Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
-
A person does not need to be wise to know right from wrong.
Wisdom is an important quality of believers described in the Qur'an, eg. verse 2269. A meaning of wisdom is the ability to make good judgment between right / wrong
"The ability to discern or judge what is true, right, or lasting; insight."
http//www.thefreedictionary.com/wisdom
-
Wisdom is an important quality of believers described in the Qur'an, eg. verse 2269. A meaning of wisdom is the ability to make good judgment between right / wrong
"The ability to discern or judge what is true, right, or lasting; insight."
http//www.thefreedictionary.com/wisdom
Peace aqua, I accept the definition of http//www.thefreedictionary.com/wisdom but must add.
Wisdom is a the ability to "see" and think on a level not necessarily accessible to all. A child can be taught
right from wrong, does not make that child wise? Consider societal right and wrong were stoning the kufr as
an example is the right thing to do. Not to derail the thread.God bless
peace
-
Alright, so you'd agree that there would be a need to have valid evidence/justification for this fear before the community/authorities are brought in, yes?Wakas is a bad boy but let's cut him some slack since he did write a book about it albeit with an awful cover Let's see where this understanding takes us, because I find different takes on the same old illuminating. We are under no obligation, but it's the thing to do in understanding practically and theoretically what scenarios would follow from such rendering. I agree that we shouldn't limit, definitely esp not if we are trying to understand the verse from another perspective.I don't see counseling work in the verse, like I keep saying, the instructions we are giving to the lady in question is after we already have clarity regarding the situation...or it would make no sense. It doesn't seem a case of "let's find out what's going on", it's more like "okay, this is the issue and this is what you have to do, please do it".
Anyways, I take this as the train that leads to crazy town. It opens the door to a storm of unfounded accusations and a general cloud of suspicion hanging over everyone and everything. That is why I insist that the authorities/community should have no say in personal matters unless there is valid evidence of indiscretion, which when taken to them (next level) would lead to a divorce/reconciliation/resolution, if other 'punishments' do not apply.
The thing with these types of emotional scenarios is, they are extremely complicated to deal with and one probably needs a trained counselor/psychologist rather than a ragtag bunch of people from the community looking into the personal lives of their neighbours and being given the green light to meddle into what the unfounded suspicions of the woman are.
Are you suggesting these community of believers are some sort of organization that have individual areas of expertise and together they can fix women everywhere or somesuch? We can definitely have a group of professionally trained people to help others and available for free but is the verse addressed to such? What legal standing does this group have? Are they or can they be considered the authorities as well? Is the community separate from the authorities? Do they have to bring to the light of the authorities if there is evidence of wrong doing if they are not the authorities? Is this a confidential service and under what circumstances would they have to divulge information and to whom?
What if nothing is going on, and the 'other woman's' husband finds out? Why should a person be questioned and brought into the community's radar just because maybe someone has a grudge against them or finds them suspicious? Is that not a precursor to a shit storm based on one woman with whatever motivation thought that her guy for whatever motivation was being targeted by someone else? and so on. You seem to think that based on asking around and trying to get clarity, everything should get sorted? If the wife's motivation was malicious that will definitely be found out, if the other woman was to blame, that will definitely be resolved, if the husband was totally on the up and up, that too will be clear...if not today then sometime in the future because the community of believers are supposedly experts in human psychology and detective work and the souls of discretion, and it's their duty to run after alleged accusations/suspicions/fears of everyone in the community no matter what they are.
Allow me to present personal experience, I have been face to face with these fears for a large part of my life with people extremely close to me and those not so close to me from the age of 10 onwards. Different fears/suspicions all centering around infidelity. It is not pretty and extremely complicated in part because it adds on an element of emotions to the mix and it's hard to rationally explain to the people going through it because hardly anyone remains objective and stays the course on what they are supposed to do, most of the times it's a mixture of extremes, total forgiveness/doormat behaviour or total viciousness/vindictiveness with rare splashes of trying to look through the lens of logic in between. When people get involved in these situations, it's the pull of the camp, liberal dashes of subjectively trying to assign blame and compensation, legwork in following leads which involve other people who are none too happy being involved, and a whole lot of bullshit flying in every direction. Arbitration without authority is useless. Whether that authority involves someone who must be listened to inclusive of family elders or a police officer. So a group of well meaning people are going to be needlessly complicating the situation, it's best dealt with privately, with people you know and who they know well...so that everything stays in limits and doesn't get out of hand and ruins the lives of other people who may or may not be involved.
The husband is the objective here, not the other woman, there can be a multitude of women who are out to get married men out there, that is irrelevant, it's the husband who decides whether to be a bastard or not... so what difference does it make who the other woman is or what she wants? This should be sorted between the husband and wife themselves (so that her fears are vocalised to the person it actually matters and he realises that there is a problem and how to fix it, and/or based on his reaction and words/actions tells the woman if he is involved or knew or whatever) or with a counselor or someone from the family and so on. What sense does it make to avoid the key to the whole situation and go behind choosing a roundabout way to 'question' the other woman who could be totally innocent and even if she isn't, that's not even the issue when it's losing the guy/his betrayal she fears the most? These scenarios don't make sense to the verse, I mean instead of brushing it over all at once with well, it generally makes sense and can somehow fit the verse, somehow not entirely sure how but something is there, it behooves us to be precise to the verse because if one doesn't do that then we are just flailing about in the dark with what we think we want to see or think must be in the verse as opposed to what may actually be there.
So in this scenario, 2 women (wife and alleged other woman) are the suspected accused and um, accuser and the community is now fearing nushooz on the part of the other woman (and this is just before any of the other things mind you, not even where they know that they are right in fearing nushooz on the part of the other woman! It's like presumed guilty until proven innocent based on the strength of the wife's words because she's dragged the other woman into the limelight of the community in order to be judged and found lacking or innocent)...given that the wife is the one fearing nushooz on the part of the woman, and the community is supposedly objective, then why are they too fearing nushooz on the part of the other woman, before they've even found out anything?
Say this is explained by 'fearing nushooz' is when the suspected accused is accused by the woman to the community and the community takes on the mantle of the woman who's doing the suspected accusing and thus now they fear nushooz by the other woman as well, it's not accurate at all to me but let's move on...they advise/instruct the other woman like I mentioned, given the weight of the word and the way it's used in different contexts this is telling the person what is the right thing to do etc, and this can only be when they know what they need to say and after the situation is clear, or it doesn't make sense...asking someone to clarify something is not advise or instruction. Getting clarity and then advising/instructing can be part of it but it wouldn't make sense to take any step unless clarity is achieved on the core issue of just what is going on here.
Anyways let's talk about leaving them to their resting places...alright, so this is supposedly to allow them to give clarity and think about the situation while not pestering them about it...to which I say, the wife is not going to be intruding on her resting place, neither is the community, unless one of them lives with her and even if they do, they can't pester her about it while she's in her resting place, so can they pester her if she's not in her resting place? Why is resting place even mentioned? Why not home/abode? Or simply do not talk to her about it until she wants to or whatever? It's not like God lacks the words for saying that? The obvious answer to this is probably because it mentions scenarios where the two people are living in the same house, or there was no reason to use the term resting place, unless the term resting place is an idiom where it involves a house and the rooms and anywhere where the person chooses to relax...is there such an idiom? As far as I can see, the resting place is inside a house and deliberately mentioned as separate but inside a abode in the concordance...so...I would think not. Anyways, still doesn't make sense to me.
Regarding drb them... This is when they get clarity and now they should be left in peace...? Like she'd say no way, I'm not after him, go tell his wife to keep her mouth shut, she just hates me because I lost more pounds at the last weight watchers catch up than her...and the community would be honour bound to take her at her word and case closed which probably shouldn't have taken more than a minute to say so if she did want to deny it...and if she didn't want to deny it but wanted time to think about the accusation and how to answer whether she is or isn't...um, alright in which case they should back off and let her come back to them? but should the investigation committee still investigate because obviously whatever the woman is telling them or not shouldn't be construed as the truth because she could be lying (unless of course she is telling them that yes, I did go after the guy and I still will, whatchu gonna do about it eh suckas, it's his choice at the end anyways)...what should they do?
Investigate the people at the WW meeting for her 'alibi', track her movements? Watch through the kitchen window for meals taking a very long time to cook and with extra effort put in? If she admits and is remorseful (which is a rare occurrence in reality), case closed kk. But what if the clarity was that she did do it and still will? She was actively going after the guy, making suggestive poses whenever he'd cross her path, sending him home cooked meals and cupcakes whatnot...what happens then? We'd go for the next verse for what happens after since that is after the things mentioned are done and a rift is feared even after all that, as is understood commonly in this progression but here...lets just say she was told off and the wife got peace in a fashion but no guarantee that the other woman wouldn't pull out her exotic meals cookbook and whip up another from-the-heart dinner for the guy.
So much effort is usually put in for suspected actual crimes like murder or something rather than the so called 'crime' of another woman who may be wanting to somehow steal her guy from under her nose, but not sure really. It's like the trivial adventures of the secret seven, where the group figured out if cookies were stolen from the window sill. and even that was supposedly more rewarding because they got free cookies at the end. The community of believers apparently should have a wing of qualified private investigators who work for free and go around sniffing for traces of infidelity based on suspicions and gathering evidence for the soothing of women who don't have any evidence and it's not even the husband she wants investigated but someone totally unrelated to her by relationship or contract? I can't accept this.
So in that situation he calls in the friendly neighbourhood heroes to swoop in and get a DNA test after the birth or something? Get the guy who has impregnated the woman, if he has, to confess to sexual relations and face the music? How is keeping it to the neighbourhood watch not making it public in a way? Wouldn't it be better if he just talked to the daughter in law or the guy who is suspected of himself because what the neighbourhood heroes will be doing is what he should be doing while still keeping everything to himself and not risking a scandal if his fears are unfounded or even if they are.Same thing on how it relates with the verse Advice/Instruction can't do that because the woman can't know or if she does, she's asked whether she had adulterous relations with another man and if the baby she's carrying is not her husband's...um, yeah the woman would admit to this because admitting something as personal as that to a group of people (and esp if that group of people is sent by her father in law if she knows) is what someone would do in rl. If there is no fallout, then yes, maybe more people would admit to indiscretions but there is no guarantee of that unless what is meant is the community of believers will guarantee no punishments as applicable in the quran in that situation would apply to her...or any other punishments...and can they really do that? If not, then the likelihood of getting a straight answer from the woman is likely close to null, and they must investigate further and with people...and how do you suppose figuring out if a married woman and another man had an affair is going to be done without alerting the different people questioned as to what/why the questions are being asked? Is there some sort of magic involved? Most probably that of DNA testing in which case, you have the evidence, but should the child be DNA tested without permission of the parents? anyways, same thing as above, can't see it work with the verse, since it's not clear whether the community should step back in case the woman says go away i'm innocent of these aspersions cast upon me, or stay the course of still trying to investigate etc.
Okay, so you have someone who's concerned for someone they know either through being friends/relatives or medical staff, since the likelihood of such a suspicion coming from a stranger is unlikely. The person either can appoint someone themselves if from the medical side as is done when they go in for check ups etc, or the friend/family member who suspects can help her through her pregnancy/depression, or get someone else to? A call out to the 'community of believers' for someone to come around to find out what's going on (unless the person who answers the call to do so is a trained counselor/psychologist) is like asking a ragtag bunch of people to suss her out with a mixed bag of results. What if she doesn't want/need help, or says that she's fine and please go away, given the verse aren't we supposed to leave them to think and not bother them or something until they feel ready? Or are we going to put a security/nanny detail on her so that she doesn't end up doing something bad?How does this scenario jive with the verse? What's the progression again, how do you instruct? the clarity of whether we should believe her if she denies it, do we still keep a tail on her, leave her alone? and so on...I don't even see a conflict here between the accuser and the suspected accusee...and the way the verses are progressing is detailing people with conflicts, in which one side has a valid fear and they are given a list of things to work through this conflict that exists between them...not that I fear someone on my block has depression, something should be done to find out and help her if she needs it? These are things that you do yourself or with the help of a few likeminded people regardless, if you feel something should be done...why must it be linked to this verse or more so to say something like that is exactly the type of scenario the verse is addressing? What happens in the verse after the things to do are listed? If they listen, then seek not a way against/over them...does this really seem like the women in question are being given an option to listen? She should, right? Does this seem like the sort of thing that can go either way? no, it seems like the nushooz is valid and justified and there are things to do to minimise conflict and maximise resolution. If that fails or the woman doesn't listen/obey then whoever is being addressed can see what to do in the next, otherwise...it just sort of peters out to a sort of cliffhanger. Or we can take it to mean that in all such scenarios of non couple conflicts, the conflict is resolved unless it's a marital scenario which is talked about in the next verse and not in this one, nothing to do with one another? So can this fit the scenario? In my opinion, no and I've explained why I think so.
What gives someone the right to suspect that another woman can be prostituting herself unless they have evidence? Aren't we supposed to avoid suspicion? If someone thinks she needs help, they can get her help or listen/advise rather than taking it to the community where if found out she did do it, she might get punished for it and/or lose her children. There is a danger in taking things into the spotlight...even if the spotlight is a group of believers because frankly speaking, they're still human and prone to the same mistakes we all make which could involve talking inadvertently, coming to the wrong conclusions etc. One'd only do that if they have valid proof, not suspicion and people's suspicions should not be encouraged without proof. To get proof you have to pursue suspicion, this is the problem, why suspect in the first place unless one has some sort of proof beyond what our second sight is telling us?
How does this fit with the verse again? In my view it doesn't.
I think you think that some from a community of believers should be/are primarily counselors and what women need is help either to protect them from unfounded accusations or to provide help in cases where the suspicions are found to be true as lawyers etc or something? It's hard to accurately figure out because you're mixing in so many concepts imo. It can definitely be put into practise with modifications whatnot but the thing under discussion is if that is what the verse implies or says outright.
It's important for me to realise/see the picture of how it will be practically implemented and how well this flows with the verse. I don't think these scenarios do, I'm sure they occur in rl and there should be groups out there who would/should provide women in need with what they need. These situations seem like 'don't know, maybe they need help' or alleged personal betrayals or alleged betrayals on the behalf of someone else. If they are just paranoid possessive freaks, why should they be encouraged based on their say so? Is there a limit to how many times they can bring these suspicions in? Aren't people making allegations on the non-chasteness of women when found to be lies punished 244? They would need to bring 4 witnesses in, so...are the community of believers supposed to go around searching for these 4 witnesses as well to prove or disprove these suspicions of adultery?
Suffice it to say, I wouldn't want to live in a community where anyone can level accusations and I'm supposed to defend myself/answer what for to the neighbourhood watch. If I do something wrong, then by all means take me to court with the required evidence. Anything other than that, you have various trained groups that can deal with it. Reminds me of the show 'call the midwife' which was awesome, in which you have a group of midwives who ended up dealing with not only pregnancies but got involved in their lives in various ways, and they had a reason for being involved and saw the signs other people missed etc...which is different from anyone having the right to call in people to question or to figure out stuff behind their backs based on suspicions.
Everyone can go out on a limb and accuse whosoever they choose of whatsoever they choose (no limit to the type of fears) and the community of believers has its work cut out for them, investigating each and every suspicion that abounds...the fallout of this on lives can be catastrophic. In places today, a guy gets accused and is found innocent and acquitted of the crime, yet because of going through that process he is mentally disturbed, people around him look at him askance, perhaps a few think he got away with murder. And this is what can happen, it doesn't matter if you're found innocent, the fact that you were brought in is proof enough for the lot of idiots out there who'll weave their personal tales depending on whether they loved/hated him or even if they had no opinion and the crime was on their watchlist of interests.
Who's stopping the accuser from talking to people as well? Or having their opinion on whether whatever is feared is actually going on or not...it seems that most all of these scenarios deal with the utmost amount of secrecy/discretion and for a whole group of people to keep their mouths shut because even a single slip could scupper it...it's not like they have to sign a NDA is it? And even if they do, situations that rely on these things usually end up in tears especially when the subject is people and what they're up to. If there's anything we've learnt from detective novels or real life is that even asking around leads to people finding out that one didn't want finding out and then all hell breaks loose.
It's one thing for a wife to suspect her husband but for it to be mandated for anyone to tell a community of believers and then they go forth and find out if the other woman is actually putting on the red dress/light is really not something that I think the community of believers should be doing. It's like the terrorism watches in various neighbourhoods. You either figure it out yourself if you want to keep it under wraps, or ask a friend for advice and then confront the guy or get the evidence. Then you take it public if you want to, as in the authorities/community can get involved.
Does it not seem like a follow on verse to you or do you think that it's a different context entirely from what came before it even if the believers are still being addressed?I didn't say you did, I said since you don't, we should keep it open. Not asking for a perfect translation on the spot, saying that we should keep the options open and maybe there is a way to reconcile the address to the 'community of believers' to various options and see of everything fits, is all.
sexual relations amongst couples happen majorly in the bedroom/place of rest which couples and/or those living together can attest to and there was some study about it as well somewhere. I mean whoever comes up with no, no the majority of my couplings have been out of any bedrooms probably has a membership at the Cathouse Brothel and it's private play area with no resting places in sight or has been reported for lewd activities in outdoor areas . I don't understand how this is a matter of dispute or argument. Whatever is your place of rest/privacy thus in the sense of a couple would probably be where the magic happens and/or the action goes down usually. Sure, one could rest in the resting place, but as you say they could also do other things which in the sense of a couple relaxing together would include sex unless you mean to say that the quran is only talking about people sleeping alone in their place of rest/privacy and nothing else...I mean it's not even something that is up to much debate, throughout history, couples have been coupling in private places (his/hers/theirs) which are inclusive of resting places because the majority do tend to rest in a private place. Let's look at the verses3154 What we can gather is that the resting place is inside a house. No mention of whether it is a single or shared resting place.
3216 They arise from their resting places. No mention of whether it is a single or shared resting place.So on what basis is the aloneness coming from? In 3154 they can die where they stand or die in their resting places, how does it give the sense of being alone based on where they die? Death is death and everyone must die and experience that on their own no matter where we are but that is separate from where they die. If anything that verse is talking about the ignorant thinking that they are more protected inside their house rather than outside, not that outside they are not alone and inside the house they are? In the second, what is giving that impression? They arise from their beds so they must be alone because they are experiencing it through their own selves and since we are all individual therefore we are alone? You're putting together 2 unrelated things to suggest that they go hand in hand = we face death on our own therefore if we die in our resting place it means that the resting place is a solitary area for us alone as well. Also, we may experience things on our own because we are all individual, it doesn't mean that the resting places are tied in to the same individuality...it seems that the resting spot has taken on too much of a life of its own tbh. In any case given your understanding regarding it being a place of relaxing and sleeping only, can we not say the same as one can sleep and relax in a lot of places in the house? Is there a designated spot of relaxation tied to the individual, just curious?
What about 4128? Apparently the nushooz is linked between both verses? In this the husband? Or some other guy? It seems that these concepts are linked to couples across a couple verses? If we are going to throw out the marital scenarios completely, then it would make sense to examine the other verses that have the same concepts as well? No one is pounding translations, we're all trying to get a better grasp of what's out there, at least I am and if that includes intensive/extensive analysis or if you want you can call it pounding, then pound we shall. The one that has been used as dealing with marital situations should not be used because...it is not dealing with marital situations entirely? If one makes that claim then obviously both those understandings need to be pounded and weighed. This is a process that happens. The traditional translation of drb being beat or that it concerns marital relationships as well? Just so we're clear are they both traditional or just one?Personally speaking, I dislike that people have to talk about one sex being better than the other for whatever reason or even women harping on about how the fact that they can have children puts them in a better place rather than a man...or that a man feels that his tool gives him some sort of right of superiority over a woman...they are both sexist. Real world issues of how to counter male sexism or female sexism can utilise different legit methods as long as the goal is to equality. Not glorifying one sex over the other regardless of how one takes it, it's like team mentality...I belong to the woman's club, yay sisters unite or vice versa.I don't think we need to single out aya's that talk about the needs of the most needy, there are plenty of needy people out there of all sexes and the message of the quran is to help them, no doubt. the question is if the verse in question is talking about the same thing of helping the most needy women through the community or if it's talking about resolution of conflicts marital (or otherwise). Not sure what you mean when you bring up abortion? Is that connected to the nushooz? Do you agree/disagree on abortion? And/or that it is or isn't part of the nushooz feared from women? Sis, you are talking about women vocalising their needs and to get help but how does it work in the verse? I agree with you that we should make realistic and real efforts towards making the community better, whether it's for women, men or children but that's a separate topic from saying that this verse is proof that it's for helping the neediest women and for them to vocalise their needs etc...I'm a woman and I feel and think about the burden that womenkind carries and has carried through the ages, the fact that through history women have tended to be far more oppressed than their counterparts, I'm totally with you if this is what the verse is saying, but I don't see it!i apologise for writing as much as I did, but this was ongoing over the course of a couple days and it got really wordy. i'm sure most of it can be distilled, i'll probably do that.
peace
I think, Savage Carrot, that you make things awfully complicated and get into to many hypothetical questions, whereas what is to be done is see if actual facts fit with the formulation or not.
If somebody fears something, of course no proof is available. Fear, suspicion, needs no proof. It is when something is really done when you have proof. If something has already been done and known to have been done, then either it is a crime and the courts deal with it, whatever courts are appointed for that in whatever social set up, either it is not a crime and then people involved deal with it as they see fit and resort to whatever legal means they find suitable, included, of course, counselling, arbitrators or settle amiably or whatever, that is to me what idribuhunna means, deal with it, solve it, the community, through whiever organs or means it may have for that and the women concerned.
But fearing something, if it is a person close to the suspect person, of course nothing prevents a person from speaking directly to the suspect, you do not need any quranic order for that, because nowhere it is prohibited, rather it is a general injunction for any circumstance that ppeople try to deal amicably with their problems, particularly if, under the usual, though wrong, assumptionn that this aya places on the husband such authority, he can ask the wife or a father his daughters and so on.
But the point is that it is the collective believers that are addressed. For me it is obvious that these are no loose injunctions, but a part of the whole quranical sept up, which is a socially conscious society wher enobody is left out or hanging but should be looked after by the community . The Qur'an is constituting a society for the general welfare, it is obvious, and it is imparting the instructions for such a welfare society. Sura An nisaa' if full of it and social injunctions fill a great part of the Qur?an. So what is so surprising that people and services are appointed permanently or ad hoc so that people is helped along in their problems instead of finding thmselves in the wild and solving things the hard way. It is so in 4.3 when it tells the believers to arrange for the marriage of the mothers with orphan children. The believers society should have provisions to protect women, when they are suspected, from being preventively handled as culprits. If women are suspect they are first to be questioned and ascertained that they know of the suspicion and deal about not with somebody that already considers them guilty, but with somebody who is neutral and able to help. If somebody suspects them of whatever, be they family, neighbours, acquaintances or strangers for whatever reason, the women should be warned of those fears, have the oppotunity to think the situation over and finally with the community (idribuhunna), the person or persons who may be charged with that service, fix whatever is there to be fixed, but at least they will not be alone on the face of suspicion, likely abuse or harassment, which is what happens many times when women are alone in the face of mere suspicion.
You asked for instances where somebody not being wives and husbands could be in the situations within the parameters of the aya and you said that that kind of thing was only possible to happen between husband and wife. I said no and you wanted some examples, I gave the first that came to mind just to show that indeed it is possible. You go into analizing each case according to your own vision of that case as if it had been a true case. But we do not have such a case, they were just examples I thought out because you asked for them and you worked them out according to your conception of the particulars to show that the qura'nic instructions can only concern husband and wife. But you cannot prohibit a thing from existing in some form, just because the form you see it in does not fit what you have experienced or what you are ablo to imagine. We all can imagine. The fact is that many women in the world do suffered, and have suffered inmensely suffer because somebody or somebodies "fear" something, and it has almost always been so. Women being spied like potential culprits, guarded like prisoners. It may be because of seeing a man they are not supposed to see, or for going places they are not supposed to go, or for dresseing what they are not supposed to dress, for studying things they are not supposed to... Women are suspected of practically everything just for sport.
And those who rule the life of the woman do not need any proof, they have their field day with mere "fears", suspicion is enough. Well it is good that the Qur'an puts somebody between the suspicion and the deeds. Because initialers of the fear might otherwise perpetrate against the defenceless women abuses that may be not feared but are and have been very real. Summing up, what it all amounts to is that nobody should take preventive justice and that nobody takes justice by his or her own hand, let alone a husband by himself alone with his defenceless wife. He may be right in susecting or he may be not, but he is no way allowed to act out unilaterally, except of course the usual conciliatory way enjoined on all believers in any conflict.
Further, if the set up you think is that of the husband and wife it still falls within that provision and I do not understand your worries, because if nobody says anything, the thing will stay between husband and wife, but if it gets out of there, then it has gotten out and the community is already involved wanted or not. See, you are making up the problem yourself. If a husband fears he should go to the community? The Qur'an does not say that, it says if you, second person plural, the collective, fear, so the thing must have already escaped from the intimacy of the two. May be it is the women themselves who have made it known because they fear in their turn that something may be going to be hung on them. May be it is the husband himself in indeed seeks counselling. What makes you think that the Qur'an excludes counselling? The thing is that the woman is not left alone to face the husband in a situation where she herself may have very good reasons to fear. Punching of the wife for whatever reason is not something that happens in Mars and nto here on earth.
If it is the community who fears it is that it is no longer a secret of those involved and it does not say that they should be involved in any marriage but just in those cases, be coules or be anything else, where nushuz from the women is feared. The community does not have to be involved if nobody informs it. But if it is informed and nushuz is feared from the women then it must do those things.
Salaam
-
Peace aqua, I accept the definition of http//www.thefreedictionary.com/wisdom but must add.
Wisdom is a the ability to "see" and think on a level not necessarily accessible to all. A child can be taught
right from wrong, does not make that child wise? Consider societal right and wrong were stoning the kufr as
an example is the right thing to do. Not to derail the thread.God bless
peace
The Qur'an uses the word wisdom in a way that can apply to all believers (ie. potentially accessible to all). In the context of this discussion, we are not speaking of young children or the society's laws, but even if we were, wisdom is actually not as restrictive as you are suggesting. Although a common perception of 'wisdom' is related to old age only, the meaning of the word is not restricted by age or type of subject. The word is much broader than that. As believers, we should try to exercise wisdom in our judgments and decisions.
-
The Qur'an uses the word wisdom in a way that can apply to all believers (ie. potentially accessible to all). In the context of this discussion, we are not speaking of young children or the society's laws, but even if we were, wisdom is actually not as restrictive as you are suggesting. A common perception of 'wisdom' may be related to old age only, but the meaning of the word itself is not restricted by age or type of subject. The word is much broader than that. As believers, we should try to exercise wisdom in our judgments and decisions.
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/2.269p.gif
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/2.269q.gif
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/2.269r.gifHe the Exalted grants the wisdom; the capability to perceive the invisible realities in informative data through critical thinking, reason and logic; to him about whom He the Exalted so decides.
And should someone is given the wisdom then know it that he is given the best in abundance.
And the circumstantial fact is that except the Men of Understanding; who objectively reflect without overlapping emotions, prejudices and biases; people do not self grasp and take lesson.
Translation with grammatical analysis and parsing
-
because someone who lacks wisdom is not able to judge right from wrong and they can easily make the wrong decisions.
Peace aqua,
I was only addressing the statement above. Stating you do have to be wise to know right from wrong.
-
A child can be taught right from wrong, does not make that child wise?
-
Consider societal right and wrong were stoning the kufr as an example is the right thing to do.
-
Sectarian violence is right in the minds of the perpetrators.
-
Ethnic or race intermarriage is wrong according to some.
God bless
peace
-
-
I was only addressing the statement above. Stating you do have to be wise to know right from wrong.
I said to be able to judge right from wrong, not know right from wrong. There is an important difference.
A child may know right from wrong if they are taught it, but that doesn't necessarily give them the ability to judge right from wrong by themselves.
-
I think, Savage Carrot, that you make things awfully complicated and get into to many hypothetical questions, whereas what is to be done is see if actual facts fit with the formulation or not.
If somebody fears something, of course no proof is available. Fear, suspicion, needs no proof. It is when something is really done when you have proof. If something has already been done and known to have been done, then either it is a crime and the courts deal with it, whatever courts are appointed for that in whatever social set up, either it is not a crime and then people involved deal with it as they see fit and resort to whatever legal means they find suitable, included, of course, counselling, arbitrators or settle amiably or whatever, that is to me what idribuhunna means, deal with it, solve it, the community, through whiever organs or means it may have for that and the women concerned.
Things do get awfully complicated precisely because your understanding is a general brush over the verse with the community getting involved which is apparently a pre-requisite for any of the steps listed to be taken. It's in your scenarios. It's not like a single person can take those steps, the community must. If a single person has taken all those steps or whatever steps and it doesn't work, then the community can get involved if it has escaped the confines of the people who have an issue with the same steps is what you're saying now? The nushuz that was feared by someone is now feared by the community? I asked how this worked and it doesn't make sense.And I disagree with the way the community should get involved on the say so of someone or another regarding any type of fear etc. In the nushooz context, is the other verse also dealing with such community issues for the male? If there is a scenario where nushuz on the part of the woman is feared by the community, it would be dealing with something the woman is planning/doing which affects the community as a whole...? otherwise we're stuck with all manners of trivial and/or personal situations based on someone's assumptions which the community is apparently duty bound to investigate.
In this case, why limit it only to male/female, is that accurate to the verse? can a female not fear something from another female? does this verse cover that too? is that accurate to the verse? is it personal conflicts that are talked about, or community wide conflicts? which is more accurate? is it both? and is that accurate? are they even conflicts or general fears like depression, suicide, murder(!) etc and which is more accurate to the verse? are both covered? is this implied/covered in the verse and would that be an accurate interpretation? etc...there seems to be a whole lot of "brushing it over all at once with well, it generally makes sense and can somehow fit the verse, somehow not entirely sure how but something is there"...which I'm not entirely comfortable with. Whatever works I guess. I suppose I'm making things awfully complicated because of all these hypothetical questions and I see it from a biased viewpoint...but I can live with that if there is a satisfactory explanation that is accurate to the verse.
But fearing something, if it is a person close to the suspect person, of course nothing prevents a person from speaking directly to the suspect, you do not need any quranic order for that, because nowhere it is prohibited, rather it is a general injunction for any circumstance that ppeople try to deal amicably with their problems, particularly if, under the usual, though wrong, assumptionn that this aya places on the husband such authority, he can ask the wife or a father his daughters and so on.
Regarding the authority of the husband, people can take verses anyway they like, they may not let facts get in the way and like nature abhors a vacuum, emotion rushes in. It's clear that the nushooz is the type that is a valid fear and the advice/instruction is not ambiguous as to it's nature and that the person who is under advisement should listen. I'm curious but is the rest of the verse not of any use in analysing the verse as well? What if obedience/guarding is contrasted with the nushooz? What contrasts in the other verse where it also deals with nushooz? Is there a reason why rijaal/nisa are mentioned as they are? I find Wakas' article/book valuable work on these matters since it is quite comprehensive, clear and precise. Of course, it could be something totally different and when we have evidence that it cannot at any point mean any of the other things, is when we start getting closer to what it really means.But the point is that it is the collective believers that are addressed. For me it is obvious that these are no loose injunctions, but a part of the whole quranical sept up, which is a socially conscious society wher enobody is left out or hanging but should be looked after by the community . The Qur'an is constituting a society for the general welfare, it is obvious, and it is imparting the instructions for such a welfare society. Sura An nisaa' if full of it and social injunctions fill a great part of the Qur?an. So what is so surprising that people and services are appointed permanently or ad hoc so that people is helped along in their problems instead of finding thmselves in the wild and solving things the hard way. It is so in 4.3 when it tells the believers to arrange for the marriage of the mothers with orphan children. The believers society should have provisions to protect women, when they are suspected, from being preventively handled as culprits. If women are suspect they are first to be questioned and ascertained that they know of the suspicion and deal about not with somebody that already considers them guilty, but with somebody who is neutral and able to help. If somebody suspects them of whatever, be they family, neighbours, acquaintances or strangers for whatever reason, the women should be warned of those fears, have the oppotunity to think the situation over and finally with the community (idribuhunna), the person or persons who may be charged with that service, fix whatever is there to be fixed, but at least they will not be alone on the face of suspicion, likely abuse or harassment, which is what happens many times when women are alone in the face of mere suspicion.
Collective believers being addressed does not neccesarily mean that they must as a collective do any of those things, but that it can apply to them if they find themselves in that situation? Is there anything that precludes this understanding? That it in any and all cases means that whatever is supposed to be done is supposed to be done by the community of believers in a group? And that it also can be done in cases where it doesn't apply to them personally but are matters of another individual? I don't particularly see a welfare society the way you do.
You asked for instances where somebody not being wives and husbands could be in the situations within the parameters of the aya and you said that that kind of thing was only possible to happen between husband and wife. I said no and you wanted some examples, I gave the first that came to mind just to show that indeed it is possible. You go into analizing each case according to your own vision of that case as if it had been a true case. But we do not have such a case, they were just examples I thought out because you asked for them and you worked them out according to your conception of the particulars to show that the qura'nic instructions can only concern husband and wife. But you cannot prohibit a thing from existing in some form, just because the form you see it in does not fit what you have experienced or what you are ablo to imagine. We all can imagine. The fact is that many women in the world do suffered, and have suffered inmensely suffer because somebody or somebodies "fear" something, and it has almost always been so. Women being spied like potential culprits, guarded like prisoners. It may be because of seeing a man they are not supposed to see, or for going places they are not supposed to go, or for dresseing what they are not supposed to dress, for studying things they are not supposed to... Women are suspected of practically everything just for sport.
I asked for examples to see what the renderings based upon that understanding would be like and if/how they fit the verse. They seem to be trampling over privacy concerns, encouraging suspicions/fears and opening the gate to chaos. And obviously, I'll look at them realistically according to my experience and whether they flow with the verse etc, what else should I do with these theoretical or otherwise scenarios? If they don't fit, they don't, if they do then they do. You seem to be thinking that there will definitely be something out there that will fit and if I can't come up with them, someone else will or that they must exist and when they are found they will rock the socks off anyone who dares to see the verse as inclusive of marital conflicts? If you can't give scenarios that fit the verse based upon your understanding and/or if you say that my shortcomings etc aren't allowing me to see how they do or can....then what can I say. To each his own.And those who rule the life of the woman do not need any proof, they have their field day with mere "fears", suspicion is enough. Well it is good that the Qur'an puts somebody between the suspicion and the deeds. Because initialers of the fear might otherwise perpetrate against the defenceless women abuses that may be not feared but are and have been very real. Summing up, what it all amounts to is that nobody should take preventive justice and that nobody takes justice by his or her own hand, let alone a husband by himself alone with his defenceless wife. He may be right in susecting or he may be not, but he is no way allowed to act out unilaterally, except of course the usual conciliatory way enjoined on all believers in any conflict.
Like I said, I view the quran as a beacon of equality and rights for everyone, which was and still is, ahead of it's time. To me, the verse 434 is dealing with conflicts of a particular type, whether that involves only marital or more than marital...I'm open to discussion based on valid examples as long as the explanation remains accurate/precise to the verses and takes into consideration the bigger picture realistically.Further, if the set up you think is that of the husband and wife it still falls within that provision and I do not understand your worries, because if nobody says anything, the thing will stay between husband and wife, but if it gets out of there, then it has gotten out and the community is already involved wanted or not. See, you are making up the problem yourself. If a husband fears he should go to the community? The Qur'an does not say that, it says if you, second person plural, the collective, fear, so the thing must have already escaped from the intimacy of the two. May be it is the women themselves who have made it known because they fear in their turn that something may be going to be hung on them. May be it is the husband himself in indeed seeks counselling. What makes you think that the Qur'an excludes counselling? The thing is that the woman is not left alone to face the husband in a situation where she herself may have very good reasons to fear. Punching of the wife for whatever reason is not something that happens in Mars and nto here on earth.
I never said the quran excludes counselling, I opined it doesn't work in this verse within those scenarios the way you're saying it should. I've explained why, if you think I'm seeing things 'my way', so be it.If it is the community who fears it is that it is no longer a secret of those involved and it does not say that they should be involved in any marriage but just in those cases, be coules or be anything else, where nushuz from the women is feared. The community does not have to be involved if nobody informs it. But if it is informed and nushuz is feared from the women then it must do those things.
I look forward to an explanation with an accurate/precise fit to the verses and the bigger picture whenever it comes together.peace
-
Things do get awfully complicated precisely because your understanding is a general brush over the verse with the community getting involved which is apparently a pre-requisite for any of the steps listed to be taken. It's in your scenarios. It's not like a single person can take those steps, the community must. If a single person has taken all those steps or whatever steps and it doesn't work, then the community can get involved if it has escaped the confines of the people who have an issue with the same steps is what you're saying now? The nushuz that was feared by someone is now feared by the community? I asked how this worked and it doesn't make sense.
And I disagree with the way the community should get involved on the say so of someone or another regarding any type of fear etc. In the nushooz context, is the other verse also dealing with such community issues for the male? If there is a scenario where nushuz on the part of the woman is feared by the community, it would be dealing with something the woman is planning/doing which affects the community as a whole...? otherwise we're stuck with all manners of trivial and/or personal situations based on someone's assumptions which the community is apparently duty bound to investigate.
In this case, why limit it only to male/female, is that accurate to the verse? can a female not fear something from another female? does this verse cover that too? is that accurate to the verse? is it personal conflicts that are talked about, or community wide conflicts? which is more accurate? is it both? and is that accurate? are they even conflicts or general fears like depression, suicide, murder(!) etc and which is more accurate to the verse? are both covered? is this implied/covered in the verse and would that be an accurate interpretation? etc...there seems to be a whole lot of "brushing it over all at once with well, it generally makes sense and can somehow fit the verse, somehow not entirely sure how but something is there"...which I'm not entirely comfortable with. Whatever works I guess. I suppose I'm making things awfully complicated because of all these hypothetical questions and I see it from a biased viewpoint...but I can live with that if there is a satisfactory explanation that is accurate to the verse. Regarding the authority of the husband, people can take verses anyway they like, they may not let facts get in the way and like nature abhors a vacuum, emotion rushes in. It's clear that the nushooz is the type that is a valid fear and the advice/instruction is not ambiguous as to it's nature and that the person who is under advisement should listen. I'm curious but is the rest of the verse not of any use in analysing the verse as well? What if obedience/guarding is contrasted with the nushooz? What contrasts in the other verse where it also deals with nushooz? Is there a reason why rijaal/nisa are mentioned as they are? I find Wakas' article/book valuable work on these matters since it is quite comprehensive, clear and precise. Of course, it could be something totally different and when we have evidence that it cannot at any point mean any of the other things, is when we start getting closer to what it really means.Collective believers being addressed does not neccesarily mean that they must as a collective do any of those things, but that it can apply to them if they find themselves in that situation? Is there anything that precludes this understanding? That it in any and all cases means that whatever is supposed to be done is supposed to be done by the community of believers in a group? And that it also can be done in cases where it doesn't apply to them personally but are matters of another individual? I don't particularly see a welfare society the way you do.I asked for examples to see what the renderings based upon that understanding would be like and if/how they fit the verse. They seem to be trampling over privacy concerns, encouraging suspicions/fears and opening the gate to chaos. And obviously, I'll look at them realistically according to my experience and whether they flow with the verse etc, what else should I do with these theoretical or otherwise scenarios? If they don't fit, they don't, if they do then they do. You seem to be thinking that there will definitely be something out there that will fit and if I can't come up with them, someone else will or that they must exist and when they are found they will rock the socks off anyone who dares to see the verse as inclusive of marital conflicts? If you can't give scenarios that fit the verse based upon your understanding and/or if you say that my shortcomings etc aren't allowing me to see how they do or can....then what can I say. To each his own. Like I said, I view the quran as a beacon of equality and rights for everyone, which was and still is, ahead of it's time. To me, the verse 434 is dealing with conflicts of a particular type, whether that involves only marital or more than marital...I'm open to discussion based on valid examples as long as the explanation remains accurate/precise to the verses and takes into consideration the bigger picture realistically.I never said the quran excludes counselling, I opined it doesn't work in this verse within those scenarios the way you're saying it should. I've explained why, if you think I'm seeing things 'my way', so be it.I look forward to an explanation with an accurate/precise fit to the verses and the bigger picture whenever it comes together.
peace
Salaam, SC
I honestly am unable to see what the big problem of confrontation between an intervention privately and an intervention (which is not the same as a publication) by some community charged person or persons to look after a matter that may involve conflict or blame. Finally, if there is no fear, nobody has to do anything, but if there is, it is absolutely inhuman to leave women at the mercy of private prosecution. And I am surprised that it shocks you so much when it is well known, as far as I have known all my life and it is oll over, that the cases of abuses against women have very much, overhwelmingly, rested on the presumption that things must not get outside. All must stay between the four walls of the house and within the family. That has made it possible for societies to keep mum when women have been beaten, killed even, and mishandled. I think that nobody wants anything done beyond what is needed intruding in private lives on that count, but the danger has been rather on the other side, that because nothing must transcend outside, the weaker members of society have paid the secret. For me it is so obvious that what is tried to prevent is that the women may find themselves defenceless on the face of private mistreatment and abuse grounded on pretended potential doings, that it really leaves me dumbfounded that you, as I perceive it, confuse it with mindless intervention into private affairs when there is nothing no reason for it. It is as if you pictured a whole horsemen regiment riding into the private homes.
Finally respected persons known for their good influence and their ability to undertake that kind of errands handling family problems or feuds and providing mediation have been in many places, muslim ones, a feature of society. It is not something new. I use the word community because it is done by the community, somebody of the community as a social conribution, as a human and religious duty. It does not mean that two million people of a town come marching on anybody.
Before anybody undertakes to correct a woman, without her wanting it or having asked for it, it seems to me absolutely civilised and human that she is not left to face whatever in the secrecy of the home under the guise of protecting privacy. That is the ideal means for abusers and beaters to have free rein. No intruding, please, my wife has a right to enjoy the privacy of the spanking and punching, because, you know, she is a bad wife. Who is going to say anything for what goes on between the four walls of a home?
I see the community, be it under the shape of a traditional sheikh or sheikha or under any guise, as a very positive element to give peace and support to individuals, families and groups of people. Of course everything is corruptible, because people are corruptible and everything is made up of people, and the first that should be tried is to make people conscious of virtue and goodness for themselves and for others. But that said, I really cannot understand your fears.
Finally things work that way now in many places. Anybody can report any suspected crime or abuse. The thing is you circumscribe it to the husband suspecting the woman's infedility or things like that. Well if he only suspects, again, and keeps it to himself or his wife, what prevents him from talking it out with her? Nothing that I can see, but if he spreads that he suspects, well what? is he preparing a divorce with that, is he ?simply? slandering her because now he hates her or is he preparing an alibi for doing something to the wife or the suspected suitor? Why should he spread it? Finally suspicion or fears as it is translated or expressed, in order to make it administrative, needs be stated specifically, it is not catching some words in the air. And of course it can be a woman who fears or suspects something from another woman, or a group of women, or mixed. In fact one of the examples that I wrote was that. It is those who restrict this to husband-wife realm who have put up those limits. Myself I am keeping to the men-women field stated in the aya.
As to 4.128, there are quite obvious and clear differences between 4.128 and 4.34. In 4.128, the text keeps the third person when it speaks about a wife and her husband and says explicitly if a woman fears nushuz or i3raD from her husband. No doubt there. The same clarity could have been used in 4.34 if what was meant was that if a man fears nushuz from his wife. But no such is said nor hinted at. And not only that, no third person, as has been consistently been used speaking of the men and the women and speaking of wife and husband, but second person mixed plural of the addressee. Is it then too daring to think that in fact it is speaking about what it says? As to why it is that in the case that the wife fears those two things it counsels them to solve the question, and and why on the other hand in 4.34 speaks to the community to take action, we may seek explanations.
But whether we find explanations or whether we find them not, the fact is that it does say a completely diferent thing in 4.128 and in 4.34. Besides, in 4.128, it speaks about greed too, as if it was the reason for there arising of complains. I do not have an explanation for that, but even if I do not have such explanation, that is what it says, greed has a role in the misgivings.
Now as to the obvious differences between 4.34 and 4.128, even if I did not see any explanation for them, my lack of explanations, does not change a thing it says what it says and, as we know, God is not at a loss for words. In 4.128 BOTH, wife and husband, are told to try to come to a solution. That is the husband?s chance to do something about his marriage. And that also is the wive's chance to do it too. In 4.34, on the other hand, and in view of the contents of 2.128, in fact what it is being done is DENY to husbands any authority to solve any strife unilaterally, if that were to be a case under this 4.34. He can't do it. Not unilaterally and without her agreement. The warnings, the leaving alone and the arrive at an arrangement that covers the ground, are not his prerrogative. It is only too logical. If to give a wife in marriage The Qur'an asks that the woman has someone who looks after her interest, there should also be somebody or somme authority who does so if the husband does not trust her any more or so says.
Salaam
-
Now as to the obvious differences between 4.34 and 4.128, even if I did not see any explanation for them, my lack of explanations, does not change a thing it says what it says and, as we know, God is not at a loss for words. In 4.128 BOTH, wife and husband, are told to try to come to a solution. That is the husband?s chance to do something about his marriage. And that also is the wive's chance to do it too. In 4.34, on the other hand, and in view of the contents of 2.128, in fact what it is being done is DENY to husbands any authority to solve any strife unilaterally, if that were to be a case under this 4.34. He can't do it. Not unilaterally and without her agreement. The warnings, the leaving alone and the arrive at an arrangement that covers the ground, are not his prerrogative. It is only too logical. If to give a wife in marriage The Qur'an asks that the woman has someone who looks after her interest, there should also be somebody or somme authority who does so if the husband does not trust her any more or so says.
I have explained why there are issues at length and in a more concise way. You keep going back and forth/mixing concepts on one hand it's fine if the husband takes independent steps to address issues in the relationship - he can't because that would supposedly infringe on the rights of the oppressed woman...your scenarios talk about stuff that bring up immediate red flags and other concerns since suspicions shouldn't be taken to the public/spread - if the situation has progressed to the public stage the verse kicks in and/or if dealt with privately it would be inhuman for the woman...it's nothing to do with marital conflicts - they could apply...it's male vs female given the verse - it can be female vs female - it can be anyone whatsoever...the community of believers are addressed as a religious duty - certain individuals from the members of the community of believers, not just anyone from the community of believers...it's inhuman to leave women at the mercy of private prosecution - public prosecution is better - it's not public prosecution, it's counseling maybe in public, maybe in private...privately a woman could be beaten and bullied so it should be public - keep it under wraps to not break up marriages/cause scandals etc but the community should get involved (the verse does not even mention beating and bullying so whoever is doing that is doing the wrong thing, no reason to analyse the verse by bringing in what almost no one on this thread agrees with i.e. the verse suggests physical violence or mental intimidation)...the fears can be anything suspected for whatever reason - the fears should be valid with evidence...a woman may be corrected without her wanting it or asking for it or even knowing if someone suspects something and she should be protected against any possible fallout as well - go behind the back to figure things out and then she can be corrected if needed even if she doesn't want it or asked for it...and it goes on. It's everything but certain things it most definitely is not unless it is then it can be but maybe it isn't, that's what it reads like.When I try to address these concepts that are all over the place, I'm said to be making things awfully complicated, I can't see past my vision of how I see things and all that jazz. And I'm one of those who is actually interested in an alternate understanding! Tbh, this is nowhere near the 'pounding' it will get on other forums or with other people as it is if they can breakthrough the cipher surrounding this understanding to get to what it actually is p Maybe you don't see how these posts read? Maybe there is miscommunication or something else? Sure, why not, let's just leave it there. It's best however not to continue without having some sort of agreement over consistency regarding what exactly the definitive stand here is on anything and/or is there even one? As I said, I'm open to discussion based on valid examples as long as the explanation tries to remain accurate/precise to the verses and takes into consideration the bigger picture realistically. If you or anyone else sharing your view point can give a clear and consistent understanding of how you guys see the verse, practical/theoretical examples of how this can work in rl, a somewhat precise and accurate explanation of how it works with the verse and others whenever it comes together...it would be appreciated.
peace
-
So what do you think it means. Forget examples, forget hypothesis. Simply what does the aya say according to you? Because obviously, whether we can come up with examples or brilliant ideas or whatever, if we reject something it is because we do read something else. How do you think reads the aya, because finally I have no idea of what you are upholding.
As to what they may think or say in other forums, why should I be concerned with that? I am not begging agreement from anybody. I do not feel disappointed or angry or anything if nobody agrees with me. I can live with that. But disagreement is no reason for me to say something I am convinced it is false, no matter how popular.
Salaam
-
You said that you still adhere to Hadith and traditional teachings, so I'm not surprised to see this level of stubbornness. Anyone who can consider 'beat them' as a possible interpretation is either religiously brainwashed, mentally deficient, inspired by the Satan, or just lacking wisdom. It can be a combination of these factors. The interpretation is totally absurd and defies every type of logic (if you actually believe in logic). Attributing such crazy things to God will undoubtedly earn His anger.
You can call me Sunni, Shia, sectarian, Quranist etc whatever you want, but to me it means nothing
Yes I still use hadith, but don't take me as the same level with sectarian.
I didn't support beating nisaa', since it contradict with many verses.In this thread I agree with huruf if rijaal and nisaa' in 434 shouldn't be translated as husband-wives, but it's real meaning (men-women).
I assume 435 didn't talked bout marital problem and my opinion-
Subjects who involved in 434 is plural since the word nisaa' is plural ( in arabic plural = more than two).
-
But in 435 the subjects is dual by looking phrase baynihiima ( ا.
-
The word ahli (alif-ha'-lam) in 435 is not limited by means family, this word can also means citizen, people, inhabitant.
Peace
-
-
So what do you think it means. Forget examples, forget hypothesis. Simply what does the aya say according to you? Because obviously, whether we can come up with examples or brilliant ideas or whatever, if we reject something it is because we do read something else. How do you think reads the aya, because finally I have no idea of what you are upholding.
As to what they may think or say in other forums, why should I be concerned with that? I am not begging agreement from anybody. I do not feel disappointed or angry or anything if nobody agrees with me. I can live with that. But disagreement is no reason for me to say something I am convinced it is false, no matter how popular.
Salaam
Like I said in my previous posts in different places sis, I see couples fitting in the aya and others connected, I can't exclude them yet...because the evidence to reject it is not solid/coherent enough. I am very interested in knowing if there is another way of reading it with enough solidity to reject other interpretations. I have no horse in this race, I just want to know how much juice any interpretation has, is all. If an understanding is solid, accurate and truthful, it stands on its own and needs no one to hold it up in a manner of speaking, especially not on this forum where the vast majority of understandings are alternative. If people have issues with an alternative understanding in an alternative forum, then it's probably the fault of the understanding not having enough to it rather than an issue of perception/bias etc.
peace
-
Peace Wakas,
Separate, not divorce within the household or going to a relatives or friends house for time to think,
cool off or give space is definitive and understandable how to be done by most. Like "leave"is understood by most
people. But "beat" is much more vague with no parameters, also their are problems carrying out such a directive
like beat because severe injury may occur to one or both of the parties. How is the beating to be carried out?God bless
peace
-
peace hawk99,
Separate, not divorce within the household or going to a relatives or friends house for time to think,
cool off or give space is definitive and understandable how to be done by most. Like "leave"is understood by most
people.I agree that it can't mean "divorce", however I disagree that it is "definitive and understandable" as I mention here. Feel free to show several people the verse with "leave them" or "separate from them" in the verse and see if they all give the same answer in terms of what it means. This might give one a good indication if it is "definitive and understandable". Let us know what you find.
But "beat" is much more vague with no parameters, also their are problems carrying out such a directive
like beat because severe injury may occur to one or both of the parties. How is the beating to be carried out?I agree, but I'm not sure why you're asking me. This specific issue is discussed at length on Quran434.com
-
As I have often said, this is all about weighing up the options. If you or anyone else can produce a evidenced/logical alternative option, feel free. Thus far, I haven't seen anyone attempt to produce a detailed/credible work. Readers can then weigh up all options and decide for themselves.
I am working on a website similar to Quran434.com, on which I intend to summarise the views I have expressed in this thread. Verse 434 was the first verse I had difficulty understanding in my teenage years, and ultimately it was an article online which enlightened me on the more likely meaning. I think it's important for people to have access to such interpretations and to be aware of the level of misinterpretation the Qur'an has suffered. I don't have a date of completion, but I will post a link when it is complete (God-willing).
-
peace hawk99,
I agree that it can't mean "divorce", however I disagree that it is "definitive and understandable" as I mention here. Feel free to show several people the verse with "leave them" or "separate from them" in the verse and see if they all give the same answer in terms of what it means. This might give one a good indication if it is "definitive and understandable". Let us know what you find.
Peace Wakas,
Stating "going to a relatives or friends house for time to think, cool off or give space even in the same house is
definitive and understandable by most". meaning that act of creating space is understood by most, not an attempt
to translate the verse, just the simple act of creating room between the two parties which is what most folks do.I agree, but I'm not sure why you're asking me. This specific issue is discussed at length on Quran434.com
Just for once I would like someone who thinks that the beat/separate discussion is complicated to consider the
actual beating part of the debate i.e., when to beat, how to beat, with what to beat, should children be present,
how long to beat, what bruises are acceptable etc., then many will see how barbaric the beat translation is and
conclude that it is not much of a debate at all!God bless
peace
-
Update
I recently noticed that "madaji3" is in the "maf3il" form, meaning it can theoretically mean "times of sleep" as well as "places of sleep" i.e. "beds/bedrooms".I have updated the website accordingly
"...and abandon them in the bed..." (Arabic hjuroo, root ha-Jiim-Ra), means forsake, leave off, desert, abandon .
It is important to note this verb applies to the husband, NOT the wife, thus translations such as "banish them to beds apart "(M. Pickthal), "send them to beds apart" (Dawood), are incorrect. This is further proven by the use of "fee" meaning "in". Lastly, "al madajiAA" (root Dad-Jiim-Ayn) is plural, and literally means "the times/places of rest/sleep/reclining", thus could mean 'the times of sleep' or 'the bed' or even 'the bedroom'. With regard to "al madajiAA" there is no half measures, it clearly means fully abandon/desert them in this. It seems to also imply no sexual relations. Also, this step reinforces the implication that it is unlikely to be a simultaneous series of steps, as "abandon them in the bed or times of sleep" would only be done at sleeping time, implying a time gap. This step should not be viewed as totally against the wife, as it would also result in the husband re-evaluating their relationship, and make him weigh up his fear against his desire to be with her, thus helping compromise/reconciliation.
As a side note, if a spouse is possibly having an affair, then not sharing beds (i.e. no sex) could also potentially reduce spread of sexually transmitted diseases, giving another benefit of this advice/step.And
Other examples of word form "maf3il" in AQ include "majalis", "mantiq", "mawazin", "mawatin", "mawadi3", "madaji3". There may be others. If the reader knows of any, please let me know. Their usage seems to indicate this form can indicate time/place/concept. Please read all occurrences.
The only forms that I came across of "maf3al" in AQ were "marqad", "mankab", "mash3ar", "mashrab" and "majma'a" and all seem to denote place. There may be others. If the reader knows of any, please let me know. Please read all occurrences.
To conclude, the word form "ma3fil" (same as "masjid" can indicate a noun of time/place (and perhaps concept). This is well established and accepted. Thus, to state "masjid" may mean a noun of time should not be seen as unusual.
