dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
Yup. I missed both of those details. Thank you.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Pleasure Marriages in Islam
- Thread starter Mock Turtle
- Start date
Yup. I missed both of those details. Thank you.
No, it isn't. Baha'i and Mormonism are. Or whatever newer cults/sects have come around since.
They've always had their fanatics and weirdos. Just read the Hebrew Bible for that and then look at the Maccabees, Zealots, etc. Today, we see their crazies among some of the Haredi and Chasidim, and the violent Jewish loons among the far-right Zionists. After all, where exactly do you think this all started from?
firedragon
Veteran Member
Research. IMHO.
stvdv
Veteran Member
Yes, they did extensive research to "prostitution connection with sex trafficking" when this happened in the Netherlands.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Well. Thats a red herring. What a strange point is that? "Prostitution and sex trafficking"? What else could that be?
You know what I meant and you know you are just deviating into a red herring.
Peace.
stvdv
Veteran Member
1) I had a pleasant conversation with @dybmh
2) You jump in "I think you are making your opinion sound like fact"
3) I clearly explain "you thought wrong". I stated it as opinion...end of conversation
4) But there you come again ... with the reply "Research. IMHO."
Just 1 word `Research` (I admit actually 2 words `Research. IMHO`. No question mark there, so obvious I read it as "Research. In my humble opinion" ... Which naturally I read as a confirmation to what I said. Strange, but fine with me. Your 1 word "Research" was very unclear to me.
5) I being clear (avoiding RF confusion) gave a precise reply: Yes, they did extensive research to "prostitution connection with sex trafficking" when this happened in the Netherlands.
6) To which you reply with:
And quite some acquisations:
* "you know what I meant". Really? Are you clairvoyant, do you know better than I, what I think, about what you meant?
* "you know you are just deviating into a red herring". Again? Still exhibiting clairvoyance?
Note: I put "IMHO" under all my posts, because I am not the person to go into debate, unless specific asked and if I am really interested to learn more about the subject. I leave debating to the experts on RF. They are way better at it.
Note: I did google on "red herring" ... Interesting concept, good to know. And no, I was not throwing this "colored fish" at you.
2) You jump in "I think you are making your opinion sound like fact"
3) I clearly explain "you thought wrong". I stated it as opinion...end of conversation
4) But there you come again ... with the reply "Research. IMHO."
Just 1 word `Research` (I admit actually 2 words `Research. IMHO`. No question mark there, so obvious I read it as "Research. In my humble opinion" ... Which naturally I read as a confirmation to what I said. Strange, but fine with me. Your 1 word "Research" was very unclear to me.
5) I being clear (avoiding RF confusion) gave a precise reply: Yes, they did extensive research to "prostitution connection with sex trafficking" when this happened in the Netherlands.
6) To which you reply with:
Where comes all the fuss from? Throwing "red herring" at me. I don't even know what those words mean. Then 3 question(marks) this time using 6, 4, 5 words respectively. Still unclear to me.
Your mind is way off here and you are being disrespectful. As I said "I don't even know the meaning of red herring". And as I said, I didn't know what you meant with your "2 words" nor why all the fuss.
And quite some acquisations:
* "you know what I meant". Really? Are you clairvoyant, do you know better than I, what I think, about what you meant?
* "you know you are just deviating into a red herring". Again? Still exhibiting clairvoyance?
At last, that feels friendly and seems a good way to end all this fuss
Note: I put "IMHO" under all my posts, because I am not the person to go into debate, unless specific asked and if I am really interested to learn more about the subject. I leave debating to the experts on RF. They are way better at it.
Note: I did google on "red herring" ... Interesting concept, good to know. And no, I was not throwing this "colored fish" at you.
firedragon
Veteran Member
1) I had a pleasant conversation with @dybmh
2) You jump in "I think you are making your opinion sound like fact"
3) I clearly explain "you thought wrong". I stated it as opinion...end of conversation
4) But there you come again ... with the reply "Research. IMHO."
Just 1 word `Research` (I admit actually 2 words `Research. IMHO`. No question mark there, so obvious I read it as "Research. In my humble opinion" ... Which naturally I read as a confirmation to what I said. Strange, but fine with me. Your 1 word "Research" was very unclear to me.
5) I being clear (avoiding RF confusion) gave a precise reply: Yes, they did extensive research to "prostitution connection with sex trafficking" when this happened in the Netherlands.
6) To which you reply with:
Where comes all the fuss from? Throwing "red herring" at me. I don't even know what those words mean. Then 3 question(marks) this time using 6, 4, 5 words respectively. Still unclear to me.
Your mind is way off here and you are being disrespectful. As I said "I don't even know the meaning of red herring". And as I said, I didn't know what you meant with your "2 words" nor why all the fuss.
And quite some acquisations:
* "you know what I meant". Really? Are you clairvoyant, do you know better than I, what I think, about what you meant?
* "you know you are just deviating into a red herring". Again? Still exhibiting clairvoyance?
At last, that feels friendly and seems a good way to end all this fuss
Note: I put "IMHO" under all my posts, because I am not the person to go into debate, unless specific asked and if I am really interested to learn more about the subject. I leave debating to the experts on RF. They are way better at it.
Note: I did google on "red herring" ... Interesting concept, good to know. And no, I was not throwing this "colored fish" at you.
Great.
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
... someday I'd love to talk more about this idea, because that's not how I would define 'joy'. But... that's not important now
firedragon
Veteran Member
... someday I'd love to talk more about this idea, because that's not how I would define 'joy'. But... that's not important now
So in your expertise what does isthamtha mean in its root?
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
firedragon
Veteran Member
Brother. You were speaking of the word Joy and the meaning. Thats your perspective from the English language. Inn arabic it has a different root meaning. Thats what I was speaking of.
Sorry. Since you objected I thought you knew arabic. Anyway, I have I think explained the root meaning earlier.
Cheers.
There is somethings to note, Nikah originally means sex, and marriage is a way to make it permissible. But is marriage the only way? I will argue these verses show Muta is also a way.
This is how I would translate 4:24-25:
'And forbidden to you are all married women except who your oaths give authority (to have sex with), God's ordinance to you, and other then these are made permissable for you provide so seek them with your property being good not committing fornication, then those who you do Muta with, give them their reward as appointed and there no blame on you what mutually agree after what is obligated surely God is knowing Wise. And whoever among you has not within his power grace to have sex with married believers so then who your oaths give authority (to have sex with) from your believing maidens (women who are servants of God) and God knows best your faith, you are sprung one from the other, so have sex with permission of their respective family and give them their reward with goodness being good not seeking fornication nor secret girlfriends (to have sex with away from public eye), so if they then get married, and then come with a indecency (sexual sin proven to 4 witnesses), they shall suffer half the punishment (term to be locked away in the house) which is inflicted upon married women, this (Muta and doing instead of marriage) is for who fears a curse among you and if you are patient it is better for you and God is forgiving Merciful.'
There is two type of "who your oaths give access to" per this verse. One is marriage (wife/husband) and the other is Muta. All married women are obviously forbidden except those who we are married to, so this shows, malakat aymankum includes marriage. Then it says, aside from these, so now we know everywhere "and who your oaths give access to", will mean: "those who you do muta with" because it's saying "aside from this (who you are married to), there is those who are permissable..." and shows you can do Muta with them.
Muta means enjoyment but during life time of the Prophet like Salah and Nubuwa etc, like Quran, it had technical meaning. The technical meaning of Muta is then being explained in this verse.
The verse 4:25 if we keep in mind Muta is the other thing allowed, Nikah should be translated not as marriage here, but as seeking sex, so it's saying those who can't have sex with married women (ie. can't get married) due to circumstance, they should do Muta, but this has the following conditions:
(1) Seek permission from their family
(2) Not to be intending to take them as secret sex outlets hidden from public
(3) Give them their reward
If you recall a few verses back it said if wife is caught fornication by 4 witnesses, to lock them in their house until "death" takes them or God's finds a way for them, but the verse after says if they repented to let them go, like two people fornicate and they amend and repent to let them go. You can conclude there is a period to be locked away in the house after fornicating. This is verse is saying, if you do Muta with a woman and then marry her, and all of a sudden she is caught doing adultery, because of this history, she only has half the punishment. This might be said to say, Muta is shaky grounds to get married on and shift to a marriage, so that is why it's better to be patient and get married rather then Muta. So then it's explained it's actually only for those who fear falling into a cursed lifestyle of sexual deviance or perhaps the desire is rebelling and it's hard to perform the spiritual obligations, etc.....
This how I interpret it.
The problem really is if you take "who your oaths access to" to not include marriage and then Muta, you would be allowing sex with a married woman be it she a slave or something else, but this is not permissible in human that has any moral sense.
Aside from this, the burden proof should be on people to prove "muta" is something else then what is known as historically "Muta" through hadiths and history, this is well known fact that his was practiced and called that during Prophet time.
Aside from this, since slavery is justified by malakat aymanikum, and can be seen as Muta, the burden of proof is for people to show slavery was permissible when there is enough verses condemning it!
This is how I would translate 4:24-25:
'And forbidden to you are all married women except who your oaths give authority (to have sex with), God's ordinance to you, and other then these are made permissable for you provide so seek them with your property being good not committing fornication, then those who you do Muta with, give them their reward as appointed and there no blame on you what mutually agree after what is obligated surely God is knowing Wise. And whoever among you has not within his power grace to have sex with married believers so then who your oaths give authority (to have sex with) from your believing maidens (women who are servants of God) and God knows best your faith, you are sprung one from the other, so have sex with permission of their respective family and give them their reward with goodness being good not seeking fornication nor secret girlfriends (to have sex with away from public eye), so if they then get married, and then come with a indecency (sexual sin proven to 4 witnesses), they shall suffer half the punishment (term to be locked away in the house) which is inflicted upon married women, this (Muta and doing instead of marriage) is for who fears a curse among you and if you are patient it is better for you and God is forgiving Merciful.'
There is two type of "who your oaths give access to" per this verse. One is marriage (wife/husband) and the other is Muta. All married women are obviously forbidden except those who we are married to, so this shows, malakat aymankum includes marriage. Then it says, aside from these, so now we know everywhere "and who your oaths give access to", will mean: "those who you do muta with" because it's saying "aside from this (who you are married to), there is those who are permissable..." and shows you can do Muta with them.
Muta means enjoyment but during life time of the Prophet like Salah and Nubuwa etc, like Quran, it had technical meaning. The technical meaning of Muta is then being explained in this verse.
The verse 4:25 if we keep in mind Muta is the other thing allowed, Nikah should be translated not as marriage here, but as seeking sex, so it's saying those who can't have sex with married women (ie. can't get married) due to circumstance, they should do Muta, but this has the following conditions:
(1) Seek permission from their family
(2) Not to be intending to take them as secret sex outlets hidden from public
(3) Give them their reward
If you recall a few verses back it said if wife is caught fornication by 4 witnesses, to lock them in their house until "death" takes them or God's finds a way for them, but the verse after says if they repented to let them go, like two people fornicate and they amend and repent to let them go. You can conclude there is a period to be locked away in the house after fornicating. This is verse is saying, if you do Muta with a woman and then marry her, and all of a sudden she is caught doing adultery, because of this history, she only has half the punishment. This might be said to say, Muta is shaky grounds to get married on and shift to a marriage, so that is why it's better to be patient and get married rather then Muta. So then it's explained it's actually only for those who fear falling into a cursed lifestyle of sexual deviance or perhaps the desire is rebelling and it's hard to perform the spiritual obligations, etc.....
This how I interpret it.
The problem really is if you take "who your oaths access to" to not include marriage and then Muta, you would be allowing sex with a married woman be it she a slave or something else, but this is not permissible in human that has any moral sense.
Aside from this, the burden proof should be on people to prove "muta" is something else then what is known as historically "Muta" through hadiths and history, this is well known fact that his was practiced and called that during Prophet time.
Aside from this, since slavery is justified by malakat aymanikum, and can be seen as Muta, the burden of proof is for people to show slavery was permissible when there is enough verses condemning it!
The root doesn't matter just like "Salah" root doesn't matter, Salah doesn't include all type of Du'as even though technically those connect us to God. It has a technical meaning, same with Muta.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Brother. With all due respect, when I said 4:24 is misread you have concluded what I am thinking. Since you dont know what I am thinking you should ask rather than making decisions about what goes on in my mind. Also, you have completely ignored me asking you meanings of other words inn the same sentence because you are trying your best to argue about Muta only. I was speaking of the whole verse, not only this word. So open your mind. Why are you honestly looking for an argument?
Anyway, since you insist, what do these words in the same sentence mean? Why dont you answer this? Are you gonna ignore this again?
1. Yamin
2. Hasana.
Only if you respond to this you will understand the whole point of me saying "4:24 is misread".
And when you say "root doesn't matter", you are not speaking about the arabic language. Its an absurd statement.
Do you understand how it sounds when you speak of Salah and Dua? This is completely a different thing but it is you who wish to discuss this, so tell me, how could Salah be dua? In what context? Please do enlighten me.
Respond to both questions if you can, not ignore part of it again.
If you going to prove your point just say it. I already translated my interpretation and explained my reasons. Show your proof, but what are you doing is known as a fallacy. Asking questions as if you will have concrete argument if answered some way. Just say the argument, and do away with the "oh I will show you once you answer" approach which is known as a fallacy for way of arguing.
firedragon
Veteran Member
I am asking questions because you are arguing for no reason. You have not even understood the point I was making.
Alright. Forget it.
Just tell me how could Salah be Dua? In what context from the languages point of view?
firedragon
Veteran Member
So what you are saying is that because Dua is a form of connecting to God and Salah means connecting, Salah can be interpreted as a Dua? IS that what you are saying?
I'm saying Salah has a technical meaning and root word shows it's a way of connecting to God, but has a technical meaning.
But if we stick to root meaning only, then Du'a is one instance of Salah. It would not mean Salah is Du'a, but it would mean A Du'a is a form of Salah which is in Islam false.
But if we stick to root meaning only, then Du'a is one instance of Salah. It would not mean Salah is Du'a, but it would mean A Du'a is a form of Salah which is in Islam false.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Who in the world sticks to the root meaning only?