Powered by UITechs
Get password? Username Password
 
 
<< Previous Page
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Next page >>
Page 7 of 10

  Reply to Topic    Printer Friendly 

AuthorTopic
Puppy

UNITED KINGDOM
Posted - Wednesday, November 22, 2006  -  10:09 AM Reply with quote
O’ U cursed………………… Nida_e_Khair, the hypocrite!!
quote:

Puppy, why do call everyone "dog" and use the term "barking" for them when your name is puppy, not ours!!!

Has names like Abu Hurraira, Abu Turab, nonstopTAXI……………… any effect??????
But for you, Thanx, I hv been waiting since long to answer anyone like you, if asks. The name is supposed because of to understand the language of the people like U (do at Rome as the Romans do).

And Puppy is the word of some other language which has entirely different meaning than you did deliberately. If you do such meanings in other languages, how you will mean the verse [3.92- Lannnn, Tana (of tree, or tight) Lullll] in some other language???????

If you dislike the user, I can change to "copy_of_nida_e_khair"

Nida e kair how many big slaps further you want on your cursed face, Tell me???????

Nida e kair ,Why U barked, then requested like the hypocrites as, I BEG FOR SAKE OF ALLAH………………………??????
Zulfee

USA
Posted - Thursday, November 23, 2006  -  10:54 AM Reply with quote
Tilawat
quote:

"Kia woh Namrood ki khudaai thi
Bandagi mein mera bhalla nah hooa"


The bastard followers the idol Ghalib and the ‘idol worshippers’ should prove their Bandagi frist then do the claims!!!
Nida_e_Khair

PAKISTAN
Posted - Thursday, November 23, 2006  -  11:56 AM Reply with quote
For God's sake Brother Zulfee! The poor guy was only QUOTING Ghaalib!

Brother puppy, you know what? You're right. Maybe "puppy" does mean something good in some other language. I didn't think of that before. I won't make fun of your username anymore.
And by the way, I'm neither a bitch, nor a hypocrite. Let Allah be the judge! That would be better for you.
marwan

UNITED KINGDOM
Posted - Thursday, November 23, 2006  -  6:22 PM Reply with quote
quote:

Assalaamu 'Alaikum everyone.
Coming back to the topic, I would like to ask a question regarding verse 31 of Surah Noor. It says, "...they should not display their beauty except to...the slaves whom their right hands possess...". When this verse was revealed, what were the circumstances regarding slaves? I'm currently trying to explain this verse to a 14-year-old. When I reach the part "slaves whom their right hands possess", this girl is definitely gonna get confused as to why Allah allowed women to not wear Hijaab in front of their slaves. Can anyone tell me as to why slaves were considered mahrams at that time?
I need the answer quick.



Lets look logically at the verse: -

24 : 31 (NB)

And say to the believing women that they
1. cast down their looks
2. and guard your chastity
3. and do not display their ornaments except what appears thereof
4. and let them wear their head-coverings over their bosoms
5. and not display their ornaments
except to
• their husbands
• or their fathers,
• or the fathers of their husbands,
• or their sons and daughters,
• or the sons and daughters of their husbands,
• or their brothers,
• or their brothers' sons and daughters,
• or their sisters' sons and daughters,
• or their women,
• or MMA,
• or the male servants not having need (of women),
• or the children who have not attained knowledge of what is hidden of women;

and let them not strike their feet so that what they hide of their ornaments may be known (breasts etc…); and turn to Allah all of you, O believers! so that you may be successful.

Note “or the male servants not having need (of women)” which comes just after “or MMA,” showing that MMA cannot here refer to “male slaves” as the two phrases would then contradict, it instead would logically either refer to a young girl/boy under her care or a woman under the responsibility of the lady in question. I would go for the former at this point from the context here and elsewhere.

The phrase MMA is potentially quite a rich one in meaning which would be defined by contextual analysis of a text.

This will have to do for now until I can give it more time.

salaam
tilawat

PAKISTAN
Posted - Thursday, November 23, 2006  -  10:36 PM Reply with quote
This forum having been polluted by a puppy virus I am obliged to quit for good.

Thanks for Nida_e_khair and others who tried to check this virus in vain.
oosman

USA
Posted - Friday, November 24, 2006  -  2:17 AM Reply with quote
the bad news is that you are still polluting it with your extremism.
Nida_e_Khair

PAKISTAN
Posted - Friday, November 24, 2006  -  5:14 PM Reply with quote
Brother marwan, according to 'Abdullah Yoosuf 'Ali, MMA refers to male slaves. The women were allowed to display their beauty in front of these slaves as the latter would be in constant attendance to them.
Quote:
...MMA cannot here refer to “male slaves” as the two phrases would then contradict, it instead would logically either refer to a young girl/boy under her care or a woman under the responsibility of the lady in question.

I think "MMA" and "male servants free of (physical) needs" are two different things because I think the former refers to slaves in constant attendance, and the latter refers to servants free of physical needs ; MMA can be taken as "slaves" without any contradiction to "servants"; slaves are in constant attendance, servants may not be in attendance all the time. Therefore, women were allowed to uncover in front of slaves, but not servants.

Wassalaam.
marwan

UNITED KINGDOM
Posted - Friday, November 24, 2006  -  11:20 PM Reply with quote
simple... I dont agree with abduullah yusuf ali...

no crime there... he can quote no qur'anic evidence to support his claim, only perhaps external sources...
Nida_e_Khair

PAKISTAN
Posted - Sunday, November 26, 2006  -  5:51 PM Reply with quote
Assalaamu 'Alaikum. Since I could not get any satisfactory responses from anyone, I'm leaving this issue. I'll try to explain the verse to the girl according to my understanding. So this matter has now ended. But Jazaakumullah for the ones who tried to clear this issue for me.
I just need the answer to one question only: Why were the believers, at first, allowed to have sexual relations with slaves?
Can all the people in the forum please contribute to the response?

Wassalaam.
marwan

UNITED KINGDOM
Posted - Monday, November 27, 2006  -  3:05 PM Reply with quote
they were not.
tilawat

PAKISTAN
Posted - Monday, November 27, 2006  -  10:38 PM Reply with quote
Nida_e_khair

You say:

"I just need the answer to one question only: Why were the believers, at first, allowed to have sexual relations with slaves?"

Excuse me dear Nida your question is a bit absurd.

My question is: why should one possess a slave if one cannot use it as a slave; for whatever purpose one likes?

In fact you are using the terms 'believer' and 'slave, as mutually exclusive terms which they are not as believer can be a slave and a slave can be a believer. Your question should rightly be "Why should a master be allowed to use his slave in whatever manner he likes?"

Its answer would be: This is what a slave is meant for. This boils down to the question: Why human beings be allowed to be made slaves at all?
Nida_e_Khair

PAKISTAN
Posted - Tuesday, November 28, 2006  -  11:18 AM Reply with quote
No no no, Brother tilaawat! You're not getting what I'm trying to say here. I mean, at first, verses were revealed which said that believers were allowed to have sex with slaves "....those who guard their modesty except in front of their spouses and whom their right hands possess....". Then this rule was abrogated: The believers were commanded to have sex only with their spouses, and if they wanted to have sex with a slave, they were required to marry the slave first. Why was this so?

Wassalaam.
tilawat

PAKISTAN
Posted - Wednesday, November 29, 2006  -  12:35 AM Reply with quote
Dear Nida

Marrying ones own slave! The very proposition is absurd. A slave is 'Mamlook',i.e.,one's property like a cow or a donkey having no rights whatsoever like a free human being. AS it is, the marriage, which is a social contract among free individuals, becomes out of question between a master and his slave. Marriage can ,however, be contracted with a slave of some body else and that too only with the consent of his/her master, and mind not that of the slave him/herself as you can use a donkey of someone else only with the consent and under the conditions arranged with his master. You better read Hidaya, a renowned book of Fiqqah, about the shariah rules governing slavery. It allows even the son of a slave owner to have sex with his fathers' slaves in his capacity as his heir. The fact is the pre-Islamic Arab society was a slave-owning society and it continued to be so even after the advent of Islam.

Regards
Nida_e_Khair

PAKISTAN
Posted - Wednesday, November 29, 2006  -  11:35 AM Reply with quote
If slaves were so degraded so as to be used as toys (jab chaaha isti'maal kar liya, jab chaaha kachre mein pheink diya)---atleast that's the impression you're giving me---then how come the Holy Prophet (SAW) said that you should treat your slaves well? Doesn't this saying of his imply that slaves have rights too?

Wassalaam.
tilawat

PAKISTAN
Posted - Thursday, November 30, 2006  -  12:16 AM Reply with quote
Oh dear Nida, how could I make you understand that status and legal rights of an individual are not contradictory to kindness (Ehsan) and compassion. In fact Islam orders you to observe justice with kindness (Adl wal Ehsan). Islam ordains you to be kind to the animals even and there are secular laws also about preventing cruelty to animals. But this does not mean that they have any legal rights which can be agitated in a court of law. In fact the concept of human rights has a a very recent origin which has lead to prohibition of the institution of slavery altogether even in the Islamic Constitution of Pakistan. One can understand the difficulty to reconcile the concepts prevalent in a pre-Islamic slave-owning society of 14 centuries ago for the people with the mind-set of 21st century human rights.

You just read the story of Hazrat Yousaf, a prophet-slave, in the Quran and see what was the status of the slaves in those days. No body questioned Zulekhah having sexual desire for his slave but the latter was incarcerated for no fault of his. Again Hazrat Younas was thrown in the sea only on the suspicion that he was a run-away slave. Afala Tadabiroon.
Nida_e_Khair

PAKISTAN
Posted - Friday, December 1, 2006  -  5:06 PM Reply with quote
Ok brother, I get your point about the status of slaves, but I still don't see any reason why you aren't able to answer this simple question: "Why is it that at first intercourse was allowed with slaves, but later you had to marry them to have intercourse with them?"

Reply to Topic    Printer Friendly
Jump To:

<< Previous Page
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Next page >>
Page 7 of 10


Share |


Copyright Studying-Islam © 2003-7  | Privacy Policy  | Code of Conduct  | An Affiliate of Al-Mawrid Institute of Islamic Sciences ®
Top    





eXTReMe Tracker