Is a man allowed to beat his wife?
-
Salaam Elena,
Elena wrotethe first part, desertion, and the last, reconciliation, are the same in this verse and in 434&35; there are no the advise, abandon, leave instructions, but maybe it is because that was not expected from a wife to a husband at that time in that culture.
But I thought that Quran was eternal, I mean that it doesn't matter which culture and epok you live in.
And one more thing is that why must all advices have to be written in one single verse!?
We'll have to read all related verses and make a conclusion out of it and not take one verse and hang out alone.
Peace
Sis Majidah -
Peace,
We'll have to read all related verses and make a conclusion out of it and not take one verse and hang out alone.
that was what I was trying to do, relating verses. At the quran-word- searches I just find those verses speaking about desertion and reconciliation related to husband-wife problems. Desertion gives only two matches and reconciliation 5-7 matches depending on the search chosen, and both desertion and reconciliation together only in 4.128 + 434&35
And one more thing is that why must all advices have to be written in one single verse!?
I don't know, must they? I wanted to find the most similar, equivalent verse. -
Salaam Sis Elena,
Ok, sometime it can be difficult to express oneself clearly in written form.
But what I was surprised of what you wrote, it was that you seemed to think that Quran was written to fit in the old days but Quran is for all times and it doesn't matter if you live now in 2005 or you lived during the 1600 centuary right!?
Peace
Sis Majidah -
Peace,
But what I was surprised of what you wrote, it was that you seemed to think that Quran was written to fit in the old days but Quran is for all times and it doesn't matter if you live now in 2005 or you lived during the 1600 centuary right!?
don't be surprised, please. It is a triumph that I am approaching the quran with the most possible objective mind when I am not attached to any religion. I am interested in knowing what the quran really says to understand the deep impact it has on its followers + I want to extract from it the spiritual teachings I can accept.
you seemed to think that Quran was written to fit in the old days
not to fit, but that revelation was inspired during those old days, wasn't it? I don't find strange some parts are just for those days and that culture. Of course I can see easily how many parts are for all time.
-
Peace Leyla, Shams,
This reply is off-thread, but because the following points were made in this thread, I would like to clarify this matter in light of The Qur'aan.
I don?t think that Shamsul-Arefin is `liberal?, I think he is very true to the quran.
How do you define nikah in the frame of the quran?
Do you need to register yourself somewhere?
Do you need some Mullah to recite some prayers?
Do you need the blessings of a church?
Do you need a big celebration with your relatives?Definitely not.
The basic quranic requirement for nikah is two people having an agreement and sharing their responsibilities. I guess that most people here in the west
having a boyfriend? orhaving a grilfriend? perfectly meet the quranic idea of nikah.According to The Qur'aan, NIKAH is not just agreement of two people, but it is a legal contract involving a third person who is the GUARDIAN OF THE MARRIAGE CONTRACT.
2236 And if you divorce them before having sexual intercourse with them, but you have already agreed to the dowry; then you must give half of what you have agreed, unless they forgive or the guardian over the marriage contract forgives. And if you forgive, it is closer to righteousness. And do not forget the favour between you; God is Seer over what you do.
This marriage contract includes dowry. There is a legal procedure described in detail in The Qur'aan for dissolution of this legal contract, which is called TALAQ or divorce. The Qur'aanic NIKAH is not equivalent to a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship as Shams and you would like all of us to believe, but is clearly a legally binding contract.
I would humbly advise you to refrain from ascribing your own fabricated definitions, conjectures and opinions of "nikah" to the word of The God.
450 See how they invent upon God the lies; is that not enough as a clear sin?
16117 And do not say regarding what your tongues describe with lies "This is lawful and that is forbidden;" that you seek to invent lies about God. Those who invent lies about God will not succeed.
2061 Moses said to them "Woe to you, do not invent lies about God, else the retribution will take you, and miserable is the one who invents."
Regards,
Tanveer
-
Peace Jaxal, Elena,
I don't find strange some parts are just for those days and that culture.
I agree with Jaxal on this one (wow, agreeing again with Jaxal shock ). Elena, please quote the ayaat/verses/signs which were meant JUST FOR THE OLD DAYS and not applicable to nowadays, other than the signs relevant only to Muhammad's personal life. Happy hunting !!
-
Peace Leyla, Shams,
The following sign clearly disallows pre-marital sexual relationship (outside "nikah")
57 Today, the good things have been made lawful to you, and the food of those who have been given the Scripture is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them; and the independent from the believing women, and the independent from the people of the Scripture before you, if you have given them their dowries, protected, CHASTE, AND NOT SEEKING TO TAKE LOVERS. And whoever rejects belief, then his work has fallen, and in the Hereafter he is of the losers.
-
Salaam Br Tanveermd,
Very good work Brother,
I knew a verse existed like that one but I couldn't find it.Al-Hamdulillah that you found it because I have sitting on nails and thought that it can't be possible if muslims having sex outside marriage.
Peace
Sis Majidah -
Peace Jaxal,
SaLaM Elena
During my reading of the Quran, I have not come across even one verse which was JUST for the old days and culture. If you want to, perhaps you can clarify this a bit more or if it is your own opinion, then dont worry about itI understand we humans can extract guidance from revelations regardeless the time they were inspired.
I think some parts are for some specific time when I find names of places, like Badr, 3124, or names of people, like Abu-Lahab, 1112 or when I find things like I said in the other post, comparing 434&35 to 4.128.
I understand both verses advise reconcilitaion and good behaviour when facing desertion but the instructions are given just to one of them (this can be explained by what Idolfree says, that the message is given to the male because the male/female principles)Bear in mind, Jaxal and Tanveer, that I can't approach the reading as you do. I started to have contact with islam and quran we could say, recently, despite that 'recently' means almost four years and that I don't intend to affirm or convince or prove anything. I just want to know things.
I can't help any of you with my contributions, just asking, reading and hopefully, increase my knowledge. -
Salaam Sis Elena,
Good that you telling us this.
I have thought that you were a muslim already it sounded like that before in other posts but now I have understood that was not the case.
But that's fine we are all here to discuss and learn so just keep asking.
Peace
Sis Majidah -
peace be upon you Elena, Majidah, all,
1111 has NOTHING do with the time. abu lahab is not a proper name/noun, it is a description, and it means 'father of flame'.
In chapter 111, one who fathers the flame is consumed by what they put forth, i.e. fire/flame. It is an ingenious play on words. This has been discussed extensively on this forum, please use the search function at the top.*the above understanding is conclusively proven by the traditional stories themselves! they clearly say Abu Lahab was a nickname, and his real name was Abdul Uzza. That means The God uses a nickname in 1111, even though it is written in 'the reading' we should not use nicknames (4911). Thus is The God a hypocrite according to the traditionalists? Some of their understandings are truly rubbish.
And as for 'Badr', just because an event is mentioned that happened in the past does not mean no guidance can be gained from it. Why do we learn about World War 1 in schools for example? Why do we learn about the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima or Nagasaki?
Just because it mentions something in the past, doesn't mean it is for that time. For this to be true, one would have to prove there is no guidance that can be gained from the telling of that story/event. Can one bring evidence to support this assertion?I have thought that you were a muslim already it sounded like that before in other posts but now I have understood that was not the case.
You, nor I, know who is a muslim (one who submits/complies) and who is not. Sister Elena could be the most sincere muslim on this board. Perhaps what you meant was the title/noun "Muslim" (with a capital).
Wakas
-
Salaam Br Wakas,
Thanks for the info about Abu Lahab, I really didn't have any clue about that.
And yes I meant Muslim as a title, Of course she can be a muslim by her intentions who knows!?
Peace
Sis Majidah -
SaLaM Wakas
abu lahab is not a proper name/noun, it is a description, and it means 'father of flame'.
What? Ofcourse Abu Lahb is a name. Yes, its meaning may be "Father of Flame" but Abu Lahb is a name. ITs a noun. My name is "Ridwan" which means "Guardian Of Paradise" ( so SM, if you want to get in paradise you better be cool with me Loooll kidding ). Ridwan IS a proper name AND noun. So is Abu Lahb
-
-
SaLaM Wakas
Your so-called "argument" in my opinion, is totally out there. Specifically im talking about what u said about Verse 111.1 . I read the article you pointed and forgive me if my opinion on this matter is still the same. The aritical Ayman wrote and the verses he gave were talking about a 3 female godess. Allaat, Al-Uzzah and Manat. Regarding these three fake Gods, what Ayman had to say about these three fake gods was correct. These are mearly names given by people. Its no different than the names given to indian gods such as Ram, Shiva, Kali Ma etc etc. Anyone with common sense will agree to that.
But, when names such Abu Lahb pop up in the Quran, the same principles cannot be applied here. Abu Lahb is a name being used in that verse, or else God would have simply say "father of flame" instead of "Abu Lahb". God wouldnt hesitate to do that. He DIDNT do that. God used "Abu Lahb". Who are you to say well, that not REALLY what God meant. Abu Lahb was a man who was a disbeliever. And he died a disbeliever.
If you want to believe that the Surah is really referring to "father of the flames" rather than "Abu Lahb" then nothing i will say which will change ur mind or anyone else's who share ur believe. Im completely ok with that . There are 6 billion people on this earth. Not everyone can ever agree on the same thing. But Elena is learning and i believe its only fair that she has both sides of the picture before making a decision. So everytime a refernce is made to this as "father of the flames" i will bring the other side of the picture and put it there so the person who is seeking answers can have it both before he/she makes a decision. You should be ok with. As i am. I believe this is fair.
-
Peace all,
When reading Chapter 111, I understand that Abu Lahab was a named person whose works were evil. The chapter also references his wife as a persecutor, a supporter of her husband's evil works, both of which are condemned. The entire chapter gives us the notion to reflect upon their wrong-doings and their relationship as such, viz-a-viz in forbearance with other verses that mentions these behaviour. Just my thoughts!!!
-
peace be upon you all,
Ayman made a good point a while back, keeping in mind that abu lahab means father of flames
Perhaps another point worth adding to the discussions on Chapter 111 on both threads is that the term "7atab" only occurs one other time in the great reading in 7215.
- And as for the deviators, they were the fuel of hell
7215 is talking about the deviators from the "jinn"/hidden ones.
So if we put 1114 and 7215 together then we get
- And his wife the bearer of the fuel (i.e., the bearer of the deviators from the hidden ones)
The word "7amal" (bear) has many interesting usages that may shed further light on 1114. For example, it means bearing children (3114, 4615). This is interesting because we are also told that the "jinn"/hidden ones are the descendants of "iblis" (1850).
The word "7amal" is also used for the bearing of the trust by humans (3372). It is also talked about often in relation to hell (20100-101, 3518, 2912). We are also told what to avoid bearing in 2286.
I think that perhaps Chapter 111 is concisely giving us a lot more info about the relationship between the "ins"/apparent and the "jinn"/hidden than what immediately meets the eye.
Just a thought.
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman
-
peace be upon you jaxal,
But, when names such Abu Lahb pop up in the Quran, the same principles cannot be applied here. Abu Lahb is a name being used in that verse, or else God would have simply say "father of flame" instead of "Abu Lahb". God wouldnt hesitate to do that. He DIDNT do that. God used "Abu Lahb". Who are you to say well, that not REALLY what God meant. Abu Lahb was a man who was a disbeliever. And he died a disbeliever.
If you want to believe that the Surah is really referring to "father of the flames" rather than "Abu Lahb" then nothing i will say which will change ur mind or anyone else's who share ur believe. Im completely ok with that ) . There are 6 billion people on this earth. Not everyone can ever agree on the same thing. But Elena is learning and i believe its only fair that she has both sides of the picture before making a decision. So everytime a refernce is made to this as "father of the flames" i will bring the other side of the picture and put it there so the person who is seeking answers can have it both before he/she makes a decision. You should be ok with. As i am. I believe this is fair.
no offense but how does this argument have any logic at all? what do you think abu lahab translates to?
