Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Wife Beating Verse

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

(salam)

(bismillah)

You should ask your friend this, forget translations from Arabic-English. What about those classical scholars pre-500AH who interpreted the Arabic to mean "beat", where they also using "modern" Arabic? Both Shee`ah and Sunni classical scholars interpret this word the same.

I have made a lengthy post about this in a thread a while back, showing the hadeeth and the Shee`ah mufassirseen from the Classical scholars to the contemporary that interpret this verse as "beat".

(salam)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Its very interesting that we finally found out the TRUE meaning of this word, 1400 years afterwards, and for all these intervening 1400 years all of us and our scholars were totally wrong.

Did you read anything I wrote titumir, My friend wrote that, and I asked people to verify that for me, thank you that unhelpful sarcasm

(salam)

(bismillah)

You should ask your friend this, forget translations from Arabic-English. What about those classical scholars pre-500AH who interpreted the Arabic to mean "beat", where they also using "modern" Arabic? Both Shee`ah and Sunni classical scholars interpret this word the same.

I have made a lengthy post about this in a thread a while back, showing the hadeeth and the Shee`ah mufassirseen from the Classical scholars to the contemporary that interpret this verse as "beat".

(salam)

Thank you brother, I will check that hadith out

Nice research my friend. Iam not a huge scholar or anything but these are definetly points to ponder upon. I would personally say that "move away" or "seprerate" sounds more human and sensible than "beat".

Thank you brother, I asked Br. Ali Al-Najar, and Sheikh Jehad Isma'il to verify that, to which they said they would get back to me

Please read this thread: http://www.shiachat....o-with-beating/

Particularly the posts of brother Nader and Nad_M (on the second page).

Thank you brother, let me check this

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The word "beat", "thrashing", "hitting", "traumatic hit" is used in Quran in violent terms two times, one is in Ayat 5:53, the word "Mauquza" and also in verse 20:18, the word "aa'hush". None of these are used for beating your spouse context.

The word "Azrib" (the basis of OP's question) which is used in ayat 4:34 and also in ayat 38:44 has been translated as hitting. But then the same word "azrib" is also used in ayat 3:156 which means "travel, move on, moving, walk away" and so on...

So there is ambiguity if the meaning of "Azrib" is really taken out of context by way of cultural reasons by ulema and translators.

Based on Islamic sharia, it makes more sense that "Azrib" means walk-away because after all in this Sharia, you even have to pay a diyat if you hit your own child and he/she gets bruised, so how would it justify hitting the wife.

From the sunnah of Prophets too, there is no account of if prophets ever "hit" their even most rebellious of wives. Wives such as wife of Noah, wife of Lut, and the two rebellious wives Aisha and Hafsa, all avoided being beaten. Neither we find in history if Imam Hassan ever hit Joda who gave poison nor Imam Ali Reza hitting his rebellious wife who gave him poison.

A lot of translations of Quran really do need to be redone. The current translations specially the english ones, do not really do the justice with Quranic themes.

Edited by Waiting for HIM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Saying scholars have traditionally translated it as 'beat' isnt good enough im afraid. The quran came to a society and time where morality towards women was extremely poor and bad behaviour normalised, there would not have been the stigma against striking a woman and indeed the weakness of the male ego when nurtured in particular cultures was encouraging the controlling of women in forceful ways. As it would have been culturally normalised and even desired, it is not surprising that scholars have traditionally interpreted the word this way, and may have experienced a pressure to do so and/or also felt that it was obvious to do so because it made sense in their culture without any bad intention on their part. I will link you to a good article later =)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

(salam)

(bismillah)

To add to Nad_M's post, in the Qur'an whenever the root Dad-Ra-Ba (Ö-Ñ-È) is used in the Qur'an to denote "movement from a place", there has to be a huroof al-jarr (ãä – Åáì – Ýì – Úáì).

Here are examples from the Qur'an where the root word Dad-Ra-Ba (Ö-Ñ-È) is said to mean "movement":

[2:273] - áöáúÝõÞóÑóÇÁö ÇáóøÐöíäó ÃõÍÕöÑõæÇú Ýöí ÓóÈöíáö Çááøåö áÇó íóÓúÊóØöíÚõæäó ÖóÑúÈðÇ Ýöí ÇáÃóÑúÖö íóÍúÓóÈõåõãõ ÇáúÌóÇåöáõ ÃóÛúäöíóÇÁó ãöäó ÇáÊóøÚóÝõøÝö ÊóÚúÑöÝõåõã ÈöÓöíãóÇåõãú áÇó íóÓúÃóáõæäó ÇáäóøÇÓó ÅöáúÍóÇÝðÇ æóãóÇ ÊõäÝöÞõæÇú ãöäú ÎóíúÑò ÝóÅöäóø Çááøåó Èöåö Úóáöíãñ

[4:94] - íóÇ ÃóíõøåóÇ ÇáóøÐöíäó ÂãóäõæÇú ÅöÐóÇ ÖóÑóÈúÊõãú Ýöí ÓóÈöíáö Çááøåö ÝóÊóÈóíóøäõæÇú æóáÇó ÊóÞõæáõæÇú áöãóäú ÃóáúÞóì Åöáóíúßõãõ ÇáÓóøáÇóãó áóÓúÊó ãõÄúãöäðÇ ÊóÈúÊóÛõæäó ÚóÑóÖó ÇáúÍóíóÇÉö ÇáÏõøäúíóÇ ÝóÚöäÏó Çááøåö ãóÛóÇäöãõ ßóËöíÑóÉñ ßóÐóáößó ßõäÊõã ãöøä ÞóÈúáõ Ýóãóäóø Çááøåõ Úóáóíúßõãú ÝóÊóÈóíóøäõæÇú Åöäóø Çááøåó ßóÇäó ÈöãóÇ ÊóÚúãóáõæäó ÎóÈöíÑðÇ

[5:106] - íóÇ ÃóíõøåóÇ ÇáóøÐöíäó ÂãóäõæÇú ÔóåóÇÏóÉõ Èóíúäößõãú ÅöÐóÇ ÍóÖóÑó ÃóÍóÏóßõãõ ÇáúãóæúÊõ Íöíäó ÇáúæóÕöíóøÉö ÇËúäóÇäö ÐóæóÇ ÚóÏúáò ãöøäßõãú Ãóæú ÂÎóÑóÇäö ãöäú ÛóíúÑößõãú Åöäú ÃóäÊõãú ÖóÑóÈúÊõãú Ýöí ÇáúÃóÑúÖö ÝóÃóÕóÇÈóÊúßõã ãõøÕöíÈóÉõ ÇáúãóæúÊö ÊóÍúÈöÓõæäóåõãóÇ ãöä ÈóÚúÏö ÇáÕóøáÇóÉö ÝóíõÞúÓöãóÇäö ÈöÇááøåö Åöäö ÇÑúÊóÈúÊõãú áÇó äóÔúÊóÑöí Èöåö ËóãóäðÇ æóáóæú ßóÇäó ÐóÇ ÞõÑúÈóì æóáÇó äóßúÊõãõ ÔóåóÇÏóÉó Çááøåö ÅöäóøÇ ÅöÐðÇ áóøãöäó ÇáúÂËöãöíäó

[3:156] - íóÇ ÃóíõøåóÇ ÇáóøÐöíäó ÂãóäõæÇú áÇó ÊóßõæäõæÇú ßóÇáóøÐöíäó ßóÝóÑõæÇú æóÞóÇáõæÇú áöÅöÎúæóÇäöåöãú ÅöÐóÇ ÖóÑóÈõæÇú Ýöí ÇáúÃóÑúÖö Ãóæú ßóÇäõæÇú ÛõÒðøì áóøæú ßóÇäõæÇú ÚöäÏóäóÇ ãóÇ ãóÇÊõæÇú æóãóÇ ÞõÊöáõæÇú áöíóÌúÚóáó Çááøåõ Ðóáößó ÍóÓúÑóÉð Ýöí ÞõáõæÈöåöãú æóÇááøåõ íõÍúíöÜí æóíõãöíÊõ æóÇááøåõ ÈöãóÇ ÊóÚúãóáõæäó ÈóÕöíÑñ

[73:20] - Åöäóø ÑóÈóøßó íóÚúáóãõ Ãóäóøßó ÊóÞõæãõ ÃóÏúäóì ãöä ËõáõËóíö Çááóøíúáö æóäöÕúÝóåõ æóËõáõËóåõ æóØóÇÆöÝóÉñ ãöøäó ÇáóøÐöíäó ãóÚóßó æóÇááóøåõ íõÞóÏöøÑõ Çááóøíúáó æóÇáäóøåóÇÑó Úóáöãó Ãóä áóøä ÊõÍúÕõæåõ ÝóÊóÇÈó Úóáóíúßõãú ÝóÇÞúÑóÄõæÇ ãóÇ ÊóíóÓóøÑó ãöäó ÇáúÞõÑúÂäö Úóáöãó Ãóä Óóíóßõæäõ ãöäßõã ãóøÑúÖóì æóÂÎóÑõæäó íóÖúÑöÈõæäó Ýöí ÇáúÃóÑúÖö íóÈúÊóÛõæäó ãöä ÝóÖúáö Çááóøåö æóÂÎóÑõæäó íõÞóÇÊöáõæäó Ýöí ÓóÈöíáö Çááóøåö ÝóÇÞúÑóÄõæÇ ãóÇ ÊóíóÓóøÑó ãöäúåõ æóÃóÞöíãõæÇ ÇáÕóøáóÇÉó æóÂÊõæÇ ÇáÒóøßóÇÉó æóÃóÞúÑöÖõæÇ Çááóøåó ÞóÑúÖðÇ ÍóÓóäðÇ æóãóÇ ÊõÞóÏöøãõæÇ áöÃóäÝõÓößõã ãöøäú ÎóíúÑò ÊóÌöÏõæåõ ÚöäÏó Çááóøåö åõæó ÎóíúÑðÇ æóÃóÚúÙóãó ÃóÌúÑðÇ æóÇÓúÊóÛúÝöÑõæÇ Çááóøåó Åöäóø Çááóøåó ÛóÝõæÑñ ÑóøÍöíãñ

[43:5] - ÃóÝóäóÖúÑöÈõ Úóäßõãõ ÇáÐöøßúÑó ÕóÝúÍðÇ Ãóä ßõäÊõãú ÞóæúãðÇ ãõøÓúÑöÝöíäó

(salam)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Saying scholars have traditionally translated it as 'beat' isnt good enough im afraid.

Scholars didn't intepret this verse to mean beat because they felt like it, they did it because linguistically that's what it means, and because there are ahadith that explain this verse, making it clear that it means to beat.

The quran came to a society and time where morality towards women was extremely poor and bad behaviour normalised, there would not have been the stigma against striking a woman and indeed the weakness of the male ego when nurtured in particular cultures was encouraging the controlling of women in forceful ways. As it would have been culturally normalised and even desired, it is not surprising that scholars have traditionally interpreted the word this way, and may have experienced a pressure to do so and/or also felt that it was obvious to do so because it made sense in their culture without any bad intention on their part. I will link you to a good article later =)

And it's not possible that it is the cultural conditioning of some of the people of today that leads them to want to interpret the verse in a way that fits in better with current mores and values?

Another factor you might want to take into consideration is that Sunni ahadith giving the same interpreation were in circulation during the time of the Imams (as), and they never corrected them. Rather, our Imams (as) gave the same interpretations.

Anyway, it doesn't make much sense to me that scholars, both Sunni and Shia, who were engaged in a giant consipiracy to hide the true meaning of this verse would then fabricate ahadith that restricted the kinds of 'beatings' that could be give to such a level where they almost become a joke.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJNU2xx83nw

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Linguistically it can mean many things. It also makes sense that hadith would still exist to support such an interpretation with the cirsumstance i outlined, with some people trying to modify it to create more humane and enlightened times, like the miswak hadith, which are a bit silly and quite transparent, although for some ppl they suffice. Given that the culture of Sunni's and Shia's would have been extremely similar, it is not surprising that sunni's have also traditionally prefered to interpret it this way, it served medieval sunni's as much as medieval Shia's. The phrase 'giant conspiracy' is yours, i have already made clear why such an interpretation could be more traditionally prevelent, it doesnt need conspiracy or cover up, just a cultural inclination and lack of moral advancement and innocence does not need to be excluded.

OP, here is an interesting artcile should help: : http://www.quran434....ting-islam.html

Edited by ~Ruqaya's Amal~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

(salam)

(bismillah)

I do want to point out the double standard in the video (around 6:45). When it comes to "beating the wife", if you were to make a mark on the body then there is an "islamic penalty", but when it comes to zanjeer / tatbir this "Islamic penalty" is no where to be seen and the scholars don't talk against it.

(salam)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

(salam)

(bismillah)

I do want to point out the double standard in the video (around 6:45). When it comes to "beating the wife", if you were to make a mark on the body then there is an "islamic penalty", but when it comes to zanjeer / tatbir this "Islamic penalty" is no where to be seen and the scholars don't talk against it.

(salam)

There is no double standard in the video - you are taking one point from the video and relating it to something else. So there's no issue in the video.

Anyway, to the point - you are doing qiyaas.

Zanjeer/Tatbir is bruising yourself whereas bruising SOMEONE ELSE may have a penalty.

Edited by Replicant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Thank you brother, I asked Br. Ali Al-Najar, and Sheikh Jehad Isma'il to verify that, to which they said they would get back to me

Anytime pal!!...and ill be waiting for to read what u have in store for us.

I do want to point out the double standard in the video (around 6:45). When it comes to "beating the wife", if you were to make a mark on the body then there is an "islamic penalty", but when it comes to zanjeer / tatbir this "Islamic penalty" is no where to be seen and the scholars don't talk against it.

The relation established by you is pointless and is not in line with the topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

How the hell did he come up with a possibility that wadrbhunna may mean separate??? Its clear it means hit them, why didnt it say ofrkuhuma ( separate them)?

Anyways men that hit their wifes arint men....

So can the woman use this method to get a message across , not the hitting approach because that just disrespectful and not right. But the strike approach if he wasnt treating her right, can she ignore him?

There seems to be alot of punishments for woman, what will happen to the guy if he hitted her and broke her jaw? What he pays her and there done or does he have a punishment in the afterlife.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There seems to be alot of punishments for woman, what will happen to the guy if he hitted her and broke her jaw? What he pays her and there done or does he have a punishment in the afterlife.

that is not called beating but rather physical abuse which's penalty in islam is huge. Beating as explained should be enough that it doesnt leave a mark, its more so to get the husbands point across that he is not happy with the wife's actions rather then personal satification.

I am more into pull end of hair slightly, apparently that hurts women alot. :shaytan: tested it on cousins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

that is not called beating but rather physical abuse which's penalty in islam is huge. Beating as explained should be enough that it doesnt leave a mark, its more so to get the husbands point across that he is not happy with the wife's actions rather then personal satification.

I am more into pull end of hair slightly, apparently that hurts women alot. :shaytan: tested it on cousins

You evil thing lool, you cant do that .. ..

There must be a way of punishing him to, it wouldnt be fair . What if shes sick of his mistakes , the silent treatment kills to..

Phyiscal abuse still can damage her even if theres no marks. The lightest hit can affect her, men are way stronger. Am not sure how many men say " hold up am going to get my miswak to sort you out " haha he will be to angery to actually think of the consequnences that may happen later. He should get beats to by a man so he knows how it feels....

Woman can use mentail abuse to get to his head...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

The word "beat", "thrashing", "hitting", "traumatic hit" is used in Quran in violent terms two times, one is in Ayat 5:53, the word "Mauquza" and also in verse 20:18, the word "aa'hush". None of these are used for beating your spouse context.

The word "Azrib" (the basis of OP's question) which is used in ayat 4:34 and also in ayat 38:44 has been translated as hitting. But then the same word "azrib" is also used in ayat 3:156 which means "travel, move on, moving, walk away" and so on...

So there is ambiguity if the meaning of "Azrib" is really taken out of context by way of cultural reasons by ulema and translators.

Based on Islamic sharia, it makes more sense that "Azrib" means walk-away because after all in this Sharia, you even have to pay a diyat if you hit your own child and he/she gets bruised, so how would it justify hitting the wife.

From the sunnah of Prophets too, there is no account of if prophets ever "hit" their even most rebellious of wives. Wives such as wife of Noah, wife of Lut, and the two rebellious wives Aisha and Hafsa, all avoided being beaten. Neither we find in history if Imam Hassan ever hit Joda who gave poison nor Imam Ali Reza hitting his rebellious wife who gave him poison.

A lot of translations of Quran really do need to be redone. The current translations specially the english ones, do not really do the justice with Quranic themes.

Thank you brother, you answer seems to be reasonable, and well thought out, would it be alright if i use it in a paper

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(salam)

(bismillah)

I do want to point out the double standard in the video (around 6:45). When it comes to "beating the wife", if you were to make a mark on the body then there is an "islamic penalty", but when it comes to zanjeer / tatbir this "Islamic penalty" is no where to be seen and the scholars don't talk against it.

(salam)

That's full out Qiyaas my friend ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Look, I'll be honest and say that if a woman is too weak to take a slap, I don't want to be with her. lol

I was told the term didn't mean "beat" but "hit" I think the term "beat" and "hit" come with two different connotations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Look, I'll be honest and say that if a woman is too weak to take a slap, I don't want to be with her. lol

I was told the term didn't mean "beat" but "hit" I think the term "beat" and "hit" come with two different connotations.

alright

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member

Look, I'll be honest and say that if a woman is too weak to take a slap, I don't want to be with her. lol

I was told the term didn't mean "beat" but "hit" I think the term "beat" and "hit" come with two different connotations.

Before you get married, please let me meet and speak to the the poor woman you plan on making you punch bag. :squeez: oops....sorry, I meant wife.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before you get married, please let me meet and speak to the the poor woman you plan on making you punch bag. :squeez: oops....sorry, I meant wife.

Yeah, I think many people are missing the point. It's not about how hard you 'hit' your wife that matters, it is the 'principle' that matters. What is this principle? That you shouldn't hit your wife under any circumstances. Sure, it is said that if the wife is totally out of line, you can hit her with a miswak, but this is obviously ridiculous. It won't do anything. The repercussions will be that it'll only provoke the feelings of the wife even more. There is no logic in hitting your wife, this can't even be an Islamic concept, it hardly has any wisdom in it. If it is an islamic concept, then it 'was' an Islamic concept which doesn't apply now because times have changed and people have developed.

Don't hit your wife. I'm just putting this message out there for everyone to read. If you disagree, don't bother trying to convince me otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Marriage to more than one wife is a valid option which most do not take up, so too with hitting. I don't see people's fascination over the permissibility of hitting one's spouse. There are other more effective ways of commanding a situation than striking a person, whether it be lightly (as some suggest) or with force. God (glorified and exalted be He) gave us a tongue for a reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Salaam,

Note: Am not approaching one side, tried to show some of the different views. It is also noteworthy to mention that the Qur'an clearly explains the procedure, meaning there are guidelines one must follow, it starts with offering a solution, then offers another if the first is ineffective, then says as a last resort you may apply the final solution (however it is interpreted by the different scholars with different views).

The best way to understand the different perspectives of this verse would be to read the commentaries/discourses of scholars from the classical ones to the contemporary ones. I have seen some commentaries of classical scholars and contemporary ones, and they all have interesting interpretations.

It is a little hard to get a grasp of scholarly works if you don't know Arabic, but below are 3 discourses/commentaries written by 3 scholars translated into English (These are the only ones I currently know of in English). The issue is discussed from different aspects by the different scholars (Although this is very limited to what is out there and what different scholars have talked about regarding the matter, especially when they differ and branch out from the general point they agree on).

I would also like to point out that, like the woman, the man is also punished for wronging his wife, this could be for either not providing her with her rights (these rights vary and are quite a few) or for example hitting/hurting her for no reason. If not fixed, the woman may take the issue to Islamic judge where various means are used so that the man may become aware of his responsibility. This is discussed by the scholars also. It is said that the reason it is taken to a judge is because the woman may not have the ability to deal with the issue on her own. Of course this is if they cannot reconcile it between each other.

Here is a quick translation of a known akhbari scholar, Yusuf al-Bahrani who quotes a well known famous scholar, Shahid al-Thani (Sheikh Zain al-Din al-'Amuli):

Sheikh al-Bahrani states in his book al-Hadaa'iq that [sheikh Zain al-Din al-'Amuli] stated in his book al-Masaalik: "And in some reports [it is said] to hit her with a 'siwak', and perhaps it is intended to mean playfully, otherwise such an act is unlikely to chastise or encourage reform." Al-Bahrani then agrees with this, he then says: "And it is said [by some] that the hit be done with a rolled scarf, (and درة , which dictionaries define as something used to hit with, didn't find anything else), and not with a whip or a stick, and this view is quoted by Sheikh al-Tusi in his 'al-Mabsut' (that some believe in this)..." (where Sheikh al-Tusi also quotes the one about 'miswaq')

http://shiaonlinelib...D%D8%A9_618#top

Sheikh al-Tusi also gives his view and states to hit her like you hit a child when he commits a mistake, shouldn't hit her violently, nor make her bleed, nor hit her chronically and the hitting should be done on the body and not the face.

http://www.shiaonlin...D%D8%A9_338#top

This is to show that even when the word 'hit' is agreed upon, there are differing views, and there are still many more different views on the verse itself and much more to talk about.

As for the ones in English:

1- Here is one by Sayyid Musawi Lari (where he focuses more on the 'separate'): http://www.musavilar...id=120&page=731

2- Here is one by Sheikh Makarem Shirazi:

21. How does Islam permit the physical punishment of women?

In verse 34 of Suratul Nisa, we read:

“And (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and (if ineffective) leave them alone in the sleeping-places and (if even this proves futile with no way of compelling them into fulfilling their responsibilities, except the use of force, then) beat them.”

The question that arises here is: How can Islam permit the physical punishment of a woman?

The answer to this objection, in light of this meaning of the verse, the traditions which discuss it, the explanations which have been presented in the books of jurisprudence and also the explanations which the psychologists offer today, is not very difficult, for:

Firstly: The verse sanctions physical discipline for those disobedient and irresponsible individuals for whom no other means have proved effective. Incidentally this is not an issue that is new and confined to Islam, rather, in all the laws of the world, when all peaceful and non-violent means to compel a person into fulfilling his obligations prove unproductive, there exist provisions to eventually resort to force. This resort to force is not restricted to mere beatings, but at times even extends to severe punishments and on occasions going all the way up to the death penalty!

Secondly: The 'physical punishment' in this case - as has been mentioned in books of jurisprudence - should be mild and moderate so as not to cause breakage of bones, injuries or (for that matter, even) bruises.

Thirdly: Modern psychoanalysts are of the belief that a segment of the female populace possesses masochistic tendencies and when this state intensifies within them, the only way to calm them down is by means of mild physical punishment. Therefore, it is possible that the physical punishment has been prescribed taking (the state of) such individuals into consideration, for in their case, this mild physical penalty would be lenitive in nature and serve as a kind of psychological remedy for them.

Without any doubt, if any one of these steps (mentioned in the verse) proves effective and the woman embarks upon performing her duties, the man has no right to inconvenience her and it is for this reason that the latter portion of the verse states:

“Then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them.”

If it is asked: Such rebelliousness, violation and recalcitrance are also likely to be displayed by the men; would the males then be subjected to such punishments too? The answer to this is in the affirmative. In the event of their shirking their responsibilities, men too, like the women, face retribution and even physical punishment; the only difference being that, since this is something beyond the ability of women, it is the duty of the Islamic judge to utilize various means - even ta'zir (physical punishment) - to make such violators become aware and heedful of their responsibilities.

The incident of the man, who had victimized his spouse and who, under no circumstances, had been willing to submit before the truth whereupon 'Ali (a.s) with harshness and threat of the sword, forced him into submission, is well-known.

“Surely Allah is High, Great.”

Finally the verse again cautions the men from abusing their positions as guardians of their respective households, and exhorts them to reflect upon Allah's Power, which is above all powers, for surely Allah is High, Great.

3- Here is one by Allamah Tabataba'i: (you can read it here) http://www.shiasourc...tafsir-4-32-35/

Edited by MAFHJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...