Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
-
e.g. can you give some practical examples of Drb done in the right way, so as to avoid 3rD. Or at least one example.
Da-ra-ba done in the right way may occur in a situation where there is high risk of domestic violence between a couple. Either partner may attempt steps at reconciliation by following advice in 434; in this case, even a separation from the house may be appropriate to ease the tension and reduce risks of physical harm to each other. You said , "so as to avoid 3rD", but this is not necessary; see below.
e.g. how can it be according to 434? Do you mean the husband advises, abandons in bed; then Drb <--- and this last step he falls afoul and "commits iAAradan"?
Looks like you did not understand the point about the word a'-ra-da not always being a negative word. It can be used in a good or positive sense. I provided fifteen references to verses in the Qur'an showing this word being used in a positive / 'good command' form with no negative connotations. I did mean that doing da-ra-ba in 434 may be the same as committing I'radan in 4128, but as just explained this word I'radan does not have to be negative in all cases. It may be negative if the case of I'radan is a case of neglect, ie. the husband is unjustly neglecting the wife and paying no attention to her, but it does not have to be negative if the husband is sincerely trying to reach reconciliation by following 434. Of-course, the husband may still be the one in wrong even if he is trying to follow 434 (eg. he may have falsely accused her of something even if his subjective view is that he is right), but I think the word a'-ra-da is broad enough to apply to all these scenarios.
-
Thanks for the information, however I didn't see anyone advocate "cite them examples".
Salam
It is in the translation by Dr.Shabbir Ahmed '...... And keep admonishing them with examples that they stop rebelling. If they pay heed to you, seek not a way against them.....'
http//www.islamawakened.com/quran/4/34/default.htm -
peace Shumali,
Salam
It is in the translation by Dr.Shabbir Ahmed '...... And keep admonishing them with examples that they stop rebelling. If they pay heed to you, seek not a way against them.....'
http//www.islamawakened.com/quran/4/34/default.htmThat is an old translation by Dr Shabbir Ahmed. After he reviewed Quran434.com he changed his translation in the latest edition available from his website ourbeacon.com. This was briefly discussed here.
-
peace aqua,
Thanks for the clarification.
With regards to the tashkeel, my simple point was the "go away from them" view requires it to be incorrect. One may wish to ask themselves out of the tens of thousands of tashkeel use in the present day Arabic Quran how many are clearly incorrect? I will leave that for readers to consider.
With regards to the notification of authority, I feel you did not adequately explain why it may not have been mentioned. In every example you cited, some sort of notification is required. Simply mentioning notifying the authority does not tie down the notification protocol to any particular one.
The word "iAAradan" (turn away) is not inherently negative or positive, as it will depend on context what one is turning away from. In 4128 it is clear (at least to me) it is a negative as the wife feared it and it obviously refers to turning away from her. Someone does not fear a good thing.
I am happy with this admission, which is a consequence of the view "go away from them" i.e "I did mean that doing da-ra-ba in 434 may be the same as committing I'radan in 4128". This was the point I wanted to make. So, according to you, on the one hand Drb in 434 means "ignore / avoid or keeping away from his wife", and on the other hand a negative case of iAAradan can be " the husband is unjustly neglecting the wife and paying no attention to her". You advocate a position wherein one ignores/avoids or goes away from their spouse yet promotes self-reconciliation.Personally, this doesn't make sense to me and I don't see how this is practical BUT it is ok, you have clarified thus we can summarise somewhat
"withdraw/turn away / go away from them"
Requires the tashkeel of present day Arabic Quran to be incorrect
This alleged usage in 434 occurs in 435 with the preposition "Aan", thus making Quran seems inconsistent IF it did mean that in 434
No identical example of this DRB usage in Quran
No explanation of how the authority are notified
It is unclear to what extent one separates, how they can do so without being unjust etc
No supporting marital example in Quran
My view Impractical result when inserted into 4128-130 and somehow requires iAAradan to be a positive thing and potentially makes Drb/3rD similar"cite them" www.Quran434.com
Works perfectly with the tashkeel in the present day Arabic Quran
Several identical examples of this DRB usage in Quran, including when humans are the direct object as in 434
Explains how the authority is notified by 435, and provides perfect logical/sequential coherence
DRB use is clear and simple to implement practically
581-4 provides perfect coherence in terms of marital example
When inserted into 4128-130 provides a complementary practical and coherent solutionReaders can weigh up each option, and go with whatever they feel is most evidenced/logical.
-
I am still amazed at the amount of self-projections from everyside that have piled on this aya. It is beyond incredible. I commend all those that still try to make sense, real sense of it.
On this count I want to point out something that again comes from taking for granting something which does not have to be necessarily so.
In aya 4.35 it is spoken og a breach between them both, but to the end of aya 3.34 there has been no question of the speech revolving on exclusively a relationship of marriage. It was all about rijaal and nisaa', not husbands and wives. No mention of that at all.
And when it is said " of those (feminine plural, third person) you (mixed plural second person, that is, the addressee, that is, those who have believed) fear uncompliance", we are still speaking about the nisaa', not the wives. Then in the next aya, it goes into a specific question where it can be understood as between a coule. But to the end of 4.34 there is no reason to take that only or at all the married persons are meant. Men and women can break their social commitments other than marriage commitments.
Salaam
-
With regards to the tashkeel, my simple point was the "go away from them" view requires it to be incorrect. One may wish to ask themselves out of the tens of thousands of tashkeel use in the present day Arabic Quran how many are clearly incorrect? I will leave that for readers to consider.
Since the vocalisation signs relate to a vocal / oral transmission of the pronunciation / recitation of the Qur'an, which were written years after the Prophet's death, it may be argued that they are just as unreliable as Hadith and hearsay.
With regards to the notification of authority, I feel you did not adequately explain why it may not have been mentioned. In every example you cited, some sort of notification is required. Simply mentioning notifying the authority does not tie down the notification protocol to any particular one.
If the Qur'an speaks of appointing arbiters from the families, then obviously this needs to be arranged through an appropriate means. Maybe it has not been explicitly mentioned because it is supposed to be common-sense? Even if you take the interpretation of 'cite them to the authority', this does not explain how exactly the citing should be done. The example of the woman in 581-4 tells us that she complained to the Prophet, which obviously does not apply today because the Prophet is not alive. Why does the Qur'an not detail the exact method for us to make this 'citation to the authority'? Maybe because such things are supposed to be general knowledge and common-sense, ie. if you need arbiters, you obviously need to have this arranged through a suitable method available at the time.
The word "iAAradan" (turn away) is not inherently negative or positive, as it will depend on context what one is turning away from. In 4128 it is clear (at least to me) it is a negative as the wife feared it and it obviously refers to turning away from her. Someone does not fear a good thing. I am happy with this admission, which is a consequence of the view "go away from them" i.e "I did mean that doing da-ra-ba in 434 may be the same as committing I'radan in 4128". This was the point I wanted to make. So, according to you, on the one hand Drb in 434 means "ignore / avoid or keeping away from his wife", and on the other hand a negative case of iAAradan can be " the husband is unjustly neglecting the wife and paying no attention to her". You advocate a position wherein one ignores/avoids or goes away from their spouse yet promotes self-reconciliation.
In 4128, you are taking the word I'radan to be definitely negative because of an assumption that the wife's perception or 'fear' in this context is the definitely correct side or opinion. We should remember that this 'fear', or perception / opinion in a marital disagreement is inevitably subjective and naturally personal, and it can be biased because either the man or the woman can be having the right or wrong perception or fear in a given situation. Notice that the same word 'fear' is used in both 434 and 4128, implying that both the man and the woman have their own fears or perspectives in a marital disagreement. The purpose of the verses is not to give a verdict on which side's fear / perception or accusations are correct, or to indicate whether or not someone is committing injustice in a given situation (eg. a man may or may not be being unjust by avoiding his wife, depending on context). The purpose of the verses is to present general guidance on how to approach and deal with a marital conflict regardless of which side is having the correct fears, opinions, or arguments. If we keep this in mind, we realise that it is irrelevant whether or not verse 4128 uses I'radan in a positive or negative way, because either way, the whole situation is subjective and can be biased in each perception. Both 434 and 4128 acknowledge the naturally subjective and opinionated nature of marital disputes by use of a subjective word, 'feared'.
I think the interpretation 'cite them to the authority' is more logical than 'beat them', but not more logical than 'turn away from them'. Verse 434 advises men on how to attempt reconciliation by themselves and then addresses the same men with, 'if they pay heed to you'. If the third step in 434 is to cite them to an authority, this effectively passes the responsibility of reconciliation to the authority / arbiters after only step 2 in verse 434. It would then seem unexpected / inconsistent for the verse to still refer to the same men with the statement, "if they pay heed to you" after a step which has been dealt with by an authority / arbiters. It makes more sense for the entire series of steps in 434 to be attempts at reconciliation by themselves, rather than having an authority intervened already in step 3. This is also more logical because the next verse 435 addresses arbitration as a separate / new concept, starting with the conditional expression 'If you fear a breach between them...'.
The translation 'cite them (to the authority)' is also quite vague and seems like an incomplete and 'loose' translation, particularly because in order to make any sense it requires the addition of an explanatory bracket "(to the authority)". There is no mention of 'authority' at all in the actual verse; however, there is suggestion of avoiding / disregarding the partner in step 2 of the advice "avoid them in bed". The interpretation 'turn away from them' is therefore a logical third step following this second step of avoiding in bed. This is a much simpler and more common-sense interpretation than 'cite them to the authority'. It also provides a sequence of steps that is more likely to lead to reconciliation, as encouraged by 4128 / 435.
-
In aya 4.35 it is spoken og a breach between them both, but to the end of aya 3.34 there has been no question of the speech revolving on exclusively a relationship of marriage. It was all about rijaal and nisaa', not husbands and wives. No mention of that at all.
And when it is said " of those (feminine plural, third person) you (mixed plural second person, that is, the addressee, that is, those who have believed) fear uncompliance", we are still speaking about the nisaa', not the wives. Then in the next aya, it goes into a specific question where it can be understood as between a coule. But to the end of 4.34 there is no reason to take that only or at all the married persons are meant. Men and women can break their social commitments other than marriage commitments.
Interesting thought, but doesn't the expression "abandon them in bed" in 434 suggest it is referring to a marital relationship?
-
Interesting thought, but doesn't the expression "abandon them in bed" in 434 suggest it is referring to a marital relationship?
No. It does not have the meaning that has been given to it. See 3.154
... Say "Even if you had remained in your homes, those for whom death was decreed would certainly have gone forth to the place of their death (ile maDaji3him)"; but (all this was) that Allah might test what is in your breasts and purge what is in your hearts. For Allah knoweth well the secrets of your hearts. (154)
Also 32.16
Their limbs do forsake their beds of sleep, the while they call on their Lord, in Fear and Hope and they spend (in charity) out of the sustenance which We have bestowed on them. (16)
From Lane
maDaji3 A place in which, or on which, one lies
upon his side ; (O,
Msb, g as also ? ' (O, p1. t.t (Myb,TA which
means sometimes places of sleep, or of passing the
night (Bl in iv. 38 and beds; or other things
spread upon the ground to lie upon. (Jel ibid.,
and Bd in xxxii. 16.).- the pl. is used
as meanin~ t Wives, or women so in the saying,
L.i 4 i. e. t He has well-born wives or
r,omen; like ~LLijl . . (TA.) - And
+,l ~1 L. mes s The places of falYi of r a.I O A
rain. (0, p, TA.) One says, W,eLqJ, ZJL,p
IJ. (A, TA.)In no other place in the Qur'an is a bed used as synonime for marriage or for sexual relations. Had the aya meant that, other expressions are used in the Qur'an elsewhere to say it. Whereas where maDaji3 is used there is no connotation of sexual activity, but points to the private place for somebody or something.
In fact, the use of the word for bed to mean sexual relations is rather modern, I suspect, and it is being injected in the aya without any grounds for it.
What it amounts to in the aya, seems to me, is that the women are not to be pestered in the place they are at home.
Let us not forget that in the aya there is no question of the women having done anything wrong but of there being aprehensions in some people that they might fail in their commitments. So they are to be asked about their intentions without trespassing on their privacy, get from them clarity as to where those who fear stand regarding them. Then if they get the proper feedback they should leave them in peace. Nobody there has done anything wrong, so this whole theater of admonishing, not "sleeping" (waw) with them and leave them or separate and all that is pure fantasy.
In the next aya, the fear is that a couple might break up. No question there either about punishing or correcting anybody, but rather appoint arbiters from both sides. And the addressee continues being the community (mixed second person plural) not the men (third person) nor the women (third person) in this case humaa (dual).
We have behind us centuries of heavy conditioning and hammering that men are given some power over anything (the special relationship of God with males, like that of the USA with Israel) and most certainly over women, and that we have to prove beyond all reasonable or unreasonable doubt that it is absolutely impossible that anything in the Qur'an could ever mean something that is not unfavourable to women and favourable to men. Like a self-fulfilling curse.
Well no. God does not have a special relationship with males. On that count a lot of objectivity is missing when reading the Qur'an. So let us repeat God does not have a special relationship with males, God does not have a special relationship with males...
Salaam
-
In no other place in the Qur'an is a bed used as synonime for marriage or for sexual relations. Had the aya meant that, other expressions are used in the Qur'an elsewhere to say it. Whereas where maDaji3 is used there is no connotation of sexual activity, but points to the private place for somebody or something.
What it amounts to in the aya, seems to me, is that the women are not to be pestered in the place they are at home.
Let us not forget that in the aya there is no question of the women having done anything wrong but of there being aprehensions in some people that they might fail in their commitments. So they are to be asked about their intentions without trespassing on their privacy, get from them clarity as to where those who fear stand regarding them. Then if they get the proper feedback they should leave them in peace. Nobody there has done anything wrong, so this whole theater of admonishing, not "sleeping" (waw) with them and leave them or separate and all that is pure fantasy.
Thanks for answering. I checked the verses and Lexicon definitions you posted, but I don't understand how beds equates to private place?
-
The place where you usually sleep is private to some extent or then what is private if not that?
A lot of other things can be seen as private too, like a bathroom, or a person's chair in the bedroom, or even a person's belongings like if they own a car it can be private for them. I don't see how bed means 'private place' in the verse.
-
434 Men are the protectors and supporters of women. They shall take full care of women with what they spend of their wealth. God has made men to excel in some areas and women to excel in some areas. Men should ensure that women are able to stand at their feet in the society.
So, righteous women are obedient to God?s Ordinances and guard the moral values even in privacy, the values that God has commanded to be guarded. If you experience ill-treatment from them, apprise them of possible consequences. Next, leave them in their resting places, but keep admonishing them with examples. If they pay heed to you, do not seek a way against them. God is Most High, Great.Example of Darabu from another Verse
435 Should We (A'fa'nad'ribu) withdraw the reminder from you just because you are a people bent upon wasting yourselves?So.........in 4 34, Darabu means to separate from or divorce.......the next Verse talks about the same matter...Divorce.
435 (Families and communities must adopt a proactive approach regarding a husband and a wife in discord.) If you fear a breach between the two of them (husband and wife), appoint two arbiters, one from his family and one from her family. If they decide to reconcile, God will help them get together. Surely, God is Knower, Aware.
Now ask you heart...........what is more appropriate for the one you can't live with........beating or divorce.
And directly ask a woman......."There are two meanings of Darabu = beating, and, separation.......which one would you like.....to be beaten, or, to be separated....?
-
A lot of other things can be seen as private too, like a bathroom, or a person's chair in the bedroom, or even a person's belongings like if they own a car it can be private for them. I don't see how bed means 'private place' in the verse.
Well what do you understand as privacy? Bathroom of course is private, but a bedroom is also private, or not? A chair is not so private, unless we are speaking about property, but that is not what we are speaking about. You do not sleep and become unconscious sitting on a chair, or at leas that is not the usual place where one abandons her or himself for rest and sleep. And the term, as you have seen from the Qur'an itself is not an object called bed, but the place where one lies down to rest or sleep, even if it is a spread on the ground. It is where persons become vulnerable, since they are not conscious, where they feel safe to abandon themselves to sleep, or where something is in the place it should be like the case of aya 3.154, which in fact, in that particular case, is precisely the place where oneis scheduled to meet his or her death. Would you say that death is private?
Whatever may be said or played around about privacy or not privacy may be a long discussion. However the fact is that in 4.34 there is no hint of shunning anybody sexually, except if one goes out from the preconceived notion that it is about sex that it MUST be speaking. Bed an sex are far from being unseparable concepts. And in older times, and presently where people are not very affluent, when it is cold at night people used to sleep all together in the same space so as to keep warmth. Bed's did not have a particular connotation with sex and, in fact, nowhere does the Qur'an use such language. So that in most of the circumstancews known to date, those women who should be left in their place of sleepping may in fact be usually sleeping with other members of their family in the same space, married or not. So what? Who is going to abandon them in bed, leave them alone in bed as they say, their parents, their children, their sisters or brothers? the husbands? From where do we take that their place of sleep is only shared by husbands? That is modern age affluence and euphemism for sex, but from where do we take that the Qur'an is departing there from its usual usage and means something that has never meant? In fact what it is telling us is that it is not sex it is talking aboute, but about the private, personal sphere of the persons concerned. A
And the addressee is still the community of believers who is addressed. So what can be deduced from it is that when the community tries to get clarity as to the intentions of those women from whom some uncompliance is feared that they should shun intruding into their private sphere, that they must get feedback from them by any other means and that if they quieten their concerns then they should not seek to pester them further.
In fact, far from giving any special rights to (once more) fiscalise women and treat them as potential culprits, what it does is set clear limits to what can be done to women as concerning their social behaviour.
At no time in the Qur'an is bed or sleeping place mentioned in connection with sex. Where it means sex it renders clearly that meaning without resorting to the bed euphemism (may be bed is not the only place where people can have sex, could it be?). There is no support from the Qur'an, one at all, to give it any sexual meaning.
I understand that it is hard to discard ideas that have always been taken for granted and never contradicted, but I, for one, when I do not take for granted what has been taken for granted in this, I cannot see at all that the Qur'an itself takes those self-same things for granted. The sex is in us, it is not in the Qur'an.
Salaam
-
peace all,
huruf,
You said " no question of the speech revolving on exclusively a relationship of marriage. It was all about rijaal and nisaa', not husbands and wives. No mention of that at all."
Then said "In the next aya, the fear is that a couple might break up."
What is this couple?I have actually investigated alternative meanings for rijal/nisa in this verse but I could not make it work. As I have often said, this is all about weighing up the options. If you or anyone else can produce a evidenced/logical alternative option, feel free. Thus far, I haven't seen anyone attempt to produce a detailed/credible work. Readers can then weigh up all options and decide for themselves.
TruthBehindIt,
The first part of your post is from QXP but in the most recent update DRB in 434 has changed to reflect the findings of 434, see ourbeacon.com
Also when you say "Darabu means to separate from or divorce.......the next Verse talks about the same matter...Divorce." The Quran always uses "talaq" for "divorce" so 434 is the exception in your view, and it would upset the divorce procedure in terms of contract-breaking party pays compensation (although it is possible you know of an alternative procedure as per Quran). And as for "separate from them" this has been discussed previously. -
peace all,
huruf,
You said " no question of the speech revolving on exclusively a relationship of marriage. It was all about rijaal and nisaa', not husbands and wives. No mention of that at all."
Then said "In the next aya, the fear is that a couple might break up."
What is this couple?I have actually investigated alternative meanings for rijal/nisa in this verse but I could not make it work. As I have often said, this is all about weighing up the options. If you or anyone else can produce a evidenced/logical alternative option, feel free. Thus far, I haven't seen anyone attempt to produce a detailed/credible work. Readers can then weigh up all options and decide for themselves.
What alternativo meanings for rijaal or nisaa'? I have taken the usual meaning, rijaal in this ayam since it is opposed to nisaa' I have taken it to mean MEN, and nisaa' I have taken it to mean WOMEN. So I do not really get what you mean that I should come up with an alternative meaning.
If what you mean is that in the whole aya means husbands and wives, I completely disagree with you. Whe the Qur'an means husbands, says so, and when the qur'an means wives, makes it clear. Here there are rijaal versus nisaa', men versus women. And in fact historically it has always been understood that the men in a family assume the burden of the women of the family, irrespective whether they are sisters
In the next aya switches to a couple. In the next aya. Not in 4.34. There is no switch and the addressee is still the same in both ayas, the community. The most we can say here is that it is not excluded that a husband and a wife may be involved, but the text does not make any such restriction and it does continue to speak about rijaal and nisaa'
On the other hand, the "bainahuma" (between the two of them) we do take it to mean a couple and I think mostly it will be that, but there is no interdiction that it might also be a man and a woman who have some living social or financial relationship, for instance a tutor and a pupil, a political uncle and a niece, a political aunt and a nephew... Think for instance of Maryam and Zakariya, if there ever arose a conflict between them... Even a mother and a son. What is set forth in the 4.34 is the different burdens on each of the sexes. That is true regardless of the kind of relationship there may exist between two particular persons of different sex. The burdens of the women are the heavier, unmeasurably heavier, burdens of reproduction, and the burdens of the men are precisely to take their share in the care of women, so that the reproduction work and labour they put in does not stay unremunerated, that is stolen. Let us not forget that the Qur'an speaks of "ujur" at the familiar level, but since the expression in 4.34 is general, blanket rijaal - nisaa', all of them, the only thing that can be understood from that is that the sharing of the burden is between the generality of men and the generality of women.
Salaam
-
At no time in the Qur'an is bed or sleeping place mentioned in connection with sex. Where it means sex it renders clearly that meaning without resorting to the bed euphemism (may be bed is not the only place where people can have sex, could it be?). There is no support from the
My view is not that bed refers exclusively to sexual contact in 434. But I think bed means bed, whether or not this includes a meaning of avoiding intimacy. For example, 'avoid in bed' could mean sleep in separate beds if the situation requires.
-
My view is not that bed refers exclusively to sexual contact in 434. But I think bed means bed, whether or not this includes a meaning of avoiding intimacy. For example, 'avoid in bed' could mean sleep in separate beds if the situation requires.
If you remember or read back the quotes from the Qur'an and the Lane dictionnary, and as I made explicitly clear, I think, it is not an object called "bed" but the place where one lies to sleep. It is function not an object. That is the whole point that we are talking about sleep or place of certainty, like the aya where it refers to the place where somebody was to die, so there is no question about marital considerations. And I suppose to, that the community of believers, which is the addressee of the sentence does not usually share a bed or place of sleeping with any particular women from whom whatever is feared.
My reading of the commendation to the community would be
...question them, leave them think about it at leaisure and have clarity from them.
Which in the context makes perfect sense. The men in the sentence, or if you want them to be that, the husbands, don't do anything, they are the third person plural. It is the second person mixed plural, (ayuha alladhina amanu), who do something. Obviously they would not need to part beds with anybody, but they may leave whoever it is to think things over quietely at their abode.
Salaam
-
peace huruf,
Thanks for clarifying that in your view 435 switches to a couple unmentioned previously. I dont consider your view credible, however, as I said, if you wish to come up with an alternative, feel free to research such and produce an article/etc so others can weigh it up and decide etc.
-
peace huruf,
Thanks for clarifying that in your view 435 switches to a couple unmentioned previously. I dont consider your view credible, however, as I said, if you wish to come up with an alternative, feel free to research such and produce an article/etc so others can weigh it up and decide etc.
You may not consider it credible, but, in fact, there is NOT a couple mentioned earlier. There is a plural feminine referring to the women from whom something is feared. Those women may live in a couple or not. We are not informed of the kinds of reasons the fearers have to feel as they may do, so there is no restriction on the kind of "nushuz" that the may fear.
?An alternative to what?
Salaam
