Right hand possesses in Quran
-
rameez
And in 424 it also says that even if "what possess their right hand" are married they are not prohibited to you
come on rameez, you have fallen so low in level that now you are also talking about raping married woman. Would you be okey with israelies raping your wife? o
Come on, for God sake - for mohammeds sake or for ANYONES SAKE - Fear God.I Dont translate that above verse as you do, so its pointless to refute it as we have different translations. I would advice you to take a look at freeminds translation of quran.
-
Please explain what are "right hand possession". What do you call a possession ? Something that is my property. You don't want to use the word "slave" , it doesn't matter. Possession is what you are owner of.
IMO Aymunkum must have a function in the phrase as pointed out by huruf. I cannot think of a better function than oaths (as suggested by Quran's usage of the word)
In my opinion anyone with whom there has been an exchange of oaths within which the oaths invoke authority in certain aspects, can be considered those with whom one's oaths invoke authority or rights or possession in a certain way.
The exchange of oaths in a marriage might demonstrate this. Via this exchange of oaths, one comes to have a wife because of what the oaths entail and so via the oaths one comes to have a wife and this relational status which brings with it rights and thus authority in certain aspects is brought about by oaths between two people. This might explain why the muhsinat are prohibited at 424 unless they be MMA. Perhaps an engagement is necessary before marrying them or something like that.
IMO this could be anything from doctors, to fiances. So long as there are oaths that bind two people in a way that gives each of the two obligations and rights and thus authority in a certain aspect then they can be considered as MMA.
And you can not force them into sex despite their preference of not to because I am pretty sure that there are no such oaths that one consents to and willing gives that makes it such that they (the person itself) can be used as personal possession (slavery)
I doubt that God who gave us our Aql with a clear sense of Justice would ever permit that we can take fully mature rational and autonomous adults and decide for them how to live their lives and treat them as lesser beings.
In case you believe that God would permit this via your understanding of the Quran, I'd like to remind that we can't uphold anything until we understand it properly and if we don't understand it properly, we have not used our Aql to verify and this we are held accountable for. Thus if a verse goes against our aql, we don't uphold it until we gain further knowledge. Slavery strongly goes against the Aql IMO.
-
I could be wrong, but isn't slavery pretty much illegal the world over now? It wouldn't matter what your religious views are...
Peace,
Amina
-
The question is what is the right hand doing in the whole thing, because somebody may yamlik something without the need for any right hand. So what does the right hand do there.
On the other hand, why take it that malak means possess or own, it also means to rule or have authority over somebody or something. Authority may be derived from many things and be restricted to certain aspects. So where that all this twisted talk about possessing persons come from. The whole thing is ridiculous.
Also, as I say if the verb mala does by itself mean own or possess or have authority what is the function of the right hand possessing, ruling, owning or having authority. It is not there for adornment.
Salaam
ma malakat aymanuhum = what their right hand possess
You consider it authority or whatever , I just need a simple definition of "ma malakat aymanuhum (What their right hand possess)". Who are these "ma malakat aymanuhum" from whom I don't have to guard my private parts ?
You stated that it means slave/sex slave (male or female), is that not true anymore?
I never used the term "sex slave" . I simply stated and firm in explanation that they are those men and women who were captives of war and were enslaved. Owner of female slaves were given permission to have sexual intercourse with them without marriage , is it too difficult to understand ?
I am asking your exact definition of "what their right hand possess".
rameez
come on rameez, you have fallen so low in level that now you are also talking about raping married woman. Would you be okey with israelies raping your wife? o
Come on, for God sake - for mohammeds sake or for ANYONES SAKE - Fear God.I Dont translate that above verse as you do, so its pointless to refute it as we have different translations. I would advice you to take a look at freeminds translation of quran.
That is an argument from emotion that whether i would be okey with israeli raping my wife. We are discussing Quran not my likes and dislikes.
You are free to translate the verse as you want. Please post the translation of verse from freeminds.
IMO Aymunkum must have a function in the phrase as pointed out by huruf. I cannot think of a better function than oaths (as suggested by Quran's usage of the word)
Please explain what they have to do with "oaths" ? and why they are mentioned separately from spouses(wives for me) ?
In my opinion anyone with whom there has been an exchange of oaths within which the oaths invoke authority in certain aspects, can be considered those with whom one's oaths invoke authority or rights or possession in a certain way.
The exchange of oaths in a marriage might demonstrate this. Via this exchange of oaths, one comes to have a wife because of what the oaths entail and so via the oaths one comes to have a wife and this relational status which brings with it rights and thus authority in certain aspects is brought about by oaths between two people. This might explain why the muhsinat are prohibited at 424 unless they be MMA. Perhaps an engagement is necessary before marrying them or something like that.
IMO this could be anything from doctors, to fiances. So long as there are oaths that bind two people in a way that gives each of the two obligations and rights and thus authority in a certain aspect then they can be considered as MMA.
And you can not force them into sex despite their preference of not to because I am pretty sure that there are no such oaths that one consents to and willing gives that makes it such that they (the person itself) can be used as personal possession (slavery)
Confusing long statements to explain one single word ? And then you claim that Quran explains itself ? All I read is IMO IMO IMO . When you are discussing word of God , your opinion is nothing when you claim that Quran explains itself. Prove your claim from Quran itself because it must have explanation for "what their right hand possess" somewhere as Quran explains itself.
In case you believe that God would permit this via your understanding of the Quran, I'd like to remind that we can't uphold anything until we understand it properly and if we don't understand it properly, we have not used our Aql to verify and this we are held accountable for. Thus if a verse goes against our aql, we don't uphold it until we gain further knowledge. Slavery strongly goes against the Aql IMO.
So for more than 1400 years , clear book that explains itself is unable to explain this short single word "what their/your right hand possess" ??
-
rameez
That is an argument from emotion that whether i would be okey with israeli raping my wife. We are discussing Quran not my likes and dislikes.
You are free to translate the verse as you want. Please post the translation of verse from freeminds
Listen to yourself. You are sitting and claiming that quran says its ok for the israelis to rape your wife. i was just repeating what you said. Thats called repeating not emtion.
You still didnt answered my question. Malakat is in past tense. So why do you keep say ''possess'' instead of ''possessed'' ? The translation is not quran, only the orginal arabic text is quran. So please explain how you can rape someone you dont own anymore.
-
rameez
Listen to yourself. You are sitting and claiming that quran says its ok for the israelis to rape your wife. i was just repeating what you said. Thats called repeating not emtion.You still didnt answered my question. Malakat is in past tense. So why do you keep say ''possess'' instead of ''possessed'' ? The translation is not quran, only the orginal arabic text is quran. So please explain how you can rape someone you dont own anymore.
No where quran says its ok to rape my wife or someone else wife. It is just giving permission to "female slave owners" to have sexual intercourse with them.
Read this for the definition of "malakat" http//corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=23&verse=6
-
Rameez
No where quran says its ok to rape my wife or someone else wife. It is just giving permission to "female slave owners" to have sexual intercourse with them.
You contradict yourself. Sex slavery is always rape. And wrong, nowhere does the quran says that you can have intercourse with ''female slave owners''.
Hey if sex slavery isnt rape, does it mean your wife want to have sex with my brother if he buys her?
Read this for the definition of "malakat" http//corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=23&verse=6
you clearly dont speak arabic, do you? if you was an arabic speaker you would know what i was talking about instead of running away by posting pointless websites.
-
Confusing long statements to explain one single word ? And then you claim that Quran explains itself ? All I read is IMO IMO IMO . When you are discussing word of God , your opinion is nothing when you claim that Quran explains itself. Prove your claim from Quran itself because it must have explanation for "what their right hand possess" somewhere as Quran explains itself.
Some times longer explanations are needed to properly explain one word. Yeah I claim the Quran explains itself when used with Aql. Opinions backed by reason (Aql) are sometimes necessary for understanding the word of God since the word of God claims that you should not uphold that which you have no knowledge of and to use your Aql. If something doesn't make sense (such as slavery) then odds are the interpretation is wrong.
Either that or there is something missing from our understanding. But until we have a reasonable understanding in place, we are obliged not to uphold that which we don't understand. Thus when you read an interpretation, you might want to consider that it may be false. Same with hadith. Some may be correct some may not be. But you are obligated to use you Aql and uphold only that which you have knowledge of and I cannot see how slavery can ever be justifiable from a moral perspective.
With regards to the Quran explaining itself
YOUR OATHS = Aymanikum 2224,225,589,1692,94,662 THEIR OATHS = Aymanihim 5108,6109,1638,2453,3542
We know the word is used as oaths and we also know that oaths bind and bring about rights and authority in certain aspects such as in a marriage where there is an exchange of oaths and two become husband and wife via what they have pledged to each other. What's missing from the explanation?
Peace
-
Rameez
You contradict yourself. Sex slavery is always rape. And wrong, nowhere does the quran says that you can have intercourse with ''female slave owners''.
Hey if sex slavery isnt rape, does it mean your wife want to have sex with my brother if he buys her?
No where quran says ?? 236 and 7030 are so clear . But you are a quranist so its your job to twist everything.
you clearly dont speak arabic, do you? if you was an arabic speaker you would know what i was talking about instead of running away by posting pointless websites.
Did I say I speak arabic ? That is why I am constantly referring to you the sources and you are unable to come up with any single vaild point to prove your point.
"malak" , "malakat" = to possess , to become the owner of
I am yet to see your translation of verse 236 and why it is valid and correct.
-
Guys I really think this Rameez thing is a troll.
I kind of got that sense myself from the other thread. Just feels weird. May Allah forgive me if I am wrong.
-
With regards to the Quran explaining itself
YOUR OATHS = Aymanikum 2224,225,589,1692,94,662 THEIR OATHS = Aymanihim 5108,6109,1638,2453,3542
We know the word is used as oaths and we also know that oaths bind and bring about rights and authority in certain aspects such as in a marriage where there is an exchange of oaths and two become husband and wife via what they have pledged to each other. What's missing from the explanation?
Peace
Read my reply #16 , I have explained the words and arabic. Missing part is the correct words )
-
Did I say I speak arabic ? That is why I am constantly referring to you the sources and you are unable to come up with any single vaild point to prove your point.
Are you a troll or do you just lack common sense? I speak arabic and I know that malakat is past tense. Just because someone you know translates it in present, doesnt make it present.
Its impossible to proof anything when you dont even speak arabic. Its like giving a lawyer a paper in a language he doesnt understands.. doesnt surprise me now that you ended up as a hadither.
No where quran says ?? 236 and 7030 are so clear . But you are a quranist so its your job to twist everything
No the only thing i can see in those verses you quoted are ''what are maintained by your oath''.
-
Read my reply #16 , I have explained the words and arabic. Missing part is the correct words
They are the same words from the same root.
I might be able to make by point by asking you
How have you concluded that aymanukum means right hand but aymanikum means oaths?
-
They are the same words from the same root.
I might be able to make by point by asking you
How have you concluded that aymanukum means right hand but aymanikum means oaths?
Are you blind ? You stick to the root and do not see that "aymanukum" is different from "aymanikum"
No the only thing i can see in those verses you quoted are ''what are maintained by your oath''.
MashAllah , you speak arabic ?? ..hahahaha..... "oath" ? where the word oath is there in those verses ?
-
Are you a troll or do you just lack common sense? I speak arabic and I know that malakat is past tense. Just because someone you know translates it in present, doesnt make it present.
Well said , I do not know JG Hava. So Allah is saying that I do not have to guard my private parts from my spouse and from someone who WAS in my possession before ?
-
Are you blind ? You stick to the root and do not see that "aymanukum" is different from "aymanikum"
MashAllah , you speak arabic ?? ..hahahaha..... "oath" ? where the word oath is there in those verses ?
Take it easy. Look at my post again
I might be able to make by point by asking you
How have you concluded that aymanukum means right hand but aymanikum means oaths?
In other words why is it not the other way round?
Peace
-
Well said , I do not know JG Hava. So Allah is saying that I do not have to guard my private parts from my spouse and from someone who WAS in my possession before ?
Yes if the verse is refferring 'sex slaves' as per according to you.
But since I dont believe that the verse has something to do with sex slaves, the verse isnt saying that according to me. It tells you that I have to guard my private parts except from my husband or those maintained by oaths (docters, nurses, fiancees,etc).