Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back

Wakas

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

you_gunna_eat_that

Peace,
Just out of curiousity, do you have any arabic training from an institution of higher learning? This is not meant as a question of slight, just curiosity.

raginggaijin

Surah 656

Men are not allowed to hit women. 'idrib' is the word used in Arabic, which means 'to banish, to strike, to smite'. The root word is ?drb?, not 'wkz' for ?to strike? as in Surah 2815.
As the Quran shows, when women are unwilling to submit to Allah we are to banish them, even divorce them if necessary. Surah 3328, 665-6
Surah 656 ??and injure them not to straiten them.?

Nowhere in the Quran is there an example given of beating a woman. If you ever have a question, always return to the original Arabic.
"Those who listen to the word, then follow the best of it; those are they whom Allah has guided, and those it is who are the men of understanding." Surah 3918

If a man beats a woman, a woman can give back as much as she was given.
"And if you take your turn, then retaliate with the like of that with which you were afflicted; but if you are patient, it will certainly be best for those who are patient." Surah 16126

"So the good women are obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded.
And (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave
them alone in the beds and banish them. So if they obey you, seek not a way
against them." Surah 434

Peace.

Wakas

peace yget,

I have no formal qualification in Arabic. As far as I can recall, all Arabic information contained within my study is either taken directly from a source and/or checked over by those knowledgeable of Arabic. It has been proofread for example. However, proofreading does not guarantee zero errors, and I take the issue of accuracy very seriously, thus corrections are welcome.

Also, I assume you are aware of the logical fallacy within the implication of your question.
http//www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

peace raginggaijin,

Thanks for the feedback, however I'm not sure if you read the article first, as the points you raise are already covered within it. The problems with your interpretation are as follows

when divorce is meant, the word "talaq" is always used.
your interpretation of DRB as "banish" has no basis when cross-referenced in AQ.
all the examples you mention are actual examples of wrongdoing, not when one suspects/fears wrongdoing.
it does not correlate well with 4128

CavemanDoctor

Thank you for this effort Wakas. I want to read it very closely. Feedback to come soon.

CavemanDoctor

Great, great read Wakas. Really in-depth and illuminating. I strongly urge everyone on this board to read it as it's a great example of the kind of analysis/thought we should be using when interpreting the Qur'an, not taking anything for granted. The article made perfect sense and approaches each issue from multiple angles so as to be objective as possible.

I read the article very closely for content as well as typos/grammatical issues/etc. It's very obvious the article has been edited/proofread multiple times as there were very few errors that I found.

I did find some (very minor) typos

Part 1, Section 16, Paragraph 1. Near the end of the paragraph, the sentence states "Especially there is no need for doing both!" Awkward sentence. It should say "Especially since there is no need for doing both!"
Part 4, Paragraph 3. Middle of the paragraph, there is a clause that states "...shifted over the years which is very commom..." Should be "common".
Part 4, Paragraph 13. It starts out with "We must remember that a book is sometimes only as good as it's reader." "it's" should be "its".

That was about all I found, surprising given how long it is.

As far as content goes, again, it all made perfect sense. I really liked the outline of 4 parts. I will point out there was one subsection that I didn't find entirely convincing Part 1, Section 6, referring to 850 and 4727 (the malaika verses). The points you raise do make some sense but are mostly speculative (and I understand this process is inherently speculative, to an extent) and I can't help but think the traditional interpretation makes sense, especially given the "taste the penalty of fire" rejoinder at the end of 850. I have to think about these verses more, and would like to see what others think.

That's it for now. I'll let you know if I can think of anything else. Again, great work Wakas.

Peace.

Wakas

peace CD,

Thanks for the feedback, and corrections. They have now been corrected.

Re 850 & 4727
I strongly recommend reading the verse references given in the article, especially in the section you mention. It will give a much better idea of the probable answer. Whilst the term "speculative" is possible, I cited quite a bit of cross-reference evidence, and one significant conceptual problem, i.e. IF there is no physical punishment prior to day of judgement/requital/due, then this is the odd one out. I personally consider a punishment prior to weighing of evidence / God's court / j-day etc as problematic conceptually, i.e. punishment before 'guilty' verdict. My study inadvertently led to a finding that according to AQ, after death, a good person will go through a positive experience prior to j-day, and a bad person will go through a bad experience prior to j-day but no actual specific punishment, and I would therefore infer no actual specific reward for a good person.

SarahY

Peace Wakas,

This is awesome!

Initially when I was reading 581, I didn?t really think of it as a complaint cited to an authority/other/prophet but more like someone(wife) invoking to God complaining about her husband.

Anyway I reread.. I guess it could mean ?God hears the one who complains about her husband? i.e. wife complains to another/authority and then that complaint to the authority/person also get?s directed to God.

Asad/ Picktall believes it?s Mohammed, I guess that makes sense because the issue was about claiming them (wives) as their mothers which alienates them unlawfully which happened in that time.

Thanks for sharing with us

you_gunna_eat_that

peace yget,

I have no formal qualification in Arabic. As far as I can recall, all Arabic information contained within my study is either taken directly from a source and/or checked over by those knowledgeable of Arabic. It has been proofread for example. However, proofreading does not guarantee zero errors, and I take the issue of accuracy very seriously, thus corrections are welcome.

Also, I assume you are aware of the logical fallacy within the implication of your question.
http//www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Salaam,
I am aware of the fallacy and I hope you do not take it that I was detracting from your work. I feel that you have done a fantastic job showing the trouble with "beat them" as a definition.

Concerning this statement...
"It has been argued that idriboo in 434 means "leave them" or "separate from them", which interestingly has some support in the traditional commentaries and fits better than "strike/beat". However, 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 as 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."

I would change the second sentence to "However, I feel this translation is successful only as long as it does..." Just my personal preference for added clarity.

Further, concerning the other problems with the understanding, though I am not in a position to scientifically declare the method of "leaving" a spouse temporarily as a successful reconciliation measure, I can see how a cooling off period can be positive. I find my pride to be far less of a factor in assessing my behaviour when I am allowed to think alone for a little while.

Finally, I think the implication of the husband "moving out" does not have a Quranic basis during this non talaq cooling down period. To my knowledge, there is no mention of the housing situation following a hypothetical cooling down period or even during the period when a husband has "sweared away" from his wife (2226). Surely, the couple can decide to separate during this period; but, I feel that a hypothetical Quranic civil court would not be in a position to require a husband to move out temporarily in a non divorce cooling down separation, because of the lack of a Quranic injunction.

As for your intepretation, I feel that it is viable and fantastically cross referenced. My first question would be, just out of curiousity, are there remants of this practice from traditional sources.
Another question would be, if the authority declared one group in the wrong and that group wanted to initiate divorce because of this, and the other party wanted to initiate reconciliation after being declared wrong, a process the wronged party declines, would the wronged party still be free of paying a divorce fee? I would think so but your opinion on the matter would be awesome. This could be a situation where mutual consultation/shura is the basis for our decision. Cheers on the good work.

Peace

Wakas

peace Sarah,
581 literally says God has heard the speech of one who complains/argues with you (tujdiluka), and it is singular, so it is highly likely to be the prophet, who was the authority or part of it.
It is not only the citing to an authority in 581-4 that provided a link, it is also the situation the wife complains about, as she is stuck/suspended, and this is identical to what is implied in 4129. As Ace Ventura would say "like a glove!"

peace yget,

Just ensuring you were aware of the fallacy, that's all As the saying goes "the proof is in the tasting of the pudding."

I've added your clarification, but with "possible" instead of "successful", thanks.

I agree that a cooling-off period is helpful, and it can be done according to AQ, but the reason why "leave them" is forced into becoming leave the house or separation, is that we already have "abandon them in bed/bedroom", thus an escalation would be separating from them, as in out of the house. Evidence for this can be found in traditional commentaries, thus it could be argued this is a possible alternative answer. In 2226, the "swearing away" strongly implies sexually due to context.
And of course the couple can separate if they wish to, however I do not understand your reference to a Quranic civil court as why are they involved and how did this come about is not explained.

Re evidence from traditional sources
Well, I only know a fraction of the traditional commentaries, however, the understanding is implied (e.g. how do commentators say or think the authority is notified of the marital problem prior to appointing arbitration?). The notification mechanism is blatantly obvious, perhaps so obvious they do not feel a need to mention it, but it can be seen from 581.

Another question would be, if the authority declared one group in the wrong and that group wanted to initiate divorce because of this, and the other party wanted to initiate reconciliation after being declared wrong, a process the wronged party declines, would the wronged party still be free of paying a divorce fee?

Can you clarify what you mean here?

you_gunna_eat_that

Peace,

Concerning the hypothetical Islamic court (probably no such thing), I was just trying to make the point that if the definition is taken as "leave them" I would think that this court would be in no position to force the initiating party to leave the house. In my opinion, there is not a Quranic prescription on the issue.

I understand where you are coming from though on the issue of why leave them seems to imply leave the house though. I think there is a viable alternative though. From my understanding, the first injunction of separation involves couples not having sex. If the final injunction were to be translated as "leave them," I would think that this does not necessitate living separation even though there is a preliminary injunction of separation (i.e. no sex). This is because the bedroom injunction involves a specific separation. There is no mention of not assuming day to day activities with the wife/husband with normalcy (i.e. discussing stuff, eating dinner together, etc). Yet, if the nushooz is persistent, the initiating party can "leave/shun them," which could be a different level of separation. More alone time, a sort of cooling down period as I spoke of in my last post. This does not mean I would have to leave the house, just that I should avoid having sex and assuming a normal relationship as long as the nushooz is persistent. Of course, I could consensually leave the house.

So my question was, if a woman cites a man to an authority and the authority finds the man guilty of ill conduct, could the woman initiate the divorce without having to pay her dowry if the man were to request reconciliation? She could say that he is guilty of ill conduct and thus caused the divorce and he can say that he is trying to reconcile so the situation begins a new. I think I would agree with the women.

Peace

Wakas

peace,

My point was that you have the sequence wrong. Your view would mean AQ advises the husband to "leave them" THEN the court/authority gets involved. Of course, since the husband has done nothing wrong, it would be odd for AQ to imply leave the house, i.e. penalising him, and is not conducive to reconciliation. Thus, in a way, one is forced to say it means a different kind of leaving/shunning/separating, but even so, it is not clear, and it does not explain how the court/authority gets involved. Also, this view does not correlate with 4128, because if husband shuns her then this could be classed as iAAradan / turning away / alienation, or possibly leaving her suspended/stuck, thus would create an internal contradiction, i.e. AQ advises a conflict-resolution step that gives the wife a legitimate reason/grievance for divorce/release.
It is interesting how AQ narrows down the possibilities, and in my view, only leaves one logical possibility. This was one of the most remarkable discoveries of the study.

Re your hypothetical
If the court finds in favour of the wife, it is irrelevant what the husband then says, it would be up to the wife if she wishes to go back to the reconciliation stage or end the marriage, with the husband compensating her.

you_gunna_eat_that

Peace,

Just to reiterate, I do not think "leave them" would necessarily imply that a husband or wife initiating the reconciliation process would have to leave the house. You seem to understand this point. The court could get involved if one of the parties feels the cooling down period is not resolving the marital issues.

As for the issue of iAArdun in 4128, this seems to be a matter initiated by the husband for no apparent reason. In 434, the women has initiated the marital issues and the husband is responding. This seems enough ground for me to think that different laws are applicable in two different settings, which avoids contradiction. Also, leaving them alone shortly (i.e. cooling down period) seems a bit less malicious to me than the iAArdun in 4128, which leaves a women "stunted" and treated unfairly as indicated in 4129. The husband initiating the leaving would still have to treat his wife fairly with the complete understanding that they are still spouses, not in some limbo stage that is confusing or "stunted.

Your view seems to require less linguistic gymnastics than mine. I just hope to show the ranging viabilities in this definition.

Peace

Wakas

peace,

In brief...

Your option does not explain how the court gets involved. Like the traditional position, you just assume a mechanism.
In 434 the husband fears (imperfect), the wife may have not done anything wrong. Similarly, in 4128 the wife feared, the husband may not have done anything wrong, although the language does imply he is in the wrong in this case.
"enough grounds" to you is there is no apparent reason the husband is doing what he is (I disagree, but let's say this is so) in 4128, and the other is she may or may not be the cause of the problem in 434. This differentiation is artificial, impractical, and potentially indistinguishable.
Is your view dependent on what you subjectively think is less malicious "leaving them alone shortly" V iAArdun ?
Where does this "shortly" come from?

And what linguistic gymnastics are you referring to in my view? Please be specific.

you_gunna_eat_that

peace,

In brief...

Your option does not explain how the court gets involved. Like the traditional position, you just assume a mechanism.
In 434 the husband fears (imperfect), the wife may have not done anything wrong. Similarly, in 4128 the wife feared, the husband may not have done anything wrong, although the language does imply he is in the wrong in this case.
"enough grounds" to you is there is no apparent reason the husband is doing what he is (I disagree, but let's say this is so) in 4128, and the other is she may or may not be the cause of the problem in 434. This differentiation is artificial, impractical, and potentially indistinguishable.
Is your view dependent on what you subjectively think is less malicious "leaving them alone shortly" V iAArdun ?
Where does this "shortly" come from?

And what linguistic gymnastics are you referring to in my view? Please be specific.

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

Wakas

peace yget,

Re 3)
You now imply the situations are equal. You previously said otherwise.

This fear is not wild guesses then, it has to be supported with some solid evidence. How else would authorities delegate guilt?

It would be prudent not to guess wildly, but people are not always rational, thus a person can fear whatever they think is happening, proving it is another matter. If they take it to court, without evidence, then it is unlikely they will get a verdict they like.

Re 4) You either do not understand my point, or you do not know the meaning of a genetic fallacy. My point was your subjective difference between ""leaving them alone shortly" V iAArdun, is problematic, hence why you probably add "shortly".

I recommend re-reading the article again. Thanks.

you_gunna_eat_that

peace yget,

Re 3)
You now imply the situations are equal. You previously said otherwise.

It would be prudent not to guess wildly, but people are not always rational, thus a person can fear whatever they think is happening, proving it is another matter. If they take it to court, without evidence, then it is unlikely they will get a verdict they like.

Re 4) You either do not understand my point, or you do not know the meaning of a genetic fallacy. My point was your subjective difference between ""leaving them alone shortly" V iAArdun, is problematic, hence why you probably add "shortly".

I recommend re-reading the article again. Thanks.

Peace

I do not have much new to add so this will probably be my last post on the subject.

I do not imply the situations are equal, I am saying in one situation, the male initiates and the other the female initiates. Thus, it is not problematic to say that V iAArdun is illegal in one situation and generally but not in a totally different reconciliaiton situation that requires its own unique explanation.
Maybe I don't understand your point. I thought you were saying my subjective interpretation of what is less malicious leads me to add the "shortly" in "leaving them shortly." In that case, I think you are guilty of the G Fal. Anyways, the "shortly" part would be something I would explain in a tafseer or something, not a literal translation.

Peace

Wakas

peace all,

Extra info has been added to section 4) Classical Arabic Dictionaries, due to new information.

Pending no significant revisions, it should be possible to launch the proper site in several weeks.

Wakas

peace all,

Update
A dedicated site has been launched www.Quran434.com

There is some new content, e.g. downloadable pdf, recommend by email function, poster/leaflet, promotional buttons and videos. Feel free to spread the word.

http//quran434.com/promo/matrix-unplug-S.gif

New content to the study is as follows

In Abraham's example in 3793 it is DRB with his hand (if taken literally), thus DRB by itself does not mean with the hand. Also, in the Classical Arabic dictionary Lisaan al Arab and Taj al Arus it states " " meaning "he stretched his hand towards such a thing (e.g. to take it)" or "point/indicate with hand to it", and the entry explains "daraba bi yadihi" as similar to "throw the hand (ahwa)" [e.g. verb used in verse 2231 the wind threw him far away (tahwa); and verse 531 and the star when it goes down/vanishes (hawa). This is similar to the analysis of 3793 presented in part one.

It should be noted that the next step after bed separation is authority involvement (e.g. divorce is made official) in 2226-227, which matches the order in 434-35 and maintains internal consistency.

;D

savage_carrot

Peace Wakas,

After re-reading section 17 (474), I have some observations. I will quote the relevant section below

fa darba al rriqabi hattaitha athkhantumoohum = so strike the necks until you overcome them

Some use "hit", "smite", "strike-off". Whilst this is the most common translation, it should be noted that it is taken by many as an idiom (e.g. Mustansir Mir, Al-Jalalayn, Ibn Kathir), meaning slay or kill. This seems a plausible interpretation as in a battle of swords and arrows no commander would order his soldiers to aim for the necks alone.
As a side note, it is interesting to note the difference in phrasing of this verse compared to 812, giving further weight to each of them having different meanings as discussed.

However, upon closer examination, there is an alternative translation, which seems the most likely based on the evidence

So, when you encounter those who have rejected, then put forth /bring about the captives/slaves; until when you have subdued/overcome them, then strengthen the bind. Then after either grace/favour or ransom, until the war lays down its burdens. That, and had God willed, surely He would have gained victory Himself from them, but He tests some of you with others. And those who get killed in the cause of God, He will never let their deeds be put to waste.

Notes for the above translation

"darba" is a verbal noun, indicating the act of doing as well as the noun itself, e.g. then putting forth / bringing about the captives/slaves.
In a battle of swords and arrows no commander would order his soldiers to aim for the necks alone.
RQB is NEVER used to mean neck elsewhere in The Quran, as the word for neck is "unuq" (as used in 812 also with DRB). RQB is always used to mean slaves/captives.
If they were supposed to be beheaded, there would not be a need for an instruction regarding captives. Thus to overcome this apparent omission, many traditional commentators translate "fa shuddoo al wathaqa" as "then tie the bond" and say this refers to taking prisoners of war. However, the word "strengthen/tighten (Arabic shuddoo)" implies a pre-existing thing to strengthen/tighten (see its usage in 3820, 7628, 2835, 1088, 2031), but if this is true, where is it in context? It can only relate to "darba al rriqabi", and thus provides strong proof that this phrase is about bringing about captives from the enemy.
This translation makes sense because during open/active fighting, the captives may not be totally secure, and could only really be secured once the enemy has been subdued/overcome. Thus, this verse is implying aim to bring about captives, not necessarily kill them, which shows mercy and less aggression in such a situation, even if it means getting killed.
One meaning of DaRaBa found in Lane's Lexicon is "he made or caused to be or constituted" which is similar to the suggested meaning discussed above.
I am not aware of a Classical Arabic Dictionary which references verse 474 under the root entry of DRB or RQB.

So, when you encounter those who have rejected, then put forth /bring about the captives/slaves; until when you have subdued/overcome them, then strengthen the bind. Then after either grace/favour or ransom, until the war lays down its burdens. That, and had God willed, surely He would have gained victory Himself from them, but He tests some of you with others. And those who get killed in the cause of God, He will never let their deeds be put to waste.

I don't think when meeting those who have rejected (implication when we encounter the enemy in battle), we are somehow suddenly being asked to "put forth/bring about" the captives/slaves until when we have subdued/overcome those that have rejected in battle. How are these captives/slaves being put forth/brought about before we have even subdued/overcome the enemy in battle? Realistically any captives/slaves are taken at the end of a battle when we have subdued/overcome those we are fighting!
Given the stages of the verse, even if for a moment, we take it to mean putting forth/bring about the captives before the enemy is subdued (somehow making it make sense), how is strengthening the bind being used in the context of these captives/slaves? If we take strengthening the bind to somehow apply to captives we have already got (from a previous/other battle as we can't get any from an encounter we are fighting presently until we have subdued/overcome the enemy in that instance), it would mean making completely sure that they stayed captive (captive x2 = emphasis on strengthening the bind) after we have subdued/overcome the enemy in which case, any captives still around and kicking and able to have their bind/captivity strengthened x2 would obviously still be captives x1 to begin with, then why the emphasis on "strengthening the bind" of the captives after we've already subdued/overcome the enemy? It would only make slightly more sense if it was referring to strengthening their bind x2 during open/active fighting when they are still captives x1 but are in danger of not being captives at all being sprung/escaping/being killed whatever!
Additionally, if we take it to mean referring to binding securely captives which are not totally secure in open/active fighting after we have subdued the enemy/won the current battle (somehow making it make sense since they are still captives after and not in open/active fighting any more), it would mean that this would not apply to any instance of any battle/encounter where we have no captives from any other battles along with us but only to battles/encounters where we already have captives captured from any other battle/encounter except the current, tagging along with us whilst we fight. It would also not apply to captives held somewhere else and thus would not be in the line of fire/open/active fighting.

The verse starts with an instance of battle (when we encounter those who reject) and then towards the end allows multiple instances of captives/slaves to be graced/favoured/ransomed until the war lays down it's burdens (until all instances have ended and there is an overall result). Each battle/encounter would be dealing with one instance of captives/slaves from that battle/encounter, and we are given the go ahead to either deal with captives jointly or singly until the war lays down it's burdens thus taking into account in the verse, multiple instances in regards to captives from each battle/encounter, if there are any, which the verse starts with.

What I'm interested in then is

-How do we bring about/put forth captives before we subdue the enemy?
-Why the emphasis on captives x2 after we have subdued/overcome the enemy and they are not in active/open fighting thus still captives x1 anyways?
-Would this mean the verse only applies in certain situations where we already have captives with us, and not all situations of encountering the enemy?

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>

In 474 it could mean to attack the vanguard according to lisannul 3arab. It maybe the plural of "raqeeb" which is still used as a rank in the army "sergeant"...(Thanks Samia). We could take it to mean strike/attack the vanguard of their forces? In either case whether we take this meaning or control center as Layth/Edip have used it still makes more sense to me to "strike/attack something of/the enemy" given the stages in the verse than putting forth/bringing about captives before we have even subdued/overcome the enemy in that instance. Also, given the references of strengthening the binding, we have 8926 in the concordance which suggests that it is a totally secure/complete binding. Which would make sense in a situation where after you've won, you still need to tie up/neutralise/secure the loose ends after the battle is won e.g. Say, you win a battle, the enemy is in disarray...what do you do in this situation? They can regroup, they can take you by surprise, they can do things to mess you up even if it doesn't result in anything major if you don't have an efficient aftermath plan laid out. You might get by with none except taking what captives you can or just revel in your glory while some/the rest that can, run off to maybe bite you in the behind later for example but generally, one would want an effective end game to clear up the mess/secure the sit after a victory. This makes it a complete/totally secure (as much as one can) victory. We overcome the enemy, then we secure the situation making it a complete victory as the enemy and your victory is now bound completely, like a neat little package, if you will. If not, gnats can still sting and it won't be as effective a win as it could've been had we not strengthened the bind referring to the overcoming/subduing of the enemy, after.

At least, this is my understanding of the verse till now.