Discussion on 4:3 and meaning of nisa

Mazhar

That is a very interesting look at "Yaa Ayyuha" Brother Badar. I salute and applaud you for your work.

http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.%20Tabweeb/0001.%20Pronouns%20and%20Prepositions/Vocative%20Particles/01.%20Ya%20ayuha/1.gif
This is a compound word. Vocative Particle- , to call and address a person + Noun in nominative case but in accusative state, peculiar persons who are being called-attention is being sought-confronted. + Attention particle .

Word by word Analysis 2104

Why it is different here, Noun is in accusative case?

http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.%20Tabweeb/0001.%20Pronouns%20and%20Prepositions/Vocative%20Particles/01.%20Ya%20ayuha/3.gif

mirjamnur

Salam all
Once again, I realized that I can so easily fall into traditional thinking - I just read the title of the thread before and thought oh again so a renewal (BIDA ;D) and never even checked to see what it was about.
Subhanallah- today I stumbled over it- after I asked Allah for knowledge and I spent the whole day here and have followed the battle between Damon and the other members.
Once again, I thank Allah who led me to come here, so that I can learn so much, I never thought I could pull the meaning of Nisaa in doubt. But the arguments teaching me something better. Thanks for all the clever co-writers in this discussion and I hope that Allah will help us to understand the real meaning of the word Nisaa and its implement .
Thank you all and peace peace

dawngorgeous

Peace All,

In fairness, surah 4 actually has not much to do with women. It seems to be about Justice, Care and Peace.

I notice, out of interest, that verse 135 of this surah is posted at the front of the Law Faculty at Yale.

Dawn

Sunnah-hero

If address mixed crowd saying "marry from the women" it's a no brainier who is being told.
Therefore you have no valid point! Likewise, why be a coward like Shirley and not finish it?

41 O you al-nas/the humankind fear your Lord the One who created you from soul one (f) and created from it its spouse and dispersed from them two rijalan/men much wanisan/and Homo sapiens?

43 and if you fear that not do justice in the orphans so marry what aba (lawful or agree) to you from the Homo sapiens paired/twos and three and quadruplet/group of four so if you fear that not do justice so one (feminine)?

47 lilrrijal/to the men a share from what left the parents and the close relatives and for the Homo sapiens a share from what left the parents and the close relatives from what small from it or large portion obligatory

422 and not you marry whom married fathers yours from the Homo sapiens?

423 prohibited upon you mothers yours and daughters yours and your sisters... and mothers nisakum/Homo sapiens yours? and your step daughters the ones whom in your guardianship from nisakum/Homo sapiens yours the ones whom entered in them so if not you were entered in them so not blame upon you...

4176 ... and if were siblings rijlan/men wanisan/and Homo sapiens?
falildhakari/so to the male like share al-unthayayni the two (feminine)

Peace -- the topic is nisaa, so get to the word in question and make sure it fits in verses above.

A Classical example of someone deliberately missing the point..................................

Released

Peace Noon,

I think what aastana members mean to say is, that they're not replacing an alternative rendition "nisa" within the blanks to see if it fits. They are actually revisiting each and every word in the Quran. So, in actuality, every word within every verse would be revisited, reanalyzed, and then a conclusion would be reached. As I've said before, that's a huge project, but still worthwhile. The fill in the blank approach won't work here.

Until an English translation gets finalized by their research group, I cannot formulate any firm conclusions on my end. I still have very firm convictions, but these convictions can easily be challenged if I feel what's introduced to me makes good, logical sense. I am your classical example of the laysman (woman), but I'll only accept an understanding given that it makes good enough sense to me, and resonates with me on some level.

Anyway, one doesn't need to agree with the other on everything. You read everything and then form your own conclusions. We'll never get consensus on much of anything, but maybe that's just how it is meant to be.

unknownuser

Peace Released,

Or perhaps there is something wrong with our selves. Maybe things are not meant to be this way, but we are constantly committing a common mistake in all our discussions that leads things to be the way the are.

Released

Peace FallenAngel,

You are absolutely correct. We are ALL making errors. No one here has a perfect understanding of anything. However, the question remains Is there a way we can collect all of the "correct" information, and then ensure that everyone agrees with us?

The way I see it is, the ultimate Truth in all matters belongs with God. He even tell us in 551 that He will decide in regard to what we disputed on. He is aware of the fact that we will dispute without a doubt. Perhaps, we didn't think that we would dispute on 20 different issues, but He knows of it.

We're all so different in that we come from different walks of life, different experiences, and then we've taken different approaches to the Quran. So, I would find it very surprising, if ever came to a consensus.

We ALL have our personal biases (though, some may deny such a thing), and this mainly stems from our environment, upbringing, and just overall mentality. However, to try and break away from all of that, is difficult enough. On top of that, now we're coming from different angles toward the Quran.

While I feel saddened over the fact that we may NEVER have a real proper community of our own, I've actually come to terms with it. Well, I'm beginning to find some peace with this. A good part of me appreciates the diverse thinking and freedom of speech and expression within our little group here. A part of me regrets it.

If I want uniform thought, unfaltering submission to "the scholars" and their fallacies, and law and order maintained by threats and coercion, then I know where to return. They'll say that I have repented, and they'll take me back. I'd rather not do that. Without those obstacles, we're all free to argue and debate till the Day of Judgment. Then, He will judge.

So, here we are. We've all got something of relevance to say and we're strong in our convictions, trying to convince the other.

In my opinion, I think that there are some people in this thread, who are overlooking the overall human factor in this.

Man_of_Faith

Peace,

I think we make the religion more complicated than it needs to be.

I understand people do not like that this verse does seem talk about polygamy. If it does it should be interpreted in the best possible way, for God must have meant something good with it. Personally I thought it was to save the children from being fatherless and without a provider.

Polygamy is still, according to my understanding, very discouraged and is not forced upon anyone nor a sacred privilege for men.

Not sure this verse needs to be applied to these modern days at all with our social security systems and this practice is also against the law in most developed countries.

We do not have to aggressively argue over this verse and I refuse to believe God is sexist or unfair to women. In other verses He says we have different qualities and that we are equal. Still God created us with different attributes and there must be a meaning with that.

Can the alternative interpretation you have come up with suit the context?

I am open-minded and I would like to hear the suggestion why nisa should be differently interpreted.

I am afraid that to me it sounds quite wrong in the context with something other than women. But I am not narrow-minded and impossible. And to be honest, I would be just as happy if it did not speak of polygamy.

I am not a polygamy supporter, quite far from it, I just want a logical conclusion.

May we solve our differences peacefully

Released

Peace Man of Faith,

I liked what you had to say. I apologize for the long post ahead.

Well, there are different opinions in regard to this issue.

There are those who believe that polygamy is meant to help the fatherless orphans through marrying their mothers. I can see the wisdom in this, but it's not really my cup of tea. I love helping people, but I couldn't do it in this manner.

There is also the opinion of the word meaning "marry off" as opposed to "marry". Logically, "marry off" also makes sense to me, though there are debates in regard to the grammar (prior threads). My grandmother and her sister were married off at the same time (to two different men, of course), so my great grandfather could save on wedding costs and what not. I think he had 9 daughters under his care, so he needed to multi-task, for lack of a better word. Back then, women in the old country didn't go on to university or hold down high paying jobs. I suggested that prior to marrying off these widows, they could remain as ma malakat aymanukum--or those under an oath.

I don't want to believe that God would be unjust. However, I also don't believe that God would ignore the psychology of women. Women are just as possessive over their spouses, as men are to their spouses. In that respect, we're the same really. So, this is what really bothers me as a woman. Polygamy is something I just couldn't accept! I think that there are many women out there who feel the same. It's so difficult to even wrap my mind around the idea of my husband sleeping with another woman. However, there are some men in this thread, who are unable to understand this very important aspect.

There is also that burning question, that I've been unable to answer truthfully to myself What has sex got to do with it? On one hand, we're helping the orphans and their mother. This sounds great to me. Then, enters the component of marriage and sex. This is where the word 'divorce' pops up in my head, because I don't think anyone can convince me that this arrangement will work out for the best.

I wish the men would just try and put their selves in our shoes, and then perhaps they can understand where the issue lies for us females. Why is this thread so long? It's because it's an issue that women would naturally be up in arms about. Naturally so though, right? I see very few men thrilled with the prospect of polyandry. So, why are there double standards with us women? We're human too, and feel just as strongly.

Though, I am not speaking for all women, but perhaps a good number of us.

I think what frightens many women is the prospect of polygyny being coerced or forced onto them. It's isn't the actual institution of polygamy in itself that's the real issue(in my opinion), but rather polygyny becoming an institutionalized "right" or "entitlement" of a husband.

Yes, the chapter appears to focus on the welfare and rights of the orphans, though even within that context; many married women may not want to partake in polygyny.

For me, the real issue is as to whether we're willing to protect the rights of those women who do not wish to partake in polygyny?
If we're willing to do this, then what steps are we willing to take in ensuring that females do not become coerced into practicing polygyny?

If we're able to work this protection into our legal system (very hypothetical), then we may have dealt with a part of the issue.

Man_of_Faith

Peace Released,

I doubt any righteous man would marry an extra woman against his wife's will, even if it was well-intended as in the context of orphaned children.

According to traditional understanding it is just under those conditions this kind of marriage is allowed, but the sectarians twisted the meaning (maybe further?) into under all conditions.

I can see this dilemma from your point of view, since I can fathom myself in your place, and I would not want to share the love of my life with another person. Yet I think this verse might mean simply marry as to let the woman into your household (as mahram) to provide for her and her children, and not as an intimate love relationship. Anyway, this is how I want to understand the traditional interpretation.

Your alternative translation of the verse I shall look into and give it some thought. It would make it emotionally (empathy) easier if it was correct.

Currently I live in Iran and even if polygamy is accepted here you require your wife's consent to be able to marry an additional wife. Shia islam interpret the Quran in the stereotypical sectarian way, but at least they give the wife right refuse polygamy (although I am afraid the legal system may be flawed and biased at times)

So for your questions 1 and 2 the answer is simple, let your wife be allowed to refuse.

Forcing her by putting pressure on her I suppose is a potential problem though. A secure legal system is thus a must I guess.

The Quran does not explicitly mention that the wife has a say in this, but it is safe to say that the wife in a righteous marriage is allowed to participate in the decision. After all, the marriage is meant to be a tranquility and contentment for us, and how would that be if the wife was unhappily involved in this?

I hope you understand I tried to see it all through your eyes too and remain rational. The meaning with islam is peace and prosperity, not oppression and injustice.

We must be rational, right sister?

May God bless you

dawngorgeous

Peace Man of Faith,

I have always felt that 'marry' has to mean something else, because the Koran as a whole does not offer any support for polygamy.

And of course, the issue of sex why would you marry someone and not have sex with them? Surely this is unkindness itself. The poor woman you have married in order to 'take care of the orphans' is now left with a sexless life, if your current wife does not agree for you to sleep with the new woman. If this new wife goes and gets her needs fulfilled elsewhere, then she is automatically a whore, a bad woman.

Even without the language issues being solved, we can work out that polygamy is not something God would even touch on, because it does not belong in a society of Peace/Islam. Remember the word for 'beat' and how people tried to justify it? I remember one school that I visited as a psychologist and speaking to a Pakistani woman about abuse in the family. She justified beatings by saying her husband is not allowed to hurt her, so he only uses a soft leather belt!!! For goodness sake!

Man_of_Faith

Peace dawngorgeous,

That is all rational thinking worth pondering upon. Think more research needs to be done. God would never hurt someone's integrity through inhumane religious laws.

I'm sure there is some logical explanation to this dilemma. God never commits evil, I know one verse says that.

May God let us get wiser

dawngorgeous

Peace Man of Faith,

Really, you just summed it up when you said, that is 'rational thinking' What does God tell us in the Koran? To use our intelligence.

So, he gives us the information and we process it and put it to intelligent use. In this instance, it is not intelligent to ask a man to marry several wives then not have sex with them. I repeat, that is cruelty and God does not promote cruelty. It is also cruel for the children of a man who has several wives, because he has to share himself out. This is not to mention the effect on the man himself! He needs to be superman to spread himself so wide emotionally and physically.

So, let us use our intelligence to aid us in interpreting God's words.

Noon_waalqalami

Peace Noon,

I think what aastana members mean to say is, that they're not replacing an alternative rendition "nisa" within the blanks to see if it fits. They are actually revisiting each and every word in the Quran. So, in actuality, every word within every verse would be revisited, reanalyzed, and then a conclusion would be reached. As I've said before, that's a huge project, but still worthwhile. The fill in the blank approach won't work here.

Peace Released,

Then they should not post and call people stupid when they admit they are clueless until they decide what exactly it is that they are talking about.

For those who have studied it's 100% clear without doubt every word that nisaa are females and only females...

411 directs you The God in your children lildhakari/to the male like share al-unthayayni/the two (feminine) so if are (f/p) nisan/women above two (f) falahunna/so for them (f/p) third dual (2/3) what left and if kanat/she is (f) waidatan/one (f) so for her the half...

4176... and if were ikh'watun/brethren (i.e. siblings) rijlan wanisan falildhakari/so to the male like share al-unthayayni the two (f) clarifies The God for you lest you stray and The God in every a thing Knowing

There is also the opinion of the word meaning "marry off" as opposed to "marry". Logically, "marry off" also makes sense to me, though there are debates in regard to the grammar (prior threads). My grandmother and her sister were married off at the same time (to two different men, of course), so my great grandfather could save on wedding costs and what not.

None has authority to marry off anyone especially strangers.

Reminds me of a true story this older woman jokingly told when she was only 12 years old and how excited she was when her parents told her to get dressed, they were going to take her to her first wedding party ever and after driving for hours they finally arrived, dropped her off at the reception, introduced her to a man and told her it's her wedding then left her there all alone i.e. married her off!

A post a while ago from a friend...

...and many fathers don?t seem to think about or perhaps even care about when they pressure or force their young daughter into an arranged marriage with a man the girl never spoke to (and sometimes never saw before the wedding) is her feelings/emotions. Young girls are attracted to young boys, and vice versa. Security and wealth mean nothing when one is not attracted to--and in the case of a much older man, repulsed by--the one they have to go to bed with every night. God gave humans the emotion of love for a reason, and love between a husband and wife is necessary for a peaceful and happy marriage. A father does not have the right to take something so precious away from his child. To do so is UN-Islamic.

Rarely is there an arranged marriage where both husband and wife are happy. People will put on a happy face in front of others, but it?s a different picture behind closed doors, with much arguing, yelling, verbal and physical abuse. Many women never let on to just how unhappy they are. They know that leaving is not an option. Some hide is so well that their own husband and children don?t know.

A few of my friends are from the Middle East. At a house party, one of the older women commented on how happy she was when her husband announced that he was taking on a second wife since it meant less time spent with him. There were nine women there. All the women there were in arranged marriages, either to cousins or other men their parents had chosen for them. Only one said she was happy because her husband didn?t mistreat her. All the others said they would have left/would leave their husbands if it were a choice but they all felt that leaving was not an option because of children, family ties, tradition, etc.

Arranged marriages are rarely happy marriages and that makes them un-Islamic.

Released

Peace Noon,

For those who have studied it's 100% clear without doubt every word that nisaa are females and only females...

Perhaps...or maybe not. Regardless of what you think, the discussion revolving "nisa" will continue. You've merely shared with us your personal conviction provided by your proof. That's great and all, but what others have to say has merit as well.

It depends on what you think believe "marry off" to be. In my culture, "marry off" does not mean to marry someone off without their consent. It means to guide them into the marriage process with social protection, shoulder the expenses, and investigate prospective suitors. Even though I found my husband on my own, they guided me through the process and absorbed the logistics of it. Really, that's what my parents did when they "married me off". I would think this would be a very noble thing for a stranger to do.

My own aunt has married off two of her female servants. She married them off to men who were in a better socio-economic standing, and then also took on some of the wedding expenses. We would consider what she's done a very kind and charitable act. So, "marrying off" has different connotations to it, it depends on what it means to you.

Released