Poll for brothers only
-
salam arnab. if you didnt know this, you should be aware of this, it is old news.
the torah and injeel are part of the bible. this last post of yours calls your knowledge into question. you see the quote it was a warning and a threat to prohibit me from posting any part of the bible, including those parts that contain torah and injeel. any muslim knows stoning is sanctioned, why, during the hajj, the pilgrims stone the pillar representing satan.
if this is the state of your knowledge, then i am unconcerned about your claims that i am a liar. you obviously know nothing about either issue.
allah exposes falsehood with the truth.
-
salam siki. i understand what you are saying, however please do not ignore what i am showing you.
how did the subject in 55 jump from taam, eating, to women and chastity? do you see the word for women, nisa, in there? i certainly dont.
allah is the teacher.
-
salam siki. be careful about making claims as to what an arabic word means. if you are a native arabic speaker, you should be aware that arabic words have multiple meanings. the way you sort out which meaning is being used is the context of the sentence. this is not an infallible method, however, both meanings may be relevant, at the same time.
I agree with you , context is the one which determines, and that is exactly how i have determined. Moreover this context thingy holds good for any language, but more so for arabic.
siki
-
salam arnab. if you didnt know this, you should be aware of this, it is old news.
the torah and injeel are part of the bible. this last post of yours calls your knowledge into question.
you see the quote it was a warning and a threat to prohibit me from posting any part of the bible, including those parts that contain torah and injeel.That you see this as a "threat" or a prohibition from posting any part of the Bible is your pure imagination.
Your alleged warning says
"salaam/peace, You have been issued a formal warning for the following 1) Misleading the forum when saying "Allah" sanctions stoning to death, then quoting The Bible as evidence. http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=15898"
Tell me where is the threat or warning prohibiting you from posting anything about the Torah and Injeel?
It says that your transgression was "Misleading the forum when saying "Allah" sanctions stoning to death, then quoting The Bible as evidence."
It is ONE SENTENCE that contains NO prohibitions and CERTAINLY NO threats.
any muslim knows stoning is sanctioned, why, during the hajj, the pilgrims stone the pillar representing satan.
Another BOLD FACED LIE.
There is NO evidence of this in the Quran.
-
Peace Al Araf
This time I will ask you a very straight Question, so you do not get angry.If you have a Sister or a daughter, would you not get mad if she becomes a Mistress or a Girlfriend of a Moslem Man?
Belh salam
Your argument is definitely inappropriate/wrong and is below the belt. Ok let me answer on his behalf,
I will not be, but I will definitly give it a delibrate try, to stay calm if they want to.
You must understand that we determine right, or wrong, from the way we are programmed over a period of time in a society, according to its norms. And if such a truth is found/establised, the degree of ease would vary with each indivdual's programming and his ability to change/reprogramme himself. And let me assure you that over a period of few generations every body will be fine with this arrangment.
Don't we give away our sisters and daughters (after utterence of a few words) to complete strangers and they go through the same? but we are perfectly happy about it.
Don't you see the western society at ease with their daughters and sisters sleeping with their Boy friends ?
Because they, over a period of time have reprogrammed (for what ever reason)themselves to thinking that it is ok to have sex with a steady boy friend.
siki
-
salam siki. i understand what you are saying, however please do not ignore what i am showing you.
how did the subject in 55 jump from taam, eating, to women and chastity? do you see the word for women, nisa, in there? i certainly dont.
allah is the teacher.
i will definitely give it a delibrate try.
siki
-
salam samia. the reason you ask this question, is not because you want an answer from me.
you have the quran in your hand, and you can read arabic.
did you see the words adultery and fornication in my post, no you did not.
when you can read arabic, and you know each one of my statements is true.
then your niyat for asking this question is suspect.
what is your niyat for asking this question?allah is the truth
I clearly said (in other words) so don't try to be smart because you are not. I am giving my understanding which is in line with the understasnding of all those responded to your post.
And I certainly want an explanation from you.salam hope. please understand that i am trying to reply to people who non arabic speakers. the result is they are using terms and definitions, repeatedly, that are english, not arabic, and have no arabic equivalent. they expect arabic words to have meaning consistent with their english understanding, which it does not. as a result we have your question.
mmkhan referred to the verse55 and this verse uses the word akhdan. translators of this word claim it means "secret love companion"
the closest one can come to standard english usage is to say, secret mistress or girlfriend. the converse of secret is open. therefore, if the mistress or girlfriend is not secret, she would be an open mistress or open girlfriend. the point of the use of the term "open mistress" is to demonstrate to mmkhan that the issue is not mistress or girlfriend, the issue is secrecy and openness. allah is the one who teaches.
Really? And you have read the quraan? Where in the quraan does God encourages us to doing things in secrecy that are forbidden in the open?
6151 ....and come not near sins/fornication (fawahish) whether commited in secret or in the openThis is part of the verses explaining the Staight Path...The backbone of the message.
-
.
how did the subject in 55 jump from taam, eating, to women and chastity? do you see the word for women, nisa, in there? i certainly dont.
allah is the teacher.
Almost everywhere in quran where God is talking of man women relationship , HE is emphasizing that you must seek them through your Amwal(money) , now to ensure , that we dont confuse it with prostituion or one night stands, HE stresses that it should be a sincere effort to lock each other in a relationship to go on being chaste, NOT to make a license to full fill/out pour your unbridled sexualaity.
Why Nisa is not there and Mohsinnat is there? Because Nissa contains your prohibited females, precisely spelled out, one in 4-22 and 13 mor in 4-23. These are banned for all who believe in God and hence listen (off course if one doesn't believe in HIM, he would not even listen to HIM and hence has no binding on himself to indulge in an incestous relationship) And also Zannias and Fahishas,God recommends believers not to marry them.
siki
-
salam samia. i do not like replying to your questions. i find the niyat in your questions is to bait someone so that you can ban people from the forum. my belief is that you have a bad niyat in asking the questions that you do. when i asked you what is your niyat your answer is "dont try to be smart" yes, this is the problem i have with replying to you.
i dont want to explain "your understanding" allah knows best what you understand. others do respond to my post, however you have a combination of hostility and moderator, which is not a good thing. your rude way of saying "certainly want an explanation from you" is not good conduct. because i expect allah to answer me when i ask for help in understanding, i will answer you when you ask. i hope this reply will not become an exuse for you to be like the wife of abu lahab.
to answer your first question, there is a reason why i dont use the word adultery and fornication in my post. the reason is if i take the western pagan definition of adultery and fornication, and compare this to the quran, i find that the quran is not describing what westerners call adultery and fornication. presently western civil law has removed adultery and fornication as a crime. all that remains in the west is a personal moral issue.
when it was used, adultery described a married person having sex with a person not their spouse. the presumption there is there is only one spouse. this defintion would make millions of muslims adulterers, because millions of muslims in 1400 years have had more than one spouse. according to western pagan law ibrahim, musa and many messenger of allah, were adulterers. when westerners and some muslims try to point to verses in the quran claiming this is talking about adultery, the comparison fails dramatically. in the verses that it is claimed to be describing adultery, the verses require four witnesses to prove it happened. this means that when combined with the verses that prohibit entry into a house unless invited, a married man could go into a woman, in the privacy of his home, where no witnesses are present, refusing to permit anyone to enter, and not be found guilty of anything by the quran. this stands in stark contrast to the adultery defintions, this would be adultery in western pagan law.
when it comes to fornication, when it was used, it described unmarried man going into a woman. there is no witness requirement to this alleged crime. when pagan westerners and some muslims try and point to verses in the quran claiming they are the fornication verses they run into the same problem as above, the four witness and permission to enter requirement. this results in the fornication defintion being very different to the quran descriptions of improper conduct.
because the quran imposes a four witness requirement on an accusation, this makes it a public crime, and not a private crime. if the parties engage in their conduct in private, it not a crime according to the requirements of the quran. this appears to be a very different crime than adultery or fornication, under adultery or fornication it is a crime even if in private. this convinces me the two laws are different, and therefore i cannot accept any attempts to impose a western pagan definition of the quran.
you recklessly state that allah does not encourage us to do things in secret. does allah demand we wear clothes in public, and permit us to put off our clothes in private, yes he does. does allah permit us to bathe in public, no he does not, we must bathe in private. i could go on giving examples, but im sure you get the point, there are some things that are required to be done in private, secret if you will, and other things that may be done in public, open if you will. therefore your statement that secret actions are not permitted is false.
if you are determined to split hairs and claim only fawahish in private is being discussed, have a look at what the quran describes as fawahish. the quran refers to things that are fawahish as, saying things about allah of which you have no knowledge, or women who have four witnesses of their improper conduct, or marrying a fathers wives, or joining things as equal to allah, or not being good to parents, or killing children claiming poverty, or taking a life in secret. nowhere does is say a polgynous family is fawahish, or unmarried couples are fawahish. therefore stay within the limits established by allah for defintions of what is fawahish. do not substitute your personal opinions for allah's definitions.
allah is the truth.
-
salam samia. i do not like replying to your questions. i find the niyat in your questions is to bait someone so that you can ban people from the forum. my belief is that you have a bad niyat in asking the questions that you do. when i asked you what is your niyat your answer is "dont try to be smart" yes, this is the problem i have with replying to you.
i dont want to explain "your understanding" allah knows best what you understand. others do respond to my post, however you have a combination of hostility and moderator, which is not a good thing. your rude way of saying "certainly want an explanation from you" is not good conduct. because i expect allah to answer me when i ask for help in understanding, i will answer you when you ask. i hope this reply will not become an exuse for you to be like the wife of abu lahab.
to answer your first question, there is a reason why i dont use the word adultery and fornication in my post. the reason is if i take the western pagan definition of adultery and fornication, and compare this to the quran, i find that the quran is not describing what westerners call adultery and fornication. presently western civil law has removed adultery and fornication as a crime. all that remains in the west is a personal moral issue. when it was used, adultery described a married person having sex with a person not their spouse. the presumption there is there is only one spouse. this defintion would make millions of muslims adulterers, because millions of muslims in 1400 years have had more than one spouse. according to western pagan law ibrahim, musa and many messenger of allah, were adulterers. when westerners and some muslims try to point to verses in the quran claiming this is talking about adultery, the comparison fails dramatically. in the verses that it is claimed to be describing adultery, the verses require four witnesses to prove it happened. this means that when combined with the verses that prohibit entry into a house unless invited, a married man could go into a woman, in the privacy of his home, where no witnesses are present, refusing to permit anyone to enter, and not be found guilty of anything by the quran. this stands in stark contrast to the adultery defintions, this would be adultery in western pagan law.
when it comes to fornication, when it was used, it described unmarried man going into a woman. there is no witness requirement to this alleged crime. when pagan westerners and some muslims try and point to verses in the quran claiming they are the fornication verses they run into the same problem as above, the four witness and permission to enter requirement. this results in the fornication defintion being very different to the quran descriptions of improper conduct.
because the quran imposes a four witness requirement on an accusation, this makes it a public crime, and not a private crime. if the parties engage in their conduct in private, it not a crime according to the requirements of the quran. this appears to be a very different crime than adultery or fornication, under adultery or fornication it is a crime even if in private. this convinces me the two laws are different, and therefore i cannot accept any attempts to impose a western pagan definition of the quran.
you recklessly state that allah does not encourage us to do things in secret. does allah demand we wear clothes in public, and permit us to put off our clothes in private, yes he does. does allah permit us to bathe in public, no he does not, we must bathe in private. i could go on giving examples, but im sure you get the point, there are some things that are required to be done in private, secret if you will, and other things that may be done in public, open if you will. therefore your statement that secret actions are not permitted is false.if you are determined to split hairs and claim only fawahish in private is being discussed, have a look at what the quran describes as fawahish. the quran refers to things that are fawahish as, saying things about allah of which you have no knowledge, or women who have four witnesses of their improper conduct, or marrying a fathers wives, or joining things as equal to allah, or not being good to parents, or killing children claiming poverty, or taking a life in secret. nowhere does is say a polgynous family is fawahish, or unmarried couples are fawahish. therefore stay within the limits established by allah for defintions of what is fawahish. do not substitute your personal opinions for allah's definitions.
allah is the truth.
Rubbish apart (part of your post not in bold), I do not know why you are comparing the western laws and the quraanic laws. Is it because I use English terms and not throw arabic jargon as if quraan is only understood by Arabs? In fact you are the one promoting the legal issues in the western society claiming that God permits a married man to have a mistress and a girl friend beside a wife ( Even the western society frowns upon this, and I do not think the quraan calls a second or fourth wife mistess or girlfriend if that is wht you are alluding at). It seems that for you a married man is permitted every kind of relations outside the marriage, but an unmarried man is not. You are stating your own law beside that of God.
If you have read my post carefully, you would not say this rubbish (sorry it seems that the whole post is rubbish, it's just that most of it is not even worth my response).
Where in the quraan does God encourages us to doing things in secrecy that are forbidden in the open?
But frankly, this is my favourite part
i find the niyat in your questions is to bait someone so that you can ban people from the forum
rotfl
Then be careful if you are smart and not have to tell a lie about "technical problems". After all, neither I nor any other moderator/admin bans people. They ban themselves by disrespecting the forum rules.
-
salam siki. this is not an analysis of mine, this is a description of what i am looking at to try and understand the complete meaning for sura al maida.
to paraphrase the sura, there are verses that refer to the sahaba of isa, when they asked him for food from heaven. my recollection about that part of the injeel is, isa said man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of god. isa also used the terms fornication and adultery to describe polluting iman.
the best that i know how to describe this, is he said when asked why he did not fast, he replied how shall he fast while the bride is in the chamber. im not an expert on the subject, but it appears he considered himself married in spirit to something. i think he was describing being unfaithful to god as a bad thing, a fawahish.
this is part of the reason why i am not so sure about the standard translations of that verse are, that a lot of that verse has to do with isa, and the translators did not cross check their translation to choose the right words.
allah is the best of teeachers.
-
salam arnab. youre completely wrong. and on top of being wrong you make rash and reckless accusations that i am a liar.
because you are not a native arabic speaker you have blundered. on top of blundering into an error, you accuse me of being a liar. the truth is you are the liar. i hate to have to call you a liar, however your own mind was warning you that you were lying and you assumed that your mind was telling you about me. no your mind was warning you, that you are the liar.
dont feel bad, that you have been singled out here. the moderator in question betrayed his lack of knowledge of arabic as well when he posted that warning. yes, the warning was a threat of punitive action. therefore it was a threat.
what you are blissfully ignorant of, is the meaning of the word quran. the word quran has TWO definitions, not one. the first definition, the one used in the wahi given to muhammad, is "recitation" because the definition of the word, quran, is recitation, this is not the only part of the recitation from allah. the torah, zabur, and injeel are ALL recitation from allah, they are all quran.
if the torah and injeel are part of the quran, we know stoning to death is part of the torah, and by the definition of the word quran, stoning to death is in the quran.
therefore YOU are the liar.
note the use by people of the term quran to define the wahi given to muhammad and exclude other wahi, is an innovation or bida of human beings. there is no support for that use of the word. given the choice between the manner in which allah uses the word quran, and the way human beings use the quran, the way allah uses the word is right. the human beings are wrong. this is why i post in lowercase, because the moderator resorted to his western pagan rules as an escape from the obvious. he claimed, because pagan westerners say uppercase Quran is the wahi revealed to muhammad alone, therefore my using uppercase Quran is misleading. show me uppercase and lowercase in the quran, it does not exist. he was using foolish western pagan rules, intead of relying on the quran alone. in order to put a stop to his pagan derived conduct, i resorted to all lowercase posts.
allah is the best of those who teach.
-
Al Arf salam
5-48 And We have sent down to you the Scripture with truth, authenticating what is present of the Scripture and superseding it. So judge between them by what God Has sent down, and do not follow their desires from what has come to you of the truth. For each of you We have made laws, and a structure; and had God willed, He would have made you all one nation, but He tests you with what He has given you; so strive to do good. To God you will return all of you, and He will inform you regarding that in which you dispute
so ,,, you don't agree with the above?
siki
-
salam siki. no akhi that translation is a complete mistake.
the arabic word for supersede is "alagh" and supersedes is "yalghi" neither alagh or yalghi are in that sura.
54 wanzalna alayka alkitab balhaq musadiqa lama bayn yadyh min alkitab. this translates to sent upon you is the book of truth confirming that before of the book.
the word musadiqa means confirming. it does not mean superseding. the word kitab means book. it does not mean scripture. there is mistake after mistake. i cannot agree with the above.
therefore 54 is saying the kitab given to muhamad confirms the kitab given to musa, daud, and isa.
allah is the knower.
-
lane shows as hamman, and does not mention 5-48 for its usage? may be it is something else.
alarf what do you think it is?
Samia , any other suggestion?
siki
Some linguists claim the root to be Alif Meem Nuun. Maybe Lane translates from some of them. Search this word in Lane under this other root.
-