Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back

aqua

I have degree in Arabic have studied the subject extensively. . . so don't ask me - if I am arguing for the sake of arguing. Try not to get "tetchy" - and then blame even that one me.

Note I am not being rude or making personal remarks about you.

Now back to the issue

The illustration you provide . . . that is using the Arabic Verb Form I in the imperative form. Look this up at the same website . Whereas, the dictionary is pointing to the standard verb in the fourth form .

As I originally pointed out - you do not have to take my word for it - please do verify it with someone who know Arabic.

I recommend

http//forum.wordreference.com/forumdisplay.php?f=41

It is impartial language forum and there are several people very good at Arabic.

I have also checked the better and simply formatted Hans Wehr - it too equates Verb Form I with 'An - to the verb form IV.

All the sources I have seen including the links you provided show that Verb Form 4 requires a Hamza symbol above the Alif like this , but the dictionary does not make use of this symbol in the definition. Hence, the illustration is not necessarily referring to Verb Form 4. This is not just an incidental omission because Lane's dictionary does make use of Hamza on Alif elsewhere in other definitions.

The_Chimp

All the sources I have seen including the links you provided show that Verb Form 4 requires a Hamza symbol above the Alif like this , but the dictionary does not make use of this symbol in the definition. Hence, the illustration is not necessarily referring to Verb Form 4. This is not just an incidental omission because Lane's dictionary does make use of Hamza on Alif elsewhere in other definitions.

And if you review the illustration you provided - then notice it too carries the Hamzah Walsi sign on top for the imperative command verb.

As to the Lane's dictionary - it do not talk about Imperative Verbs - that is Form IV - see the dictionary Hans Wehr - it too omits the Hamza sign and simply uses the Alif.

Imperative form of the verb is a derived form - it makes absolutely no sense for the command form not to carry the same particles - this does not happen in Arabic

Take this link

http//arabic.desert-sky.net/g_vforms.html

Now for the form 4 - this uses the word Kharaja - Akhraja.

Then check this on Lane's. You will notice the dictionary's use of the Hamaza Wasl is erratic - it uses it on some words and not the others - yet the discussion is still about the same word in form 4.

Also - go back to Da Ra Ba root in the Lane's Lexicon. There look up the Form 4 for this verb - again - you will notice Lane's is erratic regarding the little Hamza sign - on some it is there on some it isn't.

This is not just an incidental omission because Lane's dictionary does make use of Hamza on Alif elsewhere in other definitions.

Simply not true.

Wakas

The_Chimp,

I am still waiting for the Prayer debate! What happened to that?

I was waiting for people to join in, as I clearly said. Updated http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9606088.msg346685#msg346685

...by pointing to a document showing Muslims did not pray before the order of 5 prayers came along!

The above is a lie against me. See forum rule 3, and please correct it
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=8177.0

The_Chimp

The_Chimp,

I was waiting for people to join in, as I clearly said. Updated http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9606088.msg346685#msg346685

The above is a lie against me. See forum rule 3, and please correct it
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=8177.0

It is not a lie - but a mistake in that I meant to say - "did not pray 5" - Hence

...by pointing to a document showing Muslims did not pray 5 before the order of 5 prayers came along!

As to pointing out rule 3!

Jeez! I get a lot of abuse . . . far stronger . . . I hope you are "as" diligent when I put a complaint in.

aqua

And if you review the illustration you provided - then notice it too carries the Hamzah Walsi sign on top for the imperative command verb.

As to the Lane's dictionary - it do not talk about Imperative Verbs - that is Form IV - see the dictionary Hans Wehr - it too omits the Hamza sign and simply uses the Alif.

Imperative form of the verb is a derived form - it makes absolutely no sense for the command form not to carry the same particles - this does not happen in Arabic

Take this link

http//arabic.desert-sky.net/g_vforms.html

Now for the form 4 - this uses the word Kharaja - Akhraja.

Then check this on Lane's. You will notice the dictionary's use of the Hamaza Wasl is erratic - it uses it on some words and not the others - yet the discussion is still about the same word in form 4.

Also - go back to Da Ra Ba root in the Lane's Lexicon. There look up the Form 4 for this verb - again - you will notice Lane's is erratic regarding the little Hamza sign - on some it is there on some it isn't.

A very strong refutation to your 'Verb Grammar' argument is the following. It shows how the meaning of 'leave / separate' in the Lexicon can apply here even if it is referring to the 4th Form Verb

We have to remember that the first written versions of the Quran had no
vocalisation, in other words, they left out short vowels and other signs
that tell us how to read the letters that are written. Arabic verbs have
many forms with different meanings, like the English verbs press -
repress depress pressurize.

One of the things that is used to mark
these forms is a letter alif at the beginning, which marks the 4th form of
the verb. You can think of the alif as a standard suffix, like English re-
or de-

But heres the crunch the aleph at the beginning is also the marker
for the imperative (and of the interrogative, but that is not relevant
here), so in a text without the short vowels written, an imperative looks
the same as the 4th form of the verb, and also the same as the imperative
of the 4th form (because the alif is not doubled, one alif does both
jobs).

The verb in this case is d-r-b. Daraba means he beat. So the meaning of
the first form is beat, while one of the meanings of the 4th form is
leave.

The form in this verse of the Quran is | D r b

This could mean, you must beat (imperative of first form). Or it
could mean you leave or it could mean you must leave

If we take it as an imperative of the 4th form, it would be
pronounced ad.ribuu-hunna and the translation would be you (masculine
plural you&#8217 shall withdraw from them.

Sequentially he tells them first to admonish their wives, then
refuse to share their beds, then withdraw from them, then (next
verse) appoint arbiters from the families. That is a logical
progression.

Source http//senmcglinn.wordpress.com/email-archive/beat-your-wives/

Undoubtedly you will now claim that your Arabic knowledge is better and that the above is incorrect. But religious obstinacy can make a person persist in falsehood no matter how much they are proven wrong.

The_Chimp

A very strong refutation to your 'Verb Grammar' argument is the following. It shows how the meaning of 'leave / separate' in the Lexicon can apply here even if it is referring to the 4th Form Verb

Read this back to yourself . . . it is somewhat contradictory. On one hand - you admit I am right to point out that and on the other you attempt, dogmatically, to hold on to your former position. Result? The above contradictory statement.

The question regarding the verb is simple. I even gave you means to verify it by an impartial Arabic language forum.

Undoubtedly you will now claim that your Arabic knowledge is better and that the above is incorrect. But religious obstinancy can make a person persist in falsehood no matter how much they are proven wrong.

Such statements are disingenuous by type. Why don't you wait for my response? What it shows is that you fear my Arabic actually is better and if you do bring forth another reply, which, if like others, is proven to be incorrect - then - that will leave you in dilemma.

Are you saying by above that it does not matter what I reply . . . you are going to carry on believing whatever you fee like?

But religious obstinancy can make a person persist in falsehood no matter how much they are proven wrong.

Could you point out in what you have proven me wrong? How deceptive! Look at the previous exchange. What is it I am wrong about?

Please do explain.

aqua

Could you point out in what you have proven me wrong? How deceptive! Look at the previous exchange. What is it I am wrong about?

You claimed that since the dictionaries refer to 4th Form Verb, this makes it impossible to apply that meaning to verse 434. I showed you how grammatically it is possible to apply a 4th Form Verb to verse 434. You made a misinformed point about the grammar in the Qur'an.

shohorabA

peace, brothers and sisters,

After a lot of research into 434 of The Quran and the meaning of DaRaBa, I have finally finished a 1st draft of my study

Please take your time to review it, as it is over 40 pages in length. There are a few minor points within it that still need verified/clarified, these are in purple font. As a side note, it was a very interesting journey completing this work, something which I did not initially intend to write, but as my discoveries mounted up, it soon became something that I simply had to write and publish.

All feedback is welcome, especially any corrections.

Once it has been reviewed, a dedicated site and promotional tools will accompany it.

EDIT above link does not work now, website is www.Quran434.com

Good effort and good work Wakas. Probably the most comprehensive analysis of a single topic I have seen.

Wakas

peace aqua, all,

Yes, I was aware of that Lane Lexicon reference, however I was also aware of the somewhat controversy surrounding it AND note that I said "making this the only DRB example of this kind in The Quran" i.e. I did not say there was no example of this kind in existence.
Your post about the tashkeel/vocalisation markings cleared it up. We should bear in mind the earliest extant scripts of The Quran had no vocalisation/tashkeel marks.

Thus, my current understanding is, "go away from them" in 434 is theoretically possible IF one assumes the tashkeel/vocalisation of the present day Arabic Quran is incorrect AND one is willing to solve/overcome the issues I mentioned earlier.

Please note, I do not actually think "go away from them" is viable. Note that DRB is used to mean "withdraw from" in 435, and it is the first verb form without Alif, thus if The Quran was being consistent one would have thought it would use the same first verb form with the preposition "AAn" in 434 if it meant "withdraw from them".

Interestingly, Laleh Bakhtiar (who translates it "go away from&quot considers it to be the first form verb. It is possible she has an Arabic reference for this first form meaning that but I am not aware of her referencing such a source. If others are, let me know. She also discusses an objection based on the claim that DRB in 434 is a transitive verb and can thus only take a direct object, however her interpretation requires it to be intransitive so it can take an indirect object. I would be interested in hearing the Quranic evidence for/against this.

And as for the other issues I highlighted, I would be surprised if someone could solve them. I would like to clarify number (6) by explaining it, e.g. if in the reversed-role of 4128-129 the woman was to leave/withdraw from her husband then she is doing what she fears i.e. iAAradan/alienation or turning away, which makes little sense.

Also in the quote you provided it said
"Sequentially he tells them first to admonish their wives, then
refuse to share their beds, then withdraw from them, then (next
verse) appoint arbiters from the families. That is a logical
progression."

To clarify, in case there is confusion, it is not the husband that is appointing arbiters, it is the authority/community. How they find out about such a situation, or where the husband goes (if he can afford to go somewhere that is) is not explained in such an understanding.

And lastly, personally, I am very cautious of using the argument "the tashkeel is incorrect here, and that is how my view can work" argument. Especially so, if there is a perfectly sound option available.

uq

Peace all,

I have always been of the opinion that 434 presents itself as an inconvenience to readers of the Quran with Modern sensibilities, as well as presenting itself as an anomaly to the rest of the Quranic message that exhorts patience and self-restraint.

However, to date, I have unfortunately not found any proof from the dictionaries that can mean any thing other than "strike them", explicitly.

Despite this, we can appeal to its use as a metaphor (what the Arab grammarians term "tropical application&quot, in that it is used to mean "go away" or "separate", implicitly.

But, unfortunately for us, this position is extremely untenable as there is no precedence of this use.

There are two important points to bear in mind when considering in 434

The root admits of a huge number of various meanings in the Classical Language. Words derived from this root seem to have been used to signify some form of motion, as "to strike" or "to travel" or "to impress a coin" or "to snatch away" etc., and a great deal of them are tropical applications. Notwithstanding this, they are almost always prepositional compounds, that is, they occur with obligate prepositions, as or or , etc. Whereas in 434, the verb occurs without a preposition; it takes a direct object. This is a difficulty for those of us who seek to justify its signification as being "separate from them" or "go away from them."
The phrase signifies "to travel the earth", but it cannot be separated from the preposition (which means "in" this much is certain. However, Az-Zabd states in Tj al-?Ars meaning "and the applies to all acts but a few." This is probably why so many entries of the root are tropical applications. Can this, therefore, by extension, be applied to 434? That is for the reader of the Quran to reckon.

Ultimately, the reader of the Quran is left to reflect.

huruf

There is no crime in 4.34 therefore there cannot be any question of any punishment. The fear that somebody may do something wrong may warrant that that somebody is advised, warned or counselled or informed of the fears of the persons concerned, but most certainly does not warrant that he or she is punished for the fear that somebody may have that he or she may do something wrong.

D-r-b, as to its meaning in the sentence appears quite clear and neat and in accordance with the general fundamental significance of the root if taken as making something apparent an clear and efficient. You fear something, so you state it to the person you fear may do something and get clarity from him or her.

And the community is the one who is in charge of doing that in this case of 4.34. No need to go into preventive war or punishment, that is not quranic at all.

But the meaning of hitting has been useful historically to affirm marital authority of the husband over the wife, which otherwise is nowhere in the Qur'an but which at that time was the rule in most civilizations if not all. So that legitimation of marital authority was put in the Qur'an by way of making it a punishment of the husband to the wife. There wa snot intention at all of having women beaten, but there was the needed idea to uphold marital authority over the wife. As we all know, the world would have crumbled had that authority not been there, like it is crumbling now for that reason(if we believe some scholars).

So what was not in the qur'an was injected by that subtle means.

The fact that there is nothing done, just feared, in the sentence, is a clear mark that there can be no beating nor anything that might be understood as a punishment or "teaching" to somebody who has behaved or is behaving wrongly, that is no correction, neither from the community who is addressed nor of course from the husband, who is not addressed at all.

There is still in spanish dictionnaries a verb derived from daraba (adarvar) which has precisely that meaning, like stun or surprise, but no indication of anything physical.

Salaam

noble

Salam huruf,

you have got it reasonably right, the word daraba is used in the Quran for the aim of breaking a narrative, like when relating a story whose purpose is to advocate a change in behaviour... the Quran is full of this...

huruf

Salam huruf,

you have got it reasonably right, the word daraba is used in the Quran for the aim of breaking a narrative, like when relating a story whose purpose is to advocate a change in behaviour... the Quran is full of this...

Indeed, you are right, but the hitting bit seems to to have a bewitching effect and once somebody has fallen under the spell they cannot escape it no matter how far fetched or illogical.

Salaam

noble

Indeed, you are right, but the hitting bit seems to to have a bewitching effect and once somebody has fallen under the spell they cannot escape it no matter how far fetched or illogical.

Salaam

at the risk of sounding racist to my own kind (I have about half Arabic blood and an 8th Ottoman), I think the Arabs and many of the tribes Islam absorbed, such as Persians, Mongols, Ottomans are pretty violent, and after all slavery is still rampant in the Arabian Gulf Sheikhdoms...

violence is the most sordid form of control...

aqua

Please note, I do not actually think "go away from them" is viable. Note that DRB is used to mean "withdraw from" in 435, and it is the first verb form without Alif, thus if The Quran was being consistent one would have thought it would use the same first verb form with the preposition "AAn" in 434 if it meant "withdraw from them".

I don't think that is an equal comparison because a function of the Alif in verse 434 is to denote the imperative / command form, whereas verse 435 does not require the imperative / command form. Taking the Alif in 434 to also denote the 4th form of a verb, this can allow both the meaning of 'Separate' as well as providing the appropriate imperative expression. In verse 435, an imperative expression is not required (instead there is an interrogative Alif used as a prefix), so it is not necessary for this verse to be worded in the same way as 434.

Personally I don't feel the other issues you mentioned are strong enough objections because most can be addressed with an answer resembling 'not necessarily'.

it is not quite a conflict-resolution step and if not meant to imply divorce/talaq then it seemingly penalises the husband implying he should move out.

Not necessarily. A period of separation may be useful in resolving a marital conflict (ie. to calm things down / allow gradual resolution), and the Qur'an's emphasis is not on who leaves the house in this context. The emphasis is on the course of action, ie. separation as a potential aid to conflict resolution.

any degree of leaving/separating/shunning may fall afoul of doing iAAradan (alienation / turning away) in 4128, thus such a step may give the wife a legitimate reason for ending the marriage, thus unless clarified/limited this meaning does not fit well.

Verse 4128 encourages the possibility of reconciliation when the wife is in the situation of husband committing opposition / turning away. This seems to be supporting the view of a separation for the purposes of attempting reconciliation in verse 434. How does this give the wife legitimate reason for ending marriage?

results in incoherence when DRB is used with a human as the direct object (see 4357 and 273)

This does not necessarily disprove the interpretation of 'separate' in verse 434.

requires the insertion of "from" making this the only DRB example of this kind in The Quran, even though the preposition "AAn /from" is used with DRB in 435 in a very similar usage as being suggested here for 434.

Not necessarily, as discussed earlier in this thread.

provides no explanation as to how the authority find out about the issue in the marriage by 435

Qur'an does not need to provide such details. Perhaps this has been deliberately left out to allow adaptation to different societies, authorities and court systems.

makes little sense when in the reversed role 4128-129

Instead, it seems to correlate with the interpretation of 'separate' in verse 434, as mentioned in point 2 above.

has no supporting example in Quran

There might not be an identical example, but at least there is usage of that meaning in verse 435. The overriding principles of tolerance, justice and compassion throughout the Qur'an also provide further support.

Wakas

I don't think that is an equal comparison because a function of the Alif in verse 434 is to denote the imperative / command form, whereas verse 435 does not require the imperative / command form. Taking the Alif in 434 to also denote the 4th form of a verb, this can allow both the meaning of 'Separate' as well as providing the appropriate imperative expression. In verse 435, an imperative expression is not required (instead there is an interrogative Alif used as a prefix), so it is not necessary for this verse to be worded in the same way as 434.

My simple point was that the verb form 1 of DRB has been used in Quran to mean "withdraw from" using the preposition "Aan" in 435. The Quran could easily have done this for 434 but it didn't, i.e. it seems inconsistent. This by itself does not refute anything, it is simply additional information/evidence to weigh and consider.

Re 1)
You said

A period of separation may be useful in resolving a marital conflict (ie. to calm things down / allow gradual resolution), and the Qur'an's emphasis is not on who leaves the house in this context. The emphasis is on the course of action, ie. separation as a potential aid to conflict resolution.

Firstly, by "period of separation" what do you mean? i.e. what happens in your example, does someone move out or not. Or do you mean the typical separation period after talaq/divorce? Please clarify.
Secondly, you claim the emphasis is not on who leaves but your view is clear, and in that view, the command is to the husband to do the verb DRB - thus, does he or does he not "go away from them"? He clearly has to.

Re 2)
Note, underlined part
4128 says "...And if a woman feared from her husband nushuz/uprising/disloyalty or alienation /turning away..."

Clearly, nushuz or iAAradan is feared and not wanted by the wife. It is a bad thing. In your view the alleged conflict resolution step is to do what the wife feared and is a bad thing i.e. iAAradan / alienation / turning away aka separate/withdraw from them.
Perhaps I am mistaken, thus please clarify, in your view
what is DRB/separate from them, and what is iAAradan.

So we can see if they are clearly distinct and thus do one (as advised by God, i.e. a good/just thing) and not the other (feared, bad thing). If you have Quran references for this, please list them.

Re 3)
You said

This does not necessarily disprove the interpretation of 'separate' in verse 434.

I agree, however this is about weighing of evidence to determine the best fit. As it stands the meaning of "separate from them" as used in 434 has no precedent in Quran and requires the tashkeel to be incorrect. That's a tough sell.

Re 4)
It is still correct to say it has no precedence in Quran.

Re 5)
You assume "Qur'an does not need to provide such details." Marriage/divorce is one of the most detailed subjects in Quran, but this part is left out..... apparently. Again, just more evidence to weigh and consider.

I dont understand this point "Perhaps this has been deliberately left out to allow adaptation to different societies, authorities and court systems."
Surely, some sort of notification has to take place first so others can get involved. Can you give us an example of what you mean?

Re 6)
Once you clarify 2 above, then we can check it better.

Re 7)
By supporting example I meant in terms of marital example. There is an example for the position advocated in Quran434.com and that is 581-4, although 4128-129 can also be used.

As I said, it is simply a matter of putting all the evidence on the table for each option, then weighing it. See which option is strongest. Once you clarify the above questions we will be in a better position to weigh the evidence.

diamantinehoneybunch

Women are often subject to discrimination by the staunch religionists.

aqua

Firstly, by "period of separation" what do you mean? i.e. what happens in your example, does someone move out or not. Or do you mean the typical separation period after talaq/divorce? Please clarify.

I think it's important to note that when the Qur'an does not specify explicit details on an expression, it is inappropriate for us to seek explicit definitions to such expressions when they are not necessary. The word 'da-ra-ba' in verse 434 should be taken generally as a meaning of avoid / ignore / disregard or keep away from each other (any type of 'separation&#039. Whether or not this requires someone to move out depends on each individual situation and marital conflict. For example, if the wife is wealthier than the man and has a better job, she might agree by herself to move out for the purpose of temporary 'separation'. This can be an acceptable way to fulfill the steps in the verse.

I was not referring to the typical interim period after divorce because that period does not apply when the couple have not had sexual contact (3349) and a separation from the house is not supposed to occur during the interim period (651). You also highlighted these points on Quran434.com, so I'm unsure why you are making this comparison here (see excerpt below)

• if no sex has taken place after marriage, then no interim period is required after divorce/talaq . Compensation may be due however if dower was agreed upon

• during post-divorce interim period, wife remains in the same house, and is compensated by way of maintenance during this period in the same living standard as the husband, each according to their means **

Secondly, you claim the emphasis is not on who leaves but your view is clear, and in that view, the command is to the husband to do the verb DRB - thus, does he or does he not "go away from them"? He clearly has to.

Yes, he should do the verb by trying to ignore / avoid or keeping away from his wife, but this does not necessarily imply a moving out of the house. Even if the verse has mentioned avoiding sexual relations in bed, there can be other ways of avoiding or keeping away from a person inside the household. The point about men specifically being addressed in 434 to perform the verb is not so relevant because the same course of action in 434 can be taken by the wife, while complying with 4128 (see below).

Note, underlined part
4128 says "...And if a woman feared from her husband nushuz/uprising/disloyalty or alienation /turning away..."

Clearly, nushuz or iAAradan is feared and not wanted by the wife. It is a bad thing. In your view the alleged conflict resolution step is to do what the wife feared and is a bad thing i.e. iAAradan / alienation / turning away aka separate/withdraw from them.
Perhaps I am mistaken, thus please clarify, in your view
what is DRB/separate from them, and what is iAAradan.

The word with root a'-ra-da, simply meaning 'turning away', can be applied to both a positive or negative expression, and is not itself a bad word. There are many examples of this in the Qur'an, where the word has been used as a positive / good command with the meaning of 'turn away'; see verses 416, 463, 481, 542, 668, 6106, 7199, 995, 1176, 15.94, 2855, 3230, 5329, 663, 233. Therefore, da-ra-ba in 434 may be related to a'-ra-da in 4128 without being a bad thing, if it is done in the right way. 'Nushuz' on the other hand has more negative connotations because it implies wrongdoing. It is used in both 434 and 4128 suggesting that the situation is possible either way and is inevitably subjective to an extent in terms of who is in the wrong. I think this is also why the word 'feared' is used in both verses, in the sense of 'apprehension', 'anticipation', and the awareness of what is happening. In practice, this is inherently subjective for both the man and woman, they may be thinking they are right while committing 'Nushuz' themselves, but the Qur'an provides guidance in a way that can be used by either partner.

Hence, from the two subjective words used in 4128, we can expect two possible scenarios for the wife

Husband commits "Nushuz" --> Wife tries advising / avoiding in bed / turning away in order to attempt self-reconciliation as per 434 --> No self-reconciliation occurs --> Arbiters appointed from each family as per 435 --> Either reconciliation occurs as mentioned in 4128, or proceed to divorce.

Husband commits "I'radan" (either according to 434 or not) --> Wife can try steps outlined in 434 if this may help provide self-reconciliation --> No self-reconciliation occurs --> Arbiters appointed from each family as per 435 --> Either reconciliation occurs as mentioned in 4128, or proceed to divorce.

Worth noting is that Verse 4128 says the couple can reconcile "between themselves" in a situation when a'-ra-da (turning away) has occured. This is relevant because the series of steps from verse 434 outlined above allow a clear opportunity for the couple to work things out '"between themselves" before arbiters need to be considered.

I agree, however this is about weighing of evidence to determine the best fit. As it stands the meaning of "separate from them" as used in 434 has no precedent in Quran and requires the tashkeel to be incorrect. That's a tough sell.

Take a look at the following manuscript of verse 434 which was discovered in Yemen; it has been traced back to the 1st Century of Hijrah. You will see how there are no vocalisation signs / symbols or short vowels present at all. This is how the Qur'an was revealed to Prophet Muhammad and how it was left with us when he passed away. Now the addition of the vocalisation signs later do not provide support for interpreting or not interpreting the Qur'an in a certain way. In the manuscript below, verse 434 has been outlined in green, and notice the word Alif-da-ra-ba outlined in red. These are the individual letters only, so this can very possibly representing a 4th form verb.

http//s24.postimg.org/49ghrpbp1/quran_4_34_1st_century_hijrah.png

Source http//www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/soth.html

More information about the Qur'anic manuscripts discovered at Sana'a Mosque in Yemen http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sana%27a_manuscript

I dont understand this point "Perhaps this has been deliberately left out to allow adaptation to different societies, authorities and court systems."
Surely, some sort of notification has to take place first so others can get involved. Can you give us an example of what you mean?

I don't disagree that verse 435 is referring to some form of 'authoritative body', which administers or appoints arbiters from each family. At the time of revelation, it was probably referring to the Prophet or others in authority among them. In modern society, this may be a legal system or other government agency which deals with marital problems. The case may or may not need to be dealt with by a court, and since a legal system can vary from country to country and the laws of a country evolve through time, there may not be a fixed method of reporting or making 'notification' of a case. For example, reporting may be done in person, or there may be different forms to fill in, it may need to be reported by telephone or perhaps even through an online reporting facility. Why is the actual method of reporting so important?

By supporting example I meant in terms of marital example. There is an example for the position advocated in Quran434.com and that is 581-4, although 4128-129 can also be used.

If we consider that verse 4128 uses the word a'-ra-da (turning away) in relation to a possibility of reconciliation of the couple "by themselves", I think this provides a complementing example which supports the interpretation.

Wakas

Can you further clarify these two points (bold and underlined) before I reply in full

Therefore, da-ra-ba in 434 may be related to a'-ra-da in 4128 without being a bad thing, if it is done in the right way.

e.g. can you give some practical examples of Drb done in the right way, so as to avoid 3rD. Or at least one example.

Husband commits "Nushuz" --> Wife tries advising / avoiding in bed / turning away in order to attempt self-reconciliation as per 434 --> No self-reconciliation occurs --> Arbiters appointed from each family as per 435 --> Either reconciliation occurs as mentioned in 4128, or proceed to divorce.

Husband commits "I'radan" (either according to 434 or not) --> Wife can try steps outlined in 434 if this may help provide self-reconciliation --> No self-reconciliation occurs --> Arbiters appointed from each family as per 435 --> Either reconciliation occurs as mentioned in 4128, or proceed to divorce.

e.g. how can it be according to 434? Do you mean the husband advises, abandons in bed; then Drb <--- and this last step he falls afoul and "commits iAAradan"?

diamantinehoneybunch

Both "beat them" and "cite them examples" as translations of D'RB in 434 are not consistent with the next verse, 435