The pilgrimage, when should it be
-
Peace Oben,
Thank you for your excellent clarification of 583-4. I had one comment.
- Freeing a slave - not an issue in the modern world.
The word "raqabat" means any kind of prisoner, not just a slave. A slave is only one kind of prisoner. But you also have prisoners of war (474), etc.
There are many prisoners in this world. For example, someone who stole something and got caught and went to prison. To satisfy 583-4, one could pay-off his debt to society by paying compensation to the vactim and fines, etc. Thus, the prisoner can be freed.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Okay, you made me think some.
The conclusion that we can make from the evidence that you provide is that a fast doesn't have to be just a fast from food. I see yor point that fasts are contextual and in this case it can be abstinence from your wife, contextually. But in the case of manslaughter 492, what should this person fast with. There is no context here that can dictate how he is supposed to fast if we don't believe that the Quran defined the type of fasting in it's context when it talks about fasting and Ramadan.
492 AND IT IS not conceivable that a believer should slay another believer, unless it be by mistake. And upon him who has slain a believer by mistake there is the duty of freeing a believing soul from bondage and paying an indemnity to the victim's relations, unless they forgo it by way of charity. Now if the slain, while himself a believer, belonged to a people who are at war with you, the freeing of a believing soul from bondage; whereas, if he belonged to a people to whom you are bound by a covenant, an indemnity to be paid to his relations in ad?dition to the freeing of a believing soul from bon?dage. And he who does not have the wherewithal shall fast for two consecutive months. (This is) the atonement ordained by God and God is indeed all-knowing, wise.
So does the person here fast from killing people?
Because of this passage I think that the Quran showing us that the fast cannot be implied through context. The passage you showed us indicates that the definition for a fast, in Cl. Arabic, is inclusive of all forms of abstentions. We have from the Quran two preffered methods of fasting, fasting from speaking and fasting from food and water during the daylight hours. God did mention all of his passages to clarify his passages. So I would say that besides the fast of Ramadan a fast can be done two ways, by not speaking or by not eating. However, these fasts are still daily. Mary's fast was for the day and the fasts of Ramadan are also daily. So fasts are counted in daily units.
This clarification of what are Quranically recommended fasts does not take away the ratio that I pointed out before. Because the fast mentioned in Chpt 5 and the fast mentioned in chapter 2 still make equal fasting 1 day (however the fast is) = feeding 1 person.
But thank you for the clarification of fasts, period and in particular the fasts that God recommends for his followers. And Ayman is right that raqat can be any person in bondage.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace Anwar,
I have also thought considerably about 492 and again I think context supplies the answer.
489 They wish that you disbelieve as they have disbelieved, then you become equal. Do not consider them friends, unless they mobilize along with you in the cause of GOD. If they turn against you, you shall fight them, and you may kill them when you encounter them in war. You shall not accept them as friends, or allies.
490 Exempted are those who join people with whom you have signed a peace treaty, and those who come to you wishing not to fight you, nor fight their relatives. Had GOD willed, He could have permitted them to fight against you. Therefore, if they leave you alone, refrain from fighting you, and offer you peace, then GOD gives you no excuse to fight them.
491 You will find others who wish to make peace with you, and also with their people. However, as soon as war erupts, they fight against you. Unless these people leave you alone, offer you peace, and stop fighting you, you may fight them when you encounter them. Against these, we give you a clear authorization.
492 No believer shall kill another believer, unless it is an accident. If one kills a believer by accident, he shall atone by freeing a believing slave, and paying a compensation to the victim's family, unless they forfeit such a compensation as a charity. If the victim belonged to people who are at war with you, though he was a believer, you shall atone by freeing a believing slave. If he belonged to people with whom you have signed a peace treaty, you shall pay the compensation in addition to freeing a believing slave. If you cannot find* a slave to free, you shall atone by fasting two consecutive months, in order to be redeemed by GOD. GOD is Knower, Most Wise.
493 Anyone who kills a believer on purpose, his retribution is Hell, wherein he abides forever, GOD is angry with him, and condemns him, and has prepared for him a terrible retribution.
Notice that I've highlighted the context of these verses - fighting - and the rules of engagement in fighting/war.
493 deals with the instance of killing a believer on purpose in which case there is no prescribed penance for the act; it leaves open a punishment by law or revenge by the family (in other verse), and that the person is left to the God's punishment ultimately.
492 deals with the accidental killing of a believer. In every case it requires the freeing of a prisoner so this is a requirement. In two cases it also requires the payment of compensation to the families. If the person cannot fulfil the requirement to free a prisoner then that person must abstain from something for a period of two months.
Since the context is fighting/war and the killing was importantly accidental the person is required to abstain from the activities of war.
Does that sound absurd? It might until you read the many verses about the spoils of war and their distribution...
4819 Additionally, they gained many spoils. GOD is Almighty, Most Wise.
4820 GOD has promised you many spoils that you will gain. He thus advanced some benefits for you in this life, and He has withheld the people's hands of aggression against you, and has rendered this a sign for the believers. He thus guides you in a straight path.
The abstinence from fighting would have been a significant curtailment of potential wealth.
Perhaps the context surrounding 492 can help with this again?
494 O you who believe, if you strike in the cause of GOD, you shall be absolutely sure. Do not say to one who offers you peace, "You are not a believer," seeking the spoils of this world. For GOD possesses infinite spoils. Remember that you used to be like them, and GOD blessed you. Therefore, you shall be absolutely sure (before you strike). GOD is fully Cognizant of everything you do.
So the time is one of prosperity arising from the raids against unbelievers. That is the context which is plain from the surrounding verses.
So again I believe this abstinence is very much contextual.
Note that the abstinence of 584 is again unlike 'ramadan' in that couples are permitted to have intercourse during the nights of that period. 584 requires complete abstinence from sexual relations with the wife to be reconciled for the entire 2 months.
492 again requires a complete abstinence from fighting for the errant individual who has killed out of carelessness or negligence for 2 months.
Regards.
-
Note that the abstinence of 584 is again unlike 'ramadan' in that couples are permitted to have intercourse during the nights of that period. 584 requires complete abstinence from sexual relations with the wife to be reconciled for the entire 2 months.
492 again requires a complete abstinence from fighting for the errant individual who has killed out of carelessness or negligence for 2 months.
Note that because there is no break at night from the abstinence from intercourse for 2 months; it is a CONTINUOUS process of abstinence in this case. It is not a daily fast as you imply, at all.
I hope this shows that the "exchange rate" arithmetic that you are attempting to derive for abstinence and the length of a month is untenable given the facts I have presented.
Regards.
-
Truth,
Have you now seen how far you have gone just to keep to the same point? You have pretty much implied that war is for spoils, and have denied the suffering, the hardness, the injuries, the hunger, the tiredness and all of those things that go along with war. Spoils are not guaranteed in war. Furthermore, war is something that we do to defend the helpless or to defend ourselves. Spoils are a benefit that we are not even guaranteed to get for risking our lives to defend our godly brothers and sisters from being abused, harmed and killed by people who mean to do away with our community or other innocent communities. Spoils is the least of what is being considered when it comes to reasons to go to war, these are blessings from God for fighting only for the reasons he wants us to fight for, if we even encounter spoils. A person may be killed or seriously injured before he even sees a glance of some spoils, he may not see anything but his life washing away before his eyes. So fasting from fighting is in my opinion ridiculous, truth; with all due respect. God will reward those who fight for Him in the after-life. And even now those who have pass on in this way are full of life for their valiant actions. Going to war for spoils is not promoted in the Quran.
So the time is one of prosperity arising from the raids against unbelievers.
Raiding unbelievers? You might as well just say 'infidels' and portray the Quran in the same light that those who would distort it amongst rightwing Christians and Muslims as a book that promotes the annihilation of people who don't believe in the Quran and the prophethood of Muhammad. That is not the message of the Quran. And I am offended and shocked that you are implying this.
The abstinence from fighting would have been a significant curtailment of potential wealth.
So here you are making the Quran only apply to war environments in 6th century Arabia. And viewing the Quran as encouraging the followers of Muhammad to start wars to increase their wealth. Or atleast that's what I'm getting from this.
And your final conclusion is this
492 again requires a complete abstinence from fighting for the errant individual who has killed out of carelessness or negligence for 2 months.
You say
Does that sound absurd?
To be honest . . .Yes.
Passage 88 to 92 of Chapter 4 are about hypocrites, who seek to dismantle the godly community but then act like they are apart of it. If they turn (violently) on the Quranist community (including Muhammad's community back then God bless him) then they are to be nuetralized appropriately. But if they are not violent, or if they join a community that has a truce with us, or if they simply renounce from the community peacefully then no Quranist is to show agression to such a person. And as for those who are playing the double agent, trying to play us and others who would wish to see us dismanteled as a community, falling into every tempation that comes their way and being totally without morals, they are to renounce the community peacefully and not try to harm us. If they do try to harm us then they are to be nuetralized appropriately. Also you are looking at fighting from a modern stance as in states of declared war, etc. etc.
In Cl. Arabic war and fighting can be organized or individual aggression. And secondly in the Arabic of the text the word for war is not mentioned in 489. It's just not there, niether harb or qitaal. Nothing that can be translated as what you have as "when you encounter them in war." is in this passage. What is being discussed here is an internal issue of the godly community, and can also be applied on a greater scale to traitors in times where we might have to openly defend ourselves against other communities and there are traitors that would pretend to be apart of our communities only to dismantle them. So there is no war mentioned here. Futhermore the fighting that is mentioned all throughout the Quran is according to God's rules (not ours), His way; and that is in defense of the wronged or our own defense. So I don't see how abstaining from fighting would be compensation when there is the possiblity of more godly lives being lost, when one's action is needed. Even if these passages had been talking about war, and they didn't even mention war, let me state the truth that the situations put forth in these passages could still apply to times of agression between whole communities.
Nonetheless, as I mentioned before, the issue in these passages is an issue of internal security and an intergrity issue on the part of the godly community when faced with malevolent hypocrites or malevolent infiltrators who would seek to dismantle the community. Just as this was an internal issue so is the second one that we see in 492. So when someone faithful to this community kills another by accident (manslaughter) then the compensation is as the Quran puts it If one kills a believer by accident, he shall atone by freeing a believing slave, and paying a compensation to the victim's family, unless they forfeit such a compensation as a charity. If the victim belonged to people who are at war with you, though he was a believer, you shall atone by freeing a believing slave. If he belonged to people with whom you have signed a peace treaty, you shall pay the compensation in addition to freeing a believing slave. If you cannot find* a slave to free, you shall atone by fasting two consecutive months, in order to be redeemed by GOD. GOD is Knower, Most Wise.
The context of these passages is not about war. However even if it were fasting/abstaining from fighting to defend the community of the godly from being, killed, destroyed, starved to death, and attacked, and even defending oneself . . .does fasting from fighting make any sense at all?
So the fasting is not implied by the context, and is dictated by the approved methods of fasting mentioned in the book.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Truth,
Abstentions in their essence are daily things, we see that from the passage about Ramadan and even in the passage that mentions Mary's fast where she did not speak. In the Jewish and pre-Islamic calendar, days are counted from sundown to sundown so Mary only fasted until night time. In the abstention mentioned about Ramadan, we fast for a month but each day is a new fast. It shows in those passages how if we missed days for travel or being sick we can make up those days which is even if it is the whole month.That lets us know that a fast is done at its shortest unit daily. At the break of the new day you start a new fast. So fasts are counted in daily units. A month of fasting is fasting 30 times during the month, the compensation for a month of fasting is feeding 30 individuals, so a month is 30 days. You haven't disproved what I'm saying yet. By the way I like the "exchange rate" arithmetic comment. Honestly.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Anwar,
I have not implied that war is for spoils. Spoils are a by-product of fighting and war and not the purpose. But you can't blindly deny the reality of spoils. The reading mentions spoils many times, including the distribution of such, and the fact that there were many successful campaigns against unbelievers. Even history records the stretch of victories of the Arabs as one of the longest and most successful in history.
When you attempt to put a downside on war - as far as suffering and being killed goes - do you truly understand what you are saying?
You are trying to say that being killed or suffering in a campaign for a true believer was a bad thing?
Surely you are overlooking the fact that every one of these men would have been glad to die in battle as a 'martyr'; and that any suffering they had was only of this world. You can see what the reading mentions about those who avoid fighting in 4811-16 where those who give excuses to stay at home are condemned. Look especially at 4815 which mentions the spoils of war again.
I think you have a very distorted view of what the reality was at the time and in the context of the revelations.
War and dying in war in the cause of the God, are a guaranteed path to forgiveness...
3156 O you who believe, do not be like those who disbelieved and said of their kinsmen who traveled or mobilized for war, "Had they stayed with us, they would not have died or gotten killed." GOD renders this a source of grief in their hearts. GOD controls life and death. GOD is Seer of everything you do.
3157 Whether you get killed or die in the cause of GOD, the forgiveness from GOD, and mercy are far better than anything they hoard.
You're speaking the part of the people who lagged behind or stayed home, and putting 'suffering' and the 'risk of dying' uppermost.
I believe that you are exposed by this understanding.
The context of these passages is not about war. However even if it were fasting/abstaining from fighting to defend the community of the godly from being, killed, destroyed, starved to death, and attacked, and even defending oneself . . .does fasting from fighting make any sense at all?
It's a bald fact that the verses pertain to fighting and war. If it was not in the context of war and fighting then 489 would require you to kill all disbelievers at all times. The only way you can avoid such absurdities is by understanding that verses are contextual and must be understood as such.
ABSTAINING from fighting does make sense, even if you try to shed a light of ridicule upon it by saying "fasting" from fighting.
Recall that the individual who has killed a believer in war or fighting has done so by ACCIDENT. It has been through carelessness or negligence.
A modern example that may illustrate the point might be from driving an automobile. If you are caught doing the wrong things, are careless etc. then you might have to abstain from driving for a period as both punishment and a chance to reform or correct one's ways.
Regards.
-
Okay,
So that you won't get side-tracked by side arguments
Where did you get war from in those passages? I saw it in the English translation but I can assure that it is not in the Arabic.
Since when do "the stretch of victories of the Arabs as one of the longest and most successful in history." have to do with a a book that is addressed to all mankind and not just the Arabs. And who is to say that those Arabs were followers of the Quran. Many of the Arabs who went ahead and conquered up past the Arabian peninsula were led by pride, spoils and tribal reasons. The Arabs had been trying to push into that Area before Muhammad (Godbless him) through the Ghassanids and the Lakhmids. The Umayyads were the tribe that first pushed through and they were known for their ethno-centrism and for not being very good Muslims at all. They could have been pushing up that way to defend themselves but I doubt that highly. They just had finally gained the power and the unity and were ready to use it.
You are trying to say that being killed or suffering in a campaign for a true believer was a bad thing?
First of all, a campaign for what? Second of all I was just adding the difficulties of war to the subject. Showing that war is sacrifice. War is lack of sleep, war is seeing your buddies die. War is fear that you will lose. War is not comfortable. It is not something, or is it something that you abstain from when you have called to do it. You were just looking at the spoils. And now it seems that you are looking at it like it is a past-time. But again, what kind of campaign would true believers be on? Conquering campaigns? Did God say 'God ye, Muslims and conquer the world!" No.
War and dying in war in the cause of the God, are a guaranteed path to forgiveness...
So then what is the point of fasting from it? Have you ever been seriously injured? Don't you see how the Quran does talk about war. It talks about it with words, like losses and suffering. War is not delightful when your buddies are dying and you think you won't see victory. I understand that fighting in God's cause is a sure way to forgiveness.
But you don't fight to die, you fight to win, in order to do God's will here. If you die trying to do God's will here, that is the sure path to forgiveness. How do you know that all of these successfual campains were in the cause of God. How do you know all of these Arabs were true believers? As I said the Ummayids were famous for their corruption and their lightness with which they took following the Quran. They had finally gotten their chance to be the next Rome, the next Persia, the next Greece. Why else would they go as far as North Africa to conquer? Islam, a religion of their own, was the banner they needed to unite. And that's how it played out for those years where the war campaigns were going on. These weren't true believers fighting in the cause of God. These were nominal believers fighting for the glory of their tribes, for spoils of war, for the right to say that they toppled Rome and Persia.
Furthermore you seem to be viewing it like here are the believers picking fights with unbelievers just to get paradise. Like it is that simple. Fighting in the Quran is only sanction for DEFENSE. God wouldn't tell someone to abstain from defending himself or his brothers or sisters in the faith. What the Arabs did back then is not what the Quran is promoting. The only parts of the histories that would go along with the passage of the Quran about war would have to do with the fact that while in Medina they had to fight the Meccans because the Meccans were attacking trade routes and trying to starve them out. Once the Meccan were defeated, there was no more need for more wars. Remember the Quran only sanctions wars for defense of self, community and other innocent people. If can't speak for the tribe of the Ummayads. They actually came from the Sufyaan clan which according o the Hadeeths were enemies of Muhammad. The Quran talks about disimulators, in those very passages that you quoted and I'm sure that upon defeat alot of these leaders played their part to try to harness what they saw as a unifying force for the Arabs.
After Muhammad's passing, unless the people of Rome and Persia asked the Arabs to defend them or the Romans and Perisans were attacking them then early Muslims had no reason to go into these territories but to preach. I wouldn't be suprised if the Lakhmids and Ghassanids (The Arabs who had been contending with Rome and Persia since before Islam) got together with the Ummayyads to take down both these empires. Zenobia, Harethas and Philip the Arab were Arab figures who became very important in Roman history, all most likely from the Ghassanid tribes.
To get back to the main point your premise for proving that the fasting can be understood through context is based on these passages being about war. But these passages never mention war so your premise is wrong.
Godbless,
Anwar -
To get back to the main point your premise for proving that the fasting can be understood through context is based on these passages being about war. But these passages never mention war so your premise is wrong.
Anwar,
You've digressed much in your postings and have ignored the salient points. When you say above that the context is not fighting or war - I am assuming that you are isolating 492 from the previous verses, such as 489 which mention killing and even out to 4104 the verses are still in context regarding war and fighting. So I believe you are pulling a neo-Christian trick by picking and choosing what you want from the scripture.
Moreover, your only basis for doing this is because without this last shred of hope, your "exchange rate" theory is dead. It already died with the loss of 584 above.
Here is a section of chapter 9 which gives you an idea about the mentality of those who eagerly mobilised for fighting the unbelievers and those who saw things like you do - where war is suffering and death is horrible...
981 The sedentary rejoiced in their staying behind the messenger of GOD, and hated to strive with their money and their lives in the cause of GOD. They said, "Let us not mobilize in this heat!" Say, "The fire of Hell is much hotter," if they could only comprehend.
982 Let them laugh a little, and cry a lot. This is the requital for the sins they have earned.
983 If GOD returns you to a situation where they ask your permission to mobilize with you, you shall say, "You will never again mobilize with me, nor will you ever fight with me against any enemy. For you have chosen to be with the sedentary in the first place. Therefore, you must stay with the sedentary."
984 You shall not observe the funeral prayer for any of them when he dies, nor shall you stand at his grave. They have disbelieved in GOD and His messenger, and died in a state of wickedness.
985 Do not be impressed by their money or their children; GOD causes these to be sources of misery for them in this world, and their souls depart as disbelievers.
986 When a sura is revealed, stating "Believe in GOD, and strive with His messenger," even the strong among them say, "Let us stay behind!"
987 They chose to be with the sedentary. Consequently, their hearts were sealed, and thus, they cannot comprehend.
988 As for the messenger and those who believed with him, they eagerly strive with their money and their lives. These have deserved all the good things; they are the winners.
989 GOD has prepared for them gardens with flowing streams, wherein they abide forever. This is the greatest triumph.You are introducing Ummayads etc. who came years later when these verses are talking about those WITH the messenger. I don't give a toss about the later Arabs and their faith or motives. I'm examining the verses in the context of the messenger and those with him.
It's clear that having the strength of faith to join with the messenger and mobilize for war with him was a source of great honour and pleased the God as these verses state. To be unable to participate would have been a significant issue for those whose hearts were firm.
But if the heart wavers, like your aversion to "death and suffering" then someone might argue as you do.
The matter was lost when I showed you the problem with your incorrect inference in 584. You are fighting a lost cause.
Peace.
-
Truth,
I'm sorry. I've side-tracked you again. I'll just go back to this,
Passage 88 to 92 of Chapter 4 are about hypocrites, who seek to dismantle the godly community but then act like they are apart of it.
These passages are not about war. They are about internal security.
Secondly, I understand form the context that this passage is about using force. So look at 475 And why will you not fight in God's cause when the weak among men, women and children say, "God take us away us from this town. It's people are abusive. Bring us a supporter, a helper.'
Are we supposed to abstain from fighting to protect the weak and even from defending ourselves? If you think the context is telling you that then I don't see why would say that I am fighting a lost cause, when this is not an appropriate or logical thing to believe. I mean, give me a break, do you really think that that is going to fly?
You can say I'm pulling neo-christian tactics and you can say whatever you want, but you are trying to pull other passages into a passage that creates its own context. This this passage like the other is talking about fighting, but not necessarily war as you would like to put it.
I'm not going to go on anymore for fear that you will not understand what I'm saying and get side-tracked again so let me just repeat what I said about and let you marinate on that
Are we supposed to abstain from fighting to protect the weak and even from defending ourselves, if we accidentally kill another believer? If you think the context is telling you that then I don't see why would say that I am fighting a lost cause, when this is not an appropriate or logical thing to believe. I mean, give me a break, do you really think that that is going to fly?
And let me give you a scenario
Your town is being attacked. You defend it. In the process you kill another believer. And then your town gets attacked again. You don't have a slave to free, you don't know anyone in bondage, you can't pay any suitable compensation. Your village gets attacked again. Are you telling me that you aren't supposed to fight? That is the absurdity of what you are saying, and which is why your theory (though good in theory) is not logical or practical.
Godbless,
AnwarI just can't believe your sticking to it. I mean you are really holding on for dear life here. Just let it go bruh.
-
Anwar,
If we are going to get back on track then let's do so properly.
My reference to yours being a lost cause does not hinge around the discussion of what abstinence in 492 means.
Your lost cause is the one that attempted to link 584 to an equivalence principle for fasting and then to the number of days in your month. Your attempt to construct a calendar out of abstinence from sexual intercourse is the lost cause.
Your points regarding defence are well taken, however the rhetorical device of 475 is to encourage and strengthen the hearts of the believers to fight.
I want to just draw your attention to the problem at hand and I want you to describe how you would know whether a killing during fighting was accidental or deliberate? How can you know that a hypocrite amongst the believers wasn't deliberately killing a believer?
Whatever your answer, know that the issue of abstinence in 492 is unimportant in so far as the equivalence principle you are promoting disingenuously to construct a calendar out of abstinence from sexual intercourse. And wasn't that the original argument after all?
Regards again.
-
Peace,
Okay I've done some reviewing especially of 2187. Now I do believe that context is important but where we differ is where a passage depends on context or can stand on its own. Those neo-Christian tactics as well as those traditional Islamic tactics pulling things out of context are much more salient than what you are pointing out in my case. For instance the passage that speaks about marrying more than one woman is a conditional phrase, so that is definitely pulling out of context. And I'm sure we can find plenty of other examples of sentences and passages that obviously depend on each other that are pulled out of context.
Your lost cause is the one that attempted to link 584 to an equivalence principle for fasting and then to the number of days in your month. Your attempt to construct a calendar out of abstinence from sexual intercourse is the lost cause.
But this is where we disagree. You may be convinced that the context stipulates that the 'fasting' mentioned here is sexual abstinence but I disagree. Your conclusion that we can methodically take the fasting from context does not work with the passages that you mentioned. Which is the real issue at hand. You presuppose periods of war for those passages, and that is just not the case.
I want to just draw your attention to the problem at hand and I want you to describe how you would know whether a killing during fighting was accidental or deliberate? How can you know that a hypocrite amongst the believers wasn't deliberately killing a believer?
What does it matter? In an extreme case where we don't know and the murderer says that he is sincere and a faithful member of the godly community and that he did it on accident then we are to treat it as such. God will bring the truth out. If it can't be proven that he is killing believers and he succeeds at his evil plan then hell will be his place in the end, even if he gets away with it in this life. That is God's will. We are to investigate per 483 when there is a security issue or an issue that causes alarm, and God gives us these passages to provide us with ways to deal with things like this.
Whatever your answer, know that the issue of abstinence in 492 is unimportant in so far as the equivalence principle you are promoting disingenuously to construct a calendar out of abstinence from sexual intercourse. And wasn't that the original argument after all?
Again, you were discussing these passages to say that the fasting could be seen from context and this passage actually proved you wrong, not right. As you presupposed periods of war, which the passage did not mention. Not to mention you assumed war was something profitable only and not for the defense of ourselves and the weak. In the Quranic scenario, when fighting is necessary and we need to defend ourselves and others, abstaining from it is not logical and not an option.
As for fasting. We understand that the word means a genearl 'abstention' however I looked at chapt 2187 and its context and you can see the following from it
2185 Fast/abstain during a month of a very hot season (doesn't say how)
2186 God answers to those servants who call on him, so they are to respond to what God asks of them (important message).
2187 When fasting/abstaining, men can have sex with their women (and vice-versa obviously) at night and all can eat and drink until when, at dawn, the light level reaches where you can distinguish a white thread from a black one. And we are to continue abstaining (from food, drink and sex) until night.So you may say that the fasting mentioned here is only specific to this context (and I hadn't rechecked this passage when you first proposed that, I just accepted what you were saying) but that is not true. It is specific to the context of fasting during this month however, this passage is also clearly laying out a Quranic fast/abstention, to be undertaken whenever we fast/abstain. So 2187 is not bound only to this context, although it is connected to this context and explains not only fasting for the hot season but also explains fasting in general.
(I took to your point that fasting from food and sex during the daylight hours was only specific to the context of this hot season because I assumed that it was a traditonal Islamic point of view that we thought all fasting was to be like this. However, when I looked at this context again it became clear that even if this was a traditional Islamic point of view, it is not wrong, as it concerns the Quran.)
So when we see the passage where Mary is told to fast, we see that she also fasted, just in a different way. Obviously she wasn't undergoing a Quranic fast, as God told her to fast by not speaking and God is telling us to fast by not eating or having sex during the daylight hours.
Therefore my 1 fast = 1 day exchange rate arithemtic (as you called it ;D) still counts. That was the original argument and all of the cases that you have presented (and I thank you for presenting them) have not taken away the validity of my claim.
Godbless,
Anwar -
2185 Fast/abstain during a month of a very hot season (doesn't say how)
2186 God answers to those servants who call on him, so they are to respond to what God asks of them (important message).
2187 When fasting/abstaining, men can have sex with their women (and vice-versa obviously) at night and all can eat and drink until when, at dawn, the light level reaches where you can distinguish a white thread from a black one. And we are to continue abstaining (from food, drink and sex) until night.So you may say that the fasting mentioned here is only specific to this context (and I hadn't rechecked this passage when you first proposed that, I just accepted what you were saying) but that is not true. It is specific to the context of fasting during this month however, this passage is also clearly laying out a Quranic fast/abstention, to be undertaken whenever we fast/abstain. So 2187 is not bound only to this context, although it is connected to this context and explains not only fasting for the hot season but also explains fasting in general.
...
So when we see the passage where Mary is told to fast, we see that she also fasted, just in a different way. Obviously she wasn't undergoing a Quranic fast, as God told her to fast by not speaking and God is telling us to fast by not eating or having sex during the daylight hours.
Anwar,
I think you're completely missing the point. The fast described in 2187 has no relationship to the fast in 584. Read...
584 If you cannot find a slave to free, you shall fast two consecutive months before resuming sexual relations. If you cannot fast, then you shall feed sixty poor people. You shall believe in GOD and His messenger. These are GOD's laws. The disbelievers have incurred a painful retribution.
Now look at...
2187 When fasting/abstaining, men can have sex with their women at night ........
It is clear that 584 commands a fast from sexual relations with the wife for the entire 2 month period on a continuous basis. Your argument is absurd because it would mean that the fast defined in 2187 allows a man to have sex with the wife at night; when we know that the abstinence is from resumption of sexual relations.
I hope it's clear to you now.
-
Peace,
Wow. You are like the energizer bunny. But keep hitting at different angles. That's good.
Okay. I'm going to tell you to look at these verses a little closer. If that passage says fast for two months before you touch each other again then obviously the sexual part is not lawful. But we'll see why this is a special case. Everything is not just black and white, but its all there in the black ink.
If you want it in its minute factors here it is, it is in the Arabic word yudhaahiroona, or what is translated as dhihaar. Dhihaar, is declaring that you don't want your wife anymore, which means you separate from her, which is declaring divorce, and you don't want to partake in the rights of a husband with her anymore. Therefore, just like the person who doesn't have a wife, having sex at night doesn't apply, it doesn't apply to someone who has declared dhihaar, which is divorce. So if he wants to resume marital relations with his wife after having declared that he doesn't want anything to do with her, instead of having to wait out the 4 months (If i remember right) to solidify the divorce, he is to fast for 2 consecutive months before getting back with his wife.
Dhihaar comes from a form of divorce that the pre-Islamic Arabs used to do saying you are like my mothers back(side)(dhahr), which means that they didn't want anything to do with them. Dhaahira can also have, in this context without the pre-Islamic statement, a meaning of 'declaring separation out of animosity.' as Dhaahara can have the meaning of 'not wanting to associate with someone out of animosity.' So if these men want their married life (which they denounced) to resume then they should fast for 2 months before doing this. Obviously those who wish to go through with this divorce would follow the procedures of divorce already put forth in the Quran.
Godbless,
AnwarAny more problems?
-
Peace,
You are like the easter bunny, give eggs that are mere shells of sweetness. One crack though and you find that it's all hollow inside. ;D
Peace,
Wow. You are like the energizer bunny. But keep hitting at different angles. That's good.
Okay. I'm going to tell you to look at these verses a little closer. If that passage says fast for two months before you touch each other again then obviously the sexual part is not lawful. But we'll see why this is a special case. Everything is not just black and white, but its all there in the black ink.
Anwar you are just thrashing in quicksand. You admit that the situation in 584 is different or a "special case". Therefore it is not the same as what you are trying to answer.
You've just lost the debate right there with that admission. Apples with apples, oranges with oranges. The situation you are using to invent your exchange rates does not compare to the others. Therefore it is falsehood. How much more simple does it need to be?
You ADMIT it is different.
If you want it in its minute factors here it is, it is in the Arabic word yudhaahiroona, or what is translated as dhihaar. Dhihaar, is declaring that you don't want your wife anymore, which means you separate from her, which is declaring divorce, and you don't want to partake in the rights of a husband with her anymore. Therefore, just like the person who doesn't have a wife, having sex at night doesn't apply, it doesn't apply to someone who has declared dhihaar, which is divorce. So if he wants to resume marital relations with his wife after having declared that he doesn't want anything to do with her, instead of having to wait out the 4 months (If i remember right) to solidify the divorce, he is to fast for 2 consecutive months before getting back with his wife.
Dhihaar comes from a form of divorce that the pre-Islamic Arabs used to do saying you are like my mothers back(side)(dhahr), which means that they didn't want anything to do with them. Dhaahira can also have, in this context without the pre-Islamic statement, a meaning of 'declaring separation out of animosity.' as Dhaahara can have the meaning of 'not wanting to associate with someone out of animosity.' So if these men want their married life (which they denounced) to resume then they should fast for 2 months before doing this. Obviously those who wish to go through with this divorce would follow the procedures of divorce already put forth in the Quran.
Anwar you are fabricating your own theory of divorce here.
The act of announcing a woman as "zihar" is announcing that they are as forbidden to them in sexual intercourse as their mothers are. It brings a falsehood to the relationship and 582 goes to lengths to denounce this form of behaviour as a lie and blasphemy. It is not a form of divorce.
The men are therefore punished for this utterance by having to abstain from sexual intercourse for consecutive 2 months if they wish to reconcile with the wife whom they have WRONGED not divorced.
The punishment of abstaining from sexual intercourse is a fitting one against the falsehood they've uttered ie. not wishing to have intercourse with the wife by calling the woman as their mother.
583 reinforces the fact that this punishment is one that prevents sexual intercourse with the wife prior to satisfying certain requirements. That is the punishment they bring with their own utterance. It is as you acknowledge different to the abstinence of 'ramadan'.
Any more excuses?
-
You know,
I looked up the term dhaahara again just to check and I was right. Even in modern Arabic you use daahara to mean 'to protest' or 'to demonstrate against.' The Arabic dhihaar is qualified as a form of 'talaaq' which means 'divorce.' In reality, through the Quran there is nothing that makes a marriage official except, really His acknowledgement overall, which means paying the dowery, public declaration, which is secondary, and fulfilling his rules so that the marriage is acceptable in His eyes.
I know I said that this was a special case. But I didn't say it was different. i said it was a special case. So I didn't admit what you think I admitted.
YOu can think I'm thrashing in quicksand all you want. But I know that I've seen and analyzed these terms in Arabic before and you haven't. So sometimes I'm arguing off of memory, but because I went ahead and rechecked these words I'm going to give it to you like this
The act of announcing a woman as "zihar" is announcing that they are as forbidden to them in sexual intercourse as their mothers are. It brings a falsehood to the relationship and 582 goes to lengths to denounce this form of behaviour as a lie and blasphemy. It is not a form of divorce.
Here you are dead wrong. Dhihaar is a divorce. It is the estrangement of the couple out of animosity. What is reprehensible is what is said because of that animosity. I don't know where you are reading 'a lie and blasphemy' but I assure you that your translator is not translating what is in the Arabic text. Zoor means crooked(ness). I checked in Muheetul-Muheet, A Classical Arabic dictionary about the word dhihaar .To give it to you literally 'To declare someone your adversary/or to treat them as such, including the meaning of estrangement, and the estrangement of pre-Islamic men from women; the "mudhaahar" from her. So dhihaar is a form of divorce for them."
"wa &addaa biman litadawmmuni ma'naa attajannubi li-ijtinaabi ahlil-jaahiliyyati &an al-mar'ati, al-mudhaaharu minhaa, idh adhihaaru tawlaaqun &andahum."
The Quran is written in pre-Islamic Arabic. Dhihaar=divorce out of animosity.
The men are therefore punished for this utterance by having to abstain from sexual intercourse for consecutive 2 months if they wish to reconcile with the wife whom they have WRONGED not divorced.
This is your invention. They are divorced. Quranically these men would have to wait 4 months before they can marry anyone (2226). Within this period and right as it ends they can reconcile/remarry but this is only a grace period. They are divorced. However, if after it ends they choose to finalize the divorce, then and only then is it valid in God's eyes and the men can marry whom they please now. The women have to wait 3 menstruations first.
Some of this may confuse you because in Arabic Talaaq means 'to break up, separate and divorce.' So its best if you look at it as 'breaking up' even between a husband and wife. In the Arabic, once you break up, you break up. But the Quran puts some statutes on that breaking up, and says that a man has to wait 4 months before initiating any relationship with anyone else, and then he can marry whoever he wants. Within these four months or at the end he can either take the women back to be his wife again, or he can finalize the breaking up and now it is what you would call in our days a divorce. Even though technically they were divorced when they decided to break up/separate. In our language, and culture, divorce is official and irreversable. But not in Classical Arabic, and not in Jahileeyah culture. Which is why the Quran also put a statute on getting back together. And that you can only do that twice before you have to let her marry someone else and divorce that person before you can be her husband again.
You can even see through the Hadeeths, that the very word for marriage (nikaah) can also mean just 'sexual relations.'
So the point, whether you think i"m hollow like an easter egg, grasping on straws, or thrashing in the qucksand or not, is that once a couple has broken up, they are not having sexual relations anymore and they are divorced the minute that they decided to break up (that is the Classical Arabic sense of the word). God gives them a grace period to remarry (without the ceremony) if you will, after which they are allowed to move on. So, they technically spend the 4 month grace period after they decide to break up as chaste divorcees, having no rights to each other unless they decide to make official their marriage again.
So in the case of a hostile break up (dhihaar) the man once he has declared that he is broken up with this women, then he is now broken up (or divorced). He now has a 4 month grace period to decide to get back with her, remarry her. If he decides that he regrets his decision, then because of his hostility he is to fast for 2 months running before he can remarry with her(yatamassaa is literally 'mutual contact' as well as 'sexual relations'. Until he completes this fast they are still technically broken up. However, there is no more need for the grace period because he has already regretted his breaking up with her.
That means that he is to fast from food and water during the daytime. Sex doesn't even apply here, because he doesn't have a women (his marriage is not official in God's eyes at the very least) until he completes this fast. That is if he wants to be a godly man.
In Classical Arabic deciding to separate constitues divorce, because it is a break up. Having sex with your former wife or anyone else is fornication.
Apples and Apples.
Any more oranges? sun
Sunkist, maybe?Godbless,
Anwar -
You know,
I looked up the term dhaahara again just to check and I was right. Even in modern Arabic you use daahara to mean 'to protest' or 'to demonstrate against.' The Arabic dhihaar is qualified as a form of 'talaaq' which means 'divorce.' In reality, through the Quran there is nothing that makes a marriage official except, really His acknowledgement overall, which means paying the dowery, public declaration, which is secondary, and fulfilling his rules so that the marriage is acceptable in His eyes.
The act of announcing a woman as "zihar" is announcing that they are as forbidden to them in sexual intercourse as their mothers are. It brings a falsehood to the relationship and 582 goes to lengths to denounce this form of behaviour as a lie and blasphemy. It is not a form of divorce.
Here you are dead wrong. Dhihaar is a divorce. It is the estrangement of the couple out of animosity. What is reprehensible is what is said because of that animosity. I don't know where you are reading 'a lie and blasphemy' but I assure you that your translator is not translating what is in the Arabic text. Zoor means crooked(ness). I checked in Muheetul-Muheet, A Classical Arabic dictionary about the word dhihaar .To give it to you literally 'To declare someone your adversary/or to treat them as such, including the meaning of estrangement, and the estrangement of pre-Islamic men from women; the "mudhaahar" from her. So dhihaar is a form of divorce for them."
"wa &addaa biman litadawmmuni ma'naa attajannubi li-ijtinaabi ahlil-jaahiliyyati &an al-mar'ati, al-mudhaaharu minhaa, idh adhihaaru tawlaaqun &andahum."
The Quran is written in pre-Islamic Arabic. Dhihaar=divorce out of animosity.
Anwar,
Please look at the context of 581-4 and understand that "zihar" is a forbidden thing. It has no place nor legitimacy in the God's system. It is a lie (or crookedness if you want to put it that way) and a blasphemy (or hateful thing). It is not a form of divorce. It is a heinous Arab practice of holding the woman as a suspended/deserted wife - the husband essentially terminated sexual relations by announcing the woman was like his mother. The wife was not allowed to leave the man's house. It was a state of suspense for the woman who was neither divorced nor had the place of a wife in the sense of a sexual relationship with the husband.
So please throw your garbage theory of it being a form of divorce. It was not intended as a divorce and nor was it condoned or permitted to a believer.
583 If any men among you discard their wives by Zihar (calling them mothers), they cannot be their mothers None can be their mothers except those who gave them birth. And in fact they use words (both) iniquitous and false but truly God is one that blots out (sins), and forgives (again and again).
The context makes it precise and clear. No dictionary is going to over-ride the clarity of that verse. "Zihar" is obviously the pronouncement of a woman as being like his mother - since the verse gives it plain and clear. THEY CANNOT BE THEIR MOTHERS. NONE CAN BE THEIR MOTHERS EXCEPT THOSE WHO GAVE THEM BIRTH. It says it TWICE.
Which other dictionary are you going to pull out from your bunny warren to argue against the meaning the reading is PLAINLY defining 'zihar' with?
So in the case of a hostile break up (dhihaar) the man once he has declared that he is broken up with this women, then he is now broken up (or divorced). He now has a 4 month grace period to decide to get back with her, remarry her. If he decides that he regrets his decision, then because of his hostility he is to fast for 2 months running before he can remarry with her(yatamassaa is literally 'mutual contact' as well as 'sexual relations'. Until he completes this fast they are still technically broken up. However, there is no more need for the grace period because he has already regretted his breaking up with her.
I think you are forgetting that the man, if he is rescinds his hateful words and wishes to reconcile, then he can free a prisoner or feed 60 people and recommence sexual intercourse right away. There is no waiting period stated in that case. So the purpose is punishment for having uttered the words and there is no issue of divorce nor its special requirements or periods.
That means that he is to fast from food and water during the daytime. Sex doesn't even apply here, because he doesn't have a women (his marriage is not official in God's eyes at the very least) until he completes this fast. That is if he wants to be a godly man.
Can you show me where in the verses 581-4 you find your definition of ABSTAINING to be from food and water during the daytime?
The verse 581-4 do not legitimise a form of divorce; rather they forbid the cruel Arab practice of imprisoning a woman as a suspended wife by calling them as their mothers, and set out a punishment for the man if they wish to resume sexual relations. In the case of a proper divorce where the couple has decided to separate, they may at any time resume sexual relations immediately as they are still married. A divorce only occurs after the interim cooling off period has passed and two people witness the divorce.
So the marriage remains in force in the case of 'zihar' but unlike a decision to separate where resumption of sexual intercourse is instantly available if the two reconcile - in the case of 'zihar' the man is punished by having to abstain from intercourse for 2 months if he cannot free a slave, or does not want to take the alternative of feeding 60 people if he is impatient.
Zihar is not divorce, but rather a crime against women.
Regards.
-
No dictionary is going to over-ride the clarity of that verse
You said all you had to say right here. You take the translation of the man who translated that verse as if it were the verse itself. And for that reason you are deluded.
Zihaar
"It is a lie (or crookedness if you want to put it that way) and a blasphemy (or hateful thing). It is not a form of divorce."You don't even know what Dhihaar really even means. You say that it is a lie and a blasphemy. Tell me where that verse says that Dhihaar is a lie and a hateful thing? Even in the translation that you are reading. Tell me? Are we reading the same Quran? It's like you read the commentary below that translation that you are reading and took it to heart.
Here's one for you. Tell me where it even says Dhihaar? Are you confused why I'm saying Dhihaar and not Zihaar? You partially understand one meaning of this word and you think you've grabbed onto the gold of this verse. Brother you haven't even touched the surface. I even gave you what the meaning is. I guess you just stared at that and went 'Duh, duh, duh' with this look on your face hypno And then you did this brickwall and then decided you'd just rather assume that I'm pulling all this out of my butt. But that's okay I used my sword and I know you are burned jedi
they cannot be their mothers None can be their mothers except those who gave them birth
Thanks for the color? Do you know all the meanings that the word for 'mothers' in Arabic can have. Do you even know what the word is? It's ummahaat. And it has over a page of meanings. I think I might go look up walada also and see all the meanings that this word can have, and then broaden my understanding on this passage. ) So just because you put it in red and that is how your translator understood it doesn't mean that it is anymore right.
You see that's what I get for trying to hold a debate with somone who is no only not knowledgeable but who doesn't want to increase that knowledge. You are happy with your translators' opinions, unless it doesn't suit you. So be happy.
You don't even believe me when I told you about the root of the word Dhihaar. You think I'm pulling this stuff out of my behind. Which shows me that you not only don't have the humility to hold this discussion but you don't have the wherewithall to understand what I am even talking about.
I had a good friend who told me one day, "You shouldn't argue with a fool, because he will scorn the wisdom of your words."
I really wanted to have this discussion to better your awareness, so that you could really see where I am coming from. But I see that this is not possible now, because of your distrust that I am actually researching these words and your intimidation, bordering on jealously, that I have the wherewithall to not be limited to the myopic opinions of Yusef Ali or any other translator for that reason. Do me a favor and enroll yourself in a collegiate level Arabic class, try to travel to a country like Sudan or something and study with some sheikhs. Most of all try to read in Arabic alot and then translate those Arabic sentences into English, Arabic sentences where you will see the same Arabic word be able to take a ridiculous amount of forms in English. And then you'll know what I"m talking about. Good day, truth. I think we're done here.
Godbless,
Anwar