Qur'an Verse 4:34 - 'Beat the Wife'? quranverse434
-
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.
-
Please answer these simple questions?
What does the nushuz consist of? Alienation according to that url which would render it meaningless, to forsake one who is already alienated. That seems like fighting fire with fire.
Can you give a concrete example of how that "citing" of the woman would be filled in?
How do you justify the ultimate phase of "to cite" breaking down the chronology of "harder" measures in 434? You'd expect the final measure to be the more harsh one caused by the structure of the verse.
Here's a gigantic objection. If nushuz means alienation then you are commanded to forsake your woman in the bed whenever she withdraws emotionally or alienates from you. That does not sound like a formula for a better living together rather a roadmap for disaster.
If I apply ocham's razor to quran434's interpretation it is a very complex explanation. My main criticism towards that interpretation is that it's doing a lot of effort to ignore the simplest interpretation explaining a scenario in which a man should "seperate/cast out/expel" his wife if there is no reconciliation about the nushuz. Making it complex and meaningless. What on earth does "to cite" even mean?
-
Not to mention quran434's understanding of nushuz is not compatible with "guarding in the unseen what God has ordered them to guard". Alienation is not a violation of Gods system like eg idol worship is. 434 has to refer to a violation of Gods system qualifying as fahisha. If the understanding of nushuz is just alienation, emotional withdrawal she may be hurting the man's feelings but she can still be perfectly stick to Gods rules. Without it being fahisha, the whole verse will be abused applying subjective standards. God instructs you to take the measures in 434. If you are going to apply them using subjective criteria then we are entering very dangerous grounds and bound to make mistakes "in Gods name". I'm not willing to take any risks when it comes down to that. Therefor I stick to the nushuz referring to fahisha, and immorality against God. This take is supported by "guarding what God has ordered them" even in the hidden/unseen. I would forsake in the bed and expel the woman I live with from my house if I have strong suspicion she is secretly worshipping idols. I don't think I'm using subjective criteria when I do so. If I forsake someone in the bed only because I feel they are "emotionally withdrawn" or "alienated", claiming I have to do so because God commands me to then I'm being Gods judge myself using my own subjective standards. I don't think God ever authorized us to do such a thing.
In the interpretation of nushuz being fahisha behind the man's back, this verse does not give you instructions to forsake in the bed for any subjective reason. She can no longer love you or even be disloyal to you, that does not mean you should forsake her in the bed, cite/beat/seperate from her. Quran is not giving instructions for valid reasons to do any such thing. It's only commanding you when you have a wife living in your house, sleeping with you, living from your wealth, that is secretly committing fahisha you should no longer sleep with her and eventually take further measures (expel her).
Imagine quran434's take. The woman you sleep with is depressed and not able to show her affection to you. Already that's nushuz, so according to quran434 we should no longer sleep with her in the same bed. Imagine your woman being upset about something, so she is less affectionate maybe rebellious. Quran434 tells you she can no longer sleep in your bed. The list of mistakes it allows is endless. Quran434 makes it totally subjective when we should no longer share the bed with someone. Any subjective qualification of "uprising" is valid. Pick freely! Don't mind what offends God most. That's irrelevant. Well quran434 is mistaking.
The interesting part of the understanding of nushuz being fahisha committed in secret is it allows anyone to decide what they tolerate in a relationship outside immorality as defined by God. This may be very controversial to you, but in my understanding it even allows a relationship in which both partners do not object or are forgiving towards infidelity. I know most will point me to zina in Quran but I do not understand zina to be adultery.
Quran is not a scientific textbook, nor is it a manual for relation therapy.
Recall that Abraham said, "My Lord, ?. protect me and my children from worshiping idols.
The men who are protecting their women (in wealth and strength) are protected by God from it in 434 if the wife is approaching fahisha
As for those who discard the worship of all idols, and devote themselves totally to GOD alone, they have deserved happiness. Give good news to My servants.
God grants perfect security and happiness for believers who are devoted to Him alone without committing idol worship.
Those who believe, and do not pollute their belief with idol worship, have deserved the perfect security, and they are truly guided.
God grants perfect security only to those not worshipping idols. 434 is telling us to uphold that part of Gods system. A man should no longer protect a woman worshipping idols, similar to how God does not protect idol worshippers. She has no claim for security from God. Let the idols protect her if she is persistent in the nushuz.
It has been revealed to you, and to those before you that if you ever commit idol worship, all your works will be nullified, and you will be with the losers.
Indeed, the woman being persistent in fahisha in 434 will be with the losers.
These are clear objective criteria. You can't define nushuz otherwise without it being a subjective decision. There is nothing wrong with subjective decisions in a relationship, just do not attribute them to God. God is very clear in Quran what is considered immoral and a failure of guarding Gods orders. Idol worship is one of them. Many interpretations of Quran fail right here attributing God to every subjective/culturally influenced standard they feel is right. The morality that is spoken of in Quran is Gods morality. It's not personal or cultural morality. Traditional understandings have attributed personal and cultural values to words in Quran like kufr, zina, fahisha and in this case nushuz. They are abusing Gods words to justify their own system.
-
Emphasis mine
Please answer these simple questions?
What does the nushuz consist of? Alienation according to that url which would render it meaningless, to forsake one who is already alienated. That seems like fighting fire with fire.
.
.
.Nowhere does Quran434.com state nushuz is alienation. You are clearly confused. I recommend re-reading.
It is preferable to read AND understand a work before attempting to critique it.
-
Direct quote
And if a woman feared from her husband uprising/disloyalty or alienation /turning away, then there is no blame upon them that they reconcile between themselves a reconciliation; and the reconciliation is better. And miserliness/selfishness is present in the souls, and if you do good and are conscientious/forethoughtful, then surely God is aware what you do.
"...uprising or turning away..." (Arabic iAAradan, root Ayn-Ra-Dad) literally means "turning away" and is stated separately from "uprising / nushuz".
Again the word "feared" implies a degree of relativity, i.e. judging "iAAradan" is subjective, thus is not something obvious. Many translators opted for "desertion" which is not quite right because in the context the husband is unwilling to initiate divorce, which implies "desertion" is unlikely to be feared. Also, whatever "iAAradan" means it must be sufficiently distinct from "nushuz" hence a differentiation can be made. By cross-referencing its other usage in The Quran the only possibility is "turning away", and in this context may be better understood as alienation; which means make withdrawn or isolated or emotionally dissociated. M. Abdel Haleem opts for this in his translation, and "estrangement" can be found in 'Quran a Reformist Translation' by Yuksel et al., and others opt for similar words such as "aversion/evasion".I don't consider labeling me just confused a very productive counter-argument. My questions remain unanswered.
Peace
-
It is not for you or me to finally judge a person succumbing to everyday idolatry and the case of polytheism in Quran are gross cases where the practices go against the judgment of God and these people are unjust and crazy due to their fanatism. Besides misinformation is plentiful. Surely you do not want to live with a sectarian person who idolizes, but you cannot simply kick them out or treat them like criminals due to that fact. Help them by informing them and by being the better person and a role model in the right way is what to do. And it is hard to find a person who is not a little idolatrous in one way or another, and it often happen to be one's ego that is the culprit.
And few I know, know what the right information really is regarding the faith of God, so judging by those terms then most people are idolators and that is quite a pessimistic approach, is it not? The long-term goal then seems rather to be indulging into as little "idolatry" as possible. And many people here were idolators in the same situation as many brothers and sisters out there who have not discovered the delusive nature of sects and religious dogma. So if we return back to the topic of idolatrous women you should not be too harsh on them, to make life miserably to them or else you would go against what God stands for and God told he/she/it would provide for the other people too for a time (respite) so then why should you deal in punishment here and now, unless they commit a crime against the law?
Be of one with God
-
It is not for you or me to finally judge a person succumbing to everyday idolatry and the case of polytheism in Quran are gross cases where the practices go against the judgment of God and these people are unjust and crazy due to their fanatism. Besides misinformation is plentiful. Surely you do not want to live with a sectarian person who idolizes, but you cannot simply kick them out or treat them like criminals due to that fact.
If you don't think we can judge a person, then why are you calling sectarians idol worshippers? To me sectarians are not idol worshippers. There may be conflict in the way they view prophet Muhammed but that does not automatically make them idol worshippers or polytheists. Most of them would answer you they don't consider Prophet Muhammed a God if you asked them. Nor do all of them use human crafted things as a mediator between them and God. They are still monotheists. Furthermore I don't think Quran is suggesting to judge anyone. The verse is not an excuse to go condemn everyone. They aren't treated as criminals either. It only describes a certain, rather specific situation. It does not apply elsewhere.
Help them by informing them and by being the better person and a role model in the right way is what to do. And it is hard to find a person who is not a little idolatrous in one way or another, and it often happen to be one's ego that is the culprit.
To me this is exactly what Quran suggests helping them. Advise them first. If that doesn't help use other measures to help them find their way back to the One God. If you are a believer, and your woman turns to idol worship aren't you going to apply all means possible to help her return to faith? Well, this is exactly what Quran suggests in 434 and 651 It's not only a suggestion it's an instruction. Ask yourself, did Abraham stay passive while his father was worshipping idols? A true believer will always stand up against idol worship.
And few I know, know what the right information really is regarding the faith of God, so judging by those terms then most people are idolators and that is quite a pessimistic approach, is it not? The long-term goal then seems rather to be indulging into as little "idolatry" as possible. And many people here were idolators in the same situation as many brothers and sisters out there who have not discovered the delusive nature of sects and religious dogma. So if we return back to the topic of idolatrous women you should not be too harsh on them, to make life miserably to them or else you would go against what God stands for and God told he/she/it would provide for the other people too for a time (respite) so then why should you deal in punishment here and now, unless they commit a crime against the law?
Be of one with God
I think your definition of idol worship is way too broad. Idol worship is clearly described in Tanakh and Quran. If you research it you will find out it's not that common at all anymore. It used to be different though in the day Quran was revealed. We shouldn't be harsh to anyone. But God does not allow a believing man to provide housing, protection and wealth to a woman that has turned to idol worship. If they don't understand the crime of idol worship by talking to them, it's a gentle measure to let them confront a reality in which their idols can offer no protection whatsoever.
Peace
ps idol worship is only one of the formats of fahisha, you can find the other ones easily. They even predate Quran. Here are some others stealing, murder, zinah, bearing false witness, etc. I think you know what I'm referring to.
-
Harmony,
If you don't think we can judge a person, then why are you calling sectarians idol worshippers?
We can in ourselves be "idol worshipers", so it matters little. It is the behavior we have to get at and that through the spreading of the light.
There may be conflict in the way they view prophet Muhammed but that does not automatically make them idol worshippers or polytheists.
I have not interviewed every single one of them, but as far as I am concerned about what I know is that they make a clear distinction of elevating the messengers to ridiculous levels while they only identified themselves in the spirit of God. And they miss the point in what their messages wanted to teach in the first place and instead a lot of rituals that makes illustrative Pagan moves towards an invisible target (or rather the kabah which is hence a concrete idol) which resembles idolatry. But what I meant by judging these people is to take action in negative behavior and treating them separately because they are misguided, except take counter-measure in case they turn violent and dangerous in their delusion to serve God, and then only to stop them and to neutralize them preferably without killing them. Do like me and pity these people instead, of course it is hard to pity the misguided people in IS/ISIS, but you may be able to feel sorry for the sake they became as they are even if you do neither empathize nor sympathize with them.
Most of them would answer you they don't consider Prophet Muhammed a God if you asked them.
Of course not, they are blind to their own actions and what they do. Treating someone/something as an idol does not have to mean you openly refer to them as gods. I think none of these people refer to the kabah as god and an idol despite giving it the function as an idol, thinking it brings them closer to God and a beacon. Consider it a giant statue instead in Pagan ritualism.
They are still monotheists
Yes, they are in ways monotheists, but not without associating this and that with God without knowledge. They do strange rituals with a cubic house in the desert and claim that they do it to bring them closer to God and they do not claim it to be God, but it is still idolatry.
Furthermore I don't think Quran is suggesting to judge anyone.
If you propose that we are to treat women negatively as in the discussion here then you judged them already and this is the reason why I responded like I did.
Nor do all of them use human crafted things as a mediator between them and God.
Most people who adhere to the common sects out there use the Kabah as a mediating entity in their ritual and that is a "human crafted thing".
The verse is not an excuse to go condemn everyone.
If we take that it means like you and the traditional people claim it does, it does in fact judge these women and let you take action against them in oppressive ways.
They aren't treated as criminals either.
Much of Qur'an is interpreted to make "disbelievers" into criminals even while the word itself which is used there talks about someone who does not judge in a sound way.
It only describes a certain, rather specific situation. It does not apply elsewhere.
It does not? How about the harsh treatment of "disbelievers" elsewhere in Qur'an?
If you are a believer, and your woman turns to idol worship aren't you going to apply all means possible to help her return to faith?
I was; the fact is that I was in a case where the woman of a household was an idol worshiper. I took action, but mainly because of all the behavior that was "void of sound judgment" (kafar) and let me and the family to suffer because I opposed that. I did not turn into a sectarian even if my wife worked hard on that and acted Satan against me.
Ask yourself, did Abraham stay passive while his father was worshipping idols?
He expressed what he thought about it and did some tricks which may have been a bit sarcastic, but his intentions were to help the people understand. But he respected his father.
Well, this is exactly what Quran suggests in 434 and 651
Not to my understanding.
I think your definition of idol worship is way too broad. Idol worship is clearly described in Tanakh and Quran.
In fact what is idolatry is misunderstood, and it includes associating anything in either Heaven or Earth with God and use it as an image to get closer to God and to indulge in vain words (conjecture).
If you research it you will find out it's not that common at all anymore.
!!!
It is the (erroneous) foundation of Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism. Idolatry is widespread across different groups. Rather you have to ponder upon what is an idol and the English word "idol" is perhaps a bit inaccurate and misleading in its definition.
But God does not allow a believing man to provide housing, protection and wealth to a woman that has turned to idol worship.
Do not issue laws in the name of God that are not there. Even God promised to provide for those who were not good until the promised day.
Be of one in God
-
Of course not, they are blind to their own actions and what they do. Treating someone/something as an idol does not have to mean you openly refer to them as gods. I think none of these people refer to the kabah as god and an idol despite giving it the function as an idol, thinking it brings them closer to God and a beacon. Consider it a giant statue instead in Pagan ritualism.
True.
And isn't kissing the silver object at the corner of the kaaba something very much like idol worship? I think it is indeed. Even the zamzam water is treated as an idol as far as I'm concerned.
-
The measures Quran suggests are for those who commit fahisha. The idol worship it encompasses is not just doing a ritual around a meteor or drinking the zamzam water. The fahisha mentioned here is an abomination in Gods eyes. The worst category of idol worship look at the idol worship we find with eg the idols Moloch, Baal, Ishtar. The idol worship there involved animal sacrifice, human sacrifice and in some cases sexual rituals/sacred prostitution. Are you seriously comparing sectarian "idol worship" with those? They aren't even in the same league. I agree it would be unfair to treat a sectarian woman that way when she is living under your protection. I never defined fahisha that way. You can find what fahisha consists of if you check the 10 commandments. The idol worship fahisha is referring to involves multiple elements violating those commandments. You shouldn't protect those by housing them if they persist in such crimes against God and His entire creation.
