Author Topic: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back  (Read 71053 times)

aqua

  • Apprentice
  • **
  • Posts: 251
  • Karma +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
« Reply #200 on: February 03, 2014, 11:49:21 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.

His article does not take the view of 'citing examples'; instead it is to cite the partner to an authority.  However, I can understand that the term 'cite them' on its own is quite vague and not easily understood without further explanations.  Considering this, the interpretation of 'leave / disregard' is much simpler and more logical than others.

Wakas

  • Administrator
  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 11323
  • Karma +14/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
« Reply #201 on: February 04, 2014, 04:14:08 AM »
peace bookish,

If idriboo means cite/point out, it is not quite clear what the husband should point out or indicate.

The word is "idriboo-hunna" / "cite them". Thus, it is clear what/whom one is citing. See the complimentary example of 58:1-4 as discussed on www.Quran434.com

Quote
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?

The step of 'to advise' is general wherein anything relevant to the situation could be discussed. It is logical and practical for it to be the first step. The logical and practical last step would be to notify the authority so they can get involved in a situation of no reconciliation / intransigence. It is a perfect fit.

Quote
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.

Everyone is entitled to their view, but for me, in terms of Quranic evidence, the strongest option is clear:

Quote
"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

Bender

  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 2587
  • Karma +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
« Reply #202 on: February 04, 2014, 04:58:31 AM »
The logical and practical last step would be to notify the authority so they can get involved in a situation of no reconciliation / intransigence.

Salaam,

I did not follow the discussion so sorry to jump in like this, but my eye catched this.
Almost every translation I've read so far, and almost every opinion I heard so far about 4:34 translate this part:
"...  وَاللَّاتِي تَخَافُونَ نُشُوزَهُنَّ فَعِظُوهُنَّ وَاهْجُرُوهُنَّ فِي الْمَضَاجِعِ وَاضْرِبُوهُنَّ    ..."
as kind of step plan. Thus first A then B then as last C.

This is simply not correct. If it was a step plan then THUMMA would have been used and not WA.
All 3 actions have to be done and not one after the other, and you can also not stop after the first or after the second.
It is the same as "aqimu assalaata WA ooto azzakaata" both have to be done and the order does not matter as long as we do all, imho same goes for 4:34.

Salaam,
Bender
Alhamdu lillahi rabbi al-alameen

Wakas

  • Administrator
  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 11323
  • Karma +14/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
« Reply #203 on: February 04, 2014, 06:43:15 AM »
peace Bender,

Quote
This is simply not correct. If it was a step plan then THUMMA would have been used and not WA.
All 3 actions have to be done and not one after the other, and you can also not stop after the first or after the second.

The above is your unevidenced claim. Actually if "thumma" was used it may have its own issues, e.g. implying one must do A, then B, then C regardless, and/or, once one does A, then B (or then C) one cannot do A again, when it will likely be a fluid situation wherein A may be continuous. The use of "wa" eliminates these potential issues.

Interestingly, your interpretation allows little to no space/time for reconciliation, and is thus impractical/illogical.

The example you reference is not a like for like comparison, as it does not involve problem solving or conflict resolution, it is simply a general command, i.e. not situational. It would be interesting however if there are similar examples to 4:34 in which we can analyse the wording/sequence. If you have such examples, please let us know.

In any case, the issue you raise is discussed on www.Quran434.com
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

Earthdom

  • Guest
Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
« Reply #204 on: February 04, 2014, 07:46:13 AM »
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.

Common sense doen't means that, please don't  be mistake cause the word "common" existed.
Like I said the meaning and usage of idriboo is beat or separate.
So idriboo-hunna means you separate the nisaa' not you separate from the nisaa'.

1) I will separate them to different classifications.
2) I will separate from you, since we have different destination.

Notice the differences between of both sentences and the idriboo-hunna in 4:34 fit to the first sentence according to Arabic grammar.




hawk99

  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 2343
  • Karma +0/-0
Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
« Reply #205 on: February 04, 2014, 08:09:04 AM »
Peace Wakas, All,

Is there a place for hyphenation in regards to D_R_B such as strike/separate from them or beat or leave them?
In places where Quran gives options to prayer and zakat, why such a rigid interpretation about marital relations?
There are all kinds of mates/ matches, and it has been my personal experience the D-R-B is perfectly placed in 4/34.
Some individuals are tough, aggressive and warrior like and appreciate the same in their spouse.  While others
prefer peace and consensus.


God bless

   :peace:
 
The secret to monotheism can be found in the garden

Wakas

  • Administrator
  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 11323
  • Karma +14/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
« Reply #206 on: February 04, 2014, 09:01:16 AM »
peace hawk99,

Is there a place for hyphenation in regards to D_R_B such as strike/separate from them or beat or leave them?

I don't understand your question. Can you clarify?
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

hawk99

  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 2343
  • Karma +0/-0
Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
« Reply #207 on: February 04, 2014, 09:35:28 AM »
peace hawk99,

I don't understand your question. Can you clarify?

Peace Wakas,

To clarify: Is there a possibility that daraba is poorly translated and has a wider meaning that includes both
strike or separate?   My understanding is there are spouses who would threaten and strike one another and couples
who would separate from one another to make their point.  There are all types of couples and I think at the moment
that God's infinite wisdom uses D-R-B to accommodate all marriages. 

God bless

   :peace:
The secret to monotheism can be found in the garden

savage_carrot

  • Administrator
  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 6683
  • Karma +16/-2
Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
« Reply #208 on: February 04, 2014, 11:55:57 AM »
Quote
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).
Alright, so you'd agree that there would be a need to have valid evidence/justification for this fear before the community/authorities are brought in, yes?
Quote
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.
Wakas is a bad boy but let's cut him some slack since he did write a book about it albeit with an awful cover :P Let's see where this understanding takes us, because I find different takes on the same old illuminating.
Quote
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.
We are under no obligation, but it's the thing to do in understanding practically and theoretically what scenarios would follow from such rendering. I agree that we shouldn't limit, definitely esp not if we are trying to understand the verse from another perspective.
Quote
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.
I don't see counseling work in the verse, like I keep saying, the instructions we are giving to the lady in question is after we already have clarity regarding the situation...or it would make no sense. It doesn't seem a case of "let's find out what's going on", it's more like "okay, this is the issue and this is what you have to do, please do it".

Anyways, I take this as the train that leads to crazy town. It opens the door to a storm of unfounded accusations and a general cloud of suspicion hanging over everyone and everything. That is why I insist that the authorities/community should have no say in personal matters unless there is valid evidence of indiscretion, which when taken to them (next level) would lead to a divorce/reconciliation/resolution, if other 'punishments' do not apply.

The thing with these types of emotional scenarios is, they are extremely complicated to deal with and one probably needs a trained counselor/psychologist rather than a ragtag bunch of people from the community looking into the personal lives of their neighbours and being given the green light to meddle into what the unfounded suspicions of the woman are.

Are you suggesting these community of believers are some sort of organization that have individual areas of expertise and together they can fix women everywhere or somesuch? We can definitely have a group of professionally trained people to help others and available for free but is the verse addressed to such? What legal standing does this group have? Are they or can they be considered the authorities as well? Is the community separate from the authorities? Do they have to bring to the light of the authorities if there is evidence of wrong doing if they are not the authorities? Is this a confidential service and under what circumstances would they have to divulge information and to whom?

What if nothing is going on, and the 'other woman's' husband finds out? Why should a person be questioned and brought into the community's radar just because maybe someone has a grudge against them or finds them suspicious? Is that not a precursor to a shit storm based on one woman with whatever motivation thought that her guy for whatever motivation was being targeted by someone else? and so on. You seem to think that based on asking around and trying to get clarity, everything should get sorted? If the wife's motivation was malicious that will definitely be found out, if the other woman was to blame, that will definitely be resolved, if the husband was totally on the up and up, that too will be clear...if not today then sometime in the future because the community of believers are supposedly experts in human psychology and detective work and the souls of discretion, and it's their duty to run after alleged accusations/suspicions/fears of everyone in the community no matter what they are.

Allow me to present personal experience, I have been face to face with these fears for a large part of my life with people extremely close to me and those not so close to me from the age of 10 onwards. Different fears/suspicions all centering around infidelity. It is not pretty and extremely complicated in part because it adds on an element of emotions to the mix and it's hard to rationally explain to the people going through it because hardly anyone remains objective and stays the course on what they are supposed to do, most of the times it's a mixture of extremes, total forgiveness/doormat behaviour or total viciousness/vindictiveness with rare splashes of trying to look through the lens of logic in between. When people get involved in these situations, it's the pull of the camp, liberal dashes of subjectively trying to assign blame and compensation, legwork in following leads which involve other people who are none too happy being involved, and a whole lot of bullshit flying in every direction. Arbitration without authority is useless. Whether that authority involves someone who must be listened to inclusive of family elders or a police officer. So a group of well meaning people are going to be needlessly complicating the situation, it's best dealt with privately, with people you know and who they know well...so that everything stays in limits and doesn't get out of hand and ruins the lives of other people who may or may not be involved.

The husband is the objective here, not the other woman, there can be a multitude of women who are out to get married men out there, that is irrelevant, it's the husband who decides whether to be a bastard or not... so what difference does it make who the other woman is or what she wants? This should be sorted between the husband and wife themselves (so that her fears are vocalised to the person it actually matters and he realises that there is a problem and how to fix it, and/or based on his reaction and words/actions tells the woman if he is involved or knew or whatever) or with a counselor or someone from the family and so on. What sense does it make to avoid the key to the whole situation and go behind choosing a roundabout way to 'question' the other woman who could be totally innocent and even if she isn't, that's not even the issue when it's losing the guy/his betrayal she fears the most? These scenarios don't make sense to the verse, I mean instead of brushing it over all at once with well, it generally makes sense and can somehow fit the verse, somehow not entirely sure how but something is there, it behooves us to be precise to the verse because if one doesn't do that then we are just flailing about in the dark with what we think we want to see or think must be in the verse as opposed to what may actually be there.

So in this scenario, 2 women (wife and alleged other woman) are the suspected accused and um, accuser and the community is now fearing nushooz on the part of the other woman (and this is just before any of the other things mind you, not even where they know that they are right in fearing nushooz on the part of the other woman! It's like presumed guilty until proven innocent based on the strength of the wife's words because she's dragged the other woman into the limelight of the community in order to be judged and found lacking or innocent)...given that the wife is the one fearing nushooz on the part of the woman, and the community is supposedly objective, then why are they too fearing nushooz on the part of the other woman, before they've even found out anything?

Say this is explained by 'fearing nushooz' is when the suspected accused is accused by the woman to the community and the community takes on the mantle of the woman who's doing the suspected accusing and thus now they fear nushooz by the other woman as well, it's not accurate at all to me but let's move on...they advise/instruct the other woman: like I mentioned, given the weight of the word and the way it's used in different contexts this is telling the person what is the right thing to do etc, and this can only be when they know what they need to say and after the situation is clear, or it doesn't make sense...asking someone to clarify something is not advise or instruction. Getting clarity and then advising/instructing can be part of it but it wouldn't make sense to take any step unless clarity is achieved on the core issue of just what is going on here.

Anyways let's talk about leaving them to their resting places...alright, so this is supposedly to allow them to give clarity and think about the situation while not pestering them about it...to which I say, the wife is not going to be intruding on her resting place, neither is the community, unless one of them lives with her and even if they do, they can't pester her about it while she's in her resting place, so can they pester her if she's not in her resting place? Why is resting place even mentioned? Why not home/abode? Or simply do not talk to her about it until she wants to or whatever? It's not like God lacks the words for saying that? The obvious answer to this is probably because it mentions scenarios where the two people are living in the same house, or there was no reason to use the term resting place, unless the term resting place is an idiom where it involves a house and the rooms and anywhere where the person chooses to relax...is there such an idiom? As far as I can see, the resting place is inside a house and deliberately mentioned as separate but inside a abode in the concordance...so...I would think not. Anyways, still doesn't make sense to me.

Regarding drb them... This is when they get clarity and now they should be left in peace...? Like she'd say no way, I'm not after him, go tell his wife to keep her mouth shut, she just hates me because I lost more pounds at the last weight watchers catch up than her...and the community would be honour bound to take her at her word and case closed which probably shouldn't have taken more than a minute to say so if she did want to deny it...and if she didn't want to deny it but wanted time to think about the accusation and how to answer whether she is or isn't...um, alright in which case they should back off and let her come back to them? but should the investigation committee still investigate because obviously whatever the woman is telling them or not shouldn't be construed as the truth because she could be lying (unless of course she is telling them that yes, I did go after the guy and I still will, whatchu gonna do about it eh suckas, it's his choice at the end anyways)...what should they do?

Investigate the people at the WW meeting for her 'alibi', track her movements? Watch through the kitchen window for meals taking a very long time to cook and with extra effort put in? If she admits and is remorseful (which is a rare occurrence in reality), case closed kk. But what if the clarity was that she did do it and still will? She was actively going after the guy, making suggestive poses whenever he'd cross her path, sending him home cooked meals and cupcakes whatnot...what happens then? We'd go for the next verse for what happens after since that is after the things mentioned  are done and a rift is feared even after all that, as is understood commonly in this progression but here...lets just say she was told off and the wife got peace in a fashion but no guarantee that the other woman wouldn't pull out her exotic meals cookbook and whip up another from-the-heart dinner for the guy.

So much effort is usually put in for suspected actual crimes like murder or something rather than the so called 'crime' of another woman who may be wanting to somehow steal her guy from under her nose, but not sure really. It's like the trivial adventures of the secret seven, where the group figured out if cookies were stolen from the window sill. and even that was supposedly more rewarding because they got free cookies at the end. The community of believers apparently should have a wing of qualified private investigators who work for free and go around sniffing for traces of infidelity based on suspicions and gathering evidence for the soothing of women who don't have any evidence and it's not even the husband she wants investigated but someone totally unrelated to her by relationship or contract? I can't accept this.

Quote
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".
So in that situation he calls in the friendly neighbourhood heroes to swoop in and get a DNA test after the birth or something? Get the guy who has impregnated the woman, if he has, to confess to sexual relations and face the music? How is keeping it to the neighbourhood watch not making it public in a way? Wouldn't it be better if he just talked to the daughter in law or the guy who is suspected of himself because what the neighbourhood heroes will be doing is what he should be doing while still keeping everything to himself and not risking a scandal if his fears are unfounded or even if they are.

Same thing on how it relates with the verse: Advice/Instruction : can't do that because the woman can't know or if she does, she's asked whether she had adulterous relations with another man and if the baby she's carrying is not her husband's...um, yeah the woman would admit to this because admitting something as personal as that to a group of people (and esp if that group of people is sent by her father in law if she knows) is what someone would do in rl. If there is no fallout, then yes, maybe more people would admit to indiscretions but there is no guarantee of that unless what is meant is the community of believers will guarantee no punishments as applicable in the quran in that situation would apply to her...or any other punishments...and can they really do that? If not, then the likelihood of getting a straight answer from the woman is likely close to null, and they must investigate further and with people...and how do you suppose figuring out if a married woman and another man had an affair is going to be done without alerting the different people questioned as to what/why the questions are being asked? Is there some sort of magic involved? Most probably that of DNA testing in which case, you have the evidence, but should the child be DNA tested without permission of the parents? anyways, same thing as above, can't see it work with the verse, since it's not clear whether the community should step back in case the woman says go away i'm innocent of these aspersions cast upon me, or stay the course of still trying to investigate etc.

Quote
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?
Okay, so you have someone who's concerned for someone they know either through being friends/relatives or medical staff, since the likelihood of such a suspicion coming from a stranger is unlikely. The person either can appoint someone themselves if from the medical side as is done when they go in for check ups etc, or the friend/family member who suspects can help her through her pregnancy/depression, or get someone else to? A call out to the 'community of believers' for someone to come around to find out what's going on (unless the person who answers the call to do so is a trained counselor/psychologist) is like asking a ragtag bunch of people to suss her out with a mixed bag of results. What if she doesn't want/need help, or says that she's fine and please go away, given the verse aren't we supposed to leave them to think and not bother them or something until they feel ready? Or are we going to put a security/nanny detail on her so that she doesn't end up doing something bad?

How does this scenario jive with the verse? What's the progression again, how do you instruct? the clarity of whether we should believe her if she denies it, do we still keep a tail on her, leave her alone? and so on...I don't even see a conflict here between the accuser and the suspected accusee...and the way the verses are progressing is detailing people with conflicts, in which one side has a valid fear and they are given a list of things to work through this conflict that exists between them...not that I fear someone on my block has depression, something should be done to find out and help her if she needs it? These are things that you do yourself or with the help of a few likeminded people regardless, if you feel something should be done...why must it be linked to this verse or more so to say something like that is exactly the type of scenario the verse is addressing? What happens in the verse after the things to do are listed? If they listen, then seek not a way against/over them...does this really seem like the women in question are being given an option to listen? She should, right? Does this seem like the sort of thing that can go either way? no, it seems like the nushooz is valid and justified and there are things to do to minimise conflict and maximise resolution. If that fails or the woman doesn't listen/obey then whoever is being addressed can see what to do in the next, otherwise...it just sort of peters out to a sort of cliffhanger. Or we can take it to mean that in all such scenarios of non couple conflicts, the conflict is resolved unless it's a marital scenario which is talked about in the next verse and not in this one, nothing to do with one another? So can this fit the scenario? In my opinion, no and I've explained why I think so.


Quote
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...
What gives someone the right to suspect that another woman can be prostituting herself unless they have evidence? Aren't we supposed to avoid suspicion? If someone thinks she needs help, they can get her help or listen/advise rather than taking it to the community where if found out she did do it, she might get punished for it and/or lose her children. There is a danger in taking things into the spotlight...even if the spotlight is a group of believers because frankly speaking, they're still human and prone to the same mistakes we all make which could involve talking inadvertently, coming to the wrong conclusions etc. One'd only do that if they have valid proof, not suspicion and people's suspicions should not be encouraged without proof. To get proof you have to pursue suspicion, this is the problem, why suspect in the first place unless one has some sort of proof beyond what our second sight is telling us?

How does this fit with the verse again? In my view it doesn't.

I think you think that some from a community of believers should be/are primarily counselors and what women need is help either to protect them from unfounded accusations or to provide help in cases where the suspicions are found to be true as lawyers etc or something? It's hard to accurately figure out because you're mixing in so many concepts imo. It can definitely be put into practise with modifications whatnot but the thing under discussion is if that is what the verse implies or says outright.

It's important for me to realise/see the picture of how it will be practically implemented and how well this flows with the verse. I don't think these scenarios do, I'm sure they occur in rl and there should be groups out there who would/should provide women in need with what they need. These situations seem like 'don't know, maybe they need help' or alleged personal betrayals or alleged betrayals on the behalf of someone else. If they are just paranoid possessive freaks, why should they be encouraged based on their say so? Is there a limit to how many times they can bring these suspicions in? Aren't people making allegations on the non-chasteness of women when found to be lies punished 24:4? They would need to bring 4 witnesses in, so...are the community of believers supposed to go around searching for these 4 witnesses as well to prove or disprove these suspicions of adultery?

Suffice it to say, I wouldn't want to live in a community where anyone can level accusations and I'm supposed to defend myself/answer what for to the neighbourhood watch.  If I do something wrong, then by all means take me to court with the required evidence. Anything other than that, you have various trained groups that can deal with it. Reminds me of the show 'call the midwife' which was awesome, in which you have a group of midwives who ended up dealing with not only pregnancies but got involved in their lives in various ways, and they had a reason for being involved and saw the signs other people missed etc...which is different from anyone having the right to call in people to question or to figure out stuff behind their backs based on suspicions.

Everyone can go out on a limb and accuse whosoever they choose of whatsoever they choose (no limit to the type of fears) and the community of believers has its work cut out for them, investigating each and every suspicion that abounds...the fallout of this on lives can be catastrophic. In places today, a guy gets accused and is found innocent and acquitted of the crime, yet because of going through that process he is mentally disturbed, people around him look at him askance, perhaps a few think he got away with murder. And this is what can happen, it doesn't matter if you're found innocent, the fact that you were brought in is proof enough for the lot of idiots out there who'll weave their personal tales depending on whether they loved/hated him or even if they had no opinion and the crime was on their watchlist of interests.

Who's stopping the accuser from talking to people as well? Or having their opinion on whether whatever is feared is actually going on or not...it seems that most all of these scenarios deal with the utmost amount of secrecy/discretion and for a whole group of people to keep their mouths shut because even a single slip could scupper it...it's not like they have to sign a NDA is it? And even if they do, situations that rely on these things usually end up in tears especially when the subject is people and what they're up to. If there's anything we've learnt from detective novels or real life is that even asking around leads to people finding out that one didn't want finding out and then all hell breaks loose.

It's one thing for a wife to suspect her husband but for it to be mandated for anyone to tell a community of believers and then they go forth and find out if the other woman is actually putting on the red dress/light is really not something that I think the community of believers should be doing. It's like the terrorism watches in various neighbourhoods. You either figure it out yourself if you want to keep it under wraps, or ask a friend for advice and then confront the guy or get the evidence. Then you take it public if you want to, as in the authorities/community can get involved.

Quote
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.
Does it not seem like a follow on verse to you or do you think that it's a different context entirely from what came before it even if the believers are still being addressed?
Quote
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.
I didn't say you did, I said since you don't, we should keep it open. Not asking for a perfect translation on the spot, saying that we should keep the options open and maybe there is a way to reconcile the address to the 'community of believers' to various options and see of everything fits, is all.

Quote
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.
sexual relations amongst couples happen majorly in the bedroom/place of rest which couples and/or those living together can attest to and there was some study about it as well somewhere. I mean whoever comes up with no, no the majority of my couplings have been out of any bedrooms probably has a membership at the Cathouse Brothel and it's private play area with no resting places in sight or has been reported for lewd activities in outdoor areas :P. I don't understand how this is a matter of dispute or argument. Whatever is your place of rest/privacy thus in the sense of a couple would probably be where the magic happens and/or the action goes down usually. Sure, one could rest in the resting place, but as you say they could also do other things which in the sense of a couple relaxing together would include sex unless you mean to say that the quran is only talking about people sleeping alone in their place of rest/privacy and nothing else...I mean it's not even something that is up to much debate, throughout history, couples have been coupling in private places (his/hers/theirs) which are inclusive of resting places because the majority do tend to rest in a private place. Let's look at the verses:

3:154: What we can gather is that the resting place is inside a house. No mention of whether it is a single or shared resting place.
32:16: They arise from their resting places. No mention of whether it is a single or shared resting place.

So on what basis is the aloneness coming from? In 3:154 they can die where they stand or die in their resting places, how does it give the sense of being alone based on where they die? Death is death and everyone must die and experience that on their own no matter where we are but that is separate from where they die. If anything that verse is talking about the ignorant thinking that they are more protected inside their house rather than outside, not that outside they are not alone and inside the house they are? In the second, what is giving that impression? They arise from their beds so they must be alone because they are experiencing it through their own selves and since we are all individual therefore we are alone? You're putting together 2 unrelated things to suggest that they go hand in hand = we face death on our own therefore if we die in our resting place it means that the resting place is a solitary area for us alone as well. Also, we may experience things on our own because we are all individual, it doesn't mean that the resting places are tied in to the same individuality...it seems that the resting spot has taken on too much of a life of its own tbh. In any case given your understanding regarding it being a place of relaxing and sleeping only, can we not say the same as one can sleep and relax in a lot of places in the house? Is there a designated spot of relaxation tied to the individual, just curious?

Quote
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.
What about 4:128? Apparently the nushooz is linked between both verses? In this the husband? Or some other guy? It seems that these concepts are linked to couples across a couple verses? If we are going to throw out the marital scenarios completely, then it would make sense to examine the other verses that have the same concepts as well? No one is pounding translations, we're all trying to get a better grasp of what's out there, at least I am and if that includes intensive/extensive analysis or if you want you can call it pounding, then pound we shall. The one that has been used as dealing with marital situations should not be used because...it is not dealing with marital situations entirely? If one makes that claim then obviously both those understandings need to be pounded and weighed. This is a process that happens. The traditional translation of drb being beat or that it concerns marital relationships as well? Just so we're clear are they both traditional or just one?
Quote
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.
Personally speaking, I dislike that people have to talk about one sex being better than the other for whatever reason or even women harping on about how the fact that they can have children puts them in a better place rather than a man...or that a man feels that his tool gives him some sort of right of superiority over a woman...they are both sexist. Real world issues of how to counter male sexism or female sexism can utilise different legit methods as long as the goal is to equality. Not glorifying one sex over the other regardless of how one takes it, it's like team mentality...I belong to the woman's club, yay sisters unite or vice versa.
Quote
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.
I don't think we need to single out aya's that talk about the needs of the most needy, there are plenty of needy people out there of all sexes and the message of the quran is to help them, no doubt. the question is if the verse in question is talking about the same thing of helping the most needy women through the community or if it's talking about resolution of conflicts marital (or otherwise). Not sure what you mean when you bring up abortion? Is that connected to the nushooz? Do you agree/disagree on abortion? And/or that it is or isn't part of the nushooz feared from women? Sis, you are talking about women vocalising their needs and to get help but how does it work in the verse? I agree with you that we should make realistic and real efforts towards making the community better, whether it's for women, men or children but that's a separate topic from saying that this verse is proof that it's for helping the neediest women and for them to vocalise their needs etc...I'm a woman and I feel and think about the burden that womenkind carries and has carried through the ages, the fact that through history women have tended to be far more oppressed than their counterparts, I'm totally with you if this is what the verse is saying, but I don't see it!

i apologise for writing as much as I did, but this was ongoing over the course of a couple days and it got really wordy. i'm sure most of it can be distilled, i'll probably do that.

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

Mazhar

  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 7431
  • Karma +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
« Reply #209 on: February 04, 2014, 01:01:34 PM »
This Verbal Sentence is conjunct to the preceding clause with Appositive Particle  which is evidently showing a sequence. This coordinating conjunction functions as an additive term within sentences to link clauses, phrases, and words. It refers to affirming for the المعطوف the same meaning that is affirmed for the المعطوف عليه, which is here وَاهْجُرُوهُنَّ فِي الْمَضَاجِعِ . The suspension of Protocol of Matrimony happened within the bed room of respective couple. It is in seclusion, hidden and not occurring to others. Action appositive to it is described by Verbal sentence comprising Verb-Subject-Object. Verb is Imperative; second person; masculine; [و] Subject Pronoun in nominative state refers to the respective husbands. Suffixed feminine plural third person pronoun refers to respective wives. Action denoted by the verb is to strike once; and since it is associated with a location; the bed rooms of respective couples, with no other words linked with it that could add connotation of physical hitting with hand or an object and target part of body; the only meanings are to transit-move the wives from the bed room to other area of house. This will reflect the basic perception infolded in the Root of Verb; that is to make things manifest, become understandable for someone; to make it occur to others.

Wife is now out of the bed room. It is a non-verbal, but louder than verbal, conveniently understood by all others that this couple is neither respecting nor maintaining the Protocol of Matrimony. It is a dangerous and alarming state causing concern for others. Therefore, Allah the Exalted immediately gives in its continuation a course of action to the concerned relatives of husband and wife to try avert the situation before it worsens and ends in permanent break-alienation of the couple.

Grand Qur'aan has prohibited domestic violence negating erroneous "belief" of beating one's wife.