Note on 4:34 and Sam Gerrans.

[Makaveli]

I will make it short.

I was in the middle of reading Sam Gerran's Last Revelation, when I stumbled upon his 434, where just as the traditionalists he translates araba as beat/spank. My .pdf version of the Last Revelation does not allow me to copy/paste text, so I will leave his video on the topic for you to review yourself https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQUsqdH_2Cs (you can also read his main points under the video title).

After careful examination of his explanation and reading what he had to say, I've sent him the following message on Facebook, depicting the critique of his own argument

Dear Sam,

I am reading your reformist translation of the Quran and just stumbled upon your interpretation of the 434. Tbh I am quite suprirsed that you actually translate it the way traditionalists do (spank or beat). I have read your explanation, but I do not agree with it for a number of reason

1. Your primary focus of an argument here is historical/traditional one. Specifically you refer to the Orthodox as something, which established family conduct for Eastern Christians. This is all true and logical, but, at the same tome, how can you exclude hadiths or traditional approaches to the Quran if you yourself cite traditional sources in this emotional women-related subject? Yes, of course, even in '50's in America it was perfectly all right for husbands to beat their wives, until the 60;s - 70's liberal reforms. But who said that something, which was/is common and 'normal' is what is right?

2. Secondly, the verse 434 makes no sense, at least to me, if I use traditional (including yours) explanation, and this is something not taken from Edip Yuksel or other reformist translations, this is something I personally refer to. I can compare 434 with 474, which makes perfect sense in terms of wartime captives - once you have captured some, fight their side until subdued, then either release them or ransom. That perfectly makes sense, because you cannt release or ransom beheaded folk.

Now, how come the Qur'an is telling husbands to beat their wives AFTER they stopped sharing bed with them? It would perfectly make sense in case the verse would be as following first admonish, then beat if they continue to disobey. But it says instead first admonish, leave them in beds apart, and then . Personally choose 'leave' for three major sub-reasons

1. It does not tell you the degree of what is 'spank' or 'beat', how strong one should spank her? Is it like Michaelle Corleone from Godfather 2 (Striking Kate Scene) or beat her to death? How one is supposed to know?

2. It does not tell you what will happen AFTER you beat her BUT she does not comply. It only says, if they obey you, seek nothing against them. But what if they contibue to disobey?

3. What is the point of beating her AFTER a man already made steps towards leaving her? I am not sure for all married couples out there, but for me personally ceasing to sleep with a wife means nothing but becoming being cold to her and eventually leave for good. How can I beat her once I already made steps towards naturally leaving her? It does not make sense.

3. In one of your videos where you explain why you did not 'accept Jesus as your Lord ad Savior' you mentioned dubious Bible interpretations by the Christians, who, as you said, do not understand the nature of semitic languages, which cannot be translated literally, but with 434 you seem to follow the very same path, by using the term araba in its literal explanation.

4. 434 may follow in the context of 429 (for ye who heed warning), which may not mean that other Qur'anic verses are automatically invalid outside of the specific context of 434. For instance, in 425 Qur'an states that in case one may not marry a free believing woman he may marry a maid, whose origins are not within monotheistic culture and in case she commits impurity then the punishment for her is but half of that for believing women. In the context of 434, what if a muslim man marries the non-,muslim woman and she regularly disobeys him, can he punish her the same way one would expect him to punish a woman who ?

In conclusion, considering the above issues I fail to accept your (and the traditional) explanation of 434. I therefore kindly ask you to once again review this problem. I am certain that your own family atmosphere is harmonious enough that punishment described in 434 is seldom your personal private practice, but people who read your translation and choose the Last Revelation as the Qur'an they want to live by, may end up with wrong (in my opinion) view on solving marital problems.

After a few minutes, he bans me, then unbans and writes a short sentence of how he 'has no time for personal theories'. And after I reply he advises me to write a book, after which I am banned and cannot respond back.

While I was preparing given post he sent me a video of what a 'doer' is according to the Quran (more likely to his own interpretation), but again, I cannot respond

http//pix.academ.info/img/2017/08/02/85add7699c902ab116eb36bf3cd49858.png

Irony is that I have actually seen his videos and read some of his articles, including 'doers' topic, but this guy acts like a hypocrite. He hates the elite and calls them psychopaths ( see for example https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuisW7rSU98 ), yet is acting similarly to fascists and traditionalists who ban anyone who is of opposite opinion.

This is the day I personally reject the Last Revelation by Sam Gerrans, not because of his translation but because of the personality of the author. If he was fair he would not ban people for sending him messages, considering no one bans his websites from spreading his books. And to myself such person is unfair and if he is unfair then I can fairly conclude that anything which comes from him, I consider such work as 'wrong' or unfair.

This is not about 'writing a book'. This is about the context of a specific verse within the Quranic context. It does not take a book to write, but a few pages perhaps. I can agree with him that there are 'doers' and 'theorists' and that they are not equal (there is also the Quranic statement which can be interpreted as such - 919), but this is not just my own points, I have included his own explanation of 434 as my focus, which left me questioning his primary argument regarding 434.

Just sharing my own experience, if you believe the Last Revelation to be true translation - in no way I am asking you not to follow it.

P.S. If you want more authentic proof that such 'conversation' took place, please contact me via PM, so we may connect on Facebook.

[Mazhar]

Grand Qur'aan has prohibited domestic violence negating erroneous "belief" of beating one's wife.

[Makaveli]

Grand Qur'aan has prohibited domestic violence negating erroneous "belief" of beating one's wife.

Thanks but I suggest this post focuses on the 'Last Revelation' by Sam Gerrans and his interpretation of 434 as well as critique towards his concrete points, rather than other reformist interpretations of the given verse. There are certainly numerous other topics dedicated to the issue of wife beating discussed here, but this topic is directed specifically towards Sam Gerrans and the criticism of his explanation.

[Comrox]

I don't agree with Gerrans' interpretation of 434 but I thought that his translation/notes/commentaries on other verses might be valuable. Now I'm rethinking buying those notes. Can't believe he blocked you. /

[Wakas]

I'm not sure what he means by "I have not time for personal theories" because it could easily be argued much of his insights/interpretations in his Quran translation are "personal theories". Perhaps he means personal theories via online messages, as opposed to a dedicated research work/book.

In any case, I also disagree with his interpretation of 434, and yours. The flaws of both understandings are discussed in detail at www.Quran434.com Further discussed on the forum also.

[Makaveli]

I'm not sure what he means by "I have not time for personal theories" because it could easily be argued much of his insights/interpretations in his Quran translation are "personal theories". Perhaps he means personal theories via online messages, as opposed to a dedicated research work/book.

In any case, I also disagree with his interpretation of 434, and yours. The flaws of both understandings are discussed in detail at www.Quran434.com Further discussed on the forum also.

I am sorry, but if I have to read a hundred pages long diatribe as to why daraba means anything else other than beating then it only proves that traditionalists are correct in regards to 434. Explanation must be easy and sound, not a hundred pages long "interpretation" and a game with word-root play.

If you happen to open the Quran for the first time. You know nothing about 434. You don't know anything about traditionalists or reformists, you just happen to open the book. What will you see in 434? Exactly. You will not have all these interpretive appendices that you and Mazhar cited here, you will just read it . And my argumentation at least comes from reason.

As to Sam Gerrans, he clearly has time to asnwer messages if he claims he is

1. an activist, i.e. has to communicate/interact with his public;

2. a doer - i.e. does something. However other than posting news on Facebook and videos on Youtube as well as blocking people for having an opposite opinion I did not see him do much. His work is great in its form, but if he asks someone to write a book, which he will read then I should ask him, who funded him for three years of writing the Last Revelation? In case a person works 5-6 times a week he physically has no time on doing a job he did. What funded him? His wife? Some foundations? A side business ?

Regarding the textbooks vs messages, as I said in my post, it is now about his whole work (even though I rejected anything related to him due to reasons described above) but a certain verse, and it was questioned in accordance with HIS arguments, not even mine. His arguments are

1. It is historical to beat wives - look at Christian Domostroi - iright, well why do you reject hadiths then, in case you cite other historical works?

2. Daraba clearly means beat - okay, but it dos not make sense for a number of reasons , how so? And what is the degree of beating? Can a husband beat her to half-dead? Why not? There is not a single root of word lightly there.

3. 434 is in context of 429 - okay, does it mean that 429 automatically cancels any other verses? What about 425 about marrying women who are no considered believers ?

That is an argument based on HIS argumentation, which I failed to accept.

[Wakas]

I am sorry, but if I have to read a hundred pages long diatribe as to why daraba means anything else other than beating then it only proves that traditionalists are correct in regards to 434. Explanation must be easy and sound, not a hundred pages long "interpretation" and a game with word-root play.

Woeful reply.

Ironically, your dismissal of my arguments is likeable to Sam's response to your arguments (i.e. dismissed without analysis, thus baseless and illogical). Hypocrisy in action.

Regarding your diatribe against Sam Gerrans, sorry but I choose not to respond to personal theories.

http//static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/11111/111111345/3162370-tumblr_m5poz8mwre1rxhbuao1_250.jpg

[SarahY]

I am sorry, but if I have to read a hundred pages long diatribe as to why daraba means anything else other than beating then it only proves that traditionalists are correct in regards to 434. Explanation must be easy and sound, not a hundred pages long "interpretation" and a game with word-root play.

If you happen to open the Quran for the first time. You know nothing about 434. You don't know anything about traditionalists or reformists, you just happen to open the book. What will you see in 434? Exactly. You will not have all these interpretive appendices that you and Mazhar cited here, you will just read it . And my argumentation at least comes from reason.

Read part 4 the summary with conclusion it's not hundred pages.

Also I don't get your "read as is" reasoning. If you happen to open the book and read what it says it's all subject to your understanding of the word in the socio-cultural context of how it is used, you can't escape bias. For example the word "hijab" is often used to mean headscarf, it never used to be so droned in to mean that. People used to use other words more commonly such as esharb and tarha. Today Non-Muslims use the term hijab to mean headscarf. So if I open the book and see the word hijab if I take your as is approach then I believe there would be flaws.

I'd imagine Sam Gerrans gets alot of criticism it's a shame he didn't take you seriously but I guess you didn't provide an alternative theory just a disagreement.

[Makaveli]

Woeful reply.

Ironically, your dismissal of my arguments is likeable to Sam's response to your arguments (i.e. dismissed without analysis, thus baseless and illogical). Hypocrisy in action.

Regarding your diatribe against Sam Gerrans, sorry but I choose not to respond to personal theories.

So apparently sending funny images is your primary argument? In regards to my 'diatribe' which is just a few lines long, compared to the link you have provided which demands a vast amount of time to be invested to understand the author's research to justify his cite instead of beat argument, I am sorry, I will stick to reason rather than personal novels.

I did read some of it though, while its argument around divorce and authority sounds more or less intact, it's main focus surrounding the root drb is just something which only proves my initial conclusion on the subject - the explanation should be simple, as simple as a few line shorts. It's either black or white, there is nothing in the middle. I refuse to speculate further, because I reject the traditions and hadiths, unlike yourself who clearly ceases to follow one tradition but turns to other traditions .

To see how your own diatribes are similar to hadiths, open any traditional explanation of controversial verses or hadiths - clergymen write similar diatribes so as to justify this or the other and I am supposed to believe it? Why not explain it simple in a few lines, as I do instead of writing novels based on somebody's else research? Again, if I happen to open the Qur'an for the first time I won't have all these appendices with me. If I happen to read Qur'an in the prison, I won't have all these unnecessary appendices with me.

[Makaveli]

Read part 4 the summary with conclusion it's not hundred pages.

Also I don't get your "read as is" reasoning. If you happen to open the book and read what it says it's all subject to your understanding of the word in the socio-cultural context of how it is used, you can't escape bias. For example the word "hijab" is often used to mean headscarf, it never used to be so droned in to mean that. People used to use other words more commonly such as esharb and tarha. Today Non-Muslims use the term hijab to mean headscarf. So if I open the book and see the word hijab if I take your as is approach then I believe there would be flaws.

I'd imagine Sam Gerrans gets alot of criticism it's a shame he didn't take you seriously but I guess you didn't provide an alternative theory just a disagreement.

First of all, there is nothing scary or 'bad' about hijab as a headscarf, it's way better than if a woman sprays strong perfume all other her body so that I know she is passing by a kilometer before I can actually see her. You can't reject modesty in Qur'an. What is 'bad', however, is a black bag which women are forced to wear in some parts of the world. So I frankly do not understand all the Qur'an alone hysteria over hijab. If she wants she can wear it and still look good and modest at the same time. Plus the hijab does not have to look like arabic headscarf, it can be a stylish hat. You can check Valeriya Porohova - she is an author of the Qur'an translation in Russia.

Secondly, I was talking more about people who originate from Arabic familes and speak Arabic at home. The links people provided here imply that I should learn or study Arabic myself otherwise I won't be able to make sure that what is written there in regards to the translation of root dbr is actually true. In fact, I still struggle to find the same roots in Qur'anic verses when I try to do my own research because I can barely read Arabic. It takes a while. And I only believe somethign I can personally experience. My argumentation is based on reason only not a novel long diatribe which implies I need to accept it. I don't even know if the author of the 'novel' is Arabic himself.

So if a person fluent in Arabic reads the Qur'an what will he see in 434? I have personally seen people who claim to be from Arabic families and countries and translate certain verses not the way traditionalists translate them. I also know that many Arabs despite knowing the language do not understand the Qur'an. Therefore, I believe the logical apporach is more important rather than the diatribe based on the root research.

Now, regarding the Sam Gerran's, I suggest you read my message to him once again. It is clear that I lean towards reformist translation of the term in 434 for a number of reasons, which are based on Sam Gerran's findings, but also my own observation. Beat in the context just does not make sense for a number of numbered points.

[SarahY]

Never said anything was scary or bad about hijab nor was I rejecting modesty. I was simply letting you know how meanings can develop and morph - this is my view coming from an Arabic speaking background. Besides you have pointed out people who are fluent in Arabic can translate certain verses differently.

I re-read your post I now see your stance is that ?leave? is the best suited translation in counteracting the beat interpretation. Thing is the verse mentions steps to take from ?fear of ill conduct?, so based on your logical understanding, what kind of leave is it?

Root system just helps people understand basic meanings of words. After all, words have an etymology and not everyone is a walking dictionary/encyclopedia. Just like one would read a word they are unfamiliar with in English, people use dictionaries to help understand. I don't see the big deal in the equivalent in other languages.

Peace

[Makaveli]

Never said anything was scary or bad about hijab nor was I rejecting modesty. I was simply letting you know how meanings can develop and morph - this is my view coming from an Arabic speaking background. Besides you have pointed out people who are fluent in Arabic can translate certain verses differently.

I re-read your post I now see your stance is that ?leave? is the best suited translation in counteracting the beat interpretation. Thing is the verse mentions steps to take from ?fear of ill conduct?, so based on your logical understanding, what kind of leave is it?

Root system just helps people understand basic meanings of words. After all, words have an etymology and not everyone is a walking dictionary/encyclopedia. Just like one would read a word they are unfamiliar with in English, people use dictionaries to help understand. I don't see the big deal in the equivalent in other languages.

Peace

My stance on leave vs beat here is specifically based on Sam Gerrans's interpretation of 434. I asked him to review his interpretation because it does not make sense, as it is a subject to numerous questions, including mine. If he claims his Last Revelation is the way he needs to further elaborate on 434 as it is arguably the most important verse , as I exlained in one of my later messages on Facebook . What he is basing his argument on is Eastern Orthodox 'Domostroi', which is the same as if he said "Look, all traditional hadiths use 'beat your wives' so why do I have to translate it any other way?"

In case proposing anything, especially based on his so-called "pan-textual analysis", I strongly believe he has to base his findings on Quran alone and not take examples of traditional Christian books of conduct.

Again, I see nothing "ubnormal" in wives being beat by men throughout the history. I can even admit that some wives deserve to be beaten (but then again, why marry one in the first place in case she is the one from whom you fear !?). My standpoint here is specifically based on finding the truth in the Quran. I studied his translation until I have reached his stance on 434 which I totally failed to accept, given his dubious methodology in this one. And after a brief "conversation" with him on Facebook I decided to completely abandon anything related to Sam Gerrans, as I now consider him a hypocrite. But that's me.

Regarding the languages, semitic one's are especially focused on roots rather than words themselves, that is why it is complex for me to just research Arabic definitions, given complexity of semitic letters themselves for someone who comes from other than Arabic background, compared to if I would just look for German words, for instance, or any other Germanic language.

[Cerberus]

you can have your own understanding of things but you don't have to bash on the guy.

[good_logic]

Also,relying on anyone s translation to agree with yours is futile, Why?
Because no matter what others say,our job is to check all the details and agree with some,disagree with some or disagree with most or disagree completely with all.

The fact remains humans are interpreting GOD s words. Humans means background,issues,traditions,bias,ego...etc. Who has not got issues,including messengers and Nabis.?

Agree to disagree and move on to keep going searching for your truth. Only GOD and His words are perfection.
GOD bless.
Peace.

[Makaveli]

you can have your own understanding of things but you don't have to bash on the guy.

Everyone has his/her own views on hypocrisy. I expressed mine. And I believe people who consider themselves Quran alone believers should know about his true personality. If you do not consider him a hypocrite, that's fine with me. As I said in my post - in no way I am asking anybody to abandon his translation. I did so because I have reasons to do so based on Sam's personality and actions . I regret studying his work.

Irony is how he translated the beggining of the 434 - And those from whom you fear haughtiness. Well, thats he who is haughty towards others, based on his "responses" on social media. Such people will never deserve my attention let alone support.

[Makaveli]

Also,relying on anyone s translation to agree with yours is futile, Why?
Because no matter what others say,our job is to check all the details and agree with some,disagree with some or disagree with most or disagree completely with all.

The fact remains humans are interpreting GOD s words. Humans means background,issues,traditions,bias,ego...etc. Who has not got issues,including messengers and Nabis.?

Agree to disagree and move on to keep going searching for your truth. Only GOD and His words are perfection.
GOD bless.
Peace.

Peace,

This thead is not about his work, except for 434 which is biased in my own opinion. It is notably about Sam Gerrans. It is not my intention to slander Gerrans, but to show others. For those of similar views, they will make their own conclusions. If he can't discuss something about his own work with his own followers, block them but then keeps sending his video without giving a chance to further discuss on the issue - he is worse than those fascistic 'psycopaths' about which he writes his articles and often makes videos.

[Cerberus]

well, you gotta give him some credits for making an entire video so that people (like yourself) are discouraged from sending him their theories and try to convince him with it. There must be thousands of people doing that.

and obviously his translation is his translation, and his project, and so are his videos. people who are interested in it can buy it. No one is forcing anyone. His stuff has his name all over it. What do you even expect from him? You got your merch lol

even if you think that he didn't handle the situation in the best possible way (debatable), it doesn't make him a hypocrite, or 'someone worth calling out'. people make mistakes.

[Makaveli]

well, you gotta give him some credits for making an entire video so that people (like yourself) are discouraged from sending him their theories and try to convince him with it. There must be thousands of people doing that.

and obviously his translation is his translation, and his project, and so are his videos. people who are interested in it can buy it. No one is forcing anyone. His stuff has his name all over it. What do you even expect from him? You got your merch lol

even if you think that he didn't handle the situation in the best possible way (debatable), it doesn't make him a hypocrite, or 'someone worth calling out'. people make mistakes.

Again, if you fail to see hypocrisy in what he does, based on his attitude towards the elite , but then acts in the same snobish and fascistic manner after I ask him to once again review his 434 because it has flaws, to say the least - that's completely fine by me. I am not insisting that everyone should abandon his work. I did. Everybody chooses his/her own actions, I just hope these are wise actions everyone takes.

If he blocks people to debate with him on his own work, by challenging others to write similar works, this is simply pathetic. His own work is not blocked, it is out there, released .

Another part of his notalbe hypocrisy is him asking for money , but does not tell as to what his project is going to be https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcSbQliAeXg

So people according to him are 'doers' if they invest into something they have no clue about? Ridiculous. This and mostly the latest actions related to my experience with him made me conclude on the subject. Again, I am not asking anyone to have the same attitude towards him as I do. Read his work, invest into him, get blocked by him if you disagree - whatever.

[good_logic]

Peace Makaveli.
I get your point and you are right to highlight the injustice/ban.

My aim /intend is not to criticise but advise that nobody should follow/rely on others.

Everyone should pick what is best from others or leave altogether.

Of course if anyone wants to follow/rely on anyone they are free to do so. This is in general,not intended for you.
GOD bless you.
Peace.

[Cerberus]

It still funny that only after your incident with him that you somehow woke up from your illusion. And he somehow turned into that terrible hypocrite bad guy.