Mental Gymnastics Anyone?

Noon_waalqalami

Scrappy doo

I totaly agree with you.

Personally I dont think Nisa means women, first time I suspected that nisa are not women was while reading following verse

4911 O you who have believed, let not a people {QAWM} ridicule people {QAWM}; perhaps they may be better than them; nor let women {NISA?} ridicule women {NISA?}; perhaps they may be better than them. And do not insult one another and do not call each other by nicknames. Wretched is the name of disobedience after faith. And whoever does not repent ? then it is those who are the wrongdoers.

Now if we assume that NISA means women then why are they separated from the word 'qawm' (people) ? I mean, after all, women are a part of people confused

One sisters comment on the verse was following Let?s assume nisa? does mean ?women? and qawm does mean ?people?. That would imply that women have a natural tendency to insult others more than anyone else (although women ARE a part of ?people?). This would also mean women are quranically viewed as something LESS than ?people?, since they were mentioned separately. Some would say, ?No, it?s just a special warning to women because they are such gossipers?. I would say, ?Go eat sht?. I had ha million sit-down with gossiping males, and they don?t only talk, but also talk sht. If you?re a man and you think women chat more, I hope something hits you in the eye.

Moreover, if we consider nisa? to mean ?women?, does that mean a woman can mock a man since she is not ordered to abstain from gossiping about men? Does it not surprise you that Allah (st) would say, ?Do not mock? according to gender?

Peace

Peace Maha,

In those days and today in much of the world including my own clan best rendered as patriarchy (includes only males).

4911 O you the ones who believe not mock qawmin/patriarchy from patriarchy perhaps that they are good/better from them and not women from women perhaps that they are good/better from them and not insult yourselves and not call each other by nicknames wretched the name the immoral after the faith and from not repent so those they the wrongdoers

simonejamilla

Salaamun Alayka Maha.
Thank you for your response.

Scrappy doo

Personally I dont think Nisa means women, first time I suspected that nisa are not women was while reading following verse

4911 O you who have believed, let not a people {QAWM} ridicule people {QAWM}; perhaps they may be better than them; nor let women {NISA?} ridicule women {NISA?}; perhaps they may be better than them. And do not insult one another and do not call each other by nicknames. Wretched is the name of disobedience after faith. And whoever does not repent ? then it is those who are the wrongdoers.

Now if we assume that NISA means women then why are they separated from the word 'qawm' (people) ? I mean, after all, women are a part of people confused

4911 I understand the word qawmun N ? nominative masculine indefinite noun, and qawmin N ? genitive masculine indefinite noun, are talking about the people (Superintendents/Maintainers) of the group. If you look at 5914 we have the same word qawmun. This verse is clearly talking about warfare. Again in 522 They said "O Moses, in it are a mighty (jabbrna) people (qawmin), and we will not enter it until they leave. So when they leave, then we will enter it."

The root of jabbrna is; Jiim-Ba-Ra = To reduce from a fractured state, or restore from a state of poverty to sufficiency. Set or reduced from a fractured state. "A poor man being likened to one who has a broken bone and his restoration to wealth being likened to the setting of the bone." Compell, constrain, incite, urge, or induce another . Addition of something for the purpose of reparation . Self-magnification, pride, haughtiness, insolence, bold, audacious, inordinate, tyrannical, overbearing, extravagent. A king. "There has been no prophetic office but a kingly office has succeeded in its place through someone's self-magnification, pride, haughtiness, or insolence." Slave, servant. No retaliation or expiatory mulct exacted . Tall, above the reach of the hand, ascend , and retaining excellence.

I don't understand this to be a description of women, more so of men as they are the ones more likely to participate in warfare, become kings and tyrannical rulers. Rather than understanding that 4911 is defining women as something less than people, it appears that the verse is further affirming the different roles that men and women have in society.

Peace and kind regards sun

Maha

Peace Maha,

In those days and today in much of the world including my own clan best rendered as patriarchy (includes only males).

4911 O you the ones who believe not mock qawmin/patriarchy from patriarchy perhaps that they are good/better from them and not women from women perhaps that they are good/better from them and not insult yourselves and not call each other by nicknames wretched the name the immoral after the faith and from not repent so those they the wrongdoers

From where do you get patriarchy from brother? Pakistani society is a patriarchy society and when we in Urdu say qawm(people) then it's of course both men and women since "people" is a genderless word an so is it in English as well. People in English contains also of both men and women and children etc. check it up in a dictionary if you don't believe.
Males only is called "men".

Peace

hawk99

Do not make any agreement with the mushrik parties (that are associating own laws with the divine laws/doing shirk with Ehkamate Elahi), as long as they are not able to make peace/becomes ahl amn. Because a Momin ummat is better than a mushrik ummat, no matter how fascinating it is to you. Likewise, you don?t let a mushrik make an agreement until he is not able to make peace/ becomes ahl amn, because a Momin (provider of amn) is better than a mushrik (the one who associate laws parallel to Ehkamate Elahi) no matter how alluring he seem to you. They call you towards the fire whereas the laws of nature call you to a protecting welfare society, and He describes the rules for mankind so the advice is remembered ???
I don't know about anyone else? I am having a problem with what seems to be a very complex and difficult understanding of the above translation, hence feeling unsettled? I just wondered if anyone else is having the same problem? I would appreciate feedback on this. sun

Peace Scrappy-doo,

That translation is a head spinner! thanks but no thanks.

I prefer the RK translation, I also cross reference when websites have their prefered translations.

Peace O0

Maha

Salaamun Alayka Maha.
Thank you for your response.
4911 I understand the word qawmun N ? nominative masculine indefinite noun, and qawmin N ? genitive masculine indefinite noun, are talking about the people (Superintendents/Maintainers) of the group. If you look at 5914 we have the same word qawmun. This verse is clearly talking about warfare. Again in 522 They said "O Moses, in it are a mighty (jabbrna) people (qawmin), and we will not enter it until they leave. So when they leave, then we will enter it."

The root of jabbrna is; Jiim-Ba-Ra = To reduce from a fractured state, or restore from a state of poverty to sufficiency. Set or reduced from a fractured state. "A poor man being likened to one who has a broken bone and his restoration to wealth being likened to the setting of the bone." Compell, constrain, incite, urge, or induce another . Addition of something for the purpose of reparation . Self-magnification, pride, haughtiness, insolence, bold, audacious, inordinate, tyrannical, overbearing, extravagent. A king. "There has been no prophetic office but a kingly office has succeeded in its place through someone's self-magnification, pride, haughtiness, or insolence." Slave, servant. No retaliation or expiatory mulct exacted . Tall, above the reach of the hand, ascend , and retaining excellence.

I don't understand this to be a description of women, more so of men as they are the ones more likely to participate in warfare, become kings and tyrannical rulers. Rather than understanding that 4911 is defining women as something less than people, it appears that the verse is further affirming the different roles that men and women have in society.

Peace and kind regards sun

You should get some history lessons. Women have participated in many wars and they still do. However the verse you quoted about a mighty qowm being against them is quite logical both men and women were against them . Just like both men and women (people) were against the Jews durig second world war.

Peace

Wakas

salaam all,

As Noon has pointed out, cross-reference usually clears up many issues.

Sure, some translations out there have words meaning different things, some very different, but how many of them are actually cross-referenced and/or with supporting evidence? Very few.

salaam Maha,

Re 4911
Are you aware that "qawm" can mean "group of men" in classical Arabic? See Lane's Lexicon for example. In fact, Lane says that is its proper meaning, although personally, I think context will determine what is meant.

The example you cite, and I have seen it cited before by those who advocate alternative views for rijal/nisa, is weak at best. What is commonly done by such proponents is to present one side of an argument (i.e. their own view), but remain quiet about other sides, and/or fail to present an evidenced and viable alternative. Such an approach is unlikely to be fruitful.

Maha

Wakas

Are you aware that "qawm" can mean "group of men" in classical Arabic? See Lane's Lexicon for example. In fact, Lane says that is its proper meaning, although personally, I think context will determine what is meant.

Give m? some evidences for qawm means group of men. Now you are coming up with an alternative idea of what qawm means?

The example you cite, and I have seen it cited before by those who advocate alternative views for rijal/nisa

You mean like you just came up with your alternative view on "qawm"?
is
is weak at best

No it isn't weak

What is commonly done by such proponents is to present one side of an argument (i.e. their own view), but remain quiet about other sides, and/or fail to present an evidenced and viable alternative. Such an approach is unlikely to be fruitful.

Wrong that isn't done by such proponents. In fact it's yo? who present one side of an argument (your own) and remain quite about other sides, just take a look at your alternative view on "qawm"

Peace

Wakas

Maha,

If you choose not to look up Lane's Lexicon, that is up to you.

I prefer to discuss with people who prioritise evidence over conjecture. Peace.

Maha

Wakas

If you choose not to look up Lane's Lexicon, that is up to you.

Lanes lexicon isnt the truth from heaven, neither could I find in it what you are talking about. In any case, I have 4 other arabic dictionaries as well as quran translations in front of me which translate qawm to 'people'.

I prefer to discuss with people who prioritise evidence over conjecture

Then dont discuss with yourself. So far you have not presented one single evidence, all what you have done is presenting conjecture and accusing people of your own actions.

Peace

Wakas

Maha

...neither could I find in it what you are talking about.

Surprising, but here you go

http//i46.tinypic.com/hrzekg.jpg

Reference
http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume8/00000250.pdf

simonejamilla

Maha

Surprising, but here you go

http//i46.tinypic.com/hrzekg.jpg

Reference
http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume8/00000250.pdf

Which is what I was saying in my comment, that the group being referred to is men not women. How did you do those arrows?

You should get some history lessons. Women have participated in many wars and they still do. However the verse you quoted about a mighty qowm being against them is quite logical both men and women were against them . Just like both men and women (people) were against the Jews durig second world war.

Peace

I gave you a couple of verses, with the word qawmun, and what I understand the word to mean.

As far as Women participating in wars. I was not even remotely suggesting the subjugation of women, neither did I intimate that women are less capable than men. I am aware that historical records show that women are capable of performing successfully in war. Thus, the near?total exclusion of women from combat roles does not seem to be explained by women?s inherent lack of ability.

So what can explain it? Aside from the obvious argument of male dominance, I believe men are more likely to participate in Warfare for the simple reason that men are more predisposed for combat. Men have strength on their side and are more aggressive then women. In this view, women?s caregiving roles and potential for motherhood best suit them to give life, not take it. Women are more likely than men to oppose war, and more likely to find alternatives to violence in resolving conflicts. Hillary Clinton in 1996, for example, told a radio audience that her husband finds ?action? movies ?relaxing? but she does not like them, explaining that ?I think that?s kind of a male thing.?

I personally have not heard of women pounding on the doors of government, or protesting on the streets with placards claiming not being able to serve on the front line violates their right to equality.

I really don't understand the issue that gender equality asserts the belief that our characteristics must be the same. Yes we are equal in dignity and respect but not in our functions or roles.

Peace and kind regards sun

Wakas

How did you do those arrows?

I took a screenshot of the pages, pasted it into Paint (Windows), edited it and added red arrows, uploaded it to tinypic.com.

Maha

WAKAS

Maha

Surprising, but here you go

http//i46.tinypic.com/hrzekg.jpg

Reference
http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume8/00000250.pdf

The triliteral root qf ww mm ( &#1605 occurs 660 times in the Quran, in 22 derived forms

Lets see if qawm is 'a group of men' according to quran

4,34 Would be translated into Men 'group of men' stands over women

2,125,
Refers to standing place

Please refer to dictionary http//corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=qwm not one single place has ''qawm'' been translated into ''group of men''.

Finally lets take a look on the verse we are discussing with 'group of men' 4911 O you who have believed, let not a 'group of men' ridicule another ''group of men ''{QAWM}; perhaps they may be better than them; nor let women {NISA?} ridicule women {NISA?}; perhaps they may be better than them. And do not insult one another and do not call each other by nicknames. Wretched is the name of disobedience after faith. And whoever does not repent ? then it is those who are the wrongdoers

That seems quite silly. Which group of men are we talking about, and why isnt the word 'rejaal' been used ? hmm And does it mean that its OK for a group of men to ridicule women and vice versa? hmm

Another problem

314 Beautified for people {An-Nas} is the love of that which they desire ? of women {An-Nisa?} and sons, heaped-up sums of gold and silver, fine branded horses, and cattle and tilled land. That is the enjoyment of worldly life, but Allah has with Him the best return.

Is being lesbian OK according to quran? Because I clearly dont have any desire of women except as friends ;D

Peace

Maha

scrappy doo

As far as Women participating in wars. I was not even remotely suggesting the subjugation of women, neither did I intimate that women are less capable than men. I am aware that historical records show that women are capable of performing successfully in war. Thus, the near?total exclusion of women from combat roles does not seem to be explained by women?s inherent lack of ability.

So what can explain it? Aside from the obvious argument of male dominance, I believe men are more likely to participate in Warfare for the simple reason that men are more predisposed for combat. Men have strength on their side and are more aggressive then women. In this view, women?s caregiving roles and potential for motherhood best suit them to give life, not take it. Women are more likely than men to oppose war, and more likely to find alternatives to violence in resolving conflicts. Hillary Clinton in 1996, for example, told a radio audience that her husband finds ?action? movies ?relaxing? but she does not like them, explaining that ?I think that?s kind of a male thing.?

I personally have not heard of women pounding on the doors of government, or protesting on the streets with placards claiming not being able to serve on the front line violates their right to equality.

I really don't understand the issue that gender equality asserts the belief that our characteristics must be the same. Yes we are equal in dignity and respect but not in our functions or roles.

Peace and kind regards

Sister I dont understand the point of what you mentioned above. I have already clearified that women also participate in war, and whether women are more or less likely to participate in war with men doesnt change the fact that throughout history women have partcipated in war, and still do for instance Women are highely active in the Israeli military. And that you agreed on. So there is no evidence that women didnt went into war with bani Israel in the quran verse you showed earlier. Hence, the whole 'qawm' was against them.

Peace

Bender

Well! Harrumph to you too!

;D

Wakas

Maha,

Firstly, it is irrelevant if a word has allegedly not been used to mean X elsewhere. It is only a problem if the variance is haphazard, i.e. random, without logic/reason to differentiate usage.

My point was you (and others as it happens) failed to present the other side of the argument. Simple.

You also claimed not to have found such a meaning in Lane's Lexicon.

And does it mean that its OK for a group of men to ridicule women and vice versa?

Did you bother to read the rest of the verse or Quran? Answer is contained therein.

Another problem

Is being lesbian OK according to quran? Because I clearly dont have any desire of women except as friends ;D

The problem is potentially one of your own making. To determine this however, please provide ALL sides of the argument, i.e. all theoretical possibilities and explanations you have found in your study of this verse.

If you can show study without confirmation bias, i.e. only reading and presenting aspects that confirm your own view, then we can talk more.

Maha

Wakas

Firstly, it is irrelevant if a word has allegedly not been used to mean X elsewhere.

No its crucial, because quran explains itself. You cannot use the same word each time different as you like.

My point was you (and others as it happens) failed to present the other side of the argument. Simple

No it isnt, I have just shown you a dictionary which doesnt support your alternative view. Lanes dictionary also confirmed that qawm means people, and that in some cases it can mean a group of men (which my dictornary disagrees with) Now you have to proof

Lanes dictionary says that qawm in that specific discussed verse means 'group of men'
That Lanes dictionary is right and corpus quran dictionary wrong

Did you bother to read the rest of the verse or Quran? Answer is contained therein.

Look how you contradict yourself. First you said its irrelevant if a word has alledgedly not been used elsewhere in the quran and you ask me to read other verses of the quran in order to support your alternative view. You have dobbel standards.

The problem is potentially one of your own making. To determine this however, please provide ALL sides of the argument, i.e. all theoretical possibilities and explanations you have found in your study of this verse

Out of topic, you didnt answered my question. The verse can be interpretated as promoting lesbians since it claims that women desire women.

If you can show study without confirmation bias, i.e. only reading and presenting aspects that confirm your own view, then we can talk more.

You got a problem with projecting. Everytime you do something, you put the blame on others. What you just wrote above is a proof of that. When it suits you, qawm means 'group of men' when it doesnt then it means something else. You still didnt answered my questions

which 'group of men' are the vers talking about?
why isnt the word 'rijaal' (men) used as oppose to NISA(women). Why suddenly 'a group of men' opposed to ''women'' . Shouldnt it be 'a group of men' oppose to 'a group of women'' ? How will your alternative view on qawm explain that?

Peace

Wakas

Maha,

No its crucial, because quran explains itself. You cannot use the same word each time different as you like.

That's why I never said nor implied that. See my previous post.

No it isnt, I have just shown you a dictionary which doesnt support your alternative view. Lanes dictionary also confirmed that qawm means people, and that in some cases it can mean a group of men (which my dictornary disagrees with) Now you have to proof

Lanes dictionary says that qawm in that specific discussed verse means 'group of men'
That Lanes dictionary is right and corpus quran dictionary wrong

Corpus is not a dictionary. Feel free to contact its creator and ask him.

Look how you contradict yourself. First you said its irrelevant if a word has alledgedly not been used elsewhere in the quran and you ask me to read other verses of the quran in order to support your alternative view. You have dobbel standards.

I never actually said that. Please see my previous post.

Out of topic, you didnt answered my question. The verse can be interpretated as promoting lesbians since it claims that women desire women.

You got a problem with projecting. Everytime you do something, you put the blame on others. What you just wrote above is a proof of that. When it suits you, qawm means 'group of men' when it doesnt then it means something else. You still didnt answered my questions

which 'group of men' are the vers talking about?
why isnt the word 'rijaal' (men) used as oppose to NISA(women). Why suddenly 'a group of men' opposed to ''women'' . Shouldnt it be 'a group of men' oppose to 'a group of women'' ? How will your alternative view on qawm explain that?

If you wish to discuss, then let's discuss. But I am only prepared to discuss what I actually said, not what you think I said.

I initially asked Are you aware that "qawm" can mean "group of men" in classical Arabic?

Your reply was that you were unaware of such a thing, and asked for evidence (even though I stated my source).

I then provided the evidence.

So, let us answer one Q at a time, you and I

Maha said Which group of men are we talking about, and why isnt the word 'rejaal' been used ?

Wakas Firstly, nowhere did I state what my view on this verse was, but in any case, I would think it was a reference in general terms, not specific group of men, e.g. clan X etc.
I do not know why word X is used in a specific instance in Quran, and that goes for any word in the entire Quran, only the author of Quran knows that, but in this case, one explanation could be qawm/men, nisa/women, thus the words used are encompassing of the audience.

Now, let me ask you a question please provide an alternative for rijal/nisa that works better in this verse. And please do not rush answering, take your time, in fact, take months, consult with those who have similar views to you, in fact all of you group together and work as a team for weeks if you wish, then provide your strongest answer.

We will then see if it stands up to scrutiny, e.g. your own objections, which you seemingly raised about the common view.

uq

Peace Scrappy-doo -)

Thank you for your post, you raise a very interesting subject.

I would like to make three points

There has recently been (almost exclusively in the Quran alone community) a trend of forging meanings for Classical Arabic words which have not ever previously existed. The motive of such forgery is, in my view, easily ascribable to personal fancy and conjecture. I think that many choose to forgo the arduous task of assiduous study and research purely in the pursuit of their own desires, irrespective of whatsoever the truth might entail. Thus, we see utterly baseless (and rapidly dissectible) claims that words such as "salah" or "rijaal" or "nisaa" or "zinaa" do not mean "prayer" and "men" and "women" and "fornication", respectively. It saddens me to see that we - as a Quran alone community - who are charged with the responsibility of upholding the message of God by way of the faculties with which God has endowed us, are failing terribly by a flagrant disregard of the employment of those very faculties. However, I reckon that these are probably a minority in our precious community.
By the grace of God, the 21st century offers us many technological blessings, all of which are at our disposal and can be used in the pursuit of truth. There are many websites that offer access to Arabic-English dictionaries, and those that offer entire books of Arabic grammar. One can even compare English translations on many of these websites. So, thanks are to God.
My translation of 2221

"Do not marry the polytheist until they believe. Surely, a believing slave is better than a polytheist , even if she appeals to you. Do not accept for marriage the polytheist until they believe. Surely, a believing is better than a polytheist , even if he appeals to you. Those call to the fire, yet God calls to the garden and to forgiveness by his leave. He clarifies his signs for the people perchance they will remember."

GODsubmitter

Peace Scrappy-doo -)

Thank you for your post, you raise a very interesting subject.

I would like to make three points

There has recently been (almost exclusively in the Quran alone community) a trend of forging meanings for Classical Arabic words which have not ever previously existed. The motive of such forgery is, in my view, easily ascribable to personal fancy and conjecture. I think that many choose to forgo the arduous task of assiduous study and research purely in the pursuit of their own desires, irrespective of whatsoever the truth might entail. Thus, we see utterly baseless (and rapidly dissectible) claims that words such as "salah" or "rijaal" or "nisaa" or "zinaa" do not mean "prayer" and "men" and "women" and "fornication", respectively. It saddens me to see that we - as a Quran alone community - who are charged with the responsibility of upholding the message of God by way of the faculties with which God has endowed us, are failing terribly by a flagrant disregard of the employment of those very faculties. However, I reckon that these are probably a minority in our precious community.
By the grace of God, the 21st century offers us many technological blessings, all of which are at our disposal and can be used in the pursuit of truth. There are many websites that offer access to Arabic-English dictionaries, and those that offer entire books of Arabic grammar. One can even compare English translations on many of these websites. So, thanks are to God.
My translation of 2221

"Do not marry the polytheist until they believe. Surely, a believing slave is better than a polytheist , even if she appeals to you. Do not accept for marriage the polytheist until they believe. Surely, a believing is better than a polytheist , even if he appeals to you. Those call to the fire, yet God calls to the garden and to forgiveness by his leave. He clarifies his signs for the people perchance they will remember."

Thank you @uq and God bless you!

Posts like these of yours make me remain in this Forum trying to increase knowledge, instead of abandoning it altogether due to many sly and misguided people who bring confusion and provocation here.