Beating Women
-
Hello All
The scan is talking about totally something else, it is talking about the word Idrab along with another word with it to mean Separate FROM, that word is An
do I need to say more?
it is in the bloody scan, all the Arabic examples in the scan have the word An and that is not Huna
as I said I challenge anyone but Tanveer to prove me wrong
Salam
-
Peace all,
I am going to save this post too, so Ahmed cannot wiggle out of it later on by editing it. Keep digging your own hole !!
Hello All
The scan is talking about totally something else, it is talking about the word Idrab along with another word with it to mean Separate FROM, that word is An
do I need to say more?
it is in the bloody scan, all the Arabic examples in the scan have the word An and that is not Huna
as I said I challenge anyone but Tanveer to prove me wrong
Salam
-
Hello All
Allah has given us a clear example in the Quran regarding the use of the word Idrab along with the word An to mean ?To turn away?, let?s have a look
Shall We then turn away the Message from you and repel (you), for that ye are a people transgressing beyond bounds?
(5)
-> See, ? ?, ?Afanadrab Ankum?, ?Turn Away from?
I.e. we need the word ?An?, ? ? along with the word ?Daraba?, ? ? for the two words to conclusively means ?To turn away?
On the other hand if you drop the word ?An?, ? ? then play with the meaning of the word Daraba on its own, is nothing but a clear cut case of following conjectures and the following verse maybe triggered then
Wert thou to follow the common run of those on earth, they will lead thee away from the way of Allah. They follow nothing but conjecture they do nothing but lie?
(116)
-> See, ? They follow nothing but conjecture they do nothing but lie?
My final say is this
If verse 434 to mean ?Turn away from them?, then it should not be looking like this
??, ?Wa Idrabuhuna?, ?And beat them?
Rather be looking like this
? ?, ?Wa Idrabu Anhuna?, ?And turn away from them?
I rest my case forever
Salam
-
Peace all,
As everyone can see from Lane Lexicon that "idraba" and "idraba 3anha" can have the same meaning so "idraba" can be used instead of "idraba 3anha" for the same meaning.
-
Lol
i guess one should engage in a discussion about the meaning of "khalidoun" or "forever" with ahmed. Might be interesting !
Peace all,
lkHi elke
not interested
-
Peace all
I suspect enough days have passed for our emotions and egos to settle down. I didn't intend for my questioning to lead to attacks like this... and it kind of bothers me that my questions led to ugliness like that.
Anyways, i think bro Ahmed is right. We need an outside person who can understand classical arabic to judge. I only know bro Ahmed who has that kind of knowledge - so if anyone knows of anyone else on this forum that does not have any biased opinion (hard to find i know lol) who can only explain the arabic, that would be great.
But if we can't i think we can still do it on our own using bro Tanveer's uploaded definition. To me, and i may be wrong, it seems like the definition is saying edrab or edrab 3anhunna = separate from. But i don't understand all the abreviations and initials in between and the symbols and such so i may be off. It could be referring to present OR past form of daraba + 3anhunna = separate from.
It's interesting to note that traditional interpretation also uses daraba = to hit. Now i know many of you will say "yes because they have an agenda to stay in control and power struggles and bla bla bla". True, but just follow my logic to the end... If that were the case, why would they cite a hadith stating that the beating is just symbolic of saying "i'm not happy with you these days" and you only use a toothbrush to do that. To me, it seems as though they too had an issue with the verse's meaning and tried to water it down in order to please people. That would mean they aren't trying to bank in on some sort of power struggle, and in reality, they had some heartburn with this verse and wanted to find a way around it. So if they did have heartburn with the verse, don't you think they would have investigated the meaning of the words? And had they found meanings that would be easier to swallow, don't you think they would have used them instead of making a huge circle with hadith and toothbrushes? This leads me to believe that there is one definition for that given phrase and they had issues with it so they found a hadith to make it easier for people to follow it.
That's just a side note. Has nothing to do with the definition - which i think now we all agree is the root of the issue. So we still need to either (1) find an objective person who is highly knowledgable in classical arabic, or (2) figure out what all the abreviations and initials and symbols mean in between the definition posted by bro Tanveer.
-
Hello Sister
Please don'tbet mixed up with the odd way this confusing dictionary is put down, indeed it is hard to read and you can't make a complete sentence out of it is just pure listing after each other and next to each other
now where it says that Adraba AN = Adraba, it is actually a common use in Arabic, this is also the same common use in english
let me explain what that confusing dictionary meant
the word Adraba (please note the A at the start), means to go on a strike,
for example Adraba An Al Taam, means go on a strike FROM food
Adraba An Al Amal, means go on a strike FROM work,
but you can briefly say it Adraba, i.e. go on a strike, however somewhere within the context of the sentence an explanation must be given to what exactly will be striken FROM, is it from food, or is it from work, or is from medicine etc etc, if you say someone went on a strike period, it will be very vague and meaningless, unless you say Bus drivers went on a strike and we can understand that it is a strike from work, same with teachers when they strike
now that thing called Adraba, "A strike" can not apply between a husband and wife logically, and in addition to that I explained with Arabic example that it should be "Adribu Anhuna" and not "Idrabuhuna", if you don't believe me still then this should clear it for you but please find someone who speaks arabic to tranlsate it for you and you will see clearly what i'm talking about
this is a link for the most popular Arabic dictionaries with the search result for the word Daraba, please have a look and you will see that even one dictioanry used the verse I used to explain the words Darab An
http//lexicons.ajeeb.com/idrisidic_1.asp?Sub=%d6%d1%c8
Salam
-
Peace all,
It's interesting to note that traditional interpretation also uses daraba = to hit. Now i know many of you will say "yes because they have an agenda to stay in control and power struggles and bla bla bla". True, but just follow my logic to the end... If that were the case, why would they cite a hadith stating that the beating is just symbolic of saying "i'm not happy with you these days" and you only use a toothbrush to do that. To me, it seems as though they too had an issue with the verse's meaning and tried to water it down in order to please people. That would mean they aren't trying to bank in on some sort of power struggle, and in reality, they had some heartburn with this verse and wanted to find a way around it. So if they did have heartburn with the verse, don't you think they would have investigated the meaning of the words? And had they found meanings that would be easier to swallow, don't you think they would have used them instead of making a huge circle with hadith and toothbrushes? This leads me to believe that there is one definition for that given phrase and they had issues with it so they found a hadith to make it easier for people to follow it.
This is an age-old malady of the sectarians. They first mistranslate the qur'aan and then they invent/fabricate/conjecture false "hadeeth" and falsely attribute them to the Prophet to "explain" their mistranslations. This is not the only place in al-qur'aan they have done that, but in numerous other places too. If people stop doing this, Iblis will be out of job >
As everyone can clearly see from the scan posted from Lane Lexicon that "idrab" and "idra 3anha" can have the same meaning. Please note where it says AS ALSO "IDRAB" "IDRAB 3ANHA". There is no confusion about it. The "AS ALSO" and "" make that crystal clear.
As everyone can also see that BOTH can mean "avoided, shunned, left". You don't have to put a "from" there, e.g. avoid her, shun her, leave her. Now who are we being told to avoid/shun/leave in 434 ? Its "hunna" or them. Thus "idribuhunna" and "idribu 3anhunna" will have the same meaning. Even Ahmed agrees to that
but you can briefly say it Adraba, i.e. go on a strike, however somewhere within the context of the sentence an explanation must be given to what exactly will be striken FROM, is it from food, or is it from work, or is from medicine etc etc,
Who is them ? the wives who commit nushooz. Within the context of 434, this information is clearly given. Thus everyone can see exactly who 434 is telling us to avoid, shun, leave i.e. "idribuhunna" or avoid them, shun them, leave them (the wives committing nushooz). Thus the meaning would not be "strike from them" but "avoid them, shun them, leave them".
-
Peace all,
Interesting that this debate is still going on...
I thought the use of
Darabthroughout the Quran was very clear that the natural state of the word was not beat, but I guess old ideas die hard.The scan by Tanveer was also very clear of its acknowledged dual use until today.
Arabic is a language (like many others) that does not have one use for a word, but rather it is the context that determines the meaning.
For example, throughout this discussion I did not see one person raise any object that the word
wais being understood and implemented as then rather than using its natural state of and (i.e. if we stuck to the one meaning approach for words then we would say that the 3 steps listed in verse 434 are all to be done at the same time since God used the wordwarather than the wordthuma). However, everyone accepts that thewahere signifies a state (haal) and is not therefore viewed as its natural state of being (harf atff).Therefore, if you have accepted the meaning of
wabased on the context, then why deny the similar approach to the worddarabbased on its context also?Finally, sister Boost asked why the people before could not see this understanding of the verse...My answer is as follows
`And we place shields over their hearts, that they should not understand it, and a deafness in their ears. And if you mention your Lord in the Quran alone, they run away turning their backs in aversion. (1746)
God`s words are only understood with His permission, irrsepective of the skills in the language that the reader may posses.
-
To me, and i may be wrong, it seems like the definition is saying edrab or edrab 3anhunna = separate from. But i don't understand all the abreviations and initials in between and the symbols and such so i may be off. It could be referring to present OR past form of daraba + 3anhunna = separate from.
Hello sister
btw that daraba + 3anhunna is not the same as darabahuna
they thefirst is 3 words and the second is 2 words
also Idrabuhuna does not exist in the scan provided by Tanveer
Salam
-
For example, throughout this discussion I did not see one person raise any object that the word
wais being understood and implemented as then rather than using its natural state of and (i.e. if we stuck to the one meaning approach for words then we would say that the 3 steps listed in verse 434 are all to be done at the same time since God used the wordwarather than the wordthuma). However, everyone accepts that thewahere signifies a state (haal) and is not therefore viewed as its natural state of being (harf atff).Therefore, if you have accepted the meaning of
wabased on the context, then why deny the similar approach to the worddarabbased on its context also?Hello
actually if you read 434 and 435 again , you will see clearly that they are 4 options not 3 and as you can see that the fourth option listed in 435 and it starts with a waw, therefore according to your understanding the four option must happen together which include option 4 which is Hakam from his family and Hakam from her family, i.e. it is now almost heading for divorce
therefore what you are suggesting does not make sense
Salam
-
I have written an article on verse 434 of the Qur'an, a verse which has commonly been misinterpreted to justify violence against women. I have created a website to publish this article www.quranverse434.com
-
salaam aqua,
Your article suffers from multiple problems as highlighted here
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599954.msg347142#msg347142"withdraw/turn away / go away from them"
Requires the tashkeel of present day Arabic Quran to be incorrect
This alleged usage in 434 occurs in 435 with the preposition "Aan", thus making Quran seems inconsistent IF it did mean that in 434
No identical example of this DRB usage in Quran
No explanation of how the authority are notified
It is unclear to what extent one separates, how they can do so without being unjust etc
No supporting marital example in Quran
My view Impractical result when inserted into 4128-130 and somehow requires iAAradan to be a positive thing and potentially makes Drb/3rD similar"cite them" www.Quran434.com
Works perfectly with the tashkeel in the present day Arabic Quran
Several identical examples of this DRB usage in Quran, including when humans are the direct object as in 434
Explains how the authority is notified by 435, and provides perfect logical/sequential coherence
DRB use is clear and simple to implement practically
581-4 provides perfect coherence in terms of marital example
When inserted into 4128-130 provides a complementary practical and coherent solutionIn fact there were more issues in your article. If you begin your own thread for your article I'd be happy to highlight them for you to respond to.
Interestingly, in your work you do not reference www.Quran434.com where you clearly got a lot of information from.
-
salaam aqua,
Your article suffers from multiple problems as highlighted here
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599954.msg347142#msg347142In fact there were more issues in your article. If you begin your own thread for your article I'd be happy to highlight them for you to respond to.
Interestingly, in your work you do not reference www.Quran434.com where you clearly got a lot of information from.
Wow, you posted the same post in a lot of threads.
-
Your article suffers from multiple problems as highlighted here
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599954.msg347142#msg347142The article addresses all those points, except for providing a specific 'marital example' in the Qur'an which I don't think is necessary because the Qur'an does not need to provide anecdotal examples for every single guidance or instruction it gives.
One of the images in my article was incorrectly linked in the section 'Transitive verb taking a direct object', but I have fixed that now. Here is the image
http//www.quranverse434.com/media/marked-a_new_approach_to_teaching_arabic_grammar-abd_allah_na%E1%B9%A3ir_al-din_abdallah_nacereddine_p145.png
Interestingly, in your work you do not reference www.Quran434.com where you clearly got a lot of information from.
It is not true that I 'got a lot of information from' your website. In fact, the only information I can recall from your website is a Qur'anic verse about Prophet Joseph being put forward as an example. Even then, I quoted the Qur'anic verse in my article, not your website. Your website takes a very different view to the meaning of 'Da-Ra-Ba', so it does not make sense for me to reference your work.
-
On closer inspection of your work, actually, "some" would have been a better word choice than "a lot", my bad.
In fact there were more issues in your article. If you begin your own thread for your article I'd be happy to highlight them for you to respond to.
We can go through them here if you prefer. Let's start with some key ones
In my view, you do not cite any marital examples in Quran because none exist that support your position. Similarly, no Quranic usage of DRB exists that supports your position. However, you do attempt to make such a claim with the following
Verse 4357 uses Da-Ra-Ba as a transitive verb with a human object, similar to verse 434, where Prophet Jesus is 'put forth' or put forward as an example. Keeping in mind that an act of separation or withdrawal is also effectively a form of 'putting forth' or 'going forth from' something or someone, this example provides consistency in the Qur'anic usage of the verb.
Unfortunately for you, your understanding of the two verses above results in opposition, i.e. "putting forth/forward X" is opposite to "going forth from X".
Now readers, and hopefully you, will understand why Quran perfectly uses the preposition "Aan" /from in 435 to signify the opposite of DRB (i.e. putting forth) is occurring.
You also never told us if the verb DRB in 4357 can be 4th form as you claim for DRB in 434 , considering you said "this example provides consistency in the Qur'anic usage of the verb.". If it is not 4th form verb, you will have to concede you have zero examples from Quran of this DRB verb meaning what you claim it does.
Quote from your work
It should be realised that the Qur'an was revealed to Prophet Muhammad without those additional diacritics and it was left with us in the simplest form
Can you explain the first point in your above sentence? e.g. was revelation recited to him, or all he got was some sort of visualisation of Arabic ayat with no diacritics and he then somehow managed to recite it correctly, or something else?
-
In my view, you do not cite any marital examples in Quran because none exist that support your position.
Are you saying the Qur'an gives an anecdotal example / real life story for every single command / instruction / guidance it gives?
Unfortunately for you, your understanding of the two verses above results in opposition, i.e. "putting forth/forward X" is opposite to "going forth from X".
It's two ways of saying the same thing. If someone separates from their wife, then their wife is separating from them too. One is saying 'shun them' and the other is saying 'shun from you'.
You also never told us if the verb DRB in 4357 can be 4th form as you claim for DRB in 434 , considering you said "this example provides consistency in the Qur'anic usage of the verb.". If it is not 4th form verb, you will have to concede you have zero examples from Quran of this DRB verb meaning what you claim it does.
You didn't quote the previous part of that sentence, "Keeping in mind that an act of separation or withdrawal is also effectively a form of 'putting forth' or 'going forth from' something or someone...". Separation is an act of putting something forth (from you), but in the imperative, there's no need to say 'from you' because you can just say, 'put forth them', or 'put them forth' with the same meaning.
Can you explain the first point in your above sentence? e.g. was revelation recited to him, or all he got was some sort of visualisation of Arabic ayat with no diacritics and he then somehow managed to recite it correctly, or something else?
I believe the Qur'an was written during the lifetime of Prophet Muhammad while he was alive. It was recited to him but it was written down and authorised by him in the non-diacritics form before he died.
-
Are you saying the Qur'an gives an anecdotal example / real life story for every single command / instruction / guidance it gives?
I have not studied this aspect, so do not know. All I know is no marital example supports your position.
And the day We send in every nation a witness against them from themselves, and We have brought you as a witness against these. And We have sent down to you the Book as a explanation for all things, and a guide and mercy and good tidings to the Submitters.
...And everything We have distinctly/clearly explained.
And We have cited in this Quran every example for the people. But man was always most argumentative.
It's two ways of saying the same thing. If someone separates from their wife, then their wife is separating from them too. One is saying 'shun them' and the other is saying 'shun from you'.
I disagree, as it results in an opposite meaning, as I said.
You didn't quote the previous part of that sentence, "Keeping in mind that an act of separation or withdrawal is also effectively a form of 'putting forth' or 'going forth from' something or someone...". Separation is an act of putting something forth (from you), but in the imperative, there's no need to say 'from you' because you can just say, 'put forth them', or 'put them forth' with the same meaning.
That does not answer my point. The point I am making is you have no example from Quran of DRB usage in the form you claim for 434 meaning what you say it means. This is fact.
As I said - you have no marital example, and no DRB example - to support your view. The only things you have that support your view are
- what you are saying seems to be theoretically possible (just like it is theoretically possible for DRB to mean many things)
- Quran's internal principles/examples clearly go against a wife-hitting/beating interpretation
I personally don't consider that strong evidence, others might. In addition to the above, here is what I consider much stronger evidence, from www.Quran434.com
The understanding of DRB in 434 as "cite / indicate / put/show forth them" (to the authority) is the ONLY understanding that provides perfect internal coherence in The Quran. It is the ONLY understanding
- that provides a sequential link from 434 to 435
- to provide identical solutions between men & women in 434 and 4128
- that fits and perfectly explains 581-4
- that fits the divorce procedure of The Quran and related compensation
- that explains the reasoning behind the context of wealth/inheritance/giving/kindness etc.
- is consistent with the use of DRB with a direct object with no prepositions, in which it always means "put/show forth"
- that 100% matches the use of DRB when used with a person as the object, e.g. 273, 4357.
8 ) that provides a practical and easy to understand application in the context - works with the tashkeel in present day Arabic Quran
I believe the Qur'an was written during the lifetime of Prophet Muhammad while he was alive. It was recited to him but it was written down and authorised by him in the non-diacritics form before he died.
Exactly. It was recited to him in a specific recitation BUT recorded as a non-specific recitation i.e. Arabic text written down with no diacritics.
In such a case, with regard to 434 are you of the view that a believer can interpret Quran in a way that is theoretically possible (e.g. your view or my view) and either is fine, or there is only one correct view (i.e. only one correct recitation)?
