Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
-
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.
-
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,
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=8177.0It 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.
-
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 leaveIf 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’ 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.
-
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
Read this back to yourself . . . it is somewhat contradictory. On one hand - you admit I am right to point out that and on the other you attempt, dogmatically, to hold on to your former position. Result? The above contradictory statement.
The question regarding the verb is simple. I even gave you means to verify it by an impartial Arabic language forum.
Undoubtedly you will now claim that your Arabic knowledge is better and that the above is incorrect. But religious obstinancy can make a person persist in falsehood no matter how much they are proven wrong.
Such statements are disingenuous by type. Why don't you wait for my response? What it shows is that you fear my Arabic actually is better and if you do bring forth another reply, which, if like others, is proven to be incorrect - then - that will leave you in dilemma.
Are you saying by above that it does not matter what I reply . . . you are going to carry on believing whatever you fee like?
But religious obstinancy can make a person persist in falsehood no matter how much they are proven wrong.
Could you point out in what you have proven me wrong? How deceptive! Look at the previous exchange. What is it I am wrong about?
Please do explain.
-
-
Could you point out in what you have proven me wrong? How deceptive! Look at the previous exchange. What is it I am wrong about?
You claimed that since the dictionaries refer to 4th Form Verb, this makes it impossible to apply that meaning to verse 434. I showed you how grammatically it is possible to apply a 4th Form Verb to verse 434. You made a misinformed point about the grammar in the Qur'an.
-
peace, brothers and sisters,
After a lot of research into 434 of The Quran and the meaning of DaRaBa, I have finally finished a 1st draft of my study
Please take your time to review it, as it is over 40 pages in length. There are a few minor points within it that still need verified/clarified, these are in purple font. As a side note, it was a very interesting journey completing this work, something which I did not initially intend to write, but as my discoveries mounted up, it soon became something that I simply had to write and publish.
All feedback is welcome, especially any corrections.
Once it has been reviewed, a dedicated site and promotional tools will accompany it.
EDIT above link does not work now, website is www.Quran434.com
Good effort and good work Wakas. Probably the most comprehensive analysis of a single topic I have seen.
-
peace aqua, all,
Yes, I was aware of that Lane Lexicon reference, however I was also aware of the somewhat controversy surrounding it AND note that I said "making this the only DRB example of this kind in The Quran" i.e. I did not say there was no example of this kind in existence.
Your post about the tashkeel/vocalisation markings cleared it up. We should bear in mind the earliest extant scripts of The Quran had no vocalisation/tashkeel marks.Thus, my current understanding is, "go away from them" in 434 is theoretically possible IF one assumes the tashkeel/vocalisation of the present day Arabic Quran is incorrect AND one is willing to solve/overcome the issues I mentioned earlier.
Please note, I do not actually think "go away from them" is viable. Note that DRB is used to mean "withdraw from" in 435, and it is the first verb form without Alif, thus if The Quran was being consistent one would have thought it would use the same first verb form with the preposition "AAn" in 434 if it meant "withdraw from them".
Interestingly, Laleh Bakhtiar (who translates it "go away from" considers it to be the first form verb. It is possible she has an Arabic reference for this first form meaning that but I am not aware of her referencing such a source. If others are, let me know. She also discusses an objection based on the claim that DRB in 434 is a transitive verb and can thus only take a direct object, however her interpretation requires it to be intransitive so it can take an indirect object. I would be interested in hearing the Quranic evidence for/against this.
And as for the other issues I highlighted, I would be surprised if someone could solve them. I would like to clarify number (6) by explaining it, e.g. if in the reversed-role of 4128-129 the woman was to leave/withdraw from her husband then she is doing what she fears i.e. iAAradan/alienation or turning away, which makes little sense.
Also in the quote you provided it said
"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."To clarify, in case there is confusion, it is not the husband that is appointing arbiters, it is the authority/community. How they find out about such a situation, or where the husband goes (if he can afford to go somewhere that is) is not explained in such an understanding.
And lastly, personally, I am very cautious of using the argument "the tashkeel is incorrect here, and that is how my view can work" argument. Especially so, if there is a perfectly sound option available.
-
Peace all,
I have always been of the opinion that 434 presents itself as an inconvenience to readers of the Quran with Modern sensibilities, as well as presenting itself as an anomaly to the rest of the Quranic message that exhorts patience and self-restraint.
However, to date, I have unfortunately not found any proof from the dictionaries that can mean any thing other than "strike them", explicitly.
Despite this, we can appeal to its use as a metaphor (what the Arab grammarians term "tropical application", in that it is used to mean "go away" or "separate", implicitly.
But, unfortunately for us, this position is extremely untenable as there is no precedence of this use.
There are two important points to bear in mind when considering in 434
-
The root admits of a huge number of various meanings in the Classical Language. Words derived from this root seem to have been used to signify some form of motion, as "to strike" or "to travel" or "to impress a coin" or "to snatch away" etc., and a great deal of them are tropical applications. Notwithstanding this, they are almost always prepositional compounds, that is, they occur with obligate prepositions, as or or , etc. Whereas in 434, the verb occurs without a preposition; it takes a direct object. This is a difficulty for those of us who seek to justify its signification as being "separate from them" or "go away from them."
-
The phrase signifies "to travel the earth", but it cannot be separated from the preposition (which means "in" this much is certain. However, Az-Zabd states in Tj al-?Ars meaning "and the applies to all acts but a few." This is probably why so many entries of the root are tropical applications. Can this, therefore, by extension, be applied to 434? That is for the reader of the Quran to reckon.
Ultimately, the reader of the Quran is left to reflect.
-
-
There is no crime in 4.34 therefore there cannot be any question of any punishment. The fear that somebody may do something wrong may warrant that that somebody is advised, warned or counselled or informed of the fears of the persons concerned, but most certainly does not warrant that he or she is punished for the fear that somebody may have that he or she may do something wrong.
D-r-b, as to its meaning in the sentence appears quite clear and neat and in accordance with the general fundamental significance of the root if taken as making something apparent an clear and efficient. You fear something, so you state it to the person you fear may do something and get clarity from him or her.
And the community is the one who is in charge of doing that in this case of 4.34. No need to go into preventive war or punishment, that is not quranic at all.
But the meaning of hitting has been useful historically to affirm marital authority of the husband over the wife, which otherwise is nowhere in the Qur'an but which at that time was the rule in most civilizations if not all. So that legitimation of marital authority was put in the Qur'an by way of making it a punishment of the husband to the wife. There wa snot intention at all of having women beaten, but there was the needed idea to uphold marital authority over the wife. As we all know, the world would have crumbled had that authority not been there, like it is crumbling now for that reason(if we believe some scholars).
So what was not in the qur'an was injected by that subtle means.
The fact that there is nothing done, just feared, in the sentence, is a clear mark that there can be no beating nor anything that might be understood as a punishment or "teaching" to somebody who has behaved or is behaving wrongly, that is no correction, neither from the community who is addressed nor of course from the husband, who is not addressed at all.
There is still in spanish dictionnaries a verb derived from daraba (adarvar) which has precisely that meaning, like stun or surprise, but no indication of anything physical.
Salaam
-
Salam huruf,
you have got it reasonably right, the word daraba is used in the Quran for the aim of breaking a narrative, like when relating a story whose purpose is to advocate a change in behaviour... the Quran is full of this...
Indeed, you are right, but the hitting bit seems to to have a bewitching effect and once somebody has fallen under the spell they cannot escape it no matter how far fetched or illogical.
Salaam
