Is a man allowed to beat his wife?
-
Peace Jaxal,
SaLaM Elena
During my reading of the Quran, I have not come across even one verse which was JUST for the old days and culture. If you want to, perhaps you can clarify this a bit more or if it is your own opinion, then dont worry about itI understand we humans can extract guidance from revelations regardeless the time they were inspired.
I think some parts are for some specific time when I find names of places, like Badr, 3124, or names of people, like Abu-Lahab, 1112 or when I find things like I said in the other post, comparing 434&35 to 4.128.
I understand both verses advise reconcilitaion and good behaviour when facing desertion but the instructions are given just to one of them (this can be explained by what Idolfree says, that the message is given to the male because the male/female principles)Bear in mind, Jaxal and Tanveer, that I can't approach the reading as you do. I started to have contact with islam and quran we could say, recently, despite that 'recently' means almost four years and that I don't intend to affirm or convince or prove anything. I just want to know things.
I can't help any of you with my contributions, just asking, reading and hopefully, increase my knowledge. -
Salaam Sis Elena,
Good that you telling us this.
I have thought that you were a muslim already it sounded like that before in other posts but now I have understood that was not the case.
But that's fine we are all here to discuss and learn so just keep asking.
Peace
Sis Majidah -
peace be upon you Elena, Majidah, all,
1111 has NOTHING do with the time. abu lahab is not a proper name/noun, it is a description, and it means 'father of flame'.
In chapter 111, one who fathers the flame is consumed by what they put forth, i.e. fire/flame. It is an ingenious play on words. This has been discussed extensively on this forum, please use the search function at the top.*the above understanding is conclusively proven by the traditional stories themselves! they clearly say Abu Lahab was a nickname, and his real name was Abdul Uzza. That means The God uses a nickname in 1111, even though it is written in 'the reading' we should not use nicknames (4911). Thus is The God a hypocrite according to the traditionalists? Some of their understandings are truly rubbish.
And as for 'Badr', just because an event is mentioned that happened in the past does not mean no guidance can be gained from it. Why do we learn about World War 1 in schools for example? Why do we learn about the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima or Nagasaki?
Just because it mentions something in the past, doesn't mean it is for that time. For this to be true, one would have to prove there is no guidance that can be gained from the telling of that story/event. Can one bring evidence to support this assertion?I have thought that you were a muslim already it sounded like that before in other posts but now I have understood that was not the case.
You, nor I, know who is a muslim (one who submits/complies) and who is not. Sister Elena could be the most sincere muslim on this board. Perhaps what you meant was the title/noun "Muslim" (with a capital).
Wakas
-
Salaam Br Wakas,
Thanks for the info about Abu Lahab, I really didn't have any clue about that.
And yes I meant Muslim as a title, Of course she can be a muslim by her intentions who knows!?
Peace
Sis Majidah -
SaLaM Wakas
abu lahab is not a proper name/noun, it is a description, and it means 'father of flame'.
What? Ofcourse Abu Lahb is a name. Yes, its meaning may be "Father of Flame" but Abu Lahb is a name. ITs a noun. My name is "Ridwan" which means "Guardian Of Paradise" ( so SM, if you want to get in paradise you better be cool with me Loooll kidding ). Ridwan IS a proper name AND noun. So is Abu Lahb
-
-
SaLaM Wakas
Your so-called "argument" in my opinion, is totally out there. Specifically im talking about what u said about Verse 111.1 . I read the article you pointed and forgive me if my opinion on this matter is still the same. The aritical Ayman wrote and the verses he gave were talking about a 3 female godess. Allaat, Al-Uzzah and Manat. Regarding these three fake Gods, what Ayman had to say about these three fake gods was correct. These are mearly names given by people. Its no different than the names given to indian gods such as Ram, Shiva, Kali Ma etc etc. Anyone with common sense will agree to that.
But, when names such Abu Lahb pop up in the Quran, the same principles cannot be applied here. Abu Lahb is a name being used in that verse, or else God would have simply say "father of flame" instead of "Abu Lahb". God wouldnt hesitate to do that. He DIDNT do that. God used "Abu Lahb". Who are you to say well, that not REALLY what God meant. Abu Lahb was a man who was a disbeliever. And he died a disbeliever.
If you want to believe that the Surah is really referring to "father of the flames" rather than "Abu Lahb" then nothing i will say which will change ur mind or anyone else's who share ur believe. Im completely ok with that . There are 6 billion people on this earth. Not everyone can ever agree on the same thing. But Elena is learning and i believe its only fair that she has both sides of the picture before making a decision. So everytime a refernce is made to this as "father of the flames" i will bring the other side of the picture and put it there so the person who is seeking answers can have it both before he/she makes a decision. You should be ok with. As i am. I believe this is fair.
-
Peace all,
When reading Chapter 111, I understand that Abu Lahab was a named person whose works were evil. The chapter also references his wife as a persecutor, a supporter of her husband's evil works, both of which are condemned. The entire chapter gives us the notion to reflect upon their wrong-doings and their relationship as such, viz-a-viz in forbearance with other verses that mentions these behaviour. Just my thoughts!!!
-
peace be upon you all,
Ayman made a good point a while back, keeping in mind that abu lahab means father of flames
Perhaps another point worth adding to the discussions on Chapter 111 on both threads is that the term "7atab" only occurs one other time in the great reading in 7215.
- And as for the deviators, they were the fuel of hell
7215 is talking about the deviators from the "jinn"/hidden ones.
So if we put 1114 and 7215 together then we get
- And his wife the bearer of the fuel (i.e., the bearer of the deviators from the hidden ones)
The word "7amal" (bear) has many interesting usages that may shed further light on 1114. For example, it means bearing children (3114, 4615). This is interesting because we are also told that the "jinn"/hidden ones are the descendants of "iblis" (1850).
The word "7amal" is also used for the bearing of the trust by humans (3372). It is also talked about often in relation to hell (20100-101, 3518, 2912). We are also told what to avoid bearing in 2286.
I think that perhaps Chapter 111 is concisely giving us a lot more info about the relationship between the "ins"/apparent and the "jinn"/hidden than what immediately meets the eye.
Just a thought.
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman
-
peace be upon you jaxal,
But, when names such Abu Lahb pop up in the Quran, the same principles cannot be applied here. Abu Lahb is a name being used in that verse, or else God would have simply say "father of flame" instead of "Abu Lahb". God wouldnt hesitate to do that. He DIDNT do that. God used "Abu Lahb". Who are you to say well, that not REALLY what God meant. Abu Lahb was a man who was a disbeliever. And he died a disbeliever.
If you want to believe that the Surah is really referring to "father of the flames" rather than "Abu Lahb" then nothing i will say which will change ur mind or anyone else's who share ur believe. Im completely ok with that ) . There are 6 billion people on this earth. Not everyone can ever agree on the same thing. But Elena is learning and i believe its only fair that she has both sides of the picture before making a decision. So everytime a refernce is made to this as "father of the flames" i will bring the other side of the picture and put it there so the person who is seeking answers can have it both before he/she makes a decision. You should be ok with. As i am. I believe this is fair.
no offense but how does this argument have any logic at all? what do you think abu lahab translates to?
-
Peace Idris,
Thank you for bringing up Ayman's excerpt. It sure helps.
Ayman made a good point a while back, keeping in mind that abu lahab means father of flames
Is there any feminine Arabic term used for "mother of flames" when speaking of female?
- And his wife the bearer of the fuel (i.e., the bearer of the deviators from the hidden ones
Whose wife is this verse talking about? Is it the wife of "father of flames"? When we use the term "wife of", it always follows a name, doesn't it?
Was there ever a man named Abu Lahab and anything mentioned in regards to him and his wife in history which the verses reflect upon? Perhaps Ayman can further elaborate to get a thorough understanding.
-
peace be upon you jaxal,
SaLaM Idris
No offence taken, but as Savage Corret put it, what part of my post eludes your grasp . Let me know and i will elaborate on it.
Abu Lahb is a name being used in that verse, or else God would have simply say "father of flame" instead of "Abu Lahb". God wouldnt hesitate to do that. He DIDNT do that. God used "Abu Lahb". Who are you to say well, that not REALLY what God meant. Abu Lahb was a man who was a disbeliever. And he died a disbeliever.
since abu lahab translates to father of flame, what are you talking about in the above quote is what I would like to know?
-
SaLaM Idris
What i meant in that paragraph was this If God didnt mean the actual person called Abu Lahb and rather the meaning of the word "Abu Lahb", then God would have easily used said "father of the flame" instead of "Abu Lahb". When i talk about angel of paradise, i dont say Ridwan, i say "guardian of paradise". When someone say, Ridwan will go to hell, i take it the person is reffering to me. Becoz if he meant the Guardian of Paradise will go to hell, then he would have said "Guardian of Paradise" will go to hell, not Ridwan. I would expect him to do this so its VERY clear. And since God says the scripture is very clear, it leaves no doubt in my mind that God literally meant Abu Lahb, who was a unbeliever, to go to hell.
I hope you understand now. If not, i will try to explain it again
-
Peace,
but Jaxal, you are using different languages in your explanation. I think Idris means that 'Father of the Flame' and 'father of the flame' are written the same in the same language.
(Checking the transliteration at studyquran Wakas's page I see the same word 'lahabin' twice 1. Tabbat yada abee lahabin watabba, 3. Sayasla naran thata lahabin)
Still I know you are sure the chapter is referring to a particular person, can you explain it in a different way?
-
SaLaM Elena
Ok, i will try to explain it this way.
My opinion on this Abu Lahb is being reffered to a actual person which did exist and who was a disbeliever.
Wakas's opinion on this Abu Lahb means "father of the the flames". So it is not being refered to a person called Abu Lahb but rather its reffering to the meaning of the name Abu Lahb. Wakas plz correct me if you think this is wrong.
So when I read Surah 111, i see God reffering to an actual person. When Wakas reads this same surah, he sees it as being reffered to "father of the flames" which, for me, does not makes sense. Let me show you the complete surah
In the name of GOD, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
Condemned are the works of Abee Lahab / father of flames, and he is condemned.
His money and whatever he has accomplished will never help him.
He has incurred the blazing Hell.
Also his wife, who led the persecution.
She will be (resurrected) with a rope of thorns around her neck.
I have made the PM translation of the word in bold.
Just reading the whole surah and not just that one verse, to me, it clearly shows that God was talking about a person called Abu Lahb who had a wife. And then the surah goes on to talk about Abu Lahb's wife and how there will be a rope around her neck. Now, when I look at this surah, I cannot accept that in verse 111.1 God is reffering to a meaning rather than an actual person.
My opinion is my opinion. You dont have to accpet it. I have simply my understanding of the verse with proof which is enough for me. As someone used to say, I am sure enough to stand in front of God and explain why i belived in what i believed. http//1.forumer.com/html/emoticons/audiojunkies/smile.gif . Its totally up to you which understanding you choose.
-
peace Jaxal, All,
In brother Ayman's article it discusses how only in specific situations is a proper noun appropriate. If someone can bring forth any grammatical information which proves 'abu lahab' is a proper noun, then I will re-evaluate it.
'abu lahab' is the English phonetic/pronounciation of the Arabic word and it literally means 'father (of) flame' in Arabic. Theoretically, it can be taken as both, a common word and a proper noun. Same thing happened with Makkah/makkah (use the 'search' function at the top to see this discussion).
Please do not confuse the proper noun in an English translation and think it is a proper noun in the Arabic text.
Please refute the following point
*the above understanding is conclusively proven by the traditional stories themselves! they clearly say Abu Lahab was a nickname, and his real name was Abdul Uzza. That means The God uses a nickname in 1111, even though it is written in 'the reading' we should not use nicknames (4911). Thus is The God a hypocrite according to the traditionalists?
If 'al quran' says no matter what good the mushrikeen/polytheists do, it will not save them, it discusses a general group, one does not need to mention a specific person. Just like 'polytheists' is a description of a type of person, the father of flame is also a description of a type of person.
In 111, just because it mentions a wife doesn't mean its a literal wife. It can be taken metaphorically to mean a companion intimately linked to the 'father of flames', an accomplice, who supplied the fuel (i.e. firewood/logs) for the fire. That is why her fate is intimately linked to the fate of the father of flame. I believe that is why the Arabic equivalent of an interwoven rope is used.
Wakas
-
My opinion is my opinion. You dont have to accpet it.
Ah but opinions are dangerous things! Annouce it and be prepared to be Damned -)
I have simply my understanding of the verse with proof which is enough for me.
Proof? Can we prove anything when it comes to religion? Is Proof is a SUBJECTIVE experience of the Individual?
As someone used to say, I am sure enough to stand in front of God and explain why i belived in what i believed.
So would a Christian or Jew etc? So what is the Proof?
Regards,
-
Salaam Br Jaxal,
You know I'm always cool with you D
Peace
Sis Majidah
