2:73 - 1400 years of misinterpretation solved?
-
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.
-
Dear all,
Let's have a deeper studie on the subject A man died than get resucited to point his murder(s).
228
How can ye reject the faith in Allah? Seeing that ye were without life, and He gave you life; then will He cause you to die, and will again bring you to life; and again to Him will ye return4456
Nor will they there taste Death, except the first Death; and He will preserve them from the Penalty of the Blazing FireThose verses set the amount of "die" each one gets which is equal to 1
Now where are the cases in the Quran where people are resucited
There are I think 5 cases (please check and verify if more) and all are in sourate el baqaracase 1
255
And remember ye said "O Moses! we shall never believe in thee until we see Allah manifestly" but ye were dazed by thunder and lightning even as ye looked on.256
Then We raised you up after your death; ye had the chance to be grateful
case 2
is this one
And 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.case 3
2243
Didst thou not turn by vision to those who abandoned their homes though they were thousands (in number), for fear of death? Allah said to them "Die." then He restored them to life. For Allah is full of bounty to mankind, but most of them are ungrateful.case 4
2259
Or (take) the similitude of one who passed by a hamlet, all in ruins to its roofs. He said "Oh! how shall Allah bring it (ever) to life, after (this) its death?" But Allah caused him to die for a hundred years, then raised him up (again). He said "How long didst thou tarry (thus)?" He said "(perhaps) a day or part of a day." He said "Nay, thou hast tarried thus a hundred years; but look at thy food and thy drink; they show no signs of age; and look at thy donkey and that We may make of thee a Sign unto the people Look further at the bones, how We bring them together and clothe them with flesh! When this was shown clearly to him he said "I know that Allah hath power over all things."and case 5
2260
Behold! Abraham said "My Lord! show me how Thou givest life to the dead. He said "Dost thou not then believe?" He said "Yea! but to satisfy my own understanding." He said "Take four birds; tie them (cut them into pieces), then put a portion of them on every hill, and call to them; they will come to thee (flying) with speed. Then know that Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise."These are the 5 cases we should deeply studie
what I see by first outlook is
case 1,3,4,5 It is direct command from God to cause them to die while case 2 our case is by human act. Does this has something to do?Now let's have a look at the way God commanded this
case1
case2
case3
case4
case5 is different no clear command "die" and make them live again!It seems that case 2 looks like a "general" command and is not a command for this special case.
