Discussion on 4:3 and meaning of nisa
-
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.
-
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.Sorry, Wakas, but I do not see in which way what you say is an answer to my post 270.
I specifically mentioned two ayas. First 4.3, where there is a an imperative telling the addressee to wed whatever is suitable from the nisaa'. The adressee is an-nas and not a sppecific sex. So women, as well as men, can marry some of an-nisaa'. Now here, conventionnally, nisaa' is taken to mean women, but nisaa' as put forward by many studiers would mean people who need protection or advocacy. In this case it would be speaking about that part of the nisaa' (those needing protection or defence) who are orphans. There is no mention of female or male orphans. So why is it taken that it is female orphans? Do male orphans not deserve defence or protection? None of them needs it? I do not see anywhere any pointers to the orphans being exclusively female. Now the other version is that it is the mothers or the orphans that are meant. Then, I am sorry to say, why is it not stated that it is marrying the mothers what all is about. There are no mothers in the horizon. What is so difficult about saying marry the mothers of the orphans, and that it says marry min el nisaa'? Because if in this case what is meant is "women" it is a redundancy if it were the males who were addressed. But from where do we know that it is addressing the males? We do not know it. In fact we know that it is An-naas that is being addressed. To affirm that it is adresseing the males we have to resort to taking for granted that the nisaa' are women. So it is a circular argument and we do have nothing to support it, because the addressee is An-nas.
The other aya I amentioned, 4.22, contains nothing of "nisaa'ukum". It says "do not marry what your fathers married min a-nisaa'. It would have sufficed to say "Do not marry those your fathers married", if, IF, fathers is what is meant and not parents. Because, if I am not wrong, the term in the plural comprises, unless otherwise specified, fathers and mothers. The dual, al abawan, means the father and the mother. So we would again be in a circular argument.
On the other hand, we are talking about the word nisaa' and one other argument that is put forward or something that is upheld is that it cannot mean more than one thing, that is, it cannot mean one thing in a context, and then something else in some other context. But, using the material and arguments put forward by the very people who hold that view, as it happens and as it has been showed, nisaa' has more than one meaning, women a wives are not synonim, they are two different meanings.
Also, when the Qur'an wants to say wives, it is not lost, it uses different words for that, like azwaj, and like Hala'il. So to pretend that nisaa'kum means your wives is wrong, it may or it may not. It depends on whom the addressee is and what has been previously stated. Obviously if it is addressing a mixed group, it cannot mean wives, it might mean your women, if we take that in that context it may mean women. But that "your women" would not be wives, but the women which form part of the group being addressed. Like when we say to several eole belonging to the same family "your family..." we mean their famil, them included.
Finally, I think that it is legitimate to speculate honestly on this subject. There are obviously people who are wonderfully happy with the semantic status quo, but the point is that the Qur'an asks us to take the best meaning of the Qur'an. If that status quo is, honestly (and not interestedly) the best meaning for them for some part of the Qur'an, then well and good, but that is not binding for anyone except those who honestly hold that view. For those who honestly think that that is not the best meaning, because there are other meanings that must be explored, then for them that is what is binding, nor what others may think that they should uphold.
I, for one, want this whole question explored to my satisfaction. Once that is done, we will see what we find. For the moment all I can say is that the status quo is not satisfactory, and commend those that, agreeing or otherwise, do make an effort to contribute with honesty and good faith.
Salaam
-
laugh laugh laugh
I can't believe some people can really be this foolish. Posting questions and making statements INSTEAD OF using Grammar of Arabic to Refute what I had brought up Linguistically. )
Mazhar, I have to now put you in the same basket as Wakas which is the Ignore basket. If you can use your Superb Grammar knowledge to go with your razzle dazzle textbook talk and refute any of my points, then I'll give you the attention you so desperately crave. Unless and Until you are able to do so... peace
-
Ladies and Gentlemen who are sitting quietly on the sidelines watching this thread. We have another example of More Dishonesty perpetrated by Mr. Wakas. I DID NOT contradict myself at all. If he was honest he would quote me in entirety instead of chopping out bits and pieces to make it look how he wants everyone to think it looks.
I want everyone here to read my quote from This Post that I made a couple of pages back
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'. I personally take the view that it is acted out by those who are from among AnNisaa' because they are the ones who are mentioned in this verse and I am big fan of clarity concerning those talked to or talked about in The Quran. Also, I don't think only the person or people overseeing the operation of the Social Relationships between those from among the Nisaa and those who aren't not from among them should have the only say regarding who gets a social contract with who.
There are some people in my personal circles who say that the verb Taaba maybe acted out by an unmentioned party such as The Quranic Government or an Institution overseeing The "Nikah Operations" of 4/3. But I have made it ALL TOO CLEAR in my post that I do NOT subscribe to that view and that I subscribe to the view that it is those who are from among the Nisaa' who are the subject-doers of this verb. I am pretty sure you guys realize this and can read this for yourselves. But in case any of you missed it I am pointing it out now. No contradiction at all on my part, just more dishonesty on another person's part. The same person who has YET to bring any grammatical evidence of his own to refute what I had brought forth for you all to see.
Nadia, are you reading this?? Please tell me another way to handle an obvious act of dishonesty!!! I am all eyes and virtual ears. Until then, I am going to have to point such things out for the benefit of those watching this thread in order to find out THE TRUTH.
Guys, I also know that this is a standard Bating Tactic that a person uses when he or she realizes that another person chose to ignore them. It can be understood as Bating Into More Debate or might just be good 'ole fashion Heckling without any argument.
-
laugh laugh laugh
I can't believe some people can really be this foolish. Posting questions and making statements INSTEAD OF using Grammar of Arabic to Refute what I had brought up Linguistically.
Mazhar, I have to now put you in the same basket as Wakas which is the Ignore basket. If you can use your Superb Grammar knowledge to go with your razzle dazzle textbook talk and refute any of my points, then I'll give you the attention you so desperately crave. Unless and Until you are able to do so... peace
Don't worry I have handled super fools before you on this forum who even falsly claimed to be pure Arabs from Arab parents and then had run away exposed.
You have not answered three posts. You know your stupidity will immediately emerge on surface even for those who can not read Arabic words. Thereby, you have no option but to say like this.
