INQUIRY
-
My understanding is that we return to the god all alone, as individuals for judgement. Then, we join the righteous of our worldly friends and family, but instead of maintaining those worldly relationships, we will be one family in a different sense altogether. I believe it will be totally different from what we can imagine because of 3217.
I guess you're right.
Being a 32-year-old virgin, i always imagine a mansion with plenty of ladies .....Lighten up, guys, my post was tongue-in-cheeck. I agree with all those posters who think that these verses are to be understood as an allegory.
peace
That said, I found some of the descriptions / explanations I have read on traditional or Salafi websites pretty disgusting. They don't sound like descriptions of paradise but like some dirty old men's phantasies about an eternal brothelhouse. And when being asked why the delights that supposedly expect the believer in paradies are being described in detail for the men but not for the woman, the scholars reply that women get "something similar", but due to their modesty and shyness God refrained from explaining them in detail.
) ) )
-
And moreover then what was the need for doing this
Even if "abkara" was about virginity in the passage, it would still be an allegory. However, "abkara" probably refers more to the women of the god's paradise as being foremost in virtue/enlightenment/honor/goodness/etc. The word refers to the early morning in about a dozen passages (e.g. 341, 489). So how can it describe a woman? Just as the morning is the first light, women of that description are first in obtaining the god's light.
Peace,
-David
-
Question If a woman is killed as a martyr for the sake of Allaah, how does the hadeeth ?The shaheed will be married to seventy-two hoor al-?iyn? apply to her?
Answer Praise be to Allaah.
We put this question to Shaykh ?Abd-Allaah ibn Jibreen, may Allaah preserve him, who answered as follows
This number is only for men. A woman will have only one husband in Paradise, and she will be satisfied with him and will not need any more than that.
The Muslim woman ? who is not influenced by the claims of those who propagate permissiveness and knows that she is not like men in her make-up and nature, because Allaah has made her like that ? does not object to the rulings of Allaah or feel angry. Rather she accepts what Allaah has decreed for her. Her sound nature tells her that she cannot live with more than one man at a time. So long as she has entered Paradise, she will have all that she desires, so she should not dispute now about the delights and rewards that her Lord has chosen for her, for your Lord does not treat anyone unjustly. If she is one of the people of Paradise, then she is included, like men, in the words of Allaah (interpretation of the meaning)
?Trays of gold and cups will be passed round them; (there will be) therein all that inner-selves could desire, and all that eyes could delight in and you will abide therein forever?
We ask Allaah for al-Firdaws, the highest part of Paradise. May Allaah bless our Prophet Muhammad.
http//www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/11419
;D ;D ;D
One of the best things that people long for in the Hereafter is, for men, the women of Paradise, namely al-hoor al-?iyn, and for women there is an equivalent delight. By His great wisdom, Allaah has not mentioned what the women will have as the equivalent of al-hoor al-?iyn for men, and that is due to modesty and shyness. How can He encourage them to seek Paradise by mentioning something that they are too shy and modest to mention or speak about themselves? So He has simply hinted at it ...
...
Ibn al-Qayyim said
Allaah describes them as being ?guarded in pavilions?, i.e., they are prevented from making a display of themselves before anyone except their husbands. They are guarded for their husbands and they do not go out of their houses, and they restrain themselves for them and do not desire anyone else. And Allaah describes them as ?QaasiraatutTarf
they said, (it means) they will be busy deflowering virgins. Ibn ?Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him) said, according to a report narrated from him, that ?busy in joyful things? means listening to stringed instruments. Abu Haatim said he misheard the phrase iftidaad al-abkaar (deflowering virgins) and thought it was samaa? al-awtaar (listening to stringed instruments). In fact the correct phrase is iftidaad al-abkaar (deflowering virgins). (Ibn Katheer, 3/564)
http//www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/10053
-
Wow Leyna. I didn't realise it was that bad!
-
Even if "abkara" was about virginity in the passage, it would still be an allegory. However, "abkara" probably refers more to the women of the god's paradise as being foremost in virtue/enlightenment/honor/goodness/etc. The word refers to the early morning in about a dozen passages (e.g. 341, 489). So how can it describe a woman? Just as the morning is the first light, women of that description are first in obtaining the god's light.
Peace,
-David
But the problem is that it is the second direct object of the verb, and this is different not to be misunderstood with the word denoting morning . The word denoting Virginity is also used twice with reference towomen; and placing these two words together would also indicate the difference between both the two. Virginity is virginity, I don't know what could be allegorical in it.
-
It would be hilarious if it wasn't so...downright creepy! They actually go with this stuff don't they, I find that scary as hell.
-
I find everything on that site creepy. Strangely enough, it seems to be hugely popular, particularly with converts. There are many Muslim forums out there where questions will be answered with fatwas from there, and if you dare questioning the ridiculous statements made by those scholars, or their sanity, you are being accused of being "arrogant", an "enemy of Islam" and so on and so forth.
nope
-
Oh yeah, we occasionally have "tastes" of that thinking around here, but damn, that's some sick crap. While growing up we were shielded from all the risque hadith, to maintain our "purity" supposedly...and now I'm just shocked at reading most of them and how people believe in them with total blinders, they'll fight you to the death for this stuff literally as well as allegorically. For this sick nonsense. Amazing.
-
they'll fight you to the death for this stuff literally as well as allegorically. For this sick nonsense. Amazing.
One of the things I found really shocking when I first starting reading that site is how openly they propagate hatred of non-Muslims, physical jihad and other such stuff.
yuck
But sorry, this is going OT ... I should have posted it in the relevant thread. peace -
No worries
-
To get back to Zubairus' question, I think so far no one mentioned the coup the grace on Sunni heavenly imagery by Brother Yaseen Q
http//www.free-minds.org/hur
The Quran mentions having 'azwajun mataharrah' (2/25 - purified companions) for both men and women. I don't need to know much else.
-
Yeah, very well researched indeed. That's the kind of analysis which is impeccable, no refutation except thereformer style 'you're not arabic' P
-
Peace Jack,
As per 226, 37 and 7431, I wouldn't be asking those questions, nor would I dare try to conjecture an answer. I don't know what the end time (yawm al-akhir) is like. I can't "see past the flames of hell" for what they really are, nor can I "see through the leaves of the garden" for what's really inside. Hence the use of allegories all throughout the great reading (al-quran al-adhim). I try to keep my heart humble for my creator; when he tells me something is allegorical, I don't venture a guess at its tawil/original meaning.
226 The god is not shy in citing the example of a mosquito, or anything above it. Those who had faith know that it is the truth from their lord, while those who rejected say, "What did the god want with this example?" He sends atray many with it, and he guides many with it. He does not send astray except the corruptors.
37 He is the one who descended to you the book; of it are judging signs which are the essence of the book, and others are allegorical. Those who had blurriness in their hearts will pursue what is allegorical of it, seeking temptation and seeking its original meaning. None knows its original meaning except the god. Those rooted in knowledge say, "We believe in it; all is from our lord."
7431 Those who had sickness in their hearts say, "What did the god want with this example?" As such, the god sends atray whom he willed and guided whome he willed. None knows the soldiers of your lord except he.
We are told that there will be a tree growing in the fire of hell, right? See 3762. We know that trees cannot grow out of fire, so we accept the allegory and humble ourselves for the god. There is something behind that allegory that we do not know. The god knows what we do not.
1760 We did not make the vision we showed you except as a test for the people, and the tree that is cursed in the reading (quran).
I did not make any definitive claims about the meaning of allegories in the great reading, nor would I as per 226, 37, and 7431. There's no shame in sex, nor did I imply that there is, but the end time is unimaginable. Simply put we cannot imagine it. Yes, we will get whatever we want, if we make it. What makes you think you're going to want earthly things? Isn't the god's paradise greater?
Let's not be so shallow. My only point was that instead of sitting around fantasizing about "mansions full of ladies", let's understand the allegorical nature and instead pursue signs that will judge to make this world a better place - in good-doing (ihsan), peacemaking (islam) and faith (iman). The person who mentioned the brothel version of paradise even attributed it to his own advanced virginity, no offense intended, so I can see where it comes from.
Peace,
-David
Peace David,
Thanks for clarifying your view.
First off, I agree that the descriptions of heaven/hell are to be taken allegorically. My point is that as much as I don't know what it will/won't be, neither does anyone else regarding what these 'spouses' exemplify. Saying that these spouses will be strict conversationalists/companions is making a definite claim. None of us really know for sure, all we can do is conjecture which of course doesn't lead to the truth. There are no answers, if there are no questions. It's all about intent. Surely, the writers of hadith seem to be more than a little sexually frustrated.
37 is not about al quran. Al kitab is not al quran. Al kitab is the divine writ. The people who get confused or ask ridiculous questions regarding allegories are rejecters in the first place. The God doesn't shun us from asking any questions, as long as our hearts are pure and in the right place. As long as those questions don't lead to 'doubt'. See 2260 for example. Abraham, the leader of men, is questioning resurrection. There are some rather strong words throughout the quran against those who question resurrection. Does The God shun Abraham here?
The dwellers of paradise state that "this is what we were given/provisioned previously" (225).
Peace
-
Peace Jack,
-
No, the "hur" are not strictly conversationalists/interlocutors. Of course not. I was just saying that even "hur" can have more than one meaning. Even "zawg" doesn't have to mean spouse, it can refer to any kind of pairing.
-
As for "what was given to us previously" in 225, I theorize this may be in some way related to "al-mawt al-ula" (the first death) which apparently took place "in/fi" the garden - 4456. They don't taste death IN IT (fi-ha), except the first. You know? I don't know for sure.
-
No offense, but I have no idea what you mean when you say that the reading (quran) is not the book (kitab). The reading is a book. Any links for study?
-
In 2260 Abraham was nowhere near questioning resurrection. He said "arini kayfa" meaning "show me how", not "are you able to". The bird experiment showed him how it'll be, again using symbols and allegories (the birds, the call, the hills).
Peace,
-David
-
-
Peace Jack,
-
No, the "hur" are not strictly conversationalists/interlocutors. Of course not. I was just saying that even "hur" can have more than one meaning. Even "zawg" doesn't have to mean spouse, it can refer to any kind of pairing.
-
As for "what was given to us previously" in 225, I theorize this may be in some way related to "al-mawt al-ula" (the first death) which apparently took place "in/fi" the garden - 4456. They don't taste death IN IT (fi-ha), except the first. You know? I don't know for sure.
-
No offense, but I have no idea what you mean when you say that the reading (quran) is not the book (kitab). The reading is a book. Any links for study?
-
In 2260 Abraham was nowhere near questioning resurrection. He said "arini kayfa" meaning "show me how", not "are you able to". The bird experiment showed him how it'll be, again using symbols and allegories (the birds, the call, the hills).
Peace,
-David
Peace David,
Do you have quranic evidence for Azwaj meaning other than spouse ? As far as I know, depending on grammatical construction it refers exclusively to a husband/wife/both.
RE al kitab/the book
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=16510.msg164751#msg164751
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=16291.0When I said 'question', I wasn't speaking literally. He needed to see something to believe it. Abraham also threw around ideas/possibilities before reaching a conclusion (675-79).
-