Note on 4:34 and Sam Gerrans.

Lost

You guys don't understand that going for daraba in this context to mean other than to hit would be very ambiguous, like a lot, which we wouldn't expect from a clear and explicit book. If it really means hit/strike, it is stupid to argue how to hit or such, think with logic and put yourself in such a situation, what would be meant here if we take it as hit is that the man should redirect the wife in case such behavior is exhibited, think about it just the same as hitting your child or something, not a big deal, only modern, soft-ass societies are scared by that. And because the quran commands us to be fair, it is only a mean to rstrict, because with some people, they will never listen or understand if it is not physically shown to them... Keep in mind this is last ressort, and other procedures could be taken before it all leads to this. This is actually a very basic thing in life, you have to show certain hard-headed people their limits or else you will be eaten and it becomes impossible to redirect them when needed...

As for Gerrans, guy often makes very good observations but sometimes he's all bout that bullshit. Just go check his ramadan video, where his lack of arabic is exposed, I'm calling total bullshit on that one...

huruf

Wakas did a very good study of the verb daraba in the Qur'an looking at every occurrence. In none of them made sense to translate as strike beat or hit except that it be taken in a figurative sense. In none of them.

Daraba, today, may mean whatever it may mean, but in the Qur'an it does not mean beat or hit or strike in a physical sense.

It is as so many words from the Qur'an that have been made to change to suit the meaning sought by society or those leading in society to shape societies not as qura'nic societies but has non qura'nic.

As I pointed out at other times, another hint is the Spanish verb "adarvar" from the arabic daraba. Words taken from Arabic in Spanish corresond to the same thing that in Arabic, they do not mean something different, adarvar does not mean beat, it means to cause surprise.

As pointed out, to translate as beat taken, together with other all the other contortions imposed on this aya, helps a lot the male worshipping interests, but it does not make any sense at all, not a little bit. It is another factor which has turned this aya into a mockery of the Qur'an thnks to the resolute purpose of those interpreting it to empty it of its light and fill it with male centric Iblees content.

Salaam

Lost

After reading Wakas'analysis, I'm forced to say that it provides the reader with a well-fitting alternative meaning for daraba in the context of this verse, but this is only viable when one is aware that the last bit of 434 (So if they obeyed you, then seek not against them a way) refers to the admonishment only, rather than to the steps one should take in case wife doesn't listen ; separate them in bed and idriboohunna. This is probably what made me unable to understand it other than hit/strike/beat/whatever. However, like I said, a rendition of daraba as separation is incompatible here, mostly for the following reasons both me and Wakas pointed out, that is, quoting from Wakas's article 3) results in incoherence when DRB is used with a human as the direct object (see 4357 and 273)
and 4) requires the insertion of "from" making this the only DRB example of this kind in The Quran, even though the preposition "AAn /from" is used with DRB in 435 in a very similar usage as being suggested here for 434.

Indeed, if one assumes a cite/declare/... rendition for the verb, the problems raised in the above mentionned points are easily solved.

However, daraba still remains as an ambiguous verb in a context like that, but then again maybe god wanted us to ponder more thoroughly, by considering the quran as a whole, on the matter before drawing any conlcusion...

Makaveli

You guys don't understand that going for daraba in this context to mean other than to hit would be very ambiguous, like a lot, which we wouldn't expect from a clear and explicit book. If it really means hit/strike, it is stupid to argue how to hit or such, think with logic and put yourself in such a situation, what would be meant here if we take it as hit is that the man should redirect the wife in case such behavior is exhibited, think about it just the same as hitting your child or something, not a big deal, only modern, soft-ass societies are scared by that.

Qur'an usually adds an object where the talk is about hitting. Such as in 260 Moses is told to strike with his staff the stone, in 3793 there is a "blow with right hand", in 850 angels are striking faces and backs. In 434 - nothing. So daraba in 434 is a lot more ambiguous if we use hit rather than leave which fits perfectly in the context, unlike hitting.

Also, since we talk about domestic problem solving, how so it does not add an object to "hit", such as which part of her body shall he hit, with what? Obviously when a spouse is hitting another spouse there is a tense atmosphere and both are being emotional so they might not really pay attention to what they do or say, in such a case it is very important to watch your language or your actions, since the situation can get out of control easily during arguments. Therefore it is highly strange it does not specify HOW to beat the wife, he can easily beat her to death using Gerran's explanation.

I don't care about someone hitting a wife, it is her problem, and in most cases they deserve it even if they do nothing wrong, but in latter they deserve it because they deliberately marry pigs with brutal attitude, since women are attracted to such behavior. I am however concerned with the Qur'an, I know it was severely mistranslated in Arabic due to the huge influence of syriac in the region, while Arabic seldom had any writings or grammar until the Qur'an.

P.S. Also about the "since the obey you" part. Qur'an in almost all instances where it talks about punishment gives an option to forgive and 434 is not a step by step verse as traditional pigs would like it to be read, i.e. it does not say First advice, then leave her in bed, then beat, then etc. It is an option thing, so seek nothing against them is an option, and 435 is divorce procedure. Qur'an is the test, how will you act in certain situations, it deliberately decieves the reader.

No longer a Sunna-rejecter

812 Your Lord inspired to the controllers "I am with you so keep firm those who acknowledge. I will cast fear into the hearts of those who have rejected; so strike (fa idriboo) above the necks, and strike every finger."

850 If you could only see as the controllers take those who have rejected, they strike (yadriboona) their faces and their backs "Taste the punishment of the blazing fire!"

2663 So We inspired to Moses "Strike (idrib) the sea with your staff." So it split into two, each side like a great mountain.

3842 "Strike/move (arkud) with your foot, here is a cold spring to wash with and to drink."

For "Da-Ra-Ba" to mean strike/beat and for a potential "wife beating" action to be condoned, it needs to be specific. There needs to be at least one object - otherwise DRB will not refer to "beat" or "strike." It would be very unclear beat their face with a fist? Slap them in the face? Slap their back? How hard? How many times? Which bdy part to beat? Which body part to use to beat? 100 "strikes" like for zina - see how it is clearly specified? It is not clear and there is no body part or object of striking specified in the phrase "wa idribuhoona." In those cases, we must use the most basic meaning "to cite" or "to indicate" or, less literally "refer for arbitration."

In fact, this makes much sense because how else would the messenger or authority (singular "you" that is referred to in 435) find out about the marital problems? With a black eye or if the man indicates/cites/refers for arbitration? The latter understanding is much more logical in terms of language used and logical consistency.

Furthermore, as per 435 an arbitrator from each family must be picked to settle the case. What if the arbiters were the fathers of each party and husband beat the crap out of the wife... How would the woman's father feel? Wouldn't that cause further problems and never lead to a proper outcome for arbitration? It does not make much sense.

"Separate from them" is nonsense - the language does not support this. Furthermore, this would be abandonment and the husband is not to abandon his wife. Furthermore, the split/separation is talked about in 435. Similar problems as with "strike" appear for this interpretation For how long do they separate? Where do each of them stay? This argument holds much less weight than even the "beat" argument does.

"Strike them out" is nonsense for very similar reasons.

Also, can someone shed some light in terms of the language and the usage of the different "wa." Does this imply that advising, sleep in separate beds and "idribohoona"/cite them is to occur during the same time or does it imply different steps? Maybe it is steps cause the first step has "fa" and the other ones are connected by "wa?" Perhaps "if they obey you, do not seek a way over them" implies that admonishment could suffice.

One thing Sam Gerrans talked about is that "takhafoona nushuzu" means a strong/evidenced fear of "nushuz." What is the evidence for this? He said something along the lines of "whenever kh-f-t" is used it is for strong/evidenced fear.

Also, if we interpret "zina" to include adultery, what would be the difference between "nushooz" and "zina?" Clearly, they are not the same. There seems to be no "zina" involved, otherwise the commandment would be clear 100 lashes. So of "zina" includes adultery and "nushooz" is disloyalty, then this disloyalty cannot refer to a sexual/penetrative sexual affair.

Makaveli