You shall beat your wife
-
Dear all
Last night when I was trying to sleep I started wondering about verse 434 and there has been a lot of debate about "beating" of the wife. The Quran found on f-m has translated it as "separated"
The men are to support the women with what God has bestowed upon them over one another and for what they spend of their money. The upright females are dutiful; keeping private the personal matters for what God keeps watch over. As for those females from whom you fear desertion, then you shall advise them, and abandon them in the bedchamber, and separate from them. If they respond to you, then do not seek a way over them; God is Most High, Great.
But alot of other Qurans it says beat, although with brackets explaining "lightly" or "with a toothbrush" or "symbolic". All those are interpretations with hadith influence.
But yesterday it came into my mind "It doesn't matter what the right translation is. It could be "beat" or "separate" because the level of force allowed is already mentioned in the Quran"
God does not allow for aggression. Next part I took from the submitters since they collected all verses in one place
You may fight in the cause of GOD against those who attack you, but do not aggress. GOD does not love the aggressors.
You may kill those who wage war against you, and you may evict them whence they evicted you. Oppression is worse than murder. Do not fight them at the Sacred Masjid, unless they attack you therein. If they attack you, you may kill them. This is the just retribution for those disbelievers.
If they refrain, then GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.
You may also fight them to eliminate oppression, and to worship GOD freely. If they refrain, you shall not aggress; aggression is permitted only against the aggressors.*All fighting is regulated by the basic rule in 608-9. Fighting is allowed strictly in self-defense, while aggression and oppression are strongly condemned throughout the Quran.
O you who believe, do not prohibit good things that are made lawful by GOD, and do not aggress; GOD dislikes the aggressors.
If they resort to peace, so shall you, and put your trust in GOD. He is the Hearer, the Omniscient.
... if they leave you alone, refrain from fighting you, and offer you peace, then GOD gives you no excuse to fight them
If you raise your hand against your wife, it is aggression. Therefore not permissable. There are no contradictions in the Quran. So if there is any debate what "beat" really means, you know the absolute limit Allah has shown. A strike or inflicting of pain or any form of aggression is not allowed.
-
First of all, the translation 434 is wrong (its a sunni translation) since 'nisa' does not mean women and 'rejaal' does not mean men. And yes agression is not lawful to begin with but if someone shows agression(which is the case with a violent husband) than the victim has the full right to defend herself. So in other words, I PROMISE you that if my husband even TRIED to beat me I would beat him back as well.
-
First of all, the translation 434 is wrong (its a sunni translation) since 'nisa' does not mean women and 'rejaal' does not mean men. And yes agression is not lawful to begin with but if someone shows agression(which is the case with a violent husband) than the victim has the full right to defend herself. So in other words, I PROMISE you that if my husband even TRIED to beat me I would beat him back as well.
Good for you Whereisthetruth, kick his ass! All men deserve to be punished.
The point is......the question if any interpretation (yours, sunni, monoethist, shia) as to mean physical beating can not be correct, because cross-checking in the Quran will make it clear that it could never be allowed.
Like I said, there has been alot of debate about this specific verse and it seems to a layman in arabic like me that the arabic speaking population continues to argue about what the specific word "beat" actually means. Some say this, some say that......As a muslim fully dependant on a translation of the Quran, I have to find reason in the Quran, got no choice.....With 434 I just found it......Strike, beat, or like it says in my Quran "correct them physically" can never mean physical abuse because of the verses I stated in the opening post.
-
In the site about 4.34 by wakas, the aya is gone into very throughly and all occurrences of D-r-b in the Quran likewise. Looking at all this attentively it cannot be escaped that D-r-b no place in the Quran is used for beating up, or beating slightly or in any way. The use of the verb throughout, the same as hand, as in cutting off the hand, is a figure of speach meaning "impress", "getting the message across.
And the funny thing is that as far as I know in traditional fiqh the toothbrush and the lightly and the branch of leaves were presumed, because no mark should give any hint that the woman had been beaten, and therefore agressed, which is forbidden elsewhere in Quran, as Emil has shown and traditional ffuqaha had seen. So that the very enlightened conclusion of the ulemas that be was that in order for D-r-b to mean "beat", it had to be a beat without any beating...
There is a story that this aya was revealed as an answer to the husbands that could simply would not be heeded by their wives after the Prophet forbid to beat them. And that after this revelation the Prophet lamented that he had uphold a view but that God wanted otherwise.Thsi narration I simly do ot believe it. It is illogical inconsistent and makes of the Quran a fumbling text, which it is not if youlook at it without going through the personal intrincacies of people who had, for instance, the need to establish conclusively as based on the Quran the dotrine of marital authority, which is nowhere in the Qur'an but that had to be established so that the world would continue to turn, because as we know when there is no marital (husband's authority) the world stops turning.
There is in Spanish dictionaries the verb "adarvar", precisely from the Arabic ad-darb, which means, leave speechless, surprise, astonish.
So even back then, after some centuries of abuse of the language of the Qur'an there was, and still there is the usual meaning of D-r-b which is not to beat.
D-r-b as beat has not one leg to stand on.
Salaam
-
Good for you Whereisthetruth, kick his ass! All men deserve to be punished.
The point is......the question if any interpretation (yours, sunni, monoethist, shia) as to mean physical beating can not be correct, because cross-checking in the Quran will make it clear that it could never be allowed.
Like I said, there has been alot of debate about this specific verse and it seems to a layman in arabic like me that the arabic speaking population continues to argue about what the specific word "beat" actually means. Some say this, some say that......As a muslim fully dependant on a translation of the Quran, I have to find reason in the Quran, got no choice.....With 434 I just found it......Strike, beat, or like it says in my Quran "correct them physically" can never mean physical abuse because of the verses I stated in the opening post.
Hehehe Emil I hope you dont consider me as being a man-opressor rotfl rotfl rotfl
What you have done is, that you have used other quranic verses in order to explain what ''beat'' means or does not mean in this context, so I agree with you totally. Quran is its own dictionary and quran explain itself. Agression and opression is forbidden so it cannot be a physical abuse at all.
-
434 can definitely be bothersome. But whether or not a book says to beat your wife, God gave us enough sense not to do that.
-
434 can definitely be bothersome. But whether or not a book says to beat your wife, God gave us enough sense not to do that.
I agree with You. However, than why are some people wife beaters and husband beaters if they have sense enough not to do it ?
-
-
WhereIsTheTruth, great question! I'll will try not to be too long-winded in my response.
I do not think it is a good idea to approach any religious text with the assumption that it is infallible. If one chooses to use this approach, then if a person is free to automatically reject religious excuses for harming other sentient beings (in this case, interpreting 434 as an excuse for wife-beating). The Infinite Creator is infallible; spiritual texts that have been touched by mankind have a tendency to be corrupted. I don't care what any book says, if I am being commanded to do something that goes against my inner sense of morality (i.e. harming other life), I am going to reject it.
It has been my experience that a religious text has the capacity to totally enslave a human being, and to totally free a human being (and everything in between). I reject anything that seems like it is giving people an excuse to harm the life-force. Mankind's history is oversaturated with instances of people using religion as an excuse to harm other people (who needs the devil with a god like that?), and it is insane. However, I would suggest that when these crimes are being committed, something in these people's inner being (again, we'll use the case of a man using 434 as an excuse to beat his wife) is telling them that what they are doing is dead wrong, whether or not the Koran says it's okay or not.
-
WhereIsTheTruth, great question! I'll will try not to be too long-winded in my response.
I do not think it is a good idea to approach any religious text with the assumption that it is infallible. If one chooses to use this approach, then if a person is free to automatically reject religious excuses for harming other sentient beings (in this case, interpreting 434 as an excuse for wife-beating). The Infinite Creator is infallible; spiritual texts that have been touched by mankind have a tendency to be corrupted. I don't care what any book says, if I am being commanded to do something that goes against my inner sense of morality (i.e. harming other life), I am going to reject it.
It has been my experience that a religious text has the capacity to totally enslave a human being, and to totally free a human being (and everything in between). I reject anything that seems like it is giving people an excuse to harm the life-force. Mankind's history is oversaturated with instances of people using religion as an excuse to harm other people (who needs the devil with a god like that?), and it is insane. However, I would suggest that when these crimes are being committed, something in these people's inner being (again, we'll use the case of a man using 434 as an excuse to beat his wife) is telling them that what they are doing is dead wrong, whether or not the Koran says it's okay or not.
You are SO right my dear. I also deeply believe that when a person is being a sadist in the case where for instance a man beats his wife or a woman beats her husband they know inside themselves its wrong. But one question remains - in my home country Pakistan its very very common that people beat and misuse their own children a lot, and they think they are doing something very good for their children. (By beating their children their children wont do anything wrong so its good for their kids to be beaten). So arent their cases when a person harms another person in a very harmful manner but with a 'good intention'?
-
Sense of power I guess? Some people get a sick sort of pleasure from 'controlling' others whether by force or something else.
unfurtunately you are right. Point to be noted, many people unfurtunately have a dark, somehow sadistic side inside themselves because of their pleasure from controlling others.
-
unfurtunately you are right. Point to be noted, many people unfurtunately have a dark, somehow sadistic side inside themselves because of their pleasure from controlling others.
Leave my wife out of this discussion!
hehehe......
I agree with you, a very strange phenomena this is. Why do people have an urge to control other people?
-
Leave my wife out of this discussion!
hehehe......
I agree with you, a very strange phenomena this is. Why do people have an urge to control other people?
lol! My dad makes the same jokes hmm
Some people have naturally controlling/dominant personalities, others feels they're superior or more 'intelligent' - that their interference would better the other person's life, others are just sick/sadistic.
The again, some people just think it's their right as is the case with a couple of men I'm related to. My grandmother married a very....er, 'controlling' man. Some of the 'little' things my grandfather did was ban my gran from reading books because it puts 'bad thoughts' in women's minds. nope
-
lol @ toothbrush, maybe he can brush her teeth instead.
LOL! I am totally going to use that next time I hear "nononono! you should only beat her symbolically with a toothbrush"
Most of the controlling behaviour can stem back to jealousy, ignorance, discrimination and other stuff I guess, not a shrink....
But what I really do not understand is the need to control your spouse because it is your spouse, not because she is a woman (discrimination, jealousy, ignorance).
Seriously, if my wife did exactly everything I told her, thought the way I told her, and spoke the way I told her I wouldn't want to be with her, how fun is it to share your life with a robot? Where is the challenge?IDK, maybe it is just me.
-
Some people like robots as spouses because tbh I don't think they really want a spouse/life partner, they just want either a pretty/handsome slave (preferably with lots of money) who just so happens to double as a sexual outlet on the side. They don't need to think about their spouse's feelings, the focus is all on themselves and their gratification. You can find a lot of these types in certain countries I think.
You're right Emil, there's no fun in having a robot for a spouse. I'd like a man who can hold his own or there's no challenge. Plus, you come to respect someone as an equal when they differ from your views, do things differently etc etc
-
I highly recommend www.Quran434.com
-
I highly recommend www.Quran434.com
This page is so heavy and long thar it would take month to just finish it. I just want to ask where the word WIFE is in that wife-beating verse.
-
Peace,
First of all, the translation 434 is wrong (its a sunni translation) since 'nisa' does not mean women and 'rejaal' does not mean men. And yes agression is not lawful to begin with but if someone shows agression(which is the case with a violent husband) than the victim has the full right to defend herself. So in other words, I PROMISE you that if my husband even TRIED to beat me I would beat him back as well.
Thats a weird statement to me. Nisa is already used in plural form in the 12th chapter.
Quran 1230 & 1231, transliteration
Waqala niswatun fee almadeenati imraatu alAAazeezi turawidu fataha AAan nafsihi qad shaghafaha hubban inna lanaraha fee dalalin mubeeninFalamma samiAAat bimakrihinna arsalat ilayhinna waaAAtadat lahunna muttakaan waatat kulla wahidatin minhunna sikkeenan waqalati okhruj AAalayhinna falamma raaynahu akbarnahu waqattaAAna aydiyahunna waqulna hasha lillahi ma hatha basharan in hatha illa malakun kareemun
May God guide us all
-
Some people like robots as spouses because tbh I don't think they really want a spouse/life partner, they just want either a pretty/handsome slave (preferably with lots of money) who just so happens to double as a sexual outlet on the side. They don't need to think about their spouse's feelings, the focus is all on themselves and their gratification. You can find a lot of these types in certain countries I think.
You're right Emil, there's no fun in having a robot for a spouse. I'd like a man who can hold his own or there's no challenge. Plus, you come to respect someone as an equal when they differ from your views, do things differently etc etc
Exactly, it is easy to sleep with other wives and slaves when you have no emotions tied to a person. It makes it easy to forget their hurt feelings of neglect. My husband and I love each other, no way in hell am I a robot. As he states I give him the occasional dose of "medicine"..lol But that is what make couple grow in respect and develop deep emotions for each other... I don't know just my thoughts. I just know if I did not love my husband, if it was an emotionally dead relationship, I would look elsewhere for that fulfillment, which is where extra-marital affairs happen.
Let me get off this soapbox.
