Muhammad Asad's 70:30
-
Peace,
Interesting viewpoints. We also have the previous scriptures, which provides a great context as to the understanding of what a ilah is.
And more or less of you put together the Semitic pictographs in their earlier forms you can more or less in my understanding see the concept of what God means
-
FREE-MINDS Except around their spouses or those committed to by their oath, there is no blame.
Literally; "or what their oath possesses" (i.e. whom they made an oath to marry).
Peace, it's a broad term depending on context and cannot mean above see example 3355 those permitted to visit freely "spouses the prophet" in addition to their close relatives mentioned includes those under trust, care, employment etc., e.g. doctor perhaps.
http//oi65.tinypic.com/119ne5z.jpg
-
Peace,
Interesting viewpoints. We also have the previous scriptures, which provides a great context as to the understanding of what a ilah is.
And more or less of you put together the Semitic pictographs in their earlier forms you can more or less in my understanding see the concept of what God means
There are some severe errors in how the Bible is translated, probably more due to linguistic ignorance than deliberately. YWEH God is used a lot in conjunction but same here I do find the word YWEH to be some kind of acronym. But the God-word is what I am proposing is incorrectly understood.
I am not denying the existence of God as a unique being and God encompasses everything and everyone which I do not, but it is absolutely One and anything in existence is part of that Oneness in origin. God according to me is Rabb in Semitic tradition even though the word seems to be "modern" within linguistics.
To paraphrase the Allah-word one could also say "the one who is-like". The purpose of our existence is "to be being" (in individual consciousness), or not be at all. Funnily one can say "to be or not to be is the question".
Be well
Qarael Amenuel -
Peace Noon waalqalami,
Peace, it's a broad term depending on context and cannot mean above see example 3355 those permitted to visit freely "spouses the prophet" in addition to their close relatives mentioned includes those under trust, care, employment etc., e.g. doctor perhaps.
?Ma malkat aymanukum? Those related to you by your oath. In the case of a single man this is the oath of engagement to marry. In the case of a custodian this is the oath of adoption or financial support. Following are the list of verses where this expression occurs and the context of each occurrence
Who you made an oath to marry (43,424, 425, 236, 3350, 3352, 7030)
Who you made an oath to adopt/take custody of (2431, 2433, 2458, 3355)
Who you made an oath to financially support in general (433, 436, 1671, 302Source Rules Of Engagement
Hope this helps.
-
Peace zigazigha,
FREE-MINDS Except around their spouses or those committed to by their oath, there is no blame.
Literally; "or what their oath possesses" (i.e. whom they made an oath to marry).
Hope this helps.
Peace Abdelilah
Because I have a personal probem with being addressed to animated beings, i'd prefer something like "what your oath encompass" or something like that (not being the "what" human beings but the content of the oath itself including as, for example, also celibate, etc.)
Have a great day sun
-
Man Of Faith, people are being reincarnated in this forum left, right and centre.
You reincarnation theory works. Well at least here.
Out with the old in with the new.
Make sure you come back as "Man Of Logic",I will come back as "Good Faith".
Sorry about the off topic folks.
GOD bless you.
Peace. -
Thanks for not taking a few hours of my evening tonight. Now I can spend it with the family. Hope you have a good time with yours.
Be well
Qarael Amenuel -
Peace Abdelilah
Because I have a personal probem with being addressed to animated beings, i'd prefer something like "what your oath encompass" or something like that (not being the "what" human beings but the content of the oath itself including as, for example, also celibate, etc.)
Have a great day sun
Salaam Virginia
What is referring to in verse 37 at red highlighted part in your understanding.
-
Salaam Virginia
What is referring to in verse 37 at red highlighted part in your understanding.
Peace,
This is probably a negative ma, I.e
And it's interpretation is not known except by God and those well rooted in the knowledge.
Or
And none knows it's interpretation except God and those well rooted in knowledge.I think the ma in ma malikat iimanikum could be a relative ma, used in the sense of "as long as" I.e as long as you posses your oath. This seems likely considering the context of the concept in the Quran and the previous scripture
See wolfdietrich fischer grammar of classical Arabic paragraph 289.2 and 462 (pg 151, 234)
The Quran, in my understanding has used it is this sense, but often joined to other particles or a pronoun.
Peace
-
Thanks Timotheus
I know this "MA" is a negation but is it not referring to animated beings? That was my point with reference to Virginia's post where she said she has a personal problem with "MA" being addressed to animated beings.
Or does "MA" in 2255 (Highlighted in red in the verse) not refer to animated as well as non-animated beings
.......................To him belong whatever is in the earth or the heavens.........
Salaam -
Peace,
This is probably a negative ma, I.e
And it's interpretation is not known except by God and those well rooted in the knowledge.
Or
And none knows it's interpretation except God and those well rooted in knowledge.I think the ma in ma malikat iimanikum could be a relative ma, used in the sense of "as long as" I.e as long as you posses your oath. This seems likely considering the context of the concept in the Quran and the previous scripture
See wolfdietrich fischer grammar of classical Arabic paragraph 289.2 and 462 (pg 151, 234)
The Quran, in my understanding has used it is this sense, but often joined to other particles or a pronoun.
Peace
Peace, Novice and Timotheus
Thanks for answering
I've been thinking of "as long as" too as an understandig of in MMA but the truth is i did not find it suitable for other cases... In 2255 it includes animated by extension, if you think of it it means "whatever" and only by extension it refers to animated. Gladly i will tell u later when i reach a pc today pr. Check te verses with regarding strictly animated beings in several interpretations and you will find out it is very weirdly only intepreted as "whom" in MMA, regarding women or idols worshiped besides Allah... In 37 it cant be a relative because there is just a relative right after it "then who who" (?) In the first case and it is clearly a negation as you say in the second case. That is why i think there is a problem with here (i dont see how it could be a negation in MMA) not that i found a solution for it or in the other cases. I will come back later so you can help me ;D. Of course there is 1 or 2 examples where it seems to have to refer to animated, but still as i said this is kind of my own personal issue to see it clearly confusedThanks Again
God bless you sun
-
The problem in this and another cases is to translate and then want that yranslation to apply it back to the Arabic.
Like in the expression ma taaba lakummin an-nisaa' the ma is con making things of the nisaa' but it is being used with a partitif, from among the nisaa' what seems right to you is a whole concept which encloses the individul woman with he situation whe stands in, and the situation of her orphan and you own situation. In Sanish it could be trnaslated con "lo", whih is neuter and takes into account more than a person seeming good to you.In the other case the mamalakaat aymanuhum-kum, etc. It is again not speaking about persos, mamalkat al ayman may be the protective quality YOUR RIGHT HAND POSSESSES. obviously it is not a person, man or woman who is possessed by anybody but your right hand, that is the hand that does good, in whi it is the good of that person. Eben when the Arabic is quite explicit we tend to suppress things tht are full of meaning, somebody possessing something or somebody is not by any means something being in one's right hand, and if something is in one's right hand that means that one's riht hand is in possession of that that something, in this sense mamalakat ayrefers to the relationship of protection with respect to some persons, not the possession of the persons, may be a chorter expression than the whole explanation but I think Arabic makes it plain that nobody es a possession of anybody else, but that there is a relationship og goodness shownby the Right hand.
Some prefer to translate by oaths possessed by oaths, but I think the word "right" hand is there for some reason, y it is a relatiobship where you show you best disposition to help along a person.
In those cases obviously a woman or man who is already protecting a person, showing him or her her generosity may well undertke and commit to a deeper relationship withut betraying any virtue or decent behaviour.
Salaam
-
NNo we are used to societies in which people usually do not die young, but inmany societies and in fact till not very long ago, orphans were very common, people who wereleft without a close direct relative. We can imagine that many people lived under the pupilage of other relatives or close who untertook to take care of them, they were right hand possessions. With a right hand possession mey be or may be not there could be a relative with chom you could arrange a marriage with all formality, if not you just undertook that commitment in whatever the fashion. Was.In aciente Egypt there did not seem to be a ceremony for marriage, where two people of different sex spent the night under the same rook they were deemed as married for all legal purposes.
So seen under other eyes than our so civilised and virtuous of our age, many things are explained withoutthe need to throw silly thing on those people.
Arabia at that timemight be corrupted, but I do not think they had forgotten older institutions and even matriarchal traits.
Salaam
-
The root of Malik does not mean one owns something but is in control of. Here is appears to speak of control of your hands, malekat aymanekum.
-
2224-225. And do not make God the subject of your casual OATHS. Be pious and righteous and reconcile among the people; and God is Hearer, Knower. God will not call you to account for your casual OATHS...
-
God will not hold you for your casual OATHS, but He will hold you for what OATHS you have made binding; its cancellation shall be the feeding of ten poor from the average of what you feed your family, or that you clothe them, or that you free a slave; whoever cannot find such shall fast for three days; this is a cancellation for making your OATHS when you swear...
-
This is best as they are more likely to bring the testimony as intended, or face that their OATHS would be disregarded as the previous OATHS...
912-13. And if they break their OATHS after making their pledge, and they challenge the authority of your system; then you may kill the leaders of rejection. Their OATHS are nothing to them, perhaps they will then cease. Would you not fight a people who broke their OATHS, and obsessed to expel the messenger, especially while they were the ones who attacked you first...
1691-92. And fulfill your pledge to God when you pledge so, and do not break your OATH after making it, for you have made God a sponsor over you. God is aware of what you do. And do not be like she who unraveled her knitting after it had become strong, by breaking your OATHS as a means of deception between you...
-
And do not use your OATHS as a means of deception between you...
-
And they swear by God with their strongest OATHS that if you would only command them they would mobilize...
-
God has already given the law, regarding the cancellation of OATHS...
-
And for each We have made inheritors for what was left behind by the parents and the relatives. And those bound by your OATHS (aqadat aymanukum)...
-
-
Several biblical figures had concubines when they were not able to create natural children with their wives. The most famous example of this was with Abraham and Sarah. Sarah, gave her maidservant Hagar to Abraham, while maintaining ownership of both maidservant and offspring. Their union produced Ishmael. Hagar gained the status of full wife in regards to Abraham, but nonetheless Sarah retained the status of main wife. Subsequently Isaac inherited Ishmael and Hagar along with the inheritance since under Hebrew law all property of a slave belongs to the master. This type of pilegesh is recorded in Jewish sources as being a singular case. All later cases of pilegesh recognized the pilegesh and guaranteed similar rights in the house as the legitimate wife. Since having children in Judaism was considered a great blessing, legitimate wives often gave their maids to their husbands so they could have children with them when those women themselves where childless, as in the cases of Leah and Zilpah; and Rachel and Bilhah. The concubine commanded the same respect and inviolability as the wife, and it was regarded as the deepest dishonor for the man to whom she belonged if hands were laid upon her. Even in the exceptional case of Sarah and Hagar, Abraham would have been obligated to treat Hagar as a full wife and she would have been treated as an equal by Abraham. Sarah's rights would have been regarding the technical legal status of being considered the inheritor and since the other wife and offspring would have been hers by ownership she became the legal albeit not biological mother of Ishmael.
Legal characteristics
According to the Babylonian Talmud (Sanh. 21a), the difference between a pilegesh and a full wife was that the latter received a marriage contract (Hebrewketubah) and her marriage (nissu'in) was preceded by a formal betrothal ("kiddushin", which was not the case with the former. According to R. Judah, however, the pilegesh should also receive a marriage contract, but without including a clause specifying a divorce settlement.Certain Jewish thinkers, such as Maimonides, believed that concubines are strictly reserved for kings, and thus that a commoner may not have a concubine; indeed, such thinkers argued that commoners may not engage in any type of sexual relations outside of a marriage.
Maimonides was not the first Jewish thinker to criticise concubinage; for example, it is severely condemned in Leviticus Rabbah. Other Jewish thinkers, such as Nahmanides, Samuel ben Uri Shraga Phoebus, and Jacob Emden, strongly object to the idea that concubines should be forbidden.
Any offspring created as a result of a union between a pilegesh and a man were on equal legal footing with children of the man and his wife. The only exception was the unique relationship between Abraham, Sarah, Hagar, and Isaac and Ishmael.
According to Rabbi Mnachem Risikoff, the institution of pilegesh is an alternative to formal marriage which does not have the same requirements for a Get upon the dissolution of the relationship.
https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilegesh
Looks to me it was a common Judaic tradition in Medina where large amount of Jews reside. This is known in Arab world as Urfi marriage.
Nikah 'urfi is a "customary" Sunni Muslim marriage contract that requires a wal (guardian) and witnesses but not to be officially registered with state authorities. Couples repeat the words, "We got married" and pledge commitment, although there are many other informal ways in which people marry `urfi. Usually a paper, stating that the two are married, is written and at least two witnesses sign it, although others may record their commitment on a cassette tape and use other forms of documentation. Most Arab countries do not recognize 'Urfi marriages and do not allow partners to get a 'legal' divorce since the government does not recognize the legality of the marriage in the first place. Sometimes these relationships are a way for people to have sex with each other within what is perceived to be a licit framework. Nevertheless, the relationship is often kept secret from family members.
https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikah_%27urfi
This kind of marraige is discouraged in Quran to some extent because of abuses. Notice the case of contract (oath) and family not informed. Both issues the Koran talked about. Also the lack of dowry, which Koran also talked about.
In modern times in other areas of world it is similar to living with a partner without formally marrying.