Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
-
"strike/attack something of/the enemy"
These words give impression of imperative/command to do so, whereas there is no such imperative verb in the verse. The cognate adverb is restricted by the next imperative command that those enemies during the currency of war who have been overpowered/their weapons are dropped--they are not to be killed but are to be arrested/bind them firmly--here object of imperative verb is Alwasaqa. And decision for their disposal is to be taken after the war has come to an end.
-
These words give impression of imperative/command to do so, whereas there is no such imperative verb in the verse. The cognate adverb is restricted by the next imperative command that those enemies during the currency of war who have been overpowered/their weapons are dropped--they are not to be killed but are to be arrested/bind them firmly--here object of imperative verb is Alwasaqa. And decision for their disposal is to be taken after the war has come to an end.
I won't pretend to understand where the next imperative command is coming from as next would imply there is a first? It would be clearer if you had written "is restricted by an imperative command that comes after" or something. Anyways, I think it's safe to say that there is to be no killing of any captives since we are specifically told what to do with them grace/ransom/exchange. One can't do that if you've killed them (apparently Israel ransoms dead bodies for live prisoners which I think is insane!). Also, as the verse states, grace/ransom/exchange until the war lays down it's burdens, would mean you can do that during/until the war ends, thus you can't keep them around without doing any of the previously stated options after the war has ended or risk holding captives of war indefinitely? Are you saying the decision for their disposal can only be taken after the war lays down it's burdens? The verse says until, which would include during the war as well and after we have overcome the enemy and strengthened the bind in that particular encounter/battle. War and encounter/battle being different things...I don't understand?
-
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/047.%20Muhammad%20Salla%20Allah%20alaih%20wassalm/47.4b.gif
thereat you people bind them/take them prisoners of war since the questions of releasing them as gesture of obliging favour or on ransom arises afterwards when the war may surrender/lay down the weapons .Particle Fa denotes the consequence/next step , added with Explanation particle, as for the question/issue concerned/regarding.....
is time adverb. conjunction related to previous posibility/course of action....
until the war has become over/concluded.
Exchange or release of prisoners of war and the demand for ransom/losses is made from the defeated party after the war is over.
-
until the war has become over/concluded.
Okay, so you are saying the verse says we can't deal with them during the war but only after the war is over? Thus all the captives we may have from all/any of our battles/encounters will remain captive with us with no grace/ransom/exchange until after the war has ended? Yes? -
Thanks Mazhar.
-
peace SC,
How are these captives/slaves being put forth/brought about before we have even subdued/overcome the enemy in battle?
Captives can easily be brought about during fighting, this would be quite common I'm sure. The preference would be to take captives, rather than kill them.
then why the emphasis on "strengthening the bind" of the captives after we've already subdued/overcome the enemy?
Once they are subdued/overcome, strengthen/tighten the bind (of the captives). This would be normal, as during more equal-footed fighting this would be more difficult. Since the word shuddoo refers to a pre-existing thing to tighten/strengthen, it can only refer to "DRB al RQB", nothing else, thus whatever you want to render this phrase as, it MUST involve making a bind somehow.
I do not know what you mean with (3), can you clarify, if its still an issue.
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?
It is not about captives with us, it is about taking (i.e. bringing about, putting forth) captives from the opposing force.
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
Can you clarify if you mean lisannul 3arab discusses "raqeeb" as "sergeant", thus YOU think it could mean "attack the vanguard"? Or do you mean lisannul 3arab specifically mentions 474? Thanks.
If "raqeeb/sergeant" is a theoretical possibility then yes it is possible, however AQ does not use RQB like that, nor would it fit 474, unless the pre-existing bind can be explained. -
Peace bro,
Captives can easily be brought about during fighting, this would be quite common I'm sure. The preference would be to take captives, rather than kill them.
So the actual word used you would say would be bring about rather than put forth? When you meet those who have rejected, "bring about" the captives, then when you have subdued/overcome them (the enemy), strengthen the bind (of the captives you "brought about"? I'm sorry, if you would have said "captives can easily be taken during fighting", it would make sense, like you say in addition the preference would be to take captives...exactly. Because "bring about" doesn't make much sense so one has to clarify it. Why doesn't it say, when you meet those who have rejected, take captives, then when you have subdued/overcome them (the enemy), strengthen the bind (of the captives you took)? Especially since "bring about" is being equated to take, and take makes far more sense with no clarification needed!Can you point me towards where DRB is used as "bring about" in the quran, also? I read through the link but couldn't find any such occurrence. I find concordance helpful.
Once they are subdued/overcome, strengthen/tighten the bind (of the captives). This would be normal, as during more equal-footed fighting this would be more difficult.
What do you mean more equal-footed fighting, just so I have a solid idea of what you mean here?Since the word shuddoo refers to a pre-existing thing to tighten/strengthen, it can only refer to "DRB al RQB", nothing else, thus whatever you want to render this phrase as, it MUST involve making a bind somehow.
Given the concordance the word can mean to strengthen, harden or strongly (one can take different translations but they all come around to the same thing essentially). If we take the concordance for "bond" we have 474 and 8926 and none can bind with bonds like His. This can mean then strongly bind the bond, bind the bond strongly, bind the bond firmly etc in reference to those we have overcome and taken captive in 474? Seriously, it doesn't make sense for captives x1 to be captives x2 after open/active fighting as I explained in my last post. Edip/Layths translation has "then bind them securely"...it makes sense.(see its usage in 3820, 7628, 2835, 1088, 2031)
-We strengthened his kingship, and We gave him the wisdom and the ability to make sound judgment.
-We have created them, and We have made them resolute. When we wished, We replaced their kind completely.
-He said, "We will strengthen you with your brother, and We will provide you both with authority. Thus, they will not be able to touch either one of you. With Our signs, the two of you, along with those who follow you, will be the victors."
-Moses said, "Our Lord, you have given Pharaoh and his chiefs adornments and wealth in this worldly life so that they will misguide from Your path. Our Lord, wipe-out their wealth and bring grief to their hearts so that they will not acknowledge until they see the painful retribution.
-"So that I may strengthen my resolve through him."
1418 The example of those who reject their Lord is that their works are like ashes, on which the wind blows strongly on a stormy day; they cannot get anything of what they earned. Such is the farthest straying.Shiin-Dal-Dal = to bind tightly, strap, strengthen firmly, run, establish, make firm, hard, strong, be advanced (day), be intense. ushdud - harden, strengthen. shadiid (pl. shidaad & ashidda'u - great, firm, strict, vehement, strong, violent, severe, mighty, terrible, stern, grievous, miserly, niggardly. (adj. of the forms fa'iil and fiaal are used indifferently for both m. and f.) ashuddun age of full strength, maturity. ishtadda (vb. - to act with violence, become hard.
shadda vb. (1)
perf. act. 3820, 7628
impf. act. 2835
impv. 1088, 2031, 474ashudd n.m. 6152, 1222, 1734, 1882, 225, 2814, 4067, 4615
shadid n.m. (adj. pl. ashidda and shidad) 274, 285, 2165, 2165, 2191, 2196, 2200, 2211, 34, 311, 356, 466, 477, 484, 484, 52, 582, 598, 6124, 7164, 813, 825, 848, 852, 969, 981, 997, 1070, 1180, 11102, 1248, 136, 1313, 142, 147, 175, 1758, 182, 1969, 2071, 20127, 222, 2377, 2721, 2733, 2878, 309, 3311, 3446, 357, 3510, 3544, 3711, 3826, 403, 4021, 4022, 4046, 4082, 4115, 4115, 4127, 4216, 4226, 438, 4713, 4816, 4829, 5026, 5036, 535, 5720, 5725, 5815, 594, 597, 5913, 5914, 658, 6510, 666, 728, 736, 7812, 7927, 8512, 1008
ishtadda vb. ( perf. act. 1418
LL, V4, p 241, 242, 243
It is not about captives with us, it is about taking (i.e. bringing about, putting forth) captives from the opposing force.
Putting forth makes no sense, unless you're to put forward your own before the battle (go forth my captives, I'm putting you forth as human shields or I'll catch up to you in a few hours or so, here I'm leaving a contingent of my armed guards to make sure you don't do anything stupid) or putting forth their captives from their clutches i.e. a battle against slavers with captives abounding all about them, run forth you captive fools...I'm putting you forth! I'm here to save you from the bad guys! Putting forth is putting forward, I'm not sure how this can also mean "bringing about" or "taking captives". It's not even similar. Put forth your best foot, put forth the captives...don't get it. Bringing about is also not the best choice as discussed above.Can you clarify if you mean lisannul 3arab discusses "raqeeb" as "sergeant", thus YOU think it could mean "attack the vanguard"? Or do you mean lisannul 3arab specifically mentions 474? Thanks.
"rigaab" here could mean the vanguard according to lisannul 3arab. It maybe the plural of "raqeeb" which is still used as a rank in the army "sergeant".
This is in reference to 474.If "raqeeb/sergeant" is a theoretical possibility then yes it is possible, however AQ does not use RQB like that, nor would it fit 474, unless the pre-existing bind can be explained.
I'm not sure if AQ uses DRB as "bring about", I tried searching but couldn't find where it uses it as such. I've touched on the rest above. I have nothing against your translation bro,I respect your hard work immensely, I just want it to make sense to me...you know that I'm not coming up with any bias in this, it doesn't even affect what I'm working on currently...I just don't think it's making sense here in my opinion. I look forward to your explanation on how to make it work. -
Captives can easily be brought about during fighting, this would be quite common I'm sure. The preference would be to take captives, rather than kill them.
No Commander of an Army would ever make such blunder of suggesting this preference to its Troops which will endanger their own lives and increase chances of defeat. War means and its loud slogan is to kill and/or get killed.
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/009.%20At%20Tauba/9.111a.gif
They confront war in the cause of Allah and resultantly they kill the enemy and they get killed by the enemy in the battlefield.Since the word shuddoo refers to a pre-existing thing to tighten/strengthen, it can only refer to "DRB al RQB", nothing else, thus whatever you want to render this phrase as, it MUST involve making a bind somehow.
imperative command is subject to the conditionality and not to "DRB al RQB". When the imperative command is related to the happening of a conditionality, unless it is there the imperative command shall be treated as redundant. The verb is Perfect, second person, masculine, with Waw subject pronoun and "Hum" the Object pronoun; Form IV having causitive meanings. In the heat of war, it is most difficult thing to hold back the sword from killing the combating enemy when his weapon has dropped or has become overpowered, exhausted to stand further. That seems to be the basic cause and purpose of this injumction and also to clarify and elaborate the earlier instruction.
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/008.%20Al%20Anfaal/8.67.gif
This is not for the Elevated and Chosen Servant of Allah that for him be the prisoners of war till such time that he has subdued/taken full dominance in the land.Chapter 8
-
peace Mazhar,
You seem to assume it is only deadly combat, i.e. fighting/killing. When actually, 474 discusses a situation, THEN mentions when the enemy is overcome/subdued, but states even after this, the war may not be over. So it may be in reference to a smaller battle, an ambush, or even hostility/scuffles etc. Interestingly, there is no mention of deadly combat in the context or actively going on in this chapter, although I only briefly read it. It only mentions being killed in 474 after it mentions war. Since 474 begins with "fa" it likely refers to the people mentioned previously and those people are repelling from the path of God. This does imply the equivalent harshness would not be killing them. Thus is more evidence for my rendition.
9111 does not say what you say, it literally says "...they fight in the cause of God so they kill and are killed...". So, your point is only valid for fighting/killing, not to mention all battles are not about kill or be killed.
imperative command is subject to the conditionality and not to "DRB al RQB".
I understand the conditionality you refer to, this is obvious, however I am referring to the overall sequential and logical link between shuddoo and it referring to a pre-existing thing to tighten/strengthen, thus one simply needs to ask what can it refer to? There is only one possibility in the context and that is "DRB al RQB".
Thanks for bringing up 867, as this seems to imply ASR (~prisoners of war) are officially/properly bound/kept captives. Since they can only be taken after subdued/overcome in the land as per 867, and the same word is used in 474 and here the sequence is when the bind is strengthened it is only then can they be ransomed or released/grace (implying in this case they go from RQB to ASR when the bind is strengthened). Thus, by default, RQB are not bound firmly in this manner. This is further proven by AQ cross-reference (e.g. 870 refers to ASR in one's hands/power/control) and Lane's Lexicon.
As we can see, the evidence so far is weighted in favour of my rendition.
-
peace sis,
The word DRB has a certain connotation and is the perfect word in 474, not "take". In the www.Quran434.com study
It seems that the default meaning of DRB is "to put/show forth (from one person/place to another person/place)". This core meaning fits into every occurrence, and thus could be seen as its basic/core meaning. Lane's Lexicon states that its meaning is "to put into commotion" which is similar. Of course, with various prepositions and subject matter, this basic meaning can be refined and better rendered depending on situation.
From one place to another may be from non-existence to existence or somewhere intangible to somewhere tangible. For example, when AQ says "DRB an example" it means the example is put/shown forth, brought about, e.g. from God to us, or when a person "DRB an example" they took it from their mind and brought it out in the open by verbalising it, i.e. they DRB'd it.
Similarly, no RQB exists yet, we are commanded to DRB the RQB, i.e. bring about RQB/captives. This is likely why Lane states one of its meanings is exactly this.Can you point me towards where DRB is used as "bring about" in the quran, also? I read through the link but couldn't find any such occurrence. I find concordance helpful.
Although I prefer "put/show forth" generally, you can see any AQ occurrence of DRB when applied to a direct object (e.g. Jesus, parable, truth, falsehood, a dry path, wall).
What do you mean more equal-footed fighting, just so I have a solid idea of what you mean here?
I mean anything less or prior to subdued/overcome them.
Seriously, it doesn't make sense for captives x1 to be captives x2 after open/active fighting as I explained in my last post.
I dont understand your objection, as it makes perfect sense to me. As a side note, Edip/RQT's translation also mentions my rendition as a possibility, at the end of their verse note "Considering the context of the verse and emphasis on capturing the enemy, we could have translated the segment under discussion as, "aim to take captives."
This is in reference to 474.
You did not quite answer what I wanted. As far as I am aware, no CAD specifically mentions 474. I think you are misreading what sister Samia said, she is using an understanding of RQB found in lisaanul 3arab and inserting it in 474.
I have nothing against your translation bro,I respect your hard work immensely, I just want it to make sense to me
Of course, we are both here to learn. I did not take it any other way.
-
Peace bro,
From one place to another may be from non-existence to existence or somewhere intangible to somewhere tangible. For example, when AQ says "DRB an example" it means the example is put/shown forth, brought about, e.g. from God to us, or when a person "DRB an example" they took it from their mind and brought it out in the open by verbalising it, i.e. they DRB'd it. Similarly, no RQB exists yet, we are commanded to DRB the RQB, i.e. bring about RQB/captives. This is likely why Lane states one of its meanings is exactly this.
Let's take the RQB example. We know no captives exist unless we capture them. So, if we are being told to capture the enemy instead of killing them as a preference and I have two choices as a command, take or bring about, I'd choose take because it's clearer. There really isn't any point in arguing this further.Although I prefer "put/show forth" generally, you can see any AQ occurrence of DRB when applied to a direct object (e.g. Jesus, parable, truth, falsehood, a dry path, wall).
I don't see put/show forth as an apt choice for the command to take the enemy captive. I don't think one can argue this any further, it is what it is.I mean anything less or prior to subdued/overcome them.
It doesn't address my query imo.I dont understand your objection, as it makes perfect sense to me. As a side note, Edip/RQT's translation also mentions my rendition as a possibility, at the end of their verse note "Considering the context of the verse and emphasis on capturing the enemy, we could have translated the segment under discussion as, "aim to take captives."
Since I have no bone to pick with you, I'm coming in with no real bias and I have a decent grasp of the language...it should be easy to get but it's not, it's a bit convoluted which it shouldn't be in my opinion.You did not quite answer what I wanted. As far as I am aware, no CAD specifically mentions 474. I think you are misreading what sister Samia said, she is using an understanding of RQB found in lisaanul 3arab and inserting it in 474.
You asked if 474 was specifically mentioned in Lisaan, I gave you her exact quote in reference to 474 that she and I were discussing. If there's a problem with her understanding of RQB, let me know and I'll forward her the info. -
peace sis,
Feel free to use "make, cause to be, constitute", as mentioned in Lane.
But for sake of argument, let's say my wording is convoluted, let's look at the alternatives. What are they? All other options I have seen are flawed more significantly than subjectively "convoluted" wording. If you can provide what you feel is the best rendering of "DRB al RQB" we can examine it.
And no, there is no problem with Samia's understanding of RQB. Lisaan does not reference 474, neither under DRB or RQB however. That is what I was clarifying.
-
In 474 it could mean to attack the vanguard according to lisannul 3arab. It may be the plural of "raqeeb" which is still used as a rank in the army "sergeant"...(Thanks Samia)
Sister Samia I wish you all happiness. For the purpose of seeking guidance and expert opinion, I want to point out that I recall to have checked it somewhere that plural of is while is the singular of .
I may clarify that was later started being used for the whole human body and metonimically it also became the name for referring to slaves.
-
pax bro,
I'll "bring about" a rendering I think is best and then "make" it appear on the thread. Then we shall see which "puts forth" it's best foot, and that one might have "cause to be" "constituted" as the WINNAR.
After I'm done doing what I should be doing...I let captives distract me but then they are so darn captivating.
-
- 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.
The highlighted presumption seems to be making things perplexed. In Arabic the object of the verb does not ordinarily precede the subject of the verb. If the object of the verb has succeded there can't be an object after it. Here the object of the verb appears after the subject of the verb. Therefore, presumption is baseless and unfounded. The conditionaility, situation arisen necessitating this action has been mentioned immediately before it, and there is no such precedence, to my knowledge, in Grammer rules which could permit stretching it to relate it to "darba al rriqabi".
Thanks. -
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
