Discussion on 4:3 and meaning of nisa
-
salaam bro Damon,
So if we want to know WHO is being addressed in 43 we have to go back to 41 and 42 to look for the phrase and when we do that we will find in 41 WHO IT IS that is being addressed - - "OH PEOPLE/HUMANITY/MANKIND!!!
An-Nas INCLUDES women young and old. There is absolutely NO CHANGE in address between 41 and 43, it is a continuation. Having explored these facts the people who think that 43 is talking about polygamous marriage must also believe that the Quran is telling women to marry other women. There is absolutely NO WORD in 41, 42 or 43 which shows that it is MEN/MALES who are being addressed. It IS PEOPLE/HUMAN BEINGS that are being addressed.
You neglect to mention the addressee is masculine plural, thus there are two possibilities for whom is being addressed
- address is to males
- address is to males+females
Further, you seemingly do not take into account the very real possibility of switch in addressee, which is commonly known as "iltifaat" as discussed in detail here, with many examples
http//www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Grammar/iltifaat.htmlNo matter how much some people claim to be Quranists, if they still believe 43 is talking about polygamous marriage (or even marriage at all) then they still have a TRADITIONALIST mindset. The only difference is how they interpret 43 in order to justify the same thing as them.
It could be counter-claimed that "no matter how much some people claim to be Quranists if they only give one side of the story when discussing verse interpretation (even though others exist) and imply their side of the story is the correct one and others are wrong then they still have a traditionalist mindset".
However, I did find this claim interesting
The reason being that the claim is this word is PLURAL for woman. But this is completely false. In the Arabic Language ALL WORDS have the same roots in the plural form as they do their singular form.
-
Salaam Bro Wakas,
You neglect to mention the addressee is masculine plural, thus there are two possibilities for whom is being addressed
- address is to males
- address is to males+females
The address is to possibility number 2 for the simple fact that AN-NAS is WHO is being addressed. The Quran could have VERY EASILY addressed an all male audience if it wanted to. Also, to claim that this passage (along with many other mistranslated passages in The Quran) is addressing an all male audience is to make ONLY males the TARGET audience of The Quran. The people here on this forum can say what they want but I know better and no one here has absolutely NO PROOF that they can concoct to make the audience of this passage (and the quran in general) an all male audience. It is NOT ONLY upon men/males to do justice in society. It is upon EVERYONE to do justice. EVERYONE=HUMAN BEINGS=AN-NAS=Men AND Women.
By the way bro, if you really want to try and claim that males are the addressee of 43 and 43 is mandating marriage then I can't wait to hear your explanation of why this verse says HE who pleased you/seemed gracious to you . If this verse was telling males to marry females then it should say Ma Taabat to make this verb feminine. But as it stands this verb is strictly masculine. Are you going to use one of the concocted "Quran Sciences" to somehow explain a gender transition in a masculine verb? And speaking of the man made, fake Quran Sciences...
Further, you seemingly do not take into account the very real possibility of switch in addressee, which is commonly known as "iltifaat" as discussed in detail here, with many examples
http//www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Grammar/iltifaat.htmlI'm disappointed that you can refer me to a MAN MADE science by a TRADITIONAL muslim. I thought you were a Quranist Bro. This "iltifaat" is a component of what the traditionalists call the "Quranic Sciences" which is a bunch of B.S. concocted to keep the target audience of The Quran which is THE PEOPLE from engaging The Quran on their own and looking at what the quran REALLY has to say as opposed to what the clowns who concocted the so-called "Sciences of Quranic Tafseer" are telling them what it says. Again Wakas, there is absolutely nothing hard for The Quran to have said "Yaa Ayuhal 'Imruu'oon when it comes to 41, 43, 434 and all of the other ayaat of the quran that traditional muslims are deliberately mistranslating.
You can hold on to your "Quranic Tafseer Sciences" because I'm not so asinine to buy into that nonsense. The Quran says what it says and it does not say what it does not say. I don't need rocket science (or the man made quran sciences) to realize this.
It could be counter-claimed that "no matter how much some people claim to be Quranists if they only give one side of the story when discussing verse interpretation (even though others exist) and imply their side of the story is the correct one and others are wrong then they still have a traditionalist mindset".
However, I did find this claim interesting
Well I'm glad you find my quote interesting but THE FACT IS I am not giving my side of any story. I am telling you what 41 - 43 say and do not say. Plain and Simple. Your side of the story or the existence of your interpretation holds no weight when your side of the story/interpretation is incorrect. The color red is the color red just like the color green is the color green and no matter what sciences I concoct or interpretation I try to justify none of that will make red to be green or vice versa. And by the way, it's not a mere claim, it's how the Arabic Language is structured. You're going to have to learn some independence of thinking if you really want to make progress in understanding what The Quran is saying. And I mean absolutely no offense when I say this, but if you are going to be using the Science of Quranic Tafseer that the traditionalists INVENTED with no sanction or authority from The Quran, not only are you NOT exercising independent thinking but you are also going against your own slogan (Why ask a student when you can learn from the Teacher?) Show me another Arabic word whose singular and plural form come from two entirely different roots.
I'm going to say this again and I can only HOPE that you guys will take this as food for thought;
The Quran is a document outlining the implementation of JUSTICE. It is NOT only upon males to implement justice it is upon males and females alike. Because of this a document concerned with JUSTICE FOR ALL must also ADDRESS ALL!! That is why you find 41 - 43 being addressed to ALL PEOPLE (An-Nas). It is addressing all people and the system of justice it recommends is for all people 6/90, 12/104, 38/87, 43/44.
I hope I live long enough to see the day when The Quran is no longer viewed as a sexist, chauvinist, male centric religious book.
Allah Hafiz.
-
654 As for those who have reached menopause from your women, if you have any doubts, their interim shall be three months - as well as for those who did not menstruate. And those who are already pregnant, their interim is until they give birth. And anyone who reverences God, He makes his matters easy for him.
Those who did not menstruate. Is being young the only time you don't menstruate? There's another situation.
-
Irregular periods.
-
A child's conception. (When you're unsure of whether you're pregnant yet or not).
Perhaps that's why it continues
And those who are already pregnant...
Yes, I agree, there is a chance that a woman might have never experienced her menses and is >18. This happens for example when you have an XY chromosome set (hypogonadism) and the ovaries never formed.
How many women would fall into that category? Maybe 1 in 20,000. So yes, absolutely, you can construct a scenario, where it is feasible to say there are some women who have never experienced menstruation due to a rare disorder. But there are millions which would fall under the interpretation described by the translations and exegesis.
Yes, of course the entire waiting period exercise is to establish pregnancy. Important if future claims are to be avoided and when selling slave girls.
-
-
w/salaam Bro Damon,
Thanks for the reply.
The Quran could have VERY EASILY addressed an all male audience if it wanted to.
As I said, it used the masculine plural which can indicate an all male audience.
Also, to claim that this passage (along with many other mistranslated passages in The Quran) is addressing an all male audience is to make ONLY males the TARGET audience of The Quran.
Nope. I am implying the target audience for this particular instruction, not the entire Quran, can be all male.
By the way bro, if you really want to try and claim that males are the addressee of 43 and 43 is mandating marriage then I can't wait to hear your explanation of why this verse says HE who pleased you/seemed gracious to you . If this verse was telling males to marry females then it should say Ma Taabat to make this verb feminine. But as it stands this verb is strictly masculine.
You seem not to have realised whom the 'doing word' i.e. verb is being applied to. It is to the person who is the one doing/determining the pleasing/suitability, and that would be the male. It is not a passive verb. Interestingly, this same word form is used 3 times in Quran according to CORPUS and it seems to demonstrate what I just said.
I'm disappointed that you can refer me to a MAN MADE science by a TRADITIONAL muslim. I thought you were a Quranist Bro. This "iltifaat" is a component of what the traditionalists call the "Quranic Sciences" which is a bunch of B.S. concocted to keep the target audience of The Quran which is THE PEOPLE from engaging The Quran on their own and looking at what the quran REALLY has to say as opposed to what the clowns who concocted the so-called "Sciences of Quranic Tafseer" are telling them what it says.
"iltifaat" is simply a term referring to a sudden shift in the pronoun of the speaker or the person spoken about. Are you implying this does not exist in Quran?
Also, you seem to imply just because a "Traditional Muslim" said something means it cannot be true, or that I must somehow use "Quranist" sources (whatever they are) for my argument to be valid, which is illogical. I use whatever is Quran-based, I dont care who wrote it.
Again Wakas, there is absolutely nothing hard for The Quran to have said "Yaa Ayuhal 'Imruu'oon when it comes to 41, 43, 434 and all of the other ayaat of the quran that traditional muslims are deliberately mistranslating.
And there is absolutely nothing hard for The Quran to use the appropriate pronoun. For example, IF, as you seemingly claim, "nisa" is not "women" then please explain why Quran in 43 uses "fawidatan" or in 44 uses "aduqtihinna" etc etc.
Well I'm glad you find my quote interesting but THE FACT IS I am not giving my side of any story. I am telling you what 41 - 43 say and do not say. Plain and Simple.
Nope. You are giving your side of the story and not mentioning there is another possibility. Plain and simple.
Show me another Arabic word whose singular and plural form come from two entirely different roots.
I dont need to. The implication of your argument is that Arabic is a divine language with no imperfections. I consider it a human language, thus imperfect. However, in my view, the way in which The Quran uses it should be "perfect" (for lack of a better word, e.g. coherent, logical). For sake of argument, I am more than happy to concede no other word in the entire Arabic language has its singular and plural from different roots, even though I have not investigated your claim (it would be interesting, but ultimately irrelevant to me). The reason I am happy to accept it because the ultimate proof will be in the tasting of the pudding, i.e. slot a possible word meaning into Quran and see what happens. Every person that I have read who has attempted to slot in a meaning other than "women" has failed miserably.
Feel free to let us know what you think "nisa" means.
-
someoneoutthere
It depends on how you define orphan. Some definitions of orphan include the death/abandonment of only one parent, and accounting for the cultural connotation of "orphan", the death/abandonment of the provider is more significant. This is more likely to be the father especially in the context of Ancient Arabia. If marrying an orphan's mother is possible, clearly "orphan" in this case means paternal orphan a child that has lost his or her father.
doesnt make sense. What if the provider is the mother, is the child then still a socalled orphan if he lost his dad?
Moreover, you are using a wrong translation. Orphan in english is someone without both parents. A person without a father is called fatherless.
-
Wakas
Every person that I have read who has attempted to slot in a meaning other than "women" has failed miserably.
You also failed miseably when you attempted to slot in a meaning of qowm other then ''people''. Your alternative views should be all accepted while other ''alternative'' views are failing huh? Dude, its so obvious that you was raised as an hadither.
You neglect to mention the addressee is masculine plural, thus there are two possibilities for whom is being addressed
- address is to males
- address is to males+females
Further, you seemingly do not take into account the very real possibility of switch in addressee, which is commonly known as "iltifaat" as discussed in detail here, with many examples
http//www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Grammar/iltifaat.htmlyou did excately as I expected you to do. First you claimed ''qawm'' to mean men and now suddenly ''al-nas'' also means men rotfl rotfl
It could be counter-claimed that "no matter how much some people claim to be Quranists if they only give one side of the story when discussing verse interpretation (even though others exist) and imply their side of the story is the correct one and others are wrong then they still have a traditionalist mindset".
Which of course means that you are not like that, you of course are totally different and regard everyone else beside you as right and yourself as wrong right? rotfl
Actually you are not a traditionalist, since traditionalist generally are frank while translating the quran opposite you who make up your own words whenever its convinient for you. Qawm suddenly means ''a group of men'' and suddenly ''al nas'' also become men as well although every arab would know thats incorrect. In sunnism 'rejal' means men. Dude, you should make your own translation of quran, where you would have 100 of words just for 'men'.
Can you please tell me, beside ''qawm'' and ''al-nas'' which other words means ''men'' in your weird dictionary? rotfl Or does 'qawm' and 'al-nas'' only becomes ''men'' in your narrow-mind when their traditional meaning doesnt fit with 'nisa' ?
and since you keep accusing people who disagree with you of giving their own side of the story would you then kindly tell me whos side of the story are YOU giving??
-
It is time that the issues of Nisaa' and 43 get cleared up.
First, the word Nisaa'. This word does not, indeed it CANNOT, mean women. The reason being that the claim is this word is PLURAL for woman. But this is completely false. In the Arabic Language ALL WORDS have the same roots in the plural form as they do their singular form. For example, you have the singular word Masjid from Sa-Ja-Da and the plural form of this word is Masaajid. The root letters are there intact. We also have the root letters Ka-Ta-Ba from which we get the singular word kitab and its plural form is kutub. Again, the root letters are intact. I can go on and on with this. Bayt (house) and Buyut (houses), Wajh (face) and Wujuh, etc. Now, here's the issue at hand. ALL OF THE ARABIC DICTIONARIES that I have ever read give for the singular word woman as IMRAA'A. I also know for certain that their is a DUAL form of this word which is IMRAA'ATAYN. HOWEVER, when it comes to the PLURAL form of this word they give the Arabic word Nisaa' and I am sure this has to do with the sexist, male chauvinism that Arab men are known for. I have also read in a couple of these dictionaries that this word which is SUPPOSED to be plural for woman doesn't have a verbal root which would mean that it is non derived (not a derivative). But Nisaa' DOES have a triliteral root that it comes from. The two BASIC meanings of the word Nisaa' (which comes from Nun-Siin-Yaa) are to be somewhat weak and insufficient AND to be forgetful. They say that women personify these two definitions which is why they refer to them as Nisaa' but the fact remains that Nisaa' IS NOT the plural form of Imraa'a.
But this isn't the only thing I wish to point out. I wish to also point out the masculine form and feminine counterpart of most Arabic words. We have the masculine form of Muslim and its feminine counterpart Muslima. We have Rasheed and Rasheeda. Zawj and Zawja. There is also Jameel (for handsome applied to a male) and Jameela (beautiful applied to a female). So this sets a pattern of masculine and feminine words in Arabic sharing the same stems. In the grammar book "Introduction To Koranic and Classical Arabic" author Wheeler M. Thackston gives a word for woman and that is Imraa'a BUT he ALSO gives the masculine COUNTERPART of this word which is Imruu'u. Imruu'u is a MAN and Imraa'a is a WOMAN. Don't take my word for it, see for yourself. Just go to page 52 of This Link . By the way, this grammar book ALSO gives the entry of Imraa'tayn (two women) that I spoke of earlier.
Having said this, I wish to lightly touch up on 43 which is the verse people mistranslate in order to justify polygamous marriage. The one question everyone should be asking is WHO IS IT that is being addressed in 43? Whenever a certain group of people are being addressed directly in The Quran they are specified such as Jinn and Ins (6130), Bani Adam (726), Bani Isra'el (240), Ahlul Kitab (515), An-Nabiy (3350) and the Momineen (2104). Another category of people that is directly addressed in The Quran is PEOPLE IN GENERAL (41). So if we want to know WHO is being addressed in 43 we have to go back to 41 and 42 to look for the phrase and when we do that we will find in 41 WHO IT IS that is being addressed - - "OH PEOPLE/HUMANITY/MANKIND!!!
An-Nas INCLUDES women young and old. There is absolutely NO CHANGE in address between 41 and 43, it is a continuation. Having explored these facts the people who think that 43 is talking about polygamous marriage must also believe that the Quran is telling women to marry other women. There is absolutely NO WORD in 41, 42 or 43 which shows that it is MEN/MALES who are being addressed. It IS PEOPLE/HUMAN BEINGS that are being addressed. Obviously The Quran IS NOT telling women to marry other women. So the traditional understanding of this verse is incorrect and needs to be adjusted. No matter how much some people claim to be Quranists, if they still believe 43 is talking about polygamous marriage (or even marriage at all) then they still have a TRADITIONALIST mindset. The only difference is how they interpret 43 in order to justify the same thing as them.
Salaam.
Thank you brother. You saved a lot of my time by clearifying a whole lot of issues for me. group
I already suspected that Nisa doesnt mean women, but you have made me crystel clear about it. Now that I am sure about that I can finally move on and study other words in the quran as well.
Peace
-
This was quite funny! I thought you are agreeing with my point, because there is only one explanation for "the ones (f) not menstruated", which is premenarcheal girls or girls who have not had their menses.
But then I realised I fall into the category of "the extremely ignorant".Reading the statement again I found no definition of "underage", so what constitutes underage and why?
And if these sentences are so clear, why then are there so many different translations and opinions? How come almost all translations say not yet menstruated? Are all these translators ignorant and only you somehow "know" the true meaning?Let's see what others have to say
It seems to me that there are some very well known and respected, yet "extremely ignorant" translators out there.
but then i am woundering why the verse mentions 'before they reach the age of marriage'' if we are talking about underage girls? confused
-
As I said, it used the masculine plural which can indicate an all male audience.
Wakas, this is bad...I mean really, really bad. You're saying that it CAN be an all male audience because it uses the masculine plural. I'm sure you are aware that in Arabic masculine plural is used when talking about a MIXED GROUPED of people. By this I mean mixed with male and female. Do you acknowledge this or do you reject this fact? This is one aspect of Arabic grammar that I know for an absolute fact. There is another aspect of grammar (when dealing with masculine and feminine pronouns) that I am as equally aware that I will bet every penny I have in the bank you aren't even aware of. That will be revealed in time. But for now, what you are doing is trying your absolute best to justify a chauvinist, male centric interpretation of this verse of The Quran. Now you say that this verse CAN be addressing an all male audience because of the use of the masculine plural. I am saying (and I know I have more weight for my argument than you do for your argument) that this verse IS NOT addressing an all male audience because it is a well known fact that the use of masculine plural DOES NOT mean an all male audience UNLESS SPECIFIED!!! Wakas, this is Arabic Grammar 101 bro. So the audience for 43 IS SPECIFIED in 41 and that audience IS NOT an all male audience. Neither is it an all female audience. It is MIXED AUDIENCE of male and female which is why the address is to AN-NAAS
So, as you see YOU, my friend, are relying on conjecture and guesswork and saying something CAN mean a certain thing and you are willfully turning a blind eye to the obvious which clearly shows that it DOES NOT mean what you want it to mean. I hate to say this Wakas, but you are guilty of throwing your own meanings onto something that goes against your interpretation. It is unevidenced and illogical but you have decided to defend those views anyway because to not defend them would be an admittance of error and misunderstanding on your part.
Nope. I am implying the target audience for this particular instruction, not the entire Quran, can be all male.
Well, I know for a fact that I just proved to you that the target audience for 43 IS NOT an all male audience. But you have decided to take up a position and reject the obvious truth even though it is staring you in the face. I'm just curious as to WHY you are defending an undefensable position. Is it because you can't bring yourself to admitting that you are incorrect about this? Or is it because it's coming from me? Or is it both?
You seem not to have realised whom the 'doing word' i.e. verb is being applied to. It is to the person who is the one doing/determining the pleasing/suitability, and that would be the male. It is not a passive verb. Interestingly, this same word form is used 3 times in Quran according to CORPUS and it seems to demonstrate what I just said.
I don't know what Corpus Quran has to do with conversation or why you are promoting it here but I am going to correct you my friend. The verb is in its basic 3rd person masculine form. Plain and Simple. If corpus quran or any of those people who INVENTED their Quranic Tafseer Sciences say otherwise, they and you are flat out wrong!! I know this for certain about it being 3rd person masculine singular.
"iltifaat" is simply a term referring to a sudden shift in the pronoun of the speaker or the person spoken about. Are you implying this does not exist in Quran?
YES!! I am outright denying the existence of such thing. It does not exist in The Quran and It certainly does not exist in 41 - 43 that's for sure. I have the same books that you have Wakas, I have the translations by Muhammad Asad and M.A.S. Abdel Haleem. I have The Dictionary of Quranic Usage which is also by M.A.S. Abdel Haleem. I am very well aware of the explanations of "Iltifaat" that these books and their respective authors present. There is NOTHING about this rhetoric which you know that I do not know.
Also, you seem to imply just because a "Traditional Muslim" said something means it cannot be true, or that I must somehow use "Quranist" sources (whatever they are) for my argument to be valid, which is illogical. I use whatever is Quran-based, I dont care who wrote it.
Okay, well guess what the manmade rhetoric of "Iltifat" is not Quran based. It's traditional muslim based and YES 9 chances out of 10 if it's coming from a traditional muslim it will be incorrect.
And there is absolutely nothing hard for The Quran to use the appropriate pronoun. For example, IF, as you seemingly claim, "nisa" is not "women" then please explain why Quran in 43 uses "fawidatan" or in 44 uses "aduqtihinna" etc etc.
You obviously do not know the answer to this BUT I DO. Would you like to know what it is? I'm going to play the same game as you brother man. Read on.
Nope. You are giving your side of the story and not mentioning there is another possibility. Plain and simple.
Wakas, this is just sad. There is no way I'm giving MY SIDE OF THE STORY because there is only ONE interpretation of this verse and it's all based on the addressees being a mixture of males AND FEMALES!! Why are you so averse to accepting the truth especially when it's obvious. Why resist and defend an interpretation that's just flat out wrong? Again I have to ask if it has anything to do with the fact that it's coming from me and you see this as "debate" in which person is the winner and the other the loser? Or is it that you just don't like to be proven wrong? Or is it both? Which is it?
I asked if you could provide any other Arabic words whose plural form comes from a different root than its singular form. And your reply......
I dont need to
Oh really Wakas? Is that so? You don't need to? Aren't you the one who always tell people to bring forth "evidence" to back up their claims? Now you are going against your own demands of fair discussion. I tell you what bro..either you bring me those words I asked for OR just admit that you cannot do so and that you were incorrect about this and we can go ahead and address your queries about 44. fair enough?
The implication of your argument is that Arabic is a divine language with no imperfections. I consider it a human language, thus imperfect.
Wakas, I am going to say this now so this doesn't get out of hand. I DO NOT believe that Arabic is a divine language. Okay? I do know that it is HUMAN LANGUAGE and their is absolutely NOTHING divine about it. I also know that as a HUMAN LANGUAGE it CAN and WILL have imperfections. I hope I have made myself clear about this.
However, in my view, the way in which The Quran uses it should be "perfect" (for lack of a better word, e.g. coherent, logical). For sake of argument, I am more than happy to concede no other word in the entire Arabic language has its singular and plural from different roots, even though I have not investigated your claim (it would be interesting, but ultimately irrelevant to me). The reason I am happy to accept it because the ultimate proof will be in the tasting of the pudding, i.e. slot a possible word meaning into Quran and see what happens. Every person that I have read who has attempted to slot in a meaning other than "women" has failed miserably.
You say that it's irrelevant to you but it is VERY RELEVANT to me. This goes against yours and the traditional muslims prevelant views on this. You say people have attempted to slot in another interpretation of Nisaa' that is not women and failed miserably. NO!! WRONG!! It's not that they failed miserably, it's because people such as yourself REALLY, REALLY want to believe that The Quran is chauvinist and male centric. So any interpretation of the word Nisaa' and all of the verses where this word is mentioned will not be accepted by those people with this male chauvinist view of the quran. That doesn't make the interpretation untrue and neither does it mean that the people behind the interpretation failed. It only means that it is just a matter of time before enough SENSIBLE people understand and realize the truth of OUR interpretation and the chauvinist falsehood of yours.
As the saying goes, all new ideas go through stages of first rejection, then ridicule and insults and eventually acceptance based on their merits.
Feel free to let us know what you think "nisa" means.
I already shared that earlier and in prior posts here on this forum.
-
there is a chance that a woman might have never experienced her menses...
I don't think this was meant anywhere in the original verse.
Yes, I agree,
If a biologically healthy female is pregnant, she will skip her next cycle. If she's not pregnant, her cycle will come but before when it hasn't yet , it is unclear if she's pregnant or not.
Yes, of course the entire waiting period exercise is to establish pregnancy. Important if future claims are to be avoided and when selling slave girls.
Selling?doesnt make sense. What if the provider is the mother, is the child then still a socalled orphan if he lost his dad?
Moreover, you are using a wrong translation. Orphan in english is someone without both parents. A person without a father is called fatherless.
The child is still Yatiim. Which means fatherless, but is translated into orphan because of the implication of lack of wealth and because the English language does extend the meaning of the word "orphan" to fatherless children (paternal orphans). For a long time in history, men have been the breadwinners due to fixed gender roles. Also the Qur'an encourages men more to provide for their family. I guess if the window is financially secure, her child may not be orphaned in the fullest sense of the word, but they are missing a parent which means they are technically.
Have a look here, it may clear up some confusion
http//www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=orphan -
I don't think this was meant anywhere in the original verse.
I tend to agree.
Selling?
You are right, it's probably more the buyer who wants to know whether a female slave is pregnant or not, depending on whether she is intended for child bearing or work. It's not my line of experience D
The child is still Yatiim. Which means fatherless, but is translated into orphan because of the implication of lack of wealth and because the English language does extend the meaning of the word "orphan" to fatherless children (paternal orphans).
Where does this come from? English is a pretty precise language, where orphan means bar parents and fatherless means bar father or paternal orphan.
For a long time in history, men have been the breadwinners due to fixed gender roles. Also the Qur'an encourages men more to provide for their family. I guess if the window is financially secure, her child may not be orphaned in the fullest sense of the word, but they are missing a parent which means they are technically.
Have a look here, it may clear up some confusion
http//www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=orphanI know that the circumstances were different 1000 years ago. This is why I would expect the Koran, which is not written only for desert dwelling Nomadic Arabs of the 7th century to be precise and specify what is meant. This becomes increasingly important if you delve into the mysteries of inheritance laid out in 410-12 and 4176. English, just like Arabic, has evolved and I would not be able to understand or speak ye olde English.
-
Peace and greetings,
This was quite funny! I thought you are agreeing with my point, because there is only one explanation for "the ones (f) not menstruated", which is premenarcheal girls or girls who have not had their menses.
But then I realised I fall into the category of "the extremely ignorant".Reading the statement again I found no definition of "underage", so what constitutes underage and why?
And if these sentences are so clear, why then are there so many different translations and opinions? How come almost all translations say not yet menstruated? Are all these translators ignorant and only you somehow "know" the true meaning?Let's see what others have to say
It seems to me that there are some very well known and respected, yet "extremely ignorant" translators out there.
There is no ?not yet? in verse. The ignorant imply the verse pertains to babies and children.
It?s clearly stated 46 until when they reached/attained maturity; rules out babies/children.Why do they parrot each other? Perhaps they're afraid ignorant apes will bash their heads.
How many women would fall into that category? Maybe 1 in 20,000. So yes, absolutely, you can construct a scenario, where it is feasible to say there are some women who have never experienced menstruation due to a rare disorder. But there are millions which would fall under the interpretation described by the translations and exegesis.
The Facts About Irregular Periods
http//www.everydayhealth.com/pms/irregular-periods.aspx?At least 30 percent of women have irregular periods during their childbearing years,? says Amy Autry, MD, a clinical professor of obstetrics-gynecology and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Francisco.
I already shared that earlier and in prior posts here on this forum.
Here are a few verses ? explain how al-nisa can be other than (insert meaning) feminine/women?
651 O you the prophet when you divorce the feminine/women so divorce them to their waiting period and count the count
654 and the ones (feminine) who despaired from the menstruation from nisakum/your feminine/women if you doubt so their waiting period three cycles and the ones (feminine) not menstruated and those the pregnant their term that they put aside their loads (i.e. give birth) and from fears The God He makes for him from His directive easier
-
Peace and greetings,
There is no ?not yet? in verse. The ignorant imply the verse pertains to babies and children.
It?s clearly stated 46 until when they reached/attained maturity; rules out babies/children.Why do they parrot each other? Perhaps they're afraid ignorant apes will bash their heads.
Why is anyone who disagrees with you automatically ignorant? I have shown why it is a valid translation and how it is translated because it is a valid translation.
The Facts About Irregular Periods
http//www.everydayhealth.com/pms/irregular-periods.aspx?At least 30 percent of women have irregular periods during their childbearing years,? says Amy Autry, MD, a clinical professor of obstetrics-gynecology and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Francisco.
Here are a few verses ? explain how al-nisa can be other than (insert meaning) feminine/women?
651 O you the prophet when you divorce the feminine/women so divorce them to their waiting period and count the count
654 and the ones (feminine) who despaired from the menstruation from nisakum/your feminine/women if you doubt so their waiting period three cycles and the ones (feminine) not menstruated and those the pregnant their term that they put aside their loads (i.e. give birth) and from fears The God He makes for him from His directive easier
Have you heard of logical fallacies and a strawman?
What does the discussion about al-nisa have to do with female menstruation? Does it mean because one word might possibly be re-interpreted that ALL words in the Koran can now be re-assigned? Good luck.
"There is no ?irregular? in verse. The ignorant imply the verse pertains to babies and children."
-
Why is anyone who disagrees with you automatically ignorant? I have shown why it is a valid translation and how it is translated because it is a valid translation.
They are disagreeing with basic logic and you have shown nothing only parroting illogical stuff.
Have you heard of logical fallacies and a strawman?
Yes that is what you do.
What does the discussion about al-nisa have to do with female menstruation? Does it mean because one word might possibly be re-interpreted that ALL words in the Koran can now be re-assigned? Good luck.
They claimed that al-nisa does not/cannot be females and we know females have menses, therefore.
"There is no ?irregular? in verse. The ignorant imply the verse pertains to babies and children."
irregular = missed (i.e. not menstruated) and yes the ignorant imply the verses pertain to babies and children.
-
You are right, it's probably more the buyer who wants to know whether a female slave is pregnant or not, depending on whether she is intended for child bearing or work. It's not my line of experience
Ok. I suppose you mean line of expertise.
Where does this come from? English is a pretty precise language, where orphan means bar parents and fatherless means bar father or paternal orphan.
I know that the circumstances were different 1000 years ago. This is why I would expect the Koran, which is not written only for desert dwelling Nomadic Arabs of the 7th century to be precise and specify what is meant. This becomes increasingly important if you delve into the mysteries of inheritance laid out in 410-12 and 4176. English, just like Arabic, has evolved and I would not be able to understand or speak ye olde English.
if it's possible to marry an orphan's mother, she is not dead. It has nothing to do with circumstance and more to do with semantics. I just mentioned the fact that history has usually favored men as providers.
And although the Qur'an wasn't for 7th century Arabs only, they were a target demographic. It's important to note that exploring civilizations and their respective languages is only possible if we are preceded by them.Words are re-appropriated into colorful meanings all the time in the English language. Ironically, the link I posted shows just that. http//www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=orphan
Regardless, the Arabic Qur'an uses "Yatiim" not "orphan" which precisely means a fatherless orphan.
-
Peace Everyone,
Here's a little more food for thought on why 43 IS NOT talking about marriage.
The Arabic word for marriage is ZAWAAJ .The Arabic word for husband is ZAWJ and the Arabic word for WIFE IS ZAWJA !!! The plural for Zawj (husband) is Al-Azwaaj and the PLURAL FOR ZAWJA (WIFE) is ZAWJAAT !! In Arabic when someone is married the terms that are used are Matazawj and Watazawwajat . This is in spoken AND written Arabic. Some spoken dialects use the Arabic word Imraa'a for wife, others use Zawja and a few of them use both words interchangeably. But just so you guys know, the Arabic word Imraa'a LITERALLY means WOMAN. This information you can get from the dictionaries and grammar books of Classical, Modern Standard and Spoken Arabic.
We should know that these words are all derivatives of the root word Za-Wa-Ja and the definitions of this word are to pair, to double, to connect two things as a pair, to make one of a pair, to connect two species or type as a pair or AS A SPOUSE!!
44/54, 33/37 and 39/6 in The Quran speak unquestionably on the subject of marriage or male-to-female companionship.
A couple of other related tid bits just to help further drive home the point of Zawj, Zawja and Zawaaj;
In Arabic a married couple is referred to as Az-Zawjayn and The plural word for the term married people is mutazawwijiin .
I want you all to keep this information in mind because it is relevant and I will further expound its importance and further prove my case with this word as I continue my discussion with Brother Wakas. Don't worry folks, I didn't point out HOW I would use this word to prove my case. I haven't shown my hand yet. ;D
-
I sympathise with Shirley's attitude and I would like to ask her this
Is there any occurrence of what would be the regular plural of Imra'at(ta marbuta), which would be imra'aat (ta maftuha) in the honoured Qur'an?
I think you have put your finger on something important worth studying and exploring. We see in the honoured Qur'an the word rajul, plural rijaal, used in a sociological sense, because, inf act, the word for man would be imru' as you properly stated. We also see the word imra'a used properly to mean woman, and the dual, as you also pointed out. And we see a lot of times the word nisa' used for women and indeed it is funny that there is no singular nor dual for such a plural. Surprising indeed. It stands out and I celebrate that you have made it so obvious. It has been taken as a matter of fact for so long that it has failed to strike us. But the fact is that it does stand out. No singular and no dual. Very surprising.
My take at this stage is that imru', imra' are proper objective words, and that rajul, rijal, and nisa' ar sociological words, that is, depending on attendant circumstances and social conceptions and conventions.
To bring this out opens wide possibilities of looking at the Qur'an and its injunctions with a more honest look.
We must not forget that the Qur'an starts with Al f?tiha, the opener, and open our minds, not close them. Open them in good faith and seeking knowledge and the best meaning, as the Qur'an commands.
I congratulate you on having the courage to come forward with such "shocking news". I will not say that I agree with everything you say but I do say that it merits very very much study and an open, honest and sincere mind. And also that you have shown a lot of courage standing on your purpose because we know that many times when one puts forward this kind of ideas one is exposed to ridicule and being categorized as nuts or something like that. Keep at it.
Salaam
-
Wakas
You seem not to have realised whom the 'doing word' i.e. verb is being applied to. It is to the person who is the one doing/determining the pleasing/suitability, and that would be the male. It is not a passive verb. Interestingly, this same word form is used 3 times in Quran according to CORPUS and it seems to demonstrate what I just said.
Brother with all my due respect you are confusing me. Now suddenly when it suits you, corpus is suddenly a reliable source again? But when I gave you references from corpus that 'qowm' does not mean 'a group of men' as you was claiming but then you denied corpus and claimed corpus to be unreliable. And now suddenly when it suits your purposes corpus is suddenly realiable again? confused
-
Huruf
And also that you have shown a lot of courage standing on your purpose because we know that many times when one puts forward this kind of ideas one is exposed to ridicule and being categorized as nuts or something like that. Keep at it.
Yes ridiculed by the same people who are ridiculed among mainstream muslims as ''hadith-rejectors'' and ''prophet-muhammad haters''. Its funny to see how these quranist who themselves are being categorized as nuts and ridiculed among sunnies and shiites themselves do the same towards other quranist who disagree with their interpretation. Maybe they are too influenced by their sectarian past. Only God knows.
Secondly, that nisa doesnt mean women is not a new news. Several other members on freeminds have pointed that out earlier, including loxbox and Samia. And not surprisingly it has always been no other then brother Wakas who immidiately came after them and kept fighting their views with all his strength. It has always been a mystery for me why it has always been so crucial and important for our brother Wakas as a man, to keep fighting for 'NISA' as ''Women'', would you kindly like to share it with me brother Wakas? confused confused
In any cases, I would suggest that we keep respecting each other. This is not a sunni forum, but a forum for free minders, which should promote freedom of thoughts even when it goes against your own.
Peace
