2:73 - 1400 years of misinterpretation solved?
-
peace brothers and sisters,
Recently, I have been reviewing all occurrences of daad-ra-ba (drb) in The Quran.
I had been studying and pondering over 273 for the last few days, and last night I managed to 'connect the dots' so to speak. The following are my findings
Every translation I have read, they render it as "strike him with part of it (the heifer/cow)" taken from the previous verses. The traditional tafsirs/commentators say this brought back the murdered person back to life and he identified his murderers in this case. The only exceptions to this translation I have read are M.Asad and QXP (see www.quranix.net). I was also aware of some past discussion on this verse in this forum, particularly the view of drfazl. Whilst I was aware of these alternative views and felt they were onto something, I still felt they had not proved it, or at least I could not see it.
I will now provide my translation, remaining true to the Arabic
P=plural
F=feminine
M=masculineAnd when you (P) killed a soul (F), so/then you (M, P) accused each other in it (F), and God (is) bringing out what you were hiding/concealing (M, P).
So We said "idriboo him (M) with some of it (F)." Like this God revives the dead (P) and He makes you realise His signs/revelations, maybe you reason/comprehend.Please read M.Asad's notes on the above
Muhammad Asad - End Note 57 (273)
The phrase idribuhu bi-ba'diha can be literally translated as "strike him with something of her " -and this possibility has given rise to the fanciful assertion by many commentators that the children of Israel were commanded to strike the corpse of the murdered man with some of the flesh of the sacrificed cow, whereupon he was miraculously restored to life and pointed out his murderer! Neither the Qur'an, nor any saying of the Prophet, nor even the Bible offers the slightest warrant for this highly imaginative explanation, which must, therefore, be rejected-quite apart from the fact that the pronoun hu in idribuhu has a masculine gender, while the noun nafs (here translated as "human being" is feminine in gender from which it follows that the imperative idribuhu cannot possibly refer to nafs. On the other hand, the verb daraba (lit., "he struck" is very often used in a figurative or metonymic sense, as, for instance, in the expression daraba fi 'l-ard ("he journeyed on earth", or daraba 'sh-shay' bi'sh-shay' ("he mixed one thing with another thing", or daraba mathal ("he coined a similitude" or "propounded a parable" or "gave an illustration", orala darb wahid ("similarly applied" or "in the same manner", or duribatalayhim adh-dhillah ("humiliation was imposed on them" or "applied to them", and so forth. Taking all this into account, I am of the opinion that the imperative idribuhu occurring in the above Qur'anic passage must be translated as "apply it" or "this" (referring, in this context, to the principle of communal responsibility). As for the feminine pronoun ha in ba'diha ("some of it", it must necessarily relate to the nearest preceding feminine noun-that is, to the nafs that has been murdered, or the act of murder itself about which (fiha) the community disagreed. Thus, the phrase idribuhu bi-ba'diha may be suitably rendered as "apply this to some of those " for it is obvious that the principle of communal responsibility for murder by a person or persons unknown can be applied only to some and not to all such cases.Muhammad Asad - End Note 58 (273)
Lit., "God gives life to the dead and shows you His messages" (i.e., He shows His will by means of such messages or ordinances). The figurative expression "He gives life to the dead" denotes the saving of lives, and is analogous to that in 532 . In this context it refers to the prevention of bloodshed and the killing of innocent persons (Manar I, 351), be it through individual acts of revenge, or in result of an erroneous judicial process based on no more than vague suspicion and possibly misleading circumstantial evidence.In addition, my own notes
Three or more people (i.e. masculine plural) killed the soul/person
Three or more people (i.e. masculine plural) were concealing (i.e. it was them who did it, this is confirmed by the start of 272),
The part in red cannot refer to showing them how God resurrects the dead to simply show God can do it as this is nowhere in context and would go against the example of Abaraham, see 2260. This is what some translators/tafsirs say, hence refuting this option.
"the dead" (al mawta) is plural thus weakening the traditional interpretation further.
The part in blue must fulfil the goal God will bring out what they were concealing - further compounded by linking use of "fa/so" between 272 and 273.
The expression "God revives the dead" may also mean God revives the spiritually dead, i.e. them who were in the wrong (see the clear examples of 6122, 2780, 3050-52, 824), thus, this seems the most likely interpretation in my opinion. Although, Asad's is also possible.
The only masculine in the context are those who committed the murder and thereafter accused each other, hiding the truth. The only feminine in the context is the murdered soul and the act of murder, in which they accussed each other in (this is the closest preceding feminine to ا.Thus, applying the most likely option, we have "idriboo him (i.e. each one accused) with some of it (the murder)".
All we need now is to consider "idriboo" to see if there is a meaning that fits. When I looked in Lane's Lexicon, it finally hit me , drb on its own can mean "to point or make a sign", i.e. point out or indicate. When I re-read the context of 272-73, I realised the perpetrators were accusing each other (i.e. pointing the finger at each other, so to speak) to conceal the truth that they did it, so God was to bring forth what they were concealing so We said "point out him with some of it (the murder)". The only ones doing the pointing/accusing were the guilty. Thus, whomever of them (i.e. of the ones accused) was pointed out by the others also accused was assigned some part/responsibility of the murder. In this way, they could not escape what they had done, and indeed, God exposed them and brought out what they were concealing. The end result was that they took collective responsibility, each of him a part. This is what M.Asad and QXP were trying to get at. This understanding fits the grammar, the Arabic, Classical Arabic meanings, logic, and cross-referencing the subject of murder, specifically, that there is life in al qisas/equivalence (the law of just recompense) for those who use their intellect, 2179.Further, the other common/prevalent meaning of drb can also be used, which is "cite" (commonly used with "mathal/example" but not exclusively, e.g. 1317, 435, i.e. "cite him (each one accused) with some of it (the murder)". Also, "strike" can also be used if understood figuratively, i.e. non-physical.
This understanding may also serve to give us a glimpse of the underlying meaning of drb, which seems to be to put forth (something/limb), e.g. as in walking/travelling, one thing upon another - stamp, seal, coin; put forth the hand to strike, prevent/restrain, cast, set up, mix, take away, to point or make a sign - cite, propound, etc.
Interestingly, in the tafsir of "al-Jalalayn" (see altafsir.com) it says the revived murdered soul pointed out his murderers. Ironically, this comes close to the truth, possibly indicating a remnant of the true understanding of this verse still remained, and likely became superficial/superstitious over time.
Lastly, over 5 years ago in this forum, I tried to ascertain the meaning of this verse, but was unsuccessful. Then, I never had the tools I have today, which are now available to all. I hope many people use them, so we can all benefit.
Then High above all is God, the King, the Truth. And do not be hasty with the reading/qur'an before its inspiration is completed to you, and say "My Lord, increase my knowledge."
-
Peace,
Nice write up.
273
Similar as below...
4358
And they said "Are our gods better or He?" ma daraboohu to you except disputing, but they are a nation controverting.
Choose best meaning...
- they gave it/they beat it/they struck it/they moved it/they migrated it/ they palpitated it/they fired at it/ they stung it/they inclined to it/ they knocked it/they blew at it/they rung it/they sieged it/they erected it
-
Peace Wakas,
Very good analysis of 273. Your interpretation makes perfect sense to me...
-
Mohammed Asad saved my faith in the Quran back in the day. I remember reading this verse in translation, being disappointed at its weirdness. Then I looked at the Arabic and realized how much of the translation was made up. Then Asad put it together.
I'm still not absolutely satisfied by anyone's theory, but so long as it doesn't mean 'smack him with meat' I'm happy.
-
peace sister Taj,
Peace Wakas,
Do you mean to say that
"whoever dares to accuse someone, hold him responsible = idribooho"?
I forgot to mention this point. We must remember to read the context. This solution was only used when it was definitely them who did it, see start of 272.
Thus, let's say we are in a situation where we have proven a group were responsible for someone's murder, but not sure as to which one specifically did the deed (e.g. pulled the trigger, did the stabbing etc) then we can use this example, and they would have to take collective responsibility, and assign each a part of the murder, most likely by way of compensation, or maybe even jail time.
Also, I'm not sure where you got your equation from, as "idriboohu" would mean "point out him", in my explanation.
-
It would be helpful if you can clarify your reason for quoting that?
I am having to assume you think the scope of my explanation allows them to point out others, not originally accused, i.e. innocents?
The logic and wording of the verse does not allow for that.
The verse is clear on who it is referring to it is referring to those who did it, and thereafter accused each other, in an attempt to hide this. No-one else. Before moving onto verse 273, at this point in time, those who did it have already accused each other, and each one can be classified as "the accused", to make it simpler for explanantion.
Now, lets move onto 273, thus, when it says "point out him with some of it (the murder)", they immediately become exposed, as the only ones doing the pointing/accusing are the guilty, thus each one of the accused has to take responsiblity, there is no escaping it. It does not mean they suddenly change whom they are accusing and point to others*, because these hypothetical new people are simply not referenced.*further, the Arabic limits this to him/male in this case, thus for example, hypothetically pointing to a female would invalidate the verse, and obviously means pointing to others not mentioned is an invalid interpretation. You could argue, they could point to other males only, but this is completely against logic, and inserts a previously unmentioned group, e.g. non-guilty/murderers. We must opt for what the verse is logically and actually saying.
I took that as a given, but perhaps I can modify the explanation to
Thus, whomever of them (i.e. of the ones accused) was pointed out by the others also accused was assigned some part/responsibility of the murder. It limits the pointing out to the ones guilty accusing each other.
Better?
-
Peace Wakas,
For me what you wrote was not clear enough in spite of all the explanations. I think I understood one thing and that was what I pointed out in my first reply. Also you need to investigate the slaughter of the cow and its relation to the meaning of the word "daraba".
peace
-
peace sister Taj,
I forgot to mention this point. We must remember to read the context. This solution was only used when it was definitely them who did it, see start of 272.
Thus, let's say we are in a situation where we have proven a group were responsible for someone's murder, but not sure as to which one specifically did the deed (e.g. pulled the trigger, did the stabbing etc) then we can use this example, and they would have to take collective responsibility, and assign each a part of the murder, most likely by way of compensation, or maybe even jail time.
Also, I'm not sure where you got your equation from, as "idriboohu" would mean "point out him", in my explanation.
Peace Wakas, all,
Well done, great job, so another example of DARABA that was meaning "beat" by the traditional has been dismounted. I totally agree with you to take into account the context, such I did for JILBAB in 3359 please read post http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9598413.0 up to the end.
May Allah bless all of us and show us the right path.
Best regards
-
"the dead" (al mawta) is plural thus weakening the traditional interpretation further.
But this is a general statement regarding all dead, "this is how Allah resurrects/revives the dead people ".
And when you people had murdered a person then/for reason/purposefully were diffusing it by controversy among yourselves . But Allah was to bring forth/expose what you were hiding.
Putting responsibility collectively or sharing responsibility by all keeps the thing diffused;it never means the truth having been exposed what they were .
And the makes the above understanding even weaker than the one held by traditionalists.
-
Peace Wakas,
You wrote
The only masculine in the context are those who committed the murder and thereafter accused each other, hiding the truth. The only feminine in the context is the murdered soul and the act of murder, in which they accused each other in (this is the closest preceding feminine).
The only feminine in the context of is a pronoun (ha in ا that refers, in my understanding, to the slaughtered cow.
-
peace Mazhar,
I already explained "al mawta", and I do not understand the relevance of your point. It would be helpful if after making your point, you followed up with something like "... and this weakens your understanding because XYZ" or "... and this refutes your position because of ABC".
I do not agree with your fanciful/inserted extrapolation/interpretation (I do not consider it a translation). Especially your following statement
Putting responsibility collectively or sharing responsibility by all keeps the thing diffused;it never means the truth having been exposed what they were .
Going from
the guilty accusing each other trying to conceal what they did
to
each one of the guilty being assigned a part of the murderIs a perfect exposure. In fact, I dont see how it could get anymore perfect. I am curious however, according to you, what does the verse have to do in order to satisfy you what they were has been exposed? It is ok if you answer "I do not know, but not what you said". It is simply a matter of weighing the evidence for each possible understanding.
Peace Taj,
Yes, I am aware of the common interpretation (which I considered and rejected), which seems to be your view. By "context" I meant the verse before 273, which is 272, and the closest preceding feminine to is clear for all to see, and it is not the slaughtered cow. Again, I thought I was being clear, but I guess not. I have edited to clarify what I meant by "context".
I am slightly curious as to your view, as the evidence is solid, thus I suggest re-reading what I wrote, and if still uncertain, I am wondering if it is because to an Arabic speaker such as yourself, they are used to drb meaning strike and probably never hear of it meaning "point out or make a sign" or used in a similar manner. It is interesting to note that Lane says on its own drb means what I said, which implies the association was strong enough that it required no preposition, no additional words, no particular subject matter etc. -
Peace Wakas,
You wrote
The only feminine in the context of is a pronoun (ha in ا that refers, in my understanding, to the slaughtered cow.
If you read from 247, you will find different, unrelated stories/blessings/ guidance; each starting ith "izh/when/ . The story of the cow is completely independent of the story before it and the one following it that of the murdered man. The latter also starts with " / and when". The story of the cow is a lesson in its own merit "God's commands are simple and direct, if you complicate things, God will complicate them to you even further".
Therefore, the "ha/ " has nothing to do with the cow. -
Like this God revives the dead (P) and He makes you realise His signs/revelations, maybe you reason/comprehend.
"Like this"...and "this" is what? sharing/accepting the part of responsibility for murder?
Certain people are asked to do a certain thing for exposing the truth of murder which was being diffused by them. And the same people who did that act were told "This is how Allah revives the dead people". "Kazalika" shows the murdered man was revived to life. There was no need to say to them "look the man has revived by your action", a fact before the eyes of a man is not repeated for him, but his attention is invited to another fact. Afterwards this episode their hearts became hardened. Seeing a dead man whom one has murdered himself revived to life is the ultimate sign for opening his eyes and heart for the resurrection after death. If this goes unnoticed, it will result only in hardening of heart.
-
"Like this"...and "this" is what? sharing/accepting the part of responsibility for murder?
Seeing a dead man whom one has murdered himself revived to life is the ultimate sign for opening his eyes and heart for the resurrection after death. If this goes unnoticed, it will result only in hardening of heart.
Is the whole story to learn about resurrection? Why, then, the information that he had been murdered? Could have been done with any dead person.
What are we going to learn from this ? That if we strike someone with a part of a dead cow we will learn resurrection, or find out ho the culprit is?!
As I mentioned above, the cow has nothing to do with this story. -
Is the whole story to learn about resurrection? Why, then, the information that he had been murdered? Could have been done with any dead person.
What are we going to learn from this ? That if we strike someone with a part of a dead cow we will learn resurrection, or find out ho the culprit is?!
As I mentioned above, the cow has nothing to do with this story.Sister,
I have not brought in the cow. was used for those whom a task to be carried out with their hands was given. What was the result of that act, for that is there; "in the like manner"; "this is how".... and He shows to your eyes His signs/demonstrations. Resurrecting a surely dead person since he was murdered by them, is the demonstration that He/Allah is not subject to the causality theory. The universe is structured under the cause and effect phenomenon but that is for our convenience of comprehending it; not that He the creator has become subject to it.
