quran434.com

[burhan]

"cite him (i.e. each individual) with some of it (the murder, which they were disputing in)"

The Arabic for "cite him" and "cite each individual" is very different.
Even in English "cite him" can never mean "cite each individual".

"forgive him" can't mean "forgive each individual"
"pay him" can't mean "pay each individual"

Using your methodology any sentence can be re-interpreted as anything. Let's change every verb that has a singular possessive pronoun to mean "each individual".

You would have to use "kul" = each, or look at the construction of 2:76 بَعْضُهُمْ إِلَىٰ بَعْضٍ
meaning "one another".  There are many other examples
http://openburhan.net/ob.php?word=%D8%A8%D8%B9%D8%B6%D9%87%D9%85

 نظر بعضهم إلى بعض

Look at each other

وأقبل بعضهم على بعض

Turn to one another

18:19 ليتساءلوا بينهم

Question one another

For you interpretation  to work;

a) Give me the Arabic using an object pronoun on the verb for when you want to cite one person?
b) Show me another verse in the Quran where a singular masculine possessive pronoun is used to imply an action of the verb on multiple people?

Finally we get to your achilles heel. When I asked you for a Qurqanic example for what you are claiming in 2:73 you didn't provide any and now you say the above. So, let's be clear, for your interpretation to work the Quran text we have must be wrong.

How is it my Achilles heel if I clearly stated it's off-topic, criticizing all such analysis when nobody can even be sure of which text out of the 30 odd versions is the correct one. We may find a version that say la udribuhunna in 4:34 and that would make both of us look silly. 

If 4:34 never existed I bet you'd never have re-translated the cat-2 verses. Think about that.

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.

Who said it's unmentioned. What an odd thing to say. A murder usually results in a dead body.

What if I produce an example, it won't change your mind. I think I've posted enough for people to make up their own mind.

[burhan]

My point, and the point you're missing is that Qur'an 4:34 also does prove that an objective reading of the Qur'an is near impossible and that the interpretation of the text is deeply influenced by the reader's culture and generation.

Every generation of humans looks at the previous and is horrified by some of the accepted norms. The next generation will look at some of our actions that we think are in accordance with the Quran and will be horrified. They will then have to reinterpret.

When slavery was acceptable the Quran did not contradict it.
When misogyny was acceptable the Quran did not contradict it.
When homosexuality was a sin the Quran did not contradict it. Now that we are becoming more acceptable of it we are seeing the new interpretations.
One day people will claim Quran was a champion of gay rights just as it is now a champion of women's rights.
Tomorrow, we will take a different view on another topic and Quranists will rush out with new translations and claim 2019 Quranists had it wrong.

Neptin, sadly no one here will see your point.

     

[Neptin]

Peace Neptin.
 I put this quote of yours in a separate post  if you do not mind:

"I thought the Qur'an suppose to answer these questions. The Qur'an invites people to it without any prerequisite".

 Does it not? Qoran indeed answers them questions for me. You are welcome to study it brother and find out if it does for you.
 Or is your statement ironic?
Apologies , but the statement required the blunt answer above

GOD bless you.
Peace.

Here is what you said;

So what are the traits of a true believer?
It is only after we answer these basic
questions -About how to be/behave as a
human according to the one who created us-
that we can really move forward with Qoran.

Perhaps am wrong but I feel you are asking us to take a step from Qur'an for a while and determine the trait of a true believer. But my question was rhetorical as I don't see the need for what you ask.

[good logic]

Peace Neptin.
I am not asking anyone to do anything apart from study the Qoran deeply. Look at all the verses and context.

So if you think 4:34 is instructing to beat the wife,explain how to do it ,with what and how many times?
Or do you expect Qoran to give the freedom  how to carry out this beating?

Since "DRB" has many other meanings,why should we not try out other than beating to see if it fits?

May be you are looking at what traditional Muslims do and make out of Qoran and  this is affecting your judgement of the words of Qoran.?
GOD bless you.
Peace.

[Neptin]

Peace Neptin.
I am not asking anyone to do anything apart from study the Qoran deeply. Look at all the verses and context.

So if you think 4:34 is instructing to beat the wife,explain how to do it ,with what and how many times?
Or do you expect Qoran to give the freedom  how to carry out this beating?

Since "DRB" has many other meanings,why should we not try out other than beating to see if it fits?

May be you are looking at what traditional Muslims do and make out of Qoran and  this is affecting your judgement of the words of Qoran.?
GOD bless you.
Peace.

Peace. I have to admit that I do look at traditional interpretation. I think it is important to listen to every side of the issue. That said, the wife beating interpretation is not merely from traditionalist perspective.

You must be aware that prominent advocate of Qur'an alone or God Alone like Rashad Khalifa, Asad Sirohey, Sam Gerrans translated the verse as literally "Strike them". From my own observations both translators, especially Rashad did their best to study the Qur'an deeply.

I do indeed, consider 'separate' or 'cite' to be probable interpretation and I'll never hit my wife in the name of 4:34, nor will I advise any man to hit his. But I'll at least conceed my favorite interpretation could be wrong and that the Qur'an may imply literal wife beating.

[huruf]

In fact as it turns out in none of the cases of daraba in the Qur'an is hit the only meaning nor the best meaning or most fitting.

In 4.34 it is just ludicruous. Nobody has done anything wrong.
Believers are being addressed, believers in general, females and males. It is believing people who is being addressed, not males. Look carefully at the pronouns, males are mentionned as third person masculine plural, just as women who are mentionned as third person feminine plural, but the addressee is second person plural retorical gender, that is, inclusive gender, the second person generic plual is addressed just as in previous ayas and just as in the following ayas. At no time is the addressee changed, beliebers in general are addressed all along.

The whole idiocy of of this aya being taken as tellen men to do something to women is an insult to rammar, common sense and the logic of the whole aya. If nobody has done anything wrong, how can anybody speak in terms of punishment rebuke or whatever.

It is absolutely discouraging when one sees people, suposedly belieeving people and supposedly educated people or people who want to understand and fail to see the most elementary grammar and most elementary logic.

So who is going to hit who because the people fears that some females may do something, but nohting has been done?

Some here speak about grammar, but grammar tells you that what you interpret is absolute nonsense. Some might like the Qur'an to say nonsense so they feel vindicated in their prejudices, but the fact is that it does not.


This is absolutely depressing.



Salaam

[Noon waalqalami]

2:54 A calf is take for worship
2:67 A cow is commanded to be slaughtered.
2:73 Part of A sacrificed cow is used to identify the murderers.

you strike him (corpse) with some of it (part of a cow) is a perfectly clear translation that doesn't require paragraphs upon paragraphs to explain it.

peace, separate episodes واذ wa-idh not واذا wa-idha e.g.

2:11 واذا wa-idha/and when (time adverb; present/future) قىل stated لهم to them لا not تفسدوا thou corrupt ye of فى in الارض the land ?

2:30 واذ wa-idh/and when (time adverb; separate episode) ?
2:34 واذ and when ?
2:49 واذ and when ?
2:50 واذ and when ?
2:51 واذ and when ?
2:53 واذ and when ?
2:54 واذ and when ?
2:55 واذ and when ?
2:58 واذ and when ?
2:60 واذ and when استسقى ask drink موسى moses لقومه for folk his فقلنا so said we of اضرب iḍ'rib بعصاك with staff your الحجر the stone ?
2:61 واذ and when ?
2:63 واذ and when ?
2:67 واذ and when ...
2:72-73 واذ and when قتلتم slew you نفسا soul of فادرتم so disputed you فىها therein والله and the god مخرج evictor ما what كنتم be you تكتمون concealing فقلنا so said we of اضربوه iḍ'ribūhu ببعضها bibaḍiha كذلك like such ىحىى gives life الله the god الموتى the dead وىرىكم and shows you اىته signs his لعلكم perhaps you تعقلون understanding
2:83 واذ and when ?
2:84 واذ and when ?
2:93 واذ and when ?
2:124 واذ and when ?
2:125 واذ and when ?
2:126 واذ and when ?
2:127 واذ and when ?
2:260 واذ and when ?

I don't want to get off-topic but the Quranic text we are using could be wrong. We know many versions of the text exist with not just vowel difference but consonants, gender and order differences. Sometimes a different word is used.

same words; difference earliest manuscripts verse counts (man-made) offset

https://corpuscoranicum.de/handschriften/index/sure/2/vers/72?handschrift=163

[good logic]

Peace Neptin.
I agree with your take , even though  I differ in that "Rijal" can sometimes imply to a responsibility among the household rather than a gender.
Sometimes we ignore the context and connection of certain verses to others.
4:34 , in my opinion has a connection to 4:32:
وَلا تَتَمَنَّوا ما فَضَّلَ اللَّهُ بِهِ بَعضَكُم عَلىٰ بَعضٍ لِلرِّجالِ نَصيبٌ مِمَّا اكتَسَبوا وَلِلنِّساءِ نَصيبٌ مِمَّا اكتَسَبنَ وَسـَٔلُوا اللَّهَ مِن فَضلِهِ إِنَّ اللَّهَ كانَ بِكُلِّ شَىءٍ عَليمًا

A mutual relationship goes with an agreement in roles. Husband and wife agree the terms , sharing the work together. Whichever way they choose who does what. That agreement is a binder and any rebellion from either side is breaking the terms.

GOD has given each individual and each gender certain qualities . Qoran encourages .us to use these qualities to compliment each other and help one another in all sorts of relationships

If rebellion from either side arises ,then the steps are there in case.

So I do not see "hit/strike". I see seperation as a last resort if things get that bad.
Seriously ,does one really think "hit/strike" solves problems. Qoran for sure does not,  according to its general/overall message. Why have divorce laws if "hit/strike" solves the issues!!!
GOD bless you.
Peace.

[jkhan]

Peace all...

I am really afraid that anyone who still claim that God advise hitting woman then that person really should check his mentality. ...
Why this much confusion.... God says He is fair... If God allow men to hit women,  what kind of fair God He is...
No simply no... Something is wrong in your Arabic and knowledge in understanding it...
Just take a look at the below beautiful verse..
4:128
"And if a woman fears from her husband contempt or evasion, there is no sin upon them if they make terms of settlement between them - and settlement is best. And present in [human] souls is stinginess. But if you do good and fear Allah - then indeed Allah is ever, with what you do, Acquainted."

In 4:34 and 4:128 Fear is imperative... What is this fear? I think now that this fear is not man or woman has some sexual relationship.... I also thought but it is not... I think this is kind Serious I'll conduct which doesn't suit to the other partner... Simply one partner cannot hold anymore the behavior of the other... That's what fear is all about... If the woman has had sexual relationship with another man while married... Hitting is not the law given in QURAN... It has different law... Do I need to say what is it?  Everyone knows... Husbands  or wife's solo witness is enoigh against his her partner... So,  punishment should be 100 lashes.. Not husband hitting....
Here it is only mischievous conduct which husband cannot bear and she doesn't reform....
And same in 4:128 she fears about her husband. She would have waited for long but no option rather than separation.. God didn't give the same advice as 4:34 what is given to man... Coz it is far from reality... That advices to husband who has illconduct or keeping him away from bed... That's only suit as advice to a good believing man... while for a good believing woman 4:128 suits... Coz she can't tolerate with him for no reason...
Just tell me now... Still you want to hit your wife... OMG... That's insane.... You want to hit your sisters and mothers and any woken under your dependence for their illconduct.... Then why only wife?  That's bizarre man quality.... That's not a man... That's a coward..

[Wakas]

For you interpretation  to work....

I disagree, and let me explain why. This is how I picture what's happening:

Masculine plural are repelling each other (i.e. accusing each other) in it (the murder). So, lets say we have the following:

Bob is accusing Jim
Jim is accusing Alex
Alex is accusing Bob

God exposes what they are concealing (that they did it together) by stating to them all "cite (or point out) him with some of it (the murder)". It is NOT saying to them to "cite each one" because that may not fit into what was happening earlier, because that would mean Bob/Jim/Alex would change whom they were previously addressing blame to, from one person to each one, i.e.

Bob now accuses Jim and Alex
Jim now accuses Alex and Bob
Alex now accuses Bob and Jim

Also, you will note it says "averting/accusing/repelling each other IN it", and they are obviously not literally averting/accusing each other whilst physically IN the dead corpse so to me it is obviously referring to the murder. As I said see 5:32 for similar usage.

But I think this is an ok objection:
"Show me another verse in the Quran where a singular masculine possessive pronoun is used to imply an action of the verb on multiple people?"
In my opinion nowhere near as bad as the problems with your interpretation. I haven't researched the above point so cant comment.