Multiple meaning vs Explaining itself
-
Salaamun aleykum
I have a question about different views of interpreting the Quran. I know a lot here say that the Quran explains itself from other verses. for instance, to get the interpretation of nahar, daylight in 11.114 we can look in 91.1-3 to actually know what daylight is. Others extend the possibilities of choice of the actual word by refering to root-word dictionaries etc. and then look for different meanings by roots. for instance, 434 the word idribuhunna can mean strike, beat, set forth etc...
I have come to a very reflective period regarding this and i really wonder where the limit is set. I mainly think about 3.7 where God says that some people will get stuck on roots to extricate a certain meaning. But i also wonder if its correct to refer to that verse since we have actually have different choices. One word that really has a multiple meaning is ayat, which can mean sign, miracle and verse.
Peace and God bless you
-
Salaamun aleykum
I have a question about different views of interpreting the Quran. I know a lot here say that the Quran explains itself from other verses. for instance, to get the interpretation of nahar, daylight in 11.114 we can look in 91.1-3 to actually know what daylight is. Others extend the possibilities of choice of the actual word by refering to root-word dictionaries etc. and then look for different meanings by roots. for instance, 434 the word idribuhunna can mean strike, beat, set forth etc...
I have come to a very reflective period regarding this and i really wonder where the limit is set. I mainly think about 3.7 where God says that some people will get stuck on roots to extricate a certain meaning. But i also wonder if its correct to refer to that verse since we have actually have different choices. One word that really has a multiple meaning is ayat, which can mean sign, miracle and verse.
Peace and God bless you
Idribuhunna means to beat. Nahar is day.
One word can only mean one thing in a concrete context, but have another meaning in another context. People think differently and therefore you have different interpretations.
-
salaam,
Idribuhunna means to beat.
In 434 it means "to cite them". I recommend www.Quran434.com for analysis.
-
salaam,
In 434 it means "to cite them". I recommend www.Quran434.com for analysis.
To cite them is NOT
And the author of the webpage clearly misunderstood something....To hit in english can also mean something non-violent like someone hits the mall. But as soon as you make hit towards a person it implies something violent. All the non-violent verses the author quoted in the quran with DARAB were not towards any human but objects.. but When Darab is toward humans then it can only have a violent meaning.
-
To cite them is NOT
And the author of the webpage clearly misunderstood something....To hit in english can also mean something non-violent like someone hits the mall. But as soon as you make hit towards a person it implies something violent. All the non-violent verses the author quoted in the quran with DARAB were not towards any human but objects.. but When Darab is toward humans then it can only have a violent meaning.
You are 100% wrong. I am assuming you are an Arabic speaker, thus are not aware of its classical arabic usage, compared to its modern usage. I recommend using Quran as a guide
Firstly, if you check the actual examples in Quran, to see when "cite" is used, e.g. with "mathal" you will clearly see that "3an" is NEVER used.
Secondly, all examples in Quran wherein DRB means physical usage/hit, the preposition "bi" is ALWAYS used.
And lastly, in Quran when DRB is applied to a human it NEVER means physical hit.
I recommend you re-read the analysis. And if you still feel the same, please be specific and cite actual verse(s) to evidence your statements.
-
You are 100% wrong. I am assuming you are an Arabic speaker, thus are not aware of its classical arabic usage, compared to its modern usage. I recommend using Quran as a guide
whats up dude I am on vacation thus my late reply
If you was an arab you would have known that we only speak modern arabic at home but classical arabic is the national language of every arab country which my friend means that all our books, newspapers, magazines and TV are in classical arabic
Firstly, if you check the actual examples in Quran, to see when "cite" is used, e.g. with "mathal" you will clearly see that "3an" is NEVER used.
You didnt got my point dude. When hit (darab) is applied to a human and isnt ment physical then 3an is to be used which unfurtunately the verse dont nope
Secondly, all examples in Quran wherein DRB means physical usage/hit, the preposition "bi" is ALWAYS used
This is an classical example of how everything goes wrong when a non-arabic speaker consider himself to be a tafseer professor of quran el karim. Do you have any idea of what ''BI'' stands for, dude ?
And if you could but see when the angels take the souls of those who disbelieved... They are striking their faces and their backs and , "Taste the punishment of the Burning Fire.
Is from verse 8,50 and the word 'bi' is not used.
And lastly, in Quran when DRB is applied to a human it NEVER means physical hit.
I fear it is the exact opposite dude................................ When Hit is applied to a human it means physical hit. And all translaters agree with that except, of course you, my feminist friend.
Abdul-Majid Daryabadi
"...And those wives whose refractoriness ye fear, exhort them, and avoid them in beds, and beat them; but if they obey you, seek not a way against them; verily Allah is ever Lofty, Grand."
Yusuf Ali
"....As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance) For Allah is Most High, great (above you all)."
Rashad Khalifah
"....If you experience rebellion from the women, you shall first talk to them, then (you may use negative incentives like) deserting them in bed, then you may (as a last alternative) beat them. If they obey you, you are not permitted to transgress against them. GOD is Most High, Supreme."Al-Hilali & Mohsin Khan
"....As to those women on whose part you see ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful), but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance). Surely, Allah is Ever Most High, Most Great."
Ahmed Raza Khan
"...the women from whom you fear disobedience, (at first) advise them and (then) do not cohabit with them, and (lastly) beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek to do injustice to them; indeed Allah is Supreme, Great."
Dude I checked up the meaning of HIT in english and got up the following results from the dictionary
1.Go through
2.Click
3.Drink
4.Land
5.Reach
6.Press
7.Go
8.Fulfil
9.Demonstrate
10.WinMy feminist dude now please tell me if God told me in english to 'Hit her' Would that mean that I had to drink her, press her, win her, or ......... ? .... because every normal non-feminist person would feel that 'hit her' would mean..ehem.. to hit her
-
Salaam sunnah-hero,
When hit (darab) is applied to a human and isnt ment physical then 3an is to be used
Unevidenced statement.
I am primarily concerned with how it is used in Quran. There is no evidence for your claim in Quran.
Is from verse 8,50 and the word 'bi' is not used.
I know "bi" is not used, and this occurrence has been discussed at www.Quran434.com
You will note several problems with your rendition of physical beating there. Feel free to answer them here.When Hit is applied to a human it means physical hit. And all translaters agree with that except, of course you...
I am not concerned about other translators. I am only concerned with what can be proven as per Quran, and as it stands, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of non-physical hit/strike in 434, see www.Quran434.com
Once again, I actually recommend you read and study it.
-
Dude Wakas you say
I am primarily concerned with how it is used in Quran. There is no evidence for your claim in Quran.confused evidence for what?
I know "bi" is not used, and this occurrence has been discussed at www.Quran434.com
First you said that 'bi' is to be used in order to be be physical which I just proved was wrong and you clearly doesnt know what 'bi' means either. Then you refer to your webpage .. and it says
In 850 it says if only you could see, thus clearly implying that what the controllers are doing cannot be seen. And since it is at the time of death, then the controllers cannot be striking the physical fronts/faces and backs as this would be observable. It could be suggested that at death, this is a special/unique transition phase so perhaps the controllers are indeed beating/striking but in a different form somehow, and the living simply cannot see it.
Doesnt make sense. Its like saying that prophet is not a physical being when quran mentions prophet.... 8,50 says striking without 'bi' whether its physical or not is another discussion... but the quran actually talks about humans coming into a physical exsistence after death so I dont see any reason or evidence for why striking 8,50 would not be physical.
You will note several problems with your rendition of physical beating there. Feel free to answer them here.
Which problems habibi ? confused
I am not concerned about other translators. I am only concerned with what can be proven as per Quran, and as it stands, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of non-physical hit/strike in 434, see www.Quran434.com
Once again, I actually recommend you read and study it.
Your webpage www.quran434.com is not quran therefore it cannot prove anything per quran..... And the webpage is based on excuses. I have already told you that beat them can only mean beat them ;D
-
...I dont see any reason or evidence for why striking 8,50 would not be physical.
Which problems habibi ? confused
The problems you did not mention.
Interestingly, you quote the first bullet point listed at www.Quran434.com and neglect the rest. Here is the entire quote
Walaw tara ith yatawaffa allatheena kafaroo almala-ikatu yadriboona wujoohahum wa adbarahum wa thooqoo AAathaba al hareeqi
= And if you could but see when the angels/controllers* are taking (unto themselves, i.e. at death) those who reject striking their faces/fronts and backs and (say) "taste the penalty of the fire."Fakayfa itha tawaffathumu almalaikatu yadriboona wujoohahum wa adbarahum
= So/then how (will it be) when the angels/controllers* take them (unto themselves, i.e. in death) striking their faces/fronts and their backs?*angels is better translated as controllers, i.e. forces in control of certain functions/laws. There are some controllers we know about, e.g. those found in nature F=ma, E=mc? etc. and some we do not know about.
In the above two verses, translators commonly use "beat / strike / smite", and whilst this may seem acceptable on the surface this translation does have significant problems when examined more closely
In 850 it says if only you could see, thus clearly implying that what the controllers are doing cannot be seen. And since it is at the time of death, then the controllers cannot be striking the physical fronts/faces and backs as this would be observable. It could be suggested that at death, this is a special/unique transition phase so perhaps the controllers are indeed beating/striking but in a different form somehow, and the living simply cannot see it.
It causes problems with verses such as 737, 1628, 851, 693-94 in which the controllers are in communication with people being taken at death, and the ones taken are listening properly and answering, but this is highly unlikely if they are being beaten at the same time!
It causes a clear problem with 693 when it describes the controllers as stretching/extending forth or opening their hands/powers when taking them at death saying "Bring out your souls...". This sounds unlike striking/beating, and there is no implication of this in the verse at all.
If this is indeed a beating/striking causing pain in some way, then this would be the only example in The Quran of an explicit punishment between death and the 'day of obligation/judgement/requital/due'.
In contrast, the controllers take those who are good with a greeting of peace/salam in 1632 and there is no mention of taking them gently for example.
To explain away these anomalies it could be suggested 850 and 4727 refer to post Judgement not at death, which would be much more plausible if DRB is interpreted in a punishment way, i.e. beat/strike, but no trasnlator or tafsir/interpretation I have read gives this option.
Thus, is there possibly a more suitable translation? Whatever the controllers are doing it is to their "fronts and backs" and this creates an imagery of a complete surrounding, coming at them from all directions, i.e. there is no escape. This imagery is similar to 693 mentioned above. Further, see 661 and 2139. The only other occurrence of the exact same form "yadriboona" is in 7320 in which it means journey or go/move about. Thus, taking the evidence into account, the Classical Arabic meanings of DRB and its usage in The Quran, it could be translated as the controllers set/march on or put forth or go/move about their fronts and backs, i.e. come at them from all directions. Even the English translation of "strike" has similar imagery to this, but "beat" does not. That is not to say it cannot mean "beat", it theoretically could, but it is not a particularly sound translation when cross-referenced.
As a side note, in M. Asad's notes, he says the early commentator Razi saw this phrase as an allegory "They have utter darkness behind them and utter darkness before them", suggesting he did not agree with the commonly stated understanding of beating/striking literally. -
@ sunna-hero
Just wanted to express my feeling after reading you when arguing in this thread, you used several time the words habibi, dude or feminist dude and keep saying "you are not an arabic speaker" or what ever, it clearly denotes disrespect, arrogance and maybe also someone hurted.
I wanted to say that because after reading http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604760.0 you really look like a different person in this thread.
-
@ sunna-hero
Just wanted to express my feeling after reading you when arguing in this thread, you used several time the words habibi, dude or feminist dude and keep saying "you are not an arabic speaker" or what ever, it clearly denotes disrespect, arrogance and maybe also someone hurted.
I wanted to say that because after reading http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604760.0 you really look like a different person in this thread.
Relax relax relax dude group
and please mind your own business.. as intefering in someone others business is disrespectful and arrogant
-
The problems you did not mention.
Interestingly, you quote the first bullet point listed at www.Quran434.com and neglect the rest. Here is the entire quote
Let me read your webpage from start to end and then I will come back to you dude
-
I am back again
So I have read the whole quote.
Walaw tara ith yatawaffa allatheena kafaroo almala-ikatu yadriboona wujoohahum wa adbarahum wa thooqoo AAathaba al hareeqi
= And if you could but see when the angels/controllers* are taking (unto themselves, i.e. at death) those who reject striking their faces/fronts and backs and (say) "taste the penalty of the fire."Fakayfa itha tawaffathumu almalaikatu yadriboona wujoohahum wa adbarahum
= So/then how (will it be) when the angels/controllers* take them (unto themselves, i.e. in death) striking their faces/fronts and their backs?yes these are the verses we are talking about.. sun
*angels is better translated as controllers, i.e. forces in control of certain functions/laws. There are some controllers we know about, e.g. those found in nature F=ma, E=mc? etc. and some we do not know about.
This is merely a interpretation
In the above two verses, translators commonly use "beat / strike / smite", and whilst this may seem acceptable on the surface this translation does have significant problems when examined more closely
Really confused Lets see...
In 850 it says if only you could see, thus clearly implying that what the controllers are doing cannot be seen. And since it is at the time of death, then the controllers cannot be striking the physical fronts/faces and backs as this would be observable.
very illogical reasoning... just because you dont see something happen, does not mean that it is not physical. Like I do not see Wakas right now but that does not mean that he does not exsist physically.. And quran el karim does talk about physical exsistence after death
Does man think that We will not gather his bones? Indeed, We were able to make his fingertips...quran el karim surah qeyamah 4.
And if you could see when they are standing over the Fire, they say "If only we could be sent back, we would not deny the revelations of our Lord, and we would be believers!" quran el karim 6,27
Just because you dont see them does not mean that what happens to them is not physical. That would mean that hell is not physical.
It could be suggested that at death, this is a special/unique transition phase so perhaps the controllers are indeed beating/striking but in a different form somehow, and the living simply cannot see it. It causes problems with verses such as 737, 1628, 851, 693-94 in which the controllers are in communication with people being taken at death, and the ones taken are listening properly and answering, but this is highly unlikely if they are being beaten at the same time!
737 Who is more wicked than he who invents lies about God, or denies His revelations? These will receive their recompense from the record; so that when Our messengers come to terminate their lives, they will say "Where are those whom you used to call on besides God?" They said "They have abandoned us!" And they bore witness upon themselves that they were rejecters.
16,28 Those whom their lives are terminated by the angels, while they had wronged themselves "Amnesty, we have not done any evil!" "Alas, God is aware of what you have done."
Yes they will say these things and be beaten.. Whats the problem in that dude, I dont understand confused
It causes a clear problem with 693 when it describes the controllers as stretching/extending forth or opening their hands/powers when taking them at death saying "Bring out your souls...". This sounds unlike striking/beating, and there is no implication of this in the verse at all.
Still illogical..
693 And who is more wicked than he who invents lies about God, or says "It has been inspired to me," when We did not inspire anything to him; or who says "I will bring down the same as what God has sent down." And if you could only see the wicked at the moments of death when the angels have their arms opened "Bring yourselves out, today you will be given the severest punishment for what you used to say about God without truth, and you used to be arrogant towards His revelations."
One of the punishment could be.... yes... beaten )
If this is indeed a beating/striking causing pain in some way, then this would be the only example in The Quran of an explicit punishment between death and the 'day of obligation/judgement/requital/due'.
Properly. Otherwise you want to say that 'striking' in the verse is a symbolic striking ? What does symbolic beaten mean anyway confused
In contrast, the controllers take those who are good with a greeting of peace/salam in 1632 and there is no mention of taking them gently for example.
Greeting of peace implies taking them gently.
To explain away these anomalies it could be suggested 850 and 4727 refer to post Judgement not at death, which would be much more plausible if DRB is interpreted in a punishment way, i.e. beat/strike, but no trasnlator or tafsir/interpretation I have read gives this option.
No tafsir or translation says 'symbolic beating'. Striking is striking. Hell is hell. Paradise is paradise. If you want to make everything symbolic or non-physical than its your interpretation, not whats actually written.
Thus, is there possibly a more suitable translation? Whatever the controllers are doing it is to their "fronts and backs" and this creates an imagery of a complete surrounding, coming at them from all directions, i.e. there is no escape. This imagery is similar to 693 mentioned above. Further, see 661 and 2139. The only other occurrence of the exact same form "yadriboona" is in 7320 in which it means journey or go/move about. Thus, taking the evidence into account, the Classical Arabic meanings of DRB and its usage in The Quran, it could be translated as the controllers set/march on or put forth or go/move about their fronts and backs, i.e. come at them from all directions. Even the English translation of "strike" has similar imagery to this, but "beat" does not. That is not to say it cannot mean "beat", it theoretically could, but it is not a particularly sound translation when cross-referenced.
.73,20 yadriboon fi ard means to hit the road. No human is mentioned as opposed to 8,50 and the verse in surah nisa.
As a side note, in M. Asad's notes, he says the early commentator Razi saw this phrase as an allegory "They have utter darkness behind them and utter darkness before them", suggesting he did not agree with the commonly stated understanding of beating/striking literally
Ibn Kathir and all other eraly commentator didnt saw this phrase as an allegory... And you dont have any evidence that Razi also ment a 'symbolic strike' as yourself.. you are merely guessing...
-
-
sunnah-hero,
Thanks for replying to all the points this time. So to summarise your position
- they are being beaten physically in another form, at the time of death
- those taken at death are answering accurately while being beaten
- Even though there is no connotation of undergoing punishment while being taken in 693 you take it as such.
- You cannot find any other example in Quran wherein punishment is being meated out prior to j-day, other than these verses ---> thus, according to your Quranic paradigm punish first, judge later. Interesting.
And once again, you claim DRB with human object without preposition means physical strike. Wrong, please read the rest of www.Quran434.com e.g. 4357, 273.
-
http//img145.imageshack.us/img145/9387/7392dba8bb344118a4a3b53.png
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
How about using CHASTISE THEM in Verse 434
thanks
-
salaam hk,
Is your view "chastise them" for 434? I find that hard to believe, considering the argument with evidence put forth at www.Quran434.com
"cite them" provides perfect coherence throughout.
-
sunnah-hero,
Thanks for replying to all the points this time. So to summarise your position
- they are being beaten physically in another form, at the time of death
- those taken at death are answering accurately while being beaten
- Even though there is no connotation of undergoing punishment while being taken in 693 you take it as such.
- You cannot find any other example in Quran wherein punishment is being meated out prior to j-day, other than these verses ---> thus, according to your Quranic paradigm punish first, judge later. Interesting.
And once again, you claim DRB with human object without preposition means physical strike. Wrong, please read the rest of www.Quran434.com e.g. 4357, 273.
Hit them means to hit them, it doesnt mean 'kiss them' or 'hug them' or 'say goodbye to them', as you claim o
Yes kuffar dont have to be judged before being punished, as they are already doomed to punishment and hell.
