Hitting One's Wife.
-
Presuming it means beat. But if it does, you could sell 'discouraged' but 'prohibit' no way.
You are right. technically, i don't have the authority to say 'prohibit' but is is strongly discourage without doubt.
-
Please show me a source that is not based on hearsay (X said that Y said that Z said that, etc) and conjecture (X did not decieve Y, so X must be truthful) and that would stand up as evidence in court.
Just, please. Please show me where you have verified this period to be 1400 years as well. Detailed references are a must.
I'm not quite sure what you are after - but for example, I already quoted Zamakshari. He clearly understood the verse to be referring to hitting. Ibn Kathir says the same thing. There is the Hadith of the Prophet where he says it must not be harsh (Ghayr mubarrih) - there are hadiths of the companions about it.
I understand that you reject all this.
My question is - why do you think Zamakhshari, Ibn kathir and all the other scholars over the centuries have all agreed that this verse refers to hitting/beating?
Didn't they understand the Qur'an?
-
peace
As OPF has pointed out before, if we are going to anoint credibility to 1400 years of scholarly 'islamic' opinions, why not 3000 years of christian and jewish scholarly opinions?
Good to see you're still here.
Thanks - and I'm sorry for my earlier behaviour - I should have taken time to acclimatise myself before posting.
I take your point about time being irrelevent.
But my question is basically, why is it that all the past scholars and Qur'an commentators understood this verse to mean hit/beat?
For example Zamakhshari - who I quoted earlier - he understood it to mean Hit/Beat - why did he do that? Didn't he understand the Qur'an properly?
-
I'm not quite sure what you are after - but for example, I already quoted Zamakshari. He clearly understood the verse to be referring to hitting. Ibn Kathir says the same thing. There is the Hadith of the Prophet where he says it must not be harsh (Ghayr mubarrih) - there are hadiths of the companions about it.
I understand that you reject all this.
My question is - why do you think Zamakhshari, Ibn kathir and all the other scholars over the centuries have all agreed that this verse refers to hitting/beating?
Didn't they understand the Qur'an?
I am still waiting for a source that does not include hearsay (1736, 278 and others), conjecture (4157, 6116, 1036, 1066, and many others) or baseless idle tales (316 and others). I have already defined hearsay and conjecture, and surely you know what idle tales are, with your 30 years of experience (hint not music).
There is a game I used to play, as a child, Bukhari Whispers, ahem, Chinese Whispers, it teaches us to never accept information unless it can be verified to be from the original source.
So, please provide a verifiable source and we will get going.
For example Zamakhshari - who I quoted earlier - he understood it to mean Hit/Beat - why did he do that? Didn't he understand the Qur'an properly?
Please refer to the parable of 3928.
-
I am still waiting for a source that does not include hearsay (1736, 278 and others), conjecture (4157, 6116, 1036, 1066, and many others) or baseless idle tales (316 and others). I have already defined hearsay and conjecture, and surely you know what idle tales are, with your 30 years of experience (hint not music).
There is a game I used to play, as a child, Bukhari Whispers, ahem, Chinese Whispers, it teaches us to never accept information unless it can be verified to be from the original source.
So, please provide a verifiable source and we will get going.
Please refer to the parable of 3928.
You confuse me OPF, I'm not sure what you want me to quote. Do you want me to quote the hadiths. You will have to forgive me, but I don't have time to dig up hadiths.
So let's forget hadiths.
If you could please just answer this question only.
Do you agree that all the classical scholars of the Qur'an, such as Zamakhshari, Ibn Kathir, Tabari, Qurtubi, Baydaawi etc... all thought that this verse referred to hitting/beating?
Or are you saying that these scholars said nothing of the sort?
I don't quite understand what you are saying?
-
Since I can't read their texts, I have to take your word for it, that they agreed it referred to beating/hitting.
Did they not also agree to the prophet riding on a magical flying horse?
Also, you have more knowledge, please tell me what their sources were.
-
Since I can't read their texts, I have to take your word for it, that they agreed it referred to beating/hitting.
Did they not also agree to the prophet riding on a magical flying horse?
Also, you have more knowledge, please tell me what their sources were.
Their sources were Hadith, the Arabic language, it's Grammar and the Qur'an itself. (Zamakhshari was an expert on Arabic grammar and wrote a grammar book, a dictionary and many other works that are still used to today)
But my question is this - are you saying that all these classical scholars were mistaken and didn't understand the Qur'an properly?
-
But my question is this - are you saying that all these classical scholars were mistaken and didn't understand the Qur'an properly?
I am completely neutral on this. As you know, I have questions myself. You will not find an answer from me except "I don't know".
So, if they used the same source which states that the prophet rode a magical flying horse, then I will conjecture that they were mistaken and did not understand properly.
-
I am completely neutral on this. As you know, I have questions myself. You will not find an answer from me except "I don't know".
So, if they used the same source which states that the prophet rode a magical flying horse, then I will conjecture that they were mistaken and did not understand properly.
OK, thanks OPF.
Peace.
)
-
satanhatesme you make me laugh because you go on and on about the agendas of others and then you bring in your 19 code miracle stuff... so who has the agenda?
cosmicdancer hypothetically speaking is it not possible that there are other scholars of quran whose works have not made it to us that rejected the meaning of "beat"? to simply say that 1400 years of scholars accepted cannot be based on proven fact. that would be like people of this forum thinking that they are the first ever to question the traditional understandings, when we have no way of knowing for certain that 400 years ago there was not a similar movement. simply because it is the majority understanding at this time does not mean it has always been that way, nor does it mean that there were never movements throughout history that were trying to get to the heart of the matter.
it is akin to the spanish accounts of their conquest of the americas vs the accounts of other cultures... since the spanish destroyed most of the preexisting accounts of the cultures they encountered how can we be certain they are telling the full and exact truth with regards to those cultures? cultures which they claimed were heathen and pagan and did their best to convert or destroy
do remember that you're talking about a book which gives plenty of examples of why not to obey the majority and why not to appeal to historicity and tradition.
-
My question is - why do you think Zamakhshari, Ibn kathir and all the other scholars over the centuries have all agreed that this verse refers to hitting/beating?
Didn't they understand the Qur'an?
Could it be that some "god" must have sealed all those intelligent minds who thought adribu meant hit/beat and decided to wait till 21st century to open up minds of some of his favoured ones? The very belief of an ancient god (s) and goddess (es), have also been hijacked but the body parts remain the same, as it seems. -
hypothetically speaking is it not possible that there are other scholars of quran whose works have not made it to us that rejected the meaning of "beat"?
Anything is possible AaRoN.
It is also possible that Islam (and all religions) are man-made - and have nothing to do with God (if there is one).
-
Could it be that some "god" must have sealed all those intelligent minds who thought adribu meant hit/beat and decided to wait till 21st century to open up minds of some of his favoured ones?
LOL... indeed
-
Peace,
What I'm to say is, perhaps, not very relevant, but it may trigger some relevant thoughts.
If a friend of mine asked me about marital advice, I could actually advise him as a last step to leave his wife, where the word "leave" literally would mean "beat", or "beat her with a bullet". In urdu, we often say "Usko goli maar!" = "Hit him/her/it with a bullet" and it could mean "Just leave it alone", "don't bother with it", "Stop worrying about it" etc, i.e it conveys the idea of distancing oneself. My intonation and body language would leave no doubt as to what I meant. No one would think I said "Shoot your wife", even though those are the words I used. For those who didn't witness my intonation or body language, a minimal amount of brains on their part would assist them in reaching the right meaning.
Perhaps, there is something similar to this in Arabic?
Nadeem
-
Peace,
What I'm to say is, perhaps, not very relevant, but it may trigger some relevant thoughts.
If a friend of mine asked me about marital advice, I could actually advise him as a last step to leave his wife, where the word "leave" literally would mean "beat", or "beat her with a bullet". In urdu, we often say "Usko goli maar!" = "Hit him/her/it with a bullet" and it could mean "Just leave it alone", "don't bother with it", "Stop worrying about it" etc, i.e it conveys the idea of distancing oneself. My intonation and body language would leave no doubt as to what I meant. No one would think I said "Shoot your wife", even though those are the words I used. For those who didn't witness my intonation or body language, a minimal amount of brains on their part would assist them in reaching the right meaning.
Perhaps, there is something similar to this in Arabic?
Nadeem
Interesting point Nadeem.
I'd also like to add some reference to the discussion
Daad-Ra-Ba = to heal, strike, propound as an example, put forth a parable, go, make a journey, travel, mix, avoid, take away, put a cover, shut, mention, state, propound, set forth, compare, liken, seek a way, march own, set, impose, prevent, fight, traffic with anyone's property for a share in the profit, leave for sake, take away thing (with 'an).
Depressed ground, hard ground in a plain, sandy valley, commissioner as he has to travel much.
Kind manner, lean, thin, similar, alike, the act of striking, a blow, going from place to place, vicissitude of life, affliction especially that which relates to one's person, as disease, death, degradation is common and general suffering.
beat, struck, smote, hit, the making a thing fall upon another thing, discipline/train, to cast forth, threw or flung it, seal/stamp, veil/curtain/cover/barrier, to point or make a sign, prohibit/hinder/prevent/withheld/restrain, collision, corrupted/disordered/disturbance/unsettled/confused, turn away, avoid, shun, fashion/mould/adapt, mention or set forth (e.g. a parable/example), explain, make a way, multiplying, go/travel, went away, it was or became long, excite/incite/urge/instigate, contend, dispose/accommodate, retract/digression/transition, to silence, tremble/shiver, share/portion.
Location where something is struck, wool or goat's hair separated or plucked or beaten with a mallet, sword, tent-peg, mallet.daraba vb. (I) - perf. act. 3156, 494, 4101, 5106, 1424, 1445, 1675, 1676, 16112, 1748, 1811, 259, 2539, 3028, 3058, 3678, 3927, 3929, 4317, 4358, 6610, 6611,
impf. act. 226, 850, 1317, 1317, 1425, 1674, 2431, 2431, 2435, 2943, 435, 473, 4727, 5921, 7320,
impv. 260, 273, 434, 7160, 812, 812, 1832, 1845, 2077, 2663, 3613, 3844,
perf. pass. 261, 3112, 3112, 2273, 4357, 5713,
n. vb. 2273, 3793, 474]From http//www.studyquran.co.uk/PRLonline.htm
Peace
-
Peace,
What I'm to say is, perhaps, not very relevant, but it may trigger some relevant thoughts.
If a friend of mine asked me about marital advice, I could actually advise him as a last step to leave his wife, where the word "leave" literally would mean "beat", or "beat her with a bullet". In urdu, we often say "Usko goli maar!" = "Hit him/her/it with a bullet" and it could mean "Just leave it alone", "don't bother with it", "Stop worrying about it" etc, i.e it conveys the idea of distancing oneself. My intonation and body language would leave no doubt as to what I meant. No one would think I said "Shoot your wife", even though those are the words I used. For those who didn't witness my intonation or body language, a minimal amount of brains on their part would assist them in reaching the right meaning.
Perhaps, there is something similar to this in Arabic?
Nadeem
Since the classical scholars had no other way of making an impact on Islamic scholarship other than discussing ever finer details of God's words and bringing up and dissecting every opinion - one would have thought at least ONE would have suggested this might possibly mean "Leave them!".
Instead it is left to the conjecture of people hundreds of years later - many of whom don't understand Arabic?
-
Since the classical scholars had no other way of making an impact on Islamic scholarship other than discussing ever finer details of God's words and bringing up and dissecting every opinion
Through the lens of hadeeth, sure. Maybe they should've gotten out a little more.Instead it is left to the conjecture of people hundreds of years later - many of whom don't understand Arabic?
Whos to say who's conjecturing?
perhaps the one who suggested this got beat by the others )
Most likely. The messengers themselves were beaten, ridiculed and some killed for conveying the truth.
PEACE
-
Through the lens of hadeeth, sure. Maybe they should've gotten out a little more.Whos to say who's conjecturing? Most likely. The messengers themselves were beaten, ridiculed and some killed for conveying the truth.
PEACE
Lens? No, prism.
-
perhaps the one who suggested this got beat by the others
LOL... maybe D