Ma Malakat Emanakum" A Refutation to Brother Ayman;s understanding
-
Peace Warner,
As you can clearly see above I am not against the definition of ?Oath? for yamin (aymanakum). This meaning is found in the verses you gave but also the same words are used for right side and right hand found in the following verses 1952, 2080, 2830 ,717,1648,1771, 1817-18,2017,2069 (yamin- ayman) and 568, 568, 9018(maymanah). Moses had the staff in his right hand not wrapped in an oath whatever that means.
You are completely missing the point. Even if we didn't have all the passages where "aymanakum" clearly means oath and it really meant "right hand" everywhere, you still have to explain how you can possess people in your right hand like Moses held the staff. Of course, this is nonsensical when applied to people and not objects, unless you are talking about Thumbelina that can fit in your hand!!! Despite the clear logical difficulties presented by the "right hand" interpretation people still chose that bizzare meaning for one reason that you, I and everyone here knows. There is no point in stating the obvious when you can't seem to see what is wrong with enslaving women and children in the first place.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Ayman
Maybe you did not read my posts on the subject. There was no mention of enslaving.
You only underlined a part of it but purposely left out the following points of my post.
?assigned to guardians under an oath to protect them look after them and keep them in their houses? and ?at the same time to make sure they are not harmed and compelled and to assure their welfare? ?He or she has to provide for the MMA and give them security. You can not compel the MMA to change their religion? and ?They have rights (2433) and the Quraan instructs to give charity and be good (436) to them? and ?They are not definitely slaves but they are part of the house hold?You have not answered part of my questions.
-
Peace Warner,
Yes, you should indeed be sorry. When 589 talks about fasting three days is it for breaking "our right hand" (aymanukum) or breaking our oath? Is 1691 talking about breaking the right hand? Is 5108 talking about returning someone's "right hand"? Is 433 talking about the tying of your right hand? Are 1694, 912, 913, 662, etc., etc., ... talking about the right hand?!!
Even without the many examples in the great reading that are too numerous to list here and where "aymanukum" clearly means "your oath", we can see that it cannot mean "your right hand" by any stretch of the imagination. How can it be "what your right hand possess"? Are they some key chains that you hold in your right hand? Are they like a Barbie doll that you hold in your right hand? Surely, you can see that even without all the evidence from the great reading, the meaning of "right hand" doesn't make any sense except in the fantasies of medieval chauvinistic Abbassid era interpreters.
Peace Brother Ayman
You know we all appreciate and love your forward thinking, it is only due to people like you , that we have improved the wrong understandings due to erroneous translations. Not that i would like to be in a position at the receiving end of slavery but history is loaded with overwhelming evidence, which is outside the scope of this thread.
All my life , i have been assuring myself , that there could be a chance that the common perception is wrong, and i would not find such a practice in great reading . But brother just accidentally, when i stumbled upon the subject and ended up scrutinizing the issue in detail, to my horror i found overwhelming evidences in favour of the common understanding . As sis honor said , that she will ask God as to why did he not forbid this practice with a clear commandment , i guess i shall join her on J.D.
As for your translating the word as oath ; it is true. Oath is the other meaning and used at many places in Quran, but Brother when God uses , "Ma Malakant Emanakum", as one phrase , he means to convey a certain message through this proverb.
Which is , what your right hand posses, meaning what you hold or posses . It is like what you really have under your complete control , something in your fist, on which you have complete authority, you control their destiny,etc.
NOT, what you actually hold in your right hand. When you say that some body is your right hand , does it mean that he is your right hand? It means that he is a great helping hand, someone that i bank upon as a support.
Indeed , God has used just the right word to describe these people in the correct sense. ONE word to describe every body in that category.
Let's give some credit to the past generations , after all they also did some work , it is appreciable that we/you take a second look at every thing in Quran , but lets not dismiss the overwhelming evidence with unsound arguments, in an attempt to negate what we don't want to believe.
PEACE
sikandar
-
If I may add something to the meaning of MMA, I would refer us to the story of Prophet Musa where he met some maidens and helped them. They went back and told their father and this developed into love. The father told Musa to work for him for some years and he agreed. This stood in as the dowry. He did stay behind and also worked as agreed. All the while He was with her and She was his MMA . If you notice after the service God said he left with his family and not his wife. So you see the point iam making. While she was his MMA she even bore him a family before she bacame his wife. MMA means those that you have sworn an oath of agreement with in the prescence of their parents to pay their dowries at a later date. This is my understanding
-
Peace be with you Ansi
Thanks for joining the thread.
Those verses do not say or even indirectly point out that the lady Moses met was later his MMA.
Also try to check the contradictions that will arise with this definition if you try to apply it to other verses in the Quran with regard to MMA.
-
Peace Siki,
You know we all appreciate and love your forward thinking, it is only due to people like you , that we have improved the wrong understandings due to erroneous translations. Not that i would like to be in a position at the receiving end of slavery but history is loaded with overwhelming evidence, which is outside the scope of this thread.
Actually, slavery was rare and has always been the exclusive domain of a small tyrannical elite. Average people didn't have slaves and the good elite had employees.
All my life , i have been assuring myself , that there could be a chance that the common perception is wrong, and i would not find such a practice in great reading . But brother just accidentally, when i stumbled upon the subject and ended up scrutinizing the issue in detail, to my horror i found overwhelming evidences in favour of the common understanding . As sis honor said , that she will ask God as to why did he not forbid this practice with a clear commandment , i guess i shall join her on J.D.
Slavery is not even mentioned in the great reading (and so are many other evils). It became an issue long after the great reading was descended. It became an issue after the expansion of the early Jewish-Saracen empire but even then, we hear from the conquered peopler that it was only the elite few who had slaves.
As for your translating the word as oath ; it is true. Oath is the other meaning and used at many places in Quran, but Brother when God uses , "Ma Malakant Emanakum", as one phrase , he means to convey a certain message through this proverb.
Which is , what your right hand posses, meaning what you hold or posses . It is like what you really have under your complete control , something in your fist, on which you have complete authority, you control their destiny,etc.
NOT, what you actually hold in your right hand. When you say that some body is your right hand , does it mean that he is your right hand? It means that he is a great helping hand, someone that i bank upon as a support.
Actually, you are wrong. The expression "ma malakat aymanukum" is not the only way used in the great reading to describe that category. The expression "alathin aqadat aymanukum" is used to describe the same people in 433. Here is how all translators translate 433
004.033
YUSUFALI To (benefit) every one, We have appointed shares and heirs to property left by parents and relatives. To those, also, to whom your right hand was pledged, give their due portion. For truly Allah is witness to all things.
PICKTHAL And unto each We have appointed heirs of that which parents and near kindred leave; and as for those with whom your right hands have made a covenant, give them their due. Lo! Allah is ever Witness over all things.
SHAKIR And to every one We have appointed heirs of what parents and near relatives leave; and as to those with whom your rights hands have ratified agreements, give them their portion; surely Allah is a witness over all things.
KHALIFA For each of you, we have designated shares from the inheritance left by the parents and the relatives. Also those related to you through marriage, you shall give them their due share. GOD witnesses all things.Why am I not surprised that there is no mention of slaves here? Because now the passage talks about giving them their DUE SHARE. Of course this would either force the elite to give slaves their rights or force them to admit that they are not really slaves. This has nothing to do with linguistics or logic. There is no logical or linguistic reason to make a distinction.
Indeed , God has used just the right word to describe these people in the correct sense. ONE word to describe every body in that category.
From my experience in debating this issue, the meaning chosen says more about the person doing the interpretation than about what the actual text says. As you described above, "ma malakat aymanukum" being translated as "what your right hand possess" evokes the meaning of "what you really have under your complete control , something in your fist, on which you have complete authority, you control their destiny,etc.". On the other hand, "what your oath possesses" reverses the roles. So now the commitment is from the one making the oath to them and given what we are told about not breaking our oath in the great reading, this oath controls the person who made it. Of course, those who have prejudices, insecurites or desires are likely to interpret it as the former.
Let's give some credit to the past generations , after all they also did some work , it is appreciable that we/you take a second look at every thing in Quran , but lets not dismiss the overwhelming evidence with unsound arguments, in an attempt to negate what we don't want to believe.
All credit is due to the god. Only the tyrannical elite of past generations benefited from slavery and their arguments are certainly not sound.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace
1675
Daraballa_hu masalan 'abdam mamlu_kal la_ yaqdiru 'ala_ syai'iw wa mar razaqna_hu minna_ rizqan hasanan fa huwa yunfiqu minhu sirraw wa jahra_(n), hal yastawu_n(a), al hamdu lilla_h(i), bal aksaruhum la_ ya'lamu_n(a).
Yusuf Ali Allah sets forth the Parable (of two men one) a slave under the dominion of another; he has no power of any sort; and (the other) a man on whom We have bestowed goodly favors from ourselves and he spends thereof (freely) privately and publicly are the two equal? (By no means); praise be to Allah. But most of them understand not.
Pickthall Allah coineth a similitude (on the one hand) a (mere) chattel slave, who hath control of nothing, and (on the other hand) one on whom We have bestowed a fair provision from Us, and he spendeth thereof secretly and openly. Are they equal? Praise be to Allah! But most of them know not.
Is this a paid employee?
-
Peace all,
The translation provided by Warner for 1675 illustrates exactly what I am talking about.
1675
Daraballa_hu masalan 'abdam mamlu_kal la_ yaqdiru 'ala_ syai'iw wa mar razaqna_hu minna_ rizqan hasanan fa huwa yunfiqu minhu sirraw wa jahra_(n), hal yastawu_n(a), al hamdu lilla_h(i), bal aksaruhum la_ ya'lamu_n(a).
Yusuf Ali Allah sets forth the Parable (of two men one) a slave under the dominion of another; he has no power of any sort; and (the other) a man on whom We have bestowed goodly favors from ourselves and he spends thereof (freely) privately and publicly are the two equal? (By no means); praise be to Allah. But most of them understand not.
Pickthall Allah coineth a similitude (on the one hand) a (mere) chattel slave, who hath control of nothing, and (on the other hand) one on whom We have bestowed a fair provision from Us, and he spendeth thereof secretly and openly. Are they equal? Praise be to Allah! But most of them know not.
The passage clearly compares two diametirically opposite types of people. To know what the first type means, we need to understand what is the opposite of the second type.
The second type is "one on whom We have bestowed a fair provision from Us, and he spendeth thereof secretly and openly". Is a slave the first thing that comes to mind when we think of the opposite of "one on whom We have bestowed a fair provision from Us, and he spendeth thereof secretly and openly"? Of course not!!!
The opposite of "one on whom We have bestowed a fair provision from Us, and he spendeth thereof secretly and openly" is of course someone who is poor and cannot provide for himself and thus needs support from other people. There is nothing in there about slaves. In fact, slaves don't have to be poor. For many hunderds of years Egypt was ruled by the Mamluks who were slaves but were rich and powerful.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Ayman
What is the meaning of ?abdam mamlu_kal? in 1675?
Can we call the poor abda from today.
And your advice for breaking an oath is to free one of the paid servants/employees.You mean I will have to fire the maid or just keep paying her salary while asking her not to do any work any more? Our maid says she prefers the second option.
-
Peace Warner,
What is the meaning of ?abdam mamlu_kal? in 1675?
Can we call the poor abda from today.The term "abdan" means servant. So "adban mamlukan la yaqdir 3ala shay'" means a "servant who is controlled and who can't do anything". Of course a "servant who is controlled and who can't do anything" is poor and this is why he can't have control and say "I am going to quit today".
And your advice for breaking an oath is to free one of the paid servants/employees.You mean I will have to fire the maid or just keep paying her salary while asking her not to do any work any more? Our maid says she prefers the second option.
It is ironic that you make fun but forget that "ma malakat aymanukum" and "abad" are not mentioned in relation to breaking an oath or any kind of charity. Why am I not surprised that they are not mentioned?
Why do you forget to indicate that the term used in those instances is "raqaba" and not "ma malakat aymanukum" or "abad"?
The word "raqaba" means prisoner. This can be either a prisoner of war or a prisoner who committed a crime. The example of the punishment of the brother of Youssef according to the laws of his family comes to mind.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Siki,
Actually, slavery was rare and has always been the exclusive domain of a small tyrannical elite. Average people didn't have slaves and the good elite had employees.
Slavery is not even mentioned in the great reading (and so are many other evils). It became an issue long after the great reading was descended. It became an issue after the expansion of the early Jewish-Saracen empire but even then, we hear from the conquered peopler that it was only the elite few who had slaves.
peace Ayman
I would tend to agree with you that slavery was the domain off a few , who could afford, average people generally cant afford to have even servants.
But brother dismissing slavery as a rare occurence is incorrect. Slavery has been in practice, and its history extends beyond recorded history (4000-6000 BC). ,what do you say about Nelson Mendela ?what has he been doing all his life? What do you think about the Blacks of North America? who brought them ? and for what ? There were as much as 5 million legal slaves in the so called , " civilized society" in the middle of 18th century ? If such a situation existed, not very far in the past, what would you expect out of a pagan society 1400 years ago?
And do you think, that Almighty would not talk about setting right such an important common "practice" in Great Reading?
we evolve as humans from birth to death , so has the society we live in today, comparing present situation and applying it back in time is incorrect. I think God did not forbid becasue, it was probably premature for the mandkind . So he just went about setting some rules and giving us his tacit feeling about the issue ,and expected us to rid off it in due course of time.
peace
sikandar
-
Actually, you are wrong. The expression "ma malakat aymanukum" is not the only way used in the great reading to describe that category. The expression "alathin aqadat aymanukum" is used to describe the same people in 433. Here is how all translators translate 433
004.033
YUSUFALI To (benefit) every one, We have appointed shares and heirs to property left by parents and relatives. To those, also, to whom your right hand was pledged, give their due portion. For truly Allah is witness to all things.
PICKTHAL And unto each We have appointed heirs of that which parents and near kindred leave; and as for those with whom your right hands have made a covenant, give them their due. Lo! Allah is ever Witness over all things.
SHAKIR And to every one We have appointed heirs of what parents and near relatives leave; and as to those with whom your rights hands have ratified agreements, give them their portion; surely Allah is a witness over all things.
KHALIFA For each of you, we have designated shares from the inheritance left by the parents and the relatives. Also those related to you through marriage, you shall give them their due share. GOD witnesses all things.Why am I not surprised that there is no mention of slaves here? Because now the passage talks about giving them their DUE SHARE. Of course this would either force the elite to give slaves their rights or force them to admit that they are not really slaves. This has nothing to do with linguistics or logic. There is no logical or linguistic reason to make a distinction.
peace ayman
Brother as i mentioned earlier , MA Malkat Emnakum, conveys one meaning and is totally different than what you have mentioned in 4-33, here it is "aqadat aymanukum" . How do you think that they are the same? One is " what you posses in your right hand , and the other is what you commit with a right hand , which is a pledge.
Come on Doc! can't you visualize the difference between "what you posses in right hand ", "some one who is a right hand "and what you "pledge with a right hand" ? , what do you do when you take an OATH , don,t you raise your right hand ?and when you solemnly commit some thing to some one, don't you give him a solid RIGHT HAND?(in his hand)
peace
sikandar -
Peace Siki,
Slavery is not even mentioned in the great reading (and so are many other evils). It became an issue long after the great reading was descended. It became an issue after the expansion of the early Jewish-Saracen empire but even then, we hear from the conquered peopler that it was only the elite few who had slaves.
Peace,
Ayman
Peace Ayman
Bro ! read the following ayahs.
4-92,5-89,58-3,58-4
What is being done here?
The term "Tehreer "is being used , which brother warner has already explained as a written deed to free the slave. And almost every translator , that i have come across has taken this to be as "Freeing a Slave". You can always come up with a reason that this is not clear, but we must understand that certain terminologies are used, which those people then, understood very well , what " TEHREER MEANS."
In my country in the rural areas , the women generally call the divorce paper as "tehreer or "Parcha or a "paper , which when mentioned ,is always correctly understood as the written divorce paper, or a divorce.peace
sikandar
-
Peace Siki,
Actually, slavery was rare and has always been the exclusive domain of a small tyrannical elite. Average people didn't have slaves and the good elite had employees.
Peace,
Ayman
Peace Ayman
And in 2-177 and in some other ayas , Freeing of a slave is described with the word
"Rakkaba", which means , some thing like a rope, bridle that we use to control/restrain the horses. (we use this word in urdu)A beautiful simile for freeing a slave, isn't it ?
peacesikandar
-
Peace be with you,
I guess the following underlined part of the verse is a good evidence for this issue.
2 178
Yusuf Ali O ye who believe! the law of equality is prescribed to you in cases of murder; the free for the free the slave for the slave the woman for the woman. But if any remission is made by the brother of the slain then grant any reasonable demand and compensate him with handsome gratitude; this is a concession and a Mercy from your Lord. After this whoever exceeds the limits shall be in grave penalty.Pickthall O ye who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the murdered; the freeman for the freeman, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female. And for him who is forgiven somewhat by his (injured) brother, prosecution according to usage and payment unto him in kindness. This is an alleviation and a mercy from your Lord. He who transgresseth after this will have a painful doom.
Transliteration Ya_ ayyuhal lazina a_manu_ kutiba 'alaikumul qisa_su fil qatla_, al hurru bil hurri wal 'abdu bil 'abdi wal unsa_ bil unsa_, faman 'ufiya lahu_ min akhihi syai'un fat tiba_'um bil ma'ru_fi wa ada_'un ilaihi bi ihsa_n(in), za_lika takhfifum mir rabbikum wa rahmah(tun), fa mani'tada_ ba'da za_lika fa lahu_ 'aza_bun alim(un).
-
Peace Sikandar, all,
Brother as i mentioned earlier , MA Malkat Emnakum, conveys one meaning and is totally different than what you have mentioned in 4-33, here it is "aqadat aymanukum" . How do you think that they are the same? One is " what you posses in your right hand , and the other is what you commit with a right hand , which is a pledge.
There is no "commit" or "pledge". If we use your "right hand" interpretation, then the term "aqadat aymanukum" literally means "tied by your right hand", which sounds just as bad as "possessed/controlled by your right hand". As I mentioned previously, substituting "oath" in both cases leads to the reversal of the situation. So now "tied by your oath" and "possessed/controlled by your oath" puts the burden squarely on the person making the oath.
Come on Doc! can't you visualize the difference between "what you posses in right hand ", "some one who is a right hand "and what you "pledge with a right hand" ? , what do you do when you take an OATH , don,t you raise your right hand ?and when you solemnly commit some thing to some one, don't you give him a solid RIGHT HAND?(in his hand)
The word "aqadat" doesn't mean pledge. It means "tied". It is no less demeaning than "controlled" or "possessed" when used with "aymanukum" meaning the right hand. This is why all translators (and you) are forced to introduce words like pledge, covenant, and agreement. If you translate "aqadat aymanukum" as "tied by your oath" then all those logical problems would disappear and those non-existent words would not be needed. But then, if you translate "aymanukum" as "oath" in "aqadat aymanukum", you would have to do the same in "malakat aymanukum" and many people are resisting this for reasons that have nothing to do with linguistics or logic.
Bro ! read the following ayahs.
4-92, 5-89, 58-3, 58-4
What is being done here?
The term "Tehreer "is being used , which brother warner has already explained as a written deed to free the slave. And almost every translator , that i have come across has taken this to be as "Freeing a Slave". You can always come up with a reason that this is not clear, but we must understand that certain terminologies are used, which those people then, understood very well , what " TEHREER MEANS."
In my country in the rural areas , the women generally call the divorce paper as "tehreer or "Parcha or a "paper , which when mentioned ,is always correctly understood as the written divorce paper, or a divorce.Can you show me where in those passages, the term "ma malakat aymanukum" occurs? I don't think you can.
And in 2-177 and in some other ayas , Freeing of a slave is described with the word
"Rakkaba", which means , some thing like a rope, bridle that we use to control/restrain the horses. (we use this word in urdu)
A beautiful simile for freeing a slave, isn't it ?The word "raqaba" doesn't mean slave. It means prisoner. I hope that you know the difference.
I guess the following underlined part of the verse is a good evidence for this issue.
2 178
Yusuf Ali O ye who believe! the law of equality is prescribed to you in cases of murder; the free for the free the slave for the slave the woman for the woman. But if any remission is made by the brother of the slain then grant any reasonable demand and compensate him with handsome gratitude; this is a concession and a Mercy from your Lord. After this whoever exceeds the limits shall be in grave penalty.Pickthall O ye who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the murdered; the freeman for the freeman, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female. And for him who is forgiven somewhat by his (injured) brother, prosecution according to usage and payment unto him in kindness. This is an alleviation and a mercy from your Lord. He who transgresseth after this will have a painful doom.
Transliteration Ya_ ayyuhal lazina a_manu_ kutiba 'alaikumul qisa_su fil qatla_, al hurru bil hurri wal 'abdu bil 'abdi wal unsa_ bil unsa_, faman 'ufiya lahu_ min akhihi syai'un fat tiba_'um bil ma'ru_fi wa ada_'un ilaihi bi ihsa_n(in), za_lika takhfifum mir rabbikum wa rahmah(tun), fa mani'tada_ ba'da za_lika fa lahu_ 'aza_bun alim(un).
The three entities described are not opposites. So even if the word "hurru" means "free", this doesn't mean that the other entities are not free (unless you want to propose that all females are slaves too). Therefore, the translation of "abd" as servant still works here. Moreover, the word "hur" can mean "living in luxury" (hence, a related word "harir" means luxurious fabric).
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Ayman
Surely, the verse 2178 does not say the one living in luxury, servant and woman.
Does the verse cover free-men, slave/servant men, free-women and slave/servant women?
Raqaba should include freeing a slave. My opinion is it can be anyone in a situation bound to another whose freedom can be bought by a payment/ransom. I am not certain but maybe even a debtor may fall in to this situation. I do not know how the meaning ?neck? came to associate with ?raqaba?. The word has its background from vigilant ,watchful , alert.
24 33
Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste until Allah gives them means out of His grace. And if any of Ma Malakat Aymanaukum ask for a deed in writing give them such a deed if ye know any good in them; yea give them something yourselves out of the means which Allah has given to you. But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them yet after such compulsion is Allah Oft-Forgiving Most Merciful (to them).Wal yastafifil lazina la_ yajidu_na nika_han hat ta_ yugniyahumul la_hu min fadlih wal lazina yabtagu_nal kita_ba mim ma_ malakat aima_nukum faka_tibu_hum in alimtum fihim hairaw wa a_tu_hum min ma_lil la_hil lazi a_ta_kum wa la_ tukrihu_ fataya_tikum alal biga_i in aradna tahas sunal litabtagu_ aradal haya_tid dun ya_ wa may yukrih huna fa in nal la_ha mim badi ikra_hin na gafu_rur rahim
I meant the "in writing" in the above verse not 4-92, 5-89, 58-3, and 58-4 . But the meaning of free/liberate is clearly understood from theses verses as in 2178 which you try to assert as the one with luxury. Do you mean the MMA require written letters of recommendation from whoever ?
-
Salaam all
This verse 2178 poses another problem for me (and should be for you, too)
Why?
BecauseFirst We already have a detailed verse about murder and manslaughter, based on the kind of covenant there is between the victim and the murderer (peace or enemity); not on gender. gender in fact is not menssioned, but "nafs"
Second does this verse tell me that if my slave is murdered by some people (not slaves) I should seek their slave and murder him even if he is innocent? Sounds like the revenge practiced in upper Egypt!!
Third The verse mentions male slave, free male.....mmm females! So, here females are equal, and this should surely blow up all the traditionalist understanding of MMA as female slaves with their specific laws.
To my understanding, thise verse is not about humans, but animals. They are the ones that have free pedigree and not free, and where the female stands in a category of its own. And also you can take one of the animals of the aggressors, without thinking whether this animal is innocent or not (take it as compensation of your loos if you lose a female, take a female)
-
Peace Samia
This can not be about animals.
I can not recollect all the verses dealing with murder and manslaughter and relative action. As I remember the intentional killing and unintentional killing of a believer and also killing of believers among two warring parties of believers is covered in the other verses.
In 2178 what if the killing is committed by someone from an enemy camp/country? Is the verse talking about retaliation in such cases?
Also the next verse explains that retaliation is not tit for tat but that it will act as a deterrent, just as the nuclear deterrent, thereby saving lives.
2179 And there is life for you in retaliation, O men of understanding that ye may restrain yourselves
Wa lakum fil qisa_si haya_tuy ya_ ulil alba_bi la'allakum tattaqu_n(a).
-
Salaam warner
On manslaughter 492
On intentional killing 493
On wounds 545So, where does verse 2178 fall after all that has been covered by these verse?
Also, please hink about the uestions I posed. It is when I do not comprehend a verse, or find it contrary to the system of God in the quraan that I start thinking of other meanings. Remember, we should read the quraan through the "eyes" of the author.