Qur'an Verse 4:34 - 'Beat the Wife'? quranverse434
-
peace reel, huruf,
Perhaps I can help lessen the confusion. The following are quotes from sister huruf
4.34says that men mus contribute with wealth to women
I disagree with your take on the qawamun. It says men, not husbands it says women not wives. It is general, it ia unviersal rule not for husbands or wives, for men and women.
At any rate what the aya says is that men are meant to be qawwmun for the women,
But, turn it as you may and like it or not like it, that is how men are to be qawwmun Spending from their wealth.
Men, not relatives, men in general, are qawwamun for women -all women, women in general, not wives, not slaves, not bosses- by spending of their wealth.
Whilst it is correct that a "universal rule" for men is stated, what is neglected is that it is a "conditional rule", thus it is not all men. Here is what the actual Arabic of 434 says, note the part in red
...the men are supporters/maintainers of the women with what God preferred/bestowed on SOME of them over others AND with what they spent of their money...
This is well discussed on www.Quran434.com
"supporters/maintainers" (Arabic qawwamoon, root Qaf-Waw-Miim) occurs in the same form in
4135 (stand / stand up / support / maintain with justice as witnesses to God)
58 (stand / stand up / support / maintain for/to God as witnesses with justice).M. Asad The expression qawwam is an intensive form of qa'im ("one who is responsible for" or "takes care of" a thing or a person). Thus, qama ala l-mar'ah signifies "he undertook the maintenance of the woman" or "he maintained her" (see Lane's Lexicon, Volume 8, p2995). The form qa'im can be found in 45 and 597.
It should be noted that the occurrences of 4135, 58 and 45, 597 cancel out some male-centric translations, such as "charge of" (M. Pickthal), "managers of" (Arberry, Hilali/Khan/Saheeh), "superior to" (Rodwell) which simply do not fit once cross referenced. It refers to a wider duty of care/responsibility, such as providing for the family/household which is discussed in several verses , and is the default role/duty for men, but not the only role as it can depend on situation. Contrast this to The Quran never mentioning managing one's wife or being in charge of her and the correct meaning becomes obvious. In fact, there is not one example of God addressing the husband/wife relationship in this manner, e.g. all examples involving decisions between marriage partners are in the reciprocal Arabic word form, e.g. "taraadaa" , "tashaawar" , which means they are mutual. If society is to be governed by mutual consultation , then naturally this principle should apply to the most basic social unit, the family, and done with what is maruf (honourable, known/recognised as good, befitting, fairness, kindness), see 2231, 419.
If one wishes to refer to Traditional Ahadith/narrations, the meaning of maintenance/support for this word is also present, e.g. the use of "taqumu AAalayhinna" (look after them) in Bukhari volume 3, book 34, number 310.
Lastly, the actual verse of 434 clarifies/limits the scope of meaning of "qawwamoon" to maintenance, i.e. because of God bestowing more on some of them than on others and with what they spent (perfect tense, i.e. an action done/completed) of their money. To state the obvious, without spending on someone, a person cannot be regarded as a supporter/maintainer of them, whether male or female."...bima (with what) faddalaAllahu (God preferred) baAAdahum (some of them) AAala (over/above/on) baAAdin* (others)..." *masculine
This likely refers to al rijal (the men) as indicated by keeping the same suffix reference later in the sentence, i.e. its logical and contextual flow. Note that 432 says "some of YOU over others" whilst 434 says "some of THEM over others" - which implies that in 432 it is referring to one pool of people (i.e. humankind, i.e. men and women), whilst 434 is referring to two groups of people, hence "THEM" i.e. referring to the men.
See "baAAdahum AAala baAAdin" / "some of them above others" in 2253 and 1721, and also 653 "baAAdahum bi baAAdin" / "some of them with others", for a comparison. However, there are three theoretically possible interpretations of this phrase
with what God preferred on some (men/women) over others (men/women)
OR
with what God preferred on some (men) over others (men)
OR
with what God preferred on some (men) over others (men/women)The keyword being "some". Thus, whichever way it is translated it proves the obvious, that not all men are preferred/bestowed equally, and/or not all men are preferred/bestowed more than women. Also, the term "preferred" is general, unless made specific in context, and in this case may refer to distribution of wealth, e.g. inheritance, as mentioned by similar phrasing in 432. Since spending of wealth is mentioned separately, the preference likely refers to the fact that men do not have the physical burden of pregnancy, birth and suckling, hence are in a more favourable position to work/provide, by default.
It should be noted that some traditional commentators interpret this phrasing to suggest men are preferred to women with respect to various things but this is completely disproven by the Arabic itself, as the masculine plural is used in the phrase. The masculine plural in Arabic either refers to an all male group or male+female group, NEVER all female group. To add to this point, the same phrasing is used for preferring some messengers to others and some prophets to others and yet The Quran repeatedly tells us not to make distinction among them. The best person according to The Quran is whoever is the most righteous/pious/God-conscious . It should also be kept in mind that each person will be judged according to how they conducted themselves with what they have been given . In other words, with privilege comes responsibility.
As we can see, The Quran is not stating a fixed rule, i.e. that all men are the maintainers/supporters of women, they are only so if they fulfill the criteria and it is referring to the wider duty of care/responsibility men have as mentioned above. It is conditional.The verses prior address the community of believers, then it begins to talk about men and women, and in 434 discusses issue between a man and woman in a relationship. Some try and make a big deal out of the fact that definite terms for husband and wife are allegedly not used
- even though, when these same people are asked what these definite husband/wife terms are in Quran, they have no answer, or they cite words that do not exclusively mean husband/wife in Quran
- even though rijal and nisa are used in Quran to denote husband and wife, e.g. 2228
- they seemingly do not take into account that at that time of revelation it seems to be the case that men had "official" wives as well as those whom right hands possess, i.e. under contract by oath. This is certainly what Quran seems to imply, and I have not seen any evidence disproving such.
Thus, the word usage fits perfectly, and the alleged confusion/controversy surrounding this verse is easily cleared up by simply accepting the options according to the Arabic and Quran.
-
peace reel, huruf,
Perhaps I can help lessen the confusion. The following are quotes from sister huruf
Whilst it is correct that a "universal rule" for men is stated, what is neglected is that it is a "conditional rule", thus it is not all men. Here is what the actual Arabic of 434 says, note the part in red
...the men are supporters/maintainers of the women with what God preferred/bestowed on SOME of them over others AND with what they spent of their money...
This is well discussed on www.Quran434.com
No, wakas, this is nto so. Every time this construction ba3Du(pronoun)+ preposition+ ba3Din appears in the Qur'an it is a reciprocal clause and is trnaslated as such. There are many of them, so no problem. Only in some translation in this aya is not translated so. Wonder why?
You no, you are wrong there.
The verses prior address the community of believers, then it begins to talk about men and women, and in 434 discusses issue between a man and woman in a relationship. Some try and make a big deal out of the fact that definite terms for husband and wife are allegedly not used
- even though, when these same people are asked what these definite husband/wife terms are in Quran, they have no answer, or they cite words that do not exclusively mean husband/wife in Quran
- even though rijal and nisa are used in Quran to denote husband and wife, e.g. 2228
- they seemingly do not take into account that at that time of revelation it seems to be the case that men had "official" wives as well as those whom right hands possess, i.e. under contract by oath. This is certainly what Quran seems to imply, and I have not seen any evidence disproving such.
Thus, the word usage fits perfectly, and the alleged confusion/controversy surrounding this verse is easily cleared up by simply accepting the options according to the Arabic and Quran.
You are also wrong here. In 2.228, husbands refers to husbands and riyal refers to riyal men. Those who have divorced the women are called husbans, but those who are called riyal, do not have to be husbands, they can be any man who wants to marry the divorced woman and if he did it too soon might find himself in a situation where, barring ADN, he wouln't know whether the child is his or the previous husband's. Also there is not one single mention of women in that ay, NO ONE. It starts speaking of the divorced (feminine plural). and after that it keeps referring to these divorced with pronouns, feminine plural, so all the time is speaking of the divorced women, only of the divorced women, no nisaa'. When it speaks about the rijal with reference to this divorced women it is clear what it is referring as I havesaid.
So, it is correct, it is husbands in one place and it is men in the other place, no use of one word for another and the meaning completely clear.
If you think that in 3.34 it is speaking about husbands and wives, that is your privilege, fine with me, but it does not say that. In fact you may fight the beat them word, which is fine, but if you keep maintaining other suplantations of the words of the Qur'an I think you will be stuck.
If we take to interpreting things like that and not stick to the text, we get precisely where we are, with plenty of people thinking that you are embellishing the aya when you say it does not say BEAT THEM, and to look good we make the Qur'an say antything. Of course it is not in order to look good, but I have the growing feeling that the Qur'an is being continually milked for the meaning that best suits our pet ideas. And particularly the heliocentric, I mean malecentric view of it. It all revolves about the wants of males, the needs of males, the doings of males...
Sorry to be so frank, wakas, because I do appreciate you and I value very much the hard work you have put in this forum and in the different studies you have undertaken. I think you did a great work on the d-r-b issue and congratulate once more. But I do think also that you are right now stuck, and I am sorry for it, because as I say i have a great opinion of you (not that that should be important for you, although it is for me) but I do hope you make some revolution or something with yourself. For spring revolution it is a bit late, but may be autoumn, it is already close.
Salaam and forgive me if you think I have overtstepped in expressing my feelings.
Salaam
-
I agree with huruf. Riyal does not imply husband eg in the story of Lut it is never used as such.
-
Individuals mindful on the family because preferred Allah some of them on others and because spend of ones be (to) their "wealth", (make) the upright (women) dutiful (women) follow (women) to the unknown because follow Allah and who you think excel instruct them and have them join in the allegiance and put them forth then if they are obedient have not (be) against them a reason. 434 MoF edition.
Peace Man of Faith I also agree with Huruf,
(alRijal) I don't think should be translated as "individuals" as you have accepted, but as "the men" which means
men in general.Peace,
Is a statement of fact and a reminder. Men since the dawn of time, have been the protectors and maintainers
of their societies which include women, other men, children, elders, and the disabled, except on occasions
when women were in such roles. Women are not excluded from this role, but primarily it has been the role
of men and to a lesser degree women. Some women supersede men in the role of protectors and maintainers and
also women's role of nurturers and protectors of their families as well as society is vital to the success and stability of
any community. We are perfect complimentary companions for one another, hence the word mate/match.God bless
peace
-
Well, Hawk, thanks.
Not that I was desperate for approval, but may be a bit disappointed that I could not make my point more more eloquently, although we know that here we do not come to "appointed", that is for sure.
Still, I am glad somebody else sees at least this thing, which in this aya, even, seen as whole, works like a scales, which makes the Qur'an beautiful so dynamic, because the scales you have to be watching constantly so that they do not go out of balance. Nothing is fixed forever, only the fact that balance has to be maintained.
AbenArabi said that the astroligical sign of islam is libra, the scales. Everything in existence has to be kept in balance, moving but in balance, a very tough challenge, but beautiful too.
Salaam
-
peace huruf,
You did not overstep any mark.
We already discussed the reciprocal argument. See the solid evidence of comparison between 432 and 434 in my last post on that discussion thread "them" Vs "you"
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=12037.100Do you still deny?
Please provide a translation of 2226-228 so we can test your theory.
peace rlk, in case it was not obvious, I am not saying rijal means husband everywhere.
-
@Wakas, agreed. It was my only contribution to this thread pointing that out. I must admit I've not followed up on this thread outside that, so I will keep in the background until I feel more engaged in the discussion.
-
Has anyone looked at the equivalent English verb to cast/to cast out? It seems to fit in this context to me.
-
Whilst it is correct that a "universal rule" for men is stated, what is neglected is that it is a "conditional rule", thus it is not all men. Here is what the actual Arabic of 434 says, note the part in red
...the men are supporters/maintainers of the women with what God preferred/bestowed on SOME of them over others AND with what they spent of their money.
Thank you Wakas for clarifying the doubt. I was reading it in that way.
Huruf, I don't think there is any reason for us to convince each other about who between us is correct, for Allah says "Those who listen to the Word, and follow the best (meaning) in it those are the ones whom Allah has guided, and those are the ones endued with understanding. 3918
At the end of the day, the judgement belongs to creator.
Peace
-
After studying this verse a bit, my understanding is this is not a general rule for all relations of men and women but in fact its describing a certain variant of male-female relationship in which by choice, agreement or environment (which in turn can be summarized as Gods will) the female is depending on the maintenance/support of the male. Eg a marriage or relationship in which the man has income and the woman does not. This verse protects the rights of that woman. Since she is depending on someone else in this scenario, God gives us protective measures that prevent such a woman from getting thrown out and ending up in poverty at the first disagreement or discontentment of her partner. A situation like in this verse could create an imbalance/inequality and put the woman at risk of not having equal rights because of dependency. The verse is a measure against unfair treatment and power abuse in such a relation. Furthermore it's intended to combat the creation of poverty. This does not imply all male/female relations are supposed to be like that but Quran is most complete and protects women's rights living in such an agreement.
Ps its a mystery to me how this verse sparked a debate about feminism and gender equality. Its only imposing social justice nothing else.
Pps the example I used with depending on the male partners income is just an example and not the only interpretation, it may as well refer to some kind of disability or other weakness with the female partner that would make it hard for her to manage on her own without the strength of her male partner.Peace
-
After studying this verse a bit, my understanding is this is not a general rule for all relations of men and women but in fact its describing a certain variant of male-female relationship in which by choice, agreement or envionment the female is depending on the maintenance of the male. Eg a marriage or relationship in which the man has income and the woman does not.
Exactly that is my point.
its a mystery to me how this verse sparked a debate about feminism and gender equality. Its only imposing social justice nothing else.
the debate occurred because I was saying that we don't need feminism, but humanism and that the verse isn't telling men to take care of all women. The two topics weren't fully relying on each other though. My take is that if we want men and women to feel and treat each other equally we need to dissolve the formula of feminism that all men are evil and all women are innocent.Wickedness sees no gender. In the end, it creates laws that damage the position of innocent men. Huruf is a feminist. She believes we do need feminism.
-
@reel I see, I will wisely refrain from meddling into the feminism debate
-
This verse however also protects the males rights in the described agreement. Imagine the male partner being from home a lot to gather income to support her, while his female partner staying at home and being disloyal or cheating during his absence. In such scenario this verse empowers the male partner to take measures based on suspicion. In fact it's a quite remarkable/beautiful verse showing many traits of Qurans completeness and righteousness
• protecting both male and female rights
• preventing the creation of more poverty
• urging reconciliation and dialogue (peace) over conflict
• promoting social justice and preventing exploitation in both directions
I'm sure I could expand on this list. One thing is for sure however I can't put it as beautiful, concise and condensed as is done in Quran.
-
You are all right, everything God does and says is meant to uphold the male title of primary human being and the woman, wife, as a function of him. His privileges, his overriding importance is to be upheld, everything is subordinate to it. The Qur'an is bound by that.
And still some people wonder why there feminis, more precisely islamic feminism?
I could go on for pages and pages, but I have already left my own tasks for writing here and I cannot afford it now.
But, wakas, the grammar and logic is not on your side and I do remember we discussed this already and you still are not right. Neither the grammar nor the ologic support your "some" interpretation, that is a complete novelty to the Arabic language. A rare item that through all the centuries, through all of the Qur'an, through all written texts og the Arabic language in thos centuries only appears in the TRANSLATION of this 4.34 aya. Ashtounding.
It cannot be for God's sake that something not be as a function of male protagonism and everything else turning around it like satellites.
My best wishes for the continuous improvement of the Arabic language through counterfeiting of the Qur'an.
Salaam
-
You are all right, everything God does and says is meant to uphold the male title of primary human being and the woman, wife, as a function of him. His privileges, his overriding importance is to be upheld, everything is subordinate to it. The Qur'an is bound by that.
And still some people wonder why there feminis, more precisely islamic feminism?
I could go on for pages and pages, but I have already left my own tasks for writing here and I cannot afford it now.
But, wakas, the grammar and logic is not on your side and I do remember we discussed this already and you still are not right. Neither the grammar nor the ologic support your "some" interpretation, that is a complete novelty to the Arabic language. A rare item that through all the centuries, through all of the Qur'an, through all written texts og the Arabic language in thos centuries only appears in the TRANSLATION of this 4.34 aya. Ashtounding.
It cannot be for God's sake that something not be as a function of male protagonism and everything else turning around it like satellites.
My best wishes for the continuous improvement of the Arabic language through counterfeiting of the Qur'an.
Salaam
I dont think you understand. Let me show you using a female protagonist. Imagine there is this woman, we'll call her huruf, God has bestowed her with strength and wealth. Imagine she has a male partner not bestowed with these things. Huruf shares her wealth with her partner and is the protector of him. But one day huruf gets suspicious. When she comes home the house smells of a female perfume she doesnt recognize and finds empty wine bottles everywhere. What can huruf do according to this verse? Answer huruf can kick him out of her house immediately. She does not have to give him multiple chances to change his ways. If that man wants to reconciliate after being kicked out, she does not have to give him another chance.
This example is perfectly in lign with verse 434. Why is the procedure different for males and females? The answer is twofold. First of all a woman can be with child. It would be unfair to cast woman and child out of their home based only on suspicion. The child or children are innocent and it would be very unfair to punish them so abruptly for something outside their control based on suspicion. Secondly, society (not quran) offers more opportunity for males to find work or sustain themselves.
Peace
Ps I hope you arent offended for using your name in this example, it was too hard to resist
-
peace,
peace huruf,
You did not overstep any mark.
We already discussed the reciprocal argument. See the solid evidence of comparison between 432 and 434 in my last post on that discussion thread "them" Vs "you"
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=12037.100Do you still deny?
Please provide a translation of 2226-228 so we can test your theory.
But, wakas, the grammar and logic is not on your side and I do remember we discussed this already and you still are not right. Neither the grammar nor the ologic support your "some" interpretation, that is a complete novelty to the Arabic language.
Can we therefore conclude the following
432 says "some of YOU over others"
434 says "some of THEM over others"Wakas thinks that since The Quran worded the statements differently, it probably means something different, as discussed previously.
Huruf thinks it means the same thing, regardless of different wording.
Huruf thinks the word "rijal" and "nisa" are never used to denote "husband" and "wife", respectively.
Wakas asks for a translation of 2226-228 to test her theory.
Huruf does not reply. -
peace,
Can we therefore conclude the following
432 says "some of YOU over others"
434 says "some of THEM over others"Wakas thinks that since The Quran worded the statements differently, it probably means something different, as discussed previously.
Huruf thinks it means the same thing, regardless of different wording.
Huruf thinks the word "rijal" and "nisa" are never used to denote "husband" and "wife", respectively.
Wakas asks for a translation of 2226-228 to test her theory.
Huruf does not reply.Stick to original and grammar.
Salaam
-
The ideological founder of the modern Quranist movement, G. A. Pervez, in his explanation of the Quraan known as Mafhoom-ul-Quraan proposed a new theory and understanding of what is meant by striking the wife when she is consistently disobedient to her husband, as per
As per his explanation, if a woman is consistently disobedient to her husband after he has tried to reconcile with her, and then separated from her, despite all of these steps if the woman remains stubborn in her disobedience, what is the next step in disciplining her?
According to G. A. Pervez, the next step is that the Court should give the woman a bodily/physical punishment! He writes
And if she still doesn't stop her disobedience, then the court has the right to give her a bodily (physical) punishment.
Source Mafhoom ul Quraan, p. 189, commenting on Surah 434
So here we have the father of Quranism (Ghulam Ahmed Pervez of Gurdaspur) basically saying that a husband can have his wife taken to court for being disobedient to him, and the court will then publicly beat or punish the woman physically! What a humiliation that will be for the woman!
These Quranists attack the mainstream Muslims for our interpretation that a husband may privately strike his wife if she is consistently disobedient to him. They have the audacity to attack our position, when the founder and pioneer of their cult, Mr. Pervez, proposed that such women should be publicly beaten by the court!
Below is the original scan page from Mafhoom ul Quraan, page 189
http//i58.tinypic.com/n5nfyb.jpg
