Female servants and maids
-
I take it that you were unaware of misquoting and twisting the meaning of the above verse when you did it. See the verse and its true meaning below.
Dear khalil,
Calm down a little! Take a deep breath and act rationally as you proceed.
No human is infallible... further, we're discussing the Book of God, not the Book of kgwithnob!You interpret "" (i.e., and whom) as "and THERE IS ONE whom"! Where did you get "THERE IS ONE" from?!
Allah coineth a similitude there is a bondman enslaved who hath no power over anything; and THERE IS ONE whom We have provided from Ourselves with goodly provision and he expendeth thereof secretly and openly; can they be equal? All praise Unto Allah; but most of them know not.
God sets forth an example An owned slave, unable to do a thing, and (on) whom We have bestowed goodly sustenance from Us, so he spendeth thereof secretly and openly. Can they be equal? Praise be to God. Nay, (but) most of them do not know. {75} And God sets forth an example Two men, one of them is mute, unable to do a thing, while he is a burden to his guardian. Wherever he directs him, he brings no good .... {76}
-
1stHow about EIGHT English translations of verse 1675, OTHER THAN Pickthall's, below?
Sahih International Allah presents an example a slave owned and unable to do a thing and he to whom We have provided from Us good provision, so he spends from it secretly and publicly. Can they be equal? Praise to Allah ! But most of them do not know.
Yufus Ali Allah sets forth the Parable (of two men one) a slave under the dominion of another; He has no power of any sort; and (the other) a man on whom We have bestowed goodly favours from Ourselves, and he spends thereof (freely), privately and publicly are the two equal? (By no means praise be to Allah. But most of them understand not.
Shakir Allah sets forth a parable (consider) a slave, the property of another, (who) has no power over anything, and one whom We have granted from Ourselves a goodly sustenance so he spends from it secretly and openly; are the two alike? (All) praise is due to Allah! Nay, most of them do not know.
Muhammad Sarwar God tells a parable about a helpless servant and one to whom He has given honorable provisions and who has spent for the cause of God privately and in public. Can these two people be considered equal? It is only God who deserves all praise, but most people do not know.
Mohsin Khan Allah puts forward the example (of two men a believer and a disbeliever); a slave (disbeliever) under the possession of another, he has no power of any sort, and (the other), a man (believer) on whom We have bestowed a good provision from Us, and He spends thereof secretly and openly. Can they be equal? (By no means, not). All the praises and thanks be to Allah. Nay! (But) most of them know not.
Arberry God has struck a similitude a servant possessed by his master, having no power over anything, and one whom We have provided of Ourselves with a provision fair, and he expends of it secretly and openly. Are they equal? Praise belongs to God! Nay, most of them know not.
Daryabadi Allah propoundeth a similitude there is a bondman enslaved who hath not power over aught; and there is one whom We have provided from Ourselves with goodly provision and he expendeth thereof secretly and openly; can they be equal? All praise Unto Allah; but most of them know not.
Mufti Taqi Usm Allah gives an example There is a slave owned (by someone), who has no power over anything, and there is a person whom We have given good provision from Us, and he spends out of it secretly and openly. Are they equal? Praise be to Allah. But, most of them do not know
2ndPlease read my original post below, in its entirety, then judge me.
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9605590.msg332907#msg332907
Peace,
KhalilSalaam,
They are hadithers right? Mohsin Khan? rotfl His Qur'an translation is a joke. Read his translations of 2431 and 7833.
And some of the translations that you provided are from non-Muslims.Why do you like slavery? nope
Kind regards,
Yuliana -
Peace,
That translation/interpretation of 1675 really is discriminating. It has to be something wrong with it.
God bless you
-
I believe you misunderstood me. I said "MAA MALAKAT AYMAANUKUM" means "the slaves that you own". If someone interpret it to mean anything different would not be Qur'aanic.
Peace,
KhalilHehehe yes2, sorry2,but from where the word "slave" came from?? hmm
I will quote my post again.QS 2431 "........ ........."
Translations Shahih International "which their right hands possess"
Pitchkall " or their slaves"
Free-Minds " those maintained by their oaths"Red word is "aymaan" (ن or "yamiin" ( ) means right, right side, oath (in noun/isim).So Pitchhall's translation is false.
No I want ask you, Khalil.From where the word "slave" came from??
-
Whether we like it or not, slavery, for mostly economic reasons, had been an integral part of the human society?s fabric for thousands of years in the past. It was a norm, a way of life, accepted by the society as a whole, otherwise it could not have lasted for so long. Abolishing of slavery in the United States took around five years and cost hundreds of thousands of human lives.
Salaamun alayka,
So? What is exactly our point?
You sound like some who try to justify child marriage by "the Mohammed of the hadiths" by saying that it was ok in that time, and as evidence they give some examples about some european rulers who had according to their history also child marriages.Going back historically to the time of the revelation of The Qur?aan, slavery is part of the fabric and culture of the society. Therefore, The Qur?aan at the time accepts it and deals with it the way it deals with it.
hypno
One of the purposes of The Quran is to lead mankind from darkness into the light, not to give solutions for the wicked things people do.
What a weird way of judging.Who are we to jump in the middle and interpret the related verses and twist the word of ALLAAH, swt, according to our likings and conjectures just because we?re living in the 21st century, and thank GOD, slavery is no more and sounds disgusting? We are not allowed but to convey the meaning of the verses of The Qur?aan the way they really mean.
So, interpreting ?MAA MALAKAT AYMAANUKUM? other than meaning ?the slaves that you own? is not Qur?aanic. Anyone interested, we can reason over it according to The Qur?aan.
Peace,
KhalilGREEN what word in ?MAA MALAKAT AYMAANUKUM? is slaves according to you?
Salaam,
Bender -
I take it that you were unaware of misquoting and twisting the meaning of the above verse when you did it. See the verse and its true meaning below.
1675,
Allah coineth a similitude there is a bondman enslaved who hath no power over anything; and there is one whom We have provided from Ourselves with goodly provision and he expendeth thereof secretly and openly; can they be equal? All praise Unto Allah; but most of them know not.
Peace,
KhalilPeace Khalil -- a bondman enslaved?
A devotee/servant in this context is a person willingly devoted.
4172 never disdaineth the messiah that being devotee/servant of to god...A slave is someone owned against their will and without freedom.
589 not will call you the god in the idle talk in right hands/trust yours and however will call you in what contract you the oath so reparation its feed ten poor from average what thou feeding families yours or clothing them or free neck (i.e. slave) so from not find so a fast three days that reparation right hands/trust yours when have sworn you and guard yeh right hands/trust yours like that shows the god for you signs his that may you thanks giving520
and when said Moses to people his O people remember yeh grace the god over you when made among you prophets and made you kings and brought you what not given anyone from the creationsTherefore...
1675
- shows the god example a devotee/servant from kings not capable on thing
- and from provided we him from us a livelihood good so he spends from it secretly and openly
shall they equal being?
the praise to god rather more them not knowingPeace
-
Peace Khalil -- a bondman enslaved?
A devotee/servant in this context is a person willingly devoted.
4172 never disdaineth the messiah that being devotee/servant of to god...A slave is someone owned against their will and without freedom.
589 not will call you the god in the idle talk in right hands/trust yours and however will call you in what contract you the oath so reparation its feed ten poor from average what thou feeding families yours or clothing them or free neck (i.e. slave) so from not find so a fast three days that reparation right hands/trust yours when have sworn you and guard yeh right hands/trust yours like that shows the god for you signs his that may you thanks giving520
and when said Moses to people his O people remember yeh grace the god over you when made among you prophets and made you kings and brought you what not given anyone from the creationsTherefore...
1675
- shows the god example a devotee/servant from kings not capable on thing
- and from provided we him from us a livelihood good so he spends from it secretly and openly
shall they equal being?
the praise to god rather more them not knowingPeace
in 520 means kings, but in 1675 means one who is owned, i.e. a SLAVE.
in 1675 is pronounced "MAN" which means "A PERSON or ONE WHO", you have translated it to mean "FROM" which pronounces "MIN".
In both cases above the way you have translated 1675 has rendered the meaning of the verse quite different from what it really means.
Peace,
Khalil -
in 520 means kings, but in 1675 means one who is owned, i.e. a SLAVE.
Then prove it, show source, use context, etc?
min/man doesn't change meaning ...
1675
- shows the god example a devotee/servant from kings not capable on thing
- and from (i.e. one whom) provided we him from us a livelihood good so he spends from it secretly and openly
shall they equal being?
the praise to god rather more them not knowingPeace
-
Salaam,
Just because slavery was common in pre-Islamic, early Islamic and throughout most history, it is normal and should be justified?
So infanticide is normal because it was common during pre-Islamic?
Slavery, child marriage and child molestation are insane and they give Islam a bad name in modern history because of traditional sources and insane Salafists.
Kind regards,
Yuliana -
Then prove it, show source, use context, etc?
Here is the proof.
http//corpus.quran.com/wordmorphology.jsp?location=%2816755%29
min/man doesn't change meaning ...
with the DIACRITICAL sign above the word, pronounces "MAN" and means "a person/one who".
with the DIACRITICAL sign below the word, pronounces "MIN" and means "from".
Peace,
Khalil -
Here is the proof.
http//corpus.quran.com/wordmorphology.jsp?location=%2816755%29
They said so or pointers to websites which are full of errors is not proof?
Please show source, dictionaries, context, use logic that added mm/ changes meaning from kings to owned/slave?
with the DIACRITICAL sign above the word, pronounces "MAN" and means "a person/one who".
with the DIACRITICAL sign below the word, pronounces "MIN" and means "from".
In the Arabic it is closer as we say "from" in English; regardless with/without marks added to Qur'an 100 years later correct meaning is derived (i.e. one whom) depending on context. Again the point of the conversation is your original interpretation and how people twist firstly the word used for devotee (i.e. a willing servant) to mean slave as in person unwilling and not free and in addition turn "one whom kinship/sovereignty" into one owned/slave.
520
and when said Moses to people his O people remember yeh grace the god over you when made among you prophets and made you kings of and brought you what not given anyone from the creationsAgain Qur'an asks are these two devotees/servants 1 & 2 mentioned equal?
1675
- shows the god example a devotee/servant from kings/kingship of not capable on a thing
- and from (i.e. one whom) provided we him from us a livelihood good so he spends from it secretly and openly
shall they equal being?
the praise to god rather more them not knowingPeace
-
Please show source, dictionaries, context, use logic that added mm/ changes meaning from kings to owned/slave?
No offense, but I think the best remedy for you is to take a basic course in learning the Arabic language, because its the language of The Qur'aan.
I rest my case.
Peace,
Khalil -
Peace,
So it would seem that the slavery traditionally thought to be in Quran is the twisting of words. And if the diacritical signs were not there in the original composition who knows if the one who put it there understood the text right?
I am still sure the Quran talks about servants bound by an oath. This was fairly common in past times that you served for a number of years and considered your "boss" master. You represented him and ran on errands and all sorts of things like that. This is different from the traditional slavery which occurred throughout history.
It is disturbing to believe that God would even remotely support slavery.
God bless you
-
Peace.
This is my view on ?MAA MALAKAT AYMAANUKUM?What it is meant by Allah and what it means/meant to us, men/women of all times.
We observe the world around us from the history of mankind and we discover in our own terms there are slaves/servants/maids/employees. Those are categories of people belonging to someone/family/company according to the degree of ownership (mastery)/possessiveness/control/empowerment. The masters (mankind) named them. The masters (mankind) determine their fate.Now Allah is our Master. Everyone should serve Him only. He named them how they should be named and be treated, taking in context of every description of practices to acknowledge the existence of grades of possessiveness to describe this human life phenomenon throughout the history of mankind. As for man, ?slaves,? in those days, they are mere subjects, their lives, body and death in everything in service of their masters. They are subject to an ?inhumane? conditioning of not having the capacity/capability to learn, think, decide and progress. Their masters are the providers of everything, from food, clothing, room/house, everything. They can be bought and sold without their consent or say. Obviously this phenomenon of human life needs change via guidance from our Creator.
Today?s ?slaves? or modern day ?slaves? such as servants/maids/employees have some forms of contract. There are systems and laws pertaining to this. When I observe them especially servants/maids, a few are very dependent. Obviously, besides providing them with salary (food/clothing/shelter), we may even be responsible to free them at one point of their lives so that they are able to live on their own by providing them an opportunity to have a family life. The way I see we have to provide the means for them to live in such life, and later they are like all of us, have children and free.
The above shall become human practice to fulfill the God?s commandment on the freeing of MAA MALAKAT AYMAANUKUM. That should be our position in submission to the Law of Allah (SunahAllah). No way the God is supporting slavery. Slavery is our creation. I think till the end of this life there will be such people for mankind to deal with.
I hope this makes sense to all.
Zone. -
So it would seem that the slavery traditionally thought to be in Quran is the twisting of words. And if the diacritical signs were not there in the original composition who knows if the one who put it there understood the text right?
Here we should pay attention to the fact that the invention of DIACRITICALS became necessary in order to facilitate portability of The Qur'aan. In other words, The Qur'aan in none Arab areas became easier to be read and understood with the enormous help of DIACRITICAL signs. Arabs themselves did not really need those signs because the Qur'aan was already in their own native language.
Besides, in those early days of Islam The Qur'aan had been memorized for the most part and the written text came to existence afterwords. The physical positions of diacriticals on each letter or word of The Qur'aan is conditional to the ORAL/VERBAL pronunciation of those letters or words. i am 100% sure that if all the written texts of The Qur'aan were to somehow disappear from the face of the earth, The Qur'aan in its entirety could be written down the next day without the slightest discrepancy or mistake from the memories of the millions of the people who have memorized it in its entirety. Verse 159 below is the confirmation of the fact that The Qur'aan is preserved not by text, but by oral/verbal memorization.
Verily We, even We revealed the reminder and verily We are its guardian.
Peace,
Khalil -
I completely disagree that ma malakat aymanu... are slaves. Something mamluk. maight be something owned. But when it adds the right hand, it is not something owned, but something differente. Why then should it go to all the extent to specify right hand. What is right hand? Obviously there must be a difference between right and left hand. Is right hand Qur'an specific?
Right hand mulk, as far as I can understand is some undertaking whereby someone in the proper circumstances and capacity assumes formally on his or her authority the protection of somebody who needs that protection for whatever reason. It may be a marriage, it may be a guardianship, it may be giving a home, anything whereby the right hand assumes responsibility for that protection, and the protected obviously corresponds by being faithful to the protector. This condition is public and publicly acknowledged.
Salaam
-
No offense, but I think the best remedy for you is to take a basic course in learning the Arabic language, because its the language of The Qur'aan.
I rest my case.
Peace,
KhalilNo offense taken might as well rest your case since you neither posted nor explained a thing.
Lane's Lexicon - Classical Arabic dictionary
.
means bondmen (َ .Ok translate as willing servant/devotee same as in context above not unwillingly enslaved or purchased by another to keep them bond which only pompous evil proponents of slavery would interpret as such; people are asked to free a neck (i.e. slave).
589 not will call you the god in the idle talk in right hands/oaths yours and however will call you in what contract you the oath so reparation its feed ten poor from average what thou feeding families yours or clothing them or free neck (i.e. slave) so from/who not find so a fast three days that reparation right hands/oaths yours when have sworn you and guard yeh right hands/oaths yours like that shows the god for you signs/verses his that may you thanks giving
Peace
-
I completely disagree that ma malakat aymanu... are slaves.
Peace -- of course not; if consistent in interpretation and translation they are those under one's oath/commitment of support etc.
43 and if fear you that not do justice yeh in/concerning the orphans so marry (leading alif denotes plural) yeh what lawful (of age, agree, etc.) for you from the women paired/twos and three and group of four so if fear you that not do justice yeh so one (feminine singular) or what possess thou right hands/oaths/commitments (use context those offered shelter/protection) yours that minimum that not oppress yeh