Discussion on 4:3 and meaning of nisa
-
What, no translation of "three Arabian women" into Arabic?
The same reason if mixed children (i.e. males and females) and to clarify if mixed siblings.
411 directs you The God in your children
lildhakari/to the male like share al-unthayayni/the two (feminine)4176... and if were ikh'watun/siblings rijlan wanisan
falildhakari/so to the male like share al-unthayayni/the two (feminine)
clarifies The God for you lest you stray and The God in every a thing KnowingPeace
So why the switch in both ayas?
Are there then rijaal who are not dhakar and nisaa' who are not untha?
Salaam
-
So why the switch in both ayas?
Are there then rijaal who are not dhakar and nisaa' who are not untha?
Switch is to express a consistent and clear 21 male to female distribution ratio.
Inaccurate lilrrijli/for the men like share im'ra-atni/two womenWhat about the distributions for non-adult females?
How else to write 21 male to female ratio any age?What, no translation of "three Arabian women" into Arabic?
The same reason if mixed children (i.e. males and females) and to clarify if mixed siblings.
411 directs you The God in your children
lildhakari/to the male like share al-unthayayni/the two (feminine)4176... and if were ikh'watun/siblings rijlan wanisan
falildhakari/so to the male like share al-unthayayni/the two (feminine)
clarifies The God for you lest you stray and The God in every a thing KnowingPeace
-
Switch is to express a consistent and clear 21 male to female distribution ratio.
Inaccurate lilrrijli/for the men like share im'ra-atni/two womenWhat about the distributions for non-adult females?
How else to write 21 male to female ratio any age?THAT cannot be the reason, ABOLUTELY NOT.
If rijaal entailed a sex, then it is confusing to introduce a new concept. In the dhakar ALL males are included, ALL. In the untha ALL females are included, ALL.
If different terms are used it cannot be to make clearer something which by itself CANNOT BE CLEARER.
Salaam
-
THAT cannot be the reason, ABOLUTELY NOT.
If rijaal entailed a sex, then it is confusing to introduce a new concept. In the dhakar ALL males are included, ALL. In the untha ALL females are included, ALL.
If different terms are used it cannot be to make clearer something which by itself CANNOT BE CLEARER.
Salaam
That is absolutely the case and no better way to express a ratio to include all males and females.
21 male to female distribution ratio cannot be expressed correctly using rijlan wanisan.
Lastly, if you do complete study at the inheritance leaves no doubt that nisaa are feminine/women.
411 directs you The God in your children
lildhakari/to the male like share al-unthayayni/the two (feminine)
so if kunna/are (feminine plural) nisaa (feminine/women any age) above two (feminine)
falahunna/so for them (feminine plural) thulutha 2/3 what left
and if kanat/she is (feminine) widatan/one (feminine) so for her the halfIn addition, the alternatives presented (rather brainstormed) thus far are absurd only show a lack careful study and when asked to insert explain their supposed counter meaning in other verses all Shirley did was rant about Wakas and others telling us how good his Arabic on Skype would be and refuses to tell us how he or you too huruf would say in Arabic the simple phrase "three Arabian women" -- end of conversation!
Peace
-
No, Noon, I don't know what you are answering, but you are not answering my question.
All males and females are already included ein dhakar and untha or their plurals, so again, why use rijaal and nisaa'. Dhakar and untha are quite sufficient and quite clear if what is meant is that precisely, males and females.
Salaam
-
No, Noon, I don't know what you are answering, but you are not answering my question.
All males and females are already included ein dhakar and untha or their plurals, so again, why use rijaal and nisaa'. Dhakar and untha are quite sufficient and quite clear if what is meant is that precisely, males and females.
Salaam
Noon did make the point quite explicit.
Nisaa ==women
untha===femaleWomen and female are two different words. Woman is a female adult. Equation is mentioned by gender-female and male to include all ages.
-
-
Salaam all,
Noon, I think what Huruf means is the verse still seems to work if rijal/nisa words were not there in the siblings verse. However, I would say that having rijal/nisa there would only serve to confuse if one did not know what they meant or if one thinks they meant other than men/women.
Interestingly, if one tries to insert alternative meanings into these verses it does seem to result in renditions way more absurd. Try it. In fact, one does not need to know what rijal/nisa means to see the absurdity, as long as one believes it does not mean men/women but rather terms which indicate mixed gender groups.
Thus, what may originally seen as superfluous ( I haven't studied inheritance verses however) may be a expertly introduced clarifier so no one can manipulate such terms. You will not find Damon et al provide any logical alternative for the inheritance verses, nor do I expect them to for the foreseeable future.
From an unrelated angle I did study the word nisa and the inheritance verses were the only ones I found that seemed to treat nisa as equivalent to female in places, but now I think this may have something to do when they actually receive the inheritance, ie. when they are adults, for both men and women.
-
Behold, We have sent it down in all clarity, in the Arabic tongue, so that you might encompass it with your reason.? (Quran 122)
Peace All,
I am wondering, in the light of the quote above, if we are not getting stuck too much in the weight of language. Of course, the language is important, because we have seen how, through mistranslations, various actions have been sanctioned, such as beating women. However, without even correcting the translations, our reason should have told us that God speaks of Peace and non-agression (apart from in self-defence), that we should have therefore known by our total reading of the Koran that beating women was a nonsense and so therefore, perhaps it was another type of beat that was meant, such as the American 'beat it, leave, go away'. Of course, as Huruf keeps pointing out, the Koran is dynamic and its meanings almost seem to become clear at the exact point when they should.
As I have pointed out before, I cannot make a linguistic contribution, but I feel that in terms of ideas for the current issue, 4;3, we will need to look at the whole of the Koran and reason whether, all things weighed up, if God is telling us that when a man marries up to four wives, he will help those women. Does the Koran as a wholesome bottle of medicine support this idea. Does the fact that the Koran also tells us that it is impossible to be fair to more than one wife not send us a warning signal that polygamy is not sanctioned. I suspect that God knows that 4;3 would have been abused by those whose purpose it suited. Why would a society choose to believe that 4;3 means marry up to 4 women instead of it meaning that we should look after those in need in our society. Why would God suggest a system that intrinsically separates men from their wives and children regularly while they (fathers) try to do the impossible of keeping up with four wives and four sets of families.
The Koran is medicine for our lives, therefore we have to take the whole lot for it to be effective, not just the bits that make the most impact. There are no grey areas. Those that appear grey are the ones that we find hard to accept and feel ought to be otherwise. I think people find it hard to let go of the polygamy idea because it has become embedded in so many muslim cultures. It's interesting how, when this discussion first started on another thread, only a couple of us were willing to stand up and say that essentially, polygamy cannot be koranic, because the rest of the Koran does not support it. Whilst my knowledge of the Koran allowed me to have this view confidently, I was not hampered by any ingrained views handed down to me by my family etc.
-
Salaam all,
Noon, I think what Huruf means is the verse still seems to work if rijal/nisa words were not there in the siblings verse. However, I would say that having rijal/nisa there would only serve to confuse if one did not know what they meant or if one thinks they meant other than men/women.
Interestingly, if one tries to insert alternative meanings into these verses it does seem to result in renditions way more absurd. Try it. In fact, one does not need to know what rijal/nisa means to see the absurdity, as long as one believes it does not mean men/women but rather terms which indicate mixed gender groups.
Thus, what may originally seen as superfluous ( I haven't studied inheritance verses however) may be a expertly introduced clarifier so no one can manipulate such terms. You will not find Damon et al provide any logical alternative for the inheritance verses, nor do I expect them to for the foreseeable future.
From an unrelated angle I did study the word nisa and the inheritance verses were the only ones I found that seemed to treat nisa as equivalent to female in places, but now I think this may have something to do when they actually receive the inheritance, ie. when they are adults, for both men and women.
Peace Wakas, the best way to express a 21 male to female ratio of any age was as written.
Example should suffice/clarify a man dies leaving 72 gold coins inheritance; there is no will. He has from 1st wife (deceased) a son age 21 and from 2nd wife (widow) 2 sons ages 5 & 9; 3 daughters ages 7, 11, & 13.
411 directs you The God in your children
lildhakari/to the male like share al-unthayayni/the two (feminine)412 ... so if he is for you walad (if male child/born) so for them (f) the eight
Wife = 72 gold coins x 1/8 = 9 gold coins (leaves 63 gold coins to children distributed 21 male to female ratio)?
Son age 21 = 63 gold coins x 2/9 = 14 gold coins
Son age 5 = 63 gold coins x 2/9 = 14 gold coins (held in trust until maturity)
Son age 9 = 63 gold coins x 2/9 = 14 gold coins " "
Daughter age 7 = 63 gold coins x 1/9 = 7 gold coins " "
Daughter age 11 = 63 gold coins x 1/9 = 7 gold coins " "
Daughter age 13 = 63 gold coins x 1/9 = 7 gold coins " "The following day son age 21 dies in an accident (no will) which leaves 14 gold coins to his younger siblings?
4176 ... and if were ikh'watun brethren/siblings rijlan wanisan (i.e. mixed)
falildhakari/so to the male like share al-unthayayni the two (feminine)Son age 5 = 14 gold coins x 2/7 = 4 gold coins (held in trust until maturity along with 14; total now is 18 gold coins)
Son age 9 = 14 gold coins x 2/7 = 4 gold coins " "
Daughter age 7 = 14 gold coins x 1/7 = 2 gold coins (in trust until maturity along with 7; total now is 9 gold coins)
Daughter age 11 = 14 gold coins x 1/7 = 2 gold coins " "
Daughter age 13 = 14 gold coins x 1/7 = 2 gold coins " "Now widow is left with young children, Qur'an advises to help gives dire warning not mess with above...
41 O you al-nas/the humankind fear your Lord the He who created you from soul one and created from it its spouse and dispersed from them two rijalan/men much wanisaan/and women and fear The God The Who you ask with it and the wombs indeed The God He is over you Watchful 42 and give the orphans their wealth and not exchange the bad with the good and not eat/consume their wealth to your wealth indeed it it is sin great 43 and if you fear that not do justice in the orphans f-ankHwa so marry what taba/agree to you from al-nisaa/the women paired/dual/twos and three and quadruplet/group of four so if you fear that not do justice so one (f) or what possess your right hands (means/trust) that minimum that not you oppress 44 and give al-nisaa/the women their handouts graciously so if tibna/they remit for you about a thing from it of soul/their own so eat/consume it satisfaction ease 45 and not give the foolish your wealth the one made The God for you standing/support and provide them with it and clothe them and speak to them a word appropriate 46 and test the orphans until when attained the marriage so if you perceive from them rational so deliver to them their wealth and not eat/consume it wastefully and hastily lest/that they grow up and from he is rich so should refrain and from he is in need for so let eat/consume in the fair manner so when you deliver to them their wealth so take witnesses over them and sufficient with The God Reckoner 47 lilrrijal/to the men a share from what left the parents and the close relatives walilnnisaa/and for the women a share from what left the parents and the close relatives from what small from it or large portion obligatory 48 and when comes the division those the relatives/near and the orphans and the needy so provide them from it and speak for them a word appropriate 49 and let fear those who if they left from behind them offspring weak concerned over them so let them fear The God and let them speak a word right 410 indeed those who ate wealth the orphans injustice surely ate in their bellies of a fire and they will be burned a blaze
Behold, We have sent it down in all clarity, in the Arabic tongue, so that you might encompass it with your reason.? (Quran 122)
Peace All,
I am wondering, in the light of the quote above, if we are not getting stuck too much in the weight of language. Of course, the language is important, because we have seen how, through mistranslations, various actions have been sanctioned, such as beating women. However, without even correcting the translations, our reason should have told us that God speaks of Peace and non-agression (apart from in self-defence), that we should have therefore known by our total reading of the Koran that beating women was a nonsense and so therefore, perhaps it was another type of beat that was meant, such as the American 'beat it, leave, go away'. Of course, as Huruf keeps pointing out, the Koran is dynamic and its meanings almost seem to become clear at the exact point when they should.
As I have pointed out before, I cannot make a linguistic contribution, but I feel that in terms of ideas for the current issue, 4;3, we will need to look at the whole of the Koran and reason whether, all things weighed up, if God is telling us that when a man marries up to four wives, he will help those women. Does the Koran as a wholesome bottle of medicine support this idea. Does the fact that the Koran also tells us that it is impossible to be fair to more than one wife not send us a warning signal that polygamy is not sanctioned. I suspect that God knows that 4;3 would have been abused by those whose purpose it suited. Why would a society choose to believe that 4;3 means marry up to 4 women instead of it meaning that we should look after those in need in our society. Why would God suggest a system that intrinsically separates men from their wives and children regularly while they (fathers) try to do the impossible of keeping up with four wives and four sets of families.
The Koran is medicine for our lives, therefore we have to take the whole lot for it to be effective, not just the bits that make the most impact. There are no grey areas. Those that appear grey are the ones that we find hard to accept and feel ought to be otherwise. I think people find it hard to let go of the polygamy idea because it has become embedded in so many muslim cultures. It's interesting how, when this discussion first started on another thread, only a couple of us were willing to stand up and say that essentially, polygamy cannot be koranic, because the rest of the Koran does not support it. Whilst my knowledge of the Koran allowed me to have this view confidently, I was not hampered by any ingrained views handed down to me by my family etc.
Peace dawngorgeous,
al-nisaa/the women when cross-referenced there is no doubt they are females.
Perhaps a better study would be 43 f-ankHwa which also appears in 2432 w-ankHwa
This reminds me of Balkan wars when Albanian families in diaspora took in women and orphans in their homes made them part of family without marrying the mothers although most were by their relatives and a woman living in same house with non-related man would be inappropriate causing other issues.
As with marrying cousins or eating snails what some find appalling it?s not obligatory so to each their own.
Peace
-
Peace Noon,
I like the example you gave because it was very very easy to understand. One thing I don't agree with is, that it would be considered inappropriate for a woman (and her children) to live with a family that she is not related to. I think it is society that has conditioned us to think this way. It is true that she would have to take more caution in her dress and behavior, but I think it could work out rather well given that the couple own a large house. Some people here own duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes (great investment idea, by the way----depending on the market and location) where the widow (s) could possibly have her own living quarters.
I think ma malakat ayamukum refers to those who are cared for under an oath, but that oath doesn't need to translate to marriage. This is all coming from someone who doesn't believe that polygamy is mandated in any case, but simply allowable given that we've got the appropriate circumstances and context, cooperating parties, enough resources, and adequate shelter for all. This is my present view, but I am still investigating "nisa" and open to possibilities.
I'm not averse to alternative lifestyles (and I do believe polygamy to be an alternative lifestyle, because I tend to think most people prefer monogamy, but I am averse to ONE spouse making a decision all by HIMSELF, without any regard to his partner's preference. Now when I say that most people prefer monogamy, I mean to say that most people don't want to have to stretch themselves out so thin financially, emotionally, and whatever else. Of course, men will be men, and fantasize over having a thousand wives, but reality would consist of short-lived pleasure and a zillion responsibilities accompanied with family drama amplified 2X, 3X, and/or 4X.
My thoughts in the end are whether we believe in strictly monogamy, polygyny allowable, polyandry allowable, homosexuality, whatever else that I missed, let's just respect one another's preferences. Before you enter into a marriage, make it clear what you want. If you prefer polygamy, make it clear. If you prefer monogamy, get it in writing. After that, let's respect one another and honor that oath regardless of circumstances. That's my spiel.
-
(males) and (females) are all inclusive gender terms. They encompass men and women as well as young men and women, boys and girls, teenagers, etc. It would be an absolute redundancy to mention males and females and then men and women. By mentioning (males) and (females) it covers everyone; boys, young men, old men, girls, young women, old women, etc.
-
(males) and (females) are all inclusive gender terms. They encompass men and women as well as young men and women, boys and girls, teenagers, etc. It would be an absolute redundancy to mention males and females and then men and women. By mentioning (males) and (females) it covers everyone; boys, young men, old men, girls, young women, old women, etc.
Then simply translate and distribute 9 gold coins of widow in prior example?
She married a man who took her in and now after many years leaves behind3 daughters and husband
411 directs you The God in your children
lildhakari/to the male like share al-unthayayni/the two (feminine)
so if they are (feminine plural) nisa above two (feminine)
falahunna/so for them (feminine plural) third dual (2/3) what left412 and for you half what left spouses yours if not was for them waladun (child/born)
so if kana/he is for them walad (i.e. if male child) so for you the fourth from what they leftEverything needed is exactly stated. It?s open book; ask a friend or feel free to ask Asana whatever site.
Peace
-
The thread...I guess, I believe to 'Bump' figuratively in internet language means to bring attention back to something which is losing or has lost attention, or so it seems.
-
Peace Fallen Angel,
I think this thread is losing its wind.
I think we've reached five possible conclusions with absolutely NO consensus (the same five we started off with, plus and minus a few things)
- Polygamy is not permissible--Quran does not support it
- Polygamy is permissible and mandated under certain circumstances
- Polygamy is permissible and allowed under certain circumstances
- Polygamy is permissible is allowed under certain circumstances given that all parties are in consent of it
- Polygamy is allowed but 4.3 has nothing to do with polygamy
Oh well. This is the beauty of our little community we rarely agree on anything. brickwall
-
Peace Released,
lol, agreed.
-
Peace Fallen Angel,
I think this thread is losing its wind.
I think we've reached five possible conclusions with absolutely NO consensus (the same five we started off with, plus and minus a few things)
- Polygamy is not permissible--Quran does not support it
- Polygamy is permissible and mandated under certain circumstances
- Polygamy is permissible and allowed under certain circumstances
- Polygamy is permissible is allowed under certain circumstances given that all parties are in consent of it
- Polygamy is allowed but 4.3 has nothing to do with polygamy
Oh well. This is the beauty of our little community we rarely agree on anything. brickwall
Salaam
You have beautifully summed up how we all see the problem, from our own perspectives. Yes this is the beauty of individuality, and to unite all individuals, as one Ummah, instead of agreeing to disagree we need to get our minds focused on finding out what the exact and true meaning is; what is the truth Al Haqq. Only then wil the light of ALLAAH shine upon us all insha allaah.
Salaam
-
Peace Fallen Angel,
I think this thread is losing its wind.
I think we've reached five possible conclusions with absolutely NO consensus (the same five we started off with, plus and minus a few things)
- Polygamy is not permissible--Quran does not support it
- Polygamy is permissible and mandated under certain circumstances
- Polygamy is permissible and allowed under certain circumstances
- Polygamy is permissible is allowed under certain circumstances given that all parties are in consent of it
- Polygamy is allowed but 4.3 has nothing to do with polygamy
Oh well. This is the beauty of our little community we rarely agree on anything. brickwall
Only one cause. Not reading and accepting the text, but reading one's own mind. Arabs use Nisaa for women, we say no it means this and that. And still insist we are reading Arabic text.
