Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back
-
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.
-
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.
Salaam Mazhar
Thanks for your kind wishesIt is not uncommon in Arabic to have more than a pattern for the plural of one word.
Example of words that have both plurals of andMoreover, itself has two more plurals at least.
Quraan does not follow rules of grammarians. Our latest discussion on the nouns of place show how the grammarians consider at least four words mentioned in the qur'aan as "odd" according to their "rules".
The context rules. Why would the army of "muslims" kill the slaves first? The word drb on its own, according to classical dictionaries, mean to strike with a sword or to strike to kill. When we say strike the "rigaab" it would mean, according to you, (kill the slaves). Did the army even reach the stage of having slaves, let alone kill them specifically? The word "ragaba" also indicates the noble part of the body, and is still used as such, the part that takes the responsibility and the part used to subdue the person. In an army, it has to be those take the first responsibility to attack, like a ragaba to a human body, a vital job for the success of the army or the attackers. This has to be eliminated first.
The use of "rigaab" to indicate slaves is not a common understanding. It's just a corruption of the meaning of a word in the qur'aan. Like many other words such as muhsanaat and MMA, which magically became free women and slave women. Every word is turned into slavery and sex. -
-
The context rules. Why would the army of "muslims" kill the slaves first? The word drb on its own, according to classical dictionaries, mean to strike with a sword or to strike to kill. When we say strike the "rigaab" it would mean, according to you, (kill the slaves). Did the army even reach the stage of having slaves, let alone kill them specifically?
This is not my understanding.
I translate it like thisFor reason/in response when you people have confronted in war those who have refused to believe then resultantly the obvious target are the necks/human bodies-mutual hitting till such point in time that you have succeeded in overpowering/caused them drop weapons/made them exhausted/subdued
thereat you people are hereby directed to firmly bind-arrest 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 . -
This is not my understanding.
I translate it like thisFor reason/in response when you people have confronted in war those who have refused to believe then resultantly the obvious target are the necks/human bodies-mutual hitting
I still don't understand where you got "drb arriqaab" means kill them? drb alone suffies. Moreover, killing in fighting does not necessarily target necks. There is nowhere in the qur'aan this expression is used to mean just kill, although killing enemies and transgressors in war is mentioned more than once, and the simple verb "qtl" is used.
-
I still don't understand where you got "drb arriqaab" means kill them?
I did not say this. Two parties are confronting war with each other. This signifies only one thing, each party is targetting and focussing on the necks/human bodies of the members of the other party. Thereafter, one party becomes subdued or surrenders whereby hostility aimed at killing the members of other party comes to halt.
