[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
You wish.
Well, as “hur” means white, the common interpretation says that these were meant in the context of “white eyed…virgins”.
I you’re gonna believe your imams, go ahead. I call this a leap of faith. In old aramaic, a closely related language to the classical arabic, it means, “white grapes” and was a common phrase for describing heavenly spheres. Your arabic alphabetical characters were not the same you know today, they were , like the jewish alphabet, without vocal alignment so on character could mean easily five different things.
So, sorry, no virgins for you my friend, makes sense when later in your favorite book, your wife is said to join you in heaven, sitting next to you. [/quote]
Schwarzy,
That is interesting.
Not the analysis in itself - which is essentially rubbish - but it’s interesting to see the fervor with which people who don’t know the first thing about Arabic and very little about the the history and traditions of Islam lecture me.
Not that I pretend to be an authority in any way, but the “believe your imams” line cracked me up simply because I flip off every Imam on earth. Yet, here you are lecturing me about blindly believing my “Imams” while the best exposure you had to the Holy Book was whatever that Prof. of yours told you. I don’t know if you can sense it but the irony is delightful here.
On to splitting hairs about the Houri…
I’m no Ph.D. in linguistics but the discipline happens to be a hobby of mine. The root of the word would be “hur” which unequivocally translates as “pure”. Whoever told you it means white is seriously misinformed. The evidence to destroy your “white (sour?) grapes” theory is overwhelming.
First, the word that comes right after it is “'ayn”, which unambiguously refers to the eyes. There is simply no way for you to argue otherwise. It’ll be like me arguing with you about how I read in a book, or was told by somebody that “auge” doesn’t mean what you think it does. So, grapes with eyes? I certainly won’t be buying those.
Then we have context. In verse 52:20, we’re told that the Hourisare “mootakieen 'ala soorureen massfoufatin” which would roughly translate as relaxing on fancy sofas (lazy grapes?). In the same verse, we’re even told that the Houris are paired (“jawaznahoom” which would literally translate as married) with the true believers. In 44:54, the same is repeated. i.e: the Houris are “married” to the heaven goer. Better yet, in 55:56 emphasis is put on how “qasirat attaraf” (women with good proportions) have never been touched before neither by men nor any other being.
Adding to this are several authentic (in the sense Hadiths in Sahih al-Bukhari et Sahih Moslim. Then we have a load of quotes of Sahaba (companions of the prophet pbuh), and quotes from the Taba’a (disciples of the Sahaba). They are unanimous about the presence of women in paradise.
I don’t see why would anyone try to stir a controversy about this. There is a mountain of evidence (which I merely scratched) to support the conclusion that Houris are beautiful dames.
I’ll prompt to throw out whatever you’re reading, as it sounds to be pure junk. Seriously, it’s apparently full of disinformation. Cross check your sources and don’t take anyone’s word. I know that one is tempted to just be told and homework can be resource draining, but it’s also essential in this age of information flood.
I hope none of that sounded too offensive.