Beating Women

unknownuser

Peace all

I suspect enough days have passed for our emotions and egos to settle down. I didn't intend for my questioning to lead to attacks like this... and it kind of bothers me that my questions led to ugliness like that.

Anyways, i think bro Ahmed is right. We need an outside person who can understand classical arabic to judge. I only know bro Ahmed who has that kind of knowledge - so if anyone knows of anyone else on this forum that does not have any biased opinion (hard to find i know lol) who can only explain the arabic, that would be great.

But if we can't i think we can still do it on our own using bro Tanveer's uploaded definition. To me, and i may be wrong, it seems like the definition is saying edrab or edrab 3anhunna = separate from. But i don't understand all the abreviations and initials in between and the symbols and such so i may be off. It could be referring to present OR past form of daraba + 3anhunna = separate from.

It's interesting to note that traditional interpretation also uses daraba = to hit. Now i know many of you will say "yes because they have an agenda to stay in control and power struggles and bla bla bla". True, but just follow my logic to the end... If that were the case, why would they cite a hadith stating that the beating is just symbolic of saying "i'm not happy with you these days" and you only use a toothbrush to do that. To me, it seems as though they too had an issue with the verse's meaning and tried to water it down in order to please people. That would mean they aren't trying to bank in on some sort of power struggle, and in reality, they had some heartburn with this verse and wanted to find a way around it. So if they did have heartburn with the verse, don't you think they would have investigated the meaning of the words? And had they found meanings that would be easier to swallow, don't you think they would have used them instead of making a huge circle with hadith and toothbrushes? This leads me to believe that there is one definition for that given phrase and they had issues with it so they found a hadith to make it easier for people to follow it.

That's just a side note. Has nothing to do with the definition - which i think now we all agree is the root of the issue. So we still need to either (1) find an objective person who is highly knowledgable in classical arabic, or (2) figure out what all the abreviations and initials and symbols mean in between the definition posted by bro Tanveer.

unknownuser

Hello Sister

Please don'tbet mixed up with the odd way this confusing dictionary is put down, indeed it is hard to read and you can't make a complete sentence out of it is just pure listing after each other and next to each other

now where it says that Adraba AN = Adraba, it is actually a common use in Arabic, this is also the same common use in english

let me explain what that confusing dictionary meant

the word Adraba (please note the A at the start), means to go on a strike,

for example Adraba An Al Taam, means go on a strike FROM food

Adraba An Al Amal, means go on a strike FROM work,

but you can briefly say it Adraba, i.e. go on a strike, however somewhere within the context of the sentence an explanation must be given to what exactly will be striken FROM, is it from food, or is it from work, or is from medicine etc etc, if you say someone went on a strike period, it will be very vague and meaningless, unless you say Bus drivers went on a strike and we can understand that it is a strike from work, same with teachers when they strike

now that thing called Adraba, "A strike" can not apply between a husband and wife logically, and in addition to that I explained with Arabic example that it should be "Adribu Anhuna" and not "Idrabuhuna", if you don't believe me still then this should clear it for you but please find someone who speaks arabic to tranlsate it for you and you will see clearly what i'm talking about

this is a link for the most popular Arabic dictionaries with the search result for the word Daraba, please have a look and you will see that even one dictioanry used the verse I used to explain the words Darab An

http//lexicons.ajeeb.com/idrisidic_1.asp?Sub=%d6%d1%c8

Salam

unknownuser

Peace all,

It's interesting to note that traditional interpretation also uses daraba = to hit. Now i know many of you will say "yes because they have an agenda to stay in control and power struggles and bla bla bla". True, but just follow my logic to the end... If that were the case, why would they cite a hadith stating that the beating is just symbolic of saying "i'm not happy with you these days" and you only use a toothbrush to do that. To me, it seems as though they too had an issue with the verse's meaning and tried to water it down in order to please people. That would mean they aren't trying to bank in on some sort of power struggle, and in reality, they had some heartburn with this verse and wanted to find a way around it. So if they did have heartburn with the verse, don't you think they would have investigated the meaning of the words? And had they found meanings that would be easier to swallow, don't you think they would have used them instead of making a huge circle with hadith and toothbrushes? This leads me to believe that there is one definition for that given phrase and they had issues with it so they found a hadith to make it easier for people to follow it.

This is an age-old malady of the sectarians. They first mistranslate the qur'aan and then they invent/fabricate/conjecture false "hadeeth" and falsely attribute them to the Prophet to "explain" their mistranslations. This is not the only place in al-qur'aan they have done that, but in numerous other places too. If people stop doing this, Iblis will be out of job >

As everyone can clearly see from the scan posted from Lane Lexicon that "idrab" and "idra 3anha" can have the same meaning. Please note where it says AS ALSO "IDRAB" "IDRAB 3ANHA". There is no confusion about it. The "AS ALSO" and "" make that crystal clear.

As everyone can also see that BOTH can mean "avoided, shunned, left". You don't have to put a "from" there, e.g. avoid her, shun her, leave her. Now who are we being told to avoid/shun/leave in 434 ? Its "hunna" or them. Thus "idribuhunna" and "idribu 3anhunna" will have the same meaning. Even Ahmed agrees to that

but you can briefly say it Adraba, i.e. go on a strike, however somewhere within the context of the sentence an explanation must be given to what exactly will be striken FROM, is it from food, or is it from work, or is from medicine etc etc,

Who is them ? the wives who commit nushooz. Within the context of 434, this information is clearly given. Thus everyone can see exactly who 434 is telling us to avoid, shun, leave i.e. "idribuhunna" or avoid them, shun them, leave them (the wives committing nushooz). Thus the meaning would not be "strike from them" but "avoid them, shun them, leave them".

Layth

Peace all,

Interesting that this debate is still going on...

I thought the use of Darab throughout the Quran was very clear that the natural state of the word was not beat, but I guess old ideas die hard.

The scan by Tanveer was also very clear of its acknowledged dual use until today.

Arabic is a language (like many others) that does not have one use for a word, but rather it is the context that determines the meaning.

For example, throughout this discussion I did not see one person raise any object that the word wa is being understood and implemented as then rather than using its natural state of and (i.e. if we stuck to the one meaning approach for words then we would say that the 3 steps listed in verse 434 are all to be done at the same time since God used the word wa rather than the word thuma). However, everyone accepts that the wa here signifies a state (haal) and is not therefore viewed as its natural state of being (harf atff).

Therefore, if you have accepted the meaning of wa based on the context, then why deny the similar approach to the word darab based on its context also?

Finally, sister Boost asked why the people before could not see this understanding of the verse...My answer is as follows

`And we place shields over their hearts, that they should not understand it, and a deafness in their ears. And if you mention your Lord in the Quran alone, they run away turning their backs in aversion. (1746)

God`s words are only understood with His permission, irrsepective of the skills in the language that the reader may posses.

unknownuser

To me, and i may be wrong, it seems like the definition is saying edrab or edrab 3anhunna = separate from. But i don't understand all the abreviations and initials in between and the symbols and such so i may be off. It could be referring to present OR past form of daraba + 3anhunna = separate from.

Hello sister

btw that daraba + 3anhunna is not the same as darabahuna

they thefirst is 3 words and the second is 2 words

also Idrabuhuna does not exist in the scan provided by Tanveer

Salam

unknownuser

For example, throughout this discussion I did not see one person raise any object that the word wa is being understood and implemented as then rather than using its natural state of and (i.e. if we stuck to the one meaning approach for words then we would say that the 3 steps listed in verse 434 are all to be done at the same time since God used the word wa rather than the word thuma). However, everyone accepts that the wa here signifies a state (haal) and is not therefore viewed as its natural state of being (harf atff).

Therefore, if you have accepted the meaning of wa based on the context, then why deny the similar approach to the word darab based on its context also?

Hello

actually if you read 434 and 435 again , you will see clearly that they are 4 options not 3 and as you can see that the fourth option listed in 435 and it starts with a waw, therefore according to your understanding the four option must happen together which include option 4 which is Hakam from his family and Hakam from her family, i.e. it is now almost heading for divorce

therefore what you are suggesting does not make sense

Salam

aqua

I have written an article on verse 434 of the Qur'an, a verse which has commonly been misinterpreted to justify violence against women. I have created a website to publish this article www.quranverse434.com

Wakas

salaam aqua,
Your article suffers from multiple problems as highlighted here
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599954.msg347142#msg347142

"withdraw/turn away / go away from them"
Requires the tashkeel of present day Arabic Quran to be incorrect
This alleged usage in 434 occurs in 435 with the preposition "Aan", thus making Quran seems inconsistent IF it did mean that in 434
No identical example of this DRB usage in Quran
No explanation of how the authority are notified
It is unclear to what extent one separates, how they can do so without being unjust etc
No supporting marital example in Quran
My view Impractical result when inserted into 4128-130 and somehow requires iAAradan to be a positive thing and potentially makes Drb/3rD similar

"cite them" www.Quran434.com
Works perfectly with the tashkeel in the present day Arabic Quran
Several identical examples of this DRB usage in Quran, including when humans are the direct object as in 434
Explains how the authority is notified by 435, and provides perfect logical/sequential coherence
DRB use is clear and simple to implement practically
581-4 provides perfect coherence in terms of marital example
When inserted into 4128-130 provides a complementary practical and coherent solution

In fact there were more issues in your article. If you begin your own thread for your article I'd be happy to highlight them for you to respond to.

Interestingly, in your work you do not reference www.Quran434.com where you clearly got a lot of information from.

TruthSeeker101

salaam aqua,
Your article suffers from multiple problems as highlighted here
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599954.msg347142#msg347142

In fact there were more issues in your article. If you begin your own thread for your article I'd be happy to highlight them for you to respond to.

Interestingly, in your work you do not reference www.Quran434.com where you clearly got a lot of information from.

Wow, you posted the same post in a lot of threads.

aqua

Your article suffers from multiple problems as highlighted here
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599954.msg347142#msg347142

The article addresses all those points, except for providing a specific 'marital example' in the Qur'an which I don't think is necessary because the Qur'an does not need to provide anecdotal examples for every single guidance or instruction it gives.

One of the images in my article was incorrectly linked in the section 'Transitive verb taking a direct object', but I have fixed that now. Here is the image

http//www.quranverse434.com/media/marked-a_new_approach_to_teaching_arabic_grammar-abd_allah_na%E1%B9%A3ir_al-din_abdallah_nacereddine_p145.png

Interestingly, in your work you do not reference www.Quran434.com where you clearly got a lot of information from.

It is not true that I 'got a lot of information from' your website. In fact, the only information I can recall from your website is a Qur'anic verse about Prophet Joseph being put forward as an example. Even then, I quoted the Qur'anic verse in my article, not your website. Your website takes a very different view to the meaning of 'Da-Ra-Ba', so it does not make sense for me to reference your work.

aqua

Prophet Joseph

Correction Prophet Jesus, not Joseph.

Wakas

On closer inspection of your work, actually, "some" would have been a better word choice than "a lot", my bad.

In fact there were more issues in your article. If you begin your own thread for your article I'd be happy to highlight them for you to respond to.

We can go through them here if you prefer. Let's start with some key ones

In my view, you do not cite any marital examples in Quran because none exist that support your position. Similarly, no Quranic usage of DRB exists that supports your position. However, you do attempt to make such a claim with the following

Verse 4357 uses Da-Ra-Ba as a transitive verb with a human object, similar to verse 434, where Prophet Jesus is 'put forth' or put forward as an example. Keeping in mind that an act of separation or withdrawal is also effectively a form of 'putting forth' or 'going forth from' something or someone, this example provides consistency in the Qur'anic usage of the verb.

Unfortunately for you, your understanding of the two verses above results in opposition, i.e. "putting forth/forward X" is opposite to "going forth from X".

Now readers, and hopefully you, will understand why Quran perfectly uses the preposition "Aan" /from in 435 to signify the opposite of DRB (i.e. putting forth) is occurring.

You also never told us if the verb DRB in 4357 can be 4th form as you claim for DRB in 434 , considering you said "this example provides consistency in the Qur'anic usage of the verb.". If it is not 4th form verb, you will have to concede you have zero examples from Quran of this DRB verb meaning what you claim it does.

Quote from your work

It should be realised that the Qur'an was revealed to Prophet Muhammad without those additional diacritics and it was left with us in the simplest form

Can you explain the first point in your above sentence? e.g. was revelation recited to him, or all he got was some sort of visualisation of Arabic ayat with no diacritics and he then somehow managed to recite it correctly, or something else?

aqua

In my view, you do not cite any marital examples in Quran because none exist that support your position.

Are you saying the Qur'an gives an anecdotal example / real life story for every single command / instruction / guidance it gives?

Unfortunately for you, your understanding of the two verses above results in opposition, i.e. "putting forth/forward X" is opposite to "going forth from X".

It's two ways of saying the same thing. If someone separates from their wife, then their wife is separating from them too. One is saying 'shun them' and the other is saying 'shun from you'.

You also never told us if the verb DRB in 4357 can be 4th form as you claim for DRB in 434 , considering you said "this example provides consistency in the Qur'anic usage of the verb.". If it is not 4th form verb, you will have to concede you have zero examples from Quran of this DRB verb meaning what you claim it does.

You didn't quote the previous part of that sentence, "Keeping in mind that an act of separation or withdrawal is also effectively a form of 'putting forth' or 'going forth from' something or someone...". Separation is an act of putting something forth (from you), but in the imperative, there's no need to say 'from you' because you can just say, 'put forth them', or 'put them forth' with the same meaning.

Can you explain the first point in your above sentence? e.g. was revelation recited to him, or all he got was some sort of visualisation of Arabic ayat with no diacritics and he then somehow managed to recite it correctly, or something else?

I believe the Qur'an was written during the lifetime of Prophet Muhammad while he was alive. It was recited to him but it was written down and authorised by him in the non-diacritics form before he died.

Wakas

Are you saying the Qur'an gives an anecdotal example / real life story for every single command / instruction / guidance it gives?

I have not studied this aspect, so do not know. All I know is no marital example supports your position.

And the day We send in every nation a witness against them from themselves, and We have brought you as a witness against these. And We have sent down to you the Book as a explanation for all things, and a guide and mercy and good tidings to the Submitters.

...And everything We have distinctly/clearly explained.

And We have cited in this Quran every example for the people. But man was always most argumentative.

It's two ways of saying the same thing. If someone separates from their wife, then their wife is separating from them too. One is saying 'shun them' and the other is saying 'shun from you'.

I disagree, as it results in an opposite meaning, as I said.

You didn't quote the previous part of that sentence, "Keeping in mind that an act of separation or withdrawal is also effectively a form of 'putting forth' or 'going forth from' something or someone...". Separation is an act of putting something forth (from you), but in the imperative, there's no need to say 'from you' because you can just say, 'put forth them', or 'put them forth' with the same meaning.

That does not answer my point. The point I am making is you have no example from Quran of DRB usage in the form you claim for 434 meaning what you say it means. This is fact.

As I said - you have no marital example, and no DRB example - to support your view. The only things you have that support your view are

what you are saying seems to be theoretically possible (just like it is theoretically possible for DRB to mean many things)
Quran's internal principles/examples clearly go against a wife-hitting/beating interpretation

I personally don't consider that strong evidence, others might. In addition to the above, here is what I consider much stronger evidence, from www.Quran434.com

The understanding of DRB in 434 as "cite / indicate / put/show forth them" (to the authority) is the ONLY understanding that provides perfect internal coherence in The Quran. It is the ONLY understanding

that provides a sequential link from 434 to 435
to provide identical solutions between men & women in 434 and 4128
that fits and perfectly explains 581-4
that fits the divorce procedure of The Quran and related compensation
that explains the reasoning behind the context of wealth/inheritance/giving/kindness etc.
is consistent with the use of DRB with a direct object with no prepositions, in which it always means "put/show forth"
that 100% matches the use of DRB when used with a person as the object, e.g. 273, 4357.
8 ) that provides a practical and easy to understand application in the context
works with the tashkeel in present day Arabic Quran

I believe the Qur'an was written during the lifetime of Prophet Muhammad while he was alive. It was recited to him but it was written down and authorised by him in the non-diacritics form before he died.

Exactly. It was recited to him in a specific recitation BUT recorded as a non-specific recitation i.e. Arabic text written down with no diacritics.
In such a case, with regard to 434 are you of the view that a believer can interpret Quran in a way that is theoretically possible (e.g. your view or my view) and either is fine, or there is only one correct view (i.e. only one correct recitation)?

aqua

I have not studied this aspect, so do not know. All I know is no marital example supports your position.

Let's take the two previous steps mentioned in verse 434, 'advise/speak to them', and 'avoid/leave them in bed'. Can you provide any 'marital example' in the Qur'an for each of these steps? If not, then why expect there to be one for the third step?

That does not answer my point. The point I am making is you have no example from Quran of DRB usage in the form you claim for 434 meaning what you say it means. This is fact.

Verse 435 is an example of Da-Ra-Ba being used with the same meaning. The difference is that one is an imperative / command form and the other isn't, which is necessary because the verses intend these different meanings. Both Form 1 and Form 4 of the word can be used for that meaning.

Exactly. It was recited to him in a specific recitation BUT recorded as a non-specific recitation i.e. Arabic text written down with no diacritics. In such a case, with regard to 434 are you of the view that a believer can interpret Quran in a way that is theoretically possible (e.g. your view or my view) and either is fine, or there is only one correct view (i.e. only one correct recitation)?

I think each verse has an originally intended meaning, but this should not be dictated through the use of diacritics or a fixed recitation, but instead sought through careful study of the Qur'an and use of logic, intelligence and relevant/reliable sources of information. Some verses may have intentionally been left open in order to allow adaptation to the constantly changing societies, modern technology and different groups of people.

Man_of_Faith

Peace,

I take the instructions in 434 to be a kind of psychological "weapon" against the wife if she is not treating you well. First explicitly tell her that whatever the problem is that it is not okay and then if she is still a pain then sleep on the couch or something and if that does not help rent a hotel room or sleep at a friend's place. This is usually what most men do anyway when the relationship is going south. Perhaps it is a way to protect both parts so that it does not derail into domestic violence which may occur if the situation worsens into fights.

And if the situation becomes better then do not seek continuous revenge in the future. And if it cannot be solved then they should seek help from other helpers, Quran gives one from each family as an example.

God bless you

Wakas

Let's take the two previous steps mentioned in verse 434, 'advise/speak to them', and 'avoid/leave them in bed'. Can you provide any 'marital example' in the Qur'an for each of these steps? If not, then why expect there to be one for the third step?

There are examples of discussions between husband and wife, and potential marriage partners, and bed separation. You even cited some in your article, e.g. 4128-129. But for more, see
http//www.quran434.com/wife-beating-islam.html#part3

Verse 435 is an example of Da-Ra-Ba being used with the same meaning. The difference is that one is an imperative / command form and the other isn't, which is necessary because the verses intend these different meanings. Both Form 1 and Form 4 of the word can be used for that meaning.

For sake of argument, let's accept what you said is true. My point is 435 is not the same DRB form as you are claiming for DRB in 434. Thus, quite simply, you have no example in Quran of the DRB form you are claiming for 434 meaning what you think it means - FACT

Also, no example from Classical Arabic Dictionaries.

I think each verse has an originally intended meaning, but this should not be dictated through the use of diacritics or a fixed recitation, but instead sought through careful study of the Qur'an and use of logic, intelligence and relevant/reliable sources of information. Some verses may have intentionally been left open in order to allow adaptation to the constantly changing societies, modern technology and different groups of people.

Thanks for clarifying. My point, which you accept, is that there was likely a specific rendition of 434. You do not mention this in your article when making a detailed case for the non-tashkeel recording of Quran. Some readers might like to be aware of that.

aqua

There are examples of discussions between husband and wife, and potential marriage partners, and bed separation. You even cited some in your article, e.g. 4128-129. But for more, see
http//www.quran434.com/wife-beating-islam.html#part3

Those verses hardly provide any marital example of a situation of personal dispute between a husband and wife. If you can use verse 4128 as a marital example because of its reference to reconciliation, then I can use it as a 'marital example' to support my view. Verse 2228 is about those who make an oath against their wives and then God prescribes four months as a waiting period for breaking free from this oath.

For sake of argument, let's accept what you said is true. My point is 435 is not the same DRB form as you are claiming for DRB in 434. Thus, quite simply, you have no example in Quran of the DRB form you are claiming for 434 meaning what you think it means - FACT

Also, no example from Classical Arabic Dictionaries.

You are exaggerating the importance / relevance of specific forms of a word much more than they actually have in Arabic grammar. I tried to explain this by referring to the excerpt below from an Arabic grammar book, yet you seem to think you have a strong argument when you don't

http//www.quranverse434.com/media/marked-arabic_grammar-a_first_workbook-by_g_m_wickens-_p64.png

Thanks for clarifying. My point, which you accept, is that there was likely a specific rendition of 434. You do not mention this in your article when making a detailed case for the non-tashkeel recording of Quran. Some readers might like to be aware of that.

When the diacritics were being introduced into the Qur'an, Ibn Mujahid first authorised at least seven readings of the Qur'an. Eventually the addition of more diacritics led to a single specific reading of the Qur'an. I cover this point in the following part of the article

It was only in the beginning of the tenth century (CE) that specific readings of the Qur'an were enforced by the Abbasid authority, mainly by Ibn Mujahid who died in 936 CE. Those who refused to recite according to Ibn Mujahid's view of the Qur'an were brought to trial and punished by flogging. It was the first time after Prophet Muhammad's death that the Qur'anic text was beginning to be used more than simply an aid for recital, rather it was being used more as an official score for specific ways of reciting the Qur'an. Taken from 'The Cambridge Companion to the Qur'an' by Jane Dammen McAuliffe21)

http//www.quranverse434.com/media/marked-the_cambridge_companion_to_the_qur_an-edited_by_jane_dammen_mcauliffe-_p149.png

After Ibn Mujahid's intervention, copies of the Qur'an were increasingly produced according to one of his accepted readings. More and more signs were added culminating toward a fixed single version of vocalised text. Taken from 'The Cambridge Companion to the Qur'an' by Jane Dammen McAuliffe22)

http//www.quranverse434.com/media/marked-the_cambridge_companion_to_the_qur_an-edited_by_jane_dammen_mcauliffe-_p150.png

unknownuser

Peace,

I take the instructions in 434 to be a kind of psychological "weapon" against the wife if she is not treating you well...

rotfl

Jeesh, what are you, like 10 years old??

FreedomStands

Peace,

Ask the person who acts knowledgable in the Arabic language why he/she does not apply this meaning of beat when God says darab Allah mathala (God beats and example?).

The ususal runaround you will get when you confront people with this paradox in the meaning is that they will say darab means beat when applied to humans and means something else when apllied to examples or situations.

Once they say that to you, then close the argument by pointing to 1811 which shows another example of darab being applied to humans (the people of the cave) and which under no situation can be made to mean beat.

Very strategic, I like it.