Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back

[you gunna eat that]

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

[Wakas]

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.

[you gunna eat that]

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

[Wakas]

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.

[you gunna eat that]

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

[Wakas]

peace yget,

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

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.

[you gunna eat that]

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

[Wakas]

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.

[Wakas]

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.




New content to the study is as follows:

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.

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.

[savage_carrot]

Peace Wakas,

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

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.