Discussion on 4:3 and meaning of nisa
-
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
.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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.gifI 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.
-
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
mmKhanSalaman 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
-
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. -
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 -
"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.
-
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
mmKhanSalamun alaika,
sorry, did not get it. Prepositions are what they are. They are what is termed Mabni. Only a vowel sign is added as cluster buster to facilitate the speaker.
-
Oh sorry, I now noticed Shadda on first Meem. It is because of assimilation of preceeding Meem---phonetics speech sound change the changing of a speech sound under the influence of an adjacent sound. Rules about it must be available on line, need to check.
-
I have heard from some quranist that NISA cannot mean women from a quranic perspective. I am an Arab, and do recognize that without the sunnah everything in the Quran become questionable as a quranist is someone who uses his own logic in order to understand Quran. And I feel Shirley does that, she is someone who knows how to think out of the box and uses her reason and logic to approach some controversial aspects of Quran el Karim. I have a lot of respect for you Shirley, and I look forward to read more from you.
Wael
-
first of all, there is no quranic evidence that it was a man named Muhammad who came with the quran.
Peace Maha, use cross-reference and the evidence is logically deduced ...
297 say from/who he is an enemy to Gabriel so indeed he descended it on your heart by permission The God confirming to what between His hands and guidance and glad tidings to the believers
31
32 The God not deity only He The Living The Sustainer of all
33 descended to you the book in the truth confirming to what between His hands and descended the Taurat and The Injeel472 and the ones who believe and do the righteous works and believe in what descended on Muhammad and it the truth from their Lord rids from them their evil deeds and corrects their condition
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.
Yes we're all waiting for a simple translation of nisaa while he avoids answering and now wants to run-away.
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).Then post less about your rift with Wakas and simply translate?
43 so marry ma/whom aba/agreeable to you from the women
422 and not you marry ma/whom married your fathers from the women except ma/what hence passed
-
Salaam StopS, Released, Inquisitivetrini, Dawngorgeous, Answerseeker, Good Logic and Maha,
I would like to pick up where we all left off in this discussion. I guess it's only fair to answer the questions in the same order they were asked. We can start with StopS' enquiries.
Since I don't really have any position on this, may I ask a question? I am a bit puzzled as a search on "nisaa" in transliteration gives me 21 instances of the word in connection with a very female context, such as menstruation or dowry.
Why would you want to have a word look as though it relates to women and mean something different?I'll answer the first question "Why would you want to have a word look as though it relates to women and mean something different?"
I have to try and answer this without coming off as racist or anti Arab. But the fact of the matter is that the Arabic Culture has alwasy been and is now a male centric, woman oppressing and male chauvinist culture. This is all to evident today right before our very eyes. A pretty good book to read which is quite an eye opener is The Arab Mind by Raphael Patai. This book pretty much confirmed for me what I had already realized just by dealings with and observations of Arabs. Again, I have to emphasize that I am in no way or fashion taking a jab at Arabs or their culture. I am merely pointing out the culture of oppression that exists among Arabs and how that culture made its way into the Arab Ideology of Islam. So to answer your question WHY they do this is because Arab men have always traditonally dominated Arab society and they have always had this thing where a woman "has her own place in society" and that place is always relegated away from the public eye, in the house, the kitchen and the bedroom. That's it!! That's their lot in life. It's not a lot, but it's their life.
The Quran came to mandate EQUAL RIGHTS and OPPORTUNITY for ALL HUMAN BEINGS....white, non white, Arab, Indian, African, male, female, young and old. The Quran was threatening to to totally turn on it's back the male centric Arab culture. It was threatening to give women rights and opportunities Arab men are uncomfortable with. The Ideology of The Quran (NOT the Religion of Islam) had the potential of reaching the hearts and minds of the masses who were yearning for the dismantling of the system of injustice and replace it with a system that is based on complete justice. The Quran gave an exposition of just that along with the step by step formula to make this all happen and in a realistically short span of time. The BEST thing that the enemies of truth could do was get rid of The Quran entirely or otherwise make it an irrelevant book. Not being able to do this in actual practice, they did the next best thing. They arbitrarily heaped their own meanings and interpretations on literally THOUSANDS of the words that are in The Quran. And to make sure that these meanings remain unchallenged and unquestioned they put in place SOMETHING ELSE that we can verify with our own eyes today. They issued their corrupt blasphemy and apostate laws to punish and kill those who question and reject their interpretations and who attempt to teach interpretations that are contrary to what the enemies of truth have shoved upon the poor masses against their will. This is the TRUE FUNCTION of the Sheikhs, scholars, mullahs, Imams and religious priests. To keep the dummy mill working and to counter anyone who comes along with a fresh new view of The Quran and its teachings. Another good book worth reading is Muslim Conspiracies Against The Quran by Dr. Akhtar Sherazi. This book gives the full and relevant history of the arbitrary changes made to the definitions of the Quranic words and their meanings, especially during the Abbasid Dynasty. He cites complete references and lists many, many books and papers relevant to the subject that one can read for further delving into this topic.
Example 2222 says ... concerning menstruation. Say It is an illness, so let women alone at such times and go not in unto them till they are cleansed. And when they have purified themselves, then go in unto them as Allah hath enjoined upon you.
Can this refer to something other than women or have I missed your point?
ThanksWe can begin by asking some questions and exercising our common sense. Were the people to whom The Quran was revealed engaging in sexual activity that The Quran had to reveal a passage ruling against it? Does not every woman and man know that that is the time to leave women be and allow nature to take its course? Another question to ask is HOW the subject of menstruation fits in the context of the verses BEFORE and AFTER 2/222 (2/221 and 2/223 respectively)? When reading 2/221 and 2/223 we see that these verses are discussing CONFLICT/FIGHTING/Political Activities!! How and where does a woman's monthly mense fit into this overall context?
When people were made aware of the fact that the word for menstruation is not maheeDd but heeDd, they said the word maheeDd in 2/222 is time of menstruation. If it is time of menstruation, it would not be ALmaheeDd it would simply be maheeDd, because the time of menstruation is a general form. It does not occur at the same time for every woman everywhere. It occurs differently for all women everywhere. Different times it starts, differrent times it finishes and different degrees of discomfort. I know for a scientific fact that not ALL women have menstruations. I know for a scientific fact that not ALL women experience discomfort. I know for a scientific fact that some women have it irregularly like once every other month. And I know for a scientific fact that some women will have it for only like two days and then they are done with it. So adding the definite article "AL" to the word "maheeDd" would make it ONE SPECIFIC thing that applies to all women across the world and I'm sure you know just as well as I do that this would be absolute nonsense.
But if it is the time of menstruation, then why ask the nabiyy who is not a woman and does not have a menstruation cycle that he goes through? There are many verses in The Quran where the nabiy is directly instructed to ASK someone something in order to get details and/or clarification of somethings. Just look at 2/211, 7/163 and 10/94 just to name a few. If the nabiyy in these verses is told to ask other people about things he does not know about, wouldn't it make more since to also instruct him to ask WOMEN about menstruation if menstruation was a subject of The Quran? (which it is not by the way) And if it is the time of mensuration, then answer that is given in the traditonal translations does not match up to the question that is asked. If the question is about the TIME of menstruation, then why do the traditional translations have Tell them in it it is pain/discomfort as the answer? If they are asking about the TIME of menstruation, why is the nabiyy telling them about its EFFECTS instead ?
Please have a look at 2/221 to get an idea of the CONTEXT that 2/222 is placed in. This verse is saying to NOT make an agreements, bonds or social contracts with the mushrikaat be they individuals or parties. I am of the view that it is talking about parties because of the inclusion of the definite article. Again, if it was only speaking of mushrikaat in general then it would not include the definite article in front of the group name for these people. Without the definite article keeps it general. With the definite article makes it a very specific group of people. Same thing for the Mushrikeen mentioned later on in this verse. But they are told not to make an agreement with the Mushrikaat and the Mushrikeen as long as they are not sharing the same conviction to The Quranic cause as yourselves. It is better to make agreements with other people who share the same conviction of The Quranic Mission as you do no matter how fascinating and alluring the Mushrikaat and Mushrikeen may seem to you. The Mushrikaat and The Mushrikeen are inviting you towards a path of chaos and destruction whereas the injunctions, statutes and ordinances of Allah are inviting you to a Garden Like environment based as a reward for your work and efforts towards this goal.
For the definition of fire please have a look at 3/103.
So now we move from 2/221 to 2/222 keeping mind the context of conflict and political strife and activities. The word maheeDd comes from the root word Ha-Yaa-Dodd and the basic definitions of this root word are for water to rise and flow. It's basic meaning is simply to flow. The word "heeDd" which some people use as the word for menstruation is also actually used to describe the red water that comes out of a babool tree (which is a certain type of cactus). It is also used to describe the gum and sap from the acacia tree too. By the way, these definitions are given in "Lughaatul Quran" which is a Quranic Lexicon compiled by the late Allamah Ghulam Ahmed Parvez. The similarity between these things and a woman's menses is what compelled the translators, Imams and Sheikhs to use this word to mean mense. HOWEVER this may come as a shock to some people but this word DOES NOT mean MENSE!! Including the word "heeDd". The ACTUAL word for mense is Ttamth which means menstruation and menstrual discharge according to Hans Wehr Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic on page 665. There is ANOTHER meaning associated with this word and that is a woman's vagina which bleeds due to menstruation AND/OR losing her virginity. In other words , as they say here in America, to have her "cherry busted" (my sincerest and deepest apologies ladies). The root that this word comes from is Ttaa-Meem-Thaa and one of the meanings of this word word is for a vagina to bleed for the first time rather it be from menstruation or losing her virginity. This word is still used today by Arabs to describe a woman's menstruation.
Now here's the question that needs to be asked and examined...
There are two words that are used to mean menstruation, HeeDd and Ttemth. The root word that heeDd comes from means TO FLOW and that is it. This FLOWING description can apply to any liquid and any source. It does not "inherently" mean to bleed or for a woman to have her menses. Ttemth, on the other hand, means ONLY blood from a woman's vagina and it applies to loss of virginity AND to the menstrual discharge. HHhmmmmmm.... hmm I'll let you take it from there.
So keeping in mind that heeDd does not inherently mean menstruation and the CONTEXT of 2/221 through 2/223 we can look at what 2/222 is really saying.
The prefix MA (in MA-heeDd) is usually used for a place in which the verb it modifies is enacted or done. It makes it into a noun of place. For example, KaTaBa means to write or to scribe or to record in writing. A MAktaab is a Library, Bookstore, Office or even a Desk ( a place where writing is done and stored). DaRaSa is to inform or teach and give lessons. A MAdrasa is a school. A place for learning and teaching. But this prefix is also used as for nouns of time as well. For example, we have the word Wa-3a-Da (Waw-3ayn-Daal) which means to give or make a promise. Then we have the word Maw'3id which means appointment or date. Hence a time in which the promise is to be taken up. These sort of words (nouns of time and place) will almost always go by the Maf3al or the Maf3eel measure. MaheeDd is obviously of the Maf3eel measure. So MaheeDd is either the time or place of something which rises and flows. The thing in the context of 2/221 - 2/223 which rises and flows looks to me to be chaos, pain and suffering. Due to the fighting aspects of these conflicts, I have no problem with saying that "blood" may rise and flow...in essence "Bloodshed"!! But this booldshed is not rseerved for women. No, not all. How often in a war do you see people making efforts to shed the blood of only the women and not the men? If anything, most invading armies make it a point to kill the males and keep the women alive (unfortunately). So this is THE TIME or THE PLACE of bloodshed.
Here is an alternative translation of 2/222 based on all that was discussed up to this point
"They ask you about the times of bloodshed (occuring because of war/conflicts/political strife). tell them in it it is pain and suffering, so keep away from the weaker segments that are involved in this bloodshed (meaning don't get involved in the bloodshed/violence along with them) until they make efforts to separate (cleanse) themselves from non-Quranic commandments and activities. Don't make any commitment or agreements with them. However, when they are finally cleansed from the non-Quranic commandments and practices then you may approach them as instructed in the the commandment given . No doubt The state of Allah has love and compassion for those who are constantly turning towards us and loves those who purify themselves from non-Quranic commandments and ways of living."
And the best rendition I can come up with for 2/223 would be
"Your people who are of the weaker and forgotten segments of society are the ones who you are to plant seeds among and nurture for the establishment, refinement, expansion and maintanence of a society based on Quranic Laws and Permanent Values. So you can approach and instill these values in them however you think is best. Treat them socially and personally with respect which you learn beforehand through your own adoption of the permanent values. And stay ever mindful of Allah and your duties to Allah and that you must face Allah for judgement of your interactions among each other. Proclaim this good and fair mandate to this who have conviction in our laws."
I am going to reiterate something that I said earlier which is that I do not normally do translation because a translation STILL DOES NOT fully convey the CONCEPTS of each Arabic word and the overwhelming message of each verse. This is why what I have done above is not word for word literal. My rendention is based on my understanding of the overwhelming message of 2/223 and the concepts underlying each and every word in this verse.
My apologies for such a long post, but I felt that I needed to cover a lot of ground in order to do full justice to your question.
"The Quran is NOT a Religious book geared towards men alone. It is a book of Social Justice geared towards women and men equally.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 the benefit 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."
-
Salaam all,
Damon states "He (Wakas) Does not answer questions that are asked of him even though the other person answered his."
Yet doesn't explain which questions and we are all still waiting for him to answer multiple questions asked of him, including one almost at the very beginning of this thread, i.e. reply #5 "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."
Damon states "He (Wakas) claims that my points have been refutted."
I used the word "countered" not "refuted", which looked up in a dictionary basically means "opposing", "contrary" etc. If I was all about winning an argument as Damon claims in his typical ad-hominen diatribe, I'd have used "refuted".
Damon states "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?"
Firstly, anyone who can read carefully can see uq provided evidence (reference).
Secondly, here are clear examples of when I required further evidence based on what uq said
"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."
"One example would suffice I think. If uq can share one, that would be handy."Damon states "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. "
To anyone who can read carefully, they will see uq did provide an example, i.e. "ma malakat aymanukum".
Further, with Noon's example above, these should suffice.Damon states "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."
Everyone can see for themselves
http//s10.postimage.org/581165nl5/roots.jpgPerhaps Damon can explain why Wright says what he says then, underlined in red.
And here it is again, a list of Damon's unanswered questions
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604721.msg315351#msg315351Unanswered questions
-
"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."
Damon claimed in reply #10 of this thread "You obviously do not know the answer to this BUT I DO." - yet we are still waiting for him to attempt an answer. -
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.
Quote from Wakas
You say "al-yataam" are "those who are left alone in society to fend for themselves and who can use a helping hand (Al Yatamaa)" but the verses clearly talk about their wealth, as in they have some. You never explained that. You also set a dangerous precedent if you imply when Quran uses "their" X, it may not actually be "theirs" as such but it means what they are entitled to justly speaking. This would require further investigation.
Also, you never explained how people are meant to practically determine whom falls under the category of "...a "Sub Group" of the overall group of Yatamaa. The Nisaa' are oblivious to the fact that they have been socio-economically manuevered into being left as sheep in a world of wolves. "
You never explained why leave out the non-nisa from al yataam when making bond/contract etc, i.e. why only help those who are oblivious/forgetful from those who could use a helping hand. So they need a helping hand, but dont help them?
Your understanding also causes issues in the verses which follow, e.g. those who are oblivious/forgetful can tibna part of saduqat, implying they can think/discern/determine this.
You also talk about mutual agreement, but having this from people who are deemed "oblivious/forgetful" seems odd.-
can you find another example wherein "an-nisa" are doing a masculine verb. Since "nisa" is used 59 times in Quran, finding an example shouldn't be too difficult.
Quote from Mazhar
The Subject of Verb is never in genitive case as in 4/3 is .Preposition "Min" is used in Qur'aan perhaps more than 1500 times, just search, one will never find its object noun as subject of a verb.
The reason I cite the above is because there are over a thousand examples in Quran of 'subject of a verb' and use of "min" prior to noun, thus to disprove what Mazhar said with one or two examples from Quran should be relatively simple, IF Damon is correct.
-
