What is the difference between "Nissa, Amraat and Azwaj"

bkanwar2

Futhermore, . is added as subtantive after a word to make it feminine and is not part of root. In addition if the claim that it is feminine of common gender noun by adding feminine maker is correct one should be able find this word under this root in lexicon of the language. However, it does not exsist. The only logic MTR is implying that some how Rab created a new word using grammatical rules of language. This logic really contradicts Quranic claim of use of simple language of common people of the time. Common people of any language do not even know grammar of their mother tongue.

Badar

Samia

is Singular NOT plural

(hamzat with tanwiin dammah) is Plural

What do you mean by the underlined phrase?
What's the difference between these two words?

I have noticed throughout many of your very informative and insightful posts, that you, yourself use various grammatical constructs, rules, definitive s, actions, analysis, etc. in your determinations and arguments.

I do not use grammatcal tashkeel to decide the meaning of a word, becaue the grammatical signs do not change the meaning but the function of a word in a sentence I read the book, I sat on the book or the book fell, if translated into Arabic, will have (the book) demonstrating three different case endings, but its meaning is not affected.. If you are talking about me using its pattern ( morphology) then this is a completely different thing.

Your previous example Al-Baqarah 2.239 So if you are in fear, then on foot /
Unfortunately, did not suggest or infer that it is females or women (alone)

Who spoke of women alone? You said it meant MEN, and that was when I interferred. You cannot decide whether a plural used in the qur'aan alludes to men only or women only, just from its morphology. You need the context to decide (exmple; &#1611

bkanwar2

MTR let us get back to this statement of yours "Again, is a 'broken plural' with tanwiinu alfatahati / which indicates that the word is fully declinable, thus the gender of the noun in this case will match the gender of its singular Rajulun, meaning 'Man"

Let me ask you this. What is your understanding of "declinable" because you are using an Old English Grammatical term. So I first want to make sure you and I are on the same page as regards understanding of this term.

I am still waiting for your clearfication on my pervious query of this "Again, is a 'broken plural' with tanwiinu alfatahati / which indicates that the word is fully declinable. Please clearify this statement. Did you mean it is fully declinable or you meant it is fully declined? Thanks.

Badar

Muslimtruthrevealed

Ok, I see we are going around in circles and back and forth.

Sura Nisa 4.1 is the focus here

min-huma (dual, Masculine & Feminine)
rijalan Men, plural, 'broken plural' Noun
katheeran = countless
wa nisa'a = and Women, singular

The plural form of Nisa'a is NOT reflected grammatically or otherwise in Sura Nisa 4.1.

is plural
What makes it plural? the tanwiin dammah over the 'seated' hamzat

Your mistaken, A single letter from the tashkeel system is called a Harakah (arabic for "movement", or "motion&quot, the plural form is Harak?t. So the sound of a letter changes in correspondance to which Harak?h is found on it. Every letter has a Harakah, even if it isn't written. If a letter has Sukoon then it is usually not written at all.

Tashkeel has a great influence on the meaning of words, only one Harakah can change the whole meaning of a sentence!

@Samia, The scholars of Sarf (Arabic Morphology) have classified 'mistakes into TWO Categories 'Clear' and 'Hidden" mistakes. A 'Clear' mistake is

"Changing one letter into another or a short vowel (Harakah) into another (e.g. changing Fat-hah into Dhammah or the letter Qaaf into Kaaf, etc)"

Lastly, referring back to your reference

Fain khif-tum (object) farijalan(Haal Accusative, Verbal Noun or Active Participle?)

fain subjunctive reference to verb khif-tum (dual, masculine & feminine)

Khif-tum (dual, masculine & feminine) If you are fearful, apprehensive, afraid

farijalan (Verbal Noun or Active Participle(?), Haal Accusative, Nasb Case) to dispel, drive away worries, to give a sense of ease, to relieve, to relax, to comfort; ?A Dictionary of the Grammatical Analysis of the Holy Quran? by Tantawi Sura 2239; Al Mawrid

@Samia, your previous statement "I am female hail so when I read this verse I believe it is addressing me, among the "rijaal". Therefore, rijaalan does not mean men, and it includes women."

Thus Samia, I have clearly shown that the triliteral root construct of R-J-L is NOT and CANNOT be decomposed by the Rules of Declension to suggest ANY reference or implication of Females or Women. That construct does NOT exist in the Quran or in Standard Modern Arabic.

If you believe that you can decompose and suggest that the triliteral root construct of R-J-L can derive grammatically a definitive reference to 'Women' please illustrate. You would have to impose, gender, number, state and case to construct such a word.

Samia

katheeran = countless
wa nisa'a = and Women, singular

The plural form of Nisa'a is NOT reflected grammatically or otherwise in Sura Nisa 4.1.

is plural
What makes it plural? the tanwiin dammah over the 'seated' hamzat

Sorry MTR

Are you serious? "nisaa' " is sngular, and one line later it is plural?
You are back to your nonesense grammar. First where's this "tanween dammah over the seated hamzat" in in this verse? If you knew your baic grammar, you would know that this word in this verse is a direct object, thus has a fatha not a dammah.

The even bigger problem is that, again, whether it is direct object or subject, this has no bearing on its meaning or whether it is plural or singular.

And, who is contesting that is plural? And where did you get this funny "proof of plural" (underlined in your post)? What about ? Isn't it singular?

BTW, when I respond to you, I do this only for the other members whom you confuse, and I am just trying to stop this attempt to confuse the others. As for you, I am sorry to say it, but I am starting to believe that you have some hidden agenda. I cannot believe that anyone, even a beginner in Arabic, would make such rediculous statements as you do.

And for the second time, please keep away from grammatical analysis.

If you believe that you can decompose and suggest that the triliteral root construct of R-J-L can derive grammatically a definitive reference to 'Women' please illustrate. You would have to impose, gender, number, state and case to construct such a word.

This is funny! "rijl leg" is feminine! If you can derive a masculine from it, why not a feminine?
As long as we can derive a verb from this root, we can derive a reference to women from it
verb meaning to walk on foot; are the active participle; plural on foot; generic masculine (meaning it can contain women). active paticiple meaning a woman on foot. If you have 99 women and one man all on foot, you will say they are .

bkanwar2

MTR, Please get yourself Arabic Grammar of William Wright, by WOLFDIETRICH FISCHER and Lane's lexicon. In my humble opinion these people have done greatest service to Islam by translating Arabic work into English. Compare and contrast their work with A Dictionary of the Grammatical Analysis of the Holy Quran? by Tantawi and with Dr. Abdullah Abbas Nadwi initial publication of "Learn The Language of The Holy Quran' in 1989 or any other. Keep your mind open. Thanks and with lots of love.

Badar

Muslimtruthrevealed

@Samia, (685)

(686) (687)

(68 (689) (6810)

(6811) (6812) (6813)

(6814)

maftoonu (passive participle, masculine, singular) one who is afflicted with madness;Root word Fatana, seduce from faith by any means, sow dissension or difference in opinion, put in confusion, cause to err, lead to temptation
Dictionary of the Holy Quran page 416-417 (fatana)

Muslimtruthrevealed

Sorry MTR

Are you serious? "nisaa' " is sngular, and one line later it is plural?
You are back to your nonesense grammar. First where's this "tanween dammah over the seated hamzat" in in this verse? If you knew your baic grammar, you would know that this word in this verse is a direct object, thus has a fatha not a dammah.

The even bigger problem is that, again, whether it is direct object or subject, this has no bearing on its meaning or whether it is plural or singular.

And, who is contesting that is plural? And where did you get this funny "proof of plural" (underlined in your post)? What about ? Isn't it singular?

BTW, when I respond to you, I do this only for the other members whom you confuse, and I am just trying to stop this attempt to confuse the others. As for you, I am sorry to say it, but I am starting to believe that you have some hidden agenda. I cannot believe that anyone, even a beginner in Arabic, would make such rediculous statements as you do.

And for the second time, please keep away from grammatical analysis.

This is funny! "rijl leg" is feminine! If you can derive a masculine from it, why not a feminine?
As long as we can derive a verb from this root, we can derive a reference to women from it
verb meaning to walk on foot; are the active participle; plural on foot; generic masculine (meaning it can contain women). active paticiple meaning a woman on foot. If you have 99 women and one man all on foot, you will say they are .

Samia, My request has been consistent throughout this thread. Again, the focus is the Quran.

Where can I find this reference , (for some reason you claim is an active participle) in the Quran?

Samia it seems that whenever you encounter a grammatical term or construct that you are NOT aware of, your response is to slander, threaten and insult not only my intelligence but those who are following the thread.

May I suggest that you at the very least show some deference to myself and others, again as I stated earlier the thread and forum is bigger than you and I.

There are individuals who view this thread that are quite knowledgeable regarding Sarf, Tashkheel, Tajweed, etc.

You my have the highest number of posts and designated as an 'admin' in this category, but that doesnt confirm that you know everything about Quranan Araabiyyan.

Relax, stop threatening, slandering and acting dictatorial, you can learn too.

Samia

This was your question

If you believe that you can decompose and suggest that the triliteral root construct of R-J-L can derive grammatically a definitive reference to 'Women' please illustrate. You would have to impose, gender, number, state and case to construct such a word.

And it was about a general rule. I responded accordingly. If you have any disagreement with it bring it out.

Everytime I "describe" your bizarre Arabic, you accuse me of defamation and slander. If your posts sound rediculous, don't blame others. Look where you go wrong. You chanage your own Arabic rules from bizarre to silly, and you do not listen to others. Every time I respond to you I highlight where you went wrong and give you examples to show you your mistake, but then you turn around and accuse me of slander, and continue on with your funny grammar. You are really wasting everybody's time and confusing many others. If you ever come again with any unfounded grammatical rule and do not back it up, expect the second step of disciplining.

You my have the highest number of posts and designated as an 'admin' in this category, but that doesnt confirm that you know everything about Quranan Araabiyyan.

Relax, stop threatening, slandering and acting dictatorial, you can learn too.

Muslimtruthrevealed

Samia, All I requested was that you illustrate where Allah uses the term in the Quran, and that you respect myself and others participating and viewing the thread.

Thats it. If you cannot comply with that request, then myself and others will reserve the right to engage you.

Personally, threatening me with censorship, banning and slandering is NOT my concern and doesnt concern me in the least. (your free to do what you like)

All you have done is when you are given a grammatical construct that you dont understand or know about, you display the same negative behavior.

Just address the questions or requests in 'light' of the Quran. If you are on the side of truth and sincerity, Allah will support you.

If you are NOT sincere and humble Allah will NOT support you. Thus If you are arrogant and narrow minded Allah will 'connect' for you a shaitiin, and you will actually believe that you are guided. As such your 'shaitiin' will be displayed as slanderous, negative behavior towards others.

And whoever is dim-sighted about the remembrance of Most gracious, We barter for him a Shaitan/Satan so he will be connected for him.

And they will definitely oppose them about the way AND THEY WILL CALCULATE THAT THEY ARE THE GUIDED ONES.

Then shall we question those to whom Our message was sent and those by whom We sent it.

Samia

Samia, All I requested was that you illustrate where Allah uses the term in the Quran,

This is what I call waste of time, and not listening. Was this the only word in my post that does not exist in the quraan? What about " rajil" and " rajla"? What was my post about? Citing words that were mentioned in the quraan?

I am not threatening you. I am reminding you of the forum rules and the implications of not respecting them.

bkanwar2

Brother MTR, as I have repeatdly said that the language of AlKitab is a dead language. The issue is about revival of language leading to revival of Quran. Hence to accept one person or one or two books as authority will be a fatal mistake. I know you are honest which I DO NOT doubt at all. Please get other referances that I have cited or are cited from time to time. Please compare and contrast with open mind. This will make these interaction learning experience. It is not issue of who knows more. The issue is how can we learn more and quickly to help sickened humanity and be part of unveiling the deivine message. Love to you and all in the noble cause.

Badar

Muslimtruthrevealed

This is what I call waste of time, and not listening. Was this the only word in my post that does not exist in the quraan? What about " rajil" and " rajla"? What was my post about? Citing words that were mentioned in the quraan?

I am not threatening you. I am reminding you of the forum rules and the implications of not respecting them.

Samia, Where does Allah, subhana wata ala use these terms " rajilati " " rajil" and " rajla"?

siki

Samia, you definitely need to do something about MTR.

I opened this thread with lot of zeal to study these terms, but, frankly telling you , I dont feel like openning this thread, and probably this must be the case with so many others.

siki

siki

Almost all the ayahs containing the word Azwaj could be interpreted both ways, except the two below, 2-232 clearly indicates that azwajulkum can be used for husbands as well.

2-232 And when you have divorced women(nissa) and they have ended -- their term (of waiting), then do not prevent them from marrying their (azwajokum) husbands when they agree among themselves in a lawful manner; with this is admonished he among you who believes in Allah and the last day, this is more profitable and purer for you; and Allah knows while you do not know

where as 4-12 tells us that it cannot be, it is only used for wives,

4-12 And you shall have half of what your wives(azwajukum) leave if they have no child, but if they have a child, then you shall have a fourth of what they leave after (payment of) any bequest they may
have bequeathed or a debt; and they shall have the fourth of what you leave if you have no child, but if you have a child then they shall have the eighth of what you leave after (payment of) a bequest you may have bequeathed or a debt; and if a man or a woman leaves property to be inherited by neither parents nor offspring, and he (or she) has a brother or a sister, then each of them two shall have the sixth, but if they are more than that, they shall be sharers in the third after (payment of) any bequest that may have been bequeathed or a debt that does not harm (others); this is an ordinance from Allah and Allah is Knowing, Forbearing.

There seems to be a big contradiction here, I think the answer lies in the correct interpretion of 4-12.

siki

Muslimtruthrevealed

Assalaam Alaikum

@siki It seems your translation and interpretation is incorrect...

When you divorce women, and they fulfil the term of their ('Iddat), do not prevent them (women) from marrying, if they mutually agree on equitable terms. This instruction is for all amongst you, who believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is (the course Making for) most virtue and purity amongst you and Allah knows, and you know not.

Wa itha tallaqtumu alnnisaa fabalaghna ajalahunna fala taAAduloohunna an yankihna azwajahunna itha taradaw baynahum bialmaAAroofi thalika yooAAathu bihi man kana minkum yuminu biAllahi waalyawmi alakhiri thalikum azka lakum waatharu waAllahu yaAAlamu waantum la taAAlamoona

azwajokum is NOT in 2.232
This translation is incorrect and illogical "then do not prevent them from marrying their (azwajokum) husbands " Besides being incorrect, If they are divorced they are no longer their husbands.

As it relates to Sura 4.12

Again another mistranslation and misinterpretation

And you shall have half of what your wives(azwajukum) leave

azwajukum means mates or spouses, with the masculine plural pronoun 'kum' its instructing and referring to both male and female

In what your mates leave, your share is a half, if they leave no child; but if they leave a child, you get a fourth; after payment of legacies and debts. In what you leave, their share is a fourth, if you leave no child; but if you leave a child, they get an eighth; after payment of legacies and debts. If the man or woman whose inheritance is in question, has left neither ascendants nor descendants, but has left a brother or a sister, each one of the two gets a sixth; but if more than two, they share in a third; after payment of legacies and debts; so that no loss is caused (to any one). Thus is it ordained by Allah; and Allah is All-knowing, Most Forbearing.

Wa lakum nisfu ma taraka azwajukum in lam yakun lahunna waladun fain kana lahunna waladun falakumu alrrubuAAu mimma tarakna min baAAdi wasiyyatin yooseena biha aw daynin walahunna alrrubuAAu mimma taraktum in lam yakun lakum waladun fain kana lakum waladun falahunna alththumunu mimma taraktum min baAAdi wasiyyatin toosoona biha aw daynin wain kana rajulun yoorathu kalalatan awi imraatun walahu akhun aw okhtun falikulli wahidin minhuma alssudusu fain kanoo akthara min thalika fahum shurakao fee alththuluthi min baAAdi wasiyyatin yoosa biha aw daynin ghayra mudarrin wasiyyatan mina Allahi waAllahu AAaleemun haleemun

Al_Araf

salam. i was able to read the thread earlier, unfortunately i was not able to participate due to a computer issue.
this allowed me some time to study the issue.

will all posters in this thread examine the following.

there are three verses in the quran that relate to the topic in question. the verses are named appropriately.
sura al insan no. 76, sura al nas no. 114, sura al nisa no. 4. there is an obvious symmetry in the language.
al insan approximates to mankind, al nas approximates to the men, and al nisa approximates to the women.

the next source of information is the opening verse of sura al nisa.

o men, reverence your lord who made you from one kind, and created from this kind your pair, and scattered
from them many husbands and women, and reverence allah who bore them in the womb, for allah over you
watches 41 al nisa

this verse raises interesting issues. adam's pair isha is called a zawj, lut and nuh's "wives" are called amrat
"wards" 6610 and muhammad's "wives" are called zawajak "pairs" 661, and last 2232 and 2236 refer to
talaq "divorce" of nisa "women"

the implication is there are three categories of women. the first category is nisa, the second is the category
is zawj, and the third category is amrat.

this raises the issue, as to whether a nisa, not a zawj or amrat, is an approximate equivalent of a "wife" the
verse 421 implies that consumation is equivalent to a nikah. therefore, a nisa with whom consumation has
taken place, by the act of consumation becomes a zawj or amrat. there is support in the scriptures for this
analysis.

one of the conclusions is, that if a nas consumates with a nisa, by the act of consumation making her a
zawj or amrat, the duties of the rijal, zawj, and amrat are imposed, as stated in the quran.

allah is the one who sees,

siki

Al Arf, salam

That is interesting, what do you think is the differnce between a zoaj, and amrat?

siki

Al_Araf

salam siki. i think the best way to answer your question is to give you a series of examples.

an unmaried daughter would be bint, nisa, and amrat ; wife would be nisa and zawj, some wives are nisa, zawj, and amrat
a married daughter would be bint and nisa, and zawj and amrat
some widows are nisa; other widows are nisa and amrat

from what i read of the quran, there are some wives who are simply zawj, there are other wives who are zawj and amrat.

allah is the truth.

siki

Salam

A pair bonded by a certain contract known as Nikah , are given the title as Zoaj, because i consistenly found Zoaj attached with the term Nikah, that gives me a clue that there are pairs made through some other/different kind of bonds, which are not as good as contract of nikah, I am not sure yet as to, are those women known as amrat?

siki