tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5961321704237349655.comments2017-07-01T20:58:28.666-07:00TakhleesUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5961321704237349655.post-6941204060498079642013-12-18T22:08:40.571-08:002013-12-18T22:08:40.571-08:00This comment has been hidden from the blog.grateful to Godhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03337758690863008570noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5961321704237349655.post-88508023712543227112013-08-01T07:05:53.754-07:002013-08-01T07:05:53.754-07:00This comment has been hidden from the blog.Fahad Ali Khanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05381815377356323880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5961321704237349655.post-61451086737980839922013-07-20T14:17:44.038-07:002013-07-20T14:17:44.038-07:00This comment has been hidden from the blog.Mullatohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05148147826125612054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5961321704237349655.post-21035724797474778882012-06-07T09:15:27.572-07:002012-06-07T09:15:27.572-07:00This comment has been hidden from the blog.QuranicIslam101https://www.blogger.com/profile/05513449528027193161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5961321704237349655.post-16369806183943083602012-01-15T14:24:16.850-08:002012-01-15T14:24:16.850-08:00This comment has been hidden from the blog.Asforahttp://quranistswelcomepack.wordpress.com/category/welcome/welcome-to-qrac/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5961321704237349655.post-43441886280234701302011-07-05T20:13:43.997-07:002011-07-05T20:13:43.997-07:00This comment has been hidden from the blog.Imam Zia Sheikhhttp://www.mudarris.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5961321704237349655.post-21684916583380692412011-05-25T23:01:27.447-07:002011-05-25T23:01:27.447-07:00This comment has been hidden from the blog.Arzishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17901657644645190773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5961321704237349655.post-50168374723822349682010-06-16T11:42:08.413-07:002010-06-16T11:42:08.413-07:00This comment has been hidden from the blog.tajwwed quranhttp://www.learningquranonline.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5961321704237349655.post-89689611765844025032010-04-07T16:04:17.296-07:002010-04-07T16:04:17.296-07:00This comment has been hidden from the blog.Fahadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05381815377356323880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5961321704237349655.post-33419863777193594792010-04-07T14:42:54.027-07:002010-04-07T14:42:54.027-07:00This comment has been hidden from the blog.being_therehttp://bandung2.blog.co.uknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5961321704237349655.post-368392187302036432010-03-31T02:16:19.502-07:002010-03-31T02:16:19.502-07:00This comment has been hidden from the blog.Aazimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05231046482352568801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5961321704237349655.post-86489621837368284492009-10-02T15:36:09.365-07:002009-10-02T15:36:09.365-07:00I would also like to clarify for the readers a con...I would also like to clarify for the readers a confusion that I have often come across among students of The Quran. For an example, I am quoting from http://www.quranicteachings.co.uk/ma-malakat.htm :<br><br><b>>>><br>Before we move further, another important word [which is used as conjunction] must also be explained. The word is “AW”, used in the phrase “aw ma malakat aymanukum”.“AW” is usually translated as “OR”. There is no doubt that “OR” is one of the meanings of “AW” but as a matter of fact, this word is used in no less than 12 different ways [also explained in Lane’s Arabic-English Lexicon]. One of the uses of this word is TAFSEEL, [i.e. elaborative or explanatory]. In other words, “aw” is also used to add some meaning to the previous word or to explain a previous word or to give some attribute or characteristics of the previous word.<br><br>Please refer to 17:110. In this verse, there is a phrase “odAAoo Allaha awi odAAoo alrrahmana”. Note carefully how “Allah” and “Rahman” are separated by the word “aw”. Now here “aw” does not imply that “Allah” and “Rahman” are two different Beings. Without doubt, “Allah” and “Rahman” is one and the same Being. “Rahman” is an attribute of “Allah”.<br><br>Now refer to verses 23:6 and 70:30.<br><br>23:6 Illa AAala azwajihim aw ma malakat aymanuhum fainnahum ghayru maloomeena<br><br>70:30 Illa AAala azwajihim aw ma malakat aymanuhum fainnahum ghayru maloomeena<br><br>In both the above verses, “azwajihim” and “ma malakat aymanuhum” are separated by “aw”. Here it does not mean that “azwajihim” and “ma malakat aymanuhum” are two different objects. Actually, they refer to one and the same object. “azwajihim” ARE “ma malakat aymanuhum” i.e. “their spouses” are “what they rightfully possess”.<br><<<</b><br><br>The problem with this understanding is that the "AW"/"OR" is used in these verses regarding momineen because a person in general may NOT necessarily have both a zawj AND a milk-yameen. But in case of the Nabi, i.e. a specific case, in 33/50, the Quran uses the word "WA"/"AND" because the nabi had BOTH wives AND milk-e-yameen. If it was as the quoted article suggests that ajwaaj and milk-e-yameen are the same, then it would have used "OR" here as well:<br><i><br>33/50: O Prophet! surely We have made lawful to you your wives whom you have given their wages, <b>AND</b> those whom your right hand possesses out of those whom Allah has bestowed upon you.</i>Fahadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05381815377356323880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5961321704237349655.post-61393001680434486102009-10-02T12:01:37.608-07:002009-10-02T12:01:37.608-07:00As for the connection between BAY'A and MULK i...As for the connection between BAY'A and MULK in relation to understanding the phrase "ma malakat aymankum": <br><br>Verse 2/282 mentions two types of transactions: <br><br>1. Tijaara <br>2. Baya' <br><br>Both types of transactions can be made with women, as we will see in this post. <br><br>Now it should be noted that the payment of AJAR/WAGE has been mentioned specifically ONLY WITH TIJAARA, and NOT WITH BAY'A: <br><br><i>35/29: Surely they who recite the Book of Allah and keep up prayer and spend out of what We have given them secretly and openly, are engaged for a <b>TIJAARATAN</b> which will not perish.</i> <br><i>35/30: That He may pay them their <b>UJOOR</b> in full and give them more out of His grace: surely He is Forgiving, Multiplier of rewards.</i> <br><br>28/25-26 detail the meaning of tijarat, i.e. HIRING or engaging on AJAR/WAGE. <br><br><i>28/25: Therefore one of the two women came to him, walking shyly. She said, `My father invites you to reward you a <b>AJRA/wage</b> (for)what you watered for us….</i><br><i>28/26: One of the two women said, `O my father, <b>ASTAJIR hu/hire him</b>; for the best man that <b>ASTAJARTA/you can hire</b> is the one who is strong and trustworthy.'</i> <br><br>And in context of nikah, 4/24 says: <br><br><i>...And permitted for you are all beyond those(forbidden categories of women), that you seek <b>with your amwaal/wealth/money</b>, muhsineen without being musafiheen, therefore those that you have enjoyed <b>with it(i.e. your wealth/money)</b> from them, give them their <b>UJOOR/WAGES</b> as a fareeza...</i> <br><br>Therefore nikah is a TIJAARAT, a transaction involving AJAR. <br><br>On the other hand I find no mention of AJAR with BAY'A' and I have reason to believe that women with whom this type of transaction is made are the milke-yameen: <br><br>Verse 33/50 distinguishes between azwaaj to whom AJAR/WAGE is paid AND the milke-yameen bestowed upon by Allah: <br><br><i>33/50: O Prophet! surely We have made lawful to you your <b>wives whom you have given their UJOOR</b>, and <b>those whom your right hand possesses out of those whom Allah has "BESTOWED" upon you</b>.<br><br></i> That is, milke-yameen do not receive the ajar/wage. Hence I believe the women in 60/12 with whom a BAY'A is made are also the milke-yameen.Fahadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05381815377356323880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5961321704237349655.post-8155535858914335892009-10-02T11:30:29.075-07:002009-10-02T11:30:29.075-07:00Wa alaikum salaam.>>>But (5:5) allows mar...Wa alaikum salaam.<br><br>>>><br>But (5:5) allows marriage with milke-yameen who are min al-mominaat and also min alladheena u-tul-kitaabi min qablikum.<br><br>Thus, al-mominaat is a distinct category from alladheena u-tul-kitaabi min qablikum, and yet, it is permissible to marry such (married) women.<br><<<<br><br>Alright, good.<br><br><br>>>><br>This is why I have argued that the criteria for marrying already married women is that they must be from MMA (4:24), muwaahid (2:221) and from one of the two muhsanaat groups mentioned in (5:5), i.e. al-mominaat or alladheena u-tul-kitaabi min qablikum.<br><<<<br><br>Ok, now I get it: Muwaahid are not necessarily al-mominaat.<br><br><br>>>><br>However, I think you are on to something in linking the previous research to (33:50) and then to (59:7).<br><<<<br><br>I'll have to look up "AFAA'. Have you got Mufahris? Can you find it in there? I couldn't.<br><br><br>>>><br>If alladheena u-tul-kitaabi min qablikum mentioned in (5:5) are not "war captives", perhaps they are "war widows" from the enemy camp whose husbands have been killed and who are non-mushrik MMA?<br><<<<br><br>That's possible.<br><br><br>>>><br>I'm trying to understand the underlying rationale for marrying THIS category of non-mushrik, MMA, muhsanaat women, NOT al-mominaat.<br><<<<br><br>Hmmm. One rationale could be that they are war-widows as you have proposed. What other other reasons could there be? Lets see.Fahadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05381815377356323880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5961321704237349655.post-48405457871348635942009-10-01T02:52:39.805-07:002009-10-01T02:52:39.805-07:00Salaamun aleikum.[You:]Maybe the fact that 4/25 on...Salaamun aleikum.<br><br>[You:]<br><br>Maybe the fact that 4/25 only allows nikah SPECIFICALLY with al-muhsnaat AL-MOMINAAT and fatayaat AL-MOMINAAT from the milke-yameen hints that there are also milke-yameen who are NOT MOMINAAT and hence not permissable for nikah. Just a thought.<br><br>[Me:]<br><br>But (5:5) allows marriage with milke-yameen who are min al-mominaat and also min alladheena u-tul-kitaabi min qablikum.<br><br>Thus, al-mominaat is a distinct category from alladheena u-tul-kitaabi min qablikum, and yet, it is permissible to marry such (married) women.<br><br>This is why I have argued that the criteria for marrying already married women is that they must be from MMA (4:24), muwaahid (2:221) and from one of the two muhsanaat groups mentioned in (5:5), i.e. al-mominaat or alladheena u-tul-kitaabi min qablikum.<br><br>However, I think you are on to something in linking the previous research to (33:50) and then to (59:7).<br><br>If alladheena u-tul-kitaabi min qablikum mentioned in (5:5) are not "war captives", perhaps they are "war widows" from the enemy camp whose husbands have been killed and who are non-mushrik MMA?<br><br>I'm trying to understand the underlying rationale for marrying THIS category of non-mushrik, MMA, muhsanaat women, NOT al-mominaat.Mustafahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05148147826125612054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5961321704237349655.post-14273010460851583622009-09-30T16:37:21.879-07:002009-09-30T16:37:21.879-07:00Salaam.I don't see why they would be war capti...Salaam.<br><br>I don't see why they would be war captives/prisoners if they are al-mominaat. Why would a Momin imprison a Momina?<br><br>I think the hijrat of al-mominaat is voluntary. The only and slightest hint, if at all, of milke-yameen being war captives, comes from 59/7 and 33/50:<br><br><i>59/7: Whatever Allah has bestowed upon His messenger from the people of the towns, it is for Allah and for the messenger, and for the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer,... </i><br><br>The above verse is about spoils of war, and it uses the word "ma AFAA' allahu ala rasoolihi", "whatever Allah has "BESTOWED" upon his rasool"<br><br>Now I'll need to look up the exact meaning of AFAA' in the dictionary and, for confirmation, in Mufahris or Openburhan,(I'll do that later due to time shortage. You can look it up if you can, in the meantime) but the same word is used with milke-yameen in 33/50:<br><br><i>33/50: O Prophet! surely We have made lawful to you your wives whom you have given their dowries, and those whom your right hand possesses out of those whom Allah has "BESTOWED" upon you....</i><br><br>"Wa ma malakat yameenuka mimma AFAA allahu alaika"<br><br>That is, it could be referring to war captives. Even then I don't think it can refer to a Momina. Maybe the fact that 4/25 only allows nikah SPECIFICALLY with al-muhsnaat AL-MOMINAAT and fatayaat AL-MOMINAAT from the milke-yameen hints that there are also milke-yameen who are NOT MOMINAAT and hence not permissable for nikah. Just a thought.Fahadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05381815377356323880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5961321704237349655.post-31422407367612782112009-09-30T05:25:06.231-07:002009-09-30T05:25:06.231-07:00Salaamun aleikum.Who are these non-mushrik [=muwaa...Salaamun aleikum.<br><br>Who are these non-mushrik [=muwaahid] MMA already married women from among those who received Al-Kitaab previously?<br><br>Are they war captives? Is this why it is permissible to marry them? I can understand the rationale for marrying muhaajiraat in (60:10) because these are women who come over to the Muslim camp; however, do non-mushrik [=muwaahid] MMA already married women from among those who received Al-Kitaab previously come over to the Muslim camp as muhaajiraat, i.e.voluntarily, or by compulsion, viz. as captives?<br><br>What are your thoughts about this?Mustafahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05148147826125612054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5961321704237349655.post-4309875082255583952009-09-28T10:12:39.565-07:002009-09-28T10:12:39.565-07:00>>>Do you believe that (5:5) grants permi...>>><br>Do you believe that (5:5) grants permission to those securely committed to God/Allah to marry women who are <br><br>[1] already married from among those who received Al-Kitaab previously,<br><br>[2] subject to them being among the MMA (4:24). and <br><br>[3] subject to them not being mushrik (2:221)?<br><<<<br><br>1. Yes.<br><br>2. Yes.<br><br>3. Yes.Fahadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05381815377356323880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5961321704237349655.post-34764816816216110602009-09-28T10:10:57.774-07:002009-09-28T10:10:57.774-07:00>>>Salaamun aleikum.I am persuaded by you...>>><br>Salaamun aleikum.<br><br>I am persuaded by your comprehensive rebuttal of the various arguments in my last response.<br><br>May Allah (swt) reward you for your efforts.<br><br>Fi amaan illah<br><<<<br><br>Wa alaikum salaam.<br><br>May Allah reward you too.<br><br>Thanks.Fahadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05381815377356323880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5961321704237349655.post-1807704116179448362009-09-28T09:56:05.678-07:002009-09-28T09:56:05.678-07:00Salaamun aleikum.Do you believe that (5:5) grants ...Salaamun aleikum.<br><br>Do you believe that (5:5) grants permission to those securely committed to God/Allah to marry women who are <br><br>[1] already married from among those who received Al-Kitaab previously,<br><br>[2] subject to them being among the MMA (4:24). and <br><br>[3] subject to them not being mushrik (2:221)?Mustafahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05148147826125612054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5961321704237349655.post-10765403953447672912009-09-28T02:02:42.833-07:002009-09-28T02:02:42.833-07:00Salaamun aleikum.I am persuaded by your comprehens...Salaamun aleikum.<br><br>I am persuaded by your comprehensive rebuttal of the various arguments in my last response.<br><br>May Allah (swt) reward you for your efforts.<br><br>Fi amaan illahMustafahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05148147826125612054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5961321704237349655.post-74716403825849674542009-09-27T08:25:54.815-07:002009-09-27T08:25:54.815-07:00This comment has been hidden from the blog.Abdullahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10468488431481940197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5961321704237349655.post-88271064210812815142009-09-27T06:22:12.668-07:002009-09-27T06:22:12.668-07:00This comment has been hidden from the blog.Fahadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05381815377356323880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5961321704237349655.post-57453705766422328722009-09-25T17:06:41.636-07:002009-09-25T17:06:41.636-07:00[Mustafa:]Agreed. But what if the mention of fatay...<b>[Mustafa:]<br><br>Agreed. But what if the mention of fatayaat in (4:25) is a concession because such women fall under the category of MMA (as do the muhsanaat) and eventually become muhsanaat? On this reading, the power-relation associated with MMA and the fact that the fatayaat are young (impressionable/mouldable?) women<i>implies that such women will (eventually) become muhsanaat.</i></b><br><br>[Fahad:]<br><br>That they will eventually become women of tawheed? but they are ALREADY women of tawheed; they are referred to as fatayaat AL-MOMINAAT.<br><br><b><br>[Mustafa:]<br><br>On this basis, it might be argued that (5:5) and (4:25) indicate the PREFERABILITY of tahseen.<br></b><br><br>[Fahad:]<br><br>Since it is a forbidden category, it cannot indicate preference. The ONLY CONDITION under which marriage with a Muhsana is PERMITTED is that she should be from the MMA(4/25). On this basis, IMHO, it can ONLY be argued that 5/5 and 4/25 indicate the ONLY PERMISSION (i.e. permission of marrying al-muhsanaat ONLY from the MMA [4/24]).<br><br><br><b>[Mustafa:]<br><br>Okay, but see my previous comment regarding possibly interpreting the fatayaat as a concession category. (I think there is indication of support for concession in (49:14).)<br></b><br><br>[Fahad:]<br><br>I don't think so because the fatayaat are referred to as al-mominaat. In the case of 49/14, they would have been referred to as muslimaat. ( "...Say: You have not believed. But what you should say is that "we have <b><i>surrendered</i></b>...")<br><br><b><br></b><br><b>[Mustafa:]</b><br><b><br></b><br><b>As stated previously, I can accept this interpretation. However, I'm not sure that al-muhsanaat in (5:5) MUST be understood as referring to mominaat married to kuffaar as in (60:10). This seems somewhat of a restriction.</b><br><br>[Fahad:]<br><br>It IS restricted to marry al-muhsanaat, EXCEPT if they are from the MMA.(4/24)<br><br><i>4/24: Also(prohibited are) al-muhsanaat from the women except ma malakat aymanukum...</i><br><br><b><br></b><br><b>[Mustafa:]</b><br><b><br></b><br><b>In addition, you have not addressed the fact that (21:80) links tahseen to libaas (protective clothing/armour) while (7:26) links libaas to taqwa (self-preservation). Thus, there is a link between tahseen and taqwa.</b><br><br>[Fahad:]<br><br>I am kind of OK with the link between libaas and tahseen, but not with libaas and taqwa. Link is created by the mention of the logic or relation between A and B, not by the mere mention of A and B together.<br><br>21/80 says that <b><i>the making of luboos taught to Sulaiman by Allah</i></b> is for <b><i>your tahseen from 'ba'sukum'</i></b>.<br><br>Even then the link is between the making of <b><i>luboos</i></b><b><i>taught TO SULAIMAN</i></b> and <b><i>tahseen FROM BA'SUKUM</i></b>, and not <b><i>ANY libaas</i></b> and <b><i>ANY</i></b><b><i> tahseen</i></b>.<br><br>While 7/26 mentions the 'libaas of at-taqwa'. It does not mention the relation between libaas and taqwa. To say that there is a link between libaas and taqwa is like saying there is a link between, for example, bayt and Allah just because the Quran mentions the two together in "baytullah". It is like saying that wherever bayt is mentioned, it is linked with Allah, which is not true.<br><br>IMHO.Fahadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05381815377356323880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5961321704237349655.post-85574033599633516782009-09-25T15:54:17.560-07:002009-09-25T15:54:17.560-07:00Salaam alaikum.[Mustafa:]Okay. However, it does no...Salaam alaikum.<br><br><b>[Mustafa:]<br><br>Okay. However, it does not make sense to interpret the term 'Muhsana' as a married woman, since both (4:25) and (5:5) refer to marrying (i.e. performing nikaah) with such women, and it does not make any sense for a believer to marry someone who is already married (who is a mu'min). Or do you understand (4:25) to refer to believing women who are married to al-kuffaar as in (60:10)? But then (5:5) must also refer to such women and I am not sure the text indicates this.</b><br><br>[Fahad:]<br><br>Why do you think 5/5 cannot be referring to such women?<br><br><br><b>[Mustafa:]<br><br>Okay, but what are the MMA?</b><br><br>[Fahad:]<br><br>I am not exactly sure. I need to do more study about the MMA.<br><br><br><b>[Mustafa:]<br><br>Okay, but again the problem here is that al-muhsanaat al-mominaat refers to mominaat who are ALREADY muhsanaat, so nikaah (marriage) does not make them muhsanaat.<br></b><br>[Fahad:]<br><br>They were already al-muhsanaat because they were already married/nikah-ed. So it WAS nikah that made them al-muhsanaat.<br><br><br><b>[Mustafa:]<br><br>Where is this text? I can't find it in (4:24) or (4:25).</b><br><br>[Fahad:]<br><br>Shakir 4/25: And whoever among you has not within his power ampleness of means to marry free believing women, then (he may marry) of those whom your right hands possess from among your believing maidens; and Allah knows best your faith: you are (sprung) the one from the other; so marry them with the permission of their masters, and give them their dowries justly, they being chaste, not fornicating, nor receiving paramours; <b><i>and when they are taken in marriage/FA IZA 'UHSINNA(therefore when they are fortified)</i></b>, then if they are guilty of indecency, they shall suffer half the punishment which is (inflicted) upon free women. This is for him among you who fears falling into evil; and that you abstain is better for you, and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.<br><br><b><br>[Mustafa:]<br><br>Unfortunately, I don't think this works since, as stated previously, nikaah is to be done with people who are ALREADY muhsanaat.</b><br><br>[Fahad:]<br><br>But nikah is a FORBIDDEN category. If a Muhsana is not from the milk-e-yameen, then she is forbidden for marriage(4/24). How do you reconcile your view with this?Fahadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05381815377356323880noreply@blogger.com