Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back

[Wakas]

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

[you gunna eat that]

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.

[raginggaijin]

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.

[Wakas]

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

[CavemanDoctor]

Thank you for this effort Wakas.  I want to read it very closely.  Feedback to come soon.

[CavemanDoctor]

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.

[Wakas]

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.

[SarahY]

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

[you gunna eat that]

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

[Wakas]

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!"


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.

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?