Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back

[reel]

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:

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.

[Man of Faith]

Beware of instincts. Your soul does not have them, but the body does. In soul we are all equal.

Salaam

[Wakas]

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)

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.

[truthseeker11]

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.

#####

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[Wakas]

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.

The point is why the same words with same connotations not used in both verses?

I already answered this.

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.

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:

"...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.

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.

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.

[truthseeker11]

Peace Wakas,

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.

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.

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.

I did not contradict myself.

Since you have resorted to clear cut denial, it's a moot point to discuss this further with you.

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.

"...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.

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"?

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

[truthseeker11]

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

[huruf]

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

[Wakas]

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? 


#####

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.

#####

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.

[Wakas]

Re: this post

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

"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.