Qur'an Verse 4:34 - 'Beat the Wife'? quranverse434
-
Your argument is even linguistically incorrect. If I cast out a line while angling it is never to be seen again? You'd wish.
-
So it's demonstrated "to cast out" does not implicitly have permanency as an attribute. A line cast out while angling always come backs unless it breaks.
In your interpretation however, there is no such solution to the end of it. If she stays inobedient, you will keep hitting her until she reconciles by force.
So no I'm not applying brackets. You on the other hand have to, because else it could result in someone's death by violence.
-
Your argument is even linguistically incorrect. If I cast out a line while angling it is never to be seen again? You'd wish.
Once again you fail. Cast out has an implicit permanency unless otherwise so indicated.
If I say "I cast you out", permanency is implied unless otherwise indicated, such as if I say "I cast you out for a year".
If someone "cast out his wife", permanency is implied. Where is the indication in 434 that casting out is not permanent. There is no indication.
Does it say "cast out your wife for a while"? Does it say "cast out your wife until she repents"? There is neither a a temporal clause nor a conditional clause to indicate that casting out the wife is temporary or could be reversed in the future.
The example you gave "cast out a line while angling" has an indication that it is temporary "while angling". But if you simply said "I cast out a line", there is no indication that it is temporary.
Once again, in 434 there is absolutely no indication that casting out is temporary if indeed casting out is the sound translation of DARABA (which it is not....all of this is hypothetical argumentation because I have already defeated you in debate over the meaning of DARABA with a dictionary reference).
As you can see, everytime I answer your flawed argument, you move on to another argument, which is proof that you are losing the debate. You have yet to provide a solid evidence from a dictionary or Arabic linguist that the utilization of the word DARABA in 434, taking into consideration the grammatical structure, context, verb, object, and subject means to "Cast out" and not "to hit/strike".
-
No you're wrong.
Casting out never implies permanency UNLESS stated explicitly. It's not bound to the "while"
Let me prove this.
I cast out a line.
No "while".
Is the line gone forever? No it's not. The line is still coming back.
Try again.
-
Even expelled does not imply permanency. Even if someone gets expelled it does not say anything about the possibility of that being reversed or undone.
You ignored my question to you.
How will you translate "to strike/beat" without adding brackets to it? If you don't add brackets it could result in beating someone to death.
-
So now we are getting to the truth of the matter. Consequences of the "to beat/strike translation"
- Quranic disharmony requires brackets or it could result in killing someone
- Contradicting Quran (eg 2256 - "no compulsion in the system"
- No guarantee in resolving the disobedience
Consequences of "to cast out"
- Quranic harmony no brackets required
- Nowhere contradicting Quran, the reconciliation happens out of free will or results in continued seperation.
- Guaranteed resolvement of the disobedience either by seperation or reconciliation.
-
In your interpretation however, there is no such solution to the end of it. If she stays inobedient, you will keep hitting her until she reconciles by force.
So no I'm not applying brackets. You on the other hand have to, because else it could result in someone's death by violence.
Not at all! I have already pointed out that DARABA as used in 434 is a single action and not a continuous one. It is simply a step in the process that begins with admonishing, then moves on to separating beds, then to a physical strike, and the fourth step is described in 435
So the meaning of strike/hit for DARABA logically and grammatically synchronizes the two verses. However, the meaning of "cast out" which has an implicit permanency associated with it creates confusion and an unresolvable contradiction between 434 and 435.
Let's analyze in summary how the verses become synchronized if the meaning of strike is used for 434
-
Wife acts rebelliously toward husband
-
Husband admonishes wife. Either wife repents and changes, or she persists in her disobedience, in which case we move to next step
-
Husband enforces separate sleeping arrangements. Either wipe repents and changes as a result of that, or she persists in her disobedience, in which case we move to next step
-
Husband strikes wife (a single action not continuous). In response, either wife repents and changes as a result of that, or she persists in her disobedience.
Now if the wife persists in her disobedience even after having been hit (only once) by her husband, we are provided further guidance as to how to resolve this obvious conflict between husband and wife in the next verse
It starts by saying, "And if ye fear a breach between them twain (the man and wife)"
this indicates that the husband having hit his wife did not work, now there is a fear of a breach (SHIQAAQ) between both of them, meaning it seems like their marriage is going to end.
Let's pause here for a moment.
You said that DARABA means to cast out. So the husband cast out his wife. This means a breach (SHIQAAQ) has already occurred! But 435 is talking about what to do in case you fear a breach, not what to do if a breach has already happened!
The verse goes on to say that two arbiters should be appointed to represent both parties, and if both parties sincerely desire reconciliation, Allaah promises that it will be so.
And if one or both parties does not desire reconciliation, then obviously the arbitration will fail and the result will be divorce. That is the resolution to this process that you asked about earlier.
The alternative suggestion that DARABA means "cast out" makes an arbitration from 435 superfluous. When the wife has been thrown out, what is there left to arbitrate. The whole point of arbitration is to prevent the wife from having to leave her husband.
-
-
You are again distorting facts and showing little understanding of linguistics. 435 allows you to continue hitting her if she does not reconcile. It's not a single action as you claim it to be.
I showed you "to cast out" has NO implicit permanency whatsoever. You seem blind to this linguistic fact.
The rest of your post is just building further on that ignorance.
I cast a line.
Is the line gone forever unless it explicitly states it gets broken? No. Stop denying this linguistic FACT. You keep distorting facts or ignoring them.
SHIQAAQ is not contradicting as "to cast out" HAS NO IMPLICIT permanency whatsoever. You keep ignoring that "to cast out" is temporary unless EXPLICITLY stated differently. The explicit statement of that permanency is SHIQAAQ.
Also tell me what SHIQAAQ means in your translation. Is it breaching her skull or jawbone? I wonder.
-
You are again distorting facts and showing little understanding of linguistics. 435 allows you to continue hitting her if she does not reconcile. It's not a single action as you claim it to be.
I showed you "to cast out" has NO implicit permanency whatsoever. You seem blind to this linguistic fact.
The rest of your post is just building further on that ignorance.
I cast a line.
Is the line gone forever unless it explicitly states it gets broken? No. Stop denying this linguistic FACT. You keep distorting facts or ignoring them.
SHIQAAQ is not contradicting as "to cast out" HAS NO IMPLICIT permanency whatsoever. You keep ignoring that "to cast out" is temporary unless EXPLICITLY stated differently. The explicit statement of that permanency is SHIQAAQ.
Answer these questions and I'll get back to you
-
You say 434 says cast out the wife. Where is she to be cast out from? From the bedroom (that was already mentioned as the second step)? From the house? Where is she to be cast out from?
-
If the wife is cast out from her husband's house, where is she suppose to go? What if she has no family or relatives? What if she has no money and cannot arrange any accomodation?
-
How long is the wife cast out for if it is temporary? Is her temporary expulsion bound by time (let's say a week or a month), or is it bound by a condition (she must apologize and repent)?
-
If the wife's being cast out is based on time, what happens if she returns after the time runs out (a week or month) but she is still misbehaving? Does she have to be cast out once again, or the process of 434 repeated from start?
-
If the wife's being cast out is subject to a condition (that she apologize or repent) what if she never does so? Will she remain perpetually cast out?
I look forward to your answers. I will take a little rest for now.
P.S. The debate about the meaning of DARABA from the Arabic language is definitely over, and you guys could not present any evidence to refute the reference I provided for you from the Arabic-English Dictionary of Quranic Usage. So as far as I am concerned, the main debate is pretty much over and done with and you guys have been unequivocally defeated.
-
-
Peace
How many times should I write that PHYSICAL ASSAULT is lawful only in DEFENSE otherwise it is an OPPRESSION
and if this does not enter your brain then it is not my fault.
I asked you to prove that PHYSICAL ASSAULT FOR DISOBEDIENCE is lawful in the Quran? I have given umpteenth verses where PHYSICAL ASSAULT is valid only in SELF DEFENSE and not to OPPRESS OTHERS
And if they disobey thee, say thou verily I am quit of that which ye work. (Ash-Shu'araa 216)
Did the prophet strike for disobedience? REPLY?
OPPRESSION / INJUSTICE / LEWDNSSS is STRICTLY PROHIBITED
Verily Allah commands justice and well-doing and giving to kindred; and He prohibitS lewdness and wickedness and oppression; He exhorts you that haply ye may be admonished 1690
Is beating/striking not an oppression?
I am sorry I cannot inject this simple logic into your brains
This is my last post as I do not want to brickwall
-
- From the house.
- Then she will have to choose between reconciliation or face the consequences.
- Until she reconciles or SHIQAAQ
- There is no set time for it. It can take however long it takes. If she returns it implies obedience and reconciliation. If the reconciliation was not sincere. The process repeats.
- Results in SHIQAAQ
You call this debate over but all I can conclude is that you are
- Not explaining how beating someone into reconciliation can be harmonic with 2256 (no compulsion in the system)
- Refusing to answer how the translation of "to beat/strike" prevents that wife from being beaten to death if she keeps refusing reconciliation or is insincere while reconciliating.
- Running away from the debate because you realize your arguments are self-defeating and calling the debate prematurely over.
- Claiming no one brought evidence while you were just too blind to read them.
-
Beat is not right whatsoever in a translation of the word. You can both probably settle on a translation "in between" what you both argue, i.e. not hit a target but still reach out.
Be of one in 'is that that it is'
-
Beat is not right whatsoever in a translation of the word. You can both probably settle on a translation "in between" what you both argue, i.e. not hit a target but still reach out.
Be of one in 'is that that it is'
How do you suggest this "reaching out" should be filled in? Remember the verse is describing a living situation in which one is sharing wealth/strength with the other while still facing "disobedience". How do you suggest this reaching out should be executed if not by creating some distance between them? Keep in mind the verse has a chronology that expresses increasing distance, first the bed, next the living space, ultimately in worst case scenario "shiqaaq".
-
This is how you may understand it if the whole passage is misinterpreted.
But the word you are talking about at this instant means like I said at least two different things depending on context, i.e. put forth as in reach out with something but it has no innate meaning of hitting something or it can mean to put forth a person who excel at something. It does not have multiple meanings, but the mental image is to reach out with something, or put forth as may sound least dull in English. If you put forth a human then you have sort of made them proclaimed/distinguished, but in the context of the passage in question it means to see those who really are one in God.
Be of one in 'is that that it is'
-
This is how you may understand it if the whole passage is misinterpreted.
But the word you are talking about at this instant means like I said at least two different things depending on context, i.e. put forth as in reach out with something but it has no innate meaning of hitting something or it can mean to put forth a person who excel at something. It does not have multiple meanings, but the mental image is to reach out with something, or put forth as may sound least dull in English. If you put forth a human then you have sort of made them proclaimed/distinguished, but in the context of the passage in question it means to see those who really are one in God.
Be of one in 'is that that it is'
So you are suggesting the chronology is, advise, forsake in bed than to see a "distinguished person". I have linguistic issues with that understanding. There is no accusative noun for D-R-B that tells us what/who we should "see". Which would make it an exception in Quran with no equivalent anywhere. You filled in that gap with "those who really are one in God" but there is no trace of it in the Arabic text. I like the concept but I find no proof for it in Quran. In all verses where D-R-B is used as "to set forth" it is specified with an accusative noun.
-
Can you explain how you deduced "those who are really one in God"?
-
Found this in a digitalized dictionary
http//i.imgur.com/0a8jVaE.png
-
Harmony,
So you are suggesting the chronology is, advise, forsake in bed than to see a "distinguished person".
I think first you have to remove the non-existent beds from the context or the traditional inference whatsoever.
You filled in that gap with "those who really are one in God"
That is just the meaning of those who are "iman", traditionally believing in God, i.e. with faith. You are right that this particular passage does not contain this text.
In all verses where D-R-B is used as "to set forth" it is specified with an accusative noun.
You have all the linguistic prerequisites to put them forth in this phrase, only of course that Arabic often has another rendering, i.e. different order of letters and words. "Be 'put forth' them". It means to allow them to excel without holding them back. You have a predicate and you have an object. You even have the grammatical letter to show that DH-R-B is bound with HUN (them).
In 2273, for example is also used which means loosely 'put forth of example that', much like a proclamation. It is something that is worth paying attention to, and the same with the person who is put forth in 434 too for a reason. It continues and the pronoun in the end is depending on the context and anonymous on its own (make be listen of on (that) it)
Can you explain how deduced "those who are really one in God"?
That text is not in this passage, yet it is the purpose of the whole faith, most passages in the book called Qur'an aims on this goal with its narrations.
Which would make it an exception in Quran with no equivalent anywhere.
The object which is put forth is "highlighted", and you can speak of it if you add a pronoun or as in the case of 2273 with a descriptive coming after. marks a personal pronoun for the same "object" that was proclaimed.
In 434 'hun' is the pronoun which replaces the name of the object used earlier in the passage to tell what is DHA - R - B in the context. It is arguable that based on the combination of letters of the word in question does mean "profoundly show" or something similar based on innate meaning of letters.
Found this in a digitalized dictionary
The dictionary definition is false, because if you use the definition then you have the traditional stupid translations of the occurrences of the word throughout the book called Qur'a, like strike the dead man with part of the heifer or Moses struck the rock with his staff rather than putting it forth.
Also I argue that all Arabic words have the same fundamental meaning, even if they likely in the context can be interpreted slightly different depending on how it occurs. It is different from many other languages. And their meaning stems down from the innate meaning of letters.
Be of one in God
-
Thanks for sharing your view on this Man of Faith. I must admit some of the points you raised make sense to me. Others leave me utterly confused. I will have to do some more homework I guess before I can discuss this further with you.
Peace
-
- Then she will have to choose between reconciliation or face the consequences.
Even if the consequences are that she will be homeless? You deride me for the idea of beating, but I think it's far worse to kick out your wife if she has no place to go to then to simply smack some sense into her! And what you're describing is not a choice. A woman is forced to reconcile with her husband otherwise she has to leave. That sounds like compulsion to me, weren't you the one quoting "There is no compulsion in religion"??
- Until she reconciles or SHIQAAQ
That's not answering my question. How long is the wife suppose to be "cast out". How long does she have, in other words, what's the deadline for reconciling?
And if there is no deadline, what if she never reconciles? Effectively she will be cast out permanently? In that case what is the difference between SHIQAAQ and being cast out? Essentially there is no difference, because the wife is cast out and cannot come back until she reconciles and she doesn't want to reconcile?Who initiates the decision for SHIQAAQ, husband or wife? If husband, can he initiate the decision for SHIQAAQ whenever he wants, or is there a time period after casting out the wife which he must wait before initiating SHIQAAQ?
Another question, what if the husband is living in his wife's house (the wife owns the house), will he cast out his wife from her own property?
- There is no set time for it. It can take however long it takes. If she returns it implies obedience and reconciliation. If the reconciliation was not sincere. The process repeats.
This means the wife can simply say "I reconcile" and return as soon as being cast out? Everytime she is cast out for disobedience she will just say "I reconcile" and process repeats all over. LOL. Isn't that kind of ridiculous and stupid? This way the wife can avoid being cast out at all by simply saying "I reconcile, I reconcile" everytime the husband says "leave", and then the process repeats over, this way the clever wife never has to leave, and never has to reconcile seriously either!
- Results in SHIQAAQ
Again, who initiates or decides that the time for SHIQAAQ has come, husband or wife? What if the husband decides for SHIQAAQ as soon as he "cast out" the wife, without even giving her some time to think it over and decide to reconcile?
The next verse 435, says if you fear SHIQAAQ, that means SHIQAAQ didn't actually happen but you're afraid it might happen, that both parties should appoint arbiters to represent them in an arbitration. But you're describing that SHIQAAQ can occur when the wife is already cast out, contradicting the next verse. If SHIQAAQ is feared, should the husband cast out his wife or seek arbitration? You cannot have your cake and eat it too!
- Not explaining how beating someone into reconciliation can be harmonic with 2256 (no compulsion in the system)
- Refusing to answer how the translation of "to beat/strike" prevents that wife from being beaten to death if she keeps refusing reconciliation or is insincere while reconciliating.
- Running away from the debate because you realize your arguments are self-defeating and calling the debate prematurely over.
- Claiming no one brought evidence while you were just too blind to read them.
-
2256 is about matters of religion, not personal/domestic dispute between husband and wife. According to your interpretation, police cannot compel anyone according to law because "No compulsion", parents cannot compel their children to do anything like go to bed or go to school, because "No compulsion". This is what happens when you interpret the Quraan out of context. Look how ridiculous the result is. It's a slippery slope. A court of law (judges) cannot compel anyone, police cannot, the government cannot compel, parents cannot compel??
By by their very nature, we knows that the government, courts, judges, police, and parents compel those under their authority. So are all of them in violation of 2256? -
I've answered that point many times. The verse 434 only talks about a single strike if you knew the Arabic grammar. There is no mention of continuous beating. If the wife refuses to reconcile after the single beating, that's where 435 comes in as I already clarified for you. It's quite simple and logical. However, your interpretation of "casting out the wife" doesn't make sense at all in the light of 435 which says "if you fear a breach (SHIQAAQ) then seek arbitration". SHIQAAQ means splitting or breach. So when you cast out your wife from your home, that means SHIQAAQ has already happened!
3 and 4 - No one brought any evidence, on the contrary, you and man of faith don't even recognize the type of evidence that is necessary to refer back to in this kind of linguistic debate (i.e. the dictionary).
If we are having a debate about science and someone says "Debate me about science, but don't show me any experimental data because I don't believe in it, or don't show me any scientific evidence because I don't recognize scientists" then what kind of debate is that?
So we are having a debate about the meaning of a word, a debate related to the Arabic language, but you are saying "We don't accept the published dictionaries on the subject"...what kind of debate do you expect to have. By saying that you subconciously admit you cannot debate in the first place, and therefore you accept defeat implicitly.