Does Qur'an say husbands can HIT their wives?
-
Actually I am torn between supporting you guys in your efforts to reinterpret the Qur'an and move away from the harsh and sometimes violent beliefs of some Muslims - and feeling that you are really just moulding Islam to suit your own humanity. But even that's fine - but don't expect me not to discuss and give my opinion - that's only natural - we all do it - there shouldn't be a problem about that.
We might be re-interpreting Islam to suit our humanity and God knows best. But for me, a belief that does not promote the development of society/humanity is not worth striving for. I personally believe that "Islam" that promotes violence and/or injustice can NOT be the word of God, because God is the Most Compassionate and the Most Merciful. However, I believe that the peaceful belief system is the true God's system. That is, Qur'anically based system, that is free from manmade religion (by that, I mean hadiths in general).
So what is your problem with us, if I may ask? We are applying "personally moulded Islam" as we want to serve God in a way that it benefits humanity and does not impose any harms that may be caused by our lusts and desires. We, InshAllah, will try to live by the Qur'an and you won't see most of the Brothers here hitting their wives, you won't see most of us stoning adulterers to death, you won't see most of us chopping the hands of thieves, you won't see most of the Sisters here dressed in burqa, etc. So, what is your problem exactly? Unless... you see our actions as not befitting your personal values
As for man finding his way alone with out God's guidance - I believe that's exactly what we have been doing all these years. If there is any guidance that God has given us then it is within us - in our hearts, souls, minds and conscience. It may not be perfect - but hey - look around at those who think they are following God's perfect book
Well, some are indeed violent and that is because they do want want to think, and they are unwilling to separate between God's system and manmade religion. And the case is not just with "Islam", but also with other religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, etc. I personally hold nothing against people from other religions, as long as they commit themselves to serve God by serving mankind, in a peaceful manner.
Salaam.
-
We might be re-interpreting Islam to suit our humanity and God knows best. But for me, a belief that does not promote the development of society/humanity is not worth striving for... So what is your problem with us, if I may ask? We are applying "personally moulded Islam" as we want to serve God in a way that it benefits humanity and does not impose any harms that may be caused by our lusts and desires. We, InshAllah, will try to live by the Qur'an and you won't see most of the Brothers here hitting their wives, you won't see most of us stoning adulterers to death, you won't see most of us chopping the hands of thieves, you won't see most of the Sisters here dressed in burqa, etc. So, what is your problem exactly? Unless... you see our actions as not befitting your personal values...
We are discussing - that's all. If you lived next door to me I would be a very good neighbour to you - I have no problem with you. We are discussing our different views.
You believe x and I believe y and we are discussing the merits or lack thereof that's all.
Gotta go to bed now - work in the morning.
Peace
-
So your saying that your whole argument on 4.34 hangs on that interpretation by Muhammad Asad?
I understand now your obsession with Muhammads Asad's translation of this verse, sorry - but I have never come across it before and it never occured to me anyone could translate it this way.
So let me see if I understand you correctly - you are saying that this verse
So We said "Strike the (body) with a piece of the (cow)."
really means this
"So we said apply this (principle) to some of those (cases of unresolved murder)"
And because daraba is used directly without any qualification to mean something non-literal that shows that 4.34 is also non-literal.
Is that right?
But it's easy to see why traditional scholars understood the pronoun it after hit means the body of the deceased since it is talking about a murdered person - and it is obvious why the pronoun it after some refers to the cow - because the preceding 5 verses are all about sacrificing this cow.
So what is the evidence or reason for assuming it means principle and cases of unresolved murder
And what principle is it they must apply?
Salaam,
No where did I say that the entire case hinges on this verses definition. Rather, I have made the point that Wakas has a comprehensive case multiple times but you seem to hear what you want so your confusion isn't surprising. Further, if this verse has a non strike definition, then the idea that daraba needs a preposition or abstract noun following it to have a non strike definition is false and your entire case falls. Maybe what you are trying to project on me is how your entire arbitrary case concerning daraba hinges on one of many different examples and cases that can be offerred by my side.
Cheers
-
OK firstly I meant I do not believe in imposing my beliefs on anyone and I will defend the right of anyone to believe what they want - many of my family members are still practising Muslims and I defend their right and the right of all people to believe or not believe what they want. However that does not of course mean I can't say what I think and discuss.
Actually I am torn between supporting you guys in your efforts to reinterpret the Qur'an and move away from the harsh and sometimes violent beliefs of some Muslims - and feeling that you are really just moulding Islam to suit your own humanity. But even that's fine - but don't expect me not to discuss and give my opinion - that's only natural - we all do it - there shouldn't be a problem about that.
As for man finding his way alone with out God's guidance - I believe that's exactly what we have been doing all these years. If there is any guidance that God has given us then it is within us - in our hearts, souls, minds and conscience. It may not be perfect - but hey - look around at those who think they are following God's perfect book
You openly reject that verse and we do it secretly, through interpretation, and hence sending an open message to God that WE WILL NOT HIT OUR WOMEN!!!!! No matter how much nushooz they offer!! -*
-
Peace, here are some more of Wakas's notes on 273.
Additional notes
Three or more people (i.e. masculine plural) killed the soul/person.
Three or more people (i.e. masculine plural) were concealing (i.e. it was them who did it, as confirmed by the start of 272).
The part in red cannot refer to showing them how God resurrects the dead to simply show God can do it, as suggested by some commentators, as this is nowhere in context, would not require a murdered person, and would go against the example of Abaraham, see 2260. Not to mention that this would be a strange way for God to go about it, as it involved using partners to do the task.
"the dead" (al mawta) is plural thus weakening the common/traditional interpretation further, as it is not in this manner God revives the dead elsewhere in The Quran.
The part in blue must fulfil the goal God will bring out what they were concealing - further compounded by linking use of "fa/so" between 272 and 273.
The expression "God revives the dead" may also mean God revives the spiritually dead, i.e. them who were in the wrong (see the clear examples of 6122, 2780, 3050-52, 824), thus, this seems the most likely interpretation in my opinion. Although, M.Asad's is also possible.
The previous stories in this chapter are separated by "ith / when / ", and are all self-contained lessons. The story of the cow is independent of the story before it and the one following it that of the murdered soul.
The only masculine in the context are those who committed the murder and thereafter accused each other, hiding the truth. The only feminine in the context is the murdered soul, and the act of murder in which they accussed each other in (i.e. this is the closest preceding feminine to / bibadiha).Thus, applying the most likely option, we have "idriboo him (i.e. each one accused) with some of it (the murder)".
All we need now is to consider "idriboo" to see if there is a meaning that fits. Lane's Lexicon states that DRB on its own can mean "to point or make a sign", i.e. point out or indicate. When we re-read the context of 272-73, it becomes obvious the perpetrators were accusing each other (i.e. pointing the finger at each other, so to speak) to conceal the truth that they did it, so God was to bring forth what they were concealing so We said "point out him with some of it (the murder)". The only ones doing the pointing/accusing were the guilty. Thus, whomever of them (i.e. of the ones accused) was pointed out by the others also accused was assigned some part/responsibility of the murder. In this way, they could not escape what they had done, and indeed, God exposed them and brought out what they were concealing. The end result was that they took collective responsibility, each of him a part. Sharing of a sin/crime if a group were responsible is mentioned elsewhere in The Quran, e.g. 2411.
Further, other Classical Arabic meanings of DRB can also be used, such as cite, propound, indicate, assign, put/show forth.
Interestingly, in the tafsir of "al-Jalalayn" (see altafsir.com) it says the revived murdered soul pointed out his murderers. Ironically, this comes close to the truth, possibly indicating a remnant of the true understanding of this verse still remained, and likely became superficial/superstitious over time.
As a side note, for an understanding of "ddaara'atum", see Lane's Lexicon. In it, it specifically states the translation we have used. By deduction, we can work out it does indeed mean "you accused each other". The whole phrase literally means "you averted/repelled/pushed away each other". What are they averting/repelling/pushing away? The Quran tells us, it is "feeha = in it". Thus, the only possibility is they are literally pushing away in the dead body (highly unlikely), OR, they are pushing away in the murder, and logically, the latter can only mean they were pushing away the accusation or the sole responsibility for it. This is further proven by what follows, when it says they were concealing/hiding. Thus, one simply needs to ask what can they (the ones who did it) possibly be concealing by repelling each other in the murder? The translation option then becomes obvious.
To conclude, the understanding presented here fits the grammar, the Arabic, Classical Arabic meanings, logic, cross-referencing the subject of murder, specifically, that there is life in al qisas/equivalence (the law of just recompense) for those who use their intellect, 2179, and provides us with a self-contained explanation.
-
Also, nafs probably equals human being in this situation and in some other situations in the Quran. Humans capable of killing an immaterial soul seems quite unusual; ending a souls existence seems like something only God could do. Thus in 2272, they probably killed a human being or nafs. So, for some tranlations, striking the nafs is not the difficult part. You're rough equivalent of "strike the soul" is not applicable here then. It's that the nafs does not align in gender with the him/it that it is supposed too considering the context.
Peace -
It is weird that as you go through the occurrences of daraba in the Qur'an, there is not a single one where the meaning "beat" is the best fit or does not lead to some bizarre and contrived construction. People already are aware that history has been made and written by male supremacist mentality, and "progessive" people make no bones about that and take it as a fact of life. When we deal with islamic history (or any other) it seems only logical that evrything would be geared to assert that male supremacy. The logical and sceptical person would immediately deduce that to attain that male supremacist ideas would have to be extracted from the Qur'an and hence should be by itself suspicious
-
either of the Qur'an itself and take it as an expresion and means of that male supremacy
-
or of the interpretation and assumptions superimposed on the Qur'an to make it say whatever male supremacy made necessary.
We can eliminate 1), because if that were the case it would have been sufficient that the Qur'an had said inequivocally something categorical to that effect, like males are the authority in the family or women owe obedience to men or have repeated it here and there. No such injuction exists and to the contrary there is the explicit statement that the wife has the same rights that can be had over her. No marital authority anywhere in the Qur'an. The hadith of course come in handy, but if they can be made to prevail over the Qur'an the better, and that may done by
a) Giving primacy to the hadith over the Qur'an
b) Contriving interpretations of quranic text that fit the male supremacist mentality.
The latter is not difficult at all, since anyway it would happen in the middle of a society where male supremacy was already a presumption and no other interpretation would have been conceivable, justa as in almost any other society.What is weird is that today people who are "progressive" according to themselves cling desperately to the male chauvinistic interpretation of the Qur'an even if to do so they must twist grammar and logic to uphold the most childish ideas and readings of the Qur'an, like bringing heifers from nowhere to make some murdered person come back to life.
Of ocurse, it is very important that 4.34 be interpreted as "beat". and qawwamun as "lords". Because without that beat, marital authority goes down the drain. People were not savages either back them. Of course they didn't want to batter wives, therefore they qualified the ridiculous "beat" interpretation with beating lightly, with a miswakm, etc., so that actually no battering was warranted, but the important thing that the marital authority was thereby established. Because it is nowhere else in the Qur'an and nowhere stated that women owe obedience to anybody but God. And so, the same as any other aya of the Qur'an that could be interpreted contrivedly.
So now it seems that some "progressive" in fact have more trust in the contrived interpretations contributed by historical male supremacy than their own thourough study and analisys of the original text. Of course several centuries of male supremacist interpreters could not be wrong, could they? So faith in the Qur'an which we have before us and can examine and dissect a leisure is blind faith but blind faith in the plainly biased (consciously or unconsciously) interpreters is objectivity...
Salaam
that the need to introduce in the Qur'an the concept of marital au
-
-
Three or more people (i.e. masculine plural) killed the soul/person.
Three or more people (i.e. masculine plural) were concealing (i.e. it was them who did it, as confirmed by the start of 272).
The part in red cannot refer to showing them how God resurrects the dead to simply show God can do it, as suggested by some commentators, as this is nowhere in context, would not require a murdered person,It's perfectly within context and makes perfect sense to me. God said he would show them what they were hiding. He brought the guy to life and he told them who killed him.
It is your explanation makes no sense.
and would go against the example of Abaraham, see 2260.
You mean when Abraham cut up a bird and placed it all over the place and God brought it back to life?
Are you suggesting this is the only way God brings things back to life and he can't do it any other way?
Not to mention that this would be a strange way for God to go about it, as it involved using partners to do the task.
No more strange than getting birds to throw stones, whales to swallow people, birds to inform Solomon of another kingdom, meteors that chase away devils, angels that fight in battles, getting Khidr to kill a boy, make a hole in a boat, etc... and all the other weird stuff in the Qur'an that God gets others to do for him.
"the dead" (al mawta) is plural thus weakening the common/traditional interpretation further, as it is not in this manner God revives the dead elsewhere in The Quran.
Nothing strange about saying "This is how God raises the dead (pl)"
The part in blue must fulfil the goal God will bring out what they were concealing - further compounded by linking use of "fa/so" between 272 and 273.
I don't see any problem here.
The expression "God revives the dead" may also mean God revives the spiritually dead, i.e. them who were in the wrong (see the clear examples of 6122, 2780, 3050-52, 824), thus, this seems the most likely interpretation in my opinion.
In this verse that sounds very weak.
The previous stories in this chapter are separated by "ith / when / ", and are all self-contained lessons. The story of the cow is independent of the story before it and the one following it that of the murdered soul.
Nope the verses are clearly linked and using "ith / when / " does not mean they are different stories. The Qur'an is full of stories and verses that are linked but have "ith / when / " between them.
The only masculine in the context are those who committed the murder and thereafter accused each other, hiding the truth. The only feminine in the context is the murdered soul, and the act of murder in which they accussed each other in (i.e. this is the closest preceding feminine to / bibadiha).
Like I say it is referring to the dead body. It's obvious to me that is what it is referring to and the fem pronoun clearly refers to the cow - the verses are without any doubt linked. (btw this is supported by the story in the Old Testament* where the story of killing a cow is related to a murdered person. I suspect Muhammad took that story elaborated upon it or possibly the Jews of Madina had already elaborated it and Muhammad heard it from them.)
Thus, applying the most likely option, we have "idriboo him (i.e. each one accused) with some of it (the murder)".
That is not the most likely option imho.
All we need now is to consider "idriboo" to see if there is a meaning that fits. Lane's Lexicon states that DRB on its own can mean "to point or make a sign", i.e. point out or indicate. When we re-read the context of 272-73, it becomes obvious the perpetrators were accusing each other (i.e. pointing the finger at each other, so to speak) to conceal the truth that they did it, so God was to bring forth what they were concealing so We said "point out him with some of it (the murder)". The only ones doing the pointing/accusing were the guilty. Thus, whomever of them (i.e. of the ones accused) was pointed out by the others also accused was assigned some part/responsibility of the murder. In this way, they could not escape what they had done, and indeed, God exposed them and brought out what they were concealing. The end result was that they took collective responsibility, each of him a part. Sharing of a sin/crime if a group were responsible is mentioned elsewhere in The Quran, e.g. 2411.
Show me where idriboo means point/make a sig without a preposition or some qualification.
Further, other Classical Arabic meanings of DRB can also be used, such as cite, propound, indicate, assign, put/show forth.
Again, show me where it can mean those things without a preposition or some qualification.
Interestingly, in the tafsir of "al-Jalalayn" (see altafsir.com) it says the revived murdered soul pointed out his murderers. Ironically, this comes close to the truth, possibly indicating a remnant of the true understanding of this verse still remained, and likely became superficial/superstitious over time.
Jalalayn's tafsir completely supports my interpretation
" " ""
"We said hit it" meaning the murdered person. "With some of it" so it was hit with the tongue or the end of the tail and he came alive and said "So and so killed me!"All makes perfect sense. (weird of course - but well in keeping with all the other weird stories.)
As a side note, for an understanding of "ddaara'atum", see Lane's Lexicon. In it, it specifically states the translation we have used. By deduction, we can work out it does indeed mean "you accused each other". The whole phrase literally means "you averted/repelled/pushed away each other". What are they averting/repelling/pushing away? The Quran tells us, it is "feeha = in it". Thus, the only possibility is they are literally pushing away in the dead body (highly unlikely), OR, they are pushing away in the murder, and logically, the latter can only mean they were pushing away the accusation or the sole responsibility for it. This is further proven by what follows, when it says they were concealing/hiding. Thus, one simply needs to ask what can they (the ones who did it) possibly be concealing by repelling each other in the murder? The translation option then becomes obvious.
They were blaming each other - I see absolutely no problem there.
To conclude, the understanding presented here fits the grammar, the Arabic, Classical Arabic meanings, logic, cross-referencing the subject of murder, specifically, that there is life in al qisas/equivalence (the law of just recompense) for those who use their intellect, 2179, and provides us with a self-contained explanation.
Nope it all makes far less sense both grammatically and logically than the traditional explanation. I suspect that Muhammad Asad (a convert to Islam from Judaism) was trying to make this passage fit the passage in the Old Testament that says that if you find a dead body kill a cow and wash your hands in it's blood over it and swear an oath you didn't do it. (Modern police forces please take note of these divinely inspired methods of crime solving!)
OK, could you answer the questions I asked above - namely
-
What is the evidence or reason for Asad's assumption that the prounoun "it" in "idriboo" means "principle" and the prounou "it" in "biBa'dihaa" means "to some cases of unresolved murder?"
-
What principle is it talking about?
-
And why does it say apply this principle to "some" cases of murder?
Peace.
*Deuteronomy 211-9
If a man is found slain, lying in a field in the land the LORD your God is giving you to possess, and it is not known who killed him, your elders and judges shall go out and measure the distance from the body to the neighboring towns. Then the elders of the town nearest the body shall take a heifer that has never been worked and has never worn a yoke and lead her down to a valley that has not been plowed or planted and where there is a flowing stream. There in the valley they are to break the heifer's neck. The priests, the sons of Levi, shall step forward, for the LORD your God has chosen them to minister and to pronounce blessings in the name of the LORD and to decide all cases of dispute and assault. Then all the elders of the town nearest the body shall wash their hands over the heifer whose neck was broken in the valley,and they shall declare "Our hands did not shed this blood, nor did our eyes see it done. Accept this atonement for your people Israel, whom you have redeemed, O LORD, and do not hold your people guilty of the blood of an innocent man." And the bloodshed will be atoned for. So you will purge from yourselves the guilt of shedding innocent blood, since you have done what is right in the eyes of the LORD.
-
-
People already are aware that history has been made and written by male supremacist mentality...
Has it occurred to you that a 7th century Arab called Muhammad had just such a mentality?
Has it occurred to you that the Qur'an are his words - not God's?
-
You openly reject that verse and we do it secretly, through interpretation, and hence sending an open message to God that WE WILL NOT HIT OUR WOMEN!!!!! No matter how much nushooz they offer!! -*
Good for you!
For me it is flogging a dead horse but I genuinely wish you the best of luck -*
-
cosmicdancer,
You mean when Abraham cut up a bird and placed it all over the place and God brought it back to life?
I recommend studying 2260, it's been discussed in the forum with ample evidence
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=15458.0Similarly, you may wish to re-study those other examples you gave.
Nope the verses are clearly linked and using "ith / when / " does not mean they are different stories. The Qur'an is full of stories and verses that are linked but have "ith / when / " between them.
I'm not sure about your claim, but definitely not in this sequence of narrations.
I assume you think they all stood about for the slaughtering of the cow, then when Moses went away they killed a person, and just happened to have some dead cow lying around and used that. Then the dead person erm kinda went dead again I presume.I just thought of another reason, at the end when it says "...and He shows you His signs that you may use your reason." The ayat/signs being the revelation, as it is unlikely to be the act of bringing the dead person alive by striking with a piece of cow, as this does not make use of aql/reason. I will add that to the article ;D
Like I say it is referring to the dead body. It's obvious to me that is what it is referring to and the fem pronoun clearly refers to the cow - the verses are without any doubt (at least in my mind and all the scholars throughout the centuries) linked.
Actually the feminine pronoun most likely refers to the preceding feminine, and that is the murder. FACT. What you and the commentators present is a superficial and theoretical interpretation, not the most likely. Similarly with the masculine pronoun.
Show me where idriboo means point/make a sig without a preposition or some qualification.
See Lane, or the article. Careful not to skim read though.
They were blaming each other - I see absolutely no problem there.
"blaming each other in IT (the closest preceding feminine)". You know it, and I know it.
Nope it all makes far less sense both grammatically and logically than the traditional explanation.
I'm not sure if you were referring to Asad's rendition or not, but if you were referring to "idriboo him (i.e. each one accused) with some of it (the murder)", then I recommend brushing up on your Arabic grammar and logic.
The fact is, if you had no tafsir to refer to, it is highly unlikely you'd end up with the traditional interpretation. The Quran is clear, or at the very least weighs the evidence in favour of my rendition, which is "point out OR indicate OR put/show forth OR cite OR assign him with some of it (the murder)".
-
Has it occurred to you that a 7th century Arab called Muhammad had just such a mentality?
Has it occurred to you that the Qur'an are his words - not God's?
I do not know why you go off that, because the text is plain by itself if I reject interpretations that are not warranted. It is only if you cling to unwarranted tafsirs that problems arise, but not out of the text.
But anyway, that the Qur'an are Muhammads words and not God's that is what I started from, that is what is universally taught and what I was taught. I acknowledge that I stand a better chance to objectivity than you though. Becuase when you learn something and learn it deformed it is much more difficult to get out of that mold to read it undeformed. Whereas when you just read it as it is, you realise immediately that the whole aya is messed, because it makes no sense and it doesn't make sense with the other parts of the Qur'an thanks to the by contrived translation-interpretation. Then when you reject everything ans start from scratch forgetting about what other people said and checking with grammars and dictionnaries and other ayas in the Qur'an you start to get the sense of what is there and how it fits with the rest. Eventually everything falls into place.
I find it strange that you have struggled along with all this, from taking everything for granted in your religion and then you come here and you refuse to read something properly asking that the truth be presented to you on a platter and at your convenience. I guess that may have been your hindrance, that you expect and have always accepted what was been given to you without troubling yourself, but what one gets for free in these matters is worth nothing. Nobody will give you the truth. Nobody, and what I or any other are writing here will do you no good. But I write in this forum because I learn, and others also learn. I am thankful for it. I do not know why you write here. And excuse if I have gone someway into your personal attitude, but it is only because you have invited to your site and I was curious as to how the kind of person who writes how you write comes to do that.
Salaam, and may you find whatever it is you are looking for, athough without a bit more effort, I am not too hopeful. Salaam again.
-
Thanks Wakas and Huruf - I'll rejoin this debate later - not in the mood right now - peace.
-
We are discussing - that's all. If you lived next door to me I would be a very good neighbour to you - I have no problem with you. We are discussing our different views.
You believe x and I believe y and we are discussing the merits or lack thereof that's all.
Gotta go to bed now - work in the morning.
Peace
Peace,
Cosmicdancer, no offense to you though. If you say you want to discuss different views and that you'll be a good neighbour, you better put it in action. From my observation, you insist on your pre-conceived views that Islam is not the path, and you insist on using the opinion of 'scholars' to suit your arguments, without even considering the others' point of views. You dismiss other arguments because the scholars' opinions over 1400 years cannot be wrong. It's basically the same as saying the earth must be flat because that was the most commonly held views in the past.
I would appreciate that you respect others and their opinions, and not talk in 'provocative' way, as you do in other threads. It may not be your intention, but it is how you appear to be. If you think Islam is not the path, don't submit to it; express your opinions and when others don't agree with you, then don't keep debating like you're the right one. We can be wrong, as you can be too. The absolute truth is God, and everything else is uncertain, we can only speculate.
I'm really really sorry, but I really think you have problems with us who interpret the Qur'an independently, which I cannot work out why. I will appreciate if you think that any of our actions, due to submitting to Islam based on Qur'an alone, harm anybody else. If not, then, follow what you believe in and leave us follow what we believe in, peacefully. Unto you your Way, unto us Ours.
Peace.
-
So you are saying it can be read in reverse?
On what basis do you say that?
Yes if it helps understand "AND" doesn't change meaning; example...
3335 Inna Al-Muslimna Wa Al-Muslimti
Wa Al-Mu'uminna Wa Al-Mu'uminti
Wa Al-Qnitna Wa Al-Qnitti
Wa A-diqna Wa A-diqti
Wa A-birna Wa A-birti
Wa Al-Khshina Wa Al-Khshiti
Wa Al-Mutaaddiqna Wa Al-Mutaaddiqti
Wa A-'imna Wa A-'imti
Wa Al-fi?na Furjahum Wa Al-fi?ti
Wa Adh-Dhkirna Allha Kathran Wa Adh-Dhkirti 'Aadda Allhu Lahum Maghfiratan Wa 'AjranA?manCan it be read with wadribuhunna first before Fa'ithuhunna?
No, logically AND starts the program ELSE IF case ...
Wa Al-Lt Takhfna Nushzahunna
AND the ones whom you fear their quarrelFa`i?hunna
THEN advise themWa Ahjurhunna F Al-Maji`i
AND abandon them in the place of lying downWa Aribhunna
AND show themFa'in 'Aa`nakum
Else IF they abide by youFal Tabgh `Alayhinna Sablan
THEN do not desire/want on themInna Allha Kna `Alyan Kabran
A way, that God is High, Great.Peace
-
I have written an article on verse 434 of the Qur'an, a verse which has commonly been misinterpreted to justify violence against women. I have created a website to publish this article www.quranverse434.com
