Messages

Shalom / peace Mohammed...

I mean no disrespect to you but i would really suggest. ....that if you are going to debate  or share material on this forum.......that you have some familiarity with the articles and content on this site as the points you raise have already been addressed many many times in different ways ......And you simply can't say 'Each to their own' and simply sign off and not expect to be challenged...otherwise what is the point of being here???

If the message has not reached someone properly....they can't just be called a disbeliever ...they have to be convinced first with clear arguments and then reject the message to be called a disbeliever. Only Allah can judge when that happens......,2 articles that i recommend reading. ..

Kufr from a Quran's view - http://quransmessage.com/articles/understanding%20kufr%20FM3.htm
Itmam ul hujja - http://quransmessage.com/articles/itmam%20FM3.htm

With regards 48:28 ... this is a reference to 'false religions''.....People of the book that follow their religion properly are not following a false religion ....you really need to study this carefully ,...the verses are clear ....

Here is a great post by brother Joseph on this ....

Same deen different shariah -
https://m.facebook.com/joseph.a.islam/posts/1421791604624629

If very strict conditions are met and the Christians are not Trinitarian ...but something like Unitarians and do not ridicule Islam .... then why not? Why is this such a surprise to you when the Quran doesn't forbid it?

Did you read the arguments in the article below???

http://quransmessage.com/articles/marriage%20with%20people%20of%20the%20book%20FM3.htm

Why do you expect Allah to mention certain things in certain verses of your choosing when he has taken care of the matter in other verses that you refuse to accept?....

[and the chaste women from among those who have been given the Book before you; when you have given them their bridal due]

peace brother Joseph,

You say
"Marriage between Muslim men and women from the Book is clearly sanctioned by the Quran with clear provisos."
http://quransmessage.com/articles/marriage%20with%20people%20of%20the%20book%20FM3.htm

but I think this is only applicable for that time i.e. for marriages that are fixed(given the bridal due) before the revelation of Qur'an.

here's the translation of 5:5 as I understand the verse,
"This day (all) the good things are made lawful for you; and the food of those who have been given the Book is lawful for you and your food is lawful for them; and the chaste women from among the believers and the chaste women from among those who have been given the Book before you; when you have given them their bridal due, marrying not fornicating nor taking them for secret concubines; and whoever denies faith, his work indeed is of no account, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers"

And the Qur'an says,
"O you who believe, do not take the Jews and the Nazarenes/Christians as allies, for they are allies to one another; and whoever takes them as such from among you is one of them. God does not guide the wicked people." [5:51]

Shalom / peace ...

It doesn't say before the Quran's revelation..... you have interpolated this.

Secondly .... the Quran says not to take awliya ONLY with those that are trouble makers and ridicule the religion..... you have taken one verse and missed out the clarifying verse 5:57.

As mentioned by brother Joseph in the link below .....

http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=260

005:057
"O ye who believe! take not for friends / allies / protectors (awliyaa) those who take your religion for a mockery or sport / ridicule or fun (huzuwan wala'iban), whether among those who received the Scripture before you, or among those who reject faith; but fear ye God, if ye have faith (indeed)"

The same word 'awliyaa' has been used but the context has been clearly elucidated against those who are deemed 'trouble-makers'.

Those who have never shown any difficulty or animosity whether from the People of the Book or Disbelievers, one is only expected to show them kindness and deal with them justly.

060:008
"God does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of (your) religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely God loves the doers of justice"

[IDRIB]

Shalom / peace Wakas,

So I had a look at the studyquran website and found a link to a concordance by Hanna Kassis .....

I checked .... out of all the specific verbs IDRIB (exactly the same form used in verse 4:34) that are found in the Qur'an ...... using cite  the way you use it makes no sense in any of them ....
.....

2:60 (57) Strike with thy staff the rock
2:73 (68) Smite him with part of it
7:160 (160) strike with thy staff the rock'
8:12 (12) so smite above the necks
8:12 (12) and smite every finger of them
18:32 (31) strike for them a similitude: two men
18:45 (43) strike for them the similitude of the present life
20:77 (79) strike for them a dry path in the sea
26:63 (63) strike with thy staff the sea
36:13 (12) strike for them a similitude
38:44 (43) take in thy hand a bundle of rushes, and strike therewith

Only when MATHAL is added to the specific form IDRIB...... then the meaning cite can be taken like cite an example ..18:32 ; 18:45; 36:13.. but there is no mention of MATHAL in verse 4:34.

Also why would you need to 'cite' something in verse 4:34 when two other steps are already completed the first one being to admonish.... isn't that a form of cite already?..

Yes, slaughter by remembering God's name /God's mercy on us and doing the process accordingly (e.g. preparing the animal for slaughter without harm)

Thanks a lot for the straight answer 

[cite the partner/situation to the authority.]

Shalom / peace Wakas ... You appear to suggest on your site that cite means 'cite the partner/situation to the authority.'......

1 - Do you have an example of any other place in the Qur'an where the verb 'idrib' means 'cite' as you have defined it? ... >>>
2 - Do you know of any lexicon in the entire Arabic language that provides the meaning of 'idrib' as you have defined it i.e. to mean 'cite'?

Any response to these 2 questions would be appreciated .... Thanks.

I am not referring to the current slaughter methods in the industry.......i can think of plenty of things wrong with that. ...

I guess I just really want to ask you a simple question .... do you believe that ziba (slaughter) by pronouncing the name of Allah is the correct method as per the Qur'an...》》?

'on which God's name has been remembered' may also mean Fair Treatment throughout farming as well as during slaughtering. [God's name-The Merciful, so 'remembering Gods name' may refer to kind treatment to animals?]

Shalom / peace.... how did you get to that conclusion? Do you have any evidence please? .....

Also what do you think of these articles?

Slaughtering of animals - Correct method of sacrifice.....

http://quransmessage.com/articles/slaughtering%20of%20animals%20-%20the%20correct%20method%20of%20sacrifice%20FM3.htm

Thakaytum ...

http://quransmessage.com/articles/thakaytum%20FM3.htm

Shalom / peace brother Student..... Apologies if I sounded harsh but I meant no ill will..... you've probably noticed I'm pretty straight talking  and not as polished in my delivery as you are or other members on here.... but i don't like beating about the bush........hopefully you got some of my points too..... imho....not worth highlighting the 1% of a difference if it's not material.  My view is to focus on the 99% of agreement especially when the argument is strong......

Salaam br. Hamzeh,

You don't seem to disagree with Sir Joseph on any subject or even minor issues (at least I'm not aware of it). It would be interesting to know if you do, just curious 

Thanks,

Shalom / peace .... How is this question relevant to this thread? ....Are you curious or something else? ...Some could see this as a disguised question where someone doesn't seem to be pleased?

So many times I agree with brother Joseph and keep some of my differences in view off the forum as they are immaterial as compared to my large scale agreement and appreciation of brother Joseph's efforts......

Should we criticize people for the sake of it??? Should we criticize them despite our huge agreement rather than come to common terms? Should we not spread the knowledge of those we agree with generally?

Why should anyone prove areas of differences to anyone? Is that what we should do?  Try to expose areas of differences with people we respect for the efforts they have made just for the sake of it or to prove we are using our own brains and critique ?

You just ask a pointless question in my opinion and it seems you are not happy that someone may actually support brother Joseph's efforts and largely show agreement.....

Can you clarify if you have you read Quran434.com ? Or used http://www.studyquran.co.uk/PRLonline.htm ?

Yes.....The site... as best as I could and regards the PRLonline - quite a bit for my own study.... However, I'm hoping that you will help me answer my specific questions on this site....

Asalamu 3alykum

Dear Sleepysoul

Not all the time does the laws or the obedience to God in the Quran always need a logical explanation as to why its commanded. Not all the time does it need to fit with what we think is right.

Believers seem to hear and obey (2:85, 3:7). Why do we have to fast? Why is swine forbidden as its been consumed by many people without any harm and actually if one is in need of food God actually allowed it for consumption in cases of starvation.

It is clear from the Quran that Prophet Muhammad had wives. Also God makes it clear that men are permitted if they choose to have multiple wives (4:3). Also its not encouraged nor is it discouraged.

We all have different desires. Some we must try to shun off. With the help of God Insha'Allah He will help.

Although I can only assume as to why God made it permissible for men to have many wives only God knows best.

I can also speculate as to why women are commanded to only having one husband. I can see how much of problems can happen from having multiple husbands. Who would be the father of the children? What about on the womens menstruation? I can go on but it just seems very odd in my opinion.

Also the Quran actually does not permit men to be with women for lust. That completely different from marrying a women for her beauty.

The purpose for marriage is different than lust. One does not marry if he wanted lust. Lust is when one wants to have sexual relations without the responsibilities of being a husband and the responsibilities of marriage.

Lust needs to be controlled as even men or maybe women who desire it want it from not even beautiful women or men only.

Also what bro Joseph was saying from what I understood is that marrying a women for her beauty is not condemned from a Quranic perspective. That beauty is a valid reason to marry a women if she also so willed as there is some people who I've heard that said you cannot marry women because of their beauty alone. However verse 33:52 seems to negate that.

Those are my thoughts

Peace

An old topic which I just read ....Good response brother Hamzeh! ....

["shun / turn away from"]

Please be notified that if the meaning "shun / turn away from" is chosen it will result in issues. The following is a brief comparison to the "cite them" view:



"shun / turn away from"
This alleged usage in 4:34 occurs in 43:5 with the preposition "Aan", thus making Quran seems inconsistent IF it did mean that in 4:34
No identical example of this DRB usage in Quran
No explanation of how the authority are notified
Commands husband to shun / turn away from then promotes reconciliation in next verse, mixed message
It is unclear to what extent one shuns, how they can do so without being unjust etc
No supporting marital example in Quran
Impractical/illogical result when inserted into 4:128-130 and somehow requires iAAradan to be a positive thing and potentially makes Drb/3rD similar


"cite them" Quran434.com
Several identical examples of this DRB usage in Quran, including when humans are the direct object as in 4:34
Explains how the authority is notified by 4:35, and provides perfect logical/sequential coherence
No mixed message
DRB use is clear and simple to implement practically
58:1-4 provides perfect coherence in terms of marital example
When inserted into 4:128-130 provides a complementary practical and coherent solution

Shalom / peace Wakas ... You appear to suggest on your site that cite means 'cite the partner/situation to the authority.'......

1 - Do you have an example of any other place in the Qur'an where the verb 'idrib' means 'cite' as you have defined it? ... >>>
2 - Do you know of any lexicon in the entire Arabic language that provides the meaning of 'idrib' as you have defined it i.e. to mean 'cite'?

[choice]

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.

"Possibly"?

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:

"...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)."

"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.

Regards,
Athman.

REFERENCES:
[1]. Cleansing Power Of The Rain, in Qur'an 8:11? http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=cb9jrjin7u63oblt4soapoglj5&topic=2464.0

[2]. An Inquiry on People of the Book and their 'Book'
http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=2498.msg13009#msg13009

[3]. Consultation For A Proper Understanding
http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=2450.msg12791#msg12791

[4]. Interconnection between Makkah, Bacca, Qaabah, and Masjidul Haraam
http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=2452.msg12801#msg12801

[5].The Place of Summon for Prophet Musa (pbuh)
http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=2572.msg13341#msg13341

Shalom / peace br. Athman.... Thanks for sharing your views in the way you have..... found them quite convincing and detailed.....》》

Salaam Duster,

I may get lambasted for this but I feel the focus on women to cover is to guard themselves from the attention of men.

Men who I feel are definitely driven by their sexual hormones , much more than women are. As far as I am aware, men get  consumed with sexual thoughts that get triggered quite easily.

God created them that way but maybe their test in that area is going to be harder because they have been ordered to restrain themselves.

Shalom / peace sister ....>>thanks for sharing ...appreciated ....