A question regarding the concept of Oath of Engagement

Abdul-Hakeem

Very interesting . So according to you, I could quranically buy 100 male slave and have sex with them all? Would I according to the Quran be allowed to rent out my male slaves to my female friends for sexual purposes? And what should I do according to the Quran if one of my male slave refuse to have sex with me or my female friends ? Shall we then sell him or rape him ?

No.

I'm not repeating myself. Read carefully what I wrote in my first post.

When you come with pre-conceived notions to an argument, you end up stating assumptions and sounding very non-sensical when the person you're talking to is actually saying the opposite of what you assumed he/she was saying.

Maha

No.

I'm not repeating myself. Read carefully what I wrote in my first post.

When you come with pre-conceived notions to an argument, you end up stating assumptions and sounding very non-sensical when the person you're talking to is actually saying the opposite of what you assumed he/she was saying.

Well why can't I ? You didn't said that in your post.

Peace

Abdul-Hakeem

Well why can't I ? You didn't said that in your post.

Peace

Come on. I know you're more intelligent than that.

The answer is no to everything you said. Marriage only takes place between one man and one woman, regardless of if one is a slave or not (with the exception of marrying 4 women for the sake of dealing justly with children without fathers). So one cannot have sex with more than one slave, and one has to be married to the slave if they want to have sex with him/her.

And if we cannot have sex outside of marriage, then obviously we can't rent out slaves to others and allow them to have sex with other people.

And if the slave refuses sex with his/her spouse, then they have a right to do that just as a freeman/freewoman has to a right to refuse sex with his/her spouse. And the laws governing divorce between two free people are still the same when it comes to divorce between a slave and a free person.

The only difference between marriage with a slave and marriage with a free person is that we need permission from the slave's people before we marry the slave, and that if the now-married slave commits adultery, he/she gets only half the normal punishment.

It's not a good deal at all. That's why Allah says at the end of 425 that patience is better than this last-resort option.

And peace be with you sister

Maha

Come on. I know you're more intelligent than that.

The answer is no to everything you said. Marriage only takes place between one man and one woman, regardless of if one is a slave or not (with the exception of marrying 4 women for the sake of dealing justly with children without fathers). So one cannot have sex with more than one slave, and one has to be married to the slave if they want to have sex with him/her.

And if we cannot have sex outside of marriage, then obviously we can't rent out slaves to others and allow them to have sex with other people.

And if the slave refuses sex with his/her spouse, then they have a right to do that just as a freeman/freewoman has to a right to refuse sex with his/her spouse. And the laws governing divorce between two free people are still the same when it comes to divorce between a slave and a free person.

The only difference between marriage with a slave and marriage with a free person is that we need permission from the slave's people before we marry the slave, and that if the now-married slave commits adultery, he/she gets only half the normal punishment.

It's not a good deal at all. That's why Allah says at the end of 425 that patience is better than this last-resort option.

And peace be with you sister

Ah I undertand what you mean now you can only have sexual relations with your wife/husband. If you want sexual relationship with a slave you have to marry her/him.

Thanks for the clarification. But obviously if I married my slave he won't really be a slave anymore since I won't like to treat my husband as a slave.

Now my only question is, what if somebody refuses to be a slave(as nobody wants to be a slave) ?

Abdul-Hakeem

Ah I undertand what you mean now you can only have sexual relations with your wife/husband. If you want sexual relationship with a slave you have to marry her/him.

Thanks for the clarification. But obviously if I married my slave he won't really be a slave anymore since I won't like to treat my husband as a slave.

Now my only question is, what if somebody refuses to be a slave(as nobody wants to be a slave) ?

I'm glad we came to a mutual understanding then.

If someone refuses to be a slave? The Qur'an only mandates that people be taken as "slaves" in 474, and that's not so much slavery as it is prisoners of war. Those people are to be released after the war ends or there is a truce/agreement though. So logic would say that since it is not obligatory to have slaves in any circumstance, then we should respect people's rights and not force them into slavery. That's why Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and many of his companions bought slaves in order to free them.

Maha

I'm glad we came to a mutual understanding then.

If someone refuses to be a slave? The Qur'an only mandates that people be taken as "slaves" in 474, and that's not so much slavery as it is prisoners of war. Those people are to be released after the war ends or there is a truce/agreement though. So logic would say that since it is not obligatory to have slaves in any circumstance, then we should respect people's rights and not force them into slavery. That's why Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and many of his companions bought slaves in order to free them.

Yes me too.

But brother, there are no verses on the Quran which says that prisoners of wars shall be enslaved. Neither does is it morally justified to force prisoners of war to work for you (slavery) .

Forcing people to work for you for free(slavery) isn't that oppression and hence forbidden ? As I undeRstand oppression in forbidden in the Quran.

Abdul-Hakeem

Yes me too.

But brother, there are no verses on the Quran which says that prisoners of wars shall be enslaved. Neither does is it morally justified to force prisoners of war to work for you (slavery) .

Forcing people to work for you for free(slavery) isn't that oppression and hence forbidden ? As I undeRstand oppression in forbidden in the Quran.

Oh no, you're 100% right sister. My wording was confusing. In 474, Allah tells us to take captives in times of war. He never mentions anything about forcing them to work or anything, and He doesn't use the word "slave." It's more like taking those you're fighting and keeping them as prisoners. Even then, in other places in the Qur'an we're commanded to treat those prisoners as we treat our own people. That's the opposite of slavery.

Maha

Oh no, you're 100% right sister. My wording was confusing. In 474, Allah tells us to take captives in times of war. He never mentions anything about forcing them to work or anything, and He doesn't use the word "slave." It's more like taking those you're fighting and keeping them as prisoners. Even then, in other places in the Qur'an we're commanded to treat those prisoners as we treat our own people. That's the opposite of slavery.

I think we agree 100 procent on this issue )

Anyway, thanks for sharing your knowledge. May god protect and guide his true followers .

nimnimak_11

In reality, there isn't a 'Marry' or a 'He/You/She'. Literally its 'So from who you rightfully possess from your Fatayat'.

That's what I've now come to think also.

So technically the reason I add 'He should/may marry' is because the subject is that particular 'He' from the group of Muslims/humanity, and the verb 'He' is doing is 'Marrying' an Al Muhsanat il Mominat,

It's this bit which I'm hoping to get right with your help. Who exactly is the subject that is being addressed.
This is what free-minds have translated it as And whoever of you cannot afford to marry the independent female believers, then from those maintained by your oaths of the believing young women. And God is more aware of your faith.

Let's say x, y and z are all of humanity and they are reading the Quran. They are told Whoever of/from you 3 is not able to tawlan to marry the muhsinat female believers, then of/from those maintained by your oaths of the believing young women. And God is more aware of your faith.

I don't think it's talking about who the oaths of the three own collectively. I think it's talking about who the oaths of the three own individually.

God is aware more aware of who's faith? Whats your take on who this is in reference to?

So I think that you have "whoever of you" and "your" used in a sentence that sort of makes sense. By this I mean it conveys that "your" is in relation to the "you" in the occurrence of "whoever of you" partly because

Btw what is that 'Other thread'? I'd like to see what discussion is going on.

http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599777.0
But a lot has changed from page one. I did a summary in this thread

http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604063.0
I'm going to update it once our discussion and the one in the other thread come to an end.

unknownuser

That's what I've now come to think also.

Good

It's this bit which I'm hoping to get right with your help. Who exactly is the subject that is being addressed.
This is what free-minds have translated it as And whoever of you cannot afford to marry the independent female believers, then from those maintained by your oaths of the believing young women. And God is more aware of your faith.

Let's say x, y and z are all of humanity and they are reading the Quran. They are told Whoever of/from you 3 is not able to tawlan to marry the muhsinat female believers, then of/from those maintained by your oaths of the believing young women. And God is more aware of your faith.

I don't think it's talking about who the oaths of the three own collectively. I think it's talking about who the oaths of the three own individually.

God is aware more aware of who's faith? Whats your take on who this is in reference to?

So I think that you have "whoever of you" and "your" used in a sentence that sort of makes sense. By this I mean it conveys that "your" is in relation to the "you" in the occurrence of "whoever of you" partly because

I agree that it refers to individuals, but how does it solve the problem?

What I meant when I said 'He' is the subject is that, 'He' is not being able to marry an Al Muhsanat il Mominat, so that's the reason why I add 'So he may marry' between brackets. Of course, in reality, the ones being addressed are the group of humanity.

From 'God is more aware of your faith' the verse starts to directly address the group of humanity. From the beginning of the verse it addresses the humanity, however, in the start, there is a particular 'He' that is being referenced to. Once God solves the issue of that 'He' by saying that 'He' should marry a Fatayat who the one's being addressed have, He comes to the ones being addressed by 'And God knows best of your faith' and from then on He generally gives details on how one should marry a Fatayat, but this time refers and addresses the group of humanity and not that particular 'He'. I hope I made sense

BTW It seems you didn't complete your sentence

So I think that you have "whoever of you" and "your" used in a sentence that sort of makes sense. By this I mean it conveys that "your" is in relation to the "you" in the occurrence of "whoever of you" partly because

Because of what?

http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599777.0
But a lot has changed from page one. I did a summary in this thread

http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604063.0
I'm going to update it once our discussion and the one in the other thread come to an end.

Thanks for the links

nimnimak_11

I agree that it refers to individuals, but how does it solve the problem?

It begins with whoever of you (individuals of the community) then proceeds to then of those maintained by your (where your is you individuals/individuals of the community as opposed to the the one entity community) oaths of the believing fatayat.

Thus your oaths are the oaths of those in the community (since they are being addressed) and not the community itself.

I think I understand your point and believe that its completely valid. But I also think that there is another possible interpretation. I think you are more capable in arabic then I am so if there is this other possible interpretation, I want to run it by you. If there isn't one I want to understand how this and then add it to the summary thread.

This is what's going through my mind
Consider this example
You have a car that is built up of different components (like you have a community that is built up of different individuals).
Let's say that a car is being addressed
"Whoever of you (components) break, then of your fault this is" My point is that your could be referring to either the car or any of the parts in the car that break. Both these understandings are possible mainly because of the word "min" which I've taken to mean "of".

Now let's shift this kind of example onto a community

Whoever of you sings, then of your doing this is.
If the word "of" wasn't there in certain places, then we get this

1 )Whoever sings, then your doing this is
2) Whoever sings, then of your doing this is
3) Whoever of you sings, then your doing this is
4) Whoever of you sings, then of your doing this is

Because of occurs at both places, I think it is possible to interpret the way free-minds have done.
This is sort of like the duck rabbit example where two different things can be seen
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fileuck-Rabbit_illusion.jpg

Because of what?

That whole sentence was a mistake. Kind of like a repetition of earlier points which I meant to delete.

Thanks for the links

Your welcome

What do you think, can the examples be related to the arabic? Does the translation of free-minds at 425 hold?

Noon_waalqalami

Read my first post again I've shown how MMA refers to the wife in 424.

424 - "And al-muhsinaat from the women EXCEPT what your right hands possess..." In other words, we are forbidden from being married to married women except "what our right hands possess" i.e. our wives. This wording is used by Allah to clear up any confusion.

Peace Abdul (i.e. servant) -- you said MMA are slaves?

It does not say "prohibited to marry the mu-h-sa-na-t from the women only your wife? -- what, allowed to marry her again?

And, where did I say "sex slave"? Sex slaves are haraam that's why Allah says "If you find not the means to marry Al-muhsinaat, THEN MARRY THE BELIEVING WOMEN FROM WHAT YOUR RIGHT HANDS POSSESSES"

So your argument is useless because nobody is arguing for sex slaves, and I have not even used that terminology.

You said MMA means slave?
Noun A person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.

Thus you put your words in Qur?an allowing females/males exposing themselves to female/male slaves.

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 (slaves) so indeed they not blameworthy

Now substitute means/wherewithal/things under one's control/grasp, etc., which people are not at fault if forcefully strip searched, spied on or similarly if unknowingly or forcefully eat pig -- only accountable for "what posses their right hands."

Allah allows slavery. He doesn't condone (i.e. support) it.

And if you disagree with this, then show me one verse in the Qur'an where Allah declares slavery to be forbidden.

Allows slavery
Admit slavery as legal or acceptable and give some people permission to enslave other people.

Is it allowed someone to hit you over the head with big rock -- show verse which prohibits?

I'll point out multiple places in the Qur'an in which it would not make any sense if slavery was forbidden

How to translate my name ? willing devotee/servant or forced to obey, a slave?

Furthermore, don't disrespect the troops of my country committed to fighting for their various reasons. I personally know people in the American military, and they're not all sinning sex fiends like you seem to try to portray them as.

Where did I write that?

According to you Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan justified taking sex slaves then free them if they error?

Did you not write this?

Allah allows slavery.

Therefore, according to you they (or anyone) are allowed slaves and to expose themselves, see above.

Abdul-Hakeem

Peace Abdul (i.e. servant) -- you said MMA are slaves?

It does not say "prohibited to marry the mu-h-sa-na-t from the women only your wife -- what, allowed to marry her again?

You said MMA means slave
Noun A person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.

Nope. Read carefully. From my very beginning post I've been repeating myself over and over again. I'll repeat myself one more time I said "Al-mu'minaat famin MMA" REFERS TO (not means, but rather implies) believing slave girls. I said that in SOME CASES, MMA can refer to slaves. In this case, however, it does not.

I said MMA in this case refers to the Christians and Jewish peoples that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and his companions conquered. Therefore, the entire phrase "Al-mu'minaat famin MMA" can be translated in this instance as meaning "The believing women from the conquered people." However, Allah contrasts these "mu'minaat" with "Al-muhsinaat." Al-muhsinaat literally means "strong women," but it implies both freedom (i.e. not a slave) and chastity. Therefore, we can conclude that "Al-mu'minaat famin MMA" refers to the slave girls of Christians and Jews, who are themselves Christians or Jews.

In modern times, this verse can be (and is by many Muslim scholars) interpreted as one of the verses that allow marriage between a Muslim man and a Christian or Jewish woman.

Thus you put your words in Quran allowing females/males exposing themselves to female/male slaves.

Nope. Read my responses to Maha where I answered this misrepresentation of my position.

Allows slavery
Admit slavery as legal or acceptable and give some people permission to enslave other people.

Is it allowed someone to hit you over the head with big rock -- show verse which prohibits?

Poor example.

The literal act of hitting someone with a rock is not haraam in itself. But 99% of the time it is haraam because hitting someone with a rock is done with the intention of causing pain (haraam) or death (haraam unless the person is a murderer or spreads corruption).

Meanwhile, slavery is nowhere prohibited in the Qur'an. But as Maha pointed out, oppression is. Allah has made it so that slavery is not haraam but He has set restrictions so that if one owns a slave, he/she would have to treat the slave as if the slave was his/her own sibling.

You also did not respond to any of the 3 Qur'an verses I quoted which prove the permissibility of slavery in and of itself. Or would you imply that Allah "forgot" that slavery is forbidden, so He made up a punishment (of freeing a slave) that has no possible way of being implemented? Or would you imply that pieces of the Qur'an have been abrogated, like some Sunnis believe? Otherwise, those 3 verses prove the permissibility of slavery.

How to translate my name willing devotee/servant or forced to obey, a slave?

"Slave of Allah." And there are synonyms in Arabic to "slave", and there are ways to imply "slaves" without specifically mentioning any word that means "slave."

Regardless, "Slave of Allah" is forced obedience if you keep in mind the verse in the Qur'an where Allah says that everything in existence, willingly or unwillingly, bows to Allah. That's why you are a "Muslim", or a "Submitter." You accepted the forced servitude and willfully obey Allah.

Where did I write that?
Did you not write this?
Therefore, according to you they (or anyone) are allowed slaves and to expose themselves, see above.

In response to your first question You implied it. Doesn't matter regardless, it's off-topic.

In response to your next claim, again, read my response to Maha.

Noon_waalqalami

I'll repeat myself one more time I said "Al-mu'minaat famin MMA" REFERS TO (not means, but rather implies) believing slave girls. I said that in SOME CASES, MMA can refer to slaves. In this case, however, it does not.

Alright you say slaves are legal, acceptable, and give people permission then and now to enslave people.

OK one verse at a time; you acquire male and female slaves (perfectly legal according to you), questions

Are you allowed to expose yourself to your female slave?
Are females allowed to expose themselves to male slave?

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/except over their spouses or what possess their right hands (slaves) so indeed they not blameworthy

unknownuser

It begins with whoever of you (individuals of the community) then proceeds to then of those maintained by your (where your is you individuals/individuals of the community as opposed to the the one entity community) oaths of the believing fatayat.

Thus your oaths are the oaths of those in the community (since they are being addressed) and not the community itself.

I think I understand your point and believe that its completely valid. But I also think that there is another possible interpretation. I think you are more capable in arabic then I am so if there is this other possible interpretation, I want to run it by you. If there isn't one I want to understand how this and then add it to the summary thread.

This is what's going through my mind
Consider this example
You have a car that is built up of different components (like you have a community that is built up of different individuals).
Let's say that a car is being addressed
"Whoever of you (components) break, then of your fault this is" My point is that your could be referring to either the car or any of the parts in the car that break. Both these understandings are possible mainly because of the word "min" which I've taken to mean "of".

Now let's shift this kind of example onto a community

Whoever of you sings, then of your doing this is.
If the word "of" wasn't there in certain places, then we get this

1 )Whoever sings, then your doing this is
2) Whoever sings, then of your doing this is
3) Whoever of you sings, then your doing this is
4) Whoever of you sings, then of your doing this is

Because of occurs at both places, I think it is possible to interpret the way free-minds have done.
This is sort of like the duck rabbit example where two different things can be seen
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fileuck-Rabbit_illusion.jpg
That whole sentence was a mistake. Kind of like a repetition of earlier points which I meant to delete.
Your welcome

What do you think, can the examples be related to the arabic? Does the translation of free-minds at 425 hold?

It took me some time to grasp your point, however, I think I understand what you mean.

First of all, I don't think that 'Of' is a good translation, I'd go with 'From'.

Second, let's just finalize an example through which we can understand this verse, as so many examples will make things difficult

A B C X Y Z are a group of people. I say to them Whoever from you cannot buy a car, so he may travel using any bike from the bikes you possess

What is the first thing that comes into your mind when you read the above? Let's assume B and Z can't buy a car, what will they do? I think that according to my saying, they'll ask A C X Y to lend them a bike if they have one.

As I didn't say Whoever from you cannot buy a car, so he may travel using any bike from the bike he possesses, but instead, you possess

This shows that by 'You' I'm addressing each individual of the group who has a bike.

I personally don't think it really matters whether it's addressing the individuals, or the group itself. Although I'm quite sure that it is referring to the individuals. That rabbit duck pic was epic.

Thirdly, I have no issue with the Free-minds translation except for the 'Of', as I sincerely believe it will be more appropriate if it is 'From', and I think these minor things really do matter.

Fourthly, the examples do hold go inline with the Arabic, but I don't think they are good examples ) My one seems pretty good right? But seriously, I think we keep going in circles. In the beginning we progressed a lot, but in the past 3-4 replies we aren't really coming towards a conclusion, we keep discussing the same points over and over again, what do you think?

Fifthly, to make things simple, here is my take on the issue in points

Min should be 'From'
The ones being addressed are the group of humanity, and it directly addresses individuals
It does not say, 'So from those maintained by his oaths from your/his Fatayat', but it says 'So from those maintained by your oaths from your Fatayat'

Sixthly (Is this even a word? lol), is that you in your profile pic, or some random guy?

Mazhar

First of all, I don't think that 'Of' is a good translation, I'd go with 'From'.

Second, let's just finalize an example through which we can understand this verse, as so many examples will make things difficult

A B C X Y Z are a group of people. I say to them Whoever from you cannot buy a car, so he may travel using any bike from the bikes you possess

Correct approach.
A Prepositional Phrase succeding adjacently to a verb relates to the Verb. It is segregating a particular person who is present amongst the group of addressee-second person plural.

? ??

unknownuser

Correct approach.
A Prepositional Phrase succeding adjacently to a verb relates to the Verb. It is segregating a particular person who is present amongst the group of addressee-second person plural.

? ??

Thanks. Btw I agree that I shouldn't have used the word 'Term' for MMA, thanks again for correcting me.

nimnimak_11

It took me some time to grasp your point, however, I think I understand what you mean.

Thank you for putting the time and effort into this.

My one seems pretty good right? But seriously, I think we keep going in circles. In the beginning we progressed a lot, but in the past 3-4 replies we aren't really coming towards a conclusion, we keep discussing the same points over and over again, what do you think?
I think your example is pretty good. But it has one issue. It's helped me improve my example (you'l see it in a bit).

Your right we are going in circles now but there is one new point I want to make. I'l make it clear at the end of this post.

Second, let's just finalize an example through which we can understand this verse, as so many examples will make things difficult

Your right. Ok, I'm happy with that exmaple. Just a few minor changes though.

A B C X Y Z are a group of people. I say to them Whoever from you cannot buy a car, so he may travel using any bike from the bikes you possess

I've changed it a bit to reflect 425 a bit more. I hope you don't mind
Whoever from you cannot afford (tawlan) to buy (marry) the cars (gotta be plural) (muhsinat is plural), then from what your contracts (oaths) possess of the bikes (fatayat)

Are you ok with my above changes?

What is the first thing that comes into your mind when you read the above? Let's assume B and Z can't buy a car, what will they do? I think that according to my saying, they'll ask A C X Y to lend them a bike if they have one.

I'd agree with you if "he" was there. Without it i'm not sure.

In your example you've used "he"
Whoever from you cannot buy a car, so he may travel using any bike from the bikes you possess

But I don't see a he in the arabic and thats what i think makes the difference between whether it is possible to interpret the oaths belonging to the individuals in the community as opposed to the community as a whole

Min should be 'From'
The ones being addressed are the group of humanity, and it directly addresses individuals

OK. I'l do a cross-reference and see what I get with other occurrences of (from/of/among you) and then I'l get back to you.

It does not say, 'So from those maintained by his oaths from your/his Fatayat', but it says 'So from those maintained by your oaths from your Fatayat'

I'm more inclined to think your right. My only issue is with understanding "min" as "from" rather than "of".

The final step for me is to cross-reference. But I definitely need to add your point to the summary because even if I can show that there are 2 possible interpretations rather than just the one you've picked up on, your point will still hold and needs to be known as a possible option for interpretation of 425

Sixthly (Is this even a word? lol),

Of course it is! and you know what !.....so is seventhly!!

is that you in your profile pic, or some random guy?

That's me at my graduation ceremony in July.

Maha

Abdul hakeem

You said that slaves shall be treated like your siblings.. So does it mean that it's halal to force your siblings to work for free for you ? Because that's what you do with a slave .

unknownuser

Thank you for putting the time and effort into this.
I think your example is pretty good. But it has one issue. It's helped me improve my example (you'l see it in a bit).

Your right we are going in circles now but there is one new point I want to make. I'l make it clear at the end of this post.
Your right. Ok, I'm happy with that exmaple. Just a few minor changes though.
I've changed it a bit to reflect 425 a bit more. I hope you don't mind
Whoever from you cannot afford (tawlan) to buy (marry) the cars (gotta be plural) (muhsinat is plural), then from what your contracts (oaths) possess of the bikes (fatayat)

Are you ok with my above changes?

I'd agree with you if "he" was there. Without it i'm not sure.

In your example you've used "he" But I don't see a he in the arabic and thats what i think makes the difference between whether it is possible to interpret the oaths belonging to the individuals in the community as opposed to the community as a whole

OK. I'l do a cross-reference and see what I get with other occurrences of (from/of/among you) and then I'l get back to you.

I'm more inclined to think your right. My only issue is with understanding "min" as "from" rather than "of".

The final step for me is to cross-reference. But I definitely need to add your point to the summary because even if I can show that there are 2 possible interpretations rather than just the one you've picked up on, your point will still hold and needs to be known as a possible option for interpretation of 425
Of course it is! and you know what !.....so is seventhly!!

That's me at my graduation ceremony in July.

I am ok with the changes, in fact, thanks for pointing out that I used 'He', I should have put it in brackets, my bad.

As for Min, well it is a fact according to classical Arabic dictionaries that Min means something out of a whole. For example, here I have two examples from the Quran coming in my mind, first is the sentence Ma Kana Muhammadan Illa Rasul, Qad Khalat Min Qablihi Rusul

And what is Muhammad other than a messenger? Passed Min Qiblihi many messengers

Qablihi means his Past, Min Qablihi means From the Past. If God didn't use Min, then it would mean, that the whole Past before the Prophet was filled with messengers non stop, like, the Past was based on messengers, however, using Min shows that it means From the Past, as in, from the whole of Past, there were sometimes where there existed messengers. Similarly another example is (I'm writing from memory, so I pray that God forgives me if I make a mistake) La Yahilulakan Nisa Min Bad

Not is permissible for you any woman Min Bad

Bad means future, and Min Bad means From the future

If God used Bad without Min, then it would mean that no woman is permissible for the Prophet in the future, as in, the whole future, which is impossible, so using Min shows that From the Future refers to the the time from the future till the Prophet will remain alive.

It turned out you are right, sixhly is a word I checked a dictionary, but surprisingly, my web browser Google Chrome says its not.

That's all I have to say, btw believe me, you look like one of those super models who companies use for their advertisement. Your pretty good looking )