Obey - Obedience ?What is wrong with it?

huruf

Root T- w- 3

Verb IV A t 3

This topic concerns the way that the Arabic verb a-T-3 (IV) is translated.

It appears more than seventy times in the Qur'an and more than forty of those are of the kind

"Obey God and obey the messenger (or messengers)"

or so are they translated.

Then there are over twenty appearances where it is translated as obey or, more likely, as something else.

The root in Arabic does not have the limited and narrow meaning of obey for instance in Spanish and I think in English.

But even for those that are translated as obey in the qur'an, in fact many are not so or at least there can be a question whether they are so. For instance where it is a question of obeying the Messenger.

In fact, the Messenger is told more than once that he is not a guardian of anybody but just a warner, that he should warn and then what the listeners do is not up to him. ?Can we then say that the command to those who hear the Messenger is "obey"? Would it not be more appropriate to say "Listen to the Messeger"?

In Spanish and I think also in English and other languages. For somebody to obey there must be somebody else who gives an order. If there is no order there is no posibility of obeying or disobeying.

BUT there is certainly the possibility of paying attention, payin heed, listen, agree... or the opposite, not listen, not pay attention... But there is no question of obedience.

Also we can also make a general statement

Soldiers obey their chiefs.

Because the relationship between them is one of subordination to the orders of the hyerarchical superior. But in order to say, speaking of some specific actio,n "the soldier obeyed the chief", then the chief must have given an order.

Let us look at aya 40.18

?Warn them of the day that is drawing near, when the hearts will come right up to the throats to choke. No intimate friend nor intercessor will the wrongdoers have who could be listened to".

This ?listened to? is the translation of the verb aT3 so many times translated as "obey". So, had we followed the injunction of automatically translating ?aT3? as obey, what it would say would be

No intimate friend nor intercessor will the wrongdoers have who could be obeyed (by God obviously).

Of course an intercessor is not somebody that has to be obeyed, but rather the intercessor prays, asks for, implores, begs. So we are in fact in a situation in which the presumed receiver of obedience in fact must beg.

Let us see aya 20.90

?Harun had already, before this, said to them You are being tested in this, for verily your Lord is most gracious, so follow me and obey my command (amr)."

In this case the translation obey is right, I think. There is an order as Harun does say and he asks the people to follow him and obey his orders.

Further aya 18.28

"And keep thy soul content with those who call on their Lord morning and evening, seeking His Face; and let not thine eyes pass beyond them, seeking the pomp and glitter of this Life; nor obey any whose heart We have permitted to neglect the remembrance of Us, one who follows his own desires, whose case has gone beyond all bounds. (2

Here we can ask us whether obey is the right word to translate. There is no order given and, on the other hand, even without obeying one can follow the ideas or example of not guided people. So may be it would have been more accurate to say ?nor listen to? or take into account, or pay heed...

Ayas 96.19, 76.24, 68.10, 68.8, 59.11, 49.7, 48.16, 47.26, 33.48, 33.1, 26.151, 24.54, 6.116, 3.149, 3.100, 43.54, 6.121, 4.80, 3.168 can give further insight into the scope of the verb and show that its basic meaning is very wide and that it is in fact the translator who says what it has to mean in the specific aya or context. That is, the translation rests on the opinion, limitation or preconceptions of the tranlastor. So, when one reads ?obey?, watch out.

There is also a very particular "obey" that has been very dangerously infiltrated in the translation of aya 4.34. See

"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). (34)"

This is Yusuf Ali's translation and I have to say straight out that I have a liking for this trnaslator because although he makes the usual mess of some or many ayas, on the other hand he gets other things right which others get wrong and which in a way to me reveal a sincere believer a much love put into his work.

This particular translation of his of 4.34, I doubt that there is anything on which I agree. But I will not go into that here, just keep to the question of verb aT3.

In part highlited in red, what it says in the original is ?if they pay heed (usually translated as obeyed)". Well, he makes the circle rounder and introduces a fabulous ?return? to obedience, which has the virtue of added returns for the marital bliss of the husbands, purportedly spoken to here. It makes it appear as if previously there had been a cannonical obedience, as if obedience was a default ingredient of the marriage. However, there is no return to anything, there is just the completed tense of the verb usually translated as obey.

There aren?t other things either, but let us keep here to the content of the thread which is the ?obey? part.

When somebody in this aya chooses to translate by ?obey? it is not a stylistical question but rather a legal, moral and ideological choice of the translator. Not of the original text, which is very wide in scope, and in it there is no distinction between strict obedience (usually formulated and translated when stated by the obeyer as ?I (or we) hear and obey?) and a loose "take into account". So the translator chooses what the text says. In times past where marital authority (authority of the husband over the wife) was a universal legal concept, nobody hesitated. Obey of course, what else, this is the army, I mean marriage. But nowhere else in the Qur?an there is any hint or injunction that says that wives owe obedience to their husbands. That they do not owe them that is not even doubted or put into question. The mutual agreement is the marriage fare not obedience and authority.

This choice of translation, when combined with other beauties introduced in the translation of this aya make it into something alien and ununderstandable. I have not known anybody who reads the conventional translation of this aya and has arrived to make any heads or tails of it. Of course, there are many detailed explanations around, but the purpose they serve is to say that the Qur?an is not as bad as it appears, that it is not guilty because of this and that. But hardly anybody finds in it anything usable or useful. For that they look somewhere else in the Qur?an.

However I am sure that this aya is a model of conciseness, clarity and justice. It has taken very, very hard work to make it into something ununderstandable and undhandable for useful purposes.

Salaam

Mazhar

Root

a) Total occurrences 174

The basic perception infolded in the Root is to practically follow by will, design and affection in such manner that one moves or walks behind remaining adjacent to the one being followed/pursued so that there is no third in between the follower and who is being followed. "" is a calf walking behind his mother. The striking feature, individuality and peculiarity of this Root is the practical and physical aspect of following in action.

The perception and meanings infolded in this Root are distinct and absolutely different from that infolded in the Root " " which is translated by English word "obey" and " " by English word "follow" by most of the writers. This is how both the Roots are inadvertently/incorrectly brought closer and at par, as if they both convey similar meanings. English word "Obey" means and conveys the perception "to do as told; be controlled by somebody or something" and the word "follow" means "to obey something, act in accordance with something or instructions and directions given by somebody else". It is thus evident that English word "obey" and "follow" are in proximity of synonymous and both refer to an act while Arabic Roots " " and " " are not synonymous and are distinct from each other.

Arabic language is a scientific language and its Roots enfold all physical/scientific realities and facts relating both to matter and life. A deliberate act of practically and physically following is the result of will/decision and it can take physical execution only by retrieving data, information, instruction, injunction or saying already and previously saved in the memory. A physical act by one's own will and decision/choice reflects and demonstrates his acceptance and liking of the concept and purpose which that act will or is expected to yield.

The basic perception infolded in Root " " is to accept an idea, or word, command, direction, injunction, saying, or verbal and written communication, wholeheartedly and affectionately by will and personal choice without external pressure/force/fear/ compulsion/coercion. The perception and meanings infolded in the Root, " " is the physical demonstration of executing that accepted thing in letter and spirit, exactly in the manner as is told; to follow and move step by step, dot by dot, word by word; move and follow on the footprints of the one being followed. Nothing should intervene including ones own passions, interests, preconceived notions, desires and conveniences between the follower and the followed, whereby one will satisfy and implement the perception of the Root and shall thus be "Tabea" the one who acted exactly on that which he had willfully and affectionately accepted.

Root " " has a theoretical/ideological aspect while " " has practical/physical aspect/connotation. It means translating/implementing into action what was accepted. This will also show and prove to others the truthfulness and faithfulness and sincerity of the person that he had accepted that concept/idea/ fact/ saying/ news/ Book truly and wholeheartedly. In sequence/time frame " " is after " " and not conversely.

DrGm

"Obey God and obey the messenger (or messengers)"

..For instance where it is a question of obeying the Messenger.

peace,

Allah, Malayikas, Scripture, Prophets/Messengers the message is the same. i.e, regarding Judgement day / after life. there is no deviation in the message. whether it is from Allah or Malayikas or Scriptures or Messengers obey. meaning accept say Amin.

if we think that we will only obey Allah and discard Malayikas, Scriptures and Messengers or
if we think we will only obey Allah and Scriptures and discard Malayikas and Messengers

we discard the Messengers because we do not know our Messengers or our pride does not allow to accept our brother the human Messenger. we do not obey because we feel we are superior than the brother Messenger. the Messenger is there because we have come to a state that we do not understand the message direct from Allah or Malayikas or Scripture.

we discard the Malayikas because we do not know or have belief in Malayikas. for many the difference between Malayikas and Jinns is not clear. so we do not obey.

we discard the Scripture because we do not know about wahi or intuition. we obey to that suits me. so we do not obey.

we obey Allah. as we are not obeying/accepting the Malayikas, Scriptures, Messengers, then it means we are not obeying Allah.

peace.

hawk99

Peace,

About the context regarding "obey", We are to be obedient only to God. Do we have two lords? We are to obey God
and his messenger and those in authority over us as per Quran. When obedience in deen is decreed it is to obey God.
If we were to obey Muhammed the human being,(not the messenger), we were to frown at the poor, fear the
people instead of God and prohibit what God did not. We are required to obey the messenger, because it is
the message (QURAN) that made the obedience a requirement, not the person, Muhammed, that made it a
requirement.

In the four ayats that Muhammad is mentioned not once does it state that Muhammad the person is to be
obeyed 3144, 3340, 472 and 4829.

The distinction must be made between Muhammad the person and the messenger, notice ayat 33/30-31 does
not say husband or Muhammad but messenger (the message is to be obeyed)!

O wives of the prophet, if any of you commits gross sin, the retribution will be doubled for her.
This is easy for God to do. Any one of you who obeys God and His MESSENGER, and leads a righteous life, we
will grant her double the recompense, and we have prepared for her a generous provision.

2/116 They say, " Allah has taken a son." Exalted is He! Rather, to Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and
the earth. All are devoutly obedient (qanituna) to Him.

Soldiers obey their chiefs.

Because the relationship between them is one of subordination to the orders of the hyerarchical superior.
But in order to say, speaking of some specific action "the soldier obeyed the chief", then the chief must
have given an order.

Authority notice during war as huruf has stated, soldiers have generals who give orders, these
orders are not religious directives but war tactics. Muhammad the general and his lieutenants were to
be obeyed. Furthermore Muhammad did not make religious laws.

In ayat 4/34 since it is a religious directive (from God) the obedience is to God alone.

Conclusion When ayats directing us to be obedient in our religion, that obedience is to God alone

Religious duties = obey God
Non religious duties = obey Muhammad (during his lifetime) and those in authority.

God bless

peace