Author Topic: Discussion on 4:3 and meaning of nisa  (Read 56934 times)

Wakas

  • Administrator
  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 10955
  • Gender: Male
Re: Discussion on 4:3 and meaning of nisa
« Reply #170 on: December 08, 2012, 06:22:53 AM »
peace Released,

Re: summary post http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604721.msg315351#msg315351
You said Arabic, but I assume you mean write it in English?

It's only claim 3 that may require some Arabic. Some of the content discusses Arabic words in 4:3 which you can use corpus.quran.com to view: http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=4&verse=3#(4:3:1)

I personally, use my browser to magnify the Arabic in forum posts, as its quite small. If you do this, and know Arabic letters, it's fairly straight-forward to follow.

The following may require a little explanation however:

Quote from: uq
being its use in the phrase ما ملكت أيمانكم , which is equivalent to stating مَنْ ملكت أيمانكم.

ma malak aymanukum (which is also used in 4:3, and many other places in Quran)

Explanation added:
Quote from: uq
In 4:3, ما is the pronoun pertinent to النساء, and طاب is the coupled verb to that same pronoun. As such, طاب must agree with its pronoun in gender, therefore we read in the Quran "فانكحوا ما طاب لكم من النساء". However, if the pronoun مَنْ (i.e. pronoun: man, as in HERE) was used in 4:3, instead of ما, we would have read in the Quran "فانكحوا من طابت لكم من النساء" or even "فانكحوا مَنْ طِبْنَ لكم من النساء". (i.e. "taba" has changed to the corresponding feminine)


The rest of the claims and counterclaims, and unanswered questions are fairly easy to follow.
All information in my posts is correct to the best of my knowledge only and thus should not be taken as a fact. One should seek knowledge and verify: 17:36, 20:114, 35:28, 49:6, 58:11. My articles

www.studyQuran.org

Released

  • Truth Seeker
  • ***
  • Posts: 547
  • Gender: Female
Re: Discussion on 4:3 and meaning of nisa
« Reply #171 on: December 08, 2012, 07:34:04 AM »
Peace Wakas,

Yes, I said Arabic initially. I did mean English. Okay, will take a look at what you've provided.
God does not change the condition of a people until they change what is within themselves (13:11)

answerseeker

  • Beginner/Inquirer
  • *
  • Posts: 7
Re: Discussion on 4:3 and meaning of nisa
« Reply #172 on: December 08, 2012, 11:15:55 AM »
Peace Bro. Wakas and Bro Uq and Bro Mazhar and Bro Damon(if you are still participating),

Bro Wakas seems to agree with Uq about the verb "Taba" and who it is referring to based on this:
The following may require a little explanation however:

ma malak aymanukum (which is also used in 4:3, and many other places in Quran)

Explanation added:
Quote
Quote from: uq
In 4:3, ما is the pronoun pertinent to النساء, and طاب is the coupled verb to that same pronoun. As such, طاب must agree with its pronoun in gender, therefore we read in the Quran "فانكحوا ما طاب لكم من النساء". However, if the pronoun مَنْ (i.e. pronoun: man, as in HERE) was used in 4:3, instead of ما, we would have read in the Quran "فانكحوا من طابت لكم من النساء" or even "فانكحوا مَنْ طِبْنَ لكم من النساء". (i.e. "taba" has changed to the corresponding feminine)
The rest of the claims and counterclaims, and unanswered questions are fairly easy to follow.

Bro Mazhar has given this explanation and added references:
It is common that self acquired stupidity has no ending point, one keeps it stretching. And it not only makes people deaf but also blind that they neither hear anything other than their own orchestra, but also fail to see when portrayed before them. It was portrayed:

Quote
(f) The relation which subsists between the part and whole, the species and the genus; [Rem: When  precedes a definite noun, especially in the plural, it often indicates an indefinite quantity or number. Accordingly "Min" with an indefinite genitive may be subject of a sentence. In such cases of nominal origin of Min we see it clearly a substantive, meaning a part or portion. [Rem: After negative particles, and interrogatives put in a negative sense Min prefixed to an indefinite noun means "none at all" and not "not one". [Rem: When indicates a part of a whole it is said to be used "lil tabeez" to indicate division into parts; when it indicates the parts of which a whole is composed "lil-tarkeebe" to indicate composition.


وَمِنَ النَّاسِ
مِنَ الثَّمَرَاتِ
مِنَ الْكَافِرِينَ

مِنَ الْظَّالِمِينَ
مِنَ الْجَاهِلِينَ

وَلاَ جُنَاحَ عَلَيْكُمْ فِيمَا عَرَّضْتُم بِهِ مِنْ خِطْبَةِ النِّسَاءِ

Also it was stated that:
"Min" is ALWAYS a preposition and acts upon its object rendering it in genitive case. No grammar book suggests anything contrary to it.

And Bro. Daman has left us with his explanation of the Ma.....Min Clause, but whose reference Bro. Mazhar was not able to verify from the link given.

Can Bro. Damon, Wakas, Uq and Mazhar each or whoever is willing, please debate or give points for or against the other person's point of view regarding this element as it seems to not be settled yet for those of us who are not arabic grammarian scholars; although it is a very important element in the discussion.

mmkhan

  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 3402
  • Gender: Male
Re: Discussion on 4:3 and meaning of nisa
« Reply #173 on: December 08, 2012, 12:06:09 PM »
Salaam,

I see there is some difference between "min" and "mina" :&

For example:
19:58 ...اُولٰٓئِکَ الَّذِیۡنَ اَنۡعَمَ اللّٰہُ عَلَیۡہِمۡ مِّنَ النَّبِیّٖنَ مِنۡ ذُرِّیَّۃِ اٰدَمَ

May Allah increase us in knowledge and guide us towards theTruth :pr
mmKhan
6:162    قل إن صلاتي ونسكي ومحياي ومماتي لله رب العلمين
6:162    Say: My contact prayer, and my rites, and my life, and my death, are all to Allah, Lord of the worlds.
 
3:51

Mazhar

  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 7218
  • Gender: Male
Re: Discussion on 4:3 and meaning of nisa
« Reply #174 on: December 08, 2012, 12:17:05 PM »
Quote
Can Bro. Damon, Wakas, Uq and Mazhar each or whoever is willing, please debate or give points for or against the other person's point of view regarding this element as it seems to not be settled yet for those of us who are not arabic grammarian scholars; although it is a very important element in the discussion.


I thought that Damon, like me and many other members of the forum was interested in mutually learning and improving knowledge and understanding about Qur'aan, was interested in sharing his knowledge and learning for improvement. That is why I just kept posting random about Arabic grammar. But, eventually finding it otherwise, and a cause of making things confused for some members, I tried to make an attempt to bring him to discussion in simple manner so that it is conveniently understandable to all those also who are presently not interested in learning Arabic grammar at their own.


He firstly brought this Evidence to Wakas:
Quote
Post 63: I am stating it again for all to see. The word Taaba in 4/3 is referring to An-Nisaa'. How? Because the construction follows the Ma...Min Clause. Evidence? Page 132 of Introduction To Koranic and Classical Arabic which clearly explains the Ma - Min Clause and shows example Arabic sentences. Please read it.

He then brought another reference supporting Thackston

Quote
Reply: 75 Is there a grammar book that NEGATES what Thackston says about the Ma...Min Clause in his grammar book? Is there a grammar book that says no such clause exist? Can you PROVE Thackston is wrong? If so, feel free to do so using The Quran or any other Arabic text be it written or spoken. If it means anything to you, Haywood says the same thing in his Grammar book. All you have to do is go to pages 420 and 421 of His Grammar Book and see for yourself. I fail to see in either one of these books the explanation of how the 2nd person performs the 3rd person verb or vice versa rather it be in the Ma-Min Clause or some other part of Arabic syntax. If I am proven wrong I will gladly and humbly acquiesce.

Links to both references are there in respective posts. You can open and see.

The term "Ma...Min Clause" coined by him was so erroneous that I did not care for it. I never thought that it might become a problem for you needing clarification.

He happens to have read this in Haywood at end page  420 and then 421 [I have temporarily loaded these images, for your convenience]





I had mentioned this aspect of the use of Preposition "Min" in my detailed note

(g)  [للتَّبْيِينِ] The definition or explanation/clarification of a general or universal by a special or particular term, the later being one of several objects that go to make up the former, "therefore avoid the abomination of idols".   Its sign is that it is proper to place [الذى هُوَ] in its place.

If you still wish I will quote you such sentences from Qur'aan.

Mazhar

  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 7218
  • Gender: Male
Re: Discussion on 4:3 and meaning of nisa
« Reply #175 on: December 08, 2012, 12:31:46 PM »
Salaam,

I see there is some difference between "min" and "mina" :&

For example:
19:58 ...اُولٰٓئِکَ الَّذِیۡنَ اَنۡعَمَ اللّٰہُ عَلَیۡہِمۡ مِّنَ النَّبِیّٖنَ مِنۡ ذُرِّیَّۃِ اٰدَمَ

May Allah increase us in knowledge and guide us towards theTruth :pr
mmKhan

Salaman alaikum,

It is explained where it occurs for the first time in 2:08

If across the boundary of two successive words two non vowel consonants [i.e. both are ساكن] appear/gather together it is termed as اجتماع الساكنين

Shirley

  • Apprentice
  • **
  • Posts: 234
Re: Discussion on 4:3 and meaning of nisa
« Reply #176 on: December 08, 2012, 12:32:31 PM »
Salaam Answerseeker, Maha, Released, Dawngorgeous, StopS, Inquisitivetrini, good logic.

I want to ask you guys somethings. Who stepped in to mediate this discussion between Wakas and myself? Who asked Wakas to stop practicing double standards? Who asked him to bring forth as much as evidence as he demands from others? Who asked him why he is dodging certain questions while demanding that others answer his? Who here did not notice that Wakas presented Zero Evidence for his claims? If anyone here thinks a link to the belief in iltifat is evidence then I must ask you to present JUST ONE VERSE where The Quran is making a shift from one addressee to another addressee WITHOUT making an announcement of this new addressee.

There are a few things I wanted to accomplish in this discussion with Wakas and if you guys are honest and willing to take another look at our exchange you will see them. He Does not answer questions that are asked of him even though the other person answered his. Comes back with each new post asking his questions while he still ignored the questions the other person asked him. Presented Zero Evidence to support his claims. When the other person presented evidence for his claims he did not refute the evidence, he merely stated that the evidence is not good enough for him BUT he never explained why. Please re-read this thread from beginning to end. Is it possible that no one else sees this? has it ever occurred to any of you here that this is his modus operandi? has ever occurred to any of you here that Wakas Deliberately functions this way in order to force the other person to abandon the debate and in this way Wakas makes it appear that he has won the debate or forced the other person to surrender and admit defeat? These are the things Wakas has done on this forum for years and people really need to see these things about him.

An excellent example of his practice of double standards is This Post by Wakas. PLEASE read it very carefully. Do you see what I see? He claims that my points have been refutted. But here are the problems with his claim. First, none of these so called refutations are by him, they are by another person or people. Again, this points to what I was saying; he refutes NOTHING and wishes to somehow claim a victory for himself. My BIGGEST problem with his post is the fact that he has taken the word of someone else in that post (UQ) and notice that UQ produced Zero Evidence to support what he has said in his posts which Wakas accepted at face value. What is wrong with this picture? Isn't Wakas the one he DEMANDS EVIDENCE for every claim made? If I were to do what UQ has done which is make claims without giving evidence for the claims, Wakas would have dismissed the information because it did not come with any evidence. Do you guys not see the double standards and hypocrisy being practiced by Wakas or am I  the only person seeing this? Please look at that post before Wakas The Moderator deletes or changes it. WHY do you think he is practicing these double standards? It's very simple why, because he wants to win an argument. Wakas will not accept my views with evidence but he can accept what UQ said without evidence. What's wrong with this picture people?

But, I will address what UQ said anyway even though I feel I should not have to. I feel I should not have to (and really don't want to) because no matter how much evidence, proof and logical argumentation I present it doesn't do any good whatsoever. It is the nature of the human being that if he really, really wants to believe or disbelieve something there is absolutely nothing that can be done to change that. No amount of evidence, proof, logical argumentation or anything else will be accepted by that person. It is the nature of the human being when he wants to believe something to see what is not there and to ignore what is glaring him in the face.

First point, the particle "مَا" (ma) does not mean who. مَنْ (man) means who and "مَا" (ma) is NOT used in The Quran as a substitute for  مَنْ (man). Since Wakas is so big on evidence he should have asked UQ to present a line in the Quran where  "مَا" (ma) is used to obviously mean who; where it can only mean who and nothing else.  مَنْ (man) means who and
 "مَا" (ma) means what, whatever, that which and whatsoever and sometimes as the word not when used as a substitute for لا (Laa) . "مَا" (ma) is "مَا" (ma) and مَنْ (man) is مَنْ (man)  and they each have their own distinct meanings. It should be known by those who are students of Arabic that the word "مَا" (ma) can mean who or whoever when it is attached to the conjunctive prefix Ayya (Alif Yaa).

طاب (Taaba) in Quran 4/3 OR in Arabic in general does not serve as a stative function. This is a very convenient claim in order to support something in 4/3 that is not there. Taaba is in its triliteral base root form which gives it the meaning and function of a verb acted out by the 3rd person. What else can I do to get people here to understand this? The verb Taaba already has a word that serves as a stative function (to express a state instead of an act) and that word IS NOT what is in 4/3. This is all to clear. The word in 4/3 is طاب (Taaba) and this word means "He Agreed" or "He Pleased" another person and that's the basic bottom line.

This whole thing about iltifat. Please, please, PLEASE read what I said from the very beginning of this thread. I made it clear that I categorically deny and reject that The Quran changes addressees without making it clear that it did so and without announcing who the new addressees are. You will NEVER find such a thing throughout the entire Quran. Giving a link to a typical traditionalist professing this same thing is NOT proof at all. I am categorically stating that it does not exist in the Quran and if so, please point out any verse in The Quran which will prove me wrong.  10/87 is not proof either because the 2nd person addressee being dictated to goes all the way back to 10/69. The addressee and the narrator remain the same and unchanged. It is pointless to ask me who is being spoken about or spoken of because this was NOT the original point of dispute between Wakas and me.

Al Yatama and the idea of turning over "Their Wealth" ( أمولهم ). It is obvious that the assumption made by Wakas is that Yatama are orphaned children and yet they somehow have money of their own that will need to be relinquished to them when they come of age. I have yet to read where he establishes how every orphaned child has a fund or monies put away for him or her which they can claim once they reach adulthood. The word أمول (amwaal) is the plural of الْمَالَ (maal) and it appears to me that Wakas translates this word as money or wealth or riches even though a lot of the traditional translators render this word as possessions and property. Anyway, one of the definitions of the root word "Maal" (which is Meem-Waaw-Laam by the way) is to "FINANCE" another person and to "Render Another Person Wealthy". Al Yatamaa are those who have been abandon and left alone in the society and need to figure out a way to make their way in the world even though the resources and earning opportunities are apparently being denied to them. However, the RESOURCES that are available on this planet are just as much theirs as they are anyone elses. That which created this planet and everything on it distributed earth's natural resources throughout this planet. They are not designated in one central area and meant to be used only by a specific person or specific group of people. The Yatama has just as much right to these things as everyone else and they have just as much right to have "earning opportunities" afforded to them as anyone else. To look around this planet and deny that each country has a group or group(s) of people whom those with the political and economic power have socially castrated would be a very bad act of dishonesty. The Quran is here to address this and many other social issues that the human being is suffering from. So to keep in mind the definitions of "financing" and "rendering someone wealthy" we can look at the concepts that these definitions are presenting.

In my mind the concept is that of a person giving monetary assistance to someone who is in need of that monetary assistance. To render them wealthy can be as simple as dropping a windfall of money on them OR to finance them in a manner that takes them from poor to wealthy. To render monetary assistance from beginning to middle to the end of the journey towards financial strength and independence. Not only is it a financial assistance but is one that is righfully due to the Yatama because they have as much "Human Right" to the resources of this planet that the wealthy people of this planet are known for monopolizing for themselves and locking everone else away from reaching and taking advantage of these same resources. The so called royal families of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States are multi millionaires and billionaires without having to work to reach that status. It is NOT their oil. They have no rightful ownership or monopoly claims to it. It belongs to every citizen in those countries and the wealth generated from the sale of oil should be equally distributed among ALL of the citizens of those countries and not just the royal families and their circles. I tie this concept of rendering a person (or people) wealthy with the instruction given in 4/3 for the An-Naas (the people) to establish agreed upon contracts with the Nisaa'. I will like to explore this concept and how it may or may not apply to 4/3 with you guys (StopS, Inquisitivetrini, good logic, answerseeker, inquisitivetrini, released, maha, dawngorgeous) in this thread or a separate thread if you'd like. I want  use this post to continue to make my points and issues known.
Wakas already made the statement that the grammar books are not free from error. I don't know what he meant when he made the statement since he never expounded upon it but I know what I mean when I make the statement. I will put it to you all like this; if you are now learning the Arabic Language, my advice to you is to focus on THE LANGUAGE ITSELF! Focus on learning the verbal root system, its system of patterns, morphology, sentence structure and syntax. It is my suggestion that you leave alone the tanwine subject for now since it has no bearing on the words and their meanings. In the beginning of your studies you should just focus on learning the language and discard that which does not affect words or their meanings. I can assure you that you'll be glad that you did this.

Lastly, I wish to say something about the words UQ presented as being representative of the anomaly of the plural forms that he and Wakas believe in and are defending. This may come off as an attack (it isn't my intention to attack here) but I think it looks dishonest to present the words that were presented without also presenting the plurals of these words which DO come from the same root as the singulars given. UQ did not do that. Nor did UQ state where he got this list from. It is on page 233, vol. 1 of William Wright's Arabic Grammar Book. Everyone please have a look yourselves. An honest person would have cited ALL of the words given in William Wright's book instead of choosing the singular words and the plural ALTERNATIVES. An honest person would have also cited the plural words that are given Wright's book which do come from the same root as their singular counterparts. An honest person would have at least given the name of the reference used and the page number of the reference. Every Singular Word W. Wright included in his grammar book have their own plural forms which come from the same root letters as their singular forms. Every Word including the words for mouth and the word for mole.
I refrained from addressing these issues because I wanted to keep my focus on Wakas. Wakas presented these issues as if they were his own AFTER I stated that I am done having my one sided discussion with him. It looks quite suspicious to me that in the waning parts of our conversation he disappeared and let two other people fight his battles for him. As soon as I announce that I am through with him and the games he is playing he immediately comes back with his retorts which aren't even his own. So if I respond I look like a person who doesn't mean what he says, but if I don't respond I guess I'm supposed to look like a defeated opponent. A person who has truth on his side and/or who wants to ascertain the truth should not employ tactics and tap dance when having a discussion with someone. I am asking that everyone take note of everything he has done in this conversation of ours and not be impressed or intimidated by the fact that he's a moderator. Being a moderator should not be a badge allowing a person to employ dishonest tactics all for the sake of not being proven wrong in front of his peers. My next posts here I will examine everything you guys asked me to address (StopS, released, Inquisitivetrini, dawngorgeous, goog logic, answerseeker, etc.) or if you'd like we can start a separate thread. Your choice but I am making very clear now that I am only going to correspond with you guys because you are asking sincere questions which mean you want to re-examine the present understanding of Nisaa and the verses that mention this word. I am not going to bother with Wakas, Mazhar, Noon or UQ. I am only focusing on you guys and your inquiries. I only have one question/request. Is it possible if we can first acsertain whether or not Nisaa' means women? If we can ascertain if it does not mean women we will be able to look at possible alternatives and see if they fit.
I have one last thing to say to answerseeker. You mentioned my personal attacks and quoted a post I made to Mazhar. I am asking that you please have a look at Mazhar's post directly above the one you quoted from me. It is This Post that he made obviously towards me since he is quoting me. Notice this labeling of "self acquired stupidity". How do you think I'm supposed to take that? Why am I the only one being talked to about attacks and he's not? With his post he came on strong and with my reply I came on stronger. If he would have never said what he said, I would have never said what I said. I've seen his discussions with Bob and he called Bob stupid. This is obviously his natural way of dealing with people. And because it is I am exercising my right to not deal with him at all.
" All Of this Is not by chance. That's how I know that God is Real!"- India Arie

mmkhan

  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 3402
  • Gender: Male
Re: Discussion on 4:3 and meaning of nisa
« Reply #177 on: December 08, 2012, 12:50:29 PM »
Salaman alaikum,

It is explained where it occurs for the first time in 2:08

If across the boundary of two successive words two non vowel consonants [i.e. both are ساكن] appear/gather together it is termed as اجتماع الساكنين

Salaaman Mazher,

Thank you for the link, but I was not talking about those grammar rules. I was talking about the usage of مِّنَ and مِنۡ in alQuraan/alKitaab. How and in what format it is used, what is the pattern is set for them to understand easily.

Hope you understand what I am saying.


May Allah increase us in knowledge and guide us towards theTruth :pr
mmKhan
6:162    قل إن صلاتي ونسكي ومحياي ومماتي لله رب العلمين
6:162    Say: My contact prayer, and my rites, and my life, and my death, are all to Allah, Lord of the worlds.
 
3:51

Mazhar

  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 7218
  • Gender: Male
Re: Discussion on 4:3 and meaning of nisa
« Reply #178 on: December 08, 2012, 12:55:53 PM »
"self acquired stupidity" is a qualified statemet signifying thoughtless behavior. "Self acquired" was thoughtfully used to minus the signification of lack of intelligence, perception, or common sense; and to give it a generalized status. Pl don't take it so seriously, and kindly attend to the relevant part of the discussion for clarifications.

 

Mazhar

  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 7218
  • Gender: Male
Re: Discussion on 4:3 and meaning of nisa
« Reply #179 on: December 08, 2012, 12:59:40 PM »
Salaaman Mazher,

Thank you for the link, but I was not talking about those grammar rules. I was talking about the usage of مِّنَ and مِنۡ in alQuraan/alKitaab. How and in what format it is used, what is the pattern is set for them to understand easily.

Hope you understand what I am saying.

May Allah increase us in knowledge and guide us towards theTruth :pr
mmKhan

Salamun alaika,

sorry, did not get it. Prepositions are what they are. They are what is termed Mabni. Only a vowel sign is added as cluster buster to facilitate the speaker.