Good news for all messengers.:)
-
Peace WayFinder,
Firstly, I do not think the other brother is putting any kind of restriction to Allah, he is just saying based on what the got from the Quran... We all agree here alhamdulillah the the Quran should be the criterion... So let it be...
What me and most have noted with the Quran is the precise use of the words... Each word has a precise and minute meaning... For instance, if Allah used the word 'Foot' to mean 'Foot'... it will be like this in all the verses all over the Quran, so wherever you will find the word 'Foot', it will mean foot... This is also known as Self-Reference which is present all over the Quran... You will not find a verse where Allah will use "foot' to mean 'Hands'... that was just an example, hope you got my point...
Same thing... wherever Allah used Rajoul, Rijaal,Rajoulaan... they all mean men... There are many verses where these words appear but I will not put them here unless you request it...
Maybe you didn't notice, but this issue already got resolved between Belalhammad and me a while ago, so it was pointless to go into the issue. Still, however, there are other passages in the Quran where "RAJUL" is literally referring to humans/people, thus not gender-based. God is called "HE" throughout the scriptures, but HE is not necessarily referring to a male in those instances, since God is not contained in a form or gender. The issue of comparison carries no weight either. Many verses in the Quran state that the god sent down the "light" to Mohammed, while others use words like "reminder", "book", "message", "scripture", "reading/quran", "wisdom", etc. These are all interpreted to refer to the same scripture, right? Names and words themselves don't have anything to do with the understanding; what's more important is the context. I'm sure if you read a passage saying, "The man turned on the light", it doesn't mean he turned on the scriptures...
Also, insisting on the concept that God can't send whom He chooses to be a messenger (He can only send males) is placing limitations on Him, when these don't exist. If the god did choose to send a female messenger (hypothetically), who could stop Him from doing so? I only spoke on LIKELIHOOD because the scriptures say that the FORMER PROPHETS and FORMER MESSENGERS were all males, it doesn't say anything about the future messengers.
Plus, male and female equality is stressed in the Quran thoroughly. 3195 points out that women, just like men, can be expelled from their homes, persecuted, exiled, and killed for doing God's work, and many of these things go hand-in-hand with messengership and prophethood. By God's leave, men and women have the same responsibilities, rewards, and punishments, and there is not distinguishments among them (3335). They're only one criterion for distinguishment among God's people (see 4913), and it has nothing to do with messengership.
God places examples throughout the Quran as lessons for those who possess intelligence (12111). The prophets and messengers of the early days of submission and Judaism were leaders, and not only spiritual leaders but leaders of their nations. This is emphasized by the examples of Moses and Mohammed, who both led great nations in the knowledge of God. However, the female Queen Sheba is also mentioned as leading a great nation, regardless of her gender. This makes her just as capable, by God's leave, to lead her people in the knowledge of God as well, just like her counterpart, Solomon. To say that God HASN'T had female messengers is one thing, and it can be researched and verified. However, saying that God CAN'T have female messengers is completely different, and it is blasphemous, completely incompatible with His title of "al-rahman". He does as He wills, and He knows best...
Peace,
Ahmad
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Peace WayFinder,
Maybe you didn't notice, but this issue already got resolved between Belalhammad and me a while ago, so it was pointless to go into the issue. Still, however, there are other passages in the Quran where "RAJUL" is literally referring to humans/people, thus not gender-based. God is called "HE" throughout the scriptures, but HE is not necessarily referring to a male in those instances, since God is not contained in a form or gender. The issue of comparison carries no weight either. Many verses in the Quran state that the god sent down the "light" to Mohammed, while others use words like "reminder", "book", "message", "scripture", "reading/quran", "wisdom", etc. These are all interpreted to refer to the same scripture, right? Names and words themselves don't have anything to do with the understanding; what's more important is the context. I'm sure if you read a passage saying, "The man turned on the light", it doesn't mean he turned on the scriptures...
Also, insisting on the concept that God can't send whom He chooses to be a messenger (He can only send males) is placing limitations on Him, when these don't exist. If the god did choose to send a female messenger (hypothetically), who could stop Him from doing so? I only spoke on LIKELIHOOD because the scriptures say that the FORMER PROPHETS and FORMER MESSENGERS were all males, it doesn't say anything about the future messengers.
Plus, male and female equality is stressed in the Quran thoroughly. 3195 points out that women, just like men, can be expelled from their homes, persecuted, exiled, and killed for doing God's work, and many of these things go hand-in-hand with messengership and prophethood. By God's leave, men and women have the same responsibilities, rewards, and punishments, and there is not distinguishments among them (3335). They're only one criterion for distinguishment among God's people (see 4913), and it has nothing to do with messengership.
God places examples throughout the Quran as lessons for those who possess intelligence (12111). The prophets and messengers of the early days of submission and Judaism were leaders, and not only spiritual leaders but leaders of their nations. This is emphasized by the examples of Moses and Mohammed, who both led great nations in the knowledge of God. However, the female Queen Sheba is also mentioned as leading a great nation, regardless of her gender. This makes her just as capable, by God's leave, to lead her people in the knowledge of God as well, just like her counterpart, Solomon. To say that God HASN'T had female messengers is one thing, and it can be researched and verified. However, saying that God CAN'T have female messengers is completely different, and it is blasphemous, completely incompatible with His title of "al-rahman". He does as He wills, and He knows best...
Peace,
Ahmad
Peace,
Ahmad
Peace Ahmad...
Really sorry... It was an error on my side, more with my browser of something... I did not notice that I was reading page 2 of the thread... Its only when I made the post that came to know that I was mislead in the thread and the issue was already fixed... I read the whole thread and got my 2 cents from it too peace
Your humbleness to accept the truth is very eye catching... Thats how we should all be behaving here.... Sticking to something even when its has been proven wrong is just a big waste of time...
Peace bro...
-
Peace WayFinder,
Your humbleness to accept the truth is very eye catching... Thats how we should all be behaving here.... Sticking to something even when its has been proven wrong is just a big waste of time...
I completely agree with you. The biggest problem occuring in modern-day religion, especially when it comes to monotheistic religions (i.e. Submission/Islam, Christianity, Judaism), is failure to accept misguidance. Too many people refuse to admit when they're wrong about something, and they'd rather defend a faulty position, even after it's been proven wrong, than to approach an issue with an open mind and heart with intentions on finding the truth and bettering themselves. We can all learn something new, and God guides whom He wills. So, we should be happy to learn new information about the scriptures, and it will get us closer to the right/straight path, God willing. Your humbleness is clear as well, and the god will not overlook righteousness. May He lead us all to agree and gain understanding of His message...
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Peace WayFinder,
Correct me if I am wrong, but "rajul" is a masculine word and hence the usage of yakoona. Just because a word is masculine does not mean that it always means man. The context determines if it means only man or includes woman too. You are right that according to context of 2282 it can only mean man because it is being contrasted with "imraat". Where it is contrasted with "nisaa" or used by itself, however, it can include woman too, depending on the context of usage.
Its main meaning is "the one who goes on foot", which could be male or female, even though the word "rajul" is masculine. It implies "breadwinner" or the one who goes on foot to earn livelihood, as contrasted with "nisaa", or the one who stays behind, which could also be male or female depending on the context.
434 The rijaal are supporters of the nisaa ................................
If a loser husband stays home and plays video games all day long and his wife goes out to work and earn livelihood and supports the loser man, then that would contradict the translation of 434 as "men are supporters of women", which would imply that all men are always supporters of women, which is not the case in reality.
-
Peace WayFinder,
Correct me if I am wrong, but "rajul" is a masculine word and hence the usage of yakoona. Just because a word is masculine does not mean that it always means man. The context determines if it means only man or includes woman too. You are right that according to context of 2282 it can only mean man because it is being contrasted with "imraat". Where it is contrasted with "nisaa" or used by itself, however, it can include woman too, depending on the context of usage.
Its main meaning is "the one who goes on foot", which could be male or female, even though the word "rajul" is masculine. It implies "breadwinner" or the one who goes on foot to earn livelihood, as contrasted with "nisaa", or the one who stays behind, which could also be male or female depending on the context.
434 The rijaal are supporters of the nisaa ................................
If a loser husband stays home and plays video games all day long and his wife goes out to work and earn livelihood and supports the loser man, then that would contradict the translation of 434 as "men are supporters of women", which would imply that all men are always supporters of women, which is not the case in reality.
Peace brother
Plain right on this one... it makes sense...
Will do some more digging on this one in the future GW...
May Allah keep us among those whom He has guided...
Regards
-
Peace Truthseeker11,
Its main meaning is "the one who goes on foot", which could be male or female, even though the word "rajul" is masculine. It implies "breadwinner" or the one who goes on foot to earn livelihood, as contrasted with "nisaa", or the one who stays behind, which could also be male or female depending on the context.
434 The rijaal are supporters of the nisaa ................................
If a loser husband stays home and plays video games all day long and his wife goes out to work and earn livelihood and supports the loser man, then that would contradict the translation of 434 as "men are supporters of women", which would imply that all men are always supporters of women, which is not the case in reality.
This is a very good analogy, and it is completely accurate. Since the Quran is never inaccurate, proven false due to contradiction, then "RAJUL" can't always be referring to men, even though it does in this sense. That is a very enlightening comparison, and it shows the truth of the matter with regards to the Quran - the context is the most appropriate way of determining the meanings of Quranic words, not the Arabic-dictionary definitions. God knows best, and He guides those whom He wills.
Peace,
Ahmad
-
434 The rijaal are supporters of the nisaa ................................
If a loser husband stays home and plays video games all day long and his wife goes out to work and earn livelihood and supports the loser man, then that would contradict the translation of 434 as "men are supporters of women", which would imply that all men are always supporters of women, which is not the case in reality.
Peace all,
Reality.... rotfl
Since when humans' real behaviors (Reality) are guided by God's Laws. Is it the reality that Marriage can be between Man and Man or Female and Female, which is not matching with the Quran; should we say that such reality would contradict the Translation of the verses that speaks about Marriage laws?
When God guide in the Quran, He guides the True believers whom will never accept to live off a women. (
Yousuf Ali
Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their, beds (and last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance) for Allah is Most High, Great (above you all). (34)These are guidences for the Believers and not for the Loosers
Peace
-
Peace all,
Reality.... rotfl
Since when humans' real behaviors (Reality) are guided by God's Laws. Is it the reality that Marriage can be between Man and Man or Female and Female, which is not matching with the Quran; should we say that such reality would contradict the Translation of the verses that speaks about Marriage laws?
When God guide in the Quran, He guides the True believers whom will never accept to live off a women. (
Yousuf Ali
Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their, beds (and last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance) for Allah is Most High, Great (above you all). (34)These are guidences for the Believers and not for the Loosers )
Peace
salam,
as i read the translation it says ye fear disloyalty and ill conduct.......in arabic nooshoozahonna
i never new what that word meant but as we have known it from that aya that a wife must be obedient to the husband in every sence, and men have used it endless times to justify beating there wives........ now my question is this word meaning cheating on a husband or actually being disobedient, because these are clearly 2 different things -
salam,
as i read the translation it says ye fear disloyalty and ill conduct.......in arabic nooshoozahonna
i never new what that word meant but as we have known it from that aya that a wife must be obedient to the husband in every sence, and men have used it endless times to justify beating there wives........ now my question is this word meaning cheating on a husband or actually being disobedient, because these are clearly 2 different thingsPeace anna,
I do not have a clear answer on this; but, as a man, I believe that Man and Woman relationship has to be built on respect to each others; so, if a woman disrespects here husbend, while he is respecting and treating her as God ordered him (he is a true believer), then the above verse can be followed.
Peace -
Peace Anna,
as i read the translation it says ye fear disloyalty and ill conduct.......in arabic nooshoozahonna
i never new what that word meant but as we have known it from that aya that a wife must be obedient to the husband in every sence, and men have used it endless times to justify beating there wives........ now my question is this word meaning cheating on a husband or actually being disobedient, because these are clearly 2 different thingsThat is a complete mistranslation, and Yousef Ali used the hadeeths to govern his ideas on the matter. The Arabic scriptures don't say anything about 'fearing ill conduct', and they don't imply beating women either, no matter how "lightly". That's a mistranslation. Here's a clearer look at what the scripture is actually saying
The men are to support the women by what GOD has bestowed on them over one another and for what they spend of their money. The upright women are dutiful; keeping private the personal matters for what GOD keeps watch over. As for those women from whom you fear desertion, then you shall advise them, and abandon them in the bedchamber, and separate from them. If they respond to you, then do not seek a way over them; GOD is High, Great. (434)
GOD doesn't teach us to beat our wives, and He doesn't approve of injustice. Also, "ill conduct" in nowhere in that verse either, and Yousef Ali invented that word to support his views on spousal abuse. His translation is false...
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Peace bro/sis
Sadly... Yusuf Ali is the most popular English translation of the Quran... However, in my opinion, I think it is also the one which contain the most mistranslations and interpretations... -[
Peace,
Might that maybe be the reasons to why it is the most popular one hmm
Maria
-
Peace you are growing in knowledge yes
Yeah and maybe thats why I have headache today D
Maria
-
Peace bro/sis
Sadly... Yusuf Ali is the most popular English translation of the Quran... However, in my opinion, I think it is also the one which contain the most mistranslations and interpretations... -[
Peace
6116
If you obey the majority of people on earth, they will divert you from the path of GOD. They follow only conjecture; they only guess
Peace -
Peace Belal,
434 The rijaal are supporters of the nisaa ....................................
According to your theory, if "rijaal" in 434 always means men, then it would mean that men are always supporters of women, and that women can never support men. This is completely illogical. What if the husband gets disabled? According to your narrow mindedness and mistranslation, the wife cannot support the disabled husband because she is not among the "qawwamoon", and she can tell her disabled husband "men are supporters of women so even though you are disabled and cannot go out on foot to earn livelihood and support me, I am just going to sit at home and do nothing to support ourselves, even though I am well qualified to get a nice job, and you need to support me; I don't care if you are disabled".
In such a case of a disabled husband, the wife will become the "rajul"/the one who goes out on foot, and the husband will be among the "nisaa". The wife/"rajul" will go out on foot to earn livelihood and support the disabled husband.
Also, the husband and wife can mutually decide that the husband will stay home to take care of the kids, and the wife will go out on foot to earn livelihood, and in that case, the wife will again be the "rajul".
According to you, in reality there are no mushrikeen, mujrimeen, thalimeen, mufsideen, zaani etc. etc. Then why does al-quran talk about them and describe them in detail?
According to you, in reality there are no zaani. Why does God say this then?
243 The zaani will only marry a zaaniyatan or one who is an idolatress. And the zaaniyatan, she will only be married to a zaani or an idolater. And this has been forbidden for the believers.
According to you, in reality there are no homosexuals. Then why does God say this?
416 And the two men who commit it from amongst you, you shall trouble them. If they repent and amend, then leave them alone. God is Redeemer, Merciful.
Al-quran states facts, and those facts cannot contradict with what happens in reality. Thousands of husbands/brothers/fathers in reality are disabled and their wives/sisters/daughters support them, but according to your theories that cannot happen.