Husband can beat ( not severe ) his wife

[Wakas]

Re: Q1)

From Quran434.com

3)
DRB + mathal = propound/cite an example/similitude/parable
[2:26, 13:17, 14:24, 14:25, 14:45, 16:74, 16:75, 16:76, 16:112, 17:48, 18:32, 18:45, 22:73, 24:35, 25:9, 25:39, 29:43, 30:28, 30:58, 36:13, 36:78, 39:27, 39:29, 43:17, 43:57, 43:58, 47:3, 59:21, 66:10, 66:11]

With regard to the translation of DRB in the above verses there is variation, depending on translator, e.g. some use variations in 17:48, 25:9, 43:58, 43:17.


4)
kathalika yadribu Allahu al haqqa wa al batila = in this way God propounds/cites the truth and the falsehood
[13:17]

For this verse some use "collides", "puts/shows forth" (e.g. Ibn Kathir), "points out" (e.g. Al Jalalayn).


All examples of DRB with a direct object and no prepositions mean "put/show forth", providing internal consistency of usage. And when used in the same way as 4:34, i.e. applied to a person in 43:57 and 2:73 it means the exact same thing. In 43:57 Jesus is the second object of the verb DuRiBa, and in this verse it is in the perfect passive form meaning the object received the action expressed in the verb, i.e. Jesus received DRB, i.e. Jesus was put/shown forth / cited/indicated (as an example) by those disputing. In 43:57 "mathala" could be considered an adverbial accusative that names or modifies the action of the verb. So the type of "darab" of the object "Jesus" is that of an "example". As we can clearly see a literal/physical striking of Jesus is nonsensical, and if we remove this modification of the verb, this shows when applied to a person as the object DRB on its own means to cite/indicate or put/show forth. A perfect match with 4:34 and 2:73.


Re: Q2)

http://www.studyquran.co.uk/PRLonline.htm

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/declare/state, propound.....

[Duster]

Shalom / peace Wakas,

So I had a look at the studyquran website and found a link to a concordance by Hanna Kassis .....

I checked .... out of all the specific verbs IDRIB (exactly the same form used in verse 4:34) that are found in the Qur'an ...... using cite  the way you use it makes no sense in any of them ....
.....

2:60 (57) Strike with thy staff the rock
2:73 (68) Smite him with part of it
7:160 (160) strike with thy staff the rock'
8:12 (12) so smite above the necks
8:12 (12) and smite every finger of them
18:32 (31) strike for them a similitude: two men
18:45 (43) strike for them the similitude of the present life
20:77 (79) strike for them a dry path in the sea
26:63 (63) strike with thy staff the sea
36:13 (12) strike for them a similitude
38:44 (43) take in thy hand a bundle of rushes, and strike therewith

Only when MATHAL is added to the specific form IDRIB...... then the meaning cite can be taken like cite an example ..18:32 ; 18:45; 36:13.. but there is no mention of MATHAL in verse 4:34.

Also why would you need to 'cite' something in verse 4:34 when two other steps are already completed the first one being to admonish.... isn't that a form of cite already?..

[Wakas]

peace Duster,

The issues you raise are already addressed on Quran434.com

You claimed to have read it. See previous quotes along with more quotes below:

End Notes for Part 1

It has been shown that there is not one clear occurrence in The Quran in which "beat" is the meaning of DRB.

It seems that the default meaning of DRB is "to put/show forth (from one person/place to another person/place)". This core meaning fits into every occurrence, and thus could be seen as its basic/core meaning. Lane's Lexicon states that its meaning is "to put into commotion" which is similar. Of course, with various prepositions and subject matter, this basic meaning can be refined and better rendered depending on situation.

It is interesting to note from (11) and (12) that in similar contexts, The Quran switches from a non-literal/physical use of DRB (e.g. indicate) to a literal/physical use of DRB (e.g. strike / put forth / point out), by stating what the physical objects are and their interaction with the preposition "bi (with/by)".

The only verses in which the preposition "bi" is used with DRB are 24:31, 57:13, 26:63, 2:60, 7:160, 2:73, 38:44, 37:93, and in all these occurrences the meaning is a physical usage:

wal yadribna bi khumurihinna AAala juyoobihinna = and let them draw/cast with their covers over/on their chests [24:31]
wala yadribna bi-arjulihinna = and let them not strike/stamp/move with their feet [24:31]
fa duriba baynahum bi soorin = then put forth between them with a wall [57:13]
idrib bi AAasaka al bahra fa infalaqa = strike with your staff the sea, then it split/separated [26:63]
idrib bi AAasaka al hajara fa infajarat min hu = strike with your staff the rock, then vented from it (twelve springs) [2:60]
idrib bi AAasaka al hajara fa inbajasat min hu = strike with your staff the rock, then gushed from it (twelve springs) [7:160]
idriboohu bi baAAdiha = cite /point out him with some of it (the murder) [2:73]
Wa khuth bi yadika dighthan fa idribbihi wala tahnath = And take with your hand a handful, then collide /put forth with it, and do not incline towards falsehood [38:44]
Fa ragha AAalayhim darban bi al yameeni = then he turned upon them striking with the right hand [37:93]

There are two verses that may need clarification:
    2:73 should be noted that a murder/crime is something specific and a real world tangible object and thus can be referred to as such. This might offer a possible reason as to why 2:73 was traditionally translated as it was, because if a murder/crime was not seen as a valid object/reference to DRB with, then the only other valid object would be the dead heifer.
    38:44 the act of DRB upon what/whom is not specifically mentioned, thus several interpretations may have existed at the time. Once the true context and meaning is identified as shown previously, this aspect becomes self explanatory and what/whom is not needed.

It is interesting to note that these are the only two verses with preposition "bi" that require careful study in order to reveal the most likely answer, thus for these two verses it is likely several interpretations may have existed. If physical/literal strike was one interpretation, then these verses could have been used to favour a physical/literal striking in 4:34.
If DRB in 47:4 is taken as a physical strike as is commonly done, albeit as an idiom, then it would be the odd one out, as it does not use "bi". This gives further weight to the alternative understanding presented above.

Also why would you need to 'cite' something in verse 4:34 when two other steps are already completed the first one being to admonish.... isn't that a form of cite already?..

Your above quote contradicts what you thought previously:

You appear to suggest on your site that cite means 'cite the partner/situation to the authority.'

Allow me to quote form the conclusion given on Quran434.com with an explanatory note:

Conclusion:

The men are supporters/maintainers of the women with what God bestowed on some of them over others and with what they spent of their money, so the righteous women are dutiful; guardians to the unseen with what God guarded. And as for those women you fear their disloyalty, then: (first) you shall advise them, and (second) abandon them in the bed, and (lastly) cite them. So if they obeyed you, then seek not against them a way; Truly, God is High, Great. [4:34]
And if you (authority) feared a rift between them two, then appoint a judge from his family and a judge from hers. If they both want to reconcile, then God will bring agreement between them. God is Knowledgeable, Expert. [4:35]

The pronoun "them" refers to the same object in all three occurrences above, i.e. the woman/spouse. Thus you were correct when you thought:

You appear to suggest on your site that cite means 'cite the partner/situation to the authority.'

If you have read the site you will know there are marital dispute examples in Quran which complement the above understanding:

An interesting example also appears in 58:1-4 in which a woman argues with the prophet complaining about her husband, and how the husband has estranged/alienated her by claiming her to be as his mother's back, which was a practice of the time, making the wife unlawful for himself but also not technically divorcing her allowing her to remarry, i.e. leaving her stuck/suspended.
This is an interesting example because if we suppose this could be classed as a case of iAAradan/alienation or shiqaqa/breach/rift, then the next step the wife took was to cite her husband's behaviour/actions to the authority, which would have been the prophet at the time. The correlation is specifically with 4:129 which advises the husband not to leave her stuck/suspended and this is the EXACT situation described in 58:1-4, thus showing that in a situation of no resolution, the next step would be to cite the partner/situation to the authority. If we correlate this example to what the next step would be in 4:34, if the steps are followed and no resolution is forthcoming, the next step would be to cite the partner to the authority. This would explain how the court/authority knew of the situation between the couple in 4:35. Since 'idriboo them' is the only step in between "abandon them in bed" and the authority becoming aware of the situation, is there a Classical Arabic meaning of DRB that fits in the sequence? The answer is a resounding yes, as one of its primary and most common meanings is: to cite/propound, declare/mention, put/show forth, point out or indicate. As we can see, it is a perfect fit.

[AQL]

Thanks for your thoughtful work, brother Wakas.

[Wakas]

Thanks for your thoughtful work, brother Wakas.

Thanks.

The example of 58:1-4 seals the deal for me, so to speak.

"cite them" is by far the most cogent understanding as per Quran.