A suggestion

huruf

We are hipnotized by habit and prejudice. Just reading the next aya after 4.34, that is, 4.35, we would be rid of the idiocy that entails having so many headaches at interpreting 4.34, and I include myself among the guilty.

Recently I read some analisys made by a Moroccan colleague, who in turn read from an Azhari, which deals with whom is addressed and of whom it is spoken in those ayas and any other ayas. I think the vision and understanding is quite entlightening and besides without anything mysterious about it. Plain straightforward grammar and logic. Nothing else, no contorting no effort in fact. Plain common understanding. I translate from Spanish

So in 4.35 the community is addressed and is instructed that if they fear a breach between the spouses , they should appoint an arbiter from her family and another one from his family.

This aya is not addressed to the spouses, when the spouses are meant or addressed, the third person is used, he, or she, what in Arabic grammar is called Al ghaib.

This aya 4.35 is not addressed to the spouses but to the community, men and women,

and the same applies to the previous aya 4.34

It is not addressed to the spouses but to what the Qur'an calls "alladhina amanu", those who have como to believe in 4.29, since the addressee continues to be the same.

when men are spoken of it says "they" (masculine, hum), when women are spoken of it says "they" (feminine, hunna), and when it addresses the community it uses "you", second person inclusive plural. That is, three different kinds of pronoun are used third person masculine, third person feminine, second person inclusive plural.

Since most of those who interpreted the aya were men, they interpreted that the inclusive plural referred to the husbands, but

Men (they masculine) are responsible for the care of the women (they feminine) by virtue of that in which He has favoured more each other repsectively and by what they (masculine) spend of their (third person masculine) wealth. Virtuous women (they feminine) are those devoted to God who guard what God has guarded. As to those (they feminine) from whom you (second person inclusive plural) fear nushuz, warn them, leave them in their place, make them realise, but if they comply, do not harm them. God indeed is most high most great.

With the masculine component of the couple he uses the third person, he, they (masculine), with the feminine component, it uses she, they(feminine), and when the society is addressed (males and females) it uses the second person You who have come to believe.

There is more to add, but I am quite busy now, I will complete it later.

Salaam

Man_of_Faith

Peace Huruf,

Thanks for what you wrote. Take your time and do not stress yourself out.

God bless you

mmmm

Peace noshirk,
I'm sorry but to me sheikh dukhani's translation of 43 doesn't make sense... especially if look word for word in Arabic, as much as we would like it maybe we are hypnotized by todays "politicly correct" or our own point of views...what do you think how to know if one is too subjective on the matter to be able to translate correctly?
I s till don't know what 43 or 3350 -58 mean for us today....it inhibits my further research of the Quran and its not fun (
God bless you all.

unknownuser

Salaam @huruf

I agree with you if "wa'alati" was tranaslated into "woman".But what kind of woman?
By saw or "separate from the bed and separate/divorce/daraba" that means, the woman is a wife.

and the 435 is continuation from 434, so of course 435 talk about spouses.

drfazl

salaam all

we can notice then that
33-50 to 33-52 declares
-that hijra occured before laylatou el qadr.
-muhammad preached before receiving quran
-before revelation of quran, muhammad had many wifes and quran said to him to stop.
-Quran make a special favor to muhammad he can still married with women he had already married only and only if he give them their "wage" and that he can marry whi made hijra with him.

33-50 is simple regularisation of matrimonial pagan situation of muhammad before quran was revealed. Note that Muhammad was, before quran, a poor orphan who became rich.

Peace

It is heartening to read the dismissal of Hadiths en block on Khadija et al. But the rest of your post makes strong smell of hadiths, the hearsays and falsehood; and then arriving at some conclusion based on such hypothetical situations.

Eg. The Hijra took place before the Power of Night.
What is Hijra and what is the Power of Night? Please explain without the taint of Hadith.

Muhammad preached before receiving Quran. Is it true considering the following?
It is not true. The knowledge of dowry offering is only from the Quran. Hijra means taking up the straight path and leaving for good the path of evil which too we come to know only from Quran. A man becomes prophet because Quran is inspired to him. The whole ayat is spoken not to a man but addressed to the prophet. A woman who is willing to offer herself in migration with the prophet is also lawful to him.

Before revelation of quran, muhammad had many wifes and quran said to him to stop.
Based on the above know, is this speculation still valid?

All these unlawful imaginations crept in to discussion because we trespassed the limit set by Allah in the verse as an exclusive admission and relaxation set only for the prophet. And this subject is not for the other believers to pick up, or to discuss or to debate for if you do so, you would get nowhere but slip into your own misery and confusion, to the delight of shaitaan.

3336
There is no right to the believers of men and women on matters about which Allah and His messenger had given a decree. If any one trespasses and entertain in what is prohibited, they are openly on the wrong path indeed.

Peace.

pixelrowed

We are hipnotized by habit and prejudice. Just reading the next aya after 4.34, that is, 4.35, we would be rid of the idiocy that entails having so many headaches at interpreting 4.34, and I include myself among the guilty.

Recently I read some analisys made by a Moroccan colleague, who in turn read from an Azhari, which deals with whom is addressed and of whom it is spoken in those ayas and any other ayas. I think the vision and understanding is quite entlightening and besides without anything mysterious about it. Plain straightforward grammar and logic. Nothing else, no contorting no effort in fact. Plain common understanding. I translate from Spanish

So in 4.35 the community is addressed and is instructed that if they fear a breach between the spouses , they should appoint an arbiter from her family and another one from his family.

This aya is not addressed to the spouses, when the spouses are meant or addressed, the third person is used, he, or she, what in Arabic grammar is called Al ghaib.

This aya 4.35 is not addressed to the spouses but to the community, men and women,

and the same applies to the previous aya 4.34

It is not addressed to the spouses but to what the Qur'an calls "alladhina amanu", those who have como to believe in 4.29, since the addressee continues to be the same.

when men are spoken of it says "they" (masculine, hum), when women are spoken of it says "they" (feminine, hunna), and when it addresses the community it uses "you", second person inclusive plural. That is, three different kinds of pronoun are used third person masculine, third person feminine, second person inclusive plural.

Since most of those who interpreted the aya were men, they interpreted that the inclusive plural referred to the husbands, but

Men (they masculine) are responsible for the care of the women (they feminine) by virtue of that in which He has favoured more each other repsectively and by what they (masculine) spend of their (third person masculine) wealth. Virtuous women (they feminine) are those devoted to God who guard what God has guarded. As to those (they feminine) from whom you (second person inclusive plural) fear nushuz, warn them, leave them in their place, make them realise, but if they comply, do not harm them. God indeed is most high most great.

With the masculine component of the couple he uses the third person, he, they (masculine), with the feminine component, it uses she, they(feminine), and when the society is addressed (males and females) it uses the second person You who have come to believe.

There is more to add, but I am quite busy now, I will complete it later.

Salaam

"when men are spoken of it says "they" (masculine, hum), when women are spoken of it says "they" (feminine, hunna), and when it addresses the community it uses "you", second person inclusive plural. That is, three different kinds of pronoun are used third person masculine, third person feminine, second person inclusive plural. "

This is not always the case - one cannot infer general principle from one verse.

this for example is masculine plural - now it is perfectly possible that this refers to both men and women - however its primary refernce is to men. . . and there is no general principle that says everytime Masculine Plural in second person always refers to men and women.

"from whom you (second person inclusive plural) fear nushuz, warn them, leave them in their place, make them realise, but if they comply, do not harm them. God indeed is most high most great."

But here society is clearly not meant. As it is men that are being advised about their women. What has society got to do with it?

" make them realise"

means to strike them. There is no such translation of the word as "warn them"

pixelrowed

salaam all
i will give interpretation of this verse according to my friend cheikh dukhani in the french article here
http//nawaat.org/portail/2012/12/23/ibadat-el-chouyoukhs-8-polygamie-et-esclavage-chez-les-islamisto-paiens/

first, there is some facts to admits if we forgets all hersays of hadiths.

1- Quran was revealed one shot in laylatou el qadr
2- there is no trace in quran of alleaged Khadija, alleaged aisha and all alleaged women Muhammad would have married after the death of alleaged khadija.

we can notice then that
33-50 to 33-52 declares
-that hijra occured before laylatou el qadr.
-muhammad preached before receiving quran
-before revelation of quran, muhammad had many wifes and quran said to him to stop.
-Quran make a special favor to muhammad he can still married with women he had already married only and only if he give them their "wage" and that he can marry whi made hijra with him.

33-50 is simple regularisation of matrimonial pagan situation of muhammad before quran was revealed. Note that Muhammad was, before quran, a poor orphan who became rich.

due to very polemical opinion of cheikh dukhani, i will not discuss it.
Note however that cheikh dukhani also explaned that the alleaged verse of polygamy (43) is not speaking about polygamy at all. We have to read there "help poor women to marry" and not "marry with them". 43 and 4-4 are obviously speaking about charity

there is no polygamy in islam and it seems that other than muhammed were not allowed to continue maintaining multipes spouses.
note that polygamy, even when allowed, is still a particular case in society.

Peace

It is a poor argument. . .

" "

The Arabic is easy to understand . . .

Then you marry those who please you from the women two, three or four.

There is no Arabic that says

"help poor women to marry"

This argument is especially broken by

""

Then one.

Why would one not be just in marrying others off and can still give one away?

= = =

"
first, there is some facts to admits if we forgets all hersays of hadiths.

1- Quran was revealed one shot in laylatou el qadr
2- there is no trace in quran of alleaged Khadija, alleaged aisha and all alleaged women Muhammad would have married after the death of alleaged khadija."

Quran did not come in "one shot" . . . Quran itself says so.
If you forsake all Hadith . . . then you learn nothing about Prophet Muhammad . . . . hence he did not exist . . . also Quran is not true either. Else how do you know?

Then one just goes on what the non-Muslim scholars say . . . the book was developed over time. Especially given the oldest copy doesn't reach the time of Prophet Muhammad.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to separate Hadith and Quran.

Man_of_Faith

Peace,

I agree that the Quran was written over several years.

You learn quite much about Muhammad from Quran alone. As much as one needs in fact. I would not read hadith on this basis.

But do as you feel is right yourself, there is no compulsion in religion.

God bless you

Bigmo

I really need feedback....

Thanks

MMA is a Judaic tradition that probably existed in Medina where these verses came. There was a large Jewish community in Medina as the Quran reveals to us. There is no real difference between an MMA and a wife except dowry. Later Islamic authority changed MMA to mean slave.

pixelrowed

Peace,

I agree that the Quran was written over several years.

You learn quite much about Muhammad from Quran alone. As much as one needs in fact. I would not read hadith on this basis.

But do as you feel is right yourself, there is no compulsion in religion.

God bless you

Actually you don't - you get fragments. Hence why centuries later - about 1500 - all that was wrong . . . and a bunch of people are giving new meanings.

No - that just sounds silly.

Another problem of attacking Hadith is . . . well Quran itself is Hadith. You begin to attack whole history - which doesn't make much sense. This open the possibility for someone to say . . . whole of Islam is wrong - as people often do.

Man_of_Faith

Peace pixelrow,

Quran is God's hadith narrated directly from Him and written down by Muhammad. It is quite different from the hadith of the followers of Muhammad.

God bless you

pixelrowed

Peace pixelrow,

Quran is God's hadith narrated directly from Him and written down by Muhammad. It is quite different from the hadith of the followers of Muhammad.

God bless you

Er . . . what evidence do you have - Prophet Muhammad wrote it? How do you know God dictated the Quran? In fact - who is Muhammad?

Quran can only be self-evident up to an extent. . . beyond that . . .

By your version . . . all a Muslim is meant to believe is really - that Quran came down and that is it . . .read the book. It did not happen that way. . . .

Islam has a long history. Over 1000 years old . . .

It is obvious the one who understood Quran the best was Prophet Muhammad. . . then the Companions . . . and then their Companions.

So all them were practising wrong . .. and 1500 years later . . . boom - new meanings for everything.

Suddenly Salah just means - recitation of prayers . . . and what not.

And all those verses that have context . . . let us just do away with them.

Realistically - is that ever going to catch on?

No.

This position is doomed for failure.

noshirk

Salaam

Please note i am not trying to convince who rejected hadith text while accepting their teachings.

more on 43
Word AQSITOU means Balance. QISTASS is used in Quran to mean a weighing machine
AADILOU means justice (getting what a person merit)
AAOULOU is is from AALA which means a part that is more elevated than another.
TABA means goodness and kindliness. TIBNA is same root.
ANKIHOU is used in 24-32;28-27 in obvious sense of make marry. no where in quran (ele in alleaged 4-3), it us used in meaning of order to marry
SADAQA with plural SODOKAT no need to explain
NIHLATA give a women his dowry by kindkliness
( &#1577
. .
. .
. .
.
*

MOUTHANNA is used in 346
MOUTANAA, THOULETH and ROUBAA expression is used here
351 Praise be to God, Initiator of the heavens and the earth; maker of the angels as messengers with wings MOUTANAA, THOULETH and ROUBAA . He increases in the creation as He wishes. God is able to do all things.

if you don't believe in angels with 3 or 4 wings you can understand that by angels in number of two, three or four at the same time.
(note ajniha don't means wing for me here, but thats not our problem).

now, since all know what is difference between equity and justice

43 And if you fear that you cannot be AQSITOU to the orphans, then ANKIHOU those who TABA to you of the women MOUTANAA, THOULETH and ROUBAA. But if you fear you don't AADILOU, then only one, or whom you maintain by your oaths. This is best that you do not AALOU.
44 And give the women SODOKAT NIHLATAN, and if they TIBNA any of it to you of their own will, then you may take it with good feelings.

i repeat my question to polygamists what is the relation between orphans and polygamy ?

concerning hijra
Quran revealed in night of qadr.
Quran speaks about Hijra
=>Hijra before Laylatou el qadr.

i don't care what hersays says.

Other arabic meanings of words
KHADIJA the women who cannot complete pregnancy
FATIMA the child separated from his mother.

i don't believe in existence of khadija and fatima (as biological daughter) and aisha and so on.
Abdullah cannot be the name of the father of Muhammad since it is a clear anachronism.
Muhammed is the orginal name of Muhammad only if we suppose that Muhammad is a pagan/idolater name.

i don't believe in all what hadiths said. I reject all their words, meanings, tales and teachings. I am totally kafir for all what is brought by hadiths.
26221 Shall I inform you on whom the devils come down?
26222 They come down on every sinful liar.
26223 They repeat what they listen, but most of them are liars.

Only Allah explain Quran. Hadiths brings explanation of Chaytan for Quran.

Peace

Bigmo

Er . . . what evidence do you have - Prophet Muhammad wrote it? How do you know God dictated the Quran? In fact - who is Muhammad?

Quran can only be self-evident up to an extent. . . beyond that . . .

By your version . . . all a Muslim is meant to believe is really - that Quran came down and that is it . . .read the book. It did not happen that way. . . .

Islam has a long history. Over 1000 years old . . .

It is obvious the one who understood Quran the best was Prophet Muhammad. . . then the Companions . . . and then their Companions.

So all them were practising wrong . .. and 1500 years later . . . boom - new meanings for everything.

Suddenly Salah just means - recitation of prayers . . . and what not.

And all those verses that have context . . . let us just do away with them.

Realistically - is that ever going to catch on?

No.

This position is doomed for failure.

Schacht asserts that hadiths, particularly from Muhammad, did not form, together with the Qur?an, the original bases of Islamic law and jurisprudence as is traditionally assumed. Rather, hadiths were an innovation begun after some of the legal foundation had already been built. ?The ancient schools of law shared the old concept of sunna or ?living tradition? as the ideal practice of the community, expressed in the accepted doctrine of the school.? And this ideal practice was embodied in various forms, but certainly not exclusively in the hadiths from the Prophet. Schacht argues that it was not until al-Shafii that ?sunna? was exclusively identified with the contents of hadiths from the Prophet to which he gave, not for the first time, but for the first time consistently, overriding authority. Al-Shafii argued that even a single, isolated hadith going back to Muhammad, assuming its isnad is not suspect, takes precedence over the opinions and arguments of any and all Companions, Successors, and later authorities. Schacht notes that

Two generations before Shafii reference to traditions from Companions and Successors was the rule, to traditions from the Prophet himself the exception, and it was left to Shafii to make the exception the principle. We shall have to conclude that, generally and broadly speaking, traditions from Companions and Successors are earlier than those from the Prophet.

Based on these conclusions, Schacht offers the following schema of the growth of legal hadiths. The ancient schools of law had a ?living tradition? (sunna) which was largely based on individual reasoning (ra?y). Later this sunna came to be associated with and attributed to the earlier generations of the Successors and Companions. Later still, hadiths with isnads extending back to Muhammad came into circulation by traditionists towards the middle of the second century. Finally, the efforts of al-Shafi`i and other traditionists secured for these hadiths from the Prophet supreme authority.

Goldziher maintains that, while reliance on the sunna to regulate the empire was favoured, there was still in these early years of Islam insufficient material going back to Muhammad himself. Scholars sought to fill the gaps left by the Qur?an and the sunna with material from other sources. Some borrowed from Roman law. Others attempted to fill these lacunae with their own opinions (ra?y). This latter option came under a concerted attack by those who believed that all legal and ethical questions (not addressed by the Qur?an) must be referred back to the Prophet himself, that is, must be rooted in hadiths.These supporters of hadiths (ahl al-hadith) were extremely successful in establishing hadiths as a primary source of law and in discrediting ra?y. But in many ways it was a Pyrrhic victory. The various legal madhhabs were loath to sacrifice their doctrines and so they found it more expedient to fabricate hadiths or adapt existing hadiths in their support. Even the advocates of ra?y were eventually persuaded or cajoled into accepting the authority of hadiths and so they too ?found? hadiths which substantiated their doctrines that had hitherto been based upon the opinions of their schools? founders and teachers. The insistence of the advocates of hadiths that the only opinions of any value were those which could appeal to the authority of the Prophet resulted in the situation that ?where no traditional matter was to be had, men speedily began to fabricate it. The greater the demand, the busier was invention with the manufacture of apocryphal traditions in support of the respective theses.?

In summary, Goldziher sees in hadiths ?a battlefield of the political and dynastic conflicts of the first few centuries of Islam; it is a mirror of the aspirations of various parties, each of which wants to make the Prophet himself their witness and authority.? Likewise,

Every stream and counter-stream of thought in Islam has found its expression in the form of a hadith, and there is no difference in this respect between the various contrasting opinions in whatever field. What we learnt about political parties holds true too for differences regarding religious law, dogmatic points of difference etc. Every ra?y or hawa, every sunna and bid`a has sought and found expression in the form of hadith.

And even though Muslim traditionalists developed elaborate means to scrutinize the mass of traditions that were then extant in the Muslim lands, they were ?able to exclude only part of the most obvious falsifications from the hadith material.? Goldziher, for all his scepticism, accepted that the practice of preserving hadiths was authentic and that some hadiths were likely to be authentic. However, having said that, Goldziher is adamant in maintaining that

In the absence of authentic evidence it would indeed be rash to attempt to express the most tentative opinions as to which parts of the hadith are the oldest material, or even as to which of them date back to the generation immediately following the Prophet?s death. Closer acquaintance with the vast stock of hadiths induces sceptical caution rather than optimistic trust regarding the material brought together in the carefully compiled collections.

Herbert Berg PhD

Man_of_Faith

Peace,

Let us wait and see.

The Quran is the evidence. The work done by people here is not to find new meanings but discover the original meaning through all distortion.

I can agree that some Quran only people have gone a bit far with the prayers, but I do not speak for them. The Quran is quite clear that you are supposed to pray several times per day. And the positions are mentioned in it too.

I have not changed my religion particularly much from the Islam you practice, but I do not read the hadith of Muhammad. I do not deem Muhammad to be infallible and just a person who was honored to carry out God's work here on Earth. I say no salams to Muhammad or other things since Muhammad obviously do not need that now and he cannot hear me. If he, which I do not doubt, got to Heaven he is free from worry or anything and enjoy that he passed God's test.

The moral character of Muhammad I get enough of by reading Quran. I am sure he was a good person and an example for people, but we have to be our own good examples and we do not have to imitate Muhammad for that.

Have you seen any prophet having the same personality as the other? No, they were they own character with own fallacies and strengths. Same for us, we are no Muhammad-copies, we are our own moral characters living in God's Sunnah.

I sense that the fate of muslims today is that of those who followed Jesus and were obsessed with him instead of God. They were later calling themselves Christians instead of Muslims. At least Muslims are calling themselves Muslims today, but they are in fact rather Muhammadans. There are many Muhammadans who are good people, their main problem is that they fall in the trap of idolatry.

If you untie yourself from obsession with Muhammad then you are Muslim. I think there will be another round of events involving a new Messenger to expose the corruption, for God is the Most Merciful. Do not believe me? Well, wait and see and I will wait along with you.

Sorry for being lured off-topic. At least it has to do with Muhammad.

God bless you

pixelrowed