Discussion on 4:3 and meaning of nisa
-
Peace,
So technically, polygamy and polyandry are both neither encouraged or discouraged in the Quran, that's what you're implying right? Also, if you don't mind, can you point out based on this new understanding of Nisa', Nikah etc., which verses DO deal with marriage?
-
Peace Damon,
I also believe that polygamy is not an issue in the Koran. I believe it is a subject that was inserted into the Koran. The Koran on the whole does not support polygamy and as I have said on numerous occasions, there are no contradictions in the Koran and, in effect, the Koran will explain itself.
We have to use our intelligence and be brave enough to accept the obvious.
-
Peace Damon,
I also believe that polygamy is not an issue in the Koran. I believe it is a subject that was inserted into the Koran. The Koran on the whole does not support polygamy and as I have said on numerous occasions, there are no contradictions in the Koran and, in effect, the Koran will explain itself.
We have to use our intelligence and be brave enough to accept the obvious.
Peace Dawngorgeous,
I agree with you.
==========================================
Basically what Dr. QZ and the Aastana members are doing is something I realized must be done even when I was still a sunni, and that is we are Starting All Over From Scratch!! The people who altered and defaced the message did so by starting from scratch and they were very methodical about it. WE have to do the same thing IF we want to perform the correct surgery in order to repair The Quran's message and image.
"The Quran is NOT a Religious book geared towards men alone. It is a book of Social Justice geared towards women and men equally.The Quran is a document outlining the implementation of JUSTICE. It is NOT only upon males to implement justice it is upon males and females alike. Because of this, a document concerned with JUSTICE FOR ALL must also ADDRESS ALL!! That is why you find 41 - 43 being addressed to ALL PEOPLE (An-Nas). It is addressing all people and the system of justice it recommends is for the benefit all people - 6/90, 12/104, 38/87, 43/44.
I hope I live long enough to see the day when The Quran is no longer viewed as a sexist, chauvinist, male centric religious book."
-
Peace,
So technically, polygamy and polyandry are both neither encouraged or discouraged in the Quran, that's what you're implying right?
Yes Sister, this is the understanding that I presently have. I do not see The Quran as a book revealing yet another religion with rites and rituals and the prying into human beings private lives. I see The Quran as a document mandating and outlining the process towards dismantling a system of injustice and replacing it with a system that is based on justice. I cannot see how telling it's target audience whom to marry and not marry, when to marry, when not to marry, etc. fits in this total discussion of ridding ourselves of corrupt and unjust regimes and replacing them a system of justice. Marriage is a private matter that fits outside of the scope of social justice for all.
Also, if you don't mind, can you point out based on this new understanding of Nisa', Nikah etc., which verses DO deal with marriage?
Based on my present understandings of Nikah and Nisaa' I don't think any of the verses in The Quran do deal with marriage.
===========================================
Basically what Dr. QZ and the Aastana members are doing is something I realized must be done even when I was still a sunni, and that is we are Starting All Over From Scratch!! The people who altered and defaced the message did so by starting from scratch and they were very methodical about it. WE have to do the same thing IF we want to perform the correct surgery in order to repair The Quran's message and image.
"The Quran is NOT a Religious book geared towards men alone. It is a book of Social Justice geared towards women and men equally.The Quran is a document outlining the implementation of JUSTICE. It is NOT only upon males to implement justice it is upon males and females alike. Because of this, a document concerned with JUSTICE FOR ALL must also ADDRESS ALL!! That is why you find 41 - 43 being addressed to ALL PEOPLE (An-Nas). It is addressing all people and the system of justice it recommends is for the benefit all people - 6/90, 12/104, 38/87, 43/44.
I hope I live long enough to see the day when The Quran is no longer viewed as a sexist, chauvinist, male centric religious book."
-
Based on my present understandings of Nikah and Nisaa' I don't think any of the verses in The Quran do deal with marriage.
The Arabic word for marriage is ZAWAAJ .The Arabic word for husband is ZAWJ and the Arabic word for WIFE IS ZAWJA !!! The plural for Zawj (husband) is Al-Azwaaj and the PLURAL FOR ZAWJA (WIFE) is ZAWJAAT !! In Arabic when someone is married the terms that are used are Matazawj and Watazawwajat . This is in spoken AND written Arabic. Some spoken dialects use the Arabic word Imraa'a for wife, others use Zawja and a few of them use both words interchangeably. But just so you guys know, the Arabic word Imraa'a LITERALLY means WOMAN. This information you can get from the dictionaries and grammar books of Classical, Modern Standard and Spoken Arabic.
We should know that these words are all derivatives of the root word Za-Wa-Ja and the definitions of this word are to pair, to double, to connect two things as a pair, to make one of a pair, to connect two species or type as a pair or AS A SPOUSE!!
44/54, 33/37 and 39/6 in The Quran speak unquestionably on the subject of marriage or male-to-female companionship.
A couple of other related tid bits just to help further drive home the point of Zawj, Zawja and Zawaaj;
In Arabic a married couple is referred to as Az-Zawjayn and The plural word for the term married people is mutazawwijiin .
The reason I strongly feel that this verse is NOT discussing husband and wife relations is because the Arabic word for Husband (male mate/companion) is Zauwj and the Arabic word for wife (female mate/companion) is Zauwja. Neither of these words are mentioned in this verse, yet both of these words are mentioned elsewhere in The Quran when it is clear that it is talking about husband and wife or companions/mates.
A husband is not the same thing as a male companion.
A wife is not the same thing as a female companion.Does Quran discuss marriage?
yes/no - if yes, cite the verses.Does an exclusive Quranic term for "husband" and "wife" exist?
yes/no - if yes, what are they?Please make up your mind.
-
My mind IS made up. I understand Zawj and Zawja to be used in Arabic as husband and wife and used in The Quran to also denote husband and wife OR male-female companions and companionship. If you're attempting to come at me with your typical silliness, AT LEAST read my last post carefully. I clearly started my response to Fallen Angel's question with Based on my present understandings. I DO NOT believe any verses of the Quran discuss MARRIAGE!! By this I mean MATRIMONY or discussing who should and should not marry who, when to get married, the outlines of the marriage contract, etc. If The Quran does so happen to mention the words for Husband/Intimate Male Companion or Wife/Intimate Female Companion, that is not the same as bringing up the topic of Marriage/Matrimony/Wedding/Marriage Ceremony. Knowing what I know now, 44/54 and 39/6 may mention Zawj and/or Zawja but by no means does that equate to bringing up the topic of marriage (this person marrying that person, etc.). And I have a different understanding today concerning 33/37 than what I did two weeks ago.
Re-read my post on Zawj and Zawja and remind yourself what I said in that post and the reasons I said what I said in that post.
If you're going to attempt to discuss anything with me, you already know my criteria for fair and rational debate. If that is not your criteria then I will not waste my time with you.
-
It's quite simple really. In order to evaluate someone's position, one must know what their position is.
Simplified, you said
In these verses Quran unquestionably talks about A or B.
Then said, Quran never discusses A.Thus, unless you've changed your mind, the above two statements are not compatible. But it's ok, you have now clarified.
I find it interesting on the one hand you say Quran is about social justice, but on the other hand say it never discusses marriage (in terms of how to go about it, criteria, safeguards, divorce procedure etc etc).And I also got the answer to this
Does an exclusive Quranic term for "husband" and "wife" exist?
yes/no - if yes, what are they?(emphasis mine)
I understand Zawj and Zawja to be used in Arabic as husband and wife and used in The Quran to also denote husband and wife OR male-female companions and companionship.
In other words, zawj/zawja are not exclusively a husband/wife term.
-
I find it interesting on the one hand you say Quran is about social justice, but on the other hand say it never discusses marriage (in terms of how to go about it, criteria, safeguards, divorce procedure etc etc).
I find it equally interesting that you seem to think that a document of social justice Must somehow discuss marriage as if it's a "Religious Book".
And I also got the answer to this
(emphasis mine)
In other words, zawj/zawja are not exclusively a husband/wife term.Good for you. I have my answer as well when I made that post on Zawj and Zawja because it was never approached or refuted and that is in the Arabic Language and among the Arabs the term used for Marriage is Zawaaj and not Nikah . And the related terms for husband and wife The Arabs use are Zawj and Zawja respectively as opposed to words related to Nikah or coming from the root word If you were to go back and read that particular post you would realize THAT was the point I was making.
====================================================
Basically what Dr. QZ and the Aastana members are doing is something I realized must be done even when I was still a sunni, and that is we are Starting All Over From Scratch!! The people who altered and defaced the message did so by starting from scratch and they were very methodical about it. WE have to do the same thing IF we want to perform the correct surgery in order to repair The Quran's message and image.
"The Quran is NOT a Religious book geared towards men alone. It is a book of Social Justice geared towards women and men equally.The Quran is a document outlining the implementation of JUSTICE. It is NOT only upon males to implement justice it is upon males and females alike. Because of this, a document concerned with JUSTICE FOR ALL must also ADDRESS ALL!! That is why you find 41 - 43 being addressed to ALL PEOPLE (An-Nas). It is addressing all people and the system of justice it recommends is for the benefit of all people - 6/90, 12/104, 38/87, 43/44.
I hope I live long enough to see the day when The Quran is no longer viewed as a sexist, chauvinist, male centric religious book."
-
Good for you. I have my answer as well when I made that post on Zawj and Zawja because it was never approached or refuted and that is in the Arabic Language and among the Arabs the term used for Marriage is Zawaaj and not Nikah . And the related terms for husband and wife The Arabs use are Zawj and Zawja respectively as opposed to words related to Nikah or coming from the root word If you were to go back and read that particular post you would realize THAT was the point I was making.
is no word in Qur'aan. will mean wife or husband when it is in Genitive construct-Possessive phrase, otherwise it will only denote a group, a pair.
Yousingular masculine-second person and the wife of you the word remains
Similarly husband will be
-
Mazhar,
You seem to not understand that there is a REASON that I ignore you and not bother with responding to anything you say to me. Read my last two posts (to Wakas) and read this post of yours and hopefully you'll figure it out.
Also, I can save you the time on one thing I DO NOT go by your rules for the case endings and the functions they supposedly serve in an Arabic sentence. I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain this to you or trying to get you to understand it as I do, it will be a waste of my time and energy. If you want to follow Sibawayh's and William Wright's rules for the case endings, then by all means knock yourself out.
Put two and two together so you can understand why I have been ignoring you and why I am going to continue to ignore you after this post. Also, I've seen your methodology of discussing things with people and have already been on the receiving end of that methodology as well. It only takes one time for me.
Peace!!
-
Mazhar,
You seem to not understand that there is a REASON that I ignore you and not bother with responding to anything you say to me. Read my last two posts (to Wakas) and read this post of yours and hopefully you'll figure it out.
Also, I can save you the time on one thing I DO NOT go by your rules for the case endings and the functions they supposedly serve in an Arabic sentence. I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain this to you or trying to get you to understand it as I do, it will be a waste of my time and energy. If you want to follow Sibawayh's and William Wright's rules for the case endings, then by all means knock yourself out.
Put two and two together so you can understand why I have been ignoring you and why I am going to continue to ignore you after this post. Also, I've seen your methodology of discussing things with people and have already been on the receiving end of that methodology as well. It only takes one time for me.
Peace!!
I just check you and rebut you when you attribute your stupid understanding to Arabs. You have naively ignored the evidence given to rebut your stupid assertion about Zaujatun. You had no option but to ignore it.
-
Peace,
Please cannot you please discuss things in a friendlier manner? Are you not muslims?
May God settle your disputes
-
Peace,
Please cannot you please discuss things in a friendlier manner? Are you not muslims?
May God settle your disputes
Man of Faith, you and I have never said anything to each other on this forum (as far as I know) but this is the second time you have interloped in a thread I was involved in and made statements that portrayed me as an actor of aggression in the situation at hand. As for me personally....I do not try to interlope or correct the behaviour of someone that I do not know. But that's just me. I do not try to play peace maker or try to portray myself as a "saint" of this forum. But look at my post and then look at his and please point out to me any aggression or harshness on my part towards him. I ignore him so I would not be pushed to be harsh or aggressive with him because that is eventually what happens when you deal with him. I know this from observation AND experience!!
Secondly, I am quite curious as to what your definition of a muslim is. Perhaps you can open a thread where this word and it's definition is explored. But based upon the context you have used it in (in your rhetorical styled question) I think I have an idea of what you perceive a muslim to be, in which case I must say that I most humbly disagree. Again, that can be discussed in it's own separate thread.
More importantly, I am humbly suggesting that you read this thread from the very beginning to understand that I do not have a dispute with this guy nor do I care to discuss anything with him. His last post should let you know exactly why I choose not to because that is what you will have to deal with when it comes to trying to discuss anything with him and that is not the first time that he has come at me like that. If you were to read this thread in it's entirety, you would see that.
If YOU have a contribution to make to the topic of this thread then I am all eyes and am willing to read whatever thoughts or views you have concerning the topic under discussion. But please...PLEASE stop trying to play Peace Maker so much especially when you do not understand the full scope of whatever dispute you feel you may perceive and you do not know at least one of the people whom you are attempting to "correct". I say this with all humility and cordiality.
-
Peace,
I do not know you, that is correct. I just thought the tone was really bad and lacking respect. Especially the last post calling thoughts stupid and naive.
I just wrote what I thought and you attack even my call for a friendly solution to the conflict.
Why I asked about if you are muslims was for you to yourselves to reflect on the actions and if they match one.
How do I perceive a muslim to be other than one following what is written in the believer's guide, the Quran?
What now? Are you going to divert attacks on me because I could not remain a passive bystander?
Good that you ignore him then and I hope he will stop making disrespectful remarks.
Anyway, I have no more to add to the topic other than what I already said. I will check on other threads.
May God bless us with peace
-
Good that you ignore him then and I hope he will stop making disrespectful remarks.
Islam says check and point out stupid things, it is specially needed when they are authoritatively asserted and attributed to others to bring in force and authenticity in that idiotic assertion. You also should not be passive to such stupid assertions.
-
Peace,
Why not object in a kinder way and explain why the ideas are wrong? You can respond to falsehood, but not in such a harsh way.
Anyway, I see that my attempt to care failed and I apologize for my interference. Please do not flame me for just trying to help.
May God bring us back in good mood
-
Peace,
I do not know you, that is correct. I just thought the tone was really bad and lacking respect. Especially the last post calling thoughts stupid and naive.
I just wrote what I thought and you attack even my call for a friendly solution to the conflict.
Why I asked about if you are muslims was for you to yourselves to reflect on the actions and if they match one.
How do I perceive a muslim to be other than one following what is written in the believer's guide, the Quran?
What now? Are you going to divert attacks on me because I could not remain a passive bystander?
Good that you ignore him then and I hope he will stop making disrespectful remarks.
Anyway, I have no more to add to the topic other than what I already said. I will check on other threads.
May God bless us with peace
Man of Faith, I made it very clear that what I had to say to you I was saying in as cordial a manner as possible. But instead of realizing and acknowledging this, you make the statements such as those that are in red. Please read my post directed towards you and read your response to that post and ask yourself if I would be in the wrong if I choose not to correspond with you just like I choose not to respond to the guy who only makes idiotic posts and spits stupidity whenever he touches a keyboard? And I have to wonder WHO you are directing your response to because I believe you are getting me and that guy's posts mixed up. He is the one with the retarded and very limited thinking process, not me. Click on his name, read his posts and activities on this forum and you will understand why no one on this forum takes him seriously. This is what I meant when I said that you should research a situation before making assumptions. And I see you still have not done so (but make posts towards me that are certainly unwarranted).
My activity on this forum is on a very limited basis...VERY limited. I'm not a fixture in this place (and definitely do not wish to be), so when I do come here I have to use that little bit of time wisely. Part of doing that is NOT corresponding with certain people. I'm sorry, but based on what I have seen from you I realize that you are also one such person. All I can say to you is Peace and that's it.
-
Peace,
Why not object in a kinder way and explain why the ideas are wrong? You can respond to falsehood, but not in such a harsh way.
Anyway, I see that my attempt to care failed and I apologize for my interference. Please do not flame me for just trying to help.
May God bring us back in good mood
Salamun alaika,
Your intervention is with all the best intentions, and I do appreciate it. In debates such things quite often somehow occur. Response seemingly appeared harsh to you but it went because of deceptive technique of my colleague Shirley. He instead of accepting erroneousness of his observation tried to cover it in "ignoring" theory.
