Mental Gymnastics Anyone?

Wakas

How did you do those arrows?

I took a screenshot of the pages, pasted it into Paint (Windows), edited it and added red arrows, uploaded it to tinypic.com.

Maha

WAKAS

Maha

Surprising, but here you go

http//i46.tinypic.com/hrzekg.jpg

Reference
http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume8/00000250.pdf

The triliteral root qf ww mm ( &#1605 occurs 660 times in the Quran, in 22 derived forms

Lets see if qawm is 'a group of men' according to quran

4,34 Would be translated into Men 'group of men' stands over women

2,125,
Refers to standing place

Please refer to dictionary http//corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=qwm not one single place has ''qawm'' been translated into ''group of men''.

Finally lets take a look on the verse we are discussing with 'group of men' 4911 O you who have believed, let not a 'group of men' ridicule another ''group of men ''{QAWM}; perhaps they may be better than them; nor let women {NISA?} ridicule women {NISA?}; perhaps they may be better than them. And do not insult one another and do not call each other by nicknames. Wretched is the name of disobedience after faith. And whoever does not repent ? then it is those who are the wrongdoers

That seems quite silly. Which group of men are we talking about, and why isnt the word 'rejaal' been used ? hmm And does it mean that its OK for a group of men to ridicule women and vice versa? hmm

Another problem

314 Beautified for people {An-Nas} is the love of that which they desire ? of women {An-Nisa?} and sons, heaped-up sums of gold and silver, fine branded horses, and cattle and tilled land. That is the enjoyment of worldly life, but Allah has with Him the best return.

Is being lesbian OK according to quran? Because I clearly dont have any desire of women except as friends ;D

Peace

Maha

scrappy doo

As far as Women participating in wars. I was not even remotely suggesting the subjugation of women, neither did I intimate that women are less capable than men. I am aware that historical records show that women are capable of performing successfully in war. Thus, the near?total exclusion of women from combat roles does not seem to be explained by women?s inherent lack of ability.

So what can explain it? Aside from the obvious argument of male dominance, I believe men are more likely to participate in Warfare for the simple reason that men are more predisposed for combat. Men have strength on their side and are more aggressive then women. In this view, women?s caregiving roles and potential for motherhood best suit them to give life, not take it. Women are more likely than men to oppose war, and more likely to find alternatives to violence in resolving conflicts. Hillary Clinton in 1996, for example, told a radio audience that her husband finds ?action? movies ?relaxing? but she does not like them, explaining that ?I think that?s kind of a male thing.?

I personally have not heard of women pounding on the doors of government, or protesting on the streets with placards claiming not being able to serve on the front line violates their right to equality.

I really don't understand the issue that gender equality asserts the belief that our characteristics must be the same. Yes we are equal in dignity and respect but not in our functions or roles.

Peace and kind regards

Sister I dont understand the point of what you mentioned above. I have already clearified that women also participate in war, and whether women are more or less likely to participate in war with men doesnt change the fact that throughout history women have partcipated in war, and still do for instance Women are highely active in the Israeli military. And that you agreed on. So there is no evidence that women didnt went into war with bani Israel in the quran verse you showed earlier. Hence, the whole 'qawm' was against them.

Peace

Bender

Well! Harrumph to you too!

;D

Wakas

Maha,

Firstly, it is irrelevant if a word has allegedly not been used to mean X elsewhere. It is only a problem if the variance is haphazard, i.e. random, without logic/reason to differentiate usage.

My point was you (and others as it happens) failed to present the other side of the argument. Simple.

You also claimed not to have found such a meaning in Lane's Lexicon.

And does it mean that its OK for a group of men to ridicule women and vice versa?

Did you bother to read the rest of the verse or Quran? Answer is contained therein.

Another problem

Is being lesbian OK according to quran? Because I clearly dont have any desire of women except as friends ;D

The problem is potentially one of your own making. To determine this however, please provide ALL sides of the argument, i.e. all theoretical possibilities and explanations you have found in your study of this verse.

If you can show study without confirmation bias, i.e. only reading and presenting aspects that confirm your own view, then we can talk more.

Maha

Wakas

Firstly, it is irrelevant if a word has allegedly not been used to mean X elsewhere.

No its crucial, because quran explains itself. You cannot use the same word each time different as you like.

My point was you (and others as it happens) failed to present the other side of the argument. Simple

No it isnt, I have just shown you a dictionary which doesnt support your alternative view. Lanes dictionary also confirmed that qawm means people, and that in some cases it can mean a group of men (which my dictornary disagrees with) Now you have to proof

Lanes dictionary says that qawm in that specific discussed verse means 'group of men'
That Lanes dictionary is right and corpus quran dictionary wrong

Did you bother to read the rest of the verse or Quran? Answer is contained therein.

Look how you contradict yourself. First you said its irrelevant if a word has alledgedly not been used elsewhere in the quran and you ask me to read other verses of the quran in order to support your alternative view. You have dobbel standards.

The problem is potentially one of your own making. To determine this however, please provide ALL sides of the argument, i.e. all theoretical possibilities and explanations you have found in your study of this verse

Out of topic, you didnt answered my question. The verse can be interpretated as promoting lesbians since it claims that women desire women.

If you can show study without confirmation bias, i.e. only reading and presenting aspects that confirm your own view, then we can talk more.

You got a problem with projecting. Everytime you do something, you put the blame on others. What you just wrote above is a proof of that. When it suits you, qawm means 'group of men' when it doesnt then it means something else. You still didnt answered my questions

which 'group of men' are the vers talking about?
why isnt the word 'rijaal' (men) used as oppose to NISA(women). Why suddenly 'a group of men' opposed to ''women'' . Shouldnt it be 'a group of men' oppose to 'a group of women'' ? How will your alternative view on qawm explain that?

Peace

Wakas

Maha,

No its crucial, because quran explains itself. You cannot use the same word each time different as you like.

That's why I never said nor implied that. See my previous post.

No it isnt, I have just shown you a dictionary which doesnt support your alternative view. Lanes dictionary also confirmed that qawm means people, and that in some cases it can mean a group of men (which my dictornary disagrees with) Now you have to proof

Lanes dictionary says that qawm in that specific discussed verse means 'group of men'
That Lanes dictionary is right and corpus quran dictionary wrong

Corpus is not a dictionary. Feel free to contact its creator and ask him.

Look how you contradict yourself. First you said its irrelevant if a word has alledgedly not been used elsewhere in the quran and you ask me to read other verses of the quran in order to support your alternative view. You have dobbel standards.

I never actually said that. Please see my previous post.

Out of topic, you didnt answered my question. The verse can be interpretated as promoting lesbians since it claims that women desire women.

You got a problem with projecting. Everytime you do something, you put the blame on others. What you just wrote above is a proof of that. When it suits you, qawm means 'group of men' when it doesnt then it means something else. You still didnt answered my questions

which 'group of men' are the vers talking about?
why isnt the word 'rijaal' (men) used as oppose to NISA(women). Why suddenly 'a group of men' opposed to ''women'' . Shouldnt it be 'a group of men' oppose to 'a group of women'' ? How will your alternative view on qawm explain that?

If you wish to discuss, then let's discuss. But I am only prepared to discuss what I actually said, not what you think I said.

I initially asked Are you aware that "qawm" can mean "group of men" in classical Arabic?

Your reply was that you were unaware of such a thing, and asked for evidence (even though I stated my source).

I then provided the evidence.

So, let us answer one Q at a time, you and I

Maha said Which group of men are we talking about, and why isnt the word 'rejaal' been used ?

Wakas Firstly, nowhere did I state what my view on this verse was, but in any case, I would think it was a reference in general terms, not specific group of men, e.g. clan X etc.
I do not know why word X is used in a specific instance in Quran, and that goes for any word in the entire Quran, only the author of Quran knows that, but in this case, one explanation could be qawm/men, nisa/women, thus the words used are encompassing of the audience.

Now, let me ask you a question please provide an alternative for rijal/nisa that works better in this verse. And please do not rush answering, take your time, in fact, take months, consult with those who have similar views to you, in fact all of you group together and work as a team for weeks if you wish, then provide your strongest answer.

We will then see if it stands up to scrutiny, e.g. your own objections, which you seemingly raised about the common view.

uq

Peace Scrappy-doo -)

Thank you for your post, you raise a very interesting subject.

I would like to make three points

There has recently been (almost exclusively in the Quran alone community) a trend of forging meanings for Classical Arabic words which have not ever previously existed. The motive of such forgery is, in my view, easily ascribable to personal fancy and conjecture. I think that many choose to forgo the arduous task of assiduous study and research purely in the pursuit of their own desires, irrespective of whatsoever the truth might entail. Thus, we see utterly baseless (and rapidly dissectible) claims that words such as "salah" or "rijaal" or "nisaa" or "zinaa" do not mean "prayer" and "men" and "women" and "fornication", respectively. It saddens me to see that we - as a Quran alone community - who are charged with the responsibility of upholding the message of God by way of the faculties with which God has endowed us, are failing terribly by a flagrant disregard of the employment of those very faculties. However, I reckon that these are probably a minority in our precious community.
By the grace of God, the 21st century offers us many technological blessings, all of which are at our disposal and can be used in the pursuit of truth. There are many websites that offer access to Arabic-English dictionaries, and those that offer entire books of Arabic grammar. One can even compare English translations on many of these websites. So, thanks are to God.
My translation of 2221

"Do not marry the polytheist until they believe. Surely, a believing slave is better than a polytheist , even if she appeals to you. Do not accept for marriage the polytheist until they believe. Surely, a believing is better than a polytheist , even if he appeals to you. Those call to the fire, yet God calls to the garden and to forgiveness by his leave. He clarifies his signs for the people perchance they will remember."

GODsubmitter

Peace Scrappy-doo -)

Thank you for your post, you raise a very interesting subject.

I would like to make three points

There has recently been (almost exclusively in the Quran alone community) a trend of forging meanings for Classical Arabic words which have not ever previously existed. The motive of such forgery is, in my view, easily ascribable to personal fancy and conjecture. I think that many choose to forgo the arduous task of assiduous study and research purely in the pursuit of their own desires, irrespective of whatsoever the truth might entail. Thus, we see utterly baseless (and rapidly dissectible) claims that words such as "salah" or "rijaal" or "nisaa" or "zinaa" do not mean "prayer" and "men" and "women" and "fornication", respectively. It saddens me to see that we - as a Quran alone community - who are charged with the responsibility of upholding the message of God by way of the faculties with which God has endowed us, are failing terribly by a flagrant disregard of the employment of those very faculties. However, I reckon that these are probably a minority in our precious community.
By the grace of God, the 21st century offers us many technological blessings, all of which are at our disposal and can be used in the pursuit of truth. There are many websites that offer access to Arabic-English dictionaries, and those that offer entire books of Arabic grammar. One can even compare English translations on many of these websites. So, thanks are to God.
My translation of 2221

"Do not marry the polytheist until they believe. Surely, a believing slave is better than a polytheist , even if she appeals to you. Do not accept for marriage the polytheist until they believe. Surely, a believing is better than a polytheist , even if he appeals to you. Those call to the fire, yet God calls to the garden and to forgiveness by his leave. He clarifies his signs for the people perchance they will remember."

Thank you @uq and God bless you!

Posts like these of yours make me remain in this Forum trying to increase knowledge, instead of abandoning it altogether due to many sly and misguided people who bring confusion and provocation here.

hawk99

Peace Scrappy-doo -)

Thank you for your post, you raise a very interesting subject.

I would like to make three points

There has recently been (almost exclusively in the Quran alone community) a trend of forging meanings for Classical Arabic words which have not ever previously existed. The motive of such forgery is, in my view, easily ascribable to personal fancy and conjecture. I think that many choose to forgo the arduous task of assiduous study and research purely in the pursuit of their own desires, irrespective of whatsoever the truth might entail. Thus, we see utterly baseless (and rapidly dissectible) claims that words such as "salah" or "rijaal" or "nisaa" or "zinaa" do not mean "prayer" and "men" and "women" and "fornication", respectively. It saddens me to see that we - as a Quran alone community - who are charged with the responsibility of upholding the message of God by way of the faculties with which God has endowed us, are failing terribly by a flagrant disregard of the employment of those very faculties. However, I reckon that these are probably a minority in our precious community.
By the grace of God, the 21st century offers us many technological blessings, all of which are at our disposal and can be used in the pursuit of truth. There are many websites that offer access to Arabic-English dictionaries, and those that offer entire books of Arabic grammar. One can even compare English translations on many of these websites. So, thanks are to God.
My translation of 2221

"Do not marry the polytheist until they believe. Surely, a believing slave is better than a polytheist , even if she appeals to you. Do not accept for marriage the polytheist until they believe. Surely, a believing is better than a polytheist , even if he appeals to you. Those call to the fire, yet God calls to the garden and to forgiveness by his leave. He clarifies his signs for the people perchance they will remember."

Agreed, keep up the good work.

Peace O0

Maha

Wakas

I initially asked Are you aware that "qawm" can mean "group of men" in classical Arabic?

Your reply was that you were unaware of such a thing, and asked for evidence (even though I stated my source).

you are making a strawman fallacy here. let me explain

I would think it was a reference in general terms, not specific group of men, e.g. clan X etc.
I do not know why word X is used in a specific instance in Quran, and that goes for any word in the entire Quran, only the author of Quran knows that, but in this case, one explanation could be qawm/men, nisa/women, thus the words used are encompassing of the audience.

You contradict yourself. First you said, rejaal means men, then you said, qawm means 'group of men' and now you say ''qawm'' is the same as rejaal 'men'' in generel.

One explaination could also be that qawm is 'people' and nisa arent women.

Now, let me ask you a question please provide an alternative for rijal/nisa that works better in this verse. And please do not rush answering, take your time, in fact, take months, consult with those who have similar views to you, in fact all of you group together and work as a team for weeks if you wish, then provide your strongest answer.

dont change the topic. You have a bad habit of not replying to unconvenient questions. You havent replied to me yet whether being lesbian is allowed according to the quran or not, if your answer is no then please explain how I desire women. Or does 'al-nas' suddenly also mean 'men' in your alternative views?
I can see Samia has talked to you about this before, but you have stubbornly promoted your small-minded personal views.

Corpus is not a dictionary. Feel free to contact its creator and ask him.

Then why does it say dictionary? And why do you find it unreliable?

Peace

Wakas

Maha,

Note, a strawman fallacy is not when one allegedly contradicts oneself.

You contradict yourself. First you said, rejaal means men, then you said, qawm means 'group of men' and now you say ''qawm'' is the same as rejaal 'men'' in generel.

Nowhere in this thread did I state the meaning of rijal. Secondly, even if I did, it is not a contradiction. It is only a contradiction if I said no two words can ever have the same meaning.

As I said, I am only interested in discussing what I actually said, not what you think I said.

Ironically, it is you who has built a strawman fallacy, i.e. arguing against a position that is not mine.

One explaination could also be that qawm is 'people' and nisa arent women.

But what is the alternative meaning? As I requested.

Feel free not to answer however, many who hold your view have also ran away.

dont change the topic. You have a bad habit of not replying to unconvenient questions. You havent replied to me yet whether being lesbian is allowed according to the quran or not, if your answer is no then please explain how I desire women. Or does 'al-nas' suddenly also mean 'men' in your alternative views?

I thought you wanted to discuss? Or is it a case of I answer your questions and you run away from mine?

No matter. I will answer your Q, see
http//misconceptions-about-islam.com/islam-homosexuality.htm

The word "al nas" is masculine plural, so it may well be men, but I dont take it as such. It is referring to archetypes, as is done throughout Quran.

Then why does it say dictionary? And why do you find it unreliable?

So, because a website says "dictionary" it is suddenly a dictionary that can be relied upon? Erm, no. I am only interested in logical and evidenced discussion.

It is unreliable as a classical arabic dictionary because that is simply not corpus' site purpose. The dictionary element, is simply an add-on. A very basic tool, that is not match for even the poorest classical arabic dictionary.

Once again, please provide an alternative to rijal/nisa in the verse we are discussing. Take your time, make sure you bring the strongest answer you have.

If you do not, peace out. )

Noon_waalqalami

Peace Maha,

From where do you get patriarchy from brother?

It's the closest word which comes to mind; sort like clan family tree which tribes are known/called has all male members.
This is only an example regardless if real/true or not only to demonstrate how patriarchal peoples identified themselves

click for larger version http//www.al-islam.org/masoom/bios/famtree.gif

http//i11.piczo.com/view/i/3/207/211041/207211041_207211041_1.jpg

Have to use context

rijal wanisa -- men and women; this is clear from inheritance verses.

rijal -- can be a group of people with at least one male accompanied by 99 females.

nisa -- always pertains to women (these are not some aliens which walk the earth).

al-nas -- the mankind

If you have alternative meanings then provide consistent evidence and apply to each verse.