فهرست مطالب hossein bahrami aghdam

One of the issues regarding a husband's treatment of his wife during her disobedience is his authority to discipline her in order to assert his masculine authority. It is widely agreed upon that, according to the third solution of the verse on disobedience, the husband has the right to resort to physical discipline. However, the manner and quality of the physical discipline in the rulings of jurists are limited by conditions such as not causing severe harm, not shedding blood, not causing physical disfigurement, not corrupting the skin and flesh, not breaking bones, and avoiding excessive force. The present study seeks to examine the evidence from previous viewpoints and, by considering the social understanding of punishment, sit in judgment on its inhibitory and corrective aspects. The author believes that the conditions for restricting physical punishment in the verse are inconclusive and not proven, and the mentioned restrictions are not only inadequate but also lack credibility if they are based on the interpretations of "non-excessive" punishment in narrations. On the other hand, considering the rational approach to the philosophy of disciplinary and corrective discipline and its boundaries, as well as the exclusion of this verse within the confines of rational considerations, it suggests the permissibility of this punishment within those rational limits. Moreover, blood money (diyah) and guarantee (zaman) are not applicable in this context.

Regarding the doubts raised about the issue of the infallibility and good example of Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) with a maximal perspective on it, the first verse of Surah At-Tahrim (Prohibition) is interpreted as a reproach. According to some opinions, the question in this verse was either out of compassion or an indication to abandon the first opinion, or it was in a derogatory position and actually a reproach to others. Or this rebuke was for the sake of warding off extremism. In conclusion, it is said that it should be interpreted in a way that does not contradict infallibility. In the writer's opinion, taking compassion as an interpretation is contrary to the apparent meaning of the verse, lacks evidence, and is incompatible with the supporting evidence. Assuming acceptance implies an obligation on the part of the recipient to follow a wrong path, and considering this rebuke as beneficial contradicts several established principles. The necessity of interpreting this verse in a way that does not contradict infallibility is a foundational-convincing response, and accepting abandoning the first opinion is sufficient to address any issues. Therefore, these justifications are not enough to refute the doubt and defend maximal infallibility and good example.