Discussion on 4:3 and meaning of nisa
-
First, the word Nisaa'. This word does not, indeed it CANNOT, mean women. The reason being that the claim is this word is PLURAL for woman. But this is completely false. In the Arabic Language ALL WORDS have the same roots in the plural form as they do their singular form. For example, you have the singular word Masjid from Sa-Ja-Da and the plural form of this word is Masaajid. The root letters are there intact. We also have the root letters Ka-Ta-Ba from which we get the singular word kitab and its plural form is kutub. Again, the root letters are intact. I can go on and on with this. Bayt (house) and Buyut (houses), Wajh (face) and Wujuh, etc. Now, here's the issue at hand. ALL OF THE ARABIC DICTIONARIES that I have ever read give for the singular word woman as IMRAA'A. I also know for certain that their is a DUAL form of this word which is IMRAA'ATAYN. HOWEVER, when it comes to the PLURAL form of this word they give the Arabic word Nisaa' and I am sure this has to do with the sexist, male chauvinism that Arab men are known for.
The claim is that all plurals have the same Root as do their singular form. So what is An-Nisa? Singular or plural? If singular what is its dual and plural? If plural what is its singular and dual from the same Root it belongs to?
If the question is addressed earlier, would some member kindly point it for me.
-
Peace Released, then as with any problem simplify and start with this verse only 7 words which 6 are easy...
422 and not you marry whom married (polite translation) your fathers from al-nisaa/the women...
Come to think of it, is it really necessary to state that any man marry from the women? Is it contemplated at any time in the Qur'an that men might marry a cow or a tree, something else than a woman?
It is the same thing with "ma taba lakum min an-nisaa'. If it is addressing men, what could they possibly marry beside the women. In fact, I am starting to see the possibility that here nisaa' in fact are unprotected people, needing the support of the community. And the nisaa' orphans (the unpprotected who are orphans), are to be married one or more at a time under the patronage of the community, as many of them at a time as the community may afford, helping them with setting up home, moneywise or otherwise. As to the use in the feminine, if it is a group word why should it not be used in the feminine? Is it prohibited that those individuals comprised under a group word be spoken of as feminine or masculine. I can't remember my grammar now, but I think that it is done in fact. The group is a singular, but it concords in the feminine. If their componentes are spoken of as a whole, why should they not be handled as feminine plural? Is there a rule against that?
In fact what has transpired of this whole exercise is that we know zilch about the morphology or meaning or extraction of the word nisaa'. Something has been said about niswat, but comletely insufficient.
Mazhar has asked some questions the nisaa' word, I have been asking those questions, for a complete and thourough analysis of the roots and morphology of those words for quite a while. Nobody has come forward with that. The fact that there is no answer up till now, does not mean that the answer does not exist.
As I said, I do think that in some cases, nisaa' meaning women is warranted, particularly when rijaal and nisaa' are exposed as counterparts. I do not exclude that even in those cases it could not mean something else as well. There may be other instances, where nisaa' may fit or fit better with a different meaning. Like males marrying what? ?Big surprise! women. Isn't it a great idea? If I were a man I wouldn't mind either marrying a woman. Just for a change. I might be tired of marrying sea-lionesses, which are also cute, but nevertheless...
Salaam
-
The claim is that all plurals have the same Root as do their singular form. So what is An-Nisa? Singular or plural? If singular what is its dual and plural? If plural what is its singular and dual from the same Root it belongs to?
If the question is addressed earlier, would some member kindly point it for me.
Salaam -- yes and what word is the plural for woman or how to say women in Arabic?
Come to think of it, is it really necessary to state that any man marry from the women? Is it contemplated at any time in the Qur'an that men might marry a cow or a tree, something else than a woman?
Salaam -- exactly it can only mean women!
How else to say not marry who "shagged" your fathers? Thus other women permitted exceptions next verse.
423 prohibited upon you mothers yours and daughters yours and your sisters... and mothers nisakum/women yours and your step daughters the ones whom in your guardianship from nisakum/women yours the ones whom entered in them so if not you were entered in them so not blame upon you...
-
Peace Released, then as with any problem simplify and start with this verse only 7 words which 6 are easy...
422 and not you marry whom married (polite translation) your fathers from al-nisaa/the women...
Lastly if one hasn't done an in depth study or in process of translating entire Qur'an and taking each word and checking for cross-reference and consistency they shouldn't state it cannot mean this or that and at same time offer no alternative meaning or a woman's bleeding menses are "war" or touching/marrying "weak/poor people" which in context are ridiculous.
Peace Noon,
Of course it looks ridiculous right now, but let's give everyone a fair chance ( time as well). However, nisa interpretated as 'women' in the few verses that Damon pointed out, looks ridiculous to me too. If it doesn't make sense to me, then I obviously will be curious about it. I have yet to come across anyone from your group (Mazhar, Wakas, etc) explain things to me in a way in which I can understand. I would be lying to you if I told you that I understand what you are saying, and then reject your analysis. I just want to explore the possibilities of what 'nisa' can mean, and decide for myself. It make take years or even decades for an alternative meaning to those 50+ verses to surface, and after that, there may be more questions. This is what keeps us going to back to the text.
-
Of course it looks ridiculous right now, but let's give everyone a fair chance ( time as well). However, nisa interpretated as 'women' in the few verses that Damon pointed out, looks ridiculous to me too. If it doesn't make sense to me, then I obviously will be curious about it. I have yet to come across anyone from your group (Mazhar, Wakas, etc) explain things to me in a way in which I can understand.
Peace,
Things seem to have become somewhat simpler.
- You have agreed with Noon that interpreting Nisa other than women looks ridiculous at some places.
- And in some verses it looks ridiculous to you to interpret An Nisa as women.
I think that "explain things to me in a way in which I can understand" can satisfactorily be done by explaining occurrences in category 2 above. Please quote exactly the Ayah Nos where it seems ridiculous to interpret AnNisa as women.
-
Peace Mazhar,
Nevermind, I've got them here
Here is what Damon wrote
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.
Now, with 4.3 there is the grammatical issue. With 3.14 and 2431 there is the issue of homosexuality? love the desire of women in 3.14? or the part of "their women" in 2431..I don't understand that either. I'm not sure if I fit into that boat at all..or ever for that matter. No offense, of course, to any woman here that does. group
Modify
There is also the issue of 4911 and what qawm actually mean..whether contexual or specific to one precise meaning.All I'm saying is that I'm open to other explanations to this stuff other than random anomalies and traditional understanding.
-
Now, with 4.3 there is the grammatical issue. With 3.14 and 2431 there is the issue of homosexuality? love the desire of women in 3.14? or the part of "their women" in 2431..I don't understand that either. I'm not sure if I fit into that boat at all..or ever for that matter. No offense, of course, to any woman here that does. group
Modify
There is also the issue of 4911 and what qawm actually mean..whether contexual or specific to one precise meaning.All I'm saying is that I'm open to other explanations to this stuff other than random anomalies and traditional understanding.
Peace Released,
OK one at a time starting with 2431 and 3355 nisahinna (i.e. female relations)/women theirs (f) as explained earlier as to who can drop by visit without asking permission first etc., does that make sense to you or do you think any woman can drop by unannounced or for example they can expose parts of their breasts (e.g. breastfeed their children) or they can walk about in a loose night gown in the presence of any stranger women unrelated to them?
3353 O you those who believe not you enter houses the prophet only/except that permission has been given to you ...
3355 not blame onto them (f/p) in fathers theirs (f/p) and not sons theirs (f/p) and not brothers theirs (f/p) and not sons brothers theirs (f/p) and not sons sisters theirs (f/p) and not nisahinna/(i.e. female relatives)/women theirs (f/p) and not what possess right hands/trust theirs (f/p) and be mindful The God indeed The God He is over each a thing Witness
2431 and say to the believers (f/p) they should lower from their gaze and they should guard their chastity and not display adornment theirs (f/p) except what apparent from it and let them draw their covering over bosoms theirs (f/p) and not display adornment theirs (f/p) except to husbands theirs (f/p) or fathers theirs (f/p) or fathers husbands theirs (f/p) or sons theirs (f/p) or sons husbands theirs (f/p) or brothers theirs (f/p) or children brothers theirs (f/p) or children sisters theirs (f/p) or nisahinna (i.e. female relatives)/women theirs (f/p) or what possess right hands/trust theirs (f/p) or al-tabAyn/the walkers behind not the ones the desire from al-rijal/the men or the young those who not aware on private the women and not beat with feet theirs (f/p) to know what they conceal from adornment theirs (f/p) and turn to The God all you the believers that you may prosper
-
Peace Noon,
However, this verse seems something to do with possession. "their women". Lactation consultants are those who perform a service to women who have just delivered. Ordinarily, I don't think it's okay for women to be relaxing their dresscode to that extent, around other women. I do think that it's important for women to be chaste with one another as well, unless, there is a medical reason. It's the same reason why women don't mind relaxing their garments for male gyncologists and nurses. Even if it was someone of the same sex, how do you know that the person is not of the homosexual orientation?
The verse definitely comes across to me as describing a sense of belonging or ownership, but people in the medical profession cannot belong to us, rather we could be a patient or client belonging to them. I'm not sure if it can go the other way.
-
salaam all,
I thought I had made it clear to you earlier, but if I did not then I am making it clear now. The conversation between you and me is terminated.
You were clear, however that isn't going to stop me replying to what you write if I feel the need etc. The questions remain.
Come to think of it, is it really necessary to state that any man marry from the women? Is it contemplated at any time in the Qur'an that men might marry a cow or a tree, something else than a woman?
If you feel a man can marry ANY woman, without restriction, then yes you may think the above. Others may not feel the same way, and not think the above.
Having said that, I do know that people around the world allegedly marry other than humans. Of course it is not widespread however.However, this verse seems something to do with possession. "their women".
Are you implying by the use of "their" in 2431 it implies possession/ownership? If so, are you applying that to all the categories named with "their" attached to them?
-
-
If you feel a man can marry ANY woman, without restriction, then yes you may think the above. Others may not feel the same way, and not think the above.
Salaam, brother Wakas,
Allow me to point out to you that my first remark on this mentionning of nisaa' was in connection with 4.3. I quote myself on that
It is the same thing with "ma taba lakum min an-nisaa'. If it is addressing men, what could they possibly marry beside the women. In fact, I am starting to see the possibility that here nisaa' in fact are unprotected people, needing the support of the community. And the nisaa' orphans (the unpprotected who are orphans*), are to be married one or more at a time under the patronage of the community, as many of them at a time as the community may afford, helping them with setting up home, moneywise or otherwise.
*I would add now "of either sex".
That was the case which started my reflection.
Now, about 4.22. In fact it could have been expressed some other way, with a relative pronoun in the feminine, por example. I do not think the choice of word is inocuous and there is some inertia in not trying to see beyond the accepted standard meaning. Where it would lead in this particular aya, might be nowhere, or might be somewhere. We would see once we advance in the whole question.
Quote from noonwalqalami
423 prohibited upon you mothers yours and daughters yours and your sisters... and mothers nisakum/women yours and your step daughters the ones whom in your guardianship from nisakum/women yours the ones whom entered in them so if not you were entered in them so not blame upon you...
Where it says " and mothers nisakum/women yours"
In fact here is a very clear example that nisaa' does not always mean women, in this case it obviously means wives and not women. Because if it is was women it would be all the women of the group in question, and obviously all the women cannot be prohibited, therefore it is the wives.
And sorry to say, whereas tendency is always to adscribe to women significance only as object of males, there is a difference, a very considerable difference between women and wives. Just as the difference between men and husbands.
The question is not closed, not by far. At the very least we know that nisaa' = women only is not true.
And I am sorry, again, that nobody has come up yet with a thorough morphological study and analysis that I keep requesting. All this we are doing es purely speculative, because we miss a fundamental aspect of the whole thing. I quote myself again
As to the use in the feminine, if it is a group word why should it not be used in the feminine? Is it prohibited that those individuals comprised under a group word be spoken of as feminine or masculine. I can't remember my grammar now, but I think that it is done in fact. The group is a singular, but it concords in the feminine. If their componentes are spoken of as a whole, why should they not be handled as feminine plural? Is there a rule against that?
In fact what has transpired of this whole exercise is that we know zilch about the morphology or meaning or extraction of the word nisaa'. Something has been said about niswat, but completely insufficient.
Mazhar has asked some questions about the nisaa' word, I have been asking those questions, for a complete and thourough analysis of the roots and morphology of those words for quite a while. Nobody has come forward with that. The fact that there is no answer up till now, does not mean that the answer does not exist.
I know I may be asking too much, but supposedly in this community there are people very well versed in Arabic grammar. I have asked some vague and general questions, I know, but also very concrete ones. May be we can come forward.
And I make it clear that when I am asking questions, it is just that. I am not prejudging or exacting that the answers be this or that, provided they are honest, unprejudiced and given in good faith and not only that part or in such a way that they are biased from the root. Giving references helps to ascertain those things.
I sincerely hope that together we may get a little wiser in this question, which I, and others, I think, consider very important.
Salaam
-
Quote from noonwalqalami
Where it says " and mothers nisakum/women yours"
In fact here is a very clear example that nisaa' does not always mean women, in this case it obviously means wives and not women. Because if it is was women it would be all the women of the group in question, and obviously all the women cannot be prohibited, therefore it is the wives.
And sorry to say, whereas tendency is always to adscribe to women significance only as object of males, there is a difference, a very considerable difference between women and wives. Just as the difference between men and husbands.
The question is not closed, not by far. At the very least we know that nisaa' = women only is not true.
Salaam huruf, by your same logic and in context it is TRUE nisaa = feminine/women.
422 and not you marry whom married your fathers from al-nisaa/the women except what hence passed indeed it it is immorality and abomination and an evil a way
423 prohibited upon you?
mothers yours (obviously refers to only women and not all mothers of the group in question)
and daughters yours (same as above)
and sisters yours (same as above)
and your father?s sisters (same as above)
and your mother?s sisters (same as above)
and daughters the brother (same as above)
and daughters the sister (same as above)
and mothers the ones whom nursed you (same as above)
and your sisters from the nursing (same as above)
and mothers nisakum/women yours (same as above and not all women of the group in question)
and your step daughters the ones whom in your guardianship from nisakum/women yours the ones whom entered in them (same as above) so if not you were entered in them so not blame upon you w-layl and wives/cohabitants sons yours those who from your loins and that you gathered between the two sisters except what hence passed indeed The God He is Forgiving Merciful
424 and the guarded from al-nisaa/the women except what possess your right hands/trust... -
Noon, I do not know what you are getting at. I started my intervention in this thread and I have said repeatedly in this thread and others, that nisaa', in my opinion, means women in many instances, but the fact that wives are women always does not mean that woman and wife are the same thing, just as chambermaids are women, but chambermaid is not a synonim of women.
So you may pour another ton of nisaa' feminine, and women or whatever to want to write after the Arabic, but the fact is there, in that aya I quoted the proof that nisaa' has other meanings which are not those of women. You could marry a woman if you like, but, according to you own tenets, you could not marry a wife. So, just for your purposes, you see, woman and wife are not the same thing.
Salaam
-
Salaam Folks,
I have been trying to say this in this thread and in fact I HAVE said it more than once that all of the verses that include the word Nisaa' in them have to be re-interpreted because of what we have found out about this word in some of the verses that we have examined. There is obvious Resistance to doing this as evident from some posts by certain people in this thread. Some people still want to think that Nisaa' means women in other verses that we have not tackled yet. They think this because they have been lead to believe (thanks to the translations and traditional teachings) that those other verses are about women, wives or feminine topics. BUT (and I have been saying this as well in this thread) the OTHER WORDS in those SAME VERSES must ALSO be re-interpreted!!!! Those other words have also been mistranslated in order to further the misinterpretations of a "Feminine Context". Some people seem to be so very unwilling to do this. EVERY WORD in ALL OF THOSE VERSES MUST be re-examined and re-interpreted because to me enough evidence exists to overturn the Nisaa' = Women belief.
I also (personally) do not hold the understanding that it can mean women in some verses and mean something else in other verses. I am personally of the understanding that the true connotation of this word should be consistent. I am aware that the Quranic Lexicon Al Qamus Al Muheet informs us that the ROOT of this word is Nun-Siin-Yaa and it also says that Arab men have many different sayings and proverbs connecting this root word to women, BUT that does not mean that is the ORIGINAL INTENT of The Quran when using this word.
Basically what Dr. QZ and the Aastana members are doing is something I realized must be done even when I was still a sunni, and that is we are Starting All Over From Scratch!! The people who altered and defaced the message did so by starting from scratch and they were very methodical about it. WE have to do the same thing IF we want to perform the correct surgery in order to repair The Quran's message and image.
I am not the least bit concerned about those who averse to this. You don't have to agree with us. If you disagree we only ask that you prove your case linguistically and not according to traditional sentiments that are lingering in your minds or the traditional translations that you only wish to re-examine some parts of in order to support your Quran Only stance.
-
Thanks, shirley for the input. In fact that n-s-y root is another posibility, and I can't but insist on that morphological detailed, thourough study of the word. I am afraid without that we are speculating, which for a while is useful, but sometime or other we should put our feet on the ground.
Salaam
-
Salaam Huruf,
I think you are correct. I couldn't agree with you more.
I agree with you that we should examine every root possibility and go through a detailed morphological analysis to see which fits best.
Presently, I am of the understanding that the root of Nisaa' is Nuun-Siin-Yaa. The predominant definitions of this root word and its derivations have to do with either forgetting, to be forgotten, to dismiss and to cause to forget. But it also means to forsake or be forsaken. Because of this I am of the view that NIsaa' is a collective/group noun meaning those who have been totally forgotten about and forsaken/ignored (and hence they are dismissed and do not matter to others). I believe this definition fits well in such verses as 4/3, 4/34 and 2/222 just to name a few. Also notice how Lane's has the two words (Niswa and Nasiya) listed as one interconnected entry and going by Lane's neither one of these root possibilities have anything to do with women or a feminine context (as I had noted earlier in this thread).
According to Al Qamus Al Maheet the root of this word is Nuun-Siin-Yaa and it goes on to explain that there are many sayings of Arab people saying that women are always forgetting and are naturally absent minded. I disagree with the idea that women are naturally absent minded or MORE ABSENT MINDED than men. I think this is hogwash, but that's another debate for another day. Anyway, sexist attitudes are no justification to make the word Nisaa' to be attached to women.
Nuun-Siin-Yaa is an irregular verb; Specifically, it's a Defective Verb and so is Nuun-Siin-Waw and this type of verb is known for elongated vowels in place of the waw or yaa in derived forms.
I am still studying this word and trying to figure out the letter Hamza in the word Nisaa'. I'll be sure to share with you what I come across during my studies.
Salaam,
Damon. -
Thanks, Shirley, for your effort in the morphology question. I would like to do it myself, but I mentally I am not able to undertake something which for others maybe it is easy or not too difficult, but I would need material for consultation and mental space of which I do not dispose now.
I think a way to proceed would be to systematically take each of the roots put forward, that is, a-n-s, n-s-w, n-s-hamza and n-s-y, and try all the paradigms applied to that roots which may result in the word nisaa', bearing in mind also de irregularities. As I have repeatedly pointed out, naas, is a group word derived from a-n-s, where the initial hamza is dropped. It may not be the rule, but the fact is that it is done with that root. It is also done with root a-b-n (sons or daughters) where the initial hamza is also dropped.
It might also be interesting to see if there is some consolidation of two roots, which I do not know now whether that happens, but in linguistics it does happens, that two diferent etimologies amalgamate in a single word to take a meaning that fits in both etimologies.
Also, regarding concordance, I wrote
"As to the use in the feminine, if it is a group word why should it not be used in the feminine? Is it prohibited that those individuals comprised under a group word be spoken of as feminine or masculine. I can't remember my grammar now, but I think that it is done in fact. The group is a singular, but it concords in the feminine. If their componentes are spoken of as a whole, why should they not be handled as feminine plural? Is there a rule against that?"
With this I mean if it is against grammar that, if we take that nisaa' is a broken plural or a group word, if the use of feminine plural speaking globally about its components would be against gramar. I know the singular feminine would not be against grammar, in fact it would be the proper grammar. What about the plural?
Thanks, Shirley, for taking up my suggestion, and excuse if I seem to be imposing on you some tasks. I would do it myself if I felt able, but as explained, I am not up to the task right now.
I really hope this exercise will further our grasp of concepts of the honourable Qur'an, which will make also our life easier and more peaceful.
Salaam
