Discussion on 4:3 and meaning of nisa

Noon_waalqalami

Potential problems based on Damon's understanding of 43. Note this is only problems resulting from this verse, there are other verses as pointed out by member Noon.

Peace Wakas, actually all the verses especially when read in context...

2222 and they ask you about the menstruation say it ailment so abandon al-nisaa the feminine/women in the menstruation and not approach them (f) until they are clean so when they are purified (f) so come to them (f) from wherever directive The God indeed The God loves the ones who turn in repentance and loves the ones who purify themselves 2223 nisukum feminine/women yours (m) a tillage for you so bring your tilt how you like?

2226 to those who forswear from feminine/women theirs (m) waiting four cycles so if they return so indeed The God Forgiving Merciful 2227 and if determine the divorce so indeed The God Hearing Knowing 2228 and the divorced (f) should wait by themselves three menstrual periods and not lawful for them that conceal what created The God in their wombs if they believing in The God and the day the last and husbands theirs (f) more right to take them back in that if desired reconciliation and to them like the one onto them (f) in the fair manner and to the men onto them (f) a degree and The God Mighty Wise 2229 the divorce twice so to retain in fair manner or let go with kindness and not lawful for you that you take from what you have given them whatsoever only/except that fear both that not they keep limits The God so if you fear that not they keep limits The God so not blame on them in what she ransoms in it that limits The God so not transgress them and from transgresses limits The God so those they the wrongdoers 2230 so if he divorces her so not lawful to him from after until she marries zawjan spouse other than him so if he divorces her so not blame on them that they return back if they think that they keep limits The God and those are limits The God He makes clear for a clan/people who know 2231 and when you divorce the feminine/women so they reached their term so retain them (f) in fair manner or release them (f) in fair manner and not retain them (f) harmful to transgress and from will be done that so surely wrongs himself and not you take verses The God mocking and remember favor The God upon you and what descended upon you from the book and the wisdom He admonishes you with it and fear The God and know that The God in every a thing Knowing 2232 and when you divorce the feminine/women so they reached their term so not hinder them (f) that they marry azwjahunna husbands theirs (f) when they agree among them in the fair manner that admonished with it from he is from among you believing in The God and the day the last that virtuous for you and purer and The God He knows and you not you know

2235 and not blame upon you in what you bring with it from proposal the feminine/women or conceal it in yourselves knowledge The God that you will mention them and nonetheless not promise them secretly only/except that you say a word honorable and not resolve knot the marriage until reaches the book its end and know that The God he knows what in yourselves so be aware of Him and know that The God Forgiving Forbearing 2236 not blame upon you if you divorce the feminine/women what not you touched them or you specified for them obligation and make provision for them on the wealthy estimate his and on the scant estimate his provision in the fair manner duty on the good doers 2237 and if you divorce them from before that you touched them and truly you have specified for them obligation so half of it what you have specified only/except that they forgo or forgoes the one in his hand knot the marriage and that you forgo closer to piety and not forget the virtue between you indeed The God in what you do Seer

41 O you al-nas/the humankind fear your Lord The One created you from soul one/single (f) and created from it its spouse and dispersed from them both two rijalan/men much wanisan/and feminine/women and fear The God The One you ask with it and the wombs indeed The God He is over you Watchful 42 and give the orphans their wealth and not exchange the bad with the good and not eat/consume their wealth to your wealth indeed it it is sin great 43 and if you fear that not do justice in/concerning the orphans so marry what aba/agreeable to you from the feminine/women paired/twos and three and four so if you fear that not do justice so one/single (f) or what possess your right hands/trust (m) that minimum that not you oppress 44 and give the feminine/women their handouts graciously so if ib'na remit for you about a thing from it of soul/their own so eat/consume it satisfaction ease 45 and not give the foolish your wealth the one made The God for you standing/support and provide them in it and clothe them and speak to them a word nice/appropriate 46 and test the orphans until when attained the marriage so if you perceive from them rational so deliver to them their wealth and not eat/consume it wastefully and hastily lest/that they grow up and from he is rich so should refrain and from he is in need for so let eat/consume in the fair manner so when you deliver to them their wealth so take witnesses on/over them and sufficient in The God Reckoner 47 lilrrijal/to the men a share from what left the parents and the close relatives and for the feminine/women a share from what left the parents and the close relatives from what small from it or large portion obligatory

411 directs you The God in your children to the male like share the two (f) so if kunna/they are (f) feminine/women above two (f) falahunna/so for them (f) third dual (2/3) what left and if kanat/she is (f) widatan one/single (f) so for her the half

422 and not you marry whom marry your fathers from the feminine/women only/except what hence passed indeed it it is immorality and abomination and an evil a way 423 prohibited over you mothers yours (m) and daughters yours (m) and your sisters and your father?s sisters and your mother?s sisters and daughters the brother and daughters the sister and mothers the ones who nursed you and your sisters from the nursing and mothers nisakum/feminine/women yours (m) and your step daughters the ones who in your guardianship from nisakum/feminine/women yours (m) the ones who entered in them so if not you were entered in them so not blame upon you w-layl and cohabitants sons yours the ones who from your loins and that you gathered between the two sisters only/except what hence passed indeed The God He is Forgiving Merciful 424 and the guarded from the feminine/women only/except what possess your right hands/trust (m) scripture The God over you and permitted for you what behind those that you seek with your wealth chaste (m) not unchaste (m; Siin-Fa-Ha = musafihun - one who commits fornication or adultery) so what enjoyment to you in it from them so give them their rewards obligation and not blame over you in what you agree with them with it from after the obligation indeed The God He is Knowing Wise

4127 and they seek your ruling in the feminine/women say The God gives you a ruling in them and what is recited upon you in the book in/concerning orphans the feminine/women the ones who not you give them what prescribed for them and you desire that you marry them (f) and the oppressed from the children and that you stand up for the orphans in justice and what you do from better so indeed The God He is in it Knowing 4128 and if a woman fears from her husband ill-conduct or reluctance so not blame on them that they reconcile between them two reconciliation and reconciliation better and brought the selves the selfishness and if improved and piety so indeed The God He is in what you do Aware 4129 and never you will be able that do justice between the feminine/women and if/had ardent desire so not inclined each the tendency so leave her like the suspended one and if you reconcile and piety so indeed The God He is Forgiving Merciful 4130 and if they separate will enrich The God each from His abundance and He is The God Encompassing Wise

3328 O you the prophet say to your spouse?s if you desire the life the world and its adornment so come I will provide for you and release you release beautiful 3329 and if you desire The God and His messenger and the home the afterlife so indeed The God has prepared for the good-doers from you reward enormous 3330 O feminine/women the prophet from commits from you in immorality clear doubled to her the punishment two fold and it is that on The God easy 3331 and from obedient from you to God and His messenger and works righteous will give her her reward twice and prepare for her provision noble 3332 O feminine/women the prophet you are not as one from the feminine/women if you fear so not be soft in speech so be moved with desire the one in his heart disease and speak a word appropriate

582 the ones who yuhirna who say ?be as my mother's back? from among you from nisihim feminine/women theirs (m) not they their mothers indeed their mothers only the ones (f) gave them birth?583 and the ones who yuhirna who say ?be as my mother's back? from feminine/women theirs (m) furthermore go back to what they said so freeing a neck (i.e. slave) from before that they touch each other that you are admonished in it and The God in what you do Aware 584 so from not find so a fast shryn/two cycles successive from before that they touch each other?

answerseeker

I have been following this thread a bit and finally want to comment.

Bro Damon, you said

Hey Idiot, did you even bother to READ my post? Try READING WHAT I SAID!!!

I already established that Min is a word which consists of parts from a whole. I already beat you to that when I made This Post. I also pointed out that it is NOT used as a preposition of place or location because An-Nisaa is NOT a place or location!! I asked you to establish that "min" is a PREPOSITION OF PLACE in 4/3. The ONLY way you can do that is if you can somehow establish that An-Nisaa is a PLACE or LOCATION!!!!!! Did you get it that time???? Do you not know how to read??? And neither YOU nor WAKAS made an attempt to either disprove the Ma..Min Clause or that MA taaba lakum MIN An-Nisaa is written in the Ma...Min Clause.

If you can't do either one of those three things, I'm wasting my time with you. A COMPLETE waste of time.

I'm letting you know ahead of time, if you don't bring some sort of evidence that An-Nisaa' is a PLACE or LOCATION or GEOGRAPHICAL DIRECTION and somehow disprove the Ma...Min Clause I pointed out in your next post, I will not bother to reply. That's it. You are now in the same basket that I had placed Wakas in. I have better things to do than to keep tossing a stick and telling you to go fetch it.

First, you seem to have a good bit to offer to the forum, but honestly a lot of what you have to say is getting lost to me because you seem to be angry or some other emotion that I don't understand about how you are approaching it. I understand from reading your comments that you have history with Wakas, but if you want your studies and conclusions to benefit others, you should also think of how you deliver your message to all of us since we are reading everything that you say here. Maybe a little less personal attacks and just more focus on the subject matter of the ayat and it's understanding would help in doing that, just my 2 cents.

In regards to the subject matter, are you saying that "min" can ONLY be a "preposition of place or location"? and that no other form of preposition exists as Mazhar stated in letter "f" of his explanation?

And bro Mazhar, can you please address directly the issue of the Ma...Min clause that bro Damon is making reference to and why you think it does or does not apply in this ayat of discussion?

On another note regarding this topic in general, I have a few simple questions that hopefully anyone would be kind enough to answer in an unbiased way

Does the quran clearly state or indicate the Muhammad had more than one wife at the same time during his life?
If yes, does the quran state or give any indication as to why Muhammad was allowed to have more than one wife at the same time during his life and what the rules for that were?
Does the quran forbid or indicated in any way that men or women can not have more than one spouse at the same time, directly or indirectly?

Whether or not 43 gives permission to men or women to marry more than one is one issue, but I have heard "muslims" clearly agree that Muhammad had more than one wife at the same time and yet still fight over this issue of whether other men/women can do so.

I am curious if the translations are wrong and if the quran never proves that Muhammad had more than one wife at the same time at all?

Mazhar

I have been following this thread a bit and finally want to comment.

Bro Damon, you said

First, you seem to have a good bit to offer to the forum, but honestly a lot of what you have to say is getting lost to me because you seem to be angry or some other emotion that I don't understand about how you are approaching it. I understand from reading your comments that you have history with Wakas, but if you want your studies and conclusions to benefit others, you should also think of how you deliver your message to all of us since we are reading everything that you say here. Maybe a little less personal attacks and just more focus on the subject matter of the ayat and it's understanding would help in doing that, just my 2 cents.

In regards to the subject matter, are you saying that "min" can ONLY be a "preposition of place or location"? and that no other form of preposition exists as Mazhar stated in letter "f" of his explanation?

And bro Mazhar, can you please address directly the issue of the Ma...Min clause that bro Damon is making reference to and why you think it does or does not apply in this ayat of discussion?

On another note regarding this topic in general, I have a few simple questions that hopefully anyone would be kind enough to answer in an unbiased way

Does the quran clearly state or indicate the Muhammad had more than one wife at the same time during his life?
If yes, does the quran state or give any indication as to why Muhammad was allowed to have more than one wife at the same time during his life and what the rules for that were?
Does the quran forbid or indicated in any way that men or women can not have more than one spouse at the same time, directly or indirectly?

Whether or not 43 gives permission to men or women to marry more than one is one issue, but I have heard "muslims" clearly agree that Muhammad had more than one wife at the same time and yet still fight over this issue of whether other men/women can do so.

I am curious if the translations are wrong and if the quran never proves that Muhammad had more than one wife at the same time at all?

I checked andfound this in his post

I am stating it again for all to see. The word Taaba in 4/3 is referring to An-Nisaa'. How? Because the construction follows the Ma...Min Clause. Evidence? Page 132 of Introduction To Koranic and Classical Arabic which clearly explains the Ma - Min Clause and shows example Arabic sentences. Please read it.

Evidence # 1 established.

But I could not find at page132 of his link anything except that it is about passive voice verbs. I do not know if reference is incorrectly quoted.

dawngorgeous

So, in order to understand the Koran, I need to understand the Passive Voice and indeed, what the Passive Voice actually means. Surely God didn't have this in mind?

Dawn.

Maha

answerseeker

Whether or not 43 gives permission to men or women to marry more than one is one issue, but I have heard "muslims" clearly agree that Muhammad had more than one wife at the same time and yet still fight over this issue of whether other men/women can do so
.

first of all, there is no quranic evidence that it was a man named Muhammad who came with the quran.

Secondly, I think the prophet had multiple spouses before he got the quran, and when he got the quran he was ordered not to take any further spouse, as there is a verse in the quran ordering him to stop his polygyny activities.

Peace

dawngorgeous

Peace Maher,

Which verse orders Mohammad to stop his polygynous activities?

Thanks,

Dawn

answerseeker

I checked andfound this in his post

But I could not find at page132 of his link anything except that it is about passive voice verbs. I do not know if reference is incorrectly quoted.

Peace Mazhar,

Thank you sincerely for your response.

Bro. Damon, can you please point us again to the reference and grammar information that you are speaking of about the ma....min clause?

answerseeker

answerseeker
.

first of all, there is no quranic evidence that it was a man named Muhammad who came with the quran.

Secondly, I think the prophet had multiple spouses before he got the quran, and when he got the quran he was ordered not to take any further spouse, as there is a verse in the quran ordering him to stop his polygyny activities.

Peace

Peace Maha,

My apologies, I just assumed that the quran mentioned that the prophet was named Muhammad. If that was wrong, I stand corrected.

Do you have any evidence from the quran that states that the prophet married his wives before he got the quran? Or how many wives he had?

Also, could you point out which verse asks him to stop his polygyny activities? And if so, was he ordered to divorce all his wives except one?

Released

Peace Damon,

You seem to have studied this verse in depth, and have provided us with a lot of new insight. Could you please continue with this thread and answer Noon, Mazhar, and Wakas's questions even if you've already addressed them prior? Also, if you've addressed them prior to this, then can you please tell us where in the thread we can find these answers?

We'd like for you to continue, please.

Released

Peace Damon,

Could you atleast provide us with your translation or exposition of 4.3? I don't think it's fair to leave us in the dust after providing such an insightful argument. I know that you also promised to answer some of our prior questions. I was hoping you could answer them here, so that everyone could read and try to understand.

Released

Peace Wakas,

You use a lot of Arabic text in your posts. I can't read it. Could you at least write it out in English so that I can follow? I have trouble understanding your counterclaims due to this reason.

Wakas

peace Released,

Re summary post http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604721.msg315351#msg315351
You said Arabic, but I assume you mean write it in English?

It's only claim 3 that may require some Arabic. Some of the content discusses Arabic words in 43 which you can use corpus.quran.com to view http//corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=4&verse=3#(431)

I personally, use my browser to magnify the Arabic in forum posts, as its quite small. If you do this, and know Arabic letters, it's fairly straight-forward to follow.

The following may require a little explanation however

being its use in the phrase , which is equivalent to stating .

ma malak aymanukum (which is also used in 43, and many other places in Quran)

Explanation added

In 43, is the pronoun pertinent to , and is the coupled verb to that same pronoun. As such, must agree with its pronoun in gender, therefore we read in the Quran " ". However, if the pronoun (i.e. pronoun man, as in HERE) was used in 43, instead of , we would have read in the Quran " " or even " ". (i.e. "taba" has changed to the corresponding feminine)

The rest of the claims and counterclaims, and unanswered questions are fairly easy to follow.

Released

Peace Wakas,

Yes, I said Arabic initially. I did mean English. Okay, will take a look at what you've provided.

answerseeker

Peace Bro. Wakas and Bro Uq and Bro Mazhar and Bro Damon(if you are still participating),

Bro Wakas seems to agree with Uq about the verb "Taba" and who it is referring to based on this

The following may require a little explanation however

ma malak aymanukum (which is also used in 43, and many other places in Quran)

Explanation added

Quote from uq
In 43, is the pronoun pertinent to , and is the coupled verb to that same pronoun. As such, must agree with its pronoun in gender, therefore we read in the Quran " ". However, if the pronoun (i.e. pronoun man, as in HERE) was used in 43, instead of , we would have read in the Quran " " or even " ". (i.e. "taba" has changed to the corresponding feminine)

The rest of the claims and counterclaims, and unanswered questions are fairly easy to follow.

Bro Mazhar has given this explanation and added references

It is common that self acquired stupidity has no ending point, one keeps it stretching. And it not only makes people deaf but also blind that they neither hear anything other than their own orchestra, but also fail to see when portrayed before them. It was portrayed

Quote
(f) The relation which subsists between the part and whole, the species and the genus; [Rem When precedes a definite noun, especially in the plural, it often indicates an indefinite quantity or number. Accordingly "Min" with an indefinite genitive may be subject of a sentence. In such cases of nominal origin of Min we see it clearly a substantive, meaning a part or portion. [Rem After negative particles, and interrogatives put in a negative sense Min prefixed to an indefinite noun means "none at all" and not "not one". [Rem When indicates a part of a whole it is said to be used "lil tabeez" to indicate division into parts; when it indicates the parts of which a whole is composed "lil-tarkeebe" to indicate composition.

Also it was stated that

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

And Bro. Daman has left us with his explanation of the Ma.....Min Clause, but whose reference Bro. Mazhar was not able to verify from the link given.

Can Bro. Damon, Wakas, Uq and Mazhar each or whoever is willing, please debate or give points for or against the other person's point of view regarding this element as it seems to not be settled yet for those of us who are not arabic grammarian scholars; although it is a very important element in the discussion.

mmkhan

Salaam,

I see there is some difference between "min" and "mina" &

For example
1958 ...

May Allah increase us in knowledge and guide us towards theTruth pr
mmKhan

Mazhar

Can Bro. Damon, Wakas, Uq and Mazhar each or whoever is willing, please debate or give points for or against the other person's point of view regarding this element as it seems to not be settled yet for those of us who are not arabic grammarian scholars; although it is a very important element in the discussion.

I thought that Damon, like me and many other members of the forum was interested in mutually learning and improving knowledge and understanding about Qur'aan, was interested in sharing his knowledge and learning for improvement. That is why I just kept posting random about Arabic grammar. But, eventually finding it otherwise, and a cause of making things confused for some members, I tried to make an attempt to bring him to discussion in simple manner so that it is conveniently understandable to all those also who are presently not interested in learning Arabic grammar at their own.

He firstly brought this Evidence to Wakas

Post 63 I am stating it again for all to see. The word Taaba in 4/3 is referring to An-Nisaa'. How? Because the construction follows the Ma...Min Clause. Evidence? Page 132 of Introduction To Koranic and Classical Arabic which clearly explains the Ma - Min Clause and shows example Arabic sentences. Please read it.

He then brought another reference supporting Thackston

Reply 75 Is there a grammar book that NEGATES what Thackston says about the Ma...Min Clause in his grammar book? Is there a grammar book that says no such clause exist? Can you PROVE Thackston is wrong? If so, feel free to do so using The Quran or any other Arabic text be it written or spoken. If it means anything to you, Haywood says the same thing in his Grammar book. All you have to do is go to pages 420 and 421 of His Grammar Book and see for yourself. I fail to see in either one of these books the explanation of how the 2nd person performs the 3rd person verb or vice versa rather it be in the Ma-Min Clause or some other part of Arabic syntax. If I am proven wrong I will gladly and humbly acquiesce.

Links to both references are there in respective posts. You can open and see.

The term "Ma...Min Clause" coined by him was so erroneous that I did not care for it. I never thought that it might become a problem for you needing clarification.

He happens to have read this in Haywood at end page 420 and then 421

http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/Spare%20images%20for%20uploading/Min.ht1.gif
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/Spare%20images%20for%20uploading/Min.ht2.gif

I had mentioned this aspect of the use of Preposition "Min" in my detailed note

(g) 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.

If you still wish I will quote you such sentences from Qur'aan.

Mazhar

Salaam,

I see there is some difference between "min" and "mina" &

For example
1958 ...

May Allah increase us in knowledge and guide us towards theTruth pr
mmKhan

Salaman alaikum,

It is explained where it occurs for the first time in 208

If across the boundary of two successive words two non vowel consonants appear/gather together it is termed as

Shirley

Salaam Answerseeker, Maha, Released, Dawngorgeous, StopS, Inquisitivetrini, good logic.

I want to ask you guys somethings. Who stepped in to mediate this discussion between Wakas and myself? Who asked Wakas to stop practicing double standards? Who asked him to bring forth as much as evidence as he demands from others? Who asked him why he is dodging certain questions while demanding that others answer his? Who here did not notice that Wakas presented Zero Evidence for his claims? If anyone here thinks a link to the belief in iltifat is evidence then I must ask you to present JUST ONE VERSE where The Quran is making a shift from one addressee to another addressee WITHOUT making an announcement of this new addressee.

There are a few things I wanted to accomplish in this discussion with Wakas and if you guys are honest and willing to take another look at our exchange you will see them. He Does not answer questions that are asked of him even though the other person answered his. Comes back with each new post asking his questions while he still ignored the questions the other person asked him. Presented Zero Evidence to support his claims. When the other person presented evidence for his claims he did not refute the evidence, he merely stated that the evidence is not good enough for him BUT he never explained why. Please re-read this thread from beginning to end. Is it possible that no one else sees this? has it ever occurred to any of you here that this is his modus operandi? has ever occurred to any of you here that Wakas Deliberately functions this way in order to force the other person to abandon the debate and in this way Wakas makes it appear that he has won the debate or forced the other person to surrender and admit defeat? These are the things Wakas has done on this forum for years and people really need to see these things about him.

An excellent example of his practice of double standards is This Post by Wakas. PLEASE read it very carefully. Do you see what I see? He claims that my points have been refutted. But here are the problems with his claim. First, none of these so called refutations are by him, they are by another person or people. Again, this points to what I was saying; he refutes NOTHING and wishes to somehow claim a victory for himself. My BIGGEST problem with his post is the fact that he has taken the word of someone else in that post (UQ) and notice that UQ produced Zero Evidence to support what he has said in his posts which Wakas accepted at face value. What is wrong with this picture? Isn't Wakas the one he DEMANDS EVIDENCE for every claim made? If I were to do what UQ has done which is make claims without giving evidence for the claims, Wakas would have dismissed the information because it did not come with any evidence. Do you guys not see the double standards and hypocrisy being practiced by Wakas or am I the only person seeing this? Please look at that post before Wakas The Moderator deletes or changes it. WHY do you think he is practicing these double standards? It's very simple why, because he wants to win an argument. Wakas will not accept my views with evidence but he can accept what UQ said without evidence. What's wrong with this picture people?

But, I will address what UQ said anyway even though I feel I should not have to. I feel I should not have to (and really don't want to) because no matter how much evidence, proof and logical argumentation I present it doesn't do any good whatsoever. It is the nature of the human being that if he really, really wants to believe or disbelieve something there is absolutely nothing that can be done to change that. No amount of evidence, proof, logical argumentation or anything else will be accepted by that person. It is the nature of the human being when he wants to believe something to see what is not there and to ignore what is glaring him in the face.

First point, the particle "" (ma) does not mean who. (man) means who and "" (ma) is NOT used in The Quran as a substitute for (man). Since Wakas is so big on evidence he should have asked UQ to present a line in the Quran where "" (ma) is used to obviously mean who; where it can only mean who and nothing else. (man) means who and
"" (ma) means what, whatever, that which and whatsoever and sometimes as the word not when used as a substitute for (Laa) . "" (ma) is "" (ma) and (man) is (man) and they each have their own distinct meanings. It should be known by those who are students of Arabic that the word "" (ma) can mean who or whoever when it is attached to the conjunctive prefix Ayya (Alif Yaa).

(Taaba) in Quran 4/3 OR in Arabic in general does not serve as a stative function. This is a very convenient claim in order to support something in 4/3 that is not there. Taaba is in its triliteral base root form which gives it the meaning and function of a verb acted out by the 3rd person. What else can I do to get people here to understand this? The verb Taaba already has a word that serves as a stative function (to express a state instead of an act) and that word IS NOT what is in 4/3. This is all to clear. The word in 4/3 is (Taaba) and this word means "He Agreed" or "He Pleased" another person and that's the basic bottom line.

This whole thing about iltifat. Please, please, PLEASE read what I said from the very beginning of this thread. I made it clear that I categorically deny and reject that The Quran changes addressees without making it clear that it did so and without announcing who the new addressees are. You will NEVER find such a thing throughout the entire Quran. Giving a link to a typical traditionalist professing this same thing is NOT proof at all. I am categorically stating that it does not exist in the Quran and if so, please point out any verse in The Quran which will prove me wrong. 10/87 is not proof either because the 2nd person addressee being dictated to goes all the way back to 10/69. The addressee and the narrator remain the same and unchanged. It is pointless to ask me who is being spoken about or spoken of because this was NOT the original point of dispute between Wakas and me.

Al Yatama and the idea of turning over "Their Wealth" ( ). It is obvious that the assumption made by Wakas is that Yatama are orphaned children and yet they somehow have money of their own that will need to be relinquished to them when they come of age. I have yet to read where he establishes how every orphaned child has a fund or monies put away for him or her which they can claim once they reach adulthood. The word (amwaal) is the plural of (maal) and it appears to me that Wakas translates this word as money or wealth or riches even though a lot of the traditional translators render this word as possessions and property. Anyway, one of the definitions of the root word "Maal" (which is Meem-Waaw-Laam by the way) is to "FINANCE" another person and to "Render Another Person Wealthy". Al Yatamaa are those who have been abandon and left alone in the society and need to figure out a way to make their way in the world even though the resources and earning opportunities are apparently being denied to them. However, the RESOURCES that are available on this planet are just as much theirs as they are anyone elses. That which created this planet and everything on it distributed earth's natural resources throughout this planet. They are not designated in one central area and meant to be used only by a specific person or specific group of people. The Yatama has just as much right to these things as everyone else and they have just as much right to have "earning opportunities" afforded to them as anyone else. To look around this planet and deny that each country has a group or group(s) of people whom those with the political and economic power have socially castrated would be a very bad act of dishonesty. The Quran is here to address this and many other social issues that the human being is suffering from. So to keep in mind the definitions of "financing" and "rendering someone wealthy" we can look at the concepts that these definitions are presenting.

In my mind the concept is that of a person giving monetary assistance to someone who is in need of that monetary assistance. To render them wealthy can be as simple as dropping a windfall of money on them OR to finance them in a manner that takes them from poor to wealthy. To render monetary assistance from beginning to middle to the end of the journey towards financial strength and independence. Not only is it a financial assistance but is one that is righfully due to the Yatama because they have as much "Human Right" to the resources of this planet that the wealthy people of this planet are known for monopolizing for themselves and locking everone else away from reaching and taking advantage of these same resources. The so called royal families of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States are multi millionaires and billionaires without having to work to reach that status. It is NOT their oil. They have no rightful ownership or monopoly claims to it. It belongs to every citizen in those countries and the wealth generated from the sale of oil should be equally distributed among ALL of the citizens of those countries and not just the royal families and their circles. I tie this concept of rendering a person (or people) wealthy with the instruction given in 4/3 for the An-Naas (the people) to establish agreed upon contracts with the Nisaa'. I will like to explore this concept and how it may or may not apply to 4/3 with you guys (StopS, Inquisitivetrini, good logic, answerseeker, inquisitivetrini, released, maha, dawngorgeous) in this thread or a separate thread if you'd like. I want use this post to continue to make my points and issues known.
Wakas already made the statement that the grammar books are not free from error. I don't know what he meant when he made the statement since he never expounded upon it but I know what I mean when I make the statement. I will put it to you all like this; if you are now learning the Arabic Language, my advice to you is to focus on THE LANGUAGE ITSELF! Focus on learning the verbal root system, its system of patterns, morphology, sentence structure and syntax. It is my suggestion that you leave alone the tanwine subject for now since it has no bearing on the words and their meanings. In the beginning of your studies you should just focus on learning the language and discard that which does not affect words or their meanings. I can assure you that you'll be glad that you did this.

Lastly, I wish to say something about the words UQ presented as being representative of the anomaly of the plural forms that he and Wakas believe in and are defending. This may come off as an attack (it isn't my intention to attack here) but I think it looks dishonest to present the words that were presented without also presenting the plurals of these words which DO come from the same root as the singulars given. UQ did not do that. Nor did UQ state where he got this list from. It is on page 233, vol. 1 of William Wright's Arabic Grammar Book. Everyone please have a look yourselves. An honest person would have cited ALL of the words given in William Wright's book instead of choosing the singular words and the plural ALTERNATIVES. An honest person would have also cited the plural words that are given Wright's book which do come from the same root as their singular counterparts. An honest person would have at least given the name of the reference used and the page number of the reference. Every Singular Word W. Wright included in his grammar book have their own plural forms which come from the same root letters as their singular forms. Every Word including the words for mouth and the word for mole.
I refrained from addressing these issues because I wanted to keep my focus on Wakas. Wakas presented these issues as if they were his own AFTER I stated that I am done having my one sided discussion with him. It looks quite suspicious to me that in the waning parts of our conversation he disappeared and let two other people fight his battles for him. As soon as I announce that I am through with him and the games he is playing he immediately comes back with his retorts which aren't even his own. So if I respond I look like a person who doesn't mean what he says, but if I don't respond I guess I'm supposed to look like a defeated opponent. A person who has truth on his side and/or who wants to ascertain the truth should not employ tactics and tap dance when having a discussion with someone. I am asking that everyone take note of everything he has done in this conversation of ours and not be impressed or intimidated by the fact that he's a moderator. Being a moderator should not be a badge allowing a person to employ dishonest tactics all for the sake of not being proven wrong in front of his peers. My next posts here I will examine everything you guys asked me to address (StopS, released, Inquisitivetrini, dawngorgeous, goog logic, answerseeker, etc.) or if you'd like we can start a separate thread. Your choice but I am making very clear now that I am only going to correspond with you guys because you are asking sincere questions which mean you want to re-examine the present understanding of Nisaa and the verses that mention this word. I am not going to bother with Wakas, Mazhar, Noon or UQ. I am only focusing on you guys and your inquiries. I only have one question/request. Is it possible if we can first acsertain whether or not Nisaa' means women? If we can ascertain if it does not mean women we will be able to look at possible alternatives and see if they fit.
I have one last thing to say to answerseeker. You mentioned my personal attacks and quoted a post I made to Mazhar. I am asking that you please have a look at Mazhar's post directly above the one you quoted from me. It is This Post that he made obviously towards me since he is quoting me. Notice this labeling of "self acquired stupidity". How do you think I'm supposed to take that? Why am I the only one being talked to about attacks and he's not? With his post he came on strong and with my reply I came on stronger. If he would have never said what he said, I would have never said what I said. I've seen his discussions with Bob and he called Bob stupid. This is obviously his natural way of dealing with people. And because it is I am exercising my right to not deal with him at all.

mmkhan

Salaman alaikum,

It is explained where it occurs for the first time in 208

If across the boundary of two successive words two non vowel consonants appear/gather together it is termed as

Salaaman Mazher,

Thank you for the link, but I was not talking about those grammar rules. I was talking about the usage of and in alQuraan/alKitaab. How and in what format it is used, what is the pattern is set for them to understand easily.

Hope you understand what I am saying.

May Allah increase us in knowledge and guide us towards theTruth pr
mmKhan

Mazhar

"self acquired stupidity" is a qualified statemet signifying thoughtless behavior. "Self acquired" was thoughtfully used to minus the signification of lack of intelligence, perception, or common sense; and to give it a generalized status. Pl don't take it so seriously, and kindly attend to the relevant part of the discussion for clarifications.