Discussion on 4:3 and meaning of nisa

inquisitivetrini

Peace all,

Peace Damon,

Yup, I'm still reading through the discussion. Though, some of the heavy grammar rules and terminology, are very difficult to follow. I wish I had more time on my hands for some intense reading, but it's impossible at this point.

So, to both you and Mazhar, if you could please try and break things down into layman's terms, I know that I will appreciate it greatly. I also think that it will help if we stay away from personal attacks, and focus exclusively on the issue on hand. I do understand that the topic is emotionally charged (trust me, I'm a woman), but it takes away from all the hard work you've all put into your analysis.

I have no issue with rethinking my stance on 4.3, but I want to ensure that I have fully understood the alternative, before I choose to even consider it.

My thoughts exactly. )

Released

I have tried it and put it in seperate thread, each sentence of Ayah even if it apparently comprises a single word, is seperately discussed. Knowledge of Enlish grammar about Preposition, Prepositional Phrase and Relative Pronouns and its linkage clause would suffice. That can be applied for Arabic grammar.

http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604734.0

Mazhar, thank you very much for that breakdown. It helped me quite a bit.

Peace.

Shirley

Don't get mad at me because I refuse to forsake reason and logic when studying the Quran. P Unlike a lot of people here I used the language it's in AND common sense. Common sense can actually go a long way if people are willing to exercise it.

WAKAS,

This is the third time where you took longer to reply than you did earlier in the thread when you were bringing quite a bit of heat in our discussion. I can't help but to think that you are not looking into or contemplating on what Bob and I have been saying here. I think you are looking for something with which to prove me wrong. In your mind I am simply wrong and that is all there is to it. So any further studies done by you on this topic is not to see if what I am saying is correct, it is to find someway to hold on to your sexist religious belief and to be able to say "Damon you're wrong."

It's okay bro. I can assure that there are absolutely no hard feelings on my part. If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence can I possibly provide to prove that they should value it? Oh well. You guys can hold on to your views, I will lose no sleep over it.

StopS, Inquisitivetrini and Released, I will write up a summary of my understandings on this topic and I will incorporate all of your questions into so I would not have to make three separate posts. I may present them here or pm you guys. Either way, after that I am going to do what I have done for a long and should have continued to do and that is stay away from this forum. The people at the The Aastana Blog help to bring much more clarity, accuracy and SENSE to the Quranic verses. No more mystery. No more confusion. No more illogical interpretations justified through "faith" or "belief". It is up to you to remain here where questions will remain unanswered (and it somehow being your fault for disagreeing or not understanding) or go to Aastana and ask to your hearts' content. Your questions will be answered and your intelligence and common sense will not be insulted and required to be abandoned for the sake of accepting a mysterious explanation of the verses.

I'll get back to you three guys, but in the meantime to recap what was discussed here so far let's focus on the following ten points

1). Whenever The Quran is directly addressing a specific group of people it is clear from the 2nd person form of address such as Jinn and Ins (6/130), Bani Adam (7/26), Bani Isra'el (2/40), Ahlul Kitab (5/15), An-Nabiy (33/50) and the Momineen (2/104). Another category of people that is directly addressed in The Quran is PEOPLE IN GENERAL with the address of "Yaa Ayuhaa An-Naas and that is what we have from jump with 4/1.

2). Quran 4/1 BEGINS by directly addressing AN-NAAS (2nd person) and all throughout The Quran AN-NAAS is used when directly addressing PEOPLE (men AS WELL AS women).

3). 4/1 through 4/3 use the 2nd masculine plural verb and pronouns when directly addressing and instructing An-Naas. Wakas and I have agreed that the masculine plurals are used for two categories of people; First category is a group of people who are all entirely male. The second category is a group of people who are MIXED male AND female. So 4/1 - 4/3 is directly addressing ONE of these two categories. It has to be one or the other when the masculine plural is used for a group of people.

4). Just as An-Naas is a 2nd Person noun that is being addressed in 4/1, the collective noun of An-Nisaa' is a noun in the 3rd Person who are NOT being Talked To (which would make it 2nd Person) but are being Talked About (which makes it 3rd person). An-Nisaa' are being talked about TO An-Naas.

5). Although the people being directly addressed in 4/1 through 4/3 are in The 2nd Person, the verb "Taaba" is in The 3rd Person just like the noun An-Nisaa' is in the 3rd person. So we have two components of 4/3 that are in the 3rd person; the word An-Nisaa' and the verb Taaba. Specifically, the word Taaba is past tense 3rd person masculine singular (yes I know these terminologies can really ruin it for some people. I always try to simplify things as best I can). In other words, it is in its basic, underived form. The same way you'll find it in the dictionary as the root entry.

6). Wakas is of the view that the 3rd Person Verb is acted upon by The 2nd Person Addressees - AnNaas. I am of the view that this same 3rd Person Verb is acted upon by The 3rd Person Subject Noun - AnNisaa'.

7). Wakas believes that the reason the 2nd person addressees can be the ones acting upon the 3rd person verb is if this verb is understood as a passive verb. I disagree with this idea based on the fact that The Arabic Language has its passive forms but these forms are derived. I don't think it too important expose the passive forms here. But Taaba is not morphed into a passive form as it is in its basic, underived root form which means it is in the third person. And again this means that the 3rd person party mentioned can only be the ones acting out the 3rd person verb. It is important to also mention that the basic root word "Taaba" is not inherently passive in definition either.

8 ). Wakas's friend Mazhar seems to believe that the words "Min An-Nisaa' " in the sentence "Ma Taaba Lakum Min An-Nisaa' " is a prepositional phrase. I disagree with this as well based on two principles. The first principle is that a prepositional phrase is one which indicates the subject's POSITION or LOCATION. The Arabic word "Min" has two meanings (and thus two functions in an Arabic sentence). One meaning is the directional or origin of place preposition which is FROM (place of origin). Two very small and simple examples of this usage of the word are Ana MIN Amreeka which is I am FROM America. Another one in Spoken Arabic would be MIN WEYN Inta? This is literally "FROM WHERE are you" and this is the Spoken Arabic way of asking a person "WHERE are you FROM? If the word "min" in the phrase "Min An-Nisaa' " is understood to be a preposition wich means from a place of origin, then this phrase would be understood as "FROM An-Nisaa' " and I would have to ask WHO is from a location called An-Nisaa' and since when is An-Nisaa' a place or location? So "From" (meaning FROM a place or location of origin) is ONE DEFINITION of "min".

Another definition of the word "Min" is From among a whole, parts of a whole, to be a part of, etc. This is why I gave the definitions of this word that I had given and it was only from two dictionaries and those dictionaries were Dictionary of The Holy Quran by Abdul Mannan Omar and Dictionary and Glossary of The Koran by John Penrice. Hans Wehr give the same meanings. In fact, Hans Wehr gives the following

Of (as in to be part OF something) , Some, Some Of (something), A Part Of (something), Belonging To (something), From Among (someone or something).

If the word An-Nisaa' in the incomplete phrase "Min An-Nisaa' " is NOT a place (which clearly it is not) but instead is a GROUP of something or someone, then I am asking you three guys (StopS, Inquisitvetrini and Released) which makes more sense, From (a place/location) An-Nisaa' OR From Among (the group of people) An-Nisaa'?

The second principle upon which I disagree with Mazhar's interpretation is because the verb Taaba is being performed (so very obviously) by An-Nisaa' and this word, Taaba, is preceded by the word "Ma" which, when used as a relative pronoun, means Whatever, Whatsoever, That Which, something which, etc. As a conjunction this word is used with the meanings of As long as or so long as, as far as, whenever, etc. This word "Ma" is also the beginning particle of the Ma...Min Clause which is a clause that BEGINS with the word MA as a relative pronoun and has the word MIN as a partitive followed by the subject of this clause. The subject of this clause can be a definite noun, an indefinite noun or a pronoun. I gave the links to Thackston and Haywood because you would understand better by reading the relevant sections of the books along with the example sentences provided to illustrate the clause and its usages. So please keep in mind that we do have a relative clause with the subordinate clause/sentence of MA Taaba Lakum MIN An-Nisaa'. You will only have yourselves to blame if you allow Mazhar to dazzle you with his half baked Arabic knowledge and with his "impressive" use of grammatical terminologies (something you guys do not need to be bothered with if you are beginning Arabic students).

9). Because the MASCULINE verb and MASCULINE plural can be used with the two prior mentioned categories of people, ARABIC GRAMMAR mandates that the SUBJECT to whom the masculine plural is referring to be made clear and unambiguous for the sake of clear reference. It is clear that An-Naas is a group of males AND females. It is also clear that the masculine plurals are all in the 2nd person just like An-Naas is in the second person. It is equally clear that the MASCULINE verb Taaba is in the 3rd person just like An-Naas is in the 3rd person.

10). In Arabic there is what is known as a Verbal Sentence. This sentence begins with the verb followed by the subject-doer of the verb. When the subject-doer of a verbal sentence is a group of all males OR a group of males AND females, then the verb will be 3rd Person Masculine (in the past tense) and this is exactly what we have with Taaba Lakum Min An-Nisaa'. An-Nisaa' is the subject-doer of the verb Taaba and Taaba is 3rd person masculine singular (in the past tense).

Putting this all together...

A). The addressees (An-Naas) is definitely a mixed group of PEOPLE males AND females. They are addressed in the 2nd person. The masculine plurals and imperatives in 4/1 through 4/3 are all in the 2nd person.

B). An-Nisaa' are a 3rd person party mentioned TO An-Naas.

C). The 3rd Person Party/Group An-Nisaa' are the people acting out the 3rd person verb "Taaba".

D). The 3rd person verb is ALSO a masculine verb which means the group of people acting out this verb (An-Nisaa&#039 are either ALL MALES OR a MIXED GROUP of males AND females

E). If we are to understand An-Naas as being all males as Wakas wants to believe (because of the masculine gender word forms used) and we are also to believe that this all male group of An-Naas is told to Marry those who are Nisaa', what he is he really promoting because just like An-Naas the word Nisaa' ALSO uses a MASCULINE word form with the verb Taaba. So using Wakas' weird fantasy and logic the Nisaa' CAN BE an all male group as well since they are the subject-doer of a MASCULINE verb in the verbal sentence. Do you see where the lack of logic is in his entire thesis? At worst An-Nisaa' is an all male group and at best it is a mixed group of males and females. EITHER WAY, there is nothing to make clear that an ALL MALE group of people is being ordered to marry an ALL FEMALE group of people.

Something else that needs to be mentioned here. In a verbal sentence the verb changes according to the GENDER of the subject-doer of the verb. Since the verb in the verbal interjected clause/sentence is MASCULINE that means An-Nisaa' IS NOT an all female group. If An-Nisaa' was an all female group then the verb would be FEMININE and thus would say Ma TAABA(T) Lakum Min An-Nisaa'.

I hope that there is cear and that you all understood this. I have deliberately refrained from using the textbook grammar terminologies (inquisitivetrini seems to not care for it too much).

Please go through this point by point explanation as many times as possible and please ingrain this grammatical information in your heads and PLEASE don't allow any fantastic explanation force you to abandon your reasoning and common sense.

Common sense questions to ask when it comes to the Traditional interpretation of 4/3

WHY do I have to marry a woman in order to provide assistance for her and her children? What explanation has ANYONE ever established to say that I cannot help her unless I am married to her? What if I am not attracted to her? What if she's not attracted to me? What if the man who wants to help her is a homosexual? What if she's a lesbian? What if both the man and the woman are willing to act upon such an arrangement but the children aren't feeling him at all? I've seen (and lived through) the kinds of problems that kind of situation can bring. What about the MEN who are single parents and have full custody of their kids? Where is the stipulation in the traditional translation of 4/3 for them and their situation? If the Nisaa' are a bunch of women who lost their husbands due to war, then they are being asked to marry those who stayed behind. What are the reasons that some men stay behind? One of those reasons mentioned in The Quran is cowardice. How many women would be attracted to and feel secure with someone who has already demonstrated that he's a coward? How secure would she feel that he's the protector of her and her children? If he doesn't want to fight for the Quranic Society what makes you think he would willingly fight to protect kids that aren't biologically his? What if the woman's husband was imprisoned (rather he be wrongfully imprisoned or not) and his sentence is 5 years? She is need of assistance and support for that 5 years. Should she marry someone and they get a divorce when her first husband is released from prison? There are a gang of other questions that we can all come up with. What if there's no two way emotional attachment between them, etc.?

I must say the polygamy interpretation of 4/3 is the DUMBEST, RAUNCHIEST, most CHAUVINIST interpretation one could ever have of this verse and any so-called MAN who willingly (and dishonestly) believes in this crap should be ashamed of himself and realize how grimey he really is in essence. These people WANT TO BELIEVE that it is their "manly right" to have more than one wife, but they hide their belief under the guise of "Obligation" or "Religious Duty". WHAT CRAP!!! Just come out and admit that you believe as a man you are entitled to have more than one sex partner. Stop lying to yourself and stop lying to others. You wish to keep the Option open under the lie of a duty or obligation. FOR AS LONG AS I HAVE BEEN A PERSON WHO ATTEMPTS TO BE A MUSLIM AND A MOMEN all the way back to my days as a Sunni, I have helped and supported FINANCIALLY MANY single moms and my wife has done the same. Whenever we are able to (and we still do this today by the way), we help those in need and it is almost always financially and they are always single moms. One person in particular was my wife's friend (she was a user actually. Notice I said WAS her friend) and she had a so called boyfriend who could not bring home the bacon for her an her children. Me and Shirley to the rescue. There was another one who's husband started messing with drugs and became lost to the streets. Again, me and Shirley to the rescue. We have done this on numerous occasions and ALL THE WHILE I was the bread winner of my family. For years Shirley was a stay at home mom and the money that I earned from the sweat of my brow was used to help single moms in need. I was (and am) able to do this without having to marry them. This polygany crap is worse than ridiculous.

I know you guys still have questions about things such as "al-maheeDd" (so called menstruation) and the feminine pronoun of "heen" in 4/4 and the feminine word "wahidat" in 4/3. I will present that for you in one post. But in the meantime, YOU MUST let it sink in that An-Nisaa DOES NOT and indeed CANNOT mean women. Not in 4/3 and not in 24/31 either. To go by the traditional translation of Nisaa' to mean women would render a very odd rendition of "Nisaa'eheen" in 24/31 since that verse is meant for the Mominaat which is certainly an all female group. So WHO are Nisaa'eheen (THEIR women) when going by the traditional translation of Nisaa' and the traditional translation of 24/31?

Anyway, PLEASE absorb this fact that Nisaa is not women and once this is ingrained THEN you will be able to make sense of the other verses of The Quran where Nisaa' is mentioned. Once it is clear that Nisaa does not mean women we are obligated to reintepret and retranslate every verse in which this word is mentioned as well as EVERY WORD mentioned in those same verses that have also been mistranslated in order to justify a chauvinist translation.

Only you all can free yourselves from corrupt interpretations. I can only share the information. It is your choice to accept it or reject it.

Salaam,
Damon.

Shirley

Something I should have added in my last post.

I think it is very insulting and quite disgusting when these religious chauvinists think looking after unfortunate women means you can sleep with them!! They are pretending to be helpful and sympathetic when in all actuality they are nothing but sexual opportunists who are using their own interpretation of the Quran to justify how they see women as nothing but a sexual plaything. That is all there is to it. So to help a mother with fatherless children by "marrying" them is actually his way of saying - "I will help you and support you, BUT it's going to cost you. You have to give me something in return." That is all this is. Paid sex under the guise of "helping" someone. yeah

Released

Peace Damon,

Thank you for putting your analysis up in a way that's easy for me to read. I look forward to you replying to my other questions.

One thing though, many of the people who post on Aastana, do not write in a way that makes sense to me. Perhaps, it's because English may not be their first language? I feel like that if they really want to get their ideas across, they need someone who is proficient in both their native language and English to work out translations or expositions. Do you have if Dr. Zaman has an English translation or exposition of the Quran that I can read? I cannot read Urdu. Additionally, I have difficulty with understanding it at times. Did the translations that Bob provide make sense to you?

Mazhar

For distortions, one needs lengthy discourses.

Rules of Arabic grammar are one of the simplest.

Verbal sentence in Arabic is ordinarily in this sequence

Verb-Subject-Object.

In this case Verb will always be third person singular. Verb will be masculine, if the following subject is signular masculine; will be feminine if the following subject is feminine, or a broken plural.

The Verb will be presumed not to contain a Pronoun, hidden therein.

The following Subject-a Noun who is the performer of the act denoted by Verb MUST be in NOMINATIVE case. Any word in the sentence which is not in Nominative case indicated by last vowel Dhamma is NOT the subject. It will be simply foolish to presume that "Min An-Nisaa' is the subject of preceding Verb "Taba".

In nominal sentences, beginning with a Noun, the verbal sentence will have this sequence

Subject Verb Object;

Verb must correspnd in gender and plurality to the preceding subject. Third person singular verb will either be masculine or feminine with hidden pronoun referring back to the Subject.

The point that is being desperately evaded is that the Prepositional Phrase is never the Subject or Predicate or Subject of a Verb. On this count too, it will plainly be foolish to presume "Min An-Nisaa' as the Subject of a Verb.

dawngorgeous

Peace All,

Imagine how depressing it is for non-Arabic speaking believers realising that we are at the mercy of the translators.

Shirley

I'm going to say this again and HOPEFULLY it will stick this time

Min An-Nisaa IS NOT A Prepositional Phrase!!!!

To continue to believe so is either sheer idiocy or a desperate attempt at having something to argue a case that one does not have

Again, the word "min" in Min An-Nisaa IS NOT a preposition because it does not mean from a place or from a location or from a place of origin or any other direction or position or location. The word "min" in Min An-Nisaa is a particle designating something as being part of a whole or from among a group of people or things...in this case of 4/3 it is from among a group of people. A specific people. And the word "min" in Min An-Nisaa is also the ending of the Ma-Min clause that is in this sentence.

It amazes me that some people can try to pass themselves off as Arabic Grammarians while missing some of the most basic rules of the language and abandoning common sense in the process.

Mazhar

"Min" is ALWAYS a preposition and acts upon its object rendering it in genitive case. No grammar book suggests anything contrary to it.

Generally this particle denotes a beginning point related either to time or place. Also, it signifies the beginning point in matters unrelated to time and place, as used in sentence, "It is from Sulaiman".

This will be found in the grammar books about prepositions and about "Min".

The prepositions originally designate relations of place, i.e. local relations, but are transferred first, to relation of time, i.e. temporal relations, and next to various sorts of ideal relations conceived under the figure of local relations to which they correspond.
The simple prepositions are divisible into three clauses, indicating respectively, motion proceeding from or away from a place; motion to or towards it; and rest in it. The prepositions which indicate motion proceeding from or away from a place are "Min" and "an".

(a) The local point of departure, departure from a place; hence it is connected with verbs which convey the idea of separation, departure, holding oneself or another aloof from any person or thing, liberating, preserving, fleeing, frightening away, forbidding and the like. Hence is used to signify, on the one hand, by or through, and on the other hand, in place of, instead of.
(b) The temporal point of departure, the point at which an act or state has commenced. When used in this signification, Arab Grammarians call it "denotes the commencement of the limits in place and time" or simply "lil ibteda" to denote the commencement.
(c) The casual point of departure, the origin and source of a thing; Grammarians say that in this case is used for assigning the reason.
(d) The distance from a place, person or thing, particularly after words which signify proximity, such as or , to be near, near etc.

(e) The difference between two persons or things which are contrasted or compared with one another. Hence the use of after comparative adjectives; as "he is better than me ". The definition or explanation/clarification of a general or universal by a special or particular term, the later being one of several objects that go to make up the former, "therefore avoid the abomination of idols". Its sign is that it is proper to place in its place.
(h) The specifying a general term.

Prepositional Phrases are the most weak area of almost all the translators who have hitherto translated the text of Qur'aan. They just overlooked or casually passed on without determining to which part of the text Prepositional Phrase relates.
Leeds 'Varsity were trying taking care of Prepositional Phrases while preparing depenency graphs. Hopefully they will keep working on the project.

Advice Readers may even take a look on grammar of English about Prepositional Phrases and can apply the same to Arabic language, not much difference.

Wakas

Damon,

The following are FALSE and/or MISLEADING statements you've made about my view in your recent post

6). Wakas is of the view that the 3rd Person Verb is acted upon by The 2nd Person Addressees - AnNaas. I am of the view that this same 3rd Person Verb is acted upon by The 3rd Person Subject Noun - AnNisaa'.

7). Wakas believes that the reason the 2nd person addressees can be the ones acting upon the 3rd person verb is if this verb is understood as a passive verb.

Here is what I said regarding this in this thread

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.

However, this verb being masculine singular could be significant and may help us. The form of the verb shows it refers to the person doing the action of the verb, and they are masculine singular. In my view this is the male doing the verb, i.e. determining suitableness for nikah.

...in the verse we are discussing, i.e. 43, it is not passive.

Firstly, as can clearly be seen to anyone who can read carefully, I do NOT consider the verb taba passive.

Secondly, I said that the verb taba refers to a masculine singular, e.g. the male, BUT that was BEFORE uq explained the role of "ma" in the verse. Something which Damon nor I mentioned previously. Quote below

The pronoun "" is very occasionally used in the Classical language to refer to sentient beings, thus, being used in this manner, it has the equivalent signification to "". In 43, "" is the pronoun of "" (the women).
It then follows that "" should reflect the gender of "" (which is a neuter), and so we read "" and not "" in description of "" (the women).
So we end up with

"And if you fear(ed) that you will not be just with the orphans, then marry, of women, what please you two each, and three each, and four each..."

I then asked uq a clarifying question, as to whom was doing the doing verb "taba" and he said "the women".

So, he seems to agree with you that the ones doing the doing verb are "an-nisa" HOWEVER he explains why the use of masculine verb "taba" without having "an-nisa" to contain males, which seems to be the case you are wishing to make. Of course, I am aware that he did not provide a reference for "ma" very occasionally referring to sentient beings in Classical Arabic and/or Quran, so this needs to be looked into.

Earlier, Mazhar did not agree with you that "an-nisa" are the ones doing the doing verb.

Since you haven't provided your translation of this part of 43 it is hard to determine the validity of your proposal, not only grammatically, but I also mean logically/practically. Thus, at this stage I am inclined to agree with uq.

uq also elaborated in a follow up post.

E). If we are to understand An-Naas as being all males as Wakas wants to believe

Another FALSE statement. Here is what I said

I personally take it as "people", however in classical arabic dictionaries it can and does mean "men" also. See Lane's lexicon
http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume8/00000120.pdf
http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume8/00000121.pdf

Damon, rather than making FALSE statements about my view then arguing against your made-up FALSE statements, aka "strawman logical fallacy", how about we stick to what we actually said.

I recommend you review http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604721.msg315102#msg315102

Shirley

Wakas,

I've washed my hands of you bro. You came back with this post and (as you've done throughout the entire thread) you've addressed NOTHING that I had to say in my last reply to you concerning the Arabic Grammar or exposition of 4/3. This last post of yours is nothing but "Damage Control", but it's too late for that. You had the opportunity to save face by just being honest and address the things that I had to say in the first place. An excellent example of the damage control I am talking about

If we are to understand An-Naas as being all males as Wakas wants to believe

Another FALSE statement. Here is what I said

"I personally take it as "people", however in classical arabic dictionaries it can and does mean "men" also. See Lane's lexicon
http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume8/00000120.pdf
http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume8/00000121.pdf"

What a bunch of crap!!! YOU claimed that 4/1 was addressing only MEN!! You mentioned that Lane's said that An-Naas CAN MEAN only men and THAT was the basis of your argument that 4/1 is addressing all men. Don't try to clean it up now through your damage control campaign!! You said what you said in front of everyone watching this thread. You made a claim. That claim was 4/1 is addressing males only. I asked you what does Naas mean. You were compelled to say that you take it as People because you know THAT is the definition of Naas and to say otherwise would have made you look even more foolish. BUT you couldn't leave it at that because if you did your argument about 4/1 addressing only males would crumble. So what do you do? You threw in the comment that Lane's says Naas Sometimes mean MEN. You threw that in there as supporting material for your 4/1 is addressing only males claim and you know it Wakas. You should just leave it alone bro. The more you continue on with this desperate swim to shore of yours, the deeper in the water you go.

It's over bro. I was never discussing this with you to prove you wrong, to win an argument or look a certain way to other people. I ONLY wanted the truth of Nisaa to be looked at and for 4/3 to be re-examined with this newfound light that WE ALL HAVE!! You should have been overjoyed that a discovery was made concerning this word and the verse in question. This is for all of us. Me, you, Released, Mazhar, Savage Carrot, My wife, Your wife, etc. It's for all of us. But due to your selfishness and "stingy thinking" you immediately approached our conversation with guns blazing. When I made my opening post of this thread no one had anything to say but you. You immediately jumped all over it like flies on poop. You've tap danced the entire discussion. WHY? All for the sake of not having to say "My present understanding is wrong." Not to mention you are no different than any other traditional muslim who managed to convince himself that having more than one woman (cough, cough-Sex Partner-cough, cough) is his right as a man. And just like a lot of other traditional muslims you are TRYING to convince yourself and others that you view this Option as a "Sacred Duty". Baloney Wakas. Oh, and make no mistake about, you ARE a traditional muslim, just one with a sectarian stance just like the other traditional, sectarian muslims. Because you do not take a label in front of the word muslim for yourself means nothing because there are plenty of other traditional muslims who claim to be non sectarian and say that they are "Just Muslim".

Anyway, I'm done with you bro. This thing between you and me will drag on forever all because you will not take off your tap dancing shoes, sit down and actually DISCUSS THE ISSUES of Nisaa and 4/3 that need to be addressed so we can get to the bottom of things. It is actually your loss, not mine. You can continue to force yourself to hold on to an incorrect idea but understand that yours and the other traditional muslims views about Nisaa and 4/3 are coming apart. Your traditional views on these two issues are very, very barely hanging on by a really weak thread. And that thread is about to snap very soon. It's over. A new light has been shined on this issue and you, Mazhar, UQ and all the rest of the traditional muslim world can do nothing to stop it or slow down its progress. RATIONAL PEOPLE (those who have NOT abandoned their logic and common sense) have questioned, are questioning and will continue to question your traditional interpretations and the people of Aastana are shedding light on those questions. Take it and choke on it for all I care.

Wakas

Readers,

Note how Damon claims I said X yet provides no quotes of what I said.

Since Damon has opted out of discussion I will provide a summary of the points shortly.

Shirley