There is much that requires reconstruction. To name a few issues, there is a mischaracterization of Tabri. Additionally, Sayyid Qutb is not a mufisr by any stretch. I can provide details on why if you'd like. Furthermore, there are rules dictating how one should approach writing a tafisr. Additionally, rulings aren't exracted from tafsirs , but rather from the Quran, hadith and اجماع (consensus). The main focus seems to be on removing constraints from Quranic verses by introducing multiple interpretations (by twisting the verses far from what it;s intended), even if they differ from what early Islamic scholars and the Quranic verses themselves clearly indicate. For instance, when discussing the "beating" part, your guest alluded to and suggested ignoring the clear commands of the verse, seeking legal authority as if the verse itself were insufficient, or worse, as if Allah سبحانه وتعالى had forgotten to include that option والعياذ بالله. If you want to argue against the concept of "beating," a good starting point would be to examine how the Prophet (pbuh) defined it and how he treated his wives. That could serve as a fruitful discussion. However, relying solely on a select few mufseroon who support your desired interpretation of the verse could be considered innovation, for lack of a better word. This trend appears to align with a Western agenda aimed at relaxing and(liberalized) Islamic rulings and gradually stripping the religion of its core values, similar to what has been done with Christianity, for example. May Allah guides all and keep us steadfast on the stright path.
Hi there, when you've had a moment to watch the video and engage its content and substance, I''d be interested in what you have to say then. Both Dr. Mubarak and I have PhDs in this subject - and in Islamic Studies - so we know what we're talking about and don't appreciate mansplaining! 🩷
@@WhatthePatriarchy Let me begin by asking, do you agree that Islamic rulings are derived from the Quran, authentic Hadiths, and consensus (ijma') or do you have a different take?
I'm taking my time to reply to you here with this long comment, but I won't be continuing this - I can't take you seriously if you dismiss Muslim women's efforts to read the Qur'an in a way that is NOT violent to them, that does not allow their husbands to beat them up. Now, if you've watched the video, then you understand the point of the book or of this interview/discussion isn't "hey, what do a bunch of privileged men have to have say about wife-beating" but it's much larger: what does it mean that they say these things, where did they get these ideas from, what does it tell us that they disagree with each other, what does it mean that they all say it's allowed (exceptions mentioned in the video), what impact does this have on society and on people, what's going on socio-politically in the context in which humans read scriptures the way they do, and so much more. And if you've watched the video, then please engage the substance of the points she's making and that I'm responding to - and as you know since you watched the video, she (and the mufassirs in question) do talk about the prophetic example of treatment of wives. Is there beating, violence, etc.? You might be shocked, though, to learn how those hadiths about the Prophet's own example have been used or ignored in the tafsir tradition (in this video with two other authors, we talk about the prophetic example and 4:34 in some detail: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-8U6aJRxmt7w.html) In other words, it's overly simplistic to think the prophet's example is enough - because so much of male privilege is at stake, you see! The Qur'an needs to be interpreted, and it has many different sources, like the Qur'an itself, hadiths, sunnah, scholarly opinions (which let's not pretend there's such a thing as ijma', though, or at least acknowledge that it changes all the time and is open to change), culture/'urf, personal opinions, welfare of society, and so many more other sources. It'd be naive to expect to read these verses in the Qur'an from one angle without considering what the impact that these interpretations have are. It's also naive to think that we can't care about someone's interpretation because they're not a mufassir in the traditional sense. As she discusses in the book, the genre of tafsir has been evolving since the very beginning. You incorrectly say, "This trend appears to align with a Western agenda aimed at relaxing and(liberalized) Islamic rulings and gradually stripping the religion of its core values, similar to what has been done with Christianity, for example." 1. This has been happening *all* of Islam's history - even the sahaba debated what the Qur'an is saying about what, what the Prophet s. meant when. So which part exactly are you referring to with "this"? 2. Muslims all over the world are leading this conversation, reading the Qur'an, disagreeing and agreeing with past scholarship on it, and so on. You're projecting your own anxieties against the west (whatever "the west" means here) onto people who are reading the Qur'an and sincerely trying to get from it what we believe God may have intended. 3. Do you realize what you're saying with your statement that this is "stripping" the religion of its core values? First, what is "this"? Second, are you saying that reading, say, Q. 4:34 literally to mean a man can hit his wife is at its core? What a privileged position to make, not caring or worrying at all about what that actually means for women. Why is it that any time Muslims, esp Muslim women, say the Qur'an Can and should be read in a non-violent way, we're bombarded with "stop polluting Islam, stop stripping Islam of its core values, you're a western agent" etc.? Why is violence such a "core" value of Islam to Muslims like this? Why is the west associated with non-violence to the point that any and all efforts for justice are assumed to western? You must not live in the West or know any Western history because the West has a history of - and continues to be guilty of - immense levels of violence against different groups of people at different times. 4. Please understand that patriarchy's hold on people - everyone, not just Muslims or Muslim men - is deeply powerful, and it includes reading the Qur'an in such ways that things directed at men in the Qur'an are mere advice when they benefit women/others but requirements when they harm women (like in 4:34), and things directed at women are read as obligations/fardh. So, yes, the Prophet s. didn't abuse his wives or didn't beat them up (though Aisha's hadith about how he struck her in the chest when she followed him to Khadija's grave one night when she was wondering where he was going is beating), and we *should* use his example, but the issue remains: what do you do when you have a prophetic example AND a scriptural permission to do something that contradicts prophetic example? Can you really blame Muslim men who beat up their wives because 4:34 is commonly interpreted to allow them? 5. If you think only Christianity has had "this" happened to it - again, whatever "this" means, I encourage you to read about religions more, Islam including. There are several books in every generation that tell you how Islam is "changing," by which I mean its interpretations. Because every human reader is going to bring its own bias into its interpretations, and we can't escape that. Dr. amina wadud has done tremendous work on exposing Muslim male biases in interpretations of the Qur'an, and I think every Muslim should read that - or you can watch my video of her book Qur'an and Woman here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-KXK00D-PE0U.html Anyway, like I said, if you choose to remain oblivious of the impacts of your words here and your dismissal of the immense, violent impact of the sheer existence of verses in the Qur'an that have been read in violent ways, I can't engage further.
@@WhatthePatriarchy You strawman my position here , but before I address your comment, may I ask about your criteria when it comes to extracting Islamic rulings? Could you please be precise, so I can understand your criteria accurately and ensure that I don't misrepresent you in my response
What's the comment you're referring to? 21:13 on my end is Dr. Mubarak talk saying, yeah, people unfairly criticize Dr. amina wadud. Indeed, sometimes, people don't leave bad, even abusive, marriages for all kinds of reasons - usually, it's the wife financially depending on her abusive (or otherwise bad) husband or the husband she isn't happy with for whatever reasons. I've a question in the video where I wonder what exactly reconciliation means. If nothing else is working (no amount of working the marriage out is working), what does "reconciliation" mean?
The title is about the Qur'anic word "nushuz" which is often translated as "rebellious" when women do it and "neglectful" when men do it. No one here is saying men are bad - the Qur'anic verse 4:34 and 4:128 are the ones that use this word that is translated as "rebellious" and "neglectful."
U cannot hit or raise your hands unless its self defense. That's wrong, Period. U cannot justify it by using hadith, context or whatever. We are thinking how to decipline children without raising hand and here people are discussing whether raising hand on a adult female is right or wrong? Amazing.. Atleast is there any punishment for man who hits using kerchief or whatever? I don't know about it.
Astaghfirullah - are you saying that we should be protected from Ibn Ashur, Rashid Rida, Seyyed Qutb, Tabari, and the interpretations of so many other (male!) scholars of Islam? Or from a peaceful Islam that doesn’t allow men to hit their wives? That's a new one. Thanks for watching! ❤
May Allah protect us from over controlling insecure believers men Most of women I met they are so emotionaly and spiritually damaged from men so called believers they are nothing but emotional destroyers.
Indeed, the damaging hold of patriarchy on us all is so prevalent everywhere. May we all work for and live in a world that's kind and beautiful for all people, not just a select few, aameen.
