not, Shias or not - it is the duty of every one of us -  wherever we might be - to spare a thought for those in stress and distress, for the oppressed and depressed, for the hungry and the deprived - wherever they might be. Be they Muslims or non-Muslims.
 
And how much more right do our fellow-countrymen  have over us.
 
But alas, when all goes well our way, we detach ourselves from those we leave behind, gloating over our own good fortune.
 
Nothing else seems to matter.  Very sad indeed!   

Brother Hasan 404, I truly pray for everyone  in pain and anguish, for Shias, who are the target of cowardly attacks in Pakistan and for the hungry, the destitute, the abused and the exploited in India and everywhere in the world.
 
May God give you and all of us the courage to turn the tables on enemies of peace.
 
Insha 'Allah

No one is divine.
 
They are all fully human.
 
Their connection with God lies in the fact that in our belief, they are among the best of God's creation.
 
The words 'prophet', 'imam, 'messenger, do not determine a hierarchy.
 
Prophets, messengers and Imams are all the best of men.
 
That august list also includes women, such as the mother of Jesus and the first wife and daughter of Prophet Muhammad. 

It is good brother that you realize your mistake.
 
You are right.
 
It is so easy to make such mistakes.
 
Thanks for warning us.
 
God be with you
 
 
 
Peace to you to

You've never read the Old Testament?

The thing is this is normal of any war, the difference in the case of the latin Christians is that they intentionally murdered non combatants and performed the worst savagery on those they conquered (there wasn't just a crusade against muslims...there were also heretics and others invaded within Europe by the Pope).
 
And bad history, the call for the conquest of Jerusalem was because of the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre by the Egyptian caliph Al-Hakim almost a century before (and it was repaired by then at the request of the byzantines..so much ado about nothing). From the anti-muslim websites that ive seen the crusade was justified as a reconquest of a former Christian land, so it had little to do with the turks and more to do with re-establishing Christian dominion of the Holy Land.

I am familiar with the hadith you are speaking of. The way it was explained to me is that the Imam(a.s) didn't refuse on the grounds that the man wasn't Syed, but because he had bad aklaq and according to well known hadith of Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h), a wali should not give his consent to his daughter marrying a man with bad aklaq or deen. There is no problem with Syed/Non Syed marriages, look in Resalat of well known and respected maraja. This rule that Sayed non syed cannot marry is cultural. 
 
The only difference between Mutah and permenant marriage (Zawajtul Nikah) is that
1) In Zawaj Nikah, the women cannot put in her contract that there will be no sexual intercourse, in mutah, she can
2) In Zawaj Mutah, the time period of the marriage must be stated in the contract, in Zawaj tul Nikah, the time period is indefinite. 
3) In Zawaj Nikah, the man is required to give his wife the nafaqat (sustinence). He is not required to do this in Mutah unless this is stated in the contract
4) In Zawaj Mutah, the spouses do not inherit from one another. 
5) In Zawaj Mutah, there is no divorce. The marriage ends with the end of the mutually agreed upon time interval. 
 
Other than that, all the rules are the same for both. (This is according to my knowledge. If I am wrong, I hope someone will post a correction). 

Of course there is a lot of Islam bashing going on among Christians.  This probably became more intense during the Crusades and anti-Islamic sentiments have lingered ever since.  As Muslims though, we should not preach anti-Christian rhetoric in return, but unfortunately, I have noticed this happens far too often.  Not all Christians hate Muslims.  My own parents are Christian and they certainly do not.  

Hi Fatima,
Quote: Of course there is a lot of Islam bashing going on among Christians. This probably became more intense during the Crusades and anti-Islamic sentiments have lingered ever since. As Muslims though, we should not preach anti-Christian rhetoric in return, but unfortunately, I have noticed this happens far too often. Not all Christians hate Muslims. My own parents are Christian and they certainly do not.
Response: --- Most Christians today don’t even know what the Crusades were, --- so their opinion of Islam just dates back to 9/11, --- The attack on the Twin Towers by Muslim terrorists. --- It was after that that I read the Quran and studied the calling of Muhammad, and learned how close his teaching was to Christianity to begin with. --- Surah 5:82-86.
Quote: ‘Not all Christians hate Muslims,’ --- In fact true believers, who live by the commandments of Jesus, that “We love God and love our neighbors,” --- actually pray for Muslims and reach out to them.
I believe that the desire of most of us is to, “Live and let live” as we raise our families in peace and safety, --- and worship God in truth, and honor Him in our daily lives.

Killing people who are not fighting you is wrong.  Simple as that.

Muslim = terrorist = threat.
The majority of what is bad in the world these days has been blamed on Muslims. How would you expect uninformed and ignorant people to react?
 
These blatantly misinformed people see Islam as wanting to take over the world. Every time they see a Muslim they fear the day is getting closer. They have no idea the real terrorist movement is fueled by the C.I.A.

Wow, check this out...
 

 
"Hand of God" spotted by NASA. "The heavens declare the glory of God; the firmament proclaims the works of his hands." - Psalms 19:2
http://m.space.com/24225-hand-of-god-photo-nasa-telescope.html

There are small differences between prophets but I think the Quran does not like the idea that we think on those lines.
 
[2:285]  The apostle believes in what has been revealed to him from His Lord and so do the believers. They all believe in Allah and His angels and His Books and His apostles. We make no difference between any of His apostles and they say 'We hear and We obey, our Lord. Thy forgiveness do we crave and to thee is the eventual coming.'   

Generally perhaps yes
 
But in some situations, it may be necessary for the girl to take the lead.
 
As in the case of the Prophet's first wife, 
 
 
who did not have a father, mother or as far as I am aware, even a brother.
 
She also sensed that he was more than just a suitor, he was something very very special.
 
There are other instances when it may be advisable or even necessary for a woman to take the lead.  

Technology is not dishonest-people-proof.
 
I have a silent phone but I still keep getting calls from people who should have no access to my phone.

Did you see a doctor after the three episodes and get yourself checked for S.T.D.s (sexually transmittable diseases)?
 
That is most important.
 
 
You are not allowed to punish yourself.
 
Repent that you will not do do it again. 
 
And leave it to God to decide what He wants to do.
 
And pray for His forgiveness.. 
 
Nothing else is required. 
 
Be happy that God has motivated you to turn to Him.
 
And thank Him for it.
 
That is all.

Generally perhaps yes
 
But in some situations, it may be necessary for the girl to take the lead.
 
As in the case of the Prophet's first wife, 
 
 
who did not have a father, mother or as far as I am aware, even a brother.
 
She also sensed that he was more than just a suitor, he was something very very special.
 
There are other instances when it may be advisable or even necessary for a woman to take the lead.  

Generally perhaps yes
 
But in some situations, it may be necessary for the girl to take the lead.
 
As in the case of the Prophet's first wife, 
 
 
who did not have a father, mother or as far as I am aware, even a brother.
 
She also sensed that he was more than just a suitor, he was something very very special.
 
There are other instances when it may be advisable or even necessary for a woman to take the lead.  

Did you see a doctor after the three episodes and get yourself checked for S.T.D.s (sexually transmittable diseases)?
 
That is most important.
 
 
You are not allowed to punish yourself.
 
Repent that you will not do do it again. 
 
And leave it to God to decide what He wants to do.
 
And pray for His forgiveness.. 
 
Nothing else is required. 
 
Be happy that God has motivated you to turn to Him.
 
And thank Him for it.
 
That is all.