Right hand possesses in Quran
-
I am not at all agreeing that "aymanuhum"="oath".
But even if we translate "ma malakat aymanuhum" as per your translation , it simply says about "possession". You cannot translate "malakat" into something else other than "owning","possession".
According to Corpus Quran, Arabic English dictionary JG Hava,Arabic English Dictionary Quranic Usage, HANS WEHR A DICTIONARY OF MODERN WRITTEN ARABIC says the meaning of "malakat"=to take in possession,take over,possess, own,be the owner of,to dominate,to be master.
So your translation will be "What possess by their oaths". Possession is still there.
I know wikipedia is not at all authentic and cannot be counted as evidence but the link on wikipedia also gives literal translation
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma_malakat_aymanukumWhat you possesed by oath. That is why adultery is both a sin and crime since your body is OWNED by another partner. That is why people call it cheating because you took something that is not yours. When a man cheats on his wife he gave his body to someone else. That body is not only his but is his wives too. She owns that property. She is the "malik" of that body and its her possession. She posesses, owns, and is the owner of that bosy. That posession was taken by oath between two partners. She has ownership over you and you to her.
-
What you possesed by oath. That is why adultery is both a sin and crime since your body is OWNED by another partner. That is why people call it cheating because you took something that is not yours. When a man cheats on his wife he gave his body to someone else. That body is not only his but is his wives too. She owns that property. She is the "malik" of that body and its her possession. She posesses, owns, and is the owner of that bosy. That posession was taken by oath between two partners. She has ownership over you and you to her.
It says wives or what is possessed by oath. Wives(spouses) are separately mentioned. Confusion , wrong translation , IMO IMO IMO is this the best Quranists can give ?
-
It says wives or what is possessed by oath. Wives(spouses) are separately mentioned. Confusion , wrong translation , IMO IMO IMO is this the best Quranists can give ?
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.
In Judaism
In Judaism, concubines are referred to by the Hebrew term pilegesh. The term is a non-Hebrew, non-Semitic loanword derived from the Greek word, pallakis, Greek , meaning "a mistress staying in house".
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
-
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.%20Tabweeb/00008.%20Malik%20Meem%20Laam%20Kaf/12.gif
It is a Perfect Transitive Verb; Third Person; Singular; Feminine with feminine marker; Verbal Noun.
Meanings will be determined by the Object of verb, that links back to General Relative Pronoun http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.%20Tabweeb/0001.%20Pronouns%20and%20Prepositions/01.%20Mimma/02.%20Ma/3.gif.
If Relative Pronoun relates in the text to inanimate object, property, land, wealth, moveable and immovable assets, etc it means "possessed or owned". The Subject of Verb becomes the Maalik, the holder of that thing, possessor, owner.
But when it relates to country and person-human being-male or female, its Verbal Noun render the Subject of Verb as one who has the authority, administrative control, goverening powers over the country and person. The person becomes his subject-the one who is administerd by him--subject acts according to will of and is called .
The difference between . and English word "Slave" is that Arabic word does not render it as "property" of the while English word "Slave" by non Arabs is also treated and considered as "property" owned whereby the owner becomes .
This is the delicacy of Arabic words. If you google about slavery, you might find that Arabs did not treat people in the sense of "Slave" as was prevalent in other societies but as house-servants.
-
Are you blind or you are willfully ignoring my comments. "What their right hand possess" is idiom , which means "possession" and Quran refers this to "slaves".
Stop crying like a 2yrs old kid. Right hand is explained it is an "What their right hand possess" is an idiom . I gave you example from Urdu also that we have sentences/idioms which include "right hand".
I have proved from 2 dictionaries. Now its your turn to show me a place where "aymanukum" and "aymanuhum" is oath.
I don't think your getting my points. You are conveniently making the whole phrase an idiom (with no proof). The phrase what or whom you possess is self-explanatory. Thus no need for the word aymunkum. Do you see how much conjecture your working with? What is the difference between those whom you possess and those whom your right hands possess? Do you get my point? What is the function of aymunkum in that phrase??
The equivalent of your proof would be for me to go and get you a translation and call it a dictionary. That's not how it works. This is why (if you check it out) you'l most likely find out that the lane lexicon is our best source with regards to translation and dictionary.
Also, any one of us could be wrong. Any of the famous Quranist, or shia or sunni scholars could be wrong. They are fallible. Hence my reminder that if something doesn't make sense to you (such as beat your wives) don't uphold it until you understand it. You are obliged to do this because you are supposed to use your Aql and not to uphold what you don't know. For this everyone is held accountable.
-
I don't think your getting my points. You are conveniently making the whole phrase an idiom (with no proof). The phrase what or whom you possess is self-explanatory. Thus no need for the word aymunkum. Do you see how much conjecture your working with? What is the difference between those whom you possess and those whom your right hands possess? Do you get my point? What is the function of aymunkum in that phrase??
The equivalent of your proof would be for me to go and get you a translation and call it a dictionary. That's not how it works. This is why (if you check it out) you'l most likely find out that the lane lexicon is our best source with regards to translation and dictionary.
Also, any one of us could be wrong. Any of the famous Quranist, or shia or sunni scholars could be wrong. They are fallible. Hence my reminder that if something doesn't make sense to you (such as beat your wives) don't uphold it until you understand it. You are obliged to do this because you are supposed to use your Aql and not to uphold what you don't know. For this everyone is held accountable.
"Right hand" is there because its an idiom . "What your right hand possess" or "What their right hand possess" . I quoted 2 dictionaries for you. But I forgot I am in discussion with Quranists who are expert in ignoring , attacking straw man , bringing false interpretation without any evidence.
If I tell you an incident and say "I hit two birds with one stone" , will you ask me what birds are doing here ?
I am still waiting for any dictionary/authentic sources which tells you "ma malakat aymanuhum" = "what you possess by oaths" .
-
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.%20Tabweeb/00008.%20Malik%20Meem%20Laam%20Kaf/12.gif
It is a Perfect Transitive Verb; Third Person; Singular; Feminine with feminine marker; Verbal Noun.
Meanings will be determined by the Object of verb, that links back to General Relative Pronoun http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.%20Tabweeb/0001.%20Pronouns%20and%20Prepositions/01.%20Mimma/02.%20Ma/3.gif.
If Relative Pronoun relates in the text to inanimate object, property, land, wealth, moveable and immovable assets, etc it means "possessed or owned". The Subject of Verb becomes the Maalik, the holder of that thing, possessor, owner.
But when it relates to country and person-human being-male or female, its Verbal Noun render the Subject of Verb as one who has the authority, administrative control, goverening powers over the country and person. The person becomes his subject-the one who is administerd by him--subject acts according to will of and is called .
The difference between . and English word "Slave" is that Arabic word does not render it as "property" of the while English word "Slave" by non Arabs is also treated and considered as "property" owned whereby the owner becomes .
This is the delicacy of Arabic words. If you google about slavery, you might find that Arabs did not treat people in the sense of "Slave" as was prevalent in other societies but as house-servants.
I have quoted multiple dictionaries above, "malakat" simply means "to possess","to own" something. "Ma malakat aymanuhum" is an idiom which means "what their right hand possess" . The word Malakat simply shows that they are some who are in my possession and I am their owner.
-
"The second Quran linguistic form describes chattel slaves with the use of Arabic idiomatic expression , ma malakat aymanukum ("those whom your right hand possess". This phrase describes war captives and others who may fall into a state of enslavement."
-
Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them) thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded) but if it had been Allah?s Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost. 47.4
That is the ruling regarding prisoners in the Quran.
-
I have quoted multiple dictionaries above, "malakat" simply means "to possess","to own" something. "Ma malakat aymanuhum" is an idiom which means "what their right hand possess" . The word Malakat simply shows that they are some who are in my possession and I am their owner.
The problem is not with the dictionaries and fault is not with their authors but with the reader who keeps floating on its words without employing ones own mind.
One expressed opinion that it is "an idiom" and the reader accepted it on face value without bothering to apply for a second his own brain to know what an idiom means. And whether there is any need to employ an idiom for describing "possession of an object"?
Idiom http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiom
In Arabic, except for Substantive Nouns, the meanings of words are with reference to the Root and the word from which it is derived with added connotations with the help of its pattern.
The basic meanings are of authority--power to control, strength over a thing
(
Lane says that it signifies the exercise of authority to command. And when he uses the word "possess" he qualifies it by saying "with ability to have it to himself exclusively". This "the exercise of authority to command" convey the same perception and connotation. But You do not read in full and remain stuck up with word "possess" which gives you the perception of holding something in hand.
-
The problem is not with the dictionaries and fault is not with their authors but with the reader who keeps floating on its words without employing ones own mind.
One expressed opinion that it is "an idiom" and the reader accepted it on face value without bothering to apply for a second his own brain to know what an idiom means. And whether there is any need to employ an idiom for describing "possession of an object"?
Idiom http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiom
In Arabic, except for Substantive Nouns, the meanings of words are with reference to the Root and the word from which it is derived with added connotations with the help of its pattern.
The basic meanings are of authority--power to control, strength over a thing
(
Lane says that it signifies the exercise of authority to command. And when he uses the word "possess" he qualifies it by saying "with ability to have it to himself exclusively". This "the exercise of authority to command" convey the same perception and connotation. But You do not read in full and remain stuck up with word "possess" which gives you the perception of holding something in hand.
"the exercise of authority to command" and "exclusively for himself" make the idea of "possession" more clear. Slaves are exclusively for the owner and owner have authority over them.
The word "yamin" has meanings of "right side,right,right hand,oaths". But it nowhere qualifies "aymanukum/aymanuhum" to be translated as "oath".
For "malakat" i quoted 2-3 dictionaries which simply means "possess","own". "the exercise of authority to command" and "exclusively for himself" from LL makes it more clear that it is someone under possession.
I quoted "ArabicQuranicDictionary" which even give example of "ma malakat aymanukum" and translate it as "what your right hand possess".
In Hans-Wehr dictionary under the entry of "yamin", it gives example of "ma malakat yaminuhu" and translate it as "his posessions"I am still waiting for a dictionary which can prove the following
- "malakat" is not to possess,own.
- "aymanukum/aymanuhum" is oath
- "ma malakat aymanukum" is "what maintained by oath(and not referring to someone in possession)".
-
Here is reference from another dictionary
Look under the entry of "yamin".And check out the following
wa ma malakat yaminuk And what or whom thy right hand possesses
ayman oaths,right hands (plural of yamin)
ma malakat aymanukum Such as your right hand possess -
Rameez
You are just another example of how hadithers lack common sense. Your entire belief is based on Hadith and dictionaries(influened by hadithers). That is the difference between quranist and you - we look at the Quran and let Quran explain itself while you depend on other books. You know next to nothing about Arabic and sits here and think you can teach Quran to Arabic speaking people like me!
And all your fantasies about you raping "kafir" sex slaves are so laughable, thank god we have the police to jail rapists. In addition, god has created something called aids and HIV to people like you.
So go ahead and rape some kafir sex slaves and let see how your life will suck in jail (if you wont get aids before that) rotfl
Peace
-
Rameez
You are just another example of how hadithers lack common sense. Your entire belief is based on Hadith and dictionaries(influened by hadithers). That is the difference between quranist and you - we look at the Quran and let Quran explain itself along common sense while you depend on other books. That is the problem when somebody likes you who knows nothing about the Arabic language sits and think he knows the Quran.
And all your fantasies about you raping "kafir" sex slaves are so laughable, thank god we have the police to jail rapists. In addition, god has created something called aids and HIV to people like you.So go ahead and rape some kafir sex slaves and let see how your life will suck in jail (if you wont get aids before that) rotfl
Peace
Dictionaries do not explain hadiths, they explain Arabic. Any one can simply see how you Quranists are fail to even provide evidence from Arabic. I have only quoted Arabic sources (dictionaries).
I do not know Arabic that is why I am quoting Dictionaries.
Your hatred for hadiths and stupid interpretation of Quran can be simply seen from your comments. Instead of whining about "hadithers" , please give me reference from arabic sources for "ma malakat ayamnukum" .
-
Dictionaries do not explain hadiths, they explain Arabic. Any one can simply see how you Quranists are fail to even provide evidence from Arabic. I have only quoted Arabic sources (dictionaries).
I do not know Arabic that is why I am quoting Dictionaries.
Listen buddy, I am an Arabic speaker. You knows next to nothing about Arabic. So I don't need your dictionaries but i have given references from free mind dictionary. Dude, learn some Arabic then we can talk .. Otherwise Good luck with raping sex slaves in the name of Allah and Mohammed
-
This rameez is nuts. He argues that he can have sex with married women. And earlier he argued sex with kuffar. God has made something called AIDS for these people. Hopefully he isn
t married to an actual muslimah, but a repulsive hadither like himself, because shed likely contract it from him.It`s a good thing he comes in here and demonstrates how mindless the hadithers are.
We just had another one in here earlier, who deemed it "islam" and defended hadithism, deemed us to believe wrong, and be disbelievers, yet not soon after he entered, he started flirting and talking about marriage!
This guy too, just as soon as he gets into forum, the talk is reduced to revolving about the simplest desires."Satan follows his desire".
Peace
-
"the exercise of authority to command" and "exclusively for himself" make the idea of "possession" more clear. Slaves are exclusively for the owner and owner have authority over them.
The word "yamin" has meanings of "right side,right,right hand,oaths". But it nowhere qualifies "aymanukum/aymanuhum" to be translated as "oath".
For "malakat" i quoted 2-3 dictionaries which simply means "possess","own". "the exercise of authority to command" and "exclusively for himself" from LL makes it more clear that it is someone under possession.
I quoted "ArabicQuranicDictionary" which even give example of "ma malakat aymanukum" and translate it as "what your right hand possess".
In Hans-Wehr dictionary under the entry of "yamin", it gives example of "ma malakat yaminuhu" and translate it as "his posessions"I am still waiting for a dictionary which can prove the following
- "malakat" is not to possess,own.
- "aymanukum/aymanuhum" is oath
- "ma malakat aymanukum" is "what maintained by oath(and not referring to someone in possession)".
2 and 3 are certainly beyond the scope of the sentence. Similarly the sentence has nothing to do with possess since possess is for inanimate objects not humans in the sense of property. In relation to men and women it only denoties authority, administrative power to direct their affair and be responsible since authority and responsible are inseperable.
See an example
they are asking for appointing a commandar----ruler who has the authority to dicatate and receive obedience.
One of the par excellence characterstics of Qur'aan is its succintness, that is to express with brevity and clarity, with no wasted words. For slaves, what was the need to use a complete verbal sentence when there is a single word slaves ?
-
For slaves, what was the need to use a complete verbal sentence when there is a single word slaves ?
The word is not even close to the English word slave.
devotee/servant The God
A slave is someone forced, captured, and under threat and peril made to work for free against their will and do other inhuman things which everyone who supports slavery or owns slaves is a detestable ape, same as a lowlife pimp!
-
. A slave is someone forced, captured, and under threat and peril made to work for free against their will and do other inhuman things which everyone who supports slavery or owns slaves is a detestable ape, same as a lowlife pimp!
Slavery is properly the worst type of oppression. No wonder why nobody wants to be a slave. But hey don't you see, hadithers enslaved and raped people in the name of Allah, Muhammad and sahaba. I fail to see how that is better then terrorism.
Peace