Idribuhnna in 4:34 DARABA - No more excuses

HP_TECH

Might be handy to actually reference the work if you used it www.Quran434.com

I have no problem with "present", I just think "cite" works better.

) My bad

HP_TECH

4.34. Like all the ayas preceeding it and also the following ayas is not addressed to any husbands or wives whatsoever, and are also not addressed to men but to Alladhina amanu, that is, those who believe, the believers, men and women.

The addressee in the grammatical analysis in the previous post is given as plural masculine. Well, no. Not plural masculine but plural mixed, which, in the form, is like the masculine plural, but clearly since those addressed are the believers, men and women, and the ddresse has not changed, the aya is still addressed to those believers males and females.

It is not addressed to any husband, but to the community of the believers, comprised of men and women. And deals with men and women but not with husbands or wives. No husbands or wives are alluded to at any time.

And like all the ayas in that part of the sura this also deals with social subjects.

Also, why should anybody beat anybody else if nothing wrong has been done?

No striking and no punishing nor solving any marital problems because nowhere it is spoken of wives or husbands, only of women about whom the community fears that might fall into something wrong.

Tie this aya with aya 4.15 which deals with prostitutes and the way to assist them with the plight and its sense may be made out. It is a social measure to help out women who might otherwise fall into social exclusion.

The translations quoted are particularly obnoxious, since they pick from any possible meaning that might be conceived, right or wrong, the meaning that can be more humilliating for women. Like the dubious obedience and the personal private matters and so on.

So no daraba because nothing has been broken. There is fear that that might happen, but it has not happened, therefore no way any punishment should be given by anybody, but preventive social measures for vulnerable womenand their offspring.

Salaam

Hi huruf )

Can you really honestly say that the surah is to referring to husbands and wives?
This surah is also known as the inheritance surah where measures for how to distribute the will among offspring, souses and parents are all included.
You cannot deny that this aya is referring to spouses because the very next aya is talking about reconciliation.
In what known context is reconciliation necessary in social welfare aid? That wouldn't make any sense.
I understand where you come from. In my eyes women and men share the same exact rights and that is why the same is applicable for men if you read 4128. The same measures that are given in the example of 434 for the husbands can be implemented by the wife.
So there is nothing wrong with a husband being obedient to God and protecting his private parts right?
Wouldn't you agree with me?

Thanks Huruf

huruf

4.35 is referring to a couple but 4.34 is not.

4.34 does not speak about any difficulties within a marriage.

We may conjecture backwards as much as we want but that does not bind the text.

And of course if we choose that conjecture in order to understand wives when the Qur'an says women we are automatically excluding from the meaning of owmen all those women which the Qur'an itself does not exclude and we would be impersonating a supposed husband as addresse of an aya which is not addressed to him.

And bear in mind that although 4.35 refers to a husband and a wife, it is not addressed either to any husband, but still it is addressed to the believers, men and women. Obviously that is a particular case of problems that may arise between a man and a woman and in which the believers can mediate, butin the previous aya, the believers are called not to mediate between husbands and wives, which are not mentioned in it nor previously as antecedents, but are called to intervene on behalf of womenat risk, no jusband is at risk of anything there, just women.

The Qur'an does not have any problems making it known when it speaks of husbands, when it speaks of wives and when it speaks of men and when it speaks of women or when it speaks of both.

Salaam

HP_TECH

4.35 is referring to a couple but 4.34 is not.

4.34 does not speak about any difficulties within a marriage.

We may conjecture backwards as much as we want but that does not bind the text.

And of course if we choose that conjecture in order to understand wives when the Qur'an says women we are automatically excluding from the meaning of owmen all those women which the Qur'an itself does not exclude and we would be impersonating a supposed husband as addresse of an aya which is not addressed to him.

And bear in mind that although 4.35 refers to a husband and a wife, it is not addressed either to any husband, but still it is addressed to the believers, men and women. Obviously that is a particular case of problems that may arise between a man and a woman and in which the believers can mediate, butin the previous aya, the believers are called not to mediate between husbands and wives, which are not mentioned in it nor previously as antecedents, but are called to intervene on behalf of womenat risk, no jusband is at risk of anything there, just women.

The Qur'an does not have any problems making it known when it speaks of husbands, when it speaks of wives and when it speaks of men and when it speaks of women or when it speaks of both.

Salaam

Hello again my friend )

You can arbitrarily say the whole surah is about marriage. The beginning ayahs are referring to marrying the women of the orphans, in whichever way you wish to interpret it, marriage is mentioned as well as how to spend the money of the orphans up until 46.
Then our Lord gives us instructions on inheritance rights up until 414. 412 Actually mentions wives

412 And for you is half from your wives of what is left behind, if they have no child; however, if they have a child, then to you is one quarter of what is left behind. All after a will is carried through or a debt. And to them is one quarter of what is left behind, if you have no child; however, if you have a child, then to them is one eighth of what is left behind. All after a will is carried through or a debt. And if a man or a woman who is being inherited has no dependents, but has a brother or a sister, then to each one of them is one sixth, but if they are more than this then they are to share in one third. All after a will is carried through or a debt, to avoid causing harm. A directive from God, and God is Knowledgeable, Compassionate.

Then there is 415 until 418 which mentions punishment and repentance in my opinion also for homosexual acts (let us debate about it elsewhere though please and thank you)
Subsequent to that from 419 until 424 our Lord gives us instructions about which women are lawful for marriage and about bridal dues.

419 O you who believe, it is not lawful for you to inherit from the women by force. And do not make difficulty for them so that you may take away some of what you have given them, unless they commit a clear lewdness. And live with them in kindness. If you dislike them, then perhaps you dislike something while God makes in it much good.
420 And if you wish to replace one wife with another, and you have given one of them a large amount, then do not take anything from it. Will you take it by falsehood while it is clearly a sin?
421 And how can you take it when you have become intimate with each other, and they have taken from you a solemn covenant.
422 And do not marry who your fathers had married from the women, except what has already been done. It is a lewdness, and an abhorrence, and an evil path.
423 Forbidden for you are your mothers, and your daughters, and your sisters, and the sisters of your father, and the sisters of your mother, and the daughters of your brother, and the daughters of your sister, and your foster mothers who suckled you, and your sisters from suckling, and the mothers of your women, and your step-daughters who are in your lodgings from your women with whom you have already consummated the marriage; if you have not consummated the marriage then there is no sin upon you; and those who were in wedlock with your sons who are from your seed, and that you join between two sisters except what has already been done. God is Forgiving, Merciful.
424 And the independent from the women, except those maintained by your oaths; the book of God over you; and permitted for you is what is beyond this, if you are seeking with your money to be independent, not for illicit sex. As for those whom you have already had joy with, then you shall give them their dowries as an obligation. There is no sin upon you for what you agree on after the obligation. God is Knowledgeable, Wise.

Let us take a look at the next set of ayaas until 432

425 And whoever of you cannot afford to marry the independent female believers, then from those maintained by your oaths of the believing young women. And God is more aware of your faith, some of you to each other. You shall marry them with the permission of their parents, and give them their dowries in kindness?to be independent?not for illicit sex or taking lovers. Until they become independent, any of them who comes with an immorality shall have half of what is the punishment for those who are independent. This is for those who fear hardship from among you. But if you are patient it is better for you, and God is Forgiver, Merciful.
426 God wants to clarify for you and guide you to the paths of those before you, and pardon you, and God is Knowledgeable, Wise.
427 And God wants to pardon you, but those who follow desires want that you would be diverted into a great diversion.
428 God wants to alleviate for you; and mankind was created weak.
429 O you who believe, do not consume your money between you unjustly, unless it is through a trade which is mutually agreed by you. And do not kill yourselves; God is Merciful towards you.
430 And whoever does so out of animosity and transgression, We will cast him to a Fire; and this for God is very easy.
431 If you avoid the major sins that you are prohibited against, then We will cancel your existing sins and admit you to a generous entrance.
432 And do not envy that which God has graced some of you over others with. For the men is a portion of what they earned, and for the women is a portion of what they earned. And ask God from His grace; God is knowledgeable in all things.

We can see that our Lord is still teaching us about marriage. God also warns us about following desires, consuming wealth among each other unjustly, killing each other and being envious. This all makes perfect sense as bridal due fees are involved (which is seemingly described as a hefty wage in my opinion, look how long Moses had to work for his bride) and the general wealth of the other spouse family may cause family members or spouses to transgress seeking the wealth of the other party.
If you read over 432 is telling believers to not envy one another. In what sense you might ask? Well, our Lord just taught us about inheritance and bridal dues. Since women get bridal dues they should not envy that their men get more inheritance and vice versa.
God is All Wise, All-Knowing indeed.

Now we approach the verses we are concerned with and note that despite your initial claim the theme is still marriage. Please stay with me here

Let us all together then read in context from 433-35 these are crude word for word literal translation at best from islamawakened.com

Walikullin jaAAalna mawaliya mimma taraka alwalidani waal-aqraboona waallatheena AAaqadat aymanukum faatoohum naseebahum inna Allaha kana AAala kulli shay-in shaheedan
Alrrijalu qawwamoona AAala alnnisa-i bima faddala Allahu baAAdahum AAala baAAdin wabima anfaqoo min amwalihim faalssalihatu qanitatun hafithatun lilghaybi bima hafitha Allahu waallatee takhafoona nushoozahunna faAAithoohunna waohjuroohunna fee almadajiAAi waidriboohunna fa-in ataAAnakum fala tabghoo AAalayhinna sabeelan inna Allaha kana AAaliyyan kabeeran
Wa-in khiftum shiqaqa baynihima faibAAathoo hakaman min ahlihi wahakaman min ahliha in yureeda islahan yuwaffiqi Allahu baynahuma inna Allaha kana AAaleeman khabeeran

And for all We heirs of what (is) left (by) the parents and the relatives. And those whom pledged your right hands - then give them their share. Indeed, Allah is over every thing a Witness.
men (are) protectors of the women because Allah (has) bestowed some of them over others and because they spend from their wealth. So the righteous women (are) obedient, guarding in the unseen that which Allah (orders) them to guard. And those (from) whom you fear their ill-conduct then advise them, and forsake them in the bed and set forth to Then if they obey you then (do) not seek against them a way. Indeed, Allah is Most High, Most Great.
And if you fear a dissension between (the) two of then send an arbitrator from his family and an arbitrator from her family. If they both wish reconciliation, Allah will cause reconciliation between both of them. Indeed, Allah is All-Knower, All-Aware.

Sister look at the verse before 34, look at 33 and read it aloud.
It is a command for husbands to give those whom pledged their right hands their share.
Is this not talking about spouses?
We have ayaah 34 sandwiched between two verses that are referring to spouses yet you claim it has nothing to do with spouses.

I know you might have strong feelings about women oppression and so do I but we cannot let our biases affect our interpretation.
If your claim is that 34 is related to welfare you have to go into detail and explain your claim with actual evidence.
It is not scholarly to simply refute an idea without providing any explanation for yours.
The welfare theory just does not hold.

Furthermore the fact that 34 is commanding the men to abstain sexually from the women implies it is referring to spouses.
In what welfare context is admonishing and forsaking of the bed required? You would have a tough time coming up with supporting evidence for such conjecture.

It is just plain and simple sister.

Regards )

huruf

I do not know what youunderstand by welfare, as far as I amconcerned everything including inheritance and all that concenrs welfare, because it looks after the welfare of all people, that inheritance is respected is part of it.

4.33 is still addressed to all people believers telling them to guard everybodies right to inheritance.
and 4.34 is addressed equally to all people believers telling them what it tells them. No husbands are there as such no wives are there as such, they may be of course since they will be a part of all men and women.

in 4.35 equally addressed to the believers tells the believers if they fear a breach between a couple they should name, not the couple, the believers, they should name arbiters from each side. Tha as far as I can judge is welfare, taking caare of human problems of the people. who many times are members of a couple. But in 4.34 there is no such a thing but general statements referred to allmen and women as such and in particular to a group of women who might be in danger.

4.15 is about women, in the plural, who practice fahisha, and when it says shelter them in the houses, what are those houses? where are they to need to be put in the houses? In the street?

Please in my case at least abstain from attributing everything a woman may say to bias. Males have biases and are you free of them?

We have inherited of readings and translations of this particular aya which are complete nonsense from the gramatical and logical point of view and it takes time to get rid of those. Your bias is to see husbands where the text mentions none, and see wives where the text mentions none and not read the general inclusive men and women when it is clearly stated. And your bias is seeing second person husbands addressed when they are not addressed int he text since the addressee never stops in those ayas to be the believers men and women and there is no change of the adressee at all neither impicit nor explicit.

Nothing easier for the Qur'an than to state wives or to state husbands if it is speaking about them, and in fact it does it always. We are never left guessing. In 4.34 it is not done, what authorises you to arrange the meaning of something to change to something that is not there and ignore all the elements included in the actual statement because you pick a meaning by conjecture which the word does not convey?

And I am the one biased because I am a woman?. Should we assume that men are never biased because they are men and men are superior as many have translated the beginning of this aya 4.34. But even then, of course it would be men who are superior and not husbans, right? You know what has been done with this aya, how it has been turned into a basis for marital authority. Study it. I have done it, very thoroughly.

About marriage we have had those discussions in the forum as to 4.3 and all that and that aya has to do also with this 4.34, because they are general statements for the welfare of those children without a father and their mothers. You say it is nothing to do with 4.34? Why? Which women are excluded in 4.34? None is. As to those (feminine plural, antecedent women) you fear their "nushuz"... You are per chance quite happy with the "traditional" stand that nushuz of the woman is against the husband? Why? when there is a husband it is said so, when there is wife and husband it is said so, unwaveringly, but it seems that when the Qur'an speaks about women, by Jove, it must be as referred to men or to husbans, that is, women cannot have anything to do in this life that is not referred back to them, the male lords. Well in 4.128 as you know, it is clear, there is a husband and a wife, and it is clearly stated, no shade of doubt. But what is stated, no shade of doubt in 4.34 is women in plural, not as a wife, as women and in plural. The same happens in 4.15, women in plural and fahisha and the verbe uncomplted action, that is, something that is being done not a mere event which happened once.

Who are those mothers of children without a father that are to be married in 4.3? Could not some of them be those who might fall into prostitution for the sake of their children or does the Qur'an live in another planet where prostitution is unknown.

Prostitution always everywhere is and has been alive and kicking and to you think the Qur'an does not care and every time it speaks about women they are never prostitutes or likely to betrapped in prostitution. Women are only wives of man or a virgin mothers? Is that the real world? About what world do you think the Qur'an speaks.

You know the world, you know what the Qur'an speaks about if you care to take the khimar from your eyes and see reality, everyday reality.

But in spite of it all, it seems that all concern should be that poor husbands have to resort to this or that for their unruly wives.

You have seen it. In 4.35 it says appoint arbiters and in 4.128 enjoins the couple to come amicably to a solution and there is never the doubt about whomit is speaking. Elsewhere int he quran it speaks always about coming to agreements amacably.

Neither there is doubt about whom it is speaking in 4.34 it says it plainly and clearly, men and women in third person plural, all the time. And second person mixed plural addressing the believers men and womenwho are the addressees. Who is biased?

Salaam

Man_of_Faith

You are absolutely right about dharaba, HP_TECH. It does mean alternatively highlight or to say about something prominently. If you reveal something as in exposure (make known) then the word is well used.

If you go and complain about someone you may 'dharaba' them, revealing their true nature. The metaphorical application is that you "push the person forward" to cause them to be in the light (highlighted).

Moses does put forth his rod towards and hardly strikes out in thin air towards the water.

Same word is used when Moses is claimed to "strike" a rock, but he puts his rod forth rather than strike the rock.

In the above occurrences 'dharaba' is used. Reflect.

Dharaba does not imply striking at all, but unspecified movement towards any item, physical or abstract. You may use it to say you draw a sword and might put it forth towards a person, but it is not a slash. Could likely be used to say you put the edge towards someone's throat, but it does not say any more than that.

Be safe
Amenuel

HP_TECH

Dear sister ),

I have spent most of the time contemplating what you said and try to remove all biases from my own reasoning and understanding, but still when I tried to do so there is still a lot that does not hold. Therefore I will try if God so wills to highlight, what in my opinion are major logical flaws in the theory presented which excludes 434 as a spousal situation.

I do not know what youunderstand by welfare, as far as I amconcerned everything including inheritance and all that concenrs welfare, because it looks after the welfare of all people, that inheritance is respected is part of it.

Are bridal dues welfare as well? I am still not clear on what you are implying by welfare sis.
Either way, I will only stick to terms given in the Quran. Let us not use are own terminology and try to place other concepts under own definitions. Let us stick to that which our Lord uses in the Quran.
Marriage (hands being pledged, contract/tie/knot/oath), contract/pledge/oath/ for rearing orphans, bridal dues, inheritance, will and etcetera. They are not all the same or interchangeable so let us be specific about which we are discussing especially in relation to 434. Let us not just say welfare includes all.
Let us truly try to understand which of these fits the context. handshake

4.33 is still addressed to all people believers telling them to guard everybodies right to inheritance.
and 4.34 is addressed equally to all people believers telling them what it tells them. No husbands are there as such no wives are there as such, they may be of course since they will be a part of all men and women.

433 And for all We heirs of what (is) left (by) the parents and the relatives. And those whom pledged your right hands - then give them their share. Indeed, Allah is over every thing a Witness.
I am still with you so far, because I thought it over and can see how it is perfectly plausible that this may be referring to the women of the orphans or widowed women or orphans whom we read about in beginning of the surah. Let us analyze 433 again. It can only be talking about marriageable women(widows or independent) or orphans who have reached a marriageable age among men and women for two reasons

they are those whom pledged the addressed party's right hands (so those whom the addressed were taking care of, whether orphans or "women/mothers" of the orphans)
the command is to give them their share, and 45 clearly states about not handing the wealth to the foolish
45 And (do) not give the foolish your wealth which Allah made for you a means of support (but) provide (for) them with it and clothe them and speak to them words (of) kindness.
This can only be speaking about mature marriageable women or orphans who have come of age.
I understand the context of welfare up to this point. It is plausible.
I do not know whether there is enough to draw that this might also be referring to prostitute women, because as you yourself have stated their punishment is confinement and there is no indication of any pledge having to take place for the confining process.
If you have strong evidence of such highlight it please.

in 4.35 equally addressed to the believers tells the believers if they fear a breach between a couple they should name, not the couple, the believers, they should name arbiters from each side. Tha as far as I can judge is welfare, taking caare of human problems of the people. who many times are members of a couple. But in 4.34 there is no such a thing but general statements referred to allmen and women as such and in particular to a group of women who might be in danger.

We can see how it is plausible that 433 is issuing the addressed to either
1)give inheritance to the orphans
2)give bridal dues to spouses
I hope you would agree both are plausible.
Now, you yourself have confirmed that 435 is referring to a couple.
Here I will highlight what you neglected to take in consideration.
If your claim is that 434 is not referring to wives then how can you explain the issuing of forsaking them in the bed?
Again read below in bold.
434 men (are) protectors of the women because Allah (has) bestowed some of them over others and because they spend from their wealth. So the righteous women (are) obedient, guarding in the unseen that which Allah (orders) them to guard. And those (from) whom you fear their ill-conduct then advise them, and forsake them in the bed and set forth to Then if they obey you then (do) not seek against them a way. Indeed, Allah is Most High, Most Great.
435And if you fear a dissension between (the) two of then send an arbitrator from his family and an arbitrator from her family. If they both wish reconciliation, Allah will cause reconciliation between both of them. Indeed, Allah is All-Knower, All-Aware.

Who can you forsake in bed but your spouse huruf?
Also notice the beginning of the subsequent ayaah(435) it is a straight forward continuation of the previous ayaah (434).
This indicated by the conjunction wa=and. Which means the subject/theme in the previous ayyah (434) was still the couple as you confirmed 435 is referring to.
This is straightforward sister.

Please in my case at least abstain from attributing everything a woman may say to bias. Males have biases and are you free of them?

I apologize if I offended you. I too have many biases. There is not a single person that is bereft of biases. Ultimately although it is imperative for each individual to reason without influences from them when approaching Al-Quran.

We have inherited of readings and translations of this particular aya which are complete nonsense from the gramatical and logical point of view and it takes time to get rid of those. Your bias is to see husbands where the text mentions none, and see wives where the text mentions none and not read the general inclusive men and women when it is clearly stated. And your bias is seeing second person husbands addressed when they are not addressed int he text since the addressee never stops in those ayas to be the believers men and women and there is no change of the adressee at all neither impicit nor explicit.

You are right. I may have made a mistake in assuming there was a change of addressing husbands to believers when it may very well have been generally to believers through out. That does not change the fact that husbands and wives are believers as well, right?
It doesn't change the fact that it is giving an example of spouses.

Nothing easier for the Qur'an than to state wives or to state husbands if it is speaking about them, and in fact it does it always. We are never left guessing. In 4.34 it is not done, what authorises you to arrange the meaning of something to change to something that is not there and ignore all the elements included in the actual statement because you pick a meaning by conjecture which the word does not convey?

I have not picked anything by conjecture sister. It is clear in the text. I am a bit offended that you are associating me with conjecture.
Then explain to me clearly your theory...
What is the admonishment for?
What is the forsaking in the bedchamber for?
What is waidribuhnna for?
What would you be admonishing a prostitute about for which then you would have to forsake her bed?
or what would you be admonishing orphans about for which then you would have to forsake their bed?
Your theory is the conjecture and I say it firmly out of respect.
Until you can clearly, soundly and logically answer those questions, YOU are the one ,"arrange the meaning of something to change to something that is not there and ignore all the elements included in the actual statement because you pick a meaning by conjecture which the word does not convey"

And I am the one biased because I am a woman?. Should we assume that men are never biased because they are men and men are superior as many have translated the beginning of this aya 4.34. But even then, of course it would be men who are superior and not husbans, right? You know what has been done with this aya, how it has been turned into a basis for marital authority. Study it. I have done it, very thoroughly.

Again I apologize about calling you biased, we all have biases. You are taking off on a slippery slope logical fallacy

About marriage we have had those discussions in the forum as to 4.3 and all that and that aya has to do also with this 4.34, because they are general statements for the welfare of those children without a father and their mothers. You say it is nothing to do with 4.34? Why? Which women are excluded in 4.34? None is. As to those (feminine plural, antecedent women) you fear their "nushuz"... You are per chance quite happy with the "traditional" stand that nushuz of the woman is against the husband? Why? when there is a husband it is said so, when there is wife and husband it is said so, unwaveringly, but it seems that when the Qur'an speaks about women, by Jove, it must be as referred to men or to husbans, that is, women cannot have anything to do in this life that is not referred back to them, the male lords. Well in 4.128 as you know, it is clear, there is a husband and a wife, and it is clearly stated, no shade of doubt. But what is stated, no shade of doubt in 4.34 is women in plural, not as a wife, as women and in plural. The same happens in 4.15, women in plural and fahisha and the verbe uncomplted action, that is, something that is being done not a mere event which happened once.

I do not think you read my entire post, I clearly stated that nushuz is the opposite of being obedient to God. I think you are very intelligent and your arguments are not stupid, they are just not applicable to the context whatsoever.
You are taking an over aggressive feminist approach sister. Hello I am on your side!
I have sisters a mother, aunts and grandmothers much who saw abuse from the tarnished patriarchal society we live in and I've had enough of that. I am for the rights of all humanity regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, age, disability etcetera.

Who are those mothers of children without a father that are to be married in 4.3? Could not some of them be those who might fall into prostitution for the sake of their children or does the Qur'an live in another planet where prostitution is unknown.

That is totally plausible, but you are the one who is biased for assuming that these women could not then be wives of the men.
Whichever way you want to put it 434 is describing a marital situation whether the women are previous orphans, widows, prostitutes whatever it still makes sense, because how can you forsake the bed of someone you are not in a marital contract with.
The addressed are instructed to forsake the beds of these women.
Who can be it possibly addressed to?
All the believers interchangeably?
Not at all because the pronouns for the commands are all feminine and only male spouses can forsake their female spouse in the bed.
This is just so plain and clear sister.

(43425)
faihunna
then advise them, RSLT ? prefixed result particle
V ? 2nd person masculine plural imperative verb
PRON ? subject pronoun
PRON ? 3rd person feminine plural object pronoun

(43426)
wa-uh'jurhunna
and forsake them CONJ ? prefixed conjunction wa (and)
V ? 2nd person masculine plural imperative verb
PRON ? subject pronoun
PRON ? 3rd person feminine plural object pronoun

(43429)
wa-i'ribhunna
and strike them. CONJ ? prefixed conjunction wa (and)
V ? 2nd person masculine plural imperative verb
PRON ? subject pronoun
PRON ? 3rd person feminine plural object pronoun

Prostitution always everywhere is and has been alive and kicking and to you think the Qur'an does not care and every time it speaks about women they are never prostitutes or likely to betrapped in prostitution. Women are only wives of man or a virgin mothers? Is that the real world? About what world do you think the Qur'an speaks.

As I stated above this is totally plausible as long as these former prostitutes are then married, only then would forsaking them in bed make sense. Don't you agree sister hurt??

You know the world, you know what the Qur'an speaks about if you care to take the khimar from your eyes and see reality, everyday reality.

Please do not set such examples for me sister, that perhaps you are the one.

But in spite of it all, it seems that all concern should be that poor husbands have to resort to this or that for their unruly wives.

I do not see why you are only seeing this as an issue which only affects women 4128 describes the same for men.
Men and women are equal. If a woman fears nushuz from her husband the same is applicable to him. Detach yourself from us vs them,
we are all in this together. I love women and want to protect women too.
If Allah has meant it to mean what is obviously there a spousal condition. It is a condition that the righteous will recognize as the proper measures of conduct to take in such a circumstances, which reassures the woman's rights to arbitrary intervention.
Who are we to deny this right?

Neither there is doubt about whom it is speaking in 4.34 it says it plainly and clearly, men and women in third person plural, all the time. And second person mixed plural addressing the believers men and womenwho are the addressees. Who is biased?

I showed you above how the instructions/commands are second person masculine plural and the pronouns for these commands are feminine. It is clear, please do not invent second person mixed plural where it is not so. Check again above no such second person mixed plural. Whatsoever....
Furthermore, the pronouns are clearly feminine. So it is clearly referring to the women.
So again in repetition I ask who can forsake females in bed, but the males they are pledged to?

Mazhar

The basic perception, meanings and signification infolded in this Root " " as stated in Lane Lexicon is,
"accord. to Er-R?ghib, signifies the making a thing to fall upon another thing;"

The conceptual meanings of the Root evidently reveal that its meanings in the real-world experience will be reflected by the collocates or other words associated with it in the context.

It reflects that its effect may necessarily not be of causing hurt. It reflects an instance; an illustration or an occurrence. The most equivalent word in English vocabulary to describe the basic perception and its various uses in different semantic fields is verb "strike".

"Strike" denotes; to fall or shine on something; to make something noticed; make something to be perceived or become audible-understandable for someone; to make some idea enter somebody's mind or occur to somebody; to penetrate or seem to go right through something; make something by stamping; and to remove something away-displace. And taking support and help of other words, its use signifies to hit somebody or something with a hand, tool, weapon, or other object. Obvious intention in such strike is to hurt, damage, dislocate, dislodge, deform, shape or stamp the target with force. Moreover, support words will be required if the intention of the speaker is to indicate the instance as involving repeated strikes to reflect what is denoted by English word "beating"; punishment in which somebody is repeatedly hit.

huruf

This is a reply to message 10.

You are taking an over aggressive feminist approach sister.

What kind of argument is that?

Are bridal dues welfare as well? I am still not clear on what you are implying by welfare sis.
Either way, I will only stick to terms given in the Quran. Let us not use are own terminology and try to place other concepts under own definitions. Let us stick to that which our Lord uses in the Quran.
Marriage (hands being pledged, contract/tie/knot/oath), contract/pledge/oath/ for rearing orphans, bridal dues, inheritance, will and etcetera. They are not all the same or interchangeable so let us be specific about which we are discussing especially in relation to 434. Let us not just say welfare includes all.
Let us truly try to understand which of these fits the context.

I am surprised that you blame me for using the word "welfare" and not using a qur'anic Word. Well substitute qisT if that is good enough for you, although I think there is nothing wrong with the English word welfare, understood as common welfare and that it reflects very well the spirit that pervades the whole of Qur?an.

You give me a reprieve for that word and then you yourelf come up with such anachronic and unQura?nic parlance as using the modern euphemism of bed instead of sex.

Taking maDaaji3 as bed is a stretch but taking the modern euphemism "bed" as sex relations and imposing it on the Qur?an is what?

Prove from the Qur'an what maDaaji3 means and prove also from the Qur?an that maDaaji3 means sexual relations, because although the qur'an speaks plenty of times about sex, it never lowers itelf to such confusing sanctimoniousness. I do not know in English but certainly not in Spanish existed such prudish expression for sex except recently. I doubt very much that it has existed in Arabic and for sure, not in Qur'an.

If that is your argument for adscribing to husbands the end of the aya, it falls through, and it is preposterous. No sex spoken of.

And I would add for the sake of fun, every day I forsake my family members in their beds included my daughter, I forsake the whole world in their beds where I am also forsaken by all the others. Awful and impacting the amount of sex relations that can be given up injust one moment even without one noticing it. ?Oh! And I was forgetting the dog, I also forsake her in her bed. She is a bitch. Who knows, those with the bitch might have been the hardest sex relations ever to be given up.

You say

I do not know whether there is enough to draw that this might also be referring to prostitute women, because as you yourself have stated their punishment is confinement and there is no indication of any pledge having to take place for the confining process.

What punishment? What confinement? Where does it say that there is a punishment? Where does it speak of confinement. Do you realise the absurdity of it? A punishment that may last from only one minute to one hundred years, or whatever lasta any life?

And then do we expect to be respected by hadithists when we sell the same nonsense they do? Shelter them in the houses, not imprison them. So if prostitutes need to live, eat and maintain themselves and their family you go and imprison them? How creative! ?How does that solve their problema? Did the Qur?an need to be revealed for that kind of cruelty and duplicity?

You say

but you are the one who is biased for assuming that these women could not then be wives of the men.

I have said in that message you are answering

No husbands are there as such no wives are there as such, they may be of course since they will be a part of all men and women.

But in 4.34 there is no such a thing but general statements referred to allmen and women as such and in particular to a group of women who might be in danger.

Your bias is to see husbands where the text mentions none, and see wives where the text mentions none and not read the general inclusive men and women when it is clearly stated.

Which women are excluded in 4.34? None is.

So no man or woman is excluded in 4.34 and they are not excluded because no category in particular is being picked. Only two categories of women are mentionned specifically

Assalihaat qanitaat hafidhat lilghaib
?allaty takhafuna nushuzhunna?, those (feminine plural) whose nushuz you fear

You ask what is my theory.

Why should I have a theory? And why should anybody have a theory? In fact that is the problem. All along the ?traditionnalists? have had a theory, to wit, marital authority, and they have forced it by hook or crook on the aya itself. To turn iDribuhunna into something milder than beat them is merely cosmetic, does not change the malecentric foundation of the whole misconstruction of he aya.

I have no theory to sell. What I contend is that, as it happens with so many ayas of the Qur?an, if not all, no aya substitues for another aya, but all ayas are connected to other ayas and complement them and are made more understandable by them.

4.34 does not say anything about the marriage of anybody. The things I put forward concerning 4.3 and 4.15 or any other I might have mentionned on that count go only to show that when people ask what that sentence in 4.34 can mean if it is not that the purported husbands do this and that to their purported wives, I say it can mean many things, it can mean anything if it fits. But just for the sake of illustration that it is not only posible but more appropriate than putting a pirate husband into the picture is to think of those women who may disgrace themselves falling into protitution for instance as it is legitimate to understand in 4.15 or of the orphan children of the mothers mentionned in other ayas. In fact any woman who may need the intervention of the community in order to avoid being an outcast fits into the text of the aya.

You give YOUR definition of nushuz. Now how is that definition given in the Qur?an? Obey God is meant properly by other words not "nushuz" althouh anything that is not right entails disobeying God. So YOUR defiition is not such definition.

If as you say it means obey God, then why should the purported husbands do anything at all to make the women obey God and how could they know in what kind of diosbedience to God they should intervene and on what criteria and on whose auhority would they determine that there is in fact a diesobedience to God of whatever kind? Aren?t the purported wives able by themselves to determine what is or should be their obedience to God? Is a husband some kind of inhouse priest? And shouldn?t the women also admonish their husband if they fear they may be going to disobey God on whatever and forsake them (the husbands) in their beds and then abandon them or whatever you have picked for the meaning of iDDribuhunna.

Your contention that there are husbands specifically addressed in 4.34, however much you try to force them in, is no good in spite of 4.35 speaking of husband and wife. Because, as you see, in the whole of 4.34 all along it speaks of men and uses the third person masculine plural to speak of the men. It speaks of women and uses the third person feminine plural to speak of the women, and it uses the second person mixed gender plural, which are ?alladhina amanu?, that is, the believers, men and women for the addressee. That is your second person plural, and there is no other subject that has been introduced which the second person plural could refer to, and not only that, it continues on the next aya 4.35 addresing the believers, men and women with the second person mixed plural, it has not changed of addressee at all.

What happens is that in 4.35 new persons are introduced with new pronouns. Now we have a third person singular masculine, a husband, a third person singular feminine, a wife, and a third person dual mixed gender, that is, both.

So there is no possibility of confusi?n. All along the addressee second person mixed plural, the antecedent of which is alladhina amanu. That goes through a number of ayas without changing including 4.35. Then there are he third persons plural in 4.34, which are the men and the women as antecedents, then in 4.35 three new persons, a thirdperson singular masculine, a third person singular feminine and a third person dual mixed.

Your contention seems to be that that dual and that singular third person masculine goes back to 4.34. But it cannot be. There is no antecedent. All antecedents are fully justified for the persons in 4.34 and there is no spare pronoun or antecedent that could justify for the dual in 4.35 to act retroactively on the preceeding sentences. No text could ever survive that kind of handling, this part of he aya is submitted to.

You say

That is totally plausible, but you are the one who is biased for assuming that these women could not then be wives of the men.

Have I said that? That they could not be the wives of men? No I have not said that. What I have said, and I will say it again, is that those women can be anything, but that, whatever they are, the aya does not say and does not refer anything to any husband or wife. Since it is a general formulation, it is obvious that any woman whose nushuz is feared , married, unmarried, widow, lame, blidn or whatever is comprised in this category, but no husband is ordered to do anything with any wife at all. It is for the believers, men and women, just as in the next aya 4.35, to do whatever there is to do, not any husband or wife, and since that second person mixed plural is carried from the previous aya 4.34 into 4.35, it is not warranted that it has taken a little vacation being bored with the second person plural and has gone back to give a little push to the front to the third person masculine plural.

And with this, brother, if you allow me to be grateful for your advice, I also advice you not to take over agressive malist approaches. It does not look good in nice males, to which plural third person masculine I guess you belong.

Salaam,

Mazhar

Taking maDaaji3 as bed is a stretch but taking the modern euphemism "bed" as sex relations and imposing it on the Qur?an is what?

Prove from the Qur'an what maDaaji3 means and prove also from the Qur?an that maDaaji3 means sexual relations,

http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Tabweeb%20Part%202/01.Roots%20originating%20in%20Sura%20003/75.%20Mazajehim%20Zuad%20Jeem%20Ain/2.gif Location Noun Definite; plural; genitive. (1)434(2)3216=2

And you husbands move them-wives referred to above to separate bed within the bedrooms;

Seperating wife to other place in the bed room certainly hints at and will result in suspension of matrimonial act.

HP_TECH

The basic perception, meanings and signification infolded in this Root " " as stated in Lane Lexicon is,
"accord. to Er-R?ghib, signifies the making a thing to fall upon another thing;"

The conceptual meanings of the Root evidently reveal that its meanings in the real-world experience will be reflected by the collocates or other words associated with it in the context.

It reflects that its effect may necessarily not be of causing hurt. It reflects an instance; an illustration or an occurrence. The most equivalent word in English vocabulary to describe the basic perception and its various uses in different semantic fields is verb "strike".

"Strike" denotes; to fall or shine on something; to make something noticed; make something to be perceived or become audible-understandable for someone; to make some idea enter somebody's mind or occur to somebody; to penetrate or seem to go right through something; make something by stamping; and to remove something away-displace. And taking support and help of other words, its use signifies to hit somebody or something with a hand, tool, weapon, or other object. Obvious intention in such strike is to hurt, damage, dislocate, dislodge, deform, shape or stamp the target with force. Moreover, support words will be required if the intention of the speaker is to indicate the instance as involving repeated strikes to reflect what is denoted by English word "beating"; punishment in which somebody is repeatedly hit.

Is this entire quote directly from Lane's Lexicon?

HP_TECH

You are absolutely right about dharaba, HP_TECH. It does mean alternatively highlight or to say about something prominently. If you reveal something as in exposure (make known) then the word is well used.

If you go and complain about someone you may 'dharaba' them, revealing their true nature. The metaphorical application is that you "push the person forward" to cause them to be in the light (highlighted).

Moses does put forth his rod towards and hardly strikes out in thin air towards the water.

Same word is used when Moses is claimed to "strike" a rock, but he puts his rod forth rather than strike the rock.

In the above occurrences 'dharaba' is used. Reflect.

Dharaba does not imply striking at all, but unspecified movement towards any item, physical or abstract. You may use it to say you draw a sword and might put it forth towards a person, but it is not a slash. Could likely be used to say you put the edge towards someone's throat, but it does not say any more than that.

Be safe
Amenuel

Very interesting perspective, it's something I hadn't thought about (Moses and the rod)

Mazhar

Is this entire quote directly from Lane's Lexicon?

Please see . Onwards it is not quote.

Complete article

We will firstly study all the 57 occurrences, other than one in 434, to see that Root " " is as if it is synonymous with English word "strike" as defined above.

1-Transit of idea to other's mind and perception Used to strike example to make the thing or point prominent and detached from others making it projected, apparent, distinct and visible to public eye and perception-31 occurrences;

2- Transit in land Used with preposition for moving out of a seclusion to transit in an open place-society, which causes appearance, signifying distancing away from ] earlier location/position- 6 occurrences;

Strike; making something as stamped-distinguishing feature and identity- 3 occurrences;

4- Strike; displace things to make another thing emerge on surface- 4 occurrences;

Strike may alternatively be for the purpose of distancing away, enclosing, veiling, or obscuring something which is otherwise noticeable.-3 occurrences.
Strike other occurrences where it does not denote "beating; an attack or punishment in which somebody is hit repeatedly". 5 occurrences;
Strike using an instrument-object for purposes of one time hitting -2 occurrences;
Strike in the manner of repeated hitting of certain parts of the bodies of criminals on the Day of Resurrection while dragging them towards the Hell Prison.
Grand Qur'aan has prohibited domestic violence negating erroneous "belief" of beating one's wife-Ayah 334

Grand Qur'aan has prohibited domestic violence negating ]erroneous "belief" of beating one's wife.

mmmm

You are absolutely right about dharaba, HP_TECH. It does mean alternatively highlight or to say about something prominently. If you reveal something as in exposure (make known) then the word is well used.

If you go and complain about someone you may 'dharaba' them, revealing their true nature. The metaphorical application is that you "push the person forward" to cause them to be in the light (highlighted).

Moses does put forth his rod towards and hardly strikes out in thin air towards the water.

Same word is used when Moses is claimed to "strike" a rock, but he puts his rod forth rather than strike the rock.

In the above occurrences 'dharaba' is used. Reflect.

Dharaba does not imply striking at all, but unspecified movement towards any item, physical or abstract. You may use it to say you draw a sword and might put it forth towards a person, but it is not a slash. Could likely be used to say you put the edge towards someone's throat, but it does not say any more than that.

Be safe
Amenuel

I agree. It is clear as a day that this ayat is talking about exposing a women to other family/friend members so they can give advice before they get a divorce (as in 435).
The video of "scholar" is full of assupmtions to fit thier interpretation and yet stay "politically correct" and in the end he's talking about the adultery which is nowhere mentioned in the ayat I could point to many more contradictions in his lecture but I don't like long posts...and the "best" thing is when he says "God could've said this or that..." and later on he doesn't stick to that method all the way...