You shall beat your wife
-
Peace huruf.
I stated that " the man s wishes will prevail if he wanted to remarry( in case of pregnancy)".
I also said, If she cannot agree to remarriage, it will not happen. She cannot be forced!
Now here is what you posted
2.282 and the divorced women are tow ait watching for themselves three menses and it is not lawful to them to not say what God created in their wombs if they believe in God and the last day, and their husbands will be righter in returning them in that if they wish redress and for them (the women) the same rights as over them (the women) in equity and to the men daraja with respect to the women.
Please explain the highlighted bit.
Peace.
-
Well, I will just take the sentence where in one translation says
" The women have rights as well as obligations equitably", which is once again modifying the sense, changing it, of what the original Arabic says.
The other translation provided (Yusuf's Ali) I think, is better, but still, there is that "little" nuance which would indicate that the rights it is talking about are not the same for the male and for the female.
The Arabic however is conclusive
"for them (the women) the same rights as over them".
This is followed in the first translation provided, criminal translation, by this very weird conclusion
"Thus, the man's wishes prevail. God is Almighty, Most Wise."
There you have it, the magnificency of the Almight, His utmost wisdom made patente by asserting what? that the man's wishes preveail, and that after stating clearly very clearly indeed that the women have the same rights as those over them. Is this not shocking and is it not for crying?
I mean this is not mere interpretation, no way, it is completely changing a text and not in a nuance, no, to the opposite.
Let us look at the second translation provided. It is a little better, but still it is not a real full translation and with the inserted brackets it plays once more the trick of turning upside down a divine statement.
It says
"but men have a degree (of advantage) over them. And Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise."
What do we find here? the little particle "but", which seems to accompany as a dog every statement uttered by ancestors religion muslims everytime some rights are given to women. It is invariably always followed by some "but".
There is no "but" in the original Arabic and there is no advantage at all in the original Arabic.
There is an "and"
"and to the men daraja with respect to the women".
The question is what the daraja is about. Obviously it is not any extra right, no, since it has just stated that to the women the same rights as over them. So what is this daraja about? Might it be responsibility for the child, and therefore he is given in the previous part of the aya and extra possibility and nudge to reconcile, if they so wish, or what?
It is awful to realise that people still do not dare to think that God in fact has not taken sides against women. Because the reluctance to see a heinous abuse when interpreting shocking things and drawing humiliating conclusions, still seems to not cost us very much.
It may be that someboy will point out that "wa" in Arabic may sometimes have an adversative meaning. Fine, but not here. Here the adversative meaning is given a posteriori after inserting, mentally or literally the "advantage" part.
The children for the man come always with the responsibility, just as the women come to them with a responsibility, what makes us think that in this aya responsibility is done away with and it has been superseded by privilege?
It is indeed very shocking.
And to faithful-jinn,
May be you are innocent or ignorant in this case, but all your effort all the way seems to consist in picking up the most hideous meaning anywhere and stick to it with passion, as if that held for you some reward, so while you may be in the right in this case, I don't really know, your attitude all along seems to consist in not sparing effort to pronnounce the Qur'an guilty.
Salam
-
Peace huruf.
I cleared up that verse. The husband s wishes prevail. He has a right to the " child" as well( in case of pregnancy)
That does not mean " female" have no right.
Peace.
-
Peace huruf.
I cleared up that verse. The husband s wishes prevail. He has a right to the " child" as well( in case of pregnancy)
That does not mean " female" have no right.Peace.
That scares the mess out of me...the though that my husband can take my child away from me just because we get divorced and just because he has the right. No wonder so many women put up with abuse and mistreatment from their husbands...I wouldn't want my child taken from me either!
-
Peace scaredmuslimah.
It does not mean they take your child from you. What made read it as that?They both have equal right . However the first two years, the mother has the right, she is first choice. She is the one who is looking after the child.
Other verses clarify this elsewhere in Qoran.
Peace.
-
Peace scaredmuslimah.
It does not mean they take your child from you. What made read it as that?They both have equal right . However the first two years, the mother has the right, she is first choice. She is the one who is looking after the child.
Other verses clarify this elsewhere in Qoran.
Peace.
When I first came to Islam I was told that is what that meant...that if a couple ever divorced and the woman remarried, the husband had the right to the child over the mother. I understand the first two years because the woman is more than likely still breastfeeding and caring for the child.
-
Peace huruf.
I cleared up that verse. The husband s wishes prevail. He has a right to the " child" as well( in case of pregnancy)
That does not mean " female" have no right.
Peace.
I really do not see what you want to convey nor see what you say that you clear up or where you do it. I am completely confused as to what you say and to what you mean.
That is why I asked from where exactly in the text you get that men have an extra right and in what consisted that extra right.
Salaam
-
Peace huruf.
I shall try once more, here is my final attempt at what I mean by the right of the husband according to the verse.
The husband has the right to know if the woman is pregnant. She must be honest and declare the pregnancy. The waiting period is specifically in case the woman is pregnant.
The husband also has the right to ask for reconciliation, ( to remarry). In that case,The woman is responsible to consider the offer .
What she chooses is up to her. To reconcile is better for both .
If they cannot reconcile, then there are solutions in other " divorce" verses.
Peace.
-
So fine, I don't see in that verse, even as you state it, any special right that the husband has that the wife does not. It is the dute of the woman as also stated in 4.34 to guard the lineage of the offspring and not keep it for herself. I do not see it as a duty exclusive to the husband, but as a duty in general in the first place towards the offspring and to society also in general.
The only thing that where you say
"The waiting period is specifically in case the woman is pregnant."
would rather be
"to see if the woman is pregnant",
because if it is already known that she is pregnant. If it is known that she is pregnant, they should have made arrangements before the divorce, logically.
Also, there is nothing that I see that would prevent the woman to seek remarriage to the ex husband, and what the Qur'an does, I think, is to push the man to make the offer rather than leave that to the woman, and thus show his sense of responsibility towards her and the child.
Salaam
-
Peace huruf.
I agree with there is nothing that I see that would prevent the woman to seek remarriage to the ex husband,
Except , in the verse GOD is talking to " al mutatallakat" -women- about the husbands. Had it been the other way around, perhaps similar would have been said to "wives".
Thank you for the conversation.
Peace. -
That scares the mess out of me...the though that my husband can take my child away from me just because we get divorced and just because he has the right. No wonder so many women put up with abuse and mistreatment from their husbands...I wouldn't want my child taken from me either!
Salaam Amina
We are supposed to say what is just and impartial, even if it's against our loved ones or our own gender. Do you not think that it is equally scary for a father to have his child taken away from him in a divorce?!
I feel you are a brave and sensible and God fearing person so you would agree that a child needs both parents. Maybe that's why Allah gives the father charge of his children, despite the mother's strong maternal bond with her children, so that divorce will be the last option for both parties.
I know that you are going through very hard times and I may sound harsh to you but the fact is girls or boys both need their father and their mother equally and both parents love their children so no one has the right to deprive a devoted parent of his/her right to raise the children.
Peace -
Salaam Amina
We are supposed to say what is just and impartial, even if it's against our loved ones or our own gender. Do you not think that it is equally scary for a father to have his child taken away from him in a divorce?!
I feel you are a brave and sensible and God fearing person so you would agree that a child needs both parents. Maybe that's why Allah gives the father charge of his children, despite the mother's strong maternal bond with her children, so that divorce will be the last option for both parties.
I know that you are going through very hard times and I may sound harsh to you but the fact is girls or boys both need their father and their mother equally and both parents love their children so no one has the right to deprive a devoted parent of his/her right to raise the children.
PeaceThe child should be given to the parent who is most capable of providing the child with a proper future. You cannot make a general rule of giving the child to a father just because he is the father or to the mother just because she is the mother. Every case shall be treated individually, and not based on gender. If both parents are caring and capable of upbringing the child, the child can eventually be given to both where both parents share equal time with the child.
Peace
-
Scaredmuslimah,
I do not think that at any time it has been a question of taking the child away from anybody. That heinous attitude springs from a mentality where the child is a property and not a person, and in countries where people have not been used to divorce or broken marriages it has often been used by parents, particularly husbands as a weapon to bludgeon the other partner. That is, children have been used, and still are used, as a weapon. I have seen it many times, parents (mostly fathers) going out of their way to get the children and then hand them down to their grondmother or some other persons without any intention to care personally for them just for the sake of harming the mother. On the other hand, it has been taken also for granted that the children be taken care of by the mother as if no father was ever worth or capable of doing that.
All those attitudes are very destructive, and must ve overcome. Divorce is a trial, but there is no reason why after it people should be sworn enemies and snatch at everything to take "revenge". Children are not theirs, they are their job in this life, their trial and a means to grow. They are not things nor property.
If the people who divorce are decent enough to care for their own problem with the other without taking it on the children, most likely there would always be a way to keep everybody reasonably happy. If they alone are not able to find a satisfactory agreement, then other people should help with counsel or other help to make things easy for the couple and the children.
The disputes over them are horribly harming and painful because parents just fear that, that they are going to loose their children. Of course they are not going to loose anything just because they relinquish any amount of absolute control. A time will come when they will loose all control, so they must change the way they think about their children, and of course laws and the way they are applied may help or hinder that.
Actually, when people see that their children go away with the other parent and thay they come back with all normality and they still remember the parent they left and love him or her, normality re-establishes itself and everybody realises that nothing terrible has happened, life has changed, but the parents are still the parents, although they may not be married, but the world has not gone asunder because of that.
Let alone that the right to have access to both parents as much as feasible is a right of the child, unless of course they do harm the child.
Salaam
-
Salaam Amina
We are supposed to say what is just and impartial, even if it's against our loved ones or our own gender. Do you not think that it is equally scary for a father to have his child taken away from him in a divorce?!
I feel you are a brave and sensible and God fearing person so you would agree that a child needs both parents. Maybe that's why Allah gives the father charge of his children, despite the mother's strong maternal bond with her children, so that divorce will be the last option for both parties.
I know that you are going through very hard times and I may sound harsh to you but the fact is girls or boys both need their father and their mother equally and both parents love their children so no one has the right to deprive a devoted parent of his/her right to raise the children.
PeaceI guess...I don't know what to think. My heart would be eternally broken at my daughter being legally taken from me and with her father. I have honestly thought of never re-marrying just to keep my child. I have no issue with my child having a relationship with either parent, as I was never kept from my father. Then again, my parents aren't Muslim so what applies here doesn't apply to them.
-
I guess...I don't know what to think. My heart would be eternally broken at my daughter being legally taken from me and with her father. .
Salaam Amina
t?s not only you but your daughter too would be traumatised if she was taken away from a loving mother. There is no denying that separation from a loving and caring mother is worse than from a father.I have honestly thought of never re-marrying just to keep my child.
?ll tell you a true account of one woman whose husband wanted to keep the kids; not out of out of a sense of his right or out of love for the children, but out of vindictivness. The woman, being a believer, prayed to Allah to give her the strenght to do what is right, and then gathered all her fortitude and told her husband to keep the child, as it was his responsibility, she also mentioned to him that she was now at liberty to remarry as, in Islam, a woman should be, following divorce. The thought of being lumbered with child care and seeing her free to remarry caused her husband to freak out and so never bothered to ask for custody.
I have no issue with my child having a relationship with either parent, as I was never kept from my father. Then again, my parents aren't Muslim so what applies here doesn't apply to them
If your husband is indeed a believer he would never consider severing the ties of womb, as that act is a sin in Islam
Peace
-
Salaam Amina
t?s not only you but your daughter too would be traumatised if she was taken away from a loving mother. There is no denying that separation from a loving and caring mother is worse than from a father. ?ll tell you a true account of one woman whose husband wanted to keep the kids; not out of out of a sense of his right or out of love for the children, but out of vindictivness. The woman, being a believer, prayed to Allah to give her the strenght to do what is right, and then gathered all her fortitude and told her husband to keep the child, as it was his responsibility, she also mentioned to him that she was now at liberty to remarry as, in Islam, a woman should be, following divorce. The thought of being lumbered with child care and seeing her free to remarry caused her husband to freak out and so never bothered to ask for custody. If your husband is indeed a believer he would never consider severing the ties of womb, as that act is a sin in IslamPeace
Farida,
I agree and thank you for sharing.
-
The truth hurts. I don't have to make an effort to do much to be honest. I simply present the facts from the common translations. I mean if you guys want to discuss Qur'an I just go on Qur'an.com and the 8 most established translations from Pickthal, Yusuf Ali, Dr. Ghalil, Sahih International, etc. all are available. They usually all say the same thing if not in slightly different terms. If this is a forum for Qur'an discussion why can I not provide these mainstream translations? These are the translations I assume most Muslims use. I have a Yusuf Ali translation on my dresser and my Maulana Muhammad Ali translation is in New York with my father so I use what I have available.
In actuality I don't have to make an effort to do anything because the facts are on my side. You accuse me of treachery and dishonesty when all I present are facts. Truth will always triumph over falsehood. Next time look at the facts I'm presenting instead of getting disgruntled that you think I'm making your holy Qur'an may contain misogyny or violence. I've never changed the words of the Qur'an and never will. I think it's insulting to do so. But I will use credible translations to quote the Qur'an so next time you see a problem with the verses I present then question the holy Qur'an itself not the messenger.
handshake
-
Very -_______-
Why do you use ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM to prove your arguments?
Just because many says so, doesn't mean that they are right.
If the word idriboo in 434 is translated into BEAT, verse 434 and 435 woudn't be consistent.
DRB is just a multi-meaning word.
|434| admonish ---> separate from sleeping-places ---> IDRIBOO |435| fear a permanent rift/separation ---> reconcile
The translation of idriboo into SEPARATE FROM in the verse 434 is perfect because 434-35 would be consistent.I know that faithful-jinn is atheist.
Yeah of course, some Rashadans also agree with this kind of fallacious argument because RK also translated the word into BEAT.
Anyway I don't come to here to yell at Submitters (RK followers) but just to prove my simple point that the people who posted on this thread (Faithful-Jinn) made fallacious/invalid argument.
No offenceRegards,
Yuliana