Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back

[huruf]

Nah!! brother uq raised important point for what we must take notice.
It's about preposition .DRB can be mean separate, go away with that preposition

Example (appear in 2273 and 3156)

I don't see in any dictionaries both Lane and baheeth.com if DRB without any prepositions can be mean separate, go away.
But mostly mean strike, beat and attemp.

Example
-From lisan ul Arab -

As you can see in both those sentences there is a mention of that is used to d-r-b or a mention of what is madrub.

That is you need two complements for daraba to be used with that meaning.

On the other hand, what was before, the hen or the egg?

The inclusion of the meaning of daraba in 4.34 in the qur'an lacks or logic and fails to make any sense and as the study on d-r-b as used in the Qur'an made by wakas the meaning of d-r-b has hitting is to be excluded. The fact that it is used todaby with that meaning may be precisely the result of it being pushed down the throats of users for ages so that the marital authority could be asserted. You should prove that it has that meaning at the time of the Qur'an without the presence of two complements. On the other hand the meaning by itself and only with a single complement as to impress, make a dent, or cause an effect, or surprise is part of the basic meaning of daraba. I already mentioned the verb adarvar, in spanish, derived from the arabic d-r-b which has no physical connotation at all, but in fact means that, impress, surprise. If at that time, con the word adarvar came into spanish in the middle ages, the meaning in arabic had been "hit" that should have been the meaning in Spanish, but on the other hand, the meaning is precisely that which is the basic meaning of the root, which by the way is not hit. Hit may be the most common usage today, but it is not semantically the basic meaning. Why not translate by "play music to them"?

I really cannot understand this need -contrary to quranic injunction which tells us to put the best construction on the ayas of the Qur'an- to do exactly the opposite, that is, to put the worst contruction in the ayas of the Qur'an. What are we playing at? Whom are we kidding? And in the present case, as abundantly proved, it is not only the worst construction morally, it is also the worst construction logically and gramatically and semantically. It is ridiculous. The "commendation" of a lot of "traditional" self-seeking
"explanations" of the Qur'an is about the only ground that that preposterous idea is still handed around and, it seems, respected. There must be a great amount of masochism for that.

Salaam

[unknownuser]

First don't mistaken me if I advocate beating wives, I even no dare for doing that
I'm just play Arabic

But remember an Arabic word can be broad enough to be translated in more than one way in English.

Aqua, yes it's sound plausible in english, but take notice if not all muslims are english speaker include me.
It still sound strange in my language.

Huruf, you may now understand what I mean "speculative intepretation".Yes the example is this thread.
Use hadith and Quran commentators's view if necessary as long as it didn't contradict the Quran or against the limit (vulgar etc).

[aqua]

Aqua, yes it's sound plausible in english, but take notice if not all muslims are english speaker include me.
It still sound strange in my language.

Of-course we can't expect a language to translate word-for-word and remain grammatically correct to every other language in the world. That's common sense.

[unknownuser]

Of-course we can't expect a language to translate word-for-word and grammatically correct to every other language in the world. That's common sense.

Yes, common-sense and logic is needed, but each person have their own version of common sense and logic and possibility contradic each other.

Please take a look how many salat, hajj theories in here? how many a thread turned into debate.

Quran contains puzzling language and protocol to understand it is needed.
It's protocol can be hadith, previous Scriptures or some ancient/classic tafseer guide.
It's not wrong to used them, as long as it didn't contradict/slandering the Quran.

People have their own perceptions, mindmaps and ideology.Since Quranist didn't have any proper tafseer protocol (use speculations/assumption).They keep intepreted the Quran based on their own ideology/mindmap and the result is each intepretations contradict each other.
Example is the Quranist who support polygamy will create polygamy intepretation from the Quran, while the anti-polygamy one will do the same thing.
It's like we used the Quran to justify our own desire.

Currently I'm a muslim, practice Ahadith, Tanakh, etc but still keep use Quran as it's parameter/pillar.I'm not Sunni, SHia, etc.

Sorry for being off-topic

[aqua]

Yes, common-sense and logic is needed, but each person have their own version of common sense and logic and possibility contradic each other.

Common sense by definition is something 'commonly known', ie. most people agree to it because it is known facts. What I said is a known fact, not an opinion; you cannot translate one language word-for-word to every other language in the world and expect it all to make sense. Because it won't.

[Wakas]

Well about the terms for husbands and wives, that is another story or thread or whatever, as to the terms men and women there is no confusion whatsoever, rijaal is men, nisaa' is women. Nisaa' in as very definite conntext might mean wives...

You have answered your own question, as you said in a certain context "nisa" can mean "wives". Same for "rijal". Context is key

1. ...supporters/maintainers......... and with what they spent of their money
   (men support/maintain and spend of their money on them, strongly implying a close tie to the man, likely within household)

2. ...guardians/protectors to the unseen with what God guarded/protected
   (only one example of betrayal in the unseen 1252, context is within marriage)
   (what has God ordered women to guard/protect? e.g. private parts)

3. ....fear their uprising/disloyalty....
   (only ever used in context of marriage, 412

4. and (then) abandon them in the bed
   (self-explanatory)

5. If they obeyed you, then seek not against them a way
   (where else except in marriage could obedience to advise be possible or discussed between a man and woman in Quran?)

6. And if you (plural) feared disunion/breach/rift between them two, then appoint a judge from his family and a judge from hers. If they both want to reconcile, then God will bring agreement between them.
   (perfect for marriage context, see Quran)

Context fits. Simple.

...but rijaal never is husbands.

What about 2228?

[huruf]

It is your invention that rijaal in any context means husband. It does not. Never. And in the context where women is opposed to men nisaa' always means women not wives. So, if you want to say that every time rijaal means husband and nisaa' means wives every time, you say that yourself, I am not saying it. I deny it totally and there is the Qur'an to prove the facts.

And you are every single time evading the question that no husbands are addressed in the aya. Because rijaal are third person plural and they
and the women are the ones spoken of, but they, neither the men nor the women, are the addressees. The addressees are

ayuhha alladhina amanu, (You who have believed) second person plural, those addressed and those to whom it is said "if you fear...

And there is no playing with words and no playing with presumptions that can make that to be otherwise. Those husbands and wives you see everywhere are non existent in the aya. Men maintain women is a blanket statement, it is not certain men maintain certain women, no, there is no restriction. You may think that that should be what is meant, but that is your conjecture because that is not what it says. All men maintain all women. And it has always been read that way because there is not much room to lay around with something as clear as that. That it is done at a family scale, at a nation's scale or at a planetary scale are particular cases of men maintaining women.

On the other hand you do trick You say and hammer that the speech is only about husbands and wives and to husbands, but even so, you yourself kannot uphold that, because your are forced to say

(men support/maintain and spend of their money on them, strongly implying a close tie to the man, likely within household)

So, now, according even to you they are not husbands but "just a close tie is implied, likely within the household)"

Apart from the invention you make of the close tie, even if we take it as that

do you mean that fathers are told to abandon tehir daughters in bed? or sons their mother? brothers their sisters, or their aunts? Abandon in bed how? Were they in bed with them before? Not even you can upphold the husbands only (and not men) idea that you are pushing.

Also this part where you say

(what has God ordered women to guard/protect? e.g. private parts)

Really? Do you mean with that that God has not ordered men to guard/protect their private parts? Is it then something that only women should do?
So women protect private parts and in exchange for that men maintain them? If it was for that then it could work equally the other way around, right, that men guard/protect private parts and women maintain them?

All persons guard, protect private partes, but as it happens only women bear the encumbrance and burden of mammalian reproduction which requires a way too important contribution from the women as opposed to the men from whom no effort is required and which for them does not represent any encumbrance at all. The guarding is of the future men and women who will be born and of their filiation. And all men and women benefit from the reproduction of the species not just husbands. So since everybody benefits, but only half the population contributes it stands to reason that the other half should make an equal contribution by some other means.

So yes, it is men and women, not husbands and wives. And it is the comunity of believers which should guarantee that justice and just compensation is ensured. And it is to the community of believers (ya ayuha alladhina amanu) to whom the whole speech is addressed, in the previous ayas where also is spoken of men and women in that aya and in the following ayas.

All the other things you mention have already, I have already, explained them repeatedly, in fact, to my taste, too many times. But the fact that you hav e not acknowledged a single time those explanations hopefully will not have prevented or prevent other readers to have noticed them and draw their own conclusions.

Other than that the translation you use seems to uphold the principle that the husband is a chief and the wife some servant of his. I thought you had discarded that kind of set up.

Salaam

[aqua]

huruf, do you think the word 'Rijal' in 2228 is not referring to husbands? That is important because it is an example of how Rijal can refer to husbands depending on the context. Verse 434 is just too obviously relating to husbands and wives considering the context and expression, and please try to consider that taking this meaning does not necessarily imply a sexist interpretation. I also advocate women's rights, but even if this verse is referring to a marital set-up, I don't think it confers superiority to men / husbands over women / wives unless da-ra-ba is mistranslated into a violent term. The meaning of avoiding in 'bed / place of lying down' would make much more sense in a marital context.

There is a very weak link (if any) between 'avoid in place of lying down / bed' and the expression "leave them to think about it at leisure". Even if it did somehow provide this meaning, the overall interpretation of "...question them, leave them think about it at leisure and have clarity from them'' does not seem to be a very effective, meaningful or fitting course of action especially in the context of this interpretation. I appreciate that you have put a lot of thought into it, but this must be the most cryptic interpretation of verse 434 ever in existence. Do you know of any published English translation of the Qur'an that takes this interpretation?

[savage_carrot]

I'd like some clarification of your understanding sis huruf.

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.
It doesn't need to be used anywhere else in the quran. Of course, it would be great if we had a large concordance of similar terms used but sometimes we don't and I don't see it as an issue. Secondly, if other expressions are used for sex, doesn't mean that different expressions cannot be used. Especially if it is a term that can be used in both cases of rijaal/nisaa and couples. In the former sex is not implied/understood but in the latter sex can be implied along with everything else, e.g. abandon/forsake/leave/avoid them in their resting/private/whatever places. In case it's a relationship that has no sex involved, avoid them in their private/personal space. If it is a relationship which can involve sex, no sex along with avoiding them in their private/personal space.

Unless you mean to say that that verse has nothing to do with husbands/wives whatsoever which is kinda odd because the next verse does suggest a couple and is a follow on verse as far as I can see, which is problematic for the previous verse being only a no couple kind of situation. one could say, well in that verse it applies to a couple, but another would question the applicability and/or the conclusion for the other set...it seems to be leaving that set on a cliffhanger...do they not get arbitration as well? If so, how, where? If they don't need it, is this implied anywhere? Does it just stop on the 3 stages because they are not a couple? etc Which leads me to think that IF both sets are involved then either the next verse does not apply in one set, or does in some way I can't understand yet in a no couple situation, or it was always about couples anyways and the different addresses can be explained. The third option is 434 is only about non couples and the next verse does not apply or somesuch.

I'm all for equal rights and so on and I can't see these passages as they as are some sort of indictment against that personally. I'm also against 'authorities' deciding/being apprised on personal matters which are non criminal or whatever in nature, basically extremely limited outside interference whether in the form of people or authorities when dealing with personal matters...Community is in my view a substitute for authorities or a group of people who are arbitrators appointed by the community for disputes. Now, whether that involves personal arbitrators or community wide arbitrators etc, not exactly sure how much legal standing these guys have? But that is supposedly left to the different communities to decide for themselves.

It is your invention that rijaal in any context means husband. It does not. Never. And in the context where women is opposed to men nisaa' always means women not wives. So, if you want to say that every time rijaal means husband and nisaa' means wives every time, you say that yourself, I am not saying it. I deny it totally and there is the Qur'an to prove the facts.

• He isn't saying that, he's saying that it can depending on the context imo?

And you are every single time evading the question that no husbands are addressed in the aya. Because rijaal are third person plural and they
and the women are the ones spoken of, but they, neither the men nor the women, are the addressees. The addressees are

ayuhha alladhina amanu, (You who have believed) second person plural, those addressed and those to whom it is said "if you fear...

-It's obviously not only the 3rd gender inclusive in 'you who have believed'...so if it is the believers being addressed, which apparently it is, why is it out of the question that some of those believers could be husbands? Or wives? If you are taking them as the 'community/authorities' why should they fear nushooz from the persons in question? Is there some sort of morality police at work here in the community/from the authorities fearing that this or that person is up to no good?

And there is no playing with words and no playing with presumptions that can make that to be otherwise. Those husbands and wives you see everywhere are non existent in the aya. Men maintain women is a blanket statement, it is not certain men maintain certain women, no, there is no restriction. You may think that that should be what is meant, but that is your conjecture because that is not what it says. All men maintain all women. And it has always been read that way because there is not much room to lay around with something as clear as that. That it is done at a family scale, at a nation's scale or at a planetary scale are particular cases of men maintaining women.

-don't think he was saying that, he was saying however that the marital scenario does/can fit. In your opinion, you'd think that it just cannot be a marital scenario? That is what doesn't make sense to me because like Wakas says, you can say it can be a possible scenario amongst other sits, but excluding something completely when you don't even have the full picture yet of what this nushooz is, somewhat accurate translation of terms, and so on you've already struck something out on the basis of 'well, it just cannot be' and I'm not sure as to why you've done that. There probably can be an explanation for why rijaal/nisa are used that doesn't have to exclude spouses, esp if it's incorporating various scenarios?

On the other hand you do trick You say and hammer that the speech is only about husbands and wives and to husbands, but even so, you yourself kannot uphold that, because your are forced to say

(men support/maintain and spend of their money on them, strongly implying a close tie to the man, likely within household)

So, now, according even to you they are not husbands but "just a close tie is implied, likely within the household)"

Apart from the invention you make of the close tie, even if we take it as that

do you mean that fathers are told to abandon tehir daughters in bed? or sons their mother? brothers their sisters, or their aunts? Abandon in bed how? Were they in bed with them before? Not even you can upphold the husbands only (and not men) idea that you are pushing.

• No idea what Wakas feels about this, but from my side, I don't disallow different scenarios to be simultaneously legit and depending on more information, could be refined further. So who are these females (or males)? And why would someone have to leave them to their resting places? For what? If someone wanted to break a commitment for example, why on earth does the community (in other words authorities) have to get involved unless it's for legal reasons? And in regards to legal reasons, why would a community have to advise the person to 'go home to your abode and/or resting place and think about it, and oh, no one must intrude and bother them about it ...it makes little sense? I mean, that kind of 'advice' is kinda weird for the authorities to provide...and especially for something that is 'feared' on the part of the person?

What is the person planning to do? Elope? Leave home? Suicide bomb run? What is this nushooz? Whatever it is, is it even practical for people close to them (obviously those living someplace else won't need to avoid them in their resting places) to avoid this person that way? What if the lady takes a year or more to give clarity, should those close to her that fear whatever, just sit back and say whatever, it's all good...? Is there a time frame? Is this only about the individual and not the rights of those around her either?

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.
Doesn't this come under the advisement clause anyways? Reading the verse it seems like a gradual progression from advice to drb (whatever you want to call it), unless you want to say that it's all of it together at once which it seems like you're saying above? You also seem to be saying that the drb is the conclusion to the conflict, i.e. proper feedback is gotten thus drb them? But then you say get clarity from them as well somewhere in there and it's just all over the place. What is it that you think the terms refer to and what stages correspond with what please? It seems that whatever you're saying is already included the the advise/instruction stage?

Drb is the popular guy and I tend to forget that there are 2 more in there. On which note, has anyone asked the question why/how someone would advise/instruct (the word seems to have a lot of weight behind it given it's concordance) someone if they didn't even know what the hell was going on with them? If clarity has not yet been received and we are advised to leave them be to get clarity, what and how exactly are we advising/instructing them on? It seems as if whatever is feared is legit and the advice stems from telling/instructing them to do the right thing or somesuch. Not just a casual, 'hey what's goin' on with you, spill... or don't, I'll just leave you be and not pester you to see if you want to tell me' kinda thing which isn't really advice/instruction is it. Sounds more like reverse psychology which has its own merits but probably not what's happening in this verse.

Let's imagine this scenario in real life, taking a mother/son conflict for example. Does the son need to go away from his mothers resting place and leave her on her own because he fears the mother may be nushoozing? Let's say the mother has been told to think upon matters, obviously there must be a valid reason (evidence) for the fear since unfounded fears/suspicions are against everything holy and the authorities shouldn't get involved on the say so of a paranoid son...unless they want to give a restraining order against the guy. Does the feared nushoozee then become the nushooz fearee hmm...and um, anyways, moving on...so now the son has to leave the mother alone to think about her thoughts and whenever she's thought about it, that's kinda it? The clarity that comes forth whenever it does or even if it does from the mother will fix the situation/resolve the conflict? While the son can't really talk to the mother about the nushooz, and if she does the nushooz, then what? What benefit does the son get from taking this route? It seems a one sided situation really. If I was the son, I'd be kinda upset and refuse to get my mother flowers for her birthday ever again, the birthday dinner is off the table too.

I don't agree that there is no restriction on the kind of fear the the fearers may have. That's taking the train to crazy town where all manners of people with all manners of fears are taking it to the authorities and airing dirty laundry in public even if one party doesn't want it. The nushooz seems to be of a particular serious sort with valid evidence regarding the fear. Could be the type of things like one party needing some quiet time to gather their resources before running off into the sunset...and if one party wants to do that, who are the community to stop them I hear you say? And you would be right, if the party wasn't planning on selling various mutual possessions in the house, grabbing the kids and buying business class tickets to Peru to go see Machu Picchu with their boyfriend or girlfriend. I agree the kids would be in the way, but that's how this party rolls. I don't know however, it could be something totally other than my fanciful scenario which actually happened in real life...but I do think that whatever this nushooz is, it's serious and is presented with evidence when it's taken to the next level. And scenarios other than marital, where the buck stops at 434 rather than the natural lead up of 435 is quite problematic and confusing.

To me, the way it's understood as being a marital issue where the nushooz is something that is valid enough for it to warrant being taken to the next level so the community/authority is being addressed or whatever, makes more sense. I just can't really picture a scenario where other than a marital issue, the authorities are going to tell a mother and son for example, to avoid each other, leave one to their resting place and allow them to have a think over the scenario because they aren't sure what's going on and see what happens kinda deal. I mean really, if this is what the community is going to do then what's the point...the guy would be better off paying someone for their expert opinion rather than taking free 'advice' from the community 'cause he's going to have to apparently sleep on the sofa or somewhere else and not get dinner (esp if his mum still cooks for him) indefinitely for fearing nushooz! Some would say that's what happens when free advice is taken.

Also this part where you say

(what has God ordered women to guard/protect? e.g. private parts)

Really? Do you mean with that that God has not ordered men to guard/protect their private parts? Is it then something that only women should do?
So women protect private parts and in exchange for that men maintain them? If it was for that then it could work equally the other way around, right, that men guard/protect private parts and women maintain them?

All persons guard, protect private partes, but as it happens only women bear the encumbrance and burden of mammalian reproduction which requires a way too important contribution from the women as opposed to the men from whom no effort is required and which for them does not represent any encumbrance at all. The guarding is of the future men and women who will be born and of their filiation. And all men and women benefit from the reproduction of the species not just husbands. So since everybody benefits, but only half the population contributes it stands to reason that the other half should make an equal contribution by some other means.

But surely you think that the fact that it is in the same verse has some bearing on the verse? What do you think that is?

So yes, it is men and women, not husbands and wives. And it is the comunity of believers which should guarantee that justice and just compensation is ensured. And it is to the community of believers (ya ayuha alladhina amanu) to whom the whole speech is addressed, in the previous ayas where also is spoken of men and women in that aya and in the following ayas.

Like I said, don't understand why the community of believers fear nushooz on the part of the person...can you explain that bit?

peace

[huruf]

It may be the persons closer to the woman who fear nushuz, but the question is that whatever that nushuz consists of, not the "husbands" -if there are husbands- are the ones to do the questioning or leaving the person to think at leisure and have an answer. No authority is being given to any husband to have their wives "obey them" (again the obey thing).

And it is wakas who has refused to allow for anything but husbands and wives in the fry. The thing I have said is that the "you" mixed plural second person addressed in 4.34 is the believers, not any husbands per se. And yes, for sure, there can be husbands an wives amongst the believers, but they are not addressed as such, the same as sisters are not addressed as such and daughters or sons are not addressed as such.

You say who may fear nushuz from the women... I do not think we are under the obligation of finding something so that we can justify that. That is a blanket concept and it is valid generally, the specifics we will see as events happen whether they fit or not. What is not proper is to limit from the start that general formulation to an specific as has been done and is still being done.

But still, if you want an specific,

think for instance of a wife who fears that another woman is after her husband. It may be true or it may be imaginations. So whichever believers are in the best situation for that should undertake to put the fears of that woman at rest questioning the presumptive pretender of her husband, discreetly without upsetting the husband or something like that.

Another one Suppose it is a father in law who fears that his daughter in law is having a baby whose father is not his son, is he going to throw that to all winds and break up a marriage and make a public scandal? No need. Again a suitable person or persons amongst the community of believers may undertake something to put the fears at rest or to clear the situation in the best and most peaceful manner if in fact there has been a transgression, thus protecting everybody from taking wild "justice".

Another one there may be a suspicion that a certain woman is pregnant and that she intends to bury the child when it is born. What? You publish it and break a woman's life and even endanger a future child who might no be in danger if in fact it is only fear, or do you appoint somebody who may look after the woman and try to find out her intentions or feelings and if she is in need, put a remedy or what do you do?

Another one there may be a fear that a certain women with children is into prostitution. She is without work and with nobody to look after the children while she works were she to find a job. But of course, it is a big thing to spread that around. So, somebody in best position to do it is charged of finding out what the facts are. May be the woman has not done it, but is entertaining the thought. May be it has never entered her mind to do such a thing and it is mere badmouthing...

The problem with the traditional and wakas interpretation of this aya is that it restricts the whole of it to a single point and does not allow the aya to spread out its full scope. We get hyppnotized into the husband predicament and restrict the whole world to that seemingly single important thing in the universe.

As to 4.35 it is indeed more specific and does suggest marriage, but again, for the sake of not limiting what the Qur'an itself does not limit, let us keep to what it says a fray between two persons of different sex who have some undertaking in common.

As to the meaning of maDaji3, I never pretended that I have the best translation ever, rather I have said exactly the opposite, but what it does not mean is that because I cannot produce on the spot the perfect translation that EVERYBODY could accept that I have to certify the usual interpretation that is forced into this aya. Why should I do that? It is forced and there is no proof of it.

Not me saying that, just take the Qur'an. There are two other mentions of the word. If one feels that sex fits the bill, at least what cannot be done is forbid the meanings that really pertain to it. Sleeping and resting where one is in his or her place of relax and having sexual relations are two completely and unrelated things, just as sleeping and eating are two unrelated things. So, come to that, we could also translate, "and leave them eat alone", right?

Again, please study really the word and its usage in the Qur'an, if any of the other two appearances tells you that it would be a good one to use to mean sex-relations. In fact if it does something is suggest the aloneness of a person for that aspect. Like death.

There haven't been many attempts to translate maDaji3 out of the box of marital male bliss, therefore I see no reason to pound on my translations (I put up several, because obviously I am trying to get to the gist of it) as if I were guilty for not coming up with a trump. Bring up a better one, I will greatly celebrate it, but please do not push, again, the one that has been very conveniently used, but not really documented nor checked and that has thrown and continues throwing off track the unravelling of this most important and luminous aya. That traditional translation, as far as I am concerned, it continues being a male fantasy.

Husbands are not the reason for the universe. May be humankind and prophethood are, but husbands by themselves, when they are humble, and faithful servants of God and their community, like the male prophets, peace be on them all, are a source of peace and joy for their communities and their families, but they must prove themselves. Not just for the sake of maleness they get the whole lot no questions asked and enjoy women obeyers at will. And I say this not because I think that anybody is prejudiced to that point. Consciouslly we are not, but we do are under the spell of centuries of seeing everything through the eyes that the human species is man, woman a mere after thought, and therefore woman can only come in the fray as an accident to the real thing which is the male. That is the mentality that the Qur'an tries very hard and conclusively to correct, but inertia is very strong and the conditioning of centuries not easy to override. At least I have not found it easy and I am sure I continue to have many such deformations. Aya 4.34 has helped me a lot, and many contributors in this and other forums have contributed to it.

In fact, what the 4.34, together with many ayas in the Qur'an does is socialise the needs of the most needy. Starting with the women, who in the face of great, great difficulties many times have to reproduce the species, maintain her children and upkeep the family with no help. So, there you are. The Qur'an does not leave women with their problems to themselves, but involves the community. Which is logical, the whole species benefits from its own reproduction, why should the burden fall only on those that most contribute to it through thin and thick. Justice... for God's sake. And the fears that women may do this and do that is no fancy it is there and it is still going. See the fierce campaigns because of abortion. What is that if not fear the the women are "rebelious"? Well the Qur'an goes beyond that, and wants the women to speak and get the help they need. Not just fear and fear and because of fear do everything on their backs and stab them, once again. And in those cases there is the attempt to make that appear like a war of the sexes, but that is wrong. Real men, real loving faithful men, hate that. They do not want their women to suffer nor be humilliated. And the women of those good men are ALL the women. Like the women of Muhammad were all the women.

Salaam

[bookish]

If idriboo means cite/point out, it is not quite clear what the husband should point out or indicate.

And doesn't the first step, which is to advise, already cover cite/point out? Because when advising, the husband would most likely point out/cite things. So how is this a separate independent step?

Your analysis is truly quite detailed and well-done....but I guess it's a close call between "leave" and "cite". To argue that one is definitely better than the other is a grey area.

[aqua]

If idriboo means cite/point out, it is not quite clear what the husband should point out or indicate.

And doesn't the first step, which is to advise, already cover cite/point out? Because when advising, the husband would most likely point out/cite things. So how is this a separate independent step?

Your analysis is truly quite detailed and well-done....but I guess it's a close call between "leave" and "cite". To argue that one is definitely better than the other is a grey area.

His article does not take the view of 'citing examples'; instead it is to cite the partner to an authority. However, I can understand that the term 'cite them' on its own is quite vague and not easily understood without further explanations. Considering this, the interpretation of 'leave / disregard' is much simpler and more logical than others.

[Wakas]

peace bookish,

If idriboo means cite/point out, it is not quite clear what the husband should point out or indicate.

The word is "idriboo-hunna" / "cite them". Thus, it is clear what/whom one is citing. See the complimentary example of 581-4 as discussed on www.Quran434.com

And doesn't the first step, which is to advise, already cover cite/point out? Because when advising, the husband would most likely point out/cite things. So how is this a separate independent step?

The step of 'to advise' is general wherein anything relevant to the situation could be discussed. It is logical and practical for it to be the first step. The logical and practical last step would be to notify the authority so they can get involved in a situation of no reconciliation / intransigence. It is a perfect fit.

Your analysis is truly quite detailed and well-done....but I guess it's a close call between "leave" and "cite". To argue that one is definitely better than the other is a grey area.

Everyone is entitled to their view, but for me, in terms of Quranic evidence, the strongest option is clear

"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 solution

Readers can weigh up each option, and go with whatever they feel is most evidenced/logical.

[Bender]

The logical and practical last step would be to notify the authority so they can get involved in a situation of no reconciliation / intransigence.

Salaam,

I did not follow the discussion so sorry to jump in like this, but my eye catched this.
Almost every translation I've read so far, and almost every opinion I heard so far about 434 translate this part
"... ..."
as kind of step plan. Thus first A then B then as last C.

This is simply not correct. If it was a step plan then THUMMA would have been used and not WA.
All 3 actions have to be done and not one after the other, and you can also not stop after the first or after the second.
It is the same as "aqimu assalaata WA ooto azzakaata" both have to be done and the order does not matter as long as we do all, imho same goes for 434.

Salaam,
Bender

[Wakas]

peace Bender,

This is simply not correct. If it was a step plan then THUMMA would have been used and not WA.
All 3 actions have to be done and not one after the other, and you can also not stop after the first or after the second.

The above is your unevidenced claim. Actually if "thumma" was used it may have its own issues, e.g. implying one must do A, then B, then C regardless, and/or, once one does A, then B (or then C) one cannot do A again, when it will likely be a fluid situation wherein A may be continuous. The use of "wa" eliminates these potential issues.

Interestingly, your interpretation allows little to no space/time for reconciliation, and is thus impractical/illogical.

The example you reference is not a like for like comparison, as it does not involve problem solving or conflict resolution, it is simply a general command, i.e. not situational. It would be interesting however if there are similar examples to 434 in which we can analyse the wording/sequence. If you have such examples, please let us know.

In any case, the issue you raise is discussed on www.Quran434.com

[unknownuser]

Common sense by definition is something 'commonly known', ie. most people agree to it because it is known facts. What I said is a known fact, not an opinion; you cannot translate one language word-for-word to every other language in the world and expect it all to make sense. Because it won't.

Common sense doen't means that, please don't be mistake cause the word "common" existed.
Like I said the meaning and usage of idriboo is beat or separate.
So idriboo-hunna means you separate the nisaa' not you separate from the nisaa'.

1. I will separate them to different classifications.
2. I will separate from you, since we have different destination.

Notice the differences between of both sentences and the idriboo-hunna in 434 fit to the first sentence according to Arabic grammar.

[hawk99]

Peace Wakas, All,

Is there a place for hyphenation in regards to D_R_B such as strike/separate from them or beat or leave them?
In places where Quran gives options to prayer and zakat, why such a rigid interpretation about marital relations?
There are all kinds of mates/ matches, and it has been my personal experience the D-R-B is perfectly placed in 4/34.
Some individuals are tough, aggressive and warrior like and appreciate the same in their spouse. While others
prefer peace and consensus.

God bless

peace

[Wakas]

peace hawk99,

Is there a place for hyphenation in regards to D_R_B such as strike/separate from them or beat or leave them?

I don't understand your question. Can you clarify?

[hawk99]

peace hawk99,

I don't understand your question. Can you clarify?

Peace Wakas,

To clarify Is there a possibility that daraba is poorly translated and has a wider meaning that includes both
strike or separate? My understanding is there are spouses who would threaten and strike one another and couples
who would separate from one another to make their point. There are all types of couples and I think at the moment
that God's infinite wisdom uses D-R-B to accommodate all marriages.

God bless

peace

[savage_carrot]

It may be the persons closer to the woman who fear nushuz, but the question is that whatever that nushuz consists of, not the "husbands" -if there are husbands- are the ones to do the questioning or leaving the person to think at leisure and have an answer. No authority is being given to any husband to have their wives "obey them" (again the obey thing).
Alright, so you'd agree that there would be a need to have valid evidence/justification for this fear before the community/authorities are brought in, yes?

And it is wakas who has refused to allow for anything but husbands and wives in the fry. The thing I have said is that the "you" mixed plural second person addressed in 4.34 is the believers, not any husbands per se. And yes, for sure, there can be husbands an wives amongst the believers, but they are not addressed as such, the same as sisters are not addressed as such and daughters or sons are not addressed as such.
Wakas is a bad boy but let's cut him some slack since he did write a book about it albeit with an awful cover Let's see where this understanding takes us, because I find different takes on the same old illuminating.

You say who may fear nushuz from the women... I do not think we are under the obligation of finding something so that we can justify that. That is a blanket concept and it is valid generally, the specifics we will see as events happen whether they fit or not. What is not proper is to limit from the start that general formulation to an specific as has been done and is still being done.
We are under no obligation, but it's the thing to do in understanding practically and theoretically what scenarios would follow from such rendering. I agree that we shouldn't limit, definitely esp not if we are trying to understand the verse from another perspective.

think for instance of a wife who fears that another woman is after her husband. It may be true or it may be imaginations. So whichever believers are in the best situation for that should undertake to put the fears of that woman at rest questioning the presumptive pretender of her husband, discreetly without upsetting the husband or something like that.
I don't see counseling work in the verse, like I keep saying, the instructions we are giving to the lady in question is after we already have clarity regarding the situation...or it would make no sense. It doesn't seem a case of "let's find out what's going on", it's more like "okay, this is the issue and this is what you have to do, please do it".

Anyways, I take this as the train that leads to crazy town. It opens the door to a storm of unfounded accusations and a general cloud of suspicion hanging over everyone and everything. That is why I insist that the authorities/community should have no say in personal matters unless there is valid evidence of indiscretion, which when taken to them (next level) would lead to a divorce/reconciliation/resolution, if other 'punishments' do not apply.

The thing with these types of emotional scenarios is, they are extremely complicated to deal with and one probably needs a trained counselor/psychologist rather than a ragtag bunch of people from the community looking into the personal lives of their neighbours and being given the green light to meddle into what the unfounded suspicions of the woman are.

Are you suggesting these community of believers are some sort of organization that have individual areas of expertise and together they can fix women everywhere or somesuch? We can definitely have a group of professionally trained people to help others and available for free but is the verse addressed to such? What legal standing does this group have? Are they or can they be considered the authorities as well? Is the community separate from the authorities? Do they have to bring to the light of the authorities if there is evidence of wrong doing if they are not the authorities? Is this a confidential service and under what circumstances would they have to divulge information and to whom?

What if nothing is going on, and the 'other woman's' husband finds out? Why should a person be questioned and brought into the community's radar just because maybe someone has a grudge against them or finds them suspicious? Is that not a precursor to a shit storm based on one woman with whatever motivation thought that her guy for whatever motivation was being targeted by someone else? and so on. You seem to think that based on asking around and trying to get clarity, everything should get sorted? If the wife's motivation was malicious that will definitely be found out, if the other woman was to blame, that will definitely be resolved, if the husband was totally on the up and up, that too will be clear...if not today then sometime in the future because the community of believers are supposedly experts in human psychology and detective work and the souls of discretion, and it's their duty to run after alleged accusations/suspicions/fears of everyone in the community no matter what they are.

Allow me to present personal experience, I have been face to face with these fears for a large part of my life with people extremely close to me and those not so close to me from the age of 10 onwards. Different fears/suspicions all centering around infidelity. It is not pretty and extremely complicated in part because it adds on an element of emotions to the mix and it's hard to rationally explain to the people going through it because hardly anyone remains objective and stays the course on what they are supposed to do, most of the times it's a mixture of extremes, total forgiveness/doormat behaviour or total viciousness/vindictiveness with rare splashes of trying to look through the lens of logic in between. When people get involved in these situations, it's the pull of the camp, liberal dashes of subjectively trying to assign blame and compensation, legwork in following leads which involve other people who are none too happy being involved, and a whole lot of bullshit flying in every direction. Arbitration without authority is useless. Whether that authority involves someone who must be listened to inclusive of family elders or a police officer. So a group of well meaning people are going to be needlessly complicating the situation, it's best dealt with privately, with people you know and who they know well...so that everything stays in limits and doesn't get out of hand and ruins the lives of other people who may or may not be involved.

The husband is the objective here, not the other woman, there can be a multitude of women who are out to get married men out there, that is irrelevant, it's the husband who decides whether to be a bastard or not... so what difference does it make who the other woman is or what she wants? This should be sorted between the husband and wife themselves (so that her fears are vocalised to the person it actually matters and he realises that there is a problem and how to fix it, and/or based on his reaction and words/actions tells the woman if he is involved or knew or whatever) or with a counselor or someone from the family and so on. What sense does it make to avoid the key to the whole situation and go behind choosing a roundabout way to 'question' the other woman who could be totally innocent and even if she isn't, that's not even the issue when it's losing the guy/his betrayal she fears the most? These scenarios don't make sense to the verse, I mean instead of brushing it over all at once with well, it generally makes sense and can somehow fit the verse, somehow not entirely sure how but something is there, it behooves us to be precise to the verse because if one doesn't do that then we are just flailing about in the dark with what we think we want to see or think must be in the verse as opposed to what may actually be there.

So in this scenario, 2 women (wife and alleged other woman) are the suspected accused and um, accuser and the community is now fearing nushooz on the part of the other woman (and this is just before any of the other things mind you, not even where they know that they are right in fearing nushooz on the part of the other woman! It's like presumed guilty until proven innocent based on the strength of the wife's words because she's dragged the other woman into the limelight of the community in order to be judged and found lacking or innocent)...given that the wife is the one fearing nushooz on the part of the woman, and the community is supposedly objective, then why are they too fearing nushooz on the part of the other woman, before they've even found out anything?

Say this is explained by 'fearing nushooz' is when the suspected accused is accused by the woman to the community and the community takes on the mantle of the woman who's doing the suspected accusing and thus now they fear nushooz by the other woman as well, it's not accurate at all to me but let's move on...they advise/instruct the other woman like I mentioned, given the weight of the word and the way it's used in different contexts this is telling the person what is the right thing to do etc, and this can only be when they know what they need to say and after the situation is clear, or it doesn't make sense...asking someone to clarify something is not advise or instruction. Getting clarity and then advising/instructing can be part of it but it wouldn't make sense to take any step unless clarity is achieved on the core issue of just what is going on here.

Anyways let's talk about leaving them to their resting places...alright, so this is supposedly to allow them to give clarity and think about the situation while not pestering them about it...to which I say, the wife is not going to be intruding on her resting place, neither is the community, unless one of them lives with her and even if they do, they can't pester her about it while she's in her resting place, so can they pester her if she's not in her resting place? Why is resting place even mentioned? Why not home/abode? Or simply do not talk to her about it until she wants to or whatever? It's not like God lacks the words for saying that? The obvious answer to this is probably because it mentions scenarios where the two people are living in the same house, or there was no reason to use the term resting place, unless the term resting place is an idiom where it involves a house and the rooms and anywhere where the person chooses to relax...is there such an idiom? As far as I can see, the resting place is inside a house and deliberately mentioned as separate but inside a abode in the concordance...so...I would think not. Anyways, still doesn't make sense to me.

Regarding drb them... This is when they get clarity and now they should be left in peace...? Like she'd say no way, I'm not after him, go tell his wife to keep her mouth shut, she just hates me because I lost more pounds at the last weight watchers catch up than her...and the community would be honour bound to take her at her word and case closed which probably shouldn't have taken more than a minute to say so if she did want to deny it...and if she didn't want to deny it but wanted time to think about the accusation and how to answer whether she is or isn't...um, alright in which case they should back off and let her come back to them? but should the investigation committee still investigate because obviously whatever the woman is telling them or not shouldn't be construed as the truth because she could be lying (unless of course she is telling them that yes, I did go after the guy and I still will, whatchu gonna do about it eh suckas, it's his choice at the end anyways)...what should they do?

Investigate the people at the WW meeting for her 'alibi', track her movements? Watch through the kitchen window for meals taking a very long time to cook and with extra effort put in? If she admits and is remorseful (which is a rare occurrence in reality), case closed kk. But what if the clarity was that she did do it and still will? She was actively going after the guy, making suggestive poses whenever he'd cross her path, sending him home cooked meals and cupcakes whatnot...what happens then? We'd go for the next verse for what happens after since that is after the things mentioned are done and a rift is feared even after all that, as is understood commonly in this progression but here...lets just say she was told off and the wife got peace in a fashion but no guarantee that the other woman wouldn't pull out her exotic meals cookbook and whip up another from-the-heart dinner for the guy.

So much effort is usually put in for suspected actual crimes like murder or something rather than the so called 'crime' of another woman who may be wanting to somehow steal her guy from under her nose, but not sure really. It's like the trivial adventures of the secret seven, where the group figured out if cookies were stolen from the window sill. and even that was supposedly more rewarding because they got free cookies at the end. The community of believers apparently should have a wing of qualified private investigators who work for free and go around sniffing for traces of infidelity based on suspicions and gathering evidence for the soothing of women who don't have any evidence and it's not even the husband she wants investigated but someone totally unrelated to her by relationship or contract? I can't accept this.

Another one Suppose it is a father in law who fears that his daughter in law is having a baby whose father is not his son, is he going to throw that to all winds and break up a marriage and make a public scandal? No need. Again a suitable person or persons amongst the community of believers may undertake something to put the fears at rest or to clear the situation in the best and most peaceful manner if in fact there has been a transgression, thus protecting everybody from taking wild "justice".
So in that situation he calls in the friendly neighbourhood heroes to swoop in and get a DNA test after the birth or something? Get the guy who has impregnated the woman, if he has, to confess to sexual relations and face the music? How is keeping it to the neighbourhood watch not making it public in a way? Wouldn't it be better if he just talked to the daughter in law or the guy who is suspected of himself because what the neighbourhood heroes will be doing is what he should be doing while still keeping everything to himself and not risking a scandal if his fears are unfounded or even if they are.

Same thing on how it relates with the verse Advice/Instruction can't do that because the woman can't know or if she does, she's asked whether she had adulterous relations with another man and if the baby she's carrying is not her husband's...um, yeah the woman would admit to this because admitting something as personal as that to a group of people (and esp if that group of people is sent by her father in law if she knows) is what someone would do in rl. If there is no fallout, then yes, maybe more people would admit to indiscretions but there is no guarantee of that unless what is meant is the community of believers will guarantee no punishments as applicable in the quran in that situation would apply to her...or any other punishments...and can they really do that? If not, then the likelihood of getting a straight answer from the woman is likely close to null, and they must investigate further and with people...and how do you suppose figuring out if a married woman and another man had an affair is going to be done without alerting the different people questioned as to what/why the questions are being asked? Is there some sort of magic involved? Most probably that of DNA testing in which case, you have the evidence, but should the child be DNA tested without permission of the parents? anyways, same thing as above, can't see it work with the verse, since it's not clear whether the community should step back in case the woman says go away i'm innocent of these aspersions cast upon me, or stay the course of still trying to investigate etc.

Another one there may be a suspicion that a certain woman is pregnant and that she intends to bury the child when it is born. What? You publish it and break a woman's life and even endanger a future child who might no be in danger if in fact it is only fear, or do you appoint somebody who may look after the woman and try to find out her intentions or feelings and if she is in need, put a remedy or what do you do?
Okay, so you have someone who's concerned for someone they know either through being friends/relatives or medical staff, since the likelihood of such a suspicion coming from a stranger is unlikely. The person either can appoint someone themselves if from the medical side as is done when they go in for check ups etc, or the friend/family member who suspects can help her through her pregnancy/depression, or get someone else to? A call out to the 'community of believers' for someone to come around to find out what's going on (unless the person who answers the call to do so is a trained counselor/psychologist) is like asking a ragtag bunch of people to suss her out with a mixed bag of results. What if she doesn't want/need help, or says that she's fine and please go away, given the verse aren't we supposed to leave them to think and not bother them or something until they feel ready? Or are we going to put a security/nanny detail on her so that she doesn't end up doing something bad?

How does this scenario jive with the verse? What's the progression again, how do you instruct? the clarity of whether we should believe her if she denies it, do we still keep a tail on her, leave her alone? and so on...I don't even see a conflict here between the accuser and the suspected accusee...and the way the verses are progressing is detailing people with conflicts, in which one side has a valid fear and they are given a list of things to work through this conflict that exists between them...not that I fear someone on my block has depression, something should be done to find out and help her if she needs it? These are things that you do yourself or with the help of a few likeminded people regardless, if you feel something should be done...why must it be linked to this verse or more so to say something like that is exactly the type of scenario the verse is addressing? What happens in the verse after the things to do are listed? If they listen, then seek not a way against/over them...does this really seem like the women in question are being given an option to listen? She should, right? Does this seem like the sort of thing that can go either way? no, it seems like the nushooz is valid and justified and there are things to do to minimise conflict and maximise resolution. If that fails or the woman doesn't listen/obey then whoever is being addressed can see what to do in the next, otherwise...it just sort of peters out to a sort of cliffhanger. Or we can take it to mean that in all such scenarios of non couple conflicts, the conflict is resolved unless it's a marital scenario which is talked about in the next verse and not in this one, nothing to do with one another? So can this fit the scenario? In my opinion, no and I've explained why I think so.

Another one there may be a fear that a certain women with children is into prostitution. She is without work and with nobody to look after the children while she works were she to find a job. But of course, it is a big thing to spread that around. So, somebody in best position to do it is charged of finding out what the facts are. May be the woman has not done it, but is entertaining the thought. May be it has never entered her mind to do such a thing and it is mere badmouthing...
What gives someone the right to suspect that another woman can be prostituting herself unless they have evidence? Aren't we supposed to avoid suspicion? If someone thinks she needs help, they can get her help or listen/advise rather than taking it to the community where if found out she did do it, she might get punished for it and/or lose her children. There is a danger in taking things into the spotlight...even if the spotlight is a group of believers because frankly speaking, they're still human and prone to the same mistakes we all make which could involve talking inadvertently, coming to the wrong conclusions etc. One'd only do that if they have valid proof, not suspicion and people's suspicions should not be encouraged without proof. To get proof you have to pursue suspicion, this is the problem, why suspect in the first place unless one has some sort of proof beyond what our second sight is telling us?

How does this fit with the verse again? In my view it doesn't.

I think you think that some from a community of believers should be/are primarily counselors and what women need is help either to protect them from unfounded accusations or to provide help in cases where the suspicions are found to be true as lawyers etc or something? It's hard to accurately figure out because you're mixing in so many concepts imo. It can definitely be put into practise with modifications whatnot but the thing under discussion is if that is what the verse implies or says outright.

It's important for me to realise/see the picture of how it will be practically implemented and how well this flows with the verse. I don't think these scenarios do, I'm sure they occur in rl and there should be groups out there who would/should provide women in need with what they need. These situations seem like 'don't know, maybe they need help' or alleged personal betrayals or alleged betrayals on the behalf of someone else. If they are just paranoid possessive freaks, why should they be encouraged based on their say so? Is there a limit to how many times they can bring these suspicions in? Aren't people making allegations on the non-chasteness of women when found to be lies punished 244? They would need to bring 4 witnesses in, so...are the community of believers supposed to go around searching for these 4 witnesses as well to prove or disprove these suspicions of adultery?

Suffice it to say, I wouldn't want to live in a community where anyone can level accusations and I'm supposed to defend myself/answer what for to the neighbourhood watch. If I do something wrong, then by all means take me to court with the required evidence. Anything other than that, you have various trained groups that can deal with it. Reminds me of the show 'call the midwife' which was awesome, in which you have a group of midwives who ended up dealing with not only pregnancies but got involved in their lives in various ways, and they had a reason for being involved and saw the signs other people missed etc...which is different from anyone having the right to call in people to question or to figure out stuff behind their backs based on suspicions.

Everyone can go out on a limb and accuse whosoever they choose of whatsoever they choose (no limit to the type of fears) and the community of believers has its work cut out for them, investigating each and every suspicion that abounds...the fallout of this on lives can be catastrophic. In places today, a guy gets accused and is found innocent and acquitted of the crime, yet because of going through that process he is mentally disturbed, people around him look at him askance, perhaps a few think he got away with murder. And this is what can happen, it doesn't matter if you're found innocent, the fact that you were brought in is proof enough for the lot of idiots out there who'll weave their personal tales depending on whether they loved/hated him or even if they had no opinion and the crime was on their watchlist of interests.

Who's stopping the accuser from talking to people as well? Or having their opinion on whether whatever is feared is actually going on or not...it seems that most all of these scenarios deal with the utmost amount of secrecy/discretion and for a whole group of people to keep their mouths shut because even a single slip could scupper it...it's not like they have to sign a NDA is it? And even if they do, situations that rely on these things usually end up in tears especially when the subject is people and what they're up to. If there's anything we've learnt from detective novels or real life is that even asking around leads to people finding out that one didn't want finding out and then all hell breaks loose.

It's one thing for a wife to suspect her husband but for it to be mandated for anyone to tell a community of believers and then they go forth and find out if the other woman is actually putting on the red dress/light is really not something that I think the community of believers should be doing. It's like the terrorism watches in various neighbourhoods. You either figure it out yourself if you want to keep it under wraps, or ask a friend for advice and then confront the guy or get the evidence. Then you take it public if you want to, as in the authorities/community can get involved.

As to 4.35 it is indeed more specific and does suggest marriage, but again, for the sake of not limiting what the Qur'an itself does not limit, let us keep to what it says a fray between two persons of different sex who have some undertaking in common.
Does it not seem like a follow on verse to you or do you think that it's a different context entirely from what came before it even if the believers are still being addressed?

As to the meaning of maDaji3, I never pretended that I have the best translation ever, rather I have said exactly the opposite, but what it does not mean is that because I cannot produce on the spot the perfect translation that EVERYBODY could accept that I have to certify the usual interpretation that is forced into this aya. Why should I do that? It is forced and there is no proof of it.
I didn't say you did, I said since you don't, we should keep it open. Not asking for a perfect translation on the spot, saying that we should keep the options open and maybe there is a way to reconcile the address to the 'community of believers' to various options and see of everything fits, is all.

Not me saying that, just take the Qur'an. There are two other mentions of the word. If one feels that sex fits the bill, at least what cannot be done is forbid the meanings that really pertain to it. Sleeping and resting where one is in his or her place of relax and having sexual relations are two completely and unrelated things, just as sleeping and eating are two unrelated things. So, come to that, we could also translate, "and leave them eat alone", right?

Again, please study really the word and its usage in the Qur'an, if any of the other two appearances tells you that it would be a good one to use to mean sex-relations. In fact if it does something is suggest the aloneness of a person for that aspect. Like death.
sexual relations amongst couples happen majorly in the bedroom/place of rest which couples and/or those living together can attest to and there was some study about it as well somewhere. I mean whoever comes up with no, no the majority of my couplings have been out of any bedrooms probably has a membership at the Cathouse Brothel and it's private play area with no resting places in sight or has been reported for lewd activities in outdoor areas . I don't understand how this is a matter of dispute or argument. Whatever is your place of rest/privacy thus in the sense of a couple would probably be where the magic happens and/or the action goes down usually. Sure, one could rest in the resting place, but as you say they could also do other things which in the sense of a couple relaxing together would include sex unless you mean to say that the quran is only talking about people sleeping alone in their place of rest/privacy and nothing else...I mean it's not even something that is up to much debate, throughout history, couples have been coupling in private places (his/hers/theirs) which are inclusive of resting places because the majority do tend to rest in a private place. Let's look at the verses

3154 What we can gather is that the resting place is inside a house. No mention of whether it is a single or shared resting place.
3216 They arise from their resting places. No mention of whether it is a single or shared resting place.

So on what basis is the aloneness coming from? In 3154 they can die where they stand or die in their resting places, how does it give the sense of being alone based on where they die? Death is death and everyone must die and experience that on their own no matter where we are but that is separate from where they die. If anything that verse is talking about the ignorant thinking that they are more protected inside their house rather than outside, not that outside they are not alone and inside the house they are? In the second, what is giving that impression? They arise from their beds so they must be alone because they are experiencing it through their own selves and since we are all individual therefore we are alone? You're putting together 2 unrelated things to suggest that they go hand in hand = we face death on our own therefore if we die in our resting place it means that the resting place is a solitary area for us alone as well. Also, we may experience things on our own because we are all individual, it doesn't mean that the resting places are tied in to the same individuality...it seems that the resting spot has taken on too much of a life of its own tbh. In any case given your understanding regarding it being a place of relaxing and sleeping only, can we not say the same as one can sleep and relax in a lot of places in the house? Is there a designated spot of relaxation tied to the individual, just curious?

There haven't been many attempts to translate maDaji3 out of the box of marital male bliss, therefore I see no reason to pound on my translations (I put up several, because obviously I am trying to get to the gist of it) as if I were guilty for not coming up with a trump. Bring up a better one, I will greatly celebrate it, but please do not push, again, the one that has been very conveniently used, but not really documented nor checked and that has thrown and continues throwing off track the unravelling of this most important and luminous aya. That traditional translation, as far as I am concerned, it continues being a male fantasy.
What about 4128? Apparently the nushooz is linked between both verses? In this the husband? Or some other guy? It seems that these concepts are linked to couples across a couple verses? If we are going to throw out the marital scenarios completely, then it would make sense to examine the other verses that have the same concepts as well? No one is pounding translations, we're all trying to get a better grasp of what's out there, at least I am and if that includes intensive/extensive analysis or if you want you can call it pounding, then pound we shall. The one that has been used as dealing with marital situations should not be used because...it is not dealing with marital situations entirely? If one makes that claim then obviously both those understandings need to be pounded and weighed. This is a process that happens. The traditional translation of drb being beat or that it concerns marital relationships as well? Just so we're clear are they both traditional or just one?

Husbands are not the reason for the universe. May be humankind and prophethood are, but husbands by themselves, when they are humble, and faithful servants of God and their community, like the male prophets, peace be on them all, are a source of peace and joy for their communities and their families, but they must prove themselves. Not just for the sake of maleness they get the whole lot no questions asked and enjoy women obeyers at will. And I say this not because I think that anybody is prejudiced to that point. Consciouslly we are not, but we do are under the spell of centuries of seeing everything through the eyes that the human species is man, woman a mere after thought, and therefore woman can only come in the fray as an accident to the real thing which is the male. That is the mentality that the Qur'an tries very hard and conclusively to correct, but inertia is very strong and the conditioning of centuries not easy to override. At least I have not found it easy and I am sure I continue to have many such deformations. Aya 4.34 has helped me a lot, and many contributors in this and other forums have contributed to it.

Personally speaking, I dislike that people have to talk about one sex being better than the other for whatever reason or even women harping on about how the fact that they can have children puts them in a better place rather than a man...or that a man feels that his tool gives him some sort of right of superiority over a woman...they are both sexist. Real world issues of how to counter male sexism or female sexism can utilise different legit methods as long as the goal is to equality. Not glorifying one sex over the other regardless of how one takes it, it's like team mentality...I belong to the woman's club, yay sisters unite or vice versa.

In fact, what the 4.34, together with many ayas in the Qur'an does is socialise the needs of the most needy. Starting with the women, who in the face of great, great difficulties many times have to reproduce the species, maintain her children and upkeep the family with no help. So, there you are. The Qur'an does not leave women with their problems to themselves, but involves the community. Which is logical, the whole species benefits from its own reproduction, why should the burden fall only on those that most contribute to it through thin and thick. Justice... for God's sake. And the fears that women may do this and do that is no fancy it is there and it is still going. See the fierce campaigns because of abortion. What is that if not fear the the women are "rebelious"? Well the Qur'an goes beyond that, and wants the women to speak and get the help they need. Not just fear and fear and because of fear do everything on their backs and stab them, once again. And in those cases there is the attempt to make that appear like a war of the sexes, but that is wrong. Real men, real loving faithful men, hate that. They do not want their women to suffer nor be humilliated. And the women of those good men are ALL the women. Like the women of Muhammad were all the women.

I don't think we need to single out aya's that talk about the needs of the most needy, there are plenty of needy people out there of all sexes and the message of the quran is to help them, no doubt. the question is if the verse in question is talking about the same thing of helping the most needy women through the community or if it's talking about resolution of conflicts marital (or otherwise). Not sure what you mean when you bring up abortion? Is that connected to the nushooz? Do you agree/disagree on abortion? And/or that it is or isn't part of the nushooz feared from women? Sis, you are talking about women vocalising their needs and to get help but how does it work in the verse? I agree with you that we should make realistic and real efforts towards making the community better, whether it's for women, men or children but that's a separate topic from saying that this verse is proof that it's for helping the neediest women and for them to vocalise their needs etc...I'm a woman and I feel and think about the burden that womenkind carries and has carried through the ages, the fact that through history women have tended to be far more oppressed than their counterparts, I'm totally with you if this is what the verse is saying, but I don't see it!

i apologise for writing as much as I did, but this was ongoing over the course of a couple days and it got really wordy. i'm sure most of it can be distilled, i'll probably do that.

peace