News:

About us: a forum for monotheists, and discussion of Islam based on The Quran

Main Menu
Menu

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.

Show posts Menu

Messages - Bosnian Thinker

#1
General Issues / Questions / Re: I Apologise
July 14, 2010, 05:53:23 PM
Quote from: RasulHamsa on July 13, 2010, 04:21:28 PM
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9598687.0
Thanks for the link, but I felt like I had to make one final apology before closing the account.

I do not have to close this account, but I feel like I should get rid of it because the account is still a reminder of all the bad things I have said.  This account is tarnished, and so I would like to get a new one.

:peace: :peace: :peace:
#2
General Issues / Questions / I Apologise
July 13, 2010, 02:46:48 PM
Selam to all.  :)

I am writing this post to apologise to all of those who I have been mean to on this forum and to all of those who I have insulted or harmed on this forum.  I have changed a lot recently and I have matured and realised a lot of things and I apologise for my behavior.  I plan on closing this account soon and maybe getting another one later on but there is a lot of crap I have written through this account and so I want to get rid of it.

I apologise to all for my wrongful behavior.  Peace to all  :peace:
#3
Quote from: Nafi on July 07, 2010, 10:04:45 AM
Surely kissing and hugging is not transgressing limits at all

I agree completely.  To say that is is to take an extremely conservative view point which has no logical basis.  :peace:
#4
Quote from: Abdun Nur on June 23, 2010, 07:46:35 PM
Salaam Bosnian thinker,

you have not read the essay and continue to present confusion, why is it so difficult to read a short essay before writing your opinion on its content?

Allah created the Earth, but human labour created the computer, read the essay on Allodial ownership and then write your post, thanks.

I will give a brief example of ownership:

All the Earth is allodial, as are the fruits of the Earth, for example if I plant a field of watermelons, the watermelons are the bounty of Allah, grown from the earth and out of the seed, and from the design of Allah, but the physical labour you invested in the planting of the seed, the preparing of the land, the harvesting and marketing of the watermelons, is what you have honestly earned and deserve in reward of your labour, so when you sell the watermelon, the watermelon itself is free, as it is the bounty of Allah, but the labour it took to reach its end user and consumer must be paid by the end user and consumer.
Selam

I am not arguing with you about your essay, I am arguing with you about this certain topic.  I don't care whether you mentioned this in your essay or not.  Land and computers and so on are all made of atoms, they're all things, they're all equal, and they can all be used for trade.  It would also not make philosophical sense that we could not own land.
#5
Quote from: Abdun Nur on June 23, 2010, 02:59:40 PM
Salaam Bosnian thinker,

who was the first owner of the land that established the right to buy and sell it?

Does Allah not say he is the owner, so would you steal from Allah, they enslave you through the fiction of estate, and you think this is a good thing?

They have no right to buy and sell what they do not own, they create a legal fiction to alow themselves this right, which you support.


Selam :)

God owns everything.  God owns the computer you used to write your reply to my post, yet the computer is still yours.  God could take it away if He wanted to though.  One material item is the same as any other; land is the same as jewelry or cars or houses and so on.  It's all the same thing, and can be traded, sold, and bought.  Now if you are talking about how nations and cities and so forth take claim over land and then sell it, you might have a point there.  The connection between religion and the way the modern society and the way modern government exist is a very complex issue.  This is something I have been thinking much about recently, for example, the legality of nations and taxes and so on.  This is a very complex issue, and it seems to me like few people bring up this very, very important topic.

:peace: :peace: :peace: :peace:
#6
Quote from: Abdun Nur on June 22, 2010, 06:28:58 PM
Salaam Raaajah,

you do not grasp the model, this is the reason for you confusion, I have never said you can not buy property, or goods, I simply state you can not sell what you do not own.
It seems you wish to start with the Allodial model, this explains ownership, you have no need to present negative comments, as you have above, it is without doubt the Islamic model, I will post the link for the essay on Allodial ownership as you have failed to read, it seems, on my website, note at no point have I stated you cannot buy property only land:

http://servantofthelight.com/content/view/68/98/

Selam
Property can be bought and sold.  That includes land property.  Nowhere in the Quran is this prohibited.  I do not see how you have come to this conclusion.
#7
Quote from: Nafi on June 22, 2010, 11:33:42 AM
Well about MMA, its perfectly acceptable that it has multiple meanings, which is typical of old arabic.

Yes, and which is typical of all languages.

:peace:
#8
Quote from: nimnimak_11 on June 19, 2010, 08:08:53 PM
Salam Bosnian thinker :peace:

In the case of 24:33 it looks like it is talking of someone your engaged to and i agree with this. But when looking at for example this:

then i think it's safe to conclude that MMA must also entail other meanings.

Selam  :peace: :peace:

I ran across this verse while I was studying the other day.  I am kind of confused about this.  Verse 24:33 clearly points out that those maintained by your oaths are those you are engaged to; it is possible that there may be additional meanings.  Also, if the verse you quoted for me is meant for women in general and not the prophet's wives, then we would not need to talk about this, but it kind of seems to me that it is referring to them.  I'll have to do more research on this subject.
#9
Quote from: nimnimak_11 on January 10, 2010, 03:26:09 AM
Peace all
:peace:

This is an article i wrote. My first on a topic in Quran. If you read it, please let me know what you think:



The purpose of this article is to argue against the widely accepted belief that the Quran prohibits sex before marriage. I intend to do this by using the Quran to justify a case of pre-marital sex where it is acceptable in the light of the Quran.

Unless you take the root Zay-Nun-Ya or Fa-Ha-Shin to literally mean premarital sex, the prohibition of sex before marriage is not stated in the Quran. There are also no verses in the Quran where sex is made exclusive to marriages. Thus sex is not exclusive to marriages and can be done outside of wedlock.  The fact that sex is not explicitly prohibited does not mean that it is ok to have sex with anyone under any circumstance. The Quran places restrictions and limitations which prevent such a scenario. There are two limitations which I will point out:

The first limitation I will explain via the following Verses of 23:5-6

23:5 And they keep covered their private parts.
23:6 Except around their spouses (azwaaj), or those who are maintained by their oaths (ma malakat aymanukum), they are free from blame.
23:7 But whoever seeks anything beyond this, then these are the transgressors.

From these verses, it is clear that none should have access to the private parts except the following two categories: Spouses (Azwaaj) and those who are committed to you by oaths (ma malakat aymanukum) Thus SO FAR sex can only be done with those two categories of people. However this presents us with a problem as anyone could be committed to an individual by oath. Thus theoretically if an orphan is committed to you by oath.....then he can have access to your private parts.
This is where the second limitation comes in:

Fa-Ha-Shin which has the possible following meanings:
became excessive/immoderate/enormous/exorbitant/overmuch/beyond measure, foul/bad/evil/unseemly/indecency/abominable, lewd/gross/obscene, committing excess which is forbidden, transgress the bounds/limits, avaricious, adultery/fornication.

An example of the usage of Fa-Ha-Shin can be seen in 17:32 And do not come near adultery, for it is lewdness and an evil path.

If we take lewdness into account, then it becomes clear that showing your private parts to an orphan who is committed to you by oath is forbidden (unless you have a really good and un-lewd reason to do so which is very unlikely) Thus (though highly unlikely) no one can claim that they were showing their private parts to their orphan and then justify themselves with verses such as 23:5-6. Such an act will go strongly against reason and heart in which their justification becomes invalid just by that alone. Nevertheless for the purposes of this article, it is an act of lewdness indicated by reason and heart and thus prohibited by the Quran. Thus this takes out the possibility of all gross acts such as the example given.
I will now discuss some of the possible objections to my argument.

One possible objection to my argument, is the following verse: 24:33

And let those who are not able to marry continue to be chaste until God enriches them of His Bounty. And if those who are maintained by your oaths seek to consummate the marriage, then document it with them if you find that they are ready, and give them from the wealth of God which He has bestowed upon you. And do not force your young women to need if they have desired to be independent, in order that you may make a gain in the goods of this worldly life. And if anyone has compelled them, then for their compulsion, God is Forgiving, Merciful.

It requests of those who are unable to marry to remain chaste implying that they should not have sex until they have married. I disagree with this translation and understanding for the following reason:

If we look at a word by word translation, the word chaste actually isn?t there. What?s actually used is abstain. But his could mean to abstain from something different to sex such as abstaining from unlawful sex and not sex as a whole.

Another possible objection
It may be argued that the permission to expose the private parts to those you are committed to by oath given in the Quran does not include the permission to have sex. This is not the case as in order for something to be prohibited, it needs to be stated in the Quran. If it is not stated, then it is not prohibited and as sex is not prohibited beyond the limits already discussed, then it is permitted. Consider the following: If we are to say that the private parts (in the case of those who are committed to an individual by oath) are for exposure only and nothing more, then this becomes problematic. Imagine a surgeon attempting to operate on an individual?s private part. The surgeon can see the private part of the individual as the surgeon is committed to the individual by oath however the surgeon will not be able to go beyond seeing the private part (even though the individual has consented to operating on the private part) and thus be unable to a operate on the individual. This would be the case if we were to accept that the private parts can only be exposed and nothing more can be done to them. 

Moving on....
The concept of lewdness is subjective. What may appear lewd to an individual may appear normal to another. Consider a one night stand. Some will consider the act as lewd and some will think it acceptable. Topics such as a one night stand are controversial and open to debate. However when the act of sex is done between a couple who are both morally upright and are comfortable with each other and are not rushing one another and it does not go against their reason and heart prior to the act, then I see no controversy in such a case. I doubt that in such a case there is any lewdness. If anyone objects to this, please indicate the lewdness you pick out from this.

In conclusion, pre-marital sex is not prohibited in the Quran. There are clear limitations and subjective limitations. Issues such as a one night stand may possibly be justified in the light of the Quran. As outrageous as this claim may appear to some, I truly believe that it may hold some truth.

The end.

Some addiotional points:

In a discussion with a friend, when attempting to argue against one night stands, I could not get anywhere as his argument was clearly the more reasonable and stronger. I will present a revised summary of our discussion: What could be wrong with two healthy (no disabilities such as down-syndrome or any influence of alcohol) and responsible people agreeing to have sex on one night even though they have just met on the night? I responded by saying that that would make sex meaningless and without passion. But would it necessarily do this? I cannot tell. And even if it does, how could it be wrong when both have agreed to it and it?s not harming anyone else? (please note this was an argument with my friend which I have attempted to summarise. What I have written down isn?t exactly what was said but rather the key points pointed out and discussed. My purpose of this example was to show the importance of reason and how someone like my friend could justify himself in the sight of God)

I could not answer him and considered that he might be right and that my rejection of his view is purely based on my upbringing and not of my reasoning. My heart did object to it at first but I tried to view the act in a different and more positive light in order to be unbiased, and my heart did not object to it anymore. Before i was viewing this act in a negative light and that is why i believe my heart objected to it then. But both scenarios that i attmepted to comprehend can take place in reality. The negative more likely to occure then the positive. I dislike the idea of a one night stand personally.

If I am not mistaken, virginity in the Iranian culture is seen as a good thing and I believe that this is similar amongst Quranists. Ironically virginity in some places and in the sight of some people is seen as a bad thing. With the use of reason and the Quran, hopefully we will get to the truth.


:peace:
Selam :)

Verse 24:33 clearly points out that those who are maintained by your oaths are those whom you are engaged to.  It does not include everybody maintained by any oath you have made. That would not be logical at all.
#10
Quote from: seattletruth on May 20, 2010, 04:28:03 PM
My opinion is that physical relationships are not a good idea before marriage, however you should be in love with your fiance mentally.

It's not a good idea to marry someone you don't love, as you might not be happy down the road.


An imam told my fiance that there is no such thing as (mental) love before marriage, that it's forbidden. He also said you shouldn't listen to your heart, and you should marry whoever has the most money.

His views are not sanctioned in Islam, in my opinion.. They are sanctioned by his culture's twisted traditions.

I still believe that physical relationships are definitely allowed before marriage.  However, you should be very careful how physical the relationship gets.  That is true with anything.  You have to keep in mind what you believe the limits are and what is right and what is going too far for anything.

Concerning imams, I would never go to an imam for advice.  Seek God for advice.  There is definitely such a thing as mental love.  I love my fiancee' and I would marry her even if I could never touch her and no matter how much money or possesions she has.  Before you marry someone, you HAVE to know that that individual is someone you love and who you will stay committed to and who you can connect and share with.  What that imam said makes no sense, but that's not surprising.

:peace: :peace: :peace: :peace: :peace: :peace: :peace: