Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back

Wakas

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&#039 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.

The_Chimp

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?

Man_of_Faith

Why not, Mr. Chimp?

Peace

Wakas

The_Chimp,
I see you talk much but evidence little. Feel free to refute (with evidence) the understanding of www.Quran434.com

Perhaps then we can see which option is more Quran based.

The_Chimp

The_Chimp,
I see you talk much but evidence little. Feel free to refute (with evidence) the understanding of www.Quran434.com

Perhaps 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".

The_Chimp

Why not, Mr. Chimp?

Peace

Why not - what?

aqua

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.

The_Chimp

@Aqua

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.

unknownuser

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

aqua

@Aqua

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.

The_Chimp

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

aqua

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

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.

Man_of_Faith

Peace,

Who cares? Who would beat his wife anyway?

aqua

Peace,

Who cares? Who would beat his wife anyway?

Unfortunately many men do, and there are even those hypocrites who try to justify it using the Qur'an.

The_Chimp

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.

aqua

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.

The_Chimp

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.

Wakas

The_Chimp,

I am still waiting for the Prayer debate! What happened to that?

I was waiting for people to join in, as I clearly said. Updated http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9606088.msg346685#msg346685

...by pointing to a document showing Muslims did not pray before the order of 5 prayers came along!

The above is a lie against me. See forum rule 3, and please correct it
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=8177.0

The_Chimp

The_Chimp,

I was waiting for people to join in, as I clearly said. Updated http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9606088.msg346685#msg346685

The above is a lie against me. See forum rule 3, and please correct it
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=8177.0

It is not a lie - but a mistake in that I meant to say - "did not pray 5" - Hence

...by pointing to a document showing Muslims did not pray 5 before the order of 5 prayers came along!

As to pointing out rule 3!

Jeez! I get a lot of abuse . . . far stronger . . . I hope you are "as" diligent when I put a complaint in.

aqua

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.

A very strong refutation to your 'Verb Grammar' argument is the following. It shows how the meaning of 'leave / separate' in the Lexicon can apply here even if it is referring to the 4th Form Verb

We have to remember that the first written versions of the Quran had no
vocalisation, in other words, they left out short vowels and other signs
that tell us how to read the letters that are written. Arabic verbs have
many forms with different meanings, like the English verbs press -
repress depress pressurize.

One of the things that is used to mark
these forms is a letter alif at the beginning, which marks the 4th form of
the verb. You can think of the alif as a standard suffix, like English re-
or de-

But heres the crunch the aleph at the beginning is also the marker
for the imperative (and of the interrogative, but that is not relevant
here), so in a text without the short vowels written, an imperative looks
the same as the 4th form of the verb, and also the same as the imperative
of the 4th form (because the alif is not doubled, one alif does both
jobs).

The verb in this case is d-r-b. Daraba means he beat. So the meaning of
the first form is beat, while one of the meanings of the 4th form is
leave.

The form in this verse of the Quran is | D r b

This could mean, you must beat (imperative of first form). Or it
could mean you leave or it could mean you must leave

If we take it as an imperative of the 4th form, it would be
pronounced ad.ribuu-hunna and the translation would be you (masculine
plural you&#8217 shall withdraw from them.

Sequentially he tells them first to admonish their wives, then
refuse to share their beds, then withdraw from them, then (next
verse) appoint arbiters from the families. That is a logical
progression.

Source http//senmcglinn.wordpress.com/email-archive/beat-your-wives/

Undoubtedly you will now claim that your Arabic knowledge is better and that the above is incorrect. But religious obstinacy can make a person persist in falsehood no matter how much they are proven wrong.