and do not compel your slave girls to prostitution...
-
Thanks sister Samia,
"Lamastum" is an act. If we think that Annissa (443, 56) includes husbands (men), then Lamastum will be taken to refer to Wives (women). It is not a proper proposition. "Haya" alos does not permit us to say like that. Lamastum cannot and should never be used for women/wives. Since after this act something is being asked to be done, by implication wives have also to do that. But it does not mean that Annissa includes men. My respects to you.
-
Salaam Mazhar
"Lamastum" is an act. If we think that Annissa (443, 56) includes husbands (men), then Lamastum will be taken to refer to Wives (women).
Why "refer" to wives? Includes is enough. Doesn't it include wives? Unless the verse is addressing husbands/men only.
-
Sister,
My point is that Lamastum cannot be used for wives. Adress is to all believers. no doubt You who believe. And before saying Lamastum nissa, Junoban has been used which applies both to men and women, singular and plural. Therefore I correct my self that it is not by implication that wives are also required to take bath, rather it is clearly and plainly directed by Junoban. If jonoban Fattahroo, thereefore take bath. Therefore the word An-nissa does not include men, particularly because of the fact that Nissa is preceded by "Al" which restricts it to women alone.
When the adress it to both men and women, the words would be masculine. But when feminine word is used, it cant be said that An nissa include men. Some linguistic expert may come to our rescue. -
Sister,
My point is that Lamastum cannot be used for wives. Adress is to all believers.Salaam mazhar
I am very careful with my words here. I did not say lamastum can be used for wives. I say it contains wives, since it is addressing both genders. If the addressee are only males, then it does not contain females.
Since we agree that it is addressing both genders, try to split the verse as if you are addressing the females only. What will you say when you come to "aw laamastum al-nisaa'"?
Please be patient before calling for rescue.
-
Sister Samia,
I was expecting this stand. You are giving way to assert that the later part is address only to men. I had thought that but existence of ?Wow-And? there made me reluctant. That is why I wished some expert on Language and grammar may enter. Brother siki is also keeping silent. Another problem has emerged by scanning the Qurane Majeed, and that is 583-4. There ?Mass? is dual, before they touch each other. Wives seldom indicate that desire. And even if they do so, the most naked style is also like very thin aroma, which just passes away. Help me out to resolve it. -
Address in the qur'aan is , in general, to all people, both genders. This does not rule out that some verses are addressing males. We can easily know them if it is explicitly so indicated, or implicitly by logic. Verse 583 definitely addresses men only just by going to the beginning of the chapter where a woman is complaining to the prophet of his behaviour, which, as you mentioned , not practiced by women.
Back to our verses 443; 56
The address will not change suddenly from "all" to "one gender" or a different category in the same verse. If we take any of the two verses to women, we will have to say "or laamastunna alrijaal/ or if you have intercourse with men", right? That's what I meant be "nisaa' contains rijaal".
BTW, this is contrary to the universal rules of sociolinguistics. But who says qur'aan is subject to human rules of sociolinguistics or grammar? That's how its language is very special , simple but unattainable. Such a simple verse cannot be made by someone without having to elaborate to make it understandable.
There are many other similar verses, but we do not pay attention to this characteristic of the language of the qur'aan.
-
Peace Mazhar,
The root explains the concept. The basic thought in this particular root is to exceed moderate limits. Therefore whenever any word made from this root will be used in relation to a particular matter, action, and situation the word shall be construed to mean and translated accordingly in other languages. When it is used with reference to two business partners one of whom is exceeding moderate behavior, it will mean ?Wronged?. But when certain people are forcing (Takrehoo) their female servants towards ?Al Baghiya? for the purpose of earning worldly gains, it will have no other meaning but forcing them for prostitution.
There are many things that people can force young females to do. For example, the most common thing that many so-called Islamic families do for worldly gain is that they force their young females to marry someone rich that they don't love and they just marry for money. So both practically and linguistically prostitution is certainly not the meaning of "baghaa" so why is it the first thing that comes into the mind of some people? Again, I think that it says more about the mentality of those people and their fantasies towards females than about what the passage is actually saying.
The work "baghaa" means doing something wrong, exceeding the limits, or doing something to someone without the consent of the other person.
Also, unless you want to suggest that the people of the cave in 1813 were male servants, linguistically and logically "fatayat" doesn't mean "female servants" it simply means "young females". Who are typically the young females in a family? They are your young sister, your young daughters, and young adopted female orphans.
In 2433 and 3822 the difference of ?Al? needs also to be looked into. It has made the meanings specific/restricted.
The "al" definite article makes something definite but it doesn't create a new meaning of the word. In "al-rajul" and "rajul" both mean "the man" and "man". The "al" doesn't suddenly change the meaning of "al-rajul" to "the pimp".
Moreover, the word in 3822 is a verb not a noun so your argument is completely false to begin with because the definite article doesn't apply to verbs. The verb is in the past tense form "bagha" (feminine past tense form is "baghat". The noun form of this past tense form is "baghaa"/"al-baghaa", same exact form in 2433.
Even if we remove the word ?prostitution? here, we will have to say ?do not force your female servants upon wrong?, but the perception will remain the same ?prostitution?.
The word "fatayat" means young females. If we substitute the type of "young females" in your family and address you "do not force your young sister, your young daughter, or your young adopted female orphan upon wrong or non-consentual action", is prostitution the first thing that comes into your mind? Of course not!! You seem like a reasonable and civilized person who doesn't have a sick mind or complexes with respect to females. It is only bigoted medieval Hadith fanatics who think like that. On the other hand, a typical example is that for worldly gains, you may want your daughter to marry a rich man of a high status. Of course, you may be tempted to force your young daughter to marry him despite her not loving him. Practically and linguistically, prostitution is certainly not the meaning.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Ayman
I do not agree with you regrading interpretation of Bagha in context to 24-33, even if you consider this to be a product of my sick mind.
"Bagha", in general means wrong and i am in agreement with you on this. But the meanings become "specific" in relation to the subject of a sentense.
I am not an Arabic expert or a linguist but i do push my common sense to limits, for making up these deficiencies . So here is what it says regarding the use of word "Baghaa" in specific to verse 24-33.
Let me start with an example,
HSN or HASSAna means , protected ,fortified , locked, etc but when the subject is womens sexuality , it becomes protected sexuality,(4-24-25) or we can say "Chastity", the same word when used for a building, becomes a "Fortress", (59,2and14) and the same, when used along/in context to private parts, depicts virginity(19-20).
You could have been right if this sentense had finished at,---- "And do not compel your Young females to commit wrong.......... it would have opened its application in "general "to all aspects of "wrongs" in life.
But Brother! what follows after this sentense is, ----"If they are desirous of being chaste"
this particular phrase , puts precision back into the first sentense, of "wrong" and locks the meanings of Bagha in specific to sexuality.what all can be committed wrong in sexual terms of a young female? Fornication , may be , but then we have to further modify it , because a certain sentense has been inserted here, AARZUL--HAYATUL--DUNIYA, SEEKING THE MATERIAL GAINS OF THIS WORLD
Meaning, " you are forcing her to commit a wrong, which is in sexual contest, (fornication) to gain the materials in this world",
what else can we call the above ? other than " Prostitution"
peace
siki
-
Peace Siki,
I do not agree with you regrading interpretation of Bagha in context to 24-33, even if you consider this to be a product of my sick mind.
Perhaps. But perhaps it could be a product of you thinking that the god is addressing some pimps in 2433 and not people like you and I. You have to read 2433 as if it is addressing you personally.
"Bagha", in general means wrong and i am in agreement with you on this. But the meanings become "specific" in relation to the subject of a sentense.
I am not an Arabic expert or a linguist but i do push my common sense to limits, for making up these deficiencies . So here is what it says regarding the use of word "Baghaa" in specific to verse 24-33.
Let me start with an example,
HSN or HASSAna means , protected ,fortified , locked, etc but when the subject is womens sexuality , it becomes protected sexuality,(4-24-25) or we can say "Chastity", the same word when used for a building, becomes a "Fortress", (59,2and14) and the same, when used along/in context to private parts, depicts virginity(19-20).No. It has nothing to do with virginity. So according to you in relation to private parts, it is OK to have oral sex since it doesn't effect virginity!!
When it is used in relation to private parts then it implies chastity. When it is used on its own then it just means "protected". The word "tahasunan" simply means "protection".
You could have been right if this sentense had finished at,---- "And do not compel your Young females to commit wrong.......... it would have opened its application in "general "to all aspects of "wrongs" in life.
But Brother! what follows after this sentense is, ----"If they are desirous of being chaste"
this particular phrase , puts precision back into the first sentense, of "wrong" and locks the meanings of Bagha in specific to sexuality.No private parts are mentioned in 2433 so the meaning has nothing to do with chastity.
what all can be committed wrong in sexual terms of a young female? Fornication , may be , but then we have to further modify it , because a certain sentense has been inserted here, AARZUL--HAYATUL--DUNIYA, SEEKING THE MATERIAL GAINS OF THIS WORLD
Meaning, " you are forcing her to commit a wrong, which is in sexual contest, (fornication) to gain the materials in this world",
what else can we call the above ? other than " Prostitution"The sexual private parts are not mentioned in the passage. There is no sexual context as you imagine in order to distance yourself from the passage. You just have to listen to what the god is saying as if he is addressing you personally in order to understand it. You do not listen and say to yourself the god is only addressing pimps and I have nothing to do with it. So how do you expect to understand and apply 2433 in your life?
I think that Islamic families want to be able to force their young sisters, young daughters, or young adopted female orphans to marry a rich man when the opportunity arises. Hence, the meaning was changed to "prostitution" to make it appear that the passage is addressing pimps and not them. This allows them to ignore the god's command and reduce 2433 to a theoretical perverted passage so that they can use the excuse "look we are not pimps and we are not prostituting them so 2433 doesn't apply to anyone we know".
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Siki,
Perhaps. But perhaps it could be a product of you thinking that the god is addressing some pimps in 2433 and not people like you and I. You have to read 2433 as if it is addressing you personally.
Peace Ayman
Were you expecting a separate "Great Reading" titled "Quran for pimps", from him?
So according to you in relation to private parts, it is OK to have oral sex since it doesn't effect virginity!!
I fail to understand why do you have to shoot off on a sexual tangent , so often , in complete disregard to the presence of "Mohsinnats" reading these posts, and yet have the guts to blame others of having "Sick Minds"
where did i utter the above mentioned statement? Had there not been so many "Fatayats" present in this forum , this statement of yours would have got as "silly" an answer , what the statement itself deserved.
No. It has nothing to do with virginity. So according to you in relation to private parts, it is OK to have oral sex since it doesn't effect virginity!!
When it is used in relation to private parts then it implies chastity. When it is used on its own then it just means "protected". The word "tahasunan" simply means "protection".
Now let me show you once again virginity here.
21-91 As for the one who maintained her virginity,( Ahsanati Farjaha) we blew into her from our spirit, and thus, we made her and her son a portent for the whole world.
Ahsanti farjaha means , protected sexual organs , or locked/blocked from use , and the one who does that , we call him/her a virgin,
The above statement does not mean Chastity, Because in Chastity, there is a USE of these organs but, "NO illegal use" .
Want another prove from Quran, read 70-29.30, when God says , "They protect/guard there private parts" , and follows it with, "And use them only with their spouses or their MMA (right hand posses)", and repeats exactly the same pattern in 23-5,6 , for depicting chastity
When it is used on its own then it just means "protected". The word "tahasunan" simply means "protection".
No private parts are mentioned in 2433 so the meaning has nothing to do with chastity.
You want others to blindly follow your theories but , do not make an effort to understand, if somebody tries to correct/improve upon them.
It took us 10 pages to deliberate the word "HSn" and pin point the different meaning it conveys in realtion to the subject of a given sentense.
Please spare some time and re -read my post above, it will do a lot of good to you , and if you can't make sense of it , please go through a few posts on page 6,7 of the "Mohsinats --,, thread , where i thrashed every occurrence of this root HSN , and the meaning it coveys with respect to the subject of a sentense.
God bless us all
siki
-
Peace Siki,
Were you expecting a separate "Great Reading" titled "Quran for pimps", from him?
So you do think that 2433 has nothing to do with you or anyone you know and it is only a theoretical passage as far as you are concerned.
I fail to understand why do you have to shoot off on a sexual tangent , so often , in complete disregard to the presence of "Mohsinnats" reading these posts, and yet have the guts to blame others of having "Sick Minds"
You don't even know the meaning of "mohsanat" and thus you don't translate it. It simply means "protected". When you say that a woman is protected. What does that mean? Does the meaning that she is not a prostitute or a slave girl the first thing that comes to mind? Only in as you say "sick minds" that whenever they see anything interpret it in a perverted manner. To any sensible person "a woman is protected" means that she can take care of herself (i.e. is mature) or her family can take care of her.
where did i utter the above mentioned statement? Had there not been so many "Fatayats" present in this forum , this statement of yours would have got as "silly" an answer , what the statement itself deserved.
Now let me show you once again virginity here.
21-91 As for the one who maintained her virginity,( Ahsanati Farjaha) we blew into her from our spirit, and thus, we made her and her son a portent for the whole world.
Ahsanti farjaha means , protected sexual organs , or locked/blocked from use , and the one who does that , we call him/her a virgin,So are you saying that the god is congratulating Maryam for not getting married?!!! There is nothing wrong with getting married. He is saying simply that she was chaste. I am sure that if the opportunity for marriage arose she would have got married because she wouldn't forbid something that the god allows and encourages. Also, virginity can be maintained by simply not having penetration. This doesn't mean that she was chaste. Women can have many sexual pleasures without penetration and thus maintaining virginity. Thus what you are saying causes major logical problems. So according to your understanding of wanting to be "mohasanat"/protected in 2433 meaning "wanting to be virgins", then the term used in 424 means that the passage is saying "those who can't marry virgins should marry young females"!!! and "if they became virgins then commit adultary then they get half of the punishment of the virgins"!!! Of course, as you can see your understanding leads to complete nonsense.
The above statement does not mean Chastity, Because in Chastity, there is a USE of these organs but, "NO illegal use" .
Want another prove from Quran, read 70-29.30, when God says , "They protect/guard there private parts" , and follows it with, "And use them only with their spouses or their MMA (right hand posses)", and repeats exactly the same pattern in 23-5,6 , for depicting chastityYes chastity is meant when talking about private parts not virginity. It is never used to mean virginity. Can you show me where "private parts" are mentioned in 2433? Of course you can't. Since private parts are not mentioned in 2433 and 424 then those passages are simply talking about "protected women" as I explained above and not "chastity" and certainly not "virginity".
You want others to blindly follow your theories but , do not make an effort to understand, if somebody tries to correct/improve upon them.
It took us 10 pages to deliberate the word "HSn" and pin point the different meaning it conveys in realtion to the subject of a given sentense.I don't expect them to follow anything based on the number of pages. I assure you that Sunnis have written many more pages than you on this subject.
Please spare some time and re -read my post above, it will do a lot of good to you , and if you can't make sense of it , please go through a few posts on page 6,7 of the "Mohsinats --,, thread , where i thrashed every occurrence of this root HSN , and the meaning it coveys with respect to the subject of a sentense.
I read them many times and people can go back and check my posts that you never was able to respond to. Everyone can also go back to those posts and see that due to your wrong understanding, you have turned everything on this subject to a perverted meaning. To you the passages talking about "what your oaths possess" are talking about wives, sisters, mothers and daughters that are kidnapped during war and then held prisoners against their will and for no crime and if their master requires it are raped!! To you 2433 is talking about pimps who force young women to prostitution and yet the pimps are completely forgiven according to 2433. So according to you a pimp who kidnaps a young woman and imprisons her and ties her up and then sets up a toll booth for customers to pay to have sex with her is COMPLETELY FOGIVEN!!!! On the other hand, there is nothing about forgiveness for the poor girl!!!!
Is your understanding that this is what righteous people do?!!! I am sorry but this is what tyrants do. For example, the people of Pharoah (7127, etc.). As I said many times before, perverted interpretations on this subject say more about the preconceptions and attitudes of the persons making them than about what the passage is actually saying. I suggest that you forget everything that you believe you understand about this subject and start clean.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Brother Ayman and siki,
Asslamo alaikum.First of all brother siki why are you unnecessarily attributing mention of sick mind in Ayman?s post to mean it refers to you alone. Was'nt it just a general remark to make me understand things in some lovely manner.
I have gained lot from the debate. Quran e Majeed has certainly used the word ?Fa ta? for a young man, independent and coming from big family, Ibrahim a.s who could pick up the courage of breaking small gods of his nation.
Therefore I correct myself that Fatayaat includes young women, not necessarily female servants. Similarly fatayaat has been used for female servants. There are lot many examples that poverty ridden men do injustice to their own young women. And even some rich people don?t let their women even marry to avoid land holdings going to other people or marry them with a very young boy or very old man of own family. You might be surprised that here in my country people have been ?marrying? their sisters with ?Quran?. What a fraud!The words mentioned are ?despite their disliking, hatred?. Consent will perhaps be too light a word to describe ?Karh?. Now I understand that the instruction certainly contains the meaning not to force the female servants to do something wrong for material gains, but it will also cover other young women. Instructions in this regard are also given in the beginning of 419 using same word ?karh? ?O ye who believe! ye are forbidden to inherit women against their will?.
Quran e Majed protects the honour, dignity, and freedom and expects men to make all endeavors to respect and honour women. Allah expects men to give women a feel of protection and security and honour. Allah has put ?lanat? on those who throw accusations on Mohsanat.
The other issue was word ?"baghaa"/"al-baghaa". Brother Ayman has made me clear in simple manner about the difference in verb and noun. Here the issue is forcing towards (Ala al bagha) performing that thing. The root explains the concept. The basic thought in this particular root is to exceed moderate limits. The question is whether it is better to translate it like ?don?t force your young women into something that goes beyond their just rights/them feeling injustice? or ?don?t force your young women to prostitution?. Let us see what prostitution/prostitute mean
pros?ti?tute
noun (plural pros?ti?tutes)
1- Somebody paid for sexual intercourse somebody who is paid to provide sexual intercourse or other sex acts
2- Somebody who degrades talent for money somebody who uses a skill or ability in a way that is considered unworthy, usually for financial gain
transitive verb (past and past participle pros?ti?tut?ed, present participle pros?ti?tut?ing, 3rd person present singular pros?ti?tutes)
1- misuse something for gain to use a skill or ability in a way that is considered unworthy, usually for financial gain
? He has been accused of prostituting his talent by appearing in TV commercials.
2- work or offer somebody as prostitute to offer somebody or yourself for sexual intercourse or other sex acts in exchange for money
{With thanks from Encarta Dictionary}Since prostitution in common parlance is almost restricted to sex related matters, therefore I find myself inclined not to use it and instead adopt other words ?which they consider/hate as being unworthy/beyond appropriate limits? or in some other better way.
Rabbi zidni ilma. -
Brother Mazhar, thank you for your understanding and for your contribution to exposing the grave injustices that has been and continues to be done to young women in so-called Islamic societies that hide and distort the god's clear commands in the great reading/"quran".
peace,
Ayman
-
Brother Ayman and siki,
Asslamo alaikum.First of all brother siki why are you unnecessarily attributing mention of sick mind in Ayman?s post to mean it refers to you alone. Was'nt it just a general remark to make me understand things in some lovely manner.
walakum aslam Brother
"Muslims are terrorist, or " Pakistanis are B,,,,,,,.
If some body passes a silly statement like above, and when "my brother Mazhar" responds to it , An on looker comments, "Why are you taking this as an offense , he has not abused you alone"?
And, his "LOVELY MANNERS" are always twisted.
Peace Siki,
So you do think that 2433 has nothing to do with you or anyone you know and it is only a theoretical passage as far as you are concerned.
Peace Ayman.
Your logic , and further insistence upon it , is quite strange considering your intellect.
Going by your logic , Do we have to ignore all those commandments , regarding fornicators , thieves or oppressors, by saying , OH NO , this is not for me, or this ayah means something else because i consider my self to be, Not ALL That?
Are the the "Pimps" some alien specie? do i have to explain it to you that " Yes, in each of us, there is a pimp lurking somewhere in dark corners of our personalties.
i will continue.
siki
-
Brother siki,
Thanks. Difference of opinion does not permit us to break the bondage of brotherhood. Let us call ayman our brother. We should keep differing with him unless he is conviced or makes us convince. The advice about fatayaat, if they are slave servants would include not to sell them, to eventually end slavery. We are advised that when we come across absurd things we should not indulge into dispute; just pass by. We didn't do so with Rushde; and he is now "Sir", we earned him this title. -
Peace Siki,
Your logic , and further insistence upon it , is quite strange considering your intellect.
Going by your logic , Do we have to ignore all those commandments , regarding fornicators , thieves or oppressors, by saying , OH NO , this is not for me, or this ayah means something else because i consider my self to be, Not ALL That?
Are the the "Pimps" some alien specie? do i have to explain it to you that " Yes, in each of us, there is a pimp lurking somewhere in dark corners of our personalties.
i will continue.Again the command is clear that it is talking about "your young females" and you agree to that. So who are your young females? Please answer instead of evading the answer with irrelevant arguments.
As for your irrelevant arguments, you know that commands regarding "fornicators, thieves or oppressors" are always associated with strong prohibition and severe retribution and never with "after committing the act the god is forgiving" even without mentioning any repentance. Which is the bigger offence, stealing a loaf of bread and fornication between consenting adults or tying up your young daughter or young sister or young adopted female and then collecting money from complete strangers who happen to pass by so that they can rape her? What is wrong with your judgment?
Peace,
Ayman