I understand. The question then becomes: Is literalism the only view available to MUslims? Perhasps a different thread ...
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
wife beating in quran
- Thread starter GURSIKH
- Start date
Well, you can believe what you want, I choose (because I can) to believe the articles that Badran cited are true, as does my husband and any other male I care about.
Would you briefly explain what the other meaning that they give is?
To me, it's not about believing what I want, the words are really clear in Arabic. Try and ask anyone who knows Arabic about the meaning.
First of all, if you live in Egypt, you should know what tafsears are used by al azhar and the Saudi ministry of islamic affairs.
This is the site of the Saudi ministry of islamic affairs:
http://quran.al-islam.com/Page.aspx?pageid=221&BookID=12&Page=1
You can check tafsears of Tabari, Qortobi, Ibn Katheer and AlJalalin.
They all agree on the meaning that I gave before.
Second, if you speak Arabic, I think the meaning of يضرب should be clear, it doesn't really need all this.
Here you can find the top Arabic dictionaries:
الباحث العربي: قاموس عربي عربي
And I have given a link to Lane's lexicon in a previous post. Try to search them.
Of course you should be familiar with the different forms of the verb or أوزان الفعل and you'll know which form to look for.
This should be really clear to an Arabic speaker. I didn't use a reference for that, but it's clear enough from the lexicon and the dictionaries.
First, we will note that Sahih International (which I quoted before) got it right: "presents an example", same as your quote.
Second, you will remember my words:
"The verb اضرب simply means "beat/strike" when the object is human."
In the verse that you quoted, you'll see that the object is مثلا which is not human. When the object is human, the meaning is very clear (to beat). If you aren't a native Arabic speaker, I think it would be easy to ask about that.
Besides, you should see this meaning in the Lexicon.
If there is such an issue, I think one of the مفسيرين would have got it.
"to beat" metaphrically? I don't think so. Are there any similar occurrences for that?
You are an impressive resource.
This is a good point.
We can check asbab al nuzul [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbab_al-nuzul]:
Altafsir.com - Quranic Science: Context of Revelation -
In short, a man hit his wife (slapped her), so she went with her father to Mohamed who initially said that she should get Qisas. After they left, Mohamed said that Jibril came to him with this verse and he raised (canceled) the Qisas.
I think the meaning should be clear now.
Last edited:
Thank you
I am aware of the story.
You are right and I am surprised that Badran would not notice such an obvious difference.
This narration is highly questionable since the prophet pbuh prohibited slapping women specifically and slapping anyone generally.
I think we should make a distinction between the linguistic aspect of the Qur'anic text and on the other hand the opinions of the scholars. The opinions of the scholars are not divine or sacred, they are human effort that can be right or wrong. Unfortunately, the commentaries of many old scholars carry a certain pattern that's very unfair to women and very inconsistent with Qur'anic values and mostly they don't exceed being their own opinions that are unsupported by authentic Islamic texts. I read things by them that are truly shameful and such dissociation from the Islamic values could be related to the decline of the Islamic civilization at the times of some of them.
Any narration must be authentic regarding its sanad (chain of narrators) and matn (the text and its meaning).
Last edited:
The story can also be found here and it clearly does not contradict Islamic texts. Whether or not it contradicts Islamic principles is precisely the question.
Jay, this was a general statement about the opinions of the scholars. As for that specific story (the story of the woman who was slapped by her husband), I mentioned the reasons for questioning its truthfulness since there is a Prophetic saying (Hadith) that forbids slapping and in another one, he forbade slapping women specifically. And if it was truthful, then we need the scholars to address its contradiction with other Hadiths.
Being in Mohammed Asad's commentary doesn't mean it's not questionable. Asad conveyed what was conveyed in the works of the old scholars.
I also must point to the contradiction in some old scholars' commentaries. They cited that story but at the same time, they said that hitting shouldn't be by slapping!! Moreover, they said that if the man exceeded the unpainful hitting then this requires Qisas (retaliation)!
Last edited:
Understood.
It is mentioned in the tafsears that I pointed to before.
I don't see much contradiction between this and what you mentioned.
Anyway, if you accept al nasikh wal mansookh (abrogation) in quran, you are refusing this based on apparent contradiction?
Feel free to share at any point what is this supposed to be in response of. Or in other words, quote one single thing i said in this thread that contradicts what you just said.
What is this supposed to reveal?
Are you under the false impression that the Saudi Ministry of Islamic affairs, or AL Azhar, have the sole authority to determine what Islam says?
Finally, one of the scholars i heard that acknowledged the various possible interpretations was actually from Al Azhar.
Yes it does. I hope you don't continue very long to rely on this statement as your supposed strong argument.
If you used your own source to look up for the word ضرب, or اضرب, you'll see how much possible meanings are there in it. Which doesn't really support what you've been trying to say. And if you looked for the word used in the Quran itself, you won't get any results.
So in other words, you don't have a source, and you asserted or concluded that supposed rule on your own, okay. I can't verify or negate your claim, i'll have to look further into the matter.
I'm not following.
I wasn't replying to this part in the part you're responding to here. I was replying to this:
Try the stem of the verb (ضرب
or even try the word used (اضربوهن
I've given sites with Arabic tafsears and showed what they say.
Here are some Arabic-English dictionaries:
http://dictionary.sakhr.com/
Arabic English - Dictionary-????? ???? ???????
This is from Lane's Lexicon:
Dad
Check this file:
http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexico...5/00000062.pdf
The stem is ضرب to the lower right of the pdf file.
The form of the verb is ضَرَبَ which is the first one given. You'll see that the meaning is "beat, struck, smote, or hit,"
Particularly the last two sentences. You were talking specifically about ضرب here, and you haven't made the same claim you have made earlier about اضرب, so i was addressing that. It seemed you were suggesting that this is the meaning in general.
Also, you haven't actually supported your claim regarding اضرب, and in general (if you were including ضرب in that), that supposedly they only mean beat when the object is human.
They did.
Or are you saying one of the four you mentioned must have gotten it if that were case? Or one of the older interpretations in general?
If either, no thats not necessary i'm afraid.
If you got the impression that what you think means anything to me you've been greatly misled.
Occurrences for the word used metaphorically?
If so, i'm not aware of any. But there doesn't need to be another one in the Quran in order for it to be possible to be used like that in one instance.
I suspect that you haven't read the thread, and that you don't really know or understand where are the people who are offering different interpretations coming from. If thats the case, i advice to read the thread before posting again.
The reason i think so is because the way you posted that story gave me the impression that you think you brought up something new to the thread, but the story had already been mentioned.
No its not.
Your definition of the word... (separate ...)
They should be more trustworthy especially when they agree.
Then please share his words
I've already given you many dictionaries and a lexicon.
Did you use them?
If you know anything about Arabic, you should be aware that the form of the verb and its context determine the meaning. Which meanings exactly don't support what I say? Give the form of the verb and its context.
I find it hard to believe that you are a native Arabic speaker. If so, I don't think we'll be having such a boring discussion about such a clear word.
Use the dictionaries and lexicon and disprove me.
Don't care. Try to read it again...
That's why I linked to the lexicon, so you can see the meanings in different contexts.
Nice try though.
Check all the meanings given in the lexicon and dictionaries, and find one that differs from that.
I was referring to those acknowledged by Al Azhar...
lol
Then prove your claim.
Then you have no basis for such a claim.
Twisting the meanings of words to suit what one wants a verse to say isn't very honest.
I had a look, but not word for word.
That's your choice.
If you think posting that certain sources have chosen to translate/interpret the word to mean beat rather than separate (or any other possible meaning), negates any of the claims i made in this thread, i shouldn't bother responding to your posts any further as there is no reason to indulge someone who isn't putting the minimal effort to read properly what has been posted and address it based on that (and i won't bother taking you seriously any further).
That doesn't answer my question. If they're not the sole authority (as we both already know) then if they don't acknowledge something, or choose to interpret a verse in a certain way does not discredit other possible interpretations.
Also, whether or not they should be more trust worthy is a matter of opinion. However, there are more than enough reasons in this case for anybody, to question his usual trusted sources regarding the interpretation and translation of this verse.
I have seen that on TV, so i can't share his words. His name is Khalid Al Gindy however, if you might have any luck finding the segment (assuming you would bother to look for it of course, which is something i won't blame you for not doing).
I've already indicated in my previous post whether or not i've used them. Read carefully or don't bother asking me questions that require me to repeat myself (since you have offered me that much courtesy, thats how much you're going to get, if not less).
Again, actually paying attention saves you the time of making silly statements.
I've already did.
That breaks my heart.
I suppose you had hoped for absolute approval of what you posted (perhaps also accompanied by some praise) as you supposedly came in late with all the new and relevant information that is going to make things clear for all of us. Sorry to disappoint you.
You haven't proved anything for me to disprove. I asked you specifically for a source and your answer was "its obvious enough".
Don't post again, really. According to you, you've already posted the obvious straight forward, unchallengable truth, which should be obvious enough for anybody who is honest. You don't need to bother even responding to someone like me.
Thanks for that, that was really amusing. You have made a claim that a certain verb means certain four words, that is not true. Now perhaps you made a mistake in how you wrote your post, or perhaps i simply misunderstood. One thing for sure, i did give your post the best of my attention to try and understand what you were saying.
Too bad that this was one hell of a mistake on my part.
The distinction you made isn't recognized there in the first place. Neither in the lexicon (in which its said "him, or it") or in the dictionaries. Which is why i wanted a source for your claim. My failure to find an example doesn't prove your claim, it only means i've failed to find one, for any of many possible reasons, including that usage being extremely rare.
The issue is not nearly as simple as you'd like it to be. Arabic grammar was created long after the Quran, and word usages and its difference between today and the past for example is an issue (along side the issue of studying grammar) that requires extensive study. I do not claim to be able to reach any sort of definitive conclusion regarding the matter (at least until i make such studies), however i offered throughout the thread other possible interpretations based on various reasons, accepted by Muslim scholars. Thats really all i need to do regarding the subject at hand.
All that said though, here's a possible example:
View attachment Untitled555.png
An example to make it clearer: جاء الصقيع و أضرب القوم
I'm not sure whether or not the object being plural makes a difference, but its human in this case. And it clearly doesn't mean "beat".
Then your statement was completely useless in regards to what has been said and offered in this thread.
I haven't made one that needs proving. As like i said, there doesn't need to be a specific similar example in the Quran for this word being used metaphorically in order for it to be used as such in an instance (or at least i'm not aware of any reason as to why this should be a requirement).
Interpretation of verses of the Quran, unlike what one of your posts not aimed at me suggests, includes in context within Islamic teachings. So, if a teaching as understood literally, contradicts others, or the general teachings of Islam, that in my view should certainly open the possibility.
Yes i do.
Your ignorance and bias regarding the subject isn't something to be blamed on me or my honesty.
What a surprise.
Of course it is.
Last edited:
Wow. I can't remember the last time I got so lost so fast in a subject that I find so relevant. It's frustrating ...
Last edited:
I didn't see any linguistic source you gave to back your claims, against the lexicon definitions that I gave.
What sources did he give?
Or just his opinion?
Nothing deserves a reply here...
This explains all....
All that said though, here's a possible example:
An example to make it clearer: جاء الصقيع و أضرب القوم
I'm not sure whether or not the object being plural makes a difference, but its human in this case. And it clearly doesn't mean "beat".
You can't tell the difference between the subject and the object, nor between اوزان الفعل (al awzan).
Here's a small Arabic Grammar lesson for you:
1-The verb in your image is أضرب wazn: أفعل , not ضرب wazn: فعل
So the meaning is different.
2-
القوم is a subject (فاعل
not an object (مفعول به.In Arabic, the subject is مرفوع like: القومُ
The object, on the other hand, is منصوب like: القومَ
The difference is in the Mark on the last letter of the verb.
The word is obviously مرفوع that is القومُ has a ُ (dhamma) on its last letter, so it is a subject not an object. (This is one of the simplest and most basic rules in Arabic grammar!)
Still my statement holds:
When the object of اضرب is human, the verb means beat or strike.
Now you check this (from Lane's lexicon):
ضَرَبَه is the verb ضَرَبَ the same wazn used in the verse (فَعَلَ
It is attached to ه which is an object pronoun, again the same like in the verse, but in past tense.
The meanings given are "beat/struck/.." him/it.
(Of course him refers to a human object)
him/it is the object pronoun (in the verse: a pronoun referring to "wives")
This is the only instance in the lexicon entry of ضرب in which you will find this construction and it means beat/strike.
Some more personal attack to which I don't reply...
Last edited:
But something interesting is happening in the text that I think strongly suggests an atypical interpretation. My translation reads:
And as for those women whose ill-will you have reason to fear, admonish them [first]; then leave them; and then leave them alone in bed; then beat them; and if thereupon they pay you no heed, do not seek to harm them. Behold, God is indeed most high, great!
Assuming of course that my translation is reasonably good, the over-arching message seems to be one of mandating a response to a wife's deliberate and persistent bad behavior that, first and foremost, does not seek to harm her. The word 'beat' seems wholly out of place.
Rakhel
Well-Known Member
OMG! Are you actually giving an Egyptian, whose first language is Arabic, a lesson in Arabic?I didn't see any linguistic source you gave to back your claims, against the lexicon definitions that I gave.
What sources did he give?
Or just his opinion?
Nothing deserves a reply here...
This explains all.
You can't tell the difference between the subject and the object, nor between اوزان الفعل (al awzan).
Here's a small Arabic Grammar lesson for you:
1-The verb in your image is أضرب wazn: أفعل , not ضرب wazn: فعل
So the meaning is different.
2-
القوم is a subject (فاعل
In Arabic, the subject is مرفوع like: القومُ
The object, on the other hand, is منصوب like: القومَ
The difference is in the Mark on the last letter of the verb.
The word is obviously مرفوع that is القومُ has a ُ (dhamma) on its last letter, so it is a subject not an object. (This is one of the simplest and most basic rules in Arabic grammar!)
Still my statement holds:
When the object of اضرب is human, the verb means beat or strike.
Now you check this (from Lane's lexicon):
ضَرَبَه is the verb ضَرَبَ the same wazn used in the verse (فَعَلَ
It is attached to ه which is an object pronoun, again the same like in the verse, but in past tense.
The meanings given are "beat/struck/.." him/it.
(Of course him refers to a human object)
him/it is the object pronoun (in the verse: a pronoun referring to "wives")
This is the only instance in the lexicon entry of ضرب in which you will find this construction and it means beat/strike.
Some more personal attack to which I don't reply...
waitasec
Veteran Member
my question is
if the quran is perfect, then why all the disagreement of its message?
seems to me the message shouldn't be subjected to anyones interpretation but
rather understood the way it was meant to be understood
that is if the quran is received as an unchangeable standard
if the quran is perfect, then why all the disagreement of its message?
seems to me the message shouldn't be subjected to anyones interpretation but
rather understood the way it was meant to be understood
that is if the quran is received as an unchangeable standard