Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
-
Thanks for the information Mazhar. This is probably why most translations have it referring to
Peace.
-
-
Salam Wakas,
Even on logic and cross-reference I do not find any rationale to assume or conclude like that. In all the cross-references quoted there (see its usage in 3820, 7628, 2835, 1088, 2031), the object of the verb is mentioned immediately after. For the act/verb of solidification and/or strengthening we need to mention the object.
Logic does not permit with reference to a sentence/statement in the words of any language to relate the answer to the condition to a cognate adverb used earlier in the sentence instead of relating it to the condition. Logic does not permit to behave differently with Arabic of Qur'aan.
-
Interestingly, someone with a cough traditional bent of mind reading it came up with We are apparently being told to put forth captives as human shields when we encounter the kafirs. These will face the brunt of the battle, and then after we've won the battle, we strengthen the binds of these captives left alive somehow after being used as cannon fodder when the battle is won. This would mean essentially to tie them up again to use them for the next battle because they are now veterans with experience and will serve us well. More so than just rookie captives, with no experience whatsoever. Additionally, this serves as a two pronged defense as well. On one hand, they will take the brunt of the attack and on the other, if the kafirs know them as their brothers and sisters, they might not attack as well as we would think. This is truly brilliant. We must make sure to release them or exchange them as soon as the war ends, I have no issues on that front as long as they've served us well.
His gf (strange for a traditionalist, yes) then came up with Maybe this is pointing to the kafirs throwing people marked as captives at us as we meet them in battle? The captives are thus brought about from the kafirs, the evildoers just catapulted their village idiots at us in a vain bid to succeed. Maybe they use it as a throwing sand in our eyes tactic? We MUST then bind them strongly after we've won because Allah knows, if the kafirs didn't want them, there must be something seriously wrong with them...<thankfully, they stopped here>
Some peeps have scary minds
-
peace Mazhar,
I did not use logic to "behave differently" with Arabic of Quran.
I repeat, this has nothing to do with grammar. There is no grammar rule that disproves or weakens what I have said. Perhaps I can clarify further
And We strengthened his kingship...
and strengthened their form...
We shall strengthen your arm/ability...
harden upon their hearts...
strengthen my resolve...As we can see in every occurrence, something exists in the first place to strengthen/harden. Now let us look to the verse in question
strengthen the bind...
Similarly, some sort of bind MUST exist first before it can be strengthened. This is simple logic and matches perfectly with cross-reference. Interestingly, it uses "al" implying something well known by the addressed audience, but as we can clearly see it is NOT clear in the context what "bind" refers to (unless we use my rendering). It also uses "al" prior to RQB.
Interestingly, Traditional Tafsirs (altafsir.com) also mention this possibility along with the common understanding. Ibn 'Abbas "...and taken them prisoners, (then making fast of bonds) keep the prisoners in captivity...". Tafsir al-Jalalayn "take them captive and bind firmly, the bonds (al-wathq is what is used to bind a captive).". Is it a mere coincidence that it just so happens al-wathaq is what is used to bind captives/RQB?
-
Interestingly, it uses "al" implying something well known by the addressed audience, but as we can clearly see it is NOT clear in the context what "bind" refers to (unless we use my rendering). It also uses "al" prior to RQB.
This rather further confirms that has nothing to do with . Both are independent of each other. This is done when the already known/mentioned is in indefinite state.
I repeat, this has nothing to do with grammar. There is no grammar rule that disproves or weakens what I have said. Perhaps I can clarify further
And We strengthened his kingship...
and strengthened their form...
We shall strengthen your arm/ability...
harden upon their hearts...
strengthen my resolve... [2031
As we can see in every occurrence, something exists in the first place to strengthen/harden.Seen from this angle/logic too, what exists is this
-
peace Mazhar,
I have no problem with them being independent terms.
Can you clarify what you mean by both of the following and how/if it relates to 474
This is done when the already known/mentioned is in indefinite state.
Seen from this angle/logic too, what exists is this
Also, can you please provide your rendering of 474 so we can see what the alternatives are. From my studies, whilst other alternatives are possible, they are not the strongest option.
-
Peace
This is done when the already known/mentioned is in indefinite state.
This was to clarify this comment
Interestingly, it uses "al" implying something well known by the addressed audience, but as we can clearly see it is NOT clear in the context what "bind" refers to (unless we use my rendering). It also uses "al" prior to RQB.
"Al" suffixed to a subsequent word to indicate a known thing, a thing mentioned earlier, in such case the earlier noun is indefinite and not definite by "al". That is why I pointed out that the presumption of relationship indicated in the above quote is not correct.
Seen from this angle/logic too, what exists is this
This was to clarify about this observation
As we can see in every occurrence, something exists in the first place to strengthen/harden.
What existed was indicated which is .
-
peace,
Re "al"
Thanks for clarifying. I understand what you meant now. I did not mean I was linking them grammatically, in case that was unclear. I just meant both RQB and WThQ are something well known to the addressed audience.I do not understand your last point. Are you implying what is "strengthened" is indicated by the suffix "hum/them"?
-
Your point is that something exists in the first place to strengthen/harden. I am suggesting that from this angle also the "thing" that exists for the said purpose is those of the enemies who have since dropped weapon, have been made exhausted to stand further. These people are to be subjected to tightened arrest.
-
Fakayfa itha tawaffathumu almalaikatu yadriboona wujoohahum wa adbarahum
= So/then how (will it be) when the angels/controllers* take them (unto themselves, i.e. in death) striking their faces/fronts and their backs?*angels is better translated as controllers, i.e. forces in control of certain functions/laws. There are some controllers we know about, e.g. those found in nature F=ma, E=mc? etc. and some we do not know about.
In the above two verses, translators commonly use "beat / strike / smite", and whilst this may seem acceptable on the surface this translation does have significant problems when examined more closely
In 850 it says if only you could see, thus clearly implying that what the controllers are doing cannot be seen. And since it is at the time of death, then the controllers cannot be striking the physical fronts/faces and backs as this would be observable. It could be suggested that at death, this is a special/unique transition phase so perhaps the controllers are indeed beating/striking but in a different form somehow, and the living simply cannot see it.
It causes problems with verses such as 737, 1628, 851, 693-94 in which the controllers are in communication with people being taken at death, and the ones taken are listening properly and answering, but this is highly unlikely if they are being beaten at the same time!
It causes a clear problem with 693 when it describes the controllers as stretching/extending forth or opening their hands/powers when taking them at death saying "Bring out your souls...". This sounds unlike striking/beating, and there is no implication of this in the verse at all.
If this is indeed a beating/striking causing pain in some way, then this would be the only example in The Quran of an explicit punishment between death and the 'day of obligation/judgement/requital/due'.
In contrast, the controllers take those who are good with a greeting of peace/salam in 1632 and there is no mention of taking them gently for example.Salam Wakas,
This is all based on the premise that the point in time is worldly "death"? But the fact is that wherever such thing is mentioned that is the scene after the resurrection. Nowhere word "Maut" is used.
-
peace Mazhar,
Can you clarify where 850 & 4727 fit into your sequence?
living ---> death ---> resurrection ---> judgement ---> punishment/reward
Thanks.Angels segregate people from others at the time of their death. Segregation follows death or without death in case of getting killed in the Cause of Allah. And criminals and righteous are to be segregated on the Day of Resurrection by the Angels and escorted to their respective places.
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/004.%20An%20Nisa/temp%2014%20%204.097.gif
Indeed the ones whom the Angels segregated/separated them , those who wronged and did injustice to their selves, they were asked, "In what circumstances were you people?"Chapter 4 Verse 97
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/007.%20Al%20Airaaf/007.%20A2.gif
till such time when Our sent ones/messengers will alienate/segregate them .
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/007.%20Al%20Airaaf/007.%20A3.gif
They asked them, "where are those whom you used to call apart from Allah?".......................http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/007.%20Al%20Airaaf/7.38.gif
They were asked; "You people enter into the Hell to join generations of Jinn and human beings that had passed before you people in time"Chapter 7 Verses 37-39
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/008.%20Al%20Anfaal/Temp%2001%208.50a.gif
And if you could visualize when the Angels will undertake intensively to alienate/segregate those who deliberately and persistently denied , by slashing on their faces and backs
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/008.%20Al%20Anfaal/Temp%2001%208.50.gif
"And you people taste the scorching of heat/fire/temperature.
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/008.%20Al%20Anfaal/8.51.gif
This is the result/effect/outcome of that which your hands had sent in advance. And certainly Allah is never unjust to His created ones".http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/016.%20An%20Nahl/Temp%2001%2016.28a.gif
those whom the Angels are segregating/alienating as wrong doers to their selves". ...............
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/016.%20An%20Nahl/16.29.gif
Therefore you people enter the gates of Hell to dwell therein for ever".Chapter 16 Verses 27-29
"Peace and tranquility is upon you people; you people enter into the Paradise for what you people had been doing"
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/047.%20Muhammad%20Salla%20Allah%20alaih%20wassalm/47.27p.gif
Thereat how when the Angels had undertaken intensively to alienate/segregate them
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/047.%20Muhammad%20Salla%20Allah%20alaih%20wassalm/47.27q.gif
by slashing on their faces and backs
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/047.%20Muhammad%20Salla%20Allah%20alaih%20wassalm/47.28a.gif
This happened to them because they consciously and purposely followed that which caused for Allah taking criminal cognizance against themChapter 47 Verses 27-28
I hope it makes evident that slashing is being done on the Day of Judgment and not at the time of death. If you have seen a scence when Police is arresting criminals or trouble creators from a mob/big crowd of people, which is quite a common scence on streets of my country, the scences of Day of Judgment become visual clips.
-
peace Mazhar,
I think the malaika taking them at "resurrection" is a possibility, however this does not change the translation I gave. It would be very interesting to establish the sequence however.
Is there any clear example in AQ about punishment prior to day of judgement? I couldn't find any. If so, the only option left is what you suggest I assume you mean once the verdict is given on J-Day, then 850 & 4727 takes place?
Interestingly, every translator I read said it was at death, so I am wondering why they said this.
-
peace Mazhar,
I think the malaika taking them at "resurrection" is a possibility, however this does not change the translation I gave. It would be very interesting to establish the sequence however.
Is there any clear example in AQ about punishment prior to day of judgement? I couldn't find any. If so, the only option left is what you suggest I assume you mean once the verdict is given on J-Day, then 850 & 4727 takes place?
Interestingly, every translator I read said it was at death, so I am wondering why they said this.
The conjectural story of Return of Easa alahissalam seems to have haunted them. And secondly because Jalalain made an error of translating as .
-
peace all,
I would like to know if there is anyone who has read all of the study on www.Quran434.com and disagrees with it. If so, why? It would help me a lot to understand peoples views if you let me know. Thanks.
-
- Fair enough. It might not be necessary though, I can cite someone through my own volition. I think these are just prescriptory phases.
- Ok
- I am assuming that in 434, she is the cause of the problem, and in 4128, he is the cause of the problem. This is because though it only says if we fear, the Quran prescribes in other situations that privacy is to be respected and false baseless accusations are wrong.
Woe to every backbiter, slanderer.
This fear is not wild guesses then, it has to be supported with some solid evidence. How else would authorities delegate guilt?
-
If I am understanding your implication, this point is a genetic fallacy. My view could be subjective but that does not count as an attack against whether it is truthful or not.
-
It does not need to be there. It is just what I think. If I wrote my own tafseer, I would say I believe these leave them period is short because etc.
The linguistic gymnastics I am referring too are my own. In order to support the definition of leave them, I have to answer the questions above in a manner that delimit definitions and such. Your argument seems easier to defend than mine.
Peace
Very good point. Fear by itself is not enough evidence or justification. So how can you justify beating when all you have is just fear? Elsehwere we see in Quran that an accusation by a spouse was supposed to be backed with evidence and accusation as we know is much stronger than fear or suspicion.
-
peace Bigmo, all,
I have reworded a section in the study to
If it is only the husband who fears disloyalty/uprising/infidelity, or even if he is sure of it, and if there are no witnesses/evidence, then he must follow the procedure in 246-9 and cannot take it upon himself to administer any punishment. Since a "fear/suspicion", as in 434, is certainly less than being sure, it also cannot warrant any punishment. Anything to the contrary would be an internal inconsistency in The Quran's ruling.
And for those of you who have read it here is some very interesting information I came across recently, which I have also added (the part in bold)
Also, however the court/authority came to find out about the couple in 434-35, how did the court/authority come to find out about the couple in 581-4 in the exact same situation of breach/rift, i.e. no resolution? She cited the husband to the authority. If the traditional position somehow implies the couple used a different method in 434 to make the authority aware of the situation, then they have to explain why the difference between the two examples, without causing a logical and practical inconsistency. For example, in "K. al nasikh wa-l-mansukh" by Abu Ubaid al-Qasim b. Sallam (d. 224AH/839), one of the earliest works in its field, it comments on the tafsir/interpretation of 435 and says "the story establishes the principle that the spouses may withdraw their invitation to the authorities to act". Thus, it is clear from the traditional commentary the spouse would inform the court/authority of the problem, before they intervened. This provides a perfect link with DaRaBa and all points to one answer in a situation of no reconciliation and the partner in the wrong will not initiate divorce/release, the step prior to the authority intervening is for one partner to cite/indicate the other (to the authority).
