Note on 4:34 and Sam Gerrans.

[progressive1993]

@Wakas

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 4:35 linked to 4:34 with a "wa" and because of "if they obey you..." at the end of 4:34. I agree with part of that, but your understanding is not entirely accurate. Let me point out that 4:34 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, 4:35 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 4:34. 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 4:34. It simply says "idriboo them." Now, you mentioned that interpreting daraba as strike/spank in 4:34 creates an inconsistency with the God's usage in 43:57 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 43:57, 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 4:34, "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 4:34-35 somehow has to link to 4:128-129. 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. 4:128-129 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 4:129: 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 4:128-129 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.

[Mist]

@progressive1993
"The God advises men in 4:129: 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.
4:130   And if they separate, then God will provide for each of them from His bounty. God is Vast, Wise.

30:21   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.

39:18   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.

39:55   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.

[Wakas]

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 4:128 clearly says that there is something wrong that would require separation?.

Quran doesn't say what you claim.

In fact, 4:35 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 4:34. 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 43:57, 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 4:34, "mathalan" - or whatever the plural is - would have to have been used!

Incorrect and already addressed in the article:

In 43:57 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 43:57 "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 4:34 and 2:73.

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 4:34-35, the wife is being cited, she is not being cited as an example.

Thanks for proving my point. 

[progressive1993]

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 4:34-35, the wife is being cited, she is not being cited as an example.

Thanks for proving my point. 

You are grasping at straws to hang on to your self-righteous theory. He is being daraba as a mathalan. No mathal in 4:34, no "cite." Seems as though you cite through the land, while the rest of us travel.

[progressive1993]

Moderators: Please note the personal attacks, hate and slander

@progressive1993
"The God advises men in 4:129: 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.
4:130   And if they separate, then God will provide for each of them from His bounty. God is Vast, Wise.

Obviously. PotAYtoes, potAHtoes.

30:21   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.

Appeal to emotion, strawman, baseless claim.

39:18   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.

39:55   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.

Baseless, self-righteous insults as well as slander.

- 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.

Baseless personal attacks, slander and inciting unwarranted violence. Do you know the gravity of inciting unwarrented assault? Check 33:58-61. Also see 104:1.

[Wakas]

p1993: Please note the evidence and re-read article carefully

He is being daraba as a mathalan. No mathal in 4:34, no "cite." Seems as though you cite through the land, while the rest of us travel.

Already covered in the article, quote:

when used with an object with no prepositions (e.g. Jesus, parable, truth, falsehood, the captives, fronts/backs, a dry path) DRB always means "to put/show forth"

The example you refer to (DRB through the land) is when DRB is used with preposition fee. Not the case in 4:34.

Try again. 


ps - in future please use the report a post function. That's what it's there for. Moderators/admin do not read every forum post.

[Mist]

Baseless personal attacks, slander and inciting unwarranted violence. Do you know the gravity of inciting unwarrented assault? Check 33:58-61. Also see 104:1.

Baseless? You advocate spanking, hello?

33:58   And those who harm the believing males and the believing females, with no just reason, they have brought upon themselves a slander and a gross sin.
I have my just reasons. What you stand for is 100% unjust.

104:1   Woe to every backbiter, slanderer.
Where's the malicious statement? You go against God's just ways with your misinterpretation. Wherever your spanking ideology stems from is disturbing. You're no different than the traditionalists who advocate spanking/beating.
Do you ever stop for a second to realise the severity of this being on a woman?

If I witnessed someone spanking/beating their female partner, only God could hold me back from doing extreme damage.
You still have time to mend your ways, God willing.

[NK]

@Wakas,

I read your 4:34 explanation on your website and the way you presented evidences from the Quran was amazing. Sorry for my little understanding of English. What do you mean by "CITE THEM". Do you mean refer them to the court? or tell someone about their misbehavior?. Your argument is that (which i understood from your article) how would authority know that there is a rift in relation between husband and wife. The only way is if someone tell them. Husband or wife or any other close family member would inform the court. Am i correct?

Also, in your view "NUSHOOZ" mean cheating with husband?.

I know it is a very stupid question but to understand fully i need to ask you those type of questions.

Peace.

[Wakas]

peace NK,

I have responded here:
https://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599954.msg411542#msg411542

[Makaveli]

he only refer to it as pan-textual analysis but the concept is not his own invention.

What does the pan textual analysis tell you about the precice amount of the wings of angels in 35:1?

What is the exact amount of wings in angels?

Oh, and who are angels by the way? Describe them from materialistic point of you. Their form, how they look like, what do they do for God etc. Just everything you know, I want a real quran expert teach me.

How many wives can you have in accordance with the pan textual analysis between 4:3 and 35:1?

Who exactly is eblees in 2:34?

Why is eblees refered as al-kafiirun in 2:34, when in fact it is a contradition with what 2:8-19 gives for the definition of kafiirun?

Who are the harut and marut in 2:102?

What nubjob Gerrans has to say on these? Oh nope, he cited the tafsiir(what a beautiful traditional word it is, the tafsiir) by some muslim cleric, how quran alone of him.

I do have the non-sectarian, plausible and Quran-aproved answers on the above questions, but I want to hear your position on this. If it is sound, no matter if you are right or wrong, I will speak to you. If all you are going to say is some sectarian non-sense, I won't find you worthy. Also I already gave you small hints on some of the questions but you need to pay careful attention in the style of the text to note this.

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.

What do the initials stand for, what do they symbolize? Why are there so many contradictions and flaws in the text that you regard, and as it itself claims, as "realistic" and "clear?" Why is it the quran alone community has billion of different interpetations over any verse, except but a few, and there is no common agreement on anything? If the text is so clear, why could not you establish a common ground for the meaning of the qur'an for all these years that these boards were up and running? If that is so realistic, explain me this you dipshit. Even this particular thread is a prominent example of varied opinions regarding 4:34. This is ridicilous, and they tell qur'an is 'clear'.

Or maybe is it the influence of the liberal agenda?

 

Or maybe the communistic leftist agenda? Or perhaps a part of the panther movement or the black lives matter stuff? Oh, nope, it is the Orwellian political equality which drives certain people to question some Quranic verses. Why not? Your mind with a flawed worldview and poor reasoning automatically seeks excuses when someone challenges you with the opposite mindset, eh?

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...

Or maybe the Quran is not a part of this world and have nothing to do with this world. Or Elohim is so primitive that wants you to build mosques and pray five time a day and protect your worthless lives despite the fact that you are going to die one way or the other and the sole purpose of your existence is to eat, sleep, procreate and die like a consumed husk (105:5)? Lol. That's what you are. A worthless piece of eaten straw who could not figure out the very root of religions and simply switche from one islamic dogma unto another, the so called monotheistic religious book-fetishism. Just like Gerran's did.

Qur'an does not advocate any self-defense. Any claims in this direction come from flawed translation which is based, secondarily, on the flawed language structure, initially non-existent but traditionally influenced grammar diacritics and fabricated words which were never a part of original Semitic language. And dogmas like this are primarily based on the materialistic thinking. So if you believe that quranic language is literal and should be translated as literal then your 'god' clerly has hands (5:64, 38:75, 39:67, 48:10), sits on the throne (39:75), and you should probably kill yourselves for disbeliving in that (2:54) ///// not an actual suggestion of mine, I do not advocate harm, I repeat I do not advocate self-harm so do not try to incriminate me some forum rules, the only thing you can incriminate me in this post is some language, but instead of incriminating me conduct better answer my arguments. Just like last time I was incriminated with breaking forum rules by Wakas and when I responded I recieved a ban and got my entire message removed from the boards. And he wasn't fair, he lied and got me banned based on power alone and not truth.

Self-defense is a fascistic myth used by the rulers to make people die for the ideals of others. it is also easy to manipulate the meaning. They introduced some economic sanctions agaisnt us. Well, this is clearly agression, let's us nuke 'em boys! Stupid kafiirs (you should know what the kafiir stands for). 

Good to be back, but the people are still deluded. Hope to see one day ya'll brainwashed monotheistic fascists will wake up and actually start thinking outside of your sectarian nuthouse world. Sorry, I've been polite for a quite a long time. Been banned here for being polite. I now come with a sword against the monotheistic bigotry. Many youtube channels have fallen to me, non were able to beat my arguments and I will continue to break the weak mindset of monotheists one by one until I force some 'big shot' quran alone priests like Gerrans or Yuksel come out for a debate so I can do some substantial damage to this monotheistic fanatism. Until that day I will one by one debate small-time fanatics and idol worshippers (yes you do worship idols on many occasions, including your government, your favoruite worthless quran translators (I usually write Quran with a capital but translations like those of Gerran's are worthless piece of manufacture, this is not what Quran stands for), your own personal selves, your ramadan and zakat tax dogmas and in many other instances.

Pity idol worshipers, your men are stupid, your women are worth nothing but being prostitutes. Aisha is Semitic word for woman/prosititute/harlot/female lover/wife, so this word signifies not just a gender but a woman whose only purpose in her miserable life is to give birth and serve patriarchal pigs who may treat them like garbage and can, according to them and their flawed dogmas, beat them if stuff goes wrong. And if your women are so stupid they can't think for themselves, they are worth nothing but being lovers and wives to stupid monotheistic pigs, and if this is the case please do not discuss 4:34 anymore. Just put this this way. A woman is in a complete subjection to a man and he can beat her as he sees fits (there is no regulation in accordance with your sectarian Islamic translation).


Funny how you leave Islam and claim to be free from dogmas but yet follow the very same 8th-11th century traditional translation. You belong to 8-9th century synagogues where they have fabricated quranic translation among with the works on the Talmud of that time. Yes, the common translation you have is influenced by the rabbinic talmud, like it or not stupid twats. Just take that plug out of your ass and do some research. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/great-rabbis-of-the-muslim-empire