Salam,
Thank you, Arnold, for taking the time to look over the post.
I didn't really want to get involved in interpretting this verse because I don't think I've learned enough arabic or arabic grammar.
What I did in this post is present thethe first few (2-4 or so) definitions of the roots of the words in the verse as I found them. These definitions are by no means complete. I gave referrences to each word so that people could look up the words themselves to read more.
I didn't want to get into evolved meanings of the words. I wanted to examine the words with their original definition whether anyone thought they are "good" or "bad" as they are.
I wanted the "raw" root of the root so to speak.
And while we're on the subject of words in this verse
At this point I don?t think that the words rajul (ra-jeem-lam), and nisa (nun-siin-alif) are gender specific (indicative of man or woman) as we have traditionally believed.
I think they evolved to become gender specific.
If we translate rajul (ra-jeem-lam) as it is originally intended it would mean
?those on foot/walking/foot?
The word is usually translated as "man," but I think that it has a more general definition although it could apply since a rajul could be anyone going on foot including the one who is providing for the family traditionally, by hunting (on foot) but in contemporary society by going to work (on foot-well okay in a car but you get the point).
Or just more basically and to the point the one walking (without adding any of our "traditional" notions into it.
Since nisa is commonly translated as woman or wife but like rajul I think nisa has a more common definition. However, the nisa (nun-siin-alif) (the one delayed) could be the one who stays home with the children or is in some other way delayed in what ever way you can imagine, or delayed from doing what the ?one on foot or walking? is able to do (this could even include a person who is ill or a child).
One might argue that there are verses that refer to nisa with things like nursing or pregnancy. That is true. However if one is nursing a child or is pregnant they are in fact delayed or postponed from doing what they would be able to do were they not nursing or pregnant.
Think about it from a logical universal standpoint?there are times when men, for what ever reason, become disabled and unable to work. That doesn?t mean that the wife abandons the disabled man to find another husband.
Most likely the woman would go to work and the husband would stay home. The woman wouldthen become the rajul (those on foot). It is their responsibility to take care of the one delayed (in the case of this argument the man). Even in the time of Muhammad women worked and supported men at times.
The delayed could also extend to elderly, children and those who are ill.
That would make logical universal sense. Because the delayed would extend to anyone in your life (male or female) that you are caring for. This is especially true if you keep in mind that the Quran is a guide, YOUR guide for life. You can?t control what others do, so it would be absolutely of no use to you to be told what others are supposed to do for you
In the case that you are a woman and consider yourself ?nisa? that would mean that you are reading about what others are supposed to do for you. Because if you consider yourself to be a permanent ?nisa? 434, and many other verses, will never apply to you personally. And since we all know that we have no control over others only ourselves that doesn?t stay consistant with what the Quran teaches us.
However, if we think of nisa as it is defined in classical arabic then there will always be someone who is more ?delayed? than rajul ?one on foot.?
That would mean that at times when you are caring for others this verse would apply.
Even if someone doesn?t accept the classical arabic dictionary?s definitions and becomes dead set on the traditional definition for rajul we still have the Quran as a definer.
And the most clear definition of the word rajul comes from 2445.
(Transliteration) WaAllahu khalaqa kulla dabbatin min ma-in faminhum man yamshee AAala batnihi waminhum man yamshee AAala rijlayni waminhum man yamshee AAala arbaAAin yakhluqu Allahu ma yashao inna Allaha AAala kulli shay-in qadeerun
(Literal) And God created every/each walker/creeper/crawler from water, so from them who walks (moves) on its belly , and from them who walks on two feet, and from them who walks on four, God creates what He wills/wants , that truly God (is) on every thing capable/powerful .
(Free-Minds) And God created every moving creature from water. So some of them move on their bellies, and some walk on two legs, and some walk on four. God creates whatever He wills. God is capable of all things.
Also since Arabic evolved from Hebrew we can see that the definition of rajul in Hebrew is foot or one on foot or walking as well.
Another good example is that while we can define rajul as man instead of foot or those on foot we can not substitute the word foot for man because it would make no sense.
However translating the word rajul as ?those on foot? or foot instead of man fits in with
the hebrew definition of the word is identical to the arabic definition
the universal logical meaning that could work in all situations
Arabic dictionaries
and the definition that the Quran gives in 2445
while translating rajul as foot or those on foot works in all instances translating rajul as man does not work in all instances.
To sum it up I would say that the words rajul and nisa are not gender specific.
With that in mind, it would be very interesting to see the verse translated using the original roots. But remember, to really understand a verse to where it makes sense we have to translate the verses surrounding it as well (and, eventually, the whole Quran).
Lets try not to get stuck by translating one verse using the original root and then proclaiming it doesn't make sense because it doesn't fit with the verse before it or after it that we didn't translate.
I believe that If we translate all the verses according to their root meaning, the Quran will make sense in a universal way.
Furthermore, I think that, to truly understand the arabic we must understand the foundation of the words that evolved from Aramaic, Hebrew, and Ancient Hebrew (all of which I am studying as well as arabic). But that may be for another thread.
Thoughts on this are appreciated and respected.
Salam,
Arnab
