Is a man allowed to beat his wife?
-
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!
-
SaLaM idmkhizar
Well now that this is your opinion i cant really debate with you on this .. can i ) . In my opinion taking a walk will be more effective, better and the most logical step to take. PLUS as nadia said, i wouldnt want to have sex with my wife if im having an argument.
-
SaLaM idmkhizar
Well now that this is your opinion i cant really debate with you on this .. can i . In my opinion taking a walk will be more effective, better and the most logical step to take. PLUS as nadia said, i wouldnt want to have sex with my wife if im having an argument.
Khi- Salam. I suggest you should give it a try if you havnt done it before and then come to a conclusion. GOD Bless!
-
peace Nadia,
Your instincts are correct in my opinion.
Even if the root Dad-Ra-Ba can mean a sexual connection, it does not fit the context or logic of the sign/ayah, as shown by my post.
Not to mention, this meaning would be unique to this occurrence only (as far as I'm aware).
Of course, I am not married either, thus I may be mistaken about the workings of married life. lol
At the end of the day, even if the meaning of iDRiBoohunna in this sign has several options, one could see this sign as a test for the male/husband who follows 'al quran'. Which meaning will they choose?
It wouldn't be the first time, an in-built distinguishing mechanism has been used (e.g. see 37).
Wakas
-
Peace Wakas,
At the end of the day, even if the meaning of iDRiBoohunna in this sign has several options, one could see this sign as a test for the male/husband who follows 'al quran'. Which meaning will they choose?
let me show you my opinion against that option how could God "offer" that option at the expense of the woman?
-
Is a man allowed to beat his wife?
Is a woman allowed to beat her husband?Well that depends on their 'mutual agreeement', when the wife loved/enjoyed being beaten by her husband then its fine and vice versa.... (there are really some people/couples who are really into 'sadomasochism' D ). When its not then it is forbidden.
The rule are simple, and this one is from the "Hadiths of Jesus"
Mat 712
Whatever you shall be wanting that the people shall be doing to you, in the same manner also you be doing to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.My exegis
Whatever you shall be wanting other people shall be doing to you, treat them in the same manner, for this is one of the essence of the Torah and the Nevim and also the Quran which is Justice.PS
I've never beaten any women in my entire life and Insha Allah I never will..Just my 2 cents..
-
peace Elena,
how could God "offer" that option at the expense of the woman?
I said "At the end of the day, even if...", implying as a last resort. I personally dont think 'beat' is logical as I have written, but not everyone will agree with me. This will most likely leave several possible options (unless they think it can only mean 'beat')*.
Given these options, who has most to lose if they make the unjust decision? The husband or the wife?
*DRB is the most multiple-meaning root I have come across in reviewing 400+ roots, so for someone to say with certainty it can only mean 'beat' is unlikely.
If 'al quran' says "give the excess" , well this is another in-built distinguishing mechanism. One might think 1% of what they earn is the excess, whilst others may think 60% is the excess. If I can apply your questioning how could God "offer" that option at the expense of the needy?
Given this flexibility, who has most to lose if they make the unjust decision? The giver or the receiver?
Wakas
-
SaLaM idmkhizar
If that is not being a hypocryte, then i dont know what is. You are telling ME to try it before i come to a conclusion, when YOU YOURSELF havent tried it. Amazing!
Elena, you have an excellent point. Why would God put the woman at risk JUST for the man to go through some test. And what if it is the husband who is disobeying his wife. Should the wife also take a broom and start beating his husband , AS A LAST RESORT? roll
-
Peace Wakas,
Given these options, who has most to lose if they make the unjust decision? The husband or the wife?
If I can apply your questioning how could God "offer" that option at the expense of the needy?
Given this flexibility, who has most to lose if they make the unjust decision? The giver or the receiver?
do you mean the unjust will receive the punishment and the just wife/needy the reward?
If, it reminds me of what the untouchables are told endure the pain now and you will have a better life later.
If you meant another thing, please let me know.
Wakas, some topics are being always discussed, the hands of the thief, daraba, now I see that Lahab was also a point of disagreement before (The Message spells it as a proper noun, did you see it?), poligamy, etc.
There are some threads in the forum about a society based on the quran, but even in this forum a few people can't agree on the meanings of some of the verses.
Will I be wrong if I say that we'll never know?
I just see possible the metaphor/lessons approach.
-
peace Elena,
do you mean the unjust will receive the punishment
Yes.
and the just wife/needy the reward?
Not necessarily. It depends if they were good or not.
(The Message spells it as a proper noun, did you see it?)
Yes, I did see it. I was surprised, especially considering it did not originally say that. 'The Message' had it as "father of flames" for a long time. Lastly, I do not agree with everything in 'The Message'.
There are some threads in the forum about a society based on the quran, but even in this forum a few people can't agree on the meanings of some of the verses.
I do not expect everyone to agree.
Will I be wrong if I say that we'll never know?
Hmm, perhaps. Most of the time though, all it needs is to increase our knowledge, then we can be more certain of answers.
I just noticed, in 434 it is a pre-emptive action, the wife hasn't actually done anything bad yet, as it says "and those whom you fear" thus this makes it even more unlikely that a husabnd is given permission to beat his wife for fearing she may do something bad in the future. To prove this point, can anyone bring forth any example in which pre-emptive punishment is demonstrated in 'al quran'? Once again, if no evidence can be brought, the traditionalists want us to believe that this is the odd-one-out in 'al quran'.
Wakas
