Discussion on 4:3 and meaning of nisa
-
Now it is like a Joker. Qur'aan has answers for all stupids who might play with its words, be it Shirely or Astana.
Ignore and dismissed people retain their genitals. An Nisa means AnNisa even if she is dismissed and ignored altogether.Quran DOES have answers for all stupid people including Mazhar who STILL needs to re-read Damon's post to see that Damon said nothing about changing of genitals for any human being. Some people just need to learn how to read.
HURUF I'll be happy to continue our morphological discussion with you if you so wish. I see the other people are merely ranting and are bringing nothing in the way of refutation and I am realizing now that some people aren't as deep with Arabic Grammar as they would have others thinking.
-
Damon, bro, chillax. I'm really interested in this one, some part of it was you bringing the thunder and some part of it was new and interesting information. Let's get back to the discussion at hand, shall we? Danke.
Sure Nadia, I'll chillax and get back to my points. To briefly recap
The verb Taaba in 4/3 is a 3rd Person Verb which can ONLY be acted out by a 3rd Person Subject. An-Nisaa' is the only 3rd Person subject in 4/3 so only An-Nisaa' can be the people acting out this 3rd Person verb "Taaba". This has yet to be Linguisitically/Grammatically refuted.
Second point...the Verb Taaba is a masculine verb and when the subject-doer of this verb is a group of people it can only be done by one of two groups; A group that is a mix of men and women OR a group that is ALL men. The masculine verb is NEVER done by a group of people who are all females. If a group of people is all females then the verb will always be feminine. This too has yet to be Linguistically/Grammatically refuted.
Third Point. There are words in Arabic which categorically refer to the male gender such as Dhakir (male) and Imru' (man) just as there are words which categorically refer to the female gender such as Unthaa (female) and Imraa'a (woman). The words Rijaal and Nisaa' come from roots which do not categorically refer to the male and female genders respectively. 4/3 alone shows that Nisaa' does not have anything to do with the female gender. Hence my understanding and explanation of 4/1 concerning these two words. I await GRAMMATICAL refutation of this and will ignore rantings without linguistic evidence.
Fourth Point The verb Taaba is in it's base 3rd person masculine form and has the active voice. It is NOT a passive voice verb. Taaba is NOT passive by definition. There IS a passive derivative which comes from this root word and that word is completely absent in 4/3. Because it is NOT in present tense passive voice, it is grammatically impossible for this verb to be performed by the 2nd Person Plural Pronouns in 4/3. And the fact that this verb is 3rd person is enough to kill the idea that the 2nd person audience are the ones doing the verb anyway. But I had already pointed this out earlier and I have yet to read a grammatical refutation to this.
Fifth Point is that the 2nd Person Audience who are being addressed in 4/3 are mentioned directly by the 1st Person as An-Naas in 4/1. There is no change of address between 4/1 and 4/3 and for anyone (I don't care who it is; male or female, traditional or quran only) to claim a subtle change in address without making an announcement of the new addressees are guilty of making the quran into a non-sensical book. I don't know who was the first person in history to concoct this silly idea, but whoever person is he has committed a grave crime against the quran. But anyway, the point HAS BEEN proved that the use of the masculine plural pronouns are used for groups of people that are either all men or a mix of men and women. I made the statement that the plural masculine pronouns will point to the group of people who are previously mentioned in an Arabic text (spoken or written) and gave the references to the grammar books which do in fact sat this. I have yet to read a Grammatical/Linguisitc refutation to this.
Sixth Point is that the word "Nikah" DOES NOT inherently mean "Marriage". ZIWAAJ categorically means marriage JUST AS Zawj and Zawja categorically mean Husband/Male Spouse and Wife/Female Spouse respectively. A Nikah (from the root word Nun-Kaaf-Haa) is a CONTRACT in it's very basic definition. Just because a contract is most times drawn up (and not ice I said MOST times, not ALL of the time) between two people who are interested in matrimony is not the impetus to change the natural and original definition of this word to catgeorically mean "Marriage/Matrimony". Earlier in this thread I had spoken on the differences between Ziwaaj and Nikah and gave some Quranic references and Arabic terms to explain how in ARABIC and among ARABS the many derivatives stemming from the root word Za-Wa-Ja are used for marriage, matrimony, husband, wife, married life, married couples, etc. No one who is against my position on 4/3 have even attempted to refute that information that I shared. I am still waiting for Linguistic/Grammatical refutation of this.
Lastly, I had asked some questions regarding the traditional understanding of 4/3 pointing towards polygamy that one even attempted to answer. These were basic commone sense, logical questions. I am still waiting for answers to those questions as well.
By the way Nadia, if I choose to ignore a person and not dialogue with them I am not doing so to be petty or childish. You had mentioned that I played games or tactics. If that is your perception of me, then so be it. I guess I only have myself to blame if my arguments give anyone that impression. But I can assure you that I have no ego and I have no problem with telling you or anyone else here on this forum "Hey, you know what, you're right. Thanks for pointing this out. I will have to re-adjust my understanding now." THIS is how people learn and THIS is how people grow and progress. This is a very healthy attitude to have which facilitates enormous intellectual growth. But in order to have such an attitude and intellectually benefit from it a person CANNOT have ego issues (and by the way I am NOT speaking about anybody in particular. I am generalizing now). Anyone here can look at whatever posts of mine may still linger here (under my own name) when I was corrected on many issues and I thanked the person who pointed it out to me and I re-adjusted my understanding. IN FACT if I'm not mistaken Wakas and Samia each corrected an understanding I had about the word Sawm and the Jussive Mood in Arabic. Before then, I had an understanding/view of this word and its form that I posted and He and Samia corrected it for me. No big deal for me. No hurt feelings or anything. I thanked them both and went back the drawing board. No biggie at all.
The reason I am saying this is because I am a big fan of mutual dialogue for the sake of bringing out the truth of any given topic. Some human beings in life will take up a position on some ideological issues and will most times ignore questions or even ignore the evidence presented in order to not face the truth of the position she or he has taken up. When I finally come to realize that a person has a position that he or she is not willing to let go of and is only interested in defending that position then YES, I will ignore such a person. I will no longer correcpond with her or him because such a dialogue will never , ever end if that person will not let go of her or his position no matter what. I felt as though it was important to point out tactics used to defend a position not to shame the person (I gain nothing from shaming anybody) but to make sure others do NOT lose sight of the evidence I brought forth for my arguments. I needed the silent audience sitting on the sidelines to see what I was bringing concerning evidence for my case and to not miss it because of another person's ploys to downplay and/or dismiss that evidence. Sis, you have to understand how important such a thing is to do. This is not a popularity contest. This is a discussion which is meant to bring out TRUTH. And we cannot overlook if a person is preventing that TRUTH from coming out all for the sake of defending a position. My style of debate is very, very deliberate. I am not a naturally brash person. I can get together with any of you guys here on this forum and we can laugh and have a ball. BUT THIS DEBATE IS BUSINESS!! And bringing out the TRUTH of this topic is much too important for me to play nice guy and overlook a person defending a position at all costs. If such a thing rubs you or anyone else the wrong way, then I guess it would be best if I just dropped out of THAT conversation entirely and just focus on the morphology of the word Nisaa' as per Huruf's request.
Salaam,
Damon. -
Damon,
The verb Taaba in 4/3 is a 3rd Person Verb which can ONLY be acted out by a 3rd Person Subject. An-Nisaa' is the only 3rd Person subject in 4/3 so only An-Nisaa' can be the people acting out this 3rd Person verb "Taaba". This has yet to be Linguisitically/Grammatically refuted.
Second point...the Verb Taaba is a masculine verb and when the subject-doer of this verb is a group of people it can only be done by one of two groups; A group that is a mix of men and women OR a group that is ALL men. The masculine verb is NEVER done by a group of people who are all females. If a group of people is all females then the verb will always be feminine. This too has yet to be Linguistically/Grammatically refuted.
Explanation of 3rd person masculine singular verb taba has already been given here
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604721.msg315351#msg315351
In case you missed it, the grammar works even if "nisa" are the ones the verb is being applied to.No rebuttal to this thus far. A question related to this has also not been answered provide another example of masculine verb used for "nisa" in Quran? i.e. is 43 the only claimed use?
Further, Damon contradicts himself yet again, when he says "...only an-nisa can be the people acting out this 3rd person verb..." when he previously stated
The word Taaba ( ) can be acted out by another 3rd person party not mentioned (such as The Quranic Government or whoever is in charge of overseeing the "Nikah" operation) OR by An-Nisaa'.Third Point. There are words in Arabic which categorically refer to the male gender such as Dhakir (male) and Imru' (man) just as there are words which categorically refer to the female gender such as Unthaa (female) and Imraa'a (woman). The words Rijaal and Nisaa' come from roots which do not categorically refer to the male and female genders respectively. 4/3 alone shows that Nisaa' does not have anything to do with the female gender. Hence my understanding and explanation of 4/1 concerning these two words. I await GRAMMATICAL refutation of this and will ignore rantings without linguistic evidence.
For part in red, see above. For the rest, there is nothing to refute. To use the words male/female would not make sense in 43.
Fourth Point The verb Taaba is in it's base 3rd person masculine form and has the active voice. It is NOT a passive voice verb. Taaba is NOT passive by definition. There IS a passive derivative which comes from this root word and that word is completely absent in 4/3. Because it is NOT in present tense passive voice, it is grammatically impossible for this verb to be performed by the 2nd Person Plural Pronouns in 4/3. And the fact that this verb is 3rd person is enough to kill the idea that the 2nd person audience are the ones doing the verb anyway. But I had already pointed this out earlier and I have yet to read a grammatical refutation to this.
The above argument was before uq provided an explanation for "ma", which you provided no response to. Thus, the above is irrelevant now.
Fifth Point is that the 2nd Person Audience who are being addressed in 4/3 are mentioned directly by the 1st Person as An-Naas in 4/1. There is no change of address between 4/1 and 4/3 and for anyone (I don't care who it is; male or female, traditional or quran only) to claim a subtle change in address without making an announcement of the new addressees are guilty of making the quran into a non-sensical book. I don't know who was the first person in history to concoct this silly idea, but whoever person is he has committed a grave crime against the quran. But anyway, the point HAS BEEN proved that the use of the masculine plural pronouns are used for groups of people that are either all men or a mix of men and women. I made the statement that the plural masculine pronouns will point to the group of people who are previously mentioned in an Arabic text (spoken or written) and gave the references to the grammar books which do in fact sat this. I have yet to read a Grammatical/Linguisitc refutation to this.
You claimed to have provided evidence, yet no-one, not even those who agree with you, could find or point out where exactly what you claimed was actually said.
Sixth Point is that the word "Nikah" DOES NOT inherently mean "Marriage". ZIWAAJ categorically means marriage JUST AS Zawj and Zawja categorically mean Husband/Male Spouse and Wife/Female Spouse respectively. A Nikah (from the root word Nun-Kaaf-Haa) is a CONTRACTin it's very basic definition. Just because a contract is most times drawn up (and not ice I said MOST times, not ALL of the time) between two people who are interested in matrimony is not the impetus to change the natural and original definition of this word to catgeorically mean "Marriage/Matrimony". Earlier in this thread I had spoken on the differences between Ziwaaj and Nikah and gave some Quranic references and Arabic terms to explain how in ARABIC and among ARABS the many derivatives stemming from the root word Za-Wa-Ja are used for marriage, matrimony, husband, wife, married life, married couples, etc. No one who is against my position on 4/3 have even attempted to refute that information that I shared. I am still waiting for Linguistic/Grammatical refutation of this.
It is a fact that nikah can mean marriage. Does it mean so in 43 - maybe, maybe not. Where is the irrefutable Quran usage which proves your case? I dont see any.
Zay-Waw-Jiim = to couple/join/pair/unite/wed, marriage, a pair, a fellow or like, spouse.
Zawwajnaa (prf. 1st p. plu. II.) We wedded, gave in marriage or pair them
Yuzawwiju (imp. 3rd p.m. sing. II.) He conjoins, mixes
Zuwwijat (pp. 3rd p. f. sing. II) Is paired, united
Zaujan (n.) Wife; Husband; Pairs; Comrade; One of the pair, male or female
Zaujaan (nom)
Zaujain (acc. noun. dual) - husband and wife, two kinds/pairs, comrade, one of the pair, male or female.
Azwaaj (noun. pl.) - wives, husbands, pairs, kinds.Nun-Kaf-Ha = to tie, make a knot, contract, to marry, marriage.
Ba-Ayn-Lam =
Husband, took a husband or became a wife.............Miim-Ra-Alif = wife/woman...............
imra'ah 2282, 335, 340, 412, 4128, 783, 1171, 1181, 1221, 1230, 1251, 1560, 195, 198, 2723, 2757, 289, 2823, 2932, 2933, 3350, 5129, 6610, 6610, 6611, 1114etc.
Lastly, I had asked some questions regarding the traditional understanding of 4/3 pointing towards polygamy that one even attempted to answer. These were basic commone sense, logical questions. I am still waiting for answers to those questions as well.
Where? Be specific.
In case you missed it, here are some of yours
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604721.msg315351#msg315351
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604721.msg315671#msg315671 -
The verb Taaba in 4/3 is a 3rd Person Verb which can ONLY be acted out by a 3rd Person Subject. An-Nisaa' is the only 3rd Person subject in 4/3 so only An-Nisaa' can be the people acting out this 3rd Person verb "Taaba". This has yet to be Linguisitically/Grammatically refuted.
A prepositional phrase is an indivisible grammatical unit in languages. One example is needed from whole of Qur'aan or even from Arabic literature where the subject of a singular active voice masculine verb is with followed by any plural feminine noun in gentive case. Absence of any such instance would suffice to treat the above statement as stupid assertion being repeated time and again.
-
Salaam all,
huruf,
Re reply #270. Thanks for clarifying.
There is a difference in saying "women" and "your women", with the latter being something more specific, which context will help us determine.
Whilst I agree that the morphology question is important, at the end of the day whatever root or meaning is assigned to "nisa" will still have to be plugged into Quran to see if it works. If a logical/practical impossibility or contradiction occurs, this will help us determine what meaning is meant or works best etc. I did not see such a thing from the verses you, nor others, brought forth. However, it might be handy for you/others to highlight the most problematic verses WITH reasons/evidence. We could then tackle them one by one.Sorry, Wakas, but I do not see in which way what you say is an answer to my post 270.
I specifically mentioned two ayas. First 4.3, where there is a an imperative telling the addressee to wed whatever is suitable from the nisaa'. The adressee is an-nas and not a sppecific sex. So women, as well as men, can marry some of an-nisaa'. Now here, conventionnally, nisaa' is taken to mean women, but nisaa' as put forward by many studiers would mean people who need protection or advocacy. In this case it would be speaking about that part of the nisaa' (those needing protection or defence) who are orphans. There is no mention of female or male orphans. So why is it taken that it is female orphans? Do male orphans not deserve defence or protection? None of them needs it? I do not see anywhere any pointers to the orphans being exclusively female. Now the other version is that it is the mothers or the orphans that are meant. Then, I am sorry to say, why is it not stated that it is marrying the mothers what all is about. There are no mothers in the horizon. What is so difficult about saying marry the mothers of the orphans, and that it says marry min el nisaa'? Because if in this case what is meant is "women" it is a redundancy if it were the males who were addressed. But from where do we know that it is addressing the males? We do not know it. In fact we know that it is An-naas that is being addressed. To affirm that it is adresseing the males we have to resort to taking for granted that the nisaa' are women. So it is a circular argument and we do have nothing to support it, because the addressee is An-nas.
The other aya I amentioned, 4.22, contains nothing of "nisaa'ukum". It says "do not marry what your fathers married min a-nisaa'. It would have sufficed to say "Do not marry those your fathers married", if, IF, fathers is what is meant and not parents. Because, if I am not wrong, the term in the plural comprises, unless otherwise specified, fathers and mothers. The dual, al abawan, means the father and the mother. So we would again be in a circular argument.
On the other hand, we are talking about the word nisaa' and one other argument that is put forward or something that is upheld is that it cannot mean more than one thing, that is, it cannot mean one thing in a context, and then something else in some other context. But, using the material and arguments put forward by the very people who hold that view, as it happens and as it has been showed, nisaa' has more than one meaning, women a wives are not synonim, they are two different meanings.
Also, when the Qur'an wants to say wives, it is not lost, it uses different words for that, like azwaj, and like Hala'il. So to pretend that nisaa'kum means your wives is wrong, it may or it may not. It depends on whom the addressee is and what has been previously stated. Obviously if it is addressing a mixed group, it cannot mean wives, it might mean your women, if we take that in that context it may mean women. But that "your women" would not be wives, but the women which form part of the group being addressed. Like when we say to several eole belonging to the same family "your family..." we mean their famil, them included.
Finally, I think that it is legitimate to speculate honestly on this subject. There are obviously people who are wonderfully happy with the semantic status quo, but the point is that the Qur'an asks us to take the best meaning of the Qur'an. If that status quo is, honestly (and not interestedly) the best meaning for them for some part of the Qur'an, then well and good, but that is not binding for anyone except those who honestly hold that view. For those who honestly think that that is not the best meaning, because there are other meanings that must be explored, then for them that is what is binding, nor what others may think that they should uphold.
I, for one, want this whole question explored to my satisfaction. Once that is done, we will see what we find. For the moment all I can say is that the status quo is not satisfactory, and commend those that, agreeing or otherwise, do make an effort to contribute with honesty and good faith.
Salaam
-
laugh laugh laugh
I can't believe some people can really be this foolish. Posting questions and making statements INSTEAD OF using Grammar of Arabic to Refute what I had brought up Linguistically. )
Mazhar, I have to now put you in the same basket as Wakas which is the Ignore basket. If you can use your Superb Grammar knowledge to go with your razzle dazzle textbook talk and refute any of my points, then I'll give you the attention you so desperately crave. Unless and Until you are able to do so... peace
-
Ladies and Gentlemen who are sitting quietly on the sidelines watching this thread. We have another example of More Dishonesty perpetrated by Mr. Wakas. I DID NOT contradict myself at all. If he was honest he would quote me in entirety instead of chopping out bits and pieces to make it look how he wants everyone to think it looks.
I want everyone here to read my quote from This Post that I made a couple of pages back
The word Taaba ( ) can be acted out by another 3rd person party not mentioned (such as The Quranic Government or whoever is in charge of overseeing the "Nikah" operation) OR by An-Nisaa'. I personally take the view that it is acted out by those who are from among AnNisaa' because they are the ones who are mentioned in this verse and I am big fan of clarity concerning those talked to or talked about in The Quran. Also, I don't think only the person or people overseeing the operation of the Social Relationships between those from among the Nisaa and those who aren't not from among them should have the only say regarding who gets a social contract with who.
There are some people in my personal circles who say that the verb Taaba maybe acted out by an unmentioned party such as The Quranic Government or an Institution overseeing The "Nikah Operations" of 4/3. But I have made it ALL TOO CLEAR in my post that I do NOT subscribe to that view and that I subscribe to the view that it is those who are from among the Nisaa' who are the subject-doers of this verb. I am pretty sure you guys realize this and can read this for yourselves. But in case any of you missed it I am pointing it out now. No contradiction at all on my part, just more dishonesty on another person's part. The same person who has YET to bring any grammatical evidence of his own to refute what I had brought forth for you all to see.
Nadia, are you reading this?? Please tell me another way to handle an obvious act of dishonesty!!! I am all eyes and virtual ears. Until then, I am going to have to point such things out for the benefit of those watching this thread in order to find out THE TRUTH.
Guys, I also know that this is a standard Bating Tactic that a person uses when he or she realizes that another person chose to ignore them. It can be understood as Bating Into More Debate or might just be good 'ole fashion Heckling without any argument.
-
laugh laugh laugh
I can't believe some people can really be this foolish. Posting questions and making statements INSTEAD OF using Grammar of Arabic to Refute what I had brought up Linguistically.
Mazhar, I have to now put you in the same basket as Wakas which is the Ignore basket. If you can use your Superb Grammar knowledge to go with your razzle dazzle textbook talk and refute any of my points, then I'll give you the attention you so desperately crave. Unless and Until you are able to do so... peace
Don't worry I have handled super fools before you on this forum who even falsly claimed to be pure Arabs from Arab parents and then had run away exposed.
You have not answered three posts. You know your stupidity will immediately emerge on surface even for those who can not read Arabic words. Thereby, you have no option but to say like this.
-
Guys firstly, can we please find more inventive ways of calling others stupid etc rather than the literal? Thanks.
Damon, thank you for summarising...it might take a week or so for me to check up on what you wrote in depth though, given my schedule these days. Also, regarding the ongoing battle with the mod and the man, maybe you should engage directly? Just an idea. Right now it looks like a fight between an old married couple where the kids are asked to pass messages because they just ain't talkin' P
peace
-
Guys firstly, can we please find more inventive ways of calling others stupid etc rather than the literal? Thanks.
Damon, thank you for summarising...it might take a week or so for me to check up on what you wrote in depth though, given my schedule these days. Also, regarding the ongoing battle with the mod and the man, maybe you should engage directly? Just an idea. Right now it looks like a fight between an old married couple where the kids are asked to pass messages because they just ain't talkin' P
peace
Peace.
Pl read stupidity as thoughtlessness. I also told him that what he had authoritatively said, which I quoted with red colour, was just a thoughtless assertion.
-
To get rid of Shirleys gimmicks, I just reproduce here simple and basic information about Nouns' gender, for those who do not understand advanced grammar of Arabic.
Particles in the Arabic language do not have gender. Verbs do, but their gender is based on that of their subjects, and their subjects are, of course, nouns. So, in reality, nouns are the only part of speech that have any gender in Arabic.
The grammatical gender of nouns is one of two a noun may be masculine or it may be feminine, and there is no neutral option. Moreover, masculinity is the default grammatical gender and a word does not have to have anything special in order to reflect this. Femininity, on the other hand, is not default and a noun would have to have something special to reflect this gender. Therefore, this tutorial discusses grammatical femininity in Arabic nouns.
Inflecting for FemininityA noun is masculine by default. It must have one of four signs in order for it to be considered feminine. Which nouns receive one of these four signs (and are therefore feminine) and which do not receive any of these signs (and are therefore left masculine) is entirely coincidental. There is no rule that dictates whether a noun will be masculine or feminine; it is entirely based on coinage. Yes, there are clues such as things that are conceptually masculine will most likely be grammatically masculine as well ? the word ?man? (ل is masculine and the word ?woman? (ة is feminine.
This applies to static nouns (د and gerunds (ر. Derived nouns (ق, on the other hand, usually have the capability to be masculine sometimes and feminine other times; they toggle depending on the grammatical requirements. For instance, the derived noun is masculine but it has a feminine form as well.
The four signs of femininity are as follows. Below the list is a table with some examples.
- a round Taa (ة at the end of the noun
o if it is written , it is called
o it if is written , it is called
-
an at the end of the noun
-
an at the end of the noun
-
an assumed round Taa at the end of the noun
Definitions
femininity determined by rule
femininity determined by simply hearing it from the Arabs
Types of FemininityThere are two types of femininity one where the feminine noun has a masculine counterpart among the living beings, and one where it does not. For example, (she-camel) is of the first type because its counterpart is a male-camel and a male-camel is both masculine and living. The word , on the other hand, is of the second type because, although it has a counterpart ? namely, the moon ? and the moon is masculine, the moon is not alive.
Definitions
femininity wherein the entity has a live, masculine counterpart
femininity wherein the entity does not have a live, masculine counterpart
Women-An Nisa are
-
Peace All,
Perhaps a way forward with this potentially revealing discussion is to establish some ground rules. The first thing could be to cut out all the name-calling. I cannot believe that Mazhar has just called someone stupid and we are supposed to be peaceful people. Number two could be to follow the Koranic edict to walk away when you don't agree. Of course, if that happens on these boards then we will have no discussion. Perhaps then, we need to come up with some of those phrases that help keep a discussion civilised as opposed to feral. Phrases like, " I hear what you are saying, however...", "with respect". There is no need to make statements such as, " if you had bothered to...". These statements only serve to wind people up.
If we are going to get anywhere with this discussion we will need to treat each other with respect. As we all know, the use of language is very important. It seems that there are a lot of extremely intelligent people on here with very little emotional intelligence. In order to improve on this it is best not to respond straightaway to something that has wound you up. I must say that I expected better from peaceful people.
On another note, in an earlier thread I suggested that the word for marry must mean something other than marry, if the Koran is not to have contradictions. If I remember rightly I was told that was impossible.
Dawn.
-
Salaam Dawn,
I hear what you are saying, however....
No, I'm just joking with you Sis. Just to let you know I am not the least bit affected by the name calling. I've read enough of his posts and I realize that this is his way of talking to people. But I also know that people who fling accusations and call names do so to take the attention away from the fact that it is they who are guilty of the accusations and the names they call other people. Knowing this is why I don't let that sort of thing bother me at all. Shallow and unintelligent people will make it a point to use fancy words and fake jargon to make themselves appear to be deep and intellectual. That sort of pretense lets me know that a person is really quite dumb. I am not trying to engage in a senseless back and forth with that guy, but how long will he be allowed to call people names before he gets checked on it? I make a post about a person WITHOUT calling him names and I get reprimanded about it. What's wrong with this picture?
-
Salaam Nadia,
There is another point that I failed to mention in my post above and that is the particle . Depending on how it is used in an Arabic sentence, this word will be either a "partitive" min or an "explanatory" min. This is what I had pointed out in two prior posts when I was discussing this word in some detail earlier.
The function it plays in an Arabic sentence is inferred from context. To make it clear, the word is Partitive when the noun it refers to is a PART OF something. It is Explanatory when the noun it refers to COMES FROM something or somewhere.
An example of this word being used as a partitive function would be (one of the teachers). This is the type of phrase showing ONE entity is a PART of a group of like/similar entities.
An example of this word having an explanatory function would be (a sword of steel). This shows when something COMES FROM SOMETHING in a material/physical fashion. Let's call this Explanatory 1.
But the explanatory function is also used to show a location or geographical origin. For example we have the sentence (Hisham is FROM Pakistan). Generally, when used in this manner this particle denotes a beginning point related either to time or place of origin or any other geographical direction/location. How about we call this one Explanatory 2?
So YES, the word can be used as a preposition and if it is used as a preposition, then the phrase it is a part of will be a prepositional phrase. But when I say preposition I am talking about it being used as either Explanatory 1 or Explanatory 2. If it is used as in the first example I gave it is not a prepositional phrase in the sense of demonstrating place, origin or location. It is now a Partitive clause showing something as being a "sum" or "parts" of a WHOLE or a COLLECTION.
Please look at the phrase in 4/3 and ask yourself which of the three examples above it resembles or relates to. D
Again, this has not been refuted either.
DEAR HURUF,
Please let me know if my last explanation about "Collective Nouns" taking on the Feminine Plural Pronoun was clear enough or if you would like for me to go into it a bit more. I would also be more than happy to provide you with references and links to the Grammar Books if you want to look into this on your own.
Salaam,
Damon. -
On another note, in an earlier thread I suggested that the word for marry must mean something other than marry, if the Koran is not to have contradictions. If I remember rightly I was told that was impossible.
I am personally not aware of the thread in question so I have no idea about the conversation. But I am certainly curious. Is there anyway you can expound a bit on this?
Salaam,
Damon. -
Peace Shirley,
Re the question of the meaning of the word 'marry'. The thread is called, 'polygamy, time to settle the issue' and it was started by Fallen Angel. My point was made in post 65.
Dawn.
-
Damon,
I recommend you use your words accurately if you do not wish to be accused of being contradictory.
There is a difference in the following, (1) is a contradiction, whilst (2) is not. You said (1).
Word X can only mean Y (an absolute statement, i.e. no other options)
Word X can mean Y or Z.Word X can only mean Y in my view (a statement which is qualified/limited, i.e. leaves other options as possible)
Word X can mean Y or Z theoreticallyIf it is not a contradiction, then at the very least, you chose your words poorly.
And I note you are silent about the rest of my post. Not to worry, we will let the evidence speak for itself.
-
Again, this has not been refuted either.
To kee record straight; Shirley alwo twists things. When Min was ellaborated, how he reacted and stated
Quote from Mazhar on December 06, 2012, 085239 AM
"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 weakest 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 was trying taking care of Prepositional Phrases while preparing dependency 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.
Shirley responds--Kindly read his fresh post and compare it with my post.
Blah, Blah, Blah, - the hip bone is connected to the thigh bone - Blah, Blah, Blah and you take this reciprocal rendering of the guiness outlining circumfrence of a circle, Blah, Blah, Blah
More self made razzle dazzle. If ANYONE here can prove An-Nisaa is a PLACE or LOCATION then by default that would make the word "MIN" a Preposition of Place in 4/3!! IF An-Nisaa is NOT a place or location (which I know it is not) then that would mean the word "MIN" is not a Preposition of Place in 4/3. It is something else. That's the bottom line. Again, try using some Common Sense
Save all of the Grammar Razzle Dazzle and PROVE An-Nisaa' is a place or location. If not, I'm done with this silliness. A person who was really interested in helping his fellow forum posters understand issues of the language would simplify it for them and walk them through the language step by step (as I have attempted to do in my post with the 10 point summation). using Razzle Dazzle and fancy terminologies are the tactics of people who want others to see him as a grammarian of some sort and also do not want them to know the aspects of the language to find things out for themselves.
Mazhar and Wakas are just alike. Their traditionalist views of Nisaa and 4/3 are coming apart and as a result They Are Coming Apart Themselves.
Quote from Shirley on December 06, 2012, 023154 PM
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.
Sorry, shirley, you play games and I am Master of taking much superior gamers than you like RK to the corner to expose their foul play, and then they keep mum. 19er Section is an evidence that all 19er and his right hand has no ground to defend their "messenger".
Now let the Members know what you understand by "Min", forget about Nisa at the moment.
-
Is it a word, if yes, which part of the speech
(a) Particle, if so what type---Preposition- , conjunction, interjection etc.
(b) Noun, or
(c) Verb. -
If Preposition , what will be its governance and upon whom?
-
If Preposition, what will it denote when used with locative noun, time adverb, generic noun, collective noun, singular noun, plural noun either regular or broken?
-
If Preposition, how would you determine as to whom-which word in the sentence it relates?
And by the way what you understand as to what type of Noun An-Nisa is?
What is the "Al" doing in it, who those women are whom this definite Article "Al" is referring to, making them known and defined women? Mind it common noun in Arabic in default state is always indefinite.
Is it the noun of abundance or paucity?This will take us to proper understanding. Waiting reply. Thanks.
He also coined a term Ma-------Min clause and quoted two books. That was a gimmick.
-
-
salaam huruf,
Thanks for the reply.
Your assumption is that the addressee in 43 is "an-nas". It is a reasonable assumption, however it hinges entirely upon there being no switch of this kind anywhere in entire Quran. I provided a link wherein many examples were given in Quran of what is called "iltifaat", i.e. "a sudden shift in the pronoun of the speaker or the person spoken about". I have not gone through every example cited to see if there is one identical to 43 so we can compare. However I did cite 1087 which should suffice as an example wherein the doer of the verb changes throughout
'We revealed to Moses and his brother "Settle (dual) for your (dual) people/qawm in Egypt/misr houses; and make (plural) your houses (plural) a qiblah and uphold (plural) the salat; and do thou give good tidings (singular) to the believers (plural)."'
If you are of the position, such switching does not occur in Quran, then please clarify what/why exactly, and what you are basing this on.
Having said the above, there is potentially, a possibility, wherein "an-nas" (i.e. people/mankind) is the addressee of the verb "nkh/marry", because in 43 the situation does not seem run of the mill, thus for example if we assume a man is allowed to have more than one wife in such a situation, then the present wife would have to consent - thus she is involved in the decision-making process.
Another possibility is "nkh/marry-off", meaning the people/society undertake such a task ensuring fairness etc.If the above are impossible, I'd like to know why etc.
The other aya I amentioned, 4.22, contains nothing of "nisaa'ukum". It says "do not marry what your fathers married min a-nisaa'. It would have sufficed to say "Do not marry those your fathers married"...
I do not see why a clarification, if that's what it is, is a problem. It is not a logical/practical impossibility or contradiction. Please also bear in mind, that whatever alternative you propose should be able to explain what follows in that verse.
On the other hand, we are talking about the word nisaa' and one other argument that is put forward or something that is upheld is that it cannot mean more than one thing, that is, it cannot mean one thing in a context, and then something else in some other context. But, using the material and arguments put forward by the very people who hold that view, as it happens and as it has been showed, nisaa' has more than one meaning, women a wives are not synonim, they are two different meanings.
To be clear that is not my argument. I do not mind if one word has more than one meaning/connotation, as long as there is a logical reason. Usually there is a core theme present in whatever meaning, but they can be "different". For a good example of this, see "shaytan" in www.Quran434.com part 1, section 14.
Also, when the Qur'an wants to say wives, it is not lost, it uses different words for that, like azwaj, and like Hala'il. So to pretend that nisaa'kum means your wives is wrong, it may or it may not. It depends on whom the addressee is and what has been previously stated. Obviously if it is addressing a mixed group, it cannot mean wives, it might mean your women, if we take that in that context it may mean women. But that "your women" would not be wives, but the women which form part of the group being addressed. Like when we say to several eole belonging to the same family "your family..." we mean their famil, them included.
- Note how you have not proven those are the exclusive terms for wife.
- From Quran, there seems to be two different status when it comes to partner, one is actual "wife" and other is "mma". Granted, there has been much debate on these terms, however the common understanding is that in those times men had wives as well as mma, thus theoretically, they could be collectively referred to as "your nisa" for example. If you know of a reason why this is impossible, let us know.
You are right that context will determine what is meant, ideally in a fashion wherein it is logically impossible for it mean X, thus Y is meant, or if not Y, then Z etc.
Ideally, I am looking for examples where "nisa" meaning "women" causes a logical/practical impossibility, and/or contradiction. If such an example is found, then we have something solid to investigate.
