Author Topic: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back  (Read 71039 times)

Wakas

  • Administrator
  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 11323
  • Karma +14/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
« Reply #150 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".
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

aqua

  • Apprentice
  • **
  • Posts: 251
  • Karma +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
« Reply #151 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.

Shumali

  • Apprentice
  • **
  • Posts: 134
  • Karma +0/-0
Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
« Reply #152 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


Wakas

  • Administrator
  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 11323
  • Karma +14/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
« Reply #153 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.
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

Wakas

  • Administrator
  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 11323
  • Karma +14/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
« Reply #154 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.
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

huruf

  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 6502
  • Karma +1/-1
Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
« Reply #155 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

aqua

  • Apprentice
  • **
  • Posts: 251
  • Karma +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
« Reply #156 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.

aqua

  • Apprentice
  • **
  • Posts: 251
  • Karma +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
« Reply #157 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?

huruf

  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 6502
  • Karma +1/-1
Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
« Reply #158 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

aqua

  • Apprentice
  • **
  • Posts: 251
  • Karma +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
« Reply #159 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?