How sex before Marriage is not haram (prohibited) according to the Quran
-
Peace Mazhar
What becomes of
235-6 and the unguarding of the private parts to the zawj or the Ma Maletkat aymunhum? Based on 2431 we can establish that guarding is not a command. But we still need to account for the MMA.
I agree that the unguarding of the private parts does not = sexual activity. But can we deny that it encompasses sexual activity?
Does one not need to unguard their private parts in order to engage in sexual activity?And this being the case, does this not mean that one can engage in sexual activity with Ma Malekat Aymunhum (whoever they may be)?
Those who have responded to this keep repeating that unguarding the private parts does not mean to have sex and I have already expressed my agreement with that.
But no one has addressed the fact that if one can unguard their private parts, then they can engage in sex. Just as one does not engage in sex, by guarding their private parts and since only two categories have been specified with regards to the unguarding of the private parts, then this implies sexual activity with them does it not?Is there anything significant in the arabic that I may not be recognising?
Perhaps there is no denying that deliberate exposure of genitalia is either for sex or for sexual harrassment to other party. "Protectors-Guards"-Active Participles they deliberately protect their genitalia from exposure for sex or sexual harrassment or incitement for others.
The conjunction "Aau" in 235-6 is causing problem to you because of under-translation, perhaps by almost all translators.
Let me complete the article discussing all occurrences whereby, Allah the Exalted willing, this confusion might be over.
-
Perhaps there is no denying that deliberate exposure of genitalia is either for sex or for sexual harrassment to other party. "Protectors-Guards"-Active Participles they deliberately protect their genitalia from exposure for sex or sexual harrassment or incitement for others.
If it is to be narrowed down, I cannot think of it being narrowed down to anything other than sexual purposes.
The conjunction "Aau" in 235-6 is causing problem to you because of under-translation, perhaps by almost all translators.
This has been pointed out. Muhammad Assad provided a suggestion but I see a strong problem with it
At 235-6 it says x or y. If I understand Assad correctly, it is suggested that the Aau here is just clarifying the nature of what a zawj is.Sort of like this Your wives or those whom you are married to. Or like this Give the letter to Batman or Bruce Wayne
The problem with this is that in the Quran, it makes a clear distinction between the zawj and the MMA at various verses. Furthermore, it makes a distinction between the zawj and the MMA even at verses that are with regards to marriage. It also does so with regards to inheritance. Thus IMO Assad's suggestion is unreasonable. We must take Aau as that which makes a distinction between two things and not as something that sort of clarifies. Here is why
Consider the following
You are asked to deliver a letter to Batman or Bruce Wayne. Now if there was only one Batman, there would be no issue in the instruction given. But when there is more than one Batman and the letter is exclusively intended for Bruce Wayne, then the instruction you are given is wrong. Similarly with 235-6 either the instruction is wrong (this cannot be given the divinity of the scripture) or it must be the case that the Aau is making a distinction between the two at 235-6
Thus it cannot logically be the case that Aau is doing anything other than distinguishing the Zawj from the MMA. To say that it is not distinguishing creates logical contradictions as demonstrated above. To say that it is distinguishing, creates no contradictions but this will mean that sexual activity is not exclusive to marriage and many dislike the implication of the permissibility of sexual activity outside of marriage.
I hope we can all put aside our biases (me included) and get to the truth rather than delay or avoid it.
The next step IMO is to look at 2433, 2237 and the waiting periods to determine how much or what type of sexual activity (if any) is permitted/advised via those verses. I have discussed the concepts of musafihun with Noon and Wakas, and it ended with me providing my defence and them not responding to it. Having not heard anything back from them, I am thus assuming either agreement from them or they cannot logically refute my defence hence the silence or that they are not able to access the internet or free-minds. Zina has also been discussed with uq and he has not refuted my points but is currently investigating the root of zina.
This leaves 2433, 2237 and the waiting periods to discuss. They have been discussed but not as in much depth with others and I would like to hear the knowledge/opinions of others with regards to these verses (in particular yours) before doing any sort of summary or making decisions.
-
At 235-6 it says x or y. If I understand Assad correctly, it is suggested that the Aau here is just clarifying the nature of what a zawj is.
He seems to have ignored that the discourse is about human beings. And the relative pronoun refers to a woman. That was the reason that "Min" before Ma is not used to keep the point distinct that it regards a woman not an object .
?? is and "Ma" is a Relative Pronoun linking back to .
-
He seems to have ignored that the discourse is about human beings. And the relative pronoun refers to a woman. That was the reason that "Min" before Ma is not used to keep the point distinct that it regards a woman not an object .
?? is and "Ma" is a Relative Pronoun linking back to .
Could you please further clarify for me? In particular the part in red? What implications can be drawn?
-
Could you please further clarify for me? In particular the part in red? What implications can be drawn?
It seems you did not see what I had started
The verbal sentence can independently mean possession of a toy, an object, two objects, plural objects, a woman, two women, more women, a man, two men or more men.
That which your right hands possessed-that upon which you gained the proprietorship.
The Woman, upon whom, the right hands of you have the authority for ruling, ordering, or managing her affair.
The Man, upon whom, the right hands of you have the authority for ruling, ordering, or managing his affair.It is found in Arabic text both as a 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 the 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 sentence, it is General Relative Pronoun as it is followed by a Relative Clause comprising a complete Verbal Sentence.
It is a Perfect Transitive Verb; Third Person; Singular; Feminine with feminine marker; Verbal Noun. It denotes possession or ownership of an object with ability to have it to oneself exclusively. It signifies with regard to a person to have the authority for ruling, or ordering, of his or her affair, or case. The perception is the same in both cases whether inanimate object or a living being. The Verbal Sentence is the Linkage Clause for the preceding General Relative Noun.
This is a Possessive Phrase. The First Nominative Definite Feminine Broken Plural Noun is the Subject of Verb. The Suffixed Possessive Pronoun is for Second Person; plural; masculine, in genitive state. The Object of Verb is elided. The Object Pronoun referring back to the Relative Pronoun is usually elided. However, if the Relative Pronoun is the Subject, the Pronoun in the linkage clause referring back to it is not elided.
The word is the broken plural of . It is derived from Root " ". The basic perception infolded therein is of right hand and right side. It connotes "oath" which is normally and reflexively pledged by raising right hand, or striking right hand on the palm of another person. Notwithstanding that the same word refers to "the right hands" and "the oaths", it will cause no ambiguity in the text since both are different in essence. "Oath" is abstract noun while "right hand" is a concrete noun. The abstract is that which exists only in our minds, that which we cannot know through our senses. It includes qualities, relationships, conditions, ideas, theories, and states of being, fields of inquiry and the like. Concrete words refer to things we can touch, see, hear, smell, and taste. When used as the Subject of a transitive Verb like there is absolutely no reason that someone be confused to take it as "oaths" instead of "right hands".
-
It seems you did not see what I had started
The verbal sentence can independently mean possession of a toy, an object, two objects, plural objects, a woman, two women, more women, a man, two men or more men.
That which your right hands possessed-that upon which you gained the proprietorship.
The Woman, upon whom, the right hands of you have the authority for ruling, ordering, or managing her affair.
The Man, upon whom, the right hands of you have the authority for ruling, ordering, or managing his affair.It is found in Arabic text both as a 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 the 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 sentence, it is General Relative Pronoun as it is followed by a Relative Clause comprising a complete Verbal Sentence.
It is a Perfect Transitive Verb; Third Person; Singular; Feminine with feminine marker; Verbal Noun. It denotes possession or ownership of an object with ability to have it to oneself exclusively. It signifies with regard to a person to have the authority for ruling, or ordering, of his or her affair, or case. The perception is the same in both cases whether inanimate object or a living being. The Verbal Sentence is the Linkage Clause for the preceding General Relative Noun.
This is a Possessive Phrase. The First Nominative Definite Feminine Broken Plural Noun is the Subject of Verb. The Suffixed Possessive Pronoun is for Second Person; plural; masculine, in genitive state. The Object of Verb is elided. The Object Pronoun referring back to the Relative Pronoun is usually elided. However, if the Relative Pronoun is the Subject, the Pronoun in the linkage clause referring back to it is not elided.
The word is the broken plural of . It is derived from Root " ". The basic perception infolded therein is of right hand and right side. It connotes "oath" which is normally and reflexively pledged by raising right hand, or striking right hand on the palm of another person. Notwithstanding that the same word refers to "the right hands" and "the oaths", it will cause no ambiguity in the text since both are different in essence. "Oath" is abstract noun while "right hand" is a concrete noun. The abstract is that which exists only in our minds, that which we cannot know through our senses. It includes qualities, relationships, conditions, ideas, theories, and states of being, fields of inquiry and the like. Concrete words refer to things we can touch, see, hear, smell, and taste. When used as the Subject of a transitive Verb like there is absolutely no reason that someone be confused to take it as "oaths" instead of "right hands".
But MMA is always stated in the Quran as a past tense. Its assuming a relationship that is already existing. Either your wives or MMA. MMA is already a relationship established where sex is considered legal by the Quran. But its not seen as a marriage at the same time. You can then elevate that relationship to marriage by dowry and informing the family. Only concubines fit that or even a girlfriend boyfriend arrangement. Its a legitimate relationship sexually that existed whereby sex is considered legal.
-
Peace nimnimak,
Please give my post some attention. Recognise that I was not translating to college girls. I was giving an example. This was not a translation/interpretation of 424
The intention was to prove to you that muhsinat and musafihun need not be opposites.- Do you disagree with this (the fact that they need not be opposites)?
No. Simply look at the roots and context they are clear antonyms.
And I agree but at 424, it cannot mean fornication. It must thus mean adultery only given the context it occurs in.
- Do you agree?
No.
That is a belief that you have. It may not be the truth. For example Responsible couples. Who take their time before they grow in intimacy. The example you give, is a worst case scenario.
They can get married.
Also bear in mind the benefit of growing intimate with one's partner.
This could be important knowledge as to whether one can commit to that partner for life and start a family with them (marriage).They can get divorced.
To prohibit what is potentially not prohibited is what may have happened here. That is what is being investigated.
Where is your proof you're allowed premarital sexual with girlfriend, stranger, prostitute?
Likewise you have been clearly refuted, no basis for meaning independent in Arabic.m---n-a-t (feminine) closest is lady not mu-s-a-f--a-t (feminine) harlot/promiscuous
m---n-y-n (masculine) or gentleman not m-s-a-f--y-n (masculine) promiscuous maleI have discussed the concepts of musafihun with Noon and Wakas, and it ended with me providing my defence and them not responding to it. Having not heard anything back from them, I am thus assuming either agreement from them or they cannot logically refute my defence hence the silence or that they are not able to access the internet or free-minds. Zina has also been discussed with uq and he has not refuted my points but is currently investigating the root of zina.
Another option is that you are boring and a wast of bandwidth and proposing the nonsense.
Only concubines fit that or even a girlfriend boyfriend arrangement. Its a legitimate relationship sexually that existed whereby sex is considered legal.
Peace Bigmo,
Get off the bible trip -- no such thing as legal concubine in Qur'an or perhaps tell us how to acquire them?
231 hence succeed the believers
232 the ones who they in their prayers humble
233 and the ones who they about the nonsense averse/turning away
234 and the ones who they of purification works doing
235 and the ones who they of their private parts guardians
236 only over their spouses or what possess their right hands (i.e. things under one's grasp/means/control; not responsible if need to see a doctor or forcefully strip searched) so indeed they not blameworthy -
It seems you did not see what I had started
I did. I was hoping for further clarification. Thank you for the clarification.
The verbal sentence can independently mean possession of a toy, an object, two objects, plural objects, a woman, two women, more women, a man, two men or more men.
Salam Mazhar
As you have suggested, the phrase in it's most literal form translates to what your right hands possess. If we are to take this absolutely literally, such that we exclude the notion of oaths from it (as this appears to be your suggestion) then the only thing we are left with is whatever your right hands possess.
So I ask of you how can one literally possess a woman in their right hands? Could you give an answer without having to take away from the absolute literal meaning of what is in one's right hand's possession? You have suggested
that upon which you gained the proprietorship.
IMO this appears to be a less warranted understanding of what one's right hands possesses than understanding right hands as oaths. I say this because your suggestion of proprietorship has no examples in the Quran at all whereas oaths have clear examples in the Quran where right hands cannot mean anything other than oaths. To cite 2 examples out of many- 3542 2225
Thus I would ask of you how would you defend taking the non-literal notion of proprietorship over the non-literal notion of oath?
When used as the Subject of a transitive Verb like there is absolutely no reason that someone be confused to take it as "oaths" instead of "right hands".
Then why would you render right hands as proprietorship?
We do have reason to take Ma malekat aymunkum as those whom your oaths possess since this is the best understanding of right hands we can take as suggested by the Quran's usage of right hands through out the Quran.Do you have anything to add with regards to Ma Malekat Aymunkum after considering the above?
-
I did. I was hoping for further clarification. Thank you for the clarification.
Salam Mazhar
As you have suggested, the phrase in it's most literal form translates to what your right hands possess. If we are to take this absolutely literally, such that we exclude the notion of oaths from it (as this appears to be your suggestion) then the only thing we are left with is whatever your right hands possess.
So I ask of you how can one literally possess a woman in their right hands? Could you give an answer without having to take away from the absolute literal meaning of what is in one's right hand's possession? You have suggested
IMO this appears to be a less warranted understanding of what one's right hands possesses than understanding right hands as oaths. I say this because your suggestion of proprietorship has no examples in the Quran at all whereas oaths have clear examples in the Quran where right hands cannot mean anything other than oaths. To cite 2 examples out of many- 3542 2225Thus I would ask of you how would you defend taking the non-literal notion of proprietorship over the non-literal notion of oath?
Then why would you render right hands as proprietorship?
We do have reason to take Ma malekat aymunkum as those whom your oaths possess since this is the best understanding of right hands we can take as suggested by the Quran's usage of right hands through out the Quran.Do you have anything to add with regards to Ma Malekat Aymunkum after considering the above?
Now please give little time to verb . Wealth, property, belongings all are said to be held by hands. Only hands can be the subject of verb and NOT oaths. You will not find this word in relation to oaths as subject of a verb. Just forget since it can ever mean Oaths in this sentence.
is completed action and has resulted in a new state. The Subject of Verb has become "Malikun"-the owner, proprietor, holder of authority and responsibility, and the Object of Verb has become "Mamluke". It results in a Master-Servant; Manager-managed/administered; governor-goverened, Lord-serf relationship.
-
No. Simply look at the roots and context they are clear antonyms.
I've looked at both roots and the context and I gave you clear examples to which you did not comment on. So I ask of you to please comment on them rather than just say no they are clear antonyms. By comment, I mean clarify what is in the context or the root that makes them antonyms.
In your preferred template here is 424
....and permitted to you what beyond these that you seek with your wealth
mu-h-sin-n-y-na guarded not mu-s-a-f-h-y-na Adultery/fornication/sex-
What is logically wrong with the phrase Seek marriage for guardedness not adultery/sex Since it is your claim that this cannot logically hold please explain what is logically wrong with it?
-
Also can one marry for the sake of fornication? If no, then how can one be given the advice Don't seek marriage for fornication? This is obviously problematic hence
Thus if you cannot respond to the above, my second point is also proven that musafihun cannot mean fornication at 424
Likewise you have been clearly refuted, no basis for meaning independent in Arabic.
And thus I suggested Guarded conveys independence.
Another option is that you are boring and a wast of bandwidth and proposing the nonsense.
No that cannot be since I gave you evidence that refuted yours and you didn't say anything. Falsehood and nonsense tend to be proven wrong. Often those who are on the side of falsehood and don't have the character to admit the wrongness of their belief tend to have no manners and just assume themselves right/better and insult their opposition like a child, when instead they should be focusing on their own flaws
m---n-a-t (feminine) closest is lady not mu-s-a-f--a-t (feminine) harlot/promiscuous
m---n-y-n (masculine) or gentleman not m-s-a-f--y-n (masculine) promiscuous maleYou kept arguing that it means fornication. So have I proven you wrong then that it cannot mean fornication at 424? as you yourself suggest at the above...Do you see what i've been dealing with?
-
-
Now please give little time to verb . Wealth, property, belongings all are said to be held by hands. Only hands can be the subject of verb and NOT oaths. You will not find this word in relation to oaths as subject of a verb. Just forget since it can ever mean Oaths in this sentence.
is completed action and has resulted in a new state. The Subject of Verb has become "Malikun"-the owner, proprietor, holder of authority and responsibility, and the Object of Verb has become "Mamluke". It results in a Master-Servant; Manager-managed/administered; governor-goverened, Lord-serf relationship.
I think I see your point. You are suggesting that the use of the word Malekat means that we should not render right hands as oaths because malekat entails "wealth, property, belongings" but is that what it means at 235-6? Can it mean anything other than possess?
My concern is that if we understand Ma Malikat Aymunkum as that upon which you gained the proprietorship, this would mean that essentially we have rendered Malekat to mean proprietor. What then have we understood aymunkum to mean? How would understanding it as right hands fit with regards to understanding Malekat as proprietor?
I can see the following as possibly a workable translation The Woman/man, upon whom, the right hands of you have possession
But then when we add for ruling, ordering, or managing her/his affair, this is an un-warranted assumption. IMO to possess someone does not necessarily entail ruling/ordering etc. But we are faced with the difficulty of explaining how some one can possess someone with their RIGHT hands?Just forget since it can ever mean Oaths in this sentence.
Just to clarify, is this because "Notwithstanding that the same word refers to "the right hands" and "the oaths", it will cause no ambiguity in the text since both are different in essence. "Oath" is abstract noun while "right hand" is a concrete noun."
OR because "That was the reason that "Min" before Ma is not used to keep the point distinct that it regards a woman not an object"
-
My concern is that if we understand Ma Malikat Aymunkum as that upon which you gained the proprietorship, this would mean that essentially we have rendered Malekat to mean proprietor. What then have we understood aymunkum to mean? How would understanding it as right hands fit with regards to understanding Malekat as proprietor?
I can see the following as possibly a workable translation The Woman/man, upon whom, the right hands of you have possession
But then when we add for ruling, ordering, or managing her/his affair, this is an un-warranted assumption. IMO to possess someone does not necessarily entail ruling/ordering etc. But we are faced with the difficulty of explaining how some one can possess someone with their RIGHT hands?"essentially we have rendered Malekat to mean proprietor". The verb does not mean proprietor. I again reproduce its meanings
It is a Perfect Transitive Verb; Third Person; Singular; Feminine with feminine marker; Verbal Noun. It denotes possession or ownership of an object with ability to have it to oneself exclusively. It signifies with regard to a person to have the authority for ruling, or ordering, of his or her affair, or case. The perception is the same in both cases whether inanimate object or a living being. The Verbal Sentence is the Linkage Clause for the preceding General Relative Noun.
Every act yields a result-a new state different from the one that existed before the act. Once the act signified by this Verb is over, the result created a relationship between the Subject and Object. The Subject attains the dominance, the authority to control and manage the affairs of the Object. All these are inherent in the Verb and resultant effect.
Similarly, in case the Relative Pronoun refers to an inanimate object, once it comes in the possession, control of your hands, you become its proprietor- , owner, manager, possessor to handle it in whatever manner you like. The object has become your "slave".
-
And thus I suggested Guarded conveys independence.
That is riduculous, independent is not there or same as quarded.
in?de?pend?ent
Free from outside control; not depending on another's authorityguard?ed
Cautious and having possible reservationsNo that cannot be since I gave you evidence that refuted yours and you didn't say anything. Falsehood and nonsense tend to be proven wrong. Often those who are on the side of falsehood and don't have the character to admit the wrongness of their belief tend to have no manners and just assume themselves right/better and insult their opposition like a child, when instead they should be focusing on their own flaws
You kept arguing that it means fornication. So have I proven you wrong then that it cannot mean fornication at 424? as you yourself suggest at the above...Do you see what i've been dealing with?This thread is stupid started with a false presumption same like the dumb 19 code stuff proposed by the ignorant, so don't blame people not wanting to waste time replying to nonsense which you were clearly proven wrong nor did you bring any evidence. Qur'an and Arabic clearly calls what you propose harlotry!
m-s-a-f-h-y-n Siin-Fa-Ha - one who commits fornication or adultery, take unlawfully (women).
http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume4/00000093.pdf
2855 and when they hear the nonsense they turn away from it and they say to us our deeds and to you your deeds peace onto you not we seek the ignorant
No more comments!
Peace!
-
That is riduculous, independent is not there or same as quarded.
I'm not saying it is. I said it conveys independence when you compare it with the fatayat who are young and in need of guardians and thus do not guard themselves. Hence the need to ask their family for permission for marriage.
I think your idea of muhsinat as chaste is wrong. Your saying that the Quran is preaching that if you can't marry the young chaste women, then marry the young unchaste women! As if there are no old women to be considered for marriage! Now this IMO is non-sense yet you accuse me of non-sense.
And on what grounds?!
That musafihun must mean fornication. So your saying that the Quran believes that it is logically possible for one to marry for fornication. This is ridiculous and you yourself recognised this with your following rendition of musafihun
mu-s-a-f--a-t (feminine) harlot/promiscuous
Yet you persist with none-sense and refuse to recognise that you were wrong when proven clearly wrong.This thread is stupid started with a false presumption same like the dumb 19 code stuff proposed by the ignorant, so don't blame people not wanting to waste time replying to nonsense which you were clearly proven wrong nor did you bring any evidence. Qur'an and Arabic clearly calls what you propose harlotry!
I do not assume myself to be right. Hence the discussion. Evidence has been provided abundantly from my side and will be provided again in a summary provided nothing is credibly disproved or pointed out.
You can't even bring yourself to acknowledge that 424 clearly conveys that musafihun cannot mean fornication at 424.
Can't account for the unguarding of the private parts at 235-6,
and can't account for the fact that there is no where that the Quran says sex is exclusive to marriage,
or sex should be for marriage and still assume you are right without any sincereness in discussion because you automatically assume anyone who who has sex without a marriage certificate has done wrong.No more comments!
I'm glad.
I did my reminding. There's only so much one can do with regards to reminding.Peace
-
Salam Mazhar
"essentially we have rendered Malekat to mean proprietor". The verb does not mean proprietor.
I meant to discuss with you your following translation of Ma Malekat Aymunkum that upon which you gained the proprietorship.
At reply 847 the main question I asked in relation to this was
why would you render right hands as proprietorship?To which you responded
Now please give little time to verb . Wealth, property, belongings all are said to be held by hands. Only hands can be the subject of verb and NOT oaths. You will not find this word in relation to oaths as subject of a verb. Just forget since it can ever mean Oaths in this sentence.is completed action and has resulted in a new state. The Subject of Verb has become "Malikun"-the owner, proprietor, holder of authority and responsibility, and the Object of Verb has become "Mamluke". It results in a Master-Servant; Manager-managed/administered; governor-goverened, Lord-serf relationship.
Essentially this shifted my focus from possibly understanding aymunkum as propreitor to malekat. Hence my comment and because this did sort of shift the focus of my original question to you, I though you may possibly be referring to malekat as properietor rather than aymunkum
How have you accounted for/understood aymmukum (right hands) in that upon which you gained the proprietorship?In your last post to me you suggested
Similarly, in case the Relative Pronoun refers to an inanimate object, once it comes in the possession, control of your handsBut is this not stretching it beyond reason with regards to aymunkum (right hands)? Is there not a distinction between hands and right hands and Quran's usage of them?
Can I also ask, why have you suggested that it is probably false to understand Aymunkum as oaths at 235-6?
Is it the use of ala as opposed to min? Or that "oath" is an abstract noun whilst "right hands" is concrete?Peace
-
Essentially this shifted my focus from possibly understanding aymunkum as propreitor to malekat. Hence my comment and because this did sort of shift the focus of my original question to you, I though you may possibly be referring to malekat as properietor rather than aymunkum
How have you accounted for/understood aymmukum (right hands) in that upon which you gained the proprietorship?Again you are reading one phrase of the sentence in seclusion. The Phrase is "the right hands of you people". The object which is possessed is indicated by Relative Pronoun "Ma" which can be an inanimate object or objects, or could refer to beings-male or female in any number.
The sentence in seclusion will also be lacking complete sense or information. It will convey complete perception when it is a clause of other text. Once your hands take possession of something you obviously have gained its proprietorship, you have become its owner. What is confusing therein? And when it is with regard to a being, you have become his/her master having authority to control and direct him/her or his/her affairs-matters. -
Salam Mazhar
I am not disagreeing with the phrase "the right hands of you people" however when you suggest
Once your hands take possession of something you obviously have gained its proprietorship, you have become its owner. What is confusing therein?
The problem that arises is the following-
the usage of aymunkum (meaning right hands) which is elsewhere use to mean oaths is being rendered to hands (rather than right hands)
-
Given that there is a clear distinction between "hands" and "right hands" I do not think it reasonable to assert "Once your hands take possession of something you obviously have gained its proprietorship"
Once your hands take possession of something you obviously have gained its proprietorship,
- malekat is conveying possession, no misunderstandings here but the issue is that the phrase has already expressed what is being possessed. That which is being possessed is/are the aymunkum Right hands. However your suggestion (If I have understood you correctly) conveys that, it has not been established what is being possessed or is in one's proprietorship but my understanding is that this has.
Thus my third question is, is there anything other than the aymunkum/right hands that is being possessed or one has proprietorship over?
-
-
Can you conjunct "oaths" with "their wives"?. The conjunction "and (or)" in Arabic links back to the preceding Noun.
In my opinion there are oaths in a marriage. Thus Ma Malikat Aymunkum (if aymunkum is taken as your oaths) can encompass azwaaj. But are we not understanding it as right hands rather than oaths?