only men are addresses

explorer

Salaam Explorer

The verb "touch LaMaSa " in these two verses is not the same as the verb "LaaMaSa " in "laamastum alnisaa"; the former 2 being of pattern I, whereas the latter is form III, all have the same root LMS (the double aa is an alif or long vowel; the single a is a short vowel).

If a form I of a verb is used, form III derived from it may give a meaning of "mutual" action of form I. Example kataba to write; kaataba to sign an agreement with someone (both are writing); qatala to kill; qaatala to fight (againt someone). Hence, lamasa to touch; laamasa maybe to move together in touching each other...usually used for sexual intercourse, but could be used for any intimate touching.

Also form III whether derived from non used /existing verbs or not, usually have the notion of actions of longer duration saafara travel (form I, safar, is not used); Taalaba demand (Talaba request); haajara immigrate (hajara desert)...Again laamasa could be touching of a longer duration.

Samia, peace be with you as well

Thanks for your detailed reply. It was definitely very helpful for me in understanding how different forms work.

explorer

In a state of junaba , bath is necessary, and if one can't take a bath due to any reason then , NO SALAT.

http//www.quraninenglish.com/cgi-local/pages.pl?/quran&img=321

.. and - not - unclean (junabba) -except - passing through -way until - you wash ...

Doesn't this mean

Dont say prayer if you are unclean (junanna)
until you wash (bathe)
except you passing through way (journey).

You said "no salat if you are under junabba". How would you explain "EXCEPT PASSING THROUGH WAY" then?

siki

http//www.quraninenglish.com/cgi-local/pages.pl?/quran&img=321

.. and - not - unclean (junabba) -except - passing through -way until - you wash ...

Doesn't this mean

Dont say prayer if you are unclean (junanna)
until you wash (bathe)
except you passing through way (journey).

You said "no salat if you are under junabba". How would you explain "EXCEPT PASSING THROUGH WAY" then?

explorer!

ya , you are right, Abri sabeelin (traveller) has been granted a concession. i knew that , but it slipped my mind , thanks.

Exactly same thing was said in the translation of Ayah

Negative Mazhar, what i am trying to point out , is that one can be in a state of junabba without Dakhool. please see the reasons in my previous post.

lamastamum un nissa has only one meaning and that is Dakhaltum. If this act had not been done with a wife then her daughter from earlier husband is permissible for marriage. And this can happen only if that woman with whom man had not done that act had been divorced. It means her mother was divorced without Dakhool. What is Dakhool? It is lamastamum. Please read 2236.

Again negative, lamstamum un nissa does not mean dakhool at all. Previously i thought that dakhool is a sub set of lamastmum, but NO, it is not , it means sexual touchings,( only ) which do not culminate into dakhool. The reason has already been explained by explorer above.

In the above commandment there is no marriage or divorce, rather it is a decree for incest. Even if you dint marry a women but you have entered her , every/any kind of sexual advaces/ approach for her daughter , weather through marriage, or through fornication, is termed as incestuous, and is strictly prohibited.

siki

siki

Explorer!

Now, to answer your query, let us first consider,

there are three states one can be in, before salat according to Quran.

clean.

dirty

junaaba.

clean requires wadu every time, preferably, but if one is unable to find water , one can still pray.

Dirty means , those 4 conditions mentioned in quran, this again requires ablution but if one does not find water, one has to carry out some kind of cleansing with dry soil.

Junaabaa, requires bathing, and if due to any reason one is unable to , then one should not salat . later on a concession was added in 4-43 for "abri sabeelin" that he can pray without bath, but logic requires that in this case he must carry out ablution and if no water, then tayammam.

Now your question, i think by lamastamum un nissa, the men are being pushed into the second(dirty)stage , where as the women are not.

They probably remain in state 1, that is why, the commandment is worded such a way, otherwise , he could have used an alternative word and avoided this confusion. God does not run out of words, i agree with you on this.

Above explanation is not a verdict , but probably clicks my mind better than the rest of the explanations.

Peace

siki

warner

Salaam

Good going explorer, in the absence of a proper explanation for the verse being addressed also to women lets take the Quran literally and the fact that dry ablution only applies to men.

I have few issues with the verses 443 and 56

?wa la_ junuban illa_'a_biri sabilin 443

Is not ?and not distant except instructing the way? the literal translation for the part of the verse above using cross reference. I noticed the definitions used so far for ?junuban? and ?Aabiri? has no support with cross reference with the Quran.

Also shouldn?t the part of the verse ?wa la junuban...? (443), should be connected to ?hatta_ ta'lamu_ ma_ taqu_lu_na/ until ye can understand? and not to ?la_ takrabus sala_ta / approach not prayers ?. The ?wa la /and not" in ? wa la junuban..? will not be appropriate with the negative ?not approach? in the start of the verse.

I may be wrong with the issues I have raised so please be good enough to give explanations to understand the above verses properly.

siki

Warner

How are you brother? Good to have you around on this thread

Good going explorer, in the absence of a proper explanation for the verse being addressed also to women lets take the Quran literally and the fact that dry ablution only applies to men.

You have a point there, so i guess my understanding in the above post is faulty.

so , under the present situation , the best bet is , Lamastamum ul nissa , should be considered a phrase , signifying smooching and is valid for both.

I have few issues with the verses 443 and 56

wa la_ junuban illa_'a_biri sabilin 443

Is not and not distant except instructing the way the literal translation for the part of the verse above using cross reference. I noticed the definitions used so far for junuban and Aabiri has no support with cross reference with the Quran.

When i was trying to dig deep in to these two words, i faced the same problem, i could not verify them from quran , but then when i checked lane, i found the commonly understood meanings as one of the options. As they fit in the context of the verse , so i had no option , but to take them, where as, all other listed meanings(more than 40 odd) were relatively more inappropriate.

However i am less than fully satisfied with these two words.

Junnabbaan, is described as a condition one is in ,after sex , making bathing a necessity.

Abri sabeelin, abri and sabeel are two different words and convey different meanings separately , but when put together , is a phrase used for A traveller, or journeying. The individual meanings of these two words are less than appropriate in the context of this verse.

Travelling makes you dirty, so is illness , going to toilet and God considers smooching makes a human body less than clean.

Abri sabeelin was not in the original ayah regarding wadu,5-6 but this exception was probably included later in 4-43 , and the travellers, if were in junabba were granted relief from Ghusaal owing to the difficulty of finding a place ,or abundant water for such a purpose.

And i guess , abri sabeelin , phrase was used instead of Saffrin, to reduce the confusion and clarify difference between the two separate issues.(bath and tayamam)

Salaam

Also shoulthe the part of the verse wa la junuban... (443), should be connected to hatta_ ta'lamu_ ma_ taqu_lu_na/ until ye can understand and not to la_ takrabus sala_ta / approach not prayers . The wa la /and not" in wa la junuban.. will not be appropriate with the negative not approach in the start of the verse.

I may be wrong with the issues I have raised so please be good enough to give explanations to understand the above verses properly.

I am sorry i cant understand you here, can you elaborate/explain , what you mean to convey?

peace

siki

warner

Dear Brother Siki

I am well, Thanks for the greeting. How are you and your family?

Thanks for the explanation but I still have my doubts since we are relying solely on lexicons and not on the Quran reference. I can feel from your answer even you are not certain with the traditional meaning. I may be wrong but I think we must analyze the verse more. I will use the traditional translation for ease.

Let me explain my confusion more clearly.

O ye who believe! APPROACH NOT prayers

with a mind befogged until ye can understand all that ye say
AND NOR in a state of ceremonial impurity except when traveling on the road until after washing your whole body

Please note the bold ?approach not? and ?and nor?. The verse should say ?approach not salat when you are junuban? and NOT ?approach not salat when you are not junuban? . The 2 negatives convey the latter meaning.

443 ?..And if ye are ill or on a journey or one of you cometh from offices of nature or ye have been in contact with women and ye find no water then take for yourselves clean sand or earth and rub therewith your faces and hands. For Allah doth blot out sins and forgive again and again.

Don?t you think this part of the verse is connected to "washing" with the wa/and in ?wa in kuntum marda/ And if ye are ill?

What is the difference between Taghtasilu ( 443) and Fa?ghsilu_ (56) ?

Siki And i guess , abri sabeelin , phrase was used instead of Saffrin, to reduce the confusion and clarify difference between the two separate issues.(bath and tayamam)

I still do not understand the reason for the use of 2 different words for travel or journeying in the verse. Can you explain.

unknownuser

Peace all,

Interesting discussion going on !

In my understanding, "laamastum" is ANY SEXUAL TOUCHING in the context of "laamastumun-nisaa", which includes "dakhal"/sexual intercourse, and may or may not result in "junuban"/seminal or vaginal discharge. Thus "dakhal" will be a subset of "laamastum".

"Junuban" on the other hand could be both after sexual intercourse or after self-stimulation.

Hence, following possibilities can result

Sexual intercourse/"dakhal" (included in "laamastum&quot, OR any sexual touching/"laamastum" OR self-stimulation AND NON-TRAVELER, resulting in seminal/vaginal discharge ---> "junuban" ---> bath.
Sexual intercourse/"dakhal" (included in "laamastum&quot, OR any sexual touching/"laamastum" OR self-stimulation AND TRAVELER, resulting in seminal/vaginal discharge ---> "junuban" ---> bath not necessary, instead can do ablution if water available, or if no water, then "tayammam".
Sexual intercourse/"dakhal" without discharge (traveler and non-traveler) ---> "laamastum" ---> ablution, or if no water, then "tayammam".
ANY sexual touch/"laamastum" with other person without discharge (traveler and non-traveler) ---> "laamastum" ---> ablution, or if no water, then "tayammam".

All of the above include both male and female. For example, "junuban"/seminal discharge for male, and "junuban"/vaginal discharge for female.

Thus, "junuban" may or may not result from sexual intercourse, so may or may not be a subset of "laamastum". However, "dakhal" is always a subset of "laamastum" (how is "dakhal" possible without touching/"laamasa" ?).

explorer

All of the above include both male and female. For example, "junuban"/seminal discharge for male, and "junuban"/vaginal discharge for female.

I can see how junuban is for both males and femals. On what grounds are you saying "laamastum" is both as well? Are you of one mind with Samia on this?

"When you touch (lamasa) your women".

Quran has addressed men only.

warner

Salaam Tanveer

Good to have you here in this discussion. Hope everything is well with you brother.

I guess laamastum is intense touching with or without sex.(like feeling someone up) So accidental and casual touching without intenstion or leading to sex is not included. Also I think laamastum
applies even if the hands are not involved such as rubbing against or hugging someone. Excuse me for being discriptive.

siki

Peace all,

Interesting discussion going on !

In my understanding, "laamastum" is ANY SEXUAL TOUCHING in the context of "laamastumun-nisaa", which includes "dakhal"/sexual intercourse, and may or may not result in "junuban"/seminal or vaginal discharge. Thus "dakhal" will be a subset of "laamastum".

"Junuban" on the other hand could be both after sexual intercourse or after self-stimulation.

Hence, following possibilities can result

Sexual intercourse/"dakhal" (included in "laamastum&quot, OR any sexual touching/"laamastum" OR self-stimulation AND NON-TRAVELER, resulting in seminal/vaginal discharge ---> "junuban" ---> bath.
Sexual intercourse/"dakhal" (included in "laamastum&quot, OR any sexual touching/"laamastum" OR self-stimulation AND TRAVELER, resulting in seminal/vaginal discharge ---> "junuban" ---> bath not necessary, instead can do ablution if water available, or if no water, then "tayammam".
Sexual intercourse/"dakhal" without discharge (traveler and non-traveler) ---> "laamastum" ---> ablution, or if no water, then "tayammam".
ANY sexual touch/"laamastum" with other person without discharge (traveler and non-traveler) ---> "laamastum" ---> ablution, or if no water, then "tayammam".

All of the above include both male and female. For example, "junuban"/seminal discharge for male, and "junuban"/vaginal discharge for female.

Thus, "junuban" may or may not result from sexual intercourse, so may or may not be a subset of "laamastum". However, "dakhal" is always a subset of "laamastum" (how is "dakhal" possible without touching/"laamasa" ?).

I stand corrected , Dakhal is a sub set of lamastamum un nissa.

I agree with you here, mostly except the red part. I think dakhal even without discharge should result in junabbaan, Because there is no fix parameter for the women to evaluate a fluid discharge , and even men have some pre ejaculation discharges which can not be evaluated

My opinion is that dakhal should be the line for junabban, and if no dakhal then men's ejaculation should be the parameter for men, and if in any way, the secretion touches the women body , should also turn her in junabaa state.

siki

Mazhar

Dear Siki,

You are taking things to the finest "tuning". "Dakhaltum" quite expressely states things yet there is no "porno" in it. While talking about sex matters, Quran takes care of respect for the women yet states the fact quite boldly. About wives it is said that husabnd find "sakan" from them which is a fact all the time but a wife may not necessarily get "sakan" everytime from her husband and yet she never complains to her husband. Let some things remain covered under the veil since people understand and know them.

unknownuser

Peace all,

Explorer, the way I look at 443, the addressees are all believers (male and female), and in that context the phrase "laamastumun-nisaa" implies any sexual contact with another person. In other words, for me "laamastumun-nisaa" as a whole implies "sexual touch" idiomatically, and not just "intensely touching a woman". Do you mean to say that when a male touches a female sexually, then the female is not also sexually touching the male (other than rape) ?

I think the peculiarity of Classical Arabic allows that kind of idiomatic usage as Samia has pointed out.

Warner, I agree with "laamasa" being an intense touch but I consider the phrase "laamastumun-nisaa" implying a sexual touch idiomatically (sexual touch would also be "intense&quot. For example it would exclude a casual handshake, and would also exclude a non-sexual upper back massage given for medical reasons by a physical therapist, even though the latter could be "intense".

Siki, please do your own research ..... a female can be "junuban" also after or before "dakhal" by male, without male having any discharge. I do not want to be too graphically descriptive.

explorer

Peace all,

Explorer, the way I look at 443, the addressees are all believers (male and female), and in that context the phrase "laamastumun-nisaa" implies any sexual contact with another person. In other words, for me "laamastumun-nisaa" as a whole implies "sexual touch" idiomatically, and not just "intensely touching a woman". Do you mean to say that when a male touches a female sexually, then the female is not also sexually touching the male (other than rape) ?

I think the peculiarity of Classical Arabic allows that kind of idiomatic usage as Samia has pointed out.

Tanveer, peace be with you as well

"Ladies and gentle man. Please listen carefully. All of you in this room should stand up and exit the room using the green door. Those who have touched their wives should exit the room using the red door".

There are four people in the room. Peter and Karen is one couple. John and Jill is another. John has touched Jill and Jill has touched John. (as you said both men and women touch each other except in rapes). Peter and Karen remained sober.

After hearing the above instructions following people will exit the room using green door

Peter
Karen
Jill

Following person will exit through the red door

John

I dont see how the above instructions applies to Jill. Unless in classical language "those who have touched their wives" is translated as "those who have touched their spouses". No example of such usage exists outside Quran. Reverse engineering language rules from Quran alone is akin to tweaking the meaning in our favor.

Quran was sent in Arabic. That means it was conforming to Arabic language rules. We cannot derive language rules from Quran. At least it does not make sense to my small brain.

siki

Peace all,

Explorer, the way I look at 443, the addressees are all believers (male and female), and in that context the phrase "laamastumun-nisaa" implies any sexual contact with another person. In other words, for me "laamastumun-nisaa" as a whole implies "sexual touch" idiomatically, and not just "intensely touching a woman". Do you mean to say that when a male touches a female sexually, then the female is not also sexually touching the male (other than rape) ?

I agree, and fully support that this is an idiomatic usage..

Peace all,

Siki, please do your own research ..... a female can be "junuban" also after or before "dakhal" by male, without male having any discharge. I do not want to be too graphically descriptive.

I agree, determining the precise line for "junabaan" should be a personal affair and hence should be left to individual perception.

peace

siki

siki

Let me explain my confusion more clearly.

O ye who believe! APPROACH NOT prayers

with a mind befogged until ye can understand all that ye say
AND NOR in a state of ceremonial impurity except when traveling on the road until after washing your whole body

Please note the bold ?approach not? and ?and nor?. The verse should say ?approach not salat when you are junuban? and NOT ?approach not salat when you are not junuban? . The 2 negatives convey the latter meaning.

Salam Warner

Brother , i agree , there is a small linguistic hiccup here, I checked a couple of word by word translations. it is,

approach not salat when you are,,,,until you know,,,, and not junaabaan till you ,,,,,

it should have been,

approach not salat when you are,,, until you know,,,and junaabaan till you....

However i feel that even the first one conveys the correct meanings and leaves no confusion.

May be , this second Not was grammatically required.

What is the difference between Taghtasilu ( 443) and Fa?ghsilu_ (56) ?

I find no problem with the above usage. One is that you wash, "such and such part", and the other is, "till you wash your self". Taghtasilu is understood to be a Bath, where as fa- ghaisilu when used along with a particular part , denotes washing of that particular object.

siki

Samia

Tanveer, peace be with you as well

"Ladies and gentle man. Please listen carefully. All of you in this room should stand up and exit the room using the green door. Those who have touched their wives should exit the room using the red door".

There are four people in the room. Peter and Karen is one couple. John and Jill is another. John has touched Jill and Jill has touched John. (as you said both men and women touch each other except in rapes). Peter and Karen remained sober.

After hearing the above instructions following people will exit the room using green door

Peter
Karen
Jill

Following person will exit through the red door

John

I dont see how the above instructions applies to Jill. Unless in classical language "those who have touched their wives" is translated as "those who have touched their spouses". No example of such usage exists outside Quran. Reverse engineering language rules from Quran alone is akin to tweaking the meaning in our favor.

Quran was sent in Arabic. That means it was conforming to Arabic language rules. We cannot derive language rules from Quran. At least it does not make sense to my small brain.

Salaam explorer
Two querries

What exactly is "touch your wives"?
What do green and red doors stand for?

I will post my comments after you kindly clarify these points.

explorer

Salaam explorer
Two querries

What exactly is "touch your wives"?
What do green and red doors stand for?

I will post my comments after you kindly clarify these points.

Samia, peace be with you as well.

This is an hypothetical example. Lets say in this example "touch your wives" is referring to "sexual touchings"
These are just hyptethical doors. There are 4 people (2 couples) in a room. 1 couple has touched each other ( in a sexual way), while the other has not. After sending them the above hypothetical instruction which door would each choose? 3 of them will choose the green door and only one lady would choose the red door, according to me. According to those who says "touch your women" applies to both men and women, one couple should choose green door and one couple should choose the red door, which does not make sense to me.

I still dont get it how "touch your women" phrase would apply to both men and women. How can we reverse engineer languistic rules from Quran. Quran was sent in Arabic. That means Quran was conforming to Arabic standards.

Mazhar

A new term "sexual touching" seems to have been coined during this debate since in English language these two words are not available club together. Touching results or causes warmeth/excitement in cells of the thing touched whether matter or human body. If "Lamas" is to be translated as "touch, touching" then from where the word "sexual" could be brought in? At best keeping in view the effect of "touching", if Lamas is to be restricted to "touching" then the meaning of Lamastum an nisa could mean only arousing/exciting women. Therefore in keeping with the Tasreef ayat, the word has been explained as intercourse and that too only with reference to lawful wives. Believing Men are addressed with reference to their wives and not all women since address is not to debauch men.

Samia

Salaam warner
Thanks for the replies.
Now back to your hypothetical situation
(oops, where is it gone?)
Never mind. Here, requoted from my message

"Ladies and gentle man. Please listen carefully. All of you in this room should stand up and exit the room using the green door. Those who have touched their wives should exit the room using the red door".

There are four people in the room. Peter and Karen is one couple. John and Jill is another. John has touched Jill and Jill has touched John. (as you said both men and women touch each other except in rapes). Peter and Karen remained sober.

After hearing the above instructions following people will exit the room using green door

Peter
Karen
Jill

Following person will exit through the red door

John

I dont see how the above instructions applies to Jill. Unless in classical language "those who have touched their wives" is translated as "those who have touched their spouses". No example of such usage exists outside Quran. Reverse engineering language rules from Quran alone is akin to tweaking the meaning in our favor.

Quran was sent in Arabic. That means it was conforming to Arabic language rules. We cannot derive language rules from Quran. At least it does not make sense to my small brain.

According to this situation, only those who had intercourse with their wives can exit from red door (as per analogy tayammum; washing; wadu...etc), which entails that women are not required to exit from the red door/do tayammum, washing or wadu before salat, which entails they are not required to do salat, which entails, in similar hypothetical situations, that they are not required to do anyting. But the qur'aan mentions two women as example of those who believe, which means those who believe are not required to do salaat, which entails that this verse is addressing the non believers, which is nonesense.

Language is important to understand, yes. But more important than language is common sense and ability to look at the bigger picture and cross reference.