Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
-
There is no crime in 4.34 therefore there cannot be any question of any punishment. The fear that somebody may do something wrong may warrant that that somebody is advised, warned or counselled or informed of the fears of the persons concerned, but most certainly does not warrant that he or she is punished for the fear that somebody may have that he or she may do something wrong.
D-r-b, as to its meaning in the sentence appears quite clear and neat and in accordance with the general fundamental significance of the root if taken as making something apparent an clear and efficient. You fear something, so you state it to the person you fear may do something and get clarity from him or her.
And the community is the one who is in charge of doing that in this case of 4.34. No need to go into preventive war or punishment, that is not quranic at all.
But the meaning of hitting has been useful historically to affirm marital authority of the husband over the wife, which otherwise is nowhere in the Qur'an but which at that time was the rule in most civilizations if not all. So that legitimation of marital authority was put in the Qur'an by way of making it a punishment of the husband to the wife. There wa snot intention at all of having women beaten, but there was the needed idea to uphold marital authority over the wife. As we all know, the world would have crumbled had that authority not been there, like it is crumbling now for that reason(if we believe some scholars).
So what was not in the qur'an was injected by that subtle means.
The fact that there is nothing done, just feared, in the sentence, is a clear mark that there can be no beating nor anything that might be understood as a punishment or "teaching" to somebody who has behaved or is behaving wrongly, that is no correction, neither from the community who is addressed nor of course from the husband, who is not addressed at all.
There is still in spanish dictionnaries a verb derived from daraba (adarvar) which has precisely that meaning, like stun or surprise, but no indication of anything physical.
Salaam
-
Salam huruf,
you have got it reasonably right, the word daraba is used in the Quran for the aim of breaking a narrative, like when relating a story whose purpose is to advocate a change in behaviour... the Quran is full of this...
Indeed, you are right, but the hitting bit seems to to have a bewitching effect and once somebody has fallen under the spell they cannot escape it no matter how far fetched or illogical.
Salaam
-
Indeed, you are right, but the hitting bit seems to to have a bewitching effect and once somebody has fallen under the spell they cannot escape it no matter how far fetched or illogical.
Salaam
at the risk of sounding racist to my own kind (I have about half Arabic blood and an 8th Ottoman), I think the Arabs and many of the tribes Islam absorbed, such as Persians, Mongols, Ottomans are pretty violent, and after all slavery is still rampant in the Arabian Gulf Sheikhdoms...
violence is the most sordid form of control...
-
Please note, I do not actually think "go away from them" is viable. Note that DRB is used to mean "withdraw from" in 435, and it is the first verb form without Alif, thus if The Quran was being consistent one would have thought it would use the same first verb form with the preposition "AAn" in 434 if it meant "withdraw from them".
I don't think that is an equal comparison because a function of the Alif in verse 434 is to denote the imperative / command form, whereas verse 435 does not require the imperative / command form. Taking the Alif in 434 to also denote the 4th form of a verb, this can allow both the meaning of 'Separate' as well as providing the appropriate imperative expression. In verse 435, an imperative expression is not required (instead there is an interrogative Alif used as a prefix), so it is not necessary for this verse to be worded in the same way as 434.
Personally I don't feel the other issues you mentioned are strong enough objections because most can be addressed with an answer resembling 'not necessarily'.
- it is not quite a conflict-resolution step and if not meant to imply divorce/talaq then it seemingly penalises the husband implying he should move out.
Not necessarily. A period of separation may be useful in resolving a marital conflict (ie. to calm things down / allow gradual resolution), and the Qur'an's emphasis is not on who leaves the house in this context. The emphasis is on the course of action, ie. separation as a potential aid to conflict resolution.
- any degree of leaving/separating/shunning may fall afoul of doing iAAradan (alienation / turning away) in 4128, thus such a step may give the wife a legitimate reason for ending the marriage, thus unless clarified/limited this meaning does not fit well.
Verse 4128 encourages the possibility of reconciliation when the wife is in the situation of husband committing opposition / turning away. This seems to be supporting the view of a separation for the purposes of attempting reconciliation in verse 434. How does this give the wife legitimate reason for ending marriage?
- results in incoherence when DRB is used with a human as the direct object (see 4357 and 273)
This does not necessarily disprove the interpretation of 'separate' in verse 434.
- requires the insertion of "from" making this the only DRB example of this kind in The Quran, even though the preposition "AAn /from" is used with DRB in 435 in a very similar usage as being suggested here for 434.
Not necessarily, as discussed earlier in this thread.
- provides no explanation as to how the authority find out about the issue in the marriage by 435
Qur'an does not need to provide such details. Perhaps this has been deliberately left out to allow adaptation to different societies, authorities and court systems.
- makes little sense when in the reversed role 4128-129
Instead, it seems to correlate with the interpretation of 'separate' in verse 434, as mentioned in point 2 above.
- has no supporting example in Quran
There might not be an identical example, but at least there is usage of that meaning in verse 435. The overriding principles of tolerance, justice and compassion throughout the Qur'an also provide further support.
-
I don't think that is an equal comparison because a function of the Alif in verse 434 is to denote the imperative / command form, whereas verse 435 does not require the imperative / command form. Taking the Alif in 434 to also denote the 4th form of a verb, this can allow both the meaning of 'Separate' as well as providing the appropriate imperative expression. In verse 435, an imperative expression is not required (instead there is an interrogative Alif used as a prefix), so it is not necessary for this verse to be worded in the same way as 434.
My simple point was that the verb form 1 of DRB has been used in Quran to mean "withdraw from" using the preposition "Aan" in 435. The Quran could easily have done this for 434 but it didn't, i.e. it seems inconsistent. This by itself does not refute anything, it is simply additional information/evidence to weigh and consider.
Re 1)
You saidA period of separation may be useful in resolving a marital conflict (ie. to calm things down / allow gradual resolution), and the Qur'an's emphasis is not on who leaves the house in this context. The emphasis is on the course of action, ie. separation as a potential aid to conflict resolution.
Firstly, by "period of separation" what do you mean? i.e. what happens in your example, does someone move out or not. Or do you mean the typical separation period after talaq/divorce? Please clarify.
Secondly, you claim the emphasis is not on who leaves but your view is clear, and in that view, the command is to the husband to do the verb DRB - thus, does he or does he not "go away from them"? He clearly has to.Re 2)
Note, underlined part
4128 says "...And if a woman feared from her husband nushuz/uprising/disloyalty or alienation /turning away..."Clearly, nushuz or iAAradan is feared and not wanted by the wife. It is a bad thing. In your view the alleged conflict resolution step is to do what the wife feared and is a bad thing i.e. iAAradan / alienation / turning away aka separate/withdraw from them.
Perhaps I am mistaken, thus please clarify, in your view
what is DRB/separate from them, and what is iAAradan.So we can see if they are clearly distinct and thus do one (as advised by God, i.e. a good/just thing) and not the other (feared, bad thing). If you have Quran references for this, please list them.
Re 3)
You saidThis does not necessarily disprove the interpretation of 'separate' in verse 434.
I agree, however this is about weighing of evidence to determine the best fit. As it stands the meaning of "separate from them" as used in 434 has no precedent in Quran and requires the tashkeel to be incorrect. That's a tough sell.
Re 4)
It is still correct to say it has no precedence in Quran.Re 5)
You assume "Qur'an does not need to provide such details." Marriage/divorce is one of the most detailed subjects in Quran, but this part is left out..... apparently. Again, just more evidence to weigh and consider.I dont understand this point "Perhaps this has been deliberately left out to allow adaptation to different societies, authorities and court systems."
Surely, some sort of notification has to take place first so others can get involved. Can you give us an example of what you mean?Re 6)
Once you clarify 2 above, then we can check it better.Re 7)
By supporting example I meant in terms of marital example. There is an example for the position advocated in Quran434.com and that is 581-4, although 4128-129 can also be used.As I said, it is simply a matter of putting all the evidence on the table for each option, then weighing it. See which option is strongest. Once you clarify the above questions we will be in a better position to weigh the evidence.
-
Women are often subject to discrimination by the staunch religionists.
-
Firstly, by "period of separation" what do you mean? i.e. what happens in your example, does someone move out or not. Or do you mean the typical separation period after talaq/divorce? Please clarify.
I think it's important to note that when the Qur'an does not specify explicit details on an expression, it is inappropriate for us to seek explicit definitions to such expressions when they are not necessary. The word 'da-ra-ba' in verse 434 should be taken generally as a meaning of avoid / ignore / disregard or keep away from each other (any type of 'separation'. Whether or not this requires someone to move out depends on each individual situation and marital conflict. For example, if the wife is wealthier than the man and has a better job, she might agree by herself to move out for the purpose of temporary 'separation'. This can be an acceptable way to fulfill the steps in the verse.
I was not referring to the typical interim period after divorce because that period does not apply when the couple have not had sexual contact (3349) and a separation from the house is not supposed to occur during the interim period (651). You also highlighted these points on Quran434.com, so I'm unsure why you are making this comparison here (see excerpt below)
• if no sex has taken place after marriage, then no interim period is required after divorce/talaq . Compensation may be due however if dower was agreed upon
• during post-divorce interim period, wife remains in the same house, and is compensated by way of maintenance during this period in the same living standard as the husband, each according to their means **
Secondly, you claim the emphasis is not on who leaves but your view is clear, and in that view, the command is to the husband to do the verb DRB - thus, does he or does he not "go away from them"? He clearly has to.
Yes, he should do the verb by trying to ignore / avoid or keeping away from his wife, but this does not necessarily imply a moving out of the house. Even if the verse has mentioned avoiding sexual relations in bed, there can be other ways of avoiding or keeping away from a person inside the household. The point about men specifically being addressed in 434 to perform the verb is not so relevant because the same course of action in 434 can be taken by the wife, while complying with 4128 (see below).
Note, underlined part
4128 says "...And if a woman feared from her husband nushuz/uprising/disloyalty or alienation /turning away..."Clearly, nushuz or iAAradan is feared and not wanted by the wife. It is a bad thing. In your view the alleged conflict resolution step is to do what the wife feared and is a bad thing i.e. iAAradan / alienation / turning away aka separate/withdraw from them.
Perhaps I am mistaken, thus please clarify, in your view
what is DRB/separate from them, and what is iAAradan.The word with root a'-ra-da, simply meaning 'turning away', can be applied to both a positive or negative expression, and is not itself a bad word. There are many examples of this in the Qur'an, where the word has been used as a positive / good command with the meaning of 'turn away'; see verses 416, 463, 481, 542, 668, 6106, 7199, 995, 1176, 15.94, 2855, 3230, 5329, 663, 233. Therefore, da-ra-ba in 434 may be related to a'-ra-da in 4128 without being a bad thing, if it is done in the right way. 'Nushuz' on the other hand has more negative connotations because it implies wrongdoing. It is used in both 434 and 4128 suggesting that the situation is possible either way and is inevitably subjective to an extent in terms of who is in the wrong. I think this is also why the word 'feared' is used in both verses, in the sense of 'apprehension', 'anticipation', and the awareness of what is happening. In practice, this is inherently subjective for both the man and woman, they may be thinking they are right while committing 'Nushuz' themselves, but the Qur'an provides guidance in a way that can be used by either partner.
Hence, from the two subjective words used in 4128, we can expect two possible scenarios for the wife
Husband commits "Nushuz" --> Wife tries advising / avoiding in bed / turning away in order to attempt self-reconciliation as per 434 --> No self-reconciliation occurs --> Arbiters appointed from each family as per 435 --> Either reconciliation occurs as mentioned in 4128, or proceed to divorce.
Husband commits "I'radan" (either according to 434 or not) --> Wife can try steps outlined in 434 if this may help provide self-reconciliation --> No self-reconciliation occurs --> Arbiters appointed from each family as per 435 --> Either reconciliation occurs as mentioned in 4128, or proceed to divorce.
Worth noting is that Verse 4128 says the couple can reconcile "between themselves" in a situation when a'-ra-da (turning away) has occured. This is relevant because the series of steps from verse 434 outlined above allow a clear opportunity for the couple to work things out '"between themselves" before arbiters need to be considered.
I agree, however this is about weighing of evidence to determine the best fit. As it stands the meaning of "separate from them" as used in 434 has no precedent in Quran and requires the tashkeel to be incorrect. That's a tough sell.
Take a look at the following manuscript of verse 434 which was discovered in Yemen; it has been traced back to the 1st Century of Hijrah. You will see how there are no vocalisation signs / symbols or short vowels present at all. This is how the Qur'an was revealed to Prophet Muhammad and how it was left with us when he passed away. Now the addition of the vocalisation signs later do not provide support for interpreting or not interpreting the Qur'an in a certain way. In the manuscript below, verse 434 has been outlined in green, and notice the word Alif-da-ra-ba outlined in red. These are the individual letters only, so this can very possibly representing a 4th form verb.
http//s24.postimg.org/49ghrpbp1/quran_4_34_1st_century_hijrah.png
Source http//www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/soth.html
More information about the Qur'anic manuscripts discovered at Sana'a Mosque in Yemen http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sana%27a_manuscript
I dont understand this point "Perhaps this has been deliberately left out to allow adaptation to different societies, authorities and court systems."
Surely, some sort of notification has to take place first so others can get involved. Can you give us an example of what you mean?I don't disagree that verse 435 is referring to some form of 'authoritative body', which administers or appoints arbiters from each family. At the time of revelation, it was probably referring to the Prophet or others in authority among them. In modern society, this may be a legal system or other government agency which deals with marital problems. The case may or may not need to be dealt with by a court, and since a legal system can vary from country to country and the laws of a country evolve through time, there may not be a fixed method of reporting or making 'notification' of a case. For example, reporting may be done in person, or there may be different forms to fill in, it may need to be reported by telephone or perhaps even through an online reporting facility. Why is the actual method of reporting so important?
By supporting example I meant in terms of marital example. There is an example for the position advocated in Quran434.com and that is 581-4, although 4128-129 can also be used.
If we consider that verse 4128 uses the word a'-ra-da (turning away) in relation to a possibility of reconciliation of the couple "by themselves", I think this provides a complementing example which supports the interpretation.
-
Can you further clarify these two points (bold and underlined) before I reply in full
Therefore, da-ra-ba in 434 may be related to a'-ra-da in 4128 without being a bad thing, if it is done in the right way.
e.g. can you give some practical examples of Drb done in the right way, so as to avoid 3rD. Or at least one example.
Husband commits "Nushuz" --> Wife tries advising / avoiding in bed / turning away in order to attempt self-reconciliation as per 434 --> No self-reconciliation occurs --> Arbiters appointed from each family as per 435 --> Either reconciliation occurs as mentioned in 4128, or proceed to divorce.
Husband commits "I'radan" (either according to 434 or not) --> Wife can try steps outlined in 434 if this may help provide self-reconciliation --> No self-reconciliation occurs --> Arbiters appointed from each family as per 435 --> Either reconciliation occurs as mentioned in 4128, or proceed to divorce.
e.g. how can it be according to 434? Do you mean the husband advises, abandons in bed; then Drb <--- and this last step he falls afoul and "commits iAAradan"?
-
Both "beat them" and "cite them examples" as translations of D'RB in 434 are not consistent with the next verse, 435
-
e.g. can you give some practical examples of Drb done in the right way, so as to avoid 3rD. Or at least one example.
Da-ra-ba done in the right way may occur in a situation where there is high risk of domestic violence between a couple. Either partner may attempt steps at reconciliation by following advice in 434; in this case, even a separation from the house may be appropriate to ease the tension and reduce risks of physical harm to each other. You said , "so as to avoid 3rD", but this is not necessary; see below.
e.g. how can it be according to 434? Do you mean the husband advises, abandons in bed; then Drb <--- and this last step he falls afoul and "commits iAAradan"?
Looks like you did not understand the point about the word a'-ra-da not always being a negative word. It can be used in a good or positive sense. I provided fifteen references to verses in the Qur'an showing this word being used in a positive / 'good command' form with no negative connotations. I did mean that doing da-ra-ba in 434 may be the same as committing I'radan in 4128, but as just explained this word I'radan does not have to be negative in all cases. It may be negative if the case of I'radan is a case of neglect, ie. the husband is unjustly neglecting the wife and paying no attention to her, but it does not have to be negative if the husband is sincerely trying to reach reconciliation by following 434. Of-course, the husband may still be the one in wrong even if he is trying to follow 434 (eg. he may have falsely accused her of something even if his subjective view is that he is right), but I think the word a'-ra-da is broad enough to apply to all these scenarios.
-
Thanks for the information, however I didn't see anyone advocate "cite them examples".
Salam
It is in the translation by Dr.Shabbir Ahmed '...... And keep admonishing them with examples that they stop rebelling. If they pay heed to you, seek not a way against them.....'
http//www.islamawakened.com/quran/4/34/default.htm -
peace Shumali,
Salam
It is in the translation by Dr.Shabbir Ahmed '...... And keep admonishing them with examples that they stop rebelling. If they pay heed to you, seek not a way against them.....'
http//www.islamawakened.com/quran/4/34/default.htmThat is an old translation by Dr Shabbir Ahmed. After he reviewed Quran434.com he changed his translation in the latest edition available from his website ourbeacon.com. This was briefly discussed here.
-
peace aqua,
Thanks for the clarification.
With regards to the tashkeel, my simple point was the "go away from them" view requires it to be incorrect. One may wish to ask themselves out of the tens of thousands of tashkeel use in the present day Arabic Quran how many are clearly incorrect? I will leave that for readers to consider.
With regards to the notification of authority, I feel you did not adequately explain why it may not have been mentioned. In every example you cited, some sort of notification is required. Simply mentioning notifying the authority does not tie down the notification protocol to any particular one.
The word "iAAradan" (turn away) is not inherently negative or positive, as it will depend on context what one is turning away from. In 4128 it is clear (at least to me) it is a negative as the wife feared it and it obviously refers to turning away from her. Someone does not fear a good thing.
I am happy with this admission, which is a consequence of the view "go away from them" i.e "I did mean that doing da-ra-ba in 434 may be the same as committing I'radan in 4128". This was the point I wanted to make. So, according to you, on the one hand Drb in 434 means "ignore / avoid or keeping away from his wife", and on the other hand a negative case of iAAradan can be " the husband is unjustly neglecting the wife and paying no attention to her". You advocate a position wherein one ignores/avoids or goes away from their spouse yet promotes self-reconciliation.Personally, this doesn't make sense to me and I don't see how this is practical BUT it is ok, you have clarified thus we can summarise somewhat
"withdraw/turn away / go away from them"
Requires the tashkeel of present day Arabic Quran to be incorrect
This alleged usage in 434 occurs in 435 with the preposition "Aan", thus making Quran seems inconsistent IF it did mean that in 434
No identical example of this DRB usage in Quran
No explanation of how the authority are notified
It is unclear to what extent one separates, how they can do so without being unjust etc
No supporting marital example in Quran
My view Impractical result when inserted into 4128-130 and somehow requires iAAradan to be a positive thing and potentially makes Drb/3rD similar"cite them" www.Quran434.com
Works perfectly with the tashkeel in the present day Arabic Quran
Several identical examples of this DRB usage in Quran, including when humans are the direct object as in 434
Explains how the authority is notified by 435, and provides perfect logical/sequential coherence
DRB use is clear and simple to implement practically
581-4 provides perfect coherence in terms of marital example
When inserted into 4128-130 provides a complementary practical and coherent solutionReaders can weigh up each option, and go with whatever they feel is most evidenced/logical.
-
I am still amazed at the amount of self-projections from everyside that have piled on this aya. It is beyond incredible. I commend all those that still try to make sense, real sense of it.
On this count I want to point out something that again comes from taking for granting something which does not have to be necessarily so.
In aya 4.35 it is spoken og a breach between them both, but to the end of aya 3.34 there has been no question of the speech revolving on exclusively a relationship of marriage. It was all about rijaal and nisaa', not husbands and wives. No mention of that at all.
And when it is said " of those (feminine plural, third person) you (mixed plural second person, that is, the addressee, that is, those who have believed) fear uncompliance", we are still speaking about the nisaa', not the wives. Then in the next aya, it goes into a specific question where it can be understood as between a coule. But to the end of 4.34 there is no reason to take that only or at all the married persons are meant. Men and women can break their social commitments other than marriage commitments.
Salaam
-
With regards to the tashkeel, my simple point was the "go away from them" view requires it to be incorrect. One may wish to ask themselves out of the tens of thousands of tashkeel use in the present day Arabic Quran how many are clearly incorrect? I will leave that for readers to consider.
Since the vocalisation signs relate to a vocal / oral transmission of the pronunciation / recitation of the Qur'an, which were written years after the Prophet's death, it may be argued that they are just as unreliable as Hadith and hearsay.
With regards to the notification of authority, I feel you did not adequately explain why it may not have been mentioned. In every example you cited, some sort of notification is required. Simply mentioning notifying the authority does not tie down the notification protocol to any particular one.
If the Qur'an speaks of appointing arbiters from the families, then obviously this needs to be arranged through an appropriate means. Maybe it has not been explicitly mentioned because it is supposed to be common-sense? Even if you take the interpretation of 'cite them to the authority', this does not explain how exactly the citing should be done. The example of the woman in 581-4 tells us that she complained to the Prophet, which obviously does not apply today because the Prophet is not alive. Why does the Qur'an not detail the exact method for us to make this 'citation to the authority'? Maybe because such things are supposed to be general knowledge and common-sense, ie. if you need arbiters, you obviously need to have this arranged through a suitable method available at the time.
The word "iAAradan" (turn away) is not inherently negative or positive, as it will depend on context what one is turning away from. In 4128 it is clear (at least to me) it is a negative as the wife feared it and it obviously refers to turning away from her. Someone does not fear a good thing. I am happy with this admission, which is a consequence of the view "go away from them" i.e "I did mean that doing da-ra-ba in 434 may be the same as committing I'radan in 4128". This was the point I wanted to make. So, according to you, on the one hand Drb in 434 means "ignore / avoid or keeping away from his wife", and on the other hand a negative case of iAAradan can be " the husband is unjustly neglecting the wife and paying no attention to her". You advocate a position wherein one ignores/avoids or goes away from their spouse yet promotes self-reconciliation.
In 4128, you are taking the word I'radan to be definitely negative because of an assumption that the wife's perception or 'fear' in this context is the definitely correct side or opinion. We should remember that this 'fear', or perception / opinion in a marital disagreement is inevitably subjective and naturally personal, and it can be biased because either the man or the woman can be having the right or wrong perception or fear in a given situation. Notice that the same word 'fear' is used in both 434 and 4128, implying that both the man and the woman have their own fears or perspectives in a marital disagreement. The purpose of the verses is not to give a verdict on which side's fear / perception or accusations are correct, or to indicate whether or not someone is committing injustice in a given situation (eg. a man may or may not be being unjust by avoiding his wife, depending on context). The purpose of the verses is to present general guidance on how to approach and deal with a marital conflict regardless of which side is having the correct fears, opinions, or arguments. If we keep this in mind, we realise that it is irrelevant whether or not verse 4128 uses I'radan in a positive or negative way, because either way, the whole situation is subjective and can be biased in each perception. Both 434 and 4128 acknowledge the naturally subjective and opinionated nature of marital disputes by use of a subjective word, 'feared'.
I think the interpretation 'cite them to the authority' is more logical than 'beat them', but not more logical than 'turn away from them'. Verse 434 advises men on how to attempt reconciliation by themselves and then addresses the same men with, 'if they pay heed to you'. If the third step in 434 is to cite them to an authority, this effectively passes the responsibility of reconciliation to the authority / arbiters after only step 2 in verse 434. It would then seem unexpected / inconsistent for the verse to still refer to the same men with the statement, "if they pay heed to you" after a step which has been dealt with by an authority / arbiters. It makes more sense for the entire series of steps in 434 to be attempts at reconciliation by themselves, rather than having an authority intervened already in step 3. This is also more logical because the next verse 435 addresses arbitration as a separate / new concept, starting with the conditional expression 'If you fear a breach between them...'.
The translation 'cite them (to the authority)' is also quite vague and seems like an incomplete and 'loose' translation, particularly because in order to make any sense it requires the addition of an explanatory bracket "(to the authority)". There is no mention of 'authority' at all in the actual verse; however, there is suggestion of avoiding / disregarding the partner in step 2 of the advice "avoid them in bed". The interpretation 'turn away from them' is therefore a logical third step following this second step of avoiding in bed. This is a much simpler and more common-sense interpretation than 'cite them to the authority'. It also provides a sequence of steps that is more likely to lead to reconciliation, as encouraged by 4128 / 435.
-
In aya 4.35 it is spoken og a breach between them both, but to the end of aya 3.34 there has been no question of the speech revolving on exclusively a relationship of marriage. It was all about rijaal and nisaa', not husbands and wives. No mention of that at all.
And when it is said " of those (feminine plural, third person) you (mixed plural second person, that is, the addressee, that is, those who have believed) fear uncompliance", we are still speaking about the nisaa', not the wives. Then in the next aya, it goes into a specific question where it can be understood as between a coule. But to the end of 4.34 there is no reason to take that only or at all the married persons are meant. Men and women can break their social commitments other than marriage commitments.
Interesting thought, but doesn't the expression "abandon them in bed" in 434 suggest it is referring to a marital relationship?
-
Interesting thought, but doesn't the expression "abandon them in bed" in 434 suggest it is referring to a marital relationship?
No. It does not have the meaning that has been given to it. See 3.154
... Say "Even if you had remained in your homes, those for whom death was decreed would certainly have gone forth to the place of their death (ile maDaji3him)"; but (all this was) that Allah might test what is in your breasts and purge what is in your hearts. For Allah knoweth well the secrets of your hearts. (154)
Also 32.16
Their limbs do forsake their beds of sleep, the while they call on their Lord, in Fear and Hope and they spend (in charity) out of the sustenance which We have bestowed on them. (16)
From Lane
maDaji3 A place in which, or on which, one lies
upon his side ; (O,
Msb, g as also ? ' (O, p1. t.t (Myb,TA which
means sometimes places of sleep, or of passing the
night (Bl in iv. 38 and beds; or other things
spread upon the ground to lie upon. (Jel ibid.,
and Bd in xxxii. 16.).- the pl. is used
as meanin~ t Wives, or women so in the saying,
L.i 4 i. e. t He has well-born wives or
r,omen; like ~LLijl . . (TA.) - And
+,l ~1 L. mes s The places of falYi of r a.I O A
rain. (0, p, TA.) One says, W,eLqJ, ZJL,p
IJ. (A, TA.)In no other place in the Qur'an is a bed used as synonime for marriage or for sexual relations. Had the aya meant that, other expressions are used in the Qur'an elsewhere to say it. Whereas where maDaji3 is used there is no connotation of sexual activity, but points to the private place for somebody or something.
In fact, the use of the word for bed to mean sexual relations is rather modern, I suspect, and it is being injected in the aya without any grounds for it.
What it amounts to in the aya, seems to me, is that the women are not to be pestered in the place they are at home.
Let us not forget that in the aya there is no question of the women having done anything wrong but of there being aprehensions in some people that they might fail in their commitments. So they are to be asked about their intentions without trespassing on their privacy, get from them clarity as to where those who fear stand regarding them. Then if they get the proper feedback they should leave them in peace. Nobody there has done anything wrong, so this whole theater of admonishing, not "sleeping" (waw) with them and leave them or separate and all that is pure fantasy.
In the next aya, the fear is that a couple might break up. No question there either about punishing or correcting anybody, but rather appoint arbiters from both sides. And the addressee continues being the community (mixed second person plural) not the men (third person) nor the women (third person) in this case humaa (dual).
We have behind us centuries of heavy conditioning and hammering that men are given some power over anything (the special relationship of God with males, like that of the USA with Israel) and most certainly over women, and that we have to prove beyond all reasonable or unreasonable doubt that it is absolutely impossible that anything in the Qur'an could ever mean something that is not unfavourable to women and favourable to men. Like a self-fulfilling curse.
Well no. God does not have a special relationship with males. On that count a lot of objectivity is missing when reading the Qur'an. So let us repeat God does not have a special relationship with males, God does not have a special relationship with males...
Salaam
-
In no other place in the Qur'an is a bed used as synonime for marriage or for sexual relations. Had the aya meant that, other expressions are used in the Qur'an elsewhere to say it. Whereas where maDaji3 is used there is no connotation of sexual activity, but points to the private place for somebody or something.
What it amounts to in the aya, seems to me, is that the women are not to be pestered in the place they are at home.
Let us not forget that in the aya there is no question of the women having done anything wrong but of there being aprehensions in some people that they might fail in their commitments. So they are to be asked about their intentions without trespassing on their privacy, get from them clarity as to where those who fear stand regarding them. Then if they get the proper feedback they should leave them in peace. Nobody there has done anything wrong, so this whole theater of admonishing, not "sleeping" (waw) with them and leave them or separate and all that is pure fantasy.
Thanks for answering. I checked the verses and Lexicon definitions you posted, but I don't understand how beds equates to private place?
