Wife beating in Islam

Emil

One of the things that disturb me about Islam and that I struggle daily to make peace with is that it sanctions wife beating. Now I've discussed this issue with many people and I noticed that most Muslims attempt to justify the verse in two ways. The first is when they claim that God sanctioned wife beating only in very extreme cases. For example, if the woman cheats on her husband or does an equally disgusting crime. The second is when they say that God sanctioned only light beating. Some even go as far as to say that God only gave a man permission to beat his wife with a "feather," so she doesn't feel any pain.
Now I have several problems with these claims. Firstly, God didn't say any of these things in the Koran, so they probably got them from Hadiths. All God said is that a man is permitted to occasionally beat his wife. Secondly, even if we consider that these two claims are accurate, they still don't make it any better. There is no reason why a man should beat his wife. There is not such thing as an "extreme" reason. If a man is not happy with his wife, they can always talk it out. Fight it out even. If they can't salvage the relationship, they can just end it. Thirdly, it doesn't matter if the beating is light or not. For a woman being beaten is more about the emotional pain and humiliation then it is about the physical pain. A woman is an adult, a grown up. When a man, she supposedly loves and is living with, degrades her to the status of a child and beats her it causes a lot of emotional pain.
So any thoughts about this?

Salam Confused

I believe the interpretation is wrong from the start just like Wakas pointed out. Even without a in-depth look into the translation of the arabic word for strike/push or whatever, once cross-referenced with the message of the Quran it is in total contradiction to the rest of the Quran. Should a person be afflicted with pain because of their gender? I think not that is the message........

BUT, let's for argument's sake it is true. We are actually supposed to beat our wives however strange that might be, but what is the reason for beating her? The verse is directed to the man specifically. If it was in fact disobedience towards her husband then surely there must be a verse in the Quran that gives the woman guidance as well, just like there is one specific verse for how to act towards the opposite sex, "lower your gaze...." So if there was a verse which states "woman, you must obey your husband" then it would be more clear, but as far as I understand there is no such verse. So Allah has not told the female to obey the male but the male is allowed to beat the female if she is not loyal or disobedient?????? Doesnt make sense......

The way I understand it is all about the children. If you look at 2233 it states No mother shall expose her own child to harm, nor shall any father expose his child to harm. It still doesn't make sense but maybe just a little. If a male fears disobedience (that the female will abandon her children) then he first talks to her. If that doesnt work he will leave her bed (maybe she is abandoning her children because she can't stand living with an abusive husband). If she still wants to abandon her children the only resource left is by force making her stay (with the children).

My thoughts anyway, bit of a brainstorm but one should never forget to ask "why?"

huruf

In the site given by Wakas, quran434, he did a magnificent and thourough work on the occurrences of daraba in the whole of Qur'an, and there is no way after that that anybody can come up with the conclusion that it means to beat. The usage of daraba en the Qur'an is wholly idiomatic. Instance after instance of its usage turns out to be not to beat but something else.

Please read it. It is long and may be a bit exhausting, but it is justified. Muslims have been taken for a ride with this daraba thing.

Before coming to the conclusion that it cannot be daraba, I had always thought that it the qur'an was driving to an absurdum where the would be beater would realise that he just could not do it. and that therefore nobody in his senses could seriously think of such a behaivour.So you keep away fromyour wife after admonishing her and after that, coldly, you come up to her and beat her, and of course, after that she is fully convinced... that her husband is completely nuts and a pig.

It is preposterous.

Still, though some srcasm is found in the Qur'an this thing was not completely to my 100 percent satisfaction, but with I think Wakas site goes a long way to settle the question and bearing in mind what comes before this aya and what omes after, one must have real ment problems to think that there is any worth in the beating "reading".

The following aya, if a don't remember wrong says if there is no agrement, the... or something of the sort... How can there be an agreement after hitting somebody who was not convinced before the beating? ?What is that? A guide to the erfect masochist?

Salaam
There is in old spanish the verb, from the Arabic, adarbar, it means precisely tha impress, set somebody face to face with some unexpected fact. It does not mean beat or strike, except in a figurative sense if those verbs are used in such figurative meaning, like stricken with awe or suprise, or bewilderement...

I think that daraba was given that meabing afterwards precisely to do what Emil says the Qur'an doesn't do, that is to sommand women obedience to the husband. In the whole of the Qur'an there is not such commandment, like with many other things, the "lack" was overcome giving to daraba the striking edge, so that if a man can beat his wife just as he can beat his children, that is it, she is like a child, owes him obedience and the lot, with the only difference thst children grow up, and she will never grow up. Fantastic strike.

Salaam

Maha

In the site given by Wakas, quran434, he did a magnificent and thourough work on the occurrences of daraba in the whole of Qur'an, and there is no way after that that anybody can come up with the conclusion that it means to beat. The usage of daraba en the Qur'an is wholly idiomatic. Instance after instance of its usage turns out to be not to beat but something else.

Please read it. It is long and may be a bit exhausting, but it is justified. Muslims have been taken for a ride with this daraba thing.

Before coming to the conclusion that it cannot be daraba, I had always thought that it the qur'an was driving to an absurdum where the would be beater would realise that he just could not do it. and that therefore nobody in his senses could seriously think of such a behaivour.So you keep away fromyour wife after admonishing her and after that, coldly, you come up to her and beat her, and of course, after that she is fully convinced... that her husband is completely nuts and a pig.

It is preposterous.

Still, though some srcasm is found in the Qur'an this thing was not completely to my 100 percent satisfaction, but with I think Wakas site goes a long way to settle the question and bearing in mind what comes before this aya and what omes after, one must have real ment problems to think that there is any worth in the beating "reading".

The following aya, if a don't remember wrong says if there is no agrement, the... or something of the sort... How can there be an agreement after hitting somebody who was not convinced before the beating? ?What is that? A guide to the erfect masochist?

Salaam
There is in old spanish the verb, from the Arabic, adarbar, it means precisely tha impress, set somebody face to face with some unexpected fact. It does not mean beat or strike, except in a figurative sense if those verbs are used in such figurative meaning, like stricken with awe or suprise, or bewilderement...

I think that daraba was given that meabing afterwards precisely to do what Emil says the Qur'an doesn't do, that is to sommand women obedience to the husband. In the whole of the Qur'an there is not such commandment, like with many other things, the "lack" was overcome giving to daraba the striking edge, so that if a man can beat his wife just as he can beat his children, that is it, she is like a child, owes him obedience and the lot, with the only difference thst children grow up, and she will never grow up. Fantastic strike.

Salaam

Salam sister Huruf why is there always advices given to the men in the quran about how to handle 'disobedient wives' . Can you point out to me just one verse of the quran telling a woman what she should do to a disobedient husband?

Peace

Indelwyn

4128
if a wife feared uprising/disloyalty from husband
---> then no blame upon them that they try to reconcile between themselves
---> (if still no resolution, e.g. she is suspended/stuck, do as 581-4) idriboo/cite them
---> authority/arbiters can get involved

And if a woman feared from her husband uprising/disloyalty or alienation /turning away, then there is no blame upon them that they reconcile between themselves a reconciliation; and the reconciliation is better. And miserliness/selfishness is present in the souls, and if you do good and are conscientious/forethoughtful, then surely God is aware what you do.

huruf

Salam sister Huruf why is there always advices given to the men in the quran about how to handle 'disobedient wives' . Can you point out to me just one verse of the quran telling a woman what she should do to a disobedient husband?

Peace

?Where are those advices? Haven't seen them. Honestly, put them up here, so we can deal with them. I can't remember any. Apart fromm this daraba party.

Salaam

Maha

?Where are those advices? Haven't seen them. Honestly, put them up here, so we can deal with them. I can't remember any. Apart fromm this daraba party.

Salaam

sister please look at this daraba verse. Telling men how to ''punish disobedient wives'' now can you show me somewhere in the quran how a wife punishes a disobedient husband?

huruf

Where is the punishment? Over the daraba as betaing I already wrote and it is clear for anybody not biased that there is not daraba as beating in the Qur'an. So, there is no punishment, but the husband who fears that may look for those to possibilities of withdrawing or warning, that is not a punishment that is the normal thing to do where anybody sees a relationship going down the drain. And next aya is quite clear

If ye fear a breach between them twain, appoint (two) arbiters, one from his family, and the other from hers; if they wish for peace, Allah will cause their reconciliation For Allah hath full knowledge, and is acquainted with all things. (35)

The daraba is a third way of saying let them know, make home to them your complaints.

If what you want is that the verb daraba was not there, it wouldn't help, any verb would have been iqually "managed" to arrive at the same result. In that aya or in any other one. And a text that could be changed would be far more dangerous than one which one can always look at and examine without it converting into something else.

Salaam

Maha

Where is the punishment? Over the daraba as betaing I already wrote and it is clear for anybody not biased that there is not daraba as beating in the Qur'an. So, there is no punishment, but the husband who fears that may look for those to possibilities of withdrawing or warning, that is not a punishment that is the normal thing to do where anybody sees a relationship going down the drain. And next aya is quite clear

If ye fear a breach between them twain, appoint (two) arbiters, one from his family, and the other from hers; if they wish for peace, Allah will cause their reconciliation For Allah hath full knowledge, and is acquainted with all things. (35)

The daraba is a third way of saying let them know, make home to them your complaints.

If what you want is that the verb daraba was not there, it wouldn't help, any verb would have been iqually "managed" to arrive at the same result. In that aya or in any other one. And a text that could be changed would be far more dangerous than one which one can always look at and examine without it converting into something else.

Salaam

Salam sister Huruf. Hope you are doing good. Something is really wrong here, let me clearify

look at this verse As for those females from whom you fear desertion, then you shall advise them, and abandon them in the bedchamber, and separate from them. If they respond to you, then do not seek a way over them; God is Most High, Great.(4.34)

So the verse is not talking about a husband who feels his wife is disobedient, its talking about ANY man who feels ANY woman is disobedient, he shall abondon them in the bedchamper etc.

Do you really think a disobedient wife wants to have sex with her angry husband? if no then whats the reason behind abondon them in the bedchamper?
So it means that any man who feels any woman is disobedient shall give a warning to her e.g a man on the street talking to a strange woman who refuses to talk to him, in this sense she is disobedient to the strange man, so he can now give her warning and seperate from her. Does that sounds logical?

And if a wife feels that his husband is disobedient she shall involve her and his family every time?? Does this sounds fair comparing to what a male can do with disobedient females?

I really think there is something wrong.

huruf

You are talking about disobedience, where is the disobedience? I don't see any.

On the other hand, do you or have you known couples where the wife has problems with her husband? If they can talk it over, as in 4.128, but if the situation is such that she cannot talk them over, what would you advice? Face the husband alone? If she is a kung-fu champion yes, that may work, if not, of course I would never advice such a thing, I would do precisely what the Qur'an does, family or friends or whatever, but involve others. Abusive husbands is what they do, isolate the woman, make her strange herself from family and friends and blackamail her to talk everything only with him. Play the disloyalty scene.

Abandon him in bed? What if he does not agree? Give him some warning? what if he does not like the warning to the point of making things worse for her?

No, no, no.

I am afraid most men can afford to warn and afford to disengage for a while from their wives, and some women may be can do that too, but most women with problematic husbands would be dead idiots if they didn't take their problems with the husband where he cannot force her alone to whatever he wants.

And in these ayas there is no talk about punishment, punishment would be something else if any of them behaved criminally. It is not talking about punishment, it is talking about sorting a situation of matrimonial conflict or where one partner feels cheated in their pact.

On the other hand, I think you should choose which meaning you want to give to the pronouns in the aya, if it is husbands and wives, or rijal and nisaa'. Next aya seems to clarify it.

Salaam

Maha

On the other hand, do you or have you known couples where the wife has problems with her husband? If they can talk it over, as in 4.128, but if the situation is such that she cannot talk them over, what would you advice? Face the husband alone? If she is a kung-fu champion yes, that may work, if not, of course I would never advice such a thing, I would do precisely what the Qur'an does, family or friends or whatever, but involve others. Abusive husbands is what they do, isolate the woman, make her strange herself from family and friends and blackamail her to talk everything only with him. Play the disloyalty scene.

salam sister. But why shall a husband not involve his family and her family when she is disobedient but instead face her alone then? The word used is desertion. almost the same.

Abandon him in bed? What if he does not agree? Give him some warning? what if he does not like the warning to the point of making things worse for her?

if he wants to make things worse for her he is a abusive and she shall divorce him. But you misunderstood me, my question was why a husband shall abondon his wife in his bed when the wife already doesnt want him in the bed.

I am afraid most men can afford to warn and afford to disengage for a while from their wives, and some women may be can do that too, but most women with problematic husbands would be dead idiots if they didn't take their problems with the husband where he cannot force her alone to whatever he wants
.

I agree with you.

On the other hand, I think you should choose which meaning you want to give to the pronouns in the aya, if it is husbands and wives, or rijal and nisaa'. Next aya seems to clarify it.

you didnt replied to my question actually. The ayah say, 'As for those females(NISA) from whom you fear desertion, then you shall advise them, and abandon them in the bedchamber, and separate from them. If they respond to you, then do not seek a way over them; God is Most High, Great

it does NOT say 'as for those WIVES from whom you fear desertion'. So we are not talking about husband-wife issues in this verse.

So since we are not talking about husband wife issues then it means that any man if he feels any female does not obey him he has the right to abandon her from the bedchamper. How does that make sense if adultery is forbidden?

There is something wrong sister o

savage_carrot

you didnt replied to my question actually. The ayah say, 'As for those females(NISA) from whom you fear desertion, then you shall advise them, and abandon them in the bedchamber, and separate from them. If they respond to you, then do not seek a way over them; God is Most High, Great
We can pick lots of verses on their own in the quran and say this contradicts the other verses and then pick and choose why which ones apply more, or...we could take verses on a subject together/the entire quran and see if it makes sense. The verse goes those from whom you fear nushooz... you automatically put in the category you CAN abandon in the boudoir (because we incorporate the understandings/restrictions etc given in the entire book, not just one verse). There is no issue here.

So since we are not talking about husband wife issues then it means that any man if he feels any female does not obey him he has the right to abandon her from the bedchamper. How does that make sense if adultery is forbidden?
Your conclusions are creating contradictions where there are none. How did it get to any man when we know any man can't have sex with any woman unless they are married? Unless bedchamber means the kitchen (which incidentally would make this process of a trial divorce seem awesome to lots of men)...I just am boggled that one could make such inferences!

peace

huruf

Maha, as I said, you have to pick which meaning you want to pick for "allati" if it is wives or if it is non contributing people or if it is any woman. Looking at what comes after and at the logic of it, I cannot explain anything at all neither for good nor for bad taking it as any woman or the non contributors. The garbage man or the shoeman are not going to leave whatever in her bedroom unless we are not in reality but in a Boccacio story. Or rather they withdraw form everywoman on earth and leave quitely in their bedrooms, their sitting rooms, their dinning rooms, bathrooms streets, everywhere... If you want to explain the aya from that basis, I don't have any explanation for it one way or the other.

As for dessertion, it says nushuz, which may mean any non-compliance witht he marriage pact. What pact have any men with whatever women to break or unfulfill? Nushuz does not come from the moon, it must be nushuz with something specific. The word is used only twice in the qur'an in this aya and in 4.128 which has already been mentioned speaking about if a woman fears nushuz from her husband.

I am sorry, maha, I think that you are not insisting for the sake of mere controversy, that you are after something specific that you want clarified or examined, andand which may be of great interest, but I just don't get what it is or what you are getting at. May be you can approach it some other way? I am curious and it may help to gain better knowledge of the whole.

Salaam

Maha

We can pick lots of verses on their own in the quran and say this contradicts the other verses and then pick and choose why which ones apply more, or...we could take verses on a subject together/the entire quran and see if it makes sense. The verse goes those from whom you fear nushooz... you automatically put in the category you CAN abandon in the boudoir (because we incorporate the understandings/restrictions etc given in the entire book, not just one verse). There is no issue here
.

the thing is, that the verse doesnt say anything about wife and husband relationship. The verse is talking about how men generally deal with all the females from whom they fear Nushooz.

our conclusions are creating contradictions where there are none. How did it get to any man when we know any man can't have sex with any woman unless they are married? Unless bedchamber means the kitchen (which incidentally would make this process of a trial divorce seem awesome to lots of men)...I just am boggled that one could make such inferences

Then why doesnt the verse say from the WIVES you fear Nushooz? Why mention all women instead of the wife ?

As for those females from whom you fear desertion, then you shall advise them, and abandon them in the bedchamber, and separate from them. If they respond to you, then do not seek a way over them; God is Most High, Great.

Do you see the mention of 'wife' anywhere?

Maha

Maha, as I said, you have to pick which meaning you want to pick for "allati" if it is wives or if it is non contributing people or if it is any woman. Looking at what comes after and at the logic of it, I cannot explain anything at all neither for good nor for bad taking it as any woman or the non contributors. The garbage man or the shoeman are not going to leave whatever in her bedroom unless we are not in reality but in a Boccacio story. Or rather they withdraw form everywoman on earth and leave quitely in their bedrooms, their sitting rooms, their dinning rooms, bathrooms streets, everywhere... If you want to explain the aya from that basis, I don't have any explanation for it one way or the other.

As for dessertion, it says nushuz, which may mean any non-compliance witht he marriage pact. What pact have any men with whatever women to break or unfulfill? Nushuz does not come from the moon, it must be nushuz with something specific. The word is used only twice in the qur'an in this aya and in 4.128 which has already been mentioned speaking about if a woman fears nushuz from her husband.

I am sorry, maha, I think that you are not insisting for the sake of mere controversy, that you are after something specific that you want clarified or examined, andand which may be of great interest, but I just don't get what it is or what you are getting at. May be you can approach it some other way? I am curious and it may help to gain better knowledge of the whole.

Salaam

Thanks Huruf. I agree with your defination of Nushuuz. But as we know the word for 'wife' is 'zawjah' and not 'nisa' and the word mentioned is 'nisa' and not 'zawjah'.

So I think the verse is not talking about husband-wife relationship at all. The verse is obviously talking about something else, which has by the way nothing to do with marriage.

Peace

huruf

And what would that other relationship be?
In the context and with the "nushuz" part I do see what other relationship that would be.

The closest antecedent to the allati pronoun would be the salihaat, qanitaat... but those do not seem as if they were perpetrating any nushuz, so it must refer to the nisaa of the beginning, and it must refer to something that is weighed in the aya, which must be then what hafidha Allah and what the salihaat qanitaat are hafithat of lil ghaib.

So, I as I have argued in the thread upheld in the thread

Is this verse applicable to todays women?
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=12037.0

I think that al ghaib for whom they must hafidh something is the human to be, which they conceive and keep, they mast keep something for him, I understand their identity, their filiation, their true origin... who is the father.

If they do not do that, the men who are the fathers would be entitled to defend that right if they do their part on their side.

4.34 speaks of respective gifts given to each sex, and then spells out two commitments one for each which will make them honour those gifts.

Men have the gift of not asumming any physical burden in reproduction, and therefore have the possibilities that women may not have because of that burden, but because of it, women are capable of being mothers and having children and knowing them by themselves without much male involvement.

Men should not keep for themselves that extra disponibility which they have more than women, but with it, if they honour God's gifts, they must take care and support the women.

Women should not keep their gift for themselves and should look for the good of what they keep, hnour that gift and be hafithat of what God himself guards. Men may not know that they keep and for whom, but God knows.

That is my reasoning about the aya. But I am curious as to what other relationship you may have in mind.

Salaam

savage_carrot

As for those females from whom you fear desertion, then you shall advise them, and abandon them in the bedchamber, and separate from them. If they respond to you, then do not seek a way over them; God is Most High, Great.

Do you see the mention of 'wife' anywhere?
Like I said before Maha, do you want to take the whole book or one verse? If the quran says you can't have any sex unless you're married repeatedly, and then there's a verse that says abandon them in the bedchamber...why on earth would you take it to mean anything other than someone you're married to? That would be inserting a contradiction into the text based on faulty analysis when there is none there. We don't take single verses to explain concepts, we take the whole book and we apply that big picture understanding to one verse, instead of the other way around.

If you say the verse is generally talking about how men deal with all women (or how men should?) upon fearing nushooz from any female and if the bedchamber applies only then must we use it....it would be a very chaotic rendering given the context because it is stating a process, not a pick and choose what applies to any given situation where a man fears any woman's nushooz.

The quran uses words in particular ways that may or not be clear at times (at times to differentiate between categories, at times to bring to our attention something that ties something else together, at times as umbrella terms that are further distinguished by context etc), but we can't discard the logic/reasoning that goes along with understanding what is being said on the whole which makes it clear that the process is only dealing with a couple that has sex (bedchamber) thus have to be married, hence are husband and wife.

No, it isn't obvious that it's talking about something else but please explain how it ties into the other verses of the quran. How does the bedchamber fit in? I may seem obsessed with the bedchamber but I really want to know.

Wakas

peace,

But as we know the word for 'wife' is 'zawjah' and not 'nisa

this is incorrect.

Maha

peace,

this is incorrect.

ok then whats the arabic word for wife?

Maha

Like I said before Maha, do you want to take the whole book or one verse? If the quran says you can't have any sex unless you're married repeatedly, and then there's a verse that says abandon them in the bedchamber...why on earth would you take it to mean anything other than someone you're married to? That would be inserting a contradiction into the text based on faulty analysis when there is none there. We don't take single verses to explain concepts, we take the whole book and we apply that big picture understanding to one verse, instead of the other way around.

If you say the verse is generally talking about how men deal with all women (or how men should?) upon fearing nushooz from any female and if the bedchamber applies only then must we use it....it would be a very chaotic rendering given the context because it is stating a process, not a pick and choose what applies to any given situation where a man fears any woman's nushooz.

The quran uses words in particular ways that may or not be clear at times (at times to differentiate between categories, at times to bring to our attention something that ties something else together, at times as umbrella terms that are further distinguished by context etc), but we can't discard the logic/reasoning that goes along with understanding what is being said on the whole which makes it clear that the process is only dealing with a couple that has sex (bedchamber) thus have to be married, hence are husband and wife.

No, it isn't obvious that it's talking about something else but please explain how it ties into the other verses of the quran. How does the bedchamber fit in? I may seem obsessed with the bedchamber but I really want to know.

hi sister. Thanks for you comment. But my question remains unanswered. Then why did god said females in stead of wife? Why mentioning a gender in plural while talking about a wife?

Yes I have taken the quran as a whole.

Now if I tell you that you have to do this and this with your males would it be the same thing if i told you how you shall deal with your husband?

I dont think the verse actually says anything about a bedchamper, but even if it did for the sake of argument, how do you know its referring to something sexually? It could might also be that she is not allowed to sleep on a bed anymore. BY the way, remember that a rebellios wife doesnt want to sleep with her husband anyway, so there is actually no need for him to admonish her.

Maha