What's new

A few beatings won’t kill you’: judge rejects divorce request of woman abused by husband in Afghanistan

Ball Blazer

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 13, 2025
Runs
5,818
The shocking level of physical violence against women permitted under the Taliban’s new laws has been revealed this week by the case of a woman in northern Afghanistan, who said she was beaten with a cable wire by her husband and told by a judge: “You want a divorce just because of that? … A little anger and a few beatings won’t kill you.”

Farzana* said her husband was quick-tempered and often resorted to beating her. He regularly humiliated her and called her “disabled”, she said, because her right leg was slightly shorter than the left. She had tolerated the abuse for the sake of their children, but one evening, she said, his violence went too far.


“One day I was very sick and had no energy to cook dinner. When he came home from work, he said: ‘Now you don’t even do the housework?’ I told him I was sick, but he beat me with a mobile phone charger cable. The marks on my back and arms remained for several days, but I didn’t think of taking photos that might one day help me in court.”

After the attack, she decided to seek an end to the violence by filing for divorce, but when her case reached a Taliban court recently, Farzana said the judge not only rejected her application but belittled her claims of abuse.

“When I said he beats me and constantly humiliates and insults me, and that I want a divorce, the judge asked: ‘You want a divorce just because of that? Don’t you have another reason?’” When Farzana went on to describe the attack she had recently suffered, she said the judge asked whether she had proof of the abuse.

“When I said no, he told me: ‘You were young and enjoyed your husband. Now that he is getting older you are making excuses to divorce him so you can marry someone else. Go back, you have a nice husband, live with him. A little anger and a few beatings won’t kill you. Islam allows a man to beat his wife if she disobeys him, to discipline her. Go, and don’t come again asking for divorce over such things.’”

Shaharzad Akbar, the head of the human rights organisation Rawadari, said such cases were now commonplace in Afghanistan. Women either had to live with domestic violence or seek justice from the Taliban courts, she said, “where they are often lectured and sent back to the same abusive houses or worse, punished for ‘disobeying’ husbands”.

Women’s rights activists, UN experts and lawyers have long argued that the conditions being imposed on Afghan women, including banning them from schools, most jobs and speaking in public, amounts to gender apartheid.

But a new criminal code given to courts last year – and publicised in January – has gone further by permitting violence against women and preventing them from seeking justice. According to the code, men are allowed to beat their wives as long as they do not use “obscene force”, defined as causing fractures, wounds or visible bruises, which the wife must prove in court. For this crime a man may be sentenced to only 15 days of imprisonment. Akbar said the code gave husbands a “licence for domestic violence and punishments, short of breaking bone.

Speaking about the code to the UN this week, Malala Yousafzai, a Nobel laureate, said: “This is not culture. It is not religion. It is a system of segregation and domination. We must call the regime in Afghanistan by its true name: gender apartheid.”

After the court verdict, Farzana said she was forced to return to her husband, who had now become more violent than before. “He tells me: ‘Either endure it or die.’ He doesn’t even allow me to go to my father’s house.” The judge also told Farzana she could not object to her husband taking a second wife.

UN Women special representative in Afghanistan, Susan Ferguson, said: “If we allow Afghan women and girls to be silenced – and punished purely because they are women – we send a message that the rights of women and girls everywhere are disposable, and that is an immensely dangerous precedent.”

 
We as a nation give red carpet welcome to Zakir Naik who says the same.


Pakistan and Iran are two Islamic nations with a rich history of women's rights and many strong women historicaly. We are hope to all Islamic nations when it comes to women's rights and we must set a strogn example.
 
Don't blame Taliban judge. He is following his religious book Quran, which according to some verses, allows for beating of one's wife to discipline her.

A typical islamophobic statement.

No surprise here as Afghanistan is extremely radical under Taliban. Another country that was supported by US to fight its wars and since been just a mess and keeps sliding down further
 
A typical islamophobic statement.

No surprise here as Afghanistan is extremely radical under Taliban. Another country that was supported by US to fight its wars and since been just a mess and keeps sliding down further

I merely echoing the views of Zakir Naik, who is a wildly popular islamic scholar on PP.

How does that make me islamophobic ?
 
I don't care what Zakir naik says, you said its in the Quran so I want the verse from the Quran if you can't provide it then shut your mouth
 
I don't care what Zakir naik says, you said its in the Quran so I want the verse from the Quran if you can't provide it then shut your mouth

This is the verse, dummy -

ٱلرِّجَالُ قَوَّٰمُونَ عَلَى ٱلنِّسَآءِ بِمَا فَضَّلَ ٱللَّهُ بَعْضَهُمْ عَلَىٰ بَعْضٍۢ وَبِمَآ أَنفَقُوا۟ مِنْ أَمْوَٰلِهِمْ ۚ فَٱلصَّـٰلِحَـٰتُ قَـٰنِتَـٰتٌ حَـٰفِظَـٰتٌۭ لِّلْغَيْبِ بِمَا حَفِظَ ٱللَّهُ ۚ وَٱلَّـٰتِى تَخَافُونَ نُشُوزَهُنَّ فَعِظُوهُنَّ وَٱهْجُرُوهُنَّ فِى ٱلْمَضَاجِعِ وَٱضْرِبُوهُنَّ ۖ فَإِنْ أَطَعْنَكُمْ فَلَا تَبْغُوا۟ عَلَيْهِنَّ سَبِيلًا ۗ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ كَانَ عَلِيًّۭا كَبِيرًۭا
 

Abdullah Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur'an (1934):

Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) strike them; but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).

WTH is maintainers of women? Are women cattle or some systems to be maintained? And you strike them for what? Can women strike their husbands?
 
This is the verse, dummy -

ٱلرِّجَالُ قَوَّٰمُونَ عَلَى ٱلنِّسَآءِ بِمَا فَضَّلَ ٱللَّهُ بَعْضَهُمْ عَلَىٰ بَعْضٍۢ وَبِمَآ أَنفَقُوا۟ مِنْ أَمْوَٰلِهِمْ ۚ فَٱلصَّـٰلِحَـٰتُ قَـٰنِتَـٰتٌ حَـٰفِظَـٰتٌۭ لِّلْغَيْبِ بِمَا حَفِظَ ٱللَّهُ ۚ وَٱلَّـٰتِى تَخَافُونَ نُشُوزَهُنَّ فَعِظُوهُنَّ وَٱهْجُرُوهُنَّ فِى ٱلْمَضَاجِعِ وَٱضْرِبُوهُنَّ ۖ فَإِنْ أَطَعْنَكُمْ فَلَا تَبْغُوا۟ عَلَيْهِنَّ سَبِيلًا ۗ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ كَانَ عَلِيًّۭا كَبِيرًۭا
what surah and verse number is it?

you can't give me Arabic text and says it from Quran just because its Arabic
 
WTH is maintainers of women? Are women cattle or some systems to be maintained? And you strike them for what? Can women strike their husbands?

Maintainers is a literal translation. From language to language that does not work. Protectors, watchers, responsible party, etc is the meaning here - you also have to view it in context of the times this verse was sent in. Arabia was a tribal society without any central governing authority or law enforcement. Women were on their own unless they were married or belonged to a family.

ٱلرِّجَالُ قَوَّٰمُونَ عَلَى ٱلنِّسَآءِ بِمَا فَضَّلَ ٱللَّهُ بَعْضَهُمْ عَلَىٰ بَعْضٍۢ وَبِمَآ أَنفَقُوا۟ مِنْ أَمْوَٰلِهِمْ ۚ فَٱلصَّـٰلِحَـٰتُ قَـٰنِتَـٰتٌ حَـٰفِظَـٰتٌۭ لِّلْغَيْبِ بِمَا حَفِظَ ٱللَّهُ ۚ وَٱلَّـٰتِى تَخَافُونَ نُشُوزَهُنَّ فَعِظُوهُنَّ وَٱهْجُرُوهُنَّ فِى ٱلْمَضَاجِعِ وَٱضْرِبُوهُنَّ ۖ فَإِنْ أَطَعْنَكُمْ فَلَا تَبْغُوا۟ عَلَيْهِنَّ سَبِيلًا ۗ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ كَانَ عَلِيًّۭا كَبِيرًۭا

I have had serious questions about this this too. It is hotly debated, no question about it. It boils down to one key word which is "darab" or "zarab, as pronounced in urdu. In arabic it has more than a singular meaning and does not just mean to "hit" someone.

It also has the following meaning: To travel to get out: 3:156; 4:101; 38:44; 73:20; 1:273To strike: 2:60; 7:160; 8:12; 20:77; 24:31; 26:63; 37:93; 47:04To beat: 8:50; 47:27To set up: 43:58; 57:13To give (examples): 14:24-45; 16:75,76,112; 18:32,45; 24:35; 30:2858; 36:78; 39:27,29;43:17; 59:21; 66:10-117To take away, to ignore: 43:5To condemn: 2:61To seal, to draw over: 18:11To cover: 24:31To explain: 13:17

Anyhow, in Islam, we follow the Quran and then Sunnah and Hadith. The Quran is the main guidance and Sunnah is how we see Muhammad (PBUH) interpret that guidance and use him as a role model. There is absolutely no record of him physically hitting his wife/wives. I believe same goes for the close companions.

Now those who want to twist the meanings and interpretations, can find whatever means to do what they want to do.

Hope this helps.
 

Abdullah Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur'an (1934):



WTH is maintainers of women? Are women cattle or some systems to be maintained? And you strike them for what? Can women strike their husbands?

wiki is your source for islam your such a clown 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤣


ٱلرِّجَالُ قَوَّٰمُونَ عَلَى ٱلنِّسَآءِ بِمَا فَضَّلَ ٱللَّهُ بَعْضَهُمْ عَلَىٰ بَعْضٍۢ وَبِمَآ أَنفَقُوا۟ مِنْ أَمْوَٰلِهِمْ ۚ فَٱلصَّـٰلِحَـٰتُ قَـٰنِتَـٰتٌ حَـٰفِظَـٰتٌۭ لِّلْغَيْبِ بِمَا حَفِظَ ٱللَّهُ ۚ وَٱلَّـٰتِى تَخَافُونَ نُشُوزَهُنَّ فَعِظُوهُنَّ وَٱهْجُرُوهُنَّ فِى ٱلْمَضَاجِعِ وَٱضْرِبُوهُنَّ ۖ فَإِنْ أَطَعْنَكُمْ فَلَا تَبْغُوا۟ عَلَيْهِنَّ سَبِيلًا ۗ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ كَانَ عَلِيًّۭا كَبِيرًۭا ٣٤

Men are the caretakers of women, as men have been provisioned by Allah over women and tasked with supporting them financially. And righteous women are devoutly obedient and, when alone, protective of what Allah has entrusted them with.1 And if you sense ill-conduct from your women, advise them ˹first˺, ˹if they persist,˺ do not share their beds, ˹but if they still persist,˺ then discipline them ˹gently˺.2 But if they change their ways, do not be unjust to them. Surely Allah is Most High, All-Great.

 
It is important to understand the context of these laws that non-Muslims love to whine about. Islamic law gives women more rights than in previous faith based systems of the world. A woman has the right for khula or divorce. So how can Islam promote physical abuse and then also say you have the right to separate?

Now lets us compare this with Hinduism where satti was being observed as recent as 1829
 
wiki is your source for islam your such a clown 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤣


ٱلرِّجَالُ قَوَّٰمُونَ عَلَى ٱلنِّسَآءِ بِمَا فَضَّلَ ٱللَّهُ بَعْضَهُمْ عَلَىٰ بَعْضٍۢ وَبِمَآ أَنفَقُوا۟ مِنْ أَمْوَٰلِهِمْ ۚ فَٱلصَّـٰلِحَـٰتُ قَـٰنِتَـٰتٌ حَـٰفِظَـٰتٌۭ لِّلْغَيْبِ بِمَا حَفِظَ ٱللَّهُ ۚ وَٱلَّـٰتِى تَخَافُونَ نُشُوزَهُنَّ فَعِظُوهُنَّ وَٱهْجُرُوهُنَّ فِى ٱلْمَضَاجِعِ وَٱضْرِبُوهُنَّ ۖ فَإِنْ أَطَعْنَكُمْ فَلَا تَبْغُوا۟ عَلَيْهِنَّ سَبِيلًا ۗ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ كَانَ عَلِيًّۭا كَبِيرًۭا ٣٤

Men are the caretakers of women, as men have been provisioned by Allah over women and tasked with supporting them financially. And righteous women are devoutly obedient and, when alone, protective of what Allah has entrusted them with.1 And if you sense ill-conduct from your women, advise them ˹first˺, ˹if they persist,˺ do not share their beds, ˹but if they still persist,˺ then discipline them ˹gently˺.2 But if they change their ways, do not be unjust to them. Surely Allah is Most High, All-Great.

Calling random people on internet clowns doesn't make your case strong. Its just cheap name calling.
You buidl your case by counter arguments.

If you had some paitence, you would notice that Wiki quotes the translations from various sources including the one you are refering.
You didnt answer my question, who are men to maintain women? Why even beat gently? WTH is that?
 
@IndoorCricket @RexRex @Vikram1989

what you have to say about this from your hindu texts?

Bṛhadaranyaka Upanisad 6.4.7 translated by Swāmī Mādhavānanda.

View attachment 162914
This has been debunked extensivley

More over, every Hindu rejects if something wrong is prescribed in our scripts becasue we are not dogmatic people who are still stuck in 7th century. We follow Dharma something which changes from time, place, situations.
 
Calling random people on internet clowns doesn't make your case strong. Its just cheap name calling.
You buidl your case by counter arguments.

If you had some paitence, you would notice that Wiki quotes the translations from various sources including the one you are refering.
You didnt answer my question, who are men to maintain women? Why even beat gently? WTH is that?

if your going to learn about islam from molvi wiki and sheikh google then yes you are a clown 🤡 🤡 🤡 🤡 🤡

read the authentic link I sent you or go get the actually Quran and read the translation.
 
if your going to learn about islam from molvi wiki and sheikh google then yes you are a clown 🤡 🤡 🤡 🤡 🤡

read the authentic link I sent you or go get the actually Quran and read the translation.
This is wilfull ignorance. You didnt answer my question. You didnt cehck the material posted which actually points to the link you shared. You can be dishonest to your self. Comeback when you have actual answers
 
Why are you changing the topic ? That's sus behavior. Do you agree with the arabic verse that I posted above ?

your verse and translation don't match I posted a translation and link for you to see which obviously you ignored
 
Maintainers is a literal translation. From language to language that does not work. Protectors, watchers, responsible party, etc is the meaning here - you also have to view it in context of the times this verse was sent in. Arabia was a tribal society without any central governing authority or law enforcement. Women were on their own unless they were married or belonged to a family.



I have had serious questions about this this too. It is hotly debated, no question about it. It boils down to one key word which is "darab" or "zarab, as pronounced in urdu. In arabic it has more than a singular meaning and does not just mean to "hit" someone.

It also has the following meaning: To travel to get out: 3:156; 4:101; 38:44; 73:20; 1:273To strike: 2:60; 7:160; 8:12; 20:77; 24:31; 26:63; 37:93; 47:04To beat: 8:50; 47:27To set up: 43:58; 57:13To give (examples): 14:24-45; 16:75,76,112; 18:32,45; 24:35; 30:2858; 36:78; 39:27,29;43:17; 59:21; 66:10-117To take away, to ignore: 43:5To condemn: 2:61To seal, to draw over: 18:11To cover: 24:31To explain: 13:17

Anyhow, in Islam, we follow the Quran and then Sunnah and Hadith. The Quran is the main guidance and Sunnah is how we see Muhammad (PBUH) interpret that guidance and use him as a role model. There is absolutely no record of him physically hitting his wife/wives. I believe same goes for the close companions.

Now those who want to twist the meanings and interpretations, can find whatever means to do what they want to do.

Hope this helps.
I agree, the tribal desert context could make sense. But these should be rejected in modern settings. The problem with these texts are that these are believed to be the rules that govern humanity forever. And maulhas going around pecscribing them as an end to all, doesnt make it appealing.
 
I agree, the tribal desert context could make sense. But these should be rejected in modern settings. The problem with these texts are that these are believed to be the rules that govern humanity forever. And maulhas going around pecscribing them as an end to all, doesnt make it appealing.
The incorrect interpretations about hitting are rejected in modern settings. What makes you think they are not? If you are considering Afghanistan modern, well then I guess I have nothing more to say here. lol
 
I dont think any laws in the world protects mens right to physically abuse women. Afghanistan is probably an exception here. I have seen men go to jail for that stuff in Pakistan. its a different story how long they stay in there because of the overall corruption.
 
The incorrect interpretations about hitting are rejected in modern settings. What makes you think they are not? If you are considering Afghanistan modern, well then I guess I have nothing more to say here. lol
Whats incorrect in the interpretations? So there is no concept of beating women in Islam? What does discipline gently mean in this context according to one intepretation?
 
Don't blame Taliban judge. He is following his religious book Quran, which according to some verses, allows for beating of one's wife to discipline her.
An Expected and quite frankly nothing new remark.. as usual you’ve taken the context completely out of the equation. But to be honest in todays india, a BJP india, your comment is extremely mild..considering what your Sanatani ilk are currently undertaking to minorities..

True Muslims, those who understand the Hadith and the Qur’an know the value Islam places on Females. Im not going to lecture you or your ilk, there is no need.. your ticket is booked courtesy of whoever you see as your deity on a given day.

We can only smile at your ignorance.. carry on and live in your delusional bubble.

To the poor lady who endured such despicable abuse and treatment in the hands of the one whom is meant to be her protector..i sincerely hope and pray you find a solution, verify with hardship comes ease..
Allah swt does not like the unjust.

Some Taliban’s are both jahil and hypocrites.. shame on them
 
Maintainers is a literal translation. From language to language that does not work. Protectors, watchers, responsible party, etc is the meaning here - you also have to view it in context of the times this verse was sent in. Arabia was a tribal society without any central governing authority or law enforcement. Women were on their own unless they were married or belonged to a family.



I have had serious questions about this this too. It is hotly debated, no question about it. It boils down to one key word which is "darab" or "zarab, as pronounced in urdu. In arabic it has more than a singular meaning and does not just mean to "hit" someone.

It also has the following meaning: To travel to get out: 3:156; 4:101; 38:44; 73:20; 1:273To strike: 2:60; 7:160; 8:12; 20:77; 24:31; 26:63; 37:93; 47:04To beat: 8:50; 47:27To set up: 43:58; 57:13To give (examples): 14:24-45; 16:75,76,112; 18:32,45; 24:35; 30:2858; 36:78; 39:27,29;43:17; 59:21; 66:10-117To take away, to ignore: 43:5To condemn: 2:61To seal, to draw over: 18:11To cover: 24:31To explain: 13:17

Anyhow, in Islam, we follow the Quran and then Sunnah and Hadith. The Quran is the main guidance and Sunnah is how we see Muhammad (PBUH) interpret that guidance and use him as a role model. There is absolutely no record of him physically hitting his wife/wives. I believe same goes for the close companions.

Now those who want to twist the meanings and interpretations, can find whatever means to do what they want to do.

Hope this helps.
I've had this discussion in a few forums over the years and you're right it does come down to interpretation. And most sane folks (including Muslims) agree with your interpretation.

I think you're also right that it was appropriate probably even slightly ahead of it's times for when it was written in Arabian tribal society which is why so many people adopted it so quickly.

I do wish there was a way to update it now though. It should now give women equal responsibilites to 'financially support' and 'maintain' men when the woman makes more money and should also give the woman the right to advise men when they misbehave, not share their beds as an escalation and finally gently discipline them if they still misbehave. They can't hit men obviously - men are mostly still stronger than women but there are other forms of discipline.
 
I've had this discussion in a few forums over the years and you're right it does come down to interpretation. And most sane folks (including Muslims) agree with your interpretation.

I think you're also right that it was appropriate probably even slightly ahead of it's times for when it was written in Arabian tribal society which is why so many people adopted it so quickly.

I do wish there was a way to update it now though. It should now give women equal responsibilites to 'financially support' and 'maintain' men when the woman makes more money and should also give the woman the right to advise men when they misbehave, not share their beds as an escalation and finally gently discipline them if they still misbehave. They can't hit men obviously - men are mostly still stronger than women but there are other forms of discipline.
they are already doing this stuff to us men even if they are not making more money. they are the true maintainers these days. i think thats actually across the board, even for you enlightened blokes across the border. now dont try telling me it aint so.
 
I've had this discussion in a few forums over the years and you're right it does come down to interpretation. And most sane folks (including Muslims) agree with your interpretation.

I think you're also right that it was appropriate probably even slightly ahead of it's times for when it was written in Arabian tribal society which is why so many people adopted it so quickly.

I do wish there was a way to update it now though. It should now give women equal responsibilites to 'financially support' and 'maintain' men when the woman makes more money and should also give the woman the right to advise men when they misbehave, not share their beds as an escalation and finally gently discipline them if they still misbehave. They can't hit men obviously - men are mostly still stronger than women but there are other forms of discipline.
why though? when those who practice the faith such as me and other sensible people can easily interpret it and not take that as guidance to physically abuse women, I dont see why anything should be updated. This is how it starts. You dont want to pollute and change the original text and make it less authentic. thats where we differ from the rest of the world. I have seen hindus flat out refuse to follow some of their scripture. there are tons of such holes in judaism and christianity as well. its God's word to us, who are we to change it?

but as long as we have the right tools and interpretations available to us, we wont fall in that trap. over years and centuries and whatnot, the originality goes away and the message is diluted. Our traditions continue with enough guidance present in Sunnah, Hadith and sholarly intepretations (tafsirs)
 
they are already doing this stuff to us men even if they are not making more money. they are the true maintainers these days. i think thats actually across the board, even for you enlightened blokes across the border. now dont try telling me it aint so.
Oh of course. Whether they work in a job or not, women are more maintainers than men in a lot of society today.

I just wish some of the religious books would recognise it and codify it. Would make life a bit easier for the women.
 
Well, no point talking about Afghanistan and their Mullah interpretation of texts. Also, isnt Guardian from a country that harbors people like Epstein?
 
An Expected and quite frankly nothing new remark.. as usual you’ve taken the context completely out of the equation. But to be honest in todays india, a BJP india, your comment is extremely mild..considering what your Sanatani ilk are currently undertaking to minorities..

True Muslims, those who understand the Hadith and the Qur’an know the value Islam places on Females. Im not going to lecture you or your ilk, there is no need.. your ticket is booked courtesy of whoever you see as your deity on a given day.

We can only smile at your ignorance.. carry on and live in your delusional bubble.

To the poor lady who endured such despicable abuse and treatment in the hands of the one whom is meant to be her protector..i sincerely hope and pray you find a solution, verify with hardship comes ease..
Allah swt does not like the unjust.

Some Taliban’s are both jahil and hypocrites.. shame on them
Serious question.

How do you define a true muslim? how do you identify those who understand from those who don't?

Given that the quranic text is 1400 years old in a language spoken and understood by a fraction of the muslims and with precedent shows that languages evolve significantly over time, what is your methodology for determining true muslims from non-true muslims?
 
When it’s convenient Kumars are buddies with these same Taligoons and all their misdeeds are swept under the rug and when it’s convenient they come out of the woodwork quoting scripture out of context- as if it justifies the barbaric acts in the OP.

Stick to stories about the elephant head with the man’s torso and the horse legs abducting a woman and her half monkey half rhinoceros hubby having to rescue her.

Quote that to your serial rapists running around in Rashtra India first from your own book.
 
Well, no point talking about Afghanistan and their Mullah interpretation of texts. Also, isnt Guardian from a country that harbors people like Epstein?
You may be thinking of another outlet. Guardian are pretty good. They oppose crazy right-wingers everywhere (which is why the crazy right despise them).
 
Serious question.

How do you define a true muslim? how do you identify those who understand from those who don't?

Given that the quranic text is 1400 years old in a language spoken and understood by a fraction of the muslims and with precedent shows that languages evolve significantly over time, what is your methodology for determining true muslims from non-true muslims?
Im not a scholar so i can’t give you the answer your looking for… why, because were all different and my interpretation will be different to others. However what i will say, and i speak for myself only, be a decent human being, do unto others what you expect to be done unto you. Islam, like all faiths is a guide to life, a path of moderation. I have zero issues with other religions, in fact i respect them, they have their beliefs and values which i respect.

Our Nabi (PBUH), if you really read his life story, it is one filled with adversity and hardship, yet he still respected his adversaries and those who set out to harm him.

Bro…im only here for a short time, in one door and out the other before we know it..a Muslim keeps his slate clean (his deeds), easier said than done and thats why Heaven is so hard. Serving humanity is the goal, leave the world and everyone in it better and happier.
 
Daraba = ضَرَبَ in Qur'aan


ٱلرِّجَالُ قَوَّٰمُونَ عَلَى ٱلنِّسَآءِ بِمَا فَضَّلَ ٱللَّهُ بَعْضَهُمْ عَلَىٰ بَعْضٍۢ وَبِمَآ أَنفَقُوا۟ مِنْ أَمْوَٰلِهِمْ ۚ فَٱلصَّـٰلِحَـٰتُ قَـٰنِتَـٰتٌ حَـٰفِظَـٰتٌۭ لِّلْغَيْبِ بِمَا حَفِظَ ٱللَّهُ ۚ وَٱلَّـٰتِى تَخَافُونَ نُشُوزَهُنَّ فَعِظُوهُنَّ وَٱهْجُرُوهُنَّ فِى ٱلْمَضَاجِعِ وَٱضْرِبُوهُنَّ ۖ فَإِنْ أَطَعْنَكُمْ فَلَا تَبْغُوا۟ عَلَيْهِنَّ سَبِيلًا ۗ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ كَانَ عَلِيًّۭا كَبِيرًۭا
[4:34] Men are the caretakers of women, as men have been provisioned by Allah over women and tasked with supporting them financially. And righteous women are devoutly obedient and, when alone, protective of what Allah has entrusted them with.1 And if you sense ill-conduct from your women, advise them ˹first˺, ˹if they persist,˺ do not share their beds, ˹but if they still persist,˺ then discipline them ˹gently˺. But if they change their ways, do not be unjust to them. Surely Allah is Most High, All-Great.
وَتِلْكَ ٱلْأَمْثَـٰلُ نَضْرِبُهَا لِلنَّاسِ ۖ وَمَا يَعْقِلُهَآ إِلَّا ٱلْعَـٰلِمُونَ​
[9:43] These are the parables We for humanity, but none will understand them except the people of knowledge.​
Serious question.

How do you define a true muslim? how do you identify those who understand from those who don't?

Given that the quranic text is 1400 years old in a language spoken and understood by a fraction of the muslims and with precedent shows that languages evolve significantly over time, what is your methodology for determining true muslims from non-true muslims?

Excellent and Awesome Question!

Quraan and Islam are both understand in the light of practice of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon Him)

[33:21] Indeed, in the Messenger of Allah you have an excellent example for whoever has hope in Allah and the Last Day, and remembers Allah often.

Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon Him) never touched his wives
This is the verse, dummy -

ٱلرِّجَالُ قَوَّٰمُونَ عَلَى ٱلنِّسَآءِ بِمَا فَضَّلَ ٱللَّهُ بَعْضَهُمْ عَلَىٰ بَعْضٍۢ وَبِمَآ أَنفَقُوا۟ مِنْ أَمْوَٰلِهِمْ ۚ فَٱلصَّـٰلِحَـٰتُ قَـٰنِتَـٰتٌ حَـٰفِظَـٰتٌۭ لِّلْغَيْبِ بِمَا حَفِظَ ٱللَّهُ ۚ وَٱلَّـٰتِى تَخَافُونَ نُشُوزَهُنَّ فَعِظُوهُنَّ وَٱهْجُرُوهُنَّ فِى ٱلْمَضَاجِعِ وَٱضْرِبُوهُنَّ ۖ فَإِنْ أَطَعْنَكُمْ فَلَا تَبْغُوا۟ عَلَيْهِنَّ سَبِيلًا ۗ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ كَانَ عَلِيًّۭا كَبِيرًۭا


Im not a scholar so i can’t give you the answer your looking for… why, because were all different and my interpretation will be different to others. However what i will say, and i speak for myself only, be a decent human being, do unto others what you expect to be done unto you. Islam, like all faiths is a guide to life, a path of moderation. I have zero issues with other religions, in fact i respect them, they have their beliefs and values which i respect.

Our Nabi (PBUH), if you really read his life story, it is one filled with adversity and hardship, yet he still respected his adversaries and those who set out to harm him.

Bro…im only here for a short time, in one door and out the other before we know it..a Muslim keeps his slate clean (his deeds), easier said than done and thats why Heaven is so hard. Serving humanity is the goal, leave the world and everyone in it better and happier.
Even if you gave them the world they will neither try to understand nor agree with you as we all know very well. These are the people who are defending genocide of children in Gaza, not only defending but cheering the death of children!

That's the level of moral decay which we are dealing with.

The shocking level of physical violence against women permitted under the Taliban’s new laws has been revealed this week by the case of a woman in northern Afghanistan, who said she was beaten with a cable wire by her husband and told by a judge: “You want a divorce just because of that? … A little anger and a few beatings won’t kill you.”

Farzana* said her husband was quick-tempered and often resorted to beating her. He regularly humiliated her and called her “disabled”, she said, because her right leg was slightly shorter than the left. She had tolerated the abuse for the sake of their children, but one evening, she said, his violence went too far.


“One day I was very sick and had no energy to cook dinner. When he came home from work, he said: ‘Now you don’t even do the housework?’ I told him I was sick, but he beat me with a mobile phone charger cable. The marks on my back and arms remained for several days, but I didn’t think of taking photos that might one day help me in court.”

After the attack, she decided to seek an end to the violence by filing for divorce, but when her case reached a Taliban court recently, Farzana said the judge not only rejected her application but belittled her claims of abuse.

“When I said he beats me and constantly humiliates and insults me, and that I want a divorce, the judge asked: ‘You want a divorce just because of that? Don’t you have another reason?’” When Farzana went on to describe the attack she had recently suffered, she said the judge asked whether she had proof of the abuse.

“When I said no, he told me: ‘You were young and enjoyed your husband. Now that he is getting older you are making excuses to divorce him so you can marry someone else. Go back, you have a nice husband, live with him. A little anger and a few beatings won’t kill you. Islam allows a man to beat his wife if she disobeys him, to discipline her. Go, and don’t come again asking for divorce over such things.’”

Shaharzad Akbar, the head of the human rights organisation Rawadari, said such cases were now commonplace in Afghanistan. Women either had to live with domestic violence or seek justice from the Taliban courts, she said, “where they are often lectured and sent back to the same abusive houses or worse, punished for ‘disobeying’ husbands”.

Women’s rights activists, UN experts and lawyers have long argued that the conditions being imposed on Afghan women, including banning them from schools, most jobs and speaking in public, amounts to gender apartheid.

But a new criminal code given to courts last year – and publicised in January – has gone further by permitting violence against women and preventing them from seeking justice. According to the code, men are allowed to beat their wives as long as they do not use “obscene force”, defined as causing fractures, wounds or visible bruises, which the wife must prove in court. For this crime a man may be sentenced to only 15 days of imprisonment. Akbar said the code gave husbands a “licence for domestic violence and punishments, short of breaking bone.

Speaking about the code to the UN this week, Malala Yousafzai, a Nobel laureate, said: “This is not culture. It is not religion. It is a system of segregation and domination. We must call the regime in Afghanistan by its true name: gender apartheid.”

After the court verdict, Farzana said she was forced to return to her husband, who had now become more violent than before. “He tells me: ‘Either endure it or die.’ He doesn’t even allow me to go to my father’s house.” The judge also told Farzana she could not object to her husband taking a second wife.

UN Women special representative in Afghanistan, Susan Ferguson, said: “If we allow Afghan women and girls to be silenced – and punished purely because they are women – we send a message that the rights of women and girls everywhere are disposable, and that is an immensely dangerous precedent.”

  1. IF THIS NEWS IS ACCURATE AND CONTEXT IS CORRECT
  2. This is absolutely Haram and forbidden in Islam, no need to defend this from Islam!
 
When it’s convenient Kumars are buddies with these same Taligoons and all their misdeeds are swept under the rug and when it’s convenient they come out of the woodwork quoting scripture out of context- as if it justifies the barbaric acts in the OP.

Stick to stories about the elephant head with the man’s torso and the horse legs abducting a woman and her half monkey half rhinoceros hubby having to rescue her.

Quote that to your serial rapists running around in Rashtra India first from your own book.
And goes without saying, any Muslim who actually follows the faith condemns the looney tune judge as well as the husband if he is doing what’s written in the article.

These extremists or Khawarij have existed for almost 1300-1400 years themselves and would resort to these sort of barbaric actions and take verses out of context to justify themselves and companions of the Prophet PBUH would fight against them because they would not be willing to be corrected on their understanding of the Quran. Khawarij were not there during the revelation of the Quran and were zealots who came by in subsequent generations at times with ill intentions to use religion to exert control and their whims and desires.

It’s like thinking you can perform surgery just because you read a book about heart surgery cover to cover- with no supervision from an actual qualified doctor or surgeon. Each verse was revealed at a specific time with tafsir- deeper meaning and explanation and context that Prophet Muhammad PBUH taught to the companions RA.
 
And goes without saying, any Muslim who actually follows the faith condemns the looney tune judge as well as the husband if he is doing what’s written in the article.

These extremists or Khawarij have existed for almost 1300-1400 years themselves and would resort to these sort of barbaric actions and take verses out of context to justify themselves and companions of the Prophet PBUH would fight against them because they would not be willing to be corrected on their understanding of the Quran.

It’s like thinking you can perform surgery just because you read a book about heart surgery cover to cover- with no supervision from an actual qualified doctor or surgeon. Each verse was revealed at a specific time with tafsir- deeper meaning and explanation and context that Prophet Muhammad PBUH taught to the companions RA.
Afghan society is ignorant of Islam, Hanafi Madhab and general sciences etc, evidence is as follows:
  1. 1915: Zafar Hasan Aibak (Indian Muslim) who went to Afghanistan wrote about his experiences with Afghans for half a century, his testimony can be read here.​
  2. 2025: Taliban "The Criminal Procedure Code for Courts" which divides the society into 4 groups and nobody has this interpretation, see examples below
    1. 80% of Muslims (roughly) follow the Hanafi Madhab (School of Jurisprudence)​
    2. Due to Ottoman & Mughal empire, it remained the official (legal) Jurisprudence school of Islamic Ummah for 600-700 years​
    3. Today, official court Jurisprudence in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia (dual Madhabs), Turkiye and Syria​
Nobody in the history of Islam has divided criminals into these 4 and force it upon the Judicial system except Taliban
  1. scholars” (ulama),
  2. “the elite” (ashraf),
  3. “the middle class”,
  4. and “the lower class
This clear BS and error of understanding on part of the Taliban but they have clearly done it to rule over the society in partnership with rich and powerful groups very similar to what Pakistani Army is doing in Pakistan, in case of Pakistan it is:
  1. Pakistani Army
  2. scholars” (ulama),
  3. “the elite” (ashraf),
  4. Everyone else!
@Stewie @guard @The Bald Eagle @Suleiman @emranabbas

Its the job of Scholars in Pakistan to rip this document apart because the Taliban are basing this on Hanafi Madhab

As Muslims of knowledge should read 60+ pages of this ridiculous document and if you can't, read some aspects in English.
 
Don't blame Taliban judge. He is following his religious book Quran, which according to some verses, allows for beating of one's wife to discipline her.
@RexRex you're generally one of the saner Indian posters here but I hope you see how counterproductive this approach is to convincing people of the merits of your argument.

There's lots of centrist and progressive Muslims trying to affect change, particularly on womens rights, but they get completely undermined when Indians or other non-Muslims come in all guns blazing like this because then you force Muslims to take a defensive stance, and embolden the reactionaries.

This is only my view but I think any talk of "reforming" or "modernising" Islam is doomed to fail and will prompt the inevitable response that Islam doesn't need reform. Besides it also neglects that reform isn't exclusively a liberal concept, and can go in a right-wing direction.

I prefer the term "reclaiming" Islam. Just as the answer to fundamentalist Hindus is Hinduism, the way to defeat fundamentalist Muslims is Islam. The Muslim World during the Golden Age, whatever its flaws, was at the vanguard of science, mathematics, medicine and culture. It embraced progressivism and rationality. The "reformists" or "innovators" are actually the Wahabists and the ultra-conservatives like the Taliban who discard centuries of pluralist traditions in Muslim societies with their warped fusion of local tribal Pashtunwali culture, political fascism and narrow minded Islam.
 
Ridiculous and unacceptable from the Talibans.

Why would divorce request be rejected? Divorce is not haram in Islam.
What is the punishment for disobedience from wife in Islam? Aren’t a few beatings prescribed for the wife?
:mv
 
@RexRex you're generally one of the saner Indian posters here but I hope you see how counterproductive this approach is to convincing people of the merits of your argument.

There's lots of centrist and progressive Muslims trying to affect change, particularly on womens rights, but they get completely undermined when Indians or other non-Muslims come in all guns blazing like this because then you force Muslims to take a defensive stance, and embolden the reactionaries.

This is only my view but I think any talk of "reforming" or "modernising" Islam is doomed to fail and will prompt the inevitable response that Islam doesn't need reform. Besides it also neglects that reform isn't exclusively a liberal concept, and can go in a right-wing direction.

I prefer the term "reclaiming" Islam. Just as the answer to fundamentalist Hindus is Hinduism, the way to defeat fundamentalist Muslims is Islam. The Muslim World during the Golden Age, whatever its flaws, was at the vanguard of science, mathematics, medicine and culture. It embraced progressivism and rationality. The "reformists" or "innovators" are actually the Wahabists and the ultra-conservatives like the Taliban who discard centuries of pluralist traditions in Muslim societies with their warped fusion of local tribal Pashtunwali culture, political fascism and narrow minded Islam.
That is because we are constantly told by Muslims that there is only one Islam and a Muslim. Centrist, leftist, atheist and cultural Muslim does not exist like in Christianity or Hinduism or Sikhism or Jainism.
 
@RexRex you're generally one of the saner Indian posters here but I hope you see how counterproductive this approach is to convincing people of the merits of your argument.

There's lots of centrist and progressive Muslims trying to affect change, particularly on womens rights, but they get completely undermined when Indians or other non-Muslims come in all guns blazing like this because then you force Muslims to take a defensive stance, and embolden the reactionaries.

This is only my view but I think any talk of "reforming" or "modernising" Islam is doomed to fail and will prompt the inevitable response that Islam doesn't need reform. Besides it also neglects that reform isn't exclusively a liberal concept, and can go in a right-wing direction.

I prefer the term "reclaiming" Islam. Just as the answer to fundamentalist Hindus is Hinduism, the way to defeat fundamentalist Muslims is Islam. The Muslim World during the Golden Age, whatever its flaws, was at the vanguard of science, mathematics, medicine and culture. It embraced progressivism and rationality. The "reformists" or "innovators" are actually the Wahabists and the ultra-conservatives like the Taliban who discard centuries of pluralist traditions in Muslim societies with their warped fusion of local tribal Pashtunwali culture, political fascism and narrow minded Islam.
Someday, a lot of people will realize that there is no such thing as "Liberal Indian" or "Tolerant Indian" or "Sane Indian"...There is zero value in appealing to these people's conscious or anything because it is pointless, just state the facts and move on because there is no sincerity or honesty or will to engage but the opposite.

There are people in India who cheer genocide of children in Gaza, regardless of what someone believes about a religion or its scripture it is just next level degeneracy!

Islam commands us to be decent and just and we will continue to be and everyone has the right to practice whatever they believe in and we will protect that right of others with our lives as it is the command of Islam.

These cases are clear misinterpretation of Qu'raan and Sunnah by Taliban, ISIS and others for their political gain ad everyone knows that.
What is the punishment for disobedience from wife in Islam? Aren’t a few beatings prescribed for the wife?
:mv
NONE!

If the marriage has broken irrecoverably and mediation etc hasn't helped, Divorce and move on and here is the command of Divorce even then

[2:231] When you divorce women and they have ˹almost˺ reached the end of their waiting period, either retain them honourably or let them go honourably. But do not retain them ˹only˺ to harm them ˹or˺ to take advantage ˹of them˺. Whoever does that surely wrongs his own soul. Do not take Allah’s revelations lightly. Remember Allah’s favours upon you as well as the Book and wisdom1 He has sent down for your guidance. Be mindful of Allah, and know that Allah has ˹perfect˺ knowledge of all things.

 
Serious question.

How do you define a true muslim? how do you identify those who understand from those who don't?

Given that the quranic text is 1400 years old in a language spoken and understood by a fraction of the muslims and with precedent shows that languages evolve significantly over time, what is your methodology for determining true muslims from non-true muslims?
A true Muslim is one who lives his life in the true spirit of Islam. There are some sticking points but you have to follow what is right. You can use the Prophets example and his teachings to clarify any doubts or confusions if the Quran by itself does not make it clear.

As in the case in point: did the Prophet ever physically abuse his wife or wives and declare it was ok? The anwer is NO.

Another example: does the Quran make it permissible to kill innocent non-Muslims in the time of war? NO.
The Quran cleary states: "Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed, Allah does not like transgressors"

Yet we see all these so called militias and terror outfits claiming to be fighting for Islam, Al Qaeda, ISIS, Taliban, etc and they kill innocents. So they are not true Muslims.

One has to study the Quran and Sunnah of the Prophet or be a bit familiar with it understand these things. Its very easy to misguide non-Muslims and basically blame all their misdeeds on the faith itself. The Zionists have very effectively used this method to continue to wage war on the muslim world.
 
agar Abhinandan jumma bazar mein ya sabzi mandi mein gira hota to usske purzey milte wapis tum logon ko. the women would have tore him limb to limb.
 
That is because we are constantly told by Muslims that there is only one Islam and a Muslim. Centrist, leftist, atheist and cultural Muslim does not exist like in Christianity or Hinduism or Sikhism or Jainism.
Your second sentence is simply divorced from the historical facts. There's far more ideological diversity within the Muslim community than you, or the international press, give credit for.

Iran is a good topical example where there's every kind of Muslim from ardent, non-practicising secularists on one end of the spectrum to conservative Shias in places like Qom. Even the Shias are split. Ayatollah Khomeini, the first Supreme Leader of Iran, promoted the concept of Velayat-e-Faqih (rule of the jurists). This was deeply controversial with many clerics who followed the traditional Shia philosophy of political quietism.

Note in neighbouring Shia majority Iraq, there's no clerical rule. Ayatollah Sistani (the Shia Pope to draw a very rough equivalence) rejects the philosophy of Khomeini and Khameini (x2).

There are also Iranian thinkers such as Mohammad Shabestari (who studied with Khomeini and was an MP post-1979) who says the following:

What is essential and eternal is the general values of Islam not particular forms of their realization in any particular historic time.

It is not perfection for religion to function as a substitute for science, technology, and human deliberation.

Another Iranian philosopher, Mohsen Kadivar, has written extensively on how democracy and gender equality does not need to conflict with Islamic values. Then there's some seriously radical voices within the Muslim world such as the Egyptian feminist and leftist writer Mona Eltahawy who's spoken about patriarchal Arab societies in very harsh language. The late Iranian Ayatollah Yousef Saanei even said women could become marjas (high ranking Shia clerics).

Now I'm not saying these are mainstream Muslim views by any means, but vigorous debate and discussion is entirely within Islamic historical tradition.

How can 2 billion human beings be a monolith ? The people who promote this view are the supremacists like the Taliban and ISIS, and Western Islamophobes.
 
Nothing like non-Muslims educating Muslims on their religion. :inti

As for the story, disgraceful. The religion of Islam has no correlation to the act of beating your wife.

Disgusting jaile Afghanistani’s. They can really be idiotic people.
 
Definitely seems like a Hindu/Indian issue.
Arab Muslim countries are not even on the list.
The list mainly includes two Hindu countries india and Nepal and two Muslim countries that were once part of the Indian cultural sphere.

35517.jpeg
 
Your second sentence is simply divorced from the historical facts. There's far more ideological diversity within the Muslim community than you, or the international press, give credit for.

Iran is a good topical example where there's every kind of Muslim from ardent, non-practicising secularists on one end of the spectrum to conservative Shias in places like Qom. Even the Shias are split. Ayatollah Khomeini, the first Supreme Leader of Iran, promoted the concept of Velayat-e-Faqih (rule of the jurists). This was deeply controversial with many clerics who followed the traditional Shia philosophy of political quietism.

Note in neighbouring Shia majority Iraq, there's no clerical rule. Ayatollah Sistani (the Shia Pope to draw a very rough equivalence) rejects the philosophy of Khomeini and Khameini (x2).

There are also Iranian thinkers such as Mohammad Shabestari (who studied with Khomeini and was an MP post-1979) who says the following:



Another Iranian philosopher, Mohsen Kadivar, has written extensively on how democracy and gender equality does not need to conflict with Islamic values. Then there's some seriously radical voices within the Muslim world such as the Egyptian feminist and leftist writer Mona Eltahawy who's spoken about patriarchal Arab societies in very harsh language. The late Iranian Ayatollah Yousef Saanei even said women could become marjas (high ranking Shia clerics).

Now I'm not saying these are mainstream Muslim views by any means, but vigorous debate and discussion is entirely within Islamic historical tradition.

How can 2 billion human beings be a monolith ? The people who promote this view are the supremacists like the Taliban and ISIS, and Western Islamophobes.
Agreed with everything you said. I was only pointing out to the assertions made by Muslims on the internet like One God, One religion, One people and One book.
 
heres my two cents on it, whether anyone cares or not

the "cant translate perfectly" argument is stale, there is no language in the world which is impossible to translate, its obvious what context the word is used in that verse. there is virtually unilateral concensus in the translations that it is some form of "gentle discipline, strike, etc". to argue against the translations of learned and esteemed religious experts, simply because something feels uncomfortable with a modern world view is dangerous, and opens up a can of worms for all sorts of modifications.

it is unilaterally accepted that whatever form of physical reprisal that may be, it cannot be on the face, and it cannot leave a mark, although there is way of inferring this from the verse, it is adapted, as far as i know, from complimentary knowledge and hadiths about the topic.

to those who take the holier than thou stance, in modern legal parlance, if a woman is in ur face, shouting, blocking ur way, enflaming a situation, pushing her back in some settings can be seen as assault, however it is common sense that whilst im not condoning the behaviour, theres a massive difference between pushing someone out of the way and hitting them with malice.

the issue i have on an individual level is that i see any form of physical admonishment, no matter how light, and even with supposedly the best intentions, as a failure of verbal communication, thus my disagreement is on a psychological point of view, that a book with universal rules for all people, all times, would essentially recomend an action which i see as a failure of self control, and self discipline, as admitedly, the final, arguably discouraged, but still allowable course of action.
 
heres my two cents on it, whether anyone cares or not

the "cant translate perfectly" argument is stale, there is no language in the world which is impossible to translate, its obvious what context the word is used in that verse. there is virtually unilateral concensus in the translations that it is some form of "gentle discipline, strike, etc". to argue against the translations of learned and esteemed religious experts, simply because something feels uncomfortable with a modern world view is dangerous, and opens up a can of worms for all sorts of modifications.

it is unilaterally accepted that whatever form of physical reprisal that may be, it cannot be on the face, and it cannot leave a mark, although there is way of inferring this from the verse, it is adapted, as far as i know, from complimentary knowledge and hadiths about the topic.

to those who take the holier than thou stance, in modern legal parlance, if a woman is in ur face, shouting, blocking ur way, enflaming a situation, pushing her back in some settings can be seen as assault, however it is common sense that whilst im not condoning the behaviour, theres a massive difference between pushing someone out of the way and hitting them with malice.

the issue i have on an individual level is that i see any form of physical admonishment, no matter how light, and even with supposedly the best intentions, as a failure of verbal communication, thus my disagreement is on a psychological point of view, that a book with universal rules for all people, all times, would essentially recomend an action which i see as a failure of self control, and self discipline, as admitedly, the final, arguably discouraged, but still allowable course of action.
Hitting anyone with this scenario is impermissible in Islam be it anyone, wife, children, slave, captive, criminal, murderer, rapist or anyone else and a person is liable to be punished for it under an Islamic court.

The issue is "Nushuz" i.e. Recalcitrant, intolerant, stubborn, deliberately obtuse behavior and beating someone is not the solution for such a person and won't make her change it and that's not what the verse is saying either.
 
I've had this discussion in a few forums over the years and you're right it does come down to interpretation. And most sane folks (including Muslims) agree with your interpretation.

I think you're also right that it was appropriate probably even slightly ahead of it's times for when it was written in Arabian tribal society which is why so many people adopted it so quickly.

I do wish there was a way to update it now though. It should now give women equal responsibilites to 'financially support' and 'maintain' men when the woman makes more money and should also give the woman the right to advise men when they misbehave, not share their beds as an escalation and finally gently discipline them if they still misbehave. They can't hit men obviously - men are mostly still stronger than women but there are other forms of discipline.
How dare you question what was written in a book 1000s of years back... that was and is the gospel truth. The perfect book. Nothing in it is imperfect or illogical or socially unacceptable. Everything is divine and needs to be practiced to the T. Or else you are a disbeliever .🙂
 
Hitting anyone with this scenario is impermissible in Islam be it anyone, wife, children, slave, captive, criminal, murderer, rapist or anyone else and a person is liable to be punished for it under an Islamic court.

The issue is "Nushuz" i.e. Recalcitrant, intolerant, stubborn, deliberately obtuse behavior and beating someone is not the solution for such a person and won't make her change it and that's not what the verse is saying either.
i read your earlier post, im guessing your core point is that the prophet never physically abused any of his wives, but that can also mean that they never transgressed in a manner which would warrant a physical retort.

i am no expert in the matter, but the majority of translation which i have seen, the word darab means some form of physical reprisal. if you feel that is incorrect than that is fair enough, but afaik the general accepted interpretation is any beating which does not cause external or internal injury, such as physically pushing away, etc, essentially, to give the women a psychological shock through a physical action that there is something wrong.
 
The Prophet ﷺ openly criticized men who hit their wives.

“How does one of you beat his wife like he beats a slave and then lie with her in the evening?”


Sahih al-Bukhari 5204


“Do not beat the female servants of Allah.”

Sunan Abu Dawud 2146

Whether or not wife-husband dynamics in Islam fit your own view of relationships or not, these statements by Prophet Muhammad PBUH himself as well as his own tafsir and explanation of the verses in narration by his companions who were there around during the time of revelation or during the time of Prophet Muhammad PBUH (e.g Ibn Abbas RA) have already explained these verses in depth.

There’s no excuse for these Talitubbies to be acting out and behaving like Barbarians. Trying to twist scriptural text is not going to save them. They are not the first to try these cheap tricks.

darban ghayra mubarrih is symbolic and non threatening or harmful like grabbing the hand of a child to alert them to the gravity of the situation.
 
i read your earlier post, im guessing your core point is that the prophet never physically abused any of his wives, but that can also mean that they never transgressed in a manner which would warrant a physical retort.

i am no expert in the matter, but the majority of translation which i have seen, the word darab means some form of physical reprisal. if you feel that is incorrect than that is fair enough, but afaik the general accepted interpretation is any beating which does not cause external or internal injury, such as physically pushing away, etc, essentially, to give the women a psychological shock through a physical action that there is something wrong.
Dear Brother @ElRaja

I think you missed my point because I didn't articulate it properly. I was responding to your comment and it is specific to these few words

failure of self control
Hitting, beating, psychological shock, physical action, physically pushing away whatever with this and in this state of mind is impermissible in Islam.

This verse is in the context of Nushuz and not physically beating, harming randomly because my Roti is cold...
 
The Prophet ﷺ openly criticized men who hit their wives.

“How does one of you beat his wife like he beats a slave and then lie with her in the evening?”


Sahih al-Bukhari 5204


“Do not beat the female servants of Allah.”

Sunan Abu Dawud 2146

Whether or not wife-husband dynamics in Islam fit your own view of relationships or not, these statements by Prophet Muhammad PBUH himself as well as his own tafsir and explanation of the verses in narration by his companions who were there around during the time of revelation or during the time of Prophet Muhammad PBUH (e.g Ibn Abbas RA) have already explained these verses in depth.

There’s no excuse for these Talitubbies to be acting out and behaving like Barbarians. Trying to twist scriptural text is not going to save them. They are not the first to try these cheap tricks.

darban ghayra mubarrih is symbolic and non threatening or harmful like grabbing the hand of a child to alert them to the gravity of the situation.
Will cite one more example just as reference and to show the adherence to the honoring of women amongst even the Sahaba (companions) of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) during his lifetime even.

During the battle of Uhud, Abu Dujana (RA) encountered Hind bint Utbah at Uhud while she was among those inciting Quraysh and urging them on against the Muslims. Despite her active role in supporting the enemy, when he came across her, he refrained from striking her when he realized she was a woman once he was within distance, out of respect for the teachings of the Prophet ﷺ (reported in Ibn Ishaq/Ibn Hisham)- he himself said so because he considered it dishonorable to attack or hurt a woman.
 
i read your earlier post, im guessing your core point is that the prophet never physically abused any of his wives, but that can also mean that they never transgressed in a manner which would warrant a physical retort.

i am no expert in the matter, but the majority of translation which i have seen, the word darab means some form of physical reprisal. if you feel that is incorrect than that is fair enough, but afaik the general accepted interpretation is any beating which does not cause external or internal injury, such as physically pushing away, etc, essentially, to give the women a psychological shock through a physical action that there is something wrong.


The Quran was revealed in Arabic, and because Arabic is a deeply nuanced language, much of its precise meaning, depth, and linguistic beauty can be lost when it is translated into other languages.

Just as an example, you’ll notice that some words or phrases sound perfect in Urdu, but when translated into English, they don’t carry the same impact or exact meaning.

Just look at the word “strike.” It doesn’t only mean hitting someone with a hand or a sword it can also mean things like “to strike a pose,” “to strike a deal,” or even workers going on strike.

The same single word carries multiple meanings depending on the context in which it is used.

This shows how language works: words are not always fixed to one definition, and their true meaning depends on how they are understood within a sentence, situation, or cultural context.
 
The Quran was revealed in Arabic, and because Arabic is a deeply nuanced language, much of its precise meaning, depth, and linguistic beauty can be lost when it is translated into other languages.

Just as an example, you’ll notice that some words or phrases sound perfect in Urdu, but when translated into English, they don’t carry the same impact or exact meaning.

Just look at the word “strike.” It doesn’t only mean hitting someone with a hand or a sword it can also mean things like “to strike a pose,” “to strike a deal,” or even workers going on strike.

The same single word carries multiple meanings depending on the context in which it is used.

This shows how language works: words are not always fixed to one definition, and their true meaning depends on how they are understood within a sentence, situation, or cultural context.
But you, living 1400 years after the quranic test was revealed knows the correct interpretation. I convinced now.
 
But you, living 1400 years after the quranic test was revealed knows the correct interpretation. I convinced now.
I think you are missing his point.

He is not saying that he is the only absolute correct interpreter. We have scholars who have studied this for years and provide us with what we call "Tafsir" which is a word for explanation or interpretation. It is very important for those people for whom arabic is not the native language.

I do not think you will find any Muslim poster here who would claim to know better than the scholars who have clarified these various debatable points in our faith over the centuries. Once again, it is one of those things you have to have studied over the years to understand. Most of us here do not have the skill and deep understanding to explain it perfectly well.
 
heres my two cents on it, whether anyone cares or not

the "cant translate perfectly" argument is stale, there is no language in the world which is impossible to translate, its obvious what context the word is used in that verse. there is virtually unilateral concensus in the translations that it is some form of "gentle discipline, strike, etc". to argue against the translations of learned and esteemed religious experts, simply because something feels uncomfortable with a modern world view is dangerous, and opens up a can of worms for all sorts of modifications.

it is unilaterally accepted that whatever form of physical reprisal that may be, it cannot be on the face, and it cannot leave a mark, although there is way of inferring this from the verse, it is adapted, as far as i know, from complimentary knowledge and hadiths about the topic.

to those who take the holier than thou stance, in modern legal parlance, if a woman is in ur face, shouting, blocking ur way, enflaming a situation, pushing her back in some settings can be seen as assault, however it is common sense that whilst im not condoning the behaviour, theres a massive difference between pushing someone out of the way and hitting them with malice.

the issue i have on an individual level is that i see any form of physical admonishment, no matter how light, and even with supposedly the best intentions, as a failure of verbal communication, thus my disagreement is on a psychological point of view, that a book with universal rules for all people, all times, would essentially recomend an action which i see as a failure of self control, and self discipline, as admitedly, the final, arguably discouraged, but still allowable course of action.

This is just common sense reality in real life regardless of religion. To give some context, when I was in my early teens at school I got into a dispute with a girl from a rough background and she actually tried to punch me, and my response was to twist her arm behind her back and ask her nicely to desist.

Obviously this girl wasn't my wife, but it's not that unusual for women to fly at men, a lot of time they take advantage of the fact they know we are reluctant to hit back. Obviously that's a lot different to the type of bloke who enjoys whaling on women because he's a bully.
 
It was reported that lady ‘Aisha said, “The Prophet never beat any of his wives or servants; in fact, he did not strike any living being with his hand except in the cause of God and he would not avenge for himself except when the prohibitions of God had been violated, only then would he retaliate" (Muslim).
 
Islam does not advocate or promote physical punishment. Islam encourages mutual cooperation, respect, and compassion within a marriage.

The Prophet once said, “I am astonished at a man who beats his wife, whereas it is he himself more than his wife who deserves beating.”2

“One should never torture one’s wife physically or otherwise, because whoever does so has violated the norms set by the Almighty and his Messenger,” said the Prophet.3

“How does anyone of you beat his wife as he beats his stallion and then embrace her?” said the Prophet.4

The Prophet, who was a prime example of ethical leadership, never struck any woman, animal, or any person who was aggressive toward him. Aisha, wife of the Prophet, once said, “The Prophet never hit a servant, or a female, or anyone else, except in performing jihad (defending Islam).”5

2.Bihar Al-Anwar.

3.Irshadul Qulub.

4.Sahih Al-Bukhari.

5.Al-Tabaqat Al-Kubra, v. 1, p. 368.
 
in fact, he did not strike any living being with his hand except in the cause of God and he would not avenge for himself except when the prohibitions of God had been violated, only then would he retaliate" (Muslim).
Apologies for my ignorance. I dont understand the God here as am under the impression that Allah is the only God in islam .
 
Apologies for my ignorance. I dont understand the God here as am under the impression that Allah is the only God in islam .
I am really trying hard to make head or tails of this statement but I am unable to do so.

Allah is the arabic word for God. Which part is confusing you to think there are two of them?
 
Back
Top