Is a man allowed to beat his wife?
-
Peace Idris,
Thank you for bringing up Ayman's excerpt. It sure helps.
Ayman made a good point a while back, keeping in mind that abu lahab means father of flames
Is there any feminine Arabic term used for "mother of flames" when speaking of female?
- And his wife the bearer of the fuel (i.e., the bearer of the deviators from the hidden ones
Whose wife is this verse talking about? Is it the wife of "father of flames"? When we use the term "wife of", it always follows a name, doesn't it?
Was there ever a man named Abu Lahab and anything mentioned in regards to him and his wife in history which the verses reflect upon? Perhaps Ayman can further elaborate to get a thorough understanding.
-
peace be upon you jaxal,
SaLaM Idris
No offence taken, but as Savage Corret put it, what part of my post eludes your grasp . Let me know and i will elaborate on it.
Abu Lahb is a name being used in that verse, or else God would have simply say "father of flame" instead of "Abu Lahb". God wouldnt hesitate to do that. He DIDNT do that. God used "Abu Lahb". Who are you to say well, that not REALLY what God meant. Abu Lahb was a man who was a disbeliever. And he died a disbeliever.
since abu lahab translates to father of flame, what are you talking about in the above quote is what I would like to know?
-
SaLaM Idris
What i meant in that paragraph was this If God didnt mean the actual person called Abu Lahb and rather the meaning of the word "Abu Lahb", then God would have easily used said "father of the flame" instead of "Abu Lahb". When i talk about angel of paradise, i dont say Ridwan, i say "guardian of paradise". When someone say, Ridwan will go to hell, i take it the person is reffering to me. Becoz if he meant the Guardian of Paradise will go to hell, then he would have said "Guardian of Paradise" will go to hell, not Ridwan. I would expect him to do this so its VERY clear. And since God says the scripture is very clear, it leaves no doubt in my mind that God literally meant Abu Lahb, who was a unbeliever, to go to hell.
I hope you understand now. If not, i will try to explain it again
-
Peace,
but Jaxal, you are using different languages in your explanation. I think Idris means that 'Father of the Flame' and 'father of the flame' are written the same in the same language.
(Checking the transliteration at studyquran Wakas's page I see the same word 'lahabin' twice 1. Tabbat yada abee lahabin watabba, 3. Sayasla naran thata lahabin)
Still I know you are sure the chapter is referring to a particular person, can you explain it in a different way?
-
SaLaM Elena
Ok, i will try to explain it this way.
My opinion on this Abu Lahb is being reffered to a actual person which did exist and who was a disbeliever.
Wakas's opinion on this Abu Lahb means "father of the the flames". So it is not being refered to a person called Abu Lahb but rather its reffering to the meaning of the name Abu Lahb. Wakas plz correct me if you think this is wrong.
So when I read Surah 111, i see God reffering to an actual person. When Wakas reads this same surah, he sees it as being reffered to "father of the flames" which, for me, does not makes sense. Let me show you the complete surah
In the name of GOD, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
Condemned are the works of Abee Lahab / father of flames, and he is condemned.
His money and whatever he has accomplished will never help him.
He has incurred the blazing Hell.
Also his wife, who led the persecution.
She will be (resurrected) with a rope of thorns around her neck.
I have made the PM translation of the word in bold.
Just reading the whole surah and not just that one verse, to me, it clearly shows that God was talking about a person called Abu Lahb who had a wife. And then the surah goes on to talk about Abu Lahb's wife and how there will be a rope around her neck. Now, when I look at this surah, I cannot accept that in verse 111.1 God is reffering to a meaning rather than an actual person.
My opinion is my opinion. You dont have to accpet it. I have simply my understanding of the verse with proof which is enough for me. As someone used to say, I am sure enough to stand in front of God and explain why i belived in what i believed. http//1.forumer.com/html/emoticons/audiojunkies/smile.gif . Its totally up to you which understanding you choose.
-
peace Jaxal, All,
In brother Ayman's article it discusses how only in specific situations is a proper noun appropriate. If someone can bring forth any grammatical information which proves 'abu lahab' is a proper noun, then I will re-evaluate it.
'abu lahab' is the English phonetic/pronounciation of the Arabic word and it literally means 'father (of) flame' in Arabic. Theoretically, it can be taken as both, a common word and a proper noun. Same thing happened with Makkah/makkah (use the 'search' function at the top to see this discussion).
Please do not confuse the proper noun in an English translation and think it is a proper noun in the Arabic text.
Please refute the following point
*the above understanding is conclusively proven by the traditional stories themselves! they clearly say Abu Lahab was a nickname, and his real name was Abdul Uzza. That means The God uses a nickname in 1111, even though it is written in 'the reading' we should not use nicknames (4911). Thus is The God a hypocrite according to the traditionalists?
If 'al quran' says no matter what good the mushrikeen/polytheists do, it will not save them, it discusses a general group, one does not need to mention a specific person. Just like 'polytheists' is a description of a type of person, the father of flame is also a description of a type of person.
In 111, just because it mentions a wife doesn't mean its a literal wife. It can be taken metaphorically to mean a companion intimately linked to the 'father of flames', an accomplice, who supplied the fuel (i.e. firewood/logs) for the fire. That is why her fate is intimately linked to the fate of the father of flame. I believe that is why the Arabic equivalent of an interwoven rope is used.
Wakas
-
My opinion is my opinion. You dont have to accpet it.
Ah but opinions are dangerous things! Annouce it and be prepared to be Damned -)
I have simply my understanding of the verse with proof which is enough for me.
Proof? Can we prove anything when it comes to religion? Is Proof is a SUBJECTIVE experience of the Individual?
As someone used to say, I am sure enough to stand in front of God and explain why i belived in what i believed.
So would a Christian or Jew etc? So what is the Proof?
Regards,
-
Salaam Br Jaxal,
You know I'm always cool with you D
Peace
Sis Majidah -
peace wakas,
peace Jaxal, All,
In brother Ayman's article it discusses how only in specific situations is a proper noun appropriate. If someone can bring forth any grammatical information which proves 'abu lahab' is a proper noun, then I will re-evaluate it.
'abu lahab' is the English phonetic/pronounciation of the Arabic word and it literally means 'father (of) flame' in Arabic. Theoretically, it can be taken as both, a common word and a proper noun. Same thing happened with Makkah/makkah (use the 'search' function at the top to see this discussion).
Please do not confuse the proper noun in an English translation and think it is a proper noun in the Arabic text.
Please refute the following point
*the above understanding is conclusively proven by the traditional stories themselves! they clearly say Abu Lahab was a nickname, and his real name was Abdul Uzza. That means The God uses a nickname in 1111, even though it is written in 'the reading' we should not use nicknames (4911). Thus is The God a hypocrite according to the traditionalists?
If 'al quran' says no matter what good the mushrikeen/polytheists do, it will not save them, it discusses a general group, one does not need to mention a specific person. Just like 'polytheists' is a description of a type of person, the father of flame is also a description of a type of person.
In 111, just because it mentions a wife doesn't mean its a literal wife. It can be taken metaphorically to mean a companion intimately linked to the 'father of flames', an accomplice, who supplied the fuel (i.e. firewood/logs) for the fire. That is why her fate is intimately linked to the fate of the father of flame. I believe that is why the Arabic equivalent of an interwoven rope is used.
Wakas
thanks for the explanation, my view is the same I just couldn't get it across to Jaxal quite as well as you did
one
-
SaLaM Wakas
Before I say anything, can you tell me if Ridwan is a proper noun or a common name?
The article by Ayman you are pointing to is his own opinion or understanding of the given verse. Not mine. I can read it, i can understand it, but i dont HAVE to accept it. To me, its his opinion and that is fine by me. But just becoz his opinion has a web address dont mean it will take precidence over mine.
Abu Lahb was a name given to a man bcoz it suited him. Some say his face was radient. Some say he had a bad temper. So for him, Abu Lahb was the name that they gave him coz it suited him. This is not name calling or making fun of his name. When i was in college, everyone called me Criminal. Even my teachers called me with that name. The name suited me and was given to me by the people who knew me. As it came to other people's attention, it caught on and everyone knew me by that name. As i moved on to univresity, my friends called me Riz ( from Rizwan ) or BJ. This is the name they know me by and this the name everyone uses to address to me. Its on the registers, on my mark sheet. Its a nickname they have given to me to address me. The same goes for Abu Lahb. It was a name suited to thim. And God is using that name to address him. You say that God must be a hypocrite to use such a name and u refer to the verse 49.11 . Lets look at the verse 49.11
O you who believe, let not a people ridicule other people, for they may be better than they. Nor shall any women ridicule other women, for they may be better than they. Nor shall you mock one another, or call each other names. Evil indeed is the reversion to wickedness after attaining faith. And anyone who does not repent, then these are the transgressors.
O you who believe, no people shall ridicule other people, for they may be better than they. Nor shall any women ridicule other women, for they may be better than they. Nor shall you mock one another, or make fun of your names. Evil indeed is the reversion to wickedness after attaining faith. Anyone who does not repent after this, these are the transgressors.
When i look at the verse, it is my opinion, that God is stating the very obvious here, no name calling or making fun of people's name. So for example, calling someone fatty, or carrot head, or making fun of a name such as Jack and to call that person Jack-ass. This is what i beleive God is telling us NOT to do. How can God have a problem with some one calling me Jax? or Jaxal or Riz or BJ?? THAT dont make sense. Im not taking any offence. I have no problem at all with someone calling me that. Even when i was called Criminal, i didnt take any offence. There was a reason why i was called that and i hope God takes tht into consideration before passing any punishment. But what you are saying is that i cant call Swedish Majidah as SM. It just dont make any sense.
Abu Lahb was the name given to a man. This man was known as Abu Lahb to the people around him. Why would God NOT use this name? And God, in my understanding of the verse 49.11, is not a hypocrite to do so.
You then go on to say that just becoz the surah mentions the wife, dont mean that its the wife of this man. Right, says who? You? The wife must be metaphorical here becoz Wakas dont think so. What about the word hell ? is that metaphorical too? Or what about the word rope? Maybe its not REALLY a rope. Maybe its metaphorical becoz Wakas dont think so. Lets just take everything to be metaphorical becoz they dont fit with the understanding of Wakas. Look at the surah. God mentions a man, his wife and what will happen to them. I dont understand how you cannot think its reffering to a man but rather the meaning of that name. Its YOUR opinion. Not mine. I dont HAVE to agree with your opinion. Just like you dont HAVE to accept mine.
Disbeliever is a common word. Human is a common word. But Adam is not. Ridwan is NOT. That is common sense. I dont know any other Abu Lahb. I know of just one. He was a disbeliever. So was his wife. And he died as a disbeleiver. Surah 111, in my opinion, is clearly pointing to this man and his wife. Abu Lahb was a name given to this man. God is using this name to address to this man. If Ayman thinks that only in specific situations is a proper noun appropriate, it dont makes a penny's difference to me. Its Ayman's opinion. Not mine. And im ok with that. I am not going to aruge over what his opinion is. I ask you to do the same.http//www.geocities.com/bigjaxal/s1.gif
-
peace Jaxal, all,
If one applies a capital to Ridwan, then it is a proper noun/name. Arabic has no such equivalent (i.e. capital letters). I suggest increasing one's knowledge of Arabic, because it seems you have missed this point.
Like I said, if anyone can bring forth grammatical evidence proving 'abu lahab' (using the actual Arabic) is a proper name/noun then fine, I will re-evaluate it.Lastly, I dont understand why you seem to think I am trying to force my opinion on you (or anyone) or I think you should accept my opinion. Not once have I said that, nor once have I implied that. Please do not read anything further into my comments other than what is stated.
Wakas
-
SaLaM Wakas
You are talking about increasing knowledge in Arabic like that is going to open my eyes? You know arabic and you cant make up your mind about the verses in that surah. While you are more knowledgable in Arabic than i am, does not mean you have it right and i have it wrong. You say there is no mechanism to differentiate between a proper noun and a common noun in Arabic and yet you seem sure that Abu Lahb is a common name. So what is the secret here? Since arabic is ruled out here, is it your gut feeling? or maybe a little voice in your head? How can you possible tell me Arabic will help me here when Arabic dont diffrentiate between noun and word?
Yaqb.org has 14 english translation. 11 out of those translation dont agree with you. Personally i dont care about that. But this is to show you, even if i had the same knowledge as you did, it wouldnt have done anything for me in this instances. Some things are common sense. Mohammad is a noun. Its a common name, like John, but never the less its a noun. Ridwan is a noun and Abu Lahb is a noun. Just common sense. No article on a website will change that http//www.geocities.com/bigjaxal/s1.gif .
-
SaLaM idmkhizar
Im not putting you on the spot brother. But the way u are saying it, it seem that for some reason having sex is gonna make it all better. Im not saying that the couple should not have sex at all. Yah if they want to have it, its their God given right, but its not going to make the situation any better.
For example, scientific study show that women are more agreeable to emotional decisions after they watch a emotional movie. Ofcourse in my opinion that would be a wrong thing to do if a husband wants children and the wife dont agree so he takes her to watch Titanic and then brings up the point again becoz he knows how emotional she is. That would be decieving. Her argument for not having a child would still remain, only now she is too emotional to bring those up. Just an example.
I am into cars. I street race in my honda civic. And once i get my license, i want to turn it up a notch and race for money and the pink slip. Ofcourse this would mean poruing money into my car. Now if my wife thinks otherwise, will it be fair to use sex as a mean to make her understand my point? Maybe you dont mean it like that. Maybe ur not saying that sex will make the wife more agreeable. Alright. So then sex wont matter at all, wont it? It makes no difference if they have sex or not.
Ok so fine, they had an argument, went away for the day, came back. They are both cooled off and they decide to have sex. Alright. So? What difference had it made? You make it sound like the sex they will have this time will be extra special. Like as if they didnt share the same emotion in their previous sex. Ofcourse if both of them agree that having sex will make it all nice and dandy then that is one thing. But i honestly have never heard using this method before to calm down the tension. If two people are going to talk about an argument, i think their mind should be cleared. Otherwise they might as well put it on snooze until it goes off another time.
Khi- Salam. Sex in itself doesnt change the argument of any of the two, man or woman, but it helps COOL DOWN THE SITUATION which can then be discussed rationally afterwards. Got it? GOD Bless!
-
peace All,
I spoke to brother Anwar (mainly because his knowledge of grammar is much better than mine), and he said it could be either a proper name or a common name (i.e. type of person).
Which is exactly what I thought the theory would say. However, my opinion is that it is a common noun (i.e. type of person).
For Jaxal
http//dictionary.reference.com/search?q=embellishWakas
-
Salam.
I'm not married yet, but I dont think I would like to have sex with someone I'm arguing with. It seems unlogical to me. I think sex should be connected with nice and loving feelings and not angry ones. But as I said, I'm not married so I dont know for sure yet.
sincerely
Nadia -
idmkhizar there are other ways to cool down which would be more appropirate and more accepted. Like taking a walk http//www.geocities.com/bigjaxal/s1.gif
Khi- Salam. Well this is where id disagree with you. Sexual relationships btw husband and wife can release tension much more efficiently than a walk, imo. GOD Bless!
