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

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

runninglikezebras

434 describes a situation of a woman sharing the mans wealth. The man being the protector of that woman and being greater greater in strength. Logic dictates the house is his, otherwise it would contradict itself.

Man_of_Faith

And that shows how lame the traditional translation and interpretation is.

Be of one in God

Wakas

peace rlz, all,

Verb + object
The action of the verb is done to the object.

Logic dictates the house is his, otherwise it would contradict itself.

How about this for logic and contradiction......... when it comes to the view of "cast out" (highlighted in bold)

To understand the sequence of events, we must fully understand the divorce procedure according to The Quran

'cooling-off' period for those who swear away from their wives sexually, limited to 4 months *
after this 4 month 'cooling-off' period, the options are revert to normal relations or divorce/talaq
post-divorce interim/waiting period is 3 menstruation periods or 3 months, if pregnant it is until they deliver, if widowed it is 4 months and 10 days
if no sex has taken place after marriage, then no interim period is required after divorce/talaq . Compensation may be due however if dower was agreed upon
during post-divorce interim period, wife remains in the same house, and is compensated by way of maintenance during this period in the same living standard as the husband, each according to their means **
divorce is automatically retracted if sex between the couple takes place during the interim period ***
if couple reconciles, then divorce/talaq may be retracted twice during interim-period. If divorced a third time it is final unless she marries another then they divorce, only then can original partners re-marry. If the couple fear they will not maintain God's bounds, then wife may give some dowry back to release herself
if couple still wishes to follow through with the divorce/talaq after the end of the interim period and undergo final separation, then two witnesses are required to complete the process
exceptions exist, in certain situations
the onus is upon the person in the wrong to rectify the situation or initiate divorce/release, and it is an obligation upon the contract-breaking party to compensate the other

As a side note, the last point is also mentioned in traditional Islamic law and sources, see M.Asad's note on 2229. This system would also protect the male if he were to marry a female who only did so for his money or the marital gift then she wished to end the marriage later, because since the contract-breaking party compensates the other partner, she would have to do so accordingly. Similarly, this would protect the female if she were to marry a male who only did so for lustful reasons then wished to end the marriage later, as he would then have to compensate her.

*Also possibly provides a time limit due to a practice of the time in which husbands did not have sex with their wives but also did not divorce them, see 581-4, 334; i.e. leaving them in a state between marriage and divorce. Similar to what is implied by 4129.

**And the same goes for the lesser situation of 'cooling-off' period. Obviously, the wife would not be removed from the home for the lesser serious 'cooling-off' period then brought back just for the post-divorce interim period.

***Inference from 2226 is that resumption of sexual relations is equated to reconciliation, thus no initiation of divorce. Hence, same proviso for post-divorce interim period, i.e. sex = reconciliation.

According to The Quran, the wife can remain in the house even after an official divorce, yet according to the "cast out them" view of 434 she is removed from the house or told to leave. The former will cause a contradiction, and the latter does not work grammatically.
If you change it to "leave them" or "separate from them", this has various problems as highlighted, but another I just thought of is that the issue in 434 is a fear of disloyalty, most probably in the unseen/private, yet in the "leave them / separate from them" view, the husband may move out and allow for more potential issues in private/unseen. Doesn't make much sense to me.

In any case, by far the most cogent translation can be found on www.Quran434.com but don't take my word for it, read carefully the apparent objections raised on the thread created for the article. It is quite telling in my view.

runninglikezebras

In 2236 I find nothing stating she can stay in the house. It's possible though letting her stay at home is a fair provision. It just explicitly isn't as it can mean many other things such as maintenance, use of common goods. One thing is certain though, staying in the house is not a "fair provision" when "fahisha" is involved (see exception in 651).
2241 dito, both verses speak about a fair provision.
651 does not contradict, the "disobedience" in 434 most likely consists of clear "fahisha", so it falls under the exception stated
656-7 only speaks of "lodging them", this does not explicitly mean in your own house. It's possibly lodging in sections of your home, but it can equally mean rented housing.

Honestly I don't know where you find the contradiction but maybe I'm overlooking something.

Peace

ps I'll be working on some flow-charts visualizing the processes involved in this area of Gods system. They should help validating hypothetical understandings of 434 and others a lot.
pps I'm aware of the www.Quran434.com interpretation, I just don't agree with it specifically on the topic we are discussing now. 434 is highly improbable to allow a "man leaves his own house" scenario. 434 speaks of a woman living under the "wealth/protection" of the man. This defines the man as the owner of the house. Which man would leave his own house for something the woman is accused of and let the woman continue the "disobedience" in his own house? That does not make any sense.

434 is not speaking about all men being protectors, wealthier and more strengthful than all women. That's a misogynist view. It's a specific type of living together male providing his own house and wealth for his wife/woman. Not all relationships have that balance. A woman can be wealthier than a man. But to me it's clear the protection in 434 refers to the shelter/protection a house provides and the wealth specifies it's his property not hers. Proven by anfaq min amwlihim - being masculine plural. It's impossible the house they live in is the wife's wealth. Trying that approach makes "the man spending from his wealth" contradict the rest of the verse.

Wakas

peace rlz,

...the "disobedience" in 434 most likely consists of clear "fahisha", so it falls under the exception stated

You are simply swapping one problem with another. If you are familiar with Quran434.com you will note I discuss why 434 is not talking about a clear case of fahisha.

It should be strongly noted that "fahisha mubina" is NOT the context of 434 in which the husband fears (imperfect) such a thing, and it clearly mentions the ghayb/unseen/private, i.e. not open/clear/evident.

Also note
656 ...lodge them from where you dwell/live/rest...
Seems to imply within the home to me. As well as 651