So we can't Marry Someone who has Fornicated!?
-
No. We are even commanded to lower our gaze. Do you honestly think that we are allowed to fornicate, if we can't even LOOK at the opposite sex in a lustful way? In islam sex is only allowed in marriage, period. No ifs or buts...
Also, why are some here talking about what non-Muslims would "think" of them? Muslims are not allowed to marry disbelievers, thus I don't see the relevance.
"Today, the good things have been made lawful to you, and the food of those who have been given the Book is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them; and the independent females from those who are believers, and the independent females from those who have been given the Book before you, if you have given them their dowries, to be independent, not for illicit sex or taking lovers. And whoever rejects belief, then his work has fallen, and in the Hereafter he is of the losers." (55)
Don't say what is not true God has permitted us to be with the people of the book which i'm sure REG is referencing.
-
"Today, the good things have been made lawful to you, and the food of those who have been given the Book is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them; and the independent females from those who are believers, and the independent females from those who have been given the Book before you, if you have given them their dowries, to be independent, not for illicit sex or taking lovers. And whoever rejects belief, then his work has fallen, and in the Hereafter he is of the losers." (55)
Don't say what is not true God has permitted us to be with the people of the book which i'm sure REG is referencing.
Read my message again, I wasn't talking about people of the book.
-
Read my message again, I wasn't talking about people of the book.
Because there are montheists who Believers will be thinking about what they are thinking afterall
-
I thik otherwise. Look at the refernce to people of the book in the Quran and its always talking about Jews
But it says people of previous scripture which include those who got the Gospel and not just the Torah.
Let alone the fact that Nasara is usually paired with Jews and how when referencing Jews only it literally states Jews and not "people of the book"
-
But it says people of previous scripture which include those who got the Gospel and not just the Torah.
Let alone the fact that Nasara is usually paired with Jews and how when referencing Jews only it literally states Jews and not "people of the book"
I thik it has to do with the Jewish animosity with Muhamad, especially the Meccan crowd but also the Medina crowd. We are told in the Quran that the Jews who are not believers are the ones who had the hostility just like they had with Jesus. We are to seperate based on that. The Quran does not look at people as one.
As fas as those who were given the book, it may refer to more than Jews. i was talking about the term ahlul kitaab which in the Koran refers to the Israelites.
-
I thik it has to do with the Jewish animosity with Muhamad, especially the Meccan crowd but also the Medina crowd. We are told in the Quran that the Jews who are not believers are the ones who had the hostility just like they had with Jesus. We are to seperate based on that. The Quran does not look at people as one.
As fas as those who were given the book, it may refer to more than Jews. i was talking about the term ahlul kitaab which in the Koran refers to the Israelites.
That is no proof. The term alone is pretty self explanitory in that people of the book references the followers of God mentioned in the boom therefore Christians included. What you say is VERY vague, proof is needed that People of the Book=Jews only. There was Christian hostility too afterall during that time so it wasn't only Jews.
-
"Today, the good things have been made lawful to you, and the food of those who have been given the Book is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them; and the independent females from those who are believers, and the independent females from those who have been given the Book before you, if you have given them their dowries, to be independent, not for illicit sex or taking lovers. And whoever rejects belief, then his work has fallen, and in the Hereafter he is of the losers." (55)
Don't say what is not true God has permitted us to be with the people of the book which i'm sure REG is referencing.
Salam and thanks Aryan Warrior,
I overlooked this verse when mentioning of unchartered waters
so it's officially safe to marry muslims, so doesn't have to be a mu'minThat is no proof. The term alone is pretty self explanitory in that people of the book references the followers of God mentioned in the boom therefore Christians included. What you say is VERY vague, proof is needed that People of the Book=Jews only. There was Christian hostility too afterall during that time so it wasn't only Jews.
REG, I agree with your views on the people of the book
i'd go further by saying since there are many nabi prior to 3eesa AS and dawood AS I would argue that the books/kitaab aren't just those three mentioned but they'd also be the scrolls/su7uf of Moosa AS and Ibraheem AS and the previous prophets before him..
so the people of the book would be the gnostics..
people who hold divine knowledge/wisdomabout the looking at your opposite sex
imo it is not a problem as long as you have consent (which is covered by ma malakat aymanukum) from the other party
staring would be forbidden because normally people wouldn't be giving consent to be stared atwallahua3lam
sorry if i don't reply to any queries for these two-three weeks
it's raya time happy raya for all you guys n gals -
That is no proof. The term alone is pretty self explanitory in that people of the book references the followers of God mentioned in the boom therefore Christians included. What you say is VERY vague, proof is needed that People of the Book=Jews only. There was Christian hostility too afterall during that time so it wasn't only Jews.
Why don't you then proof your view? I have dealt with this issue before. You can lookup and paste all the verses that mentions people of the book and see.
-
Why don't you then proof your view? I have dealt with this issue before. You can lookup and paste all the verses that mentions people of the book and see.
I asked you first plus my proof is simply that the fact that it states "previous scripture" clearly indicates what it means and "people of the book" is self explanatory and how Jews and Nasara are mentioned together as well as the simply term that is People of the Book literally means people of the "book" meaning the Quran, thus the knowledgable God followers that are mentioned in the Quran AKA Jews and Nasara.
-
Peace Red Eye Girl,
If you meet someone with a promiscuous history, and you are not aware of this, then can it be said (if you choose to marry) that you have knowingly violated 243?
I think not.
If you would rather not know what kind of history your partner has had, then don't ask him questions, that way, you haven't knowingly violated 243.
On the other hand, if you meet someone with a promiscuous history, and you are aware of this (perhaps they like to brag about all their sexual encounters), then give that person a wide berth.
Otherwise, (if you choose to marry) you have knowingly violated 243.
This is my position.
-
I asked you first plus my proof is simply that the fact that it states "previous scripture" clearly indicates what it means and "people of the book" is self explanatory and how Jews and Nasara are mentioned together as well as the simply term that is People of the Book literally means people of the "book" meaning the Quran, thus the knowledgable God followers that are mentioned in the Quran AKA Jews and Nasara.
But is not the people of the book a singular noun?
-
But is not the people of the book a singular noun?
Its singular in regards to referencing people who non-momin yet follow scripture and 1 God. Thus bunched them all together as one people. Notice how much the Quran mentions the two of them together?
-
Its singular in regards to referencing people who non-momin yet follow scripture and 1 God. Thus bunched them all together as one people. Notice how much the Quran mentions the two of them together?
"Notice how much the Quran mentions the two of them together?"
Like?
-
I think those who received previous revelations are everybody, since the Qur'an itself says that God has sent messengers to all peoples.
As to ahl al kitaab, we should first deal with what the "kitaab is. It is not the Qur'an , since the Qur'an has its own name in the Qur'an itself,. The kittab is one of the constituents of the Qur'an, hikma, is another constituent of the Qur'an.
Salaam
-
I think those who received previous revelations are everybody, since the Qur'an itself says that God has sent messengers to all peoples.
As to ahl al kitaab, we should first deal with what the "kitaab is. It is not the Qur'an , since the Qur'an has its own name in the Qur'an itself,. The kittab is one of the constituents of the Qur'an, hikma, is another constituent of the Qur'an.
Salaam
Read verses 4.153 - 173. Maybe because of the reference to the divinity of Jesus did some people think it also talks about Christains. This is because some Jews claimed Jesus claimed divinity and that is why they reject him. In reality Jesus's laim that he was the messiah was the reason. The verse I mentioned clearly is talking about the Israelites.