2:73 - 1400 years of misinterpretation solved?

Wakas

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 murder

Is 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.

Samia

Peace Wakas,

You wrote

The only feminine in the context of is a pronoun (ha in &#1575 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.

Mazhar

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.

Samia

"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.

Mazhar

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.

herbman

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 return

4456
Nor will they there taste Death, except the first Death; and He will preserve them from the Penalty of the Blazing Fire

Those 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 baqara

case 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.

Samia

Sister,

I have not brought in the cow.

Sorry if I misunderstood you. I read "like that" and imagined "strike him with a part of it". ;D

TAJ

Peace Wakas,

I cannot understand what you are trying to say other than what I thought I understood from your earlier posts.

Maybe sister Samia can rephrase your understanding in a simpler way.

peace

Wakas

peace Taj,

The only feminine in the context of is a pronoun (ha in &#1575 that refers, in my understanding, to the slaughtered cow.

Yes, the only feminine in 273 is as you say.

However, you then say this feminine refers to the slaughtered cow BUT there are other feminines, e.g. in 272 (the murdered soul and the murder), thus it is possible the feminine in 273 could refer to either of these. The evidence strongly points to 'the murder'.

If you are still confused, please clarify specifically what with. Thanks.

Wakas

"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".

It is "in this way..." or "like this..." NOT "this is how...".

"how" does not exist in the Arabic, which is "kayfa". God does not revive the dead in this manner, if you disagree, please state the Quranic evidence.

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.

The verses have nothing to do with resurrection.

########

peace herbman,

Thanks for the additional info. If taken in the traditional understanding, it does seem 273 is the odd one out, giving further evidence to my interpretation. There is no strange method used in reviving the dead in the other occurrences. I also just realised it says after "like this / in this way God revives the dead" but based on the traditional understanding if that is true, then God went a strange way about it, e.g. by using intermediates such as human and a piece of cow, so technically God didn't do it Himself, which again, goes against the Arabic.
The evidence is stacking up.

TAJ

Peace Wakas,

peace Taj,

Yes, the only feminine in 273 is as you say.

However, you then say this feminine refers to the slaughtered cow BUT there are other feminines, e.g. in 272 (the murdered soul and the murder), thus it is possible the feminine in 273 could refer to either of these. The evidence strongly points to 'the murder'.

If you are still confused, please clarify specifically what with. Thanks.

Ok, that I get now..
And what about idribooho?

Wakas

idriboohu = idriboo + hu (him/it)

The only masculine in context, is in 272, and that is the murderers/guilty, which is in the masculine plural. The murdered soul is feminine. See my translation below

P=plural
F=feminine
M=masculine

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.

The traditional understanding is that the murdered soul (F), must have been male, and whilst this is theoretically possible, it is not in the Arabic and is completely made up.

TAJ

Peace Wakas,

idriboohu = idriboo + hu (him/it)

The only masculine in context, is in 272, and that is the murderers/guilty, which is in the masculine plural. The murdered soul is feminine. See my translation below

P=plural
F=feminine
M=masculine

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.

The traditional understanding is that the murdered soul (F), must have been male, and whilst this is theoretically possible, it is not in the Arabic and is completely made up.

That is fine. But you haven't explained here what "idribooho" means? You are saying that the "ho" in "idribooho" goes to the murdered telling us that he must have been theoretically a male.. and that it is not in the Arabic and is completely made up!? Please tell me, what exactly is the made up? Is it the story of the murdered man, or the meaning of idribooho, or the "ho" referring to a murdered male? You lost me in that part.

I quote you again here

The traditional understanding is that the murdered soul (F), must have been male, and whilst this is theoretically possible, it is not in the Arabic and is completely made up.

If I would agree with you, for the sake of the discussion, you still haven't explained here what "idribooho" means.

Btw, how does "faddaara'atum" mean so then you accused each other? This is a new meaning.. But we can delay this point till later, after "idribooho".

peace

Wakas

peace Taj,

Please re-read what I said very carefully. You have interpreted what I said in the opposite of what I meant it!

idriboohu = idriboo (point out) + hu (him)

Or you could translate it as "indicate him", or "cite him".

"him" refers to an individual/one of the murderers/guilty in the previous verse 272.

The murdered person/nafs is referred to as grammatically female in 272. Are you saying it is acceptable in Arabic and is actually done in The Quran to refer to something as female then male? I personally do not know, so I am curious to know if this is valid.

And as for my translation of "faddaara'atum", see Lane's Lexicon. In it, it specifically states this translation. You could argue it is an interpretation more than a translation, but by deduction, we can work out it does indeed mean "accusing each other". The whole phrase literally means "you averted/pushed away /repelled each other in it (feeha)". What are they averting/pushing away/repelling? The Quran tells us, it is "feeha = in it". Thus, the only possibility is they are literally pushing away in the dead body, OR, they are pushing away in the murder, and logically, the latter can only mean they were pushing away the accusation or the sole responsibility for it. This is further proven by what follows, when it says they were concealing/hiding. One simply needs to ask what can they (the ones who did it) possibly be concealing by repelling each other in it? The translation option then becomes obvious.

TAJ

Peace Wakas,

peace Taj,

Please re-read what I said very carefully. You have interpreted what I said in the opposite of what I meant it!

idriboohu = idriboo (point out) + hu (him)

Or you could translate it as "indicate him", or "cite him".

"him" refers to an individual/one of the murderers/guilty in the previous verse 272.

The murdered person/nafs is referred to as grammatically female in 272. Are you saying it is acceptable in Arabic and is actually done in The Quran to refer to something as female then male? I personally do not know, so I am curious to know if this is valid.

And as for my translation of "faddaara'atum", see Lane's Lexicon. In it, it specifically states this translation. You could argue it is an interpretation more than a translation, but by deduction, we can work out it does indeed mean "accusing each other". The whole phrase literally means "you averted/pushed away /repelled each other in it (feeha)". What are they averting/pushing away/repelling? The Quran tells us, it is "feeha = in it". Thus, the only possibility is they are literally pushing away in the dead body, OR, they are pushing away in the murder, and logically, the latter can only mean they were pushing away the accusation or the sole responsibility for it. This is further proven by what follows, when it says they were concealing/hiding. One simply needs to ask what can they (the ones who did it) possibly be concealing by repelling each other in it? The translation option then becomes obvious.

I think I understand now what you are trying to say, but I don't agree with it.

I think that 272 speaks about a bunch of bad guys who were plotting something evil. However, it seems they were not sure about one guy among them, thinking he might tell on them, so they killed him. The murderers thought that the murder crime could help them in two ways. First, the deceased could not tell on them, and second, Moses and the rest of people were too busy with this crime, trying to find out who the killer was, and so too distracted to pay attention to any tumultuous plot going on behind the scenes. The bad guys thought they could escape fingers pointing at them in regard to the bigger crime, by hiding behind the noise of this murder scene. It was like a shield to them. They thought they could use it to their benefit. But Allah assured that He will bring out what those guys were keeping secret about.

Iddara'atum could mean taking precaution. Iddara'atum minha being careful from. Iddara'atum feeha to hide with it from..

This is my latest contemplation of 272.. I am yet to find out its relation to 273.

Wakas

peace Taj,

Your contemplation mixes up the order of events

Taj
not sure about one person ---> killed them
i.e.
iddara'atum ---> killed them ?

Quran
killed the person ---> then iddara'atum

Also, your translations of "Iddara'atum minha being careful from. Iddara'atum feeha to hide with it from.." do not correspond with Quranic usage of Dal-Ra-Alif. From PRL

Dal-Ra-Alif (Dal-Ra-Hamza) = To repel, revert, drive off; put off, avert, overcome, combat, quarrel, urge, rush suddenly, repel in a quarrel, disagree.

Yadra'u (imp. 3rd. p.m. sing.) He shall avert.
Ida'rauu (prt. 2nd. p.m. plu.) Avert; repel.
Yadra'uu (imp. 3rd. p.m. plu.) They avert; combat.
Iddara'tum (prf. 3rd. p.m. plu. IV.) You quarelled among yourselves; differed among yourselves

dara'a vb. (1)
impf. act. 1322, 248, 2854
impv. 3168

iddara'a vb. (6) perf. act. 272

Lane's Lexicon, Volume 3, pages 30, 31, 32

Interestingly, I think what we will see is that The Quran will only allow for one interpretation that makes sense, but we shall see.

TAJ

Peace Wakas,

peace Taj,

Your contemplation mixes up the order of events

Taj
not sure about one person ---> killed them
i.e.
iddara'atum ---> killed them ?

Quran
killed the person ---> then iddara'atum

Also, your translations of "Iddara'atum minha being careful from. Iddara'atum feeha to hide with it from.." do not correspond with Quranic usage of Dal-Ra-Alif. From PRL

Interestingly, I think what we will see is that The Quran will only allow for one interpretation that makes sense, but we shall see.

I have no clue of what you are trying to say.
Can you, please, link your thoughts?

Wakas

peace Taj,

I feel it is clear enough, thus only needs careful re-reading and consideration. It does not matter though, if you come up with a translation of 272-73 that fits the grammar, Arabic, logic and cross-referencing, feel free to post it here.

Until then, peace.

Wakas

I was reading Lane, and it also says DRB is used to mean "assign (e.g. a share)", especially by the lawyers / in legal rulings. Giving "assign him with some of it (the murder)" in 273, which is again similar to what I said and pretty much the same thing.

Seems kinda obvious in hindsight.

Shumali

I was reading Lane, and it also says DRB is used to mean "assign (e.g. a share)", especially by the lawyers / in legal rulings. Giving "assign him with some of it (the murder)" in 273, which is again similar to what I said and pretty much the same thing.

Seems kinda obvious in hindsight.

Does Mudarba has anything to do with this meaning of root DRB?