Mohsannat? A new understanding(very imp)
-
Peace,
I'd like to know more about those linguists ideas, in particular rejecting perfect synonyms. I think this is the opinion of some linguists not all linguist. Furthermore, I don't know why you are mentioning Law book when we are talking about grammar rules. If you want to talk about the law we follow that is one thing, but if you are talking about the usage of language and verb usage we cannot really get this from the Quran we can only get clues. Can you tell me the difference between najjaa and anjaa for instance?
These verbs don't form in all 15 of the patterns because sometimes there is no need for them. However, a verb could be applied in all those patterns if we take the connotations and mean them. We are not talking about standard language here but fluid langauge that uses its own forms(remember dialects and msa are derivatives of this original Classical Arabic). Someone can say kaddhaba and istakdhaba and they could mean the same thing, but we also know that these forms have meanings that they don't share as well. Kadh-dhaba could mean to falsify as well as to think something is false and istakdhaba could mean to look for the falseness in something (to undermine) as well as to think that something is false.
I know that najjaa and anjaa could have some difference (najjaa could mean to save alot of people and over and over again) and anjaa just a one time save. Najjaa could also mean to declare something safe, it could also be connected to najwaa(secret/closed meeting). However here najjaa and anjaa are synonymous in their meaning. I don't want to argue linguistic theories here as there are too many to count. However, I think my point is proven with najjaa and anjaa in the Chapter 2. Do you see a difference between these two usages in meaning?
Godbless,
Anwar -
I don't want to argue linguistic theories here as there are too many to count.
Salaam
Sorry, but you can't avoid linguistic theories if you want to understand the meaning of a word that is going on for 10 pages now. If you have a better way, we are all eager to know.Do you see a difference between these two usages in meaning?
Do you have any problem with this expalnation
Form II "f33l" indicates repitition or intensity
The first of the two verses says explicitly how God repeatedly saved them from the killing by the Pharaoh and his clan. This torture continued for years, and those who are living and being addressed have definitely been saved many times through their fathers (saved) and the fathers of their fathers (saved) and them (saved) and their children (saved). It was an ongoing process of saving generation after generation.
The second verse speaks of one incident parting the sea, hence the usage of "anjainaakum"
-
Peace,
I actually posted that before yesterday and it only showed up just today. I agree with your assessment on form II. However, I do know that these two forms CAN be synonymous and I will research some more to prove this to you. But this is a good assessment of what najjaa CAN mean.
As for the linguistic theories. Listen there are many, many linguistic theories out there. I took linguistics clasess myself. To point to one linguistic theory doesn't mean that there is not a similar linguistic theory to go to its contrary. We know of many cases in our spoken language where we use a word to mean the same thing and know it means the same thing. Sometimes the only difference between two synonyms is the status of the word (is it preferred because it sounds more proper, more patriotic, or because we identify with the word more because the word has some sort of history with our region, religion or people) For instance take 'to mean' and 'to signify' there is nothing you can say to make me think that these aren't perfect synonyms. The only difference is that one comes from latin and the other is a native English word. Latin as a language of education, gives this word more social status but they mean exactly the same thing.
When we talk about synonyms we have to take in mind that sometimes the only differences between synonyms have to do with status, or regionality and has nothing to do with meaning.
Godbless,
Anwar -
So far you did not present any discussion as for the difference between najjaa and anjaina , as I showed to you from the usage of verses you provided.
If you see that "signify" signifies "mean", which signifies that we can use them interchangeably, I better just stop here in my dicussion, becuase all this is "signifcantless".
Do you get what I signify? -
LOL! ;D
You got me on that one. What I signify and what I mean are not exactly the same, as you say perfect synonyms. I stand corrected here (though be sure that if I find one I will post it). But if I say 'this word signifies' and 'this word means' you know that these two USES are perfectly synonymous. So I can use two different words to mean/signify the same thing. Although they might not be 100% synonymous in every usage. I'll be thinking hard to find two perfectly synonymous words.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Salaam alaikum.
Can you please tell us what "bighaa" means in 2433 ? It cannot mean marriage as "marriage" is not "seeking to exceed lawful limits", but would actually be opposite of "bighaa" because it is remaining within lawful limits.
The law on marriage is that it should be consentual and not a forced marriage. Hence, a forced marriage indeed falls under "seeking to exceed the lawful limits".
It is not speaking about the men doing al-bighaa("seeking to exceed the lawful limits", but about forcing the fatayat upon it. If al-bighaa meant "forced marriage", what lawful limits would the fatayat be seeking to exceed?
Also, it doesn't make sense saying "do not force your fatayat upon al-bighaa" if al-bighaa meant forced marriage. It would read "do not force your fatayat upon forced marriage". Force is already mentioned. Therefore al-bighaa should have a meaning of its own, independent of the force already mentioned. And you know that the word "nikah" is more proper at conveying the meaning of "marriage". Therefore it cannot mean marriage either.
-
Salaam alaikum.
The law on marriage is that it should be consentual and not a forced marriage. Hence, a forced marriage indeed falls under "seeking to exceed the lawful limits".
It is not speaking about the men doing al-bighaa("seeking to exceed the lawful limits", but about forcing the fatayat upon it. If al-bighaa meant "forced marriage", what lawful limits would the fatayat be seeking to exceed?
Also, it doesn't make sense saying "do not force your fatayat upon al-bighaa" if al-bighaa meant forced marriage. It would read "do not force your fatayat upon forced marriage". Force is already mentioned. Therefore al-bighaa should have a meaning of its own, independent of the force already mentioned. And you know that the word "nikah" is more proper at conveying the meaning of "marriage". Therefore it cannot mean marriage either.
correct, these meaning were suggested by Ayman and supported by Arnold yasin , but we sorted that out in an old thread, Below you would find my relevent answers from the subject thread.
lately we thrashed the word mohsinnat and HSN in detail , there is no doubt that it is Chastity. and as "Bighaa" is used in contrast with " hsn " so in the context of the relevent verse , it definitely is prostitution, And prostitution only , it does not convey a broader meaning as described by Arnold yasin and Ayman in a previous thread.
Ahmad's arguments in the recommended thread were on correct line,
please go through the thread "Mohsinnats , a new understanding " in the same section.
However Fatayat is any young girl , she could be your MMA, (slave girl, which your right hand posses) servant, daughter, sister , niece etc, Any young girl who could be under an individual's(man or a woman) influence to be compelled into committing such an act.
In the subject verse though, initially the subject of address are MMA (slaves) however in the later part the use of the word Fatayat was not bounded/followed by MMa ( unlike the verse 4-25). as such opening up its application in general for all categories of young women.
another one
I do not agree with Ayman's view. please look at the following verses about Mariam,
19-20 She said When shall I have a boy and no mortal has yet touched me, nor have I been unchaste? (baghia)
19-28 O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a wicked man nor was thy mother a harlot (baghia)
Context is very important in picking up the correct meaning of a word in a certain sentence, use of BGH when the subject is woman's sexuality, will be fornication/ lewdness/ unchastity etc, and in 24-33 when somebody/Guardian forces a young girl to commit such an act, would most likely press her to obtain some material benifit for himself. And we have word for it "Prostitution"
sikipeace
siki
-
Salaam warner
According to the prevailing understanding, yes. However, my understanding finds this quite logical and necesary.
As I mentioned befoe, mu7san means immune. Immune of what? I believe it is immune of not wanting/unable to perform sex.Verse 424 starts addressing a different category of people. It is linked to the previous verse by theme only. It is not a continuation to it. This category is those who can't/wont have sex. This is why the following verse says "wa man lam yasta6i3 6awlan an yanki7 almu7Sanat..", wrongly translated as (cannot afford). The verb used is (unable) not (cannot). I also showed that poverty and richness are to be left to God as per verse 2432 and we should not worry about that.
That's why this wedlock is called (milkul-yameen) i.e. it is a special covenant/oath between two, one of whom is at least unable/cannot have sex. The other is their milkul-yameen. So, this other accepted this relation and promise to not want sex (promised to be a voluntary MMA). But suppose in a moment of weakness they commit adultry (because they are not having sex with their partner), then God considers their condition as extenuation circumstances, and hence the punishment is lightened (half of the mu7San).
Peace Samia,
Will you please explain the verses 24.58 and 33.55 according to your understanding of MMA explained above? Thank you.
-
Peace Samia,
Will you please explain the verses 24.58 and 33.55 according to your understanding of MMA explained above? Thank you.
Salaam Tlepsh
In my understanding, these verses are one limit explaining the extent of the realtion between the couple in a mulk-yameen, and verses 235-6 and 70 29-30 the other limit. Depending on the reason why there's no sex between them, maybe the one unable to have sex has a deformity or any other reason he/she does not want to be seen even by the patner, so verses 2458 and 3355 deal with that, or they have no problem and verses 235-6 and 7029-30 deal with that. Notice that in the first verses (2458 and 3355) husbands/wives "azwaaj" are not mentioned, whereas we have (azwaajihim or their MMA) in the other group of verses.
In brief, the mulk-yameen realation does not automatically allow for a definite access to the body of the partner, and has to be decided between them, unlike in the familiar nika7 "marriage".
-
Salaam Tlepsh
In my understanding, these verses are one limit explaining the extent of the realtion between the couple in a mulk-yameen, and verses 235-6 and 70 29-30 the other limit. Depending on the reason why there's no sex between them, maybe the one unable to have sex has a deformity or any other reason he/she does not want to be seen even by the patner, so verses 2458 and 3355 deal with that, or they have no problem and verses 235-6 and 7029-30 deal with that. Notice that in the first verses (2458 and 3355) husbands/wives "azwaaj" are not mentioned, whereas we have (azwaajihim or their MMA) in the other group of verses.
In brief, the mulk-yameen realation does not automatically allow for a definite access to the body of the partner, and has to be decided between them, unlike in the familiar nika7 "marriage".
Salaam Samia,
Thank you for your voluble explanations. The explanation you gave is very convincing for verse 24.58. However, in verse 33.55 the women are the wives of the prophet. So who is their mulk-yemin? On the other hand, by verse 33.50 it is clear that Prophet at least had one mulk-yemin. How his wives (partners) can have mulk-yemin?
-
Salaam Samia,
Thank you for your voluble explanations. The explanation you gave is very convincing for verse 24.58. However, in verse 33.55 the women are the wives of the prophet. So who is their mulk-yemin? On the other hand, by verse 33.50 it is clear that Prophet at least had one mulk-yemin. How his wives (partners) can have mulk-yemin?
Salaam Tlepsh
In a mulk yameen relation, they are both mulk yameen each other. Verse 2431 is almost like 3355. Still it does not mention "zawj husband".
-
Please read this academic article on this subject in Turkish. It was prepared well. And the muhsanat aren't married. Those muhsanat Allah ordered with them. 425 waw is beginning letter. Kitaballah aleykum means Allah orders on you. Lawful women are al-muhsanat, not ma meleket aymanukum. If ma meleket aymanukum are salih, or ihsan (no furnication and free) you can get married.
Regards,