Those their right hands possess verses
-
my translation used "who are" instead of "or" for
peace novice,
its an interesting observation although what WORD arabic used for english word "OR"
or you are saying this "Coordinating Conjunction" used for both "or" and "who is" ..?
-
peace novice,
its an interesting observation although what WORD arabic used for english word "OR"
or you are saying this "Coordinating Conjunction" used for both "or" and "who is" ..?
Salaam Imran and The sadar
Yes brother it means both depending on the context. Dr. Shabbir has explained it in QXP at 243 and to me it makes sense.
-
I do not think I agree with that, because then that could apply to any vice, like a slanderer, or a gambler or a lier and then there would not be any point in singling out the zaniyin as a specimen of mushrik and I think that forbidding marriage to a zany in the context of the ayas in sura an-noor has its proper meaning, in fact defeating a man can be a philanderer all is life and then when it comes to marriage wants a pure woman even virgin, but a woman who is not a virgin or known as absolutely irreproachable cannot get a marriage.
The aya means a philanderer or brothel visitor, should marry a woman like himself, and not seek a "good", sexually spotless woman. It is telling men that and telling women that marrying an unchaste man, no matter how much it may be socially approved, God does not approve. Many women ignore that provision.
That said, of course, anybody can sincerely repent and mend his or her ways.
Salaam
We can apply it to only that which is in the Quran.
If Aw is "or" then looks like it contradict 2221.
Can a believer marry a mushrik?
Salaam
-
I can't see how it ontradicts it. It is two different things. If it were something like "who is" I would expect it to be much more common than just that mention which it does not convince me that for just that case or those two you mention has that meaning. And it only does the Qur'an say that if you yourself do give that mening to "or" only in precisely those passages.
On the other hand you would be saying that marrying zani provided he or she is not a mushrik would be all right which would defeat the aleya itself because anyway you cannot marry a mushrik, therefore you can marry a zani. It turns the aleya into nonsense. You cannot marry mushriks if you are not one, and you cannot marry zanis if you are not one. But if you are a zani you can marry mushriks or zanis, included zanis who also are mushriks, but still you cannot marry a zani if you yourself are neither zani nor mushrik.
If you say it is equating zina and shirk, yes it seems so but they are two different concepts. It may be that if you marry a zani and you yourself are not one, you are turning yourself into a mushrik since you value s worldly idea of marriage over what God makes it to be.
Salaam
-
But if you are a zani you can marry mushriks or zanis, included zanis who also are mushriks, but still you cannot marry a zani if you yourself are neither zani nor mushrik.
So as you said above "a zani can marry a mushrik". But it contradicts 2221 which commands not to marry a mushrik.
Or are you saying that a zani is a mushrik so he can marry a mushrik. If so then that is what I said already.
If you say it is equating zina and shirk, yes it seems so but they are two different concepts. It may be that if you marry a zani and you yourself are not one, you are turning yourself into a mushrik since you value s worldly idea of marriage over what God makes it to be.
Same what I already said that zani=mushrik
Sister please re-read your reply and see the confusion.
-
No, it is clear tht the Qur'an is pointing to something, making us think. It is not "who is", it may be saying that if you commit zina, you are doing what you do not think you are doing but in fact you are doing, which is commit shirk, but it is not expressing it as you say. "Aw", outside those cases where you make it so, does not mean "who is", you may say that it amounts to that in that aya, but it is not saying that and I do not see how I can make it into that, even if it amounts to that in that case.
And no, I do not see any contradiction at all, merely it is making something clear and making it clear in such a way that nobody can use social mores and as an escape from God's laws.
Salaam
-
No, it is clear tht the Qur'an is pointing to something, making us think. It is not "who is", it may be saying that if you commit zina, you are doing what you do not think you are doing but in fact you are doing, which is commit shirk, but it is not expressing it as you say. "Aw", outside those cases where you make it so, does not mean "who is", you may say that it amounts to that in that aya, but it is not saying that and I do not see how I can make it into that, even if it amounts to that in that case.
And no, I do not see any contradiction at all, merely it is making something clear and making it clear in such a way that nobody can use social mores and as an escape from God's laws.
Salaam
So a zani can marry a mushrik?
-
243 The adulterer will only marry an adulteress or she who is a polytheist. And the adulteress, she will only be married to an adulterer or he who is a polytheist. And such has been made forbidden for the believers.
This verse begs a lot of questions;
How does one earn the label of adulterer ? By engaging in adultery now ? In the past ?
And if such thing is forbidden for the believers, then what's an adulterer, a non-believer ?
-
So a zani can marry a mushrik?
You may say so, I do not say so nor the Qur'an says so. Nothing is contradictory, simply makes something clear, not against something else but just by itself.
The most you can say is that by the fact of becoming a zani somebody also becomes a mushrik or something that amounts to it. Obviously, yes a zani can marry a mushrik in fact it is the only thing besides another zani that he or she can marry.
What a zani cannot do is marry a chaste person. You may say, a mushrik can be chaste...
Yes you may say that. The, what is really a mushrik? A person who says I am a mushrik? And what is a non mushrik? A person who says I am not a mushrik?
God speaks truth and very cleverly, how faithful is a person by the mere fact of declaring himself mushrik or non mushrik. It is what is in his behaivour and his heart which God knows and people may not know. Because God is not saying marry a person who declares himself mushrik, does not say that... and declaring oneself something, or being called something by somebody else is not the same thing as being something in his inner conviction and self submission and in the knowledge of God.¿Can there be anybody who automatically by becoming voluntarily a zani, does not automatically commit shirk?
God gives us to think and to scrutinize our own motives. God is not saying in that aya to proclaim anything officially and prohibit people anything to be applied over the spectre and to everybody, He is setting a principle for is each of us, who must speak with our conscience and see that we honestly realise what every one of our acts or ommissions entails. It is not a matter of searching people's lives to find who they can marry and cannot marry according to official law, but whether one oneself is legitimized to marry a person without respect for any commitment to God or to other persons because one physically likes that person very much, because one has fallen in love with her or because one thinks that it is a good match conveniencewise. The latter instance has ruled marriage behaviour in the better off classes of the western world, and I suspect in others also, for a long time, those times where the double-morals were the usual behaviour and also made into written law.
The aya is not for any ulema to make a ruling but for each of us to examine ourselves and our motives. That is the most fruitful application of the Qur'an, in my view. The ulema and fuqaha may play their part well or wrong but the ultimate conscience is not them but the conscience of each person. On the reverse if most people have honest conscience, laws may turn out also to be more honest. If people are corrupt, forget it, anything will go. But of course we all know this.
Salaam
-
243 The adulterer will only marry an adulteress or she who is a polytheist. And the adulteress, she will only be married to an adulterer or he who is a polytheist. And such has been made forbidden for the believers.
This verse begs a lot of questions;
How does one earn the label of adulterer ? By engaging in adultery now ? In the past ?
And if such thing is forbidden for the believers, then what's an adulterer, a non-believer ?
After the adulterer admits his sin and is punished, may he be considered to be a believer again because of his honesty under the quranic jurisdiction? Because logically speaking Qur'an prohibits adultery, when you go against it you have violated the decree which only a disbeliever could do. Or the temptation was so strong that a pious would instantly demand a punishment under the quranic jurisdiction. And to be fair, there are pious types of human beings which know that atonement is relieving, otherwise you live with that burden the whole life.
-
Greetings and Peace, all group
Is it not possible that "right hands possess" is a metaphor for those engaged to be married?
May the Almighty see fit to Guide all seekers.
peace
~Abdul-Hadi
-
No, I do not see it as explanatory, even though both things can happen at the same time and circumstance, but they are two different things, even if they may be together more often than not. It is like saying that somebody likes the company of a person who is gentle or pleasant. The person may be those things at the same time but it is two different things, that is the point. Two different concepts, even if they may go together in many most or even all circumstances, still it is two different concepts, separable concepts.
Salaam
Salaam
-
No, I do not see it as explanatory, even though both things can happen at the same time and circumstance, but they are two different things, even if they may be together more often than not. It is like saying that somebody likes the company of a person who is gentle or pleasant. The person may be those things at the same time but it is two different things, that is the point. Two different concepts, even if they may go together in many most or even all circumstances, still it is two different concepts, separable concepts.
Salaam
Salaam
2562
Is there a choice between "yazzakara" and "shukura" in this ayat?
Salaam
-
2562 وَهُوَ ٱلَّذِى جَعَلَ ٱلَّيۡلَ وَٱلنَّهَارَ خِلۡفَةً۬ لِّمَنۡ أَرَادَ أَن يَذَّڪَّرَ أَوۡ أَرَادَ شُڪُورً۬ا
Is there a choice between "yazzakara" and "shukura" in this ayat?
Salaam
It is not a matter of choice or not choice, two different things, are two different things, whether you choose or not choose or whether it is possible for any parituclar individual to choose or it is not possible to choose or it occurs to him or her even that you have or can choose.
Salaam