Owner Of Muslim Relations Tv Network Beheads Wife

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1784371' date='Feb 18 2009, 10:24 AM']how about they just kill this chap?[/quote]

Argh...no more death penalty debates...

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='Justified Saint' post='1782840' date='Feb 16 2009, 07:57 PM']That is a rather tasteless comment.[/quote]


Apo was making an honest and correct statement. He was also being specific to not attribute beheading to Koranic mandates on how to deal with wives. The Koran DOES stipulate that a husband may punish his wife by first speaking to her strongly, then refusing to allow her in his bed for a time, then finally when those things fail he is allowed to beat her with a small stick.

Your comment to Apo was not only knee-jerk and reactionary, but also rude by attempting to make him look like a fool in front of the other members.

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1782864' date='Feb 16 2009, 08:11 PM']I didn't know that was truly permitted in Islam-I thought it was some crazies running with some verse in the Koran[/quote]


Katie, it is troubling that your first thoughts about people is that they are "crazies" who are making up false statements, rather than fact-checking on your own on the first pretext that that person might know something you don't know.

[mortify]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1784701' date='Feb 18 2009, 05:18 PM']The Koran DOES stipulate that a husband may punish his wife by first speaking to her strongly, then refusing to allow her in his bed for a time, then finally when those things fail he is allowed to beat her with a small stick[/quote]

The Qur'an does not order these punishments in a "first do this... then do this..." process. The separation from bed and scourging can occur at the same.

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1784701' date='Feb 18 2009, 05:18 PM']Your comment to Apo was not only knee-jerk and reactionary, but also rude by attempting to make him look like a fool in front of the other members.[/quote]

I don't think he was being rude...I think the comment could've been taken to be sarcasm/irony.
-Katie

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1784707' date='Feb 18 2009, 05:23 PM']Katie, it is troubling that your first thoughts about people is that they are "crazies" who are making up false statements, rather than fact-checking on your own on the first pretext that that person might know something you don't know.[/quote]

I don't know what you mean... I said I didn't truly know that this was based on traditional Islamic teaching. I had thought that honor killings, wife beating, etc came from radical interpretations, just as some Christians take verses out of context and use them to justify, say, child abuse. Regarding people who might know something I don't who are you talking about?-Katie

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1784115' date='Feb 17 2009, 11:48 PM']CNN is running a story on it now. The man does not appear to be a fundamentalist Muslim seeing as he was a clean shaven banker. It also seems that there was a history of domestic violence before this.[/quote]

I'm sort of familiar with the man because of his network, the network is definitely not fundamentalist. -Katie

[Winchester]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1784371' date='Feb 18 2009, 10:24 AM']how about they just kill this chap?

I think if anyone qualifies for a good stoning it's a fellow who decapitates his wife.[/quote]
Lone psycho. I haven't seen anything to indicate for certain this was anything a Christian psycho wouldn't have done.

[Hassan]

[quote name='mortify' post='1784757' date='Feb 18 2009, 06:20 PM']The Qur'an does not order these punishments in a "first do this... then do this..." process. The separation from bed and scourging can occur at the same.[/quote]


Do you speak Arabic?

I only ask this because I know of at least one other translation which indicates it is an ordered process. Also most of the commentaries I have ever seen support such an interpretation. You quoted that "P" chap, the English convert. His is a literal translation. I don't know much about arabic but if it's anything like Russian a literal translation is by no means necessairly the most accurate. Most of the early Dostoevsky translations were literal translations and I have yet to meet a native Russian speaker who considered them superior.

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1785020' date='Feb 18 2009, 10:53 PM']Do you speak Arabic?

I only ask this because I know of at least one other translation which indicates it is an ordered process. Also most of the commentaries I have ever seen support such an interpretation. You quoted that "P" chap, the English convert. His is a literal translation. I don't know much about arabic but if it's anything like Russian a literal translation is by no means necessairly the most accurate. Most of the early Dostoevsky translations were literal translations and I have yet to meet a native Russian speaker who considered them superior.[/quote]

I know nothing about Arabic but have studied several other languages and this is a good point-literal interpretation is usually a terrible idea that does not translate the meaning within the original language. I'm not trying to defend the Koran saying ANYTHING remotely allowing any kind of violence between husband and wife but translation issues are something to keep in mind (this goes back to what I was saying earlier that in many religions, including Christianity, people use verses the way they want to to justify their ridiculous actions). I did read somewhere that the word uses for "beat" can also mean to "separate"-I think you mentioned this before-not sure if I believe this but there are people who do. (Of course, I don't necessarily even agree with the idea of leaving your wife in such a vaguely defined set of circumstances-I'm just pointing out some linguistic issues I could see being relevant). -Katie

Edited February 19, 2009 by Tinkerlina

[mortify]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1785020' date='Feb 18 2009, 10:53 PM']Do you speak Arabic?

I only ask this because I know of at least one other translation which indicates it is an ordered process. Also most of the commentaries I have ever seen support such an interpretation. You quoted that "P" chap, the English convert. His is a literal translation. I don't know much about arabic but if it's anything like Russian a literal translation is by no means necessairly the most accurate. Most of the early Dostoevsky translations were literal translations and I have yet to meet a native Russian speaker who considered them superior.[/quote]

Pikthal's translation is similar to Shakir's translation, only Y. Ali adds words in parenthesis to give the impression of an ordered process.

[Hassan]

[quote name='mortify' post='1785686' date='Feb 19 2009, 06:20 PM']Pikthal's translation is similar to Shakir's translation, only Y. Ali adds words in parenthesis to give the impression of an ordered process.[/quote]


That is incorrect, Muhammad Asad's does as well.

[mortify]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1785700' date='Feb 19 2009, 06:57 PM']That is incorrect, Muhammad Asad's does as well.[/quote]

[b]Muhammad Asad's[/b] translation from an online source:

"And as for those women whose ill-will you have reason to fear, admonish them[b] [first][/b]; 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! "

The phrase in brackets is not part of the Qur'anic text; it's an addition made by the translator.

Note that two other translations suggest no order of procedure:


[b]PICKTHAL: [/b]
"Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

[b]SHAKIR: [/b]
"Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.

[Lilllabettt]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1782461' date='Feb 16 2009, 02:20 PM']I think I'm going to find the courage to bring up this case in May at our Catholic women's league symposium. It's going to be between the CWL and the local Jewish and Muslim women's councils. We're going to be discussing the book, "the faith club."[/quote]


I found the "faith club" a little boring. Boring in that it is full of typical "chick" stuff, you know, sharing, overcoming, self-discovery, etc.

Also, the three members of "the faith club" are 1. a former Catholic turned Episcopalian who does not believe in original sin 2. a secular Jew 3. a Muslim whose views are so far out of the mainstream, she cannot find a mosque in all of New York City where she feels comfortable ...

... which tanked the discussion for me from the start.

"Liberal members of world religions come to mutual understanding" is not headline news to me. It would have been far more interesting and useful if orthodox members of the different "faith communities" had been represented.

Maybe there will be some of those people at your meeting (at least we'll know Christianity is well represented!) and there will be some more interesting exchanges.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Lilllabettt' post='1786396' date='Feb 20 2009, 11:45 AM']I found the "faith club" a little boring. Boring in that it is full of typical "chick" stuff, you know, sharing, overcoming, self-discovery, etc.

Also, the three members of "the faith club" are 1. a former Catholic turned Episcopalian who does not believe in original sin 2. a secular Jew 3. a Muslim whose views are so far out of the mainstream, she cannot find a mosque in all of New York City where she feels comfortable ...

... which tanked the discussion for me from the start.

"Liberal members of world religions come to mutual understanding" is not headline news to me. It would have been far more interesting and useful if orthodox members of the different "faith communities" had been represented.

Maybe there will be some of those people at your meeting (at least we'll know Christianity is well represented!) and there will be some more interesting exchanges.[/quote]

Great a chick flick book. I hate those. I haven't read it yet because I'm waiting until classes are out for the semester. I'm mostly looking forward to the discussion. I go to the grocery store and sit on the bus with obviously Muslim women, but other than small talk, usually about the weather, I've never gotten the opportunity to really talk to any about how she feels about her faith. I'm used to people asking me if I feel oppressed by the big, bad, male dominated Catholic Church, and I bet they get asked the same kinds of questions, I'm just interested to see if their answers will be the same as mine are.

[Hassan]

[quote name='mortify' post='1785727' date='Feb 19 2009, 07:39 PM'][b]Muhammad Asad's[/b] translation from an online source:

"And as for those women whose ill-will you have reason to fear, admonish them[b] [first][/b]; 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! "

The phrase in brackets is not part of the Qur'anic text; it's an addition made by the translator.

Note that two other translations suggest no order of procedure:


[b]PICKTHAL: [/b]
"Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

[b]SHAKIR: [/b]
"Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.[/quote]


When I asked if you spoke Arabic it was not sacrastic I just really wanted to know. You say it is not contained in the text, you have presented two translations which you feel supports your view and I have presented two that support both my view and the traditional view so far as I know.

"admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them"

A literal reading of your translation seems a bit odd doesn't it? exactly how does a man, at once, admonish his wife, leave her alone (in the sleeping places) while also hitting her with a small stick? The job of a translator is not simply to render the closest word to word approximation but to also transmit the sense and implicit connotations of the text.

For example, in a stupid fit of nerdiness when I had to write out my paper I wrote atop my little outline, "Что Делать" A literal translation would simply be "what to do" better translated "What is to be done". In my case it was a stupid ironic reference for my own ammusment. Refering back to it's historic significance within Revolutionary Russia, being fameous titles of both Nikolai Chernyshevsky and Lenin. A translators who simply took my title rendered it as "what to do" and in no way incorporated the ironic significance of it would not be presenting an accurate translation. A literal translation is in no way the necessairly most accurate. If you speak Arabic and can say that it is in no way implied that would be interesting to know. Muhammad Asad does not tend to alter the actual text to fit his views but it is possible. For example when translating the Qur'anic charge of assigning divinity to Ezra he translates it as "The Jews" rather than "The Jews[of Medina]" or something else that get's across his interpretation.
'

[mortify]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1786610' date='Feb 20 2009, 07:01 PM']When I asked if you spoke Arabic it was not sacrastic I just really wanted to know. You say it is not contained in the text, you have presented two translations which you feel supports your view and I have presented two that support both my view and the traditional view so far as I know.[/quote]

Notice that both Y. Ali's and M. Assad's translations add words in brackets. The brackets indicate these are words not present in the original text, but additions made by the author.
[quote]"admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them"

A literal reading of your translation seems a bit odd doesn't it? exactly how does a man, at once, admonish his wife, leave her alone (in the sleeping places) while also hitting her with a small stick? The job of a translator is not simply to render the closest word to word approximation but to also transmit the sense and implicit connotations of the text.[/quote]

You're interpreting with an absurd amount of literalism here. It doesn't mean all these have to be done at the same exact time, only that they ought to be done. There is no indication for which should be done first nor is there an indication that a miswak should be used (which btw, if you've ever seen one of these they're too small to be used for a scourging.)

[quote]Muhammad Asad does not tend to alter the actual text to fit his views but it is possible.[/quote]

He added words to the verse to alter its meaning!

[Hassan]

[quote name='mortify' post='1787144' date='Feb 21 2009, 02:14 AM']Notice that both Y. Ali's and M. Assad's translations add words in brackets. The brackets indicate these are words not present in the original text, but additions made by the author.


You're interpreting with an absurd amount of literalism here. It doesn't mean all these have to be done at the same exact time, only that they ought to be done. There is no indication for which should be done first nor is there an indication that a miswak should be used (which btw, if you've ever seen one of these they're too small to be used for a scourging.)



He added words to the verse to alter its meaning![/quote]


Do you speak Arabic? I really am not trying to trip you up or anything, I am just wondering how much you know what is or is not in the Arabic text, what is or is not implied in the text

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1785036' date='Feb 18 2009, 11:06 PM']I know nothing about Arabic but have studied several other languages and this is a good point-literal interpretation is usually a terrible idea that does not translate the meaning within the original language. I'm not trying to defend the Koran saying ANYTHING remotely allowing any kind of violence between husband and wife but translation issues are something to keep in mind (this goes back to what I was saying earlier that in many religions, including Christianity, people use verses the way they want to to justify their ridiculous actions). I did read somewhere that the word uses for "beat" can also mean to "separate"-I think you mentioned this before-not sure if I believe this but there are people who do. (Of course, I don't necessarily even agree with the idea of leaving your wife in such a vaguely defined set of circumstances-I'm just pointing out some linguistic issues I could see being relevant). -Katie[/quote]

You can search this topic on You Tube and there are plenty of clips from Arabic-language shows as well as interviews with various Islamic clerics discussing this topic. There is no translation problem. The Koran and Muslim tradition allows a husband to beat his wife. Period. Getting into hair-splitting and semantics over how hard or soft he can beat her is beside the point. He is allowed to resort to physical intimidation and physical punishment to keep her in line.

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1784910' date='Feb 18 2009, 09:21 PM']I don't know what you mean... I said I didn't truly know that this was based on traditional Islamic teaching. I had thought that honor killings, wife beating, etc came from radical interpretations, just as some Christians take verses out of context and use them to justify, say, child abuse. Regarding people who might know something I don't who are you talking about?-Katie[/quote]

That's my point, Katie. You said "I thought". Why would you just make some assumption in your mind that certain points in Islamic theology were just misinterpretations by "crazies"? Being that you admitted to having no knowledge of the topic, I'm just bewildered as to why your first assumption about certain points was that "the crazies" must have it all wrong, rather than fact-checking on your own.