106
General Discussions / Re: Question on Sexual intercourse outside the marriage
« on: February 04, 2016, 07:36:40 PM »
Thanks for the precious reply 
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
107
Women / Re: Women Modest Dress Example
« on: February 04, 2016, 07:33:10 PM »Salam..Sstikstof..This point is the issue here, that is being discussed. For the answer you will need deeper reflection of the quran as this hasn't been mentioned specifically under the term 'modest' as per society norm. People are still confused about modesty. For example, in usa cloths without sleeve is modest. But in Asia your referred link image is considered as modest. In arab countries, full body coverage refers to modesty. Finally, Quran tells us to be modest as per society norm and minimum requirements are addressed which include covering the chest to feet generally and beautification is limited as to society norm to avoid attraction sexually. Rest finer details can be acquired from joseph Islam himself owner of this forum.
Thank you very much for your answer...bt i have one more doubt...check the picture in the below link..and...is it not ok to cover our arms till tat part?..i mean...as shown in the picture...can you please tell...
http://www.utsavfashion.in/salwar/off-white-cotton-readymade-churidar-kameez/ktv18-itemcode
108
Women / Re: Women Modest Dress Example
« on: February 04, 2016, 05:59:42 PM »Salam All...
Well..i have seen many articles supporting that...covering head is not compulsory according to Quran...but modesty is compulsory...
So...does that include covering arms too?...well...according to Indian culture...mostly we wear...salwar and kameez...covering...legs totally...revealing only feets..but..with regard to the arms...some wear...sleeveless..and..some wear.. covering half hands..and covering quarter part of the hands...so..what should we do..with regard to the arms?...should we cover fully...?...or covering some part is enough?..
In human anatomy, the arm is the upper limb of the body, comprising regions between the glenohumeral joint (shoulder joint) and the elbow joint. In common usage the arm extends to the hand. It can be divided into the upper arm (brachium), the forearm (antebrachium), and the hand (manus).
Reflecting on the total arguments presented in this forum & verses of Quran, Half hand covering will be modest in my opinion.
109
General Discussions / Question on Sexual intercourse outside the marriage
« on: February 04, 2016, 05:29:02 PM »
I have a question. If a man & woman had sexual intercourse outside the marriage bond secretly & few years later they realized & made amends & repented to GOD. Would 100 strips of flog be still applicable for them?
110
Women / Re: Women Modest Dress Example
« on: February 04, 2016, 05:24:00 PM »Salam everyone,I fully agree .....
Sstikstoff: Please look at the articles I cited above for head-coverings. They're not compulsory, but they're the standard in many societies.
Sardar: You're saying the girl in the picture looks like she's not dressed in a "Muslim" way. What is a "Muslim" way, I must ask? Are we supposed to dress in shalwars and black shrouds that look like Darth Vader costumes (sorry, I had to say that
I see no problem with her hair being loose. I mean, it's not covered in fake flowers or anything.
As for her arms, I see no issue with that either. Judging by the place I live in, that dress is quite modest. It might be different where you live. Here, adult women walk the streets in Daisy Dukes at the height of winter. So that dress is basically what people would wear to church service. Except for the slit at the bottom--I could do without that.
Adam: There's nothing wrong with wearing western clothing, as long as it doesn't show anything unnecessary. God does not want hardship for us. He wants us to dress modestly for the places we live in. You're right, "sharia compliant airline services" are hilariously ridiculous. Anyway, please don't feel constrained by anything your government is doing. You can make good choices without their interference.
Mia
111
General Discussions / Re: Re: Wearing trouser/pants below ankle! & Code 19
« on: February 03, 2016, 04:02:31 PM »
Ok. Regarding trouser/pants below or above ankle, I have just found real history behind it. Dont know whether it is true or false as it came from hadith. But it seems logical to me.
Folding up the leg-ware is related to a particular form of dress called the Tehmad (loin cloth). In the times of the Prophet (sws), some people would wear it in a manner that a portion of it would drag behind them. Since this is an expression of arrogance and haughtiness, the Prophet (sws) forbade wearing it in this manner. This directive to fold up leg-ware is therefore not related to forms of dress which are not worn in this manner or this purpose, for example pants, trousers or shalwars.
Also, even in case a person is wearing a Tehmad and his intentions are not to express such arrogance, exceptions can be given -- as is narrated in the following Hadith:
The Prophet is reported to have said: A person who makes his cloth to dangle after him will not be looked at by the Almighty on the Day of Judgement. At this Abu Bakr said: A portion of my cloth drags on the ground unless I am very careful about it. At this the Prophet replied: You do not do it out of arrogance [so your matter is different]. (Bukhari, Kitabu'l-Libas)
It is imperative that a the basis as well as the nature of a directive mentioned in a Hadith be analyzed before following it. Arrogance and haughtiness are condemned by the Qur'an. So all their manifestations and symbols have been prohibited by the Prophet (sws).
Folding up the leg-ware is related to a particular form of dress called the Tehmad (loin cloth). In the times of the Prophet (sws), some people would wear it in a manner that a portion of it would drag behind them. Since this is an expression of arrogance and haughtiness, the Prophet (sws) forbade wearing it in this manner. This directive to fold up leg-ware is therefore not related to forms of dress which are not worn in this manner or this purpose, for example pants, trousers or shalwars.
Also, even in case a person is wearing a Tehmad and his intentions are not to express such arrogance, exceptions can be given -- as is narrated in the following Hadith:
The Prophet is reported to have said: A person who makes his cloth to dangle after him will not be looked at by the Almighty on the Day of Judgement. At this Abu Bakr said: A portion of my cloth drags on the ground unless I am very careful about it. At this the Prophet replied: You do not do it out of arrogance [so your matter is different]. (Bukhari, Kitabu'l-Libas)
It is imperative that a the basis as well as the nature of a directive mentioned in a Hadith be analyzed before following it. Arrogance and haughtiness are condemned by the Qur'an. So all their manifestations and symbols have been prohibited by the Prophet (sws).
112
General Discussions / Verse 17:107 >> Prostrate on chin or forehead?
« on: February 03, 2016, 03:56:55 PM »
Regarding Verse 17:107, is it talking about prostrating on chin or forehead?
113
Women / Re: Women Modest Dress Example
« on: February 03, 2016, 03:55:11 PM »Actually i find it hard to understand what a "muslim dress" is?
If i were to take up western clothing instead of arabic, would that mean i am not wearing islamic clothing?
I really don't think it is right to label a certain type of dress as either a muslim dress or not. Whatever dress you choose to wear be it a sari, a cheong sam, a gown etc, as long as it is modest enough and fits the criteria stated in the Quran, then it should be fine.
There is no need to add an islamic label everything under the sun just to make it comply with your faith. I have seen this problem in Malaysia where i reside. Islamic authorities keep on coming up with islamic this and thats just for the sake of business and making money.
There is already a low cost airline owned by non muslims which somehow or another is Syariah compliant.
I fail to see why we need a syariah compliant airline service.
There are also many other products out there that have been marketed as islamic just for the sake of penetrating the muslim communities want's and needs.
And to be blunt, majority of these customers do not really know any better because they just choose to follow.
So why make things complicated? just wear a modest attire fitting to what God has instructed.
As Salamun alaikum
You are absolutely correct & I support it too. But only question is head-cover or covering the hair of women compulsory?
114
Women / Re: Women Modest Dress Example
« on: February 03, 2016, 12:20:46 PM »Sister mia666 The model you have posted is not in Muslim dress as her her hair are open & her entire
hands are not covered. She appears western Model. This can not be Muslim dress.
That is the main issue here. Do women have to cover hair as a compulsion of religion?
115
Women / Re: Women Modest Dress Example
« on: February 03, 2016, 02:59:59 AM »
What about the covering the head? Does a woman has to cover her head as an compulsion or not? If not, then are these pictures can be considered as modest as per reference of the Quran? Please see the links below, Please tell me your opinion one by one,
1. http://www.pjbbgown.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Modest-Dresses-for-Women.jpg
2. http://aerlf.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/modest-dresses-for-women-4.jpg
3. http://aerlf.org/wp-content/uploads/parser/Modest-dress-for-women-4.jpg
1. http://www.pjbbgown.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Modest-Dresses-for-Women.jpg
2. http://aerlf.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/modest-dresses-for-women-4.jpg
3. http://aerlf.org/wp-content/uploads/parser/Modest-dress-for-women-4.jpg
116
Women / Women Modest Dress Example
« on: February 02, 2016, 05:25:38 PM »
Can someone please give me some examples with pictures about women modest dress according to this article>>> http://quransmessage.com/articles/hijaab%20FM3.htm
117
General Discussions / Re: Hifz al-Furūj (Guarding the Private Parts) evidance regarding verse 23:5-7
« on: January 30, 2016, 02:25:13 PM »
Yes I am also in this opinion that sex with slave is haram. I'm not arguing that staff. But I also agree with your last comments. You just expressed what I personally think of it. But it is also considered that thoughts can be controlled during such arousal.
118
General Discussions / Hifz al-Furūj (Guarding the Private Parts) evidance regarding verse 23:5-7
« on: January 30, 2016, 06:45:00 AM »
Javed Ahmad Ghamidi
October 1 2010
Editorial
(Translated from Maqāmāt by Shehzad Saleem)
The sharī'ah does not allow Muslims to sexually gratify themselves from any other individual but their wives. The Almighty has forbidden it, and categorically stated in Sūrah Mu'minūn that people who sexually gratify themselves from anyone other than their wives will be guilty of exceeding the limits set by God. The slave-women of the times of the Prophet (sws) who were yet to be liberated from their masters were, however, exempted from this directive: if people wanted, they could also satisfy their sexual urge through them. The Qur'ān says:
وَالَّذِينَ هُمْ لِفُرُوجِهِمْ حَافِظُونَ إِلَّا عَلَى أَزْوَاجِهِمْ أوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُمْ فَإِنَّهُمْ غَيْرُ مَلُومِينَ فَمَنِ ابْتَغَى وَرَاء ذَلِكَ فَأُوْلَئِكَ هُمُ الْعَادُونَ (23: 5-7)
And who guard their private parts except from their wives and slave-women because for these they have no blame on them. But, those who want something beyond this are indeed transgressors. (23:5-7)
Presented above is the correct interpretation of the verse. However, some of our jurists have also argued on the basis of this verse that except for wives and slave-women other means of sexual-gratification are forbidden. Thus like adultery, homosexuality and bestiality, various forms of masturbation are also forbidden in their opinion; the only lenience that can be given in this regard is that the extent of this prohibition of masturbation is less than that of adultery, homosexuality and bestiality, and if people in order to protect themselves from these sins indulge in such sexual self-gratification to vent their emotions, then it can be expected that perhaps the Almighty would not punish them.
In my opinion, this argument is very weak, and in fact incorrect as per the linguistic principles of Arabic. The reason for this is that the preposition عَلَى (on/upon) does not collocate with حَافِظُوْن (those who guard) and thus there necessarily exists a tadmin in this expression, and words such as عَنِ الوُقُوعِ عَلَى أَحَدٍ (from indulging with anyone) are suppressed after حَافِظُوْن. Thus, the object from which the exception is sought in this expression is not the ways of sexual-gratification: it is the individuals from whom a person can establish sexual relations. It is evident from this discussion that this verse does not mean that no way of sexual-gratification is allowed except through wives and slave-women; the correct meaning is that except for wives and slave-women, one cannot appease one's sexual urge with any other individual. This is the correct meaning of the verse. Thus, it can be said with full certainty that there is no injunction or general principle in the Qur'ān on the basis of which masturbation can be regarded as prohibited or undesirable.
Does someone have counter evidence on basis of that? Please share feedback with proper evidence.
October 1 2010
Editorial
(Translated from Maqāmāt by Shehzad Saleem)
The sharī'ah does not allow Muslims to sexually gratify themselves from any other individual but their wives. The Almighty has forbidden it, and categorically stated in Sūrah Mu'minūn that people who sexually gratify themselves from anyone other than their wives will be guilty of exceeding the limits set by God. The slave-women of the times of the Prophet (sws) who were yet to be liberated from their masters were, however, exempted from this directive: if people wanted, they could also satisfy their sexual urge through them. The Qur'ān says:
وَالَّذِينَ هُمْ لِفُرُوجِهِمْ حَافِظُونَ إِلَّا عَلَى أَزْوَاجِهِمْ أوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُمْ فَإِنَّهُمْ غَيْرُ مَلُومِينَ فَمَنِ ابْتَغَى وَرَاء ذَلِكَ فَأُوْلَئِكَ هُمُ الْعَادُونَ (23: 5-7)
And who guard their private parts except from their wives and slave-women because for these they have no blame on them. But, those who want something beyond this are indeed transgressors. (23:5-7)
Presented above is the correct interpretation of the verse. However, some of our jurists have also argued on the basis of this verse that except for wives and slave-women other means of sexual-gratification are forbidden. Thus like adultery, homosexuality and bestiality, various forms of masturbation are also forbidden in their opinion; the only lenience that can be given in this regard is that the extent of this prohibition of masturbation is less than that of adultery, homosexuality and bestiality, and if people in order to protect themselves from these sins indulge in such sexual self-gratification to vent their emotions, then it can be expected that perhaps the Almighty would not punish them.
In my opinion, this argument is very weak, and in fact incorrect as per the linguistic principles of Arabic. The reason for this is that the preposition عَلَى (on/upon) does not collocate with حَافِظُوْن (those who guard) and thus there necessarily exists a tadmin in this expression, and words such as عَنِ الوُقُوعِ عَلَى أَحَدٍ (from indulging with anyone) are suppressed after حَافِظُوْن. Thus, the object from which the exception is sought in this expression is not the ways of sexual-gratification: it is the individuals from whom a person can establish sexual relations. It is evident from this discussion that this verse does not mean that no way of sexual-gratification is allowed except through wives and slave-women; the correct meaning is that except for wives and slave-women, one cannot appease one's sexual urge with any other individual. This is the correct meaning of the verse. Thus, it can be said with full certainty that there is no injunction or general principle in the Qur'ān on the basis of which masturbation can be regarded as prohibited or undesirable.
Does someone have counter evidence on basis of that? Please share feedback with proper evidence.
119
General Discussions / Re: Masturbation is not Haram/Unlawful!
« on: January 20, 2016, 06:06:28 PM »
Thanks for the advise. I also felt this in my heart. Sometimes searching for evidence becomes a curse for pure heart. Ultimately, a soul can recognize what is actually wrong without any evidences or guidance. Thanks for the opinion. 
120
General Discussions / Re: Masturbation is not Haram/Unlawful!
« on: January 20, 2016, 12:42:21 AM »
I agreed. He changed my life. Ok im second. U know, these days local people and scholars made me confused so much that I forgot what is actual confusion. Some say this is haram, others say this is not haram...... Total confusion of Islam that they made perfectly. Im still learning about issues & do arguments with others so that proper thing can be learned.
Ok im second. U know, these days local people and scholars made me confused so much that I forgot what is actual confusion. Some say this is haram, others say this is not haram...... Total confusion of Islam that they made perfectly. Im still learning about issues & do arguments with others so that proper thing can be learned.