Free Minds

General Issues / Questions => Questions/Comments on the Quran => Topic started by: Wakas on February 11, 2010, 05:54:51 PM

Title: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on February 11, 2010, 05:54:51 PM
peace, brothers and sisters,

After a lot of research into 4:34 of The Quran and the meaning of DaRaBa, I have finally finished a 1st draft of my study:

Please take your time to review it, as it is over 40 pages in length. There are a few minor points within it that still need verified/clarified, these are in purple font. As a side note, it was a very interesting journey completing this work, something which I did not initially intend to write, but as my discoveries mounted up, it soon became something that I simply had to write and publish.


All feedback is welcome, especially any corrections.


Once it has been reviewed, a dedicated site and promotional tools will accompany it.

EDIT: above link does not work now, website is www.Quran434.com
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: you gunna eat that on February 11, 2010, 08:18:36 PM
Peace,
Just out of curiousity, do you have any arabic training from an institution of higher learning?  This is not meant as a question of slight, just curiosity.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: raginggaijin on February 12, 2010, 01:08:26 AM
Surah 65:6

Men are not allowed to hit women. 'idrib' is the word used in Arabic, which means 'to banish, to strike, to smite'. The root word is ?drb?, not 'wkz' for ?to strike? as in Surah 28:15.
As the Quran shows, when women are unwilling to submit to Allah we are to banish them, even divorce them if necessary. Surah 33:28, 66:5-6
Surah 65:6 ??and injure them not to straiten them.?

Nowhere in the Quran is there an example given of beating a woman. If you ever have a question, always return to the original Arabic.
"Those who listen to the word, then follow the best of it; those are they whom Allah has guided, and those it is who are the men of understanding." Surah 39:18

If a man beats a woman, a woman can give back as much as she was given.
"And if you take your turn, then retaliate with the like of that with which you were afflicted; but if you are patient, it will certainly be best for those who are patient." Surah 16:126

"So the good women are 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 beds and banish them. So if they obey you, seek not a way
against them." Surah 4:34

Peace.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on February 12, 2010, 06:44:34 AM
peace yget,

I have no formal qualification in Arabic. As far as I can recall, all Arabic information contained within my study is either taken directly from a source and/or checked over by those knowledgeable of Arabic. It has been proofread for example. However, proofreading does not guarantee zero errors, and I take the issue of accuracy very seriously, thus corrections are welcome.

Also, I assume you are aware of the logical fallacy within the implication of your question.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/


peace raginggaijin,

Thanks for the feedback, however I'm not sure if you read the article first, as the points you raise are already covered within it. The problems with your interpretation are as follows:

1) when divorce is meant, the word "talaq" is always used.
2) your interpretation of DRB as "banish" has no basis when cross-referenced in AQ.
3) all the examples you mention are actual examples of wrongdoing, not when one suspects/fears wrongdoing.
4) it does not correlate well with 4:128
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: CavemanDoctor on February 12, 2010, 12:54:58 PM
Thank you for this effort Wakas.  I want to read it very closely.  Feedback to come soon.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: CavemanDoctor on February 12, 2010, 05:30:06 PM
Great, great read Wakas.  Really in-depth and illuminating.  I strongly urge everyone on this board to read it as it's a great example of the kind of analysis/thought we should be using when interpreting the Qur'an, not taking anything for granted.  The article made perfect sense and approaches each issue from multiple angles so as to be objective as possible. 

I read the article very closely for content as well as typos/grammatical issues/etc.  It's very obvious the article has been edited/proofread multiple times as there were very few errors that I found.

I did find some (very minor) typos:

1. Part 1, Section 16, Paragraph 1.  Near the end of the paragraph, the sentence states "Especially there is no need for doing both!"  Awkward sentence.  It should say "Especially since there is no need for doing both!"

2. Part 4, Paragraph 3. Middle of the paragraph, there is a clause that states "...shifted over the years which is very commom..."  Should be "common".

3. Part 4, Paragraph 13.  It starts out with "We must remember that a book is sometimes only as good as it's reader."  "it's" should be "its".

That was about all I found, surprising given how long it is.

As far as content goes, again, it all made perfect sense.  I really liked the outline of 4 parts.  I will point out there was one subsection that I didn't find entirely convincing: Part 1, Section 6, referring to 8:50 and 47:27 (the malaika verses).  The points you raise do make some sense but are mostly speculative (and I understand this process is inherently speculative, to an extent) and I can't help but think the traditional interpretation makes sense, especially given the "taste the penalty of fire" rejoinder at the end of 8:50.  I have to think about these verses more, and would like to see what others think.

That's it for now.  I'll let you know if I can think of anything else.  Again, great work Wakas.

Peace.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on February 13, 2010, 07:28:54 AM
peace CD,

Thanks for the feedback, and corrections. They have now been corrected.


Re: 8:50 & 47:27
I strongly recommend reading the verse references given in the article, especially in the section you mention. It will give a much better idea of the probable answer. Whilst the term "speculative" is possible, I cited quite a bit of cross-reference evidence, and one significant conceptual problem, i.e. IF there is no physical punishment prior to day of judgement/requital/due, then this is the odd one out. I personally consider a punishment prior to weighing of evidence / God's court / j-day etc as problematic conceptually, i.e. punishment before 'guilty' verdict. My study inadvertently led to a finding that according to AQ, after death, a good person will go through a positive experience prior to j-day, and a bad person will go through a bad experience prior to j-day but no actual specific punishment, and I would therefore infer no actual specific reward for a good person.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: SarahY on February 13, 2010, 05:01:59 PM
Peace Wakas,

This is awesome!

Initially when I was reading 58:1, I didn?t really think of it as a complaint cited to an authority/other/prophet but more like someone(wife) invoking to God complaining about her husband.

Anyway I reread.. I guess it could mean ?God hears the one who complains about her husband? i.e. wife complains to another/authority and then that complaint to the authority/person also get?s directed to God.

Asad/ Picktall believes it?s Mohammed, I guess that makes sense because the issue was about claiming them (wives) as their mothers which alienates them unlawfully which happened in that time.

Thanks for sharing with us :)
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: you gunna eat that on February 13, 2010, 11:21:03 PM
peace yget,

I have no formal qualification in Arabic. As far as I can recall, all Arabic information contained within my study is either taken directly from a source and/or checked over by those knowledgeable of Arabic. It has been proofread for example. However, proofreading does not guarantee zero errors, and I take the issue of accuracy very seriously, thus corrections are welcome.

Also, I assume you are aware of the logical fallacy within the implication of your question.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/


Salaam,
I am aware of the fallacy and I hope you do not take it that I was detracting from your work.  I feel that you have done a fantastic job showing the trouble with "beat them" as a definition.

Concerning this statement...
"It has been argued that idriboo in 4:34 means "leave them" or "separate from them", which interestingly has some support in the traditional commentaries and fits better than "strike/beat". However, as long as it does not imply divorce/talaq, as The Quran always uses the word talaq to mean divorce AND since the contract-breaking party compensates the other, it would be unfair for the husband to initiate divorce when he has done nothing wrong in this case. There are other problems with this understanding as it is not quite a conflict-resolution step and if not meant to imply divorce/talaq then it seemingly penalises the husband implying he should move out."

I would change the second sentence to "However, I feel this translation is successful only as long as it does..."  Just my personal preference for added clarity.

Further, concerning the other problems with the understanding, though I am not in a position to scientifically declare the method of "leaving" a spouse temporarily as a successful reconciliation measure, I can see how a cooling off period can be positive.  I find my pride to be far less of a factor in assessing my behaviour when I am allowed to think alone for a little while.  

Finally, I think the implication of the husband "moving out" does not have a Quranic basis during this non talaq cooling down period.  To my knowledge, there is no mention of the housing situation following a hypothetical cooling down period or even during the period when a husband has "sweared away" from his wife (2:226).  Surely, the couple can decide to separate during this period; but, I feel that a hypothetical Quranic civil court would not be in a position to require a husband to move out temporarily in a non divorce cooling down separation, because of the lack of a Quranic injunction.  

As for your intepretation, I feel that it is viable and fantastically cross referenced.  My first question would be, just out of curiousity, are there remants of this practice from traditional sources.  
Another question would be, if the authority declared one group in the wrong and that group wanted to initiate divorce because of this, and the other party wanted to initiate reconciliation after being declared wrong, a process the wronged party declines, would the wronged party still be free of paying a divorce fee?  I would think so but your opinion on the matter would be awesome.  This could be a situation where mutual consultation/shura is the basis for our decision.  Cheers on the good work.

Peace
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on February 14, 2010, 05:42:15 AM
peace Sarah,
58:1 literally says God has heard the speech of one who complains/argues with you (tujādiluka), and it is singular, so it is highly likely to be the prophet, who was the authority or part of it.
It is not only the citing to an authority in 58:1-4 that provided a link, it is also the situation the wife complains about, as she is stuck/suspended, and this is identical to what is implied in 4:129. As Ace Ventura would say "like a glove!" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nOxdKcqC_I)


peace yget,

Just ensuring you were aware of the fallacy, that's all  ;) As the saying goes: "the proof is in the tasting of the pudding."

I've added your clarification, but with "possible" instead of "successful", thanks.

I agree that a cooling-off period is helpful, and it can be done according to AQ, but the reason why "leave them" is forced into becoming leave the house or separation, is that we already have "abandon them in bed/bedroom", thus an escalation would be separating from them, as in out of the house. Evidence for this can be found in traditional commentaries, thus it could be argued this is a possible alternative answer. In 2:226, the "swearing away" strongly implies sexually due to context.
And of course the couple can separate if they wish to, however I do not understand your reference to a Quranic civil court as why are they involved and how did this come about is not explained.

Re: evidence from traditional sources
Well, I only know a fraction of the traditional commentaries, however, the understanding is implied (e.g. how do commentators say or think the authority is notified of the marital problem prior to appointing arbitration?). The notification mechanism is blatantly obvious, perhaps so obvious they do not feel a need to mention it, but it can be seen from 58:1.

Quote
Another question would be, if the authority declared one group in the wrong and that group wanted to initiate divorce because of this, and the other party wanted to initiate reconciliation after being declared wrong, a process the wronged party declines, would the wronged party still be free of paying a divorce fee?

Can you clarify what you mean here?
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: you gunna eat that on February 14, 2010, 12:28:42 PM
Peace,

Concerning the hypothetical Islamic court (probably no such thing), I was just trying to make the point that if the definition is taken as "leave them" I would think that this court would be in no position to force the initiating party to leave the house.  In my opinion, there is not a Quranic prescription on the issue. 

I understand where you are coming from though on the issue of why leave them seems to imply leave the house though.  I think there is a viable alternative though.  From my understanding, the first injunction of separation involves couples not having sex.  If the final injunction were to be translated as "leave them," I would think that this does not necessitate living separation even though there is a preliminary injunction of separation (i.e. no sex).  This is because the bedroom injunction involves a specific separation.  There is no mention of not assuming day to day activities with the wife/husband with normalcy (i.e. discussing stuff, eating dinner together, etc).  Yet, if the nushooz is persistent, the initiating party can "leave/shun them," which could be a different level of separation.  More alone time, a sort of cooling down period as I spoke of in my last post.  This does not mean I would have to leave the house, just that I should avoid having sex and assuming a normal relationship as long as the nushooz is persistent.  Of course, I could consensually leave the house. 

So my question was, if a woman cites a man to an authority and the authority finds the man guilty of ill conduct, could the woman initiate the divorce without having to pay her dowry if the man were to request reconciliation?  She could say that he is guilty of ill conduct and thus caused the divorce and he can say that he is trying to reconcile so the situation begins a new.  I think I would agree with the women.

Peace
 
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on February 14, 2010, 04:41:55 PM
peace,

My point was that you have the sequence wrong. Your view would mean AQ advises the husband to "leave them" THEN the court/authority gets involved. Of course, since the husband has done nothing wrong, it would be odd for AQ to imply leave the house, i.e. penalising him, and is not conducive to reconciliation. Thus, in a way, one is forced to say it means a different kind of leaving/shunning/separating, but even so, it is not clear, and it does not explain how the court/authority gets involved. Also, this view does not correlate with 4:128, because if husband shuns her then this could be classed as iAAradan / turning away / alienation, or possibly leaving her suspended/stuck, thus would create an internal contradiction, i.e. AQ advises a conflict-resolution step that gives the wife a legitimate reason/grievance for divorce/release.
It is interesting how AQ narrows down the possibilities, and in my view, only leaves one logical possibility. This was one of the most remarkable discoveries of the study.


Re: your hypothetical
If the court finds in favour of the wife, it is irrelevant what the husband then says, it would be up to the wife if she wishes to go back to the reconciliation stage or end the marriage, with the husband compensating her.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: you gunna eat that on February 14, 2010, 08:12:17 PM
Peace,

Just to reiterate, I do not think "leave them" would necessarily imply that a husband or wife initiating the reconciliation process would have to leave the house.  You seem to understand this point.  The court could get involved if one of the parties feels the cooling down period is not resolving the marital issues. 

As for the issue of iAArdun in 4:128, this seems to be a matter initiated by the husband for no apparent reason.  In 4:34, the women has initiated the marital issues and the husband is responding.  This seems enough ground for me to think that different laws are applicable in two different settings, which avoids contradiction.  Also, leaving them alone shortly (i.e. cooling down period) seems a bit less malicious to me than the iAArdun in 4:128, which leaves a women "stunted" and treated unfairly as indicated in 4:129.  The husband initiating the leaving would still have to treat his wife fairly with the complete understanding that they are still spouses, not in some limbo stage that is confusing or "stunted.:

Your view seems to require less linguistic gymnastics than mine.  I just hope to show the ranging viabilities in this definition. 

Peace
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on February 15, 2010, 03:10:08 AM
peace,

In brief...
1) Your option does not explain how the court gets involved. Like the traditional position, you just assume a mechanism.
2) In 4:34 the husband fears (imperfect), the wife may have not done anything wrong. Similarly, in 4:128 the wife feared, the husband may not have done anything wrong, although the language does imply he is in the wrong in this case.
3) "enough grounds" to you is there is no apparent reason the husband is doing what he is (I disagree, but let's say this is so) in 4:128, and the other is she may or may not be the cause of the problem in 4:34. This differentiation is artificial, impractical, and potentially indistinguishable.
4) Is your view dependent on what you subjectively think is less malicious: "leaving them alone shortly" V iAArdun ?
5) Where does this "shortly" come from?


And what linguistic gymnastics are you referring to in my view? Please be specific.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: you gunna eat that on February 15, 2010, 01:14:31 PM
peace,

In brief...
1) Your option does not explain how the court gets involved. Like the traditional position, you just assume a mechanism.
2) In 4:34 the husband fears (imperfect), the wife may have not done anything wrong. Similarly, in 4:128 the wife feared, the husband may not have done anything wrong, although the language does imply he is in the wrong in this case.
3) "enough grounds" to you is there is no apparent reason the husband is doing what he is (I disagree, but let's say this is so) in 4:128, and the other is she may or may not be the cause of the problem in 4:34. This differentiation is artificial, impractical, and potentially indistinguishable.
4) Is your view dependent on what you subjectively think is less malicious: "leaving them alone shortly" V iAArdun ?
5) Where does this "shortly" come from?


And what linguistic gymnastics are you referring to in my view? Please be specific.


1.  Fair enough. It might not be necessary though, I can cite someone through my own volition.   I think these are just prescriptory phases.
2. Ok
3. I am assuming that in 4:34, she is the cause of the problem, and in 4:128, he is the cause of the problem.  This is because though it only says if we fear, the Quran prescribes in other situations that privacy is to be respected and false baseless accusations are wrong. 

[104:1] Woe to every backbiter, slanderer.

This fear is not wild guesses then, it has to be supported with some solid evidence.  How else would authorities delegate guilt?

4.  If I am understanding your implication, this point is a genetic fallacy.  My view could be subjective but that does not count as an attack against whether it is truthful or not.

5.  It does not need to be there.  It is just what I think.  If I wrote my own tafseer, I would say I believe these leave them period is short because etc.

The linguistic gymnastics I am referring too are my own.  In order to support the definition of leave them, I have to answer the questions above in a manner that delimit definitions and such.  Your argument seems easier to defend than mine.

Peace
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on February 15, 2010, 02:49:28 PM
peace yget,

Re: 3)
You now imply the situations are equal. You previously said otherwise.

Quote
This fear is not wild guesses then, it has to be supported with some solid evidence.  How else would authorities delegate guilt?

It would be prudent not to guess wildly, but people are not always rational, thus a person can fear whatever they think is happening, proving it is another matter. If they take it to court, without evidence, then it is unlikely they will get a verdict they like.

Re: 4) You either do not understand my point, or you do not know the meaning of a genetic fallacy. My point was your subjective difference between ""leaving them alone shortly" V iAArdun, is problematic, hence why you probably add "shortly".

I recommend re-reading the article again. Thanks.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: you gunna eat that on February 15, 2010, 04:09:28 PM
peace yget,

Re: 3)
You now imply the situations are equal. You previously said otherwise.

It would be prudent not to guess wildly, but people are not always rational, thus a person can fear whatever they think is happening, proving it is another matter. If they take it to court, without evidence, then it is unlikely they will get a verdict they like.

Re: 4) You either do not understand my point, or you do not know the meaning of a genetic fallacy. My point was your subjective difference between ""leaving them alone shortly" V iAArdun, is problematic, hence why you probably add "shortly".

I recommend re-reading the article again. Thanks.

Peace

I do not have much new to add so this will probably be my last post on the subject.

3.  I do not imply the situations are equal, I am saying in one situation, the male initiates and the other the female initiates.  Thus, it is not problematic to say that V iAArdun is illegal in one situation and generally but not in a totally different reconciliaiton situation that requires its own unique explanation. 

4.  Maybe I don't understand your point.  I thought you were saying my subjective interpretation of what is less malicious leads me to add the "shortly" in "leaving them shortly."  In that case, I think you are guilty of the G Fal.  Anyways, the "shortly" part would be something I would explain in a tafseer or something, not a literal translation. 

Peace
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on February 28, 2010, 11:48:04 AM
peace all,

Extra info has been added to section: 4) Classical Arabic Dictionaries, due to new information.

Pending no significant revisions, it should be possible to launch the proper site in several weeks.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on May 22, 2010, 07:04:46 AM
peace all,

Update:
A dedicated site has been launched: www.Quran434.com

There is some new content, e.g. downloadable pdf, recommend by email function, poster/leaflet, promotional buttons and videos. Feel free to spread the word.

(http://quran434.com/promo/matrix-unplug-S.gif) (http://www.Quran434.com)


New content to the study is as follows:

Quote
In Abraham's example in 37:93 it is DRB with his hand (if taken literally), thus DRB by itself does not mean with the hand. Also, in the Classical Arabic dictionary Lisaan al Arab and Taj al Arus it states "وضَرَبَ بيدِه إِلى كذا: أَهْوَ" meaning "he stretched his hand towards such a thing (e.g. to take it)" or "point/indicate with hand to it", and the entry explains "daraba bi yadihi" as similar to "throw the hand (ahwa)" [e.g. verb used in verse  22:31 : the wind threw him far away (tahwa); and verse 53:1 and the star when it goes down/vanishes (hawa). This is similar to the analysis of 37:93 presented in part one.

Quote
It should be noted that the next step after bed separation is authority involvement (e.g. divorce is made official) in 2:226-227, which matches the order in 4:34-35 and maintains internal consistency.

 ;D

 

Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: savage_carrot on May 26, 2010, 05:43:41 AM
Peace Wakas,

After re-reading section 17 (47:4), I have some observations. I will quote the relevant section below:

Quote
17)
fa darba al rriqabi hattaitha athkhantumoohum = so strike the necks until you overcome them
[47:4]

Some use "hit", "smite", "strike-off". Whilst this is the most common translation, it should be noted that it is taken by many as an idiom (e.g. Mustansir Mir, Al-Jalalayn, Ibn Kathir), meaning slay or kill. This seems a plausible interpretation as in a battle of swords and arrows no commander would order his soldiers to aim for the necks alone.
As a side note, it is interesting to note the difference in phrasing of this verse compared to 8:12, giving further weight to each of them having different meanings as discussed.

However, upon closer examination, there is an alternative translation, which seems the most likely based on the evidence:

So, when you encounter those who have rejected, then put forth /bring about the captives/slaves; until when you have subdued/overcome them, then strengthen the bind. Then after either grace/favour or ransom, until the war lays down its burdens. That, and had God willed, surely He would have gained victory Himself from them, but He tests some of you with others. And those who get killed in the cause of God, He will never let their deeds be put to waste.

Notes for the above translation:
1) "darba" is a verbal noun, indicating the act of doing as well as the noun itself, e.g. then putting forth / bringing about the captives/slaves.
2) In a battle of swords and arrows no commander would order his soldiers to aim for the necks alone.
3) RQB is NEVER used to mean neck elsewhere in The Quran, as the word for neck is "unuq" (as used in 8:12 also with DRB). RQB is always used to mean slaves/captives.
4) If they were supposed to be beheaded, there would not be a need for an instruction regarding captives. Thus to overcome this apparent omission, many traditional commentators translate "fa shuddoo al wathaqa" as "then tie the bond" and say this refers to taking prisoners of war. However, the word "strengthen/tighten (Arabic: shuddoo)" implies a pre-existing thing to strengthen/tighten (see its usage in 38:20, 76:28, 28:35, 10:88, 20:31), but if this is true, where is it in context? It can only relate to "darba al rriqabi", and thus provides strong proof that this phrase is about bringing about captives from the enemy.
5) This translation makes sense because during open/active fighting, the captives may not be totally secure, and could only really be secured once the enemy has been subdued/overcome. Thus, this verse is implying aim to bring about captives, not necessarily kill them, which shows mercy and less aggression in such a situation, even if it means getting killed.
6) One meaning of DaRaBa found in Lane's Lexicon is "he made or caused to be or constituted" which is similar to the suggested meaning discussed above.
7) I am not aware of a Classical Arabic Dictionary which references verse 47:4 under the root entry of DRB or RQB.

So, when you encounter those who have rejected, then put forth /bring about the captives/slaves; until when you have subdued/overcome them, then strengthen the bind. Then after either grace/favour or ransom, until the war lays down its burdens. That, and had God willed, surely He would have gained victory Himself from them, but He tests some of you with others. And those who get killed in the cause of God, He will never let their deeds be put to waste.

1) I don't think when meeting those who have rejected (implication: when we encounter the enemy in battle), we are somehow suddenly being asked to "put forth/bring about" the captives/slaves until when we have subdued/overcome those that have rejected in battle. How are these captives/slaves being put forth/brought about before we have even subdued/overcome the enemy in battle? Realistically any captives/slaves are taken at the end of a battle when we have subdued/overcome those we are fighting!

2) Given the stages of the verse, even if for a moment, we take it to mean putting forth/bring about the captives before the enemy is subdued (somehow making it make sense), how is strengthening the bind being used in the context of these captives/slaves? If we take strengthening the bind to somehow apply to captives we have already got (from a previous/other battle as we can't get any from an encounter we are fighting presently until we have subdued/overcome the enemy in that instance), it would mean making completely sure that they stayed captive (captive x2 = emphasis on strengthening the bind) after we have subdued/overcome the enemy in which case, any captives still around and kicking and able to have their bind/captivity strengthened x2 would obviously still be captives x1 to begin with, then why the emphasis on "strengthening the bind" of the captives after we've already subdued/overcome the enemy? It would only make slightly more sense if it was referring to strengthening their bind x2 during open/active fighting when they are still captives x1 but are in danger of not being captives at all: being sprung/escaping/being killed whatever!

3) Additionally, if we take it to mean referring to binding securely captives which are not totally secure in open/active fighting after we have subdued the enemy/won the current battle (somehow making it make sense since they are still captives after and not in open/active fighting any more), it would mean that this would not apply to any instance of any battle/encounter where we have no captives from any other battles along with us but only to battles/encounters where we already have captives captured from any other battle/encounter except the current, tagging along with us whilst we fight. It would also not apply to captives held somewhere else and thus would not be in the line of fire/open/active fighting.

The verse starts with an instance of battle (when we encounter those who reject) and then towards the end allows multiple instances of captives/slaves to be graced/favoured/ransomed until the war lays down it's burdens (until all instances have ended and there is an overall result). Each battle/encounter would be dealing with one instance of captives/slaves from that battle/encounter, and we are given the go ahead to either deal with captives jointly or singly until the war lays down it's burdens thus taking into account in the verse, multiple instances in regards to captives from each battle/encounter, if there are any, which the verse starts with.

What I'm interested in then is:

-How do we bring about/put forth captives before we subdue the enemy?
-Why the emphasis on captives x2 after we have subdued/overcome the enemy and they are not in active/open fighting thus still captives x1 anyways?
-Would this mean the verse only applies in certain situations where we already have captives with us, and not all situations of encountering the enemy?

----------------------------------

Interestingly, someone with a *cough* traditional bent of mind reading it came up with : We are apparently being told to put forth captives as human shields when we encounter the kafirs. These will face the brunt of the battle, and then after we've won the battle, we strengthen the binds of these captives left alive somehow after being used as cannon fodder when the battle is won. This would mean essentially to tie them up again to use them for the next battle because they are now veterans with experience and will serve us well. More so than just rookie captives, with no experience whatsoever. Additionally, this serves as a two pronged defense as well. On one hand, they will take the brunt of the attack and on the other, if the kafirs know them as their brothers and sisters, they might not attack as well as we would think. This is truly brilliant. We must make sure to release them or exchange them as soon as the war ends, I have no issues on that front as long as they've served us well.

His gf (strange for a traditionalist, yes) then came up with: Maybe this is pointing to the kafirs throwing people marked as captives at us as we meet them in battle? The captives are thus brought about from the kafirs, the evildoers just catapulted their village idiots at us in a vain bid to succeed. Maybe they use it as a throwing sand in our eyes tactic? We MUST then bind them strongly after we've won because Allah knows, if the kafirs didn't want them, there must be something seriously wrong with them...<thankfully, they stopped here>

------------------------------------

In 47:4 it could mean to attack the vanguard according to lisannul 3arab. It maybe the plural of "raqeeb" which is still used as a rank in the army "sergeant"...(Thanks Samia). We could take it to mean strike/attack the vanguard of their forces? In either case whether we take this meaning or control center as Layth/Edip have used it still makes more sense to me to "strike/attack something of/the enemy" given the stages in the verse than putting forth/bringing about captives before we have even subdued/overcome the enemy in that instance. Also, given the references of strengthening the binding, we have 89:26 in the concordance which suggests that it is a totally secure/complete binding. Which would make sense in a situation where after you've won, you still need to tie up/neutralise/secure the loose ends after the battle is won e.g. Say, you win a battle, the enemy is in disarray...what do you do in this situation? They can regroup, they can take you by surprise, they can do things to mess you up even if it doesn't result in anything major if you don't have an efficient aftermath plan laid out. You might get by with none except taking what captives you can or just revel in your glory while some/the rest that can, run off to maybe bite you in the behind later for example but generally, one would want an effective end game to clear up the mess/secure the sit after a victory. This makes it a complete/totally secure (as much as one can) victory. We overcome the enemy, then we secure the situation making it a complete victory as the enemy and your victory is now bound completely, like a neat little package, if you will. If not, gnats can still sting and it won't be as effective a win as it could've been had we not strengthened the bind referring to the overcoming/subduing of the enemy, after.

At least, this is my understanding of the verse till now.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Mazhar on May 26, 2010, 06:40:12 AM
Quote
"strike/attack something of/the enemy"

These words give impression of imperative/command to do so, whereas there is no such imperative verb in the verse. The cognate adverb is restricted by the next imperative command that those enemies during the currency of war who have been overpowered/their weapons are dropped--they are not to be killed but are to be arrested/bind them firmly--here object of imperative verb [in accusative case] is Alwasaqa. And decision for their disposal is to be taken after the war has come to an end. [he verse is dictating the manners of war to be followed when Believers have to confront war]
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: savage_carrot on May 26, 2010, 08:50:24 AM
These words give impression of imperative/command to do so, whereas there is no such imperative verb in the verse. The cognate adverb is restricted by the next imperative command that those enemies during the currency of war who have been overpowered/their weapons are dropped--they are not to be killed but are to be arrested/bind them firmly--here object of imperative verb [in accusative case] is Alwasaqa. And decision for their disposal is to be taken after the war has come to an end. [he verse is dictating the manners of war to be followed when Believers have to confront war]
I won't pretend to understand where the next imperative command is coming from as next would imply there is a first? It would be clearer if you had written "is restricted by an imperative command that comes after" or something. Anyways, I think it's safe to say that there is to be no killing of any captives since we are specifically told what to do with them: grace/ransom/exchange. One can't do that if you've killed them (apparently Israel ransoms dead bodies for live prisoners which I think is insane!). Also, as the verse states, grace/ransom/exchange until the war lays down it's burdens, would mean you can do that during/until the war ends, thus you can't keep them around without doing any of the previously stated options after the war has ended or risk holding captives of war indefinitely? Are you saying the decision for their disposal can only be taken after the war lays down it's burdens? The verse says until, which would include during the war as well and after we have overcome the enemy and strengthened the bind in that particular encounter/battle. War and encounter/battle being different things...I don't understand?
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Mazhar on May 26, 2010, 10:43:08 AM
(http://www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/047.%20Muhammad%20Salla%20Allah%20alaih%20wassalm/47.4b.gif)
thereat you people bind them/take them prisoners of war since the questions of releasing them as gesture of obliging favour or on ransom arises afterwards when the war may surrender/lay down the weapons [the enemy army has been defeated/have surrendered].

فَإِمَّا Particle Fa denotes the consequence/next step [after some warring soldiers have been taken into custody/arrested while war is on], added with Explanation particle, as for the question/issue concerned/regarding.....

بَعْدُ is time adverb. وَإِمَّا فِدَاءً conjunction related to previous posibility/course of action....

until the war has become over/concluded.

Exchange or release of prisoners of war and the demand for ransom/losses is made from the defeated party after the war is over.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: savage_carrot on May 26, 2010, 10:53:36 AM
Quote
until the war has become over/concluded.
Okay, so you are saying the verse says we can't deal with them during the war but *only* after the war is over? Thus all the captives we may have from all/any of our battles/encounters will remain captive with us with no grace/ransom/exchange until after the war has ended? Yes?
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Mazhar on May 26, 2010, 12:48:02 PM
War [of course not cold one] is one time affair, it may not be pluralized, that may range for couple of days. History of battles tells us that prisoners of war and ransome matters are settled after the cease fire.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: savage_carrot on May 26, 2010, 12:49:54 PM
Thanks Mazhar.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on May 26, 2010, 05:55:46 PM
peace SC,

Quote from: SC
How are these captives/slaves being put forth/brought about before we have even subdued/overcome the enemy in battle?

Captives can easily be brought about during fighting, this would be quite common I'm sure. The preference would be to take captives, rather than kill them.

Quote
then why the emphasis on "strengthening the bind" of the captives after we've already subdued/overcome the enemy?

Once they are subdued/overcome, strengthen/tighten the bind (of the captives). This would be normal, as during more equal-footed fighting this would be more difficult. Since the word shuddoo refers to a pre-existing thing to tighten/strengthen, it can only refer to "DRB al RQB", nothing else, thus whatever you want to render this phrase as, it MUST involve making a bind somehow.

I do not know what you mean with (3), can you clarify, if its still an issue.
Quote
Would this mean the verse only applies in certain situations where we already have captives with us, and not all situations of encountering the enemy?

It is not about captives with us, it is about taking (i.e. bringing about, putting forth) captives from the opposing force.
Quote
In 47:4 it could mean to attack the vanguard according to lisannul 3arab. It maybe the plural of "raqeeb" which is still used as a rank in the army "sergeant

Can you clarify if you mean lisannul 3arab discusses "raqeeb" as "sergeant", thus YOU think it could mean "attack the vanguard"? Or do you mean lisannul 3arab specifically mentions 47:4? Thanks.
If "raqeeb/sergeant" is a theoretical possibility then yes it is possible, however AQ does not use RQB like that, nor would it fit 47:4, unless the pre-existing bind can be explained.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: savage_carrot on May 27, 2010, 01:38:13 AM
Peace bro,

Quote
Captives can easily be brought about during fighting, this would be quite common I'm sure. The preference would be to take captives, rather than kill them.
So the actual word used you would say would be bring about rather than put forth? When you meet those who have rejected, "bring about" the captives, then when you have subdued/overcome them (the enemy), strengthen the bind (of the captives you "brought about")? I'm sorry, if you would have said "captives can easily be taken during fighting", it would make sense, like you say in addition: the preference would be to take captives...exactly. Because "bring about" doesn't make much sense so one has to clarify it. Why doesn't it say, when you meet those who have rejected, take captives, then when you have subdued/overcome them (the enemy), strengthen the bind (of the captives you took)? Especially since "bring about" is being equated to take, and take makes far more sense with no clarification needed!

Can you point me towards where DRB is used as "bring about" in the quran, also? I read through the link but couldn't find any such occurrence. I find concordance helpful.

Quote
Once they are subdued/overcome, strengthen/tighten the bind (of the captives). This would be normal, as during more equal-footed fighting this would be more difficult.
What do you mean more equal-footed fighting, just so I have a solid idea of what you mean here?

Quote
Since the word shuddoo refers to a pre-existing thing to tighten/strengthen, it can only refer to "DRB al RQB", nothing else, thus whatever you want to render this phrase as, it MUST involve making a bind somehow.
Given the concordance the word can mean to strengthen, harden or strongly (one can take different translations but they all come around to the same thing essentially). If we take the concordance for "bond" we have 47:4 and 89:26 :and none can bind with bonds like His. This can mean: then strongly bind the bond, bind the bond strongly, bind the bond firmly etc in reference to those we have overcome and taken captive in 47:4? Seriously, it doesn't make sense for captives x1 to be captives x2 after open/active fighting as I explained in my last post. Edip/Layths translation has "then bind them securely"...it makes sense.

(see its usage in 38:20, 76:28, 28:35, 10:88, 20:31)

-We strengthened his kingship, and We gave him the wisdom and the ability to make sound judgment.
-We have created them, and We have made them resolute. When we wished, We replaced their kind completely.
-He said, "We will strengthen you with your brother, and We will provide you both with authority. Thus, they will not be able to touch either one of you. With Our signs, the two of you, along with those who follow you, will be the victors."
-Moses said, "Our Lord, you have given Pharaoh and his chiefs adornments and wealth in this worldly life so that they will misguide from Your path. Our Lord, wipe-out their wealth and bring grief to their hearts so that they will not acknowledge until they see the painful retribution.
-"So that I may strengthen my resolve through him."
14:18 The example of those who reject their Lord is that their works are like ashes, on which the wind blows strongly on a stormy day; they cannot get anything of what they earned. Such is the farthest straying.

Quote
Shiin-Dal-Dal  = to bind tightly, strap, strengthen firmly, run, establish, make firm, hard, strong, be advanced (day), be intense. ushdud - harden, strengthen. shadiid (pl. shidaad & ashidda'u - great, firm, strict, vehement, strong, violent, severe, mighty, terrible, stern, grievous, miserly, niggardly. (adj. of the forms fa'iil and fiaal are used indifferently for both m. and f.): ashuddun: age of full strength, maturity. ishtadda (vb. 8) - to act with violence, become hard.

shadda vb. (1)

perf. act. 38:20, 76:28
impf. act. 28:35
impv. 10:88, 20:31, 47:4

ashudd n.m. 6:152, 12:22, 17:34, 18:82, 22:5, 28:14, 40:67, 46:15

shadid n.m. (adj. pl. ashidda and shidad) 2:74, 2:85, 2:165, 2:165, 2:191, 2:196, 2:200, 2:211, 3:4, 3:11, 3:56, 4:66, 4:77, 4:84, 4:84, 5:2, 5:82, 5:98, 6:124, 7:164, 8:13, 8:25, 8:48, 8:52, 9:69, 9:81, 9:97, 10:70, 11:80, 11:102, 12:48, 13:6, 13:13, 14:2, 14:7, 17:5, 17:58, 18:2, 19:69, 20:71, 20:127, 22:2, 23:77, 27:21, 27:33, 28:78, 30:9, 33:11, 34:46, 35:7, 35:10, 35:44, 37:11, 38:26, 40:3, 40:21, 40:22, 40:46, 40:82, 41:15, 41:15, 41:27, 42:16, 42:26, 43:8, 47:13, 48:16, 48:29, 50:26, 50:36, 53:5, 57:20, 57:25, 58:15, 59:4, 59:7, 59:13, 59:14, 65:8, 65:10, 66:6, 72:8, 73:6, 78:12, 79:27, 85:12, 100:8

ishtadda vb. (8) perf. act. 14:18

LL, V4, p: 241, 242, 243
Quote
It is not about captives with us, it is about taking (i.e. bringing about, putting forth) captives from the opposing force.
Putting forth makes no sense, unless you're to put forward your own before the battle (go forth my captives, I'm putting you forth as human shields or I'll catch up to you in a few hours or so, here I'm leaving a contingent of my armed guards to make sure you don't do anything stupid) or putting forth their captives from their clutches i.e. a battle against slavers with captives abounding all about them, run forth you captive fools...I'm putting you forth! I'm here to save you from the bad guys! Putting forth is putting forward, I'm not sure how this can also mean "bringing about" or "taking captives". It's not even similar. Put forth your best foot, put forth the captives...don't get it. Bringing about is also not the best choice as discussed above.

Quote
Can you clarify if you mean lisannul 3arab discusses "raqeeb" as "sergeant", thus YOU think it could mean "attack the vanguard"? Or do you mean lisannul 3arab specifically mentions 47:4? Thanks.
Quote from: Samia
"rigaab" here could mean the vanguard according to lisannul 3arab. It maybe the plural of "raqeeb" which is still used as a rank in the army "sergeant".
This is in reference to 47:4.

Quote
If "raqeeb/sergeant" is a theoretical possibility then yes it is possible, however AQ does not use RQB like that, nor would it fit 47:4, unless the pre-existing bind can be explained.
I'm not sure if AQ uses DRB as "bring about", I tried searching but couldn't find where it uses it as such. I've touched on the rest above. I have nothing against your translation bro,I respect your hard work immensely, I just want it to make sense to me...you know that I'm not coming up with any bias in this,  it doesn't even affect what I'm working on currently...I just don't think it's making sense here in my opinion. I look forward to your explanation on how to make it work.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Mazhar on May 27, 2010, 01:51:32 AM
Quote
Captives can easily be brought about during fighting, this would be quite common I'm sure. The preference would be to take captives, rather than kill them.

No Commander of an Army would ever make such blunder of suggesting this preference to its Troops which will endanger their own lives and increase chances of defeat. War means and its loud slogan is to kill and/or get killed.
(http://www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/009.%20At%20Tauba/9.111a.gif)
They confront war in the cause of Allah and resultantly they kill the enemy and they get killed by the enemy in the battlefield. [Refer 9:111]

Quote
Since the word shuddoo refers to a pre-existing thing to tighten/strengthen, it can only refer to "DRB al RQB", nothing else, thus whatever you want to render this phrase as, it MUST involve making a bind somehow.

فَشُدُّوا الْوَثَاقَ imperative command is subject to the conditionality إِذَا أَثْخَنتُمُوهُمْ and not to "DRB al RQB". When the imperative command is related to the happening of a conditionality, unless it is there the imperative command shall be treated as redundant. The verb is Perfect, second person, masculine, with Waw subject pronoun and "Hum" the  Object pronoun; Form IV having causitive meanings. In the heat of war, it is most difficult thing to hold back the sword from killing the combating enemy when his weapon has dropped or has become overpowered, exhausted to stand further. That seems to be the basic cause and purpose of this injumction and also to clarify and elaborate the earlier instruction.
(http://www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/008.%20Al%20Anfaal/8.67.gif)
[you people should know that] This is not for the Elevated and Chosen Servant of Allah that for him be the prisoners of war till such time that he has subdued/taken full dominance in the land.

Chapter 8 (http://www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/008.%20Al%20Anfaal/008.%20A%20Al%20Anfaal-6.htm)
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on May 27, 2010, 12:10:52 PM
peace Mazhar,

You seem to assume it is only deadly combat, i.e. fighting/killing. When actually, 47:4 discusses a situation, THEN mentions when the enemy is overcome/subdued, but states even after this, the war may not be over. So it may be in reference to a smaller battle, an ambush, or even hostility/scuffles etc. Interestingly, there is no mention of deadly combat in the context or actively going on in this chapter, although I only briefly read it. It only mentions being killed in 47:4 after it mentions war. Since 47:4 begins with "fa" it likely refers to the people mentioned previously and those people are repelling from the path of God. This does imply the equivalent harshness would not be killing them. Thus is more evidence for my rendition.

9:111 does not say what you say, it literally says "...they fight in the cause of God so they kill and are killed...". So, your point is only valid for fighting/killing, not to mention all battles are not about kill or be killed.

Quote
فَشُدُّوا الْوَثَاقَ imperative command is subject to the conditionality إِذَا أَثْخَنتُمُوهُمْ and not to "DRB al RQB".

I understand the conditionality you refer to, this is obvious, however I am referring to the overall sequential and logical link between shuddoo and it referring to a pre-existing thing to tighten/strengthen, thus one simply needs to ask: what can it refer to? There is only one possibility in the context and that is "DRB al RQB".

Thanks for bringing up 8:67, as this seems to imply ASR (~prisoners of war) are officially/properly bound/kept captives. Since they can only be taken after subdued/overcome in the land as per 8:67, and the same word is used in 47:4 and here the sequence is when the bind is strengthened it is only then can they be ransomed or released/grace (implying in this case they go from RQB to ASR when the bind is strengthened). Thus, by default, RQB are not bound firmly in this manner. This is further proven by AQ cross-reference (e.g. 8:70 refers to ASR in one's hands/power/control) and Lane's Lexicon.

As we can see, the evidence so far is weighted in favour of my rendition.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on May 27, 2010, 12:41:01 PM
peace sis,

The word DRB has a certain connotation and is the perfect word in 47:4, not "take". In the www.Quran434.com study:

Quote
It seems that the default meaning of DRB is "to put/show forth (from one person/place to another person/place)". This core meaning fits into every occurrence, and thus could be seen as its basic/core meaning. Lane's Lexicon states that its meaning is "to put into commotion" which is similar. Of course, with various prepositions and subject matter, this basic meaning can be refined and better rendered depending on situation.

From one place to another may be from non-existence to existence or somewhere intangible to somewhere tangible. For example, when AQ says "DRB an example" it means the example is put/shown forth, brought about, e.g. from God to us, or when a person "DRB an example" they took it from their mind and brought it out in the open by verbalising it, i.e. they DRB'd it.
Similarly, no RQB exists yet, we are commanded to DRB the RQB, i.e. bring about RQB/captives. This is likely why Lane states one of its meanings is exactly this.

Quote
Can you point me towards where DRB is used as "bring about" in the quran, also? I read through the link but couldn't find any such occurrence. I find concordance helpful.

Although I prefer "put/show forth" generally, you can see any AQ occurrence of DRB when applied to a direct object (e.g. Jesus, parable, truth, falsehood, a dry path, wall).

Quote
What do you mean more equal-footed fighting, just so I have a solid idea of what you mean here?

I mean anything less or prior to subdued/overcome them.

Quote
Seriously, it doesn't make sense for captives x1 to be captives x2 after open/active fighting as I explained in my last post.
I dont understand your objection, as it makes perfect sense to me. As a side note, Edip/RQT's translation also mentions my rendition as a possibility, at the end of their verse note: "Considering the context of the verse and emphasis on capturing the enemy, we could have translated the segment under discussion as, "aim to take captives."

Quote
This is in reference to 47:4.

You did not quite answer what I wanted. As far as I am aware, no CAD specifically mentions 47:4. I think you are misreading what sister Samia said, she is using an understanding of RQB found in lisaanul 3arab and inserting it in 47:4.

Quote
I have nothing against your translation bro,I respect your hard work immensely, I just want it to make sense to me

Of course, we are both here to learn. I did not take it any other way.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: savage_carrot on May 27, 2010, 02:02:19 PM
Peace bro,

Quote
From one place to another may be from non-existence to existence or somewhere intangible to somewhere tangible. For example, when AQ says "DRB an example" it means the example is put/shown forth, brought about, e.g. from God to us, or when a person "DRB an example" they took it from their mind and brought it out in the open by verbalising it, i.e. they DRB'd it. Similarly, no RQB exists yet, we are commanded to DRB the RQB, i.e. bring about RQB/captives. This is likely why Lane states one of its meanings is exactly this.
Let's take the RQB example. We know no captives exist unless we capture them. So, if we are being told to capture the enemy instead of killing them as a preference and I have two choices as a command, take or bring about, I'd choose take because it's clearer. There really isn't any point in arguing this further.

Quote
Although I prefer "put/show forth" generally, you can see any AQ occurrence of DRB when applied to a direct object (e.g. Jesus, parable, truth, falsehood, a dry path, wall).
I don't see put/show forth as an apt choice for the command to take the enemy captive. I don't think one can argue this any further, it is what it is.
Quote
I mean anything less or prior to subdued/overcome them.
It doesn't address my query imo.

Quote
I dont understand your objection, as it makes perfect sense to me. As a side note, Edip/RQT's translation also mentions my rendition as a possibility, at the end of their verse note: "Considering the context of the verse and emphasis on capturing the enemy, we could have translated the segment under discussion as, "aim to take captives."
Since I have no bone to pick with you, I'm coming in with no real bias and I have a decent grasp of the language...it should be easy to get but it's not, it's a bit convoluted which it shouldn't be in my opinion.

Quote
You did not quite answer what I wanted. As far as I am aware, no CAD specifically mentions 47:4. I think you are misreading what sister Samia said, she is using an understanding of RQB found in lisaanul 3arab and inserting it in 47:4.
You asked if 47:4 was specifically mentioned in Lisaan, I gave you her exact quote in reference to 47:4 that she and I were discussing. If there's a problem with her understanding of RQB, let me know and I'll forward her the info.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on May 27, 2010, 02:24:05 PM
peace sis,

Feel free to use "make, cause to be, constitute", as mentioned in Lane.

But for sake of argument, let's say my wording is convoluted, let's look at the alternatives. What are they? All other options I have seen are flawed more significantly than: subjectively "convoluted" wording. If you can provide what you feel is the best rendering of "DRB al RQB" we can examine it.


And no, there is no problem with Samia's understanding of RQB. Lisaan does not reference 47:4, neither under DRB or RQB however. That is what I was clarifying.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Mazhar on May 27, 2010, 03:20:42 PM
Quote
In 47:4 it could mean to attack the vanguard according to lisannul 3arab. It may be the plural of "raqeeb" which is still used as a rank in the army "sergeant"...(Thanks Samia)

Sister Samia I wish you all happiness. For the purpose of seeking guidance and expert opinion, I want to point out that I recall to have checked it somewhere [now I am not able to find it where I got it] that plural of رقيب is رُقَبَاءُ while رَقَبَةٌ is the singular of رِقَابٌ.

I may clarify that رِقَابٌ was later started being used for the whole human body and metonimically [عرف]it also became the name for referring to slaves.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: savage_carrot on May 27, 2010, 03:57:02 PM
pax bro,

I'll "bring about" a rendering I think is best and then "make" it appear on the thread. Then we shall see which "puts forth" it's best foot, and that one might have "cause to be" "constituted" as the WINNAR.

After I'm done doing what I should be doing...I let captives distract me but then they are so darn captivating.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Mazhar on May 27, 2010, 04:13:06 PM
Quote
4) If they were supposed to be beheaded, there would not be a need for an instruction regarding captives. Thus to overcome this apparent omission, many traditional commentators translate "fa shuddoo al wathaqa" as "then tie the bond" and say this refers to taking prisoners of war. However, the word "strengthen/tighten (Arabic: shuddoo)" implies a pre-existing thing to strengthen/tighten (see its usage in 38:20, 76:28, 28:35, 10:88, 20:31), but if this is true, where is it in context? It can only relate to "darba al rriqabi", and thus provides strong proof that this phrase is about bringing about captives from the enemy.

The highlighted presumption seems to be making things perplexed. In Arabic the object of the verb does not ordinarily precede the subject of the verb. If the object of the verb has succeded there can't be an object after it. Here the object of the verb appears after the subject of the verb. Therefore, presumption is baseless and unfounded. The conditionaility, situation arisen necessitating this action has been mentioned immediately before it, and there is no such precedence, to my knowledge, in Grammer rules which could permit stretching it to relate it to  "darba al rriqabi".
Thanks.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: savage_carrot on May 27, 2010, 04:29:16 PM
Thanks for the information Mazhar. This is probably why most translations have it referring to إِذَا أَثْخَنتُمُوهُمْ

Peace.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on May 27, 2010, 04:51:44 PM
peace Mazhar,

That's because I did not base it on grammar, I based it on logic and cross-reference. In all of AQ the same form shuddoo refers to a pre-existing thing to strengthen/tighten/harden/etc. If you disagree, please provide the AQ reference(s).
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Mazhar on May 28, 2010, 12:30:47 AM
Salam Wakas,

Even on logic and cross-reference I do not find any rationale to assume or conclude like that. In all the cross-references quoted there (see its usage in 38:20, 76:28, 28:35, 10:88, 20:31), the object of the verb is mentioned immediately after. For the act/verb of solidification and/or strengthening we need to mention the object.

Logic does not permit with reference to a sentence/statement in the words of any language to relate the answer to the condition to a cognate adverb used earlier in the sentence instead of relating it to the condition. Logic does not permit to behave differently with Arabic of Qur'aan. 

Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Ayisha on May 28, 2010, 01:35:53 AM


Interestingly, someone with a *cough* traditional bent of mind reading it came up with : We are apparently being told to put forth captives as human shields when we encounter the kafirs. These will face the brunt of the battle, and then after we've won the battle, we strengthen the binds of these captives left alive somehow after being used as cannon fodder when the battle is won. This would mean essentially to tie them up again to use them for the next battle because they are now veterans with experience and will serve us well. More so than just rookie captives, with no experience whatsoever. Additionally, this serves as a two pronged defense as well. On one hand, they will take the brunt of the attack and on the other, if the kafirs know them as their brothers and sisters, they might not attack as well as we would think. This is truly brilliant. We must make sure to release them or exchange them as soon as the war ends, I have no issues on that front as long as they've served us well.

His gf (strange for a traditionalist, yes) then came up with: Maybe this is pointing to the kafirs throwing people marked as captives at us as we meet them in battle? The captives are thus brought about from the kafirs, the evildoers just catapulted their village idiots at us in a vain bid to succeed. Maybe they use it as a throwing sand in our eyes tactic? We MUST then bind them strongly after we've won because Allah knows, if the kafirs didn't want them, there must be something seriously wrong with them...<thankfully, they stopped here>

Some peeps have scary minds  :o :o :o
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on May 28, 2010, 03:01:50 PM
peace Mazhar,

I did not use logic to "behave differently" with Arabic of Quran.

I repeat, this has nothing to do with grammar. There is no grammar rule that disproves or weakens what I have said. Perhaps I can clarify further:

And We strengthened his kingship... [38:20]
and strengthened their form... [76:28]
We shall strengthen your arm/ability... [28:35]
harden upon their hearts... [10:88]
strengthen my resolve... [20:31]

As we can see in every occurrence, something exists in the first place to strengthen/harden. Now let us look to the verse in question:

strengthen the bind... [47:4]

Similarly, some sort of bind MUST exist first before it can be strengthened. This is simple logic and matches perfectly with cross-reference. Interestingly, it uses "al" implying something well known by the addressed audience, but as we can clearly see it is NOT clear in the context what "bind" refers to (unless we use my rendering). It also uses "al" prior to RQB.

Interestingly, Traditional Tafsirs (altafsir.com) also mention this possibility along with the common understanding. Ibn 'Abbas: "...and taken them prisoners, (then making fast of bonds) keep the prisoners in captivity...". Tafsir al-Jalalayn: "take them captive and bind firmly, the bonds (al-wathāq is what is used to bind [yūthaqu] a captive).". Is it a mere coincidence that it just so happens al-wathaq is what is used to bind captives/RQB?
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Mazhar on May 29, 2010, 10:31:45 AM
Quote
Interestingly, it uses "al" implying something well known by the addressed audience, but as we can clearly see it is NOT clear in the context what "bind" refers to (unless we use my rendering). It also uses "al" prior to RQB.

This rather further confirms that الْوَثَاقَ has nothing to do with الرِّقَابِ. Both are independent of each other.["al" implying something well known by the addressed audience] This is done when the already known/mentioned is in indefinite state.

Quote
I repeat, this has nothing to do with grammar. There is no grammar rule that disproves or weakens what I have said. Perhaps I can clarify further:

And We strengthened his kingship... [38:20]
and strengthened their form... [76:28]
We shall strengthen your arm/ability... [28:35]
harden upon their hearts... [10:88]
strengthen my resolve... [20:31
As we can see in every occurrence, something exists in the first place to strengthen/harden.

Seen from this angle/logic too, what exists is this:
أَثْخَنتُمُوهُمْ
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on May 30, 2010, 05:47:53 AM
peace Mazhar,

I have no problem with them being independent terms.

Can you clarify what you mean by both of the following and how/if it relates to 47:4
Quote
This is done when the already known/mentioned is in indefinite state.

Quote
Seen from this angle/logic too, what exists is this:


Also, can you please provide your rendering of 47:4 so we can see what the alternatives are. From my studies, whilst other alternatives are possible, they are not the strongest option.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Mazhar on May 30, 2010, 06:19:58 AM
Peace

Quote
This is done when the already known/mentioned is in indefinite state.

This was to clarify this comment
Quote
Interestingly, it uses "al" implying something well known by the addressed audience, but as we can clearly see it is NOT clear in the context what "bind" refers to (unless we use my rendering). It also uses "al" prior to RQB.

"Al" suffixed to a subsequent word to indicate a known thing, a thing mentioned earlier, in such case the earlier noun is indefinite and not definite by "al". That is why I pointed out that the presumption of relationship indicated in the above quote is not correct.

Quote
Seen from this angle/logic too, what exists is this:

This was to clarify about this observation
Quote
As we can see in every occurrence, something exists in the first place to strengthen/harden.

What existed was indicated which is أَثْخَنتُمُوهُمْ.


Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on May 30, 2010, 06:28:06 AM
peace,

Re: "al"
Thanks for clarifying. I understand what you meant now. I did not mean I was linking them grammatically, in case that was unclear. I just meant both RQB and WThQ are something well known to the addressed audience.


I do not understand your last point. Are you implying what is "strengthened" is indicated by the suffix "hum/them"?

Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Mazhar on May 30, 2010, 06:36:36 AM
 Your point is that something exists in the first place to strengthen/harden. I am suggesting that from this angle also the "thing" that exists for the said purpose is those of the enemies who have since dropped weapon, have been made exhausted to stand further. These people are to be subjected to tightened arrest.   
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on May 30, 2010, 07:49:17 AM
Are you implying ShDD does NOT apply to al WThQ?

Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Mazhar on May 30, 2010, 08:11:58 AM
Are you implying ShDD does NOT apply to al WThQ?



I wrote WThQ is the direct object of verb ShDD.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Mazhar on June 03, 2010, 09:32:05 AM
Quote
Fakayfa itha tawaffathumu almalaikatu yadriboona wujoohahum wa adbarahum
= So/then how (will it be) when the angels/controllers* take them (unto themselves, i.e. in death) striking their faces/fronts and their backs?
[47:27]

*angels is better translated as controllers, i.e. forces in control of certain functions/laws. There are some controllers we know about, e.g. those found in nature: F=ma, E=mc? etc. and some we do not know about.

In the above two verses, translators commonly use "beat / strike / smite", and whilst this may seem acceptable on the surface this translation does have significant problems when examined more closely:

In 8:50 it says if only you could see, thus clearly implying that what the controllers are doing cannot be seen. And since it is at the time of death, then the controllers cannot be striking the physical fronts/faces and backs as this would be observable. It could be suggested that at death, this is a special/unique transition phase so perhaps the controllers are indeed beating/striking but in a different form somehow, and the living simply cannot see it.

It causes problems with verses such as 7:37, 16:28, 8:51, 6:93-94 in which the controllers are in communication with people being taken at death, and the ones taken are listening properly and answering, but this is highly unlikely if they are being beaten at the same time!

It causes a clear problem with 6:93 when it describes the controllers as stretching/extending forth or opening their hands/powers when taking them at death saying "Bring out your souls...". This sounds unlike striking/beating, and there is no implication of this in the verse at all.

If this is indeed a beating/striking causing pain in some way, then this would be the only example in The Quran of an explicit punishment between death and the 'day of obligation/judgement/requital/due'.
In contrast, the controllers take those who are good with a greeting of peace/salam in 16:32 and there is no mention of taking them gently for example.

Salam Wakas,

This is all based on the premise that the point in time is worldly "death"? But the fact is that wherever such thing is mentioned that is the scene after the resurrection. Nowhere word "Maut" is used.

Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on June 03, 2010, 12:22:28 PM
peace Mazhar,

Can you clarify where 8:50 & 47:27 fit into your sequence?

living ---> death ---> resurrection ---> judgement ---> punishment/reward



Thanks.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Mazhar on June 03, 2010, 01:58:54 PM
peace Mazhar,

Can you clarify where 8:50 & 47:27 fit into your sequence?

living ---> death ---> resurrection ---> judgement ---> punishment/reward
Thanks.

Angels segregate people from others at the time of their death. Segregation follows death or without death in case of getting killed in the Cause of Allah. And criminals and righteous are to be segregated on the Day of Resurrection by the Angels and escorted to their respective places.

(http://www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/004.%20An%20Nisa/temp%2014%20%204.097.gif)
Indeed the ones whom the Angels segregated/separated them [on resurrection, from other people by recognizing them from visible signs], those who wronged and did injustice to their selves, they were asked, "In what circumstances were you people?" [On the Day of Resurrection the Angels who recognize by signs shall arrest/collect all criminals immediately after their revival to life and segregate/separate them forcibly from other people-7:37;8:50-51;16:28;47:27-28]

Chapter 4 Verse 97 (http://www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/004.%20An%20Nisa/004.%20An%20Nisa%20051.J.htm)

(http://www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/007.%20Al%20Airaaf/007.%20A2.gif)
till such time when Our sent ones/messengers [37:22] will alienate/segregate them [on revival/resurrection].
(http://www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/007.%20Al%20Airaaf/007.%20A3.gif)[This is asked on the Day of Resurrection 6:22;16:27;26:92-93]
They asked them, "where are those whom you used to call apart from Allah?".......................

(http://www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/007.%20Al%20Airaaf/7.38.gif)
They were asked; "You people enter into the Hell to join generations of Jinn and human beings that had passed before you people in time" [each generation is adjudged in sequence and sent to Prison]

Chapter 7 Verses 37-39 (http://www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/007.%20Al%20Airaaf/007.%20Al%20Airaaf%20D.htm)

(http://www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/008.%20Al%20Anfaal/Temp%2001%208.50a.gif)[Read 47:27]
And if you could visualize [the scene after revival/resurrection] when the Angels will undertake intensively to alienate/segregate those who deliberately and persistently denied [and had died as rejecters], by slashing on their faces and backs [until they make them enter into Hell-Prison]
(http://www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/008.%20Al%20Anfaal/Temp%2001%208.50.gif)
[Saying] "And you people taste the scorching of heat/fire/temperature. [8:50]
(http://www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/008.%20Al%20Anfaal/8.51.gif) [Replica 3:182 with difference of dagger Alif]
This is the result/effect/outcome of that which your hands had sent in advance. And certainly Allah is never unjust to His created ones". [8:51]

(http://www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/016.%20An%20Nahl/Temp%2001%2016.28a.gif)
those whom the Angels are segregating/alienating as wrong doers to their selves". [On the Day of Resurrection the Angels who recognize by signs shall arrest/collect all criminals immediately after their revival to life and segregate/separate them forcibly from other people-4:97;7:37;8:50-51;47:27-28] ...............
(http://www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/016.%20An%20Nahl/16.29.gif)
Therefore [as a result thereof] you people enter the gates of Hell to dwell therein for ever".

Chapter 16 Verses 27-29 (http://www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/016.%20An%20Nahl/016.%20A%20An%20Nahl.htm)

[And for contrast please see
(http://www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/016.%20An%20Nahl/16.32.gif)
whom the Angels will respectfully/pleasantly separate saying,
(http://www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/016.%20An%20Nahl/16.32a.gif)[Same information in 39:73]
"Peace and tranquility is upon you people; you people enter into the Paradise for what you people had been doing" [16:32]

(http://www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/047.%20Muhammad%20Salla%20Allah%20alaih%20wassalm/47.27p.gif)
Thereat [after revival/resurrection] how [would they interact secretively] when the Angels had undertaken intensively to alienate/segregate them
(http://www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/047.%20Muhammad%20Salla%20Allah%20alaih%20wassalm/47.27q.gif)
by slashing on their faces and backs [until they made them enter into Hell-Prison] [47:27]
(http://www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/047.%20Muhammad%20Salla%20Allah%20alaih%20wassalm/47.28a.gif)
This happened to them because they consciously and purposely followed that which caused for Allah taking criminal cognizance against them

Chapter 47 Verses 27-28 (http://www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/047.%20Muhammad%20Salla%20Allah%20alaih%20wassalm/047.%20B%20Muhammad%20SAS.htm)

I hope it makes evident that slashing is being done on the Day of Judgment and not at the time of death. If you have seen a scence when Police is arresting criminals or trouble creators from a mob/big crowd of people, which is quite a common scence on streets of my country, the scences of Day of Judgment become visual clips.






Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on June 03, 2010, 02:52:50 PM
peace Mazhar,

I think the malaika taking them at "resurrection" is a possibility, however this does not change the translation I gave. It would be very interesting to establish the sequence however.

Is there any clear example in AQ about punishment prior to day of judgement? I couldn't find any. If so, the only option left is what you suggest: I assume you mean once the verdict is given on J-Day, then 8:50 & 47:27 takes place?

Interestingly, every translator I read said it was at death, so I am wondering why they said this.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Mazhar on June 03, 2010, 03:27:59 PM
peace Mazhar,

I think the malaika taking them at "resurrection" is a possibility, however this does not change the translation I gave. It would be very interesting to establish the sequence however.

Is there any clear example in AQ about punishment prior to day of judgement? I couldn't find any. If so, the only option left is what you suggest: I assume you mean once the verdict is given on J-Day, then 8:50 & 47:27 takes place?

Interestingly, every translator I read said it was at death, so I am wondering why they said this.

The conjectural story of Return of Easa alahissalam seems to have haunted them. And secondly because Jalalain made an error of translating  يُتَوَفَّوْنَ  as  يَمُوتُونَ .
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on June 16, 2010, 02:00:51 PM
peace all,

I would like to know if there is anyone who has read all of the study on www.Quran434.com and disagrees with it. If so, why? It would help me a lot to understand peoples views if you let me know. Thanks.

Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Bigmo on June 16, 2010, 02:57:22 PM
1.  Fair enough. It might not be necessary though, I can cite someone through my own volition.   I think these are just prescriptory phases.
2. Ok
3. I am assuming that in 4:34, she is the cause of the problem, and in 4:128, he is the cause of the problem.  This is because though it only says if we fear, the Quran prescribes in other situations that privacy is to be respected and false baseless accusations are wrong. 

[104:1] Woe to every backbiter, slanderer.

This fear is not wild guesses then, it has to be supported with some solid evidence.  How else would authorities delegate guilt?

4.  If I am understanding your implication, this point is a genetic fallacy.  My view could be subjective but that does not count as an attack against whether it is truthful or not.

5.  It does not need to be there.  It is just what I think.  If I wrote my own tafseer, I would say I believe these leave them period is short because etc.

The linguistic gymnastics I am referring too are my own.  In order to support the definition of leave them, I have to answer the questions above in a manner that delimit definitions and such.  Your argument seems easier to defend than mine.

Peace

Very good point. Fear by itself is not enough evidence or justification. So how can you justify beating when all you have is just fear? Elsehwere we see in Quran that an accusation by a spouse was supposed to be backed with evidence and accusation as we know is much stronger than fear or suspicion.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on July 11, 2010, 08:52:24 AM
peace Bigmo, all,

I have reworded a section in the study to:

Quote
If it is only the husband who fears disloyalty/uprising/infidelity, or even if he is sure of it, and if there are no witnesses/evidence, then he must follow the procedure in 24:6-9 and cannot take it upon himself to administer any punishment. Since a "fear/suspicion", as in 4:34, is certainly less than being sure, it also cannot warrant any punishment. Anything to the contrary would be an internal inconsistency in The Quran's ruling.

And for those of you who have read it here is some very interesting information I came across recently, which I have also added (the part in bold):

Quote
Also, however the court/authority came to find out about the couple in 4:34-35, how did the court/authority come to find out about the couple in 58:1-4 in the exact same situation of breach/rift, i.e. no resolution? She cited the husband to the authority. If the traditional position somehow implies the couple used a different method in 4:34 to make the authority aware of the situation, then they have to explain why the difference between the two examples, without causing a logical and practical inconsistency. For example, in "K. al nasikh wa-l-mansukh" by Abu Ubaid al-Qasim b. Sallam (d. 224AH/839), one of the earliest works in its field, it comments on the tafsir/interpretation of 4:35 and says "the story establishes the principle that the spouses may withdraw their invitation to the authorities to act". Thus, it is clear from the traditional commentary the spouse would inform the court/authority of the problem, before they intervened. This provides a perfect link with DaRaBa and all points to one answer: in a situation of no reconciliation and the partner in the wrong will not initiate divorce/release, the step prior to the authority intervening is for one partner to cite/indicate the other (to the authority).

Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on August 29, 2010, 04:27:37 AM

www.quran434.com/about-the-author.html

It only took me 8 years after joining the forum to write my story. Better late than never  :)
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: san on August 29, 2010, 09:18:10 AM
www.quran434.com/about-the-author.html

It only took me 8 years after joining the forum to write my story. Better late than never  :)

ooh, the guy in the corner under the tree-- what's he doing there
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: siki on August 29, 2010, 01:35:09 PM
ooh, the guy in the corner under the tree-- what's he doing there

I dont know why, but i always had this picture of yours in my mind. ;D

siki
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on August 29, 2010, 02:22:09 PM
san, I was contemplating, as i often do...... well, that, and posing for a pic obviously.  ;D
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on September 18, 2010, 05:05:46 AM
Update:

Dr Shabbir (author of QXP) has opted to modify his translation (http://www.ourbeacon.com/cgi-bin/bbs60x/webbbs_config.pl/page/1/md/read/id/314123119156752) according to the findings of Quran434.com

I also provided a summary on the above thread, which I will post here also:

Quote
I would like to provide a short summary for those who may not wish to read the entire work (even though I strongly recommend they do):

1) idriboo/DRB was shown not to mean "beat" anywhere in The Quran
2) no Classical Arabic Dictionary references 4:34 at all nor gives DRB=beat in a comparable example, i.e. with a direct object with no prepositions, no what/where/how
3) when The Quran uses DRB to mean a physical hit/strike it ALWAYS uses the preposition "bi" (with/by)
4) The understanding of "beat/strike" causes internal contradictions within The Quran, and this is also probably why no commentator, past or present, uses The Quran itself to justify this view.
5) "beat" causes discrepancies between Traditional commentators, Traditional Ahadith and Classical Arabic dictionaries
6) the earliest Classical Arabic dictionary (Kitab Al Ayn) does not state DRB=beat as a meaning, and only indirectly does it have DRB=strike with sword.

The understanding of DRB in 4:34 as "cite / indicate / put/show forth them" (to the authority) is the ONLY understanding that provides perfect internal coherence in The Quran. It is the ONLY understanding:
1) that provides a sequential link from 4:34 to 4:35
2) to provide identical solutions between men & women in 4:34 and 4:128
3) that fits and perfectly explains 58:1-4
4) that fits the divorce procedure of The Quran and related compensation
5) that explains the reasoning behind the context of wealth/inheritance/giving/kindness etc.
6) is consistent with the use of DRB with a direct object with no prepositions, in which it always means "put/show forth"
7) that 100% matches the use of DRB when used with a person as the object, e.g. 2:73, 43:57.

All praise is due to Allah.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on December 24, 2010, 12:03:22 PM
peace all,

I have finished the formatting for the book version:
www.quran434.com/wife-beating-islam-quran434.doc (Word doc, right click, save as)

If people have time to proofread it for any errors or even feedback, let me know.

Proposed book cover shown below. Feel free to give feedback, or even create others.

(http://www.quran434.com/Quran434-book-cover.jpg)
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Mazhar on December 24, 2010, 12:54:54 PM
peace all,

I have finished the formatting for the book version:
www.quran434.com/wife-beating-islam-quran434.doc (Word doc, right click, save as)

If people have time to proofread it for any errors or even feedback, let me know.

Proposed book cover shown below. Feel free to give feedback, or even create others.

(http://www.quran434.com/Quran434-book-cover.jpg)

 Arabic text of all Ayat where words relating to this Root are used can be seen side by side here

Root: ض ر ب

Words from this Root in the Grand Qur'aan:

a) Total occurrences: 58 

b) No of constructions: 28

The basic perception, meanings and signification of this Root has been made evident at the very first occasion of its use in the Grand Qur'aan and later by using it in this context for 31 times out of 58 occurrences (http://www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Tabweeb%20Part%202/120.%20Yazrib%20Zuad%20Ra%20Ba/120.%20Yazrib%20Zuad%20Ra%20Ba.htm#6.%20smiting)
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Leyna on December 25, 2010, 02:20:32 AM

Peace, Wakas


Proposed book cover shown below. Feel free to give feedback, or even create others.

It doesn't look professional. The layout isn't very balanced, and the image is too aggressive and sort of contradicts the message. Plus, you are using two images that have a very different illustrative style.

I'll be happy to help you with the design. Usually, I don't work for free, but this is for a very good cause. :) Maybe we can do a bit of brainstorming in this thread?
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on December 25, 2010, 07:04:36 AM
Peace Leyna,

I'm happy to consider alternatives.

That was one I just made myself, and I'm no graphics artist!  ;D

The way I saw the image was: opening The Quran, i.e. reading/studying it, it actually knocks out the "wife beating in islam" argument, hence the picture. I was going for irony, a play on words and imagery etc.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Leyna on December 25, 2010, 07:40:01 AM
I'm happy to consider alternatives.

Let me think of some ideas, and I'll get back to you.


That was one I just made myself, and I'm no graphics artist!  ;D

Well, yes, obviously.  :P

No offense meant, btw.! I tend to be pretty direct, and criticizing other peoples' drafts is part of my job.  :-*


The way I saw the image was: opening The Quran, i.e. reading/studying it, it actually knocks out the "wife beating in islam" argument, hence the picture. I was going for irony, a play on words and imagery etc.

Yes, I understand your train of thought regarding the choice of pictures. Still, I believe the glove / boxing hand carries particular connotations that could be problematic.

Maybe it doesn't even need an image at all ? just a simple, catchy looking cover?

Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on December 25, 2010, 07:54:57 AM
Yes, I dont mind there not being an image as such.

Take your time, then DaRaBa what you have.

Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Leyna on December 25, 2010, 08:16:55 AM
Maybe just some sort of typographic collage with the Arabic, highlighting the "daraba" or something like that?  :hmm
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on December 25, 2010, 09:35:22 AM
Sounds like it has potential.  :)
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: loxbox13 on December 25, 2010, 09:48:41 AM
peace all,

I have finished the formatting for the book version:
www.quran434.com/wife-beating-islam-quran434.doc (Word doc, right click, save as)

If people have time to proofread it for any errors or even feedback, let me know.

Proposed book cover shown below. Feel free to give feedback, or even create others.

(http://www.quran434.com/Quran434-book-cover.jpg)

Good work brother, I  appreciate it
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Mazhar on December 25, 2010, 11:12:27 AM
Quote
Yes, I understand your train of thought regarding the choice of pictures. Still, I believe the glove / boxing hand carries particular connotations that could be problematic.

Also because those who advocate its meanings as "beating" they add such explanations and reservations which almost means "flowery beating".
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: huruf on December 25, 2010, 12:12:47 PM
I like that play of words with the Qur'an strikes back. The graphic may be misleading in the sense that it confirms what is negted with wordes, even if it is not done with that purpose. I think it defeats the thrust of the words. An image suggesting the opposite would be more congruent.

Salaam
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on February 02, 2011, 12:26:04 PM
peace all,

I was needing some feedback on something. I was thinking of not including "about the author (http://www.quran434.com/about-the-author.html)" pages in the book. Mainly because to me who authors are is irrelevant to the validity of the content, but some have found it helpful to understand how the work came about. Any thoughts?
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on February 03, 2011, 04:51:51 PM
A new cover was designed for the book:

(http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/1208/greennewfinal.jpg)

Thoughts?
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: /*JM*/ on February 05, 2011, 04:00:05 PM
The understanding of DRB in 4:34 as "cite / indicate / put/show forth them" (to the authority) is the ONLY understanding that provides perfect internal coherence in The Quran.

Why not translating it by "move away" / "depart" / "leave" ?
http://gender-az.org/index_en.shtml?id_doc=457
In Lane, you can find the confirmation this translation is possible.

Peace
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on February 05, 2011, 04:15:31 PM
peace JM,

That is what I used to think but the information is now overwhelming for the conclusions of www.Quran434.com

I recommend reading it.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on April 10, 2011, 05:31:26 AM
peace All,

I have some great news.  :)

I received the proof copy of the book and approved it, so it will be available for online purchase in most countries within a few weeks.

I am planning to distribute some copies for free and/or at a nominal price. If anyone would like a copy, personal message me your name and address for shipping.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on April 29, 2011, 08:07:41 AM
peace All,

The book is now available to buy worldwide:
http://www.amazon.com/Wife-Beating-Islam-Quran-Strikes/dp/1461028256/
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: siki on April 29, 2011, 11:22:39 AM


                                        Fantastic
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Mazhar on April 29, 2011, 02:19:13 PM
Quote
That is why the verse says: "if you fear nushuz..." instead of for example, "if you find nushuz...". In other words, nushuz is unlikely to mean something in the husband's presence or obvious/blatant in his presence as 4:34 says "if you fear", so it is reasonable to assume it refers to something not done in the husband's presence. This could be related to the earlier use of "...guardians to the unseen...". If we take these factors into account, it suggests unseen "disloyalty/infidelity/ill-conduct/rebellion" in some way.

Peace Wakas,

The mood of the verb does not support this contention.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on April 29, 2011, 02:40:02 PM
peace Mazhar,

Please explain clearly how the mood of the verb does not support my contention.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Mazhar on April 29, 2011, 03:05:27 PM
[فعل مضارع مرفوع بثبوت النون] Verb: Imperfect; Second person; plural; masculine; Mood: Indicative; [و- ضمير متصل في محل رفع فاعل] Subject pronoun, in nominative state;  مصدر-خَوْفٌ Verbal noun. (1)4:34(2)6:81(3)8:26(4)48:27=4

It indicates an act which does not take place at any one particular time, to the exclusion of any other point in time, but which takes place all the time, or rather in speaking of which no notice is taken of time, but only of duration [in English the indefinite present]. A verb in the indefinite aspect  is used when the beginning or ending of an action, an event, or condition is unknown or unimportant to the meaning of the sentence. The indefinite aspect is also used to indicate an habitual or repeated action, event, or condition.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on April 29, 2011, 03:50:45 PM
Uha, and how does that disprove my contention? Please explain clearly.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Kukumber on April 29, 2011, 04:19:39 PM
Thankyou

Kukumber
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Mazhar on April 30, 2011, 12:44:31 AM
I don't know why some times a clear thing seems not clear.

Pl put the contention and the perception of the verb side by side, may be it seems clear.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: savage_carrot on April 30, 2011, 01:34:34 AM
Maybe because the way you put it is not so clear Mazhar. Other people reading this thread have little to no idea of what your issue is with that quote you selected, you do grammatical hit and runs in the hope that people get you, and it's really not enough to be clear.

What are you saying anyways with the grammar tidbit? Presence or absence is not an issue? Which seems to be explained by fear and find by Wakas? Can you please clarify?
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on April 30, 2011, 02:18:39 AM
Bro Mazhar, it is not clear because you do not make it clear. I have noticed that you often state grammatical information and allude to this being problematic for an interpretation someone has given, but rarely clarify how it is problematic. I suggest to you the so-called problem is one of your own making, most probably related to not understanding what I have written.

What you stated about the verb perfectly aligns with what I wrote.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Mazhar on April 30, 2011, 02:21:19 AM
Maybe because the way you put it is not so clear Mazhar. Other people reading this thread have little to no idea of what your issue is with that quote you selected, you do grammatical hit and runs in the hope that people get you, and it's really not enough to be clear.

What are you saying anyways with the grammar tidbit? Presence or absence is not an issue? Which seems to be explained by fear and find by Wakas? Can you please clarify?

What Wakas is suggesting is also based upon what he derives from the Arabic words. He says, "so it is reasonable to assume it refers to something not done in the husband's presence. This could be related to the earlier use of "...guardians to the unseen...". If we take these factors into account, it suggests unseen "disloyalty/infidelity/ill-conduct/rebellion" in some way." Words like "Unseen "disloyalty/infidelity" are loaded with something of extreme negativity while there is no such thing indicated by the word used as object of "fear".
And "unseen by husabd" denotes something done during the time of his absence. The verb does not support this. Contrary to the baseless presumption of many people that a word may have many meanings, each verb signifies something specific.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: savage_carrot on April 30, 2011, 02:42:40 AM
Should we fear the man getting a gift for his wife Mazhar, for example or vice versa?

Also, what you put forward grammatically doesn't disallow his interpretation.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Mazhar on April 30, 2011, 02:59:28 AM
Should we fear the man getting a gift for his wife Mazhar, for example or vice versa?

Also, what you put forward grammatically doesn't disallow his interpretation.

This needs clarification; fear is caused by apprehension of some undesirable eventuality.

It needs support argument.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on April 30, 2011, 03:17:01 AM
What Wakas is suggesting is also based upon what he derives from the Arabic words. He says, "so it is reasonable to assume it refers to something not done in the husband's presence. This could be related to the earlier use of "...guardians to the unseen...". If we take these factors into account, it suggests unseen "disloyalty/infidelity/ill-conduct/rebellion" in some way." Words like "Unseen "disloyalty/infidelity" are loaded with something of extreme negativity while there is no such thing indicated by the word used as object of "fear".
And "unseen by husabd" denotes something done during the time of his absence. The verb does not support this. Contrary to the baseless presumption of many people that a word may have many meanings, each verb signifies something specific.

Thanks for clarifying. Your reply demonstrates what I suspected, i.e. you did not understand what I wrote.

The original statement you quoted of mine pieces together information and is not all about the verb "fear"! By applying logic, I was able to demonstrate how the pieces of information fit together perfectly.

Your so-called objection is irrelevant.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Mazhar on April 30, 2011, 03:49:09 AM
Thanks for clarifying. Your reply demonstrates what I suspected, i.e. you did not understand what I wrote.

The original statement you quoted of mine pieces together information and is not all about the verb "fear"! By applying logic, I was able to demonstrate how the pieces of information fit together perfectly.

Your so-called objection is irrelevant.

Peace Wakas,

I was not expecting that eventually you will call it "logic". Strange!!
Logic does not permit that one should assume meanings of words having no relevance to the word itself. I feel sorry that arriving at, and then remainingg hard, you seem not to have even given a thought to the word "Nashooz" which also does not permit to presume what you have presumed.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on April 30, 2011, 05:22:16 AM
Quote
Logic does not permit that one should assume meanings of words having no relevance to the word itself.

Exactly, thats why I did not do that.

Quote
you seem not to have even given a thought to the word "Nashooz" which also does not permit to presume what you have presumed.
Ahh, so now you claim I also err with "nushuz", yet provide no clarification as to how. Interesting.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on November 10, 2011, 04:52:11 AM
Update:

The $1000 challenge has been launched:
http://forum09.faithfreedom.org/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=10951

Even though it's open to all, I posted it on the most anti-Islam forum I knew of, hence the above.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Samia on November 10, 2011, 07:23:29 AM
Sister Samia I wish you all happiness. For the purpose of seeking guidance and expert opinion, I want to point out that I recall to have checked it somewhere [now I am not able to find it where I got it] that plural of رقيب is رُقَبَاءُ while رَقَبَةٌ is the singular of رِقَابٌ.

I may clarify that رِقَابٌ was later started being used for the whole human body and metonimically [عرف]it also became the name for referring to slaves.

Salaam Mazhar
Thanks for your kind wishes

It is not uncommon in Arabic to have more than a pattern for the plural of one word.
Example of words that have both plurals of فعلاء and فعال :

عظيم - عظماء - عظام
كبير - كبراء - كبار
طريف - ظرفاء - ظراف
كريم - كرماء - كرام
Moreover, رقبة itself has two more plurals at least.
Quraan does not follow rules of grammarians. Our latest discussion on the nouns of place show how the grammarians consider at least four words mentioned in the qur'aan as "odd" according to their "rules".
The context rules. Why would the army of "muslims" kill the slaves first? The word drb on its own, according to classical dictionaries, mean to strike with a sword or to strike to kill. When we say: strike the "rigaab" it would mean, according to you, (kill the slaves). Did the army even reach the stage of having slaves, let alone kill them specifically? The word "ragaba" also indicates the noble part of the body, and is still used as such, the part that takes the responsibility and the part used to subdue the person. In an army, it has to be those take the first responsibility to attack, like a ragaba to a human body, a vital job for the success of the army or the attackers. This has to be eliminated first.
The use of "rigaab" to indicate slaves is not a common understanding. It's just a corruption of the meaning of a word in the qur'aan. Like many other words such as muhsanaat and MMA, which magically became free women and slave women. Every word is turned into slavery and sex.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: huruf on November 10, 2011, 08:02:49 AM



 Every word is turned into slavery and sex.





Looks as if you were talking about cinema.


Salaam
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Samia on November 10, 2011, 08:26:44 AM


Looks as if you were talking about cinema.


Salaam

hehehehe
and forgot to add "violence"
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Mazhar on November 10, 2011, 08:39:31 AM
Quote
The context rules. Why would the army of "muslims" kill the slaves first? The word drb on its own, according to classical dictionaries, mean to strike with a sword or to strike to kill. When we say: strike the "rigaab" it would mean, according to you, (kill the slaves). Did the army even reach the stage of having slaves, let alone kill them specifically?

This is not my understanding.
 I translate it like this:

For reason/in response when you people have confronted in war those who have refused to believe then resultantly the obvious target [for both the warring parties] are the necks/human bodies-mutual hitting till such point in time [during the currency of fight] that you have succeeded in overpowering/caused them drop weapons/made them exhausted/subdued
thereat you people are hereby directed to [not to kill but] firmly bind-arrest them/take them prisoners of war, since the questions of releasing them as gesture of obliging favour or on ransom arises afterwards when the war may surrender/lay down the weapons [the enemy has been totally subdued].
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Samia on November 10, 2011, 09:17:18 AM
This is not my understanding.
 I translate it like this:

For reason/in response when you people have confronted in war those who have refused to believe then resultantly the obvious target [for both the warring parties] are the necks/human bodies-mutual hitting

I still don't understand where you got "drb arriqaab" means kill them? drb alone suffies. Moreover, killing in fighting does not necessarily target necks. There is nowhere in the qur'aan this expression is used to mean just kill, although killing enemies and transgressors in war is mentioned more than once, and the simple verb "qtl" is used.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Mazhar on November 10, 2011, 09:41:03 AM
I still don't understand where you got "drb arriqaab" means kill them?

I did not say this. Two parties are confronting war with each other. This signifies only one thing, each party is targetting and focussing on the necks/human bodies of the members of the other party. Thereafter, one party becomes subdued or surrenders whereby hostility aimed at killing the members of other party comes to halt.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Samia on November 10, 2011, 11:11:55 AM
I still don't understand where you got "drb arriqaab" means kill them?

I did not say this. Two parties are confronting war with each other. This signifies only one thing, each party is targetting and focussing on the necks/human bodies of the members of the other party.

So you are saying it: targeting and focusing on the necks\ human bodies!

What else would a simple verb as qtl or even drb not explain?
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Student of Allah on November 10, 2011, 11:26:12 AM
Shalom,

I think Shabir Ally was talking about this same thing as I saw in one of his videos. He said he wrote a paper where he demonstrated that the meaning is not to beat but to cite them to authority.

PEACE
-------------------- Student of Allah
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Mazhar on November 10, 2011, 02:47:35 PM
So you are saying it: targeting and focusing on the necks\ human bodies!

What else would a simple verb as qtl or even drb not explain?

We see the statement as is in the text and as it is related with other words in the sentence to perceive what is conveyed by this choice of words. We do not argue with the writer's choice of words. We have to perceive what is with us.

The possessive phrase, with a definite verbal noun because of second noun being definite, is the apodosis clause. It is not a command but mere depiction of that which happens once the confronting armies are face to face, have already met in the battlefield.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Samia on November 10, 2011, 03:36:03 PM
We see the statement as is in the text and as it is related with other words in the sentence to perceive what is conveyed by this choice of words. We do not argue with the writer's choice of words. We have to perceive what is with us.

I am not arguing with the writer.  am arguing with you who believe the writer is inserting meaningless words, unlike His way of describing the same action all over the qur'aan.

A command, an advice or even just a description, the expression is still meaningless. Even you could not just keep with "strike the neck" but had to add "or the human body", and this still does not help!
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Mazhar on November 10, 2011, 03:56:28 PM
Then how would it become "meaningful"---what is its meanings which seem meaningful in the whole sentence/context.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Samia on November 10, 2011, 04:10:24 PM
Then how would it become "meaningful"---what is its meanings which seem meaningful in the whole sentence/context.

Considering the army as a body and its "rigaab" are the lead soldiers. Those are the ones to be killed/ attacked to paralyze the aggression. Once this is achieved, captivate the others. 
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Mazhar on November 10, 2011, 04:23:35 PM
Considering the army as a body and its "rigaab" are the lead soldiers. Those are the ones to be killed/ attacked to paralyze the aggression. Once this is achieved, captivate the others.

فَإِذا لَقِيتُمُ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا فَضَرْبَ الرِّقَابِ حَتَّى إِذَا أَثْخَنتُمُوهُمْ فَشُدُّوا الْوَثَاقَ

Sister please put it with the complete translation, so that I can comprehend it more clearly; notwithstanding that lead soldiers are nowhere considered as the most crucial formation of the battlefield. The attack and full agression follows after them.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Samia on November 11, 2011, 02:19:07 AM
فَإِذا لَقِيتُمُ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا فَضَرْبَ الرِّقَابِ حَتَّى إِذَا أَثْخَنتُمُوهُمْ فَشُدُّوا الْوَثَاقَ

Sister please put it with the complete translation, so that I can comprehend it more clearly; notwithstanding that lead soldiers are nowhere considered as the most crucial formation of the battlefield. The attack and full agression follows after them.

The result of this "ضرب الرقاب" is exhausting the aggression and enabling you to take them as captives. The aim is not to create a genocide. Remember, the "muslims" are not the aggressors but the defendants. They are being attacked. They have to have a good strategy to subdue the enemy. The "rigaab" of the army are the most important. I believed they were the lead soldiers. I may be wrong, but the rigaab are the most important of the army. After the exhaustion comes the captivation and the negotiations.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Mazhar on November 11, 2011, 02:35:34 AM
The result of this "ضرب الرقاب" is exhausting the aggression and enabling you to take them as captives. The aim is not to create a genocide. Remember, the "muslims" are not the aggressors but the defendants. They are being attacked. They have to have a good strategy to subdue the enemy. The "rigaab" of the army are the most important. I believed they were the lead soldiers. I may be wrong, but the rigaab are the most important of the army. After the exhaustion comes the captivation and the negotiations.

This perception that the operative strategy in the battlefield, once both the armies are confronting each other, the defending army should be restricted to finding and killing only the so called most important of the enemy army can be had only when the most stupid of the generals is heading the defending army. Such instructions are never issued in the battlefield to place one's own army and soldiers in a confused state of mind risking their lives. Decisions in war are on the spur of the moment, kill or get killed.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Samia on November 11, 2011, 03:08:20 AM
This perception that the operative strategy in the battlefield, once both the armies are confronting each other, the defending army should be restricted to finding and killing only the so called most important of the enemy army can be had only when the most stupid of the generals is heading the defending army. Such instructions are never issued in the battlefield to place one's own army and soldiers in a confused state of mind risking their lives. Decisions in war are on the spur of the moment, kill or get killed.

إِذْ يُوحِي رَبُّكَ إِلَى الْمَلَائِكَةِ أَنِّي مَعَكُمْ فَثَبِّتُوا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا ۚ سَأُلْقِي فِي قُلُوبِ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا الرُّعْبَ فَاضْرِبُوا فَوْقَ الْأَعْنَاقِ وَاضْرِبُوا مِنْهُمْ كُلَّ بَنَانٍ


 8:12
 Why not just drb ala3naaq? No difference between 3unq and raqaba?



Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Mazhar on November 11, 2011, 08:02:27 AM
Sister,

Thanks, You have clarified the point by this quote that Riqabe does not exclusively refer to "leading soldoers" type of thing.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Samia on November 11, 2011, 09:07:21 AM
Sister,

Thanks, You have clarified the point by this quote that Riqabe does not exclusively refer to "leading soldoers" type of thing.

I do not care about what soldiers, leading or leaders. The point is the advise or command is not to cut necks but to attack important soldiers of the army.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Mazhar on November 11, 2011, 11:20:27 AM
I do not care about what soldiers, leading or leaders. The point is the advise or command is not to cut necks but to attack important soldiers of the army.

Sorry Sister,

Again both sentences are self contradictory. Leading stands substituted by "important". The only different perception which I can now draw from the last sentence is that the scene is not to kill the enemy on mass scale but selectively kill.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Samia on November 11, 2011, 11:51:31 AM
Sorry Sister,

Again both sentences are self contradictory. Leading stands substituted by "important". The only different perception which I can now draw from the last sentence is that the scene is not to kill the enemy on mass scale but selectively kill.

Yes. In war you choose whom to kill or disable in order to cut short your losses.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on July 11, 2012, 12:00:39 PM
peace/salaam all,

Good news.  :)

www.Quran434.com's understanding has now been officially added to QXP (http://ourbeacon.com/?page_id=11605) latest edition.

The book is now available in kindle format for $1 (the PDF (http://www.quran434.com/Quran434-wife-beating-islam.pdf) is free on the website)

If you have a facebook account, please like the facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/pages/Wife-Beating-in-Islam-The-Quran-Strikes-Back/212849812100983)


And lastly, I am looking for distributors in North America who are willing to send a copy to Muslim journals/magazines/authors/scholars/academics/organisations. I can cover the books and postage costs, all you need to do is find potential recipients and send them in the mail. I may be able to provide a list.


###

?He who bemoans the lack of opportunity forgets that small doors many times open up into large rooms.?
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on January 24, 2014, 01:28:59 PM
peace all,

I have updated the work to include:

Quote from: source (http://www.quran434.com/wife-beating-islam.html)
It has been argued that idriboohunna in 4:34 means "separate (from) them" ('Quran: a Reformist Translation') or "go away from them" ('The Sublime Quran' by Laleh Bakhtiar), which interestingly has some support in the traditional commentaries and fits better than "strike/beat". However, I feel this translation is possible only as long as it does not imply divorce/talaq, as The Quran always uses the word talaq to mean divorce AND since the contract-breaking party compensates the other, it would be unfair for the husband to initiate divorce when he has done nothing wrong in this case. There are other problems with this understanding:
1) it is not quite a conflict-resolution step and if not meant to imply divorce/talaq then it seemingly penalises the husband implying he should move out.
2) any degree of leaving/separating/shunning may fall afoul of doing iAAradan (alienation / turning away) in 4:128, thus such a step may give the wife a legitimate reason for ending the marriage, thus unless clarified/limited this meaning does not fit well.
3) results in incoherence when DRB is used with a human as the direct object (see 43:57 and 2:73)
4) requires the insertion of "from" making this the only DRB example of this kind in The Quran, even though the preposition "AAn /from" is used with DRB in 43:5 in a very similar usage as being suggested here for 4:34.
5) provides no explanation as to how the authority find out about the issue in the marriage by 4:35
6) makes little sense when in the reversed role 4:128-129, discussed later.
7) has no supporting example in Quran, see below.

An answer that can provide perfect coherence within The Quran is the ideal.
As we can see, a mechanism should exist that allows the authority to be notified and resolves a situation like this in a fair manner. We will now review examples from The Quran itself to see if an answer is given.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: The_Chimp on January 24, 2014, 02:25:43 PM
peace all,

I have updated the work to include:

Quote
any degree of leaving/separating/shunning may fall afoul of doing iAAradan (alienation / turning away) in 4:128, thus such a step may give the wife a legitimate reason for ending the marriage, thus unless clarified/limited this meaning does not fit well.

The underlying motivation of "Quran only" is to apply morality to the book rather than taking from it. How unsurprising the the recurring themes are to do away with the 7th century Arabian morality and replace it with Modern Enlightenment values.

Some of the embarrassments to be done away with and discussed on this board are:

1. Permissibility of Alcohol.

2. Women's rights and roles.

3. Marriage and Polygamy.

4. Praying

5. Sexuality.

Reforms happen . . . but to this extent?


Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Man of Faith on January 24, 2014, 02:57:48 PM
Why not, Mr. Chimp?

Peace
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on January 24, 2014, 03:05:24 PM
The_Chimp,
I see you talk much but evidence little. Feel free to refute (with evidence) the understanding of www.Quran434.com

Perhaps then we can see which option is more Quran based.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: The_Chimp on January 24, 2014, 03:34:38 PM
The_Chimp,
I see you talk much but evidence little. Feel free to refute (with evidence) the understanding of www.Quran434.com

Perhaps then we can see which option is more Quran based.

This is forum - by its type one doesn't write realms.

Also - know one really takes things seriously - hence the silly and often ridiculous arguments - resorting to childish name calling.



- - -

I am still waiting for the Prayer debate! What happened to that?

Then there was your awkward fumble - at refuting 5 prayers, by pointing to a document showing Muslims did not pray before the order of 5 prayers came along!

So there isn't that much point of making long rambling refutations . . .

- - -

The point is general - the motivation of such interpretation is having a different "morality" . . . some people never reconcile and become non-Muslims.

If you are in UK - Sarfraz Manzoor:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03jb3n5

- - -

If that is your article:

You were ALWAYS going to find that Daraba in 4:34 did not mean "beat". 
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: The_Chimp on January 24, 2014, 03:35:54 PM
Why not, Mr. Chimp?

Peace

Why not - what?
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: aqua on January 24, 2014, 04:06:08 PM
peace all,

I have updated the work to include:

Quote
4) requires the insertion of "from" making this the only DRB example of this kind in The Quran, even though the preposition "AAn /from" is used with DRB in 43:5 in a very similar usage as being suggested here for 4:34.


Please see the following, taken from: http://quransmessage.com/articles/does%20the%20quran%20sanction%20wife%20beating%20FM3.htm

Quote
However, it appears from certain Arabic lexicons that the phrase 'Idribohunna' does not necessarily require the preposition 'an' to make the rendition 'shun - turn away from' operative.  Therefore, the word 'Idribohunna' in the Quran can still retain the meaning to 'turn away from - shun' without necessitating the requirement of the preposition 'an'.

Please see the example in the following excerpt below.

(http://s16.postimg.org/6bc8zpfet/a_deep1.jpg)

Source: LANE. E.W, Edward Lanes Lexicon, Williams and Norgate 1863; Librairie du Liban Beirut-Lebanon 1968, Volume 5, Page 1779

This rendering also finds support with the overarching philosophy depicted by the Quran which underscores how marriage institutions should be managed in kindness, respect and without causing harm to one another.

Other authors have also sought support from trusted Arabic lexicons to make a similar case.

"Nevertheless, narrowing its meaning in a given instance is not as difficult as it may first seem, because in Arabic verbs acquire various connotations only in combination with specific prepositions. For instance daraba acquires the meaning of "to separate" in combination with baina, and the meaning of "to turn away from," "to leave," "to avoid," and "to shun" in combination with 'an. In the passage in question, daraba is not combined with either of these prepositions. Yet Lane points out that the command form of the verb, udribu, with or without 'an, can mean "ignore," "pay no attention to," or "turn away from," as well as "hit," "beat," or "strike." Hence, udribu-hunna, could mean, "beat them" or "strike them," or alternatively, "turn them away," "ignore them," or "shun them." 

Source: LANG. J, Losing My Religion: A Call for Help, Amana Publications, First Edition, Page 429 Author Reference [93] Edward Lane, Arabic-English Lexicon, Fredrick Unger Publishing (1956), page 1779, first column, two-thirds down the page.

Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: The_Chimp on January 24, 2014, 04:37:14 PM
@Aqua

Take this to anyone with expertise in Arabic - the quote is incorrect and the person has made a mistake:

Quote
However, it appears from certain Arabic lexicons that the phrase 'Idribohunna' does not necessarily require the preposition 'an' to make the rendition 'shun - turn away from' operative.  Therefore, the word 'Idribohunna' in the Quran can still retain the meaning to 'turn away from - shun' without necessitating the requirement of the preposition 'an'.

As the dictionary points out - the additional particle is necessary. It is right there in the illustration provided.

Da Ra Ba require the particle 'An.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Earthdom on January 24, 2014, 04:53:23 PM

4:34 Men are supporters of wives because God gave some of them an advantage over others and because they spent of their wealth. So the females, ones in accord with morality are the females, ones who are morally obligated and the females, ones who guard the unseen of what God kept safe. And those females whose resistance you fear, then admonish them (f) and abandon them (f) in their sleeping places and go away from them (f). Then if they (f) obeyed you, then look not for any way against them (f). Truly, God had been Lofty, Great. (Laleh Bakhtiar)

I notice a reduplication.

Red word (abandon) in Arabic is hajara/ahjuru.
Blue word (go away) in Arabib is daraba.

If we translate DRB as "go away" then it's just a reduplication of HJR, since this word also means : leave, relinquish.

There is no difference between go away and abandon.

DRB can be mean hit, war and go out, this is a homonym.

In FM, DRB translated into "separate", but it's the plausible one even it's not the literal meaning




Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: aqua on January 24, 2014, 05:10:10 PM
@Aqua

Take this to anyone with expertise in Arabic - the quote is incorrect and the person has made a mistake:

As the dictionary points out - the additional particle is necessary. It is right there in the illustration provided.

Da Ra Ba require the particle 'An.

In the illustration provided, notice the [or] in brackets (it's circled in red) signifying that the word may be used with OR without 'An for that meaning.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: The_Chimp on January 24, 2014, 05:23:32 PM
In the illustration provided, notice the [or] in brackets (it's circled in red) signifying that the word may be used with OR without 'An for that meaning.

No. Please look at the illustration again . . .

It says ضرب عنه or اضرب = to turn away from

And the verb Adraba with additional Alif - is a different class of verb.

In Western Classification it is verb from IV [4].

More details:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_verbs
http://arabic.desert-sky.net/g_vforms.html
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: aqua on January 24, 2014, 05:50:44 PM
No. Please look at the illustration again . . .

It says ضرب عنه or اضرب = to turn away from

And the verb Adraba with additional Alif - is a different class of verb.

In Western Classification it is verb from IV [4].

More details:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_verbs
http://arabic.desert-sky.net/g_vforms.html


Well, the verse does use the verb WITH the Alif, so you have no point: 

(http://s23.postimg.org/qrixvd43f/4_34.png)

Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?  The truth is that if you want to beat your wife, you would beat your wife no matter what, you wouldn't care what the Qur'an says.

Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Man of Faith on January 24, 2014, 05:57:06 PM
Peace,

Who cares? Who would beat his wife anyway?
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: aqua on January 24, 2014, 05:59:48 PM
Peace,

Who cares? Who would beat his wife anyway?

Unfortunately many men do, and there are even those hypocrites who try to justify it using the Qur'an.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: The_Chimp on January 24, 2014, 06:14:50 PM

Well, the verse does use the verb WITH the Alif, so you have no point: 

(http://s23.postimg.org/qrixvd43f/4_34.png)

Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?  The truth is that if you want to beat your wife, you would beat your wife no matter what, you wouldn't care what the Qur'an says.

I have degree in Arabic have studied the subject extensively. . . so don't ask me - if I am arguing for the sake of arguing. Try not to get "tetchy" - and then blame even that one me.

Note: I am not being rude or making personal remarks about you.

- -

Now back to the issue:

The illustration you provide . . .  that is using the Arabic Verb Form I [1] in the imperative form. Look this up at the same website [word by word] . Whereas, the dictionary is pointing to the standard verb in the fourth form [IV].

- -

As I originally pointed out - you do not have to take my word for it - please do verify it with someone who know Arabic.

I recommend:

http://forum.wordreference.com/forumdisplay.php?f=41

It is impartial language forum and there are several people very good at Arabic.     

- -

I have also checked the better and simply formatted [albeit concise] Hans Wehr - it too equates Verb Form I with 'An - to the verb form IV.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: aqua on January 24, 2014, 08:30:18 PM
I have degree in Arabic have studied the subject extensively. . . so don't ask me - if I am arguing for the sake of arguing. Try not to get "tetchy" - and then blame even that one me.

Note: I am not being rude or making personal remarks about you.

- -

Now back to the issue:

The illustration you provide . . .  that is using the Arabic Verb Form I [1] in the imperative form. Look this up at the same website [word by word] . Whereas, the dictionary is pointing to the standard verb in the fourth form [IV].

- -

As I originally pointed out - you do not have to take my word for it - please do verify it with someone who know Arabic.

I recommend:

http://forum.wordreference.com/forumdisplay.php?f=41

It is impartial language forum and there are several people very good at Arabic.     

- -

I have also checked the better and simply formatted [albeit concise] Hans Wehr - it too equates Verb Form I with 'An - to the verb form IV.

All the sources I have seen including the links you provided show that Verb Form 4 requires a Hamza symbol above the Alif like this  أ ,  but the dictionary does not make use of this symbol in the definition.  Hence, the illustration is not necessarily referring to Verb Form 4.  This is not just an incidental omission because Lane's dictionary does make use of Hamza on Alif elsewhere in other definitions.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: The_Chimp on January 24, 2014, 09:03:39 PM
All the sources I have seen including the links you provided show that Verb Form 4 requires a Hamza symbol above the Alif like this  أ ,  but the dictionary does not make use of this symbol in the definition.  Hence, the illustration is not necessarily referring to Verb Form 4.  This is not just an incidental omission because Lane's dictionary does make use of Hamza on Alif elsewhere in other definitions.

And if you review the illustration you provided - then notice it too carries the Hamzah Walsi sign on top for the imperative command verb.

As to the Lane's dictionary - it [and other dictionary] do not talk about Imperative Verbs - that is Form IV - see the dictionary Hans Wehr - it too omits the Hamza sign and simply uses the Alif.

- - -

Imperative form of the verb is a derived form - it makes absolutely no sense for the command form not to carry the same particles - this does not happen in Arabic

- - -

Take this link:

http://arabic.desert-sky.net/g_vforms.html

Now for the form 4 - this uses the word Kharaja - Akhraja.

Then check this on Lane's. You will notice the dictionary's use of the Hamaza Wasl is erratic - it uses it on some words and not the others - yet the discussion is still about the same word in form 4. 

- - -

Also - go back to Da Ra Ba root in the Lane's Lexicon. There look up the Form 4 for this verb - again - you will notice Lane's is erratic regarding the little Hamza sign - on some it is there on some it isn't.

 


Quote
This is not just an incidental omission because Lane's dictionary does make use of Hamza on Alif elsewhere in other definitions.

Simply not true.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on January 25, 2014, 03:24:35 AM
The_Chimp,

Quote
I am still waiting for the Prayer debate! What happened to that?


I was waiting for people to join in, as I clearly said. Updated: http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9606088.msg346685#msg346685

Quote
...by pointing to a document showing Muslims did not pray before the order of 5 prayers came along!

The above is a lie against me. See forum rule 3, and please correct it:
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=8177.0
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: The_Chimp on January 25, 2014, 07:15:46 PM
The_Chimp,
 

I was waiting for people to join in, as I clearly said. Updated: http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9606088.msg346685#msg346685

The above is a lie against me. See forum rule 3, and please correct it:
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=8177.0

It is not a lie - but a mistake in that I meant to say - "did not pray 5" - Hence:

    ...by pointing to a document showing Muslims did not pray 5 before the order of 5 prayers came along!



As to pointing out rule 3!

Jeez! I get a lot of abuse . . . far stronger . . . I hope you are "as" diligent when I put a complaint in.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: aqua on January 26, 2014, 04:31:32 PM
And if you review the illustration you provided - then notice it too carries the Hamzah Walsi sign on top for the imperative command verb.

As to the Lane's dictionary - it [and other dictionary] do not talk about Imperative Verbs - that is Form IV - see the dictionary Hans Wehr - it too omits the Hamza sign and simply uses the Alif.

Imperative form of the verb is a derived form - it makes absolutely no sense for the command form not to carry the same particles - this does not happen in Arabic

Take this link:

http://arabic.desert-sky.net/g_vforms.html

Now for the form 4 - this uses the word Kharaja - Akhraja.

Then check this on Lane's. You will notice the dictionary's use of the Hamaza Wasl is erratic - it uses it on some words and not the others - yet the discussion is still about the same word in form 4. 

Also - go back to Da Ra Ba root in the Lane's Lexicon. There look up the Form 4 for this verb - again - you will notice Lane's is erratic regarding the little Hamza sign - on some it is there on some it isn't.



A very strong refutation to your 'Verb Grammar' argument is the following.  It shows how the meaning of 'leave / separate' in the Lexicon can apply here even if it is referring to the 4th Form Verb:

Quote
We have to remember that the first written versions of the Quran had no
vocalisation, in other words, they left out short vowels and other signs
that tell us how to read the letters that are written. Arabic verbs have
many “forms” with different meanings, like the English verbs press -
repress – depress – pressurize.

One of the things that is used to mark
these forms is a letter alif at the beginning, which marks the 4th form of
the verb. You can think of the alif as a standard suffix, like English re-
or de-

But – here’s the crunch – the aleph at the beginning is also the marker
for the imperative (and of the interrogative, but that is not relevant
here), so in a text without the short vowels written, an imperative looks
the same as the 4th form of the verb, and also the same as the imperative
of the 4th form (because the alif is not doubled, one alif does both
jobs).


The verb in this case is d-r-b. Daraba means “he beat.”  So the meaning of
the first form is “beat,” while one of the meanings of the 4th form is
“leave.”

The form in this verse of the Quran is  | D r b

This could mean, you must beat (imperative of first form). Or it
could mean “you leave” or it could mean “you must leave”

If we take it as an imperative of the 4th form, it would be
pronounced ad.ribuu-hunna and the translation would be you (masculine
plural ‘you’) shall withdraw from them.


Sequentially: he tells them first to admonish their wives, then
refuse to share their beds, then withdraw from them, then (next
verse) appoint arbiters from the families. That is a logical
progression.

Source: http://senmcglinn.wordpress.com/email-archive/beat-your-wives/


Undoubtedly you will now claim that your Arabic knowledge is better and that the above is incorrect.  But religious obstinacy can make a person persist in falsehood no matter how much they are proven wrong.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: The_Chimp on January 26, 2014, 05:05:44 PM
Quote
A very strong refutation to your 'Verb Grammar' argument is the following.  It shows how the meaning of 'leave / separate' in the Lexicon can apply here even if it is referring to the 4th Form Verb

Read this back to yourself . . . it is somewhat contradictory. On one hand - you admit I am right to point out that and on the other you attempt, dogmatically, to hold on to your former position. Result? The above contradictory statement.

The question regarding the verb is simple. I even gave you means to verify it by an impartial Arabic language forum.

- -

Quote
Undoubtedly you will now claim that your Arabic knowledge is better and that the above is incorrect.  But religious obstinancy can make a person persist in falsehood no matter how much they are proven wrong.

Such statements are disingenuous by type. Why don't you wait for my response? What it shows is that you fear my Arabic actually is better and if you do bring forth another reply, which, if like others, is proven to be incorrect - then - that will leave you in dilemma.

Are you saying by above that it does not matter what I reply . . . you are going to carry on believing whatever you fee like?

Quote
But religious obstinancy can make a person persist in falsehood no matter how much they are proven wrong.

Could you point out in what you have proven me wrong? How deceptive! Look at the previous exchange. What is it I am wrong about?

Please do explain.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: aqua on January 26, 2014, 05:20:08 PM
Could you point out in what you have proven me wrong? How deceptive! Look at the previous exchange. What is it I am wrong about?

You claimed that since the dictionaries refer to 4th Form Verb, this makes it impossible to apply that meaning to verse 4:34.  I showed you how grammatically it is possible to apply a 4th Form Verb to verse 4:34.  You made a misinformed point about the grammar in the Qur'an.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Firedragon on January 27, 2014, 01:32:19 AM
peace, brothers and sisters,

After a lot of research into 4:34 of The Quran and the meaning of DaRaBa, I have finally finished a 1st draft of my study:

Please take your time to review it, as it is over 40 pages in length. There are a few minor points within it that still need verified/clarified, these are in purple font. As a side note, it was a very interesting journey completing this work, something which I did not initially intend to write, but as my discoveries mounted up, it soon became something that I simply had to write and publish.


All feedback is welcome, especially any corrections.


Once it has been reviewed, a dedicated site and promotional tools will accompany it.

EDIT: above link does not work now, website is www.Quran434.com

Good effort and good work Wakas. Probably the most comprehensive analysis of a single topic I have seen.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on January 27, 2014, 02:13:51 AM
peace aqua, all,

Yes, I was aware of that Lane Lexicon reference, however I was also aware of the somewhat controversy surrounding it AND note that I said "making this the only DRB example of this kind in The Quran" i.e. I did not say there was no example of this kind in existence.
Your post about the tashkeel/vocalisation markings cleared it up. We should bear in mind the earliest extant scripts of The Quran had no vocalisation/tashkeel marks.

Thus, my current understanding is, "go away from them" in 4:34 is theoretically possible IF one assumes the tashkeel/vocalisation of the present day Arabic Quran is incorrect AND one is willing to solve/overcome the issues I mentioned earlier. (http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599954.msg346593#msg346593)

Please note, I do not actually think "go away from them" is viable. Note that DRB is used to mean "withdraw from" in 43:5, and it is the first verb form without Alif, thus if The Quran was being consistent one would have thought it would use the same first verb form with the preposition "AAn" in 4:34 if it meant "withdraw from them".

Interestingly, Laleh Bakhtiar (who translates it "go away from") considers it to be the first form verb. It is possible she has an Arabic reference for this first form meaning that but I am not aware of her referencing such a source. If others are, let me know. She also discusses an objection based on the claim that DRB in 4:34 is a transitive verb and can thus only take a direct object, however her interpretation requires it to be intransitive so it can take an indirect object. I would be interested in hearing the Quranic evidence for/against this.

And as for the other issues I highlighted, I would be surprised if someone could solve them. I would like to clarify number (6) by explaining it, e.g. if in the reversed-role of 4:128-129 the woman was to leave/withdraw from her husband then she is doing what she fears i.e. iAAradan/alienation or turning away, which makes little sense.

Also in the quote you provided it said:
"Sequentially: he tells them first to admonish their wives, then
refuse to share their beds, then withdraw from them, then (next
verse) appoint arbiters from the families. That is a logical
progression."


To clarify, in case there is confusion, it is not the husband that is appointing arbiters, it is the authority/community. How they find out about such a situation, or where the husband goes (if he can afford to go somewhere that is) is not explained in such an understanding.

And lastly, personally, I am very cautious of using the argument "the tashkeel is incorrect here, and that is how my view can work" argument. Especially so, if there is a perfectly sound option available.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: uq on January 27, 2014, 05:28:28 AM
Peace all,

I have always been of the opinion that 4:34 presents itself as an inconvenience to readers of the Quran with Modern sensibilities, as well as presenting itself as an anomaly to the rest of the Quranic message that exhorts patience and self-restraint.

However, to date, I have unfortunately not found any proof from the dictionaries that اضربوهن can mean any thing other than "strike them", explicitly.

Despite this, we can appeal to its use as a metaphor (what the Arab grammarians term "tropical application"), in that it is used to mean "go away" or "separate", implicitly.

But, unfortunately for us, this position is extremely untenable as there is no precedence of this use.

There are two important points to bear in mind when considering اضربوهن in 4:34:

1. The root ض ر ب admits of a huge number of various meanings in the Classical Language. Words derived from this root seem to have been used to signify some form of motion, as "to strike" or "to travel" or "to impress a coin" or "to snatch away" etc., and a great deal of them are tropical applications. Notwithstanding this, they are almost always prepositional compounds, that is, they occur with obligate prepositions, as ضرب في or ضرب عن or ضرب له, etc. Whereas in 4:34, the verb occurs without a preposition; it takes a direct object. This is a difficulty for those of us who seek to justify its signification as being "separate from them" or "go away from them."

2. The phrase ضَرَبَ في الأرض signifies "to travel the earth", but it cannot be separated from the preposition في (which means "in"); this much is certain. However, Az-Zabīdī states in Tāj al-?Arūs   والضربُ يَقَعُ على جميع الأعمال إلّا قَليلًا meaning "and the [act of] ض ر ب applies to all acts but a few." This is probably why so many entries of the root ض ر ب are tropical applications. Can this, therefore, by extension, be applied to 4:34? That is for the reader of the Quran to reckon.

Ultimately, the reader of the Quran is left to reflect.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: huruf on January 27, 2014, 05:38:18 AM
There is no crime in 4.34 therefore there cannot be any question of any punishment. The fear that somebody may do something wrong may warrant that that somebody is advised, warned or counselled or informed of the fears of the persons concerned, but most certainly does not warrant that he or she is punished for the fear that somebody may have that he or she may do something wrong.

D-r-b, as to its meaning in the sentence appears quite clear and neat and in accordance with the general fundamental significance of the root if taken as making something apparent an clear and efficient. You fear something, so you state it to the person you fear may do something and get clarity from him or her.

And the community is the one who is in charge of doing that in this case of 4.34. No need to go into preventive war or punishment, that is not quranic at all.

But the meaning of hitting has been useful historically to affirm marital authority of the husband over the wife, which otherwise is nowhere in the Qur'an but which at that time was the rule in most civilizations if not all. So that legitimation of marital authority was put in the Qur'an by way of making it a punishment of the husband to the wife. There wa snot intention at all of having women beaten, but there was the needed idea to uphold marital authority over the wife. As we all know, the world would have crumbled had that authority not been there, like it is crumbling now for that reason(if we believe some scholars).

So what was not in the qur'an was injected by that subtle means.

The fact that there is nothing done, just feared, in the sentence, is a clear mark that there can be no beating nor anything that might be understood as a punishment or "teaching" to somebody who has behaved or is behaving wrongly, that is no correction, neither from the community who is addressed nor of course from the husband, who is not addressed at all.

There is still in spanish dictionnaries a verb derived from daraba (adarvar) which has precisely that meaning, like stun or surprise, but no indication of anything physical.


Salaam
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: theNabster on January 27, 2014, 09:14:54 AM
Salam huruf,

you have got it reasonably right, the word daraba is used in the Quran for the aim of breaking a narrative, like when relating a story whose purpose is to advocate a change in behaviour... the Quran is full of this...
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: huruf on January 27, 2014, 11:52:25 AM
Salam huruf,

you have got it reasonably right, the word daraba is used in the Quran for the aim of breaking a narrative, like when relating a story whose purpose is to advocate a change in behaviour... the Quran is full of this...


Indeed, you are right, but the hitting bit seems to to have a bewitching effect and once somebody has fallen under the spell they cannot escape it no matter how far fetched or illogical.

Salaam
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: theNabster on January 27, 2014, 02:04:30 PM

Indeed, you are right, but the hitting bit seems to to have a bewitching effect and once somebody has fallen under the spell they cannot escape it no matter how far fetched or illogical.

Salaam

at the risk of sounding racist to my own kind (I have about half Arabic blood and an 8th Ottoman), I think the Arabs and many of the tribes Islam absorbed, such as Persians, Mongols, Ottomans are pretty violent, and after all slavery is still rampant in the Arabian Gulf Sheikhdoms...

violence is the most sordid form of control...
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: aqua on January 27, 2014, 04:50:55 PM
Please note, I do not actually think "go away from them" is viable. Note that DRB is used to mean "withdraw from" in 43:5, and it is the first verb form without Alif, thus if The Quran was being consistent one would have thought it would use the same first verb form with the preposition "AAn" in 4:34 if it meant "withdraw from them".

I don't think that is an equal comparison because a function of the Alif in verse 4:34 is to denote the imperative / command form, whereas verse 43:5 does not require the imperative / command form.  Taking the Alif in 4:34 to also denote the 4th form of a verb, this can allow both the meaning of 'Separate' as well as providing the appropriate imperative expression.  In verse 43:5, an imperative expression is not required (instead there is an interrogative Alif used as a prefix), so it is not necessary for this verse to be worded in the same way as 4:34.

Personally I don't feel the other issues you mentioned are strong enough objections because most can be addressed with an answer resembling 'not necessarily'.

Quote
1) it is not quite a conflict-resolution step and if not meant to imply divorce/talaq then it seemingly penalises the husband implying he should move out.

Not necessarily.  A period of separation may be useful in resolving a marital conflict (ie. to calm things down / allow gradual resolution), and the Qur'an's emphasis is not on who leaves the house in this context.  The emphasis is on the course of action, ie. separation as a potential aid to conflict resolution.

Quote
2) any degree of leaving/separating/shunning may fall afoul of doing iAAradan (alienation / turning away) in 4:128, thus such a step may give the wife a legitimate reason for ending the marriage, thus unless clarified/limited this meaning does not fit well.

Verse 4:128 encourages the possibility of reconciliation when the wife is in the situation of husband committing opposition / turning away.  This seems to be supporting the view of a separation for the purposes of attempting reconciliation in verse 4:34.  How does this give the wife legitimate reason for ending marriage? 

Quote
3) results in incoherence when DRB is used with a human as the direct object (see 43:57 and 2:73)

This does not necessarily disprove the interpretation of 'separate' in verse 4:34.

Quote
4) requires the insertion of "from" making this the only DRB example of this kind in The Quran, even though the preposition "AAn /from" is used with DRB in 43:5 in a very similar usage as being suggested here for 4:34.

Not necessarily, as discussed earlier in this thread.

Quote
5) provides no explanation as to how the authority find out about the issue in the marriage by 4:35

Qur'an does not need to provide such details.  Perhaps this has been deliberately left out to allow adaptation to different societies, authorities and court systems.

Quote
6) makes little sense when in the reversed role 4:128-129

Instead, it seems to correlate with the interpretation of 'separate' in verse 4:34, as mentioned in point 2 above.

Quote
7) has no supporting example in Quran

There might not be an identical example, but at least there is usage of that meaning in verse 43:5.  The overriding principles of tolerance, justice and compassion throughout the Qur'an also provide further support.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on January 28, 2014, 11:08:48 AM
I don't think that is an equal comparison because a function of the Alif in verse 4:34 is to denote the imperative / command form, whereas verse 43:5 does not require the imperative / command form.  Taking the Alif in 4:34 to also denote the 4th form of a verb, this can allow both the meaning of 'Separate' as well as providing the appropriate imperative expression.  In verse 43:5, an imperative expression is not required (instead there is an interrogative Alif used as a prefix), so it is not necessary for this verse to be worded in the same way as 4:34.

My simple point was that the verb form 1 of DRB has been used in Quran to mean "withdraw from" using the preposition "Aan" in 43:5. The Quran could easily have done this for 4:34 but it didn't, i.e. it seems inconsistent. This by itself does not refute anything, it is simply additional information/evidence to weigh and consider.


Re: 1)
You said:
Quote
A period of separation may be useful in resolving a marital conflict (ie. to calm things down / allow gradual resolution), and the Qur'an's emphasis is not on who leaves the house in this context.  The emphasis is on the course of action, ie. separation as a potential aid to conflict resolution.

Firstly, by "period of separation" what do you mean? i.e. what happens in your example, does someone move out or not. Or do you mean the typical separation period after talaq/divorce? Please clarify.
Secondly, you claim the emphasis is not on who leaves but your view is clear, and in that view, the command is to the husband to do the verb DRB - thus, does he or does he not "go away from them"? He clearly has to.

Re: 2)
Note, underlined part:
4:128 says "...And if a woman feared from her husband nushuz/uprising/disloyalty or alienation /turning away..."

Clearly, nushuz or iAAradan is feared and not wanted by the wife. It is a bad thing. In your view the alleged conflict resolution step is to do what the wife feared and is a bad thing i.e. iAAradan / alienation / turning away aka separate/withdraw from them.
Perhaps I am mistaken, thus please clarify, in your view:
what is DRB/separate from them, and what is iAAradan.

So we can see if they are clearly distinct and thus do one (as advised by God, i.e. a good/just thing) and not the other (feared, bad thing). If you have Quran references for this, please list them.


Re: 3)
You said:
Quote
This does not necessarily disprove the interpretation of 'separate' in verse 4:34.
I agree, however this is about weighing of evidence to determine the best fit. As it stands the meaning of "separate from them" as used in 4:34 has no precedent in Quran and requires the tashkeel to be incorrect. That's a tough sell.

Re: 4)
It is still correct to say it has no precedence in Quran.

Re: 5)
You assume: "Qur'an does not need to provide such details." Marriage/divorce is one of the most detailed subjects in Quran, but this part is left out..... apparently. Again, just more evidence to weigh and consider.

I dont understand this point: "Perhaps this has been deliberately left out to allow adaptation to different societies, authorities and court systems."
Surely, some sort of notification has to take place first so others can get involved. Can you give us an example of what you mean?

Re: 6)
Once you clarify 2 above, then we can check it better.

Re: 7)
By supporting example I meant in terms of marital example. There is an example for the position advocated in Quran434.com and that is 58:1-4, although 4:128-129 can also be used.


As I said, it is simply a matter of putting all the evidence on the table for each option, then weighing it. See which option is strongest. Once you clarify the above questions we will be in a better position to weigh the evidence.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: diamantinehoneybunch on January 29, 2014, 05:42:03 AM
Women are often subject to discrimination by the staunch religionists.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: aqua on January 29, 2014, 05:08:38 PM
Firstly, by "period of separation" what do you mean? i.e. what happens in your example, does someone move out or not. Or do you mean the typical separation period after talaq/divorce? Please clarify.

I think it's important to note that when the Qur'an does not specify explicit details on an expression, it is inappropriate for us to seek explicit definitions to such expressions when they are not necessary.  The word 'da-ra-ba' in verse 4:34 should be taken generally as a meaning of avoid / ignore / disregard or keep away from each other (any type of 'separation').  Whether or not this requires someone to move out depends on each individual situation and marital conflict.  For example, if the wife is wealthier than the man and has a better job, she might agree by herself to move out for the purpose of temporary 'separation'. This can be an acceptable way to fulfill the steps in the verse.

I was not referring to the typical interim period after divorce because that period does not apply when the couple have not had sexual contact (33:49) and a separation from the house is not supposed to occur during the interim period (65:1).  You also highlighted these points on Quran434.com, so I'm unsure why you are making this comparison here (see excerpt below):

Quote
  • if no sex has taken place after marriage, then no interim period is required after divorce/talaq [33:49]. Compensation may be due however if dower was agreed upon [2:237]
  • during post-divorce interim period, wife remains in the same house, and is compensated by way of maintenance during this period in the same living standard as the husband, each according to their means [2:236, 2:241, 65:1, 65:6-7]**

Quote
Secondly, you claim the emphasis is not on who leaves but your view is clear, and in that view, the command is to the husband to do the verb DRB - thus, does he or does he not "go away from them"? He clearly has to.

Yes, he should do the verb by trying to ignore / avoid or keeping away from his wife, but this does not necessarily imply a moving out of the house.  Even if the verse has mentioned avoiding sexual relations in bed, there can be other ways of avoiding or keeping away from a person inside the household.  The point about men specifically being addressed in 4:34 to perform the verb is not so relevant because the same course of action in 4:34 can be taken by the wife, while complying with 4:128 (see below).

Quote
Note, underlined part
4:128 says "...And if a woman feared from her husband nushuz/uprising/disloyalty or alienation /turning away..."

Clearly, nushuz or iAAradan is feared and not wanted by the wife. It is a bad thing. In your view the alleged conflict resolution step is to do what the wife feared and is a bad thing i.e. iAAradan / alienation / turning away aka separate/withdraw from them.
Perhaps I am mistaken, thus please clarify, in your view:
what is DRB/separate from them, and what is iAAradan.

The word with root a'-ra-da, simply meaning 'turning away', can be applied to both a positive or negative expression, and is not itself a bad word.  There are many examples of this in the Qur'an, where the word has been used as a positive / good command with the meaning of 'turn away'; see verses: 4:16, 4:63, 4:81, 5:42, 6:68, 6:106, 7:199, 9:95, 11:76, 15.94, 28:55, 32:30, 53:29, 66:3, 23:3.  Therefore, da-ra-ba in 4:34 may be related to a'-ra-da in 4:128 without being a bad thing, if it is done in the right way.  'Nushuz' on the other hand has more negative connotations because it implies wrongdoing. It is used in both 4:34 and 4:128 suggesting that the situation is possible either way and is inevitably subjective to an extent in terms of who is in the wrong.  I think this is also why the word 'feared' is used in both verses, in the sense of 'apprehension', 'anticipation', and the awareness of what is happening.  In practice, this is inherently subjective for both the man and woman, they may be thinking they are right while committing 'Nushuz' themselves, but the Qur'an provides guidance in a way that can be used by either partner.

Hence, from the two subjective words used in 4:128, we can expect two possible scenarios for the wife:

Husband commits "Nushuz" -->  Wife tries advising / avoiding in bed / turning away in order to attempt self-reconciliation as per 4:34 --> No self-reconciliation occurs --> Arbiters appointed from each family as per 4:35 --> Either reconciliation occurs as mentioned in 4:128, or proceed to divorce.

Husband commits "I'radan" (either according to 4:34 or not) --> Wife can try steps outlined in 4:34 if this may help provide self-reconciliation --> No self-reconciliation occurs -->  Arbiters appointed from each family as per 4:35 -->  Either reconciliation occurs as mentioned in 4:128, or proceed to divorce.

Worth noting is that Verse 4:128 says the couple can reconcile "between themselves" in a situation when a'-ra-da (turning away) has occured.  This is relevant because the series of steps from verse 4:34 outlined above allow a clear opportunity for the couple to work things out '"between themselves" before arbiters need to be considered.

Quote
I agree, however this is about weighing of evidence to determine the best fit. As it stands the meaning of "separate from them" as used in 4:34 has no precedent in Quran and requires the tashkeel to be incorrect. That's a tough sell.

Take a look at the following manuscript of verse 4:34 which was discovered in Yemen; it has been traced back to the 1st Century of Hijrah.  You will see how there are no vocalisation signs / symbols or short vowels present at all.  This is how the Qur'an was revealed to Prophet Muhammad and how it was left with us when he passed away.  Now the addition of the vocalisation signs later do not provide support for interpreting or not interpreting the Qur'an in a certain way.  In the manuscript below, verse 4:34 has been outlined in green, and notice the word Alif-da-ra-ba outlined in red.  These are the individual letters only, so this can very possibly representing a 4th form verb.

(http://s24.postimg.org/49ghrpbp1/quran_4_34_1st_century_hijrah.png)

Source: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/soth.html

More information about the Qur'anic manuscripts discovered at Sana'a Mosque in Yemen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sana%27a_manuscript

Quote
I dont understand this point: "Perhaps this has been deliberately left out to allow adaptation to different societies, authorities and court systems."
Surely, some sort of notification has to take place first so others can get involved. Can you give us an example of what you mean?

I don't disagree that verse 4:35 is referring to some form of 'authoritative body', which administers or appoints arbiters from each family.  At the time of revelation, it was probably referring to the Prophet or others in authority among them.  In modern society, this may be a legal system or other government agency which deals with marital problems.  The case may or may not need to be dealt with by a court, and since a legal system can vary from country to country and the laws of a country evolve through time, there may not be a fixed method of reporting or making 'notification' of a case.  For example, reporting may be done in person, or there may be different forms to fill in, it may need to be reported by telephone or perhaps even through an online reporting facility.  Why is the actual method of reporting so important?

Quote
By supporting example I meant in terms of marital example. There is an example for the position advocated in Quran434.com and that is 58:1-4, although 4:128-129 can also be used.

If we consider that verse 4:128 uses the word a'-ra-da (turning away) in relation to a possibility of reconciliation of the couple "by themselves", I think this provides a complementing example which supports the interpretation.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on January 30, 2014, 08:56:53 AM
Can you further clarify these two points (bold and underlined) before I reply in full:

Therefore, da-ra-ba in 4:34 may be related to a'-ra-da in 4:128 without being a bad thing, if it is done in the right way.

e.g. can you give some practical examples of Drb done in the right way, so as to avoid 3rD. Or at least one example.

Quote
Husband commits "Nushuz" -->  Wife tries advising / avoiding in bed / turning away in order to attempt self-reconciliation as per 4:34 --> No self-reconciliation occurs --> Arbiters appointed from each family as per 4:35 --> Either reconciliation occurs as mentioned in 4:128, or proceed to divorce.

Husband commits "I'radan" (either according to 4:34 or not) --> Wife can try steps outlined in 4:34 if this may help provide self-reconciliation --> No self-reconciliation occurs -->  Arbiters appointed from each family as per 4:35 -->  Either reconciliation occurs as mentioned in 4:128, or proceed to divorce.

e.g. how can it be according to 4:34? Do you mean the husband advises, abandons in bed; then Drb <--- and this last step he falls afoul and "commits iAAradan"?
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: diamantinehoneybunch on January 30, 2014, 09:34:33 AM
Both "beat them" and "cite them examples" as translations of D'RB in 4:34 are not consistent with the next verse, 4:35
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on January 30, 2014, 11:57:28 AM
Both "beat them" and "cite them examples" as translations of D'RB in 4:34 are not consistent with the next verse, 4:35

Thanks for the information, however I didn't see anyone advocate "cite them examples".
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: aqua on January 30, 2014, 12:18:59 PM
e.g. can you give some practical examples of Drb done in the right way, so as to avoid 3rD. Or at least one example.

Da-ra-ba done in the right way may occur in a situation where there is high risk of domestic violence between a couple.  Either partner may attempt steps at reconciliation by following advice in 4:34; in this case, even a separation from the house may be appropriate to ease the tension and reduce risks of physical harm to each other.  You said , "so as to avoid 3rD", but this is not necessary; see below.

Quote
e.g. how can it be according to 4:34? Do you mean the husband advises, abandons in bed; then Drb <--- and this last step he falls afoul and "commits iAAradan"?

Looks like you did not understand the point about the word a'-ra-da not always being a negative word.  It can be used in a good or positive sense.  I provided fifteen references to verses in the Qur'an showing this word being used in a positive / 'good command' form with no negative connotations.  I did mean that doing da-ra-ba in 4:34 may be the same as committing I'radan in 4:128, but as just explained this word I'radan does not have to be negative in all cases.  It may be negative if the case of I'radan is a case of neglect, ie. the husband is unjustly neglecting the wife and paying no attention to her, but it does not have to be negative if the husband is sincerely trying to reach reconciliation by following 4:34.  Of-course, the husband may still be the one in wrong even if he is trying to follow 4:34 (eg. he may have falsely accused her of something even if his subjective view is that he is right), but I think the word a'-ra-da is broad enough to apply to all these scenarios.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Shumali on January 30, 2014, 08:09:06 PM
Thanks for the information, however I didn't see anyone advocate "cite them examples".

Salam
It is in the translation by Dr.Shabbir Ahmed '...... And keep admonishing them with examples that they stop rebelling. If they pay heed to you, seek not a way against them.....'
http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/4/34/default.htm

Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on January 31, 2014, 05:20:11 AM
peace Shumali,

Salam
It is in the translation by Dr.Shabbir Ahmed '...... And keep admonishing them with examples that they stop rebelling. If they pay heed to you, seek not a way against them.....'
http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/4/34/default.htm

That is an old translation by Dr Shabbir Ahmed. After he reviewed Quran434.com he changed his translation in the latest edition available from his website ourbeacon.com. This was briefly discussed here (http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599954.msg262967#msg262967).
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on January 31, 2014, 05:45:15 AM
peace aqua,

Thanks for the clarification.

With regards to the tashkeel, my simple point was the "go away from them" view requires it to be incorrect. One may wish to ask themselves out of the tens of thousands of tashkeel use in the present day Arabic Quran how many are clearly incorrect? I will leave that for readers to consider.

With regards to the notification of authority, I feel you did not adequately explain why it may not have been mentioned. In every example you cited, some sort of notification is required. Simply mentioning notifying the authority does not tie down the notification protocol to any particular one.

The word "iAAradan" (turn away) is not inherently negative or positive, as it will depend on context what one is turning away from. In 4:128 it is clear (at least to me) it is a negative as the wife feared it and it obviously refers to turning away from her. Someone does not fear a good thing.
I am happy with this admission, which is a consequence of the view "go away from them" i.e: "I did mean that doing da-ra-ba in 4:34 may be the same as committing I'radan in 4:128". This was the point I wanted to make. So, according to you, on the one hand Drb in 4:34 means "ignore / avoid or keeping away from his wife", and on the other hand a negative case of iAAradan can be " the husband is unjustly neglecting the wife and paying no attention to her". You advocate a position wherein one ignores/avoids or goes away from their spouse yet promotes self-reconciliation.

Personally, this doesn't make sense to me and I don't see how this is practical BUT it is ok, you have clarified thus we can summarise somewhat:




"withdraw/turn away / go away from them"
Requires the tashkeel of present day Arabic Quran to be incorrect
This alleged usage in 4:34 occurs in 43:5 with the preposition "Aan", thus making Quran seems inconsistent IF it did mean that in 4:34
No identical example of this DRB usage in Quran
No explanation of how the authority are notified
It is unclear to what extent one separates, how they can do so without being unjust etc
No supporting marital example in Quran
My view: Impractical result when inserted into 4:128-130 and somehow requires iAAradan to be a positive thing and potentially makes Drb/3rD similar


"cite them" www.Quran434.com
Works perfectly with the tashkeel in the present day Arabic Quran
Several identical examples of this DRB usage in Quran, including when humans are the direct object as in 4:34
Explains how the authority is notified by 4:35, and provides perfect logical/sequential coherence
DRB use is clear and simple to implement practically
58:1-4 provides perfect coherence in terms of marital example
When inserted into 4:128-130 provides a complementary practical and coherent solution



Readers can weigh up each option, and go with whatever they feel is most evidenced/logical.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: huruf on January 31, 2014, 09:34:20 AM
I am still amazed at the amount of self-projections from everyside that have piled on this aya. It is beyond incredible. I commend all those that still try to make sense, real sense of it.

On this count I want to point out something that again comes from taking for granting something which does not have to be necessarily so.

In aya 4.35 it is spoken og a breach between them both, but to the end of aya 3.34 there has been no question of the speech revolving on exclusively a relationship of marriage. It was all about rijaal and nisaa', not husbands and wives. No mention of that at all.

And when it is said " of those (feminine plural, third person) you (mixed plural second person, that is, the addressee, that is, those who have believed) fear uncompliance", we are still speaking about the nisaa', not the wives. Then in the next aya, it goes into a specific question where it can be understood as between a coule. But to the end of 4.34 there is no reason to take that only or at all the married persons are meant. Men and women can break their social commitments other than marriage commitments.

Salaam
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: aqua on January 31, 2014, 12:24:46 PM
With regards to the tashkeel, my simple point was the "go away from them" view requires it to be incorrect. One may wish to ask themselves out of the tens of thousands of tashkeel use in the present day Arabic Quran how many are clearly incorrect? I will leave that for readers to consider.

Since the vocalisation signs relate to a vocal / oral transmission of the pronunciation / recitation of the Qur'an, which were written years after the Prophet's death, it may be argued that they are just as unreliable as Hadith and hearsay.

Quote
With regards to the notification of authority, I feel you did not adequately explain why it may not have been mentioned. In every example you cited, some sort of notification is required. Simply mentioning notifying the authority does not tie down the notification protocol to any particular one.

If the Qur'an speaks of appointing arbiters from the families, then obviously this needs to be arranged through an appropriate means.  Maybe it has not been explicitly mentioned because it is supposed to be common-sense?  Even if you take the interpretation of 'cite them to the authority', this does not explain how exactly the citing should be done.  The example of the woman in 58:1-4 tells us that she complained to the Prophet, which obviously does not apply today because the Prophet is not alive.  Why does the Qur'an not detail the exact method for us to make this 'citation to the authority'?  Maybe because such things are supposed to be general knowledge and common-sense, ie. if you need arbiters, you obviously need to have this arranged through a suitable method available at the time.

Quote
The word "iAAradan" (turn away) is not inherently negative or positive, as it will depend on context what one is turning away from. In 4:128 it is clear (at least to me) it is a negative as the wife feared it and it obviously refers to turning away from her. Someone does not fear a good thing.  I am happy with this admission, which is a consequence of the view "go away from them" i.e: "I did mean that doing da-ra-ba in 4:34 may be the same as committing I'radan in 4:128". This was the point I wanted to make. So, according to you, on the one hand Drb in 4:34 means "ignore / avoid or keeping away from his wife", and on the other hand a negative case of iAAradan can be " the husband is unjustly neglecting the wife and paying no attention to her". You advocate a position wherein one ignores/avoids or goes away from their spouse yet promotes self-reconciliation.

In 4:128, you are taking the word I'radan to be definitely negative because of an assumption that the wife's perception or 'fear' in this context is the definitely correct side or opinion.  We should remember that this 'fear', or perception / opinion in a marital disagreement is inevitably subjective and naturally personal, and it can be biased because either the man or the woman can be having the right or wrong perception or fear in a given situation.  Notice that the same word 'fear' is used in both 4:34 and 4:128, implying that both the man and the woman have their own fears or perspectives in a marital disagreement.  The purpose of the verses is not to give a verdict on which side's fear / perception or accusations are correct, or to indicate whether or not someone is committing injustice in a given situation (eg. a man may or may not be being unjust by avoiding his wife, depending on context).  The purpose of the verses is to present general guidance on how to approach and deal with a marital conflict regardless of which side is having the correct fears, opinions, or arguments.  If we keep this in mind, we realise that it is irrelevant whether or not verse 4:128 uses I'radan in a positive or negative way, because either way, the whole situation is subjective and can be biased in each perception.  Both 4:34 and 4:128 acknowledge the naturally subjective and opinionated nature of marital disputes by use of a subjective word, 'feared'.

I think the interpretation 'cite them to the authority' is more logical than 'beat them', but not more logical than 'turn away from them'.  Verse 4:34 advises men on how to attempt reconciliation by themselves and then addresses the same men with, 'if they pay heed to you'.  If the third step in 4:34 is to cite them to an authority, this effectively passes the responsibility of reconciliation to the authority / arbiters after only step 2 in verse 4:34.  It would then seem unexpected / inconsistent for the verse to still refer to the same men with the statement, "if they pay heed to you" after a step which has been dealt with by an authority / arbiters.  It makes more sense for the entire series of steps in 4:34 to be attempts at reconciliation by themselves, rather than having an authority intervened already in step 3.  This is also more logical because the next verse 4:35 addresses arbitration as a separate / new concept, starting with the conditional expression: 'If you fear a breach between them...'.

The translation 'cite them (to the authority)' is also quite vague and seems like an incomplete and 'loose' translation, particularly because in order to make any sense it requires the addition of an explanatory bracket: "(to the authority)".  There is no mention of 'authority' at all in the actual verse; however, there is suggestion of avoiding / disregarding the partner in step 2 of the advice: "avoid them in bed".  The interpretation 'turn away from them' is therefore a logical third step following this second step of avoiding in bed. This is a much simpler and more common-sense interpretation than 'cite them to the authority'. It also provides a sequence of steps that is more likely to lead to reconciliation, as encouraged by 4:128 / 4:35.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: aqua on January 31, 2014, 01:05:10 PM
In aya 4.35 it is spoken og a breach between them both, but to the end of aya 3.34 there has been no question of the speech revolving on exclusively a relationship of marriage. It was all about rijaal and nisaa', not husbands and wives. No mention of that at all.

And when it is said " of those (feminine plural, third person) you (mixed plural second person, that is, the addressee, that is, those who have believed) fear uncompliance", we are still speaking about the nisaa', not the wives. Then in the next aya, it goes into a specific question where it can be understood as between a coule. But to the end of 4.34 there is no reason to take that only or at all the married persons are meant. Men and women can break their social commitments other than marriage commitments.

Interesting thought, but doesn't the expression "abandon them in bed" in 4:34 suggest it is referring to a marital relationship?
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: huruf on January 31, 2014, 02:49:26 PM
Interesting thought, but doesn't the expression "abandon them in bed" in 4:34 suggest it is referring to a marital relationship?

No. It does not have the meaning that has been given to it. See 3.154:

... Say: "Even if you had remained in your homes, those for whom death was decreed would certainly have gone forth to the place of their death (ile maDaji3him)"; but (all this was) that Allah might test what is in your breasts and purge what is in your hearts. For Allah knoweth well the secrets of your hearts. (154)

Also 32.16:

Their limbs do forsake their beds of sleep, the while they call on their Lord, in Fear and Hope: and they spend (in charity) out of the sustenance which We have bestowed on them. (16)


From Lane:

maDaji3 :   A place in which, or on which, one lies
upon his side [or in any manner sleeps]; (O,
Msb, g ;) as also ? ' : (O, :) [a bed;
and the like:] p1. t.t: (Myb,TA:) which
means sometimes places of sleep, or of passing the
night: (Bl in iv. 38:) and beds; or other things
spread upon the ground to lie upon. (Jel ibid.,
and Bd in xxxii. 16.).- [Hence] the pl. is used
as meanin~ t Wives, or women: so in the saying,
L.i 4 i. e. t He has well-born wives or
r,omen; like ~LLijl . . (TA.) - And
+,l ~1 L. mes s The places of falYi of r a.I O A
rain. (0, p, TA.) One says, W,eLqJ, ZJL,p
IJ[ tThe meadows mere during the rain]. (A, TA.)


In no other place in the Qur'an is a bed used as synonime for marriage or for sexual relations. Had the aya meant that, other expressions are used in the Qur'an elsewhere to say it. Whereas where maDaji3 is used there is no connotation of sexual activity, but points to the private place for somebody or something.

In fact, the use of the word for bed to mean sexual relations is rather modern, I suspect, and it is being injected in the aya without any grounds for it.

What it amounts to in the aya, seems to me, is that the women are not to be pestered in the place they are at home.

Let us not forget that in the aya there is no question of the women having done anything wrong but of there being aprehensions in some people that they might fail in their commitments. So they are to be asked about their intentions without trespassing on their privacy, get from them clarity as to where those who fear stand regarding them. Then if they get the proper feedback they should leave them in peace. Nobody there has done anything wrong, so this whole theater of admonishing, not "sleeping" (waw) with them and leave them or separate and all that is pure fantasy.

In the next aya, the fear is that a couple might break up. No question there either about punishing or correcting anybody, but rather appoint arbiters from both sides. And the addressee continues being the community (mixed second person plural) not the men (third person) nor the women (third person) in this case humaa (dual).

We have behind us centuries of heavy conditioning and hammering that men are given some power over anything (the special relationship of God with males, like that of the USA with Israel) and most certainly over women, and that we have to prove beyond all reasonable or unreasonable doubt that it is absolutely impossible that anything in the Qur'an could ever mean something that is not unfavourable to women and favourable to men. Like a self-fulfilling curse.

Well no. God does not have a special relationship with males. On that count a lot of objectivity is missing when reading the Qur'an. So let us repeat: God does not have a special relationship with males, God does not have a special relationship with males...

Salaam
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: aqua on January 31, 2014, 03:27:45 PM
In no other place in the Qur'an is a bed used as synonime for marriage or for sexual relations. Had the aya meant that, other expressions are used in the Qur'an elsewhere to say it. Whereas where maDaji3 is used there is no connotation of sexual activity, but points to the private place for somebody or something.

What it amounts to in the aya, seems to me, is that the women are not to be pestered in the place they are at home.

Let us not forget that in the aya there is no question of the women having done anything wrong but of there being aprehensions in some people that they might fail in their commitments. So they are to be asked about their intentions without trespassing on their privacy, get from them clarity as to where those who fear stand regarding them. Then if they get the proper feedback they should leave them in peace. Nobody there has done anything wrong, so this whole theater of admonishing, not "sleeping" (waw) with them and leave them or separate and all that is pure fantasy.
 

Thanks for answering.  I checked the verses and Lexicon definitions you posted, but I don't understand how beds equates to private place?
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: huruf on January 31, 2014, 03:45:40 PM
The place where you usually sleep is private to some extent or then what is private if not that?

Salaam
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: aqua on January 31, 2014, 04:01:18 PM
The place where you usually sleep is private to some extent or then what is private if not that?

A lot of other things can be seen as private too, like a bathroom, or a person's chair in the bedroom, or even a person's belongings like if they own a car it can be private for them.   I don't see how bed means 'private place' in the verse.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: TruthBehindIt on January 31, 2014, 04:11:46 PM
4:34 Men are the protectors and supporters of women. They shall take full care of women with what they spend of their wealth. God has made men to excel in some areas and women to excel in some areas. Men should ensure that women are able to stand at their feet in the society.
So, righteous women are obedient to God?s Ordinances and guard the moral values even in privacy, the values that God has commanded to be guarded. If you experience ill-treatment from them, apprise them of possible consequences. Next, leave them in their resting places, but keep admonishing them with examples. If they pay heed to you, do not seek a way against them. God is Most High, Great.

[Qawwam = Protector = Maintainer = One who helps others to stand at
their feet. Nushooz = Ill-treatment = Rebellion = To stand up (2:259,
58:11) = To stand up against virtue = Mental abuse = Domestic violence
= To rebel against the permanent moral values. Wa?az = Admonishment
= To apprise of consequences (2:231, 3:66). Dharb = Example (13:17,
16:74, 36:13) = To stop or prevent (8:11, 43:5) = To embark upon a
journey = Strike the road or begin to travel (4:101) = To give examples
(4:34, 13:17, 16:74, 36:13, 43:58) = To withdraw (43:5)]

Example of Darabu from another Verse:
43:5 Should We (A'fa'nad'ribu) withdraw the reminder from you just because you are a people bent upon wasting yourselves?

So.........in 4: 34, Darabu means to separate from or divorce.......the next Verse talks about the same matter...Divorce.

4:35 (Families and communities must adopt a proactive approach regarding a husband and a wife in discord.) If you fear a breach between the two of them (husband and wife), appoint two arbiters, one from his family and one from her family. If they decide to reconcile, God will help them get together. Surely, God is Knower, Aware.

Now ask you heart...........what is more appropriate for the one you can't live with........beating or divorce.

And directly ask a woman......."There are two meanings of Darabu = beating, and, separation.......which one would you like.....to be beaten, or, to be separated....?
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: huruf on February 01, 2014, 03:28:13 AM
A lot of other things can be seen as private too, like a bathroom, or a person's chair in the bedroom, or even a person's belongings like if they own a car it can be private for them.   I don't see how bed means 'private place' in the verse.


Well what do you understand as privacy? Bathroom of course is private, but a bedroom is also private, or not? A chair is not so private, unless we are speaking about property, but that is not what we are speaking about. You do not sleep and become unconscious sitting on a chair, or at leas that is not the usual place where one abandons her or himself for rest and sleep. And the term, as you have seen from the Qur'an itself is not an object called bed, but the place where one lies down to rest or sleep, even if it is a spread on the ground. It is where persons become vulnerable, since they are not conscious, where they feel safe to abandon themselves to sleep, or where something is in the place it should be like the case of aya 3.154, which in fact, in that particular case, is precisely the place where oneis scheduled to meet his or her death. Would you say that death is private?
 
Whatever may be said or played around about privacy or not privacy may be a long discussion. However the fact is that in 4.34 there is no hint of shunning anybody sexually, except if one goes out from the preconceived notion that it is about sex that it MUST be speaking. Bed an sex are far from being unseparable concepts. And in older times, and presently where people are not very affluent, when it is cold at night people used to sleep all together in the same space so as to keep warmth. Bed's did not have a particular connotation with sex and, in fact, nowhere does the Qur'an use such language. So that in most of the circumstancews known to date, those women who should be left in their place of sleepping may in fact be usually sleeping with other members of their family in the same space, married or not. So what? Who is going to abandon them in bed, leave them alone in bed as they say, their parents, their children, their sisters or brothers? the husbands? From where do we take that their place of sleep is only shared by husbands? That is modern age affluence and euphemism for sex, but from where do we take that the Qur'an is departing there from its usual usage and means something that has never meant? In fact what it is telling us is that it is not sex it is talking aboute, but about the private, personal sphere of the persons concerned. A

And the addressee is still the community of believers who is addressed. So what can be deduced from it is that when the community tries to get clarity as to the intentions of those women from whom some uncompliance is feared that they should shun intruding into their private sphere, that they must get feedback from them by any other means and that if they quieten their concerns then they should not seek to pester them further.

In fact, far from giving any special rights to (once more) fiscalise women and treat them as potential culprits, what it does is set clear limits to what can be done to women as concerning their social behaviour.

At no time in the Qur'an is bed or sleeping place mentioned in connection with sex. Where it means sex it renders clearly that meaning without resorting to the bed euphemism (may be bed is not the only place where people can have sex, could it be?). There is no support from the Qur'an, one at all, to give it any sexual meaning.

I understand that it is hard to discard ideas that have always been taken for granted and never contradicted, but I, for one, when I do not take for granted what has been taken for granted in this, I cannot see at all that the Qur'an itself takes those self-same things for granted. The sex is in us, it is not in the Qur'an. 

Salaam

Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on February 01, 2014, 04:36:32 AM
peace all,

huruf,
You said: " no question of the speech revolving on exclusively a relationship of marriage. It was all about rijaal and nisaa', not husbands and wives. No mention of that at all."
Then said: "In the next aya, the fear is that a couple might break up."
What is this couple?

I have actually investigated alternative meanings for rijal/nisa in this verse but I could not make it work. As I have often said, this is all about weighing up the options. If you or anyone else can produce a evidenced/logical alternative option, feel free. Thus far, I haven't seen anyone attempt to produce a detailed/credible work. Readers can then weigh up all options and decide for themselves.


TruthBehindIt,
The first part of your post is from QXP but in the most recent update DRB in 4:34 has changed to reflect the findings of 4:34, see ourbeacon.com
Also when you say "Darabu means to separate from or divorce.......the next Verse talks about the same matter...Divorce." The Quran always uses "talaq" for "divorce" so 4:34 is the exception in your view, and it would upset the divorce procedure in terms of contract-breaking party pays compensation (although it is possible you know of an alternative procedure as per Quran). And as for "separate from them" this has been discussed previously.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on February 01, 2014, 05:16:13 AM
I forgot to say the "scholar" Muhammad Shahrur attempted an alternative translation but it was riddled with problems, see here:
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9600886.msg253541#msg253541
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: huruf on February 01, 2014, 05:31:46 AM
Quote
peace all,

huruf,
You said: " no question of the speech revolving on exclusively a relationship of marriage. It was all about rijaal and nisaa', not husbands and wives. No mention of that at all."
Then said: "In the next aya, the fear is that a couple might break up."
What is this couple?

I have actually investigated alternative meanings for rijal/nisa in this verse but I could not make it work. As I have often said, this is all about weighing up the options. If you or anyone else can produce a evidenced/logical alternative option, feel free. Thus far, I haven't seen anyone attempt to produce a detailed/credible work. Readers can then weigh up all options and decide for themselves.


What alternativo meanings for rijaal or nisaa'? I have taken the usual meaning, rijaal in this ayam since it is opposed to nisaa' I have taken it to mean MEN, and nisaa' I have taken it to mean WOMEN. So I do not really get what you mean that I should come up with an alternative meaning.

If what you mean is that in the whole aya means husbands and wives, I completely disagree with you. Whe the Qur'an means husbands, says so, and when the qur'an means wives, makes it clear. Here there are rijaal versus nisaa', men versus women. And in fact historically it has always been understood that the men in a family assume the burden of the women of the family, irrespective whether they are sisters

In the next aya switches to a couple. In the next aya. Not in 4.34. There is no switch and the addressee is still the same in both ayas, the community. The most we can say here is that it is not excluded that a husband and a wife may be involved, but the text does not make any such restriction and it does continue to speak about rijaal and nisaa'

On the other hand, the "bainahuma" (between the two of them) we do take it to mean a couple and I think mostly it will be that, but there is no interdiction that it might also be a man and a woman who have some living social or financial relationship, for instance a tutor and a pupil, a political uncle and a niece, a political aunt and a nephew... Think for instance of Maryam and Zakariya, if there ever arose a conflict between them... Even a mother and a son. What is set forth in the 4.34 is the different burdens on each of the sexes. That is true regardless of the kind of relationship there may exist between two particular persons of different sex. The burdens of the women are the heavier, unmeasurably heavier, burdens of reproduction, and the burdens of the men are precisely to take their share in the care of women, so that the reproduction work and labour they put in does not stay unremunerated, that is stolen. Let us not forget that the Qur'an speaks of "ujur" at the familiar level, but since the expression in 4.34 is general, blanket: rijaal - nisaa', all of them, the only thing that can be understood from that is that the sharing of the burden is between the generality of men and the generality of women.

Salaam


 
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: aqua on February 01, 2014, 06:29:02 AM
At no time in the Qur'an is bed or sleeping place mentioned in connection with sex. Where it means sex it renders clearly that meaning without resorting to the bed euphemism (may be bed is not the only place where people can have sex, could it be?). There is no support from the

My view is not that bed refers exclusively to sexual contact in 4:34. But I think bed means bed, whether or not this  includes a meaning of avoiding intimacy. For example, 'avoid in bed' could mean sleep in separate beds if the situation requires.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: huruf on February 01, 2014, 06:56:03 AM

My view is not that bed refers exclusively to sexual contact in 4:34. But I think bed means bed, whether or not this  includes a meaning of avoiding intimacy. For example, 'avoid in bed' could mean sleep in separate beds if the situation requires.

If you remember or read back the quotes from the Qur'an and the Lane dictionnary, and as I made explicitly clear, I think, it is not an object called "bed" but the place where one lies to sleep. It is function not an object. That is the whole point that we are talking about sleep or place of certainty, like the aya where it refers to the place where somebody was to die, so there is no question about marital considerations. And I suppose to, that the community of believers, which is the addressee of the sentence does not usually share a bed or place of sleeping with any particular women from whom whatever is feared.

My reading of the commendation to the community would be:


...question them, leave them think about it at leaisure and have clarity from them.

Which in the context makes perfect sense. The men in the sentence, or if you want them to be that, the husbands, don't do anything, they are the third person plural. It is the second person mixed plural, (ayuha alladhina amanu), who do something. Obviously they would not need to part beds with anybody, but they may leave whoever it is to think things over quietely at their abode.

Salaam
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on February 01, 2014, 07:53:35 AM
peace huruf,

Thanks for clarifying that in your view 4:35 switches to a couple unmentioned previously. I dont consider your view credible, however, as I said, if you wish to come up with an alternative, feel free to research such and produce an article/etc so others can weigh it up and decide etc.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: huruf on February 01, 2014, 08:14:22 AM
peace huruf,

Thanks for clarifying that in your view 4:35 switches to a couple unmentioned previously. I dont consider your view credible, however, as I said, if you wish to come up with an alternative, feel free to research such and produce an article/etc so others can weigh it up and decide etc.


You may not consider it credible, but, in fact, there is NOT a couple mentioned earlier. There is a plural feminine referring to the women from whom something is feared. Those women may live in a couple or not. We are not informed of the kinds of reasons the fearers have to feel as they may do, so there is no restriction on the kind of "nushuz" that the may fear.

?An alternative to what?

Salaam
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: aqua on February 01, 2014, 12:04:57 PM
If you remember or read back the quotes from the Qur'an and the Lane dictionnary, and as I made explicitly clear, I think, it is not an object called "bed" but the place where one lies to sleep. It is function not an object. That is the whole point that we are talking about sleep or place of certainty, like the aya where it refers to the place where somebody was to die, so there is no question about marital considerations. And I suppose to, that the community of believers, which is the addressee of the sentence does not usually share a bed or place of sleeping with any particular women from whom whatever is feared.

I understand that the word 'bed' in Lane's literally translates to 'a place of lying down', but even in your interpretation it would be very unusual for the verse to use a vague expression about a 'place of lying down' to somehow convey a dissimilar meaning of "leave them to think about it at leisure".  I'm sorry but even if your interpretation is possible, it seems very far-fetched because it assumes almost every word in the verse to be ambiguous and somehow completely different.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: huruf on February 01, 2014, 12:31:01 PM
You cannot make something unambiguous by giving it sa meaning it does not have just for the sake of it no seeming ambiguous to you. I mean, I know that translating anew concepts that have not been handled before is difficult and that my translation may leave a lot to be desired, but the question is that you cannot give it any meaning which falsifies the text just because by doing so seems so "comprehensible". In factall of us while dismounting "traditional" interpretations that looked wholly unsatisfactory to us have made atempt after attempt trying to get to the gist of something that before was understood completely different or rather not understood. We have to go through that.

I am eager to get the best translation, but what is out of the question in this case is the understanding of the community leaving the women in their beds alone, or something of the kind, because it just is preposterous or, worse, insisting that it is husbands that are being addressed.

Salaam
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: huruf on February 01, 2014, 12:47:30 PM
What is also out of the question is seeing in this aya any authorization to punish o correct women. There is an advice to those who may fear that the women do something wrong, but in no way there is any authorization to pester, spy or mishandle them or trespass on their affairs. In fact it is an outright rejection of any "preventive" doings, like forbidding them something, for instance.

As in the next aya, those who may have a pact with a particular woman and where there is disconformity as to their abiding by it are adviced to get arbitration to avoid a break up, but nowhere and at no time is it a question of punishing, correcting or forcing anything on anybody.

Salaam
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: aqua on February 01, 2014, 01:23:59 PM
You cannot make something unambiguous by giving it sa meaning it does not have just for the sake of it no seeming ambiguous to you. I mean, I know that translating anew concepts that have not been handled before is difficult and that my translation may leave a lot to be desired, but the question is that you cannot give it any meaning which falsifies the text just because by doing so seems so "comprehensible". In factall of us while dismounting "traditional" interpretations that looked wholly unsatisfactory to us have made atempt after attempt trying to get to the gist of something that before was understood completely different or rather not understood. We have to go through that.

I am eager to get the best translation, but what is out of the question in this case is the understanding of the community leaving the women in their beds alone, or something of the kind, because it just is preposterous or, worse, insisting that it is husbands that are being addressed.

I never interpreted that part 'avoid in bed' as a form of punishment for the wife from the husband.  Avoiding in bed may be an attempt to resolve a marital dispute.  In a disagreement, the man and the woman may not desire sleeping together anyway (they may be upset, annoyed or angry at each other), so avoiding in bed for the purpose of resolving a marital argument should not be seen as a form of punishment.  Like the previous step 'advise / speak to them' is an attempt at reaching resolution, avoiding in bed should also be seen as a step toward resolution.  I agree with you that the verse is not about punishment.  It is about possible steps toward resolving a marital conflict.  Hence, the translation should be: 'advise / speak to' them, not 'admonish' them.   It should be: 'avoid in bed', not 'leave / shun them in their beds alone'.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: aqua on February 01, 2014, 09:21:09 PM
Interesting article on this subject:  http://www.cie.ugent.be/bogaert/bogaert4.htm
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: huruf on February 02, 2014, 02:47:37 AM
There continues to be in most conjectures on this aya the assumption that it is husbands that are addressed when it says

3iDHuhunna wa ahjuruhunna filmaDaji3 waDribuhunna (let them know of your fears, do not trespass on their realm and try to get glarity from them)

But clearly, manifestedly, it is not so.

In the whole aya there are three parties spoken of: the rijaal, third person masculine plural, the nisaa', third person feminine plural, and the addressee, which continues to be the

ayuha alladhina amanu (you -second person mixed plural- who have believe). They are the ones addressed to in aya 28 and it continues like that all the time whithout change of addressee, and if you look at the previous ayas it sticks to the rule of the third person concerning women and men and, after 4.34, it is still the second person mixed plural -you who have believed-. There is no change of addressee at all. So at no time in 4.34 the speech is addressed to any husbands. They or any other men or men at large who may be concerned are spoken of in third person masculine plural.

There is no way that that can be bysided and make as if it was not there, because it is only the reader's inability to conceive that no husbands are addressed which sets any impossibility of not addressing them there. The text is clear, explicit and evident. And that is why separating beds beside  making wet paper of the grammar of the Qur'an, makes it completley illogical to give it that meaning, also besides forcing into the word maDaji3 a connotation which at best is whimsical.

If we look objectively at the Qur'an and grammar and any logic language can have, there are no husbands addressed. They are a phantom of our own preconceptions, very much ingrained in the "man-male is the centre of the universe and everything revolves around him" which all of us have internalised and apply always unconsciously and automatically.

Also this is not may invention nor still less my discovery. This I have read from  other people, some of whom have very solid formal education in places like Al-Azhar. So it is not a fantasy of feminists or anything like that, as we in the forum get called by those who dislike to see their malish convictions shaked.

Obviously, all persons do believe and think whatever they will, but I must point out the obvious grammar and language of the Qur'an errors when I see them, because it is not pushing elementary language failings under the carpet that we are going to make headway.

The addressee continues to be ayuha alladhina amanu, second person mixed plural all the following ayas after 4.34 up to aya 40 where the adresse is singular masculine,  I gather, in fact the Prophet, with the second person singular to continue being addressed in aya 41. And then, in aya 42. goes back to addressing the community repeating the address: ya ayuha alladhina amanu, Oh you who have believed. Verify all that.

So there is no ambiguity at all in the text as to whom is being addressed. We always know who is addressed because when the addressee changes, is is made explicit, and when it is changed back is is also made explicit. There is no circumventing that: It is not husbands who are told to do anything in aya 4.34 nor who fear anything from the women. Not they, but "ayuha alladhina amanu", those who have believed.

Salaam
   
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on February 02, 2014, 03:18:53 AM
peace huruf,

If we look objectively at the Qur'an and grammar and any logic language can have, there are no husbands addressed.

You have made this claim multiple times.

We discussed the issue of what are the Quranic terms for husband and wife etc on this thread, to which you nor anyone had an answer that worked. See from this post onwards:
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604721.msg316780#msg316780

Thus, until you have an answer, the more correct view, according to your own knowledge/reasoning would be:

"If we look objectively at the Qur'an and grammar and any logic language can have, there are no husbands addressed.... but since I do not know the term for "husband" as per Quran it is theoretically possible it may refer to "husband".


Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: huruf on February 02, 2014, 07:15:19 AM
peace huruf,

You have made this claim multiple times.

We discussed the issue of what are the Quranic terms for husband and wife etc on this thread, to which you nor anyone had an answer that worked. See from this post onwards:
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604721.msg316780#msg316780

Thus, until you have an answer, the more correct view, according to your own knowledge/reasoning would be:

"If we look objectively at the Qur'an and grammar and any logic language can have, there are no husbands addressed.... but since I do not know the term for "husband" as per Quran it is theoretically possible it may refer to "husband".

Well about the terms for husbands and wives, that is another story or thread or whatever, as to the terms men and women there is no confusion whatsoever, rijaal is men, nisaa' is women. Nisaa' in as very definite conntext might mean wives, but rijaal never is husbands. If in 4.34 you insist that the talk is not at all abut men and women, what you are doing in fact is forbidding the qur'an from speaking ever about men and women and imposing on it that it always talk about husbands and wives, something unheard of in any language. No mastter what might have been said in any other thread, the fact is that the meaning of rijaal when opposed to nisaa' is men, which is the case in 4.34 as is also the case in the previous ayas, like 4.32, that is, just two ayas before 4.34.

And in no wise covet those things in which Allah Hath bestowed His gifts More freely on some of you than on others: To men is allotted what they earn, and to women what they earn: But ask Allah of His bounty. For Allah hath full knowledge of all things. (32)

In this case it is talking abour irjaal and nisaa'. It would be indeed funny that two ayas later, without warning, they have become husbands and wives.

On the other hand you are avoiding the question which in fact I have insisted upon and it is that husbands are not addressees in aya 4.34. That the addresses are ayuha alladhina amanu, You who have believed.

As to the words husbands, any one using the search tools for the qur'an can find the ayas where the word appears. So no mistery there. Adn I will not get into that here, because there is the question of the member in a couple, the bu3ul and another whole question alltogether which completely different from this one in 4.34 where neither rijaal nor women are spoken of as members in a couple, although anybody can be a member of a couple of course but also may not be. That is, in couple or without coupla they are still men and women, and that is what is dealt with.

Salaam
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Earthdom on February 02, 2014, 10:30:21 AM
1. The root ض ر ب admits of a huge number of various meanings in the Classical Language. Words derived from this root seem to have been used to signify some form of motion, as "to strike" or "to travel" or "to impress a coin" or "to snatch away" etc., and a great deal of them are tropical applications. Notwithstanding this, they are almost always prepositional compounds, that is, they occur with obligate prepositions, as ضرب في or ضرب عن or ضرب له, etc. Whereas in 4:34, the verb occurs without a preposition; it takes a direct object. This is a difficulty for those of us who seek to justify its signification as being "separate from them" or "go away from them."

Nah!! brother uq raised important point for what we must take notice.
It's about preposition في.DRB can be mean separate, go away with that preposition

Example: ضر‌بوا في الأر‌ض (appear in 2:273 and 3:156)

I don't see in any dictionaries both Lane and baheeth.com if DRB without any prepositions can be mean separate, go away.
But mostly mean strike, beat and attemp.

Example:
-From lisan ul Arab : - تَضَرُّبُ الولد في البَطْنِ
                                - ما ضَرَبْتَه بالسيفِ

-From Al Shaaha fi Al Lughat :
خَشاشٌ كرأس الحيّة المتـوقِّـدِ    أنا الرجل الضَرْبُ الذي تعرفونه

Source : baheeth.com

If I'm not wrong during 2003 invasion of Iraq, I seen many Iraqi crowds in TV said something like "Darob!! Darob!!".

I'm neutral in here and God know best.

Peace


                               
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: aqua on February 02, 2014, 10:42:05 AM
I don't see in any dictionaries both Lane and baheeth.com if DRB without any prepositions can be mean separate, go away.

Please see this post: http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599954.msg346614#msg346614
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Earthdom on February 02, 2014, 10:48:35 AM
Please see this post: http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599954.msg346614#msg346614

Thanks.
But in the following explanation you posted, it said:

For instance daraba acquires the meaning of "to separate" in combination with baina, and the meaning of "to turn away from," "to leave," "to avoid," and "to shun" in combination with 'an. In the passage in question, daraba is not combined with either of these prepositions.

DRB in 4:34 is not in the question sentence, but it's position is on the command verb



Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: aqua on February 02, 2014, 10:52:44 AM
Thanks.
But in the following explanation you posted, it said:

For instance daraba acquires the meaning of "to separate" in combination with baina, and the meaning of "to turn away from," "to leave," "to avoid," and "to shun" in combination with 'an. In the passage in question, daraba is not combined with either of these prepositions.

Those are examples of usage of the prepositions.  The very next sentence I posted is this:

Quote
Yet Lane points out that the command form of the verb, udribu, with or without 'an, can mean "ignore," "pay no attention to," or "turn away from," as well as "hit," "beat," or "strike." Hence, udribu-hunna, could mean, "beat them" or "strike them," or alternatively, "turn them away," "ignore them," or "shun them." 
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Earthdom on February 02, 2014, 11:10:18 AM
Sorry to said this, but who is the author of this quote??

"Nevertheless, narrowing its meaning in a given instance is not as difficult as it may first seem, because in Arabic verbs acquire various connotations only in combination with specific prepositions. For instance daraba acquires the meaning of "to separate" in combination with baina, and the meaning of "to turn away from," "to leave," "to avoid," and "to shun" in combination with 'an. In the passage in question, daraba is not combined with either of these prepositions. Yet Lane points out that the command form of the verb, udribu, with or without 'an, can mean "ignore," "pay no attention to," or "turn away from," as well as "hit," "beat," or "strike." Hence, udribu-hunna, could mean, "beat them" or "strike them," or alternatively, "turn them away," "ignore them," or "shun them."
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: aqua on February 02, 2014, 11:13:09 AM
Sorry to said this, but who is the author of this quote??

Source: LANG. J, Losing My Religion: A Call for Help, Amana Publications, First Edition, Page 429 (Author Reference [93] Edward Lane, Arabic-English Lexicon, Fredrick Unger Publishing (1956), page 1779, first column, two-thirds down the page).
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Earthdom on February 02, 2014, 11:19:22 AM
I believe you quoted from Joseph Islam bro, the owner of Quranmessage.com.
That's why I ask you who the really author is, because I don't believe if the author of that quote are them

But my suggestion is please re-check again Lane Lexicon or dictionaries from baheeth.com
If necessary please ask the native speaker, for what usage of DRB mostly.

Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: aqua on February 02, 2014, 11:24:41 AM
I believe you quoted from Joseph Islam bro, the owner of Quranmessage.com.
That's why I ask you who the really author is, because I don't believe if the author of that quote are them

No, Joseph Islam presents that quote in his article here: http://quransmessage.com/articles/does%20the%20quran%20sanction%20wife%20beating%20FM3.htm

He references the quote in the footnotes of that article (footnote 6).

Quote
If necessary please ask the native speaker, for what usage of DRB mostly.

No I won't interpret the Qur'an using modern layman Arabic; that's not the language of the Qur'an.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Earthdom on February 02, 2014, 11:39:50 AM
No I won't interpret the Qur'an using modern layman Arabic; that's not the language of the Qur'an.

Yes you're true, and I still suggest to check baheeth.com.In the search tab, type ضرب and enter.

اضْرِ‌بُوهُنَّ

Blue = command form of daraba (can be mean separate, beat)
Red =  feminine version of hum/them.

This sentence simply mean separate/beat them not separate them away, go away etc.

As english speaker, you may understand if command "separate them" means you separate the objects/them, not you separate from them/objects.
I mean if you translate idribuhunna in 4:34 as "separate them", means you separate the nisaa' not you separate from the nisaa'.

So if we translate idribu-hunna in 4:34 as "separate them" it will became broken phrase.

Hope yu understand what I mean.

Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: aqua on February 02, 2014, 11:47:27 AM
Yes you're true, and I still suggest to check baheeth.com.In the search tab, type ضرب and enter.

اضْرِ‌بُوهُنَّ

Blue = command form of daraba (can be mean separate, beat)
Red =  feminine version of hum/them.

This sentence simply mean separate/beat them not separate them away, go away etc.

As english speaker, you may understand if command "separate them" means you separate the objects/them, not you separate from them/objects.
I mean if you translate idribuhunna in 4:34 as "separate them", means you separate the nisaa' not you separate from the nisaa'.

So if we translate idribu-hunna in 4:34 as "separate them" it will became broken phrase.

Hope yu understand what I mean.

It depends which English words you use.  For example, in the following English translations, the words 'away' / 'from' are not required:

Avoid them

Ignore them

Disregard them

Leave them

Shun them

But remember an Arabic word can be broad enough to be translated in more than one way in English.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: huruf on February 02, 2014, 11:48:14 AM
Nah!! brother uq raised important point for what we must take notice.
It's about preposition في.DRB can be mean separate, go away with that preposition

Example: ضر‌بوا في الأر‌ض (appear in 2:273 and 3:156)

I don't see in any dictionaries both Lane and baheeth.com if DRB without any prepositions can be mean separate, go away.
But mostly mean strike, beat and attemp.

Quote
Example:
-From lisan ul Arab : - تَضَرُّبُ الولد في البَطْنِ
                                - ما ضَرَبْتَه بالسيفِ


As you can see in both those sentences there is a mention of that is used to d-r-b or a mention of what is madrub.

That is you need two complements for daraba to be used with that meaning.

On the other hand, what was before, the hen or the egg?



The inclusion of the meaning of daraba in 4.34 in the qur'an lacks or logic and fails to make any sense and as the study on d-r-b as used in the Qur'an made by wakas the meaning of d-r-b has hitting is to be excluded. The fact that it is used todaby with that meaning may be precisely the result of it being pushed down the throats of users for ages so that the marital authority could be asserted. You should prove that it has that meaning at the time of the Qur'an without the presence of two complements. On the other hand the meaning by itself and only with a single complement as to impress, make a dent, or cause an effect, or surprise is part of the basic meaning of daraba. I already mentioned the verb adarvar, in spanish, derived from the arabic d-r-b which has no physical connotation at all, but in fact means that, impress, surprise. If at that time, con the word adarvar came into spanish in the middle ages, the meaning in arabic had been "hit" that should have been the meaning in Spanish, but on the other hand, the meaning is precisely that which is the basic meaning of the root, which by the way is not hit. Hit may be the most common usage today, but it is not semantically the basic meaning. Why not translate by "play music to them"?

I really cannot understand this need -contrary to quranic injunction which tells us to put the best construction on the ayas of the Qur'an- to do exactly the opposite, that is, to put the worst contruction in the ayas of the Qur'an. What are we playing at? Whom are we kidding? And in the present case, as abundantly proved, it is not only the worst construction morally, it is also the worst construction logically and gramatically and semantically. It is ridiculous. The "commendation" of a lot of "traditional"  self-seeking
"explanations" of the Qur'an is about the only ground that that preposterous idea is still handed around and, it seems, respected. There must be a great amount of masochism for that.

Salaam
 


 

Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Earthdom on February 02, 2014, 12:03:00 PM
First don't mistaken me if I advocate beating wives, I even no dare for doing that
I'm just play Arabic  :)

Quote
But remember an Arabic word can be broad enough to be translated in more than one way in English.

Aqua, yes it's sound plausible in english, but take notice if not all muslims are english speaker include me.
It still sound strange in my language.

Huruf, you may now understand what I mean "speculative intepretation".Yes the example is this thread.
Use hadith and Quran commentators's view if necessary as long as it didn't contradict the Quran or against the limit (vulgar etc).




Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: aqua on February 02, 2014, 12:12:06 PM
Aqua, yes it's sound plausible in english, but take notice if not all muslims are english speaker include me.
It still sound strange in my language.

Of-course we can't expect a language to translate word-for-word and remain grammatically correct to every other language in the world.  That's common sense.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Earthdom on February 02, 2014, 12:35:27 PM
Of-course we can't expect a language to translate word-for-word and grammatically correct to every other language in the world.  That's common sense.

Yes, common-sense and logic is needed, but each person have their own version of common sense and logic and possibility contradic each other.

Please take a look how many salat, hajj theories in here? how many a thread turned into debate.

Quran contains puzzling language and protocol to understand it is needed.
It's protocol can be hadith, previous Scriptures or some ancient/classic tafseer guide.
It's not wrong to used them, as long as it didn't contradict/slandering the Quran.

People have their own perceptions, mindmaps and ideology.Since Quranist didn't have any proper tafseer protocol (use speculations/assumption).They keep intepreted the Quran based on their own ideology/mindmap and the result is each intepretations contradict each other.
Example is the Quranist who support polygamy will create polygamy intepretation from the Quran, while the anti-polygamy one will do the same thing.
It's like we used the Quran to justify our own desire.

Currently I'm a muslim, practice Ahadith, Tanakh, etc but still keep use Quran as it's parameter/pillar.I'm not Sunni, SHia, etc.

Sorry for being off-topic
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: aqua on February 02, 2014, 12:41:03 PM
Yes, common-sense and logic is needed, but each person have their own version of common sense and logic and possibility contradic each other.

Common sense by definition is something 'commonly known', ie. most people agree to it because it is known facts.  What I said is a known fact, not an opinion; you cannot translate one language word-for-word to every other language in the world and expect it all to make sense.  Because it won't.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on February 02, 2014, 03:50:18 PM
Well about the terms for husbands and wives, that is another story or thread or whatever, as to the terms men and women there is no confusion whatsoever, rijaal is men, nisaa' is women. Nisaa' in as very definite conntext might mean wives...

You have answered your own question, as you said: in a certain context "nisa" can mean "wives". Same for "rijal". Context is key:

1) ...supporters/maintainers......... and with what they spent of their money
(men support/maintain and spend of their money on them, strongly implying a close tie to the man, likely within household)

2) ...guardians/protectors to the unseen with what God guarded/protected
(only one example of betrayal in the unseen 12:52, context is within marriage)
(what has God ordered women to guard/protect? e.g. private parts)

3) ....fear their uprising/disloyalty....
(only ever used in context of marriage, 4:128)

4) and (then) abandon them in the bed
(self-explanatory)

5) If they obeyed you, then seek not against them a way
(where else except in marriage could obedience to advise be possible or discussed between a man and woman in Quran?)

6) And if you (plural) feared disunion/breach/rift between them two, then appoint a judge from his family and a judge from hers. If they both want to reconcile, then God will bring agreement between them.
(perfect for marriage context, see Quran)


Context fits. Simple.


Quote
...but rijaal never is husbands.

What about 2:228?
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: huruf on February 02, 2014, 04:48:31 PM
It is your invention that rijaal in any context means husband. It does not. Never. And in the context where women is opposed to men nisaa' always means women not wives. So, if you want to say that every time rijaal means husband and nisaa' means wives every time, you say that yourself, I am not saying it. I deny it totally and there is the Qur'an to prove the facts.

And you are every single time evading the question that no husbands are addressed in the aya. Because rijaal are third person plural and they
and the women are the ones spoken of, but they, neither the men nor the women, are the addressees. The addressees are

ayuhha alladhina amanu, (You who have believed) second person plural, those addressed and those to whom it is said "if you fear...

And there is no playing with words and no playing with presumptions that can make that to be otherwise. Those husbands and wives you see everywhere are non existent in the aya. Men maintain women is a blanket statement, it is not certain men maintain certain women, no, there is no restriction. You may think that that should be what is meant, but that is your conjecture because that is not what it says. All men maintain all women. And it has always been read that way because there is not much room to lay around with something as clear as that. That it is done at a family scale, at a nation's scale or at a planetary scale are particular cases of men maintaining women.


On the other hand you do trick: You say and hammer that the speech is only about husbands and wives and to husbands, but even so, you yourself kannot uphold that, because your are forced to say:

(men support/maintain and spend of their money on them, strongly implying a close tie to the man, likely within household)

So, now, according even to you they are not husbands but  "just a close tie is implied, likely within the household)"

Apart from the invention you make of the close tie, even if we take it as that

do you mean that fathers are told to abandon tehir daughters in bed? or sons their mother? brothers their sisters, or their aunts? Abandon in bed how? Were they in bed with them before? Not even you can upphold the husbands only (and not men) idea that you are pushing.


Also this part where you say:

(what has God ordered women to guard/protect? e.g. private parts)


Really? Do you mean with that that God has not ordered men to guard/protect their private parts? Is it then something that only women should do?
So women protect private parts and in exchange for that men maintain them? If it was for that then it could work equally the other way around, right, that men guard/protect private parts and women maintain them?


All persons guard, protect private partes, but as it happens only women bear the encumbrance and burden of mammalian reproduction which requires a way too important contribution from the women as opposed to the men from whom no effort is required and which for them does not represent any encumbrance at all. The guarding is of the future men and women who will be born and of their filiation. And all men and women benefit from the reproduction of the species not just husbands. So since everybody benefits, but only half the population contributes it stands to reason that the other half should make an equal contribution by some other means.

So yes, it is men and women, not husbands and wives. And it is the comunity of believers which should guarantee that justice and just compensation is ensured. And it is to the community of believers (ya ayuha alladhina amanu) to whom the whole speech is addressed, in the previous ayas where also is spoken of men and women in that aya and in the following ayas.

All the other things you mention have already, I have already, explained them repeatedly, in fact, to my taste, too many times. But the fact that you hav e not acknowledged a single time those explanations hopefully will not have prevented or prevent other readers to have noticed them and draw their own conclusions.

Other than that the translation you use seems to uphold the principle that the husband is a chief and the wife some servant of his. I thought you had discarded that kind of set up.

Salaam
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: aqua on February 02, 2014, 07:15:26 PM
huruf, do you think the word 'Rijal' in 2:228 is not referring to husbands? That is important because it is an example of how Rijal can refer to husbands depending on the context.  Verse 4:34 is just too obviously relating to husbands and wives considering the context and expression, and please try to consider that taking this meaning does not necessarily imply a sexist interpretation.  I also advocate women's rights, but even if this verse is referring to a marital set-up, I don't think it confers superiority to men / husbands over women / wives unless da-ra-ba is mistranslated into a violent term.  The meaning of avoiding in 'bed / place of lying down' would make much more sense in a marital context.

There is a very weak link (if any) between 'avoid in place of lying down / bed' and the expression "leave them to think about it at leisure".  Even if it did somehow provide this meaning, the overall interpretation of "...question them, leave them think about it at leisure and have clarity from them'' does not seem to be a very effective, meaningful or fitting course of action especially in the context of this interpretation.  I appreciate that you have put a lot of thought into it, but this must be the most cryptic interpretation of verse 4:34 ever in existence.  Do you know of any published English translation of the Qur'an that takes this interpretation?
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: savage_carrot on February 02, 2014, 11:12:57 PM
I'd like some clarification of your understanding sis huruf.

Quote
In no other place in the Qur'an is a bed used as synonime for marriage or for sexual relations. Had the aya meant that, other expressions are used in the Qur'an elsewhere to say it. Whereas where maDaji3 is used there is no connotation of sexual activity, but points to the private place for somebody or something.
It doesn't need to be used anywhere else in the quran. Of course, it would be great if we had a large concordance of similar terms used but sometimes we don't and I don't see it as an issue. Secondly, if other expressions are used for sex, doesn't mean that different expressions cannot be used. Especially if it is a term that can be used in both cases of rijaal/nisaa and couples. In the former sex is not implied/understood but in the latter sex can be implied along with everything else, e.g. abandon/forsake/leave/avoid them in their resting/private/whatever places. In case it's a relationship that has no sex involved, avoid them in their private/personal space. If it is a relationship which can involve sex, no sex along with avoiding them in their private/personal space.

Unless you mean to say that that verse has nothing to do with husbands/wives whatsoever which is kinda odd because the next verse does suggest a couple and is a follow on verse as far as I can see, which is problematic for the previous verse being only a no couple kind of situation. one could say, well in that verse it applies to a couple, but another would question the applicability and/or the conclusion for the other set...it seems to be leaving that set on a cliffhanger...do they not get arbitration as well? If so, how, where? If they don't need it, is this implied anywhere? Does it just stop on the 3 stages because they are not a couple? etc Which leads me to think that IF both sets are involved then either the next verse does not apply in one set, or does in some way I can't understand yet in a no couple situation, or it was always about couples anyways and the different addresses can be explained. The third option is 4:34 is only about non couples and the next verse does not apply or somesuch.

I'm all for equal rights and so on and I can't see these passages as they as are some sort of indictment against that personally. I'm also against 'authorities' deciding/being apprised on personal matters which are non criminal or whatever in nature, basically extremely limited outside interference whether in the form of people or authorities when dealing with personal matters...Community is in my view a substitute for authorities or a group of people who are arbitrators appointed by the community for disputes. Now, whether that involves personal arbitrators or community wide arbitrators etc, not exactly sure how much legal standing these guys have? But that is supposedly left to the different communities to decide for themselves.

It is your invention that rijaal in any context means husband. It does not. Never. And in the context where women is opposed to men nisaa' always means women not wives. So, if you want to say that every time rijaal means husband and nisaa' means wives every time, you say that yourself, I am not saying it. I deny it totally and there is the Qur'an to prove the facts.

- He isn't saying that, he's saying that it can depending on the context imo?

Quote
And you are every single time evading the question that no husbands are addressed in the aya. Because rijaal are third person plural and they
and the women are the ones spoken of, but they, neither the men nor the women, are the addressees. The addressees are

ayuhha alladhina amanu, (You who have believed) second person plural, those addressed and those to whom it is said "if you fear...

-It's obviously not only the 3rd gender inclusive in 'you who have believed'...so if it is the believers being addressed, which apparently it is, why is it out of the question that some of those believers could be husbands? Or wives? If you are taking them as the 'community/authorities' why should they fear nushooz from the persons in question? Is there some sort of morality police at work here in the community/from the authorities fearing that this or that person is up to no good?

Quote
And there is no playing with words and no playing with presumptions that can make that to be otherwise. Those husbands and wives you see everywhere are non existent in the aya. Men maintain women is a blanket statement, it is not certain men maintain certain women, no, there is no restriction. You may think that that should be what is meant, but that is your conjecture because that is not what it says. All men maintain all women. And it has always been read that way because there is not much room to lay around with something as clear as that. That it is done at a family scale, at a nation's scale or at a planetary scale are particular cases of men maintaining women.
-don't think he was saying that, he was saying however that the marital scenario does/can fit. In your opinion, you'd think that it just cannot be a marital scenario? That is what doesn't make sense to me because like Wakas says, you can say it can be a possible scenario amongst other sits, but excluding something completely when you don't even have the full picture yet of what this nushooz is, somewhat accurate translation of terms, and so on you've already struck something out on the basis of 'well, it just cannot be' and I'm not sure as to why you've done that. There probably can be an explanation for why rijaal/nisa are used that doesn't have to exclude spouses, esp if it's incorporating various scenarios?


Quote
On the other hand you do trick: You say and hammer that the speech is only about husbands and wives and to husbands, but even so, you yourself kannot uphold that, because your are forced to say:

(men support/maintain and spend of their money on them, strongly implying a close tie to the man, likely within household)

So, now, according even to you they are not husbands but  "just a close tie is implied, likely within the household)"

Apart from the invention you make of the close tie, even if we take it as that

do you mean that fathers are told to abandon tehir daughters in bed? or sons their mother? brothers their sisters, or their aunts? Abandon in bed how? Were they in bed with them before? Not even you can upphold the husbands only (and not men) idea that you are pushing.
- No idea what Wakas feels about this, but from my side, I don't disallow different scenarios to be simultaneously legit and depending on more information, could be refined further. So who are these females (or males)? And why would someone have to leave them to their resting places? For what? If someone wanted to break a commitment for example, why on earth does the community (in other words: authorities) have to get involved unless it's for legal reasons? And in regards to legal reasons, why would a community have to advise the person to 'go home to your abode and/or resting place and think about it, and oh, no one must intrude and bother them about it ...it makes little sense? I mean, that kind of 'advice' is kinda weird for the authorities to provide...and especially for something that is 'feared' on the part of the person?

What is the person planning to do? Elope? Leave home? Suicide bomb run? What is this nushooz? Whatever it is, is it even practical for people close to them (obviously those living someplace else won't need to avoid them in their resting places) to avoid this person that way? What if the lady takes a year or more to give clarity, should those close to her that fear whatever, just sit back and say whatever, it's all good...? Is there a time frame? Is this only about the individual and not the rights of those around her either?

Quote
What it amounts to in the aya, seems to me, is that the women are not to be pestered in the place they are at home.

Let us not forget that in the aya there is no question of the women having done anything wrong but of there being aprehensions in some people that they might fail in their commitments. So they are to be asked about their intentions without trespassing on their privacy, get from them clarity as to where those who fear stand regarding them. Then if they get the proper feedback they should leave them in peace. Nobody there has done anything wrong, so this whole theater of admonishing, not "sleeping" (waw) with them and leave them or separate and all that is pure fantasy.
Doesn't this come under the advisement clause anyways? Reading the verse it seems like a gradual progression from advice to drb (whatever you want to call it), unless you want to say that it's all of it together at once which it seems like you're saying above? You also seem to be saying that the drb is the conclusion to the conflict, i.e. proper feedback is gotten thus drb them? But then you say get clarity from them as well somewhere in there and it's just all over the place. What is it that you think the terms refer to and what stages correspond with what please? It seems that whatever you're saying is already included the the advise/instruction stage?

Drb is the popular guy and I tend to forget that there are 2 more in there. On which note, has anyone asked the question why/how someone would advise/instruct (the word seems to have a lot of weight behind it given it's concordance) someone if they didn't even know what the hell was going on with them? If clarity has not yet been received and we are advised to leave them be to get clarity, what and how exactly are we advising/instructing them on? It seems as if whatever is feared is legit and the advice stems from telling/instructing them to do the right thing or somesuch. Not just a casual, 'hey what's goin' on with you, spill... or don't, I'll just leave you be and not pester you to see if you want to tell me' kinda thing which isn't really advice/instruction is it. Sounds more like reverse psychology which has its own merits but probably not what's happening in this verse.

Let's imagine this scenario in real life, taking a mother/son conflict for example. Does the son need to go away from his mothers resting place and leave her on her own because he fears the mother may be nushoozing? Let's say the mother has been told to think upon matters, obviously there must be a valid reason (evidence) for the fear since unfounded fears/suspicions are against everything holy and the authorities shouldn't get involved on the say so of a paranoid son...unless they want to give a restraining order against the guy. Does the feared nushoozee then become the nushooz fearee hmm...and um, anyways, moving on...so now the son has to leave the mother alone to think about her thoughts and whenever she's thought about it, that's kinda it? The clarity that comes forth whenever it does or even if it does from the mother will fix the situation/resolve the conflict? While the son can't really talk to the mother about the nushooz, and if she does the nushooz, then what? What benefit does the son get from taking this route? It seems a one sided situation really. If I was the son, I'd be kinda upset and refuse to get my mother flowers for her birthday ever again, the birthday dinner is off the table too.

I don't agree that there is no restriction on the kind of fear the the fearers may have. That's taking the train to crazy town where all manners of people with all manners of fears are taking it to the authorities and airing dirty laundry in public even if one party doesn't want it. The nushooz seems to be of a particular serious sort with valid evidence regarding the fear. Could be the type of things like one party needing some quiet time to gather their resources before running off into the sunset...and if one party wants to do that, who are the community to stop them I hear you say? And you would be right, if the party wasn't planning on selling various mutual possessions in the house, grabbing the kids and buying business class tickets to Peru to go see Machu Picchu with their boyfriend or girlfriend. I agree the kids would be in the way, but that's how this party rolls. I don't know however, it could be something totally other than my fanciful scenario which actually happened in real life...but I do think that whatever this nushooz is, it's serious and is presented with evidence when it's taken to the next level. And scenarios other than marital, where the buck stops at 4:34 rather than the natural lead up of 4:35 is quite problematic and confusing.

To me, the way it's understood as being a marital issue where the nushooz is something that is valid enough for it to warrant being taken to the next level so the community/authority is being addressed or whatever, makes more sense. I just can't really picture a scenario where other than a marital issue, the authorities are going to tell a mother and son for example, to avoid each other, leave one to their resting place and allow them to have a think over the scenario because they aren't sure what's going on and see what happens kinda deal. I mean really, if this is what the community is going to do then what's the point...the guy would be better off paying someone for their expert opinion rather than taking free 'advice' from the community 'cause he's going to have to apparently sleep on the sofa or somewhere else and not get dinner (esp if his mum still cooks for him) indefinitely for fearing nushooz! Some would say that's what happens when free advice is taken.


Quote
Also this part where you say:

(what has God ordered women to guard/protect? e.g. private parts)


Really? Do you mean with that that God has not ordered men to guard/protect their private parts? Is it then something that only women should do?
So women protect private parts and in exchange for that men maintain them? If it was for that then it could work equally the other way around, right, that men guard/protect private parts and women maintain them?


All persons guard, protect private partes, but as it happens only women bear the encumbrance and burden of mammalian reproduction which requires a way too important contribution from the women as opposed to the men from whom no effort is required and which for them does not represent any encumbrance at all. The guarding is of the future men and women who will be born and of their filiation. And all men and women benefit from the reproduction of the species not just husbands. So since everybody benefits, but only half the population contributes it stands to reason that the other half should make an equal contribution by some other means.

But surely you think that the fact that it is in the same verse has some bearing on the verse? What do you think that is?

Quote
So yes, it is men and women, not husbands and wives. And it is the comunity of believers which should guarantee that justice and just compensation is ensured. And it is to the community of believers (ya ayuha alladhina amanu) to whom the whole speech is addressed, in the previous ayas where also is spoken of men and women in that aya and in the following ayas.

Like I said, don't understand why the community of believers fear nushooz on the part of the person...can you explain that bit?

peace
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: huruf on February 03, 2014, 02:06:21 AM
It may be the persons closer to the woman who fear nushuz, but the question is that whatever that nushuz consists of, not the "husbands" -if there are husbands- are the ones to do the questioning or leaving the person to think at leisure and have an answer. No authority is being given to any husband to have their wives "obey them" (again the obey thing).

And it is wakas who has refused to allow for anything but husbands and wives in the fry. The thing I have said is that the "you" mixed plural second person addressed in 4.34 is the believers, not any husbands per se. And yes, for sure, there can be husbands an wives amongst the believers, but they are not addressed as such, the same as sisters are not addressed as such and daughters or sons are not addressed as such.

You say who may fear nushuz from the women... I do not think we are under the obligation of finding something so that we can justify that. That is a blanket concept and it is valid generally, the specifics we will see as events happen whether they fit or not. What is not proper is to limit from the start that general formulation to an specific as has been done and is still being done.

But still, if you want an specific,

think for instance of a wife who fears that another woman is after her husband. It may be true or it may be imaginations. So whichever believers are in the best situation for that should undertake to put the fears of that woman at rest questioning the presumptive pretender of her husband, discreetly without upsetting the husband or something like that.

Another one: Suppose it is a father in law who fears that his daughter in law is having a baby whose father is not his son, is he going to throw that to all winds and break up a marriage and make a public scandal? No need. Again a suitable person or persons amongst the community of believers may undertake something to put the fears at rest or to clear the situation in the best and most peaceful manner if in fact there has been a transgression, thus protecting everybody from taking wild "justice".

Another one: there may be a suspicion that a certain woman is pregnant and that she intends to bury the child when it is born. What? You publish it and break a woman's life and even endanger a future child who might no be in danger if in fact it is only fear, or do you appoint somebody who may look after the woman and try to find out her intentions or feelings and if she is in need, put a remedy or what do you do?

Another one: there may be a fear that a certain women with children is into prostitution. She is without work and with nobody to look after the children while she works were she to find a job. But of course, it is a big thing to spread that around. So, somebody in best position to do it is charged of finding out what the facts are. May be the woman has not done it, but is entertaining the thought. May be it has never entered her mind to do such a thing and it is mere badmouthing...

The problem with the traditional and wakas interpretation of this aya is that it restricts the whole of it to a single point and does not allow the aya to spread out its full scope. We get hyppnotized into the husband predicament and restrict the whole world to that seemingly single important thing in the universe.

As to 4.35 it is indeed more specific and does suggest marriage, but again, for the sake of not limiting what the Qur'an itself does not limit, let us keep to what it says: a fray between two persons of different sex who have some undertaking in common.

As to the meaning of maDaji3, I never pretended that I have the best translation ever, rather I have said exactly the opposite, but what it does not mean is that because I cannot produce on the spot the perfect translation that EVERYBODY could accept that I have to certify the usual interpretation that is forced into this aya. Why should I do that? It is forced and there is no proof of it.

Not me saying that, just take the Qur'an. There are two other mentions of the word. If one feels that sex fits the bill, at least what cannot be done is forbid the meanings that really pertain to it. Sleeping and resting where one is in his or her place of relax and having sexual relations are two completely and unrelated things, just as sleeping and eating are two unrelated things. So, come to that, we could also translate, "and leave them eat alone", right?

Again, please study really the word and its usage in the Qur'an, if any of the other two appearances tells you that it would be a good one to use to mean sex-relations. In fact if it does something is suggest the aloneness of a person for that aspect. Like death.

There haven't been many attempts to translate maDaji3 out of the box of marital male bliss, therefore I see no reason to pound on my translations (I put up several, because obviously I am trying to get to the gist of it) as if I were guilty for not coming up with a trump. Bring up a better one, I will greatly celebrate it, but please do not push, again, the one that has been very conveniently used, but not really documented nor checked and that has thrown and continues throwing off track the unravelling of this most important and luminous aya. That traditional translation, as far as I am concerned, it continues being a male fantasy.

Husbands are not the reason for the universe. May be humankind and prophethood are, but husbands by themselves, when they are humble, and faithful servants of God and their community, like the male prophets, peace be on them all, are a source of peace and joy for their communities and their families, but they must prove themselves. Not just for the sake of maleness they get the whole lot no questions asked and enjoy women obeyers at will. And I say this not because I think that anybody is prejudiced to that point. Consciouslly we are not, but we do are under the spell of centuries of seeing everything through the eyes that the human species is man, woman a mere after thought, and therefore woman can only come in the fray as an accident to the real thing which is the male. That is the mentality that the Qur'an tries very hard and conclusively to correct, but inertia is very strong and the conditioning of centuries not easy to override. At least I have not found it easy and I am sure I continue to have many such deformations. Aya 4.34 has helped me a lot, and many contributors in this and other forums have contributed to it.

In fact, what the 4.34, together with many ayas in the Qur'an does is socialise the needs of the most needy. Starting with the women, who in the face of great, great difficulties many times have to reproduce the species, maintain her children and upkeep the family with no help. So, there you are. The Qur'an does not leave women with their problems to themselves, but involves the community. Which is logical, the whole species benefits from its own reproduction, why should the burden fall only on those that most contribute to it through thin and thick. Justice... for God's sake. And the fears that women may do this and do that is no fancy it is there and it is still going. See the fierce campaigns because of abortion. What is that if not fear the the women are "rebelious"? Well the Qur'an goes beyond that, and wants the women to speak and get the help they need. Not just fear and fear and because of fear do everything on their backs and stab them, once again. And in those cases there is the attempt to make that  appear like a war of the sexes, but that is wrong. Real men, real loving faithful men, hate that. They do not want their women to suffer nor be humilliated. And the women of those good men are ALL the women. Like the women of Muhammad were all the women.


Salaam
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: bookish on February 03, 2014, 11:29:46 PM
If idriboo means cite/point out, it is not quite clear what the husband should point out or indicate.

And doesn't the first step, which is to advise, already cover cite/point out? Because when advising, the husband would most likely point out/cite things. So how is this a separate independent step?

Your analysis is truly quite detailed and well-done....but I guess it's a close call between "leave" and "cite". To argue that one is definitely better than the other is a grey area.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: aqua on February 03, 2014, 11:49:21 PM
If idriboo means cite/point out, it is not quite clear what the husband should point out or indicate.

And doesn't the first step, which is to advise, already cover cite/point out? Because when advising, the husband would most likely point out/cite things. So how is this a separate independent step?

Your analysis is truly quite detailed and well-done....but I guess it's a close call between "leave" and "cite". To argue that one is definitely better than the other is a grey area.

His article does not take the view of 'citing examples'; instead it is to cite the partner to an authority.  However, I can understand that the term 'cite them' on its own is quite vague and not easily understood without further explanations.  Considering this, the interpretation of 'leave / disregard' is much simpler and more logical than others.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on February 04, 2014, 04:14:08 AM
peace bookish,

If idriboo means cite/point out, it is not quite clear what the husband should point out or indicate.

The word is "idriboo-hunna" / "cite them". Thus, it is clear what/whom one is citing. See the complimentary example of 58:1-4 as discussed on www.Quran434.com

Quote
And doesn't the first step, which is to advise, already cover cite/point out? Because when advising, the husband would most likely point out/cite things. So how is this a separate independent step?

The step of 'to advise' is general wherein anything relevant to the situation could be discussed. It is logical and practical for it to be the first step. The logical and practical last step would be to notify the authority so they can get involved in a situation of no reconciliation / intransigence. It is a perfect fit.

Quote
Your analysis is truly quite detailed and well-done....but I guess it's a close call between "leave" and "cite". To argue that one is definitely better than the other is a grey area.

Everyone is entitled to their view, but for me, in terms of Quranic evidence, the strongest option is clear (http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599954.msg347142#msg347142):

Quote
"withdraw/turn away / go away from them"
Requires the tashkeel of present day Arabic Quran to be incorrect
This alleged usage in 4:34 occurs in 43:5 with the preposition "Aan", thus making Quran seems inconsistent IF it did mean that in 4:34
No identical example of this DRB usage in Quran
No explanation of how the authority are notified
It is unclear to what extent one separates, how they can do so without being unjust etc
No supporting marital example in Quran
My view: Impractical result when inserted into 4:128-130 and somehow requires iAAradan to be a positive thing and potentially makes Drb/3rD similar


"cite them" www.Quran434.com
Works perfectly with the tashkeel in the present day Arabic Quran
Several identical examples of this DRB usage in Quran, including when humans are the direct object as in 4:34
Explains how the authority is notified by 4:35, and provides perfect logical/sequential coherence
DRB use is clear and simple to implement practically
58:1-4 provides perfect coherence in terms of marital example
When inserted into 4:128-130 provides a complementary practical and coherent solution



Readers can weigh up each option, and go with whatever they feel is most evidenced/logical.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Bender on February 04, 2014, 04:58:31 AM
The logical and practical last step  would be to notify the authority so they can get involved in a situation of no reconciliation / intransigence.

Salaam,

I did not follow the discussion so sorry to jump in like this, but my eye catched this.
Almost every translation I've read so far, and almost every opinion I heard so far about 4:34 translate this part:
"...  وَاللَّاتِي تَخَافُونَ نُشُوزَهُنَّ فَعِظُوهُنَّ وَاهْجُرُوهُنَّ فِي الْمَضَاجِعِ وَاضْرِبُوهُنَّ    ..."
as kind of step plan. Thus first A then B then as last C.

This is simply not correct. If it was a step plan then THUMMA would have been used and not WA.
All 3 actions have to be done and not one after the other, and you can also not stop after the first or after the second.
It is the same as "aqimu assalaata WA ooto azzakaata" both have to be done and the order does not matter as long as we do all, imho same goes for 4:34.

Salaam,
Bender
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on February 04, 2014, 06:43:15 AM
peace Bender,

Quote
This is simply not correct. If it was a step plan then THUMMA would have been used and not WA.
All 3 actions have to be done and not one after the other, and you can also not stop after the first or after the second.

The above is your unevidenced claim. 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.

Interestingly, your interpretation allows little to no space/time for reconciliation, and is thus impractical/illogical.

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.

In any case, the issue you raise is discussed on www.Quran434.com
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Earthdom on February 04, 2014, 07:46:13 AM
Common sense by definition is something 'commonly known', ie. most people agree to it because it is known facts.  What I said is a known fact, not an opinion; you cannot translate one language word-for-word to every other language in the world and expect it all to make sense.  Because it won't.

Common sense doen't means that, please don't  be mistake cause the word "common" existed.
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.



Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: hawk99 on February 04, 2014, 08:09:04 AM
Peace Wakas, All,

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.


God bless

   :peace:
 
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on February 04, 2014, 09:01:16 AM
peace hawk99,

Is there a place for hyphenation in regards to D_R_B such as strike/separate from them or beat or leave them?

I don't understand your question. Can you clarify?
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: hawk99 on February 04, 2014, 09:35:28 AM
peace hawk99,

I don't understand your question. Can you clarify?

Peace Wakas,

To clarify: Is there a possibility that daraba is poorly translated and has a wider meaning that includes both
strike or separate?   My understanding is there are spouses who would threaten and strike one another and couples
who would separate from one another to make their point.  There are all types of couples and I think at the moment
that God's infinite wisdom uses D-R-B to accommodate all marriages. 

God bless

   :peace:
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: savage_carrot on February 04, 2014, 11:55:57 AM
Quote
It may be the persons closer to the woman who fear nushuz, but the question is that whatever that nushuz consists of, not the "husbands" -if there are husbands- are the ones to do the questioning or leaving the person to think at leisure and have an answer. No authority is being given to any husband to have their wives "obey them" (again the obey thing).
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?
Quote
And it is wakas who has refused to allow for anything but husbands and wives in the fry. The thing I have said is that the "you" mixed plural second person addressed in 4.34 is the believers, not any husbands per se. And yes, for sure, there can be husbands an wives amongst the believers, but they are not addressed as such, the same as sisters are not addressed as such and daughters or sons are not addressed as such.
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.
Quote
You say who may fear nushuz from the women... I do not think we are under the obligation of finding something so that we can justify that. That is a blanket concept and it is valid generally, the specifics we will see as events happen whether they fit or not. What is not proper is to limit from the start that general formulation to an specific as has been done and is still being done.
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.
Quote
think for instance of a wife who fears that another woman is after her husband. It may be true or it may be imaginations. So whichever believers are in the best situation for that should undertake to put the fears of that woman at rest questioning the presumptive pretender of her husband, discreetly without upsetting the husband or something like that.
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.

Quote
Another one: Suppose it is a father in law who fears that his daughter in law is having a baby whose father is not his son, is he going to throw that to all winds and break up a marriage and make a public scandal? No need. Again a suitable person or persons amongst the community of believers may undertake something to put the fears at rest or to clear the situation in the best and most peaceful manner if in fact there has been a transgression, thus protecting everybody from taking wild "justice".
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.

Quote
Another one: there may be a suspicion that a certain woman is pregnant and that she intends to bury the child when it is born. What? You publish it and break a woman's life and even endanger a future child who might no be in danger if in fact it is only fear, or do you appoint somebody who may look after the woman and try to find out her intentions or feelings and if she is in need, put a remedy or what do you do?
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.


Quote
Another one: there may be a fear that a certain women with children is into prostitution. She is without work and with nobody to look after the children while she works were she to find a job. But of course, it is a big thing to spread that around. So, somebody in best position to do it is charged of finding out what the facts are. May be the woman has not done it, but is entertaining the thought. May be it has never entered her mind to do such a thing and it is mere badmouthing...
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.

Quote
As to 4.35 it is indeed more specific and does suggest marriage, but again, for the sake of not limiting what the Qur'an itself does not limit, let us keep to what it says: a fray between two persons of different sex who have some undertaking in common.
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?
Quote
As to the meaning of maDaji3, I never pretended that I have the best translation ever, rather I have said exactly the opposite, but what it does not mean is that because I cannot produce on the spot the perfect translation that EVERYBODY could accept that I have to certify the usual interpretation that is forced into this aya. Why should I do that? It is forced and there is no proof of it.
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.

Quote
Not me saying that, just take the Qur'an. There are two other mentions of the word. If one feels that sex fits the bill, at least what cannot be done is forbid the meanings that really pertain to it. Sleeping and resting where one is in his or her place of relax and having sexual relations are two completely and unrelated things, just as sleeping and eating are two unrelated things. So, come to that, we could also translate, "and leave them eat alone", right?

Again, please study really the word and its usage in the Qur'an, if any of the other two appearances tells you that it would be a good one to use to mean sex-relations. In fact if it does something is suggest the aloneness of a person for that aspect. Like death.
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?

Quote
There haven't been many attempts to translate maDaji3 out of the box of marital male bliss, therefore I see no reason to pound on my translations (I put up several, because obviously I am trying to get to the gist of it) as if I were guilty for not coming up with a trump. Bring up a better one, I will greatly celebrate it, but please do not push, again, the one that has been very conveniently used, but not really documented nor checked and that has thrown and continues throwing off track the unravelling of this most important and luminous aya. That traditional translation, as far as I am concerned, it continues being a male fantasy.
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?
Quote
Husbands are not the reason for the universe. May be humankind and prophethood are, but husbands by themselves, when they are humble, and faithful servants of God and their community, like the male prophets, peace be on them all, are a source of peace and joy for their communities and their families, but they must prove themselves. Not just for the sake of maleness they get the whole lot no questions asked and enjoy women obeyers at will. And I say this not because I think that anybody is prejudiced to that point. Consciouslly we are not, but we do are under the spell of centuries of seeing everything through the eyes that the human species is man, woman a mere after thought, and therefore woman can only come in the fray as an accident to the real thing which is the male. That is the mentality that the Qur'an tries very hard and conclusively to correct, but inertia is very strong and the conditioning of centuries not easy to override. At least I have not found it easy and I am sure I continue to have many such deformations. Aya 4.34 has helped me a lot, and many contributors in this and other forums have contributed to it.
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.
Quote
In fact, what the 4.34, together with many ayas in the Qur'an does is socialise the needs of the most needy. Starting with the women, who in the face of great, great difficulties many times have to reproduce the species, maintain her children and upkeep the family with no help. So, there you are. The Qur'an does not leave women with their problems to themselves, but involves the community. Which is logical, the whole species benefits from its own reproduction, why should the burden fall only on those that most contribute to it through thin and thick. Justice... for God's sake. And the fears that women may do this and do that is no fancy it is there and it is still going. See the fierce campaigns because of abortion. What is that if not fear the the women are "rebelious"? Well the Qur'an goes beyond that, and wants the women to speak and get the help they need. Not just fear and fear and because of fear do everything on their backs and stab them, once again. And in those cases there is the attempt to make that  appear like a war of the sexes, but that is wrong. Real men, real loving faithful men, hate that. They do not want their women to suffer nor be humilliated. And the women of those good men are ALL the women. Like the women of Muhammad were all the women.
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
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Mazhar on February 04, 2014, 01:01:34 PM
(http://haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Tabweeb%20Part%202/120.%20Yazrib%20Zuad%20Ra%20Ba/7.gif) This Verbal Sentence is conjunct to the preceding clause with Appositive Particle  which is evidently showing a sequence. This coordinating conjunction functions as an additive term within sentences to link clauses, phrases, and words. It refers to affirming for the المعطوف the same meaning that is affirmed for the المعطوف عليه, which is here وَاهْجُرُوهُنَّ فِي الْمَضَاجِعِ . The suspension of Protocol of Matrimony happened within the bed room of respective couple. It is in seclusion, hidden and not occurring to others. Action appositive to it is described by Verbal sentence (http://haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Tabweeb%20Part%202/120.%20Yazrib%20Zuad%20Ra%20Ba/7.gif) comprising Verb-Subject-Object. Verb is Imperative; second person; masculine; [و] Subject Pronoun in nominative state refers to the respective husbands. Suffixed feminine plural third person pronoun refers to respective wives. Action denoted by the verb is to strike once; and since it is associated with a location; the bed rooms of respective couples, with no other words linked with it that could add connotation of physical hitting with hand or an object and target part of body; the only meanings are to transit-move the wives from the bed room to other area of house. This will reflect the basic perception infolded in the Root of Verb; that is to make things manifest, become understandable for someone; to make it occur to others.

Wife is now out of the bed room. It is a non-verbal, but louder than verbal, conveniently understood by all others that this couple is neither respecting nor maintaining the Protocol of Matrimony. It is a dangerous and alarming state causing concern for others. Therefore, Allah the Exalted immediately gives in its continuation a course of action to the concerned relatives of husband and wife to try avert the situation before it worsens and ends in permanent break-alienation of the couple.

Grand Qur'aan has prohibited domestic violence negating erroneous "belief" of beating one's wife. (http://haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/09.%20Women/2.Erroneous%20belief%20of%20beating%20wife..htm)
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: aqua 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.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas 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.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: aqua 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
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Man of Faith 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
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Bender 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
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: aqua 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.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: hawk99 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:
 





 
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: aqua 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
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: hawk99 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:
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: huruf 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
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: aqua on February 05, 2014, 03:52:57 AM
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 Qur'an uses the word wisdom in a way that can apply to all believers (ie. potentially accessible to all).  In the context of this discussion, we are not speaking of young children or the society's laws, but even if we were, wisdom is actually not as restrictive as you are suggesting.  Although a common perception of 'wisdom' is related to old age only, the meaning of the word is not restricted by age or type of subject.  The word is much broader than that.  As believers, we should try to exercise wisdom in our judgments and decisions.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Mazhar on February 05, 2014, 04:27:05 AM
The Qur'an uses the word wisdom in a way that can apply to all believers (ie. potentially accessible to all).  In the context of this discussion, we are not speaking of young children or the society's laws, but even if we were, wisdom is actually not as restrictive as you are suggesting.  A common perception of 'wisdom' may be related to old age only, but the meaning of the word itself is not restricted by age or type of subject.  The word is much broader than that.  As believers, we should try to exercise wisdom in our judgments and decisions.

(http://haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/2.269p.gif)
(http://haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/2.269q.gif)
(http://haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/2.269r.gif)

He the Exalted grants the wisdom; the capability to perceive the invisible realities in informative data through critical thinking, reason and logic; to him about whom He the Exalted so decides.

And should someone is given the wisdom then know it that he is given the best in abundance.

And the circumstantial fact is that except the Men of Understanding; who objectively reflect without overlapping emotions, prejudices and biases; people do not self grasp and take lesson. [2:269]

Translation with grammatical analysis and parsing (http://haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.%20Individual%20Ayaat/002.%20Albaqrah/269.htm)
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: hawk99 on February 05, 2014, 05:08:21 AM
because someone who lacks wisdom is not able to judge right from wrong and they can easily make the wrong decisions.

Peace aqua,

I was only addressing the statement above.  Stating you do have to be wise to know right from wrong.

1.   A child can be taught right from wrong, does not make that child wise?

2.  Consider societal right and wrong were stoning the kufr as an example is the right thing to do.

3.  Sectarian violence is right in the minds of the perpetrators.

4.  Ethnic or race intermarriage is wrong according to some.



God bless 

   :peace:   
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: aqua on February 05, 2014, 05:21:59 AM
I was only addressing the statement above.  Stating you do have to be wise to know right from wrong.

I said to be able to judge right from wrong, not know right from wrong.  There is an important difference.

A child may know right from wrong if they are taught it, but that doesn't necessarily give them the ability to judge right from wrong by themselves.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: savage_carrot on February 05, 2014, 06:32:39 AM
Quote
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.
Things do get awfully complicated precisely because your understanding is a general brush over the verse with the community getting involved which is apparently a pre-requisite for any of the steps listed to be taken. It's in your scenarios. It's not like a single person can take those steps, the community must. If a single person has taken all those steps or whatever steps and it doesn't work, then the community can get involved if it has escaped the confines of the people who have an issue with the same steps is what you're saying now? The nushuz that was feared by someone is now feared by the community? I asked how this worked and it doesn't make sense.

And I disagree with the way the community should get involved on the say so of someone or another regarding any type of fear etc. In the nushooz context, is the other verse also dealing with such community issues for the male? If there is a scenario where nushuz on the part of the woman is feared by the community, it would be dealing with something the woman is planning/doing which affects the community as a whole...? otherwise we're stuck with all manners of trivial and/or personal situations based on someone's assumptions which the community is apparently duty bound to investigate.

In this case, why limit it only to male/female, is that accurate to the verse? can a female not fear something from another female? does this verse cover that too? is that accurate to the verse? is it personal conflicts that are talked about, or community wide conflicts? which is more accurate? is it both? and is that accurate? are they even conflicts or general fears like depression, suicide, murder(!) etc and which is more accurate to the verse? are both covered? is this implied/covered in the verse and would that be an accurate interpretation? etc...there seems to be a whole lot 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"...which I'm not entirely comfortable with. Whatever works I guess. I suppose I'm making things awfully complicated because of all these hypothetical questions and I see it from a biased viewpoint...but I can live with that if there is a satisfactory explanation that is accurate to the verse.
Quote
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.
Regarding the authority of the husband, people can take verses anyway they like, they may not let facts get in the way and like nature abhors a vacuum, emotion rushes in. It's clear that the nushooz is the type that is a valid fear and the advice/instruction is not ambiguous as to it's nature and that the person who is under advisement should listen. I'm curious but is the rest of the verse not of any use in analysing the verse as well? What if obedience/guarding is contrasted with the nushooz? What contrasts in the other verse where it also deals with nushooz? Is there a reason why rijaal/nisa are mentioned as they are? I find Wakas' article/book valuable work on these matters since it is quite comprehensive, clear and precise. Of course, it could be something totally different and when we have evidence that it cannot at any point mean any of the other things, is when we start getting closer to what it really means.
Quote
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.
Collective believers being addressed does not neccesarily mean that they must as a collective do any of those things, but that it can apply to them if they find themselves in that situation? Is there anything that precludes this understanding? That it in any and all cases means that whatever is supposed to be done is supposed to be done by the community of believers in a group? And that it also can be done in cases where it doesn't apply to them personally but are matters of another individual? I don't particularly see a welfare society the way you do.
Quote
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.
I asked for examples to see what the renderings based upon that understanding would be like and if/how they fit the verse. They seem to be trampling over privacy concerns, encouraging suspicions/fears and opening the gate to chaos. And obviously, I'll look at them realistically according to my experience and whether they flow with the verse etc, what else should I do with these theoretical or otherwise scenarios? If they don't fit, they don't, if they do then they do. You seem to be thinking that there will definitely be something out there that will fit and if I can't come up with them, someone else will or that they must exist and when they are found they will rock the socks off anyone who dares to see the verse as inclusive of marital conflicts? If you can't give scenarios that fit the verse based upon your understanding and/or if you say that my shortcomings etc aren't allowing me to see how they do or can....then what can I say. To each his own.
Quote
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. 
Like I said, I view the quran as a beacon of equality and rights for everyone, which was and still is, ahead of it's time. To me, the verse 4:34 is dealing with conflicts of a particular type, whether that involves only marital or more than marital...I'm open to discussion based on valid examples as long as the explanation remains accurate/precise to the verses and takes into consideration the bigger picture realistically.
Quote
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.
I never said the quran excludes counselling, I opined it doesn't work in this verse within those scenarios the way you're saying it should. I've explained why, if you think I'm seeing things 'my way', so be it.
Quote
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.
I look forward to an explanation with an accurate/precise fit to the verses and the bigger picture whenever it comes together.

peace
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: hawk99 on February 05, 2014, 07:15:07 AM
Peace aqua,

You are correct! judgment is indeed different from learning.

God bless

   :peace:

Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: huruf on February 05, 2014, 11:33:48 AM
Things do get awfully complicated precisely because your understanding is a general brush over the verse with the community getting involved which is apparently a pre-requisite for any of the steps listed to be taken. It's in your scenarios. It's not like a single person can take those steps, the community must. If a single person has taken all those steps or whatever steps and it doesn't work, then the community can get involved if it has escaped the confines of the people who have an issue with the same steps is what you're saying now? The nushuz that was feared by someone is now feared by the community? I asked how this worked and it doesn't make sense.

And I disagree with the way the community should get involved on the say so of someone or another regarding any type of fear etc. In the nushooz context, is the other verse also dealing with such community issues for the male? If there is a scenario where nushuz on the part of the woman is feared by the community, it would be dealing with something the woman is planning/doing which affects the community as a whole...? otherwise we're stuck with all manners of trivial and/or personal situations based on someone's assumptions which the community is apparently duty bound to investigate.

In this case, why limit it only to male/female, is that accurate to the verse? can a female not fear something from another female? does this verse cover that too? is that accurate to the verse? is it personal conflicts that are talked about, or community wide conflicts? which is more accurate? is it both? and is that accurate? are they even conflicts or general fears like depression, suicide, murder(!) etc and which is more accurate to the verse? are both covered? is this implied/covered in the verse and would that be an accurate interpretation? etc...there seems to be a whole lot 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"...which I'm not entirely comfortable with. Whatever works I guess. I suppose I'm making things awfully complicated because of all these hypothetical questions and I see it from a biased viewpoint...but I can live with that if there is a satisfactory explanation that is accurate to the verse.  Regarding the authority of the husband, people can take verses anyway they like, they may not let facts get in the way and like nature abhors a vacuum, emotion rushes in. It's clear that the nushooz is the type that is a valid fear and the advice/instruction is not ambiguous as to it's nature and that the person who is under advisement should listen. I'm curious but is the rest of the verse not of any use in analysing the verse as well? What if obedience/guarding is contrasted with the nushooz? What contrasts in the other verse where it also deals with nushooz? Is there a reason why rijaal/nisa are mentioned as they are? I find Wakas' article/book valuable work on these matters since it is quite comprehensive, clear and precise. Of course, it could be something totally different and when we have evidence that it cannot at any point mean any of the other things, is when we start getting closer to what it really means.Collective believers being addressed does not neccesarily mean that they must as a collective do any of those things, but that it can apply to them if they find themselves in that situation? Is there anything that precludes this understanding? That it in any and all cases means that whatever is supposed to be done is supposed to be done by the community of believers in a group? And that it also can be done in cases where it doesn't apply to them personally but are matters of another individual? I don't particularly see a welfare society the way you do.I asked for examples to see what the renderings based upon that understanding would be like and if/how they fit the verse. They seem to be trampling over privacy concerns, encouraging suspicions/fears and opening the gate to chaos. And obviously, I'll look at them realistically according to my experience and whether they flow with the verse etc, what else should I do with these theoretical or otherwise scenarios? If they don't fit, they don't, if they do then they do. You seem to be thinking that there will definitely be something out there that will fit and if I can't come up with them, someone else will or that they must exist and when they are found they will rock the socks off anyone who dares to see the verse as inclusive of marital conflicts? If you can't give scenarios that fit the verse based upon your understanding and/or if you say that my shortcomings etc aren't allowing me to see how they do or can....then what can I say. To each his own. Like I said, I view the quran as a beacon of equality and rights for everyone, which was and still is, ahead of it's time. To me, the verse 4:34 is dealing with conflicts of a particular type, whether that involves only marital or more than marital...I'm open to discussion based on valid examples as long as the explanation remains accurate/precise to the verses and takes into consideration the bigger picture realistically.I never said the quran excludes counselling, I opined it doesn't work in this verse within those scenarios the way you're saying it should. I've explained why, if you think I'm seeing things 'my way', so be it.I look forward to an explanation with an accurate/precise fit to the verses and the bigger picture whenever it comes together.

peace



Salaam, SC

I honestly am unable to see what the big problem of confrontation between an intervention privately and an intervention (which is not the same as a publication) by some community charged person or persons to look after a matter that may involve conflict or blame. Finally, if there is no fear, nobody has to do anything, but if there is, it is absolutely inhuman to leave women at the mercy of private prosecution. And I am surprised that it shocks you so much when it is well known, as far as I have known all my life and it is oll over, that the cases of abuses against women have very much, overhwelmingly, rested on the presumption that things must not get outside. All must stay between the four walls of the house and within the family. That has made it possible for societies to keep mum when women have been beaten, killed even, and mishandled. I think that nobody wants anything done beyond what is needed intruding in private lives on that count, but the danger has been rather on the other side, that because nothing must transcend outside, the weaker members of society have paid the secret. For me it is so obvious that what is tried to prevent is that the women may find themselves defenceless on the face of private mistreatment and abuse grounded on pretended potential doings, that it really leaves me dumbfounded that you, as I perceive it, confuse it with mindless intervention into private affairs when there is nothing no reason for it. It is as if you pictured a whole horsemen regiment riding into the private homes.

Finally respected persons known for their good influence and their ability to undertake that kind of errands handling family problems or feuds and providing mediation have been in  many places, muslim ones, a feature of society. It is not something new. I use the word community because it is done by the community, somebody of the community as a social conribution, as a human and religious duty. It does not mean that two million people of a town come marching on anybody.

Before anybody undertakes to correct a woman, without her wanting it or having asked for it, it seems to me absolutely civilised and human that she is not left to face whatever in the secrecy of the home under the guise of protecting privacy. That is the ideal means for abusers and beaters to have free rein. No intruding, please, my wife has a right to enjoy the privacy of the spanking and punching, because, you know,  she is a bad wife. Who is going to say anything for what goes on between the four walls of a home?

I see the community, be it under the shape of a traditional sheikh or sheikha or under any guise, as a very positive element to give peace and support to individuals, families and groups of people. Of course everything is corruptible, because people are corruptible and everything is made up of people, and the first that should be tried is to make people conscious of virtue and goodness for themselves and for others. But that said, I really cannot understand your fears.

Finally things work that way now in many places. Anybody can report any suspected crime or abuse. The thing is you circumscribe it to the husband suspecting the woman's infedility or things like that. Well if he only suspects, again, and keeps it to himself or his wife, what prevents him from talking it out with her? Nothing that I can see, but if he spreads that he suspects, well what? is he preparing a divorce with that, is he ?simply? slandering her because now he hates her or is he preparing an alibi for doing something to the wife or the suspected suitor? Why should he spread it? Finally suspicion or fears as it is translated or expressed, in order to make it administrative, needs be stated specifically, it is not catching some words in the air. And of course it can be a woman who fears or suspects something from another woman, or a group of women, or mixed.  In fact one of the examples that I wrote was that. It is those who restrict this to husband-wife realm who have put up those limits. Myself I am keeping to the men-women field stated in the aya.

As to 4.128, there are quite obvious and clear differences between 4.128 and 4.34. In 4.128, the text keeps the third person when it speaks about a wife and her husband and says explicitly if a woman fears nushuz or i3raD from her husband. No doubt there. The same clarity could have been used in 4.34 if what was meant was that if a man fears nushuz from his wife. But no such is said nor hinted at. And not only that, no third person, as has been consistently been used speaking of the men and the women and speaking of wife and husband, but second person mixed plural of the addressee. Is it then too daring to think that in fact it is speaking about what it says? As to why it is that in the case that the wife fears those two things it counsels them to solve the question, and and why on the other hand in 4.34 speaks to the community to take action, we may seek explanations.

But whether we find explanations or whether we find them not, the fact is that it does say a completely diferent thing in 4.128 and in 4.34. Besides, in 4.128, it speaks about greed too, as if it was the reason for there arising of complains. I do not have an explanation for that, but even if I do not have such explanation, that is what it says, greed has a role in the misgivings.

Now as to the obvious differences between 4.34 and 4.128, even if I did not see any explanation for them, my lack of explanations, does not change a thing: it says what it says and, as we know, God is not at a loss for words. In 4.128 BOTH, wife and husband, are told to try to come to a solution. That is the husband?s chance to do something about his marriage. And that also is the wive's chance to do it too. In 4.34, on the other hand, and in view of the contents of 2.128, in fact what it is being done is DENY to husbands any authority to solve any strife unilaterally, if that were to be a case under this 4.34. He can't do it. Not unilaterally and without her agreement. The warnings, the leaving alone and the arrive at an arrangement that covers the ground, are not his prerrogative. It is only too logical. If to give a wife in marriage The Qur'an asks that the woman has someone who looks after her interest, there should also be somebody or somme authority who does so if the husband does not trust her any more or so says.

Salaam

Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: savage_carrot on February 05, 2014, 02:29:46 PM
Quote
Now as to the obvious differences between 4.34 and 4.128, even if I did not see any explanation for them, my lack of explanations, does not change a thing: it says what it says and, as we know, God is not at a loss for words. In 4.128 BOTH, wife and husband, are told to try to come to a solution. That is the husband?s chance to do something about his marriage. And that also is the wive's chance to do it too. In 4.34, on the other hand, and in view of the contents of 2.128, in fact what it is being done is DENY to husbands any authority to solve any strife unilaterally, if that were to be a case under this 4.34. He can't do it. Not unilaterally and without her agreement. The warnings, the leaving alone and the arrive at an arrangement that covers the ground, are not his prerrogative. It is only too logical. If to give a wife in marriage The Qur'an asks that the woman has someone who looks after her interest, there should also be somebody or somme authority who does so if the husband does not trust her any more or so says.
I have explained why there are issues at length and in a more concise way. You keep going back and forth/mixing concepts: on one hand it's fine if the husband takes independent steps to address issues in the relationship - he can't because that would supposedly infringe on the rights of the oppressed woman...your scenarios talk about stuff that bring up immediate red flags and other concerns since suspicions shouldn't be taken to the public/spread - if the situation has progressed to the public stage the verse kicks in and/or if dealt with privately it would be inhuman for the woman...it's nothing to do with marital conflicts - they could apply...it's male vs female given the verse - it can be female vs female - it can be anyone whatsoever...the community of believers are addressed as a religious duty - certain individuals from the members of the community of believers, not just anyone from the community of believers...it's inhuman to leave women at the mercy of private prosecution - public prosecution is better - it's not public prosecution, it's counseling maybe in public, maybe in private...privately a woman could be beaten and bullied so it should be public - keep it under wraps to not break up marriages/cause scandals etc but the community should get involved (the verse does not even mention beating and bullying so whoever is doing that is doing the wrong thing, no reason to analyse the verse by bringing in what almost no one on this thread agrees with i.e. the verse suggests physical violence or mental intimidation)...the fears can be anything suspected for whatever reason - the fears should be valid with evidence...a woman may be corrected without her wanting it or asking for it or even knowing if someone suspects something and she should be protected against any possible fallout as well - go behind the back to figure things out and then she can be corrected if needed even if she doesn't want it or asked for it...and it goes on. It's everything but certain things it most definitely is not unless it is then it can be but maybe it isn't, that's what it reads like.

When I try to address these concepts that are all over the place, I'm said to be making things awfully complicated, I can't see past my vision of how I see things and all that jazz. And I'm one of those who is actually interested in an alternate understanding! Tbh, this is nowhere near the 'pounding' it will get on other forums or with other people as it is if they can breakthrough the cipher surrounding this understanding to get to what it actually is :p Maybe you don't see how these posts read? Maybe there is miscommunication or something else? Sure, why not, let's just leave it there. It's best however not to continue without having some sort of agreement over consistency regarding what exactly the definitive stand here is on anything and/or is there even one? As I said, I'm open to discussion based on valid examples as long as the explanation tries to remain accurate/precise to the verses and takes into consideration the bigger picture realistically. If you or anyone else sharing your view point can give a clear and consistent understanding of how you guys see the verse, practical/theoretical examples of how this can work in rl, a somewhat precise and accurate explanation of how it works with the verse and others whenever it comes together...it would be appreciated.

peace
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: huruf on February 05, 2014, 02:40:28 PM
So what do you think it means. Forget examples, forget hypothesis. Simply what does the aya say according to you? Because obviously, whether we can come up with examples or brilliant ideas or whatever, if we reject something it is because we do read something else. How do you think reads the aya, because finally I have no idea of what you are upholding.

As to what they may think or say in other forums, why should I be concerned with that? I am not begging agreement from anybody. I do not feel disappointed or angry or anything if nobody agrees with me. I can live with that. But disagreement is no reason for me to say something I am convinced it is false, no matter how popular.

Salaam

Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Earthdom on February 06, 2014, 09:40:05 AM
  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.

You can call me Sunni, Shia, sectarian, Quranist etc whatever you want, but to me it means nothing  ;)
Yes I still use hadith, but don't take me as the same level with sectarian.
I didn't support beating nisaa', since it contradict with many verses.

In this thread I agree with huruf if rijaal and nisaa' in 4:34 shouldn't be translated as husband-wives, but it's real meaning (men-women).
I assume 4:35 didn't talked bout marital problem and my opinion :

- Subjects who involved in 4:34 is plural since the word nisaa' is plural ( in arabic plural = more than two).
- But in 4:35 the subjects is dual by looking phrase baynihiima ( بَيْنِهِمَا).

- The word ahli (alif-ha'-lam) in 4:35 is not limited by means family, this word can also means citizen, people, inhabitant.

Peace





Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on February 07, 2014, 04:08:00 PM
peace huruf,

Re: rijal as husband
What about 2:228?

We are still waiting on a reply from you about this.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: savage_carrot on February 08, 2014, 04:10:05 AM
So what do you think it means. Forget examples, forget hypothesis. Simply what does the aya say according to you? Because obviously, whether we can come up with examples or brilliant ideas or whatever, if we reject something it is because we do read something else. How do you think reads the aya, because finally I have no idea of what you are upholding.

As to what they may think or say in other forums, why should I be concerned with that? I am not begging agreement from anybody. I do not feel disappointed or angry or anything if nobody agrees with me. I can live with that. But disagreement is no reason for me to say something I am convinced it is false, no matter how popular.

Salaam


Like I said in my previous posts in different places sis, I see couples fitting in the aya and others connected, I can't exclude them yet...because the evidence to reject it is not solid/coherent enough. I am very interested in knowing if there is another way of reading it with enough solidity to reject other interpretations. I have no horse in this race, I just want to know how much juice any interpretation has, is all. If an understanding is solid, accurate and truthful, it stands on its own and needs no one to hold it up in a manner of speaking, especially not on this forum where the vast majority of understandings are alternative. If people have issues with an alternative understanding in an alternative forum, then it's probably the fault of the understanding not having enough to it rather than an issue of perception/bias etc.

peace
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: hawk99 on February 08, 2014, 04:46:33 AM
Peace Wakas,

Separate, not divorce  within the household or going to a relatives or friends house for time to think,
cool off or give space is definitive and understandable how to be done by most.  Like "leave"is understood by most
people.  But "beat" is much more vague with no parameters, also their are problems carrying out such a directive
like beat because severe injury may occur to one or both of the parties. How is the beating to be carried out?

God bless

   :peace:
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on February 08, 2014, 07:37:33 AM
peace hawk99,

Separate, not divorce  within the household or going to a relatives or friends house for time to think,
cool off or give space is definitive and understandable how to be done by most.  Like "leave"is understood by most
people.

I agree that it can't mean "divorce", however I disagree that it is "definitive and understandable" as I mention here (http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599954.msg347142#msg347142). Feel free to show several people the verse with "leave them" or "separate from them" in the verse and see if they all give the same answer in terms of what it means. This might give one a good indication if it is "definitive and understandable". Let us know what you find.

Quote
But "beat" is much more vague with no parameters, also their are problems carrying out such a directive
like beat because severe injury may occur to one or both of the parties. How is the beating to be carried out?

I agree, but I'm not sure why you're asking me. This specific issue is discussed at length on Quran434.com
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: aqua on February 08, 2014, 04:41:20 PM
As I have often said, this is all about weighing up the options. If you or anyone else can produce a evidenced/logical alternative option, feel free. Thus far, I haven't seen anyone attempt to produce a detailed/credible work. Readers can then weigh up all options and decide for themselves.

I am working on a website similar to Quran434.com, on which I intend to summarise the views I have expressed in this thread.  Verse 4:34 was the first verse I had difficulty understanding in my teenage years, and ultimately it was an article online which enlightened me on the more likely meaning.  I think it's important for people to have access to such interpretations and to be aware of the level of misinterpretation the Qur'an has suffered.  I don't have a date of completion, but I will post a link when it is complete (God-willing).
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: hawk99 on February 08, 2014, 05:41:19 PM
peace hawk99,

I agree that it can't mean "divorce", however I disagree that it is "definitive and understandable" as I mention here (http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599954.msg347142#msg347142). Feel free to show several people the verse with "leave them" or "separate from them" in the verse and see if they all give the same answer in terms of what it means. This might give one a good indication if it is "definitive and understandable". Let us know what you find.

Peace Wakas,

Stating "going to a relatives or friends house for time to think, cool off or give space even in the same house is
definitive and understandable by most". meaning that act of creating space is understood by most, not an attempt
to translate the verse
, just the simple act of creating room between the two parties which is what most folks do.

I agree, but I'm not sure why you're asking me. This specific issue is discussed at length on Quran434.com

Just for once I would like someone who thinks that the beat/separate discussion is complicated to consider the
actual beating part of the debate i.e., when to beat, how to beat, with what to beat, should children be present,
how long to beat, what bruises are acceptable etc., then many will see how barbaric the beat translation is and
conclude that it is not much of a debate at all!

God bless

   :peace:
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on February 09, 2014, 05:42:24 AM
Update:
I recently noticed that "madaji3" is in the "maf3il" form, meaning it can theoretically mean "times of sleep" as well as "places of sleep" i.e. "beds/bedrooms".

I have updated the website accordingly:

Quote from: http://www.quran434.com/wife-beating-islam.html#part2
"...and abandon them in the bed..." (Arabic: hjuroo, root: ha-Jiim-Ra), means forsake, leave off, desert, abandon [see 19:46, 73:10, 74:5].
It is important to note this verb applies to the husband, NOT the wife, thus translations such as "banish them to beds apart "(M. Pickthal), "send them to beds apart" (Dawood), are incorrect. This is further proven by the use of "fee" meaning "in". Lastly, "al madajiAA" (root: Dad-Jiim-Ayn) is plural, and literally means "the times/places of rest/sleep/reclining", thus could mean 'the times of sleep' or 'the bed' or even 'the bedroom'. With regard to "al madajiAA" there is no half measures, it clearly means fully abandon/desert them in this. It seems to also imply no sexual relations. Also, this step reinforces the implication that it is unlikely to be a simultaneous series of steps, as "abandon them in the bed or times of sleep" would only be done at sleeping time, implying a time gap. This step should not be viewed as totally against the wife, as it would also result in the husband re-evaluating their relationship, and make him weigh up his fear against his desire to be with her, thus helping compromise/reconciliation.
As a side note, if a spouse is possibly having an affair, then not sharing beds (i.e. no sex) could also potentially reduce spread of sexually transmitted diseases, giving another benefit of this advice/step.

And:
Quote from: http://mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-masjid-al-haram-Quran.html
Other examples of word form "maf3il" in AQ include: "majalis", "mantiq", "mawazin", "mawatin", "mawadi3", "madaji3". There may be others. If the reader knows of any, please let me know. Their usage seems to indicate this form can indicate time/place/concept. Please read all occurrences.

The only forms that I came across of "maf3al" in AQ were "marqad", "mankab", "mash3ar", "mashrab" and "majma'a" and all seem to denote place. There may be others. If the reader knows of any, please let me know. Please read all occurrences.

To conclude, the word form "ma3fil" (same as "masjid") can indicate a noun of time/place (and perhaps concept). This is well established and accepted. Thus, to state "masjid" may mean a noun of time should not be seen as unusual.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: hawk99 on March 15, 2014, 12:11:49 PM
Peace,

As far as "cite" is concerned, could someone give a definition of "cite", also use it in their translation
of  4/34.

God bless,

   :peace:
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on March 15, 2014, 12:48:04 PM
peace hawk99,

It's all explained on the website www.Quran434.com with translation. Have you read it?

Quote
The men are supporters/maintainers of the women with what God bestowed on some of them over others and with what they spent of their money, so the righteous women are dutiful; guardians to the unseen with what God guarded. And as for those women you fear their disloyalty, then: (first) you shall advise them, and (second) abandon them in the bed, and (lastly) cite them. If they obeyed you, then seek not against them a way; Truly, God is High, Great. [4:34]
And if you (authority) feared a rift between them two, then appoint a judge from his family and a judge from hers. If they both want to reconcile, then God will bring agreement between them. God is Knowledgeable, Expert. [4:35]


cite them:
Quote
An interesting example also appears in 58:1-4 in which a woman argues with the prophet complaining about her husband, and how the husband has estranged/alienated her by claiming her to be as his mother's back, which was a practice of the time, making the wife unlawful for himself but also not technically divorcing her allowing her to remarry, i.e. leaving her stuck/suspended.
This is an interesting example because if we suppose this could be classed as a case of iAAradan/alienation or shiqaqa/breach/rift, then the next step the wife took was to cite her husband's behaviour/actions to the authority, which would have been the prophet at the time. The correlation is specifically with 4:129 which advises the husband not to leave her stuck/suspended and this is the EXACT situation described in 58:1-4, thus showing that in a situation of no resolution, the next step would be to cite the partner/situation to the authority. If we correlate this example to what the next step would be in 4:34, if the steps are followed and no resolution is forthcoming, the next step would be to cite the partner to the authority. This would explain how the court/authority knew of the situation between the couple in 4:35. Since 'idriboo them' is the only step in between "abandon them in bed" and the authority becoming aware of the situation, is there a Classical Arabic meaning of DRB that fits in the sequence? The answer is a resounding yes, as one of its primary and most common meanings is: to cite/propound, declare/mention, put/show forth, point out or indicate. As we can see, it is a perfect fit.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: hawk99 on March 15, 2014, 03:18:23 PM
peace hawk99,

It's all explained on the website www.Quran434.com with translation. Have you read it?


cite them:

Peace Wakas,

Thank you, I surmise in the context of 4/34 "cite" equals "report" (to authorities) which could include
family members also clerics and counselors  yes/no?

God bless

   :peace:
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on March 16, 2014, 05:37:51 AM
The answer to your question is specifically addressed at www.Quran434.com

Quote
"...then appoint a judge..." (Arabic: ibAAatho hakaman, roots: Ba-Ayn-Thal, Ha-Kaf-Miim), literally means to put in motion or send/appoint a judge/arbiter. The Arabic confirms that the plural "you" can ONLY refer to someone/something in a position to put this in motion, so it cannot mean either side's family for example. Also, appointing an arbiter from each side is not a simple task as it would require representations from husband and wife or each side of the family, and suggests the process has become formalised, i.e. judicial. This clearly confirms the court/authority is involved at this stage.

Have you read it?
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: hawk99 on March 16, 2014, 02:24:31 PM
Peace Wakas,

Thanks for the reply, according the websites translation below "if they obey you" pertains to the husband
being obeyed, is this correct, if so please elaborate.

The men are supporters/maintainers of the women with what God bestowed on some of them over others
and with what they spent of their money, so the righteous women are dutiful; guardians to the unseen with
what God guarded. And as for those women you fear their disloyalty, then: (first) you shall advise them, and
(second) abandon them in the bed, and (lastly) cite them. If they obeyed you, then seek not against them a
way; Truly, God is High, Great. [4:34]

And if you (authority) feared a rift between them two, then appoint a judge from his family and a judge from
hers. If they both want to reconcile, then God will bring agreement between them. God is Knowledgeable,
Expert. [4:35]

God bless

   :peace:
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on March 17, 2014, 02:12:12 AM
Again, the answer to your question is specifically addressed at www.Quran434.com

I recommend reading it.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: hawk99 on March 17, 2014, 05:38:51 AM
Peace Wakas,

Thanks again, at the moment I have no time to study such a lengthy article.

God bless

   :peace:
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: aqua on April 02, 2014, 08:57:51 PM
I am working on a website similar to Quran434.com, on which I intend to summarise the views I have expressed in this thread.  Verse 4:34 was the first verse I had difficulty understanding in my teenage years, and ultimately it was an article online which enlightened me on the more likely meaning.  I think it's important for people to have access to such interpretations and to be aware of the level of misinterpretation the Qur'an has suffered.  I don't have a date of completion, but I will post a link when it is complete (God-willing).

As promised, I have completed my article on verse 4:34 of the Qur'an and have published it on a dedicated website.  The website is www.quranverse434.com .  I have tried to keep the article concise by not being unnecessarily lengthy, yet thorough by covering all the relevant points.  Let me know what you all think. You can click on the image below to be taken to the website.


(http://www.quranverse434.com/images/quranverse434_screenshot.png) (http://www.quranverse434.com)
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: uq on April 28, 2014, 04:36:13 PM
Peace aqua,

I commend you, my brother.

The article is thoroughly detailed, easy to read, well-laid out, well-written, rational, cohesive, articulate, accurate, and revealing.

It must have taken you some time to compose it, but your effort shines through.

I will share it on my Facebook profile.

I am of the opinion that God, the most merciful, would not possibly instruct the believers to beat their wives at a time when marital relations are already strained. However, the rules of Arabic grammar get in the way of this understanding.

The only way out of understanding the verse as "beat them" is ? as you point out ? to postulate that the early readers of the Quran misread وأضربوهن for واضربوهن . This is not an unlikely case.

Thanks again for sharing.

Usamah
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: aqua on April 28, 2014, 11:52:44 PM
Peace aqua,

I commend you, my brother.

The article is thoroughly detailed, easy to read, well-laid out, well-written, rational, cohesive, articulate, accurate, and revealing.

It must have taken you some time to compose it, but your effort shines through.

I will share it on my Facebook profile.

I am of the opinion that God, the most merciful, would not possibly instruct the believers to beat their wives at a time when marital relations are already strained. However, the rules of Arabic grammar get in the way of this understanding.

The only way out of understanding the verse as "beat them" is ? as you point out ? to postulate that the early readers of the Quran misread وأضربوهن for واضربوهن . This is not an unlikely case.

Thanks again for sharing.

Usamah

Thank you for the positive comments. Glad to hear that you agree.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Firedragon on July 21, 2014, 08:59:46 AM
This is the first time I have seen such an effort on one point of any book. A crucial point no doubt. Because of people like you we have less work and better understanding.

Thank you again.

Peace.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on October 27, 2014, 07:22:59 AM
In Jonathan Brown's new book (https://www.scribd.com/doc/238830650/Misquoting-Muhammad-The-Challenge-and-Choices-of-Interpreting-the-Prophet-s-Legacy-Jonathan-a-C-Brown) he reviews Traditional Islamic understandings of 4:34 with some interesting insights, p268 onwards.
For those familiar with his previous book on Hadith (http://ahadithstudies.wordpress.com/page/3/), it is likely this work will be of similar standard. I personally found his book on Hadith to be excellent. In this work there seems to be many gems also, e.g. he cites a hadith in which the prophet requested a woman to lead a mixed gender congregation prayer. He also discusses the 'Quran Only' movement.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Unbeliever on November 01, 2014, 10:41:56 AM
Why does it take 40 pages or even any "holy book" at all to validate that wife beating is wrong? Doesn't thinking about our own moms give us empathy enough to know that is wrong without being told?
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: hawk99 on November 01, 2014, 10:56:39 AM
Why does it take 40 pages or even any "holy book" at all to validate that wife beating is wrong? Doesn't thinking about our own moms give us empathy enough to know that is wrong without being told?



@Unbeliever   :welcome:


God bless you

   :peace:
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: huruf on November 03, 2014, 01:06:07 AM
4.34 is not addressed to husbands but to the community of believers. It is hardly to be taken that the community of believers be told to "beat" a woman just like that.

Also, it speakes not about husbands and wives but about men and women, nothing to do with husbands.

It also does not say that any woman (not wife) has doen anything wrong but that the community of believers FEARS that "they" the women, whoever they are, might to something wrong, but up till then nobody has done anything wrong, so nobody can be "beaten" for something that has not even hapenned.

Teh "idribuhunna" word has certainly avery different meaning from beat, it means as can be logically deducted to do something practical to avoid those women to do something that would be bad for them and the community. Let us not forget that this aya is part of a whole set of ayas that deal with social questions and it also deals with social questions. It is incumbent on the community as a whole thatit takes care fo the women, just as it is incumbent on the whole male population to take care of women in general. This is the question in the aya, that women are looked after, not that women should be punished for whatever imaginary doings might come to mind.

So it should something on the line of: finding out from the women themselves, let them know the consequences that their prospected actions might have, let them think about the whole thing by themselves and when some solution is found for the situation of the women, carry it out with them.

Salaam
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on November 03, 2014, 02:38:46 AM
peace sister huruf,


Also, it speakes not about husbands and wives but about men and women, nothing to do with husbands.

Please refrain from repeating claims. If you wish to repeat them, then do not run away when challenged:
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9606391.msg356394#msg356394



Quote
So it should something on the line of: finding out from the women themselves, let them know the consequences that their prospected actions might have, let them think about the whole thing by themselves and when some solution is found for the situation of the women, carry it out with them.

If someone can find a more coherent answer than the following then please let me know:

Quote
The understanding of DRB in 4:34 as "cite / indicate / put/show forth them" (to the authority) is the ONLY understanding that provides perfect internal coherence in The Quran. It is the ONLY understanding:
1) that provides a sequential link from 4:34 to 4:35
2) to provide identical solutions between men & women in 4:34 and 4:128
3) that fits and perfectly explains 58:1-4
4) that fits the divorce procedure of The Quran and related compensation
5) that explains the reasoning behind the context of wealth/inheritance/giving/kindness etc.
6) is consistent with the use of DRB with a direct object with no prepositions, in which it always means "put/show forth"
7) that 100% matches the use of DRB when used with a person as the object, e.g. 2:73, 43:57.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Farabi on November 03, 2014, 05:21:43 AM
People tend to discriminate muslims by saying beating his wife is an obligations. It is not. Beating your wife is not an obligations, it is your right, and you can decide to do it or not. That allowance is to defend Job who are swore gonna beat her wife. And for that swore even though Job is regret it, God still command him to do his swore by taking a grass and do it.

And as the context of beating your wife, it is allowed in condition to educate them, not because it is your habit. In the quran, a woman can divorce her husband if she think she doesnot like it. I think we can contemplate this clearly to determined wheter a beating is because of lust or because a wisdom.

Even youre beating your child if he/she is harming her brother or her sister am I right? Violence on some condition is neccessary to educate a person.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: aqua on November 03, 2014, 05:29:16 AM
Beating your wife is not an obligations, it is your right, and you can decide to do it or not.

And as the context of beating your wife, it is allowed in condition to educate them, not because it is your habit. In the quran, a woman can divorce her husband if she think she doesnot like it. I think we can contemplate this clearly to determined wheter a beating is because of lust or because a wisdom.

Beating a woman contradicts many parts of the Qur'an; read the contradictions explained here:

http://www.quranverse434.com/#problems-with-beat-them
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: JavaLatte on November 03, 2014, 06:13:30 AM
People tend to discriminate muslims by saying beating his wife is an obligations. It is not. Beating your wife is not an obligations, it is your right, and you can decide to do it or not.

Beating wife is a husband's right . . . !?!  ???
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Farabi on November 03, 2014, 06:22:15 AM
Beating wife is a husband's right . . . !?!  ???

I mean, it is not an obligations, it is your right like you scold your children when they making a mistake. What word you should pick for such condition?
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: huruf on November 03, 2014, 06:54:39 AM
Wakas I repeat because you have run away from answering my arguments when you have answered this in the same way, that I am not right, but refrained your self from rebuting my arguments you plain ignored them.

I am not interested inb eing your police and I do not have the time, so I am not looking for the threads where that has hapenned and it has been several.
But you also repppeat, everybody repeats. The forums are full of repetitions.

On the other hand, the wording of the aya is so plain and clear that what has to be explained is how it does come that it is transformed into something else. THAT should be explained and not forgotten that if somebody chooses to make things signify other thing that their meaning, one must bring arguments for it. 

And I repeat for a good reason: not for you, not for those who systematically ignore things that do not suit their own state of thought, but for those who might eventually find the need to go beyond the usual comfortable preconceptions.

I am grateful that some peole chose to repeat things, so that if a did not catch something the first time I had more opportunities later on. I have learnt things that way.

Salaam


Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: huruf on November 03, 2014, 07:00:44 AM
I mean, it is not an obligations, it is your right like you scold your children when they making a mistake. What word you should pick for such condition?

I would agree if you would agree that women should also "scold" and beat up their husbands when they need correcting.

Have you really read the Qur'an?

Salaam

 
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: JavaLatte on November 03, 2014, 07:03:25 AM
I mean, it is not an obligations, it is your right like you scold your children when they making a mistake.

Scolding children is parent's right . . . !?!  ???


Quote
What word you should pick for such condition?

I think it needs to be adjusted to the mistakes they make, and also, we need to look at the character of the kids who did it. Right now I don't have experience being a parent, so maybe I could not give proper input related how to educate children,

but I think "beating children" and/or "scolding children" are not the right ways to make the children honor their parents.


Even youre beating your child if he/she is harming her brother or her sister am I right?

I know that beating children is not effective way to educate them to be righteous.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Taro Hiroshi on November 03, 2014, 07:27:13 AM
Beating your wife is not an obligations, it is your right, and you can decide to do it or not.

Which verse in the Quran says that it is a man's right to beat his wife? Do you have any Quranic evidence that supports your claim? Or is your rule based on your personal likes and dislikes instead of the book of God?

It seems that your rule is based on the mistranslation and misinterpretation of verse 4:34 in the Quran. Because in reality there is no verse in the Quran that supports wife beating.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Farabi on November 03, 2014, 08:07:26 AM
Ok fine I get it. Beating your wife is wrong.   :giveup:
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Taro Hiroshi on November 03, 2014, 04:20:45 PM
Ok fine I get it.

 ;)
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: FindingRightPath on November 03, 2014, 07:23:24 PM
I mean, it is not an obligations, it is your right like you scold your children when they making a mistake. What word you should pick for such condition?

So you are saying your wive is your child, and it is your right to scold her because she is a child and need to be corrected.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: JavaLatte on November 03, 2014, 08:10:15 PM
Ok fine I get it. Beating your wife is wrong.   :giveup:

Semoga Allah memudahkan anda dan istri anda untuk bisa menjaga kerukunan rumah tangga, saudara Farabi.

Supaya rumah tangga anda tenang, tidak ada pukul-pukulan atau pun omel-omelan.  :)

May Allah bless you and your family.  Salām.  :D
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Farabi on November 03, 2014, 08:33:56 PM
Semoga Allah memudahkan anda dan istri anda untuk bisa menjaga kerukunan rumah tangga, saudara Farabi.

Supaya rumah tangga anda tenang, tidak ada pukul-pukulan atau pun omel-omelan.  :)

May Allah bless you and your family.  Salām.  :D

You made me sound like I used to beat my wife. I did not married yet.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Farabi on November 03, 2014, 08:35:49 PM
So you are saying your wive is your child, and it is your right to scold her because she is a child and need to be corrected.

Yes I said that, but since many people doesnot like it I guess, I will not saying it anymore.  :giveup:
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: FindingRightPath on November 03, 2014, 08:52:32 PM
Yes I said that, but since many people doesnot like it I guess, I will not saying it anymore.  :giveup:

But why? Your wife is not your child. Do you consider yourself your wife's father?

Even most parents don't hit kids. There can be exceptions though.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Farabi on November 03, 2014, 09:22:45 PM
But why? Your wife is not your child. Do you consider yourself your wife's father?

Even most parents don't hit kids. There can be exceptions though.

I saw it from shlomo book, proverbs
Quote
Proverb 23:13
13. Do not withhold discipline from a child; when you strike him with a rod, he will not die.
http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16394
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: FindingRightPath on November 03, 2014, 09:38:11 PM
I saw it from shlomo book, proverbshttp://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16394


It is talking about parents and children which has nothing to do with the topic.

You said you consider your wife a child, and it is your right to correct her. I asked do you consider yourself your wife's father? Answer me this simple question.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Farabi on November 03, 2014, 10:03:09 PM

It is talking about parents and children which has nothing to do with the topic.

You said you consider your wife a child, and it is your right to correct her. I asked do you consider yourself your wife's father? Answer me this simple question.

I am a man. My instinct is different than you. When I talked about religion, I always think religion is the way to put your instinct on the right place. And I dont know why each time Im afraid my girlfriend about to leave me or I have a suspicions that she will leave me my anger was invoked. I used to think maybe religions want me to use this instinc only for educate her, not unleashing my lust, beating her for a scape goat. I dont know how to put it on the right words.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: FindingRightPath on November 03, 2014, 10:13:14 PM
I am a man. My instinct is different than you. When I talked about religion, I always think religion is the way to put your instinct on the right place. And I dont know why each time Im afraid my girlfriend about to leave me or I have a suspicions that she will leave me my anger was invoked. I used to think maybe religions want me to use this instinc only for educate her, not unleashing my lust, beating her for a scape goat. I dont know how to put it on the right words.

I don't know about that. I just asked do you consider yourself as your wife's father? It is yes or no.

Anyway, if you don't want to answer, it is fine. I hope your wife is safe though.
May God bless you.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Farabi on November 03, 2014, 10:48:40 PM
I don't know about that. I just asked do you consider yourself as your wife's father? It is yes or no.

Anyway, if you don't want to answer, it is fine. I hope your wife is safe though.
May God bless you.

No Im not. Im not considering myself as my wife father. And I dont have wife yet.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on November 04, 2014, 01:50:36 PM
peace,

People tend to discriminate muslims by saying beating his wife is an obligations. It is not. Beating your wife is not an obligations, it is your right, and you can decide to do it or not. That allowance is to defend Job who are swore gonna beat her wife. And for that swore even though Job is regret it, God still command him to do his swore by taking a grass and do it.

That story is based on non-Quran sources.

For an explanation of it as per Quran, I recommend point 14 here:
http://www.quran434.com/wife-beating-islam.html#part1
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: FindingRightPath on November 04, 2014, 07:51:20 PM
No Im not. Im not considering myself as my wife father. And I dont have wife yet.

I can go on and on with this, but let me just come straight to the point. Why do you consider her as a child then? You are not her father. She is not your child. A wife is an adult, not a child. Don't compare her to a child then. It doesn't make sense. Beating is wrong.
Other than that, it is your choice if you can understand this or not. I hope I didn't offend you.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: عوني on November 26, 2014, 07:42:53 AM
Wife beating or children beating has absolutely NO place in Islam. Those 'muslims' who does any of this need to be removed from Islam for real.

Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: TruthBehindIt on February 11, 2015, 07:43:38 AM
Wife beating or children beating has absolutely NO place in Islam. Those 'muslims' who does any of this need to be removed from Islam for real.

Agreed  :handshake:
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Man of Faith on February 11, 2015, 08:47:56 AM
Thankfully it does not mention anything about wife beating in the passage in question.

Salaam
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Hizbullah on February 28, 2015, 12:54:58 AM
Peace All,

So can you call Arabic an eloquent tongue, when one word "da ra ba", cause so much pain to thousands of women?

Think  :peace:
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on February 28, 2015, 04:39:16 AM
peace,

So can you call Arabic an eloquent tongue, when one word "da ra ba", cause so much pain to thousands of women?

I'm not sure if any language can be called "eloquent", but perhaps you mean The Quran's use of such a language. If so, then not if it is used in a haphazard way with little or no way of determining meaning etc. However, in the case of DRB in Quran, there is consistent usage as shown in the article: www.Quran434.com

Quote
End Notes for Part 1


It has been shown that there is not one clear occurrence in The Quran in which "beat" is the meaning of DRB.


It seems that the default meaning of DRB is "to put/show forth (from one person/place to another person/place)". This core meaning fits into every occurrence, and thus could be seen as its basic/core meaning. Lane's Lexicon states that its meaning is "to put into commotion" which is similar. Of course, with various prepositions and subject matter, this basic meaning can be refined and better rendered depending on situation.

It is interesting to note from (11) and (12) that in similar contexts, The Quran switches from a non-literal/physical use of DRB (e.g. indicate) to a literal/physical use of DRB (e.g. strike / put forth / point out), by stating what the physical objects are and their interaction with the preposition "bi (with/by)".


The only verses in which the preposition "bi" is used with DRB are 24:31, 57:13, 26:63, 2:60, 7:160, 2:73, 38:44, 37:93, and in all these occurrences the meaning is a physical usage:

wal yadribna bi khumurihinna AAala juyoobihinna = and let them draw/cast with their covers over/on their chests [24:31]
wala yadribna bi-arjulihinna = and let them not strike/stamp/move with their feet [24:31]
fa duriba baynahum bi soorin = then put forth between them with a wall [57:13]
idrib bi AAasaka al bahra fa infalaqa = strike with your staff the sea, then it split/separated [26:63]
idrib bi AAasaka al hajara fa infajarat min hu = strike with your staff the rock, then vented from it (twelve springs) [2:60]
idrib bi AAasaka al hajara fa inbajasat min hu = strike with your staff the rock, then gushed from it (twelve springs) [7:160]
idriboohu bi baAAdiha = cite /point out him with some of it (the murder) [2:73]
Wa khuth bi yadika dighthan fa idribbihi wala tahnath = And take with your hand a handful, then collide /put forth with it, and do not incline towards falsehood [38:44]
Fa ragha AAalayhim darban bi al yameeni = then he turned upon them striking with the right hand [37:93]

There are two verses that may need clarification:
     2:73 should be noted that a murder/crime is something specific and a real world tangible object and thus can be referred to as such. This might offer a possible reason as to why 2:73 was traditionally translated as it was, because if a murder/crime was not seen as a valid object/reference to DRB with, then the only other valid object would be the dead heifer.
     38:44 the act of DRB upon what/whom is not specifically mentioned, thus several interpretations may have existed at the time. Once the true context and meaning is identified as shown previously, this aspect becomes self explanatory and what/whom is not needed.

 It is interesting to note that these are the only two verses with preposition "bi" that require careful study in order to reveal the most likely answer, thus for these two verses it is likely several interpretations may have existed. If physical/literal strike was one interpretation, then these verses could have been used to favour a physical/literal striking in 4:34.
 If DRB in 47:4 is taken as a physical strike as is commonly done, albeit as an idiom, then it would be the odd one out, as it does not use "bi". This gives further weight to the alternative understanding presented above.


##

Quote
All examples of DRB with a direct object and no prepositions mean "put/show forth", providing internal consistency of usage. And when used in the same way as 4:34, i.e. applied to a person in 43:57 and 2:73 it means the exact same thing. In 43:57 Jesus is the second object of the verb DuRiBa, and in this verse it is in the perfect passive form meaning the object received the action expressed in the verb, i.e. Jesus received DRB, i.e. Jesus was put/shown forth / cited/indicated (as an example) by those disputing. In 43:57 "mathala" could be considered an adverbial accusative that names or modifies the action of the verb. So the type of "darab" of the object "Jesus" is that of an "example". As we can clearly see a literal/physical striking of Jesus is nonsensical, and if we remove this modification of the verb, this shows when applied to a person as the object DRB on its own means to cite/indicate or put/show forth. A perfect match with 4:34 and 2:73.

In fact, to my knowledge, the conclusion of www.Quran434.com is the only work that provides overwhelming coherence in usage.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: reel on March 01, 2015, 04:59:59 PM
I am a man. My instinct is different than you. When I talked about religion, I always think religion is the way to put your instinct on the right place. And I dont know why each time Im afraid my girlfriend about to leave me or I have a suspicions that she will leave me my anger was invoked. I used to think maybe religions want me to use this instinc only for educate her, not unleashing my lust, beating her for a scape goat. I dont know how to put it on the right words.

If your girlfriend is acting weird with you then you truly need to hear what verse 4:34 is saying and trust me it works!

Here is a simple explanation of it:

Quote
While in the comfort phase, you don't want to tease in order to punish a woman for bad behavior, simply because it's a waste of time and it's going backwards in the process. You will start to banter, which leads to a playfully fighting vibe. This is the complete opposite of what you want once you are in comfort. In comfort you want to make her say to herself, "where was this guy all my life?"

Inevitably, however, there will be times when a woman will do something that you don't like, and it's imperative that you make her understand that this is unacceptable. I have deconstructed the process you need to follow in order to modify such behavior for good.

Change your behavior Fall silent or otherwise change your attitude to be more dismissive and display a willingness to walk away. The main point of this is to show that things will never be the same unless she changes what she just did. It's unacceptable.
Source: http://www.lovesystems.com/dating-advice/attraction/make-her-chase-you-2

Do you see how the west actually applies this on moody romantic partners? This is the exact thing Allah said in that verse.
 :peace:
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Man of Faith on March 01, 2015, 06:54:08 PM
Beware of instincts. Your soul does not have them, but the body does. In soul we are all equal.

Salaam
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on July 13, 2016, 04:45:56 PM
Response to:
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9608675.msg391533#msg391533

Thank you for your considered response, and also numbering your post as that makes it easier to reply to.

Re: suggestions for article, point 2)
Quote
The red portion of your quote above is not even remotely suggested by 4:128, hence very misleading

In the part you quoted you missed out the prefix "For sake of clarity, let's then re-arrange the steps to show the sequence for 4:128 if the husband didn't do the right thing and left her hanging/stuck/suspended (i.e. no resolution):", i.e. I am providing a working example.

Not only that, prior to this part in the article, I provide a step by step analysis of both 4:34 and 4:128 making it clear what the verses actually say.

#####

Re: 1)
When it comes to reconciling there is no prohibition upon the wife, e.g. she could abandon her husband in the bed if she wished, it is up to her. In fact, this may be relatively common if the wife is unhappy with her husband etc.
And it does matter what "iDRiBoo-hunna" means as I am making the case that "cite them" provides the coherence. We are testing "cite them".
If there is no reconciliation and the wife is left stuck, she can do as per 58:1-4, cite the husband to the authority - notification is the logical (and only possible?) step prior to arbiters getting involved.

Re: 2) and 3)
A few points:
4:34
advise/counsel - see 26:136 for two way dialogue with this word, or at least a response to the advice.
"IF they obeyed you" implies communicating obedience, i.e. dialogue, or at least displaying it

4:128
the outcome of reconciliation is basically coming to an understanding/agreement
either party is free to say or not say as they wish, e.g. a wife may make her case (advise, make demands, whatever) to the husband, he may choose not to respond, it may not result in a two way dialogue, and the verse even mentions alienation/iAAradan

You are right though that they are different words, with different connotations. In my view:

to advise/counsel
does not necessarily: require a response from the other party, involve a wrongdoing

to reconcile (make right/peace/reform)
more likely: does require a response from the other party, involves wrongdoing

This could explain the usage because in 4:128 the strong implication is the husband is doing or done wrong, whereas in 4:34 it is a fear only with no implication of actual wrongdoing.



Re: simultaneous/sequential
Of course there is overlap once the sequence is initiated and more than one step is done. What I meant was one does not initially do all 3 steps simultaneously. I discuss the evidence for this in the article.









Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: truthseeker11 on July 14, 2016, 03:51:14 PM
Peace Wakas,

Re: suggestions for article, point 2)
In the part you quoted you missed out the prefix "For sake of clarity, let's then re-arrange the steps to show the sequence for 4:128 if the husband didn't do the right thing and left her hanging/stuck/suspended (i.e. no resolution):", i.e. I am providing a working example.

Not only that, prior to this part in the article, I provide a step by step analysis of both 4:34 and 4:128 making it clear what the verses actually say.

You can't write the word "idriboo" in that sequence. You should have just written that 58:1 indicates "cite them" and then concluded that "idriboo" in 4:34 could refer to 58:1 and hence could mean that. Writing "idriboo" in that sequence makes it misleading.

#####

Quote
Re: 1)
When it comes to reconciling there is no prohibition upon the wife, e.g. she could abandon her husband in the bed if she wished, it is up to her. In fact, this may be relatively common if the wife is unhappy with her husband etc.

There is no prohibition upon the wife to do many things, that is not the point. The point is 4:34 explicitly recommends "abandon them in the bed" as a step, which 4:128 does not. That is clear discrimination. Either 4:34 should have been for both males and females (example 2:221, 9:71, 33:35), or 4:128 should have had the same wording to be fair.

Quote
Re: 2) and 3)
A few points:
4:34
advise/counsel - see 26:136 for two way dialogue with this word, or at least a response to the advice.
"IF they obeyed you" implies communicating obedience, i.e. dialogue, or at least displaying it

26:136 has nothing to suggest a two way dialogue as what this word implies. It is a response to the preaching but not that the word indicates a two way dialogue. The word in 4:34 in every single possible meaning indicates only a one way monologue which is strengthened by the response of "then if they obeyed you". A response to "wa-ayn-za"/a monologue, such as "obedience", does not make it a two way dialogue. Reconciliation, on the other hand, by definition involves a two way dialogue. Huge difference and clearly a discrimination.

Quote
4:128
the outcome of reconciliation is basically coming to an understanding/agreement
either party is free to say or not say as they wish, e.g. a wife may make her case (advise, make demands, whatever) to the husband, he may choose not to respond, it may not result in a two way dialogue, and the verse even mentions alienation/iAAradan

Alienation is only one of the three possibilities as is clear by the usage of "aw".

1. Wife feared nushooz only
2. Wife feared iaaradan only
3. Wife feared both.

My point is about the sequence after the case of "feared nushooz" only (possibility #1), and not about the other possibilities.

Hence wife feared nushooz -------> reconcile (two way dialogue). There was no alienation in my example, i.e. I am addressing the case where wife feared nushooz and not iaaradan.

Additionally, the phrase "that they reconcile between themselves" in 4:128 addresses the outcome of reconciliation which cannot happen unless there is a two way dialogue, irrespective of nushooz or iaaradan or both. So the reconciliation has to involve a two way dialogue. Coming to an understanding/agreement cannot happen unless there is a two way dialogue.

What may or may not happen is not the point. The point is why the same words with same connotations not used in both verses?

Why didn't 4:128 ask the wife to "advise" (monologue) the husband and then for the husband to be "obedient" to that advice? There is "atanakum" in 4:34 but not in 4:128. Clearly a discrimination.

Quote
You are right though that they are different words, with different connotations.

Thank you for agreeing. That was my point. The "different connotations" clearly indicates gender discrimination.

Quote
In my view:

to advise/counsel
does not necessarily: require a response from the other party, involve a wrongdoing

to reconcile (make right/peace/reform)
more likely: does require a response from the other party, involves wrongdoing

This could explain the usage because in 4:128 the strong implication is the husband is doing or done wrong, whereas in 4:34 it is a fear only with no implication of actual wrongdoing.

The red parts are incorrect.

You yourself go to great lengths in your article to show that there was no wrongdoing in both verses. It was just a fear.

You are contradicting yourself and also going against what 4:128 clearly indicates.

Quote from: Wakas
Analysis of 4:128 and context

"And if a woman feared..." (Arabic: khafat, root: Kha-Waw-Fa) is in the perfect form, meaning an action done or completed. In contrast to 4:34, it is not an ongoing fear, it is perfect tense, i.e. the action of fearing happened by the subject. In other words, what follows is what to do if "nushuz or iAAradan" is feared to have taken place or is feared to be happening. This is a crucial distinction. Interestingly, even though it is in the past tense, the word "feared" is still used, and not "found" or "committed" for example, meaning it still does not refer to something obvious/blatant, and there is an element of relativity/subjectivity to it. This is an important point to reflect upon.

It is obvious that you see the discrimination and now contradict yourself and go against the clear indication of no actual wrongdoing in 4:128 to figure out a way around it.

Additionally, 4:129 is also discriminatory and gives a convenient excuse to the male for not being able to be fair. Why didn't it also say "And you will not be able to be fair between the men even if you make every effort; so do not deviate all the deviation so you leave him as one hanging"?

Peace
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on July 16, 2016, 02:29:42 PM
peace t11,

I disagree with your view on being misleading, so not much to add to that.

Re: 1)
You admitted the wife can abandon the bed thus she can do exactly as per the husband in 4:34.

Re: 2) and 3)
You admitted one can respond to w3z. A one way monologue is when only one person speaks, please see any dictionary.

Quote from: t11
The point is why the same words with same connotations not used in both verses?

I already answered this.

Quote from: t11
Why didn't 4:128 ask the wife to "advise" (monologue) the husband and then for the husband to be "obedient" to that advice? There is "atanakum" in 4:34 but not in 4:128.

Again, there is no prohibition upon the wife, e.g. she can say whatever, including making demands, for which the husband can choose to obey or not.

Quote from: t11
You yourself go to great lengths in your article to show that there was no wrongdoing in both verses. It was just a fear.

You are contradicting yourself and also going against what 4:128 clearly indicates.

Rather than selective quoting, perhaps you should re-read the entirety of what I wrote, quote:
Quote
"...so do not deviate all the deviation..." (Arabic: fala tameeloo kulla al mayli, root: Miim-Ya-Lam), see 4:27 for similar occurrence (Arabic: tameeloo maylan AAatheeman).
This implies some deviation has occurred, advising not to deviate all the way, i.e. emphasising to do the right thing. This usage further reinforces the implication that the husband is in the wrong in this situation or the cause of negativity, and use of the perfect/past tense of "feared"

I did not contradict myself.

Although I could have been clearer on this (in the part you quoted). I meant in the wife's presence, similar to how I discussed it for 4:34. I have amended the article accordingly.

Quote from: t11
Additionally, 4:129 is also discriminatory and gives a convenient excuse to the male for not being able to be fair. Why didn't it also say "And you will not be able to be fair between the men even if you make every effort; so do not deviate all the deviation so you leave him as one hanging"?

My understanding is that a wife cannot have more than one husband at the same time.


Quote
Dictionary:
discrimination
1.
the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.
2.
recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.

I assume you are referring to (1). To word something differently does not necessarily mean unjust discrimination. I would suggest unjust discrimination is when there is no logical/practical reason for the difference in treatment. It would be interesting to compile a Quran based article on this point.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: truthseeker11 on July 16, 2016, 03:34:13 PM
Peace Wakas,

Quote
Re: 1)
You admitted the wife can abandon the bed thus she can do exactly as per the husband in 4:34.

The issue is not what the wife can or cannot do. The issue is the discrimination in the specific recommendations of 4:34 and 4:128. Since you have no refutation to the actual CLEAR discriminatory wordings, it is a moot point to continue this discussion with you.

Quote
Re: 2) and 3)
You admitted one can respond to w3z. A one way monologue is when only one person speaks, please see any dictionary.

4:34 recommends a one way monologue the response to which is obedience of the wife. I can say a curse word in response to a CLEAR ONE WAY MONOLOGUE (WA-AYN-ZA) does not make it mean it is a dialogue. THE WORD ITSELF CLEARLY INDICATES A ONE WAY MONOLOGUE IN ALL MEANINGS WHICH IS STRENGTHENED BY EXPECTATION OF OBEDIENCE FROM WIFE IN RESPONSE.

Since you cannot grasp/comprehend this simple/elementary concept and keep denying the CLEAR INDICATION OF A ONE WAY MONOLOGUE it is moot point to continue this discussion with you.

Quote
Again, there is no prohibition upon the wife, e.g. she can say whatever, including making demands, for which the husband can choose to obey or not.

That is not the issue.

Quote
I did not contradict myself.

Since you have resorted to clear cut denial, it's a moot point to discuss this further with you.

Quote
Although I could have been clearer on this (in the part you quoted). I meant in the wife's presence, similar to how I discussed it for 4:34. I have amended the article accordingly.

THE FACT THAT YOU HAD TO AMEND YOUR ARTICLE IS PROOF OF YOUR CONTRADICTION

If there was no contradiction in your words there was no need to amend the article. It's ok to admit a portion of your article had a clear contradiction, it will not make you a lesser person. Just a humble advice. We are all humans and can make errors.

Quote
"...so do not deviate all the deviation..." (Arabic: fala tameeloo kulla al mayli, root: Miim-Ya-Lam), see 4:27 for similar occurrence (Arabic: tameeloo maylan AAatheeman).
This implies some deviation has occurred, advising not to deviate all the way, i.e. emphasising to do the right thing. This usage further reinforces the implication that the husband is in the wrong in this situation or the cause of negativity, and use of the perfect/past tense of "feared"

No it does not imply some deviation has occurred. It is just an advice telling him not to leave her completely hanging AS FAR AS RECONCILIATION IS CONCERNED and to either reconcile or involve arbiters, and doesn't imply any wrongdoing.

Otherwise then 4:34 and 4:128 are not coherent at all and your entire basis of deriving the meaning of "idriboo" i.e. they are addressing a similar situation is shattered. Then you cannot use 4:128 to justify "cite" as meaning of "idriboo". Then the two verses are addressing different issues, one with no wrongdoing and the other with wrongdoing.

According to your understanding, 4:34 involves no wrongdoing of wife and 4:128 involves wrongdoing of husband.

This makes it even more discriminatory for a much harsher treatment of wife with no wrongdoing (one way advice with obedience expected, and abandon her in bed), versus a reconciliation when husband is in the wrong. Congratulations, you just made the issue worse.

Moot point discussing this further since its getting circular.

Quote
My understanding is that a wife cannot have more than one husband at the same time.

Which is again a discrimination. Why can't a rich woman marry up to 4 poor single fathers to take care of the motherless children?

I actually meant to write with him but thanks to your remark I see more discrimination.

Here you go for your "understanding":

4:129 is also discriminatory and gives a convenient excuse to the male for not being able to be fair. Why didn't it also say "And you will not be able to be fair with the man even if you make every effort; so do not deviate all the deviation so you leave him as one hanging"?

Quote
I assume you are referring to (1). To word something differently does not necessarily mean unjust discrimination. I would suggest unjust discrimination is when there is no logical/practical reason for the difference in treatment. It would be interesting to compile a Quran based article on this point.

Yes I am referring to (1).

There is an obvious unjust discrimination as there is no logical/practical reason for the difference in treatment.

In fact your admission of 4:128 indicating a wrongdoing makes the discrimination even worse as explained above.

Since you have been unable to resolve these obvious discriminations, it is a moot point discussing this further. Go ahead, you can have the last word   ;)

I haven't even started on the discrimination "preferred some of them over the others" no matter what groups being referred to! What was the fault of the ones not preferred?

Peace
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: truthseeker11 on July 16, 2016, 07:30:31 PM
Peace Wakas,

Additionally, if according to your understanding, "do not deviate a full deviation" implies wrongdoing on husband's part then 4:129 would actually be encouraging that behavior by making an excuse for the men by saying they will not be able to be fair regarding the women even if they make every effort. In other words, since it is impossible to be fair to the women, it's ok to do some wrongdoing, just not do extreme wrongdoing and just try to reconcile. Do you realize the horrible implications of your understanding?

If I tell you don't commit extreme crimes because it is impossible to be crime free, and from that someone falsely implies that you have already committed a lesser crime (huh), then this will also imply that lesser crimes are ok, as long as you avoid the big ones.

So not only does this view shatter your basis for "cite" as an interpretation for "idriboo" (since the situation in 4:34 and 4:128 will not be similar anymore), it makes the discrimination worse (one way advice with expectation of obedience, and abandonment of women in bed, even when no wrongdoing on part of women, versus reconciliation and excuses to justify male behavior, even when men are in the wrong), and it also encourages committing "lesser" wrongdoings to women. This is an indisputable outcome of your false understanding.

The "do not deviate a full deviation" comes AFTER the reconciliation advice in 4:128 so it cannot possibly imply wrongdoing by men. This do not sway part is referring to reconciliation, meaning try to reconcile soon rather than leave them hanging.

Anyway, no further comments from me, since the discussion has become circular.

Peace
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: huruf on July 17, 2016, 12:58:44 AM
4.34 when it speaks about nushhuz is not ddrssing the husband nor is it speaking aobut wivs, it is speaking about women and in the plural, they may be married they may be not married and it ties with 4.15.

In both aya where it speaks of nushuz ther is a fear in one case, 4.34, in the community of believers, i the second case on the part of he wife. The first ce is a matter social matter and the second, for the moment, at least, a private matter. In 4.34 is the matter of the welfare of those women who may find themselves driven ito nushuz, and in the secod is the virtue of  private man who may be tempted into nushuz. Nothig is done in both case. There is fear that something may be done, therefore i both cases it is a mattr of preventing it happen. In the first case it is a social action, in the second a private action by a wife.

4.129 Why should this aya refer to several wives, it doe snnot say so, it is speaking again of nisaa', ot your wives but the nisaa of the group to which it is addressed, and it is telling men to behave themselves, for instance no swaying their behaviour in favour of one they like more as against anothr one for whim they have ill feelings, that they must be wives is pure invention, It is also talking about breaking, so one may want to punish the "bad one" by giving undue favours to th "good one". Some men tend to do that. the multiples wives is pure imagination. as is pure imagination that it is about wives that it is talking in 4.34.

There is this glitch in many maleminds that anything that the Qur'an says about womenn must revolve arounnd men, about the wants of men, the needs of men, the wishes of men. Well that is all i the mens mind, not in the Qur'an.  When the Qur'an means wives it makes it clear that it is referred to wives, and when it uses the generic plural addressing the believers or the naas it is also clear that it is ot addressing the males but the whole community. "Your women, are the women of the whole community. Also the women of the women, not the wives of anybody.

I know nobody is going to take any notice of this except to show that it is not grue, but still I say it just in case feel like renewing the malecast mind and open up a little. In fact inn doesnt kill, it does ntokill neither males nor females.
 

Salaam
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on July 17, 2016, 01:58:48 PM
peace t11,

I'm disappointed by your reply. Please read what I write carefully.

Re: 2) and 3)
I never said a response makes it a two way dialogue, but it is also not a one way monologue. You chose your words poorly - not only is your claim of a one way monologue refuted by any dictionary but also by you contradicting yourself when you admitted a response can be given.
In any case, you seem to think since w3z is used no dialogue between husband/wife can take place. Not only is this incorrect, it is also illogical/impractical.

Example:
Husband: advises/admonishes/preaches to his wife (let's call the content of what he said 'X')
Wife replies: can you clarify what you mean by this part of X?
Husband: I cannot enter into a dialogue with you, t11's interpretation does not allow for that.
Wife: But I'm not sure what you mean so how can I obey that part?
Husband: No dialogue.


Your position is impractical/illogical.
And you will note, the husband fulfilled the recommendation of advising.
Perhaps you can let us know if, in your view, the husband is banned from having a discussion with his wife?  ;D


#####

t11's illogical reasoning:
amending of article proves contradiction

Side note: saying its a contradiction in bold and caps does not make it a contradiction either. ;D

#####

In 4:129 it is described as a deviation. It is not something obvious/blatant/proven or a crime etc. The implication is the husband has deviated somewhat and should do the right thing in settling the matter. I also discuss the subjectivity/relativity of this in the article.

#####

And the understanding of "cite them" does not require 4:34 and 4:128 to be equivalent in every way, or even similar (although they are similar). My point is what step comes after deadlock and before arbiters/authority getting involved. The answer is obvious: authority notification.

#####

With regard to the other discriminations you claimed, perhaps you can tell us (since you confidently claim they are discriminations) what are the arguments for/against. Let us see what thought you have put into such claims.


Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on December 02, 2017, 01:37:42 AM
Re: this post (https://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9609716.msg411538#msg411538)

What do you mean by "CITE THEM". Do you mean refer them to the court? or tell someone about their misbehavior?. Your argument is that (which i understood from your article) how would authority know that there is a rift in relation between husband and wife. The only way is if someone tell them. Husband or wife or any other close family member would inform the court. Am i correct?

Also, in your view "NUSHOOZ" mean cheating with husband?.


Please re-read www.Quran434.com as your questions are answered there.

To understand what "cite them" means simply read 4:34-35.

4:35 connects to 4:34 with the Arabic "wa" / and, and in 4:35 the authority is clearly involved. Thus, the obvious question to ask is: how did they end up getting involved? Who told them? Quran seems to have missed this step out...... or did it?

The logical (and perhaps only) step after deadlock and before authority involvement is notifying the authority of the situation, hence the last step given to the husband is "cite them".
The exact same thing happens in 58:1-4. A perfect match, as explained in the article.

Re: nushuz
Quote
"uprising" (Arabic: nushuz, root: Nun-Shiin-Zay) is the literal meaning and in context means rising up (above relationship/marital limits)...
...if we take these factors into account, it suggests unseen "disloyalty/infidelity/ill-conduct/rebellion" in some way.



Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: NK on December 02, 2017, 03:07:56 AM
Peace Wakas,

Thanks for your reply. It makes perfect sense. I would like to write your article in URDU in a simple form as yours is in English and only helpful for those you can understand English language. Also, it is quite dense and I have read your article many times to grasp your opinion but still i asked a stupid question. Don't take me wrong, i love your article.

I don't know if you can understand or read URDU but before putting on the different forms i would like to send you first article in Urdu so that you can read (it depends if you can read and speak Urdu)  if i understood your opinion correctly. Is that possible if i have your email address? and of course i will mention your website. It is basically not translation of your article but writing in a simpler form as i understood after reading your article.

I have written articles on different topics on Quran but they are all in Urdu. In Pakistan, people are not very educated and mass majority cant fully understand English, especially the one written in your article. That is the reason i would like to write it in a simpler form to spread this message to others, so that more people can benefit from it.

Lastly, if i say "CITE THEM" in URDU it would be  "In ki nishandahi karo"  am i correct?
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Mazhar on December 02, 2017, 07:34:09 AM
Peace Wakas,

Thanks for your reply. It makes perfect sense. I would like to write your article in URDU in a simple form as yours is in English and only helpful for those you can understand English language. Also, it is quite dense and I have read your article many times to grasp your opinion but still i asked a stupid question. Don't take me wrong, i love your article.

I don't know if you can understand or read URDU but before putting on the different forms i would like to send you first article in Urdu so that you can read (it depends if you can read and speak Urdu)  if i understood your opinion correctly. Is that possible if i have your email address? and of course i will mention your website. It is basically not translation of your article but writing in a simpler form as i understood after reading your article.

I have written articles on different topics on Quran but they are all in Urdu. In Pakistan, people are not very educated and mass majority cant fully understand English, especially the one written in your article. That is the reason i would like to write it in a simpler form to spread this message to others, so that more people can benefit from it.

Lastly, if i say "CITE THEM" in URDU it would be  "In ki nishandahi karo"  am i correct?

Better to give a synopsis of what you have understood before putting it in Urdu. That will help Wakas and others to see what have you perceived from the article.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: NK on December 02, 2017, 08:33:23 AM
Mazhar,

English is not my first language and i openly admit that i can't speak and write fluently. Even i have been living and working in England since 2004. I can write better in Urdu as compared to in English. Therefore, i requested that if i can write up in my own words and present it to Wakas. If he would be happy then i will publish it on Facebook and spread this message. Please understand my limitation in this matter. Could you translate CITE THEM in Urdu please if you don't mind? 
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Wakas on December 02, 2017, 12:52:23 PM
peace NK,

Yes you can translate a summary in urdu. I cant understand urdu but I can show some people who can, to get their feedback etc. You can send me your summary via personal message via this forum. Click on my name on the left.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: The Sardar on April 20, 2019, 11:13:48 AM
Aqua's website (http://www.quranverse434.com/) is down. I can't get in it now. Can anyone contact brother/sister Aqua about this?

Otherwise we can see it in Internet Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20190124211540/http://quranverse434.com/ (https://web.archive.org/web/20190124211540/http://quranverse434.com/)
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: aqua on April 20, 2019, 11:43:50 AM
Thanks for reporting this. The website should be back up in a few hours.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: The Sardar on April 20, 2019, 09:34:46 PM
Ah no worries dear brother.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: aqua on April 22, 2019, 11:33:57 AM
The website is back up:

www.quranverse434.com
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: The Sardar on April 22, 2019, 09:00:24 PM
Ah excellent dear brother.
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: Noon waalqalami on April 23, 2019, 05:21:52 PM
The website is back up:

www.quranverse434.com

excellent work!

peace!
Title: Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
Post by: aqua on April 23, 2019, 05:54:13 PM
excellent work!

peace!

Thank you.