Why Does The Qur’an Use a Masculine Pronoun For Something Feminine?
-
Assalamu ‘alaykum.
I was reading Sura al Nahl (Qur’an, 1666) and it said
وَاِنَّ لَـكُمۡ فِىۡ الۡاَنۡعَامِ لَعِبۡرَةً ؕ نُّسۡقِيۡكُمۡ مِّمَّا فِىۡ بُطُوۡنِهٖ مِنۡۢ بَيۡنِ فَرۡثٍ وَّدَمٍ لَّبَنًا خَالِصًا سَآئِغًا لِّلشّٰرِبِيۡنَ
“And indeed, for you in grazing livestock is a lesson. We give you drink from what is in their bellies – between excretion and blood – pure milk, palatable to drinkers.”
The word used for “bellies” is بُطُوۡنِهٖ and not بُطُوْنِهَا. The former is in masculine form and the latter is in feminine form; the Quran uses the former. But masculine cattle do not produce milk. Why does the Quran use the former then?
-
I found this link
https//islam.stackexchange.com/questions/62628/do-male-cattle-produce-milk-according-to-1666
It's a intricate question... Arabic is sometimes so difficult to perceive..
For example 1669 regarding bees..
Also 2321 regarding cattle
In those verses Bi-HA is used just to imply feminine.. But here in this verse 1666 is masculine.. So complicated... I will compare many verses in sha Allah.. There must be a reason why it is so. .As of now I think Annam is a noun which is used both male or female.. That's what I think.. But need further elaboration wuth example... See in verse it says they eat like cattle eat.. So here cattle EAT is feminine ..But cattle is just masculine... But cattle could be both... I don't whether it Arabic such rules are there.. Normally everything has gender classification in Arabic.. Even it is verb or even lifeless object... But there may be common words such as cattle..
Allah has used word cattles in special way throughout the Quran.. In some places it is used as feminine and some places it is used as masculine.. If anyone reads all cattle verses it is obvious... As per Quran tone it seems like that cattle is not labelled as masculine but feminine as well.. Normally I don't see this with any other specific feminine or masculine words in Quran.. Correct me if I am wrong...
-
Found some links somewhat explained.
https//vb.tafsir.net/forum/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%B3%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%A7%D9%85/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%84%D8%AA%D9%82%D9%89-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%85%D9%8A-%D9%84%D9%84%D8%AA%D9%81%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%B1-%D9%88%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%88%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%B1%D8%A2%D9%86/31107-%D8%B9%D9%88%D8%AF-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B6%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%B1-%D9%81%D9%89-%D9%82%D9%88%D9%84%D9%87-%D8%AA%D8%B9%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%89-%D9%86%D9%91%D9%8F%D8%B3%D9%92%D9%82%D9%90%D9%8A%D9%83%D9%8F%D9%85%D9%92-%D9%85%D9%91%D9%90%D9%85%D9%91%D9%8E%D8%A7-%D9%81%D9%90%D9%8A-%D8%A8%D9%8F%D8%B7%D9%8F%D9%88%D9%86%D9%90%D9%87%D9%90
https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=vR-1_ii4P2E
Requesting Arabic speaking folks to give us a DETAILED translation.
In short both verses 1669 and 2321 are correct arabic styles.
The first you say بطون الانعام و بطون اللبن. Where labban is from anaam so you relate the Labban to it.
The second mentioned that بطونها is referring to all benefits offers the annum (male and female)
including the milk, meet and other .
While they second is only mentioned female. And in arabic female sometimes can be Addressed by male (pronoun) -
Because the Quran came centuries BEFORE grammar rules were invented and contextualized. It doesn't need to follow them.
Al-Anaam are actually herbivores.
Assalamu ‘alaykum.
I was reading Sura al Nahl (Qur’an, 1666) and it said
وَاِنَّ لَـكُمۡ فِىۡ الۡاَنۡعَامِ لَعِبۡرَةً ؕ نُّسۡقِيۡكُمۡ مِّمَّا فِىۡ بُطُوۡنِهٖ مِنۡۢ بَيۡنِ فَرۡثٍ وَّدَمٍ لَّبَنًا خَالِصًا سَآئِغًا لِّلشّٰرِبِيۡنَ
“And indeed, for you in grazing livestock is a lesson. We give you drink from what is in their bellies – between excretion and blood – pure milk, palatable to drinkers.”
The word used for “bellies” is بُطُوۡنِهٖ and not بُطُوْنِهَا. The former is in masculine form and the latter is in feminine form; the Quran uses the former. But masculine cattle do not produce milk. Why does the Quran use the former then?
-
Because the Quran came centuries BEFORE grammar rules were invented and contextualized. It doesn't need to follow them.
Perhaps... I do go certqin extent eith what you say.. These are serious concern if we look at in different angle..
I found more verses with the topic of 2260, 1679 even there are verses like 6613 or 2191..these type of verses never ever matches with modern day grammar.. It doesn't mean to say that modern day grammar is wrong.. They are absolutely right according to language... But Quran was revealed well before and later only grammar and even dictionaries were discovered... But languages are vulnerable to change with time.. So we can't deduce eith what we have now with whatvis writt in Quran... But mostly it is right... Even certqin words modern day words wobt give the exact meaning to it.. I don't won't dig that here..
But remember Quran claims that Quran is revealed in pure Arabic language... So the Arabic language is well established when Quran was revealed.. God did reveal in existing Arabic language. There is no doubt.. Coz people should understand what is revealed in their mother toung first...
We can't take this matter lightly... Coz God challenged to bring a QURAN OR 10 chapters similar... So if they bring in Arabic at that time, when there is maters like HI or HA or Hunna it should be perfectly positioned. If those positioning bit correct then definitely people of thatvtime would have pointed out.. How can you say Hunna to a masculine... So how Quran challenge to bring chapters and how to find mistake in them..So Quran's entire language pattern cannot be compared with modern day grammar coz they are human infusion but they are not wrong coz it is their language but not entirely QURANs language. .
In above verses why God used different eat while maintaining feminine and masculine correctly throughout the Quran..
We don't know what was the intention behind it... What exactly God meant... For example verse 2260 why God used Hunna (feminine) to refer masculine Thaiyir (Bird)... Or verse 1679 Similar Birds and Hunna..
Or verses like 6612 We blew FeeHI and FeeHA IN 2191...
What was in God's mind when He says so. We don't know.. Did God blew to marry to her soul (FeeHI) or in other verse did God blew to her womb (FeeHa)...
So Arabic of Quran cannot be compared with modern day grammar 100% but in most cases ideal.. -
I found the following answer on the net. I am posting it for the benefit for others. I found it very useful.
"What you're describing Is a actually called "اسم الجنس الجمعى" (Collective Generic Noun), not "اسم الجمع" (Collective Noun), so, what's the difference ?
A collective noun is a word that describes a plural that doesn't have a singular variation, for example, the word "نساء" means "women", you can't get a singular variation from this word, for a singular woman we use the word "امرأة" which is a completely different word, so the word "نساء" actually have no singular, same with "إبل" "camels", again, no singular form, a singular camel is "جمل".
The Collective Generic Noun (CGN) is a word that describes a plural, which gets its singular variation by adding the letter "ة" at the end of it, like the examples you gave "تين - تينة" "سمك-سمكة" and so on.
So now, what's the difference between a CGN and a normal plural ?
Generic nouns don't describe multiple objects, they describe the "kind" of object, for example
سمكة - singular - a fish
سمكات \ أسماك - plural - fishes (multiple)
سمك - CGN - fish (in general)
So the CGN is used when you mean the kind of thing, "I like fish أحب السمك" , but the normal plural is used when you mean a certain number or amount of the thing "I ate 4 fishes أكلت 4 سمكات", you can't describe a CGN with a numerical value ( unless you use a preposition like I ate 4 OF the fish أكلت 4 من السمك ) .
So, to recap with another example "ورق" (CGN) means paper (in general), if I say "ورقات or أوراق" (normal plural) I mean (sheets of paper), the singular is (CGN+ ة ) = ورقة (a sheet of paper).
And finally, another difference between the two is that
All (non-human) plurals take singular feminine pronouns (exهذه سمكات)
All CGNs take singular masculine pronouns (exهذا سمك)"
