Discussion on 4:3 and meaning of nisa
-
In other words, this verse says that if you are intoxicated, ill, on a journey or hit by forgetfulness than dont approach salah.
Same goes for this verse as the verse above.
Peace Maha, cross-reference and insert your new interpretation to see if it makes sense?
2223 nisukum forgetfulness yours a tillage for you so approach your tilt how you like ?
2236 not blame over you if you divorce nisaa/the forgetfulness 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/forgetfulness 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
423 prohibited over you your mothers ? and mothers nisakum/forgetfulness yours
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 forgetfulness?
3330 O forgetfulness the prophet from commits from you in immorality
3332 O forgetfulness the prophet you are not as one from the forgetfulness
3352 not lawful to you the forgetfulness from after and not that replace in them from spouses and if/had pleased you their beauty651 O you the prophet when you divorce the forgetfulness so divorce them to their waiting period and count the count
The verse isnt talking about menstruation please refer to Bobs post.
2222 and they ask you about the time or place of war say it ailment so abandon al-nisaa/the forgetfulness 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
654 and the ones (f) who despaired from the time or place of war from nisakum/forgetfulness 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
http//www.studyquran.co.uk/PRLonline.htm
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, 323An Arabic-English Lexicon. London. Williams and Norgate. 1863. Edward William Lane.
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 (ة during the days of her ; (S, Msb, K, TA waiting for the stopping of the blood(TA) 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.)
and and A woman who is supposed to be pregnant; (K as also (A, K) and (A) or in whom pregnancy has appeared (K) or, (K) and , (TA,) as also , accord. to J and IM, but this is rejected by F, (TA,) a woman whose menstrual discharge is later than its usual time, and who is therefore hoped to be pregnant (S, K) pl. and and is also said; and sometimes the sing. (ٌ, being originally an inf. n., is used as a pl. (TA.)
One who mixes, or converses, with others ex. He is one who mixes, or converses, with women. (K.)
The Fakeeh of the Arabs says, (S, * TA)
-
Peace Maha, cross-reference and insert your new interpretation to see if it makes sense?
2223 nisukum forgetfulness yours a tillage for you so approach your tilt how you like ?
2236 not blame over you if you divorce nisaa/the forgetfulness 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/forgetfulness 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
423 prohibited over you your mothers ? and mothers nisakum/forgetfulness yours
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 forgetfulness?
3330 O forgetfulness the prophet from commits from you in immorality
3332 O forgetfulness the prophet you are not as one from the forgetfulness
3352 not lawful to you the forgetfulness from after and not that replace in them from spouses and if/had pleased you their beauty651 O you the prophet when you divorce the forgetfulness so divorce them to their waiting period and count the count
2222 and they ask you about the time or place of war say it ailment so abandon al-nisaa/the forgetfulness 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
654 and the ones (f) who despaired from the time or place of war from nisakum/forgetfulness 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
http//www.studyquran.co.uk/PRLonline.htm
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, 323An Arabic-English Lexicon. London. Williams and Norgate. 1863. Edward William Lane.
Peace noon. Read my post again please before jumping to conclusions. NISA share roots with N-S-I N-s (people, to forget) y3ni when talking about people then it talks about the forgotten people e.g weak people in society when directed towards yourself it points out to your own weakness... Btw who said Quran is not for NISA?hm confused
-
Very intresting. I do agree with all what you said. Please share more of your discoveries.
I somehow suspect that 'qawameen' is standing above and maintaining while 'Nisa' are the weaker part of NAS (people) and Rejaal are people in leader roles, standing on their feets (from rijl - leg).
So REJAAL (the leaders) qawameen (Stand above/maintain) NISA (the weaker among people NAS) because God has bestowed upon them over one another and for what they spend of their money.
From that verse its clear that God has bestowed Rejaal with leadership and to financially provide for the weaker part of the society, one of the ways is through charity of course.
Because of the vulnerability of NISA, there are special rules for them regarding divorces and so on. In return, they are expected to be dutiful and obedient to their maintainers/leaders/rulers (4,34)
Anyway, thats just my thoughts. Please let me know if you disagree.
Peace
Salaam,
Thank you handshake
At the moment I can not disagree with your understading, but I think it needs more research.
InshaAllah if I have something usefull to share then I will share.Salaam,
Bender -
Peace noon. Read my post again please before jumping to conclusions. NISA share roots with N-S-I N-s (people, to forget) y3ni when talking about people then it talks about the forgotten people e.g weak people in society when directed towards yourself it points out to your own weakness... Btw who said Quran is not for NISA?hm confused
Peace Maha, I'm really not sure what it is you are trying to say?
244 do you order al-nas/the humankind righteousness and you forget yourselves and you recite the book do they not use reason
Nun-Siin-Ya = to forsake/forget/neglect, pretend to forget.
nasiya vb. (1)
perf. act. 2286, 513, 514, 644, 751, 753, 7165, 967, 967, 1824, 1857, 1861, 1863, 1873, 2088, 20115, 20126, 2518, 3214, 3214, 3678, 3826, 398, 4534, 586, 5919
impf. act. 244, 2237, 641, 751, 2052, 2877, 4534, 876
impf. pass. 20126
pcple. pass. 1923
nasiy n.m. 1964
nasy n.m. 1923
ansa vb. (4)
perf. act. 1242, 1863, 23110, 5819, 5919
impf. act. 2106, 668Nun-Siin-Waw = feminine/women.
nisa n.f. 249, 2187, 2222, 2223, 2226, 2231, 2232, 2235, 2236, 314, 342, 361, 361, 41, 43, 44, 47, 411, 415, 419, 422, 423, 423, 424, 432, 434, 443, 475, 498, 4127, 4127, 4129, 4176, 56, 781, 7127, 7141, 146, 2431, 2431, 2460, 2755, 284, 3330, 3332, 3332, 3352, 3355, 3359, 4025, 4825, 4911, 4911, 582, 583, 651, 654
niswah n.f. 1230, 1250? different word which cannot be used nor does it make any sense?
43 and if you fear that not do justice in the orphans so for marrying what aba/agreeable to you from the forgetful/scatterbrained paired/twos and three and four so if you fear that not do justice so one/single (f) or what possess your right hands that minimum that not you oppress
44 and give the forgetful/scatterbrained their handouts graciously?411 so if kunna/are (f. pl) forgetful/scatterbrained above two (f) falahunna/so to them (f. pl) third dual (2/3) what left and if kanat/is (f) widatan one/single (f) so to her the half
-
Peace Maha, I'm really not sure what it is you are trying to say?
244 do you order al-nas/the humankind righteousness and you forget yourselves and you recite the book do they not use reason
Nun-Siin-Ya = to forsake/forget/neglect, pretend to forget.
nasiya vb. (1)
perf. act. 2286, 513, 514, 644, 751, 753, 7165, 967, 967, 1824, 1857, 1861, 1863, 1873, 2088, 20115, 20126, 2518, 3214, 3214, 3678, 3826, 398, 4534, 586, 5919
impf. act. 244, 2237, 641, 751, 2052, 2877, 4534, 876
impf. pass. 20126
pcple. pass. 1923
nasiy n.m. 1964
nasy n.m. 1923
ansa vb. (4)
perf. act. 1242, 1863, 23110, 5819, 5919
impf. act. 2106, 668Nun-Siin-Waw = feminine/women.
nisa n.f. 249, 2187, 2222, 2223, 2226, 2231, 2232, 2235, 2236, 314, 342, 361, 361, 41, 43, 44, 47, 411, 415, 419, 422, 423, 423, 424, 432, 434, 443, 475, 498, 4127, 4127, 4129, 4176, 56, 781, 7127, 7141, 146, 2431, 2431, 2460, 2755, 284, 3330, 3332, 3332, 3352, 3355, 3359, 4025, 4825, 4911, 4911, 582, 583, 651, 654
niswah n.f. 1230, 1250? different word which cannot be used nor does it make any sense?
43 and if you fear that not do justice in the orphans so for marrying what aba/agreeable to you from the forgetful/scatterbrained paired/twos and three and four so if you fear that not do justice so one/single (f) or what possess your right hands that minimum that not you oppress
44 and give the forgetful/scatterbrained their handouts graciously?411 so if kunna/are (f. pl) forgetful/scatterbrained above two (f) falahunna/so to them (f. pl) third dual (2/3) what left and if kanat/is (f) widatan one/single (f) so to her the half
Either you arent reading my post or you are playing stupid with purpose in order to make me repeat myself over and over again. And I am not going to play that game with you.
Peace
-
Salaam,
Thank you handshake
At the moment I can not disagree with your understading, but I think it needs more research.
InshaAllah if I have something usefull to share then I will share.Salaam,
BenderI hundred procent agree with you. On the whole, the whole quran need a lot of research as the sectarians had 1400 years to twist its meaning and the meaning of the words. There are some other words beside Nisa which meanings also need to be clearified in order to know their orginal meanings. Inshallah we take it step by step and may God increase our knowledge.
-
Either you arent reading my post or you are playing stupid with purpose in order to make me repeat myself over and over again. And I am not going to play that game with you.
Peace
I did read what you posted and repeat myself ask you to translate what you propose -- Nisaa is forgetfulness?
inquisitivetrini
Sorry for my late reply, as I wasnt online for a couple of days. This verse is not talking about being physical dirty but about the state of the mind. The verse starts by telling us not to approach SALAH fi we are S-K-R- intoxicated, ill or on a journey. Common for all three is that its your state of mind which is deemed inappropriate to approach Salah, not your physical condition. Now the word 'intercourse' in your translation is purely an interpretation as its assumed that NISA means women, and hence refers to intercourse with them which is not true. It has been explained here earlier, but let me just repeat, NISA share root letters N-S which is simmilar to both people (NAS) and WHICH MEANS to forget. The reason for why arabs considered Women to be NISA was because they deemed women to forget a lot, and indeed there are hadith which claim the same hence NISA could only mean women. Arabs had a bunch of other myths about women as well, which can also be seen from the hadith like women giving bad luck, women being the cause behind men leading astray and so on (which is one of the reasons behind headscarf and niqab).
But of course, in our modern society today we know the fallacy of these claims.
In other words, this verse says that if you are intoxicated, ill, on a journey or hit by forgetfulness than dont approach salah.Same goes for this verse as the verse above.
The verse isnt talking about menstruation please refer to Bobs post.
2236 not blame on you if you divorce the forgetfulness what not you touched them (f)?
443 O you the ones who believe not go near the prayer and you intoxicated until you know what you are saying and not impure only passing path until you bathed and if you are sick or on journey or comes one from among you from the toilet or you touched the forgetfulness so not you find water so do dry ablution ground clean so wipe with your faces and your hands indeed The God is Pardoning Forgiving
Peace
-
Damon,
I think your following ambiguous statement needs clarification, so as not to give forum members a wrong impression
I said once already in this thread, Wakas and I have A HISTORY.
To clarify for all, Damon and I have known each other for a long time and there is no history other than amicable discussion between us (public and private).
Now, back to our discussion...
A grammar book, like any other source is not immune to error. If I am unsure of something, I refer to others/books/Quran/resources/etc for information. Sometimes others will have more knowledge in certain fields than I, so I see no problem in getting their input. I do not take them as an authority or what they say as a fact, but simply to weigh and consider extra info.
Once again, you fail to answer this question
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.
But you finally answered what you take "an-nisa" to mean, thanks, quote "...I DO FIND this word listed under the entry for Nasiya which means to be forgetful, to forget and to be OBLIVIOUS. This is the defintion Hans Wehr gives. I'm sure you are aware what it means to be oblivious. It is to be unmindful OR unaware of what is happening to you or around you. To be ignorant of your own social or personal condition. Under this same entry, Hans Wehr gives Nasiy, Nasyan and NISAA' to all mean oblivious."
Hans Wehr is not a classical arabic dictionary (CAD), but for sake of argument let's assume these meanings are also in CAD.
You say "al-yataam" are "those who are left alone in society to fend for themselves and who can use a helping hand (Al Yatamaa)" but the verses clearly talk about their wealth, as in they have some. You never explained that. You also set a dangerous precedent if you imply when Quran uses "their" X, it may not actually be "theirs" as such but it means what they are entitled to justly speaking. This would require further investigation.
Also, you never explained how people are meant to practically determine whom falls under the category of "...a "Sub Group" of the overall group of Yatamaa. The Nisaa' are oblivious to the fact that they have been socio-economically manuevered into being left as sheep in a world of wolves. "
You never explained why leave out the non-nisa from al yataam when making bond/contract etc, i.e. why only help those who are oblivious/forgetful from those who could use a helping hand. So they need a helping hand, but dont help them?
Your understanding also causes issues in the verses which follow, e.g. those who are oblivious/forgetful can tibna part of saduqat, implying they can think/discern/determine this.
You also talk about mutual agreement, but having this from people who are deemed "oblivious/forgetful" seems odd.Some information that may be important
I asked a simple question can you find another example wherein "an-nisa" are doing a masculine verb. Since "nisa" is used 59 times in Quran, finding an example shouldn't be too difficult.
The fact that shares no radical letters with is due to the formation of a plural noun from a singular using none of the latter's radical letters. This is not the only example in the Classical language, nor is it an infrequent phenomenon.
One example would suffice I think. If uq can share one, that would be handy.
In 43, (to be, or appear, pleasant) serves a stative function (i.e. it expresses a state, not an act).
This could explain the issue I raised when it comes to whom is doing the determining suitablity/agreeable/pleasing/etc.
In the Classical language, the pronoun is usually reserved for non-sentient beings, however, it can very occasionally be used for sentient beings also; a prominent example being its use in the phrase , which is equivalent to stating .
If this example is accepted by Damon, then this shows what uq said (in regard to 'ma taba' is at least possible, theoretically.
The Subject of Verb is never in genitive case as in 4/3 is .
Preposition "Min" is used in Qur'aan perhaps more than 1500 times, just search, one will never find its object noun as subject of a verb.
The above two should be easy to disprove, IF Damon is correct, as this occurs hundreds of times in Quran.
However, the words 'imru'(un), mar'(un), 'imra'a(tun), and mar'a(tun) cannot be pluralized at all.
This leaves the word for "a woman" without a plural. The plural word for "a woman" in Standard Arabic is
nisaa'(un)
This could be a significant find.
When you use come across the masculine plural that is referring to one of these two groups of people 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?
I would use Quranic grammar, context, logic etc.
-
Damon,
I think your following ambiguous statement needs clarification, so as not to give forum members a wrong impression
QuoteI said once already in this thread, Wakas and I have A HISTORY.
Your refusal to directly answer my question is another case of ambiguous from you bro. As far as the history that I speak of, I am referring to our last e-mail exchange where you employed THE SAME TACTICS in that debate as you are employing here. So to answer people's curiosity, from my perspective, the history I speak of is not one of hatred or animosity. It is one where your tactics you love to employ in your debates were used in our discussion and you ended our discussion by telling me my arguments have Logical fallacies (a favorite tactic) and your arguments have NO logical fallacies (another favorite tactic) and you NEVER pointed out, explained, anaylized or otherwise dissected either one of our arguments to substantiate my logical fallacies and your lack of logical fallacies. confused
This makes for a one sided exchange and the person who employs such tactics do so to tip the argumentative odds in his favor. This is a very bad tactic to use because even if it works and you run the other person away, you are still left with holding on to what is possibly misconceptions and wrong ideas that you did not give that other person the fair opportunity to establish because you dismiss everything that person says as a logical fallacy. You don't PROVE the logical fallacies, by simply making the statement itself is good enough in your mind.
Anyway, I will address the rest of your post but I INSIST that you directly answer my question instead of being ambiguous.
MY QUESTION When you use come across the masculine plural that is referring to one of these two groups of people 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?
AND YOUR REPLY I would use Quranic grammar, context, logic etc.
This small comment does not at all answer the question. You did not say how do you ASCERTAIN which group is being referred to. Now let's switch places for a second Wakas. How would you feel if YOU were the one asking this question and I gave you the reply that you just gave me?? Would you not tell me that my reply is ambiguous and isn't a straight answer?? Would you not use some of your favorite slogans such as lacks evidence, logical fallacy, try again?
So SINCE you want to pull this, I'm going to ask this question again while this time keeping in mind what you said above...
While reading Quran 4/3 how do you determine WHO the masculine plurals of this verse is referring to? And instead of the ambiguous/indirect comment you are using, can I PLEASE get a direct answer? I don't want to hear anything about Quranic grammar, context and logic. Please EXPLAIN the grammar, context and logic of 4/3 and how you use them to determine WHO the masculine plurals are referring to. Which Grammar Rule are you using to ascertain this?
Lastly, you said something very, very intriguing...
A grammar book, like any other source is not immune to error.
I would like for you and everyone else monitoring this conversation to keep these words of yours in mind as we start to get into the heart and soul of our discussion.
-
Peace Damon,
Yup, I'm still reading through the discussion. Though, some of the heavy grammar rules and terminology, are very difficult to follow. I wish I had more time on my hands for some intense reading, but it's impossible at this point.
So, to both you and Mazhar, if you could please try and break things down into layman's terms, I know that I will appreciate it greatly. I also think that it will help if we stay away from personal attacks, and focus exclusively on the issue on hand. I do understand that the topic is emotionally charged (trust me, I'm a woman), but it takes away from all the hard work you've all put into your analysis.
I have no issue with rethinking my stance on 4.3, but I want to ensure that I have fully understood the alternative, before I choose to even consider it.
-
So, to both you and Mazhar, if you could please try and break things down into layman's terms
ReleasedI have tried it and put it in seperate thread, each sentence of Ayah even if it apparently comprises a single word, is seperately discussed. Knowledge of Enlish grammar about Preposition, Prepositional Phrase and Relative Pronouns and its linkage clause would suffice. That can be applied for Arabic grammar.
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604734.0
-
What I find more striking about this plural terminology and sometime the singular terminology is the relationship it keeps or does not keep with the meaning of the root from which it derives.
Concerning the word rajul, it derives, not from a word that entails a sex, a sexual caracterization. ?how or why did it come to mean a sex? As I pointed out already doesn't it have a sociological content more than a personal content?
The case of nisaa' I am more and more convinced that it is not derived from n-s-, but from -n-s, like "naas", and that would characterize it as a species meaning, and like ryjul or rijaal open to both sexes, even though sociologically it may be apportionned many times to one sex, basically also because of sociological considerations, and not fundamental, human considerations.
I have the feeling that this vocabulary of the Qur'an should be appreciated from that point of view, not excluding any other point of view, but not discard the sociological point of view, because however it is, the Qur'an is well thought out, it is not haphazard, and means things and we should not put a stop or a stopper at what it may say and say it is this and we should not go beyond. If it makes sense, if it means something constructive or entlightening for us, for anybody, I do not think we have a right to discard it or be dirisive.
Light is everywhere, alhamdulil-lah.
Salaam
-
Abounding on the morphology of "nisaa'".
Could some of the well versed in that part make a list or exposition of the morphological possibilities of the word according to each of the three possible roots from which it might be derived? Also of the any other factor that might be of interest.
Thanks and salaam
-
Peace Mazhar,
Okay, thank you. I will take a look at that thread as well.
Released
I have tried it and put it in seperate thread, each sentence of Ayah even if it apparently comprises a single word, is seperately discussed. Knowledge of Enlish grammar about Preposition, Prepositional Phrase and Relative Pronouns and its linkage clause would suffice. That can be applied for Arabic grammar.
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604734.0
-
Peace Damon and UQ,
I recommend that both of you also write up something in a similar format to Mazhar, so that we can all take our time and read through it. I know that we're often pressed for time, so I am not demanding it or anything, but it's just a suggestion.
-
Damon,
...the history I speak of is not one of hatred or animosity. It is one where your tactics you love to employ in your debates were used in our discussion and you ended our discussion by telling me my arguments have Logical fallacies (a favorite tactic) and your arguments have NO logical fallacies (another favorite tactic) and you NEVER pointed out, explained, anaylized or otherwise dissected either one of our arguments to substantiate my logical fallacies and your lack of logical fallacies.
Pointing out logical fallacies is pertinent information in a discussion. You claim I did not highlight your specific logical fallacies, when I did. I have our emails right in front of me. If you meant you still did not understand or accept my claim of your logical fallacies, then that's fine, but that's a different matter.
In fact, even in this thread, I was specific when I stated your logical fallacies.Please EXPLAIN the grammar, context and logic of 4/3 and how you use them to determine WHO the masculine plurals are referring to. Which Grammar Rule are you using to ascertain this?
Is it a case of me answer your questions, and you not answer mine? I highlighted some potentially key points in my last post. Perhaps you will be humble enough to answer them.
I have already answered this question of yours, but if you want more detail
With regards to 43, if there was variance in view of this verse and/or I had some issues with it, I'd first begin by determining what is theoretically possible according to Arabic grammar, e.g. in our case, who the verb "taba" refers to. I'd consult corpus, others, grammar books, CAD, discuss on forums if need be etc etc. Once I had some options, I'd gather the evidence for each option then weigh them up, applying logic, consider practicality, along with usual method of study, see http//www.quran434.com/study-method.html
You ask which grammar rule, but it would not be a single rule I'm using, but principally determining the subject and object of a verb. Ideally, I'd also like to cross-reference this specific construction in Quran, but as yet, neither of us have cited any. They likely exist, i.e. then (verb) what (verb) lakum mina al-(any noun).This is what we are trying to determine here in our discussion, and we are still in the 'putting evidence on the table' phase. In order to put evidence, please answer what I requested in my last post.
uq, mazhar, I'd like to know if what Hoppean said is possible also, i.e. can two/three/four be linked to "taba" as a theoretical possibility? I'm still looking into this.
-
Wakas,
AGAIN, DOUBLE STANDARDS WAKAS!!! When I used the term "highly, HIGHLY Unlikely" I TOO used them to express my view just like you used the words "most likely" and "can" to express your view. You said "likely" and I said "UN-likely" which is the same you used but with opposite meaning due to the prefix "UN". So, this statement of yours is a contradiction all in itself. If you're going to claim it isn't a contradiction, I'll just have to call it what it really is, Double Standard!! You can use those words to express your view and it is not conjecture. BUT, when I also use words that are NOT definitive but express MY VIEW, then all of a sudden it is conjecture. This statement of yours is an attempt to justify your double standard and this is EXACTLY what I have been saying concerning certain tactics you like to pull when you're debating with others. Because Winning An Argument/Debate is your ultimate goal, certain tactics will have to be employed to give you a bigger chance of winning.
Just so you know, my words "highly unlikely" is a NON definitive statement and in your estimation that makes me guilty of conjecture. When you used your terms "can" and "most likely", you used NON definitive statements. So you conjectured AND set a double standard. Just saying
CAN and HAVE. Question is WHY am I using the verse itself that is under discussion to prove my grammatical analysis? Because, one, the grammatical analysis I gave is based on the rules of Arabic Language. The Quran is written in the Arabic Language. Secondly, I provided the definition of a 'key' preposition used in the verse under discussion and I told you how it means "from, among, etc." when this preposition precedes a noun. And just so you know, the noun it precedes can be definite or indefinite. Third of all, I have done what you have asked concerning cross referencing of an important word that is in the verse under question. I have done that by providing a minute sampling of verses (form among many by the way) in The Quran that definitively use this preposition according to the definition and usage I explained. This is what we do when we use what I call Tasreeful Ayaat. It is cross referencing. In your explanation on how to use Project Root List, under the heading of Which Root Meaning Is Correct you give the advice of checking the occurences of relevant words within the verse under discussion to make sure that they are used accurately
I consider this sound advice and I personally endorse it. No where in your article do you make reference that ONLY THE WORD being disuputed should be cross referenced because I think you know to make such a statement would be highly illogical. Also, for the record, the advice you give in this introductory article is advice that You Yourself are not following!!
1). Don't draw something out that is not there. Even though a certain here is using words such as "Can mean this" to draw something out in 4/3 that is not there.
2). Embellishing on a word. This advice comes from someone who is using the excuse that Lane's says the word Naas can "sometimes" be used for all men EVEN THOUGH this word is NEVER used in such a way in The Quran and NEITHER is it used in such a way in actual Arabic.
3). The connection should be clear. Again, coming from someone who wants to think that the audience addressed in 4/3 "can be" an all male audience. Someone who wants to make himself believe in shift in addressee WITHOUT the new addressee being announced and the connection made clear!!
4). Evidence has been placed before this same person to demonstrate that a word does not mean what HE and MANY OTHERS THINK it to mean. He has put up a brick wall defense because he made up his mind that he WANTS to believe something and he is not budging from that position.Not incorrect, CORRECT!! Do you know why? Because it is YOU who is claiming that the verb "Taaba" (which is a 3rd person verb) is somehow being performed by a 2nd Person Audience-The Addressees. The ONLY way The 2nd person can perform a 3rd person verb is if you somehow try to make the 3rd person verb to be INTERPRETED as being actually a verb in the 2nd person. You have made the CLAIM and the INTERPRETATION when you said that the 2nd Person Party being ADDRESSED (in this case of 4/3, the addresses are khiftoom, tuqsitoo, Ankihoo and lakum) are the people who are performing the 3rd Person Verb Taaba!! So to hold this claim and this view, you are officially interpreting "Taaba" as Somehow being a 2nd person perfect verb (or you may even be interpreting it to be a 2nd person IMPERFECT verb, either way it is false).
Secondly, I have to ask how many times I need to inform you that I am not interested in your corpus quran project. Please drill this into your gray matter. I AM NOT INTERESTED IN IT!!!!! If you want to send me to an actual Arabic Grammar Book then I WILL check it out. But I am not interested in a website that is not a Grammar book. It is very clear to me that this is ONE of your sources for Quran and Arabic, the other source being people whom you deem to be authorities.
Thirdly, please quote me where I said "Taaba" was anything but a 3rd person masculine verb. You claim I contradict myself. Quote Please.
Well, well, well. Exhibit "A" Ladies and Gentlemen!! Here you are AGAIN Wakas running to other people to help yo out with your "debate" against me. And, once again, it is someone whom you consider knowledgable of Arabic!! I don't know who this uq person is, but you said this person is a forum member. I did a search and I came up with NOTHING as far as a forum member with the name "uq". I can't help but to suspect that uq is the initials for Understand Quran. So I did another search on this term and again I got NOTHING as far as a member is concerned. I only got some posts to where the words understand quran are mentioned in context of understanding the book itself. Tell me Wakas, is this uq person the one who runs the site Understand Quran?? I would really, really, really like an answer to this question. At one point in time you and I were members of the now defunct Quran Institute forum that was run by Brother Liaquat Ali. The person from the Understand Quran website was a fellow forum member. His actual name is Abdulazeez Abdulraheem but as a forum member of quran institute forum he used the screen name Understand Quran!!
Please tell me Wakas if this is the person you are referring to as "uq"? If so, there are two problems with this. I'll tell you what those problems are if you confirm that he is indeed the person you are referring to.
Question Wakas. Have I referred to another person or sent you to another person at any point in our discussion? I don't recall ever doing so. Why are you putting people over the Language itself and the Grammar books outlining the rules and structure of this language? Why are you abandoning your Study Quran slogan of Why ask a student when you can learn from The Teacher? The Grammar books are available to TEACH us Arabic Grammar. Those books are the grammatical teachers. The Quran is attempting to TEACH its readers concepts that are to be grasped and implemented. The Quran is the socio-political TEACHER. But you keep referring to STUDENTS and not the teachers. From this point onwards I will ignore anything else you have to say about people you have consulted. It is amazing that you paint yourself to be this bright, heavy, intellectual scholarly type person but you have to keep consulting other people for help in your debate with me. All of this debating with people you do on this forum and telling other people about logical fallacies, lack of evidence, ad hominem, wikipedia links, blah, blah, blah and this same intellectual debater HAS to consult other people while debating me.
But I will address your consultant's views for the final time but I am making it clear that you would do a better and more appropriate job of you use the grammar books instead of people with traditionalist views. If you point something out to me in the grammar books and what is in the grammar book is definitively in The Quran I will gladly restructure my understandings.
Please go through the Books of Arabic Grammar and provide us with a reference. Thanks. And just to make myself clear, I DO NOT view An-Nisaa' is being a group of females. So I DO NOT see "Taaba" being performed by a group of females. I see An-Nisaa' as being a group of males and females and so I see the 3rd person masculine Verb "Taaba" being performed by a group of males and females. If you go to page 62 of the book Arabic Verbs and Essentials of Grammar you will see the authors reiterated what they had said earlier on page 15 and what Haywood said in his book A New Arabic Grammar and that is the masculine plural is used for a group of people that is mixed male and female and there is the reason why the verb "Taaba" is in the 3rd person MASCULINE because it is now Grammatically Obvious That the group of people who are designated with the Collective Group Title of An-Nisaa' are NOT a group of females. And I am emphasizing the terms Collective, Group and Collective Title for a reason which I will expound upon a bit later. It's important to keep this in mind.
But when a masculine plural OR a masculine verb is used for a group of people, that means the group of people can be ONLY ONE or the other
1). A group of males.
2). Mixed group of males AND females.But there is NEVER a third possibility of the group of people being an all female group. The masculine plural and masculine verbs ARE NOT USED for a group of people who are all females. If the group of people is entirely female then the FEMININE plural and FEMININE verb are applied to them, not the masculine.
You are still bugged over the question WHY the plural feminine in "sadaqatiheen" and the feminine word "waahidatan" are used in 4/4 and 4/3 respectively. I am telling you that you must first look at 4/3 AND 24/31 to see how the word Nisaa' is being used. It would be extremely illogical (and quite sick) to continue to translate Nisaa' to mean women once you understand all of the grammar rules that we have covered so far. Even without going over the grammar rules we just mentioned, COMMON SENSE should compel people to ask themselves HOW and WHY the MOMENAAAT (which IS an a group entirely of females) in 24/31 are asked to cover and relax their sexual ornamentation when they are around Nisaa'iheeb which the traditional translations of Nisaa' would make Nisaa'heen to mean Their Women or even THEIR WIVES!!; since this is another mistranslation they like to give to this word. So I am asking you to first acknowledge that An-Nisaa' IS NOT a group of females. Once that is acknowledged, we can then tackle this mystery of why "wahidatan" and "sadaqatiheen" are used in 4/3 and 4/4. If you wish NOT to acknowledge this and want to hold on to a belief that was just grammatically dismantled, then there is nothing more that I or anyone else can do for you. If a person so badly WANTS to believe something that isn't there, he will continue to formulate all sorts of concoctions to justify to himself this belief he cherishes. But if you wish not to acknowledge that the word Nisaa' is grammatically proven not to be females then go to William Wright's Arabic Grammar bookn and find the grammar rule yourself as to WHY those two feminine terms are employed for The Nisaa'.
And for the final time Wakas, Mazhar IS NOT an authority on Arabic Language or The Quran. I'm not interested in what any 3rd party says, rather it be mazhar, this uq person you mentioned, M.A.S. Abdel Haleem or whoever else. I am interested with seeing YOU prove your caims concerning 4/1 - 4/3. I am discussing this WITH YOU. YOU are making claims and statements about 4/3 so I am asking YOU to please grammatically and logically prove your claims. If you are going to continue to consult other people, perhaps it would be best that you don't mention them. Just mention the grammatical understanding they have and if you share the same understanding, present it to me as if it is yours. This way, if the understanding is grammatically proven to be incorrect, then YOURS as well as YOUR CONSULTANTS' views will be addressed at the same time. BUT THEN AGAIN.....by presenting them as Someone Else's Views/Understandings, if they are proven incorrect it would be those third parties who are proven wrong and not you. Am I right Wakas?
It is my personal understanding (based upon my own research into this word) that the word Nisaa' does not come from the Arabic word Niswatan because that word (just like Nisaa' appears to me to be the only word in the entire Arabic Dictionary to be the Sole Anomaly that we are discussing. Secondly, the letter Hamza (which is a letter in the word Nisaa' IS NOT in the word Niswatan. This is what I was trying to say to Huruf who jumped down my throat for whatever reason. But the word Niswatan has the letter Waw as the third root letter which make this word what they call a defective verb. From what I have ascertained in my Arabic studies, when a defective verb is used as a derivative the final letter waw does not drop out entirely but as characterized by either a long vowel (aa, oo and ee) or a dipthong (aaey or aaow). I have not come across where it is taught that a Hamza can be placed at the end of a derived form of a defective verb. I could be incorrect and if I am incorrect I am humbly asking you to correct me. I do accept correction especially when it is clear and concrete.
However, looking at the actual SPELLING of the word Nisaa', I DO FIND this word listed under the entry for Nasiya which means to be forgetful, to forget and to be OBLIVIOUS. This is the defintion Hans Wehr gives. I'm sure you are aware what it means to be oblivious. It is to be unmindful OR unaware of what is happening to you or around you. To be ignorant of your own social or personal condition. Under this same entry, Hans Wehr gives Nasiy, Nasyan and NISAA' to all mean oblivious.
We have to look at the context of 4/1 through 4/3 and we will see that the context is the address of people/mankind (An-Naas) being instructed on how to better the conditions of those who are left alone in society to fend for themselves and who can use a helping hand (Al Yatamaa). An-Naas are told in 4/3 if they have a fear among them or within them that THEY (AS A WHOLE) will not be able to uphold justice then here is what you can do instead. Notice how it just says JUSTICE/EQUITY but not justice for a certain group of people. It only mentions practicing JUSTICE/EQUITY and since no one in particular is named or pointed to after mentioning this it means justice and equity in general...or in other words JUSTICE FOR ALL!!
So An-Naas (the PEOPLE) are instructed (by way of the imperative 'Ankihoo) to BOND or MAKE A SOCIAL CONTRACT with those people FROM AMONG THE GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO ARE OBLIVIOUS/NOT AWARE of the social and political landscape and how they fit in it. I base THIS UNDERSTANDING on what is said in 4/2 when AN-NAAS are told to HAND OVER to Al-Yatamaa what is their due rights. AN-NAAS (the people) are told to NOT exchange what is just and correct for that which is unjust and incorrect and to not monopolize for themselves the wealth, resources and equal opportunities that should naturally be theirs (al yatamaa). And to exchange what is just and correct for that which is unjust and incorrect and to monopolize and take strictly for yourself and your social group the resources, wealth and basic life amenities that the Yatamaa also have just due rights to is a very gross travesty against the human being. ALL HUMAN BEINGS!! This is the understanding I get from 4/2
If YOU, Wakas, are socially placed among a group of people who are routinely denied equal employment opportunities, access to the natural resources that are available on this earth and are meant to be fairly distributed among ALL HUMAN BEINGS and denied a voice which can allow you and your social group to be granted these things, then you and your social group are left alone to somehow fend for yourselves. And the fact that this socio-economic condition even extists (and which is set up by human beings and used to suppress and oppres other human beings) is a great, great travesty pepretrated against humanity. If you don't see your condition as being a problem and are unaware of what is rightfully yours and that what IS rightfully yours is being denied to you then you are not only someone who has to somehow make his own way in this world )al yatamaa) but you are also OBLIVIOUS and TOTALLY UNAWARE of the socio-economic landscape that has been shaped by wicked people and where you fit in in this landscape.
An-Naas (mankind/people/human beings) are invited to establish their society based upon the SYSTEM which The Quran outlines. This will be a process. In order to start the process of alleviating this situation, human beings are told in 4/3 to take up under their wing some people who are fit in a "Sub Group" of the overall group of Yatamaa. The Nisaa' are oblivious to the fact that they have been socio-economically manuevered into being left as sheep in a world of wolves. Notice how 4/3 mentions nothing about money or finances. It is my understanding that to establish this 'Bond' , this 'Contract' is to give assistance to them not only economically (if you are able to do so), but socially, intellectually, morally, educationally and most important politically. 4/3 says mathnaa, thulaatha and rubaa'a which the traditonalists translate as two, three or four (meaning up to for women to marry...aka polygamy). I think someone else here already mentioned that these words ARE NOT the cardinal numbers of 2, 3 and 4. The Cardinal numbers of two, three and four are athnaan (2), thalathat (3) and arba'a (4). These cardinal numbers ARE NOT what is written in 4/3. These numbers are made into a derived form that is meant to convey a Plural context. Because of this, some people who believe this verse is talking about polygamy translate mathnaa, thulaatha and rubaa'a to mean two's, three's and four's and this means (to them) to marry or marry off two at a time or three at a time or four at a time. I agree with the two at a time, three at a time or four at a time but I don't agree that it is talking about marriage because the word that definitively means marriage in a male to female bond of love and attraction is Zawaaj ( as I pointed out earlier ). But the word that is used in 4/3 is Nikaah (fa'ankihoo) and that word does not definitevly mean marriage and neither is the word used among the rabs for marriage. But I do know that Arabs who are TRADITIONAL MUSLIMS use this term for marriage. But the problem with this is that Traditional Muslims aren't the only Arabs in the world. What about other Muslims in Arab lands who seem to be just fine with the word Zawaaj for matrimony? What about the Arabs who are NOT muslim who too use the term Zawaaj?
Anyway, because it is a NIKAAH (which means it IS a social contract) the people are expected to fullfil the agreed upon terms of this social contract. If you feel as though you are able to divide up your time, your persons and your resources then by all means make a social contract with two people or three people or even four people. But if you feel as though that you will not be able to EVENLY and FAIRLY divide your time, energy, resources and personal attention among all four or all three or both of the two, then it would be best to have this bonding contract with just one person from this group of people who are CALLED/COLLECTIVELY TITLED An-Nisaa'. In this way you yourself will not be practicing an unintentional injustice by giving more of yourself to someone than you give to others in the group.
THIS is how I UNDERSTAND 4/3. I am not giving you a word for word translation or breakdown because you already know how I am against what you would call a word for word Literal translation of The Quran because it is not the words that are what's important but the CONCEPTS that these words are giving us. I prefer to share how I understand the concepts of the Quranic vocabulary and in this way any person here can read, understand and absorb these concepts and put it into their own words in a way that they would better understand the concepts. This is one of the problems that come with translations of The Quran. At the end of the day, even if the translator correctly understands the concepts of the Arabic words they still have to somehow convey those concepts to the readers of their translation and if they do not choose the right words to convey the concepts, the translation will fail to reach the reader in the way that is hoped by the translator. So PLEASE look at my UNDERSTANDING of 4/3 and keep in mind the grammatical exercises we have already been through and you will see why I am against your understanding of polygamy and why I understand in the way that I do.
One of the basic meanings of the root word "Taaba" is to be AGREEABLE. You can find this word "agreeable" Hans Wehr, Abdul Mannan Omar, John Penrice and Lane's under the entry for "Taaba". So, there's the WORD agreeable, but what is more important is the CONCEPT. The concept is that of a person who willingly agrees to something or does not object to a possible agreement. So yes, a nikaah is a social contract and the terms of a contract have to be mutually agreed upon by all parties involved, but I want you to keep in mind that the Nisaa' are the ones who are at the Receiving End of this contract while the other person from among An-Naas are the ones who are in the position to be at the Giving or Extending End. The Nisaa' are a group from among a larger group of Yatamaa and as a part of this larger, overall group they are left alone in society to fend for themselves and have no one to help them. How many people DO YOU KNOW who will willingly turn away the help of a philanthropist? I should could use some help right now and if a philanthropist comes along and offers me a helping hand through a mutual contract, I want to know the terms of this contract and I have to be AGREEABLE to the terms of the contract before it is signed by me. It is amost the same scenario when applying for a job. The applicant is at the receiving end and the potential employer is the one at the lending or giving end. If you want this entity to be your employer and pay you money for services rendered, you are going to have to AGREE to the terms of your employment and you will have to sign documents stating your agreement to your terms of employment. if you are NOT agreeable to the terms, look elsewhere OR face the possibility of continuing to be left to fend for yourself if you cannot make yourself to be agreeable to whoever comes along and wishes to provide help for your well being.
I have given you this lenghty reply inspite of the fact that you didn't answer my question to you in the last post I made. I'm repeating it again because I would like for you to answer it.
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?
Peace Damon,
What struck me about this particular post, was your mentioning of the possibility that 'fainkihoo' may not pertain exclusively to marriage? Perhaps, 4.3 could be speaking of a different kind of social contract where a pledge pertaining to protection and support is given? What's everyone's take on that? Could this be a possibility? Damon, perhaps you could also elaborate on this?
-
Pointing out logical fallacies is pertinent information in a discussion. You claim I did not highlight your specific logical fallacies, when I did. I have our emails right in front of me. If you meant you still did not understand or accept my claim of your logical fallacies, then that's fine, but that's a different matter.
In fact, even in this thread, I was specific when I stated your logical fallacies.I too still have that e-mail exchanged saved in my inbox and I just finished reading through it again. NO, you DID NOT prove any logical fallacies. You did what you always do bro, you stated that what I am saying (or defending in the case of Dr. Qamar) has logical fallacies. Your exact words. Your favorite words. AND you presented a Link to this logical fallacy and strawman argument stuff you also like to quote. Now, PLEASE read my last post again where I said that in that e-mail exchange
you NEVER pointed out, explained, anaylized or otherwise dissected either one of our arguments to substantiate my logical fallacies and your lack of logical fallacies
And I stand by this. You brought me ony theoretics and try to give me what you thought was a scientific example. I informed you that your argument is riddled with logical fallacies and you literally said that your arguments have no logical fallacies. Never explained why or how what I said had logical fallacies, and never explained why or how your arguments did not have logical fallacies.
Wakas, don't you think it's about time that you just stick with discussions and stop using that slogan and the links you give to educate people about your slogan? Don't you think it's about time that you stop blaming others for having these logical fallacies you speak of but will not accept this same blame for yourself? In the course of our discussion, instead of using the words logical fallacy at me, I would much appreciate it if you would just dissect my arguments point by point, go to the grammar books, the dictionaries and The Quran and display for all to see WHAT the logical fallacy is, WHY it is and HOW it is. Don't you think it would be much better in your favor if you would actually prove the logical fallacies without making an empty statement?
NOW, I HAVE A PROBLEM!!! Here it is
Is it a case of me answer your questions, and you not answer mine?
NO IT IS NOT!! BUT.....I would like for you to answer the question that I asked instead of you continuing to do what you've done in your last two responses to this question. Look at this
With regards to 43, if there was variance in view of this verse and/or I had some issues with it, I'd first begin by determining what is theoretically possible according to Arabic grammar, e.g. in our case, who the verb "taba" refers to. I'd consult corpus, others, grammar books, CAD,
This is EXACTLY what I am talking about. You still REFUSE to answer the question that is asked. This is why I am not going forward with you because I told you more than once this is a tactic I find distasteful. I DID NOT ASK YOU anything about the verb TAABA in 4/3. I asked you about the PLURAL FORMS that are used in 4/3 and I asked you which rule of Arabic Grammar is used to determine WHO the plural forms of 4/3 are referring to. I think you realize what an honest answer to this question would do to your argument of who is actually being addressed and ordered in 4/3. And for the record, I'm tired of you bringing up this corpus quran thing man, seriously. Corpus quran is not William Wright's book or Haywood's, or Thackston's or Professor Jones' or Nasif, Diyab, Tammum and Salih.
Everyone else reading this thread, you may think that we have reached a stalemate of some sort or I do not wish to go forward. I DO want to go forward and I DO want to address every point Wakas made in his last post to me. BUT, I am simply not going to participate in a game where a person refuses to give a direct answer to a very specific question especially when we all know (Wakas included) what the Grammatical answer to THAT QUESTION would do to his argument.
We have NOT reached a stalemate. A stalemate (politically) is when one or both parties involved are not budging from whatever stance they have taken up and the talks cannot go forward. I am not refusing to go forward. I am refusing to allow Wakas to move past a key question without answering that question. Wakas, when have you ever known me to go back on my word? If you are willing to be serious and honest and address the question I had asked you, you have my word that I will address everything you said in your last post and we can continue the discussion.
The ball is in your court. I'm here and I'm still waiting
-
Peace Bob,
No offense, but neither of those sites look like reputable dictionaries. The second one looked really shady. Who created these dictionaries?
Also, I disagree that God would have had to used the ha-ya-dad for menstruation. ha-ya-dad is the root for mahid. I undertand it as how "sajada" is the root word for masjid. So, mahid is the actual word for menstruation, while ha-ya-dad is only the root, which means "to menstruate". Of course, "to menstruate" would not fit in here. As a result, God has chosen mahid.
Your other interpretations make little sense to me. I feel like I'm reading something that does not even relate to anything of relevance.
Another thing, are you saying that the word "al" before a word makes it very special? I don't agree with this approach either. Again, not sure if I understood you correctly. Please clarify further if I haven't understood you.
Can you refer to grammar books where they explain why MA is added to khz and why the proper word for menstruation KHAIZ is not used? Can you show us authentic dictionary which is showing us the accurate word for menstruation?
