Note on 4:34 and Sam Gerrans.
-
812 Your Lord inspired to the controllers "I am with you so keep firm those who acknowledge. I will cast fear into the hearts of those who have rejected; so strike (fa idriboo) above the necks, and strike every finger."
850 If you could only see as the controllers take those who have rejected, they strike (yadriboona) their faces and their backs "Taste the punishment of the blazing fire!"
2663 So We inspired to Moses "Strike (idrib) the sea with your staff." So it split into two, each side like a great mountain.
3842 "Strike/move (arkud) with your foot, here is a cold spring to wash with and to drink."
For "Da-Ra-Ba" to mean strike/beat and for a potential "wife beating" action to be condoned, it needs to be specific. There needs to be at least one object - otherwise DRB will not refer to "beat" or "strike." It would be very unclear beat their face with a fist? Slap them in the face? Slap their back? How hard? How many times? Which bdy part to beat? Which body part to use to beat? 100 "strikes" like for zina - see how it is clearly specified? It is not clear and there is no body part or object of striking specified in the phrase "wa idribuhoona." In those cases, we must use the most basic meaning "to cite" or "to indicate" or, less literally "refer for arbitration."
In fact, this makes much sense because how else would the messenger or authority (singular "you" that is referred to in 435) find out about the marital problems? With a black eye or if the man indicates/cites/refers for arbitration? The latter understanding is much more logical in terms of language used and logical consistency.
Furthermore, as per 435 an arbitrator from each family must be picked to settle the case. What if the arbiters were the fathers of each party and husband beat the crap out of the wife... How would the woman's father feel? Wouldn't that cause further problems and never lead to a proper outcome for arbitration? It does not make much sense.
"Separate from them" is nonsense - the language does not support this. Furthermore, this would be abandonment and the husband is not to abandon his wife. Furthermore, the split/separation is talked about in 435. Similar problems as with "strike" appear for this interpretation For how long do they separate? Where do each of them stay? This argument holds much less weight than even the "beat" argument does.
"Strike them out" is nonsense for very similar reasons.
Also, can someone shed some light in terms of the language and the usage of the different "wa." Does this imply that advising, sleep in separate beds and "idribohoona"/cite them is to occur during the same time or does it imply different steps? Maybe it is steps cause the first step has "fa" and the other ones are connected by "wa?" Perhaps "if they obey you, do not seek a way over them" implies that admonishment could suffice.
One thing Sam Gerrans talked about is that "takhafoona nushuzu" means a strong/evidenced fear of "nushuz." What is the evidence for this? He said something along the lines of "whenever kh-f-t" is used it is for strong/evidenced fear.
Also, if we interpret "zina" to include adultery, what would be the difference between "nushooz" and "zina?" Clearly, they are not the same. There seems to be no "zina" involved, otherwise the commandment would be clear 100 lashes. So of "zina" includes adultery and "nushooz" is disloyalty, then this disloyalty cannot refer to a sexual/penetrative sexual affair.
-
812 Your Lord inspired to the controllers "I am with you so keep firm those who acknowledge. I will cast fear into the hearts of those who have rejected; so strike (fa idriboo) above the necks, and strike every finger."
850 If you could only see as the controllers take those who have rejected, they strike (yadriboona) their faces and their backs "Taste the punishment of the blazing fire!"
2663 So We inspired to Moses "Strike (idrib) the sea with your staff." So it split into two, each side like a great mountain.
3842 "Strike/move (arkud) with your foot, here is a cold spring to wash with and to drink."
For "Da-Ra-Ba" to mean strike/beat and for a potential "wife beating" action to be condoned, it needs to be specific. There needs to be at least one object - otherwise DRB will not refer to "beat" or "strike." It would be very unclear beat their face with a fist? Slap them in the face? Slap their back? How hard? How many times? Which bdy part to beat? Which body part to use to beat? 100 "strikes" like for zina - see how it is clearly specified? It is not clear and there is no body part or object of striking specified in the phrase "wa idribuhoona." In those cases, we must use the most basic meaning "to cite" or "to indicate" or, less literally "refer for arbitration."
In fact, this makes much sense because how else would the messenger or authority (singular "you" that is referred to in 435) find out about the marital problems? With a black eye or if the man indicates/cites/refers for arbitration? The latter understanding is much more logical in terms of language used and logical consistency.
Furthermore, as per 435 an arbitrator from each family must be picked to settle the case. What if the arbiters were the fathers of each party and husband beat the crap out of the wife... How would the woman's father feel? Wouldn't that cause further problems and never lead to a proper outcome for arbitration? It does not make much sense.
"Separate from them" is nonsense - the language does not support this. Furthermore, this would be abandonment and the husband is not to abandon his wife. Furthermore, the split/separation is talked about in 435. Similar problems as with "strike" appear for this interpretation For how long do they separate? Where do each of them stay? This argument holds much less weight than even the "beat" argument does.
"Strike them out" is nonsense for very similar reasons.
Also, can someone shed some light in terms of the language and the usage of the different "wa." Does this imply that advising, sleep in separate beds and "idribohoona"/cite them is to occur during the same time or does it imply different steps? Maybe it is steps cause the first step has "fa" and the other ones are connected by "wa?" Perhaps "if they obey you, do not seek a way over them" implies that admonishment could suffice.
One thing Sam Gerrans talked about is that "takhafoona nushuzu" means a strong/evidenced fear of "nushuz." What is the evidence for this? He said something along the lines of "whenever kh-f-t" is used it is for strong/evidenced fear.
Also, if we interpret "zina" to include adultery, what would be the difference between "nushooz" and "zina?" Clearly, they are not the same. There seems to be no "zina" involved, otherwise the commandment would be clear 100 lashes. So of "zina" includes adultery and "nushooz" is disloyalty, then this disloyalty cannot refer to a sexual/penetrative sexual affair.
But..but...what if she's a feminazi brainwashed by the cultural marxism? How can I save a SACRED family without kicking her ass like a pios man of traditional values?
http//cdn.ruvr.ru/2013/12/26/1243705477/1Sam_Gerrans.jpg
-
In retrospect I want to say
Makaveli, you got called out as a talker and got mad. I pretty much went through all of Sam Gerrans' talks. He is right about talkers vs doers. Debating endlessly will not solve much. At least the guy is out there spreading the message and overall he probably has the best translation and has some good interpretations. His focus on warning the elite is key, as is his emphasis on everyone becoming a warner to people. He puts up a barrier and is arrogant sometimes. However, if you disagree with him, he actually has good advice. Produce your own work and send it to him. You can also post it as a comment under his video on it. To be honest, I do not think his translation of 434 is as much of a problem as was his video, which is what I discussed in my thread that got hijacked by disrespectful idiots and finally shut off by the censorer Layth.
He is right about the elite, feminism, etc. He just released a video about feminism and it is worth a watch. The problem with his presentation of 434 is the same problem that the "reformist/feminist" translators commit. They have a bias. He wants the Quran to always pretty much go directly against the mainstream/leftists/elite and he went on and cited a Russian book (hadith) and quoted the practice of religious groups (sunnah) to support his position and went "Ha! Take that feminists!" Instead, he should have done a proper "pan-textual analysis" as he usually likes doing.
-
Debating endlessly will not solve much.
Nothing will solve anything. Translating the Qur'an based on flawed dogmas and tafsir is an especially worthless task, debating in this case is more productive. I am spreading my message and he's his. He has a slave mentality, I don't. I already posted under his videos, and asked a provocative yet also a very serious question on the topic of the community, yet he decided that removing a comment is a way to go. He is pathetic.
I made this thread to point out not his personal bias but the overall servility given community is up to. Qur'an is severely mistranslated and so is Gerrans' translation which is not that different from traditionalist one. And his pan-textual analysis has been proven worthless, as in many instances he says "I don't know, I don't need to know". So the book is out there for a mindful reader, yet "he does not need to know". That's a typical behaviour of a slave. And I know the root of the problem and how to possibly solve it.
Do what you want anyway. Listen to the talks, or you can actually start thinking for yourself, not what Gerrans does. Gerrans is a conspiracy freak, and patriachal douchebags are no less detrimental to society than feminism. I'd rather destroy the patriarchy than feminism even though both social directions so to speak are detrimental, but that is patriarchy which is behind the mindless servility such as Gerrans himself.
And translating the Qur'an with the fabricated language based on invented words and diacritics is a waste of time anyways. 434 is a drop in the ocean so to speak, not only it talks not about beating, but not even about the wives, so does 43 and pretty much everything. But of course that is not something given community wants me to say.
I will debate Gerrans any day, and I believe that will be more productive for him and overall Qur'an alone community, he is not that productive as he wants you to believe. His work is worthless for the most part, and is also partly based on tafsir namely that of Muhammad Asad. He also is wrong on many issues, and I would gladly destroy his personal nuthouse world he lives in. That will be better for him.
-
First part of sentence is absolutely correct; but the other part is patently incorrect.
The language of the Qur'an is highly descriptive just like all Semitic languages. If you believe it allows 4 wives tell me how many wings do angels have (351). Oh also, Gerrans the master of the pan-textual analysis, should say something on this. Nope, he cited Muhammad Asad on this one (see Gerrans' note 351). Taking Qur'an literally is worse than following the sunnah. But I know the root of the problem, why people take it literally. I have a very simple yet plausible two-point scientific explanation for this.
-
The language of the Qur'an is highly descriptive just like all Semitic languages. If you believe it allows 4 wives tell me how many wings do angels have (351). Oh also, Gerrans the master of the pan-textual analysis, should say something on this. Nope, he cited Muhammad Asad on this one (see Gerrans' note 351). Taking Qur'an literally is worse than following the sunnah. But I know the root of the problem, why people take it literally. I have a very simple yet plausible two-point scientific explanation for this.
If it is not wives else it refers.
-
The language of the Qur'an is highly descriptive just like all Semitic languages. If you believe it allows 4 wives tell me how many wings do angels have (351). Oh also, Gerrans the master of the pan-textual analysis, should say something on this. Nope, he cited Muhammad Asad on this one (see Gerrans' note 351). Taking Qur'an literally is worse than following the sunnah. But I know the root of the problem, why people take it literally. I have a very simple yet plausible two-point scientific explanation for this.
"Malaikat" have different powers/dimensions/functions. The verse does not talk about "angels" like the chubby roman angel babies with wings.
-
"Malaikat" have different powers/dimensions/functions. The verse does not talk about "angels" like the chubby roman angel babies with wings.
I know what malaikat means. Yet they all translate it as angels (with wings I suppose). My question is still relevant, how many wives one may have given the ambigious amount of "wings" in malaikat and the side-question is how can the so beloved 'pan-textual' analysis solve this?
-
Stop discrediting the guy, because a least he is trying his best to understand the quran to the extent that he dedicated many years of his life to it. Many of his interpretations make a lot of sense and analysing the quran from internal evidence is actually how any quran alone follower works, he only refer to it as pan-textual analysis but the concept is not his own invention. Also, why do some people here act as if the quran is some kind of mystic book impossible to understand, seriously stop with this bullshit. Or maybe is it the influence of the liberal agenda? The quran is realistic and does talk about things such as fighting whether you like it or not, I mean what is the big deal about defensive wars, this is reality people not some fantasy world in which every thing is peaceful. Those aspects are part of this world period, stop being soft and harden up a little bit, this life isnt our final destination therefore it doesnt have to be perfect, wake up and face it...
-
Stop discrediting the guy, because a least he is trying his best to understand the quran to the extent that he dedicated many years of his life to it. Many of his interpretations make a lot of sense and analysing the quran from internal evidence is actually how any quran alone follower works, he only refer to it as pan-textual analysis but the concept is not his own invention. Also, why do some people here act as if the quran is some kind of mystic book impossible to understand, seriously stop with this bullshit. Or maybe is it the influence of the liberal agenda? The quran is realistic and does talk about things such as fighting whether you like it or not, I mean what is the big deal about defensive wars, this is reality people not some fantasy world in which every thing is peaceful. Those aspects are part of this world period, stop being soft and harden up a little bit, this life isnt our final destination therefore it doesnt have to be perfect, wake up and face it...
Peace
I endorse every sentence.
bravo -
I'm starting to agree more and more with Sam's translation. Here is my working conclusion of one way this verse could be translated
Part 1 The role of men
The men are protectors and maintainers of and are responsible for the women by what God has gifted them over one another and by what they spend of their wealth.Part 2 What righteous women do
The righteous women are devotees. They guard and preserve what belongs to privacy/intimacy just as how the god would have them do.Part 3 When things go wrong
As for those women from whom you experience/have reason to fear their uprising/ill-treatment,Part 4 What to do
you shall admonish/exhort them, then leave them alone in bed, then spank them.Part 5 Limitation and important reminder
Once they have paid heed to you, do not seek a measure against them. Attention The god is high, great! -
I think the evidence and interpretations in your article suffer for the following reasons
-
not entirely understanding the differences in roles between men and women
-
not understanding that there is different treatment of men and women before the law in this life for sexual crimes - regarding "zina" (homewrecking) and "fahisha" (sexual immorality) - e.g. only unmarrired men and only married womn can commit zina (they do it with each other)
-
misinterpretation of nushuz, conflating it more or less with zina/fahisha, thus creating issues with the alleged citation
-
misinterpretation of "khiftum" - which is not an arbitrary fear as evidenced by many verses. inconsistency of khiftum interpretation between 434 and 35. How can one arbitrarily fear, let alone "fear" a citation? Why does the God at 4128 clearly says that there is something wrong that would require separation? Clearly the past tense "khafat" shows it is not arbitrary and that it refers to something one actually experiences.
-
Subjective Furthermore, you argued that one shouldnt "beat" (and im not suggesting that this is the correct interpretation) based on a fear... so based on that logic, deserting in bed and telling the families that ones wife is disyloyal based on a "fear" is also arbitrary, unfair and goes against other guidelines!
-
Further subjective points you have included such as treatment of divorced ex-wife vs wife that displays nushuz; example of Pharaoh with khiftum and the "not equal are good and bad response (dare I say these latter two are appeals to emotion?)
-
another subjective point suggesting that the god encourages faithful partners to stay with cheaters
-
-
I know what malaikat means. Yet they all translate it as angels (with wings I suppose). My question is still relevant, how many wives one may have given the ambigious amount of "wings" in malaikat and the side-question is how can the so beloved 'pan-textual' analysis solve this?
I think that an elipsis is suggested after "four," as is the case in many other cases, of which you may be aware, since you studied Sam's work.
Thus, it would read
43 And if you have reason to fear / if you experience that you will not be able to do justice towards the fatherless orphans*, then marry from among the women such as are desirable to you two, and three, and four**... But if you have reason to fear / if you experience that you will not be able to do justice, then one - or over whom you rightfully have authority. This will make it more likely that you will not deviate from the right course.
- i.e. boys/girls whose mothers do not have a man as qawwam, or are outright orphans; women who do not have a father or man as qawwam
** i.e. more than one, granted one can do justice
Note that there is no "or," suggesting marrying additional women consecutively instead restricting the ordinance to a current/temporary situation a man is in.
The non-existent "wings" issue can be interpreted the same more than one - and some more than others.
351 All praise belongs to the God, Initiator of the skies and the land; maker of the controllers/governors as messengers with powers/dimensions in twos, and threes, and fours*.... (He increases in the creation as He wishes. The God applies measure to all things.)
- i.e. more than one and even more than four, if the God wishes to increase the creation
- i.e. boys/girls whose mothers do not have a man as qawwam, or are outright orphans; women who do not have a father or man as qawwam
-
- misinterpretation of "khiftum" - which is not an arbitrary fear as evidenced by many verses. inconsistency of khiftum interpretation between 434 and 35. How can one arbitrarily fear, let alone "fear" a citation? Why does the God at 4128 clearly says that there is something wrong that would require separation? Clearly the past tense "khafat" shows it is not arbitrary and that it refers to something one actually experiences.
Edit
- misinterpretation of "khiftum" - which is not an arbitrary fear as evidenced by many verses. inconsistency of khiftum interpretation between 434 and 35. How can one arbitrarily fear, let alone "fear" a citation? Why does the God at 4128 clearly say that there is something wrong that would require reconciliation? Clearly the past tense "khafat" shows it is not arbitrary and that it refers to something one actually experienced.
"Having feared" is irrelevant unless something happened. It's clearly shown that something bad did happen. "Fear" is an inaccurate translation, similar to how "believed" is an inaccurate translation of "amanoo."
-
I forgot two more important points that - along with my last posts - conclusively refute the "cite" nonsense.
-
You said that "separate" made no sense since there is an arbitration phase in 435 linked to 434 with a "wa" and because of "if they obey you..." at the end of 434. I agree with part of that, but your understanding is not entirely accurate. Let me point out that 434 is a closed system. There are 3 clear steps mentioned from man to woman - with no one else mentioned. Then it says "if they obey you..." It doesnt mention any arbitration, only admonishing, deserting in bed and spanking. Right after that it says "if they obey you..." It does not say "get an arbiter... if they obey you..." In fact, 435 describes a whole other scenario where the three steps have not worked and arbitration is now necessary. At that point it's either reconciliation or separation, and furthermore constitutes a proactive step that is directed at and that the community should take, not the man in 434. And this cannot relate to a "citation" as I have pointed out in one of my previous posts.
-
You correctly mentioned that translating daraba as "move away" or "separate (from)" creates an inconsistency in the all-wise God's usage of "nadriboo ankumu" for "move away from" or "withdraw from" or "separate from." Indeed, "ankumu"/"from" is not in 434. It simply says "idriboo them." Now, you mentioned that interpreting daraba as strike/spank in 434 creates an inconsistency with the God's usage in 4357 in which the act of "daraba" towards a human is mentioned, and that it means "God cites Isa as an example" and not "God hits Isa." This point, you claim, is evidence for your understanding. What you failed to realize and/or disclose is that in 4357, it reads - just as in all cases in which it means "cite" "Wa lamma duriba ibnu Maryam mathalan" Thus, for the "cite (as an example)" to hypothetically be valid in 434, "mathalan" - or whatever the plural is - would have to have been used! Checkmate. The internal mechanism of the Quran rejects misinterpretations like "cite" and "separate/withdraw/shun."
This is now beyond a doubt sufficient evidence to refute the "cite" nonsense.
However, I will throw in a bonus. Since I'm almost exclusively going from memory, I think I remember you also mentioned that the alleged citation in 434-35 somehow has to link to 4128-129. However, this is simply a guess on your part. Youre filling in imaginary gaps. I think this misunderstanding goes back to my other post that you fail to understand the differences in the roles/nature of men and women. It's not egalitarian. 4128-129 basically says that in cases in which the man screwed up, he either reconciles his mistakes/his woman's grievances or they seperate. The God advises men in 4129 If you reconcile and are prudent*... God is indeed Forgiver, Merciful
- (use of ellipses) - i.e. If you reconcile and are prudent it is better.
More on 4128-129 here https//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597268.msg411300#msg411300
Good bye, citation! Now, I invite people to stop twisting the words of the God to suit their desires and wishful thinking and to appease non-believers, feminists and others.
-
-
@progressive1993
"The God advises men in 4129 If you reconcile and are prudent*... God is indeed Forgiver, Merciful"- Don't forget to read the next verse as it's not an advise, but an alternative.
4130 And if they separate, then God will provide for each of them from His bounty. God is Vast, Wise.
3021 And from His signs is that He created for you mates from yourselves that you may reside with them, and He placed between you affection and mercy. In that are signs for a people who reflect.
- There's no mercy in your spanking fantasies.
3918 The ones who listen to what is being said, and then follow the best of it. These are the ones whom God has guided, and these are the ones who possess intelligence.and do not take the revelations of God as mockery.
- You follow the worst of many situations.
3955 And follow the best of what has been sent down to you from your Lord, before the retribution comes to you suddenly when you least expect it.
-
Repent, for you have strayed into a foul path. Your wild spanking fantasies will not avail you on the Day of Judgement.
-
What's clear is that you understand women as being inferior to you. Here's an advice, get yourself a metal paddle and spank yourself until you can differentiate between what's right and what's wrong.
-
What a caveman, peace ignorant one.
- Don't forget to read the next verse as it's not an advise, but an alternative.
-
peace p1993,
Unfortunately your alleged objections are either errors or non-points. In brief
How can one arbitrarily fear, let alone "fear" a citation? Why does the God at 4128 clearly says that there is something wrong that would require separation?.
Quran doesn't say what you claim.
In fact, 435 describes a whole other scenario where the three steps have not worked and arbitration is now necessary. At that point it's either reconciliation or separation, and furthermore constitutes a proactive step that is directed at and that the community should take, not the man in 434. And this cannot relate to a "citation" as I have pointed out in one of my previous posts.
Already addressed in the article
It is perhaps interesting to note that "if they obeyed you" may have an implication that anything other than advisement is regarded as seeking a way against them, i.e. abandoning them in bed and (then) idriboo them. We will discuss later that it is possible to infer that the 'abandoning them in bed' step could be limited in time, whilst the advisement part whilst still maintaining normal sexual relations does not have a time limit, further reinforcing this first step as what is preferred, hence it being first.
What you failed to realize and/or disclose is that in 4357, it reads - just as in all cases in which it means "cite" "Wa lamma duriba ibnu Maryam mathalan" Thus, for the "cite (as an example)" to hypothetically be valid in 434, "mathalan" - or whatever the plural is - would have to have been used!
Incorrect and already addressed in the article
In 4357 Jesus is the second object of the verb DuRiBa, and in this verse it is in the perfect passive form meaning the object received the action expressed in the verb, i.e. Jesus received DRB, i.e. Jesus was put/shown forth / cited/indicated (as an example) by those disputing. In 4357 "mathala" could be considered an adverbial accusative that names or modifies the action of the verb. So the type of "darab" of the object "Jesus" is that of an "example". As we can clearly see a literal/physical striking of Jesus is nonsensical, and if we remove this modification of the verb, this shows when applied to a person as the object DRB on its own means to cite/indicate or put/show forth. A perfect match with 434 and 273.
Ironically, it's actually the opposite, having "mathalan" there shows Jesus is being cited AS AN EXAMPLE. If one were to cite one's wife to an authority for arbitration as in 434-35, the wife is being cited, she is not being cited as an example.
Thanks for proving my point. ;D
-
peace p1993,
Unfortunately your alleged objections are either errors or non-points. In brief
Quran doesn't say what you claim.
Already addressed in the article
You literally evaded the points. Your article is filled with misinterpretations to which you are blind and tries to escape what to many is an inconvenient truth.
Incorrect and already addressed in the article
Ironically, it's actually the opposite, having "mathalan" there shows Jesus is being cited AS AN EXAMPLE. If one were to cite one's wife to an authority for arbitration as in 434-35, the wife is being cited, she is not being cited as an example.Thanks for proving my point. ;D
You are grasping at straws to hang on to your self-righteous theory. He is being daraba as a mathalan. No mathal in 434, no "cite." Seems as though you cite through the land, while the rest of us travel.
