How sex before Marriage is not haram (prohibited) according to the Quran
-
Peace nimnimak,
I really want to know from you the meaning of oath with example in the context of our discussion.
Let us go back to 3350-52
Do you mean the quran is refering to the prophet's girl friends where MMA were mentioned in the above verses?THINK ABOUT IT
ZUBAIRUS
Peace Zubairus
Sorry about the lateish reply. Got a bit distracted.
Oath on it's own is something i can't say in terms of Quran because i'm not sure. I know it's something very important to MMA but i was hoping first to round up all arguments against the act of sex with MMA or arguments for MMA being someting like a slave and then move onto the part of oath which is a very important part as this i think will determine much in terms of boundries and so on. It may even bring a completely different understanding to what an MMA is. But nevertheless i am still trying to conclude that sex with MMA is permissible based on what i have argued so far.
With respect to 3350
Not necessarily girlfriends. It could be like a fiance or something less. But i would think that it's on the lines of something which leads up to a marriage.
I can only think of relationships that do this. So i would think that it has to fall in the circle of a relationship. But the prophet's time was 1400 years ago i'm not sure how engagement and things like that would have worked back then. -
Peace nimnimak,
In 425, the quran said if you do not have the means to wed muhsanat,you may mary MMA from fatayatikum.......
Are you saying by this, if a person has no the means to marry muhsanat, he should go and marry his girl friend ?
THINK ABOUT IT
ZUBAIRUS
No i was kinda thinking if one has not the means to marry a muhsinat then one should marry fatayatikum. Both i think would have to first become MMA in order to be able to marry them. So both would be a girlfriend or a fiance at some point before marriage. But the difference between a muhsinat and fatayat is something that needs to be clarified as this will shed light on what muhsinat women possess that make them different with respect to fatayat for marriage and how if one has not the means a fatayat will solve the problem.
-
I don't believe there is any such thing as sex before marriage. Sex is marriage. Adultery is divorce. So the sins associated with relationships which do not follow the rules of marriage are not about having a 'different kind of sex' - no such thing exists. Rather they are sins of ignoring the proper procedure.
MMA and spouse can be the same because the two kinds of spouse are the wife and the husband.
Hence 424 - listing people you can't be married to - "And the married from the women except what your oaths possess"
actually means "and the married women except as their husband".What about this
If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice.
-
43, the Liquid Dharma translation
"If you don't think you can look after the orphans well enough, marry the women (their mothers with) 2, 3 or 4 (orphaned children) or of you can't (because you are female), take a husband (fathers of orphaned children) that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice."
Want me to try another one?
-
43, the Liquid Dharma translation
"If you don't think you can look after the orphans well enough, marry the women (their mothers with) 2, 3 or 4 (orphaned children) or of you can't (because you are female), take a husband (fathers of orphaned children) that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice."
Want me to try another one?
hmm
if you can't = it clearly states in arabic 'if you fear you can't do justice'
take a husband is wrong because 'wahadatan' is feminine not masculine
-
Salam Nima
I missed your post before sorry
Ok heres what i think based on the above. The verse also mentions polytheists. Now one can be a polytheist but change to a believer right? thus meaning that they are no longer a polythiest. Same with zina. One who commits zina is an adulterer. But if they change their ways, i don't think we can call them an adulterer anymore. Same with polythiests. Thus as long as they remain that, they are forbidden to believers. But once they become believers, then they are not haram to believers.
Right, people change so we accept them as they are today.
MMA is a limited category.. to me it indicates right hands posses someone you have control of, someone under your care. i.e. such as orphans/widows.
The problem with this is that in order to marry muhsinat women, one must first make them their MMA. The muhsinat must come from MMA in order to marry them. Same with fatayat i think.
No this is wrong. Are you talking about verse 425?
Muhsinat is a preference over mma, if you cant marry muhsinat then marry an MMA. Not marry muhsinat from MMA. It is illogical because muhsinat are independent, mma are not. Get me? We take mma as someone we have an oath but i believe its more than this.
Ok from this verse what i get is that if you can't marry the muhsinat (bear in mind that you first need them to be MMA) then marry the dependent women who are your MMA. Which would convey that anyone you do intend to marry must first come through MMA.
Find me the verse that says muhsinat need to first be MMA, maybe Im looking at the wrong place.
I doubt that a parent can be an MMA based on 2431. All categories are mentioned and MMA is a seperate one.
From where do you get that MMAs are somebody elses MMA first
?An MMA can be anyone who isnt independent someone under someones care. But I think the category is even smaller than that. But anyway if someone is under my care theyre my mma, maybe you choose to marry that person, and verse 425 proves that person needs permission from the ahl to marry that mma. But lets say another scenario. I have an mma and I got married and I no longer wanted to care for that mma or couldnt or whatever another person could take that mma.
From my reading MMA doesnt = a gf/bf type relationships
MMAs arent in the prohibited boundaries of marriage right? so when the verses says protect your frj from azwaj or mma. Well basically its saying protect your secret affairs with these people.
Frj can also mean faults (but probably not the strongest translation in this context).
If you marry an mma well than you could have sex with them. IF you marry them so then the frj could mean sex provided you do nikkah with them. Why I say this?
3350 makes it clear we can marry/nikkah with MMA. MMA arent automatically married to us
2433 MMAs cant be coerced to nikkah
425 if you want a relationship WITH an MMA you need permission.sex isn't an automatic given
Also
Read this verse
3355 (Asad) it is no sin for them before their fathers, or their sons, or their brothers, or their brothers sons, or their sisters sons, or their womenfolk, or such as their right hands may possess. But remain conscious of God - for, behold, God is witness unto everything.
The idea of appearing freely, relaxed in dress code in front of their bros etc is the same with MMA. It gives indication its not about sex or sexual connotations. For me this is a stronger opinion in regards to mma not being oath partners with allowance of sexual relations because you wouldnt do that with your brother! Or your sister!
This is my current understanding
peace
-
You are right.
That could well be the problem. But i have not seen any strong Quranic refutaions yet. Could you provide Quranic support for why sex with MMA should be haram when it is permissble for us to unguard our privates to them like we unguard them to our spouses?.....
If there was like a verse that said that sex is exclusive to marriage or if there was no MMA in 235-6 then that would work. But UNLESS we as the readers don't automatically assume that sex is exclusive to marriages, this won't work. And I don't see how we can be justified in assuming this.I have to agree with "Simple", this whole thread is ridiculous and does nothing but make a mockery of sacred scripture. The entire premise of the "argument" is that "ma malakat aymanukum" in 236 denotes a different category of persons other than spouses. As "Simple" pointed out on page 2, and has subsequently been ignored, the use of the conjunction "aw" does not necessarily correspond to the english word "or". It can, and is, used as an amplifying conjunction, especially following a negation, see Lane's Book 1 Page 122. Alternatively, Muhammad Asad translates "aw" at 236 as a clarifier " with any but their spouses - that is, those whom they rightfully possess ". Thus we see that this so called argument has nothing left to stand on. The other verses mentioned, such as 424-25 and 2433 are frankly irrelevant to the discussion, since the argument is that sex outside of marriage is permissible. In fact 2433 just blows the entire argument out of the water for the relevant word there is Ghayn-Nun-Ya, which means to be content, satisfied, to be free of need, see Lane's Book 1 page 2302. Are we to be "satisfied/content" with casual sex? Or, what are we to stand in no need of? It's totally absurd! Those who cannot marry should content themselves with staying chaste, or be free from the want of sexual desires...until a such a time as God enriches them from his bounty.
All this is really child's play though, because the whole argument goes so obviously and clearly against the spirit and tenor of scripture that the level of dishonesty required to put it forward is astonishing. Remember, this is not just about sex between a man and a woman who are betrothed, but rather what's openly being promoted is causual sex with a "girlfriend" or "boyfriend", of which the logical conclusion was drawn at the end of the opening post in the thread One night stands. It makes perfect "sense", since you can have sex with your girlfriend because you are somehow bonded with her by some "oath" that has never actually been declared or contracted; why not have sex after a couple of hours at the club together? I mean we don't actually have to take an oath to make the bond, it's somehow magically implied. No, to anyone who is honest "those who our right hands/oaths possess" ARE our spouses because, obviously, these are the ones with whom we have taken vows and thus bonded ourselves, not to mention the giving of a dowry.
This whole line of argumentation is an insult to those who actually believe in the Most Holy and True God, and the final judgment. It should be pretty clear from the opening post that this person does not submit to our Lord and Creator, as he constantly emphasizes that "he" does not see anything wrong, or what matters is what "our" hearts and reason tell us and that this is sufficient to "justify" us. NO, what matters is what our Lord tells us, not what we think should be wrong or right. Thus he rejects a divinely revealed truth.
As a side note, it is no suprise that the pro abortion kafirs all came on board. In 1731 Our Lord specifically uses waw-lam-dal which denotes more than simply a child out of the womb, rather it specifies that which is begotten, generated, fathered...which is why it is used to refute Christian claims about Jesus in 1935. Afterall, Christians don't believe Jesus was God only after he was born, as the nicene creed states he was "begotten, not made" by the Father "before all the worlds". so, this is the mechanism by which Trinitarians are able to say that the Son (Jesus) is of the same substance as the Father. This is what our Lord refutes, and in a brilliantly subtle fashion by using "waladin", indicating that 1) God did not take a spouse, therefore does not "beget" and thus the Son cannot be of the same "substance" as the Father and 2) Demonstrates that Waw-Lam_Dal is not simply used to describe a child out of the womb.
-
Peace Sarah
MMA is a limited category.. to me it indicates right hands posses someone you have control of, someone under your care. i.e. such as orphans/widows.
No this is wrong. Are you talking about verse 425?
Muhsinat is a preference over mma, if you cant marry muhsinat then marry an MMA. Not marry muhsinat from MMA. It is illogical because muhsinat are independent, mma are not. Get me? We take mma as someone we have an oath but i believe its more than this.
Find me the verse that says muhsinat need to first be MMA, maybe Im looking at the wrong place.Before I quote the verse i just want to point out that i'm not sure what MMA is but with some specifications given with respect to them in the scripture i currently think it has to be some sort of relationship. How slack (just an agreement) or how serious (engagement) a relationship this might be is something to be found out after we clear up the idea that sex with MMA is halal or haram.
In 423 the list of women that are haram to men in marriage is given. In 424 muhsinat are included in that list and it is said unless they come from MMA. Meaning that in order to marry muhsinat, they must first come from MMA. Here are the verses
423 Forbidden for you are your mothers, and your daughters, and your sisters, and the sisters of your father, and the sisters of your mother, and the daughters of your brother, and the daughters of your sister, and your foster mothers who suckled you, and your sisters from suckling, and the mothers of your women, and your step-daughters who are in your lodgings from your women with whom you have already consummated the marriage; if you have not consummated the marriage then there is no sin upon you; and those who were in wedlock with your sons who are from your seed, and that you join between two sisters except what has already been done. God is Forgiving, Merciful.
424 And the muhsinat, except those maintained by your oathsAn MMA can be anyone who isnt independent someone under someones care. But I think the category is even smaller than that. But anyway if someone is under my care theyre my mma, maybe you choose to marry that person, and verse 425 proves that person needs permission from the ahl to marry that mma.
Right. Consider 423-24. Does this not convey that muhsinat must first become your MMA in order to be able to marry them? Also the other category given are fatayat and not MMA but it says of the fatayat who are your MMA which i take to mean that in order to marry the fatayat they must also become your MMA first.
From my reading MMA doesnt = a gf/bf type relationships
It might be that it's not. But consider the above. What else could it be implying?
MMAs arent in the prohibited boundaries of marriage right? so when the verses says protect your frj from azwaj or mma. Well basically its saying protect your secret affairs with these people.
I'm not sure I understand you here. What do you mean by "MMA arent in the prohibited boundaries of marriage" Also personally i think that for f-r-j to mean personal affairs is a long stretch. How did you get to that? I just had a look at the root of f-r-j and i'm not sure. Is there another verse in AQ that you came across where f-r-j meant that?
If you marry an mma well than you could have sex with them. IF you marry them so then the frj could mean sex provided you do nikkah with them. Why I say this?
3350 makes it clear we can marry/nikkah with MMA. MMA arent automatically married to us
2433 MMAs cant be coerced to nikkah
425 if you want a relationship WITH an MMA you need permission.I agree on MMA not being automatically married and that marriage with MMA is doable. But i don't agree with having to request permission when it comes to MMA. That permission is only for the fatayat.
sex isn't an automatic given
I don't think AQ would have expected us to automatically assume that sex is exclusive to marriages. But what it does do is clearly limit it to two groups. Azwaaj and MMA.
Also
Read this verse
3355 (Asad) it is no sin for them before their fathers, or their sons, or their brothers, or their brothers sons, or their sisters sons, or their womenfolk, or such as their right hands may possess. But remain conscious of God - for, behold, God is witness unto everything.
The idea of appearing freely, relaxed in dress code in front of their bros etc is the same with MMA. It gives indication its not about sex or sexual connotations. For me this is a stronger opinion in regards to mma not being oath partners with allowance of sexual relations because you wouldnt do that with your brother! Or your sister!
I know
But i think you missed something. Let me quote a similar verse 2431
And tell the believing females to lower their gaze and keep covered their private parts, and that they should not reveal their beauty except what is apparent, and let them put forth their shawls over their cleavage. And let them not reveal their beauty except to their husbands, or their fathers, or fathers of their husbands, or their sons, or the sons of their husbands, or their brothers, or the sons of their brothers, or the sons of their sisters, or their women, or MMA, or the male servants who are without need, or the child who has not yet understood the composition of women. And let them not strike with their feet in a manner that reveals what they are keeping hidden of their beauty. And repent to God, all of you believers, that you may succeed.Here the women can relax the code in front of their husbands and their MMA and their fathers and so on. Obviously this does not = sex with them. But it would mean that sex is a no to everyone including in marriage as there would be nothing in the Quran that says it's ok to have sex with spouse!& & '( unless we automatically assume that sex is ok in marriage) However there is 235-6 which state two cateogries in which the unguarding of the private parts is acceptable. To all else (including father, sister and so on) the unguarding of the private parts is haram. Do you see where i'm coming from?
peace
-
I have to agree with "Simple", this whole thread is ridiculous and does nothing but make a mockery of sacred scripture. The entire premise of the "argument" is that "ma malakat aymanukum" in 236 denotes a different category of persons other than spouses. As "Simple" pointed out on page 2, and has subsequently been ignored, the use of the conjunction "aw" does not necessarily correspond to the english word "or". It can, and is, used as an amplifying conjunction, especially following a negation, see Lane's Book 1 Page 122. Alternatively, Muhammad Asad translates "aw" at 236 as a clarifier " with any but their spouses - that is, those whom they rightfully possess ". Thus we see that this so called argument has nothing left to stand on. The other verses mentioned, such as 424-25 and 2433 are frankly irrelevant to the discussion, since the argument is that sex outside of marriage is permissible. In fact 2433 just blows the entire argument out of the water for the relevant word there is Ghayn-Nun-Ya, which means to be content, satisfied, to be free of need, see Lane's Book 1 page 2302. Are we to be "satisfied/content" with casual sex? Or, what are we to stand in no need of? It's totally absurd! Those who cannot marry should content themselves with staying chaste, or be free from the want of sexual desires...until a such a time as God enriches them from his bounty.
All this is really child's play though, because the whole argument goes so obviously and clearly against the spirit and tenor of scripture that the level of dishonesty required to put it forward is astonishing. Remember, this is not just about sex between a man and a woman who are betrothed, but rather what's openly being promoted is causual sex with a "girlfriend" or "boyfriend", of which the logical conclusion was drawn at the end of the opening post in the thread One night stands. It makes perfect "sense", since you can have sex with your girlfriend because you are somehow bonded with her by some "oath" that has never actually been declared or contracted; why not have sex after a couple of hours at the club together? I mean we don't actually have to take an oath to make the bond, it's somehow magically implied. No, to anyone who is honest "those who our right hands/oaths possess" ARE our spouses because, obviously, these are the ones with whom we have taken vows and thus bonded ourselves, not to mention the giving of a dowry.
This whole line of argumentation is an insult to those who actually believe in the Most Holy and True God, and the final judgment.
It should be pretty clear from the opening post that this person does not submit to our Lord and Creator, as he constantly emphasizes that "he" does not see anything wrong, or what matters is what "our" hearts and reason tell us and that this is sufficient to "justify" us. NO, what matters is what our Lord tells us, not what we think should be wrong or right. Thus he rejects a divinely revealed truth.As a side note, it is no suprise that the pro abortion kafirs all came on board. In 1731 Our Lord specifically uses waw-lam-dal which denotes more than simply a child out of the womb, rather it specifies that which is begotten, generated, fathered...which is why it is used to refute Christian claims about Jesus in 1935. Afterall, Christians don't believe Jesus was God only after he was born, as the nicene creed states he was "begotten, not made" by the Father "before all the worlds". so, this is the mechanism by which Trinitarians are able to say that the Son (Jesus) is of the same substance as the Father. This is what our Lord refutes, and in a brilliantly subtle fashion by using "waladin", indicating that 1) God did not take a spouse, therefore does not "beget" and thus the Son cannot be of the same "substance" as the Father and 2) Demonstrates that Waw-Lam_Dal is not simply used to describe a child out of the womb.
This is a long post. It may benefit you. I hope it reminds.
Firstly
The arguments you've put up have been answered. If you want further discussion on those points, point to the answers, fault them and then we might discuss them. I think that it is better in the sight of God to discuss peacefully or leave peacefully then to provoke people by accusing them as kafirs for one belief. JUST THINK ON THIS FROM A MORAL POINT OF VIEW.NO, what matters is what our Lord tells us,
Ok heres the long part of the post. Read it all before making judgements.
How do you plan on figuring out what God is telling you without the use of the faculties he has given you? Say you thought the Quran told you to go and beat women (it does not say this but this is an example. Perhaps you may hear) Your heart and reasoning tell you not to. What do you do? What's more likely? That your interpretation of the scripture is wrong or your heart and reason? Your heart and reason and logic will hopefully guide you to the truth of the Quran. But if you ignore and focus ONLY on your interpretation or of anothers, you may never reach the truth of the true interpretation. You would not have acknowledged, you would have blindly followed. Similar to idol-worshipers (please note that i am not calling you this) they blindly followed.
There are somethings such as the forbidding of swine which may not make sense to the reason. But it does not go against the heart as you are not harming anyone else. So considering the strength of the likelyhood of the accuracy of the interpretation that swine is haram with respect to the LITTLE problem it would cause when reasoning out, you don't have swine.
Now think about the lashing for Zina. Think about how understandings have changed even though they looked like they could not. Some recieved a lashing of the sort that was actually not prescribed by the Quran. Some understand the lashing as meant to not hurt physically and as purely a humiliating punishment. But people back then who thought they had interpreted it right decided that they should ignore their heart and reason because they thought they had the right interpretation whereas most likely they did not. They though their interpretation is what God is telling them forgetting that the heart and reason are from God.
How would they justify themselves in the sight of GOD?
Would the justification be greatly different to a suicide bomber who kills innocents? Both justifications would be something like I though that ALLAH the most holy lord condoned this. That is what I understood from the Quran. So if it's asked of them why did you ignore your heart and reason....they would be in trouble then. Clearly.Whereas those who give more value to their heart and reason then their interpretation, and thus are much less likely to commit acts such as suicide or lashing, would be better able to justify themselves in the sight of God. If it says lash in the Quran and they had refused, they could justify themselves with Although it seemed pretty clear in the Quran, it was also clear in my heart and reason that this is wrong. As you gave me heart and reason, i concluded most likely that i or others have misinterpreted the Quran and thus i did not lash because of the heart and reason you gave me told me not to.
Which group sound more kafir to you?
Think on this. How else do you expect to get to the truth without requesting guidance and thinking about what the truth could be?Also don't be so insulting to some others (me included) Did it not cross your mind that you may be wrong about them?
-
Peace Nima
Right. Consider 423-24. Does this not convey that muhsinat must first become your MMA in order to be able to marry them? Also the other category given are fatayat and not MMA but it says of the fatayat who are your MMA which i take to mean that in order to marry the fatayat they must also become your MMA first.
Nope, I dont think so I havent looked to deep into it so I really shouldnt comment. Ill tell you my thoughts even though I dont feel confident about it.. so excuse the ignorance.
muhsinat can also be translated as married women. You cant marry married women except that she is under your oath, as in except if shes married to you. Remember Quran came through a time where people were already married.
The question of mma isnt really the issue the question is who are the muhsinat or what is muhsinat..
Mma can be taken differently. Except in this case who is mma to you would be your wife already...
Right. Consider 423-24. Does this not convey that muhsinat must first become your MMA in order to be able to marry them? Also the other category given are fatayat and not MMA but it says of the fatayat who are your MMA which i take to mean that in order to marry the fatayat they must also become your MMA first.
I dont think so.
It might be that it's not. But consider the above. What else could it be implying?
Read all occurrences of MMA and tell me how you understand mma. Try do it without any thought of proving mma means partner because clearly verses 2433 and 425 doesnt prove it.
Try doing it or even try proving mma is a relationship of how you think it is. If you cant in all occurrences then obviously there is something wrong. Its better to do research without a concluding thought otherwise our bias is steered.
I'm not sure I understand you here. What do you mean by "MMA arent in the prohibited boundaries of marriage" Also personally i think that for f-r-j to mean personal affairs is a long stretch. How did you get to that? I just had a look at the root of f-r-j and i'm not sure. Is there another verse in AQ that you came across where f-r-j meant that?
Meaning they are permissible to marry see 3350 we are allowed to marry from the mma, they are halal for us to seek marriage. They are not halal for us to have for fun. Read 2433.
Maybe its a long stretch but I was putting an interpretation on it. Doesnt mean it is true. Frj indicates an opening or sexual organs so protecting an opening, I spun my opinion on it, doesnt mean its right.
And if frj is only going to be taken as protection from sex than fine lets take that argument. YOU CAN HAVE SEX WITH MMA. The ONLY time you can have sex with mma is if you do nikkah with them. Without nikkah no sex with mma. So yes you can have sex with mma but not without nikkah.
Im convinced youre prob not. Keep researching and share your findings. Im done for now
Salam.
-
And if frj is only going to be taken as protection from sex than fine let?s take that argument. YOU CAN HAVE SEX WITH MMA. The ONLY time you can have sex with mma is if you do nikkah with them. Without nikkah no sex with mma. So yes you can have sex with mma but not without nikkah.
Not so, according to 235-6. It is also important to note the "or" in their, showing that one can't have both a spouse/spouses and an MMA/MMAs at the same time, which would be adultery/"zina".
-
Peace progressive, all.
what do you understand from 235-6 and even that be the case, i wasn't talking about THAT though i'm not sure i agree with you.
you can have sex with mma when you do nikkah with them what evidence do you have contrary to this? and is your information in synch with other verses in relation to mma?
the problem with this whole analogy/interpretation is the understanding of mma, muhsinat and frj (in particular the ones in bold).
when enough evidence is put forward about these terms in relation to all occurrences then i think we can have a better discussion but if we wanna take strawmans theory and pick on choose things we'll be here for ever.
Salam.
-
what do you understand from 235-6 and even that be the case, i wasn't talking about THAT though i'm not sure i agree with you.
I don't really understand the above.. Please phrase it more clearly.
you can have sex with mma when you do nikkah with them what evidence do you have contrary to this? and is your information in synch with other verses in relation to mma?
I cited 235-6, showing my position. What is the evidence for your position on sex with MMAs only being allowed during marriage? 235-6 suggests otherwise.
-
I don?t agree with you, my argument wasn?t about that verse. If that?s the only verse you got in relation to mma being ok for sex (without nikkah) then I believe your claim is weak.
Sex with mma is ok with nikkah, see verse 425. Actually I just read asads notes, read
Lit., "or those whom their right hands possess" (aw ma malakat aymanuhum). Many of the commentators assume unquestioningly that this relates to female slaves, and that the particle aw ("or" denotes a permissible alternative. This interpretation is, in my opinion, inadmissible inasmuch as it is based on the assumption that sexual intercourse with ones female slave is permitted without marriage an assumption, which is contradicted by the Qur?an itself (see 43, 24, 25 and 2432, with the corresponding notes). Nor is this the only objection to the above-mentioned interpretation. Since the Qur?an applies the term ??believers" to men and women alike, and since the term azwaj ("spouses", too, denotes both the male and the female partners in marriage, there is no reason for attributing to the phrase ma malakat aymanuhum the meaning of "their female slaves??; and since, on the other hand, it is out of the question that female and male slaves could have been referred to here it is obvious that this phrase does not relate to slaves at all, but has the same meaning as in 424 - namely, "those whom they rightfully possess through wedlock (see note 26 on 424) - with the significant difference that in the present context this expression relates to both husbands and wives, who "rightfully possess" one another by virtue of marriage. On the basis of this interpretation, the particle aw which precedes this clause does not denote an alternative ("or" but is, rather, in the nature of an explanatory amplification, more or less analogous to the phrase "in other words" or "that is", thus giving to the whole sentence the meaning, "save with their spouses - that is, those whom they rightfully possess ", etc. (Cf. a similar construction 2562 - ??for him who has the will to take thought -that is , has the will to be grateful".)(Quran Ref 236 )
-
Peace Nima
Nope, I dont think so I havent looked to deep into it so I really shouldnt comment. Ill tell you my thoughts even though I dont feel confident about it.. so excuse the ignorance.
muhsinat can also be translated as married women. You cant marry married women except that she is under your oath, as in except if shes married to you. Remember Quran came through a time where people were already married.
The question of mma isnt really the issue the question is who are the muhsinat or what is muhsinat..
Mma can be taken differently. Except in this case who is mma to you would be your wife already...
I dont think so.
Read all occurrences of MMA and tell me how you understand mma. Try do it without any thought of proving mma means partner because clearly verses 2433 and 425 doesnt prove it.
Try doing it or even try proving mma is a relationship of how you think it is. If you cant in all occurrences then obviously there is something wrong. Its better to do research without a concluding thought otherwise our bias is steered.
Meaning they are permissible to marry see 3350 we are allowed to marry from the mma, they are halal for us to seek marriage. They are not halal for us to have for fun. Read 2433.
Maybe its a long stretch but I was putting an interpretation on it. Doesnt mean it is true. Frj indicates an opening or sexual organs so protecting an opening, I spun my opinion on it, doesnt mean its right.
And if frj is only going to be taken as protection from sex than fine lets take that argument. YOU CAN HAVE SEX WITH MMA. The ONLY time you can have sex with mma is if you do nikkah with them. Without nikkah no sex with mma. So yes you can have sex with mma but not without nikkah.
Im convinced youre prob not. Keep researching and share your findings. Im done for now
Salam.
Salam Sarah
I looked before at every occurence of right hands using globalquran but i've done it again and the more I look at it, the more this implies a serious realtionnship. You do the same without any preconcieved notion of MMA. What could it be? Even if we were to understand MMA to mean different things still in some places, MMA stands out as someone who your in a strong relationship with.
I'l quote some verses
43]
If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or MMA, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice.Look at the above, what is a good solution in place of a wife to help look after orphans? Possibly a nanny right? Ok but then but what nanny would the private parts be exclusive to that is not exclusive to one's father, sister and everyone else except azwaaj?
Also (prohibited are) women already married, except MMA.
If any of you have not the means wherewith to wed musinat, they may wed fatayat from your MMA (i could have translated the last part wrong. I'm just trying to put MMA in place of the english used)
The above says IF you can't marry muhsinat (suggesting it's better to marry muhsinat) then marry fatayat who are your MMA. Bear in mind that to marry muhsinat they must still come from MMA.
Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or whom their right hands possess,- for (in their case) they are free from blame.
Wouldn't someone whom your in a relationship best fit the above?Note that it dosn't say that these MMA have to be married. If MMA are to be married then they become spouse. MMA is mentioned as a category of it's own and spouse is mentioned of a category of it's own.
3350 O prophet, We have made lawful for you the wives to whom you have already given their dowries, and those who are maintained by your oath.....
7029 And those who guard their private parts.
7030 Except around their spouses or those maintained by their oaths, there is no blame.Only MMA and Spouses are exclusive to the private parts.
I'm gonna have a try at refuting one of your key arguments. See what you think
Ok. Your understanding is that sex is not allowed unless Quran makes it allowed right? I argue nothing is haram unless given or ruled out in someway. For example i think for one to sit down and let's say play 6 hours of playstation nonstop is a transgression (this is clear) and thus forbidden. Now with sex one would have to personally automatically assume that sex is a transgression if the nikah contract is not in place. Thus one would automatically assume that sex with MMA would fall under transgression even if it is done in the best of conditions (loving relationship) or fahsha and thus in ONLY That way would sex be exclusive to marriages IMO. The question is wether we should judge like this considering all verses related to MMA and their relations and similarities to spouses. Also i don't see how an impartial person would automatically assume sex in a loving, commiting relationship without the papers proving nikah to be a fahsha or transgression.
Ambiguity would occure in verses like 235-6 and 2431. In 2431 relaxing of the dress code is mentioned in front of those specified. In 235-6 the private parts are allowed to be unguarded. What could the private parts being unguarded mean? Is it only a matter of exposure or somthing more? Remember MMA are mentioned alongside spouses here so in someways surely MMA must bear some relation to a spouse right?
Oh just one more thing, how does 2433 and 425 reject MMA as like a gf/bf or something on those lines?
peace -
Hey can I just ask while were talking about this.. is it true that the quran only states the punishment for infidelity in marriage (which is prison/100 lashes) but doesnt really state any punishment for sex outside of marriage? And also the quran has made it pretty clear that fornication is frowned upon as far as quran is concerned, so isnt sex outside marriage considered fornication? If not, how? And also it does seem like the people 'whom your right hand possesses' are people who has given you their trust, or consent(bf/gf) just by reading the ayah (it might been taken out of context i dont know but just reading it would make me understand it that way) but growing up my teachers taught me that the people referred to were slaves, which dont exist anymore in the modern world. But I've always taught why would you be allowed to have sex with slaves but not people ur in a relationship with?? Doesnt make sense!
-
This is a long post. It may benefit you. I hope it reminds.
Firstly
The arguments you've put up have been answered. If you want further discussion on those points, point to the answers, fault them and then we might discuss them. I think that it is better in the sight of God to discuss peacefully or leave peacefully then to provoke people by accusing them as kafirs for one belief. JUST THINK ON THIS FROM A MORAL POINT OF VIEW.This is not true, all you did was ignore it and then arrogantly dismiss it by saying "I seperate the two because from AQ i get the impression that they are seperate.....Some argue that they are the same thing but i doubt it."
You did not, because you cannot, address the grammatical FACT which utterly annihilates your argument. Simply saying "I doubt it" is not an answer. There are no points to answer because you clearly reject the truth that "aw" in 236 does not correspond to "or" in english. "Simple" already gave you an example of the use of "aw" as a clarifier in 2200 and told you to check a dictionary, but you ignored him. I have made my own points regarding the grammatical uses of "aw", but you refuse to address them.
Dont be disingenuous, this has nothing to do with being "peaceful"; no one is threatening you with physical harm. The fact is you are twisting verses in scripture to suit your own agenda. You have gone on for 12 pages attempting to "find the truth" and in the process turned the quran into inconsistent nonsense (when read as a whole). The only moral thing to do, for someone who believes that the quran is the word of God, is to refute you and expose your dishonesty.
Ok heres the long part of the post. Read it all before making judgements.
How do you plan on figuring out what God is telling you without the use of the faculties he has given you?
Nice try at diverting the conversation, but futile. I have never said don't use logic or reason, in fact it is impossible to do anything without them; they are objective categories of thought, not subjective interpretations as you would have us believe. In other words, they are given to us in order that we may discern the truth from falsehood. It's not "my logic and reason" or "your logic and reason", it is either logical or it is not.
Say you thought the Quran told you to go and beat women (it does not say this but this is an example. Perhaps you may hear) Your heart and reasoning tell you not to. What do you do? What's more likely? That your interpretation of the scripture is wrong or your heart and reason?
Your example of Dal-Ra-Ba as "beat" only serves to make my point for me! No one could read the quran, in its enirety, and reasonably argue that beating one's wife conforms to the spirit and tenor of scripture; it most clearly does not! Yet this is exactly what YOU have done, you take a verse (236), use a poor translation of it and then use this to build your case for (ultimately) one night stands. Ignoring the tenor and spirit of sacred scripture. Right now my "heart and reason" tell me that "striking" my wife is bad, but if she randomly decided to put a gun to my head, my "heart and reason" might feel differently about the need to strike her just to protect myself. So your argument is worthless! Moreover, your use of the term "reason" is so ambiguous that it becomes meaningless. The only way I can EVEN INTERPRET scripture is because of my God given "reason". Thus, there is no conflict between "reason and interpretation"; if my interpretation is wrong, it is because my reasoning is wrong!
Your heart and reason and logic will hopefully guide you to the truth of the Quran. But if you ignore and focus ONLY on your interpretation or of anothers, you may never reach the truth of the true interpretation. You would not have acknowledged, you would have blindly followed. Similar to idol-worshipers (please note that i am not calling you this) they blindly followed.
This is sad, but extremely revealing. My "heart, reason and logic" do not "guide" me, it is GOD ALONE who does the guiding. This is just amazing "logic"; according to you If someone has an "interpretation" they are ignoring reason and logic, the only way to get the "true interpretation" is to avoid focusing on "interpretations" and this, to you, would be reasonable and logical! So why don't you take your own advice STOP "focusing" on your "interpretation" of 236 as well as others' "interpretation" and follow your "heart, reason and logic" to non "interpretation" and pure silence. Right, it's pretty obvious you reject the notion of a divinely revealed truth. that MUST be accepted, in order to be faithful to God. Instead, everything in scripture is just someone's "interpretation" and we can never know if they're right or wrong, and so we'll just keep going on and on forever "discussing" and debating with no possibility of a clear answer ever being reached.
There are somethings such as the forbidding of swine which may not make sense to the reason. But it does not go against the heart as you are not harming anyone else. So considering the strength of the likelyhood of the accuracy of the interpretation that swine is haram with respect to the LITTLE problem it would cause when reasoning out, you don't have swine.
uhh no! Avoiding the eating of pig is perfectly within reason. Our Lord has clearly and unambiguously forbidden it...that's the reason!! Get it? We believe in order to understand, not the other way around! Abraham did not ask to understand WHY God wanted him to sacrifice his son, he had perfect faith that if this was God's command, he should do it, no matter what his "heart and reason" told him. That's what submission to God's will is all about! You put aside your own inclinations and follow what God has commanded, either through direct revelation as above, or through sacred scripture.
Now think about the lashing for Zina. Think about how understandings have changed even though they looked like they could not. Some recieved a lashing of the sort that was actually not prescribed by the Quran. Some understand the lashing as meant to not hurt physically and as purely a humiliating punishment. But people back then who thought they had interpreted it right decided that they should ignore their heart and reason because they thought they had the right interpretation whereas most likely they did not. They though their interpretation is what God is telling them forgetting that the heart and reason are from God.
More nonsese. The punishment of lashing is very clear in the quran, so the reason why "muslims" deviated was because their "heart and reason" led them to want more than what God had decreed. What you seem to think of as "heart and reason" are simply buzzwords for emotions and feelings/desires. Everything is from God, but YOU are responsible for following your own perverse desires. Our emotions/feelings are not of God in the sense that whatever our "hearts and reason" tell us is good, is actuallty true.
How would they justify themselves in the sight of GOD?
Would the justification be greatly different to a suicide bomber who kills innocents? Both justifications would be something like I though that ALLAH the most holy lord condoned this. That is what I understood from the Quran. So if it's asked of them why did you ignore your heart and reason....they would be in trouble then. Clearly.Somehow you keep making my point for me!! This is the whole issue, you cannot read the quran, as a whole, and justify murder, without ignoring the tenor of scripture. Suicide bombers don't do this anyways, they would claim that "innocents", as you put them, are as much combatants as armed soldiers. So the actual debate would be over who is actually a non combatant.
Whereas those who give more value to their heart and reason then their interpretation, and thus are much less likely to commit acts such as suicide or lashing, would be better able to justify themselves in the sight of God.
You're really confused, there's no conflict between "reason and "interpretation", if your "interpretation" is wrong it's because your "reasoning" is wrong.
If it says lash in the Quran and they had refused, they could justify themselves with Although it seemed pretty clear in the Quran, it was also clear in my heart and reason that this is wrong. As you gave me heart and reason, i concluded most likely that i or others have misinterpreted the Quran and thus i did not lash because of the heart and reason you gave me told me not to. Which group sound more kafir to you? Think on this.
Just a quick theological point WE don't justify ourselves before God, HE justfies us, and He knows who is/will be justified. All you would be saying by putting forth such an argument, would be to acknowledge that you made your own ideas about right and wrong greater than what God has clearly spelled out. You would be denying the revealed truth that God made his scripture clear, unambiguous and with no crookedness. In fact by saying this you would be saying that God was not capable of giving clear instructions, despite the fact that the whole purpose of divine revelation was to guide mankind.
How else do you expect to get to the truth without requesting guidance and thinking about what the truth could be? Also don't be so insulting to some others (me included) Did it not cross your mind that you may be wrong about them?
One should request guidance from God, not from men! We find the truth clearly spelled out in the scripture, the basic and fundamental truths necessary for salvation are not hidden. When God tells us not to make anything equal with him, it does not take a whole lot of "thinking" to figure out "what the truth could be" in this commandment. The supreme irony in all this is that you ultimately agree with the sect called "Islam" that the quran is not clear in and of itself, one man cannot simply read it and understand what he must do to save his soul.
Insulting? this whole thread is an insult. Your condescending and "pseudo intellectual" tone is particularly annoying. You act like you only want to"find the truth", but you use intellectually dishonest and deceptive arguments and tactics. Regarding my use of "Kafir" it is simply an apt description of your approach, and I think it is obvious after 12 pages of this ridiculous "discussion". You should be less concerned about your "feelings" and be more concerned with standing up for the truth. You can start by explaining to everyone why the conjunction "aw" denotes solely an "alternative option", when the dictionaries say otherwise, and the Quran uses it otherwise.
-
Hey can I just ask while were talking about this.. is it true that the quran only states the punishment for infidelity in marriage (which is prison/100 lashes) but doesnt really state any punishment for sex outside of marriage? And also the quran has made it pretty clear that fornication is frowned upon as far as quran is concerned, so isnt sex outside marriage considered fornication? If not, how? And also it does seem like the people 'whom your right hand possesses' are people who has given you their trust, or consent(bf/gf) just by reading the ayah (it might been taken out of context i dont know but just reading it would make me understand it that way) but growing up my teachers taught me that the people referred to were slaves, which dont exist anymore in the modern world. But I've always taught why would you be allowed to have sex with slaves but not people ur in a relationship with?? Doesnt make sense!
I'm not sure on the punishment. Check it out. I'm not sure on fornication. The word in use is Fahasha. If one takes that to mean forniation and then takes fornication to mean any kind of sex outside of marriage, then that probabely means no sex outside marriage. But that rests upon what you take fahasha for it has different meanings. Slaves don't makes sense based on other verses. If you look through the thread you'l get the answer i think. I'm 99% sure that MMA is not slave.
-
Salam Hoppean
This is not true, all you did was ignore it and then arrogantly dismiss it by saying "I seperate the two because from AQ i get the impression that they are seperate.....Some argue that they are the same thing but i doubt it."
OH MY GOD. Look at what you've written! you say "all you did was ignore it and then arrogantly dismiss it" How can i be ignoring it when i'm commenting on it!? No i did not ignore it, I gave my opinion and ended it there. Others have brought this issue up and i gave them a better answer because i believe them to be more openminded in this discussion. THE ANSWERS ARE ON THIS THREAD CHECK THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IF SOMETHING's NOT BEEN ANSWERED PUT IT UP AS A QUESTION AND THEN I'L DIRECT YOU TO IT IN THIS THREAD.
Cut down on the hatred.
You did not, because you cannot, address the grammatical FACT which utterly annihilates your argument. Simply saying "I doubt it" is not an answer.
I'll address this at the end with of this reply with an exmaple. but for now
this grammatical FACT as you put it can work two ways as far as i know. There is no one set FACT. That means sometimes it works as or sometimes it does not. I am not strong in arabic so i will ask you this in case i misunderstood Simple in any way. In 235-6 could AW not mean or Is it 100% fact that it is used as a clarifier? Be honest.
There are no points to answer because you clearly reject the truth that "aw" in 236 does not correspond to "or" in english.
So nowhere in the Quran AW means "or" then.....?
Dont be disingenuous, this has nothing to do with being "peaceful"; no one is threatening you with physical harm. The fact is you are twisting verses in scripture to suit your own agenda.
Yet you call me arrogant. I'm not twisting things. I'm seeing them as they are without bias. You've hardly got an argument. Your just here to insult from the looks of it and I guess peace is exclusive to physical violence then according to you. Labeling others dishonest, kafir and so on is not provoking anything and is within the boundaries of peace nope
You have gone on for 12 pages attempting to "find the truth" and in the process turned the quran into inconsistent nonsense (when read as a whole). The only moral thing to do, for someone who believes that the quran is the word of God, is to refute you and expose your dishonesty.
I wished you'd at least stuck do that. Refuted me an exposed my so called dishonesty. Keyword being exposed and not just randomly claiming. but instead you come and insult with the set idea that i am being dishonest when you really have no idea of what i'm after.
Nice try at diverting the conversation, but futile. I have never said don't use logic or reason, in fact it is impossible to do anything without them;
I'm glad you accept that. Bear in mind i did not you say you did not.
Your example of Dal-Ra-Ba as "beat" only serves to make my point for me! No one could read the quran, in its enirety, and reasonably argue that beating one's wife conforms to the spirit and tenor of scripture;
True. I'm glad to hear this.
it most clearly does not! Yet this is exactly what YOU have done, you take a verse (236), use a poor translation of it
Just open your mind for a second ok and answer this are MMA really the same as spouse THORUGHOUT THE WHOLE OF THE QURAN??
Also could it not be that Aw could be translated as or?and then use this to build your case for (ultimately) one night stands.
NO I'm not building my case for one night stands. I'm trying to explain that sex with MMA is halal and that MMA are not spouse. The addtional stuff i said in my article were just a relevant experience. I am trying to keep my mind open. I am considering the possibility that i have preconcieved notions about this subject thus I am trying to blok that and keep my mind open.
Ignoring the tenor and spirit of sacred scripture. Right now my "heart and reason" tell me that "striking" my wife is bad, but if she randomly decided to put a gun to my head, my "heart and reason" might feel differently about the need to strike her just to protect myself. So your argument is worthless!
nope
It wasn't meant to serve as an argument, it was meant to serve as an example.Moreover, your use of the term "reason" is so ambiguous that it becomes meaningless.
I've not explained properly.
The only way I can EVEN INTERPRET scripture is because of my God given "reason". Thus, there is no conflict between "reason and interpretation"; if my interpretation is wrong, it is because my reasoning is wrong!
I think if your reason rejects an interpretation, it is because most likely you have the wrong interpretation. Not the above that you've said.
This is sad, but extremely revealing. My "heart, reason and logic" do not "guide" me, it is GOD ALONE who does the guiding.
Sad to me is how anger can cause someone to lose morality at certain times. Nothing happens without the leave of God nor can you will anything that God wills otherwise. I do know this and also believe it. But i also think that you've got to align your will to God if you want to be guided. Thus your reason and heart. They are faculties which Guidance comes through i think.
This is just amazing "logic"; according to you If someone has an "interpretation" they are ignoring reason and logic,
This is just anger blinding someone. When and where did i say that? Quote me? HOW did you get that understanding from what i said??!
the only way to get the "true interpretation" is to avoid focusing on "interpretations" and this, to you, would be reasonable and logical! So why don't you take your own advice STOP "focusing" on your "interpretation" of 236 as well as others' "interpretation" and follow your "heart, reason and logic" to non "interpretation" and pure silence.
DID I SAY THAT!!!!!!!!?????? I'm discussing the Quran here and verses from the Quran here. That's what's been going on in this thread. CHECK.
Right, it's pretty obvious you reject the notion of a divinely revealed truth. that MUST be accepted, in order to be faithful to God. Instead, everything in scripture is just someone's "interpretation" and we can never know if they're right or wrong, and so we'll just keep going on and on forever "discussing" and debating with no possibility of a clear answer ever being reached.
NOPe Discussion helps reach answers. Discussion helps restrengthen a previously held poistion. Discussion helps add more truths to things.
If i'm talking non-sense, then it would be obvious and thus the position of sex exclusive to marriage would strengthen but there is really no need to come out aggresively like you have done here.uhh no! Avoiding the eating of pig is perfectly within reason. Our Lord has clearly and unambiguously forbidden it...that's the reason!! Get it? We believe in order to understand, not the other way around! Abraham did not ask to understand WHY God wanted him to sacrifice his son, he had perfect faith that if this was God's command, he should do it, no matter what his "heart and reason" told him. That's what submission to God's will is all about! You put aside your own inclinations and follow what God has commanded, either through direct revelation as above, or through sacred scripture.
nope..........that's not what i said......
More nonsese. The punishment of lashing is very clear in the quran, so the reason why "muslims" deviated was because their "heart and reason" led them to want more than what God had decreed.
YOU THINK LASHING IS WITHIN THE TENOR AND SACREDNESS AND COMPASSIONESS AND MANY OTHER POSITIVE ATTRIBUTES OF THE SCRIPTURE!????
What you seem to think of as "heart and reason" are simply buzzwords for emotions and feelings/desires. Everything is from God, but YOU are responsible for following your own perverse desires. Our emotions/feelings are not of God in the sense that whatever our "hearts and reason" tell us is good, is actuallty true.
Heart and reason are not desire or emotions. Lust is and a desire it seperate of reason.
You're really confused, there's no conflict between "reason and "interpretation", if your "interpretation" is wrong it's because your "reasoning" is wrong.
I'm not confused but i think AT THE MOMENT your currently blinded by anger.
There should not be. But sometimes there is and that's where most likely your interpretation is wrong and thus you should abstain untill it becomes clear to you via your reason when you further understand the scripture and why it has set such a law.Just a quick theological point WE don't justify ourselves before God, HE justfies us, and He knows who is/will be justified. All you would be saying by putting forth such an argument, would be to acknowledge that you made your own ideas about right and wrong greater than what God has clearly spelled out. You would be denying the revealed truth that God made his scripture clear, unambiguous and with no crookedness. In fact by saying this you would be saying that God was not capable of giving clear instructions, despite the fact that the whole purpose of divine revelation was to guide mankind
No he judges us by what we have done and WHY we have done. I am trying to understand what God has made right or wrong using the tools he has given me. Get it? I am not making my own criteria.
We find the truth clearly spelled out in the scripture, the basic and fundamental truths necessary for salvation are not hidden.
Somethings are not clear. With discussion they gain clarity at times.
When God tells us not to make anything equal with him, it does not take a whole lot of "thinking" to figure out "what the truth could be" in this commandment. The supreme irony in all this is that you ultimately agree with the sect called "Islam" that the quran is not clear in and of itself, one man cannot simply read it and understand what he must do to save his soul.
No i think one should be patient and makes sure he/she uses all their tools to understand rather then just read and act.
Insulting? this whole thread is an insult. Your condescending and "pseudo intellectual" tone is particularly annoying.
)I think it's annoying because you want to believe something of me that is not. It's annoying because i'm not coming out here calling you a kafir because you strongly disagree with me. Or maybe it's annoying that i'm trying to discuss peacefully and that just does not suit your understanding of me.
You act like you only want to"find the truth", but you use intellectually dishonest and deceptive arguments and tactics.
No i dont act like. I am genuine. I did not start this thread because of desire. God is aware of ALL thinkgs.
Just to ask where was my "intellectually dishonest and deceptive arguments and tactics"? as you put it because i am trying hard to be impartial and understand the scripture there must have been something for you to give such labels. So what is it??Regarding my use of "Kafir" it is simply an apt description of your approach, and I think it is obvious after 12 pages of this ridiculous "discussion".
Ok
You should be less concerned about your "feelings" and be more concerned with standing up for the truth.
Getting to the truth is what i am trying to do.
You can start by explaining to everyone why the conjunction "aw" denotes solely an "alternative option", when the dictionaries say otherwise, and the Quran uses it otherwise.
You could have just said this and that would have been it. We would have had a more peaceful discussion i think. I did not intend to ignore Simple. I just did not want to discuss with him as he seemd to have already have made his mind up. Also I just though that his point was made and that ultimately AW could mean or (as in denoting another option) whilst in someplaces it could be a clarifier so i thought ok. That's his interpretation and ended it there. I did not see it as a grammatical fact as you claim becuase his post did not say that it is.
I will explain what i think. please bear in mind that i am not an arabic speaker.
From what simple said to meHi Nima,
the "or" doesn't always mean "or" like in english, sometimes it can means "or rather" check a dictionary.
here are a couple of example for you to consider;
2200
So when ye have accomplished your holy rites, celebrate the praises of Allah, as ye used to celebrate the praises of your fathers,- yea, with far more Heart and soul. There are men who say "Our Lord! Give us (Thy bounties) in this world!" but they will have no portion in the Hereafter.where is the or above?
2182
But if anyone fears partiality or wrong-doing on the part of the testator, and makes peace between (The parties concerned), there is no wrong in him For Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.From what simple said i gathered that AW could have two different understandings. So i ask you one more time. Are there any places in Quran where Aw means "or" as in denoting another option? I don't how to check this out myself and i think that this is knowledge is something you'd automatically be aware of.
Also what becomes of these verses
424 Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess
And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O ye Believers! turn ye all together towards Allah, that ye may attain Bliss.
What becomes of the "or" used in the above??? Are they not conveying another option? is Aw not used?
I seriously think we got off on the wrong foot. I know you hate this view. But let's discuss it peacefully if not peacefully then leave the thread please also if you are willing to discuss please be open-minded on this topic.Peace