Its from a hadith that makes reference to khimar. Its supposed to say in it 'i dont have a khimar for my head' and then at the end that she covered her head with it/herself with it? but i dont speak arabic so im trying to check if the translation is correct.

Salams huruf,

Thank you, that was a very clear and thorough answer, i appreciate it

^ O, so i got it the wrong way around?...the ending indicates the gender who is doing the possessing and not who is being possessed by the right hand? =s

ws

Thank you for your replies. The bold part in the above went over my head / but am i right that youre saying the endings indicate WHO the hand is possessing, rather than the gender of the person doing the possessing?

so aymanuKUM indicates neither gender is being possessed specifically?

does yaminUKA indicate the person being possessed is multiple females? (as in verse 3350 & 3352) ?

ws

Btw Progressive1993, i am also trying to fingure this out. Im looking at this phrase and the others that specifically indicate slaves with out using malakat aymanukum and also looking at verses on chastity and modesty, so we can swap notes if you like

ws

Hi,

Im not an Arabic speaker and i was wondering about the translations into English. When the word 'eternity' is being translated, it is the same word as the word 'forever' when it is being translated? In terms of the word 'eternity' in English i think people tend to conceptualise it as 'never ending time', when a more accurate concept may be 'no time', as 'time' as the way we understand it (as a linear series of connected moments) may not exist at all once our consciousness is not attached to matter.

Sorry is someone has already made this point (i didnt read the whole topic - 37 pages!?, but with regards to God guiding whom He wills as i understand it this doesnt mean he makes ppl believe or disbelieve, it means once someone disbelieves and stops turning to Him He no longer guides him.

I'm not an Arabic speaker, but surely there must be an arabic word that means 'separate' that is not so ambiguous that it could be interpreted as 'beat'? i cant seem to get away from that confusion about this verse. If it doesnt mean 'beat' or 'strike', then why was a word used that is so open to interpretation to be interpreted as 'beat' in the first place. If an ambiguous word is used youre going to have that risk.

Is there a less ambiguous word than adribu that could have been used to indicate separate? if so, how can this be reconciled?

It may be that Ali and Fatima and Hassan and Hussain know the most after the prophet. But even in that case, good for them...it doesnt really affect us in the present day. They lived a good pious life and pleased God. Good on them.They passed the test with flying colours. It is our turn now. And its hard to tell fact from fiction after so many years...and its hard to follow in a persons footsteps when you dont even know them except from a few historic sources which may or may not be correct.

Im shia inclined too in the sense that my family is all shia and have a huge amount of respect for the prophet and his family. But apart from that, this preference doesnt make a difference in my spirituality or connection with God.

Peace.

I can understand that, i believe that there is no 1 religion, in the sense that, even if a person identifies with a certain 'path', in reality we all process and manifest that experience differently and our spiritual experience is unique to us. God knows how honest we're being in our intentions to find truth and whether we are looking to fit ourselves into truth or looking to fit truth into ourselves. There are things in Islam i struggle with, regardless of sect affiliation and its a struggle to ascertain how much i resist because of cultural bias informing my morality. This is the greatest danger with Quranists i think, its hugely appealing perhaps more because of our weaknesses (ego, distress at what might be very uncomfortable truths to a modern, though not necessarily correct, but easy morality), though i dont doubt that many Quranists have a genuin desire to ascertain God's law, irrespective of how difficult the reality of that law may be to come to terms with in a 21st century time and place culture. If we're not struggling we're probably not on the right path, i dont think its meant to be easy.

Oh but it is not ambiguous, but any word can become ambifuous if you decide tomake it so, and even if you decide to completele change its jedimeaning.

Youhave to check the Qur'an and you will se that it is not ambiguous.

Salaam

What is your evidence that it is not ambiguous? It is traditionslly translated as 'beat', overwhelmingly so and there are ahadith that prove that ppl have traditionally translated it as 'beat' for many hundreds of years, not just in one sect, but universally. How do you account for such a strong history of interpretation of this word? You think the vast majority of muslim scholars were deliberately mistranslating this word and risking the repercussions of that? What makes you qualified to interpret it differently? What makes you think some 21st century self styled scholar can make a better determination about that than the most educated scholars more than a thousand years closer to the time of its original revelation? This isnt a sectarian issue, its a 'what is more likely' issue given the wait of evidence that this word has always been interpretated as 'beat'.

So it seems to me you have 2 choices, you either accept the wait of historical evidence and there fore liklihoid that it is 'beat', or accept that it was an ambiguous word to use in the first place.

Salam,
I also converted to Islam in 2010!! I was very strict and into Hadith for about 3-4 months until I saw that they were nothing comparable to the Quran, with ridiculous stories, rules Allah never mentioned and contradictions with the Quran etc. Welcome )

Ws, mashAllah

Yes, Quran is always the primary source, hadith can be a minefield and there is, without doubt, much corruption to be identified. There is no Shia ahadith book that claims to be authentic in entirety, Shi'ites are generally very open about that, the process of ahadith verification is on going in the Shia community and you will find disagreements. It makes sense to me that the person best served to understand Quran and to exemplify its message was the Prophet(saw) and the people closest to him after that (Ali(as) and Fatima(as)) and their decendants. So their example is what Shia's strive to verify and take indpiration from as living examples of best conduct.

Shalom,

You need not worry. After all, its all about living a righteous life . I dont believe that God would suffer a lose or gain from your acceptance or rejection. The reason you are given specific commands is for you. So, do your best to understand your system/way/religion better. Personally, I dont follow anything that contradicts the Qur'an. In other words, if God comes down and says its ok to do something when scholars/hadiths say otherwise, I will chose God as my savior. So any hadith you bring me, if it contradicts, it is evil in my eyes. Let me tell you something really awsome, for most part of my life as God alone muslim, I have been reading off traditionalist translations. Yes, my friend, God guides WHOEVER HE WILLS. As you mature in the field, you will notice how much knowledge you will have as you keep on Reading in the name of your Lord.

PEACE
---------------------- Student of Allah

Ws and thank you. In Shia Islam you cannot follow ahadith that contradicts Quran. There is of course a bias towards interpretation of certain verses in Shia tradition, but there are many Shia who are open minded about this and do not rely on Taqleed for all thier ahadith info and Quran interpretation. Many Shia's study ahadith for them selves and use the practices of hadith science to judge a hadith. You are encouraged to educate and study for yourself. There are also many beautiful and inspiring ahadith about the Ahlulbayt(as) as examples of the living Quran which have enhanced my experience of coming to Islam.

The problem with ccamurads thinking is that he thinks the prophet explained The Quran with his own words.
But ccamurad has to understand that the Quran is the explanation. The Prophet simply recites it. That is how he explained.

If you, ccamurad, is more interested in the truth that bent on upholding sectarian teachings, you might begin to see that truth. Unfortunately most sectarians seem to rather use religious texts, to read their own sectarian mindset into it. If they love these hadith-papers, that is just a sign of an offensive mind to begin with.

REMEMBER that God is infinitely intelligent. Loving this God, seems to be harshly in conflict with the crude intelligence of hadith-papers.

Who do you think was in the best position to explain Quran? are you suggested that the Prophet(saW) was a mere puppet who had no understanding of what was being revealed to him??

The Quran indicating that the sunnah of the Prophet(saw) is to be followed in addition doesnt mean the Quran is incomplete, there may be very good reasons for there needing to be an authority on earth to turn to for guidence, so people can be rightly guided after the Prophets(saw) death and not left to their own whims and individual interpretation of Quran.

It's something that can be wildly morally subjective and culturally influenced. The ambiguity of this word actually supports the need for ahadith to qualify it. Even if you say that the 'beat' translation is arguable, you then have to deal with why a less ambiguous word was not used.

Salams

Its interesting you went from Atheism to Islam, thats not a transition you see often. I think most conversions i see are from Christians to Muslims or Sunni's to Shia =P

I am also from a more athiest family background, but always considered myself agnostic or wishy washy Chrstian xD

nice to meet you.

?? what? it doesnt say 'aggression is forbidden in a military situation', it is saying specifically that if muslims are being oppressed and prevented from worshipping God freely you can fight, but if the opposition then refrains from these activities the Muslims shall not be the agressors (it is to be done in self defense). This cross referencing can be very misleading, it is leading to people taking words out of context so they can justify their own modern, culturally influenced morality by twisting the meaning of Quran, rather than using Quran to inform their morality.
How do you explain the overwhelming traditional interpretation by scholars of the word being translated as 'beat'?

Salaam

I hope I understood your question.
Do you mean whether public sex existed or not? If it did, what was it called? Arabic was not an evolved language. Even now, we have lost the meaning of this word and are unable to come with another word that means "public sex".
Since the word has its origin in a language prior to Arabic, it means that this practice was common, and linked to religion. This has to be stopped.
Sex between two persons is not a thing that would be watched by four people! Spying is forbidden, houses should not be entered into without permission, therefore any evidence built on spying is not admissible by God. It would be obsolete to have a punishment for a crime that is impossible to prove. Not only that, but if you do not prove it you are punished. Porn is the only sexual act that meets this condition for evidence.
If we look at other punishable crimes, no specific evidence is required, so we can apply any evidence that's available, and permissible.

Sorry, i dont quite understand. Zina seems to be commonly defined as sex outside of marriage. Where are you getting your 'public sex' definition from for the time that Quran was revealed? a word can have a root meaning and also common usage that changes within a relatively short space of time ('gay' being a modern example, where the commonly understood meaning of the word changed radically in less than 50 years). So to use a definition that existed long before Quran isnt necessarily of help (it would also be helpful to know what your sources are regarding the pre-Quran definition). Is there not evidence that the word at the time was commonly known to mean sex outside of marriage? if not, why is it so usually defined that way now?

Also, It doesnt have to be public sex for 4 witnesses to witness two people having sex, people could walk in on people having extra marital sex. Also, if someone suspects their partner of commiting adultery, could they not catch them out with 3 other witnesses? why would this be a problem?

Also regarding 'lewdness', a husband can punish his wife for lewdness can he not (beating verse)?

Salams indeed. I have read some disturbing things about Pork on a nutritionists site (non religious), i will try and find it and post. It might help illuminate as to why it is forbidden, and it might not. It is good to try and understand, but if we cant at this point in time theres no point worrying about it, all we need to know as a bottom line is that Quran says it is forbidden.

Ws immediatly before that though it is very definitely talking about military combat though, not a domestic situation, or any other situation.

I go away for only three years, come back and find that you are still discussing the meaning of "zina"? ;D

Zina has its origin in Hebrew and it means "the act of prostitute of the altar"; that's performing sex in public.

Salams thats interesting etymology, but how are you ascertaing that zina meant this at the time when Quran was revealed?

Salams,

Zina is extramarital sex as i understand it, so that means any sex that takes place outside of marriage and is punishable with lashes.