Qur'an Verse 4:34 - 'Beat the Wife'? quranverse434
-
Peace Man Of Faith.
Thank you for your comments.
I am glad you said
Washing is not a ritual, it is a necessity.
Eating is a necessity, or else your physical body diesExactly what salat is to me (my soul) ,a necessity.
GOD bless you.
Peace -
Generalize it into improvement of your soul by being mindful of the light around you. That is what I say, and it is a necessity.
-
I disagree all sunni's are idol worshippers. The example of ISIS is extreme, to me they still aren't idol worshippers.
931 makes me think that most likely the perpetrators of ISIS take their leader as "lord" beside God (I'm not even sure if they fear of God). See how they very obedient to their leader and they disregard God's commands. Even it seems they've killed their own consciences.
They make mischief on earth, so it's likely that they are also kuffar (but I still need to deepen my understanding of kafir). But now I tend to think that kuffar are those who against God (and God's messenger), in other words, they give difficulty/trouble to those who uphold the teachings of God. Looks like the meaning of kafir related with "contra" or "versus".
But I think this is off topic, sorry.
Salm.
-
Isis are most importantly kafar - void of sound judgment.
Be of one with God
-
Peace, good logic.
I am glad you said
Washing is not a ritual, it is a necessity.
Eating is a necessity, or else your physical body diesExactly what salat is to me (my soul) ,a necessity.
I agree with you on this issue. I don't necessarily subscribe to all of the ritualistic aspects of traditional Islam, but I don't think they're wrong either. Everyone has their own way of serving God, in accordance with their own understanding of His message. Indeed, people often turn their leaders - and (gasp!) even their books - into idols without knowing it. However, I don't think these are necessarily encompassed within the rituals themselves. It's more along the lines of their intentions when it comes to the rituals.
Concerning the current traditional Islamic approach to the Kaaba, the Qur'aan actually speaks of people who revere places like that and indulge in that type of service to ALLAH
Absolutely, to God is the true system. And those who set up allies beside Him "We only serve them so that they may bring us closer to God." God will judge between them in what they dispute; for God does not guide him who is a liar, a rejecter. (Q. 393)
This is exactly how most traditional Muslims feel about, and treat, the prophet Muhammad and the Kaaba. They blindly accept the hadiyth and sunna attributed to him because they believe that these things will bring them closer to God. They march around a stone cube and kiss a mindless rock because they believe that these things will bring them closer to God. It's notable that they condemn the Jews at the Wailing Wall for the exact same practice!
Now, are the Jews and Muslims idolaters in the same sense that Christians and Hindus are? Probably not, at least not according to most people. However, according to the Qur'aan, idolatry is idolatry - whether it's due to the glorification of prophets and messengers, taking religious leaders as Divine authority figures and protectors, practicing unauthorized traditions, assigning people Divine attributes, or doing all of the numerous other things mentioned in the books concerning idolatry. It's all the same according to the Qur'aan. All of the people who practice those things (knowingly, at least) end up in the same place.
When we dedicate all of our actions to the one god (e.g. ALLAH), without assigning any partners to Him, that's not idolatry. And, personally, I think a person can definitely do this while still performing certain rituals in accordance with their understanding of God's message. It all depends on the perspective.
Peace,
Ahmad
-
A new link has been added to the 'Further Reading' section to support the view on quranverse434.com
http//www.islamawareness.net/Wife/beating1.html
This makes a good point about verse 494, which I have also included in my article, that it uses the meaning of 'going forth / getting out' (in the cause of God). It is also the very next occurrence of Da-Ra-Ba in the Qur'an and is in the same chapter as verse 434.
-
This makes a good point about verse 494, which I have also included in my article, that it uses the meaning of 'going forth / getting out' (in the cause of God). It is also the very next occurrence of Da-Ra-Ba in the Qur'an and is in the same chapter as verse 434.
DRB fee X
The above structure is used elsewhere in Quran also
DRB fee al ard = journey in the land/earth
Some translators use "go out", "move about".
DRB fee sabeeli Allahi = journey in God's way/path
This is taken literally and non-literally by translators.
"getting out" is a stretch.
getting out in the land
getting out in God's path
-
DRB fee X
The above structure is used elsewhere in Quran also
"getting out" is a stretch.
getting out in the land
getting out in God's path
'In the land' is quite different to saying 'in God's cause'. One includes a physical object / thing (land), the other doesn't. In English, 'moving out' is probably a more suitable expression as one does move out when they go to fight in God's cause.
-
In English, 'moving out' is probably a more suitable expression as one does move out when they go to fight in God's cause.
Firstly, one does not necessarily move out (if you meant moving out of one's home) when fighting in God's cause.
Secondly, you seem to imply "DRB fee God's path/cause" is about getting/moving out and fighting in God's cause. It isn't. "DRB fee God's path/cause" encompasses many things, e.g. spending (2195, 2262) and this can be done from one's home, no need to get/move out.
As I said "getting/moving out" is a stretch.
And as I have also said before, no equivalent Quranic example of your DRB rendition exists. That doesn't mean its impossible however.
-
Firstly, one does not necessarily move out (if you meant moving out of one's home) when fighting in God's cause.
Secondly, you seem to imply "DRB fee God's path/cause" is about getting/moving out and fighting in God's cause. It isn't. "DRB fee God's path/cause" encompasses many things, e.g. spending (2195, 2262) and this can be done from one's home, no need to get/move out.
As I said "getting/moving out" is a stretch.
And as I have also said before, no equivalent Quranic example of your DRB rendition exists. That doesn't mean its impossible however.
I understand you are taking '...in God's path' as a general statement (which may be inferred), however realistically in this context I believe the intended meaning is a reference to those who went out to fight in the cause of God. For this purpose, 'moving out', 'getting out', or 'going out' all serve the same meaning.
-
Interesting point added to the article about verse 2663. Prophet Moses casts the staff, here the same word Da-Ra-Ba is used, and the sea separates into two - causing a division and separation of two parts. It's an example of how the word can be used to create a parting or separation.
-
I can't believe what I'm reading on http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/09.%20Women/2.Erroneous%20belief%20of%20beating%20wife..htm
Are people seriously considering these are exclusive measures for women (not men) committing adultery? What a misogynistic interpretation.
In my understanding the context of adultery is simply not there. Yeah yeah I know fahisha but fahisha is not equal to sexual transgression.
If you stick to a narrow-minded sexually obsessed interpretation, the meaning of the verse will never reveal itself except for misogynistic misconceptions that picture women as the only gender who either commit adultery or should be punished for committing it.
If a man would commit adultery, not one of those measures mentioned will apply as a result from such an understanding. But of course we all know men are absolutely loyal beings, right?
This whole thing smells like ISIL bullshit to me. 2015 folks, wake up and smell the coffee and have some feminist homemade cake.
-
The following article provides a strong case for the meaning of 'separate' / 'leave' as put forward on www.quranverse434.com
https//issuu.com/islamophobiadebunked/docs/is_beating_women_permitted_in_islam
The link has also been added to the 'Further Reading' section of the website
http//www.quranverse434.com/#further-reading
-
Aya 4.34 is nto addressed to husbands. nor to wives, nor does it speak about husbands and wives. It is textually very clear. It is addressed, like previous ayas and following ayas, to the bilievers at large and it sets the tasks of men at large and of women at large. Therefore it is preposterous that it should be telling the believers to beat women. Preposterous.
There is a stubborn resistance to acknowledge tht the adresee in ths aya like in previous and follwoing are the believers and not "husbands" and that it does speak about both sexes regardless of their civil status.
But it seems that wherever the Qur'an speaks about women it should by all means disregrded and only understood of women as some appendage to men.
The text of this aya must be read without prejudice.
Salaam
-
The following article has also been linked to the website because it posits the view 'transit-move the wives from the bedroom to other area of house'
http//haqeeqat.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/09.%20Women/2.Erroneous%20belief%20of%20beating%20wife..htm
-
peace all,
The following article has also been linked to the website because it posits the view 'transit-move the wives from the bedroom to other area of house'
haqeeqat.pk/English Tafsir e Haqeeqat/09. Women/2.Erroneous belief of beating wife..htm
Did you actually read that article and consider it sound? I must say it really is quite poor. So many issues one doesn't know where to begin, but sticking to 434 only
it erroneously claims "And you husbands move them to separate bed within the bedrooms", not only misrepresenting the verb but also interpolates another bed. Can we assume this verse is only for those who have more than one bed in the house? What nonsense.
it then claims "transit them out of the bedrooms open in house making the suspended matrimonial relation apparent to entire family", note plural "bedrooms", the interpolations, and implies the husband MUST move them out of the bedroom (it is a command/imperative verb after all, so what if she refuses, does he pick her up and move her to comply with the command? does he cordon off his bedroom?) and make their marital relations/problems apparent to entire family, including children. Yes, that sounds very logical and healthy. Again, it's nonsense.
Ironically, linking to that article is likely to damage the credibility of your article not enhance it.
And with regard to the rest in your list, careful readers will note that according to the "leave them" theory, their inherent contradictory position, wherein the author of Quran is commanding the husband to "leave them" in 434, then promoting reconciliation in the next verse.
Did Noah beat his wife? How about Lot? The quran always give us examples and Noah and Lot both LEFT their wives! The only man given as example of someone who beat his wife is the pharaoh, Asiyas husband.
Quran verses?
-
Did you actually read that article and consider it sound? I must say it really is quite poor.
By linking to those articles, I am not necessarily endorsing their entire content or details, nor expecting to increase the credibility of my own writing. However, the articles provide support to the 'separate' theory as opposed to others, and are worth further reading.
And with regard to the rest in your list, careful readers will note that according to the "leave them" theory, their inherent contradictory position, wherein the author of Quran is commanding the husband to "leave them" in 434, then promoting reconciliation in the next verse.
In 434, separation is temporary, and reconciliation is encouraged ('if they heed you'
In 435, separation is permanent, and reconciliation is encouraged ('if they want reconciliation'
There is no contradiction.
