Verse About Hitting Women
-
En the whole nof Qur'an there is nohint no indication whatsoever that women owe obedience to men bit it as husbands or as anything else. So with a time and with the need to have the Qur'an support marital authority, that it is authority of husband over wife, 4.34 was picked for the purpose and was wholy turned into something completey different of what it says.
For one
In the whole of the aya, the question is nto about husbands and wives, no indication of that and that case would just be an instance of the men vs women set.For second
Men are not addressed as such but in the third person, equally women are nto addressed as such but in the third person. The second person plural is the addressee in this aya and in the previous ones and in the follwoing ones. and that second person plural is allathina amanu, the believers, the set of the believers, women and men, as such set and community. No husband is told to do anything to any wife nor any set of men to do anything to any set of women. It is the community who is told to do something with respect to the women (women, not wives) from whom nushuz is feared.For third
No wrong has been doen by any women. IN the hypothesis that there is "fear" (that is no fact has been detecteed,nothing has been done, but somebody may fear this or that), then something is enjoined to allay those fears. But since no wrong has been done by anybody, no punitive measure of any kind can be taken, otherwise it would amount to a blanket freedom for the believers to act on suspition, without any justification. The Qur'an, we know, rejects absolutely such way of conducting affairs en many other passages. So the beating part falls flat on all counts. It is sperpentic.What is being enjoined is to take steps in order to dispel any confusion or unfounded suspitions. Clear the air. The meaning of idribuhunna is clear, it entails to make the women in question aware of what is being said about them, so that they can preclude any unpleasant developments because of those "fears", and if there is any ground for them, to set course to dispel them. Again it does nto have to be wives. Women also exist out of the marriage bond. Just as men.
As to the next aya, where it is about couples. That is another thing where in fact it deals with couples. Another hint that previously it was general, and not specific of couples. As to the madaji3, the sleepping place, there is no sexual connotation to it per se. Modernly it beds have in turned into a euphemistic synonim of sex. Modernly. If we reject that hadithism be blown back on the qur'an to give it meanings alien to it, I cannot see why 20th or 21st centurys ridiculous ways of hinting at sex should be taken as prooven facts. The Qur'an is there, and the Qur'an does ntogive to the madaji3 any sexual connotion. Unless death is considered something sexual, which undoubtedly it could be, but not universally.
4.34 from being an wonder of balance, clarity, meaning and sense, has been turned into a vipers nest where avery nook has been used to pander to every feeling of male lack of self assurance and self-confidence, all along the lines of considering, as per the bible, the male as the basic, fundamental holder of humanity and women as an acillary to the real human title holder, the male. That is so ingrained in the minds that when anyody imagines any humanity in the past or in another planet the images are usually males. In history films, in antropology films, it is almost always men who are shown, except where some female bare breasted can be picked just to give a finer hint of the "savages".
So in this 4.34, whe whole of interpretations, even here, in free minds, are a fucntion of males, always from the point of view of males as the central pieace around which evolves everything else. There is no way to get the full meaning of 4.34 with such and heliocentric, sorry male centric set of prejudgments in the mind.
In fact, from the species point of view, not only the male are not the centre, but manifestly rather apart from it. And I do not mean any disdain with that but point to the fact that from the species point of view, females are more central and males are just as central as they strive to be. Like we could say to a certain extent women are born, men make themselves or do not make themselves. Many times, like prophets, they have been real men who have made themselves, and the Qur'an is full of such beautiful examples, but many times too what males who have not followed the right examples have made themselves a nuisance and not useful members of humanity.
So we can keep dreaming and thinking that the "hidden" that the qanitaat keep is something for the "males" something that pertains to the males. It is not. It is something that pertains to the species and so on with other lacks of consistency in so many lame intepretations of an aya that in itself, when stripped of contrived and self-serving contortions is plain, clear and blanced.
Salaam
-
Dear David S, aqua,
salaam.Perhaps I can help. You both seem to have a point when it comes to lack of an example regarding DRB without preposition meaning separate/leave/shun.
aqua has a point, that a Classical Arabic Dictionary may not cite a working example of every meaning of every form.
However, David also has a point in pointing out that there does not seem to be any example from Classical Arabic Dictionaries of the meaning being claimed. This is a significant point.
It would be helpful if those familiar with Arabic can confirm what Taj al Arus is saying.
In any case, here is what we know so far
aqua's claim regarding the meaning of DRB has no specific working example in Quran or any Classical Arabic Dictionary.
-
Dear David S, aqua,
salaam.Perhaps I can help. You both seem to have a point when it comes to lack of an example regarding DRB without preposition meaning separate/leave/shun.
aqua has a point, that a Classical Arabic Dictionary may not cite a working example of every meaning of every form.
However, David also has a point in pointing out that there does not seem to be any example from Classical Arabic Dictionaries of the meaning being claimed. This is a significant point.
It would be helpful if those familiar with Arabic can confirm what Taj al Arus is saying.
In any case, here is what we know so far
aqua's claim regarding the meaning of DRB has no specific working example in Quran or any Classical Arabic Dictionary.
The difference is of form, I and IV; he has used the prepositional phrase with both without repeating it second time to avoid redudancy because of conjunction waw. Both verbs in this state are intransitive.
-
The difference is of form, I and IV; he has used the prepositional phrase with both without repeating it second time to avoid redudancy because of conjunction waw. Both verbs in this state are intransitive.
If the dictionary wanted to say that, it could have easily said
You're telling me that they got lazy when writing the dictionary and they didn't bother to include the the second time just because of the use of 'Wa' after the previous expression? This is a dictionary, it is no place to be accidentally missing out words or skipping words for no reason within a definition. Instead of simply making claims from your own opinions, please refer to any proper sources to prove that 'Wa' in this context does what you are claiming it to do. Your argument is weak in the context of a dictionary passage. Even Lane's dictionary refers to Taj al-Arus to show the possibility of this meaning without the preposition.
-
Salamun Alaikum
AQ 0419 - O you who have believed, IT IS NOT LAWFUL FOR YOU TO INHERIT WOMEN BY COMPULSION. AND DO NOT CONSTRAINT THEM in order to take part of what you gave them unless they commit a clear immorality. And live with them in kindness. For if you dislike them - perhaps you dislike a thing and ALLAH makes therein much good.
The Almighty GOD will never contradict HIMSELF, by saying in one verse to be kind to the women and in other verse beat them??? The most appropriate understanding of 0434 after reading 0419
AQ 0434 - Men are PROTECTORS of women because what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in absence what Allah would have them guard. But those from whom you fear ill-conduct, than advise them and forsake them in bed and OVERLOOK THEM IF THEY OBEY YOU. So, do not seek against them a way. Indeed, ALLAH is ever Exalted and Grand.
I believe is a one complete sentence and should be read as stated. As such, it will not cause confusion.
Peace
-
In PM I didn't say that. Arabic is not my first language, but I said that I understand the passage 'enough' with my current knowledge of Arabic. In conclusion, you are not only confused, you are also a liar.
Same here, Arabic is also not my language but Malay one.
But I'm type of person who carefully to study something before hastily create a conclusion.aqua's claim regarding the meaning of DRB has no specific working example in Quran or any Classical Arabic Dictionary.
http//s8.postimg.org/6x3vzats5/tak_arus.jpg
This is the only explanation about daraba withouth preposition from Taz al Arus, aqua cited from.
Notice underlined word, it said "beat with stick" and the following senetence is it's explanation.http//s3.postimg.org/7p566dp2b/Untitled.png
The first blue underlined sentence it said something like "I will separated from you who attack (and) move back" and the following sentences is it's explanation.
The second blue underlined sentence it said "Separate fulanan (strangers) from fulan (stranger)!!" and the following sentences is it's explanation.
Conclusion the evidence Mr aqua provided is contrary with his own claim.
Salaam
-
Same here, Arabic is also not my language but Malay one.
But I'm type of person who carefully to study something before hastily create a conclusion.This is the only explanation about daraba withouth preposition from Taz al Arus, aqua cited from.
Notice underlined word, it said "beat with stick" and the following senetence is it's explanation.The first blue underlined sentence it said something like "I will separated from you who attack (and) move back" and the following sentences is it's explanation.
The second blue underlined sentence it said "Separate fulanan (strangers) from fulan (stranger)!!" and the following sentences is it's explanation.
Conclusion the evidence Mr aqua provided is contrary with his own claim.
The first blue sentence is actually part of Qur'anic verse 435 and it means 'Shall We turn away / withdraw from you the reminder, disregarding (you)...". I think you are making yourself look more and more foolish with your ignorance.
-
If the dictionary wanted to say that, it could have easily said
You're telling me that they got lazy when writing the dictionary and they didn't bother to include the the second time just because of the use of 'Wa' after the previous expression? This is a dictionary, it is no place to be accidentally missing out words or skipping words for no reason within a definition. Instead of simply making claims from your own opinions, please refer to any proper sources to prove that 'Wa' in this context does what you are claiming it to do. Your argument is weak in the context of a dictionary passage. Even Lane's dictionary refers to Taj al-Arus to show the possibility of this meaning without the preposition.
can appear in paradigm of verb conjugation but it has no pragmatic meanings without the prepositional phrase. It does not convey any sense unless collocated with another word. It is simple, if you utter this word, I will immediately ask what or from what? Because this word will not convey to me what you wanted to tell. Author of Taj was a linguist, he rightly wrote both the past verbs of different forms with unho.
-
The first blue sentence is actually part of verse 435 of the Qur'an and it means 'Shall We turn away / withdraw from you the reminder, disregarding (you)..." (435). I think you are making yourself look more and more foolish with your ignorance.
Sorry First I don't know if it's part 435 and I thought the word kur and allazi is separated because my eyes doesn't noticed sukun in kaf
But it still Classical Arabic has many meaning depend on it context and the translation you provide is not actual meaning of that sentence and it still cannot change the fact if you're wrong.
-
It is simple, if you utter this word, I will immediately ask what or from what?
Exactly, what 'OR' from what. 'From' is not always required, especially if you are using it in the imperative sense of 'Shun' as in verse 434. Hence, it will read 'shun them'.
Author of Taj was a linguist, he rightly wrote both the past verbs of different forms with unho.
Except he did not write the fourth form with , you are only imagining it there.
-
Exactly, what 'OR' from what. 'From' is not always required, especially if you are using it in the imperative sense of 'Shun' as in verse 434. Hence, it will read 'shun them'.
Except he did not write the fourth form with , you are only imagining it there.
I hope you know about what meanings are and how meanings are reflected or derived from the words. In the types of meaning we find "presupposed meanings"; they are inherent in the word. Taj first mentions the real-world experience and then gives you the example of two verbs of this Root. It tells you about altering the direction of a thing from its existing direction or placement.
Please try to understand by keeping in mind the basic principles of writing; conjunction waw therein associates unho to both the verbs. without "Aen" will not convey complete sense.
