Author Topic: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back  (Read 73854 times)

Earthdom

  • Guest
Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
« Reply #190 on: February 02, 2014, 12:03:00 PM »
First don't mistaken me if I advocate beating wives, I even no dare for doing that
I'm just play Arabic  :)

Quote
But remember an Arabic word can be broad enough to be translated in more than one way in English.

Aqua, yes it's sound plausible in english, but take notice if not all muslims are english speaker include me.
It still sound strange in my language.

Huruf, you may now understand what I mean "speculative intepretation".Yes the example is this thread.
Use hadith and Quran commentators's view if necessary as long as it didn't contradict the Quran or against the limit (vulgar etc).





aqua

  • Apprentice
  • **
  • Posts: 252
  • Karma +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
« Reply #191 on: February 02, 2014, 12:12:06 PM »
Aqua, yes it's sound plausible in english, but take notice if not all muslims are english speaker include me.
It still sound strange in my language.

Of-course we can't expect a language to translate word-for-word and remain grammatically correct to every other language in the world.  That's common sense.

Earthdom

  • Guest
Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
« Reply #192 on: February 02, 2014, 12:35:27 PM »
Of-course we can't expect a language to translate word-for-word and grammatically correct to every other language in the world.  That's common sense.

Yes, common-sense and logic is needed, but each person have their own version of common sense and logic and possibility contradic each other.

Please take a look how many salat, hajj theories in here? how many a thread turned into debate.

Quran contains puzzling language and protocol to understand it is needed.
It's protocol can be hadith, previous Scriptures or some ancient/classic tafseer guide.
It's not wrong to used them, as long as it didn't contradict/slandering the Quran.

People have their own perceptions, mindmaps and ideology.Since Quranist didn't have any proper tafseer protocol (use speculations/assumption).They keep intepreted the Quran based on their own ideology/mindmap and the result is each intepretations contradict each other.
Example is the Quranist who support polygamy will create polygamy intepretation from the Quran, while the anti-polygamy one will do the same thing.
It's like we used the Quran to justify our own desire.

Currently I'm a muslim, practice Ahadith, Tanakh, etc but still keep use Quran as it's parameter/pillar.I'm not Sunni, SHia, etc.

Sorry for being off-topic

aqua

  • Apprentice
  • **
  • Posts: 252
  • Karma +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
« Reply #193 on: February 02, 2014, 12:41:03 PM »
Yes, common-sense and logic is needed, but each person have their own version of common sense and logic and possibility contradic each other.

Common sense by definition is something 'commonly known', ie. most people agree to it because it is known facts.  What I said is a known fact, not an opinion; you cannot translate one language word-for-word to every other language in the world and expect it all to make sense.  Because it won't.

Wakas

  • Administrator
  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 11358
  • Karma +14/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
« Reply #194 on: February 02, 2014, 03:50:18 PM »
Well about the terms for husbands and wives, that is another story or thread or whatever, as to the terms men and women there is no confusion whatsoever, rijaal is men, nisaa' is women. Nisaa' in as very definite conntext might mean wives...

You have answered your own question, as you said: in a certain context "nisa" can mean "wives". Same for "rijal". Context is key:

1) ...supporters/maintainers......... and with what they spent of their money
(men support/maintain and spend of their money on them, strongly implying a close tie to the man, likely within household)

2) ...guardians/protectors to the unseen with what God guarded/protected
(only one example of betrayal in the unseen 12:52, context is within marriage)
(what has God ordered women to guard/protect? e.g. private parts)

3) ....fear their uprising/disloyalty....
(only ever used in context of marriage, 4:128)

4) and (then) abandon them in the bed
(self-explanatory)

5) If they obeyed you, then seek not against them a way
(where else except in marriage could obedience to advise be possible or discussed between a man and woman in Quran?)

6) And if you (plural) feared disunion/breach/rift between them two, then appoint a judge from his family and a judge from hers. If they both want to reconcile, then God will bring agreement between them.
(perfect for marriage context, see Quran)


Context fits. Simple.


Quote
...but rijaal never is husbands.

What about 2:228?
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 #195 on: February 02, 2014, 04:48:31 PM »
It is your invention that rijaal in any context means husband. It does not. Never. And in the context where women is opposed to men nisaa' always means women not wives. So, if you want to say that every time rijaal means husband and nisaa' means wives every time, you say that yourself, I am not saying it. I deny it totally and there is the Qur'an to prove the facts.

And you are every single time evading the question that no husbands are addressed in the aya. Because rijaal are third person plural and they
and the women are the ones spoken of, but they, neither the men nor the women, are the addressees. The addressees are

ayuhha alladhina amanu, (You who have believed) second person plural, those addressed and those to whom it is said "if you fear...

And there is no playing with words and no playing with presumptions that can make that to be otherwise. Those husbands and wives you see everywhere are non existent in the aya. Men maintain women is a blanket statement, it is not certain men maintain certain women, no, there is no restriction. You may think that that should be what is meant, but that is your conjecture because that is not what it says. All men maintain all women. And it has always been read that way because there is not much room to lay around with something as clear as that. That it is done at a family scale, at a nation's scale or at a planetary scale are particular cases of men maintaining women.


On the other hand you do trick: You say and hammer that the speech is only about husbands and wives and to husbands, but even so, you yourself kannot uphold that, because your are forced to say:

(men support/maintain and spend of their money on them, strongly implying a close tie to the man, likely within household)

So, now, according even to you they are not husbands but  "just a close tie is implied, likely within the household)"

Apart from the invention you make of the close tie, even if we take it as that

do you mean that fathers are told to abandon tehir daughters in bed? or sons their mother? brothers their sisters, or their aunts? Abandon in bed how? Were they in bed with them before? Not even you can upphold the husbands only (and not men) idea that you are pushing.


Also this part where you say:

(what has God ordered women to guard/protect? e.g. private parts)


Really? Do you mean with that that God has not ordered men to guard/protect their private parts? Is it then something that only women should do?
So women protect private parts and in exchange for that men maintain them? If it was for that then it could work equally the other way around, right, that men guard/protect private parts and women maintain them?


All persons guard, protect private partes, but as it happens only women bear the encumbrance and burden of mammalian reproduction which requires a way too important contribution from the women as opposed to the men from whom no effort is required and which for them does not represent any encumbrance at all. The guarding is of the future men and women who will be born and of their filiation. And all men and women benefit from the reproduction of the species not just husbands. So since everybody benefits, but only half the population contributes it stands to reason that the other half should make an equal contribution by some other means.

So yes, it is men and women, not husbands and wives. And it is the comunity of believers which should guarantee that justice and just compensation is ensured. And it is to the community of believers (ya ayuha alladhina amanu) to whom the whole speech is addressed, in the previous ayas where also is spoken of men and women in that aya and in the following ayas.

All the other things you mention have already, I have already, explained them repeatedly, in fact, to my taste, too many times. But the fact that you hav e not acknowledged a single time those explanations hopefully will not have prevented or prevent other readers to have noticed them and draw their own conclusions.

Other than that the translation you use seems to uphold the principle that the husband is a chief and the wife some servant of his. I thought you had discarded that kind of set up.

Salaam

aqua

  • Apprentice
  • **
  • Posts: 252
  • Karma +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
« Reply #196 on: February 02, 2014, 07:15:26 PM »
huruf, do you think the word 'Rijal' in 2:228 is not referring to husbands? That is important because it is an example of how Rijal can refer to husbands depending on the context.  Verse 4:34 is just too obviously relating to husbands and wives considering the context and expression, and please try to consider that taking this meaning does not necessarily imply a sexist interpretation.  I also advocate women's rights, but even if this verse is referring to a marital set-up, I don't think it confers superiority to men / husbands over women / wives unless da-ra-ba is mistranslated into a violent term.  The meaning of avoiding in 'bed / place of lying down' would make much more sense in a marital context.

There is a very weak link (if any) between 'avoid in place of lying down / bed' and the expression "leave them to think about it at leisure".  Even if it did somehow provide this meaning, the overall interpretation of "...question them, leave them think about it at leisure and have clarity from them'' does not seem to be a very effective, meaningful or fitting course of action especially in the context of this interpretation.  I appreciate that you have put a lot of thought into it, but this must be the most cryptic interpretation of verse 4:34 ever in existence.  Do you know of any published English translation of the Qur'an that takes this interpretation?

savage_carrot

  • Administrator
  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 6683
  • Karma +16/-2
Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
« Reply #197 on: February 02, 2014, 11:12:57 PM »
I'd like some clarification of your understanding sis huruf.

Quote
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.
It doesn't need to be used anywhere else in the quran. Of course, it would be great if we had a large concordance of similar terms used but sometimes we don't and I don't see it as an issue. Secondly, if other expressions are used for sex, doesn't mean that different expressions cannot be used. Especially if it is a term that can be used in both cases of rijaal/nisaa and couples. In the former sex is not implied/understood but in the latter sex can be implied along with everything else, e.g. abandon/forsake/leave/avoid them in their resting/private/whatever places. In case it's a relationship that has no sex involved, avoid them in their private/personal space. If it is a relationship which can involve sex, no sex along with avoiding them in their private/personal space.

Unless you mean to say that that verse has nothing to do with husbands/wives whatsoever which is kinda odd because the next verse does suggest a couple and is a follow on verse as far as I can see, which is problematic for the previous verse being only a no couple kind of situation. one could say, well in that verse it applies to a couple, but another would question the applicability and/or the conclusion for the other set...it seems to be leaving that set on a cliffhanger...do they not get arbitration as well? If so, how, where? If they don't need it, is this implied anywhere? Does it just stop on the 3 stages because they are not a couple? etc Which leads me to think that IF both sets are involved then either the next verse does not apply in one set, or does in some way I can't understand yet in a no couple situation, or it was always about couples anyways and the different addresses can be explained. The third option is 4:34 is only about non couples and the next verse does not apply or somesuch.

I'm all for equal rights and so on and I can't see these passages as they as are some sort of indictment against that personally. I'm also against 'authorities' deciding/being apprised on personal matters which are non criminal or whatever in nature, basically extremely limited outside interference whether in the form of people or authorities when dealing with personal matters...Community is in my view a substitute for authorities or a group of people who are arbitrators appointed by the community for disputes. Now, whether that involves personal arbitrators or community wide arbitrators etc, not exactly sure how much legal standing these guys have? But that is supposedly left to the different communities to decide for themselves.

It is your invention that rijaal in any context means husband. It does not. Never. And in the context where women is opposed to men nisaa' always means women not wives. So, if you want to say that every time rijaal means husband and nisaa' means wives every time, you say that yourself, I am not saying it. I deny it totally and there is the Qur'an to prove the facts.

- He isn't saying that, he's saying that it can depending on the context imo?

Quote
And you are every single time evading the question that no husbands are addressed in the aya. Because rijaal are third person plural and they
and the women are the ones spoken of, but they, neither the men nor the women, are the addressees. The addressees are

ayuhha alladhina amanu, (You who have believed) second person plural, those addressed and those to whom it is said "if you fear...

-It's obviously not only the 3rd gender inclusive in 'you who have believed'...so if it is the believers being addressed, which apparently it is, why is it out of the question that some of those believers could be husbands? Or wives? If you are taking them as the 'community/authorities' why should they fear nushooz from the persons in question? Is there some sort of morality police at work here in the community/from the authorities fearing that this or that person is up to no good?

Quote
And there is no playing with words and no playing with presumptions that can make that to be otherwise. Those husbands and wives you see everywhere are non existent in the aya. Men maintain women is a blanket statement, it is not certain men maintain certain women, no, there is no restriction. You may think that that should be what is meant, but that is your conjecture because that is not what it says. All men maintain all women. And it has always been read that way because there is not much room to lay around with something as clear as that. That it is done at a family scale, at a nation's scale or at a planetary scale are particular cases of men maintaining women.
-don't think he was saying that, he was saying however that the marital scenario does/can fit. In your opinion, you'd think that it just cannot be a marital scenario? That is what doesn't make sense to me because like Wakas says, you can say it can be a possible scenario amongst other sits, but excluding something completely when you don't even have the full picture yet of what this nushooz is, somewhat accurate translation of terms, and so on you've already struck something out on the basis of 'well, it just cannot be' and I'm not sure as to why you've done that. There probably can be an explanation for why rijaal/nisa are used that doesn't have to exclude spouses, esp if it's incorporating various scenarios?


Quote
On the other hand you do trick: You say and hammer that the speech is only about husbands and wives and to husbands, but even so, you yourself kannot uphold that, because your are forced to say:

(men support/maintain and spend of their money on them, strongly implying a close tie to the man, likely within household)

So, now, according even to you they are not husbands but  "just a close tie is implied, likely within the household)"

Apart from the invention you make of the close tie, even if we take it as that

do you mean that fathers are told to abandon tehir daughters in bed? or sons their mother? brothers their sisters, or their aunts? Abandon in bed how? Were they in bed with them before? Not even you can upphold the husbands only (and not men) idea that you are pushing.
- No idea what Wakas feels about this, but from my side, I don't disallow different scenarios to be simultaneously legit and depending on more information, could be refined further. So who are these females (or males)? And why would someone have to leave them to their resting places? For what? If someone wanted to break a commitment for example, why on earth does the community (in other words: authorities) have to get involved unless it's for legal reasons? And in regards to legal reasons, why would a community have to advise the person to 'go home to your abode and/or resting place and think about it, and oh, no one must intrude and bother them about it ...it makes little sense? I mean, that kind of 'advice' is kinda weird for the authorities to provide...and especially for something that is 'feared' on the part of the person?

What is the person planning to do? Elope? Leave home? Suicide bomb run? What is this nushooz? Whatever it is, is it even practical for people close to them (obviously those living someplace else won't need to avoid them in their resting places) to avoid this person that way? What if the lady takes a year or more to give clarity, should those close to her that fear whatever, just sit back and say whatever, it's all good...? Is there a time frame? Is this only about the individual and not the rights of those around her either?

Quote
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.
Doesn't this come under the advisement clause anyways? Reading the verse it seems like a gradual progression from advice to drb (whatever you want to call it), unless you want to say that it's all of it together at once which it seems like you're saying above? You also seem to be saying that the drb is the conclusion to the conflict, i.e. proper feedback is gotten thus drb them? But then you say get clarity from them as well somewhere in there and it's just all over the place. What is it that you think the terms refer to and what stages correspond with what please? It seems that whatever you're saying is already included the the advise/instruction stage?

Drb is the popular guy and I tend to forget that there are 2 more in there. On which note, has anyone asked the question why/how someone would advise/instruct (the word seems to have a lot of weight behind it given it's concordance) someone if they didn't even know what the hell was going on with them? If clarity has not yet been received and we are advised to leave them be to get clarity, what and how exactly are we advising/instructing them on? It seems as if whatever is feared is legit and the advice stems from telling/instructing them to do the right thing or somesuch. Not just a casual, 'hey what's goin' on with you, spill... or don't, I'll just leave you be and not pester you to see if you want to tell me' kinda thing which isn't really advice/instruction is it. Sounds more like reverse psychology which has its own merits but probably not what's happening in this verse.

Let's imagine this scenario in real life, taking a mother/son conflict for example. Does the son need to go away from his mothers resting place and leave her on her own because he fears the mother may be nushoozing? Let's say the mother has been told to think upon matters, obviously there must be a valid reason (evidence) for the fear since unfounded fears/suspicions are against everything holy and the authorities shouldn't get involved on the say so of a paranoid son...unless they want to give a restraining order against the guy. Does the feared nushoozee then become the nushooz fearee hmm...and um, anyways, moving on...so now the son has to leave the mother alone to think about her thoughts and whenever she's thought about it, that's kinda it? The clarity that comes forth whenever it does or even if it does from the mother will fix the situation/resolve the conflict? While the son can't really talk to the mother about the nushooz, and if she does the nushooz, then what? What benefit does the son get from taking this route? It seems a one sided situation really. If I was the son, I'd be kinda upset and refuse to get my mother flowers for her birthday ever again, the birthday dinner is off the table too.

I don't agree that there is no restriction on the kind of fear the the fearers may have. That's taking the train to crazy town where all manners of people with all manners of fears are taking it to the authorities and airing dirty laundry in public even if one party doesn't want it. The nushooz seems to be of a particular serious sort with valid evidence regarding the fear. Could be the type of things like one party needing some quiet time to gather their resources before running off into the sunset...and if one party wants to do that, who are the community to stop them I hear you say? And you would be right, if the party wasn't planning on selling various mutual possessions in the house, grabbing the kids and buying business class tickets to Peru to go see Machu Picchu with their boyfriend or girlfriend. I agree the kids would be in the way, but that's how this party rolls. I don't know however, it could be something totally other than my fanciful scenario which actually happened in real life...but I do think that whatever this nushooz is, it's serious and is presented with evidence when it's taken to the next level. And scenarios other than marital, where the buck stops at 4:34 rather than the natural lead up of 4:35 is quite problematic and confusing.

To me, the way it's understood as being a marital issue where the nushooz is something that is valid enough for it to warrant being taken to the next level so the community/authority is being addressed or whatever, makes more sense. I just can't really picture a scenario where other than a marital issue, the authorities are going to tell a mother and son for example, to avoid each other, leave one to their resting place and allow them to have a think over the scenario because they aren't sure what's going on and see what happens kinda deal. I mean really, if this is what the community is going to do then what's the point...the guy would be better off paying someone for their expert opinion rather than taking free 'advice' from the community 'cause he's going to have to apparently sleep on the sofa or somewhere else and not get dinner (esp if his mum still cooks for him) indefinitely for fearing nushooz! Some would say that's what happens when free advice is taken.


Quote
Also this part where you say:

(what has God ordered women to guard/protect? e.g. private parts)


Really? Do you mean with that that God has not ordered men to guard/protect their private parts? Is it then something that only women should do?
So women protect private parts and in exchange for that men maintain them? If it was for that then it could work equally the other way around, right, that men guard/protect private parts and women maintain them?


All persons guard, protect private partes, but as it happens only women bear the encumbrance and burden of mammalian reproduction which requires a way too important contribution from the women as opposed to the men from whom no effort is required and which for them does not represent any encumbrance at all. The guarding is of the future men and women who will be born and of their filiation. And all men and women benefit from the reproduction of the species not just husbands. So since everybody benefits, but only half the population contributes it stands to reason that the other half should make an equal contribution by some other means.

But surely you think that the fact that it is in the same verse has some bearing on the verse? What do you think that is?

Quote
So yes, it is men and women, not husbands and wives. And it is the comunity of believers which should guarantee that justice and just compensation is ensured. And it is to the community of believers (ya ayuha alladhina amanu) to whom the whole speech is addressed, in the previous ayas where also is spoken of men and women in that aya and in the following ayas.

Like I said, don't understand why the community of believers fear nushooz on the part of the person...can you explain that bit?

peace
God has a plan, Gaius. He has a plan for everything and everyone.

huruf

  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 6502
  • Karma +1/-1
Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
« Reply #198 on: February 03, 2014, 02:06:21 AM »
It may be the persons closer to the woman who fear nushuz, but the question is that whatever that nushuz consists of, not the "husbands" -if there are husbands- are the ones to do the questioning or leaving the person to think at leisure and have an answer. No authority is being given to any husband to have their wives "obey them" (again the obey thing).

And it is wakas who has refused to allow for anything but husbands and wives in the fry. The thing I have said is that the "you" mixed plural second person addressed in 4.34 is the believers, not any husbands per se. And yes, for sure, there can be husbands an wives amongst the believers, but they are not addressed as such, the same as sisters are not addressed as such and daughters or sons are not addressed as such.

You say who may fear nushuz from the women... I do not think we are under the obligation of finding something so that we can justify that. That is a blanket concept and it is valid generally, the specifics we will see as events happen whether they fit or not. What is not proper is to limit from the start that general formulation to an specific as has been done and is still being done.

But still, if you want an specific,

think for instance of a wife who fears that another woman is after her husband. It may be true or it may be imaginations. So whichever believers are in the best situation for that should undertake to put the fears of that woman at rest questioning the presumptive pretender of her husband, discreetly without upsetting the husband or something like that.

Another one: Suppose it is a father in law who fears that his daughter in law is having a baby whose father is not his son, is he going to throw that to all winds and break up a marriage and make a public scandal? No need. Again a suitable person or persons amongst the community of believers may undertake something to put the fears at rest or to clear the situation in the best and most peaceful manner if in fact there has been a transgression, thus protecting everybody from taking wild "justice".

Another one: there may be a suspicion that a certain woman is pregnant and that she intends to bury the child when it is born. What? You publish it and break a woman's life and even endanger a future child who might no be in danger if in fact it is only fear, or do you appoint somebody who may look after the woman and try to find out her intentions or feelings and if she is in need, put a remedy or what do you do?

Another one: there may be a fear that a certain women with children is into prostitution. She is without work and with nobody to look after the children while she works were she to find a job. But of course, it is a big thing to spread that around. So, somebody in best position to do it is charged of finding out what the facts are. May be the woman has not done it, but is entertaining the thought. May be it has never entered her mind to do such a thing and it is mere badmouthing...

The problem with the traditional and wakas interpretation of this aya is that it restricts the whole of it to a single point and does not allow the aya to spread out its full scope. We get hyppnotized into the husband predicament and restrict the whole world to that seemingly single important thing in the universe.

As to 4.35 it is indeed more specific and does suggest marriage, but again, for the sake of not limiting what the Qur'an itself does not limit, let us keep to what it says: a fray between two persons of different sex who have some undertaking in common.

As to the meaning of maDaji3, I never pretended that I have the best translation ever, rather I have said exactly the opposite, but what it does not mean is that because I cannot produce on the spot the perfect translation that EVERYBODY could accept that I have to certify the usual interpretation that is forced into this aya. Why should I do that? It is forced and there is no proof of it.

Not me saying that, just take the Qur'an. There are two other mentions of the word. If one feels that sex fits the bill, at least what cannot be done is forbid the meanings that really pertain to it. Sleeping and resting where one is in his or her place of relax and having sexual relations are two completely and unrelated things, just as sleeping and eating are two unrelated things. So, come to that, we could also translate, "and leave them eat alone", right?

Again, please study really the word and its usage in the Qur'an, if any of the other two appearances tells you that it would be a good one to use to mean sex-relations. In fact if it does something is suggest the aloneness of a person for that aspect. Like death.

There haven't been many attempts to translate maDaji3 out of the box of marital male bliss, therefore I see no reason to pound on my translations (I put up several, because obviously I am trying to get to the gist of it) as if I were guilty for not coming up with a trump. Bring up a better one, I will greatly celebrate it, but please do not push, again, the one that has been very conveniently used, but not really documented nor checked and that has thrown and continues throwing off track the unravelling of this most important and luminous aya. That traditional translation, as far as I am concerned, it continues being a male fantasy.

Husbands are not the reason for the universe. May be humankind and prophethood are, but husbands by themselves, when they are humble, and faithful servants of God and their community, like the male prophets, peace be on them all, are a source of peace and joy for their communities and their families, but they must prove themselves. Not just for the sake of maleness they get the whole lot no questions asked and enjoy women obeyers at will. And I say this not because I think that anybody is prejudiced to that point. Consciouslly we are not, but we do are under the spell of centuries of seeing everything through the eyes that the human species is man, woman a mere after thought, and therefore woman can only come in the fray as an accident to the real thing which is the male. That is the mentality that the Qur'an tries very hard and conclusively to correct, but inertia is very strong and the conditioning of centuries not easy to override. At least I have not found it easy and I am sure I continue to have many such deformations. Aya 4.34 has helped me a lot, and many contributors in this and other forums have contributed to it.

In fact, what the 4.34, together with many ayas in the Qur'an does is socialise the needs of the most needy. Starting with the women, who in the face of great, great difficulties many times have to reproduce the species, maintain her children and upkeep the family with no help. So, there you are. The Qur'an does not leave women with their problems to themselves, but involves the community. Which is logical, the whole species benefits from its own reproduction, why should the burden fall only on those that most contribute to it through thin and thick. Justice... for God's sake. And the fears that women may do this and do that is no fancy it is there and it is still going. See the fierce campaigns because of abortion. What is that if not fear the the women are "rebelious"? Well the Qur'an goes beyond that, and wants the women to speak and get the help they need. Not just fear and fear and because of fear do everything on their backs and stab them, once again. And in those cases there is the attempt to make that  appear like a war of the sexes, but that is wrong. Real men, real loving faithful men, hate that. They do not want their women to suffer nor be humilliated. And the women of those good men are ALL the women. Like the women of Muhammad were all the women.


Salaam

bookish

  • Beginner/Inquirer
  • *
  • Posts: 67
  • Karma +0/-0
Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
« Reply #199 on: February 03, 2014, 11:29:46 PM »
If idriboo means cite/point out, it is not quite clear what the husband should point out or indicate.

And doesn't the first step, which is to advise, already cover cite/point out? Because when advising, the husband would most likely point out/cite things. So how is this a separate independent step?

Your analysis is truly quite detailed and well-done....but I guess it's a close call between "leave" and "cite". To argue that one is definitely better than the other is a grey area.