The world will always be a great collection of different mentalities. Perhaps an unbiased world is not meant to be, or be maintained. Everyone is biased to some degree, and just so to make it look pretty [it’s okay, girls! you’re both pretty!] I’ve made this bias an engine. Kind of like recycling.

That does not mean I should make any decisions that are biased, but rather to let this bias lead me somewhere. For example, all day, we’ve been discussion whether “nisa'” in the quran really meant women. This opened a door for a typhoon of new questions.

Languages change; the Book does not.

There may have been some time in the past when the words “nisa'” and “rijal” were not used at all; forgotten. Just as Modern Arabic is slowly putting many words [frequently used in the past] into the grave, it gives rise to new ones.

Thus, as a start, I come to ask myself, “How did you ever conclude nis’a meant women in the first place?”

Well, I did not make (and did not have to make) any conclusions; it was already a known fact. It was hammered up my head. And now, this fact is being questioned. Fair enough.

To start with, I do not believe in the “shar’ia” meanings of words.
For example, who said “Hajj” was a trip to Mecca?

Hajjun – hujjatan – hajjajna.
Can you notice the similarities here?

– Salaat – sala [al-nar] – yuslikum – wa/sa/la or sa/la/wa.
– Rajul – rijallan – rijl.
– Nisa – nasea [forgot] – insan [human] – nasee’o [zyadatun fil kufr] – yansawna – neswa.
– ism – samaa [sky/Heavens] – yasmu – smakum al muslimin – allama Adama’lasma’a kulaha
– Zakaat – zakka [cleanse/purify] – yuzakekum.

Who made salaat a ritual? Ism a name? Who defined these? The forgotten ‘hadith’ that may or may not be true? The dust of history? Is that what we would rather base our understanding of our ideology on, while we have been given qalb, aql, fuad, sam’ and basar? The ashes of a man-made hadith/tales science?


About this entry