Discussion on 4:3 and meaning of nisa

StopS

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."

Noon_waalqalami

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.

someoneoutthere

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.

Shirley

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

huruf

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

Maha

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

Maha

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

Wakas

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

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.

StopS

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.

StopS

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.

Shirley

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.

Shirley

Double Post Deleted

Noon_waalqalami

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 puberty

Therefore, 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.

Maha

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?

StopS

Hence I'm conversing with you.

Suit yourself, I am not.

Wakas

Salaam Bro Damon,

Some of the following are both unevidenced and ad-hominen, some are borderline, some are direct some indirect etc etc. It is very tedious for me to read such posts and compile such a list, but since you requested it.

Please note from now on I will not respond nor address any such points. If you wish to make them, that is up to you. I am only interested in evidence-based discussion.

As requested

List of Damon's unevidenced statements

In the Arabic Language ALL WORDS have the same roots in the plural form as they do their singular form.

this may or may not be true, but citation of academic studies/books who have researched this and stated so, would be reasonable evidence, not one's own statement.

the fact remains that Nisaa' IS NOT the plural form of Imraa'a.

but admits dictionaries say it is, so this claim hinges entirely upon the case Damon puts forth

Whenever a certain group of people are being addressed directly in The Quran they are specified

the people who think that 43 is talking about polygamous marriage must also believe that the Quran is telling women to marry other women. There is absolutely NO WORD in 41, 42 or 43 which shows that it is MEN/MALES who are being addressed.

The people here on this forum can say what they want but I know better

If this verse was telling males to marry females then it should say Ma Taabat to make this verb feminine.

This "iltifaat" is a component of what the traditionalists call the "Quranic Sciences" which is a bunch of B.S. concocted to keep the target audience of The Quran which is THE PEOPLE from engaging The Quran on their own and looking at what the quran REALLY has to say as opposed to what the clowns who concocted the so-called "Sciences of Quranic Tafseer" are telling them what it says.

I am as equally aware that I will bet every penny I have in the bank you aren't even aware of.

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.

I checked page 44 of that link and I couldn't find what you claimed, please provide the quote and correct page, if it exists.

It (iltifaat) does not exist in The Quran

provided no rebuttal to 1087, did not tell us whom the spoken to and spoken of was.

I have the same books that you have Wakas.............. There is NOTHING about this rhetoric which you know that I do not know.

It's traditional muslim based and YES 9 chances out of 10 if it's coming from a traditional muslim it will be incorrect.

not aimed at me directly, but baseless statement.

You obviously do not know the answer to this BUT I DO.

there is only ONE interpretation of this verse and it's all based on the addressees being a mixture of males AND FEMALES!!

on one hand admits masculine plural can be both males, and males+females, yet seemingly denies the possibility, even if theoretical.

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

I checked, and they dont, so please provide the quote from those pages.

I'll be more than happy to enlighten you on this grammatical issue (which you obvious do not know about)

You made an attempt to counter that claim.

i made no such attempt. I even said i dont mind agreeing with your claim, as it is ultimately irrelevant.

List of Damon's ad-hominen statements

No matter how much some people claim to be Quranists, if they still believe 43 is talking about polygamous marriage (or even marriage at all) then they still have a TRADITIONALIST mindset

I am sure this has to do with the sexist, male chauvinism that Arab men are known for.

not aimed at me however, as I'm not Arab.

I thought you were a Quranist Bro.

You can hold on to your "Quranic Tafseer Sciences" because I'm not so asinine to buy into that nonsense.

You're going to have to learn some independence of thinking if you really want to make progress in understanding what The Quran is saying.

you are doing is trying your absolute best to justify a chauvinist, male centric interpretation of this verse of The Quran

So, as you see YOU, my friend, are relying on conjecture and guesswork and saying something CAN mean a certain thing and you are willfully turning a blind eye to the obvious which clearly shows that it DOES NOT mean what you want it to mean. I hate to say this Wakas, but you are guilty of throwing your own meanings onto something that goes against your interpretation. It is unevidenced and illogical but you have decided to defend those views anyway because to not defend them would be an admittance of error and misunderstanding on your part.

But you have decided to take up a position and reject the obvious truth even though it is staring you in the face. 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?

I'm going to play the same game as you brother man.

Why are you so averse to accepting the truth especially when it's obvious. Why resist and defend an interpretation that's just flat out wrong? Again I have to ask if it has anything to do with the fact that it's coming from me and you see this as "debate" in which person is the winner and the other the loser? Or is it that you just don't like to be proven wrong? Or is it both? Which is it?

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? Now you are going against your own demands of fair discussion.

i did not make any claim with regards to this which Damon admits later on. Could also be classes as unevidenced.

It's not that they failed miserably, it's because people such as yourself REALLY, REALLY want to believe that The Quran is chauvinist and male centric. So any interpretation of the word Nisaa' and all of the verses where this word is mentioned will not be accepted by those people with this male chauvinist view of the quran. That doesn't make the interpretation untrue and neither does it mean that the people behind the interpretation failed. It only means that it is just a matter of time before enough SENSIBLE people understand and realize the truth of OUR interpretation and the chauvinist falsehood of yours.

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!!

we are determining whom is being addressed, and looking to Quran to help us, so it is very relevant.

I'll have to put it on a spoon and give it to you in my next reply.

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.

quote my claims thus far if you speak the truth.

List of Damon's unanswered questions

And there is absolutely nothing hard for The Quran to use the appropriate pronoun. For example, IF, as you seemingly claim, "nisa" is not "women" then please explain why Quran in 43 uses "fawidatan" or in 44 uses "aduqtihinna" etc etc.

Feel free to let us know what you think "nisa" means.

...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".
Claims 1087 does not involve sudden shift in the pronoun of the speaker or the person spoken about - yet provides no evidence to the contrary, i.e. does not tell us who is being spoken to and about so we can check what he claims.

Shirley

Salaam Wakas,

Please note from now on I will not respond nor address any such points. If you wish to make them, that is up to you. I am only interested in evidence-based discussion.

Wakas, this is your attempt to leave this discussion WITHOUT admitting that you are WRONG and you have NO EVIDENCE to support your views. You know just as well as anyone else watching this thread that I have provided more than enough proof to support my arguments here. I also notice in this latest reply of yours to me you haven't addressed ANY OF MY POINTS. Your entire post is you accusing me of ad hominem (one of your favorite quotes) and claiming that I didn't provide evidence (one of your favorite tactics). Hey Wakas, just because you cannot refute the evidence that I provided does not mean it has logical fallacies or that no evidence was given. It simply means what it means...you CANNOT refute the evidence given. So your way of worming out of it without admitting that you are wrong is to say "Hey your evidence lacks logic so I'm not going to address it". What a childish display of so-called scholarship. Please don't back out now because a lot is starting to come to light and I am just getting started. I want to finish this.

In the Arabic Language ALL WORDS have the same roots in the plural form as they do their singular form.

-this may or may not be true, but citation of academic studies/books who have researched this and stated so, would be reasonable evidence, not one's own statement. - but admits dictionaries say it is, so this claim hinges entirely upon the case Damon puts forth -

There is no MAY or MAY NOT be true. It is 100% TRUE and I know that you know this Wakas. As a person who claims to be a researcher of The Quran you make attempts at "cleaning up" some of the mess of those whose Quranic interpretations you disagree. All of the Arabic Dictionaries give PRAYER as the meaning of Salaa. Do you subscribe to that view because the dictionaries say that's what it is. ANYONE here on this forum (and this includes YOU Wakas) can verify the truth of my statement by picking up ANY Arabic Dictionary and locating just one word that has two different sets of roots, one for plural and the other set for singular. I think I smell anxiety and the clutching at the last available straw in one's hand. Just by producing ONE WORD in The Arabic Dictionaries would shut me up on this issue once and for all. So how about it Wakas?

But since we are on the subject, I would like to ask you HOW MANY types of plurals exist in Arabic? I know of only FOUR kinds of plural formation in Arabic. Those four are Sound Masculine, Broken Masculine, Sound Feminine and Broken Feminine. Wakas, is there a fifth or sixth plural formation that you know of that I do not know? If there is please produce it. If there isn't, PLEASE acknowledge the four plural forms that I have mentioned. This is not a silly exercise, we are going somewhere with this. You probably already where I'm going with this and so refuse to answer this question. But in continuing this part of our discussion I will also provide you the "evidence" that you say you are looking for (but denying it because it's already staring you in the face).

the fact remains that Nisaa' IS NOT the plural form of Imraa'a.

but admits dictionaries say it is, so this claim hinges entirely upon the case Damon puts forth

Actually bro, the Dictionaries DO NOT say that Nisaa' is the plural of Imraa' because they are not under the same entry in ANY Dictionary. And secondly, every grammar book that I have ever referenced conclude that the PLURAL of ALL Arabic words come from the SAME ROOT letters as their singular and dual form. The Plural form may be a broken plural or a sound plural, but it will ALWAYS be based on the same root letters. Again, Arabic Grammar 101. The traditionalists took a word that is sociological and forced people to understand it as a gender word. WHY? Because they are a bunch of corrupt chauvinists. HOW? That's very easy to answer; Through punishment of DEATH!! You cannot deny this bro. I am not in a so-called Muslim Country so I can plead my case with only rejection and ridicule to worry about. BUT... let someone who has a prominent teaching position somewhere in the...umm...Muslim World put forth my argument and he will be killed a thousand times before he even hits the ground once. That's What We See Before Us Today, so we know HOW they have done if from the very beginning.

I checked page 44 of that link and I couldn't find what you claimed, please provide the quote and correct page, if it exists.

"Note Where only one form is shown above, there is no distinction between masculine and feminine forms. Where dual or plural pronouns refer to mixed sexes, the MASCULINE PREDOMINATES and the MASCULINE FORM OF THE PRONOUN IS USED. Thus if the pronoun "they" refers to "men AND women" PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED IN THE PASSAGE CONCERNED , the form HUM, not HUNNA, would be used. This would be the case even if the pronoun referred to "two women and one man". "

Again, go to PAGE 44 of the link. Type in page # 44 in the page block next to the arrows up top. In the parenthesis it will say (54 of 70

And just for good measure, here's the quote from page 15 of Arabic Verbs & Essentials of Grammar

"Note that you will not meet or need the feminine plurals as often as the masculine plurals. This is because you only use the feminine plural if all the people in a group are female. If the group is mixed male AND female, the masculine is used."

This grammatical rule is not only in the Arabic grammar books (both written AND spoken grammar books), but it is also WIDELY PRACTICED IN SPOKEN AND WRITTEN USAGE!!

So there's evidence #1

provided no rebuttal to 1087, did not tell us whom the spoken to and spoken of was.

Aahhh, so I DO have to spoon feed it to you. I am very disappointed. Bro the SPEAKER is the Narrator/Author of The Quran (to you the narrator/author is God/Allah/The Creator, etc.) and the ADDRESSEE is the one who is commissioned to PROCLAIM the message of the narration to other people. This is why I directed you BACK to 10/69 to find out WHO IT IS that is being addressed. 10/69 begins with the 2nd person imperative QUL!! The imperative is continued in 10/71 with wa 'atloo 'alaiyheem..... The Narrator stays the same (we all know that because the narrator is Allah) AND the addressee remains the same from 10/69 to 10/87. Absolutely NO CHANGE OR SHIFT in the audience. PROVE ME WRONG WAKAS!!! The narrator of this event (the event of Musa, akhihee and al momineen) is relating it to the one that the narrator said QUL and 'Atloo 'Alaiyheem to in 10/69 and 10/71 respectively. My claim and my argument (from the very beginning of our conversation) is that the Quran DOES NOT make a shift in WHO it is directly addressing without announcing who that new audience is!! I have said this from the very beginning and you have YET to refute this. Instead of even trying to refute it you opted to give a link to someone else who promotes the same nonsense that I am refuting HERE. The manmade Tafseer Sciences and Fiqh books CANNOT make a lie to be true. I have measured their idiotic claims of iltifat (along with a gang of other things) against The Quran and I have learned that this is a complete lie. It's as simple as that and their is nothing you can do to change this reality no matter how much silliness you wish to believe in.

But as far as me taking from 10/69 through 10/83...That's evidence #2 bro.

on one hand admits masculine plural can be both males, and males+females, yet seemingly denies the possibility, even if theoretical. - I checked, and they dont, so please provide the quote from those pages.

Again Wakas, CHECK THEM CORRECTLY and read and weep. ;D And forget your silly Theoretical nonsense because as I POINTED OUT to you so many times already 4/1 - 4/3 IS NOT talking to an all male audience. Those verses are talking to a MIXED audience of male and female. My evidence, 4/1 where it is addressing AN-NAAS. AN-NAAS is a MIX of males and females. If I am wrong about this please produce evidence to prove that I am wrong about this. Either PROVE that An-Naas is NOT a mixed group but is instead an ALL MALE group OR produce which verse between 4/1 and 4/3 males or men are EVER directly addressed with Yaa Ayyuhul 'Imroo or Yaa Ayyuhu Ad-Dhakoor or ANYTHING along those lines.

That's evidence #3 Wakas.

And there is absolutely nothing hard for The Quran to use the appropriate pronoun. For example, IF, as you seemingly claim, "nisa" is not "women" then please explain why Quran in 43 uses "fawidatan" or in 44 uses "aduqtihinna" etc etc.

This is the part of our conversation that I find MOST entertaining. You obviously aren't aware of two very important grammatical rules which already address this and so it goes right over your head and you are just DYING to know what they are. You don't know them and you need me to enlighten you about them. Wakas, I don't know how many grammar books you have read (or if you even read them at all), but I have read almost ALL OF THEM; Wright, Thackson, Jones, Haywood, Wightwick & Gaafar, Ryder, A.A. Mohamud, etc. You name it and I probably already read it and I am still looking for more that I can get my hands on. But anyway, this is the trump card I have saved just for you. You see Wakas, I have been monitoring how you get down on this forum and I have noted a particular pattern with you. You ALWAYS demand that people give you evidence for something and when that evidence is provided you dismiss by labeling them with the term logical fallacies. I have noticed that is one of your favorite tactics. And make no mistake about it, it IS a tactic because you feel as though you MUST win at all costs. BUT, you do not allow others to dismiss YOUR evidence as a logical fallacy and when they dismiss your evidence you say that the problem is with them and their understanding but the problem somehow is not your evidence, let alone your understanding. In other words, Wakas is never wrong!!! Even now, you just cannot bring yourself to admitting to me that you are wrong about the lack of shift in addressees between 4/1 and 4/3. You cannot bring yourself to admitting that masculine plural pronoun is addressing the MIXED audience directly addressed in 4/1!!. It's called ego Wakas. Correction, inflated ego. I don't know how or why but you somehow got the idea in your head that you are the top dog around here and everyone is wrong but you. You're the only person around here who got the inside information on everything and you will NOT allow yourself to be proven wrong by anyone. And when someone like me comes along (someone who actually DOES know more than you do and can back up his arguments) you accuse of me with your silly ad hominem crap and look for reasons to get out of the conversation.

Now, here's the problem Wakas. I have given you sufficient evidence in our conversation, BUT you did what you do best (and what I was expecting you to do), you did not even ATTEMPT to refute the evidence I have provided. Instead, you did what you always do; you use your favorite phrase of Logical Fallacies without even ADDRESSING THE EVIDENCE ITSELF!!! Why don't you try addressing a person's evidence for once Wakas? Why don't you take the risk everyone else is taking and try to ADDRESS what I presented as evidence? Why are you so afraid to actually engage me on these issues instead of dismissing them? You also do your second favorite thing of NOT answering ANY of my questions (look at our entire conversation Wakas, which questions of mine did you even TRY to answer), but you are making demands of the other person. That is another pattern of yours that I have noted. And don't ask me to post one of your quotes or any of that garbage because everyone here can just click on your name and read threads you have been involved in. The pattern is there. The only difference now is that I am not weary of calling you out on it and I am not concerned if you're going to take it personally and use your mod powers to have something done with me. I am calling you out Wakas.

NOW, the REAL REASON people decide to stop debating with you is NOT because you have superior knowledge, it is because you will NOT allow yourself to be proven wrong here on your arena in front of whatever fan club you may have here. Everyone has logical fallacies in their arguments except Wakas. Wakas is the only one whose arguments do not have logical fallacies (and if your argument for 4/1 - 4/3 being an all male audience isn't a LOGICAL fallacy, then I want some of what you're smoking because it must be potent stuff). Wakas is the only one who has the right to demand evidence from other people without giving evidence himself. Wakas is the only one who has the right to dismiss other peoples evidences and label them as logical fallacies, but no one can apply the tactic on him. Wakas is the scholar and everyone else should just shut up and learn from him. Wakas is always right and never wrong.

Concerning 4/4 and the use of "sadiqatiheen" and "wahidatan" in 4/3, take a look at 4/20 and really LOOK AT IT!! If you were as sharp and intellectual as you like to make yourself out to be you would have caught it by now...unless OF COURSE you aren't aware of the grammatical rules which will easily CLEAR UP your confusions on this issue, which would only mean that there is something that Damon knows which Wakas does not know. And besides, you are already rejecting a WELL KNOWN grammatical rule, so chances are you'll reject this one as well even though they are in the grammar books.

I don't know if it's because you have written articles that are wrong and will need to be corrected or just plain ego for ego's sake, but I'll tell you if you really want to learn and GROW in knowledge then you're going to have to take your ego and throw it over the hillside somewhere.

You believe that 4/3 is mandating polygamy. At one point in time I thought the same thing, but I don't anymore.

You believe 4/34 is addressing husband and wife relations. At one point I thought the same thing, but I don't anymore.

You believe that the word Nisaa' means women. At one point I thought the same thing, but I do not anymore.

WHY? BECAUSE I HAVE NO EGO BRO!! And some people approached me with the CORRECT translations of these verses (and ALL OF THE WORDS in them) and I did the necessary research and I was HUMBLE enough to acknowledge the TRUTH of their approach and the FALSITY of the approach I had and I made the appropriate adjustment in my understanding when the evidence was sufficient enough. It's no big deal Wakas to admit that you misunderstand certain things and others have a better understanding. Nothing wrong with it all. But your ego, man. I'm telling you, with the attitude that you have now and the way you engage in these discussions you are only holding yourself back. I know you are intelligent. I have corresponded with you enough times to know that, but an inflated ego can be a black cloud on any person's intelligence.

At any rate, I want to continue this discussion but you will need to approach this discussion in a FAIR MANNER. If any of my EVIDENCE has logical fallacies, then please present your counter evidence to prove the logical fallacies. Don't just make accusations of logical fallacies and walk away. Come on bro, that makes for very bad scholarship. If you are going to label any of my evidence as a logical fallacy without proving why, then you cannot get upset and demand people to dance to your tune if they do the same thing to you.

Lastly, MY BROTHER, please don't take my statements as an attack. Please, please, PLEASE just think about what I'm saying and ask yourself if you are really guilty of the things that I said here. Just pause and reflect and ask yourself if you allow your ego to get in the way. Look at your posts and try to acknowledge how you HAVE to win debates at all costs and your favorite weapon is everyone else's logical fallacies but you seem to have none.

Salaam To You Bro.

Shirley

Salaam Folks,

This message is for everyone reading this thread

Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called Cognitive Dissonance. And because it is so important to protect that core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit with the core belief.

These are the words of the late Frantz Fanon and I agree with it 100%!! The problem with debates such as these is that some people take up a position and so when they are debating, they aren't debating to ascertain truth, they are debating to defend that position no matter what. Even if the position and the arguments used to back it up are highly illogical.

Also, people have to get out of this thing to where when they are debating they MUST WIN the debate and the other person MUST LOSE!! This is very unhealthy and will also cloud people's sense of reasoning. If my arguments are wrong please PROVE them wrong. Please do not SAY they are wrong without dissecting the arguments and proving their faultiness.

Remember, Truth does not need faith or belief to be true. I don't BELIEVE what I say about 4/1 and 4/3, I KNOW what 4/1 and 4/3 say and I know for an absolute fact that I have proven what I KNOW!!

Salaam.

StopS

Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called Cognitive Dissonance. And because it is so important to protect that core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit with the core belief.

Since I don't really have any position on this, may I ask a question? I am a bit puzzled as a search on "nisaa" in transliteration gives me 21 instances of the word in connection with a very female context, such as menstruation or dowry.
Why would you want to have a word look as though it relates to women and mean something different?

Example 2222 says ... concerning menstruation. Say It is an illness, so let women alone at such times and go not in unto them till they are cleansed. And when they have purified themselves, then go in unto them as Allah hath enjoined upon you.
Can this refer to something other than women or have I missed your point?
Thanks