Discussion on 4:3 and meaning of nisa
-
Brother Wakas, and Noon,
I wish to draw your attention to an information given in Qur'aan, that is relevant to the scene now obtaining on this thread.
It is that you cannot make a deaf person listen when he has turned his back towards you.
Bob asked on the thread
What is the evidence for Nisa being women?
I replied
Millions of living Arabic speaking population.
But you read out billions of pages written in Arabic by pure Arabs which say that Nisa means and refers only to Women and Wives in possessive phrases; swith on the Arabic channels where native Arabs are talking and calling Nisa pointing women; to a deaf person not looking at you, he will not accept.
So humble advice, just relax and forget. I wish people benefit from your time saved from such deaf situations.
-
Damon Bro, they will not lisen to you.
For 2222, following is the answer that I gave to some one.
, man I must admit you are good. This is a very shrewd observation. In 2222, word "Haiz" the first letter is , which is substituted here for in the written text. Hence, this word's root is ha-Ya-Dad and not Ha-Ya-Dad. The fact of consonant substitution is discussed in Lexicon but not well discussed in the Grammar books. When one gets stuck, this rule is usually the savior.
-
Salaam Brother Badar,
I know certain people here are stuck in there N2I ways of thinking. My efforts in this thread are not for their benefit. It's for the benefit of the honest and sincere people who are willing to question the religious status quo and exercise logic and basic common sense.
Part of the problem is these people rush to rejection because they are assuming that all of the verses mentioning Nisaa are speaking of women and that they all have some sort of feminine context. I think the simplest thing to do (which is what I am trying to do here) is look at a couple of ayaat with Nisaa as the subject and see how it DOES NOT and CANNOT mean women. 4/3, 3/14 and 24/31 are just three such verses. Once We Ascertain That Nisaa Does Not Mean Women we are then forced to re-examine and reinterpret every verse that mentions this word. We are also forced to re-examine and re-interpret every word that is included in those same verses. It has become all too apparent that some people are strictly averse to doing any of this. I can only feel sorry for them. They were all born with brains but forsake using them. Honesty and the willingness to question things can carry us a long way.
No worries brother, you are doing very hard work in correcting the N2I nonsense that has been heaped on top of The Quran. You and I and our Quranic circles are planting the seeds right now. Due to dishonesty and stupidity it is only logical that some weeds will be present in the garden that you and I will eventually grow for humanity.
-
Quranic understanding was lost when first translation was written. Since then what Muslim are following is the translation of the Quranic message; all of them with out realizing this fact at all. This includes a vast majority of so to called Quranists, as well. It is not just an issue of few words or terms or concepts being changed.
When a simple sentence of "Allahu La illah" can become whatever else it became, instead of "Allah is not an illah/god/a deity for worship". They rest had to become history.
Quran needs to be re understood letter by letter, sign by sign and word by word again. There are no short cuts for it. No tafseer no tasreef, until it is understood word by word.
Regards
-
NISWAH n.f. (pl.; see nisa', above)-women
*1230 (30) certain women that were in the city saidOr look up here for detail http//corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=nsw
You will no doubt see many many potential problems that need resolving.
In 12.30 the verb is singular masculine and the subject is taken to be feminine plural. That cannot be.
-
Salaam Brother Badar,
Quranic understanding was lost when first translation was written. Since then what Muslim are following is the translation of the Quranic message; all of them with out realizing this fact at all. This includes a vast majority of so to called Quranists, as well. It is not just an issue of few words or terms or concepts being changed.
When a simple sentence of "Allahu La illah" can become whatever else it became, instead of "Allah is not an illah/god/a deity for worship". They rest had to become history.
Quran needs to be re understood letter by letter, sign by sign and word by word again. There are no short cuts for it. No tafseer no tasreef, until it is understood word by word.
Regards
I agree with you 100% Brother. We you are doing with your studying and translation work Has To Be Done. Sure, it's a hard task and will be an uphill battle, but it must be done. We didn't get into this mess overnight so we will not get out of it overnight either. It seems some people would rather stick with the traditional understanding due to intellectual laziness and quite possibly ulterior motives.
-
In 12.30 the verb is singular masculine and the subject is taken to be feminine plural. That cannot be.
If it's so, I agree...the alternative from the alternative side is what exactly? that nisa there is singular m? plural m? Forgotten (m) from the city said? Weak (m) said? What do we use to substitute nisa when there is no substitute offered that really makes sense everywhere without a whole lot of effort to insert? I'm really curious since I have no horse in this race. If there is a better option that makes sense, I'm all for it. If not, let's see why these apparent anomalies exist.
-
The morphological question from my point of view is fundamental. I am not an expert on it, but I do have enough experience and feeling (I think) to suspect that the root hamza-n-s for nisaa' is more fitting than n-s-hamza.
The variety n-s-w is something else, and the two times it appears and wakas has included in the list in one case, as I pointed out the verb is masculine singular and the subject is interpreted as feminine plural. In the other case both seem to be feminine plural.
Is there a difference (there must be) between niswa and nisaa'? If so what is it? And if there is no difference, there must be an explanation. What is it?
In one thing I do concur with shirley and it is that it is very odd, very striking, not to be brushed aside, that there should not be a plural for persons-women coming from the same root as the singular. I do not think there can be exageration in noting how strange that is, because finallly women are not something odd or rare in nature, particularly seen from the point of view of the human species, it is very common. If nisaa' was derived from root hamza-n-s it would be far more logical and far less odd that if it were to come from n-s-'.
I many instances the meaning of nisaa' as women as it appears inthe honourable Qur'an, for me fits too well and makes too much sense to discard. But I continue to have the feeling that the honoured Qur'an is 20 paces (at least) ahead of us and that we try to make it fit our lack of horizon instead of trying to open up our horizon.
Which is why I pointed out that there might be a sociological meaning to nisaa' and rijaal, yes, that the Qur'an indeed understands perfectly the concept of gender as distinct from sex. And consequently uses words to handle different aspects.
The Qur'an is consistent. I establishes and guarantees the due regards and safeguards for the category of women as the main executers of reproduction, but at not time establishes any gender roles.
We do have to open our fan of meanings and possibilities and not brush aside what poses problems under the rug. The Qur'an may have been revealed in the seventh century, but God is ageless and knows what he has created and what we hide and what we do not know that we hide.
So once more, please, somebody able to make a study of the morphological questions regarding the three different roots for the words nisaa'-niswa.
I for one would be grateful and very appreciative.
Salaam
-
Read your previous posts on this topic and I tend to agree with you huruf. In some places women fits too well and in others sociological as you say, is a good fit. At the risk of sounding capt obvious, issues arise when square pegs are fit in round holes. Maybe there is a solution in the form of a sociological umbrella term which is specified with context, could be.
In either case, whoever opts to study this further, their efforts would be appreciated.
-
Peace Damon,
You are able to convey your ideas very well, mashallah, and I really have to hand it to you there. Thank you for breaking down the material for us slow pokes (arabic challenged) without trying to make us feel stupid. There are only so many hours in a day, and I'm finding it hard enough to keep up with the discussions. sun
While I find your rendition or translation of those particular verses very pleasing, there is that list of verses that Wakas produced that needs to be dealt with. I know that you are not a translator, but I want to see an exposition or rendition of some of those verses, so that I can see how the traditional meaning of 'nisa' can be substituted across various subject areas. If nisa cannot mean women, then what are the possibilities? I apologize if I am asking for too much, but there needs to be consistency across the board. At this point, 'women' appears to fit in well in most places, but then raises questions in other verses. So, if we're not talking about women, then what/who are we talking about? I am still investigating in regard to the menstruation analysis, but apart from that, there are many other verses where questions still lie.
I believe Huruf believes that there can be a sex-specific meaning to nisa as well as a sociological contextual meaning? Or perhaps, we are expected to differentiate between sex and gender? That's interesting as well. hmm
Huruf said
"In one thing I do concur with shirley and it is that it is very odd, very striking, not to be brushed aside, that there should not be a plural for persons-women coming from the same root as the singular. I do not think there can be exageration in noting how strange that is, because finallly women are not something odd or rare in nature, particularly seen from the point of view of the human species, it is very common. If nisaa' was derived from root hamza-n-s it would be far more logical and far less odd that if it were to come from n-s-'."This is something that I have not been able to stop thinking about, either.
As I've said before, I would like you to continue in this thread.
-
Say "charge"--positively charged is masculine and negatively charged feminine. Some clouds are mentioned "masculine" while some as "feminine".
Peace Mazhar,
I have no idea what you just said. Please speak in very simple terms. I feel like you are explaining chemistry to me, positively charged subatomic particles and clouds of electrons.
-
While I find your rendition or translation of those particular verses very pleasing, there is that list of verses that Wakas produced that needs to be dealt with.
I have said this more than once that every verse with the word Nisaa' in it have been deliberately given a so-called "Feminine Context" not only by mistranslating the word Nisaa' but also by mistranslating Other Words in those Same Verses in order to help support the False Notion of a Feminine Context. I am against putting the cart before the horse by approaching every verse with the word Nisaa' in them and trying to convince myself that they are obviously feminine in context. This is why I have been saying all along to look at a few sample verses with the word Nisaa' in them and ascertaining if the word could really mean women. By using Arabic Grammar and simple logic we can look at 4/3, 3/14, 12/30 and 24/31 and ask ourselves how on earth this word could possiby mean women in these verses. 4/3 and 12/30 exposes the idea grammatically and 3/14 and 24/31 exposes the idea logically. After coming to the conclusion that Nisaa' does not (and cannot) mean women in these verses, THEN we have to start all over with this word and every verse that it is mentioned in. BUT it is not not only Nisaa' that has to be re-examined in those verses. Now every word in those verses have to be re-examined and reinterpreted in light of the new insights that we have come across concerning the word Nisaa'.
I know that you are not a translator, but I want to see an exposition or rendition of some of those verses, so that I can see how the traditional meaning of 'nisa' can be substituted across various subject areas. If nisa cannot mean women, then what are the possibilities? I apologize if I am asking for too much, but there needs to be consistency across the board
No, it's not that you are asking too much of me, it is only that I have not myself re-examined and reinterpreted Every Verse with Nisaa' as the subject or honorable mention. What I can recommend that you do is either take the alternative meanings of Nisaa' as being (the people who are forgotten about) and/or (the weaker or less assertive people in a society) and substituting them for "women" in all of the verses mentioning women OR you can make this request at The Aastana Blog and I know quite a few people there would be only too happy to present to you how those verses have been translated so far by Dr. Qamar Zaman who is working on an Urdu Translation of The Quran. There are people there who would gladly present those verses to you in English.
You should keep a few points in mind. English is not the native language of most of the people there. So, more than likely it would be or someone else who would have to "doctor" their English and present the answers to you in a manner that you can understand. Another thing you should keep in mind that you should not merely concentrate on the WORDS (the people who are forgotten about) and/or (the weaker or less assertive people in a society). It is best to focus instead on the Concepts that these words are presenting. The concepts are of a group of people who are not a strong social class of people and who are highly dependant on others for their comfort nand well being in society. The concept is along those lines.
At this point, 'women' appears to fit in well in most places, but then raises questions in other verses. So, if we're not talking about women, then what/who are we talking about? I am still investigating in regard to the menstruation analysis, but apart from that, there are many other verses where questions still lie.
My dear sister, you have acknowledged that you do not approach the Quran through the Arabic Language and that (for the time being) you are dependant on the Translations. It is the Translations as well as the Traditonal Teachings that have put the ideas on our heads that the verses in question are talking about women. So we are now speaking of years worth of ideas that we would need to purge ourselves of in order to understand what The Quran is really saying in these verses. It is like we have been with a person For Years only to find out now that he has lied to us about quite a few things. So now we have to re-examine our past dealings with him and figure out what else he may have lied to us about. Remember, all it takes is just one lie to let us know that we are dealing with someone who is able and willing to lie to us. Please think of it that way.
I believe Huruf believes that there can be a sex-specific meaning to nisa as well as a sociological contextual meaning? Or perhaps, we are expected to differentiate between sex and gender? That's interesting as well.
I am not against such a possibility. I am willing to accept that if we can ascertain for sure that such is the case. Huruf has been mainly quite in this discussion, but the few times Huruf did chime in with his/her input (I don't know what gender Huruf is) always did a much better job in a few words that I have been abe to in almost a whole book length worth of words.
Huruf said
"In one thing I do concur with shirley and it is that it is very odd, very striking, not to be brushed aside, that there should not be a plural for persons-women coming from the same root as the singular. I do not think there can be exageration in noting how strange that is, because finallly women are not something odd or rare in nature, particularly seen from the point of view of the human species, it is very common. If nisaa' was derived from root hamza-n-s it would be far more logical and far less odd that if it were to come from n-s-'."This is something that I have not been able to stop thinking about, either.
As I've said before, I would like you to continue in this thread.
I completely agree. Huruf has brought more clarity to this discussion than I ever could. In Fact concerning what Huruf said in that quote above PLEASE read my next post.
-
I pointed out to everyone earlier in this thread that the Arabs have words for things that they are familiar with. They are certain to have words for certain animals if they share the same environment as them. Since Wright mentions the animal "Mole" (Khuld) , I am naming a few animals that the Arabs share the Arabian desert with and THUS have words for such as Lion, snake, lizard, camel, elephant, etc. The Arabs have a PLURAL form and a SINGULAR for each word they have for these creatures that they are familiar with and each plural word come from THE SAME ROOT as their singular form.
BUT, there are three animals in particular that the 7th Century Arabs were NOT familiar with and these three creatures are the Arctic Hare, the arctic fox and the Walrus. The reason they were not familiar with them is because these three animals live in an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT part of the world and in an entirely different environment than them which is the North Pole/Northern Hemisphere. So when the Arabs FINALLY learned of the existence of these animals they had to COME UP WITH NEW WORDS (emphasis on NEW) to describe them with. Because they were NEW WORDS that they CAME UP WITH, their singular forms and plural forms run the risk of being different words from different roots. In fact, the singular words they use for arctic fox and arctic hare RETAIN the American words FOX and HARE respectively. But I humbly suggest that anyone reading this post go to Google Translate to see for yourself the SINGULAR and PLURAL words for all three and you'll see how the plurals are using different root letters than their singular.
WHAT MAKES ALL OF THIS INFORMATION SIGNIFICANT is the FACT that we have this so-called ANOMALY for NEW WORDS the Arabs CAME UP WITH to label things that DO NOT EXIST IN THEIR ENVIRONMENT (things that they were not always familiar with). So, if the Arabs have a plural word for WOMEN with a different root than the singular word WOMAN, this would suggest that a WOMAN or WOMEN DID NOT EXIST AMONG THE ARABS UNTIL RELATIVELY RECENTLY!!! And they had to COME UP with NEW WORDS to describe the singular Woman and the plural Women because they weren't aware of their existence until recently. Now do you see how ridiculous this whole thing is???? What explanation can the traditionalists have for this?
And concerning the fact that the word Nisa' is translated as "Women" in The Arabic Dictionaries, please read these words very carefully. I Live in the United States of America and here there is a word that is used for Black People and they call this word The *N word. Those on this forum who live in the U.S. know exactly what I am talking about.
This word has made its way into many, many. many dictionaries of American English. The definition that is given in these dictionaries is "A Derogatory Term Used For African Americans". But how many people here realize that this word is a relatively NEW WORD in the American Dictionary? How many people realize that this word Originally described a person (ANY person) as being Ignorant and Uncivilized? (see definition number two). This word started to be used by White People in America as slang term for Black people because Black people were called "Negroes" and this word Negroe comes from the Spanish and Portuguese word "Negro which means Black. Since this word sounded so much Like the *N word as well as the word "Niggard" (stingy, miserly, scrooge, etc.) they started to used a "Slang Term" strictly for Black People in America.
BUT anyone can be Niggardly (regardless of so called color or race) and anyone can be a *igger (again regardless of so-called color or race). But look up the *N word in the American English Dictionaries and it would NOT give the ORIGINAL MEANING of this word. In fact, it doesn't give a definition at all. It only says HOW this word is used and that's as an offensive term for Black People in America.
What is the significance of this information? Black People in America are regarded by those in power (White People) as being the Social Other. Women in Arab culture always has been and continues to be regarded by those in power (Men) as being the Social Other. The *N word has made its way into The American English Dictionaries within the span of only a Century. The Arabic Dictionaries and Culture had much, much longer to do the same with the word Nisaa'. Let's not kid ourselves. The Arabic language is much older than American English. Centuries Older. Arab Culture is much, much older than American Culture. Again, centuries older. If the American Dictionaries can pull of what they have concerning the *N word in a matter of only 100 years, how much better can The Arabs pull off their own *N word in a matter of centuries? They've have much more time to establish their own *N word than America has with hers.
Even though there is an Original definition of this *N word, if any White Person were to be called this word, they would categorically reject accepting this term and say that it only applies to Black People. hmm Think people, Think. Please stop underestimating how people in power can determine what goes in the history books and determine what definitions will be used for whatever words in the dictionaries.
To help drive home this point, the word Black is simply something that is devoid of color. Absolutely colorless and dark. The opposite of white which is also colorless but light instead of dark. Keep in mind the social outcast category Black people are placed in and look up negative words such as Black Ball, Black List, Black mail, Devil's Food Cake vs. Angel's Food Cake, Black as a description of corruption, evil and wickedness, White as a description of good and morality, black for a funeral (a sad day) vs. white for a wedding (a happy day). There are many, many more words that are used to help "ingrain" in the minds of The American People negative thoughts when it comes to the word "Black" and anything associated with this word and color.
Those who are defending the status quo of Nisaa' meaning women will completely dismiss everything I have said in this post. Those who are honest and willing to look at what I have said in this post and go "HHmmmmmmmm... hmm " will not immediately dismiss what I said and ponder on this situation.
LASTLY, Vol. 1, page 233 of William Wright's book DOES NOT describe an anomaly of words with singular roots NOT HAVING plural forms from those same roots. In fact, if we read it carefully it appears to me that Wright was never trying to make that claim. He is describing a phenomena in which a plural word can be used in addition to or as a substitute for the plural words that already exist for each singular word he listed in that section of his grammar book. And as I already said, if this UQ person was honest he would have included ALL of the information from that page and listed the reference and page number instead of cherry picking certain words all for the sake of defending a cherished belief/view point. If we would read it carefully, Wright is basically describing a situation where some Arabs may use the Plural word "Mudun" (cities) for the singular word Balad (town) even though there is already a plural form of Balad which is Bilaad. By the way, the plural word "Mudun" is the plural form of the singular word "Madeena".
-
Hi guys....whats up....
when I decided to read the quran with an open mind free from every kind of sunni or tradtional interference, I also got the idea that nesa cannot be a gender. If I as an Arab can become suspicious to nesa being a gender, its only understandable that others would be that as well. Overall being a quranist is a huge responsibility and harsh because you are forced to reason for yourself. Being a sunni was lot easier as you litterly didnt had to think every interpretation and translation of the quran was already presented to you by the ulama, so all you had to do was to ape them ;D I really mean it, when i was a sunni I could read the whole quran as a parrot in a couple of hours, but when I left sunnism it took me almost a month to read the whole quran as I for the first time had to grasp everything written in it ;D