and do not compel your slave girls to prostitution...
-
The root explains the concept. The basic thought in this particular root is to exceed moderate limits. Therefore whenever any word made from this root will be used in relation to a particular matter, action, and situation the word shall be construed to mean and translated accordingly in other languages. When it is used with reference to two business partners one of whom is exceeding moderate behavior, it will mean ?Wronged?. But when certain people are forcing (Takrehoo) their female servants towards ?Al Baghiya? for the purpose of earning worldly gains, it will have no other meaning but forcing them for prostitution. In 2433 and 3822 the difference of ?Al? needs also to be looked into. It has made the meanings specific/restricted. Even if we remove the word ?prostitution? here, we will have to say ?do not force your female servants upon wrong?, but the perception will remain the same ?prostitution?.
Brother Hamsa
?Fatayatkum? can?t be translated as ?your daughters?. The matter under discussion in the Ayah relates only to female servants.
Prostitution is disgusting and hateful. But it is a fact and reality on ground. That is why Allah is advising to refrain from it.Syeda Maryam Siddiqa?s question was regarding having a son. She explained, ?Neither I am touched by a man, nor I have been ?baghiyya?
Marriage alone has nothing to do with the birth of a child. After marriage birth can take place only when the husband has ?touched? his wife. It is our perception and so was that of Syeda Maryam. After Nikah, permission has been granted to divorce even before wife had been ?touched?. A woman can be ?touched? by a man in the fold of Nikah(marriage) and outside the fold of Nikah (Baghiyann). These are two conducts, situations antonym to each other. One is right/permissible/moderate and the other is wrong/unlawful. She told that neither she is married nor unchaste, therefore, she questioned how can she bear a child? -
The root explains the concept. The basic thought in this particular root is to exceed moderate limits. Therefore whenever any word made from this root will be used in relation to a particular matter, action, and situation the word shall be construed to mean and translated accordingly in other languages. When it is used with reference to two business partners one of whom is exceeding moderate behavior, it will mean ?Wronged?. But when certain people are forcing (Takrehoo) their female servants towards ?Al Baghiya? for the purpose of earning worldly gains, it will have no other meaning but forcing them for prostitution. In 2433 and 3822 the difference of ?Al? needs also to be looked into. It has made the meanings specific/restricted. Even if we remove the word ?prostitution? here, we will have to say ?do not force your female servants upon wrong?, but the perception will remain the same ?prostitution?.
Syeda Maryam Siddiqa?s question was regarding having a son. She explained, ?Neither I am touched by a man, nor I have been ?baghiyya?
Marriage alone has nothing to do with the birth of a child. After marriage birth can take place only when the husband has ?touched? his wife. It is our perception and so was that of Syeda Maryam. After Nikah, permission has been granted to divorce even before wife had been ?touched?. A woman can be ?touched? by a man in the fold of Nikah(marriage) and outside the fold of Nikah (Baghiyann). These are two conducts, situations antonym to each other. One is right/permissible/moderate and the other is wrong/unlawful. She told that neither she is married nor unchaste, therefore, she questioned how can she bear a child?peace Brother MAzhar
thanks for saving me the efforts, same is my opinion. appreciate your input
siki
-
Brother Hamsa
?Fatayatkum? can?t be translated as ?your daughters?. The matter under discussion in the Ayah relates only to female servants.
Prostitution is disgusting and hateful. But it is a fact and reality on ground. That is why Allah is advising to refrain from it.I requote my earlier post.
" Fatayat is any young girl , she could be your MMA, (slave girl, which your right hand posses) servant, daughter, sister , niece etc, Any young girl who could be under an individual's(man or a woman) influence, to be compelled into committing such an act.
In the subject verse though, initially the subject of address are MMA (slaves) however in the later part the use of the word Fatayat was not bounded/followed by MMa ( unlike the verse 4-25). as such opening up its application in general for all categories of young women as well .
siki
-
2433
And let those who are not able to find a combination(match)/not able to marry, continue to be chaste until God enriches them of His Bounty. And if those (women) under your oath/authorization/guardianship seek marriage/rights, then marry them off/give them their rights if you find they are ready/deserve it, and give them from the wealth of God which he has bestowed on you. and don't compel/drive/force your daughters/your women/young women into something that goes beyond their just rights/them feeling injustice, if they wish/desire to structure their own 'palace'(life)/protect their own 'palace'(life).
Or
and don't compel your daughters/your young women into something beyond their just rights/them feeling injustice, when they seek their own ways of strengthening their position.
Or
And don't compel your daughters/young women (in regards to their personal goals) beyond their just rights/them feeling injustice, when they seek their own independent ways of strengthening their personal position (in regards to their personal goals in life).In order that you make a gain in the goods/In order that you seek the gains of the immediate enjoyments (hayatud Dunya). God is the One who protects and provides.
Thanks brother Arnold! Now the verse is clear to me, It certainly makes sense.....Thanks again
Thanks everyone else...
Salaam o rahmah
-
Salaam siki
If her people suspected her of having a baby through "prostitution", they wouldn't have met her with this soft blame and praise for her parents. They would have met her with stones, her and her family.
In this particular verse she is not being blamed for prostitution , but for being a fornicator , which she is trying to clarify.
The prostitutes generally avoid getting pregnant. A wrong or indecent act for a women in sexual terms is fornication. when somebody is forced by someone to comit fornication , that someone is looking for material gain through this process, and hence would convert this act into, what is known as "Forcing some one into Prostitution"
peace
siki
-
In this particular verse she is not being blamed for prostitution , but for being a fornicator , which she is trying to clarify.
Dosn't make a difference. She is carrying her proof of fornication. According to their law (which punishes a raped woman too) she should have been stoned to death. This still happens in some communities, and the "islamic" law derived from jewish sources acknowledges death penalty for fornication.
-
Thanks brother Arnold! Now the verse is clear to me, It certainly makes sense.....Thanks again
Thanks everyone else...
Salaam o rahmah
women ,,, sexuality.... hsn ,,,fortification/protection in terms of sexuality,,,,,Chastity,,,and exceeding those limits ,,,,Baghiya....when forced,,,, prostitution..etc
All are interrelated...Arabic is much more than randomly replacing the words of your choice picked up from a dictionary .
peace
siki
-
Dosn't make a difference. She is carrying her proof of fornication. According to their law (which punishes a raped woman too) she should have been stoned to death. This still happens in some communities, and the "islamic" law derived from jewish sources acknowledges death penalty for fornication.
This law prevails in my country too, and above like incidents are not rare occurrences here , specially in villages. But i have hardly come across an incident when such a situation was converted into a " Rajam"scenario by her people/family instantly.
Do you mean that any young women carrying a child without a licence plate stating that she is married and this is a legal child should/would be stoned to death by people instantly without being asked a single question?
My dear sister ! how do you know , that the law prevailing then , was actually Rajam? And if it was so , did she not have a right to at least give an explanation? and can't you see in those verses that she did clarify that allegation when young Jesus (pbuh) spoke from the crib?
I am sorry to Say " I am disappointed once again" .
peace
siki
-
?Fa te? {fa-Ta-Ya}has the basic meaning ?youth?, young, man or woman. ?They said we heard a young man (fatay} talking about them, his name is Ibrahim? (2160). And then it was used to refer to servant (basic consideration for a servant should be Qawi, and Ameen as the daughter of old man had said for employing Musa a.s).
?Daughter? refers to a specific, defined and known relationship (Al Ma roof). Daughter can also be young, but this word(fatay) alone will never refer to the relationship, which is reflected by the word daughter.If we agree with this sort of explanation, then how would we translate the first part of 425, Like this ?With what your right hand possesses OUT of your believing young daughters?. There is ?Minn? ?out of? {tab eez}. People who have ?ma malakat aimanukum? also have other fatatayate-female servants. Therefore let us not stretch it in 2433 to mean daughters.
By no stretch of imagination ?young man? young boy, young girl, young woman can be translated as ?son? ?daughter?. And we should also not do it.
-
My dear sister ! how do you know , that the law prevailing then , was actually Rajam? And if it was so , did she not have a right to at least give an explanation? and can't you see in those verses that she did clarify that allegation when young Jesus (pbuh) spoke from the crib?
I am sorry to Say " I am disappointed once again" (.
peace
siki
You miss the whole point about their reaction to a fornicator. As usual, always "off point" hence always "dissppointed"
-
?Fa te? {fa-Ta-Ya}has the basic meaning ?youth?, young, man or woman. ?They said we heard a young man (fatay} talking about them, his name is Ibrahim? (2160). And then it was used to refer to servant (basic consideration for a servant should be Qawi, and Ameen as the daughter of old man had said for employing Musa a.s).
?Daughter? refers to a specific, defined and known relationship (Al Ma roof). Daughter can also be young, but this word(fatay) alone will never refer to the relationship, which is reflected by the word daughter.If we agree with this sort of explanation, then how would we translate the first part of 425, Like this ?With what your right hand possesses OUT of your believing young daughters?. There is ?Minn? ?out of? {tab eez}. People who have ?ma malakat aimanukum? also have other fatatayate-female servants. Therefore let us not stretch it in 2433 to mean daughters.
By no stretch of imagination ?young man? young boy, young girl, young woman can be translated as ?son? ?daughter?. And we should also not do it.
I agree.
However construction of the sentence is such that we can not limit its application to young females of MMA only, by her possessor.This one is applicable for every one (men or women) who can influence/force a young lady to perform such an act specially when she is desirous of protecting herself from such acts.
peace
siki
-
Thanks sister Samia,
"Lamastum" is an act. If we think that Annissa (443, 56) includes husbands (men), then Lamastum will be taken to refer to Wives (women). It is not a proper proposition. "Haya" alos does not permit us to say like that. Lamastum cannot and should never be used for women/wives. Since after this act something is being asked to be done, by implication wives have also to do that. But it does not mean that Annissa includes men. My respects to you.
-
Salaam Mazhar
"Lamastum" is an act. If we think that Annissa (443, 56) includes husbands (men), then Lamastum will be taken to refer to Wives (women).
Why "refer" to wives? Includes is enough. Doesn't it include wives? Unless the verse is addressing husbands/men only.
-
Sister,
My point is that Lamastum cannot be used for wives. Adress is to all believers. no doubt You who believe. And before saying Lamastum nissa, Junoban has been used which applies both to men and women, singular and plural. Therefore I correct my self that it is not by implication that wives are also required to take bath, rather it is clearly and plainly directed by Junoban. If jonoban Fattahroo, thereefore take bath. Therefore the word An-nissa does not include men, particularly because of the fact that Nissa is preceded by "Al" which restricts it to women alone.
When the adress it to both men and women, the words would be masculine. But when feminine word is used, it cant be said that An nissa include men. Some linguistic expert may come to our rescue. -
Sister,
My point is that Lamastum cannot be used for wives. Adress is to all believers.Salaam mazhar
I am very careful with my words here. I did not say lamastum can be used for wives. I say it contains wives, since it is addressing both genders. If the addressee are only males, then it does not contain females.
Since we agree that it is addressing both genders, try to split the verse as if you are addressing the females only. What will you say when you come to "aw laamastum al-nisaa'"?
Please be patient before calling for rescue.
-
Sister Samia,
I was expecting this stand. You are giving way to assert that the later part is address only to men. I had thought that but existence of ?Wow-And? there made me reluctant. That is why I wished some expert on Language and grammar may enter. Brother siki is also keeping silent. Another problem has emerged by scanning the Qurane Majeed, and that is 583-4. There ?Mass? is dual, before they touch each other. Wives seldom indicate that desire. And even if they do so, the most naked style is also like very thin aroma, which just passes away. Help me out to resolve it. -
Address in the qur'aan is , in general, to all people, both genders. This does not rule out that some verses are addressing males. We can easily know them if it is explicitly so indicated, or implicitly by logic. Verse 583 definitely addresses men only just by going to the beginning of the chapter where a woman is complaining to the prophet of his behaviour, which, as you mentioned , not practiced by women.
Back to our verses 443; 56
The address will not change suddenly from "all" to "one gender" or a different category in the same verse. If we take any of the two verses to women, we will have to say "or laamastunna alrijaal/ or if you have intercourse with men", right? That's what I meant be "nisaa' contains rijaal".
BTW, this is contrary to the universal rules of sociolinguistics. But who says qur'aan is subject to human rules of sociolinguistics or grammar? That's how its language is very special , simple but unattainable. Such a simple verse cannot be made by someone without having to elaborate to make it understandable.
There are many other similar verses, but we do not pay attention to this characteristic of the language of the qur'aan.