Author Topic: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back  (Read 71002 times)

huruf

  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 6502
  • Karma +1/-1
Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
« Reply #140 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

theNabster

  • Advanced Truth Seeker
  • ****
  • Posts: 1322
  • Karma +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
« Reply #141 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...
41:53 We will show them Our Signs in the universe, and in their own selves, until it becomes manifest to them that this (Qur'an) is the truth.

huruf

  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 6502
  • Karma +1/-1
Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
« Reply #142 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

theNabster

  • Advanced Truth Seeker
  • ****
  • Posts: 1322
  • Karma +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
« Reply #143 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...
41:53 We will show them Our Signs in the universe, and in their own selves, until it becomes manifest to them that this (Qur'an) is the truth.

aqua

  • Apprentice
  • **
  • Posts: 251
  • Karma +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
« Reply #144 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.

Wakas

  • Administrator
  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 11323
  • Karma +14/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
« Reply #145 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.
All information in my posts is correct to the best of my knowledge only and thus should not be taken as a fact. One should seek knowledge and verify: 17:36, 20:114, 35:28, 49:6, 58:11. My articles

www.studyQuran.org

diamantinehoneybunch

  • Advanced Truth Seeker
  • ****
  • Posts: 1006
  • Karma +0/-0
Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
« Reply #146 on: January 29, 2014, 05:42:03 AM »
Women are often subject to discrimination by the staunch religionists.
This profile is dead. It was assasinated by its owner :D

I am no longer of an adherent or believer of any religion. So some of my views that have been expressed here may no longer represent or reflect my current views.

aqua

  • Apprentice
  • **
  • Posts: 251
  • Karma +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
« Reply #147 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.



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.

Wakas

  • Administrator
  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 11323
  • Karma +14/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
« Reply #148 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"?
All information in my posts is correct to the best of my knowledge only and thus should not be taken as a fact. One should seek knowledge and verify: 17:36, 20:114, 35:28, 49:6, 58:11. My articles

www.studyQuran.org

diamantinehoneybunch

  • Advanced Truth Seeker
  • ****
  • Posts: 1006
  • Karma +0/-0
Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
« Reply #149 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
This profile is dead. It was assasinated by its owner :D

I am no longer of an adherent or believer of any religion. So some of my views that have been expressed here may no longer represent or reflect my current views.