Discussion on 4:3 and meaning of nisa
-
Salaam,
I agree with Shirley that nisa can't be the plural of woman, for the same reason she stated.
At the moment I think it has to be taken in the same way as AlNaas or AlInsaan.
Actually I think that the meaning of AlNisa, AlNaas and AlInsaan are strongly connected.Anyway I think 434 gives us a nice hint what AlNisa and AlRi-jaal means.
(FM translation with some modifications)434 AlRi-jaal are qawwamoona over AlNisa with what God has bestowed upon them over one another and for what they spend of their money.
AlSalihatu are dutiful; keeping private the personal matters for what God keeps watch over. As for those from whom you fear desertion, then you shall advise them, and abandon them in the bedchamber, and separate from them. If they respond to you, then do not seek a way over them; God is Most High, Great.Lets take a look at the bolded part, in arabic it is constructed in almost the same way as for example 1046 " "
Thus the bolded part is not something which a man or woman has to do BUT it is a fact about Al-Rijaal and AlNisa.
So per my current understanding If a man (who is supposed to be from a rijaal according to dictinaries) is not qawwamoona over a woman (who is supposed to be from a alnisa according to dictinaries) then he is for certain not from Al-Rijaal.
I am not sure if we can conclude it the other way around, thus I am not sure if we can take it as <=> or only as =>
I think if it can be proven that we can take the bolded part as <=> then it is proven that men be from ri-jaal and from nisa, and the same goes for women.Also I am now almost 100% sure that 43 is not about taking 4 wifes at the same time. I think I can proof, that it is not possible for a person (man or woman) to take more then 1 partner at a time according to Quran standards.
Salaam,
Bender -
Shirley
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.
Wakas is not an arab and he doesnt speak arabic so he heavily depends on dictionaries and cherry picks from them what he likes and uses them as hadith against other quranist. That is why I cannot take him or his dictionaries serious, as I am an arabic speaker myself and know the weakness of dictionaries. I just witnessed another quranist who blackmails other quranist with 'history' as the true tafseer or hadith to explain quran (for instance its a historical fact that Muhammad had beard and since Quran says that muhammad is the best example, muslim men should grow beard as well)
I feel its very important for us to avoid falling into that trap of exchanging hadith with 'dictionaries' 'history' or any other sort. History and dictionaries can be helpful in many cases, but they do not hold the ultimate truth and are in fact in many cases wrong. A dictionary can contradict or dispute another dictionary or simply be influenced by hadithers while history could be manipulated by the winners (winners write history as we say).Finally, I truely believe that you will never understand quran in its true sense if you dont understand and speak arabic.
Peace
-
Salaam,
I agree with Shirley that nisa can't be the plural of woman, for the same reason she stated.
At the moment I think it has to be taken in the same way as AlNaas or AlInsaan.
Actually I think that the meaning of AlNisa, AlNaas and AlInsaan are strongly connected.Anyway I think 434 gives us a nice hint what AlNisa and AlRi-jaal means.
(FM translation with some modifications)434 AlRi-jaal are qawwamoona over AlNisa with what God has bestowed upon them over one another and for what they spend of their money.
AlSalihatu are dutiful; keeping private the personal matters for what God keeps watch over. As for those from whom you fear desertion, then you shall advise them, and abandon them in the bedchamber, and separate from them. If they respond to you, then do not seek a way over them; God is Most High, Great.Lets take a look at the bolded part, in arabic it is constructed in almost the same way as for example 1046 " "
Thus the bolded part is not something which a man or woman has to do BUT it is a fact about Al-Rijaal and AlNisa.
So per my current understanding If a man (who is supposed to be from a rijaal according to dictinaries) is not qawwamoona over a woman (who is supposed to be from a alnisa according to dictinaries) then he is for certain not from Al-Rijaal.
I am not sure if we can conclude it the other way around, thus I am not sure if we can take it as <=> or only as =>
I think if it can be proven that we can take the bolded part as <=> then it is proven that men be from ri-jaal and from nisa, and the same goes for women.Also I am now almost 100% sure that 43 is not about taking 4 wifes at the same time. I think I can proof, that it is not possible for a person (man or woman) to take more then 1 partner at a time according to Quran standards.
Salaam,
BenderVery intresting. I do agree with all what you said. Please share more of your discoveries.
I somehow suspect that 'qawameen' is standing above and maintaining while 'Nisa' are the weaker part of NAS (people) and Rejaal are people in leader roles, standing on their feets (from rijl - leg).
So REJAAL (the leaders) qawameen (Stand above/maintain) NISA (the weaker among people NAS) because God has bestowed upon them over one another and for what they spend of their money.
From that verse its clear that God has bestowed Rejaal with leadership and to financially provide for the weaker part of the society, one of the ways is through charity of course.
Because of the vulnerability of NISA, there are special rules for them regarding divorces and so on. In return, they are expected to be dutiful and obedient to their maintainers/leaders/rulers (4,34)
Anyway, thats just my thoughts. Please let me know if you disagree.
Peace
-
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?Dear StopS, I have monitored your participation in this thread and although I think you exercise independent thinking and ask really good and critical questions, I must say that I also detect in you the same thing I know Wakas is guilty of and that is you have your position and I can tell that you are not budging from that position no matter what. I know how it is to deal with such a thing because I come across it all the time.
Concerning the verses that you say have a "very feminine" context, you and the rest of the innocent world are TAUGHT that it is a feminine context by not only giving Nisaa' a definition that is OBVIOUSLY false (and I choose my words carefully, the more this issue comes to light, the more obvious this mistranslation becomes) but also mistranslating many, many, many, other words to help paint a picture of feminine contexts. Sadaqat DOES NOT mean dowry and "maheed" DOES NOT mean menstruation. You may think that the traditionalists are not breaking any grammatical rules with their translations and I can assure you that my Quranic Circles and I also do not break any grammatical rules when we give our alternative views and translations of these verses. But the difference between US (My fellows and myself) and THEM (the traditionalists) is that THEY use their decrees of blasphemy, the ire of the masses and mob mentality violence to HALT OUR WORDS AND OUR VIEWS!!! If the traditionalists have TRUTH and LOGIC on their side, they will have no need to kill me to hush me up. Please Think About This StopS!! This is what they do. You are allowed to enter into the "religion" of Islam but you are not allowed to leave once you realize how stupid and barbaric and chauvinist their religion is. And if you renounce this religion in the countries which CLAIM to be muslim countries, they have so - called apostate and blasphemy laws to silence you and your reasons for giving it up.
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?
ThanksStopS, when I am finished with Wakas I will be all too happy to present to you how I understand and interpret that verse, but I do want to keep my focus (for now) on Wakas because he started something that I need to finish and I don't want to reveal too much of my hand too soon before I wrap this all up in the manner that I am planning to.
-
Shirley
Wakas is not an arab and he doesnt speak arabic so he heavily depends on dictionaries and cherry picks from them what he likes and uses them as hadith against other quranist. That is why I cannot take him or his dictionaries serious, as I am an arabic speaker myself and know the weakness of dictionaries. I just witnessed another quranist who blackmails other quranist with 'history' as the true tafseer or hadith to explain quran (for instance its a historical fact that Muhammad had beard and since Quran says that muhammad is the best example, muslim men should grow beard as well)
I feel its very important for us to avoid falling into that trap of exchanging hadith with 'dictionaries' 'history' or any other sort. History and dictionaries can be helpful in many cases, but they do not hold the ultimate truth and are in fact in many cases wrong. A dictionary can contradict or dispute another dictionary or simply be influenced by hadithers while history could be manipulated by the winners (winners write history as we say).Finally, I truely believe that you will never understand quran in its true sense if you dont understand and speak arabic.
Peace
Dear Maha, I agree with EVERYTHING you said here. In fact I agree with it all 100% ) Because of the risks and discrepancies that come with the dictionaries and even the grammar books I think it to be extremely important to look at ACTUAL USAGE of the Arabic Language and we get that By studying SPOKEN and WRITTEN Arabic and study these two varieties in actual context. We must also look at the actual usage and structure of Arabic in The Quran. Doing these things will help us determine solid and not so solid information coming out of the grammar books and dictionaries.
And I have to second what you said that a person simply CANNOT understand The Quran unless they understand it and (to a certain degree) be able to speak it. I am hoping our friend StopS can take note of this. But I will like to add that even knowing Arabic isn't enough because of the conceptual barriers that are there blocking everyone's understanding. One such conceptual barrier that has been shoved down our throats for centuries is the verse that StopS posted above. For centuries we were not allowed to question these Corrupt Concepts for fear of punishment. But our voices of reason and correct interpretation are getting louder and louder and there is nothing any of the traditional minded muslims can do to halt the progress of the True Quranic Propagation Movement. We will make our voices heard, we will get the world's attention, the people of this world who yearning for justice will appreciate and accept our presentation of The Quran and the DEEN of The Quran WILL be established on somewhere on planet earth.
Lastly, I will like to end my post with a statement that I have made earlier and I wish to reiterate it here
The Quran is NOT a Religious book geared towards men. It is a book of Social Justice geared towards women and men equally.
I'll have to keep repeating this until it is truly understood.
-
Damon,
I forgot to clarify something earlier
When I said
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 was referring to this
Damon said
explanation of why this verse says HE who pleased you/seemed gracious to you . If this verse was telling males to marry females then it should say Ma Taabat to make this verb feminine. But as it stands this verb is strictly masculine.
My wording may have caused the confusion, so let me clarify you implied that if the verse says what I think it says the verb should be feminine, but that is not true. The verb works perfectly in masculine. If you checked corpus you'd see its other occurrences, one of which is passive meaning the object receives the action expressed in the verb, in the verse we are discussing, i.e. 43, it is not passive. The verb applies to the person doing the action, that is what a verb is, i.e. a doing word, and that is not the female, as I already explained.
To conclude, your objection seems to have no basis.
However, this verb being masculine singular could be significant and may help us. The form of the verb shows it refers to the person doing the action of the verb, and they are masculine singular. In my view this is the male doing the verb, i.e. determining suitableness for nikah.
Since you also agree it is masculine singular - whom do you think it is referring to?
Background
http//corpus.quran.com/treebank.jsp?chapter=4&verse=3&token=9 -
I think I am going to get punched from every side for what I am going to say.
I have been looking at the ditiocinnary, yes, at the dictionnary, a modern dictionnary, and right now I am inclined to believe that nisa' is a broken plural of root hamza- nun-sin, from which the word "naas" (people) comes. It does not come from n-s-w neither from n-s-hamza. It is the same provenance as the word "anisa" which is used for Miss, or young lady.
To me it seems quite cogent that that would be its origin and not any of the others. That the hamza can go away from the root when forming oher words we see clearly in the very word naas.
As to the meaning, I am inclining, also in this case to give a sociological meaning.
I notice that also from root m-r-hamza we do not have, that I recollect right now, a plural for men. If there is and I am missing it, please, correct me. So from imru' we would have no plural from that root that appears in the Qur'an. We would not have from it neither a plural for men nor a plural for women. Not that they could not exist, I think, but they do not appear. Whether they have been used at any time in the history of the Arabic language I do not know. If anybody can throw some light on that, thank you.
So, in fact, we are left, apparently with two plurals, rijal and nisaa', which as far as I can ascertain are sociologically charged. I would not say that every occurence of them is so charged, but on the whole they are. I do not think that is meaningless. I do not think that Arabic is foredoomed to show only sociological men and women in the sociological sense of gender. I think we have just scratched the surface of this whole question.
I think there are physiological functions that have been converted, or rather extended, some times awfully and shockingly extended, into other realms with justification on circumstances or without it, but always in a useful manner for those with the power.
Seen in that light, in fact the word nisaa' underlies sociability and the word rajul-rijal support. As if nisaa' were the society and the rijal its support.
Rijal in the Qur'an itself can mean male or female, depending on context and use. I think nisaa' can also be male or female depending on context and use. But they are not indicative of sex but of sociological gender or social significance, social function or roles such as were assigned in the society where the Qur'an was revealed, which does not mean, of course that the Qur'an upholds any such role, simply takes account of the fact that it exists, but does not acknowledge any roles.
With every new insight, let the Qur'an speak to us.
Salaam
-
StopS, when I am finished with Wakas I will be all too happy to present to you how I understand and interpret that verse, but I do want to keep my focus (for now) on Wakas because he started something that I need to finish and I don't want to reveal too much of my hand too soon before I wrap this all up in the manner that I am planning to.
Great! I would appreciate that.
-
To conclude, your objection seems to have no basis.
Well, that didn't take long did it? My objection SEEMS to have no basis...in other words there's a logical fallacy in my understanding, right Wakas? Bro, you're too much. You'll say ANYTHING to win an argument. But you WILL NOT say the words "I Am Wrong About This One"
However,
If you checked corpus you'd see its other occurrences
Bro, I don't need to check your little Corpus Quran. I am checking the word Taaba in 4/3!! And the word Taaba in 4/3 is REFERRING TO An-Nisaa' and here is my evidence (which you'll say has no basis, has a logical fallacy, etc.);
- fainkihoo ma taaba lakum MIN AN-NISAA'
How can Taaba be referring to the addressees when the addressees are DIRECTLY ADDRESSED with the word LAKUM You DO KNOW what Lakum means, don't you Wakas. If you don't it means something OUTSIDE OF YOU ALL (plural) because it means TO YOU or FOR YOU. So the word Taaba is referring to something OUTSIDE of the people who are addressed with the word LAKUM. The Word Taaba is 3rd person masculine singular while the word Lakum is 2nd person. Also, the word MIN is the KEY to determining WHO is being referred to with the word Taaba because if it were referring to the addressees it would not say MIN AN-NISAA', it would say MIN ANFOOSIKUM meaning from yourselves or among yourselves. The more you linger on to your case Wakas, the worse you make yourself look in front of everyone here on this forum. Just let it go Wakas. Please. Your interpretation of 4/3 is wrong and no amount of hocus pocus you try to conjure up can make your interpretation right. You obviously ignored my plea to you to let go of your ego and quit approaching our discussion as competition to where one of us has to be the winner and the other person has to be the loser.
However, this verb being masculine singular could be significant and may help us. The form of the verb shows it refers to the person doing the action of the verb, and they are masculine singular. In my view this is the male doing the verb, i.e. determining suitableness for nikah.
You just don't get it Wakas. You simply don't get it!!! Your hocus pocus and YOUR VIEW will not make your falsehood and incorrect interpretation true. Why won't you let this go bro? Do you feel as though that you cannot take correction from me? What is it bro, seriously??? Have a second, third and fourth look at my breakdown above so you can correct your incorrect view. Your ego, your desire to always be right and never wrong and your wanting to hold onto a position at all costs are proving to be your biggest enemy right now. Get your face out of those fake Quranic Sciences books and STUDY THE QURAN!! There is absolutely NO WAY that the word Taaba could even remotely be referring to the ones addressed as Lakum. You say that it refers to the one doing the action of the verb and the verb is 3rd person masculine singular. You should keep in mind that Taaba is referring to those who are MIN AN-NISAA' and if 4/3 is addressing an all male audience and telling them to MARRY AN-NISAA' then something is wrong since An-Nisaa' are the ones referred to with the MASCULINE word Taaba. So you see Wakas, there is no where for you to go with this. Either way you put it, your VIEW doesn't hold up to what the QURAN IS SAYING in its own text. Again, leave those fake Quran Sciences books alone, they're poison.
Since you also agree it is masculine singular - whom do you think it is referring to?
Wakas, I don't think, I know that Taaba is referring to An-Nisaa' in 4/3. I thought you were a student of The Quran and the Arabic Language, but I can't help but to like at you sideways right about now because you have shown a characteristic I never thought had existed within you and its actually embarrising bro.
Now PLEASE no more stalling and taking the conversation elsewhere. Let's stay on topic. I have given you what I called My 3 Evidences for my arguments. Please refute them using The Quran and The Arabic Language. Thank You. - fainkihoo ma taaba lakum MIN AN-NISAA'
-
Bro, I don't need to check your little Corpus Quran. I am checking the word Taaba in 4/3!! And the word Taaba in 4/3 is REFERRING TO An-Nisaa' and here is my evidence (which you'll say has no basis, has a logical fallacy, etc.);
- fainkihoo ma taaba lakum MIN AN-NISAA'
How can Taaba be referring to the addressees when the addressees are DIRECTLY ADDRESSED with the word LAKUM You DO KNOW what Lakum means, don't you Wakas. If you don't it means something OUTSIDE OF YOU ALL (plural) because it means TO YOU or FOR YOU. So the word Taaba is referring to something OUTSIDE of the people who are addressed with the word LAKUM. The Word Taaba is 3rd person masculine singular while the word Lakum is 2nd person. Also, the word MIN is the KEY to determining WHO is being referred to with the word Taaba because if it were referring to the addressees it would not say MIN AN-NISAA', it would say MIN ANFOOSIKUM meaning from yourselves or among yourselves. The more you linger on to your case Wakas, the worse you make yourself look in front of everyone here on this forum. Just let it go Wakas. Please. Your interpretation of 4/3 is wrong and no amount of hocus pocus you try to conjure up can make your interpretation right. You obviously ignored my plea to you to let go of your ego and quit approaching our discussion as competition to where one of us has to be the winner and the other person has to be the loser.
It begins with Fa. It is apodosis clause. The verbal sentence is imperative but in Jussive state being answer to the conditional clause.
It is Perfect Verb; third person; masculine; singular, from verbal Noun . Who was its Subject? Simple answer is that this Verb is Linkage clause for Relative Pronoun Ma. That is the Subject. "for you people-society as a whole"-Prepositional Phrase relates to preceding Verb.
is again Prepositional Phrase. It relates to elided circumstantial clause. Cirecumstantial clause is subsequently mentioned by for which reason they are in accusative case.Know it, subject to the condition that should you people apprehend that you might not cause equity in looking after the Orphans, adopt the following course
Thereat, you are directed that you should arrange matrimonial bondage; which has become lawful beneficial option for you people-society to alleviate felt apprehension and affording equitable treatment of Orphans; for the widowed mothers amongst womenfolk, in combination of twos, threes or fours. - fainkihoo ma taaba lakum MIN AN-NISAA'
-
Salaam Huruf,
I have been looking at the ditiocinnary, yes, at the dictionnary, a modern dictionnary, and right now I am inclined to believe that nisa' is a broken plural of root hamza- nun-sin, from which the word "naas" (people) comes. It does not come from n-s-w neither from n-s-hamza. It is the same provenance as the word "anisa" which is used for Miss, or young lady.
I think the issue with the possibility of Nisaa' coming from Hamza-Nun-Siin is that the letter Hamza in the word Nisaa' is the last letter of the word. This is why I am inclined to believe that the word Nisaa' comes from the root letter Nun-Siin-Hamza. Another thing is that I am not aware of the rule which moves the Hamza from the BEGINNING of the root word to the END in any of the root words derived forms As far as I know the root letters always remain in the same order. If that order os rearranged then we are officially dealing with an entirely different root word at that point.
Also, the word Anisa isn't from the same root letters as Nisaa' when you look at both words comparatively. Anisa is spelled as Alif, nun, siin and ends in a Ta Marbuta which means that it is a feminine counterpart of a masculine word. But if we look up the root word Alif-Nun-Sin in the dictionaries it means to be sociable, friendly, gentle, nice, genial, companionable, etc. I found The word Anisa in Hans Wehr under the entry for Alif-Nun-Siin and it says Miss, young lady just like you said. But it is apparent to me that it is merely the feminization of the word Anis (which is under the same entry) which means intimate, friendly, kind, sociable. So if Anisa is used for women to mean Young Lady, it stands to reason that Anis is reserved for young gentlemen. It is a social label that they use. So we are yet again talking about two different root words between Anisa and Nisaa'.
-
Damon,
Putting your lame diatribe aside, it seems in your haste to reply you did not bother to read properly what I said.
I am saying the one doing the doing verb is the masculine singular, i.e. the one determining suitablity. I made no reference to the object of the verb, which is an-nisa. This is even shown in the link I gave to corpus.
It seems you are reacting emotionally, which is resulting in errors. Please keep your posts concise and to the point.
So, let me ask again but rephrase better since you also agree it is masculine singular - whom do you think is doing the action of the verb "taba"?
-
Damon,
Putting your lame diatribe aside, it seems in your haste to reply you did not bother to read properly what I said.
I am saying the one doing the doing verb is the masculine singular, i.e. the one determining suitablity. I made no reference to the object of the verb, which is an-nisa. This is even shown in the link I gave to corpus.
Again Wakas (and I don't know how many times I have to repeat this to you bro) I don't need to go to corpus quran because I am NOT in need of it. I do just fine without it thank you very much. If you cannot approach your Quranic studies without, then please use it as your crutch. I know enough to know I have no use for it.
It seems you are reacting emotionally, which is resulting in errors. Please keep your posts concise and to the point.
Oh, is that so Wakas? Please point out just ONE ERROR that I made. But you have made quite a few errors so far based on YOUR emotions. You are emotionally attached to the idea that The Quran is male centric and gives men the okay to marry more than one woman (according to your emotionally attached interpretation of 4/1 - 4/3) and that MEN are somehow In Charge Of women (according to your emotionally attached interpretation of 4/34). And please do not tell me what length to make my posts bro. You are not in charge of me okay. If I feel the need to reply or address certain points, I will do so with the length required to do it adequately. That's the purpose for this forum's existence, am I right?
So, let me ask again but rephrase better since you also agree it is masculine singular - whom do you think is doing the action of the verb "taba"?
How Many Times Do I Have To Answer This Question?!! Do you not know how to read or are you even bothering to read my posts? Go to my last reply to you and you'll find who I KNOW is doing the action of the verb Taaba. I have answered that already and you still did not address ANY of my questions. Wakas, the entire forum is watching you duck me and run away from My Questions. This is what I had pointed out earlier; you will keep asking and asking and asking but people will have to twist both of your arms to get you to even answer just ONE of their questions. I'm not going to dance to your tune and allow you to dictate the terms of this dicussion in your favor. From here on I am waiting for you to address evidences 1, 2 and 3 I gave you in This Reply to you.
It didn't take you long to start using your tactics Wakas. I find your how methodology to be very pathetic.
-
salaam Mazhar,
Thanks for the reply.
Who was its Subject? Simple answer is that this Verb is Linkage clause for Relative Pronoun Ma. That is the Subject. "for you people-society as a whole"-Prepositional Phrase relates to preceding Verb.
If I have understood you correctly, the literal translation would be something like "then marry/marry-off what suited to/for you (plural) from an-nisa"?
I know there has been debate between "marry" or "marry-off" in this verse, but I haven't studied it in detail. You seem to suggest it is "marry-off".
-
Damon,
Another diatribe? Is that all you got? ;D
But thanks for clarifying when you said
Go to my last reply to you and you'll find who I KNOW is doing the action of the verb Taaba.
If I have understood Mazhar correctly, he disagrees with you. In any case, I am seeking clarification from others on this because you seem adament about your position. We'll see.
And dont worry, I haven't forgotten about your other questions. Takes a little time to sift through your lame and tedious diatribes. Tackling one issue at a time will likely be more constructive, hence my approach.
-
salaam Mazhar,
Thanks for the reply.
If I have understood you correctly, the literal translation would be something like "then marry/marry-off what suited to/for you (plural) from an-nisa"?
I know there has been debate between "marry" or "marry-off" in this verse, but I haven't studied it in detail. You seem to suggest it is "marry-off".
The Verb is transitive, it can also be doubly transitive. Interestingly, Taba is also a transitive verb.
A prepositional phrase is neither a subject nor an object of a verb.
A relative Pronoun needs a linkage clause as is also the case in English gramar. There needs a Pronoun to refer back to the Relative Pronoun-Ma. The Pronoun can be elided only if the Relative Pronoun is the Object of a verb, but not when it is the subject of a verb. And the Verb Taba has certainly a masculine pronoun in it as its subject which links back to Ma. It has nothing to do with feminine plural."from AnNisa" is not the object of a verb. Some ones who are in the womenfolk--and they are only "the mothers of the father-orphaned children--widows", the children who are the subject of discourse. If they are not there, the whole Ayah becomes inapplicable--since the permission ceases when the condition does not exist.
-
Damon,
Another diatribe? Is that all you got? ;D
Nah bro, I've got plenty more. ignore Just having a little fun here bro. laugh
But thanks for clarifying when you said
If I have understood Mazhar correctly, he disagrees with you.And I thoroughly disagree with the interpretation he gave. He's no authority.
In any case, I am seeking clarification from others on this because you seem adament about your position. We'll see.
That's part of your problem Wakas, you are seeking clarification from others. Wouldn't it be better in the spirit of 17/36 if you went through the grammar books and The Quran yourself? You are sending me to corpus quran and links for this iltifat nonsense because that is your method of obtaining information and understanding of Quran and you wish for me to go that same route. I ain't buying it Wakas.
And dont worry, I haven't forgotten about your other questions. Takes a little time to sift through your lame and tedious diatribes. Tackling one issue at a time will likely be more constructive, hence my approach.
I'm far from worried, but I will be waiting.
-
Quote
But thanks for clarifying when you said
If I have understood Mazhar correctly, he disagrees with you.
And I thoroughly disagree with the interpretation he gave. He's no authority.Rebuttal by quoting authority is needed. Arabic is a living language. Pl quote any source to rebut the points indicated.
-
Another thing is that I am not aware of the rule which moves the Hamza from the BEGINNING of the root word to the END in any of the root words derived forms As far as I know the root letters always remain in the same order. If that order os rearranged then we are officially dealing with an entirely different root word at that point.
I am not aware of such a thing either and this mention by you is the first time I hear of any such a thing. From where you have got it I have no idea.
As expressed in my message the final hamza in nisaa' I attributed to a broken plural such as many broken plurals are formed. And nisaa' is a plural, is it not?
And what is the problem of anisa being feminine? So what? And anis is the masculine of anisa, so what? In what sense does that preclude nisaa' from being of that same root? That the root means social disposition not only does not detract from nisaa' having that root, but rather reinforces it in my view.
Salaam
-
I am not aware of such a thing either and this mention by you is the first time I hear of any such a thing. From where you have got it I have no idea.
As expressed in my message the final hamza in nisaa' I attributed to a broken plural such as many broken plurals are formed. And nisaa' is a plural, is it not?
And what is the problem of anisa being feminine? So what? And anis is the masculine of anisa, so what? In what sense does that preclude nisaa' from being of that same root? That the root means social disposition not only does not detract from nisaa' having that root, but rather reinforces it in my view.
Salaam
Woah, woah, woah...calm down there Huruf. You seem to be getting bent out of shape. I made sure my reply to your post was in the friendliest possible tone and I am only replying because of my appreciation of your input. I looked at your post as being intelligent and rational and I was hoping with my post to you we can positively feed off of each others ideas until we arrive at better conclusions than we have now. Why you are bringing the heat my way is totally beyond me.
I had raised my points not to argue or put you down, I was saying that even with broken plurals, the sequence of the root letters remain the same. That's all I was saying Huruf. The mentioning of Anisa was to help keep the conversation going and to give us more to talk about and share with one another.
Now, if you knew that I meant no ill will towards you and this is the way you're going reply to me anyway, then perhaps it would be best if we just don't discuss with one another.
And please do not mistake my aggressive stance with Wakas as my natural style of talking with people. Wakas and I have a history.
