Messages

Perhaps I should remind members of this forum that the owner of the site referenced (Sam Gerrans) is a conspiracy theorist, believes the moon landings are fake, and in general has some nonsensical views. I would not take anything from his website, Quran-related or otherwise, as fact.

Sleepyghoul, I have some advice for you. This thread is turning into a pointless argument about subjective opinions, reminiscent of what often happens on Free-Minds forum. Neither Hamzeh nor Good Logic is going to help you. They can't, and they have no interest in doing so. I know when a conversation is becoming unproductive, and I would suggest you leave this thread. You need to know when to leave a conversation that is going nowhere.

Regarding 4:3, there is variance in interpretation, but the word for orphans is masculine/neutral plural. It is rather difficult to turn this into "If you fear you will not be just with female orphans whom you wish to marry" unless you do a fair amount of acrobatics. 4:127 does reference female orphans/widowed women not being given their proper dowries, and 4:4 provides the solution: Just give them their dowries (it's not that hard). 4:2 and 4:3 are both speaking generically of orphans, either gender. I won't continue this topic on a public forum because it seems impossible for people to have a sane academic discussion of 4:3 or 4:34. It always devolves into anecdotal stories about so-and-so's wives. If you want to continue, email me from my website.

Regarding witnesses (since you brought this up in your first post), the issue has absolutely nothing to do with women forgetting their testimony. This understanding is only the result of demonstrable misinterpretation as I have explained. https://ifoceanswereink.wordpress.com/2017/06/15/witnesses-financial-transactions-adultery-and-deficiency-in-reason/

With regards to hur al ayn: http://quransmessage.com/articles/sexy%20female%20virgins%20for%20men%20in%20heaven%20FM3.htm
On this topic, as with most others, I have found Joseph Islam's scholarship to be good, but his is not the final word, and he has been wrong before.

As for 4:34, it is incredible that traditionalists think women can be "disciplined" for an unproven "wrongdoing" when the Quran mandates a judicial process to prove wrongdoing, and strictly forbids every type of slander. 4:34 only speaks of "feared (khafa) wrongdoing," which is unproven and absolutely cannot warrant punishment. Sleepysoul, it is your responsibility to realize when tragic mistakes in Quranic interpretation have occurred. You cannot rely on others to give you the answers to everything, because they can't, and won't.

With regards to the female angels thing, the Quran is condemning the hypocrisy of Arabs, who (apparently) disliked female children yet worshiped female deities. You have to put all the verses on "daughters vs. sons" together to get the full picture.

BTW--I have done some research, and pre-Islamic Arabs actually buried male children alive with almost the same frequency they did female children. They did not uniformly dislike women, either. Interestingly, the Quran specifically condemns the murder of female children, although it acknowledges male infanticide as well (see 17:31; here "children," awlad, is in the masculine plural).

God does not tell us to abandon common sense while reading the Quran. Such a suggestion is insulting; don't listen to anyone who tells you "there is wisdom behind God commanding oppression." The "wisdom behind oppression" mantra has been used to mess with the Quran for centuries. And don't read Sahih International's or even Yusuf Ali's translations; they're unnecessarily convoluted and demonstrably wrong. I would suggest this translation: https://historyofislam.com/the-quran/

I won't reply further on this thread. I know from experience that public forums are counterproductive and discussions get derailed. Email me if you want. And don't feel bad for any of this. Islam's teachings on women have been corrupted beyond recognition. It's not your fault.

Salam, yeah I saw that thread earlier! I was also going through the index on Project Root List (which I believe you created?) and it was listed under QRR. Both roots I mentioned seem to work, and early readings of the Quran show that grammarians have been disputing this for a long time.

I would translate it something like this: "And abide with dignity/content/uprightness in your homes, and do not make an excessive, extravagant display (of anything, wealth, beauty, greed)"--and 'tabarruj' here denotes  conspicuous or provocative show-offy-ness.

Thank you for the reply

Reference

http://quransmessage.com/articles/aggressive%20(mis)translations%20of%20the%20quran%20to%20enslave%20women%20FM3.htm

And yes Lane's notes both readings, qirna and qarna, in the paragraph I pointed out. But the primary reading is from root Waw-Qaf-Ra. The other reading, from root Qaf-Ra-Ra, is cited as a "contraction" of the correct grammatical imperative, indicating that it's unlikely this one is correct.

Salam,

This is for Brother Joseph Islam. I was going through "Aggressive Mistranslations to Enslave Women," and you said the root for "and stay in your homes" is q-r-r. It's actually waqar, w-q-r, from "dignity," and Lane's Lexicon proves this. Lane's Lexicon cites W-Q-R as the correct root, and imperative is "wa qirna fi buyutikunna"--it should be read with a kasra not a fatha. Proof:

http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume8/00000214.pdf

Go to the 3rd column at the top. It says clearly in Arabic, "wa QIRNA fi buyutikunna," for the root w-q-r. You have the wrong root word in your article. The correct imperative form of q-r-r is "aqrarna" and early jurists including Tabari noted this.

So you're right, the translation should read "and sit with dignity/graveness/uprightness in your homes" rather than restrictively rendering it as "stay in your homes and never leave," BUT your root verb was incorrect. Lane's clearly shows that the root is in fact from waqar, dignity.

It's clear that the angel disobeyed the Quran, this is irreconcilable, but I posit that it doesn't matter because the Quran is not for angels.

As far as I know Quranic stories are all meant to be historical (see the Sleepers of the Cave article where the historical correlation is described). Also, I like the idea that he was an angel. Maybe it's meant to signify that there are laws we don't understand, angels are not like us, and agents from the unseen world do things that might appear wrong but there's a reason. Also the Quran is guidance for mankind and probably not for angels.

http://quransmessage.com/travelogues/seven%20sleepers%20FM3.htm

Do you think that's the right interpretation?

The name is from secondary source narrations.

OH.

It says "a servant..." (abd) so, not necessarily an actual human. And he didn't do it of his own accord...so he probably wasn't human, and was sent specifically to teach Moses a lesson, and he didn't make the choice to do those things. That could signify him being an angel (possibly), because angels generally don't do things of their own accord, and angels are known to break worldly laws.

Salaam,

In 18:80 (part of the Moses-wise man story), Khidr is said to have killed a child because he 'suspected' the child might grow up to overburden his parents with disbelief. This is despite the fact that Quran 5:32 prohibits taking a soul except as a punishment for murder or corruption on Earth. 18:65 says Khidr was gifted with mercy and wisdom, but I think Moses was right to ask why he killed the child. If the child was killed then, he would have had no chance to repent later.

Is there an alternate understanding of the story? If not, is there a way to reconcile the contradiction?

The Quran only allows punishment for proven crimes, and even then there is a concession of mercy, depending on whether the perpetrator repents. Killing the child despite this would be a clear violation, even if Khidr allegedly had knowledge of the Unseen.

[while in their homes]

Oh wait--I found something.

It would make sense to render this as "wa qirna," behave with dignity in your homes, when juxtaposed with the prohibition on tabarruj. In another verse, men are commanded to address the prophet's wives from behind a barrier. So this could be a command to the women to behave dignified while in their homes, and not to engage in tabarruj in front of unrelated men, hence the command for a barrier...as opposed to "don't leave your home." Does the distinction make sense?

33:33 doesn't say "don't go OUT and engage in tabarruj," it just says "don't engage in tabarruj." This could be a ban on excessive displays of finery while IN the house, in front of visiting men, who are told to approach from behind a veil. Hence "behave with dignity IN your homes."

Salam,

The part of verse 33:33 rendered as "remain in your homes" transliterates to "wa qarna fi buyutikinna," but early copies of the Quran had only consonant outlines without any diacritical marks. So if you drop the fatha and replace it with a kasra, it could read "wa QIRNA fi buyutikinna."

I've read somewhere that "qarna" has a different meaning than "qirna;" both come from root Q-R-R (to remain fixed, settle peacefully) but "qirna" would be better rendered as to "behave with dignity." Do qarna and qirna have different meanings? Both terms could fit based on the consonant outline. And apparently the command form of "qarna" should actually be "aqrarna," which is a different spelling than the Quran uses. So would "qirna," with a kasra, fit better here?

If the word is indeed qarna, what would it signify, other than remaining peacefully in one place? (I've seen the Aggressive Mistranslations article, I just want to know what it would signify for the Prophet's wives.)

Also, the next clause reads "and do not make a dazzling display like they did in the Times of Ignorance." From what I can tell, "dazzling display"--tabarruj--refers to excessive extravagance, provocative displays of adornment, things like that. Is there any other mention of tabarruj in a similar context, and is there any other place where tabarruj-like customs of pre-Islamic Arabs are mentioned?

Everything is worship if done correctly, even everyday matters. The verse refers to turning your entire life into a means of worship.

I'm not allowed to fast for the first 2 weeks of Ramadan, but Ramadan kareem to you too