Aksel Ankersen wrote:Cassie wrote:Parvez,
Why are you hung up on the English word, "yet"? It's a red herring you're employing. Translation is not necessarily word for word since Arabic and English words are not 100% equivalent. Read 2-236 - where lam is used to convey the meaning 'never before.' The same can be argued for 3-170. lam here means "never before".
Did the Muslim 'touch' his wife before in 2-236? Has he ever touched his wife? If you were honest you'd answer that.
The same can be said for Sura an-Nur verse 13:
لولا جاؤوا عليه باربعة شهداء فاذ لم ياتوا بالشهداء فاولئك عند الله هم الكاذبون
لولا = “if only”
جاؤوا = “come”
عليه = “thereon”
باربعة = “four”
شهداء = “witnesses”
~~~~ “Why did they not bring four witnesses?”~~~~
فاذ = “so then”
لم = *negation of the past tense*
ياتوا = “they bring”
بال = prefix meaning “in the”
شهداء = “witnesses”
فاولئك = “so those”
عند = “with”
الله = “Allah”
هم = “they (are)”
الكاذبون = “liars”
~~~~ “Since they did not bring forth witnesses, those (accusers) are liars in the sight of Allah” ~~~~
Sura an-Nur ayahs 11-17 are a recount of the slander of Aysha by `Abdullah bin Ubayy bin Salul and co. (click here for relevant hadith).
The accusers are liars because they did not bring forth four witnesses. Lam must equal negation in the past tense as anything else would not make sense here.
Note that we don't need a word like "yet" to understand that the accusers never brought proof.
Neither do we need a particle such as "yet" to understand that those (wives) who haven't had courses are prepubescent.
The same mistake you commited before you fool, you forgot the word IZ which is a negation of a future event of not bringing 4 witnesses, and as you can see you ignornat that Lam is used in a future event to negate denial to the present action at such future event
Fa Iz Lam Ya'atu
back to the mental section of the CCCLD, you criminal
