Is it zina?
-
Peace sushi1992,
Thank you for post.
I think you raise some good points in your post. And I think we agree on more than we disagree on )
By the way, I have a question. Do you believe that marriage between a man and a woman is more serious and a greater commitment than a relationship (outside of marriage)? If yes, why? If no, why?
It would be interesting to hear your thoughts.
-
Peace sushi1992,
Thank you for post.
I think you raise some good points in your post. And I think we agree on more than we disagree on
By the way, I have a question. Do you believe that marriage between a man and a woman is more serious and a greater commitment than a relationship (outside of marriage)? If yes, why? If no, why?
It would be interesting to hear your thoughts.
Peace Taro,
I'm glad we agree on more than we disagree . I have quite a pure outlook to relationships a lot of the time. As I mentioned, minus the odd desires every now and then, sex to me is nothing... I actually have never involved myself in that specific act, but the point i was trying to make was the intimacy between 2 people who love each other is more special and more important than sexual intercourse (and yes I am separating intimacy and sexual intercourse as they are 2 completely different things to me).
In answer to your question, it's quite difficult for me to answer that considering my view of what marriage is IS the same as a relationship (it IS a relationship after all, is it not ?).
But for me, if I am in a relationship with someone, I am essentially married to that person. That has always been my understanding. My parents think it's "extreme", and some of my mates think that too. But when I am committed to someone, I am committed to them and them alone. We share each other and each other alone. To me, that bond, that commitment, that long-term loyalty, graffitied over walls saying we are together or a simple text message saying "i love you my partner" or whatever it is, either way, the connection between 2 people who wish to be together for as long as they can foresee is all that matters to me. "Getting married" in the traditional sense is easy. Hey i could grab a random dude, sign a piece of paper in the registry office, have sex, find him boring, and "divorce" (God forbid I'd never do such a thing!). What is that compared to a love that goes deep into the souls of 2 people, where their hearts have signed a contract already to God, their words and souls are the oath - God as their witness, people as their witness.
I probably sound like some crazy romanticist and yes, i know the Quran is but a guide and we can only follow it as well as we can do and as best to our interpretation as possible. But really, this is how I see it and this is how I feel is right for me (other people of course is another story). That's why in places like the UK, it can be difficult for someone like me to find someone. Someone who has the same mentality. I can't even bring myself to kiss someone when I'm not "actually" seeing a future with them at all because I have too much self respect and I do not feel it is really right. One thing I have learnt over the years and with experience, is to not rush, to not rush into someones house or bedroom and leave yourself vulnerable or open to a bit of a situation, even if it is with someone you love. I believe it's best to take time with these things. Spiritually connect with them and grow to love them. I bang on about patience but someones it can be quite quick to really fall for someone, but I also believe that can sometimes depend on our mental state. Either way, someone who is in a long-term relationship or sees themselves being in a long-term relationship with this person, who shares their life in terms of what they do, buying dinner together, going places together, being in eachothers company, offering protection and comfort equally to eachother - that to me is a marriage.
I hope I answered as well as possible .
Peace,
Sushi -
Peace Taro Hiroshi,
Come on brother, I really expected you to be more careful in quoting and translating a verse from al-quran.
You say this
"A woman can not have sexual relations with other than her husband." Because verse 2431 suggests that a woman is only allowed to be naked in front of her husband (in regards to a relationship).
Then you say this
In verses 235-6 the Quran seems to suggest that the believers can only unguard/show their private parts in front of their mates and mma (those who are maintained by their oaths).
You are creating contradiction in al-quran. First you say according to 2431 a woman is allowed to be naked only in front of her husband (which the actual verse does not say), then you say according to 2431 a believer can show private parts to mate and MMA. I really didn't expect this carelessness from you which creates contradiction in al-quran.
2431 talks about zeenat and furooj, and 235-6 talks only about furooj. Zeenat is different from furooj; BOTH WERE USED IN 2431 with different meanings.
According to 2431 believing women are allowed to reveal their ZEENAT (NOT FUROOJ) to
Their husbands, their fathers, fathers of their husbands, their sons, sons of their husbands, their brothers, sons of their brothers, sons of their sisters, their women, their mma, their male servants who are without need, and a child who has not yet understood the composition of women.
IT DOES NOT SAY THEY CAN GET NAKED ONLY IN FRONT OF HUSBANDS
Firstly zeenat can be revealed not only to husband but to many categories of people per 2431.
Secondly, zeenat cannot be nakedness including private parts because a woman is allowed to reveal her zeenat to so many categories of people according to 2431. Do you mean to say that 2431 allows a woman to get naked in front of her father, son, brother, male servants without need? Are you serious?
2431 says just to guard/protect furooj. It does not explain from whom with what exceptions.
235-6 on the other hand gives the exceptions to guarding/protecting furooj and allows believers to unguard their FUROOJ/private parts in front of mates and MMA, and not only mates. The word used is hafithoon from the root Ha-Fa-Za which means to guard/protect/preserve etc. and NOT TO CONCEAL OR COVER.
HOW CAN SOMEONE GUARD/PROTECT HIS/HER PRIVATE PARTS? WHAT DOES GUARDING/PROTECTING PRIVATE PARTS FROM ANOTHER PERSON MEAN?
Do you guard your house by covering it with a cloth? Or do you guard your house by preventing someone from entering it? If you unguard/unprotect your house are you just allowing people to see it or are you allowing people to ENTER IT?
YOU STILL HAVEN'T QUOTED ANY VERSE FROM AL-QURAN THAT FORBIDS SEX OUTSIDE MARRIAGE WITH MMA.
Peace and best regards.
-
2431 talks about zeenat and furooj, and 235-6 talks only about furooj. Zeenat is different from furooj; BOTH WERE USED IN 2431 with different meanings.
According to 2431 believing women are allowed to reveal their ZEENAT (NOT FUROOJ) to
Their husbands, their fathers, fathers of their husbands, their sons, sons of their husbands, their brothers, sons of their brothers, sons of their sisters, their women, their mma, their male servants who are without need, and a child who has not yet understood the composition of women.
IT DOES NOT SAY THEY CAN GET NAKED ONLY IN FRONT OF HUSBANDS
Firstly zeenat can be revealed not only to husband but to many categories of people per 2431.
Secondly, zeenat cannot be nakedness including private parts because a woman is allowed to reveal her zeenat to so many categories of people according to 2431. Do you mean to say that 2431 allows a woman to get naked in front of her father, son, brother, male servants without need? Are you serious?
2431 says just to guard/protect furooj. It does not explain from whom with what exceptions.
235-6 on the other hand gives the exceptions to guarding/protecting furooj and allows believers to unguard their FUROOJ/private parts in front of mates and MMA, and not only mates. The word used is hafithoon from the root Ha-Fa-Za which means to guard/protect/preserve etc. and NOT TO CONCEAL OR COVER.
HOW CAN SOMEONE GUARD/PROTECT HIS/HER PRIVATE PARTS? WHAT DOES GUARDING/PROTECTING PRIVATE PARTS FROM ANOTHER PERSON MEAN?
Do you guard your house by covering it with a cloth? Or do you guard your house by preventing someone from entering it? If you unguard/unprotect your house are you just allowing people to see it or are you allowing people to ENTER IT?
YOU STILL HAVEN'T QUOTED ANY VERSE FROM AL-QURAN THAT FORBIDS SEX OUTSIDE MARRIAGE WITH MMA.
Red I think I never found such verse on the Qur'an, to be honest.
However, since this MMA issue is still not 100% clear for me, I think I prefer to uphold the part which I could understand clearly, this part
"The believers - guard their private parts - except around their mates"
Peace.
-
Peace truthseeker11,
Thank you for showing me the disrepancies/contradictions in my post. I commend you for your analysis.
Come on brother, I really expected you to be more careful in quoting and translating a verse from al-quran.
You are right. I should have been more careful.
YOU STILL HAVEN'T QUOTED ANY VERSE FROM AL-QURAN THAT FORBIDS SEX OUTSIDE MARRIAGE WITH MMA.
Well, what if mma means partner with a marriage contract?
In verse 236, the Quran suggests that mma are partners that one have a marriage contract with, and that giving away to ones desires with mma is not considered as extra-marital sex. Also the above-mentioned verse suggests that mma are spouses. In other words, mma and spouses are the same.
Quran 236 with any but their spouses - that is, those whom they rightfully possess for then, behold, they are free of all blame,
How do you interpret the above mentioned verse? What do you think mma means in that verse? Does it mean girlfriend, engaged partner or wife?
-
Peace Taro Hiroshi,
Brother, you have to be very careful of other's translations. You should always check any translation yourself by figuring out the roots, then looking up their meanings, and looking at context of the verses, and cross referencing with other usages in al-quran.
The translation you have provided smells fishy and fails the cross reference test. Whenever you see words inserted in brackets which are not in the original Arabic to force a meaning on the verse, your alert and BS meter should go to defcon 5.
In verse 236, the Quran suggests that mma are partners that one have a marriage contract with, and that giving away to ones desires with mma is not considered as extra-marital sex. Also the above-mentioned verse suggests that mma are spouses. In other words, mma and spouses are the same.
Quran 236 with any but their spouses - that is, those whom they rightfully possess 3for then, behold, they are free of all blame,
Most translators (I know you didn't translate this yourself) want to invent lies about allah, but they cannot change the original Arabic, so to deliberately and knowingly twist the words, they resort to these bracket techniques by deceptively inserting words in translation that aren't there in the original Arabic. You were also deceived in another translation of 2433 that you quoted earlier, by the deliberate deceptive mistranslation from the source where you quoted it from. Brother, you have to be very careful in this matter. This is how billions have been deceived and continue to be deceived, even by these "reliable" sites you quote your translation from. I'll come to your quoted translation of 2433 later, first let's address this MMA issue.
Please look at 3350
3350 O prophet, we have made lawful for you your azwaaj/mates to whom you have already given their dowries, and MMA/those who are maintained by your oath, as granted to you by allah; ................
You don't even have to know Arabic to figure this out. The same words AZWAAJ and MMA have been used in 3350 that are used in 236.
In 3350 CLEARLY they mean different categories of people and they cannot be the same. MMA CANNOT BE AZWAAJ according to 3350 because they are mentioned as SEPARATE categories. So MMA CANNOT MEAN SPOUSES according to 3350. See the indisputable quranic evidence about this?
See how the translator deceived you in 236 by first deceptively translating "aw" as "that is" and then inserting (through wedlock) in brackets, whereas 3350 PROVES THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE.
So MMA, whatever they are, CANNOT BE MATES/SPOUSES.
In my understanding, MMA are any category of people that you make an oath with. The context will tell you what kind of oath it is. Cross referencing with other parts of al-quran, and looking at the context, MMA has been used for 2 categories of people in al-quran
- Those you make an oath of support with
- Those you make an oath of engagement for the purpose of marriage with.
Please read this article by Dr. Ayman for details
http//free-minds.org/rules-engagement
A girlfriend/boyfriend who have not made an oath of engagement for marriage with each other cannot be MMA.
A fianc?/fianc?e who have made an oath of engagement for marriage with each other can be MMA.In my understanding in 236 MMA refers to fianc?/fianc?e and they are allowed to unguard their private parts to each other.
I personally didn't want MMA to mean this here because of the implications and my brainwashing by society and my preconceived notions of "morality", but I was not left with any other logical choice of meaning, so I had to accept this understanding that allah does allow this.
This doesn't mean that you blindly accept and trust my understanding. You should do your own home work and feel free to discard this understanding if you think it is faulty.
Now coming to how you were deceived by the mistranslation of 2433.
I think that the only true/honest/sincere commitment is a heart-commitment. That being said, I still believe that a "marriage contract" is important/useful. Because in verse 2433, the Quran suggests that one should document ones commitment with an engaged partner. And I believe that there is a purpose/wisdom behind this Quranic guideline. Without a heart-commitment to someone, a marriage contract does not seem to have any value at all. But it seems that if a man and a woman have a heart-commitment to eachother, then a marriage contract can solidify their commitment and make it stronger.
In verse 2433, the Quran suggests that a couple should document their marriage (i.e. have a marriage contract).
English transcription
Quran 2433 WalyastaAAfifi allatheena layajidoona nikahan hatta yughniyahumu Allahumin fadlihi waallatheena yabtaghoona alkitabamimma malakat aymanukum fakatiboohum inAAalimtum feehim khayran waatoohum min mali Allahiallathee atakum wala tukrihoo fatayatikumAAala albigha-i in aradna tahassunanlitabtaghoo AAarada alhayati alddunyawaman yukrihhunna fa-inna Allaha min baAAdi ikrahihinnaghafoorun raheemunQuran 2433 And let those who are not able to marry continue to be chaste until God enriches them of His Bounty. And if those who are maintained by your oaths seek to consummate the marriage, then document it with them if you find that they are ready, and give them from the wealth of God which He has bestowed upon you. And do not force your young women to need if they have desired to be independent, in order that you may make a gain in the goods of this worldly life. And if anyone has compelled them, then for their compulsion, God is Forgiving, Merciful.
According to verse 2433 above, those maintained by your oaths (i.e. Ma Malakat aymanukum) should document their marriage if they want to consummate/fulfill their marriage.
See how the translator deceived you by translating "yabtaghoona alkitaba" as "seek to consummate the marriage"? Do you see any word in the original Arabic that means "consummate marriage"?
"Yabtaghoona" comes from the root Ba-Ghayn-Ya meaning "seeking"
"Al-kitab" means "the book/writing"."Yabtaghoona alkitaba" means "seeking the writing".
Another word not properly translated is "yasta3fifi".
This word comes from the root Ayn-Fa-Fa meaning "be abstinent", "restrain". There is no connotation of "sex" in the root meaning. It just means abstinence, and the context will tell what from, so it should be translated as "abstain" and not "chaste".
Now let's retranslate 2433 to see what it implies
2433 And let those who are not able to marry continue to ABSTAIN until allah enriches them of his bounty. And if those who you have made oaths with SEEK THE WRITING, then WRITE IT FOR THEM if you find that they are ready, and give them from the wealth of allah which he has bestowed upon you ..............
It is clear from the context that some people are unable to get married. Why are they unable to get married? Because they don't have the financial capability to fulfill their marital responsibilities, as is obvious from "until allah enriches them of his bounty". So the abstinence is abstinence from marriage, and not abstinence from sex.
Do you have to be financially capable before you can have sex? So how can it be abstinence from sex here? If it is abstinence from sex here then it will sound like this
"And let those who are not able to marry continue to ABSTAIN FROM SEX until allah enriches them of his bounty"
Does that make sense? Do you have to be financially capable before you can have sex?
Ok even if you insist it is abstinence from sex here then it would logically mean that once you are financially capable you can have sex, because the abstinence was from sex and not from marriage. Does that make any sense?
Someone can be poor but can still get married. All the poor couple have to do is go to the church and get married. You don't need to have money to get married. So not being financially capable does not mean one cannot get married at all. That is why it tells them to abstain from marriage until they are financially capable, because marriage is about being able to fulfil your financial marital responsibilities. Marriage is not only for sex but to have a family and kids also, and to be able to support your spouse and kids, which is why they are told to wait and not get married until they are financially capable. So they are being asked not to abstain from sex but to abstain from marriage until they are financially capable.
Where it says "those who are not able to marry", it cannot mean those who are not able to marry at all, but it means those who are not able to marry because they cannot fulfill their marital responsibilities financially, because of the usage of words "until allah enriches them of his bounty". So it is telling them not to get married if they cannot fulfill their marital financial responsibilities.
It is just like if I say
If you are unable to marry because you can't fulfil your marital financial responsibilities, then don't get married until you have the money to support your marital responsibilities.
Ok now coming to second part.
The MMA being talked about here are not "those who you made oath of engagement with" but "those who you made an oath of support with". It is clear by the usage of "give them the wealth of allah bestowed upon you", that the MMA are poor and needy and you made oath of support with them that you will financially support them.
It is clear that the verse is telling us that such MMA who you made an oath of support with and therefore they are under your care i.e. your dependent, if they ask your permission in writing to not be your MMA/dependent anymore (for example by getting married to someone else), then give them that permission in writing, and also give them from the wealth bestowed upon you. In USA, kids under 18, or under 16 in some states, get emancipation from their parents, which is a written legal document, usually to get married to someone of their choice or to live independently. This is something similar to what is being talked about in 2433.
So it is not talking about "consummation of marriage" and "documenting a marriage contract", but giving them permission in writing to not be your MMA/dependent anymore.
Hope that clarifies some things. Once again this doesn't mean that you blindly accept and trust my understanding because it might be wrong. You should do your own home work and feel free to discard this understanding if you think it is faulty.
Peace and best regards.
-
Peace Taro & All,
I'll repeat what I said previously. I do not agree with people referring to their other half as "boyfriend" or "girlfriend". Ever since I was young I really didn't like that connotation. If i ever was to have a man, which I have done, they will be my partner. In my head I might refer to them as my husband. Only reason I wouldn't say husband to everyone else is because others might not understand how I think. My parents for one would probably lose the plot if they knew I for example fell in love with someone after a month and he was my "husband" - hence why I say partner.
But anyway, aside from that, I'm seeing a lot of "illicit sex" and "secret lover" references getting thrown about. I'm sorry but, if 2 people are in love and happy being together, who in the right mind would want to keep them a secret? As much as i don't like "bf" and "gf" references, bear in mind these are ONLY LABELS! These labels or words have no weight on them unless we evaluate the actions of someone. Do you call someone "muslim" if they kill people and bomb places and kill christians? Does that name "muslim" actually have any weight on them? No... it doesn't.
I severely have an issue with what defines marriage. What difference does it make if i referred to my lover as a partner or a husband? What about people who are pissed out of their heads, barely know each other, go to Las Vegas, get "married" in the presence of a priest after 5 minutes, and have sex. Is that marriage? Sorry, to me that is NOT marriage. And what exactly is a "marriage contract" anyway? "Document it". How so? How should it be documented? What constitutes documentation? A text between one another? A declaration of your love to the whole of the social network via Facebook? I know one day i'll probably HAVE to sign the register in the UK to declare myself as "married", but I really don't put alot of weight into that "requirement" to be "married". One and only "one" benefit I can see is when it comes to financial dealings - sharing property or assets that are owned by the couple. If "shit hits the fan" (lets be blunt), and the guy wanted to be a right arsehole, he could say right, thanks for the awesome relationship but i don't want to be with you anymore. Yes, it's heartbreak, yes it's painful. BUT, if you were a "married" couple (using my personal definition of marriage) and you DIDN'T own a house or have any shared ownership of anything financially, how is that different to the normal male/female couples you see out there?
People don't get into a relationship to have sex. People get into a relationship because they love each other. They feel they can be with this person for as long as possible. They might have their own idea of marriage in the sense that a marriage is between the man, the woman and God. A marriage is NOT kept secret. You declare each others love and a set of parents know about it. The person(s)'s friends know about it. They know you are taken and he is taken. The relationship status is "documented" in digital formats, not necessarily going to a registry office and signing your name on some piece of paper just because the "law" would deem you married. What about people who used to write on a piece of paper back in the 18ths that said "i am forever yours and you are forever mine. My life partner". What is a life partner? Is a life partner not a wife/husband? Which is more a marriage? An arranged marriage between 2 people who don't know eachother and do not LOVE eachother, yet they are just present in front of some imam and said "yeah we are married" with their parents around. OR, is a marriage when 2 people LOVE eachother, there are many witnesses/people/parents who know/acknowledge that these 2 people are TOGETHER for as long as they hopefully can be, and that it can be found "documented" in multiple places.
I think care needs to be taken into "how" a "marriage" can be documented, because I see multiple ways. Strip out the pagan crap, strip out giving a ring, having a white dress, saying vows and singing with the choir. Take that all out and what are you left with. There should NEVER be any secrecy in love UNLESS you fear for your life/well-being (parents might hate you/want to kill you/tear you apart), but even then, there will be other people in the world who will know your relationship status. If someone asks me why I didn't go to the registry office each time (i've had 3 partners in my 23 years of my life) I committed myself to a man, it would SIMPLY be because of how my parents and perhaps other people in society (who believe in just normal boyfriend/girlfriend crap) would perceive it. Also, perhaps the man might also not think that signing the registry is a declaration of marriage and maybe they had the same mentality as me. Maybe the important thing to both the man and female was that others knew what they were... and most importantly, God knew what they were and what was in their hearts.
As Huruf mentioned earlier and as I have mentioned above, the "marriage contract" in the sense of, for example, the UK where you sign a book, would be beneficial, is that the man can't screw you over with financial assets you share.
Let's not be a little close minded and not see how these things can be interpreted differently. A relationship or a marriage is not about sex or intimacy. It can be a part of it. It's not necessary either! But it is a small part of it, but not at all the most important.
Sorry if i side-tracked...
Peace,
SushiI agree with what you said above, i think like you since i was a kid, i was always wondering how an imam or a priest can grant a permission from God to bestow a married label to the couple or a dowry(money is used in my country) to determine that the couple is married or not(Pretty shirk come to think of it), Glad i'm not the only one, thought i was bat-sh*t crazy when i started to think like this. Never really see difference either.
Both marriage by dowry or a marriage committed by oath(couple/ love partner relationships) is pretty much the same, both has it's ups and down and in both marriage one of the couple can betray one another, and both probably won't last long either if God willing.
-
Peace truthseeker11,
By saying that I have been deceived, you are partly focusing on me. But you should not be focusing on me at all. You should ONLY address the content of my arguments. I don't like being called deceived. To me, such behaviour is unacceptable. Never mistake my kindness for weakness.
Please ponder on this You would not like others to call you deceived. Thus, you should not call others deceived. I advice you to treat others how you would want them to treat you. There is a quote which goes like this
"Do not do to others what you would not like yourself."
Please ponder on this If you disrespect someone, you can not expect him/her to respect you. Because respect is a two-way street. Let me repeat this one more time "Respect is a two-way street."
Also, see this article
http//www.free-minds.org/islamic-etiquette
If you respect me, then I will respect you. That's my rule. And for me, that rule is set in stone.
I like your posts in this forum. I also like your rational and evidence-based approach to islam. Also, I have learned important things about the teachings of the Quran from you. I appreciate your efforts for the true islam. Try to understand, that I see you as a brother. But I can only discuss/debate with you if you adress the content of my arguments. I can not discuss with someone if he/she focus on a person (i.e. Ad hominem) instead of adressing the arguments of that person. That's my policy.
I expect you to only adress the content of my arguments from now on.
I might answer your post in due time.
-
Peace Taro Hiroshi,
I never disrespected you. I never said you made a wrong translation. I was very careful to say what I said. I never said that you have deceived.
You quoted a translation by someone else. I was calling that translator a deceiver and not that you are deceiving, and I was trying to give you sincere advice to be careful.
If someone is robbed and I say he has been robbed, am I disrespecting him? Then if I give him sincere advice how to take necessary precautions next time, is that disrespecting him?
You are the one ad homining me by falsely accusing me of disrespecting you. If you ad hominem me again like this, I am sorry I won't be able to participate in a discussion with you. I have always respected you.
I am not going to make any more posts in this thread. You have really disrespected me by falsely accusing me of having disrespected you, and I am very upset about that.
I was up until 2 am last night spending hours writing that post, just for you, and this is how I am treated for making a sincere effort. I had to get up early today and didn't get enough sleep. I didn't have to go out of my way like that.
Actually I am done with this forum for now and I am going to take a break for a while.
Keep up the good work and may ALLAH bless you for your efforts.
Peace and best regards.
-
I am not going to make any more posts in this thread. You have really disrespected me by falsely accusing me of having disrespected you, and I am very upset about that.
I was up until 2 am last night spending hours writing that post, just for you, and this is how I am treated for making a sincere effort. I had to get up early today and didn't get enough sleep. I didn't have to go out of my way like that.
Actually I am done with this forum for now and I am going to take a break for a while.
No, please don't leave, truthseeker11! (
Perhaps there's misunderstanding between you and Hiroshi, I hope we can fix this.
I think you both should be good friends - I truly hope so. Please don't lose a good relationship just because of this issue.
Peace.
-
Peace truthseeker11,
You told me that I have been deceived 4 times (in your post). And that is why I reacted the way I reacted. Perhaps your intention was good. If that is the case, then I misunderstood your intention. I guess I overreacted. I just wanted to tell you that I don't like being called deceived. That's all. But perhaps I should have told you through a PM instead. I am an imperfect human being. And I often make mistakes. I did not mean to make you upset my friend. No hard feelings.
I never directly said that you disrespected me. Nowhere in my post did I say the following "You have disrespected me." Therefore I don't think that I have disrespected you. I appreciated your post and appreciated the advice you gave me about taking necessary precautions the next time. I thought your post was a good post. And I will answer your post in due time (in the future). You have written a lot of good posts in this forum. Believe me. And apart from telling me that I have been "deceived" (in your post), I liked your post. As mentioned earlier, I don't think that I have disrespected you. Actually, I respect you a lot man. Someone who does not respect you, would probably resort to name calling and insults. Right? But I did not do that. And I never do that. Because I don't like to hurt anyone or say/do something that is not right. I believe in being kind. And the Quran has taught me to be kind and say kind things to the people.
Quran 4114 There is no good in most of what they privately confer, except whoever orders a charity or kindness or reconciliation between the people. And whoever does this seeking the grace of God, We will give him a great recompense.
Quran 283 And We took the covenant of the Children of Israel "You shall not serve except God, and do good to your parents, and regard the relatives, and the orphans, and the needy, and say kind things to the people, and hold the contact prayer, and contribute towards purification." But then you turned away, except for a few of you; you were objecting.
I think that taking a break from a forum from time to time, is a good idea. Because I think that it can enable a person to learn more, grow more and give more. Also, I think that that it can enable a person to focus more on his/her work and career.
I wish you the best in your journey. And I hope that we can still be brothers )
I look forward to read your posts in this forum in the future.
Take care trutseeker11.
May the God bless you.
Much respect,
Taro.
-
I think that taking a break from a forum from time to time, is a good idea. Because it can enable a person to learn more, grow more and give more. Also, I think it can enable a person to focus more on his/her work and career.
Hmm yea... that might be right... http//emoticoner.com/files/emoticons/onion-head/sigh-onion-head-emoticon.gif?1292862519
-
Truthseeker just take a few days out or something. Sometimes I leave this place for a month and then come back to it to see if people have responded or anything interesting has come up in conversation or if I need to start battling people P with kindness of course. But like Taro, I've had my mind opened quite alot in regards to certain aspects of the Quran by yourself, wakas, and especially by Ayman (who I seriously miss on this forum....).
Anyway, I hope you don't leave for too long mate... But your post was awesome and I totally agree/respect it and I'm sure you meant no harm if you did tell Taro he is a deceiver which he is not (he might just need to not get so excited sometimes P).
Peace peace
-
Peace Taro Hiroshi,
I never disrespected you. I never said you made a wrong translation. I was very careful to say what I said. I never said that you have deceived.
You quoted a translation by someone else. I was calling that translator a deceiver and not that you are deceiving, and I was trying to give you sincere advice to be careful.
If someone is robbed and I say he has been robbed, am I disrespecting him? Then if I give him sincere advice how to take necessary precautions next time, is that disrespecting him?
You are the one ad homining me by falsely accusing me of disrespecting you. If you ad hominem me again like this, I am sorry I won't be able to participate in a discussion with you. I have always respected you.
I am not going to make any more posts in this thread. You have really disrespected me by falsely accusing me of having disrespected you, and I am very upset about that.
I was up until 2 am last night spending hours writing that post, just for you, and this is how I am treated for making a sincere effort. I had to get up early today and didn't get enough sleep. I didn't have to go out of my way like that.
Actually I am done with this forum for now and I am going to take a break for a while.
Keep up the good work and may ALLAH bless you for your efforts.
Peace and best regards.
No need to get upset over a fight on the internet, because....well...it's the internet...pretty pointless fighting over an opinion if you guys can't meet face to face...calm down, maybe a break will do it for ya
-
peace t11,
The main issue with the other thread you referred to was the lack of research/thought put into the alternative position. For example throughout the thread issues were raised that were seemingly not thought of by the author, which was one of the reasons for the lengthy discussion that followed. It was quite a lazy approach in my view.
For those who wish to read it, from here is a reasonable start
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599777.msg304165#msg304165 -
So sexual activity in a Boyfriend-girlfriend relationship is okay???
your funny guy, you start with specific context, then apply a response to that specific context on a situation that has nothing to do with that context
show me how a boy friend and a girl friend in a city are like a man and a woman stuck on an island
-
I was wondering if 1 female and 1 male got stuck on an island together with no hope of getting back to the city and they want to re-populate the island does it count that both of them are committing zina?They're both not legally married. Does loving each other counts as religiously married according to the quran?
It's not a joke it's a serious question
besides if you were stuck on an island wouldnt u have something else to worry about than have sex with the female next to you, like gathering food and building a shelter
just wondering your context is not clearly defined
Well i don't really see the difference between marriage and Regular relationship both financially provide for each other, usually couples meet each other's parents, and both swore an oath that they won't hook up with another person
Legal marriages sometimes from what i see are just the exact same thing, sometimes lasts pretty shortly rather than most Girlfriend/boyfriend relationships do
I don't think these types of couples deserves 100 lashes since they love each other and both of them mostly fulfill the quran's circumstances for marriageyou know why marriage exist? so that society knows you and the woman your interested in are getting together
you cant be individualistic with the quran because it's about community building on top of personal betterment
you dont see the difference but you dont understand that we live together in a society because your probably individualistic to the core
-
They could do nikah...except what about witnesses? Isn't nikah invalid without witnesses?
I don't know what the Quran says about this. | -
besides if you were stuck on an island wouldnt u have something else to worry about than have sex with the female next to you, like gathering food and building a shelter
just wondering your context is not clearly defined
you know why marriage exist? so that society knows you and the woman your interested in are getting together
you cant be individualistic with the quran because it's about community building on top of personal betterment
you dont see the difference but you dont understand that we live together in a society because your probably individualistic to the core
So you're calling me individualistic to the core because i have a different point of view on what a marriage is than you or society...very tolerant of you
The couple on the island are similar to gf/bf relationship so yeah it's still in context
Btw If your eye is still functioning well i wrote that the couple on the island wants to re-populateI was wondering if 1 female and 1 male got stuck on an island together with no hope of getting back to the city and they want to re-populate the island does it count that both of them are committing zina?They're both not legally married. Does loving each other counts as religiously married according to the quran?
It's not a joke it's a serious question
Btw if you can scroll to the top of the website's page you'll notice that there's a tiny banner named "Free-Minds", and that is the website's name, and the word "Free" means that i can share or ask a question or have discussion on any topic i want, i'm an open-minded person and free to take any opinion or any person's thought(even you) no need to judge me as "individualistic to the core" just because i have a different interpretation of the quran than you.
A GF/BF or fiance are just labels in my point of view, and tell me what's the difference between a couple relationship and today's marriage? what does it require to be labelled as married, huh? papers? and imam or priest that requests a permission from God that these couple are married? tell me on what is your definition of marriage?
Here's a link of my answer to you
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9607700.msg376837#msg376837
Please do check it out, i'm very interested to have a friendly discussion with you, if you can -
They could do nikah...except what about witnesses? Isn't nikah invalid without witnesses?
I don't know what the Quran says about this. |Could you provide quranic evidence along with your post?
