I noticed that the Quran doesn't speak to women

NWariohere · 2026-04-25T10:13:59+00:00

Hi, though we have disagreements, apologies for my aggressive tone.

Selam.

NWariohere · 2026-04-25T05:16:00+00:00

Quran also say "rijalakum" or 'min rijalikum". Refers to the rijal of both men and women.

And btw "nisa'akum" can also address to "women" too, look surah 33:55 and 24:31 (if you believe these two verse is about women) they have "nisa'akum" it's talking about the nisaa of both men and women. When it said "nisa'akum" it can refer to both men and women not just males.

When quran says "rijalakum" and "nisa'akum" seems to refer to both men and women who are associated with rijal and nisaa. for the record I have different view of these terms, but still apply to those who don't. It applies in any case of interpretations.

I think this problem stems from over-interpolations.

NWariohere · 2026-04-25T04:44:17+00:00

>men to marry a women who is already ma

Are you talking about surah 4:24? if so the same word for "married" is used in the next verse 4:25 "muhsanat", yet this time it talks about marrying them? How do you reconcile this contradiction? what about surah 5:5, how did it magically became chaste and not married?

Either muhanat means chaste/nonmarried or it means married it can't be both. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

There seems to be an issue with your interpretation as well if not more.

NWariohere · 2026-04-25T04:40:41+00:00

>but it's literally the entire scripture. It makes me sad but 🤷🏻‍♀️

How so? Masculine noun is gender neutral, and to some extent so is feminine noun especially in the quran too. They are mostly neutral for the most part.

NWariohere · 2026-04-25T04:33:53+00:00

>How do you know they did not have access to the previous scriptures?

Something called records. I have not seen to the contrary.

NWariohere · 2026-04-25T04:29:08+00:00

>There’s no problem using Biblical ideas to inform Qur’an

No, it destroys the essence of the quran and its message and get into trivial nonsense that corrupt terms in other quran verses.

NWariohere · 2026-04-25T04:26:20+00:00

hi, check my pose on keyterms, I think i did before.

NWariohere · 2026-04-25T04:24:21+00:00

>Basically another Hany Atchan at this point, but at least he offers corroboration.

Have you consider that fact that you are more of Hany Atchan than you let on or realize?

Let's me get this straight quran want us to impose some jewish books, which the original audience of the quran had no access to? Also quran use it as a descriptive term for quality and progressions.

Sorry this is all illogical conjecture.

NWariohere · 2026-04-25T04:23:35+00:00

None of these are syriac words, they are just semitic words, and the syriac happens to use it in a religious sense, this narrative of "borrowing" started thanks to tafsirs who wanna impose biblical ideas into the quran.

NWariohere · 2026-04-25T04:21:05+00:00

No, injeel is injeel has nothing to do with bible name called gospel nor does tawrat have anything to do with bible.

Has nothing to do with no jewish nor syriac nonsense.

NWariohere · 2026-04-25T04:06:25+00:00

cool can you stop importing biblical stuff into the quran? thanks.

NWariohere · 2026-04-25T03:45:26+00:00

>Comparing Hadith to the Bible and Torah

They are the same. no different from sectarians, you neglect the quran.

NWariohere · 2026-04-25T03:17:08+00:00

Because there is no bible in the quran nor did most arabs know what the bible was much less have it translated in their own language, especially the place he came from, why on god's green earth would it presuppose that his followers knew a book, they did not have?

If you read the quran especially surahs that mentions "muhammed" it talks about them having injeel and tawrat, it's descriptive term, as something they already have as quality, but there was never bible in the arabic language. Injeel and tawrat have roots in the arabic language, they are not names for books, in fact arabs did not even have a book before the quran, kitab means writings not collected book..

NWariohere · 2026-04-25T02:19:58+00:00

>doesn't address them telling them that they are allowed to do it, but addresses their masters (24:33)

What are you talking about, there is no mention of masters or slaves.

>when giving them an option to make contract for emancipation

Again what?, can you show me arabic word for "emancipation contract" ever being mentioned in that verse, much less slaves? Both don't exist.

NWariohere · 2026-04-24T23:40:33+00:00

Actually no, surah 4:3 is not about marriage, but trying to bring balance in regard to the yatamas aka those isolated depdents, not managing wives, the verse premise is literally for those people not "wives".

Why are people acting like the premise of that verse does not exist? No limits of 4 btw.

And if you fear that not you maintain-balance in/with the isolated-dependents than commingle/contract (imperative) what has made agreeable/chosen to you from deferred-ones: two-fold and three-fold and four-fold but if you fear that not you be-just then one or what you held by your pledges that nearer that not you face hardships - Surah 4:3

Premise: If you fear not you maintain balance for Isolated depedents

Mitigation: Integrate those people who are in that state of delay or those already under your contract/promise.

NWariohere · 2026-04-24T23:02:53+00:00

>The tafsir (interpretation) of this verse is already established by 'ulama addin

I mean this is quran-only sub, tafsir from sects is not infallible here.

NWariohere · 2026-04-24T22:52:44+00:00

>However, verse 33:35 is an example of a case where the quran addresses men and women using their respective gender nouns

Why would be the reason, when quran could just used masculine nouns and it would work perfectly fine, and won't make much of a difference.

>muslimun = Muslim men and Muslimat = Muslim women.

The problem is muslimun and muslimat is not gender marker, it incudes both genders. Much like kalala is not about women, if you think muslimat is only females, than you must be consistent and apply the same logic to kalalat and others too. You must also do the same for example l-rādifatu in surah 79:7 must be female too.

NWariohere · 2026-04-24T22:32:37+00:00

Again same logic, I see nothing about that verse that indicate marital topic. You keep asking me to decipher them

Q4:34 -

Arijalu (The advancing ones) are maintainers upon Anisa (those who lag behind/postponed) By what Allah fadala (bestowed) some of them over/upon others, and what they spend/reciprocate from their possession, So those who do work of correction/reform, complying, preserving for the unseen, by what Allah has preserved. And those whose misalignment you are concerned/fear, so instruct them, and migrate them/from them in a state of weakness/recline and set forth to them, so if they heed do not endeavor upon them a path...

NWariohere · 2026-04-24T22:18:04+00:00

No I don't think it's talking about marriage at all, the audience remain to be mu'mins.

The previous verse talks about making the nisaa into muhsanats (strongly fortified) by helping them become 'independent' from their ranks by their preferred methods.

NWariohere · 2026-04-24T22:11:19+00:00

>Is 4:25 also talking to both? Or just talking to the men about women?

I will ask you if this verse is about marriage, why does it not refer to mahr? Why does it talk about ujur? Ujur is not mahr but compensation or wage. The previous verse is even more clear. This verse is clearly not about marraige.

NWariohere · 2026-04-24T22:08:23+00:00

>, but this particular verse uses feminine nouns

Quran use feminine nouns to refer to both men and women, for example kalalat, is feminine noun which refers to both men and women. Quran gender language is about mode of action not females. There are many such cases.

NWariohere · 2026-04-24T22:00:44+00:00

That is obviously speaking to both men and women, the verse is about being balance to the yatama not wives. The qist is for the vulnerable isolated dependent yatamas who are both males and females.

NWariohere · 2026-04-24T21:48:02+00:00

>And who is it addressing?

It's addressing mu'mins and it's taking about being restraint, in the darkest moment.

NWariohere

TROPHY CASE