Discussion on 4:3 and meaning of nisa

Shirley

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.

huruf

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

inquisitivetrini

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,
Bender

Now 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 | women

When 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 = taqrabhunna

None 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

Wakas

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.pdf

Thus, 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.

Wakas

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.

Wakas

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#part2

Specifically

"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.

Mazhar

The X are qawwamoon upon/over the Y with what...

The X, generally speaking, are------------.

Shirley

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.pdf

If 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.html

This 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&#039 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.

Mazhar

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;
( &#1576
(* ? ? .) .

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.

Wakas

Damon,

Let's tackle this one point at a time

Damon's view the ones doing the action of the verb "taba" in 43 are "an-nisa".
Wakas' view the one doing the action of the verb "taba" in 43 is most likely the one determining suitablity/pleasing

There can only be a few possibilities
the one determining suitability/pleasing (for nikah)
the people
the yateem
the nisa
or some other option

I think this request of yours is reasonable "how 2nd person pronouns can perform a 3rd person verb or vice versa" - I haven't studied it, but we can look to Quran for examples or explanations. If not, is this explained elsewhere in grammar books for example.

I also asked a reasonable request of you which was "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." - again, we can look to Quran to see if it has such examples. If not, is this explained elsewhere in grammar books for example.

This may require input from others, as it does not seem to be a run of the mill construction.

Mazhar

Let's tackle this one point at a time

Damon's view the ones doing the action of the verb "taba" in 43 are "an-nisa".
Wakas' view the one doing the action of the verb "taba" in 43 is most likely the one determining suitablity/pleasing

But where is the word "an-nisa" either before the verb or after the verb, whereby one could presume them to be the subject of this verb?

The subject of the verb is always definite, well known entity, specifically mentioned.

Hoppean

Damon's view the ones doing the action of the verb "taba" in 43 are "an-nisa".
Wakas' view the one doing the action of the verb "taba" in 43 is most likely the one determining suitablity/pleasing

There can only be a few possibilities
the one determining suitability/pleasing (for nikah)
the people
the yateem
the nisa
or some other option

I always read the subject of "taba" to be the numbers 2, 3 or 4; while the object to be "ye" (lakum). So that it reads "Marry ye what it is pleasing to ye, from an nisaa, two three, or four". Thus, whichever of the numbers (2,3 or 4) is pleasing to ye (taba lakum), then marry (or marry off). I deduce this from the use of the preposition "ma" which is not used for rational beings, and therefore would not refer to "an nisaa", but would refer to the numbers cited.

I think this request of yours is reasonable "how 2nd person pronouns can perform a 3rd person verb or vice versa" - I haven't studied it, but we can look to Quran for examples or explanations. If not, is this explained elsewhere in grammar books for example.

This is resolved, I believe, if one sees "ma taba lakum" (that which is pleasing to ye) to be referring to the numbers, and not to an nisaa. Again Whichever number (2,3 or4) pleases ye, from an nisaa, then marry (or marry off).

I also asked a reasonable request of you which was "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." - again, we can look to Quran to see if it has such examples. If not, is this explained elsewhere in grammar books for example.

Would something similar be 517? "Certainly, kafara (3rd p. msc sing.) allathina (those who, a plural) saying Truly, God is Christ...."

Here the subject of kafara is the saying, not the people (allathina), where the object is implied (i.e. the truth/God etc). In other words "Certainly the saying "God is Christ..." is "kafara" (denial/suppresion of the truth). Meanwhile, "allathina qaloo" (those who are saying) are the instrument of this "kafara", and not its subject. Otherwise, we have a plural subject and a singular verb. There could be another grammatical explanation for this, though; as I think this type of construction is not unusual, in the Quran. That is "allathina" followed by 3rd p. masc. sing. verb.

I would also like to say that I too did not see in those grammar books cited what "Shirley" claimed. That is, I did not see those grammarians stating that if the subject of the pronoun is all male, it must be previously stated explicitly.

Bob

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

? The verse 2- 122 and above verse has a word , it is and the paradigm is . The meaning of the word can not be MENSTRUATION , The word for MENSTRAUTION is (If Allah tried to say menstruation, then why instead of the word is used?)

Also keep in mind this is a proper noun, ALMUKHAIZ, -how many different kind of menstruations does it exists, since Allah had to point out a specific kind of menstruation, THE MUKHAIZ, AL MUKHAIZ?

Here one can see it is khaiz and Al khaiz for menstruation and not mukhaiz or almukhaiz.

http//mymemory.translated.net/t/English/Arabic/menstruation

different forms of the word, menstrual ?= khaizi NOT makhaizi

http//en.bab.la/dictionary/english-arabic/menstrual

wonder if Khaiz is even mentioned in the Quran?

Tthe word means the place or the time or the target of one of the meaning of is MENSSTRUATION while other meanings are blood like material coming out of the stem acacia tree ( &#1585, Water flows ( &#1569. So the meaning of is place or time when blood or water flows . Now keeping in view the context of war the simple meanings are the time or place of war.

Other objection to the traditional translation is the answer to the query about ,the answer is "painful". This answer is not correct about MENSTRUATION. Its only painful or disturbing to some ladies. This statement can not be taken categorical for all ladies. Hence It is again to be interpreted as condition of war. So never means keep yourself away from ladies but here it again means keep yourself away from the oppressed or weak people till they have cleared of the wrong thoughts and ideas. Once they are pure according to Quranic teachings then you may come to them according to the orders of Quran. Because God loves those who return to the right path and purifies.

Bob

?AL-NISAA?A? to leave a process/ action, atrophy, or duo to negligence deliberately leave something, , to forget something. In urdu, the word ? is name of a disease of forgetting. This phrase is often repeated- Humans are objects to errors and (forgetting) ?
means to leave a thing or make someone unaware of something, Al-Qaamoos almuhyd page 1645 said women are seen as a forgetful gender, so it is used for women. In verse 43 the word is preceded by ( ) which means that some ordinary ?nisaa?a? is not being discussed, but some particular ?nisaa?a? is mentioned. It also confirms that nisaa?a here does not signify women, but rather gives the meaning of ideological weakness

The Word NISA is used frequently in the story of Syedana Moses, where it is told that Pharaoh used to kill ?ABNA? but not ?NISA?. Under the influence of Jewish stories, our clergy told us that the newborn baby boys of bani Israel were killed

It should be cleared up who the ABNA and NISA of Bani Israel was?

According to the traditional explanation, this practice by Pharaoh was to be executed even on Moses when he was born. But according to the Quran this command, of killing the abna, was given when Moses challenged Pharaoh in his court.

7127
And the eminent among the people of Pharaoh said," Will you leave Moses and his people to cause corruption in the land and abandon you and your gods?" said, "We will kill their sons and keep their women alive; and indeed, we are subjugators over them." TRADITIOINAL TRANSLATION

From this verse we can see Moses is not newborn child,

For a ruler whose system and ruling is challenged, the killing of newborns would be of no use, but rather, he would kill the ?challengers?, those who are able to oppose and defy him.
Those who are committed to change the fate of their nation and stood up against Pharaoh like a wall

Those are called

ABNA AL QAWM

Contrary, another group which was oppressed and made so weak that they could not stand up against Pharaoh, are called

ALNISA

Even today such people are not capable to achieve any excellence. Their conscience is so distorted that they blame every situation on the creator.

4911 O you who have believed, let not a QAWM people ridicule people; perhaps they may be better than them; nor let ALNISA women ridicule women; perhaps they may be better than them

Qawm is when a group of people are pitched at an ideology and stance and remain steadfast; otherwise they are not a Qawm but a crowd.

The Quran defined both words by using ALNISA as opposing to the word QAWM.

I.E

QAWM - those who stand firm on their position

NISA - those people in a society whose status is weak

Mazhar

That is, I did not see those grammarians stating that if the subject of the pronoun is all male, it must be previously stated explicitly.

Who is that "learned" grammarian who has stated this?
When the subject pronoun of a verb is masculine plural, it is certainly mentioned earlier.

Noon_waalqalami

Tthe word means the place or the time or the target of one of the meaning of is MENSSTRUATION while other meanings are blood like material coming out of the stem acacia tree ( &#1585, Water flows ( &#1569. So the meaning of is place or time when blood or water flows . Now keeping in view the context of war the simple meanings are the time or place of war.

Other objection to the traditional translation is the answer to the query about ,the answer is "painful". This answer is not correct about MENSTRUATION. Its only painful or disturbing to some ladies. This statement can not be taken categorical for all ladies. Hence It is again to be interpreted as condition of war. So never means keep yourself away from ladies but here it again means keep yourself away from the oppressed or weak people till they have cleared of the wrong thoughts and ideas. Once they are pure according to Quranic teachings then you may come to them according to the orders of Quran. Because God loves those who return to the right path and purifies.

NISA - those people in a society whose status is weak

Peace Bob, finally someone posts what they think the words actually mean. Thus according to Bob and Shirley (not sure about Shirley; refuses to post meanings) we can use simple word substitution to see if it makes sense?

2187 permitted to you night the fasting the sexual relations to nisakum/oppressed or weak yours?

2222 and they ask you about the time or place of war say it ailment so abandon al-nisaa the oppressed or weak in the time or place of war and not approach them until they are clean so when they are purified so come to them from wherever directive The God indeed The God loves the ones who turn in repentance and loves the ones who purify themselves

2223 nisukum oppressed or weak yours a tillage for you so approach your tilt how you like ?
2226 to those who forswear from oppressed or weak theirs (m) waiting four ashr/cycles
2236 not blame over you if you divorce nisaa/the oppressed or weak what not you touched them...

411 directs you The God in your children to the male like share the two (f) so if are (f. pl) nisaa/oppressed or weak above two (f) falahunna/so to them (f. pl) third dual (2/3) what left and if kanat/is (f) whidatan one/single (f) so to her the half

415 and the ones whom they come the immorality from oppressed or weak yours
422 and not marry whom married your fathers from the oppressed or weak
423 prohibited over you your mothers ? and mothers nisakum/oppressed or weak yours
4129 and never you will be able that do justice between the oppressed or weak

56 O you the ones who believe when you stand up to the prayer so wash your faces and your hands to the elbow and wipe your heads and your feet to the ankles and if you are impure so purify yourselves and if you are sick or on journey or comes one from among you from the toilet or you touched the oppressed or weak? ?

654 and the ones (f) who despaired from the time or place of war from nisakum/oppressed or weak yours if you doubt so their waiting period three ashr/cycles and the ones (f) not yaid'na menstruate? and those the pregnant their term that they put aside their loads (i.e. give birth) and from fears The God He makes for him from His directive easier

y d = To have her courses, menstruate; Her blood flowed from her womb, to attain the age of menstruation, to make a thing flow.
hada vb. (1) impf. act. 654
mahid n.m. 2222
Lane's Lexicon, Volume 2, page 322, 323

1 , (S, A, Msb, K,) aor. , inf. n. and (S, Msb, K) and , (Aboo-Is-h?k, K,) said of a woman, (S, A, Msb, K,) She menstruated; i. e. her blood flowed; (A or blood came forth from her womb; (Mgh as also or this latter signifies she likened herself to the . (TA.) -b2- Also She attained the age of menstruation. (TA.) -b3- , (S, A, Msb,) aor. as above, (Msb,) inf. n. , (S, Msb,) The flowed with, (S,) or emitted, (A,) a matter resembling blood; (S, A flowed with its gum (Msb) the matter which it emits is called ; and is applied to the head of a new-born infant to scare away the j?nn, or genii. (A, TA ) -b4- The torrent overflowed; or poured out, or forth, from fullness; or ran; syn. . (TA.) 2 He attributed to the woman. (Msb.) -b2- , (TK,) inf. n., (Sgh, K,) Tempore men- struorum inivit ancillam suam. (Sgh, K, TK.) -b3- , (TK,) inf. n. as above, (K,) He made the water to flow. (K, TA.)

5 see 1. -b2- Also She abstained form prayer (&#1577 during the days of her ; (S, Msb, K, TA waiting for the stopping of the bloodTA) or she abstained, and did as the does (A, * Mgh) or she reckoned herself , and did as the does. (TA.) 10 , (S, Mgh, Msb,) in the pass. form, (Msb,) with damm to the , (Mgh,) found in the handwriting of Aboo-Zekereey? , (TA,) She continued to have a flow of blood (S, Mgh) after her days (S) or she had an exuberance of blood ; not what is termed (Msb) or her blood flowed without stopping, not on certain days, nor from the vein of menstruation, but from a vein called . (TA.) . -b2- A thing which flows from the , resembling . (Mgh.) A single time, or turn, of menstruation, or of the flow of the menstrual blood (S, * A, * Mgh, Msb *) pl. ; (A, Msb like as is pl. of , and of , and of , and of ; though by rule it should be . (Msb.) You say, and and . (A.) -b2- As used by the professors of practical law, The accustomed days thereof. (Mgh.) -b3- Also A single flow pl. . (TA.) the subst. from (S, K, TA) or a mode, or manner, or state, of (Msb) or the state (Mgh, TA) of the , (TA,) which is one of avoidance (Mgh, TA) of prayer and fasting and the like (Mgh) pl.. (S, Msb.) -b2- Also The menstrual blood; the blood of menstruation; and so and . (TA.) -b3- Also The piece of rag which the binds over her vulva; (S, Mgh, * Msb, * K and so (S) which latter also signifies a piece of rag thrown away (TA) pl. of the latter, . (S, TA.) see . , applied to a woman, act. part. n. from ; (S, Mgh, Msb, K thus, because it is an epithet of particular application ; (Msb and with ', being like and &c.; (TA and in like manner also, (S, Mgh, Msb, K,) on the authority of Fr (S) pl. (of the former, Msb) , (S, Mgh, Msb, K,) like as is pl. of , (Msb,) and , like as is pl. of , (TA,) and of the latter, , (Msb,) or . (S, Mgh, K.) -b2- In a certain trad., in which it is said that God will not accept the prayer of a unless she be with a , this does not mean one who is menstruating while actually occupied by prayer, (Msb, TA, *) but One who has attained to the age of menstruation; (TA or one who has attained to womanhood (Mgh) or it has not this meaning; for if it had, one would understand that a girl not arrived at puberty might pray with her head uncovered, which is not the case; but it means the menstruating kind, whether she have attained to puberty or not; as though the term female had been used in its place. (Msb.) is a simple subst. as well as an inf. n. (Zj, K) as the former, it is a n. of place; and as such it is used in the Kur ii. 222; meaning A woman's ; (Zj her ; (Mgh because it is the place of . (Zj, Mgh.) Some say that is hence derived; because the water flows to the (Az, K) for the Arabs put in the place of , and in that of. (Az, TA.) -b2- It is also a n. of time . (TA.) -b3- See also . -b4- When it is a simple subst., it has a pl., namely . (TA.) see . A woman continuing to have a flow of blood after her days (S) or having an exuberance of blood ; not what is termed (Msb) or having her blood flowing without stopping, not on certain days, nor from the vein of menstruation, but from a vein called . (K, * TA.)

An Arabic-English Lexicon. London. Williams and Norgate. 1863.

bkanwar2

Question for Wakas.

Why are you calling poster "Shirley" as "Damon"?

Thanks

Shirley

Salaam Everyone,

I will state this again in clearer terms so that I am not misunderstood this time. I am having a discussion with WAKAS and HE is the person I have chosen to have my discussion with. If anyone else here shares the same views and understandings of 4/1 - 4/3 as Wakas, then if those understandings that you all have in common with him are dissected, analyzed and proven faulty in MY and WAKAS' discussion then you will receive the same answer to your questions as him.

Wakas,

Damon,

Let's tackle this one point at a time

I have two problems with these words of yours. First Problem; it appears that you are trying to decide how this discussion will proceed and WHICH POINTS are to be discussed. I have always had a problem with this when you participate in a "discussion". Second Problem; You are attempting to decide which points are to be discussed WITHOUT answering ANY of the questions I asked you in my last reply. Not even one. BUT, you come back with a post asking someone else to answer Your Questions. I already pointed out to you earlier that I have a problem with you doing this because I see this as Manipulating the direction and the TERMS of the discussion and whoever does the manipulating of a discussion will manipulate it to where everyone MUST answer all of his questions while he himself Does Not have to answer the other person's questions or at best Choosing which questions to answer and which questions to ignore. I don't mind tackling one point at a time, but they cannot be only Your Points. Let us address ALL OF THE POINTS put on the table in this discussion.

Damon's view the ones doing the action of the verb "taba" in 43 are "an-nisa".
Wakas' view the one doing the action of the verb "taba" in 43 is MOST LIKELY the one determining suitablity/pleasing

There can only be a few possibilities
the one determining suitability/pleasing (for nikah)
the people
the yateem
the nisa
or some other option

I hope you don't mind that I underlined and placed in all capitals your two words Most Likely. First of all, this is why I mentioned the words Conjecture and Guesswork earlier on because these words of yours such as It CAN mean this and Most Likely are essentially the arena of conjecture because these words demonstrate that you have not proven beyond the shadow of doubt that it DOES mean this. And by using the words Most Likely shows you haven't demonstrated that It Definitely Is. Secondly Wakas, You Contradict Yourself and set a double standard with your insistence on Most Likely. Do you remember when I made my comment in This Post ? I'll repeat my comment from that post

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.

And here is what you said to me in This Reply made by you

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,

You contradicted yourself Wakas and YOU admit yourself that using these terms such as "highly unlikely" is Conjecture and I told you from the beginning of this conversation that you are relying your own conjecture concerning 4/3. I don't feel the need to point out whenever you contradict yourself because my arguments aren't based on rather or not you contradict yourself. However, since you pointed earlier what is to you a contradiction, I just thought it fair to let you know that you are contradicting yourself here. NOW, we can look at 4/3 and figure out who is performing the verb "Taaba"

I think this request of yours is reasonable "how 2nd person pronouns can perform a 3rd person verb or vice versa" - I haven't studied it, but we can look to Quran for examples or explanations. If not, is this explained elsewhere in grammar books for example.

This is why I told you earlier in this thread that you have to pay particular attention to the preposition in this verse. In fact, I made the statement that understanding the function this word plays in the verse is the 'key' to understanding WHO Taaba is referring to. But in your quest to win an argument (instead of ascertaining the truth) you TOTALLY IGNORED what I said, when I said it and that is because you are too busy listening to someone who you seem to think is an expert grammarian when that person also totally misses/ignores the function of in this verse and for the same reasons you are missing and ignoring it.

I'll repeat what I said in This Post

the word MIN is the KEY to determining WHO is being referred to with the word Taaba

Another one from that same post

You should keep in mind that Taaba is referring to those who are MIN AN-NISAA'

I tried my best to get you to look at this word and the function it plays in this verse. Now, there are FOUR things that I need to mention concerning the word so we can determine HOW

1). First thing I should not have to mention again because I provided the references and page numbers of at least two Books of Arabic Grammar which MENTION and EXPLAIN the ... construct in an Arabic sentence. Example Arabic sentences are provided in each book to illustrate the grammatical rule. These are the grammar books and the information in them that I have used to establish the existence and function of the ... construct in 4/3. Please keep in mind this construct has the word as part of the clause and I am stating again knowing the place and meaning of this word is KEY in understanding who is referring to in 4/3

2). Second thing I think is pretty easy to establish is that is in the 2nd person while is in the 3rd person. I have yet be presented with a grammatical explanation or grammar reference to explain HOW on earth a 3rd person verb is performed by the the 2nd person. It is your claim that is somehow masculine 2nd person perfect. I do know that there is a masculine 2nd person perfect plural for and if I'm not mistaken it is "Ttibtoom" and this word is non existent in 4/3. And like I said, we will need an explanation and/or a grammar reference to justify the 2nd person performing a 3rd person verb.

3). Third thing; having made mention of the ... clause, I think it is important to look at the MEANING and USES of the word .

This is from page 542 of Abdul Mannan Omar's Dictionary of The Holy Quran

Proposition used for expressing starting point, PART OF A WHOLE, ORIGIN AS, FROM, OF SOME, AMONGST.

And here is what John Penrice said on page 140 of his Dictionary and Glossary of The Koran

A preposition signifying ORIGIN, COMPOSITION, explanation, commencement, or separation.

So one glaring and overwhelming connotation that is established that of being FROM or AMONG/AMONGST or FROM AMONG

4). Having shown the MEANINGS of this word, we see these meanings in actual usage in 10/83, 2/253, 2/74 and 2/105 (just to name a few exemplary verses) to mean from or among or from among, etc. 21/97 uses it to mean "OF" which isn't at all a far divergence of the other meanings just mentioned. And If I'm not mistaken, you seem to be a fan of Muhammad Asad and his translation and commentary of The Quran. You should read his translation of 14/34 and footnote 47 of this verse where he says literally means "Out Of" and, in this context, "Something Out Of".

So, taking these four points and putting them all together, we should look at 4/3 and realize something very important and I am going to put it in very simple language so you can understand it. is in the 2nd person by virtue of the address (an address from 1st person to 2nd person). Regardless of the man made theory of some kind of shift in addressee, the fact remains that we have no substantial evidence to prove this and there is no substantial evidence which shows a shift of address from to someone else. The only thing you provide to try to support this claim is a link to a traditional muslim explaining the very thing I reject and he himself has no proof for. And I think it to be pretty amazing that the only links I ever provided throughout this entire discussion are references to Books of Arabic Grammar. Other than the link to the manmade "shift of address" theory, the only other links you send my way are links to ad hominem, logical fallacy, argument from ignorance, etc. No Quranic or Arabic Grammatical links, only wikipedia links for with your accusations of logical fallacies, argument out of ignorance, etc. If this is a Quranic and Arabic discussion you should provide references pertaining to Quran and Arabic. And as a side note, everytime you are pointing a finger at someone, there are three more fingers pointing right back at you. As they say, the BEST way to take the attention from what you do is to constantly accuse other people of doing it.

But, staying on topic; We see that are the addressees and is in the 2nd person. No change of address between 4/1 and 4/3. Just like is in the 2nd person in 4/1, so too , , , , , and are ALL in the 2nd person in 4/3. Thus, these 2nd person plural pronouns are referring to a 2nd person audience being addressed. The ONLY second person audience being DIRECTLY ADDRESSED BY NAME is in 4/1 and there is nothing between 4/1 and 4/3 which shows any switch or shift of any kind to another 2nd person audience other than .

Now, as you have already admitted more than once, is in the 3rd person. , just like the verb , is ALSO in the 3rd person and I say this because it is clear to everyone that is being Talked About. And they are being talked about to the 2nd person addressees which is . I am asking how, HOW can a 3rd person verb be carried out by a group who is in the 2nd person??? This is YOUR claim and YOUR belief, but you NEVER ONCE gave any evidence or reference to support this belief/claim and you NEVER explaned it yourself how this can occur. So, I'll say it again... has the meaning of from, among, from among, of, out of, etc. particularly when it precedes a noun just like it does in 10/83, 2/105, 2/74 AND 4/3 WHERE WE HAVE MIN AN-NISAA'!!

Is there any possible way to make it more clearer than this??

I also asked a reasonable request of you which was "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." - again, we can look to Quran to see if it has such examples. If not, is this explained elsewhere in grammar books for example.

If you would be reasonable and honest, you would see that very example from The Quran which is the verse we are discussing.

Now Wakas, I had asked you a few questions in my last reply to you and they went unanswered.

For now, I'll just stick with one question and get back to the rest of them later...

You keep repeating that a masculine plural can be used for an all male group of people AS WELL AS a mixed group of people that are male and female. You and I both acknowledge this. My Question To You is when you use the masculine plural yourself OR you come across the masculine plural through reading a text How Do You Know which group of people the masculine plural is referring to? If it is used for PEOPLE/HUMAN BEINGS it will be referring to one of those two groups. So how DO YOU ascertain WHICH GROUP the masculine plural is referring to?

inquisitivetrini

Salaam Everyone,

I will state this again in clearer terms so that I am not misunderstood this time. I am having a discussion with WAKAS and HE is the person I have chosen to have my discussion with. If anyone else here shares the same views and understandings of 4/1 - 4/3 as Wakas, then if those understandings that you all have in common with him are dissected, analyzed and proven faulty in MY and WAKAS' discussion then you will receive the same answer to your questions as him.

But I don't share the same views. '(

Anywho, nevermind. I tried. giveup

Peace.

Released

Peace )

I am going to read through it again. Thank you for providing a more in depth explanation! I appreciate it.

Peace all,

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
Now 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.