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.

Messages - Athman

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10
Dear Beyond Tradition,

Wa 'alaikumus salaam,

Respectfully, verse 4:43 was not mistaken. My reference to verses 4:43 and 5:6 was simply in addressing the following sentiment of yours:

"That is why after intercourse Gusal ( take bath) is compulsory before starting any work or saying Salah/prayer ."

See the quotations below.

" not approach (laa taqrabuu) prayer (al-swalata) while you are intoxicated until you know what you are saying nor in a state of janabah - 'avoidance' (wala junuban), except those travelling their way, until (hattaa) you have taken ghusl - 'bath' (taghtasilu).." [Qur'an, An-Nisa 4:43]

"...when you rise (idha qumtum) for prayer (ila as-swalati), wash your faces and your forearms to the elbows and wipe over your heads and wash your feet to the ankles. And if you are in a state of janabah - avoidance (junuban), then do thwahara - 'purification' (faththwahharu)..." [Qur'an, Al-Ma'idah 5:6]

As stated earlier, the 'semen' (maniy) ejected out of the ecstatic experience during sexual arousal simply pronounces one 'ritually impure' (junuban) to approach prayers (swalaah) before taking a ritual bath (ghusl). The 'semen' (maniy) in itself is not inherently impure/ unclean/ bad/ unholy but when ejected (out of sexual arousal) enters one into a state in which they are 'restricted'/ 'kept away from' (are to 'avoid') certain ritual practices - junuban (4:43, 5:6).

Hopefully that clarifies.


Dear Beyond Tradition,

As-salaamu 'alaikum,

Ramadhan Kareem!

I guess brother Joseph is tied up as well as many other members during this period of Ramadhan fasting. They might respond when time permits where necessary. In the meantime, kindly see below my thoughts as regards your issue of concern.

From my perspective, whether ‘semen’ (maniy) is considered ‘profane’/ ‘unholy’ or not does not preclude the fact that it is from which the human being emanates/ is created (75:37) in the form of a mixed diploid cell/ fertilized egg - nutfah (76:2). From such a humble beginning, from an insignificant fluid/ water (77:20) emitted/ ejected from between ‘sulb’ and ‘taraib’ (86:6-7) [1], the fertilized egg (nutfah) develops into various stages (23:14) before it is brought forth as an infant (thwiflan) some of whom grow to maturity and some to old age (22:5). In my humble opinion, this ‘insiginificant water’/ semen simply renders one ‘ritually’ impure to engage into a ‘ritual’ prayer/ worship unless they take a ‘ritual’ bath (4:43, 5:6). This does not however necessarily mean that it is in itself inherently unclean/ impure/ bad. Rather, the state that it brings to one when it is ejected is what is described as one of ‘avoidance’/ ‘ritual impurity’ (junuban) - 5:6.

On the other hand, as a fully grown human being from such meagre beginnings, in the best stature (95:4), and preferred over many of God’s creatures (17:70), the purpose is so that man may comprehend and take heed - wala’allakum ta’qilun (40:67). In the general, despite such a favor upon man (17:70), human kind is lost (103:2) except for those who take heed (103:3). In 95:5, they are described as reduced to the lowest of the low. This could possibly be so due to an incumbent amanat taken primevally (7:172) out of ignorance and selflessly unfair (33:72). Therefore, so that the human being does not stray (fala yadhwillu) nor suffer (wala yashqa) - 20:123, they have to take heed, upholding truth and justice (7:181) not shunning revelations encountered (7:182).

Furthermore, from such despicable origins - insignificant water / clay extract (32:8/ 23:12), man is destined to again die (23:15) then get resurrected back to God (2:28) as resonated in 36:77-79 and 53:45-47. This as a result should spiritually set some premise upon which a believer may appreciate where they are from, where they are destined to and hence how they ought to carry themselves.

Therefore, in summary of such descriptions and related verses, I do resonate Br. Joseph’s sentiments as shared in the following extract.

The point of the verses was simply to provide a spiritual lesson to its immediate audience that if God could create a human being from such humble, meagre beginnings, God could also, without any doubt, resurrect humans from their death. The latter sentiment is given by the very next verse in no uncertain terms.

"Indeed, He is able to bring him back (to life)!"

...” [2]

The focus is thus rather, with an underlying spiritual wisdom to take heed of, made to the fact that a human being has been from very insignificant origins and that he shall again return to God after being resurrected as opposed to focusing on the inherent nature/ status of ‘semen’ nor its capacity to begin man’s best form over many creations.

Hopefully that helps.


[2]. Ibid

Women / Re: Women's clothes and rape?
« on: April 17, 2019, 04:27:54 PM »
Dear Truth Seeker,

Thanks for the information.


Women / Re: Women's clothes and rape?
« on: April 16, 2019, 09:50:22 PM »
Dear brother Duster,


I am humbled. I also do share the underlying premise in your responses on this topic.

Dear Truth Seeker,

Wa alaikumus salaam,

Thanks for the acknowledgement. I found your responses to sister ShatteredEmblem well thought out and argued for too. I also do appreciate your input in the capacity of a Moderator. It is actually commendable the way you guys carry out your responsibility in this regard. Pleasure to have you guys on the ‘overwatch.’ By the way, is there any other of you guys on the forum?


Women / Re: Women's clothes and rape?
« on: April 16, 2019, 11:17:23 AM »
Dear sister ShatteredEmblem,

Peace be upon you,

It is an observation of mine that you have a potential to tend to contentiously respond to every response made to you regardless of whether you have a refuting, a sound rebuttal or whether there is even a need to contend. To this extent, I don't think there's any argument that can be made against yours on this topic that you may consider accepting even if it may refute yours. This is because you don't directly respond to the contentions made nor make clear your areas of agreement from which one may be at a better position to know where specifically to clarify. You also tend to collate different people's stances and 'put them in one basket' without making a distinction for where there is.

Respectfully, I think I already made clear my perspectives on your original queries where we somehow do agree and thus as you said previously, we may just agree to disagree at some point of disparity. It is not my intention to be unnecessarily contentious nor set into an endless one on one contentious discussion on a topic for which our perspectives have literally been made clear and that we may possibly not agree any further.

For the reasons stated above, may I kindly please end my discussion with you here. Other members may find it fit discussing the other areas you do wish to insha Allah. It was a pleasure discussing such a topic with you.

With all due respect, kindly consider this as my last response to you on this matter in this thread. Thanks.


Women / Re: Women's clothes and rape?
« on: April 16, 2019, 03:06:08 AM »
Dear ShatteredEmblem,

See below my replies in blue to your contentions.

“I find that to be a stretch.”

Again, I am sorry if in any way I misrepresented your position. Otherwise, as far as your choice of words and assertive statements are concerned, I didn’t misconstrue what you presented. The standard used in the following statement of yours appears inclusive and suggests an exacted comparison.

“Not all men are polygamous and not all women are monogamous”

You argued:

“But the verse where "polygyny" is mentioned, God talks about orphans.”

And it is in the same verse where God is talking from an orphan oriented context where the mention of ‘only one’ wife is also found for where justice is also feared to be uupheld.

“...meaning not all women want one man at a time or one man for the rest of their lives.”

What is the purpose of presenting such an argument dear sister if not insinuating a needed provision for polyandry to strike a gender balance in such matters for where polygyny is understood to be a general provision? Otherwise, would you kindly clarify please if this is not what you mean.

“Just how not all men are polygamous or want multiple women. Would you agree with that?”

Sure, I do concur.

“Perhaps "polygyny" was not allowed in some other time.”

Am I to understand this as a mere speculation dear sister?

“Where did you pull that assumption out of? I also recommend that you keep this respectful.”

I do understand and expect that when you are responding to my comments, you assume a position where you are dealing with my contentions and not others.’ Otherwise, it is important to note if it’s a general statement you are making. This is because, in your response, you collectively took my presentation of verses 4:3 and 3:14 for the contention made 'coupling' it with other people’s views to make your contention. See the following citation:

"I don't feel it's fair to just look at the verse about polygamy or even verse 3:14 (isn't the word used there humans/people/mankind?) coupled with society's hypersexual view of men to justify their behaviour, generalize men and women, and victim blame women."

You asked:

“It seems that you are trying to imply that I am dimissing a Qur'ans verse?”

Not really. Respectfully, as far as I am concerned, I find your interpretation of verse 3:14 to be made devoid of its context.

“Do you remember this verse 49:12?”

I do know the verse dear sister. However, as far as I am concerned, sincerely speaking, I am not indulged into any kind of suspicion (ad-dhwanna) whatsoever. Rather, once again I do mention that your choice of words and interpolation of my position coupling it with those of others appear to be unnecessarily contentious.

“If God mentions only men, does it mean God does not understand women's struggles and wants? Does it automatically mean women generally do not want wealth, children, gold and silver or men?”

Dear sister, would you kindly take time to carefully look into the argument and verses cited. With all due respect, I did mention verses 8:28 and 8:67 as regards a warning against worldly pleasures that are normally sought after and an assurance of eternal Bliss of the Hereafter for all people (men and women). However, I posited that verse 3:14 was a specific address to men combatants hinted with the mention of such a worldly adornment of lust for women (an-Nisai). I hope you may now at least agree with me that 3:14 addresses men (given such mention of lust for women) even if you will not agree to what is argued for as a general intense lust adorned for man to a woman.

“Unfortunately, there are women who have also played a part in burying daughters and being in favour of sons. It's not a strictly male phenomenon.”

Even if this can be academically proven, it was not my point though. The point is: despite natural inclinations of a typical yearning towards opposite sex for both men and women, in 3:14, God acknowledges an intense lust for women adorned for men (3:14).

“I would recommend you also try to understand the wisdom behind the story of Prophet Yusuf pbuh and "Zulaykha".”

I do know that much wisdom can be extracted from the Prophet Yusuf's story in this regard dear sister. By the way, it is a viable standard. It was actually a two-way struggle (walaqad hammat bihi wahamma biha) - 12:24. However, just because Prophet Yusuf (a.s) restrained his desires whereas his master’s wife yielded doesn’t preclude any possibility that Prophet Yusuf (a.s) could be naturally more or less intensely capacitated with lust for women. Same applies to the mistress. This doesn’t in any way prove that a male or a female is equally, less or more adorned to lust for the opposite sex. It was a case of exercised volition.

While it was the mistress who plotted a seduction (wara wadat-hu), Prophet Yusuf (a.s) remained self-restraint refraining from the same (ma’adha allahi) - 12:23 again strengthened with God’s intervention (ar-ra a burhana rabbihi) - 12:24. The mistress’ mischief can further be evidenced by what she falsely claims in 12:25. After all that what transpired, she still would not heed as can be evidenced in 12:32 (walain lam yaf’al maa aamuruhu).This is not proof in any way that she had a stronger yearning than did Prophet Yusuf (a.s). It only proves her freely spiritually unguided treacherous and evil character. The same would have been accounted if it would have been the other way round for the two characters.

“For now, I believe in the interpretation which takes orphans/proper benefits into account. I really don't understand the sort of "Mr Joseph Islam is always right" type of mentality that some seem to have on this forum. Please respect my understanding. I do not find your argument convincing nor did I come here to debate that verse.
Let's agree to disagree.”

I don’t think it has ever been mentioned or insinuated in this forum that “Mr Joseph Islam is always right.” Unless you cite a possible insinuation to the same, I don’t think I can comment on that. As regards Br. Joseph’s article on polygyny as referenced above, I do agree with the exposition and thus simply referenced the article to acknowledge the position therein which, too, is my own. I don’t intend to rehash a treatise on that on this forum hence my humble reference. I am neither debating a particular verse dear sister. I just respond to your sentiments of contention. If warranted, we can as such yes possibly agree to disagree.

I also second Truthseeker's advice to you that there wasn't a need to even jot such a statement concerning Br. Joseph as regards what you feel is assumed of him. I, myself do ask for his opinion where I feel to [1], [2], [3], ask for clarification of his position where possible [4] and as well express my disagreement where necessary [5]. I also do reserve my opinions for where I may not fully agree with his where I feel to. Respectfully, this is different from the way you do, e.g, by jotting down such an unnecessary statement about him.


Once again I do reiterate, the context in this case is key to identify the addressees. I also provided verses 8:28 and 8:67 to acknowledge God’s recognition of all people’s desires in general for worldly treasures.

“Am I understanding this correctly, you think the "purified spouses" mentioned in that verse are only for men? Please clarify.”

See my replies above please.

“No, if we are going to restrict meanings based on the gender assigned, the subject and object then it would mean verses like 24:4 would also notapply to men who are being accused..”

Respectfully, I find this a digression. It is a different matter to garner general wisdom for both genders from a verse that addresses a particular victimised gender and another to claim that a verse addressed to a particular gender as regards their God ordained capacity should apply to both sexes at the expense of both theological and linguistic compromise to the verse. Would you kindly respond to my concern below re-cited:

“ yet to find out if you accept those people (an-nas) addressed in 3:14 do include 'women' who are also adorned for the lust of other 'women' (an-Nisai).

“Where did I mention equality? Please do not make assumptions about my position.”

Your responses in this regard appear to be riddled with rhetorical questions that seem to allude to equating men’s provisions with those for women. See for example the following:

“And.. what about women? We also have to control ourselves, we also have a test. What would be our "solution" to stay away from adultery?
No, not all men are polygamous and not all women want monogamy.”

You also stated to Br. Duster:

“This is about the double standards and hypocrisy, so comparisions will be made.”

Exacted comparisons are often akin to striking a balance or rather an equal footing (equality). Otherwise, I am sorry if this was not your stance.

“My main points of discussion were women's sexuality and sexual abuse/rape and clothing being used as an excuse.”

I think I did respond to that and we seem to partly agree on this in our views as you may confirm above.

“Not about debating the "polygyny" verse.”

Nor do I dear sister. I simply respond to contentions put across where I feel it warrants.

“If you actually want to discuss the problem of sexual harassment in places like Egypt or outside the Kabah or even the west then let's do it.”

That is not my area of interest dear sister. I tend to incline myself into discussing matters that can be checked by the Qur’an (as a criterion) as to their level of truth, certainty or trustworthiness. As such, for now, I don’t find myself fit discussing such issues.


[1]. Cleansing Power Of The Rain, in Qur'an 8:11?

[2]. An Inquiry on People of the Book and their 'Book'

[3]. Consultation For A Proper Understanding

[4]. Interconnection between Makkah, Bacca, Qaabah, and Masjidul Haraam

[5].The Place of Summon for Prophet Musa (pbuh)

Women / Re: Women's clothes and rape?
« on: April 15, 2019, 05:33:51 PM »
Dear ShatteredEmblem,

Wa alaikumus salaam,

Thanks for your reactions. Kindly see my replies in blue to your comments.

"Surely, God knows that women also struggle."

I do concur.

"Or perhaps it is the way the Muslim community and society at large treats women, their expectations of women, that overshadows this."

Maybe. Given that I don't subscribe to such perspectives, may I please reserve my opinion. My position on this is purely Qur'anic.

"All this surely shows that not everyone is the same. Not all men are polygamous and not all women are monogamous."

Somehow true. As mentioned earlier, in that case, the Qur'an recognizes such differences and provides for/ allows polygyny (not polygamy). It does not sanction it, order it nor discourage it but allows/ provides for it. I understand that we might not agree on this since you see such a provision as just made in the case of fear of unjustly treating orphans. However, if you do acknowledge that polygyny is specifically provided for in the case of unjustly treated orphans, would you then admit that Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w) married more than one wife (33:28, 33:59) since he also feared not to or possibly used to unjustly treat the orphans? Will you also admit that the option of one wife is in the context of mistreated orphans (4:3) hence also only applies to orphan related situations? Will you then cite another Qur’anic verse which prescribes for the default one wife in generally other situations where orphans are not the main concern?

As a system, in Islam, marriage life is wholly networked such that one breach of a stipulated directive could lead to a disruption in at least one aspect down the chain of related issues. An attempt to insinuate ‘seeming’ other possibilities could result to a whole redefinition of the structure. You posit, “not all women are monogamous." For the case of the discussion, let’s assume polyandry is provided for. Let’s then theoretically assume a case of a deceased husband of a polyandrous wife. How would she cater for her other husbands’ possible needed attention when on a 4 months 10 days waiting period, according to the Qur’an? How would she even emotionally heal if she is to attend to some other households who may possibly need her presence? Other issues to do with other social domains like inheritance may also come up. Kindly think about this.

"Or that perhaps, the rules were not always the same?"

I do admit that laws could be different amongst nations sent prophets. However, for a particular field of interest, not necessarily that laws should be different. Some laws could still have thrived all along if not overlapping aspects. Otherwise, am yet to even hear from hearsay a case of God acknowledged polyandry case to have ever been there.

"I don't agree with generalizing people."

I concur, people are different. However, as regards certain matters, the Qur'an is specific with the general of a particular group e.g, gender, in this case that of men's 'al-shahawati' to women (3:14). This does not however mean that men have an excuse to entertain lust for women, it is simply an undeniable fact acknowledged by God. Whether one is to accept such a God acknowledged truth is a matter of their faith. After all, with respect to sexual urge, as noted previously, both sexes should exercise self-restraint (wa an taswbiru khairu lakum) - 4:25.

"I don't feel it's fair to just look at the verse about polygamy or even verse 3:14 (isn't the word used there humans/people/mankind?) coupled with society's hypersexual view of men to justify their behaviour, generalize men and women, and victim blame women."

I hope that this is a general statement. Otherwise, as for my stance, I don't think I can put it more clearly than does the verse 14 of Suratul Imran (3). It appears from your approach that you are bent on justifying that anyone who appreciates the fact stated in 3:14 is influenced with certain societal sensibilities. You also misconstrue my position insinuating a masculine 'hypersexual' influence without warrant. Otherwise I do assume that this with the subsequent statement was meant to be general and not what I consider your interpolation of my humble position.

"Also, those are also two separate verses."

I do agree.

"3:14 does not speak about orphans."

Nor did I suggest in any way possible that it addresses an orphan oriented context. In as much as it can be disputed that the two verses are unrelated and do address specific subjects, you may want to appreciate why I presented those verses together. After all, respectfully, it was not my intention to expound the subject of polygyny from the Qur'an. Not that my understanding of polygyny as depicted in the Qur'an is wholly evidenced by verse 4:3. I simply thought that you are familiar with the subject and do recognize the verses where it is generally alluded to. You may want to refer to Br. Joseph's article [1] on this where he argues for a similar stance: an allowance, not a sanction. Furthermore, in light of 4:3, the provision/ allowance also comes with it a proviso: that of enabled justice (al-laa ta'dilu).

"The verse after that actually speaks of "purified spouses" in Jannah which would apply to both, I think you'll agree."

I do concur. However, the context plays a key role in identifying the gender addressed in 3:14. They were possibly men being mobilized into battlefield. A reminder is made as to the temporary worldly treasures that shall come to waste (3:14) then an assurance to the eternal Bliss is guaranteed for sincere believers (3:15). Though this is again reminded of in 8:28 and reiterated in 8:67 as regards the general worldly pleasures (children and wealth) for people, am yet to find out if you accept those people (an-nas) addressed in 3:14 do include 'women' who are also adorned for the lust of other 'women' (an-Nisai).

"Do you think that it is mere speculation based on "pre-conceived notion" that God allowed polygamy because of men's supposed "sexual nature"? Or did I misunderstand your point?"

I also didn't get your point here. Kindly clarify.

"If we are to speak of "pre-conceived notions of their general world views", then it is often society that leads men to believe they are supposed to have hyper-sexual animal insticts with a lack of control, when some decent men would probably take offence to being described as such."

As stated above, my position in this is taken from the Qur'an. The way I see it, verse 3:14 is clear on this. Refer to my response above.

"Men can also be a cause of unwanted attention based on their clothing, so decency applies to them too which is not emphasized as much."

I do not fully agree. It is true that men could also cause unwarranted attraction where possible. Verses 24:30-31 as shared above address both genders as regards lowering ones gaze and guarding ones privates (wayahfadhu furujahum). However, I do not see the elucidatory remarks in 24:31 for the ladies to be an emphasis way far as compared to the directive in 24:30 for males. Rather, I find it elaborating on the extent of their decency/ modesty. As much as equality is cited as an aspect to be considered, I do humbly submit that the two sexes have differences in their body physique and 'attractive pockets' hence a difference to how one can be indecently exposed. Thus, a more natural tendency to cause unwarranted attraction for the females is posed if the prescriptions in 24:31 are not fully heeded. Again, this is in line with 33:59.

Dear sister, with the idea of equality, I am not convinced that this is the Qur'anic concept that establishes within familial or social matters. Rather, I find equity as the theme advanced. Furthermore, while I appreciate your honesty especially with respect to the undermined status of the woman in some Islamic societies, generally speaking, as regards God professed directives and provisions, I have to humbly remind one that there’s sincerity and then there’s humility. Kindly consider this. Islam is a complete system of life that has a balanced structure that should be understood, as extending to the basic rights, responsibilities and provisions in all possible areas of a believer’s life. As noted in my previous response, this should be the basic premise.



Women / Re: Women's clothes and rape?
« on: April 13, 2019, 07:29:55 PM »
Dear brethren Duster and ShatteredEmblem,

Peace be upon both of you,

Dear sister ShatteredEmblem and brother Duster, I don’t see any need to turn into being personal with each other or calling each other names. As believers, I trust that we should be at a better position informed as to the way we ought to carry our discussions and how to end them amicably. In such a situation, we should stay cognizant of evil whispers and try steer clear of them (7:200, 41:36).

To start with, it has to be appreciated that, to understand something from an Islamic perspective, for the sake of the discussion, one has to divorce themselves from all pre-conceived notions of their general world views on that. Islam has to be given the chance to expound the subject matter from within its remits hence be understood in its overarching principles and context before formulating from that a general understanding to the wider society. This is the basic premise.

We should therefore, also for this matter, be careful not to confuse ‘gender’ responsibilities, rights and provisions as outlined in the Qur’an with our externally derived sensibilities. The overall structure of these aspects within the gender pair should also well be recognized to the widest scope possible, from a purely Qur’anic perspective.

For example, with a general Qur’anic male to female inheritance ratio of 2:1 (Qur’an 4:11), I do humbly submit that this is fair enough given a Qur’anic expected charge of man over a woman (4:34) and as he provides for his wife as well as clothing her (2:233). However, a deceased’s female parent gets twice (1/3) as much as the male parent gets (1/6) when no descendants nor siblings are left. Also, from a Qur’anic perspective, an ordained generous offering (mahr) is due to the woman from the man in case of a solemn marital covenant (2:236-237, 4:4, 4:24-25, 5:5, 33:50, 60:10) where consummation plays part to whether a refund is to be made in case of a divorce situation (33:49).

In Islam, a woman's virginity is a noble status that should be rendered sacred and reserved only for their husband as should a man's for his wife. With the willingness of a woman to offer her chastity to a proposing man expressed in a religiously legal contract to last a lifetime, an ordained generous offering (mahr) from the man agreed upon themselves aptly serves to seal recognition of such a life-long sacrifice (4:21). This is the God ordained marriage system for believers where there’s an expectation of the ‘mahr’ to be due to the bride from the groom (33:50) in line with its expectation of a man to betroth a woman (4:25). The reasons behind that can only be surmised, while the wider wisdom is fully well known to God.

Given the nature of the task, the general natural responsibilities and gender physique, twinned with the historical milieu especially as regards gender perspectives, one could surmise as to why in scriptural history were all prophets male (21:7). Again, the widest wisdom in its entirety is only known to God. This though, as you may agree with me, cannot in any way be taken as a divine chauvinistic or misogynist stance by God. In the same stroke, a Qur’anic provision/ allowance for polygyny (4:3) with an absence of the same for polyandry (2:230) does not divinely sanction a chauvinistic approach to matters of multiple marriages. This is a God ordained provision/ allowance and not an encouragement nor an order. Again, apart from what can be surmised to be possible reasons for the provision for males, the overall wisdom behind it is only fully within God’s knowledge.

Apart from the natural instinctive compassion, love and care amongst couples (30:21), the Qur’an also acknowledges an intense intimate instinct (ash-shahawati) that is adorned for man to a woman (3:14). Though this is to be restrained through patience (wa in taswbiru khairu lakum) - 4:25, for fear of falling into decadence/ debauchery, enacting a marital bond with an appropriate partner is the legal and in fact recommended system in place for believers to enjoy intimacy (fama istamta’tum bihi minhunna) via conjugal rights (4:24).

Therefore, in light of verse 3:14, and given God’s infinite wisdom and knowledge of His creation, a provision/ allowance for polygyny with believers (4:3) amongst human beings on Planet Earth is not in any way out of place. What people may posit and speculate as reasons for the same within their subjective criteria is something else. The same applies to the issue of proper clothing. Apart from modest clothing providing for decency and avoiding causing unnecessary attention (33:59), I do not find from the Qur’anic narratives a suggestion that the Islamic attire also ‘protects’ a woman, in the sense of security/ safety (amanatan).

Hopefully that somehow helps God willing.


General Discussions / Re: Do women say Salah during menstruation ?
« on: March 27, 2019, 03:24:58 PM »
Dear Wakas,

As-salaamu ‘alaikum,

In the main, in light of the following verse 6 of Suratul Ma’idah, I do resonate your general view as cited below from the link [2] you share in the thread referenced [1].

...Allah does not intend to make difficulty (harajin) for you, but He intends to purify (liyuthwahira) you and complete his favour (waliyutimma ni’matahu) upon you that you may be grateful.” (Qur’an, Al-Ma’idah 5:6)

My personal view is it is not prohibited, and it is upto the women to choose if it applies to them. For example each woman will experience menses differently, for some it is a minor annoyance, for others it can be significantly problematic. This subjectivity is also in the ablution verses, e.g. it is the person doing ablution to determine which state (and to what degree) applies to them.[2]

Note: Black bold highlights are mine to emphasize relevance to my areas of interest/ concern


[1]. Salah in Jewish culture
[2]. Women: what is not allowed during menstruation

Dear ‘Beyond Tradition,’


The following is an excerpt from Br. Joseph’s response to a similar query asked of him.

I have an article dealing with praying for the dead below which I would like to share. However, I find no warrant from the Quran for the concept of doing charitable deeds on 'behalf' of the dead with a view to benefit them. A soul is responsible only for their own deeds (6:164) and their own earthly efforts rendered (53:39). We can neither benefit them nor harm them once they have passed away. [1]

Hopefully it helps.


[1]. Will praying for the dead help them?

Dear ‘Beyond Tradition,’

As salaam alaikum,

Hopefully you don't mind if I share my view briefly on this. I trust this is also Okay with Br. Joseph. He may also respond where necessary insha Allah.

As regards an ‘islamic greeting,’ I guess it is well established from the Qur'an that a general greeting of 'Peace (Salaam)' is enshrined. In Suratul Ibrahim (14:4), we note that each nation was sent a messenger in their own language and therefore all salutations and utterances made in their respective languages. For our Ummah, we have the Qur'an which is in Arabic from the Arabic prophet Muhammad (s.a.w) and that's why a popularized Arabic greeting is common amongst believers of this last revelation. However, I believe that one can greet another in their own language provided there is a form of 'Peace' wishes, or even something better as we see in Suratul An-Nisa (4:86).

"And when you are greeted with a greeting, greet [in return] with one better than it or [at least] return it [in a like manner]. Indeed, Allah is ever, over all things, an Accountant."

For example, in Suratul Ad-Dhariyat (51:24-25), it is just 'Peace' (Salaman) returned with 'Peace' (Salamun). It is thus Okay if you greet an English speaking person or they greet you 'Peace be upon you.'

About the use of 'Salaamun alaikum,’ this is infact what is instructed of believers in the Qur'an.

Kindly refer to the verses below:

"When those come to thee who believe in our signs, Say: 'Peace be on you (Salaamun alaikum): Your Lord has inscribed for Himself (the rule of) mercy: verily, if any of you did evil in ignorance, and thereafter repented, and amend (his conduct), lo! He is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful" [Qur'an Al-An'am 6:54]

"(Abraham) said, 'Peace will be upon you (Salaamun 'alaika). I will ask forgiveness for you of my Lord. Indeed, He is ever gracious to me.'" [Qur'an, Maryam 19:47]

Otherwise, there’s also no problem with the popularized Arabic greeting of 'as salaam alaikum' because it is just a traditional one and captures a wishing of 'Peace.'

See an elaborate article [1] on this by Br. Joseph and an attempted critique [2] which was subsequently rebutted.

I hope that helps.


[2]. Crtique: What is an Islamic greeting?

General Discussions / Re: Do women say Salah during menstruation ?
« on: March 25, 2019, 07:49:08 PM »
As salaam alaikum,

Dear ‘Beyond Tradition,’

Kindly see below my view on the matter of your concern. I trust Br. Joseph won't mind my contribution. Hopefully he shall respond where necessary.

To start with, Allah has inscribed on Himself mercy (6:54) and thus none can claim to be more empathetic to the menstruating ladies than Him.

Yet Allah did not exempt menstruating women from ‘prayers’ but exempted them from being approached for intimacy in 2:222. Allah does not err nor forget (20:52).

And they ask you about menstruation. Say, ‘It is harm, so keep away from wives during menstruation. And do not approach them until they are pure. And when they have purified themselves, then come to them from where Allah has ordained for you. Indeed, Allah loves those who are constantly repentant and loves those who purify themselves.’” (Qur’an, Al-Baqarah 2:222)

Prayer is an obligation prescribed for all believers at fixed times/ periods (4:103) despite gender or status.

...Indeed, prayer has been upon the believers a DECREE of specified times.” (Qur’an, An-Nisa 4:103)

Furthermore, in light of 4:103 prayers should strictly be observed/ maintained at all times within their fixed periods even in the acute states of fear for safety/ insecure (2:239).

Maintain with care the prayers and (in particular) the middle prayer and stand before Allah, devoutly obedient. And if you are in fear, then on foot or riding. But when you are secure, then remember Allah, as He has taught you that which you did not know.” (Qur’an, Al-Baqarah 2:238-239)

Even in the state of stark fear of danger when travelling, prayers are maintained though shortening is provided for (4:101).

And when you travel throughout the land, there is no blame upon you for shortening the prayer, if you fear that those who disbelieve may harm you...” (Qur’an, An-Nisa 4:101)

It is thus inconceivable to insinuate that Allah would have forgotten the extent of ‘adha’ (harm, filth, hurt) in 2:222 not to mention exemption from ‘prayers’ anywhere in the Qur’an especially when such instances of danger are noted elsewhere (4:101, 2:239). Allah does not run out of words (31:27) and His Qur’an is fully detailed - ‘mufassalan/ fussilat’ for purposes of necessary guidance (6:114, 41:3).

And if whatever trees upon the earth were pens and the sea (was ink), replenished thereafter by seven seas, the words of Allah would not be exhausted. Indeed, Allah is exalted in Might and Wise.” (Qur’an, Luqman 31:27)

See a thread [1] below where Br. Joseph has responded to a similar query (praying and fasting at ago).


[1]. Can Women Pray and Fast During Menstruation?

General Discussions / Re: The most beloved deeds to Allah ? (Hadith)
« on: February 22, 2019, 04:18:02 PM »
Dear Ahmad,

Wa alaikumus salaam,

In my view, as for support to such a claim from the Hadeeth you share, the Qur’an agrees with the underlying sentiments though does not proffer a position exacted to the same in the manner in which it is stated. I will just share some verses in this regard.

For instance, the Qur’an states that God loves the doers of good - ‘al muhsineen’ (3:134).

“...and Allah loves the doers of good (wallahu yukhibbu al-mukhsineen).” (Qur’an, Al-Imran 3:134)

Further to that, God shall reward the good (khair) even the smallest to the size of a ‘dharra’ (99:7).

So, whoever has done an atom's weight of good (dharratin khairan) shall behold it.” (Qur’an, Al-Zalzalah 99:7)

In all this good doing, in a bid to attain ‘taqwa’ (piety/ righteousness/ God-consciousness), one must ensure persistence, resilience and consistence at ‘justice’ (5:8).

 “O you who have believed, be 'persistently standing firm' (qawwamina) for Allah, witnesses in justice, and do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness...” (Qur’an, Al-Ma’idah 5:8)

To nurture persistence in standing firm for justice, one should not be swayed by hatred from certain people (5:8). Individual or personal inclination should also not overtake such a noble mission lest one becomes irregular amongst instances of exercising justice (4:135).

O you who have believed, be 'persistently standing firm' (qawwamina) in justice, witnesses for Allah, even if it be against yourselves or parents and relatives. Whether one is rich or poor, Allah is more worthy of both. So follow not [personal] inclination, lest you not be just...” (Qur’an, An-Nisa 4:135)

Hopefully that somehow helps God willing.


Salaam ilker,

Aamin. I do appreciate your prayers. May Allah also reward you and bless you with your family insha Allah.


Dear ilker,

Wa alaikumus salaam,

In my view, when the Qur’an talks about being ‘blind’ on earth, I find it ‘metaphorical’ (2:171) in the sense of spiritual destruction (2:18). This follows as a result of an individual’s own utter ‘disbelief - kufr’ (6:109) where one’s own faculties of discernment and assessing information are sealed (2:7) off their power (7:179) after willful denial and neglect (2:6, 2:10) of clear and manifest signs and information availed to them (6:110-111).

It should thus be noted that in the first place, such an individual knew for sure the truth with the signs (ayat) revealed but chose to deny (kadhb) them or not take heed.

As a recompense, such a person is similarly despised on that Day (84:10) [as opposed to the ‘right-hand’ bearer - 17:71], left helpless, suffering their fate, thus symbolically ‘blind’ (a'ma) with none or nothing to lend a hand out of their misery. Thus, the way they chose to ‘forget/shun’ the verses on earth, 'blindly,' is the way they shall be ‘forgotten’ (20:126) that Day, 'blind' (20:125).

As for the unveiling of the ‘seal’ (khatam) or ‘screen’ ('idhwa-a) out of ‘blindness,’ I see this informing us that what the deniers used to deny and ignore/shun of signs and promises on earth (18:101) shall plainly be brought in the open (18:100) for them to witness that Day (68:42-43). The ‘screen’ ('idhwa-aka) shall be 'removed' (fakashafna) and the willful capacity to shun shall as a result have no room to administer (50:19).

Hopefully that helps insha Allah.


Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10