TheMostReadBook.org

An English translation of the Quran that is as close as possible to the Arabic sacred text
View active topics
  Verse(s):    
View unanswered posts





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Verses 2:229-230
PostPosted: 07 Jun 2009, 08:09 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 08 May 2009, 14:16
Posts: 1994
Go to previous segment   Go to next segment


Suggested translation1,2:


-------
1This translation may have been updated from the original suggested translation as a result of the discussions that follow.
2Click on the {verse number} of a translation to see other good translations of the verse.

Go to previous segment   Go to next segment


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Verses 2:229-230
PostPosted: 25 Aug 2009, 16:43 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Quote:
{2:229} Divorce is twice. Then, either keep [her] in an acceptable manner or release [her] with good treatment. And it is not lawful for you to take anything of what you have given them unless both fear that they will not be able to keep [within] the limits of God. But if you fear that they will not keep [within] the limits of God, then there is no blame upon either of them concerning that by which she ransoms herself. These are the limits of God, so do not transgress them. And whoever transgresses the limits of God - it is those who are the wrongdoers.

While فدية can be used to mean ransom, it doesn't literally mean it. The word means a compensating payment, for instance فدية الصيام is the meal you provide to a poor person for each day you miss the obligatory fasting in Ramadan and for whatever reason cannot make it up another day. So, it's a compensation, not a ransom. The use of the word ransom in this context is derogatory. I suggest "then it is not a violation from them if she pays for [divorcing] herself.

I suggest,
{2:229} Divorce is twice. Then, holding in virtue or releasing (final divorce) with benevolence. And it is not lawful for you (husbands) to take from what you have given them anything unless both fear that they may not uphold the limits of God. But if you fear that they may not uphold the limits of God, then there is no violation upon both of them concerning what she paid off with (to divorce herself). Those are the limits of God, so do not transgress them. And whoever transgresses the limits of God - it is those who are the wrongdoers.

Quote:
{2:230} And if he has divorced her [for the third time], then she is not lawful to him afterward until [after] she marries a husband other than him. And if the latter husband divorces her [or dies], there is no blame upon the woman and her former husband for returning to each other if they think that they can keep [within] the limits of God. These are the limits of God, which He makes clear to a people who know.

No need for the interjection "or dies!" Also, while "her former husband" is correct, it's explanatory and not in the Arabic, so either leave it out or put it between parentheses. I suggest,

{2:230} And if he has divorced her (for the third time), then she is not lawful to him afterward until (after) she marries a husband other than him. And if he (the latter husband) has divorced her, then it is not a violation upon them (the woman and her former husband) to return [to each other] if they think that they can uphold the limits of God. Those are the limits of God, which He makes clear to a people who know.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Verses 2:229-230
PostPosted: 26 Aug 2009, 22:43 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
While فدية can be used to mean ransom, it doesn't literally mean it. The word means a compensating payment, for instance فدية الصيام is the meal you provide to a poor person for each day you miss the obligatory fasting in Ramadan and for whatever reason cannot make it up another day. So, it's a compensation, not a ransom. The use of the word ransom in this context is derogatory. I suggest "then it is not a violation from them if she pays for [divorcing] herself.

This is an important point. For the benefit of the reader (if you have the time), could you please take that portion of the verse word for word and map it to the meanings being conveyed? I think a clear understanding of the sequence here, even if it is interpretive, will help in picking the right translation.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Verses 2:229-230
PostPosted: 27 Aug 2009, 03:30 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
This is an important point. For the benefit of the reader (if you have the time), could you please take that portion of the verse word for word and map it to the meanings being conveyed? I think a clear understanding of the sequence here, even if it is interpretive, will help in picking the right translation.

I'm not getting what you're asking. Are you suggesting a brief explanation of the laws of divorce?

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Verses 2:229-230
PostPosted: 27 Aug 2009, 03:47 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Pragmatic wrote:
This is an important point. For the benefit of the reader (if you have the time), could you please take that portion of the verse word for word and map it to the meanings being conveyed? I think a clear understanding of the sequence here, even if it is interpretive, will help in picking the right translation.

I'm not getting what you're asking. Are you suggesting a brief explanation of the laws of divorce?

Just in this verse. For instance, it says "if they fear that they won't uphold..." followed by "so if you fear that they won't uphold...." so I wanted to understand the context of the`ransom' part in order to choose a proper word.

Only if you have the time. I can read on it myself (if I have the time....)

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Verses 2:229-230
PostPosted: 10 Feb 2014, 22:16 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
Just in this verse. For instance, it says "if they fear that they won't uphold..." followed by "so if you fear that they won't uphold...." so I wanted to understand the context of the`ransom' part in order to choose a proper word.

Only if you have the time. I can read on it myself (if I have the time....)

This part of the verse refers to Khul` (divorce initiated by the wife). The verse says that it is OK for the wife who sees risk to her or her husband's faith (upholding the limits of God) to divorce him and return to him part or all of the dowry. And that it is not improper in this case for the husband to accept that payment. Earlier in the verse, God forbids husbands from taking any part of the dowry when they divorce their wives. But if the wife initiates the divorce, then they can.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
It is currently 28 Mar 2024, 11:01

All times are UTC

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group