ARE WOMEN ALLOWED TO INITIATE DIVORCE?
-
Salam thenabi. I read the question which was "are women allowed to intiate the divorce?" The answer to this question is a simple yes or no answer. If you would like the answer to another question, which is "what is the basis on which women are not allowed to intiate the divorce?" I can answer that as well. At this stage I will keep the answer brief so as not to send the reader off in tangents.
The critical words involved here are women, initiate, and divorce. Strictly speaking none of those words is found in a verse in the Quran. However for the purposes of responding to what appears to be the purpose of the question, I will substitute words in the place of the ones being used to arrive at the nearest possible answer. The question then becomes "what is the procedure by which a nisa receives a talaq?" and the related question is "is there a verse which speaks of the nisa giving the rajal a talaq?"
The closest verses are 2230, 2231, and 2232. In these three verses, the actor is the rajal, the act is a talaq, and the acted upon is the nisa. In summation, the rajal talaqs the nisa. I have found no verse that says the converse, the nisa talaqs the rajal, or if you talaq a rajal. As a result the conclusion is the talaq by a rajal of a nisa is recognized as a lawful action. There is no recognition of the talaq by the nisa of the rajal as a lawful action.
This is why I replied with the simple "no" response. I find no lawful authority for the postulate "could a nisa talaq a rajal?"
I am aware that many Muslim countries have gone through various different claimed extrapolations of extrinsic hadith and findings by allegedly authoritative schools of law. The results are politically correct representations of the sum of their populations beliefs, which include pre islamic customs, remnants of colonial era laws and propaganda, remnants of colonial era rulers religions, influences of the western women's movements, and misunderstandings of the concept of equality. I confine my response to a very strict direct use of Quran authority, and allow no outside influences to color the analysis. I believe that is the spirit of this forum, and that is why people come to this forum asking questions.
Personally, I look at the Torah and Injeel as well. To doublecheck if Allah has said anything to the contrary previously. I find quite literally, the Quran confirms the Torah and the Injeel on this issue explicity. I believe that this is an overwhelming amount of authority to support this conclusion.
Allah is the lawgiver.
-
Salam,
A man cannot hold or keep a woman against her will (419). He cannot oppress her! this is not what marriage is (mawadda and rahma)
If man doesn't comply and is a non believer to the above and oppresses the woman which is not Quranic then apply 6010.
This means that after the woman's edda (countable) she can move on. But it also puts responsibility on believing men as per 6010 to take care of women in society who are in such situations.
Peace
-
Salam peaceforlife. You forge lies against Allah. For the sake of brevity I will reproduce one of the standard translations here, rather than painstakingly translate word for word.
419 state "O ye who believe! Ye are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should ye treat them with harshness, that ye may Take away part of the dower ye have given them,-except where they have been guilty of open lewdness; on the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing, and Allah brings about through it a great deal of good"
419 refers to the category of women inherited against their will. This sura refers to a pre islamic custom of inheriting women and has nothing to do with holding a woman against her will. You claim 419 states "a man cannot keep a woman against her will" this is false. On the contrary 434 Charges men with the duty to admonish and beat women if they are disobedient, disloyal, or engage in ill conduct, exactly the contrary of your claim. "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them, refuse to share their beds, beat them; but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means For Allah is Most high"
6010 states "O ye who believe! When there come to you believing women refugees, examine them Allah knows best as to their Faith if ye ascertain that they are Believers, then send them not back to the Unbelievers. They are not lawful for the Unbelievers, nor are the lawful for them. But pay the Unbelievers what they have spent, and there will be no blame on you if ye marry them on payment of their dower to them. But hold not to the guardianship of unbelieving women ask for what ye have spent on their dowers, and let the ask for what they have spent. Such is the command of Allah He judges between you. And Allah is Full of Knowledge and Wisdom."
6010 Refers to the category of women who convert to Islam and come as refugees and the prohibition on returning them to their people. You claim 6010 states "if a man doesnt comply and is a non believer and opresses women" this is false. You claim 6010 a womans edda is countable she can move on" this is also false.
You are forging lies against Allah. This conduct is prohibited and Allah has prescribed punishments for forging lies.
Allah is the lawgiver.
-
Al Araf,
You can take your oppressive and sectarian views elsewhere. Women DO have rights and probably even more so than men in the Quran
The translation is online I didn't make it up
You can?t take over/inherit women, you can?t keep women (physical force) against their will. You can?t hate women because maybe it is something that Allah put in it A LOT of good.
An-Nisa (The Women)
419 O YOU who have attained to faith! It is not lawful for you to become heirs to your wives against their will; and neither shall you keep them under constraint with a view to taking away anything of what you may have given them, unless it be that they have become guilty, in an obvious man?ner, of immoral conduct. And consort with your wives in a goodly manner; for if you dislike them, it may well be that you dislike something which God might yet make a source of abundant good.
Who is forging lies???? who is not reflecting on the Quran? I'm sorry but if the Quran is NOT a bunch of ancient tales to you, then what would you do if a woman came to you seeking help and her husband is a non believer (or only a believer by name but does not treat her as Allah has intended?) Doesn't 419 apply???? or you have no responsibility as a true muslim man in society?
THINK for heaven's sake.
May Allah guide.
-
Oh... and by the way.. there is no beating women in the Quran. It doesn't make sense in context. Cross-reference verses about marital problems and the word "daraba" it's always about Separate/Set Forth. I.e. a break away.
That's what makes a countable period of time and a time to reconcile, get arbitrators etc.
You need to wake up a bit.
-
Al Araf I mean you no disrespect. With all respect though your ideas are weird. Absense of evidence is not evidence of absence. The Quran never says do not cannabalise. But you surely dont support eating human flesh. The Quran never says do not drink urine. So do you support urine drinking? The Quran describes marrige as a mercy. If woman can not initite divorce where is this mercy. One verse says women have rights "similar" to that of men. According to some translations "eqaul". According to others same. If you doubt that check any translation. Also the verse says rights against them. Divorce is a right against them. If women have the same, equal, or similar rights that are against them how can they not initiate divorce. Also Darbaba can mean separtion, beat, consensual intercourse (meaning consensual sex), disassoition, banish, talking, and striking. Countless other meanings fit the context. Again I mean you no disrespect. But study more. Also realise the implications of your arguments. And cross refrence. If you cross refrence the verse about women having eqaul or similar rights against them you would never have said what you said. Also realise that women are not are slaves. They are mentally and spirtual eqaul to men. Gender never appears in Quran. Its a issue we made. Also please do not sound like a cruel facist beast. "has nothing to do with holding a woman against her will". In that sentence you sound like a idiot without reason and thought. Again no insults intended. Do not be angre at my comments.
-
salam l.hu. your bringing up of issues not addressed in the quran, is a disingenious technique.
whether you dislike what allah has commanded in the quran is irrelevant. if allah says udrubu, then do not be a person who rejects the word of allah.
i have no time whatsoever for your peculiar philosophies, i am bound by the word of allah, whether or not the word of allah displeases you.
allah is my lord.
-
Please Al araf before babbling actully read the Quran. Also God is are lord and ruler wither we like it our not. God is my lord also. Also what pecular philosophes. You probably do not know what philosophy means. What issues did I bring that are not in Quran. Any body who has read Quran can verify that verse about women having similar or same rights against them. Any one whos read the Quran can verify that verse about marrige being a mercy to both spouces. Also anybody with knowledge of classical arabic can verify what I said concerning daraba. Before talking about Quran read it. How can you call yourself a muslim when you have not read Quran. Stop acting like a stupid useless idiot and read the Quran. Verify the veses I mentioned. Verify what I said about daraba. If you do not want to read the Quran and try to understand it go. This forum is for people who have read and are willing to reread Quran. It is for people who want to live by Quran.
-
Please Al araf Pease re-read the Quran.
Also God is our lord and ruler.
God is my lord also. What do you mean by pecular philosophes?
What issues did I bring that are not in Quran?
Any body who has read Quran can verify that verse about women having similar or same rights against them. Any one whos read the Quran can verify that verse about marrige being a mercy to both spouces.
Also anybody with knowledge of classical arabic can verify what I said concerning daraba.
Please Verify the veses I mentioned. Verify what I said about daraba.
I read and am willing to reread Quran. It is for people who want to live by Quran.Peace L.Hu
Read how i edited your post.
Also im interested to know the method you study classical arabic because there are diffrent aproaches.Peace
-
My rule is if it fits the context of a Quranic verse its a possibly meaning. Some advocate studying other semitic languages for the Quran. But I think thats far fected. To me Lanes Lexicon is the easist source. But I think Murfadat, Taj Al Arus and the Lisan are the best sources. I am currently trying to master them. But again Lanes is the easeist.
-
salam l.hu.
My rule is if it fits the context of a Quranic verse its a possibly meaning. Some advocate studying other semitic languages for the Quran. But I think thats far fected. To me Lanes Lexicon is the easist source. But I think Murfadat, Taj Al Arus and the Lisan are the best sources.
look at how you present your statements
My rule is
and then you say
I think
and then you say
To me
and then
But I thinkThis is the problem I have with your methodology, it is based completely in your rules and opinions. I ask you, whom do you worship, yourself or allah?
allah had the torah recited in hebrew, the injeel recited in aramaic, the quran recited in arabic. anyone with an iota of knowledge about hijazi arabic knows arabic evolved from hebrew and aramaic. if arabic evolved from hebrew and aramaic, then the definitions of arabic words have their origins in hebrew and aramaic. this is not hard to comprehend.
there are far too many false definitions of arabic words, due to colloquial misuse, which occurs in any language. the only way to strip out the colloquialisms, and be true to the actual root origin of the word, is to know the root origin of the word. unless you grasp and implement this method, you will mislead yourself into a lack of understanding, and go down the wrong path. why would you want to go down the wrong path?
allah raises man by stages.
-
If etymology be the rule men can not be "hysterical" in english. Also women can not "testify" on the basis of etymology. Women can not also on the basis of etymology be "virtuous". The reason why men can not be "hysterical" is because "hysterical" is derived from the Greek word for womb. Women can not testify since the words origin lies in the Roman practice of swearing on one's testes, and virtuous comes from "vir" meaning man. With that example etymology should not be the rule. Also your claim is wrong that hijazi arabic came from hebrew and aramiac. Please do not make such false claims, if you are truthful. You need to actully research. The claim you have made about hijazi arabic shows that you seriosly have not research this. Read Kees Verstagh. You also claim (atleast you seem to be claiming this) that colloquial difinitions are in classical dictionaries. Please before making your claims research them. Or else if you continue to make such claims this dicussion will continue to be useless. "This is the problem I have with your methodology, it is based completely in your rules and opinions". My freind what did Barmack ask me of. My methodology right. For discovering right meanings of Quranic arabic did Allah set up a methodology? Is the Quran a dictionary? Please I ask not in a mean way but in a nice way. Hit the books and analyes your ideas.
-
If etymology be the rule men can not be "hysterical" in english. Also women can not "testify" on the basis of etymology. Women can not also on the basis of etymology be "virtuous". The reason why men can not be "hysterical" is because "hysterical" is derived from the Greek word for womb. Women can not testify since the words origin lies in the Roman practice of swearing on one's testes, and virtuous comes from "vir" meaning man. With that example etymology should not be the rule. Also your claim is wrong that hijazi arabic came from hebrew and aramiac. Please do not make such false claims, if you are truthful. You need to actully research. The claim you have made about hijazi arabic shows that you seriosly have not research this. Read Kees Verstagh. You also claim (atleast you seem to be claiming this) that colloquial difinitions are in classical dictionaries. Please before making your claims research them. Or else if you continue to make such claims this dicussion will continue to be useless. "This is the problem I have with your methodology, it is based completely in your rules and opinions". My freind what did Barmack ask me of. My methodology right. For discovering right meanings of Quranic arabic did Allah set up a methodology? Is the Quran a dictionary? Please I ask not in a mean way but in a nice way. Hit the books and analyes your ideas.
Peace,
Yes exactly so now im even more confused. I think before arguing with each other.
I think the sane thing to do is debate on the words so if we all agree with what the words mean then we can go from there.1424 Have you not seen how God puts forth the example that a good word is like a good tree, whose root is firm and whose branches are in the sky.
1426 And the example of a bad word is like a tree which has been uprooted from the surface of the Earth, it has nowhere to settle.The real words are going to be clear.
peace -
salam l. hu. it is very disrespectful not to read what a person posts then to argue with them. hit the books yourself, the right books, not the wrong books. i wrote
This is the problem I have with your methodology
to which you reply
If etymology be the rule
i did not say etymology, i said methodology. why do you have a problem staying on the issue?
you then claim
Also your claim is wrong that hijazi arabic came from hebrew and aramiac. Please do not make such false claims, if you are truthful. You need to actully research. The claim you have made about hijazi arabic shows that you seriosly have not research this.
if you persist in demonstrating a lack of an ability to comprehend or research, you are lost. a simple search would have prevented you from making your ridiculous statements.
http//www.omniglot.com/writing/arabic.htmThe Arabic script evolved from the Nabataean Aramaic script. It has been used since the 4th century AD, but the earliest document, an inscription in Arabic, Syriac and Greek, dates from 512 AD... Arabic has also been written with the Hebrew, Syriac and Latin scripts.
i suggest you dispense with your irrelevant preoccupation with the greek language and roman practices. the quran is in large part its own dictionary, and the words that you cant find defined in the quran, you can find defined in the torah and injeel. i rely upon allah for my definitions, not error ridden claims of human beings.
allah is the teacher.