How sex before Marriage is not haram (prohibited) according to the Quran
-
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"
We know that we are discussing "right hands". In common parlance "right hands" is used for possession, authority, holdings etc.
-
-
We know that we are discussing "right hands". In common parlance "right hands" is used for possession, authority, holdings etc.
By common parlance, is this with regards to arabic? Do we have any examples in the Quran that can verify/imply this?
Possesed is the Object. And an object of verb is always accusative. aymunukum is nominative, hence the Subject of Verb. The object of verb is elided linking back to "Ma".
So it is linking back to ma, I see now. Thanks.
Philosophically, we are then faced with the questions of
- What can one's right hands possess.
- What does it take for one's right hand to possess item x/person x? as in, is the possession based on contract, oaths, forced, punishment/obligation etc. Do we have any implications in the Quran to work with?
I must also ask
- I have not yet fully understood why we are abandoning the notion of right hands as meaning oaths with regards to the phrase Ma malekat aymunkum could you please add to the clarification?
At the moment (with consideration of our discussion of aymunkum) it appears to me that oaths makes more sense than "right hands" since we have no clue with regards to what constitutes as something that one's right hands possesses. Where as with oaths, the answer is self-evident. Thus If we are to abandon the notion of oaths in that phrase, I would like to completely grasp why. I would really appreciate your help with this.
-
At the moment (with consideration of our discussion of aymunkum) it appears to me that oaths makes more sense than "right hands" since we have no clue with regards to what constitutes as something that one's right hands possesses. Where as with oaths, the answer is self-evident. Thus If we are to abandon the notion of oaths in that phrase, I would like to completely grasp why. I would really appreciate your help with this.
What is that which the oaths are possessing? What is the object of possession by the Subject of Verb i.e. "Oaths"?
It is bewilderment of thought, things emerging as object in your mind, but where is it in the text?What is the type of oaths?
-
What is that which the oaths are possessing?
It is bewilderment of thought, things emerging as object in your mind, but where is it in the text?
My understanding Oaths can be subject to possession. For example when there are oaths between two individuals, these individuals possess one another via the oaths that are between them and bind them in some aspect to one another. Hence the phrase Ma Malekat Aymunum (those whom your oaths possess)
I sincerely don't see any problems with this. What from your understanding is the problem with this?
What is the object of possession by the Subject of Verb i.e. "Oaths"?
Individuals best fit this context IMO
What is the type of oaths?
It is not specified thus I believe all types of oaths are covered unless we have reason to believe otherwise based on the Quran.
I think this (oaths) is more workable than right hands because it is pretty unclear as to how one's right hand(s) comes to possess something and given that is is clear via the Quran the "right hands" is explicitly used in the Quran to mean oath, then it appears to me we should understand the phrase as those whom your oaths possess as this creates no problems given that individuals can be possessed via oaths.
-
Not "mean" but "connote". I hope you can differentiate between both.
Mean and and connote are very similar words. I did not mean to convey that right hands literally means oaths, I meant to convey that right hands in the Quran has been used in the Quran to mean oaths. But I will use connote if you prefer.
Example God will not call you to account for your unintentional oaths (right hands), but He will call you to account for what has entered your hearts. God is Forgiving, Compassionate.
in the above example at 2225, it cannot mean rights hands thus it must connote oaths. This was the point I was trying to convey.
Thus with regards to the Phrase Ma Malikat Aymunkum, I understood those whom your oaths possess to be more meaningful than those whom your right hands possess for a couple of reasons
- Our only implication of what right hands connotes in the Quran is oaths (see 2224-25)
- What someone's right hands possess appears to make no sense unless we take right hands in a non-literal manner. But what non-literal manner is better than the one that Quran is conveying in various verses (oaths)?
Thus I believe that oaths makes more sense. However if there is evidence counter to this, then I will Godwilling accept if it is truthful. This is why I am discussing this with you as you believe Ma Malikat Aymunkum should be understood as Those whom your right hands possess thus you are possibly in a position to provide counter evidence.
Thus if you could bullet point your reasons for preferring the interpretation of those whom your right hands possess over those whom your oaths possess thereby addressing points 1 and 2 that I have made, that would be great.
Peace
-
Mean and and connote are very similar words. I did not mean to convey that right hands literally means oaths, I meant to convey that right hands in the Quran has been used in the Quran to mean oaths. But I will use connote if you prefer.
Example God will not call you to account for your unintentional oaths (right hands), but He will call you to account for what has entered your hearts. God is Forgiving, Compassionate.
in the above example at 2225, it cannot mean rights hands thus it must connote oaths. This was the point I was trying to convey.
There lies the problem that you think "mean" and "connote" are very similar words, while they are certainly not.
Can you distinguish whether a man is making unintentional oath to you, or he is doing it with the conviction of his heart and mind?
Did you find this word in the connotation of "oaths" used as Subject of a verb? Search thousands of Arabic pages on net and find one instance. May be it helps to differentiate between "mean" and connote.
-
There lies the problem that you think "mean" and "connote" are very similar words, while they are certainly not.
I did not deny a distinction between mean and connote. I suggested they are very similar
con?note/knt/
Verb
(of a word) Imply or suggest (an idea or feeling) in addition to the literal or primary meaning.
(of a fact) Imply as a consequence or condition.
Synonyms
connotate - mean - signify - imply - denoteI'd say according to the above, one can say they are very similar.
I will however use connote per your suggestion as that is more accurate. I won't deny this.Can you distinguish whether a man is making unintentional oath to you, or he is doing it with the conviction of his heart and mind?
If you can determine the honesty of the man then to a good degree yes you can.
Did you find this word in the connotation of "oaths" used as Subject of a verb? Search thousands of Arabic pages on net and find one instance. May be it helps to differentiate between "mean" and connote.
It has been established without a doubt in the Quran that right hands absolutely must connote oaths where appropriate and sensible per 2224-225. Thus if the Quran uses right hands as subject of a verb, then we must understand it's connotation being used as subject of a verb UNLESS we have good reason not to think so. Do we have good reason? Are there any logical absurdities?
-
The phrase Those whom your oaths possess makes sense and given that right hands is the only word used with regards to oaths AFAIK then it is the case that we should acknowledge the phrase those whom your oaths possess. How else would the Quran convey those whom your oaths possess?
-
Those whom your oaths possess is self-evident in meaning and makes sense with the rest of the Quran whereas those whom your right hands possess is as senseless as "God will not call you to account for your unintentional right hands" (2225) Is there any better evidence?
You may want to consider the following
-YOUR OATHS = Aymanikum 2224,225,589,1692,94,662 THEIR OATHS = Aymanihim 5108,6109,1638,2453,3542
Peace
-
-
Nimnimak,
I have uploaded the article covering perhaps all the occurrences of the Verbal Sentence. Please read it in sequence critically and with concentration. I hope it might clarify.
In case of needing clarification, please cut and paste it in email and send it to me at my address
[email protected]I will InshaAllah try to clarify it.
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/000.%20Encyclopaedia%20of%20Arabic%20of%20Qur'aan/4.%20Articles%20Ontology/3.%20Ma%20Malakat%20Aimanukum/3.%20Ma%20Malakat%20Aimanukum.htm
-
Nimnimak,
I have uploaded the article covering perhaps all the occurrences of the Verbal Sentence. Please read it in sequence critically and with concentration. I hope it might clarify.
In case of needing clarification, please cut and paste it in email and send it to me at my address
[email protected]I will InshaAllah try to clarify it.
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/000.%20Encyclopaedia%20of%20Arabic%20of%20Qur'aan/4.%20Articles%20Ontology/3.%20Ma%20Malakat%20Aimanukum/3.%20Ma%20Malakat%20Aimanukum.htm
Thanks Mazhar.
I'l read it and if anything is left unclear, I'l get back to you. -
Salam Mazhar
Took me a while, but I read it all.
I know you suggested email by way of discussion and clarification however I believe it is better if we discussed this in public as then others can contribute with what they know. Also others can follow the current discussion and perhaps further their understanding on the issue.From your article you have suggested that
Notwithstanding that the same word refers to "the right hand" and connotes "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.
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 hand".
There is no issue with regards to abstract nouns being subject to possession (malikat). For example one possesses secrets (an abstract noun). Thus I do not see how your point 1 holds. Any comments?
Moreover, the Protected-Wedded in the state of Wives amongst the Womenfolk are also forbidden-sanctified.
However, such Married Women are exempt from this prohibition who have become under the authority and responsibility of your right hand for ordering and managing their affair.
Why are we assuming that the Ma Malekat Aymunkum are under our right hand's authority? How can one be under one's right hands but more importantly, what evidence is there to think that we have authority of these men and women? All evidence I've seen in the Quran convey contrary to this including 3028.
Also please note Mazhar, that some of your interpretations of verses are loaded. An example 2433
Take note that those people should retain their selves continent and virtuous, who find not wedding opportunity, till such time that Allah the Exalted might make them Self-Sufficient out of His Bounty.Where is the word continent and virtuous in the Quran in that verse? My concern is that if we interpret in this manner, we will lose the meaning perhaps intended by 2433.
-
When used as the Subject of a transitive Verb like Malakat, there is absolutely no reason that someone be confused to take it as "oaths" instead of "right hand".
There is no issue with regards to abstract nouns being subject to possession (malikat). For example one possesses secrets (an abstract noun). Thus I do not see how your point 1 holds. Any comments?
"Subject of Verb" and "subject to possession", are two things poles apart. The difference between both is given in their definitions mentioned. A little reflection on this suffices to find how erroneous is thought of "oaths" which is the premises of your entire thinking on the subject.
-
Also please note Mazhar, that some of your interpretations of verses are loaded. An example 2433
Quote
Take note that those people should retain their selves continent and virtuous, who find not wedding opportunity, till such time that Allah the Exalted might make them Self-Sufficient out of His Bounty.
Where is the word continent and virtuous in the Quran in that verse? My concern is that if we interpret in this manner, we will lose the meaning perhaps intended by 2433.Sometimes it seems you pass verdicts first, and read and learn afterwards.
Do you even know what this word is
Continent equivalent in Arabic is And virtuous is .
For its Root consult Lane's Lexicon and for added connotations being Form-10 Verb read about Verb Forms.
http//www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text;jsessionid=5A43999714B804DD8E77CCDA0DC2EA02?doc=Perseustext2002.02.0032root=Ef
-
Why are we assuming that the Ma Malekat Aymunkum are under our right hand's authority?
What is hindering you to perceive simple commonsense things? Possession and owning means attaining authoritative position regards that thing. It is mentioned in the Article what Malakat means.
-
"Subject of Verb" and "subject to possession", are two things poles apart. The difference between both is given in their definitions mentioned. A little reflection on this suffices to find how erroneous is thought of "oaths" which is the premises of your entire thinking on the subject.
My point is that to possess is a verb and abstract nouns such as secrets, oaths and promises can be subject of verbs such as possess. But your saying they cannot. WHY?
I am conveying that those whom your oaths possess makes sense. Those whom your right sides/right hands possess makes no sense and there is nothing in the Quran to make sense of this. So to ask of you directly
What exactly is the function/purpose of the semantics of aymunkum at 236? I've read your article but it's more like you've taken this word for granted and not clearly conveyed it's meaning, function and purpose.You keep saying those whom their right hands have authority. What does it mean for one's right hand to have authority??
I ask you this because I have not received an answer and I have given you my answer that those whom your oaths possess is self-evident and backed and verified by the Quran at various passages, these are just two examples 2224-225. Where is your verfication and support regarding the purpose and function of aymunkum in the phrase Ma Malikat Aymunkum? -
Sometimes it seems you pass verdicts first, and read and learn afterwards.
Do you even know what this word is
Continent equivalent in Arabic is And virtuous is .
For its Root consult Lane's Lexicon and for added connotations being Form-10 Verb read about Verb Forms.
http//www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text;jsessionid=5A43999714B804DD8E77CCDA0DC2EA02?doc=Perseustext2002.02.0032root=Ef
Ok. Our difference here is that I took the word to mean abstain, you are taking it to mean two things continence and virtuous. Continence I could tell where you got from. But virtuous? I could not tell.
Now I know you drew both meanings from one word. My apologise if you were offended. I had looked at the word, I just did not understand why you would take one word as two seperate words hence my view that the interpretation was loaded.
-
What is hindering you to perceive simple commonsense things? Possession and owning means attaining authoritative position regards that thing. It is mentioned in the Article what Malakat means.
Simple common-sense things you say?
Possession does not always entail authority in a master-servant like relationship. ExampleMy wife. I do not manager her affairs (unless she seeks assistance) nor is she under my authority like a slave nor am I responsible for her like a child. She is an adult with good mental and physical health. I have absolutely no reason to consider her as under my authority and responsibility despite her being mine. Thus possession of a woman won't be like slavery if it is done with regards to morality and equality.
I cannot believe that one would ever have a grown, mentally healthy and physically healthy adult as under their authority to have their affairs managed by another.
Thus I believe your understanding of Ma Malekat Aymunkum as those who is under one's authority and responsibility, just because of the word malikat (possess) as not solid.
Do you consider this as not common sense?
Thus do you see what hinders me from accepting your understanding? Is this unreasonable?Peace
-
Peace nimnimak,
No. Simply look at the roots and context they are clear antonyms.
No.
They can get married.
They can get divorced.
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 maleAnother option is that you are boring and a wast of bandwidth and proposing the nonsense.
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 blameworthyThe Quran itself talks plenty about the Bible so how can u tell me to get off the Bible trip?
Anyways,
Among the Israelites, men commonly acknowledged their concubines, and such women enjoyed the same rights in the house as legitimate wives. The principal difference in the Bible between a wife and a concubine is that wives had dowries, while concubines did not.
The concubine may have commanded the same respect and inviolability as the wife. The Hebrew word used in the Levitical rules on sexual relations, which is commonly translated as "wife", is distinct from the Hebrew word that means "concubine". (However, on at least one other occasion it is used to refer a woman who is not a wife - specifically, the handmaid of Jacob's wife.) In the Levitical code, sexual intercourse between a man and a wife of a different man was forbidden and punishable by death for both persons involved. The Bible notes several incidents of intercourse between a man and another man's concubine, and none of them result in capital punishment for either party, although the man to whom the concubine belonged was dishonored by such a relationship. For instance, David is portrayed as having been dishonored when his concubines had a sexual relationship with his son Absalom. However, this instance is as likely dishonoring to David because it involves a form of incest, as David's concubines would have been somewhat like step-mothers to David's children.
Since it was regarded as the highest blessing to have many children, legitimate wives often gave their maids to their husbands to atone, at least in part, if they were barren, as in the cases of Sarah and Hagar, Rachel and Bilhah. The children of the concubine had equal rights with those of the legitimate wife; for example, King Abimelech was the son of Gideon and his concubine. Later biblical figures such as Gideon, David, and Solomon had concubines in addition to many childbearing wives. For example, the Books of Kings says that Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.
According to the Babylonian Talmud, the difference between a concubine and a full wife was that the latter received a marriage contract (Hebrewketubah) and her marriage (nissu'in) was preceded by a formal betrothal (erusin), neither being the case for a concubine. But, one opinion in the Jerusalem Talmud argues that the concubine should also receive a marriage contract, but without including a clause specifying a divorce settlement.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concubinage
It fits perfectly. The only difference is that concubines have no dowry and is based on an oath only between the partners. Arabs call that urfi marriages. It is open for abuse since there is no financial protection and often the man can denied he was in such an arrangement. Many times families are not aware. But it is still a legitimate arrangement since both parties agreed to that arrangement. Which is why the Quran discourages such arrangement and advices to elevate it to a proper marriage by dowy and informing the family. Also in the Bible concubines were never punished for sexual condct the same as wives, exactly what the Quran says.
Nikah 'urfi is a kind of Muslim marriage. It is similar to the Nikah ceremony. An 'urfi marriage is a marriage without an official contract. Couples repeat the words, "We got married" and pledge commitment before God. Usually a paper, stating that the two are married, is written and two witnesses sign it. Most Islamic countries do not recognize 'Urfi marriages and no partner can get a 'legal' divorce since the government does not recognize the legality of the marriage in the first place.
The 'Urfi marriage has always existed, but for different reasons.
In the past, it was common among the widows of soldiers who had huge pensions and they did not want to lose it by officially re-marrying. Now, however, it is mostly among university students and young couples who cannot afford the high cost of marriage.
Undocumented 'Urfi marriages are increasingly popular among Egyptian youth. The high cost of marriage forces many young couples to wait several years before they marry. Conservative Egyptian society forbids sex before marriage, so many young people consider the 'Urfi marriage a solution. 'Urfi marriages are conducted by a Muslim cleric in the presence of two witnesses. However, they are not officially registered and are not legally financially binding on the man. Couples married in this way often meet in secret and avoid the expense of renting an apartment. The 'Urfi marriage can be disastrous for the wife in legal terms. If the husband leaves her without granting her a divorce, she had no legal right to seek a divorce since 'Urfi marriage is considered illegal. Her husband could remarry. The wife is in a more difficult position. If the wife remarries, she can be accused of polyandry, which is punishable by seven years in prison in Egypt, or she could remain single for the rest of her life.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikah_'urfi
Consequences
Couples married in this way often meet in secret and avoid the expense of renting an apartment. The 'Urfi marriage can be disastrous for the wife because if the husband leaves her without granting her a divorce, she had no legal right to seek a divorce since 'Urfi marriage was considered illegal under the old status law. While her husband could remarry, the wife is in a more difficult position. If the wife remarries, she could be accused of polyandry which is punishable by seven years in prison in Egypt. The alternative course of action is for her to remain single for the rest of her life.
There are also controversial, unofficial 'Urfi marriages, where a couple signs documents declaring themselves married. The couple does not inform their families of the marriage. Many Egyptian clerics are against this type of 'Urfi marriage calling it a cover for pre-marital sex. An extreme form of 'Urfi marriage is known as zawag al-'urfi
"To give prostitution an Islamic cover, some women enter into secret marriage contracts with their summer visitors. Known in Egypt as zawag al-'urfi, this contract is made without witnesses and typically ends in divorce by summer's end. Most of Egypt's Islamic scholars condemn this use of zawag al-'urfi."
http//www.islamawareness.net/Marriage/Urfi/urfi3.html
Exactly what the Quran warned about. It fits perfectly.
-
Simple common-sense things you say?
Possession does not always entail authority in a master-servant like relationship. ExampleMy wife. I do not manager her affairs (unless she seeks assistance) nor is she under my authority like a slave nor am I responsible for her like a child. She is an adult with good mental and physical health. I have absolutely no reason to consider her as under my authority and responsibility despite her being mine. Thus possession of a woman won't be like slavery if it is done with regards to morality and equality.
I cannot believe that one would ever have a grown, mentally healthy and physically healthy adult as under their authority to have their affairs managed by another.
Thus I believe your understanding of Ma Malekat Aymunkum as those who is under one's authority and responsibility, just because of the word malikat (possess) as not solid.
Do you consider this as not common sense?
Thus do you see what hinders me from accepting your understanding? Is this unreasonable?Peace
Wife is not a possession. Pl again read the Verb. 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.
Authority and Control is the essential ingredient of this Root, Verbal Noun and the Verb. If it is not there, then this word cannot be used for denoting some sort of relationship between two. Also see other Ayuah quoted therein about this Root.
-
"Subject of Verb" and "subject to possession", are two things poles apart. The difference between both is given in their definitions mentioned. A little reflection on this suffices to find how erroneous is thought of "oaths" which is the premises of your entire thinking on the subject.
My point is that to possess is a verb and abstract nouns such as secrets, oaths and promises can be subject of verbs such as possess. But your saying they cannot. WHY?
I am conveying that those whom your oaths possess makes sense. Those whom your right sides/right hands possess makes no sense and there is nothing in the Quran to make sense of this. So to ask of you directly
What exactly is the function/purpose of the semantics of aymunkum at 236? I've read your article but it's more like you've taken this word for granted and not clearly conveyed it's meaning, function and purpose.Pay little attention to the difference between an abstract noun and 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.
Oaths do not "possess" anything, they put the oath taker under an obligation, not someone else. There is no transitivity in it.