Discussion on 4:3 and meaning of nisa

Released

Peace Wakas,

Two questions I have for you after reading through the new posts

You mentioned something about verse 1087 and the constant switching of verbs in relation to the beginning of Chapter 4. Can you explain this further? I am having difficulty understanding. Can you perhaps provide a side by side comparison?

Also, why do you think that "marry off" is a possibility? We discussed this in Fallen Angel's thread to an extent. Also, why does "nikah" ALWAYS have to pertain to marriage? From your perspective, why can't it simply be a contract of a different nature?

Mazhar

Once again, let me be clear we are exploring what is theoretically possible, then we can weigh up the evidence for each option. In order to do that, some questions must be answered, not ran away from.

What I am seeing thus far is that those advocating for an alternative for "nisa" have no example wherein "nisa=women" causes a logical/practical impossibility and/or contradiction in Quran.

Salam Wakas;

Weldone, what a succinct synopsis of the whole thread.

"Nisaa" is femininity wherein the entity has a live, masculine counterpart. It can not have any other than feminine in its fold. No theoretical possiblity.

huruf

Reply to waka

What was your point two? I didn't get it, at least not as it concerns me.

No-one is asking you to exclude anything. I am trying to determine what is theoretically possible. I even included possibilities wherein a change in addressee is not needed, which you never commented upon.

No, that I have not commented in this thread, but on the other hand I have put it forward in plenty of other threds and I never got any appreciation. Now, since I already know that I do not have to commento or approve. I know that alternative, I have put it forward myself, not exactly your variant, but in the sense of the addressee being th e community, and I do not think my approval is needed for anything.

But right now, I am not concerned by that, becuase I have seen other possibilities which are even more interesting and promising. You have not answered either what I have said that nobody knows a damned thing about 4.3 to put forward any meaning of anything whatsoever and nothing is settled. Concretely, 4.3 is there for grabs. There is absolutely nothing settled nor contrasted in it. So how on earth do you exect that anybody else brings forth something conclusive?

We, at least I am not going to do that. There is to much to sieve yet. And I am sorry to say I do not trust (though I do appreciate), not a little bit anything that has been "concluded" regarding 4.3 by anybody. So you are asking in fact for something that you do not provide nor anybody has yet provided.

Further

You say

I know exactly what you said, but unfortunately, your statement has an underlying assumption that a certain term is a clear and unambiguous term for "wife". You have to prove this first from Quran, THEN we can weigh it up.

Well that is your assumption, what I answered was this

You say

"Note how you have not proven those are the exclusive terms for wife."

Did I pretend that? No I didn't. What I said, with other words, is that if any ambiguity wanted to be avoided and what is meant was wives, there are plenty of words for that. Simply that. And, again, that if there several choices, apparently to different people at least, to pretend that the one chosen by anybody is the ONLY ONE has to be prooved beyond any doubt. And that to take whatever is more at hand apparently, I do not criticise it, but that does not exclude that other people may want to go further than that and get to the bottom of the ambiguity or whatever unsatisfactory aspect we may find in the whole thing.

So you have not prooved that nisaa' is the only one. And that in fact again, I do not give a damn, what I insisted upon is that, in fact nisaa', even by the conservatives, has more thna one meaning. It has, has it no?

You say

Once again, let me be clear we are exploring what is theoretically possible, then we can weigh up the evidence for each option. In order to do that, some questions must be answered, not ran away from.
What I am seeing thus far is that those advocating for an alternative for "nisa" have no example wherein "nisa=women" causes a logical/practical impossibility and/or contradiction in Quran. As an example, in my studies of salat, sujud, daraba, al masjid al haram - in which I favour alternatives to the traditional/common understanding, I have shown ample evidence of problems, some of which include logical/practical impossibilities and/or contradictions. In the case of "nisa", I haven't seen any.

No, sure not, you have not seen any and you will not see it for a while.
There are attempts which you are ignoring, as you are ignoring the morphological part which is essential, absolutely essential, and even the Arabic guru of the thread is ignoring it. But never mind. I do not expect anything either.

And I have also said that that we are exploring, so if we are exploring we are exploring, you just let us explore, and when we have conclusions, if we reach that phase, we will surely expose them, but right now, again we are exploring and we are under no obligation to lay eggs. Eggs take time and are not produced on demand. To exact from those who want to explore and examine to satisfaction things of the Qur'an that right away they come up with a perfect egg, is unrealistic and makes people nervous, when in fact as I have already said with 4.3, the status quo is pure self-delusion. Nobody understands a damn thing about that aya 4.3, but everybody is reprimanding everybody else about it as if they had grasped it erfectly without a shadow of a doubt.

Lack of doubt is alarming at times.

Salaam, Wakas, I would have a little patient with men at work.

huruf

DEAR HURUF,

Please let me know if my last explanation about "Collective Nouns" taking on the Feminine Plural Pronoun was clear enough or if you would like for me to go into it a bit more. I would also be more than happy to provide you with references and links to the Grammar Books if you want to look into this on your own.

Salaam,
Damon.

Salaam, Shirley,

I am a one track person, and right now I have too many tracks to handle in this forum and elsewhere. I have to come back to that part, but as to the morphology I would like that part not to be neglected. Once again, and I supose I am getting boring, i think it is essential.

For the feminine I mean, let us take the nisaa' word, as group name it concords in the feminine, were "her" components people of masculine gender or mixed gender, would it be gramatically correct to use the concordance of a feminine plural in the verbs of which they are the subject and the corresponding pronouns? That is the question.

Salaam and I hope we continue with this. Conclusions or not I hope we learn.

Wakas

salaam Released,

I meant this http//www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Grammar/iltifaat.html
I have not gone through them to find an example identical to 43, one may or may not exist.

I want to also follow-up on 314 which you mentioned. This is often cited by those advocating a non-women understanding of "nisa". The usual claim is "an-nas" is "people/mankind" which includes women, thus how can Quran be saying women love women! Quran is promoting lesbianism which cannot be! etc.
However, from my experience of discussing with such people, they NEVER mention the problems with their own objection, which are

The verse actually says "beautified for mankind is love (of) desirable things min/from (partitive) A and B and C and D and E"
"min" is a partitive, meaning not ALL from what follows.
Whatever meaning they choose for "nisa" cannot satisfy their own objection, i.e. whatever meaning they choose, it must mean, according to them, all people love desirable things A and B and C and D and E, and if any category of people it means in a sexual way as they initially claimed. To get around this, they may say "hubbu alshshahawati" does not mean "love (of) desirable things" etc which invalidates their original objection.
They seemingly neglect to consider the perhaps most obvious answer and that is Quran is discussing archetypes as it does in many other places in Quran, e.g. 4615.
whatever meaning they choose for "nisa" and the others in the list they will have to make all people love/want those things, which is impossible, unless they translate it to things like oxygen, water, heat, shelter etc.

As is frequently the case, they only tell you their side of the story. Do not be fooled by such types. A quick way to check credibility/integrity is to see if they provide enough information to verify/refute what they wrote, if they discuss possible alternatives to what they wrote, and possible issues with their proposed alternative. If they do none of these, it is highly likely they are intellectually dishonest.

salaam huruf,

You keep implying I/others have concluded. If that were the case why are we still asking questions? When one has concluded something, they rarely ask questions.

And if you/me/others haven't studied something or they do not know the answer to a certain question, no harm in saying I dont know, or I haven't studied that yet etc. That is more helpful than running away from a question. For example, when it comes to morphology, that is not an area I'm familiar with, hence little discussion of it from me, however other aspects can be discussed from my end.

Shirley

Salaam Everybody,

It's nice to see that others have finally decided to join this discussion and help to move things along in bringing this topic to a logical conclusion. There will always be detractors to something like this. That is to be expected. No one here HAS TO agree with my arguments, point of views or conclusions, as long as they are sincerely "Looking At The Research" and are willing to take a second look at their present understanding of Nisaa'. I can always tell the difference between someone who is honest about it and someone who is satisified with their present position (and the status quo) and using slick language to make it appear that they are re-examining the present understanding of this word when in all actuality they're not.

Mazhar,

There is no difference in what you have stated here and my post describing what are the functions of Min.

Oh, there is PLENTY DIFFERENCE, one of them being that I actually typed my post myself in my own words instead of copying and pasting from a Grammar Book. Another difference is that I am insisting that in 4/3 is not a prepositional phrase because the particle is not used as a preposition in this phrase. I understand the particle to be a Partitive Particle in this instance. If it is YOUR UNDERSTANDING that a Partitive Particle is still the same thing as a Preposition then I guess I can understand why you are insisting that is a prepositional phrase. I disagree with it, but at least I know where you are coming from. It is my understanding that the proposition is not a prepositional or explanatory particle by default. It is my understanding that this word has to be used in a certain context in order for it to be understood as a preposition (and the phrase it appears in as a prepositional phrase). It is my understanding that a preposition by default refers to position, location, direction or geographical origin. It is like the English word "ON". This word is not a prepositon by default but can be used as a preposition if placed in the correct context. For example, "Turn the television ON" is not a prepositional sentence because the word "on" is not used as a preposition in this example. However, "The books are ON the table" does include a prepositional phrase since the word "on" is now used as a preposition in this example. It is used to show the LOCATION and POSITION of the books.

Now, ANOTHER DIFFERENCE is that I have pointed out the partitive use of the word in order to show how this USE of the word comes after the word in the clause that I have been trying to get you to look at and understand. It doesn't matter if you are uncomfortable with the term "Ma...Min Clause". What matters is that you study and understand the function itself. You and Wakas insist on asking me for another instance where Nisaa' is performing a masculine verb and Huruf has done that by pointing out 12/30 to you guys. But it seems that you two are ignoring that just as you have been ignoring everything else that has been pointed out to you in this thread and please don't think I don't know why you are ignoring/dismissing it. Anyway, the ... clause is real rather you like it or not and that clause HAS BEEN PUT TO USE in 4/3 rather you like it or not. I don't care if you reject it or dismiss it, I only care if you are able to refute it.

The question which you are continuously evading is whether the Noun after Min can be treated as Subject-doer of the preceding Verb? If not how AnNisa are the Subject of Taba?

First of all, we need to get something straight. I am not "evading" ANY of your questions. I don't like answering the SAME RIDICULOUS QUESTIONS more than once and this question is ANOTHER ridiculous one that I do not want to answer AGAIN!! The question is ridiculous because THE ANSWER is in those sections of the Grammar Books I requested for you to look at explaining this grammatical construct. And it is a repeated question because I had answered it the first time it was brought up. Just because you keep asking the same question doesn't mean my answer is going to change later on. My answer is the same now as it was before. READ THE GRAMMAR BOOKS Mazhar!!

Second question which you are evading is why definite article "Al" is prefixed to Nisa? This makes them particularized; definite and determined feminines? Who are they and where are they?

Not evading it, just another one that I am loathing having to answer. I agree with one thing you had said and that is the definite article "AL" makes An-Nisaa' particularized, definite and determined. This is just basic grammar. However, I DISAGREE with your forced arbitrary statement of feminines. I disagree with it for two reasons Reason 1) is that YOU are making the claim for everyone else that this word is feminine. This is YOUR WAY of dictating the MEANING of this word which you have NO AUTHORITY to do. You don't do so out of knowledge that you may have to prove your assertion, you are doing so based upon on a preconceived concept that you are attached to and is actually a BARRIER to you understanding the correct meaning of this word. Reason 2) is that evidence has been presnted to you to show that this word IS NOT feminine at all. It certainly isn't feminine in 3/14, 4/3 and 12/30. You have YET to grammatically refute these findings but you are STILL telling everyone else on this forum that this word is "feminine" WITHOUT proving that it is in fact feminine and WITHOUT disproving what I had showed to point out that it is not feminine. You really are amazing, you know that?

Lastly, I am NOT going to answer ANYMORE of your questions unless you show the willingness to ADDRESS THE GRAMMATICAL DETAILS I am pointing out in regards to 4/3. You are not linguistically and grammatically challenging my breakdown and re-examination of 4/3. You are only coming back with more questions which are connected to your prior questions..." how AnNisa are the Subject of Taba?" and "can the Noun after Min can be treated as Subject-doer of the preceding Verb?" are two such oft-repeated questions that only show that you are not READING what I am pointing out because if you did you would already have the answers to your questions.

Mazhar

Oh, there is PLENTY DIFFERENCE, one of them being that I actually typed my post myself in my own words instead of copying and pasting from a Grammar Book. Another difference is that I am insisting that in 4/3 is not a prepositional phrase because the particle is not used as a preposition in this phrase. I understand the particle to be a Partitive Particle in this instance. If it is YOUR UNDERSTANDING that a Partitive Particle is still the same thing as a Preposition then I guess I can understand why you are insisting that is a prepositional phrase. I disagree with it, but at least I know where you are coming from. It is my understanding that the proposition is not a prepositional or explanatory particle by default. It is my understanding that this word has to be used in a certain context in order for it to be understood as a preposition (and the phrase it appears in as a prepositional phrase). It is my understanding that a preposition by default refers to position, location, direction or geographical origin. It is like the English word "ON". This word is not a prepositon by default but can be used as a preposition if placed in the correct context. For example, "Turn the television ON" is not a prepositional sentence because the word "on" is not used as a preposition in this example. However, "The books are ON the table" does include a prepositional phrase since the word "on" is now used as a preposition in this example. It is used to show the LOCATION and POSITION of the books.

Peace Shirley,

That is the difference. You read from a book and reproduced not what is conveyed therein, but that which you perceived and thereby you think it is right. But you attribute it to grammar books.
If you read Arabic grammar books you will not find that ?Min? is given the name ?Partitive Particle?. ?Min? is placed in the category, called " " Genitive particles-Prepositions.
Learned Thackston did not say what you are attributing to him. He did not grant or coin name ?Partitive? for ?Min? which he knew as Preposition. He correctly stated, ?followed by partitive-min construction?. What he is saying is ?followed by a prepositional phrase where the preposition is functioning to describe a part of the whole-a subset of the set?. He is correctly saying in few words what is the original Arabic word in grammar for this type of use-function of Min which I quoted in my post; . When used for this function, easy way to determine is to put in its place.
For your convenience, I reproduce the classification of Particles and their names

" " Genitive particles;
" " Particles resembling a verb;
" " Appositive particles;
" " Particles of Notice;
" " Vocative Particles;
" " Particles of Reply
" " Extraneous Particles
" " Two particles of Clarification;
" " Particles of Masdar is a prepositional phrase. I disagree with it, but at least I know where you are coming from." Kindly enlighten me with one reference where someone says that Arabic language has in its vocabulary a Particle named "Partitive Particle". And kindly enlighten me with one reference where someone says that Min and its Object Noun is other than a Prepositional Phrase.

"On" is used as preposition, adverb and adjective.

thanks

Wakas

Damon,

"min" occurs in Quran about 3226 times
http//corpus.quran.com/search.jsp?q=lem%3Amin+pos%3Ap

All you need to do is find 1 out of the 3226 which refutes what Mazhar claims. It is ok to reply "I haven't studied it, so I dont know".

You claim

You and Wakas insist on asking me for another instance where Nisaa' is performing a masculine verb and Huruf has done that by pointing out 12/30 to you guys.

Firstly, if you had read 1230 carefully, you'd know the word used is not "nisaa" but "niswatun". Secondly, you have failed to explain why a masculine verb is used in 43 (according to you) and not elsewhere etc for "nisa", unless your view is you dont know or Quran uses its words haphazardly so there is no reason. Either way, let us know. ;D

Mazhar

Now, ANOTHER DIFFERENCE is that I have pointed out the partitive use of the word in order to show how this USE of the word comes after the word in the clause that I have been trying to get you to look at and understand. It doesn't matter if you are uncomfortable with the term "Ma...Min Clause". What matters is that you study and understand the function itself. You and Wakas insist on asking me for another instance where Nisaa' is performing a masculine verb and Huruf has done that by pointing out 12/30 to you guys. But it seems that you two are ignoring that just as you have been ignoring everything else that has been pointed out to you in this thread and please don't think I don't know why you are ignoring/dismissing it. Anyway, the ... clause is real rather you like it or not and that clause HAS BEEN PUT TO USE in 4/3 rather you like it or not. I don't care if you reject it or dismiss it, I only care if you are able to refute it.

Peace Shirley,

Learned Thackston will feel disturbed if he is told that he caused confusion for one person Shirley, by his use of minimum words to convey an idea, like his words "Ma-------Min clause". However he did not say that "Ma------Min" is a clause. What he said was Ma followed by a Prepositional Phrase-Min and its Object Noun, and instead used one word for it as "clause".
Ma itself is an independent clause along with its Linkage clause, in a sentence, where its linkage clause is not ascribed any grammatical role. Kindly see a simple tutorial on The Types of http//www.learnarabiconline.com/types-of-maa.shtml

Thanks

Shirley

More of the same, it never ends.

Wakas, I'm still not discussing anything with you and that's that.

Mazhar, YOU are STILL not coming with a refutation of my UNDERSTANDING of 4/3 and how the grammar in that verse is used to overturn the Nisaa' Means Women belief. You are coming with more questions which means that you do not know as much of the grammar as you want people to believe. Instead of going around in circles it would be MUCH, MUCH SIMPLER to REFUTE and DISPROVE what I have presented to everyone concerning 4/3 and the grammar that is used in that verse. VERY SIMPLE!!!! It will eliminate anymore confusion and keep us from going in circles. SIMPLY DISPROVE AND REFUTE WHAT I HAVE PRESENTED REGARDING 4/3 AND IT'S GRAMMAR!!! This must be a very difficult thing for you to do or else you would have done it already.

By the way, I do have a question if you don't mind me asking. I did say in my last response to you that I know WHY 12/30 would be conveniently dismissed and ignored but I only read it from one person (the reason that is). Is this YOUR REASON as well? There is a reason I am asking this. If you don't want to answer it, that's fine. I'll just say what needs to be said about this verse anyway which will still show your lack of aptitude of defending your Position.

Sunnah-hero

Peace Wakas,

Two questions I have for you after reading through the new posts

You mentioned something about verse 1087 and the constant switching of verbs in relation to the beginning of Chapter 4. Can you explain this further? I am having difficulty understanding. Can you perhaps provide a side by side comparison?

Also, why do you think that "marry off" is a possibility? We discussed this in Fallen Angel's thread to an extent. Also, why does "nikah" ALWAYS have to pertain to marriage? From your perspective, why can't it simply be a contract of a different nature?

Nikah is a contract ............ even sunnis agree to that........... Nikah is a contract in regard to marriage it becomes a marriage contract and in regard to something else it becomes a different contract... ;D so no, i dont think nikah is always about marriage confused

Shirley

Mazhar, Salaam Alaikum,

Peace Shirley,

That is the difference. You read from a book and reproduced not what is conveyed therein, but that which you perceived and thereby you think it is right. But you attribute it to grammar books.
If you read Arabic grammar books you will not find that ?Min? is given the name ?Partitive Particle?. ?Min? is placed in the category, called " " Genitive particles-Prepositions.
Learned Thackston did not say what you are attributing to him. He did not grant or coin name ?Partitive? for ?Min? which he knew as Preposition. He correctly stated, ?followed by partitive-min construction?. What he is saying is ?followed by a prepositional phrase where the preposition is functioning to describe a part of the whole-a subset of the set?. He is correctly saying in few words what is the original Arabic word in grammar for this type of use-function of Min which I quoted in my post; . When used for this function, easy way to determine is to put in its place.
For your convenience, I reproduce the classification of Particles and their names

" " Genitive particles;
" " Particles resembling a verb;
" " Appositive particles;
" " Particles of Notice;
" " Vocative Particles;
" " Particles of Reply
" " Extraneous Particles
" " Two particles of Clarification;
" " Particles of Masdar is a prepositional phrase. I disagree with it, but at least I know where you are coming from." Kindly enlighten me with one reference where someone says that Arabic language has in its vocabulary a Particle named "Partitive Particle". And kindly enlighten me with one reference where someone says that Min and its Object Noun is other than a Prepositional Phrase.

"On" is used as preposition, adverb and adjective.

thanks

AND...

Peace Shirley,

Learned Thackston will feel disturbed if he is told that he caused confusion for one person Shirley, by his use of minimum words to convey an idea, like his words "Ma-------Min clause". However he did not say that "Ma------Min" is a clause. What he said was Ma followed by a Prepositional Phrase-Min and its Object Noun, and instead used one word for it as "clause".
Ma itself is an independent clause along with its Linkage clause, in a sentence, where its linkage clause is not ascribed any grammatical role. Kindly see a simple tutorial on The Types of http//www.learnarabiconline.com/types-of-maa.shtml

Thanks

Notice how in your grammar lessons you have NOT tackled my explanation of 4/3 AT ALL!! It wold be simpler and more to the point to just address that.

Thank You.

Mazhar

Mazhar, Salaam Alaikum,

AND...

Notice how in your grammar lessons you have NOT tackled my explanation of 4/3 AT ALL!! It wold be simpler and more to the point to just address that.

Thank You.

Salamun alaika,

I presume that the grammar lessons are agreed upon. Therefore, the issue is turned to the actual field to apply it on 43. It means you have not looked on the thread which I posted on the asking by learned Released to give the break up.
Kindly have a look. http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604734.0
The aforementioned grammar lessons were necessary to first acquaint as to what a Preposition means, and about its governance powers.
As you know a Prepositional Phrase, whatever the language of text is, needs to be linked with some other element of the sentence.
At the moment I can tell you one thing that an Object Noun of a Preposition whether it is Min or Fee or others is NOT the Subject of a Active Voice Verb found anywhere in the sentence. Can you deny that "AnNisai-Kasra at end" is the Object Noun of Min.
Similarly a Preposition and its Object Noun is NEVER the Subject of a sentence nor its predicate.

Wakas

Damon,

Now you imply what you said about 43 has not been refuted/disproved, yet you ran away from responding to multiple points, some of which are here
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604721.msg315351#msg315351

It is rather obvious what is going on, and you said it yourself that an alternative understanding such as yours requires significant research of Quran and this new research has largely not been done yet. This would explain your lack of answers.

My experience of discussing with those who have this alternative view has been the same. Not to worry, when you and your peeps finally come up with something solid and thorough, let us know. Until then, you can keep evading.

Mazhar

You are coming with more questions which means that you do not know as much of the grammar as you want people to believe.

Salamun alaika,

No dear, I wish not to make people believe that I know much about grammar. I am only emohasising that a non-native can never understand the perception conveyed in a text until and unless he knows the fundamentals of grammar of that language.

Shirley

Salaam Mazhar,

I did not agree upon your grammar lessons Mazhar, it was sarcasm and I thought you knew that. At any rate, I am making it CLEAR that what YOU ARE DOING is making this conversation go into an endless circle!!! At this rate, if I keep answering YOUR QUESTIONS about grammar (which you obviously fall short on) then you'll keep coming back with MORE QUESTIONS!! But you have Yet, and I am emphasizing YET, to dismantle my explanations or interpretations of 4/1 through 4/3. I re-iterated my argument point by point to Nadia. I have given MY understanding and rendition of 4/1 through 4/3 for Sister Inq Trini. I have posted additional information on how The Arabs refer to marriage and I have publicly posted links to grammar references for all to freely investigate without interference from me. I have addressed and shut down the grammar information this UQ person had posted and he himself/herself has not responded to that. But YOU YOURSELF have not approached ANY OF THIS in an effort to shoot down my arguments and prove me wrong. The ONLY THING you have down by way of a response to my arguments is claim that Thackston coined a term that is causing confusion or that I am misunderstanding what he (and I guess Haywood) is explaining about that construct. You keep going in circles asking me what is the difference between what I said concerning prepositions and what you said. Please address my points to Nadia and my understanding of 4/1 - 4/3 that I have done for Inq Trini!!! PLEASE!!!

As far as WHAT a preposition is and HOW a word is used to make it a preposition...I have explained my case and you have explained yours. Let the others read our respective arguments and decide for themselves and move on.

As far as the use of the ... construct...I have posted where I get this understanding from which you are obviously rejecting (without explaining WHY). Telling a person that they are misunderstanding the intent of the authors of the grammar books in question is NOT an explanation. But again, you have posted your objection to it just as I had posted my sources of that understanding. Again, I would rather let the people read those sections of the grammar books, compare them to what is written in 4/3 and decide for themselves and we can move on.

One more thing Mazhar,

I wish not to make people believe that I know much about grammar. I am only emohasising that a non-native can never understand the perception conveyed in a text until and unless he knows the fundamentals of grammar of that language.

Statements such as this is what can cause you to put your foot in your mouth. You really need to be careful about this. You, me and everyone else involved in this thread can arrange a Live Session where we mutually agree upon Arabic Newspapers and Books (with or without the haraka or tanween) to read in a "Live" situation to find out which one of us (between you and me) is not grounded in the fundamentals of Arabic Grammar. While we are at it, we can also "Talk" to see which of us can actually SPEAK Arabic. It is your choice if you wish to speak in FuSshaa or a dialect or BOTH!! We can go on Skype if you wish or the quran connection thingy (I think there is a voice activation function on that). My point is if you wish to make these kinds of statements towards me then I am asking that we arrange a live meeting to ascertain this for sure.

Thank You Kind Sir and Salaam.

Basically what Dr. QZ and the Aastana members are doing is something I realized must be done even when I was still a sunni, and that is we are Starting All Over From Scratch!! The people who altered and defaced the message did so by starting from scratch and they were very methodical about it. WE have to do the same thing IF we want to perform the correct surgery in order to repair The Quran's message and image.

"The Quran is NOT a Religious book geared towards men alone. It is a book of Social Justice geared towards women and men equally.The Quran is a document outlining the implementation of JUSTICE. It is NOT only upon males to implement justice it is upon males and females alike. Because of this, a document concerned with JUSTICE FOR ALL must also ADDRESS ALL!! That is why you find 41 - 43 being addressed to ALL PEOPLE (An-Nas). It is addressing all people and the system of justice it recommends is for the benefit all people - 6/90, 12/104, 38/87, 43/44.

I hope I live long enough to see the day when The Quran is no longer viewed as a sexist, chauvinist, male centric religious book."

Wakas

Salaam Mazhar,

Ultimately, it does not matter if you or Damon agree on what the grammar book says, so this may be a futile avenue to go down. You and I both know Quran has 3000+ examples of "min" being used. Damon simply needs to provide one to counter your claim.

We can leave it as an open challenge. The readers of the forum can make up their own minds etc.

Shirley

Salaam Mazhar,

THIS Is The Post that I am referring to about Zawaaj.

Thank You

Basically what Dr. QZ and the Aastana members are doing is something I realized must be done even when I was still a sunni, and that is we are Starting All Over From Scratch!! The people who altered and defaced the message did so by starting from scratch and they were very methodical about it. WE have to do the same thing IF we want to perform the correct surgery in order to repair The Quran's message and image.

"The Quran is NOT a Religious book geared towards men alone. It is a book of Social Justice geared towards women and men equally.The Quran is a document outlining the implementation of JUSTICE. It is NOT only upon males to implement justice it is upon males and females alike. Because of this, a document concerned with JUSTICE FOR ALL must also ADDRESS ALL!! That is why you find 41 - 43 being addressed to ALL PEOPLE (An-Nas). It is addressing all people and the system of justice it recommends is for the benefit all people - 6/90, 12/104, 38/87, 43/44.

I hope I live long enough to see the day when The Quran is no longer viewed as a sexist, chauvinist, male centric religious book."

huruf

I will start with morphology

nisaa' if from root n-s-' would be a singular or a plural,

If singular, similar to kitaab,

If plural, similar to rajul.

So, can anybody say which is it. Is it a singular or a plural. If it does come from n-s-hamza, which is it, a singular or a plural?

If a singular, what is the logical explanation. If a plural, where is the singular. And I do not mean in the sense of women, I mean in any sense, any word which might be the singular from which to form the broken plural.

Salaam

We have a singular for rijaal, which is rajul, where is or what is the nasu' word for the root n-s-'

Wakas

salaam released,

I forgot to reply to your mention of "marry-off" and "nikah".

"marry" V "marry-off" has been discussed on the forum before, a lot, e.g.
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=13534.0
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=12031.0

Hence I allowed for that possibility when discussing options.

Sure, "nikah" can mean other than "marriage", see classical arabic dictionaries, however the ultimate criterion will be the Quran. It is fairly easy to check its occurrences via concordance. The following is an excerpt from concordance of quran by hanna e kassis (note it is OCR, i.e. machine read, and traditional translation)

*N K H

NAKAHA vb. (I) -to marry. (n.vb.) marriage

a) perf act.

422 (26) do not marry women that your fathers married
3349 (4 when you marry believing women and then divorce them before.you touch them

b) impf. act. (yankihu)
2221 (220) do not marry idolatresses, until they believe
2230 (230) she shall not be lawful to him after that, until she marries another husband
2232 (232) do not debar them from marrying their husbands
422 (26) do not marry women that your fathers married
425 (29) any one of you who has not the affluence to be able to marry believing freewomen
4127 (126) women to whom you give not what is prescribed for them, and yet desire to marry
them
243 (3) the fornicator shall marry none but a fornicatress or an idolatress
243 (3) and the fornicatress - none shall marry her but a fornicator or an idolator
3353 (53) it is not for you to hurt God's Messenger, neither to marry his wives after him
6010 (10) there is no fault in you to marry them when you have given them their wages

c) impv. (inkih)

43 (3) marry such Women as seem good to you" two, three, four
425 (29) so marry them, with their people's leave
f) n.vb. (nikah)
2235 (236) do not resolve on the knot of marriage until the book has reached its term
.2237 (23 they make iemission, or he makes remission in whose hand is the knot of marriage
46 (5) test well the orphans, until they. reach the age of marrying
2433 (33) let those who find not the means to marry be abstinent till God enriches them
2460 (59) such women as are past child-bearing and have no hope of marriage

ANKAHA vb. (IV)-to marry, to wed

b) impf. act. (yunkihu)
2221 (220) do not marry idolaters, until they believe
2827 (27) 1 desire to marry thee to one of these my two daughters
c) impv.' (ankih)
2432 (32) marry the spouseless among you, and your slaves and handmaidens that are righteous

ISTANKAHA vb. (X)-to take in marriage

b) impf. act. (yastankihu)
3350 (49) and if the Prophet desire to take her in marriage

Feel free to insert "nikah" as something else in the above and aim for consistency, and see what results. You will note how Damon et al do not do such a thing, likely due to the major problems that will occur, yet claim "nikah" means something else.