Defenition of marriage suggests sex before marriage permitted?!
-
Why would a mu'min keep a slave in the first place? How did he get this slave? And what if his slaves are males? How is he going to give them awy when God did not ask him in this context? Slave traders only sought wealth in this world by this ungodly trade. They were never mu'mins, period.
MMA is in the qur'aan. Its the understanding that I am opposed to. You mean to say "sex slaves existed then". And I say This mindset similar to yours existed then, and this is where you are diriving your understanding, becuase this does not exist NOW and cannot exist, but sexless marriage did, is and will always keep existing.
When quran was revealed, people had slaves, and the momins out of them made efforts to free them, because they were believers , and hence followed God's commandments. And if mankind was all believers and were all following naturally what God had conceived in his mind, What was the fun in sending so many scriptures for guidance?
If you close your eyes to the fact that slaves have existed in the history of mankind, and also derive some kind of weird understanding from the words of Quran stating so, despite being a native Arab speaker", Is it any good debating this thing with you?
siki
-
Siki, you are taking whatever Samia says and whatever I say and mixing it anyway you fancy as if it was one and the same thing. Well, Samia is Samia and Huruf is Huruf. You cannot answer to Samia and mix in whatever you want to add from my posts nor nswer to me and mix in similarly Samias posts. You are harping on me with the sexless marriage, when actually I havent said myself a word on that, all I have done is try to clarify how Samia got to it and her arguments. In fact you seemed to be bent on making recruits for Samia's understanding by pushing me to join out of despite of your words. But I am still where I was a at the beginning, I am considering everything, Samia's understanding included and I will reach a conclusion whenever I find it justified, or I will not reach if I don't find sufficient foundation.
My understanding is that ajar is a means, not the only one, necessarily, to level the different reprodctive burden, and a burden may be an honour, who doubts it, but it is also work, more or less, depending on the woman and the circumstances. And it is payable regardless of household chores, and it cannot be for the fun, since the woman also has fun, and that is plain, too plain. So there I am not moving, because I see no reason for it. And the reason it says in 4. 34 the qawwamun part and says rijal and not husbands is a statement of the fact of that different burden if nisaa' is interpreted as woman, and, if not, it would still refer in great measure to women due to their heavier burden. Now you do spend a lot of words to ridicule "western" thought and so on because they do not bear in mind that women are different form men -or men different from women- and they ignore that difference, but here you are resolutely ignoring that difference, which doesn't make any sense. Childbearing and its possibility is a burden that burdens woman all her life since birth even it is only because of the expectations, it conditions her whoel existence. If you do not see that, and you seem not too, you do see it when talking overbearingly about the so much exploited differences and how feminism and whatnot ignores them. So, difference or no difference? The difference for you it seems is just that men enjoy sex and women don't and therefore the former pay for the suffering of the latter when having sexual relations so that the one who enjoys by using the other pays for the ride?
You are defending the MMM=female sexual slaves. Defend it all right, it is useful and it allows all of us to have a view of every possible understanding and explore it toour satisfaction, but do not confuse the issue with personal issues with women. You have a brain and you can talk intelligently and many times I appreciate your input, but I am sorry that here you seem to be getting angry because "women" (and men, although these do not seem to anger you as much) do not see aye to eye with you. Please, some comaradeship. I don not think we are enemies or anything. We are all trying and learning according to our ability. Let us stick to the questions and concepts and reason them out and not go into personalities or sexualities or genderalities.
Salaam, siki, my appreciation.
-
Does God divide people between higher and lower cast, so that He sets rules for them on these grounds? Does God say that the best to marry is the "higher cast, rich, beautiful"? No. It's always the mu'mins and the muttaqeen. These are YOUR rules, not God's, and God will not change His rules because in your society you have "higher casts" and "untouchables". This in the first place is against God's rules, morals and ethics. No divine rule would be based on them.
Why do you keep beating up an issue giving it a literal touch ,when we do not have a class system in God's scenario. Don't tell me that you are not capable of picking similarity from an example.
And no matter how much you hate it , the class/cast system does exist, with us humans, God created the mankind all equal but we have divided them.
siki
-
When quran was revealed, people had slaves, and the momins out of them made efforts to free them, because they were believers , and hence followed God's commandments. And if mankind was all believers and were all following naturally what God had conceived in his mind, What was the fun in sending so many scriptures for guidance?
If you close your eyes to the fact that slaves have existed in the history of mankind, and also derive some kind of weird understanding from the words of Quran stating so, despite being a native Arab speaker", Is it any good debating this thing with you?
siki
The rule of freeing people from any burden (or slavery as you like) is well stated as good citizenship of mu'mins or as an alternative to a punishment/obligation or together with it. You pay from your pocket to relive this soul. No conditions of faith are put to this person. But you want to get a reward for that and be paid with sex? You are not freeing anybody but your lust.
If you close your eyes to the fact that slaves have existed in the history of mankind, and also derive some kind of weird understanding from the words of Quran stating so, despite being a native Arab speaker", Is it any good debating this thing with you?
So what shall we do with these verses containing a practice that does not exist anymore? Throw them away? Or maybe we should not even discuss them?
As an "Arab speaker" I know very well that slave is "3abun mamluuk", and I know it is mentioned in the qur'aan. Also as an "Arab speaker" I know that an identical synonym does not exist in a language. MMA is not "3abdun mamlukun laa yagdiru 3laa shay' an owned slave that has no power to do anything"
1675
Allah sets forth a parable (consider) a slave, the property of another, (who) has no power over anything, and one whom We have granted from Ourselves a goodly sustenance so he spends from it secretly and openly; are the two alike? (All) praise is due to Allah! Nay, most of them do not know.
If those MMA are slaves, this verse should exonerate them from ANY punishment and ANY charity giving.
Why do you keep beating up an issue giving it a literal touch ,when we do not have a class system in God's scenario. Don't tell me that you are not capable of picking similarity from an example.
And no matter how much you hate it , the class/cast system does exist, with us humans, God created the mankind all equal but we have divided them.
siki
I did not say it does not exist. I said it's not godly and no divine command would be based on its existance. The mafia exists, but God does not "regulate" its actions. He prohibits both.
-
I asked Samia, now I ask you, siki, where do you get your anderstanding in the Qur'an that MMA= female sex slaves?
Salaam
Peace Brother
Neither of them can define the exact nature of MMA "from the Quran". Ultimately they will have to refer to dictionaries of Classical Arabic.
Regards -
The rule of freeing people from any burden (or slavery as you like) is well stated as good citizenship of mu'mins or as an alternative to a punishment/obligation or together with it. You pay from your pocket to relive this soul. No conditions of faith are put to this person. But you want to get a reward for that and be paid with sex? You are not freeing anybody but your lust.
So what shall we do with these verses containing a practice that does not exist anymore? Throw them away? Or maybe we should not even discuss them?
As an "Arab speaker" I know very well that slave is "3abun mamluuk", and I know it is mentioned in the qur'aan. Also as an "Arab speaker" I know that an identical synonym does not exist in a language. MMA is not "3abdun mamlukun laa yagdiru 3laa shay' an owned slave that has no power to do anything"
1675
Allah sets forth a parable (consider) a slave, the property of another, (who) has no power over anything, and one whom We have granted from Ourselves a goodly sustenance so he spends from it secretly and openly; are the two alike? (All) praise is due to Allah! Nay, most of them do not know.
If those MMA are slaves, this verse should exonerate them from ANY punishment and ANY charity giving.
Where did i say that Male slaves and the women who were possesed with right hand were same? and if you have read my old posts you would exactly know who and how MMA came along .
siki
-
I did not say it does not exist. I said it's not godly and no divine command would be based on its existance. The mafia exists, but God does not "regulate" its actions. He prohibits both.
So you mean to say that all wrongs what are happening in this world , as they are happening without Divine approval, so God will not issue any instructions regarding them. Samia! you have really lost your bearings.
-
Samia !
salam
You only answer my those posts about which you can dove tail some philosphy. You have uptill now never anserwed any of my pertinent questions concerning the issue directly. Had you answered them , this unnecessary blah blah between us would not happen.
Kindly scroll back , find those, try and answer them , because if you do, your theory will die of natural causes (at least in the eyes of a neutral reader)
And if you cant , i shall relight them for you tomorrow.
siki
-
So you mean to say that all wrongs what are happening in this world , as they are happening without Divine approval, so God will not issue any instructions regarding them. Samia! you have really lost your bearings.
No I did not say that. I said God does not regulate them but prohibits them. Show me where in the qur'aan there's a rule for stolen goods, or work resulting form slavery or torture or any aggression. The acts are prohibited and any gain from them should not be allowed as well.
-
Remember, I was annswering your questions to me, not commenting on your understanding.
If you maintain that MMA are sub category of Muhsans, how come one becomes rich and of a higher status and the other a sex slave?.How come I do not find all elligible ladies equal in, beauty , status and wealth these days? When i make a best effort to filter out haram zanias fahishas and mushriqas.
siki
-
No I did not say that. I said God does not regulate them but prohibits them. Show me where in the qur'aan there's a rule for stolen goods, or work resulting form slavery or torture or any aggression. The acts are prohibited and any gain from them should not be allowed as well.
Is control dissipiation culminating into extinction, identified as a regulation?
Do we have a commandment , like " This day all slaves are free and All MMA upgraded as Nikahed wives of the posseser " ? And if He has NOT done that, You think you carry better wisdom than the All Mighty?
siki
-
Where did i say that Male slaves and the women who were possesed with right hand were same? and if you have read my old posts you would exactly know who and how MMA came along .
siki
MMA are of both gender. Scan the qur'aan and you will find that women too can have MMA. Also verses 7022-30 are describing both genders (precisely al musalleen) and is speaking of their MMA or spouses
7029
And those who guard their private parts,
7030Except in the case of their wives or those whom their right hands possess-- for these surely are not to be blamed
I thought you already know that, but it seems I am giving you an undeserved privilege
-
MMA are of both gender. Scan the qur'aan and you will find that women too can have MMA. Also verses 7022-30 are describing both genders (precisely al musalleen) and is speaking of their MMA or spouses
7029
And those who guard their private parts,
7030Except in the case of their wives or those whom their right hands possess-- for these surely are not to be blamed
I thought you already know that, but it seems I am giving you an undeserved privilege
They might be, but first accept their existence, only then we can move forward to find weather HURUF is a sister, brother or both
siki
-
Is control dissipiation culminating into extinction, identified as a regulation?
Do we have a commandment , like " This day all slaves are free and All MMA upgraded as Nikahed wives of the posseser " ? And if He has NOT done that, You think you carry better wisdom than the All Mighty?
siki
No
No
-
Neither of them can define the exact nature of MMA "from the Quran". Ultimately they will have to refer to dictionaries of Classical Arabic.
Nor can you find the content or procedure for salat connection in the book , but you still keep going at it, probably five times a day, why?
siki
-
Siki, you are taking whatever Samia says and whatever I say and mixing it anyway you fancy as if it was one and the same thing. Well, Samia is Samia and Huruf is Huruf. You cannot answer to Samia and mix in whatever you want to add from my posts nor nswer to me and mix in similarly Samias posts. You are harping on me with the sexless marriage, when actually I havent said myself a word on that, all I have done is try to clarify how Samia got to it and her arguments. In fact you seemed to be bent on making recruits for Samia's understanding by pushing me to join out of despite of your words. But I am still where I was a at the beginning, I am considering everything, Samia's understanding included and I will reach a conclusion whenever I find it justified, or I will not reach if I don't find sufficient foundation.
Huruf. salam
Not only that you buy her ideas, but go a step further, and provide nonsensical justifications for her illogical postulates. And then you accuse me of bundling you two together unjustly?
On the flip side, have you even once posted a remark giving me a feeling that what all i am posting is Not Trash?siki
-
Of course it is you who says the part in red. The Qur'an does not say it. In fact if a child is born of that pleasure, are you saying that the Qur'an means the father is under no obligation whatsoever?
Child, if any, born out of this Mutta contract do not inherit , and as for providing sustenance by the biological father, i am not too sure , probably some Irani brother/or sister can update us. What all I understand is,
"Walla junnaha fima tardeed um bihi , min baadij faridha tin"
"Faridda tin" , is obligation, before touching her sexually, it is obligatory for the man to pay ajar , and after the woman is through with her obligation (of providing contractual sex) there is no blame upon them to what ever they both agree. It probably suggests that they can decide mutually for the after affects of this adventure.
siki