quran434.com
-
I was unusually busy recently, and I had to re-read your post several times due to your categorisation. You will note the differences between your original post and your latest position, i.e.
I appreciate your time. Yes it's good that you summarize as we go along. I don't know if you were implying a difference between hit and physical contact. It's the same in my mind. We can use literal and non-literal if you want.
John was hitting Katie (physical contact, literalusage of hit)
John was hitting on Katie (flirting, a non-literal usage of hit)We can clarify this point later as I need to address your question first before we can move to meanings.
I think there are two questions here that you are asking.
Why I think those verses are in Cat-2?
Why those verses mean physical hit/literal?So the categorization has nothing to do with what I think verse means. Cat-2 is simply all those verses where the DRB takes it's object (Maf'ool bihi) directly without a corresponding object preposition. If I see an object preposition then that verse is Cat-3. The categorization is simply identifying the sentence structure - I'm not implying any meaning at this point. I will give my rationale for why I think all Cat-2 verses are literal, but it's important we understand each other on the sentence structure.
So by definition 6 and 17 are Cat-2 as you agree there is no preposition.
Point 12, 16, 18 also don?t' have an object preposition.
Point 12 - Verse 2663
https//i.ibb.co/xGCNfvm/Point-12-C26-V63.png
There is no preposition with "the sea". "the sea" is the Maf?ool bihi - the thing to which DRB is done.
If you are thinking "with your staff" is a preposition that's wrong as well. "with your staff" is not the Maf?ool bihi of the verb DRB.
If the phrase was "Min al bahra" from the sea, then yes "Min" would be a preposition.Point 16 - Verse 812
https//i.ibb.co/yy0Cyzy/Point-16-C8-V12.png
This is in two parts. The first part the object "the necks" has no preposition. The second part does have a preposition "from them" for the object "every fingertip". So the first part is Cat-2 and the second part is Cat-3.
Point 18 - Verse 3793
https//i.ibb.co/NTB3KbM/Point-18-C37-V93.png
Here we have the noun form. The preposition "upon" in "upon them" goes with the verb "Then he turned".
There is no object preposition connecting Darban to it's Maf'ool bihi.I hope we can now have agreement on the categorization. You might need to check all my Cat-3 again to make sure that there is definitely a preposition.
I think you already agree with Cat-1.
-
Thanks for clarifying your categorisation. Which category for 4357?
Same, Cat-1. The maf'ool bihi is the example of Son-of-Mary - that's an abstract thing.
For example if I say "I like Wakas's ideas." that doesn't mean I like you it means I like your ideas.
Note it's in the passive voice, so there is no doer of DRB. So it can't mean something silly like Son-of-Mary hit the example etc.
The translation (in passive voice) here would be When the Son-of-Mary example was cited, your people laughed about it.
Also I'd like to correct Point 8 ) to CAT-2 as there is no preposition or rather there is no object.
8 ) wala yadribna bi-arjulihinna = and let them not strike/stamp/move with their feet CAT-3
It's intransitive so no object is required. I would accept your objection as it doesn't fit in any category.
-
Re 4357
I asked those more knowledgeable of Arabic than I when I wrote my article about this verse and this is what they said which I wrote on Quran434.comIn 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".
Also, I'm not convinced it would go into the abstract category but I guess that could be disputed.
Also I'd like to correct Point 8 ) to CAT-2 as there is no preposition or rather there is no object.
That would make it consistent with your categorisation of (14) 3844. However, I agree it doesn't quite fit into any category.
So the following are your Cat2 (in addition to 434)
6), 12), 13), 16) 1st part, 17), 1
8 ), 14) = Cat2 / not any category
Why those verses mean physical hit/literal?
I assume you have read my analysis of the above verses and the various issues surrounding them, so yes now we can move onto why you think they mean physical hit (bearing in mind the objections I've raised on Quran434.com).
-
ok great. So to summarize we agree
CAT-1
As above but 4357 is disputed.
We agree the meaning in those by definition is non-literal, as the object of DRB is abstract.CAT-2
6), 8 )* 12), 13), 14)* 16) 1st part, 17), 1*or no category
We agree no object preposition is present but meaning not decided.
CAT-3, as above
We agree all those verses have an object preposition and the meaning is non-literal.Obviously we can both mistakes, so these can be corrected or disputed with good will.
I have read your views on Cat-2. I found them very subjective and in some places you didn't seem to be convinced yourself.
Can I ask you score/grade each point in Cat-2 from 0 to 9. Where 0=100% literal 9=100% non-literal. Don't make them all 9s )
What I will do then is to create a separate thread for each point, starting with the least contentious.
-
When I imply agreement with your categorisation I don't mean that's how I think they should be categorised. I am just agreeing with your categorisation (based on your own criteria). Just clarifying.
CAT-3, as above
We agree all those verses have an object preposition and the meaning is non-literal.I do not necessarily agree. Previously you said this about Cat3 "Prepositions or context determine the meaning but it's usually non-physical." But I dont think we need to get into that right now and we should focus on your Cat2.
I have read your views on Cat-2. I found them very subjective and in some places you didn't seem to be convinced yourself.
It's fairly rare to be able to prove a word in Quran can only mean one thing and nothing else.
Can I ask you score/grade each point in Cat-2 from 0 to 9. Where 0=100% literal 9=100% non-literal. Don't make them all 9s
What I will do then is to create a separate thread for each point, starting with the least contentious.I dont think grading is helpful, and we should definitely keep the discussion in one thread. I think what will be more helpful is if we take one at a time and I can provide a brief summary of the strongest points which go against the literal/physical understanding. You can then respond.
e.g.
6) ,If the object is real and the hitting is literal/physical (i.e. real) then this means it would be measurable/observable in some way but it isn't. Thus, such an understanding results in an empirical/logical fail.
There is no supporting evidence in Quran that I'm aware of that supports physical hitting in these verses and all the evidence in Quran that I'm aware of goes against such an understanding.
Reference
http//www.quran434.com/wife-beating-islam.html#part1 -
With the grading I was trying to establish a baseline. I don't want to strawman your arguments so it's important that I understand exactly what you are trying to say in your article.
The first question I have is what is the criteria for you to accept that DRB is being used literally? What does your ideal literal sentence look like?
In your article you say;
It has been shown that there is not one clear occurrence in The Quran in which "beat" is the meaning of DRB.
which made me think that, for you, there is no criteria where DRB can have a literal meaning. In-fact you question the literal meaning of DRB being hit/strike, you say it's "to put/show forth". So the non-literal meaning be would hit/strike.
But then you say;
The only verses in which the preposition "bi" is used with DRB are 2431, 5713, 2663,
260, 7160, 273, 3844, 3793, and in all these occurrences the meaning is a
literal/physical usagewhich made me think, okay, there is a criteria, but it contradicts what you said earlier. I hope you can see my issue here.
If there isn't a criteria i.e. for you DRB never ever means hit/strike then discussing it's usage in the Quran is pointless. We'd then have to get into a discussion of how DRB was used and understood in pre-islamic texts and why today it's literal meaning is or isn't hit/strike.
So to summarize;
• Is the literal meaning of DRB hit/strike as defined in the first paragraph of http//lexicon.quranic-research.net/data/15_D/028_Drb.html
• If yes, then what is the criteria for DRB to convey a literal meaning in sentence. Please give examples of such sentences (they don't have to be Quranic verses)
• If no i.e. the literal meaning of DRB was never hit/strike and dictionaries are incorrect, then please provide your evidence of this change in etymology.
I hope these discussions aren't annoying and that I'm bring something of value.
-
The first question I have is what is the criteria for you to accept that DRB is being used literally? What does your ideal literal sentence look like?
When the usage fits like a glove, i.e. there are no logical/practical/cross-reference/grammar/etc problems. I've accepted it can mean hit/strike in Quran, as discussed at Quran434.com
In your article you say;
which made me think that, for you, there is no criteria where DRB can have a literal meaning. In-fact you question the literal meaning of DRB being hit/strike, you say it's "to put/show forth". So the non-literal meaning be would hit/strike.But then you say;
which made me think, okay, there is a criteria, but it contradicts what you said earlier.There is no contradiction. Simplified, I'm saying
There is no clear occurrence of DRB meaning "beat".
When used with the preposition "bi" it indicates a physical usage (including hit/strike).Please note there is a difference between "hit/strike" and "beat", as also mentioned in Lane.
My view is discussed in detail at Quran434.com. This thread is about testing YOUR view (and consequently your objections to Quran434.com's interpretation). So, let us test YOUR view, and once tested, you/I/readers can weigh up the evidence and see which meaning fits best. Hence what I wrote
I think what will be more helpful is if we take one at a time and I can provide a brief summary of the strongest points which go against the literal/physical understanding. You can then respond.
e.g.
6) ,If the object is real and the hitting is literal/physical (i.e. real) then this means it would be measurable/observable in some way but it isn't. Thus, such an understanding results in an empirical/logical fail.
There is no supporting evidence in Quran that I'm aware of that supports physical hitting in these verses and all the evidence in Quran that I'm aware of goes against such an understanding.
-
Slm ,
i read this thread , again and again ....probably due my language bariere i don't understand this discussion....
summarizing
Burhan
4.34 DRB is hitting ... ? even if the couples are/were gays ( man) ?Wakas
4.34 DRB is "to put/show forth"i dont get it , why as an Human being with the love of God/Allah , you hit a person to correct him/her ??? even some animals dont learn from hitting.
...we humans can communicate ( ahum the tools are there, if you cant use it, thats a whole different story ) .., Allah tought our speech ....
sorry i looking to this very black and white .....
-
Slm ,
i read this thread , again and again ....probably due my language bariere i don't understand this discussion....
TRUE.
surverys shows the weakest minds are gifted to believers of flat earth lmao.
and there is an example in book the weakest house is the house of spider only if u can undertand?
-
TRUE.
surverys shows the weakest minds are gifted to believers of flat earth lmao.
and there is an example in book the weakest house is the house of spider only if u can undertand?
SLM IM
just wow ... not reacting on my logical explanation but at my short fall of understanding... wow..., this way you hope i will do what ... ?? stop with replying .. to get me angry .. what is the purpose confused
as you can see on my writings , i am no hero on grammar ... i have to do my best to understand it... not due my intelligent , but due language .... i am set as a logical person , i mean with this , it has to be logical to me to inderstand it....
please enlight me why Allah mentioned the house of spider is the weakest of house ??
sinds we quote Quran here i have one for you also , pls ponder and reflect it to yourself
O you who believe! (Let) not ridicule a people (another) people, perhaps that they maybe better than them; and (let) not women (other) women perhaps that they maybe better than them. And (do) not insult yourselves and (do) not call each other by nicknames. Wretched is the name (of) disobedience after the faith. And whoever (does) not repent, then those - they (are) the wrongdoers.
-
surveys shows the WEAKest minds are those who said 2+2=4? ie proven fact = false ===> flat earthers ?
LIVING wonders of UNIQUE minds.
experts are not still unanimous about the reason of that nature how possibily someone can think that unique way.
experts said its difficult to explain ?why? someone can think that way.
i m sharing the surveys about a specific people is it any form of ridicule ?
explain how ? ?experts? are ridicule anyone they are just showing their data generated by random people ?laugh
-
Kaltum stated
please enlight me why Allah mentioned the house of spider is the weakest of house ??The equivalence of those people who have consciously and purposely adopted perceiving for themselves as protectors, benefactors, godfathers other than Allah the Exalted is
Like the specific She-Spider when she has purposely adopted a house.
Know the fact, the flimsiest of the houses is certainly the adopted-house of specific She-Spider.
Had they but known-realized flimsiness of their choice.The females of many species place the egg sac on a stalk, wraps leaves about it, attach it to a stone, or cover it with smooth silk before abandoning it. Other females guard the egg sac or carry it either in their jaws or attached to the spinnerets. If a female loses an egg sac, she makes searching movements and may pick up a pebble or a piece of paper and attach it to the spinnerets. (With thanks from Encyclopedia Britannica-Spider}
The female spider despite knowing that the piece of paper does not contain her eggs, she takes it to her "chest". And there has never been dearth of people who keep such papers/traditions/sayings void of any substance/knowledge and proof closely to their chests and are seldom prepared to have a look on that "paper" to evaluate/weigh it if there existed anything of substance wrapped in it.
-
surveys shows the WEAKest minds are those who said 2+2=4? ie proven fact = false ===> flat earthers ?
LIVING wonders of UNIQUE minds.
experts are not still unanimous about the reason of that nature how possibily someone can think that unique way.
experts said its difficult to explain ?why? someone can think that way.
i m sharing the surveys about a specific people is it any form of ridicule ?
explain how ? ?experts? are ridicule anyone they are just showing their data generated by random people ?laugh
peace bro.
what ever "expert" rotfl
you cant even decently explain the verse to me , if you dont know , pls dont mentioned it , this says alot of your personality ...
you have 0% fact in your hand , yet you call it fact ....
pls dont hijack this post with belittling me.
my apologizes to burhan and Wakas. is shall not post offtopic again.
-
The equivalence of those people who have consciously and purposely adopted perceiving for themselves as protectors, benefactors, godfathers other than Allah the Exalted is
Like the specific She-Spider when she has purposely adopted a house.
Know the fact, the flimsiest of the houses is certainly the adopted-house of specific She-Spider.
Had they but known-realized flimsiness of their choice.The females of many species place the egg sac on a stalk, wraps leaves about it, attach it to a stone, or cover it with smooth silk before abandoning it. Other females guard the egg sac or carry it either in their jaws or attached to the spinnerets. If a female loses an egg sac, she makes searching movements and may pick up a pebble or a piece of paper and attach it to the spinnerets. (With thanks from Encyclopedia Britannica-Spider}
The female spider despite knowing that the piece of paper does not contain her eggs, she takes it to her "chest". And there has never been dearth of people who keep such papers/traditions/sayings void of any substance/knowledge and proof closely to their chests and are seldom prepared to have a look on that "paper" to evaluate/weigh it if there existed anything of substance wrapped in it.
SLM Mazhar ,
thank you , for this , i read this before here , and also eating the male has to do with weak family ....
btw brother Mazhar can you also react to post
https//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9610529.msg422760#msg422760 -
The basic perception, meanings and signification of this Root " " as stated in Classical Lexicon of Er-R?ghib is That it signifies causing a thing to fall, tumble upon or with it dislodge another thing. Lane Lexicon stated "accord. to Er-R?ghib, signifies the making a thing to fall upon another thing;"
The conceptual meanings of the Root evidently reveal that its meanings in the real-world experience will be reflected by the collocates or other words associated with it in the context.
It reflects that its effect may necessarily not be of causing hurt. It reflects an instance; an illustration or an occurrence. The most equivalent word in English vocabulary to describe the basic perception and its various uses in different semantic fields is verb "strike".Semantic field Strike
Enter awareness It denotes to fall or shine on something, to make obvious;
to make something noticed;
make something to be perceived or become audible-understandable for someone;
to make some idea enter somebody's mind or occur to somebody; to penetrate or seem to go right through something; make something by stamping;
and Dislodge to remove something away - displace; dislocate, dislodge, deform, the target with force.
Cause harm And it signifies to hit somebody or something with a hand, tool, weapon, or other object. Obvious intention is to hurt, damage.
Moreover, support words will be required if the intention of the speaker is to indicate the instance as involving repeated strikes to reflect what is denoted by English word "beating"; punishment in which somebody is repeatedly hit.Semantically, it relates to activity thereby its agent is sentient. An activity has predetermined objective to achieve. It has two objects between which interrelationship is created. The result or affect of activity will depend upon the manner, angle and force applied in the strike. The objective of strike can either be
(1) creating an affect in the object that is made to fall upon other thing;
(2) purpose of striking one thing upon another can be making something else apparent that was earlier hidden because of the location of the thing struck upon;
(3) the thing by which another is truck overwhelms; and
(4) Cause harm to the thing struck upon or to expose it.It is thus evident that the words of this Root have multiple meanings (senses) based on the context of the usage of word in an instance. One unique features of Qur?n is that it has built in lexicon for its important words and terms. It exposes the perception and meanings of its important words by using it in different semantic fields by relationships and contrasts whereby one can perceive all its dimensions relating to substance as well accident including metaphorical aspect.
-
look how beautifully brother mazhar explained it to you but same like always you still didnt get it.
flat earth theory based their claim at zero evidence aginst their opponents (roundearther) who are having multiple evidences in their claim noone yet successful to tackle it.
best example ?eclipses?. yeahhow weak is the claim only if they can understand ?
-
My view is very simple and I have stated it many times.
According to the oldest dictionaries DRB's literal meaning is to hit/strike but has other non-literal meanings such travel, present etc.
In the Quran the DRB has been used literally and non-literally.
• Every non-literal usage either has an object preposition (Cat-3) or the object of the verb DRB is abstract (Cat-1).
• Every literal usage of DRB takes it's object directly without any object preposition (Cat-2)
To falsify my claims
• Show me verses that have an object preposition but the meaning is literal.
• Show me verses where DRB takes it's object directly without a preposition and the meaning is non-literal.
There is nothing in your article that falsifies claim 1, so that passes.
For claim 2 it is only your article that disagrees. There is no translation or tafsir I know that takes the view you do for those verses. All those verses in Cat-2 have always been understood as literal.
- 850, 4727
2431 - 2663, 260, 7160
- 273
- 3844
- 812
- 474
1 3793
Here's a quote from reformist translation who translate 434 as non-literal and even they don't take the view you do regarding the Cat-2 verses.
It can be said that DaRaBa is the number-one multiple-meaning word in Arabic. It has so many different meanings; we can find numerous different meanings ascribed to it in the Quran.
? To travel, to get out 3156; 4101; 3844; 7320; 2273
? To strike 260,73; 7160; 812; 2077; 2431; 2663; 3793; 474
? To beat 850; 4727
? To set up 4358; 5713
? To give (examples) 1424,45; 1675,76,112; 1832,45; 2435; 3028,58; 3678; 3927,29; 4317; 5921; 6610,11
? To take away, to ignore 435
? To condemn 261
? To seal, to draw over 1811
? To cover 2431 ? To explain 1317So my view has been tested and it works.
So now I am at a point where I need to challenge your unique and obscure view/translation of Cat-2 verses.
Before I can falsify your claims regarding Point 6) I needed to understand exactly what you are claiming in your article. You've article is not clear. There are no falsifiable claims in there.
But since I can't force you to clarify your position I'll continue.
The essence your of argument is as follows;
Say we know the following about Paul and JohnPaul is a pacifist.
Paul is small.
John is very large.Then we are told.
Paul hit John
Your reasoning is that since Paul is a pacifist and much smaller he can't possibly hit John. Therefore "hit" means "cited".
This is completely a nonsensical way to argue. The most you can say is that the statement could be false or a typo.
In reality Paul is quiet cable of ignoring his pacifism and overcoming his small stature to hit John.
Quran434.com Point 6)
*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.The is so bizarre I don't know where to begin. When you make a claim like that you need to explain in detail why. This shows a poor understanding of science for starters
The laws are descriptive not prescriptive. Nobody controls them.
For example take the natural numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 ?
I can describe that as n = n + 1. You can call it Burhan's Law of Natural numbers. No angels and no controllers required. That doesn't mean the Law n=n+1 is prescribing the natural numbers. It's just simply describing them using a man-made mathematical notation.
Anyway it's doesn't matter if want to call them controllers.
In 850 it says if only you could see, thus clearly implying that what the controllers are doing cannot be seen.
Agree. They can't be seen by people in the current world.
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.
Why? Whether they strike the physical body or a new after life body or the metaphysical soul it's a still beating. That is the whole point of Adhab
Basically you are saying that if nobody sees it than it's not happening.
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.
Correct!. So you just invalidated your own point. Physical punishment in the afterlife is fact in the Quran therefore angels beating disbelievers as they deliver them to hell is hardly controversial.
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!
No it doesn't. Why highly unlikely? People can be beaten and interrogated at the same time. It's called torture. Have you never seen mobster crime movies? The idea that all these things can't happen together, in sequence, or different point in time, or to different sets of people is a ridiculous. You are trying to create a false dichotomy to support your point.
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.
Clear problem, where? Why does every verse have to do with hell have to mention beatings?
This is not an argument, it's a false analogy. Just because the verses are alike in one or more respect doesn't mean they should be alike in some other respect.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.
Again, it's a false analogy. Why should it say gently?
You really expect it to be like this;
The ones whom the angels take in death, good and pure; will say, "Peace be upon you. Enter Paradise for what you used to do. We are not going to kick your ass like we do the disbelievers in verse 850."
The comparison actually contrasts the difference between the treatment of believers to non-believers when angels come to take them. The good are greeted with nice words and the bad get a beat down.
That is not to say it cannot mean "beat", it theoretically could, but it is not a particularly sound translation when cross-referenced.
Every translator of Quran including progressive & reformist disagrees with you.
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
Again only in your mind.
The only other occurrence of the exact same form "yadriboona" is in 7320 in which it means journey or go/move about
There is an object preposition "Fi" in 7320 to tell you it's non-literal. The comparison actually supports my point.
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.A weak argument from authority. As mentioned I have dozens of translations and tafsirs saying it?s literal.
Finally something you said in your last post
If the object is real and the hitting is literal/physical (i.e. real) then this means it would be measurable/observable in some way but it isn't. Thus, such an understanding results in an empirical/logical fail.
So because you can't take the temperature of hell-fire it's not real. This is the dumbest thing I have heard. You are basically saying if a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it then it didn't really happen.
Look at those verses those again. It's meant to be a painful exit form this world. How is a bunch of angels moving to their front and back going "boooh" a painful chastisement.
- 850, 4727
-
It's interesting how you claim logical fallacies in my work yet you commit them openly. Sometimes right next to each other, quote "A weak argument from authority. As mentioned I have dozens of translations and tafsirs saying it?s literal."
In any case, let's concentrate on The Quran's use. You will note in your lengthy reply not once did you quote any verses which agree with your interpretation of 6) 850, 4727.
Also, you will note, quote of yours "Physical punishment in the afterlife is fact in the Quran therefore angels beating disbelievers as they deliver them to hell is hardly controversial."
Quote from Quran434.com "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'."
Since you never cited any Quran verse I can only assume you have zero corroborating evidence from Quran for your view.
Note, that doesn't mean I have disproved your view. Readers can make up their own minds.
So let's move onto the next 8 ) is possibly no category, and 12) we both agree is strike/hit, so we can leave these for now. So, now we come to 13) 273, which I discuss a lot, some quotes summarising the main points
The previous stories in this chapter are separated by "ith / when / ", and are all self-contained lessons. The story of the cow is independent of the story before it and the one following it that of the murdered soul.
The only masculine in the context are those who committed the murder and thereafter accused each other, hiding the truth. The only feminine in the context is the murdered soul, and the act of murder in which they accused each other in (i.e. this is the closest preceding feminine to / bibadiha).To conclude, the understanding presented here fits the grammar, the Arabic, Classical Arabic meanings, logic, cross-referencing the subject of murder, specifically, that there is life in al qisas/equivalence (the law of just recompense) for those who use their intellect, 2179, and provides us with a self-contained explanation.
-
It's interesting how you claim logical fallacies in my work yet you commit them openly. Sometimes right next to each other, quote "A weak argument from authority. As mentioned I have dozens of translations and tafsirs saying it?s literal."
When did I say this was a fallacy? I said your argument from authority was weak, as every authority on the Quran disagrees with your translation of 850 & 472. So as you say, lets stick to the Quran.
Since you never cited any Quran verse I can only assume you have zero corroborating evidence from Quran for your view.
Again you are shifting the burden of proof. It is you who is making the claim that the established translations of 850 & 472 create a contradiction.
You can claim a;
• logical contradiction i.e. there is a verse which says the exact opposite nobody will be harmed before the day of judgement
• theological contradiction, e.g. Angels are pacifists or punishment before DOJ is against the spirit of the Quran
You have done neither.
I'll do a Wakas and ask you to show me a verse that clearly says Angels will not beat disbelievers before DOJ.
On the contrary the Quran hints DOJ is not the only punishment. It may not apply to everyone but there is a punishment before that (5247), their souls are taken violently (791) and they will be exposed to the fire day and night (4046). Noah's people were sent to the fire before DOJ (7125).
5245-47 So leave them until they meet their Day in which they will be struck insensible. The Day their plan will not avail them at all, nor will they be helped. And indeed, for those who have wronged is a punishment before that, but most of them do not know.
791 By those who extract with violence, And those who remove with ease
4045-46 So Allah protected him from the evils they plotted, and the people of Pharaoh were enveloped by the worst of punishment -
The Fire, they are exposed to it morning and evening. And the Day the Hour appears , "Make the people of Pharaoh enter the severest punishment."7125 Because of their sins they were drowned and put into the Fire, and they found not for themselves besides Allah helpers.
Your view isn't plausible as there are general and specific instances of people who have annoyed God so much that they will get some of their punishment straight away before DOJ.
Point 13)
You've just quoted Asad verbatim. If you had paraphrased and somehow made a connection to your translation then it would have been helpful. His translation doesn't agree with yours.
For 273 Can you tell me first which verses logically contradict it and then which verses contradict it theologically, or do you just have a problem with the sentence structure.
The previous stories in this chapter are separated by "ith / when / ", and are all self-contained lessons. The story of the cow is independent of the story before it and the one following it that of the murdered soul.
This is a baseless claim and not consistent with the rest of the Quran. Using Idh is the absolute trademark quranic style of telling different parts of the same story. It's a Time Adverb, it's meant to connect the stories through passage of time.
The only masculine in the context are those who committed the murder and thereafter accused each other, hiding the truth. The only feminine in the context is the murdered soul, and the act of murder in which they accused each other in (i.e. this is the closest preceding feminine to / bibadiha).
You are saying that because Nafs is feminine and the verb has masculine object pronoun idribuhu can't refer to the soul.
Yes correct, you can't physically hit a soul. The corpse is male and real and that's why a masculine object pronoun is used to denote a literal meaning of DRB. A feminine pronoun on DRB would make usage non-literal.
Is your translation that God ordered the corpse to cite/point out the murder? Can you give your translation in full please?
