Ma Malakat Emanakum" A Refutation to Brother Ayman;s understanding
-
Peace Samia
The 3 verses do not cover the situation in which the enemy or someone from an enemy (not necessarily at war with you) city/country kills one of the believers. For example Palestine and Israel. If Israel kills a Palestinian it allows them to retaliate in the same manner. It is not necessary to kill the exact killer but retaliate according to 2178. This will act as a deterrent for the enemy to pre empt. But if the enemy camp/country negotiates for pardon and payment of compensation and deceased?s family accepts then not necessary to retaliate.
-
Peade warner,
This will act as a deterrent for the enemy to pre empt.
doesn't reality show us that it does not work this way - especially in this conflict ? Not to talk in a general manner about the ineffectiveness of death penalty to deter others from committing the same crimes...
So may be Samia is right to say that if it is contrary to the system of God in the quraan one should start thinking of other meanings.
elke
-
Salaam warner
you saiThe 3 verses do not cover the situation in which the enemy or someone from an enemy (not necessarily at war with you) city/country kills one of the believers.
You mean if a non believer kills a believer? Is it killing or manslaughter? If it is killing, he is in hellfire for eternity as the verse says, just like a believer committing murder. No death penalty for either of them, though.
And how does verse 2178 answers this?
As for the palastino/israeli conflict, this is a political issue, and frankly speaking, I do not see who of the fighting parties is behaving as a believer!! They are a good example that retaliation is not in the system of God, because it takes your focus away from the roots of the problem. That's why this problem is getting more and more complicated.
-
Peace Samia and Elke
Palestine and Israel was only an example for 2 enemy cities/countries at conflict. I clearly said it is an EXAMPLE. I could have said USA and Russia or even Boston and Florida for that matter. This thread is not about the Palestine Israel conflict and the example was not supposed to raise a debate on that conflict. About the believers in that conflict I agree with you. At the same time if your enemy kidnaps 2 of your people 2178 does not give you the right to bomb and devastate and kill 1000 of your enemy.
How about the following verse in the matter of murder.
17 33
Pickthall And slay not the life which Allah hath forbidden save with right. Whoso is slain wrongfully, We have given power unto his heir, but let him not commit excess in slaying. Lo! he will be helped.Wa la_ taqtulun nafsal lati harramalla_hu illa_ bil haqq(i), wa man qutila mazlu_man faqad ja'alna_ li waliyyihi sulta_nan fala_ yusrif fil qatl(i), innahu_ ka_na mansu_ra_(n).
Are you saying all murderers should let go free.
If your enemy aggresses, attacks or start a conflict the Quran gives the right for you to fight and attack back.If your enemy is not at war with you but if it kills one of your people what do you think is the solution? Go to war or retaliate as in 2178 in case efforts to reconcile and to obtain compensation fails.
Death penalty or the lack of it has nothing to do with rising crimes, it is the society. Some countries with severe execution rules have far less murders than comparatively lenient countries as well.The Quraan does not say death penalty is a deterrent in 2178 or elsewhere but it says retaliation as explained in 2178 is a deterrent..
-
Peace Warner,
Surely, the verse 2178 does not say the one living in luxury, servant and woman.
Why not? The only problem given about "Ibadikum" in 2432 is that they are poor (opposite of living in luxury). There is nothing in there about having to free them.
If you disagree then please show me any passage that talks about freeing "ma malakat aymanukum" or "abad". I know you can't.
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.
No, "raqaba" means prisoner. You could say that a slave can be considered a prisoner who is falsly imprisoned since he or she committed no crime. However, freeing such wrongfuly imprisoned prisoner is not an optional act of charity. It is a duty to lift injustice and prevent it. On the other hand, paying the debt of the thief so that he can be freed is an act of kindness and is charity.
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 ?There is nothing about "liberate" or serve in 2433 EVEN IN THE DISTORTED TRANSLATION that you provided. The same word 'kitab" appears in 2235. It is a marriage contract. The whole context is about marriage not liberating.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Ayman
Is hurri used in the Quran in other places for free or for one with luxury, in similar context?
4135 Yusuf Ali
O ye who believe! stand out firmly for justice as witnesses to Allah even as against yourselves or your parents or your kin and whether it be (against) rich or poor for Allah can best protect both. Follow not the lusts (of your hearts) lest ye swerve and if ye distort (justice) or decline to do justice verily Allah is well-acquainted with all that ye do.Ya_ ayyuhal lazina a_manu_ ku_nu_ qawwa_mina bil qisti syuhada_'a lilla_hi wa lau 'ala_ anfusikum awil wa_lidaini wal aqrabin(a), iy yakun ganiyyan au faqiran falla_hu aula_ bihima_, fala_ tattabi'ul hawa_ an ta'dilu_, wa in talwu_ au tu'ridu_ fa innalla_ha ka_na bima_ ta'malu_na khabira_(n).
This is how the rich and the poor are identified elsewhere.
If someone is punished for theft according to the Quran and people spend their money getting out the thieves and other criminals surely the people will be doing a great charity and service to the justice system and a lot of good to the community.
If your people are held captive by the enemy and the release can be ensured by a payment, such payments will indeed be charity and a better interpretation of raqabba. If someone is held as a slave buying the slave from his master and freeing him is a good deed. Remember they sold Joseph for a small price. The human trading was going on in this route for a long time.
Kitab appearing in 2235 has no relevance to 2433.
Can you please note since I made the change I have not mentioned the translator, which I do normally, and I usually include the transliteration to make things clear since I do not know Arabic. There is no distortion, instead of slaves/captives in Y Alis, which I do not agree as the meaning of MMA, I used the Arabic term Ma Malakat Aymanakum. It is not a distortion it is a Quranic word left un-translated. Is substituting a word from the Quran with a wrong translation ?distortion? to you, brother? You bring useless arguments in UPPER CASE to the discussion. This kind of arguments are not contributing to the search of truth .You are probably the best this board has, but you must give us the truth without contradictions for us to accept.
Peace
-
Samia
sister you are right, 2-178 is a very strange verse and just does not make any sense , there is got to be some thing more than what we percieve. I recommend, that we open a separate thread and sort it out throughly,
Ayman!
Brother !we call the rope bridle which is used to control /restrain the horses as RAQQAB,( lagaam) , i confirmed the meanings from lane, and found it to be correct. Prisoner could also be one meaning.when we take off the RaQQab , the horse is free , no more under our control.
I cant find a better description than the above, for freeing a slave, we must understand that such words were understood perfectly by people then.
peacesikandar
-
Peace Warner,
Is hurri used in the Quran in other places for free or for one with luxury, in similar context?
I think that "tahrir" can mean "removal of hardship". You still haven't produced a single passage that asks us to free or remove the hardship from a "3abd" or a "ma malakat aymanukum". All such passages talk about "riqab" (prisoners).
4135 Yusuf Ali
O ye who believe! stand out firmly for justice as witnesses to Allah even as against yourselves or your parents or your kin and whether it be (against) rich or poor for Allah can best protect both. Follow not the lusts (of your hearts) lest ye swerve and if ye distort (justice) or decline to do justice verily Allah is well-acquainted with all that ye do.
Ya_ ayyuhal lazina a_manu_ ku_nu_ qawwa_mina bil qisti syuhada_'a lilla_hi wa lau 'ala_ anfusikum awil wa_lidaini wal aqrabin(a), iy yakun ganiyyan au faqiran falla_hu aula_ bihima_, fala_ tattabi'ul hawa_ an ta'dilu_, wa in talwu_ au tu'ridu_ fa innalla_ha ka_na bima_ ta'malu_na khabira_(n).
This is how the rich and the poor are identified elsewhere.Rich and living in luxury are two different issues. Someone can be rich but stringent with money and doesn't live in luxury.
If someone is punished for theft according to the Quran and people spend their money getting out the thieves and other criminals surely the people will be doing a great charity and service to the justice system and a lot of good to the community.
If your people are held captive by the enemy and the release can be ensured by a payment, such payments will indeed be charity and a better interpretation of raqabba.Yes, I agree.
If someone is held as a slave buying the slave from his master and freeing him is a good deed.
No. This is not charity. It is an obligation to eliminate injustice. Imprisoning someone who hasn't committed any crime is "thulm" (injustice) and "fasad fi al-ard" (corruption in the earth). Such things should be fought against with all our god-given power.
Remember they sold Joseph for a small price. The human trading was going on in this route for a long time.
Actually the story of Joseph confirms that slaves cannot be "ma malakat aymanukum". In 236 we hear that we are not blamed on "ma malakat aymanukum", yet clearly Joseph ran away in order to avoid sexual contact with his owner. So he can't be "ma malakat aymanukum".
Kitab appearing in 2235 has no relevance to 2433.
This is not grounded in the reality of what both passages are talking about. Both passages talk about "nikah" (marriage) and hence the contract of marriage ("kitab". Surely, you can see that marriage ("nikah" is mentioned in 2432-33 twice and then "kitab" is mentioned. Similarly, in 2235 "kitab" is mentioned after "nikah" (marriage). So from the context there is absolutely no doubt that in both cases the passages are talking about the marriage contract.
Can you please note since I made the change I have not mentioned the translator, which I do normally, and I usually include the transliteration to make things clear since I do not know Arabic. There is no distortion, instead of slaves/captives in Y Alis, which I do not agree as the meaning of MMA, I used the Arabic term Ma Malakat Aymanakum. It is not a distortion it is a Quranic word left un-translated. Is substituting a word from the Quran with a wrong translation ?distortion? to you, brother? You bring useless arguments in UPPER CASE to the discussion. This kind of arguments are not contributing to the search of truth .You are probably the best this board has, but you must give us the truth without contradictions for us to accept.
I apologize if you were offended, but it wastes everyone's time and energy when we have a discussion and everybody (including you) agrees on the fact that "fatayat" means "young girls" and then you turn around and translate them as "maids". If you are going to remove Y.Ali's name and provide a translation then please translate according to what you know is the closest to the truth. When you provide a translation that you know is wrong, then this is not helping and it is indeed a distortion. With this in mind, please translate 2433 for us as correctly as you can so that we know where you stand.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Sikandar, all,
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.
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.
Can you show me where in those passages, the term "ma malakat aymanukum" occurs? I don't think you can.
Peace,
Ayman
peace Bro Ayman
I don't know why am i not been able to make you understand a simple thing, i will try once again.
"aymankum " has the basic meaning as "one's right hand" , the "right hand" also signifies some thing , which when combined with other words, convey other meanings,.
"Ma Malakat emanukum", the whole phrase conveys one meaning , and when you say Aqdato emnakumm , that would literally mean tied with right hand , but it conveys the meaning of a pledge, or a "solemn promise". , similarly when it is said that someone is a right hand, it does not mean somebody is literally right hand or an oath, it starts to convey something different.it is something like , when we use the word Fire,
An individual burns in fire
he is fired
and he is fired upon/at
The word fire when used in certain combinations would covey totally different meanings.I could give a reasonable chance to all of your alternates individually, but when one looks at everything collectively , it does not stand a chance
For me the 70-29,30 are very important for determining the correct understanding of all relevent verses.
How does one share his private parts with some (under oath) other than spouses ?
peace
sikandar -
Peace Ayman
The verse says ?al hurru bil hurri? not "tahrir?. Release/Change of status of MMA from her assigned guardian is through a marriage to a believer. Your MMA theory does not explain the reason for distinguishing believers among the MMA.
There is no prisoner in Riqab and the Quraan does not say that either. It could mean captive but it can very well be applied to slaves.
Maybe you have mixed up my posts with Sikis; I never said MMA are slaves. Slave is Abad but you insist that Abad means servant/paid employee. From where did you get that Joseph is MMA. He ran away from committing Fahisha with a married woman. Story of Joseph shows the amount of power the wife of Aziz has over Joseph and that he has no freedom also for Joseph the prison was better in terms of freedom than living under her authority. Using the story of Joseph to negate that slaves and MMA are same shows how weak your arguments have become. Besides MMA are not slaves anyway, it doesn?t help to bring irrelevant analogy.
Rich and living in luxury are two different issues. Someone can be rich but stringent with money and doesn't live in luxury.
How can this be relevant to 2178? Servant (since it is your interpretation of Abad) does not have to be poor either. A maid in US makes 50 times more than someone in China; the maid from US will be quite wealthy in that part of the world. Even you pointed the example of Mamlukes.
Most incidents of slavery we are familiar with are from Africa and today the whole world agrees that it was a great injustice committed to another human being. In ancient times when there were continuous wars the victors always had few options with the defeated captives; men, women and children. Kill them, release for a ransom or use or sell them for slavery. In certain ways when someone buys a slave and release they were saving a life.
Are you saying that,
? wa la_ ta'zimu_ 'uqdatan nika_hi hatta_ yablugal kita_bu ajalah(u_), ? (2235)
And
?wal lazina yabtagu_nal kita_ba mim ma_ malakat aima_nukum faka_tibu_hum in alimtum fihim hairaw? (2433)
are talking about the same thing because the word ?kitab? is used in both verses. And are you implying that kitab is used with the same meaning in both verses?
It was obvious my post was not on fatayat but on MMA and particularly on ?writing of release? and the relevant part of the verse I had it in BOLD.
I am not offended just amused by your irrelevant arguments to defend your weak theories.
-
Salaam warner
You give me once again a lead that confirms my understanding
The verse says ?al hurru bil hurri?
This typical in the language of commerce (in barter, exchange, ). We still say this shirt is bi 5 dollars, i.e I give 5 dollars you and get the shirt.
Al7urru bil 7urri cannot be a language used for humans.
-
Peace Warner,
Are you saying that,
? wa la_ ta'zimu_ 'uqdatan nika_hi hatta_ yablugal kita_bu ajalah(u_), ? (2235)
And
?wal lazina yabtagu_nal kita_ba mim ma_ malakat aima_nukum faka_tibu_hum in alimtum fihim hairaw? (2433)
are talking about the same thing because the word ?kitab? is used in both verses. And are you implying that kitab is used with the same meaning in both verses?
It was obvious my post was not on fatayat but on MMA and particularly on ?writing of release? and the relevant part of the verse I had it in BOLD.
I am not offended just amused by your irrelevant arguments to defend your weak theories.I don't think that it is a coincidence that you don't quote 2433 from the beginning. You deliberetly left out the first part of 2433 and started from the middle of the passage because you know that the first part talks about marriage and establishes the context.
You are also still evading providing your own translation of 2433.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace be on you
Fata or Fatayat
The quranic meaning seems to be young man/woman obvious from the normal use of the word in many verses including this one. 2160 Qa_lu_ samina fatay yazkuru hum yuqa_lu lahu_ ibra_him
What troubles me is not fataya itself. It is the possessive use ?YOUR young man?, ?HER young man?, ?Azzizs Wife?s young man?, ?young man of Moses?. How can someone be YOURS without a relationship or ownership of any sort? I am still perturbed about this possessive use of the word only.
Also look at in 2431 your women ?au nisa_ ihin na? . What is ?your women?? Just any woman, related women, believing woman, servant woman, attendant woman, dependent woman?
-
Dear Ayman
After going through 2433 about one hundred times you must be familiar with the verse like the back of your hand. So I can not hide part of the verse from you and it will be absurd to imagine that I underestimated you and that you will not know the full verse. Also the reason I posted part of the verse is obvious from the related question.
Also I do not translate the Quran and I leave it to the experts in Arabic like you and Layth, Samia, Anwar, AB, TG. But if I feel that something is not right I try to make my point .
-
Peace Samia
5 45
Transliteration Wa katabna_ 'alaihim fiha_ annan nafsa bin nafsi wal'aina bil 'aini wal anfa bil anfi wal uzuna bil uzuni was sinna bis sinn(i), wal juru_ha qisa_s(un), faman tasaddaqa bihi fa huwa kaffa_ratul lah(u_), wa mal lam yahkum bima_ anzalalla_hu fa ula_'ika humuz za_limu_n(a).
Yusuf Ali We ordained therein for them "Life for life eye for eye nose for nose ear for ear tooth for tooth and wounds equal for equal." But if anyone remits the retaliation by way of charity it is an act of atonement for himself. And if any fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed they are (no better than) wrong-doers.
Is this not similar to the earlier construction ?
-
Warner
Dear brother , i read your article regarding MMA , you seem to be on right track, except a few things here and there which need sorting out and i shall point them out soon. IN my opinion , your understanding makes sense ,and is closer to reality than Brother Ayman's.
peace
sikandari have still not been able to excess the original , except what you have PM.
-
Salaam warner
But seriously, what do you think these verses really say ?
Posted on Yesterday at 011313 PMPosted by Samia
It is still language of trade. If I lose an eye, I am not going to remove the eye of the aggressor, but get compensation. Same for soul, touth...etc.
If we compare it to verse 2178, and take that verse to mean humans, the problem of killing is solved by substiuing killing with compensation.
However, we have a new problem do souls have different prices a price for the soul of a free male, a price for the soul of a slave and the least for the soul of a female!! {No wonder, in SA the compensation for a murdered woman is half that for a man or even a boy, most probably based on the understanding of this verse, with some ijtihad as for (for the male double that for the two females)}Also, as I said, quraan speaks of nafs in case of murder, or ovenant, or any non-gendered entity.
So, compensation is covered by 545 and it is clear it is about humans (nafs); 2178 does not reflect the language of the quraan regarding humans. It is about compensation, but not of (nafs) as 545. That's a reason why it is not about humans.
-
Peace sister Samia,
I had a question that I need your help with. Without regard to the vocalization marks, which are a later day addition, it seems that "ma mlkt aymankm" can mean either "what your oath controls/possesses" or "what controls/possesses your oath". Is there anything from an Arabic linguistic point of view that can prevent the second understanding?
I appreciate your help with this matter.
Thanks and peace,
Ayman