Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
-
Peace aqua, I accept the definition of http//www.thefreedictionary.com/wisdom but must add.
Wisdom is a the ability to "see" and think on a level not necessarily accessible to all. A child can be taught
right from wrong, does not make that child wise? Consider societal right and wrong were stoning the kufr as
an example is the right thing to do. Not to derail the thread.God bless
peace
The Qur'an uses the word wisdom in a way that can apply to all believers (ie. potentially accessible to all). In the context of this discussion, we are not speaking of young children or the society's laws, but even if we were, wisdom is actually not as restrictive as you are suggesting. Although a common perception of 'wisdom' is related to old age only, the meaning of the word is not restricted by age or type of subject. The word is much broader than that. As believers, we should try to exercise wisdom in our judgments and decisions.
-
The Qur'an uses the word wisdom in a way that can apply to all believers (ie. potentially accessible to all). In the context of this discussion, we are not speaking of young children or the society's laws, but even if we were, wisdom is actually not as restrictive as you are suggesting. A common perception of 'wisdom' may be related to old age only, but the meaning of the word itself is not restricted by age or type of subject. The word is much broader than that. As believers, we should try to exercise wisdom in our judgments and decisions.
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/2.269p.gif
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/2.269q.gif
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/2.269r.gifHe the Exalted grants the wisdom; the capability to perceive the invisible realities in informative data through critical thinking, reason and logic; to him about whom He the Exalted so decides.
And should someone is given the wisdom then know it that he is given the best in abundance.
And the circumstantial fact is that except the Men of Understanding; who objectively reflect without overlapping emotions, prejudices and biases; people do not self grasp and take lesson.
Translation with grammatical analysis and parsing
-
because someone who lacks wisdom is not able to judge right from wrong and they can easily make the wrong decisions.
Peace aqua,
I was only addressing the statement above. Stating you do have to be wise to know right from wrong.
-
A child can be taught right from wrong, does not make that child wise?
-
Consider societal right and wrong were stoning the kufr as an example is the right thing to do.
-
Sectarian violence is right in the minds of the perpetrators.
-
Ethnic or race intermarriage is wrong according to some.
God bless
peace
-
-
I was only addressing the statement above. Stating you do have to be wise to know right from wrong.
I said to be able to judge right from wrong, not know right from wrong. There is an important difference.
A child may know right from wrong if they are taught it, but that doesn't necessarily give them the ability to judge right from wrong by themselves.
-
I think, Savage Carrot, that you make things awfully complicated and get into to many hypothetical questions, whereas what is to be done is see if actual facts fit with the formulation or not.
If somebody fears something, of course no proof is available. Fear, suspicion, needs no proof. It is when something is really done when you have proof. If something has already been done and known to have been done, then either it is a crime and the courts deal with it, whatever courts are appointed for that in whatever social set up, either it is not a crime and then people involved deal with it as they see fit and resort to whatever legal means they find suitable, included, of course, counselling, arbitrators or settle amiably or whatever, that is to me what idribuhunna means, deal with it, solve it, the community, through whiever organs or means it may have for that and the women concerned.
Things do get awfully complicated precisely because your understanding is a general brush over the verse with the community getting involved which is apparently a pre-requisite for any of the steps listed to be taken. It's in your scenarios. It's not like a single person can take those steps, the community must. If a single person has taken all those steps or whatever steps and it doesn't work, then the community can get involved if it has escaped the confines of the people who have an issue with the same steps is what you're saying now? The nushuz that was feared by someone is now feared by the community? I asked how this worked and it doesn't make sense.And I disagree with the way the community should get involved on the say so of someone or another regarding any type of fear etc. In the nushooz context, is the other verse also dealing with such community issues for the male? If there is a scenario where nushuz on the part of the woman is feared by the community, it would be dealing with something the woman is planning/doing which affects the community as a whole...? otherwise we're stuck with all manners of trivial and/or personal situations based on someone's assumptions which the community is apparently duty bound to investigate.
In this case, why limit it only to male/female, is that accurate to the verse? can a female not fear something from another female? does this verse cover that too? is that accurate to the verse? is it personal conflicts that are talked about, or community wide conflicts? which is more accurate? is it both? and is that accurate? are they even conflicts or general fears like depression, suicide, murder(!) etc and which is more accurate to the verse? are both covered? is this implied/covered in the verse and would that be an accurate interpretation? etc...there seems to be a whole lot 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"...which I'm not entirely comfortable with. Whatever works I guess. I suppose I'm making things awfully complicated because of all these hypothetical questions and I see it from a biased viewpoint...but I can live with that if there is a satisfactory explanation that is accurate to the verse.
But fearing something, if it is a person close to the suspect person, of course nothing prevents a person from speaking directly to the suspect, you do not need any quranic order for that, because nowhere it is prohibited, rather it is a general injunction for any circumstance that ppeople try to deal amicably with their problems, particularly if, under the usual, though wrong, assumptionn that this aya places on the husband such authority, he can ask the wife or a father his daughters and so on.
Regarding the authority of the husband, people can take verses anyway they like, they may not let facts get in the way and like nature abhors a vacuum, emotion rushes in. It's clear that the nushooz is the type that is a valid fear and the advice/instruction is not ambiguous as to it's nature and that the person who is under advisement should listen. I'm curious but is the rest of the verse not of any use in analysing the verse as well? What if obedience/guarding is contrasted with the nushooz? What contrasts in the other verse where it also deals with nushooz? Is there a reason why rijaal/nisa are mentioned as they are? I find Wakas' article/book valuable work on these matters since it is quite comprehensive, clear and precise. Of course, it could be something totally different and when we have evidence that it cannot at any point mean any of the other things, is when we start getting closer to what it really means.But the point is that it is the collective believers that are addressed. For me it is obvious that these are no loose injunctions, but a part of the whole quranical sept up, which is a socially conscious society wher enobody is left out or hanging but should be looked after by the community . The Qur'an is constituting a society for the general welfare, it is obvious, and it is imparting the instructions for such a welfare society. Sura An nisaa' if full of it and social injunctions fill a great part of the Qur?an. So what is so surprising that people and services are appointed permanently or ad hoc so that people is helped along in their problems instead of finding thmselves in the wild and solving things the hard way. It is so in 4.3 when it tells the believers to arrange for the marriage of the mothers with orphan children. The believers society should have provisions to protect women, when they are suspected, from being preventively handled as culprits. If women are suspect they are first to be questioned and ascertained that they know of the suspicion and deal about not with somebody that already considers them guilty, but with somebody who is neutral and able to help. If somebody suspects them of whatever, be they family, neighbours, acquaintances or strangers for whatever reason, the women should be warned of those fears, have the oppotunity to think the situation over and finally with the community (idribuhunna), the person or persons who may be charged with that service, fix whatever is there to be fixed, but at least they will not be alone on the face of suspicion, likely abuse or harassment, which is what happens many times when women are alone in the face of mere suspicion.
Collective believers being addressed does not neccesarily mean that they must as a collective do any of those things, but that it can apply to them if they find themselves in that situation? Is there anything that precludes this understanding? That it in any and all cases means that whatever is supposed to be done is supposed to be done by the community of believers in a group? And that it also can be done in cases where it doesn't apply to them personally but are matters of another individual? I don't particularly see a welfare society the way you do.
You asked for instances where somebody not being wives and husbands could be in the situations within the parameters of the aya and you said that that kind of thing was only possible to happen between husband and wife. I said no and you wanted some examples, I gave the first that came to mind just to show that indeed it is possible. You go into analizing each case according to your own vision of that case as if it had been a true case. But we do not have such a case, they were just examples I thought out because you asked for them and you worked them out according to your conception of the particulars to show that the qura'nic instructions can only concern husband and wife. But you cannot prohibit a thing from existing in some form, just because the form you see it in does not fit what you have experienced or what you are ablo to imagine. We all can imagine. The fact is that many women in the world do suffered, and have suffered inmensely suffer because somebody or somebodies "fear" something, and it has almost always been so. Women being spied like potential culprits, guarded like prisoners. It may be because of seeing a man they are not supposed to see, or for going places they are not supposed to go, or for dresseing what they are not supposed to dress, for studying things they are not supposed to... Women are suspected of practically everything just for sport.
I asked for examples to see what the renderings based upon that understanding would be like and if/how they fit the verse. They seem to be trampling over privacy concerns, encouraging suspicions/fears and opening the gate to chaos. And obviously, I'll look at them realistically according to my experience and whether they flow with the verse etc, what else should I do with these theoretical or otherwise scenarios? If they don't fit, they don't, if they do then they do. You seem to be thinking that there will definitely be something out there that will fit and if I can't come up with them, someone else will or that they must exist and when they are found they will rock the socks off anyone who dares to see the verse as inclusive of marital conflicts? If you can't give scenarios that fit the verse based upon your understanding and/or if you say that my shortcomings etc aren't allowing me to see how they do or can....then what can I say. To each his own.And those who rule the life of the woman do not need any proof, they have their field day with mere "fears", suspicion is enough. Well it is good that the Qur'an puts somebody between the suspicion and the deeds. Because initialers of the fear might otherwise perpetrate against the defenceless women abuses that may be not feared but are and have been very real. Summing up, what it all amounts to is that nobody should take preventive justice and that nobody takes justice by his or her own hand, let alone a husband by himself alone with his defenceless wife. He may be right in susecting or he may be not, but he is no way allowed to act out unilaterally, except of course the usual conciliatory way enjoined on all believers in any conflict.
Like I said, I view the quran as a beacon of equality and rights for everyone, which was and still is, ahead of it's time. To me, the verse 434 is dealing with conflicts of a particular type, whether that involves only marital or more than marital...I'm open to discussion based on valid examples as long as the explanation remains accurate/precise to the verses and takes into consideration the bigger picture realistically.Further, if the set up you think is that of the husband and wife it still falls within that provision and I do not understand your worries, because if nobody says anything, the thing will stay between husband and wife, but if it gets out of there, then it has gotten out and the community is already involved wanted or not. See, you are making up the problem yourself. If a husband fears he should go to the community? The Qur'an does not say that, it says if you, second person plural, the collective, fear, so the thing must have already escaped from the intimacy of the two. May be it is the women themselves who have made it known because they fear in their turn that something may be going to be hung on them. May be it is the husband himself in indeed seeks counselling. What makes you think that the Qur'an excludes counselling? The thing is that the woman is not left alone to face the husband in a situation where she herself may have very good reasons to fear. Punching of the wife for whatever reason is not something that happens in Mars and nto here on earth.
I never said the quran excludes counselling, I opined it doesn't work in this verse within those scenarios the way you're saying it should. I've explained why, if you think I'm seeing things 'my way', so be it.If it is the community who fears it is that it is no longer a secret of those involved and it does not say that they should be involved in any marriage but just in those cases, be coules or be anything else, where nushuz from the women is feared. The community does not have to be involved if nobody informs it. But if it is informed and nushuz is feared from the women then it must do those things.
I look forward to an explanation with an accurate/precise fit to the verses and the bigger picture whenever it comes together.peace
-
Things do get awfully complicated precisely because your understanding is a general brush over the verse with the community getting involved which is apparently a pre-requisite for any of the steps listed to be taken. It's in your scenarios. It's not like a single person can take those steps, the community must. If a single person has taken all those steps or whatever steps and it doesn't work, then the community can get involved if it has escaped the confines of the people who have an issue with the same steps is what you're saying now? The nushuz that was feared by someone is now feared by the community? I asked how this worked and it doesn't make sense.
And I disagree with the way the community should get involved on the say so of someone or another regarding any type of fear etc. In the nushooz context, is the other verse also dealing with such community issues for the male? If there is a scenario where nushuz on the part of the woman is feared by the community, it would be dealing with something the woman is planning/doing which affects the community as a whole...? otherwise we're stuck with all manners of trivial and/or personal situations based on someone's assumptions which the community is apparently duty bound to investigate.
In this case, why limit it only to male/female, is that accurate to the verse? can a female not fear something from another female? does this verse cover that too? is that accurate to the verse? is it personal conflicts that are talked about, or community wide conflicts? which is more accurate? is it both? and is that accurate? are they even conflicts or general fears like depression, suicide, murder(!) etc and which is more accurate to the verse? are both covered? is this implied/covered in the verse and would that be an accurate interpretation? etc...there seems to be a whole lot 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"...which I'm not entirely comfortable with. Whatever works I guess. I suppose I'm making things awfully complicated because of all these hypothetical questions and I see it from a biased viewpoint...but I can live with that if there is a satisfactory explanation that is accurate to the verse. Regarding the authority of the husband, people can take verses anyway they like, they may not let facts get in the way and like nature abhors a vacuum, emotion rushes in. It's clear that the nushooz is the type that is a valid fear and the advice/instruction is not ambiguous as to it's nature and that the person who is under advisement should listen. I'm curious but is the rest of the verse not of any use in analysing the verse as well? What if obedience/guarding is contrasted with the nushooz? What contrasts in the other verse where it also deals with nushooz? Is there a reason why rijaal/nisa are mentioned as they are? I find Wakas' article/book valuable work on these matters since it is quite comprehensive, clear and precise. Of course, it could be something totally different and when we have evidence that it cannot at any point mean any of the other things, is when we start getting closer to what it really means.Collective believers being addressed does not neccesarily mean that they must as a collective do any of those things, but that it can apply to them if they find themselves in that situation? Is there anything that precludes this understanding? That it in any and all cases means that whatever is supposed to be done is supposed to be done by the community of believers in a group? And that it also can be done in cases where it doesn't apply to them personally but are matters of another individual? I don't particularly see a welfare society the way you do.I asked for examples to see what the renderings based upon that understanding would be like and if/how they fit the verse. They seem to be trampling over privacy concerns, encouraging suspicions/fears and opening the gate to chaos. And obviously, I'll look at them realistically according to my experience and whether they flow with the verse etc, what else should I do with these theoretical or otherwise scenarios? If they don't fit, they don't, if they do then they do. You seem to be thinking that there will definitely be something out there that will fit and if I can't come up with them, someone else will or that they must exist and when they are found they will rock the socks off anyone who dares to see the verse as inclusive of marital conflicts? If you can't give scenarios that fit the verse based upon your understanding and/or if you say that my shortcomings etc aren't allowing me to see how they do or can....then what can I say. To each his own. Like I said, I view the quran as a beacon of equality and rights for everyone, which was and still is, ahead of it's time. To me, the verse 434 is dealing with conflicts of a particular type, whether that involves only marital or more than marital...I'm open to discussion based on valid examples as long as the explanation remains accurate/precise to the verses and takes into consideration the bigger picture realistically.I never said the quran excludes counselling, I opined it doesn't work in this verse within those scenarios the way you're saying it should. I've explained why, if you think I'm seeing things 'my way', so be it.I look forward to an explanation with an accurate/precise fit to the verses and the bigger picture whenever it comes together.
peace
Salaam, SC
I honestly am unable to see what the big problem of confrontation between an intervention privately and an intervention (which is not the same as a publication) by some community charged person or persons to look after a matter that may involve conflict or blame. Finally, if there is no fear, nobody has to do anything, but if there is, it is absolutely inhuman to leave women at the mercy of private prosecution. And I am surprised that it shocks you so much when it is well known, as far as I have known all my life and it is oll over, that the cases of abuses against women have very much, overhwelmingly, rested on the presumption that things must not get outside. All must stay between the four walls of the house and within the family. That has made it possible for societies to keep mum when women have been beaten, killed even, and mishandled. I think that nobody wants anything done beyond what is needed intruding in private lives on that count, but the danger has been rather on the other side, that because nothing must transcend outside, the weaker members of society have paid the secret. For me it is so obvious that what is tried to prevent is that the women may find themselves defenceless on the face of private mistreatment and abuse grounded on pretended potential doings, that it really leaves me dumbfounded that you, as I perceive it, confuse it with mindless intervention into private affairs when there is nothing no reason for it. It is as if you pictured a whole horsemen regiment riding into the private homes.
Finally respected persons known for their good influence and their ability to undertake that kind of errands handling family problems or feuds and providing mediation have been in many places, muslim ones, a feature of society. It is not something new. I use the word community because it is done by the community, somebody of the community as a social conribution, as a human and religious duty. It does not mean that two million people of a town come marching on anybody.
Before anybody undertakes to correct a woman, without her wanting it or having asked for it, it seems to me absolutely civilised and human that she is not left to face whatever in the secrecy of the home under the guise of protecting privacy. That is the ideal means for abusers and beaters to have free rein. No intruding, please, my wife has a right to enjoy the privacy of the spanking and punching, because, you know, she is a bad wife. Who is going to say anything for what goes on between the four walls of a home?
I see the community, be it under the shape of a traditional sheikh or sheikha or under any guise, as a very positive element to give peace and support to individuals, families and groups of people. Of course everything is corruptible, because people are corruptible and everything is made up of people, and the first that should be tried is to make people conscious of virtue and goodness for themselves and for others. But that said, I really cannot understand your fears.
Finally things work that way now in many places. Anybody can report any suspected crime or abuse. The thing is you circumscribe it to the husband suspecting the woman's infedility or things like that. Well if he only suspects, again, and keeps it to himself or his wife, what prevents him from talking it out with her? Nothing that I can see, but if he spreads that he suspects, well what? is he preparing a divorce with that, is he ?simply? slandering her because now he hates her or is he preparing an alibi for doing something to the wife or the suspected suitor? Why should he spread it? Finally suspicion or fears as it is translated or expressed, in order to make it administrative, needs be stated specifically, it is not catching some words in the air. And of course it can be a woman who fears or suspects something from another woman, or a group of women, or mixed. In fact one of the examples that I wrote was that. It is those who restrict this to husband-wife realm who have put up those limits. Myself I am keeping to the men-women field stated in the aya.
As to 4.128, there are quite obvious and clear differences between 4.128 and 4.34. In 4.128, the text keeps the third person when it speaks about a wife and her husband and says explicitly if a woman fears nushuz or i3raD from her husband. No doubt there. The same clarity could have been used in 4.34 if what was meant was that if a man fears nushuz from his wife. But no such is said nor hinted at. And not only that, no third person, as has been consistently been used speaking of the men and the women and speaking of wife and husband, but second person mixed plural of the addressee. Is it then too daring to think that in fact it is speaking about what it says? As to why it is that in the case that the wife fears those two things it counsels them to solve the question, and and why on the other hand in 4.34 speaks to the community to take action, we may seek explanations.
But whether we find explanations or whether we find them not, the fact is that it does say a completely diferent thing in 4.128 and in 4.34. Besides, in 4.128, it speaks about greed too, as if it was the reason for there arising of complains. I do not have an explanation for that, but even if I do not have such explanation, that is what it says, greed has a role in the misgivings.
Now as to the obvious differences between 4.34 and 4.128, even if I did not see any explanation for them, my lack of explanations, does not change a thing it says what it says and, as we know, God is not at a loss for words. In 4.128 BOTH, wife and husband, are told to try to come to a solution. That is the husband?s chance to do something about his marriage. And that also is the wive's chance to do it too. In 4.34, on the other hand, and in view of the contents of 2.128, in fact what it is being done is DENY to husbands any authority to solve any strife unilaterally, if that were to be a case under this 4.34. He can't do it. Not unilaterally and without her agreement. The warnings, the leaving alone and the arrive at an arrangement that covers the ground, are not his prerrogative. It is only too logical. If to give a wife in marriage The Qur'an asks that the woman has someone who looks after her interest, there should also be somebody or somme authority who does so if the husband does not trust her any more or so says.
Salaam
-
Now as to the obvious differences between 4.34 and 4.128, even if I did not see any explanation for them, my lack of explanations, does not change a thing it says what it says and, as we know, God is not at a loss for words. In 4.128 BOTH, wife and husband, are told to try to come to a solution. That is the husband?s chance to do something about his marriage. And that also is the wive's chance to do it too. In 4.34, on the other hand, and in view of the contents of 2.128, in fact what it is being done is DENY to husbands any authority to solve any strife unilaterally, if that were to be a case under this 4.34. He can't do it. Not unilaterally and without her agreement. The warnings, the leaving alone and the arrive at an arrangement that covers the ground, are not his prerrogative. It is only too logical. If to give a wife in marriage The Qur'an asks that the woman has someone who looks after her interest, there should also be somebody or somme authority who does so if the husband does not trust her any more or so says.
I have explained why there are issues at length and in a more concise way. You keep going back and forth/mixing concepts on one hand it's fine if the husband takes independent steps to address issues in the relationship - he can't because that would supposedly infringe on the rights of the oppressed woman...your scenarios talk about stuff that bring up immediate red flags and other concerns since suspicions shouldn't be taken to the public/spread - if the situation has progressed to the public stage the verse kicks in and/or if dealt with privately it would be inhuman for the woman...it's nothing to do with marital conflicts - they could apply...it's male vs female given the verse - it can be female vs female - it can be anyone whatsoever...the community of believers are addressed as a religious duty - certain individuals from the members of the community of believers, not just anyone from the community of believers...it's inhuman to leave women at the mercy of private prosecution - public prosecution is better - it's not public prosecution, it's counseling maybe in public, maybe in private...privately a woman could be beaten and bullied so it should be public - keep it under wraps to not break up marriages/cause scandals etc but the community should get involved (the verse does not even mention beating and bullying so whoever is doing that is doing the wrong thing, no reason to analyse the verse by bringing in what almost no one on this thread agrees with i.e. the verse suggests physical violence or mental intimidation)...the fears can be anything suspected for whatever reason - the fears should be valid with evidence...a woman may be corrected without her wanting it or asking for it or even knowing if someone suspects something and she should be protected against any possible fallout as well - go behind the back to figure things out and then she can be corrected if needed even if she doesn't want it or asked for it...and it goes on. It's everything but certain things it most definitely is not unless it is then it can be but maybe it isn't, that's what it reads like.When I try to address these concepts that are all over the place, I'm said to be making things awfully complicated, I can't see past my vision of how I see things and all that jazz. And I'm one of those who is actually interested in an alternate understanding! Tbh, this is nowhere near the 'pounding' it will get on other forums or with other people as it is if they can breakthrough the cipher surrounding this understanding to get to what it actually is p Maybe you don't see how these posts read? Maybe there is miscommunication or something else? Sure, why not, let's just leave it there. It's best however not to continue without having some sort of agreement over consistency regarding what exactly the definitive stand here is on anything and/or is there even one? As I said, I'm open to discussion based on valid examples as long as the explanation tries to remain accurate/precise to the verses and takes into consideration the bigger picture realistically. If you or anyone else sharing your view point can give a clear and consistent understanding of how you guys see the verse, practical/theoretical examples of how this can work in rl, a somewhat precise and accurate explanation of how it works with the verse and others whenever it comes together...it would be appreciated.
peace
-
So what do you think it means. Forget examples, forget hypothesis. Simply what does the aya say according to you? Because obviously, whether we can come up with examples or brilliant ideas or whatever, if we reject something it is because we do read something else. How do you think reads the aya, because finally I have no idea of what you are upholding.
As to what they may think or say in other forums, why should I be concerned with that? I am not begging agreement from anybody. I do not feel disappointed or angry or anything if nobody agrees with me. I can live with that. But disagreement is no reason for me to say something I am convinced it is false, no matter how popular.
Salaam
-
You said that you still adhere to Hadith and traditional teachings, so I'm not surprised to see this level of stubbornness. Anyone who can consider 'beat them' as a possible interpretation is either religiously brainwashed, mentally deficient, inspired by the Satan, or just lacking wisdom. It can be a combination of these factors. The interpretation is totally absurd and defies every type of logic (if you actually believe in logic). Attributing such crazy things to God will undoubtedly earn His anger.
You can call me Sunni, Shia, sectarian, Quranist etc whatever you want, but to me it means nothing
Yes I still use hadith, but don't take me as the same level with sectarian.
I didn't support beating nisaa', since it contradict with many verses.In this thread I agree with huruf if rijaal and nisaa' in 434 shouldn't be translated as husband-wives, but it's real meaning (men-women).
I assume 435 didn't talked bout marital problem and my opinion-
Subjects who involved in 434 is plural since the word nisaa' is plural ( in arabic plural = more than two).
-
But in 435 the subjects is dual by looking phrase baynihiima ( ا.
-
The word ahli (alif-ha'-lam) in 435 is not limited by means family, this word can also means citizen, people, inhabitant.
Peace
-
-
So what do you think it means. Forget examples, forget hypothesis. Simply what does the aya say according to you? Because obviously, whether we can come up with examples or brilliant ideas or whatever, if we reject something it is because we do read something else. How do you think reads the aya, because finally I have no idea of what you are upholding.
As to what they may think or say in other forums, why should I be concerned with that? I am not begging agreement from anybody. I do not feel disappointed or angry or anything if nobody agrees with me. I can live with that. But disagreement is no reason for me to say something I am convinced it is false, no matter how popular.
Salaam
Like I said in my previous posts in different places sis, I see couples fitting in the aya and others connected, I can't exclude them yet...because the evidence to reject it is not solid/coherent enough. I am very interested in knowing if there is another way of reading it with enough solidity to reject other interpretations. I have no horse in this race, I just want to know how much juice any interpretation has, is all. If an understanding is solid, accurate and truthful, it stands on its own and needs no one to hold it up in a manner of speaking, especially not on this forum where the vast majority of understandings are alternative. If people have issues with an alternative understanding in an alternative forum, then it's probably the fault of the understanding not having enough to it rather than an issue of perception/bias etc.
peace
-
Peace Wakas,
Separate, not divorce within the household or going to a relatives or friends house for time to think,
cool off or give space is definitive and understandable how to be done by most. Like "leave"is understood by most
people. But "beat" is much more vague with no parameters, also their are problems carrying out such a directive
like beat because severe injury may occur to one or both of the parties. How is the beating to be carried out?God bless
peace
-
peace hawk99,
Separate, not divorce within the household or going to a relatives or friends house for time to think,
cool off or give space is definitive and understandable how to be done by most. Like "leave"is understood by most
people.I agree that it can't mean "divorce", however I disagree that it is "definitive and understandable" as I mention here. Feel free to show several people the verse with "leave them" or "separate from them" in the verse and see if they all give the same answer in terms of what it means. This might give one a good indication if it is "definitive and understandable". Let us know what you find.
But "beat" is much more vague with no parameters, also their are problems carrying out such a directive
like beat because severe injury may occur to one or both of the parties. How is the beating to be carried out?I agree, but I'm not sure why you're asking me. This specific issue is discussed at length on Quran434.com
-
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.
I am working on a website similar to Quran434.com, on which I intend to summarise the views I have expressed in this thread. Verse 434 was the first verse I had difficulty understanding in my teenage years, and ultimately it was an article online which enlightened me on the more likely meaning. I think it's important for people to have access to such interpretations and to be aware of the level of misinterpretation the Qur'an has suffered. I don't have a date of completion, but I will post a link when it is complete (God-willing).
-
peace hawk99,
I agree that it can't mean "divorce", however I disagree that it is "definitive and understandable" as I mention here. Feel free to show several people the verse with "leave them" or "separate from them" in the verse and see if they all give the same answer in terms of what it means. This might give one a good indication if it is "definitive and understandable". Let us know what you find.
Peace Wakas,
Stating "going to a relatives or friends house for time to think, cool off or give space even in the same house is
definitive and understandable by most". meaning that act of creating space is understood by most, not an attempt
to translate the verse, just the simple act of creating room between the two parties which is what most folks do.I agree, but I'm not sure why you're asking me. This specific issue is discussed at length on Quran434.com
Just for once I would like someone who thinks that the beat/separate discussion is complicated to consider the
actual beating part of the debate i.e., when to beat, how to beat, with what to beat, should children be present,
how long to beat, what bruises are acceptable etc., then many will see how barbaric the beat translation is and
conclude that it is not much of a debate at all!God bless
peace
-
Update
I recently noticed that "madaji3" is in the "maf3il" form, meaning it can theoretically mean "times of sleep" as well as "places of sleep" i.e. "beds/bedrooms".I have updated the website accordingly
"...and abandon them in the bed..." (Arabic hjuroo, root ha-Jiim-Ra), means forsake, leave off, desert, abandon .
It is important to note this verb applies to the husband, NOT the wife, thus translations such as "banish them to beds apart "(M. Pickthal), "send them to beds apart" (Dawood), are incorrect. This is further proven by the use of "fee" meaning "in". Lastly, "al madajiAA" (root Dad-Jiim-Ayn) is plural, and literally means "the times/places of rest/sleep/reclining", thus could mean 'the times of sleep' or 'the bed' or even 'the bedroom'. With regard to "al madajiAA" there is no half measures, it clearly means fully abandon/desert them in this. It seems to also imply no sexual relations. Also, this step reinforces the implication that it is unlikely to be a simultaneous series of steps, as "abandon them in the bed or times of sleep" would only be done at sleeping time, implying a time gap. This step should not be viewed as totally against the wife, as it would also result in the husband re-evaluating their relationship, and make him weigh up his fear against his desire to be with her, thus helping compromise/reconciliation.
As a side note, if a spouse is possibly having an affair, then not sharing beds (i.e. no sex) could also potentially reduce spread of sexually transmitted diseases, giving another benefit of this advice/step.And
Other examples of word form "maf3il" in AQ include "majalis", "mantiq", "mawazin", "mawatin", "mawadi3", "madaji3". There may be others. If the reader knows of any, please let me know. Their usage seems to indicate this form can indicate time/place/concept. Please read all occurrences.
The only forms that I came across of "maf3al" in AQ were "marqad", "mankab", "mash3ar", "mashrab" and "majma'a" and all seem to denote place. There may be others. If the reader knows of any, please let me know. Please read all occurrences.
To conclude, the word form "ma3fil" (same as "masjid" can indicate a noun of time/place (and perhaps concept). This is well established and accepted. Thus, to state "masjid" may mean a noun of time should not be seen as unusual.
-
peace hawk99,
It's all explained on the website www.Quran434.com with translation. Have you read it?
The men are supporters/maintainers of the women with what God bestowed on some of them over others and with what they spent of their money, so the righteous women are dutiful; guardians to the unseen with what God guarded. And as for those women you fear their disloyalty, then (first) you shall advise them, and (second) abandon them in the bed, and (lastly) cite them. If they obeyed you, then seek not against them a way; Truly, God is High, Great.
And if you (authority) feared a 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. God is Knowledgeable, Expert.cite them
An interesting example also appears in 581-4 in which a woman argues with the prophet complaining about her husband, and how the husband has estranged/alienated her by claiming her to be as his mother's back, which was a practice of the time, making the wife unlawful for himself but also not technically divorcing her allowing her to remarry, i.e. leaving her stuck/suspended.
This is an interesting example because if we suppose this could be classed as a case of iAAradan/alienation or shiqaqa/breach/rift, then the next step the wife took was to cite her husband's behaviour/actions to the authority, which would have been the prophet at the time. The correlation is specifically with 4129 which advises the husband not to leave her stuck/suspended and this is the EXACT situation described in 581-4, thus showing that in a situation of no resolution, the next step would be to cite the partner/situation to the authority. If we correlate this example to what the next step would be in 434, if the steps are followed and no resolution is forthcoming, the next step would be to cite the partner to the authority. This would explain how the court/authority knew of the situation between the couple in 435. Since 'idriboo them' is the only step in between "abandon them in bed" and the authority becoming aware of the situation, is there a Classical Arabic meaning of DRB that fits in the sequence? The answer is a resounding yes, as one of its primary and most common meanings is to cite/propound, declare/mention, put/show forth, point out or indicate. As we can see, it is a perfect fit. -
peace hawk99,
It's all explained on the website www.Quran434.com with translation. Have you read it?
cite them
Peace Wakas,
Thank you, I surmise in the context of 4/34 "cite" equals "report" (to authorities) which could include
family members also clerics and counselors yes/no?God bless
peace
