Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
-
What Wakas is suggesting is also based upon what he derives from the Arabic words. He says, "so it is reasonable to assume it refers to something not done in the husband's presence. This could be related to the earlier use of "...guardians to the unseen...". If we take these factors into account, it suggests unseen "disloyalty/infidelity/ill-conduct/rebellion" in some way." Words like "Unseen "disloyalty/infidelity" are loaded with something of extreme negativity while there is no such thing indicated by the word used as object of "fear".
And "unseen by husabd" denotes something done during the time of his absence. The verb does not support this. Contrary to the baseless presumption of many people that a word may have many meanings, each verb signifies something specific.Thanks for clarifying. Your reply demonstrates what I suspected, i.e. you did not understand what I wrote.
The original statement you quoted of mine pieces together information and is not all about the verb "fear"! By applying logic, I was able to demonstrate how the pieces of information fit together perfectly.
Your so-called objection is irrelevant.
-
Thanks for clarifying. Your reply demonstrates what I suspected, i.e. you did not understand what I wrote.
The original statement you quoted of mine pieces together information and is not all about the verb "fear"! By applying logic, I was able to demonstrate how the pieces of information fit together perfectly.
Your so-called objection is irrelevant.
Peace Wakas,
I was not expecting that eventually you will call it "logic". Strange!!
Logic does not permit that one should assume meanings of words having no relevance to the word itself. I feel sorry that arriving at, and then remainingg hard, you seem not to have even given a thought to the word "Nashooz" which also does not permit to presume what you have presumed. -
Logic does not permit that one should assume meanings of words having no relevance to the word itself.
Exactly, thats why I did not do that.
you seem not to have even given a thought to the word "Nashooz" which also does not permit to presume what you have presumed.
Ahh, so now you claim I also err with "nushuz", yet provide no clarification as to how. Interesting.
-
Sister Samia I wish you all happiness. For the purpose of seeking guidance and expert opinion, I want to point out that I recall to have checked it somewhere that plural of is while is the singular of .
I may clarify that was later started being used for the whole human body and metonimically it also became the name for referring to slaves.
Salaam Mazhar
Thanks for your kind wishesIt is not uncommon in Arabic to have more than a pattern for the plural of one word.
Example of words that have both plurals of andMoreover, itself has two more plurals at least.
Quraan does not follow rules of grammarians. Our latest discussion on the nouns of place show how the grammarians consider at least four words mentioned in the qur'aan as "odd" according to their "rules".
The context rules. Why would the army of "muslims" kill the slaves first? The word drb on its own, according to classical dictionaries, mean to strike with a sword or to strike to kill. When we say strike the "rigaab" it would mean, according to you, (kill the slaves). Did the army even reach the stage of having slaves, let alone kill them specifically? The word "ragaba" also indicates the noble part of the body, and is still used as such, the part that takes the responsibility and the part used to subdue the person. In an army, it has to be those take the first responsibility to attack, like a ragaba to a human body, a vital job for the success of the army or the attackers. This has to be eliminated first.
The use of "rigaab" to indicate slaves is not a common understanding. It's just a corruption of the meaning of a word in the qur'aan. Like many other words such as muhsanaat and MMA, which magically became free women and slave women. Every word is turned into slavery and sex. -
-
The context rules. Why would the army of "muslims" kill the slaves first? The word drb on its own, according to classical dictionaries, mean to strike with a sword or to strike to kill. When we say strike the "rigaab" it would mean, according to you, (kill the slaves). Did the army even reach the stage of having slaves, let alone kill them specifically?
This is not my understanding.
I translate it like thisFor reason/in response when you people have confronted in war those who have refused to believe then resultantly the obvious target are the necks/human bodies-mutual hitting till such point in time that you have succeeded in overpowering/caused them drop weapons/made them exhausted/subdued
thereat you people are hereby directed to firmly bind-arrest them/take them prisoners of war, since the questions of releasing them as gesture of obliging favour or on ransom arises afterwards when the war may surrender/lay down the weapons . -
This is not my understanding.
I translate it like thisFor reason/in response when you people have confronted in war those who have refused to believe then resultantly the obvious target are the necks/human bodies-mutual hitting
I still don't understand where you got "drb arriqaab" means kill them? drb alone suffies. Moreover, killing in fighting does not necessarily target necks. There is nowhere in the qur'aan this expression is used to mean just kill, although killing enemies and transgressors in war is mentioned more than once, and the simple verb "qtl" is used.
-
I still don't understand where you got "drb arriqaab" means kill them?
I did not say this. Two parties are confronting war with each other. This signifies only one thing, each party is targetting and focussing on the necks/human bodies of the members of the other party. Thereafter, one party becomes subdued or surrenders whereby hostility aimed at killing the members of other party comes to halt.
-
I still don't understand where you got "drb arriqaab" means kill them?
I did not say this. Two parties are confronting war with each other. This signifies only one thing, each party is targetting and focussing on the necks/human bodies of the members of the other party.
So you are saying it targeting and focusing on the necks\ human bodies!
What else would a simple verb as qtl or even drb not explain?
-
Shalom,
I think Shabir Ally was talking about this same thing as I saw in one of his videos. He said he wrote a paper where he demonstrated that the meaning is not to beat but to cite them to authority.
PEACE
-------------------- Student of Allah -
So you are saying it targeting and focusing on the necks\ human bodies!
What else would a simple verb as qtl or even drb not explain?
We see the statement as is in the text and as it is related with other words in the sentence to perceive what is conveyed by this choice of words. We do not argue with the writer's choice of words. We have to perceive what is with us.
The possessive phrase, with a definite verbal noun because of second noun being definite, is the apodosis clause. It is not a command but mere depiction of that which happens once the confronting armies are face to face, have already met in the battlefield.
-
We see the statement as is in the text and as it is related with other words in the sentence to perceive what is conveyed by this choice of words. We do not argue with the writer's choice of words. We have to perceive what is with us.
I am not arguing with the writer. am arguing with you who believe the writer is inserting meaningless words, unlike His way of describing the same action all over the qur'aan.
A command, an advice or even just a description, the expression is still meaningless. Even you could not just keep with "strike the neck" but had to add "or the human body", and this still does not help!
-
Then how would it become "meaningful"---what is its meanings which seem meaningful in the whole sentence/context.
Considering the army as a body and its "rigaab" are the lead soldiers. Those are the ones to be killed/ attacked to paralyze the aggression. Once this is achieved, captivate the others.
-
Considering the army as a body and its "rigaab" are the lead soldiers. Those are the ones to be killed/ attacked to paralyze the aggression. Once this is achieved, captivate the others.
Sister please put it with the complete translation, so that I can comprehend it more clearly; notwithstanding that lead soldiers are nowhere considered as the most crucial formation of the battlefield. The attack and full agression follows after them.
-
Sister please put it with the complete translation, so that I can comprehend it more clearly; notwithstanding that lead soldiers are nowhere considered as the most crucial formation of the battlefield. The attack and full agression follows after them.
The result of this " " is exhausting the aggression and enabling you to take them as captives. The aim is not to create a genocide. Remember, the "muslims" are not the aggressors but the defendants. They are being attacked. They have to have a good strategy to subdue the enemy. The "rigaab" of the army are the most important. I believed they were the lead soldiers. I may be wrong, but the rigaab are the most important of the army. After the exhaustion comes the captivation and the negotiations.
-
The result of this " " is exhausting the aggression and enabling you to take them as captives. The aim is not to create a genocide. Remember, the "muslims" are not the aggressors but the defendants. They are being attacked. They have to have a good strategy to subdue the enemy. The "rigaab" of the army are the most important. I believed they were the lead soldiers. I may be wrong, but the rigaab are the most important of the army. After the exhaustion comes the captivation and the negotiations.
This perception that the operative strategy in the battlefield, once both the armies are confronting each other, the defending army should be restricted to finding and killing only the so called most important of the enemy army can be had only when the most stupid of the generals is heading the defending army. Such instructions are never issued in the battlefield to place one's own army and soldiers in a confused state of mind risking their lives. Decisions in war are on the spur of the moment, kill or get killed.
-
This perception that the operative strategy in the battlefield, once both the armies are confronting each other, the defending army should be restricted to finding and killing only the so called most important of the enemy army can be had only when the most stupid of the generals is heading the defending army. Such instructions are never issued in the battlefield to place one's own army and soldiers in a confused state of mind risking their lives. Decisions in war are on the spur of the moment, kill or get killed.
812
Why not just drb ala3naaq? No difference between 3unq and raqaba?
