Relative ما as "who" or "whom"

[virginia]

Peace all peace

As I expressed before my reluctance to understand ?ma? as a relative pronoun for animated beings, let me explain first that my reluctance is about the use of ?ma? as a relative specifically for human beings. Also I'd like to add it all is the result of my flaw, ignorance and limitations so please don't understand my words as an attempt to critize anything but as an attempt to expound my doubts and to understand and clarify them peace May the Lord enlighten me if I am wrong or just ignorant pr

Being aware of the different meanings/ nuances of ?ma?

1. Interrogative (what?)
2. Relative (what / whatever / which)
3. Negative particle (not)
4. Adverbial (?as long as?
5. Gerundival
6. some others

My misunderstanding or incapacity to understand clearly concerns the use of ?ma? as relative being used specifically for the reference to human beings.

As ?what? in English and reading Quran, I can see that ?ma? can be relative also for animated beings such as animals or babies, but it is not used as such in the case of grown up (let's say) human beings (with the exception of the occurrences I will quote later). For example

222

The moment every nursing mother will leave what ('amma) she was nursing
FM The moment every nursing mother will leave her suckling child.

In this case ?ma? is clearly referring to animated, but maybe because it is about a child (non developed sexually / still asexual human being). This happens in many languages babies/ very young children or animals are addressed by ?it? (thus the relative ?what?) in English, for example... In the case of this verse, in fact, it would be better to translate literally ?what she is nursing? and not ?whom she is nursing?. There is not problem admiting that ?ma? here is ?what? and not ?who?.

(There is another example in Quran where ?ma? is used in reference to a fetus it is talking about ?what? Maryam had in her belly (Jesus), but I can't find it right now.

?Ma? is also used in 737 and 1673, for example, referring worshiped besides Allah idols

1673

And they serve others besides Allah what (ma) not possess for them provision from the heavens and the earth any

737

Where what (ma) you used to call from besides Allah?

In both cases it is talking about false gods / idols and therefore about de facto non existing beings, that is why, imo, ?ma? is used here and not . Again no problem translating it into ?what? in English.

Also ?ma? is used with the meaning of ?whatever/ everything? and thus in those cases it includes BY EXTENSION, also human beings. But it is always BY EXTENSION and never exclusively for human beings. Just an example

324

And Allah is the one who created the heavens and the earth and whatever / what (ma) is between them...

In any of the above cases we find problems understanding and translating ?ma? as ?what? or ?whatever?, but it can't be translated as ?whom? because, in any case, ?ma? seems not to be exclusive for human beings (these are included just by extension). Quran uses and for those cases in so many examples through Quran.

The only cases where ?ma? can be understood as strictly and exclusively as ?who? and not as ?whatever? are maybe the following

2 66

So We made it an example for what (lima) in front of them (the present) and what (wama) after them (future) and a reminder for the muttaqina who fear Allah.

FM So it was that We made it as a restraint for what had happened in it and also what had passed, and a reminder to the righteous.

I quote this verse because I have seen translations of ?lima? and ?wama? as ?for whom?, I guess a an attempt to relate them to the muttaqina later in the verse. But the interpretation could be perfectly regarding past and future or facts, so there is not a general rule nor a clear example to deduce here about ?ma? being related to human beings.

6133

And He could bring from after you what (ma) He pleases just as (kama) He established you from the seed of a people other.

It is one of the few cases where ?ma? can be interpreted as regarding men and women. In any case, although, precisely here we can understand an adverbial ?ma? ?And He could bring from after you (as long as He pleases) just as He established you from the seed of another people?.

Also again we can understand ?ma? here as ?whatever? God can make trees as succesors of human being on earth if He pleases, can't He? The only reason that ?ma? could be ?whom? is because of the word ?people? (qawmin) used later.

In any case, it is not clear, exclusive or strictly the use of ?ma? as ?whom? in this case, although it is the closest.

And then... the guest stars ma malakat aymanakum (MMA) and other cases of ?ma? where resides the core or pith of my ?personal issue? taking ?ma? exclusively as ?whom?

2236

No sin upon you if you divorce the women what (ma) not (lam) you have had sexual intercourse with them (hunna) or not / nor you have set for them (lahunna) a dowry.

Since ?ma? can't be negation here because ?lam? comes right after it to negate, we can only interpret that ?ma? is ?whom?, and it is referring to women. Actually the use of ?hunna? and ?lahunna? later in the verse seems to verify it. But, again, why ?ma? and not or ? In the 99% of the cases as relative, ?ma? is ?what?, and then only in 3 cases it is ?whom?, precisely in occurrences where it refers to women confused

Ok, I will admit, this case can be understood as ?as long as? (adverbial ?ma?).

422

And do not marry what (?ma?) married your fathers from the women except what (ma) has already be done.

Now, the adverbial ?ma? can't be used for the interpretation of the first ?ma? because, simply, it does not make very much sense with the ?from the women? And do not marry as long as your fathers married from the women...? (?). Obviously there is something missing as a pronoun attached to the verb or something confused

So for the first time we have a relative ?ma? which cant be understood as any other kind of ?ma?, and it is ONLY for human beings, and it is only about..... women confused

43

This is my favorite yay

And if you fear that you won't deal justly regarding the orphans, then marry (off) what (?ma?) is agreeable to you of the women

Again a ?ma? interpreted as ?who? for women although it could be the adverbial (?as long as?) ?ma?. But as in 422, there is some kind of difficulty in its interpretation as adverbial taking into account there is a ?from the women? later in the verse. Why ?from the women? and not simply ?the women? being the subject? I feel we are forcing ?ma? to be regarding the women while the truth is that it is not referring to them necessary, it could be in reference to many other things, there is not an attached pronoun anywhere specifying the genre of the subject or object of "taba" so that we interpret unmistakably that "ma" is "women".

424

And the emancipated ones from the women except what (ma) committed (by) your oath.

3350

O prophet, We have made lawful for you the wives to whom ( ) you have already given their dowries, and the one (&#1575 committed to by your oath, as ( ) granted to you by God

(I have a question here why " " for the wives and then for the one committed to the prophet by his oath? confused Why this MMA expression always has "ma" and never specifies with attached pronouns who or what is MMA? confused

3352

Except what (ma) commited (by) your oath.

The famous MMA... Maybe It is my neglicence, ignorance or limitation but I cant fit together the adverbial ?ma? after the ?except? ?Except as long as commited (by) your oath?? (?)

Even if we take into account the meaning of ma as ?as long as?... there is not object! Something is missing. I mean, literally the verse says ?except as long as commited (by) your oath?... who is commited by the oath? Literally there is not an "they are committed by your oath" anywhere.... We are supposing it. We are just interpreting / supposing they are the women, but in fact there is nothing stating it except if we are considering ?ma? meaning ?who? here while in the 99% of the cases ?ma? means ?what?. It suddenly became ?who? regarding women here confused Why do we suppose this ?ma? are the women? Can't it be something else since the verb ?malakat? has not attached object pronoun specifying it?

Because in other cases there is an attached pronoun later specifiying (if you understand ?ma? as ?who?) what ?ma? is referring to

2433

And those who seek the writing / consumate (the marriage) from what ( ) commited (by) your oath, give them ( ) the writing / document it with them if you know in them ( ) any good.

(It is the only case since I know where ?ma? is de facto specified as being also for males). why we never see "malakat aymanukum" with "alladi" or "man"?

2236

No sin upon you if you divorce the women what (ma) not (lam) you have had sexual intercourse with them (hunna) or not / nor you have set for them (lahunna) a dowry.

So, why the ambiguity with no attached pronoun in 424, 3352 and 3350?

That is why my understanding of ?ma? in 424, 3352 and 3350 is not ?whom? but ?whatever?. Something like ?with the exception of WHAT / WHATEVER your oath emcompasses?. This ?whatever? could include an oath for cellibate, for example, or a wide range of some other things or in any case something i am not able to interpret.

I feel we are forcing ?ma? to mean ?whom? in MMA while it is ONLY in MMA where we find clearly ?ma? meaning ?whom?, but it means ?who? just because we suppose it refers to people. The truth is that there is nothing in the verse veryfying it is about human beings (except maybe in 2433), there is not attached pronoun as I said. It literally says ?except what committs / possess your oath?. Why is it people? Why this "who" is exclusively "who" in MMA while in thousands of other examples it is "what"?

Not that my understanding is good and fits everywhere, of course not and you can see it just by one glance, but this is the only thing I could come up with until now while all I have about "ma" here and the other cases is only a lot of doubts dressed with tones of ignorance '(

To sum up, ?ma? can be interpreted as ?who? and only ?who? (not as also adverbial "ma" or a "whatever" including by extension human beings) when it is in reference to women in 424, 3352, 3350, 43 and 422 and only also about men in 2433. All the other examples can be interpreted / understood otherwise or translated into English with no issues as ?what?.

(Excuse me if I missed any other quote about "ma" concerning exclisuvely "who&quot.

So maybe, just maybe, we are forcing the interpretation of ?ma? as ?whom? in those cases, when we know arabic has other relatives for human beings ( and ) and ?ma? is ?what? in the 99% of its occurrrences as relative. Also to relate it to human beings, we are adding pronouns that actually they are not in the text (except in 2 cases as I expounded).

But then, I give up hypno I dunno and I ask for your enlighten....

915

FM And the heaven and what (ma) He built it.
Y. Ali And the heaven and He who built it

If "ma" is "who" it is in reference to Allah? If "ma" is what... what is it refering to? If "ma" is "heaven"... why the "ha" later on the verb? Or precisely "ha" is there because "ma" has no genre? And then why "ha" is required here and not in MMA? confused

Also

916

FM And the earth and what (ma) He sustains it (ha)
Y. Ali And the earth and He who (ma) made it (ha)

917

FM And a sould and what (ma) He made it (ha)
Y. Ali And a sould and He who (ma) made it (ha)

Maybe things are just easier than I think, muuuuuuuuuuch simplier, but I still feel we are forcing ?ma? to mean ?who? in many verses when we actually do not have proofs from the text affirming it is ?who?. In the 99% of the cases this ?ma? is not ?who? but ?what?, but then (and what a coincidence always regarding MMA or women) it becomes exclusively "who" confused

Are we forcing interpretations? Are we missing something? Am I thinking too much and making things more complicated than they are? Did I miss the all clarifying quote?

May the Lord enlighten us, He knows best hail

Have a great day and thak you once again for your time and patience sun