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 - huruf

Pages: [1] 2 ... 210
1
Rasul is undeterminate and al rasul is determinate, that is, who alrasul is depends on the antecedent to which the al, determinate article, goes back. It can be Muhammad, it can be any messenger that may be the antecedent in the previous text. "Al rasul" is not a name as oposed to rasul which would be another name, al rasul is the same name but determinate. Rasul is a messenger, any messenger, al rasul is the prophet to whom previously reference has been made. What I do not see at all is the need to divest categorically Muhammad of the possibility of being a grammatical antecedent, just like that, by definition.

On the other hand, the obey the messenger or obey a messenger comes to the same. The question of not being able anybody to obey any messeger, determinate or indeterminate and in fact anybody is that if the person who is supposed to give the orders is dead, there is no way that you can obey him or her. Out fo the question. Another thing is if he had left a will. You carry out the will if you are in charge of it. As far as I know we do not have an authentic will of any prophet, so no chance either of carrying out his will, specially after so many centuries.

But we can follow the teachings transmited by him which we consider authentic judging form its content.

Also, to wits, Ta3a, does not necessarily mean to obey. It may mean to obey if an order is given, but where no order is given there is no obey. May be follow or pay heed or take into acount but not obey. It is really a desease this obssession of "obey the messenger", even when there is not aven any order given, and without bother to look into the logic of the thing.

Obey, obey, obey, life is all obey, like if they sell in the malls and freat surfaces and all that. Obey two and get one free! ya salaam!

Salaam

2
It is the right hand of somebody, that is, ayman (plural, right hands) or yamin  (singular, right hand), who is or are the possessor of whatever is possessed. It is therefore understood that the person whose hand is the possessor is the actual possessor, the right hand indicating that it is not any possession or property, but a certain relationship according to moral and legal principles that ties one person to the other and that is why it is spoken of RIGHT hand. Not the wrong or left hand.

The possessed is designed by the MA of Ma malakat, litterally translated is What is possessed or what was possessed. malakat is the verb that indicates being in possession, being in charge, to have responsibility for something. The hum, hunna, kum, are merely the pronouns to designate the owner of the hand or the owners of the hands that possess, be it second person or third person of either sex or number, plural, dual or singular.

Salaam

3
General Issues / Questions / Re: I just want to say
« on: May 15, 2013, 03:17:38 AM »
Can't remember the ayas, but God tells us to ask thing from Him. And He does answer, but the answers, whiich are to our requests, may not look like what we would have imagined, however, suddenly you realise that they have been answered the logical, real way. No "miracles", simply as things happened, His answer happens, just like everything happens, but we must be ready to accept anything He wants for us. He knows how and what, we do not. He is the WONDER.

Salaam

4
We are hipnotized by habit and prejudice. Just reading the next aya after 4.34, that is, 4.35, we would be rid of the idiocy that entails having so many headaches at interpreting 4.34, and I include myself among the guilty.

Recently I read some analisys made by a Moroccan colleague, who in turn read from an Azhari, which deals with whom is addressed and of whom it is spoken in those ayas and any other ayas. I think the vision and understanding is quite entlightening and besides without anything mysterious about it. Plain straightforward grammar and logic. Nothing else, no contorting no effort in fact. Plain common understanding. I translate from Spanish:

So in 4.35  the community is addressed and is instructed that if they fear a breach between the spouses , they should appoint an arbiter from her family and another one from his family.

This aya is not addressed to the spouses, when the spouses are meant or addressed, the third person is used, he,  or she, what in Arabic grammar is called Al ghaib.

This aya 4.35 is not addressed to the spouses but to the community, men and women,

and the same applies to the previous aya 4.34

It is not addressed to the spouses but to what the Qur'an calls "alladhina amanu", those who have como to believe in 4.29, since the addressee continues to be the same.

when men are spoken of it says "they" (masculine, hum), when women are spoken of it says "they" (feminine, hunna), and when it addresses the community it uses "you", second person inclusive plural. That is, three different kinds of pronoun are used: third person masculine, third person feminine, second person inclusive plural.

Since most of those who interpreted the aya were men, they interpreted that the inclusive plural referred to the husbands, but:

Men (they masculine) are responsible for the care of the women (they feminine) by virtue of that in which He has favoured more each other repsectively and by what they (masculine) spend of their (third person masculine) wealth. Virtuous women (they feminine) are those devoted to God who guard what God has guarded. As to those (they feminine) from whom you (second person inclusive plural) fear nushuz, warn them, leave them in their place, make them realise, but if they comply, do not harm them. God indeed is most high most great.

With the masculine component of the couple he uses the third person, he, they (masculine), with the feminine component, it uses she, they(feminine), and when the society is addressed (males and females) it uses the second person: You who have come to believe.



There is more to add, but I am quite busy now, I will complete it later.

Salaam


I will continue here the translation of the text as announced:







Except for the case where males are clearly addressed as "you (plural)" as the part of that community directly responsible for that, in as much as they are part of that community and personally responsible of following those instructions, as is done in 4-19-22, where they are told to not do the evil deeds they used to practice in the pre-islamic society such as inherit women and exact from them the return of wealth and to marry the wives of the fathers. After that, the pronouns follow the usual usage: he for the husband, she for the wife, and you (plural) for the community, starting the speeach anew with: "Ya ayuha alladhina amanu" Oh you who have come to believe... in 4.29.   And the addressee is not changed after that it being "alladhina amanu", so the "you" plural is still the community, and the parts of it alluded in the ayas are those named in the third person. It is a basic and common fact of grammar.

To choose a meaning for da-ra-ba en the aya depends on the time, the circumstances and the environment in which that community of believers finds itself. The Qur'an sets forth a variety of meanings of daraba, some refer to orientation and teachings, for instance, da-ra-ba an examle, or simil or as a treatment, 38.44, or da-ra-ba as separate or impose (57.13)... Basically to act with da-ra-ba. It is left to those in charge of social assistance within the community. May be what most pushed the interpreters to take it that with you(plural) it is addressing the husbands was the following expression of "wa hujuruhunna fil maDaji3" (leave them alone in bed), which they understood as "stop going to bed with them", while the meaning is such as correctly translated by Asad as "leave them alone in bed", since the "maDaji3", according to the Qur'an are precisely that: the homes, or the corresponding places, as we see in 3.154:

"Say:  "Even if you had remained in your homes (where they were meant to lie), those for whom death was decreed would certainly have gone forth to the place of their death"

and in 32.16

 Their sides forsake their beds, and they call upon their Lord in fear and hope, and expend (in charity) out of the sustenance We have granted them. (16)

Neither does the Qur'an say that first warn, then leave alone in the bed and then da-ra-ba, and that comes as a consequence of understanding the text as addressed to the husband. It is conspicuous in Asad's translation, adding words that are not in the text that, according to him, are explanatory (warn them [first]; then leave them alone in bed, then hit them...

But in the case of it being the woman who fears nushuz from the husband, it is clear that it is not addressing the community (you (plural)) but to the husband and the wife using for that purpose the same as has been used all along for the case: he and she who are they. "They" is not addressed to the community (you (plural)), but to the couple: to come to conciliation, and reconciling is better for each of them.

In the case of fearing nushuz from the wife, the question is not left int he hands of the husband, but in those of the community or the legislator to proceed as may be fit. In the case of fearing rebeliousness from the husband it is left in the hands of both of them to reconcile, it is felt that the Rabb caresses both of them, advising in general to avoid selfishness and calling to act virtuously and fear Him and have cosncience of Him, He who kows all we hide. 







So here ends the translation.

By sheer grammar it is transparent that nowhere husbands ar authorized, least of all called to behave as administrators of justice for the wives.

It is so indredibly plain that one wonders from where the possibility of error can have been had.



There is whole long work by wakas in www.quran434.com
as to the meanings of daraba in the Qur'an


With cooler and cooler minds on the divine reading hopefully the meaninglessness and ridiculousness of the beating notion will become more and more manifest and overwhelming even for the most hypnotized of its upholders, which most of us have initially been, for lack of knowledge and through acceptance of handed down concepts.

Salaam



















































































5
We are hipnotized by habit and prejudice. Just reading the next aya after 4.34, that is, 4.35, we would be rid of the idiocy that entails having so many headaches at interpreting 4.34, and I include myself among the guilty.

Recently I read some analisys made by a Moroccan colleague, who in turn read from an Azhari, which deals with whom is addressed and of whom it is spoken in those ayas and any other ayas. I think the vision and understanding is quite entlightening and besides without anything mysterious about it. Plain straightforward grammar and logic. Nothing else, no contorting no effort in fact. Plain common understanding. I translate from Spanish:

So in 4.35  the community is addressed and is instructed that if they fear a breach between the spouses , they should appoint an arbiter from her family and another one from his family.

This aya is not addressed to the spouses, when the spouses are meant or addressed, the third person is used, he,  or she, what in Arabic grammar is called Al ghaib.

This aya 4.35 is not addressed to the spouses but to the community, men and women,

and the same applies to the previous aya 4.34

It is not addressed to the spouses but to what the Qur'an calls "alladhina amanu", those who have como to believe in 4.29, since the addressee continues to be the same.

when men are spoken of it says "they" (masculine, hum), when women are spoken of it says "they" (feminine, hunna), and when it addresses the community it uses "you", second person inclusive plural. That is, three different kinds of pronoun are used: third person masculine, third person feminine, second person inclusive plural.

Since most of those who interpreted the aya were men, they interpreted that the inclusive plural referred to the husbands, but:

Men (they masculine) are responsible for the care of the women (they feminine) by virtue of that in which He has favoured more each other repsectively and by what they (masculine) spend of their (third person masculine) wealth. Virtuous women (they feminine) are those devoted to God who guard what God has guarded. As to those (they feminine) from whom you (second person inclusive plural) fear nushuz, warn them, leave them in their place, make them realise, but if they comply, do not harm them. God indeed is most high most great.

With the masculine component of the couple he uses the third person, he, they (masculine), with the feminine component, it uses she, they(feminine), and when the society is addressed (males and females) it uses the second person: You who have come to believe.



There is more to add, but I am quite busy now, I will complete it later.

Salaam


6
I can't remember in which aya of the Qur'an but there is one, where there is something lalowed concerning marriage, with the exception of what is alreayd past. If this aya we are dealing with referred to marriage it should be what is already past. I do not think the Prophet got any favours on that count.

On the other hand, en this case as in the case of Lut's daughters it seems that the penchant for going to the most carnalist meaning that can be extracted from the text seems to have won out.

It cannot be a bad exercise as balancing act to act in the opposite way, that is traying to understand whenever possible in a non carnal way.

Salaam 

7
Could it be that al ruH el Quddus is the divine spirit unspecified and that angels and archangels are specificactions of the spirit following God's names.

I remember from catholicism that there are angels and archangels, Jibril (Gabriel), Mikhail, Raphael...

Salaam 

8
General Issues / Questions / Re: O PEOPLE OF THE BOOK
« on: May 10, 2013, 12:17:38 AM »
Since all peoples have been sent prophets, in principle all peoples could be considered people of the book. I guess that what the Qur'an means goes along the lines of considering people of the book all those who base their beliefs on revelation transmitted by His prophets in the whole world thourghout the ages. 

Salaam

9
Questions/Comments on the Quran / Re: Is Zina related to sex ?
« on: May 04, 2013, 12:09:02 AM »
Salaam god1quran1

my actual understanding is this:
making zina=defaming someone, accusing him to have commited a crime he didn't committed.

24:4 And those who accuse the independent female (MOHASANAT)s, then they do not bring forth four witnesses, you shall lash them with eighty lashes, and do not accept their testimony ever; and those are the wicked.


MOHASANAT is women who have sufficient money  to be independant. They don't need to work.
So mohsanat can surmont more easely the prejudice of false accusations. In other hand, it is more difficult to make credible accusation against mohasanat.
Giving 80 lashes to defamer of a mohsanat is, i think, a way to calibrate the punition and to show that defaming is a great sin.


4:15 And those of your women who commit lewdness, you shall bring four witnesses over them from among you; if they bear witness, then you shall restrict them in the homes until death terminates their lives, or God makes for them a way out.

Here, we have another attitude to have towards women comminting "lewdness". Explaining the meaning of 4:15 is another debate. We have only to notice that there is no leashes there.

42:40 The recompense for a crime shall be its equivalence, but whoever forgives and makes right, then his reward is upon God. He does not like the wrongdoers.
42:41 And for any who demand action after being wronged, those are not committing any error.
42:42 The error is upon those who oppress the people, and they aggress in the land without cause. For these will be a painful retribution.


in quran, we have a sample of adultery accusation in history of Yusuf. There was no leashes on the story.
12:27 “And if his shirt is torn from behind, then she is lying, and he is truthful.”
12:28 So when he saw that his shirt was torn from behind, he said: “This is from your female planning, your female planning is indeed great!”

there was not also 4 testimonies. There was a proof that Yusuf was not guilty.

By definition, a defamer has no proofs. So at least 4 testimonies are needed in case of lack of proofs.

12:76 So he began with their bags before the bag of his brother. Then he brought it out of the bag of his brother. It was such that We planned  for Joseph, for he would not have been able to take his brother under the system of the king, except that God wished it so. We raise the degrees of whom We please, and over every one of knowledge is the All Knowledgeable.

Here again we have a sample that with a proof, we don't need 4 testimonies.



Peace


I think your proposition that zina is not illegal fornication but slander has some merit, seen from the point of view of the 100 lashes versus eighty lashes.

However I disagree with the idea that in 4.15 we are dealing with the same as in the first ayas of sura 24. Fahisha may stretch more than just indecency or sexual morals, but I think that its main content is that, and in 4.15 we are not dealing with any punishment, nor does it speak of keeping women jailed be it in their home or anywhere else, it does not speak about any punishment at all. So we are not dealing with a crime, but if it were a crime, that aspect is not contemplated, but rather the social measures to be taken to protect those women from the dangers of a life of fahisha, and to keep private what should be private.

I think I did a search for the word zina in the Qur'an and could not find an occurrence that could uphold that it is fornication or otherwise, if we take it that in the first ayas of 24. it is not about illegal fornication. And I say there is merit to your understanding from the point of view that in the ayas subsequent to the imposition of 100 lashes it does not expound about the evils of illegal fornication, but surprisingly, quite the opposite does deal with the evils of slander, quite a few ayas pounding on that and promising punishment in this world and the next. But not expounding on the evils of illegal fornication, as should be understood.

In a historical sense, we might come to understand, that it became taken to mean zina, since there was on the other hand the trend to stone adulterers. The jurists of the time might have thought that it was much better to keep to the lashes and to make the proof of adultery as hard as possible in order to keep within bounds the hounds of women on those grounds. So it might have been with a good purpose that the Qur'an was understood that way. The stoning with flimsy evidence is quite something, and in itself actually monumental slander.

May be other people can bring their own observation, reasonings, comments...

Salaam

10
Marriage & Divorce / Re: Too many differences? Or what do you think?
« on: April 28, 2013, 12:58:06 AM »
I think there are two sorts of things. Difference of opinion on religion or on anything else should not be a source of distress if we are sure of ourselves. He thinks this and that, good for him, you think this or that other good for you. BUT when the question is not about different opinions where you can disagree in peace, it is when it goes beyond and he expects you to conform to his norms or the opposite nd he does not accept in deed and word that you are not going to do what he wants. They are two different things. Very different. One is feasible, the other is not if you want to be yourself and not a pale shadow and a property of his.

Therefore that hadith about intercession for me is a difference of opinion, but his expectations that you should conform to his idea of Muslimness for a woman is outright tyrany, so completely different.

Difference of opinion with close relationships is always present. There are not two people in the world who think the same thing about everything. nd all of us have to accpet that with good grace. Tyrany is nothing to keep quiet about for the sake of peace. It is the burying of the other in live just as they did with girl children in the old times in Arabia an which the Qur'an talks about. Nobody has to put up with that nor whould anybody put up with that, it is an invitation to the tyran to feel like a god, to shirk.

Salaam

Pages: [1] 2 ... 210