Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
-
The understanding of DRB in 434 as "cite / indicate / put/show forth them" (to the authority) is the ONLY understanding that provides perfect internal coherence in The Quran.
Why not translating it by "move away" / "depart" / "leave" ?
http//gender-az.org/index_en.shtml?id_doc=457
In Lane, you can find the confirmation this translation is possible.Peace
-
peace JM,
That is what I used to think but the information is now overwhelming for the conclusions of www.Quran434.com
I recommend reading it.
-
peace All,
I have some great news. )
I received the proof copy of the book and approved it, so it will be available for online purchase in most countries within a few weeks.
I am planning to distribute some copies for free and/or at a nominal price. If anyone would like a copy, personal message me your name and address for shipping.
-
That is why the verse says "if you fear nushuz..." instead of for example, "if you find nushuz...". In other words, nushuz is unlikely to mean something in the husband's presence or obvious/blatant in his presence as 434 says "if you fear", 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.
Peace Wakas,
The mood of the verb does not support this contention.
-
Verb Imperfect; Second person; plural; masculine; Mood Indicative; Subject pronoun, in nominative state; - Verbal noun. (1)434(2)681(3)826(4)4827=4
It indicates an act which does not take place at any one particular time, to the exclusion of any other point in time, but which takes place all the time, or rather in speaking of which no notice is taken of time, but only of duration . A verb in the indefinite aspect is used when the beginning or ending of an action, an event, or condition is unknown or unimportant to the meaning of the sentence. The indefinite aspect is also used to indicate an habitual or repeated action, event, or condition.
-
Maybe because the way you put it is not so clear Mazhar. Other people reading this thread have little to no idea of what your issue is with that quote you selected, you do grammatical hit and runs in the hope that people get you, and it's really not enough to be clear.
What are you saying anyways with the grammar tidbit? Presence or absence is not an issue? Which seems to be explained by fear and find by Wakas? Can you please clarify?
-
Bro Mazhar, it is not clear because you do not make it clear. I have noticed that you often state grammatical information and allude to this being problematic for an interpretation someone has given, but rarely clarify how it is problematic. I suggest to you the so-called problem is one of your own making, most probably related to not understanding what I have written.
What you stated about the verb perfectly aligns with what I wrote.
-
Maybe because the way you put it is not so clear Mazhar. Other people reading this thread have little to no idea of what your issue is with that quote you selected, you do grammatical hit and runs in the hope that people get you, and it's really not enough to be clear.
What are you saying anyways with the grammar tidbit? Presence or absence is not an issue? Which seems to be explained by fear and find by Wakas? Can you please clarify?
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. -
Should we fear the man getting a gift for his wife Mazhar, for example or vice versa?
Also, what you put forward grammatically doesn't disallow his interpretation.
-
Should we fear the man getting a gift for his wife Mazhar, for example or vice versa?
Also, what you put forward grammatically doesn't disallow his interpretation.
This needs clarification; fear is caused by apprehension of some undesirable eventuality.
It needs support argument.
-
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.
