|
|
|
The
domain name of this website refers to The Quran:
chapter 4, verse 34. It is considered by some to be
the most controversial verse of this book as it has
been traditionally interpreted to allow wife beating
by the husband. There has been much discussion of
this verse, criticism as well as justification, in
online forums, articles, books, magazines, TV,
online videos etc. More recently, disputes have
arisen amongst those classifying themselves as muslims with
regard to the correct meaning of this verse, with
some translations of The Quran now opting for a
different understanding. The word in
question in 4:34 is "idriboo"
/ ٱضْرِبُو for which
the Arabic root is Dad-Ra-Ba (ض ر ب). Part 1: Review
of all occurrences of Dad-Ra-Ba in The Quran
1) Some translators use "go out", "move about".
This is taken literally and
non-literally by translators.
With regard to the translation of DRB in the above verses there is variation, depending on translator, e.g. some use variations in 17:48, 25:9, 43:58, 43:17.
For this verse some use "collides", "puts/shows forth" (e.g. Ibn Kathir), "points out" (e.g. Al Jalalayn).
The verse is literally saying the
effect of "DRB on/over their ears in the cave" lasted
several years. This seems to suggest God kept them
isolated in the cave, when they were hiding out, thus
cut off from the outside world. Mustansir Mir in
"Verbal Idioms of The Qur'an" says it is an idiom
meaning to prevent someone from hearing something,
sealing off, or put to sleep. The only other related
example in which DRB with something is done on/over
something else is 24:31, when covers are cast over chests. Fakayfa itha
tawaffathumu almalaikatu yadriboona wujoohahum wa adbarahum In the above two verses, translators commonly use "beat / strike / smite", and whilst this may seem acceptable on the surface this translation does have significant problems when examined more closely:
To explain away these
anomalies it could be suggested 8:50 and 47:27 refer
to post Judgement not at death, which would be much
more plausible if DRB is interpreted in a punishment
way, i.e. beat/strike, but no trasnlator or tafsir/interpretation
I have read gives this option.
M. Asad translates it as "swing their
legs", and in his notes says: The phrase yadribna bi-arjulihinna
is idiomatically similar to the phrase daraba bi-yadayhi fi
mishyatihi, "he swung his arms in walking"
(quoted in this context in Taj al-'Arus), and alludes to
a deliberately provocative gait.
Some use "turn/keep away",
"disregard", "move" and even "should We omit reminding
you" (e.g. Mustansir Mir, "Verbal Idioms of The
Qur'an"). Simply, "put forth" can also be used, and it
may be interesting to note that "AAan kumu / from
you" was used, possibly to show instead of 'to
put/show forth from one place/person to another
place/person' (i.e. the default action of DRB) the
process is actually reversed, i.e. taken away from one
place/persons.
Some use "set-up", "separated",
"placed". However, "duriba"
is in the passive form, meaning: the subject is being
acted upon, i.e. the wall receives the action
expressed in the verb, thus the translation of
"separated" is inappropriate here.
Some
use
"show",
"strike",
"assign" (e.g. Lane), "choose" (e.g. Tabari). It is
important to note that Moses was given the above
instruction even before setting off in his journey, and
when he reaches the sea he doesn't automatically know
what to do and awaits guidance from God and receives it
by way of inspiration (see 26:61-63). If we couple this
information with the fact that Moses did not literally
strike a dry path, it shows that it is highly unlikely
DRB in this instance had a meaning of "strike", hence
perhaps many translators not translating it as such. The above is commonly translated
as "strike him (the murdered person) with part of it
(the heifer/cow)" taken from the previous verses. The
traditional commentators say this act brought the
murdered person back to life and he identified his
murderers in this case. However, this understanding
becomes extremely weak when all the evidence is taken
into account, which we will now analyse, beginning
with an accurate translation according to the Arabic: M=masculine, F=feminine, P=plural, S=singular
All we need now is to consider "idriboo" to see
if there is a meaning that fits. Lane's Lexicon states
that DRB on its own can mean "to point or make a
sign", i.e. point out or indicate. When we re-read the
context of 2:72-73, it becomes obvious the
perpetrators were accusing each other (i.e. pointing
the finger at each other, so to speak) to conceal the
truth that they did it, so God was to bring forth what
they were concealing: so We said "point out him with
some of it (the murder)". The only ones doing the
pointing/accusing were the guilty. Thus, whomever of
them (i.e. of the ones accused) was pointed out by the
others also accused was assigned some
part/responsibility of the murder. In this way, they
could not escape what they had done, and indeed, God
exposed them and brought out what they were
concealing. The end result was that they took
collective responsibility, each of him a part. Sharing
of a sin/crime if a group were responsible is
mentioned elsewhere in The Quran, e.g. 24:11. As a side note, for an
understanding of "ddaara'atum",
see Lane's Lexicon. In it, it specifically states the
translation we have used. By deduction, we can work
out it does indeed mean "you accused each other". The
whole phrase literally means "you
averted/repelled/pushed away each other". What are
they averting/repelling/pushing away? The Quran tells
us, it is "feeha =
in it". Thus, the only possibility is they are
literally pushing away in the dead body (highly
unlikely), OR, they are pushing away in the murder,
and logically, the latter can only mean they were
pushing away the accusation or the sole responsibility
for it. This is further proven by what follows, when
it says they were concealing/hiding. Thus, one simply
needs to ask: what can they (the ones who did it)
possibly be concealing by repelling each other in the
murder? The translation option then becomes obvious. To conclude, the understanding presented here fits the grammar, the Arabic, Classical Arabic meanings, logic, cross-referencing the subject of murder, specifically, that there is life in al qisas/equivalence (the law of just recompense) for those who use their intellect, 2:179, and provides us with a self-contained explanation.
According to
traditonal interpretations 38:44 was a symbolic strike
by Job/Ayyub
(upon his wife) with blades of grass, meaning a
light/negligible strike was used. M. Asad's note Ibn Kathir
(1301-1372 CE) Tafsir Al-Qurtubi
(1214-1273 CE) Tafsir Al-Jalalayn
(authors: 1459 & 1505 CE) Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn Abbas
(authors: 687 & 1414 CE) It should be noted that NONE
of the above contradicting authors cite any
Traditional narrations/ahadith to give weight to their
interpretations. This could be because no such
Traditional narrations/ahadith exist for this verse, and
if they do not, then it is unclear where exactly these
stories originated from. It is possible they were an
embellishment or simply made up to explain the verse.
This can be further confirmed by the Biblical account
where there is no mention of this incident. It should
also be noted that even though The Quran mentions Job
briefly (4:163, 6:84, 21:83, 38:41-44), some aspects
of his story are not mentioned in the Biblical version
and vice versa. The traditional
interpretation is also problematic for another
significant reason: if true, it would be the only
example of an oath being expiated by way of symbolic
gesture in The Quran. In 5:89 and 2:224-225 it clearly
states that God will not hold us to account for
thoughtless words in our oaths, or those not intended
by the heart. And provides us ways to redeem if we
break earnest/sincere oaths, e.g. by charity,
abstinence/fasting. So, is there an alternative
translation and understanding of 38:44? Since DRB and
"dighthan
(~bundle/handful)" have multiple meanings, there
are several possibilities according to Classical
Arabic dictionaries, however,
upon closer examination of the story of Job in The
Quran, the most probable answer is actually contained
therein: And Job when he
called unto his Lord: "I have been afflicted with
harm, and you are the most merciful of the
merciful." [21:83] And recall Our
servant Job, when he called upon his Lord: "The
serpent/cobra*
has
afflicted/touched me with distress/difficulty and
suffering/punishment." [38:41] "shaytan" is not often translated as
serpent/cobra, but it is a well known Classical Arabic
meaning. In the entire Quran, there are 88 occurrences
of shaytan (loosely translated as
'opposing force' be it from oneself or elsewhere), but only two
occurrences in which shaytan is the one doing the
afflicting/touching (Root: Miim-Siin-Siin), and they
are 38:41 and 2:275. In both occurrences, the meaning
of shaytan strongly
points to serpent/cobra: Those who consume usury, they do not stand
but as one might stand whom the serpent/cobra
confounded* from its touch. That
is because they have said: "Trade is the same as
usury." While God has made trade lawful, and He has
forbidden usury. Whoever has received understanding
from His Lord and ceases, then he will be forgiven
for what was before this and his case will be with
God. But whoever returns, then they are the people
of the Fire, in it they will abide eternally.
[2:275] Further, 38:41 is the only occurrence
where shaytan is
the cause of either distress/difficulty (Nun-Sad-Ba)
and/or suffering/punishment (Ayn-Thal-Ba), implying
this is a unique usage. If we also couple this with
knowledge of the usual methodology applied by shaytan which is
false promises, deceit, temptation, delusion etc we
can see that 38:41 and 2:275 are different, i.e. shaytan is
applying a different methodology here, so the obvious
question is to ask why? The evidence points to because
in these two occurrences it means serpent/cobra. The
Quran also uses this meaning for shaytan in
37:64-65 ("It is a tree that grows in the
midst of Hell. Its
sheaths are like the heads of serpents/cobras"). However,
the strongest evidence is the perfect sense it makes
within the context of 38:41-44, and what Job was asked
to do, all of which are commonly recommended after a
snake bite: 1)
wash - i.e. the wound and/or oneself, which helps calm
oneself, lessen risk of infection and possibly reduce
any symptoms of fever. However, the last point may also
mean "do not fail in your oath/duty" after recovered, because Job was
likely travelling in the land when this happened to
him, probably spreading God's message, thus God is
effectively telling him to not be deterred from
continuing in this once recovered. Another interesting discovery is
that even in the story of Job in The
Bible, "satan" is referenced as inflicting a
physical harm, Chapter 2:7 " So Satan went forth from
the presence of the Lord, and smote Job with sore
boils from the sole of his foot even unto his crown."
After this part, his friends came to him, and implies
he was in pain/grief and in a recovery period and did
not speak (perhaps on purpose, i.e. "do not incline
towards falsehood"), after which he showed signs of
despair, like giving up, but eventually his condition
was restored, and became blessed again. Quite often,
The Quran corrects myths, the story of Job is perhaps
just another example. To conclude, the understanding presented here
for the story of Job fits the grammar, the Arabic,
Classical Arabic meanings, logic, cross-referencing and is a self-contained
explanation.
Some use "stricken", "covered",
"cast", "stamped", "imposed". This word form is in the
perfect passive, meaning the people referenced have
received the action expressed in the verb DRB.
Mustansir Mir in 'Verbal Idioms of The Quran' explains
this idiom as: the image is that of pitching a tent,
i.e. covering someone over with shame or disgrace; or
one splattering a wall with sticky mud, shame and
disgrace have been made to "stick" to a person.
Some use "smite". Translators are
divided when it comes to the issue of who is being
addressed by this command, even though the verse
itself clearly states who is being addressed at the
start, and that is the angels/controllers. In terms of
what is more likely, it should be noted that this
verse is likely addressed to the controllers than to
the believers, due to the Arabic construction (i.e. no
obvious break in addressee throughout and the first "fa" refers to the
controllers, thus the second "fa" most likely does also) and it is
in the imperative mood, meaning it is a command to be
followed. Thus, it is impractical and illogical
to command all believers when in battle to strike
above/over the necks and each/every finger from the
enemy. Especially since there is no need for doing
both! Therefore it more likely refers to the
controllers, as we shall now examine: *imperfect
tense, i.e. an action in the process of being done. The verse seems to imply then: God
will instil/cast terror into the heart/minds of those
who reject, and then nature's forces take their
course, resulting in affecting anything above the
neck, e.g. the throat/mind/thoughts/senses/breathing
and limbs/fingers of the rejecters, i.e. likely
causing impairment of their performance. Instilling a sense of
terror/fear in someone often results in their
mind/thoughts/senses being affected/paralysed, and
often results in trembling/shaking, especially
transferring to the hands, which would likely result
in weak fighting skills (swordsmanship or accuracy of
arrows) when in battle. It is also interesting to note
that when someone is fearful or anxious/nervous, their
throat often becomes dry and precipitates an
involuntary gulp reaction, i.e. a manifestation of
fear/anxiety. Physical manifestations of anxiety:
trouble concentrating, feeling like your mind's gone
blank, dizziness, shortness of breath, muscle tension,
fatigue, headaches (source).
Some use "hit", "smite",
"strike-off". Whilst this is the most common
translation, it should be noted that it is taken by
many as an idiom (e.g. Al-Jalalayn, Ibn Kathir),
meaning slay or kill. This seems a plausible
interpretation as in a
battle of swords and arrows no commander would order his
soldiers to aim for the necks alone. Similarly, "put
forth" could also be used. Interestingly, Mustansir
Mir's book mentions a similar expression "daraba
raqabatahu" and renders it as "to cut off somebody's
head / kill somebody". However, upon closer
examination, there is an alternative translation,
which seems the most likely based on the evidence: Notes for the above translation: As
a side note, it is interesting to note the difference in
phrasing of this verse compared to 8:12, giving further
weight to each of them having different meanings as
discussed. 18) Some use "smiting". In this example,
Abraham turned upon man-made idols, breaking them into
pieces, see 21:58. Since they were likely stone idols,
it is unlikely to mean "beat" as this would be an
impractical and very difficult way of
breaking/smashing idols, hence no translator used this
translation. For similar reasons, literally
striking WITH the right hand is also unsuitable,
unless understood properly. Even though nearly all
translators use "striking" it is important to note
that this doesn't really give the full picture of what
likely happened. If someone is right-handed, they can
easily lift one statue up and slam it on the ground or
against a rock or other statues, in order to break
them into pieces. This is the most likely scenario.
This interpretation is encapsulated in many sources. The
following Classical Arabic dictionaries (Lisan ul 3arab;
Al-Sah-haah fil lugha; Al Qamoos al-Muheet and Maqayees
allugha) have three renditions: M. Asad sees the phrase in question as
a metonym for "with all his strength". Tanwir al-Miqbas
min Tafsir Ibn Abbas (see altafsir.com) perhaps
recognised a problem with the literal translation, as
it states he used an axe! Mustansir Mir says it is
an idiom meaning "strike with full force". End
Notes for Part 1 It has been shown that there is not one clear
occurrence in The Quran in which "beat" is the meaning
of DRB. It seems that the default meaning of DRB is "to put/show forth (from one person/place to another person/place)". This core meaning fits into every occurrence, and thus could be seen as its basic/core meaning. Lane's Lexicon states that its meaning is "to put into commotion" which is similar. Of course, with various prepositions and subject matter, this basic meaning can be refined and better rendered depending on situation. It is interesting to note from (11) and (12)
that in similar contexts, The Quran switches from a
non-literal/physical use of DRB (e.g. indicate) to a
literal/physical use of DRB (e.g. strike / put forth /
point out), by stating what the physical objects are and
their interaction with the preposition "bi (with/by)". The only
verses in which the preposition "bi" is used with
DRB are 24:31, 57:13, 26:63, 2:60, 7:160, 2:73, 38:44,
37:93, and in all these occurrences the meaning is a
physical usage: wala yadribna bi-arjulihinna = and let them not strike/stamp/move with their feet [24:31] fa duriba baynahum bi soorin = then put forth between them with a wall [57:13] idrib bi AAasaka al bahra fa infalaqa = strike with your staff the sea, then it split/separated [26:63] idrib bi AAasaka al hajara fa infajarat min hu = strike with your staff the rock, then vented from it (twelve springs) [2:60] idrib bi AAasaka al hajara fa inbajasat min hu = strike with your staff the rock, then gushed from it (twelve springs) [7:160] idriboohu bi baAAdiha = cite /point out him with some of it (the murder) [2:73] Wa khuth bi yadika dighthan fa idribbihi wala tahnath = And take with your hand a handful, then collide /put forth with it, and do not incline towards falsehood [38:44] Fa ragha AAalayhim darban bi al yameeni = then he turned upon them striking with the right hand [37:93] There are two verses that may need clarification: 2:73 should be noted that a murder/crime is something specific and a real world tangible object and thus can be referred to as such. This might offer a possible reason as to why 2:73 was traditionally translated as it was, because if a murder/crime was not seen as a valid object/reference to DRB with, then the only other valid object would be the dead heifer. 38:44 the act of DRB upon what/whom is not specifically mentioned, thus several interpretations may have existed at the time. Once the true context and meaning is identified as shown previously, this aspect becomes self explanatory and what/whom is not needed. It is interesting to note that these are the only two verses with preposition "bi" that require careful study in order to reveal the most likely answer, thus for these two verses it is likely several interpretations may have existed. If physical/literal strike was one interpretation, then these verses could have been used to favour a physical/literal striking in 4:34. If DRB in 47:4 is taken as a physical strike as is commonly done, albeit as an idiom, then it would be the odd one out, as it does not use "bi". This gives further weight to the alternative understanding presented above.
Part 2 (immediate context before 4:34 is
wealth/inheritance, and after is kindness/giving) And do not
envy what God preferred/bestowed with it, some of
you over others. For the men is a portion of what
they gained, and for the women is a portion of what
they gained. And ask God from His favour, God is
knowledgeable over all things. [4:32] "idriboo"
has been left untranslated for now.
"supporters/maintainers"
(Arabic: qawwamoon,
root: Qaf-Waw-Miim) occurs in the same form in: "...bima (with what) faddalaAllahu (God preferred) baAAdahum (some of them) AAala (over) baAAdin* (another/others)..."
*masculine The keyword being "some". Thus,
whichever way it is translated it proves the obvious,
that not all men are preferred/bestowed equally,
and/or not all men are preferred/bestowed more than
women. Also, the term "preferred" is general,
unless made specific in context, and in this case may
refer to distribution of wealth, e.g. inheritance, as
mentioned by similar phrasing in 4:32. Since spending of wealth
is mentioned separately the preference likely refers
to the fact that men do not have the physical burden
of pregnancy hence are in a more favourable position
to work/provide by default, or simply that some men
are in a position to work whilst other men may not be. "dutiful/devout"
(Arabic: qanit, root: Qaf-Nun-Ta), is used in The Quran
to mean "dutiful/devout/obedient to God" in all verses
and in some verses is used to describe both man and
woman [2:116, 2:238, 3:17, 3:43, 4:34, 16:120,
30:26, 33:35, 33:35, 39:9, 66:5, 66:12]. There is one exception to this,
when in 33:31 it states "qanit to God and His messenger",
but this still implies it is in the context of God's
commands. For example, the root Tay-Waw-Ayn is
commonly used to mean "obey" in The Quran without the
dutiful/devout connotation, thus if obedience to the
husband was meant this word would have been more
appropriate. "...guardians/protectors to the
unseen/private with what God guarded/protected..."
- may be related to what came before, i.e. implying
part of being dutiful/obedient is to be this. When
used for humans in this way, the unseen (al ghayb) cannot
refer to THE unseen, i.e. the same unseen as God knows
THE unseen, thus must refer to what is
unseen/hidden/private from the people at large and/or
her husband, but not to the person addressed. Seems to
imply that whatever God ordered to be guarded (i.e.
via scripture) in private/unseen, this is what they
should guard. Also see 12:52 for an example of
betrayal in the ghayb/unseen/private. "...And as for those women you fear..." (Arabic: takhafoona, root: Kha-Waw-Fa) is in the imperfect form, meaning an action in the process of being done, NOT completed. This should be carefully compared to 4:128 in which this same word is in the perfect form (i.e. an action done/completed). Thus, in 4:34 the fear being felt by the husband is an ongoing thing, about something that may or may not take place. It is important to note that the context strongly implies that the husband does not wish to end the marriage, hence him "fearing" and the conflict-resolution measures that follow. "uprising"
(Arabic: nushuz, root: Nun-Shiin-Zay) is the
literal meaning and in context means rising up (above
relationship/marital limits). "...then/so
you shall advise them..." (Arabic: ithoo, root: Waw-Ayn-Za), and
does not indicate in a harsh manner, as can be seen by
its occurrences in The Quran, for example 31:13-19.
The "fa" meaning then/so means whatever follows can
only apply to the wife in whom the husband fears nushuz,
not others. It also implies that what follows is a
sequential order of recommendations and not
simultaneous. "...and abandon them in
the bed..." (Arabic: hjuroo, root:
ha-Jiim-Ra), means forsake, leave off, desert, abandon
[see 19:46, 73:10, 74:5]. "so/then if they obeyed you..." (Arabic:
ataAAna, root:
Tay-Waw-Ayn) is in the perfect form, i.e. an action
done/completed. "And if YOU feared disunion/breach/rift between them..." (Arabic: shiqaqa, root: Shin-Qaf-Qaf), and the "feared" before it is in the perfect form, i.e. an action done/completed. The "you" is in the plural form and can only refer to the community/court/authority/etc. "...then appoint a judge..." (Arabic: ibAAatho hakaman, roots: Ba-Ayn-Thal, Ha-Kaf-Miim), literally means to put in motion or send/appoint a judge/arbiter. The Arabic confirms that the plural "you" can ONLY refer to someone/something in a position to put this in motion, so it cannot mean either side's family for example. Also, appointing an arbiter from each side is not a simple task as it would require representations from husband and wife or each side of the family, and suggests the process has become formalised, i.e. judicial. This clearly confirms the court/authority is involved at this stage. "reconcile" (Arabic: islahan, root: Sad-Lam-Ha), literally means to make right, and has an implication that a wrong or something negative exists to make right.
They ask you
for divine instruction concerning women. Say, "God
instructs you regarding them, as has been recited
for you in the book about the women orphans who you
want to marry without giving them what has been
ordained/written for them, as well as the powerless
children, and stand for orphans with equity.
Whatever good you do, God has full knowledge of it.
[4:127] Analysis of 4:128 and context "And if a woman feared..." (Arabic: khafat, root: Kha-Waw-Fa) is in the perfect form, meaning an action done or completed. In contrast to 4:34, it is not an ongoing fear, it is perfect tense, i.e. the action of fearing happened by the subject. In other words, what follows is what to do if "nushuz or iAAradan" is feared to have taken place or is feared to be happening. This is a crucial distinction. Interestingly, even though it is in the past tense, the word "feared" is still used, and not "found" or "committed" for example, meaning it still does not refer to something obvious/blatant in the wife's presence, and there is an element of relativity/subjectivity to it. This is an important point to reflect upon. "...uprising or
turning away..." (Arabic: iAAradan,
root: Ayn-Ra-Dad) literally means "turning away" and
is stated separately from "uprising / nushuz". "...then there is no blame upon them that
they reconcile between themselves a reconciliation;
and the reconciliation is better..." "miserliness/selfishness"
(Arabic: al shshuhha, root: Shiin-Ha-Ha)
literally means non-giving / stingy, and is
understandable in the context of reconciliation,
compromise, possible compensation etc. It also links
with 4:127. "conscientious/forethoughtful" (Arabic: tattaqoo, root: Waw-Qaf-Ya) literally means guarding or guarding oneself by means of something, i.e. by being forethoughtful/conscientious/mindful/preserving of one's duty, guards oneself from any possible punishment from God. "...so do not deviate
all the deviation..." (Arabic: fala tameeloo kulla al mayli, root:
Miim-Ya-Lam), see 4:27 for similar occurrence (Arabic:
tameeloo maylan AAatheeman). "... as one hanging..."
(Arabic: ka al
muAAallaqati, root: Ayn-Lam-Qaf) literally means
like/as the suspended/hanging/stuck. "And if they separate..."
(Arabic: yatafarraqa, root: Fa-Ra-Qaf) is in
the dual form.
The sequence for 4:34-35 is as
follows: fear uprising/disloyalty --> advise them
--> abandon them in bed --> idriboo
them -->
authority feared breach/rift thus appoint arbiters
--> reconcile or separate/end To understand the sequence of events, we must fully understand the divorce procedure according to The Quran:
As
a side note, the last point is also mentioned in
traditional Islamic law and sources, see M.Asad's note
on 2:229. This
system would also protect the male if he were to marry
a female who only did so for his money or the marital
gift then she wished to end the marriage later,
because since the contract-breaking party compensates
the other partner, she would have to do so
accordingly. Similarly, this would protect the female
if she were to marry a male who only did so for
lustful reasons then wished to end the marriage later,
as he would then have to compensate her. *Also possibly
provides a time limit due to a practice of the time in
which husbands did not have sex with their wives but
also did not divorce them, see 58:1-4, 33:4; i.e.
leaving them in a state between marriage and divorce.
Similar to what is implied by 4:129. **And the same goes
for the lesser situation of 'cooling-off' period.
Obviously, the wife would not be removed from the home
for the lesser serious 'cooling-off' period then brought
back just for the post-divorce interim period. ***Inference from
2:226 is that resumption of sexual relations is equated
to reconciliation, thus no initiation of divorce. Hence,
same proviso for post-divorce interim period, i.e. sex =
reconciliation. From
the
plural
usage in the following verses it can be seen that the
court/authority becomes involved post-divorce/talaq: Thus,
from 4:35, a question arises: in this case has the
authority/court become involved before or after divorce/talaq? The
traditional/common understanding is that divorce/talaq has not
taken place, and the dispute can be resolved or the
marriage terminated by the arbiters themselves, in
conjunction with the court/authority. This information
is not explicitly mentioned in The Quran, but it seems
the implied and logical sequence of events. What is not
explicitly mentioned however is that whilst it is clear
the authority has become involved by 4:35 and is
appointing arbiters, is how and why has the authority got involved?
How
does the authority know the extent of disagreement
between the couple? How did they find out there was a
problem in the first place? Who told them? To answer these
questions, we will now analyse this seemingly
unaddressed problem: It has been argued
that idriboohunna
in 4:34 means "separate (from) them" ('Quran: a Reformist
Translation') or "go away from
them" ('The Sublime Quran' by Laleh Bakhtiar),
which interestingly has some support in the
traditional commentaries and fits better than
"strike/beat". However, I feel this translation is possible only as
long as it does not imply divorce/talaq, as The
Quran always uses the word talaq to
mean divorce AND since the contract-breaking party
compensates the other, it would be unfair for the
husband to initiate divorce when he has done
nothing wrong in this case. There are other
problems with this understanding: Previous context is sexual relations
between a married couple: In this situation the
husband swears to be away sexually from the wife,
up to a period of 4 months, after which, he must
return to normal marital relations or divorce. In
this example, swearing away is not some sort of
routine thing, as it clearly implies the sequence
can end in the husband divorcing his wife. And of
course, we can reasonably assume if a couple are
happy with each other sexual relations would be
the norm. A maximum of 4 months is likely given as
it protects the affected spouse from being in this
unfavourable position for a long time with no
resolution, e.g. see 58:1-4, 33:4, and similar to what is
implied in 4:129. Another example from The
Quran in which events are mentioned prior to a divorce
can be found in 66:1-5. In this example, the wives of
the prophet disclosed a private matter, then it goes
on to say they should ask God for forgiveness, but if
they band together against the prophet, then this
situation may lead to divorce. Interestingly, wives
banding together could be considered a form of
uprising/nushuz,
but the options given here are only: repent/amend or
divorce. Again, no mention or
implication of beating/striking. An interesting example
also appears in 58:1-4 in which a woman argues with
the prophet complaining about her husband, and how the
husband has estranged/alienated her by claiming her to
be as his mother's back, which was a practice of the
time, making the wife unlawful for himself but also
not technically divorcing her allowing her to remarry,
i.e. leaving her stuck/suspended. Also, however the
court/authority came to find out about the couple in
4:34-35, how did the court/authority come to find
out about the couple in 58:1-4 in the exact same
situation of breach/rift, i.e. no resolution? She
cited the husband to the authority. If the
traditional position somehow implies the couple used
a different method in 4:34 to make the authority
aware of the situation, then they have to explain
why the difference between the two examples, without
causing a logical and practical inconsistency. For
example, in "K. al nasikh wa-l-mansukh" by Abu Ubaid
al-Qasim b. Sallam (d.
224AH/839), one of the earliest works in its field,
it comments on the tafsir/interpretation of 4:35 and
says "the story establishes the principle that the
spouses may withdraw their invitation to the
authorities to act". Thus, it is clear from the
traditional commentary the spouse would inform the
court/authority of the problem, before they
intervened. This provides a perfect
link with DaRaBa and all points to one answer: in a situation
of no reconciliation and the partner in the wrong
will not initiate divorce/release, the step prior
to the authority intervening is for one partner to
cite/indicate the other (to the authority). Interestingly,
it
is often noted that for the husband, iAAradan/alienation
by
the wife is not mentioned in 4:34, yet it is
mentioned in 4:128 when done by the husband, but if
we imagine that the husband is trying to
advise/counsel his wife and it does not work, then
abandons her in bed, making her reflect further, and
this does not work, then this does imply an element
of alienation by the wife to her husband, i.e. she
is not listening to him, she is unresponsive, not compromising, they are
growing apart. This would make the two situations
much more alike in comparison. Since shiqaqa means
breach/rift without talaq/divorce in 4:35, then
arbitration should be called for in 4:128-129, as
this is a clear example of breach/rift IF the
situation continues as is, but arbitration is not
automatically called for: why? This identifies why
The Quran states in 4:128 "...then there is no blame
upon them that they reconcile between themselves a
reconciliation, and the reconciliation is better",
i.e. better than an irreconcilable breach/rift
between them. As it implies at this point, others
would be involved or at least can get involved if
requested, but there is no blame upon them that they
attempt to reconcile between themselves first. For sake
of clarity, let's then re-arrange the steps to show
the sequence for 4:128 if the husband didn't do the
right thing and left her hanging/stuck/suspended
(i.e. no resolution): 4:128 A perfect
match with 4:34! In both
4:34 and 4:128, the spouses try to reconcile first,
and if it does not work one spouse cites the
other/situation to the authority who can then get
involved. Thus, the sequence of events in 4:34 and
4:128 are identical. All the information reinforces
and compliments each other. Interestingly, there may
be no other explanation that is possible that could
provide such equality and coherence, i.e. idriboo MUST
mean "cite/indicate, point out, declare, put/show
forth" otherwise it will create inconsistencies, and
any inconsistencies would have to be explained.
It
advises to use discernment, clarify, investigate
information before acting upon it [see 4:94, 17:36,
49:6] but there is no mention of doing this in 4:34
before allegedly beating/striking one's wife, which
would be highly unusual. Even during open war, believers are ordered
to be compassionate, offer protection if requested,
not transgress limits, and this is with people who
were potentially trying to kill them [see 2:190,
9:6, 16:126, 42:41-42] so to even suggest having
more compassion in this case than with one's own
wife would be unusual. 4:34 implies husband wants to reconcile,
proven by him undertaking a series of
conflict-resolution steps and "if you fear", thus it
is unlikely he would do anything that would harm his
chances of achieving this goal, i.e. to beat his wife. 2:229 addresses the community and shows there
is potentially blame if something is taken away from
the wife in terms of dower, unless they BOTH agree.
This and other places in The Quran tell us it is a sin
do so, but if we assume beating is allowed then how is
the community meant to be satisfied the wife did
indeed agree to give up some of her dower of her own
freewill? Quite simply, they cant. Thus, it is
unlikely The Quran would recommend a course of action
which makes its other principles hard or perhaps
impossible to confirm or follow. It is therefore
highly unlikely beating would be allowed. 3:134 The ones who spend in prosperity and
adversity, and who repress anger, and who pardon
the people; God loves the good doers. Post divorce during interim period 65:6 "...and do not
harm/afflict them to straiten/distress/hardness on
them..." Further,
if
4:34 allows wife beating then this means when The
Quran says do not straiten them, or reconcile with
them to cause harm etc, this implies to do such a
thing would be to commit a wrongdoing thus would give
the wife a legitimate cause for divorce or
compensation, i.e. The Quran recommends a course of
action which provides women with a valid reason for
divorce, giving a logical and conceptual
inconsistency. To deny this would require some
artificial demarcation to be made-up of what injustice
or unfair treatment is and why the wife cannot seek
requital. Interestingly, in the alleged sayings of
prophet Muhammad (i.e. Traditional Ahadith) he is
said to react exactly in this way and gives permission
for the wife to retaliate in the same manner upon
hearing a husband struck his wife [possibly due to his
understanding of 16:126, 22:60]. Of course, the
traditional accounts dismiss his reaction by saying he
was wrong in this and 4:34 was revealed showing that a
husband could apparently beat his wife. Suspect
stories like these are often found in Traditional Ahadith when
unusual (i.e. non-Quranic) beliefs/practices are put
forward, e.g. kissing of the black stone is extremely
unusual for a strictly monotheistic anti-idolatry
faith such as islam but
to explain this practice away the narrator says he
wouldn't have done it himself if he never saw the
prophet do it, or when Abu Huraira tells Umar of the
testimony of faith in which he includes Muhammad's
name Umar knocks him to the floor for uttering such a
thing but then Abu Huraira
produces sandals from the prophet
implying this is his evidence for the legitimacy of
what he is saying. There are many similarly dubious
reported sayings in the Traditional Hadith books. Is it a coincidence that the
other more obvious examples in The Quran of a person
DRB to another person (2:73 and 38:44) have been
severely mistranslated and the distortion just so
happens to favour the meaning of striking/beating? In
a misogynist environment, which The Quran was revealed
in, it is possible that not so long after initial
revelation the interpretation of these verses became
twisted in favour of returning such justification for
men to oppress women. The evidence of the do not beat
one's wife mixed within the traditional narrations/hadith shows
possibly that they were not able to eliminate the
evidence against it completely. If The Quran is as it claims: complete
[6:114-115, 18:10], clear [2:99, 6:126, 7:52, 11:1,
44:2], fully detailed [12:111, 16:89], contains all
necessary examples [17:12, 18:54] etc then if DRB
means beat/strike in 4:34, then it isn't clarified at
all, i.e. with what? where? severity? limits?
Neglecting to mention these things would be highly
unusual for The Quran. Is there any other example of a
physical punishment like this which is not clarified?
Is there any other example of a physical punishment
that is issued by individuals without evidence rather
than through a court/authority with evidence? Another argument is 41:53 etc as it says we
can verify the truth of what The Quran says in the
world around us, but what evidence is there of
effective conflict resolution in marriage by beating
until agreement or symbolically striking with a small
stick? (as is one interpretation amongst Traditional
commentators, first put forward by Shafi about 200
hundred years after prophet Muhammad's death) Further, according to
the sequence in 4:34, the steps imply an
escalation, thus if DRB is symbolic striking
(as some suggest) this makes little sense as
to how this would resolve the situation, and
why it is an escalation. Even if this method could be shown to work,
at most, it could only work in a minority of cases. O you who believe, it is not
lawful/allowed for you to inherit the women
forcibly/unwillingly, and nor that you
hinder/prevent/constrain/straiten them to take
away some of what you gave them unless they
commit*
a clear lewdness. And live/consort with them in
kindness, so if you dislike them, then perhaps you
may dislike something and God makes in it much
good. [4:19] 4:20 proves that if a
husband wishes to replace one wife with another,
they cannot take away anything of the dower. This
reinforces and proves 4:19 refers to making life
difficult for the wife, so the husband can take back
a part of what he has given her of the dower and the
only way that can be done is if the couple agree
that they may not uphold God's limits [2:229] or the
wife releases herself [60:10]. So this verse refers
to the husband treating his wife badly in some way
so that she agrees to do either of these, which of
course would be unjust. This causes a severe problem
for the possibility that in 4:34 it means wife
beating, as this would be a clear contradiction in
The Quran. To further reinforce this understanding,
the verse clearly states itself that it is about a
husband being with a wife he may dislike, but there
may be good that he does not realise. The next verse
then discusses divorce which the next logical step
for a husband who dislikes his wife. Logically, if a partner is not allowed
to straiten/constrain his wife to take something
away from what he gave her (unless she commits
clear lewdness), then if he fears or suspects
lewdness, he must do less, NOT more, e.g. beat.
To do so would be a contradiction. And if
you have divorced the women, and they have reached
their required interim period, then either you
remain together with fairness/kindness*, or part
ways with
fairness/kindness. And do not retain them
harmfully that you transgress; whoever does so is
doing wickedness to his soul; and do not take God's revelations
lightly. And remember God's blessings towards you,
and what was sent down to you of the scripture and
the wisdom, He warns you with it. And be aware of
God and know that God is Knowledgeable in all
things. [2:231] This shows one cannot reconcile with them to
harm them, but somehow are we meant to believe the
traditional interpretation that prior to divorce, it
is allowed to harm them by beating, as in 4:34? In
which case, The Quran would be saying a wife who has
been officially divorced then the couple gets back
together, should be treated better than a wife not
divorced! Where is the logic/consistency in this?
There is none, and would effectively promote women to
choose divorce over marriage, and thus such an
understanding of 4:34 is significantly problematic.
Such an interpretation could be tantamount to ordering
munkar (bad)
and deterring from maruf
(good), which is the definition of a munafiq (hypocrite)
according to 9:67. And when
you (plural)
divorced the women, then they reached their
term/time, then do not
prevent/hinder/constrain/straiten them (F) that they
marry their partners/mates, if they
mutually agreed/accepted between them with the
kindness/fairness... [2:232] If it is only the husband who fears
disloyalty/uprising/infidelity, or even if he is sure
of it, and if there are no witnesses/evidence, then he
must follow the procedure in 24:6-9 and cannot take it
upon himself to administer any punishment. Since a
"fear/suspicion", as in 4:34, is certainly less than
being sure, it also cannot warrant any punishment.
Anything to the contrary would be an internal
inconsistency in The Quran's ruling. We will now review the evidence FOR wife beating: 1) Word
meaning and preposition usage: the word in
question is "idriboo"
(Arabic root: Dad-Ra-Ba) and specific meanings are
indicated by way of prepositions. Thus, it is often
claimed that DRB + object (e.g. person) only means one
thing and that is strike/hit/beat. Is this really true? Based on part 1, as
discussed previously, let us look to The Quran:
Thus, this claim is only based on a wrong or
poor interpretation of some verses of The Quran, most
notably 2:73, 8:12, 8:50, 38:44, 47:4, and 47:27. 2)
Early understandings: early interpretations/tafsirs, which
were written by males, say it means
"beat/strike/scourge", e.g. see altafsir.com,
qtafsir.com All base their understanding on traditional
narrations/ahadith.
It is very
important to note that NO commentator who puts
forward the meaning of beat/strike uses The Quran
itself as evidence for their view. With regard to the origin of 4:34, various
well-known commentators such as Tabari, Ibn Kathir,
Razi, Baidawi, Qurtubi have different variations
surrounding the context in which it was revealed, e.g.
because of whom, or which incident led to it. Tabari
and Razi reference a traditional narration/hadith for their
reason, but its chain of transmission does not go back
to prophet Muhammad or even a companion of his (source). Interestingly, nearly all
commentators mention prophet Muhammad initially ruled
in favour of the wife in cases of wife beating, but
was apparently over ruled when 4:34 was revealed, to
which he allegedly said "I wanted one thing, but God
wanted another". Qurtubi even states this was the
reason 20:114 was revealed, yet other sources cite
chapter 20 to be earlier revelation than chapter 4. Ibn Abbas (alleged companion of prophet Muhammad) gave his view on the severity of hitting, and said it is as with a small stick, e.g. siwak. The famous jurist, Al Shafi (about 200 hundred years after prophet Muhammad's death), interpreted it as a "miswak" which is a small stick used for cleaning the teeth. Another famous commentator, Razi, quotes another early jurist who said it can be a coiled scarf (mindil malfuf). It is hard to understand how striking in such a symbolic manner would help bring about resolution however. The very fact that early commentators showed variation in meaning strongly suggests there was no coherent view. al-Ghazali, a famous commentator, mentions suspecting a wife of something based on conjecture is sinful! And when referring to 4:34 he mentions wife beating (albeit not harshly or leaving a mark) but also mentions that the wife should be separated gradually, in increasing steps, and even cites an example in which the prophet apparently separated from his wife for a month. They key point is that even though Ghazali mentions the process of separating from the wife gradually with respect to 4:34, he somehow interjects wife beating even though this has nothing to do with separating gradually. Also, if the wife is suspected of doing something disloyal not in the husband's presence then leaving her alone for 30 days doesn't seem to make much sense. Also, a husband's duty of maintenance of the wife/family would still be present, thus abandoning them for such a period may not be practical.Interestingly, if we correlate this traditional interpretation with the implication in 4:34 being that anything other than or after advisement is implied to be seeking a way against them, and 2:226-227, that could indicate why, in theory, step 2 (abandoning them in bed) could be limited in time. Interestingly, they apply no such limit for idriboo them. Thus, according to this traditional position, step 2, the lesser harsh step is limited in time, yet the more harsh step, i.e. if it means beating/striking, is not limited in time. This would result in a logical and conceptual inconsistency in their interpretation of The Quran. Since there is no time limit implied for idriboo, this implies it cannot be a step needing a time limit but possibly considered a way against them, i.e. it is not an ongoing action but a one-off action. Thus, even if this interpretation of period of abandonment was adopted, DRB would fit more in line with "indicate/cite, point out, declare, put/show forth" them. It could also be argued that separating oneself from one's wife, except in the house, actually goes against some traditional ahadith. Unless Ghazali meant in the house only, but this would render his interpretation a little odd and impractical. (source: section 9, page 37) It should also be noted that these
commentators also give variations in understanding on
other aspects of this verse, i.e. there is no coherent
view. Also, not all early commentaries were reviewed
as there are many (at least several hundred*), thus only the
more popular ones were selected.
3)
Traditional Narrations (ahadith): The most commonly cited traditional
narration/hadith about
wife beating references the prophet Muhammad's alleged
speech during his farewell hajj: Qurtubi and Tabari both mention tying women
up in the home in relation to 4:34, even though this
is not mentioned in the verse. The only potential
correlation of restricting women in their homes could
be because of proven fahish/indecency mentioned in 4:15,
and again in prophet Muhammad's alleged speech in his
farewell hajj it
makes reference to such fahish. Ibn Kathir also makes
mention of a husband allowed to annoy his wife if she
commits a proven fahish,
which could be related. Thus, there seems to be
an element of overlap in interpretation, which can
result in some confusion as to which verses from The
Quran these traditional narrations refer to or what
they have been applied to. In fact, a strong case
could be made that there has been a misapplication of
these traditional narrations, and if corrected, would
perhaps resolve the many problems in this
interpretation. The traditional narrations/ahadith contain
a mix of narrations: some alleged sayings state that
prophet Muhammad disproved of beating one's wife in
any way whilst on other occasions he apparently
allowed it, some say beat but not on the face, some not severely, sometimes stating
husbands who do such a thing are not the best among
the believers, sometimes saying the best are those who
treat their women/family well, Aisha claims Muhammad
did not hit a woman but reports in another narration
he struck her and caused her pain etc. Some references are shown below for the traditional narrations (click this link to read in full): www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/abudawud/011.sat.html#011.2137
(do not strike her on the face) 4) Classical
Arabic Dictionaries: it is often claimed they
give the meaning of hit/strike/beat for same or
similar usage. This is only part of the story however. Firstly, it is important to note a
distinction, under the root entry: a common meaning of
DRB given in Classical Arabic dictionaries is to
strike with
an instrument (e.g. sword, whip, cane), if it
is used alone (i.e. with no
prepositions/where/what/how). This seems to be its
meaning by default in this construction.
Interestingly, this provides a possible reason as to
why some early jurists may have interpreted DRB in
4:34 to mean hit with a small stick, toothbrush stick,
scarf (i.e. they needed an instrument to DRB with in
this construction). In the entry for DRB, none
reference 4:34 of The Quran and therefore do not give
the meaning of beat/hit/strike in this case. In the first
Classical Arabic Dictionary: Kitab Al Ayn by Khaleel
Ibn Ahmad, no entries mean "to
hit/strike"; some mean, indirectly: to strike with a
sword: click
for reference. This could imply the meaning of
literally/physically striking with/without an
instrument was not a common meaning for the time, or
at least not the most common, and only later did it
become so, as recorded in later dictionaries. Conversely, WKZ (also used in The Quran),
signifies “to punch, to strike” with no instruments by
default, but can be
used with an instrument if specified. Ibn
Manzour in Lisaan al Arab lists what I think is an
important entry: "DRB: used for
any action except a few; he DRB in trade, he
DRB in the earth, he DRB in the way of God” etc. This
implies the word DRB had a very wide application in
usage. Similar to this is also stated in Kitab al Ayn. To beat is repeated
blows/hits/strikes, hence this meaning should be
seen more as an interpretation not an actual
meaning or true/literal translation. Lane's Lexicon states "daraba" on
its own means to strike once. It is possible this
is also one of the reasons some saw it as a
symbolic strike with a stick since by itself it
can mean this and it is only once. Similarly, the
later Arabic dictionary al-Munjid restricts its
usage to instruments, and also states it means to
strike once. ضرب عبد الله زيداً / Abdullah struck
Zaid However, due to
this word's meaning, in this context the default
meaning would be struck with sword in battle/war,
e.g. killed. It is not explained as beat/hit. The dictionaries
seem to suggest the meaning "strike/beat" does not
stand for "daraba" by itself. Every strike or
"darba" has a different word, depending on what
part to strike and using what. The verb "daraba"
by itself means to strike with a sword, cane or
whip; and this is from all arabic dictionaries.
That is most likely why they say in the beginning
of the entry: al darb: known (i.e. its meaning is
known, thus it is not explained). There is DaaRaBa
(form III): whip each other; a scorpion darabat
(form I)= sting; a wound= hurts; dariiba (passive
participle): whatever is struck with a sword. The
word "known" implies it is what's known to
linguists, thus, based on the evidence in the
entries: DaRaBa on its own means to strike with a
sword/stick as in a quarrel or in war. The
abbaside poet (al-Mutannabi) says:
Under other root entries, the use of some words are explained by the dictionary authors using DRB to mean hit/strike/slap however, for example: “he STT him with a stick” this is given the meaning “he DRB him with a stick” “he SML him with a stick” this is given the meaning “he DRB him with a stick” “he SQL him with a stick” this is given the meaning “he DRB him with a stick” “he LBJ him with a stick” this is given the meaning “he DRB him with a stick” “he LBJ his self to the earth” this is given the meaning “he DRB his self to the earth” “he SKK him” this is given the meaning “he DRB him” “he SKK him with a sword” this is given the meaning “he DRB him” “he LTG him with his hand” this is given the meaning “he DRB him” “he ZLG him with a stick” this is given the meaning “he DRB him with a stick” Interestingly, under the entry of nushuz it only cites the part of nushuz: when a woman rejects her husband. It continues: "he is also nashez as per verse 4:128 also, and if he stays away from her, beat/harmed her (darabaha)". This is interesting because if DRB is cited under nushuz, then if we apply this meaning to The Quran, it will cause a contradiction if "beat her" is chosen in 4:34, i.e. God suggests a solution to the husband to prevent a marriage ending, i.e. the steps in 4:34, but this step (e.g. DRB/beat) would give the wife a legitimate reason for ending the marriage according to 4:128 as this behaviour is nushuz. In other words, God's suggested solution to prevent a marriage ending gives the women a legitimate reason for ending the marriage. Of course, this is highly unlikely. This information can be found in both Lisaan al Arab and Al-Sihah fil lugha. All in all, it would seem that DRB is an expansive root, with the first form used to reflect a wide range of meanings. One of these meanings could very well be “to hit/strike another person” as demonstrated by their explanation of words from other roots, however with its wide variation in meaning, somewhat conflicting information, no specific reference to 4:34 and effectively zero comparable examples it is far from conclusive that this is its meaning in this verse. In such a situation, The Quran should be used as the criterion which clarifies usage and meaning. Classical Arabic Dictionaries (in chronological order) kitab al ayn - khalil ibn ahmad (~718-786) Kitab al Dajmharah (~838-933) Makayis al Lughah (~1004) Al Sihah (~1003) Lisan al arab (13th century) al qamus al muhit (14th century) Source: StudyQuran and baheth.info Part 4 Note: Before I
begin this summary, I would like to state that I did
not expect to discover what I did when I undertook
this study. In fact, the meaning of "put/show forth,
declare/cite/indicate" for 4:34 was a meaning I had
read, but did not seriously consider. I only did so
about halfway through my study, when the evidence
began to accumulate and by the end it had become
overwhelming, and I was forced to reject any and all
previous understandings that I may have had. I
simply could not ignore what The Quran was telling
me. For the purposes of full disclosure, it should
be noted that at one point I did consider
"strike/beat" as a possibility, but that was until I
did a complete re-analysis of the occurrences of DRB
in The Quran. No Classical Arabic
dictionary gives "beat" in an example without
specifying where/what/how/etc. They do not provide
one example in which DRB appears with no
where/what/how meaning anything other than "strike
(with sword/whip/cane, kill in battle)". None reference
4:34 at all. If DRB is taken to
mean "beat/hit/strike" in 4:34 it causes significant
problems logically and conceptually, and in a few
instances causes contradiction within The Quran.
This is also probably why no Quran commentator, past
or present, uses The Quran itself to justify this
view. The internal
example of 58:1-4 provides perfect explanation and
correlation for 4:128-129, and also 4:34-35. All
other evidence within The Quran reinforces this
finding. The understanding put forward in this work
is also the only understanding to provide a logical
and sequential link from 4:34 to 4:35. All examples of DRB
with a direct object and no prepositions mean
"put/show forth", providing internal consistency of
usage. And when used in the same way as 4:34, i.e.
applied to a person in 43:57 and 2:73 it means the
exact same thing. In 43:57 Jesus is the second
object of the verb DuRiBa, and in this verse it is
in the perfect passive form meaning the object
received the action expressed in the verb, i.e.
Jesus received DRB, i.e. Jesus was put/shown forth /
cited/indicated (as an example) by those disputing.
In 43:57 "mathala" could be considered an adverbial
accusative that names or modifies the action of the
verb. So the type of "darab" of the object "Jesus"
is that of an "example". As we can clearly see a
literal/physical striking of Jesus is nonsensical,
and if we remove this modification of the verb, this
shows when applied to a person as the object DRB on
its own means to cite/indicate or put/show forth. A perfect
match with 4:34 and 2:73. There is
inconsistency in early understandings regarding the
origin of the verse, its interpretation, and
significant overlap with other verses etc but it
could be argued they agree on the basic points. Not
all early commentaries have been reviewed, only the
more well known ones. The evidence
suggests that traditional narrations have been
incorrectly associated with 4:34, and are more
suited to 4:15-19. Clear evidence exists in the traditional narrations/ahadith AND Classical Arabic dictionaries showing that if "beat/hit" is chosen it would cause contradiction amongst these sources. In a sheer balance
of probabilities as to which view is correct, it is
clear The Quran says one thing, and non-Quranic
sources (traditional narrations, early commentators,
Arabic dictionaries) suggest another albeit with
variation/inconsistency. If "hit/beat/strike" is
chosen then the only possibility, without causing a
contradiction with The Quran, is if it is done with
absolutely no pain caused, i.e. symbolic. Anything
more would be a criminal act. This may explain why
some early commentators/jurists chose to interpret
it in a symbolic way. Of course, this is not the
meaning The Quran overwhelmingly points to, but it
is the only viable option left for the
traditional/common position.
Knowing
this, it could be said that The Quran used the
most profound and distinguishing of word choices
in 4:34 and surely God would not choose His Words
in a haphazard manner. If multiple options exist,
then a word meaning must be chosen that is
consistent with the spirit of The Quran and
certainly not one that contradicts its content
[see 39:18]. We must remember that a book is
sometimes only as good as its reader. Whatever
disposition a person has will determine HOW they
understand The Quran. Their moral convictions will
determine what they will get from it and how they will
interpret it, what they choose to apply. More
importantly, it will determine which definitions
of any given word they will gravitate to and seek to
uphold. In part, this is the beauty of The Quran: it
can bring out what is already within us: our true
selves. I would like to end with
reflecting on the concept inherent in the
traditional/common understanding of 4:34, and that
is to punish another based on a fear/suspicion
because one is in a position of power to do so. An
act inherently unjust to the ordinary person, but
when it comes to practices in the name of a
religion, people will commit the most heinous of
acts, no matter how irrational. But how wicked is
such an act? Let us all turn to The Quran for an
answer. And God judges
with the truth, while those they call on besides Him
do not judge with anything. Certainly, God is the
Hearer, the Seer. Would God
sanction believers to act in a manner that in any
way could be likened to the greatest of all tyrants? I call upon all my dear
brothers and sisters in faith to reflect upon this
information and the guidance given to us in The
Quran, for if one does not read and try to apply a
guide, then one cannot expect to be guided. If one
does not utilise light to illuminate their
surroundings then they will not be able to see. If
one does not open themselves up to receive, then
they will remain closed. It is that simple. The time
has come to free ourselves from the chains and
shackles that we have built for ourselves like the
past communities before us who corrupted God's Words
with man's words, holding us back from walking the
path God intended for us: to promote peace, freedom,
betterment and justice for all. Surely, such a
community would be worthy of God's blessings. No
community can succeed if they oppress half of their
number, no community can succeed if they shackle
half their potential, and no community can succeed
if they turn away from God's message. This is God's
promise, and He will surely fulfil His part, the
time has come to fulfil ours. And
We
have cited in this Quran every
example for
the people. But man was always most argumentative. [18:54] Shall I seek other than God
as a judge when He has sent down to you the book fully
clarified? Those whom We have given the book know it
is sent down from your Lord with truth; so do not be
of those who have doubt. And the
word of your Lord is completed with truth and
justice, there is no changing His words. He is the
Hearer, the Knower. And if you obey the majority of those on
Earth they will lead you away from God's path; that
is because they follow conjecture, and they
themselves do nothing but guess. [6:114-115] God puts forth
the example of a man who has for his masters several
partners that dispute with each other, and a man
depending wholly upon one man. Are they the same?
Praise be to God; most of them do not know. Surely,
you will die, and
they will die. Then, on the Day of Resurrection, you will
quarrel at your Lord. Who then is more wicked than
one who lies about God, and denies the truth when
it comes to him? Is there not in Hell an abode for
those who deny the truth? [39:29-32] God was not to change the condition of a
people until they change what is in themselves...
[13:11]
The men are
supporters/maintainers of the women with what God
bestowed on some of them over others and with what they
spent of their money, so the righteous women are dutiful;
guardians to the unseen with what God guarded. And
as for those women you fear their disloyalty, then: (first) you
shall advise them, and (second) abandon them in the bed,
and (lastly)
cite them. So if they obeyed you,
then seek not against them a way; Truly, God is
High,
Great. [4:34]
Primary References:
This work would not
have been possible without the many people who have
contributed to this topic (both for and against),
and without the resources now available to anyone
wishing to study The Quran in detail. For these
stepping stones, I am indebted and truly thankful.
If my work has helped strengthen the foothold of
future generations who seek to walk the path, then
all praise is due to God. IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: This work reflects my personal understanding, as of February 10th, 2010. Seeking knowledge is a continual process and I will try to improve my understanding of the signs within 'the reading' (al quran) and out with it, unless The God wills otherwise. All information is correct to the best of my knowledge only and thus should not be taken as a fact. One should always seek knowledge and verify for themselves when possible: 17:36, 20:114, 35:28, 49:6, 58:11. If God willed, the outcome of this work will be beneficial. All comments are welcome, especially
corrections, please use the feedback form. And do not follow what you have no
knowledge of; surely the hearing, the sight and the
heart, all of these, shall be questioned about that. [17:36]
|
© COPYRIGHT 2010 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. WWW.QURAN434.COM
|