Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back

[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

[aqua]

huruf, do you think the word 'Rijal' in 2228 is not referring to husbands? That is important because it is an example of how Rijal can refer to husbands depending on the context. Verse 434 is just too obviously relating to husbands and wives considering the context and expression, and please try to consider that taking this meaning does not necessarily imply a sexist interpretation. I also advocate women's rights, but even if this verse is referring to a marital set-up, I don't think it confers superiority to men / husbands over women / wives unless da-ra-ba is mistranslated into a violent term. The meaning of avoiding in 'bed / place of lying down' would make much more sense in a marital context.

There is a very weak link (if any) between 'avoid in place of lying down / bed' and the expression "leave them to think about it at leisure". Even if it did somehow provide this meaning, the overall interpretation of "...question them, leave them think about it at leisure and have clarity from them'' does not seem to be a very effective, meaningful or fitting course of action especially in the context of this interpretation. I appreciate that you have put a lot of thought into it, but this must be the most cryptic interpretation of verse 434 ever in existence. Do you know of any published English translation of the Qur'an that takes this interpretation?

[savage_carrot]

I'd like some clarification of your understanding sis huruf.

In no other place in the Qur'an is a bed used as synonime for marriage or for sexual relations. Had the aya meant that, other expressions are used in the Qur'an elsewhere to say it. Whereas where maDaji3 is used there is no connotation of sexual activity, but points to the private place for somebody or something.
It doesn't need to be used anywhere else in the quran. Of course, it would be great if we had a large concordance of similar terms used but sometimes we don't and I don't see it as an issue. Secondly, if other expressions are used for sex, doesn't mean that different expressions cannot be used. Especially if it is a term that can be used in both cases of rijaal/nisaa and couples. In the former sex is not implied/understood but in the latter sex can be implied along with everything else, e.g. abandon/forsake/leave/avoid them in their resting/private/whatever places. In case it's a relationship that has no sex involved, avoid them in their private/personal space. If it is a relationship which can involve sex, no sex along with avoiding them in their private/personal space.

Unless you mean to say that that verse has nothing to do with husbands/wives whatsoever which is kinda odd because the next verse does suggest a couple and is a follow on verse as far as I can see, which is problematic for the previous verse being only a no couple kind of situation. one could say, well in that verse it applies to a couple, but another would question the applicability and/or the conclusion for the other set...it seems to be leaving that set on a cliffhanger...do they not get arbitration as well? If so, how, where? If they don't need it, is this implied anywhere? Does it just stop on the 3 stages because they are not a couple? etc Which leads me to think that IF both sets are involved then either the next verse does not apply in one set, or does in some way I can't understand yet in a no couple situation, or it was always about couples anyways and the different addresses can be explained. The third option is 434 is only about non couples and the next verse does not apply or somesuch.

I'm all for equal rights and so on and I can't see these passages as they as are some sort of indictment against that personally. I'm also against 'authorities' deciding/being apprised on personal matters which are non criminal or whatever in nature, basically extremely limited outside interference whether in the form of people or authorities when dealing with personal matters...Community is in my view a substitute for authorities or a group of people who are arbitrators appointed by the community for disputes. Now, whether that involves personal arbitrators or community wide arbitrators etc, not exactly sure how much legal standing these guys have? But that is supposedly left to the different communities to decide for themselves.

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.

• He isn't saying that, he's saying that it can depending on the context imo?

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...

-It's obviously not only the 3rd gender inclusive in 'you who have believed'...so if it is the believers being addressed, which apparently it is, why is it out of the question that some of those believers could be husbands? Or wives? If you are taking them as the 'community/authorities' why should they fear nushooz from the persons in question? Is there some sort of morality police at work here in the community/from the authorities fearing that this or that person is up to no good?

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.

-don't think he was saying that, he was saying however that the marital scenario does/can fit. In your opinion, you'd think that it just cannot be a marital scenario? That is what doesn't make sense to me because like Wakas says, you can say it can be a possible scenario amongst other sits, but excluding something completely when you don't even have the full picture yet of what this nushooz is, somewhat accurate translation of terms, and so on you've already struck something out on the basis of 'well, it just cannot be' and I'm not sure as to why you've done that. There probably can be an explanation for why rijaal/nisa are used that doesn't have to exclude spouses, esp if it's incorporating various scenarios?

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.

• No idea what Wakas feels about this, but from my side, I don't disallow different scenarios to be simultaneously legit and depending on more information, could be refined further. So who are these females (or males)? And why would someone have to leave them to their resting places? For what? If someone wanted to break a commitment for example, why on earth does the community (in other words authorities) have to get involved unless it's for legal reasons? And in regards to legal reasons, why would a community have to advise the person to 'go home to your abode and/or resting place and think about it, and oh, no one must intrude and bother them about it ...it makes little sense? I mean, that kind of 'advice' is kinda weird for the authorities to provide...and especially for something that is 'feared' on the part of the person?

What is the person planning to do? Elope? Leave home? Suicide bomb run? What is this nushooz? Whatever it is, is it even practical for people close to them (obviously those living someplace else won't need to avoid them in their resting places) to avoid this person that way? What if the lady takes a year or more to give clarity, should those close to her that fear whatever, just sit back and say whatever, it's all good...? Is there a time frame? Is this only about the individual and not the rights of those around her either?

What it amounts to in the aya, seems to me, is that the women are not to be pestered in the place they are at home.

Let us not forget that in the aya there is no question of the women having done anything wrong but of there being aprehensions in some people that they might fail in their commitments. So they are to be asked about their intentions without trespassing on their privacy, get from them clarity as to where those who fear stand regarding them. Then if they get the proper feedback they should leave them in peace. Nobody there has done anything wrong, so this whole theater of admonishing, not "sleeping" (waw) with them and leave them or separate and all that is pure fantasy.
Doesn't this come under the advisement clause anyways? Reading the verse it seems like a gradual progression from advice to drb (whatever you want to call it), unless you want to say that it's all of it together at once which it seems like you're saying above? You also seem to be saying that the drb is the conclusion to the conflict, i.e. proper feedback is gotten thus drb them? But then you say get clarity from them as well somewhere in there and it's just all over the place. What is it that you think the terms refer to and what stages correspond with what please? It seems that whatever you're saying is already included the the advise/instruction stage?

Drb is the popular guy and I tend to forget that there are 2 more in there. On which note, has anyone asked the question why/how someone would advise/instruct (the word seems to have a lot of weight behind it given it's concordance) someone if they didn't even know what the hell was going on with them? If clarity has not yet been received and we are advised to leave them be to get clarity, what and how exactly are we advising/instructing them on? It seems as if whatever is feared is legit and the advice stems from telling/instructing them to do the right thing or somesuch. Not just a casual, 'hey what's goin' on with you, spill... or don't, I'll just leave you be and not pester you to see if you want to tell me' kinda thing which isn't really advice/instruction is it. Sounds more like reverse psychology which has its own merits but probably not what's happening in this verse.

Let's imagine this scenario in real life, taking a mother/son conflict for example. Does the son need to go away from his mothers resting place and leave her on her own because he fears the mother may be nushoozing? Let's say the mother has been told to think upon matters, obviously there must be a valid reason (evidence) for the fear since unfounded fears/suspicions are against everything holy and the authorities shouldn't get involved on the say so of a paranoid son...unless they want to give a restraining order against the guy. Does the feared nushoozee then become the nushooz fearee hmm...and um, anyways, moving on...so now the son has to leave the mother alone to think about her thoughts and whenever she's thought about it, that's kinda it? The clarity that comes forth whenever it does or even if it does from the mother will fix the situation/resolve the conflict? While the son can't really talk to the mother about the nushooz, and if she does the nushooz, then what? What benefit does the son get from taking this route? It seems a one sided situation really. If I was the son, I'd be kinda upset and refuse to get my mother flowers for her birthday ever again, the birthday dinner is off the table too.

I don't agree that there is no restriction on the kind of fear the the fearers may have. That's taking the train to crazy town where all manners of people with all manners of fears are taking it to the authorities and airing dirty laundry in public even if one party doesn't want it. The nushooz seems to be of a particular serious sort with valid evidence regarding the fear. Could be the type of things like one party needing some quiet time to gather their resources before running off into the sunset...and if one party wants to do that, who are the community to stop them I hear you say? And you would be right, if the party wasn't planning on selling various mutual possessions in the house, grabbing the kids and buying business class tickets to Peru to go see Machu Picchu with their boyfriend or girlfriend. I agree the kids would be in the way, but that's how this party rolls. I don't know however, it could be something totally other than my fanciful scenario which actually happened in real life...but I do think that whatever this nushooz is, it's serious and is presented with evidence when it's taken to the next level. And scenarios other than marital, where the buck stops at 434 rather than the natural lead up of 435 is quite problematic and confusing.

To me, the way it's understood as being a marital issue where the nushooz is something that is valid enough for it to warrant being taken to the next level so the community/authority is being addressed or whatever, makes more sense. I just can't really picture a scenario where other than a marital issue, the authorities are going to tell a mother and son for example, to avoid each other, leave one to their resting place and allow them to have a think over the scenario because they aren't sure what's going on and see what happens kinda deal. I mean really, if this is what the community is going to do then what's the point...the guy would be better off paying someone for their expert opinion rather than taking free 'advice' from the community 'cause he's going to have to apparently sleep on the sofa or somewhere else and not get dinner (esp if his mum still cooks for him) indefinitely for fearing nushooz! Some would say that's what happens when free advice is taken.

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.

But surely you think that the fact that it is in the same verse has some bearing on the verse? What do you think that is?

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.

Like I said, don't understand why the community of believers fear nushooz on the part of the person...can you explain that bit?

peace