Is a man allowed to beat his wife?
-
Salaam Br Wakas,
Thanks for the info about Abu Lahab, I really didn't have any clue about that.
And yes I meant Muslim as a title, Of course she can be a muslim by her intentions who knows!?
Peace
Sis Majidah -
SaLaM Wakas
abu lahab is not a proper name/noun, it is a description, and it means 'father of flame'.
What? Ofcourse Abu Lahb is a name. Yes, its meaning may be "Father of Flame" but Abu Lahb is a name. ITs a noun. My name is "Ridwan" which means "Guardian Of Paradise" ( so SM, if you want to get in paradise you better be cool with me Loooll kidding ). Ridwan IS a proper name AND noun. So is Abu Lahb
-
-
SaLaM Wakas
Your so-called "argument" in my opinion, is totally out there. Specifically im talking about what u said about Verse 111.1 . I read the article you pointed and forgive me if my opinion on this matter is still the same. The aritical Ayman wrote and the verses he gave were talking about a 3 female godess. Allaat, Al-Uzzah and Manat. Regarding these three fake Gods, what Ayman had to say about these three fake gods was correct. These are mearly names given by people. Its no different than the names given to indian gods such as Ram, Shiva, Kali Ma etc etc. Anyone with common sense will agree to that.
But, when names such Abu Lahb pop up in the Quran, the same principles cannot be applied here. 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.
If you want to believe that the Surah is really referring to "father of the flames" rather than "Abu Lahb" then nothing i will say which will change ur mind or anyone else's who share ur believe. Im completely ok with that . There are 6 billion people on this earth. Not everyone can ever agree on the same thing. But Elena is learning and i believe its only fair that she has both sides of the picture before making a decision. So everytime a refernce is made to this as "father of the flames" i will bring the other side of the picture and put it there so the person who is seeking answers can have it both before he/she makes a decision. You should be ok with. As i am. I believe this is fair.
-
Peace all,
When reading Chapter 111, I understand that Abu Lahab was a named person whose works were evil. The chapter also references his wife as a persecutor, a supporter of her husband's evil works, both of which are condemned. The entire chapter gives us the notion to reflect upon their wrong-doings and their relationship as such, viz-a-viz in forbearance with other verses that mentions these behaviour. Just my thoughts!!!
-
peace be upon you all,
Ayman made a good point a while back, keeping in mind that abu lahab means father of flames
Perhaps another point worth adding to the discussions on Chapter 111 on both threads is that the term "7atab" only occurs one other time in the great reading in 7215.
- And as for the deviators, they were the fuel of hell
7215 is talking about the deviators from the "jinn"/hidden ones.
So if we put 1114 and 7215 together then we get
- And his wife the bearer of the fuel (i.e., the bearer of the deviators from the hidden ones)
The word "7amal" (bear) has many interesting usages that may shed further light on 1114. For example, it means bearing children (3114, 4615). This is interesting because we are also told that the "jinn"/hidden ones are the descendants of "iblis" (1850).
The word "7amal" is also used for the bearing of the trust by humans (3372). It is also talked about often in relation to hell (20100-101, 3518, 2912). We are also told what to avoid bearing in 2286.
I think that perhaps Chapter 111 is concisely giving us a lot more info about the relationship between the "ins"/apparent and the "jinn"/hidden than what immediately meets the eye.
Just a thought.
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman
-
peace be upon you jaxal,
But, when names such Abu Lahb pop up in the Quran, the same principles cannot be applied here. 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.
If you want to believe that the Surah is really referring to "father of the flames" rather than "Abu Lahb" then nothing i will say which will change ur mind or anyone else's who share ur believe. Im completely ok with that ) . There are 6 billion people on this earth. Not everyone can ever agree on the same thing. But Elena is learning and i believe its only fair that she has both sides of the picture before making a decision. So everytime a refernce is made to this as "father of the flames" i will bring the other side of the picture and put it there so the person who is seeking answers can have it both before he/she makes a decision. You should be ok with. As i am. I believe this is fair.
no offense but how does this argument have any logic at all? what do you think abu lahab translates to?
-
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
