Note on 4:34 and Sam Gerrans.

[Mazhar]

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 (35:1). 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 35:1). 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.

[progressive1993]

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 (35:1). 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 35:1). 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.

[Makaveli]

"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?

[Lost]

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...

[HP_TECH]

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.
 

[progressive1993]

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!

[Wakas]

Agreeing with Sam's translation is fine but it should be evidenced.

From my analysis it is weak at best.

[progressive1993]

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 4:34 and 35. How can one arbitrarily fear, let alone "fear" a citation? Why does the God at 4:128 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

[progressive1993]

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:

4:3 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.

35:1 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

[progressive1993]

- misinterpretation of "khiftum" - which is not an arbitrary fear as evidenced by many verses. inconsistency of khiftum interpretation between 4:34 and 35. How can one arbitrarily fear, let alone "fear" a citation? Why does the God at 4:128 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 4:34 and 35. How can one arbitrarily fear, let alone "fear" a citation? Why does the God at 4:128 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."