Peace Wakas,
Actually, there is one (and perhaps only one?) translation that provides perfect coherence between 4:34 and 4:128 with regard to the point you raise. Scroll down a bit:
http://www.quran434.com/wife-beating-islam.html#part3
Thank you for your response. I have read your article in past quite a few times and read it again now. Whilst you have made an excellent attempt to come up with an alternative meaning of "dharaba", unfortunately it does not provide perfect coherence between 4:34 and 4:128 with regard to the point I raised. Just saying it does, does not make it coherent.
This brings me to couple of suggestions about that portion of your article.
1. You make the following statement in your article which is factually incorrect:A perfect match with 4:34!
This statement should be replaced with something like "similar to 4:128". Evidence will follow.
2. You make the following misleading statement in your article:4:128
if a wife feared uprising/disloyalty from husband
---> then no blame upon them that they try to reconcile between themselves
---> (if still no resolution, e.g. she is suspended/stuck, do as 58:1-4) idriboo/cite them
---> authority/arbiters can get involved
The red portion of your quote above is not even remotely suggested by 4:128, hence very misleading and partly based on this misleading statement you claim "perfect match with 4:34". The red portion should be taken out.
================================
Following is evidence that your article does not provide perfect coherence between 4:34 and 4:128, instead the discrimination still remains.
1. In 4:34, after husband fearing "nushooz", 3 steps are recommended before others can get involved (which can be simultaneous as you suggest, by your own admission in the article, hence a contradiction which I will come to later on):
Advise -------> abandon wife in bed -------> "dharab" her (no matter what it means)
In 4:128, after wife feared "nushooz", only one step recommended before others can get involved -------> Reconcile
CLEARLY no perfect coherence between 4:34 and 4:128 and obvious evidence of discrimination. Why is wife not recommended to "abandon husband in bed" in 4:128 for same fear of ill-conduct/disloyalty as in 4:34? -------> Discrimination
Why is wife not recommended to "dharab" her husband in 4:128 for same fear of ill-conduct/disloyalty as in 4:34? -------> DiscriminationDoesn't matter what "dharaba" means, it should have been equally recommended for both.
2. In 4:34 the recommendation is "3izuhunna"/advise/exhort/admonish/preach/warn
CLEARLY A
ONE WAY MONOLOGUE from husband to wife
In 4:128 the recommendation is "yusliha"/reconcile
CLEARLY
INVOLVING A TWO WAY DIALOGUE between wife and husband.
CLEARLY no perfect coherence between 4:34 and 4:128 and obvious evidence of discrimination.
When husband fearing "nushooz" then a ONE WAY MONOLOGUE with wife
When wife feared "nushooz" then a TWO WAY DIALOGUE to reconcile.
It should have been a TWO WAY DIALOGUE in both places.3. In 4:34 after the ONE WAY MONOLOGUE, the possibilities are
wife "obeys"/"atanakum" (one sided) otherwise -------> authorities involved.
In 4:34 it's a TWO WAY DIALOGUE which if doesn't work out then -------> authorities involved.
CLEARLY no perfect coherence between 4:34 and 4:128 and obvious evidence of discrimination.It should have been a TWO WAY DIALOGUE in 4:34, or in 4:128 the wife should also have been given the right to have a ONE WAY MONOLOGUE with husband and his "obedience" to that monologue as the way out.Finally, I come to the part where it can be simultaneous according to your own contradictory words:
It is perhaps interesting to note that "if they obeyed you" may have an implication that anything other than advisement is regarded as seeking a way against them, i.e. abandoning them in bed and (then) idriboo them. We will discuss later that it is possible to infer that the 'abandoning them in bed' step could be limited in time, whilst the advisement part whilst still maintaining normal sexual relations does not have a time limit, further reinforcing this first step as what is preferred, hence it being first.
So according to your own inference, the advisement part does not have a time limit but abandoning them in bed could be limited in time, which shows that the two can overlap and be simultaneous.
This contradicts with your statement in the article:
The "fa" meaning then/so means whatever follows can only apply to the wife in whom the husband fears nushuz, not others. It also implies that what follows is a sequential order of recommendations and not simultaneous.
Peace
