Film Making and encouraging haram?
-
Well getting back on topic, while I understand things now I just wanna know something to confirm in general the idea of encouraging haram so I can rest my mind here
-
Like everything else, does one need to have the intention of encouraging haram for it to count as encouraging haram? or would an open sinner for example someone who drinks and others see him and they feel like they wanna drink to after seeing him count as encouraging haram?
-
If you believe something you plan to do might encourage others to sin but that is not what you plan or try to do, would it count then as encouragin haram?
-
What kind of sin is encouraging haram? is it just another type of sin? How hefty is it? or does one intake some of the other persons sins (not all of it) as to how hefty that would be? and it wouldn't be shirk or kufr as long as you don't disbelieve or think you are the rightful legislator of laws there.
-
-
Right hand possession is what is used throughout the Quran to refer to slaves and the rights they deserve, which is what is referred to there.
Wao finally we have a sunni here. There is nothing called ''Right hand possession'' in the quran. Furthermore the arabic word for slave is 'a3bed' not right hand possession. Nor does right hand possession means slave in english. Neither can you find this right hand possession word in the quran not even in the translation of freeminds.
-
Wao finally we have a sunni here. There is nothing called ''Right hand possession'' in the quran. Furthermore the arabic word for slave is 'a3bed' not right hand possession. Nor does right hand possession means slave in english. Neither can you find this right hand possession word in the quran not even in the translation of freeminds.
I'm the opposite a sunni lol rotfl The word i'm referring to is Ma malakat aymanukum which means whoever you possess so its not just contracted slaves in the Quran. It directly translates to What you right hand possesses. The free-minds dictionary has not translated that to its direct meaning and rather taken upon its own interpretation of the word. I understand that why they wanna translate that to their own meaning, but I think it is a bit dangerous to take up interpreting that when a lot think differently including I who from a historical point of view (not hadith but legit history) but honestly this is not what we are talking about and I rather get back to my topic please and thank you.
-
I'm the opposite a sunni lol rotfl The word i'm referring to is Ma malakat aymanukum which means whoever you possess so its not just contracted slaves in the Quran. It directly translates to What you right hand possesses. The free-minds dictionary has not translated that to its direct meaning and rather taken upon its own interpretation of the word. I understand that why they wanna translate that to their own meaning, but I think it is a bit dangerous to take up interpreting that when a lot think differently including I who from a historical point of view (not hadith but legit history) but honestly this is not what we are talking about and I rather get back to my topic please and thank you.
Ma malakat aymanakum has nothing to with possessing anything. Would you please stop insulting the quran when you even dont speak arabic. Ma Malakat aymanakum it refers to people who live in the same domain (mulk, hence the word 'malakat' in a righteous manner (ayman, hence the word 'ayman'. This word 'righteous' is particularly pertinent because this word is used to contrast with wrongful behaviour (especially in chapter 56). The word 'maa' in the beginning of the phrase shows that it refers to rights of the domain, not to the person (which would then make it 'man', not 'maa'.
-
Ma malakat aymanakum has nothing to with possessing anything. Would you please stop insulting the quran when you even dont speak arabic. Ma Malakat aymanakum it refers to people who live in the same domain (mulk, hence the word 'malakat' in a righteous manner (ayman, hence the word 'ayman'. This word 'righteous' is particularly pertinent because this word is used to contrast with wrongful behaviour (especially in chapter 56). The word 'maa' in the beginning of the phrase shows that it refers to rights of the domain, not to the person (which would then make it 'man', not 'maa'.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma_malakat_aymanukum
Here are all the possible ways of translating it
Arabic Literal translation
what your (masculine plural) right hands possess *
what their (masculine plural) right hands possess *
what their (feminine plural) right hands possess
what your right hands possess
Those whom your (masculine plural) right hands possess *So yeah lol but as I said don't derail the topic as that is something that isn't of much concern and would rather focus on my topic.
-
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma_malakat_aymanukum
Here are all the possible ways of translating it
Arabic Literal translation
what your (masculine plural) right hands possess *
what their (masculine plural) right hands possess *
what their (feminine plural) right hands possess
what your right hands possess
Those whom your (masculine plural) right hands possess *So yeah lol but as I said don't derail the topic as that is something that isn't of much concern and would rather focus on my topic.
The wikipedia link you gave says this The term itself is normally considered to refer to prisoners of war, or more broadly to slaves in general, according to the classic tafsirs. Bernard Lewis proposes the translation "those whom you own," but this is neither a literal nor properly idiomatic translation.
So Wikipedia itself states that ma malakat aymanakum means slaves ACCORDING TO THE SUNNI TAFSIRS. AND THAT ITS NOT A LITERAL TRANSLATION.
That is why I said that you are a sunni. You follow your crazy mullah tafsirs which are fabricated to insult and mock the quran.
And freeminds translation does not use 'what your right hand possession' because freeminders are not sunni like you.
In any case, I would like to remind you that slavery is a crime worldwide, and that you can be sentenced to more than 10 years in prison for keeping a slave.
-
The wikipedia link you gave says this The term itself is normally considered to refer to prisoners of war, or more broadly to slaves in general, according to the classic tafsirs. Bernard Lewis proposes the translation "those whom you own," but this is neither a literal nor properly idiomatic translation.
So Wikipedia itself states that ma malakat aymanakum means slaves ACCORDING TO THE SUNNI TAFSIRS. AND THAT ITS NOT A LITERAL TRANSLATION.
That is why I said that you are a sunni. You follow your crazy mullah tafsirs which are fabricated to insult and mock the quran.
And freeminds translation does not use 'what your right hand possession' because freeminders are not sunni like you.
In any case, I would like to remind you that slavery is a crime worldwide, and that you can be sentenced to more than 10 years in prison for keeping a slave.
First off i'm shia inclinced Quranist, meaning I absolutely hate Sunnis, but I accept that their were imams who were trying to keep according to the Quran and opposed Caliphs like Omar who were trying to bring in Traditions, but don't follow hadiths that contradict or add new laws to the Quran, so don't confuse me for some hadith following sunni as i'm the exact opposite.
As for the translation, let me give you some proof word for word
http//corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=4&verse=24
Here is an example of it word for word
m
whommalakat
you possessaymnukum
rightfully.direct translation right there. Realize that slavery DID exist even while Muhammad was in power. History proves that as he couldn't fully abolish it considering the slaves would go into absolute poverty, thus why it was set up in a way where rather that one shouldn't keep one and if you already have one you should let them go as a good deed, but if you still wanna keep them this is how you basically treat them.
I'm against slavery myself, know that indeed I am surely am.
-
and can we return on topic really? I don't really care about the issue of slaves as I dont' like them and they aren't considered good in the Quran already and we know that.
-
and can we return on topic really? I don't really care about the issue of slaves as I dont' like them and they aren't considered good in the Quran already and we know that.
Sure we can. However brother, your thread is about encouraging to haram, and that was excately what I feared you was doing by preaching slavery when it is a crime world wide and gives many years in prison for people involved. So I just wanted to stop you from going to jail, I guess. But furtunately, you agree with the international law that slavery is a crime.
However, how do you know that Muhammad didnt abolished the slavery? Again you are now using shia hadith. The ahadith is the only socalled ''history'' we got regarding Muhammad. And as quranists we cannot take this ahadith as history. The same history also claim that Muhammad agreed to kill apostates, forbidden alcohol etc. (and no alcohol is not totally haram as they claim). So we cannot rely on any socalled history(hadith)regarding Muhammad hence there is absolut no evidence that Muhammad should have agreed to continue slavery.
And again you are using a sectarian translation 'right hand possesion' from a sectarian homepage. Why dont you use quranists pages if you are a quranists? I can show you many other translations which translate that sentence differently, Freeminds is just one of them. However, feel free to agree with your Shia translation and interpretation of the quran if its the shia version or any other sectarian version you like. It is God who Guides whoever he wants. Not me.
As a side note I dont feel eating pork or western lifestyle is a ''sin'' in itself. And being offended because someone eat pork in a movie, is stupidy. However, I think you are in a way telling the actors or actress or the western society that you think their lifestyle is totally okay. That you agree upon it. Otherwise you would not ''promote it''. I know thats not what you mean, but thats the signals you would send.
May God bless you and your family, and Good luck with your film project
-
Sure we can. However brother, your thread is about encouraging to haram, and that was excately what I feared you was doing by preaching slavery when it is a crime world wide and gives many years in prison for people involved. So I just wanted to stop you from going to jail, I guess. But furtunately, you agree with the international law that slavery is a crime.
However, how do you know that Muhammad didnt abolished the slavery? Again you are now using shia hadith. The ahadith is the only socalled ''history'' we got regarding Muhammad. And as quranists we cannot take this ahadith as history. The same history also claim that Muhammad agreed to kill apostates, forbidden alcohol etc. (and no alcohol is not totally haram as they claim). So we cannot rely on any socalled history(hadith)regarding Muhammad hence there is absolut no evidence that Muhammad should have agreed to continue slavery.
And again you are using a sectarian translation 'right hand possesion' from a sectarian homepage. Why dont you use quranists pages if you are a quranists? I can show you many other translations which translate that sentence differently, Freeminds is just one of them. However, feel free to agree with your Shia translation and interpretation of the quran if its the shia version or any other sectarian version you like. It is God who Guides whoever he wants. Not me.
As a side note I dont feel eating pork or western lifestyle is a ''sin'' in itself. And being offended because someone eat pork in a movie, is stupidy. However, I think you are in a way telling the actors or actress or the western society that you think their lifestyle is totally okay. That you agree upon it. Otherwise you would not ''promote it''. I know thats not what you mean, but thats the signals you would send.
May God bless you and your family, and Good luck with your film project
History is different from hadith as Slavery remained as a long LONG going practice even though it was quite a bit restricted with the coming of the Quran. History is written right when it happens, hadith is written hundreds of years after. Anyways to each their own I on that issue I guess but yeah I agree slavery is no good. Like I would 100% agree that slavery was banned if the Quran directly forbid all actions of it, but rather it just restricts certain actions of it.
Though if we are talking about Quranist websites, this site even agrees that slavery remained with restrictions
http//www.misconceptions-about-islam.com/islam-quran-abolish-slavery.htmAs for the my film, well the way I see it is that they would do this stuff naturally anyways regardless of my film? Its just about accuracy and thus I would think that only if I promote it in that making alcohol look like an all time saver of mankind or somesort of crap like that or me telling them that they should all indeed engage in it mean that I am encouraging haram? God willing, I hope he guides me to the truth on this as I still am not 100%.