The 2 witnesses in [2:282]
-
Peace
it is refering to the two WOMEN witnesses
Salam
-
Peace
it is refering to the two WOMEN witnesses
Salam
Could you elaborate ?
Peace
-
Hi
The two highlited Ta means it has to be about the women
the Ta in both "Tuddil and Tuzakir" means the two verbs are feminine
Salam
-
Hi
The two highlited Ta means it has to be about the women
the Ta in both "Tuddil and Tuzakir" means the two verbs are feminine
Salam
Peace Ahmed,
Could you give more explanations ?
Like
What is the verb ? taa-daal-laam ?
And what is its form ?
What is the tense ? imperfect (el moudara', or perfect (el madi) ?
Is it I (mutallakim), you (Moukhatab), he/she/they (Rayb) ?
Is it singular (Moufrad), dual (Mouthanna), plural (Jam'?Thanks in advance,
Peace
-
Hi
The two highlited Ta means it has to be about the women
the Ta in both "Tuddil and Tuzakir" means the two verbs are feminine
Salam
Peace Ahmed,
Peace JM
Could you give more explanations ?
Like
What is the verb ? taa-daal-laam ?The verb is ?DDa La?, with a shadda on the Da, virtually ?Da Da La?
And what is its form ?
?DDa La?, with a shadda on the Da
What is the tense ? imperfect (el moudara', or perfect (el madi) ?
I don?t understand what you mean by imperfect or perfect?
The Ta in the verb means ?Present Tense Feminine?
el moudara = present tense
el madi = past tense
Is it I (mutallakim), you (Moukhatab), he/she/they (Rayb) ?
It is Ghayb
Is it singular (Moufrad), dual (Mouthanna), plural (Jam'?
Singular verb
Thanks in advance,
Peace
No worries
Salam
-
The verb is ?DDa La?, with a shadda on the Da, virtually ?Da Da La?
And what is its form ?
?DDa La?, with a shadda on the Da
I am sorry, Ahmed, but in , I do not see the shadda on the daad (whereas there is one on the laam َ
What is the tense ? imperfect (el moudara', or perfect (el madi) ?
I don?t understand what you mean by imperfect or perfect?
The Ta in the verb means ?Present Tense Feminine?
el moudara = present tense
el madi = past tense
Is it I (mutallakim), you (Moukhatab), he/she/they (Rayb) ?
It is Ghayb
Is it singular (Moufrad), dual (Mouthanna), plural (Jam'?
Singular verb
OK verb daad-laam, present, singular, third person (ghayb), feminine ("she"
According to grammar rules, it should give a ?ta? behind the root, and a ?u? (damma) on the last letter => tadillu.
But, in the Quran, we have tadilla.
(See http//www.webarabic.com/portail/apprendre/index.php?rub=grammaire&page=4§ion=les%20temps%20et%20la%20conjugaison)Is there not a problem?
And? What is the meaning of the verb daad-laam ? Is it not ?To misguide? ?
Peace
-
There is another possibility.
Let?s go to the Lane?s lexicon, to this page http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume5/00000082.pdf
There, we can read
Taa-daad-laam (with a shadda on the laam) he feigned himself to be erring, straying, going astray, deviating from the right way or couse, or from that which was right, missing, or losing the right way, or losing his way.NB it is worth noting that, according to this definition, the error is deliberate ; it is not a neglect.
Now, let?s assume it is past tense (el madi), singular (mufrad), third person (ghaib), masculine ; in English, ?he?.
According to grammar rules, it should add and a ?a? (fatha) on the last letter => tadilla.
Exactly what we find in the quran !
And it would mean ?he feigned himself to be erring?.
Does it not fit better ?
Peace
-
I am sorry, Ahmed, but in , I do not see the shadda on the daad (whereas there is one on the laam )
Nothihng to be sorry about, possibly I made a mistake and the shadda should be on the lam, all in all the word is the two letter Da and Lam regardless of the tashkil, the Ta in front for feminine verb, so why you are trying to make it complicated
I guess your question was answered 100% that the verbs are about the two female witnesses
OK verb daad-laam, present, singular, third person (ghayb), feminine ("she"
Not really, because you missed the Ta in front, and the Ta will make it feminine present tense
According to grammar rules, it should give a ta behind the root, and a u (damma) on the last letter => tadillu.
But, in the Quran, we have tadilla.
(See http//www.webarabic.com/portail/apprendre/index.php?rub=grammaire&page=4§ion=les%20temps%20et%20la%20conjugaison)Is there not a problem?
Bro, please don?t refer me to Arabic grammar lessons written in English, it is irrelevant to me, now any present verb must be Marfu with a dummah, UNLESS there is something before it, in our case we have the An in front of ?Taddil? and we have the Fa in front of ?Tozakkir?, both words can cause the present verb to be Mansub with a fatiha, however if you pronounced it with a dumma it will still be ok indeed, but I still don?t understand what you are trying to prove if the Quran was revealed without any tashkil at all from the first place?
And What is the meaning of the verb daad-laam ? Is it not To misguide ?
Peace
Misguided, Lost, Confused, etc etc
Salam
-
There is another possibility.
Lets go to the Lanes lexicon, to this page http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume5/00000082.pdf
There, we can read
Taa-daad-laam (with a shadda on the laam) he feigned himself to be erring, straying, going astray, deviating from the right way or couse, or from that which was right, missing, or losing the right way, or losing his way.NB it is worth noting that, according to this definition, the error is deliberate ; it is not a neglect.
Now, lets assume it is past tense (el madi), singular (mufrad), third person (ghaib), masculine ; in English, he.
According to grammar rules, it should add and a a (fatha) on the last letter => tadilla.
Exactly what we find in the quran !
And it would mean he feigned himself to be erring.
Does it not fit better ?
Peace
No it does not because it is total non sense, sorry
The verbs are feminine and are talking 100% about the two female witnesses, you will never be able to twist it bro
Salam
-
Salam JM, all,
Below is my literal translation and a correction of your translation. I hope it will help.
Verse .
Tadilla = he is misguided -- she is misguided
Ihdahuma = one of the two -- one of the two
Fa = so -- therefore
uthakkira = he reminds -- she will remind
Ihdahuma = one of the two -- one of the two
al-okhra = the other -- the other (feminine)If the verse was about men you would read in yadilla ihdahuma fa yuthakkira ihdahuma al-akher.
There is no doubt verse 2.282 is about women witnesses unless feminine became masculine-) and everything is possible in this forum-).Peace. Myr.
-
If the verse was about men you would read in yadilla ihdahuma fa yuthakkira ihdahuma al-akher.
Exactly sister, here is how it looks in arabic too " "
Salam
-
Salaam JM
Another understanding of this verse is that the first "i7daahuma" refers to one of the two testemonies (also feminine) needed, and the second "ihdahuma" refers to one of the women; thus it could be understood in this way
"If one of the two testemonies is lost/escaped (the witness), then one of the women will remind the other". This is because the condition for a witness is to be sound, and the "dhalaal" is contrary to that. A misguided person cannot testify. Also, the "dhalal" is not forgetness.
Also, from a linguistic point of view, if the first "i7dahuma" referred to the first woman, there is no need to repeat it to elude to the second woman, and it would be"If one of the two women is misguided , the other will remind her"; but the literal translation is "If one of the two women is misguided, one of the two women will remind her".
We should also remember that this is a condition. If the testemony did not escape the woman, there is no need for another woman to remind her, and her testemony is accepted. This further means that a woman witness, even if testemony escapes her, this will not inavlidate her as a witness, unlike the case of male witness.
-
According to grammar rules, it should give a ?ta? behind the root, and a ?u? (damma) on the last letter => tadillu.
But, in the Quran, we have tadilla.
(See http//www.webarabic.com/portail/apprendre/index.php?rub=grammaire&page=4§ion=les%20temps%20et%20la%20conjugaison)Is there not a problem?
Bro, please don?t refer me to Arabic grammar lessons written in English, it is irrelevant to me, now any present verb must be Marfu with a dummah, UNLESS there is something before it, in our case we have the An in front of ?Taddil? and we have the Fa in front of ?Tozakkir?, both words can cause the present verb to be Mansub with a fatiha, however if you pronounced it with a dumma it will still be ok indeed, but I still don?t understand what you are trying to prove if the Quran was revealed without any tashkil at all from the first place?
You may be right.
This rule is explained here http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_grammar#Mood.
And it is applied many times in the quran.Anyway, I still have questions.
- How would you translate in baghat ihdahuma AAala al-okhra fa qatiloo from ?
In = if
Baghat= she has transgressed (feminine gender, past tense)
ihdahuma = one of the two (feminine gender)
AAala = against
al-okhra = the other
fa = then
qatiloo = fightWhy is the feminine gender used in this sentence ?
- Where is the ?if? ?
Nearly everybody seems to agree that an tadilla ihdahumafatuthakkira ihdahuma al-okhra means ?so that if one of the two is misguided, therefore she will remind the other?.
But there is no ?if? (in) in that sentence, whereas, in , the conditional structure in-fa is respected.
Peace
-
According to grammar rules, it should give a ta behind the root, and a u (damma) on the last letter => tadillu.
But, in the Quran, we have tadilla.
(See http//www.webarabic.com/portail/apprendre/index.php?rub=grammaire&page=4§ion=les%20temps%20et%20la%20conjugaison)Is there not a problem?
Bro, please dont refer me to Arabic grammar lessons written in English, it is irrelevant to me, now any present verb must be Marfu with a dummah, UNLESS there is something before it, in our case we have the An in front of Taddil and we have the Fa in front of Tozakkir, both words can cause the present verb to be Mansub with a fatiha, however if you pronounced it with a dumma it will still be ok indeed, but I still dont understand what you are trying to prove if the Quran was revealed without any tashkil at all from the first place?
You may be right.
This rule is explained here http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_grammar#Mood.
And it is applied many times in the quran.Anyway, I still have questions.
- How would you translate in baghat ihdahuma AAala al-okhra fa qatiloo from ?
In = if
Baghat= she has transgressed (feminine gender, past tense)
ihdahuma = one of the two (feminine gender)
AAala = against
al-okhra = the other
fa = then
qatiloo = fightWhy is the feminine gender used in this sentence ?
- Where is the if ?
Nearly everybody seems to agree that an tadilla ihdahumafatuthakkira ihdahuma al-okhra means so that if one of the two is misguided, therefore she will remind the other.
But there is no if (in) in that sentence, whereas, in , the conditional structure in-fa is respected.
Peace
Hi
Regarding 499 it has to be feminine because it is refering to the "Taifa" like "A Tribe", or "a community", Taifa in arabic is feminine
The if is refering to "Fa In" in the Arabic text and is the right translation
Salam
-
According to grammar rules, it should give a ?ta? behind the root, and a ?u? (damma) on the last letter => tadillu.
But, in the Quran, we have tadilla.
(See http//www.webarabic.com/portail/apprendre/index.php?rub=grammaire&page=4§ion=les%20temps%20et%20la%20conjugaison)Is there not a problem?
Bro, please don?t refer me to Arabic grammar lessons written in English, it is irrelevant to me, now any present verb must be Marfu with a dummah, UNLESS there is something before it, in our case we have the An in front of ?Taddil? and we have the Fa in front of ?Tozakkir?, both words can cause the present verb to be Mansub with a fatiha, however if you pronounced it with a dumma it will still be ok indeed, but I still don?t understand what you are trying to prove if the Quran was revealed without any tashkil at all from the first place?
You may be right.
This rule is explained here http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_grammar#Mood.
And it is applied many times in the quran.Anyway, I still have questions.
- How would you translate in baghat ihdahuma AAala al-okhra fa qatiloo from ?
In = if
Baghat= she has transgressed (feminine gender, past tense)
ihdahuma = one of the two (feminine gender)
AAala = against
al-okhra = the other
fa = then
qatiloo = fightWhy is the feminine gender used in this sentence ?
- Where is the ?if? ?
Nearly everybody seems to agree that an tadilla ihdahumafatuthakkira ihdahuma al-okhra means ?so that if one of the two is misguided, therefore she will remind the other?.
But there is no ?if? (in) in that sentence, whereas, in , the conditional structure in-fa is respected.
Peace
Hi
Regarding 499 it has to be feminine because it is refering to the "Taifa" like "A Tribe", or "a community", Taifa in arabic is feminine
OK.
What are the feminine words other that ?women? that idhahuma could refer to in ?The if is refering to "Fa In" in the Arabic text and is the right translation
Are you sure you have understood my question?
Where is the in of the fa-in structure in ?Peace
-
bro jm
can you tell us what are you trying to link exactly between 2282 and 499?
thanks
-
Salaam JM
Peace samia
Another understanding of this verse is that the first "i7daahuma" refers to one of the two testemonies (also feminine) needed, and the second "ihdahuma" refers to one of the women; thus it could be understood in this way
Are you sure the word for ?testimony? (alshshahada ?) is feminine ?
This word is not present in ; but only in , is it not a problem ?Anyway, it is true that dalla can mean ?he became lost??, cf http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume5/00000081.pdf
"If one of the two testemonies is lost/escaped (the witness), then one of the women will remind the other".
But it implies that it is the testimony of one of the two women which is lost, isn?t it ?
Why would the testimony of a woman be more likely to be lost that the one of a man ?This is because the condition for a witness is to be sound, and the "dhalaal" is contrary to that. A misguided person cannot testify. Also, the "dhalal" is not forgetness.
Good remark.
Also, from a linguistic point of view, if the first "i7dahuma" referred to the first woman, there is no need to repeat it to elude to the second woman, and it would be"If one of the two women is misguided , the other will remind her"; but the literal translation is "If one of the two women is misguided, one of the two women will remind her".
I would rather say is "that one of the two is confused/lost, one of the two reminds the other".
Or " the other reminds one of the two " ?Anyway, I agree with you it is strange that ihdahuma is repeated 2 times.
As well as I find it strange that in (for ?if?) is missing.We should also remember that this is a condition. If the testemony did not escape the woman, there is no need for another woman to remind her, and her testemony is accepted. This further means that a woman witness, even if testemony escapes her, this will not inavlidate her as a witness, unlike the case of male witness.
Could you rephrase ? I don't understand.
Peace
-
bro jm
can you tell us what are you trying to link exactly between 2282 and 499?
thanks
The grammatical structure in-fa is good in whereas it seems to me weird in .
-
Salaam JM
Yes, shahaad is feminine.What drew my attention in this verse is the repetition of "i7daahuma" which is not eloquent; as well as the verb "dhalla" which is very negative and is linked to blindness, not to forgetness. Since we have "shaahid", there is no need to have "shahada" in words as it is what the "shaahid" is going to testify, so there is no problem here.
I think God does not want to give the woman witness a negative characteristic like "dhalaal" or even "forgetness", so that it would be taken as a lable. So, let it be the testemony that lost its way to the woman; or that the woman is not doing this forgetness in purpose.
As for the two verbs "tadhilla" and "tudhakkira", they are both in the "subjonctive" or with "fat7a", therefore "an" cannot be the conditional "in" as you well observed. But it is quite common to use this style, which means (in case that the...gets lost=fi 7aalati an tadilla) the other will have to remind her 3ala alukhra an tudhakkiraha).
We should also remember that this is a condition. If the testemony did not escape the woman, there is no need for another woman to remind her, and her testemony is accepted. This further means that a woman witness, even if testemony escapes her, this will not inavlidate her as a witness, unlike the case of male witness.
Could you rephrase ? I don't understand.
I mean, in case that the testimony of the woman is not lost (and therefore she remembered it), then there is no need for another woman to remind her. Her testimony is enough, since God gave a specific reason why two women are needed in this situation. It is also not ncessarily that ALL the testemony is lost, just a part of it remebered by one woman is acceptable and the other part remembered by the other woman is also acceptable; but in the case of men here, if the man forgets part of his testimony, then it is all void.
-
I think God does not want to give the woman witness a negative characteristic like "dhalaal" or even "forgetness", so that it would be taken as a lable. So, let it be the testemony that lost its way to the woman; or that the woman is not doing this forgetness in purpose.
What do you mean by ?the testimony lost its way to the woman;? ?
I don?t understand.As for the two verbs "tadhilla" and "tudhakkira", they are both in the "subjonctive" or with "fat7a", therefore "an" cannot be the conditional "in" as you well observed.
Understood.
But it is quite common to use this style, which means (in case that the...gets lost=fi 7aalati an tadilla) the other will have to remind her 3ala alukhra an tudhakkiraha).
I am sorry, but I don?t understand again.
Could you rephrase ? And give an example from the Quran of the grammatical structure you are talking about ?We should also remember that this is a condition. If the testemony did not escape the woman, there is no need for another woman to remind her, and her testemony is accepted. This further means that a woman witness, even if testemony escapes her, this will not inavlidate her as a witness, unlike the case of male witness.
Could you rephrase ? I don't understand.
I mean, in case that the testimony of the woman is not lost (and therefore she remembered it), then there is no need for another woman to remind her. Her testimony is enough, since God gave a specific reason why two women are needed in this situation. It is also not ncessarily that ALL the testemony is lost, just a part of it remebered by one woman is acceptable and the other part remembered by the other woman is also acceptable; but in the case of men here, if the man forgets part of his testimony, then it is all void.
What happens if there are 2 males witnesses, and that one of them lose his testimony ? Can the other witness remind him ?
Peace