only men are addresses

unknownuser

Peace all,

Explorer, the way I look at 443, the addressees are all believers (male and female), and in that context the phrase "laamastumun-nisaa" implies any sexual contact with another person. In other words, for me "laamastumun-nisaa" as a whole implies "sexual touch" idiomatically, and not just "intensely touching a woman". Do you mean to say that when a male touches a female sexually, then the female is not also sexually touching the male (other than rape) ?

I think the peculiarity of Classical Arabic allows that kind of idiomatic usage as Samia has pointed out.

Warner, I agree with "laamasa" being an intense touch but I consider the phrase "laamastumun-nisaa" implying a sexual touch idiomatically (sexual touch would also be "intense&quot. For example it would exclude a casual handshake, and would also exclude a non-sexual upper back massage given for medical reasons by a physical therapist, even though the latter could be "intense".

Siki, please do your own research ..... a female can be "junuban" also after or before "dakhal" by male, without male having any discharge. I do not want to be too graphically descriptive.

explorer

Peace all,

Explorer, the way I look at 443, the addressees are all believers (male and female), and in that context the phrase "laamastumun-nisaa" implies any sexual contact with another person. In other words, for me "laamastumun-nisaa" as a whole implies "sexual touch" idiomatically, and not just "intensely touching a woman". Do you mean to say that when a male touches a female sexually, then the female is not also sexually touching the male (other than rape) ?

I think the peculiarity of Classical Arabic allows that kind of idiomatic usage as Samia has pointed out.

Tanveer, peace be with you as well

"Ladies and gentle man. Please listen carefully. All of you in this room should stand up and exit the room using the green door. Those who have touched their wives should exit the room using the red door".

There are four people in the room. Peter and Karen is one couple. John and Jill is another. John has touched Jill and Jill has touched John. (as you said both men and women touch each other except in rapes). Peter and Karen remained sober.

After hearing the above instructions following people will exit the room using green door

Peter
Karen
Jill

Following person will exit through the red door

John

I dont see how the above instructions applies to Jill. Unless in classical language "those who have touched their wives" is translated as "those who have touched their spouses". No example of such usage exists outside Quran. Reverse engineering language rules from Quran alone is akin to tweaking the meaning in our favor.

Quran was sent in Arabic. That means it was conforming to Arabic language rules. We cannot derive language rules from Quran. At least it does not make sense to my small brain.

siki

Peace all,

Explorer, the way I look at 443, the addressees are all believers (male and female), and in that context the phrase "laamastumun-nisaa" implies any sexual contact with another person. In other words, for me "laamastumun-nisaa" as a whole implies "sexual touch" idiomatically, and not just "intensely touching a woman". Do you mean to say that when a male touches a female sexually, then the female is not also sexually touching the male (other than rape) ?

I agree, and fully support that this is an idiomatic usage..

Peace all,

Siki, please do your own research ..... a female can be "junuban" also after or before "dakhal" by male, without male having any discharge. I do not want to be too graphically descriptive.

I agree, determining the precise line for "junabaan" should be a personal affair and hence should be left to individual perception.

peace

siki

siki

Let me explain my confusion more clearly.

O ye who believe! APPROACH NOT prayers

with a mind befogged until ye can understand all that ye say
AND NOR in a state of ceremonial impurity except when traveling on the road until after washing your whole body

Please note the bold ?approach not? and ?and nor?. The verse should say ?approach not salat when you are junuban? and NOT ?approach not salat when you are not junuban? . The 2 negatives convey the latter meaning.

Salam Warner

Brother , i agree , there is a small linguistic hiccup here, I checked a couple of word by word translations. it is,

approach not salat when you are,,,,until you know,,,, and not junaabaan till you ,,,,,

it should have been,

approach not salat when you are,,, until you know,,,and junaabaan till you....

However i feel that even the first one conveys the correct meanings and leaves no confusion.

May be , this second Not was grammatically required.

What is the difference between Taghtasilu ( 443) and Fa?ghsilu_ (56) ?

I find no problem with the above usage. One is that you wash, "such and such part", and the other is, "till you wash your self". Taghtasilu is understood to be a Bath, where as fa- ghaisilu when used along with a particular part , denotes washing of that particular object.

siki

Samia

Tanveer, peace be with you as well

"Ladies and gentle man. Please listen carefully. All of you in this room should stand up and exit the room using the green door. Those who have touched their wives should exit the room using the red door".

There are four people in the room. Peter and Karen is one couple. John and Jill is another. John has touched Jill and Jill has touched John. (as you said both men and women touch each other except in rapes). Peter and Karen remained sober.

After hearing the above instructions following people will exit the room using green door

Peter
Karen
Jill

Following person will exit through the red door

John

I dont see how the above instructions applies to Jill. Unless in classical language "those who have touched their wives" is translated as "those who have touched their spouses". No example of such usage exists outside Quran. Reverse engineering language rules from Quran alone is akin to tweaking the meaning in our favor.

Quran was sent in Arabic. That means it was conforming to Arabic language rules. We cannot derive language rules from Quran. At least it does not make sense to my small brain.

Salaam explorer
Two querries

What exactly is "touch your wives"?
What do green and red doors stand for?

I will post my comments after you kindly clarify these points.

explorer

Salaam explorer
Two querries

What exactly is "touch your wives"?
What do green and red doors stand for?

I will post my comments after you kindly clarify these points.

Samia, peace be with you as well.

This is an hypothetical example. Lets say in this example "touch your wives" is referring to "sexual touchings"
These are just hyptethical doors. There are 4 people (2 couples) in a room. 1 couple has touched each other ( in a sexual way), while the other has not. After sending them the above hypothetical instruction which door would each choose? 3 of them will choose the green door and only one lady would choose the red door, according to me. According to those who says "touch your women" applies to both men and women, one couple should choose green door and one couple should choose the red door, which does not make sense to me.

I still dont get it how "touch your women" phrase would apply to both men and women. How can we reverse engineer languistic rules from Quran. Quran was sent in Arabic. That means Quran was conforming to Arabic standards.

Mazhar

A new term "sexual touching" seems to have been coined during this debate since in English language these two words are not available club together. Touching results or causes warmeth/excitement in cells of the thing touched whether matter or human body. If "Lamas" is to be translated as "touch, touching" then from where the word "sexual" could be brought in? At best keeping in view the effect of "touching", if Lamas is to be restricted to "touching" then the meaning of Lamastum an nisa could mean only arousing/exciting women. Therefore in keeping with the Tasreef ayat, the word has been explained as intercourse and that too only with reference to lawful wives. Believing Men are addressed with reference to their wives and not all women since address is not to debauch men.

Samia

Salaam warner
Thanks for the replies.
Now back to your hypothetical situation
(oops, where is it gone?)
Never mind. Here, requoted from my message

"Ladies and gentle man. Please listen carefully. All of you in this room should stand up and exit the room using the green door. Those who have touched their wives should exit the room using the red door".

There are four people in the room. Peter and Karen is one couple. John and Jill is another. John has touched Jill and Jill has touched John. (as you said both men and women touch each other except in rapes). Peter and Karen remained sober.

After hearing the above instructions following people will exit the room using green door

Peter
Karen
Jill

Following person will exit through the red door

John

I dont see how the above instructions applies to Jill. Unless in classical language "those who have touched their wives" is translated as "those who have touched their spouses". No example of such usage exists outside Quran. Reverse engineering language rules from Quran alone is akin to tweaking the meaning in our favor.

Quran was sent in Arabic. That means it was conforming to Arabic language rules. We cannot derive language rules from Quran. At least it does not make sense to my small brain.

According to this situation, only those who had intercourse with their wives can exit from red door (as per analogy tayammum; washing; wadu...etc), which entails that women are not required to exit from the red door/do tayammum, washing or wadu before salat, which entails they are not required to do salat, which entails, in similar hypothetical situations, that they are not required to do anyting. But the qur'aan mentions two women as example of those who believe, which means those who believe are not required to do salaat, which entails that this verse is addressing the non believers, which is nonesense.

Language is important to understand, yes. But more important than language is common sense and ability to look at the bigger picture and cross reference.

warner

Salaam Samia

Will you be able to shed some light on the double negatives in 443 I pointed out few posts back. Is it noramal to have that kind of language or is there a contradiction ?

Leoxyz

A new term "sexual touching" seems to have been coined during this debate since in English language these two words are not available club together. Touching results or causes warmeth/excitement in cells of the thing touched whether matter or human body. If "Lamas" is to be translated as "touch, touching" then from where the word "sexual" could be brought in? At best keeping in view the effect of "touching", if Lamas is to be restricted to "touching" then the meaning of Lamastum an nisa could mean only arousing/exciting women. Therefore in keeping with the Tasreef ayat, the word has been explained as intercourse and that too only with reference to lawful wives. Believing Men are addressed with reference to their wives and not all women since address is not to debauch men.

Dear
you want to say if a debauch man has intercourse with his wife or any other woman ,he need not have "ghusal"?
Am I right to understand you ?becaue Quran is not addressing him.

Mazhar

Dear Leoxyz,

You start inferring things. I do not consider that drawing inferrences is allowed in the study of Quran. Allah gives guidance only to those who seek that or inclined to get it. A debauch person is least pushed about niceities of taking bath for purification; he just takes bath for other considerations of health and freshness etc.

Leoxyz

Dear Leoxyz,

You start inferring things. I do not consider that drawing inferrences is allowed in the study of Quran. Allah gives guidance only to those who seek that or inclined to get it. A debauch person is least pushed about niceities of taking bath for purification; he just takes bath for other considerations of health and freshness etc.

I have to infer because you people always talk ambigously.So that you can slip at the time of need.
My question to you
A muslim debauch person makes intercourse with any woman other than wife.Is Ghusal necessary for him according to this aya or not??
Give me a clear answe so that I do not infer.
Thanks

Mazhar

I know you are not a debauch person. Why should you be worried about the taking bath of a debauch person after sex with women. This is how the so called Imams have formulated so called fiqha by imaginating presumptive situations and then giving their verdicts. A decision and judgement is given only when a situation actually arises. Here in the verse believing men have been advised to take bath if they had intercourse with their wives; simple and straightforward instruction.

Leoxyz

I know you are not a debauch person. Why should you be worried about the taking bath of a debauch person after sex with women. This is how the so called Imams have formulated so called fiqha by imaginating presumptive situations and then giving their verdicts. A decision and judgement is given only when a situation actually arises. Here in the verse believing men have been advised to take bath if they had intercourse with their wives; simple and straightforward instruction.

Please be clear
So you want to say that "debauch ' muslim does not need ghusal after having intercourse with some woman other than his wife.??
Please answer to the point Did I infer correctly ?

Mazhar

So you want to say that "debauch ' muslim does not need ghusal after having intercourse with some woman other than his wife.??
Please answer to the point Did I infer correctly ?{Leoxyz}

"So you want to say" is the methodology of the traditionalists and story writers who even go to the extent of saying with references to Quran that Allah wanted to say this when He said such and such thing. I did not say what you are trying to infer. A muslim is one who immediately repents and comes back to Allah for forgiveness with the promise to conduct himself rightly in future even if some sexual act has taken place instinctively or having been overpowered by emotions. This act could be categorised as occasional debauchery. To such a person I need not tell whether or not bath had become obligatory; he knows it.

A debauch will seldom come and ask this question. He is least pushed and worried about divince injunctions.

Leoxyz

"So you want to say" is the methodology of the traditionalists and story writers who even go to the extent of saying with references to Quran that Allah wanted to say this when He said such and such thing. I did not say what you are trying to infer. A muslim is one who immediately repents and comes back to Allah for forgiveness with the promise to conduct himself rightly in future even if some sexual act has taken place instinctively or having been overpowered by emotions. This act could be categorised as occasional debauchery. To such a person I need not tell whether or not bath had become obligatory; he knows it.

A debauch will seldom come and ask this question. He is least pushed and worried about divince injunctions.

Again answering in "yes"/'No'.you have wasted so many sentences .It shows "sprinkled confusion" in your mind.
Again I repeat my question
Does a debauch muslim who have intercourse with a woman other than his wife need ghusal according to this aya or not ??

Simple answer is either yes or no.
No need for so many sentences.

Samia

Salaam Samia

Will you be able to shed some light on the double negatives in 443 I pointed out few posts back. Is it noramal to have that kind of language or is there a contradiction ?

Salaam warner

I don't see a double negative. I see a "neither..nor" sentence. It's like "he didn't eat meat nor eggs" Don't approach salaat when your mind is fogged, nor when you are "junub". This neither nor is expressed in Arabic with main negation (laa; lam;lan)....wa laa. It could even be something like (he did not eat neither meat nor eggs).

As for (illaa 3aabiri sabeel), this is a parenthetical clause.

3aabir sabeel is someone on transit during a journey (ibn sabeel is traveller). I think this person is exempt from ghusl/washingso as to save him the embarrassment If he is staying with people and he accidentally becomes "junub", washing will give him away; so God is helping him cover his embarrassment.

siki

Salaam warner

I don't see a double negative. I see a "neither..nor" sentence. It's like "he didn't eat meat nor eggs" Don't approach salaat when your mind is fogged, nor when you are "junub". This neither nor is expressed in Arabic with main negation (laa; lam;lan)....wa laa. It could even be something like (he did not eat neither meat nor eggs).

Hi samia!

Thanks for clarification, makes sense.

3aabir sabeel is someone on transit during a journey (ibn sabeel is traveller). I think this person is exempt from ghusl/washingso as to save him the embarrassment If he is staying with people and he accidentally becomes "junub", washing will give him away; so God is helping him cover his embarrassment.

Ya ! other than the hassle, this could also be an important reason.

siki

siki

A new term "sexual touching" seems to have been coined during this debate since in English language these two words are not available club together. Touching results or causes warmeth/excitement in cells of the thing touched whether matter or human body. If "Lamas" is to be translated as "touch, touching" then from where the word "sexual" could be brought in? At best keeping in view the effect of "touching", if Lamas is to be restricted to "touching" then the meaning of Lamastum an nisa could mean only arousing/exciting women. Therefore in keeping with the Tasreef ayat, the word has been explained as intercourse and that too only with reference to lawful wives. Believing Men are addressed with reference to their wives and not all women since address is not to debauch men.

Brother Mazhar

Salam, I can not agree with what you have written above. In Quran when God uses the word "your women" instead of wives, He is ensuring that all legal, and illegal lamastamum unnissa are covered. Moreover , had he used the word Azwaj , it would have covered only one of the legal liaisons.

And once again i stress that lamastamunissa is not intercourse, please understand that there are precisely two parameters , one which pushes you in janaaba state , and makes Ghusl a necessity. But the other (lamastamum un nissa) does not , and requires an ablution only.The only difference being that if one does not find water , he/she still has to carry out Tayammam in this case.

I sincerely hope that you will be able to appreciate the difference.

peace

siki

Mazhar

I am only trying to emphasize that one word should not be taken out of the whole statement, dissected without taking into consideration the whole statement of Quran. In the verse the word "An nisa" is only for wives not for women.
Does not mean the women of the world but is restricted to ?your wives?

Here the touch has been clarified with naked words of "intercourse-physical enterence", if it has taken place then the daughter of this wife from her earlier husband becomes the dauther because of the emergence of relationship of "" but if this relationship has not been developed daughter from earlier husband will be permissible for Nikah if this wife was divorced.

But for the son of this man, this particular woman who had been taken into the fold of Nikah and divorced whether after developing intercourse relationship or without that shall be inadmissible for Nikah in terms of 422.