Separate women and strike falsehood vs Strike women and cite falsehood
-
I will be referring to the following verse and give a sample rendering by QRT (Edip, Layth and Schulte)
1317 He sent down water from the sky, so valleys flowed according to their capacity, and the flood produces foam. From what they burn to smelt jewelry or goods similar foam is produced. It is in such a manner that God strikes the falsehood with the truth. As for the foam, it passes away; as for what benefits the people, it remains in the earth. It is such that God cites* the examples.
*Note that the last "drb" referring to God "drb" al mathalu gets correctly translated to "cites."
My correction "...It is in such a manner that God cites the truth and the truth..."
As I have posted earlier, I sat through Sam Gerrans' presentation of his view/rant on 434 and spanking/beating women. Although I did not like his presentation, I kept my mind open and I wanted to check a DRB occurence (1317), that ironically, Edip Yuksel criticized tradtitionalists of mistranslating it with "strike the truth and falsehood." He literally put that it is supposed to mean "explains truth and falsehood" in his article on 434 as to why DRB does not always and/or predominanlty mean strike. I think QRT rendered 1317 as it did by mistake - perhaps because it was in Layth's/Monotheist Group translation?
Now, whether or not it was a mistake, it is still in both of translations. It is thus ironic that in QRT and the Monotheist translation, in 1317 God is supposedly "striking falsehood" while he wrote pages upon pages as to why he did not want to "strike women." Furthermore, the actual translations use "strike the faslehood with the truth" eventhough "truth" appears before faslehood and even though no "with" ("bi" in Arabic) was used - they inserted it into their translations - and thus they completely mistranslate the verse. Furthermore, the Monotheist translation adds "from" (as in "separate from them" into 434 that is not there to support their view.
Even more ironic, there is the exact opposite occurence on the other end of the spectrum of translators. On Quranix, 4 out of 5 of the English translators who beat/struck women, cited truth and falsehood, and the translators that separated women (isnt that more violent than striking? - jokes) and separated from women struck falsehood with the truth. The underlined words are not there and change the meaning in each verse, adding on top of the fact that "haqq" is mentioned first in the verse so it does not make any sense.
1317 Anzala mina alssama-i maanfasalat awdiyatun biqadariha faihtamalaalssaylu zabadan rabiyan wamimma yooqidoonaAAalayhi fee alnnari ibtighaa hilyatinaw mataAAin zabadun mithluhu kathalika yadribu Allahu alhaqqa wa albatila faammaalzzabadu fayathhabu jufaan waamma mayanfaAAu alnnasa fayamkuthu fee al-ardi kathalikayadribu Allahu al-amthala
If they already caught their mistake in 1317, good on them. Still ironic. And also ironic that the translators on the other end of the spectrum - those that follow a more traditionalist reading of 434, Muhammad Asad and Rashad Khalifa, do the exact opposte and cite examples and beat women outright (Asad) or "(as a last alternative) beat them" (Khalifa)- even though Rashad Khalifa who sometimes goes out of his way to make more sound/reasonable and different renderings than the generally accepted sectarian-approved translations out there. Also, if I remember correctly, he was very apologetic in his footnote and even in his translation as evidenced.
Before submitting this post, I wanted to check the more of the traditionalist translations.
Pickthall, who committed an excess by using "scourge" in 434 even for any "beat/strike" proponent, used the following for 1317
He sendeth down water from the sky, so that valleys flow according to their measure, and the flood beareth (on its surface) swelling foam - from that which they smelt in the fire in order to make ornaments and tools riseth a foam like unto it - thus Allah coineth (the similitude of) the true and the false. Then, as for the foam, it passeth away as scum upon the banks, while, as for that which is of use to mankind, it remaineth in the earth. Thus Allah coineth the similitudes.
He even adds "(the similtude of)." If that is not bias, then tell me what is.
The main point I want to make is Just goes to show that pretty much everyone has bias, makes careless errrors and/or rushes to conclusions. I think Rashad Khalifa did not like his beat rendering of 434 since he sounded very apologetic about it in his footnote if I remember correctly and even adds "as a last alternative" in parantheses before it. Since "strike" does not make sense in 1317, and "cite" is better, this is one argument in favor of "cite" in 434 by way of cross-reference - since no object is used to DRB in either case. This obviously not comprehensive, but I am simply yudribu-ing an example. ;D
-
In 1317, firstly a physical phenomenon is mentioned. It refers an element that becomes very prominent.
And then starts the subordinate clause with http//haqeeqat.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.%20Tabweeb/0001.%20Pronouns%20and%20Prepositions/Demonstrative%20Pronouns/01.%20Zalika/4.gif
Possessive Phrase Prefixed Noun of comparison, in nominative state-Subject + Demonstrative pronoun, in genitive state.
Exemplifying noun refers the fact mentioned earlier; and the last pronoun for second person masculine singular is referent for the reader/addressee.
Thereby, whatever is mentioned after it has resemblance with the earlier stated fact. Both Alhaq and Albatil are the object of verb. The verb "strike" denotes; to fall or shine on something; 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;
http//haqeeqat.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/013.%20Ar%20Raad/13.17c.gif
You be aware, in similar way, Allah the Exalted strikes to let shine in open the established fact-reality, profitable and substance of permanence, and exposes in contrast the scum/conjecture-filmy layer of extraneous matter or impurities that rises up on the surface of a liquid; dross or refuse from molten metal which becomes visible on surface.
-
I think 434 does pose a problem for most Quran based islam translators, hence variation/etc but that is probably because they haven't read www.Quran434.com
kathalika yadribu Allahu al haqqa wa al batila = in this way God propounds/cites the truth and the falsehood
For this verse some use "collides", "puts/shows forth" (e.g. Ibn Kathir), "points out" (e.g. Al Jalalayn).
and
It is interesting to note from (11) and (12) that in similar contexts, The Quran switches from a non-literal/physical use of DRB (e.g. indicate) to a literal/physical use of DRB (e.g. strike / put forth / point out), by stating what the physical objects are and their interaction with the preposition "bi (with/by)".
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 physical usage
wal yadribna bi khumurihinna AAala juyoobihinna = and let them draw/cast with their covers over/on their chests
wala yadribna bi-arjulihinna = and let them not strike/stamp/move with their feet
fa duriba baynahum bi soorin = then put forth between them with a wall
idrib bi AAasaka al bahra fa infalaqa = strike with your staff the sea, then it split/separated
idrib bi AAasaka al hajara fa infajarat min hu = strike with your staff the rock, then vented from it (twelve springs)
idrib bi AAasaka al hajara fa inbajasat min hu = strike with your staff the rock, then gushed from it (twelve springs)
idriboohu bi baAAdiha = cite /point out him with some of it (the murder)
Wa khuth bi yadika dighthan fa idribbihi wala tahnath = And take with your hand a handful, then collide /put forth with it, and do not incline towards falsehood
Fa ragha AAalayhim darban bi al yameeni = then he turned upon them striking with the right handThere are two verses that may need clarification
273 should be noted that a murder/crime is something specific and a real world tangible object and thus can be referred to as such. This might offer a possible reason as to why 273 was traditionally translated as it was, because if a murder/crime was not seen as a valid object/reference to DRB with, then the only other valid object would be the dead heifer.
3844 the act of DRB upon what/whom is not specifically mentioned, thus several interpretations may have existed at the time. Once the true context and meaning is identified as shown previously, this aspect becomes self explanatory and what/whom is not needed.
