Discussion on 4:3 and meaning of nisa
-
Damon,
Now that I have shown you have no evidence other than your own statement as evidence with regards to whom/what "taba" refers to, let's move onto the next points
Damon claims "In the Arabic Language ALL WORDS have the same roots in the plural form as they do their singular form."
- He cites no studies into such a subject, so all we have is his own statement as evidence.
- he seemingly does not realise what he requests is a logical fallacy known as "argument from ignorance" - the following from Wikipedia perfectly describes his attempt
"Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary", is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three). In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof."
Source http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance - he admits Arabic language is imperfect, meaning it can and does contain imperfections, but seemingly neglects this possibility that "nisa" may be an imperfection, i.e. a word that may have delevoped independently or borrowed from another language etc etc etc. Whether it is true or not I dont know, but since we agree Arabic is imperfect, this makes it possible. Simple.
- I even stated I am more than happy to agree with his claim, because it is ultimately irrlevant. At best, it is an evidence in favour of his position. Note the use of "an", i.e. one evidence. The ultimate evidence will of course be how it slots into Quran.
Damon now claims "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. "
Previously said "Now, here's the issue at hand. ALL OF THE ARABIC DICTIONARIES that I have ever read give for the singular word woman as IMRAA'A. I also know for certain that their is a DUAL form of this word which is IMRAA'ATAYN. HOWEVER, when it comes to the PLURAL form of this word THEY give the Arabic word Nisaa' "---> Contradicts himself.
Damon claims without evidence "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."
Evidence with link please.
-
Now that I have shown you have no evidence other than your own statement as evidence with regards to whom/what "taba" refers to, let's move onto the next points
WHERE did you do this and HOW did you do this? You've done no such thing bro. All you did was ASK another person and told me that other person disagrees with me. And I informed you that I equally disagree with that person. I am not dealing with that other person, I am dealing with you so I am relying on YOU to prove your own case concerning Taaba and what/whom it refers to. You have not done that Wakas and asking someone to step in and lend you a hand is not the same as YOU refutting me bro. I am here to challenge and refute your views and if your views are the same his then I will be killing two birds with one stone.
Damon claims "In the Arabic Language ALL WORDS have the same roots in the plural form as they do their singular form."
- He cites no studies into such a subject, so all we have is his own statement as evidence.
You are so desperate to when an argument that you are asking for evidence that hens lay eggs. This is why I had asked you earlier to provide me with the different types of plurals that are formed in Arabic. I think you knew where I was going with this and you smelled a trap so you decided not to touch that question. But I'll answer the question myself and go into why you cannot have a plural word with an entirely different root from its singular form.
YOU KNOW (just as well as anyone here with an elementary knowledge of Arabic) that plurals are formed in ONLY TWO WAYS....sound plural (by adding a suffix to the SINGULAR form of the word) and broken plural ( by making internal changes to the SINGULAR form of the word). You know this and so does every Arabic student here. The plural forms can only be made by adding the appropriate sound and broken plural forms to the SINGULAR of the word. If you are looking for a quote from a book that says "Plurals are only formed by making changes to the singular form" I cannot provide that. I can only provide references to all of the Arabic grammar books that explain how the plurals are formed in Arabic. But you know about this Wakas and if you are silly and desperate enough to request that quote from one of the grammar books, I can play the same game and request a quote from a Grammar book that says "the plural form of some words can come from an entirely different root than its singular". But I won't do that because I don't play those kinds games.
- he seemingly does not realise what he requests is a logical fallacy
Oh boy, here we go with the Logical Fallacy business. Is this what you're going to do in the rest of our discussion, keep using that term until it might stick and actually become true somehow?
- he admits Arabic language is imperfect, meaning it can and does contain imperfections, but seemingly neglects this possibility that "nisa" may be an imperfection, i.e. a word that may have delevoped independently or borrowed from another language etc etc etc. Whether it is true or not I dont know, but since we agree Arabic is imperfect, this makes it possible. Simple.
Yes, I did say that Arabic is not a perfect language, but that's because the people who use the language are imperfect because they are humans. But that was a statement I should not have made because if we really think about it what does it mean for a language (any language) to be perfect or imperfect? All languages are constantly evolving so how can any of us (myself included) say that Arabic or any other language is perfect or imperfect? It's not the language I am interested in for its own sake, it's how the native speakers of this language have used it in the past and how they use it today. This is what I mean when I say it's not perfect. I don't know why you say so. But for me the Arabic Language (or any other human language for that matter) doesn't have to be perfect. I just have to use the language to figure how IDEAS are expressed, used and understood.
As far as the possibility of the word Nisaa' developing independently or being a borrowed word it is highly, HIGHLY unlikely that the Arabs would have had to Borrow a foreign expression for one of the most COMMON words in any language. Man, woman, child, food, water, sun, animal, big, small, male, female, mother, father, boy, girl, etc. Also, WHY would they need to borrow a foreign word when their own language already possesses a root system and they have the root letters Meem-Ra-Hamza AND their system of feminization of masculine words?
- I even stated I am more than happy to agree with his claim, because it is ultimately irrlevant. At best, it is an evidence in favour of his position. Note the use of "an", i.e. one evidence. The ultimate evidence will of course be how it slots into Quran.
Fair enough.
Damon now claims "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. "
Previously said "Now, here's the issue at hand. ALL OF THE ARABIC DICTIONARIES that I have ever read give for the singular word woman as IMRAA'A. I also know for certain that their is a DUAL form of this word which is IMRAA'ATAYN. HOWEVER, when it comes to the PLURAL form of this word THEY give the Arabic word Nisaa' "---> Contradicts himself.
Yes, a contradiction. To be sure The words Nisaa' and Imraa' ARE under two different entries in the dictionaries and this what I was saying in the first quote above. The bottom quote I made earlier in our talk and the top quote is what I said recently and I started that statement with the word Actually because it was my attempt to reject the notion of these two words being listed under the same entry because they are not. BUT I did make a contradicting statement. Question is....is this a refutation of anything I presented as evidence?? Remember, I numbered the things that I presented as evidence that I am awaiting a rebuttal for. But as far as my two statements, you can have that one. No biggie.
Damon claims without evidence "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."
Evidence with link please.
See my second explanation above. I am definitively stating that I cannot provide a quote from any grammar book that says what I said. So having admitted that, I am now asking you Wakas 3 very small and simple questions relating to this part of our talk
1). Are you aware of ANY other Arabic words other than the Imraa' and Nisaa' phenomena where the plural form comes from an entirely different root than it's singular form?
2).Is my explanation about the formation of plurals in Arabic correct or incorrect?
3). Is there any grammar book that you are aware of that says the plural form of a word can have an entirely different root than the singular form?
These three questions are very, very relevent and I am hoping that you would be gracious enough to answer them......Pleeeezzzee. pr
-
Damon,
WHERE did you do this and HOW did you do this?
Simple - you cited no evidence other than your own statement on "taba". This is not rocket science. Let me explain
Person A "Aliens exist"
Person B evidence?
Person A "I saw them, aliens exist"
Person B By "evidence" I mean something that can corroborate your statement, e.g. independent evidence not in the form of a statement from you.But no need to fret, I only cited my own view, a link to corpus, and Mazhar also disagrees with you. He even asked you for evidence to the contrary from a source, you never responded. In any case, we'll see who else familiar with Arabic agrees/disagrees etc so readers of the forum can consider your knowledge of Arabic.
Re my point 3
By your use of "highly unlikely" you indirectly admit what I said is possible. Even though your "highly unlikely" is conjecture, it is irrelevant, as all we need to know is that what I said is possible. And you admitted it is. Simple.Thanks for admitting you contradicted yourself.
Thanks for admitting you cannot provide evidence for what you stated when you said "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."
I dont mind answering your 3 questons. See below
You asked Are you aware of ANY other Arabic words other than the Imraa' and Nisaa' phenomena where the plural form comes from an entirely different root than it's singular form?
No, but I have not studied it, and as long as we bear in mind what I said- He cites no studies into such a subject, so all we have is his own statement as evidence.
- he seemingly does not realise what he requests is a logical fallacy known as "argument from ignorance" - the following from Wikipedia perfectly describes his attempt
"Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary", is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three). In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof."
Source http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance - he admits Arabic language is imperfect, meaning it can and does contain imperfections, but seemingly neglects this possibility that "nisa" may be an imperfection, i.e. a word that may have delevoped independently or borrowed from another language etc etc etc. Whether it is true or not I dont know, but since we agree Arabic is imperfect, this makes it possible. Simple.
- I even stated I am more than happy to agree with his claim, because it is ultimately irrlevant. At best, it is an evidence in favour of his position. Note the use of "an", i.e. one evidence. The ultimate evidence will of course be how it slots into Quran.
You asked Is my explanation about the formation of plurals in Arabic correct or incorrect?
I am more than happy to accept your explanation, as long as we bear in mind what I said previously.You asked Is there any grammar book that you are aware of that says the plural form of a word can have an entirely different root than the singular form?
Other than the classical arabic dictionaries you alluded to, no. I have not studied grammar books with regard to this however. As I said, I am more than happy to accept your claim that nisa is made the exception, as long as we bear in mind what I said previously. -
Damon,
You first said 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.
When asked for evidence, you presented the following
"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."
Note how what you quoted says no such thing as you alledged. Interestingly, the parts you highlighted in capitals/underlines/bold goes against your own position.
Conclusion
Your so-called "evidence 1" non-existentPlease try again.
-
Damon,
Re 1087
You tell us whom the speaker is, when I never asked about the speaker. I specifically asked "whom the spoken to and spoken of was" (in 1087). You do provide whom you consider the "spoken to" however which you claim as "the one who is commissioned to PROCLAIM the message of the narration to other people."
Rather than answering your own question, please answer what I actually asked, and provide whom is the "spoken of" in 1087, and for your claim to hold there can be no switch.Thus, as it stands, your "evidence 2" incomplete/lacking.
Your "evidence 3" refers to "evidence 1 answered previously.
-
Peace all,
Umm...no intention to be rude and I truly hope I don't come off as rude...
Can we please get to the point about why "Nisa" does not mean women and how we can understand other verses pertaining to this word?
I am in dire need of clarification on this subject because I have been trying to make sense of 443 and 56. Shirley, I would love your insight on the post I made a while back.
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604659.0
One post on here that particularly struck me, including the quote from Bender http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604721.msg314619#msg314619
And also
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.
Would you please explain how you would translate 2222, 443, 56 and 43 and give me reasons why with cross-referencing the Quran? I would greatly appreciate it.
Peace and blessings! yay
-
Wakas,
I have read your last three posts and going through them I have noted 4 issues that you are addressing. These four issues are
1). Taaba and who it is referring to
2). The issue of Plurals and their formations
3). What I said is a well known fact (of Arabic Grammar)
4). The interpretation of 10/87 (which I am tired of answering)I will now address all four of these one by one.
The issue of Taaba and WHO it is referring to. I made myself clear that it is referring to An-Nisaa'. You disagree with me and you even bring up the name of a third party as if that third party is an authority or makes what is false to be true.
I am stating it again for all to see. The word Taaba in 4/3 is referring to An-Nisaa'. How? Because the construction follows the Ma...Min Clause. Evidence? Page 132 of Introduction To Koranic and Classical Arabic which clearly explains the Ma - Min Clause and shows example Arabic sentences. Please read it.
Evidence # 1 established.
The issue of this well known fact that I mentioned. You asked for evidence. I provided the evidence twice. The first time you pretended to not find the page I referenced. Second round, you flat out denied what is written for all too see...
Note how what you quoted says no such thing as you alledged. Interestingly, the parts you highlighted in capitals/underlines/bold goes against your own position.
Conclusion
Your so-called "evidence 1" non-existentYou must not have read it bro. Read it again...
"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.
THIS is what I wanted you to read and read it over and over.
Now I will walk you through it. It says when plural pronouns refer to mixed sexes, the masculine predominates and the masculine form of the pronoun is used. When we look at 4/3, we see the masculine plural pronouns used 8 times. The quote from the grammar book above says the masculine form of the pronoun predominates when referring to mixed sexes. So, the question is if 4/3 is addressing mixed sexes or not. We have to find out the gender make up of the group of people who are being addressed. So we go backwards to 4/2 to find out who is being addressed. We look at 4/2 and see that (just like 4/3) a group of people are being addressed and the masculine plural is being used throughout 4/2. Again, we have to ask if this group of people is a mixed group or an all male group. So we go backwards again to 4/1 and we find out WHO IT IS that is being directly addressed. 4/1 begins by addressing Mankind/Human Beings/People and the word used for People/Mankind is An-Naas.
One question Wakas. Does the Arabic word An-Naas translate into a group of PEOPLE (male and female) or does it translate into a group of ONLY men? Very simple question.
And I am going to repeat the quote from the other book I referred you to
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.
Again Wakas, Does the Arabic word An-Naas translate into a group of PEOPLE (male and female) or does it translate into a group of ONLY men?
If you can somehow prove that the Arabic word An-Naas translates into men, males or a group of men, then I have not proven my case. If you Cannot prove this with the word An-Naas, then my evidence stands.
And by the way, this is also proven by the simple fact that THIS RULE that I am talking about is always applied in Spoken AND Written Arabic. All you have to do is find a group of maybe 10 people. 9 of those people in that group are females and the 10th person is a male. Because it is predominantly female SPEAK to them (in spoken text) and try referring to that group using the feminine plural and watch the reaction you get. Or you can WRITE to that same group of people and address them (in written text) using the feminine plural. Again the reaction will be one of correction and possibly the ire of that one male. This is just Arabic bro. Now, your insistence on someone presenting a book telling you this is the same as me asking someone to present a book explaining that I have to put an "es" at the end of the word "box" when I am referring to more than one box. It is common knowledge, common practice of the language and a well known rule. Students of Arabic know of this rule through study. Native Arabs know of it through osmosis.
Evidence # 2 Established.
Your issue with 10/87 lets me know that you didn't bother to read it from 10/69 to 10/87 like I suggested. And I have answered this question already. I don't know why I have to keep answering it or if you require me to answer it in a different way but my answer to it stands. It is Evidence number 1 in Reply # 32
I have given you my answer, you did not provide a rebuttal to it but you are asking me to answer that question again. I don't get it.
It was evidence # 1 in that post, but in this post it is officially Evidence # 3 Established
Lastly, I sincerely Thank You for answering my three questions about the formation of Plurals in the Arabic Language.
Let's go through all three one by one if you don't mind.
Damon believes that the plurals of all Arabic words logically have to come from the root of their singular forms. Wakas disagrees. Wakas asks Damon for some type of evidence to support his views of this issue. Damon cannot provide any. Damon asked Wakas Three questions that we are going to look at now...
Question Are you aware of ANY other Arabic words other than the Imraa' and Nisaa' phenomena where the plural form comes from an entirely different root than it's singular form?
Answer NO, but I have not studied it,
I am placing emphasis on the yes or no answer (in this case it is NO). I will address the other part of this answer (but I have not studied it) with question three.
QuestionIs my explanation about the formation of plurals in Arabic correct or incorrect?
Answer I am more than happy to accept your explanation, as long as we bear in mind what I said previously.
I asked if my explanation was CORRECT or INCORRECT. I would have appreciated your answer being either "No, it is incorrect" or "Yes, it is correct". But instead you have worded it in a way to where you do not solidly commit to the correctness of my explanation. That's okay bro, you are Happy to Accept my explanation.That's pretty darn cunning of you Wakas. I'll take this as a "Yes, your explanation is correct".
And probably the most crucial of the three questions
QuestionIs there any grammar book that you are aware of that says the plural form of a word can have an entirely different root than the singular form?
Answer Other than the classical arabic dictionaries you alluded to, no.
First of all, Thank You for being honest and answering no. But, I must point out that I did not ask you about any dictionaries. I asked you if you know of any GRAMMAR BOOKS that I am not aware of which says that a plural can represent the singular form of a word from an entirely different root.
Now, If the word Nisaa' is the plural form of 'Imra'a (two different roots) and this is normal to happen my two questions are
1). Why don't we have more words with this kind of arrangement where there is a singular form from one set of roots and the plural form of that word from an entirely different set of roots? And...
2). Why aren't there any Arabic grammar books explaining this grammatical anomaly?
I'm not asking YOU (Wakas) to answer these two questions. I am just putting the questions out there that we all should be asking.
I want to finish with the rest of your answer to my question Brother.
I have not studied grammar books with regard to this however.
The thing is You and I have BOTH studied a lot of Arabic Grammar books. You even list some on Study Quran (a lot of people owe you a big THANK YOU for doing this by the way). We don't have to study the grammar books with regard to this grammatical anomaly, because if the grammar rule existed we would have come across it by now. And a rule like that would be hard to miss because it stands out so eerily from the grammatical norm.
As I said, I am more than happy to accept your claim that nisa is made the exception, as long as we bear in mind what I said previously.
I bear in mind what you said previously but ask yourself two important questions;
1). How can ONE WORD be an exception like this? There are many grammatical rules that outline exceptions and alternatives for words that have Hamza as a root letter, especially when the word is in 8th form of the Verb. But these alternative rules are known and they are written in the grammar books?
2). WHY would this word be an exception when the singular word for woman already exists in the Arabic Language and it actually stems from a masculine word?
These are just two of the questions that I asked myself which got me started into looking at this Nisaa' thing much closer.
Now, I have something that I have to say and I am issuing my apologies ahead of time to any males on this forum who so happen to be Arab.
But we look at your answers to my three questions and we look at my additional inquiries and we add to this conversation the "CULTURE" of male chauvinism among Arab men. In fact, the Arab Culture in general is a very macho, man centric culture. This, I have always took note of but learned for sure about it when I read a few books about Arabs and Arab Culture, one of them being The Arab Mind by Raphael Patai (sorry to any Arab men here on this forum, but this book was a huge eye opener).
We can look at all of the Arab countries now and there is our verification of what I am talking about. It is so prevalent that even NON ARAB countries that have taken on ARAB CULTURE (as part of the package of Arab Religion) practice the same male chauvinism and oppression of women that Arab men are known for.
I think I'll stop there before people start threatening me on the forum.
Anyway, take the answers to those three questions and the additional information of Male Arab Culture and put it all together (not just you Wakas, I mean everyone here).
-
Peace all,
Umm...no intention to be rude and I truly hope I don't come off as rude...
Can we please get to the point about why "Nisa" does not mean women and how we can understand other verses pertaining to this word?
I am in dire need of clarification on this subject because I have been trying to make sense of 443 and 56. Shirley, I would love your insight on the post I made a while back.
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604659.0
One post on here that particularly struck me, including the quote from Bender http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604721.msg314619#msg314619
And also
Would you please explain how you would translate 2222, 443, 56 and 43 and give me reasons why with cross-referencing the Quran? I would greatly appreciate it.Peace and blessings! yay
Peace
Can you explain what Bender meant? Like, break it up into small steps. Or perhaps, Bender can come and clarify. I am having trouble understanding his perspective. Sorry, I'm a little slow. -[
-
Peace all,
Umm...no intention to be rude and I truly hope I don't come off as rude...
Can we please get to the point about why "Nisa" does not mean women and how we can understand other verses pertaining to this word?
I am in dire need of clarification on this subject because I have been trying to make sense of 443 and 56. Shirley, I would love your insight on the post I made a while back.
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604659.0
One post on here that particularly struck me, including the quote from Bender http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604721.msg314619#msg314619
And also
Would you please explain how you would translate 2222, 443, 56 and 43 and give me reasons why with cross-referencing the Quran? I would greatly appreciate it.Peace and blessings! yay
I also have the same question as you, in regard to those verses.
-
Wakas,
Something I meant to add in my reply is the rest of the quote from page 44 of Haywoods Grammar book
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". "
This is saying EXACTLY what I had said in terms of a plural masculine pronouns being used when referring to a group that was PREVIOUSLY mentioned. The masculine plural is being used in 4/3 and it is referring to a group that was PREVIOUSLY mentioned in 4/1. I think I know WHY you are rejecting this and WHAT you are focusing in this quote. I think you should read it again Very Carefully instead of continuing to reject it or coming back with an attempted rebuttal against it. You noted my highlighted and bold emphasis. Now I AM highlighting my emphasis in that quote. Please LOOK AT IT Bro.
-
It is time that the issues of Nisaa' and 43 get cleared up.
First, the word Nisaa'. This word does not, indeed it CANNOT, mean women....
Having said this, I wish to lightly touch up on 43 which is the verse people mistranslate in order to justify polygamous marriage. The one question everyone should be asking is WHO IS IT that is being addressed in 43? Whenever a certain group of people are being addressed directly in The Quran they are specified such as Jinn and Ins (6130), Bani Adam (726), Bani Isra'el (240), Ahlul Kitab (515), An-Nabiy (3350) and the Momineen (2104). Another category of people that is directly addressed in The Quran is PEOPLE IN GENERAL (41). So if we want to know WHO is being addressed in 43 we have to go back to 41 and 42 to look for the phrase and when we do that we will find in 41 WHO IT IS that is being addressed - - "OH PEOPLE/HUMANITY/MANKIND!!!
An-Nas INCLUDES women young and old. There is absolutely NO CHANGE in address between 41 and 43, it is a continuation. Having explored these facts 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. It IS PEOPLE/HUMAN BEINGS that are being addressed. Obviously The Quran IS NOT telling women to marry other women. So the traditional understanding of this verse is incorrect and needs to be adjusted. 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. The only difference is how they interpret 43 in order to justify the same thing as them.
Peace Shirley -- context, cross-reference, and logic determines who is being addressed.
Here are all combinations;
Obviously Qur'an is not telling women to marry women or men to marry men...men to marry men
men to marry women
men to marry boys
men to marry girls
women to marry men
women to marry women
women to marry boys
women to marry girls
boys to marry men
boys to marry women
boys to marry boys
boys to marry girls
girls to marry men
girls to marry women
girls to marry boysIn context only one correct answer which Qur'an is telling men to marry feminine/women...
41 O you al-nas/the humankind fear your Lord The One created you from soul one/single and created from it its spouse and dispersed from them two rijalan/men much wanisa/and feminine and fear The God The One you ask with it and the wombs indeed The God is over you Watchful
42 and give the orphans their wealth and not exchange the bad with the good and not eat/consume their wealth to your wealth indeed it is sin great
43 and if you fear that not do justice in/concerning the orphans so for marrying what aba/choice for/to you from al-nisaa/the feminine paired/twos and three and four so if you fear that not do justice so one/single or what possess your right hands that minimum that not you oppress
44 and give al-nisaa/the feminine their handouts graciously so if they remit to/for you about a thing from it of soul/their own so eat/consume it satisfaction ease
45 and not give the foolish your wealth the one made The God to/for you standing/support and provide them in it and clothe them and speak to them a word nice/appropriate
46 and test the orphans until when attained the marriage so if you perceive from them rational so deliver to them their wealth and not eat/consume it wastefully and hastily lest/that they grow up and from is rich so should refrain and from is in need for so let eat/consume in the fair manner/honor so when you deliver to them their wealth so take witnesses on/over them and sufficient in The God Reckon-er
47 lilrrijal/to the men a share from what left the parents and the close relatives and for the feminine a share from what left the parents and the close relatives from what small from it or large portion obligatory
Can we please get to the point about why "Nisa" does not mean women and how we can understand other verses pertaining to this word?
Yes we are all waiting for Shirley to translate/cross-reference especially verses on inheritance and menses...
654 and the ones (f) who despaired from the menstruation from nisakum/feminine yours if you doubt so their waiting period three cycles and the ones (f) not menstruated and those the pregnant their term that they put aside their loads/give birth and from fears The God He makes for him from His directive easier
-
Salaam everyone,
I don't anyone here to get offended or take this the wrong way but I prefer to focus on Wakas right now and I will deal with your other requests once our discussion is concluded (if it is ever concluded). Also, if you be patient and monitor this discussion, I am confident that most (if not all) of your inquiries will be answered in the course of our discussion, God Willing.
Another thing, translating ayaat of Surah 4 by putting the word "feminine" next to the word Nisaa' implies to me that my discussions and Evidences are being ignored which is fine by me. I'm not here to twist anybody's arm. Just because we may really WANT Nisaa' to mean women (because we have still not rid ourselves of "pre exisitng" concepts that were force fed to us) will not make it to mean women. I think I'll leave at that for now.
Salaam.
-
The addressee in 4.3 continues to be an-naas. The fact that among an-naas there are different elements does not change that. Some element may be competent to carry out some part of the command or injunction and some other element another part. But the instruction is addressed collectively and naas. The twos and fours and threes are just a way of saying, do as many as you can, the addressee, an-naas, not to any particular person individually.
As to the meaning of nisaa' and rijaal, I think that there may be several possibilities and none is closed. There are things which may make sense taking them as one sex or the other, but there are things that also make sense taking them as sociological genders, and not sexual beings.
To solve that we have the invaluable instruction in the Qur'an to give it the best meaning and content.
Which is best meaning in each context? I think we should keep an open mind to that and purity of intention.
At any rate, I do not think that there will ever be uninimity in anything amonst humans, and there is no need either that there should be. Each person or group should be able to live out his or her own conception with the light of Qur'an.
Salaam
-
Peace all,
Peace
Can you explain what Bender meant? Like, break it up into small steps. Or perhaps, Bender can come and clarify. I am having trouble understanding his perspective. Sorry, I'm a little slow. -[
Peace Released!
I only understood partially since I'm a beginner. )
But I will try to explain what I understood and why it intrigued me. And don't worry about being slow. It took me about four times to read it (which ended up being, like, 20 minutes), while looking at the translation I have of the Quran.Here's Bender's quote
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,
BenderNow here's the FM translation for 434
434 The men are to support the women with what God has bestowed upon them over one another and for what they spend of their money. The upright women are dutiful; keeping private the personal matters for what God keeps watch over. As for those females 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.Notice
AlRi-jaal | men
qawwamoona | to support
AlNisa | women
AlSalihatu | womenWhen reading this verse in English, we would assume that "women" meant "women" and that they were the same word; however, looking at the Arabic, they're not the same!
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.
If the standard translation = "the men are to support the women" then what happens when they don't? They are no longer Al-Rijaal? So they've lost their masculinity and became females? Or perhaps they turned into babies? Maybe cats?
Maha gave us an alternative to what these words might mean
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)
This makes sense to me BUT when I apply this meaning to other verses, it does not make sense. The italics are mine
443 O you who believe, do not approach the salat while you are intoxicated, until you know what you are saying. Nor if you have had intercourse, unless traveling, until you bathe. And if you are ill, or traveling, or one of you has excreted feces, or you had sexual contact with the weaker Nas, and could not find water, then you shall select from the clean soil; you shall wipe your faces and hands. God is Pardoning, Forgiving.If "Nisa" means weaker society who needs care/charity, why are we washing after contacting them? Are they dirty while the leaders are clean?
56 O you who believe, if you rise to hold the salat, then wash your faces and your hands up to the elbows, and wipe your heads and your feet to the ankles; and if you have had "intercourse", then you shall bathe. And if you are ill, or traveling, or you have excreted feces, or you have had "sexual contact" with the weaker NAS, and you cannot not find water, then you shall select from the clean soil; you shall wipe your faces and your hands with it. God does not want to place any hardship on you, but He wants to cleanse you and to complete His blessings upon you that you may be appreciative.
So now we're putting dirt on ourselves after having sexual contact with weaker Nas? And also, why does "junuban" and "lmastumu" both mean some kind of sexual impurity when they're obviously different words?
2222 And they ask you about menstruation? Say "It is harmful, so retire yourselves sexually from the women during the menstruation, and do not approach them until they are cleansed. When they are cleansed, then you may approach them as God has commanded you." God loves the repenters and He loves the cleansed.
Ok, earlier it was mentioned that "menstruation" is not the right translation here. So how am I to understand this?
Retire yourselves sexually = fa-i'tazil
Women = l-nisa
Approach = taqrabhunnaNone of these are the same words as "sexually" whatever in 443 and 56. Now I have absolutely no idea what to make of this verse except God loves the repenters and He loves the cleansed.
So....Now what?
Salaam everyone,
I don't anyone here to get offended or take this the wrong way but I prefer to focus on Wakas right now and I will deal with your other requests once our discussion is concluded (if it is ever concluded). Also, if you be patient and monitor this discussion, I am confident that most (if not all) of your inquiries will be answered in the course of our discussion, God Willing.
Peace Shirley,
For me, it is very difficult to follow the discussion because I'm very new at this "finding the Arabic root" thing. English is my only language. '(
You guys are discussing linguistics in depth and it is very hard for me to look at what you're referencing because then I have to utilize my brain to it's fullest extent trying to see where all the terms occur and at what level. I have no idea what an Arabic "Jussive mood" is or whatever or how words are feminine or masculine and whatever. I will eventually learn these things, of course, but I easily understand basic explanations of the subject. For instance, the post you began with was one that I understood fully. You showed instances where the word "Nisa" was used and why it cannot mean women and I picked up on that quickly.
But know the conversation has gotten a bit too specific for me. I need help understanding this and the only way for me to understand this is if you present a translation and then explain why that translation works. It is this method that I can understand and I know I can understand it because of reading several articles on free-minds that use this exact method (What's in the Name, Free Choice, etc).
So I'm sorry, I've tried to read the argument here but I cannot follow. So my experience reading this now is like reading a foreign language with a few accusative English words sprinkled in so that the only thing I understand is that you two are in a disagreement and accusing each other of certain things. For me, this is very frustrating to read and as you can see, it took me about 20 minutes or so to understand a simple explanation of linguistics in Bender's quote. I really need some help understanding. Perhaps you could PM me and others who want to know?
Peace and blessings Released, Shirley, and everyone here! yay
-
Damon,
The issue of Taaba and WHO it is referring to. I made myself clear that it is referring to An-Nisaa'. You disagree with me...
I am not asking whom it is referring to, I asked whom is doing the doing verb "taba", for this you insist "an-nisa" - to THIS I disagreed. As does seemingly corpus, and Mazhar. I do not consider Mazhar as an authority nor have I ever said or implied such a thing. I do regard him as knowledgeable of Arabic however. I am very confident others also knowledgeable of Arabic will disagree.
Since you say "an-nisa" are the ones doing the action of the verb "taba", and you say it is masculine singular, does this mean in your view "an-nisa" is a masculine singular?
In your link please quote exactly wherein it shows in any way that the one(s) doing the verb would be "an-nisa". If Quran is your ultimate criterion, if you know of an example in it wherein the one doing a masculine singular verb is "an-nisa" please bring it forth.
Thus, your claim of "Evidence # 1 established" is nowhere near.
The issue of this well known fact that I mentioned. You asked for evidence. I provided the evidence twice. The first time you pretended to not find the page I referenced.
FALSE. I found the page but I did not find what you claimed on the page, there is a difference, hence asking for a quote and correct page (in case it was a mistake on your part).
Second round, you flat out denied what is written for all too see...
You must not have read it bro. Read it again...Once again, let me repeat, what you claimed "it is a well known fact that the use of masculine plural DOES NOT mean an all male audience UNLESS SPECIFIED!!!" is not found in the quotes you referenced.
The quote from the grammar book above says the masculine form of the pronoun predominates when referring to mixed sexes.
Yes, and it also dominates when referring to a group of all males.
Let me explain it simply to you you made the claim that in Arabic if it is an all male audience it must be specified, i.e. declared in some way.
You provided no evidence of this whatsoever. The evidence you did provide however shows when it is a mixed group of males and females, the masculine is used. Same goes for when it is all males. I am the one who pointed this out to you. I do not agree with your claim that the audience must be specified each time, as all male if all male.Again Wakas, Does the Arabic word An-Naas translate into a group of PEOPLE (male and female) or does it translate into a group of ONLY men?
If you can somehow prove that the Arabic word An-Naas translates into men, males or a group of men, then I have not proven my case. If you Cannot prove this with the word An-Naas, then my evidence stands.
I personally take it as "people", however in classical arabic dictionaries it can and does mean "men" also. See Lane's lexicon
http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume8/00000120.pdf
http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume8/00000121.pdfThus, your claim of "Evidence # 2 established" is nowhere near.
Your issue with 10/87 lets me know that you didn't bother to read it from 10/69 to 10/87 like I suggested. And I have answered this question already.
I have given you my answer, you did not provide a rebuttal to it but you are asking me to answer that question again. I don't get it.
It's clear you dont get it. You never answered what I asked, even though I clarified. Re-quote myself (with highlights this time)
You tell us whom the speaker is, when I never asked about the speaker. I specifically asked "whom the spoken to and spoken of was" (in 1087). You do provide whom you consider the "spoken to" however which you claim as "the one who is commissioned to PROCLAIM the message of the narration to other people."
Rather than answering your own question, please answer what I actually asked, and provide whom is the "spoken of" in 1087, and for your claim to hold there can be no switch.By "spoken of" I mean "spoken about". Understand now?
Thus, your claim of "Evidence # 3 established" is nowhere near.
Damon believes that the plurals of all Arabic words logically have to come from the root of their singular forms. Wakas disagrees.
The above statement of yours is misleading. Both you and I agree that Arabic is imperfect, therefore it is possible words exist which do not conform to said rules. If you disagree, then your only position can be you think Arabic is imperfect but when it comes to plural formation it is perfect.
If this is your view, then such a view is opinion only and cannot be proven. It would be classed as a difference of opinion.We should bear in mind, when language is developing, words are invented first, NOT rules first then words.
I bear in mind what you said previously but ask yourself two important questions;
1). How can ONE WORD be an exception like this? There are many grammatical rules that outline exceptions and alternatives for words that have Hamza as a root letter, especially when the word is in 8th form of the Verb. But these alternative rules are known and they are written in the grammar books?
2). WHY would this word be an exception when the singular word for woman already exists in the Arabic Language and it actually stems from a masculine word?
Re 1)
Arabic is a human language, thus imperfect. Not only is there this anomaly, there are likely other anomalies of different kinds etc.Re 2)
You are assuming that there can not be two words for women. Languages do not form like that as far as I'm aware. -
Damon,
And I am still waiting on your 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.
-
salaam bender, trini,
If the standard translation = "the men are to support the women" then what happens when they don't? They are no longer Al-Rijaal? So they've lost their masculinity and became females? Or perhaps they turned into babies? Maybe cats?
I'm not sure what Bender meant, but if he did mean that then I strongly recommend he and yourself read the following
http//www.quran434.com/wife-beating-islam.html#part2Specifically
"supporters/maintainers" (Arabic qawwamoon, root Qaf-Waw-Miim) occurs in the same form in
4135 (stand / stand up / support / maintain with justice as witnesses to God)
58 (stand / stand up / support / maintain for/to God as witnesses with justice).M. Asad The expression qawwam is an intensive form of qa'im ("one who is responsible for" or "takes care of" a thing or a person). Thus, qama ala l-mar'ah signifies "he undertook the maintenance of the woman" or "he maintained her" (see Lane's Lexicon, Volume 8, p2995). The form qa'im can be found in 45 and 597.
It should be noted that the occurrences of 4135, 58 and 45, 597 cancel out some male-centric translations, such as "charge of" (M. Pickthal), "managers of" (Arberry, Hilali/Khan/Saheeh), "superior to" (Rodwell) which simply do not fit once cross referenced. It refers to a wider duty of care/responsibility, such as providing for the family/household which is discussed in several verses , and is the default role/duty for men, but not the only role as it can depend on situation. Contrast this to The Quran never mentioning managing one's wife or being in charge of her and the correct meaning becomes obvious. In fact, there is not one example of God addressing the husband/wife relationship in this manner, e.g. all examples involving decisions between marriage partners are in the reciprocal Arabic word form, e.g. "taraadaa" , "tashaawar" , which means they are mutual. If society is to be governed by mutual consultation , then naturally this principle should apply to the most basic social unit, the family, and done with what is maruf (honourable, known/recognised as good, befitting, fairness, kindness), see 2231, 419.
If one wishes to refer to Traditional Ahadith/narrations, the meaning of maintenance/support for this word is also present, e.g. the use of "taqumu AAalayhinna" (look after them) in Bukhari volume 3, book 34, number 310.
Lastly, the actual verse of 434 clarifies/limits the scope of meaning of "qawwamoon" to maintenance, i.e. because of God bestowing more on some of them than on others and with what they spent (perfect tense, i.e. an action done/completed) of their money. To state the obvious, without spending on someone, a person cannot be regarded as a supporter/maintainer of them, whether male or female.Verse 434 says
The X are qawwamoon upon/over the Y with what...The word "qawwamoon" is the attribute under discussion here.
It is a bit like saying
The Lakers are victorious upon/over the Celtics with what..... they score and how they play.
If the Lakers do not play well and do not score then they will not be victorious. They do not cease to be Lakers.
Similarly, in 434, if rijal are not bestowed (i.e. in a position to do so) and have not spent, then they are not "qawwamoon" (supporters/maintainers). They do not cease to be rijal.
I hope that has clarified.
-
Wakas,
I am not asking whom it is referring to, I asked whom is doing the doing verb "taba", for this you insist "an-nisa" - to THIS I disagreed. As does seemingly corpus, and Mazhar. I do not consider Mazhar as an authority nor have I ever said or implied such a thing. I do regard him as knowledgeable of Arabic however. I am very confident others also knowledgeable of Arabic will disagree.
Again Wakas, corpus quran or your friend Mazhar are not authorities and not my criteria of Quranic Arabic. If they are your go to guys for Arabic learning, more power to you. You wish not to accept that An-Nisaa' are the one's performing the verb Taaba EVEN THOUGH the verb Taaba is in the 3rd person while the imperatives "Ankeehoo", "Waatoo" and "kooluhoo" as well as the plural pronoun for "lakum" are all in the 2nd person. If I am wrong (and as a subjective and imperfect human being I can certainly be wrong) and you know how 2nd person pronouns can perform a 3rd person verb or vice versa, then please correct me. Question Are you DENYING the existence of this clause in the grammar book? In other words, is it your claim that this rule DOES NOT exist or is otherwise bogus? Yes or No? If No, I'll leave it alone. If yes, Can you show me a verse in The Quran where the 2nd person subject pronoun is performing a 3rd person verb? Is there a grammar book that NEGATES what Thackston says about the Ma...Min Clause in his grammar book? Is there a grammar book that says no such clause exist? Can you PROVE Thackston is wrong? If so, feel free to do so using The Quran or any other Arabic text be it written or spoken. If it means anything to you, Haywood says the same thing in his Grammar book. All you have to do is go to pages 420 and 421 of His Grammar Book and see for yourself. I fail to see in either one of these books the explanation of how the 2nd person performs the 3rd person verb or vice versa rather it be in the Ma-Min Clause or some other part of Arabic syntax. If I am proven wrong I will gladly and humbly acquiesce.
From this point onwards in our discussion I will be tallying up all of my points that you ignore or choose not to address. Just so you know, verbally saying that a person has no evidence or their evidence doesn't stand up WITHOUT dissecting it and SHOWING to everyone here HOW and WHY it is invalid does not make your statement true. Repeating your same slogan over and over will not eventually make it true. So, this is one point I am asking very humbly that you Dissect/Anaylize and Disprove and not expect me to be satisfied with you verbally saying it is a lack of evidence while not explaining and demonstrating how or why so.
Since you say "an-nisa" are the ones doing the action of the verb "taba", and you say it is masculine singular, does this mean in your view "an-nisa" is a masculine singular?
Nope, I am not saying that at all. In my view the word An-Nisaa' is not a Masculine Singular. In fact, it is not a singular at all.
In your link please quote exactly wherein it shows in any way that the one(s) doing the verb would be "an-nisa". If Quran is your ultimate criterion, if you know of an example in it wherein the one doing a masculine singular verb is "an-nisa" please bring it forth.
I want to make sure that I understand you correctly. Are you tellling me that you wish for the book by Thackston to SPECIFICALLY talk about 4/3 of The Quran and the word Nisaa' of 4/3 in his chapter on the Ma...Min Clause??? If so, I see a sudden change in demands. You asked for evidence. I gave it. NOW are you changing your request and saying you want a grammar book that Specifically is talking about the word Taaba and it's function in of Quran, 4/3? Please let me know if this is what you are asking me.
Once again, let me repeat, what you claimed "it is a well known fact that the use of masculine plural DOES NOT mean an all male audience UNLESS SPECIFIED!!!" is not found in the quotes you referenced.
Again, I want to be clear. Are you saying because Haywood's book doesn't use DAMON'S EXACT WORDS it invalidates the grammar rule itself? Are you denying the existence of the grammar rule in question? Yes or No? And are you denying that Haywood explains my claim in his book even though he is using his own words? Yes or No?
Yes, and it also dominates when referring to a group of all males.
Let me explain it simply to you you made the claim that in Arabic if it is an all male audience it must be specified, i.e. declared in some way.
You provided no evidence of this whatsoever. The evidence you did provide however shows when it is a mixed group of males and females, the masculine is used. Same goes for when it is all males. I am the one who pointed this out to you. I do not agree with your claim that the audience must be specified each time, as all male if all male.Yes, it dominates in BOTH types of groups; all males and mixed males and females. Questions; How do you know HOW and WHEN to apply it to either group? How do you DETERMINE which group it references in a spoken or written context, because it's going to be referencing one or the other? When we come across the masculine plural in a spoken or written context, do we just make a "guess" on the gender make up of the group it is referring to? If we are to make a guess, what if we guess wrong?
These are not rhetorical questions; I would really like to have them answered.
I personally take it as "people", however in classical arabic dictionaries it can and does mean "men" also. See Lane's lexicon
http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume8/00000120.pdf
http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume8/00000121.pdfIf you are going to take the understanding that An-Naas means men alone, so be it. But I am waiting on how you explain away the fact that the Nisaa' that you think they should get married to are performing a masculine verb. If you deny this then I am asking again if you deny that the Ma...Min clause exists or if you think it's bogus?
It's clear you dont get it. You never answered what I asked, even though I clarified. Re-quote myself (with highlights this time)
I get it Wakas. It is YOU who don't get it. You are obviously NOT paying attention to the answer I gave. I am going to ask you again to please READ IT CAREFULLY!!! I answered it. Either you are not reading my answer or you don't like my answer. Now, if you disagree with my answer then I am asking you to correct my understanding.
You tell us whom the speaker is, when I never asked about the speaker. I specifically asked "WHOM THE SPOKEN TO and spoken of was" (in 1087). You do provide whom you consider the "spoken to" however which you claim as "the one who is commissioned to PROCLAIM the message of the narration to other people."
Rather than answering your own question, please answer what I actually asked, and provide whom is the "spoken of" in 1087, and for your claim to hold there can be no switch.I answered the question and addressed what I was addressing from the very beginning!! Let me refresh your memory bro. Here are my quotes rejecting your views in the SHIFT of addressee (that is, WHOM is being addressed)
The address is to possibility number 2 for the simple fact that AN-NAS is WHO is being addressed. The Quran could have VERY EASILY addressed an all male audience if it wanted to.
You can hold on to your "Quranic Tafseer Sciences" because I'm not so asinine to buy into that nonsense. The Quran says what it says and it does not say what it does not say.
Now you say that this verse CAN be addressing an all male audience because of the use of the masculine plural. I am saying (and I know I have more weight for my argument than you do for your argument) that this verse IS NOT addressing an all male audience
And two important quotes I have made
YES!! I am outright denying the existence of such thing. It does not exist in The Quran and It certainly does not exist in 41 - 43 that's for sure. I have the same books that you have Wakas, I have the translations by Muhammad Asad and M.A.S. Abdel Haleem. I have The Dictionary of Quranic Usage which is also by M.A.S. Abdel Haleem. I am very well aware of the explanations of "Iltifaat" that these books and their respective authors present. There is NOTHING about this rhetoric which you know that I do not know.
And
Okay, well guess what the manmade rhetoric of "Iltifat" is not Quran based. It's traditional muslim based
Now Wakas, look at these quotes and read them as many times as you need to and FOCUS on WHAT I am addressing and WHY
I am ADDRESSING your iltifat because YOU CLAIM (through your belief in iltifat) that, and I quote
Further, you seemingly do not take into account the very real possibility of switch in addressee, which is commonly known as "iltifaat" as discussed in detail here, with many examples
http//www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Grammar/iltifaat.htmlThis is YOUR CLAIM WAKAS and I made it clear from the very beginning that it was THIS claim of yours that I categorically reject. Read your claim again and FOCUS on how you seem to think there is a Switch in addressees between 4/1 and 4/3
I am quite sure I have made myself clear from the very beginning about this and I really do believe that you understood this the first time around. That is why I said to you
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!!
And I said this as a reply to your statement
Is there "a sudden shift in the pronoun of the speaker or the PERSON SPOKEN ABOUT"? Yes/no.
If you want to talk about a Shift of some sort, then this quote of yours is big shift from your Original claim and statement which is the possibility of Shift Of Addressees between 4/1 and 4/3. YOU were claiming a shift of addressees at first and then with this quote above you tried to sneak in shift in the PERSON SPOKEN ABOUT!! This is what I caught on to and I can't believe you thought you could actually slip something like that past me. So, when you and I are talking about your "iltifat" thingy let's talk about how your original claim was this iltifat can mean a Shift in addressees (without the new addressees being mentioned or named) and how I categorically reject any such thing as a Shift in addressees without the new addressees being mentioned.
Are we clear on that Wakas? Now that we are, Hopefully you'll understand my answer to your question on 10/87 and WHY I am only addressing the SPEAKER (The one making the address) and the ONE SPOKEN TO (the ADDRESSEE) because THIS is my argument which is my rejection of your idea of a switch in addressee without the addressee being named or being preceded by "Yaa Ayyu Hu......" and whoever the new addressee is.
By "spoken of" I mean "spoken about". Understand now?
I understand that's NOT what you said when you FIRST brought up your iltifat theory. You brought up your iltifat theory saying it shows a sudden shift in who is being addressed. I jumped on that and rejected it from the very beginning. Do You Understand Now?
The above statement of yours is misleading. Both you and I agree that Arabic is imperfect, therefore it is possible words exist which do not conform to said rules. If you disagree, then your only position can be you think Arabic is imperfect but when it comes to plural formation it is perfect.
If this is your view, then such a view is opinion only and cannot be proven. It would be classed as a difference of opinion.If you want to see it as a difference of opinion be my guess. I DON'T see it as a difference of opinion because you have not and cannot present an explanation of the formation of plurals in Arabic different than mine and think it will be correct. You acknowledged (though in a cunning way) that my explanation on plurals in Arabic was correct and you presented no counter explanation to invalidate it. This is NOT a difference of opinion, this is the truth of plurals in Arabic being acknowledged.
We should bear in mind, when language is developing, words are invented first, NOT rules first then words.
Nice pep talk, but until you give everyone watching this discussion an alternative or counter explanation to what I said about how plurals are formed in Arabic and present a grammar book to support it, your words remain ONLY a pep talk that result in nothing.
Re 1)
Arabic is a human language, thus imperfect. Not only is there this anomaly, there are likely other anomalies of different kinds etc.I'm aware of the same anomalies in Arabic that most other students of the language are aware. Hollow verbs, Assimilated verbs, defective verbs, how verbs with Hamza as one of the root letters behave in a derived form, verbs with four letter roots, derived verbs in 8th measure, etc. These are anomalies that seem to diverge from the more normal or stable rules of Arabic. But the word Nisaa' being an anomaly with no explanation of HOW and WHY it is along with other anomalous words is an anomaly all in itself.
Re 2)
You are assuming that there can not be two words for women. Languages do not form like that as far as I'm aware.I'm assuming that it is strange that the grammarians and dictionary compilers is only giving us ONE word (not two) for women and how this word seems to be missing its singular form root wise.
And I am still waiting on your 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.
Just like I'm waiting on MY unanswered questions
1). Do you categorically reject the rule of masculine plural making prior reference to the group in spoken about or to?
2). Do you have any other Arabic words that share this same "anomaly" with Nisaa'?
3). What is your rebuttal to my answer on 10/87? Do you reject who I said are the Speaker and Addressee?
4). Why aren't there any grammar books EXPLAINING this anomalie? (and I do emphasize EXPLANATION)
5). What is your PROOF/EVIDENCE whom I said is performing the verb "Taaba" (An-Nisaa' is incorrect?
Question number four is a recent question, but I have been waiting for you to address the other 4 issues.
And for the record, you didn't even bother to try and disprove the things I said in This Post . If you don't want to, I won't hold you to it, but I am stating for the record that between the words Nikah and Zawaaj one these words unambigously and ALWAYS means marriage or male-to-female love and companionship and the other means a social contract which is SOMETIMES used for marriage. My understanding is that Zawaaj means marriage and male/female companionship and Nikah means social bond or contract that the "Religious" people use as term for matrimony. And I base my understanding on how the roots of each word are used in The Quran and in Actual Arabic Context (spoken and/or written).
The Quran is a document outlining the implementation of JUSTICE. It is NOT only upon males to implement justice it is upon males and females alike. Because of this a document concerned with JUSTICE FOR ALL must also ADDRESS ALL!! That is why you find 41 - 43 being addressed to ALL PEOPLE (An-Nas). It is addressing all people and the system of justice it recommends is for all people 6/90, 12/104, 38/87, 43/44.
I hope I live long enough to see the day when The Quran is no longer viewed as a sexist, chauvinist, male centric religious book.
-
Again Wakas, corpus quran or your friend Mazhar are not authorities and not my criteria of Quranic Arabic. If they are your go to guys for Arabic learning, more power to you. You wish not to accept that An-Nisaa' are the one's performing the verb Taaba EVEN THOUGH the verb Taaba is in the 3rd person while the imperatives "Ankeehoo", "Waatoo" and "kooluhoo" as well as the plural pronoun for "lakum" are all in the 2nd person. If I am wrong (and as a subjective and imperfect human being I can certainly be wrong) and you know how 2nd person pronouns can perform a 3rd person verb or vice versa, then please correct me. Question Are you DENYING the existence of this clause in the grammar book? In other words, is it your claim that this rule DOES NOT exist or is otherwise bogus? Yes or No? If No, I'll leave it alone. If yes, Can you show me a verse in The Quran where the 2nd person subject pronoun is performing a 3rd person verb?
Except the Elevated Messenger of Allah the Exalted, NONE, yes NONE is authority about Arabic and Qur'aan in the entire time line.
However, a living language is never a problem for non natives to understand it and know its operative systems. The Verb in Arabic must match the Subject in number and gender if the subject is mentioned before the Verb. The Verb must match the gender when the subject follows it.
"Lakum" is a Prepositional Phrase. A prepositional phrase is NOT the subject of a Verb.
Since you have mentioned "Ankeehoo", it is Form-IV verb with verbal Noun and a transitive Verb. Some people take it as "Inkeehoo", which is form I with verbal Noun ,. The object of Verb, in both cases, therefore, would be none but "women".
Masculine plural Pronouns refer to males unless the text explains otherwise to include feminine in the group.
The Act in the Verb is and it means joining to two----
The Classic Arabic Lexicon- describes its meanings in these words;
( ب
(* ? ? .) .The perception infolded therein is that of joining and combining in the manner of slumber dissolving in eyes, or as the drops of rain absorb in the Earth. This signifies the mutually consented Marriage-Bond, between a man and women, witnessed, endorsed and authenticated by the society, the third party to the agreement-union-bond. This "Union-Bond" grants permission, and renders sanctity of purity, in establishing particular matrimonial relationship, which is otherwise not permissible, and is a grave sin if done by a man and woman without the Union-Bond. Like the effect of basic perception of the Root, the romantic look in the eyes caused by gradual dissolving of slumber therein and inciting odor emerging by the absorption of earlier drops of rain on dried land, the Marriage-Bond, , results in romantic attachment between a man and woman, culminating in intercourse. However, there might be situation and a newly wed couple amongst whom this romantic attachment might not be possible, for compelling reasons, may be physical or ideological.
The Grand Qur'aan is a guide that contains instructions and options available to human beings for meeting all situations that might arise during their life. In case the romantic attachment cannot be developed after the recourse is divorce.
