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

Mazhar

Peace Samia,

According to 9.60 sadaqa is given to

The poor
The needy
Those who work to collect the sadaqa
To free the slaves
Those in depth
In the cause of God
The wayfarer

According to 4.127 nisaa? is composed of the following

orphan?s mothers - yatama Nisaa?
weak from the children - mustadafina min al-wildan
orphans ? yatama

So the above three categories of nisaa? are given sadaqa (charity). On the other hand the women are given ujuur (payment).

Kindly read it critically and please tell me what is the resemblence beetween both the two? Orphans mothers who are being termed yatama Nisaa fall in what category in 7 above.

siki

Samia ! Any body !

How would one adress more than two women in arabic ?

siki

siki

Samia , Thelps, Truthseeker!

How would you fit in Mensturation and Lamastamu- un -nissa (touching women sexually5-6) issues in your understanding?

siki

siki

Can any body explain the red part?

2232 When ye divorce women, and they fulfil the term of their ('Iddat), do not prevent them from marrying their husbands (Azwajehunna), 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 ye know not.

Is it remarrying an ex husband?

siki

siki

Is it , that everybody is engaged with MTR,s jugglery that No one has the time to comment on my simple inquiries?

siki

Samia

Can any body explain the red part?

2232 When ye divorce women, and they fulfil the term of their ('Iddat), do not prevent them from marrying their husbands (Azwajehunna), 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 ye know not.

Is it remarrying an ex husband?

siki

Yes.
I think this verse proves that divorce is not to be performed by men on their own, but by council or any authority. This verse is addressing this authority.

afridi220

Can any body explain the red part?

2232 When ye divorce women, and they fulfil the term of their ('Iddat), do not prevent them from marrying their husbands (Azwajehunna), 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 ye know not.

Is it remarrying an ex husband?

siki

yes unless you are a sunni

Muslimtruthrevealed

I do not know if I have wrong lexicon or you guys have different version. Nisa's root to be Nun-Siin-Waw. Here is relavent page from Lane.

http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume8/00000287.pdf

If it is Nun-Siin-Alif/Ayan
Here are relavent pages,

http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume8/00000039.pdf
http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume8/00000040.pdf

Please tell me how come women is the obvious meaning.

Peace and love.

Badar

Assalam Aalaikum @Badar

Badar the obvious meaning is derived from this ayah Sura Nisa 4.1 where Allah,swt defines

from that soul countless men and women / and baththa minhuma rijalan katheeran wa nisa'a /

baththa / Allah has dispersed, is a verbal form V (reciprocal), 'pointing' to the 'source', of 'one single soul' / nafsin wahidatin / which is grammatically feminine

min-huma is a dual, masculine and feminine pronoun reference that governs and defines rijalan / and nisa'a / as Men and Women, respectively.

Grammatical confirmation that rijalan / and nisa'a / are Men and Women,

rijalan / is a broken plural, masculine

nisa?a / is feminine singular, indicated by the feminine marker, extended alif & hamza /

The feminine form of rajul / rijal / rajula(tun) = "a woman" is NOT in the Quran. Nor is it used in 'Classical' Arabic or 'Standard' Arabic.

The individual who continues to suggest that 'rajul' means 'feet walk, etc.', does NOT realize that rajul / rajil are Active Participle's. Nor does the individual know the difference between a Verb, Verbal Noun and Active Participle as it relates to the word.

bkanwar2

Thanks for detailed reply. Please bring a linguistic referance, suggesting that actually was oppsite of as male and female. Love and peace.

Badar

Muslimtruthrevealed

Thanks for detailed reply. Please bring a linguistic referance, suggesting that actually was oppsite of as male and female. Love and peace.

Badar

has no feminine marker, thus its masculine, its again a 'broken plural', denoted by the after meaning 'Men'

In Sura Al-Baqarah 2.282 we see another form of the Active Participle 'Rajul' means to 'walk, step, come'

rajul-ayni (dual, male & female) farajulun / = Urge witnesses to come forward (male & female)

will always be Nisa'i and mean 'Women', again the extended alif with hamza is the feminine marker

bkanwar2

Thank you for keeping the discussion on linguistic grounds only. You are mixing up several issues here. Before I discuss the issue of . Please give a lexical referance showing that roots of Nun Siin Waw or Nun Siin Alif ( roots for) even come close to implying a lexical meaning of women in general as an opposite for men, except may be a pregnant women under Nun Siin Alif.

Badar

Muslimtruthrevealed

Thank you for keeping the discussion on linguistic grounds only. You are mixing up several issues here. Before I discuss the issue of . Please give a lexical referance showing that roots of Nun Siin Waw or Nun Siin Alif ( roots for) even come close to implying a lexical meaning of women in general as an opposite for men, except may be a pregnant women under Nun Siin Alif.

Badar

Assalaam Alaikum

The 'mixing' seems to be on your part.

Plural for 'Women' is its root is derived from insu'un / & insa'a un / which both mean 'male human being'

Then further decomposed to.....

insi / (feminine & masculine) means human beings, plural; Root word anisa See Hans Wehr Arabic English Dictionary 4th Ed. Page 38-39 (anisa)

Im not sure why this intent on making Nisa'a refer to Men and Women, when Allah has defined the word as referring to Women, period.

Same question as it relates to raja-lun / rija-lan, why this fixation on changing the meaning from Men to include Women?

mmkhan

Salaamun All,

Yes.
I think this verse proves that divorce is not to be performed by men on their own, but by council or any authority. This verse is addressing this authority.

I did not understand this. Can you please spread some more light and explain me. And also what is your understanding about 2230?

Take care...
Khan

bkanwar2

See Hans Wehr Arabic English Dictionary 4th Ed. Page 38-39. Nobody consider this as a lexicon of Classic Arabic. It incorporates lexical meanings of Modren Arabic, not the same language. The Classic Arabic as a spoken language is dead, means no body speaks and understands it. Yes even natives. However, the language is preserved well in script. Please try to understand this and do not try to put meanings to the words that Rab did not intend.

Now tell me what grammatical rules are applied to root to make it . Peace and love.

Badar

bkanwar2

Please cite referance/referances to suggest that such change is grammatically possible for this root or any other as an example in classic Arabic. Thanks.

Badar

Muslimtruthrevealed

See Hans Wehr Arabic English Dictionary 4th Ed. Page 38-39. Nobody consider this as a lexicon of Classic Arabic. It incorporates lexical meanings of Modren Arabic, not the same language. The Classic Arabic as a spoken language is dead, means no body speaks and understands it. Yes even natives. However, the language is preserved well in script. Please try to understand this and do not try to put meanings to the words that Rab did not intend.

Now tell me what grammatical rules are applied to root to make it . Peace and love.

Badar

uuh I gave you the grammatical rules.....broken plural / & extended alif

bkanwar2

I am sorry but incorrect. Look here EH Palmer as a referance for broken plural rules. Tell me, how can one construct from to and in the end?

http//books.google.com/books?id=gdHjvHF-E2kC&pg=PA377&dq=arabic+grammar+by+Edward+H+palmer#PPA110,M1

As for , I do not know what relavance it has see below from Lane's Lexiocon it is used for lengthening only

http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume1/00000039.pdf

Peace and love,

Badar

Muslimtruthrevealed

I am sorry but incorrect. Look here EH Palmer as a referance for broken plural rules. Tell me, how can one construct from to and in the end?

http//books.google.com/books?id=gdHjvHF-E2kC&pg=PA377&dq=arabic+grammar+by+Edward+H+palmer#PPA110,M1

As for , I do not know what relavance it has see below from Lane's Lexiocon it is used for lengthening only

http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume1/00000039.pdf

Peace and love,

Badar

Assalaam Alaikum @Badar

Sorry, But I am NOT 'incorrect'.

If I may refer you to Dr. Abdullah Abbas Nadwi as a 'credible' and 'reputable' resource "Learn The Language of The Holy Quran' page 176 & 180 discusses 'broken plural' /

Another reputable and informative resource the 'ARABIC ONLINE' website, chapter 'Irregular Plural Nouns' http//arabic.tripod.com/Nouns5.htm

Biographies

"Dr. Abdullah Abbas Nadwi initial publication of "Learn The Language of The Holy Quran' in 1989. Its author is not only an Alim of great eminence, a graduate of Nadwah al-Ulama', Lucknow, India but also holds a Ph.D in Arabic Studies. He is Professor of Arabic Literature at Umm al-Qura' University, Makkah Mukarramah and Special Education Consultant to Sheikh Abul Hasan Ali Nadvi and to Nadwat al Ulama."

E.H. Palmer http//chass.colostate-pueblo.edu/history/seminar/palmer.htm
'A Grammar of the Arabic Language' By Edward Henry Palmer, Published in 1874

bkanwar2

I am so glad that you did not get upset. Thanks for bringing these referances. I am busy this morning but will get back into linguistic discussion this afternoon. I still have several concerns about this and I will try to express as best I could. I purposely ignored William Wright so I could see what referances you are using. By the way Wright seems to follow same line of thinking as you are citing. Thanks again and may he bless your efforts to utmost.

Badar

Muslimtruthrevealed

I am so glad that you did not get upset. Thanks for bringing these referances. I am busy this morning but will get back into linguistic discussion this afternoon. I still have several concerns about this and I will try to express as best I could. I purposely ignored William Wright so I could see what referances you are using. By the way Wright seems to follow same line of thinking as you are citing. Thanks again and may he bless your efforts to utmost.

Badar

Assalaam Alaikum Badar

Why would I get upset? We are having a great discussion. We are learning here. I look forward to your next post.