and do not compel your slave girls to prostitution...
-
Peace bro Ayman,
- ...and do not compel your young women on what is wrong/non-consensual, when they want protection, so that you may seek the materials of this low life, and whoever compels them, then the god after their compulsion is forgiving, merciful.
The "them" and "their" in the underlined portion of the above translation both refer to the young women, so it seems that the god is forgiving and merciful to the young women who were compelled and not the "whoever" who compelled them.
If the god was referring to the "whoever" who compelled being forgiven, then it should have read "then the god after his compelling them is forgiving, merciful".
It does not make any sense to me that the god is first commanding the parents/guardians not to compel their young women on what is wrong/non-consensual, and then forgiving them for doing so without any repentance. Why should they not compel them when they are going to be forgiven for it anyway ? Therefore, on this issue I will have to respectfully disagree with your understanding and agree with bro sikandar's understanding of the god forgiving the young women who were compelled without their consent.
By the way, in the other thread where you heard the term "playing on weak wicket", it referred to the game of cricket which is popular in Pakistan, and the three stumps of wood that the batsman is trying to guard against the bowler are called the "wicket". "Weak wicket" indicates the game being unfavorable to the batsman whereas the batsman is unable to defend his wicket as well as he would like to (your position in the discussion being weak and indefensible as per his wishful analogy). However, the way the discussion is going in that thread, it is obvious that he is the one playing on an extremely weak wicket !!
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicket
-
Peace bro Ayman,
The "them" and "their" in the underlined portion of the above translation both refer to the young women, so it seems that the god is forgiving and merciful to the young women who were compelled and not the "whoever" who compelled them.
If the god was referring to the "whoever" who compelled being forgiven, then it should have read "then the god after his compelling them is forgiving, merciful".
Salaam Tanweer
Just because the "their" refers to young women, this does not mean "compulsion" does too. According to the Arabic sentence, "their" is a direct object to the verbal noun "ikraah". It could well be "after the compulsion", showing that the pronon "their" is not indispensible. The forgiveness is for the compulsion, done by the guardians, not the submission of the young girl.
Example After I read the book, I went to sleep. After reading the book.... After its reading....
"Its" refers to book, but reading, which is the main word here refers to me. -
" After Their compulsion,"
Come on Samia,
The compulsion is an act which belongs to the one who is being compelled , not to the one who is dishing out,, and hence the one who is being compelled to do wrong , God will act Most merciful forgiving , because HE knows that she did not do that out of her own will,
And the Guardian, who is being warned, not to do any such act, to gain the materials of this word, , Would god act as forgiving , most merciful?
,,,,,"And someone compels them , Then Allah after Their compulsion , will be Most merciful , forgiving,
siki
-
Peace,
Excuse me for barging in, but I just wanted to say that according to J. G. Hava's "Arabic-English dictionary", pg. 546, the meanings of "maid servant" and "prostitute, strumpet" are Syrian and Egyptian, respectively. The classical arabic meaning given is as "Fullgrown girl".
Nadeem
-
Salaam siki
What sin did those young girls do? What is God forgiving them for? What about the guardian who compelled them?
I agree that linguistically a pronoun suffixed to a verbal noun can either be the subject or the direct object of the verb. We already know that the subject who did the compelling is the guardian, so the only explanation of the suffixed pronoun is that it is te direct object. God is not forgiving the girls but the compulsion.
-
My Dear Dear Sister , Sholom
You know, i am preparing to launch that "Rocket" containing, "The good old 3 worded Red sentence", again at you. So i better run &, and find a hardened shelter for myself . Just in case, you return the favour with an equal Bang. jedi
Ok, ok, Cease Fire, handshake
;D ;D To tell you the truth sis, hmm lately i have started to comprehend the thread titled, " Why didn't God send any female Messengers". >D >D
-
My Dear Dear Sister , Sholom
You know, i am preparing to launch that "Rocket" containing, "The good old 3 worded Red sentence", again at you. So i better run &, and find a hardened shelter for myself . Just in case, you return the favour with an equal Bang. jedi
Ok, ok, Cease Fire, handshake
;D ;D To tell you the truth sis, hmm lately i have started to comprehend the thread titled, " Why didn't God send any female Messengers". >D >D
HEHEHE! Don't worry, I am very peaceful voodoo
And I know why God did not send women messengers He has to send a messenge that is not just for the elites peace
-
" Why didn't God send any female Messengers".
GOD did!!!
Exodus 15
20 Then Miriam the prophetess, Aaron's sister, took a tambourine in her hand, and all the women followed her, with tambourines and dancing. 21 Miriam sang to them
"Sing to the LORD,
for he is highly exalted.
The horse and its rider
he has hurled into the seaJudges 4 & 5 Deborah, a prophet-judge, headed the army of ancient Israel.
2 Kings 2214; 2 Chronicles 3422 Huldah, a prophet, verified the authenticity of the "Book of the Law of the Lord given through Moses" - the Book of Deuteronomy. She triggered a religious renewal.
Acts 936 The author of Luke referred to a female disciple of Jesus by her Aramaic name Tabitha, who was also known by her Greek name Dorcas. She became sick had died; St. Peter brought her back to life.
Acts 218 Philip the evangelist had four unmarried daughters who were prophets.
Philippians 42 Paul refers to two women, Euodia and Syntyche, as his co-workers who were active evangelicals, spreading the gospel.
Romans 161 Paul refers to Phoebe as a minister or deacon of the church at Cenchrea. The Greek word which describes her function is "diakonos" which means literally "official servant." She is the only deacon in the Bible to be identified by name. Some translations say deaconess; others try to obscure her position by mistranslating the Greek as a simple "servant" or "helper". Paul later refers to Phoebe as a woman, calling her "our sister." This prevented later church leaders from hiding her gender as they did with Junia in Romans 167 below - by changing her name and implying that she was a man.
Romans 163 Paul refers to Priscilla as another of his "fellow workers in Christ Jesus" (NIV) Other translations refer to her as a "co-worker". But other translations attempt to downgrade her status by calling her a "helper". The original Greek word is "synergoi", which literally means "fellow worker" or "colleague." 1 It is worth noting that Paul refers to Priscilla and her husband as "Priscilla and Aquila" in this passage and as "Aquila and Priscilla" in 1 Corinthians 1619. It would appear that the order is not important to Paul. As in Galatians 328, he apparently believed that there is no distinction among those who have been baptized into Christ between male and female.
Romans 167 Paul refers to a male apostle, Andronicus, and a female apostle, Junia, as "outstanding among the apostles" (NIV) Every Greek and Latin church Father until Giles of Rome (circa 1000 CE) acknowledged that Junia was a woman. -
Quote from siki on June 20, 2007, 072542 AM
If a Guardian , deceitfully , forces a Fatayat for a wrong ( which you think is , lets say forced marriage to an old rich man) , to gain materials of this word, would God be acting as Most Merciful, Forgiving ?Yes. I know several young women who were forced to marry an older rich man and who grew to love him and ended up living happily ever after. On the other hand, I also know many young women who married the guy of their dreams that they loved deeply and then the dreams turned to nightmares and they were divorced a few years (and in some cases a few weeks) later. So sometimes those arranged marriages where the woman is compelled to marry someone by her parents do work out fine.
This still does not answer the question what lawful limits would the fatayat be seeking to exceed if al-bighaa is referring to "forced marriage".
(bighaa meaning seeking something unlawfully)
-
Still no mention of ar-rijaal here. Also an-nisa does not include al-wildan/children. Al-wildan are seperate from ar-rijaal and an-nisaa. (4/75, 4/9
Either I did not understand your initial question or I do not understand this post of yours. What do "alwildan" and "alyatama" do in an explanation about "alnisaa'"? Here's the verse
"They ask your legal instruction concerning the "nisaa'". Say God instructs you concerning them and what is recited to you in the book concerning
- fatherless children of women whom you do not pay what's prescribed for them and want to marry them,
- and the children who are vulnerable, weak and oppressed,
- and the orphans that you should stand firm for their justice.
All that you do of goodness God is all aware of it).
1,2 and 3 are the sub-categories of "nisaa'".
Yes, there is no rijaal in this verse. Why should there be? It's about "nisaa' the vulnerable". But it does include males. When a verse speaks of "rijaal", this word includes females -
Either I did not understand your initial question or I do not understand this post of yours. What do "alwildan" and "alyatama" do in an explanation about "alnisaa'"? Here's the verse
"They ask your legal instruction concerning the "nisaa'". Say God instructs you concerning them and what is recited to you in the book concerning
- fatherless children of women whom you do not pay what's prescribed for them and want to marry them,
- and the children who are vulnerable, weak and oppressed,
- and the orphans that you should stand firm for their justice.
All that you do of goodness God is all aware of it).
1,2 and 3 are the sub-categories of "nisaa'".
Yes 'God instructs you concerning THEM as well as what is recited to you in the book concerning...'
Only the "hunna/them" is referring to the nisaa. The rest(1,2 and 3) are distinctly mentioned and are not sub-categories of nisaa, as wildan/children are distinct from rijaal/men and nisaa/women(4/75, 4/9, and are not counted among an-naas(group of rijaalan and nisaa'an, 4/1)
Yes, there is no rijaal in this verse. Why should there be? It's about "nisaa' the vulnerable". But it does include males. When a verse speaks of "rijaal", this word includes females
Nisaa can possess masculine traits, and rijaal can possess feminine traits(42/49-50), but rijaal cannot include nisaa, or vice versa. Rijaal and Nisaa are distinct from each other. Wildan can be male/zakr or/and female/unsa(3/36, 49/50), but cannot be rijaal/men or nisaa/women. Wildan are distinct from rijaal and nisaa.
-
Yes 'God instructs you concerning THEM as well as what is recited to you in the book concerning...'
Where's "as well" in the verse? If it were there, yes I would agree with you.
Moreover, they pose a question regarding nisa'. Why? Because they want to know who are those nisaa'. They did not ask about wildaan nor yatamaa. Logically, if the answer about nisaa' leads to mentioning other categories, then there's a link. If I ask about meat, would you mention meat AND fruit? If I ask about something and your answer s meat and fruit, then by logic I am asking about food or shopping for example.The rest(1,2 and 3) are distinctly mentioned and are not sub-categories of nisaa, as wildan/children are distinct from rijaal/men and nisaa/women(4/75, 4/9, and are not counted among an-naas(group of rijaalan and nisaa'an, 4/1)
These two verses mention other categories in general. They do not speak of a specific category of women (mothers of fatherless children), nor of fatherless children themselves.
Moreover, I did not say nisaa' or rijaal never mean women or men. What I say is that we should be very careful in automatically translating rijaal and nisaa' as men and women.rijaal cannot include nisaa, or vice versa.
rijaal including nisaa' 2227
nisaa' including rijaal 4 43
nisaa' including rijaal and rijaal including nissa' 434 -
Yes 'God instructs you concerning THEM as well as what is recited to you in the book concerning...'
Where's "as well" in the verse? If it were there, yes I would agree with you.
I am translating it as "as well as" to show you yatama and wildan are other than the nisaa. Can it not mean "as well as"?
Moreover, they pose a question regarding nisa'. Why? Because they want to know who are those nisaa'.
They are not asking WHO the nisaa are, or what categories are included among nisaa. They are asking a fatwa/"legal instruction" ABOUT women, NOT about the MEANING of the word "nisaa" or who is included among women.
They did not ask about wildaan nor yatama. Logically, if the answer about nisaa' leads to mentioning other categories, then there's a link.
What kind of a link?! The link would be that the orphans and children may be related to women. It says yatama OF the nisaa. It means yatama themselves are not nisaa. THAT'S logical. It means yatama are related to the nisaa, that is why yatama and wlidan are mentioned in a fatwa about nisaa. But children related to women don't become women themselves, they don't count among the women!
If I ask about meat, would you mention meat AND fruit? If I ask about something and your answer s meat and fruit, then by logic I am asking about food or shopping for example.
What if I DO mention meat AND fruit? Does fruit become meat then?! Would my answer change your question?!
The rest(1,2 and 3) are distinctly mentioned and are not sub-categories of nisaa, as wildan/children are distinct from rijaal/men and nisaa/women(4/75, 4/9, and are not counted among an-naas(group of rijaalan and nisaa'an, 4/1)
These two verses mention other categories in general. They do not speak of a specific category of women (mothers of fatherless children), nor of fatherless children themselves.
Mentioned in general? So what? Should fatherless children be counted among women, or motherless children among men?
Moreover, I did not say nisaa' or rijaal never mean women or men. What I say is that we should be very careful in automatically translating rijaal and nisaa' as men and women.
Ok. Lets be very careful. 4/1 speaks about the rijaalan and nisaa'an of the world. Whatever meaning fits here, fits everywhere else. And the meaning here is not "invulnerable and vulnerable" but "men and and women".
rijaal cannot include nisaa, or vice versa.
rijaal including nisaa' 2227
nisaa' including rijaal 4 43How?! If you think a verse should be about both men AND women, but the verse mentions only men, would you start including women among men just to suit your wishful thinking? Meat AND fruit?!
nisaa' including rijaal and rijaal including nissa' 434
Oh, come on!
-
I am translating it as "as well as" to show you yatama and wildan are other than the nisaa. Can it not mean "as well as"?
As well is a word on its own and of course it changes the meaning. You cannot just insert "as well" so as to fit your understanding.
They are not asking WHO the nisaa are, or what categories are included among nisaa. They are asking a fatwa/"legal instruction" ABOUT women, NOT about the MEANING of the word "nisaa" or who is included among women.
That makes no difference. Let me rephrase They ask you for a fatwa concerning nisaa'. Here's the fatwa concerning mothers of fatherless children do such and such (or don't do such and such); vulnerable children (do such and such)and fatherless children(do such and such). So he is given a fatwa concerning all these in response for a fatwa concerning nisaa'.
What kind of a link?! The link would be that the orphans and children may be related to women. It says yatama OF the nisaa. It means yatama themselves are not nisaa. THAT'S logical. It means yatama are related to the nisaa, that is why yatama and wlidan are mentioned in a fatwa about nisaa. But children related to women don't become women themselves, they don't count among the women!
No. The first category is about the mothers (of fatherless children) whom you want to marry. The second category is about vulnerable children (not necessarily fatherless and are not necessarily related to women. Maybe their mother is dead! They are at least children who have fathers. The third category is about the fatherless children themselves, not necessarily of mohers being married. Three different categories with three different needs. All under a fatwa concerning nisaa'.
What if I DO mention meat AND fruit? Does fruit become meat then?! Would my answer change your question?!
No it will not be meat. And your answer will not change my question, but will make it looks like meaningless to you, and we will be like two deaf people having a chat.
Mentioned in general? So what? Should fatherless children be counted among women, or motherless children among men?
Is the problem (in general)? Remove it. I did not understand the rest of your potest. I did not say, nor did I mean, anything of what you are talking about.
Ok. Lets be very careful. 4/1 speaks about the rijaalan and nisaa'an of the world. Whatever meaning fits here, fits everywhere else. And the meaning here is not "invulnerable and vulnerable" but "men and and women".
According to the general knowledge, who are more numerous throughout history and till now men or women? Here's a post by Arnab on this verse
To those who believe (contrary to the evidence presented in EVERY dictionary) that rajul means man and nisa means woman
Don't you find it odd that there is nothing to indicate what a nisa can do for themselves? They simply have to rely on the "goodness" of the community.
This would mean that the nisa has no control over their fate or their lives (in any way according to understanding Quran in this way). Their only recourse is to depend on those around them.
But the TRUTH is it is NOT like that. There are nisa's all around us (the one's wounded, ill, or in some way incapable of doing what most of us are capable of). This is why we must WASH if we have touched them during ablution.
Remember 41 where it says .....and we spread forth from them A GREAT NUMBER of rajul and nisa. Rajul is designated a great number but not nisa...if this verse is to be understood as women and men then it is an absolute lie (which I do not believe) because there are MANY MORE women in the world than men.
The one's active in their community, going to work, or school are the rajul (that is most people).
The rajul are to take care of those who are postponed.
There are times in most people's life where they are either rajul or nisa.....
when ill or wounded....they are nisa....and rajul must take care of them.
When they recover they are once again rajul.rijaal including nisaa' 2227
nisaa' including rijaal 4 43How?! If you think a verse should be about both men AND women, but the verse mentions only men, would you start including women among men just to suit your wishful thinking? Meat AND fruit?!
Oh, come on!
Have you read these verses? Do you really believe that they talk about "men"? Then, women are not supposed to make hajj (2227), nor are they demanded to wash after intercourse (443). OH, COME ON!!