Qur'an Verse 4:34 - 'Beat the Wife'? quranverse434
-
Peace
Prove that you can retaliate PHYSICALLY for disobedience. that is the only intention behind this debate and that is the only answer I am seeking from you.
434, husband instructed to beat his wife for continued disobedience.
That's the proof right there. Our argument is about the translation of that verse. Prove the translation I have given is wrong and you win the debate. Don't forget, I have already proven the validity of my translation backed up by the Arabic dictionary.
It's your job to prove my translation is incorrect using arguments derived from the knowledge of Arabic language (dictionaries and linguistic works).
So far you have failed to do that.
On top of all this. I have already crushed you in the debate with 242 and 244, and you were not able to answer. Those verses speak of physical retaliation for disobedient people (those guilty of Zina and slander).
I think you should give it a rest now. I have beaten you in this little debate quite decisively.
-
You are not winning this debate whatsoever in my opinion. All you are achieving is picturing yourself as someone who likes to beat up women and thinks it's an efficient way to make someone reconcile. Again I ask you if you think Quran allows you to beat someone and force her to reconcile, then why don't you put a gun to her head? Wouldn't that be a more efficient way to force someone to reconcile?
-
Israfeel,
You have the somewhat right translation in a post I made the other day in this thread. There is no talk about disobedience from women nor even talk about men's caretaking of women which the Arabic would use nikkah for and which is misunderstood to refer to marriage distinctively, and there is no talk about men disciplining women through various means.
And your dictionaries I give little merit to.
To discuss the bad points with a spouse and then raise an ultimatum is more efficient than physical violence. Violence is often the worst way of solving a problem instead of through diplomacy. Find out why the spouse is doing as he/she is doing and perhaps they may not have realized what they are doing. And if they cannot understand after trying then one may consider divorce. But I would say that if one has not been trying hard then they have not been trying at all.
Be of one in 'is that that it is'
-
Your interpreation is also in violation with
2257 There is no compulsion in the system; the proper way has been clarified from the wrong way. Whoever rejects evil, and believes in God, indeed he has taken grasp of the strongest hold that will never break. God is Hearer, Knower.
Forcing someone into reconciliation by beating/hitting is compulsion. You are making Quran contradict.
-
peace
You cannot attack physically anyone unless it is in defense. and if you are not defending and you attack anyone then that will be called as an OPPRESSION which is prohibited by Allah.
This is the context of the verse. The husband has no right to physically assault her wife for mere disobeying her. If the husband does not like the disobedient wife then he can divorce her but he has no right to physically assault her for just disobeying him. Because of this nonsense translation thousands of Asian country's wife are suffering this humiliation.
The striking of the wives is a RETALIATION for DISOBEDIENCE and nowhere in the Quran is mentioned to retaliate physically for disobedience..
You are going by what the scholars have told you and you failed to follow your common sense which says that striking is only in SELF DEFENSE or OPPRESSION. The verse has to be understood from all angles and not from the angle which the scholars say.
But if they disobey you, then say Surely I am clear of what you do 26212
Did the prophet strike / beat them those who did not obey?
-
Besides the word used for beat does mean something like "put forth" with at least two possible linguistic uses; either as put forth towards an object or to proclaim someone by putting them forth much like an elevation.
Be of one in 'is that that it is'
-
I never said it implies casting out for good. It only means they part ways temporarily.
All of this is hypothetical argumentation, because you have yet to provide solid evidence backed by an Arabic dictionary that "casting out" and now "casting out temporarily" is the sound translation of 434
By the way, if you are acquainted with the English language, you should realize that the verb phrase cast out has an implicit permanency associated with it unless otherwise indicated. It means to force out, to expel, and to eject. If you put (temporarily) in brackets you must justify this extrapolation. You must justify it, once again, with an evidence and reference from an Arabic dictionary or certified Arabic linguist. Please don't just expect me to take your word for it.
Where did you find "for good" in my translation? Exactly, nowhere. You can even deduce that from the next verse that offers reconciliation.
Like I said, the verb phrase cast out has an implicit permanency associated with it. You are extrapolating and putting temporarily in brackets because of 435, which shows there is already something inherently wrong with your translation of DARABA to mean cast out. But if you can do it, why can't I? If cast out can be temporary, why can't beating be temporary as well? In fact, the word "hit" or "strike" is decidedly a temporary action, as it is a verb in the singular. Note that 434 does not say "keep on beating her", but "beat her".
So in the context of 434 and 435, beat is the more logical translation of DARABA because it is a singular action which is by its very nature temporary, while cast out has an implicit permanency to it unless otherwise indicated. It is enough for a person to say "You are cast out from my home", to mean that someone is expelled from the home permanently. It is not necessary to say "I shall keep on casting you out" to indicate the permanency.
-
Your argument is even linguistically incorrect. If I cast out a line while angling it is never to be seen again? You'd wish.
-
So it's demonstrated "to cast out" does not implicitly have permanency as an attribute. A line cast out while angling always come backs unless it breaks.
In your interpretation however, there is no such solution to the end of it. If she stays inobedient, you will keep hitting her until she reconciles by force.
So no I'm not applying brackets. You on the other hand have to, because else it could result in someone's death by violence.
-
Your argument is even linguistically incorrect. If I cast out a line while angling it is never to be seen again? You'd wish.
Once again you fail. Cast out has an implicit permanency unless otherwise so indicated.
If I say "I cast you out", permanency is implied unless otherwise indicated, such as if I say "I cast you out for a year".
If someone "cast out his wife", permanency is implied. Where is the indication in 434 that casting out is not permanent. There is no indication.
Does it say "cast out your wife for a while"? Does it say "cast out your wife until she repents"? There is neither a a temporal clause nor a conditional clause to indicate that casting out the wife is temporary or could be reversed in the future.
The example you gave "cast out a line while angling" has an indication that it is temporary "while angling". But if you simply said "I cast out a line", there is no indication that it is temporary.
Once again, in 434 there is absolutely no indication that casting out is temporary if indeed casting out is the sound translation of DARABA (which it is not....all of this is hypothetical argumentation because I have already defeated you in debate over the meaning of DARABA with a dictionary reference).
As you can see, everytime I answer your flawed argument, you move on to another argument, which is proof that you are losing the debate. You have yet to provide a solid evidence from a dictionary or Arabic linguist that the utilization of the word DARABA in 434, taking into consideration the grammatical structure, context, verb, object, and subject means to "Cast out" and not "to hit/strike".
-
No you're wrong.
Casting out never implies permanency UNLESS stated explicitly. It's not bound to the "while"
Let me prove this.
I cast out a line.
No "while".
Is the line gone forever? No it's not. The line is still coming back.
Try again.
-
Even expelled does not imply permanency. Even if someone gets expelled it does not say anything about the possibility of that being reversed or undone.
You ignored my question to you.
How will you translate "to strike/beat" without adding brackets to it? If you don't add brackets it could result in beating someone to death.
-
So now we are getting to the truth of the matter. Consequences of the "to beat/strike translation"
- Quranic disharmony requires brackets or it could result in killing someone
- Contradicting Quran (eg 2256 - "no compulsion in the system"
- No guarantee in resolving the disobedience
Consequences of "to cast out"
- Quranic harmony no brackets required
- Nowhere contradicting Quran, the reconciliation happens out of free will or results in continued seperation.
- Guaranteed resolvement of the disobedience either by seperation or reconciliation.
-
In your interpretation however, there is no such solution to the end of it. If she stays inobedient, you will keep hitting her until she reconciles by force.
So no I'm not applying brackets. You on the other hand have to, because else it could result in someone's death by violence.
Not at all! I have already pointed out that DARABA as used in 434 is a single action and not a continuous one. It is simply a step in the process that begins with admonishing, then moves on to separating beds, then to a physical strike, and the fourth step is described in 435
So the meaning of strike/hit for DARABA logically and grammatically synchronizes the two verses. However, the meaning of "cast out" which has an implicit permanency associated with it creates confusion and an unresolvable contradiction between 434 and 435.
Let's analyze in summary how the verses become synchronized if the meaning of strike is used for 434
-
Wife acts rebelliously toward husband
-
Husband admonishes wife. Either wife repents and changes, or she persists in her disobedience, in which case we move to next step
-
Husband enforces separate sleeping arrangements. Either wipe repents and changes as a result of that, or she persists in her disobedience, in which case we move to next step
-
Husband strikes wife (a single action not continuous). In response, either wife repents and changes as a result of that, or she persists in her disobedience.
Now if the wife persists in her disobedience even after having been hit (only once) by her husband, we are provided further guidance as to how to resolve this obvious conflict between husband and wife in the next verse
It starts by saying, "And if ye fear a breach between them twain (the man and wife)"
this indicates that the husband having hit his wife did not work, now there is a fear of a breach (SHIQAAQ) between both of them, meaning it seems like their marriage is going to end.
Let's pause here for a moment.
You said that DARABA means to cast out. So the husband cast out his wife. This means a breach (SHIQAAQ) has already occurred! But 435 is talking about what to do in case you fear a breach, not what to do if a breach has already happened!
The verse goes on to say that two arbiters should be appointed to represent both parties, and if both parties sincerely desire reconciliation, Allaah promises that it will be so.
And if one or both parties does not desire reconciliation, then obviously the arbitration will fail and the result will be divorce. That is the resolution to this process that you asked about earlier.
The alternative suggestion that DARABA means "cast out" makes an arbitration from 435 superfluous. When the wife has been thrown out, what is there left to arbitrate. The whole point of arbitration is to prevent the wife from having to leave her husband.
-
-
You are again distorting facts and showing little understanding of linguistics. 435 allows you to continue hitting her if she does not reconcile. It's not a single action as you claim it to be.
I showed you "to cast out" has NO implicit permanency whatsoever. You seem blind to this linguistic fact.
The rest of your post is just building further on that ignorance.
I cast a line.
Is the line gone forever unless it explicitly states it gets broken? No. Stop denying this linguistic FACT. You keep distorting facts or ignoring them.
SHIQAAQ is not contradicting as "to cast out" HAS NO IMPLICIT permanency whatsoever. You keep ignoring that "to cast out" is temporary unless EXPLICITLY stated differently. The explicit statement of that permanency is SHIQAAQ.
Also tell me what SHIQAAQ means in your translation. Is it breaching her skull or jawbone? I wonder.
-
You are again distorting facts and showing little understanding of linguistics. 435 allows you to continue hitting her if she does not reconcile. It's not a single action as you claim it to be.
I showed you "to cast out" has NO implicit permanency whatsoever. You seem blind to this linguistic fact.
The rest of your post is just building further on that ignorance.
I cast a line.
Is the line gone forever unless it explicitly states it gets broken? No. Stop denying this linguistic FACT. You keep distorting facts or ignoring them.
SHIQAAQ is not contradicting as "to cast out" HAS NO IMPLICIT permanency whatsoever. You keep ignoring that "to cast out" is temporary unless EXPLICITLY stated differently. The explicit statement of that permanency is SHIQAAQ.
Answer these questions and I'll get back to you
-
You say 434 says cast out the wife. Where is she to be cast out from? From the bedroom (that was already mentioned as the second step)? From the house? Where is she to be cast out from?
-
If the wife is cast out from her husband's house, where is she suppose to go? What if she has no family or relatives? What if she has no money and cannot arrange any accomodation?
-
How long is the wife cast out for if it is temporary? Is her temporary expulsion bound by time (let's say a week or a month), or is it bound by a condition (she must apologize and repent)?
-
If the wife's being cast out is based on time, what happens if she returns after the time runs out (a week or month) but she is still misbehaving? Does she have to be cast out once again, or the process of 434 repeated from start?
-
If the wife's being cast out is subject to a condition (that she apologize or repent) what if she never does so? Will she remain perpetually cast out?
I look forward to your answers. I will take a little rest for now.
P.S. The debate about the meaning of DARABA from the Arabic language is definitely over, and you guys could not present any evidence to refute the reference I provided for you from the Arabic-English Dictionary of Quranic Usage. So as far as I am concerned, the main debate is pretty much over and done with and you guys have been unequivocally defeated.
-
-
Peace
How many times should I write that PHYSICAL ASSAULT is lawful only in DEFENSE otherwise it is an OPPRESSION
and if this does not enter your brain then it is not my fault.
I asked you to prove that PHYSICAL ASSAULT FOR DISOBEDIENCE is lawful in the Quran? I have given umpteenth verses where PHYSICAL ASSAULT is valid only in SELF DEFENSE and not to OPPRESS OTHERS
And if they disobey thee, say thou verily I am quit of that which ye work. (Ash-Shu'araa 216)
Did the prophet strike for disobedience? REPLY?
OPPRESSION / INJUSTICE / LEWDNSSS is STRICTLY PROHIBITED
Verily Allah commands justice and well-doing and giving to kindred; and He prohibitS lewdness and wickedness and oppression; He exhorts you that haply ye may be admonished 1690
Is beating/striking not an oppression?
I am sorry I cannot inject this simple logic into your brains
This is my last post as I do not want to brickwall
-
- From the house.
- Then she will have to choose between reconciliation or face the consequences.
- Until she reconciles or SHIQAAQ
- There is no set time for it. It can take however long it takes. If she returns it implies obedience and reconciliation. If the reconciliation was not sincere. The process repeats.
- Results in SHIQAAQ
You call this debate over but all I can conclude is that you are
- Not explaining how beating someone into reconciliation can be harmonic with 2256 (no compulsion in the system)
- Refusing to answer how the translation of "to beat/strike" prevents that wife from being beaten to death if she keeps refusing reconciliation or is insincere while reconciliating.
- Running away from the debate because you realize your arguments are self-defeating and calling the debate prematurely over.
- Claiming no one brought evidence while you were just too blind to read them.
-
Beat is not right whatsoever in a translation of the word. You can both probably settle on a translation "in between" what you both argue, i.e. not hit a target but still reach out.
Be of one in 'is that that it is'
-
Beat is not right whatsoever in a translation of the word. You can both probably settle on a translation "in between" what you both argue, i.e. not hit a target but still reach out.
Be of one in 'is that that it is'
How do you suggest this "reaching out" should be filled in? Remember the verse is describing a living situation in which one is sharing wealth/strength with the other while still facing "disobedience". How do you suggest this reaching out should be executed if not by creating some distance between them? Keep in mind the verse has a chronology that expresses increasing distance, first the bed, next the living space, ultimately in worst case scenario "shiqaaq".