Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
-
peace sis,
The word DRB has a certain connotation and is the perfect word in 474, not "take". In the www.Quran434.com study
It seems that the default meaning of DRB is "to put/show forth (from one person/place to another person/place)". This core meaning fits into every occurrence, and thus could be seen as its basic/core meaning. Lane's Lexicon states that its meaning is "to put into commotion" which is similar. Of course, with various prepositions and subject matter, this basic meaning can be refined and better rendered depending on situation.
From one place to another may be from non-existence to existence or somewhere intangible to somewhere tangible. For example, when AQ says "DRB an example" it means the example is put/shown forth, brought about, e.g. from God to us, or when a person "DRB an example" they took it from their mind and brought it out in the open by verbalising it, i.e. they DRB'd it.
Similarly, no RQB exists yet, we are commanded to DRB the RQB, i.e. bring about RQB/captives. This is likely why Lane states one of its meanings is exactly this.Can you point me towards where DRB is used as "bring about" in the quran, also? I read through the link but couldn't find any such occurrence. I find concordance helpful.
Although I prefer "put/show forth" generally, you can see any AQ occurrence of DRB when applied to a direct object (e.g. Jesus, parable, truth, falsehood, a dry path, wall).
What do you mean more equal-footed fighting, just so I have a solid idea of what you mean here?
I mean anything less or prior to subdued/overcome them.
Seriously, it doesn't make sense for captives x1 to be captives x2 after open/active fighting as I explained in my last post.
I dont understand your objection, as it makes perfect sense to me. As a side note, Edip/RQT's translation also mentions my rendition as a possibility, at the end of their verse note "Considering the context of the verse and emphasis on capturing the enemy, we could have translated the segment under discussion as, "aim to take captives."
This is in reference to 474.
You did not quite answer what I wanted. As far as I am aware, no CAD specifically mentions 474. I think you are misreading what sister Samia said, she is using an understanding of RQB found in lisaanul 3arab and inserting it in 474.
I have nothing against your translation bro,I respect your hard work immensely, I just want it to make sense to me
Of course, we are both here to learn. I did not take it any other way.
-
Peace bro,
From one place to another may be from non-existence to existence or somewhere intangible to somewhere tangible. For example, when AQ says "DRB an example" it means the example is put/shown forth, brought about, e.g. from God to us, or when a person "DRB an example" they took it from their mind and brought it out in the open by verbalising it, i.e. they DRB'd it. Similarly, no RQB exists yet, we are commanded to DRB the RQB, i.e. bring about RQB/captives. This is likely why Lane states one of its meanings is exactly this.
Let's take the RQB example. We know no captives exist unless we capture them. So, if we are being told to capture the enemy instead of killing them as a preference and I have two choices as a command, take or bring about, I'd choose take because it's clearer. There really isn't any point in arguing this further.Although I prefer "put/show forth" generally, you can see any AQ occurrence of DRB when applied to a direct object (e.g. Jesus, parable, truth, falsehood, a dry path, wall).
I don't see put/show forth as an apt choice for the command to take the enemy captive. I don't think one can argue this any further, it is what it is.I mean anything less or prior to subdued/overcome them.
It doesn't address my query imo.I dont understand your objection, as it makes perfect sense to me. As a side note, Edip/RQT's translation also mentions my rendition as a possibility, at the end of their verse note "Considering the context of the verse and emphasis on capturing the enemy, we could have translated the segment under discussion as, "aim to take captives."
Since I have no bone to pick with you, I'm coming in with no real bias and I have a decent grasp of the language...it should be easy to get but it's not, it's a bit convoluted which it shouldn't be in my opinion.You did not quite answer what I wanted. As far as I am aware, no CAD specifically mentions 474. I think you are misreading what sister Samia said, she is using an understanding of RQB found in lisaanul 3arab and inserting it in 474.
You asked if 474 was specifically mentioned in Lisaan, I gave you her exact quote in reference to 474 that she and I were discussing. If there's a problem with her understanding of RQB, let me know and I'll forward her the info. -
peace sis,
Feel free to use "make, cause to be, constitute", as mentioned in Lane.
But for sake of argument, let's say my wording is convoluted, let's look at the alternatives. What are they? All other options I have seen are flawed more significantly than subjectively "convoluted" wording. If you can provide what you feel is the best rendering of "DRB al RQB" we can examine it.
And no, there is no problem with Samia's understanding of RQB. Lisaan does not reference 474, neither under DRB or RQB however. That is what I was clarifying.
-
In 474 it could mean to attack the vanguard according to lisannul 3arab. It may be the plural of "raqeeb" which is still used as a rank in the army "sergeant"...(Thanks Samia)
Sister Samia I wish you all happiness. For the purpose of seeking guidance and expert opinion, I want to point out that I recall to have checked it somewhere that plural of is while is the singular of .
I may clarify that was later started being used for the whole human body and metonimically it also became the name for referring to slaves.
-
pax bro,
I'll "bring about" a rendering I think is best and then "make" it appear on the thread. Then we shall see which "puts forth" it's best foot, and that one might have "cause to be" "constituted" as the WINNAR.
After I'm done doing what I should be doing...I let captives distract me but then they are so darn captivating.
-
- If they were supposed to be beheaded, there would not be a need for an instruction regarding captives. Thus to overcome this apparent omission, many traditional commentators translate "fa shuddoo al wathaqa" as "then tie the bond" and say this refers to taking prisoners of war. However, the word "strengthen/tighten (Arabic shuddoo)" implies a pre-existing thing to strengthen/tighten (see its usage in 3820, 7628, 2835, 1088, 2031), but if this is true, where is it in context? It can only relate to "darba al rriqabi", and thus provides strong proof that this phrase is about bringing about captives from the enemy.
The highlighted presumption seems to be making things perplexed. In Arabic the object of the verb does not ordinarily precede the subject of the verb. If the object of the verb has succeded there can't be an object after it. Here the object of the verb appears after the subject of the verb. Therefore, presumption is baseless and unfounded. The conditionaility, situation arisen necessitating this action has been mentioned immediately before it, and there is no such precedence, to my knowledge, in Grammer rules which could permit stretching it to relate it to "darba al rriqabi".
Thanks. -
Thanks for the information Mazhar. This is probably why most translations have it referring to
Peace.
-
-
Salam Wakas,
Even on logic and cross-reference I do not find any rationale to assume or conclude like that. In all the cross-references quoted there (see its usage in 3820, 7628, 2835, 1088, 2031), the object of the verb is mentioned immediately after. For the act/verb of solidification and/or strengthening we need to mention the object.
Logic does not permit with reference to a sentence/statement in the words of any language to relate the answer to the condition to a cognate adverb used earlier in the sentence instead of relating it to the condition. Logic does not permit to behave differently with Arabic of Qur'aan.
-
Interestingly, someone with a cough traditional bent of mind reading it came up with We are apparently being told to put forth captives as human shields when we encounter the kafirs. These will face the brunt of the battle, and then after we've won the battle, we strengthen the binds of these captives left alive somehow after being used as cannon fodder when the battle is won. This would mean essentially to tie them up again to use them for the next battle because they are now veterans with experience and will serve us well. More so than just rookie captives, with no experience whatsoever. Additionally, this serves as a two pronged defense as well. On one hand, they will take the brunt of the attack and on the other, if the kafirs know them as their brothers and sisters, they might not attack as well as we would think. This is truly brilliant. We must make sure to release them or exchange them as soon as the war ends, I have no issues on that front as long as they've served us well.
His gf (strange for a traditionalist, yes) then came up with Maybe this is pointing to the kafirs throwing people marked as captives at us as we meet them in battle? The captives are thus brought about from the kafirs, the evildoers just catapulted their village idiots at us in a vain bid to succeed. Maybe they use it as a throwing sand in our eyes tactic? We MUST then bind them strongly after we've won because Allah knows, if the kafirs didn't want them, there must be something seriously wrong with them...<thankfully, they stopped here>
Some peeps have scary minds
-
peace Mazhar,
I did not use logic to "behave differently" with Arabic of Quran.
I repeat, this has nothing to do with grammar. There is no grammar rule that disproves or weakens what I have said. Perhaps I can clarify further
And We strengthened his kingship...
and strengthened their form...
We shall strengthen your arm/ability...
harden upon their hearts...
strengthen my resolve...As we can see in every occurrence, something exists in the first place to strengthen/harden. Now let us look to the verse in question
strengthen the bind...
Similarly, some sort of bind MUST exist first before it can be strengthened. This is simple logic and matches perfectly with cross-reference. Interestingly, it uses "al" implying something well known by the addressed audience, but as we can clearly see it is NOT clear in the context what "bind" refers to (unless we use my rendering). It also uses "al" prior to RQB.
Interestingly, Traditional Tafsirs (altafsir.com) also mention this possibility along with the common understanding. Ibn 'Abbas "...and taken them prisoners, (then making fast of bonds) keep the prisoners in captivity...". Tafsir al-Jalalayn "take them captive and bind firmly, the bonds (al-wathq is what is used to bind a captive).". Is it a mere coincidence that it just so happens al-wathaq is what is used to bind captives/RQB?
-
Interestingly, it uses "al" implying something well known by the addressed audience, but as we can clearly see it is NOT clear in the context what "bind" refers to (unless we use my rendering). It also uses "al" prior to RQB.
This rather further confirms that has nothing to do with . Both are independent of each other. This is done when the already known/mentioned is in indefinite state.
I repeat, this has nothing to do with grammar. There is no grammar rule that disproves or weakens what I have said. Perhaps I can clarify further
And We strengthened his kingship...
and strengthened their form...
We shall strengthen your arm/ability...
harden upon their hearts...
strengthen my resolve... [2031
As we can see in every occurrence, something exists in the first place to strengthen/harden.Seen from this angle/logic too, what exists is this
-
peace Mazhar,
I have no problem with them being independent terms.
Can you clarify what you mean by both of the following and how/if it relates to 474
This is done when the already known/mentioned is in indefinite state.
Seen from this angle/logic too, what exists is this
Also, can you please provide your rendering of 474 so we can see what the alternatives are. From my studies, whilst other alternatives are possible, they are not the strongest option.
-
Peace
This is done when the already known/mentioned is in indefinite state.
This was to clarify this comment
Interestingly, it uses "al" implying something well known by the addressed audience, but as we can clearly see it is NOT clear in the context what "bind" refers to (unless we use my rendering). It also uses "al" prior to RQB.
"Al" suffixed to a subsequent word to indicate a known thing, a thing mentioned earlier, in such case the earlier noun is indefinite and not definite by "al". That is why I pointed out that the presumption of relationship indicated in the above quote is not correct.
Seen from this angle/logic too, what exists is this
This was to clarify about this observation
As we can see in every occurrence, something exists in the first place to strengthen/harden.
What existed was indicated which is .
-
peace,
Re "al"
Thanks for clarifying. I understand what you meant now. I did not mean I was linking them grammatically, in case that was unclear. I just meant both RQB and WThQ are something well known to the addressed audience.I do not understand your last point. Are you implying what is "strengthened" is indicated by the suffix "hum/them"?
-
Your point is that something exists in the first place to strengthen/harden. I am suggesting that from this angle also the "thing" that exists for the said purpose is those of the enemies who have since dropped weapon, have been made exhausted to stand further. These people are to be subjected to tightened arrest.
-
Fakayfa itha tawaffathumu almalaikatu yadriboona wujoohahum wa adbarahum
= So/then how (will it be) when the angels/controllers* take them (unto themselves, i.e. in death) striking their faces/fronts and their backs?*angels is better translated as controllers, i.e. forces in control of certain functions/laws. There are some controllers we know about, e.g. those found in nature F=ma, E=mc? etc. and some we do not know about.
In the above two verses, translators commonly use "beat / strike / smite", and whilst this may seem acceptable on the surface this translation does have significant problems when examined more closely
In 850 it says if only you could see, thus clearly implying that what the controllers are doing cannot be seen. And since it is at the time of death, then the controllers cannot be striking the physical fronts/faces and backs as this would be observable. It could be suggested that at death, this is a special/unique transition phase so perhaps the controllers are indeed beating/striking but in a different form somehow, and the living simply cannot see it.
It causes problems with verses such as 737, 1628, 851, 693-94 in which the controllers are in communication with people being taken at death, and the ones taken are listening properly and answering, but this is highly unlikely if they are being beaten at the same time!
It causes a clear problem with 693 when it describes the controllers as stretching/extending forth or opening their hands/powers when taking them at death saying "Bring out your souls...". This sounds unlike striking/beating, and there is no implication of this in the verse at all.
If this is indeed a beating/striking causing pain in some way, then this would be the only example in The Quran of an explicit punishment between death and the 'day of obligation/judgement/requital/due'.
In contrast, the controllers take those who are good with a greeting of peace/salam in 1632 and there is no mention of taking them gently for example.Salam Wakas,
This is all based on the premise that the point in time is worldly "death"? But the fact is that wherever such thing is mentioned that is the scene after the resurrection. Nowhere word "Maut" is used.
