Wife beating in Islam
-
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
-
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=12037.0I 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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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=12037.0I 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
very intresting huruf. your reasoning makes sense to me. I would check your privious post in order to get a deeper understanding of your analyse. Thanks again.
-
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.
The process being stated is not because either one wants or doesn't want to have sex with one another, it's to try to mend the differences by detaching themselves from whatever emotional or otherwise issues are present which makes it easier to focus on the essentials. With a certain amount of distance gradually. The closer we are, the harder it is to see straight etc. So talk about it, doesn't work... then no sex (more distance with less emotional entanglement, easier to think about the issue)...still doesn't work, separate for a bit from each others spheres (even more distance with even less emotional entanglement, even better for thinking about the issue)...how exactly is this bad? It's excellent advice geared towards problem solving than most other things we can think of.
It may benefit one party or both if the process is followed.
She may not be allowed to sleep on a bed? No offense but I find your reasoning a bit wonky for obvious reasons. Why don't we make this easier, and you tell us in your own opinion what the words used stand for and what it is telling us and how it fits with the other verses. Thanks.
-
sister Savage you make a lot of creative interpretations from your own mind. And I dont have a clue about from where you got all these interpretations, my dear.
She may not be allowed to sleep on a bed? No offense but I find your reasoning a bit wonky for obvious reasons. Why don't we make this easier, and you tell us in your own opinion what the words used stand for and what it is telling us and how it fits with the other verses. Thanks.
I ask you again, how do you know that admonishing from bedchamper has something to do with sex? And you didnt replied on my question. How can a husband admonish someone from his bedchamper when she doesnt want to sleep with him already? 3. question which you didnt answered is how do you know that we are talking about wife and husband relationship? Is the word 'wife' or 'husband' used in the verse?
What I wanna know is where you see your interpretations in the verse. cheers.
-
You're calling me creative? Whatever floats your boat I guess.
I don't think you quite realise how this works...you can't just casually drop a line coupled with cryptic comments saying the women don't include or even mean wives...the bedchamber may not actually be a bedchamber at all, and if it is, the women may not be allowed to sleep on beds! men can 'admonish' any woman they want on nushooz grounds and not give ANY evidence for your assertions all the while touting that you have come to this using the whole quran!
So be a dear and please answer since you are the one asserting things are very wrong sister; tell us why they are wrong. Please. Tell us what the words used mean and what they stand for, what the verse is saying and how it ties into the rest of the quran. My reasoning has been given and you haven't disproved it short of repeating the same and calling me creative. I suppose it could be worse.
-
yeah honestly sister I think you are creative. Not that its a negative thing.
you can't just casually drop a line coupled with cryptic comments saying the women don't include or even mean wives...the bedchamber may not actually be a bedchamber at all, and if it is, the women may not be allowed to sleep on beds! men can 'admonish' any woman they want on nushooz grounds and not give ANY evidence for your assertions all the while touting that you have come to this using the whole quran!
Yes indeed women can include wives.. but it does also include MANY other women.. And a wife who does nushuuz would most likely refuse to have sex with her husband before he can refuse her. How can a man deny sex to someone who also denies sex to him? so that can only mean that a man can force any woman not to sleep on the bed.
So if a man use to sleep beside his little daughter, if he fears she make nushuuz he can deny her the right to sleep on the bed. And same thing can he do with his wife, or any other woman who may sleep beside him or on a bed owned by him.So obviously there is something wrong, no?
Tell us what the words used mean and what they stand for, what the verse is saying and how it ties into the rest of the quran. My reasoning has been given and you haven't disproved it short of repeating the same and calling me creative. I suppose it could be worse
Well sister I recently, due to inconsistency in the verse, came to the conclusion that 'nisa' does not really mean women. I think the quran is talking about a whole different issue. But I still have to make a lot of researches on it. I would let you know, in order to hear your opinion and get some feedback from you, when I have reached that long.
-
My creativity dies a slow agonising death next to yours, sister, but um thanks all the same.
Yes indeed women can include wives.. but it does also include MANY other women
Indeed yes, that's why we look at the context to determine which ones after we read all the verses in the book.And a wife who does nushuuz would most likely refuse to have sex with her husband before he can refuse her.
No, it's not necessary. Usually people tend to keep quiet about cheating for example, and keep it going on er, both fronts.How can a man deny sex to someone who also denies sex to him?
That's why the process listed is not denial for revenge or 'punishment' !so that can only mean that a man can force any woman not to sleep on the bed.
So that can only mean!? How does this follow? Can I just say, this is creative genius right here? No? Okay, moving on...So if a man use to sleep beside his little daughter, if he fears she make nushuuz he can deny her the right to sleep on the bed. And same thing can he do with his wife, or any other woman who may sleep beside him or on a bed owned by him.
I just don't...what on earth? Abandon them in the bedchamber means just that, abstain from sex, the deed, intercourse, coupling however you wish to call it. It doesn't mean chamberpot so they musn't be allowed to piss, it doesn't mean pushing them off the bed, locking them in a room and throwing away the key, it doesn't mean the female has to find alternative surfaces for sleeping or any such thing. It means don't have sex with them.So obviously there is something wrong, no?
May I venture to suggest it's your boundless source of creativity that is the issue here? No? Ok.Well sister I recently, due to inconsistency in the verse, came to the conclusion that 'nisa' does not really mean women. I think the quran is talking about a whole different issue. But I still have to make a lot of researches on it. I would let you know, in order to hear your opinion and get some feedback from you, when I have reached that long.
Wait...if nisa doesn't really mean females, why would you even suggest all those suggestions of females chastely sleeping off beds without males? There's something wrong here, sister. No joke. Regardless, I concur...you should probably do a lot of research on it. -
Indeed yes, that's why we look at the context to determine which ones after we read all the verses in the book.
Ok and I think the context is about all women
No, it's not necessary. Usually people tend to keep quiet about cheating for example, and keep it going on er, both fronts.
do you think nushuuz means cheating?
That's why the process listed is not denial for revenge or 'punishment'
a husband who punishes his wife is an ass and the wife should divorce him.
Abandon them in the bedchamber means just that, abstain from sex, the deed, intercourse, coupling however you wish to call it
its YOUR interpretation because when you hear 'bed' you think of 'sex'. But I dont think of sex when I hear the word 'bed'.
May I venture to suggest it's your boundless source of creativity that is the issue here? No? Ok.
'interpretation' is something the sectarians do. I only look at whats actually written and not written and try to compare it.
Wait...if nisa doesn't really mean females, why would you even suggest all those suggestions of females chastely sleeping off beds without males?
excately. I would first make a research on whether the translation of 'bed' is correct or not. Then I would take any further step.
...you should probably do a lot of research on it
everyone shall make a lot of research on the quran. me, you and everybody else, sister. The quran is a ocean in which only some drops are discovered.
In every case, we can always agree to disagree sister
-
Ok and I think the context is about all women
But you just said nisa are not really females?do you think nushuuz means cheating?
One of many possibilities.a husband who punishes his wife is an ass and the wife should divorce him.
Good thing we don't have it in there then.its YOUR interpretation because when you hear 'bed' you think of 'sex'. But I dont think of sex when I hear the word 'bed'.
If that's mine, I really don't want to know why when you hear bed, you think of being pushed off it...admit it, my alternative is way better. Your understandings regarding abandonment in the bedchamber so far have been pushing off beds, denying sleep to a female in a bed owned by the man...but nisa doesn't really mean females? So what is being pushed and denied off the beds and deprived of sleep on fluffy mattresses?'interpretation' is something the sectarians do. I only look at whats actually written and not written and try to compare it.
Um no, we interpret what is written because that is what leads to comprehension.excately. I would first make a research on whether the translation of 'bed' is correct or not. Then I would take any further step.
Well your understanding regarding that so far is not, so there's that.everyone shall make a lot of research on the quran. me, you and everybody else, sister. The quran is a ocean in which only some drops are discovered.
Yes but please make sure that the basis for such research is solid first.In every case, we can always agree to disagree sister
Not if it's half as exciting as pushing entities off beds. -
Reformist Translation vs Sectarian Translations
The first comparision involves this versehttp//19.org/767/reformist-vs-sectarian/
Peace,
Edip -
Thre is a big problem with the four translations quoted by brother Edip and it is the insistence in writing or translating "obey you", with the exception of Yusuf Ali who says "if they return to obedience" which in essence a little is better, but in appearance is just as bad, because the reader in all cases comes to the conclusion that indeed, the wife owes obedience tot he husband as if in the quran thatre was a previous duty of such obedience. But there is no such thing in the Qur'an. What the Qur'an keeps recommending in all cases is to agree on something and abide by pacts. The nushuz must be against what was estipulated in the pact or covenant. But no general duty of obedience on the part of one spouse to the other is estipulated int he Qur'an. Nor a right to obedience on the part of any of them.
Take for instance 3.168
"(They are) the ones that say, (of their brethren slain), while they themselves sit (at ease) "If only they had listened to us they would not have been slain." Say "Avert death from your own selves, if ye speak the truth." "
This "listened" is the translation of the same verb that in 4.34 is consistently translated as obey.
In Arabic there is no question, it is clear what it says, because the usage is such that people understand what should be logically understood from the context. One party is disatisfied that the other is fulfilling or not his or her part of the deal, so that part undertakes actions to make the other realise what he or she is doing, so the other part pays heed or does not pay heed. aTw3 has that meaning. When somebody recommends something to somebody else, that somebody else may pay heed or not to the recommendation but does not obey or disobey.
The obedience to the husband conspiracy clings to straws or whatever to preserve the myth.
It is a pity. Obedience is for children not for partners.
It is not even an ideological question, it is a simple linguistic question, and under no obligation to do so, we cling to the most misleading translation of a word that is simple to interpret and understand int he language and in the context. And when as it happens in many cases the previous word "qanitat" is translated as "obedient" the things becomes plan high treason. Because if a few words before it is said that virtuous women are obediente, and later they are supposed to obey the husband, God has dissappeared and instead of Him we have a pitiful human with grandeur dilusions.
Salaam
-
peace,
It is not what you said, see 2232. It depends on context.
I recommend reading Quran, as in it, it frequently uses "nisa" for wife, e.g. divorce nisa etc. It depends on context.
No it does not. Wife means 'zawjah' in arabic. Neither does the context say anything about nisa suddenly becoming 'zawjaat'.
Peace
-
But you just said nisa are not really females?
sorry I didnt clearified myself. Nisa are not females. Unsa means females. But if I have for the sake of argument agree that nisa means female, then I wont think of females as 'wives'.
If that's mine, I really don't want to know why when you hear bed, you think of being pushed off it...admit it, my alternative is way better. Your understandings regarding abandonment in the bedchamber so far have been pushing off beds, denying sleep to a female in a bed owned by the man...but nisa doesn't really mean females? So what is being pushed and denied off the beds and deprived of sleep on fluffy mattresses
everyone thinks that his interpretation is better, sister. As I mentioned earliere, I would investigate whether something called 'bed' really is mentioned in the arabic text or not.
Yes but please make sure that the basis for such research is solid first.
you are right. Thats why the word 'bed' in crucial here. That needa an invistigation. I am going to do it, and soon tell you about the outcome
