and do not compel your slave girls to prostitution...
-
Quote from siki on June 20, 2007, 072542 AM
If a Guardian , deceitfully , forces a Fatayat for a wrong ( which you think is , lets say forced marriage to an old rich man) , to gain materials of this word, would God be acting as Most Merciful, Forgiving ?Yes. I know several young women who were forced to marry an older rich man and who grew to love him and ended up living happily ever after. On the other hand, I also know many young women who married the guy of their dreams that they loved deeply and then the dreams turned to nightmares and they were divorced a few years (and in some cases a few weeks) later. So sometimes those arranged marriages where the woman is compelled to marry someone by her parents do work out fine.
This still does not answer the question what lawful limits would the fatayat be seeking to exceed if al-bighaa is referring to "forced marriage".
(bighaa meaning seeking something unlawfully)
-
Still no mention of ar-rijaal here. Also an-nisa does not include al-wildan/children. Al-wildan are seperate from ar-rijaal and an-nisaa. (4/75, 4/9
Either I did not understand your initial question or I do not understand this post of yours. What do "alwildan" and "alyatama" do in an explanation about "alnisaa'"? Here's the verse
"They ask your legal instruction concerning the "nisaa'". Say God instructs you concerning them and what is recited to you in the book concerning
- fatherless children of women whom you do not pay what's prescribed for them and want to marry them,
- and the children who are vulnerable, weak and oppressed,
- and the orphans that you should stand firm for their justice.
All that you do of goodness God is all aware of it).
1,2 and 3 are the sub-categories of "nisaa'".
Yes, there is no rijaal in this verse. Why should there be? It's about "nisaa' the vulnerable". But it does include males. When a verse speaks of "rijaal", this word includes females -
Either I did not understand your initial question or I do not understand this post of yours. What do "alwildan" and "alyatama" do in an explanation about "alnisaa'"? Here's the verse
"They ask your legal instruction concerning the "nisaa'". Say God instructs you concerning them and what is recited to you in the book concerning
- fatherless children of women whom you do not pay what's prescribed for them and want to marry them,
- and the children who are vulnerable, weak and oppressed,
- and the orphans that you should stand firm for their justice.
All that you do of goodness God is all aware of it).
1,2 and 3 are the sub-categories of "nisaa'".
Yes 'God instructs you concerning THEM as well as what is recited to you in the book concerning...'
Only the "hunna/them" is referring to the nisaa. The rest(1,2 and 3) are distinctly mentioned and are not sub-categories of nisaa, as wildan/children are distinct from rijaal/men and nisaa/women(4/75, 4/9, and are not counted among an-naas(group of rijaalan and nisaa'an, 4/1)
Yes, there is no rijaal in this verse. Why should there be? It's about "nisaa' the vulnerable". But it does include males. When a verse speaks of "rijaal", this word includes females
Nisaa can possess masculine traits, and rijaal can possess feminine traits(42/49-50), but rijaal cannot include nisaa, or vice versa. Rijaal and Nisaa are distinct from each other. Wildan can be male/zakr or/and female/unsa(3/36, 49/50), but cannot be rijaal/men or nisaa/women. Wildan are distinct from rijaal and nisaa.
-
Yes 'God instructs you concerning THEM as well as what is recited to you in the book concerning...'
Where's "as well" in the verse? If it were there, yes I would agree with you.
Moreover, they pose a question regarding nisa'. Why? Because they want to know who are those nisaa'. They did not ask about wildaan nor yatamaa. Logically, if the answer about nisaa' leads to mentioning other categories, then there's a link. If I ask about meat, would you mention meat AND fruit? If I ask about something and your answer s meat and fruit, then by logic I am asking about food or shopping for example.The rest(1,2 and 3) are distinctly mentioned and are not sub-categories of nisaa, as wildan/children are distinct from rijaal/men and nisaa/women(4/75, 4/9, and are not counted among an-naas(group of rijaalan and nisaa'an, 4/1)
These two verses mention other categories in general. They do not speak of a specific category of women (mothers of fatherless children), nor of fatherless children themselves.
Moreover, I did not say nisaa' or rijaal never mean women or men. What I say is that we should be very careful in automatically translating rijaal and nisaa' as men and women.rijaal cannot include nisaa, or vice versa.
rijaal including nisaa' 2227
nisaa' including rijaal 4 43
nisaa' including rijaal and rijaal including nissa' 434 -
Yes 'God instructs you concerning THEM as well as what is recited to you in the book concerning...'
Where's "as well" in the verse? If it were there, yes I would agree with you.
I am translating it as "as well as" to show you yatama and wildan are other than the nisaa. Can it not mean "as well as"?
Moreover, they pose a question regarding nisa'. Why? Because they want to know who are those nisaa'.
They are not asking WHO the nisaa are, or what categories are included among nisaa. They are asking a fatwa/"legal instruction" ABOUT women, NOT about the MEANING of the word "nisaa" or who is included among women.
They did not ask about wildaan nor yatama. Logically, if the answer about nisaa' leads to mentioning other categories, then there's a link.
What kind of a link?! The link would be that the orphans and children may be related to women. It says yatama OF the nisaa. It means yatama themselves are not nisaa. THAT'S logical. It means yatama are related to the nisaa, that is why yatama and wlidan are mentioned in a fatwa about nisaa. But children related to women don't become women themselves, they don't count among the women!
If I ask about meat, would you mention meat AND fruit? If I ask about something and your answer s meat and fruit, then by logic I am asking about food or shopping for example.
What if I DO mention meat AND fruit? Does fruit become meat then?! Would my answer change your question?!
The rest(1,2 and 3) are distinctly mentioned and are not sub-categories of nisaa, as wildan/children are distinct from rijaal/men and nisaa/women(4/75, 4/9, and are not counted among an-naas(group of rijaalan and nisaa'an, 4/1)
These two verses mention other categories in general. They do not speak of a specific category of women (mothers of fatherless children), nor of fatherless children themselves.
Mentioned in general? So what? Should fatherless children be counted among women, or motherless children among men?
Moreover, I did not say nisaa' or rijaal never mean women or men. What I say is that we should be very careful in automatically translating rijaal and nisaa' as men and women.
Ok. Lets be very careful. 4/1 speaks about the rijaalan and nisaa'an of the world. Whatever meaning fits here, fits everywhere else. And the meaning here is not "invulnerable and vulnerable" but "men and and women".
rijaal cannot include nisaa, or vice versa.
rijaal including nisaa' 2227
nisaa' including rijaal 4 43How?! If you think a verse should be about both men AND women, but the verse mentions only men, would you start including women among men just to suit your wishful thinking? Meat AND fruit?!
nisaa' including rijaal and rijaal including nissa' 434
Oh, come on!
-
I am translating it as "as well as" to show you yatama and wildan are other than the nisaa. Can it not mean "as well as"?
As well is a word on its own and of course it changes the meaning. You cannot just insert "as well" so as to fit your understanding.
They are not asking WHO the nisaa are, or what categories are included among nisaa. They are asking a fatwa/"legal instruction" ABOUT women, NOT about the MEANING of the word "nisaa" or who is included among women.
That makes no difference. Let me rephrase They ask you for a fatwa concerning nisaa'. Here's the fatwa concerning mothers of fatherless children do such and such (or don't do such and such); vulnerable children (do such and such)and fatherless children(do such and such). So he is given a fatwa concerning all these in response for a fatwa concerning nisaa'.
What kind of a link?! The link would be that the orphans and children may be related to women. It says yatama OF the nisaa. It means yatama themselves are not nisaa. THAT'S logical. It means yatama are related to the nisaa, that is why yatama and wlidan are mentioned in a fatwa about nisaa. But children related to women don't become women themselves, they don't count among the women!
No. The first category is about the mothers (of fatherless children) whom you want to marry. The second category is about vulnerable children (not necessarily fatherless and are not necessarily related to women. Maybe their mother is dead! They are at least children who have fathers. The third category is about the fatherless children themselves, not necessarily of mohers being married. Three different categories with three different needs. All under a fatwa concerning nisaa'.
What if I DO mention meat AND fruit? Does fruit become meat then?! Would my answer change your question?!
No it will not be meat. And your answer will not change my question, but will make it looks like meaningless to you, and we will be like two deaf people having a chat.
Mentioned in general? So what? Should fatherless children be counted among women, or motherless children among men?
Is the problem (in general)? Remove it. I did not understand the rest of your potest. I did not say, nor did I mean, anything of what you are talking about.
Ok. Lets be very careful. 4/1 speaks about the rijaalan and nisaa'an of the world. Whatever meaning fits here, fits everywhere else. And the meaning here is not "invulnerable and vulnerable" but "men and and women".
According to the general knowledge, who are more numerous throughout history and till now men or women? Here's a post by Arnab on this verse
To those who believe (contrary to the evidence presented in EVERY dictionary) that rajul means man and nisa means woman
Don't you find it odd that there is nothing to indicate what a nisa can do for themselves? They simply have to rely on the "goodness" of the community.
This would mean that the nisa has no control over their fate or their lives (in any way according to understanding Quran in this way). Their only recourse is to depend on those around them.
But the TRUTH is it is NOT like that. There are nisa's all around us (the one's wounded, ill, or in some way incapable of doing what most of us are capable of). This is why we must WASH if we have touched them during ablution.
Remember 41 where it says .....and we spread forth from them A GREAT NUMBER of rajul and nisa. Rajul is designated a great number but not nisa...if this verse is to be understood as women and men then it is an absolute lie (which I do not believe) because there are MANY MORE women in the world than men.
The one's active in their community, going to work, or school are the rajul (that is most people).
The rajul are to take care of those who are postponed.
There are times in most people's life where they are either rajul or nisa.....
when ill or wounded....they are nisa....and rajul must take care of them.
When they recover they are once again rajul.rijaal including nisaa' 2227
nisaa' including rijaal 4 43How?! If you think a verse should be about both men AND women, but the verse mentions only men, would you start including women among men just to suit your wishful thinking? Meat AND fruit?!
Oh, come on!
Have you read these verses? Do you really believe that they talk about "men"? Then, women are not supposed to make hajj (2227), nor are they demanded to wash after intercourse (443). OH, COME ON!!
-
What kind of a link?! The link would be that the orphans and children may be related to women. It says yatama OF the nisaa. It means yatama themselves are not nisaa. THAT'S logical. It means yatama are related to the nisaa, that is why yatama and wlidan are mentioned in a fatwa about nisaa. But children related to women don't become women themselves, they don't count among the women!
No. The first category is about the mothers (of fatherless children) whom you want to marry. The second category is about vulnerable children (not necessarily fatherless and are not necessarily related to women. Maybe their mother is dead! They are at least children who have fathers. The third category is about the fatherless children themselves, not necessarily of mohers being married. Three different categories with three different needs. All under a fatwa concerning nisaa'.
Ok. They are under the fatwa about nisaa. I agree so far. What I disagree with is that they are sub-categories of nisaa because
- yatama are OF nisaa(hence not same as),
- and wildan are distinct from and are not counted among nisaa. (as in the verses I had already referred to)
Thats how I see it.
(I will explain more below.)
What if I DO mention meat AND fruit? Does fruit become meat then?! Would my answer change your question?!
No it will not be meat. And your answer will not change my question, but will make it looks like meaningless to you, and we will be like two deaf people having a chat.
Let's see if thats true.
Chapter 2/217 They ask thee about fighting in the Sacred Month. Say, `Fighting therein is a heinous thing, but
1)to hinder men from the way of Allah,
2)and to be ungrateful to HIM,
3)and to hinder men from the Sacred Mosque,
4)and to turn out its people therefrom,is more heinous in the sight of Allah;
Now, going by your logic, if 1,2,3 and 4 are sub-categories of 'fighting in the sacred months', how can the sub-categories be worse/more heinous than the category itself?!
If these are not sub-categories, does the communication in 2/217 become meaningless? Is the communication between the deaf? Or is it simply that Allah knew better what else to tell us about besides 'fighting in the sacred months?
Ok. Lets be very careful. 4/1 speaks about the rijaalan and nisaa'an of the world. Whatever meaning fits here, fits everywhere else. And the meaning here is not "invulnerable and vulnerable" but "men and and women".
According to the general knowledge, who are more numerous throughout history and till now men or women? Here's a post by Arnab on this verse
To those who believe (contrary to the evidence presented in EVERY dictionary) that rajul means man and nisa means woman
Don't you find it odd that there is nothing to indicate what a nisa can do for themselves? They simply have to rely on the "goodness" of the community.
This would mean that the nisa has no control over their fate or their lives (in any way according to understanding Quran in this way). Their only recourse is to depend on those around them.
But the TRUTH is it is NOT like that. There are nisa's all around us (the one's wounded, ill, or in some way incapable of doing what most of us are capable of). This is why we must WASH if we have touched them during ablution.
Remember 41 where it says .....and we spread forth from them A GREAT NUMBER of rajul and nisa. Rajul is designated a great number but not nisa...if this verse is to be understood as women and men then it is an absolute lie (which I do not believe) because there are MANY MORE women in the world than men.
The one's active in their community, going to work, or school are the rajul (that is most people).
The rajul are to take care of those who are postponed.
There are times in most people's life where they are either rajul or nisa.....
when ill or wounded....they are nisa....and rajul must take care of them.
When they recover they are once again rajul.Oh man...
Ok. I will respond to this. This is going to be fun.
Have you read these verses? Do you really believe that they talk about "men"? Then, women are not supposed to make hajj (2227), nor are they demanded to wash after intercourse (443). OH, COME ON!!
Yes I REALLY believe that they talk about men, because I have eyes and I can read throughout the Quran that "rijaal" and "nisaa" are used to mean "men" and "women" respectively!
Whether women are supposed to make hajj etc or not, we can look that up elsewhere in the Quran. But these particular verses are addressed to men, much to your dislike.
-
Ok. They are under the fatwa about nisaa.
That's enough for me. How you understand this and twist it is your problem, not mine.
Chapter 2/217 They ask thee about fighting in the Sacred Month. Say, `Fighting therein is a heinous thing, but
1)to hinder men from the way of Allah,
2)and to be ungrateful to HIM,
3)and to hinder men from the Sacred Mosque,
4)and to turn out its people therefrom,is more heinous in the sight of Allah;
If you correctly translate this verse, you will see that it is not similar to verse 41. It dos not even start like verse 41.
Yes I REALLY believe that they talk about men, because I have eyes and I can read throughout the Quran that "rijaal" and "nisaa" are used to mean "men" and "women" respectively!
Whether women are supposed to make hajj etc or not, we can look that up elsewhere in the Quran. But these particular verses are addressed to men, much to your dislike.
If you get in a discussion presuming that I understand verses according to my likes and dislikes, there's no point in discussing with you. Why would I dislike that women be commanded to make hajj or to wash after intercourse or, according to your understanding, should not do many things? I just want to draw to your attention that God mentioned two women (not two men or even one man and one woman) as an example of the believers (mu'mineen, m.p.) and two women as an example of the kafireen, (m.p). So, whenever you read an address to either group, or a commandment to either group, remember that there are at least two females in it. That's how to read the qur'aan (for people who have common sense, who reflect, who have brain and reasoning, NEVER for people who have eyes)
-
That's enough for me. How you understand this and twist it is your problem, not mine.
OK. Same here.
If you correctly translate this verse, you will see that it is not similar to verse 41. It dos not even start like verse 41.
You mean 4/127? The main difference I see is that of a "legal ruling" in 4/127 and a "question" in 2/217. What else?
I just want to draw to your attention that God mentioned two women (not two men or even one man and one woman) as an example of the believers (mu'mineen, m.p.) and two women as an example of the kafireen, (m.p).
It says example FOR the momineen and kafireen, not OF.
So, whenever you read an address to either group, or a commandment to either group, remember that there are at least two females in it.
Yeah, right. Even when it specifically mentions men! I cannot accept what you have concluded from the "two women" example, because God has no problem repeating His command for the women if He wants them to do the same as men(24/30-31).
That's how to read the qur'aan (for people who have common sense, who reflect, who have brain and reasoning, NEVER for people who have eyes)
We'll see who has the common sense.
-
You mean 4/127? The main difference I see is that of a "legal ruling" in 4/127 and a "question" in 2/217. What else?
You are right, sorry, it is 4127
It's a yes-no question (and its answer). The remainder of the verse is an explanation why there's fighting/killing during the restricted months. The categories you mentioned in your previous post are all kinds of "fitna" that justifies fighting during the restricted months.It says example FOR the momineen and kafireen, not OF.
They are example of what?
How do you say in Arabic (an example of the kafireen)? -
If you get in a discussion presuming that I understand verses according to my likes and dislikes, there's no point in discussing with you.
OK. I am really sorry for presuming that. I apologize for having offended you.
You are right, sorry, it is 4127
It's a yes-no question (and its answer). The remainder of the verse is an explanation why there's fighting/killing during the restricted months. The categories you mentioned in your previous post are all kinds of "fitna" that justifies fighting during the restricted months.1,2,3 and 4 justify qitaal.
5, i.e, al-fitna, justifies even al-qatal.
And regardless of the fact that there is a difference of "fitna" and "sawal", the first part of 2/217 uses the same logic as that used in 4/127, (and if we go by your understanding of 4/127)that these are all subcategories of "fighting in the sacred months", 1/2/3/4 being worse than the category itself(which is illogical, and hence your understanding of 4/127 is also illogical, IMHO).
They are example of what?
Women.
How do you say in Arabic (an example of the kafireen)?
Masal allazina kafaroo (2/171)
-
Women.
What a wisdom! The mu'mins and kafirs do not know what "women" are! So God has to give them examles of women in 4 verses to explain it, once to the mu'mins and once to the kafirs.
Masal allazina kafaroo (2/171)
(masal allazina kafaroo) does not translate as (an example of the kafireen) but (the example/similitude/parable/ of the kafireen)
You now give a meaning to reading the qur'aan with the eyes. Just becase "mathal" is there, you do not care how it is being used and what meaning it will then have. Please read the whole verse and then tell me that someone who only hears loud voices is an example of a kafir.
-
What a wisdom! The mu'mins and kafirs do not know what "women" are!
I didn't mean they are example of what women are. I meant that the verses serve these women as examples for the momineen and kafireen, respectively.
So God has to give them examles of women in 4 verses to explain it, once to the mu'mins and once to the kafirs.
3 verses.
(masal allazina kafaroo) does not translate as (an example of the kafireen) but (the example/similitude/parable/ of the kafireen)
You are right, "THE". I did not pay attention to "an", I was paying attention to "of".
-
I didn't mean they are example of what women are. I meant that the verses serve these women as examples for the momineen and kafireen, respectively.
Fine. We are almost there ;D
What do these examples serve, given to the mu'mins, and another set given to the kafirs?3 verses.
oops, sorry.
You are right, "THE". I did not pay attention to "an", I was paying attention to "of".
But this is a big difference. So, your example is withdrawn.
The verses where the expression "example for/to" can be found are verses 3321; 606 and 604. The word used is "uswa". As for our verses, we have examples of the mu'mins and the kafirs. An example "for" is supposed to be followed; but God cannot give the kafirs an example to follow. It has to be " an example of the mu'mins and an example of the kafirs".
-
Fine. We are almost there ;D
What do these examples serve, given to the mu'mins, and another set given to the kafirs?In general, examples/similitudes serve to guide and misguide.(2/26)
If you ask how exactly these particular examples guide and misguide, I am sorry I can't say, I m not sure.
The verses where the expression "example for/to" can be found are verses 3321; 606 and 604. The word used is "uswa".
Thats a different word altogether. Lets leave it out.
As for our verses, we have examples of the mu'mins and the kafirs. An example "for" is supposed to be followed; but God cannot give the kafirs an example to follow. It has to be " an example of the mu'mins and an example of the kafirs".
We can't change the meaning of words just like that.
-
If a Guardian , deceitfully , forces a Fatayat for a wrong ( which you think is , lets say forced marriage to an old rich man) , to gain materials of this word,would God be acting as Most Merciful, Forgiving ?
Yes. I know several young women who were forced to marry an older rich man and who grew to love him and ended up living happily ever after. On the other hand, I also know many young women who married the guy of their dreams that they loved deeply and then the dreams turned to nightmares and they were divorced a few years (and in some cases a few weeks) later. So sometimes those arranged marriages where the woman is compelled to marry someone by her parents do work out fine.
Ayman,
How do you differ between rape and forced marriage? If the victim gets used to her treatment, does that justify forgiveness for the perpetrator or the victim? Your interpretation seems to be more forgiving towards the perpetrator.
I think it is more sensible to understand al-bighaa as polyandry/prostitution, and not forced marriage. In a forced marriage, even if the woman ends up living happily ever after, she was a victim initially and committed no wrong by later on accepting what is lawful for her(i.e. marriage). She is not seeking anything unlawfully, therefore forced marriage cannot be understood as al-bighaa. But prostitution is essentially polyandry, and polyandry is unlawful. This is where the woman commits al-bighaa i.e. desiring what is unlawful.
-
Ok. Lets be very careful. 4/1 speaks about the rijaalan and nisaa'an of the world. Whatever meaning fits here, fits everywhere else. And the meaning here is not "invulnerable and vulnerable" but "men and and women".
According to the general knowledge, who are more numerous throughout history and till now men or women?
The word used in the Quran for "most/more numerous" is aksar, not kaseeran.
Here's a post by Arnab on this verse
Quote from Arnab on August 19, 2008, 042726 PM
To those who believe (contrary to the evidence presented in EVERY dictionary) that rajul means man and nisa means womanDon't you find it odd that there is nothing to indicate what a nisa can do for themselves? They simply have to rely on the "goodness" of the community.
This would mean that the nisa has no control over their fate or their lives (in any way according to understanding Quran in this way). Their only recourse is to depend on those around them.
But the TRUTH is it is NOT like that. There are nisa's all around us (the one's wounded, ill, or in some way incapable of doing what most of us are capable of). This is why we must WASH if we have touched them during ablution.
Remember 41 where it says .....and we spread forth from them A GREAT NUMBER of rajul and nisa. Rajul is designated a great number but not nisa...if this verse is to be understood as women and men then it is an absolute lie (which I do not believe) because there are MANY MORE women in the world than men.
According to common sense, when Quran says "X kaseeran and Y"(as in 4/1 rijaalan kaseeran and nisa'an) , the kaseeran refers to BOTH X and Y, meaning 'X and Y in abundance', as in
33/35 commemorating men kaseeran/much and commemorating women (i.e. much commemorating men and women)
38/51 fruits kaseeran/much and drinks (i.e. much fruits and drinks)
Hence in 4/1 rijaalan and nisa'an can, and most definitely do, refer to men and women respectively. And, I repeat that, since 4/1 speaks about the rijaalan and nisaa'an of the world, whatever meaning fits here, fits everywhere else. Period.
Regarding the "invulnerable and vulnerable"/"sick and healthy" meaning, it does not fit anywhere anyway. Lets see
The one's active in their community, going to work, or school are the rajul (that is most people).
The rajul are to take care of those who are postponed.
There are times in most people's life where they are either rajul or nisa.....
when ill or wounded....they are nisa....and rajul must take care of them.
When they recover they are once again rajul.Using your theory that every address to either momineen or kafireen consists at least two women as well as Arnab's theory that rijaal/"active/healthy etc" can include women and nisaa/"sick/wounded etc" can include men, lets put these meanings in some verses and see whether these theories are a result of common sense or nonsense
3/42 Marium is chosen above the sick population of the world?! What an honor!
2/187 believers allowed to be obscene with other sick men...!
2/223 your sick men can be cultivation/bearers of your seed for you!
4/22 believers forbidden from marrying the nisaa/sick men and women that their fathers married. But only the sick ones! Because thats very lewd! Marrying the healthy ones that our fathers married is not lewd!
4/25 believing women will also give wages/"dowries"!
4/34 Men are to obey their wives now!
4/98 exempted from hijrat are weak healthy people, weak sick people and wildan...
Weak healthy people?!7/81 Lut's people warned against practicing lust with rijaal/healthy women(and men) instead of nisaa/sick men(and women). Lewd practice indeed! Lut then offered his daughters(11/7 to those men AND women(since at least two women are included in every address!).
33/59 the wives and daughters of the prophet, and the nisaa/sick believing men and women (very sensible combination huh) are being told to draw their cloaks over themselves. Why only sick men? Why not healthy men? Why men at all?
Oh because (3/14) sick men are among the attractions for people!
2/222 Men can become so sick that they start menstruating!
4/3 For those who believe in the "marrying off" interpretation, it would mean sick people specifically are to be married off. Not to mention what in the world would "yatama of the sick people" mean.
For those who believe in the "marrying" interpretation, this verse recommends women to practice polyandry! Thats prostitution.
4/19 Believers forbidden from inheriting sick people forcefully. Not forbidden from inheriting healthy people forcefully?!
4/24 men would be allowed to marry other sick men. Not the healthy ones/rijaal, but the sick ones! Sick!
So much for "common sense".
-
salam fahad. inshallah you can laugh at the stupidity some people post.
2222
i dont know about men in western countries. in arabia the women have menstruation. i have never seen man have menstruation.
to my poor arab mind which is medieval and backward like my blessed prophet and his people, this tells me nisa are women. what do they teach these very intelligent modern western people who are going to bring me out of my ignorant arab ways. may allah protect me from the shaitan.
allah is the truth.
-
Wa salaam.
salam fahad. inshallah you can laugh at the stupidity some people post.
Yeah, inshaallah.
i dont know about men in western countries. in arabia the women have menstruation. i have never seen man have menstruation.
Same here in Karachi. Can any western man on the forum also confirm this please? Thanks.
may allah protect me from the shaitan.
and from menstruation.