Talk:Houri

40:54?

I am unsure why 40:54 is cited as a reference in this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.160.47 (talk) 00:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed. Not related to the meaning.(Studentoftruth (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC))

Sources

I have looked in two different translations of the meanings of Jami' at-Tirmidhi, but I could not find the Tirmidhi hadith, and I have similarly looked for the Ibn Kathir hadith, but I could not find it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.160.47 (talk) 21:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Disputes

Cunado, talk here. You are making very irrational changes and propositions to the article. You are suggesting that hours are angels. That is non-sense because since you never brought any proofs to support this fallacious claim, you are very bumptious. You make comments against Islam in your discussion as calling them as, and I quote from one of your posting, "not some make-believe creature that you're describing, and not virgin sex slaves in heaven. The Islamic corruption of this concept". If your aim is to defame Islam by this article. Go on...I am not willing to interrupt your attemps because at the end of the day they are destined to failure. How can absurdities and lies from your part be accepted? We either need a neutral mediator to judge with the evidence provided, otherwise this article of wikipedia will become a joke and no one is gonna will to read your lies and I will label as such! Have a good one!

Arrow740,

Stop VANDALIZING entire cited sources, primary sources. You seem to be very irrational. Go read a little bit more from the published sources. Go read the original Arabic, you are being bumptious.

(Studentoftruth 02:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC))

Etymology

According to classical Arabic usage in the time when the Qur'an was revealed:

Hur'in is made of two words Hur and 'In. The word 'Hur' is the plural of both Ahwar (Masculine) and Hawra (Feminine) which literally translates into persons distinguished by Hawar signifying "intense whiteness of the eyeballs and lustrous black of the pupils." (ref: Qamus), hence 'the purity' (ref: Tafsir al'Tabari, and Tafsir al-Razi in 3:52). And as for the word 'In it is the plural of both 'A yan' (Masculine) and 'Ainao' (Feminine) (ref: Al-Raghib Al-Mufradat, Beirut, l998,Kitab 'Ain,P.358). It was basically used to refer to the beautiful eyes of the wild-cow whose eyes are blond. In general, this word implies 'most beautiful eye' irrespective of the person's gender. Thus, the most appropriate English endering of the compound word Hur'In will be: "Companions pure, most beautiful of eye." (ref: Muhammad Asad, Message of the Quran in 56:22[4]); and it is applicable to both male and female [5]

Stop vandalizing the etymology. Go look up in the dictionary the definition!!!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Studentoftruth (talk • contribs) 22:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

So how does that explain the almost always companioned reference to virginity. Seeing as a males virginity was not an issue, expecially in the time of the revelation. It is also shown that when a male companion is mentioned, they are referred to as such. There is no ambiguity.

The issue of ambiguity in a plural form (of nouns and articles referring to both/either male and female) is true in many modern languages as well. It's use, as such, does NOT preclude that a group consists of both sexes - the relative descriptions of the Hur/Houri in the Qur'an point inexorably toward females.

Another point is to take into account that during those times it would have been highly unlikely for preachers to be talking to women/wives/etc about this... The Qur'an was intended for a male audience (ref: countless references to your wife/wives and children... not many "your husband's" floating around.

Relax.

tactik 15:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Cannot you not read the verses below:

وَالْمُؤْمِنُونَ وَالْمُؤْمِنَاتُ بَعْضُهُمْ أَوْلِيَاء بَعْضٍ يَأْمُرُونَ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَيَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ الْمُنكَرِ وَيُقِيمُونَ الصَّلاَةَ وَيُؤْتُونَ الزَّكَاةَ وَيُطِيعُونَ اللّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ أُوْلَـئِكَ سَيَرْحَمُهُمُ اللّهُ إِنَّ اللّهَ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ ( سورة التوبة (At-Taubah, Chapter 9, Verse 71)

The Believers, men and women, are protectors one of another: they enjoin what is just, and forbid what is evil: they observe regular prayers, practise regular charity, and obey Allah and His Messenger. On them will Allah pour His mercy: for Allah is Exalted in power, Wise. ( سورة التوبة , At-Taubah, Chapter 9, Verse 71)

Which says explicitly clearing the ambiguity that the Qur'an is addressing only to males: Waalmuminoona (male believers) waalmuminatu (female believers). It is true that a general group is referred as in masculine and does not neccessarily eleminate the feminine gender even in Arabic. But these verses are revealed to clear even the slightest doubt like the one you suggested. It is a fikh (understanding) issue, then one of the women asked the prophet why the Qur'an was only addressing to males, and then to clear this ambiguity God revealed them explicitly and confirming once and for all that the Qur'an is for everyone, not just males.

You are not correct in your opinion: the audience is tended even for females. There are many references to this. The most authentic of which is Sahih Bukhari:

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: Some women requested the Prophet to fix a day for them as the men were taking all his time. On that he promised them one day for religious lessons and commandments. Once during such a lesson the Prophet said, "A woman whose three children die will be shielded by them from the Hell fire." On that a woman asked, "If only two die?" He replied, "Even two (will shield her from the Hell-fire)." (Sahih Bukhari, Book Knowledge (3), Hadith 101)

As regard to purity:

الْخَبِيثَاتُ لِلْخَبِيثِينَ وَالْخَبِيثُونَ لِلْخَبِيثَاتِ وَالطَّيِّبَاتُ لِلطَّيِّبِينَ وَالطَّيِّبُونَ لِلطَّيِّبَاتِ أُوْلَئِكَ مُبَرَّؤُونَ مِمَّا يَقُولُونَ لَهُم مَّغْفِرَةٌ وَرِزْقٌ كَرِيمٌ (An-Noor, Chapter 24, Verse 26)

women impure are for men impure, and men impure for women impure and women of purity are for men of purity, and men of purity are for women of purity: these are not affected by what people say: for them there is forgiveness, and a provision honourable. ( سورة النور , An-Noor, Chapter 24, Verse 26)

Note that it explicitly names both genders by doing the pluaral of both masculine and feminine forms. It is the true purpose of the verses to clear ambiguity because in classical Arabic, both genders can be referred in masculine. It is a matter in which there is no doubt.

How you reached your conclusions is really strange to me. I have provided you with clear evidence, where the Prophet himself was preaching to women and you talk about what you call preachers (you might base that on some bad examples, but they are not the criterion in this matter). You need to relax and start reading a little bit more from the authentic sources and be a little open-minded.

Studentoftruth

If its both genders, why does the Tafsir say they will have big breasts that are not sagging? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Matt57,

Do I have to go in details that what a scholar like Ibn Kathir says, does not make it 100% the truth? A scholar can also make an honest mistakes and when he does he gets one reward, when he gets it right, he gets two rewards. It is through ijtihad (hard-working) that scholars reach a conclusion. I am quoting you the original text, which is Arabic and the words as I quoted above and you, you quote me Tafsir of Ibn Kathir, if the truth was only accumulated in Ibn Kathir, and everyone else has nothing left:

Ibn Kathir says:

Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid and others have said,

[كَواعِبَ]

(Kawa`ib) "This means round breasts. They meant by this that the breasts of these girls will be fully rounded and not sagging, because they will be virgins, equal in age. This means that they will only have one age. "

Ibn Kathir just mentions how some understood the verse. And the very point was to say that it means they are virgins, youthful , grown up and not old ladies as when they died (sagging). But instead on looking at the big picture, you look at only the part you want to look at. What do you make of the word root "ka'b",(see under "Qur'an", the explanation of the root word) throw it in the trash?

There are many explanations in Ibn Kathir that scholars do not necessarily accept. One is the Hijab, Ibn Kathir explains that they should cover erything even the face. Leading scholars as Ibn Muflih, Albani, Ibn Hajr and Mughini do reject this. There are issues that you cannot read only one and follow him blidly. Issues like these, there are loads. But at least, all scholars agree that blind-following is rejected in this religion. Now if you know arabic, the word does not have a bad connotation as it does have different meanings, but in English you restrict it to a very biased word, at which none has been mentioned in the original.

(Studentoftruth 00:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC))

Where do you get a 3ayn that you put into the "etymology" cited above? "Hur'in is made of two words Hur and 'In." You cannot just change hurin to hur3in and pretend noone notices. --80.250.159.240 (talk) 20:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Women

I think that the fact that Houris are not so interesting to devout Muslim women is cited as an example of sexism in Islam. What reward will receive devout Muslim women, otherwise? -- Error 01:11, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This question is answered by a scholar at this website: http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=608&dgn=4

OK. If you feel said website provides an accurate answer could you add a brief condensed version to the wikipedia article?

I am curious about islam but relatively ignorant so I don't feel comfortable judging the validity of said website or paraphrasing it. Funkyj 20:14, 2005 August 5 (UTC)

The web-site quoted does not answer the question. Using the most tortuous expression available it says, in effect "Everyone will be suitably rewarded". Avalon 20:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Pretty typical religious 'explanation', really. The answer isn't much different from that which a liberal Christian scholar would give to a person who asked whether practising homosexuals go to Heaven or Hell; he'd quote 'Love thy neighbour' and associated quotes a lot and never actually answer the question. I'm not a Muslim scholar but I always assumed that houris were just a specific example of the belief that in Heaven (Christian or Muslim) you get whatever you like. So men get lots of virgin women to have sex with, and, while the Prophet didn't get around to explaning it, women presumably get lots of metrosexual men that will watch romcoms without complaining and feed them chocolate :-) --Last Malthusian 12:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I've looke into it a bit more, and the Muslim scholars explain that women will get what they want (so if they want men, they will get them). The reason it isn't mentioned directly they explain, is because everyone (or at least men) know what is meant when men are promised beautiful ladies in Paradise. However, to mention the equivalent for women directly, wouldn't translate to well. It simply isn't appropriate. Instead, it is hinted, for instance, in this verse: 'Therein you shall have (all) that your inner‑selves desire[41:31-32]'Note this is their explanation. Source: http://www.watchislam.com/videos/video.php?vid=73 and http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=60188&dgn=4 Quote: One of the best things that people long for in the Hereafter is, for men, the women of Paradise, namely al-hoor al-‘iyn, and for women there is an equivalent delight. By His great wisdom, Allaah has not mentioned what the women will have as the equivalent of al-hoor al-‘iyn for men, and that is due to modesty and shyness. How can He encourage them to seek Paradise by mentioning something that they are too shy and modest to mention or speak about themselves? So He has simply hinted at it...

---

The scholar above or whosoever has failed to comment about the hadiths, nor has he mentioned which hadiths are classified sahih and which are not. Most of the absurdities relie on the point that people think that some hadiths are sahih (correct) while in fact are daif (weak, unreliable).

The scholar has also failed to relate the hadiths that imply that the hoor are earthly women recreated in paradise. He has also failed to look at what the sahaba (companions) and tabeen (followers of the companions) have said while explaining these words. Not just that, but the article contradicts the sayings of the scholars of hadiths, that they are just earthly women.

One point that can be argued against is that why so "many". If God really intended many wives for one man, why did he not intend many husbands for a woman too? You can say that in earth, this is not practical, but why not in paradise? If paradise is whatever you wish... (you can argue that some wishes are natural (good) and some wishes are not natural (bad), clarifying this would clear the doubts about what wishes are the wishes of paradise, but this is another subject).

It is very contradictory to claim unfounded things just based on your opinion alone.

One very important point is that if it was as such, why did not God create many Eve-s even for the first human being, Adam? He was in paradise, wasn't he? Creating 2, 3, 4 Eve-s or even a 1000 would have been very easy for God, just like that. But God says in the Qur'an that he created them in 'fitrah' (natural way). So it reasonable enough to take this as a proof and conclude that God created the woman and the man inclined towards one mate, be they in paradise or earth.

The Qur'an does not state any difference between the hoor and earthly woman, the sahih (correct) hadiths state no difference. There is a hasan hadith of Tirmidhi that claims they are the same thing. The great Sahaba Abu Ubayda, and Hasan Al-Basri claim they are the same thing as related by Ibn Kathir and Tabari in ther tafsirs. Ibn Hajr and Nawawi relate the same opinion from reliable sources commenting on Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim.

The scholar has failed to go by the classical methodology of the people of knowledge that first they put forth the hadiths and those that are correct, rejecting the daif, thus building the foundation through the opinion of the prophet. Second he had to consult the literature in finding what the Sahabas and Tabeen say about such issues. Then thirdly put forth the opinions of the scholars. And if there is any room left explain some of what he thinks, just his opinion. But at the end, everyone's opinion may be rejected except for the Prophet's, he was the only infallible person in matters of religion. So to sum it up whatever the scholar says, it must make logical sense and should be in harmony with the appropriate qualified people that preceeded him in that matter or he must explain why he thinks they did not get it right and back it up. Doing otherwise will result in unsatisfactory response, creating logical mistakes and bad analogies (qiyas), while even in the case of the a good qiyas (analogy), the text always deletes the analogy.

A Muslim Reply

This article may be helpful, and there is NO copyright on this article as it states itself in the purpose: ______________________________________________________________________________________________

"The Marriage of a Muslim Woman in this World and Hereafter"

By Ibn Hawwa (the Son of Eve)

Purpose

The purpose of writing this essay is to modestly clear a few misconceptions concerning the woman in Islam, especially those issues concerning marriage. Nevertheless, the ultimate purpose is to please God hoping his acceptance of such effort. Therefore anyone who can copy or distribute this article is more than welcome to do so. God says in the Qur’an:

“If you help Allah, He will help you” [Qur’an, Surah Muhammad (47):7]

In order to achieve this goal, a certain path should be followed. If the path chosen is straight, it will be easier and take less time to arrive at the desired objective since there would be no obstacle on the way. However, if the path chosen is crooked then it would be harder and take longer to arrive at the destination, or someone could get lost depending on the severity of its crookedness.

The following methodology will be used and every proof will be derived in the same sequence regarding their level of importance:

1. Qur’an

2. Hadith

3. Sahaba

4. Tab’een

5. Scholars

[click on the link "continue" to read on]

______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________

The Qur'an states the reward for devout women will be as great as for men. Islam teaches that paradise holds great reward for the righteous, including granting their every wish. Mankind can only speculate upon the wonders of paradise as they are far more magnificent than anything that exists in the material world. Nor can any man assume that their desires will not change upon entering the perfect peace of paradise. Furthermore, Islam teaches that the wicked are barred entry into paradise so their is no possibility of paradise providing for immoral desires.

For example, if any man entered paradise -where every wish is granted- seeking gold he would quickly realize his earthly wish was both petty and silly. But no one amongst us can say with certaintly that his wish would be denied, for this is something only Allah knows. The only thing that muslims do know is that all who enter heaven will have their every wish granted. But one has to question this example from the beginning: is a man seeking gold typical of those allowed into paradise?

Any attempt to get specific details about the rewards of paradise fails to understand the pretext in which the reward is given. The righteous will be rewarded with all they desire. It is a simple concept to understand.

Looking for ways to show how Islamic paradise allows debauchery -a common attempt by those seeking to criticize Islam- fails to comprehend the pretext: paradise is only for the Righteous. Those who commit debauchery are not righteous -and Allah will know who is righteous and who isn't.

Those who seek to criticize Islam will pretend to not understand this. They will want to know more lurid details about houris. Only the honest seekers of truth will understand. --Ayman 09:25, 5 December 2005

So what is it then? Do women who murder innocent people get to have sex with 72 men? Are they 'pure' men? If it's not that, then can someone give a more concrete example for the article? CoolGuy 04:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

POV, I have tried to give the correct view of what muslims like me see it with enough evidences. He keeps deleting it and keeps views of some nonsense that has nothing to do with Islam or some hadiths that have no calssifications. You go as far as to even delete the verse from the Qur'an Surah Al-Waqia (56), Verse 22 (???)...why then don't you delete the others too...I try to quote companions and followers of Muhammad from 1st and 2nd generations like Abu Ubayda, Al-Hasan Al-Basri and scholars like Ibn kathir, Muhammad Asad, Nawawi, Ibn Hajar Al'Asqalani etc...hadiths from Sahih Bukhari and expressions in the Arabic Language...He keeps deleting it? What is POV, maybe some tales from strange ideas that make no sense with some correct views...is it a soup of falsehood and truth? Do you put some salt and sugar in it too? Maybe then it will taste like POV. Is there anyone in here in supporting that these views should be added as they are more significant that all that you have so far posted? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.39.61.65 (talk • contribs) ..

You should spend some time familriazing yourself with Wikipedia policy, including Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, not to mention Wikipedia:Reliable sources. -- Jeff3000 21:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay what about the verses? What do all those have to do with the verses? Very unprofessional.

Quran

Arrow740,

If you can read Arabic read the ORIGINAL, and STOP VANDALIZING the whole article for a minor thing.

وَكَوَاعِبَ أَتْرَاباً (Qur'an 78:33)

WakawaAAiba atraban(Qur'an 78:33)

Now I want to see any arabic word if you can produce any as "breast" or "big", if you know any arabic at all. You are alluring at "kawaib" which does not mean but as defined below by Muhamad Asad. Atrab is part of the verse too. Why did you delete it? Atrab means equal in age, well-matched.

For the above rendering of atrab, see surah 56, note 15. As regards my rendering of kawa’ib as "splendid companions", it is to be remembered that the term ka'b -from which the participle ka’ib is derived - has many meanings, and that one of these meanings is "prominence", "eminence" or "glory" (Lisan al-Arab); thus, the verb ka'ba, when applied to a person, signifies "he made [another person] prominent", "glorious" or "splendid" (ibid.) Based on this tropical meaning of both the verb ka'ba and the noun ka'b, the participle ka'ib has often been used, in popular parlance, to denote "a girl whose breasts are becoming prominent" or "are budding" hence, many commentators see in it an allusion to some sort of youthful "female companions' who would entertain the (presumably male) inmates of paradise. But quite apart from the fact that all Qur'anic allegories of the joys of paradise invariably apply to men and women alike, this interpretation of kawa’ib overlooks the purely derivative origin of the above popular usage - which is based on the tropical connotation of "prominence" inherent in the noun ka'b - and substitutes for this obvious tropism the literal meaning of something that is physically prominent: and this, in my opinion, is utterly unjustified. If we bear in mind that the Qur'anic descriptions of the blessings of paradise are always allegorical, we realize that in the above context the term kawa’ib can have no other meaning than "glorious [or "splendid"] beings", without any definition of sex; and that, in combination with the term atrab, it denotes, "splendid companions well matched" - thus alluding to the relations of the blest with one another, and stressing the absolute mutual compatibility and equal dignity of all of them. See also note 13 on 56:34.

(Studentoftruth 23:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC))

Even though parts of Qur'an talk to the male figure there is a clear message that includes both humans. Not to mention in Arabic when a group involves both males and females then they are usually referred as male gender not excluding the females.

For example:

The Believers, men and women, are protectors one of another: they enjoin what is just, and forbid what is evil: they observe regular prayers, practise regular charity, and obey Allah and His Messenger. On them will Allah pour His mercy: for Allah is Exalted in power, Wise. ( سورة التوبة , At-Taubah, Chapter 9, Verse 71)

Allah hath promised to Believers, men and women, gardens under which rivers flow, to dwell therein, and beautiful mansions in gardens of everlasting bliss. But the greatest bliss is the good pleasure of Allah. that is the supreme felicity. ( سورة التوبة , At-Taubah, Chapter 9, Verse 72)

women impure are for men impure, and men impure for women impure and women of purity are for men of purity, and men of purity are for women of purity: these are not affected by what people say: for them there is forgiveness, and a provision honourable. ( سورة النور , An-Noor, Chapter 24, Verse 26)

For Muslim men and women,- for believing men and women, for devout men and women, for true men and women, for men and women who are patient and constant, for men and women who humble themselves, for men and women who give in Charity, for men and women who fast (and deny themselves), for men and women who guard their chastity, and for men and women who engage much in Allah.s praise,- for them has Allah prepared forgiveness and great reward. ( سورة الأحزاب , Al-Ahzab, Chapter 33, Verse 35)

and so on, verses are numerous. Unless you have evidence that exemptions are made based on gender, the general principle is that is refers to both genders even though it is addressing the man.

The point of the matter as you said is: Are only the females going to be ressurected as virgins as the Qur'an says? The clear answer is NO!!! Males will be resurrected as virgins too. Recreation is for both. Unless you have evidence to suggest males are not going to be virgins and pure when resurrected, you are relying on mere allusion.

Read the following hadith:

Narrated 'Aisha: Allah's Apostle said, "The people will be gathered barefooted, naked, and uncircumcised." I said, "O Allah's Apostle! Will the men and the women look at each other?" He said, "The situation will be too hard for them to pay attention to that." (Sahih Bukhari, Book 76, Hadith 34)

What is "uncircumcised" referring to? To males ONLY. But then how does the question go "Will the men and the women look at each other?" So even though it talks about the qualities of a gruop of people in this case males (uncircumcised, virgins) it means even the women which by the way don't get circumcised as the males do. Your explanation is rather weak and contradicts basic principles of explaining the Qur'an.

What kind of mindset would delete the Qur'anic citations yet keep the Hadith? Let's keep a sense of priority here. Qur'an = primary source. Hadith = more or less dubious commentary, with different hadith accepted by different groups. Alberuni's quote is clearly relevant. - Mustafaa 01:48, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The POV smear campaign is laughable. Replacing text from the Qur'an with a feverish interpretation about the sexual meaning of "wide-eyes" by a demented Islamophobe! You can't buy this kind of entertainment. --Alberuni 02:18, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I thought you might find this article beneficial. The article has references. In Islam there is no copyright for knowledge. Then how do you know this is not the article I put together? It is more like a research paper with evidences quoting from the given references:

HOOR = EARTHLY BELIEVING WOMAN RECREATED VIRGIN IN PARADISE

Evidences:

1. Hasan Hadith of Tirmidhi

An old woman came to the Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam) and said: “O Messenger of Allah, pray to Allah (subhanahu wa ta`ala) that I will enter Paradise.” He said jokingly, “O Mother of So-and-so, no old women will enter Paradise.” The old woman went away crying, so the Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam) said, “Tell her that she will not enter Paradise as an old woman, for Allah (subhanahu wa ta`ala) says: (We have created [their Companions] of special creation, and made them virgin-pure [and undefiled]) (Qur’an 56:35-36).” (Reported by al-Tirmidhi, it is hasan because of the existence of corroborating reports.)

2. Tafsir Ibn Kathir in the saying of Abu Ubayda Qur’an, Surah Al-Waqia(56):35 “””[إِنَّآ أَنشَأْنَـهُنَّ إِنشَآءً - فَجَعَلْنَـهُنَّ أَبْكَـراً - عُرُباً أَتْرَاباً - لاًّصْحَـبِ الْيَمِينِ ] (Verily, We have created them a special creation. And made them virgins.`Urub, Atrab. For those on the right.) The Ayat describe the women who will be on the beds and couches, but since mentioning the beds hints to them, they were not directly mentioned. For instance, Allah said that Sulayman said, [إِذْ عُرِضَ عَلَيْهِ بِالْعَشِىِّ الصَّـفِنَـتُ الْجِيَادُ - فَقَالَ إِنِّى أَحْبَبْتُ حُبَّ الْخَيْرِ عَن ذِكْرِ رَبِى حَتَّى تَوَارَتْ بِالْحِجَابِ ] (When there were displayed before him, in the afternoon, well-trained horses of the highest breed. He said, “I did love the good instead of remembering my Lord,’’ till the time was over, and it had hidden in the veil (of night).) (38:31-32), “it’’ (Tawarat) refers to the sun setting, according to the scholars of Tafsir. Al-Akhfash said that Ayah, [إِنَّآ أَنشَأْنَـهُنَّ] (Verily, We have created them), implied the maidens of Paradise although it did not mention them directly. Abu `Ubaydah said that they were mentioned before in Allah’s statement, [وَحُورٌ عِينٌ - كَأَمْثَـلِ اللُّؤْلُؤِ الْمَكْنُونِ ] (And Hur (fair females) with wide lovely eyes. Like preserved pearls.) Therefore, Allah’s statement, [إِنَّآ أَنشَأْنَـهُنَّ] (Verily, We have created them), meaning, in the other life, after they became old in this life, they were brought back while virgin, youthful, being delightfully passionate with their husbands, beautiful, kind and cheerful. “””

3. Tafsir of Muhammad Asad in the saying of Al-Hasan Al-Basri

Surah Waqia (56) (22) And [with them will be their] companions pure, most beautiful of eye, [The noun hur - rendered by me as “companions pure” - is a plural of both ahwar (masc.) and hawra (fem.), either of which describes “a person distinguished by hawar”, which latter term primarily denotes “intense whiteness of the eyeballs and lustrous black of the iris” (Qamus). In a more general sense, hawar signifies simply “whiteness” (Asas) or, as a moral qualification, “purity” (cf. Tabari, Razi and Ibn Kathir in their explanations of the term hawariyyun in 3: 52). Hence, the compound expression hurin signifies, approximately, “pure beings [or, more specifically, “companions pure”], most beautiful of eye” (which latter is the meaning of in, the plural of ayan). In his comments on the identical expression in 52: 20, Razi observes that inasmuch as a person’s eye reflects his soul more clearly than any other part of the human body, in may be understood as “rich of soul” or “soulful”. As regards the term hur in its more current, feminine connotation, quite a number of the earliest Quran-commentators - among them Al-Hasan al-Basri - understood it as signifying no more and no less than “the righteous among the women of the human kind” (Tabari) - “[even] those toothless old women of yours whom God will resurrect as new beings” (Al-Hasan, as quoted by Razi in his comments on 44: 54). See in this connection also note on 38: 52.]

4. “Imam Muslim recorded that Muhammad bin Sirin said, ‘Some people either boasted or just wondered who are more in Paradise,men or women. Abu Hurayrah said, `Has not Abu Al-Qasim (Muhammad) said,…” “In his explanation on Sahih Muslim, Imam an-Nawawi said that the scholar, al-Qhadhi `Iyadh, said that, the apparent meaning for this Hadeeth indicates that women will be the majority of the People of Paradise, while another Hadeeth states that they will be the majority of the People of the Fire. Thus, al-Qhadhi continued, this collectively indicates that women comprise the majority of the Children of Adam. Al-Qhadhi continued by saying that, all this pertains to female Children of Adam, because there are Texts stating that one, among the People of Paradise, will have numerous Hurs [as wives].”

5. Imam Muslim (4495) reported that Jabir Ibn Abdullah narrated that the Prophet of Allah, peace be upon him, said,

“I was shown Paradise and I saw the wife of Abu Tal`hah (Umm Sulaim).”

6. Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalanai

Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalanai explained this Hadeeth, by saying, pertains to women of this life…Abu Hurairah relied on this Hadeeth for evidence that in Paradise, women [i.e., from among Children of Adam] are more numerous than men. This Hadeeth was collected [by Muslim (5062)]

7. Salahuddin Yusuf commentary on Nawawi, Riyadhus Salihin, Chapter 372

“The narration, which claims that everyone would have seventy-two wives has a weak chain of narrators”

8. Dual Case Extension

In Arabic the word can be found in singular and plural form. The plural form has two categories:

1. Plural of duality

2. Plural of three or more

In Sahih Bukhari we find the following hadiths:

Chapter 54: Beginning of Creation

Hadith nr 4.468 (3026) Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Apostle said, “The first group (of people) who will enter Paradise will be (glittering) like the moon when it is full. They will not spit or blow their noses or relieve nature. Their utensils will be of gold and their combs of gold and silver; in their centers the aloe wood will be used, and their sweat will smell like musk. Everyone of them will have two wives (zawjatani – dual form); the marrow of the bones of the wives’ legs will be seen through the flesh out of excessive beauty. They ( i.e. the people of Paradise) will neither have differences nor hatred amongst themselves; their hearts will be as if one heart and they will be glorifying Allah in the morning and in the evening.”

Hadith nr 4.469 (3027) Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Apostle said, “The first batch (of people) who will enter Paradise will be (glittering) like a full moon; and those who will enter next will be (glittering) like the brightest star. Their hearts will be as if the heart of a single man, for they will have no enmity amongst themselves, and everyone of them shall have two wives (zawjatani – dual form), each of whom will be so beautiful, pure and transparent that the marrow of the bones of their legs will be seen through the flesh. They will be glorifying Allah in the morning and evening, and will never fall ill, and they will neither blow their noses, nor spit. Their utensils will be of gold and silver, and their combs will be of gold, and the fuel used in their centers will be the aloes-wood, and their sweat will smell like musk.”

Hadith nr 4.476 (3034) Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, “The first batch (of people) who will enter Paradise will be (glittering) like the full moon, and the batch next to them will be (glittering) like the most brilliant star in the sky. Their hearts will be as if the heart of a single man, for they will have neither enmity nor jealousy amongst themselves; everyone will have two wives (zawjatani – dual form) from the houris, (who will be so beautiful, pure and transparent that) the marrow of the bones of their legs will be seen through the bones and the flesh.”

Muhammad Salim al-Awwa, Ph.D:

“….in the dual case and it follows the habit of calling two objects or two persons after the more familiar or after either of them, giving it prominence. There are many examples of this in idiomatic Arabic usage, such as “the two Umars”, referring to Abu Bakr and Umar; “the two moons”, referring to the sun and moon; “the shining two”, making the same reference although the moon does not shine of itself and only reflects the light of the sun; “the two ‘ishas”, referring to maghreb and ‘isha, and “the two zhuhrs”, referring to zhuhr and ‘asr. Arabs usually choose the more prominent of the two or the easier in giving a dual form, and that is why they say for parents, “the two fathers”, although they are a father and a mother. Sometimes they choose the easier to pronounce as in their saying, “the two Umars” or the greater in status, such as in God’s saying, “Nor are the two seas alike, the one being potable and pleasant to drink, and the other salty and briny”. The first of these “two seas” is a river and the second, an actual sea. Sometimes the word with the female gender is chosen to make the dual form, such as in the expression “the two Marwas”, referring to the two hills of As-Safa and Al-Marwa in Mecca. This usage in the Arabic language is familiar to Arabic linguists. (One famous reference book available to students and dealing with this point is Abbas Hassan’s An-nahw al-wafi, I, 118–19).”

In the above mentioned hadith we have the dual form “two wives”, but why “two” and neither three or one? What happens if one is married to more or less than “two” wives. Is one going to marry or divorce if we take the restricted meaning “two” (neither less or more)? This definition has no basis.

Therefore the dual form “two wives” should be understood “himself as husband (zawj) and his wife (zawjati) – married” and this according to the dual case extension becomes “two wives – zawjatan” choosing the female gender to make the dual form, and not intending the limiting number “two”.

To farther make the point that everyone gets in paradise what he wishes and to shatter any doubts read the following hadith:

Sahih Bukhari, Book 39, Hadith 538

Narrated Abu Huraira: Once the Prophet was narrating (a story), while a bedouin was sitting with him. “One of the inhabitants of Paradise will ask Allah to allow him to cultivate the land. Allah will ask him, ‘Are you not living in the pleasures you like?’ He will say, ‘Yes, but I like to cultivate the land.’ ” The Prophet added, “When the man (will be permitted he) will sow the seeds and the plants will grow up and get ripe, ready for reaping and so on till it will be as huge as mountains within a wink. Allah will then say to him, ‘O son of Adam! Take here you are, gather (the yield); nothing satisfies you.’ ” On that, the bedouin said, “The man must be either from Quraish (i.e. an emigrant) or an Ansari, for they are farmers, whereas we are not farmers.” The Prophet smiled (at this).

As with regard to other interpretations that some Muslims or non-Muslims say, there is no evidence except their fictions.

Hadith

Stop Vandalizing:

It should be pointed out that the above hadith comes from Imam at-Tirmidhi's Sunan, whose compilation of hadith, which while considered by most Sunni Muslims to be one of the six major compilations and canonical, is not considered sahih (authentic) in its entirety as the sahih compilations of Sahih Bukhari and Muslim. Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim do not authenticate the claim of seventy-two wives in their Sahih books, the Sahih Bukhari[1]and the Sahih Muslim[2], even though there is a multitude of narration from Abu Sa'id al-Khudri authenticated in their Sahih Books, none of which contain the one mentioned above [see below the next hadith from Sahih Muslim where Abu Sa'id al-Khudri reports the last person to enter paradise (ie.:the smallest reward)]. The Science of Hadith is whole field on which many scholars have worked and continue to work on. Irregularities in isnad (chain of naration) and texts are well-known among scholars. Al-Shafi'i states that a shadhdh ("irregular") hadith is one which is reported by a trustworthy person but goes against the narration of a person more reliable than him." Ibn Hajar states if a narration which goes against another authentic hadith is reported by a weak narrator, it is known as munkar (denounced). Al-Khatib (d. 463) quotes al-Rabi' b. Khaitham (d. 63) as saying, "Some ahadith have a light like that of day, which we recognise; others have a darkness like that of night which makes us reject them." He also quotes al-Auza'i (d. 157) as saying, "We used to listen to ahadith and present them to fellow traditionists, just as we present forged coins to money-changers: whatever they recognise of them, we accept, and whatever they reject of them, we also reject." It should be noted that if some texts of hadith contain addition by a reporter to the text of the saying being narrated is termed mudraj (interpolated). See Sunni view of Hadith. The text of the hadith mentioned above, it does not exist in the Qur'an either, which is used as the basis for all mainstream sects of Islam.

(Studentoftruth 03:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC))

Abu Sa'id al-Khudri reported that the Prophet Muhammad said: "The lowest of people in status in Paradise will be a man whose face Allah turns away from the Fire towards Paradise, and shows him a tree giving shade. He will say, 'O Lord, bring me closer to that tree so that I may be in its shade... Then he will enter his house (in Paradise) and his two wives (dual form connotation - which can also be used to refer to two different things calling them by the same name)[3]) from among Al-Hur Al-`ain (same hadith mentioned by Abu Harairah does not include "the two wives". When Abu Hurairah was narrating, Abu Sa'id al-Khudri present at the time, did affirm to the text as true and when he added to the text transmitted, it was not the "two wives" ) will come in and say to him, 'Praise be to Allah who brought you to life for us and brought us to life for you.' Then he will say, 'No one has been given what I have been given.'" (Reported by Muslim) (source: [4]) (see book 1, number 0362 for Imam Muslim's complete hadith [5])

(Studentoftruth 03:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC))

Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "The first batch (of people) who will enter paradise will be (glittering) like the full moon, and the batch next to them will be (glittering) like the most brilliant star in the sky. Their hearts will be as if the heart of a single man, for they will have neither enmity nor jealousy amongst themselves; everyone will have two wives [in a version of this hadith: waa li kul-li wa ahidin minhoom zawjataani = and to every single (everyone) among them zawjataani. The expression kulli wa hadin-each one (everyone) includes both males and females. Note: the feminine ending -at(un) (feminine ta-marbuta, -ah in modern Arabic language) is also added to distiguish a person in an exemplary manner as in allamun = scholar, allamatun (-ah) = distinguished scholar [not "female scholar"], or as in rawin = narrator, rawiyatun(-ah) = narrator(of poems) [not "female narrator"]. These forms ending in -at(un) (modern -ah), as they designate the individual, are treated as masculines.][zawjatan: dual connotation (Classical Arabic Idiom - which can be used to refer to two different things calling them by the same name: two paired persons or things can be expressed by the dual of one of them (eg. abawaani [dual of aba (father)] = parents (father and mother, not "two fathers"; qamarani [dual of qamar (moon)] = sun and moon (not "two moons"); usage in "Qur'an in Surah Al-Furqan(25):53" bahrayn [dual of bahr (sea)] = sea "salty and bitter" and river "sweet and thirst-allaying" (not "two seas"); sometimes the word with the female gender is chosen to make the dual form, such as in the expression "the two Marwas", referring to the two hills of As-Safa and Al-Marwa (not "two hills, each called Al-Marwa") in Mecca;) ( (i.e. Husband - zawj and wife -zawjah can be referred as zawjatan in the dual form)][6]from the houris, (who will be so beautiful, pure and transparent that) the marrow of the bones of their legs will be seen through the bones and the flesh." (Sahih Bukhari, Book 54 "The Beginning of Creation", Hadith 476)[7]

(Studentoftruth 03:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC))

Hadith nr 4.468 (3026) Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Apostle said, “The first group (of people) who will enter Paradise will be (glittering) like the moon when it is full. They will not spit or blow their noses or relieve nature. Their utensils will be of gold and their combs of gold and silver; in their centers the aloe wood will be used, and their sweat will smell like musk. Everyone of them will have two wives (zawjatani – dual form); the marrow of the bones of the wives’ legs will be seen through the flesh out of excessive beauty. They ( i.e. the people of Paradise) will neither have differences nor hatred amongst themselves; their hearts will be as if one heart and they will be glorifying Allah in the morning and in the evening.”

Hadith nr 4.469 (3027) Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Apostle said, “The first batch (of people) who will enter Paradise will be (glittering) like a full moon; and those who will enter next will be (glittering) like the brightest star. Their hearts will be as if the heart of a single man, for they will have no enmity amongst themselves, and everyone of them shall have two wives (zawjatani – dual form), each of whom will be so beautiful, pure and transparent that the marrow of the bones of their legs will be seen through the flesh. They will be glorifying Allah in the morning and evening, and will never fall ill, and they will neither blow their noses, nor spit. Their utensils will be of gold and silver, and their combs will be of gold, and the fuel used in their centers will be the aloes-wood, and their sweat will smell like musk.”

Hadith nr 4.476 (3034) Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, “The first batch (of people) who will enter Paradise will be (glittering) like the full moon, and the batch next to them will be (glittering) like the most brilliant star in the sky. Their hearts will be as if the heart of a single man, for they will have neither enmity nor jealousy amongst themselves; everyone will have two wives (zawjatani – dual form) from the houris, (who will be so beautiful, pure and transparent that) the marrow of the bones of their legs will be seen through the bones and the flesh.”

In original Arabic the expression is:

waa kul-li wa ahidin minhoom zawjataani = and every single among them zawjataani (Sahih Bukhari, The book of the Beginning of Creation(54), Hadith nr 4.468 (3026))

zawj - husband zawjah - wife

But at the same time,

A Grammar of Classical Arabic, Wolfdietrich Fischer, Third Revised Edition, Translated from German by Jonathan Rodgers, Yale University Press, New Haven & London, 2002:

"The feminine ending - atun (feminine ta-marbuta, -ah in modern Arabic language) transforms an adjective into a substantive indicates 'one who practices an occupation in an exemplary manner': rawin = narrator, rawiyatun = narrator(of poems), allamun = knowing thoroughly, allamatun = distinguished scholar.

Note 2: These forms ending in -atun (modern -ah), as they designate the individual, are treated as masculines."

In the previous hadith the atun which then forms the dual by adding (aan) can also mean a partner (husband of wife) distiguished in an examplary manner. Notice there is no verb "have" in the orginal text and kul-li includes every single and min - from hum - them, therefore it includes both males and females.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Studentoftruth (talk • contribs) 04:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

Basic Question

Who are the Houri? Ordinary women who have died before, or supernatural beings? And how is the supply of virgins handled? Surely most or all of them would become deflowered at some point. Have the Houri who one meets in Paradise been there since the beginning of time, or are new ones created fresh by Allah for each new batch of the arriving devout? I'm not trying to be blasphemous, and I am not arguing a particular point of view, but I'd like to see how the logic of this aspect of the Koranic paradise works. I don't get it. As Error has already asked, what reward awaits Muslim women?

The morality of "rewarding" good behavior by making a gift of a person escapes me. But maybe the Houri are lonely, and glad for the company. Or maybe they're destined for certain men once those men reach the afterlife? I don't know. If anybody has any good resources on the Houri or related debates or decrees among Muslim scholars as to the logic of their nature, tell me. Mr. Billion 06:36, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the houris are "persons" in the sense that they are humans. They are probably angels, that are there to serve the people who did righteous deeds on Earth. They are definetly NOT earth humans.Bless sins 13:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect to the article writers, I did not find the article illuminating. The answers to Mr. Billion's questions would teach me something about Muslim beliefs in Houris. He asked his question 8 months ago, will no-one answer him? Avalon 07:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I doubt there is an answer. The Koran is a mediaeval document with many logical holes in it. One is expected to just accept that these beings are created in heaven like angels and exist to comfort the faithful dead. Additionally, one is not expected to question what reward women get (Do they get houris who just serve them as maids? Do they lez out with them for eternity? Do they get male houris? Do they get nothing? Do they not go to heaven at all?), because it is assumed that the reader is male and is only concerned with what he himself will be getting in the afterlife. I don't think anyone is claiming that it makes sense. Heaven doesn't exist, after all. It's religion, not reality. At least it's not as wacky as Ragnarok. — Chameleon 06:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

No one is just expected to accept Islamic dogmas or doctrines. There are literally hundreds of places where you can write your question to in attempt to get an answer. However, most Muslim scholars are interested in the explanation of down-to-earth everyday concepts and not the events of future that will take place in the heavens.Bless sins 13:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

There are Islamic scholars about the place. They have refused to illuminate us as to the "official" or "accepted" Islamic answer to these questions. I suppose one inference to be drawn is that "The Koran is a mediaeval document with many logical holes in it" and that Islam is pretty wacky. Some Christian ideas might sound wacky too, but, if you asked, I bet you'd get a theologican to (attempt) to explain them seriously. Avalon 23:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

While hard questions and criticism of the article is welcome, it's not sensible to adopt a negative attitude towards Islam. I don't think it's that Islamic scholars have "refused" to answer the questions so much as that there are very few people on English Wikiedia who call themselves Islamic scholars, and fewer still who could actually qualify as such. There's also the probability that the questions seem offensive to some, though they're not intended as such. I'm not sure there are Islamic scholars about the place; I haven't met any. Regardless, the questions are out there in case anybody comes by who knows of any good resources on them. --Mr. Billion 05:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

There are a few articles above that may satisfy your thirst for knowledge.

Most of the Muslims are more interested in clarifying the concepts of Jihad, Women in Islam, prohibition of alcohol, and other topics that are held up to degrade Muslim in general.Bless sins 13:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

History

Please be sure to check this article's history for some edits were deleted by anon user and could be useful in the full understanding of this article and to give a NPOV to this article. Lincher 04:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Qur'an citation

I'm kind of squeamish about that since the Qur'an doesn't explicitly use the phrase "houri" in the verse this entry refers to. I'm going to hold off from correcting it for now. Danny Lilithborne 21:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Another question regarding Qur'an citations: why is this "number system" (eg. "[55.56]") used (in the first part of the article) when according to the Qur'an article "Muslims usually refer to the suras not by their numbers, but by an Arabic name derived in some way from the sura"? (Note also the mixed system used further down: "Surah Rhman (55), ayah (verse) 72". Anyone else in favor of consistency?) RJCraig 03:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Arabic script & Unicode & etymology

I have changed the first part of the introduction, adding Arabic tags in conformity with those on the Qur'an page. The Arabic template improves the readability of the script considerably, IMHO.

I tried entering Unicode directly, but the letters are disjointed (independent forms, few ligatures) once previewed/saved. Is this an OS/browser issue, perhaps?

Compare ﺣﻮﺭﻳﺔ (converted to Unicode equiv's) with حورية (entered in edit window as Arabic).

What form is the "word" ḥawira, "to be black-eyed"?

Wehr lists ḥūrīya under ﺣﺎﺭ ḥāra (u) with II form meaning "to change, alter; make white, whiten; bleach (a fabric)". (Is this the source of ḥawira? A passive past form?)

Under the same root are given adjective aḥwar, fem. ḥaurā’, pl. ḥūr, meaning "having eyes with a marked contrast of white and black; intensely white and deep black," and noun ḥawar, "white poplar" (also pron. ḥaur), "bark-tanned sheepskin, basil; marked contrast between the white of the cornea [sic] and the black of the iris."

These all seem somewhat relevant to the etymology.... RJCraig 17:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Downplaying importance of Muslim and Tirmidhi?

The importance of Muslim and Tirmidhi to Sunnis is really understated in this article. They're both considered by Sunnis to be among the "six sahihs," and Muslim is usually mentioned in the same breath as Bukhari.Schizombie 06:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC) I made some minor changes to clarify their importance, while still noting them as less central than Bukhari. Schizombie 07:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You are not correct in what you say. There are no "six sahihs", neither are they named in that way. What the scholars of hadith have agreed is that only two collections are sahih "Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim", Bukhari being the most authentic one as when compared to Muslim. While the other remaining four are called "Sunans" implying they are NOT sahih in their entirety. This stated in simple words means that these collections of the four sunans contain weak, unreliable hadiths because the collectors of these hadiths did NOT search and include only the Sahihs as Imam Bukhari and Muslim did in their collection. It is huge mistakes to call them "six sahihs".

I agree with editing a lot of these Tirmidhi referenced Hadiths. He does not define Islam. He is one scholar and not even a hugely important one at that. I could call myself a Muslim scholar too and makeup a bunch of crap and call that religion, but it doesn't make it true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.110.168.156 (talk) 06:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Baha'i reference

http://bahaisonline.net/images/stories/houri.gif

• I'm removing this. There are no official renderings of houri in the Baha'i Faith, other than in the Kitáb-i-Íqán, which redefines the term completely using images that are not erotic in nature, as the cited articles seem to imply. I removed this once, and am wondering why it was returned. Danny Lilithborne 04:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

What you don't seem to realize, Danny, is that the Arabic word translated as "Maid of Heaven" in the Tablet of the Holy Mariner and numerous other tablets is, in fact "huri". It was the Houri who appeared to Him in the Siyah-Chal. Baha'u'llah wrote numerous tablets depicting the Houri -- the Tablet of the Houri, The Tablet of the Vision, The Houri of Wonder, and many more. They are available in provisional translation online and have been much discussed, but if you prefer a more "respectable" source try Taherzadeh's *Revelation of Baha'u'llah*, who discusses these tablets. These are real works that the founder of the Baha'i Faith wrote. As for the houri not being erotic, in the Tablet of the Houri, which is still linked to at the bottom of this article, Baha'u'llah removes the gown of the houri to reveal her shining breast -- can't get much more erotic than that. John Walbridge, author of the article I cited, is Professor of Near Eastern Languages at University of Indiana, which I would regard as a solid source. It is not NPOV to remove this. 69.232.171.126 03:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• I still think it's misleading, and I'm concerned that an unofficial translation not sanctioned by the UHJ is used as a source; however, that perspective might not fit the NPOV standards of WP. I asked editors of the Bahá'í Faith article to take a look, since I no longer edit religion-related articles. Danny Lilithborne 23:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems silly to have the reference to the Baha'i Faith here. The concepts of the houri, angels, and jinns are purely Islamic, and the Baha'i concepts of those are interpreted and described completely differently. More importantly, words commonly left un-translated in Islamic literature (such as Allah, jinn, Qiyamah) are almost always translated into the receiving language in the Baha'i Faith, with very few exceptions. Therefore, the Baha'i concept of angels, maids of heaven, visions of messengers, etc does not need special mention here, besides maybe noting that Baha'is do not interpret them literally at all, the way Muslims often have. Moreover, the fact that the only mention of an angel on this page is basically an attack on Baha'u'llah (insinuating he was erotically lusting after an angel) is POV and shows the intention of the author. I'm going to remove it, and hope that if the reference returns, it's in an educated encyclopedic form. Cuñado - Talk 00:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Guys, this belongs here. It's a translation by one college professor and I refer to a paper by another, both at prestigious research universities. I don't know how much more "educated" or "encyclopedic" to make it. The Maid of Heaven is an houri -- "huri" in Arabic. This is a recurring figure throughout Baha'u'llah's Writings. As for the eroticism, I clearly say that it is meant as a spiritual symbol. This is not meant as a put-down of Baha'u'llah at all, in fact I love these tablets. Just because the translations are not "approved" does not mean that these Writings do not exist or do you think these Arabists invented Baha'u'llah's houri out of their heads with no basis in the original language? Baha'u'llah wrote about an "houri", and He did so again and again in his mystical works, and you don't think that ought to be mentioned in an encyclopedia article about houris? Quite frankly, I think it's you two that are doing Baha'u'llah a disservice here. 76.208.127.126 22:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Baha'is almost always translate words into the receiving language, unlike Muslims. So a page about "houri" is strictly a page about the Islamic concept. Just because Baha'u'llah happens to have written the Arabic word when mentioning an angel, doesn't mean that the Baha'i Faith has the concept of an "houri". The maiden of heaven appears in multiple writings, and there is a great tablet where Baha'u'llah describes his revelation as a beautiful angel. The Baha'i mention warrants inclusion just as much as the Christian concept of angels. The 'houri' page does not mention Christian references, and the page about angels doesn't include a mention of the Baha'i concept of angels. This doesn't make any sense? If you ask a Baha'i what an houri is they will have no idea what you're talking about. And if you ask a Baha'i if the role of angels is prominent in the Baha'i Faith, they will say no. Cuñado - Talk 01:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a bit like arguing that Islam should not have a section under "Gabriel" because he was a Christian angel first. What you're saying is just not making sense to me. Look, I wouldn't be so insistent about this, but this really is quite key in the Writings, whether most Baha'is are aware of it or not. The Houri appeared to Baha'u'llah in the Siyah Chal, and was his "muse" so to speak, for his entire revelation -- just like Gabriel for Muhammad. And I'm sure Baha'u'llah was fully aware of the implications of "houri" to an Islamic audience, even if a Western audience is a bit too puritanical to deal with it. Sorry, I'm standing firm on this, Cunado. What the procedure for resolving impasses? 76.208.127.126 05:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I moved the section to the angel page, and I tagged this page to be merged into Islamic view of angels, which is really what this page is. The issue of using the Arabic words vs English translations is sometimes abused on wikipedia. It's a convenient way to disambiguate, but in this case there is a page about Islamic angels. If angels are a major theme in the Baha'i Faith, then the angel page is where it should be mentioned. Cuñado - Talk 06:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The "houri" are not "angels" per say. Angels are different creatures from humans. Houries are humans and jinns. What does it have to do with angels? It is like totatlly different beings. Take the tag out, it does not make any sense.

Exactly right -- an houri is not an angel, and that usage is unjustified by the texts. The Maid of Heaven is an *houri*. The tablet I referred to is the *Lawh-i-Huriyyih*, the Tablet of the Houri. Do you want more references?76.208.127.126 15:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's a reference, from John Walbridge's *Sacred Acts, Sacred Space, Sacred Time*, which was published by George Ronald in 1996, page 159: "The Maiden (huriyyih, also rendered 'maid', 'damsel', 'houri') is the heavenly being who personified for Baha'u'llah the spirit of God. In the Qur'an, the 'black-eyed maidens' (hur'in, hence the English houris) are the beautiful white-skinned black-eyed virgins destined for the believers in paradise." Walbridge goes on to discuss her appearance in the the Ode of the Dove, the Deathless Youth, the Tablet of the Maiden, the Tablet of the Holy Mariner, the Tablet of the Vision and the Surih of the Bayan. I have already given you Walbridge's credentials. He has also published translations of Khalil Gibran's works; we aren't just talking about Joe Blow here. He knows his Arabic.76.208.127.126 16:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The word is always translated into English. The 'tablet of the houri', as you call it, is always called the "tablet of the maiden". And the maiden is clearly seen as a representation of the spirit of God, not some make-believe creature that you're describing, and not virgin sex slaves in heaven. The Islamic corruption of this concept has not entered the Baha'i Faith, and the fact that the original Arabic word used is "houri" has nothing to do with this issue. Baha'is don't follow the Islamic practice of not-translating Arabic and then acting like it's a different God or concept. Baha'u'llah wrote Allah when he wrote about God, but it is always translated as God.

Read this article for references to the Baha'i perspective on maidens. Cuñado - Talk 17:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Good Lord! What do you say to someone who doesn't think that the original language matters? (Btw, Juan Cole's translation is titled *The Tablet of the Houri*.)This is heavy-duty POV, dude. Baha'u'llah wrote about an houri; the fact that it is sometimes translated as "maiden" or "virgin" or "heavenly beauty" doesn't alter that. Just because his concept differs from popular Muslim belief doesn't make her any less an houri. That's one reason it belongs in this article; it offers a different conception of what an "houri" is.76.208.127.126 17:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Cole is not a Baha'i and how he translates is irrelevant to Baha'i beliefs. In all Baha'i publications, it's "Tablet of the Maiden", and a word search for "houri" in Ocean (all the Baha'i writings) only came up with references to the Qur'an. Cuñado - Talk 02:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Cole is a competent and published translator -- being a Baha'i isn't relevant when assessing material for an encyclopedia. What's relevant is that he knows Arabic and is trained in Islamics. The fact that all Baha'i writers use the word "maiden" reflects the uniformity imposed by Baha'i pre-publication review. I'm not talking about popular Baha'i belief here; I'm talking about what is in the actual writings of Baha'u'llah -- and it's a weird kind of orthodoxy which requires us to ignore that.76.208.127.126 03:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Besides, I clearly said in the paragraph I posted. that the houri represents the Revelation; I don't even know what you're talking about when you insist that I'm describing a "make-believe" creature. The Houri is very clearly symbolic; I never said otherwise.76.208.127.126 17:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced the passage, and I want a neutral editor here to resolve the dispute. How do I get one?76.208.127.126 21:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You can request comments wherever you want. Try Talk:Bahá'í Faith or RFC. Geni is an administrator who has interceded several times on Baha'i subjects. Striver is familiar with Arabic and he's a Muslim. Jeff3000 is a regular Baha'i editor, and so is MARussellPESE. Good luck. Cuñado - Talk 02:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem would appear to be presenting the opion of certian academics as fact. So instead of " The Houri also appears in Bahá'í literature" That section should say something along the lines of "academics X,y and Z argue that what the memebers of the Baha'i Faith refer to as Maids of Heaven are in fact Houri. They support this assertion with reasons A,B and C. The Bahá'í reject this and counter with α, β and γ.Geni 13:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Geni, thanks for coming. But it *is* a fact that the word translated as "maiden" is "huriyyih" -- that could be verified by getting a Wikipedian that reads Arabic. The Arabic text is online for at least some of these tablets. Because this isn't a matter of "argument"; it's a matter of how the word is translated. Those works which are approved by the Baha'i administration are pretty uniformly translated as "maiden" or "Maid of Heaven"; those works which have not been through the approval process could be translated in a variety of ways. But this female heavenly figure, in the original text, is a houri -- not an angel or spirit (for which there are different words) or anything else. I can see where you're going here, but it's going to sound silly to say "Juan Cole calls the Maid of Heaven an houri, but she's really not an houri because enrolled Baha'is always translate the word as "Maiden". There could be a mention of how the concept differs from that of the Islamic houris -- and there are some differences. I was talking to a friend who has a degree in Islamic Studies, and he was saying that Baha'u'llah's houri was not only the mediator between him and God, but the generating force behind creation. (I realize that would probably be "original research", and I can't include it.) But, clearly, Baha'u'llah's Houri is a much more important and central figure than the popular conception of the virgins pious men get to enjoy in paradise. As I said earlier, I would be amenable to the section being modified; I just don't appreciate it being totally axed. 76.208.127.126 15:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

even translation of nouns is rarely a matter of fact. Any translantion is going to have a certian level of opinion in it. The only exception would be translateing into a code. Shifting between lanaguages requires judgement and judgement requires opinion. It is simply a matter of reporting both groups and the stated reasons that they hold those positions.Geni 15:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

O.K., point taken. Well, we could say something to the effect that "houri" is more of a literal translation, while describing the conception of the Maiden in the Baha'i Writings. She is really very close to being almost a personfication of something like the Christian Logos. However, the she does have the sexual desirability of an houri -- with that, as I said, being a metaphor for spiritual longing. There is a letter of Juan Cole's defending his translation of the *Tablet of the Houri* that I could refer to, in which he describes the themes of "sex,worship,death,and transcendence" of these tablets. I have the feeling that it is this that is the real issue here, and what is making Cunado uncomfortable. That, and the fact that most of the Houri tablets are available only in unofficial translation.76.208.127.126 22:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Geni I think you're missing an important background. Juan Cole is a professor at the university of michigan and an ex-Baha'i who began a campaign of open opposition to the Baha'i administration, and he gathered a handful of followers in an online forum of complainers. His most common grievance is that there is a process of Baha'i review where enrolled Baha'is wishing to publish about the Baha'i Faith must first be approved by the National Spiritual Assembly where they live. This was a policy instated by the religion's founders, and is still in practice. Any opinion he holds is not only not representative of the 6 million Baha'is in the world, but an extreme case of undue weight. The fact is that what Baha'is do and believe is what's important here, and this anon's arguments are senselessly trying to include Cole's opinions in an attempt to defame the Baha'i Faith.

Since no revision was made to the page in several days from Geni's suggestion, I removed it again. Cuñado - Talk 18:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

we know what Baha'i think the correct translantion is however it is important to include other points of view such as those of ssay athiests.Geni 01:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but since it's you that has a problem with the passage as I have written it, then it's up to you to change it. The problem appears to be that you don't want this to appear at all. The article is titled "Houri"; I have included comments on the role of the Houri in the Baha'i Writings. That's all. It's ridiculous to be accused of somehow wanting to defame the Baha'i Faith because I am actually reporting this. Cole is a prominent professor of Modern Middle Eastern history, who has published translations, both Baha'i and non-Baha'i works. The noun in question is "houri" -- "maiden" is not incorrect, but it is more general. It's like calling a "lion" a "feline". If the "huriyyih" *doesn't* mean "houri", then let's see some references! I've already given you some, and I can produce more, if that's what it takes. All you are managing to do is come up with ad hominems, and silly accusations that the Faith is under attack -- when I am doing no such thing. As I said, I love these tablets, and think people ought to be more aware of Baha'u'llah's mysticism.76.208.127.126 03:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's the other way around. Poorly written disputed items can be removed by anybody. The responsibility to fix things lies with the person insisting on including them. We're talking in circles here. Your example of "lion" and "feline" is completely irrelevant... those are both English words. "Houri" is an Arabic word. Do you get it? And I already told you, it doesn't matter if Juan Cole is the Pope, what he says has no impact on what Baha'is believe and practice, and the understanding of Baha'is is completely different from the one that you're presenting on the page. It would be irresponsible for me to allow you to give misinformation on here. If I re-write the section under discussion, I'm just going to write... "English speaking Baha'is don't have any teachings regarding houris. Almost every Arabic word is translated, not transliterated, into the lanugage being used." That's that, plain and simple. Cuñado - Talk 09:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Houri has been ah aquired as a word by the english lanaguage. As the leader of the world's largest relgious sect the pope's opinion on almost any relgious matter would likely be reported in wikipedia.Geni 13:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Geni, I have added to your edit a citation of a letter from the Baha'i World Center critiquing Cole's translation of the *Lawh-i-Huriyyih*, which gives the official point of view. I hope this is satisfactory. 76.208.127.126 13:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

On Baha'i-Library.com, I've found the translation "houri" in a couple of older out-of-print translations. One is here [8] in *Baha'i Scriptures*, and the other is in Anton Haddad's translation of the Suriy-i-Haykal [9] -- both of which were acceptable "official" translations in the early days of the Faith in the West. Haddad renders a very familiar passage about the Maiden thusly: "But when I saw myself at the culmination of calamity, I heard, from above my head, the Most Wonderful [wonderful] and Melodious Voice [melodious voice], and when I turned I witnessed an Houri [a Maiden] (Nymph of Paradise) of the celebration of the Name of my Lord, suspended in the air on a level with my head; [.] I saw her, that she was indeed rejoicing within herself as though the embroidered Garment [garment] of pleasure was manifesting itself upon her face, and the brightness of the Merciful was apparent upon her cheeks; and between the earth and heaven, she was uttering a call, by which all the hearts and minds will be drawn, and at the same time, gladdening all the limbs of my internal and external being, with glad-tidings that made my soul rejoice, and those of the noble servants. Then with her finger, she pointed to my head, and addressed all those in heaven and earth saying: "By God, This is indeed the Beloved of the universe, but ye do not understand!"76.208.127.126 14:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The separate article Maid of Heaven (Bahá'í) has been created now. Wiki-uk (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Alternative etymology

I moved the contents of the Alternative etymology section to the Etymology section, for the sake of making this article NPOV. I think we ought to present the various etymologies next to one another, and let the readers decide for themselves.

I still think the article is biased, by the way, and will label it accordingly. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 15:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Now there is an internal link to a non-existent section! -- Error 01:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

equivalent for women

I have removed:

Sunni scholars, when asked about what women will get in Paradise that's similar to houris, have explained that there is an equivalent reward for women as well (if they wish to have it). However, it isn't mentioned explicitly, and only hinted in the Qur'an, since it isn't considered appropriate to mention it explicitly.[10][11]

First of all, the first link is broken and the second one is absolutely nonsensical. The claims made are unsubstantiated and actually say nothing. There is an equivalent but it is not mentioned, only hinted at? Please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.79.43.137 (talk • contribs) .

The houri are what the women will become. This is very explicit. The only idea that is not mentioned is when you go astray from explaining the Qur'an according to the methodology of people of Knowledge. It is very known among scholars since the time of Sahaba (companions) of the Prophet, that if you try to explain something based only on your opinion by basically reading the text, you will fail. This has been warned against and it is source of the misguided sects, one being the Khavarijees who were against Ali Ibn Abu Talib. Ibn Abas did debate them in such matters (if I am not mistaken). You need a considerable amount of knowledge to explain some verses, at least follow the methodology of the people of knowledge that they never put forth their opinion before the opinions of the Prophet, Sahaba, Tabeen, Scholars that followed them and so on.

A good believing, Muslim woman becomes a houri after she dies? Do you have a citation? Do women look forward to this? "I will follow the path of righteousness all my life so that I can be one your 72 houri in paradise! Blessings be upon me!" Are houri women you know, like, say, the teacher in ninth grade you had a crush on? I'm sorry if I'm being disrespectful, but I find the concept a little mindblowing. Are houri understood as a metaphor for how wonderful paradise is, or are they thought to literally exist?Kauffner 13:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

You need to read the previous articles, there you will find many citations and proofs. The article with the link above "The Marriage of A Muslim Woman in the This Life and Hereafter" gives you citations and references. The "72" is not based on any solid evidences. On the other hand it would contradict stronger evidences in hadith literature and logical statements. First of all you need to understand the Hadith and their Classification. A weak hadith is not the same as the authentic and so on.... Can you imagine how foolish it would be if you pick on a weak hadith that contradicts the authentic ones...and so on, let alone logically.

Houri are individuals, are not metaphors in the concept that they do not exist. Houries are not only female humans but also female jins (from the jinn kind). In general it means recreated beings as all humans will be recreated and all jinns will be recreated (as well as virgins) in the hereafter and the beauty in which they will be created.

Read the previous articles, it will give you an idea with the proofs(citations) from reliable authorities. Leave the speculations and sayings without any evidence and look at the evidences. Perhaps then you will see what it means.

Yeah, even the teacher, or the mother , wife , daughter of someone. It does not mean but recreated women that go to paradise. It does not have the "stupid" connotation as to be used as a sex objects. These are very idiotic, to say the least. What was there for disrespectful in your question? Disrespectful is when someone tells you the truth and you still behave as you never heard it. Paradise is the purest and most beautiful form of creation you can ever think of, or even more than that. It does not have any bad things in it.

Virgins vs. raisons

I can't understand why there is nothing in the article about whether houri should be translated as "virgins" or "raisons." The head of Al-Azhar issued a death threat against the guy who proposed the raison translation, so it's certainly a hot topic. I've read scholarly articles on the subject and my understanding is that "virgin" is somewhat more likely, but either translation can be justified. What about the numerical value of houri, whether it's 72 or some other number? Surely this should be the the article as well.Kauffner 04:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

page move

The word "houri" is actually the feminine singular of "hur". And besides that, it is a poor transliteration, since the letter /o/ is not used in arabic transliteration. It would be properly "huwra" or "huwri". There is already a redirect, so I need an administrator to move it. —Cuñado - Talk 19:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

"Houri" is not a transliteration; it is an English word -- based on the Arabic, of course, but whenever one finds the concept of "hur" in English literature, "houri" is inevitably used. You find the word in English dictionaries, and even in such an unlikely place as H.G. Wells' *Island of Dr. Moreau*. 76.208.127.126 16:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

OK I'll drop this. I just realized that Hur doesn't redirect here, it's a Biblical name. But houri is still female, and ahwar is male; while this article is about the concept of hur. Cuñado - Talk 17:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"American" vision

First of all this section isn't at all clear as to what it's addressing. It appears to allude to the references to the "72 virgins awaiting the terrorists" in the western press. This isn't an "American" phenomenon. It's a vision that is pervasive at least in the West. Consider Orianna Fallaci.

Second, the passage contradicts itself. If asserts that this vision is an American psycho-sexual fantasy, when it states that this vision is precisely what's promoted by the extremists to their own soldiers.

I don't have a problem with asserting, with proper citations, that the West has this concept wrong; but it has to be balanced by the fact that an awful lot of Muslim extremists have this wrong as well. In fact, it's the Muslim extremist view that has informed the West on the subject. MARussellPESE 17:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not American so it might not be my place to say this, but this section sounds very condescending, anti-American and non-encyclopedic to me. As a result, the prevailing understanding of the houri is as a reward for terrorist acts. This notion is distorted because it does not acknowledge a broader belief that the houri is considered a reward for righteous behavior What? I believe it is clear it is considered a reward for righteous behavior - for everything I've heard or read so far, the misunderstanding lies in the question whether, according to Islam, righteous behavior includes such terrorist acts. And from my experience, it is not only Americans but also some Muslims who claim that it does (like the user above me said). I may also be guilty of jumping on the "lol americans are dumb" bandwagon from time to time, but I think sentences like If there is one thing many Americans know about Islam, it is that... are not appropriate for Wikipedia. It sounds like a line from a stand-up comedy show. Tapir

I once a read a news story about a Palestinian woman who blew herself in Jerusalem. She apparently told her friends she was going to be the "chief of the 72 houri, the fairest of them all." Somehow, I don't think she was American. Kauffner 04:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"Nation Picking" vision!!! Source: Ignorance and Prejudice

Islam is free of such things. It is the way of jahiliyah (ignorance) of the arabs before the prophet Muhamed (peace be upon him) came and shattered this ideas.

This has nothing to do with the topic. It is picking on a nation, which is by the way forbidden in the Qur'an. Islam is not of Arabs only. And if we need to pick on any nation would be the arabs and other who have misrepresented Islam. I am not saying pick on Arabs, but that is what the article is basically doing. Picking a nation and having prejudice. I mean how would the author who just uses rhetoric and no evidences from the sources feel if someone pick on whatever nation she is from? It is very bad article. Take it out. He also deleted or formated Qur'anic citation to put this idiotic article devoid of any knowledge or insight!!!

O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things).(Qur'an, Surah Al-Hujraat(18), Verse 13)

The prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said in his last sermon:

“All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over a black nor a black has any superiority over a white - except by piety and good action….” This sermon was delivered on the Ninth Day of Dhul-Hijjah 10 A.H. in the 'Uranah valley of Mount Arafat' in Mecca

Take that stupid article otherwise this article of wikipedia will become a joke and no one is gonna will to read your stupidies and picking on nations by insulting the basic principle of Islam, that is for all-mankind and no nation is above any other and I will label as such! I don't see the ignorant who even dared to put that article and put it above on before the tradition. Why doesn't he quote now what the other countries think and become more ridicoulous that it actually is. Biased article! Have a good one!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.39.63.190 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

MarRusell, do you have any of your agenda, accusing others of what they have not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.39.63.214 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The views in that article about American Vision are that of the authors/editors, not all Muslims agree as there are American Muslims too who do not agree with what that passag says about "At the heart of these allusions to the houri is a certain preoccupation — or perhaps even obsession — with sex. Here, sexuality is read into Islamic images even when that reading may be aggressive. What is lost in these media accounts is the historical development of the concept of the houri. It is through the houri, then, that we can see the shaping of an American fantasy of what Islam symbolizes. The common denominator in this fantasy is the element of pleasure...By contrast, in the sensual discourse, the enjoyment of the pleasure of the houri is mere entertainment... The use of the houri, then, reveals that Islamic motifs are used as a way to represent a sensuality that American society enjoys, but refuses to claim as its own."

What are houris is here is alluded to objects or motifs and does not confront other authentic sources in other passages related to Islam.

Ambiguous and biased views!!! Generalization of all Americans into having a view and what she calls a "fantasy". Big POV - problem in the passage and unsubstantiated!!!

After the merger

Okay so if I was the only one opposing it for 2 days, I'll accept the merge. Aktar thanks for bringing back in the material from the 72 virgins article, which KirbyfTime didnt bother to (as expected). This section needs a lot of cleaning up and the prominent facts need to be brought out. I'll work on this article some time. The biggest problem is that we have too many quotes. Perhaps similiar hadiths and verses can be taken out. Only similiar ones though, we want the unique quotes to stay.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

"Voluptous"

Ok for the last time: Voluptious is part of the Quranic translation of 78:33. Do NOT remove this word again. The USC MSA is a RS. Its translations are used as templates for all the Islamic sources on Wikipedia and you guys are saying its not correct? Why did Tirmidhi then interpret this verse to mean that the women would have big swollen breasts that would not hang? ALSO see the corrections page by USC, where they say that "companions of equal age" is actually WRONG. The correct term is Voluptous. Sorry if this is an embarrassment to anyone but a RS is a RS. Its the correct translation. They say: "The following corrections have been made to the translations, based on the critique of the South African Majlis of Ulema." - I hope this is clear now. If you have a problem with this verse's translation, go talk to USC MSA and ask them to correct and censor the word if it sounds too explicit. This is what the Quran SAID. Accept it. If you want to do something about it go ask all other smaller less authoritative websites (like Islam101.com) to correct this verse so it matches with that of USC-MSA. I'm thankful to Tafsir.com for providing the truthful meaning of this verse. So do we have agreement now? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

thanks for providing that webpage, it has proven that Y. Ali, Pickthall and Shakir do not translate the verse like that, as i verified from a hard copy. USC may be an RS, the Muslim Student Association of it not necessarily so. i see no reason why we should prefer the 'South African Majlis of Ulema' over three established translators. ITAQALLAH 14:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Where did you prove that these translators do not translate the verse like that? It looks like the hardcopy you have must have been a copy of the wrong translations, which has been corrected now. I will verify the hardcopies as well. How is the MSA translation website not RS? Why are their translations then refered to in the templates if they're not a RS? I've made a new section just for this verse since this seems like a really important matter and I provided more translations which explicity say "swollen" breasts. We dont even have to go Tafsir to uncover the real meanings of this verse - they are there in the translations. Do one thing for me: Scan that page you have of that hardcopy so we can see what you got. I'll check my hard copy translations too. In summar, Voluptious cannot be removed unless USC MSA removes it. In addition to USC MSA, there are many other websites which have this meaning. It is understandable why some sources would want to not mention "swollen breasts" or "voluptious". These meanings are embarassing to some people. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

the very link you provided shows exactly how the three translators actually rendered it. you can try google books for a hard copy of Y. Ali's translation. "These meanings are embarassing to some people" - i don't think so, but i do think this is precisely why you are going at great lengths to have them inserted. ITAQALLAH 19:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

No, its precisely why you were trying to get it deleted. Thats why I've had to work to get in the valid word. The word should actually say "swollen breasted" instead of "voluptous" but I'll leave it at that for now. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You want to make it 100% clean, keep the Arabic and understand Arabic.

What I find objectionable about the USC MSA connection is that they have taken it upon themselves to "correct" the work of eminent Muslim scholars, particularly Yusuf Ali. I have the English translation of the Qur'an written by him published by Alminar Books in Houston, TX. It was given to me by a Muslim acquaintance and highly recommended by an Imam named Yahya Hendi. My copy has Q78:33 rendered as "Maidens of equal age" and I can see why Yusuf Ali translated it that way.

Yusuf Ali was an Indian Muslim scholar who, I think, knew what he was doing. People in a Hindu society reading a literal translation of Q78:33 (among others) would connect the Qur'an with the Kama Sutra and conclude that the ultimate end of a pious life in Heaven would be never-ending sex. Surely not! It seems to me that the ultimate reward for a pious life would be eternal fellowship with Allah in Heaven. Anything less than that would cheapen Islam and make it seem like some sort of tabloid religion.

These "corrections" do the Qur'an and Islam a disservice and denigrate the work of the scholars who made the English translations. Virgil H. Soule (talk) 07:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Alternative Interpretation

It should be noted that the original wording is:

وَكَوَاعِبَ أَتْرَاباً

Wakawaiba atraban(Qur'an 78:33)

Muhammad Asad has said regarding the above verse:

As regards my rendering of kawa’ib as "splendid companions", it is to be remembered that the term ka'b -from which the participle ka’ib is derived - has many meanings, and that one of these meanings is "prominence", "eminence" or "glory" (Lisan al-Arab); thus, the verb ka'ba, when applied to a person, signifies "he made [another person] prominent", "glorious" or "splendid" (ibid.) Based on this tropical meaning of both the verb ka'ba and the noun ka'b, the participle ka'ib has often been used, in popular parlance, to denote "a girl whose breasts are becoming prominent" or "are budding" hence, many commentators see in it an allusion to some sort of youthful "female companions' who would entertain the (presumably male) inmates of paradise.

Then he continues:

...this interpretation of kawa’ib overlooks the purely derivative origin of the above popular usage - which is based on the tropical connotation of "prominence" inherent in the noun ka'b - and substitutes for this obvious tropism the literal meaning of something that is physically prominent: and this, in my opinion, is utterly unjustified. If we bear in mind that the Qur'anic descriptions of the blessings of paradise are always allegorical, we realize that in the above context the term kawa’ib can have no other meaning than "glorious [or "splendid"] beings"

(Studentoftruth 03:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC))

Sex in paradise

You are overemphasizing the fact of "being busy in sex", halfquoting Ibn Kathir, and getting stuff from Al-Munajjid from islamqa, who is really biased [has no balance (conceals information) and weak reasoning according to his own "intellect"] towards women. Keep it balanced, would you?

Criticism

Ibn Kathir relates concerning the following verses:

Verily, the dwellers of the Paradise, that Day, will be busy with joyful things. They and their wives will be in pleasant shade, reclining on thrones. They will have therein fruits and all that they ask for.[Chapter (Surah) Ya Seen (O Thou Human Being)(36):55-57]

Although Ibn Kathir relates the opinion of some companions of Muhammad being reported to have said concerning "will be busy with joyful things" that means in heaven people will be "busy in deflowering virgins", he continues to relate other alternate meanings. Another companion, Ibn Abass has said that it refers "listening to stringed instruments". Others such as Al-Hasan Al-Basri and Isma`il bin Abi Khalid have said, "they will be too busy to think about the torment which the people of Hell are suffering." Qatadah implied "with the delights which they are enjoying." Ibn Abas said, "this means that they will be rejoicing.". While Mujahid said, "Their spouses,(will be in pleasant shade) means, in the shade of trees."Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid, `Ikrimah, Muhammad bin Ka`b, Al-Hasan, Qatadah, As-Suddi and Khusayf said, "beds beneath canopies.". (Studentoftruth 12:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC))

Student, thanks for engaging on talk. I agree with your input. Definitely, we should put in multiple views of the same thing. this looks okay to me. You may also title it as "Alternate interpretations". I'll try to come up with more information as well. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ibn Kathir

Ibn Kathir says that the houri are delightful virgins of comparable age, [27] by commenting,"in the other life, after they became old in this life, they were brought back while virgin, youthful, being delightfully passionate with their husbands, beautiful, kind and cheerful." [28]

"Virgins", means after they were created, and not "virgins", meaning they are never married in this life. People often misunderstand it because they read half of what is supposed to be read, others do it for their own purposes, of which only God knows.

Nevertheless the definition of Ibn Kathir is quite clear if you read it as he wrote it. (Studentoftruth 18:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC))

You removed sourced text (as explained on your talk page). Please dont it again. I reverted all your changes. If you want put something back in, do it without deleting sourced text. Give it another try now. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added the missing text + plus the remainder of the sourced sentence for NPOV. → Aktar ^{(talk • contribs)} — 21:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks AA. Student, do not attempt to remove sourced text again.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was redundant, since "virgin" means "not having had sexual intercourse before with anyone", unless you have some other definition for "virgin". The source was the same: "Ibn Kathir", for that matter. I do not see any problem if you want to keep it. (Studentoftruth 02:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC))

I think it was important to specify that Ibn Kathir clarified this himself. In this context, some people mistake virgins for just women. Thanks for your recent edits to bring in alternative viewpoints. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this some kind of joke? How can men be allowed to have sex with a hundred virgins in heaven for a religion that is strongly opposed to adultery? Is the author for this man even serious about what he is writing about? I don't believe this nonsense about statement on sex with the virgins in heaven. --60.228.130.112 01:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The "hundred number" is debatable and the hadith referred is very debatable. To say the least it contradicts points that have been explained all along. Now not every hadith quoted is true. And even those that are true should be understood in the light of everything else. There is a whole science behind the hadiths. The science came as a result because at some point in time people were creating lies and attributing those lies to the prophet for their own interests. The great scholars of hadith made a whole science out of it by putting some criteria how to distinguish the genuine versus the fabricated ones. To cut it short the most authentic hadith mention nothing of such "number". Now, nowhere is claimed that someone will commit adultery. You are misconstruing the whole "virgin" idea. Now when someone has sex with a "virgin", is that by necessity that he is committing adultery? If yes, then what do you say if you were married to a woman who happens to be a virgin? Can you commit adultery by having sex with the woman you are married to, to begin with? Certainly, not! The "virgin" phenomena is a result of being created again. Everyone who is created in this world is by definition a virgin before having sex. Have you seen any case that a person is born not a virgin? Relying on this logic, the same appears in the hereafter. Humans will be created again and in the state of virginity. Virginity means "not having had sex" physically. So since when someone is recreated with a new body, how did this body that never existed before had sex? Therefore by definition of creation, everything that is created is virginal, meaning "pure". Unless you can prove that someone can be created without being pure, in a state of virginity which is both applicable to males and females, then you have to believe in God creating people virgins. I don't see why you don't have any problem with God creating humans virgins in this life males and as well as females, and you have a "problem" with God creating the very same people males and females as virgins in the other life. Do you have any sense of God given reasoning or not? In addition, there is no adultery being committed if you are married to this virgin in the hereafter as there is no possibility of committing adultery in this life if you are married to a virgin. Please take the time and go read the answer in "Muslim Reply" section "The Marriage of a Muslim Woman in this World and Hereafter" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Houri/continue), maybe it will clear some misconceptions and preconceived notions you have.(Studentoftruth 22:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC))

There is a severe lack of mention of Muslim viewpoints that contrast with the "virgins" idea.

Nothing more needs to be said. Someone ought to make some additions of that nature. Otherwise, I'll probably have to do so soon.

-- Mik 23:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, if I have understood your request, (I think) here is one. If men do receive virgins in heaven, they will not be for sex. Sex in Islam is private & not public & to mention publicly is closer to taboo (i.e. sex out of marriage will cause death by stoning for both people), so if sex does exist in heaven, sex is unlikely to be public or open in Heaven. Sex (and its pleasures) exists in this life to help keep humans reproducing and to keep mankind in existence. Also Islam states all humans will be judged in judgement day, that implies (logically) no new humans will be born from the day of judgement onwards (unless new creatures -not humans- are created & will be judged on a different date), That should mean (logically) sex will not exist in the afterlife (Also: Doesnt Islam state that Adam & Eve did not have sexual organs until they eat from the forbidden tree/fruit? that means, there was plenty of things to occupy Adam & Eve in heaven for however long they were there without sex being needed). so, If the man receives virgins, they will propably be received as carers/friends/other and not for sex etc... Propably, the word virgins is used to imply/state that the virgins are clean (you are the first person to meet and see the people). Though Virgins is mentioned in the Koran, it is humans that have implied sex (with their dirty minds) and you can be quite sure the virgins are not for sex, and (propably) sex (and the relevant organs) will not exist in heaven. Hopefully, Ive made sense. That is a Muslim viewpoint (by me), that contrasts the virgins for sex idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.229.58 (talk) 12:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Men do not "receive" virgins. Unless you imply a man "receives" his wife or a woman "receives" a husband? "Receiving" is not mentioned anywhere except in your ideas and receiving in this case implies possession of which marriage is not as such. In Qur'an they are married. Sex exists for many reasons...not just to reproduce, unless you imply it is forbidden to have sex unless you want to have a child. Your ideas contradict basic reasoning. Well what do you say to people that cannot bear children? Does Islam forbid them sex even if they are married??? Nonsense!!! Once we establish that sex is not only for giving birth you can see more clear even if no child is born in heaven. Nowhere is mentioned Adam or Eve did not have sexual organs. This is stupid because when God created Adam, he created him in the best shape including 'organs'. Are you implying sexual organs are a punishment for eating the fruit and were added later? Talking about sex is not taboo in Islam. Many references are found in Qur'an and Hadith talking about sex. Do not confuse practicing sex outside the vows of marriage with talking about sex and how it is done in general. Well if you see sex as "dirty" you will come to the conclusion that there is no sex in paradise, but this is not an idea from Islam. "Sex" is to be enjoyed and allowed within the limits set by God, so why should not an allowed thing be in paradise, you answer that. Making conjectures is not correct. You cannot assume anything about "Paradise" unless there is proof. Making up stuff is not the way to go. If you don't know say "I don't know". Here I am not saying there will be sex or not for sure, I am just giving the point that if there is sex in paradise this is just the same as there will be wife and husband, unless you imply there will be no gender either. Virgins are not "objects" or "different beings", which if you say so would contradict the Qur'an, but according to the Qur'an interpretation are resurrected people who go to paradise. So if a man is married to his wife, his wife in this life will be his "virgin" in paradise and also "his wife" and the same is valid for his wife that her husband will be "her virgin" and also her husband. In the main page you have many references to this from Qur'an and Hadith. Viewing "any sex" as a sin or "dirty" is not a Muslim idea.(Studentoftruth (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC))

Opinions VS Evidence (Proofs)

The article says, among other things, that:

Imam Suyuti is reported to have said, "each time we sleep with a houri we find her virgin. Besides, the penis of the Elected never softens. The erection is eternal; the sensation that you feel each time you make love is utterly delicious and out of this world and were you to experience it in this world you would faint. Each chosen one [ie Muslim] will marry seventy [sic] houris, besides the women he married on earth, and all will have appetising vaginas."

"The Prophet was asked : 'Do we have sex in Paradise?' He answered: 'Yes, by him who holds my soul in his hand, and it will be done dahman, dahman (that is intercourse done with such shove and disturbance).

Is this really true? Is this official for the Muslim scholars of the 21st century? This is so sexist and has so many sex oriented preoccupations that it just seems to me that it is a bad joke. I ask anyone who knows about Islamic issues to verify the article.Page Up 00:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Suyuti is quoted in his opinion. There is nothing in his sayings but his opinion. So, some imams have different opinions, or are entitled to their opinions. How important is one's opinion is a different issue. That statement does not appear in the Qur'an or the hadith. If we quote evryone's opinion there would be grounds for even lies that have been exposed long time ago, even though the imam who may have said it must have been very well-known. The point of the matter is how he reached a certain opinion. That is where is the evidence. Does his saying contradict the clear evidence we have now. How do we know, whether the imam had the same evidence in his time? Would the imam contradict the evidence? Certainly not. Would he, the imam, say something in lack of the evidence. He could... What if what he said was sincere because it came through an effort but was not correct, was the imam to be blamed, or the blind-follower who follows what contradicts the evidence? It would be clear, that no scholar so far is 100% right in every issue he deals with. Could be he got 98% right and 2% wrong. So what? We accept 98% of what he got right and reject 2% he got wrong. But the problem exists when you are looking to defame someone or something in our case and you only look for the wrong and controversial stuff and as it is clear you will find something wrong as there is no one 100% right in their opinion. I mean no matter who the person may be, you will find an error even if it is 1% of his work. There is no objectivity in dealing in this matter because you have a 100% chance of finding a wrong opinion in anyone and on any issue.

But if you understand how the evidence deals with matters of subjectivity, then perhaps you will understand that there is no such problem at all in matters of opinions. Please read the following. You must learn how knowledge is classified by the same scholars, before entering their opionions and believing or following everything they say blindly, or quoting everything they say for your own purposes even when there is no evidence or when the evidence clearly contradicts their opinions:

Aboo ‘Abdullah Ibn Jaweez Mindad al-Basree al-Malikee has stated, “The meaning of taqleed (blind following) in the Sharee’ah refers to one whose statement is not a proof. He is prohibited from that (statement) by the Sharee’ah and al-Ittiba’ is what is affirmed by evidence” And he also said in another place, “Everyone whose statement you follow without there being an evidence to obligate that for you, then you are his muqallid (blind follower). And taqleed (blind following) is not correct in the Religion of Allah. And everyone whose statement you are obligated to follow with evidence, then you are his muttabi’ (follower based upon evidence). And al-Ittiba’ (following of evidences) is correct in the religion, while taqleed (blind following) is prohibited.[Jaami’ Bayaanil-‘Ilm of Ibn ‘Abdul-Barr (2/117) and al-I’laamul-Muwaqqi’een of Ibn ul-Qayyim (3/299)]

I wonder do you know the time period between Imam Ahamd and Suyuti? Suyuti came later than Imam Ahmad. Therefore before him, Imam Ahmad was talking about knowledge and how you gain it and clarified it for generations to come:

Aboo Dawood related in his Masaa’il (p.367-369) “…He said: I said to Ahmed (imam Ahmed), “Does al-Awazaa’e not have more of a right to be followed than Malik?” He said, ‘Do not blindly follow anyone amongst these people with regards to your Religion. Whatsoever has come from the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his Companions, then take it. Then, a man has a choice after the tabi’een.”

I hope this clarifies to you the position of an opinion from an Imam with regard to the evidence he presents to support such opinion.

Ibn Qayyim al-Jawzeeyah said in I’laam al-Muwaqqi’een (1/10), “…when you have striven to find a ruling and then another ruling comes to mind, then you should not let the first ruling you made prevent you from re-examining it. This is due to the fact that the ruling you arrive at may change, and so the first ruling should not prevent you from implementing the second, once it has become apparent to you that this second ruling is the Truth. … to return to the Truth is better and more appropriate than persisting in the first ruling [which was wrong].”

As far as that hadith quoted, not even the source of the compilation is cited and the authentication thereof. Now if we believe any hadith everyone likes to quote at anytime, we would have gone astray long time ago as there are even more disturbing hadiths than the one you quote above, but nevertheless their chain of narration is really weak or even contradicts authenticated hadiths. The prophet never indulged in any obscene matters for that point. Even when he was explaining stuff he use to hint at them and not say them explicitly:

Narrated Sahl bin Sa'd: Allah's Apostle said, "Whoever can guarantee (the chastity of) what is between his two jaw-bones and what is between his two legs (i.e. his tongue and his private parts), I guarantee Paradise for him." (Sahih Bukhari, Book 76, Hadith 481)

Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "When a man sits in between the four parts of a woman and did the sexual intercourse with her, bath becomes compulsory." (Sahih Bukhari, Book 5, Hadith 290)

Now what is the tradition of the Prophet to say something explicilty or hint at something without mentioning obscenity? You tell me.

(Studentoftruth 19:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for your extensive explanation effort. I read it very carefully and I think it has the answer for the only thing I asked: Is this true, acceptable or official according to Islam POV? Since that the text and citations seem to be ok, including from an Islamic Point Of View, it is encyclopaedic and represents no harm to neutrality, I remove the expert tag. The paragraph you added was a good idea and is necessary to provide a better understanding of the whole picture, especially for a number of readers (like me) from outside the Muslim world/culture who rely on other socio-cultural backgrounds and don't know too much about Islam-related issues. Page Up 15:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see dhimmitude. Arrow740 21:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Your edition and 'discussion'(so called link above) is very absurd.

As Page Up said the information gives crucial importance in understanding Islam and therefore the opinions of some people. In no time has the opinion of anyone been inerrant. God is All-Knowing, human is not all-knowing. That is the definition. Therefore, Islam makes a clear statement om this issue.

This issue is clearly given in the Qur'an:

Do they not then consider the Quran carefully? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much contradictions. ( Qur'an, سورة النساء , An-Nisa, Chapter 4, Verse 82)

Now, if ONLY God is error-free, that logically implies that no one else is infallible. You or someone else quoting the words of an imam, a human, does not make it true. It is an explanation, but not a proof. Proof is only what God says and the well-established non-contradicting sound sources of the Messenger of God, (which come second to the saying of God).

And obey Allah and His Messenger, and fall into no disputes, lest ye lose heart and your power depart; and be patient and persevering: For Allah is with those who patiently persevere: ( Qur'an, سورة الأنفال , Al-Anfal, Chapter 8, Verse 46)

‘Abaad Ibn ‘Abaad al-Khawwass has a marvelous advice concerning this, “Then you must take to having intelligence and understanding, for the intellect is a blessing, for some people who posses intellect have busied themselves by getting deeply absorbed in that which is detrimental to them, in terms of the benefit that they are really in need of. …… Doubt and suspect your opinion and the opinions of the people of your era, and be certain, verifying [a matter] before speaking [about it]. Seek knowledge before it is sought from you, for indeed a time will come in which Truth and falsehood resembles each other such that they will become confused [by others], and in which good is [called ] evil and evil is [called] good. …. [A certain group of people] had not feared losing their positions and corrupting their status, by establishing and clearly explaining the Book, they would have not twisted and concealed it. But when they contradicted the Book in their actions, they tried to deceive their people concerning what they were doing. They feared that their own position would be blackened and that their corruption would become clear to the people. So they twisted the explanations of the Book, and wherever they could not twist it, they concealed it.” [ad-Darimee (1/160-163), Hilyal al-Awliyaa (8/282), Tahdheeb al-Kamal (14/135-136)]

As made obvious the information is crucial to understanding the opinion. Not to mention that quoted opinion has been refuted in the same page and looks like a contradiction in the real evidence presented.

O ye who believe! Be ye staunch in justice, witnesses for Allah, even though it be against yourselves or (your) parents or (your) kindred, whether (the case be of) a rich man or a poor man, for Allah is nearer unto both (them ye are). So follow not passion lest ye lapse (from truth) and if ye lapse or fall away, then lo! Allah is ever Informed of what ye do. ( Qur'an, سورة النساء , An-Nisa, Chapter 4, Verse 135)

We have the following revelead:

And cover not truth with falsehood, nor conceal the truth when ye know (what it is). ( Qur'an, سورة البقرة , Al-Baqara, Chapter 2, Verse 42)

Tolerance is clear:

Let there be no compulsion in religion: truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. ( Qur'an, سورة البقرة , Al-Baqara, Chapter 2, Verse 256)

(Studentoftruth 20:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC))

Explanations, theories and proofs, evidences are quite different. Sometime you fool yourself that when you are explaining something, you think you are proving it. Something should be checked, otherwise if it cannot be falsifiable, then that is just wind coming out of your mouth, and no sane person would pay attention to. It is important to understand that the quoting from Suyuti contains no proof/evidences (quoting from Qur'an/Sahih Hadith) from what it claims, and it is just an opinion. Some of that opinion has been established as wrong from the proofs (quoting from Qur'an and Sahih Hadith) elsewhere in the article itself, go on, read the rest of the article and see how it fits with that opinion. And do not remove cited and reliable sources.

(Studentoftruth 21:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC))

StudentOftruth, here's the thing: You have to draw a line where you have to stop expanding on the subject. You have to stay focused on the title of the article. If there are any disagreements they should explained somewhere else on another relevant article, otherwise it becomes too unweildy and complex. Do you see my point? If there was an article on Dogs and I started talking about why Goerge Bush doesnt like dogs and once a dog bit him but he was taken to the hospital, which had many electricity bills to pay to a company which ran on solar electricity, whereas the efficiency of solar panels is only judged to be 20% -- see how this all doesnt make sense? The article is on Dogs, not solar panels. What you should do is, where to continue this discussion. Not on the Dogs page, but on the Solar panels. As it is, you have already put in so much quotes that the article has earned itself a cleanup tag. You have to decide where to branch off the discussion of the Hadith/scholar dispute and carry it off there in a new or existing article which is dedicated to that. So here's the bottomline: This article is not the place to start off a 5 page discussion on whether Suyuti was a good imam or not. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Major Editions

The article was a mess. It lacked a standard wiki introduction, describing what the subject of the article was about. Overall it was un-wikified, had external references to other wiki-articles and geocity. But worse, it was hopeless bloated, unfocused and obfuscated to the point of being almost incomprehensible. The article needed focus. It is not an article about the reliability of various sources in an islamic references and it is not an article about various interpretations and translations of the koran. It is an article about houries, all the rest needs to go to various other articles on those subjects. Rune X2 09:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The article offered the most solid explanation, until you edited and entered weak or even fabricated interpretations which even a child would see the plain contradictions you cited, without knowing anything about knowledge in Islam. What you did was a mess of logical contradictions of which everyone who would have read would have become more confused than ever. "Mythical creatures" you said. First define the word "mythical" for me. Mythical is a very ambiguos word, it could mean fiction...not real...etc.. Maybe God is a "Mythical Creature" too, that is if you are an atheist that is. But what about those who are not. Your bias started from what you called "introduction".

Next "revealed" you changed into "composed". Who composed it and who says that someone composed it? See, you are creating illusions which are not true. Did Muhammad claim to have composed it? "Bias" again.

Now, I want to see where "wide" is written in Arabic... you cite translations and think the Qur'an is the translation. There is no such thing as wide in Hur'In which was explained in etymology. But you still want to create illusions and you tell me that is what this "site so-and-so says"...like if the etymology was wrong and site so-and-so is right. First the person who does not know Arabic will be confused if he caught it and/or he will think there is an equivalent Arabic word "wide" in the original and the one who knows basic Arabic will see that is a lie and maybe it was translated for a lack of the translator knowing the real meaning in which was done in etymology with cited sources. But "no", you want to say something here and two lines below you want to say something different and you think you are clearing , but instead you are creating more confusion than ever.

Then you mention something that Muslims do not regard all hadith as trustworthy and then you list contradicting hadiths...of which you do not say which one they regard as trustworthy and which one not...you just add more confusion. If someone reads this, even if he was a Muslim, he will be confused because not all Muslims know that all hadiths are not classified as true. Now imagine, if a non-Muslim reads it, he will be more confused and will understand nothing but that the prophet contradicted himself and that is what Muslims claim. But to your biased "viewpoint", such a thing is no problem because it fits your philosophy. The problem is that the houries are not a result of your "philosophy", therefore you have no saying in such. It is a result of Islam and should be dealt according to established principles of knowledge in Islam. That is why I said "maybe you need to change the title to 'ignorant's idea of Houri' " Go look the word in the dictionary what "ignorant" means. It means "pertaining to ignorance" and "ignorance" means according to wiki "the condition of being uninformed or uneducated, lacking knowledge or information". That is a nice way of saying that, because in fact you do not lack knowledge or information because I just explained it to you and you can read volumes of books on it, but you lack willingness to accept that Islam has a definite knowledge about hadith which cannot be ignored because if you did accept that, it would contradict your "philosophy of equal reliability", that is to non-Muslims. That is pure speculation...you are assuming all non-Muslims are as ill-mannered as to oppose understanding one thing from Muslims (such as there is classification of hadiths and there are fabricated hadiths) but have no problem understanding other things (tirmidhi's hadith and contradictions are normal etc...).Where did the non-Muslims get the hadiths? From the Muslims. Then why do you assume that they take half-knowledge material, basically they take the text but don't care about how reliable the text is. That is a pure false statement and I am going to prove it to you. Many reasonable non-Muslim I have had the chance to talk with understand both principles when explained, which by the ways proves your "philosophy" is wrong logically, because one example falsifies your saying that all non-Muslim don't care. That is if the article was only directed to non-Muslims and Muslim were an exception to Wikipedia.

Ghazzali is not a commentator of Qur'an. You can read on and on about what scholars say about the hadiths in his book "ihya ulumud-deen".

- You don't know my philosophy and I have as much saying on this article as any other Wikipedia editor. There's no such things as religious reserved articles in Wikipedia. Furthermore the article should be dealt according to established wikiguidelines - not "established principles of knowledge in Islam", whatever that may be.

"Qur'an was revealed" is clearly NPOV as it takes as a fact that Islam is true, and that the koran was revealed by anybody and not just made up. This is an encyclopedia, not a treatise on your particular interpretation of a certain faith. Like the point about certain hadits being more "reliable" than other, faith cannot be used as references. Of couse one might note in passing, that so and so hadith is not considered reliable by all Muslims - as long as the article doesn't turn into a long tirade on islamic lore.

Maybe you don't like "Mythical Creature" - then come up with another description. The fact remains the article lack even a basic Wiki introduction describing what the article is about.

The article categorized under "Deities, spirits, and mythic beings" so I guess "mythic being" is uncontroversial. I have also changed the "black-eyed companions" to "pure companions with beautiful of eye". I guess that is acceptable too. Rune X2 10:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

At-Turtoshee (d.520H) says in his letter, "He filled his book with lies upon the Prophet and I do not knoe of any book upon the earth which attributes more lies to the prophet than this one".

Dhahabi, a muhadith, criticizes that book because of the weak and unreliable hadiths and quotes and praises a scholar who explained lies founded on the book of Ghazzali.

Qadi Iyadh (d.544), a well-known scholar says that Ghazzali produced "shocking words" and possess repugnant information and went beyond the bound of Soofism.

Ibn al-Jawzee (d.597H) says in al-Muntazim (9/169-170) "He (Ghazzali) mentioned in his book al-Ihyaa a lot of fabricated and weak ahadeeth, that was due to his insufficient knowledge of narrations - so would that he had submitted them for examination to those who knew - but rather he reported them like one who gathers wood at night (i.e. blindly)". Ibn Al-Jawzee said in Tablees-Iblees. "Abu Hamid Al-Ghazzali came and composed for them the book al-Ihyaa upon the way of the people, and he filled it with baseless ahadeeth, not knowin their baselessness, and he spoke about hidden knowledge and left the laws of Fiqh (understanding, interpreting)...." Ibn Al-Jawzee says in Minhaajul-Qaasideen, "Know that in the book al-Ihya are dangerous things only known about by scholars and the least of them are the baseless and fabricated ahaadeeth..."

Nawaawee, well-known scholar of hadith sciences criticizes that book too having baseless fabrications. Adh-Dhahabee, well-known muhadeeth, in Siyar A'laamun-Nubalaa (19/339) says "As for al-Ihyaa, then it contains a large number of baseless ahadeeth...."

Taajud-deen As-Subki (d. 771H) says in Tabaqaatush-Shaafi'yah (4/1451) in the biography of Ghazzali that he has counted 943 ahadeeth in his book with no 'chain of transmitters' at all, and if he says if he counted the weak and fabricated ones their number would reach many numbers of the ones without a chain at all.

Ibn Kathir, a commentator of the Qur'an, in al-Bidaayah wan-Nihaayah states about Ghazzali's Book Ihya, "it contains many ahadeeth unheard of, and those which are weak and contradict authentic ones as well as fabricated ahaadeeth..."

All said, it is reported that Ghazzali changed his mind and deviations at the end and embraced the Sahih Books of Bukhari.

and the list goes on and on....but of course none matters to you because it does not serve your philosophy. Now how is your edition going to serve someone's else philosophy? Unless you assume all are like you, but that is only in your mindset. Do you want fairness or not?

(Studentoftruth 00:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC))

Rune X2

Since when it became so easy to take out primary citations? It seems a self-contradictory edition you have put. Basically you cite contradictions and offer no solutions. Good job, ignorant and by the way citations of hadith without classification is equal to someone making up a saying and putting in there as a genuine one. Like that we can cite 1000 hadiths, of which some are pure lies. You are making a mockery out of this article.(Studentoftruth 00:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC))

All my editions have citations. Whatever you mean by "primary citations" I don't know. Can it be any more primary that the koran? Anyway "genuine hadith” is not really a thing that exists in Wikipedia. Rune X2 09:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There is such thing as biased views. As I told you not all hadith are citable because they are not reliable by any standards excepts yours. I mean any stupid idiot can make a hadith up. Attribute something to the prophet, is a hadith. The point is how is this citable, you answer thatt? Genuine Hadiths are something traceable with a chain of narration, made up hadiths are something one makes up and not traceable. As I said the latter exist in bigger number that no one even pays attention among any genuine scholar, except for ignorant people who don't know this basic principle and/or with their own agenda. You are making a joke out of yourself. (Studentoftruth 13:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC))

Rune X2

1. Apart from the fact that you seem to have very minimal knowledge in this matter, you don't even know that houri does not mean blackness, if it meant something, it would mean whiteness. But even without knowing that, if you read first what is written, then you would have known.

I suppse it is the “"black-eyed companions" in the intro you object to? It's a quite common translation, and not mine at all. But if you feel the need to exchange it for another short one, go ahead. But don't discuss etmylogy in the intro. Rune X2 09:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

2. "Whore" has nothing to do with this article, maybe you need to create another article for that. It is like relating "dawg"(friend) with "dog"(animal), brainless.

It certainly merits mention under a section regarding etymology, that some people thinks there is an etymological connection between "houri" and "[w]hore" – when there isn't. Not an unreasonable working assumtion considering the sameness of the two words, and especially since the word "houri" has entered into the English language as meaning a "voluptuous, beautiful, alluring woman”. Wiki exists to provide information and answer questions. This is a questions that has been asked (by others than me) and is easy to answer. So there it goes. Rune X2 09:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

One is Arabic and another English. Go read the definition of etymology, if you don't know what it means.(Studentoftruth 13:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC))

3. Your translation of the Qur'an is principally wrong and biased. That is why we added basic explanations of the Arabic...words and grammar...so that we could eliminate biased words. But you took those out unfairly as you did with the rest of the article...

I actually didn't translate the Koran, I merely took the first link to a translated Koran on the net. And I'm sure the "al-sunnah"[12] will be very surprised to learn that they're "basically wrong and biased". But sure, another koran translation could be used, as long as the actually wiki entry is short and to the point, and not overbloated with various different interpretations and mile long tirades. Rune X2 09:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You deleted cited sources and I don't care what al-sunnah.com says. They are not published sources. You are creating ambiguity. If you want to be to the point then take out your fabricated hadiths which have no value in this discussion.(Studentoftruth 13:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC))

4. Tirmidhi has never been classified as a Sahih Collection, for you to equate, even though not explicitly Tirmidhi with Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim is very weak... If you want to have a good discussion how reliable and relevant are hadiths coming from unknown inauthenticity and purely and fully contradicting everything which has been agreed as authentic...we can have a good discussion. That is why there was a simple but relevant discussion in the hadith section which you erased.

This is a wiki-article about Houris not the finer point of Islamic theology or the islamic equivalence of debates about the number of angles that can dance on a pin-head. And of course, for non-Muslims, all the sources are equally reliable and authentic. The only thing that matters is if the person mentions the houries is noteable. Al-Tirmidhi certainly is. Perhaps the page on Al-Tirmidhi could go into more depth about his standing in islamic lore, but this is not the place. It is not a problem that the different sources are contradictory. One should assume they would be. Rune X2 09:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it is biased anti-Islamic theology. All the sources are authentic is your own "philosophy" and unfounded. This article is not unlearned persons philosophies of what is reliable and authentic.(Studentoftruth 13:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC))

5. Ibn Maja's unknown level of authenticity and explicitly explained as of a level below Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim is contradicting them directly, among other sayings. This is a result of you not knowing how to weigh hadiths and thus citing every Tom, Dick and Harry's hadiths without even mentioning that these hadiths maybe be made up and fabricated, which was clearly explained in the text that you erased.

See 4) Rune X2 09:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

As you said.(Studentoftruth 13:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC))

6. Al-Ghazali is not a collector of hadiths, he is more of a faqih (interpreter), not to mention many hadiths in his book are deemed weak and fabricated by the muhaditheen, those who specialize in authenticity of hadiths. There is no such collection of Ghazzali, you are creating illusions... Nice try though.

Uh? Try what? I try to structure the article. If you find Al-Ghazali belongs in another category, move him. Perhaps under "Koran commentators" Rune X2 09:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

He is not a mufasir either. You are so biased you want to put him somewhere where he does not belong. In fact he often changed his mind in his life, but at the end he embraced the sahih hadith of Bukhari. (Studentoftruth 13:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC))

7. Married, Unmarried and Widowed...women? What the "...."? As I mentioned you explicitly contradict the Qur'an, explicitly contradict the authentic hadith and explicitly attribute hadiths to people who were not collectors. We can discuss fabricated hadith in details if you want... But let's be fair, and have a little common sense before indulging in matters in which you need to read volumes to understand. To give an example, Imam Bukhari collected 500 000 hadiths and he only classified correct and authentic around 7000 thousand, 2000-3000 without repetition. The chance of you bringing hadiths and of them being true is 1/100 = 1%. Quality over number is what we want in this article. It is not an index article of where to find hadiths, which seem to be 99 to 1 fabricated.

"We can discuss fabricated hadith in details" - lets rather not. Again see 4) Rune X2 09:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Again please as you say , read my note 4.(Studentoftruth 13:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC))

Of course not, because you want a biased, not main stream interpretation and of course because you are so islamically ignorant, you don't know where to start.(Studentoftruth 13:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC))

8. Market in paradise.

Now I know where you got all this information.... One of the sources even discussed this issue which you clearly did not bother to read:

"The First Hadith Quoted In The Article Is Ingenuine.

The Hadith regarding a sex market in the paradise is one of those traditions which the 'Ulama have identified as fabricated and ingenuine. Hadith scholars such as Abdul Rahman B. 'Ali generally known as Ibn al-Jauzi (d.597A.H.), Jalaluddin al-Suyuti(d.911A.H.), and Abual Hasan 'Ali B. Muhammad B. 'Arraq aJ-Kanani (d.963 A.H.) have all declared this report ingenuine and incorrect, (vis: Ibn al-Jauzi, Kitab al-Maudu'at, Beirut, 1995, vol.II, PP. 427-8)

It should be born in mind that every statement recorded as Hadith can not necessarily be genuine one. Islamic scholars have done great job in identifying what is original, true and genuine, and what is spurious, fabricated and ingenuine. Before any Hadith is quoted by anyone today, its authenticity is to be checked first. So, what is wrong can not be attributed to Islam."''Note 9: Dr. Israr Ahmad Khan, Department of Quran & Sunnah Studies,"Quranic Description of The Paradise", IRKHS, International Islamic University of Malaysia

Maybe you are using the same article....or at least some biased sources which Dr. Israr Ahmad Khan is talking about, maybe...

Anyway...don't delete primary sources to replace them with doubtful material and self-contradictory sources. Let's not be childish here... If you have an agenda of some sort of defamation, this is not the place.(Studentoftruth 03:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC))

In fact I have no agenda, except to straighten out the article. All my editions are sourced. I'd say I approach the subject with a certain about of good will – if amused distance. And why the heck not? If I were to go to paradis, I'd surely pick a bunch of hot houri babes over playing the harp in eternity. But this doesn't change that the article was, and remains to a large extend, hopeless bloated, unfocused and obfuscated. Rune X2 09:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Rune 2X,

Don't create an anti-Islamic article opposing every bit and basic principle of Islam, and attributing these things, most of them already explained as lies to Islam. Maybe the article should be called what people opposing Islamic principles of understanding say what Islam says about "houri". You are following an anti-Islamic theology which has long being going on in history and you are basically not the first to paint lies with colors of Islam and call that what Islam says. Maybe you need to add a section of what anti-Islamic, basically unlearned people and biased persons say what Islam says by contradicting every principle of an Islamic understading of the matter. Be fair. (Studentoftruth 13:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC))

Studentoftruth:

The article had been flagged for needing cleanup for a long time. Which is what I have done. I have tried to account for your objections; to used other source for the cites, and to restructure paragraphs where you specified specific concerns. But you resort merely to large scale indiscriminate reverts of both new material and of fixed-up existing material. And now. What?

1. "you freaking ignorant?"
2. "ignorant people like you"
3. "You are making a joke out of yourself"
4. "you ignorant"
5. "Ignorant person"
6. "you are so ignorant"
7. "ignorants (like you) "

- that’s seven instances of breach of basic wikipedia etiquette Wikipedia:Civility, WP:ATTACK – not to speak of Wikipedia:Assume good faith, in one post. Not bad at all actually. Although I think I shall return to this discussion when you learn to debate in a more civil manner. In the meanwhile, please stop reverting other peoples work. Rune X2 14:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Rune X2,

"Ignorant" means you don't know and make false statement but you are still excused because you don't know better, but you know what is worse than being ignorant? It is when you know and don't want to accept it as it is....that is arrogant and deceitful. I hope you don't present yourself as either one and as you see I changed my mind and took that word out to be fair.(Studentoftruth 00:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC))

To Studentoftruth:

8) "arrogant"

9) "deceitful"

- keep up the good work. You also keep reverting things like interwiki links. *thumbs up*

Anyway, the article remains very bad. As it reads now it is hopeless bloated, unfocused and obfuscated to the point of being almost incomprehensible. One should imagine all wikipedians, and Muslim wikipedians more than any, could agree to attempt for a more clear and lucid explanation of the subject. As it stands now, it's like someone were desperately trying to obfuscated everything about houries.

I see these major problems with the article:

1. It lacks a short introduction, saying what the article is about. This is basic Wiki.
2. The description of the houries should be removed to a separate section. Not be in the introduction.
3. The places where houries are mentioned should be moved to a separate section.
4. The Qur'an section badly needs a complete workover, a prune and clean up.
   1. The external references should be to a koran available on the net. When a such is available, it is clearly better than references not all can verify.
   2. Sections not to do with houries are off topic, and should be removed.
   3. The koran quotes, should not be interspersed with long tirades of arabic text and alternative interpretations.
5. The Hadith section is in even more need of a clean-up than the Koran section.
   1. It is very incomplete.
   2. Long paragraphs about the reliability of certain collections over others, are off-topic for this article.
6. Round/Swollen breasts
   1. Should be removed. The topic should be dealt with briefly the places in the koran/hadith sections where it is mentioned.
7. Sex in paradise
   1. Same as "Round/Swollen breasts"
8. Interpretations, with the "wings and harps" and "raisons theory", should be removed to its own section. Not a subsection of "72 virgins".
9. American Visions of the Houri. should be removed. It is an op. and have no place in an encyclopedia.
10. The article completely lacks a section explaining where the houries comes from. Even when several commentators have written on this subject.

I will now try to phase in some changes in increments. Then we can take them as they come. Although I'd prefer if you could try to keep it civil. Rune X2 11:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Persistent Vandalization of the Article

Rune 2X,

Your persistent vandalization includes:

1.Deleting primary sources.

2.Picking bias translation, of which bias is over-explained in details.

3.Attributing people titles that are not true (as a Gazzali being a interpreter of the Qur'an).

4.Bringing doubtful/fabricated hadiths and passing them as genuine.

5.Talking about "whores" when there is no such thing to the meaning houri, suprisingly the word "hour" is not there too.

6.Creating ambiguity of words and expressions.

7.Deleting extensive verses of the Qur'an which explain the meaning.

(Studentoftruth 21:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC))

Arrow,

1.You are vandalizing the article by taking out primary sources. (Studentoftruth 21:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC))

If both of you continue with persistent vandalization, the article will be labeled POV among others... If you don't stop taking out important sources and don't stop putting in ambiguity with your hidden agenda, then I will label this article as biased and not based on Islam but on POV of defamation. Your games keep going on and on after I have explained all that you did wrong and you still keep repeating the same thing, which now should be understood as vandalization. When this vandalization occurs, the article will become a trash and no one will keep reading it with articles filled with deception and lies... Your taking out without discussion is pure vandalization and trashing the article to fullfill your agenda. This is crystal clear after repeated deletions and no discussion or reply on what I have said that this deletions create problems in the article. Your games seem very childish and so will be the article and I will label as a garbage article done the overzealous vandalizers of no beneficial information available but filled with deception as I have continuously explained.(Studentoftruth 21:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC))

What nonsense, Arrow740 should be banned ASAP. 130.113.226.6 15:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent Koran section editions by studentoftruth

Now you have again reedited the Koran section back to a state which already once previously had been flagged as not up to wikipedia standards.

• The bolded text should be in italic.
• You have exchanged a "primary source" (as you are so fond of saying) – the koran - with a secondary: The Message of the Qur'an. There is no reason to use a reference other than the koran itself.
• There is absolutely no reason to use an off-line reference (The Message of the Qur'an) when there are plenty on-line references available. If you don't like the (pro-Islam) al-sunni I used before, I'm sure we can agree on another. In fact, I'd suggest we use Wikipedia's own koran.
• You have interrupted all the koran citations with long passages of mixed Arabic and English, making them very tedious to read. I don't know why you feel such a great need to obfuscate the koran. It's almost as if you're embarrassed by it and think the koran needs editing. In any case, it is unclear wherefrom you get the non-koran interpretative passages. It seems to WP:NOR.
• The passages to do with non-houri material are off-topic and should be pruned away.

Rune X2 08:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Rune X2 regarding Qur'an citations. The standard method for citing the Quran on is to use the {{cite quran}} template which provides a link to the three most used translations from the USC-MSA Compendium of Muslim Texts site. Unless, there is an explicit need to refer to a commentary in a different translation, then this template should be used. → AA ^(talk) — 08:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Rune X2

1. Bolded is to distinguish Qur'an with other books and sayings as they often intermingle in many passages.

2. Primary source is a published source and as such you have the privilege to buy the "The Message of the Qur'an". Who told you that the "Message of the Qur'an" is not a "primary" source? What you refer to "Kor'an" is by some author, there is no such book title first and if there was cannot by any means means it is what is called the Qur'an as it exists only in Arabic. A book has an author which translates the Qur'an from Arabic to English. Therefore the "English" is never deemed as the Qur'an but as some translate it "The Meaning of the Qur'an" or the "Interpretation of the Meaning of the Qur'an in English". Therefore, these are translated meanings. "The Message of the Qur'an" is of same effect, a translation of the Arabic Qur'an with additional explanatory notes, but the translation remains intact as any other book. The choice was made because it remains closer to the original language. And I have mentioned again and again why other translations are not as close to the original language such as "wide eyes" as there is no "wide" in the original or "black-eyes" as there is no "black" in the original. I don't know why you keep asking the same question.

3. Phrases in Arabic with literal meaning in English was added later on and it was due to some people not being convinced that the Qur'an was unbiased to genders in the original. See discussion above. The translations you bring remain biased because even though due to some technical deficiencies in translating phrases, they often insert lengthy words that are not in the translation such as "(fair females)" in brackets when there is no "female" word in the Arabic text. Or some people doubting that the Qur'an explicitly refers to males and females by gender and thinking it a translational manipulation of plurality of masculine, which can also refer to a group of males or a group of males and females. Thus they think the author choses the latter and there is room for the first, while in fact there is no room for the first as the genders of the words are explicitly masculine and feminine. Therefore the original wording was used to clear ambiguity of such and get rid of mistranslations. By explaining the wording in Arabic with an equivalent literal English wording rather than an "interpretation" or "understanding" of a translator the article remains balanced and not POV of the translator or someone else. These do not obscure meanings as you say, rather their only purpose is to clarify the meanings by someone who pays more attention. These were added later on because of such problems raised by some wikipediands. See discussion above. If we use biased "interpretations" wich oppose the original wording, not only we are creating confusion but deceiving people who don't know Arabic and think there is an equivalent Arabic wording in the original when such thing is not true to start with.

4. I do not think or believe in any sense the Qur'an needs editing because I can refer to the Original Arabic language, of such the Qur'an is. The translation is by no means the Qur'an and therefore it has problems of translating a word from Arabic to English because in no language you can 100% translate the same meaning without adding ambiguity of phrases. For example in Arabic God refers to himself as "WE" (plural of I). Now if you do not know any Arabic grammar, and read the "WE" in English, you would think the Qur'an says that God is a plural God (gods) because he used "WE"(plural) instead of "I"(singular), because in English, no person uses "WE" and only means "himself" and no other. But if you knew Arabic, you would know that "WE" means "I" in terms of respect and not of plurality in Arabic grammar and usage. That is how the translation can add ambiguity because the meanings and grammar rules differ from one language to another and if you don't know Arabic Grammnar, then you will start reasoning in your own language grammar and believe God is Plural because he uses "we" instead of "I". That is creating ambiguity. So the importance of the mixed Arabic/English is to clear this ambiguity, to clarify the obscure unavoidable results of translation to those who cannot read Arabic by explaining as simple and short the meaning of the word.

5. Where I get the Arabic grammar and clarification of words is given in the references. Some are clear from grammar books and some are given from direct translation of the word. If you have any objection go check the grammar books and the dictionaries. These are not made up by me. I don't know what you refer to "non-koran" meanings, unless you know original Arabic and you are telling me I am objecting the original wording. How can I be objecting the original Arabic wording while at the same time quoting it, and explaining the grammar usage and literal translation of the word with published references. In fact maybe all these analysis and closer to the original notes object the "meaning and the wording of the translation you want to call 'Koran'", of which you are trapped in your own mindset thinking the Qur'an is English and the Arabic is objecting the English translation of some person who made some choices of words. In fact if anything is true, the English that you want to post objects the original text, Arabic, of which the Qur'an exists only in Arabic. That is why the Arabic text was added to clarify that some translations are according to the mindset of the translator and are virtually impossible to be 100% perfect translation. You need to change your weights of measures. The Qur'an is Arabic, therefore if you have any objections you should bring the Arabic text to clarify it and not the other way around such as using the English imperfect translation of the meaning of the Arabic words of the Qur'an to oppose the Qur'an in its original wording. It is a contradiction of circular reasoning type because you start from the Arabic and go to English, therefore using English translation to object the Arabic text falsifies the English which you started from the Arabic first to begin with. It is a logical paradox!

6. I am not clear on what you mean "non-houri material". You need to explain a little more because I have no idea what you are referring to....

7. There is no original research as the references on grammar and translation of the wording are based on published books and not my own ideas. (Studentoftruth 22:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC))

Recent hadith section editions by studentoftruth

You have taken a short clear sentence:

"[E]veryone will have two wives from the houris, (who will be so beautiful, pure and transparent that) the marrow of the bones of their legs will be seen through the bones and the flesh."[25]

and blown it up to:

"[E]veryone will have two wives ([in a version of this hadith[54]: waa li kul-li wa ahidin minhoom zawjataani = and to every single (everyone) among them zawjataani. The expression kulli wa hadin-each one (everyone) includes both males and females. Note: the feminine ending -at(un) (feminine ta-marbuta, -ah in modern Arabic language) is also added to distiguish a person in an exemplary manner as in allamun = scholar, allamatun (-ah) = distinguished scholar [not "female scholar"], or as in rawin = narrator, rawiyatun(-ah) = narrator(of poems) [not "female narrator"]. These forms ending in -at(un) (modern -ah), as they designate the individual, are treated as masculines.][55][zawjatan: dual connotation (Classical Arabic Idiom - which can be used to refer to two different things calling them by the same name: two paired persons or things can be expressed by the dual of one of them (eg. abawaani [dual of aba (father)] = parents (father and mother, not "two fathers"; qamarani [dual of qamar (moon)] = sun and moon (not "two moons")[56]; usage in "Qur'an in Surah Al-Furqan(25):53" bahrayn [dual of bahr (sea)] = sea "salty and bitter" and river "sweet and thirst-allaying" (not "two seas"); sometimes the word with the female gender is chosen to make the dual form, such as in the expression "the two Marwas", referring to the two hills of As-Safa and Al-Marwa (not "two hills, each called Al-Marwa") in Mecca[57];) ( (i.e. Husband - zawj and wife -zawjah can be referred as zawjatan in the dual form)][58] from the houris, (who will be so beautiful, pure and transparent that) the marrow of the bones of their legs will be seen through the bones and the flesh." (Sahih Bukhari, Book 54 "The Beginning of Creation", Hadith 476)[5])

- and adding nothing except making it almost unreadable in the process. Also all the commentary seems not to adher to WP:NOR. Rune X2 08:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It is important to clarify the ambiguity of translating "zawjatan" into "two females" while at the same time it could as well mean "male and female or an exemplary couple" since no one choses to translate "abawaani" into "two fathers' but parents even though literally it means "two fathers" it is most often used to mean "mother and father". So it is an idiomatic expression of Arabic language. Due to the hadith being Arabic this translation does not do fair job to the Arabic grammar which could mean an another meaning. It is as if someone speaking Arabic says, "I was born from my "abawaani" " and someone translating it literally as being born by "two fathers". This is a huge mistake because "abawaani" also means "father and mother, parents", thus someone who does not know Arabic would think the person is claiming that he has no mother but two fathers and somehow they gave birth to him. This being a result of mistranslation. Therefore keeping it neutral and with references in grammar usage of the word, the reader should be informed of other meaning to the word. The lengthy explanation was added because some people having a superficial understanding could not believe it could have another meaning. The references are there and any open minded person can go and read and undestand basic Arabic grammar, but the examples given therein do a fair job to assist someone in thinking in Arabic grammar usage of idioms and have a better understanding thereof.

What commentary you refer to? Do you refer to Arabic Words or English words because you cannot object the Arabic text and grammar usage by using English. The hadith is Arabic to start with and should be understood with Arabic grammar of word usage rather than English translation which have no value. That is because in English, you never find a person say (and I will repeat the mentioned example) say "I have two fathers" and mean "I have a father and mother", while in Arabic this is common. In English you never find a person say "I see the two moons" and mean "I see the sun and the moon", while in Arabic this is common. So in this prospective the "addition" is clarification and keeping it closer to the original prospective rather than on the translator's prospective and POV.(Studentoftruth 23:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC))

Luxenberg

I moved the section on Luxenberg out of the intro space to its own proper section. While interesting, his analysis is still controversial to say the least in academia. To have it be longer than the standard and accepted view, in the intro of all places gives him undue weight. Jayran 17:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Huri, Horae, Apsaras ...

The concept of heavenly virgins dates far back to preislamic times, especally when one looks into indoeuropean mythologies. It`s no surprise that the Arabs who where influenced at that time a lot from both the Indian and Graeco-Roman culture integrated this idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.137.216 (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

grapes joking

Evidence of joking around white grapes?

Some fool wrote: "This sparked much joking in the Western press; Muslim suicide bombers would be expecting beautiful women and getting grapes.[88]"

article linked for footnote 88 doesnt even mention the word "grape" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.245.145 (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the kind of nonsense we see too often in WP articles relating to Islam. The section is based on an inaccurate reading of an essay -- not even a news article -- in an online newspaper. The essential facts -- that the theory is based on interpreting Arabic words in the Quran as if they were Syriac, and that huri is thus rendered "white raisin" -- not "white grape" -- don't even appear. I support an appropriate mention of this theory in this article, but what we have is a mess. I am deleting it, since even the section heading "White Grapes" is inaccurate, and encourage someone else to try a more accurate, better sourced section. See Christoph Luxenberg for a start. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 16:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

While I was not the original user that placed the text in, I did move it to the section white grapes because that is what the original German text said. The Guardian, which is a paper of record, got it slightly mixed up and used raisin instead. The English edition of Luxenberg's book also used "white grapes" and not white raisins so I'm reverting it back in. The sourcing used it seems is to show the attention the claim got in the Western press. Jayran 04:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

"revirginating"

Is the part about the virgins being revirginating widely accepted in the muslim community? Because I asked a muslim friend about it and he said that it's not accepted because there is no proof that it has been directly said by Mohammed or his companions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.180.126.93 (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what "revirginating" means and about it being any authentic. The basic concept in Qur'an is about being created anew in hereafter and therefore, by logic and stated in the Qur'an, being virgin is a result of being a new creation. This is valid because everyone created in this life, is a virgin. The reference points to Suyuti, in which by itself does not consist of a proof at all. I might point there is no such book. The reference is not clear at all. It might be an opinion of his at most, and it does not mean anything beyond that. People have different opinions and unless they bring something stronger like you mentioned above as being said authentically by Mohammed or his companions, it is not accepted. Keep in mind that not everything reported is accepted unless there is a consensus that it is authentic and agrees with other established stronger sources. (Studentoftruth (talk) 13:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC))

Removed, source is not valid. Name of a person is not same as some book someone writes down. Source does not exist as referenced.(Studentoftruth (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC))

Recent vandalizations on "'Houri as Whore' misconception"

Your vandalization is clear from the source. You are vandalizing the text giving opposite meaning to the source it is referenced:

Are houri and whore related? No, they are not. Houri, taken over into English from French, is ultimately an Arabic word meaning “gazelle-like in the eyes,” from hawira “to be black-eyed like the gazelle” (the transliteration is simplified). The meaning “voluptuous, seductive woman,” known from English and French, is secondary. By contrast, whore has retained its ancient meaning almost intact. The English word has cognates in all the Old Germanic languages (for example, Gothic hors meant “adulterer”). By a well-known rule, Germanic h corresponds to k in other Indo-European languages, so that we find Latin carus and Old Irish cara “friend” among the words akin to whore. In Germanic, the meaning “dear, loving” deteriorated and was associated with illicit sex and promiscuity. Thus, neither the sounds (Indo-European k versus Arabic h) nor the meanings of the two words match. (http://blog.oup.com/2007/05/april_gleanings/) (Studentoftruth (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC))

72?

Erm...I don't know if anyone has highlighted this part of the subject matter, but I'll ask anyway with no offensive intent whatsoever;

Why 72? Why is the specified quantity made or established to be 72...?

88.105.103.13 (talk) 19:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not well versed in Islam, but I believe the reference to 72 virgins is not from the Koran, but rather from the Hadith (a collection of traditional sayings attributed to Muhammad -- with some measure of argument about their validity among scholars). Hadith number 2,562 in the collection known as the Sunan al-Tirmidhi says, "The least [reward] for the people of Heaven is 80,000 servants and 72 wives, over which stands a dome of pearls, aquamarine and ruby." Mkultra007 (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

70?

I always heard 72 up until news started coming in from the Iraq War, and then all of a sudden it seemed like it was always 70 ... now it's 72 again. In a Google Bash I get 113,000 for "70 virgins" vs. 237,000 for "72 virgins" (i.e. 1/3 vs. 2/3). Where does the 70 figure come from? Wnt (talk) 05:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

White grapes

Someone keeps deleting the section about Luxenberg's "white grapes" theory without discussing concerns. I am somewhat sympathetic, as I consider Luxenberg's theory to be rather absurd -- something like reading Beowulf as if it had been written in Old Norse, not Old English. But Wikipedia's standards are notability and verifiability, not truth. Luxenberg's theories may have gained traction solely because of their novelty and because of the English-speaking world's ignorance of the context. Nevertheless the theories are notable and verifiable. It would be appropriate to introduce reliably sourced critiques of Luxenberg rather than deleting all mention of his ideas. (I can't recommend any, unfortunately, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.) -- ℜob C. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 15:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I shortened the passage and removed the link to the editorial by Ibn Warraq (incorrectly cited as if his last name were "Warraq"!). There are better sources available, and WP has an article on his book already. -- ℜob C. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 15:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Plural of Houri

I see "houri", "houris", and "houries" used as the plural of houri. Which is correct? I think the first. (A detail to be sure but such things bother me.) Virgil H. Soule (talk) 03:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Improve Hadith Section

The Houri#Hadith Section could do with rewriting. The grammar makes what little content there is quite difficult to read. Moreover, it doesn't give a clear explanation of what a Hadith is. 62.6.149.17 (talk) 08:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Confusing intro

The intro says "denoting humans and jinn who enter paradise after being recreated anew in the hereafter.[6]" - I found this confusing as it sounds like these are regular people (Muslim men and women)... whereas elsewhere it seems like they are companions for Muslims who have entered paradise.

Is this saying that they were actually humans and jinn on earth? --Chriswaterguy talk 23:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why you find that confusing, meanwhile there is plenty of text in the body that support the idea that they are regular people. Read below what I copied from the main page. As matter of fact companionship and regular people are not contradictory by any means. You can be a companion and a regular person all in one. They are the Muslims that enter paradise among humans and jinns according to the text, and they are companion to each other. Someone can be called a regular person or jinn and a companion (friend), they are two qualities that the same individual can possess. Companionship means friendship. Unless you have some other meaning to being a companion, which in this case there is not, there is no ambiguity here. Where is the confusion?

Qur'an: "And [with them will be their] spouses, raised high: for, behold, We shall have brought them into being in a life renewed, having resurrected them as virgins [Chapter (Surah) Al-Waqi'a (The Event)(56):34-36] And among His wonders is this: He creates for you mates out of your own kind [min anfusikum azwajan, Lit. “from among yourselves mates (spouses, one of the pair)”] so that you might incline towards them, and He engenders love and tenderness between you: in this, behold, there are messages indeed for people who think! ... And He it is who creates [all life] in the first instance, and then brings it forth anew: and most easy is this for Him, since His is the essence of all that is most sublime in the heavens and on earth, and He alone is almighty, truly wise. [Chapter (Surah) Ar-Rum (The Romans)(30):21...27][37]

Hadith: Al-Hasan Al-Basri says that an old woman came to the messenger of Allah and made a request, O’ Messenger of Allah make Dua that Allah grants me entrance into Jannah. The messenger of Allah replied, O’ Mother, an old woman cannot enter Jannah. That woman started crying and began to leave. The messenger of Allah said, Say to the woman that one will not enter in a state of old age, but Allah will make all the women of Jannah young virgins. Allah Ta’aala says, Lo! We have created them a (new) creation and made them virgins, lovers, equal in age. (Surah Waaqi’ah, 35-37).[50]

Companions: Damrah bin Habib was asked if the Jinns will enter Paradise and he said,`Yes, and they will get married. The Jinns will have Jinn women and the humans will have female humans. quoted by Ibn Kathir in his Tafsir (Qur'anic Commentary) of Surah Rahman (55), ayah (verse) 56 In these [gardens - paradise] will be mates of modest gaze, whom neither man nor invisible being [Jinn] will have touched them then [after they have been created again].[57]

Companions of companions Al-Hasan Al-Basri said that the word houri implies the righteous women among mankind who are rewarded with paradise as related in the Tafsir of Tabari quoted by Muhammad Asad in his tafsir "Message of Quran"[31] concerning the following ayah: We have created [their Companions] of special creation, and made them virgin-pure [and undefiled after their old age in this life] (Qur’an, Surah Al-Waqia(56):35-36 Ibn Sirin mentions Abu Huraira using houri to solve a dispute of whether there are more women or men going to paradise.[55]

Explainers of the Qur'an Tabari Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari mentions that all righteous women, however old and decayed they may have been on earth, will be resurrected as virginal maidens and will, like their male counterparts, remain eternally young in paradise.[31] Ibn Kathir says that the houri "are delightful virgins of comparable age who never had sexual intercourse with anyone, whether from mankind or Jinns, before their husbands."[58] by commenting,"in the other life, after they became old in this life, they were brought back while virgin, youthful, being delightfully passionate with their husbands, beautiful, kind and cheerful."[56] Al-Qurtubi reconciled between the hadith of making the majority of the habitants of Hell and Paradise women by suggesting that the women that will form the majority in hell will be among the sinners that will stay there temporarily and will be brought out of Hell and enter Paradise. Thereafter the majority of the people of Paradise will be women.[59] Fakhr al-Din al-Razi comments that the companions of paradise mentioned in Qur'an 44:54 include “[even] those toothless old women of yours whom God will resurrect as new beings”[60] and observes that inasmuch as a person’s eye reflects his soul more clearly than any other part of the human body in Qur'an 52: 20.[31]

It is very clear that by all the above means of explanation these are regular people meaning regular humans and jinn living in paradise after being resurrected again. So to answer your question "yes they were actual humans and jinn on earth and they are still humans and jinn but now not on earth but in paradise Studentoftruth (talk) 19:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)