Qur'an Verse 4:34 - 'Beat the Wife'? quranverse434

Man_of_Faith

This is how you may understand it if the whole passage is misinterpreted.

But the word you are talking about at this instant means like I said at least two different things depending on context, i.e. put forth as in reach out with something but it has no innate meaning of hitting something or it can mean to put forth a person who excel at something. It does not have multiple meanings, but the mental image is to reach out with something, or put forth as may sound least dull in English. If you put forth a human then you have sort of made them proclaimed/distinguished, but in the context of the passage in question it means to see those who really are one in God.

Be of one in 'is that that it is'

runninglikezebras

This is how you may understand it if the whole passage is misinterpreted.

But the word you are talking about at this instant means like I said at least two different things depending on context, i.e. put forth as in reach out with something but it has no innate meaning of hitting something or it can mean to put forth a person who excel at something. It does not have multiple meanings, but the mental image is to reach out with something, or put forth as may sound least dull in English. If you put forth a human then you have sort of made them proclaimed/distinguished, but in the context of the passage in question it means to see those who really are one in God.

Be of one in 'is that that it is'

So you are suggesting the chronology is, advise, forsake in bed than to see a "distinguished person". I have linguistic issues with that understanding. There is no accusative noun for D-R-B that tells us what/who we should "see". Which would make it an exception in Quran with no equivalent anywhere. You filled in that gap with "those who really are one in God" but there is no trace of it in the Arabic text. I like the concept but I find no proof for it in Quran. In all verses where D-R-B is used as "to set forth" it is specified with an accusative noun.

runninglikezebras

Can you explain how you deduced "those who are really one in God"?

runninglikezebras

Found this in a digitalized dictionary

http//i.imgur.com/0a8jVaE.png

Man_of_Faith

Harmony,

So you are suggesting the chronology is, advise, forsake in bed than to see a "distinguished person".

I think first you have to remove the non-existent beds from the context or the traditional inference whatsoever.

You filled in that gap with "those who really are one in God"

That is just the meaning of those who are "iman", traditionally believing in God, i.e. with faith. You are right that this particular passage does not contain this text.

In all verses where D-R-B is used as "to set forth" it is specified with an accusative noun.

You have all the linguistic prerequisites to put them forth in this phrase, only of course that Arabic often has another rendering, i.e. different order of letters and words. "Be 'put forth' them". It means to allow them to excel without holding them back. You have a predicate and you have an object. You even have the grammatical letter to show that DH-R-B is bound with HUN (them).

In 2273, for example is also used which means loosely 'put forth of example that', much like a proclamation. It is something that is worth paying attention to, and the same with the person who is put forth in 434 too for a reason. It continues and the pronoun in the end is depending on the context and anonymous on its own (make be listen of on (that) it)

Can you explain how deduced "those who are really one in God"?

That text is not in this passage, yet it is the purpose of the whole faith, most passages in the book called Qur'an aims on this goal with its narrations.

Which would make it an exception in Quran with no equivalent anywhere.

The object which is put forth is "highlighted", and you can speak of it if you add a pronoun or as in the case of 2273 with a descriptive coming after. marks a personal pronoun for the same "object" that was proclaimed.

In 434 'hun' is the pronoun which replaces the name of the object used earlier in the passage to tell what is DHA - R - B in the context. It is arguable that based on the combination of letters of the word in question does mean "profoundly show" or something similar based on innate meaning of letters.

Found this in a digitalized dictionary

The dictionary definition is false, because if you use the definition then you have the traditional stupid translations of the occurrences of the word throughout the book called Qur'a, like strike the dead man with part of the heifer or Moses struck the rock with his staff rather than putting it forth.

Also I argue that all Arabic words have the same fundamental meaning, even if they likely in the context can be interpreted slightly different depending on how it occurs. It is different from many other languages. And their meaning stems down from the innate meaning of letters.

Be of one in God

runninglikezebras

Thanks for sharing your view on this Man of Faith. I must admit some of the points you raised make sense to me. Others leave me utterly confused. I will have to do some more homework I guess before I can discuss this further with you.

Peace

Israfeel

Then she will have to choose between reconciliation or face the consequences.

Even if the consequences are that she will be homeless? You deride me for the idea of beating, but I think it's far worse to kick out your wife if she has no place to go to then to simply smack some sense into her! And what you're describing is not a choice. A woman is forced to reconcile with her husband otherwise she has to leave. That sounds like compulsion to me, weren't you the one quoting "There is no compulsion in religion"??

Until she reconciles or SHIQAAQ

That's not answering my question. How long is the wife suppose to be "cast out". How long does she have, in other words, what's the deadline for reconciling?
And if there is no deadline, what if she never reconciles? Effectively she will be cast out permanently? In that case what is the difference between SHIQAAQ and being cast out? Essentially there is no difference, because the wife is cast out and cannot come back until she reconciles and she doesn't want to reconcile?

Who initiates the decision for SHIQAAQ, husband or wife? If husband, can he initiate the decision for SHIQAAQ whenever he wants, or is there a time period after casting out the wife which he must wait before initiating SHIQAAQ?

Another question, what if the husband is living in his wife's house (the wife owns the house), will he cast out his wife from her own property?

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.

This means the wife can simply say "I reconcile" and return as soon as being cast out? Everytime she is cast out for disobedience she will just say "I reconcile" and process repeats all over. LOL. Isn't that kind of ridiculous and stupid? This way the wife can avoid being cast out at all by simply saying "I reconcile, I reconcile" everytime the husband says "leave", and then the process repeats over, this way the clever wife never has to leave, and never has to reconcile seriously either!

Results in SHIQAAQ

Again, who initiates or decides that the time for SHIQAAQ has come, husband or wife? What if the husband decides for SHIQAAQ as soon as he "cast out" the wife, without even giving her some time to think it over and decide to reconcile?

The next verse 435, says if you fear SHIQAAQ, that means SHIQAAQ didn't actually happen but you're afraid it might happen, that both parties should appoint arbiters to represent them in an arbitration. But you're describing that SHIQAAQ can occur when the wife is already cast out, contradicting the next verse. If SHIQAAQ is feared, should the husband cast out his wife or seek arbitration? You cannot have your cake and eat it too!

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.

2256 is about matters of religion, not personal/domestic dispute between husband and wife. According to your interpretation, police cannot compel anyone according to law because "No compulsion", parents cannot compel their children to do anything like go to bed or go to school, because "No compulsion". This is what happens when you interpret the Quraan out of context. Look how ridiculous the result is. It's a slippery slope. A court of law (judges) cannot compel anyone, police cannot, the government cannot compel, parents cannot compel??
By by their very nature, we knows that the government, courts, judges, police, and parents compel those under their authority. So are all of them in violation of 2256?
I've answered that point many times. The verse 434 only talks about a single strike if you knew the Arabic grammar. There is no mention of continuous beating. If the wife refuses to reconcile after the single beating, that's where 435 comes in as I already clarified for you. It's quite simple and logical. However, your interpretation of "casting out the wife" doesn't make sense at all in the light of 435 which says "if you fear a breach (SHIQAAQ) then seek arbitration". SHIQAAQ means splitting or breach. So when you cast out your wife from your home, that means SHIQAAQ has already happened!

3 and 4 - No one brought any evidence, on the contrary, you and man of faith don't even recognize the type of evidence that is necessary to refer back to in this kind of linguistic debate (i.e. the dictionary).

If we are having a debate about science and someone says "Debate me about science, but don't show me any experimental data because I don't believe in it, or don't show me any scientific evidence because I don't recognize scientists" then what kind of debate is that?

So we are having a debate about the meaning of a word, a debate related to the Arabic language, but you are saying "We don't accept the published dictionaries on the subject"...what kind of debate do you expect to have. By saying that you subconciously admit you cannot debate in the first place, and therefore you accept defeat implicitly.

Israfeel

Here's a reference from an electronic dictionary posted by runninglikezebras

http//i59.tinypic.com/2s0icrq.jpg

As you can see, even his reference clearly says that the primary meaning of DARABUN is "the act of striking" and "a blow".

Show me any dictionary where DARABA does NOT mean to hit, strike, or beat. That's right, there is none.

runninglikezebras

Even if the consequences are that she will be homeless? You deride me for the idea of beating, but I think it's far worse to kick out your wife if she has no place to go to then to simply smack some sense into her! And what you're describing is not a choice. A woman is forced to reconcile with her husband otherwise she has to leave. That sounds like compulsion to me, weren't you the one quoting "There is no compulsion in religion"??

You're ignoring that this choice she makes ("to be disobedient&quot resulting in having to leave the house is entirely her choice. No one is forcing her to be disobedient nor to reconcile. She makes that choice out of free will. It's her choice to ignore the earlier advise given. It's her choice to ignore the dissent of the husband resulting in no longer sharing the bed. No one beating her or putting a gun to her head to make that choice. It's ultimately free will, as both options to stay or leave are entirely up to her own choice. Compare it to any other choice an adult makes and you'll see how it is exactly the same. As adults every choice we make has consequences and conditions, that does not contradict the free will we have. You could understand this as her wanting to leave but doing so because of sharing her male partners wealth.

That's not answering my question. How long is the wife suppose to be "cast out". How long does she have, in other words, what's the deadline for reconciling?
And if there is no deadline, what if she never reconciles? Effectively she will be cast out permanently? In that case what is the difference between SHIQAAQ and being cast out? Essentially there is no difference, because the wife is cast out and cannot come back until she reconciles and she doesn't want to reconcile?

You can't say I'm not answering your question just because you don't like the answer I'm giving you. There is no set time for it in 434 or 435. If she never returns or it takes too much time in the opinion of that husband, than we can speak of a fear of shiqaaq and arbitrators will be counseled to resolve the situation. It's arguable the time is minimal 4 months as stated in but that does not exlude it from taking longer if required.

Who initiates the decision for SHIQAAQ, husband or wife? If husband, can he initiate the decision for SHIQAAQ whenever he wants, or is there a time period after casting out the wife which he must wait before initiating SHIQAAQ?

Husband. Whenever he fears she will not be returning or reconciliation seems impossible with respect of the minimum 4 months cooling off period as stated in

Another question, what if the husband is living in his wife's house (the wife owns the house), will he cast out his wife from her own property?

That's contradicting 434 which clearly describes the situation as the female partner living with the male (sharing his wealth).

This means the wife can simply say "I reconcile" and return as soon as being cast out? Everytime she is cast out for disobedience she will just say "I reconcile" and process repeats all over. LOL. Isn't that kind of ridiculous and stupid? This way the wife can avoid being cast out at all by simply saying "I reconcile, I reconcile" everytime the husband says "leave", and then the process repeats over, this way the clever wife never has to leave, and never has to reconcile seriously either!

Again, who initiates or decides that the time for SHIQAAQ has come, husband or wife? What if the husband decides for SHIQAAQ as soon as he "cast out" the wife, without even giving her some time to think it over and decide to reconcile?

If the scenario you describe would occur it's again a valid fear for shiqaaq and will require arbitrators to break the pattern and resolve the issue. If the husband would call in arbitrators immediately after "the casting out" and not given her time to reconcile, then certainly the arbitrators representing the wife's family will point that out and prevent such a thing from happening. Giving it more time. also tells us a period of 4 months should be respected minimum before it can lead to a permanent seperation. You seem to be confused thinking shiqaaq means permanent seperation. It's not. Also try to use your own mind, it's there for a reason you know? Would you just let someone return when she has proven not to be honest in that reconciliation effort? I know most men would not accept that and refuse to let her return if she proves not be honest about it. If that leads to disagreement (shiqaaq) arbitrators can be consulted.

The next verse 435, says if you fear SHIQAAQ, that means SHIQAAQ didn't actually happen but you're afraid it might happen, that both parties should appoint arbiters to represent them in an arbitration. But you're describing that SHIQAAQ can occur when the wife is already cast out, contradicting the next verse. If SHIQAAQ is feared, should the husband cast out his wife or seek arbitration? You cannot have your cake and eat it too!

Shiqaaq results in arbitration. The arbitration is called in for when the situation seems unresolveable. I have no clue where you see a contradiction. Quran is quite clear, the casting out happens after the seperation of beds fails to resolve the issue. Leading to a seperate living environment. The temporary seperation/cooling off can lead to shiqaaq. If stil not resolved after 4 months it can lead to permanent seperation but never before that 4 months is over.

2256 is about matters of religion, not personal/domestic dispute between husband and wife. According to your interpretation, police cannot compel anyone according to law because "No compulsion", parents cannot compel their children to do anything like go to bed or go to school, because "No compulsion". This is what happens when you interpret the Quraan out of context. Look how ridiculous the result is. It's a slippery slope. A court of law (judges) cannot compel anyone, police cannot, the government cannot compel, parents cannot compel??
By by their very nature, we knows that the government, courts, judges, police, and parents compel those under their authority. So are all of them in violation of 2256?

2256 speaks about Gods system. If you are a believer, your domestic life is not excluded from Gods system. Parents have authority over their children and children should respect their parents. That does not imply compulsion. It's mutual respect. Neither a court of law, government or police claim to obey Gods system. You still haven't answered however how beating someone to force reconciliation is not violating 2256.

I've answered that point many times. The verse 434 only talks about a single strike if you knew the Arabic grammar. There is no mention of continuous beating. If the wife refuses to reconcile after the single beating, that's where 435 comes in as I already clarified for you. It's quite simple and logical. However, your interpretation of "casting out the wife" doesn't make sense at all in the light of 435 which says "if you fear a breach (SHIQAAQ) then seek arbitration". SHIQAAQ means splitting or breach. So when you cast out your wife from your home, that means SHIQAAQ has already happened!

434 does allow repeated process. "Then if they obey you do not seek against them". Logically the "wa-i'ribhunna" is repeatable until she decides to obey/reconcile. Do you honestly feel hitting someone once will help someone to reconcile? Has that ever happened in history, someone beating his wife once resulting in a sudden change in behaviour? It's totally fiction. Furthermore shiqaaq doest not mean splitting or breach. It means "dissension" it refers to a stalemate in the situation where it does not progress towards a resolution. The two of them can't resolve it, requiring arbitrators. If your interpretation were correct it would contradict the other verses in Quran dealing with divorce etc ( describes a 4 month waiting time required before any seperation can be permanent). This clearly shows shiqaaq does not refer to a permanent breach/divorce yet. It's even more proven by the fact arbitration can still lead to reconciliation. Saying shiqaaq is already permanent breach or divorce is contradicting

3 and 4 - No one brought any evidence, on the contrary, you and man of faith don't even recognize the type of evidence that is necessary to refer back to in this kind of linguistic debate (i.e. the dictionary).

If we are having a debate about science and someone says "Debate me about science, but don't show me any experimental data because I don't believe in it, or don't show me any scientific evidence because I don't recognize scientists" then what kind of debate is that?

So we are having a debate about the meaning of a word, a debate related to the Arabic language, but you are saying "We don't accept the published dictionaries on the subject"...what kind of debate do you expect to have. By saying that you subconciously admit you cannot debate in the first place, and therefore you accept defeat implicitly.

I did bring evidence. I provided a dictionary showing the meaning of D-R-B also lists "a going from place to place". I can't help you chose to ignore that and only take the "strike/blow" into account.

runninglikezebras

Here's a reference from an electronic dictionary posted by runninglikezebras

http//i59.tinypic.com/2s0icrq.jpg

As you can see, even his reference clearly says that the primary meaning of DARABUN is "the act of striking" and "a blow".

Show me any dictionary where DARABA does NOT mean to hit, strike, or beat. That's right, there is none.

It's biting you right in the nose and you still don't see it. "a going from place to place". There is no such thing as "primary meaning".

hafeez_kazi

http//i.snag.gy/ONXrd.jpg

runninglikezebras

Thank you hafeez, now our brother has two dictionaries showing what he failed to see earlier. If this doesn't work I think he will need an optician or a miracle.

Peace

Man_of_Faith

And I repeat that the dictionary definition of beat/strike is wrong. This is why I tend to be cautious of trusting them. Not in one occasion in the book called Quran the word dha - ra - ba refers to a strike that hits another object althougg the word can imply a forward movement of an object such as in the "putting forth" staff.

It means to 'show profoundly (in)' or along those lines. Highlight is likely another more modern word that fits the description.

People who tried to interpret were just misogynist and extracted the worst possible intrerpretation of what they read and where they could they invented meanings so that it looked more according to how they wanted it to look. Whole traditional interpretation of passage 434 is a joke.

Be of one in God

reel

I am late ( Had an exam.

ou do not hold that view because it is too bitter of a pill for you to swallow.

I am just laughing. Allah is truly great. It takes him only a few seconds to expose those who call themselves pious Muslim for a show.

But guess what, that's what the Quraan says in plain Arabic "Strike your wife". You say that is illogical. Does that mean the Quraan is illogical and you give preference to logic over the clear text of the Suhufan Mutahharah?

I see that you have already got some excellent explanations from the Muslims muscle. Let me still tell you one thing, Arabic language has less words with multiple synonyms. Even Allah knows that. Hence, he left this message in the Quran

Those who listen to the Word, and follow the best (meaning) in it those are the ones whom Allah has guided, and those are the ones endued with understanding. 3918

It goes to show that for a simple word, a verse may end up having different meanings for different people. If your mind is violent probably that is what you will get out of Quran.

hawk99

Peace,

Please allow me to join in.

Peace runninglikezebras,

It is unlawful to "cast out" the wife. 65/6

Peace Israfeel,

Welcome back, why do you only choose "beat" (barbaric) and not move about 2/273 or travel 73/20?
fadribuhu ?ala?l jidar? (throw it at the wall), which is an allegory for, ?do not pay attention to it?.

434, husband instructed to beat his wife for continued disobedience.

Mix culture with 4/34 and what we end up with is domestic abuse sanctified!

God bless

peace

hafeez_kazi

Peace

There is no way that a husband can physically assault his wife unless she attacks her. Physical assault is allowed only in self defense and if it is not self defense then it is oppressiveness and Allah has forbidden OPPRESSIVENESS.

The husband beating his wife in the verse is in retaliation to the disobedience of his wife and Quran disallows beating to oppress wife or any other person to make them obedient.

runninglikezebras

Peace,

Please allow me to join in.

Peace runninglikezebras,

It is unlawful to "cast out" the wife. 65/6

I disagree the "casting out" in 434 is to be understood as coercement. As I explained in an earlier post the casting out is nothing but an actualization of a decision the woman already made herself out of free will. In the context of that verse she has chosen to ignore the advise, the clear message by being forsaken in the bed ultimately resulting in her being told to leave. You should interprete this as she chose to leave her partner in the heart and mind but is only staying to enjoy the male partners wealth. In a sense she is exploiting her husband/partner financially while having deserted him already in heart and mind.

hawk99

I disagree the "casting out" in 434 is to be understood as coercement. As I explained in an earlier post the casting out is nothing but an actualization of a decision the woman already made herself out of free will. In the context of that verse she has chosen to ignore the advise, the clear message by being forsaken in the bed ultimately resulting in her being told to leave. You should interprete this as she chose to leave her partner in the heart and mind but is only staying to enjoy the male partners wealth. In a sense she is exploiting her husband/partner financially while having deserted him already in heart and mind.

Peace runninglikezebras,

Please see definition. People do not generally cast themselves out. Furthermore, she should not be told to leave. Read 65/6.

Definition of cast out (vt)

Bing Dictionary
cast out
1.eject somebody to reject, abandon, or eject somebody or something

synonyms throw out ? evict ? boot out ? oust ? eject ? reject ? sack ? remove ? dispossess

God bless

peace

runninglikezebras

Peace runninglikezebras,

Please see definition. People do not generally cast themselves out. Furthermore, she should not be told to leave. Read 65/6.

Definition of cast out (vt)

Bing Dictionary
cast out
1.eject somebody to reject, abandon, or eject somebody or something

synonyms throw out ? evict ? boot out ? oust ? eject ? reject ? sack ? remove ? dispossess

God bless

peace

Of course people dont cast themselves out but linguistically its not impossible. I agree in this verse the man casts the woman out. But the choice is still the womans. Again its the womans choice to refuse reconciliation after the advise and after the "foresaken in the bed". The casting out is nothing but a consolidation of that choice of refusal to reconciliate while still living there.

Compare it with telling your kid it can stay up late one night to watch a movie on condition he will go to sleep one hour earlier the day after. The next day you send your kid one hour earlier. Is that coercion? Its not its not against the kids will he chose for it.

Similar with the woman its not coercion its her choice. Coercion requires the result to be against someones will. Casting out in 434 is NOT against the womans will its a direct consequence of her free will and choices.

Peace

Ahmad_Bilal

Peace, runninglikezebras.

I agree in this verse the man casts the woman out.

Maybe I missed something... How did you come to the conclusion that the meaning of the stated passage must refer to the man casting the woman out? Why can't it refer to the man leaving himself?

Peace,

Ahmad