quran434.com

[burhan]

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.

   6) 8:50, 47:27
    24:31
   12) 26:63, 2:60, 7:160
   13) 2:73
   14) 38:44
   16) 8:12
   17) 47:4
   18) 37:93

Here's a quote from reformist translation who translate 4:34 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: 3:156; 4:101; 38:44; 73:20; 2:273
? To strike: 2:60,73; 7:160; 8:12; 20:77; 24:31; 26:63; 37:93; 47:4
? To beat: 8:50; 47:27
? To set up: 43:58; 57:13
? To give (examples): 14:24,45; 16:75,76,112; 18:32,45; 24:35; 30:28,58; 36:78; 39:27,29; 43:17; 59:21; 66:10,11
? To take away, to ignore: 43:5
? To condemn: 2:61
? To seal, to draw over: 18:11
? To cover: 24:31 ? To explain: 13:17

So 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 John

Paul 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 8:50 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 7:37, 16:28, 8:51, 6:93-94 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 6:93 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 16:32 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, [being] good and pure; [the angels] 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 8:50."

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 73:20 in which it means journey or go/move about

There is an object preposition "Fi" in 73:20 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.

[Wakas]

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) 8:50, 47:27.

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) 2:73, which I discuss a lot, some quotes summarising the main points:

The previous stories in this chapter are separated by "ith / when / إذ", 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 [2:72-73] 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 ببعضها / 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, 2:179, and provides us with a self-contained explanation.

[burhan]

   

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 8:50 & 47:2. 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 8:50 & 47:2 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 (52:47), their souls are taken violently (79:1) and they will be exposed to the fire day and night  (40:46). Noah's people were sent to the fire before DOJ (71:25).

   52:45-47 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.
   
   79:1 By those [angels] who extract with violence, And [by] those who remove with ease
   
   40:45-46 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 [it will be said], "Make the people of Pharaoh enter the severest punishment."
   
   71:25 Because of their sins they were drowned and put into the Fire, and they found not for themselves besides Allah [any] 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 2:73 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 / إذ", 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 [2:72-73] 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 ببعضها / 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?

[Mazhar]

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.

2:281
وَٱتَّقُوا۟ یَوۡمࣰا تُرۡجَعُونَ فِیهِ إِلَى ٱللَّهِۖ ثُمَّ تُوَفَّىٰ كُلُّ نَفۡسࣲ مَّا كَسَبَتۡ وَهُمۡ لَا یُظۡلَمُونَ

[Mazhar]

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.

Physical hitting needs an object which is to be hit and needs an instrument with which the subject will hit the object,

[imrankhawaja]

physical actions vs chemical actions lol.

a person hitting someone with rod will leave a mark on body for few days.
but the mark in mind/heart will stays forever.

same thing happen with words of ?speech? some words work like swords they will not hurt you physically but mentally we get disturbed.

more u guys think about it more the findings of wakas getting fit with the take what he bring on wife beating.

i think author also wanted to tell us never say a nasty thing to a ?lady? even shez is not good try to handle her with care becoz most of the times care and gentleness turn/change the behaviour/ thinking of a person.
 
author is actually telling people having a polite nature while treating their ladies.
in old times killing a women on cheating was very normal, even today sometimes out of anger people reported killing their spouses accidently.

author is advising us not to hit someone with ?rod? or ?words? (for our own good).

[hawk99]

[39:15] Those who listen to the word, then follow the best of it; those are they
whom Allah has guided, and those it is who are the men of understanding.

Peace brother Burhan, do you include context in your analysis?

[4:35]  And if you fear dissension/split/divided/clave/ripped/tore
between the two, send an arbitrator from his people and an arbitrator
from her people. If they both desire reconciliation, Allah will cause it
between them. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Acquainted [with all things].

[Wakas]

peace burhan,

Thank you for your reply.

Again you are shifting the burden of proof. It is you who is making the claim that the established translations of 8:50 & 47:2 create a contradiction.

1) I never once used the word "contradiction" in my analysis of these verses.
2) I have already laid out my view of X and evidence for X. You are saying it's Y. Well, let's examine your evidence for Y, so we can compare to see which option fits best.

 

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 (52:47), their souls are taken violently (79:1) and they will be exposed to the fire day and night  (40:46). Noah's people were sent to the fire before DOJ (71:25).

52:45-47 it seems "duna" commonly means "other than":
http://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=dwn#(52:47:5)

79:1 says nothing about malaika nor souls

40:46 doesn't say before, and likely refers to the greatest punishment they will get.

71:25 is probably the best counter-example you have, although some take it as, quote Asad: "Lit., "and were made to enter the fire" - the past tense indicating the inevitability of the suffering yet to come (Zamakhshari).".

#####

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.

His main objection coincides with mine. I happen to think I improved upon his translation by connecting the dots better according to the Arabic, which I discuss.
   

For 2:73 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.

I have already discussed what verses, please re-read.
 

This is a baseless claim and not consistent with the rest of the Quran. Using Idh....

Anyone can read the context for themselves and see each is a self-contained story, separated by idh. Perhaps you can enlighten us as to why these lessons are connected. Is your view that after slaughtering the cow, a murder occurred in close proximity to the dead cow and those disputing about it were doing so beside the dead cow and murdered corpse?

The corpse is male and real and that's why a masculine object pronoun is used to denote a literal meaning of DRB

.

Now we come to the crux of the matter. You have inserted a baseless claim into the Arabic to make your rendition work. In Arabic, like probably all languages, a pronoun is used as a reference to something/someone discussed in the past/context. To give any credibility to your claim you will have to provide at least one similar example in Quran wherein it uses a pronoun to clearly refer to an unmentioned object in the past context, i.e. without which the sentence wouldn't make sense.

Further, you will note in my analysis, I point out that if one were to interpret it as you do it doesn't make sense.

Is your translation that God ordered the corpse to cite/point out the murder? Can you give your translation in full please?

I have no idea how anyone can think the above is my view after reading what I wrote. I discuss in detail my understanding. Please re-read.

"cite, point out, assign, indicate..... him with some of it (the murder)"

[Noon waalqalami]

peace!

4:34 واضربوهن wa-iḍribuhunna/and shuns (ignores) ye them (f/p)

Arabic-English Lexicon by Edward William Lane
عنه ↓ اضرب signifies, (S, Msb,) or signifies also, (TA,) and (Msb, TA) so does ضَرَبَ عنه, (Msb, K, TA,) [the latter app. for ضَرَبَ نَفْسَهُ عَنْهُ,] (assumed tropical:) He turned away from, avoided, shunned, or left, him, or it; (S * Msb, K * TA; *) namely, a person, (TA,) or a thing.

[Neptin]

With regards to wife beating, I think burhan has a point, at least to an extent. However we look at this verse, wife beating just at least seem a probable interpretation as "separation" or "citing". This alone is problematic due to its implication on the Qur'an as a detailed, unambiguous book.

Now, consider a Muslim in Baghdad in the 10th century where wife beating was norm - provided no injury is caused, how likely is this Muslim to interpret "wa dhribuhunna" as "separate or cite"?

The major impetus to question the wife beating interpretation is contemporary social norm. We've socially evolved to see wife beating as domestic abuse whether it is done with a tooth pick or chew stick and so are driven to re-interpret the verse.

The early Muslims did not have such impetus. This again is problematic as its implies that cultural and generational differences significantly impact interpretation. Which brings us to very crucial questions;

Is an objective reading of the Qur'an possible? Isn't our approach to the Qur'an too one dimensional and bugged with confirmation bias?