Qur'an Verse 4:34 - 'Beat the Wife'? quranverse434
-
Well, first of all, G.A.Parvez is not the founder of any movement. He is simply the founder of his own ideas and explanations, which some people are convinced by, and some are not. Parvez is not the official spokesperson of the so-called "quranists".
Secondly, the term you are refering to as meaning "disobedience" is Nushooz (ز ??
If so, then you should be aware that both the man and the woman are capable of it.
While pointing out the Nushooz of women in , which always suits the Bukharists, you forgot to mention the Nushooz of men in
{And if a woman fears from her husband desertion or Nushooz, then there is no sin for them to reconcile between themselves; and reconciliation is good. And the souls are brought by need. And if you are kind and do right, then God is expert over what you do}...
Does this mean that men have to obey their wives as well? Or is it perhaps that the word "Nushooz" does NOT mean "disobedience" to begin with, but something else which both you, and Parvez, have failed to consider?
-
Well, first of all, G.A.Parvez is not the founder of any movement. He is simply the founder of his own ideas and explanations, which some people are convinced by, and some are not. Parvez is not the official spokesperson of the so-called "quranists".
Secondly, the term you are refering to as meaning "disobedience" is Nushooz (ز ??
If so, then you should be aware that both the man and the woman are capable of it.
While pointing out the Nushooz of women in , which always suits the Bukharists, you forgot to mention the Nushooz of men in
{And if a woman fears from her husband desertion or Nushooz, then there is no sin for them to reconcile between themselves; and reconciliation is good. And the souls are brought by need. And if you are kind and do right, then God is expert over what you do}...
Does this mean that men have to obey their wives as well? Or is it perhaps that the word "Nushooz" does NOT mean "disobedience" to begin with, but something else which both you, and Parvez, have failed to consider?
According to the dictionary I have, Nushooz means "discordant behavior towards a spouse, being contrary or antagonistic in dealing with a spouse" (Arabic-English Dictionary of Quranic Usage, p. 940)
While a husband is not obligated to obey his wife, it is possible for him to behave in a way that is antagonistic, and that is the sense which is meant by Nushooz in 4128. Ibn Abbaas has interpreted it to mean the husband violating a mutually agreed upon agreement or contract that both parties agreed to for the marriage. So the "disobedience" of the husband to the wife would be in relation to that marital contract only, i.e., his violating a pre-arranged agreement.
Notice that in 4128, in the case of a wife fearing Nushooz from her husband, the Quraan has not outlined any disciplinary measures for the husband, unlike in 434 where disciplinary measures are outlined to deal with a wife guilty of Nushooz. That is a highly significant discrepency, and if you reflect deeply upon it I'm hopeful you will come to appreciate our position about the fact that men and women are not equal in terms of marital authority.
-
So here we have the father of Quranism (Ghulam Ahmed Pervez of Gurdaspur)...
...when the founder and pioneer of their cult, Mr. Pervez, ....
This is tantamount to insult, based on blatantly false information. Please see forum rule 3
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=8177.0Pervez was late on the "Quranist" scene
http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/Rethinking_Tradition_Modern_Islamic_Thought.htm
http//www.scribd.com/doc/52181511/The-Muslim-opposition-to-the-writing-of-hadith-in-early-Islam-by-Michael-Cook
http//meine-islam-reform.de/index.php/component/attachments/download/119.html -
The ideological founder of the modern Quranist movement, G. A. Pervez,
Didn't even know that someone named Pervez began Quranist movement. I became Muslim (whom you call Quranist) because the flaws of hadith books became apparent to me and I came to realization that they were books of the devil. Even if no one spoke about them online I wouldn't have gone back to following Mr Bukhari.
For you probably Pervez's work is of great importance, for you think without a human deity one cannot have a way of life (Islam). For us, its only Allah, the creator of the worlds who matters. Trust me, not all humans think alike. You need human deity does not mean we need one too.
While a husband is not obligated to obey his wife
This doesn't mean Allah tells husband to be harsh and wrong with the wife.
You who believe! It is not lawful for you to inherit women by force. Nor may you treat them harshly so that you can make off with part of what you have given them, unless they commit an act of flagrant indecency. Live together with them correctly and courteously. If you dislike them, it may well be that you dislike something in which Allah has placed a lot of good.? (419)
These Quranists attack the mainstream Muslims for our interpretation that a husband may privately strike his wife if she is consistently disobedient to him.
Case study
Say your daughter/grand daughter ends up in the same position described in 434. In other words, she disobeys her husband. She becomes stubborn and his last attempt is beating. What is your suggestion for him? How should he beat her? Tell us of the light beating formula that forces a wife to shiver and submit to her husband. I ask this because its a matter of obedience which must be gained by force/beating and not love. -
for you think without a human deity one cannot have a way of life (Islam). For us, its only Allah, the creator of the worlds who matters. Trust me, not all humans think alike. You need human deity does not mean we need one too.
If only Allaah matters, then what about the Prophets? Why did Allaah send Prophets? If you say you don't need a human being to help you understand the Quraan, then why do you rely on human compilation, translation, publication, and distribution of the Quraan? Did Allaah give you the Quraan in your heart directly? Why did he send a Prophet as an intermediary?
This doesn't mean Allah tells husband to be harsh and wrong with the wife.
You who believe! It is not lawful for you to inherit women by force. Nor may you treat them harshly so that you can make off with part of what you have given them, unless they commit an act of flagrant indecency. Live together with them correctly and courteously. If you dislike them, it may well be that you dislike something in which Allah has placed a lot of good.? (419)
The verse you quoted says not to behave harshly with your wife unless they commit an act of flagrant indecency.
So when a woman is being indecent and disobedient to her husband, that's where 434 comes in.Case study
Say your daughter/grand daughter ends up in the same position described in 434. In other words, she disobeys her husband. She becomes stubborn and his last attempt is beating. What is your suggestion for him? How should he beat her? Tell us of the light beating formula that forces a wife to shiver and submit to her husband. I ask this because its a matter of obedience which must be gained by force/beating and not love.Why don't you answer that question as well. You claim to follow the Quraan, well in 434 it clearly says a husband may strike his wife as a last resort. Nowhere in the Quraan does it say how he should strike her. Your spiritual father G. A. Pervez the founder of Bazm Tolu-i-Islam, the first Quranist organization in history, said that the court can publicly beat the woman with a bodily punishment.
The Quraan never explains if a husband should beat his wife severely or mildly.
This is why we need the Sunnah and Hadeeth to explain. Without it any madman who beats his wife so much that she has to go to the hospital will say, "I am just following Quraan, Surah 4 Ayat 34, I am a Quranist and only follow Quran!"
But from the Sunnah we know that it is not allowed to beat your wife in such a way that there is any mark left on her body! Therefore, it can only be a light hit which does not injure or even leave any mark on her body. From this we understand that even grabbing a woman's arm if it will leave a red mark on her is not allowed.
-
If only Allaah matters, then what about the Prophets? Why did Allaah send Prophets? If you say you don't need a human being to help you understand the Quraan, then why do you rely on human compilation, translation, publication, and distribution of the Quraan? Did Allaah give you the Quraan in your heart directly? Why did he send a Prophet as an intermediary?
Prophets brought us the message and we are following it. We do not worship them. Is that hard to understand? Allah gave us free will plus a brain that we are to use to understand his message. Men are only adding the sources. This does not mean we have a responsibility to take whatever they say as the verse of the Quran. We would hold their statement true only if they can give us evidence that they are correct. But this does not mean we are to see them as divine. The issue with you sunnis, hanafi and shias is that you need a man to decide your faith. You even try to prove Allah wrong just to defend their position. Hence, you automatically give them the position of divine power.
Did Allaah give you the Quraan in your heart directly?
Actually yes. "Allah guides whom He wills" 2272
I cannot be made to believe in something without I decide that Allah has verified it through his Quran and signs. No one in my family ever forced me to believe in Islam. I was free. I thought, I researched and I came across the truth. Men including me can be wrong, for we are just humans. But this does not mean we should stop searching for the truth. Not all Quran translations, publications and distribution were correct. During the 1700's, Quran translated for European countries did not contain the original message. It was intentional because they didn't want Christianity to be overshadowed by Islam. Even now, when I see a translation and feel that something about it doesn't seem right I do my research and discuss it with others just like everyone else over here. I always keep in mind one thing and that is, Allah never speaks without logic. That's the way of Allah, but men can divert us.The verse you quoted says not to behave harshly with your wife unless they commit an act of flagrant indecency.
So when a woman is being indecent and disobedient to her husband, that's where 434 comes in.True and according to our discussion over here, 434 does not tell men to strike. Please read what was talked about in this thread and then reply.
Why don't you answer that question as well. You claim to follow the Quraan, well in 434 it clearly says a husband may strike his wife as a last resort. Nowhere in the Quraan does it say how he should strike her. Your spiritual father G. A. Pervez the founder of Bazm Tolu-i-Islam, the first Quranist organization in history, said that the court can publicly beat the woman with a bodily punishment.
The Quraan never explains if a husband should beat his wife severely or mildly.But from the Sunnah we know that it is not allowed to beat your wife in such a way that there is any mark left on her body! Therefore, it can only be a light hit which does not injure or even leave any mark on her body. From this we understand that even grabbing a woman's arm if it will leave a red mark on her is not allowed.
As we found out here Quran does not tell men to beat them because logically, love cannot be gained through beating. You are the one who is saying Quran tells the husband to beat the wife. WE DO NOT HOLD THAT VIEW.
G. A. Pervez the founder of Bazm Tolu-i-Islam
My spiritual father? I dont even know who he is and he is not my representative. Yet if you go by this fallacy then you probably agree that you are a terrorist since majority in the world think Muslims are terrorists and their representatives are ISIS, Talibans and Al Qaida
-
True and according to our discussion over here, 434 does not tell men to strike. Please read what was talked about in this thread and then reply.
As we found out here Quran does not tell men to beat them because logically, love cannot be gained through beating. You are the one who is saying Quran tells the husband to beat the wife. WE DO NOT HOLD THAT VIEW.
You do not hold that view because it is too bitter of a pill for you to swallow. But guess what, that's what the Quraan says in plain Arabic "Strike your wife". You say that is illogical. Does that mean the Quraan is illogical and you give preference to logic over the clear text of the Suhufan Mutahharah?
Let me give you some references from an Arabic dictionary - don't just take my word for it
http//i62.tinypic.com/rawwfm.jpg http//i58.tinypic.com/124c57c.jpg http//i59.tinypic.com/ulp9x.jpg
The word used in 434 is derived from the root (D-R-B), which conveys an etymological meaning of "beating, striking". The word which is used in 434 means according to the dictionary, 1. to beat, and 2. to hit/strike. The dictionary itself has quoted 434 as an example of the word conveying the second sense "to hit/strike". The dictionary has itself translated 434 as follows
"So reason with them, keep apart from them in bed and hit them"
If you are a true follower of the Quraan you have no choice but to accept this meaning that a husband may strike his wife. That is written in your Quraan, it is not a Hadeeth in Bukhaari Shareef. So don't play games. Either you accept the Quraan fully or you don't.
-
You can easily find out that translation is incomplete. Your translation does not withstand scrutiny in
3156
494
4101
5106
1317
1424
1425
1445
1674
1675
1676
16112
1748
1811
1832
1845
2273
2431
2435
259
2539
2943
3028
3058etc
Missing translations in that definition are at least to set forth, to present, to cast, to travel. In my humble opinion the correct translation in 434 is "to cast out".
-
You can easily find out that translation is incomplete. Your translation does not withstand scrutiny in
3156
494
4101
5106
1317
1424
1425
1445
1674
1675
1676
16112
1748
1811
1832
1845
2273
2431
2435
259
2539
2943
3028
3058etc
Missing translations in that definition are at least to set forth, to present, to cast. In my humble opinion the correct translation in 434 is "to cast out".
Do all those verses you cited have the same context and grammatical structure? Do they all employ the same (verb) and (subject) and (object) ? Obviously not. Don't use childish arguments.
No Arabic linguist has suggested an alternative translation for 434. The first people to change its accepted meaning in the Arabic language were the Quranists and that's a fact! It proves you guys have no intellectual integrity. Show me any Arabic dictionary which has translated 434 in a way that does not include the meaning of "beating/hitting/striking". Show me any qualified and recognized Arabic linguist who says that in 434 means to "cast out your wife".
The verse already says that the second step is to "cast her out from the bed"
Not only would it be reduntant for the verse to say "cast out" twice, but even more damaging to your flimsy argument is that why wasn't the same Arabic word which means "to cast out" used twice in the verse? Two different words have been used to convey the same sense of cast out according to you? and ?? Does that make any logical sense?
This is what happens when you try to play around with the meaning of the Quraan to suit your wishes.
-
Do all those verses you cited have the same context and grammatical structure? Obviously not. Don't use childish arguments.
No Arabic linguist has suggested an alternative translation for 434. The first people to change its accepted meaning in the Arabic language were the Quranists and that's a fact! It proves you guys have no intellectual integrity. Show me any Arabic dictionary which has translated 434 in a way that does not include the meaning of "beating/hitting/striking". Show me any qualified and recognized Arabic linguist who says that in 434 means to "cast out your wife".
They all have the same root word. If you're giving translations for that root word it should be complete and be able to fit all occurrences in Quran. Referring to linguists or dictionaries as a reference is a bit silly since we know many of the meanings in modern Arabic have been heavily influenced by a hadith-influenced culture.
The verse already says that the second step is to "cast her out from the bed"
Not only would it be reduntant for the verse to say "cast out" twice, but even more damaging to your flimsy argument is that why wasn't the same Arabic word which means "to cast out" used twice in the verse? Two different words have been used to convey the same sense of cast out according to you? and ?? Does that make any logical sense?
This is what happens when you try to play around with the meaning of the Quraan to suit your wishes.
Incorrect that part does not mean "cast her out from the bed", it's rather the opposite it means "forsake her in the bed". They are opposite movements. When casting out, you expel. When forsaking you avoid, leave, abandon. The actor is different in those two verbs.
-
The difference is important. Forsake her in the bed allows her to stay in the house in that phase of the verse, she is not being expelled. Only in the final part she gets cast out/expelled.
-
They all have the same root word. If you're giving translations for that root word it should be complete and be able to fit all occurrences in Quran. Referring to linguists or dictionaries as a reference is a bit silly since we know many of the meanings in modern Arabic have been heavily influenced by a hadith-influenced culture.
You're argument has just backfired "referring to linguists or dictionaries as a reference is a bit silly".
If that it the case, how is the Quraan to be translated? How is it to be understood even by the Arabs, since they speak the modern Arabic? If you say the classical dictionaries cannot be trusted because they are influenced by the "hadith-influenced culture", fine. If you say that the modern dictionaries cannot be trusted, because modern spoken Arabic is different, okay fine.
Now the question is how will anyone understand the Quran? Do you have a special dictionary?
Based on your ridiculous argument we cannot even understand the meaning of a single word, nay we cannot even know the pronounciation of a single letter of the Quraan, because all of that information is contained in dictionaries, the works of Arabic linguists, Hadith literature, or in the mind of the modern Arab!
You tried to be smart by discrediting our sources (the same sources which are accepted even by non-Muslim academics and scholars who study Arabic) but since you dismissed our sources, you forgot that you have no source either, so you shot yourself in the foot! LOL
Then you write "They all have the same root word" and all translations of that word should be consistent with all of its occurences in the Quraan.
Wow, another ridiculous and absurd argument. You have no understanding of the basics of Arabic grammatical structure and context which dictates the discrepency of meanings words with the same root will have. You don't even understand the basic information regarding (verb), (subject) and (object).
These linguistic rules are common to virtually all languages, even English. If I say to a baseball player "hit the ball", and I say to unvited guests "hit the road", and I say to a gambler "you hit the jackpot", and I say to a student "you hit the nail on the head", does the verb "hit" in each instance convey a single meaning? Context dictates whether it is to be interpreted literally or figuratively. The grammatical structure and information regarding the subject and object in the sentence dictates what sense the verb "hit" will connotate.
-
You're argument has just backfired "referring to linguists or dictionaries as a reference is a bit silly".
If that it the case, how is the Quraan to be translated? How is it to be understood even by the Arabs, since they speak the modern Arabic? If you say the classical dictionaries cannot be trusted because they are influenced by the "hadith-influenced culture", fine. If you say that the modern dictionaries cannot be trusted, because modern spoken Arabic is different, okay fine.
Now the question is how will anyone understand the Quran? Do you have a special dictionary?
Based on your ridiculous argument we cannot even understand the meaning of a single word, nay we cannot even know the pronounciation of a single letter of the Quraan, because all of that information is contained in dictionaries, the works of Arabic linguists, Hadith literature, or in the mind of the modern Arab!
Dictionaries can't be trusted entirely. They can provide a basis to start with but they have to withstand quranic scrutiny. Is a dictionary written by someone human to you superior to Quran? Even if it proves to fail at quranic scrutiny when checking the given translations/meanings of a certain root word? To me it's not. If the dictionary meanings fail to withstand quranic scrutiny and crosschecking it's objective proof they are incomplete.
You tried to be smart by discrediting our sources (the same sources which are accepted even by non-Muslim academics and scholars who study Arabic) but since you dismissed our sources, you forgot that you have no source either, so you shot yourself in the foot! LOL
I'm not trying to be smart I just pointed out using Quran as a criterium that the dictionary meanings you offered are incomplete.
Then you write "They all have the same root word" and all translations of that word should be consistent with all of its occurences in the Quraan.
Wow, another ridiculous and absurd argument. You have no understanding of the basics of Arabic grammatical structure and context which dictates the discrepency of meanings words with the same root will have. You don't even understand the basic information regarding (verb), (present particle) and (past particle).
These linguistic rules are common to virtually all languages, even English. If I say to a baseball player "hit the ball", and I say to unvited guests "hit the road", and I say to a gambler "you hit the jackpot", and I say to a student "you hit the nail on the head", does the verb "hit" in each instance convey a single meaning? Context dictates whether it is to be interpreted literally or figuratively. The grammatical structure and information regarding the subject and object in the sentence dictates what sense the verb "hit" will connotate.
You are trying to sidestep the issue. I wasn't even going into grammatical context or structure. We were discussing the list of meanings of a given Arabic root word, which I showed you using Quran was incomplete. You can't properly translate the majority of occurences of that root word with the narrow list you provided from the dictionary you used. So clearly it's incomplete.
PS I can understand why you are so keen to see DRB translated as only striking or beating. Your verbal aggression in this post is very revealing about your "peaceful" understanding of others and Quran.
-
Please put your money where your mouth is and translate all occurrences of the root word D-R-B in Quran using to strike, to beat or to sting only as you suggested. I'd love to see you do that. )
EDIT I'll make it easier for you, pick 3 verses out of that list I gave you that show your list of meanings of D-R-B is incomplete and translate the verses using your dictionary. If you're not willing to accept that challenge I can only conclude you're well aware that list of meanings you offered is incomplete and it would result in rendering those verses nonsensical.
-
Dictionaries can't be trusted entirely. They can provide a basis to start with but they have to withstand quranic scrutiny. Is a dictionary written by someone human to you superior to Quran? Even if it proves to fail at quranic scrutiny when checking the given translations/meanings of a certain root word? To me it's not. If the dictionary meanings fail to withstand quranic scrutiny and crosschecking it's objective proof they are incomplete. I'm not trying to be smart I just pointed out using Quran as a criterium that the dictionary meanings you offered are incomplete.
That's still a circular argument. The Quraan is in Arabic, we come to know of the meaning of its words through dictionaries and the knowledge of the linguists. Therefore there is no such thing as "Quranic scrutiny" in relation to the linguistic works.
Does a person "magically" understand the meaning of the Quraan from thin air and on the basic of his "magically acquired understanding" use his understanding to scrutinize the dictionaries and linguists? The Quraan is a book containing writing. A baby cannot just pick up the Quraan and start reading it and understand what it means. He has to first learn language, learn the accepted meaning of words. Nobody can read the Quraan until he is acquainted with language. And to be acquainted with the meaning of words in human language, you need a teacher and some elementary education. This is all common sense and the most basic logic.
So circular argument. We need language to read the Quraan. The rules of language are contained in dictionaries. If someone can scrutinize the dictionaries using the Quran, the question is where did he get his understanding of the "Quran" in the first place in order to scrutinize?
You are trying to sidestep the issue. I wasn't even going into grammatical context or structure. We were discussing the list of meanings of a given Arabic root word, which I showed you using Quran was incomplete. You can't properly translate the majority of occurences of that root word with the narrow list you provided from the dictionary you used. So clearly it's incomplete.
Who says one dictionary will have all the meanings? There may be additional meanings of the root word contained in the multitude of other dictionaries and linguistic works, in fact I'm sure there are. The point is, you have not attempted to discredit a single dictionary, but you wrote "Referring to linguists or dictionaries as a reference is a bit silly". By writing this, you did not attempt to discredit any one dictionary, but the entire corpus of Arabic linguistic works which we use as a fundamental source of knowledge in order to understanding the meaning of the words that occur in the Quran.
You have made your claim that 434 should be translated to mean "cast out your wife". I ask you a simple thing. Give me a single reference from the entire corpus of Arabic linguistic works where 434 has been translated in that way. It's a very simple request, and if you are correct, you should be able to do it easily.
Instead, you attempt to discredit the entire corpus of Arabic linguistic works in order to save yourself and find a way to escape my challenge!
-
If you are so certain of what you say, accept my challenge and show us the result of those translated verses so we can all laugh.
-
Please put your money where your mouth is and translate all occurrences of the root word D-R-B in Quran using to strike, to beat or to sting only as you suggested. I'd love to see you do that. )
EDIT I'll make it easier for you, pick 3 verses out of that list I gave you that show your list of meanings of D-R-B is incomplete and translate the verses using your dictionary. If you're not willing to accept that challenge I can only conclude you're well aware that list of meanings you offered is incomplete and it would result in rendering those verses nonsensical.
Now this is a strawman argument. I never said the that the list of meanings of D-R-B is restricted to beating and striking only. I said that the authors of the dictionary, being qualified to have their works on Arabic linguistics published, have assigned the meaning of "striking" and "hitting" to the word Daraba as it occurs in 434
In fact, if you go back and read the scan pages I uploaded from the Arabic-English Dictionary of Quranic Usage, you will see that they have listed additional meanings under Daraba, although those are secondary meanings. The point is, as I mentioned before, the word Daraba as it is used in 434, taking into account the rules of Arabic grammar, context, the manifestation of DARABA as WADRIBUHUNNA, the (DARABA), the (Husband/Human), and the (Woman/Human) we come to know, based on sound knowledge from Arabic linguistics, that the word can mean nothing apart from "strike" or "hit".
So in the other verses you cited where the word DARABA occurs, in its different manifestations, because the manifestation of WADRIBUHUNNA occurs only in 434, we will understand its meaning taking into account the same rules of grammar, context, sentence structure and identifying the verb, object, and subject.
-
That's still a circular argument. The Quraan is in Arabic, we come to know of the meaning of its words through dictionaries and the knowledge of the linguists. Therefore there is no such thing as "Quranic scrutiny" in relation to the linguistic works.
Does a person "magically" understand the meaning of the Quraan from thin air and on the basic of his "magically acquired understanding" use his understanding to scrutinize the dictionaries and linguists? The Quraan is a book containing writing. A baby cannot just pick up the Quraan and start reading it and understand what it means. He has to first learn language, learn the accepted meaning of words. Nobody can read the Quraan until he is acquainted with language. And to be acquainted with the meaning of words in human language, you need a teacher and some elementary education. This is all common sense and the most basic logic.
So circular argument. We need language to read the Quraan. The rules of language are contained in dictionaries. If someone can scrutinize the dictionaries using the Quran, the question is where did he get his understanding of the "Quran" in the first place in order to scrutinize?
Who says one dictionary will have all the meanings? There may be additional meanings of the root word contained in the multitude of other dictionaries and linguistic works, in fact I'm sure there are. The point is, you have not attempted to discredit a single dictionary, but you wrote "Referring to linguists or dictionaries as a reference is a bit silly". By writing this, you did not attempt to discredit any one dictionary, but the entire corpus of Arabic linguistic works which we use as a fundamental source of knowledge in order to understanding the meaning of the words that occur in the Quran.
I see you are returning on your steps already. First you claimed the dictionary you scanned offered the only valid translations. Now you are admitting there may be others. I'm not discrediting all dictionaries and linguists either. But if they fail crosschecking with Quran and render verses meaningless then clearly they can't be trusted. What book do you judge by, brother?
-
Now this is a strawman argument. I never said the that the list of meanings of D-R-B is restricted to beating and striking only. I said that the authors of the dictionary, being qualified to have their works on Arabic linguistics published, have assigned the meaning of "striking" and "hitting" to the word Daraba as it occurs in 434
In fact, if you go back and read the scan pages I uploaded from the Arabic-English Dictionary of Quranic Usage, you will see that they have listed additional meanings under Daraba, although those are secondary meanings. The point is, as I mentioned before, the word Daraba as it is used in 434, taking into account the rules of Arabic grammar, context, the manifestation of DARABA as WADRIBUHUNNA, the (DARABA), the (Husband/Human), and the (Woman/Human) we come to know, based on sound knowledge from Arabic linguistics, that the word can mean nothing apart from "strike" or "hit".
So in the other verses you cited where the word DARABA occurs, in its different manifestations, because the manifestation of WADRIBUHUNNA occurs only in 434, we will understand its meaning taking into account the same rules of grammar, context, sentence structure and identifying the verb, object, and subject.
Keeping in mind rules of grammar, context, sentence structure, verb, object and object it does not disprove "to cast out"/"to expel" is an invalid translation. If you think it does provide your evidence.
-
Peace
If you are a true follower of the Quraan you have no choice but to accept this meaning that a husband may strike his wife. That is written in your Quraan, it is not a Hadeeth in Bukhaari Shareef. So don't play games. Either you accept the Quraan fully or you don't.
And if you take your turn, then retaliate with the like of that with which you were afflicted; but if you are patient, it will certainly be best for those who are patient. 16126
That (shall be so); and he who retaliates with the like of that with which he has been afflicted and he has been oppressed, Allah will most certainly aid him; most surely Allah is Pardoning, Forgiving 2260
The Sacred month for the sacred month and all sacred things are (under the law of) retaliation; whoever then acts aggressively against you, inflict injury on him according to the injury he has inflicted on you and be careful (of your duty) to Allah and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil). 2194
O you who believe! retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the slain, the free for the free, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female, but if any remission is made to any one by his (aggrieved) brother, then prosecution should be made according to usage, and payment should be made to him in a good manner; this is an alleviation from your Lord and a mercy; so whoever exceeds the limit after this he shall have a painful chastisement. 2178
There is no retaliation except in case of murder.2178 194
Retaliation is in response to oppressiveness and not to oppress others. 2260
Retaliation has to be equal to what has been afflicted to the victim. 2194
For disobedience there is no physical retaliation unless physically attacked before. The wife in question did not physically attacked her husband so that the husband could attack her physically
The striking/beating in the verse is in retaliation for not obeying, which is against the law of Allah, see verse 2178
But if they disobey you, then say Surely I am clear of what you do 26212
Did the prophet strike / beat them those who did not obey?
If you are a true follower of the Quraan you have no choice but to accept this meaning that a husband cannot strike his wife because there is no retaliation for disobeying. That is written in your Quraan, it is not a Hadeeth in Bukhaari Shareef. So don't play games. Either you accept the Quraan fully or you don't.
