Please, help, accusative in 4.24
-
link=topic=9608214.msg383200#msg383200 date=1455890657]
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
You are attributing me things that I have not said, I do not know why.
In the prohibited omen in 4.23 it does not matter whether they are muhaasanaat or nnot because the prohibition or lack of it is not on account of being muhsanaaat or not, but on other individuaal considerations of the persons like consanguinity. Obviously, somebodies mother can be muhsana or not but it is on account of beinng the mother of somebody that the injunctionn is issued.
What is the prpoblem withe muhsanaat and the mma. The muhsanaat are object of some particular dispositions regardingmarryingthem, and the mma amog te muhsaaat are also the subject of some other dipositions as to marryinng them. You do not need to start a crusade of defendin the right of mma to marriage becaause nobody hs attacked it. At least not me.
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 is Hsn=protection not something
Nisaa' can be married or not married, they are human females
2.49. And when We saved your forefathers from the people of Pharaoh, who afflicted you with the worst torment, slaughtering your sons and keeping your females (nisaa'alive. And in that was a great trial from your Lord.
2.235. There is no blame upon you for that to which you allude concerning a proposal to women (nisaa' or for what you conceal within yourselves. Allah knows that you will have them in mind. But do not promise them secretly except for saying a proper saying. And do not determine to undertake a marriage contract until the decreed period reaches its end. And know that Allah knows what is within yourselves, so beware of Him. And know that Allah is Forgiving and Forbearing.
3.42. And when the angels said, "O Mary, indeed Allah has chosen you and purified you and chosen you above the women (nisaa' of the worlds.
3.61. Then whoever argues with you about it after knowledge has come to you - say, "Come, let us call our sons and your sons, our women (nisaa' and your women women (nisaa', ourselves and yourselves, then supplicate earnestly and invoke the curse of Allah upon the liars ."
4.1. O mankind, fear your Lord, who created you from one soul and created from it its mate and dispersed from both of them many men and womenwomen (nisaa'. And fear Allah , through whom you ask one another, and the wombs. Indeed Allah is ever, over you, an Observer.
Thre are may, many more where nisaa' aare not or cannot be (all) married women but are just any women whether married or not.
Salaam
-
Huruf,
By inference, I thought that is what you mean, but if my words hurt you, I am sorry and with great concern I regret it. I don?t mean to hurt you or anybody; it is my poor English that causes it.
... ...
All peace and best regard
Please, don't worry bagyane. The subject is confusing, there are many questions springing all from the same text and each of us has is or her mind in some aspect of it so that it is that aspect that colours what he or she says or any other says. We are bound to have misunderstandings. Thank you forbeing so kind and appologizing, I should also ask you to excuse my wording, may be it is too unkind. And I am grateful that thanks to everybody's input we can may be progress a little in understanding.
Salaam
-
Thanks for your concern.
... I was more interested in the word muHSanat thn in nny other things ...
Salaam
muHSanaa
Chastity is one of the pre-requisite for marriage in the Quran and must be observed
Alzzanee la yankihu illa zaniyatan aw mushrikatan waalzzaniyatu la yankihuha illa zanin aw mushrikun wahurrima thalika AAala almumineena 243
-
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.
Hi,
RED yes agreed that there is a difference in meaning, but I hope you will not let man made grammar decide for you what the meaning is. If you do that, then you are maybe ruling out a better understanding just because some grammar rule.
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.
424 "..... ...."
So you think that the 2 reds refer to " " and the blue one to ?I can not agree with this.
The target group is set in 419 and can not change in meantime and change back, especially if the argument is a man made grammar rule.
Is there any other place in the quran where you think the same is done?btw you need a new keyboard
-
Hi,
RED yes agreed that there is a difference in meaning, but I hope you will not let man made grammar decide for you what the meaning is. If you do that, then you are maybe ruling out a better understanding just because some grammar rule.
That is the whole point, kitaba make sense kitaabu does not make sense. On the other hand, all gramar is man made.writing is man made. What would be cause for distrust would be that it was made afer the fact or manipulated with a purpose. I this case what I find manipulated is the disregard for a sound that is definitely there in the text and with a meaning that makes more sense than taking it as a nominative.
424 "..... ...."
So you think that the 2 reds refer to " " and the blue one to ?No, I do not know from where you get the idea. The kum are always allathina amanu. The muhsanaat are not the kum the kum are those who must do as provided by the write of God regarding the muhsanaat. Al muhsanaatu are the subject of the sentence.
Salaam
-
Thanks for your concern.
muHSanaa
Chastity is one of the pre-requisite for marriage in the Quran and must be observed
Alzzanee la yankihu illa zaniyatan aw mushrikatan waalzzaniyatu la yankihuha illa zanin aw mushrikun wahurrima thalika AAala almumineena 243
I do not agree that the meaning of muhsaana is chaste. That is the whoe point of what I hve ben writing, the meaning of muhsanaat. All women or men are chaste unless proved otherwise by means of four witnesses.
If you take muhsanaat as chaste you would be implying in 4.25 and others that all othr women, such as are mentionned in that aya are not chaste. muhsanaat is a legal civil category not a moral appreciation by anybody.
En the Qur'an chastity is meant by hafidha farja... not by ahsana, and chastity is strssed equally for both sexes not as a special commodity of women.
I think I explained that in my previous posts. Since then I feel confirmed that muhsana is the woman to whom the capacity of cosent is legally acknowledged. Maryam ahsanat farjaha means she did not rely on anybody to acknowledge to herself the capacity of consent. She dealt directly with God, and asummed the responsibility of her intimate life.
Fateyaat under the custody or under the charge of may be not so chaste males could not be held s capable of consent because obviously they were not in fact free to consent or not. They might be forced physically or by other means, or seduced.
Look at the different occurrences of the diffrent forms of the verb ahsanam they all fit.
Salaam
Salaam
-
Huruf,
Can it mean independent women, able to decide for herself without requiring consent from others?
A woman reaching the age of legal consent thus not requiring parental consent etc?
A woman whos not bound by any form of obligation that deminishes her ability to independently consent.In this context, my referrence to women can equally apply to men.
Peace
-
Yes that is what I have been saying all along, muhsana is the woman to whom the capacity and therefore, the right and responsibility for consent in sexual and marriage mattrs is legally acknowledged.
In other matters obviously there is no difference between the sexes both are masters of the their own deeds and dealings.
For instance, a woman who were not a muhsana could not be accused of zina since she would not be able to give consent and without consent nothing can be brught against her.
Salaam
-
I do not agree that the meaning of muhsaana is chaste. That is the whoe point of what I hve ben writing, the meaning of muhsanaat...
I also do not agree with you that the meaning of muhsana is independent or emancipated as you have been arguing.
... All women or men are chaste unless proved otherwise by means of four witnesses...
It is not true, four witnesses are meant for punishment purposes. If U alone witness X?s unchastely behavior will U marry X?
... If you take muhsanaat as chaste you would be implying in 4.25 and others that all othr women, such as are mentionned in that aya are not chaste. muhsanaat is a legal civil category not a moral appreciation by anybody...
It depends on how you are perceiving the whole issue, but from your perception it is equally the same if you take muhsanaat as independent or emancipated you would be implying in 425 and others that all other women mentioned are not independent or emancipated
... En the Qur'an chastity is meant by hafidha farja... not by ahsana, and chastity is strssed equally for both sexes not as a special commodity of women...
In the Quran chastity is meant by both hafidha farja and ahsana farj because hfdh and hsn means to protect/maintain/preserve etc
... I think I explained that in my previous posts. Since then I feel confirmed that muhsana is the woman to whom the capacity of cosent is legally acknowledged. Maryam ahsanat farjaha means she did not rely on anybody to acknowledge to herself the capacity of consent. She dealt directly with God, and asummed the responsibility of her intimate life...
If Maryam had consented.
Read her words below
?? qalat ya laytanee mittu qabla hatha wakuntu nasyan mansiyyan? 1923
Huruf,
Can it mean independent women, able to decide for herself without requiring consent from others?
A woman reaching the age of legal consent thus not requiring parental consent etc?
A woman whos not bound by any form of obligation that deminishes her ability to independently consent.In this context, my referrence to women can equally apply to men.
Peace
Yes that is what I have been saying all along, muhsana is the woman to whom the capacity and therefore, the right and responsibility for consent in sexual and marriage mattrs is legally acknowledged.
In other matters obviously there is no difference between the sexes both are masters of the their own deeds and dealings.
For instance, a woman who were not a muhsana could not be accused of zina since she would not be able to give consent and without consent nothing can be brught against her.
Salaam
<a href="http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9608144.0">square one</a>
Salam
-
I also do not agree with you that the meaning of muhsana is independent or emancipated as you have been arguing.
It is not true, four witnesses are meant for punishment purposes. If U alone witness X?s unchastely behavior will U marry X?
It depends on how you are perceiving the whole issue, but from your perception it is equally the same if you take muhsanaat as independent or emancipated you would be implying in 425 and others that all other women mentioned are not independent or emancipated
In the Quran chastity is meant by both hafidha farja and ahsana farj because hfdh and hsn means to protect/maintain/preserve etc
If Maryam had consented.
Read her words below
?? qalat ya laytanee mittu qabla hatha wakuntu nasyan mansiyyan? 1923
<a href="http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9608144.0">square one</a>
Salam
Why do you change my words and then say that I have said them? I have not said that muhsana is independent or emancipated. Please check again. I have explained, I think, clearly that certain women of those mentionned in the Qur'an could not in all cases be considered that ift hey engagd in sex with their masers or tutors they were consenting, since not all masters are pure and respectful with those women who re under their power or employment.
Concerning non chaste needing four witnesses, yes you, do if you consider it as a social or civil qualification of people for legal effects.
If you know something of a person which you do not accept, then do not accept the marriage that is plain, bur for all legal purposes you will not be able to say publicly that the person is not chaste unless you bring four witnesses. That is very abundantly and very insistently made clear in sura An-Nur
If Maryam had consented.
Read her words below
?? qalat ya laytanee mittu qabla hatha wakuntu nasyan mansiyyan? 1923
You do not need to point to me those words. Those words were one of the main reasons why I believed the Qur'an was authentic and the real divine words.
Do you really think that maryam did not consent? that God, thrust it on her without her consent and tha she was forced?
Do you think that when she said would that I had died before thi, that I wouldnot have existed that she was complaining or disagreen with what was happening to her? If you think that, I give up.
Do you think all women who go through a lot of suffering to have their children, be it becue of socil rejection or actual pysical suffering of pregnancy and delivery are in desagrement with having their children? Do you really think that? If you think htat I also give up. I guess you are not a woman. I do not thik a woman would ever say that.
Maryam was a real woman, not a fairy tale christmas woman, she suffered and she did not have to put up a face that she did not suffer, because God does not ask women to put up any face at all and God was not shocked by those words, for sure, quite the opposite, He was her friend and protector all the time and she know it.
What a big cheat have been all those beautiful christmas mangers and pink paintaing of Maryam which free people of having a real understanding and consideration of real women. Maryam was real woman not a manger figurine. A real woman who gets to the end of her strength as many of us do. Do you really think God gets shocked because we cannot put up with more and vent it? Do you?
And that is, indeed, what the Qur'an says, ahsanat farjaha, she acknowledged to her self the capacity of consent and she consented. She did. And God chose her to represent all women in the worlds. And she and her son are an aya of God, of a new humanity, where women are free to consent to God and not be of any men, whether collective or individual.
Salaam
-
That is the whole point, kitaba make sense kitaabu does not make sense. On the other hand, all gramar is man made.writing is man made. What would be cause for distrust would be that it was made afer the fact or manipulated with a purpose. I this case what I find manipulated is the disregard for a sound that is definitely there in the text and with a meaning that makes more sense than taking it as a nominative.
Hi,
RED I do not think that those who follow grammar are manipulating anything, grammar is objective if it is used consequently.
I only think that if one limits him/herself to grammar rules then he/she is handicapping him/herself.
It's like the use of a dictionary.
Dictionary is a good tool to start with if one wants to study the quran, but it's a big handicap if you limit yourself only to what a dictionary says.
Same for grammar.No, I do not know from where you get the idea. The kum are always allathina amanu. The muhsanaat are not the kum the kum are those who must do as provided by the write of God regarding the muhsanaat. Al muhsanaatu are the subject of the sentence.
Sorry, I totally misunderstood you. I thought that is what you were thinking all the time -[
But the good news is that I finally understand what you are saying
I have no clue about grammar rules, but if you say that it should be understood like that with grammar then I believe you.
But from logical point of view, I think that kitabi/u/a Allah is always general.
I mean "the kitab of God" is not only regarding the muhsanaat but regarding everything, thus also in 424.
This is actually a good example where I see that grammar limits/degrades the potential of an expression.Or was this also not what you meant -[
Salaam
Salaam and have patience with me, I'm a little bit slow