Print Page | Close Window

Hareems vs. dating?

Printed From: IslamiCity.com
Category: Religion - Islam
Forum Name: Interfaith Dialogue
Forum Discription: It is for Interfaith dialogue, where Muslims discuss with non-Muslims. We encourge that dialogue takes place in a cordial atmosphere on various topics including religious tolerance.
URL: http://www.IslamiCity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=25608
Printed Date: 22 October 2014 at 1:09am


Topic: Hareems vs. dating?
Posted By: Janissary7
Subject: Hareems vs. dating?
Date Posted: 27 June 2013 at 1:44pm
Hi all.

My name is Abdul Jones, formerly Jacob Jones. I used to be a Catholic, but I converted to Islam at age 18, when allah appeared in dream to me.

Anyway I go to an American college, where I am a history major. In class one day we were covering Ottoman empire, namely Ottoman hareem.

One Christina girl in my class exclaimed how sexist and cruel ottomans were for having hareems, and how bad the whole empire was.

That mad me mad . Sure hareems weren't best thing, but they were no worse than "dating" and having hook ups and boyfriend/girlfriends in college.

The girls arrogance just struck me is all. Anyway which is worse for a muslim? To ( theoretically, since they don't exist anymore) have a hareem, or to have a girlfriend/ boyfriend?

It seems ottoman sultans were rarely cruel to their women...



Replies:
Posted By: Nausheen
Date Posted: 27 June 2013 at 9:33pm
Hello Abdul Jones,
Welcome ti IC.

According to dictionary definition of harem, it is the part of the household inhabited by the women. These include everyone, including mothers, daughters, sisters, wives and slave girls.

Since a man is not allowed to interact freely with any woman except those who are his mahram, ie mother,sister daughter, wife or slavegirl - a girlfriend is out of question.

Mixing freely with a slave girl is not same as mixing freely with a free woman, where the former is acceptable, later is a sin.



-------------
Wanu nazzilu minal Qurani ma huwa
Shafaa un wa rahmatun lil mo'mineena
wa la yaziduzzalimeena illa khasara.


Posted By: Janissary7
Date Posted: 28 June 2013 at 7:17am
And at least the slavegirl was treated well right? I mean maybe shed have to compete for her mans affections, but she wasn't thrown out or abandoned either....
 
And the slavegirl can never leave her master, and must obey him? I hear she has to be a non muslim girl though....
 
I suppose after a while the slave would have forgotten her old loves, and served the master well?


Posted By: NABA
Date Posted: 28 June 2013 at 9:36am
Salaam Nausheen but I am confused about the concept of slave girl which is not prominent in world today,even the question of slave girl arrives,Allah clearly forbids adultery and fornication in ch 17 v 32,in fact Allah ordered 100 lashes as a punishment for this sin in 24 v 2,so I don't get about the concept of slave girl because even if U want to mix with her,then U should marry first,but again the verse ch 4 v 19 which says that U can't force any girl to marry,there is a hadeeth in which a girl comes to prophet and complaints that she had been forcefully married,prophet there itself nullifies the marriage,so according to me there is no concept of slaves in this era,this is my point of view,I think U know better than me,plz clarify this.at Jones, Allah says in ch 30 v 21-one of my signs is the feeling of mercy and love in between the individuals of opposite sex,that's y Allah in ch 24 v 30-31 orders us to b modest so that to avoid frequent interactions which are roots of several forbidden things.


Posted By: Janissary7
Date Posted: 28 June 2013 at 10:52am

NABA, I guess what Im saying is which is more sinful? The hareems of the ottoman sultans?

Or the love/dating relationships of american teenagers/ college students? At least with former it seems that at least the women were protected.
 
It seemed hypocritical for this girl to be criticizing Islamic empire, since she herslef did immoral things....


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 28 June 2013 at 6:32pm
Originally posted by Janissary7

That mad me mad . Sure hareems weren't best thing, but they were no worse than "dating" and having hook ups and boyfriend/girlfriends in college.
 
A harem is one man keeping multiple women essentially as property.  Not the same thing at all as sexual freedom equally for men and women.
 
The girls arrogance just struck me is all. Anyway which is worse for a muslim? To ( theoretically, since they don't exist anymore) have a hareem, or to have a girlfriend/ boyfriend?
 
Worse for Muslim men or Muslim women?

It seems ottoman sultans were rarely cruel to their women...
 
There was a hierarchy within the harem.  Those at the top had great freedom and power, while those at the bottom were nothing more than slaves.


-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Nausheen
Date Posted: 28 June 2013 at 9:26pm
One could sell or free the slaves, that was normal.

It was highly rewarding in Islam to free slaves - a way of abolishing slavery from the world.

No they did not abandon them.

I don't know if they necessarily had to be non-muslims, there are several reports of the masters actually aiding the slaves in their religion - helping them learn and practice.

There are also reports from the time of the prophet that slaves who accepted islam under a non-muslim master were tortured for the same.



-------------
Wanu nazzilu minal Qurani ma huwa
Shafaa un wa rahmatun lil mo'mineena
wa la yaziduzzalimeena illa khasara.


Posted By: Nausheen
Date Posted: 28 June 2013 at 9:50pm
Question:
Sex with slaves and women's rights
Answer:

Wa `alaykum as-Salam wa rahmatullah wa barakatuh:

The following is a response on the issues of female slaves in Islam in reply to two sets of questions.

THE FIRST SET OF QUESTIONS

I came across tafseer of the beginning verses of Surat-Al-Mu'minoon (Al-Mawdudi), [The Yusuf Ali translation reads, "who abstain from sex, except with those joined in the marriage bond [spouses], or (the captives) whom their right hands possess,-for (in their case) they are free of blame."] and I was kind of shocked and surprised that he states it is permissible for a man to have sexual intercourse with female slaves in his possession, in addition to his legal wives (v.5-6).

Was. Slavery is unlawful (1) in the absence of the Caliph of the Muslims AND (2) unless it results from captives following a lawful war. Even so, there was always the alternative to {let the captives go free, either with or without any ransom} (47:4). Furthermore, the Ottoman Caliphate had declared - long before the US Abolition - that it prohibited slavery in its realm.

Further preliminary remarks before addressing the questions:

It should be clear that Islam raised the status of slaves higher than that of free men in un-Islamic societies even by modern standards. The author of _The House of Saud_, an American journalist, recounts how the staff and management of the New York Waldorf-Astoria hotel were horrified that King Faysal in an early US visit had not only allowed his black servant into the state dining room but had seated him at his very table - a "white-only" table in a "white-only" room! They had no idea that even slaves in Islam had to be FED and CLOTHED with the same food and clothing as their owner as the Prophet, upon him peace, had stipulated in his "last pilgrimage" speech:

"And your slaves! see that you feed them such food as you eat yourselves and dress them with what you yourself wear. And if they commit a mistake which you are not inclined to forgive then sell them, for they are the servants of Allah and are not to be tormented!"

In another hadith he said, upon him blessings and peace:

"Be kind to slaves as to your own children...and those that say their prayers are your brethren."

A contemporary commentator said:

"The masters were obliged not to put slaves under hardship; slaves were not to be tortured, abused or treated unjustly. They could marry among themselves - with their master's permission - or with free men or women! They could appear as witnesses and participate with free men in all affairs. Many of them were appointed as governors, commanders of army and administrators. In the eyes of Islam, a pious slave has precedence over an impious free man." Al-Tabataba'i, Tafsir (16:338-358).

What ignorant times we live in, in which a nation that used a legally - enforceable concept of "white-only" since its inception and then went on to use it for two centuries, now crusades against Islam and the rest of the world over self-proclaimed civilizational values.

Islam restored dignity to slaves and enhanced their social status both by ancient and modern standards.

Islam made no distinction between a slave or a free man, all were treated with equality. It was this fact that attracted non-Muslim slaves to Islam in droves.

As someone said, it is sad to see that those who never cease to be vociferous in their unjust criticism of Islam remain blind to this principle of equality when even in this age there are countries where laws are made that discriminate against the vast majority of population to keep them in practical servitude.

As for the allegations of slavery made by the US and UK against Islamic Sudan they are part of a joint missionary and government rogue propaganda campaign against an Islamic government which has always condemned and actively repressed instances of abuse in inter-tribal warfare, while there has never been anything remotely near a full-fledged slave trade, cf. the Sudan Foundation papers by David Hoile posted in full:   http://www.sufo.demon.co.uk/politics.htm

What follows concerns the Fiqhi rulings pertaining to the slave period even if the present tense is used.

I'm far too ignorant to make judgments about the verse and that hukum taken from it, so I wanted to ask if you could explain the verse, if that opinion is generally accepted and why. Do these verses refer solely to men, or women Believers also?

These verses refer to the permissibility of a man for intercourse with his unmarried female slaves without having to marry them. Such an option was not available to women owners of male slaves nor to men owners of married female slaves.

Is it in order to fulfill his desires and avoid any unlawful fitna? (this is hard for me to understand, seeing as how taqwa, self-restraint, and other things are so emphasized in Islam)

His and her desires, yes, but within certain parameters including rights. This will be detailed insha Allah.

However, it seems that intercourse with slaves was probably considered a method of contraceptive sexual enjoyment through coitus interruptus (`azl), since the slave owner could practice `azl without prior permission from his slave mate while he could not do so with his free wife without prior permission from her. And if the contraception intended by this `azl failed and the slave woman still bore a child from her master, her child was automatically freed and obtained a son or daughter's rights including inheritance. In addition, the mother herself could no longer be sold and was freed upon the owner's death.

From the slave's perspective, the above scenario could have formed an accepted kind of lawful gamble from which she stood to gain much more than to lose. This could be problematized with the claim that "the cost of freedom is therefore rape" but such is just an inflammatory rephrasing of the truism that the cost of a war captive's life is her imprisonment; emancipation from which is a dramatically enhanced possibility in the above scenario.

Consider some more the dynamic of manumission in Islam. It took the French until the 1780's and 1790's through their "Revolution" and "Terror" to finally decide that any slave that steps into French territory automatically becomes free; but Islam had already said, 11 centuries earlier: a free parent's newborn from a slave is free and that newborn inherits from his or her free parent.

In addition, Islam gave all slaves the inalienable right to buy themselves out, either on payment of an agreed sum or on completion of service for an agreed period. The legal term for this is mukataba and the slave party to such a written contract was called a mukatab or mukataba.

{And those of your slaves that seek a writing (of emancipation), write it for them if you are aware of any goodness in them, and bestow upon them of the wealth of Allah that He has bestowed upon you} (24:33).

{Alms are only for the poor and the needy, and those who collect them, and those whose hearts are to be reconciled, and to *free the captives and the debtors,* and for the cause of Allah, and (for) the wayfarers; a duty imposed by Allah. Allah is knower, Wise} (9:60).

{Righteous is he who believes in Allah and the Last Day and the angels and the Scripture and the Prophets; and gives his wealth, for love of Him, to kinsfolk and to orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and to those who ask, and to set slaves free} (2:177).

Note that the above verses stipulate that when a slave wants emancipation the master not only has to agree to it but is also directed to help the slave from his own wealth and from alms, which includes the public treasury (bayt al-mal), the only provision being the satisfaction that the slave would live a respectable life after earning his or her freedom!

In addition, if a non-Muslim slave accepted Islam before their masters, they would become free automatically. If the slave became blind or handicapped he would also become free.

In addition to these compulsory ways of emancipation, voluntary emancipation of slaves was declared as the purest form of charity and included providing the freedmen with sufficient means to earn their livelihood respectably. Thus, Islam is the first and only religion that has prescribed liberation of slaves as a virtue and a condition of genuine faith.

How is intercourse permissible without a marriage contract binding them?

Because the contract in place is that of property which includes the right to sexual enjoyment but excludes the abuses used under all other historical forms of slavery such as mutilation, inhumane labor, or killing as was the rule in Egyptian, Greek, and Roman times, and the cruelest of all forms, unparalleled in human history, the United States Transatlantic slave trade.(*)

(*) Incidentally, many scholars estimate that over 20 percent of Africans brought in bondage to both American continents and the Caribbean were Muslim.

If the man then later frees the slave-woman, and perhaps she has a child, would the man need to marry her? Is he still liable for child-support? Does he still raise his children as a father? Is the man allowed to do this with slaves that are not Muslim? (if so, under what conditions?) and is this woman entitled to any inheritance from him? I was under the impression that a person can only inherit by either marriage or blood-ties. wouldn't she be considered a "concubine"?

Yes, the word concubine literally means bed-mate and applies to any female slave that shares the bed of her master. The man is liable to support any child of his and whatever need of its mother that is related to that liability. He is not obliged to marry her but is definitely held to the responsibilities of a father including inheritability whether the mother is a Muslim or not, her child being Muslim. Nor is she entitled to any inheritance unless he decides to marry her AND she is Muslim. Allah knows best.

THE SECOND SET OF QUESTIONS

1- Is slavery allowed in Islam?

See the very first answer in this reply.

If not then what is the concept about female slaves that the right hand possesses? This phrase has been said in the quraan a few times.

Captives in a legitimate defensive war.

2- Why was sex with female slaves allowed?

There was no concept that it could or should not be.

If a man is married and he has a slave then why is he having sex with her?

Sex was part of the benefits to which the slave owner was entitled within the framework of rights already described.

I read that the prophet (pbuh) had a male child from his slave (Mariah). why should a married man have sex with a salve woman? Aren't their limitations to sexual desire?

Precisely, these limitations are those mentioned by the Qur'an.

Doesn't the slave have any rights?

Of course the slave has rights as we have already mentioned. In addition, in Islam, the slave even has rights to bring his or her owner before a law-court.

What happened to human rights in this whole scenario?

As we mentioned already, slavery and ransom were the alternatives to killing in war, but the slaves had to be fed and clothed with the same food and clothing as their owner, they could not be burdened with inhumane tasks, they could buy their freedoms, sue for their rights, and had other human rights that place Islamic ethics in the context of slavery above anything comparable in the ancient and modern worlds.

And when the slave gets pregnant there why doesn't the man have to marry her?

She and her child do obtain other rights as already mentioned but this is not one of them.

3- Why did the prophet (pbuh) have 11 wives when only 4 at one time was allowed? [...] the rules set by Allah are equal for everyone, right? So how was this possible?

Allah Most High set some rules only for the Prophet, upon him peace. These are known as the Khasa'is al-Nabawiyya or "Exclusive Prophetic characteristics."

Some of those fall in the category of wajib; others in the mustahabb; others in the mubah; others in the makruh; and others in the haram.

An example of the Prophetic wajib is tahajjud or late night praying for most of the night. This was obligatory for him but is Sunna for the Umma.

An example of the Prophetic haram is the eating of onion and garlic due to his intimate communication with the angel, while it is mubah/makruh for the Umma.

Another example of the Prophetic haram is the acceptance of sadaqa, while it is permitted for the Umma except true descendents of his. Another example is that Prophets are forbidden to leave any inheritance other than sadaqa while anything any Muslim leaves is obligatorily inheritance.

An example of the Prophetic mubah is his having more than 4 wives while it is haram for the Umma. Another example is that he could marry any man's widow while it is haram for the entire Umma to marry any of his widows after him because they are literally like our mothers, and some said, because his life in the Barzakh is literal.

An example of the Prophetic mustahabb is to show that certain inappropriate acts are permissible by being seen doing them at least one in his life, such as urinating or drinking while standing up, both of which are makruh for the Umma while they were acts of obedience for him. Another example was to leave certain meritorious acts such as congregational tarawih and i`tikaf to show they were not obligatory, while they are Sunna for us.

Another example of the Prophetic mustahabb was fasting without breaking fast for longer than one day and night while such is haram or makruh for the Umma.

An example of the Prophetic makruh is to exert himself in learning the Qur'an while it is wajib for the Umma, or to avail himself of the niceties of this world while it is mubah for the Umma, or to eat types of food exotic to his native Hijaz which is also mubah for us.

There are other things that only the Prophet, upon him peace, did such as going into battle on a mule when no one had the courage to use a mule but used either a horse or a camel. Or naming the objects in his property including his mirror and comb. Or his superlatively eloquent speech and knowledge of all the Arab dialects. And many, many other attributes.

Among the most famous books on the Prophetic Khasa'is are al-Suyuti's al-Khasa'is al-Kubra and Qadi `Iyad's glorious masterpiece al-Shifa'.

4- It is said in the koran that when a man dies he can have up to 70 wives if he goes to heaven.

Where does it say this??

It says that he will have the wives in this life and HOORIAN. But for women they are only allowed one husband. Why is this so?

We do not know with certainty that there will be such a restriction on women even if the reverse would hardly be mentionable to a decent woman. A woman in the traditional world would and does consider it a horrible thing to say to her that "You can have all the men you want"! The Qur'an would never use inappropriate language. However, the Qur'an does mention that for the inhabitants of Paradise - male and female - {There wait on them immortal youths} (56:17), {There serve them youths of everlasting youth, whom, when you see them, you would take for scattered pearls} (76:19).

If this does not make a believing woman happy then, as Imam al-Shafi`i said to the one who is not moved by erotic poetry, "You have no feelings." As for the believing men, as one of the Awliya said, some of them will need ghusl just for hearing the verse {Same-age young-bosomed girls} (78:33). As for us hard-hearted analphabets we may read it and read it without effect.

In this life we know that if a woman were allowed more than one husband, then there would be problems with the identity of the father if she should have a child. So this will create problems, and the father of the child will not be known. But in the after life, there will not be new births.

Correct.

So then why cant women have men in the after life either?

It is not clear they cannot, short of an all-but-explicit orgiastic promise if that is what one wants.

Aren't women supposed to have the same rights as men?

No. They have some rights men have, some rights men do not have, and men have some rights women do not have.

In the koraan it says that men have a degree of power over women, ok fine, but even in the after life its like this? Wont women ever have the same freedom that men enjoy???? Wont they ever be able to have the same privileges that men have?? Are women the lower cast? Is this the way it is? And women should just accept it????

The so-called "degree of power" verse you mentioned is not about power but responsibility and accountability placed squarely on the shoulders of men. The rest of the relevant questions have been answered insha Allah, and

Allah knows best.

Hajj Gibril


MMVIII © Qibla.
All rights reserved

-------------
Wanu nazzilu minal Qurani ma huwa
Shafaa un wa rahmatun lil mo'mineena
wa la yaziduzzalimeena illa khasara.


Posted By: Nausheen
Date Posted: 28 June 2013 at 9:53pm
Originally posted by Janissary7

NABA, I guess what Im saying is which is more sinful? The hareems of the ottoman sultans?


Or the love/dating relationships of american teenagers/ college students? At least with former it seems that at least the women were protected.
 

It seemed hypocritical for this girl to be criticizing Islamic empire, since she herslef did immoral things....


With reference to my above post,
It was not sinful for men to have intimate relations with their unmarried slaves.

A love/dating relationship of today is not at all like that - its a sin for free men and women to mix as they do in our times.



-------------
Wanu nazzilu minal Qurani ma huwa
Shafaa un wa rahmatun lil mo'mineena
wa la yaziduzzalimeena illa khasara.


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 29 June 2013 at 8:10am
Originally posted by Nausheen

It was not sinful for men to have intimate relations with their unmarried slaves.

A love/dating relationship of today is not at all like that - its a sin for free men and women to mix as they do in our times.
 
So it's okay to have sex with a woman against her will, as long as she is your property and unable to resist; but it's wrong to have sex with a free woman who consents willingly? Wacko


-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: NABA
Date Posted: 29 June 2013 at 8:58am
at Ron Webb,she is saying it was,at that time verse regarding adultery and fornication was not laid out.


Posted By: Nausheen
Date Posted: 29 June 2013 at 7:27pm
Originally posted by Ron Webb


So it's okay to have sex with a woman against her will, as long as she is your property and unable to resist; but it's wrong to have sex with a free woman who consents willingly? [IMG]http://www.islamicity.com/forum/smileys/smiley29.gif" height="17" width="17" align="absmiddle" alt="Wacko" />


Where did you get that?

You want to read between the lines ... nice !

-------------
Wanu nazzilu minal Qurani ma huwa
Shafaa un wa rahmatun lil mo'mineena
wa la yaziduzzalimeena illa khasara.


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 29 June 2013 at 8:45pm
Originally posted by Nausheen

Originally posted by Ron Webb


So it's okay to have sex with a woman against her will, as long as she is your property and unable to resist; but it's wrong to have sex with a free woman who consents willingly? [IMG]http://www.islamicity.com/forum/smileys/smiley29.gif" height="17" width="17" align="absmiddle" alt="Wacko" />


Where did you get that?

You want to read between the lines ... nice !

Greetings Nausheen,
I'm sorry to say, but I get the very same message as Ron, and it is quite disturbing to say the least.
Salaam,
Caringheart


-------------
Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 30 June 2013 at 10:05am

Originally posted by Nausheen

Originally posted by Ron Webb


So it's okay to have sex with a woman against her will, as long as she is your property and unable to resist; but it's wrong to have sex with a free woman who consents willingly?

Where did you get that?

You want to read between the lines ... nice !

I'm just restating what you said, only more clearly.  Which part do you disagree with?



-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 30 June 2013 at 11:15am
Very frustrating that my posts are so delayed and interrupt the flow of the thread. Unhappy

-------------
Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever


Posted By: Nausheen
Date Posted: 30 June 2013 at 11:46pm
Ron and CH,

Can you please quote where I said it was okay for the master to rape his unmarrid female slaves?



-------------
Wanu nazzilu minal Qurani ma huwa
Shafaa un wa rahmatun lil mo'mineena
wa la yaziduzzalimeena illa khasara.


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 01 July 2013 at 7:15am

You didn't use the word "rape" (nor did I); but maybe it is appropriate after all.  The relationship between master and slave is the ultimate power imbalance.  A slave cannot meaningfully be said to consent to anything that her master demands, when refusal might result in terrible retaliation.

We refer to it as "statutory rape" when an adult has sex with a child, for exactly that reason.  Even an employer would be on very shaky moral ground if he approached one of his female employees for sex.  But master and slave? Disapprove

You are saying that if a woman is literally a man's slave and totally within his control, it is morally permissible for him to have sex with her; but as soon as she becomes free and equal, it becomes impermissible.  This is exactly backwards to most people's moral intuition.



-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Nausheen
Date Posted: 01 July 2013 at 9:13am
We all measure situations from the yardstick of our own culture and the norms prevalent in it.

Even i have not seen the culture and times when slavery was okay. However I know that Islam did not encourage it. There are several proofs in islamic attitude to abolish this custom from society. ex; expiation of sins in many cases includes freeing of a certain number of slaves. Freeing them, marrying them, or having them married to a someone was all highly praiseworthy actions. If a child is born from the union of a master and his slave this child is no longer treated as slave -he/she is a free individual. The mother is freed upon the death of the master, she could not be inherited by anyone in the family.

Also, it was not permmited for a master to have relations with a female slave who was married.

Besides this, islamically a master was supposed to treat the slaves in kindness - feeding them and clothing them with the same standards as for himself. These females were housed in the same part of the household which was inhabited by other females members of the family and this place was called the harem. Harem is not a place for slaves only, rather its that part of the household which is inhabited by the females.
And, oppression in islam is strictly prohibited.

Under this context, if any master used force and oppression then certainly he acted outside the limits of Islam. Even between married couples, a muslims wife is not supposed to deny the wishes of her husband, but at the same time husband does not have a right to force himself on her. Therefore, the relationship which was permissible between a master and his slave - I cannot call it statutory rape.


-------------
Wanu nazzilu minal Qurani ma huwa
Shafaa un wa rahmatun lil mo'mineena
wa la yaziduzzalimeena illa khasara.


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 01 July 2013 at 11:13am
Originally posted by Nausheen

Ron and CH,

Can you please quote where I said it was okay for the master to rape his unmarrid female slaves?


Greetings Nausheen,

Ron did well in explaining. Smile

Regarding this though;
"expiation of sins in many cases includes freeing of a certain number of slaves."
You know what this reminds me of?
The thing that caused the split within the Catholic church and created the resultant Protestant churches... the buying of indulges that were sold by the Catholic church... as if someone could buy their way out of God's judgement.

Regarding slaves:
No matter how much 'kindness' one may be treated with, would you consider that there is any kindness in having your own free will taken away from you, especially in sexual matters?
But you are saying that you believe that even the slave had the right to consent or not to consent?

Salaam,
Caringheart


-------------
Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever


Posted By: Janissary7
Date Posted: 01 July 2013 at 2:01pm
If a war happened now between west and lands of Islam, could it be permissible. I wonder if it would have been in WW1 between Ottomans and France and Britain as well?

I mean its interesting allah allowed men slavegirls but not muslim women slave men...


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 01 July 2013 at 6:37pm

Originally posted by Nausheen

We all measure situations from the yardstick of our own culture and the norms prevalent in it.

If only that were true, but the Muslim yardstick is from 7th century Arabia.  Quite frankly, that is the problem.  I can see the justification for slavery in Muhammad's time, but that time is long past, and those justifications no longer apply.

Even i have not seen the culture and times when slavery was okay. However I know that Islam did not encourage it.

I don't want to turn this topic into a discussion of slavery, but I have to say that I just don't buy that.  Regulation of slavery does not imply disapproval of it, any more than regulation of commerce implies disapproval of it; and if Allah had wanted to abolish slavery, He would have done so.  Clearly He does approve of it -- and apparently so did Muhammad, who captured and enslaved many people in the course of warfare.  If he disapproved, he had a funny way of showing it.

Besides this, islamically a master was supposed to treat the slaves in kindness - feeding them and clothing them with the same standards as for himself.

Which doesn't alter the fact that a slave cannot be said to genuinely consent to sex with her master, any more than a child can genuinely consent to sex with an adult.  If an adult has sex with an underage girl, does it matter that he treats her with kindness?  Even if she "consents"?

Look, if we assume for the sake of argument that slavery is permissible at all, then I can understand in theory that a master can have sex with his slave.  She is his property after all, and he can do what he wants with her.  Her consent doesn't matter.

What I don't understand is how you can hold that view, while simultaneously forbidding sex with free women.  In other words, as long as she is a slave who cannot reasonably be said to consent, she is fair game; but if her frees her, so that she can freely consent, then suddenly she is off limits.  How does this make sense?



-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Experiential
Date Posted: 03 July 2013 at 6:35am

Whether it is 'rape' or not ? it is definitely the power the Master has over the slave that gets the slave doing what he wants.

Abit like Mohamad having sex with a 9 year old girl. It may have been 'consenting'. But think of the power difference a man in his 50s has over a girl aged 9 years old. And that was probably without having to beat her with a stick that the Quaran also allows.


Posted By: NABA
Date Posted: 03 July 2013 at 9:26am
At Ron what it matters is today,today we have to follow Qur'an and it says that don't do adultery and fornication(ch 17 v 32).even before the revelation of verse of ch 5 v 90(alcohol is forbidden)alcohol was also permissible.


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 03 July 2013 at 4:23pm

Yes NABA, I understand. You can't have sex with an unmarried girl, even if she is agreeable; but if you declare war on her tribe/village, kill all her relatives, destroy her home and take her prisoner, then its okay.  No wonder the early Muslims found so many excuses to attack their neighbours.

what it matters is today,today we have to follow Qur'an ...

That is a contradiction.  The Quran was written in the 7th century, and reflects the conditions and standards of the 7th century.  If today really mattered to you, you would live by moral standards appropriate to today, not the 7th century.

You don't have to follow the Quran.  You choose to, but you could choose otherwise if you wanted.  You could recognize that a book that gets so many things wrong, both factually and morally, cannot possibly have been written by God.  Then you would be free to do what you know in your heart is right; and you know in your heart that having sex with a captive girl is not right, no matter what the Quran says.



-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: NABA
Date Posted: 04 July 2013 at 9:44am
U R right about the fact that nobody had to follow Qur'an,because Allah has given us free will,but Allah also says that he will grant reward and punishments in hereafter,if a person knows punishments of hereafter he will follow Qur'an for eg to the sinners new skin will be given to feel  the pain each time when they loose layer of skin(ch 4 v 56),in Qur'an doing sex with unmarried girl is not only the thing that Allah forbids us,I have seen many cases that people offer 5 time salaah yet they quarrel with parents and put them to old age home,Allah says the 2nd best thing after worshipping him is to b good to parents even when they enter senescence(ch 17 v 23-24),some people claim themselves to b Islamic but enter ones house without knocking the door,Allah forbids this in ch 24 v 27-29,and as I said earlier U can't judge Quran,U say it describes only about 7th century,Qur'an explain things which are today proved by science,famous scientist Edwin Hubble said universe is expanding,Allah says this fact 1400 years ago in ch 51 v 47,in those days there were the period of wars,so once again I say since there were no revelation of that verse,the thing was acceptable.okay I put a situation in front of U and U prove me is it wrong or right according to religious books,our government implemented caste system in education,Qur'an strictly forbids caste system(ch 6 v 159),in this case general category people through donation enter colleges,people say it is haraam,but I say it is optional,because there is no verse regarding this thing in any of religious books,similarly at that time the verse regarding adultery,fornication was not revealed.


Posted By: Experiential
Date Posted: 04 July 2013 at 7:02pm
Originally posted by NABA

U R right about the fact that nobody had to follow Qur'an,because Allah has given us free will,but Allah also says that he will grant reward and punishments in hereafter,if a person knows punishments of hereafter he will follow Qur'an for eg to the sinners new skin will be given to feel  the pain each time when they loose layer of skin(ch 4 v 56),in Qur'an doing sex with unmarried girl is not only the thing that Allah forbids us,I have seen many cases that people offer 5 time salaah yet they quarrel with parents and put them to old age home,Allah says the 2nd best thing after worshipping him is to b good to parents even when they enter senescence(ch 17 v 23-24),some people claim themselves to b Islamic but enter ones house without knocking the door,Allah forbids this in ch 24 v 27-29,and as I said earlier U can't judge Quran,U say it describes only about 7th century,Qur'an explain things which are today proved by science,famous scientist Edwin Hubble said universe is expanding,Allah says this fact 1400 years ago in ch 51 v 47,in those days there were the period of wars,so once again I say since there were no revelation of that verse,the thing was acceptable.okay I put a situation in front of U and U prove me is it wrong or right according to religious books,our government implemented caste system in education,Qur'an strictly forbids caste system(ch 6 v 159),in this case general category people through donation enter colleges,people say it is haraam,but I say it is optional,because there is no verse regarding this thing in any of religious books,similarly at that time the verse regarding adultery,fornication was not revealed.

Hi Naba

When you say –if a person knows punishments of hereafter he will follow Qur'an for eg to the sinners new skin will be given to feel  the pain each time when they loose layer of skin(ch 4 v 56),

I think this is disgusting! Is this the religion you believe in? One of fear and punishment?

 

You said “the Qur'an explains things which are today proved by science, famous scientist Edwin Hubble said universe is expanding, Allah says this fact 1400 years ago in ch 51 v 47.”

As I have mentioned to you before when you say this you are relying on science in your argument– proving that science is as important or superior to the Quran.

 

When you say things like “at that time the verse regarding adultery, fornication was not revealed.” Are you saying that the Quran was only for the 7th century. I thought the Quaran was ‘timeless’ and a miracle?



Posted By: Nausheen
Date Posted: 04 July 2013 at 8:04pm
Originally posted by Ron Webb

  The Quran was written in the 7th century, and reflects the conditions and standards of the 7th century.  If today really mattered to you, you would live by moral standards appropriate to today, not the 7th century.


Who will decide the 'moral standard' of today?

Is everyone willing to accept this authority unanimously?

If yes, then sure we can discard the Quran and follow this one voice, this international standard. but if no, then whatever you are suggesting is just not a workable solution. We've got to think harder.

-------------
Wanu nazzilu minal Qurani ma huwa
Shafaa un wa rahmatun lil mo'mineena
wa la yaziduzzalimeena illa khasara.


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 04 July 2013 at 8:24pm

Originally posted by NABA

U R right about the fact that nobody had to follow Qur'an,because Allah has given us free will,but Allah also says that he will grant reward and punishments in hereafter,if a person knows punishments of hereafter he will follow Qur'an for eg to the sinners new skin will be given to feel  the pain each time when they loose layer of skin(ch 4 v 56),...

You don't have to believe that either.  Frankly, I don't know how you can believe that of an allegedly loving and merciful god.  Would you treat another person that way, ever, for any reason?  Of course not.  It's just one more thing that you know in your heart is not right about the Quran. 

...and as I said earlier U can't judge Quran,U say it describes only about 7th century,Qur'an explain things which are today proved by science,famous scientist Edwin Hubble said universe is expanding,Allah says this fact 1400 years ago in ch 51 v 47...

I have replied to this in your other discussion, http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=25646 - universe!!! .

okay I put a situation in front of U and U prove me is it wrong or right according to religious books,our government implemented caste system in education,Qur'an strictly forbids caste system(ch 6 v 159),in this case general category people through donation enter colleges,people say it is haraam,but I say it is optional,because there is no verse regarding this thing in any of religious books,similarly at that time the verse regarding adultery,fornication was not revealed.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.  My personal opinion is that any caste system is wrong, but I don't know what your religious books say about it and frankly I don't much care.  As for whether fornication is right or wrong, surely it is what it is, regardless of whether a particular surah has been revealed or not.  Are you saying that fornication was just fine before the Quran was revealed, and only became wrong after God told us so?



-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Nausheen
Date Posted: 04 July 2013 at 8:27pm
Originally posted by Experiential

Hi Naba


When you say –


for eg to the sinners new skin will be given to feel the pain each time when they loose layer of skin(ch 4 v 56


I think this is disgusting! Is this the religion you believe in? One of fear and punishment?



IN december 2012, a girl was raped by 6 men one of them who was a minor, in a moving bus on the roads of Indian Capital. After they finished their job, they inserted rod in her genitals. Took away all her clothes and threw her off a bridge in the cold winter night - ie left her to die. I think it was highly disgusting, and those who did it had no fear of any kind of punishment.

If you do a google search on the event you can find several news items reporting from New Delhi.

People in India were demanding a punishment for them as prescribed in the Quran ... they are not muslims, nobody, the victim the rapists or general public at large, but they asked for an islamic punishment.

The point here is that if one does not beleive in a 'disgusting' consequence of their 'disgusting' deeds, they can cross limits on earth - which makes life hell on this very planet.

This event was no joke for anyone who has connections with India. I was considering my daughter's higher education in New Delhi, but I am much shaken from inside after this event - do you get a fair amount of impact of this event? If yes, what kind of world are we living in, and what kind of democracy are we voting for?


Originally posted by Experiential

the Qur'an explains things which are today proved by science, famous scientist Edwin Hubble said universe is expanding, Allah says this fact 1400 years ago in ch 51 v 47.”As I have mentioned to you before when you say this you are relying on science in your argument– proving that science is as important or superior to the Quran.



This means if you believe in nothing but science, then even science is in harmony with the quran at certain points, so why do you not pay attention to the Quran. Real scientists pay attention to everything that is found relevant to their observations, and those who have seen their phenomenon mentioned in the Quran have taken the quran more seriously than the by-standers.

Originally posted by Experiential


When you say things like “at that time the verse regarding adultery, fornication was not revealed.” Are you saying that the Quran was only for the 7th century. I thought the Quaran was ‘timeless’ and a miracle?



He is only telling you that the Quran was not revealed in one go, in one incidence. The verses came down in stages through a span of 23 years. Thus the chronology of revelation is very important to the text and a careful scholar of Quran does not take it lightly.


-------------
Wanu nazzilu minal Qurani ma huwa
Shafaa un wa rahmatun lil mo'mineena
wa la yaziduzzalimeena illa khasara.


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 04 July 2013 at 8:37pm

Originally posted by Nausheen

Originally posted by Ron Webb

   The Quran was written in the 7th century, and reflects the conditions and standards of the 7th century.  If today really mattered to you, you would live by moral standards appropriate to today, not the 7th century.

Who will decide the 'moral standard' of today?

We all will.  Each of us individually and all of us collectively.

Is everyone willing to accept this authority unanimously?

Probably not.  Is everyone willing to accept the authority of the Quran unanimously?  Or the Bible, or the Bhagavad Gita, or the Book of Mormon, or...?

If yes, then sure we can discard the Quran and follow this one voice, this international standard. but if no, then whatever you are suggesting is just not a workable solution. We've got to think harder.

Democracy is the only workable solution.  The majority may not always be right, but in the end they will always prevail by sheer numbers.  Any attempt to suppress the will of the majority will eventually lead to bloodshed, and ultimately will fail.



-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 04 July 2013 at 8:42pm

Originally posted by Nausheen

The point here is that if one does not beleive in a 'disgusting' consequence of their 'disgusting' deeds, they can cross limits on earth - which makes life hell on this very planet.

No, the point is that if you sink to the same level as them, then you are no better than them.



-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Nausheen
Date Posted: 04 July 2013 at 8:54pm
Originally posted by Ron Webb

Originally posted by NABA

U R right about the fact that nobody had to follow Qur'an,because Allah has given us free will,but Allah also says that he will grant reward and punishments in hereafter,if a person knows punishments of hereafter he will follow Qur'an for eg to the sinners new skin will be given to feel  the pain each time when they loose layer of skin(ch 4 v 56),...


You don't have to believe that either.  Frankly, I don't know how you can believe that of an allegedly loving and merciful god.  Would you treat another person that way, ever, for any reason?  Of course not.  It's just one more thing that you know in your heart is not right about the Quran. 




Im really surprised at people living in such a safe haven of belief.
Some of us want to beleive that God is only compassionate and merciful and this attribute of His negats from Him other attributes which would call for justice and punishment etc.

The God in Islam however is not just merciful and compassionater - Ar Rahman and Ar Raheem.
He is also Al-Hasib and Al Muhsi - which means The Reckoner and Al- Muntaqim - which means the avenger besides so many other attributes, all totaling upto 99. These are on many instances mutually exclusive of each other. ie, a God who is merciful can at the same time be an avenger, and a reckoner - Wise and Just - all in the same instance.

Thus a muslim does not live in hope alone, for him hope and fear go side-by-side.

In this thread we are debating the limits of God, presuming we may be wiser than Him and His limits on the rules of fornication are somehow not sufficient to keep a check on our social behavior -
So, if your God is merciful and compassionte only, how will He treat the social behaviors of the Ottaman masters towards their unmarried female slaves?


-------------
Wanu nazzilu minal Qurani ma huwa
Shafaa un wa rahmatun lil mo'mineena
wa la yaziduzzalimeena illa khasara.


Posted By: NABA
Date Posted: 05 July 2013 at 9:37am

every believer has to have a fear of Allah because he is the only one to give reward and he is the only one to punish,as in my previous posts I always quote ch 28 v 84-if U do a good deed Allah will reward better than its merit,if U do a bad deed,Allah will either punish equal to its sin or forgive if we repent,this reflects how Allah is merciful,we human can't judge Allah,there is nothing like him(ch 112 v 4),yes I fear because there are so many instances in life that sometimes U are tempted to do wrong acts but these verses of Qur'an will refrain U from doing it,look i believe in today,adultery and fornication is forbidden so it is,if U ask my view is fornication is right if Qur'an was not revealed,the best answer is that Allah had sent many revelations before Qur'an by name 4 R mentioned in Qur'an taura,zabur,ingil,quran itself before Qur'an might b people follow that book which may forbid fornication,that's y i say y U look into history,talk about today in countries like UK,USA,fornication and adultery is common,most of them R non Muslims,in fact in book of proverbs ch 6 v 32-whoever commits adultery destroy his soul



Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 05 July 2013 at 5:58pm

Originally posted by Nausheen

The God in Islam however is not just merciful and compassionater - Ar Rahman and Ar Raheem.
He is also Al-Hasib and Al Muhsi - which means The Reckoner and Al- Muntaqim - which means the avenger besides so many other attributes, all totaling upto 99. These are on many instances mutually exclusive of each other. ie, a God who is merciful can at the same time be an avenger, and a reckoner - Wise and Just - all in the same instance.

"Mutually exclusive" means He can't be both at the same time.  And the fact is that He can't.  Punishment may make sense if it has the goal of changing future behaviour; but nobody who would torture a person eternally (for any reason whatsoever!) with no hope of future redemption can possibly be described as "merciful".

So, if your God is merciful and compassionte only, how will He treat the social behaviors of the Ottaman masters towards their unmarried female slaves?

I don't have a God; but if you're asking how I think such a God should behave, I would say that He would not allow slavery in the first place.



-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 06 July 2013 at 2:51pm
Originally posted by NABA

...we human can't judge Allah,...
 
If you can't judge Allah, then how can you say that He is good?


-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Experiential
Date Posted: 07 July 2013 at 2:07am

Naushen said

IN december 2012, a girl was raped by 6 men one of them who was a minor, in a moving bus on the roads of Indian Capital. After they finished their job, they inserted rod in her genitals. Took away all her clothes and threw her off a bridge in the cold winter night - ie left her to die. I think it was highly disgusting, and those who did it had no fear of any kind of punishment.

If you do a google search on the event you can find several news items reporting from New Delhi. People in India were demanding a punishment for them as prescribed in the Quran ... they are not muslims, nobody, the victim the rapists or general public at large, but they asked for an islamic punishment.

The point here is that if one does not beleive in a 'disgusting' consequence of their 'disgusting' deeds, they can cross limits on earth - which makes life hell on this very planet. This event was no joke for anyone who has connections with India. I was considering my daughter's higher education in New Delhi, but I am much shaken from inside after this event - do you get a fair amount of impact of this event? If yes, what kind of world are we living in, and what kind of democracy are we voting for?

 
My reply

Yes Naushen I believe in eternal justice. However who was the psychopath that came up with … the sinners new skin will be given to feel the pain each time when they loose layer of skin…

 

 

Naushen said

This means if you believe in nothing but science, then even science is in harmony with the Quran at certain points, so why do you not pay attention to the Quran.

Real scientists pay attention to everything that is found relevant to their observations, and those who have seen their phenomenon mentioned in the Quran have taken the Quran more seriously than the by-standers.

 
My reply

Naba and many Muslims make a big thing of how the Quran is a ‘complete’ book. A ‘miracle’ book and they use science to prove this.

 In doing this they are actually trying to make a much stronger claim that  the Qur'an is predicting modern scientific discoveries as proof for the divine origin of the Qur'an. This  is rubbish because if they are using science to prove the divine origin of the Quran when what they are showing the Quran to be on the same level as science. Not divine!

 

Besides how do you explain the ridiculous scientific mistakes in the Quran – such as –

Sura 27:18-19 records that King Solomon overheard a conversation between ants. This is scientifically impossible as ants use smell, not sound, to communicate and the context of the story indicates that this is not a miracle of Allah.

 

 Sura 18:85-86 reveals that the Sun sets in a muddy pool.

Do you believe the sun sets in a muddy pond?



Posted By: NABA
Date Posted: 07 July 2013 at 8:20am


at Ron how can U judge ur creator????but we Muslim s have full faith that if we do good deeds and ask for forgiveness in sha Allah Allah will enter us in jannah, my meaning of judgement was to do with the verse 4 ch 112 that there is nothing like him, means we can't think Allah in our memory, but we have to have constant faith in him, ch 3 v 160-if Allah is with u none can overcome u if Allah is against u there is who, who can save u let the believers put the trust in Allah.ch 29 v 69-if u strive in way of Allah, Allah will open pathways for u.my meaning was that we cant ascribe adjectives to Allah such as good, bad, wrong, right etc.Alllah can't do wrong nor lie (ch 20 v 52)


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 07 July 2013 at 12:37pm

Originally posted by NABA

at Ron how can U judge ur creator????

How can you NOT judge your creator?  You believe that God exists, that He is the author of the Quran, that He is telling the truth in that book, and that He is worthy of your worship.  How did you make those judgements?  How did you decide to believe the Quran, and not the Book of Mormon or the Bhagavad Gita or the Tao Te Ching?

I judge things according to my conscience and my intellect.  If God exists, and if He created me, then He must have given me those two things.  Therefore those are the only things that I can absolutely rely upon to judge everything else, including alleged holy scriptures.

I don't believe that God exists.  However, if He does, and if He is the author of the Quran, then my intellect tells me that He got quite a few things wrong (e.g. the flatness of the earth); and my conscience tells me that His moral standards are often arbitrary (e.g. fixed prayers) and sometimes cruel (e.g. chopping off hands for minor theft, condemning anyone to eternal torture).  So even if the God described in the Quran existed, my intellect and my conscience tell me that He would not be worthy of worship.



-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: NABA
Date Posted: 07 July 2013 at 11:08pm
I believe in Qur'an because it is logical,U R still sticking to the fact that spread out means flat but the fact is U don't want to except the truth,I also quoted ch 79 v 30 that earth is round,another eg in Surah An Noor ch 24 v 40-Allah describes the mental state of disbeliever to the layers of waves within one another and which gets darker and darker as we progress more deep into the sea,this fact was described by scientists few years back,but Allah mention this 1400 years ago in Qur'an,but it seems U don't want to change ur mind,U took it wrong that Allah had ascribed fix time for prayers,there is nothing mentioned about specific time when to offer prayers but he mentioned which phase of day we have to offer which prayer,regarding punishment of minor theft,this law of shariah is implemented in Saudi Arabia and on record it has the least no of theft cases,so doesn't it sound U logical??,if we implement this law throughout the world in Sha Allah no of theft cases will decrease,ur intellect and ur conscience is the niyamah from Allah,it is because of Allah that we are leading normal lives,u just visit hospital and see the pain of those who cannot lead normal life,yet they thank Allah,even if the whole world doesn't worship him it will not bother Allah,because Allah is way above all needs(ch 35 v 15),it is for our betterment we offer prayers(ch 35 v 9).


Posted By: bronaz
Date Posted: 08 July 2013 at 1:49am
Contrary to what most believe, Faith and reason are not at odds. If I believe that there is a God the next fact is that he must be reasonable. For example if God expects us to fly that would be unreasonable because he hasnt given us wings. He has given us a mind and it is essential that we use it to know and understand God. God cannot be illogical which would be against reason since he created man with a reasoning mind. If something in a holy book contradicts everything that a reasoning mind should believe, that that book cannot be from God. Once again I bring the subject of abrogation in the Quran where a subsequent verse supercedes the previous verse. It is unreasonable for God to CHANGE HIS MIND and offer different verses. what is reasonable and right becomes wrong later, that is not the way God operates, hence the God of the Quran cannot be justified by any means


Posted By: Experiential
Date Posted: 08 July 2013 at 2:48am
Originally posted by NABA

I believe in Qur'an because it is logical,U R still sticking to the fact that spread out means flat but the fact is U don't want to except the truth,I also quoted ch 79 v 30 that earth is round,another eg in Surah An Noor ch 24 v 40-Allah describes the mental state of disbeliever to the layers of waves within one another and which gets darker and darker as we progress more deep into the sea,this fact was described by scientists few years back,but Allah mention this 1400 years ago in Qur'an,but it seems U don't want to change ur mind,U took it wrong that Allah had ascribed fix time for prayers,there is nothing mentioned about specific time when to offer prayers but he mentioned which phase of day we have to offer which prayer,regarding punishment of minor theft,this law of shariah is implemented in Saudi Arabia and on record it has the least no of theft cases,so doesn't it sound U logical??,if we implement this law throughout the world in Sha Allah no of theft cases will decrease,ur intellect and ur conscience is the niyamah from Allah,it is because of Allah that we are leading normal lives,u just visit hospital and see the pain of those who cannot lead normal life,yet they thank Allah,even if the whole world doesn't worship him it will not bother Allah,because Allah is way above all needs(ch 35 v 15),it is for our betterment we offer prayers(ch 35 v 9).

Naba you say - Allah describes the mental state of disbeliever to the layers of waves within one another and which gets darker and darker as we progress more deep into the sea, this fact was described by scientists few years back

 

Again you are relying on science in your argument– proving that science is as important or superior to the Quran.

 

How are these silly statements from the Koran to be explained scientifically?

 

Sura 27:18-19 records that King Solomon overheard a conversation between ants. This is scientifically impossible as ants use smell, not sound, to communicate and the context of the story indicates that this is not a miracle of Allah.

 

Sura 18:85-86 reveals that the Sun sets in a muddy pool.

 

These ‘scientific verses’ from the Quran are silly and ridiculous! You have not answered this. How are these ridiculous statements from the Koran to be explained scientifically?

 

Do you believe the sun sets in a muddy pond? Also ants communicate by smell – not talking !



Posted By: NABA
Date Posted: 09 July 2013 at 10:52pm
Then plz answer me this query in bible book of genesesis ch 1 v 3-5-light was created on first day,in vb14-19-sun and moon was created so how come the source of light was created before light,similarly it is mentioned that earth was created on 3rd day and sun on 4th day,how it is possible if u R a man of science u know that in earth there can't b day and night without rotation of sun and moon moreover sun is a parent body so how earth cum before sun????is this sound scientific to u????regarding the ch 18 v 85-86,U R quoting it incorrectly,the real verse is this when he reached near the setting of the sun (as if) it is setting in mud.where is as if in your post,U c the whole meaning changes,as far as ants are concerned ants use pheromones to smell the food,our when they die these pheromones act as warning alarm for other members of the colony,U R wrong brother,ants produce sounds by stridulation to produce sounds to communicate with other members of the colony,stridulation means producing sound with rubbing of certain parts,this found in insects only.Solomon(pbuh) was given a gift by Allah to understand the language of stridulation among ants,we humans can't understand but this is miracle that Allah give wisdom to Solomon(pbuh).again U say I have taken help of science again I m saying science is nil in front of Qur'an.


Posted By: Experiential
Date Posted: 24 July 2013 at 10:17pm
Originally posted by NABA

Then plz answer me this query in bible book of genesesis ch 1 v 3-5-light was created on first day,in vb14-19-sun and moon was created so how come the source of light was created before light,similarly it is mentioned that earth was created on 3rd day and sun on 4th day,how it is possible if u R a man of science u know that in earth there can't b day and night without rotation of sun and moon moreover sun is a parent body so how earth cum before sun????is this sound scientific to u????regarding the ch 18 v 85-86,U R quoting it incorrectly,the real verse is this when he reached near the setting of the sun (as if) it is setting in mud.where is as if in your post,U c the whole meaning changes,as far as ants are concerned ants use pheromones to smell the food,our when they die these pheromones act as warning alarm for other members of the colony,U R wrong brother,ants produce sounds by stridulation to produce sounds to communicate with other members of the colony,stridulation means producing sound with rubbing of certain parts,this found in insects only.Solomon(pbuh) was given a gift by Allah to understand the language of stridulation among ants,we humans can't understand but this is miracle that Allah give wisdom to Solomon(pbuh).again U say I have taken help of science again I m saying science is nil in front of Qur'an.

Naba, I am not the one trying to use science to prove the Bible or Quran. You are. So this is your problem.

 

Regarding the ch 18 v 85-86 I disagree. If you look at the verse of the sun setting in to a muddy pond it does not say (as if).  It reads as it reads. No as ifs.

 

when he reached the setting place of the sun, he found it setting in a spring of Hami'ah.

 

Communication between ants is through chemical signals, some yes, there are a few types of ant which do use some sound to communication. But of what kind of sound and how  complex is it?

The use of vibration signals is weakly developed in ants in comparison with communication by pheromones.

Stridulation in ants produces a monotonous series of chirps with limited meaning.

The signaling pattern is independent of the triggering stimulus. That is, the ants do not modify the drumming to identify the category of danger to the nest.

Stidulation is  simple unitary signals. In other words, ants do not "talk"

Do you really believe ants think like this about humans?

I have never seen ants run away when I put my foot over them. If they knew they would be crushed if they don't go away quickly why don't they move?

This is more like a fairy tale than science (e.g. an ant being able to distinguish between Solomon and a soldier).

 

If you say science is nil in front of Qur'an then you need to stop trying to use science to prove the Quran is a miracle.



Posted By: NABA
Date Posted: 26 July 2013 at 2:45am
No, I m taking help of quran to prove science is inferior to Quran. I m quoting translation of sahih international of ch 18 v 85-86 which is authentic.Regarding about sounds of ants, we can't understand because Allah gave this unique gift of understanding language of animals to prophet Solomon (pbuh).


Posted By: Experiential
Date Posted: 01 August 2013 at 12:11am
Originally posted by NABA

No, I m taking help of quran to prove science is inferior to Quran. I m quoting translation of sahih international of ch 18 v 85-86 which is authentic.Regarding about sounds of ants, we can't understand because Allah gave this unique gift of understanding language of animals to prophet Solomon (pbuh).

I think you like many other Muslims are trying to use science to show that the Quran is some how a miracle.

 

Translations by  Malik, Pickthall and  Yusaf Ali all say -

when he reached the setting place of the sun, he found it setting in a spring of Hami'ah.

No “as if” !

 

Stidulation are simple signals. In other words, ants do not "talk".

 

Do you speak Arabic. It seems strange that a ‘miracle book’ has to be read and understood only in one language.

 



Posted By: NABA
Date Posted: 03 August 2013 at 7:54am
when humans communicate we say we talk,similarly prophet Solomon(pbuh) was gifted to understand communication between ants moreover I will not argue on that verse because Allah says in ch 3 v 7-yes some verses will have different meanings.Allah in several places say that this book is for those who understand.Allah has granted us wisdom to judge what is logical and what is illogical.


Posted By: Experiential
Date Posted: 15 August 2013 at 7:51pm
Originally posted by NABA

when humans communicate we say we talk,similarly prophet Solomon(pbuh) was gifted to understand communication between ants moreover I will not argue on that verse because Allah says in ch 3 v 7-yes some verses will have different meanings.Allah in several places say that this book is for those who understand.Allah has granted us wisdom to judge what is logical and what is illogical.

So what is the miracle here? That Solomon can understand animals or that ants can talk?

You say the miracle was Solomon understanding animals. I am saying ants do not talk.

Stridulation is nothing but a mechanical act.

 

The fact remains – even if Solomon could understand animals - ants do not talk. They do not say …O ants! Enter your dwellings, lest Sulayman and his armies should crush you, while they perceive not.

Sura 27:18-19

 

This is just ridiculous and an example of how the writer of the Quran did not understand the facts of science.

 

Also it is not mentioned in the Torah or Injil that Solomon could understand animals and the Torah and Injil are much older than the Quran. So why should I believe the Quran?

 

You talk about ch 3 v 7. How convenient. So if you cannot explain something you just quote ch 3 v 7.

So is the Quran the literal reliable word of God then?



Posted By: NABA
Date Posted: 18 August 2013 at 3:04am
Allah has granted us wisdom that's what differentiate us from other creatures and Allah tests us whether we use the wisdom in right way or not,Prophet Solomon(pbuh) was able to understand the talking of ants means he was able to understand their communication,similarly if Allah would have given everything straightforward then what's the meaning of our wisdom??



Print Page | Close Window