Discussion on 4:3 and meaning of nisa
-
Before we continue with the morphology of the word Nisaa', I would like to know if we are clear about the grammatical structure of 4/3 and how it shows that Nisaa' cannot be "women".
starting from scratch
Interesting approach----start by placing the cart before the horse... rotfl rotfl bravo
-
Salaam, Damon,
Before we continue with the morphology of the word Nisaa', I would like to know if we are clear about the grammatical structure of 4/3 and how it shows that Nisaa' cannot be "women". Also, I am not a fan of the possibility that this word can mean women in some contexts but not others. I prefer consistency especially when this word doesn't represent the feminine gender and we do have the words that you have pointed out (Untha and Dhakar) for female and male as well as Imr'u and Imra'a for man and woman.
Right now, I am open to every possibility. One of them, that ayas may have different legitimate ways of approach depending on the context we may apply them to, or even our mental context. I think that the choice of words in the Qur'an is not random, but purposeful, and also that there may be different levels of meaning, and different applications dependent on context, textual context or real world context, since I also consider the honourable Qur'an a dynamic text. That is why I insist that it is upon us to give to what we read or hear the best possible meaning. It falls on the sincerity and iman of the person not to cheat on that nor to cheat him or herself.
As to 4.3, I hve read many times the aya and I have heard understandings of it by the dozens, and it seems to me that in fact nobody is clear as to its aims alication precisely and accurately and everything seems to be up for grabs. While its aim, protecting thos who need protection from abuse, injustice, etc. is clear, the "hows" seem to be a matter of imagination.
You did make a translation in this thread I think of 4.3. May be you can post it again, and we may go through it step by step. Right now there are so many pages of this that my head turns. Or you can give me a hint of where int he thread it is.
Also my feeling right now is that rajul-rijaal and nisaa' basically are sociological constructs and not properly sexes, but in some cases genders, because, when sex and not genders are considered, there are other words, like mu'minaat, azwaaj, etc.
You ask me to be clear or say something conclusive at this time, but I sincerely can't. It is too wide a field, as wide as the Qur'an itself, very complex. I have the impression that now we have barely began to scratch the surface, and I do not want to limit the possibilities it offers. I would like to keep the study as open as possible and not reject any fruitful venue of study, may it seem very odd or not.
My gut feeling is that the morphology of the whole thing and its genesis is fundamental.
For me, it is fundamental whether nisaa' comes from a-n-s, n-s-y, n-s-', nsw... or from a confluence of some or all of those. I know, for certain that it has no sex, though it may have attached some gender in some contexts, or offer at least that possibility.
Rajul-rijaal, also has no sex, but may have attached equally some gender in some contexts.
That is why I asked, amongst many other things, if nisaa' is a broken plural, what is its singular? In the same way that we have rajul-rijaal what do we have ....... -nisaa'? I am afraid I cannot feel commited to anything fixed without some more clarity on that. When did the words rajul-rijaal and nisaa' started to be aplied to genders? Because its basic meaning is not that. Like saying, for instance, 'the weaker sex' means nothing. It is a euphemism and a sociological term, not a biologocal or real sexual term, resting on a speculation of what may constitute weakness, which of course is completely subjective.
Also I had this question on Arabic grammar
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 and sentences of which they are the subject and the corresponding pronouns? Since in English there are no gramatical genders I can't give a good example, but the impression would be that all the components taken as a whole would be feminine grammatical gender, independently of what their grammatical gender might if they happenned isolatedly . I do not know whether I have made myself clear.
In principle, as I have said, I am open to every possibility that gives a good or best understanding of the ayas of the honourable Qur'an. Preserving a statu quo which is not just nor equitable is not for me the best understanding, or a good understanding, it is would rather be at this stage a perversion of the text. But I do want also solid ground on which to found a good understanding. I am confident that we, in sha' Allah, striving in good faith, can get to it.
So I would like to get on, if at all possible, with the morphological part,
and now that we have gone through a lot of back and forth, might be good to put again forth your translation of 4.3 and look at it thoroughly. We may get a better view of where exactly we find difficulties and why.Thanks and salaam
-
That is why I asked, amongst many other things, if nisaa' is a broken plural, what is its singular?
And its Dual.
The grammatical numbers in Arabic areSingular nouns that refer to one person or thing.
Dual nouns that refer to two persons or things.
Plural nouns that refer to more than two persons or things.
-
salaam
according to this french article http//nawaat.org/portail/2012/12/23/ibadat-el-chouyoukhs-8-polygamie-et-esclavage-chez-les-islamisto-paiens/
verse 4-3 is not speaking at all about polygamy.it is all about charity. Muslims are only asked to help poors, orphans and concubines to get married by group of two, three or four and if not possible, only one or a women living in the status of concubine.
Malaket aymanoukom means "possesed by verbal promise" and not slaves.All about charity, nothing to do with polygalmy and slavery.
Peace
-
Peace Wakas,
Thanks for providing your explanations to me. Thanks also for providing links to the other threads. I'm going to read through them and if I should have any questions, then I will ask you at a later time, God willing.
Peace Huruf,
Thank you for starting the morphology discussion.
Peace Damon,
I also look forward to reading everything that you've written. I do understand the approach that Aastana is taking and look forward to one day reading their translation of the Quran, God willing.
I need to catch up on my reading in this thread, so I hope to contribute what little I know or have questions in regard to, God willing.
Peace Wael,
Thanks for your input as well.
-
I prefer consistency especially when this word doesn't represent the feminine gender and we do have the words that you have pointed out (Untha and Dhakar) for female and male as well as Imr'u and Imra'a for man and woman.
4176 and if were siblings rijal wanisa falildhakari/so to the male like share al-unthayayni/the two (feminine)
43 and if you fear that not do justice in the orphans so marry what taba/agreeable to you from al-nisaa/the women paired/dual/twos and three and quadruplet so if you fear that not do justice so one (f) or what possess your right hands that minimum that not you oppress
Right now, I am open to every possibility.
Peace huruf -- this is very simple; please translate name of painting into Arabic (yes you too Shirley)?
"Three Arabian women"
http//images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large/three-arabian-women--sunaina-serna-ahluwalia.jpg
-
4176 and if were siblings rijal wanisa falildhakari/so to the male like share al-unthayayni/the two (feminine)
So, why do you think the text switches from rijaalan and nisaa' to dhakar and untha? Are there rijaal who are not dhakar and nisaa' who are not untha?
Salaam
-
So, why do you think the text switches from rijaalan and nisaa' to dhakar and untha? Are there rijaal who are not dhakar and nisaa' who are not untha?
What, no translation of "three Arabian women" into Arabic?
The same reason if mixed children (i.e. males and females) and to clarify if mixed siblings.
411 directs you The God in your children
lildhakari/to the male like share al-unthayayni/the two (feminine)4176... and if were ikh'watun/siblings rijlan wanisan
falildhakari/so to the male like share al-unthayayni/the two (feminine)
clarifies The God for you lest you stray and The God in every a thing KnowingPeace
-
What, no translation of "three Arabian women" into Arabic?
The same reason if mixed children (i.e. males and females) and to clarify if mixed siblings.
411 directs you The God in your children
lildhakari/to the male like share al-unthayayni/the two (feminine)4176... and if were ikh'watun/siblings rijlan wanisan
falildhakari/so to the male like share al-unthayayni/the two (feminine)
clarifies The God for you lest you stray and The God in every a thing KnowingPeace
So why the switch in both ayas?
Are there then rijaal who are not dhakar and nisaa' who are not untha?
Salaam
-
So why the switch in both ayas?
Are there then rijaal who are not dhakar and nisaa' who are not untha?
Switch is to express a consistent and clear 21 male to female distribution ratio.
Inaccurate lilrrijli/for the men like share im'ra-atni/two womenWhat about the distributions for non-adult females?
How else to write 21 male to female ratio any age?What, no translation of "three Arabian women" into Arabic?
The same reason if mixed children (i.e. males and females) and to clarify if mixed siblings.
411 directs you The God in your children
lildhakari/to the male like share al-unthayayni/the two (feminine)4176... and if were ikh'watun/siblings rijlan wanisan
falildhakari/so to the male like share al-unthayayni/the two (feminine)
clarifies The God for you lest you stray and The God in every a thing KnowingPeace
-
Switch is to express a consistent and clear 21 male to female distribution ratio.
Inaccurate lilrrijli/for the men like share im'ra-atni/two womenWhat about the distributions for non-adult females?
How else to write 21 male to female ratio any age?THAT cannot be the reason, ABOLUTELY NOT.
If rijaal entailed a sex, then it is confusing to introduce a new concept. In the dhakar ALL males are included, ALL. In the untha ALL females are included, ALL.
If different terms are used it cannot be to make clearer something which by itself CANNOT BE CLEARER.
Salaam
-
THAT cannot be the reason, ABOLUTELY NOT.
If rijaal entailed a sex, then it is confusing to introduce a new concept. In the dhakar ALL males are included, ALL. In the untha ALL females are included, ALL.
If different terms are used it cannot be to make clearer something which by itself CANNOT BE CLEARER.
Salaam
That is absolutely the case and no better way to express a ratio to include all males and females.
21 male to female distribution ratio cannot be expressed correctly using rijlan wanisan.
Lastly, if you do complete study at the inheritance leaves no doubt that nisaa are feminine/women.
411 directs you The God in your children
lildhakari/to the male like share al-unthayayni/the two (feminine)
so if kunna/are (feminine plural) nisaa (feminine/women any age) above two (feminine)
falahunna/so for them (feminine plural) thulutha 2/3 what left
and if kanat/she is (feminine) widatan/one (feminine) so for her the halfIn addition, the alternatives presented (rather brainstormed) thus far are absurd only show a lack careful study and when asked to insert explain their supposed counter meaning in other verses all Shirley did was rant about Wakas and others telling us how good his Arabic on Skype would be and refuses to tell us how he or you too huruf would say in Arabic the simple phrase "three Arabian women" -- end of conversation!
Peace
-
No, Noon, I don't know what you are answering, but you are not answering my question.
All males and females are already included ein dhakar and untha or their plurals, so again, why use rijaal and nisaa'. Dhakar and untha are quite sufficient and quite clear if what is meant is that precisely, males and females.
Salaam
-
No, Noon, I don't know what you are answering, but you are not answering my question.
All males and females are already included ein dhakar and untha or their plurals, so again, why use rijaal and nisaa'. Dhakar and untha are quite sufficient and quite clear if what is meant is that precisely, males and females.
Salaam
Noon did make the point quite explicit.
Nisaa ==women
untha===femaleWomen and female are two different words. Woman is a female adult. Equation is mentioned by gender-female and male to include all ages.
-
-
Salaam all,
Noon, I think what Huruf means is the verse still seems to work if rijal/nisa words were not there in the siblings verse. However, I would say that having rijal/nisa there would only serve to confuse if one did not know what they meant or if one thinks they meant other than men/women.
Interestingly, if one tries to insert alternative meanings into these verses it does seem to result in renditions way more absurd. Try it. In fact, one does not need to know what rijal/nisa means to see the absurdity, as long as one believes it does not mean men/women but rather terms which indicate mixed gender groups.
Thus, what may originally seen as superfluous ( I haven't studied inheritance verses however) may be a expertly introduced clarifier so no one can manipulate such terms. You will not find Damon et al provide any logical alternative for the inheritance verses, nor do I expect them to for the foreseeable future.
From an unrelated angle I did study the word nisa and the inheritance verses were the only ones I found that seemed to treat nisa as equivalent to female in places, but now I think this may have something to do when they actually receive the inheritance, ie. when they are adults, for both men and women.
-
Behold, We have sent it down in all clarity, in the Arabic tongue, so that you might encompass it with your reason.? (Quran 122)
Peace All,
I am wondering, in the light of the quote above, if we are not getting stuck too much in the weight of language. Of course, the language is important, because we have seen how, through mistranslations, various actions have been sanctioned, such as beating women. However, without even correcting the translations, our reason should have told us that God speaks of Peace and non-agression (apart from in self-defence), that we should have therefore known by our total reading of the Koran that beating women was a nonsense and so therefore, perhaps it was another type of beat that was meant, such as the American 'beat it, leave, go away'. Of course, as Huruf keeps pointing out, the Koran is dynamic and its meanings almost seem to become clear at the exact point when they should.
As I have pointed out before, I cannot make a linguistic contribution, but I feel that in terms of ideas for the current issue, 4;3, we will need to look at the whole of the Koran and reason whether, all things weighed up, if God is telling us that when a man marries up to four wives, he will help those women. Does the Koran as a wholesome bottle of medicine support this idea. Does the fact that the Koran also tells us that it is impossible to be fair to more than one wife not send us a warning signal that polygamy is not sanctioned. I suspect that God knows that 4;3 would have been abused by those whose purpose it suited. Why would a society choose to believe that 4;3 means marry up to 4 women instead of it meaning that we should look after those in need in our society. Why would God suggest a system that intrinsically separates men from their wives and children regularly while they (fathers) try to do the impossible of keeping up with four wives and four sets of families.
The Koran is medicine for our lives, therefore we have to take the whole lot for it to be effective, not just the bits that make the most impact. There are no grey areas. Those that appear grey are the ones that we find hard to accept and feel ought to be otherwise. I think people find it hard to let go of the polygamy idea because it has become embedded in so many muslim cultures. It's interesting how, when this discussion first started on another thread, only a couple of us were willing to stand up and say that essentially, polygamy cannot be koranic, because the rest of the Koran does not support it. Whilst my knowledge of the Koran allowed me to have this view confidently, I was not hampered by any ingrained views handed down to me by my family etc.
-
Salaam all,
Noon, I think what Huruf means is the verse still seems to work if rijal/nisa words were not there in the siblings verse. However, I would say that having rijal/nisa there would only serve to confuse if one did not know what they meant or if one thinks they meant other than men/women.
Interestingly, if one tries to insert alternative meanings into these verses it does seem to result in renditions way more absurd. Try it. In fact, one does not need to know what rijal/nisa means to see the absurdity, as long as one believes it does not mean men/women but rather terms which indicate mixed gender groups.
Thus, what may originally seen as superfluous ( I haven't studied inheritance verses however) may be a expertly introduced clarifier so no one can manipulate such terms. You will not find Damon et al provide any logical alternative for the inheritance verses, nor do I expect them to for the foreseeable future.
From an unrelated angle I did study the word nisa and the inheritance verses were the only ones I found that seemed to treat nisa as equivalent to female in places, but now I think this may have something to do when they actually receive the inheritance, ie. when they are adults, for both men and women.
Peace Wakas, the best way to express a 21 male to female ratio of any age was as written.
Example should suffice/clarify a man dies leaving 72 gold coins inheritance; there is no will. He has from 1st wife (deceased) a son age 21 and from 2nd wife (widow) 2 sons ages 5 & 9; 3 daughters ages 7, 11, & 13.
411 directs you The God in your children
lildhakari/to the male like share al-unthayayni/the two (feminine)412 ... so if he is for you walad (if male child/born) so for them (f) the eight
Wife = 72 gold coins x 1/8 = 9 gold coins (leaves 63 gold coins to children distributed 21 male to female ratio)?
Son age 21 = 63 gold coins x 2/9 = 14 gold coins
Son age 5 = 63 gold coins x 2/9 = 14 gold coins (held in trust until maturity)
Son age 9 = 63 gold coins x 2/9 = 14 gold coins " "
Daughter age 7 = 63 gold coins x 1/9 = 7 gold coins " "
Daughter age 11 = 63 gold coins x 1/9 = 7 gold coins " "
Daughter age 13 = 63 gold coins x 1/9 = 7 gold coins " "The following day son age 21 dies in an accident (no will) which leaves 14 gold coins to his younger siblings?
4176 ... and if were ikh'watun brethren/siblings rijlan wanisan (i.e. mixed)
falildhakari/so to the male like share al-unthayayni the two (feminine)Son age 5 = 14 gold coins x 2/7 = 4 gold coins (held in trust until maturity along with 14; total now is 18 gold coins)
Son age 9 = 14 gold coins x 2/7 = 4 gold coins " "
Daughter age 7 = 14 gold coins x 1/7 = 2 gold coins (in trust until maturity along with 7; total now is 9 gold coins)
Daughter age 11 = 14 gold coins x 1/7 = 2 gold coins " "
Daughter age 13 = 14 gold coins x 1/7 = 2 gold coins " "Now widow is left with young children, Qur'an advises to help gives dire warning not mess with above...
41 O you al-nas/the humankind fear your Lord the He who created you from soul one and created from it its spouse and dispersed from them two rijalan/men much wanisaan/and women and fear The God The Who you ask with it and the wombs indeed The God He is over you Watchful 42 and give the orphans their wealth and not exchange the bad with the good and not eat/consume their wealth to your wealth indeed it it is sin great 43 and if you fear that not do justice in the orphans f-ankHwa so marry what taba/agree to you from al-nisaa/the women paired/dual/twos and three and quadruplet/group of four so if you fear that not do justice so one (f) or what possess your right hands (means/trust) that minimum that not you oppress 44 and give al-nisaa/the women their handouts graciously so if tibna/they remit for you about a thing from it of soul/their own so eat/consume it satisfaction ease 45 and not give the foolish your wealth the one made The God for you standing/support and provide them with it and clothe them and speak to them a word appropriate 46 and test the orphans until when attained the marriage so if you perceive from them rational so deliver to them their wealth and not eat/consume it wastefully and hastily lest/that they grow up and from he is rich so should refrain and from he is in need for so let eat/consume in the fair manner so when you deliver to them their wealth so take witnesses over them and sufficient with The God Reckoner 47 lilrrijal/to the men a share from what left the parents and the close relatives walilnnisaa/and for the women a share from what left the parents and the close relatives from what small from it or large portion obligatory 48 and when comes the division those the relatives/near and the orphans and the needy so provide them from it and speak for them a word appropriate 49 and let fear those who if they left from behind them offspring weak concerned over them so let them fear The God and let them speak a word right 410 indeed those who ate wealth the orphans injustice surely ate in their bellies of a fire and they will be burned a blaze
Behold, We have sent it down in all clarity, in the Arabic tongue, so that you might encompass it with your reason.? (Quran 122)
Peace All,
I am wondering, in the light of the quote above, if we are not getting stuck too much in the weight of language. Of course, the language is important, because we have seen how, through mistranslations, various actions have been sanctioned, such as beating women. However, without even correcting the translations, our reason should have told us that God speaks of Peace and non-agression (apart from in self-defence), that we should have therefore known by our total reading of the Koran that beating women was a nonsense and so therefore, perhaps it was another type of beat that was meant, such as the American 'beat it, leave, go away'. Of course, as Huruf keeps pointing out, the Koran is dynamic and its meanings almost seem to become clear at the exact point when they should.
As I have pointed out before, I cannot make a linguistic contribution, but I feel that in terms of ideas for the current issue, 4;3, we will need to look at the whole of the Koran and reason whether, all things weighed up, if God is telling us that when a man marries up to four wives, he will help those women. Does the Koran as a wholesome bottle of medicine support this idea. Does the fact that the Koran also tells us that it is impossible to be fair to more than one wife not send us a warning signal that polygamy is not sanctioned. I suspect that God knows that 4;3 would have been abused by those whose purpose it suited. Why would a society choose to believe that 4;3 means marry up to 4 women instead of it meaning that we should look after those in need in our society. Why would God suggest a system that intrinsically separates men from their wives and children regularly while they (fathers) try to do the impossible of keeping up with four wives and four sets of families.
The Koran is medicine for our lives, therefore we have to take the whole lot for it to be effective, not just the bits that make the most impact. There are no grey areas. Those that appear grey are the ones that we find hard to accept and feel ought to be otherwise. I think people find it hard to let go of the polygamy idea because it has become embedded in so many muslim cultures. It's interesting how, when this discussion first started on another thread, only a couple of us were willing to stand up and say that essentially, polygamy cannot be koranic, because the rest of the Koran does not support it. Whilst my knowledge of the Koran allowed me to have this view confidently, I was not hampered by any ingrained views handed down to me by my family etc.
Peace dawngorgeous,
al-nisaa/the women when cross-referenced there is no doubt they are females.
Perhaps a better study would be 43 f-ankHwa which also appears in 2432 w-ankHwa
This reminds me of Balkan wars when Albanian families in diaspora took in women and orphans in their homes made them part of family without marrying the mothers although most were by their relatives and a woman living in same house with non-related man would be inappropriate causing other issues.
As with marrying cousins or eating snails what some find appalling it?s not obligatory so to each their own.
Peace
-
Peace Noon,
I like the example you gave because it was very very easy to understand. One thing I don't agree with is, that it would be considered inappropriate for a woman (and her children) to live with a family that she is not related to. I think it is society that has conditioned us to think this way. It is true that she would have to take more caution in her dress and behavior, but I think it could work out rather well given that the couple own a large house. Some people here own duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes (great investment idea, by the way----depending on the market and location) where the widow (s) could possibly have her own living quarters.
I think ma malakat ayamukum refers to those who are cared for under an oath, but that oath doesn't need to translate to marriage. This is all coming from someone who doesn't believe that polygamy is mandated in any case, but simply allowable given that we've got the appropriate circumstances and context, cooperating parties, enough resources, and adequate shelter for all. This is my present view, but I am still investigating "nisa" and open to possibilities.
I'm not averse to alternative lifestyles (and I do believe polygamy to be an alternative lifestyle, because I tend to think most people prefer monogamy, but I am averse to ONE spouse making a decision all by HIMSELF, without any regard to his partner's preference. Now when I say that most people prefer monogamy, I mean to say that most people don't want to have to stretch themselves out so thin financially, emotionally, and whatever else. Of course, men will be men, and fantasize over having a thousand wives, but reality would consist of short-lived pleasure and a zillion responsibilities accompanied with family drama amplified 2X, 3X, and/or 4X.
My thoughts in the end are whether we believe in strictly monogamy, polygyny allowable, polyandry allowable, homosexuality, whatever else that I missed, let's just respect one another's preferences. Before you enter into a marriage, make it clear what you want. If you prefer polygamy, make it clear. If you prefer monogamy, get it in writing. After that, let's respect one another and honor that oath regardless of circumstances. That's my spiel.
-
(males) and (females) are all inclusive gender terms. They encompass men and women as well as young men and women, boys and girls, teenagers, etc. It would be an absolute redundancy to mention males and females and then men and women. By mentioning (males) and (females) it covers everyone; boys, young men, old men, girls, young women, old women, etc.
