Can a Muslimah marry a non-Muslim?
-
yes both the genders are being addressed, but permission is being granted to bring in a Mohsinnat, ONLY. Does MOhsinnat include the masculine plural any where in Quran ?
244 "wallatheena yarmuunal mu7sanaati thumma lam ya'tuu bi'rba3ati shuhadaa' fajliduuhum thamaaneena jaldatan ..."
"and those who accuse "muhsans" and produce not four witnesses...."
Unles you believe that it is OK to slander men!!Samia ! i am amazed , as to how a very simple and straight forward instruction can be denied, if one's heart does not want to accept a gender biased command.
Where's this "very simple and straightforward instruction", or any instruction at all, that I am denying?! I am denying that you say something is haram, I am denying this addition.
Your argument is like those Sunni sectarians, whom when we ask , as to why do they carry extra step wadu, despite clear instructions in Quran spelling out 4 steps , and they reply , where is the prohibition , that we cannot carry out these extra cleanings?
You amaze me by your reversed logic!!
Actually, my argument should be like our argument to the "hadithists" as from where they got the additional elements of wadu! I am asking the same thing where did you get this "additional" element of making something unlawful to women when it is not there?Let me ask you where in the qur'aan do you find a general rule made lawful to men and unlawful to women?
-
Peace,
Samia, I'm not sure what you mean by manipulation of the tashkeel ( I know what tashkeel is but don't understand the manipulation part). One is obviously passive and the other is active. In the case of the men wanting to be with women they are to be moral (and possibly) physical fortifiers (desiring chastity and morality from their mates and not seeking to corrupt them) and for the women who are desired to be married they are to be morally & physically fortified. The women can be a muh-sinatun as well, but it is clear that she is muhsAnatun, meaning that she has been fortified obviously by her family and herself.
Salaam Anwar
(mu7Sinuun) and (mu7Sanuun) are written the same way, as you see. The "i" or "a" that appears after the letter "S" is a short vowel (tashkeel). Putting one or the other makes the word passive or active participle. The way you understand it will dictate which short vowel you will apply.
Fortified should be "mu7aSSan", not "mu7San". You should know that from tasreef, when a verb is derived from an object to mean an action hiSn (fort)= haSSan fortify; thalj (ice) thallaj make ice or like ice, freeze. This is one of the applications of form II, and only form II is used for this kind of tasreef of verbs derived from a three-letterd noun.
The correct meaning is immune, derived from a verb derived from the same noun (7iSn) but of the form I.
By logic, and by their nature, if mu7sin meant protector from vice, women are more "mu7Sinaat" of men than men of women.
-
244 "wallatheena yarmuunal mu7sanaati thumma lam ya'tuu bi'rba3ati shuhadaa' fajliduuhum thamaaneena jaldatan ..."
"and those who accuse "muhsans" and produce not four witnesses...."
Unles you believe that it is OK to slander men!!what you quote in red is incorrect , it is Mohsannti.
The term Mohsinnat does not include male gender anywhere in quran and is exclusively used for women. and even in 24-4 it does not . I must say , you are going into great lengths(negative) just to prove a point.
You mean to say that where ever the term Mohsinnat is used , it includes the male gender? when the believers are told that you may marry Mohsinnats provided you pay them their ujoors, do you mean that it is the women (as well) who should pay ujoors?
It is not ok to falsely accuse a gentleman, but there is no compulsion to produce 4 witnesses or any punishment for such an accusation.
siki
-
Where's this "very simple and straightforward instruction", or any instruction at all, that I am denying?! I am denying that you say something is haram, I am denying this addition.
where is it written in Quran that it is prohibited for the women to marry a woman? or for that matter to a bull, or a donkey?
-
Let me ask you where in the qur'aan do you find a general rule made lawful to men and unlawful to women?
A man can marry more than one women at a time but the women can not have multiple husbands.
As a general rule , women is recommended for half the share of a man in inheritance.
want more ?
siki
-
what you quote in red is incorrect , it is Mohsannti.
244 "wallatheena yarmuunal mu7sanaati thumma lam ya'tuu bi'rba3ati shuhadaa' fajliduuhum thamaaneena jaldatan ..."
"and those who accuse "muhsans" and produce not four witnesses...."
Unles you believe that it is OK to slander men!!I was not transliterating the verse. It is in English. Since I do not agree with
- Your understanding of the meaning of the word "mu7san/a"
- Gender of it in thi verse
I decided not to translate it, nor show its gender, hence "muhsans", which is not even a transliteration.
The term Mohsinnat does not include male gender anywhere in quran and is exclusively used for women. and even in 24-4 it does not. I must say , you are going into great lengths(negative) just to prove a point.
So you believe that it is OK to slander men, and no punishment should be applied! Imagine I say that I saw Mr. X having sex with Ms Y. Only Ms Y can complain, but not Mr. X. I can freely accuse any two men of having gay sex and get away with it. Great! Or even more, a wife can see her husband in bed with a female, but cannot complain, because she cannot be slandering her husband..so even the verses 246-9 do not apply to her.
You are going into great lengths to disprove justice.
You mean to say that where ever the term Mohsinnat is used , it includes the male gender?
I do not speak of isolated words. I speak of address. I always say that the address in the qur'aan is to both genders unless it is explicitly proven otherwise. And when such a verse (i.e addressing both genders) entails a feminine noun, this should be understood as (the opposite sex). You can find this understanding in one of my posts in this very thread and in many other threads.
It is not OK to falsely accuse a gentleman, but there is no compulsion to produce 4 witnesses or any punishment for such an accusation
Why not? It seems it is not harmful since, according to you, God did not prohibit that.
-
A man can marry more than one women at a time but the women can not have multiple husbands.
siki
Is this your understanding of a general rule? Not all men are allowed to marry more than one woman, and not all women are allowed to marry a married man. Therefore, this is not a general rule.
-
Samia! you are breaching all the bounds of rationality in your quest to prove equality of men and women in all spheres.
where as they are not , Their DNA was fine tuned to suit their individual roles and hence are different , and require different set of rules to be governed.
siki
-
Samia! you are breaching all the bounds of rationality in your quest to prove equality of men and women in all spheres.
where as they are not , Their DNA was fine tuned to suit their individual roles and hence are different , and require different set of rules to be governed.
siki
Why can't you understand me? When I say "...unless explicitly proven otherwise", I am making room for these biological differences, which should stay as they are biological. Marrying into other faiths is not a masculine characteristic nor biology.
The quraan is full of verses confirming this equality. I am not bringing something new. I am just reading the qur'aan through "the eyes of the Author".
You mix between "Roles " and "Rights"; equality and traditions...
-
Peace
Samia, what is this?
(mu7Sinuun) and (mu7Sanuun) are written the same way, as you see. The "i" or "a" that appears after the letter "S" is a short vowel (tashkeel). Putting one or the other makes the word passive or active participle. The way you understand it will dictate which short vowel you will apply.
Fortified should be "mu7aSSan", not "mu7San". You should know that from tasreef, when a verb is derived from an object to mean an action hiSn (fort)= haSSan fortify; thalj (ice) thallaj make ice or like ice, freeze. This is one of the applications of form II, and only form II is used for this kind of tasreef of verbs derived from a three-letterd noun.
The correct meaning is immune, derived from a verb derived from the same noun (7iSn) but of the form I.
By logic, and by their nature, if mu7sin meant protector from vice, women are more "mu7Sinaat" of men than men of women.
My first objection
The way you understand it will dictate which short vowel you will apply.
The Quran is already voweled, you cannot apply any vowel that you want to. Deciding your own personal tasreef is not more than tahreef.
Second Objection
Fortified should be "mu7aSSan", not "mu7San". You should know that from tasreef, when a verb is derived from an object to mean an action hiSn (fort)= haSSan fortify; thalj (ice) thallaj make ice or like ice, freeze. This is one of the applications of form II, and only form II is used for this kind of tasreef of verbs derived from a three-letterd noun.
Again you are sticking PURE OPINION into your argumentation. Form 2 and for 4 have meanings that can overlap. The only thing is that form 4 is less direct and less intensive. You yourself know that many form 4 and 2 verbs actually have the exact same meaning in Arabic. ANd what do you mean that only form 2 takes this kind of tasreef. Are you saying that only form two can have a passive participle like this. Are you even being serious here? You know Arabic so where in the world are you getting this from? The only other option can be that I am misunderstanding you, but it doesn't seem like this. You are assuming that the verb hassana (even though we are discussing Ahsana) would have to come from a noun. That is false.
Go to http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume2/00000222.pdf Hasuna is the verb from which this is derived it is not a verb formed off of the noun, so that it has to take the second form. But even in that case you would still be wrong. You can go to Wright's Grammar of an Arabic language on page 34 and 35 of the first part and see that there are many 4th form verbs formed from nounds abqala from baqlun, awraqa from waraq, adh-kara from dhakar(to have a male child), asanna from sinn (to become fully grown, literally to get all your teeth), ash-ama (to got to Syria, ashaam), A'raqa to go to Iraq, and more. Please let these mistaken views go.Last Objections
The correct meaning is immune, derived from a verb derived from the same noun (7iSn) but of the form I.
The verb is not derived from the noun. The noun is derived from the first form verb and from 2 AND 4 change that meaning to very similar and even in some cases a shared identical meaning.
By logic, and by their nature, if mu7sin meant protector from vice, women are more "mu7Sinaat" of men than men of women.
Again, PURE OPINION, injected in this exchange. Please try to argue with real logic here, why, Samia? Why? If we look at the case of the male we will see it is muhsineena (mansoob). Letting us know that this is what their role SHOULD be, if they are looking for a partner, not what the actions of men are in general & in real, life. This is how a man should look for a partner. He should look for a partner in a strenghtening and fortifiying role as it concerns that woman not the opposite (corrupting and destructive).
I'm sure you have problems with the qawwaamoona verse as well? In Modern Arabic this word means supervisor, but in its real derivation from the verb it means a supporter and defender as qaama can mean to support and to stand up for. So that verse explains also what the role of men is to be as well as it concerns women; because if we went around the world, even in Muslim countries we would quickly find out that most men are not the qawwaamoona of women, but their mukharriboona (corrupters) and dhaalimoona (abusers). However, let me say that women are not always innocent either. I often remember that hadeeth by Abu huariarah that says that there will be more women in hell than men because they curse their husbands and disobey them. We know that we cannot trust that his saying is from the last prophet, God bless him, however many, many women are guilty of this. I would not say that there will be more women in hell then men, because firstly only God knows who will be in Hell and secondly I'm sure that if we compare the behavior of men towards women in many cases and all of our sins apart from this (both men and women) it will be God's mercy period if we do make it to heaven and he guides us to some degree of righteousness.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Salaam Anwar
My first objection
The Quran is already voweled, you cannot apply any vowel that you want to. Deciding your own personal tasreef is not more than tahreef.
I agree it was already vocalized, but mainly the grammatical vocalization and not the forms', especially passive and active forms of the same pattern. In the case of "mu7San", this is the accepted form, a few linguists accept "mu7sin/a" for the same meaning. In other words, either m7Sin does not exist or it has the same meaning as mu7San (lisaanul 3arab). This case is not exceptional other examples verse 425 where the verb "u7Sinna" is also read as "a7Sanna" in the active form; or verse 302 where "ghulibat" does not have the correct vocalization, but "ghalabat" does.
Again you are sticking PURE OPINION into your argumentation. Form 2 and for 4 have meanings that can overlap. The only thing is that form 4 is less direct and less intensive. You yourself know that many form 4 and 2 verbs actually have the exact same meaning in Arabic. ANd what do you mean that only form 2 takes this kind of tasreef. Are you saying that only form two can have a passive participle like this.
If mu7aSSan is derived from the verb derived from the word "7iSn fort", yes. And you know this rule. Here is what you said in another thread
Anwar Where as sallaa (form two) as it concerns salaatun is 'to make' salaatun or to perform it in some way.
According to the above, the active participle is musallin; same pattern as mu7aSSan.
You are assuming that the verb hassana (even though we are discussing Ahsana) would have to come from a noun.
I am not assuming anything. You said mu7Sin means fortifier. I understand that fortifier is derived from the noun fort7iSn, and I put the correct participle.
abqala from baqlun, awraqa from waraq, adh-kara from dhakar(to have a male child), asanna from sinn (to become fully grown, literally to get all your teeth), ash-ama (to got to Syria, ashaam), A'raqa to go to Iraq,
Almost all verbs are derived from nouns. I did not say verbs derived from nouns have to be in form II. I said if the verb means to make .... Let's look at your examples
abqala (I do not recognize this word)
awraqa we also have warraqa, hence warraaq and muwarriq
dhakar we have dhakkara (to make masculine) tadhkeer, like annatha and ta'neeth (to make feminine)
sin we also have sannana to make sharp;
ash-shaam or al-shaam and al-3iraaq are not three-lettered words, so the rule does not apply.The point is you are misaunderstanding me completely. I did not say there is no other verb that is derived from 7iSn. I object to the meaning of "fortified" you gave to " mu7San/in" and said it has another meaning, and that fortified is "mu7aSSan".
The verb is not derived from the noun. The noun is derived from the first form verb and from 2 AND 4 change that meaning to very similar and even in some cases a shared identical meaning.
I do not understand what you mean. Language starts by nouns. A child learns nouns first, then verbs. Could even be the meaning of "wa 3allama Adamal asmaa' kullaha and He taught Adam all the nouns (=language).
Letting us know that this is what their role SHOULD be,
Whose opinion is this? Where did God set a role for men to fortify women?
This is how a man should look for a partner. He should look for a partner in a strenghtening and fortifiying role as it concerns that woman not the opposite (corrupting and destructive).
What a logic! He should look for a partner to fortify her?! God set the relation between man and woman in a very neutral and mutual manner (they are garment for you and you are garment for them) period. No fortifier or fortified. They protect each other
I'm sure you have problems with the qawwaamoona verse as well?
Nope. I do not have any problem with the "qawwamoona" verse. I have a problem with the "aDribuhunna" verse . ;D
-
The quraan is full of verses confirming this equality. I am not bringing something new. I am just reading the qur'aan through "the eyes of the Author"....
No , you are looking at it through the eyes of a woman , who is unable to come to terms with the reality , that women of the book are Hallal for the believing men, but the Men of the book are not.
In my last post i had asked you a very simple Question exactly on the line of your faulty argument, but you took refuge by Mocking and evaded the answer.
I am asking you once again very seriously, where in Quran lesbian marriages are prohibited ? This is not a hypothetical question because it is happenning, and some countries have declared it legal too. So do you think that this law is not against quran? and hence Muslim countries should have no objection allowing it?
siki
-
Peace Anwar
Brother ! Mohsinnats , simply means ' chaste women," The women who are desirous of protecting themself from committing Fahisha. I have looked deep in this issue and found this definition to be the only suitable possibility for all the relevent occurences in Quran.
If you want to discuss it, open a new thread and we will sort it out.
siki
-
No , you are looking at it through the eyes of a woman , who is unable to come to terms with the reality , that women of the book are Hallal for the believing men, but the Men of the book are not.
Salaam siki
I stated my reason why I read the qur'aan through the eyes of God. If He mentions zillions of times that men and women are equal in the eyes of law and in case of punishment, I trust that He applies His way/sunna in every occurance, as long as it is not based on biological differences. But I am not surpsied to read a contradictory opinion through the eyes of someone who belives that God permits a man to beat his wife for fear of an offense, while the same punishment is not applicable if the roles are inverted. The problem with some people's understanding of the qur'aan is how they view God, because they are unable to come to terms with the fact that both genders are equal in the eyes of God.
In my last post i had asked you a very simple Question exactly on the line of your faulty argument, but you took refuge by Mocking and evaded the answer.
I was not evading your question. I just don't have time to answer questions from someone whose aim is to ask questions but not comment on the answer, or does not even care about it. Remember that my last post to you was an answer to a question from you, as follows
The term Mohsinnat does not include male gender anywhere in quran and is exclusively used for women. and even in 24-4 it does not. I must say , you are going into great lengths(negative) just to prove a point.
So you believe that it is OK to slander men, and no punishment should be applied! Imagine I say that I saw Mr. X having sex with Ms Y. Only Ms Y can complain, but not Mr. X. I can freely accuse any two men of having gay sex and get away with it. Great! Or even more, a wife can see her husband in bed with a female, but cannot complain, because she cannot be slandering her husband..so even the verses 246-9 do not apply to her.
But you just ignored it and threw another question. Comment on my answer so that I know a dialogue is going on, not an interview.
-
Peace,
I agree it was already vocalized, but mainly the grammatical vocalization and not the forms', especially passive and active forms of the same pattern. In the case of "mu7San", this is the accepted form, a few linguists accept "mu7sin/a" for the same meaning. In other words, either m7Sin does not exist or it has the same meaning as mu7San (lisaanul 3arab). This case is not exceptional other examples verse 425 where the verb "u7Sinna" is also read as "a7Sanna" in the active form; or verse 302 where "ghulibat" does not have the correct vocalization, but "ghalabat" does.
Whose opinion is this? Vocalizations are set within the versions of the Quran we have. Anything else is tahreef of the Quran. The fact that ahsana and uhsina can mean the same thing is based on the possible connotations of form 4. Check my reference. Ahsana can mean to take on the state of hasuna as well as to make somone hasn or haseen (fortified and unable to penetrate. In the minds of the Old Arabs this referred to chasity but it can also refer to the moral character and strength of a person, and even their physical strength, as well as the integrity of edifices). As a matter of fact we can use this word for any concept in any context where we mean that that person cannot be broken into or broken down.
Please be careful of tafseers and other opinions that try to revowel the Quran. Even the passive and active are fixed vowels written from the careful recitation and teaching of recitation of the Quran gotten from the mouth of our beloved last prophet, God bless him. To say that ghalabat is a possiblity for what is clearly ghulibat is tahreef, whether it came from a respected tafseer, scholar or not.
If mu7aSSan is derived from the verb derived from the word "7iSn fort", yes. And you know this rule. Here is what you said in another thread
Quote
Anwar Where as sallaa (form two) as it concerns salaatun is 'to make' salaatun or to perform it in some way.According to the above, the active participle is musallin; same pattern as mu7aSSan.
Quote
You are assuming that the verb hassana (even though we are discussing Ahsana) would have to come from a noun.I am not assuming anything. You said mu7Sin means fortifier. I understand that fortifier is derived from the noun fort7iSn, and I put the correct participle.
Firstly, since when is mu7assan the same pattern as musallin? One is active 2 and one is passive 2. It would have been better if you had said musallan, here. Secondly to fortify (ahsana AND hassana) are not derived from the noun hisn. They are derived from the first form VERB hasuna. It is possible that they CAN be taken in a way that makes them derived from the noun hisn, but why exlcude the fact that the word in its primary meaning is derived FROM THE VERB hasuna. Leave hisn, alone, as fort is not even this word's only meaning. Check out the reference I gave you.
ash-shaam or al-shaam and al-3iraaq are not three-lettered words, so the rule does not apply.
What do you mean these words are not three letter words? Shaam come from sheen, alif/hamza meem. That is how you get ash'ama, so it would be sha'-ama or shayyama. 3iraaq comes from 3araqa, so it would be 3arraqa. Can you really not see this?
And let's pull out the grammar book again We have gharraba to go west (not making anyone do anything), wajjaha to set out in any direction (again to making anyone do anything). This also goes for sallama(to say peace, to greet), hammara( to speak himyar), sharraqa to go east. jallada(to skin an animal), marrada(to occupy yourself with the sickly; to nurse), qawwasa (to be bent like a bow).
We can see in the examples especially of aymana and a&raqa and gharraba and sharraqa that these two forms can have exactly the same meanings even when they are derived from a noun (Yemen, Iraq, gharb and sharq). qawwasa and aqwasa would have exactly the same meanings as well. So please do not deny the overlapping roles of these two forms. You cannot make form 4 and form 2 like oil and water, because they have their differences but also have a few overlapping points.
Almost all verbs are derived from nouns. I did not say verbs derived from nouns have to be in form II. I said if the verb means to make .... Let's look at your examples
How does this stand up to the variations in official Quranic texts between awsaa (form 4) and wassaa(form 2)? And there are a few other form 4 and form 2 interchangeables? It doesn't. Again form 2 and 4 have their differences but they are not like oil and water and have a few (actually many) overlapping points.
abqala (I do not recognize this word)
Do you have to? Look it up. I can tell you atleast that if you don't know the word baql, the children of Israel asked for it while they were in the desert. The real issue is that you don't recognize the pattern, which makes the difference between an Old Arab and the way Old Arabic works and MSA and the dialects, which don't rely on an extensive knowledge of Arabic patterns but on the most common vocablary that is used. This is why you are having trouble with ahsana and hassana. And I have seen this all TOO often with today's Arabs. You go to one country and they use form 2 and go to another and they use form 4 and if you use the one they don't use they will swear that you are wrong as well as the person that told you to use the form that they don't use or recognize.
I do not understand what you mean. Language starts by nouns. A child learns nouns first, then verbs. Could even be the meaning of "wa 3allama Adamal asmaa' kullaha and He taught Adam all the nouns (=language).
Another linguistic theory. Even if this were true you are talking about the origin of language, and this does not apply to fully developed languages. And again, this is a theory that you are putting forth, how are you to know that originally people didn't see an action (once they had prounouns) and say about the wind "it blows" instead of coining the action of blowing and then making a verb for it. It would seem that in Arabic the nouns are derived from verbs instead. Take 95 percent of Arabic words and you have to look up the root VERB before you get the noun. Please do not make broad linguistic assumptions like this and then apply it to a language which actually seems to defy this theory.
Whose opinion is this? Where did God set a role for men to fortify women?
Again, here the case makes all the difference. What is the difference between qaa'imoona and qaa'imeena? Look up the functions of nasb and then you will understand why I said this.
What a logic! He should look for a partner to fortify her?! God set the relation between man and woman in a very neutral and mutual manner (they are garment for you and you are garment for them) period. No fortifier or fortified. They protect each other
Of course they are to protect each other, but in the words of the Quran (which may be taken as Mary's mother), Al-dhakaru laisa kal-unthaa. Men and women may be equal in the eyes of the Lord but we are not the same. We have different roles and different characters. And however much you may not like that, it is true. Despite that, this verse is actually to the men, and is not telling women what they should look for. Nor did I say that he should look for someone just to fortify, please do not twist my words. Try hard to read what I am saying and please do not interpret what you may see as how I think. This is telling men to look for women, but not trying to corrupt them (to just get in their pants or corrupt them in any other way) but in order to help them be chaste and fortify them. Men are to strengthen women in whatever ways they can, not try to weaken them or their relationship with God. Remember qawwaamoona? Would you be upset if the Quran called women maqoomaat or because it doesn't say that women are to be the qawwaamaat of men? Again, men and women have different natures (although there is much room for overlap).
And the point is to tell men what they should NOT be doing as it concerns their search for a partner.I have a problem with the "aDribuhunna" verse
Yes, I have my own opinion on this. I think you can hit women in the case that the Quran lays out but the Quran is clear about injuring other believers, that God does not like the abusive or the excessive and that there is to be deep caring love (al-mawaddatu) between a husband and a wife. I mean let us be real in every couple the man hits the woman the woman hits the man (the women usually hits the man over and over and over again and with force which usually pisses the man off although he must control himself and forgve her). But the point is that we can hit someone without trying to damage them or hurt them but to make a point.
Again, my opinion has for a very long time been that the Quran is for the faithful few who choose to uphold it, study all of it and take the best from it, it is not a book that should be used to govern the masses, because the unintellligent and the wicked will be quick to try to twist these words to their favor despite the rest of the book.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Samia 1 salam.
I am reaching a point where i find my self unable to carry out a rational discussion with you, because in my opinion, very often you come up with a kinda argument, which does not commensurate with your knowledge, experience, and intellect. Many a occasions in the past, I tacitly came up with " I am dissappointed" but i find , that you fail to change your line of argument.
You, neither seem to be satisfied with commandments which seem like favouring men , Nor, when God protects women's honor by warning people, not to accuse chaste women, and prescribe a punishment for those who do it without sufficient evidence .
You are hell bent to equalize every instruction in Quran, which God fine tuned to suit their individual natures , bodies and roles. And in this attempt, you are breaking all the rules of reasonable logic.
sister ! I am sorry , I am dissengaging, No hard feelings. handshake
peace
siki
-
Peace,
Whose opinion is this? Vocalizations are set within the versions of the Quran we have.
Sa3aam Anwar
What do you mean by "the quraan we have"? Do you mean the quraan I am reading now has exactly all the vocalization of the first copies? Please show me or tell me about old copies where passive verbs or participles are fully vocalized, because I cannot find any.
Firstly, since when is mu7assan the same pattern as musallin? One is active 2 and one is passive 2. It would have been better if you had said musallan
Sorry, I should have written "mu7assin".
That is how you get ash'ama, so it would be sha'-ama or shayyama. 3iraaq comes from 3araqa, so it would be 3arraqa. Can you really not see this?
Anwar, save few exceptions, all the Arabic words are ORIGINALLY of three letters (root), but when you are dealing with a word to make something related to it or relative to it, you deal with the whole word, not the root.
Example Sudan (root S W D). If you want to make "Sudanes", you deal with the whole word and say sawdana; if you want to make black (same root S W D) you say "sawwada". al3iraq and alsham are to be dealt with as such, not roots. That's why I said they are not 3-lettered words.How does this stand up to the variations in official Quranic texts between awsaa (form 4) and wassaa(form 2)? And there are a few other form 4 and form 2 interchangeables?
You asked a similar question in another thread about the difference between najjaa and anjaa, and I explained it to you with examples from verses. You also maintain synonimity of words, and I don't. We discussed it on another thread. Why do you want to bring this up here again? If you do not want to agree, you are free, but don't keep bringing it up now and then.
Do you have to? Look it up. I can tell you atleast that if you don't know the word baql, the children of Israel asked for it while they were in the desert.
As a matter of fact, I did look it up. The meaning you want is baqala and baqqala ; (and lisanul 3arab says that al-Jawhary does not accept the form baqqala); abqala means to come out (specially facial hair), so I did not know what you wanted to say. Not every root has all the patterns, and you know that.
The real issue is that you don't recognize the pattern, which makes the difference between an Old Arab and the way Old Arabic
You keep saying old Arabic and old arabs...I asked you once if you have read any document in arabic prior to the qur'aan...you just mentioned jahiliyya poetry!! I have no comment. On the contrary, I recognize the patterns and the difference of their meaning, even if it is a tiny difference, because I do not accept synonymity; you do not accept the different meanings of different patterns and keep saying this is synonymous to this..and do not even recognize the difference between form II and form IV
Another linguistic theory. Even if this were true you are talking about the origin of language, and this does not apply to fully developed languages. And again, this is a theory that you are putting forth, how are you to know that originally people didn't see an action (once they had prounouns) and say about the wind "it blows"
Of course, linguistics are theories! Untill they are refuted by better ones. So far, I haven't read about this refutation. In Arabic, the verb is "habbat" and wind is "habuub". What do you want to say, giving me examples in English?
Take 95 percent of Arabic words and you have to look up the root VERB before you get the noun.
The root is not a verb. The root does not have a pattern because it is void of vowels.
Again, here the case makes all the difference. What is the difference between qaa'imoona and qaa'imeena? Look up the functions of nasb and then you will understand why I said this.
And what does this suppose to mean? That when a noun is in the accusative will have a different meaning than when it is in the nominative? Are you serious? How would the meaning of qaaimoona in (inna alrijaala gaaimoona men are getting up) change from saying (ra'aytu alrijaala qaa'imeena I saw the men getting up)? What brought qaa'imeena/moona here in the first place?
Al-dhakaru laisa kal-unthaa.
Biological differences. No mention of men and women. Out of context.
Whose opinion is this? Where did God set a role for men to fortify women?
What a logic! He should look for a partner to fortify her?! God set the relation between man and woman in a very neutral and mutual manner (they are garment for you and you are garment for them) period. No fortifier or fortified. They protect each other
please do not twist my words. Try hard to read what I am saying and please do not interpret what you may see as how I think
Nor did I say that he should look for someone just to fortify
OK....but isn't this what you say confused
This is telling men to look for women, but not trying to corrupt them (to just get in their pants or corrupt them in any other way) but in order to help them be chaste and fortify them.
Men are to strengthen women in whatever ways they can
No comment.
-
Peace,
What do you mean by "the quraan we have"? Do you mean the quraan I am reading now has exactly all the vocalization of the first copies? Please show me or tell me about old copies where passive verbs or participles are fully vocalized, because I cannot find any.
Of course you will not because as you should know and as I have always said the Quran was not accurately preserved by the Arabic text, which was more deficient then than it is now. It was the work of the huffaadh and their schools of hifdun/Hifaadhatun that preserved the Quran. When the Arabic text had developed enough diacricital marks to really communicate a composition with exactness and no ambiguity about the vowels the Quran was written down using the recitation of these schools of reciters. In actuality this also gets into an isnaad issue which many here have issues dealing with because this is so similar to the hadeeth. However, the difference between Quranic authenticity and Hadeethic authenticity is a much wider and much consistent base of reciters, all reciting the same thing. We also know that the Quran was there form the beginning every piece of history supports this. Yes the Quran was copied down, but like I said with all of the short-comings of the Arabic script it was mainly the work of the Huffaadh (schools of reciters) who taught each other and recited to each other and recited with texts. Although the texts were missing vowels the reciters could not be missing vowels in any part in how they were taught the recitations and how they taught it to others. So you can point to the fact that the earliest Quranic scripts had no vowels WRITTEN, however the Quran was always recited with vowels since the beginning.
Anwar, save few exceptions, all the Arabic words are ORIGINALLY of three letters (root), but when you are dealing with a word to make something related to it or relative to it, you deal with the whole word, not the root.
Example Sudan (root S W D). If you want to make "Sudanes", you deal with the whole word and say sawdana; if you want to make black (same root S W D) you say "sawwada". al3iraq and alsham are to be dealt with as such, not roots. That's why I said they are not 3-lettered words.There are not a few exceptiosn, there are many exceptions, however we will not go over that now. Sawdana is a new modern word. It takes sudaan as a proper noun and then derives a verb from it by treating it as if it were a quadriliteral root. Take talifoon (telephone) in the dialects, changing to talfana as a verb to call someone. That is all this is. It is just a way to Arabicize foreign and for all intents and purposes original Arabic words that have different meanings then what they used to mean. (Al-Sudaan means 'the blacks', orignally being baladul-sudaan. Remeber AL-jaahiz's treatise where instead of saying al-soodu wal-beedu, he says al-sudaanu wal-beedaanu). I proved to you through W. Wright that you could say aswada, just as well as sawwada, however this would work better if Sudaan was called sood. However, it could still work just as himyar was verbalized to hammara(to speak himyar), it could even mean to go to the land of himyar or to become a himyarite. You are arguing about what is commonly used and not what how to apply these forms of Arabic in an absolute sense. Again I showed you from Wright who uses examples from literature of Al&iraaq and Al-shaamu being used in the way I say and not the way you say. So take that up with Wright, may you will want to back track his sources, just soothe your mind.
You asked a similar question in another thread about the difference between najjaa and anjaa, and I explained it to you with examples from verses. You also maintain synonimity of words, and I don't. We discussed it on another thread. Why do you want to bring this up here again? If you do not want to agree, you are free, but don't keep bringing it up now and then.
I didn't ask a question, I brought up this issue before. I honestly really don't need you to teach me on this subject as I already know. If I did not, be sure I would ask. What you took as an agreement with you in that thread you misunderstood. I agreed with you that there were not ABSOLUTE SYNOMYMS, meaning that that those different words meant the same thing IN EVERY CONTEXT. I agree with that. However, words can be exact synonyms in certain contexts, although not in all. The reason I bring it up is, number one because I have seen the synoymity between form 2 and 3 over and over and over again. Number two, because there is one case of Quranic "errors" where it is wassaa (II) in one text and Awsaa (IV) in the other text. Like I said these two words will not share the exact same meaning in every context, however there are contexts where they will, and that also goes for najjaa and anjaa. Because najjaa can have a difference from anjaa in meaning (depending on the context) I think it is only fair to allow for those distinct connotations within a text like the Quran, wher it is allowed. That is the only reason I seemed to agree with you before on this issue.
As a matter of fact, I did look it up. The meaning you want is baqala and baqqala ; (and lisanul 3arab says that al-Jawhary does not accept the form baqqala); abqala means to come out (specially facial hair), so I did not know what you wanted to say. Not every root has all the patterns, and you know that.
Yeah, this is an issue between you and right, I'm pretty sure he did a whole lot more research than you on this issue, as the book is a treatise on the grammar and ever citation he gives he gets from a usage. Maybe you'll have to expand your search to taaj-al-&aroosi and all of the other lexicons out there. There is often disputes among linguists on what is valid or not, don't run with that. I'm sure if you check lane and Wright's example is in there you can get the orignal source of abqala, from baql (green pot herbs/herbs/herbage), what caribbean spanish speakers would call verdura, which can apply to all things green but especially that type of stuff you can throw in a pot to give food flavor.
You keep saying old Arabic and old arabs...I asked you once if you have read any document in arabic prior to the qur'aan...you just mentioned jahiliyya poetry!! I have no comment. On the contrary, I recognize the patterns and the difference of their meaning, even if it is a tiny difference, because I do not accept synonymity; you do not accept the different meanings of different patterns and keep saying this is synonymous to this..and do not even recognize the difference between form II and form IV
I keep saying that because there is a difference. I do accept the different meanings between different patterns, you are misunderstanding my point .Where you are saying it is black and white I am saying that there is some grey between these two forms where they share some meaning. Please do some retrospection on the synomyous usages of form 2 adn 4. I recognize where they have different potentials in their meaning, but I also recognize that they have an area of overlap, depending on the context and the concept presented by form 1 from which they derive.
Of course, linguistics are theories! Untill they are refuted by better ones. So far, I haven't read about this refutation. In Arabic, the verb is "habbat" and wind is "habuub". What do you want to say, giving me examples in English?
Well, keep reading I'm sure you'll find a contradictory theory. You, know honestly it's really annoying when you tell me things I already know. Is that what you wanted? Did you want me to just use Arabic in discussing this theory? The point here is, which one came first habba or habuub, blowing or to blow, i.e. the chicken or the egg?
The root is not a verb. The root does not have a pattern because it is void of vowels.
Another point of view issue...Whenever we see any root as bare as we can see it, it will be in the perfect singular third person. You can never find a root all alone by itself in the language, it is always in perfect singular 3rd person. So again, the issue is which one came first qeelun/qawlun or qaala and yaqool, the chicken or the egg. And please don't go trying to tell me that qeelun doesn't exist or that it doesn't mean qawlun but what I should have said was qeela the passive perfect of qaala. I meant qeelun. Read the Quran and you will see this word just as I have used it.
And what does this suppose to mean? That when a noun is in the accusative will have a different meaning than when it is in the nominative? Are you serious? How would the meaning of qaaimoona in (inna alrijaala gaaimoona men are getting up) change from saying (ra'aytu alrijaala qaa'imeena I saw the men getting up)? What brought qaa'imeena/moona here in the first place?
Again, take my advice and grab Sibawaiyah or any other good grammatical book and look up the uses of nasb and you will understand what I mean. The first qaa'imoona you gave me is active nominative saying what the men are and the second (qaa'imeena) is gentive and more adverbial in it role explaining HOW you saw the men. What brough Qaa'imoona and Qaa'imoona is that muhsinoona in this context we are disscussing is not muhsinoona but muhsinEENA. I was using this word as an example to give us a clear view of this phenomonon outside of the word we are discussing.
Biological differences. No mention of men and women. Out of context.
Yeah . . . Denial is not just a river in Egypt. (If you don't get it say it out loud and remember that al-neelu is called The Nile in English, and most people pronounce the as Da or De).
I said
Nor did I say that he should look for someone just to fortify
You saidOK....but isn't this what you say
No, that is not what I'm saying. See how you make my words into what you think they should be if I am disagreeing with you. But if this is not the case and it is a simple mistake, my apologies for misinterpreting you. Anyway, I am not saying that he should look for someone (weak) to fortify I am saying he should look for someone who is firstly already fortified(morally) and chaste but also he should not try to take advantage of her or degrade her character, dignity or chastiy but to fortify that, being place of strength and reliabilty for the women he is interested in, not trying to just get want he wants out of her at her expense.
I said
Men are to strengthen women in whatever ways they can
You saidNo comment
Why no comment? Do you not agree with this? I have a feeling you are on an independent women trip. If so realize that men rely on women as much as women rely on men. We have different roles most times due to our different capablities and strenghts and at other times we share the same jobs becuase of necessity more than choice, but in the end these verses are confirming that men are suppose to be supporting forces in the lives of women, not degrading ones. But again this is the Quranic idea, an idea which the Islamic world has abandoned, and the Western world somewhat got the idea but has taken it left field, and has created alot of frustration and incompatiblity between men and women.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Sorry Sister Francesca and all.
The thread has gone far too much off topic. I think I have explained my point of view from the qur'aan, God's way/sunna and usage of words in the language believers marry believers and people of past scripts and vise versa; this license is not based on gender.
This comment is just to refresh your memory with a summary of what I said before this discussion, and to bring back the thread to you.