Is a man allowed to beat his wife?
-
SaLaM idmkhizar
How is having sex gonna make anything easier or better? lolllA LOT thanks!
In fact it is a great Stress Reliever!!!! -)
'wink'Regards,
-
Peace be upon you,
Why would a man want to beat his wife? The God does not like agressors. The description is peacefulness(islam).
-
SaLaM LT
This is just injustice then. Smoking Weed is a stress reliever. And everyone frowns upon that.
In any case, When God says part and think about it, maybe we should trust God on this.
Hey I said it for amusement -)
But sex is indeed better than weed believe me, it makes your whole body do some exercise!
-
-
peace be upon you sister Elena,
After some studying...
Ahmed Ali's tranlsation does not match the literal Arabic nor the logic of the signs. Neither does 'beat' follow the sign's suggested logic, nor the logic of 'al quran'.
...faAAithoohunna waohjuroohunna fee almadajiAAi waidriboohunna fa-in ataAAnakum fala tabghoo AAalayhinna sabeelan...
...then you shall advise them, and abandon them in the bedchamber, and leave them; if they obey you, then do not seek a way over them...
The sign advises the husband first to advise/warn them and along with that abandon them in the bedchamber and 'idriboo' them
Now clearly, once the husband advises/warns them, it would be wise for the wife to have some 'alone time' to think about her advice/warning. The husband should distance himself from his wife. To acheive this the sign instructs the husband to abandon them in the bedchamber (this will also have an indirect affect of allowing the wife to think about life without her husband) and (at the same time) to leave/avoid/iDRiBoo them.
By the context, I dont think it means leave them as in divorce them, it just means to limit general contact with them, i.e. 'leave them be'.
Some points
Nowhere else in 'al quran' does it suggest physically harming one's wife.
'al quran' NEVER allows punishment as a way to enforce obedience. At perhaps the most important decision one can make - there is freedom to believe or disbelieve in The God, thus why would The God allow punishment to enforce obedience for a lesser offence (i.e. being disloyal to one's husband) than to disbelieving in The God! or even being disloyal to The God! Highly unlikely.
abandon them in the bedchamber ---> reduces physical contact/interaction
'beat' them ---> adds to the physical contact/interactionThe root DRB seems to have a core of 'to separate'.
The following sign, 435, suggests its unlikely that 'beating' would be taking place because this sign interestingly addresses the audience, perhaps the society or social order, thus the 'beating' would have to be public knowledge, which would be unusual, and secondly the family representative would be willing to reconcile the couple knowing that 'beating' is taking place. Highly unlikely.
Earlier in 434 it suggests the righteous/correct women are obedient (qanitatun). Thus suggesting a righteous/correct wife will take the husband's advice/warning and obey and this is all is needed. This sets the scene for the following words. Would a righteous wife be one who obeys once beaten into obeying? No. This is a solid point when one considers that The God never uses this standard for Himself or anything else, thus why use it here? For it to be used here is impossible, as this would be applying double standards and would make it the odd-one-out in 'the reading'.
And with that last point, I am, for the first time fully satisfied this sign cannot mean 'beat' as this is not only illogical but contradictory.
I hope this has helped clarify the situation.
Wakas
-
Peace Wakas,
thanks
how long will it take to remove that wrong verb from so many translationsThe equivalent verse for women would be 4128, right?
4128
FREE MINDS And if a woman fears from her husband desertion, or ill-treatment, 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.the first part, desertion, and the last, reconciliation, are the same in this verse and in 434&35; there are no the advise, abandon, leave instructions, but maybe it is because that was not expected from a wife to a husband at that time in that culture.
-
Salaam Elena,
Elena wrotethe first part, desertion, and the last, reconciliation, are the same in this verse and in 434&35; there are no the advise, abandon, leave instructions, but maybe it is because that was not expected from a wife to a husband at that time in that culture.
But I thought that Quran was eternal, I mean that it doesn't matter which culture and epok you live in.
And one more thing is that why must all advices have to be written in one single verse!?
We'll have to read all related verses and make a conclusion out of it and not take one verse and hang out alone.
Peace
Sis Majidah -
Peace,
We'll have to read all related verses and make a conclusion out of it and not take one verse and hang out alone.
that was what I was trying to do, relating verses. At the quran-word- searches I just find those verses speaking about desertion and reconciliation related to husband-wife problems. Desertion gives only two matches and reconciliation 5-7 matches depending on the search chosen, and both desertion and reconciliation together only in 4.128 + 434&35
And one more thing is that why must all advices have to be written in one single verse!?
I don't know, must they? I wanted to find the most similar, equivalent verse. -
Salaam Sis Elena,
Ok, sometime it can be difficult to express oneself clearly in written form.
But what I was surprised of what you wrote, it was that you seemed to think that Quran was written to fit in the old days but Quran is for all times and it doesn't matter if you live now in 2005 or you lived during the 1600 centuary right!?
Peace
Sis Majidah -
Peace,
But what I was surprised of what you wrote, it was that you seemed to think that Quran was written to fit in the old days but Quran is for all times and it doesn't matter if you live now in 2005 or you lived during the 1600 centuary right!?
don't be surprised, please. It is a triumph that I am approaching the quran with the most possible objective mind when I am not attached to any religion. I am interested in knowing what the quran really says to understand the deep impact it has on its followers + I want to extract from it the spiritual teachings I can accept.
you seemed to think that Quran was written to fit in the old days
not to fit, but that revelation was inspired during those old days, wasn't it? I don't find strange some parts are just for those days and that culture. Of course I can see easily how many parts are for all time.
-
Peace Leyla, Shams,
This reply is off-thread, but because the following points were made in this thread, I would like to clarify this matter in light of The Qur'aan.
I don?t think that Shamsul-Arefin is `liberal?, I think he is very true to the quran.
How do you define nikah in the frame of the quran?
Do you need to register yourself somewhere?
Do you need some Mullah to recite some prayers?
Do you need the blessings of a church?
Do you need a big celebration with your relatives?Definitely not.
The basic quranic requirement for nikah is two people having an agreement and sharing their responsibilities. I guess that most people here in the west
having a boyfriend? orhaving a grilfriend? perfectly meet the quranic idea of nikah.According to The Qur'aan, NIKAH is not just agreement of two people, but it is a legal contract involving a third person who is the GUARDIAN OF THE MARRIAGE CONTRACT.
2236 And if you divorce them before having sexual intercourse with them, but you have already agreed to the dowry; then you must give half of what you have agreed, unless they forgive or the guardian over the marriage contract forgives. And if you forgive, it is closer to righteousness. And do not forget the favour between you; God is Seer over what you do.
This marriage contract includes dowry. There is a legal procedure described in detail in The Qur'aan for dissolution of this legal contract, which is called TALAQ or divorce. The Qur'aanic NIKAH is not equivalent to a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship as Shams and you would like all of us to believe, but is clearly a legally binding contract.
I would humbly advise you to refrain from ascribing your own fabricated definitions, conjectures and opinions of "nikah" to the word of The God.
450 See how they invent upon God the lies; is that not enough as a clear sin?
16117 And do not say regarding what your tongues describe with lies "This is lawful and that is forbidden;" that you seek to invent lies about God. Those who invent lies about God will not succeed.
2061 Moses said to them "Woe to you, do not invent lies about God, else the retribution will take you, and miserable is the one who invents."
Regards,
Tanveer
-
Peace Jaxal, Elena,
I don't find strange some parts are just for those days and that culture.
I agree with Jaxal on this one (wow, agreeing again with Jaxal shock ). Elena, please quote the ayaat/verses/signs which were meant JUST FOR THE OLD DAYS and not applicable to nowadays, other than the signs relevant only to Muhammad's personal life. Happy hunting !!
-
Peace Leyla, Shams,
The following sign clearly disallows pre-marital sexual relationship (outside "nikah")
57 Today, the good things have been made lawful to you, and the food of those who have been given the Scripture is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them; and the independent from the believing women, and the independent from the people of the Scripture before you, if you have given them their dowries, protected, CHASTE, AND NOT SEEKING TO TAKE LOVERS. And whoever rejects belief, then his work has fallen, and in the Hereafter he is of the losers.
-
Salaam Br Tanveermd,
Very good work Brother,
I knew a verse existed like that one but I couldn't find it.Al-Hamdulillah that you found it because I have sitting on nails and thought that it can't be possible if muslims having sex outside marriage.
Peace
Sis Majidah -
Peace Jaxal,
SaLaM Elena
During my reading of the Quran, I have not come across even one verse which was JUST for the old days and culture. If you want to, perhaps you can clarify this a bit more or if it is your own opinion, then dont worry about itI understand we humans can extract guidance from revelations regardeless the time they were inspired.
I think some parts are for some specific time when I find names of places, like Badr, 3124, or names of people, like Abu-Lahab, 1112 or when I find things like I said in the other post, comparing 434&35 to 4.128.
I understand both verses advise reconcilitaion and good behaviour when facing desertion but the instructions are given just to one of them (this can be explained by what Idolfree says, that the message is given to the male because the male/female principles)Bear in mind, Jaxal and Tanveer, that I can't approach the reading as you do. I started to have contact with islam and quran we could say, recently, despite that 'recently' means almost four years and that I don't intend to affirm or convince or prove anything. I just want to know things.
I can't help any of you with my contributions, just asking, reading and hopefully, increase my knowledge. -
Salaam Sis Elena,
Good that you telling us this.
I have thought that you were a muslim already it sounded like that before in other posts but now I have understood that was not the case.
But that's fine we are all here to discuss and learn so just keep asking.
Peace
Sis Majidah -
peace be upon you Elena, Majidah, all,
1111 has NOTHING do with the time. abu lahab is not a proper name/noun, it is a description, and it means 'father of flame'.
In chapter 111, one who fathers the flame is consumed by what they put forth, i.e. fire/flame. It is an ingenious play on words. This has been discussed extensively on this forum, please use the search function at the top.*the above understanding is conclusively proven by the traditional stories themselves! they clearly say Abu Lahab was a nickname, and his real name was Abdul Uzza. That means The God uses a nickname in 1111, even though it is written in 'the reading' we should not use nicknames (4911). Thus is The God a hypocrite according to the traditionalists? Some of their understandings are truly rubbish.
And as for 'Badr', just because an event is mentioned that happened in the past does not mean no guidance can be gained from it. Why do we learn about World War 1 in schools for example? Why do we learn about the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima or Nagasaki?
Just because it mentions something in the past, doesn't mean it is for that time. For this to be true, one would have to prove there is no guidance that can be gained from the telling of that story/event. Can one bring evidence to support this assertion?I have thought that you were a muslim already it sounded like that before in other posts but now I have understood that was not the case.
You, nor I, know who is a muslim (one who submits/complies) and who is not. Sister Elena could be the most sincere muslim on this board. Perhaps what you meant was the title/noun "Muslim" (with a capital).
Wakas
