GM sb is at the end of his wits. There is no inconsistency or change in
my position right from the day I first wrote an article on the subject six
Qur’anic Wisdom: Marriage and Treatment of Women
I have not said anything in my previous comment except point to my
previous detailed comment on the subject 10 days back By
Naseer Ahmed - 1/29/2019 11:07:55
He simply has no answer to my question which I repeat below:
What if the woman does not want a
divorce, but promises to change her ways of immodest dressing (as very well
described by him), but does not do anything about it even after repeated
discussions and admonishments which only end in making another false promise,
and is apparently only testing him on far he will go to assert himself?
Note: Empirical evidence of
CCV in all cultures shows that minor domestic violence works very well in
resolving conflicts during the early years of their marriage. So, why forsake
what is known to work very well and especially if the woman is refusing the
divorce option even when warned about the possibility of a beating if she
repeats her behavior?
There is a chance that once she gets a
beating for repeated transgressions, she may mend her ways and if she doesn’t,
she should be divorced without repeating the beating. What is wrong with it? Why should the husband proceed with divorce
which the woman does not want?
GM sb asks “Why can't he just say that Muslim men and women
should dress modestly and leave 4:34 out of the equation?”
Who brought up the discussion of verse 4:34? Not me. It was GM sb who
brought it up. Having brought it up, why does he want to drop it without
concluding? Because the hypocrite wants to run away having lost the argument.
What I have to say on the subject is said very clearly and in detail in my
comment By Naseer Ahmed - 1/29/2019 11:07:55.
GM sb cannot find anything to say about it because it provides a detailed
solution of how to avoid the situation that can lead to “wife-beating”,even
without giving up on immodest dressing, and is therefore going around in
circles, reframing what I said, and when that didn’t work, drawing idiotic
sb is still without an answer to the question:
What if the
woman does not want a divorce, but promises to change her ways of immodest
dressing (as very well described by him), but does not do anything about it even
after repeated discussions and admonishments which only end in making another
false promise, and is apparently only testing him on far he will go to assert
Empirical evidence of CCV in all cultures shows that minor domestic
violence works very well in resolving conflicts during the early years of their
marriage. So, why forsake what is known to work very well and especially if the
woman is refusing the divorce option even when warned about the possibility of a
beating if she repeats her behavior?
is a chance that once she gets a beating for repeated transgressions, she may mend
her ways and if she doesn’t, she should be divorced without repeating the
What is wrong with it? Why should the husband proceed with divorce which the
woman does not want?
GM sb is a fanatic who can neither change his stupid opinion nor the
subject and he is Quixotic in his attempts to find fault with the perfect and
complete religion. Dhoondte reh jaoge.
The most obvious implication of what I say that escapes you because of
your perversity is that "Muslims should abide by Islamic norms of
modesty". If they do, then there is no question of correcting by any means,
and this is the situation among Muslim families. The immodesty that you argue
for tolerating is unthinkable by Muslim women. So, please stop insulting Muslim
men and Muslim women with your perverse arguments.
In your family, this does not appear to be the case which is why you
are arguing for loosening of the norms. Your argument and fight are for
tolerating immodesty and for decriminalizing adultery which is disguised as a
fight for "gender equality" and against "harsh" Hudud laws.
While I can understand that living in the US, you have challenges raising
children to conform with Islamic norms, and especially when parents like you have
a poor understanding of Islam, the religion cannot change because of the weak among them. Muslims are meant to change the world and not get changed by
it. Accept the fact that Islam is the "perfect and complete”
religion and conform to it. It cannot and will not change because of the wimps
You have the tenacity of the insane to keep on and on when you have nothing left to say and I am sure you will keep going around in circles until I call you by your proper names and then you will shout triumphantly that you have been "abused" when in fact I only called you by your proper names. You keep repeating this game in every thread.
If he is a wimp like you, he will put up with his wife dressing “seductively
exposing her breasts and other body parts”, with or without 4:34. What if he is
not a wimp and does not want to compromise on Islamic norms of modesty, and the
wife does not want a divorce, and he wants to know whether or not it is OK to
assert himself to the extent that he can beat her if lesser measures do not
work? Verse 4:34 provides the answer to such a person.
You do not have an answer, but the complete and perfected religion does
have an unambiguous answer. You would rather, the religion was incomplete and
imperfect and did not provide the answer but that is your problem. If you are
uncomfortable with your religion, seek another that you are comfortable with.
GM sb has still not answered the question "what if she does not
want a divorce, but promises to change her ways, but does not do anything about
He wants to force divorce on such women unmindful of the consequences and
disregarding that the woman herself does not want it. And, he wants us to think
that he stands for the women! He disregards empirical evidence which shows that
such women take the matter seriously, once the husband asserts himself to the
extent required, even if that means giving her a beating. The marriage is saved,
and a woman is saved from disregarding the Islamic requirement for guarding her
modesty and chastity, but that is not his concern.
I am completely against doing anything that the woman does not want to
be done and must be given options. If she does not want a divorce, then she
should agree to mend her behaviour, and having agreed, follow up on it. If she
is testing her husband by trying to see how far he can go to assert himself, he
must show that he can go as far as to give her a beating, but not repeat it. Undesirable
patterns of behaviour should never repeat. If she does not change her behaviour
even after a beating, he should go to the next step of arbitration to see if it
helps, and if it does not, then divorce her. A Muslim husband should show zero
tolerance to his wife " going in public
places dressed seductively, e.g. with her breasts or other body parts
being insufficiently hidden.” There is no bar on
the face or hair being uncovered. Wimps
and those who do not care about being a Muslim are excluded.
Islam being a complete and perfect religion, provides answers to every
situation and does not leave any question unanswered. A complete and
perfect religion may not be to GM sb's liking. He should find an answer to his
problem rather than waste everyone's time.
Islam is what it is and will remain so. The meaning of 4:34 remains clear
inspite of attempts by the wimps to use euphemisms and other devices to
confuse. One of the attractions of Islam to people of other religions is precisely
the fact that Islam has a clear unambiguous answer to every question. And one
of the reasons why Christianity is on the decline is that it has yielded to the
wimps among them. Which other religion provides an answer to the question ‘how
should the people dress’? What is the meaning of modesty in dress and
behaviour? What are the rights and duties of husband and wife?
While people are leaving other religions because these do not provide clear
answers and are attracted to Islam because it has a clear answer to every
question and is a complete religion, there are people like GM sb who have a
problem with Islam precisely because it provides clear answers to every
question. Those who are uncomfortable with the prescriptions in Islam they should choose what suits them. There is no compulsion in religion.
I wonder what is that
that you have been arguing about all this time? If divorce is acceptable to the
woman, and she has no intention of mending her ways, then she should be
divorced forthwith is what I have been saying all the time. Why go through any
process then? You have no answer still to the question “what if she does not
want a divorce and is willing to mend her ways instead?”
Islam being a complete and
perfect religion, however, also addresses the situation when the woman does not
want a divorce and promises to mend her ways. The Islamic prescription may have
prevented many divorces over the years besides ensuring that the women adhere
to the Islamic norms of decency and modesty.
Your prescription will result in increase in the
number of divorces and the society will also gradually adopt the norms of the
Western Society, in which 87% of the women admit to using their "erotic
potential" for social and economic benefit since you want the men to be
tolerant of their wives dressing seductively, revealing their breasts and other
As far as domestic violence is concerned, the
Western Society is among the worst offenders and nothing would change. In fact,
domestic violence is higher among couples where the women dress to seduce and
to use their "erotic potential”. This is because the trust levels are low,
and infidelity is common which evokes violent reactions. The moment
a man sees his woman dress up more sexily than usual, suspicion is aroused. The
stress levels among such couples are high often leading to drug and alcohol
abuse. To the other causes of conflict, what gets added is infidelity,
suspected infidelity, drug and alcohol abuse.
Your prescription is therefore a prescription for
more divorces, an immodest society and more domestic violence. You love your
stupidity however and hate the complete and perfected religion.
Allah has not created evil. Mild violence is an
effective measure for conflict resolution. When the woman does not have a
problem and would rather get struck when she steps out of line than be
divorced, what is your problem? To most women, the worst cruelty that her
husband can inflict on her is to even bring up the topic of divorce, and not
being struck when he is angry, and she knows that he has good reason to be upset.
Why do you want to thrust your stupid and unnatural values on all? You do love
your hollow political slogans however!
I have been consistent in saying from the time I
first wrote an article on the subject six years ago, (Qur’anic
Wisdom: Marriage and Treatment of Women), that
if the woman puts her foot down on any kind of violence, then this is not an
option. Such a woman, however, will not allow issues to go unresolved and will
either compromise or seek a divorce. That is the best situation to be in for
both. However, not all women are equally mature.
Why are you not equally against every kind of
violence? Why are not fighting against the undeclared wars the US is fighting
in a major part of the world? Why are you not fighting for gun control? Why are
not fighting against the mafia whose business model is based on violence? Why
are you not fighting for the closing down of all bars and brothels that are
places where violent brawls break out most often?
No, you are only against any kind of constructive
violence in a domestic situation because verse 4:34 allows it! I hope you
realize, that when you stand in the presence of Allah on the Day of Judgment,
and try to recall your arguments and opposition to verse 4:34, how stupid you
will feel about your behaviour, because all that blinds you to your stupidity
here on earth, and to the Wisdom in the words of Allah, will be removed.
You have not answered my question at
all since my question was ‘what if divorce is not acceptable to the wife?’. Why
do you pretend that you have answered when clearly you have no answer?
I repeat an improved version of my comment
of 18th January below, that gives the complete answer to the
GM sb has given his understanding of
verse 4:34 as follows:
“4:34 is not about disloyalty or
adultery. It is about obedience and disobedience. It is about a woman going in
public places dressed seductively, e.g. with her hair or face uncovered,
or with breasts or other body parts being insufficiently hidden.”
I agree that verse 4:34 includes the
behaviour of women that he has described so well. I must congratulate him for
his correct understanding of the intent of verse 4:34. For such women, the
course of action outlined in the verse holds.
Course to be adopted for those who have no
intention of abiding by Islamic norms
“Muslim women” who think
nothing of extra-marital sex, must marry another “Muslim” or non-Muslim who
believes similarly and is tolerant of such behaviour.
“Muslim” women who have no intention of
conforming to Islamic norms of dressing outlined in verse 24:31, should
demonstrate to their fiancée exactly how they like to dress and how much of
their arms, breasts, legs, hips etc they like to reveal and take their approval
before marriage. They should find a partner who is cool with such norms who may
or may not be a “Muslim”.
The Quran’s prohibition of
marriage of a Muslim to a non-Muslim is only for those who wish to live by
Islamic codes. It does not hold for adulterers and others who have no intention
of living by its norms. There is absolutely no compulsion in religion.
For those who marry expecting Islamic norms will be
However, when a Muslim man
marries a Muslim woman, the default expectations set are that they will abide
by the Islamic norms of modesty and decency. When these are flouted and
especially when a girl pretends to be a proper Islamic girl before marriage,
and later “wears in public revealing dresses to seduce men”, a Muslim man must
follow the course outlined in verse 4:34 and must not be a wimp.
A woman, who has no intention of
honouring a rightful expectation of her husband, must seek divorce and return
the Mehar and all gifts given by her husband. Else, she should correct her
The Muslim man must divorce her without
bothering about return of Mehar/gifts. Such a woman does not deserve to be part
of his life.
If she is however willing to correct
herself, give her reasonable opportunity. Ask her to destroy forthwith the
dresses that do not conform with Islamic standards.
If after this, she returns to her
former behaviour, admonish her sternly, and make it clear that you mean
business. Offer her divorce once again. If she once again promises to mend her
behaviour, give her another chance.
If she repeats her behaviour the third
time, strike her but stop the moment she asks you to stop. The striking was
because she asked for it by her behaviour which you must stop the moment, she
asks you to stop. Do not do anything to her that does not have her permission. She
should now choose what she wants – divorce or mending her ways. If she chooses
to mend her ways, give her the chance. She now knows that you mean business and
you are not a wimp. She will mend her ways. You will discover how sound and
effective the advise in verse 4:34 is for Muslim men who are not wimps. After
all, it is the word of Allah who understands human nature very well.
However, if she does repeat the same
behaviour, then follow 4:35 and see whether involving her people in an
arbitration can correct her. If not divorce her. There is no point repeating the
beating. If beating has not worked the first time it is not a solution for the
woman. Avoid repeating patterns in life. A solution is what breaks an
undesirable pattern of behaviour
By Naseer Ahmed - 1/18/2019 11:16:02 PM
Your reluctance to respond to the following shows that you cannot
justify not beating under the following circumstances:
Let us go by your definition of the verse:
“4:34 is not about disloyalty or adultery. It is about obedience and disobedience.
It is about a woman going in public places dressed seductively, e.g. with
her hair or face uncovered, or with breasts or other body parts being
You tell us how you will deal with a situation where the woman behaves
as you have described, and does not want a divorce, and yet will not mend her
ways while promising to do so time and again.
You said you are a counselor. What kind of a counselor are you if
you do not even know that a little bit of violence is very effective in
conflict resolution in the early years of marriage for young couples? Very
soon, they settle down with a good understanding of each other without any more
incidents of violence. You would rather all such cases not get resolved but end
in divorce by banning what is known as Common Couple Violence.
Verse 4:34 is not forcing the man to beat and he can allow the woman to
use her "erotic capital" for social or economic benefit if that is
what he wishes to do. While the Quran wants the man to play the role of
protector, he can choose to play the role of pimp. Let the one who wants to
play the role of protector, play it. If you are a wimp, there is no reason why
everyone should become wimps.
If you marry a woman brought up as a Muslim, then there is no problem whatsoever.
So, marry a good Muslim woman and raise your children and grandchildren to be
good Muslim men/women who know the meaning of modesty and the need to guard it,
and the men know how to play the role of quwanuma.
I nailed your lie
You lie once again by calling how you yourself defined the meaning of
the verse as my “gross melodramatization and exaggeration
of the behavior of the woman”
When I call you a liar, it is after nailing your lie. You call me names
without evidence and justification. Stop being such a wimp and a cry baby.
Why in the past, even today, in your own western society in the US,
women are beaten up mercilessly, and there are shelters in every place for
battered women. Common Couple Violence, which is not criminal, is indulged in
by more than 50% of the couples in the US according to the studies. They do not
have verse 4:34 to blame for it but themselves. In the not too distant past, Russian
women and surely many other women even thought that if their husband did not
beat them, it meant they didn't love them!
Do not blame the verse for what happens in every society and every
culture. Islam does not sanction type 2 violence or "Intimate
terrorism" which is indulged in by a control freak. It is not only the men
who are control freaks but women also, but the other problem is not reported or
under reported. Men are also physically battered by their wives, but it is more
common for the women to abuse their spouses psychologically. These issues are gender
neutral. Do not mix up issues that have nothing to do with verse 4:34.
Verse 4:34 has the virtue that even for the most extreme wrong that a
wife can do to a husband, the advice is not to beat her before giving her ample
opportunity to mend her behaviour. The verse thus restricts beating to a
deliberate, willful and repeated failure "to guard her modesty and chastity
in her husband’s absence". Any beating for a lesser reason is therefore
You denigrate the Quran and Allah, by deliberately trying to twist the
meaning of the verse to mean that it sanctions beating for any kind of
disobedience. If beating the wife was an Islamic virtue, the Prophet
(pbuh) would have indulged in it and we know that he didn't even when they
disobeyed him and worse, even when two of them ganged up and rebelled against
him. There is no verse in the Quran on this occasion to chastise them by
beating but an open offer to grant them freedom through divorce with handsome
You deliberately twist the meaning of the verse so that you can attack
it. You lie once again by calling how you yourself defined the meaning of the
verse as my “gross melodramatization and exaggeration of the behavior of the
woman”. Deliberate lies and straw man arguments are your staple. This
behaviour makes you an arrogant, wilful, denigrator and a person without
integrity. That I guess is much more than what a scoundrel means.
You rejected the clear meaning of the
verse and substituted it with your understanding as follows:
You even argued that such a woman should not be beaten. When
I pointed out that this behaviour is indulged in by a woman with an intent to capitalise
on her “erotic capital” for social and economic benefit based on ample evidence
which I presented, and therefore a husband who allows such behaviour, and uses
his wife’s erotic capital for social or economic benefit is a pimp, you
developed cold feet.
With your understanding which is a diluted version of the
meaning of the verse, I endorsed beating in a situation where the woman refuses
divorce, promises to mend her ways time and again, but does not do so. Such a
woman is looking for proof that you are not a wimp, and can enforce a rule, and
will give up the practice the moment you assert yourself in the only way that
makes sense to her, because she has not responded to reason, admonishments etc.
To beat her in this situation is a perfect advice and the source can be only
Allah for such precise guidance.
It is only Allah’s revelations that has transformed an
adulterous society into the Islamic one, and those who follow it, will remain
safe. Persons like you who are wimps and will not chastise their women for capitalizing
on their “erotic capital” for social or economic benefits, will turn into pimps
and their society will once again turn adulterous. You have also argued
forcefully for decriminalizing adultery in Islam, and where your thinking is
taking you and your society is clear.
You are trying to be clever by reframing the question in a
manner that makes beating look awful. I reject your reframing, but with the way
you more correctly framed the question earlier, I have answered the question
Your reframing is a lie and departure from how you framed it
earlier. You reframed because you lost the argument based on your previous
framing. You are stooping to lies to denigrate the Quran. To what depths can
you go to denigrate the Quran GM sb? Are you not a mischief maker and a
scoundrel? Calling a deliberate liar to
denigrate the Quran a scoundrel is justified or not justified GM sb? There is
no arrogance here. You have proved yourself a liar by reframing what you
yourself explained as the meaning of the verse. This reframing is with the sole
objective to denigrate the Quran or perhaps only to win an argument. If you can come up with a better description of your behaviour than calling you a mischief maker and a scoundrel, I will withdraw my words most humbly and apologize to you for it.
What is your objective GM sb? Is it to win the argument by twisting the
meaning of the verse or by putting words in my mouth?
My explanations have covered every aspect of the verse from its precise
meaning to a detailed explanation of how a man / woman must deal with what
he/she wants in life. There is no compulsion in religion whatsoever, and the
Quran provides an answer to every situation. It covers even those who wish to
lead a life of adultery and does not compel the woman to put up with any demand
of her husband or submit to any form of chastisement. The option of divorce is
always available to her. The verse is an advisory on proper behaviour and
conduct and on taking appropriate remedial measures for those who wish to live
by Islamic norms.
Every verse in the Quran is a revelation from Allah and 4:34 is not an
exception. The context of verse 4:34 according to a hadith is that the Prophet
was about to say in answer to a question that a Muslim man should not beat his
wife but Allah ruled otherwise be revealing verse 4:34. The Prophet himself
never beat his wife because there was simply no question of any of his wives “failing
to guard in his absence their chastity/shame” nor does any Muslim today married
to a properly raised Muslim woman has such a problem requiring him to take
corrective action outlined in 4:34.
When Allah can decree corporal punishments for other crimes/sins, why
not beating as a preventative before the person goes far enough to get publicly
punished with a hundred stripes, besides the much more severe punishment in the
Hereafter? And why will not Allah provide guidance on the steps to be followed
to prevent a divorce when the woman does not want a divorce and is willing to try
and conform to the Islamic norms? Does she not deserve to be given ample opportunity?
Corporal punishment has been a necessary feature of the Divine Law all through
the ages for the simple reason that no moral principle made sense until after
it was practiced. The empirical evidence of the difference the practice made is
later contrasted with what was there before the moral principle was promulgated
which then made sense in hindsight. To make people practice what did not make
sense required a ruler to promulgate the rule and punish all contraventions of
the rule. This is covered in my article:
Understanding the Religion of Allah through the Ages
What was the society like before the Quran
and what changes did the Quran bring about?
Essential Message of Islam
Muhammad Yunus & Ashfaque Ullah Syed
Sexual Norms of Pre-Islamic Arabia
As noted earlier, it was normative for women in
pre-Islamic Arabia to cohabit with strangers when their husbands were away on
trading missions (Note 7/Ch. 1.1). Even otherwise, sexual norms were relaxed,
and a casual encounter between the strangers of opposite sexes could readily
culminate into intimate relationship, often openly promoted by women, leading
to their motherhood. This created controversy in establishing paternal lines,
which was decided by comparing the looks and features of a child with its likely
fathers, assembled for the purpose.1 The practice, established as a social
norm, absolved men-folk of all social and financial responsibilities towards
the women they espoused or cohabited with and their offspring, forced women
into commercial adultery, and left children born of such unions at the mercy of
the society. This was in stark contradiction to the Qur’anic family laws that
were designed to i) divest men of their sexual, financial and social licenses,
ii) abolish adultery, iii) empower women and iv) give financial protection to
women and children, as reviewed in the preceding chapters. The Qur’an therefore
had to stop this practice, for which it uses a specific term, zina (25:68/Ch.
19.1; 17:32, 60:12).
You can see the direct relevance of the precedent condition in verse 4:34 “those
who fail to guard their modesty/chastity in secrecy or in the absence of their husband”
to the earlier normative practice “for women in pre-Islamic Arabia
to cohabit with strangers when their husbands were away on trading missions”. We
know from empirical evidence what difference verses 24:31, and 4:34 made to
such a society. We also know that in a society where allowing what you would like to allow or for “women to go in public places dressed
seductively, e.g. with her hair or face uncovered, or with breasts or other
body parts being insufficiently hidden”, adultery becomes common and the
society goes back to the same state that prevailed in Arabia before the Quran.
It is possible that you have no problem with such a society and
you may wonder with such people “what Allah has to do with our sex lives?” I will leave you to your questions. I have
answered every question as it relates to the verse as best as I can, and this
is my last comment in the thread.
I agree that verse 4:34 includes the behaviour of women that
he has described so well. I must congratulate him for his correct understanding
of the intent of verse 4:34. For such women, the course of action outlined in
the verse holds.
“Muslim” women who have no intention of conforming to
Islamic norms of dressing outlined in verse 24:31, should demonstrate to their fiancée
exactly how they like to dress and how much of their arms, breasts, legs, hips
etc they like to reveal and take their approval before marriage. They should
find a partner who is cool with such norms who may or may not be a “Muslim”.
The Quran’s prohibition of marriage of a Muslim to a non-Muslim
is only for those who wish to live by Islamic codes. It does not hold for
adulterers and others who have no intention of living by its norms. There is
absolutely no compulsion in religion.
However, when a Muslim man marries a Muslim woman, the default
expectations set are that they will abide by the Islamic norms of modesty and
decency. When these are flouted and especially when a girl pretends to be a
proper Islamic girl before marriage, and later “wears in public revealing dresses
to seduce men”, a Muslim man must follow the course outlined in verse 4:34 and
must not be a wimp. A woman, who has no intention of honouring a rightful
expectation of her husband, must seek divorce and return the Mehar and all
gifts given by her husband. Else, she should correct her behaviour. The Muslim
man must divorce her without bothering about return of Mehar/gifts. Such a
woman does not deserve to be part of his life. If she is however willing to
correct herself, give her reasonable opportunity. Ask her to destroy forthwith
the dresses that do not conform with Islamic standards. If after this, she
returns to her former behaviour, admonish her sternly, and make it clear that
you mean business. Offer her divorce once again. If she once again promises to
mend her behaviour, give her another chance. If she repeats her behaviour the
third time, strike her but stop the moment she asks you to stop. The striking was
because she asked for it by her behaviour which you must stop the moment, she
asks you to stop. She should now choose what she wants – divorce or mending her
ways. If she chooses to mend her ways, give her the chance. She now knows that
you mean business and you are not a wimp. She will mend her ways. You will
discover how sound and effective the advise in verse 4:34 is for Muslim men who
are not wimps. After all, it is the word of Allah who understands human nature
The wimps among Muslim men like GM sb, must endure what they
GM sb is wasting everybody's time injecting his third-rate gender
politics into a discussion of a verse from the Quran. The hypocrite who argued
in this very thread for taking the best meaning, is bent upon twisting the
meaning to denigrate the Quran. The full meaning, which is accurate is in my earlier
comment which is reproduced below:
Men are “qawwamuna” (guardian, protectors,
caretakers ,standing guard, upholders of their dignity) over women, because God
has given some more than others, and because they support them from their means,
and the (fal-ṣāliḥātu ) righteous women are the truly (qānitātun) devout
ones [ God fearing ] , who guard what Allah has ordered them to be
guarded even in secrecy (lil'ghaybi) [ Allah has ordered both men and
women to guard their furūjihim or chastity/modesty/private parts in
verses 23:5, 70:29), And as for those women whose “nushuz” you have reason to
fear, (faʿiẓūhunna) instruct/advise/admonish them; [ next ] then leave them
alone in bed; then “hit” them; and if thereupon they pay you heed, do not
seek to harm them. Behold, God is indeed most high, great ! [ Surah 4:34 ]
No matter how Nushuz is translated – whether asrefractoriness', 'disobedience', 'rebellion' or
‘disloyalty’, it means the opposite of the behaviour expected
of them which is to guard what Allah has ordered them to be guarded
(chastity/modesty/private parts) even in secrecy or in the absence of their
This verse is not about obedience to the
husband but obedience to the commands of Allah. The husband is charged with the
responsibility of taking care of their woman and her honour. Islam does not
encourage a society of unfaithful women and their cuckolded husbands.
GM sb however wants the women to be given the freedom to “ go
in public places dressed seductively, e.g. with her hair or face
uncovered, or with breasts or other body parts being insufficiently
hidden” and is for decriminalizing adultery. The Quran provides a
solution to such people. They are asked to marry another with similar views/practices.
The Quran explicitly prohibits an adulterous person from marrying a non-adulterous
person to avoid conflicts. Two adulterous persons can marry each other and do
what they please. The perfected religion shows a way out to the sexual perverts
as well. These men, instead of playing the role of Qawwanuma/protector, can
play the role of pimp and maximize the benefits of the erotic capital of their
women who like to dress seductively. I am quoting him verbatim within quotes. Is
he denying it or pretending that he didn’t say it?
is GM sb who is telling a blatant lie. I did not say that he has “denied”. I
only said that he is pretending that he did not say it which is a true
description of his comment.
from GM sb’s clarification, that he may not support, but he will allow, if that
is how his women wish to dress and behave. He has developed cold feet after I
showed the consequences of allowing/supporting such behaviour. Good - he has learned something and may be able to
appreciate Islamic norms better now.
another Muslim man, having married a Muslim woman, is well within his rights to
insist that she follow the Islamic code of dress and modesty. The problem
arises only where there is a conflict in the position taken. To avoid such
conflicts, the Quran debars an adulterer from marrying a non-adulterous person
and vice versa. Two adulterous persons can marry each other and indulge in
adulterous activities discreetly. As long as they do not leave behind four eyewitnesses,
they are safe even in a country which practices Islamic shariat law of punishing
the adulterers with 100 stripes. In countries such as the US and India, they
can be indiscreet and carry it on publicly, if they wish.
knowing the Islamic norms of dress code and modesty, if a girl has no intention
of abiding by these, she should make this clear before marriage by dressing
provocatively “with breasts or other body
parts being insufficiently hidden.” If the boy has no objection and marries
her, the expectations are clearly set before marriage, and there is no conflict.
arises only when a boy is expecting the girl to abide by Islamic codes and she
pretends to do so, but after marriage shows her true pagan colours. The man is
then within his rights to correct her behaviour or divorce her.
that verse 4:34 demeans women is fallacious. If 4:34 demeans women, then the
criminal laws demean mankind. The sound and fury raised by GM sb, is sheer
politics and nothing to do with logic. Allah doesn’t care for political
It is GM sb who is trying to throw dust in everyone's eyes and pretend
that he did not say what he said. This is what he said:
“4:34 is not about disloyalty or adultery. It is about obedience
and disobedience. It is about a woman going in public places dressed
seductively, e.g. with her hair or face uncovered, or with breasts or other
body parts being insufficiently hidden.”
Why would someone who supports
his “women going in public places dressed seductively, e.g. with her
hair or face uncovered, or with breasts or other body parts being
insufficiently hidden” and is for decriminalizing adultery, not use the
erotic capital of such women for economic and social benefit and allow it to be
wasted? If he uses the erotic capital, then he is a pimp and if he doesn’t,
then he is a dumb ass to waste it on nothing. The pendulum swings
for the man from being the “Qawwamuna” or Protector of his woman in Islam, to
becoming her pimp in adopting Pagan ways once again.
I salute the brave Muslim women, who
while living in the US and participating in public life, observe Islamic norms
and modesty. It is sad that there are on
the other hand wimps like GM sb who have totally succumbed to societal
pressures living in the US and are adapting their ways. The consequences of
such behaviour is brought out in my previous comment.
"Are you now
saying that you are unaware that adultery is a punishable crime in Islam besides being a sin?"
A crime in Islam is not a crime in India, but a sin in Islam is also a sin for Indian Muslims. Are you going to live in India and not follow India's laws? Why do you make such dumb arguments?
GM sb, the happy Pagan days are back again!
British Sociologist and expert on women’s issues and employment Dr Catherine
Hakim says not only is it perfectly
permissible, but it’s also important for women to learn that “erotic capital” has genuine economic value and
social benefits. Her new book called Honey Money: The
Power Of Erotic Capital suggests that knowing how to use your sexuality is as
crucial to success at work as intelligence, skill and professional
Corcoran, real estate guru and an investor on ABC’s Shark Tank said “I find running a #business in a
man’s world to be a huge advantage. I wear bright colors, yank up my skirt to
Lockhart)Use My Sexuality To Get Ahead At Work, And I Don’t Feel Bad About It
use my sex appeal to get ahead at work... and so does ANY woman with any sense
By SAMANTHA BRICK
A recent survey
found that 87 per cent of women would flirt with a male
colleague if it meant they got their own way
power begets sex or sex begets power, it’s hard to say, but there seems to be a
clear positive correlation between the two. Confidence and charisma go a long
way toward convincing others to give you professional opportunities, as well as
toward making them want to see you naked. Taking advantage of this
— capitalizing on a flirtatious dynamic, creating an illusion of hope,
impressing others with your sexual prowess, etc. — seems to be a natural
part of the business world, unrelated to gender. Where sex and power are so
closely linked, it’s difficult to discern where one ends and the other begins. By Meghan Seawell,
Why would someone who supports his “women going in public places dressed
seductively, e.g. with her hair or face uncovered, or with breasts or other
body parts being insufficiently hidden” and is for decriminalizing
adultery, not use the erotic capital of such women for economic and social
benefit and allow it to be wasted? If he uses the erotic capital, then he is a
pimp and if he doesn’t, then he is a dumb ass to waste it on nothing. The pendulum swings for the man from being the
“Qawwamuna” or Protector of his woman in Islam, to becoming her pimp in adopting
Pagan ways once again.
The next stage in such a society is polyandry. While the men
and the beautiful women can have all the fun, it will leave the plain Janes or
the vast majority of ordinary women behind. They will have to work very hard to
attract men and bribe them with gifts and money to keep them. I don’t see the men complaining but as for the
women, may God help them!
The Deen Al Islam is the perfected religion or what is best
for all but “those who will not believe”, are deaf to all reason and turn a
blind eye to the evidence and keep mouthing their dumb nonsensical arguments.
This is not the first time that I have shown GM sb the contrast between his stupidity
and the wisdom of the Quran
(2:18) “Deaf, dumb, and blind, they will not return (to the
Are you so thick headed that you do not even understand what you say?
Below is your argument for
decriminalizing adultery in Islam :
“By calling pre-Islamic Arab
criminal laws "Hudud Laws" we have accorded them divine sanction,
which is wrong. Criminal laws can be formulated only by humans although they
must conform to the Quranic requirement of being just, fair, egalitarian,
humane and sensible. Such laws evolve as societies evolve. Extramarital sexual
intercourse violates the rights of the spouse and is a breach of contract and
hence liable to civil action including divorce. Such behavior is also sinful
but that is a matter between the sinner and God.”
Are you now
saying that you are unaware that adultery is a punishable crime in Islam besides being a sin?
GM sb, The State has the authority and duty to punish
criminals after establishing their crime. Should all citizens take offense for
it? All good citizens who have no intention of committing crimes, support the
State. Who then opposes it? Maybe the criminals do but does anybody care about
Why should then any devout Muslim woman who has no
intention of “failing to guard what Allah has commanded to be guarded (modesty
and chastity) in secrecy or in her husband’s absence” be offended by the
measures advised to be taken against such a wife? Who is then offended? The
type of women on whose behalf GM sb is arguing. To quote him those women
who “ go in public places dressed seductively, e.g. with her hair or
face uncovered, or with breasts or other body parts being insufficiently
hidden”. He should know that such women are outside the pail of Islam and
directly violate verse 24:31. Why should I or any devout Muslim care for what
such women and their men think about 4:34? We know they won’t like it.
Below is GM sb’s argument for
“By calling pre-Islamic Arab criminal laws
"Hudud Laws" we have accorded them divine sanction, which is wrong.
Criminal laws can be formulated only by humans although they must conform to
the Quranic requirement of being just, fair, egalitarian, humane and sensible.
Such laws evolve as societies evolve. Extramarital sexual intercourse violates
the rights of the spouse and is a breach of contract and hence liable to civil
action including divorce. Such behavior is also sinful but that is a matter
between the sinner and God.”
Adultery is the second most heinous sin in Islam
after polytheism and GM sb wants that it should be decriminalized!
Polytheism is between man and God and is not
criminalized. Adultery when practiced openly, however corrupts the entire
society and is a crime against humanity. And it is punishable only when there
are four eyewitnesses providing acceptable evidence which means the act is
indulged in an indiscreet or flagrant manner that can corrupt society. Why
should verse 2:11 to 13 then not apply to you for opposing 4:34, 24:2?
You are being offensive about Muslim
women while insinuating that they need anyone to tell them how to dress and how
to behave. They don't need anyone to tell them that and as a matter of fact the
wives correct their husbands in several ways. Verse 4:34 contains instruction
for people like you and not for the devout Muslims for whom the correct
behaviour is instilled from childhood and is instinctive.
The meaning of qawamuna is not boss but
protector. So, don't twist the meaning simply because the correct meaning gives
you no scope to object but only your twisted version. You are indulging in
straw man arguments because Muslim men and women have no problem with verse
4:34 and you are trying to create a problem where none exists.
You are arguing for those women who “ go
in public places dressed seductively,
e.g. with her hair or face uncovered, or with breasts or other body parts being
insufficiently hidden” and would like adultery to be decriminalized. You are
trying to take Islam back to 7th century
paganism. The attraction of pagan norms is undeniable going by the number of
people succumbing to it. Such people are outside the pail of Islam. So, take
your arguments elsewhere and do not try to taint Islam.
it is said to them: "Make not mischief on the earth," they say:
"Why, we only Want to make peace!"(12) Of a surety, they are the ones
who make mischief, but they realise (it) not.(13) When it is said to them:
"Believe as the others believe:" They say: "Shall we believe as
the fools believe?" Nay, of a surety they are the fools, but they do not
It is ironical that GM sb who argued about taking the best meaning, is
bent upon twisting the meaning. Once you hire a bodyguard, you subject yourself
to his guidance as far as his role and your safety is concerned. If you don't,
a true blood professional will quit the job. Moreover, the verse does not
command obedience to the husband, but to Allah’s command to guard what Allah
has commanded to be guarded. The husband has a say only if the woman fails to
do so and is not amenable to correct her behaviour.
Without the husband playing the role of “qawwamuna”, the relationship is
only a live-in relationship of convenience. The marital bond also ends the
moment the woman no longer considers her husband as “qawwamuna” for whatever
reason. She can no longer love, respect, follow such a man. If they are still
living together for convenience, it is like a live-in relationship. As long as
a woman looks upon her husband as “qawwamuna”, which is contingent upon the man
standing up for her and being there when needed, a pillar of strength who never
lets her down, the marital bond remains strong. The woman will love, respect
and follow such a husband to the end of the world if needed.
The institution of marriage is over in the west and they only have live-in
relationships of convenience for a period, even though “solemnised” by a
marriage ceremony. Such people will not know marital bliss having exchanged
what is best for the worst. This has been the story of man. Below is a verse that shows the ungrateful nature of man desiring not what Allah has ordained but something else instead.
(2:61) And remember ye said: "O Moses! we cannot endure one kind of food (always); so beseech thy Lord for us to produce for us of what the earth groweth, -its pot-herbs, and cucumbers, Its garlic, lentils, and onions." He said: "Will ye exchange the better for the worse? Go ye down to any town, and ye shall find what ye want!" They were covered with humiliation and misery; they drew on themselves the wrath of Allah. This because they went on rejecting the Signs of Allah and slaying His Messengers without just cause. This because they rebelled and went on transgressing.
is a contingent precedent to be satisfied before the husband can discipline his
wife. The question is what kind of a woman would satisfy the condition
precedent which is, “fail to guard her
chastity/modesty in her husband’s absence” and not heed admonishment and other
measures and correct herself and remain defiant? Such a woman, if she does not
want to receive a beating, should ask for a divorce instead.
need to appoint a “qawwamuna”
or the upholder of the marital relationship, is important, and if both partners enjoy equal
rights, and there is no qawwamuna to correct when things are going wrong, any one
of them misbehaving, will lead to both misbehaving and breaking down of the
marital relationship as it is happening in western society. Islam appoints the
husband as the “qawwamuna”
or the upholder of the marital relationship, as he is most suited for the role as protector
and provider, in the limited sphere of ensuring that his wife obeys Allah’s
commands and guards what Allah has commanded to be guarded. Only a woman bent
upon defying Allah’s commands would be bothered by this or someone like you,
who think nothing of women “ going in public places
dressed seductively, e.g. with her hair or face uncovered, or with breasts or
other body parts being insufficiently hidden” and would like adultery to
be decriminalized. Clearly, what you want is outside the pail of Islam and your
arguing for it makes no sense. Islam is the deen of Allah and not your deen.
You need to conform to the deen of Allah or place yourself outside the pail of
husband as “qawwamuna” has both a
duty to Allah and a right over his wife. He is answerable to Allah for
protecting his wife and the relationship, without doing any injustice to his
wife and without exceeding the bounds prescribed by Allah. Your slogan of
equality is an empty political slogan. In any relationship involving two or
more people, one of them is clearly the leader. In every other matter except
the subject under discussion, the wife can be the leader/decider and most
husbands do listen to their wives and are most anxious of keeping them
well-pleased. On the question of guarding what Allah has commanded to be guarded,
a husband cannot abdicate his duty to Allah, nor the wife show defiance without
attracting the consequences.
الرِّجَالُ قَوَّامُونَ عَلَى النِّسَاءِ بِمَا فَضَّلَ اللَّهُ
بَعْضَهُمْ عَلَىٰ بَعْضٍ وَبِمَا أَنفَقُوا مِنْ أَمْوَالِهِمْ ۚ فَالصَّالِحَاتُ
قَانِتَاتٌ حَافِظَاتٌ لِّلْغَيْبِ بِمَا حَفِظَ اللَّهُ ۚ وَاللَّاتِي تَخَافُونَ
نُشُوزَهُنَّ فَعِظُوهُنَّ وَاهْجُرُوهُنَّ فِي الْمَضَاجِعِ وَاضْرِبُوهُنَّ ۖ فَإِنْ
أَطَعْنَكُمْ فَلَا تَبْغُوا عَلَيْهِنَّ سَبِيلًا ۗ إِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ عَلِيًّا
The correct translation of
Men are “qawwamuna” (guardian,
protectors, caretakers ,standing guard, upholders of their dignity) over women,
because God has given some more than others, and because they support them from
their means, and the (fal-ṣāliḥātu ) righteous women are the truly (qānitātun) devout ones [ God fearing ] , who guard what
Allah has ordered them to be guarded
even in secrecy (lil'ghaybi) [ Allah has ordered both men and women to
guard their furūjihim or chastity/modesty/private
parts in verses 23:5, 70:29), And as for those women whose “nushuz” you have
reason to fear, (faʿiẓūhunna) instruct/advise/admonish them; [ next ] then
leave them alone in bed; then “hit”
them; and if thereupon they pay you heed, do not seek to harm them. Behold, God
is indeed most high, great ! [ Surah 4:34 ]
No matter how Nushuz is translated
– whether as refractoriness', 'disobedience', 'rebellion' or ‘disloyalty’, it means the opposite of the behaviour expected
of them which is to guard what Allah has ordered them to be guarded (chastity/modesty/private
parts) even in secrecy or in the absence of their husbands.
This verse is not about
obedience to the husband but obedience to the commands of Allah. The husband is
charged with the responsibility of taking care of their woman and her honour.
Islam does not encourage a society of unfaithful women and their cuckolded
The problem of jealous
husbands and jealous wives will remain with or without verse 4:34 and must be
addressed separately. As a matter of fact, the Quran does address the problem
of a spouse accusing the other of adultery and how to deal with the issue when
the accusation is denied and there are no three other witnesses. How does the
problem of a jealous spouse get resolved in any culture?
When Pagan women came to the
Prophet and asked to be admitted into the fold of Islam, he was instructed by
Allah as follows:
(60:12) O Prophet! When believing women come to
thee to take the oath of fealty to thee, that they will not associate in
worship any other thing whatever with Allah, that they will not steal, that they will not commit adultery (or
fornication), that they will not kill their children, that they will not
utter slander, intentionally forging falsehood, and that they will not disobey
thee in any just matter,- then do thou receive their fealty, and pray to Allah
for the forgiveness (of their sins): for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
The form of oath of fealty
underlies the problem of a Society with loose sexual norms and it is this
society which was in transition and needed the safeguards.
The verse 4:34 however, is as relevant today as it was then, going by the
fact that the society is once again becoming adulterous, and your own advocacy
for decriminalizing adultery. and loosening of the Islamic norms of dress code.
To quote you “It is about a woman going in public places dressed seductively,
e.g. with her hair or face uncovered, or with breasts or other body parts being
insufficiently hidden”. Yes, that too is objectionable and exposes the
woman to harm, and a Muslim husband is duty bound as a protector of his wife to
correct such behaviour
“.....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,......”
The norms of behaviour are not personal norms but Islamic norms (and guard what Allah would have them guard). A girl imbibes these norms from
her parents and from observing her mother's behaviour and from her society. These
become instinctive and come naturally to all Muslim women, which is why I have
said repeatedly, that verse 4:34 does not bother Muslim women, because their
behaviour is much above these norms, and they cannot even imagine that the verse would
ever apply to them. This verse had more to do with a society in transition from
Pagan norms to Islamic norms.
The verse is very much about disloyalty “As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct”
GM sb missed out answering the following questions:
When a woman has no intention to be loyal, why does she not straight
away seek a divorce? She does not have to go through a process of correction
when she has no intention to correct her behaviour.
If 4:34 bothers a woman, why does she not put in a clause in her marriage
contract that her husband is free to divorce but not beat her?
Adultery will continue to be a sin and a crime in Islam, although under
the laws of the land, it may not be possible to punish those guilty of adultery,
just as Jesus (pbuh) could not punish the adulteress brought to him, because adultery
was not a crime under the Pagan Roman law, which governed the land in which he and the Jews lived.
GM sb chooses not to make the distinction, given as he to mischief making. He is with the Pagans on this issue.
Moreover, there was no law for adultery in India to begin with, and what
was decriminalized was essentially property rights of a husband over his wife.
The wife being considered mere property without agency was not punishable, but
only the man for violating the property rights of the husband. However, if this
was with the husband’s permission, then there was no crime and no punishment.
In Islam, adultery is sex between people not married to each other and
is punishable. Their mutual consent, consent of their spouses, parents etc have
no bearing. GM sb does not like the Islamic law on adultery and he is with the Pagans on this question.
Why doesn't GM sb use the God given freedom to him to renounce Islam and embrace paganism when he has such affinity for their norms and such dislike for Islamic norms? .
This discussion started with him arguing that we must take the best meaning of any verse and here he is bent upon twisting the meaning so that he can attack the twisted version and claim that it is inserted in the Quran by man! He is inconsistent and takes whatever position suits him. The best meaning was only to argue for interpretation and against "the clear single meaning of every verse" which I was arguing for.
You have not answered my questions. Why are you afraid to do so? List each of my questions and give your answer to every question for all to see plainly what your answers are. Verse 4:34 comes with the clear stamp of divine perfection and is perfectly worded as shown by me while explaining it. No human can improve on its perfect wording with two condition precedents and without compelling the errant party to put up with the consequences. It sets the standards of Islamic behaviour without injustice to any party and serves to save the marriage from breaking up.
Read again my comment By Naseer Ahmed - 1/1/2019 12:45:32 AM for a full response to all your arguments. You are only repeating yourself
Dignity comes from how you behave. Disloyalty is not dignified behaviour. Dignified behaviour is to straight away seek divorce when you know that you cannot be loyal.
Dignified behaviour is when you ask for the clause to be inserted in your marriage contract that the husband is free to divorce but not beat.
Dignity is in your own hands. This verse does not concern/bother millions of Muslim women who are beyond even contemplating such behaviour. I do not know which constituency you are representing with your political slogan of equality.
With your advocacy for decriminalizing adultery and now for taking a softer stand on disloyal behaviour, you seem determined to destroy Islamic norms of behaviour with your deceptive political slogan of equality. That is what Satan does - mislead by creating false desires. There is neither dignity nor equality in deviating from Islamic norms of behaviour.
(4:120) Satan makes them promises, and creates in them false desires; but Satan´s promises are nothing but deception.
GM Sb, You have failed to address my questions. Can you give
If a divorce was equally bad for both
partners, there was no need for verse 4:34. However, in the case of a woman who
is financially dependent on her husband, divorce has a devastating effect on
the woman while for the husband, it may be good riddance of a disloyal wife. It
is the divorce of such a disloyal wife that verse 4:34 is trying to prevent by
prescribing a three-step process.
The pertinent question which GM sb may
1. Why should any wife be disloyal?
2. Why shouldn’t admonishment work?
3. Why should the next step of forsaking in bed not
4. Why should they allow the next step of beating and not mend their behaviour
5. If they have no intention of being loyal, why
not seek divorce straight away? It saves everyone time and effort.
GM sb you are free to
advocate/counsel all your female clients to short circuit the process and go
straight for divorce. I am sure the husbands of these women will be pleased.
You are also free to ask all women to put in a clause in their marriage
contracts that their husbands are free to divorce them but not beat them. All
men I am sure, will be pleased by this clause. It saves them all the hassles of
going through the process of trying to correct errant behaviour.
If a divorce was equally bad for both partners, there was no
need for verse 4:34. However, in the case of a woman who is financially dependent
on her husband, divorce has a devastating effect on the woman while for the
husband, it may be good riddance of a disloyal wife. It is the divorce of such
a disloyal wife that verse 4:34 is trying to prevent by prescribing a three-step
The pertinent question which GM sb may answer is:
2. Why shouldn’t admonishment
3. Why should the next step of
forsaking in bed not work?
4. Why should they allow the next
of beating and not mend their behaviour before?
5. If they have no intention of
being loyal, why not seek divorce straight away? It saves everyone time and
GM sb you are free to
advocate/counsel all your female clients to short circuit the process and go straight
for divorce. I am sure the husbands of these women will be pleased.
The rules of logic and logical deductions are not my invention. I
wouldn't have to say this but for the fact that GM sb is such an ignoramus when
it comes to logical reasoning.
You are plainly questioning several of the Quranic verses as of divine
revelation and accusing the Quran of contamination with 7th century Arab
material. You are therefore either accusing Allah of failing to live upto His
promise of protecting and guarding His message or saying that the promise itself
is a human invention and addition to the Book. If you were not such a hypocrite
but a man of integrity, you would have rejected the entire Quran if you think
that it contains falsehoods, but you choose to neither believe nor disbelieve like
any hypocrite. When you argue against several of the verses, you are clearly saying
that what you say is wiser and the more correct.
What is a statement of fact? Is saying that the husband is the protector
and provider a statement of fact? How does this become a statement of fact? Do
we not have women who provide for themselves and are financially independent of
their husbands? Was Hazrat Khadija (RA) not such an independent woman? As a
matter of fact, in many respects, Hazrat Khadija was both a protector and
provider for the Prophet (pbuh) and it was her influence, in addition to his
Uncle Abu Talib’s influence, that protected him from physical harm. Verse 93:8
of the Quran is believed to refer to the Prophet’s marriage to Hazrat Kahdija
when it says “ And He found thee in need, and made thee independent.” It was
the marriage that made him financially strong and independent. Clearly, in the
case of the Prophet himself, the first “condition precedent” applied in the reverse
but this was of the choosing of Hazrat Khadija, since the marriage proposal was
made by her while Muhammad was in her employment. Not that the Prophet was
dependent on her. He earned his keep while he was in employment of Hazrat
Khadija and even later. He remained faithful to her till her death and did not take another wife while
she lived. This may not have been from any legal requirement but from the great
respect, regard and love that he had for her as his senior, benefactor, protector,
friend, philosopher and guide besides being his wife and mother of his children.
So, you find no less a person than the Prophet himself fulfilling the
requirements of the verse.
“As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct” is
another condition precedent. Do you think this is another statement of fact and
all wives are
You don’t even understand the law of equality! The law of equality is an
eye for an eye…. and therefore it means the right to retaliate.
Neither the Quran nor am I giving any partner the right to chastise but
when conditions arise that require chastising, it is upto the partners what
they decide to do and put up with. Both partners have the right to put their
foot down on any form of chastisement and seek divorce. I have said this a
million times, but it doesn’t get across you!
The hollowness of your arguments has been thoroughly exposed and you
have nothing meaningful to say as was bound to happen. Verse 4:34 comes with
the clear stamp of divine perfection and is perfectly worded as shown by me while
explaining it. No human can improve on its perfect wording with two condition
precedents and without compelling the errant party to put up with the consequences.
It sets the standards of Islamic behaviour without injustice to any party and
also serves to save the marriage from breaking up.
What is it that blinds you to the clear signs of divinity in the verse and
makes you deaf to clear reason and dumbs you into mouthing nonsense? Let not the following verse come true in your
case and return to the straight path before it is too late.
(2:18) “Deaf, dumb, and blind, they
will not return (to the path).”
This is my last to you on this thread.
The problem with you is that you refuse to understand anything. Your starting
premise that the Book is the work of a 7th century human and not the
word of Allah, and that you are wiser than this 7th century author
of the Book, is a false premise. You will therefore always find that your
objections and prescriptions are devoid of wisdom and extremely foolish.
Moreover, all your views are grounded in the current values of the western
civilization and its notions of political correctness. These are neither proven
nor permanent nor in the best interests of the most vulnerable sections of the
society. These values are hypocritical and
exploitative and perpetuate and accentuate the differences between the haves
and have-nots. The western values are also exploitative of the female which is
why modesty and hijab offend them so much. Even a white woman not wearing hijab
but wanting to dress modestly, faces opprobrium and ostracism in that society. The ordinary western woman is brainwashed into
thinking that dressing and acting provocatively is a freedom when they are being
coerced into such behaviour by the perverted norms of that society. The western
woman is anything but free, and submits to the demanding norms of her sexually perverted
society. This is why more western women are attracted to Islam than their men and the first thing they do on conversion is wear a hijab.
You forget that it is the revelations alone that have given us the
criterion of right and wrong without which you would still have been a “prehistoric
insignificant animal with no more impact on your environment than gorillas,
fireflies or jellyfish”. Therefore, show respect to the Quran and its verses. Else,
you will only end up exposing your shallowness and lack of wisdom.
I wish the people who would like to understand the
Quran take a course in logic because the Quran conforms with every rule of
logic, and the Book taken as whole, is logically consistent without a single contradiction.
Given this attribute of the Quran, what
can be logically deduced from what is stated, is as valid as if the deduction
was explicitly stated. Keep this in mind.
General Applicability or Limited Applicability?
The verse starts with a “condition precedent” which
is “Men are the protectors and providers of their women and therefore…”. If the
“condition precedent” is not satisfied, what follows does not apply. There is a second “condition precedent”, which
is the behaviour that attracts the chastisement. A verse with a “condition
precedent” is not of general applicability and is only of limited applicability
when the “condition precedent” is satisfied. This is simple logic. In this
case, there is a main “condition precedent” and within it a second “condition
precedent” that must be satisfied.
Patriarchal or positive discrimination??
The charge of patriarchy and inequality fall flat
since it is possible to see what would happen if the “condition precedent” is
satisfied in the reverse. We know that in every culture and in every society, a
man who is dependent on his wife has no option except to live under his wife’s
terms or get kicked out. As a matter of fact, the woman is under no obligation
to maintain her husband and can straight away kick him out. The charge of both inequality and patriarchy
fall flat. The verse in fact discriminates in favour of the women in as much as
it prescribes a process to be gone through, allowing the errant wife to mend
her behaviour unacceptable in Islam, before proceeding to the next stage of arbitration
and divorce. The woman can choose to short circuit the process and go for
divorce straight away.
Why there is no verse commanding the woman to chastise her errant
Because the Quran cannot and does not compel either
the man or the woman to put up with the chastisement.
The Quran is not preventing the wife from
chastising her errant husband and as a matter of fact all wives do chastise
their errant husbands. This power of the husband/wife to chastise their partner
is however limited by the other partner’s tolerance for it because the Quran
does not ask the guilty party to put up with the chastisement. Either partner
can put their foot down in which case the other partner must put up with the
behaviour or seek divorce. The divorce hurts the woman the most which is why
the Quran mandates a process before seeking divorce when the woman is guilty of
ill-conduct without compelling the woman to put up with the chastisement – she can
choose divorce instead. The Quran does not however mandate the same process when
the man is guilty because this could straight away lead to divorce which may
not be what the woman wants. The woman must therefore exercise her judgment about
how far she can go without jeopardising the marriage if she doesn’t want a break-up.
If she doesn’t care if the there is a break-up, she can do whatever she
Why the Law of equality is inapplicable?
That the law of equality is inapplicable in such a
relationship is obvious from the fact that a man cannot retaliate to a disloyal
wife by being disloyal himself. That the relationship is of inter-dependence
and of mutual rights and obligations, and not necessarily one in which the law
of equality can be applied, should be clear.
The Quran guides to what works best in each
situation and in verse 4:34 is such guidance to enforce the Islamic norms of
proper behaviour without jeopardising the marriage and without compulsion on
any party. The advisory nature of the verse is obvious.
It is GM sb who is trying to take us backward in
time to the Pagan norms prevailing before the revelation of the Quran forgetting
that it is Allah who has guided mankind into following his religion and
bringing about the norms of behaviour in Muslim society that have made verse 4:34
only a reminder of what it was like before the revelation of the Quran.
GM Sb, You neither understand Islam nor are you willing to understand. In a situation in which the wife is guilty of disloyalty, what would the law of equality require? That the husband can retaliate in like manner by being disloyal. That is not allowed in Islam. The law of equality therefore fails in this situation. Apparently, that is what you want. What you want is therefore un-Islamic and puts you out of the pale of Islam. You have been arguing for decriminalizing adultery when adultery is the second most heinous sin in Islam second only to associating partners with Allah. Apparently, you do not think much of infidelity in marital relationships and are tolerant of pre-marital and extra-marital relationships. That simply is completely out of bounds as far as Islam is concerned.
I positively affirm verse 4:34 and its clear meaning and repeat that an overwhelming majority of Muslim men and women are not bothered by it because they will never have to resort to its provisions. The women to whom this verse would justly apply, deserve to be chastised and can instead ask for a divorce. You are OK with a divorce so what is your problem if an alternative to divorce is provided and if there are women who would prefer the alternative? You seem to be an enemy of such women just to please the ones who want the freedom to flirt and are offended by verse 4:34 because it rules out such freedom! As far as your society which is tolerant of infidelity is concerned, no one is forcing you to chastise your women when they are disloyal. You are free to live by the law of equality but should know that this behaviour falls outside the pale of Islam. I thank Allah for verse 4:34 that enables putting across the point clearly. The verse prevents many men/women from un-Islamic behaviour and makes known to those who violate these norms that they are outside the pale of Islam.
This discussion started with “taking the best meaning of any verse” and even in a case of a verse that is advisory, and a word that has a range of meanings, the Quran makes it clear that taking the meaning of “iḍ’ribūhunna” as“strike/beat” is very much intended and cannot be ruled out. The Quran is a Book that makes the meaning clear and any doubt can be cleared with the help of other verses from the Quran. We establish once again, that the argument of the would-be reformists for “re-interpretation” is nonsensical, and the only argument that makes sense, is to take the meaning shorn of all interpretations of the traditionalists as well as the modernists.
Islam is indeed a complete and perfected religion and the pity is that the would-be reformists do not even understand this simple fact even though Allah says so explicitly in verse 5:3. They will therefore drift aimlessly like jetsam. The text of the Quran will remain unchanged and its single meaning will remain ascertainable with reference to the Quran itself. The Quran is the first Book that satisfies the requirements of secured communication protecting both the text and the meaning from corruption. The question is whether you are seeking the meaning or are just seeking to interpret it your way. Those who seek to interpret rather than seek the meaning are the ones who have gone astray.
Quran does not require to be defended. I am trying to explain to a
person who is apparently devoid of understanding. The relationship between a
man and his wife is of inter-dependence and not of equality. It is a
relationship of mutual rights and obligations.
4:34 has a clearly stated condition in which it applies. The condition is if
the man is the provider and protector of his wife. If the relationship is
reversed and the woman becomes the protector and provider for her husband, as explained
in my previous comment, the man will be kicked out for being dependent alone.
The Quran does not find anything wrong with that. Else, there would have been a
verse covering such a situation to protect the marriage. Verse 4:34 therefore
is an instance of positive discrimination trying to protect a marriage even
though the dependent female partner is both disobedient and disloyal. In the absence
of 4:34, the husband would divorce such a wife without a second thought. This
of course applies only to those Muslims who follow their religion in matters of
modesty and rules of conduct while dealing with strangers of the opposite sex.
a situation in which the woman is financially independent, the condition is not
satisfied either way, and the verse does not apply. They are both free to live together
as long as it pleases both of them and part ways when it does not.
like GM sb may be living according to a different set of rules. All that such
people need to know is that 4:34 is an advisory and does not force them to
chastise their women if they do not find the behaviour which is the subject of
the verse, objectionable.
is GM sb’s objections to the Quran that are always hollow and nonsensical. He
lacks even the wisdom to realize his limitations. He is also lacking in a
knowledge of the Quran. Else, he would have known that similar questions have
been asked by people even while the Quran was being revealed. Allah has created
us and not the other way around. What Allah wants of us, He has made clear through
His revelations in the Quran and to those who use Allah’s gift of intellect, He
makes clear the meaning, purpose and the wisdom in each of Allah’s commands,
general principles and advisories.
The word “apologist” does not apply to me. It applies to
those who would rather not translate “iḍ'ribūhunna” as “strike/beat” but use euphemisms instead in order
to remain politically correct. For example, Yunus sb prefers to translate it as
“assert”. The problem with an open-ended “assert” is the question in what
manner does one assert one’s authority to ensure compliance. You are giving too
much leeway to the individual here to interpret as he wishes since there are
infinite ways of asserting one’s authority to ensure compliance such as:
Deprivation of food
So, what is gained by using “assert” which includes other more
demeaning forms of coercion without eliminating beating?
You have said that according to some female Quranic scholars
it can also mean "have sexual intercourse with them."
Are these female Quranic scholars advocating sex as a punishment for
disobedience and disloyalty which is the subject of the verse? Maybe, being chained
like a slave and being sexually ravaged is their sexual fantasy. Who are these
sexually perverted female Quranic scholars?
Is the punishment more demeaning or the
behaviour for which the punishment is prescribed? Why should a normal Muslim woman
who will never adopt such behaviour be offended by verse 4:34? Where is the
equality that you speak of? The State has the authority to punish you if you
commit crimes. There is hardly a person who does not have others who have
authority over them to ensure compliance with reasonable rules.
A woman is free to include in her
marriage contract a clause that her husband is free to divorce her but not free
to use any form of physical violence. A Muslim male is also free to allow his
women the freedom to adopt the norms of behaviour in modern western society or
those that were common among the Pagan Arabs. Do not however try to force your
ideas on all Muslims who are perfectly happy to live according to their
Allah did indeed perfect His religion
and complete it in the Quran and every verse of the Quran is proof of it.
What is moral is that which produces the maximum good for the weakest
section of the society. Anything that hinders what is good for the weakest
section of society is immoral.
The financially independent women are in no way affected by verse 4:34.
They need not put up with any of the demands of their husbands since divorce
does not affect them more than it affects their husband. They can expect and
demand equality in all respects.
A vast majority of the Muslim women do not behave in a manner that
requires their husbands to resort to any of the measures outlined in verse
4:34. They are both conscious and observant of their role and responsibilities.
Therefore I said that verse 4:34 was for the society transitioning from Pagan
norms to Islamic norms.
Verse 4:34 is to correct those women who err seriously enough to merit a
divorce, but who will be devastated if divorced. The verse does not give the
husband more power than he needs to fulfil his responsibility and obligations
under the contract of marriage.
Corporal punishment has been a feature of the divine law all through the
ages and has proved effective in making the people practice Allah's religion.
The revelations through the ages proves that Allah is very much interested
in promoting the well-being of mankind. Allah is not as you imagine
"sitting in His lofty pedestal" unconcerned about us.
People like GM sb and the reformists with an inferiority complex
about Islam, spread only confusion. Let us analyse the meaning of “iḍ'ribūhunna” in verse 4:34. Let us for argument’s
sake agree that the word has a range of meanings and “beating” is only one of
them. Can we then say that a translation of the verse in which the word is
translated as “beating” or equivalent is incorrect? No, we cannot, because the
Quran uses the word to mean “strike” in several verses such as:
2:60 And [recall] when Moses prayed for
water for his people, so We said, "Strike (id’rib) with your staff the
2:73 So, We said, "Strike (iḍ'ribūhu) the slain man with
part of it."
8:12 [Remember] when your Lord
inspired to the angels, "I am with you, so strengthen those who have
believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so
strike [them] (fa-iḍ'ribū) upon the necks and strike (wa-iḍ'ribū) from them every fingertip."
So, if Allah did not want us to take its meaning as “beating”
or “striking”, He would have not used this word, but a more appropriate word,
and if there was no appropriate word, then a full description of what was
intended. So, there goes the argument for taking an alternative meaning.
Having said that, let us analyse the verse: (4:34) 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) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against
them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).
1. Men have a responsibility to
protect their women and this responsibility comes with the right to lay down
the rules and have these obeyed to ensure that their women are not exposed
unduly to known dangers or to situations that make their protection difficult.
2. The wife has an obligation to
obey her husband who is her protector (even the President of the US has no
option but to follow what his personal security would have him follow)
3. The verse is attempting to
bring about reconciliation in a situation where there is a conflict and prevent
divorce. The husband undeniably has the upper hand merely on account of being
in the position of “provider and protector” and in a situation where the wife
is financially dependent upon the husband, divorce hurts her very much. This is
what the verse is trying to prevent.
4. Even in the US today, Common
Couple Violence (CCV) as the term suggests, is common, and recognized as an
effective mechanism for conflict resolution among young couples in the initial years
of their marriage. They eventually settle down with a better understanding of
each other. In later years, CCV either does not recur or becomes rare.
5. There is no compulsion for the
woman to follow the rules laid down by her husband. Divorce is always an option.
6. In today’s world, the women
are independent and may not need any protection and may therefore not submit to
their husbands which is fine. There is no compulsion. We may simply have more
divorces which is also fine.
7. Moreover, this verse is only
an advisory verse and no man will be punished for not following the outlined course
in the given situation. The Prophet never beat any of his wives but then they
were all obedient to him and observed the required decorum.
8. The verse and its meaning are
however clear and that will not change. The Quran is a Book of guidance for
those who pay heed. There is no compulsion in religion.
9. What we do not need is for the
hypocrites to play havoc with the meaning of the Quran. These people are slaves
of the western civilization and its notions of what is politically correct and unashamedly
playing to the gallery.
concludes that my explanation is "inventive and false" without
telling us which part is inventive and which part is false. He is the one who
is lying. He is frustrated because his repeated attempts to malign the Quran by
saying that it is not the word of Allah have failed miserably as they surely
Nay, We hurl the Truth against falsehood, and it knocks out its brain, and
behold, falsehood doth perish! Ah! woe be to you for the (false) things ye
ascribe (to Us).
correct understanding of verse 4:34 is covered in my article:
Qur’anic Wisdom: Marriage and Treatment of Women
This is another
advisory verse (and not a command of Allah) on the best way to deal with a wife
guilty of disloyalty and ill-conduct. The measures suggested are admonishment,
forsaking in bed and wa-iḍ'ribūhunna. Since it is an advisory verse and not a
command of Allah, it is permissible to take any steps, and in any order, and
even steps not mentioned in the verse which are not otherwise forbidden, to
ensure that the marriage survives. Iḍ'ribūhunna
is unmistakably the final clear warning/step
before initiating divorce/arbitration
proceedings discussed in the next verse. Many women even today would prefer a
slap to being threatened with divorce and Common Couple Violence (CCV) to
settle differences in the initial years of marriage, is common in all cultures
and in every strata of society and has proved to be effective in conflict
resolution. The Qur’an is not a Book of political correctness and does not rule
out taking iḍ'ribūhunna to mean striking, but as I said, this being an advisory verse, you
are free to take the advise or follow another legitimate course.
needs to be kept in mind is that the wife can put her foot down on any
step/measure taken by the husband, in which case, he is left with no
alternative but to desist from that step or seek divorce.
Here are a few of the commands of Allah. The commands are
very clear. Excellence can therefore be only on how one practices the command.
only God: Take not with Allah another object of worship; (Quran 17:22)
(7:170) As to those who hold fast by the Book
and establish regular prayer,- never shall We suffer the reward of the righteous to
(there is a world of difference between mere compliance and
excellence in performing salat and holding fast by the Book.
(3:92) By no means shall ye
attain righteousness unless ye give (freely) of that which ye
love; and whatever ye give, of a truth Allah knoweth it well.
and Fair In One's Interactions: Give full measure when ye
measure, and weigh with a balance that is straight: that is the most fitting
and the most advantageous in the final determination. (Quran 17:35)
(55:9) So establish weight with justice and fall not short
in the balance.
(One example of excellence practiced by Merchants who do not
wish to violate this command of Allah is that although the Department of
weights and measures allows a tolerance of say minus 0.2%, they calibrate their
scales/weights to err on the plus side (say +.1%) always giving the customer
more but never less.
Honourable And Humble To One's Parents:
Lord hath decreed that ye worship none but Him, and that ye be kind to parents.
Come not nigh to the
orphan's property except to improve it, until he attains the age of full
Evil with Good and Forgiveness:
can goodness and Evil be equal. Repel (Evil) with what is better: Then will he
between whom and you was hatred become as it were your friend and intimate!
Of Human Life
Nor take life – which Allah
has made sacred – except for just cause. (Quran 17:33)
Freeing of Slaves:
(9:60) Zakat money collected by
the state can be used to free slaves
(2:177) It is righteousness to
spend of your substance, out of love for Him for the ransom of slaves;
(24:33) ....And if any of your
slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a
certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them
something yourselves out of the means which Allah has given to you
Free a slave for the expiration
of sins such as: 1. Wrongful divorce (58:3) 2 Violating of oath 5:89 3) Killing
by mistake (4:92)
Free men and women are encouraged
to marry a slave 4:3, 4:25
Commit Adultery: Nor come nigh to adultery: for it is a shameful (deed) and
an evil, opening the road (to other evils). (Quran 17:32)
One's Promises: ...fulfill (every) engagement [i.e. promise/covenant], for
(every) engagement will be enquired into (on the Day of Reckoning). (Quran 17:34)
Nor walk on the earth with insolence: for thou canst not rend the earth
asunder, nor reach the mountains in height. (Quran 17:37)
Modesty: Say to the
believing men and women that they should lower their gaze and guard their
modesty: that will make for greater purity for them: And Allah is well
acquainted with all that they do. (24:30)
(2:256) Let there be no
compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil
and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never
breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.
with non-aggressors, kindness towards them, and just dealing
(60:8) Allah forbids you
not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out
of your homes, from dealing kindly (Taburruhum)
and justly (Tuqsitu) with them: for
Allah loveth those who are just.
(39:32) who, then, doth more wrong than one who utters a lie
concerning Allah, and rejects the Truth (Bil-ṣid'qi)
when it comes to him; is there not in Hell an abode for blasphemers?
(33) And he who brings the Truth (Bil-ṣid'qi)
and he who confirms (wa Saddaqa) (and supports) it - such are the men who do
(34) They shall have all that they wish for, in the presence of
their Lord: such is the reward of those who do good:
(35) So that Allah will turn off from them (even) the worst in
their deeds and give them their reward according to the best of what they have
There is no command of Allah that is unclear requiring
interpretation or taking the best meaning. Excellence is only in how one chooses
(39:17) Those who
eschew Evil,- and fall not into its worship,- and turn to Allah (in
repentance),- for them is Good News: so announce the Good News to My Servants,-
(18) Literal meaning: Those
who they listen (to) the Word, then follow the best thereof, those (are) they
whom Allah has guided them, and those are [they] the men of understanding.
Verse 39:17 is about eschewing evil. All evil is to be
eschewed – not just what is most evil.
Verse 39:18 is about doing what Allah has commanded us to do
and here we are asked to obey it in the best possible manner which makes sense
as there is a world of difference between the best way to do something and mere
compliance. Following are more than 40 translations of the verse. All of them
with a few exceptions, take the Arabic word ahsanhu, to refer to excellence in practice of Allah’s Word/Command.
Yusuf Ali is among the three exceptions who takes it as referring to the meaning,
but they put meaning in parenthesis clearly showing that they have deviated
from the literal meaning of the verse.
Ali Ünal : Who, when
they hear speech, follow the best of it (in the best way possible, and even
seek what is better and straighter). Those are the ones whom God has guided, and
those are the ones who are people of discernment.
Dr. Munir Munshey:Those who heed the advice, and implement
its best features are the ones whom Allah has guided! Such are the sensible
Abdul Hye: those
who listen to the Word (to worship Allah) and follow the best thereof. Such are
the ones whom Allah has guided and such are the people of understanding.
Ahmed Raza Khan (Barelvi)
Who listen to the word
attentively and follow the best thereof. It is they whom Allah has guided and
it is they who possess wisdom.
Amatul Rahman Omar Who listen to the word (of
advice) and follow the best (injunction productive of the best results)
thereof. It is they whom Allah has guided and it is they who are endowed with
pure and clear understanding.
listen [closely] to all that is said, and follow the best of it: [for] it is
they whom God has graced with His guidance, and it is they who are [truly]
endowed with insight!
Yusuf Ali (Saudi Rev. 1985) Those who listen to the Word,
and follow the best (meaning) in it: those are the ones whom Allah has guided,
and those are the ones endued with understanding. zoom
Pickthall: Who hear advice and follow the best thereof. Such
are those whom Allah guideth, and such are men of understanding.
who listen to the word, then follow the best of it; those are they whom Allah
has guided, and those it is who are the men of understanding.
Wahiduddin Khan: who
listen to what is said and follow what is best in it. These are the ones God
has guided; these are the people endowed with understanding.
T B Irving: who
listen to the Statement and follow the best in it. Those are the ones whom God
has guided; those are prudent persons.
Mustaffa Khattab: those who listen to what is said and
follow the best of it. These are the ones ˹rightly˺ guided by Allah, and these are ˹truly˺ the people of reason.
The Study Quran: who
listen to the Word, then follow what is most beautiful of it. It is they whom
God has guided; it is they who are the possessors of intellect.
Group] (2011 Edition)/: The ones who listen to what is being said, and then
follow the best of it. These are the ones whom God has guided, and these are
the ones who possess intelligence.
Abdel Haleem: who
listen to what is said and follow what is best. These are the ones God has
guided; these are the people of understanding.
Abdul Majid Daryabadi: Who
hearken Unto the word and follow that which is the exceLlent there of. These
are they whom Allah hath guided, and those are men of understanding.
Ahmed Ali: Those who listen to the Word and then follow the
best it contains, are the ones who have been guided by God, and are men of
Aisha Bewley: Those who listen well to what is said and
follow the best of it, they are the ones whom Allah has guided, they are the
people of intelligence.
Ali Quli Qara'i: who
listen to the word [of Allah] and follow the best [sense] of it. They are the
ones whom Allah has guided, and it is they who possess intellect.
Hamid S. Aziz:Those who listen to the Word (or advice) then
follow the best (meaning) of it; those are they whom Allah has guided, and
those it is who are the men of understanding.
Muhammad Mahmoud Ghali: Who
listen to the Saying (and) so closely follow the fairest of it. Those are they
whom Allah has guided, and those are the ones endowed with intellects.
Muhammad Taqi Usmani: who listen to what is said, then,
follow the best of it. Those are the ones whom Allah has guided, and those are
the ones who possess understanding.
Shabbir Ahmed: Who listen
to what is said and follow what is best. And they truly listen to the Word and
see what is best applicable in a given situation. Such are those whom Allah
guides, and they are the ones who grow in understanding.
Syed Vickar Ahamed:Those who listen to the Word, and follow
the best (meaning) in it: Those are the ones whom Allah has guided, and those
are the ones blessed with understanding.
Umm Muhammad (Sahih International): Who listen to speech and follow the best of it. Those are the ones
Allah has guided, and those are people of understanding.
Dr. Kamal Omar those who listen to Al-Qawl (‘The
Statement’. This is an attribute for Allah’s Al-Kitab); then they adopt the
better of it — they are those whom Allah has guided; and they: they are
possessors of understanding and intellect .
Talal A. Itani (new translation) Those who
listen to the Word, and follow the best of it. These are they whom God has
guided. These are they who possess intellect.
Maududi: to those who pay heed to what is said and follow
the best of it. They are the ones whom Allah has guided to the Right Way; they
are the ones endowed with understanding.
Ali Bakhtiari Nejad
those who listen to the
word and follow the best of it. They are those whom God guided them, and they
are people of understanding (reasonable people).
A.L. Bilal Muhammad et al (2018) Those
who listen to the word, and adhere to the best of it. Those are the ones who
God has guided, and those are the ones endowed with understanding.
[The Monotheist Group] (2013 Edition) The ones who
listen to what is being said, and then follow the best of it. These are the
ones whom God has guided, and these are the ones who possess intelligence.
Those who pay heed to the
Word [Qur'aan] and follow the the good guidance thereof. Those are the ones
whom Allah has guided. And those are the ones endowed with insight.
Faridul Haque Those who heed attentively and
follow the best from it; it is these whom Allah has guided, and it is these who
Hasan Al-Fatih Qaribullah
who listen to the Words and
follow what is finest of it. These are they whom Allah has guided. They are
those of understanding.
Maulana Muhammad Ali
Who listen to the Word,
then follow the best of it. Such are they whom Allah has guided, and such are
the men of understanding.
Sher Ali Who listen to the Word and follow
the best thereof. It is they whom ALLAH has guided, and it is they who are
really endowed with understanding.
Dr. Mohammad Tahir-ul-Qadri
Those who listen
attentively to what is said, then follow the best in it, it is they whom Allah
has given guidance, and it is they who have wisdom.
Muhsin Khan & Muhammad al-Hilali Those
who listen to the Word (good advice La ilaha ill-Allah (none has the right to
be worshipped but Allah) and Islamic Monotheism, etc.) and follow the best
thereof (i.e. worship Allah Alone, repent to Him and avoid Taghoot, etc.) those
are (the ones) whom Allah has guided and those are men of understanding (like
Zaid bin Amr bin Nufail, Salman Al-Farisi and Aboo Dhar Al-Ghifaree). (Tafsir
Al-Qurtubi, Vol. 12, P. 244)
Edward Henry Palmer
who listen to the word and
follow the best thereof; they it is whom God guides, and they it is who are
endowed with minds.
George Sale who hearken unto my word, and
follow that which is most excellent therein: These are they whom God directeth,
and these are men of understanding.
John Medows Rodwell who hearken to my word and follow
its excellence. These are they whom God guideth, and these are men of insight.
N J Dawood (2014)
who listen to precepts and
follow what is best in them. It is these whom God has guided; it is these that
are of good sense possessed.
Sayyid Qutb who listen carefully to what is
said and follow the best of it. These are the ones whom God has graced with His
guidance, and these are the ones endowed with insight.
Ahmed Hulusi They are (my servants) who listen
to the word of Truth and follow the best (most protective) of it... Those are
the ones Allah has guided to the reality and those are the ones with intellects
capable of contemplation!
Al-muntakhab fi tafsir al-Qur'an al-Karim My
worshippers who listen to the discourse and choose with deliberation the best
course to follow as of forgiveness in lieu of retaliation. These are they who
have the world all before them and Providence their guide and it is these who
apprehend virtue as well as the voice from heaven.
Mir Aneesuddin who hear a statement then follow
the best of it, those are the persons whom Allah has guided and those are the
persons who understand.
"This verse can have two meanings:
(1) That they do not follow every voice but ponder over what every man says and accept only what is right and true.
"(2) That they do not try to give a false meaning to what they hear but adopt its good and righteous aspects."
Moreover, the meaning of verse 39:18 is not as GM sb understands it
which is based on how Yunus sb has interpreted it and argued in this forum. The
"best" in 39:18 does not refer to the meaning of the verse/command
but the manner in which the command is practiced.
who listen to the Word, and follow the best thereof: those are the ones whom
Allah has guided, and those are the ones endued with understanding.
For example, the command to spend in charity can be obeyed in a variety
of ways but the best way to do so is:
Charity with kindness and
without waste - three virtues that go together and if separated can become a
vice. Imagine charity with harshness or insulting behavior. Imagine giving
less than what is needed. It doesn’t serve the purpose. Imagine boastful waste.
The difference in the correct meaning of the verse and
the incorrect interpretation of Yunus sb can be easily seen. How can Allah say
that His Book makes everything clear and yet ask us to take the best-meaning allowing
people to take whatever they think is best? Allah does not grant such license,
and neither is it necessary as Allah is capable of communicating clearly without
ambiguity making the single meaning clear.
Mr Muhammd Yunus writes it well, “The
Qur’anic paradigms are eternal, free from any addition or alteration since the
revelation that was preserved orally as well as in various indigenous writing
materials (suhuf, 80:11-16). It lays a great emphasis on the ‘constants’ of
life – how a human being should behave regardless of time and era. Thus, it
encompasses a broad spectrum of universal paradigms - justice, liberty, equity,
good deeds, good neighborly and inter-faith relations, sharing of wealth with
the poor, eradication of slavery, deliverance of women from various entrenched
taboos, conjugal oppression and dehumanization; good business ethics, fair
payment for goods and services, financial support to the needy, use of
intellect, striving for excellence – to cite some major examples.”
Qur’an was given in a specific context, within the framework of a worldview
that was appropriate to first/seventh-century Arabia, and in a language and
symbolism that its audience understood." Abdullah Saeed.
"The Qur’an was given in a
specific context, within the framework of a worldview that was appropriate to
first/seventh-century Arabia, and in a language and symbolism that its audience
understood." Abdullah Saeed.
That is the truth that stares us in the
face. To deny it is to deny reality.
The concept of "“perfected and
complete religion” from Muhammad (pbuh)" is flawed because it implies that
Judaism and Christianity are imperfect and incomplete. Anyone who believes that
is a supremacist by definition.
When the context is so heavily laden with the ethos of the times that eternal
principles become obscure, one has to pry and recover the eternal principles
and to understand them fully in the modern context. Eternal principles do not
change with the times but they have to be sought through the plethora of
If the Quran is "taken on its word or its most direct literal
meaning," that too is interpretation. Claiming "what I say is direct
meaning and what others say is interpretation" is hubris.
When Naseer sb. asserts that what the
traditionalists say are "misinterpretations" and what he says is
"direct literal meaning", we must understand that it is only a claim
and no one else supports that claim.
No religion can be produced by a Book.
When the message from the Book finds resonance in the heart of man, a religion
is born. Man thus is central to the process. He should remain central and
active to make sure that his religion remains rational, consistent and