Muslims: what is the logic behind these verses in the Qur'an?

[Yi-man]

That's doesn't answer my question. Where in the Bible does it say a believing woman may divorce her believing husband?

 

[Barney2.0]

That's doesn't answer my question. Where in the Bible does it say a believing woman may divorce her believing husband?

If there is adultery involved she may divorce her spouse as the verses say she may do, just as the man may divorce the women if there is adultery involved.

 

[Yi-man]

If there is adultery involved she may divorce her spouse as the verses say she may do, just as the man may divorce the women if there is adultery involved.

Quote the verse from the Bible to prove it.

 

[Barney2.0]

Quote the verse from the Bible to prove it.

1 Corinthians 7:10-11:

The apostle Paul added, “A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife”

Notice the, but if she she does, indicates a wife may separate from her husband.

 

[Yi-man]

So in Christianity, divorce for a woman is punishable by not allowing her to remarry.

 

[Barney2.0]

So in Christianity, divorce for a woman is punishable by not allowing her to remarry.

It goes for men too:

Matthew 19:9:

“I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

 

[smaneck]

Yes, if she divorces her husband for any reason other then martial unfaithfulness she would be committing adultery.

Gee, isn't that what I've been saying and you've been denying all along?

 

[smaneck]

There are many things in Sharia not found in the Quran and since Islam functions as a state with Sharia as it’s law, no law no state, no state no Islam.

First off that's nonsense. There is no place not even Saudi Arabia where Islam functions as a state. Even if one could argue that the Caliphate was that (it wasn't) the Caliphate was destroyed in 1258 AD yet Islam has not only persisted, it has grown.
Secondly, you're changing the subject. The question wasn't whether the shariah could be followed without ahadith and tafsir, it is whether the Qur'an can be understood without those things. The answer is that ahadith can provide some context, but the Qur'an is not incomprehensible.

 

[Barney2.0]

First off that's nonsense. There is no place not even Saudi Arabia where Islam functions as a state. Even if one could argue that the Caliphate was that (it wasn't) the Caliphate was destroyed in 1258 AD yet Islam has not only persisted, it has grown.
Secondly, you're changing the subject. The question wasn't whether the shariah could be followed without ahadith and tafsir, it is whether the Qur'an can be understood without those things. The answer is that ahadith can provide some context, but the Qur'an is not incomprehensible.

Isis controlled territory is where Islam functions as a state, Saudi is also nearly an Islamic state, can you tell me if I can pray intercessory prayers to saints based on Quran only.

 

[Yi-man]

If there is adultery involved she may divorce her spouse as the verses say she may do, just as the man may divorce the women if there is adultery involved.

Right so only if the partner has been unfaithful and then none of them can remarry. Sounds lovely :/

 

[smaneck]

delete

 

[smaneck]

ISIS is not Islam. And your question is irrelevant to whether one can understand the Qur'an. Shi'is and Sufis pray at saint shrines and imam-zadehs. What the Saudis and other Neo-Kharijites don't like is their problem.

 

[Yi-man]

Isis controlled territory is where Islam functions as a state, Saudi is also nearly an Islamic state, can you tell me if I can pray intercessory prayers to saints based on Quran only.

Neither of those examples indicate a true Islamic State. Isis are not even recognised by 99.9999% of the Ulemah as being legitimate and the Saudi Royals would never allow a Khalifa chosen by the people, without which, you can not even begin to establish a proper Islamic State as per Qur'an and Sunnah.

 

[Barney2.0]

Neither of those examples indicate a true Islamic State. Isis are not even recognised by 99.9999% of the Ulemah as being legitimate and the Saudi Royals would never allow a Khalifa chosen by the people, without which, you can not even begin to establish a proper Islamic State as per Qur'an and Sunnah.

All law here is done by Sharia, many Ulema support Isis, the issue is not about what they do or who they are, but because they declared a Khalifa when they had no right to. Them being a monarchy doesn’t necessarily mean they aren’t a good Islamic state. The Ayyubid dynasty was also a monarch it doesn’t mean it wasn’t an Islamic state.

 

[Barney2.0]

Find me something different did from what the Rasidun did. Sufis pray at shrines Salafis don’t allow prayer at shrines, how do I find the correct basis based on a Quranist and Quran only approach.

 

[Barney2.0]

Gee, isn't that what I've been saying and you've been denying all along?

Read my posts in context.

 

[Barney2.0]

Right so only if the partner has been unfaithful and then none of them can remarry. Sounds lovely :/

What does the Bible say about divorce and remarriage?

 

[Yi-man]

What does the Bible say about divorce and remarriage?

Forget trying to reinterpret things through a 21st Century lens. To understand how a religion views certain issues, one has to go back in time and read what the earliest Scholars had to say on the matter...

https://bible.org/seriespage/18-divorce-teachings-early-church

They are not to remarry or face God's wrath, so the majority put up with abusive partners till death did them apart. Secularism has freed Christian women as previously, (within last 100 years) they had little to no rights in areas of divorce, inheritance and ability to cast a free vote.

 

[Barney2.0]

Forget trying to reinterpret things through a 21st Century lens. To understand how a religion views certain issues, one has to go back in time and read what the earliest Scholars had to say on the matter...

https://bible.org/seriespage/18-divorce-teachings-early-church

They are not to remarry or face God's wrath, so the majority put up with abusive partners till death did them apart. Secularism has freed Christian women as previously, (within last 100 years) they had little to no rights in areas of divorce, inheritance and ability to cast a free vote.

If you actually read what you post and what I post (which you don’t), you’d see there is no contradiction to what the Bible says, the Church Father’s said, or what the article says, Secularism has so far done many things including many immoral things. This coming from a Muslim is also very hilarious, since you women can’t even leave the house without a Mahram and your talking about freeing women?

The controversy over whether divorce and remarriage is allowed according to the Bible revolves primarily around Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. The phrase “except for marital unfaithfulness” is the only thing in Scripture that possibly gives God’s permission for divorce and remarriage. Many interpreters understand this “exception clause” as referring to “marital unfaithfulness” during the “betrothal” period. In Jewish custom, a man and a woman were considered married even while they were still engaged or “betrothed.” According to this view, immorality during this “betrothal” period would then be the only valid reason for a divorce.

However, the Greek word translated “marital unfaithfulness” is a word which can mean any form of sexual immorality. It can mean fornication, prostitution, adultery, etc. Jesus is possibly saying that divorce is permissible if sexual immorality is committed. Sexual relations are an integral part of the marital bond: “the two will become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5; Ephesians 5:31). Therefore, any breaking of that bond by sexual relations outside of marriage might be a permissible reason for divorce. If so, Jesus also has remarriage in mind in this passage. The phrase “and marries another” (Matthew 19:9) indicates that divorce and remarriage are allowed in an instance of the exception clause, whatever it is interpreted to be. It is important to note that only the innocent party is allowed to remarry. Although not stated in the text, it would seem the allowance for remarriage after divorce is God’s mercy for the one who was sinned against, not for the one who committed the sexual immorality. There may be instances where the “guilty party” is allowed to remarry, but they are not evident in this text.

Some understand 1 Corinthians 7:15 as another “exception,” allowing remarriage if an unbelieving spouse divorces a believer. However, the context does not mention remarriage but only says a believer is not bound to continue a marriage if an unbelieving spouse wants to leave. Others claim that abuse (spousal or child) is a valid reason for divorce even though it is not listed as such in the Bible. While this may very well be the case, it is never wise to presume upon the Word of God.

Sometimes lost in the debate over the exception clause is the fact that, whatever “marital unfaithfulness” means, it is an allowance for divorce, not a requirement for it. Even when adultery is committed, a couple can, through God’s grace, learn to forgive and begin rebuilding their marriage. God has forgiven us of so much more. Surely we can follow His example and even forgive the sin of adultery (Ephesians 4:32). However, in many instances a spouse is unrepentant and continues in sexual immorality. That is where Matthew 19:9 can possibly be applied. Many also look to quickly remarry after a divorce when God might desire them to remain single. God sometimes calls people to be single so that their attention is not divided (1 Corinthians 7:32–35). Remarriage after a divorce may be an option in some circumstances, but that does not mean it is the only option.

 

[Robban]

The art of tying knots is they should be easy to undo, they are temporary.

To splice two parts together is to interweave the strands, they become one.

Likewise when two halfsouls join together they become one.

In most cases people do not know who they are marrying, they only think they do.

Something like when Jakob wed the "wrong"
sister.

But with time and effort they may learn to love each other.

Look at wedding photos from hundred years ago, no one was smiling.
Today if no one is smiling something is wrong.