Wife beating in Islam
-
Reformist Translation vs Sectarian Translations
The first comparision involves this versehttp//19.org/767/reformist-vs-sectarian/
Peace,
Edip -
Thre is a big problem with the four translations quoted by brother Edip and it is the insistence in writing or translating "obey you", with the exception of Yusuf Ali who says "if they return to obedience" which in essence a little is better, but in appearance is just as bad, because the reader in all cases comes to the conclusion that indeed, the wife owes obedience tot he husband as if in the quran thatre was a previous duty of such obedience. But there is no such thing in the Qur'an. What the Qur'an keeps recommending in all cases is to agree on something and abide by pacts. The nushuz must be against what was estipulated in the pact or covenant. But no general duty of obedience on the part of one spouse to the other is estipulated int he Qur'an. Nor a right to obedience on the part of any of them.
Take for instance 3.168
"(They are) the ones that say, (of their brethren slain), while they themselves sit (at ease) "If only they had listened to us they would not have been slain." Say "Avert death from your own selves, if ye speak the truth." "
This "listened" is the translation of the same verb that in 4.34 is consistently translated as obey.
In Arabic there is no question, it is clear what it says, because the usage is such that people understand what should be logically understood from the context. One party is disatisfied that the other is fulfilling or not his or her part of the deal, so that part undertakes actions to make the other realise what he or she is doing, so the other part pays heed or does not pay heed. aTw3 has that meaning. When somebody recommends something to somebody else, that somebody else may pay heed or not to the recommendation but does not obey or disobey.
The obedience to the husband conspiracy clings to straws or whatever to preserve the myth.
It is a pity. Obedience is for children not for partners.
It is not even an ideological question, it is a simple linguistic question, and under no obligation to do so, we cling to the most misleading translation of a word that is simple to interpret and understand int he language and in the context. And when as it happens in many cases the previous word "qanitat" is translated as "obedient" the things becomes plan high treason. Because if a few words before it is said that virtuous women are obediente, and later they are supposed to obey the husband, God has dissappeared and instead of Him we have a pitiful human with grandeur dilusions.
Salaam
-
peace,
It is not what you said, see 2232. It depends on context.
I recommend reading Quran, as in it, it frequently uses "nisa" for wife, e.g. divorce nisa etc. It depends on context.
No it does not. Wife means 'zawjah' in arabic. Neither does the context say anything about nisa suddenly becoming 'zawjaat'.
Peace
-
But you just said nisa are not really females?
sorry I didnt clearified myself. Nisa are not females. Unsa means females. But if I have for the sake of argument agree that nisa means female, then I wont think of females as 'wives'.
If that's mine, I really don't want to know why when you hear bed, you think of being pushed off it...admit it, my alternative is way better. Your understandings regarding abandonment in the bedchamber so far have been pushing off beds, denying sleep to a female in a bed owned by the man...but nisa doesn't really mean females? So what is being pushed and denied off the beds and deprived of sleep on fluffy mattresses
everyone thinks that his interpretation is better, sister. As I mentioned earliere, I would investigate whether something called 'bed' really is mentioned in the arabic text or not.
Yes but please make sure that the basis for such research is solid first.
you are right. Thats why the word 'bed' in crucial here. That needa an invistigation. I am going to do it, and soon tell you about the outcome
-
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
-
salaam aqua,
Your article suffers from multiple problems as highlighted here
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599954.msg347142#msg347142"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 solutionIn fact there were more issues in your article. If you begin your own thread for your article I'd be happy to highlight them for you to respond to.
Interestingly, in your work you do not reference www.Quran434.com where you clearly got a lot of information from.
