Ma Malakat Emanakum" A Refutation to Brother Ayman;s understanding
-
Dear Ayman
Dear Brother ! All what is written in 24-31 , that these women can relax their dress code in the presence of their husbands,fathers, brothers sons, sons of their husbands, fathers of their husbands ,sons of their brothers/ sisters, other women,etc and that includes MMA as well.
I am a little perturbed on your twisting the sense of the relevent verse . Do our women show their hidden beauties, or for that matter reveal their private parts to their sons and fathers or brothers? please refrain from giving weired twists to the understandings, for creating an answer.
Dear warner
MMA most definitely consists of males as well, how ever you are right that the verses are primarily addressing the females out of MMA for this issue. The list, which 24-31 is allowing the women to relax their dress code, consists of All males, so there has to be some males which constitute the MMA. Moreover , all the women of the world( nissa) are also part of this list, had MMA been only females , they would have been part of the NISSA, and hence there was no need to list MMA separately.
peacesiki
-
Peace Warner,
I have not said Ma Malakat Aymankaum are ?Prisoners of War?, naturally prisoners of war will not be walking around in your houses during all times inclusive of Fajr and Isha.
This just demonstrates the contradictions that abound in your understanding. You say above that they are not "prisoners of war" and then you make a long circular thesis below to claim that they are "gains of war". What is the difference between the two? Is your "ma malakat" aymanukum" free to leave and do whatever they want, if not then you are practically saying that they are "prisoners of war" no matter how you want to sugar coat it.
The only direct reference to conflict or the sort of gain related to conflict is in 596-7 and 3350 ( Please also read 841 in relation to war gains) The verses say ?Allah as bestowed upon/ afa_ al la_hu? and ?gained as spoils of war?(841). The connection between the aFa / bestow/ bestowed upon in 596 & 7 and. ? wa ma_ malakat yaminuka mim ma_ afa_ al la_hu alaika? in 3350 can not be ignored. In both 597 and 841 gains are distributed to the same set of people. Chapters 8 and 59 deal quite a lot on the subject of war and gains of war....
Of course, I don't really need to address your entire circular thesis. The passages that you quoted contradict your understanding. They clearly say that the gains of war are to be given to the needy relative, the orphans, the poor and the homeless. Is it the wives, sisters and daughters of the defeated enemy that those people really need? Of course this is ridiculous and like I said, I don't even need to go into the rest of your long thesis to refute it.
2431 why do you think it is male Ma Malakt Aymanakum?
I went by the assumption that Ma Malakt Aymankum are women.If you read carefully, then you would see that women are already mentioned in 2431 so this would be redundant.
The Chapter is dealing with the same topic from 231 to 11. Starting from 231 is not the Chapter dealing with men mainly. You will notice similar emphasis on men when you look at Chapter 70 from the beginning. I take it that both verses are dealing with men in their relationship to wives and MMA and wives with in their relationship with the husband.
Actually, in Arabic the male plural can be both male and female while the female plural is exclusively female. If what you are saying is true then this means that the commands in chapter 23 and 70 don't apply to females and they can have all the fun in the world with their private parts!!! Again, you are justifying your contradictions by piling on more contradictions and hence more preposterous claims.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Ayman
My theory says they are not prisoners of war.
I have posted verses 596-7 and 3350 (and also 841) since the 2 verses had certain similarities in their use of ?Allah as bestowed upon/ afa_ al la_hu? in 596 & 7 and. ?wa ma_ malakat yaminuka mim ma_ afa_ al la_hu alaika? in 3350.
I was hoping that you will forward your opinion on these verses and also on ? What your oath/right hand possessed from what Allah has bestowed upon? 3350 in contrast to ?wives to whom you have paid their dowers (azwa_jakal la_til uju_rahun na)? 33.50 seems to indicate a significant difference between a wife and MMA with the establishment of the 2 relationships
I have clearly mentioned that I do not consider this as all conclusive evidence but I have said the use of the term in these verses can not be ignored. Can you address the Quraan verses without making noise on a non existent circular thesis?
Ma Malakt Aymaakum are not free to leave.
Your Ma Malakat Aymanakum are they equal to you?
Ayman If you read carefully, then you would see that women are already mentioned in 2431 so this would be redundant.
If you read more carefully you will see 2431 says ?tell the believing women not to reveal except??. to their women (nisa_ ihin na)? and not just any women.
Ayman Actually, in Arabic the male plural can be both male and female while the female plural is exclusively female. If what you are saying is true then this means that the commands in chapter 23 and 70 don't apply to females and they can have all the fun in the world with their private parts!!! Again, you are justifying your contradictions by piling on more contradictions and hence more preposterous claims.
When the male plural is used you are given an option to use your reasoning to decide whether both are addressed or only the male is addressed depending on the context of the verse. There are many verses which establish the relationship of men with the Ma Malakat Aymanakum mostly in verses related to marriage . There are no male Ma Malakt Aymanakum to support your theory. So women can not have sex with non existent male MMA.
-
Peace Siki
2431 says ?tell the believing women not to reveal except??. to their women (nisa_ ihin na )? and not just any women.
Agreed,, wrong understanding on my part, so "nissa of the word" argument is not valid.
But then, these MMA females should be part of " Nissa- e -hinna" and also, the primary address of the verse is a list of Males.
MY "Most definitely " is reduced to 'likely", so lets look /analyse other verses to get supporting clues either ways.
peace
siki
-
Peace Siki
The possible reason ?their (ma_ malakat aima_nuhun na)? is not included among ?their women? is because for believing women ?their women? may mean other believing women.( there can be other explanations to ?their women? category , such as women who work with them or work for them) and among Ma Mala kat Aymanakum there are believers and Non believers.
-
Salaam warner
Does "nisaa'ihinna" n the following quote include their mothers, sisters, aunts...etc?
If you read more carefully you will see 2431 says ?tell the believing women not to reveal except??. to their women (nisa_ ihin na)? and not just any women.
-
Salaam warner
What do you mean by (not any woman)?
Also, have you noticed that the verse speaks about males only (with the exception of this bizarre nisaa'ihinna)?
My understandin is that it means (their grandchildren). Nas' the later
Look at verse 361"Us and you, our children and yours, our "nisaa'" and yours..."
"We and you" already contains women. Also, "women", which include mothers, should not be mentioned after "children" by logic of language. It has to be understood as "We and you, our children and yours, our grandchildren and yours.."
-
Salaam warner
What do you mean by (not any woman)?
Also, have you noticed that the verse speaks about males only (with the exception of this bizarre nisaa'ihinna)?
My understandin is that it means (their grandchildren). Nas' the later
Look at verse 361"Us and you, our children and yours, our "nisaa'" and yours..."
"We and you" already contains women. Also, "women", which include mothers, should not be mentioned after "children" by logic of language. It has to be understood as "We and you, our children and yours, our grandchildren and yours.."
Samia
Does not make sense to me,, could you explain a little more please?
siki
-
Peace Warner,
My theory says they are not prisoners of war.
Ma Malakt Aymaakum are not free to leave.
Your statements above are a good typical example of the many contradictions in your understanding. When people are not free to leave then they are prisoners. This is an indisputable fact!!!
Now, you can sugar coat your words to try to make them appear different from the traditional Hadith-based understanding but in practice your understanding on this issue is very similar to Hadith-based preconceptions. This is the source of your inconsistencies.
I have posted verses 596-7 and 3350 (and also 841) since the 2 verses had certain similarities in their use of ?Allah as bestowed upon/ afa_ al la_hu? in 596 & 7 and. ?wa ma_ malakat yaminuka mim ma_ afa_ al la_hu alaika? in 3350.
Because of your contradictory Hadith-based understanding, you still haven't explained how "what the god had bestowed on you" from the gains of war, which goes to the needy relative, the orphans, the poor and the homeless (596-7 & 841) would apply to "ma malakat aymanukum". Would you give the wives, sisters, mothers, and daugthers of the defeated enemy to the poor!!?? Again, you are justifying your Hadith-based contradictions by piling on more contradictions and hence are caught in a cycle of ever more preposterous claims.
I was hoping that you will forward your opinion on these verses and also on ? What your oath/right hand possessed from what Allah has bestowed upon? 3350 in contrast to ?wives to whom you have paid their dowers (azwa_jakal la_til uju_rahun na)? 33.50 seems to indicate a significant difference between a wife and MMA with the establishment of the 2 relationships
I have clearly mentioned that I do not consider this as all conclusive evidence but I have said the use of the term in these verses can not be ignored. Can you address the Quraan verses without making noise on a non existent circular thesis?Is everything listed in there in 3350 in contrast of one another? Are "your cousins" in contrast to the other entities mentioned? Can the prophet go and have sex with his cousin without marriage?
As I said, you have this entirely Hadith-based idea that "ma malakat aymanukum" are prisoners of war or "gains of war" (or whatever sugar-coated term you want to use) and then you are trying to find any remotely possible passage to support your understanding. Since your starting point is the conclusion, this is called building a circular argument. Try to start with a clean understanding and you will never reach the conclusion that they have anything to do with war or that they are not "free".
Your Ma Malakat Aymanakum are they equal to you?
Yes, they are any oath-based relation. There can be two types of oath-based relation (1) adoption (2) engagement/dating.
If you read more carefully you will see 2431 says ?tell the believing women not to reveal except??. to their women (nisa_ ihin na)? and not just any women.
If as you say "ma malakat aymanihn" (notice the possesive here too) are women then they are already covered by "nisa'hn" (again with the possessive). So please stop arguing about indisputable linguistic and logical facts and confuse people such as Siki more than they are already confused.
When the male plural is used you are given an option to use your reasoning to decide whether both are addressed or only the male is addressed depending on the context of the verse. There are many verses which establish the relationship of men with the Ma Malakat Aymanakum mostly in verses related to marriage . There are no male Ma Malakt Aymanakum to support your theory. So women can not have sex with non existent male MMA.
There are no other passages asking women to guard their private parts. So if as you are saying, the passages in Chapter 23 and 70 don't apply to women, then there is no restriction on them in that regards. Again, you are caught in your contradictions.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Ayman
When two people are married, are they free to leave? No. since they are bound by the marriage bond. When you are in a contract with someone for employment or to provide or supply goods or services are you free to leave? Your children are free to leave ? Free to leave and prisoners are 2 different things. In which prison system in the world the prisoners are free to walk inside other peoples houses, probably they got themselves there in the first place by doing just that and helping themselves to things while they were doing such walks.
When you do not have anything important to say you try to throw at people the hadith black mail. I haven?t quoted any Hadith. In the pretext of the hadith smoke screen you still have not explained the Quraan verses.
Ayman Is everything listed in there in 3350 in contrast of one another? Are "your cousins" in contrast to the other entities mentioned? Can the prophet go and have sex with his cousin without marriage?
It is not necessary every listed category should be in contrast to each other. It shows how you obtained them. The difference between the first 2 categories are obvious; wives you paid ujoor to have them and MMA Allah bestowed upon.
Ayman Would you give the wives, sisters, mothers, and daugthers of the defeated enemy to the poor!!??
Please read my explanation on Ma Malakat Aymanakum posted previously.
5 33
Yusuf Ali The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Apostle and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is execution or crucifixion of the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides or exile from the land that is their disgrace in this world and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.We are not here to discuss whether I will do or not. We discuss what the Quraan says. See the above verse. You are like a PR agency trying to spin doct and make Islam attractive to people with your fancy manipulations, but Allah does not need that. He has set the laws, man has to obey them. Bending the Quraan to make it more attractive to people is not one of my objectives.
Your Ma Malakat Aymanakum are they equal to you?
Ayman Yes, they are any oath-based relation. There can be two types of oath-based relation (1) adoption (2) engagement/dating.
The following 2 verses say that is not correct.
30 28
Yusuf Ali He does propound to you a similitude from your own (experience) do ye have partners among those whom your right hands possess to share as equals in the wealth We have bestowed on you? Do ye fear them as ye fear each other? Thus do We explain the Signs in detail to a people that understand.16 71
Yusuf Ali Allah has bestowed His gifts of sustenance more freely on some of you than on others; those more favored are not going to throw back their gifts to those whom their right hands possess so as to be equal in that respect. Will they then deny the favors of Allah?I thought the Americans started the dating scene and not the Quran. Now I know why they love us so much. If your opinion of 2 oath based relation version is true please give evidence from the Quraan.
Ayman If as you say "ma malakat aymanihn" (notice the possesive here too) are women then they are already covered by "nisa'hn" (again with the possessive). So please stop arguing about indisputable linguistic and logical facts and confuse people such as Siki more than they are already confused.
?Their? women does not mean ?any women?. Do you think the possessive ?THEIR? was used for fun. Their Ma Malakat aymanhinna means ?theirs? and not anyone else?s MMA. Although the MMA are women they are not part of THEIR WOMEN. They do not belong to THEIR women of the believing women. Your facts are not indisputable; neither they are not linguistic nor logical. Besides they are not facts at all. Siki is trying hard to learn you are stubbornly closing your eyes to the truth.
Ayman There are no other passages asking women to guard their private parts. So if as you are saying, the passages in Chapter 23 and 70 don't apply to women, then there is no restriction on them in that regards. Again, you are caught in your contradictions.
I did not say these 2 verses do not apply to women or wives. I only said the MMA mentioned in the verse and elsewhere are female. Can?t you see that wives are being covered in the formula? When a man is told to guard his private parts except with HIS WIFE and MMA (who are women) it doesn?t take much to figure out the wife has to protect her private parts except with her husband. Both meanings are included in the same verse; do not go looking for unavailable verses.
-
Peace Samia
Samia "We and you" already contains women. Also, "women", which include mothers, should not be mentioned after "children" by logic of language. It has to be understood as "We and you, our children and yours, our grandchildren and yours.."
3 61
Yusuf Ali If anyone disputes in this matter with thee now after (full) knowledge hath come to thee say "Come! let us gather together our sons and your sons our women and your women ourselves and yourselves then let us earnestly pray and invoke the curse of Allah on those who lie!"
.
Transliteration Faman ha_jjaka fihi mim ba'di ma_ ja_'aka minal 'ilmi faqul ta'a_lau nad'u abna_'ana_ wa abna_'akum wa nisa_'ana_ wa nisa_'akum wa anfusana_ wa anfusakum, summa nabtahil fa naj'al la'natalla_hi 'alal ka_zibin(a).The order is correct. We and you (ourselves and yourselves) comes after the ?children and women? and in that order.
Isn?t the usual translation ?abna_'ana_ ? Our sons and ?abna_'akum? Your sons ?
Shouldnt children also be included within We and you
Could it be a manner of speech in such situation
-
Salaam warner
Does "nfusana wa anfusakum" means only men? I think it includes males and females, just as our sons and your sons include our daughters and your daughters. Unless "nisaa'ana wa nisaa'akum" means "our wives and your wives", thus gathering all men and only wives sisters; mothers, daughters...etc are excluded.
-
Peace Warner,
When two people are married, are they free to leave? No. since they are bound by the marriage bond.
Yes. In fact, they do all the time, either temporarily or permanently. Haven't you heard of separation and divorce!!!??
You are again trying desperately to decorate your understanding of "ma malakat aymanukum" to make it appear that it means something other than "prisoners of war" when IN PRACTICE it does.
When you are in a contract with someone for employment or to provide or supply goods or services are you free to leave?
Yes. I have had employees leave me and I left employers in the past. It happens all the time. What world are you living in?
Again, by trying to decorate your highly unrealistic understanding you have lost your touch with the truth of reality.
Your children are free to leave ?
Yes they are. Weren't you free to leave your parents when you reached maturity? Are you not free or will not be free to leave your parents? If not, then I feel sorry for you.
Free to leave and prisoners are 2 different things. In which prison system in the world the prisoners are free to walk inside other peoples houses, probably they got themselves there in the first place by doing just that and helping themselves to things while they were doing such walks.
We are not talking about prisoners who are guilty of any crime. We are talking about what would happen if someone invaded your country and defeated it. According to YOU, they have the right to take your mom, your sister, your daughter, and your wife to a far away land and have sex with them and have them work without a wage and take away their freedom to leave (i.e. enslave them).
You know, after thinking about it, what you are saying is actually WORSE than "prisoners of war". At least "prisoners of war" were combatants but your mom, sister, daughter and wife were completely innocent civilians. Moreover, even "prisoners of wars" are NOT enslaved. According to 867 and 477 they are either exchanged or released unconditionally.
From 867 and 474, one can clearly see the following points
(1) Having prisoners of war is ONLY allowed during war.
(2) ONLY combatants in BATTLE can be taken captive during war.
(3) Even during war, the ONLY actions allowed with respect to captives are SETTING THEM FREE or RANSOM them. Please note that "setting free" is mentioned before "ransom/exchange" and hence takes precedence. Also, there is NOTHING about enslaving them or their women or any other non-combatants.
(4) After the war is over, see (1).
The rules for capture of war prisoners are clearly spelled out in 474. Since only combatants can be captured and are to be freed when the war is over, the whole debate about treatment of non-combatant women (let alone their enslavement) is pointless and 474 is enough to make all your fantasies about female war captives moot.
When you do not have anything important to say you try to throw at people the hadith black mail. I haven?t quoted any Hadith. In the pretext of the hadith smoke screen you still have not explained the Quraan verses.
Warner, is it a coincidence that your arguments are similar to Hadiths and hence, not surprisingly, suffer from the same contradictions? I don't think so.
Again, you are trying hard to decorate your words to make it sound more "civilized" but in practice what you are saying is no different than Hadiths.
It is not necessary every listed category should be in contrast to each other. It shows how you obtained them. The difference between the first 2 categories are obvious; wives you paid ujoor to have them and MMA Allah bestowed upon.
Don't you know that the god bestowed EVERYTHING on you?
When you fall in love with a nice girl and she falls in love with you isn't that something nice that the god bestowed on you?
Please read my explanation on Ma Malakat Aymanakum posted previously.
5 33
Yusuf Ali The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Apostle and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is execution or crucifixion of the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides or exile from the land that is their disgrace in this world and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.We are not here to discuss whether I will do or not. We discuss what the Quraan says. See the above verse. You are like a PR agency trying to spin doct and make Islam attractive to people with your fancy manipulations, but Allah does not need that. He has set the laws, man has to obey them. Bending the Quraan to make it more attractive to people is not one of my objectives.
Yea right, they should be "exiled from the land". So putting them in the sea or on a spaceship to Mars is what is meant in 533. Your problem is that you take a superficial meaning without thinking. Besides, even if you take the superficial meaning, there is nothing there about taking their wives, daughters, mothers, and sisters as slaves/prisoners of war.
The following 2 verses say that is not correct.
30 28
Yusuf Ali He does propound to you a similitude from your own (experience) do ye have partners among those whom your right hands possess to share as equals in the wealth We have bestowed on you? Do ye fear them as ye fear each other? Thus do We explain the Signs in detail to a people that understand.16 71
Yusuf Ali Allah has bestowed His gifts of sustenance more freely on some of you than on others; those more favored are not going to throw back their gifts to those whom their right hands possess so as to be equal in that respect. Will they then deny the favors of Allah?1671 actually says that they are equal.
You can substitute "adopted children" or "engaged to" in both 3028 and 1671 and the passages would make sense. As for "kidnapped women of the enemy", you would certainly be afraid that your slave/prisoner or "gain of war" or whatever one of your confused descriptions you want to use would slit your throat while you are sleeping so they can't certainly be what is talked about in 3028.
I thought the Americans started the dating scene and not the Quran. Now I know why they love us so much. If your opinion of 2 oath based relation version is true please give evidence from the Quraan.
This is a typical comment from someone closed minded who have seen a few Hollywood movies and then thinks that Americans are the only ones who date.
The fact of the matter is that "dating" doesn't mean having sex and practically speaking, there is little difference between engagement and dating. In fact, in 2235 we are told that we can date (Arabic "tuwa3id" but not in secret. But even the "not in secret", we can be exempt from according to 2235 when we meet in secret to communicate to each other good things.
Don't you think that it is a little hypocritical that you have a big issue with consentual "dating" but have no issue with taking of the mothers, sisters, wives and daughters of other people by force and enslaving and having sex with them?
?Their? women does not mean ?any women?. Do you think the possessive ?THEIR? was used for fun. Their Ma Malakat aymanhinna means ?theirs? and not anyone else?s MMA. Although the MMA are women they are not part of THEIR WOMEN. They do not belong to THEIR women of the believing women. Your facts are not indisputable; neither they are not linguistic nor logical. Besides they are not facts at all. Siki is trying hard to learn you are stubbornly closing your eyes to the truth.
If "ma malakat aymanuhun" are women then they certainly belong to "nisaa'hn" (their women). Let me simplify it for you so that you can undestand.
A= their women
B = their women of type X
It doesn't matter what "type X" is, B is still a subset of A.
The only way to avoid redundancy is if "ma malakat aymanukum" included men.
I did not say these 2 verses do not apply to women or wives. I only said the MMA mentioned in the verse and elsewhere are female. Can?t you see that wives are being covered in the formula? When a man is told to guard his private parts except with HIS WIFE and MMA (who are women) it doesn?t take much to figure out the wife has to protect her private parts except with her husband. Both meanings are included in the same verse; do not go looking for unavailable verses.
I guess you looked and couldn't find any passage asking women to guard their private parts and this really bothered you (but like chauvinistic Hadithists, abducting women and enslaving them doesn't seem to bother you one bit). As I said, you are caught in your contradictions. Now you are claiming that "I did not say these 2 verses do not apply to women or wives". The fact is that either the whole command applies to both men and women or it applies only to men. There is no linguistic basis for separating one part of the command and changing the gender in the middle of the command. Also, the male guarding his private part doesn't necessarily mean that the female is automatically guarding hers.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Dear brother Ayman
5-33 The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,
you have ,very conveniently ignored, execution , crucification and cutting of the hands from opposite side in your reply to brother warner???
70-29.30 And those who guard their private parts, Except in the case of their wives or those whom their right hands possess -- for these surely are not to be blamed,
lets substitute the MMA for your understanding,
70-29.30 And those who guard their private parts,Except in the case of their wives or the adopted children/or those that they are engaged to -- for these surely are not to be blamed
Moreover God allowing sex between engaged couple? or with adopted children nope
This is the first time i have ever heard it , did any body in this forum?? rotfl2-235 And there is no sin upon you if you openly propose marriage to these women, or you keep it between yourselves. God knows that you will be thinking of them, but do not date them secretly except to say what is good. And do not commit to the marriage vows until the required interim is reached in the scripture. And know that God knows what is in your souls, so be aware of Him, and know that God is Forgiving, Compassionate.
God even forbids to meet your engaged women in secret , until and unless you have something righteous to discuss
and you are talking about checking out each others sexual organs or may be even trying and testing them out. ??? brickwall
peace
siki
-
Peace Siki,
5-33 The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,
you have ,very conveniently ignored, execution , crucification and cutting of the hands from opposite side in your reply to brother warner???Yea right, "execute them and crucify them" really makes sense!!!!
Siki, you are beginning to sound like the people at Faithfreedom. Are you challenging me or the great reading?
I suggest that you start by challenging your superficial understanding of a clearly idiomatic passage.
70-29.30 And those who guard their private parts, Except in the case of their wives or those whom their right hands possess -- for these surely are not to be blamed,
lets substitute the MMA for your understanding,
70-29.30 And those who guard their private parts,Except in the case of their wives or the adopted children/or those that they are engaged to -- for these surely are not to be blamed
Moreover God allowing sex between engaged couple? or with adopted children nope
This is the first time i have ever heard it , did any body in this forum?? rotflMy guess is that there are probably lots of things that you never heard before.
Can you show me where intercourse is mentioned in chapter 70?
Guarding the private parts mean that we shouldn't let our private parts be aroused (except by our wives and those that we made an oath of engagement to).
2-235 And there is no sin upon you if you openly propose marriage to these women, or you keep it between yourselves. God knows that you will be thinking of them, but do not date them secretly except to say what is good. And do not commit to the marriage vows until the required interim is reached in the scripture. And know that God knows what is in your souls, so be aware of Him, and know that God is Forgiving, Compassionate.
God even forbids to meet your engaged women in secret , until and unless you have something righteous to discuss
and you are talking about checking out each others sexual organs or may be even trying and testing them out. ??? brickwallSo dating is allowed. Even secretly dating is allowed when the couple meet in secret to discuss good things.
I don't get it, do you want to ban love?
When you are attracted to someone and you are dating them (i.e. you are in a romantic relationship) or are married to them, wouldn't your private parts be aroused without intercourse? If not, then I feel sorry for you (both).
Peace,
Ayman
-
YAMIN AND AYMAN
Right Hand / Right Hands or Oath / Oaths?
There is a difference of opinion to the meanings of the terms Ma Malakat Yaminuka(sing.) or Ma Malakat Aymanakum (plural) and majority suggests that it is ?What Your Right Hand Possessed? (sing.) and ?What Your Right Hands Possessed? (plural) respectively.
Brother Ayman suggested the terms should be translated as ?What Your Oath Possessed? (sing.) and ?What Your Oaths Possessed? (plural) . He believes it should be ?oath/oaths? instead of ?right hand/right hands".
Let?s check what the Quran says,
Right Hand/Right Hands
The word ?Yamin?(sing.) is used in the Quraan to mean ?Right Hand?(singular) in the following verses and few more.
20 17
PickthallAnd what is that in thy right hand, O Moses?
Wa ma_ tilka biyaminika ya_ mu_sa_37 93
PickthallThen he attacked them, striking with his right hand.
Fara_ga alaihim darban bil yaminThe word ?Ayman?(plural) is used in the Quraan to mean ?Right Hands?(plural) in 5712, 668, 433 and also to mean right side 1952, 2080, 2830 and to mean (companions of the ) right hand in 568, 568, 9018.
OATH/OATHS
Since the word ?Ayman? is used in the Quran many times with the meaning ?oath/oaths? it is quite usual to believe the word Yamin(sing.) means ?Oath? (singular) and Ayman (plural) means ?Oaths?.
Other than the verse 3350 contested by both parties in which ?Ma Malakat Yaminuka(sing.) is used there is no other occurrence of the term in singular in the Quran. 3350 it is used in singular since the MMA is mentioned in relation to the Messenger which is singular. But for our purpose we can not take this verse either to mean ?Oath? or ?Right hand? because both opinions are being contested to be used in the term in this verse. So let?s explore other options and come to this verse later.
Significantly, the word ?Yamin? is not used anywhere in the Quraan to mean ?Oath? in singular as far as I know. (Also Yamin is not used to mean Oaths either) Please let me know if I have missed.
When we take the word Ayman/Oath/promise, although it was always made to appear by majority of the translators as a plural word meaning ?Oaths? and translated as such when we check the relevant Quranic verses it doesn?t seem to indicate that. Also since this word is a very common word in the Quraan and has been mistakenly translated as ?Oaths?(plural) many times even when it is contrary to all logic and linguistics we conveniently accepted this as ?Oaths?(plural).
Following is the most basic definition of OATH. For our purpose here we can substitute ?promise? instead of oath as an alternative to make the meaning and construction clear, if necessary. Also I have given few quotations using the word oath.
oath (PROMISE)
nouna promise, especially that you will tell the truth in a law court
Medieval knights took an oath of allegiance/loyalty to their lord.
The witness placed her hand on the Bible and took the oath (= promised to tell the truth).(from Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary)
The usual witness's oath is ?I swear by Almighty God that the evidence ...
The prosecution witnesses give their evidence on oath and may be cross-examined
They took an oath of allegiance to the king.
In Congress, all members take the same oath of office when they begin a new term.
Now let?s check the Quran
Following verses uses the word ?Ayman?.
I have made a comment in italics after every verse highlighting the contradiction which will be created if the plural of the word is used in the verse i.e. Oaths instead of Oath. Italic comment will be useful when you compare with a wrong translation. Please check how most translators have mistakenly translated as Oaths.
6839
Or do you have an oath from us extending until the day of resurrection that you can judge as you please?
Am lakum aima_nun alina a_ ba_ligatun ila_ yaumil qiya_mati in na lakum lama_ tahkumu_n
The word is ?aima_nun?. Is God questioning about one oath or many oaths?
6602
Allah has already ordained for you the dissolution of your oath and Allah is your Protector and He is Full of Knowledge and Wisdom.Qad faradal la_hu lakum tahil lata aima_nikum wal la_hu maula_kum wa huwal alimul hakim
Dissolution of ?oath? or dissolution of ?oaths?? If you know how to dissolve one oath do you have to be told how to dissolve many oaths?
1691
And fulfill your pledge to God when you pledge so, and do not break the oath after making it, for you have made God a sponsor /supporter over you. God is aware of what you do.
Wa aufu_ bi 'ahdilla_hi iza_ 'a_hattum wa la_ tanqud ul aima_na ba'da taukidiha_ wa qad ja'altumulla_ha 'alaikum kafila_(n), innalla_ha ya'lamu ma_ taf'alu_n(a).
One oath or many oaths?
5 89
Allah will not call you to account for what is futile in your oath but He will call you to account for your deliberate oath for expiation feed then indigent persons on a scale of the average for the food of your families; or clothe them; or give a slave his freedom. If that is beyond your means fast for three days. That is the expiation for the oath ye have sworn. But keep to your oath. Thus doth Allah make clear to you His Signs that ye may be grateful.
La_ yu'a_khizukumulla_hu bil lagwi fi aima_nikum wa la_kiy yu'a_khizukum bima_'aqqattumul aima_n(a), fa kaffa_ratuhu_ it'a_mu 'asyarati masa_kina min ausati ma_ tut'imu_na ahlikum au kiswatuhum au tahriru raqabah(tin), famal lam yajid fa siya_mu sala_sati ayya_m(in), za_likakaffa_ratu aima_nikum iza_ halaftum, wahfazu_ aima_nakum, kaza_lika yubayyinulla_hu lakum a_ya_tihi
Is God commanding not to break one Oath or not to break many Oaths.
There are few expiation regulations in the verse. These regulations are applicable if someone breaks one oath or break many oaths?5 53
And those who believe will say "Are these the men who swore their strongest oath by Allah that they were with you?" All that they do will be in vain and they will fall into (nothing but) ruin.Wa yaqu_lul lazina a_manu_ aha_'ula_'il lazina aqsamu_ billa_hi jahda aima_nihim, innahum lama'akum, habitat a'ma_luhum fa asbahu_ kha_sirin(a).
What was the oath ? What did they promise? They said ?by Allah we swear we are with you?. One promise or many promises? One oath or many oaths ?
912
But if they violate their oath after their covenant and taunt you for your faith fight ye the chiefs of unfaith ....................
Wa in nakasu_ aima_nahum mim ba'di 'ahdihim wa ta'anu_ fi dinikum fa qa_tilu_ a'immatal kufr(i), .................
The command is to fight if they violate one oath or many oaths? Does this mean the enemy has given many Oaths to the believers and the command to fight is applicable only if the enemy breaks many oaths?
From the above verses we can see the word ?Ayman? is for singular "Oath" and therefore we CAN NOT substitute the word ?Ayman? as ?Oaths? in Ma Malakat Aymanakum. Ma Malakat Aymankum is always used in plural since all uses are in relation to believers (plural)other than 3350.
This will leave Ma Malakat Yaminika in 3350 without a translation if we try to substitute Oath/Oaths in to the term instead of Right Hand since "Ayman" is singular Oath and the word ?Yamin? so far everyone claimed to be the singular does not seem to have a meaning inside the Quraan and the singular has been already taken by Ayman/Oath.
Because of this contradiction with Oath/Oaths we can firmly say Ma Malakat Yaminuka(sing.) or Ma Malakat Aymanakum (plural) means ?What Your Right Hand Possessed? (sing.) and ?What Your Right Hands Possessed? (plural) respectively..
This is from my analysis an understanding of the Quraan and all human understandings are prone to error. So please feel free to correct me in the above observation.
-
Peace Warner,
YAMIN AND AYMAN
Right Hand / Right Hands or Oath / Oaths?
There is a difference of opinion to the meanings of the terms Ma Malakat Yaminuka(sing.) or Ma Malakat Aymanakum (plural) and majority suggests that it is ?What Your Right Hand Possessed? (sing.) and ?What Your Right Hands Possessed? (plural) respectively.
Brother Ayman suggested the terms should be translated as ?What Your Oath Possessed? (sing.) and ?What Your Oaths Possessed? (plural) . He believes it should be ?oath/oaths? instead of ?right hand/right hands".
Let?s check what the Quran says,
Right Hand/Right Hands
The word ?Yamin?(sing.) is used in the Quraan to mean ?Right Hand?(singular) in the following verses and few more.
20 17
PickthallAnd what is that in thy right hand, O Moses?
Wa ma_ tilka biyaminika ya_ mu_sa_
37 93
PickthallThen he attacked them, striking with his right hand.
Fara_ga alaihim darban bil yaminThe first step you need to do when analyzing any Arabic word is determine what form it is in. This would have saved you a lot of trouble.
The word "AYMAaN" is of the form "AF3AaL", a plural form.
This form is fairly common in Arabic and there are thousands of examples of its use in the Arabic language. For example, you can see the same form used in 5548 "AFNAaN" (branches), in 3127 "AQLAaM" (pens), etc. etc.
The word "YMYN" is of the form "F3YL", a singular form. The relationship between "YMN" (goodness) and "YMYN" is a descriptive one like "FQR" (poorness) and "FQYR" (poor). So "YMYN" literally means "good". It probably came to mean "right hand" because for most people their "good hand" is their "right hand". However, strictly speaking, for a lefty, his "YMYN" (good hand) would in fact be the left hand. So 2017 could have well been talking about his left hand. Especially since we know that one of his hands had a deformity of some sort (2022). So in 2017 we are probably hearing about Moses' "good hand" not necessarily "right hand". The word "YMYN" and its plural "AYMAaN" came to mean oath/oaths probably because people shake hands and expect the other to make good on their promise when agreeing to something.
Same in 3793. We hear about Ibrahim striking with his good/strong hand. If he was lefty, the passage would still be true. If his hand got tired and he switched hands, the passage would still be true.
The word ?Ayman?(plural) is used in the Quraan to mean ?Right Hands?(plural) in 5712, 668, 433 and also to mean right side 1952, 2080, 2830 and to mean (companions of the ) right hand in 568, 568, 9018.
You are not right (I don't mean that you don't have a right hand).
In 5712 and 668, it clearly doesn't mean right hands since "hands" is already mentioned right (please don't think that I mean right hand/side here) before.
Can you tell me what the "right" side of a mountain is in 1952 and 2080? Mountains have no "right" or "left" side since it has to be relative. In our case, our right and left are relative to our frontal face. Also, the word is not "aymaan", it is "aymn", which can also mean "more good/better" (as "ymn" means "goodness". Hence, my name "Ayman" (not Aymaan) means "more good". So the passages are talking about the better side of the "toor" and not the right side of the "toor".
I am sure that in 433, "tying the right hand" is not what is talked about and "aymanukum" clearly doesn't mean "right hand" but means "oath" and the passage is certainly talking about oath-based contracts.
Also, "companions of the right hand" is meaningless nonsense. I think that companions of "good" is closer to logic.
OATH/OATHSSince the word ?Ayman? is used in the Quran many times with the meaning ?oath/oaths? it is quite usual to believe the word Yamin(sing.) means ?Oath? (singular) and Ayman (plural) means ?Oaths?.
Other than the verse 3350 contested by both parties in which ?Ma Malakat Yaminuka(sing.) is used there is no other occurrence of the term in singular in the Quran. 3350 it is used in singular since the MMA is mentioned in relation to the Messenger which is singular. But for our purpose we can not take this verse either to mean ?Oath? or ?Right hand? because both opinions are being contested to be used in the term in this verse. So let?s explore other options and come to this verse later.
Significantly, the word ?Yamin? is not used anywhere in the Quraan to mean ?Oath? in singular as far as I know. (Also Yamin is not used to mean Oaths either) Please let me know if I have missed.
When we take the word Ayman/Oath/promise, although it was always made to appear by majority of the translators as a plural word meaning ?Oaths? and translated as such when we check the relevant Quranic verses it doesn?t seem to indicate that. Also since this word is a very common word in the Quraan and has been mistakenly translated as ?Oaths?(plural) many times even when it is contrary to all logic and linguistics we conveniently accepted this as ?Oaths?(plural).
?
Now let?s check the Quran
Following verses uses the word ?Ayman?.
I have made a comment in italics after every verse highlighting the contradiction which will be created if the plural of the word is used in the verse i.e. Oaths instead of Oath. Italic comment will be useful when you compare with a wrong translation. Please check how most translators have mistakenly translated as Oaths.
6839
Or do you have an oath from us extending until the day of resurrection that you can judge as you please?
Am lakum aima_nun alina a_ ba_ligatun ila_ yaumil qiya_mati in na lakum lama_ tahkumu_n
The word is ?aima_nun?. Is God questioning about one oath or many oaths?Many.
6602
Allah has already ordained for you the dissolution of your oath and Allah is your Protector and He is Full of Knowledge and Wisdom.
Qad faradal la_hu lakum tahil lata aima_nikum wal la_hu maula_kum wa huwal alimul hakim
Dissolution of ?oath? or dissolution of ?oaths?? If you know how to dissolve one oath do you have to be told how to dissolve many oaths?Again, this is plural, unless you are suggesting that people need to dissolve an oath once in their entire live.
1691
And fulfill your pledge to God when you pledge so, and do not break the oath after making it, for you have made God a sponsor /supporter over you. God is aware of what you do.
Wa aufu_ bi 'ahdilla_hi iza_ 'a_hattum wa la_ tanqud ul aima_na ba'da taukidiha_ wa qad ja'altumulla_ha 'alaikum kafila_(n), innalla_ha ya'lamu ma_ taf'alu_n(a).
One oath or many oaths?Many.
5 89
Allah will not call you to account for what is futile in your oath but He will call you to account for your deliberate oath for expiation feed then indigent persons on a scale of the average for the food of your families; or clothe them; or give a slave his freedom. If that is beyond your means fast for three days. That is the expiation for the oath ye have sworn. But keep to your oath. Thus doth Allah make clear to you His Signs that ye may be grateful.
La_ yu'a_khizukumulla_hu bil lagwi fi aima_nikum wa la_kiy yu'a_khizukum bima_'aqqattumul aima_n(a), fa kaffa_ratuhu_ it'a_mu 'asyarati masa_kina min ausati ma_ tut'imu_na ahlikum au kiswatuhum au tahriru raqabah(tin), famal lam yajid fa siya_mu sala_sati ayya_m(in), za_likakaffa_ratu aima_nikum iza_ halaftum, wahfazu_ aima_nakum, kaza_lika yubayyinulla_hu lakum a_ya_tihi
Is God commanding not to break one Oath or not to break many Oaths.He is telling us that he hold us accountable for "what we tied with the oaths". As in English, the word "oaths" is plural but "what we tied with the oaths" can be singular or plural.
There are few expiation regulations in the verse. These regulations are applicable if someone breaks one oath or break many oaths?
5 53
And those who believe will say "Are these the men who swore their strongest oath by Allah that they were with you?" All that they do will be in vain and they will fall into (nothing but) ruin.
Wa yaqu_lul lazina a_manu_ aha_'ula_'il lazina aqsamu_ billa_hi jahda aima_nihim, innahum lama'akum, habitat a'ma_luhum fa asbahu_ kha_sirin(a).
What was the oath ? What did they promise? They said ?by Allah we swear we are with you?. One promise or many promises? One oath or many oaths ?Many.
912
But if they violate their oath after their covenant and taunt you for your faith fight ye the chiefs of unfaith ....................
Wa in nakasu_ aima_nahum mim ba'di 'ahdihim wa ta'anu_ fi dinikum fa qa_tilu_ a'immatal kufr(i), .................
The command is to fight if they violate one oath or many oaths? Does this mean the enemy has given many Oaths to the believers and the command to fight is applicable only if the enemy breaks many oaths?
From the above verses we can see the word ?Ayman? is for singular "Oath" and therefore we CAN NOT substitute the word ?Ayman? as ?Oaths? in Ma Malakat Aymanakum. Ma Malakat Aymankum is always used in plural since all uses are in relation to believers (plural)other than 3350.The word "chiefs" is plural and "oaths" is also plural.
From the above verses we can see the word ?Ayman? is for singular "Oath" and therefore we CAN NOT substitute the word ?Ayman? as ?Oaths? in Ma Malakat Aymanakum. Ma Malakat Aymankum is always used in plural since all uses are in relation to believers (plural)other than 3350.
This will leave Ma Malakat Yaminika in 3350 without a translation if we try to substitute Oath/Oaths in to the term instead of Right Hand since "Ayman" is singular Oath and the word ?Yamin? so far everyone claimed to be the singular does not seem to have a meaning inside the Quraan and the singular has been already taken by Ayman/Oath.
Because of this contradiction with Oath/Oaths we can firmly say Ma Malakat Yaminuka(sing.) or Ma Malakat Aymanakum (plural) means ?What Your Right Hand Possessed? (sing.) and ?What Your Right Hands Possessed? (plural) respectively..
This is from my analysis an understanding of the Quraan and all human understandings are prone to error. So please feel free to correct me in the above observation.Your error is that you didn't study the forms of "AYMAaN" (weight AF3AaL) and "YMYN" (weight F3YL). Those forms are very common in the Arabic language and there are literally thousands of examples of their proper usage in the language. I suggest that you slow down and study such abundant examples carefully before jumping to conclusions.
I hope this helps.
Peace,
Ayman