Wasalam, Mquran,
I'm not working much lately... so I have the time to come in and out ;-)
The phrase in 24/31 is simply 'ghair ulil irbaah', or 'not those with sexual vigour' . Whether this vigour is physical or psychological isn't stated. Therefore, this hadith actually limits the application of the ayat. This isn't unusual for hadith.
Oh, brother. OK, so in your opinion, an old guy who can't get aroused (but still gets sexually stimulated inside) is exempt here? I bet you think her father and all of these other men lack sexuality for her, physically, too, right, although they are capable physically... as is the case with the unbelievers or the sick ones amongst the believers? :roll:
It has nothing to do with physical. It has to do with psychological. A gay man cannot -- psycologically -- be roused by a woman. So, no matter how much her physical body shows... it means nothing to him, though he is very much capable physically (as the case with some gay Muslims who get married to women, for reasons other than love or sexuality.)
ALSO... the verse talks about "THEIR ATTENDANTS .... AMONGST THE MALES"(wa al tabi`iina ... min al- rijjali)
The Hadith, and other historical records, whether "limitting" or not, show who these attendants were.
I know what you mean and I wasn't trying to be pedantic, either. The problem is, this arbitrary label of yours keeps spilling onto your discourse as well. You seem to be for the hadith of Muhammad (so-called) to be included in the Islamic corpus, yet the hadith of other civilisations be excluded. I rather the hadith of Confucian China be included if we need hadith at all. It makes much more sense than the hadith of Muhammad.
Oh Lord... :roll: Are we talking about the Book of anybody else or the one sent to Muhammad? When I refer to Books sent to other people, I use their life stories (Hadith/Sunna or whatever they call them)
I'm only for the Hadith of Muhammad when discussing the Qur'an or the Book sent to Muhammad. If you see me referring to his Hadith when I'm talking about the life of Moses, or Jesus, you can tell me
That's the problem. You look at the Quran as a dead text, a text whose time has passed. No, Al-Quraan is a living text. It gives the prediction of humanity from the beginning to the end. Revelation is happening ON (alaa) us (3/84) through our understanding of Al-Quraan. Just last year, I had a major revelation about al-hajj and related concepts. This year, it was al-kitaab and ahlul-kitaab. Alhamdulillah. This is a living book.
Well I don't look at the text as 'dead' ... but there are some of it that should just stay in the 7th century. I personally don't understand the need for camels today :-P but people all over the place... cling to such old things
On a more serious note, if your understanding of certain aspects in the Qur'an changes, it has to do with your own pre-disposed BS from cultures, etc ... not the true understanding of the Qur'an. And another thing your views may change is like I was saying before, if certain terms are not translated correctly (which people don't most of the time,) it can be a difference of day and night
You don't see the thousands of different narrators. All you see are thousands of different NAMES. Names which funnily enough people can easily appropriate for themselves. All they had to do was find a good isnaad and when Bukhari came lookin, just quote it to him. He wouldnt know it from atom.
Have you ever studied the history of why Hadith was put in paper? By the way, for the generations living during Bukhari's time, certain names might be "different" to them but not the Hadiths. People grew up with these oral traditions... and somebody just decided to put them in paper... because it was becoming evident that people were just starting to see them as "family tales" even though it was oral history that transcended families.
The same is true for all histories in most of the world. A really good example is the Jewish Historian, Josephus, who put down all the oral history fo the Jewish people... during his lifetime.
And even my own people -- who did not write until the 1970s -- have been ever since recording our own history in paper.
By the way, most of the Hadiths are the same ... both sides (shi'ites and sunnis) ... who were enemies and fought for centuries. Why do you think that is? :shock:
You got it upside down. The problem with the people in the world who call themselves 'muslims' are that they take thier definitions from an extra-quranic text. They may be 'muslim' in the sight of bukhari, but in the sight of Allah, not necessarily. They are trying to return to an imagined utopia when in fact the book is speaking to them here and now.
This is completely untrue. While I disagree with most Muslims on most subjects, I still recognize they are Muslims. A Muslim is one who submits to God and no one else. This means there is no physical idol in their presence... and they believe in God alone as the sustainer without partners. That definition is from the Qur'an, and it is the same in the Hadiths and their crappy mullahs. I have never met a Muslim who advocates we should worship anyone beside God.
Anything after that is just a bunch of details... which I don't really care about... since God assures me that God forgives anything but idolworship.
I don't believe maa malakat ayman are slaves. I believe they are ppl who are righteously under one's dominion or house. These people can have non-love based relationship with that person.
:roll: Check 24:32 where the word "`abd" or slave is used ... Sometimes I think God mentions certain words that are offensive... just to make sure some folks don't come around making trouble lol.
Ok, so when you say they are not slaves, do you think God says we can have sex with people under our house? Who, like guests? :shock: Sometimes, we are told we cannot be naked in front of anyone except our mates and those whose our right hand posses (see 23:5-6, for example.) The words "who guard their private parts" -- i.e, who do not have sex :-P
One heart, yes. For HIM not for anyone else (33/5).
No clue what you are trying to say. Say more, please. Who, "HIM"?
Peace, Aaron,
When Angels are quoted, it is usually one speaking for them. Not all speaking at the same time ;-) Also, many times, the "We" refers to the Angel(s) and God... who as far as the Human is conerned, are working together :-D
And Moses just met one Angel
But at the end, the Angel speaks in the plural, see 18:80 "... and we feared... " Of course, it is not that God fears... but just another way to relate to the weak Human. And of course in 18:79, the Angel takes responsible... and in 18:81, Angel gives credit to God ... "and your LORD desired... "
