Qur'an Verse 4:34 - 'Beat the Wife'? quranverse434
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 somethingsynonyms throw out ? evict ? boot out ? oust ? eject ? reject ? sack ? remove ? dispossess
God bless
peace
-
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 somethingsynonyms 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
-
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
-
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.
-
And that shows how lame the traditional translation and interpretation is.
Be of one in God
-
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 otherAs 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.
-
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.
-
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 -
peace rlz,
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.
Where is your evidence it doesn't? The fear of nushz in 434 seems perfectly compatible with fahisha. Fahisha can be performed in ghayb. nushz points to a form of rebellion on the wife/woman's part. fash in the broadest understanding of immorality seems perfectly compatible with nushz. It can equally be a rebellion against God (idol worship) as a rebellion against her husband (eg cheating on him or worse) - both examples of fahisha performed in secret which would be interpreted as nushz by the husband/man beyond doubt.
Also note
656 ...lodge them from where you dwell/live/rest...
Seems to imply within the home to me. As well as 651I disagree that implies within the home. Where you dwell can be interpreted larger than just within the walls of the house, it can mean the whole town. Depending how far one dwells.
Peace
-
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.
'Nushuz' is not exclusively disloyalty, it refers to discordant behaviour from a spouse. If the case is disloyalty, a separation does not cause the increase in disloyalty; it is the person himself or herself who chooses to be disloyal. The verse continues, "If they pay heed to you, do not seek a way against them", hence they have a clear choice of stopping the disloyalty at any time, even if they are separated. Also remember that the previous steps of 'speaking to them' and 'avoiding in bed' have not worked, so separation would be a final chance for making amends and for the disloyal person to 'pay heed' to the situation.
-
peace,
rlz, your view has gone from clear fahisha to clear nushuz. Unfortunately for you, 651 is not about clear nushuz. Not that I actually agree it is a clear nushuz, as it says "fear" (imperfect) and ghayb/private/unseen.
As I said, by far, the most cogent answer is found in Quran434.com
aqua, it doesn't matter if you translate nushuz as "discordant behaviour" or whatever, as you are still translating ghayb as unseen/private, thus whatever the husband fears (most likely in the unseen/private) will be even more of a concern if there is a separation, i.e. an increase in unseen/private time.
husband "I'm concerned you are showing discordant behaviour when I'm not around"
wife "I'm not."
husband "Well, I fear you are, and I have advised you of that and I no longer wish to share the bed with you either"
wife "You are free to choose that."
husband "And I am going to move out, so I won't be around much.... and erm, dont do those things I fear will be happening when I'm not around"
wife "Why don't you stay and see for yourself that I am innocent, and we can reconcile"
husband "No, I have to separate as per Quran, and leave you to it, even though I fear what you do when I'm not around"As I said, it doesn't make much sense to me, but if you think it does, fair enough.
-
husband "I'm concerned you are showing discordant behaviour when I'm not around"
wife "I'm not."
husband "Well, I fear you are, and I have advised you of that and I no longer wish to share the bed with you either"
wife "You are free to choose that."
husband "And I am going to move out, so I won't be around much.... and erm, dont do those things I fear will be happening when I'm not around"
wife "Why don't you stay and see for yourself that I am innocent, and we can reconcile"
husband "No, I have to separate as per Quran, and leave you to it, even though I fear what you do when I'm not around"That entire conversation between husband and wife only constitutes the first step of three in the verse, and already in your example there are positive responses from the wife at attempts of reconciliation. It is strange that the man is so eager to jump to step 2 and even step 3 when his first step of 'speaking to' his wife is going so well.
-
peace,
rlz, your view has gone from clear fahisha to clear nushuz. Unfortunately for you, 651 is not about clear nushuz. Not that I actually agree it is a clear nushuz, as it says "fear" (imperfect) and ghayb/private/unseen. The only reason God would command one to seperate in the bed and ultimately seperate from the wife is logical when the suspicion of nushuz is based on "hidden" fahisha.
As I said, by far, the most cogent answer is found in Quran434.com
I gave you two examples of fahisha that can be performed in secret/the unseen which can in turn lead to fear of nushuz by the husband. To me they still are valid, I don't see you contradict those.
I disagree with the view in Quran434.com, "to cite" does not make any sense.
-
The only reason God would command one to seperate in the bed and ultimately seperate from the wife is only logical when the suspicion of nushuz is based on "hidden" fahisha. Tell me what the suspicion of nushuz consists of to you Wakas so that it justifies God commanding to forsake them in the bed. Even just the command of "forsaking in the bed" is unfair if it does not refer to the exception based on fahisha in 651.
Here's a realistic scenario
Husband hears rumors his wife is partaking in idol worship without his knowledge.
Husband speaks to her on this matter and advises her to stop doing that.
The rumors don't stop so husband forsakes her in the bed as God commands him to do.
The husband still has reason to suspect she partakes in idol worship so expels her from HIS house.
She gets time to reconcile and return to monotheism allowing a return to her husband if she does.
In this scenario the idol worship is a clear fahisha the husband suspects her of. No contradiction. The nature of fahisha can be clear while executed in secret.
-
I disagree with the view in Quran434.com, "to cite" does not make any sense.
Your reply is similar to as I pointed out earlier
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.
Summary of apparent objections
in non-434 verses, a handful of example translations subjectively show convoluted wording according to personal opinion.
434 may not refer to husband/wife - no conclusive evidence provided
the series of steps in my view of 434 requires a time-gap and "wa" is somehow always simultaneous - no conclusive evidence providedYou will find no-one presented any objecting evidence with regard to my view resulting in contradiction, illogical result, impractical result, grammatical error, failing Quran cross-reference, incorrect DaRaBa use, lack of Quranic example etc. These are the type of objections that would have been more solid.
As I always recommend to readers, read various views and make up your own mind. I am of the view that the conclusion of www.Quran434.com is easily the best fit, by a mile, when it comes to the evidence.
