Discussion on 4:3 and meaning of nisa

Shirley

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.

Mazhar

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=arabic

There 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.

Shirley

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.

Mazhar

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.gif

Can you get me "Ma---------Min clause" from somehwere? It is the grammar that you posted.

Shirley

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.

huruf

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

huruf

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

Mazhar

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?

Released

Peace all,

Forgive me for not following along. I didn't even realize this thread had moved along so quickly. I'm going to take an hour out and read it now (God willing).

Released

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.

Released

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.

Wakas

salaam huruf,

You said it best when you said "And we are in the exploring phase...". I agree. In such a phase it is important to determine what are the theoretical possibilities, THEN weigh up the evidence for each option.

You will note that nowhere in this thread did I state an alternative meaning for "nisa" is impossible. I certainly saw many problems with an alternative, hence asking questions of those advocating an alternative. Some of my questions were answered, some were not. Simple.

We can only weigh the evidence accurately once we have as much information as we can get, then make an informed choice.

You said

...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.

No-one is asking you to exclude anything. I am trying to determine what is theoretically possible. I even included possibilities wherein a change in addressee is not needed, which you never commented upon.

You said

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.

I know exactly what you said, but unfortunately, your statement has an underlying assumption that a certain term is a clear and unambiguous term for "wife". You have to prove this first from Quran, THEN we can weigh it up.
You did not comment upon my point (2).

Once again, let me be clear we are exploring what is theoretically possible, then we can weigh up the evidence for each option. In order to do that, some questions must be answered, not ran away from.
What I am seeing thus far is that those advocating for an alternative for "nisa" have no example wherein "nisa=women" causes a logical/practical impossibility and/or contradiction in Quran. As an example, in my studies of salat, sujud, daraba, al masjid al haram - in which I favour alternatives to the traditional/common understanding, I have shown ample evidence of problems, some of which include logical/practical impossibilities and/or contradictions. In the case of "nisa", I haven't seen any.

Released

Peace Wakas,

Two questions I have for you after reading through the new posts

You mentioned something about verse 1087 and the constant switching of verbs in relation to the beginning of Chapter 4. Can you explain this further? I am having difficulty understanding. Can you perhaps provide a side by side comparison?

Also, why do you think that "marry off" is a possibility? We discussed this in Fallen Angel's thread to an extent. Also, why does "nikah" ALWAYS have to pertain to marriage? From your perspective, why can't it simply be a contract of a different nature?

Mazhar

Once again, let me be clear we are exploring what is theoretically possible, then we can weigh up the evidence for each option. In order to do that, some questions must be answered, not ran away from.

What I am seeing thus far is that those advocating for an alternative for "nisa" have no example wherein "nisa=women" causes a logical/practical impossibility and/or contradiction in Quran.

Salam Wakas;

Weldone, what a succinct synopsis of the whole thread.

"Nisaa" is femininity wherein the entity has a live, masculine counterpart. It can not have any other than feminine in its fold. No theoretical possiblity.

huruf

Reply to waka

What was your point two? I didn't get it, at least not as it concerns me.

No-one is asking you to exclude anything. I am trying to determine what is theoretically possible. I even included possibilities wherein a change in addressee is not needed, which you never commented upon.

No, that I have not commented in this thread, but on the other hand I have put it forward in plenty of other threds and I never got any appreciation. Now, since I already know that I do not have to commento or approve. I know that alternative, I have put it forward myself, not exactly your variant, but in the sense of the addressee being th e community, and I do not think my approval is needed for anything.

But right now, I am not concerned by that, becuase I have seen other possibilities which are even more interesting and promising. You have not answered either what I have said that nobody knows a damned thing about 4.3 to put forward any meaning of anything whatsoever and nothing is settled. Concretely, 4.3 is there for grabs. There is absolutely nothing settled nor contrasted in it. So how on earth do you exect that anybody else brings forth something conclusive?

We, at least I am not going to do that. There is to much to sieve yet. And I am sorry to say I do not trust (though I do appreciate), not a little bit anything that has been "concluded" regarding 4.3 by anybody. So you are asking in fact for something that you do not provide nor anybody has yet provided.

Further

You say

I know exactly what you said, but unfortunately, your statement has an underlying assumption that a certain term is a clear and unambiguous term for "wife". You have to prove this first from Quran, THEN we can weigh it up.

Well that is your assumption, what I answered was this

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.

So you have not prooved that nisaa' is the only one. And that in fact again, I do not give a damn, what I insisted upon is that, in fact nisaa', even by the conservatives, has more thna one meaning. It has, has it no?

You say

Once again, let me be clear we are exploring what is theoretically possible, then we can weigh up the evidence for each option. In order to do that, some questions must be answered, not ran away from.
What I am seeing thus far is that those advocating for an alternative for "nisa" have no example wherein "nisa=women" causes a logical/practical impossibility and/or contradiction in Quran. As an example, in my studies of salat, sujud, daraba, al masjid al haram - in which I favour alternatives to the traditional/common understanding, I have shown ample evidence of problems, some of which include logical/practical impossibilities and/or contradictions. In the case of "nisa", I haven't seen any.

No, sure not, you have not seen any and you will not see it for a while.
There are attempts which you are ignoring, as you are ignoring the morphological part which is essential, absolutely essential, and even the Arabic guru of the thread is ignoring it. But never mind. I do not expect anything either.

And I have also said that that we are exploring, so if we are exploring we are exploring, you just let us explore, and when we have conclusions, if we reach that phase, we will surely expose them, but right now, again we are exploring and we are under no obligation to lay eggs. Eggs take time and are not produced on demand. To exact from those who want to explore and examine to satisfaction things of the Qur'an that right away they come up with a perfect egg, is unrealistic and makes people nervous, when in fact as I have already said with 4.3, the status quo is pure self-delusion. Nobody understands a damn thing about that aya 4.3, but everybody is reprimanding everybody else about it as if they had grasped it erfectly without a shadow of a doubt.

Lack of doubt is alarming at times.

Salaam, Wakas, I would have a little patient with men at work.

huruf

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.

Salaam, Shirley,

I am a one track person, and right now I have too many tracks to handle in this forum and elsewhere. I have to come back to that part, but as to the morphology I would like that part not to be neglected. Once again, and I supose I am getting boring, i think it is essential.

For the feminine I mean, let us take the nisaa' word, as group name it concords in the feminine, were "her" components people of masculine gender or mixed gender, would it be gramatically correct to use the concordance of a feminine plural in the verbs of which they are the subject and the corresponding pronouns? That is the question.

Salaam and I hope we continue with this. Conclusions or not I hope we learn.

Wakas

salaam Released,

I meant this http//www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Grammar/iltifaat.html
I have not gone through them to find an example identical to 43, one may or may not exist.

I want to also follow-up on 314 which you mentioned. This is often cited by those advocating a non-women understanding of "nisa". The usual claim is "an-nas" is "people/mankind" which includes women, thus how can Quran be saying women love women! Quran is promoting lesbianism which cannot be! etc.
However, from my experience of discussing with such people, they NEVER mention the problems with their own objection, which are

The verse actually says "beautified for mankind is love (of) desirable things min/from (partitive) A and B and C and D and E"
"min" is a partitive, meaning not ALL from what follows.
Whatever meaning they choose for "nisa" cannot satisfy their own objection, i.e. whatever meaning they choose, it must mean, according to them, all people love desirable things A and B and C and D and E, and if any category of people it means in a sexual way as they initially claimed. To get around this, they may say "hubbu alshshahawati" does not mean "love (of) desirable things" etc which invalidates their original objection.
They seemingly neglect to consider the perhaps most obvious answer and that is Quran is discussing archetypes as it does in many other places in Quran, e.g. 4615.
whatever meaning they choose for "nisa" and the others in the list they will have to make all people love/want those things, which is impossible, unless they translate it to things like oxygen, water, heat, shelter etc.

As is frequently the case, they only tell you their side of the story. Do not be fooled by such types. A quick way to check credibility/integrity is to see if they provide enough information to verify/refute what they wrote, if they discuss possible alternatives to what they wrote, and possible issues with their proposed alternative. If they do none of these, it is highly likely they are intellectually dishonest.

salaam huruf,

You keep implying I/others have concluded. If that were the case why are we still asking questions? When one has concluded something, they rarely ask questions.

And if you/me/others haven't studied something or they do not know the answer to a certain question, no harm in saying I dont know, or I haven't studied that yet etc. That is more helpful than running away from a question. For example, when it comes to morphology, that is not an area I'm familiar with, hence little discussion of it from me, however other aspects can be discussed from my end.

Shirley

Salaam Everybody,

It's nice to see that others have finally decided to join this discussion and help to move things along in bringing this topic to a logical conclusion. There will always be detractors to something like this. That is to be expected. No one here HAS TO agree with my arguments, point of views or conclusions, as long as they are sincerely "Looking At The Research" and are willing to take a second look at their present understanding of Nisaa'. I can always tell the difference between someone who is honest about it and someone who is satisified with their present position (and the status quo) and using slick language to make it appear that they are re-examining the present understanding of this word when in all actuality they're not.

Mazhar,

There is no difference in what you have stated here and my post describing what are the functions of Min.

Oh, there is PLENTY DIFFERENCE, one of them being that I actually typed my post myself in my own words instead of copying and pasting from a Grammar Book. Another difference is that I am insisting that in 4/3 is not a prepositional phrase because the particle is not used as a preposition in this phrase. I understand the particle to be a Partitive Particle in this instance. If it is YOUR UNDERSTANDING that a Partitive Particle is still the same thing as a Preposition then I guess I can understand why you are insisting that is a prepositional phrase. I disagree with it, but at least I know where you are coming from. It is my understanding that the proposition is not a prepositional or explanatory particle by default. It is my understanding that this word has to be used in a certain context in order for it to be understood as a preposition (and the phrase it appears in as a prepositional phrase). It is my understanding that a preposition by default refers to position, location, direction or geographical origin. It is like the English word "ON". This word is not a prepositon by default but can be used as a preposition if placed in the correct context. For example, "Turn the television ON" is not a prepositional sentence because the word "on" is not used as a preposition in this example. However, "The books are ON the table" does include a prepositional phrase since the word "on" is now used as a preposition in this example. It is used to show the LOCATION and POSITION of the books.

Now, ANOTHER DIFFERENCE is that I have pointed out the partitive use of the word in order to show how this USE of the word comes after the word in the clause that I have been trying to get you to look at and understand. It doesn't matter if you are uncomfortable with the term "Ma...Min Clause". What matters is that you study and understand the function itself. You and Wakas insist on asking me for another instance where Nisaa' is performing a masculine verb and Huruf has done that by pointing out 12/30 to you guys. But it seems that you two are ignoring that just as you have been ignoring everything else that has been pointed out to you in this thread and please don't think I don't know why you are ignoring/dismissing it. Anyway, the ... clause is real rather you like it or not and that clause HAS BEEN PUT TO USE in 4/3 rather you like it or not. I don't care if you reject it or dismiss it, I only care if you are able to refute it.

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?

First of all, we need to get something straight. I am not "evading" ANY of your questions. I don't like answering the SAME RIDICULOUS QUESTIONS more than once and this question is ANOTHER ridiculous one that I do not want to answer AGAIN!! The question is ridiculous because THE ANSWER is in those sections of the Grammar Books I requested for you to look at explaining this grammatical construct. And it is a repeated question because I had answered it the first time it was brought up. Just because you keep asking the same question doesn't mean my answer is going to change later on. My answer is the same now as it was before. READ THE GRAMMAR BOOKS Mazhar!!

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?

Not evading it, just another one that I am loathing having to answer. I agree with one thing you had said and that is the definite article "AL" makes An-Nisaa' particularized, definite and determined. This is just basic grammar. However, I DISAGREE with your forced arbitrary statement of feminines. I disagree with it for two reasons Reason 1) is that YOU are making the claim for everyone else that this word is feminine. This is YOUR WAY of dictating the MEANING of this word which you have NO AUTHORITY to do. You don't do so out of knowledge that you may have to prove your assertion, you are doing so based upon on a preconceived concept that you are attached to and is actually a BARRIER to you understanding the correct meaning of this word. Reason 2) is that evidence has been presnted to you to show that this word IS NOT feminine at all. It certainly isn't feminine in 3/14, 4/3 and 12/30. You have YET to grammatically refute these findings but you are STILL telling everyone else on this forum that this word is "feminine" WITHOUT proving that it is in fact feminine and WITHOUT disproving what I had showed to point out that it is not feminine. You really are amazing, you know that?

Lastly, I am NOT going to answer ANYMORE of your questions unless you show the willingness to ADDRESS THE GRAMMATICAL DETAILS I am pointing out in regards to 4/3. You are not linguistically and grammatically challenging my breakdown and re-examination of 4/3. You are only coming back with more questions which are connected to your prior questions..." how AnNisa are the Subject of Taba?" and "can the Noun after Min can be treated as Subject-doer of the preceding Verb?" are two such oft-repeated questions that only show that you are not READING what I am pointing out because if you did you would already have the answers to your questions.

Mazhar

Oh, there is PLENTY DIFFERENCE, one of them being that I actually typed my post myself in my own words instead of copying and pasting from a Grammar Book. Another difference is that I am insisting that in 4/3 is not a prepositional phrase because the particle is not used as a preposition in this phrase. I understand the particle to be a Partitive Particle in this instance. If it is YOUR UNDERSTANDING that a Partitive Particle is still the same thing as a Preposition then I guess I can understand why you are insisting that is a prepositional phrase. I disagree with it, but at least I know where you are coming from. It is my understanding that the proposition is not a prepositional or explanatory particle by default. It is my understanding that this word has to be used in a certain context in order for it to be understood as a preposition (and the phrase it appears in as a prepositional phrase). It is my understanding that a preposition by default refers to position, location, direction or geographical origin. It is like the English word "ON". This word is not a prepositon by default but can be used as a preposition if placed in the correct context. For example, "Turn the television ON" is not a prepositional sentence because the word "on" is not used as a preposition in this example. However, "The books are ON the table" does include a prepositional phrase since the word "on" is now used as a preposition in this example. It is used to show the LOCATION and POSITION of the books.

Peace Shirley,

That is the difference. You read from a book and reproduced not what is conveyed therein, but that which you perceived and thereby you think it is right. But you attribute it to grammar books.
If you read Arabic grammar books you will not find that ?Min? is given the name ?Partitive Particle?. ?Min? is placed in the category, called " " Genitive particles-Prepositions.
Learned Thackston did not say what you are attributing to him. He did not grant or coin name ?Partitive? for ?Min? which he knew as Preposition. He correctly stated, ?followed by partitive-min construction?. What he is saying is ?followed by a prepositional phrase where the preposition is functioning to describe a part of the whole-a subset of the set?. He is correctly saying in few words what is the original Arabic word in grammar for this type of use-function of Min which I quoted in my post; . When used for this function, easy way to determine is to put in its place.
For your convenience, I reproduce the classification of Particles and their names

" " Genitive particles;
" " Particles resembling a verb;
" " Appositive particles;
" " Particles of Notice;
" " Vocative Particles;
" " Particles of Reply
" " Extraneous Particles
" " Two particles of Clarification;
" " Particles of Masdar is a prepositional phrase. I disagree with it, but at least I know where you are coming from." Kindly enlighten me with one reference where someone says that Arabic language has in its vocabulary a Particle named "Partitive Particle". And kindly enlighten me with one reference where someone says that Min and its Object Noun is other than a Prepositional Phrase.

"On" is used as preposition, adverb and adjective.

thanks

Wakas

Damon,

"min" occurs in Quran about 3226 times
http//corpus.quran.com/search.jsp?q=lem%3Amin+pos%3Ap

All you need to do is find 1 out of the 3226 which refutes what Mazhar claims. It is ok to reply "I haven't studied it, so I dont know".

You claim

You and Wakas insist on asking me for another instance where Nisaa' is performing a masculine verb and Huruf has done that by pointing out 12/30 to you guys.

Firstly, if you had read 1230 carefully, you'd know the word used is not "nisaa" but "niswatun". Secondly, you have failed to explain why a masculine verb is used in 43 (according to you) and not elsewhere etc for "nisa", unless your view is you dont know or Quran uses its words haphazardly so there is no reason. Either way, let us know. ;D