How sex before Marriage is not haram (prohibited) according to the Quran

nimnimak_11

I don't know how to make you understand that this is absolutely a ridiculous comparison of "have" with "possesion of wife"

Have CORE-MEANING a verb indicating that somebody possesses something, either materially or as a characteristic or attribute.
Microsoft? Encarta? 2006. ? 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

I don't know how you stretch it to convert wife into a possession or possessed commodity.

There is no stretching.
To possess something is to have something. To have something is to possess something. How else can I convey this to you? Not everything that one possesses/has is a commodity, this appears to be your confusion.

Cambridge Dictionary

possess
verb ( OWN ) /pzes/

Definition
to have or own something

X is asked Are you married....X responds Yes I have a wife thus I have a marriage certificate.

You are going to court, do you have/possess a lawyer for the case? Yes I have a lawyer.

Neither wife or lawyer is a materialistic possession. They are legal or consensual possessions. Do you see?

What happens to one's wife when they divorce? Does that person still possess a wife?
They are WITH a wife, they POSSESS/HAVE a wife.

Now what is ridiculous?

Mazhar

Cambridge Dictionary

possess
verb ( OWN ) /pzes/

Definition
to have or own something

Are wife and lawyer "something"?

Mazhar

You are going to court, do you have/possess a lawyer for the case? Yes I have a lawyer.

One engages a lawyer, one appoints a lawyer. The lawyer appears in the court on your behalf and can speak only when he presents letter of attorney-letter of appointing him as your lawyer. You do not possess a lawyer. You only hire his services. Except you saying so, you will not hear one saying "I possess a lawyer".

Mazhar

I have responded to your request for examples by providing you with examples of abstract nouns such as oath being subject to verbs such as possess. However I have asked of you one key question, and have not yet received an answer

You have proposed Ma Malekat Aymunkum to mean

The Woman, upon whom, the right hand of you have the authority for managing her affair.
The Man, upon whom, the right hand of you have the authority for managing his affair.

Authority you derived from malekat. So where have you derived have from?
You have also taken it literally as right hand (despite Quran conveying that it also connotes oath) What exactly is the function of the right hand (not just hands, but right hand) of someone with regards to authority? What other likeness, implication, point of coherence is there in the Quran that uses right hands in such a manner? Is there anything other than oath?? -YOUR OATHS = Aymanikum 2224,225,589,1692,94,662 THEIR OATHS = Aymanihim 5108,6109,1638,2453,3542

Malakat "have the authority" denotes a completed action the effect of which continues.

In English too "hand" denotes authority, power, responsibility, custody or care of somebody.
Authority is the right to give commands, orders and get the things done. Authority is handed over or taken in hand with responsibility. We say, "too much powers in the President's hands".

nimnimak_11

Malakat "have the authority" denotes a completed action the effect of which continues.

Now that's more like it. Let's focus on the main task in hand (see what I did there )

In English too "hand" denotes authority, power, responsibility, custody or care of somebody

In arabic hand appears to convey

538
As for the thief, both male and female, you shall cut from their resources (hands) - as a penalty for what they have earned - to be made an example of from God. God is Noble, Wise.

But we know that the phrase Ma Malikat Aymnukum does not contain the word hands (aydin) (root word ya dal ya) It has Aymunkum root word (ya mim nun)

These are two completely separate words that do no connote or convey the same thing.
We know without a doubt that the Quran uses right hand to connote oaths (2225)

If the Quran had said those whom your hands possess, then your point is understandable since we have examples from it.
But it does not. It uses a different word with a different root upon which the examples we have from it is oath/oaths. This is completely different to hand or hands

Given this distinction between hand and right hand as expressed above,
What is the function and purpose of aymunkum (if not oaths) in the phrase Ma Malikat Aymunkum according to your understanding? How have you accounted for the word?

Mazhar

Quote from Mazhar on Today at 102247 AM
Malakat "have the authority" denotes a completed action the effect of which continues.

Now that's more like it. Let's focus on the main task in hand (see what I did there )

Has your point of objection regarding existence of "have" and "authority" in the translation become clear? Have you agreed that Malakat means holding authority over somebody?

nimnimak_11

Has your point of objection regarding existence of "have" and "authority" in the translation become clear? Have you agreed that Malakat means holding authority over somebody?

Not authority, possibly rights.

Within the meaning of malakat we have
He possessed it, or owned it, with ability to have it to himself exclusively

I will refer back to the wife example

Does one not possess a wife who is exclusively their wife and not a wife of anyone else?
Is a women not a wife due to her being possessed by another man via laws and his consensual agreements/arrangements? (oaths, inheritance, divorce requirements, other commitments etc.)
(as in she is my wife because she agreed to and signed xyz, but she is not my lawyer as she did not agree to and sign abc) Thus I don't possess a woman, nor do i possess a lawyer. I have a wife as that is what my agreements, oaths and contracts with this woman possess.
Can you demonstrate how one can have a wife but not possess a wife at the same time?

If 1, 2 and 3 can be dealt with, then you are right in saying that to have is not to possess and that to possess is not to have OR that to possess is a special kind of to have (commodities, objects etc.)

But to prove this you must reconcile 1, 2 and 3.

If you prefer we can discuss this first, then deal with the issues I have raised at reply 904. Godwilling we will understand that which is the truth.

Mazhar

Within the meaning of malakat we have
He possessed it, or owned it, with ability to have it to himself exclusively

I will refer back to the wife example

Does one not possess a wife who is exclusively their wife and not a wife of anyone else?
Is a women not a wife due to her being possessed by another man via laws and his consensual agreements/arrangements? (oaths, inheritance, divorce requirements, other commitments etc.)
(as in she is my wife because she agreed to and signed xyz, but she is not my lawyer as she did not agree to and sign abc) Thus I don't possess a woman, nor do i possess a lawyer. I have a wife as that is what my agreements, oaths and contracts with this woman possess.
Can you demonstrate how one can have a wife but not possess a wife at the same time?

How many times should I tell you that not a single sane person the world over calls his wife as one of his possessions. Similarly not a single person world over calls his lawyer as his possession. Nor a sane person world over calls a partner by mutual agreement as his possession.

nimnimak_11

How many times should I tell you that not a single sane person the world over calls his wife as one of his possessions. Similarly not a single person world over calls his lawyer as his possession. Nor a sane person world over calls a partner by mutual agreement as his possession.

If you are certain on this, then why not respond and deal with the following 1 and 2. I see them as problems and you are not responding to them. I have given you examples and a dictionary reference. Your defence is that no one uses the word possession with regards to their wives. I do not think this a good defence. We are looking at a word and it's meaning not at common usage. We should deal with the meaning of the word not common usage.

Does one not possess a wife who is exclusively their wife and not a wife of anyone else? (Please take note that I am not saying woman, I am saying wife. Wife and woman are two different concepts)
Please demonstrate how one can have a wife but not possess a wife at the same time?

If you can achieve this, then your point holds. If not then surely there is an error in your view. Thus please address the above points 1 and 2.

nimnimak_11

Are wife and lawyer "something"?

They clearly are something. For if they were not something, they would be nothing.
Ok if your suggestion is that they are not "something" then what are they?? Is there any other option other than nothing??

Again from cambridge

possession
noun /pze.n/

Definition
when you have or own something

possess
verb ( OWN ) /pzes/

Definition
to have or own something, or to have a particular quality

Mazhar

They clearly are something. For if they were not something, they would be nothing.
Ok if your suggestion is that they are not "something" then what are they?? Is there any other option other than nothing??

Again from cambridge

possession
noun /pze.n/

Definition
? when you have or own something

possess
verb ( OWN ) /pzes/

Definition
to have or own something, or to have a particular quality

Take care what are you reiterating. Even mindless people understand what is the difference between "something" and "somebody". "Something" is pronoun for unspecified or unidentified thing. When we say "She or he is something", it does not mean that she or he is a thing, but to signify her or him as an important or impressive person.

Mazhar

We are looking at a word and it's meaning not at common usage. We should deal with the meaning of the word not common usage.

Does one not possess a wife who is exclusively their wife and not a wife of anyone else? (Please take note that I am not saying woman, I am saying wife. Wife and woman are two different concepts)
Please demonstrate how one can have a wife but not possess a wife at the same time?

If you can achieve this, then your point holds. If not then surely there is an error in your view. Thus please address the above points 1 and 2.

Meanings of a word are what the natives have assigned to it---denoting common usage.
Natives do not use "possession" for describing a woman as one's wife. "one's wife" and "one's possession" are neither synonyms nor synonymous.
The word "wife" has builtin exclusivity.

nimnimak_11

Take care what are you reiterating. Even mindless people understand what is the difference between "something" and "somebody". "Something" is pronoun for unspecified or unidentified thing. When we say "She or he is something", it does not mean that she or he is a thing, but to signify her or him as an important or impressive person.

This is my point about misuse of words. Please give some attention to the following

Philosophically a human being is a thing. Just as a human being is an animal. The opposite of something, is nothing thus when we say something, this encompasses all things.

The distinction between something and somebody is similar to the distinction between human and animal. Human is one example of an animal and a human is an example of a thing. Namely a living thing.

Mindless people would not recognise anything, since they are mindless (without minds, hence without ability to recognise)

You may have a similar misunderstanding with regards to the concept of possess.
With thing, you have excluded living things from it. With possession, you appear to exclude statuses and relations from it

So are you in agreement that something encompasses living things including humans?

nimnimak_11

Meanings of a word are what the natives have assigned to it---denoting common usage.
Natives do not use "possession" for describing a woman as one's wife. "one's wife" and "one's possession" are neither synonyms nor synonymous.
The word "wife" has builtin exclusivity.

Come on....that isn't really a fair defence. Check the dictionaries with regards to the word possess and please respond to 1 and 2.

Bigmo

I see this debate between some here going in circles with no end in sight.

Mazhar

I see this debate between some here going in circles with no end in sight.

Yes dear, psychotherapy is a lenghty exercise needing great patience. You could have helped me by giving your opinion whether you could say that your wife is your possession like anything else in your household. Or something like your avatar is doing since sometimes such unexpected action also helps dissolve the clot.

nimnimak_11

Yes dear, psychotherapy is a lenghty exercise needing great patience. You could have helped me by giving your opinion whether you could say that your wife is your possession like anything else in your household. Or something like your avatar is doing since sometimes such unexpected action also helps dissolve the clot.

Salam Mazhar

No one said your wife is a possession like anything else in your household. You seem to think that I am saying this. This conveys you are not reading my posts. Please pay attention. There are differences in what one possesses. One may possess bravery, happiness, a car, a wife etc.

Depending on which of the above we are talking about, the nature of possession differs. The word itself does not.
If you look at the dictionary this is evident. I would consider a dictionary as good evidence. Thus I believe I have given evidence. If you assume yourself to be right after I have given evidence whilst you provided me with no counter-evidence, then I consider this a flaw from your side that I should remind you of.

First you suggest that a person is not something (implying it is nothing), whilst it is incredibly obvious that a person is a living thing thus one type of thing. Anything in existence, is a thing. This is basic philosophy. Yet no acknowledgement from you or recognition of your mistake.

We can agree to disagree, however I believe I approached this topic sincerely, with an open mind. Provided my evidence and was met with simple rejection without evidence.

If you have evidence i.e dictionary, or something that outlines possession as only used with regards to physical objects, then bring it forward, but do not say, people don't use that word often in context x. People don't use the term mediocre, its still a word.

Yes this is getting circular. I give evidence, you ask questions. I answer questions and ask for evidence, you reject without evidence. Of course this will get circular.

nimnimak_11

Whether we agree to disagree on the word "possession" and what constitutes as "something" is one matter.

What was being discussed was Ma Malikat Ayumunkum. You did not answer my question on the grounds of continuing the discussion on possession.

You wrote an aritcle on Ma Malekat Aymunkum. There are however some things that are left unanswered and potentially problematic in your article

Here is my reply #904

538
As for the thief, both male and female, you shall cut from their resources (hands) - as a penalty for what they have earned - to be made an example of from God. God is Noble, Wise.

But we know that the phrase Ma Malikat Aymnukum does not contain the word hands (aydin) (root word ya dal ya) It has Aymunkum root word (ya mim nun)

These are two completely separate words that do no connote or convey the same thing.
We know without a doubt that the Quran uses right hand to connote oaths (2225)

If the Quran had said those whom your hands possess, then your point is understandable since we have examples from it.
But it does not. It uses a different word with a different root upon which the examples we have from it is oath/oaths. This is completely different to hand or hands

Given this distinction between hand and right hand as expressed above,
What is the function and purpose of aymunkum (if not oaths) in the phrase Ma Malikat Aymunkum according to your understanding? How have you accounted for the word?

I think the above is a problem in your understanding of Ma Malikat Aymnukum. Can you resolve it?

Your original reply at 905 to my reply 904 was

Has your point of objection regarding existence of "have" and "authority" in the translation become clear? Have you agreed that Malakat means holding authority over somebody?

Thus you have yet to defend your understanding of Ma Malikat Aymunkum.

Mazhar

Salam Mazhar

No one said your wife is a possession like anything else in your household. You seem to think that I am saying this. This conveys you are not reading my posts. Please pay attention. There are differences in what one possesses. One may possess bravery, happiness, a car, a wife etc.

Depending on which of the above we are talking about, the nature of possession differs. The word itself does not.
If you look at the dictionary this is evident. I would consider a dictionary as good evidence. Thus I believe I have given evidence. If you assume yourself to be right after I have given evidence whilst you provided me with no counter-evidence, then I consider this a flaw from your side that I should remind you of.

First you suggest that a person is not something (implying it is nothing), whilst it is incredibly obvious that a person is a living thing thus one type of thing. Anything in existence, is a thing. This is basic philosophy. Yet no acknowledgement from you or recognition of your mistake.

We can agree to disagree, however I believe I approached this topic sincerely, with an open mind. Provided my evidence and was met with simple rejection without evidence.

If you have evidence i.e dictionary, or something that outlines possession as only used with regards to physical objects, then bring it forward, but do not say, people don't use that word often in context x. People don't use the term mediocre, its still a word.

Yes this is getting circular. I give evidence, you ask questions. I answer questions and ask for evidence, you reject without evidence. Of course this will get circular.

Please search and find "wife" in it.

Encyclopedia BritannicaEncyclopedia
possession

in law, the acquisition of either a considerable degree of physical control over a physical thing, such as land or chattel, or the legal right to control intangible property, such as a credit-with the definite intention of ownership. With respect to land and chattel, possession may well have started as a physical fact, but possession today is often an abstraction. A servant or an employee, for instance, may have custody of an object, but he does not have possession; his employer does, even though he may be thousands of miles from the object he owns. Furthermore, except in the most abstract way, it is not possible to speak of the possession of intangible property.

pos?ses?sion
noun (plural pos?ses?sions)

ownership the act or state of owning or holding something
You can take possession of the house on Friday.
something owned something owned or held
politics colony a country or region controlled or governed by another country (often used in the plural)
state of being controlled the condition of being controlled by or appearing to be controlled by a supposed supernatural force or a strong emotion
control of ball in various sports, control of the ball or puck by a player or team
crime illegal ownership of something the crime of having or owning something illegal such as a weapon, contraband, stolen property, or illegal drugs
law occupancy the physical occupancy of something such as a house, whether or not as its owner

pos?ses?sions, plural noun
property personal property

-pos?ses?sion?al, , adjective
Encarta dictionary

Wikipedia

Possession may refer to

LawDependent territory, an area of land over which another country exercises sovereignty, but which does not have the full right of participation in that country's governance
Drug possession, a crime
Ownership
Personal property, physical possessions belonging to a person
Possession (law), exclusive practical control of a thing, in the context of the legal implications of that control
Title (property)

LinguisticsInalienable possession, relationship between two objects that is irreversible
Possession (linguistics), grammatically expressed relationship such as control-of and ownership

Metaphysics

Demonic possession, psychokinetic control of a person by the Devil or other malevolent spirit
Spirit possession, psychokinetic control of the behavior of a living thing or natural object by a spiritual being

World English Dictionary
possession (pzn)

? n

the act of possessing or state of being possessed in possession of the crown
anything that is owned or possessed
( plural ) wealth or property
the state of being controlled or dominated by or as if by evil spirits
the physical control or occupancy of land, property, etc, whether or not accompanied by ownership to take possession of a house
a territory subject to a foreign state or to a sovereign prince colonial possessions
sport control of the ball, puck, etc, as exercised by a player or team he lost possession in his own half

Mazhar

First you suggest that a person is not something (implying it is nothing), whilst it is incredibly obvious that a person is a living thing thus one type of thing. Anything in existence, is a thing. This is basic philosophy. Yet no acknowledgement from you or recognition of your mistake.

The "implying" is also one of your problems. Don't imply, take what words suggest. "A person is not something" means he is not an unidentified, unknown thing but a living being distinct from a thing.

Qur'aan as well sane persons do not consider or treat living humans as "thing"-Arabic equivalent . His origin is from not that he is . He is distinct entity.