The Myth that Women have to "Obey" their Husbands
-
Men are men and all Men are rijaal, that's just Arabic. Now whether certain men are qawwaamoona (supporters NOT supervisors) of the women in their lives, especially their wives with what God has given them is another thing. I think it's up to the woman to listen to her husband as long as she sees that he is doing what he can to support her and is trying to live with her in kindness and is for the most part reasonable. I think women have a certain irrationality that makes this a better situation, where men being the head makes family life more livable. Men who show that irrationality have given up what they know to be their natural role because that role is not societally encouraged. That's why you have the phenomenon of man-children. That is something of this century and connected to this type completely gender-role-less society. Competition betweem genders and women thinking that their husbands have no right to tell them what to do is not appropriate for a godly women. Yes, the man is to be the pilot of the plane,(and the woman the second in command) and that's why the Quran says she should be dutiful and obey him when he asks of her. But it is clear that the Quran also sets a standard for the man to live up to. So if he is cruel, abusive, ungodly and not responsible, he is still is a man but he is not following the Quran. And in such a case a godly woman has a right to not have anything to do with him. As for the "segregation" that you said I was implying. I speak just for the preferred situation for any Quranic society. I believe Quranist women should have the right to and even be encouraged to fully educate themselves. But I don't believe that men and women in general but Quranic men and women in particular should be competing for the same jobs or competing against each other in the same schools, or freely having non-relative male friends whom they habitually visit and cofide in without any real need. I don't believe in any forced segregation but more like a preferred segregation of men and woman who are not family, unless it's public (business, coincidental or the like where there's no relationship there except a passing comment or a curiosity) conversation or official business where men and women need to sit at the same table to discuss issues that affect both of them. I think the Quran demands that men take women into consideration and respect them where respect is due. And it also says that women should listen to/obey their husbands in the relationship unless that man is cruel, abusive and ungodly. I think that is the way the Quran puts it and that is the way Quranists should live. It's not new, and that is for a reason. And I don't think it's going backwards, but rather returning to sanity. Women have certain capacities and natural limitations and men have certain capacities and natural limitations. We are not the same and we should not let our pride get in the way of what God tells us to do and how to live. I think our general modern, western standards of equality are overboard and do more harm than good. Men and woman are equal in being able to do good and bad and choose God or not choose God, but there is a pecking order in our societies in this dunyaa. Unfortunately we have had situations historically where just phrases like pecking order convey visions of tyrrany and abuse. And that is what I think most of the women here who have commented are envisionng when they have responded to me and Fahad for instance. But I'm not talking about societies in general. I'm talking about Quranic standards. If we go off of what PEOPLE do, and even Muslims, we will never be able to see the Quran in its correct light. The Quran says most people are dead wrong, and it offers the balance between the extremem chauvinism of some cultures and the extreme libertinism (often termed liberalism) of others.
We might not see the problems that this libertinism causes on the level of high governments or distinguished institutions but in the streets and in the home these libertine attitudes disguesed behind words like liberation or equality are wreaking havoc on relationships, marriages, families and men and women's perspectives of each other. Gender roles are good. Some can be exaggerated but moderate ones where there is still mutual respect is optimal for human society. That is how I see it. Take it or leave it, love it or hate it.
Godbless,
Anwar -
The most they can hope for if they are good men is a little comedy played by their complacent, but not obedient, wife out of her own practical sense
Yep, saw it all the time on 80's (thankfully) pakistani tv drama's aka soap operas and whenever I read shojo manga (don't laugh) I'm shockingly confronted sometimes by how seriously the role is taken and wanted...This "delusional want" however is cross cultural as you know so I'm not very surprised that men would want it "certified" as it were with whatever authority they tend to believe in/respect etc and women affected as a natural consequence whether or not the end result is the fair sex keeping mum and going about things indirectly (plently of fairy tales/fables, one russian one comes to mind about the good wife and how the good is actually her common sense when confronted with her stupid husband and how she makes him feel ten feet tall, takes care of business, runs the household etc etc while the idiot keeps messing up but never would she directly tell him exactly what a git he is) or whether she actually believes in it and writes "The Ladies' Etiquette Handbook" which includes the Arrr Aye Aye Capn' scenario and how it's the best thing ever.
Good posts btw, agree with you.
-
Peace,
Sounds good. But sounds good is not always is good. I disagree with your interpretation of that verse. I read ta'aarafa as 'to mutually honor' from 'arafa's meaning of 'to recongize' and it's use in the words 'urf and ma'roof. But to you your way and to me mine.
Godbless,
AnwarSalaam Anwar
The verse does not say "ta3arafaa" but "ta3aarafuu", meant for nations and tribes.
-
Men are men and all Men are rijaal, that's just Arabic.
But it is clear that the Quran also sets a standard for the man to live up to.
Godbless,
AnwarSalaam brother Anwar
I have taken those points from your post which I believe should be fully discussed as its not often we see men discussing what is expected of them and admit that the Quran also sets a standard for the man to live up to.
Next we can discuss each sex's strength and weakness.I think women have a certain irrationality that makes this a better situation, where men being the head makes family life more livable.
Men who show that irrationality have given up what they know to be their natural role because that role is not societally encouraged. That's why you have the phenomenon of man-children. That is something of this century and connected to this type completely gender-role-less society.There is clearly a misunderstanding here, I think most women long for a real man and it does not make them happy to see the phenomenon of man-children.
And I don't think it's going backwards, but rather returning to sanity. Women have certain capacities and natural limitations and men have certain capacities and natural limitations. We are not the same and we should not let our pride get in the way of what God tells us to do and how to live.
Agreed I do not at all believe in so called liberal values nor do I believe in manipulative tactics to boost male ego. We need to honestly and openly discuss what is it lacking which has created a vacuum between men and women?
So lets put our pride aside and work together for the benefit of the whole community and start with this question
What is the exact meaning of rijaal and what is expected of a man according to the Quranic standard ?
peace -
Peace,
Samia, I know what the verse says. I was pointing to the form of the verb. Form 5, not the exact conjugation there. For those who may not know, ta'aarafa would refer to he/it and ta'aarafoo is 'they.' Thanks Samia, that was some real knit-picking, but I'll assume you had the best of intentions. I read the verse and I know what it is referring to. Thanks.
Godbless,
Anwar -
For you to say that there is nothing wrong with marrying a 10 year old child tells me that you're either joking or that there's something seriously wrong with you mentally. I certainly hope you were just joking.
So you'd be against other animals getting pregnant, would you put a limit on the animal kingdom? Or are you just against human evolution?
As for saying that there may be something wrong with me. Please do describe this error on my part.
Well, not exactly, since I didn't record the conversation but I do have a great memory, so you will have to trust me when I say that that was exactly what they said.
Is that a lie? Or do you want me to believe your hadeeth?
-
Peace,
Farida. Rijaal means men. Any adult human male. What are the Quran's standards for a man to live by (this doesn't make or break his being a rajl)? To support women, to encourage an environment of rahmah (mercy), and to not be abusive. Whereas the Quran does give the man the upperhand in the Quran (in wordly affairs only), and I do believe that when the Quran says that a man can hit his wife, that does not mean hit her to hurt her (we all can hit someone in a way that does not hurt the person we hit), but hit her to admonish her after he has already spoken to her and has even not slept with her to protest her rebellious behavior and attitude. I personally also think that as the Quran says, men will never be able to be 100 percent just with women. I think that is because women are just way too subjective. And there are serious differences between men attitudes and women attitudes. But instead of trying to create some idealistic, almost idol-like standard for men and give women a reason not to respect them because they don't live up to their exxagerated standards, let's just be reasonable here. If a man is reasonably just, reasonably responsible, reasonable responsive and supportive and over all shows that he fully believes in keeping his commitments to God then a woman should listen to her man and give him the leading role in the familiy that was meant for an able bodied man. Let's not assume that all men are abusive from the start, cuz that is wrong. And if your man does not believe in and honor his commitments to God overall then you need to watch out, and probably get out of that situation. I'm not going to create the vision of some perfect man and down every man that doesn't fit that mold. I'm talking about reasonability. But a woman should not be rebellioius or disrespectful of her husband (and they should avoid men they don't respect) and shouldn't question him unless she sees a contradiction with what her husband tells her and what God asks of her. God asks no-one to destroy themselves for anyone else, nor to stay quiet when they can help the ones they love by offering a word of advice. But pride should not factor into this. Women have very big egos as well, and have a harder time realizing it than men, as far as I've seen. I think some of the most egotistical people I have met have been women and not men. Men can be generally stubborn and stupid (Like most people.) But ego goes beyond just stubborn. Ego is an over-assertion of one's personality and ideas and an excessive idea of superiority justified in anyway. And when that bubble is bursted, watch out! From what I have seen women's egos are a whole lot easier to offend than men's, usually provoking erratic, and illogical reactions. I think our societal ways these days are catered to assuaging the egos of women and that's not right either.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace,
Samia, I know what the verse says. I was pointing to the form of the verb. Form 5, not the exact conjugation there. For those who may not know, ta'aarafa would refer to he/it and ta'aarafoo is 'they.' Thanks Samia, that was some real knit-picking, but I'll assume you had the best of intentions. I read the verse and I know what it is referring to. Thanks.
Godbless,
AnwarSalaam Anwar
I really do not understand the reason for this paranoia. If you know what the verse says, why do you pick the wrong conjugation so that you build on it a disagreement with sa'adah's interpretation? That was my reason for drawing your attention to the correct conjugation and hence the correct interpretation. Why should "tribes and nations" be expected to "mutually honour" each other? You definitely meant man and woman (not that I am against this understading, but it is nevertheless an understanding and has nothing to do with the real meaning of the verb), and put a far fetched, almost not correct, interpretation just to wash down the correct interpretation given by sa'adah.
And BTW, the verb is form six, not five, and serves a mutuality meaning; so if the verb 3arafa means to know, taarafuu/ta3arafaa means to know each other, and hence we cannt conjugate it to the singular. (five would be ta3arrafa linked to the preposition 3ala, and means to recognize, ),
-
Salaam Anwar
The verse does not say "ta3arafaa" but "ta3aarafuu", meant for nations and tribes.
Peace,Samia....allow me to add "and genders"..as the verse states..to me this verse mean that genders,nations and tribes should get to know each other,respect each other and be generous to each other..instead of waging wars against each other out of pride and delusional sense of superiority... handshake .
-
Peace,Samia....allow me to add "and genders"..as the verse states..to me this verse mean that genders,nations and tribes should get to know each other,respect each other and be generous to each other..instead of waging wars against each other out of pride and delusional sense of superiority... handshake .
Agree peace
-
Peace,
Farida. Rijaal means men. Any adult human male. What are the Quran's standards for a man to live by (this doesn't make or break his being a rajl)? To support women, to encourage an environment of rahmah (mercy), and to not be abusive. Whereas the Quran does give the man the upperhand in the Quran (in wordly affairs only), and I do believe that when the Quran says that a man can hit his wife, that does not mean hit her to hurt her (we all can hit someone in a way that does not hurt the person we hit), but hit her to admonish her after he has already spoken to her and has even not slept with her to protest her rebellious behavior and attitude. I personally also think that as the Quran says, men will never be able to be 100 percent just with women. I think that is because women are just way too subjective. And there are serious differences between men attitudes and women attitudes. But instead of trying to create some idealistic, almost idol-like standard for men and give women a reason not to respect them because they don't live up to their exxagerated standards, let's just be reasonable here. If a man is reasonably just, reasonably responsible, reasonable responsive and supportive and over all shows that he fully believes in keeping his commitments to God then a woman should listen to her man and give him the leading role in the familiy that was meant for an able bodied man. Let's not assume that all men are abusive from the start, cuz that is wrong. And if your man does not believe in and honor his commitments to God overall then you need to watch out, and probably get out of that situation. I'm not going to create the vision of some perfect man and down every man that doesn't fit that mold. I'm talking about reasonability. But a woman should not be rebellioius or disrespectful of her husband (and they should avoid men they don't respect) and shouldn't question him unless she sees a contradiction with what her husband tells her and what God asks of her. God asks no-one to destroy themselves for anyone else, nor to stay quiet when they can help the ones they love by offering a word of advice. But pride should not factor into this. Women have very big egos as well, and have a harder time realizing it than men, as far as I've seen. I think some of the most egotistical people I have met have been women and not men. Men can be generally stubborn and stupid (Like most people.) But ego goes beyond just stubborn. Ego is an over-assertion of one's personality and ideas and an excessive idea of superiority justified in anyway. And when that bubble is bursted, watch out! From what I have seen women's egos are a whole lot easier to offend than men's, usually provoking erratic, and illogical reactions. I think our societal ways these days are catered to assuaging the egos of women and that's not right either.
Godbless,
AnwarSalaam
Progod,you must have met som weird ladies in your life,the words you use about women and how they are,is just not correct.
If you go back to Prophet Muhammeds(pbuh),you will see that the standard you are laying on women,is the standard that came afterwards.During the Prophets time,women were warriors,queens,teachers of men,even in the affairs of Allah.
For you to know a little of muslim womens and their struggle and history,visit www.wluml.org
Peace
-
(ع Ata? = He consented; or complied with what was desired of him.
24.54 Say Comply with what Allah and the messenger desire of you (comply with the divine system established by the message) But if they turn away, then he is only responsible for his obligation, and you are responsible for your obligations. If you comply (with the divine system) you will be guided. The messenger?s duty is only to convey the clarity.
The messenger only delivers the message. If someone does not comply with what is required of him or become ?nashiz? the messenger is not required to take any action. He cannot beat him ?even lightly?
It is difficult to understand how some people can think that Allah gave them the authority that others shall obey them. And they think that this authority is given them just because they are male and others are female.
-
Whereas the Quran does give the man the upperhand in the Quran (in wordly affairs only), and I do believe that when the Quran says that a man can hit his wife, that does not mean hit her to hurt her (we all can hit someone in a way that does not hurt the person we hit), but hit her to admonish her after he has already spoken to her and has even not slept with her to protest her rebellious behavior and attitude.
Which word in Quran could be taken to have granted "upper hand" to husband? Protecting/protector does not mean "upper hand". Rijjal does not necessarily mean "husbands", rather men are assigned the duty to protect women and that should be taken as laying a general principle.
If one believes that "Quran says that a man can hit his wife" and Quran does not prescribe the strength of hitting, how could anyone impose "decency in hitting"? This is self contradictory statement. And remember 'hitting' needs some evidence apparent on the body, throwing a flower on someone is never accepted as hitting.
In whatever manner and context words from Root are used, one thing is a must that it will make that thing prominent and evident. We use it for giving example, that makes the point prominent, evident, distinct. We use it for going out in the land, that makes the people prominent, evident to others. We use it for hitting and that hitting leaves a mark, prominent and evident. And when the husband makes her wife to exit from the Bed Room the strained relations become publically known which were hitherto only known to husband and wife. Removal of wife from sleeping in the Bed Room makes evident and prominent to every member of the family that relations peculiar between a husband and wife, that take place only inside the bed room, are broken. So long husband and wife are sleeping inside the bed room no one can perceive that both are not indulging in peculiar relationship and thus about the cleavage. This provided an opportunity to other members of the family to intervene.
As for the conduct prescribed for husbands is thisIn the presence of this straightforward command how a believer could perceive that Allah permitted any husband to "hit his wife"? These three words have nowhere been used in the Quran collectively, attracting our focus on this Ayah.
-
(ع Ata? = He consented; or complied with what was desired of him.
24.54 Say Comply with what Allah and the messenger desire of you (comply with the divine system established by the message) But if they turn away, then he is only responsible for his obligation, and you are responsible for your obligations. If you comply (with the divine system) you will be guided. The messenger?s duty is only to convey the clarity.
The messenger only delivers the message. If someone does not comply with what is required of him or become ?nashiz? the messenger is not required to take any action. He cannot beat him ?even lightly?
It is difficult to understand how some people can think that Allah gave them the authority that others shall obey them. And they think that this authority is given them just because they are male and others are female.
Salaam.
Thank you Tlepsh!
-
Peace,
Farida. Rijaal means men. Any adult human male. What are the Quran's standards for a man to live by (this doesn't make or break his being a rajl)? Godbless,
AnwarSalaam brother Anwar,
Lets discuss one point at a time and, as you have better knowledge of Arabic, could you please comment on what Arnab said in her post about the meaning of rijal, what is the root word and what does it signify?
If a rijal is an adult man what word do we use for a boy especially when discussing inheritence?Salam,
An Evaluation of the word rajul
Hebrew
From Strong's Hebrew Dictionary and Brown Driver Briggs Hebrew Definitions
Strong's # H7270
ragal
raw-gal'
A primitive root; to walk along; but only in specific applications, to reconnoitre, to be a tale bearer (that is, slander); also (as denominative from H7272) to lead about - backbite, search, slander, (e-) spy (out), teach to go, view.BDB Definition
- to go on foot, spy out, foot it, go about, walk along, move the feet
1a) (Qal) to be a tale-bearer, slander, go about
1b) (Piel)
1b1) to slander
1b2) to go about as explorer, spy
1c) (Tiphel) to teach to walk
Part of Speech verb
A Related Word by BDB/Strong?s Number a primitive root
Same Word by TWOT Number 2113
Strong's # H7272
regel
reh'-gel
From H7270; a foot (as used in walking); by implication a step; by euphemism the pudenda - X be able to endure, X according as, X after, X coming, X follow, () foot (), X great toe, X haunt, X journey, leg, + piss, + possession, time.BDB Definition
- foot
1a) foot, leg
1b) of God (anthropomorphic)
1c) of seraphim, cherubim, idols, animals, table
1d) according to the pace of (with preposition)
1e) three times (feet, paces)
Part of Speech noun feminine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong?s Number from H7270
Same Word by TWOT Number 2113a
From the Theological Word Book of the Old Testament
2113 - ragal
Hebrew Word ragal
Strong's Cross Reference 7270, 8637,
Definition go on foot, spy out. - Denominative verb.Derivative TWOT Number 2113a
Derivative Transliteration rekel
Derivative Strong's Cross Reference 7272
Derivative Definition foot.Derivative TWOT Number 2113b
Derivative Transliteration ragli
Derivative Strong's Cross Reference 7273
Derivative Definition foot soldier.Derivative TWOT Number 2113c
Derivative Transliteration marge lot
Derivative Strong's Cross Reference 4772
Derivative Definition place of the feet, feet (Rth_34, Rth_37; Dan_106).regel. Foot. This primary, feminine noun is found only in Hebrew, Aramaic, and some later Semitic dialects. It appears 245 times in the OT. In the overwhelming number of occuffences it means the "foot/feet" of human beings. However, it is also used in poetic passages in an anthropomorphic sense for an attribute of God (Exo_2410) and for God's transcendent nature (2Sa_2210; Psa_1810) and similar passages. It is applied to the "living beings" of Ezekiel's prophetic vision (Eze_17ff) to the seraphim (Isa_62), and cherubim (2Ch_313). Although the greater number of usages are in the plural (Exo_2314), it follows general Semitic grammar and as with other paired organs of the body appears in the dual (Isa_283) and on rare occasion in the singular (Deu_25). Although it usually means "foot" there is some limited extension to the "leg" (Deu_25). It is used in referring to the feet of cattle (Gen_3314), undefined animals (Job_3915), birds (Gen_89; Lev_1121-23), and unclean creatures such as insects and other arthropods (Lev_1142). It is used of the feet of Pharaoh pef sonified as a beast (Eze_322) and of idols (Psa_1157). regel is used with many extended meanings such as "pace" (Gen_3314), "time" or "number of times" (Exo_2314) and "leg of a table" (Exo_2526). Since walking was the primary means of travel during the centuries of Israel's history, the term took on many colloquial meanings. Some of these are not unlike modern expressions, while others are difficult to interpret in modern speech. A fine example is in the plea of Jacob before Laban (Gen_3030), the Hebrew says literally, "at my feet, " however the versions all seek better sense to fit the context. The RSV reads "wherever I turned, " KJV "since my coming." Both are closer to the actual sense. The root regel also implies "presence" (Deu_1124), .'swiftness" (2Sa_21, "immediacy" (Num_2019). It is used in connection with the "big toe" in warfare (Jdg_16-7) and in rituals (Ex). Some of the most interesting usages are in euphemistic expressions for bodily excretions (Jdg_324; 1Sa_243 ), for unkempt appearance as in mourning (1Sa_1924), to show homage at the feet (2Ki_437 and numerous other passages). In a rare usage (Isa_720) it is used of the pubic hair (i.e. hair of the legs). The main force of the word throughout the OT is the individual whose feet are mentioned as traveling or holding dominion.
ragli. Men on foot, foot soldiers. A secondary adjective developed from the noun reget, ragli appears twelve times in the OT in historical contexts (Exo_1237.
Aramaic
From Strong's Hebrew Dictionary and Brown Driver Briggs Hebrew Definitions
Strong's # H7271
regal
reg-al'
(Aramaic); corresponding to H7272 - foot.BDB Definition
- foot
Part of Speech noun feminine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong?s Number corresponding to H7272
Same Word by TWOT Number 2988
2988 - re gal
From the Theological Word Book of the Old Testament
Aramaic Word re gal
Strong's Cross Reference 7271
Definition foot. Used as in Hebrew, but not as broadly in the limited material of BA.From Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament
Foot
regel (H7272), "foot; leg." Regel is a word found in many Semitic languages, referring to a part of the body. In the Old Testament, the word is used a total of 245 times, with its first occurrence in Gen_89.
Regel may refer to the "foot" of a human (Gen_184), an animal (Eze_2911), a bird (Gen_89), or even a table (a rare usage; Exo_2526, KJV). The word's usage is also extended to signify the "leg" "And he had greaves of brass upon his legs, and a target of brass between his shoulders" (1Sa_176). Regel is used euphemistically for the genital area; thus urine is "water of the legs" (2Ki_1827) and pubic hair is "hair of the legs" (Isa_720). The foot's low place gave rise to an idiom "From the sole of the foot to the crown of the head" (cf. Deu_2835), signifying the "total extent of the body."
"Foot" may be a metaphor of "arrogance" "Let not the foot of pride come against me, and let not the hand of the wicked remove me" (Psa_3611). It is used to represent Israel "Neither will I make the feet of Israel move any more out of the land which I gave their fathers; only if they will observe to do according to all that I have commanded them, and according to all the law that my servant Moses commanded them" (2Ki_218 ).
In anthropomorphic expressions, God has "feet." Thus God revealed Himself with a pavement of sapphire as clear as the sky under His "feet" (Exo_2410). The authors of Scripture portray God as having darkness (Psa_189) and clouds of dust beneath His "feet" (Nah_13), and sending a plague out from His "feet" (Hab_35). His "feet" are said to rest on the earth (Isa_661); the temple is also the resting place of His "feet" "...And I will make the place of my feet glorious" (Isa_6013). Similarly, the seraphim had "feet," which they covered with a pair of wings as they stood in the presence of God (Isa_62); the cherubim had "feet" that Ezekiel described (Eze_17).
The Septuagint gives the following translations pous ("foot" and skelos ("leg".From The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Foot
foot (, reghel, , karsol (only twice in parallel passages 2Sa_2237 = Psa_1836, where it probably means ankle); , pous) The dusty roads of Palestine and other eastern lands make a much greater care of the feet necessary than we are accustomed to bestow upon them. The absence of socks or stockings, the use of sandals and low shoes rather than boots and, to an even greater degree, the frequent habit of walking barefoot make it necessary to wash the feet repeatedly every day. This is always done when entering the house, especially the better upper rooms which are usually carpeted. It is a common dictate of good manners to perform this duty to a visitor, either personally or through a servant; at least water for washing has to be presented (Gen_184; Luk_744). This has therefore become almost synonymous with the bestowal of hospitality (1Ti_510). At an early date this service was considered one of the lowest tasks of servants (1Sa_2541), probably because the youngest and least trained servants were charged with the task, or because of the idea of defilement connected with the foot. It was, for the same reason, if rendered voluntarily, a service which betokened complete devotion. Jesus taught the greatest lesson of humility by performing this humble service to His disciples (Joh_134-15). The undoing of the latchets or leather thongs of the sandals (Mar_17; Luk_316; Joh_127) seems to refer to the same menial duty.
Often the feet and shoes were dusted on the highway, as is being done in the Orient to this day, but if it were done in an ostentatious manner in the presence of a person or a community who had refused hospitality to a stranger, it was understood in the same sense in which the cutting in two of the tablecloth was considered in the days of knighthood it meant rejection and separation (Mat_1014; Act_1351).
The roads of the desert were not only dusty but rough, and the wanderer was almost sure to ruin his ill-made shoes and wound his weary feet. A special providence of God protected the children of Israel from this experience during the long journey through the wilderness. ?Thy raiment waxed not old upon thee, neither did thy foot swell, these forty years? (Deu_84; Deu_295).
In the house shoes and sandals were never worn; even the most delicate would put on shoes only when going out (Deu_2856). The shoes were left outside of the house or in a vestibule. This was especially done in the house of God and at the time of prayer, for whenever or wherever that might be, the law was ?Put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground? (Exo_35; Jos_515; Act_733). This custom still prevails among the Moslems of our day. Probably it was the idea of defilement through contact with the common ground which gave rise to its moral application by the Preacher, ?Keep thy foot when thou goest to the house of God? (Ecc_51 (Hebrew 417)).
Nakedness of the feet in public, especially among the wealthier classes, who used to wear shoes or sandals, was a token of mourning (Eze_2417 and probably also Jer_225 and Isa_202-4). A peculiar ceremony is referred to in Deu_259, Deu_2510, whereby a brother-in-law, who refused to perform his duty under the Levirate law, was publicly put to shame. ?And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed.? See also Rth_47, Rth_48.
Numerous are the phrases in which the word ?foot? or ?feet? is used in Biblical language. ?To cover the feet? (1Sa_243) is synonymous with obeying a call of Nature. ?To speak with the feet? is expressive of the eloquence of abusive and obscene gesticulation among oriental people, where hands, eyes and feet are able to express much without the use of words (Pro_613). ?To sit at the feet,? means to occupy the place of a learner (Deu_333; Luk_1039; Act_223). Vanquished enemies had to submit to being trodden upon by the conqueror (a ceremony often represented on Egyptian monuments; Jos_1024; Psa_86; Psa_1101; compare Isa_4923). James warns against an undue humiliation of those who join us in the service of God, even though they be poor or mean-looking, by bidding them to take a lowly place at the feet of the richer members of the congregation (Jam_23). We read of dying Jacob that ?he gathered up his feet into the bed,? for he had evidently used his bed as a couch, on which he had been seated while delivering his charge to his several sons (Gen_4933). ?Foot? or ?feet? is sometimes used euphemistically for the genitals (Deu_2857; Eze_1625). In Deu_1110 an interesting reference is made to some Egyptian mode of irrigating the fields, 'the watering with the foot,' which mode would be unnecessary in the promised land of Canaan which ?drinketh water of the rain of heaven.? It is, however, uncertain whether this refers to the water-wheels worked by a treadmill arrangement or whether reference is made to the many tributary channels, which, according to representations on the Egyptian monuments, intersected the gardens and fields and which could be stopped or opened by placing or removing a piece of sod at the mouth of the channel. This was usually done with the foot. Frequently we find references to the foot in expressions connected with journeyings and pilgrimages, which formed so large a part in the experiences of Israel, e.g. Psa_9112, ?lest thou dash thy foot against a stone?; Psa_9418, ?My foot slippeth?; Psa_1213, ?He will not suffer thy foot to be moved,? and many more. Often the reference is to the ?walk,? i.e. the moral conduct of life (Psa_732; Job_2311; Job_315).
Figurative In the metaphorical language of Isa_527 ?the feet? are synonymous with ?the coming.?Arabic
From Project Root List
Ra-Jiim-Lam = to go on foot, urge with foot, walk, tie by the feet, let (a female) suckle her young, be curly (hair), set free with his mother. rajjala - to comfort anyone, comb the hair, grant a respite. tarajjala - to go down without rope. rijlatun - vigour in walking. rijlun - foot, soldiers, good walker, tramp. arajil - hunters, pedestrian. rajulun - male human being, man, a person with heir. rajilun - foot, footmen (slow walkers). rijlain - two feet. arjul (pl.) - feet.
Salam,
Arnab - to go on foot, spy out, foot it, go about, walk along, move the feet
-
(ع Ata? = He consented; or complied with what was desired of him.
24.54 Say Comply with what Allah and the messenger desire of you (comply with the divine system established by the message) But if they turn away, then he is only responsible for his obligation, and you are responsible for your obligations. If you comply (with the divine system) you will be guided. The messenger?s duty is only to convey the clarity.
The messenger only delivers the message. If someone does not comply with what is required of him or become ?nashiz? the messenger is not required to take any action. He cannot beat him ?even lightly?
It is difficult to understand how some people can think that Allah gave them the authority that others shall obey them. And they think that this authority is given them just because they are male and others are female.
I agree. See below
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=10365.msg52193#msg52193 -
Peace Farida,
Maybe you think the women I've met are wierd, and I don't know you to judge you either. But many people aren't good at recognizing their own faults in general and women are not excluded from that. Many people walk in the world with their heads high always projecting, but they hardly ever turn inwards to know themselves, the good and the bad, and become okay with that and try to fix what they know is wrong. And many people's egos are built on their insecurities and arrogances. Men and women. Many people know what they know and that's all they want to know. Men and women. But i've seen what I've seen and I've done my best to process everything as fairly as I can. And I've tried to observe as much as I can. I think most people are going to Hell anyway, but I definitely see some different trends among men and women. I think within those trends lie real strenghts and weaknesses. I don't believe in oppressing anyone, man or woman. And I believe godly men and women need to be given full respect. And I also see in the Quran that men should treat women with respect and it tells us how to best deal with the situations that present themselves and women need to treat men with respect and it lays out how they are to best do that. I'm not one for overly political-correct talk, nor do I clinge to cultural cliches or feel obligated to uphold cultural taboos, old-school or new-school. I do my best to just see it how it is. Many people will reject because of buzz words and phrases and mindsets that they believe are progress, and I think most people have got it wrong, even if they think they are civilized for what they believe.
Man = rajl or Imru'un.
Men = rijaal.The root has to do with walking and foot/leg, but it came to mean man for some reason or another, as in adult male human being.
The words for boy are fataa (Literally youth, and in some instances can mean very young man, this word can also mean servant.), ghulaam (can also be used for servant), sabeeyun (almost literally 'a lad' and walad. Radee'un is an infant boy.
These are the words for boys that I can remember. In the inheritance passages I see dhakar and unthaa used more, i.e. males and females, with no age distinction made.
As for when a boy becomes a man . . . physiologically. I think we can see from nature and observation that that is anywhere between 15 and 20 years of age. Now if we are talking about good sense, responsibility and good judgement even children can learn and be taught this, but in today's world we focus more on letting kids be kids instead of training them to be good adults. For males there is an age of full strength, where a 15 year old COULD be big but does not have the full strength of an adult man yet. There is no such thing really as a 'real' man and a 'false' man. It's more along the lines of a responsible, sensible, prudent man. And this is produced from how we teach and treat them while they are still boys. Just like irresponsible men are most times the product of what they were taught (intentionally or unintentionally, from televison, their peers, and their families).
As for the word 'hit them' in the Quran. Hit doesn't mean beat up. Hit doesn't necessarily even mean to do harm. We hit each other every day, in jokes, in play and sometimes to do harm to each other. I think the Quran in many places makes it clear that we are not to take things too far, and that we are not to oppress or wrong anyone, nor do harm to those who do not try to cause us harm. If we take all of the Quran into context we would see that the Quran is not saying 'beat them up' or 'hit them with strength and fury.' But if people can't even get it right on how many women they can marry and why, why do we expect them to get it right for that passage? The hit is not emotional, nor is it a license for men to take their anger out on them. The Quran says that we are not to take our rage out on anyone, but to control our rage. That verse is to give the man a last resort to bring sense to that woman. And if she doesn't come to sense after that, a divorce is inevitable. The only other option is abuse and oppression and the Quran says that that is wrong. We must stand for justice and what is right and best, and we cannot force the ungodly or the lost to find God or find their way. We can find plenty of verses that would tell us the mind we need to have and the extent to which we are supposed to take things. But I'm not going to apologize or try to change something that seems to be the most straightforward usage of that word in Arabic, just because it sounds bad to people who don't want to understand the Quran anyway. The fact is that their are relationships all over the world where couples hit each other in non-abusive ways for different reasons and I would not call those relationships abusive. It is when it becomes real violence motivated by a will to do harm or over assert one's self when there is a poblem. If a man is abusive to his wife that is one thing, but if she's acting crazy and he strikes her in a controlled way, not to hurt her and not cuz he's enraged at her, but to bring her to her senses, I don't see that that is bad. Same thing if my wife smacks me cuz I'm going too far and don't have my act straight then I need to realize what I'm doing and correct my ways. Sometimes we all need to be smacked back into sense. Now that doesn't mean a smacking-free for all. And I think men and woman should totally avoid as much as is possible hitting each other. Because it rarely leads to any good. But if that last resort doesn't work we're lost and those who want to help us need to let us go, and let us fall if that is what we are intent on doing. The point is if you believe in all of the Quran and hence you believe in mercy and you love and respect your wife you don't want to take your anger out on her if she's gone too far, you just want to see her come to her senses. But people who want to criticize the Quran and pick and choose, Muslim or non-Muslim alike, will find much ammunition for their devilish ways. Because the book is meant for those who consider, study and have faith in all of it.
Godbless,
Anwar
