Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back

[huruf]

There continues to be in most conjectures on this aya the assumption that it is husbands that are addressed when it says

3iDHuhunna wa ahjuruhunna filmaDaji3 waDribuhunna (let them know of your fears, do not trespass on their realm and try to get glarity from them)

But clearly, manifestedly, it is not so.

In the whole aya there are three parties spoken of the rijaal, third person masculine plural, the nisaa', third person feminine plural, and the addressee, which continues to be the

ayuha alladhina amanu (you -second person mixed plural- who have believe). They are the ones addressed to in aya 28 and it continues like that all the time whithout change of addressee, and if you look at the previous ayas it sticks to the rule of the third person concerning women and men and, after 4.34, it is still the second person mixed plural -you who have believed-. There is no change of addressee at all. So at no time in 4.34 the speech is addressed to any husbands. They or any other men or men at large who may be concerned are spoken of in third person masculine plural.

There is no way that that can be bysided and make as if it was not there, because it is only the reader's inability to conceive that no husbands are addressed which sets any impossibility of not addressing them there. The text is clear, explicit and evident. And that is why separating beds beside making wet paper of the grammar of the Qur'an, makes it completley illogical to give it that meaning, also besides forcing into the word maDaji3 a connotation which at best is whimsical.

If we look objectively at the Qur'an and grammar and any logic language can have, there are no husbands addressed. They are a phantom of our own preconceptions, very much ingrained in the "man-male is the centre of the universe and everything revolves around him" which all of us have internalised and apply always unconsciously and automatically.

Also this is not may invention nor still less my discovery. This I have read from other people, some of whom have very solid formal education in places like Al-Azhar. So it is not a fantasy of feminists or anything like that, as we in the forum get called by those who dislike to see their malish convictions shaked.

Obviously, all persons do believe and think whatever they will, but I must point out the obvious grammar and language of the Qur'an errors when I see them, because it is not pushing elementary language failings under the carpet that we are going to make headway.

The addressee continues to be ayuha alladhina amanu, second person mixed plural all the following ayas after 4.34 up to aya 40 where the adresse is singular masculine, I gather, in fact the Prophet, with the second person singular to continue being addressed in aya 41. And then, in aya 42. goes back to addressing the community repeating the address ya ayuha alladhina amanu, Oh you who have believed. Verify all that.

So there is no ambiguity at all in the text as to whom is being addressed. We always know who is addressed because when the addressee changes, is is made explicit, and when it is changed back is is also made explicit. There is no circumventing that It is not husbands who are told to do anything in aya 4.34 nor who fear anything from the women. Not they, but "ayuha alladhina amanu", those who have believed.

Salaam

[Wakas]

peace huruf,

If we look objectively at the Qur'an and grammar and any logic language can have, there are no husbands addressed.

You have made this claim multiple times.

We discussed the issue of what are the Quranic terms for husband and wife etc on this thread, to which you nor anyone had an answer that worked. See from this post onwards
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604721.msg316780#msg316780

Thus, until you have an answer, the more correct view, according to your own knowledge/reasoning would be

"If we look objectively at the Qur'an and grammar and any logic language can have, there are no husbands addressed.... but since I do not know the term for "husband" as per Quran it is theoretically possible it may refer to "husband".

[huruf]

peace huruf,

You have made this claim multiple times.

We discussed the issue of what are the Quranic terms for husband and wife etc on this thread, to which you nor anyone had an answer that worked. See from this post onwards
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604721.msg316780#msg316780

Thus, until you have an answer, the more correct view, according to your own knowledge/reasoning would be

"If we look objectively at the Qur'an and grammar and any logic language can have, there are no husbands addressed.... but since I do not know the term for "husband" as per Quran it is theoretically possible it may refer to "husband".

Well about the terms for husbands and wives, that is another story or thread or whatever, as to the terms men and women there is no confusion whatsoever, rijaal is men, nisaa' is women. Nisaa' in as very definite conntext might mean wives, but rijaal never is husbands. If in 4.34 you insist that the talk is not at all abut men and women, what you are doing in fact is forbidding the qur'an from speaking ever about men and women and imposing on it that it always talk about husbands and wives, something unheard of in any language. No mastter what might have been said in any other thread, the fact is that the meaning of rijaal when opposed to nisaa' is men, which is the case in 4.34 as is also the case in the previous ayas, like 4.32, that is, just two ayas before 4.34.

And in no wise covet those things in which Allah Hath bestowed His gifts More freely on some of you than on others To men is allotted what they earn, and to women what they earn But ask Allah of His bounty. For Allah hath full knowledge of all things. (32)

In this case it is talking abour irjaal and nisaa'. It would be indeed funny that two ayas later, without warning, they have become husbands and wives.

On the other hand you are avoiding the question which in fact I have insisted upon and it is that husbands are not addressees in aya 4.34. That the addresses are ayuha alladhina amanu, You who have believed.

As to the words husbands, any one using the search tools for the qur'an can find the ayas where the word appears. So no mistery there. Adn I will not get into that here, because there is the question of the member in a couple, the bu3ul and another whole question alltogether which completely different from this one in 4.34 where neither rijaal nor women are spoken of as members in a couple, although anybody can be a member of a couple of course but also may not be. That is, in couple or without coupla they are still men and women, and that is what is dealt with.

Salaam

[unknownuser]

1. 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."

Nah!! brother uq raised important point for what we must take notice.
It's about preposition .DRB can be mean separate, go away with that preposition

Example (appear in 2273 and 3156)

I don't see in any dictionaries both Lane and baheeth.com if DRB without any prepositions can be mean separate, go away.
But mostly mean strike, beat and attemp.

Example
-From lisan ul Arab -

-From Al Shaaha fi Al Lughat

Source baheeth.com

If I'm not wrong during 2003 invasion of Iraq, I seen many Iraqi crowds in TV said something like "Darob!! Darob!!".

I'm neutral in here and God know best.

Peace

[aqua]

I don't see in any dictionaries both Lane and baheeth.com if DRB without any prepositions can be mean separate, go away.

Please see this post http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599954.msg346614#msg346614

[unknownuser]

Please see this post http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599954.msg346614#msg346614

Thanks.
But in the following explanation you posted, it said

For instance daraba acquires the meaning of "to separate" in combination with baina, and the meaning of "to turn away from," "to leave," "to avoid," and "to shun" in combination with 'an. In the passage in question, daraba is not combined with either of these prepositions.

DRB in 434 is not in the question sentence, but it's position is on the command verb

[aqua]

Thanks.
But in the following explanation you posted, it said

For instance daraba acquires the meaning of "to separate" in combination with baina, and the meaning of "to turn away from," "to leave," "to avoid," and "to shun" in combination with 'an. In the passage in question, daraba is not combined with either of these prepositions.

Those are examples of usage of the prepositions. The very next sentence I posted is this

Yet Lane points out that the command form of the verb, udribu, with or without 'an, can mean "ignore," "pay no attention to," or "turn away from," as well as "hit," "beat," or "strike." Hence, udribu-hunna, could mean, "beat them" or "strike them," or alternatively, "turn them away," "ignore them," or "shun them."

[unknownuser]

Sorry to said this, but who is the author of this quote??

"Nevertheless, narrowing its meaning in a given instance is not as difficult as it may first seem, because in Arabic verbs acquire various connotations only in combination with specific prepositions. For instance daraba acquires the meaning of "to separate" in combination with baina, and the meaning of "to turn away from," "to leave," "to avoid," and "to shun" in combination with 'an. In the passage in question, daraba is not combined with either of these prepositions. Yet Lane points out that the command form of the verb, udribu, with or without 'an, can mean "ignore," "pay no attention to," or "turn away from," as well as "hit," "beat," or "strike." Hence, udribu-hunna, could mean, "beat them" or "strike them," or alternatively, "turn them away," "ignore them," or "shun them."

[aqua]

Sorry to said this, but who is the author of this quote??

Source LANG. J, Losing My Religion A Call for Help, Amana Publications, First Edition, Page 429 (Author Reference Edward Lane, Arabic-English Lexicon, Fredrick Unger Publishing (1956), page 1779, first column, two-thirds down the page).

[unknownuser]

I believe you quoted from Joseph Islam bro, the owner of Quranmessage.com.
That's why I ask you who the really author is, because I don't believe if the author of that quote are them

But my suggestion is please re-check again Lane Lexicon or dictionaries from baheeth.com
If necessary please ask the native speaker, for what usage of DRB mostly.

[aqua]

I believe you quoted from Joseph Islam bro, the owner of Quranmessage.com.
That's why I ask you who the really author is, because I don't believe if the author of that quote are them

No, Joseph Islam presents that quote in his article here http//quransmessage.com/articles/does%20the%20quran%20sanction%20wife%20beating%20FM3.htm

He references the quote in the footnotes of that article (footnote 6).

If necessary please ask the native speaker, for what usage of DRB mostly.

No I won't interpret the Qur'an using modern layman Arabic; that's not the language of the Qur'an.

[unknownuser]

No I won't interpret the Qur'an using modern layman Arabic; that's not the language of the Qur'an.

Yes you're true, and I still suggest to check baheeth.com.In the search tab, type and enter.

Blue = command form of daraba (can be mean separate, beat)
Red = feminine version of hum/them.

This sentence simply mean separate/beat them not separate them away, go away etc.

As english speaker, you may understand if command "separate them" means you separate the objects/them, not you separate from them/objects.
I mean if you translate idribuhunna in 434 as "separate them", means you separate the nisaa' not you separate from the nisaa'.

So if we translate idribu-hunna in 434 as "separate them" it will became broken phrase.

Hope yu understand what I mean.

[aqua]

Yes you're true, and I still suggest to check baheeth.com.In the search tab, type and enter.

Blue = command form of daraba (can be mean separate, beat)
Red = feminine version of hum/them.

This sentence simply mean separate/beat them not separate them away, go away etc.

As english speaker, you may understand if command "separate them" means you separate the objects/them, not you separate from them/objects.
I mean if you translate idribuhunna in 434 as "separate them", means you separate the nisaa' not you separate from the nisaa'.

So if we translate idribu-hunna in 434 as "separate them" it will became broken phrase.

Hope yu understand what I mean.

It depends which English words you use. For example, in the following English translations, the words 'away' / 'from' are not required

Avoid them

Ignore them

Disregard them

Leave them

Shun them

But remember an Arabic word can be broad enough to be translated in more than one way in English.

[huruf]

Nah!! brother uq raised important point for what we must take notice.
It's about preposition .DRB can be mean separate, go away with that preposition

Example (appear in 2273 and 3156)

I don't see in any dictionaries both Lane and baheeth.com if DRB without any prepositions can be mean separate, go away.
But mostly mean strike, beat and attemp.

Example
-From lisan ul Arab -

As you can see in both those sentences there is a mention of that is used to d-r-b or a mention of what is madrub.

That is you need two complements for daraba to be used with that meaning.

On the other hand, what was before, the hen or the egg?

The inclusion of the meaning of daraba in 4.34 in the qur'an lacks or logic and fails to make any sense and as the study on d-r-b as used in the Qur'an made by wakas the meaning of d-r-b has hitting is to be excluded. The fact that it is used todaby with that meaning may be precisely the result of it being pushed down the throats of users for ages so that the marital authority could be asserted. You should prove that it has that meaning at the time of the Qur'an without the presence of two complements. On the other hand the meaning by itself and only with a single complement as to impress, make a dent, or cause an effect, or surprise is part of the basic meaning of daraba. I already mentioned the verb adarvar, in spanish, derived from the arabic d-r-b which has no physical connotation at all, but in fact means that, impress, surprise. If at that time, con the word adarvar came into spanish in the middle ages, the meaning in arabic had been "hit" that should have been the meaning in Spanish, but on the other hand, the meaning is precisely that which is the basic meaning of the root, which by the way is not hit. Hit may be the most common usage today, but it is not semantically the basic meaning. Why not translate by "play music to them"?

I really cannot understand this need -contrary to quranic injunction which tells us to put the best construction on the ayas of the Qur'an- to do exactly the opposite, that is, to put the worst contruction in the ayas of the Qur'an. What are we playing at? Whom are we kidding? And in the present case, as abundantly proved, it is not only the worst construction morally, it is also the worst construction logically and gramatically and semantically. It is ridiculous. The "commendation" of a lot of "traditional" self-seeking
"explanations" of the Qur'an is about the only ground that that preposterous idea is still handed around and, it seems, respected. There must be a great amount of masochism for that.

Salaam

[unknownuser]

First don't mistaken me if I advocate beating wives, I even no dare for doing that
I'm just play Arabic

But remember an Arabic word can be broad enough to be translated in more than one way in English.

Aqua, yes it's sound plausible in english, but take notice if not all muslims are english speaker include me.
It still sound strange in my language.

Huruf, you may now understand what I mean "speculative intepretation".Yes the example is this thread.
Use hadith and Quran commentators's view if necessary as long as it didn't contradict the Quran or against the limit (vulgar etc).

[aqua]

Aqua, yes it's sound plausible in english, but take notice if not all muslims are english speaker include me.
It still sound strange in my language.

Of-course we can't expect a language to translate word-for-word and remain grammatically correct to every other language in the world. That's common sense.

[unknownuser]

Of-course we can't expect a language to translate word-for-word and grammatically correct to every other language in the world. That's common sense.

Yes, common-sense and logic is needed, but each person have their own version of common sense and logic and possibility contradic each other.

Please take a look how many salat, hajj theories in here? how many a thread turned into debate.

Quran contains puzzling language and protocol to understand it is needed.
It's protocol can be hadith, previous Scriptures or some ancient/classic tafseer guide.
It's not wrong to used them, as long as it didn't contradict/slandering the Quran.

People have their own perceptions, mindmaps and ideology.Since Quranist didn't have any proper tafseer protocol (use speculations/assumption).They keep intepreted the Quran based on their own ideology/mindmap and the result is each intepretations contradict each other.
Example is the Quranist who support polygamy will create polygamy intepretation from the Quran, while the anti-polygamy one will do the same thing.
It's like we used the Quran to justify our own desire.

Currently I'm a muslim, practice Ahadith, Tanakh, etc but still keep use Quran as it's parameter/pillar.I'm not Sunni, SHia, etc.

Sorry for being off-topic

[aqua]

Yes, common-sense and logic is needed, but each person have their own version of common sense and logic and possibility contradic each other.

Common sense by definition is something 'commonly known', ie. most people agree to it because it is known facts. What I said is a known fact, not an opinion; you cannot translate one language word-for-word to every other language in the world and expect it all to make sense. Because it won't.

[Wakas]

Well about the terms for husbands and wives, that is another story or thread or whatever, as to the terms men and women there is no confusion whatsoever, rijaal is men, nisaa' is women. Nisaa' in as very definite conntext might mean wives...

You have answered your own question, as you said in a certain context "nisa" can mean "wives". Same for "rijal". Context is key

1. ...supporters/maintainers......... and with what they spent of their money
   (men support/maintain and spend of their money on them, strongly implying a close tie to the man, likely within household)

2. ...guardians/protectors to the unseen with what God guarded/protected
   (only one example of betrayal in the unseen 1252, context is within marriage)
   (what has God ordered women to guard/protect? e.g. private parts)

3. ....fear their uprising/disloyalty....
   (only ever used in context of marriage, 412

4. and (then) abandon them in the bed
   (self-explanatory)

5. If they obeyed you, then seek not against them a way
   (where else except in marriage could obedience to advise be possible or discussed between a man and woman in Quran?)

6. And if you (plural) feared disunion/breach/rift between them two, then appoint a judge from his family and a judge from hers. If they both want to reconcile, then God will bring agreement between them.
   (perfect for marriage context, see Quran)

Context fits. Simple.

...but rijaal never is husbands.

What about 2228?

[huruf]

It is your invention that rijaal in any context means husband. It does not. Never. And in the context where women is opposed to men nisaa' always means women not wives. So, if you want to say that every time rijaal means husband and nisaa' means wives every time, you say that yourself, I am not saying it. I deny it totally and there is the Qur'an to prove the facts.

And you are every single time evading the question that no husbands are addressed in the aya. Because rijaal are third person plural and they
and the women are the ones spoken of, but they, neither the men nor the women, are the addressees. The addressees are

ayuhha alladhina amanu, (You who have believed) second person plural, those addressed and those to whom it is said "if you fear...

And there is no playing with words and no playing with presumptions that can make that to be otherwise. Those husbands and wives you see everywhere are non existent in the aya. Men maintain women is a blanket statement, it is not certain men maintain certain women, no, there is no restriction. You may think that that should be what is meant, but that is your conjecture because that is not what it says. All men maintain all women. And it has always been read that way because there is not much room to lay around with something as clear as that. That it is done at a family scale, at a nation's scale or at a planetary scale are particular cases of men maintaining women.

On the other hand you do trick You say and hammer that the speech is only about husbands and wives and to husbands, but even so, you yourself kannot uphold that, because your are forced to say

(men support/maintain and spend of their money on them, strongly implying a close tie to the man, likely within household)

So, now, according even to you they are not husbands but "just a close tie is implied, likely within the household)"

Apart from the invention you make of the close tie, even if we take it as that

do you mean that fathers are told to abandon tehir daughters in bed? or sons their mother? brothers their sisters, or their aunts? Abandon in bed how? Were they in bed with them before? Not even you can upphold the husbands only (and not men) idea that you are pushing.

Also this part where you say

(what has God ordered women to guard/protect? e.g. private parts)

Really? Do you mean with that that God has not ordered men to guard/protect their private parts? Is it then something that only women should do?
So women protect private parts and in exchange for that men maintain them? If it was for that then it could work equally the other way around, right, that men guard/protect private parts and women maintain them?

All persons guard, protect private partes, but as it happens only women bear the encumbrance and burden of mammalian reproduction which requires a way too important contribution from the women as opposed to the men from whom no effort is required and which for them does not represent any encumbrance at all. The guarding is of the future men and women who will be born and of their filiation. And all men and women benefit from the reproduction of the species not just husbands. So since everybody benefits, but only half the population contributes it stands to reason that the other half should make an equal contribution by some other means.

So yes, it is men and women, not husbands and wives. And it is the comunity of believers which should guarantee that justice and just compensation is ensured. And it is to the community of believers (ya ayuha alladhina amanu) to whom the whole speech is addressed, in the previous ayas where also is spoken of men and women in that aya and in the following ayas.

All the other things you mention have already, I have already, explained them repeatedly, in fact, to my taste, too many times. But the fact that you hav e not acknowledged a single time those explanations hopefully will not have prevented or prevent other readers to have noticed them and draw their own conclusions.

Other than that the translation you use seems to uphold the principle that the husband is a chief and the wife some servant of his. I thought you had discarded that kind of set up.

Salaam