Author Topic: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back  (Read 73598 times)

aqua

  • Apprentice
  • **
  • Posts: 252
  • Karma +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
« Reply #210 on: February 04, 2014, 01:30:08 PM »
Common sense doen't means that, please don't  be mistake cause the word "common" existed.

Common sense:

"Common sense is a basic ability to perceive, understand, and judge things, which is shared by ("common to") nearly all people, and can be reasonably expected of nearly all people without any need for debate."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense

"Sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/common+sense

"Common sense consists of knowledge, judgement, and taste which is more or less universal and which is held more or less without reflection or argument"

van Holthoorn; Olson (1987), "Introduction", in van Holthoon; Olson, Common Sense: The Foundations for Social Science
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kOa9q2iK2LkC&redir_esc=y

Quote
Like I said the meaning and usage of idriboo is beat or separate.
So idriboo-hunna means you separate the nisaa' not you separate from the nisaa'.

1) I will separate them to different classifications.
2) I will separate from you, since we have different destination.

Notice the differences between of both sentences and the idriboo-hunna in 4:34 fit to the first sentence according to Arabic grammar.

I already showed you how that expression is very possible in English.   We also know that the grammar is possible using the word in Lane's dictionary.  You said that you still adhere to Hadith and traditional teachings, so I'm not surprised to see this level of stubbornness.  Anyone who can consider 'beat them' as a possible interpretation is either religiously brainwashed, mentally deficient, inspired by the Satan, or just lacking wisdom.   It can be a combination of these factors.  The interpretation is totally absurd and defies every type of logic (if you actually believe in logic).  Attributing such crazy things to God will undoubtedly earn His anger.

Wakas

  • Administrator
  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 11356
  • Karma +14/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
« Reply #211 on: February 04, 2014, 01:35:30 PM »
peace hawk99,

To clarify: Is there a possibility that daraba is poorly translated and has a wider meaning that includes both
strike or separate?

Not in my view, in terms of Quranic evidence.
All information in my posts is correct to the best of my knowledge only and thus should not be taken as a fact. One should seek knowledge and verify: 17:36, 20:114, 35:28, 49:6, 58:11. My articles

www.studyQuran.org

aqua

  • Apprentice
  • **
  • Posts: 252
  • Karma +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
« Reply #212 on: February 04, 2014, 01:55:43 PM »
Is there a place for hyphenation in regards to D_R_B such as strike/separate from them or beat or leave them?
In places where Quran gives options to prayer and zakat, why such a rigid interpretation about marital relations?
There are all kinds of mates/ matches, and it has been my personal experience the D-R-B is perfectly placed in 4/34.
Some individuals are tough, aggressive and warrior like and appreciate the same in their spouse.  While others
prefer peace and consensus.

Please see the following excerpt:

Quote
How do we know which interpretation to choose? One way to find out, is to relate this verse to other verses in the Holy Qur'an and to check if the meanings make sense. In this case, let us look at verse 24:2, which describes what should be done in case of adultery :

    "The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes..." (Holy Qur'an 24:2)4

This verse establishes the principle that for men and women, equal actions lead to equal punishment. When for adultery men and women must receive equal punishment, surely there is no reason why they should be treated differently for any lesser marital problem.

Now let us take a look at the consequences of interpreting {adriboo} one way or another.

Suppose {adriboo} means: 'to beat'.

In this case, verse 4:34 says that when a wife causes a problem in the marriage, her husband should first talk to her about it, then leave their bed, then beat her and all of this in view of increasing his chances of a reconciliation. On the emotional level, this certainly does not sound like a very promising course of action. So let us check this meaning against the bigger framework and in particular against the principle of 'equal behaviour leads to equal punishment'. This would imply that when a husband causes a problem in the marriage, his wife can beat him. At which he could invoke verse 4:34 to beat her again, so that the result would be a perpetual physical fight between spouses! Surely, this makes no sense at all. And indeed, it is not what Allah prescribes for the situation where a husband causes a rift, as will be explained in a moment.

Suppose {adriboo} means: 'to forsake, to avoid', possibly, as Mohammed Abdul Malek5 suggests: 'to separate, to part' .

Now what do we get? Verse 4:34 now says that when a wife causes a problem in the marriage, her husband should first talk to her about it, then leave their bed (forsaking his sexual satisfaction), then avoid her even more (not talking to her anymore, leaving the room when she enters it, and possibly even leaving the house for a while), in order to prevent things from getting worse, and on the contrary to let things cool down and create enough space in view of increasing chances of a reconciliation.

This sounds like a very logical chain of events.

http://www.cie.ugent.be/bogaert/bogaert4.htm

Man of Faith

  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 7976
  • Karma +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
« Reply #213 on: February 04, 2014, 02:21:13 PM »
Peace aqua,

I think you misunderstood what earthdom wrote. His English can be inadequate at times to convey the correct message. But your response was a bit harsh I think even if it was that he thought that the sentence actually meant beat since he was not dogmatically propagating anything but only trying his best to understand the sentence.

We have to consider that some people are not entirely sure The Book (Quran) has not been perverted by people whether through distortion of meaning or insertion of verses afterwards. That it has does not mean that the fundamental Message is no longer conveyed as originally intended. We know its Message is so simple it takes no rocket science to understand it. And regardless of which case this Message is completely detailed because there are what you need.

No man with a common sense would beat his wife even if Quran (allegedly) said so. And no righteous man would engage in polygamy. If God really had said that I would become a disbeliever for sure and think God was evil. Fortunately I know better.

God told us to establish and uphold a system of justice and it takes no more than a good heart to see right from wrong. After all God blew of His spirit into man (allegorically speaking).

God bless
Website reference: http://iamthatiam.boards.net

Bender

  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 2587
  • Karma +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
« Reply #214 on: February 04, 2014, 03:06:46 PM »
peace Bender,

The above is your unevidenced claim.

Salaam,

Unevidenced claim?
WA=AND 
and not
WA=AND(then)
not sure what evidence you are looking for.


Quote
Actually if "thumma" was used it may have its own issues, e.g. implying one must do A, then B, then C regardless, and/or, once one does A, then B (or then C) one cannot do A again, when it will likely be a fluid situation wherein A may be continuous. The use of "wa" eliminates these potential issues.

I am NOT saying there should be a THUMMA instead of WA. I am saying, how YOU understand the verse it should have a THUMMA and not a WA.

Besides this there are several verses where THUMMA is continuous and there are a several verses where WA is not continuous.

Quote
Interestingly, your interpretation allows little to no space/time for reconciliation, and is thus impractical/illogical.
The verse says what it says as simple as that, we can deny what it says but then we are imo only lying to ourselves.
The impractical/illogical issues that arise are only from ourselves.


Quote
The example you reference is not a like for like comparison, as it does not involve problem solving or conflict resolution, it is simply a general command, i.e. not situational. It would be interesting however if there are similar examples to 4:34 in which we can analyse the wording/sequence. If you have such examples, please let us know.

Not sure if I understood what you said.
Do you mean something like this:
5:6 يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِذَا قُمْتُمْ إِلَى الصَّلَاةِ فَاغْسِلُوا وُجُوهَكُمْ وَأَيْدِيَكُمْ إِلَى الْمَرَافِقِ وَامْسَحُوا بِرُءُوسِكُمْ وَأَرْجُلَكُمْ إِلَى الْكَعْبَيْنِ ۚ وَإِن كُنتُمْ جُنُبًا فَاطَّهَّرُوا ۚ وَإِن كُنتُم مَّرْضَىٰ أَوْ عَلَىٰ سَفَرٍ أَوْ جَاءَ أَحَدٌ مِّنكُم مِّنَ الْغَائِطِ أَوْ لَامَسْتُمُ النِّسَاءَ فَلَمْ تَجِدُوا مَاءً فَتَيَمَّمُوا صَعِيدًا طَيِّبًا فَامْسَحُوا بِوُجُوهِكُمْ وَأَيْدِيكُم مِّنْهُ ۚ مَا يُرِيدُ اللَّـهُ لِيَجْعَلَ عَلَيْكُم مِّنْ حَرَجٍ وَلَـٰكِن يُرِيدُ لِيُطَهِّرَكُمْ وَلِيُتِمَّ نِعْمَتَهُ عَلَيْكُمْ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَشْكُرُونَ

Quote
In any case, the issue you raise is discussed on www.Quran434.com

thx for the link, will take a loo at it.

salaam,
Bender
Alhamdu lillahi rabbi al-alameen

aqua

  • Apprentice
  • **
  • Posts: 252
  • Karma +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
« Reply #215 on: February 04, 2014, 03:12:56 PM »
I think you misunderstood what earthdom wrote. His English can be inadequate at times to convey the correct message. But your response was a bit harsh I think even if it was that he thought that the sentence actually meant beat since he was not dogmatically propagating anything but only trying his best to understand the sentence.

It was not referring specifically to him.  It was about "Anyone who can consider 'beat them' as a possible interpretation..."
People may have different reasons for considering "beat them", but I think none of these reasons are positive.  I agree that it takes no more than a good heart (conscience) to see right from wrong.  That is what I meant with 'lacking wisdom', because someone who lacks wisdom is not able to judge right from wrong and they can easily make the wrong decisions.

hawk99

  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 2361
  • Karma +0/-0
Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
« Reply #216 on: February 04, 2014, 08:38:57 PM »
Peace, 


Beating up the wife just does not make sense.  With the reciprocity of duties and requirements on believers
it does not seem tenable that beating would be in line with a happy household or an amicable divorce.

[33:35] The submitting men, the submitting women, the believing men, the believing women, the obedient men,
the obedient women, the truthful men, the truthful women, the steadfast men, the steadfast women, the reverent
men, the reverent women, the charitable men, the charitable women, the fasting men, the fasting women, the
chaste men, the chaste women, and the men who commemorate GOD frequently, and the commemorating women;
GOD has prepared for them forgiveness and a great recompense.

[30:21] Among His proofs is that He created for you spouses from among yourselves, in order to have tranquility
and contentment with each other, and He placed in your hearts love and care towards your spouses. In this, there
are sufficient proofs for people who think.

Shakir: Lodge them where you lodge according to your means, and do not injure them in order that you may
straiten them; and if they are pregnant, spend on them until they lay down their burden; then if they suckle
for you, give them their recompense and enjoin one another among you to do good; and if you disagree, another
(woman) shall suckle for him. 65/6


someone who lacks wisdom is not able to judge right from wrong and they can easily make the wrong decisions.

Peace aqua,

A person does not need to be wise to know right from wrong.

God bless

   :peace:
 





 
The secret to monotheism can be found in the garden

aqua

  • Apprentice
  • **
  • Posts: 252
  • Karma +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
« Reply #217 on: February 04, 2014, 09:04:30 PM »
A person does not need to be wise to know right from wrong.

Wisdom is an important quality of believers described in the Qur'an, eg. verse 2:269.  A meaning of wisdom is the ability to make good judgment between right / wrong:

"The ability to discern or judge what is true, right, or lasting; insight."

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/wisdom

hawk99

  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 2361
  • Karma +0/-0
Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
« Reply #218 on: February 05, 2014, 12:45:45 AM »
Wisdom is an important quality of believers described in the Qur'an, eg. verse 2:269.  A meaning of wisdom is the ability to make good judgment between right / wrong:

"The ability to discern or judge what is true, right, or lasting; insight."

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/wisdom


Peace aqua, I accept the definition of http://www.thefreedictionary.com/wisdom but must add.

Wisdom is a the ability to "see" and think on a level not necessarily accessible to all.  A child can be taught
right from wrong, does not make that child wise?  Consider societal right and wrong were stoning the kufr as
an example is the right thing to do.  Not to derail the thread.

God bless

   :peace:
The secret to monotheism can be found in the garden

huruf

  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 6502
  • Karma +1/-1
Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
« Reply #219 on: February 05, 2014, 02:01:05 AM »
Alright, so you'd agree that there would be a need to have valid evidence/justification for this fear before the community/authorities are brought in, yes?Wakas is a bad boy but let's cut him some slack since he did write a book about it albeit with an awful cover :P Let's see where this understanding takes us, because I find different takes on the same old illuminating. We are under no obligation, but it's the thing to do in understanding practically and theoretically what scenarios would follow from such rendering. I agree that we shouldn't limit, definitely esp not if we are trying to understand the verse from another perspective.I don't see counseling work in the verse, like I keep saying, the instructions we are giving to the lady in question is after we already have clarity regarding the situation...or it would make no sense. It doesn't seem a case of "let's find out what's going on", it's more like "okay, this is the issue and this is what you have to do, please do it".

Anyways, I take this as the train that leads to crazy town. It opens the door to a storm of unfounded accusations and a general cloud of suspicion hanging over everyone and everything. That is why I insist that the authorities/community should have no say in personal matters unless there is valid evidence of indiscretion, which when taken to them (next level) would lead to a divorce/reconciliation/resolution, if other 'punishments' do not apply.

The thing with these types of emotional scenarios is, they are extremely complicated to deal with and one probably needs a trained counselor/psychologist rather than a ragtag bunch of people from the community looking into the personal lives of their neighbours and being given the green light to meddle into what the unfounded suspicions of the woman are.

Are you suggesting these community of believers are some sort of organization that have individual areas of expertise and together they can fix women everywhere or somesuch? We can definitely have a group of professionally trained people to help others and available for free but is the verse addressed to such? What legal standing does this group have? Are they or can they be considered the authorities as well? Is the community separate from the authorities? Do they have to bring to the light of the authorities if there is evidence of wrong doing if they are not the authorities? Is this a confidential service and under what circumstances would they have to divulge information and to whom?

What if nothing is going on, and the 'other woman's' husband finds out? Why should a person be questioned and brought into the community's radar just because maybe someone has a grudge against them or finds them suspicious? Is that not a precursor to a shit storm based on one woman with whatever motivation thought that her guy for whatever motivation was being targeted by someone else? and so on. You seem to think that based on asking around and trying to get clarity, everything should get sorted? If the wife's motivation was malicious that will definitely be found out, if the other woman was to blame, that will definitely be resolved, if the husband was totally on the up and up, that too will be clear...if not today then sometime in the future because the community of believers are supposedly experts in human psychology and detective work and the souls of discretion, and it's their duty to run after alleged accusations/suspicions/fears of everyone in the community no matter what they are.

Allow me to present personal experience, I have been face to face with these fears for a large part of my life with people extremely close to me and those not so close to me from the age of 10 onwards. Different fears/suspicions all centering around infidelity. It is not pretty and extremely complicated in part because it adds on an element of emotions to the mix and it's hard to rationally explain to the people going through it because hardly anyone remains objective and stays the course on what they are supposed to do, most of the times it's a mixture of extremes, total forgiveness/doormat behaviour or total viciousness/vindictiveness with rare splashes of trying to look through the lens of logic in between. When people get involved in these situations, it's the pull of the camp, liberal dashes of subjectively trying to assign blame and compensation, legwork in following leads which involve other people who are none too happy being involved, and a whole lot of bullshit flying in every direction. Arbitration without authority is useless. Whether that authority involves someone who must be listened to inclusive of family elders or a police officer. So a group of well meaning people are going to be needlessly complicating the situation, it's best dealt with privately, with people you know and who they know well...so that everything stays in limits and doesn't get out of hand and ruins the lives of other people who may or may not be involved.

The husband is the objective here, not the other woman, there can be a multitude of women who are out to get married men out there, that is irrelevant, it's the husband who decides whether to be a bastard or not... so what difference does it make who the other woman is or what she wants? This should be sorted between the husband and wife themselves (so that her fears are vocalised to the person it actually matters and he realises that there is a problem and how to fix it, and/or based on his reaction and words/actions tells the woman if he is involved or knew or whatever) or with a counselor or someone from the family and so on. What sense does it make to avoid the key to the whole situation and go behind choosing a roundabout way to 'question' the other woman who could be totally innocent and even if she isn't, that's not even the issue when it's losing the guy/his betrayal she fears the most? These scenarios don't make sense to the verse, I mean instead of brushing it over all at once with well, it generally makes sense and can somehow fit the verse, somehow not entirely sure how but something is there, it behooves us to be precise to the verse because if one doesn't do that then we are just flailing about in the dark with what we think we want to see or think must be in the verse as opposed to what may actually be there.

So in this scenario, 2 women (wife and alleged other woman) are the suspected accused and um, accuser and the community is now fearing nushooz on the part of the other woman (and this is just before any of the other things mind you, not even where they know that they are right in fearing nushooz on the part of the other woman! It's like presumed guilty until proven innocent based on the strength of the wife's words because she's dragged the other woman into the limelight of the community in order to be judged and found lacking or innocent)...given that the wife is the one fearing nushooz on the part of the woman, and the community is supposedly objective, then why are they too fearing nushooz on the part of the other woman, before they've even found out anything?

Say this is explained by 'fearing nushooz' is when the suspected accused is accused by the woman to the community and the community takes on the mantle of the woman who's doing the suspected accusing and thus now they fear nushooz by the other woman as well, it's not accurate at all to me but let's move on...they advise/instruct the other woman: like I mentioned, given the weight of the word and the way it's used in different contexts this is telling the person what is the right thing to do etc, and this can only be when they know what they need to say and after the situation is clear, or it doesn't make sense...asking someone to clarify something is not advise or instruction. Getting clarity and then advising/instructing can be part of it but it wouldn't make sense to take any step unless clarity is achieved on the core issue of just what is going on here.

Anyways let's talk about leaving them to their resting places...alright, so this is supposedly to allow them to give clarity and think about the situation while not pestering them about it...to which I say, the wife is not going to be intruding on her resting place, neither is the community, unless one of them lives with her and even if they do, they can't pester her about it while she's in her resting place, so can they pester her if she's not in her resting place? Why is resting place even mentioned? Why not home/abode? Or simply do not talk to her about it until she wants to or whatever? It's not like God lacks the words for saying that? The obvious answer to this is probably because it mentions scenarios where the two people are living in the same house, or there was no reason to use the term resting place, unless the term resting place is an idiom where it involves a house and the rooms and anywhere where the person chooses to relax...is there such an idiom? As far as I can see, the resting place is inside a house and deliberately mentioned as separate but inside a abode in the concordance...so...I would think not. Anyways, still doesn't make sense to me.

Regarding drb them... This is when they get clarity and now they should be left in peace...? Like she'd say no way, I'm not after him, go tell his wife to keep her mouth shut, she just hates me because I lost more pounds at the last weight watchers catch up than her...and the community would be honour bound to take her at her word and case closed which probably shouldn't have taken more than a minute to say so if she did want to deny it...and if she didn't want to deny it but wanted time to think about the accusation and how to answer whether she is or isn't...um, alright in which case they should back off and let her come back to them? but should the investigation committee still investigate because obviously whatever the woman is telling them or not shouldn't be construed as the truth because she could be lying (unless of course she is telling them that yes, I did go after the guy and I still will, whatchu gonna do about it eh suckas, it's his choice at the end anyways)...what should they do?

Investigate the people at the WW meeting for her 'alibi', track her movements? Watch through the kitchen window for meals taking a very long time to cook and with extra effort put in? If she admits and is remorseful (which is a rare occurrence in reality), case closed kk. But what if the clarity was that she did do it and still will? She was actively going after the guy, making suggestive poses whenever he'd cross her path, sending him home cooked meals and cupcakes whatnot...what happens then? We'd go for the next verse for what happens after since that is after the things mentioned  are done and a rift is feared even after all that, as is understood commonly in this progression but here...lets just say she was told off and the wife got peace in a fashion but no guarantee that the other woman wouldn't pull out her exotic meals cookbook and whip up another from-the-heart dinner for the guy.

So much effort is usually put in for suspected actual crimes like murder or something rather than the so called 'crime' of another woman who may be wanting to somehow steal her guy from under her nose, but not sure really. It's like the trivial adventures of the secret seven, where the group figured out if cookies were stolen from the window sill. and even that was supposedly more rewarding because they got free cookies at the end. The community of believers apparently should have a wing of qualified private investigators who work for free and go around sniffing for traces of infidelity based on suspicions and gathering evidence for the soothing of women who don't have any evidence and it's not even the husband she wants investigated but someone totally unrelated to her by relationship or contract? I can't accept this.
So in that situation he calls in the friendly neighbourhood heroes to swoop in and get a DNA test after the birth or something? Get the guy who has impregnated the woman, if he has, to confess to sexual relations and face the music? How is keeping it to the neighbourhood watch not making it public in a way? Wouldn't it be better if he just talked to the daughter in law or the guy who is suspected of himself because what the neighbourhood heroes will be doing is what he should be doing while still keeping everything to himself and not risking a scandal if his fears are unfounded or even if they are.

Same thing on how it relates with the verse: Advice/Instruction : can't do that because the woman can't know or if she does, she's asked whether she had adulterous relations with another man and if the baby she's carrying is not her husband's...um, yeah the woman would admit to this because admitting something as personal as that to a group of people (and esp if that group of people is sent by her father in law if she knows) is what someone would do in rl. If there is no fallout, then yes, maybe more people would admit to indiscretions but there is no guarantee of that unless what is meant is the community of believers will guarantee no punishments as applicable in the quran in that situation would apply to her...or any other punishments...and can they really do that? If not, then the likelihood of getting a straight answer from the woman is likely close to null, and they must investigate further and with people...and how do you suppose figuring out if a married woman and another man had an affair is going to be done without alerting the different people questioned as to what/why the questions are being asked? Is there some sort of magic involved? Most probably that of DNA testing in which case, you have the evidence, but should the child be DNA tested without permission of the parents? anyways, same thing as above, can't see it work with the verse, since it's not clear whether the community should step back in case the woman says go away i'm innocent of these aspersions cast upon me, or stay the course of still trying to investigate etc.
Okay, so you have someone who's concerned for someone they know either through being friends/relatives or medical staff, since the likelihood of such a suspicion coming from a stranger is unlikely. The person either can appoint someone themselves if from the medical side as is done when they go in for check ups etc, or the friend/family member who suspects can help her through her pregnancy/depression, or get someone else to? A call out to the 'community of believers' for someone to come around to find out what's going on (unless the person who answers the call to do so is a trained counselor/psychologist) is like asking a ragtag bunch of people to suss her out with a mixed bag of results. What if she doesn't want/need help, or says that she's fine and please go away, given the verse aren't we supposed to leave them to think and not bother them or something until they feel ready? Or are we going to put a security/nanny detail on her so that she doesn't end up doing something bad?

How does this scenario jive with the verse? What's the progression again, how do you instruct? the clarity of whether we should believe her if she denies it, do we still keep a tail on her, leave her alone? and so on...I don't even see a conflict here between the accuser and the suspected accusee...and the way the verses are progressing is detailing people with conflicts, in which one side has a valid fear and they are given a list of things to work through this conflict that exists between them...not that I fear someone on my block has depression, something should be done to find out and help her if she needs it? These are things that you do yourself or with the help of a few likeminded people regardless, if you feel something should be done...why must it be linked to this verse or more so to say something like that is exactly the type of scenario the verse is addressing? What happens in the verse after the things to do are listed? If they listen, then seek not a way against/over them...does this really seem like the women in question are being given an option to listen? She should, right? Does this seem like the sort of thing that can go either way? no, it seems like the nushooz is valid and justified and there are things to do to minimise conflict and maximise resolution. If that fails or the woman doesn't listen/obey then whoever is being addressed can see what to do in the next, otherwise...it just sort of peters out to a sort of cliffhanger. Or we can take it to mean that in all such scenarios of non couple conflicts, the conflict is resolved unless it's a marital scenario which is talked about in the next verse and not in this one, nothing to do with one another? So can this fit the scenario? In my opinion, no and I've explained why I think so.

What gives someone the right to suspect that another woman can be prostituting herself unless they have evidence? Aren't we supposed to avoid suspicion? If someone thinks she needs help, they can get her help or listen/advise rather than taking it to the community where if found out she did do it, she might get punished for it and/or lose her children. There is a danger in taking things into the spotlight...even if the spotlight is a group of believers because frankly speaking, they're still human and prone to the same mistakes we all make which could involve talking inadvertently, coming to the wrong conclusions etc. One'd only do that if they have valid proof, not suspicion and people's suspicions should not be encouraged without proof. To get proof you have to pursue suspicion, this is the problem, why suspect in the first place unless one has some sort of proof beyond what our second sight is telling us?

How does this fit with the verse again? In my view it doesn't.

I think you think that some from a community of believers should be/are primarily counselors and what women need is help either to protect them from unfounded accusations or to provide help in cases where the suspicions are found to be true as lawyers etc or something? It's hard to accurately figure out because you're mixing in so many concepts imo. It can definitely be put into practise with modifications whatnot but the thing under discussion is if that is what the verse implies or says outright.

It's important for me to realise/see the picture of how it will be practically implemented and how well this flows with the verse. I don't think these scenarios do, I'm sure they occur in rl and there should be groups out there who would/should provide women in need with what they need. These situations seem like 'don't know, maybe they need help' or alleged personal betrayals or alleged betrayals on the behalf of someone else. If they are just paranoid possessive freaks, why should they be encouraged based on their say so? Is there a limit to how many times they can bring these suspicions in? Aren't people making allegations on the non-chasteness of women when found to be lies punished 24:4? They would need to bring 4 witnesses in, so...are the community of believers supposed to go around searching for these 4 witnesses as well to prove or disprove these suspicions of adultery?

Suffice it to say, I wouldn't want to live in a community where anyone can level accusations and I'm supposed to defend myself/answer what for to the neighbourhood watch.  If I do something wrong, then by all means take me to court with the required evidence. Anything other than that, you have various trained groups that can deal with it. Reminds me of the show 'call the midwife' which was awesome, in which you have a group of midwives who ended up dealing with not only pregnancies but got involved in their lives in various ways, and they had a reason for being involved and saw the signs other people missed etc...which is different from anyone having the right to call in people to question or to figure out stuff behind their backs based on suspicions.

Everyone can go out on a limb and accuse whosoever they choose of whatsoever they choose (no limit to the type of fears) and the community of believers has its work cut out for them, investigating each and every suspicion that abounds...the fallout of this on lives can be catastrophic. In places today, a guy gets accused and is found innocent and acquitted of the crime, yet because of going through that process he is mentally disturbed, people around him look at him askance, perhaps a few think he got away with murder. And this is what can happen, it doesn't matter if you're found innocent, the fact that you were brought in is proof enough for the lot of idiots out there who'll weave their personal tales depending on whether they loved/hated him or even if they had no opinion and the crime was on their watchlist of interests.

Who's stopping the accuser from talking to people as well? Or having their opinion on whether whatever is feared is actually going on or not...it seems that most all of these scenarios deal with the utmost amount of secrecy/discretion and for a whole group of people to keep their mouths shut because even a single slip could scupper it...it's not like they have to sign a NDA is it? And even if they do, situations that rely on these things usually end up in tears especially when the subject is people and what they're up to. If there's anything we've learnt from detective novels or real life is that even asking around leads to people finding out that one didn't want finding out and then all hell breaks loose.

It's one thing for a wife to suspect her husband but for it to be mandated for anyone to tell a community of believers and then they go forth and find out if the other woman is actually putting on the red dress/light is really not something that I think the community of believers should be doing. It's like the terrorism watches in various neighbourhoods. You either figure it out yourself if you want to keep it under wraps, or ask a friend for advice and then confront the guy or get the evidence. Then you take it public if you want to, as in the authorities/community can get involved.
Does it not seem like a follow on verse to you or do you think that it's a different context entirely from what came before it even if the believers are still being addressed?I didn't say you did, I said since you don't, we should keep it open. Not asking for a perfect translation on the spot, saying that we should keep the options open and maybe there is a way to reconcile the address to the 'community of believers' to various options and see of everything fits, is all.
sexual relations amongst couples happen majorly in the bedroom/place of rest which couples and/or those living together can attest to and there was some study about it as well somewhere. I mean whoever comes up with no, no the majority of my couplings have been out of any bedrooms probably has a membership at the Cathouse Brothel and it's private play area with no resting places in sight or has been reported for lewd activities in outdoor areas :P. I don't understand how this is a matter of dispute or argument. Whatever is your place of rest/privacy thus in the sense of a couple would probably be where the magic happens and/or the action goes down usually. Sure, one could rest in the resting place, but as you say they could also do other things which in the sense of a couple relaxing together would include sex unless you mean to say that the quran is only talking about people sleeping alone in their place of rest/privacy and nothing else...I mean it's not even something that is up to much debate, throughout history, couples have been coupling in private places (his/hers/theirs) which are inclusive of resting places because the majority do tend to rest in a private place. Let's look at the verses:

3:154: What we can gather is that the resting place is inside a house. No mention of whether it is a single or shared resting place.
32:16: They arise from their resting places. No mention of whether it is a single or shared resting place.

So on what basis is the aloneness coming from? In 3:154 they can die where they stand or die in their resting places, how does it give the sense of being alone based on where they die? Death is death and everyone must die and experience that on their own no matter where we are but that is separate from where they die. If anything that verse is talking about the ignorant thinking that they are more protected inside their house rather than outside, not that outside they are not alone and inside the house they are? In the second, what is giving that impression? They arise from their beds so they must be alone because they are experiencing it through their own selves and since we are all individual therefore we are alone? You're putting together 2 unrelated things to suggest that they go hand in hand = we face death on our own therefore if we die in our resting place it means that the resting place is a solitary area for us alone as well. Also, we may experience things on our own because we are all individual, it doesn't mean that the resting places are tied in to the same individuality...it seems that the resting spot has taken on too much of a life of its own tbh. In any case given your understanding regarding it being a place of relaxing and sleeping only, can we not say the same as one can sleep and relax in a lot of places in the house? Is there a designated spot of relaxation tied to the individual, just curious?
What about 4:128? Apparently the nushooz is linked between both verses? In this the husband? Or some other guy? It seems that these concepts are linked to couples across a couple verses? If we are going to throw out the marital scenarios completely, then it would make sense to examine the other verses that have the same concepts as well? No one is pounding translations, we're all trying to get a better grasp of what's out there, at least I am and if that includes intensive/extensive analysis or if you want you can call it pounding, then pound we shall. The one that has been used as dealing with marital situations should not be used because...it is not dealing with marital situations entirely? If one makes that claim then obviously both those understandings need to be pounded and weighed. This is a process that happens. The traditional translation of drb being beat or that it concerns marital relationships as well? Just so we're clear are they both traditional or just one?Personally speaking, I dislike that people have to talk about one sex being better than the other for whatever reason or even women harping on about how the fact that they can have children puts them in a better place rather than a man...or that a man feels that his tool gives him some sort of right of superiority over a woman...they are both sexist. Real world issues of how to counter male sexism or female sexism can utilise different legit methods as long as the goal is to equality. Not glorifying one sex over the other regardless of how one takes it, it's like team mentality...I belong to the woman's club, yay sisters unite or vice versa.I don't think we need to single out aya's that talk about the needs of the most needy, there are plenty of needy people out there of all sexes and the message of the quran is to help them, no doubt. the question is if the verse in question is talking about the same thing of helping the most needy women through the community or if it's talking about resolution of conflicts marital (or otherwise). Not sure what you mean when you bring up abortion? Is that connected to the nushooz? Do you agree/disagree on abortion? And/or that it is or isn't part of the nushooz feared from women? Sis, you are talking about women vocalising their needs and to get help but how does it work in the verse? I agree with you that we should make realistic and real efforts towards making the community better, whether it's for women, men or children but that's a separate topic from saying that this verse is proof that it's for helping the neediest women and for them to vocalise their needs etc...I'm a woman and I feel and think about the burden that womenkind carries and has carried through the ages, the fact that through history women have tended to be far more oppressed than their counterparts, I'm totally with you if this is what the verse is saying, but I don't see it!

i apologise for writing as much as I did, but this was ongoing over the course of a couple days and it got really wordy. i'm sure most of it can be distilled, i'll probably do that.

peace



I think, Savage Carrot, that you make things awfully complicated and get into to many hypothetical questions, whereas what is to be done is see if actual facts fit with the formulation or not.

If somebody fears something, of course no proof is available. Fear, suspicion, needs no proof. It is when something is really done when you have proof. If something has already been done and known to have been done, then either it is a crime and the courts deal with it, whatever courts are appointed for that in whatever social set up, either it is not a crime and then people involved deal with it as they see fit and resort to whatever legal means they find suitable, included, of course, counselling, arbitrators or settle amiably or whatever, that is to me what idribuhunna means, deal with it, solve it, the community, through whiever organs or means it may have for that and the women concerned.

But fearing something, if it is a person close to the suspect person, of course nothing prevents a person from speaking directly to the suspect, you do not need any quranic order for that, because nowhere it is prohibited, rather it is a general injunction for any circumstance that ppeople try to deal amicably with their problems, particularly if, under the usual, though wrong, assumptionn that this aya places on the husband such authority, he can ask the wife or a father his daughters and so on.

But the point is that it is the collective believers that are addressed. For me it is obvious that these are no loose injunctions, but a part of the whole quranical sept up, which is a socially conscious society wher enobody is left out or hanging but should be looked after by the community . The Qur'an is constituting a society for the general welfare, it is obvious, and it is imparting the instructions for such a welfare society. Sura An nisaa' if full of it and social injunctions fill a great part of the Qur?an. So what is so surprising that people and services are appointed permanently or ad hoc so that people is helped along in their problems instead of finding thmselves in the wild and solving things the hard way. It is so in 4.3 when it tells the believers to arrange for the marriage of the mothers with orphan children. The believers society should have provisions to protect women, when they are suspected, from being preventively handled as culprits. If women are suspect they are first to be questioned and ascertained that they know of the suspicion and deal about not with somebody that already considers them guilty, but with somebody who is neutral and able to help. If somebody suspects them of whatever, be they family, neighbours, acquaintances or strangers for whatever reason, the women should be warned of those fears, have the oppotunity to think the situation over and finally with the community (idribuhunna), the person or persons who may be charged with that service, fix whatever is there to be fixed, but at least they will not be alone on the face of suspicion, likely abuse or harassment, which is what happens many times when women are alone in the face of mere suspicion.

You asked for instances where somebody not being wives and husbands could be in the situations within the parameters of the aya and you said that that kind of thing was only possible to happen between husband and wife. I said no and you wanted some examples, I gave the first that came to mind just to show that indeed it is possible. You go into analizing each case according to your own vision of that case as if it had been a true case. But we do not have such a case, they were just examples I thought out because you asked for them and you worked them out according to your conception of the particulars to show that the qura'nic instructions can only concern husband and wife. But you cannot prohibit a thing from existing in some form, just because the form you see it in does not fit what you have experienced or what you are ablo to imagine. We all can imagine. The fact is that many women in the world do suffered, and have suffered inmensely suffer because somebody or somebodies "fear" something, and it has almost always been so. Women being spied like potential culprits, guarded like prisoners. It may be because of seeing a man they are not supposed to see, or for going places they are not supposed to go, or for dresseing what they are not supposed to dress, for studying things they are not supposed to... Women are suspected of practically everything just for sport.

And those who rule the life of the woman do not need any proof, they have their field day with mere "fears", suspicion is enough. Well it is good that the Qur'an puts somebody between the suspicion and the deeds. Because initialers of the fear might otherwise perpetrate against the defenceless women abuses that may be not feared but are and have been very real. Summing up, what it all amounts to is that nobody should take preventive justice and that nobody takes justice by his or her own hand, let alone a husband by himself alone with his defenceless wife. He may be right in susecting or he may be not, but he is no way allowed to act out unilaterally, except of course the usual conciliatory way enjoined on all believers in any conflict. 

Further, if the set up you think is that of the husband and wife it still falls within that provision and I do not understand your worries, because if nobody says anything, the thing will stay between husband and wife, but if it gets out of there, then it has gotten out and the community is already involved wanted or not. See, you are making up the problem yourself. If a husband fears he should go to the community? The Qur'an does not say that, it says if you, second person plural, the collective, fear, so the thing must have already escaped from the intimacy of the two. May be it is the women themselves who have made it known because they fear in their turn that something may be going to be hung on them. May be it is the husband himself in indeed seeks counselling. What makes you think that the Qur'an excludes counselling? The thing is that the woman is not left alone to face the husband in a situation where she herself may have very good reasons to fear. Punching of the wife for whatever reason is not something that happens in Mars and nto here on earth.

If it is the community who fears it is that it is no longer a secret of those involved and it does not say that they should be involved in any marriage but just in those cases, be coules or be anything else, where nushuz from the women is feared. The community does not have to be involved if nobody informs it. But if it is informed and nushuz is feared from the women then it must do those things.

Salaam