Ma Malakat Emanakum" A Refutation to Brother Ayman;s understanding
-
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
-
Peace brother Ayman
I briefly read your article through interest in the concept of marriage, and would verify the Arabic, but before I begin, I?d like to clear up something I may have misunderstood. In your first post on this thread ?
(? Reply #14 on 07 March 2007, 050910 ? no edits)
Peace Siki,
Only the second article was written by me (and my wife).
Before we start going down the path of looking at your theory of "ma malkat aymanukum" that you think may be slaves, tell us how we would get those "slaves" in the first place according to the great reading? Is enslaving people tolerated by the god? Is it what peaceful people do?
Peace,
Ayman
You write in brackets that you coauthored this article with your wife, perhaps with the intention of reassuring the reader that your article contains a balanced view with regards to gender equality, a great issue when considering marriage. However, this is inconsistent with the very statement that initiates your article.
http//www.free-minds.org/articles/quranic/malak.htm
RULES OF ENGAGEMENT
By Ayman (e-mail [email protected])You give your name and e-mail address, alone. As far as I understand you may share your email address with your wife, but its seems unlikely that you would share your name with her as well, doctor Ayman. Furthermore, your disclaimer, which is clearly different to those used previous to this, shows you have thought about writing it with conscious acknowledgement of the disclaimer?s content.
Before, it used to be?
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER
22. This is the book no doubt in it, a guidance for the forethoughtful.
This article reflects my personal interpretation of the verses of the reading as of January 5, 2006. I will try to improve my understanding of the great reading and the universe, except if The God wills and perhaps my Lord guides me to what is nearer in rationality. Please verify all information within for yourself as commanded in 1736, and remember that simply "none" is the forethoughtful answer to 456. If The God willed, the outcome of this article will be beneficial.As in http//www.free-minds.org/articles/history/ayman1.htm
The disclaimer this time, as before, indicates clearly that your article reflects your own personal interpretation and not that of anyone elses (not your wife)?
Here is the disclaimer from this article?
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER
?This is the book, no doubt, in it guidance for the prudent/forethoughtful.?
Tomorrow our understanding of the Quran and the universe will evolve, except if God wills otherwise. This article reflects my personal interpretation of the Quranic verses as of September 5th, 2002. Please be humble by following the example set by the angels in 232, verify all information within for yourself as commanded by God in 1736, and remember that simply ?none? is the prudent/forethoughtful answer to God?s question in 456.How your wife wrote this article with you I don?t know, and I?m sure that along with me, at least Siki would like to know.
What I liked most about your post was...
Is this what peaceful people do?
Answering this question alone in any given situation (such as this issue of who authored your article) would lead us all closer to the truth.
Peace.
Brother Natu. -
Peace brother Natu,
You write in brackets that you coauthored this article with your wife, perhaps with the intention of reassuring the reader that your article contains a balanced view with regards to gender equality, a great issue when considering marriage. However, this is inconsistent with the very statement that initiates your article.
http//www.free-minds.org/articles/quranic/malak.htm
You give your name and e-mail address, alone. As far as I understand you may share your email address with your wife, but its seems unlikely that you would share your name with her as well, doctor Ayman. Furthermore, your disclaimer, which is clearly different to those used previous to this, shows you have thought about writing it with conscious acknowledgement of the disclaimer?s content.
Before, it used to be?
As in http//www.free-minds.org/articles/history/ayman1.htm
The disclaimer this time, as before, indicates clearly that your article reflects your own personal interpretation and not that of anyone elses (not your wife)?
Here is the disclaimer from this article?
How your wife wrote this article with you I don?t know, and I?m sure that along with me, at least Siki would like to know.
What I liked most about your post was...
Answering this question alone in any given situation (such as this issue of who authored your article) would lead us all closer to the truth.Actually, I never put my name on any article. I email them to brother Layth without my name and I never asked him to put it. He adds my name and contact email just in case someone has questions about the article or want to point out a mistake in it but not for any credit. There is no copyright on the article (or any other article). You or anyone is free to take them and put your name on it. I assure you that I would not object. In fact, I would encourage others to do so, if it helps spread the message.
Does it really matter who wrote an article? Or is the content of the article more important?
My wife did provide valuable input to the article through our discussions on this subject. In fact, many people here and elsewhere have provided input to this and all the articles. Even hardcore Sunnis have inadvertently provided valuable input to the articles. The articles include ideas that came out from discussions with others at free-minds and elsewhere.
I will also ask my wife what she thinks. Hopefully, I won't have to sleep on the couch tonight over this )
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Ayman
I am preparing a refutation for your reply to my previous post in which I clearly showed Yamin/Ayman is right hand/right hands and not oath/oaths. I suggest you read the verses again. Also read the following example for plural and singular construction using Oath.
Medieval knights took an oath of allegiance/loyalty to their lord.
The witness placed her hand on the Bible and took the oath
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.
But before I post my complete refutation to your post I need to clear few things
Ayman The 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.
In which period was determining the form of the individual words (morphology) was undertaken and recorded?
In which period the grammatical written work dealing formally and methodically with a subject was developed? By which grammarian or grammarians?
Are these thousands of examples from the Quraan ?
Why quote "AFNAaN" (branches) and 3127 "AQLAaM" (pens) when our discussion is on yamin/ayman
Ayman 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.
I did not find YMN(goodness) in the Quraan. Possibly I missed. Please give me few examples from the Quraan.
I did not find ?YMYN? to mean ?good? either literally or otherwise.
Can you please point a Yamin from the Quran to mean singular OATH without quoting 3350 and 52 which we both contest for the correct meaning.
Shimal (Shiin-Miim-Lam) mentioned many times in the Quraan , is it for the ?bad hand? ?
Are you certain there is no word for left hand in the Quraan ?
It is irrelevant here but does the Quraan say Moses had a deformity in his hand?
Oath is a promise. It is one way. Unless you mean an agreement in which case we can imagine shaking hands. So I do not find the connection you make with the good hand, shaking hands and oath appropriate. Besides we do not know whether ancient people shook hands or did the hugging or the Eskimo thing.
Ayman 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.
If he stroked with his left hand then Quraan would have mentioned it or not necessary to mention which hand at all.
Ayman 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"
I did not understand this because of my poor knowledge of Arabic. Is ?aymn? is still in the "AF3AaL" plural form.
Ayman 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.
God willing, I will undertake take a study of the forms and the weight system after you tell me the periods and persons involved in the development of the grammatical treatises. Even after that I will still treat the quraan as the first source even for the science of grammar.
There are tens and thousands of hadeeths very common among the people we can not rely and will not accept. Do we blindly rely on these examples without qualifying from the Quran, for their proper use, because they are just very common in the language.
-
Peace Warner,
I am preparing a refutation for your reply to my previous post in which I clearly showed Yamin/Ayman is right hand/right hands and not oath/oaths.
Well then good luck. Given that you are arguing against simple and clear Arabic forms, you are going to need it.
I suggest you read the verses again. Also read the following example for plural and singular construction using Oath.
Medieval knights took an oath of allegiance/loyalty to their lord.
The witness placed her hand on the Bible and took the oath
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.I guess, you couldn't find any examples in the great reading to show that "AYMAaN" is singular.
But before I post my complete refutation to your post I need to clear few things
In which period was determining the form of the individual words (morphology) was undertaken and recorded?
In which period the grammatical written work dealing formally and methodically with a subject was developed? By which grammarian or grammarians?The forms of individual words has nothing to do with Classic Arabic grammar. It is a trait of all Semitic languages. They all have three (or two) letter roots from which all word forms are derived.
Are these thousands of examples from the Quraan ?
I am sure there are thousands of examples in the Arabic language as a whole. There are many in the great reading, perhaps not "thousands" but at least "hundreds".
You can hardly open a page of the great reading without finding an example. You don't have to go far or look hard. Just turn one page from the beginning to page 3. You will see "ABSAaR" (sights) (form AF3AaL, same as "AYMAaN" in 27. Onpage 4 you see "AAThAaN" (ears) in 219 (again form AF3AaL, same as "AYMAaN".
Another example, is the word "ANSAaR" in 2270, etc. is of the form AF3AaL (same exact as "AYMAaN". Significantly, its singular "NSYR" (2107, etc.) is of the form F3YL (same exact as "YMYN".
Why quote "AFNAaN" (branches) and 3127 "AQLAaM" (pens) when our discussion is on yamin/ayman
You really don't get it, do you? Instead of wasting everyone's time arguing that Arabic morphology is a Hadithist conspiracy, you should study the forms first and then make an educated conclusion. If you studied those forms then you would have seen that they are the same exact form as "AYMAaN".
You don't have to take my word for it. Just go study the forms for yourself or ask other people such as sister Samia.
I did not find YMN(goodness) in the Quraan. Possibly I missed. Please give me few examples from the Quraan.
I did not find ?YMYN? to mean ?good? either literally or otherwise.Here is an example where it clearly means "good"
090.018
YUSUFALI Such are the Companions of the Right Hand.
PICKTHAL Their place will be on the right hand.
SHAKIR These are the people of the right hand.
KHALIFA These have deserved happiness.090.019
YUSUFALI But those who reject Our Signs, they are the (unhappy) Companions of the Left Hand.
PICKTHAL But those who disbelieve Our revelations, their place will be on the left hand.
SHAKIR And (as for) those who disbelieve in our communications, they are the people of the left hand.
KHALIFA As for those who disbelieved in our revelations, they have incurred misery.In 9019 the word "mash'ama" means "badness/misery" not "left hand". However, due to the Hadith-based preconceptions about the superficial wrong meaning of "right-hand" and since 9019 is clearly in contrast to 9018, translators were forced to use the word left-hand. Only Khalifa corrected this. Yusuf Ali was decent enough to put "unhappy" in brackets because he realizes that the word "mash'ama" doesn't mean left hand.
So what you end up with in 9018-19 when you use "right-hand" and "left-hand" is meaningless nonsense. There is nothing inherently bad or good about the right hand or the left hand.
If I tell you "you are the companion of the left hand while I am the companion of the right hand", you will say "so what?"
If I tell you "you are the companion of misery/badness while I am the companion of good", now it makes sense.
Can you please point a Yamin from the Quran to mean singular OATH without quoting 3350 and 52 which we both contest for the correct meaning.
Can you please tell everyone what the singular of "AYMAaN" and "ANSAaR" is?
Shimal (Shiin-Miim-Lam) mentioned many times in the Quraan , is it for the ?bad hand? ?
Are you certain there is no word for left hand in the Quraan?I am certain that the god doesn't discriminate against lefties. So the word can have the superficial meaning of "left hand" but as I explained in my previous post, this is just one meaning out of many and it is not the primary meaning. Hence, using the left/right hand meaning in passages such as 5641, 3415, 6925, etc. would result in nonsense.
It is irrelevant here but does the Quraan say Moses had a deformity in his hand?
Yes, in 2022 one of the signs Moses brings in that his hand becomes without "SU'A" (badness). So he had a bad hand.
Oath is a promise. It is one way. Unless you mean an agreement in which case we can imagine shaking hands. So I do not find the connection you make with the good hand, shaking hands and oath appropriate. Besides we do not know whether ancient people shook hands or did the hugging or the Eskimo thing.
Try 4810.
If he stroked with his left hand then Quraan would have mentioned it or not necessary to mention which hand at all.
Striking with the right hand is similarly non-significant. On the other hand, striking with the "good/strong" hand is significant.
I did not understand this because of my poor knowledge of Arabic. Is ?aymn? is still in the "AF3AaL" plural form.
No "AYMN" is of the form "AF3L", a superlative form. To try to clarify things, I only capitalize actual Arabic letters, while vocalization is in lower case.
God willing, I will undertake take a study of the forms and the weight system after you tell me the periods and persons involved in the development of the grammatical treatises. Even after that I will still treat the quraan as the first source even for the science of grammar.
There are tens and thousands of hadeeths very common among the people we can not rely and will not accept. Do we blindly rely on these examples without qualifying from the Quran, for their proper use, because they are just very common in the language.As I said, you can hardly go a few pages in the great reading without finding an example or two of the plural form AYMAaN/AF3AaL.
As for Hadiths, I agree with you. So by the same token, you shouldn't take the Hadithist chauvinistic interpretation of "right-hand" and "prisoners/gains of war" for granted.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace warner,
I guess you looked and couldn't find any passage asking women to guard their private parts
I would like to correct the above statement. In 2431, we hear about "women who have faith" being asked to guard their private parts.
This doesn't change that chapter 70 and 23 would be addressing men and women since the commands in them apply to both.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Ayman,
I have a question that I need your help with before I move on to our discussion. Without regard to the vocalization/diacritical marks, which are a later day addition, can we identify the forms to be singular or plural?
I appreciate your help with this matter.
Thanks and peace,
-
Peace Ayman
Possibly you did not notice my earlier post because of the mischievousness of natu but I need your kind reply on that to go on with the discussion. My sincere query in short was,
Will the diacritics play a role in formation of word forms or word forms are independent with or without the vocalization?
Also to get a better understanding of Arabic language word Forms (you can see, I have already started following your advise) of which I so comprehensively lack ,can you please assist me by indicating the singular word of the plural form "AF3AaL" for the following examples given by you. Kindly quote the verse in which the singular word is used in the Quraan for each of the following plural in the "AF3AaL" form. Since you suggest ?Aymaan? means Oaths which is plural and singular Oath is ?Yamin? your examples will assist in comparing both forms in the Quraan.
5548 "AFNAaN (branches)
3127 "AQLAaM (pens)
27. "ABSAaR" (sights)
219 "AAThAaN" (ears)2270"ANSAaR" and "NSYR" (2107, etc.)
-
Peace Warner,
Will the diacritics play a role in formation of word forms or word forms are independent with or without the vocalization?
The vocalization marks do not play any role in the formation of the word forms. The form is made up of 5 letter "AF3AL" (I had earlier added a small "a" in "AF3AaL" to indicate that the A is a long a and not a gluttol stop (Hamza)) and its singular can be "F3L" or "F3YL".
Also to get a better understanding of Arabic language word Forms (you can see, I have already started following your advise) of which I so comprehensively lack ,can you please assist me by indicating the singular word of the plural form "AF3AaL" for the following examples given by you. Kindly quote the verse in which the singular word is used in the Quraan for each of the following plural in the "AF3AaL" form. Since you suggest ?Aymaan? means Oaths which is plural and singular Oath is ?Yamin? your examples will assist in comparing both forms in the Quraan.
5548 "AFNAaN (branches)
3127 "AQLAaM (pens)
27. "ABSAaR" (sights)
219 "AAThAaN" (ears)
2270"ANSAaR" and "NSYR" (2107, etc.)The singular can be of the form F3L or F3YL.
AFNAN, AQLAM, ABSAR and AAThAN's singular is FNN, QLM, BSR, AThN of the form F3L.
ANSAR, ABRAR (2193) singular is NSYR, BRYR of the form F3YL.
Here is a trick question that I would ask in an advanced Arabic course.
Given that the plural form of AMWAT (dead things) is AF3AL, what is the form of the singular "MYT"?
The answer is a little tricky. The root of AMWAT and MYT is "MWT". So where did the "Y" come from?
If the singular was of the form "F3L" then it would have been "MWT". The singular form is actually "F3YL" so it should have been "MWYT" but because the "W" and "Y" cannot follow each other like this in Arabic, the "W" is assimilated and the word we end up with is "MYT" but the form remains as "F3YL".
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace
I need your opinion on the following.
AMN ~ Alif-Meem-Nun = become/feel safe/secure, state of security/safety, trust, become quiet/tranquil in heart/mind, promise/assurance of security/safety, become trustful/faithful/confident, to believe/acknowledge it
Lane's Lexicon, Volume 1, pages 137, 138, 139, 140
(I have only included the core meanings and also not included the verses since they too numerous)
YMN ~ Ya-Miim-Nun = right side, right, right hand, oath.
ayman n.m. 1952, 2080, 2830
maymanah n.f. 568, 568, 9018
yamin n.f. (pl. ayman) 2224, 2225, 377, 43, 424, 425, 433, 436, 553, 589, 589, 589, 589, 5108, 5108, 6109, 717, 912, 912, 913, 1638, 1648, 1671, 1691, 1692, 1694, 1771, 1817, 1818, 2017, 2069, 236, 2431, 2433, 2453, 2458, 2948, 3028, 3350, 3350, 3352, 3355, 3415, 3542, 3728, 3793, 3967, 5017, 5627, 5627, 5638, 5690, 5691, 5712, 5816, 632, 662, 668, 6839, 6919, 6945, 7030, 7037, 7439, 847
Lane's Lexicon, Volume 8, page 318
Belief amanu , aminu
Believers amanu, muminuna , yu'minu
Faith/belief ayman
Trust amanu , amana
Peace/ Security amanu, amin
Oath ayman
Right hand yamiin
Right hands/side aymanThe above words are normally segregated in to the 2 roots YMN and AMN which I have shown above. I think all the above words should be from the same root AMN since all share the same letters and root meaning.
Maybe there is no major problem in segregating in to 2 different roots but still due to this some meanings are lost and also some meanings are forced in.
The word ayman is repeated many times in the Quraan to mean oath and the same word (ayman/imaan) is used for belief /faith on many other places in the Quraan. Oath is a promise; an affirmation; something you are certain about.Based on that I think the common translation we use for ayman/imaan should be affirm/affirmation instead of believe/belief. I have seen much debate on the meaning of belief. Does God require us just to believe or believe with certainty? As a substitute of the core principle, which is the affirmation/ayman people have brought in another kind of affirmation which is the shahada.
Placing ayman meaning oath in the root YMN to which the word yamin(right hand) Ayman( right hands/side) belongs to (incorrectly, in my opinion) has confused its meaning . The meanings oath or right hand has no succession in YMN whereas in AMN they are a part of the root meaning.
Yamiin meaning right hand should belong to root AMN instead of YMN. The right hand is the hand of security and protection and the hand of trust. It gives you security since you earn from it which is security from hunger and defends and protects you from dangers. In antiquity a person who was not a right hander was not considered a left hander but was considered a weak person since his use of right hand was limited ( it may be possible the persons left hand may be more dexterous than comparative right handed person ) as if something was wrong. The word for right hand yamin/ayman comes from these meanings of security/trust.
Even in the Semitic roots all these meanings come under one root as you can see below.
From Strong's Hebrew Dictionary
539
'aman aw-man'
a primitive root; properly, to build up or support; to foster as a parent or nurse; figuratively to render (or be) firm or faithful, to trust or believe, to be permanent or quiet; morally to be true or certain; once (Isa. 3021; interchangeable with ''aman' (541)) to go to the right hand--hence, assurance, believe, bring up, establish, + fail, be faithful (of long continuance, stedfast, sure, surely, trusty, verified), nurse, (-ing father), (put), trust, turn to the right.
540
'aman am-an'
(Aramaic) corresponding to ''aman' (539)--believe, faithful, sure.
541
'aman aw-man'
denominative from 'yamiyn' (3225); to take the right hand road--turn to the right. See ''aman' (539).
542
'aman aw-mawn'
from ''aman' (539) (in the sense of training); an expert--cunning workman.
543
'amen aw-mane'
from ''aman' (539); sure; abstract, faithfulness; adverb, truly--Amen, so be it, truth.
544
'omen oh-men'
from ''aman' (539); verity--truth
548
'amanah am-aw-naw'
feminine of ''amen' (543); something fixed, i.e. a covenant. an allowance--certain portion, sure.
3225
yamiyn yaw-meen'
from 'yaman' (3231); the right hand or side (leg, eye) of a person or other object (as the stronger and more dexterous); locally, the south--+ left-handed, right (hand, side), south.
3227
ymiyniy yem-ee-nee'
for 'yamiyn' (3225); right--(on the) right (hand).
3231
yaman yaw-man'
a primitive root; to be (physically) right (i.e. firm); but used only as denominative from 'yamiyn' (3225) and transitive, to be right-handed or take the right-hand side--go (turn) to (on, use) the right hand.
3232
Yimnah yim-naw'
from 'yaman' (3231); prosperity (as betokened by the right hand);
3233
ymaniy yem-aw-nee'
from 'yaman' (3231); right (i.e. at the right hand) -(on the) right (hand).
-
Peace be upon you Warner,
I dont know if you are correct or not, but I like the direction you are going and you have given me something new to think about.
-
Peace Ayman
26 22
Yusuf Ali "And this is the favor with which thou dost reproach me that thou hast enslaved the Children of Israel"
Transliteration Wa tilka nimatun tamun nuha_ alay ya an ab bad ta bani isra_il
I came across this verse which I thought you might have missed and could be important in the definition of slave/abad.
Peace.