Defenition of marriage suggests sex before marriage permitted?!
-
What happened to this thread anyways? Have you come up with a consensus?
I doubt that there will be any consensus. Also there is no hurry. This is an opportunity to think through and throughly many questions that arise in connection with this subjet. As far as I am concerned one such fundamental question is the meaning or meanings of "ma malakat aymanu(cum)". I intend to study each occurrence of the term and that takes time. No more than three steps and one is already muddled up. Also there is no guarantee that one will come to a final conclusion and maybe there is also no need. God will provide.
Salaam
-
I doubt that there will be any consensus. Also there is no hurry. This is an opportunity to think through and throughly many questions that arise in connection with this subjet. As far as I am concerned one such fundamental question is the meaning or meanings of "ma malakat aymanu(cum)". I intend to study each occurrence of the term and that takes time. No more than three steps and one is already muddled up. Also there is no guarantee that one will come to a final conclusion and maybe there is also no need. God will provide.
Salaam
Peace,
I was just confused as to where everyone went as I couldn't find a consensus. But of course like you said there is no hurry and God will provide.
I pray that God will guide you on your study.God bless
-
http//www.jesus-for-all.com/media/Sha7rour-Marriage-RightHand-Possession/transcript.html
any opinions about this?
-
http//www.jesus-for-all.com/media/Sha7rour-Marriage-RightHand-Possession/transcript.html
any opinions about this?
I think the doctor has a very negative attitude towards women and children. People, who don't think men have a responsibility towards their children, are scum.
Sheikh Khaled Our professor. What happens if there was pregnancy out of adultery? In case the relationship is behind closed doors, nobody is watching and the rest of the conditions you told us do not apply.
Dr Shahrour Yes, it's her fault then.
Sheikh Khaled Then what?
Dr Shahrour It's her fault that she agreed to that.
Sheikh Khaled What do we tell her now; throw away your baby in the basket?
Dr Shahrour It's her fault I'm saying, her fault. I'm telling you that 80% of the relationships on earth are allowed (halal).
-
I think the doctor has a very negative attitude towards women and children. People, who don't think men have a responsibility towards their children, are scum.
True, he could have said "use contraception" or something. But what do you think about Dr. Shahrour's arguement as a whole?
-
True, he could have said "use contraception" or something. But what do you think about Dr. Shabbir's arguement as a whole?
dr shabbir? who is that?
-
Sheikh Khaled Our professor. What happens if there was pregnancy out of adultery? In case the relationship is behind closed doors, nobody is watching and the rest of the conditions you told us do not apply.
Dr Shahrour Yes, it's her fault then.
Sheikh Khaled Then what?
Dr Shahrour It's her fault that she agreed to that.
Sheikh Khaled What do we tell her now; throw away your baby in the basket?
Dr Shahrour It's her fault I'm saying, her fault. I'm telling you that 80% of the relationships on earth are allowed (halal). /quote]
my two pence on this point khaleed talks about his definition of adultery(actually "fornication", much vaster than shahrours. shahrours answer is on the few cases he considers adultery (when a man has sexual intercourse with a woman married with another man). i guess this is why his answer seems so mysoginistic.
the quote underneath
Dr Shahrour It's up to them, if he clears her she is his right hand possession, if she clears him he is her right hand possession.
/quote] shows thats his views are not that mysoginistic . Which scholar would accept a man to be a woman right hand possession ;Din all, i think what he says has inner logic. would be easier to understand and follow as an article though instead of an inteview
-
dr shabbir? who is that?
Sry, mixed up the names, because i have been reading stuff on ortbeacon.org, which is the website of another Quran-aloner, Dr. Ahmed Shabbir. It is Dr. Shahrour.
-
Not very different of promiscuity. Well, it is promiscuity all right. The only link in the chain that would be decent seems to be the married woman. And with the fun going around I wonder how many of them would not feel like perfect idiots with the husband having fun, girls and divorced having fun, and them becoming the laughing stock around. Because from what he says, the women mamalakat aymanu those happy would be with wouldn't be bound to faithfulness. So what woman would not be tempted to discontinue marriage when everybody has so much fun without that bore. In fact why not become all mma and make fun universal?
Like somebody has just said regarding children, what is so much insistence on keeping married women to the task for the sake of knowing whose child is which and then have all those extra marital possibly producing children of whom the father can wash his hands.
And then it is really ashtonishing that the honoured Qur'an goes to such lengths again and again to bring to our minds the plights of the orphans and the unprotected so that somebody comes afterwards and tells you that, who cares, you just go and do your thing, and the devil take care of what comes after...
I do not care if the chap, who may have done other worthy things from what I hear, has really plugged some technical holes in this theory, like to make sure that the zina ayas leave scope to imagine that the men can have sex outside marriage because it hasen't been millimetrically made explicit that it also goes for married men, it doesn't matter, it leaves holes of sense that are too big and too contradictory of the whole of the Qur'an, like going all out for the sake of orphans on one side, and fabricating them deliberately on the other. Like telling people to free slaves and then telling them to get some as they like more provided they do not steal them.
Harebrained.
Salaam
-
Peace truthseeker11,
Your quote from ? Reply #19 on May 06, 2009, 011728 AM ?
?There is no word for hands there. I could not find even a single entry of "right hand" under YMN in Lane Lexicon. It can mean "right" or "oath". So "ma malakat aymanukum" can mean "those possessed by your right" which does not make any sense, or "those possessed by your oath", which makes perfect sense according to the context.?
I am questioning your claim ?makes perfect sense?
It will be better for you if you say ?it is my opinion? or ?according to my understanding?. Otherwise one can conclude that you have received revelation from the God or a direct communiqu? with the God regarding the matter.
If you insist in your way then please let me know when you will have the next communication with the God as I will request you to clarify certain things for me.
-
True, he could have said "use contraception" or something. But what do you think about Dr. Shahrour's arguement as a whole?
Huruf puts it well, it goes against the general themes of respecting one another in the Quran. I'd add that the way Dr. Shahrour tries to insert the theme of "consent" is very opportunistic. He seems to think that women must take responsibility for what they consent to, but men don't have to take responsibility for what the actively engage in doing? He doesn't have a very sophisticated understanding of rights and responsibilities.
-
The problem is not with Shahrour alone, but with everyone, qur'aan aloner or traditionalist, who forgets that females, too, can have maa malakat aymaanuhunna as per the qur'aan, and that the qur'aan speaks of maa malakat aymaanukum OR your spouses, not both at the same time. When they realize this, they will have only one way maa malakat aymaanukum are spouses, albeit a special kind for a special category.
-
Peace truthseeker11,
Your quote from Reply #19 on May 06, 2009, 011728 AM
There is no word for hands there. I could not find even a single entry of "right hand" under YMN in Lane Lexicon. It can mean "right" or "oath". So "ma malakat aymanukum" can mean "those possessed by your right" which does not make any sense, or "those possessed by your oath", which makes perfect sense according to the context.
I am questioning your claim makes perfect sense
It will be better for you if you say it is my opinion or according to my understanding. Otherwise one can conclude that you have received revelation from the God or a direct communiqu with the God regarding the matter.
If you insist in your way then please let me know when you will have the next communication with the God as I will request you to clarify certain things for me.
You're expecting too much from him..
-
The problem is not with Shahrour alone, but with everyone, qur'aan aloner or traditionalist, who forgets that females, too, can have maa malakat aymaanuhunna as per the qur'aan, and that the qur'aan speaks of maa malakat aymaanukum OR your spouses, not both at the same time. When they realize this, they will have only one way maa malakat aymaanukum are spouses, albeit a special kind for a special category.
He said that women can also have "ma malakat aymanuhunna".
Fact is that a sexual relationship can only be done either through marriage or with the "right hand possession"/the one who is under one's contract. -
I think the doctor has a very negative attitude towards women and children. People, who don't think men have a responsibility towards their children, are scum.
And it's from the same guy who believes in Bukhari's book, saying Muhammad allowed temporary prostitution. rotfl rotfl
IMO right hand possession is referring to slaves, or people you are committed to, not like the example above where men get to screw women just because they're horny.
If you "possess" a woman she's pretty much your house slave. Only that, she wants to be. I mean when you buy someone from the slave market they're not forced to go with you right? They only go with you if they want to. If a woman slave decides to go with a man buyer, she should pretty much know she and him are gonna being doing it.
-
And it's from the same guy who believes in Bukhari's book, saying Muhammad allowed temporary prostitution. rotfl rotfl
IMO right hand possession is referring to slaves, or people you are committed to, not like the example above where men get to screw women just because they're horny.
If you "possess" a woman she's pretty much your house slave. Only that, she wants to be. I mean when you buy someone from the slave market they're not forced to go with you right? They only go with you if they want to. If a woman slave decides to go with a man buyer, she should pretty much know she and him are gonna being doing it.
I think that Shahrour is wrong on this count and I do not know from when is that interview or whether he has upheld before or after the most chocking implications of this theory about MMA, but I do not think he is propounding enslavement of women, because as Samia and others have pointed out before, following the Qur'an, and Shahrour acknowledges this, women are as much capable of having MMA as males. Of course when the whole picture is laid down, the result is awfully schewed against women, because when something is thought out witht he convenience of males in mind, it would be surprising, even if applied to women, that the convenience of women would be equally served.
I think we must keep working on the content of the term MMA, and although I have not yet checked everything through, an I haven't therefore closed the matter for myself, Samia's idea of it being a kind of marriage may merit some consideration.
Salaam