Does Qur'an say husbands can HIT their wives?
-
Wa Aribhunna or "and show them" (thus) refers back to Wa Ahjurhunna F Al-Maji`i
"...and abandon them in the place of lying down" ELSE IF they abide by youFal Tabgh `Alayhinna
ELSE don't you desire (Tabghū on them (F)I'm not being funny - but I don't have a clue what point you are trying to make.
-
I'm not being funny - but I don't have a clue what point you are trying to make.
How does it say to "hit or show them"?
As stated not a step by step as some infer and no problem saying it in reverse; same thing?
Wa Aribhunna Wa Ahjurhunna F Al-Maji`i
"?and show them and abandon them in the place of lying down?"Make sense now or do you really care?
-
cosmicdancer,
Your reply to mine (#9) was woeful. It showed you had not read the article you said you had. Not only that, it showed you do not even know what it concluded.
But let's put aside your lie, and address your reply
Please post the verses and translations you want me to comment on - I'm sorry I don't have time to wade through huge walls of text.
No need to wade, the article is split nicely, and in section one contains an analysis of the very verses you referenced. A simple scroll through section one would find them in less than 30s. Do you have 30s to spare?
Simple really. If there is no qualifying preposition and or word - then there is no reason to take it non-literally.
That is not criteria. That is simply re-stating what you already said.
Nope - just to show it's relation to hit/strike.
You may be interested to read a previous post on this forum
The object here is the "dhikr " . Rephrasing "afa nadhribul thikra 3ankum " Shall we turn away the dhikr from you. The preposition is not for the thikr (which is turned away) but for "you ". Clearly dharaba here means turn away nadhribul thikra turn away the dhikr; 3ankum from you
Thanks for the info from tafseer al jalalayn, although I was hoping for a reply involving a gramamr rule of distinction, but it was only a curiosity, no big deal.
-
How does it say to "hit or show them"?
As stated not a step by step as some infer and no problem saying it in reverse; same thing?
Wa Aribhunna Wa Ahjurhunna F Al-Maji`i
"?and show them and abandon them in the place of lying down?"Make sense now or do you really care?
So you are saying it can be read in reverse?
On what basis do you say that?
Can it be read with wadribuhunna first before Fa'ithuhunna?
-
cosmicdancer,
Your reply to mine (#9) was woeful. It showed you had not read the article you said you had. Not only that, it showed you do not even know what it concluded.
But let's put aside your lie
Not a lie - I did skim though it, but like I say walls of text really put me off and I started skipping through it.
Please post the points you want to make here - I won't be visiting any links sorry.
-
Not a lie - I did skim though it, but like I say walls of text really put me off and I started skipping through it.
Please post the points you want to make here - I won't be visiting any links sorry.
It was a lie. You said you read it, you clearly did not. If you'll just admit that you won't really acknowledge any points contrary to your own, it'll be much easier for all parties involved. Your purpose is not to mete out the truth on the topic, and that is abundantly clear.
You're probably better off on the other forum you said you visit. I say that with all due respect.
-
Frankly when someone can't make their argument themselves in a straightforward manner on a forum without linking to walls of text - it sets my bullshit alarm off.
-
Makes me wonder why your even posting here.
You're probably better off on the other forum you said you visit.
Strange. Seems like free-minds forum is occupied by Taliban... and I say that with all due respect of course....
-
Frankly when someone can't make their argument themselves in a straightforward manner on a forum without linking to walls of text - it sets my bullshit alarm off.
Mine goes off when someone won't take 30 seconds to read the clearly marked portions of a document cited as a response by a colleague. Even more when you claimed to have "skimmed it." The parts Wakas wants you to read are short and clearly marked so have a go.
On a sidenote, I don't think I'm going to watch the videos you posted. I don't do outside links.
Peace from a irrational Muslim trying to protect himself (I really loved yours and rasulhamsas irrelevant psychoanalysis as to why we ponder on the signs of our faith) -
Strange. Seems like free-minds forum is occupied by Taliban... and I say that with all due respect of course....
Peace,
Thanks for insulting us with all due respect. No ones being censored here so I don't understand your Taliban analogy. -
Strange. Seems like free-minds forum is occupied by Taliban... and I say that with all due respect of course....
Taliban? Nah. He's not being censored. I've interacted with him before, long ago. He consistently dodges issues and refuses to acknowledge any points counter to his own. There's no use in having a discussion with someone like that. He himself mentioned he was going to go back to another forum. I confirmed for him that that is the best plan of action. It is readily apparent that his aim is not to have a meaningful discussion about this or that issue, but rather to impose his view on anyone he can. Again, he's not new here. He simply tries to invoke a certain reaction from people here, a reaction which most people don't really exhibit. This is also why he tends to go on hiatuses, only to return again when the itch presents itself.
He made a claim in his original post. An article was posted that completely responds to his claim. He refused to read the article (I apologize; he did read it, but then said he skimmed, and then said he didn't read it), because apparently it made his "bs" detector go off, and because he didn't have enough time. D Again, begs the question, why is he even coming to this forum to discuss the issue? He has enough time and energy to bring up the issue on a forum, and talk about it over 4 pages spanning 10 or so hours of the day, and yet he apparently didn't have time to read an article that presents a view contrary to his own, and is directly relevant to the claim he made.
-
Please make whatever point/argument you want to make on this thread?
Is that so hard?
-
I do not know when in the history of the Arabic language daraba came to have the meaning of beating someone, BUT what I know is that in the generous Qur'an never appears with that meaning. So the onus to porove such thing is not on those of us who affirm the usual meaning of daraba in the Qur'an but on those who affirm that only in that particular case means beating somebody.
So please show conclusively that it means beat somebody in the Qur'an. It might also be interesting to prove even that atthe time of revelation of the Qur'an the most commos usage of that verb was in fact daraba. Does anybody have a something conclusive on that count.
As to the fancy claims that God whould not use a language which humans can confuse. Of course not. God should change language every second so that He can follow people's ways everyday and keep rerevealing the Qur'an to fit languge evolution. In fact it is quite alright that language is what it is because in fact it shows clearly peoples minds and hearts the way the understand or choose to understand anything. And any language anybody would choose would have exactly the ame result, because it is not in the language, it is en the people sho use it and modify it. As wouuld be evangelically said, by their understanding you shall know them.
Salaam
-
And I would say even more, that while historically muslim misoginy may have needed that "beat" to make it look as the husband had some authority so that such an authority nowhere else to be fouund in the qur'an could be upheld, in fact it wa always on the understanding that it was a mere simbolical hitting with a toothbrush or the like. Only recently there seems to be plenty of people who seem to want to include in the "beat" any range of abuse. THAT IS NEW. Abd again that does not reveal anything about the Qur'an but does reveal about those who uphold that kind of readings.
Salaam
-
I do not know when in the history of the Arabic language daraba came to have the meaning of beating someone, BUT what I know is that in the generous Qur'an never appears with that meaning...
If you don't know then how can you be so sure it doesn't mean hit?
I not only speak, read and write Arabic but studied classical Arabic and Qur'anic Tafseer was my specialist subject that I took to Phd level. Darba can have several meanings - both metaphorical and literal. Depending on the context, the object/predicate and the preposition or lack of it can mean to hit, strike, bang, beat, smite, sting, strike up a similitude/proverb/example, avoid, pass over, go forth, travel, divide, perform, mix, play (a musical instrument), impose (a tax), pitch a tent, fix, seize, prevent from hearing, multiply, lean/incline and more...
In my first post I gave examples in the Qur'an where it means "hit/strike"
-
And I would say even more, that while historically muslim misoginy may have needed that "beat" to make it look as the husband had some authority so that such an authority nowhere else to be fouund in the qur'an could be upheld, in fact it wa always on the understanding that it was a mere simbolical hitting with a toothbrush or the like. Only recently there seems to be plenty of people who seem to want to include in the "beat" any range of abuse. THAT IS NEW. Abd again that does not reveal anything about the Qur'an but does reveal about those who uphold that kind of readings.
Salaam
All the scholars for 1400 years up to today - said it means hit. Most Muslims follow the hadith of the prophet that says the hitting must be "Ghayr Mubarrih" not harsh - and so interpret it as a light hit/tap with a miswak or a feather or whatever - that's is fine! But this is not the point under discussion here - the point is that it says "hit". If it were to have another metaphorical meaning it would need some qualification. But there is no evidence in that verse to show it has some other meaning.
If it is so clear that it doesn't mean "hit" but has some other metaphorical sense then why is it not one single scholar for 1400 years ever said that?
Do you know more than them and more than most Arabic scholars today?
btw - what does the verse mean to you?
-
Ok. Start with the oldest scholar you know with name and cite him or her with acknowledged source. We will see about those 1400 years. However, you have no answe to the fact that of all the uses of daraba in the Qur'an none means beat, physical beat. So no matter what scholars hoy have not brought to bear on the question, the Qur'an is there and it doesn't support you. And yes, the "scholars" can be wrong. Everbody can be wrong and of course scholars have been provenly wrong on other things. But the Qur'an is not wrong.
And you seem to derive an awful amount of enjoyment out of having the Qur'an meaning beat and you do not want the fun to be spoilt. Understandable.
Salaam
-
Ok. Start with the oldest scholar you know with name and cite him or her with acknowledged source. We will see about those 1400 years. However, you have no answe to the fact that of all the uses of daraba in the Qur'an none means beat, physical beat. So no matter what scholars hoy have not brought to bear on the question, the Qur'an is there and it doesn't support you. And yes, the "scholars" can be wrong. Everbody can be wrong and of course scholars have been provenly wrong on other things. But the Qur'an is not wrong.
And you seem to derive an awful amount of enjoyment out of having the Qur'an meaning beat and you do not want the fun to be spoilt. Understandable.
Salaam
Every single scholar without exception says it means "Hit" (I avoid using the word beat as it is a little 'loaded'. For example Tabari, Ibn Kathir, Qurtubi, Zamakhshari, Baydawi, Suyuti....
I said that in my first post I quoted verses in qur'an that mean "hit" here they are again
"They hit their faces and their backs"
(8.50)
"Hit the necks" (chop their heads off)
(47.4)
"Hit it"
