Those their right hands possess verses
-
Peace
I have some questions about this...
We all know humans, male or female have a soul right? So we're all souls in either male/ female bodies. The bodies aren't really us, it's the soul. The body is just the outer shell.
We know we shouldn't just view someone as their body because that's objectification. Also, men do not 'possess' women and neither do women 'possess' men. Humans do not OWN/ POSSESS other humans. We belong to God, right?
So why are women talked about here in terms of possession? Some websites even state that it also refers to men...
Peace Sarah. I would like to make 2 points
1.Men also seem to be talked about in terms of possession. Please refer to in 2433.
2.As a matter of fact the possessor is one person's oath like in 3350 or several people's oaths like in 2433.
Your oath makes you resposible rather than possessor. -
My understanding of the Quran as a book is that it had a purpose, not to abolish slavery directly or create some sort of cultural reform in Arabia but to remind people of what is essential in life. And to do that in a manner that they could understand best and fits their norms. Though their norms when you look at them from today's perspective seem ridiculous because we have evolved.
Therefore Quran in my opinion does contain elements of the culture of Arabia of the 7th century. Including patriarchal elements and violent elements.
It addresses things that were once the norm of the people the quran was revealed to, so nothing surprising here. But the core of the message can still be grasped if we abstract it away from these details. With philosophy.As for the first part of your post I agree, I do believe we are divine beings, the sexes are for the bodies that is going to decompose in this earth, like every other creature.
-
This possession things seems indeed to be a demoniacal possession in deed.
If the Qur'an meant possession, why bother to Go into the trouble and tangle of right hands or left hands, why not leave at malaka, that would be sufficient possession all right.
Those who see in the expression ma malakat ayman... seem to be the ones possessed by demons, their own demons.
Right hands, right hands... Who is somebody related to the right hand as opposed to mere mulk or left hand?
Mamalakat aymanukum is those to whom you are a benefactor, mamalakat aymanuhum it is those to hum they are a benefactor.
Devil possession is an evil condition and I doubt that the devil has any right hand which could be of benefit for anyone.
Beware of the obssession wiht possession.
Salaam
-
Besides , if GOD wanted to talk about our possession the Arabic expression is "Ma Malaktum" not "Ma Malakat Aymanukum"!!
I DO NOT SEE WHERE OUR "POSSESSION" COMES INTO IT?
So, Aymanukum, the one who has the possession is not us. It is a social duty i.e "What we are responsible for".
In simpler term, What you are responsible for is a duty towards others that serve your cause and you serve their cause as guardian or spouse or workers or ?.
I would call them "rules" of helping people to coexist/live in harmony.
For example, are we saying our children are our possession?GOD bless.
Peace. -
Just something to point out, dear good logic "ma malaktum" would be what you possess, not whom you possess. Ma has got absolutely necessarily be a thing, it cannot be a person, a person would be man. Therefore nobody is possessed, save the obssessed with possession. Now, what could be possessed by the right hands of somebody? The most sure hting would be good deeds, meritorious actions to which you bind yourself.
The whole thing really is off track and once again one has to be shocked by the contrived destruction of Qura'nic grammatical logic and moral logic. Anything goes, making things into persons, making hand dissappear... It is dismal... And the fault is not fo some seventh century
weakness, about which we mostly know absolutely nothing about, whereas we talk as if had leaved for years in a place called seventh century. Could we not become more normal, even if it more boring than this phantastic runaround with dissappearing hands, persons turned into things, and all the beautiful adornments made to Qur'an so that it is more fun than just moral and spiritual things which really do not make for much excitement.Yes I am being sarcastic and I think there are good reasons for it.
Salaam
-
I agree sister with your analysis.
We do not even possess ourselves. Look at our bodies, have we any control/possession of any of the organs?
We try to gain control/possession by using artificial things like drugs....etc to control our muscles /aches ...But in the end we have absolutely no control!
GOD bless you sister.
Peace. -
Just something to point out, dear good logic "ma malaktum" would be what you possess, not whom you possess. Ma has got absolutely necessarily be a thing, it cannot be a person, a person would be man. Therefore nobody is possessed, save the obssessed with possession. Now, what could be possessed by the right hands of somebody? The most sure hting would be good deeds, meritorious actions to which you bind yourself.
Salaam sister huruf
I think you need to reassess it in the light of 7029-30
(
And those who guard their private parts
except for their spouses who are under their oaths so they are not blamed ones. -
Quote from huruf on May 24, 2019, 030634 PM
Just something to point out, dear good logic "ma malaktum" would be what you possess, not whom you possess. Ma has got absolutely necessarily be a thing, it cannot be a person, a person would be man. Therefore nobody is possessed, save the obssessed with possession. Now, what could be possessed by the right hands of somebody? The most sure hting would be good deeds, meritorious actions to which you bind yourself.Salaam sister huruf
I think you need to reassess it in the light of 7029-30
وَٱلَّذِينَ هُمۡ لِفُرُوجِهِمۡ حَـٰفِظُونَ (٢٩) إِلَّا عَلَىٰٓ أَزۡوَٲجِهِمۡ أَوۡ مَا مَلَكَتۡ أَيۡمَـٰنُہُمۡ فَإِنَّہُمۡ غَيۡرُ مَلُومِينَ
And those who guard their private parts
except for their spouses who are under their oaths so they are not blamed ones.http//haqeeqat.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/024.%20An%20Noor/24.61TT.gif
Or those houses the keys of which are possessed by you people,
The verb is Transitive Perfect. At most of the places the object is elided being otherwise explicit in the context and by the collocates.
مَا مَلَـكَـتْ أَيْمَٟنُـهُـمْhttp//file///G/public-html/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.%20Tabweeb/0001.%20Pronouns%20and%20Prepositions/01.%20Mimma/02.%20Ma/3.gif It is found in Arabic text as Particle and a Noun. The noun is found as General Relative Pronoun; or an Indefinite Noun modified by an adjective. General Relative Pronoun means that relative noun which is used for Being and inanimate; masculine and feminine; singular, dual, and plural. A Relative Pronoun is followed by a sentence which relates back to it, most often with a Pronoun named as that links back to it. Here, in the above sentences, it is General Relative Pronoun as it is followed by a Relative Clause comprising a complete Verbal Sentence.
-
Salaam sister huruf
I think you need to reassess it in the light of 7029-30
وَٱلَّذِينَ هُمۡ لِفُرُوجِهِمۡ حَـٰفِظُونَ (٢٩) إِلَّا عَلَىٰٓ أَزۡوَٲجِهِمۡ أَوۡ مَا مَلَكَتۡ أَيۡمَـٰنُہُمۡ فَإِنَّہُمۡ غَيۡرُ مَلُومِينَ
And those who guard their private parts
except for their spouses who are under their oaths so they are not blamed ones.No, it refers still to a thing, which is elided because it is known to the hearer. It is like when we call some person or pehrnomenen oin certain contextes by an acronym, we interpret what is left out, because the context and the concept is understood. In spanish I can think of some of those things spoken of today as objects because to relate the whole thing everytime would be boring and unnecessary since it is something that is in everybody's minds.
That some marriages were of the kind where an empowered and capable person had a spouse who was under his or her protection and guarantee was a well known fact, so you do not need to go into saying
save from their spouses or from those with whom you have a marriage tie by which you are protecting and guaranteeing or you are being protected and guaranteed by the other spouse.
We kn ow that king of language economy today and <<i think it has always been known.
Salaam
-
That some marriages were of the kind where an empowered and capable person had a spouse who was under his or her protection and guarantee was a well known fact, so you do not need to go into saying
save from their spouses or from those with whom you have a marriage tie by which you are protecting and guaranteeing or you are being protected and guaranteed by the other spouse.
Sister my translation used "who are" instead of "or" for
In 7030 is explaining
-
OK, I understand.
Could you give some other instance in Qur'an where you would translate "aw" as "who are" or as "who is"?
Salaam
Sorry sister for late reply. Life is really busy these days for me.
2221
DO not marry Mushrikaat until they believe, a believing slave women is better than a Mushrika, even though she attracts you and do not give in marriage to the Mushrikeen, a believing slave man is better than a Mushrik even though he attracts you........
243
A Zani, do not marry except for a Zania who is a Mushrika
A Zania, do not marry except for a Zani who is a Mushrik and it is made unlawful for believers.2221 commands us not to marry a Mushrik. If we take "AW" as "OR" in 243 then it contradicts 2221
If we take it as "who is" then there is no contradiction. A zani and a Zania both become Mushrik by making their desires their god and there is no restriction on marriage between two Mushrikeen.A Mushrik is one who obeys commands of other than Allah.
2543
Have you seen one who takes his desires as god ....Salaam.
-
I do not think I agree with that, because then that could apply to any vice, like a slanderer, or a gambler or a lier and then there would not be any point in singling out the zaniyin as a specimen of mushrik and I think that forbidding marriage to a zany in the context of the ayas in sura an-noor has its proper meaning, in fact defeating a man can be a philanderer all is life and then when it comes to marriage wants a pure woman even virgin, but a woman who is not a virgin or known as absolutely irreproachable cannot get a marriage.
The aya means a philanderer or brothel visitor, should marry a woman like himself, and not seek a "good", sexually spotless woman. It is telling men that and telling women that marrying an unchaste man, no matter how much it may be socially approved, God does not approve. Many women ignore that provision.
That said, of course, anybody can sincerely repent and mend his or her ways.
Salaam
-
Sister my translation used "who are" instead of "or" for أَوۡ
In 7030 مَا مَلَكَتۡ أَيۡمَـٰنُہُمۡ is explaining أَزۡوَٲجِهِمۡ
Salam/Peace dear brother. Good to see you. Now you stated that AW would mean "who is" in 243, i wonder if there is any Classical Arabic grammar or dictionary that can confirm this meaning?
I checked in Lughat Al-Quran and i found this
https//i.imgur.com/O6l7QJK.png
-
my translation used "who are" instead of "or" for
peace novice,
its an interesting observation although what WORD arabic used for english word "OR"
or you are saying this "Coordinating Conjunction" used for both "or" and "who is" ..?
-
peace novice,
its an interesting observation although what WORD arabic used for english word "OR"
or you are saying this "Coordinating Conjunction" used for both "or" and "who is" ..?
Salaam Imran and The sadar
Yes brother it means both depending on the context. Dr. Shabbir has explained it in QXP at 243 and to me it makes sense.
-
I do not think I agree with that, because then that could apply to any vice, like a slanderer, or a gambler or a lier and then there would not be any point in singling out the zaniyin as a specimen of mushrik and I think that forbidding marriage to a zany in the context of the ayas in sura an-noor has its proper meaning, in fact defeating a man can be a philanderer all is life and then when it comes to marriage wants a pure woman even virgin, but a woman who is not a virgin or known as absolutely irreproachable cannot get a marriage.
The aya means a philanderer or brothel visitor, should marry a woman like himself, and not seek a "good", sexually spotless woman. It is telling men that and telling women that marrying an unchaste man, no matter how much it may be socially approved, God does not approve. Many women ignore that provision.
That said, of course, anybody can sincerely repent and mend his or her ways.
Salaam
We can apply it to only that which is in the Quran.
If Aw is "or" then looks like it contradict 2221.
Can a believer marry a mushrik?
Salaam
-
I can't see how it ontradicts it. It is two different things. If it were something like "who is" I would expect it to be much more common than just that mention which it does not convince me that for just that case or those two you mention has that meaning. And it only does the Qur'an say that if you yourself do give that mening to "or" only in precisely those passages.
On the other hand you would be saying that marrying zani provided he or she is not a mushrik would be all right which would defeat the aleya itself because anyway you cannot marry a mushrik, therefore you can marry a zani. It turns the aleya into nonsense. You cannot marry mushriks if you are not one, and you cannot marry zanis if you are not one. But if you are a zani you can marry mushriks or zanis, included zanis who also are mushriks, but still you cannot marry a zani if you yourself are neither zani nor mushrik.
If you say it is equating zina and shirk, yes it seems so but they are two different concepts. It may be that if you marry a zani and you yourself are not one, you are turning yourself into a mushrik since you value s worldly idea of marriage over what God makes it to be.
Salaam
-
But if you are a zani you can marry mushriks or zanis, included zanis who also are mushriks, but still you cannot marry a zani if you yourself are neither zani nor mushrik.
So as you said above "a zani can marry a mushrik". But it contradicts 2221 which commands not to marry a mushrik.
Or are you saying that a zani is a mushrik so he can marry a mushrik. If so then that is what I said already.
If you say it is equating zina and shirk, yes it seems so but they are two different concepts. It may be that if you marry a zani and you yourself are not one, you are turning yourself into a mushrik since you value s worldly idea of marriage over what God makes it to be.
Same what I already said that zani=mushrik
Sister please re-read your reply and see the confusion.
