Discussion on 4:3 and meaning of nisa
-
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.
-
LOL....I don't coin terms.
Everyone, I ask that you all go to Page 238 of Introduction to Quranic and Classical Arabic
The page it is on in the actual book is 238 but you go there by typing 132 in the page block in the upper left of he PDF File. Read It and Weep Mazhar. laugh
Haywood also talks about it on pages 420 and 421 of His Grammar Book. Again, READ IT AND WEEP!!! D
I would like EVERYONE here to read the referenced pages from those Grammar Books. Notice how in each example they give to illustrate this construct the word is used Partitively. What is the significance of this? It is because when this word is understood as a partitive function that it can be used in this construct known as the ... Clause. The NAME of the construct means nothing. The FUNCTION is what is important and this FUNCTION is pointed out by Haywood and Thackston. It is only if this word is used in an Explanatory Function that it would be a problem because then it would basically be a preposition and prepositions refer to place, direction or location. If this were the case, this type of construct would make no sense if this word is used as an explanatory word or preposition of place.
It's funny that there are only two people still trying to harass me in this thread and they are the ones who are still holding onto a position that has been Linguistically and Grammatically refuted and shot down and they bring no grammatical validation for this position that they are so desperately holding onto. D
Mazhar you accused me of coining this term and it was an unjustified accusation. Thank You, I accept your apology. You also accused me of "twisting" something but never said WHAT SHIRLEY TWISTED!!! You just re-posted your own mumbo jumbo that no one pays any attention to. I am saying it AGAIN just as I said it before. An-Nisaa' is a COLLECTION/GROUP of people. They represent ONE WHOLE. Those who are represent PARTS of that WHOLE. This is why the word is referred to in this type of usage as a PART-itive word. Do you get it now?? It is only used as a preposition when the noun it refers to is a direction, location, place, geographical space, etc. So I am asking ONCE AGAIN if An-Nisaa' is a PLACE or LOCATION??? If the answer is yes, then that would make a prepositional phrase with the particle serving as an explanatory or preposition of place function. If the answer is NO An-Nisaa' is NOT a place or location (and this is my stance on this question) then the particle in is not used as a preposition of place and hence is not a prepositional phrase. in this case is used as in a Partitive function and THUS used as the second particle of the ... Clause Haywood and Thackston talked about in their Grammar Books.
It's as simple as that. Using big words to look impressive means nothing when there is no "substance" in those big words. Based on my observations of certain threads you have been involving yourself in (including this one) I see I am not the only one who realizes this about you and I can see that people are not falling for that nonsense at all. Stop insulting other people's intelligence with your Faux Intellect and actually PROVE your case or REFUTE mine. If you're going to continue with the fake harvard language at least use it to address and refute my arguments.
And lastly, I have PROVEN that I did not contradict myself. By posting my quote in it's entirety would have demonstrated to everyone reading it that I did not contradict myself at all. Dishonesty is Dishonesty no matter HOW the dishonest person tries to clean it up after being exposed for being DISHONEST!! I see now a campaign for "Damage Control" being put in place here.
-
LOL....I don't coin terms.
Everyone, I ask that you all go to Page 238 of Introduction to Quranic and Classical Arabic
The page it is on in the actual book is 238 but you go there by typing 132 in the page block in the upper left of he PDF File. Read It and Weep Mazhar.
Your link takes to this site
Islam portal
http//special.worldofislam.info/index.php?page=arabicThere is a book but that is not of Thakston. Thackston is in my grammar books folder. You quote just the Lesson No.
Haywood also talks about it on pages 420 and 421 of His Grammar Book. Again, READ IT AND WEEP!!!
Page 420 and 421 was uploaded by me.
Just cut and paste from any book what you say "this construct known as---" the ... Clause."
used as reletive pronoun itself needs a relative clause and a pronoun referring back to.
-
Oops, you're right. My bad.
This Is The Link to Thackston's book. I will not cut and paste. I would rather everyone have access to the entirety of the information for their benefit and they can ascertain many grammatical rules for themselves by having access to the same books you and I have access to. The Link above can be used to download the book or read the book online.
And Mazhar, for the last time PLEASE address the grammar that I posted. If what I posted is incorrect then prove that it is and then correct it.
-
Oops, you're right. My bad.
This Is The Link to Thackston's book. I will not cut and paste. I would rather everyone have access to the entirety of the information for their benefit and they can ascertain many grammatical rules for themselves by having access to the same books you and I have access to. The Link above can be used to download the book or read the book online.
And Mazhar, for the last time PLEASE address the grammar that I posted. If what I posted is incorrect then prove that it is and then correct it.
This correct link has a book with 177 pages. Your page 132 is almost empty. It has this
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/Spare%20images%20for%20uploading/Min.ht3.gif
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/Spare%20images%20for%20uploading/Min.ht4.gifCan you get me "Ma---------Min clause" from somehwere? It is the grammar that you posted.
-
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.
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.
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.
- 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.
Salaam, Wakas,
You seem to be basing your choice of meaning on the fact, which I do not intent to disprove because that is not my aim, that something is possible. Whether it is possible or not does not mean that that is what it should be or mean, and if that is possible, other things are also possible. We are not discussing that, but you and others seem to be refusing something because what you choose you say is possible. That does not bother me, what bothers me is the rejection of other possibilities.
In 4.3 you seem to base the whole thing on the fact that iltifaat or whatever happens in the Qur'an, but in 4.3 I see NO indications that it is that what happens. You assume it, it seems to me, because it fits your own understanding of the whole thing, but that is no proof that I should exclude that in fact there is no change of addressee. I see no indication whatsoever that it is so. And whether there is something of it in other parts of the Qur'an, if we follow that, then what should we start to change addressees all over the place int he Qur'an whenever we fancy doing it? I do not think so, there must be a reason for that. That reason I do not see it. If you see it, good for you. I do not see it and I can perfectly extract positive meaning without changing addressee. And we are in the exploring phase, I am. The change of addressee convinced me when I hadn't reflected about the whole thing. Once one starts reflecting one gets more rigorous and exacting and I do not find the change of addressee justified on anything. Possible? So many things are possible, including the logic one that there is no change of addresse, because there is no indication of it at all. And if you reject any understanding different from yours, it is you who should prove that it is impossible. I am not denying any possibility, you are. What I am discussing is whether other things cannot be.
Further on 4.3, there is one thing I am sure of everybody, but everybody, speculates. On all the components of the aya. Nobody knows anything for certain, even if they purport to know. It is all speculation. What is meant concretely by "If you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans"? Plenty, plenty of suppositions, assumptions, and each one assumes whatever seems to him or her could have been happening back in those times where the Qur'an was revealed. And from that, the speculation flourishes to the sky on the rest of the aya. I do not criticise that. If we do not know, we try, try our best, but also we should not kid ourselves that we do know. The fact that we go back centuries and bring forth commentaries of this chap or that chap, does not change one thing that we simply cannot get the picture. May be you or others find the picture which you make out of the whole satisfactory, I do not. And I cannot, because I would be basing it on lack of knowledge, which may be an asset for further study or reflection, which always brings some fruit, but I would be kidding myself that I know. I do not know and I do not see that anybody else knows, although they may honestly think so. Sorry, that is my honest, sincere and disinterested opinion. We haven't any idea of the real thing on which aya 4.3 is formulated.
I will continue in another message with the rest.
Salaam, Wakas
-
Continue answering Wakas
- 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.
You say
"Note how you have not proven those are the exclusive terms for wife."
Did I pretend that? No I didn't. What I said, with other words, is that if any ambiguity wanted to be avoided and what is meant was wives, there are plenty of words for that. Simply that. And, again, that if there several choices, apparently to different people at least, to pretend that the one chosen by anybody is the ONLY ONE has to be prooved beyond any doubt. And that to take whatever is more at hand apparently, I do not criticise it, but that does not exclude that other people may want to go further than that and get to the bottom of the ambiguity or whatever unsatisfactory aspect we may find in the whole thing.
We are not here about wanting a pope, not even a collective pope that should prohibit what we think or honestly, speculate. When we are trying to understand something to our satisfaction, it si only too logical that we should try this and that and that we speculate without necessarily commiting to anything we say in particular during the course of the specutlation. But to refute something on the ground that we should bring forth a conclusion that satisfyis everything and evrybody is really unwarranted, and I should point out also, that your own ssumptions do not satisfy everything and everybody, otherwise we would not be on this forum, and you would not be in this forum either, because yourself have also tried and speculated to find best fits. And unanimity there has never been and it is not going to happen in this world, nor I think, should it happen.
So on the word nisaa' the only thing I have clearly stated and affirm is that it does have in the Qur'an, even for conservatives of the traditional meaning, several meanings. It does have several meanings. As I said, husband and man does not mean the same thing, even if both are males, just as mafia man and man are not synonims even if both are males.
As to context, yes, but everybody has in his or her head the context that one fancies best, a choice of context. Like in 4.3. What one has in one's head is nto binding for other heads. And it is precisely the context that seems so very doubtful depending on the viewer. And again, here, we have no Pope, whether single or collective to put us in the right path.
So I do welcome honest debate on the subject of this thread and want to go into the greates width and depth possible without sel imposed limits.
Salaam
Salaam
-
Mazhar are you playing games? I told you EXACTLY what page it is on and I also told you EXACTLY how to get to that page on the pdf file. Seriously Mazhar, come on with this.
I struck the link and it opened the book and I got the page. There might be fault in arrangement or loading of the book.
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.
There is no difference in what you have stated here and my post describing what are the functions of Min.
The question which you are continuously evading is whether the Noun after Min can be treated as Subject-doer of the preceding Verb? If not how AnNisa are the Subject of Taba?
Second question which you are evading is why definite article "Al" is prefixed to Nisa? This makes them particularized; definite and determined feminines? Who are they and where are they?
-
Peace all,
I suppose God should have chosen German for the Quran. If only..then we wouldn't have any issues at all.
Sorry, I just couldn't help it. Okay, moving on with the reading. tempt
Modify I'd like to add that I think God chose the Arabic language for the very reason we're having this discussion right now. It's a book for all time and all people, correct? The language appears to allow for variations in interpretation, and perhaps it has something to do with the fact that it's meant for different time periods, cultures, geographical locations, and etc. It makes me nervous that I don't have a strong grasp over the language (at all, actually), but I'm sure there is a sound reason as to why Arabic was chosen, over other languages.
-
Peace Wakas,
I don't have any such examples. It's just the way in which I read it (out loud or quietly) and understand it. 'your' brother or 'your father' makes sense to me because they in a sense belong to you through family ties--there is a strong connection drawn that pertains to family bonds. We use this terminology in English or anything other language all the time. 'your women' doesn't make any sense to me. Who are my women? Women in general, female relatives, my servants ( I don't have any), my lactation consultant? My what exactly? I just can't understand who these women are specifically. It's very vague. Everyone else in that verse is specified and then all of a sudden we've got 'my women'. Everyone's got a different take on this. I have no other examples other than the way in which my limited little brain processes things.
