The pilgrimage, when should it be
-
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 -
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,
AnwarAnd since there is only rambling intermixed with ad hominem and nothing of substance to address in your last post I think we are indeed done.
You've reached the final resort of the out-argued, which is to insult the other's character and or knowledge.
Thank you for your time.
Peace.
-
sorry guys, i have to say that was classic
Cheers
-
What is the fast mentioned in ?
- Sexual relations, night and day?
- Or eating and drinking, only all day long?
The fact is that it is not explicitly stated in the Quran.
So, why not keeping the 2 hypotheses?
Why the need of a loser and a winner ?
Peace
-
Peace JM,
What is the fast mentioned in ?
- Sexual relations, night and day?
- Or eating and drinking, only all day long?
The fact is that it is not explicitly stated in the Quran.
But it is explicitly stated in 583-4 "before they touch each other". So they are abstaining from touching each other for two consecutive full-moons. Naturally, like the waiting periods for remarying, which are variable depending on when the menstrual cycle occurred, this period is also going to be variable depending on when a full moon occurred.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Truth
And since there is only rambling intermixed with ad hominem and nothing of substance to address in your last post I think we are indeed done.
You've reached the final resort of the out-argued, which is to insult the other's character and or knowledge.
whateverAyman,
they are abstaining from touching each other for two consecutive full-moons.Don't even get me started on your made up meanings for shah-r. Full-moon . . . why don't you tell everyone how you combined two meanings of the word shah-r to get this meaning when there is lno ogic for you to have done this. And then you claim that your invented middle-ground for the meanings of this word is the original meaning. Please . . .
The resolution to this argument between me and Truth was in if Dhihaar is divorce or not.
I said yes and he said no. But that is because he doesn't understand what talaaq really means and does not want to understand.
If dhihaar is a form of divorce then 2 months of fasting is equal to 60 daily fasts in the Quran. There is one exception, which is 589 and there is a clause that distinguishes this case from all others that says that the fasting here is "the compensation for your oaths when you swear," and not for the amount of people that you had to feed.
If you don't believe that dhihaar is a form of divorce then this will not fit. But whereas truth says that Dhihaar is a sin and wrongful and is forbidden, it is not forbidden at all in the words of those passages. It is not looked upon as a promoted behavior, and that is why it is given a compensation. Killing another believer on accident is not looked at as a promoted behavior either, but it is not condemned either. It is given a compensation. Both of these things are treated as things that are liable to happen, not as abominable acts. The take that it is an abominable act is not in the verse it is in the English commentary.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace,
I just wanted to raise another issue for your deliberation as regards to my position on contextual abstinence.
If you look at the abstinence from food and sexual relations in Chapter 2 that describes the 'ramadan' period you'll notice that for those who find it difficult or impossible to abstain that it gives an alternative of feeding others.
In 584 the same alternative is given for the punishment for 'zihar' so that someone may feed others in lieu of abstinence from intercourse.
Now 492 which you argue again is abstinence from food has absolutely no alternative. There is no 'out' from that abstinence which would make it impossible for certain groups of people. But everyone can abstain from fighting without needing an 'out' or alternative.
It certainly lends weight to what I have been putting forward. I wonder how you would answer this issue?
-
Truth,
If you look at the abstinence from food and sexual relations in Chapter 2 that describes the 'ramadan' period you'll notice that for those who find it difficult or impossible to abstain that it gives an alternative of feeding others.
It is your opinon that Chpt 2 describes ONLY the Ramadan period. The break between the passage mentioning the fast of Ramadan and then describing how to fast allows the passage to be describing how to Quranically fast. I do not believe that that passage is only talking about Ramadan. And I have that right, even textually.
In 584 the same alternative is given for the punishment for 'zihar' so that someone may feed others in lieu of abstinence from intercourse.
Again this is your opinion that this is abstinence from intercourse. You say PUNISHMENT for Zihaar (as you put it) and I say COMPENSATION for Zihaar, that is IF YOU DECIDE THAT YOU REGRETTED breaking up with this women hostilely(zihaar), adn that is within the 4 month grace period detailed in the Quran for divorces. I continue to believe that zihaar is HOSTILE BREAK UP/DIVORCE. You don't believe this so we can't reach an agreement on this issue. Furthermore, Dhihaar does not need to be punished. But after you've talked bad about the woman and divorced her, if you want to get back with her then in God's eyes you need to make a sacrifice for this frivolous and impulsive act.
Now 492 which you argue again is abstinence from food has absolutely no alternative. There is no 'out' from that abstinence which would make it impossible for certain groups of people. But everyone can abstain from fighting without needing an 'out' or alternative.
Again, I do not agree with you that when there is a need to fight that you can abstain from fighting. Your enemies will not say "Oh, he is fasting from fighting, so don't kill him' or 'Oh they have a guy who is fasting from fighting so we shouldn't raze that town, because he won't be able to help defend it' Fasting from fighting is a ridiculous notion when fighting is only allowed in cases of defense.
Secondly, as for the 'out' as you put it, you can look at this two ways. If God didn't provide an out there is no out. There is no need to take it further. You either pay up adequately, free someone in bondage or fast for 2 months. Or you can look at it and apply the passage of chapter two and say well if this person can't fulfill any of these duties then the passage in Chapt 2 automatically kicks in and he can also feed 60 individuals, if he can't do any of this. As the Quran explains itself and it already made provisions for those who can't fast. I think the second is more logical. But you don't have to believe me or agree with that. And I'm sure you don't.
It certainly lends weight to what I have been putting forward. I wonder how you would answer this issue?
That's how I would answer it. Are we done now? I really would not like to discuss any of this any more with you. I think I've already expressed why.
Godbless,
Anwar -
That's how I would answer it. Are we done now? I really would not like to discuss any of this any more with you. I think I've already expressed why.
As long as there is civil discussion I can't see why you'd be afraid to discuss further, except that I believe you understand that your position has collapsed.
I've tried to stop short of calling your 'zihar = divorce with animosity' a ridiculous notion however appropriate that would have been. You obviously know little about marriage or divorce, since you seem blissfully ignorant that 'friendly' divorces are exceedingly rare. The point is that a divorce is officiated only after the interim period is finished. The two remain married for that time even though they have made a decision to separate. They remain husband and wife in the interim and have the ability to have sexual relations whenever they desire if they wish to go back on their decision to separate.
Your theory of an instant divorce, through 'zihar' which is a preposterous lie according to God is wrong. The couple always remain husband and wife until the divorce is officiated after the interim. The case of 'zihar' however is punished by the inability of the husband to return to sexual relations prior to freeing a prisoner or if he can't do that abstaining from intercourse for 2 months continuously.
For your information about what 'zihar' is, 334 also mentions this practice...
334 GOD did not give any man two hearts in his chest. Nor did He turn your wives whom you estrange (according to your custom) into your mothers.* Nor did He turn your adopted children into genetic offspring. All these are mere utterances that you have invented. GOD speaks the truth, and He guides in the (right) path.
The wives are not turned into mothers. ALL THESE ARE MERE UTTERANCES THAT YOU HAVE INVENTED.
Despite seeing the definition of 'zihar' in 334 and 583 I am sure that your own cherished dictionaries and your extraordinary intellect (not to mention Arab classes) will override the meanings the reading makes explicit.
Finally you took exception to me accepting 'al-zoor' as being a lie, or falsehood; since that is what 'zihar' is equated to. See the following verse regarding 'al-zoor'...
2230 That (is the command). And whoso magnifieth the sacred things of Allah, it will be well for him in the sight of his Lord. The cattle are lawful unto you save that which hath been told you. So shun the filth of idols, and shun lying speech,
Thalika waman yuAAaththim hurumati Allahi fahuwa khayrun lahu AAinda rabbihi waohillat lakumu al-anAAamu illa ma yutla AAalaykum faijtaniboo alrrijsa mina al-awthani waijtaniboo qawla alzzoori
Thus one must shun these things such as 'zihar', for they are only lies and have no force in God's law.
Finally, you are still unable to explain why the formula to offset abstinence is explicit in 2184 and 584, whereas it is absent from 492. Did the God forget? In truth even 589 alone demolishes your 'exchange rate' nonsense, but I'm afraid that nothing will convince you otherwise as you are deaf and blind to plain truths laid out before you.
Your inability to see 'zihar' for what it is, and denial of the many proofs given to you above prove this.
Peace.
-
Truth,
You make alot of assumptions that are based on your lack of understanding Arabic words. You can point to all the translations that you want to, and you can continue to believe that these prove your point and disprove mine. But until you can actually discuss the meanings of the Arabic words there you are at a loss and I am powerless to help you understand what these words mean if you don't believe me and are going to stick to your pre-concieved notions based on the opinion of a translator, whose opinion is based on traditional opinions that have not analyzed the words of these verses and all that they can mean, but just like the word Salat have pidgeon-holed its meaning into what their traditional views.
So again, you have the right to think that my theory has collapsed but understand that you are not at the level to understand what I'm saying, More importantly you are not willing to. Until you are ready to understand the concepts of divorce and marriage in a Non-Islamic, Non-Western Pre-Islamic linguistic point of view I can't help you.
Think what you want. I honestly don't care if people who don't want to learn, don't. You say you wanna have civil conversation but when you are too ignorant (knowledge-wise) to have this conversation and to arrogant to recognize that, how can the conversation stay civil?
So please, you have the right to believe in your contextual abstention and I have the right to believe in the concept of a Quranic abstention being defined in 2187. Whenever you insist on your form of contextual abstention just be prepared for me to offer an alternative. I actually understand your position, but I disagree with it. However, on your side, you actually don't understand my position, because you can't understand my position unless you agree on the definitions that I give you for these words. You don't agree, because you don't trust that i am being true to the dictionaries or you don't trust the dictionaries. So, you believe as you want to and I will believe as I do, lakum deenukum wa liya deenee. I won't argue this topic anymore with you. But I will state that I disgree with you and to whoevever wants to know why I will explain that to them. But our exchange on this topic is done, mainly because you refuse to accept the definitions of the key words of these passages.
I will requote what you said that embodies this refusal
The context makes it precise and clear. No dictionary is going to over-ride the clarity of that verse. . .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?
What is ridiculous is that you believe that a dictionary can contradict a verse whose words it only defines. I know I used the word ridiculous here and I know you probably are blowing up right now and reacting to this word. Forgive me for using it as it is the only word that I see fit here. It is not to ridicule you. So again, I think we can just call it even now. I really don't want to discuss this with you anymore. If I refer to any of your comments I will refer to you in the third person, and I will focus on your comments, as much as I can to not have to deal with discussing this with you. Thank you.
Godbless,
Anwar