Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

shafique wrote:ebonics - the article is in Arabic, so no I didn't understand it. What does it say?

It seems to me that we have come to an impasse. You say that Nikah is a dirty word, and all I can reply with is the dictionary entry from nikah and the knowledge that all Muslims call the marriage ceremony 'nikah'.

The Arabic lexicon does say that in some derivations and contexts Nikah also means having s.e.x - and so I have guessed that some Christians who find s.e.x shameful think that the word Nikah is shameful because it is understood as (as you say) 'to marry and have marital relationships'.

I fully concede that you have more knowledge of arabic swear words than I have, and I fully concede that I can't dispute that 'neeke' etc are swear words today in many dialects.

However, to say that a word which the dictionary describes as meaning 'marriage' is dirty because derivative words are used in slang is putting the cart before the horse. it does however highlight the fact that a certain copt doesnt use this word, when in fact none do... and the article is basically regarding an angry person replying to zakariya boutros and his claim that it is a dirty word...... but failing miserably in the process - you did a better job than he did to be honest.

Your initial assertion was that the Quran uses coarse language and wondered whether God would use such words, yet you quickly conceded that the context of the Quranic usage is always understood to mean 'marriage' as the primary meaning.

When the dictionary exposed this assertion as false, I pointed this fact out to you and gave you the option to recant. You continue to refuse.

Nikah = marriage and not 'f....k' - that is what I am calling you a liar on. If you did not mean to say this, then I will apologise when you clarify.

Cheers,
Shafique

your most diplomatic answer yet, and i agree with most of the above.

till the arabic speakers of the forum, please explain the word nekah as quoted by spoonman in the arabic forum, i guess we're still in disagreeance.



the article basically adds nothing to the conversation, it states that it means marriage, in the context of the quran - but it is written very poorly, with nothing substantial in its contents, on the contrary its very weak, he should take a page or two out of your books.


please do invite habib, that accused me of ignorance in arabic to explain the instances of the word nekah when it comes to hands and beastiality. and to explain all the material i pasted prior.

and please do invite habib to pose an explaination on why the above 2 examples now of a dictionary (mine and spoonmans) fail to mention that word in its ranks to describe marriage...

if it literarly meant marriage, wouldnt it just be there, right along with zawag? food for thought.

ebonics - Nikah in some contexts means s.e.x. Lane makes this clear.

However, in the context used in the Quran it has the meaning marriage - and Lane lists this as its primary meaning.

In the contexts where it does not mean marriage, but s.e.x, it takes on this meaning only because 'marriage' would not be possible or make sense.

The examples Lane gives are between a man and his wife (where it would mean sleep with) as opposed to man and woman (where it would mean marry).

With this explanation in mind, if the word is used in context of a hand, animal etc - then the secondary meaning comes into play.

The secondary meaning though is just a derivatory meaning and means 'marital relations' - i.e. another way of saying 'sleep with'.

Now, if someone uses 'marital relations' in a derogatory way - that does not necessarily change the original word's meaning or it's acceptability.

In the way that using 'wicked' in slang to mean 'good' does not change the literal meaning of 'wicked', but gives it a different contextual meaning.

Nikah is a word used by billions to signify the marriage ceremony. It is the noun derived from the verb 'to marry'.

As such, I cannot concede that this is a dirty word because some other words derived from this word are swear words. But I'm not saying that this is an article of faith, but because the dictionary definition I looked up and posted here says clearly what Nikah means.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Nikah is a word used by billions to signify the marriage ceremony. It is the noun derived from the verb 'to marry'.

As such, I cannot concede that this is a dirty word because some other words derived from this word are swear words. But I'm not saying that this is an article of faith, but because the dictionary definition I looked up and posted here says clearly what Nikah means.

Cheers,
Shafique

i have taken all the above points above that, on board...

you're still failing to explain to me why 2 sources do not list that word as a meaning of marry, if you are argueing that it is a normally used term.



in the other post of yours - you said

nekah means to marry between a man and a women

then in the line right under it

nekah means to sleep with between a man and his wife



isnt that what i have been sayign all along? in the instance of that aya, it literarly means, to sleep with, but since you are not allowed to committ zina and you ahve to be married to someone to sleep with them, then in the context of that aya it means marriage?

ebonics - Habib has addressed your question in the Arabic Speakers forum.

Cheers,
Shafique

ebonics - you may want to go back re-read what I wrote.

Lane says Nikah has a primary meaning which is 'marry and have marital relations'.

In a context where marriage does not make sense or is impossible, then it is understood as the secondary meaning which is 'have marital relations'.

The examples you gave show instances of the secondary/derivative meaning of the word.

Can I ask, did you have a look at the page in Lane I linked to?

He 'married' his hands, is the equivalent of the English phrase 'He made love to himself' or 'He pleasured himself' or 'He is married to his hand' or even 'He had marital relations with his hand'

Context matters, and in the Quran the context is clear and non-dirty. It is used in the imperative verb form to say 'marry!' and is not understood by any reader/listener to be 'f...k' as you said.

Cheers,
Shafique

and i have read his explaination, and it is as piss weak as it comes.

Likewise in the case of "Nakihu Yadihi", it does not mean whoever marries his hand, rather it refers to what marriage leads to, of sexual relief. Therefore, the prerequisite for Tafseer is for the interpreter to be fluent in Arabic, acquainted with the Arabs' use of words, grammer, poetry, history etc.

so the literal meaning would be

"the ruling of having a marital relation with your hand" according to him - with the allusion that it is the same sort of relief, of having an actual marital relation


if that makes sense to you - sorry shafique no dice here....

if it is an acceptable word, you STILL fail to reply to my question, why isnt it included in the 2 web dictionaries above? like any other acceptable word in the entire arabic language?

shafique, you will always believe what you want to believe, and im not going to change that with anything i say, we both know that.

habib's explaination is very flawed, and makes sense to only someone that wants to make sense out of it....

this is of course dismissing the fact that habib is also a muslim, and would never admit to something that will go against his faith.

would be interesting to hear spoonman's feedback after habib's reply..

or flying dutchman's, or freza's on the matter.

I went back and read the post it started from.

to be honest I cant deny Habib's explanation becuase I dont have the knowlege in that area. In farsi ezdevaj (from zevaj) is used for marriage and when moslims are getting married, the cleric reads the anekaho sonati which I guess means marriage in that sentence.

but it may also mean the act of having s.ex as I guess Naakeh (which is an adjective reffering to a person as Fa'el- similar to 'er' in english at the end of a word) is a person who is having s.ex, not a married person.

Then again, I cant aruge if the quran meant marrige or s.ex by that ayah.

Try the word marriage, it shows nikah.
http://online.ectaco.co.uk/main.jsp%3bj ... e=marriage

زواج, عرس, زفاف, قران, نكاح

ebonics wrote:my examples are the exceptions? i already said i can list another 20,000 -do i really have to for you to admit you're wrong?
what sort of logic are you using?

i quoted you from the dictionary when i searched in english the word marry - NEKAH did not come up in the results


http://online.ectaco.co.uk/main.jsp%3bj ... urce=marry


here is the link again, get your arabic speaker to read the results for you

results are:

TAZAWAG, WAHAD, SAHAR, NASAB, ZAWAG


no Nakah, Nekah, Nakh there unfortunatly.

From: Dictionary of the Quranic phrases and its meaning; Sheik Mousa Ben Mohammed Al Kaleeby, Cairo, Maktabat Al Adab, 2002

The definition of “Nikah” is the penetration of one thing by another. Examples would be as in saying the seed (N) the soil or sleep (N) the eye. It also can mean the entwining of two objects one with the other. An example would be saying the trees (N) each other, meaning they entwined with one another

From: Kitab (Book of) Al Nikah. Commentary of Imam Ahmed Ben Ali Ben Hagar Al Askalani, Beirut, Dar Al Balagha, 1986

Linguistically, “Nikah” means embracing or penetrating. When it is pronounced “Nokh” it refers to a woman’s vagina. It is mainly used in the context of “sexual intercourse.” When it was used in reference to marriage it is because sex is a necessity in marriage. Al Fassi said,”If someone says a certain man (N) a certain woman, it means he married her, and if he says a man (N) his wife, it means he has sexual intercourse with her.” The word can also be used metaphorically as with expressions: the rain (N) the ground, or, the sleep (N) the eyes, or, the seed (N) the soil, or, the pebble (N) the camel’s hoof. When it was used in the context of marriage it is because sexual intercourse is the purpose of marriage. It is necessary in marriage to “taste the honey” (an Islamic expression meaning literal intercourse). This is the how the word has generally been used in the Quran except in the verse that says, “Make trial of orphans until they reach the age of (N)” Sura 4: 6. In that instance it pertains to the age of puberty. The Shafia and Hanafi schools of jurisprudence assert that the word nikah when used as a fact conveys that sexual intercourse has occurred. And when used as a figure of speech it denotes marriage. The reason for this variance is because it is offensive to mention the word “intercourse,” so a metonymic word is used to substitute it

Btw, there are more native Arabic speakers who claim nihak literally means to f***. What is meant in the Quran I donot know, but I wouldn´t call ebonics a liar.

Flying Dutchman,

Your quotes look remarkably similar to what was written on an anti-Islam website:
http://www.islamreview.com/articles/nikah.shtml

For me the crux of the matter is what the dictionary says the meaning of Nikah is. That said, I have no problem in accepting that Nikah is understood to also include s.e.x within the marriage - it was the accusation that the word was coarse and filthy and would not be used by civilised people.

Words derived from this root may be coarse and insulting, but to accuse the Quranic usage as coarse is what I have called ebonics up on.

ebonics wrote:do you knwo what the arabic version says shafique? "ENKAHOO" is the word used, which literarly, means f.u.c.k...... again i question God's wisdom in using such a word.

Then a few posts along ebonics informs us that :

ebonics wrote:Quote:
Neek in Arabic is also (loosely translated) a four letter curse word beginning with "F", synonymous with sexual intercourse. However, the chance of a child of your son's age knowing that definition is slim (excepting, of course, children of Arabic descent, whose parents speak the language as their primary in-home language), and therefore the word should be treated by its popular definition.


neek - derived from nekah

Then a whole page of explanations:
http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/V ... 000102.pdf

Now, for me the original claim that 'enkahoo' does not literally mean marriage has not been proven.

ebonics wrote:it literarly means to sleep with, in the quran it means to marry and have marital affairs with - but as a word, it is considered a dirty word - i understand if you cannot accept that...

is also at odds with the dictionary - which has it the other way round, it literally means to marry when used in context of a man and a woman.

But ebonics is right that in the Quran 'it means to marry'.

ebonics further says that words derived from Nikah mean 'f..k' (as a swear word/derogatory term):

ebonics wrote:ask any arabic speaker what does "neek", "neyaka" , "nak" - which is used heavily in egyptian, lebanese dialects, all mean.... they all derive from the same word, that i repeat, the LITERAL meaning thereof is the act of s.e.x...

However, note that this is not what was originally accused. These words are derived and are not the words used in the Quran. In the context of the Quran they are not considered vulgar, but accurately descriptive - and invariably have been translated as 'Marry' by all translators.

For me, but may be not for others, the accusation that 'enkahoo' literally means 'f...k' has not been proven but was clearly refuted by the dictionary.

But I am a non-Arabic speaker - I suggest we do a straw poll amongst Arab speakers we know and ask whether the word "Nikah" for marriage and "enkahoo" for 'Marry' as used in the Quran are vulgar or understood to mean 'f..k' or not. If they tell me that they do mean 'f..k' then I will take back my accusation of ebonics being a liar and will apologise.

Cheers,
Shafique

One other point, also it is not clear from ebonics points whether the vulgar swear words are applicable in classical Arabic or not, or are just in the dialects.

I would dispute the line of argument that a latter day swear word derived from a root word in Arabic means that the root word is coarse and vulgar.

I have been taught that words in dialects are different from the classical Arabic meanings - and that Classical Arabic is what people go back to for literal meanings.

The quotes from ebonics all seem to say that in popular usage the terms 'neek' etc are swear words. So (a) it is popular usage and (b) the words are all derived words, not the ones used in the Quran.

Finally, as this contentious issue was new to me, I am grateful it has been brought up - I have learnt from the discussion. It has distracted a bit from the thread's intention - but I'm sure freza is keeping up with her discussion with me

Cheers,
Shafique

That´s right, this website was the only one showing interpretations from Islamic scolars. If you have other sources, as you know I will be very happy to read them. It is amazing however that for you a modern dictionary takes precedence over what Islamic scolars have to say about it. According to them you are wrong, but again if there are other interpretations by scolars please let me know.
And yes, I ask around, many Arabs are uncomfortable with the word nikah (also Muslims). I personally doubt it very much whether in the Quran it means to fxxx and I donot believe this. But to call ebonics a liar on this, I donot agree. It is not claim without any backing. I think he is interpreting things his way (but aren´t we all doing that in here).

Flying Dutchman,

I'd just like to see the quotes in full and not just in extracts on a website that is anti-Islamic in tone.

The dictionary of Lane documents what classical arabic words means and is neutral on this issue (it can't be considered pro or anti-Islam).

As I said, the original accusation was that the word used in the Quran is coarse - the extracts you quote don't say it is coarse but that Nikah also means 'have s.e.x with' - which is also what Lane says.

For me the word 'f..k' in English is very vulgar, and this is what ebonics explicitly said the Quran was using the equivalent of and questioned whether God would use this language.

Saying 'make love' or 'sleep with' has a different connotation than 'f..k' - the former are acceptable in civil society and are descriptive, the latter is a swear word but is also descriptive.

The proof will be whether 'enkahoo' is considered vulgar or just a normal word for 'marry' by Arabic speakers. I haven't asked many arabic speakers this, but will do so. Given that the derivative words are vulgar is certainly a good point raised by ebonics, but let me ask Arabic speakers.

I have Maronite Christian friends who can give me the point of view of non-Muslim Arabic speakers.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique, i did aknowledge that the quran in this instance, means marriage, i only questioned the wisdom in using that word over another "zawag" which i think - is warrented.. but of course we can agree to disagree...


but im still not happy with you accusing me of lying, when i havent.

shafique wrote:I'd just like to see the quotes in full and not just in extracts on a website that is anti-Islamic in tone.

I´ll try my best, although I cannot find them anywhere, probably have to buy. These two quotes appear on several sites, and nowhere is somebody accusing the writers of misqouting, so that also says something to me. Do you have scolarly interpretations that support your view? And what will you say if the qoutes are accurate (which I think they are)?

shafique wrote:As I said, the original accusation was that the word used in the Quran is coarse - the extracts you quote don't say it is coarse but that Nikah also means 'have s.e.x with' - which is also what Lane says.

No, not also, they say the primary and literal meaning is penetrating. Refering to s.e.x. as penetrating, is offensive to me at least. See how a woman reacts if you say "let me penetrate you?"

All I am saying is that the interpretation of nikah isn´t that clear and according to me is open for discussion.

ebonics wrote:shafique, i did aknowledge that the quran in this instance, means marriage, i only questioned the wisdom in using that word over another "zawag" which i think - is warrented.. but of course we can agree to disagree...


but im still not happy with you accusing me of lying, when i havent.

Ok - let us say we disagree on whether the word is vulgar or not, and we agree that in the Quran it means 'marry' in this verse.

Cheers,
Shafique

ebonics - I think we can draw a line under this with this post.

I came across a commentary on the verse in question (4.3) and an explanation of the word:

Fainkihoo: then marry/ then have legal s.ex
Note: Fa means then or therefore or so. INKIHOO is derived from the root N-K-Ha and it means the having of s.ex between a male and female in a legal manner and it takes the meaning of the marriage and the marriage contract in a sense. INKIHOO is an order or a demand to a group of people. It means: marry.


Therefore, you are right that the literal meaning of the root word is to have 's.e.x.ua.l intercourse' and you are right that in the context of the Quranic verse here it means marriage.

Therefore, my only issue was that you used the word 'f.u.c.k' and said this what the literal meaning was - and as you questioned the choice of word, I took this to mean that it was a dirty word.

You have since clarified that the swear word equivalent is 'neek' etc, but that in the context of the Quran the words used mean 'marriage'/'marry'.

Had you not said 'f.u.c.k', but said 'se.xu.al intercourse' then I would not have objected - for it is true that the root meaning is this but in contexts also means marriage or legal s.e.x. (this is what Lane says as well, but puts the marriage meaning first)

Islam does not see s.ex as shameful, so an indirect reference to s.ex is not seen as a bad word (and in this case, the contextual meaning is marriage).

The derivative words you listed are not used in the Quran, but it does use a word which implies 's.ex within marriage', but is understood and translated as simply 'marriage'/'marry'.

I apologise for calling you a liar, as I thought you were saying the Quran used a vulgar word (and this was reinforced when you said Christian, Arabic speaking priests would not say the word fainkihoo). Now we agree that the word means 'marry' in the Quran and is therefore not a vulgar word, there is no disagreement.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:freza - your confusion will be ended if you go over to the other thread which has details of which Biblical prophecies Muhammad, pbuh, fulfils.

mmm...actually I'm confused by your confusion.

shafique wrote:Deut 18 talks about a prophet that will be raised like Moses, and from the Bretheren of the Jews (God could have said there, from 'amongst you' but said 'from amongst your bretheren').Now Christians argue 'bretheren' excludes the non-Jews, but as the Arabs are cousins of the Jews, I think they count as 'bretheren'.

the fact remains: brethren = brother, it does not = cousin. Moses was a Hebrew as was Jesus. Mohammad not a Hebrew, not belonged to the Israelite tribes, not part of the brethren.

Deu 18:15 "The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you – from your fellow Israelites." This is quite clear.

shafique wrote:Also, the very fact that no Prophet that meets the criterion 'like Moses' is found before Muhammad, pbuh, this is a clear indication that he fulfils this prophecy. He is 'like Moses' in that he brings a new Book and also fought wars (to name only two aspects).

It is clear the Deuteronomy is of an Israelite theme, that is its central basis. Check secular sources - Encyclopedia Britannica for example - what does it say about Deuteronomy? Where (outside of Islam) do you find a reference to Mohammad in Deu?

shafique wrote:Muhammad, pbuh, also fulfils the prophecy that he will speak God's words directly (speak only what he hears and not from himself), in respect of the Quran.

God didn't even talk to him directly, but he will speak God's words directly, though they were spoken to him indirectly. ok now...

shafique wrote:I repeat, I do not believe that prophets committed sins and therefore do not believe they were punished. Muhammad, pbuh, fulfils all the criteria from the Bible. What you call sins and punishments of Biblical prophets, I compare with the descriptions of the same prophets in the Quran.

Shafique, ascertaining something with little to prove and saying it over and over again does not make that something correct. What you have here is very shaky grounds for proving the prophethood of Mohammad and you're doing so while sweeping factoids under the rug.

shafique wrote:I do agree prophets make mistakes, but these aren't sins. The Quran clears up the accusations against prophets found in the Bible.

accusations? when a prophet says "I have sinned" what does this tell you? They acknowledged their wrong doings. God acknowledged them too. Are you implying that God was accusing them? OK tell us the difference between a mistake and a sin. And please give us examples, specific ones. actually I'll list some of them, which ones are mistake and which ones are sins, ok?
A prophet Questioning God, mistake or sin? Going against God's Laws. Adultery. Incest. Masturbation. Owning Slaves (doesn't matter how well they're treated). Lust for the wives of relatives. Having concubines. Wars of conquest. Pedophilia.

{note: a friend who has been observing these debates questions: "As to the issue of incest being a sin vis a vis Lot, why Muhammad married his daughter, Fatima, to Ali."} Good question.


Re: the s.ex vs fck discussion, have you touched on the word: alrafathu as found in the Quran?

freza,

As I stated before, you are free to interpret the Bible to reject Muhammad, pbuh, as you have done above.

For me the verses are clearly in favour of Muhammad, pbuh, for you they are not.

I think if roles were reversed and I was a Jew and quoting Rabbis about why Jesus does not fulfil the Biblical requirements of the Messiah, I too would be quoting the Bible like you have done.

I think we can agree that we have different interpretations of the Bible, and Jews will have a different interpretation from both of us (as they will reject Jesus and John the Baptist whilst we will both accept them).

The best we can do is give our respective interpretations and respect the fact that we have different interpretations. Eg - for me bretheren includes cousins, for you it excludes. For you and me, Elijah's second coming was fulfilled metaphorically in John the Baptist, but for a Jew they insist he wasn't Elijah, because the Bible says Elijah went bodily up into heaven and he needs to return bodily.

So, let us agree to disagree.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:So, let us agree to disagree.

sawy. I don't agree to just disagree in this case because then that means you won't address the issue, questions and contradictions that have been brought up and which I think do deserve some pondering...

freza wrote:

shafique wrote:I do agree prophets make mistakes, but these aren't sins. The Quran clears up the accusations against prophets found in the Bible.

accusations? when a prophet says "I have sinned" what does this tell you? They acknowledged their wrong doings. God acknowledged them too. Are you implying that God was accusing them?

Well, we know that the Bible is not the literal word of God. So when the Bible records a prophet as saying that they have sinned, or slept with their daughters etc and the Quran says that these are not true (in that prophets are sinless), then I interpret the accusations of sin in the Bible as later additions by those writing the Bible.

I'm sure you will not agree, but you asked a question and that is my view.

freza wrote:
OK tell us the difference between a mistake and a sin. And please give us examples, specific ones. actually I'll list some of them, which ones are mistake and which ones are sins, ok?

A mistake is an unintentional act. A sin is to deliberately do something you know is against the law of God. Moses killing a man is an example - the Quran is clear that it was unintentional - i.e. manslaughter as opposed to murder.

Prophets do make mistakes (eg Noah in the Quran thought that God had promised to save all his family, when God actually excluded his son) - and they do pray for forgiveness for mistakes. However, they do not intentionally go against what they know to be the rules of God.

freza wrote:
A prophet Questioning God, mistake or sin? Going against God's Laws. Adultery. Incest. Masturbation. Owning Slaves (doesn't matter how well they're treated). Lust for the wives of relatives. Having concubines. Wars of conquest. Pedophilia.

Questioning God is not a sin - it is acting against what God has commanded that is a sin. (I'm taking questioning to mean a request for clarity, not doubting God and acting against God. But even doubting God is not a sin - for people are worried sometimes.)

Adultery, incest are sins. Masturbation and slave ownership are not sins. Lusting for wives of relatives is a sin. Having concubines (outside of marriage) is a sin. Wars of conquest is not a sin (see Moses for examples). Paedophillia - is a sin as is all sin outside of marriage.

freza wrote:
{note: a friend who has been observing these debates questions: "As to the issue of incest being a sin vis a vis Lot, why Muhammad married his daughter, Fatima, to Ali."} Good question.

The Quran is clear as to what constitutes incest or not. Marrying cousins or a niece/nephew is not considered incest by Islam or any other political body, to my knowledge.

freza wrote:Re: the s.ex vs fck discussion, have you touched on the word: alrafathu as found in the Quran?

rafa means to raise up - either in status or physically. Is this in connection with the Quranic verses about Elijah and Jesus? Or is this another word that you want to raise? (No, the word hasn't come up)

Cheers,
Shafique

freza wrote:

shafique wrote:So, let us agree to disagree.

sawy. I don't agree to just disagree in this case because then that means you won't address the issue, questions and contradictions that have been brought up and which I think do deserve some pondering...

No, I'm happy to address any issues you want - I'm just not sure whether we'll add any light on the specific interpretations of Biblical prophecies that were fulfilled by Muhammad, pbuh.

I'm happy to give you my interpretations and why I believe them.

Cheers,
Shafique

i still maintain its not a socially acceptable word you'd use over a dinner table today - and yes it is vulgur in todays context, maybe not in the context of the quran because it refers to a completely different meaning, other than the root of the word, but it is at the end of the day in social terms today, vulgur.

i only just question the wisdom (of God for a muslim) in using that word, over another word like zawag.... my speculation is that whoever recited it, may have had something to do with it, but that is just speculation.

however thank you for retracting calling me a liar shafique, maybe habib will stop accusing me of being ignorant in arabic when i translate things from now on.

freza wrote:Re: the s.ex vs fck discussion, have you touched on the word: alrafathu as found in the Quran?

i need to see this in arabic, as i cant make out what it is in english

shafique wrote:Well, we know that the Bible is not the literal word of God.

No. we all know that not everything in the Bible is the word of God, BUT the Bible Does contain the words of God in some passages.

shafique wrote:So when the Bible records a prophet as saying that they have sinned, or slept with their daughters etc and the Quran says that these are not true (in that prophets are sinless), then I interpret the accusations of sin in the Bible as later additions by those writing the Bible.

Why should anyone believe the Qurans deletions of the Bible (a book which is NOT theirs) which was written many hundreds of years after the history of the prophets was written? This is the height of arrogance and nothing more. Also, so ironic, that you refuse to acknowledge the full history of the prophets per the OT BUT you use the OT to (erroneously) support the idea that Mohammad is the last prophet. The height of arrogance and the height of irony! Can't you see it??

shafique wrote:Adultery, incest are sins. Masturbation and slave ownership are not sins.

:shock: owning slaves is not a sin??? So the world's modern day slave trade, not sinful???

shafique wrote:Lusting for wives of relatives is a sin. Having concubines (outside of marriage) is a sin. Paedophillia - is a sin as is all sin outside of marriage.

So Mohammad was in fact a sinner. You've finally confirmed it!

shafique wrote:Adultery, incest are sins. Masturbation and slave ownership are not sins.

shafique in my "nekah" travels of trying to find you a literal meaning, i came across countless islamic resources that said masturbation is a very big sin, and that god curses every masturbator.

hadith (378/4) by the "bayhaky) - also confirmed by the asbahany, and mentioned in his book page 206

another hadith said by ismael al basry (633/2) confirms this and says literarly "God destroys whoever plays with his (male) genitals)"

HOWEVER and this is the funny bit,

the tafseer goes through and mentions, that it is ok to masturbate, in 2 occasions: (even though it just said god destroys a masturbator)

1. if the hand is "haleela" - im not entirely sure what they mean by this word in that context, im guessing it is your wife's hand, which is "mohalala" or permitted to be used on you.

2. if it is going to stop you from committing adultry.................. seriously i dont understand how these people's mind work... isnt the whole point abstaining from having s.e.xual thoughts about someone that isnt yours, and if you're thinking of committing adultry, you're meant to be a strong person and not do that, OR masturbate..... how is this ok??

.بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله وبعد :
أولاً : لا يصح في هذا الباب شيء ومما ورد في هذا :
1 / حديث ( سبعة لا ينظر الله عز وجل إليهم يوم القيامة ولا يزكيهم ويقول ادخلوا النار مع الداخلين الفاعل والمفعول به والناكح يده وناكح البهيمة وناكح المرأة في دبرها وجامع بين المرأة وابنتها والزاني بحليلة جاره ) أخرجه البيهقي في شعب الإيمان ( 4 / 378 ) من طريق مسلمة بن جعفر عن حسان بن حميد عن أنس بن مالك : عن النبي به ، وإسناده ضعيف مسلمة وحسان مجهولان كما قالالحافظ ابن حجر وذكر عن الأزدي أنه ضعف مسلمة قال الحافظ في لسان الميزان ( 6 / 33 ) : ( مسلمة بن جعفر البجلي الأحمسي عن حسان بن حميد عن أنس رضي الله عنه في سب الناكح يده يجهل هو وشيخه وقال الأزدي ضعيف انتهى وفي الثقات لابن حبان مسلمة بن جعفر البجلي الأحمسي من أهل الكوفة روى عن عمرو بن قيس والركين بن الربيع روى عنه عمرو بن محمد العنقزي وأبو غسان النهدي فيحتمل أن يكون هو ثم ظهر أنه هو فقد ذكره بذلك كله البخاري ولم يذكر فيه جرح )
2 / الحديث السابق بنفس اللفظ أخرجه الأصبهاني ( الدقاق ) في مجلس في رؤية الله ( ص 206 ) من طريق عبد الله بن لهيعة عن عبد الرحمن بن زياد بن أنعم عن أبي عبد الرحمن الحبلي عن عبد الله بن عمرو به ، وإسناده ضعيف فيه ابن لهيعة وشيخه عبد الرحمن بن زياد ضعيفان .
3 / حديث ( أهلك الله عز وجل امه كانوا يعبثون بذكورهم ) ذكره في العلل المتناهية ( 2 / 633 ) من طريق إسماعيل البصري قال حدثنا ابو جناب الكلبي عن الخلال بن عمير عن ابي سعيد الخدري به .
وإسناده ضعيف إسماعيل البصري مجهول وأبو جناب ضعيف .
وينظر : سلسلة الأحاديث الضعيفة ( 1 / 490 ) برقم ( 319 ) التلخيص الحبير ( 4 / 381 )
ثانيا : ما يتعلق بحكم المسألة :
الأقوال في الاستمناء :
أولاً : اتفق الفقهاء على جواز الاستمناء إذا كان بيد الحليلة .
ثانياً : اتفق الفقهاء على جواز الاستمناء إن خشي الوقوع في الزنا .
ثالثا : اتفق الفقهاء على تحريم الاستمناء عن كان بيد أجنبية أو أدخل الجنبي إصبعه في فرج امرأة .
رابعاً : اختلفوا فيما سوى الحالات السابقة على ثلاثة أقوال :
القول الأول : التحريم وعليه جمهور العلماء من المالكية والشافعية والحنابلة في المذهب والحنفية وهو اختيار شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية رحمه الله .
القول الثاني الكراهة وهو قول ابن حزم ورواية عن أحمد .


shafique, searching in arabic is the new black now, you uncover so much more than the english versions let out - i think i need to invest in an arabic keyboard and download the language pack and maybe even get some lessons on how to type in arabic then we can really play some ball.

yup masturbation is a sin according to Islamic scholars which one assumes they base on the Quran.
And that thing about masturbation being OK when it prevents adultery also left me->

btw, I came upon this phrase of Fayyad ibn Najih:

When the male organ of a man stands erect, two thirds of his intellect go away.

now this is gold!

freza wrote:
btw, I came upon this phrase of Fayyad ibn Najih:

When the male organ of a man stands erect, two thirds of his intellect go away.

now this is gold!

there's squillions of things like this that come out every now and again, they by far take the cake.

freza,

You ask why should anyone believe the Quran's version of events over the Bible. It comes down to choice.

I choose to believe the Quran because it is more internally consistent and it is compatible with my logic - that God will choose the best of people at the time to be His prophets, and they will serve as models and will show how to live without contradicting God's laws.

You believe Muhammad, pbuh, to be sinful. I don't.

However, you also believe previous prophets to be sinful - so this in itself should be for you not a criterion to reject Muhammad, pbuh. But this is my logic and I don't wish to impose this on you.

ebonics - some muslims do believe masturbation is a big sin. I have heard from Shia scholars that this is one of the main reasons why temporary marriages are allowed.

Catholics similarly teach that you'll go to hell for masturbation (or so the depictions in general society have led me to believe), but I do not believe in this. The Quran is not explicit about this and to be honest it is not a subject that I have heard a lot about in mosques (there are better things to discuss!)

Similarly for slave ownership - the Quran does not give people the right to make others into slaves, but gives many ways in which to free slaves. The only exception being in times of war when the practice was to execute prisoners of war, the alternative of slavery (with clear injunctions of how they could be set free) was allowed.

Today I believe that economic slavery can be just as bad a chattel slavery - in fact today the biggest problems are down to effective economic slavery/exploitation. Islam says that whenever one is a position of power one needs to act with justice, kindness and kinship (treat people as you would treat your family).

Cheers,
Shafique