4:34
-
My understanding of the verse is that Idribuhunne means to tell them that you want to divorce them. Telling them that in fact satisfies all the meanings for the root. It hurts, it causes divide, it separates, it hits the heart etc etc.
"Hit her" is an appropriate translation. Of course we must note quran 419. If you hit her physically, it would fail quran 419. The person would have to end up going towards quran 243-9 if he physically accused her and hit her.
voodoo
Thank you for your input, it is appreciated, and thank you for directing me to these verses of which I had previously not read.
-
Yes, the article I provided states as well that to beat your wife would be contradictory when contrasted with other verse(s) which call for compassion and restraint and to treat one's wife with respect.
You are partly right. The article you posted only resolves part of the harmony of the internal examples. It fails or leaves unresolved 4128 and 581-4. As I said, as far as I'm aware, the study of Quran434.com is the only study which resulted in an answer that was in complete harmony. I strongly recommend reading the study.
-
Actually I just realised the article you posted (by Edip Yuksel) is critically flawed
If it does not
work and she goes further and commit a proven adultery, that time husband
has the right to strike them out (434 & 651).434 does not interject a proven adultery halfway through, it begins with a fear/suspected disloyalty and does not change. Anything to the contrary is a significant and perhaps unacceptable assumption/extrapolation. Then there is the problem of authority involvement/arbitration trying to reconcile a husband with a wife who is a proven adulterer, when The Quran says adulterers are for adulterers etc and states the punishment for such an act.
Beating women who are cheating is not an ultimate solution; but "striking
them out" from your house is the best solution. And it is fair too.See above.
I will email Edip the study of Quran434.com for his feedback.
-
Actually I just realised the article you posted (by Edip Yuksel) is critically flawed
434 does not interject a proven adultery halfway through, it begins with a fear/suspected disloyalty and does not change. Anything to the contrary is a significant and perhaps unacceptable assumption/extrapolation. Then there is the problem of authority involvement/arbitration trying to reconcile a husband with a wife who is a proven adulterer, when The Quran says adulterers are for adulterers etc and states the punishment for such an act.
See above.
I will email Edip the study of Quran434.com for his feedback.
yes I came across that verse the other day, about adulterers for adulterers and the believers are forbidden from marrying them. Thank you for your thorough analysis. I will not lie, I was only interested in the part about the word in dispute and was not paying much attention to the rest of the article. Thank you for pointing this out. So to paraphrase, it most probably means cite them/involve the authorities as the third step?
-
yes I came across that verse the other day, about adulterers for adulterers and the believers are forbidden from marrying them. Thank you for your thorough analysis. I will not lie, I was only interested in the part about the word in dispute and was not paying much attention to the rest of the article. Thank you for pointing this out. So to paraphrase, it most probably means cite them/involve the authorities as the third step?
You know, one of my faults is that at times I am impatient and tactless and rush things. Often on tests I would receive comments that I failed to read the instructions. This is something that I will pray to the all mighty to help me with. I apologize for annoying you for not giving the article a thorough and careful analysis and I will pray to God to help me with this, as well as thank him for blessing me with interactions with those who's wisdom I am fortunate enough to come across.
-
yes I came across that verse the other day, about adulterers for adulterers and the believers are forbidden from marrying them. Thank you for your thorough analysis. I will not lie, I was only interested in the part about the word in dispute and was not paying much attention to the rest of the article. Thank you for pointing this out. So to paraphrase, it most probably means cite them/involve the authorities as the third step?
Well in my society marriage is equal and that is the basis that you start from. If one wishes to protect their assets they can get pre-nuptial agreements but then again why get married at all?
-
Well in my society marriage is equal and that is the basis that you start from. If one wishes to protect their assets they can get pre-nuptial agreements but then again why get married at all?
Salaam,
I always wonder about people who sign pre-nuptial agreements before they get married. Do they marry while thinking about the possibility of a divorce? When I marry someone, I'd like to think that I'll spend the rest of my life with him ). That is the ideal situation off course.
Personally, I think the signing of such agreements means that you don't fully trust your partner. As you have said, why get married at all?
Salaam.
-
Salaam,
I always wonder about people who sign pre-nuptial agreements before they get married. Do they marry while thinking about the possibility of a divorce? When I marry someone, I'd like to think that I'll spend the rest of my life with him . That is the ideal situation off course.
Personally, I think the signing of such agreements means that you don't fully trust your partner. As you have said, why get married at all?
Salaam.
trust but verify and hope for peace but prepare for war
-
Salaam,
I always wonder about people who sign pre-nuptial agreements before they get married. Do they marry while thinking about the possibility of a divorce? When I marry someone, I'd like to think that I'll spend the rest of my life with him  . That is the ideal situation off course.
Personally, I think the signing of such agreements means that you don't fully trust your partner. As you have said, why get married at all?
Salaam.
Totally agree.
-
Salaam,
I always wonder about people who sign pre-nuptial agreements before they get married. Do they marry while thinking about the possibility of a divorce? When I marry someone, I'd like to think that I'll spend the rest of my life with him ). That is the ideal situation off course.
Personally, I think the signing of such agreements means that you don't fully trust your partner. As you have said, why get married at all?
Salaam.
Considering the divorce rate...it's not the worst idea in the world. Trust goes both ways. If she's indeed not a trophy wife/gold digger, she will gladly sign such an agreement. Most people who get married, expects/hope it will last. But how many HAPPY marriages do last? In many cases, you find out what the REAL person is about, once you live with them for a while.
I am only speaking ideologically here.
Peace
-
Well in my society marriage is equal and that is the basis that you start from. If one wishes to protect their assets they can get pre-nuptial agreements but then again why get married at all?
that doesn't explain how she would be entitled to kick you out of a house that she didn't pay for, assuming she didn't.
here let me quote what you replied to so there is no misunderstanding in my reply
"From your house? It is her house as well. Ever thought of that?"
The only way I can see that she would be able to kick you out is if she paid for it in full.
And if there was some kind of sharing in the purchase of the house, then she should not be able to kick you out without compensating you for what you paid, or vice versa. This is just my opinion though.
However this verse was referring to when a man finds out his WIFE his cheating and not vice versa, so I don't even know why you would reply the way you did.
If you wouldn't mind a woman kicking you out of a house that she did not put a penny towards, then that's your prerogative.
I'm not saying its right for a man to cheat but technically I do not believe he should be obliged to leave a house he has paid for no matter what he has done...
-
that doesn't explain how she would be entitled to kick you out of a house that she didn't pay for, assuming she didn't.
here let me quote what you replied to so there is no misunderstanding in my reply
"From your house? It is her house as well. Ever thought of that?"
The only way I can see that she would be able to kick you out is if she paid for it in full.
And if there was some kind of sharing in the purchase of the house, then she should not be able to kick you out without compensating you for what you paid, or vice versa. This is just my opinion though.
However this verse was referring to when a man finds out his WIFE his cheating and not vice versa, so I don't even know why you would reply the way you did.
If you wouldn't mind a woman kicking you out of a house that she did not put a penny towards, then that's your prerogative.
I'm not saying its right for a man to cheat but technically I do not believe he should be obliged to leave a house he has paid for no matter what he has done...
I believe there are verses which outline the issue of the dowry which must be compensated/given back when a divorce is taking place. Other than that I don't see why she would be entitled to anything (including a house) which she did not pay for.
I am open to arguments though and different points of view and pointing out things that I may have overlooked
-
that doesn't explain how she would be entitled to kick you out of a house that she didn't pay for, assuming she didn't.
here let me quote what you replied to so there is no misunderstanding in my reply
"From your house? It is her house as well. Ever thought of that?"
The only way I can see that she would be able to kick you out is if she paid for it in full.
And if there was some kind of sharing in the purchase of the house, then she should not be able to kick you out without compensating you for what you paid, or vice versa. This is just my opinion though.
However this verse was referring to when a man finds out his WIFE his cheating and not vice versa, so I don't even know why you would reply the way you did.
If you wouldn't mind a woman kicking you out of a house that she did not put a penny towards, then that's your prerogative.
I'm not saying its right for a man to cheat but technically I do not believe he should be obliged to leave a house he has paid for no matter what he has done...
I don't think you understand that people are equal in marriage. A woman typically raises the family and the man typically works to provide but they are equal and the assets they acquire are acquired together. Let's not focus too specifically on the issue because I think my reply is the accurate moral sense of what should be done in divorce. Naturally I agree that we each bring to a marriage different assets and that these should go back to the person that owned them. Houses and businesses and investments are trickier to split. Do not forget that had the woman known that she was getting divorced she would probably have not spent her time as she did and would have worked on acquiring assets and money. And the wife often provides the emotional strength and security the man needed to succeed in his work. Finally if there are children they are best raised by the wife, assuming she is of sound mind and the family home is best for this. But again it is often simpler to sell the house, split the money and move on.
-
Considering the divorce rate...it's not the worst idea in the world. Trust goes both ways. If she's indeed not a trophy wife/gold digger, she will gladly sign such an agreement. Most people who get married, expects/hope it will last. But how many HAPPY marriages do last? In many cases, you find out what the REAL person is about, once you live with them for a while.
I am only speaking ideologically here.
Peace
Salaam,
I guess I can understand from that point of views. Anyway, if I were a gold-digger, I guess I wouldn't divorce my husband and get a fixed portion of his wealth. Why get only a portion, when I could get ALL of his money by being in a relationship with him hahaha... I'm joking off course .
Salaam.
-
Salaam,
I guess I can understand from that point of views. Anyway, if I were a gold-digger, I guess I wouldn't divorce my husband and get a fixed portion of his wealth. Why get only a portion, when I could get ALL of his money by being in a relationship with him hahaha... I'm joking off course .
Salaam.
Make him pay to get rid of you P
-
I don't think you understand that people are equal in marriage. A woman typically raises the family and the man typically works to provide but they are equal and the assets they acquire are acquired together. Let's not focus too specifically on the issue because I think my reply is the accurate moral sense of what should be done in divorce. Naturally I agree that we each bring to a marriage different assets and that these should go back to the person that owned them. Houses and businesses and investments are trickier to split. Do not forget that had the woman known that she was getting divorced she would probably have not spent her time as she did and would have worked on acquiring assets and money. And the wife often provides the emotional strength and security the man needed to succeed in his work. Finally if there are children they are best raised by the wife, assuming she is of sound mind and the family home is best for this. But again it is often simpler to sell the house, split the money and move on.
You don't sound like a christian... oh right a Christian. Sorry I forget that's a big difference.
Salaam,
I guess I can understand from that point of views. Anyway, if I were a gold-digger, I guess I wouldn't divorce my husband and get a fixed portion of his wealth. Why get only a portion, when I could get ALL of his money by being in a relationship with him hahaha... I'm joking off course .
Salaam.
(
So I take it this place is for free minds rather than for quran lovers? I don't see much quran referencing here. Just free-hearsay.
-
You don't sound like a christian... oh right a Christian. Sorry I forget that's a big difference.
I re-read my post that made you make this quote. My post seemed to have valid content to the topic. Whereas you seem to be on a tangent with my posts. What am I saying in my post that you disagree with?So I take it this place is for free minds rather than for quran lovers? I don't see much quran referencing here. Just free-hearsay.
Well I joined because I am in interested in the free minds aspect and to understand quran lovers. It is interesting that you think the URL is misleading. Frankly how many sites are there where a Muslim can question the Quran or the Hadiths?
