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.