Discussion on 4:3 and meaning of nisa
-
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
-
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.
Sorry for delay, net service was disturbed in my area.
We take one by one the Ayah where the word An-Nisa, if translated as Women, allegedly seems..
Firstly 43
Its context is
are addressed and their attention is sought. The Noun is -- - Noun Definite ; Plural; Masculine; nominative. Since it is not disputed we need not study about its formation. It signifies collectively men, women, children belonging to species Human, whether intelligent, and sane, or insane, lunatics, of whatever age.
However, when as second person are addressees by call and attention particle it denotes only intelligent and sane mature men and women.addresses are informed He the Exalted has created you people-men and women. Pronoun here keeps men and women combined.
Mature man and a woman in marriage becomes a couple. signifies spouse, thus it will relatively mean husband or wife in context. They reproduce. ResultAnd He the Exalted emerged-separated and spread majority of men, and all women from that couple-First Man and First Woman.
One couple yielded men qualified by adjective negating that ALL men are not from the couple. One exception we know, son of Maryam.
= =it now comprises Men, and . We have no option but to believe that means nothing but Women.
Man and Woman join to make a couple and that which declares them as Husband and Wife is called . Thereby a woman is identified as of Mr. so and so; also described by another possessive phrase like -?The Wife of Imran?. This gives a relative description of a single woman in time and space. However, she remains permanently the member of that part of human species collectively named .
. It is permission, authorization document legally allowing a Man to have sexual intercourse with a woman who is now referred or identified as his . Essentially the two ?ingredients-constituent parts? of are a Man and a Woman.
This couple produces children. Man dies. Wife becomes member of feminine community of human species denoted by and children are given a new classification bereaved children of died father and husband of their mother.
Thereby, in response to the mentioned circumstance, you people are directed to do what is called . Imperative Verb; second person; masculine; plural with subject pronoun denoting only and exclusively the addressee who are masculine segment of . The other essential part for execution of act which is the verbal Noun of the said verb is none but Women.
-
Mazhar,
I can't read the Arabic parts.
Peace,
I did not know that you cannot read Arabic words of Qur'aan. However, explanation of context might indicate that Nisaa is but women and nothing else but women. When this word is part of a Possessive Phrase it will denote those women who are at that point in time wives of the Person mentioned as second noun of Phrase.
-
Peace,
Okay, that's not really an explanation if I can't understand your earlier explanation. I didn't understand your earlier post because of the Arabic. I'm sorry if some people think I'm lazy or something because I can't read Arabic, but time is not on my side at present. I really wanted to learn it when I was younger, but my parents forbade me from it. Anyway, the context has to make sense everywhere where Nisa is used. Also, nisa does not always appear to refer to wives, but also 'women' in many places. Anyway, I'm not throwing out anyone's argument, I just want to fully understand why I'm not seeing what you are seeing.
-
Also, nisa does not always appear to refer to wives, but also 'women' in many places.
AnNisa becomes "wives" only when she is coupled with a man. And this relationship in Arabic is shown by a Possessive Phrase.
An Nisa means only Women and there is not a single use and occurrence of this word both in Qur'aan and all other Arabic literature where it could denote anything else.
-
Peace,
I did not know that you cannot read Arabic words of Qur'aan. However, explanation of context might indicate that Nisaa is but women and nothing else but women. When this word is part of a Possessive Phrase it will denote those women who are at that point in time wives of the Person mentioned as second noun of Phrase.
Sure, anything, like in 24.31?
And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women (of the believing women), or the slaves whom their right hands possess...
Those women are the wives of the believing women?
This looks like a funny attempt at making it look as if women and wives was the same thing, because it is something so straightforward that the word has different meanings, that the only way out is to say that man and husband are the same thing, provided it comes in a possessive frase. Like the king's men are in fact the kings husbands.
?I love this! It is getting more and more exciting!
Salaam, dear wives of mine in this forum. And salaam to the husbands of the forum. If there is a man who is not married to the forum, that is his problem. He should not be here.
Salaam, salaam
-
Possessor and the possessed are both feminine definine plural nouns. Both refer to women. Women are told not to expse their bossoms to women except women of theirs, ladies of their own family before whom they can lay off the additional sheets on their chest.
