Hoors?!?
-
Peace Tay,
Are you sure "them" refers to bones, and not to the people who were asking about the bones?
Yes I am sure. It is not the "people" asking the question but a "person" as apparent from "he says"
3678 And he puts forth an example for Us, while forgetting his own creation! He says "Who can resurrect the bones while they are dust?"
3679 Say "The One who made them in the first place will resurrect them. He is fully aware of every creation.""Them" could only be referring to "bones" here and not to "he", as is also apparent by "they" after the "bones".
-
Peace Tanveer,
It is not the "people" asking the question but a "person" as apparent from "he says"
I disagree. The "person" is described as "man" in 3677. Clearly the context means "man" is representative of a larger group...
3676 So do not be saddened by what they say. We are fully aware of what they conceal and what they declare.
3677 Has man not seen that We have created him from a drop, that he would become a clear enemy?Peace,
Tay -
Peace Tay,
The question is "Who can resurrect the bones while they are dust?", and the answer is "The One who made them in the first place will resurrect them". This makes it clear that "them" is referring to "bones".
If it was referring to man, the question would be "Who can resurrect the bones while we are dust" or "Who can resurrect the bones while I am dust". "They" in the question is referring to "bones" and cannot be referring to "man" as "man" is asking the question, and in order to refer to "man", the word used should have been "we are dust" or "I am dust", and "they" would refer to someone other than "man" (If man says "while they are dust" then "they" would refer to someone other than man, and CANNOT refer to man, subsequently the "them" in the answer refers to "they". Grammatically, the closest to "they" in the question is "bones" and can refer only to "bones" in such a sentence). Also "man" is directly asking God the question and if God was referring to man then the answer cannot be "them" but "him" or "you". Thus the answer would be "The one who made "him"/"you" in the first place.......
Also in 3677, man is referred to as "he" and "him", why change suddenly to "they" in next verse ? which linguistically does not make any sense
3677 Has man not seen that We have created him from a drop, that he would become a clear enemy?
-
Peace Tanveer,
I admit the argument is strong, but it doesn't really make sense in the context. Seems to me, "man" is doubting the afterlife, which is an important message. Whether or not bones will resurface seems petty. I'll have another look at the arabic and get back on this. Thanks for the trigger and the steady hand, as always
Peace,
Tay -
Elke
Now what we can agree on is that hoor is not clearly feminine, btw may be not even a person but rather a fruit (see luxenberg), and that the purity may be not "sexual" (imo it is absolutely not as i don't see the need for sex in heaven)
Boost
A fruit? from what i know of "luxenberg" he doesn't believe the quran was written in arabic.
oNeed not to say any more, if it is true. It is not understandable that if one agrees, that Allah offers grapes for some good deeds, then why not he can offer beautiful companions?
Elke
what kills me in this that women often put themselves down and accept this behaviour to dominate their lifes. A man should make love to a woman to share exactely this - love - and not to have a "unique experience". u're not a thingy made to be pleasurable to men. think about it
Oh! so here is the problem then, like most of us; slaves of our own thoughts. You think that this is sort of let down for women?
When a man and women have sex by will they both enjoy and have pleasure, and Quran is talking about both men and women, therefore no question arises of only one side having pleasure and other being a thingy.
Secondly let us consider that Hoors means beautiful women(only) then would you leave Islam??
Each and every thing made by Allah is well planned and systematic according to what I understand.Boost
Peace bro almarhom..
whore may sound like huri but that doesn't mean it came from the arabic word thats number 1. number 2, if the west calls a huri a whore i don't consider them to be my god. they can take their enlightening declarations and flush it down the toilet where it belongs.
bravo bravo -
Tay
Peace all,
Not to burst anyone's bubble, but considering how one can be in heaven while his body rots into the soil, who-what-when-where-how is sex even a discussion? Will the heavely be lingering around gardens eating grapes, drinking wine, and having 72 virgins feeding their lust, with the sound of milky waterfalls in the background? This sounds more like an episode of "Rome" than the result of a lifetime of good deeds and compassion
No you have not burst anyone's bubble.
There is no such a thing as 72 virgins mentioned in Quran.What then you think should be the result of a lifetime good deeds?? (that will be interesting to read).
Surah luqman
'Ma khalakakum wa ma basukum illa ka nafsin wahidin' -- your first creation and your second creation will be identical.Nice explanation by Mr. Tanveer.
-
Peace raj-ah
Elke
Quote
what kills me in this that women often put themselves down and accept this behaviour to dominate their lifes. A man should make love to a woman to share exactely this - love - and not to have a "unique experience". u're not a thingy made to be pleasurable to men. think about itOh! so here is the problem then, like most of us; slaves of our own thoughts. You think that this is sort of let down for women?
When a man and women have sex by will they both enjoy and have pleasure, and Quran is talking about both men and women, therefore no question arises of only one side having pleasure and other being a thingy.
Secondly let us consider that Hoors means beautiful women(only) then would you leave Islam??
Each and every thing made by Allah is well planned and systematic according to what I understand.In the part u quote i talk about life right here on earth and i don't believe u answer that. Sure sex can be pleasurable to both partners , but it clearly is not always - and i do not believe in sex in afterlife...
To ur question, if hoor was only beautiful woman and i was persuaded by this interpretation, i would not accept this islam, if not i'd be just another hypocrite ! But that wouldn't stop me from believing in godBoost
Quote
A fruit? from what i know of "luxenberg" he doesn't believe the quran was written in arabic.
ShockedNeed not to say any more, if it is true. It is not understandable that if one agrees, that Allah offers grapes for some good deeds, then why not he can offer beautiful companions?
No, he never said quran was not written in arabic, but in obscure passages, he looked for syro-aram?ic influences in order to understand better. It is a possibilty and it fits in normal language evolution. Also i see the grapes as an allegory - just as i do not believe that we'll have sexual gravings, i do not believ that we'll have to eat the food on the other side. Now, this does not mean that i share luxenberg conclusion on quran being a "lost" christian lithurgy book.
elke
-
Peace Elke, all,
he looked for syro-aram?ic influences in order to understand better. It is a possibilty and it fits in normal language evolution.
Aramaic and Nabataean are not an ancestor to Classical Arabic. Arabic descended from Safaitic. The Safaitic language is very similar to other North Arabian dialects such as Thamudic and Lihyanite. Once again, Arabic and all those languages are in the Southern Semitic branch (which includes Southern Arabic, Northern Arabic, and Ethiopic). This is a different class of languages than Aramaic and Nabataean, which are part of the Western Semitic branch.
The language family of Syriac and Pre-Qur'aanic Classical Arabic is as follows
WEST SEMITIC ----> Central Semitic ----> Northwest Semitic ----> Aramaic ----> Eastern Aramaic ----> SYRIAC
SOUTH SEMITIC ----> South Central Semitic ----> Safaitic ----> PRE-QUR'AANIC CLASSICAL ARABIC
Comparing "hoor" from Syriac to "hour" of Arabic would be similar to comparing "hour" from Arabic to "whore" of English !
Luxenberg actually doesn't say that "hour" should mean "grape" but he proposes that the Arabic "hour" should mean "white (grapes)" in al-qur'aan because it was likely from the Syriac word for "white", and thus translates it into "white (grapes), putting "grapes" in parenthesis, and translates "hour 3ain" into "white (grapes), (like) jewels (of crystal), putting "like" and "of crystal" into parenthesis thus forcing a meaning. His literal translation based on Syriac is actually "white jewel".
Thus if "hoor" means "white (grapes)" in Syriac, we cannot extrapolate that to Arabic. Usually if one language derives a word from another different language, the meaning remains the same in both languages. Thus the English word "kismet" is derived from the Arabic "qisma", and both have the same meaning. Other examples are "Arab", "caliph" etc.
Al-Qur'aan was revealed in the language of the people it was revealed to, to be understood according to the meanings of the words prevalent in the language of its people at that time, and not the meanings according to a language that was not even ancestor to Arabic.
-
Peace all,
I just have a question in my mind. Could "hour 3ain" mean "pure springs (of water)" as proposed by brother Yaseen at the following link
http//www.free-minds.org/articles/science/hur.htm
Thus the relevant verses would be translated as follows
5572 Pure, confined in tents
5622 And pure/clear springs
4454 So it is, and We granted/gave them pure springs
5220 They recline on arranged furnishings, and We granted/gave them pure springs
3748 And with them are springs, close by/within close proximity
3749 Like crystal white, carefully guardedAs anyone can check, the meanings fit perfectly in the context of the above verses.
And don't worry ......... we still will have pure companions/mates !!
225 And give good news to those who believe and do good works that they will have estates with rivers flowing beneath. Every time they receive of its fruit, they Say "This is what we have been provisioned before," and they are given its likeness. And there they will have pure spouses, and in it they will abide.
457 And those who believe and do good, We will admit them to estates with rivers flowing beneath, eternally they abide therein, in it they will have pure spouses, and We will admit them to a vast shade.
-
Peace raj-ah,
What then you think should be the result of a lifetime good deeds??
Eternal bliss, no fear, fatigue, boredom or grief, being bathed in the light of God's mercy and compassion, His infathomable love, and the removal of all negativity. That should be enough, no?
Peace,
Tay -
Peace all,
I just have a question in my mind. Could "hour 3ain" mean "pure springs (of water)" as proposed by brother Yaseen at the following link
http//www.free-minds.org/articles/science/hur.htm
As anyone can check, the meanings fit perfectly in the context of the above verses.
According to Ahmed, hoorin Aaeenin cannot mean ?pure springs?, because in Arabic the adjective is always placed after the noun.
Cf http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=8627.30Peace
-
Peace JM,
I would like to verify that from some authentic literary reference. Would you or anyone else happen to know of any ?
-
Peace JM,
I would like to verify that from some authentic literary reference. Would you or anyone else happen to know of any ?
Another way would be to look for examples in alQuran.
Anyway, do 2 nouns together (hoor and ayn) make sense ? How would you translate it ? "pure women eyes/springs" ?Peace
-
Peace JM,
Yes two nouns can be together like "lahm khinzeer"/meat of pig, or "hajj albayt"/debate of house. But if they are two nouns here then "hoorin 3ainin" meaning "companions pure of eyes" doesn't make any sense.
Grammar rules of classical Arabic were formulated much after revelation of al-qur'aan. There are a few so called "grammatical irregularities" in al-qur'aan where some phrases do not conform to the regular post-qur'aanic grammar rules. Could "hoorin 3ainin" be one of such phrases ?
-
Peace JM,
Yes two nouns can be together like "lahm khinzeer"/meat of pig, or "hajj albayt"/debate of house. But if they are two nouns here then "hoorin 3ainin" meaning "companions pure of eyes" doesn't make any sense.
Grammar rules of classical Arabic were formulated much after revelation of al-qur'aan. There are a few so called "grammatical irregularities" in al-qur'aan where some phrases do not conform to the regular post-qur'aanic grammar rules. Could "hoorin 3ainin" be one of such phrases ?
There are a few questions we can try to answer.
What is the case ? nominative ? accusative ? gentitive ?
What is the number ? singular ? dual ? plural ?
What is the gender ? masculine ? feminine ?
What is the state ? indefinite ? definite ? construct ? -
Peace JM, all,
I just researched Lane Lexicon for other possible meanings of "3ain", and to my surprise I found that it can be an adjective too. Thus maybe it is an adjective of "hoorin" !
According to Lane Lexicon
3AIN Distinguished/appointed/assigned/beautiful/excellent/noble/human/present gift/real/eye/spring/water/tear
Thus "hoorin 3ainin" could be translated as "beautiful/noble/distinguished pure companions" or "appointed/assigned pure companions".
What does everyone think ?