Discussion on 4:3 and meaning of nisa
-
there is a chance that a woman might have never experienced her menses...
I don't think this was meant anywhere in the original verse.
Yes, I agree,
If a biologically healthy female is pregnant, she will skip her next cycle. If she's not pregnant, her cycle will come but before when it hasn't yet , it is unclear if she's pregnant or not.
Yes, of course the entire waiting period exercise is to establish pregnancy. Important if future claims are to be avoided and when selling slave girls.
Selling?doesnt make sense. What if the provider is the mother, is the child then still a socalled orphan if he lost his dad?
Moreover, you are using a wrong translation. Orphan in english is someone without both parents. A person without a father is called fatherless.
The child is still Yatiim. Which means fatherless, but is translated into orphan because of the implication of lack of wealth and because the English language does extend the meaning of the word "orphan" to fatherless children (paternal orphans). For a long time in history, men have been the breadwinners due to fixed gender roles. Also the Qur'an encourages men more to provide for their family. I guess if the window is financially secure, her child may not be orphaned in the fullest sense of the word, but they are missing a parent which means they are technically.
Have a look here, it may clear up some confusion
http//www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=orphan -
I don't think this was meant anywhere in the original verse.
I tend to agree.
Selling?
You are right, it's probably more the buyer who wants to know whether a female slave is pregnant or not, depending on whether she is intended for child bearing or work. It's not my line of experience D
The child is still Yatiim. Which means fatherless, but is translated into orphan because of the implication of lack of wealth and because the English language does extend the meaning of the word "orphan" to fatherless children (paternal orphans).
Where does this come from? English is a pretty precise language, where orphan means bar parents and fatherless means bar father or paternal orphan.
For a long time in history, men have been the breadwinners due to fixed gender roles. Also the Qur'an encourages men more to provide for their family. I guess if the window is financially secure, her child may not be orphaned in the fullest sense of the word, but they are missing a parent which means they are technically.
Have a look here, it may clear up some confusion
http//www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=orphanI know that the circumstances were different 1000 years ago. This is why I would expect the Koran, which is not written only for desert dwelling Nomadic Arabs of the 7th century to be precise and specify what is meant. This becomes increasingly important if you delve into the mysteries of inheritance laid out in 410-12 and 4176. English, just like Arabic, has evolved and I would not be able to understand or speak ye olde English.
-
Peace and greetings,
This was quite funny! I thought you are agreeing with my point, because there is only one explanation for "the ones (f) not menstruated", which is premenarcheal girls or girls who have not had their menses.
But then I realised I fall into the category of "the extremely ignorant".Reading the statement again I found no definition of "underage", so what constitutes underage and why?
And if these sentences are so clear, why then are there so many different translations and opinions? How come almost all translations say not yet menstruated? Are all these translators ignorant and only you somehow "know" the true meaning?Let's see what others have to say
It seems to me that there are some very well known and respected, yet "extremely ignorant" translators out there.
There is no ?not yet? in verse. The ignorant imply the verse pertains to babies and children.
It?s clearly stated 46 until when they reached/attained maturity; rules out babies/children.Why do they parrot each other? Perhaps they're afraid ignorant apes will bash their heads.
How many women would fall into that category? Maybe 1 in 20,000. So yes, absolutely, you can construct a scenario, where it is feasible to say there are some women who have never experienced menstruation due to a rare disorder. But there are millions which would fall under the interpretation described by the translations and exegesis.
The Facts About Irregular Periods
http//www.everydayhealth.com/pms/irregular-periods.aspx?At least 30 percent of women have irregular periods during their childbearing years,? says Amy Autry, MD, a clinical professor of obstetrics-gynecology and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Francisco.
I already shared that earlier and in prior posts here on this forum.
Here are a few verses ? explain how al-nisa can be other than (insert meaning) feminine/women?
651 O you the prophet when you divorce the feminine/women so divorce them to their waiting period and count the count
654 and the ones (feminine) who despaired from the menstruation from nisakum/your feminine/women if you doubt so their waiting period three cycles and the ones (feminine) not menstruated and those the pregnant their term that they put aside their loads (i.e. give birth) and from fears The God He makes for him from His directive easier
-
Peace and greetings,
There is no ?not yet? in verse. The ignorant imply the verse pertains to babies and children.
It?s clearly stated 46 until when they reached/attained maturity; rules out babies/children.Why do they parrot each other? Perhaps they're afraid ignorant apes will bash their heads.
Why is anyone who disagrees with you automatically ignorant? I have shown why it is a valid translation and how it is translated because it is a valid translation.
The Facts About Irregular Periods
http//www.everydayhealth.com/pms/irregular-periods.aspx?At least 30 percent of women have irregular periods during their childbearing years,? says Amy Autry, MD, a clinical professor of obstetrics-gynecology and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Francisco.
Here are a few verses ? explain how al-nisa can be other than (insert meaning) feminine/women?
651 O you the prophet when you divorce the feminine/women so divorce them to their waiting period and count the count
654 and the ones (feminine) who despaired from the menstruation from nisakum/your feminine/women if you doubt so their waiting period three cycles and the ones (feminine) not menstruated and those the pregnant their term that they put aside their loads (i.e. give birth) and from fears The God He makes for him from His directive easier
Have you heard of logical fallacies and a strawman?
What does the discussion about al-nisa have to do with female menstruation? Does it mean because one word might possibly be re-interpreted that ALL words in the Koran can now be re-assigned? Good luck.
"There is no ?irregular? in verse. The ignorant imply the verse pertains to babies and children."
-
Why is anyone who disagrees with you automatically ignorant? I have shown why it is a valid translation and how it is translated because it is a valid translation.
They are disagreeing with basic logic and you have shown nothing only parroting illogical stuff.
Have you heard of logical fallacies and a strawman?
Yes that is what you do.
What does the discussion about al-nisa have to do with female menstruation? Does it mean because one word might possibly be re-interpreted that ALL words in the Koran can now be re-assigned? Good luck.
They claimed that al-nisa does not/cannot be females and we know females have menses, therefore.
"There is no ?irregular? in verse. The ignorant imply the verse pertains to babies and children."
irregular = missed (i.e. not menstruated) and yes the ignorant imply the verses pertain to babies and children.
-
You are right, it's probably more the buyer who wants to know whether a female slave is pregnant or not, depending on whether she is intended for child bearing or work. It's not my line of experience
Ok. I suppose you mean line of expertise.
Where does this come from? English is a pretty precise language, where orphan means bar parents and fatherless means bar father or paternal orphan.
I know that the circumstances were different 1000 years ago. This is why I would expect the Koran, which is not written only for desert dwelling Nomadic Arabs of the 7th century to be precise and specify what is meant. This becomes increasingly important if you delve into the mysteries of inheritance laid out in 410-12 and 4176. English, just like Arabic, has evolved and I would not be able to understand or speak ye olde English.
if it's possible to marry an orphan's mother, she is not dead. It has nothing to do with circumstance and more to do with semantics. I just mentioned the fact that history has usually favored men as providers.
And although the Qur'an wasn't for 7th century Arabs only, they were a target demographic. It's important to note that exploring civilizations and their respective languages is only possible if we are preceded by them.Words are re-appropriated into colorful meanings all the time in the English language. Ironically, the link I posted shows just that. http//www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=orphan
Regardless, the Arabic Qur'an uses "Yatiim" not "orphan" which precisely means a fatherless orphan.
-
Peace Everyone,
Here's a little more food for thought on why 43 IS NOT talking about marriage.
The Arabic word for marriage is ZAWAAJ .The Arabic word for husband is ZAWJ and the Arabic word for WIFE IS ZAWJA !!! The plural for Zawj (husband) is Al-Azwaaj and the PLURAL FOR ZAWJA (WIFE) is ZAWJAAT !! In Arabic when someone is married the terms that are used are Matazawj and Watazawwajat . This is in spoken AND written Arabic. Some spoken dialects use the Arabic word Imraa'a for wife, others use Zawja and a few of them use both words interchangeably. But just so you guys know, the Arabic word Imraa'a LITERALLY means WOMAN. This information you can get from the dictionaries and grammar books of Classical, Modern Standard and Spoken Arabic.
We should know that these words are all derivatives of the root word Za-Wa-Ja and the definitions of this word are to pair, to double, to connect two things as a pair, to make one of a pair, to connect two species or type as a pair or AS A SPOUSE!!
44/54, 33/37 and 39/6 in The Quran speak unquestionably on the subject of marriage or male-to-female companionship.
A couple of other related tid bits just to help further drive home the point of Zawj, Zawja and Zawaaj;
In Arabic a married couple is referred to as Az-Zawjayn and The plural word for the term married people is mutazawwijiin .
I want you all to keep this information in mind because it is relevant and I will further expound its importance and further prove my case with this word as I continue my discussion with Brother Wakas. Don't worry folks, I didn't point out HOW I would use this word to prove my case. I haven't shown my hand yet. ;D
-
I sympathise with Shirley's attitude and I would like to ask her this
Is there any occurrence of what would be the regular plural of Imra'at(ta marbuta), which would be imra'aat (ta maftuha) in the honoured Qur'an?
I think you have put your finger on something important worth studying and exploring. We see in the honoured Qur'an the word rajul, plural rijaal, used in a sociological sense, because, inf act, the word for man would be imru' as you properly stated. We also see the word imra'a used properly to mean woman, and the dual, as you also pointed out. And we see a lot of times the word nisa' used for women and indeed it is funny that there is no singular nor dual for such a plural. Surprising indeed. It stands out and I celebrate that you have made it so obvious. It has been taken as a matter of fact for so long that it has failed to strike us. But the fact is that it does stand out. No singular and no dual. Very surprising.
My take at this stage is that imru', imra' are proper objective words, and that rajul, rijal, and nisa' ar sociological words, that is, depending on attendant circumstances and social conceptions and conventions.
To bring this out opens wide possibilities of looking at the Qur'an and its injunctions with a more honest look.
We must not forget that the Qur'an starts with Al f?tiha, the opener, and open our minds, not close them. Open them in good faith and seeking knowledge and the best meaning, as the Qur'an commands.
I congratulate you on having the courage to come forward with such "shocking news". I will not say that I agree with everything you say but I do say that it merits very very much study and an open, honest and sincere mind. And also that you have shown a lot of courage standing on your purpose because we know that many times when one puts forward this kind of ideas one is exposed to ridicule and being categorized as nuts or something like that. Keep at it.
Salaam
-
Wakas
You seem not to have realised whom the 'doing word' i.e. verb is being applied to. It is to the person who is the one doing/determining the pleasing/suitability, and that would be the male. It is not a passive verb. Interestingly, this same word form is used 3 times in Quran according to CORPUS and it seems to demonstrate what I just said.
Brother with all my due respect you are confusing me. Now suddenly when it suits you, corpus is suddenly a reliable source again? But when I gave you references from corpus that 'qowm' does not mean 'a group of men' as you was claiming but then you denied corpus and claimed corpus to be unreliable. And now suddenly when it suits your purposes corpus is suddenly realiable again? confused
-
Huruf
And also that you have shown a lot of courage standing on your purpose because we know that many times when one puts forward this kind of ideas one is exposed to ridicule and being categorized as nuts or something like that. Keep at it.
Yes ridiculed by the same people who are ridiculed among mainstream muslims as ''hadith-rejectors'' and ''prophet-muhammad haters''. Its funny to see how these quranist who themselves are being categorized as nuts and ridiculed among sunnies and shiites themselves do the same towards other quranist who disagree with their interpretation. Maybe they are too influenced by their sectarian past. Only God knows.
Secondly, that nisa doesnt mean women is not a new news. Several other members on freeminds have pointed that out earlier, including loxbox and Samia. And not surprisingly it has always been no other then brother Wakas who immidiately came after them and kept fighting their views with all his strength. It has always been a mystery for me why it has always been so crucial and important for our brother Wakas as a man, to keep fighting for 'NISA' as ''Women'', would you kindly like to share it with me brother Wakas? confused confused
In any cases, I would suggest that we keep respecting each other. This is not a sunni forum, but a forum for free minders, which should promote freedom of thoughts even when it goes against your own.
Peace
-
salaam Bro Damon,
Firstly, I find your style of discussion poor (unevidenced claims, ad-hominen etc) but I will reply.
Wakas, this is bad...I mean really, really bad. You're saying that it CAN be an all male audience because it uses the masculine plural. I'm sure you are aware that in Arabic masculine plural is used when talking about a MIXED GROUPED of people. By this I mean mixed with male and female. Do you acknowledge this or do you reject this fact? This is one aspect of Arabic grammar that I know for an absolute fact.
I am the one who mentioned this to you on this thread. See previous post, quote from me
You neglect to mention the addressee is masculine plural, thus there are two possibilities for whom is being addressed
- address is to males
- address is to males+females
...it is a well known fact that the use of masculine plural DOES NOT mean an all male audience UNLESS SPECIFIED!!! Wakas, this is Arabic Grammar 101 bro.
Please provide evidence for this "well known fact".
I'm just curious as to WHY you are defending an undefensable position. Is it because you can't bring yourself to admitting that you are incorrect about this? Or is it because it's coming from me? Or is it both?
No need to be left curious - it is because the evidence does not favour your position. Simple.
I don't know what Corpus Quran has to do with conversation or why you are promoting it here but I am going to correct you my friend. The verb is in its basic 3rd person masculine form. Plain and Simple. If corpus quran or any of those people who INVENTED their Quranic Tafseer Sciences say otherwise, they and you are flat out wrong!! I know this for certain about it being 3rd person masculine singular.
Corpus also says it is 3rd person masculine singular. If you had bothered to click on the link you would know this. Further, if you had actually investigated the word usage in Quran, you'd see your claim of it referring to the orphan and/or female has no basis.
If we couple both these statements of yours
So the audience for 43 IS SPECIFIED in 41 and that audience IS NOT an all male audience. Neither is it an all female audience. It is MIXED AUDIENCE of male and female which is why the address is to AN-NAAS
YES!! I am outright denying the existence of such thing. It does not exist in The Quran
you seem to be implying Quran has to specify the audience and there is no switching of audience without specifically declaring whom the new audience is. Anyone who has read The Quran knows this is complete and utter nonsense. This can easily be seen from anyone who bothered to check the link I provided with its numerous examples from Quran. In any case, one example will suffice
'We revealed to Moses and his brother "Settle (dual) for your (dual) people/qawm in Egypt/misr houses; and make your (plural) houses a qiblah and uphold (plural) the salat; and do thou (singular) give good tidings to the believers (plural)."'
Is there "a sudden shift in the pronoun of the speaker or the person spoken about"? Yes/no.
There are many other examples listed in the link I gave.
What you seem to be against is that a Traditional Muslim said it and gave it a term not occurring in Quran. It's a bit like an English speaking Traditional Muslim said "The Quran when recited seems to be rhythmic" and since they used the word "rhythmic" which is not found in Quran you object to it and claim such a thing doesn't exist. Illogical.
You obviously do not know the answer to this BUT I DO. Would you like to know what it is? I'm going to play the same game as you brother man. Read on.
Looking forward if/when you attempt to answer this.
I asked if you could provide any other Arabic words whose plural form comes from a different root than its singular form. And your reply......
Oh really Wakas? Is that so? You don't need to? Aren't you the one who always tell people to bring forth "evidence" to back up their claims?
You seem to be mistaken about who made the original claim. It was you. I didn't make any claims with regard to this. Please re-read.
Wakas, I am going to say this now so this doesn't get out of hand. I DO NOT believe that Arabic is a divine language. Okay? I do know that it is HUMAN LANGUAGE and their is absolutely NOTHING divine about it. I also know that as a HUMAN LANGUAGE it CAN and WILL have imperfections. I hope I have made myself clear about this.
Yes, very clear, thanks.
...it's because people such as yourself REALLY, REALLY want to believe that The Quran is chauvinist and male centric.
Grasping at staws with an ad-hominen I see. If this was the case why have I refuted many "chauvinistic" Traditional beliefs in my works? Here is a possibility - maybe you are wrong, and the evidence is not weighted in favour of your position in this case. I know, sounds crazy doesn't it. ;D
I already shared that earlier and in prior posts here on this forum.
Where? Link please.
-
Wakas
Brother with all my due respect you are confusing me. Now suddenly when it suits you, corpus is suddenly a reliable source again? But when I gave you references from corpus that 'qowm' does not mean 'a group of men' as you was claiming but then you denied corpus and claimed corpus to be unreliable. And now suddenly when it suits your purposes corpus is suddenly realiable again? confused
Oh dear. Do you not realise, even though I told you, that corpus' main function is to do with grammar/morphology/syntax NOT as a classical arabic dictionary.
I dont see how I can make what I said any clearer.
Perhaps this from corpus homepage will help
Welcome to the Quranic Arabic Corpus, an annotated linguistic resource which shows the Arabic grammar, syntax and morphology for each word in the Holy Quran. The corpus provides three levels of analysis morphological annotation, a syntactic treebank and a semantic ontology.
Does it claim to be a classical arabic dictionary? No.
And as for your other questions, you know what I asked of you on the other thread. If you choose to run away, no biggie.
-
They are disagreeing with basic logic and you have shown nothing only parroting illogical stuff.
Oh not, not another monosyllable replier. Look, if you can't make a point, don't make these allegations and please don't drop hints.
If I am disagreeing with basic logics I am obviously not aware of it, so why don't you be a good lad and show me?
If you feel that I am not making sense and am parroting something, what is it that does not make sense and what am I repeating senselessly and where is the original?Without all this information you are just left looking a bit daft and foolish.
Yes that is what you do.
What am I doing and by doing what exactly?
They claimed that al-nisa does not/cannot be females and we know females have menses, therefore.
So why don't you mention fishing boats or lesbian lizards. Also female and also without menstruation. Also irrelevant.
irregular = missed (i.e. not menstruated) and yes the ignorant imply the verses pertain to babies and children.
No. Wrong. Oh dear, you are a bit of a simpleton, aren't you? And yet, without having any knowledge you insult others.
A period which does not have a duration of 28 days is termed irregular, where menstruation can set in early or late.Now let's look at your vocabulary an ignorant person can't have knowledge about a specific topic. They will make random statements which do not resemble the facts and reality. A knowledgeable person, however, would be able to judge 2 situations and infer a connection, which would be subject to further substantiation, of course.
Have I implied anything about the words not having menstruated to refer to babies or children? No. You are putting words in my mouth. And you repeat it, saying I said something I did not say.
I clearly said this can be referring to pre-pubescent girls. So stay with the facts and don't lie.Maybe you should stick to animals, you seem more at ease with parrots and apes.
-
if it's possible to marry an orphan's mother, she is not dead.
No, the orphan in 2012 would not be called an orphan, if the mother is alive.
It has nothing to do with circumstance and more to do with semantics. I just mentioned the fact that history has usually favored men as providers.
And although the Qur'an wasn't for 7th century Arabs only, they were a target demographic. It's important to note that exploring civilizations and their respective languages is only possible if we are preceded by them.Words are re-appropriated into colorful meanings all the time in the English language. Ironically, the link I posted shows just that. http//www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=orphan
Correct, but then these words were not authored by a god.
Regardless, the Arabic Qur'an uses "Yatiim" not "orphan" which precisely means a fatherless orphan.
I can't make any statement regarding this as I would have to look what the Koran uses elsewhere, when it MUST mean orphan and what old dictionaries suggest. So I guess you are right.
-
Salaam Bro Wakas,
salaam Bro Damon,
Firstly, I find your style of discussion poor (unevidenced claims, ad-hominen etc) but I will reply.
Definition of ad hominem according to wikipedia
"short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent, instead of against the opponent's argument"
And this one from Dictionary.Reference.Com
"1). appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2). attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument. "
So, you are accusing me of arguing against you as a person instead of arguing against your ideas or you are accusing me of ATTACKING you in which case I take offense to that. Please show me any of my posts where I am arguing against your persons. And please show me something that I have no evidence for. I can only think of two things that you can POSSIBLY be addressing with your accusation of ad hominem and that is my statements saying that you are going by conjecture. But I provided evidence for that case. I also said that YOUR VIEWS/ARGUMENTS (and NOT you as a person) are traditional and chauvinist. The same evidence I provided to show that you are conjecturing and going by guess work is the same evidence that I used to show that your views are traditional and chauvinist.
You may also claim that I provide no evidence for the inormation I shared in my last post about Zawj, Zawaaj and Zawja. But I did Wakas by pointing out their usage in The Quran. As far as the rest of the information, it is well known AND PRACTICED/USED among the Arabic Speakers in the Arab world. Anyone here who happens to be a native Arabic speaker I humbly request that you step forward and say if my information is correct or incorrect. If you are looking for BOOKS to prove my case, all you have to do is go to the Arabic Dictionaries and Lexicons at your disposal and look up the root word Za-Wa-Ja. Those BOOKS will provide the definitions that I shared with you all and the AYAAT of The Quran I gave will provide the USAGE of that word and its derivatives. Other than this, you have no case to accuse me of ad hominem.
I am the one who mentioned this to you on this thread. See previous post, quote from me
You are the one who is conjecturing and saying that because the masculine plural is used this verse CAN be addressing an all male audience. I will gladly quote from you
As I said, it used the masculine plural which CAN indicate an all male audience.
These words of yours are from This Post that you made.
I said
Also, to claim that this passage (along with many other mistranslated passages in The Quran) is addressing an all male audience is to make ONLY males the TARGET audience of The Quran.
And your reply to this in your same post above was
Nope. I am implying the target audience for this particular instruction, not the entire Quran, CAN be all male.
So, you see YOU ARE THE one who is relying on conjecture and sleight of hand to try and justify the unjustifiable. I Am The One who pointed out TO YOU that the addressees are NOT and all male audience and I gave EVIDENCE for that by taking you back to 41 in which a mixed group of male and female are the audience. I am not saying that it CAN be a mixed group without providing evidence. I am saying that IT IS a mixed group of male and female and my evidence for this is 41 So I gave MY EVIDENCE to prove that the addressees are a mixed group of males and females. Instead of using guess work and saying that it CAN be an all male audience I am asking that you please provide me with the evidence that is required to prove that IT IS an all male audience. Either that or accede that you are incorrect about this.
I said to you (and I am providing my own quote)
it is a well known fact that the use of masculine plural DOES NOT mean an all male audience UNLESS SPECIFIED!!! Wakas, this is Arabic Grammar 101 bro.
And your response to this is just classic
Please provide evidence for this "well known fact".
LOL!! Bro, this is just classic. You might as well ask me for evidence that hens lay eggs. What makes it well known and obvious is the FACT that this is what is PRACTICED by Arabic speakers AND in literary and modern written Arabic. I'll give you your evidence. But first, by you making this request you ar either grasping straws OR you DO NOT KNOW ARABIC!! I said this is a well known fact because it is A WELL KNOWN FACT in spoken AND written Arabic. This is a general practice in Arabic across the board and as a student of The Quran and the Arabic Language you should know this. I am actually shocked and amazed at the same time that you can actually get this desperate. But anyway, here you go buddy....
Page 44 of Haywood's New Arabic Grammar of The Written Language . In this grammar book, Haywood says EXACTLY what I said. They MUST be SPECIFIED!! Read it and weep Wakas.
And for good measure, this same thing is mentioned clearly on page 15 of Arabic Verbs and Essentials of Grammar . In this part of that grammar book the authors also mention that the feminine plural pronoun is used when the group is all female. This would seem to add strength to YOUR case for Nisaa' being females or women. But there is MORE to the grammatical story which will be pointed out as this conversation progresses. I'll give you a hint though. Arabic is a LIVING Language. It has always lived and it has evolved. Also, I look at Arabic as one entire subject and so I read ALL of the grammar books that are floating out there; Classical Grammar, Literary Grammar, Modern Standard Arabic Grammar and Spoken Grammar as well. The VALIDITY (and indeed the very NECESSITY) to approach our Quranic ARABIC studies in this manner will also be revealed as we continue our discussion. But I dropped some subtle hints in my last post.
But I feel that I MUST reiterate that you asking for EVIDENCE of this well known fact (at least well known to those who know Arabic) makes me see you and your position in a certain light. I am not debating and arguing. I am not here to WIN an argument or debate at all costs. I don't see this discussion to where one of us has to be the winner and the other person the loser. I will not ask for Evidence that Hens lay eggs, if you get my drift.
Corpus also says it is 3rd person masculine singular. If you had bothered to click on the link you would know this. Further, if you had actually investigated the word usage in Quran, you'd see your claim of it referring to the orphan and/or female has no basis.
I don't know WHERE are you getting this from but I am now asking that you please quote me where I EVER said that Taaba refers to ANY female or ANY orphan. In fact, please quote me where I EVER mentioned orphan ANYWHERE in any of my posts. Please bring forth my quote. What I DO KNOW for a 100% FACT is that Taaba is referring to Al-Yatamaa. Please bring forth ANY QUOTE from me where I made the statement or claim that Al Yatamaa is referring to females. It has been my argument FROM THE VERY BEGINNING that neither Yatamaa OR Nisaa' refer to females. I know that I have made my position on this clear from the very beginning. I would like to keep this discussion going since a lot of things are being revealed, but I am going to ask this one man to another to PLEASE DO NOT misquote me or put words in my mouth.
Now, I admit that I did not look at your corpus quran link and that is because I already know that Taaba is 3rd person masculine singular. I thought you were claiming 9through the authority of corpus quran) that it is not 3rd person masculine singular. I misunderstood you and you have my apologies for that.
you seem to be implying Quran has to specify the audience and there is no switching of audience without specifically declaring whom the new audience is. Anyone who has read The Quran knows this is complete and utter nonsense. This can easily be seen from anyone who bothered to check the link I provided with its numerous examples from Quran. In any case, one example will suffice
'We revealed to Moses and his brother "Settle (dual) for your (dual) people/qawm in Egypt/misr houses; and make your (plural) houses a qiblah and uphold (plural) the salat; and do thou (singular) give good tidings to the believers (plural)."'
No Wakas, I am not implying that Quran has to specify its audience. I am declaritively stating that the Quran ALWAYS specifies its audience and I gave MY EVIDENCE for this by giving a few ayaat of The Quran and which the various audiences are specified. One such ayat is 41. And YES I am denying your traditional belief in the switching of audience without that audience being specified. I outright rejct that traditonal belief. And as for your example it fails to show a switch in the addressee. In fact, I 'll bet you don't even know WHO the addressee IS in this verse, do you? I'll tell you right now that it is NOT Musa wa Akheehee. If that's what you think you are DEAD WRONG!!! And even if Musa and Akheehee WERE the addressees of 10/87, Where, Wakas. WHERE OH WHERE in that verse does it ever show a switch in addressees??????? Come one bro, is this the best that you can come up with? You probably thought you were dropping a bomb with this one but it turned out to be a dud. I'll say it again just so I am clear. MUSA WA AKHEEHEE ARE NOT the people being addressed in 10/87!!!!!!!!!!! And to give you another hint, Al Momineen are not the ones being addressed either. I am dropping these clues for you because I am trying to get you to study the quran in the WAY THAT IT IS WRITTEN AND STRUCTURED and NOT according to the traditional muslim rhetoric such as the fake, man made "iltifat".
Is there "a sudden shift in the pronoun of the speaker or the person spoken about"? Yes/no.
Oh no you don't Wakas!! Don't you dare try to pull one over on me!!!! Our discussion is about WHEN and HOW The Quran Directly Addresses its readers and audiences. This is what I said from the very beginning and this was my argument from the very beginning. I know that you are aware of this Wakas and I see your question in this quote above is a dishonest attempt to shift the focus AWAY from the Addressees of The Quran (my argument) towards something ENTIRELY DIFFERENT!! Please don't do this Wakas because not only does it ruin a good discussion but intelligent people who catch on to this will also see YOU in a certain way when you do these types of things. But to answer your question (which somehow made its way into our conversation) I am directing you BACK to my last words above concerning your so-called example. I don't want to spoon feed you so I'm trying to get you to THINK and Look at The Quran in the way that it is written and NOT according to the man made iltifat rhetoric of the traditonalists. If you do that then you'll realize that the answer to your question is NO!! There is NOT a shift in the SPEAKER or the ADDRESSEE!! I will help you a little bit to find out why. Again READ THE QURAN IN THE WAY THAT IT IS WRITTEN!! Pay attention to The Quran's structure and READ it from 10/69 to 10/87. I am hoping that you will actually get it. If you still don't get it I guess I'll have to put it on a spoon and give it to you in my next reply.
There are many other examples listed in the link I gave.
What you seem to be against is that a Traditional Muslim said it and gave it a term not occurring in Quran. It's a bit like an English speaking Traditional Muslim said "The Quran when recited seems to be rhythmic" and since they used the word "rhythmic" which is not found in Quran you object to it and claim such a thing doesn't exist. Illogical.
Wrong, Wrong, WRONG!!!! I am not against it ONLY because a traditionalist invented it. Neither am I ONLY against it because the word "iltifaat" isn't in The Quran. I am against it because THIS FUNCTION OF ILTIFAT DOES NOT EXIST IN THE QURAN!!! You believe it does because you swallowed M.A.S. Abdel Haleem's and those like him nonsense that such a thing exists. But when one studies The Quran according to its own merits and structure, they will realize that this is yet another traditional muslim scam and it is impossible to impose this crap onto The Quran. I can only feel sorry for those who can't seem to bring themselves into investigating The Quran and allowing The Quran to verify the "iltifat" claim instead of letting the "iltifat" claim dictate the terms and contents of The Quran.
MY QUOTE
You obviously do not know the answer to this BUT I DO. Would you like to know what it is? I'm going to play the same game as you brother man. Read on.
Wakas' Quote
Looking forward if/when you attempt to answer this.
I am looking forward to it too. But I am also looking forward to you bringing me either another Arabic word whose singular form has an entirely different root than its plural form OR (in the event that you cannot provide such a thing) you just be man enough to admit that you can't do so because your are wrong about it. I asked this in my first reply to you. I am not going to play the game I have witnessed you play on this forum where people have to dance to your tune. You make demands of evidence but can never provide it yourself and you have actually yet to provide any evidence for your claims that you have made so far in our discussion. I'll be more than happy to enlighten you on this grammatical issue (which you obvious do not know about) but I am asking very humbly to PLEASE provide any more Arabic words which have two different roots between its singular and from and its plural form. I already know that you cannot do this. So please be man enough to admit that you were wrong about this and we can move on in the discussion.
You seem to be mistaken about who made the original claim. It was you. I didn't make any claims with regard to this. Please re-read.
Yes, I made the claim that there is NO SUCH THING as Arabic words having a different root in its plural form than it does in its singular form. You made an attempt to counter that claim. In order to successfully counter that claim all you have to do is point out just one entry in the Arabic Dictionaries which counters my claims. I will say to you though Good Luck with doing that.
Grasping at staws with an ad-hominen I see. If this was the case why have I refuted many "chauvinistic" Traditional beliefs in my works? Here is a possibility - maybe you are wrong, and the evidence is not weighted in favour of your position in this case. I know, sounds crazy doesn't it
Yes, it does sound crazy because I AM CORRECT. I have proved two very important things to you so far and you haven't even attempted to address these things. Here they are again...
- I PROVED to you and everyone else reading this thread that Nisaa' DOES NOT mean women. My proof. The fact that ALL of the dictionaries AND books have the word Imraa'a for woman and Imraatayn for two women. The next proof (which actually supports the first proof as well as stand as proof on its own) is that THERE IS NO SUCH THING ANYWHERE IN THE ARABIC Language where a word has one set of roots in its singular and dual form and has yet an entirely different set of roots in its plural form. If I am wrong, please prove me wrong. Show me another word in Arabic Language where this phenomena exists. Third proof is that the address in 43 is to MEN AND WOMEN (and not just men) and I proved this by showing the address of Yaa Ayyuhu An-Naas in 41. Fourth proof is when I showed how the word Taaba is in its masculine singular 3rd person form and how this CLEARLY shows that The Nisaa' ARE NOT females or women. Again, If I am wrong please prove me wrong. Fifth proof...when we look at the word Nisaa' and try to determine its root letters we come to the possibilties of either Nun-Siin-Waw or Nun-Siin-Yaa. I can tell you TWO things about both of these root possibilities. NEITHER one of them are intrinsically feminine. Neither one of them designate females in any form or fashion. The second thing I wish to say about this is that the word Nisaa' has the SAME LETTERS IN IT as the words Insaan and Naas and both of these words mean PEOPLE...male and female!! Hhmmmmmm........
That's at least 5 things I am asking you to provide evidence against Wakas. The ball is in your court now. Over to you.
-
Oh not, not another monosyllable replier. Look, if you can't make a point, don't make these allegations and please don't drop hints.
If I am disagreeing with basic logics I am obviously not aware of it, so why don't you be a good lad and show me?
If you feel that I am not making sense and am parroting something, what is it that does not make sense and what am I repeating senselessly and where is the original?Without all this information you are just left looking a bit daft and foolish.
What am I doing and by doing what exactly?
So why don't you mention fishing boats or lesbian lizards. Also female and also without menstruation. Also irrelevant.
No. Wrong. Oh dear, you are a bit of a simpleton, aren't you? And yet, without having any knowledge you insult others.
A period which does not have a duration of 28 days is termed irregular, where menstruation can set in early or late.Now let's look at your vocabulary an ignorant person can't have knowledge about a specific topic. They will make random statements which do not resemble the facts and reality. A knowledgeable person, however, would be able to judge 2 situations and infer a connection, which would be subject to further substantiation, of course.
Have I implied anything about the words not having menstruated to refer to babies or children? No. You are putting words in my mouth. And you repeat it, saying I said something I did not say.
I clearly said this can be referring to pre-pubescent girls. So stay with the facts and don't lie.prepubescent
n
a person who has not yet reached pubertyTherefore, you agree with those the ignorant that the verse pertains to babies and children.
Irregular includes a missed period; a woman may get her period only one to four times a year.
What verse pertains to not babies and children as you claim and the parrots, ignorant, foolish.Maybe you should stick to animals, you seem more at ease with parrots and apes.
Hence I'm conversing with you.
-
Wakas
Oh dear. Do you not realise, even though I told you, that corpus' main function is to do with grammar/morphology/syntax NOT as a classical arabic dictionary.
Hehe. So corpus dont translate their words correct but have their grammar correct according to you? rotfl
Come on, grow up. Stop cherry picking everything which you think might support your ideas and throw it away again when it doesnt.
And as for your other questions, you know what I asked of you on the other thread. If you choose to run away, no biggie.
You ran away, not me. You have a habit of running after each and everyone who dont believe 'nisa' to be women, or do you forgot how you kept fighting to the last breath with Samia ? Why do you run after people who dont consider 'nisa' to be women so much?
