Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back

Samia

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.

So you are saying it targeting and focusing on the necks\ human bodies!

What else would a simple verb as qtl or even drb not explain?

Student_of_Allah

Shalom,

I think Shabir Ally was talking about this same thing as I saw in one of his videos. He said he wrote a paper where he demonstrated that the meaning is not to beat but to cite them to authority.

PEACE
-------------------- Student of Allah

Mazhar

So you are saying it targeting and focusing on the necks\ human bodies!

What else would a simple verb as qtl or even drb not explain?

We see the statement as is in the text and as it is related with other words in the sentence to perceive what is conveyed by this choice of words. We do not argue with the writer's choice of words. We have to perceive what is with us.

The possessive phrase, with a definite verbal noun because of second noun being definite, is the apodosis clause. It is not a command but mere depiction of that which happens once the confronting armies are face to face, have already met in the battlefield.

Samia

We see the statement as is in the text and as it is related with other words in the sentence to perceive what is conveyed by this choice of words. We do not argue with the writer's choice of words. We have to perceive what is with us.

I am not arguing with the writer. am arguing with you who believe the writer is inserting meaningless words, unlike His way of describing the same action all over the qur'aan.

A command, an advice or even just a description, the expression is still meaningless. Even you could not just keep with "strike the neck" but had to add "or the human body", and this still does not help!

Mazhar

Then how would it become "meaningful"---what is its meanings which seem meaningful in the whole sentence/context.

Samia

Then how would it become "meaningful"---what is its meanings which seem meaningful in the whole sentence/context.

Considering the army as a body and its "rigaab" are the lead soldiers. Those are the ones to be killed/ attacked to paralyze the aggression. Once this is achieved, captivate the others.

Mazhar

Considering the army as a body and its "rigaab" are the lead soldiers. Those are the ones to be killed/ attacked to paralyze the aggression. Once this is achieved, captivate the others.

Sister please put it with the complete translation, so that I can comprehend it more clearly; notwithstanding that lead soldiers are nowhere considered as the most crucial formation of the battlefield. The attack and full agression follows after them.

Samia

Sister please put it with the complete translation, so that I can comprehend it more clearly; notwithstanding that lead soldiers are nowhere considered as the most crucial formation of the battlefield. The attack and full agression follows after them.

The result of this " " is exhausting the aggression and enabling you to take them as captives. The aim is not to create a genocide. Remember, the "muslims" are not the aggressors but the defendants. They are being attacked. They have to have a good strategy to subdue the enemy. The "rigaab" of the army are the most important. I believed they were the lead soldiers. I may be wrong, but the rigaab are the most important of the army. After the exhaustion comes the captivation and the negotiations.

Mazhar

The result of this " " is exhausting the aggression and enabling you to take them as captives. The aim is not to create a genocide. Remember, the "muslims" are not the aggressors but the defendants. They are being attacked. They have to have a good strategy to subdue the enemy. The "rigaab" of the army are the most important. I believed they were the lead soldiers. I may be wrong, but the rigaab are the most important of the army. After the exhaustion comes the captivation and the negotiations.

This perception that the operative strategy in the battlefield, once both the armies are confronting each other, the defending army should be restricted to finding and killing only the so called most important of the enemy army can be had only when the most stupid of the generals is heading the defending army. Such instructions are never issued in the battlefield to place one's own army and soldiers in a confused state of mind risking their lives. Decisions in war are on the spur of the moment, kill or get killed.

Samia

This perception that the operative strategy in the battlefield, once both the armies are confronting each other, the defending army should be restricted to finding and killing only the so called most important of the enemy army can be had only when the most stupid of the generals is heading the defending army. Such instructions are never issued in the battlefield to place one's own army and soldiers in a confused state of mind risking their lives. Decisions in war are on the spur of the moment, kill or get killed.

812
Why not just drb ala3naaq? No difference between 3unq and raqaba?

Mazhar

Sister,

Thanks, You have clarified the point by this quote that Riqabe does not exclusively refer to "leading soldoers" type of thing.

Samia

Sister,

Thanks, You have clarified the point by this quote that Riqabe does not exclusively refer to "leading soldoers" type of thing.

I do not care about what soldiers, leading or leaders. The point is the advise or command is not to cut necks but to attack important soldiers of the army.

Mazhar

I do not care about what soldiers, leading or leaders. The point is the advise or command is not to cut necks but to attack important soldiers of the army.

Sorry Sister,

Again both sentences are self contradictory. Leading stands substituted by "important". The only different perception which I can now draw from the last sentence is that the scene is not to kill the enemy on mass scale but selectively kill.

Samia

Sorry Sister,

Again both sentences are self contradictory. Leading stands substituted by "important". The only different perception which I can now draw from the last sentence is that the scene is not to kill the enemy on mass scale but selectively kill.

Yes. In war you choose whom to kill or disable in order to cut short your losses.

Wakas

peace/salaam all,

Good news. )

www.Quran434.com's understanding has now been officially added to QXP latest edition.

The book is now available in kindle format for $1 (the PDF is free on the website)

If you have a facebook account, please like the facebook page

And lastly, I am looking for distributors in North America who are willing to send a copy to Muslim journals/magazines/authors/scholars/academics/organisations. I can cover the books and postage costs, all you need to do is find potential recipients and send them in the mail. I may be able to provide a list.

?He who bemoans the lack of opportunity forgets that small doors many times open up into large rooms.?

Wakas

peace all,

I have updated the work to include

source"]It has been argued that idriboohunna in 434 means "separate (from) them" ('Quran a Reformist Translation&#039 or "go away from them" ('The Sublime Quran' by Laleh Bakhtiar), which interestingly has some support in the traditional commentaries and fits better than "strike/beat". However, I feel this translation is possible only 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

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.
any degree of leaving/separating/shunning may fall afoul of doing iAAradan (alienation / turning away) in 4128, thus such a step may give the wife a legitimate reason for ending the marriage, thus unless clarified/limited this meaning does not fit well.
results in incoherence when DRB is used with a human as the direct object (see 4357 and 273)
requires the insertion of "from" making this the only DRB example of this kind in The Quran, even though the preposition "AAn /from" is used with DRB in 435 in a very similar usage as being suggested here for 434.
provides no explanation as to how the authority find out about the issue in the marriage by 435
makes little sense when in the reversed role 4128-129, discussed later.
has no supporting example in Quran, see below.

An answer that can provide perfect coherence within The Quran is the ideal.
As we can see, a mechanism should exist that allows the authority to be notified and resolves a situation like this in a fair manner. We will now review examples from The Quran itself to see if an answer is given.

The_Chimp

peace all,

I have updated the work to include

any degree of leaving/separating/shunning may fall afoul of doing iAAradan (alienation / turning away) in 4128, thus such a step may give the wife a legitimate reason for ending the marriage, thus unless clarified/limited this meaning does not fit well.

The underlying motivation of "Quran only" is to apply morality to the book rather than taking from it. How unsurprising the the recurring themes are to do away with the 7th century Arabian morality and replace it with Modern Enlightenment values.

Some of the embarrassments to be done away with and discussed on this board are

Permissibility of Alcohol.
Women's rights and roles.
Marriage and Polygamy.
Praying
Sexuality.

Reforms happen . . . but to this extent?

Man_of_Faith

Why not, Mr. Chimp?

Peace

Wakas

The_Chimp,
I see you talk much but evidence little. Feel free to refute (with evidence) the understanding of www.Quran434.com

Perhaps then we can see which option is more Quran based.

The_Chimp

The_Chimp,
I see you talk much but evidence little. Feel free to refute (with evidence) the understanding of www.Quran434.com

Perhaps then we can see which option is more Quran based.

This is forum - by its type one doesn't write realms.

Also - know one really takes things seriously - hence the silly and often ridiculous arguments - resorting to childish name calling.

I am still waiting for the Prayer debate! What happened to that?

Then there was your awkward fumble - at refuting 5 prayers, by pointing to a document showing Muslims did not pray before the order of 5 prayers came along!

So there isn't that much point of making long rambling refutations . . .

The point is general - the motivation of such interpretation is having a different "morality" . . . some people never reconcile and become non-Muslims.

If you are in UK - Sarfraz Manzoor

http//www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03jb3n5

If that is your article

You were ALWAYS going to find that Daraba in 434 did not mean "beat".