What is the difference between "Nissa, Amraat and Azwaj"
-
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
-
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, singularThe 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' hamzatYour mistaken, A single letter from the tashkeel system is called a Harakah (arabic for "movement", or "motion", 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.
-
katheeran = countless
wa nisa'a = and Women, singularThe 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' hamzatSorry 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 . -
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
-
@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) -
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.
-
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.
-
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, 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.
-
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
-
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"?
-
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
-
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
-
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 nisathis 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,
-
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 amratfrom 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.
-
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
-
salam siki. i have not see any verse in the quran that says nikah is a contract. for this reason i avoid making such a claim.
a contract is an exchange, performance in exchange for consideration. prostitution is a contract, an exchange of money for services. prostitution is in some jusrisdictions and illegal contract, and a legal contract in other jurisdictions. this is another reason why in civil law, we do not say marriage is a contract, because then it becomes another form of prostitution.
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?
while you have posed that question, let me repharase the question.
are there other relationships aside from the nikah?
and how can you take it when you have gone into each other and they have taken from you a strong trust 421
421 makes no mention of nikah, or zawj, or amrat. 421 says going into each other automatically creates a strong mithaq. this means that there is a category of those whom a man has gone into, and not had a nikah, who by their action of going into a woman, create a strong mithaq. i find this consistent with 2232 and 2236, because those verses say the talaq of nisa, not the talaq of zawj, and not the talaq of amrat. this means there are non-zawj, non-amrat nisa to whom exists a mithaq, who may be given a talaq.
i am going to use current english usage terms here to convey the intent of the verses. what the quran is saying, is that a wife, mistress, and girlfriend, are all under the trust of the husband, and in order to end the trust the husband may terminate the trust. if you examine the usage of the quran, you will see, the requirement of obediance is not just imposed on wives, it is imposed on women, which would be consistent with the above understanding.
allah is the one who teaches.
-
salam siki. i have not see any verse in the quran that says nikah is a contract. for this reason i avoid making such a claim.
a contract is an exchange, performance in exchange for consideration. prostitution is a contract, an exchange of money for services. prostitution is in some jusrisdictions and illegal contract, and a legal contract in other jurisdictions. this is another reason why in civil law, we do not say marriage is a contract, because then it becomes another form of prostitution.
What? A Nikah is indeed a contract! with an exchange of saduqat and verbal consent with rights and obligations for both parties. Whether this is in written form or not the fact is inescapable it is a contract.
Definition of contract (according to Merrium Webster's dictionary http//www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contract)
1 a a binding agreement between two or more persons or parties ; especially one legally enforceable
b a business arrangement for the supply of goods or services at a fixed price <make parts on contract>
c the act of marriage or an agreement to marrywhile you have posed that question, let me repharase the question.
are there other relationships aside from the nikah?
and how can you take it when you have gone into each other and they have taken from you a strong trust 421
421 makes no mention of nikah, or zawj, or amrat.
No, nikah, zawj, nor amrat are mentioned there. but if you read AnNisa from the beginning and 421 in context, you would understand what is being referred to. We do not read the Quran in isolated sections we read it as a whole.
421 says going into each other automatically creates a strong mithaq.
421
Wakayfa ta/khuthoonahu waqad afda baAAdukum ila baAAdin waakhathna minkum meethaqan ghaleethan
Literal
And how do you take it and some of you to some had revealed and they (F) took from you a strong promise/covenant?Do not confuse the words of the Quran. Notice the word wa/and? First there is no mention of sex. Second sex does not create a strong covenant.
Logic dictates that if sexual relations created a strong covenant there would be no need to make rules against indecencies and sexual transgressions in the Quran. In fact if this absurdity were the case sexual intercourse would be encouraged without limitation.
This, of course, is not the case. Allah is and always has been very firm about where the boundaries are.
this means that there is a category of those whom a man has gone into, and not had a nikah, who by their action of going into a woman, create a strong mithaq.
As I just pointed out, this is incorrect.
i find this consistent with 2232 and 2236, because those verses say the talaq of nisa, not the talaq of zawj, and not the talaq of amrat. this means there are non-zawj, non-amrat nisa to whom exists a mithaq, who may be given a talaq.
This is an illogical reasoning. brickwall
i am going to use current english usage terms here to convey the intent of the verses. what the quran is saying, is that a wife, mistress, and girlfriend, are all under the trust of the husband, and in order to end the trust the husband may terminate the trust.
Wrong. The Quran does not support sexual relationships outside of Marriage.
Second, the Quran does not say that only a man can terminate any relationship. Women have the same right.if you examine the usage of the quran, you will see, the requirement of obediance is not just imposed on wives, it is imposed on women, which would be consistent with the above understanding.
Absolute nonsense.
Al Araf's understanding is turning marriage into the only legalized form of slavery. Worse yet, he is stating that women should obey men.
Under this understanding, the man is the woman's illah, for she obey's him and not Allah.
One cannot have two masters. Either a person is obedient to Allah or his creation.
Being obedient to Allah's creation is what shaitan encourages not Allah and certainly not a believer.434 is often misunderstood.
The obedience is obedience to Allah NOT men.
The word rajul and nisa are not indicative of men and women.oathoo biAllahi min Ash-Shaitan Ar-Rajeem
Salam,
Arnab