Can a Muslimah marry a non-Muslim?

Samia

Peace,

Whose opinion is this? Vocalizations are set within the versions of the Quran we have.

Sa3aam Anwar

What do you mean by "the quraan we have"? Do you mean the quraan I am reading now has exactly all the vocalization of the first copies? Please show me or tell me about old copies where passive verbs or participles are fully vocalized, because I cannot find any.

Firstly, since when is mu7assan the same pattern as musallin? One is active 2 and one is passive 2. It would have been better if you had said musallan

Sorry, I should have written "mu7assin".

That is how you get ash'ama, so it would be sha'-ama or shayyama. 3iraaq comes from 3araqa, so it would be 3arraqa. Can you really not see this?

Anwar, save few exceptions, all the Arabic words are ORIGINALLY of three letters (root), but when you are dealing with a word to make something related to it or relative to it, you deal with the whole word, not the root.
Example Sudan (root S W D). If you want to make "Sudanes", you deal with the whole word and say sawdana; if you want to make black (same root S W D) you say "sawwada". al3iraq and alsham are to be dealt with as such, not roots. That's why I said they are not 3-lettered words.

How does this stand up to the variations in official Quranic texts between awsaa (form 4) and wassaa(form 2)? And there are a few other form 4 and form 2 interchangeables?

You asked a similar question in another thread about the difference between najjaa and anjaa, and I explained it to you with examples from verses. You also maintain synonimity of words, and I don't. We discussed it on another thread. Why do you want to bring this up here again? If you do not want to agree, you are free, but don't keep bringing it up now and then.

Do you have to? Look it up. I can tell you atleast that if you don't know the word baql, the children of Israel asked for it while they were in the desert.

As a matter of fact, I did look it up. The meaning you want is baqala and baqqala ; (and lisanul 3arab says that al-Jawhary does not accept the form baqqala); abqala means to come out (specially facial hair), so I did not know what you wanted to say. Not every root has all the patterns, and you know that.

The real issue is that you don't recognize the pattern, which makes the difference between an Old Arab and the way Old Arabic

You keep saying old Arabic and old arabs...I asked you once if you have read any document in arabic prior to the qur'aan...you just mentioned jahiliyya poetry!! I have no comment. On the contrary, I recognize the patterns and the difference of their meaning, even if it is a tiny difference, because I do not accept synonymity; you do not accept the different meanings of different patterns and keep saying this is synonymous to this..and do not even recognize the difference between form II and form IV

Another linguistic theory. Even if this were true you are talking about the origin of language, and this does not apply to fully developed languages. And again, this is a theory that you are putting forth, how are you to know that originally people didn't see an action (once they had prounouns) and say about the wind "it blows"

Of course, linguistics are theories! Untill they are refuted by better ones. So far, I haven't read about this refutation. In Arabic, the verb is "habbat" and wind is "habuub". What do you want to say, giving me examples in English?

Take 95 percent of Arabic words and you have to look up the root VERB before you get the noun.

The root is not a verb. The root does not have a pattern because it is void of vowels.

Again, here the case makes all the difference. What is the difference between qaa'imoona and qaa'imeena? Look up the functions of nasb and then you will understand why I said this.

And what does this suppose to mean? That when a noun is in the accusative will have a different meaning than when it is in the nominative? Are you serious? How would the meaning of qaaimoona in (inna alrijaala gaaimoona men are getting up) change from saying (ra'aytu alrijaala qaa'imeena I saw the men getting up)? What brought qaa'imeena/moona here in the first place?

Al-dhakaru laisa kal-unthaa.

Biological differences. No mention of men and women. Out of context.

Whose opinion is this? Where did God set a role for men to fortify women?

What a logic! He should look for a partner to fortify her?! God set the relation between man and woman in a very neutral and mutual manner (they are garment for you and you are garment for them) period. No fortifier or fortified. They protect each other

please do not twist my words. Try hard to read what I am saying and please do not interpret what you may see as how I think

Nor did I say that he should look for someone just to fortify

OK....but isn't this what you say confused

This is telling men to look for women, but not trying to corrupt them (to just get in their pants or corrupt them in any other way) but in order to help them be chaste and fortify them.

Men are to strengthen women in whatever ways they can

No comment.

progod

Peace,

What do you mean by "the quraan we have"? Do you mean the quraan I am reading now has exactly all the vocalization of the first copies? Please show me or tell me about old copies where passive verbs or participles are fully vocalized, because I cannot find any.

Of course you will not because as you should know and as I have always said the Quran was not accurately preserved by the Arabic text, which was more deficient then than it is now. It was the work of the huffaadh and their schools of hifdun/Hifaadhatun that preserved the Quran. When the Arabic text had developed enough diacricital marks to really communicate a composition with exactness and no ambiguity about the vowels the Quran was written down using the recitation of these schools of reciters. In actuality this also gets into an isnaad issue which many here have issues dealing with because this is so similar to the hadeeth. However, the difference between Quranic authenticity and Hadeethic authenticity is a much wider and much consistent base of reciters, all reciting the same thing. We also know that the Quran was there form the beginning every piece of history supports this. Yes the Quran was copied down, but like I said with all of the short-comings of the Arabic script it was mainly the work of the Huffaadh (schools of reciters) who taught each other and recited to each other and recited with texts. Although the texts were missing vowels the reciters could not be missing vowels in any part in how they were taught the recitations and how they taught it to others. So you can point to the fact that the earliest Quranic scripts had no vowels WRITTEN, however the Quran was always recited with vowels since the beginning.

Anwar, save few exceptions, all the Arabic words are ORIGINALLY of three letters (root), but when you are dealing with a word to make something related to it or relative to it, you deal with the whole word, not the root.
Example Sudan (root S W D). If you want to make "Sudanes", you deal with the whole word and say sawdana; if you want to make black (same root S W D) you say "sawwada". al3iraq and alsham are to be dealt with as such, not roots. That's why I said they are not 3-lettered words.

There are not a few exceptiosn, there are many exceptions, however we will not go over that now. Sawdana is a new modern word. It takes sudaan as a proper noun and then derives a verb from it by treating it as if it were a quadriliteral root. Take talifoon (telephone) in the dialects, changing to talfana as a verb to call someone. That is all this is. It is just a way to Arabicize foreign and for all intents and purposes original Arabic words that have different meanings then what they used to mean. (Al-Sudaan means 'the blacks', orignally being baladul-sudaan. Remeber AL-jaahiz's treatise where instead of saying al-soodu wal-beedu, he says al-sudaanu wal-beedaanu). I proved to you through W. Wright that you could say aswada, just as well as sawwada, however this would work better if Sudaan was called sood. However, it could still work just as himyar was verbalized to hammara(to speak himyar), it could even mean to go to the land of himyar or to become a himyarite. You are arguing about what is commonly used and not what how to apply these forms of Arabic in an absolute sense. Again I showed you from Wright who uses examples from literature of Al&iraaq and Al-shaamu being used in the way I say and not the way you say. So take that up with Wright, may you will want to back track his sources, just soothe your mind.

You asked a similar question in another thread about the difference between najjaa and anjaa, and I explained it to you with examples from verses. You also maintain synonimity of words, and I don't. We discussed it on another thread. Why do you want to bring this up here again? If you do not want to agree, you are free, but don't keep bringing it up now and then.

I didn't ask a question, I brought up this issue before. I honestly really don't need you to teach me on this subject as I already know. If I did not, be sure I would ask. What you took as an agreement with you in that thread you misunderstood. I agreed with you that there were not ABSOLUTE SYNOMYMS, meaning that that those different words meant the same thing IN EVERY CONTEXT. I agree with that. However, words can be exact synonyms in certain contexts, although not in all. The reason I bring it up is, number one because I have seen the synoymity between form 2 and 3 over and over and over again. Number two, because there is one case of Quranic "errors" where it is wassaa (II) in one text and Awsaa (IV) in the other text. Like I said these two words will not share the exact same meaning in every context, however there are contexts where they will, and that also goes for najjaa and anjaa. Because najjaa can have a difference from anjaa in meaning (depending on the context) I think it is only fair to allow for those distinct connotations within a text like the Quran, wher it is allowed. That is the only reason I seemed to agree with you before on this issue.

As a matter of fact, I did look it up. The meaning you want is baqala and baqqala ; (and lisanul 3arab says that al-Jawhary does not accept the form baqqala); abqala means to come out (specially facial hair), so I did not know what you wanted to say. Not every root has all the patterns, and you know that.

Yeah, this is an issue between you and right, I'm pretty sure he did a whole lot more research than you on this issue, as the book is a treatise on the grammar and ever citation he gives he gets from a usage. Maybe you'll have to expand your search to taaj-al-&aroosi and all of the other lexicons out there. There is often disputes among linguists on what is valid or not, don't run with that. I'm sure if you check lane and Wright's example is in there you can get the orignal source of abqala, from baql (green pot herbs/herbs/herbage), what caribbean spanish speakers would call verdura, which can apply to all things green but especially that type of stuff you can throw in a pot to give food flavor.

You keep saying old Arabic and old arabs...I asked you once if you have read any document in arabic prior to the qur'aan...you just mentioned jahiliyya poetry!! I have no comment. On the contrary, I recognize the patterns and the difference of their meaning, even if it is a tiny difference, because I do not accept synonymity; you do not accept the different meanings of different patterns and keep saying this is synonymous to this..and do not even recognize the difference between form II and form IV

I keep saying that because there is a difference. I do accept the different meanings between different patterns, you are misunderstanding my point .Where you are saying it is black and white I am saying that there is some grey between these two forms where they share some meaning. Please do some retrospection on the synomyous usages of form 2 adn 4. I recognize where they have different potentials in their meaning, but I also recognize that they have an area of overlap, depending on the context and the concept presented by form 1 from which they derive.

Of course, linguistics are theories! Untill they are refuted by better ones. So far, I haven't read about this refutation. In Arabic, the verb is "habbat" and wind is "habuub". What do you want to say, giving me examples in English?

Well, keep reading I'm sure you'll find a contradictory theory. You, know honestly it's really annoying when you tell me things I already know. Is that what you wanted? Did you want me to just use Arabic in discussing this theory? The point here is, which one came first habba or habuub, blowing or to blow, i.e. the chicken or the egg?

The root is not a verb. The root does not have a pattern because it is void of vowels.

Another point of view issue...Whenever we see any root as bare as we can see it, it will be in the perfect singular third person. You can never find a root all alone by itself in the language, it is always in perfect singular 3rd person. So again, the issue is which one came first qeelun/qawlun or qaala and yaqool, the chicken or the egg. And please don't go trying to tell me that qeelun doesn't exist or that it doesn't mean qawlun but what I should have said was qeela the passive perfect of qaala. I meant qeelun. Read the Quran and you will see this word just as I have used it.

And what does this suppose to mean? That when a noun is in the accusative will have a different meaning than when it is in the nominative? Are you serious? How would the meaning of qaaimoona in (inna alrijaala gaaimoona men are getting up) change from saying (ra'aytu alrijaala qaa'imeena I saw the men getting up)? What brought qaa'imeena/moona here in the first place?

Again, take my advice and grab Sibawaiyah or any other good grammatical book and look up the uses of nasb and you will understand what I mean. The first qaa'imoona you gave me is active nominative saying what the men are and the second (qaa'imeena) is gentive and more adverbial in it role explaining HOW you saw the men. What brough Qaa'imoona and Qaa'imoona is that muhsinoona in this context we are disscussing is not muhsinoona but muhsinEENA. I was using this word as an example to give us a clear view of this phenomonon outside of the word we are discussing.

Biological differences. No mention of men and women. Out of context.

Yeah . . . Denial is not just a river in Egypt. (If you don't get it say it out loud and remember that al-neelu is called The Nile in English, and most people pronounce the as Da or De).

I said
Nor did I say that he should look for someone just to fortify
You said

OK....but isn't this what you say

No, that is not what I'm saying. See how you make my words into what you think they should be if I am disagreeing with you. But if this is not the case and it is a simple mistake, my apologies for misinterpreting you. Anyway, I am not saying that he should look for someone (weak) to fortify I am saying he should look for someone who is firstly already fortified(morally) and chaste but also he should not try to take advantage of her or degrade her character, dignity or chastiy but to fortify that, being place of strength and reliabilty for the women he is interested in, not trying to just get want he wants out of her at her expense.

I said
Men are to strengthen women in whatever ways they can
You said

No comment

Why no comment? Do you not agree with this? I have a feeling you are on an independent women trip. If so realize that men rely on women as much as women rely on men. We have different roles most times due to our different capablities and strenghts and at other times we share the same jobs becuase of necessity more than choice, but in the end these verses are confirming that men are suppose to be supporting forces in the lives of women, not degrading ones. But again this is the Quranic idea, an idea which the Islamic world has abandoned, and the Western world somewhat got the idea but has taken it left field, and has created alot of frustration and incompatiblity between men and women.

Godbless,
Anwar

Samia

Sorry Sister Francesca and all.

The thread has gone far too much off topic. I think I have explained my point of view from the qur'aan, God's way/sunna and usage of words in the language believers marry believers and people of past scripts and vise versa; this license is not based on gender.

This comment is just to refresh your memory with a summary of what I said before this discussion, and to bring back the thread to you.

SwedenMajidah

Salam sis Samia,

Yeah it would be better if you and br Anwar continue your dialog private.

Peace
Majidah

unknownuser

Salam sis Samia,

Yeah it would be better if you and br Anwar continue your dialog private.

Peace
Majidah

I have to disagree on that )

progod

Peace,

Sweden Majidah, with all due respect, despite the fact that Samia and I seem not to be able to agree we are discussing alot as it concerns how the Quran should be viewed (grammar, linguistics etc). I think alot of people are probably benefiting from this discussion. Or atleast I hope so. It is not a personal argument between us two, and I hope she doesn't see it that way.(Samia, much respect ;D) But it is actually a good conversation on Classical Arabic grammar, the concept of the language and how to appraoch the language. Concepts that we must have a grasp on or get a grasp of as we read the Quran for us to get the whole picture.

Godbless,
Anwar

savage_carrot

I agree, it's a very good discussion. If wanted, we could move this to a thread of it's own?

Twilight

I agree, please continue this discussion! It's pretty informative and I'm sure at least a few of us are interested in seeing where it leads. If you do continue this elsewhere, please provide a link so we can follow. Thanks peace

Samia

Samia 1 salam.

You, neither seem to be satisfied with commandments which seem like favouring men , Nor, when God protects women's honor by warning people, not to accuse chaste women, and prescribe a punishment for those who do it without sufficient evidence .

Salaam siki

I just can't believe what you are accusing me of!!
Who is not favouring men here? Your understanding is that slandering men is OK, I say no, it is not. Whoever slanders a man is to be punished exactly as those who slander a woman. All this because you do not want to own to the fact that "mu7sanaat" includes "mu7saneen" in this context (and similar ones).

Twilight

Peace. I do not understand Arabic (so can't take part in this discussion effectively enough) but I have a general question that relates to this. Is the general rule that what the Quran does not forbid we should understand it to be acceptable? For example, with the dietary laws within the Quran, we're not allowed to eat what falls within the categories in 7172-173. From my understanding, that means we are permitted all else.

With the issue of marriage, just for arguments sake, even if the verse being discussed does say believing men can marry women from the people of the book, there is no prohibition for believing women to marry men from the people of the book...or is there? Apologies if this has already been discussed earlier in a different way.

Samia

With the issue of marriage, just for arguments sake, even if the verse being discussed does say believing men can marry women from the people of the book, there is no prohibition for believing women to marry men from the people of the book...or is there? Apologies if this has already been discussed earlier in a different way.

Salaam Twilight

It has! To summarize the situation to you, the differing opinions are

Yes, you are right, by logic (I agree with you)
No, because the verse mentions female mu7san and female mu'min, but does not mention the male (to which I disagree, because the address is to both genders, and we have examples of similar verses where "women/wives" can also include men/husbands).

Even if this opinion (no. 2) is valid, going back to point no. 1, we can still presume that this does not mean women are not allowed.

And that's how all the discussion of linguistics and grammar started....and went OT