Please, help, accusative in 4.24
-
Peace SleeplessInCairo,
No, new context/sentence is incomplete nonsensical need context 423 urrimat/prohibited upon you ?
424 wal-mu'antu/and the chaste from the womenfolk except what possess right hands yours book (writ/injunction) the god upon you wa-uilla/and permitted to you what beyond such (i.e. the types previously mentioned) that seek ye of with wealth yours ?
Actually no, translating the "" in this verse as "Also" is faulty, the word means women who have faith it doesn't mean married women
-
Actually no, translating the "" in this verse as "Also" is faulty, the word means women who have faith it doesn't mean married women
Peace,
Faulty is to read 424 without context of prior verse which makes it meaningless/nonsensical and incomplete sentence.
Of course it doesn't mean married women since it contradicts verse 55; complete translation cross-reference is here...
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9608144.msg382977#msg382977
Perhaps insert "believing women" in all occurrences see if it makes sense e.g. OK to accuse non believing women?
-
4.24
I see,, i the first sentences of 4.24
Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess Thus hath Allah ordained (Prohibitions) against you Except for these...
What bothers me is that I miss innn the translations the meaning of thhe word kitaab(a).
As can be seen by the mark fattha (a) it is an accusative, but the translations ignore the fact or translate a sentence including a verb which is not there in the original.
So, any one willing to deal with that and give a gramatical explanation of that accusative and the proper meaning that would be derivd from it?
I make it clear that I do not think the text contains a mistake. I do not have a reason to believe that there are any mistakes in the Qur'an. I think that to resort to such "explanation" is a way out to not have to go to the bottom of it.
Salaam
Hi Huruf,
Nice introduction, welcome to the forum handshake I hope you will enjoy it here.
I do not know those grammar terms, but to me it looks the same as for example "rasulu Allah".
thus has to be read like this "kitaab of Allah is upon you" or something like that. -
Thank you for all the answers, all gave me work. I have gone through them, through some grammar and some talks and I have come provisionally (which usually turns out that it lasts forever) to the conclusion that it is and adverb, so it would be
4.24. As to the muHSAnaat from the women except those whom your right hand possess in accordance with God's provisions =kitaaba Allah (or rders, or prescription or dispositions) to you and...
kitaaba is an adverb, the verb is elided, which should not be a surprise since many verbs are elided in the qur'an and in Arabic in general and as regards the muHSanaat,f follow the instructions given by God in that respect.
I do not think that it is saying that the muHSanaat re prohibited (hurrimat), because in the next aya 4.25 starts saying that "And those of you who have not te means to marry believing muHSaanat..."
It could hardly say that if it had just prohibited the believers from marrying them.
Salaam
-
Thank you for all the answers, all gave me work. I have gone through them, through some grammar and some talks and I have come provisionally (which usually turns out that it lasts forever) to the conclusion that it is and adverb, so it would be
4.24. As to the muHSAnaat from the women except those whom your right hand possess in accordance with God's provisions =kitaaba Allah (or rders, or prescription or dispositions) to you and...
kitaaba is an adverb, the verb is elided, which should not be a surprise since many verbs are elided in the qur'an and in Arabic in general and as regards the muHSanaat,f follow the instructions given by God in that respect.
I do not think that it is saying that the muHSanaat re prohibited (hurrimat), because in the next aya 4.25 starts saying that "And those of you who have not te means to marry believing muHSaanat..."
It could hardly say that if it had just prohibited the believers from marrying them.
Salaam
Exactly.
Salaam
-
I do not think that it is saying that the muHSanaat re prohibited (hurrimat),
Hi Huruf,
Why are you thinking about prohibition?
Well I actually know (guess) why you made this statement.
Please take a closer look at the arabic of 423 (not translations because they all cheat) and I am sure you will also see what I am seeing yesI think if we want to understand the language of the quran we should always stay honest otherwise we will never learn a thing.
Salaam,
Bender@mods maybe this topic belongs in a other section.
-
Hi Bender,
Correct me if I'm wrong, do you believe that we can sleep with married slaves according to your understanding to 424?
-
Hi Bender,
Correct me if I'm wrong, do you believe that we can sleep with married slaves according to your understanding to 424?
Hi SleeplessInCairo,
I believe sleeping with a married or unmarried slave can never be a command of Allah.
I believe taking a slaves is and was never allowed by Allah.
I believe taking slaves is one of the biggest sins one can commit let alone sleeping with her.What I was hinting at is that all translators I've read so far are cheating in 423 with 1 specific word. And that's why I think Huruf used the word "prohibit".
-
Hi Bender,
Glad that you don't believe in such thing, I can read Qur'an in its original script, can you please tell me how do you understand verses 422 to 425?
-
I do not think that it is saying that the muHSanaat re prohibited (hurrimat), because in the next aya 4.25 starts saying that "And those of you who have not te means to marry believing muHSaanat..."
It could hardly say that if it had just prohibited the believers from marrying them.
Peace, what about "and permitted" part which follows?
424 ... book (injunction) the god upon you wa-uilla/and permitted to you what beyond such (i.e. the types previously mentioned) that seek ye of with wealth yours ?
-
Hi Bender,
Glad that you don't believe in such thing, I can read Qur'an in its original script, can you please tell me how do you understand verses 422 to 425?
Hi,
At the moment I am not at home so I can not write much.
Besides that, there are a lot of words in 422-425 which I am still clueless of.
I think I need some time to study all those words before I can say anything about it. -
Peace, what about "and permitted" part which follows?
424 ... book (injunction) the god upon you wa-uilla/and permitted to you what beyond such (i.e. the types previously mentioned) that seek ye of with wealth yours ?
Hi Noon,
Thank you for pointing out that word, that's the word I was searching for.
I wonder what happened with that word in 423?
-
Hi Huruf,
Why are you thinking about prohibition?
Well I actually know (guess) why you made this statement.
Please take a closer look at the arabic of 423 (not translations because they all cheat) and I am sure you will also see what I am seeing yesI think if we want to understand the language of the quran we should always stay honest otherwise we will never learn a thing.
Salaam,
Bender@mods maybe this topic belongs in a other section.
Not me I am thinking about prohibition but many iterpret 4.24 as carrying the hurrimat (prohibited) ocurring in 4.23 as comprising the muHSanat mentioned at the beeginning of 4.24.
In 4.24 what was bothering me was the kitaaba, which is not kitaabu, but kitaaba which turns the word into an adverb not a subject. No it cannot be kitaabu Allahi 3alaicum because it is an adverb. So one has to interpret that that is a sentence with an elided verb and that the kitaaba, is a circumstance describing what pertains to the muHSanaaat. What ppertains is that what ocncerns them is as per the kitaab (or disposition or whatever you choose to translate kitaab as) of God. So, in the stretch from the beginning of 4.23 to 3.24 and then up to 4.25 we are given different conditions regarding cohabitation or marriage. In 4.23 we have those prohibited, then in 4.24 we have the other cases where regrding the muHSanat we must find the dispositions regarding them an then all the others not included in the previous lots are permited and the conditions for them to be made licit to you are given.
In 4.25 it goes into more detail.
It is very interesting That in 5.5, as Noon pointed out there are also the muHSanat, therefore the word caannnnot mean married women. I do not think it means chaste women either because it would be very weird, the Qur'an in princile does not exact proof of chastity or anything like that and does not make chastity a bigger asset of women than of men.
Ihave to go through the whole thig yet and veryfy but I susect tht what it means are women to whom legal capacity of sexual consent is acknowledged.
It makes sense. MuHsSanat is passive participle so it is something that is done to women. Look up the other meanins of the same verb andn of other words of the same root not connected with sexual conntent. MuHSanaat are those thatif found in zina wuld be reponsible. Not the others, for instance very young girls or women under the power of other people or amen. They wuld not be indictable for answerig of any illegal sex, since they are not capable of consent.
Look where it says muHSineen active participle of the same word and how in 4.24 and 5.5 how pretenders ar ordered to pursue their intention of marrying the ladies muHSineen, active participle of the same verb muHSanaat is the passive participle. So pursue your aim acknowledging to them the capacity, nnd therfore the right, to consent or not consent. muHSineen and not musafiHeen, that is with their agreement and not overrumpling them. The verb has other ocurrences and they all match that set up.
Also bear in mind that never when it is a matter of chastity elsewhere the word comes up, what comes up is Hafadh farja...
The exception is Maryam where the active form is used as a verb aHSnat farjaha, that is, she made acknowldged to herself the capacity to consent to God and follow whatver he disposed for her.
Salaam
-
Not me I am thinking about prohibition but many iterpret 4.24 as carrying the hurrimat (prohibited) ocurring in 4.23 as comprising the muHSanat mentioned at the beeginning of 4.24.
RED Yes I know. You mentioned it because many interpret it that way.
I think many interpret it that way because 423 starts with "HURRIMAT" and 424 starts with "WA", so it's like a continuation of 423, thus many think that they are also "HURRIMAT".But let's take a closer look at 423
423
What happened with the blue word?
Please click here to see how corpus quran translate this word.
And please click here how they translate similar words.
hypnoSo in my opinion if 424 is a continuation 423 then it's not a continuation of what is "hurrimat" but of what is "alaa-ilu".
It's obvious what the problem is for translators why they have difficulty in translating this word in 423.
What follows after "alaa-ilu" in 423 makes then no sense but instead of reexamining the verse, and their understanding on the whole verse and the words in it, they persist in their interpretations.In 4.24 what was bothering me was the kitaaba, which is not kitaabu, but kitaaba which turns the word into an adverb not a subject.
I am not so sure about this.
I fully agree that there is a difference between kitaaba Allah and kitaabu Allah, but at the moment I have no clue.
What is the difference between rasula Allah in 961 " ..." and rasulu Allah in 9113 "... " ?
I don't see it, but I am very sure there is a nuance.Salaam,
Bender -
Salaam, Bender,
What is the difference between rasula Allah in 961 " ..." and rasulu Allah in 9113 "... " ?
I don't see it, but I am very sure there is a nuance.The rasul in the first sentence is the object of the verb as shown by the fatha (a)ending the word. That is the object of the verb or what gives to the word it is attached to the value of an adverb. Like if you have the word "hour" for example, if in English you add "ly" to it, it would be "hourly", it is turned into an adverb. So that is what happened in the "kitaaba" in 4.24. So in 9.61 you qquote, it is like saying "Those who annoy messengerly (that is, annoy the prophet)... the finaal a, fatha turns the word into a different element of grammar.
Inn te second sntence, in 9.13, it says rasulu, and that is a nominative, it is the rasul who does the action. So it is two different things.
RED Yes I know. You mentioned it because many interpret it that way.
I think many interpret it that way because 423 starts with "HURRIMAT" and 424 starts with "WA", so it's like a continuation of 423, thus many think that they are also "HURRIMAT".But let's take a closer look at 423
423
What happened with the blue word?
Please click here to see how corpus quran translate this word.
And please click here how they translate similar words.
hypnoSo in my opinion if 424 is a continuation 423 then it's not a continuation of what is "hurrimat" but of what is "alaa-ilu".
It's obvious what the problem is for translators why they have difficulty in translating this word in 423.
What follows after "alaa-ilu" in 423 makes then no sense but instead of reexamining the verse, and their understanding on the whole verse and the words in it, they persist in their interpretations.The word hala'il has the form of a broken plural. I see it is translated as "who have been wives". The word in singular does not appear n the Qur'an as wife. But then following from the meaing of the root I woud saay that that is means "those who were permitted to your sons", and I understand by logic that by permitted in this case it is not talking about the fact that could go into them or not go, but the fact that you did go into them within whatever civil category that might have happenned. That is born by the fact that in a previous item it is opposed "having entered into them" and not having done so. Hala'il is nominative, so it is the subjet of the passive hurrimat that seems to aply to the whole of 4.23 with the exceptions that are also mentionned in each case.
In that part I do not see anything that shocks me to the end of the aya. And although some ayas continue from anothers without a clear difference of subject, in this case as per my understanding, it is not so and that underlines the fact that from those prohibited we change to a different case, and in fact the aya, save for that musanaat, is undoubtedly speaking of non prohibited things. So aya 4.23 holds the prohibitions, with its exceptions or explanations, and aya 4.24 holds the other cases. It cannot be otherwise because they cannotbe prohibited in 4.24 and then allowed in 5.5. and in 4.25 tell us that if the believers cannot afford to marry the muhsanat... Obvioulsy the impediment is not any prohibition but the lack of possibles of whatever kind of the candidates. No family consent is required for the muhsanaat, therefore it is not chaste women, because those for whom the family consent is required may also be chaste, so it would be improper to characterise one category as chaste and leave that blank for others.
The penalties reduced to half for the non muhSanaaat before marriage bears the idea that they were not to be burdened in the same measure as women who had the capacity of consent for a longer time or at the time of their marriage and therfore more able to refuse such marriage if it was not to their taste.
Salaam
-
It cannot be otherwise because they cannotbe prohibited in 4.24 and then allowed in 5.5. and in 4.25 tell us that if the believers cannot afford to marry the muhsanat...
Yes and again the only way to resolve it's prohibited to simultaneously marry sisters and mu'antu.
urrimat/prohibited upon you ...and that cohabit between (i.e. simultaneously marry) sisters except what hence passed, surely the god be forgiver merciful, and the mu'antu from the womenfolk except what possess right hands yours ...
Really don't see how 424 can logically start a new context?
424 wal-mu'antu from the womenfolk except what possess right hands yours book/writ the god upon you wa-uilla/and permitted for you what beyond such (i.e. types previously mentioned) yours that seek ye of with wealth yours ...
-
Tht is what the kitaaba means, kitaab is no tthe subject of any sentence, it is n adverb so you haave to interpret that, and also the fact tht why the kiataab only for the muhsanaat or tht pat of the list and not for others. All of it, from the beginig of the prohibitions is a distosition of God, kitaab og God o all of them, that is not annything paticular to that part of the text, but to all of it if it wre that that it was saying. But it is not saying kitaabu Allaahi upon you but kitaaba Allahi upon you, therefore not the writ of God upo you but ccording to the writ of God upon you. It is ifferent and a sentence similar to tso many sentencesin the Qur'an where the verb is elided.
If you translate musanaat as chaste, why on earth would you be able to have any other kind of women in pairs but not the chaste ones? It does not make sense, it dos not mke sense any way you look. Try with other meanings and it is the same.
Salaam
-
Thank you for all the answers, all gave me work. I have gone through them, through some grammar and some talks and I have come provisionally (which usually turns out that it lasts forever) to the conclusion that it is and adverb, so it would be
4.24. As to the muHSAnaat from the women except those whom your right hand possess in accordance with God's provisions =kitaaba Allah (or rders, or prescription or dispositions) to you and...
Are you telling us that those women listed in 423 were not muhsanat that's why they are hurrimat?
How possible is it to consider your point that muhsanat in 424 are Ohillat and ma malakat are hurrimat while it has become clear that ma malakat are the last resort to create a family as in 425 or revived the broken ones as in 43 or to maintain existing ones as in 3352
What I see in verses 236 and 7030 is that ma malakat are halal
Therefore Waalmuhsanatu mina alnnisai in 424 are inclusive in the hurrimat that started from 423 just like the Waalmuhsanatu in 55 are inclusive in the Ohilla that appeared at the beginning of the verse.
The word muhsanat is a feminine plural form, therefore translating the phrase minannisai as ?from the women? in 424 remains meaningless. To clear out the issue I suggest translating minannisai as ?from the married women? because the word nisai is sometimes carrying the meaning married women as can be found in the following verses 3330, 32 and 651 Verses 30 and 32 of sura 33 where the phrase ?Ya nisa?a annabiyyi? appeared were not addressing the entire women in the household of the prophet but specifically his wives, secondly verse 1 of sura 65 where the phrase ?itha tallaqatumu alnnisai? if you divorce women appeared, it is clearly referring to married women because you cannot divorce any woman except your married ones. The words nisaikum in 2187 and Nisaokum in 2223 also means your wives and waommahatu nisaikum in 423 means mothers of your wives
Waalmuhsanatu mina alnnisai are married women, so how can they be halal to other than their existing husband, the only exception is ma malakat thus it is kitaba Allahi AAalaykum!
It makes sense. MuHsSanat is passive participle so it is something that is done to women.
It is Hsn=protection not something
-
Salaam, Bender,
The rasul in the first sentence is the object of the verb as shown by the fatha (a)ending the word. That is the object of the verb or what gives to the word it is attached to the value of an adverb. Like if you have the word "hour" for example, if in English you add "ly" to it, it would be "hourly", it is turned into an adverb. So that is what happened in the "kitaaba" in 4.24. So in 9.61 you qquote, it is like saying "Those who annoy messengerly (that is, annoy the prophet)... the finaal a, fatha turns the word into a different element of grammar.
Inn te second sntence, in 9.13, it says rasulu, and that is a nominative, it is the rasul who does the action. So it is two different things.
Hi,
Yes I understand that we have to understand it this way from grammatical point of view, but then we are subjecting our understanding to grammar rules.
Besides this without those markers (fatha/damma/kasra/etc) we can already understand from the sentence what function a word has.
I mean in 913 it is clear without markers that the rasul Allah does the action, we don't need any marker to understand this.
Same goes for 961, without markers it is already evident that rasul Allah is the object.
In dutch we don't have markers (or like in english "ly" to determine the function of a word in a sentence, it can already understood from how the sentence is constructed wat function every word or phrase has in the sentence. I think the same also goes for the language of the quran.I think (just speculating) that the markers effect the meaning of the word self and not what function it has in the sentence.
In your previous post you came with help of grammar to this translation
"4.24. As to the muHSAnaat from the women except those whom your right hand possess in accordance with God's provisions =kitaaba Allah (or rders, or prescription or dispositions) to you and..."To be honest, I do not understand what you wrote here.
Can you please rephrase this in your own words. You can use as many words as you like even if they are not there, I just want to understand your interpretation.The word hala'il has the form of a broken plural. I see it is translated as "who have been wives". The word in singular does not appear n the Qur'an as wife. But then following from the meaing of the root I woud saay that that is means "those who were permitted to your sons", and I understand by logic that by permitted in this case it is not talking about the fact that could go into them or not go, but the fact that you did go into them within whatever civil category that might have happenned. That is born by the fact that in a previous item it is opposed "having entered into them" and not having done so. Hala'il is nominative, so it is the subjet of the passive hurrimat that seems to aply to the whole of 4.23 with the exceptions that are also mentionned in each case.
Nice!!! only thing that I do not like about your understanding is that "those who were permitted to your sons" is a vague decription.
RED Did you mean subject or subset? If subset then I think you are right.In that part I do not see anything that shocks me to the end of the aya. And although some ayas continue from anothers without a clear difference of subject, in this case as per my understanding, it is not so and that underlines the fact that from those prohibited we change to a different case, and in fact the aya, save for that musanaat, is undoubtedly speaking of non prohibited things. So aya 4.23 holds the prohibitions, with its exceptions or explanations, and aya 4.24 holds the other cases. It cannot be otherwise because they cannotbe prohibited in 4.24 and then allowed in 5.5. and in 4.25 tell us that if the believers cannot afford to marry the muhsanat... Obvioulsy the impediment is not any prohibition but the lack of possibles of whatever kind of the candidates. No family consent is required for the muhsanaat, therefore it is not chaste women, because those for whom the family consent is required may also be chaste, so it would be improper to characterise one category as chaste and leave that blank for others. The penalties reduced to half for the non muhSanaaat before marriage bears the idea that they were not to be burdened in the same measure as women who had the capacity of consent for a longer time or at the time of their marriage and therfore more able to refuse such marriage if it was not to their taste.
Salaam
a couple of things to take into consideration.
- I think to understand these verses better is to begin with verse 419.
- The target group is " " the whole time.
- I see that you take "nakaha" as marriage, I do not think it means marriage because in a lot of verses marriage simple makes no sense.
- we have taken haram to mean "forbidden". I do not think haram means forbidden, things that are not allowed are priored with "LA".
- 422 begins with => "And do not nakah..." then the verse stops. What follows 423 is not about who you do not nikah, but what is hurrimat. If it was about nikah then I think 424 should begin like this "wa la tankihoo ommahatukum...."
- taking "bani" to mean sons will give a lot of headaches in a lot of verses.
- in 424 it says " " this is different from " " in 425 and different from " " in 55
Salaam,
Bender -
At that oint I was more interested in the word muHSanat thn in nny other things, which I used to get to the core of muHSanaat. lso I think tht I said marry or cohabit. What happens is that, I think, the Qur'an tries to be comprehensive nd dels with allkind of possible ersonal relations between erson of different sex by virtue of their sex. Weare used to marriage (unimodal marriage) as the universal mode, and anything else to go under prostitution or something illegitimate. It seems that the Qur'an contemletes more modes which we could call categories of marrige or whatever, the name is not important, let us say legitimate secual reltions or relations between persons of different sex.
You may say that even without grmmatical analisys you may know what is meant. You probably guess and guess right, but when you get to that point, where you have to know what is done withthe muhsanaat, there is a difference in meaning. Book of God aupon you... so what, for what annd how annd what does it meann exactly in tht sentence? Are you left to drift anywhere from not aallowed to joint between two muhsanaat or that they are hurrimat, however you want to translate that, or that or what.
What I am saaying is that the muhsanaat are subject to their own prescriptions which are apart from all that is mentionned before or after in the aya. Annd obviously, among the muhsanaat re also comprised some mamalakat ayman..., since they are excepted fromwhat is provided for the muhsanaat tht are not mma. That is for the muhsanaat menn can marry them as provided for by God provisionns regarding marriage with muhsanaat.
It is not the same to say aforesaid is prescription aas for te revious mentiones of God for the muhsannaaat
as to say for the muhsanaat as rovided by God in his provisions.
The latter indictes tht for thhe muhsant there re other provisions which are not he previous ones but other specifical for them. That is, whoever wants to marry them will have to observe those specifical prescriptions.Whe in a language there are no cases, the functionn of the words is give by some other markers, like prepositions. The cases make it possible to do awaay with other markers, like prepositions. Like whe you say kitaabu allahi, the i at the end of Allah makes it ossible to eliminate "of" we do ot need say the book of Allah, the endinng i in Allahi shows te beloging of the book to Allah of of him being te originator.
Salaam