Discussion on 4:3 and meaning of nisa
-
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
-
Peace Damon,
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'.
Okay, so you are saying that every word within these verses needs to reexamined apart from nisa. That approach makes sense if it is understood that nisa refers to a weaker segment of the society, because otherwise it wouldn't make sense if we were to keep the original understanding of some of those words. This is a massive project, but I find it so intriguing.
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.
This is the biggest issue I find, because I can't read Urdu. Now, I can understand a great deal of it, but I'm no where near proficiency levels. Damon, do you consider yourself fluent in Urdu? I think you would be a great asset (and others like you) to their work, because they need people with expertise in both languages. I understand that aastana's approach is different toward the Quran. The work of the traditionalists is still a stepping stone for most of us here, even though we've derived completely different interpretations in some aspects. I see that aastana has tried to move away from all traditional thought and methodology. Of course, I don't understand a greal deal of what they do (just as I don't understand a great deal of what goes on here), but it's still very interesting to me.
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.
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.
Well, I've definitely been awakened to the possibilities. I'm not sure about lies though. I just feel like people are stuck on their convictions, yet I'm not even fully understanding their convictions, when there are so many unanswered questions. Others have very strong convictions, yet are either unable to break down the material to the simplistic terms, or are deliberately using high level language to confuse and bilittle others. As I've said before, I am glad that your approach is very casual and you try to speak using laysman terminology and language. Perhaps, others can mimic this approach, because it's just so much easier to follow.
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.
Yes, actually Huruf has mentioned this before in a different thread. However, I quickly dismissed it. In light of what you're saying, I am now able to understand Huruf better, it's like connecting one idea to another and exploring the possibilities.
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.
One thing, I did try to register at aastana. I never received a verification mail, so I could not post my questions.
-
Peace again Damon,
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.
Okay, I am following...
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?
Yes, this would prove to be an extremely odd anomaly, in my opinion. I believe at least one word for 'woman or women' exists within every language. I believe that there is no explanation for this, except that traditionalists would simply dismiss the claim as an anomaly and move on. I think it's wrong not to explore this further.
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.
Wow, that's quite a connection you drew there. I do believe that women are regarded as "the social other" in most cultures actually. While some cultures have gone through an evolution in recent years, others have yet to catch up. It's really about changing perceptions and overall mentality. Quite a few people on this forum will not understand your comparison, as they are not well rehearsed in American History or are simply uninterested. I could be wrong, but I definitely get those vibes.
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.
What you've said here, is something that I remember from a Malcolm X book I read many years ago.
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".
Very interesting..especially the last two sentences..
Damon, I look forward to reading more of what you have to say. The more I can understand and know, the better I can reflect and draw my own conclusions. There's no way that we can all take a crash course in this ever evolving material, but we've got to start somewhere..
-
Okay, so you are saying that every word within these verses needs to reexamined apart from nisa. That approach makes sense if it is understood that nisa refers to a weaker segment of the society, because otherwise it wouldn't make sense if we were to keep the original understanding of some of those words. This is a massive project, but I find it so intriguing.
YES, this is EXACTLY what I am saying. D
This is the biggest issue I find, because I can't read Urdu. Now, I can understand a great deal of it, but I'm no where near proficiency levels. Damon, do you consider yourself fluent in Urdu? I think you would be a great asset (and others like you) to their work, because they need people with expertise in both languages. I understand that aastana's approach is different toward the Quran. The work of the traditionalists is still a stepping stone for most of us here, even though we've derived completely different interpretations in some aspects. I see that aastana has tried to move away from all traditional thought and methodology. Of course, I don't understand a greal deal of what they do (just as I don't understand a great deal of what goes on here), but it's still very interesting to me.
Yes, Aastana's approach is quite different from what The Muslim World is used to. It's a very steep and uphill task, but this MUST be done and if Dr. Qamar Zaman and Aastana don't do it, someone else will. This sort of work WILL be done eventually, it's just a matter of when and by whom. You can imagine how much "heat" and negative (and unwarranted) criticism Dr. Qamar faces everyday. Yet, you will not find a kinder, gentler and more humble soul than Dr. Qamar. I have witnessed with my own eyes how he responds to these criticisms with the humility and wisdom (and Quranic Knowledge) that is almost unmatched.
I am studying Urdu and trying my absolute best to catch up to this intricacies of this language as fast as I can so I can serve the exact purpose you have expressed in your quote above. Again, this is something that MUST be done and if I don't do it it's only a matter of time before someone realizes the importance of this and do it themselves. However, I am still a beginner and have some ways to go. But I have a plan and I have a few native Urdu speaking friends whom I can rely on for guidance and correction.
Well, I've definitely been awakened to the possibilities. I'm not sure about lies though. I just feel like people are stuck on their convictions, yet I'm not even fully understanding their convictions, when there are so many unanswered questions. Others have very strong convictions, yet are either unable to break down the material to the simplistic terms, or are deliberately using high level language to confuse and bilittle others. As I've said before, I am glad that your approach is very casual and you try to speak using laysman terminology and language. Perhaps, others can mimic this approach, because it's just so much easier to follow.
Maybe the word "Lies" is too strong a term and somewhat loaded. How about "misguidance"? But I do believe that this "misguidance" is not accidental. And it is pointless to have strong convictions in something if one is unable to use linguistics and "commone sense" to explain, defend and justify those convictions. The idea of HAVING to marry a woman in order to practice Justice (which is that woman's basic human right) is a very sharp insult to our common sense and sense of ethics and scruples. The questions I asked earlier are questions I ask traditionalists all the time and I have YET to receive an answer to any of them by anyone; including here on this forum.
I will ALWAYS use laymen's terms because I am suspicious of anyone who makes it a point to use strict, textbook grammatical terminologies with those he knows are not as versed in the language and terminologies as himself. I take this as an insult as well. Instead of trying to talk circles around you with my fancy grammar talk, I will instead try my absolute best to explain it and break it down so that you UNDERSTAND the grammatical topic in question and be able to remember and forever apply it in your Quranic Studies. This is true sharing of information and Quranic Empowerment. I am no one's teacher. I am only a student which means I am your fellow student.
Yes, actually Huruf has mentioned this before in a different thread. However, I quickly dismissed it. In light of what you're saying, I am now able to understand Huruf better, it's like connecting one idea to another and exploring the possibilities.
Yes, THIS is how we learn; by connecting the pieces and putting the puzzle together. This doesn't happen in one sweep. It takes time and the willingness to put two and two together, then four and four, then eight and eight, etc.
One thing, I did try to register at aastana. I never received a verification mail, so I could not post my questions.
I will look into this for you Sis.
-
Salaam Sunnah-hero. ;D
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
As a native Arab, your input and feedback will prove to be quite valuable. I need to take this time and explain my position so that I am not misunderstood. PLEASE do not misunderstand me pointing out the attitudes of oppression and suppression of women on The Arab World. I am not in any form or fashion degrading Arabs as a people. I am merely pointing out a particular "Cultural Practice" that is unfair to the women in the Arab World.
I am what they call African American (Black Man) and I will be the FIRST to tell you that Black have a lot to learn and bring a lot of their problems on themselves. There are also "Cultural Practices" among Black People that I find outright disgusting. Black men love to disrespect women. Black men love to have kids by a whole bunch of different women and don't care of any of them. Black People can be quite lazy and they LOVE to blame the White People for ALL of their problems. They refuse to take responsibility for themselves and their actions (hey, I'm Black. I'm allowed to say these things laugh ) So please do not misunderstand where I am coming from when pointing out the oppression of women. Women are oppressed all over the world. But within OUR particular discussion of Quran, Islam, Arabic Language, etc. one has to point out where Arab Culture fits in within the global scheme of oppression of women.
But I must also say that you have my heartfelt admiration here because I know just as well as you do how difficult it is to shake off what we've been taught and look at things with our own eyes instead of the eyes of the 'Ulema. As a native Arab yours will be a most welcomed and refreshing voice concerning not only this topic but a re-examination of Islam in general.
The Quran needs you. Humanity needs you.
-
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
Agreed. In many ways it was easier to be a Sunni because you are directed toward the most preferred tafseer. I was even told which school of thought I should follow by a imam, without any explanation other than, it being the one he follows.
-
Salaam all,
Thanks to those who praised something of my messages. Some times praise comes, sometimes the opposite, but the important thing is that we keep searching undeterred by blame or praise, and that it is done in the best faith and for a legitimate purpose.
I regret that nobody seems to bring some morphological analysis of the possible root attribution of the word nisaa' and the word niswah.
In fact the list provided by wakas made me, for the first time, register that very odd thing of it being used in two instances, one with a verb in masculine singular, and another in feminine plural.
The evolution of words, as pointed out by Shirley is a fact, in general. I have pointed out myself in more than one occasion the evolution of the word "hombre" in spanish, where it used to be equivalent, and in fact still is, of human being, en a general sense, but whereas some centuries ago, to say specifically a male human, the word "var?n" would be used, which is clear and pecific, today "hombre" would be used, so that in fact the word "hombre (human being)" is being used today to mean specifically "var?n", male human being. The evolution of language with age does not get necessarily more feminist, in fact it may be and has been quite the opposite, and now it is not getting better, we get the same thing but in a different way. So now we see how "progressive" people look for words to mean both genders, but we did have the words for both genders, only we neglected them and keep neglecting thim, so we will keep fishing for new words to mean those things we do not know how to preserve by getting the idea that words will solve our problems, whereas it is our fighting for truth what will solve them, our social problems as well as our linguistic problems, or at least will not make them worse.
This I say as a general statement as to how linguistical evolution may mean very different things.
Going to Arabic, let me take the root a-m-m, from which the words omm (mother), imam, umma, are derived and we see some interesting things. Although the word mother comes from it, and the root has a meaning of being in front or of leadership, and one would have expected that motherhood would entail some kind of leadership, however we know the raging discussion as to whether women, mothers included, can lead prayers or not. Logic goes out the window. Obviously it is not necessarily a part of linguistics. Language is sociological, or sociologically conditionned.
Going back to nisaa', it is clear to me that it is not a common plural form if it were to come from a-n-s, but on the other hand "naas", which comes from it, is not a common form of derivation either, but on the other hand it is very common, so much so, that it is all over the Qur'an. Also in arabic there are many other uncommon derivations.
On the other hand, it may also be that it is a combination of two derivations which at some time may have been found (even as a joke) to unify two paradoxical concepts. We do that all the time with language. On the one hand the women-human (sociable) kind is equated with the postergated, retarded or whatever kind...
So, apart from that morphological study, including the wider research of that very odd "niswa", which I do not take for granted that it means the same thing as nisaa' in the Qur'an, I concur that we do need to look very carefully into the usage, function and appearance of the word nisaa' in every instance, with all the concurring elements, taking it separately from all the other instances.
I am convinced that the Qur'an is a pregnant book, which keeps having children all the time, we should just not prevent them form being born. Of course, while it is good to let the imagination fly in order to conceive ideas, when trying to reach conclusions we should be rigorous and strict and not let partiality get the best of us.
Doing that study and research, at the very worst, we will know a lot more about many things. Some times we may even learn of something we had never thought of before completely unrelated to what we are searching.
Again, thanks Shirley and Released for you good words.
Salaam
-
Peace Huruf,
You said "I am convinced that the Qur'an is a pregnant book, which keeps having children all the time, we should just not prevent them form being born. Of course, while it is good to let the imagination fly in order to conceive ideas, when trying to reach conclusions we should be rigorous and strict and not let partiality get the best of us."
I agree with you on this. I came into this discussion with a very narrow perspective. I had convinced myself that nisa could never mean anything other than what it had always meant to me. I really didn't think very highly of aastana, as I had difficulty understanding what they were saying (communication issues due to language barrier). Regardless of how I personally feel about polygamy, I was going to defend its intended purpose (what I perceived) til the very end. However, after reading Damon's argument, I suddenly don't feel so confident anymore.
-
Peace Release,
I don't need to comment on Shiley's post, because even without any Arabic, taking the Koran as a whole nod using my intelligence 43 could not possibly telling men to marry multiple women. I have always argued the direction must be one about supporting society, not one offering men the opportunity to have extra sex and women and children less time with thir husbands and fathers.
-
Peace Sunnah hero,
My thoughts entirely. I have always thought it more difficult for ex Sunnis to think more freely. I come from a non Muslim background and feel at ease to examine the Koran objectively although I am hindered massively by having no Arabic.
-
Peace Sunnah hero,
My thoughts entirely. I have always thought it more difficult for ex Sunnis to think more freely. I come from a non Muslim background and feel at ease to examine the Koran objectively although I am hindered massively by having no Arabic.
you are absolutely right. Its very difficult, generally mostly for NON-ARAB, ex shias and ex sunnis to think freely as they have always understood the quran in a certain way which is very hard to break particularly because they dont even have the required arabic skills . You are free of all the traditional pollution which makes you interpret quran with an open mind. The only reason for why I rescued my sunni background trap is because I am a native arabic speaker + I was very conscious about not to interfare any sunni understanding into the quran + the fact that I am a young teenage which makes it a lot easier to put my relatively short past behind me and move on and learn something new.