Discussion on 4:3 and meaning of nisa
-
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.
-
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.
You said what you said, and now you unsay what you said and direct the question to something else which is not what you said.
Other than that, yes, sure, mafiaman and man also refer to men, so they are the same thing, oh yes. And oxen and men are both males, of course they are the same thing. And fireman and man, everything is the same, why bother. My God.
I thought you would come up with something that showed your splendid knowledge of Arabic grammar with some morphology. I still expect it, but now in some other way, because if it is as funny as this, I am sure to enjoy it.
Salaam
-
LOL.... rotfl rotfl rotfl
This is pathetic and yet funny at the same time. The Quran certainly CAN and DOES make it quite clear if a woman or any female is a member of another person's family or household establishes a clear familial relationship of mother and child in 28/7 just as the next verse (28/ does with . 24/31 establishes no such thing between Al-Momenaat and Nisaa'eheen. Because no such established familial relationship exists AND going by the ridiculous explanation that was given about Nisaa' WOMEN and WIVES, then 24/31 is talking about the WOMEN or WIVES of other females. This is just outright ridiculous!! The lack of willingness to let go of the traditional concepts and hold on to them at all costs is what forces people to come up with ridiculous explanations and make fools of themselves.
For the record, I believe it is unjustifiably arbitrary (and somewhat dishonest) to lay an unrightful claim that rijaal in 4/1 means men and thus Nisaa' MUST mean women. The question that the readers of such an explanation should be asking themselves is if there is a 3rd sex other than MEN and WOMEN? I'd say NO there is no 3rd sex, so the announcement of spreading out many men and women is nonsensical due to the fact that human beings are obviously men and women. The world is NOT populated by ONLY men and women. It is populated by PEOPLE; People who are of different genders, intellectual capacities, physical capabilities, dreams and desires, moral appetites and the drive to do what is just or to do what is unjust. These MANY different TYPES OF PEOPLE coupled with the existence of Politics Between People are what create the conditions that will dictate that Some People (male and female) will be a strong group of people who are able to move about and affect society and the course of history. These are the Rijaal. These TYPES OF PEOPLE couples with the existence of Politics Between People will ALSO create the conditions that will affect another group of people who are NOT able to move about to affect any change in their own conditions or the course of history. They are ignored, forsaken and dismissed by many people who are considered to be among the Rijaal. This group of people (male and female) are the Nisaa'.
And by the way, if a certain somewhere wishes to claim that hermaphrodites are that 3rd gender then that person should know this argument itself would invalidate the traditional translation of 4/1 that says God spread many MEN and WOMEN (and forgot to mention this 3rd gender).
If 4/1 wanted to send the message of populating the earth with two types of sex genders, then it would have been clearer ann better to DISTINGUISH between the two sexes by way of gender classification, so it would have (or at least should have) used the terms (Dhukoor) and (Inaath) for "Males" and "Females" respectively. That way it would have covered BOTH GENDERS VERY CLEARLY AND it would have covered the many different AGES of these two genders. Men and women don't do that. It paints the picture of only ADULTS. So to hang on to the traditional translation of 4/1 is akin to saying that Allah had spread from those two Many ADULT men and women. If some people wish to use that kind of logic just to hold onto a traditional interpretation, by all means knock yourself out.
Another thing, the word Qawwum DOES NOT mean boss or maintainer of a person. Al Qawwumoon are those who are better established than the group of people that are used as an antonym against them. This is the case in 4/34 as well as 49/11. The word Qawwum comes from the same root as the word Aqimoo. "Aqimoo" Salaat means to ESTABLISH the salaat somewhere on earth. Qawwumoon are those who are ESTABLISHED in society. They have managed to establish themselves where as the Nisaa' have not been able to do the same.
Guys, it's well past time that we STOP translating The Quran as a book telling us how much better and capable men are compared to women and REALIZE that are many capable men AND WOMEN just as there are many INCAPABLE women AND MEN. It is time to interpret The Quran's message as it should be interpreted and that is a "Social Ideology" outlining and mandating a "Social Constitution" that Benefits ALL Human Beings and establishes Equality and Balance across the board. But this message is continually lost under the translations of Gender Inequality and Imbalance between the genders. It's time to stop this nonsense people, seriously.
DEAR HURUF,
You are not asking too much of me at all. These are good questions that must be tackled. As of now, I am quite settled on the root of Nisaa' being Nun-Siin-Yaa unless and until something is pointed out to me to force me to re-evaluate my understanding (which I have no problem doing if there is clear evidence which will force me to do so).
As for the morphology of this word, I look at it like this....
Nun-Siin-Yaa is a Defective Verb and so when this root word is morphed into nouns, participles or any other construct, the last letter Yaa is replaced by an elongated Alif sounding vowel. Hence my deduction of the root word NaSiYa morphed into the noun Nisaa'. My continued dialogue in this thread is due to the fact that just like you I TOO wish to come to grips with the exact possible morphology of this root word into the collective noun. Thanks to the traditionalists and their corruption, you and I have to find out the morphology of this word for ourselves. I don't believe that they want us doing this. But whatever it is that THEY do not want us doing is obviously something WE have to do to find out why.
Also, the issue of the plural feminine pronouns used for this word, I want to explain a little more just to add to my last explanation.
Collective Nouns are what they call Grammatically Feminine by virtue of the type of noun it is. Just to make it clear, even if the collective noun isn't Intrinsically Feminine, it will still be attached to or referrenced by the feminine plural pronoun. In America (and American English) we have different sayings with the word "People" in it; "We The People", "The People Have Spoken", "Republic of The People, By The People and For The People", etc. The word People in these contexts are not pointing to mankind or human beings in general. In this context it is used as a Political Term that is used in Socio-Political Contexts. This word "People" (in this context) would be considered as a "Collective Noun" if English functioned in the same manner as Arabic does. However, Arabic DOES have a word that means People in the socio-political sense and that word is meaning people (in a social or political context discussion). There is a also a Plural Form of this word which is (which would best be translated as peoples in English). Sha'ab is the singular form of this collective noun and Sh'oob is the plural form but they BOTH take the feminine pronoun in the plural from the simple fact that they are collective nouns.
The Feminine SINGULAR is not used for collective nouns that designate a title of or the name of a group of people. The Feminine SINGULAR is generally reserved for plural things that are Non-Human. So the plural word for books (kutub), although plural, it is non human (inanimate) and so takes the feminine SINGULAR pronoun. The words Sha'ab and Sha'oob are plural nouns referring to Humans and so they take the feminine PLURAL pronoun.
Now, I am sure what Wakas is getting confused about is that I had pointed out how the masculine singular VERB is used for a group of people who are mixed male and female (as long as the verb itself comes BEFORE the subject-doer of the verb). He somehow cooked up the idea in his head that I am contradicting myself which is far from the case. The PRONOUNS and VERBS are NOT the same things at all. Pronouns are pronouns and Verbs are verbs. If he had read my posts closely and paid attention to what I was saying he would have caught that. Instead he is still looking at my posts and looking for something by which he can prove me wrong and win an argument.
So, to be clear and to make sure I am understood, the gender of the VERBS performed by a group of people is determined by the gender make up of the people. The verb will be a feminine verb ONLY if the entire group of people are all females. If the group of people is either all males or a mixed group of males and females then the verb will always be masculine. But, the PRONOUNS will be feminine pronouns if the group of people is going by a "collective/group name" even if the collective noun is "intrinsically" all male. "Grammatically" all collective nouns (whether they be intrinsically masculine or intrinsically feminine) will be referred to with the feminine plural pronouns. It will always be plural and never singular (based on my studies of Arabic). The Singular plural is used for plural words that refer to non human things. This is what I meant when I said in a couple of my earlier posts that An-Nisaa is Collective/Group of people and I made it a point to emphasize "Collective" and the "Group" aspect of it and I did say that this was important and that it will be expounded upon later in my discussion I was having with Wakas.
Even though he ducked and dodged many of my questions (which all can see just be re-reading this thread from the beginning) I believe I still accomplished the things that I wanted to accomplish. I showed that he is hanging on to a traditional idea merely because of some sort of emotional or sentimental attachment to that view. I exposed his debating style and his tactics for all to see. I showed that he holds on to views and beliefs that he cannot linguistically validate (and him dodging certain questions was his attempt at keeping this from being exposed). I also showed that he does not know even half of what he thinks he knows of The Quran but some people may think he knows because of him always dismissing other peoples arguments as (oh God, do I even want to say it?) "Logical Fallacies" (I think I'm going to puke now >( ). I hope I have also shown you guys that he may appear to know The Quran because most people debating with him tire of his shenanigans and leave the debate altogether giving him the image of winning a debate. I'm wondering if some people here are also intimidated and/or impressed with him being a moderator (which means absolutely nothing to me). And I also hope that it is realized that he holds an illogical, dishonest and linguistically invalid understanding of 4/3 (and even 4/34) and he probably does so because he still views women as being ideologically inferior to men and men have all of the perks of Islamic practice. I do believe that it takes a chauvinist attitude to believe his view of 4/3 especially when it is being revealed to him more and more that his views are just...Plain...WRONG!!!
Huruf, if you are anxious to have an understanding of the morphology of Nisaa' from NaSiYa, may I humbly suggest that you contact Dr. Qamar Zaman to get his understanding and breakdown of this word? Or you can ask about it at the Aastana Blog and I'm sure he will be all too happy to reply to you there. I think Dr. QZ has an excellent command of Arabic Grammar and he has a very, very sharp eye too. He is able to catch and explain things in The Quran that has been escaping people for years now. It was only a matter of time before someone came along to do the work that he is doing now. It can only get better from here. I think it's really sad that some people unjustifiably mock and criticize him out of jealousy and the nonappreciation of having their traditional ideology challenged.
Salaam,
Damon. -
These MANY different TYPES OF PEOPLE coupled with the existence of Politics Between People are what create the conditions that will dictate that Some People (male and female) will be a strong group of people who are able to move about and affect society and the course of history. These are the Rijaal. These TYPES OF PEOPLE couples with the existence of Politics Between People will ALSO create the conditions that will affect another group of people who are NOT able to move about to affect any change in their own conditions or the course of history. They are ignored, forsaken and dismissed by many people who are considered to be among the Rijaal. This group of people (male and female) are the Nisaa'.
This is just idiotic jugglery of words.
If somebody is weak, opressed, it will not change his or her genitals. Sex will remain the same, men and women.
