Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
-
I do not care about what soldiers, leading or leaders. The point is the advise or command is not to cut necks but to attack important soldiers of the army.
Sorry Sister,
Again both sentences are self contradictory. Leading stands substituted by "important". The only different perception which I can now draw from the last sentence is that the scene is not to kill the enemy on mass scale but selectively kill.
-
Sorry Sister,
Again both sentences are self contradictory. Leading stands substituted by "important". The only different perception which I can now draw from the last sentence is that the scene is not to kill the enemy on mass scale but selectively kill.
Yes. In war you choose whom to kill or disable in order to cut short your losses.
-
peace/salaam all,
Good news. )
www.Quran434.com's understanding has now been officially added to QXP latest edition.
The book is now available in kindle format for $1 (the PDF is free on the website)
If you have a facebook account, please like the facebook page
And lastly, I am looking for distributors in North America who are willing to send a copy to Muslim journals/magazines/authors/scholars/academics/organisations. I can cover the books and postage costs, all you need to do is find potential recipients and send them in the mail. I may be able to provide a list.
?He who bemoans the lack of opportunity forgets that small doors many times open up into large rooms.?
-
peace all,
I have updated the work to include
source"]It has been argued that idriboohunna in 434 means "separate (from) them" ('Quran a Reformist Translation' or "go away from them" ('The Sublime Quran' by Laleh Bakhtiar), which interestingly has some support in the traditional commentaries and fits better than "strike/beat". However, I feel this translation is possible only as long as it does not imply divorce/talaq, as The Quran always uses the word talaq to mean divorce AND since the contract-breaking party compensates the other, it would be unfair for the husband to initiate divorce when he has done nothing wrong in this case. There are other problems with this understanding
- it is not quite a conflict-resolution step and if not meant to imply divorce/talaq then it seemingly penalises the husband implying he should move out.
- any degree of leaving/separating/shunning may fall afoul of doing iAAradan (alienation / turning away) in 4128, thus such a step may give the wife a legitimate reason for ending the marriage, thus unless clarified/limited this meaning does not fit well.
- results in incoherence when DRB is used with a human as the direct object (see 4357 and 273)
- requires the insertion of "from" making this the only DRB example of this kind in The Quran, even though the preposition "AAn /from" is used with DRB in 435 in a very similar usage as being suggested here for 434.
- provides no explanation as to how the authority find out about the issue in the marriage by 435
- makes little sense when in the reversed role 4128-129, discussed later.
- has no supporting example in Quran, see below.
An answer that can provide perfect coherence within The Quran is the ideal.
As we can see, a mechanism should exist that allows the authority to be notified and resolves a situation like this in a fair manner. We will now review examples from The Quran itself to see if an answer is given. -
peace all,
I have updated the work to include
any degree of leaving/separating/shunning may fall afoul of doing iAAradan (alienation / turning away) in 4128, thus such a step may give the wife a legitimate reason for ending the marriage, thus unless clarified/limited this meaning does not fit well.
The underlying motivation of "Quran only" is to apply morality to the book rather than taking from it. How unsurprising the the recurring themes are to do away with the 7th century Arabian morality and replace it with Modern Enlightenment values.
Some of the embarrassments to be done away with and discussed on this board are
-
Permissibility of Alcohol.
-
Women's rights and roles.
-
Marriage and Polygamy.
-
Praying
-
Sexuality.
Reforms happen . . . but to this extent?
-
-
Why not, Mr. Chimp?
Peace
-
The_Chimp,
I see you talk much but evidence little. Feel free to refute (with evidence) the understanding of www.Quran434.comPerhaps then we can see which option is more Quran based.
-
The_Chimp,
I see you talk much but evidence little. Feel free to refute (with evidence) the understanding of www.Quran434.comPerhaps then we can see which option is more Quran based.
This is forum - by its type one doesn't write realms.
Also - know one really takes things seriously - hence the silly and often ridiculous arguments - resorting to childish name calling.
I am still waiting for the Prayer debate! What happened to that?
Then there was your awkward fumble - at refuting 5 prayers, by pointing to a document showing Muslims did not pray before the order of 5 prayers came along!
So there isn't that much point of making long rambling refutations . . .
The point is general - the motivation of such interpretation is having a different "morality" . . . some people never reconcile and become non-Muslims.
If you are in UK - Sarfraz Manzoor
http//www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03jb3n5
If that is your article
You were ALWAYS going to find that Daraba in 434 did not mean "beat".
-
peace all,
I have updated the work to include
- requires the insertion of "from" making this the only DRB example of this kind in The Quran, even though the preposition "AAn /from" is used with DRB in 435 in a very similar usage as being suggested here for 434.
Please see the following, taken from http//quransmessage.com/articles/does%20the%20quran%20sanction%20wife%20beating%20FM3.htm
However, it appears from certain Arabic lexicons that the phrase 'Idribohunna' does not necessarily require the preposition 'an' to make the rendition 'shun - turn away from' operative. Therefore, the word 'Idribohunna' in the Quran can still retain the meaning to 'turn away from - shun' without necessitating the requirement of the preposition 'an'.
Please see the example in the following excerpt below.
http//s16.postimg.org/6bc8zpfet/a_deep1.jpg
Source LANE. E.W, Edward Lanes Lexicon, Williams and Norgate 1863; Librairie du Liban Beirut-Lebanon 1968, Volume 5, Page 1779
This rendering also finds support with the overarching philosophy depicted by the Quran which underscores how marriage institutions should be managed in kindness, respect and without causing harm to one another.
Other authors have also sought support from trusted Arabic lexicons to make a similar case.
"Nevertheless, narrowing its meaning in a given instance is not as difficult as it may first seem, because in Arabic verbs acquire various connotations only in combination with specific prepositions. For instance daraba acquires the meaning of "to separate" in combination with baina, and the meaning of "to turn away from," "to leave," "to avoid," and "to shun" in combination with 'an. In the passage in question, daraba is not combined with either of these prepositions. Yet Lane points out that the command form of the verb, udribu, with or without 'an, can mean "ignore," "pay no attention to," or "turn away from," as well as "hit," "beat," or "strike." Hence, udribu-hunna, could mean, "beat them" or "strike them," or alternatively, "turn them away," "ignore them," or "shun them."
Source LANG. J, Losing My Religion A Call for Help, Amana Publications, First Edition, Page 429 Author Reference Edward Lane, Arabic-English Lexicon, Fredrick Unger Publishing (1956), page 1779, first column, two-thirds down the page.
-
Take this to anyone with expertise in Arabic - the quote is incorrect and the person has made a mistake
However, it appears from certain Arabic lexicons that the phrase 'Idribohunna' does not necessarily require the preposition 'an' to make the rendition 'shun - turn away from' operative. Therefore, the word 'Idribohunna' in the Quran can still retain the meaning to 'turn away from - shun' without necessitating the requirement of the preposition 'an'.
As the dictionary points out - the additional particle is necessary. It is right there in the illustration provided.
Da Ra Ba require the particle 'An.
-
434 Men are supporters of wives because God gave some of them an advantage over others and because they spent of their wealth. So the females, ones in accord with morality are the females, ones who are morally obligated and the females, ones who guard the unseen of what God kept safe. And those females whose resistance you fear, then admonish them (f) and abandon them (f) in their sleeping places and go away from them (f). Then if they (f) obeyed you, then look not for any way against them (f). Truly, God had been Lofty, Great. (Laleh Bakhtiar)
I notice a reduplication.
Red word (abandon) in Arabic is hajara/ahjuru.
Blue word (go away) in Arabib is daraba.If we translate DRB as "go away" then it's just a reduplication of HJR, since this word also means leave, relinquish.
There is no difference between go away and abandon.
DRB can be mean hit, war and go out, this is a homonym.
In FM, DRB translated into "separate", but it's the plausible one even it's not the literal meaning
-
Take this to anyone with expertise in Arabic - the quote is incorrect and the person has made a mistake
As the dictionary points out - the additional particle is necessary. It is right there in the illustration provided.
Da Ra Ba require the particle 'An.
In the illustration provided, notice the in brackets (it's circled in red) signifying that the word may be used with OR without 'An for that meaning.
-
In the illustration provided, notice the in brackets (it's circled in red) signifying that the word may be used with OR without 'An for that meaning.
No. Please look at the illustration again . . .
It says or = to turn away from
And the verb Adraba with additional Alif - is a different class of verb.
In Western Classification it is verb from IV .
More details
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_verbs
http//arabic.desert-sky.net/g_vforms.html -
No. Please look at the illustration again . . .
It says or = to turn away from
And the verb Adraba with additional Alif - is a different class of verb.
In Western Classification it is verb from IV .
More details
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_verbs
http//arabic.desert-sky.net/g_vforms.htmlWell, the verse does use the verb WITH the Alif, so you have no point
http//s23.postimg.org/qrixvd43f/4_34.png
Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? The truth is that if you want to beat your wife, you would beat your wife no matter what, you wouldn't care what the Qur'an says.
-
Peace,
Who cares? Who would beat his wife anyway?
-
Well, the verse does use the verb WITH the Alif, so you have no point
http//s23.postimg.org/qrixvd43f/4_34.png
Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? The truth is that if you want to beat your wife, you would beat your wife no matter what, you wouldn't care what the Qur'an says.
I have degree in Arabic have studied the subject extensively. . . so don't ask me - if I am arguing for the sake of arguing. Try not to get "tetchy" - and then blame even that one me.
Note I am not being rude or making personal remarks about you.
Now back to the issue
The illustration you provide . . . that is using the Arabic Verb Form I in the imperative form. Look this up at the same website . Whereas, the dictionary is pointing to the standard verb in the fourth form .
As I originally pointed out - you do not have to take my word for it - please do verify it with someone who know Arabic.
I recommend
http//forum.wordreference.com/forumdisplay.php?f=41
It is impartial language forum and there are several people very good at Arabic.
I have also checked the better and simply formatted Hans Wehr - it too equates Verb Form I with 'An - to the verb form IV.
-
-
I have degree in Arabic have studied the subject extensively. . . so don't ask me - if I am arguing for the sake of arguing. Try not to get "tetchy" - and then blame even that one me.
Note I am not being rude or making personal remarks about you.
Now back to the issue
The illustration you provide . . . that is using the Arabic Verb Form I in the imperative form. Look this up at the same website . Whereas, the dictionary is pointing to the standard verb in the fourth form .
As I originally pointed out - you do not have to take my word for it - please do verify it with someone who know Arabic.
I recommend
http//forum.wordreference.com/forumdisplay.php?f=41
It is impartial language forum and there are several people very good at Arabic.
I have also checked the better and simply formatted Hans Wehr - it too equates Verb Form I with 'An - to the verb form IV.
All the sources I have seen including the links you provided show that Verb Form 4 requires a Hamza symbol above the Alif like this , but the dictionary does not make use of this symbol in the definition. Hence, the illustration is not necessarily referring to Verb Form 4. This is not just an incidental omission because Lane's dictionary does make use of Hamza on Alif elsewhere in other definitions.
-
-
All the sources I have seen including the links you provided show that Verb Form 4 requires a Hamza symbol above the Alif like this , but the dictionary does not make use of this symbol in the definition. Hence, the illustration is not necessarily referring to Verb Form 4. This is not just an incidental omission because Lane's dictionary does make use of Hamza on Alif elsewhere in other definitions.
And if you review the illustration you provided - then notice it too carries the Hamzah Walsi sign on top for the imperative command verb.
As to the Lane's dictionary - it do not talk about Imperative Verbs - that is Form IV - see the dictionary Hans Wehr - it too omits the Hamza sign and simply uses the Alif.
Imperative form of the verb is a derived form - it makes absolutely no sense for the command form not to carry the same particles - this does not happen in Arabic
Take this link
http//arabic.desert-sky.net/g_vforms.html
Now for the form 4 - this uses the word Kharaja - Akhraja.
Then check this on Lane's. You will notice the dictionary's use of the Hamaza Wasl is erratic - it uses it on some words and not the others - yet the discussion is still about the same word in form 4.
Also - go back to Da Ra Ba root in the Lane's Lexicon. There look up the Form 4 for this verb - again - you will notice Lane's is erratic regarding the little Hamza sign - on some it is there on some it isn't.
This is not just an incidental omission because Lane's dictionary does make use of Hamza on Alif elsewhere in other definitions.
Simply not true.
