only men are addresses
-
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.
-
-
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", OR any sexual touching/"laamastum" OR self-stimulation AND NON-TRAVELER, resulting in seminal/vaginal discharge ---> "junuban" ---> bath.
- Sexual intercourse/"dakhal" (included in "laamastum", 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" ?).
-
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.
-
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. -
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", OR any sexual touching/"laamastum" OR self-stimulation AND NON-TRAVELER, resulting in seminal/vaginal discharge ---> "junuban" ---> bath.
- Sexual intercourse/"dakhal" (included in "laamastum", 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
-
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.
-
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". 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.
-
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
JillFollowing 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.
-
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
-
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
-
-
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
JillFollowing 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
JillFollowing 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.
-
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.
Dear
you want to say if a debauch man has intercourse with his wife or any other woman ,he need not have "ghusal"?
Am I right to understand you ?becaue Quran is not addressing him. -
Dear Leoxyz,
You start inferring things. I do not consider that drawing inferrences is allowed in the study of Quran. Allah gives guidance only to those who seek that or inclined to get it. A debauch person is least pushed about niceities of taking bath for purification; he just takes bath for other considerations of health and freshness etc.
-
Dear Leoxyz,
You start inferring things. I do not consider that drawing inferrences is allowed in the study of Quran. Allah gives guidance only to those who seek that or inclined to get it. A debauch person is least pushed about niceities of taking bath for purification; he just takes bath for other considerations of health and freshness etc.
I have to infer because you people always talk ambigously.So that you can slip at the time of need.
My question to you
A muslim debauch person makes intercourse with any woman other than wife.Is Ghusal necessary for him according to this aya or not??
Give me a clear answe so that I do not infer.
Thanks -
I know you are not a debauch person. Why should you be worried about the taking bath of a debauch person after sex with women. This is how the so called Imams have formulated so called fiqha by imaginating presumptive situations and then giving their verdicts. A decision and judgement is given only when a situation actually arises. Here in the verse believing men have been advised to take bath if they had intercourse with their wives; simple and straightforward instruction.
-
I know you are not a debauch person. Why should you be worried about the taking bath of a debauch person after sex with women. This is how the so called Imams have formulated so called fiqha by imaginating presumptive situations and then giving their verdicts. A decision and judgement is given only when a situation actually arises. Here in the verse believing men have been advised to take bath if they had intercourse with their wives; simple and straightforward instruction.
Please be clear
So you want to say that "debauch ' muslim does not need ghusal after having intercourse with some woman other than his wife.??
Please answer to the point Did I infer correctly ?