Right hand possesses in Quran

huruf

Lol. Its common on internet discussions when people run out of arguments they start saying stuff like you are saying.

Don't worry about that. You manage perfectly to entertain us with your arguments. No problem.

Salaam

Mazhar

379 not is to a human that gives him The God the book and the wisdom and the prophet-hood then he says to the mankind be (a person who is the legal property of another, unsubmissive, and forced to obey them against their will!!!) to me from besides The God

appropriate better translation...

379 not is to a human that gives him The God the book and the wisdom and the prophet-hood then he says to the mankind be devotees/servants to me from besides The God----NOON

better translation is also needed for this

If you can have , what is then so negative in it that he could not have it?

Maha

The dictionary authors are too and they learn grammars etc. Just speaking is not sufficient, I am speaking urdu for more than 23 years of my life but it doesn't mean I understand all its grammatical and lexical stuff .

Learning arabic is not a point here, point is to prove that "ma malakat aymanuhum"="what maintained by oaths"

I already gave you references to free minds dictionary who prove that ma malakat aymanahum means what maintained by oaths.

I also speak urdu. And I dont need to study urdu or understand every grammatical and lexical stuff in order to know when a sentence is in past tense and present tense in urdu. I know already because I simply speak the language.

You are nothing more then a stubborn hadither, people here have given you tons of references but all you do is to stick to dictionaries which fit your rapists personality while you reject other evidences and other dictionaries which doesnt support your rapist ideas.

Maha

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 isnt 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

Noon_waalqalami

better translation is also needed for this

If you can have , what is then so negative in it that he could not have it?

What you talking about you/he can have one, trying to legalize what?
Who is being addressed in context; the individual or all the believers?

2431-32 and say to the believing (feminine) they should lower from their gaze and they should guard their chastity and not display their adornment only what apparent from it and let them draw their covering over their bosoms and not display their adornment only to their husbands or their fathers or fathers their husbands or their sons or their sons their husbands or their brothers or children their brothers or children their sisters or their women or what possess their right hands or the followers /walkers behind not those the desire from al-rijal/the men or the children the ones who not aware over private al-nisa/the women and not beat with their feet to know what they conceal from their adornment and turn to The God all O you the believers that you may prosper and marry ...?

Mazhar

Like the better translation given by you against "supid translators" a translation was sought about the quoted part of the Ayah.

Noon_waalqalami

Like the better translation given by you against "supid translators" a translation was sought about the quoted part of the Ayah.

Why then are you so afraid to post your translation?

The word used in Qur?an for slave is clearly written ?

589 not will call you The God in the idle talk in your right hands and nonetheless will call you in what you contract the oath so its reparation feeding ten poor from average what you feed your family or clothing them or freeing a neck (i.e. slave) so from not find so a fast three days that reparation your right hands when you have sworn and guard your right hands like that clarifies The God to you His verses/signs that you may give thanks

Likewise the verses are clearly addressed to believers not slave owners ?

2430-33 say to the believers (masculine) lower from their vision and protect their private parts that purer for them indeed The God Aware in what they do and say to the believers (feminine) they should lower from their gaze and they should guard their chastity and not display their adornment only what apparent from it and let them draw their covering over their bosoms and not display their adornment only to their husbands or their fathers or fathers their husbands or their sons or their sons their husbands or their brothers or children their brothers or children their sisters or women theirs or what possess their right hands or the followers/walkers behind not those the desire from the men or the children the ones who not aware over private the women and not beat with their feet to know what they conceal from their adornment and turn to The God all O you the believers that you may prosper and marry the single/divorced/widowed from you and the righteous from devotees (masculine) yours and devotees (feminine) yours if they are poor enriches them The God from His bounty and The God Encompassing Knowing and let refrain the ones who not will they find marriage until enriches them The God from His bounty ?

Mazhar

Reply 108 Noon

stupid inappropriate translation...

379 not is to a human that gives him The God the book and the wisdom and the prophet-hood then he says to the mankind be (a person who is the legal property of another, unsubmissive, and forced to obey them against their will!!!) to me from besides The God

appropriate better translation...

379 not is to a human that gives him The God the book and the wisdom and the prophet-hood then he says to the mankind be devotees/servants to me from besides The God

Quote of learned Noon

and marry the single/divorced/widowed from you and the righteous from devotees (masculine) yours and devotees (feminine) yours

At both places you are translating it "devotees".

First you are saying that the Messenger of Allah cannot ask people to be his devotees.
Then you say "your devotees" saying people have devotees.

Do you find some contradiction in your "appropriate" translations?

Noon_waalqalami

Quote of learned Noon

At both places you are translating it "devotees".

First you are saying that the Messenger of Allah cannot ask people to be his devotees.
Then you say "your devotees" saying people have devotees.

Do you find some contradiction in your "appropriate" translations?

No contradiction, you cannot read or comprehend a thing; don't read context or who is being addressed, and you are mindlessly inserting slave same as the hearsay followers.

221 be devoted/serve your Lord ....

Do people possess The Lord? Are people unwilling slaves?

Owners of slaves and supporters of slavery are not believers nor can a believer be a slave to another person; death is better than oppression and those enslaved should try free themselves and the believers should always help them.

Mazhar

No contradiction, you cannot read or comprehend a thing; don't read context or who is being addressed, and you are mindlessly inserting slave same as the hearsay followers.

Are you serious in your red part? Is this the appropriate way of translating you are doing and suggesting?

They will not ask people to become their devotees instead of Allah.
They have devotees for whom they should arrange marriages.

Nothing contradictory in these two statements coming from the same source?

Noon_waalqalami

Are you serious in your red part? Is this the appropriate way of translating you are doing and suggesting?

They will not ask people to become their devotees instead of Allah.
They have devotees for whom they should arrange marriages.

Nothing contradictory in these two statements coming from the same source?

Then post the two verses exactly verbatim with their exact meaning show the contradiction?

Why are you so afraid to post your translation?
Highlight below where you read a contradiction?

379 not is to a human that gives him The God the book and the wisdom and the prophet-hood then he says to the mankind be devotees/servants to me from besides The God

589 not will call you The God in the idle talk in your right hands and nonetheless will call you in what you contract the oath so its reparation feeding ten poor from average what you feed your family or clothing them or freeing a neck (i.e. slave) so from not find so a fast three days that reparation your right hands when you have sworn and guard your right hands like that clarifies The God to you His verses/signs that you may give thanks

Likewise the verses are clearly addressed to believers not slave owners ?

2430-33 say to the believers (masculine) lower from their vision and protect their private parts that purer for them indeed The God Aware in what they do and say to the believers (feminine) they should lower from their gaze and they should guard their chastity and not display their adornment only what apparent from it and let them draw their covering over their bosoms and not display their adornment only to their husbands or their fathers or fathers their husbands or their sons or their sons their husbands or their brothers or children their brothers or children their sisters or women theirs or what possess their right hands or the followers/walkers behind not those the desire from the men or the children the ones who not aware over private the women and not beat with their feet to know what they conceal from their adornment and turn to The God all O you the believers that you may prosper and marry the single/divorced/widowed from you and the righteous from devotees (masculine) yours and devotees (feminine) yours if they are poor enriches them The God from His bounty and The God Encompassing Knowing and let refrain the ones who not will they find marriage until enriches them The God from His bounty ?

Mazhar

You have posted. See also post 127 and then two statements taken from your translation.

The word devotee at both places creates contradiction.

By the way have you even checked the meanings of word "devote" for which alternative word you have used "servant"?

Noon_waalqalami

We are going circles; does one have to post definitions of slave unwilling; forced, etc. vs. devote servant.

I want to see your translation and likewise in context who are these people willing/unwilling participants?

4118 your devotees/servants
5118 your devotees/servants

Mazhar

We are going circles; does one have to post definitions of slave unwilling; forced, etc. vs. devote servant.

I want to see your translation and likewise in context who are these people willing/unwilling participants?

4118 your devotees/servants
5118 your devotees/servants

My translation is there in the threads--also my thread "Ma Malakat aimanukum". I do not use slave.

I hope you know that single Abd is a Relational Word. It exists when there exist at least two persons. Therefore, it will signify little different connotations with reference to the semantic field it is used in, while retaining the basic perception infolded in its Root.
I also do not use "worshipping" or "worshipper" since it does not represent the Arabic word. In the Semantic field where the Lord is Allah the Exalted, I could find "allegiant" in English. And this can also be used when the semantic field is about this relationship between persons, because it also denotes the feudal obligation of a vassal to a liege lord.

ths

This has been one ugly 14-page argument.

And all this stuff has appeared many many many times in the past...a simple forum search would produce far better debates on ma malakat aymanukum and slavery...

Anyway guys, the translations always translate 3abd and raqabah and others as slaves. The translations make no difference between them, and that is silly.

3abd is best translated as servant. You never read the Quran advocating the freeing of 3abds
raqabah = slave. That is why the Quran keeps telling us to free them
Aseera / Asaaraa = war captives/prisoners.
3abdan mamlukan = literally owned servant. See 1675

Mazhar, you have said yourself that the beauty of the Quran is in its succinctness and brevity. So if 3abd already means slave, then why add "owned" to this particular occurrence in 1675?

Examples

Raqabah

2177

True piety is this to believe in God, and the Last Day, the angels, the Book, and the Prophets, to give of one's substance, however cherished, to kinsmen, and orphans, the needy, the traveller, beggars, and to ransom the slave,

492

the freeing of a believing slave

These make it clear that raqabahs are meant to be freed.

The reason slaves were called 3abd by Arabs, was because, as Mazhar has already pointed out, slaves were treated very differently in the Middle East. They weren't owned labourers in the western sense of the word with shackles on their necks and feet. They were servants with some rights due to them.

Compare them to the mamluks. Arabs, and later Turks, liked to invade Turkic tribes and eastern European nations and pillage them and bring back boys. These boys were stuck into military schools and used for the Janissaries and elite forces who had no tribal biases or leanings. They were called "mamluks". The same word that we are looking at "ma malakat". It means possessed, or owned.

Anyway, a last word on this argument that went on for a few pages regarding "aymanihum" and "aymanukum".

This is a confusion as a result of a lack of knowledge of Arabic grammar. It's the same difference as "muslimoon" and "muslimeen" and has to do with the structure of the sentence and who is the actor and who is acted upon (faa3il and maf3oul bih), and the majroor and mansub and all that stuff that I studied ages ago.

So for example

589 ...

God will not take you to task for a slip in your oaths; but He will take you to task for such bonds as you have made by oaths...but keep your oaths

The first occurrence of 'oaths', aymanIkum, is an Ism Majroor

The second, al-aymaanA is an Ism Mansub

The third, aymaanAkum is an Ism Mansub as well.

So let's take 1671

Here, "aymaanU" from "ma malakat aymaanUhum" is an Ism Marfou3

I believe it is marfou3 here because it is the doer. Ie the aymaan are the doers of the verb, possessed.

Another example of an Ism Marfou3

3350

YameenUka here is again an Ism Marfou3

And last example

2453

aymaanIhim here is an Ism Majroor. Same as the 1st example from 589

The reason it is majrur is because of AllahI. AllahI is majrur because of the preposition attached to it bil-llahi

So the point of all this, is to show that the key word is Yameeni, or Aymaan (right hands).
And right hands are taken to be oaths, which is why they are translated as oaths in all cases.
And the ending of the word, whether aymaanU or aymaanA or aymaanI, depends entirely on its position in the sentence.
And the term ma malakat aymanukum uses the aymaanU because aymaanU is marfou3 in that sentence structure. It is the 'doer' or 'actor'.

So ma malakat aymaanukum literally means what you possess by your right hands.
But aymaan is taken in the Quran to mean oaths in every instance, and we can thus logically translate it as "what you possess by your oaths".

The only logical resolution from that step, is someone you have sworn allegiance or loyalty to, like a betrothal agreement or a fiance or something like that.

Now I'm in no way an expert on this stuff. I took this stuff in school about 20 years ago and hated it when I took it. I just thought I'd mention this stuff because the argument circled around aymaanihim and aymaanuhum for quite a few pages.

Maha

ths

raqabah = slave. That is why the Quran keeps telling us to free them

Raqabah means prisioner (From the word RAQB=NECK) and we are told to free PRISIONERS. Slaves are of course included since every slave is a prisioner, but not all prisioners are slaves.

Peace

ths

I've never even heard this theory that raqabah means prisoners, although you're right, raqabah means neck and comes from raqeeb (watcher) and can therefore logically be defined as prisoners too because they are also watched.

However I wrote down all the terms as they appear in the Quran.

The word for prisoner is Aseerah (pl. Asaaraa). And it's still in use today. A prisoner today is called one of these
And a prisoner of war is today called an ie prisoner of war

And not only that, but calling a raqabah a prisoner doesn't make sense logically. How are people supposed to go about freeing prisoners? Did they all have prisoners at home in a dungeon that they could free whenever they wanted? Or did they have the authority to go to a prison and randomly free whoever they wanted?

Aseer has always meant, and still means today prisoners. So I'm not sure why you feel the need to add prisoners to the definition of raqabah, when the context that 'raqabah' appears in never suits the definition 'prisoner'.

Maha

I've never even heard this theory that raqabah means prisoners, although you're right, raqabah means neck and comes from raqeeb (watcher) and can therefore logically be defined as prisoners too because they are also watched.

However I wrote down all the terms as they appear in the Quran.

The word for prisoner is Aseerah (pl. Asaaraa). And it's still in use today. A prisoner today is called one of these
And a prisoner of war is today called an ie prisoner of war

And not only that, but calling a raqabah a prisoner doesn't make sense logically. How are people supposed to go about freeing prisoners? Did they all have prisoners at home in a dungeon that they could free whenever they wanted? Or did they have the authority to go to a prison and randomly free whoever they wanted?

Aseer has always meant, and still means today prisoners. So I'm not sure why you feel the need to add prisoners to the definition of raqabah, when the context that 'raqabah' appears in never suits the definition 'prisoner'.

Aseer are captives, so yes they are in a way prisioners but not exactly like raqabah.
Raqabah is prisioned by a huge burden, something strangled him/her.
If someone for instance are in a huge dept (and perhaps jailed due to the dept) you could free him/her by paying the dept, no? The person here is raqabah not aseer.

nimnimak_11

This has been one ugly 14-page argument.

And all this stuff has appeared many many many times in the past...a simple forum search would produce far better debates on ma malakat aymanukum and slavery...

Anyway guys, the translations always translate 3abd and raqabah and others as slaves. The translations make no difference between them, and that is silly.

3abd is best translated as servant. You never read the Quran advocating the freeing of 3abds
raqabah = slave. That is why the Quran keeps telling us to free them
Aseera / Asaaraa = war captives/prisoners.
3abdan mamlukan = literally owned servant. See 1675

Mazhar, you have said yourself that the beauty of the Quran is in its succinctness and brevity. So if 3abd already means slave, then why add "owned" to this particular occurrence in 1675?

Examples

Raqabah

2177

True piety is this to believe in God, and the Last Day, the angels, the Book, and the Prophets, to give of one's substance, however cherished, to kinsmen, and orphans, the needy, the traveller, beggars, and to ransom the slave,

492

the freeing of a believing slave

These make it clear that raqabahs are meant to be freed.

The reason slaves were called 3abd by Arabs, was because, as Mazhar has already pointed out, slaves were treated very differently in the Middle East. They weren't owned labourers in the western sense of the word with shackles on their necks and feet. They were servants with some rights due to them.

Compare them to the mamluks. Arabs, and later Turks, liked to invade Turkic tribes and eastern European nations and pillage them and bring back boys. These boys were stuck into military schools and used for the Janissaries and elite forces who had no tribal biases or leanings. They were called "mamluks". The same word that we are looking at "ma malakat". It means possessed, or owned.

Anyway, a last word on this argument that went on for a few pages regarding "aymanihum" and "aymanukum".

This is a confusion as a result of a lack of knowledge of Arabic grammar. It's the same difference as "muslimoon" and "muslimeen" and has to do with the structure of the sentence and who is the actor and who is acted upon (faa3il and maf3oul bih), and the majroor and mansub and all that stuff that I studied ages ago.

So for example

589 ...

God will not take you to task for a slip in your oaths; but He will take you to task for such bonds as you have made by oaths...but keep your oaths

The first occurrence of 'oaths', aymanIkum, is an Ism Majroor

The second, al-aymaanA is an Ism Mansub

The third, aymaanAkum is an Ism Mansub as well.

So let's take 1671

Here, "aymaanU" from "ma malakat aymaanUhum" is an Ism Marfou3

I believe it is marfou3 here because it is the doer. Ie the aymaan are the doers of the verb, possessed.

Another example of an Ism Marfou3

3350

YameenUka here is again an Ism Marfou3

And last example

2453

aymaanIhim here is an Ism Majroor. Same as the 1st example from 589

The reason it is majrur is because of AllahI. AllahI is majrur because of the preposition attached to it bil-llahi

So the point of all this, is to show that the key word is Yameeni, or Aymaan (right hands).
And right hands are taken to be oaths, which is why they are translated as oaths in all cases.
And the ending of the word, whether aymaanU or aymaanA or aymaanI, depends entirely on its position in the sentence.
And the term ma malakat aymanukum uses the aymaanU because aymaanU is marfou3 in that sentence structure. It is the 'doer' or 'actor'.

So ma malakat aymaanukum literally means what you possess by your right hands.
But aymaan is taken in the Quran to mean oaths in every instance, and we can thus logically translate it as "what you possess by your oaths".

The only logical resolution from that step, is someone you have sworn allegiance or loyalty to, like a betrothal agreement or a fiance or something like that.

Now I'm in no way an expert on this stuff. I took this stuff in school about 20 years ago and hated it when I took it. I just thought I'd mention this stuff because the argument circled around aymaanihim and aymaanuhum for quite a few pages.

Thanks for mentioning.

Bigmo

ths
Raqabah means prisioner (From the word RAQB=NECK) and we are told to free PRISIONERS. Slaves are of course included since every slave is a prisioner, but not all prisioners are slaves.

Peace

Freeing prioners is a state function that is why the Quran ordered the prophet concerning them. We are told to feed the priosoners as at that time the believers had to manage things themselves. But prisoners of war is a state function. Feeing slaves is an individual act since the owner can be aproached and its his private property.

There has been some interpretation that says its freeing debt or covering someone's debt. It really makes no difference since its all charity however freeing a slave is more urgent.