Note on 4:34 and Sam Gerrans.
-
Peace Makaveli.
Thank you for your clarifying post.
Let me give an example of what I mean by sometimes we need to be patient and forgiving. That does not mean compromising or accepting illogical and false views.I travelled to London yesterday(Sunday 2/9/2017) . I wanted to visit the "speakers corner" in Hyde park to have a look.
I found plenty of people "selling" their religion. Some Jewish, quite few Christians ,plenty of "Traditional Muslims" and the odd humanist,other....
I got there around 1130 AM, the place was quiet at first,then it started to get busy ,the place filled up by about 200 PM .
I found that most speakers/debaters had their own agenda and were specifically wanting to stay debating /preaching their own set beliefs.
It was a new experience for me,looking at all these people with "my mind is made up" agendas,almost deaf to logical/searching questions from others.
I was mainly feeling the "atmosphere" and listening to different topics being discussed.
What struck me is how some have developed a "skill" to hijack the conversation and back each other up on false premises and assumptions.Sometimes the person leading/starting the debate has friends who are protective and support his views by undermining/deflecting the conversation when the other guy hits the nerve with a good question.Anyway,the 5 hours that I spent there highlighted for me the difficulty we face in changing ways/attitudes of people by any other means except to give the example of being the best we can according to the ethics of GOD s instructions/advice in Qoran.
It was interesting and I will go again GOD willing.
May be I will even take part in these debates,but hopefully with an open mind .By the way,there was no Qoran Alone or monotheist individuals there,or at least I did not meet/see any.
GOD bless you.
Peace. -
Peace good logic,
That was indeed an interesting experience of yours. When people are literally selling their views and they believe that their product is the best, the most right, the most enlightening, it really shows how complicated is to find truth. Back then before printing press it was probably easy to convince people of any heresy because most ordinary people did not have access to information (libraries and universities). Now that is vice versa, people do have access to anything, but the downside is that we live in the age of informational freedom and we are basically sinking in the informational flow, which is seldom good, because you never know what kind of truth may in fact be positive for your own wellbeing as well as for community as whole. It is hard to determine which is best now and obviously the marked is filled with all sort of modern clerics and people who believe they are the most knowledgeable on the subject.
Arrogance is something which should be in fact minimized, especially now because there are already countless of views on anything. There are plenty of people who would argue against Gerrans, as well as there are many supports of him. He is a somewhat prominent figure, nonetheless. But the problem with Quran alone community is that there is seldom consensus among its members on many issues, from salat to siyam (fasting) to community building to household and marital issues and so on. And there are obviously people who would say that they have done work and therefore you either praise them for this, or get blocked and be called a talker.
I understand that patience is in fact one of the strongest monotheistic virtue not all of us can demonstrate. And I fully agree with you that no matter what circumstances are, it is best to keep being patient with whatever happens and leave the rest to God. But I can also tell that Quran alone for the most part relies on logic and reason and then on linguistic and contextual analysis. And you are never sure which translation is the best one, so in the end all you have to do is logic and reason, because you cant rely on the side-literature. That is why it is best to analyze all of the most prominent players in Quran alone community, to analyze it with open heart and mind, and to see if they are good or if they spread negative message. And if they do spread negative, see why, because I still think that bitter truth is better than sweet lie. It is not because of 434 that Ive approached Gerrans, but because HOW he did go about this verse. Refering to the old Christian traditional books and then saying that this is contextually correct, because it is not consistent with many other verses. In addition, the way he went about me kindly approaching him on the issue Ive already described.
So yes, I agree that no matter how effective is one at choosing (or filtering) how to approach all sorts of information (most of which is pointless or negative), there will always be surplus of all kinds of teachings, good and bad. But to filter what is right from wrong (which is cultural and subjective) one has to follow common discourse, which to me personally is peace and patience, which I personally strive to follow, with varied success.
The reason why there are often no Quran alone people at these debates is because there is no community or business within this movement, which is actually good. All these churches and traditional Muslims they approach it like a business. Their books tell them, at least that is correct for Muslims, that if they manage to convert someone into Islam, they get reward from God. You can google do I get reward convert Islam or similar keywords, and see how many topics are there of Muslims asking other Muslims if they will get their reward if they made a friend of theirs accept Islam. Same with many Christian movements, they are interested in getting people among their ranks, because they also get money from them. There is no Quran alone community, organization, or government. And I think there will never be, not in the nearest future at least. I am not sure if this is perfectly good or bad. I still fail to understand numerous community-related injunctions in the Quran, which are obviously addressed to the community, such as how to go about adulterers or thieves, or aggressors. These verses are made for communities and not for ordinary individuals. But I simply fail to see the Quran alone country or the state. Maybe a commune, but a commune cannot effectively stand against thousands of soldiers with AKs. And I honestly cant imagine any of you guys actually punishing an adulterer with hundred lashes. Something must be either terribly misunderstood or the Quranic project has failed from the beginning (historically).
I apologize for somewhat long post heh.
Peace.
-
Makaveli,
Not only does Sam Gerrans translate daraba as beat, but unfortunately he also believes that the traditionalist understanding of so-called "virgins in paradise" is correct. But his understanding of "virgins in paradise" can easily be disproved by using the quran alone. Another youtuber (Quran centric) has made a good video about "houries in the quran", and in his video he has disproved the traditionalist understanding of "virgins in paradise." Do a search on youtube, if you are interested in watching his video.
Never follow men, brother. No man has a perfect understanding of all the verses in the quran. Therefore, if a believer starts to follow men, he will be disappointed. He might be led astray too. The Quran never tells you to follow men. It tells you to follow God alone. But it's okey to support other believers and learn from them, though. Some of Sam Gerrans videos and articles are good (e.g. his video about purity). Although his understanding of the Quran is not perfect (like all other scholars), he is seemingly a man with a good heart. He appears to have a strong work ethic too. In terms of bringing the Quran and its message to a wider audience, he has probably achieved more than most users on FM will ever achieve.
Nicey nicey! bravo jedi sun
-
Peace
In his translation of 1051 Gerrans uses fil to refer to something else other elephant. He writes "It is true that one of the meanings of fil is elephant. However, fil also means base, weak, weak in judgement.
I've failed to find other meanings of fil . Could someone please refer me to other possible translations and the root of phil ?
-
Peace
In his translation of 1051 Gerrans uses fil to refer to something else other elephant. He writes "It is true that one of the meanings of fil is elephant. However, fil also means base, weak, weak in judgement.
I've failed to find other meanings of fil . Could someone please refer me to other possible translations and the root of phil ?
Fa-Ya-Lam = Weak and erroneous judgement or opinion, erring in judgement/insight, to magnify oneself and become like an elephant, showed a morose aspect, elephant, (it) increased, to become fat/big like an elephant, Heavy (or dull) and low, ignoble or mean, keeper/master of the elephant.
Peace.
-
Fa-Ya-Lam = Weak and erroneous judgement or opinion, erring in judgement/insight, to magnify oneself and become like an elephant, showed a morose aspect, elephant, (it) increased, to become fat/big like an elephant, Heavy (or dull) and low, ignoble or mean, keeper/master of the elephant.
Peace.
Yeah found it in Lane's. Thanks.
-
Regardless of what Gerrans thinks about this verse, I can't really see any other signification for the verb daraba when it has for object a person. If any of you people come from any sort of arabic speaking background, you would know that daraba in regards to someone never means something other than to hit the person. If it is taken to mean separate from a person, daraba certainly isn't the verb one would think of, hence why I think it is unfounded to claim some other meaning for this verse, as much as people might dislike it. If any of you is aware of some other instance in which the verb daraba used for a person means something other than hit him/her (not beat by the way), bring it forth. Just saying...
-
Peace Lost.
If it has no other meaning in that verse,then please explain how to do the "daraba" and with what?
Because you cannot have that much ambiguity or leave it to "humans" to decide how and with what to "daraba"!!!!When GOD specifies a sanction in Qoran ,GOD always gives the how and with what.
Thank you.
Peace. -
Peace Lost.
If it has no other meaning in that verse,then please explain how to do the "daraba" and with what?
Because you cannot have that much ambiguity or leave it to "humans" to decide how and with what to "daraba"!!!!When GOD specifies a sanction in Qoran ,GOD always gives the how and with what.
Thank you.
Peace.Also, it is absolute nonsense, because that would mean that mere fear or suspicion entitles to "take action". The only permissive action in that case would be to try to ascertain.
Also, the aya is addressed to the believers at large. that is, it is the believers, men and women who collectively would suspect of fear something. Beat or strike, how or what. Lynch?
The whole 4.34 has been turned into nonsense and travesty. No wonder we keep lost.
Salaam
-
I only said that I can't see how it could mean something other than hit, the flow of the verse would strongly point to that according to me, that's just how I see it. If you come from any arabic speaking background, it is frankly quite stupid to read the verse with some other meaning in mind and I tried very hard to do so. Notice how the object is directly refered to, it doesn't involve anything like seperate them FROM you or else. If we take it to mean hit, then going by quranic moral standards and from the context, I can only see something like spanking here. If understood this way, it is important to be aware of the fact that this is meant as a last ressort only and as a way to keep the marriage going, and is to be applied by believers only and not submitters, thus people whom fall under such a description. This really wouldn't be abuse in any kind...
Now if you have a hard time accepting that it could mean that, you would naturally try to force some other explanation but always keep in mind that this is god's book which claims to be clear and easy, not ambiguous... In the meanwhile, I never heard of daraba meaning something else when directly refering to someone.
-
And I can clearly see that it does not mean"hit" or "spank" because of the context and a list of choices in that verse.
If it was 2hit2 or "spank" like you say,GOD would have specified.
As for Arabic,Qoran has many times set its own precedence on the language. Qpran use of Arabic is the example not man s use of the language.
"Daraba" has many meanings including Set an example of,leave alone,separate,..etc. Using the one in context/appropriate cannot be the "hit"or "spank".
Besides ,if there are choices why not choose the other straight forward alternatives?
My take on it.
GOD bless you.
Peace. -
Regardless of what Gerrans thinks about this verse, I can't really see any other signification for the verb daraba when it has for object a person.
To hit and to leave someone/something - both have objects and a verb. To hit, however, is seldom specified (with what? how? until when? why 435 talks about divorce procedure and what is the point of beating then?) Thare is nothing to hint "spanking" as a level of beating in any context.
Even Gerrans, being highly inconsistent on this verse, because he used his own bias when translating a verse, a comment under 434 clearly shows it, he just wanted it to say hit but did not have any contextual evidence to prove it. He used a term "spanking" just to lower the possible consequence of domestic violence, since there is a contex of "treat your wives with kindness". However, being ultimately inconsistent on 434, Gerrans missed clearly the part where he himself said that 434 is in the context of 429 as if two inviduals, man and women, are somehow obliged to 429 when they take oath of bond, which is clearly not the case, because marriage is a cultural bond, not all cultures rely on Qur'an. So his 434 in the context of 429 is not only wrong contextually, but he also cannot say that daraba is spanking as a light term for beating because there is nothing which would indicate the level of physical violence nor any textual context to symbolize it.
Just to give you an example where Gerrans is more careful with his root/word/meanings analysis. Please see his translation of sura 105, where he translates al-phyl not as an elephant, which is the most common translation, but weak in judgement, so as to support the other meaning of this verse outside of traditional interpretation. And I agree with him. However, he used the least possible meaning of al-phyl, whereas with daraba he clearly and as stated in his "analysis" under 434 used what he believes is all right contextually, when in fact it's not.
Gerrans did good work on some issues, such as zakat. But he sucks badly on 434. And that is only because he has his own bias associated with it. He wanted it to be spaking, even though if translated from physical position, it says beat, not spank.
-
You guys don't understand that going for daraba in this context to mean other than to hit would be very ambiguous, like a lot, which we wouldn't expect from a clear and explicit book. If it really means hit/strike, it is stupid to argue how to hit or such, think with logic and put yourself in such a situation, what would be meant here if we take it as hit is that the man should redirect the wife in case such behavior is exhibited, think about it just the same as hitting your child or something, not a big deal, only modern, soft-ass societies are scared by that. And because the quran commands us to be fair, it is only a mean to rstrict, because with some people, they will never listen or understand if it is not physically shown to them... Keep in mind this is last ressort, and other procedures could be taken before it all leads to this. This is actually a very basic thing in life, you have to show certain hard-headed people their limits or else you will be eaten and it becomes impossible to redirect them when needed...
As for Gerrans, guy often makes very good observations but sometimes he's all bout that bullshit. Just go check his ramadan video, where his lack of arabic is exposed, I'm calling total bullshit on that one...
-
Wakas did a very good study of the verb daraba in the Qur'an looking at every occurrence. In none of them made sense to translate as strike beat or hit except that it be taken in a figurative sense. In none of them.
Daraba, today, may mean whatever it may mean, but in the Qur'an it does not mean beat or hit or strike in a physical sense.
It is as so many words from the Qur'an that have been made to change to suit the meaning sought by society or those leading in society to shape societies not as qura'nic societies but has non qura'nic.
As I pointed out at other times, another hint is the Spanish verb "adarvar" from the arabic daraba. Words taken from Arabic in Spanish corresond to the same thing that in Arabic, they do not mean something different, adarvar does not mean beat, it means to cause surprise.
As pointed out, to translate as beat taken, together with other all the other contortions imposed on this aya, helps a lot the male worshipping interests, but it does not make any sense at all, not a little bit. It is another factor which has turned this aya into a mockery of the Qur'an thnks to the resolute purpose of those interpreting it to empty it of its light and fill it with male centric Iblees content.
Salaam
-
After reading Wakas'analysis, I'm forced to say that it provides the reader with a well-fitting alternative meaning for daraba in the context of this verse, but this is only viable when one is aware that the last bit of 434 (So if they obeyed you, then seek not against them a way) refers to the admonishment only, rather than to the steps one should take in case wife doesn't listen ; separate them in bed and idriboohunna. This is probably what made me unable to understand it other than hit/strike/beat/whatever. However, like I said, a rendition of daraba as separation is incompatible here, mostly for the following reasons both me and Wakas pointed out, that is, quoting from Wakas's article 3) results in incoherence when DRB is used with a human as the direct object (see 4357 and 273)
and 4) requires the insertion of "from" making this the only DRB example of this kind in The Quran, even though the preposition "AAn /from" is used with DRB in 435 in a very similar usage as being suggested here for 434.Indeed, if one assumes a cite/declare/... rendition for the verb, the problems raised in the above mentionned points are easily solved.
However, daraba still remains as an ambiguous verb in a context like that, but then again maybe god wanted us to ponder more thoroughly, by considering the quran as a whole, on the matter before drawing any conlcusion...
-
You guys don't understand that going for daraba in this context to mean other than to hit would be very ambiguous, like a lot, which we wouldn't expect from a clear and explicit book. If it really means hit/strike, it is stupid to argue how to hit or such, think with logic and put yourself in such a situation, what would be meant here if we take it as hit is that the man should redirect the wife in case such behavior is exhibited, think about it just the same as hitting your child or something, not a big deal, only modern, soft-ass societies are scared by that.
Qur'an usually adds an object where the talk is about hitting. Such as in 260 Moses is told to strike with his staff the stone, in 3793 there is a "blow with right hand", in 850 angels are striking faces and backs. In 434 - nothing. So daraba in 434 is a lot more ambiguous if we use hit rather than leave which fits perfectly in the context, unlike hitting.
Also, since we talk about domestic problem solving, how so it does not add an object to "hit", such as which part of her body shall he hit, with what? Obviously when a spouse is hitting another spouse there is a tense atmosphere and both are being emotional so they might not really pay attention to what they do or say, in such a case it is very important to watch your language or your actions, since the situation can get out of control easily during arguments. Therefore it is highly strange it does not specify HOW to beat the wife, he can easily beat her to death using Gerran's explanation.
I don't care about someone hitting a wife, it is her problem, and in most cases they deserve it even if they do nothing wrong, but in latter they deserve it because they deliberately marry pigs with brutal attitude, since women are attracted to such behavior. I am however concerned with the Qur'an, I know it was severely mistranslated in Arabic due to the huge influence of syriac in the region, while Arabic seldom had any writings or grammar until the Qur'an.
P.S. Also about the "since the obey you" part. Qur'an in almost all instances where it talks about punishment gives an option to forgive and 434 is not a step by step verse as traditional pigs would like it to be read, i.e. it does not say First advice, then leave her in bed, then beat, then etc. It is an option thing, so seek nothing against them is an option, and 435 is divorce procedure. Qur'an is the test, how will you act in certain situations, it deliberately decieves the reader.