Discussion on 4:3 and meaning of nisa
-
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.
-
Peace All,
As an onlooker from the West with very little understanding of Arabic I am becoming increasingly depressed about what I understand about Islam. This thread and a couple of others on the same theme, have served to demonstrate that what we believers have been basing our lives upon is, in effect, nothing but a faux Koran. How can we even begin to say that we know the Koran when goodness only knows how much of it might be completely incorrect.
It was only recently that we re-translated and realised that men do not 'beat' women, rather, they go away from them.
Being a linguist myself, having studied several European languages, this whole thing makes me want to throw myself into a massive translation of the Koran - if only I had the language.
One thing I have thought recently though is that German grammar, for example, would have left no room for confusion on the 4,3 issue. Yet, we are told the Koran is written in Arabic so that we can understand. Maybe this has been mis-translated or the meaning God intended is one that we have misunderstood.
Anyway, it is very exciting to be a part of a group of people who have the courage, knowledge and inclination to challenge.
Dawn.
-
laugh laugh laugh LOL!!
Well it is painfully obvious that one of the posters here totally miscomprehended my post. ;D Either he has a Reading problem or a Comprehension problem. Or BOTH!! D And it's amazing how he totally mixed up being "WEAK" with being "IGNORED/DISMISSED". O0
And this show of stupidity by someone who tries to impress others with his makeshift Harvard Language. laugh
-
Salaam Dawn,
I don't think that I can agree the 4/3 issue would have been clear had it been written in German or any other human Language. The problem we are facing with the 4/3 issue and The Quran in general is not because of The Arabic Language, it is because of "Human Beings" who took it upon themselves to TELL THE WORLD what 4/3 and the rest of The Quran says. Add to this the general intellectual laziness of many human beings, the sheeple mentality and unjust Blasphemy Laws to prevent other interpretations from coming to light and we have a sure fire recipe for disaster. Especially the sheeple mentality. I have come to learn that I cannot underestimate the sheeple mentality and the human being's love of and need for "religion"; rituals, religious scholars, a holy day of the week and all.
Please do not give up, lose hope or allow yourself to drown in depression. You and I are witnessing the beginning of an innocent person finally being freed from years of an unjust prison term that he was serving (if you can understand the metaphor I am using).
Something I am going to keep saying over and over is that we as Believers of The Quran really, really, REALY need to START ALL OVER...FROM SCRATCH!!! From the very beginning, all the way to the very end. From the Bismillah of Al-Fatiha to the Min Al-Jinnati Wa-Nnaas of Surah An-Naas and every word of every verse in between. This MUST be done!! This is the ONLY WAY to finally free that innocent prisoner from years and years of false imprisonment. I had come to this conclusion even while I was still a traditional muslim myself. And Dr. QZ and a couple of other people that I know realized the importance of doing such a thing and is doing just that. Dr. QZ is that Lawyer working very hard to release that innocent prisoner. This movement to Free Al-Quran could always use honest and dedicated supporters. Please do not go by what others have to say about Dr. QZ or Aastana, please research him and Aastana for yourself and judge for yourself. Even if you come to disagree with Dr. QZ and the Aastana Mission And Vision, at least you will be disagreeing based on your own research and not according to people who feel threatened by him and his research.
And please do not mind my last post that I made above. I had finally learned that I have to make such posts towards and about certain people. If you monitored this thread from the beginning then you understand why.
Salaam,
Damon. -
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!!!
I find this needless needling of Wakas in a response to a member who hasn't asked about Wakas' motivations and their own 'feelings' towards him, unfair to the discussion now, and to the members. I'm sure the above could've been written without any reference to someone that is stated as being ignored previously in a 'final statement'. Just stick to the subject (i.e. not Wakas, i.e. a new interpretation of 43/nisa)...and apparently the glorious revolution that 'aastana' whatever that is, is bringing to the world. Thanks.
-
I find this needless needling of Wakas in a response to a member who hasn't asked about Wakas' motivations and their own 'feelings' towards him, unfair to the discussion now, and to the members. I'm sure the above could've been written without any reference to someone that is stated as being ignored previously in a 'final statement'.
What I posted is something that I deem necessary to be said and it was the behavior and tactics of that person during our Discussion which is the reason that it HAD to be said. It was something I intended to say all along once my discussion with him came to an end. I meant what I had posted and regret none of it. None of my remarks were threatening towards him and neither did I call him any names. My words about him were merely based on my observations of him and I expressed what I had observed.
Just stick to the subject (i.e. not Wakas, i.e. a new interpretation of 43/nisa)...and apparently the glorious revolution that 'aastana' whatever that is, is bringing to the world. Thanks.
You can utter such sarcastic remarks even though you have yet to step in and refute my position or offer something better.
-
What I posted is something that I deem necessary to be said and it was the behavior and tactics of that person during our Discussion which is the reason that it HAD to be said. It was something I intended to say all along once my discussion with him came to an end. I meant what I had posted and regret none of it. None of my remarks were threatening towards him and neither did I call him any names. My words about him were merely based on my observations of him and I expressed what I had observed.
Your behaviour and tactics come into play here as well then. The issue with making statements about someone in a discussion that should be about nisa and 43 is irrelevant to the outcome/goal which should be about nisa and 43. Unless part of the goal is also to muse about members personally and try to make them out to be some kind of 'monster in today's day and age' (which he might be and not in the way you say he is, but I'd much rather read about nisa/43 and not him) e.g. 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., it's best to stick to the subject and not the members themselves.You can utter such sarcastic remarks even though you have yet to step in and refute my position or offer something better.
Not the first time your 'behaviour and tactics' of coming out guns blazing at members on this thread who you think criticise you/your interpretation/aastana (whatever that is)...huruf was treated to it in reply #54 when she didn't even have an offensive 'tone'... so calm your excitement the heck down and don't get bent out of shape. I'm not here to 'refute' your position or 'offer something better'...I'm here to read the discussion on 43 and the meaning of nisa and not 'the many wondrous traits and true motivations of wakas the mod and the man according to damon the self appointed wakas slayer of all time'.
I suggest you keep to the subject of the thread at this point especially when the 'discussion' with Wakas the mod and the man is over and it's final.
-
About the messages from Downgorgeous and subsequent on the question of the understanding of the Qur'an, I agree that it is not a matter of gthe Arabic, but of the human traits of appropriating anything that will further their purposes when these cannot be upheld by themselves. Those who want perquisites and power will catch and hold to anything that furthers their passion for perquisites and power. Religion happens to be an outstanding weapon for that, precisely because people need it.
So, yes, let us calm down, let us be cool, because, almandulil-lah, we are not in a fight against anybody but we are in a jihad for ourselves, our souls and our brothers and sisters.
Undrstanding, cleaning up the accretions on the Qur'an, bring its dimmed light is a jihad. As such we must try to be loyal and keep to the point. We must also be patient. We all may feel that we are treated unfairly at some time and we have the right to state so and try to avoid further occurrences, but let us not allow that to derail us.
I think this discussion is very important.
My provisional opinion is that the Qur'an injunction of taking from the Qur'an the best meaning, or understanding is not idle. It has a purpose and a gigantic wisdom behind it. That is the self rnewing clause of the revelation, which is not paralized or dead. It si self renewing, because the people renew and they have the fitra to look for the best, to search, and that in the world of contingency which is the materil world means change. What was the best meaning for somebody in a set of circumstances, may be inadmissible in another set of circumstances. The Qur'an is a pregnant book, let us allow it to bring out all the children that we are capable of sustaining in our time and place.
I am very hopeful of this debate and I thank all those who have put their best efforts in it. In sha Allah, we will benefit, in sha' Allah.
Salaam
-
Quote
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.
laugh laugh laugh LOL!!
Well it is painfully obvious that one of the posters here totally miscomprehended my post. ;D Either he has a Reading problem or a Comprehension problem. Or BOTH!! D And it's amazing how he totally mixed up being "WEAK" with being "IGNORED/DISMISSED". O0
And this show of stupidity by someone who tries to impress others with his makeshift Harvard Language. laugh
Now it is like a Joker. Qur'aan has answers for all stupids who might play with its words, be it Shirely or Astana.
Ignore and dismissed people retain their genitals. An Nisa means AnNisa even if she is dismissed and ignored altogether. -
Salaam all,
huruf,
Re reply #270. Thanks for clarifying.
There is a difference in saying "women" and "your women", with the latter being something more specific, which context will help us determine.
Whilst I agree that the morphology question is important, at the end of the day whatever root or meaning is assigned to "nisa" will still have to be plugged into Quran to see if it works. If a logical/practical impossibility or contradiction occurs, this will help us determine what meaning is meant or works best etc. I did not see such a thing from the verses you, nor others, brought forth. However, it might be handy for you/others to highlight the most problematic verses WITH reasons/evidence. We could then tackle them one by one.Released,
Re reply #296. I didn't mean all of Quran, but this would have to be explored also. I primarily meant 2431. I didn't see why you were singling out "nisa" for ownership because of "their" without applying the same approach to the rest of categories named with "their". Applying a consistent and robust methodology will help us determine the truth.
If you feel certain verses are problematic, please cite your strongest examples.savage carrot,
I too would like to stick to an evidence based discussion, however, if someone has little evidence they will of course resort to ad-hominen, superfluous commentary etc.Damon claims
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).
- A reference would be nice.
- According to Damon et al 43 is the only example they can bring wherein "nisa" are the doers of a masculine verb. "nisa" occurs 59 times in Quran, along with verbs. Damon et al fail to explain why this one usage in 43 is different. He even admits if the verb is feminine that means all of the group will be feminine, but makes no mention of having applied this to the occurrences of "nisa" in Quran and seeing what results.
- Damon claims the pronouns of collective nouns are always feminine, yet http//youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2010/10/07/ahlahlebayt-a-collective-noun-and-its-usage/
Unanswered questions by Damon et al include
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604721.msg315351#msg315351
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604721.msg315671#msg315671And with regards to aastana, for background reading, see
http//www.scribd.com/doc/65842903/Critique-of-Dr-Qamar-Zaman-of-aastana-wudhu-ablution-verses
http//www.scribd.com/doc/63347625/az-vs-qz-on-saumTo sum up, in 43 - an explanation was given for the masculine verb usage taba which has had no objection thus far. Thus, the example of 43 shows little to no evidence for an alternative meaning of "nisa".
-
Not the first time your 'behaviour and tactics' of coming out guns blazing at members on this thread who you think criticise you/your interpretation/aastana (whatever that is)...huruf was treated to it in reply #54
Nadia, this is NOT true. Instead of referring to reply # 54 you should have just posted the quote you are speaking of. And I DID NOT pull out any blazing guns towards Huruf. It became obvious to the both of us that we had a minor misunderstanding. Huruf and I are not sharing ideas with another in a mutual and calm dialogue so why are you bringing our misunderstanding up now?
so calm your excitement the heck down and don't get bent out of shape.
I'm not the least bit bent out of shape. Not even close so it appears that you are the one who needs to calm your excitement the heck down.
.I'm here to read the discussion on 43 and the meaning of nisa and not 'the many wondrous traits and true motivations of wakas the mod and the man according to damon the self appointed wakas slayer of all time'.
Whatever Nadia. I'm through with this conversation with you because I can see that no good can come out of it.
I suggest you keep to the subject of the thread at this point especially when the 'discussion' with Wakas the mod and the man is over and it's final.
It's final because I already said what I needed to say and there was a reason for saying it. But you should know this forum is just another typical internet forum. This is not my place of employment or a courthouse where I stand to lose something by not being moved with your words of it's final.
So now who is the one with her guns blazing?
-
Thanks for the summary Wakas...much prefer it when we stick to the subject like that when it involves something like this. I can't follow the thread consistently and it helps in seeing where we're at. I share huruf's sentiments about being hopeful regarding the this subject and will now share a few words of wisdom
Angel, on a wing and a prayer, we made it
It?s got to mean something, inside me says
We were brought together
By the Universe?s forces that you can not find
Completely irresistible, entirely right
You?re incandescent like a star in the sky at night
O-o-ohpeace
-
Damon, bro, chillax. I'm really interested in this one, some part of it was you bringing the thunder and some part of it was new and interesting information. Let's get back to the discussion at hand, shall we? Danke.
-
Now it is like a Joker. Qur'aan has answers for all stupids who might play with its words, be it Shirely or Astana.
Ignore and dismissed people retain their genitals. An Nisa means AnNisa even if she is dismissed and ignored altogether.Quran DOES have answers for all stupid people including Mazhar who STILL needs to re-read Damon's post to see that Damon said nothing about changing of genitals for any human being. Some people just need to learn how to read.
HURUF I'll be happy to continue our morphological discussion with you if you so wish. I see the other people are merely ranting and are bringing nothing in the way of refutation and I am realizing now that some people aren't as deep with Arabic Grammar as they would have others thinking.
-
Damon, bro, chillax. I'm really interested in this one, some part of it was you bringing the thunder and some part of it was new and interesting information. Let's get back to the discussion at hand, shall we? Danke.
Sure Nadia, I'll chillax and get back to my points. To briefly recap
The verb Taaba in 4/3 is a 3rd Person Verb which can ONLY be acted out by a 3rd Person Subject. An-Nisaa' is the only 3rd Person subject in 4/3 so only An-Nisaa' can be the people acting out this 3rd Person verb "Taaba". This has yet to be Linguisitically/Grammatically refuted.
Second point...the Verb Taaba is a masculine verb and when the subject-doer of this verb is a group of people it can only be done by one of two groups; A group that is a mix of men and women OR a group that is ALL men. The masculine verb is NEVER done by a group of people who are all females. If a group of people is all females then the verb will always be feminine. This too has yet to be Linguistically/Grammatically refuted.
Third Point. There are words in Arabic which categorically refer to the male gender such as Dhakir (male) and Imru' (man) just as there are words which categorically refer to the female gender such as Unthaa (female) and Imraa'a (woman). The words Rijaal and Nisaa' come from roots which do not categorically refer to the male and female genders respectively. 4/3 alone shows that Nisaa' does not have anything to do with the female gender. Hence my understanding and explanation of 4/1 concerning these two words. I await GRAMMATICAL refutation of this and will ignore rantings without linguistic evidence.
Fourth Point The verb Taaba is in it's base 3rd person masculine form and has the active voice. It is NOT a passive voice verb. Taaba is NOT passive by definition. There IS a passive derivative which comes from this root word and that word is completely absent in 4/3. Because it is NOT in present tense passive voice, it is grammatically impossible for this verb to be performed by the 2nd Person Plural Pronouns in 4/3. And the fact that this verb is 3rd person is enough to kill the idea that the 2nd person audience are the ones doing the verb anyway. But I had already pointed this out earlier and I have yet to read a grammatical refutation to this.
Fifth Point is that the 2nd Person Audience who are being addressed in 4/3 are mentioned directly by the 1st Person as An-Naas in 4/1. There is no change of address between 4/1 and 4/3 and for anyone (I don't care who it is; male or female, traditional or quran only) to claim a subtle change in address without making an announcement of the new addressees are guilty of making the quran into a non-sensical book. I don't know who was the first person in history to concoct this silly idea, but whoever person is he has committed a grave crime against the quran. But anyway, the point HAS BEEN proved that the use of the masculine plural pronouns are used for groups of people that are either all men or a mix of men and women. I made the statement that the plural masculine pronouns will point to the group of people who are previously mentioned in an Arabic text (spoken or written) and gave the references to the grammar books which do in fact sat this. I have yet to read a Grammatical/Linguisitc refutation to this.
Sixth Point is that the word "Nikah" DOES NOT inherently mean "Marriage". ZIWAAJ categorically means marriage JUST AS Zawj and Zawja categorically mean Husband/Male Spouse and Wife/Female Spouse respectively. A Nikah (from the root word Nun-Kaaf-Haa) is a CONTRACT in it's very basic definition. Just because a contract is most times drawn up (and not ice I said MOST times, not ALL of the time) between two people who are interested in matrimony is not the impetus to change the natural and original definition of this word to catgeorically mean "Marriage/Matrimony". Earlier in this thread I had spoken on the differences between Ziwaaj and Nikah and gave some Quranic references and Arabic terms to explain how in ARABIC and among ARABS the many derivatives stemming from the root word Za-Wa-Ja are used for marriage, matrimony, husband, wife, married life, married couples, etc. No one who is against my position on 4/3 have even attempted to refute that information that I shared. I am still waiting for Linguistic/Grammatical refutation of this.
Lastly, I had asked some questions regarding the traditional understanding of 4/3 pointing towards polygamy that one even attempted to answer. These were basic commone sense, logical questions. I am still waiting for answers to those questions as well.
By the way Nadia, if I choose to ignore a person and not dialogue with them I am not doing so to be petty or childish. You had mentioned that I played games or tactics. If that is your perception of me, then so be it. I guess I only have myself to blame if my arguments give anyone that impression. But I can assure you that I have no ego and I have no problem with telling you or anyone else here on this forum "Hey, you know what, you're right. Thanks for pointing this out. I will have to re-adjust my understanding now." THIS is how people learn and THIS is how people grow and progress. This is a very healthy attitude to have which facilitates enormous intellectual growth. But in order to have such an attitude and intellectually benefit from it a person CANNOT have ego issues (and by the way I am NOT speaking about anybody in particular. I am generalizing now). Anyone here can look at whatever posts of mine may still linger here (under my own name) when I was corrected on many issues and I thanked the person who pointed it out to me and I re-adjusted my understanding. IN FACT if I'm not mistaken Wakas and Samia each corrected an understanding I had about the word Sawm and the Jussive Mood in Arabic. Before then, I had an understanding/view of this word and its form that I posted and He and Samia corrected it for me. No big deal for me. No hurt feelings or anything. I thanked them both and went back the drawing board. No biggie at all.
The reason I am saying this is because I am a big fan of mutual dialogue for the sake of bringing out the truth of any given topic. Some human beings in life will take up a position on some ideological issues and will most times ignore questions or even ignore the evidence presented in order to not face the truth of the position she or he has taken up. When I finally come to realize that a person has a position that he or she is not willing to let go of and is only interested in defending that position then YES, I will ignore such a person. I will no longer correcpond with her or him because such a dialogue will never , ever end if that person will not let go of her or his position no matter what. I felt as though it was important to point out tactics used to defend a position not to shame the person (I gain nothing from shaming anybody) but to make sure others do NOT lose sight of the evidence I brought forth for my arguments. I needed the silent audience sitting on the sidelines to see what I was bringing concerning evidence for my case and to not miss it because of another person's ploys to downplay and/or dismiss that evidence. Sis, you have to understand how important such a thing is to do. This is not a popularity contest. This is a discussion which is meant to bring out TRUTH. And we cannot overlook if a person is preventing that TRUTH from coming out all for the sake of defending a position. My style of debate is very, very deliberate. I am not a naturally brash person. I can get together with any of you guys here on this forum and we can laugh and have a ball. BUT THIS DEBATE IS BUSINESS!! And bringing out the TRUTH of this topic is much too important for me to play nice guy and overlook a person defending a position at all costs. If such a thing rubs you or anyone else the wrong way, then I guess it would be best if I just dropped out of THAT conversation entirely and just focus on the morphology of the word Nisaa' as per Huruf's request.
Salaam,
Damon. -
Damon,
The verb Taaba in 4/3 is a 3rd Person Verb which can ONLY be acted out by a 3rd Person Subject. An-Nisaa' is the only 3rd Person subject in 4/3 so only An-Nisaa' can be the people acting out this 3rd Person verb "Taaba". This has yet to be Linguisitically/Grammatically refuted.
Second point...the Verb Taaba is a masculine verb and when the subject-doer of this verb is a group of people it can only be done by one of two groups; A group that is a mix of men and women OR a group that is ALL men. The masculine verb is NEVER done by a group of people who are all females. If a group of people is all females then the verb will always be feminine. This too has yet to be Linguistically/Grammatically refuted.
Explanation of 3rd person masculine singular verb taba has already been given here
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604721.msg315351#msg315351
In case you missed it, the grammar works even if "nisa" are the ones the verb is being applied to.No rebuttal to this thus far. A question related to this has also not been answered provide another example of masculine verb used for "nisa" in Quran? i.e. is 43 the only claimed use?
Further, Damon contradicts himself yet again, when he says "...only an-nisa can be the people acting out this 3rd person verb..." when he previously stated
The word Taaba ( ) can be acted out by another 3rd person party not mentioned (such as The Quranic Government or whoever is in charge of overseeing the "Nikah" operation) OR by An-Nisaa'.Third Point. There are words in Arabic which categorically refer to the male gender such as Dhakir (male) and Imru' (man) just as there are words which categorically refer to the female gender such as Unthaa (female) and Imraa'a (woman). The words Rijaal and Nisaa' come from roots which do not categorically refer to the male and female genders respectively. 4/3 alone shows that Nisaa' does not have anything to do with the female gender. Hence my understanding and explanation of 4/1 concerning these two words. I await GRAMMATICAL refutation of this and will ignore rantings without linguistic evidence.
For part in red, see above. For the rest, there is nothing to refute. To use the words male/female would not make sense in 43.
Fourth Point The verb Taaba is in it's base 3rd person masculine form and has the active voice. It is NOT a passive voice verb. Taaba is NOT passive by definition. There IS a passive derivative which comes from this root word and that word is completely absent in 4/3. Because it is NOT in present tense passive voice, it is grammatically impossible for this verb to be performed by the 2nd Person Plural Pronouns in 4/3. And the fact that this verb is 3rd person is enough to kill the idea that the 2nd person audience are the ones doing the verb anyway. But I had already pointed this out earlier and I have yet to read a grammatical refutation to this.
The above argument was before uq provided an explanation for "ma", which you provided no response to. Thus, the above is irrelevant now.
Fifth Point is that the 2nd Person Audience who are being addressed in 4/3 are mentioned directly by the 1st Person as An-Naas in 4/1. There is no change of address between 4/1 and 4/3 and for anyone (I don't care who it is; male or female, traditional or quran only) to claim a subtle change in address without making an announcement of the new addressees are guilty of making the quran into a non-sensical book. I don't know who was the first person in history to concoct this silly idea, but whoever person is he has committed a grave crime against the quran. But anyway, the point HAS BEEN proved that the use of the masculine plural pronouns are used for groups of people that are either all men or a mix of men and women. I made the statement that the plural masculine pronouns will point to the group of people who are previously mentioned in an Arabic text (spoken or written) and gave the references to the grammar books which do in fact sat this. I have yet to read a Grammatical/Linguisitc refutation to this.
You claimed to have provided evidence, yet no-one, not even those who agree with you, could find or point out where exactly what you claimed was actually said.
Sixth Point is that the word "Nikah" DOES NOT inherently mean "Marriage". ZIWAAJ categorically means marriage JUST AS Zawj and Zawja categorically mean Husband/Male Spouse and Wife/Female Spouse respectively. A Nikah (from the root word Nun-Kaaf-Haa) is a CONTRACTin it's very basic definition. Just because a contract is most times drawn up (and not ice I said MOST times, not ALL of the time) between two people who are interested in matrimony is not the impetus to change the natural and original definition of this word to catgeorically mean "Marriage/Matrimony". Earlier in this thread I had spoken on the differences between Ziwaaj and Nikah and gave some Quranic references and Arabic terms to explain how in ARABIC and among ARABS the many derivatives stemming from the root word Za-Wa-Ja are used for marriage, matrimony, husband, wife, married life, married couples, etc. No one who is against my position on 4/3 have even attempted to refute that information that I shared. I am still waiting for Linguistic/Grammatical refutation of this.
It is a fact that nikah can mean marriage. Does it mean so in 43 - maybe, maybe not. Where is the irrefutable Quran usage which proves your case? I dont see any.
Zay-Waw-Jiim = to couple/join/pair/unite/wed, marriage, a pair, a fellow or like, spouse.
Zawwajnaa (prf. 1st p. plu. II.) We wedded, gave in marriage or pair them
Yuzawwiju (imp. 3rd p.m. sing. II.) He conjoins, mixes
Zuwwijat (pp. 3rd p. f. sing. II) Is paired, united
Zaujan (n.) Wife; Husband; Pairs; Comrade; One of the pair, male or female
Zaujaan (nom)
Zaujain (acc. noun. dual) - husband and wife, two kinds/pairs, comrade, one of the pair, male or female.
Azwaaj (noun. pl.) - wives, husbands, pairs, kinds.Nun-Kaf-Ha = to tie, make a knot, contract, to marry, marriage.
Ba-Ayn-Lam =
Husband, took a husband or became a wife.............Miim-Ra-Alif = wife/woman...............
imra'ah 2282, 335, 340, 412, 4128, 783, 1171, 1181, 1221, 1230, 1251, 1560, 195, 198, 2723, 2757, 289, 2823, 2932, 2933, 3350, 5129, 6610, 6610, 6611, 1114etc.
Lastly, I had asked some questions regarding the traditional understanding of 4/3 pointing towards polygamy that one even attempted to answer. These were basic commone sense, logical questions. I am still waiting for answers to those questions as well.
Where? Be specific.
In case you missed it, here are some of yours
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604721.msg315351#msg315351
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604721.msg315671#msg315671 -
The verb Taaba in 4/3 is a 3rd Person Verb which can ONLY be acted out by a 3rd Person Subject. An-Nisaa' is the only 3rd Person subject in 4/3 so only An-Nisaa' can be the people acting out this 3rd Person verb "Taaba". This has yet to be Linguisitically/Grammatically refuted.
A prepositional phrase is an indivisible grammatical unit in languages. One example is needed from whole of Qur'aan or even from Arabic literature where the subject of a singular active voice masculine verb is with followed by any plural feminine noun in gentive case. Absence of any such instance would suffice to treat the above statement as stupid assertion being repeated time and again.
