Poll for brothers only
-
.
how did the subject in 55 jump from taam, eating, to women and chastity? do you see the word for women, nisa, in there? i certainly dont.
allah is the teacher.
Almost everywhere in quran where God is talking of man women relationship , HE is emphasizing that you must seek them through your Amwal(money) , now to ensure , that we dont confuse it with prostituion or one night stands, HE stresses that it should be a sincere effort to lock each other in a relationship to go on being chaste, NOT to make a license to full fill/out pour your unbridled sexualaity.
Why Nisa is not there and Mohsinnat is there? Because Nissa contains your prohibited females, precisely spelled out, one in 4-22 and 13 mor in 4-23. These are banned for all who believe in God and hence listen (off course if one doesn't believe in HIM, he would not even listen to HIM and hence has no binding on himself to indulge in an incestous relationship) And also Zannias and Fahishas,God recommends believers not to marry them.
siki
-
salam samia. i do not like replying to your questions. i find the niyat in your questions is to bait someone so that you can ban people from the forum. my belief is that you have a bad niyat in asking the questions that you do. when i asked you what is your niyat your answer is "dont try to be smart" yes, this is the problem i have with replying to you.
i dont want to explain "your understanding" allah knows best what you understand. others do respond to my post, however you have a combination of hostility and moderator, which is not a good thing. your rude way of saying "certainly want an explanation from you" is not good conduct. because i expect allah to answer me when i ask for help in understanding, i will answer you when you ask. i hope this reply will not become an exuse for you to be like the wife of abu lahab.
to answer your first question, there is a reason why i dont use the word adultery and fornication in my post. the reason is if i take the western pagan definition of adultery and fornication, and compare this to the quran, i find that the quran is not describing what westerners call adultery and fornication. presently western civil law has removed adultery and fornication as a crime. all that remains in the west is a personal moral issue.
when it was used, adultery described a married person having sex with a person not their spouse. the presumption there is there is only one spouse. this defintion would make millions of muslims adulterers, because millions of muslims in 1400 years have had more than one spouse. according to western pagan law ibrahim, musa and many messenger of allah, were adulterers. when westerners and some muslims try to point to verses in the quran claiming this is talking about adultery, the comparison fails dramatically. in the verses that it is claimed to be describing adultery, the verses require four witnesses to prove it happened. this means that when combined with the verses that prohibit entry into a house unless invited, a married man could go into a woman, in the privacy of his home, where no witnesses are present, refusing to permit anyone to enter, and not be found guilty of anything by the quran. this stands in stark contrast to the adultery defintions, this would be adultery in western pagan law.
when it comes to fornication, when it was used, it described unmarried man going into a woman. there is no witness requirement to this alleged crime. when pagan westerners and some muslims try and point to verses in the quran claiming they are the fornication verses they run into the same problem as above, the four witness and permission to enter requirement. this results in the fornication defintion being very different to the quran descriptions of improper conduct.
because the quran imposes a four witness requirement on an accusation, this makes it a public crime, and not a private crime. if the parties engage in their conduct in private, it not a crime according to the requirements of the quran. this appears to be a very different crime than adultery or fornication, under adultery or fornication it is a crime even if in private. this convinces me the two laws are different, and therefore i cannot accept any attempts to impose a western pagan definition of the quran.
you recklessly state that allah does not encourage us to do things in secret. does allah demand we wear clothes in public, and permit us to put off our clothes in private, yes he does. does allah permit us to bathe in public, no he does not, we must bathe in private. i could go on giving examples, but im sure you get the point, there are some things that are required to be done in private, secret if you will, and other things that may be done in public, open if you will. therefore your statement that secret actions are not permitted is false.
if you are determined to split hairs and claim only fawahish in private is being discussed, have a look at what the quran describes as fawahish. the quran refers to things that are fawahish as, saying things about allah of which you have no knowledge, or women who have four witnesses of their improper conduct, or marrying a fathers wives, or joining things as equal to allah, or not being good to parents, or killing children claiming poverty, or taking a life in secret. nowhere does is say a polgynous family is fawahish, or unmarried couples are fawahish. therefore stay within the limits established by allah for defintions of what is fawahish. do not substitute your personal opinions for allah's definitions.
allah is the truth.
-
salam samia. i do not like replying to your questions. i find the niyat in your questions is to bait someone so that you can ban people from the forum. my belief is that you have a bad niyat in asking the questions that you do. when i asked you what is your niyat your answer is "dont try to be smart" yes, this is the problem i have with replying to you.
i dont want to explain "your understanding" allah knows best what you understand. others do respond to my post, however you have a combination of hostility and moderator, which is not a good thing. your rude way of saying "certainly want an explanation from you" is not good conduct. because i expect allah to answer me when i ask for help in understanding, i will answer you when you ask. i hope this reply will not become an exuse for you to be like the wife of abu lahab.
to answer your first question, there is a reason why i dont use the word adultery and fornication in my post. the reason is if i take the western pagan definition of adultery and fornication, and compare this to the quran, i find that the quran is not describing what westerners call adultery and fornication. presently western civil law has removed adultery and fornication as a crime. all that remains in the west is a personal moral issue. when it was used, adultery described a married person having sex with a person not their spouse. the presumption there is there is only one spouse. this defintion would make millions of muslims adulterers, because millions of muslims in 1400 years have had more than one spouse. according to western pagan law ibrahim, musa and many messenger of allah, were adulterers. when westerners and some muslims try to point to verses in the quran claiming this is talking about adultery, the comparison fails dramatically. in the verses that it is claimed to be describing adultery, the verses require four witnesses to prove it happened. this means that when combined with the verses that prohibit entry into a house unless invited, a married man could go into a woman, in the privacy of his home, where no witnesses are present, refusing to permit anyone to enter, and not be found guilty of anything by the quran. this stands in stark contrast to the adultery defintions, this would be adultery in western pagan law.
when it comes to fornication, when it was used, it described unmarried man going into a woman. there is no witness requirement to this alleged crime. when pagan westerners and some muslims try and point to verses in the quran claiming they are the fornication verses they run into the same problem as above, the four witness and permission to enter requirement. this results in the fornication defintion being very different to the quran descriptions of improper conduct.
because the quran imposes a four witness requirement on an accusation, this makes it a public crime, and not a private crime. if the parties engage in their conduct in private, it not a crime according to the requirements of the quran. this appears to be a very different crime than adultery or fornication, under adultery or fornication it is a crime even if in private. this convinces me the two laws are different, and therefore i cannot accept any attempts to impose a western pagan definition of the quran.
you recklessly state that allah does not encourage us to do things in secret. does allah demand we wear clothes in public, and permit us to put off our clothes in private, yes he does. does allah permit us to bathe in public, no he does not, we must bathe in private. i could go on giving examples, but im sure you get the point, there are some things that are required to be done in private, secret if you will, and other things that may be done in public, open if you will. therefore your statement that secret actions are not permitted is false.if you are determined to split hairs and claim only fawahish in private is being discussed, have a look at what the quran describes as fawahish. the quran refers to things that are fawahish as, saying things about allah of which you have no knowledge, or women who have four witnesses of their improper conduct, or marrying a fathers wives, or joining things as equal to allah, or not being good to parents, or killing children claiming poverty, or taking a life in secret. nowhere does is say a polgynous family is fawahish, or unmarried couples are fawahish. therefore stay within the limits established by allah for defintions of what is fawahish. do not substitute your personal opinions for allah's definitions.
allah is the truth.
Rubbish apart (part of your post not in bold), I do not know why you are comparing the western laws and the quraanic laws. Is it because I use English terms and not throw arabic jargon as if quraan is only understood by Arabs? In fact you are the one promoting the legal issues in the western society claiming that God permits a married man to have a mistress and a girl friend beside a wife ( Even the western society frowns upon this, and I do not think the quraan calls a second or fourth wife mistess or girlfriend if that is wht you are alluding at). It seems that for you a married man is permitted every kind of relations outside the marriage, but an unmarried man is not. You are stating your own law beside that of God.
If you have read my post carefully, you would not say this rubbish (sorry it seems that the whole post is rubbish, it's just that most of it is not even worth my response).
Where in the quraan does God encourages us to doing things in secrecy that are forbidden in the open?
But frankly, this is my favourite part
i find the niyat in your questions is to bait someone so that you can ban people from the forum
rotfl
Then be careful if you are smart and not have to tell a lie about "technical problems". After all, neither I nor any other moderator/admin bans people. They ban themselves by disrespecting the forum rules.
-
salam siki. this is not an analysis of mine, this is a description of what i am looking at to try and understand the complete meaning for sura al maida.
to paraphrase the sura, there are verses that refer to the sahaba of isa, when they asked him for food from heaven. my recollection about that part of the injeel is, isa said man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of god. isa also used the terms fornication and adultery to describe polluting iman.
the best that i know how to describe this, is he said when asked why he did not fast, he replied how shall he fast while the bride is in the chamber. im not an expert on the subject, but it appears he considered himself married in spirit to something. i think he was describing being unfaithful to god as a bad thing, a fawahish.
this is part of the reason why i am not so sure about the standard translations of that verse are, that a lot of that verse has to do with isa, and the translators did not cross check their translation to choose the right words.
allah is the best of teeachers.
-
salam arnab. youre completely wrong. and on top of being wrong you make rash and reckless accusations that i am a liar.
because you are not a native arabic speaker you have blundered. on top of blundering into an error, you accuse me of being a liar. the truth is you are the liar. i hate to have to call you a liar, however your own mind was warning you that you were lying and you assumed that your mind was telling you about me. no your mind was warning you, that you are the liar.
dont feel bad, that you have been singled out here. the moderator in question betrayed his lack of knowledge of arabic as well when he posted that warning. yes, the warning was a threat of punitive action. therefore it was a threat.
what you are blissfully ignorant of, is the meaning of the word quran. the word quran has TWO definitions, not one. the first definition, the one used in the wahi given to muhammad, is "recitation" because the definition of the word, quran, is recitation, this is not the only part of the recitation from allah. the torah, zabur, and injeel are ALL recitation from allah, they are all quran.
if the torah and injeel are part of the quran, we know stoning to death is part of the torah, and by the definition of the word quran, stoning to death is in the quran.
therefore YOU are the liar.
note the use by people of the term quran to define the wahi given to muhammad and exclude other wahi, is an innovation or bida of human beings. there is no support for that use of the word. given the choice between the manner in which allah uses the word quran, and the way human beings use the quran, the way allah uses the word is right. the human beings are wrong. this is why i post in lowercase, because the moderator resorted to his western pagan rules as an escape from the obvious. he claimed, because pagan westerners say uppercase Quran is the wahi revealed to muhammad alone, therefore my using uppercase Quran is misleading. show me uppercase and lowercase in the quran, it does not exist. he was using foolish western pagan rules, intead of relying on the quran alone. in order to put a stop to his pagan derived conduct, i resorted to all lowercase posts.
allah is the best of those who teach.
-
Al Arf salam
5-48 And We have sent down to you the Scripture with truth, authenticating what is present of the Scripture and superseding it. So judge between them by what God Has sent down, and do not follow their desires from what has come to you of the truth. For each of you We have made laws, and a structure; and had God willed, He would have made you all one nation, but He tests you with what He has given you; so strive to do good. To God you will return all of you, and He will inform you regarding that in which you dispute
so ,,, you don't agree with the above?
siki
-
salam siki. no akhi that translation is a complete mistake.
the arabic word for supersede is "alagh" and supersedes is "yalghi" neither alagh or yalghi are in that sura.
54 wanzalna alayka alkitab balhaq musadiqa lama bayn yadyh min alkitab. this translates to sent upon you is the book of truth confirming that before of the book.
the word musadiqa means confirming. it does not mean superseding. the word kitab means book. it does not mean scripture. there is mistake after mistake. i cannot agree with the above.
therefore 54 is saying the kitab given to muhamad confirms the kitab given to musa, daud, and isa.
allah is the knower.
-
lane shows as hamman, and does not mention 5-48 for its usage? may be it is something else.
alarf what do you think it is?
Samia , any other suggestion?
siki
Some linguists claim the root to be Alif Meem Nuun. Maybe Lane translates from some of them. Search this word in Lane under this other root.
-
-
-
salam siki. akhi the word is wmhymna. strip out the "w" which represents "and" strip out the "a" which represents "to you"
the word you are left with is mhymn
which means dominant.
wmhymna means "and dominant to you"
project root list provides the following analysis of the root
ha-Ya-Miim-Nun = to watch over, oversee, expand the wings (hen over their chickens), control. To be witness to, offer security and peace, protect, determine what is true. muhaimanun - guardian to watch and determine what is true and what is false witness, afforder of security and peace, controller and superintendent of all the affairs, protector.in aramaic mhymna means trustworthy and loyal. therefore the sense being conveyed by the word, is "the trustworthy dominant book before you"
this reading of 548 conveys an understanding of the book that consistent with the verses of the quran. if the torah is "the law" then it makes sense that the law is trustworthy and would dominate the remainder of the book.
allah is the best of those who teach.
-
this reading of 548 conveys an understanding of the book that consistent with the verses of the quran. if the torah is "the law" then it makes sense that the law is trustworthy and would dominate the remainder of the book.
That is a Slam Dunk Lie from Saten rotfl
7-157(
7157 ?Those who follow the Gentile messenger prophet whom they find written for them in the Torah and the Injeel; he orders them to goodness, and deters them from evil, and he makes lawful for them the good things, and he forbids for them the evil, and he removes their burden and the shackles that are upon them. So those who believe in him, and support him, and help him persevere, and follow the light that was sent down with him; these are the successful.?
The Quran is the Final Laws.
-
salam belh.
That is a Slam Dunk Lie from Saten
why are you listening to satan's lies?
messenger prophet whom they find written for them in the Torah and the Injeel
you cited a verse which uses the torah and injeel as the authority.
what kind of confused self contradicting person are you?you cite a verse that says the torah and injeel are the authority, to oppose my claim, that the torah and injeel are authorities?
what is your major malfunction?allah is the lawgiver.
-
salam samia.
They ban themselves by disrespecting the forum rules.
a moderator told me misleading people is disrespecting the forum rules.
you posted
The root is Ha Meem Nuun
that post misled all the forum members. inshallah you tell the truth and you are not a liar.
did you ban yourself for violating the forum rules?allah separates falsehood from the truth.
-
Salaaman Brother Hammad.,
The Quran is the Final Laws.
I agree with you completely inshaAllah. In addition, when Allah said
1689 for one Day We shall raise up within every community a witness against them from among themselves. And thee have We brought forth to bear witness regarding those, inasmuch as We have bestowed from on high upon thee, step by step, this divine writ, to make everything clear, and to provide guidance and grace and a glad tiding unto all who have surrendered themselves to God.
(1689)
And when nothing is left out of the book, then why we need other books for?
638 although there is no beast that walks on earth and no bird that flies on its two wings which is not creature like yourselves no single thing have We neglected in Our decree. And once again Unto their Sustainer shall they be gathered.
(63
And it is correct that Torah was also having guidance and noor for the mankind, but we don't see it in the present Torah, cause they hide the maximum out of it.
691 For, no true understanding of God have they when they say, "Never has God revealed anything unto man." Say "Who has bestowed from on high the divine writ which Moses brought unto men as a light and a guidance, which you treat as leaves of paper, making a show of them the while you conceal much - although you have been taught what neither you nor your forefathers had ever known?" Say "God!" - and then leave them to play at their vain talk.
(691)
But still we don't have worry about the guidance of Prophet Musa (AS) and Prophet Isa (AS). They were all given the same as us.
688 Such is God's guidance He guides therewith whomever He wills of His servants. And had they ascribed divinity to aught beside Him-in vain, indeed, would have been all that they ever did
(68
689 it was to them that We vouchsafed revelation, and sound judgment, and prophethood. And now, although the unbelievers may choose to deny these truths, We have entrusted them to people who will never refuse to acknowledge them-
(689)
In 689 it clearly shows that "aatainaaHUM" is plural and "alKitaaba" is singular. A Common Book for all.
This is how I understand, Allah knows best.
May Allah open our hearts for the guidance pr
Khan
-
salam belh and mmkhan.
both of you claim
The Quran is the Final Laws
there is no verse of the quran that says "quran is the final laws"
mmkhan you say
nothing is left out of the book
there is no verse of the quran that says "nothing is left out of the book"
we don't see it in the present Torah, cause they hide the maximum out of it
there is no verse of the quran that says "the present torah does not have the nur and guidance"
They were all given the same as us.
there is no verse in the quran that says "they were given the same as us"
did shaitan whisper this in your ears?
did you add these words to the quran?allah separates falsehood from the truth.
-
salam jasmin.
please show some respect for the opinions of the men. to claim the men are not serious is disrespectful to the men.
you cannot set aside the men's opinion by claiming men are not serious.men are required to obey allah, and if allah says something is persmissible for men, a mans right, men will protect
their rights, even if women try and deprive men of their rights.how can a woman display unhappiness with what allah has instituted?
the ultimate love, is the love of allah, and allah's love for mankind. should we be unhappy that allah loves others as
well? no that would be wrong.allah has a justice in the system he created. a wife, first has an intimate relationship with her husband. then the wife
has an even more intimate relationship with her children. as a result, a wife has an intimate relationship with more than
one person, the husband and the children. the husband has an intimate relationship with the wife, and not an intimate
realtionship with the children. justice and fairness dictate, that if a wife can have more than one intimate relationship
then a husband must also have the same, more than one intimate relationship. anything else would be unjust.i use the term intimate, to describe the fact that a child grows inside a wife's body, and a child does not grow inside
a husbands body.allah is justice.
Peace
YOU Allah has instituted polygamy - no proof.
YOU It is unfair for women to complain about the above (but no proof provided). In fact polygamy (no proof provided) is man's gift because he cannot get pregnant!
Oh dear.