peace NK,
There is no mentioning of authority or arbiter in the above verse. In verse 34, three steps were clearly mentioned but not in 128. The verse is not giving step by step guidance to wives as compared to husbands in the verse 34.
My bad, I should have quoted the full excerpt so it made sense. However, I did provide the link (i.e. part 3) so you could have read it yourself.
Quote
An interesting example also appears in 581-4 in which a woman argues with the prophet complaining about her husband, and how the husband has estranged/alienated her by claiming her to be as his mother's back, which was a practice of the time, making the wife unlawful for himself but also not technically divorcing her allowing her to remarry, i.e. leaving her stuck/suspended.
This is an interesting example because if we suppose this could be classed as a case of iAAradan/alienation or shiqaqa/breach/rift, then the next step the wife took was to cite her husband's behaviour/actions to the authority, which would have been the prophet at the time. The correlation is specifically with 4129 which advises the husband not to leave her stuck/suspended and this is the EXACT situation described in 581-4, thus showing that in a situation of no resolution, the next step would be to cite the partner/situation to the authority. If we correlate this example to what the next step would be in 434, if the steps are followed and no resolution is forthcoming, the next step would be to cite the partner to the authority. This would explain how the court/authority knew of the situation between the couple in 435. Since 'idriboo them' is the only step in between "abandon them in bed" and the authority becoming aware of the situation, is there a Classical Arabic meaning of DRB that fits in the sequence? The answer is a resounding yes, as one of its primary and most common meanings is to cite/propound, declare/mention, put/show forth, point out or indicate. As we can see, it is a perfect fit.
If the wife can cite her husband to the authority when the problem/deadlock in her marital situation is not her fault in 581-4, what is stopping the husband from doing the same with his wife in 434? The answer is of course nothing.
This understanding would make The Quran cater for all possibilities, giving this view further weight. The onus is on whoever is in the wrong to either amend or initiate divorce/release, and this gives us the following theoretical possibilities
husband is in the wrong, wife unhappy, he divorces wife, with compensation if applicable.
husband is in the wrong, wife happy, no divorce.
husband wishes to end marriage, wife happy, he divorces wife, with compensation if applicable.
wife is in the wrong, husband unhappy, she releases herself from marriage, with compensation if applicable.
wife is in the wrong, husband happy, no release.
wife wishes to end marriage, husband happy, she releases herself from marriage, with compensation if applicable.
whoever is in the wrong does not initiate divorce/release, spouse can cite them to court/authority, then judgement and/or arbitration as necessary etc.
For the court/authority to be involved at situation 7 also makes logical and practical sense because in a situation of unfairness a court/authority is needed for mediation/resolution. Since whichever partner initiates divorce/release may have to provide compensation, a mechanism must be in place to solve the problem if the partner in the wrong refuses to do so, most probably in order to protect their wealth. This link to wealth also perfectly explains the context surrounding both verses, 434 and 4128, and why neither partner who is potentially in the wrong is initiating divorce/release, i.e. the wife in 434 and the husband in 4128. It is recommended to re-read the verses bearing this understanding in mind. As we can see a coherent, logical and practical explanation is easily formed with this understanding. It should be noted that the next step after bed separation is authority involvement (e.g. divorce is made official) in 2226-227, which matches the order in 434-35 and maintains internal consistency.
Also, however the court/authority came to find out about the couple in 434-35, how did the court/authority come to find out about the couple in 581-4 in the exact same situation of breach/rift, i.e. no resolution? She cited the husband to the authority. If the traditional position somehow implies the couple used a different method in 434 to make the authority aware of the situation, then they have to explain why the difference between the two examples, without causing a logical and practical inconsistency. For example, in "K. al nasikh wa-l-mansukh" by Abu Ubaid al-Qasim b. Sallam (d. 224AH/839), one of the earliest works in its field, it comments on the tafsir/interpretation of 435 and says "the story establishes the principle that the spouses may withdraw their invitation to the authorities to act". Thus, it is clear from the traditional commentary the spouse would inform the court/authority of the problem, before they intervened. This provides a perfect link with DaRaBa and all points to one answer in a situation of no reconciliation and the partner in the wrong will not initiate divorce/release, the step prior to the authority intervening is for one partner to cite/indicate the other (to the authority).
Interestingly, it is often noted that for the husband, iAAradan/alienation by the wife is not mentioned in 434, yet it is mentioned in 4128 when done by the husband, but if we imagine that the husband is trying to advise/counsel his wife and it does not work, then abandons her in bed, making her reflect further, and this does not work, then this does imply an element of alienation by the wife to her husband, i.e. she is not listening to him, she is unresponsive, not compromising, they are growing apart. This would make the two situations much more alike in comparison.
Since shiqaqa means breach/rift without talaq/divorce in 435, then arbitration should be called for in 4128-129, as this is a clear example of breach/rift IF the situation continues as is, but arbitration is not automatically called for why? This identifies why The Quran states in 4128 "...then there is no blame upon them that they reconcile between themselves a reconciliation, and the reconciliation is better", i.e. better than an irreconcilable breach/rift between them. As it implies at this point, others would be involved or at least can get involved if requested, but there is no blame upon them that they attempt to reconcile between themselves first.
It is very important to note the "fa" in Arabic which means "so/then" and is a conjunctive which links two related statements together, so when it says "...then there is no blame upon them that they reconcile between themselves..." it is because of what came before "And IF a woman feared from her husband uprising/disloyalty or turning away /alienation...". So, the obvious question is why the difference between 4128 and 434 when the husband fears uprising/disloyalty from his wife, as 434 gives steps in-between, THEN discusses mediation by others? To illustrate what I mean, see the diagram below
(the rest is what I quoted previously)
