Talk:An-Nisa, 34

al-Hibri

This lawyer is not a reliable source for Quranic exegesis. She is not a historian or an Islamic studies scholar. She publishes in law journals, and is a reliable source for matters of law, but not for matters of interpretation of the Quran or hadith. In this regard she is no better than any one else. Arrow740 05:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed move

I propose we move this article to "Exegesis of An-Nisa, 34". This would be a more meaningful title, and allow us directly address the topic.Vice regent 17:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note: Itaqallah responded to this question here ([1]).Vice regent 16:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• oppose we should be consistent with all articles about a specific quran verse, and that means it should be titled name of sura, followed by the verse.--Sefringle^Talk 04:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want to be consistent, why not move all these articles to "Exegesis of...".Vice regent 00:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Maulana Muhammad Ali

The above named scholar gives what appears to me to be one of the best renderings, given the varied use of the term. He translates:

"And (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the beds and chastise them."

from: Maulana Muhammad Ali, The Holy Qur'ān: Arabic Text, English Translation and Commentary. Ahmadiyyah Anjuman Isha'at Islam: Lahore, Inc. U.S.A., First Edition 1917, Reprint of Second Revised Edition 1995; pg. 199)

I don't know if that helps with the article, as apparently some do read it as 'beat', but I thought it might be worth mentioning. Aryaman (Enlist!) 18:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Aisha

There is a hadith posted in the "Opposition to idribihûnna" section. However, the hadith no mention on whether what Muhammad did was at all idribihûnna. In particular there is no evidence of any of the previous steps.Vice regent 00:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Unreliable/Biased sources?

This article appears very biased and not at all neutral. Nearly all of the sources written are Islamic sources. According to WP:RS the sources need to be 3rd party and neutral to the topic at hand,while Islamic sources will clearly have a bias.

I propose rewriting this article and making it neutral & objective by giving a full view of both sides of the story, i.e the muslim view which says this verse promotes rights of women, and the muslims who view it as a free ticket to dominate and suppress women.digitwoman (talk) 10:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You are correct that we need more non-Islamic sources. 129.120.4.2 (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree the sources are biased. And cherry-picked to present a rosy view of that verse while neglecting to mention the violent repercussions (e.g. the physical abuse) millions of Women in the Islamic world suffer everyday.  Brendon ishere 09:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

And non-islamic sources equal automatically neutral ? Please do tell, which view in this matter do you consider to be neutral? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.156.196.148 (talk) 23:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see some discussion on where all these "scourge lightly" quotes are coming from? Is it revisionism (meaning that there is no correlation to what's actually written in the Koran and the later-interpreted "scourge (lightly)"? And if so, when did people start inserting the qualifying term "lightly" after "scourge?" Was it recently or is there a historical record of Muslim men being admonished to "merely lightly beat or whip" their womenfolk? Somehow, I doubt it, since almost all of the sources here that suggest merely "lightly beating" women as being sanctioned by this sura are rather contemporary interpretations, perhaps done in full recognition of the disapprobation non-Muslims generally hold towards wife beating being sanctioned by "God." Thanks114.158.149.78 (talk) 06:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Adding a NPOV tag

Please discuss it with me before removing it. This article is a POV fork.  Brendon ishere 09:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Lets understand this verse then move on

Aright, enough of the stupidity. EVERY single scholar and commentator has said that verse 4:34 is a LIGHT TAP. I suggest we put in sources from academics, even non-Muslim ones, as THEY ALL say this is a LIGHT TAP.

Actually, no. SOME have added (lightly) in brackets when translating without any justification for adding the bracketed material that references the accuracy of the translation.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Source for etymology of Idribuhunna?

This is in the article right now: | | Whilst several Muslim scholars contest that the meaning of the word اضربوهن, transcribed as "iḍribūhunna", as ambiguous, grammatically it is not. The Quran is grammatically very specific leaving little room for interpretation on this occasion. It is the plural imperative of the form 1 of the root ضرب and as such means "hit or beat". The ا prefix indicates the imperative command, ضرب is the root, the و suffix the plural of the command and finally هن, which is the third person female plural, or in layman's terms: them. In sum: "beat them." | |

I'm not sure what 'form 1' refers to, as a native Arabic speaker the etymology comes from ضرب which as explained could mean many things, not just to beat them. While generally this is how the word is interpreted, some terms from the source are still used in Arabic from taxes, dhara'ib, to stock trading, mudharaba, kindly provide a source or else let's delete the para as false and unhelpful. 86.97.32.121 (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Source for etymology of Idribuhunna?

This is in the article right now:

Whilst several Muslim scholars contest that the meaning of the word اضربوهن, transcribed as "iḍribūhunna", as ambiguous, grammatically it is not. The Quran is grammatically very specific leaving little room for interpretation on this occasion. It is the plural imperative of the form 1 of the root ضرب and as such means "hit or beat". The ا prefix indicates the imperative command, ضرب is the root, the و suffix the plural of the command and finally هن, which is the third person female plural, or in layman's terms: them. In sum: "beat them."

I'm not sure what 'form 1' refers to, as a native Arabic speaker the etymology comes from ضرب which as explained could mean many things, not just to beat them. While generally this is how the word is interpreted, some terms from the source are still used in Arabic from taxes, dhara'ib, to stock trading, mudharaba, kindly provide a source or else let's delete the para as false and unhelpful. 86.97.32.121 (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree, dharaba and its consequences are used in several different contexts in the Qur'an with entirely different meanings, see Ahmad Shafaat http://www.islamicperspectives.com/Quran-4-34.htm. Also the usage of the term "grammatically" is misleading. No one is questioning the grammar of the Qur'anic revelation, but rather how readers of the written form may interpret it.

So to improve this section we need:

1) sources confirming the author's hypothesis, which currently runs: "there is only one true meaning, which is mine", and,

2) a precise usage of the term "grammatically" which cannot be simply a straw man for "interpretatively".

If the respective Editor cannot come through then I second your motion to delete the paragraph. Thank you. Musa Emre (talk) 23:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Pickthall is not being quoted correctly in this article.

I'm sorry, but in this article there is a quote which says, "A widely used 1930 English translation of the Koran by British Muslim scholar Marmaduke Pickthall determined the verse to mean that, as a last resort, men can "scourge" their wives. *He did not view a form physical contact as the correct understanding of the text."* However, the article this assertion is linked to DOES NOT maintain anything in support of the second sentence above, i.e. here is what the direct source actually says: "Modern debates over 4:34 inevitably hark back to a still widely used 1930 translation of the Koran by British Muslim Marmaduke Pickthall, who determined the verse to mean that, as a last resort, men can "scourge" their wives." Nowhere in this quote does it ever suggest that Mr. Pickthall "did not view a form physical contact as the correct understanding of the text." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/20/AR2006102001261_2.html Thus this second sentence is revisionism not based on a source, pure and simple.

If we are to assume that the English born and educated Pickthall used the famous Oxford English dictionary as his source of English definition upon which he based his translations from Arabic into English, here is what that source says about the meaning of "scourge":

"Historical-whip (someone) as a punishment: ex. Our people did scourge him severely" (coming from the "Middle English: shortening of Old French escorge (noun), escorgier (verb), from Latin ex- 'thoroughly' + corrigia 'thong, whip.") In other words, to "scourge" one's wife is to indeed use physical violence against them (as in a whip, hand or stick.) In conclusion, you either need to introduce a new source that confirms the second sentence above or else it's unattributable to Pickthall. Thanks114.158.149.78 (talk) 07:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Composition is not in accordance with the composition of verse

The article's name is An-Nisa 34. It shouldn't be confused with domestic violance in Islam. Verse is divided into 5 parts. Each part should be given equal importance. One minor part of one of 5 parts of verse shouldn't overcome other parts of verse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.68.230 (talk) 11:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on An-Nisa, 34. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120220011028/http://www.canadiancouncilofimams.com/pages/EFkFEEAkEuvurqQPyi.shtml to http://www.canadiancouncilofimams.com/pages/EFkFEEAkEuvurqQPyi.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on An-Nisa, 34. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050404235348/http://www.islamonline.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=7061 to http://memri.de/uebersetzungen_analysen/themen/liberal_voices/ges_beating_22_03_04.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:28, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on An-Nisa, 34. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050404235348/http://www.islamonline.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=7061 to http://www.islamonline.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=7061
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050404235348/http://www.islamonline.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=7061 to http://www.islamonline.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=7061

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.islamicity.org/11451/quran-strikes-out-wife-beating. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. /wiae /tlk 11:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Fixing Issues With Article

As a whole, this article is rather disjointed and I feel has an overuse of apologetics (I feel the Main Article is too biased in terms of criticism of Islam, but that's another topic). Comparing with Bible verse pages (generally more well-written given the significantly greater number of Western Wiki editors), I feel the issues should be solved with the following steps:

- Beginning should offer an introduction to the content of the verse.

- English translations should ‘’’not’’’ simply present a list but should highlight differences in translation. We should choose a neutral, comprehensive, translation and then refer to differences in the textual analysis beneath. Most are pretty much saying the same thing, and alternate interpretations should be noted. The Study Quran, which I much prefer in this regard, describes a lot of them as “unconvincing.”

- Original Arabic text can be put first, along with a discussion on where the verse was revealed. Context should also discuss a bit about the chapter, etc.

- Background should discuss the context of revelation.

- What’s already there should fall under a section called “Interpretive context” or something. Everything else should fall under that.

- The next section should be Interpretations

- Verse 35 appears to be often discussed in connection with this (note ‘’discussed’’: WP:OR contraventions galore here) and warrants mention.

- Finally, controversy should discuss what the verse means as a whole, not just specific phrases. This verse does not discuss domestic violence per se, and so the conclusions arrived here might be different from those in Islam and domestic violence which could be based on other evidence. Also, I don’t feel that should be the main article.

Thoughts? Alternate suggestions? Anyone interested on moving forward with this?

Moonlight2001 (talk) 13:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Hermeneutics of feminism in Islam

Hi,

I came across this promising Draft:Hermeneutics of feminism in Islam (relating to women's rights) and myself supported the same editorially too. IMO since topic potential is vast many Reliable sources on Google scholar seem to be available hence the article needs more editorial hands for some more update and expansion along with appropriate references.

Pl. do join to update and expansion, your help will be most welcome.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 15:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, the article is misinterpreting Islam by blatantly stating that it makes its conclusion by seeking an interpretation that fits its assumption that there is circular in nation. It also labels anyone who comes to a conclusion that contradicts it as bias, even when there is objective proof based purely linguistically and Holistically. This article should have more criticism that exposes it. BB10000 (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Equality of genders?

According to most translations men are superior to women. Yet, there is this section that says that they are equal. DarkLink (talk) 16:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Men are in charge of Women. The Quran makes clear that superiority in power does not immediately mean one will be better in The Eyes of Allah On The Day Of Resurrection. BB10000 (talk) 12:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)