wife beating in quran

[Mark2020]

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.

This is from Saheeh Int:
But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.

Ibn Katheer gives the same meaning, that is, if they obey after being beaten, men shouldn't forsake or beat them.

 

[Badran]

I didn't see any linguistic source you gave to back your claims, against the lexicon definitions that I gave.

That wasn't in response to the linguistic part.

What sources did he give?
Or just his opinion?

His opinion.

This explains all.
You can't tell the difference between the subject and the object,

I can, but i'll explain why i made this mistake.

nor between اوزان الفعل (al awzan).

Thats not true however, and i'll also explain why.

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.

And this why i haven't made a mistake in this part, here was your claim that i was addressing in this part:

The verb اضرب simply means "beat/strike" when the object is human. It doesn't mean "separate from".

You said اضرب, not ضرب in this specific part.

2-
القوم is a subject (فاع&#1604 not an object (مفعول ب&#1607.
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!)

Quite right, i missed it because the way it was presented in the dictionary as a sentence on its own, i had assumed they had meant it like the illustrative example i gave after the picture, and i forgot to check the marks.

Still my statement holds:
When the object of اضرب is human, the verb means beat or strike.

It still holds as a claim, yes.

Now you check this (from Lane's lexicon):

ضَرَبَه is the verb ضَرَبَ the same wazn used in the verse (فَعَل&#1614
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.

I have already seen this.

Some more personal attack to which I don't reply...

You implied that what i was doing wasn't honest, and i commented on you only in regards to this subject too. It wasn't really a personal attack, and if it was it certainly wasn't worse than the one you made about me.

 

[Mark2020]

That wasn't in response to the linguistic part.
His opinion.

So we have no proofs/sources here.

I can, but i'll explain why i made this mistake.
Thats not true however, and i'll also explain why.

(In explaining this, you made another mistake)

And this why i haven't made a mistake in this part, here was your claim that i was addressing in this part:

You said اضرب, not ضرب in this specific part.

Quite right, i missed it because the way it was presented in the dictionary as a sentence on its own, i has assumed they had meant it like the illustrative example i gave after the picture, and i forgot to check the marks.

This is too simple really to be mistaken

But here's another small grammar lesson for you:

wazn افعل is imperative of wazn فعل
wazn أفعل (notice the hamza on the aleph) is past tense of the same wan أفعل
The hamza (or the Mark on the aleph) makes the difference.
But the contexts are really obvious so they shouldn't be confused together.

(so this is your third mistake)

It still holds as a claim, yes.

... which I proved in the following part.

You implied that what i was doing wasn't honest, and i commented on you only in regards to this subject too. It wasn't really a personal attack, and if it was it certainly wasn't worse than the one you made about me.

I didn't accuse you personally of dishonesty, it was a general statement for those who give such translations that try to twist the obvious meanings of clear words.

 

[Mark2020]

OMG! Are you actually giving an Egyptian, whose first language is Arabic, a lesson in Arabic?

Yes!
That's pretty basic really, but I studied advanced Arabic grammar too.

 

[Rakhel]

Yes!
That's pretty basic really, but I studied advanced Arabic grammar too.

you don't see the absolute absurdity in what you are doing?
My next question is:
Is the Arabic language not allowed homonyms?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

seems to me the message shouldn't be subjected to anyones interpretation ...

Thanks for sharing.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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 ---- heed, do not seek to harm them. Behold, God is indeed most high, great!​

...

My mistake ...

 

[Mark2020]

you don't see the absolute absurdity in what you are doing?

Nope

My next question is:
Is the Arabic language not allowed homonyms?

Yes, there are homonyms in Arabic, but this is not one.

 

[Rakhel]

if there were only an emoticon for "shaking head in disbelief," I'd us it.

 

[waitasec]

homonyms....in passages such as how to treat another human being i think should have been avoided in order to convey the true meaning.
but then again, it's as if people are not to be trusted as to how they should figure out how to treat one another...

 

[Badran]

So we have no proofs

And if you had read the thread you would have realized that no claims of "proofs" have been made.

/sources here.

Sources have been provided. The sources weren't proofs however, because nobody was supposedly presenting any like i mentioned. They were presenting alternative interpretations to the more commonly accepted ones. You came in later and basically stated the obvious. Stated what was already acknowledged.

(In explaining this, you made another mistake)

This is too simple really to be mistaken

But here's another small grammar lesson for you:

wazn افعل is imperative of wazn فعل
wazn أفعل (notice the hamza on the aleph) is past tense of the same wan أفعل
The hamza (or the Mark on the aleph) makes the difference.
But the contexts are really obvious so they shouldn't be confused together.

(so this is your third mistake)

Well, right again

I was never good at grammar in school, and i'm worse now.

... which I proved in the following part.

Nope, not to me you haven't. And i explained why earlier.

I didn't accuse you personally of dishonesty, it was a general statement for those who give such translations that try to twist the obvious meanings of clear words.

And i was the one giving those translations which supposedly twist the "obvious" meaning, and you were addressing me in that post.

 

[atanu]

homonyms....in passages such as how to treat another human being i think should have been avoided in order to convey the true meaning.
but then again, it's as if people are not to be trusted as to how they should figure out how to treat one another...

You have brought in a most crucial point, knowingly or unknowingly.

Scripture is not needed to know that one should drink water when thirsty or such. Scripture delivers knowledge that sensual mind has no way to know.

The message in the said verse should be sifted from this perspective. What this verse teaches me that i did not know? It teaches me about a special role of women. Knowing that, the question of beating or striking a woman becomes a moot point.

 

[waitasec]

You have brought in a most crucial point, knowingly or unknowingly.

Scripture is not needed to know that one should drink water when thirsty or such. Scripture delivers knowledge that sensual mind has no way to know.

The message in the said verse should be sifted from this perspective. What this verse teaches me that i did not know? It teaches me about a special role of women. Knowing that, the question of beating or striking a woman becomes a moot point.

so are you saying you didn't know how to value women before?

i would argue that people do know the value others and when mixed with the tendency of taking a lemon and making lemonade out of it, is which is ultimately a human trait...shows how passages like these are indeed moot.

 

[atanu]

so are you saying you didn't know how to value women before?

Read again and again, but first clear your mind of preconception.

 

[Mark2020]

And if you had read the thread you would have realized that no claims of "proofs" have been made.
Sources have been provided. The sources weren't proofs however, because nobody was supposedly presenting any like i mentioned. They were presenting alternative interpretations to the more commonly accepted ones. You came in later and basically stated the obvious. Stated what was already acknowledged.

Do we have a reference about Arabic language that says that such a construction can be translated "separated from" or anything other that "beat/strike" ?

Well, right again

I was never good at grammar in school, and i'm worse now.

It's not the easiest language to learn

Nope, not to me you haven't. And i explained why earlier.

I gave the lexicon definition for the verb on the same wazn and in the same context.
The fact that such a construction doesn't have other meanings in the lexicon should be enough.
Otherwise, you should find another definition.

And i was the one giving those translations which supposedly twist the "obvious" meaning, and you were addressing me in that post.

If you check my first post here, you'll find that I quoted a translation given in the first page of this thread. I replied because it was an obvious mistranslation, and the meaning of the word is very clear in Arabic. I didn't refer to you or to the person that copied the translation. It is the dishonesty of the translator.

 

[beenie]

homonyms....in passages such as how to treat another human being i think should have been avoided in order to convey the true meaning.
but then again, it's as if people are not to be trusted as to how they should figure out how to treat one another...

Should be simple, don't you think?

 

[waitasec]

Read again and again, but first clear your mind of preconception.

there is no preconceived notion hence the confusion smilie

It teaches me about a special role of women....

i understand that as an over generalizing of a specific gender...
genders do not have a role other than being that gender which is ultimately subjected to being a human being first...


edit:
roles place limitations on genders.
if you met me and said, waitasec you are funny...
i would say, no i'm not...i'm more than just being funny

do you see what i mean?

 

[waitasec]

Should be simple, don't you think?

apparently not when passages that are misunderstood/ambiguous are used as justification for the mistreatment of others.

:sad:

 

[Badran]

Do we have a reference about Arabic language that says that such a construction can be translated "separated from" or anything other that "beat/strike" ?

Not sure what you mean by a reference about Arabic language, but i shared some examples i found in post #65 that cover some other possible interpretations and meanings.

It's not the easiest language to learn

Yeah

And i was pretty lazy in school

I gave the lexicon definition for the verb on the same wazn and in the same context.
The fact that such a construction doesn't have other meanings in the lexicon should be enough.
Otherwise, you should find another definition.

Like i tried to indicate earlier, the issue is not as simple as that. I would need to do some serious research before i exclude the possibility of finding that usage for the word.

Again though, like i said earlier, i'm not negating your claim. I am however saying that the word not being there in the lexicon isn't a proof for me that it has no such usage, neither is my failure to find it in a quick search.

If you check my first post here, you'll find that I quoted a translation given in the first page of this thread. I replied because it was an obvious mistranslation, and the meaning of the word is very clear in Arabic. I didn't refer to you or to the person that copied the translation. It is the dishonesty of the translator.

Well, i was referring to a part that was addressed to me specifically, and following a statement that suggested that i shouldn't make a certain claim. In any case, though, my apologies if i misunderstood your intentions (which is possible).

 

[atanu]

i understand that as an over generalizing of a specific gender...
genders do not have a role other than being that gender which is ultimately subjected to being a human being first...

You are correct. But both a chair and a table might both be wood but each have different function. And as per my reading, this verse extols women's role and not degrades it. It extols to the extent that women may become arrogant on comprehending this. And it extols to the extent that a man on comprehending it can never bear any intention of beating etc.

That is me of course. YMMV.