Muhammad Asad's 70:30
-
Salam.
I know that this is probably a really stupid question but it's bothering me and I want to hear other opinions.I was reading Muhammad Asad's The Message Of Quran and this is how he translated 7029-30
"(those) who are mindful of their chastity, with any but their spouses - that is, those whom they rightfully possess - for then, behold, they are free of all blame"
In the comment he says the conjunction "aw" doesn't mean "or", but it has an explanatory function.
If this is the right translation does it mean that wives are possession of their husband? Isn't it degrading?
-
He has translated ma malakat aymanukum as an explanation of spouses and though I agree that in this case the wa is "or" not "and" I think he has made into too much trouble to make it assimilable to modern western thought.
Actually what is says "what your right hand possesses". Many people tend to forget the "right hand" and fix on the possess part forget the right hand part. But the right hand part is there for something. Right hand is there for good. Something in your right hand is something that you hold for good puprposes, to whom you commit to good. That is your right hand possessess de capacity to do good for those persons.
And something else, woen can also exercise right hand possession.
Salaam
-
Peace
Aw means or and introduces alternatives in the sense of..
I feel like a taco or two
As opposed to am which also means or but is used more in the sense of an opposed alternative rather than a friendly alternative, like
Is this for real or not?
I gave up on translations, while for the main part they are generally straightforward, when it comes to such verses with legal rulings etc they sometimes distorted. I recommend learning Arabic, it's simple to learn, at least the Quran is.
-
Peace Wakas.
I disagree with you. Asad himself wrote
As regards the style of my translation, I have consciously avoided using unnecessary archaisms, which would only tend to obscure the meaning of the Quran to the contemporary reader. On the other hand, I did not see any necessity of rendering Quranic phrases into a deliberately "modern" idiom, which would conflict with the spirit of the Arabic original and jar upon any ear attuned to the solemnity inherent in the concept of the revelation.
...although it is impossible to 'reproduce' the Qur'an as such in any other language, it is none the less possible to render its message comprehensible to people who, like most Westerners, do not know Arabic...well enough to find their way through it unaided?And I am fully aware that my rendering does not and could not really 'do justice' to the Qur'an and the layers upon layers of its meaning for, 'if all the sea were ink for my Sustainer's words, the sea would indeed be exhausted ere my Sustainer's words are exhausted.' (Qur'an 18109).While all translations done through hard work and sincerity deserve recognition,I think it is a matter of "bias" with some to prefer certain translations that agree with their conceived"upbringing".
Also,quote
No translation of the Holy Quran can truly reproduce the majesty of the Arabic original. There will always remain among readers a legitimate debate as to which translation comes closer to the meaning of Allah?s Words.The best evidence for comparison( And you also ask for evidence and rightly so) is to put the translations verse to verse with each other and analyse "scientifically" and with an independent panel .Simply there will be no agreement . Or GOD would need to authorise a version and inspire/help... a"messenger" to come up with the best translation...Even then there will be no agreement.
Having said that ,you are entitled to your opinion.
GOD bless you.
Peace. -
Why would you agree on 1 case "wa" to be "or"and not "and"?
btw there is no wa but an aw (assuming you are not talking about the start of 7029).
There are common instances in the Qur'an where you have to understand wa as "or" or it would not make sense. I do not remember now a particular case. On the other hand there are other very convinient translations where an "or" would be much fitter, but it would go against some convenient translation as and which suits the preference of certain establishments.
In the case at hand the logical meanning is "or" unless we are really committed to the idea that God allows to have spouse and besides a few or many others arrengaments. You have one or the other, not both. Of course the trick is not merely in tranlation but in self serving reading of the original by its readers.
On the other hand it is grammatically quite correct. Conjunctions and prepositions do not automatically follow he most common or preferred meanig. Preposition 3alaa is translated systematically as over but many,many times, it is not that. Language usage is ignored in particuclar if it the over meaning suits some preconceived idea.
Salaam
-
Regarding translations in general, we must not forget that translators are human, that translating the Qur'an is a very ambitious endeavour and that the fact of undertaking it with the high aim of making thins easier for those interested is already in itself deserving of all praise and encouragement.
But what we cannot and should not expect from a translator is to make a translation as good as the original. It is unfair and it would be tyranical. They are nto God , they cannot, but we should take advatage of their effort not to reliefve us from making any effort but to help us to ake our own effort.If something shocks us in the translated qur'an and makes us feel that we do not identify with something because it revolts our sense of justice or truth, then we should not let it go, whatever the translations says. Translations are improvable ALWAYS.
Regarding Asad, he did make a real effort and deserves praise. Perfect no way and we shoudl not expect that either. He did what he could, we shhould do what we can with his trnaslation or any other translation.
Translators are hhuman and along the trnaslation they get numbed with the job. I have seen that Asad for instance trnaslates to may taste quite properly the mamalakat... as what the rights possess in many places and then somewhere he ets carried away and trnaslates slaves... That obviously was a slip, involuntary, I should think. That should not lead us to disparage translators, but rather to assume our own responsibility of thinking and reflecting on each matter.
We must e thankful that there is an original text to which we can revert and try our best together with other interested and honest readers.
Always rememering that only the pure can "touch" the Qur'an. I have seen instances, not at all uncommon, of people who know no Arabic and had insights which were right on the spot when you examined them. That may be purity which made them see through all the noise and get to the real substance.
No doubt some translations are worse than others, even really bad, but without getting that deep, there many around which help us along. I think they deserve respect and thakfulness. They also deserve criticism for our own good, and for the translators satisfaction, since we ust take it that their aim was not to mislead but to help. They are huble servants just as we should be.
Salaam
-
Peace,
If all of mankind and the Jinn gathered together to produce the like of the Quran they could not. Hence it is impossible to translate or reproduce, but you can derive a clear interpretation from most of it if you are sincere.
And on terms of wa and it's meaning is a pictograph of a hook, or a stake/peg hence it ties things together, or secures them, hence it's usage
Much of Arabic still retains its Semitic influence from the pictographs, and often a study of the letters that make up the words can lead to a better understanding of their intended meaning
In English, a comma is more or less an accurate translation of wa, in terms of usage and meaning, but so is and. as you can hopefully see.
-
peace, it's straight forward...
2431 and say to the believers (feminine pl.) lower they from vision/gaze theirs and guarded they intimate parts theirs and not display adornment theirs except what cognizant from it and to striked they with cover theirs on bosoms theirs and not display adornment theirs except to husbands theirs or forefathers (paternal/maternal) theirs or fathers husbands theirs or sons theirs or sons husbands theirs or brothers theirs or sons brothers theirs or sons sisters theirs or nisahinna/womenfolk (i.e. female relatives) theirs or what hold/entrusted aymnuhunna/right hands theirs (feminine pl.) or the attendants/walkers behind other than nearest the desire from the menfolk or the young the ones not cognizant they of on private the womenfolk and not striked they with feet theirs to know what conceal from adornment theirs and turn ye of to the god all/united of you the believing that may you succeeding
2461 not is on the blind critical and not on the lame critical and not on the sick critical and not on souls yours/yourselves that thou eat ye of from houses yours or houses forefathers (paternal/maternal) yours or houses mothers yours or houses brothers yours or houses sisters yours or houses paternal uncles yours or houses paternal aunts yours or houses maternal uncles yours or houses maternal aunts yours or what hold/entrusted you keys its or friend yours not is upon you blame that thou eat ye of all/united of or in groups so when entered you houses of so greet ye of on souls yours/yourselves salutation from near/with the god blessed pleasant like such shows the god for you the signs that may you understanding
7030 except on spouses theirs or what hold/entrusted aymnuhum/right hands theirs so surely they other than blameworthy
-
meem noon, this is the link to the Message of the Quran http//muhammad-asad.com/Message-of-Quran.pdf
I'm not sure if I should write this here or in another post. I've been thinking about this all night and I just can't find a satisfactory interpretation.
These are the various interpretations of 7030 and 235 that I could come up with
- You can have sex with your wives or slaves/maidens/whatever-you-want-ma-malakat-aymanuhum-to-mean alike. (This interpretation contradicts 2433, where it clearly says that both free people and slaves who can't marry should abstain from sexual relations);
- You can have sex with slaves only if you are not married. (Again, it contradicts 2433);
- You can have sex with your wives only. (This refers to Muhammad Asad's translation. Wives are never referred to as "those you rightfully possess" or "those your right hands possess" in the Qur'an, so this interpretation is probably wrong. Also, the word "spouse" is clear enough, why would God feel the need to clarify that your spouses are those maintained by your oaths? We already know);
- You can uncover your private parts in front of your wives and slaves/maidens/etc. (Not referring to sex. This would make sense because women in 2431 can show their body in front of male slaves, but "aw" means "or", not "and"
- You can uncover your private parts in front of your wives or slaves/maidens/etc. (But it doesn't make sense, because it would mean that you can choose to uncover your private parts in front of your slaves/maidens/etc. instead of your wives. Who would ever do this?);
- You can have sex with your wives or your slaves/maidens/etc. AFTER your marry them. (They are put in two different categories because slaves in marriage aren't equal to free wives. For example, the punishment for adultery is half the punishment of a free woman. I don't think this makes sense either, because regardless of the differences between a free wife and a slave wife, once you marry a slave she becomes your wife. What is the point of separating the two, then?).
Some people argue that acquiring a slave required a contract similar to a marriage contract, therefore you could have sex with them. But this poses some problems
- If the contract is similar to a marriage, then why does God say if you can't afford the dowry marry a slave? You might say "Okay, but when you marry a slave you are upgrading her to a different level, so she has the same rights as a free wife". Well, no! When you marry a slave she still has different rights (like that punishment for adultery thing). So there is no freaking difference in marrying or just owning a slave! I don't get it;
- Men can only have 4 wives for a reason. Why can't you support slaves financially without having sex with them?
- What about male slaves? Were they "married" to their male owners? -.-
By the way, how were slaves allotted? Could slaves refuse to be taken? The Qur'an says don't force people into marriage, does it count only for free people?
Another question that I have is if we're all equal why are captives described as if they were lower than us? Like, the fact that you can marry a slave ONLY if you can't afford the dowry for a free woman. Or the fact that they are treated differently in punishment, etc. Why?
-
The more you reflect on that common interpretation the stupider it seems, does it not?
Be well
Qarael Amenuel -
Nice to meet another Noon, Salam... Slightly off here.... What does waalqalami mean, Mr Noon? Thank you.
i think its ( noon wal qalam.. )
pronounced as noon walqalami.. meanings (noon the pen) 68/1
-
Open up a post for yourself and tell us your frustrations like brothers imran and hansolo. Maybe you need to let off some steam.
just want to correct you.. i dnt have any frustration or confusion .
i m a believer of God so if i m unable to understand something dosent mean i have frsutration ,
i just simply failed to understand the grand scheme of God regarding purpose of humanbeing.. in exact sense..i m not the first one , malaika also questioned the same thing.. they got their answer ,
i got my answer from them (maliaka) its different matter if i am not understanding the exact answer...
becoz if advance brains(maliks) get satisfaction we will get satisfaction too , in this thing my logic manage to make me believe on unseen ==> through book of God , there must b a purpose and God did not create all this in mere play... (hope you understand my frustration now) and theere is no need to frustrate on it... but to ponder on it ...by pondering on first task what humanity achieved (in the story of adam) is addressed below...
thats one thing i observe human being is a learning creature , he learn from others through communication too... thats why from adam to here at this age .. we see the mode of transport and commnication always get advance same like gravity locked the water fall downward..
human being always want to learn/explore/ponder the creation whatever God spread around him...
including, science, astronommy, physical laws & chemical laws of nature.. even computer technology, evolve from arithmatic device to connecting device..
stage after stage... we are trying to understand the story of universe.. because we are the part of universe its story is our story... -
Peace Man Of Faith.
You say,quote
The more you reflect on that common interpretation the stupider it seems, does it not?Let us then reflect on 235 and 7030 together.
235 and 7030 is saying one or the other...Altogether one. Your spouse( The one that comes with a ceremony and a marriage certificate as conformed by man s system) or your partner( The one that is rightfully/legally yours,you two have taken a contract to stay together as partners but not recognised/done the ceremony and certificate as so many couples are doing in many countries).
GOD recognises both and calls it right in both verses.
Does it seem so stupid now? Your spouse or what is rightfully/legally yours.
Oh and,that is my understanding brother.
GOD bless you.
Peace. -
early scholars translated the GF/partner relationship as slave, which is a poor defination of arabic word what gives a meanings of rightfully yours perfectly covers all that relationships which based on absence of marriage ceremony , like in africa jungles the couples who are not married but they have children together... and they love eachother ... same like that in europe one of my friend and his girl friend get married after 3 kids ... so its dosent mean before their wedding what they did was something wrong. becoz she was rightfully belong to him...
God knows best
-
Please see
http//quranix.org/1peace wakas , hope you allright...
i also use this link often , its Got all quran alone translations...
but with a slight problem a missing verses of chapter 9 128 and 129 ... may b 19ers owned this link..
-
meem noon, I can see that 7030 uses the word jhm and doesn't use the word abd, but it does use ma malakat aymanuhum.
I know that slavery is abolished now, but it still kinda bothers me to know that these used to be the rules. Slaves and free people should be equal. You wouldn't have sex with a slave because you are probably a person with morals, but it bugs me the fact that the God himself gave the ok to have sexual relations with slaves.
I'm getting my ideas from the Qur'an. I'm okay with everything the Qur'an says, but this is the only thing I can't wrap my head around.
By the way, thank you for your kind words )Btw which Spice Girl are you? ;D
LOL! I would've never expected anyone in here to understand the reference. I guess I'm a crossbreed between Baby and Scary laugh
