• 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!

The place of Women in Quran.

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Because they had no inheritance before islam for that she Take a half if was one dougther and share two thirds if they are more than two sisters

Why Focus on tow sisters to make the son Take double

I did not find how prophet's Muhammad did this

..

Where did the woman come from?

Brother, I've been thinking about this.

It might be that if inheritance is to be spread thin, God wants males to have more, because men have to give dowry for marriage. Men have to save up money to give to a woman for marriage but not the other way.

What do you think brother?
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Salam

Thanks for your thoughts. I understand, but to me, the word is "fear disloyalty/betrayal", it doesn't say you know it, it says you fear. And we shouldn't act on our fears.

If it said "You know betrayal/disloyalty", I would assume it meant the same as you did. The context is what men are to women, regarding them they are to be up lifters, it's saying, you should honor them and raise their feeling about themselves high, and so even if you fear disloyalty, don't act upon it but rather... this how I understand it.

You've got it wrong.

The word there is not the English word "Fear". It is the Arabic word "Hawf". OMG.

How would you render a sentence like this?

"Thahawwaf min maalee".

This is when someone swindles all your money slowly and maliciously.

You have misunderstood and i can understand why you would do that. Dont think from an English word. Have empathy to the language its written in if you wish to interpret it.

But it's wrong. This is not "fear" like you just fear something "Would happen" or its just an assumption. This is not just an assumption.
 

coconut theology

coconuts for Jesus
but you see, ed lanes lexicon you quoted also uses dharb as an intransitive to leave or travel. Dharb is like a word used to count.

It’s great you used to d lanes lexicon, but you should check out other places where the Quran uses the same word. Quran bi Quran. Try and see how that approach works out.

cheers.
I quoted those from the Muslim website. They were not sources I chose, but that they chose. Also, show me one Arabic - English Lexicon that states that the word may be used for 'sex'. In fact, show me another place in the qur'an that the phrase is used in such an way.
 

coconut theology

coconuts for Jesus
@coconut theology Parables and hyperbolic speech exists in every language. ...
No doubt, not in question, and given. Not in argumentation at all. It is simply non-sequitur to the discussion, as all of the Muslim (Islamic) sources I cited give the definition in every place meaning to "beat, strike, hit", and not one source, as given by Muslim scholars, Tafsirs, Sahih Hadith, Sunnah of Muhammad, neither the Lexicons, say that it means 'sex'.
 

Cooky

Veteran Member
Corrected to reality of the truth. Christianity had nothing to do with the Crusades. That was all Romanism, and No, they did not really apologize for anything, if the 'apologies' which are uttered are read carefully.

Please watch this short video to understand the Crusades properly in comparison with Jihadi expansionism...
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I quoted those from the Muslim website. They were not sources I chose, but that they chose. Also, show me one Arabic - English Lexicon that states that the word may be used for 'sex'. In fact, show me another place in the qur'an that the phrase is used in such an way.

I didnt say it means sex so what you say above is not relevant to me.

ANd read the same cut and paste image you have given. Read it thoroughly.
 

coconut theology

coconuts for Jesus
I know hitting (with what?) and in context of what?
Are you seriously suggesting that the phrase in question, in which the word means to "beat, strike, hit", is being euphamistically used to say that the husband is to "pistol whip" his wife with his "Sex Pistol", that he should slap his wife, with his "Guns" to her "Roses"?
 
Last edited:

Cooky

Veteran Member
No thank you. I have had enough of Romanistic revisionism. My statement stands on the real evidence of history.

Then remain an ignorant Islamic apologist. Because if not for the Crusades, you'd likely be a Muslim today.

Battle of Lepanto - Wikipedia
Battle_of_Lepanto_1571-900x900.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Cooky

Veteran Member
No. I am not a Muslim because of God (even Jesus Christ), not men's idiocy.

Joh_18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

Mat_26:52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.​

So you would have surrendered to Islamic expansion. And allow your women and children to be taken as sex slaves for them to "beat".

In this world, we have the *obligation* to defend innocent people from being attacked.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

coconut theology

coconuts for Jesus
Muhammad allowed temporary divorce, wherein a man could be dis-satisfied with his wife, get divorced [up to 3 times], and then she could be in contract for another 'marriage' to another man, be come 'married', and if un-satisfied with the new husband, could after consummation of the marriage with the new husband, return to the previous husband and then could be 'remarried' to the original husband:

Surah 2:229-230 (al-Hilali-Khan translation) -

“... [v.229] The divorce is twice, after that, either you retain her on reasonable terms or release her with kindness. And it is not lawful for you (men) to take back (from your wives) any of your Mahr (bridal-money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage) which you have given them, except when both parties fear that they would be unable to keep the limits ordained by Allah (e.g. to deal with each other on a fair basis). Then if you fear that they would not be able to keep the limits ordained by Allah, then there is no sin on either of them if she gives back (the Mahr or a part of it) for her Al-Khul' (divorce)[1]. These are the limits ordained by Allah, so do not transgress them. And whoever transgresses the limits ordained by Allah, then such are the Zalimun (wrong-doers). [v.230] And if he has divorced her (the third time), then she is not lawful unto him thereafter until she has married another husband. Then, if the other husband divorces her, it is no sin on both of them that they reunite, provided they feel that they can keep the limits ordained by Allah. These are the limits of Allah, which He makes plain for the people who have knowledge. ...”​

Tafsir of al-Jalalain on Surah 2:230:

"... [2:230]
If he, the husband, divorces her, after the two utterances [of divorce]; she shall not be lawful to him after
that, after the third [utterance of] divorce, until she marries another husband, who has sexual intercourse
with her, as reported by the two Shaykhs [Bukhārī and Muslim]. If he, the second husband, divorces her, then neither of them would be at fault, that is, the woman and her first husband, to return to each other, in wedlock
, after the completion of the waiting period, if they think that they will maintain God’s bounds. Those, matters mentioned, are God’s bounds, which He makes clear to a people who have knowledge, [a people who] reflect. ..."​

Tafsir of Ibn Kathir on Surah 2:230:

"... This honorable Ayah abrogated the previous practice in the beginning of Islam, when the man had the right to take back his divorced wife even if he had divorced her a hundred times, as long as she was st ill in her ` Iddah (waiting period). This situation was harmful for the wife, and this is why Allah made the divorce thrice, where the husband is allowed to take back his wife after the first and the second divorce (as long as she is st ill in her `Iddah). ..."

(Thus the stipulation, or 'get around' by simply marrying another (a close friend), having them do the 'duty' of sexual relation in marriage, then divorcing her, and sending her back to her first husband, to where they can be remarried again. Yuck!)

Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 72, Number 715 -

“... Narrated 'Ikrima: Rifa'a divorced his wife whereupon 'AbdurRahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married her. 'Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah's Apostle came, 'Aisha said, “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!” When 'AbdurRahman heard that his wife had gone to the Prophet, he came with his two sons from another wife. She said, “By Allah! I have done no wrong to him but he is impotent and is as useless to me as this,” holding and showing the fringe of her garment, 'Abdur-Rahman said, “By Allah, O Allah's Apostle! She has told a lie! I am very strong and can satisfy her but she is disobedient and wants to go back to Rifa'a.” Allah's Apostle said, to her, “If that is your intention, then know that it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifa'a unless Abdur-Rahman has had sexual intercourse with you.” Then the Prophet saw two boys with 'Abdur-Rahman and asked (him), “Are these your sons?” On that 'AbdurRahman said, “Yes.” The Prophet said, “You claim what you claim (i.e.. that he is impotent)? But by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a crow,” ...”​
 
Last edited:

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Are you seriously suggesting that the phrase in question, in which the word means to "beat, strike, hit", is being euphamistically used to say that the husband is to "pistol whip" his wife with his "Sex Pistol", that he should slap his wife, with his "Guns" to her "Roses"?

That is my suggestion, I don't see what is silly about it.
 

coconut theology

coconuts for Jesus
Muhammad taught divorce is legal (for almost any reason by the male) and child brides (no courses/periods) and pregnancies -

Surah 65:4 (al-Hilali-Khan translation) -

“... And those of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the 'Iddah (prescribed period), if you have doubt (about their periods), is three months; and for those who have no courses [(i.e. they are still immature) their 'Iddah (prescribed period) is three months likewise, except in case of death]. And for those who are pregnant (whether they are divorced or their husbands are dead), their 'Iddah (prescribed period) is until they lay down their burden; and whosoever fears Allah and keeps his duty to Him, He will make his matter easy for him. ...”​

Surah 65:5 (al-Hilali-Khan translation) -

“... That is the Command of Allah, which He has sent down to you; and whosoever fears Allah and keeps his duty to Him, He will expiate from him his sins, and will enlarge his reward. ...”​

Surah 65:6 (al-Hilali-Khan translation) -

“... Lodge them (the divorced women) where you dwell, according to your means, and do not harm them so as to straiten them (that they be obliged to leave your house). And if they are pregnant, then spend on them till they lay down their burden. Then if they give suck to the children for you, given them their due payment, and let each of you accept the advice of the other in a just way. But if you make difficulties for one another, then some other woman may give suck for him (the father of the child). ...”​

The Tafsir of al-Jalalain on 2:228, related to Surah 65:4 in citation:

"... [2:228]
Divorced women shall wait by themselves, before remarrying, for three periods (qurū’in is the plural of qar’), of purity or menstruation — these are two different opinions — which begin from the moment of divorce. This [stipulation] applies to those who have been sexually penetrated but not to those otherwise, on account of His saying, there shall be no [waiting] period for you to reckon against them [Q. 33:49]. The waiting period for immature or menopausal women is three months; pregnant women, on the other hand, must wait until they give birth, as stated in the sūrat al-Talāq [Q. 65:4], while slavegirls must wait two months, according to the Sunna. And it is not lawful for them to hide what God has created in their wombs, of child or menstruation, if they believe in God and the Last Day. Their mates, their spouses, have a better right to restore them, to bring them back, even if they refuse, in such time, that is, during the waiting period, if they desire to set things right, between them, and put pressure on the woman [to return]; the statement is not a condition for the possibility of return, but an incitement [to set things right] in the case of repealed divorce; the term ahaqq, ‘better right to’, does not denote any priority, since, in any case, no other person has the right to marry them during their waiting period; women shall have rights, due from their spouses, similar to those, rights, due from them, with justice, as stipulated by the Law, in the way of kind conjugality and not being harmed; but their men have a degree above them, in rights, as in their duty to obey their husbands, because of their [the husbands’] payment of a dowry and their [husbands] being the bread-winners; God is Mighty, in His Kingdom, Wise, in what He has ordained for His creatures. ..."
Tafsir of al-Jalalain on Surah 65:4:

"... [65:4]
And [as for] those of your women who (read allā’ī or allā’i in both instances) no longer expect to
menstruate, if you have any doubts, about their waiting period, their prescribed [waiting] period shall be three months, and [also for] those who have not yet menstruated, because of their young age, their period shall [also] be three months — both cases apply to other than those whose spouses have died; for these [latter] their period is prescribed in the verse: they shall wait by themselves for four months and ten [days] [Q. 2:234]. And those who are pregnant, their term, the conclusion of their prescribed [waiting] period if divorced or if their spouses be dead, shall be when they deliver. And whoever fears God, He will make matters ease for him, in this world and in the Hereafter. ...."​
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The "no courses" refers to a different thing. There is age limit for marriage, that is another misconception, the Quran put the age of marriage identical to when one is at their prime strength or has reached guidance (to make decisions based on reason).
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
@coconut theology do you agree with me, if Islam did teach these things, it would be a wrong religion? If so, do you see why from my perspective, before I throw Islam out, I should see if these verses can be interpreted in a different way?
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
So basically you letting those who killed the Prophet and his family determine what is Islam. Why do you trust the worst people with the worst interpretation to be an authority on what the Prophet truly said?
 

coconut theology

coconuts for Jesus
So basically you letting those who killed the Prophet and his family determine what is Islam. Why do you trust the worst people with the worst interpretation to be an authority on what the Prophet truly said?
I have directly cited the two Jalal's, Ibn Kathir, Qurtubi and could even cite Tabari, and those amongst the top Tafsirs amongst Islamic commentators, which, in their own commentary have the backing of the Sahih narrations of Muhammad, (the top two which are Bukhari and Muslim, as well as the others, Jami at Tirmidhi, an Nasa'i, abu Dawud and Ibn Majah) as well as the jurisprudence of Islamic law, as cited by Reliance, and the Arabic lexicons in use by Muslim scholars. I have cited numerous officially sanctioned translations of Uthman's revision of qur'an, and even used the major translation of the Salafi, etc. I presented video material from Islamic tv, of Imam's, Sheiks, etc describing the ayah themselves in Arabic, with English translation.

You do not trust those sources? What sources do you use? Just qur'an? I do not believe you. It's easy to test. All I have to do is ask you to explain some of the more obscure passages in qur'an, and it is guaranteed you will give me some variant of the material as recorded in those sources I just listed passing it off as your own.

Islam is determined by its own writings and history. It stands or falls based upon what itself states.

Jesus, the real prophet that Moses foretold to come, warned of the prophet of the desert that was to come after:

Mat 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
Mat 24:25 Behold, I have told you before.
Mat 24:26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.
But you do not really believe what Jesus said, because Islam, in its own sources has another, a non-historical 'Isa' in His (Jesus) rightful place. It is no accident that Jesus used the word for "deceive", as in qur'an it is stated that 'allah' is the best of deceivers, Surah al Imran 3:54, of which one translation states, "And they cheated/deceived and [allah] cheated/deceived, and [allah] (is) the best (of) the cheaters/deceivers." - IslamAwakened - Helping the West read the Quran.

See also surah 7:99, 13:42, 27:50.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I have directly cited the two Jalal's, Ibn Kathir, Qurtubi and could even cite Tabari, and those amongst the top Tafsirs amongst Islamic commentators, which, in their own commentary have the backing of the Sahih narrations of Muhammad, (the top two which are Bukhari and Muslim, as well as the others, Jami at Tirmidhi, an Nasa'i, abu Dawud and Ibn Majah) as well as the jurisprudence of Islamic law, as cited by Reliance, and the Arabic lexicons in use by Muslim scholars. I have cited numerous officially sanctioned translations of Uthman's revision of qur'an, and even used the major translation of the Salafi, etc. I presented video material from Islamic tv, of Imam's, Sheiks, etc describing the ayah themselves in Arabic, with English translation.

You do not trust those sources? What sources do you use? Just qur'an? I do not believe you. It's easy to test.

Not just the Quran but I use hadiths to gain insights into Quran.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Islam is determined by its own writings and history.

Islam always been the religion since Adam till now. Why do religions of Islam get lost over time? Why do revelations get corrupted all over the world?

The true Islam if it still exists has to explain that, don't you think? And a way out of that!
 
Top