IslamiCity Forum - Islamic Discussion Forum: Contracts & technical loopholes

Author

Message

Abu Loren
Male Islam
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 29 June 2012
Location: United Arab Emirates
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 568

Posted: 20 October 2012 at 2:44am

Originally posted by nospam001

So far no-one has stepped forward to defend the moral correctness of the husband's actions. It seems like a very simple and clear-cut question, until one utters his name. That is when things suddenly get complicated, so I can totally understand people's difficulty with 'joining the dots'. Especially when we consider a few of the hadith that deal with untruthful behaviour, e.g. al-Bukhari, 33 & 1973.

As possible mitigating factors, it has been suggested above that perhaps the original 'promise' was made either 'lightly' (in jest) or under duress. Viewed in this way, the subterfuge that followed was a benevolent act, so that his dearest wife would be spared the unnecessary pain of feeling cheated.

I don't want to insult anyone by pointing to chapter and verse. If you find this approach too complicated then I suggest you choose a commentary of Sura 66 by any respected Muslim scholar, in any language. You'll soon have enough detail to fill in what I've left out. It's all in there, and the scholars evidently don't have a problem with it. This only reinforces the principle implied in the sura itself: that it doesn't matter what you say to your wife, if it stops her nagging. (But next time, be careful not to make a promise that is beyond your authority, okay?)

My daughters (both Muslims) have been taught there are no 'bad' questions. Is it really a 'silly game' for me to ask for clarification, on their behalf?

Stop beating around the bush and ask clearly and precisely what you want to know. I think I'm right in saying that Muslims at this forum will not be offended.

IP Logged

Friendship

Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 24 August 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 875

Posted: 20 October 2012 at 3:43am

Assalamu alaika nospam001.

I thought you are referring to S.65.

Madinan verses refers to the life history /Sunna/Sharia/ of Muhammad Rasulullah. They have to be understood according to the way he explained them. No one has the authority to mutilate his explanation as such incidents or actions were witnessed by Allah and then commanded Muhammad on what to do. The Shari’a was not a cowboy action, a fairy tale, folk tales or something of amusement and play. It is only what Allah commanded Muhammad. Remember that homicide became a crime only after Abel killed Cain. I will try to explain to you briefly. However note that you did not mention the verses to be explained.

1. The Shari’a of Muhammad was what Allah commanded him following his action. That action in most cases was never done by a prophet or messenger before him for Muhammad was guided by previous Shari'a.

2. As exemplary to mankind all actions stem from him and thus the Shari’a. No one can claim inability to be guided on such trivial issues since Muhammad stood as a man created to obey Allah. (Unless scientists could be allowed to have a sample of the holy apostles DNA and then prove that we have a different gene that made us disobey Allah, no one has an excuse of disobeying Allah).

With reference to 66:3, the Shari’a is on those practicing polygamy. That human nature stemmed from polygamy. It is a trivial issue (called lamama) that is forgiven by Allah on doing good deeds.The details are given Maududis, and Syed Qutb translations of the Qur’an. I am not a polygamist and as such I cannot elaborate on my personal experience.
From this Shari'a wire tapping, eves dropping etc are not allowed. The case of Rupert Mudock proved the universality of the Shari'a of Muhammad.
Nospam001, it is high time YOU join your two daughters. You are causing an anguish on them. Please love them and show leniency. Why are you leaving them suspended in the air? Do you want them to fall down and break their bones? Who stopped the burying of the female infants? Think of your action towards your beautiful innocent female children! Any difference? Muhammad is certainly a mercy to you NOSPAM001.

Friendship.

Edited by Friendship - 20 October 2012 at 3:44am

IP Logged

nospam001
Male Agnostic
Senior Member

Joined: 02 October 2012
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 150

Posted: 22 October 2012 at 3:57pm

Originally posted by Abu Loren

Stop beating around the bush and ask clearly and precisely what you want to know. I think I'm right in saying that Muslims at this forum will not be offended.

Prior to the revelation of Sura 66 the husband went to considerable lengths in order to appease his frustrated wives. He undertook to give equal attention to each in turn, and also to abstain from further relations with a particularly beautiful concubine, who was the focus of their jealousy. (Some 'G-rated' commentaries talk instead of a 'honey pot'. Either way makes little difference to the core principles involved.)

In making this concession he had unwittingly spurned the unique honour of conjugal privileges given to him (alone) in S33:50-51, thereby offending the giver. That was his only mistake, for which he receives a gentle reprimand.

Some time later(?) - but before S66 was revealed - the husband realised that there was in fact no binding commitment. Thus freed from any moral obligation he resumed relations with the same concubine, in secret. Things went smoothly until he was 'caught in the act' by one of his jealous wives. Damage control then required her silence. She duly swore she would keep the matter secret, but then broke her promise and told the other wives. As finally revealed, Sura 66 deals severely with gossiping and eavesdropping, but tacitly approves of the husband's duplicity, secrecy and attempted cover-up.

Following an identical set of principles, the US Government now seeks to punish and make an example of Pvt Bradley Manning (for breaking an oath of secrecy) and Wikileaks (for incitement and spreading the secrets) while blatantly and shamelessly ignoring the much bigger moral issues - simply because the embarrassing facts were 'classified information' according to ... the US Government.

Supporters of the US say that's just an unavoidable part of being a world superpower. Even when you're the 'good guys', there will always be embarrassing facts that need to be kept from the people - and to think otherwise is just naive or st**id. Maybe the same is also true for a household comprising several wives. It would certainly explain a lot.

God has the right to remain silent. For His advocates, however, each resigned shrug is a missed opportunity to win new converts.

IP Logged

Abu Loren
Male Islam
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 29 June 2012
Location: United Arab Emirates
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 568

Posted: 23 October 2012 at 2:54am

Originally posted by nospam001

Some time later(?) - but before S66 was revealed - the husband realised that there was in fact no binding commitment. Thus freed from any moral obligation he resumed relations with the same concubine, in secret. Things went smoothly until he was 'caught in the act' by one of his jealous wives. Damage control then required her silence. She duly swore she would keep the matter secret, but then broke her promise and told the other wives. As finally revealed, Sura 66 deals severely with gossiping and eavesdropping, but tacitly approves of the husband's duplicity, secrecy and attempted cover-up.

What's the confusion? The Prophet Pbuh) has been given special privileges thus the reason why Allah Subhana Wa Ta'ala scolds the Prophet (pbuh) in saying "O Prophet why do you make unlawful what I have made lawful for you" (paraphrased).

The 'honeypot' scenario is also clearly explained in the Holy Qur'an.

As a side note : The Prophet indeed had his favourites, Zainab bint Jahsh and Aisha (Allah be pleased with them). This was not illegal in any sense of the word because the Prophet (pbuh) was given the freedom to do whatever he wanted. Some of the wives in understanding this gave up their visiting rights so that the could spend more time with them.

If you read his hadiths he constantly tells people that he is just a human being and he makes mistakes and has human desires just like you and me.

IP Logged

nospam001
Male Agnostic
Senior Member

Joined: 02 October 2012
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 150

Posted: 23 October 2012 at 3:32pm

Originally posted by Abu Loren

What's the confusion? The Prophet Pbuh) has been given special privileges...the Prophet (pbuh) was given the freedom to do whatever he wanted.

Note that the words 'duplicity, secrecy and cover-up' passed by unchallenged, which is my main point.

Looking at S66 in isolation, the combined weight of sunna plus Qur'an could be used to justify any sort of cover-up, whenever the facts are felt to be inconvenient.

Presumably there are limits on such duplicity, but what are they? How do we deduce them from Qur'an or Hadith? Is the 'licence to deceive' reserved for certain situations only?

Or should the whole episode be regarded as a special case, not for others to emulate, since this particular husband (alone) 'was given the freedom to do whatever he wanted'?

God has the right to remain silent. For His advocates, however, each resigned shrug is a missed opportunity to win new converts.

IP Logged

nospam001
Male Agnostic
Senior Member

Joined: 02 October 2012
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 150

Posted: 23 October 2012 at 8:07pm

Originally posted by Friendship

Nospam001, it is high time YOU join your two daughters. You are causing an anguish on them. Please love them and show leniency. Why are you leaving them suspended in the air? Do you want them to fall down and break their bones? Who stopped the burying of the female infants? Think of your action towards your beautiful innocent female children! Any difference? Muhammad is certainly a mercy to you NOSPAM001.

Since you ask: I was born and raised in an agnostic family or, if you prefer, Allah () has chosen to lead me astray as an example to others. Either way, I cannot start believing in something before it makes sense to me. (Not everyone has the same handicap, as I'm beginning to realise.)

Regarding my daughters: One day I imagine they too will stumble upon S66 and be gobsmacked by the same perplexing questions. I hope that by then I will have found an answer that might comfort them, supposing they ask me. (Surely, that's what any father would do.) Unfortunately, the rhetorical images of suspending, falling, breaking and burying are way too figurative and poetic for my feeble mind to grasp. If you want to change my thinking you may wish to try a different approach. Plain, everyday English prose usually works pretty well.

God has the right to remain silent. For His advocates, however, each resigned shrug is a missed opportunity to win new converts.

IP Logged

Abu Loren
Male Islam
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 29 June 2012
Location: United Arab Emirates
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 568

Posted: 24 October 2012 at 3:00am

Originally posted by nospam001

Note that the words 'duplicity, secrecy and cover-up' passed by unchallenged, which is my main point.

Looking at S66 in isolation, the combined weight of sunna plus Qur'an could be used to justify any sort of cover-up, whenever the facts are felt to be inconvenient.

Presumably there are limits on such duplicity, but what are they? How do we deduce them from Qur'an or Hadith? Is the 'licence to deceive' reserved for certain situations only?

Or should the whole episode be regarded as a special case, not for others to emulate, since this particular husband (alone) 'was given the freedom to do whatever he wanted'?

For your information, duplicity, secrecy and cover-up was exposed by God Himself so what further judgement do you need?

If you really believe that the combined weight of sunna plus Qur'an has been used to cover up a fault then that's your AGNOSTIC view.

What people like you should do is fall down in prostration to the One True God and ask for repentence and seek guidance from him so that you are given knowledge and wisdom. No human being can help you if yo do not have God as a helper. Those whom He guides nobody can mis-guide and those whom he mis-guides nobody can guide.

If you always look for proof then you will never accept faith. Can you stand on top of a mountain and jump believing God can save you? Or are you a person who wants to look at the safety feature down below before you jump?

IP Logged

nothing

Senior Member

Joined: 09 November 2008
Location: Andorra
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 360

Posted: 24 October 2012 at 1:21pm

Originally posted by nospam001

Prior to the revelation of Sura 66 the husband went to considerable lengths in order to appease his frustrated wives. He undertook to give equal attention to each in turn, and also to abstain from further relations with a particularly beautiful concubine, who was the focus of their jealousy.

I have read once long time ago a small book about the Prophet's wives, it did not mention concubine or sort, unless if I missed it. To add more to it I am not fond with hadiths so that create a problem in the way I try to catch up with your point. It does seem though that this concubine is the engine of this thread. Who was she? The story I heard from one perspective, it was about honey smell, that is where the Prophet promised would not touch it again. So can you tell about who was that beautiful concubine, thanks.

IP Logged

	Active Topics Memberlist Calendar Search Help
	Register Login Old Forum

Interfaith Dialogue
IslamiCity Forum - Islamic Discussion Forum : Religion - Islam : Interfaith Dialogue

Topic: Contracts & technical loopholes - what is
	<< Prev Page of 7 Next >>

Author	Message
Abu Loren Male Islam Senior Member Joined: 29 June 2012 Location: United Arab Emirates Online Status: Offline Posts: 568	Posted: 20 October 2012 at 2:44am
	*Originally posted by nospam001* So far no-one has stepped forward to defend the moral correctness of the husband's actions. It seems like a very simple and clear-cut question, until one utters his name. That is when things suddenly get complicated, so I can totally understand people's difficulty with 'joining the dots'. Especially when we consider a few of the hadith that deal with untruthful behaviour, e.g. al-Bukhari, 33 & 1973. As possible mitigating factors, it has been suggested above that perhaps the original 'promise' was made either 'lightly' (in jest) or under duress. Viewed in this way, the subterfuge that followed was a benevolent act, so that his dearest wife would be spared the unnecessary pain of feeling cheated. I don't want to insult anyone by pointing to chapter and verse. If you find this approach too complicated then I suggest you choose a commentary of Sura 66 by any respected Muslim scholar, in any language. You'll soon have enough detail to fill in what I've left out. It's all in there, and the scholars evidently don't have a problem with it. This only reinforces the principle implied in the sura itself: that it doesn't matter what you say to your wife, if it stops her nagging. (But next time, be careful not to make a promise that is beyond your authority, okay?) My daughters (both Muslims) have been taught there are no 'bad' questions. Is it really a 'silly game' for me to ask for clarification, on their behalf? Stop beating around the bush and ask clearly and precisely what you want to know. I think I'm right in saying that Muslims at this forum will not be offended.
	IP Logged

Friendship Senior Member Joined: 24 August 2008 Online Status: Offline Posts: 875	Posted: 20 October 2012 at 3:43am
	Assalamu alaika nospam001. I thought you are referring to S.65. Madinan verses refers to the life history /Sunna/Sharia/ of Muhammad Rasulullah. They have to be understood according to the way he explained them. No one has the authority to mutilate his explanation as such incidents or actions were witnessed by Allah and then commanded Muhammad on what to do. The Shari’a was not a cowboy action, a fairy tale, folk tales or something of amusement and play. It is only what Allah commanded Muhammad. Remember that homicide became a crime only after Abel killed Cain. I will try to explain to you briefly. However note that you did not mention the verses to be explained. 1. The Shari’a of Muhammad was what Allah commanded him following his action. That action in most cases was never done by a prophet or messenger before him for Muhammad was guided by previous Shari'a. 2. As exemplary to mankind all actions stem from him and thus the Shari’a. No one can claim inability to be guided on such trivial issues since Muhammad stood as a man created to obey Allah. (Unless scientists could be allowed to have a sample of the holy apostles DNA and then prove that we have a different gene that made us disobey Allah, no one has an excuse of disobeying Allah). With reference to 66:3, the Shari’a is on those practicing polygamy. That human nature stemmed from polygamy. It is a trivial issue (called lamama) that is forgiven by Allah on doing good deeds.The details are given Maududis, and Syed Qutb translations of the Qur’an. I am not a polygamist and as such I cannot elaborate on my personal experience. From this Shari'a wire tapping, eves dropping etc are not allowed. The case of Rupert Mudock proved the universality of the Shari'a of Muhammad. Nospam001, it is high time YOU join your two daughters. You are causing an anguish on them. Please love them and show leniency. Why are you leaving them suspended in the air? Do you want them to fall down and break their bones? Who stopped the burying of the female infants? Think of your action towards your beautiful innocent female children! Any difference? Muhammad is certainly a mercy to you NOSPAM001. Friendship. Edited by Friendship - 20 October 2012 at 3:44am
	IP Logged

nospam001 Male Agnostic Senior Member Joined: 02 October 2012 Location: Australia Online Status: Offline Posts: 150	Posted: 22 October 2012 at 3:57pm
	*Originally posted by Abu Loren* Stop beating around the bush and ask clearly and precisely what you want to know. I think I'm right in saying that Muslims at this forum will not be offended. Prior to the revelation of Sura 66 the husband went to considerable lengths in order to appease his frustrated wives. He undertook to give equal attention to each in turn, and also to abstain from further relations with a particularly beautiful concubine, who was the focus of their jealousy. (Some 'G-rated' commentaries talk instead of a 'honey pot'. Either way makes little difference to the core principles involved.) In making this concession he had unwittingly spurned the unique honour of conjugal privileges given to him (alone) in S33:50-51, thereby offending the giver. That was his only mistake, for which he receives a gentle reprimand. Some time later(?) - but before S66 was revealed - the husband realised that there was in fact no binding commitment. Thus freed from any moral obligation he resumed relations with the same concubine, in secret. Things went smoothly until he was 'caught in the act' by one of his jealous wives. Damage control then required her silence. She duly swore she would keep the matter secret, but then broke her promise and told the other wives. As finally revealed, Sura 66 deals severely with gossiping and eavesdropping, but tacitly approves of the husband's duplicity, secrecy and attempted cover-up. Following an identical set of principles, the US Government now seeks to punish and make an example of Pvt Bradley Manning (for breaking an oath of secrecy) and Wikileaks (for incitement and spreading the secrets) while blatantly and shamelessly ignoring the much bigger moral issues - simply because the embarrassing facts were 'classified information' according to ... the US Government. Supporters of the US say that's just an unavoidable part of being a world superpower. Even when you're the 'good guys', there will always be embarrassing facts that need to be kept from the people - and to think otherwise is just naive or st**id. Maybe the same is also true for a household comprising several wives. It would certainly explain a lot.
	God has the right to remain silent. For His advocates, however, each resigned shrug is a missed opportunity to win new converts.
	IP Logged

Abu Loren Male Islam Senior Member Joined: 29 June 2012 Location: United Arab Emirates Online Status: Offline Posts: 568	Posted: 23 October 2012 at 2:54am
	*Originally posted by nospam001* Some time later(?) - but before S66 was revealed - the husband realised that there was in fact no binding commitment. Thus freed from any moral obligation he resumed relations with the same concubine, in secret. Things went smoothly until he was 'caught in the act' by one of his jealous wives. Damage control then required her silence. She duly swore she would keep the matter secret, but then broke her promise and told the other wives. As finally revealed, Sura 66 deals severely with gossiping and eavesdropping, but tacitly approves of the husband's duplicity, secrecy and attempted cover-up. What's the confusion? The Prophet Pbuh) has been given special privileges thus the reason why Allah Subhana Wa Ta'ala scolds the Prophet (pbuh) in saying "O Prophet why do you make unlawful what I have made lawful for you" (paraphrased). The 'honeypot' scenario is also clearly explained in the Holy Qur'an. As a side note : The Prophet indeed had his favourites, Zainab bint Jahsh and Aisha (Allah be pleased with them). This was not illegal in any sense of the word because the Prophet (pbuh) was given the freedom to do whatever he wanted. Some of the wives in understanding this gave up their visiting rights so that the could spend more time with them. If you read his hadiths he constantly tells people that he is just a human being and he makes mistakes and has human desires just like you and me.
	IP Logged

nospam001 Male Agnostic Senior Member Joined: 02 October 2012 Location: Australia Online Status: Offline Posts: 150	Posted: 23 October 2012 at 3:32pm
	*Originally posted by Abu Loren* What's the confusion? The Prophet Pbuh) has been given special privileges...the Prophet (pbuh) was given the freedom to do whatever he wanted. Note that the words 'duplicity, secrecy and cover-up' passed by unchallenged, which is my main point. Looking at S66 in isolation, the combined weight of sunna plus Qur'an could be used to justify any sort of cover-up, whenever the facts are felt to be inconvenient. Presumably there are limits on such duplicity, but what are they? How do we deduce them from Qur'an or Hadith? Is the 'licence to deceive' reserved for certain situations only? Or should the whole episode be regarded as a special case, not for others to emulate, since this particular husband (alone) 'was given the freedom to do whatever he wanted'?
	God has the right to remain silent. For His advocates, however, each resigned shrug is a missed opportunity to win new converts.
	IP Logged

nospam001 Male Agnostic Senior Member Joined: 02 October 2012 Location: Australia Online Status: Offline Posts: 150	Posted: 23 October 2012 at 8:07pm
	*Originally posted by Friendship* Nospam001, it is high time YOU join your two daughters. You are causing an anguish on them. Please love them and show leniency. Why are you leaving them suspended in the air? Do you want them to fall down and break their bones? Who stopped the burying of the female infants? Think of your action towards your beautiful innocent female children! Any difference? Muhammad is certainly a mercy to you NOSPAM001. Since you ask: I was born and raised in an agnostic family or, if you prefer, Allah () has chosen to lead me astray as an example to others. Either way, I cannot start believing in something before it makes sense to me. (Not everyone has the same handicap, as I'm beginning to realise.) Regarding my daughters: One day I imagine they too will stumble upon S66 and be gobsmacked by the same perplexing questions. I hope that by then I will have found an answer that might comfort them, supposing they ask me. (Surely, that's what any father would do.) Unfortunately, the rhetorical images of suspending, falling, breaking and burying are way too figurative and poetic for my feeble mind to grasp. If you want to change my thinking you may wish to try a different approach. Plain, everyday English prose usually works pretty well.
	God has the right to remain silent. For His advocates, however, each resigned shrug is a missed opportunity to win new converts.
	IP Logged

Abu Loren Male Islam Senior Member Joined: 29 June 2012 Location: United Arab Emirates Online Status: Offline Posts: 568	Posted: 24 October 2012 at 3:00am
	*Originally posted by nospam001* Note that the words 'duplicity, secrecy and cover-up' passed by unchallenged, which is my main point. Looking at S66 in isolation, the combined weight of sunna plus Qur'an could be used to justify any sort of cover-up, whenever the facts are felt to be inconvenient. Presumably there are limits on such duplicity, but what are they? How do we deduce them from Qur'an or Hadith? Is the 'licence to deceive' reserved for certain situations only? Or should the whole episode be regarded as a special case, not for others to emulate, since this particular husband (alone) 'was given the freedom to do whatever he wanted'? For your information, duplicity, secrecy and cover-up was exposed by God Himself so what further judgement do you need? If you really believe that the combined weight of sunna plus Qur'an has been used to cover up a fault then that's your AGNOSTIC view. What people like you should do is fall down in prostration to the One True God and ask for repentence and seek guidance from him so that you are given knowledge and wisdom. No human being can help you if yo do not have God as a helper. Those whom He guides nobody can mis-guide and those whom he mis-guides nobody can guide. If you always look for proof then you will never accept faith. Can you stand on top of a mountain and jump believing God can save you? Or are you a person who wants to look at the safety feature down below before you jump?
	IP Logged

nothing Senior Member Joined: 09 November 2008 Location: Andorra Online Status: Offline Posts: 360	Posted: 24 October 2012 at 1:21pm
	*Originally posted by nospam001* Prior to the revelation of Sura 66 the husband went to considerable lengths in order to appease his frustrated wives. He undertook to give equal attention to each in turn, and also to abstain from further relations with a particularly beautiful concubine, who was the focus of their jealousy. I have read once long time ago a small book about the Prophet's wives, it did not mention concubine or sort, unless if I missed it. To add more to it I am not fond with hadiths so that create a problem in the way I try to catch up with your point. It does seem though that this concubine is the engine of this thread. Who was she? The story I heard from one perspective, it was about honey smell, that is where the Prophet promised would not touch it again. So can you tell about who was that beautiful concubine, thanks.
	IP Logged