and do not compel your slave girls to prostitution...
-
In this particular verse she is not being blamed for prostitution , but for being a fornicator , which she is trying to clarify.
Dosn't make a difference. She is carrying her proof of fornication. According to their law (which punishes a raped woman too) she should have been stoned to death. This still happens in some communities, and the "islamic" law derived from jewish sources acknowledges death penalty for fornication.
-
Thanks brother Arnold! Now the verse is clear to me, It certainly makes sense.....Thanks again
Thanks everyone else...
Salaam o rahmah
women ,,, sexuality.... hsn ,,,fortification/protection in terms of sexuality,,,,,Chastity,,,and exceeding those limits ,,,,Baghiya....when forced,,,, prostitution..etc
All are interrelated...Arabic is much more than randomly replacing the words of your choice picked up from a dictionary .
peace
siki
-
Dosn't make a difference. She is carrying her proof of fornication. According to their law (which punishes a raped woman too) she should have been stoned to death. This still happens in some communities, and the "islamic" law derived from jewish sources acknowledges death penalty for fornication.
This law prevails in my country too, and above like incidents are not rare occurrences here , specially in villages. But i have hardly come across an incident when such a situation was converted into a " Rajam"scenario by her people/family instantly.
Do you mean that any young women carrying a child without a licence plate stating that she is married and this is a legal child should/would be stoned to death by people instantly without being asked a single question?
My dear sister ! how do you know , that the law prevailing then , was actually Rajam? And if it was so , did she not have a right to at least give an explanation? and can't you see in those verses that she did clarify that allegation when young Jesus (pbuh) spoke from the crib?
I am sorry to Say " I am disappointed once again" .
peace
siki
-
?Fa te? {fa-Ta-Ya}has the basic meaning ?youth?, young, man or woman. ?They said we heard a young man (fatay} talking about them, his name is Ibrahim? (2160). And then it was used to refer to servant (basic consideration for a servant should be Qawi, and Ameen as the daughter of old man had said for employing Musa a.s).
?Daughter? refers to a specific, defined and known relationship (Al Ma roof). Daughter can also be young, but this word(fatay) alone will never refer to the relationship, which is reflected by the word daughter.If we agree with this sort of explanation, then how would we translate the first part of 425, Like this ?With what your right hand possesses OUT of your believing young daughters?. There is ?Minn? ?out of? {tab eez}. People who have ?ma malakat aimanukum? also have other fatatayate-female servants. Therefore let us not stretch it in 2433 to mean daughters.
By no stretch of imagination ?young man? young boy, young girl, young woman can be translated as ?son? ?daughter?. And we should also not do it.
-
My dear sister ! how do you know , that the law prevailing then , was actually Rajam? And if it was so , did she not have a right to at least give an explanation? and can't you see in those verses that she did clarify that allegation when young Jesus (pbuh) spoke from the crib?
I am sorry to Say " I am disappointed once again" (.
peace
siki
You miss the whole point about their reaction to a fornicator. As usual, always "off point" hence always "dissppointed"
-
?Fa te? {fa-Ta-Ya}has the basic meaning ?youth?, young, man or woman. ?They said we heard a young man (fatay} talking about them, his name is Ibrahim? (2160). And then it was used to refer to servant (basic consideration for a servant should be Qawi, and Ameen as the daughter of old man had said for employing Musa a.s).
?Daughter? refers to a specific, defined and known relationship (Al Ma roof). Daughter can also be young, but this word(fatay) alone will never refer to the relationship, which is reflected by the word daughter.If we agree with this sort of explanation, then how would we translate the first part of 425, Like this ?With what your right hand possesses OUT of your believing young daughters?. There is ?Minn? ?out of? {tab eez}. People who have ?ma malakat aimanukum? also have other fatatayate-female servants. Therefore let us not stretch it in 2433 to mean daughters.
By no stretch of imagination ?young man? young boy, young girl, young woman can be translated as ?son? ?daughter?. And we should also not do it.
I agree.
However construction of the sentence is such that we can not limit its application to young females of MMA only, by her possessor.This one is applicable for every one (men or women) who can influence/force a young lady to perform such an act specially when she is desirous of protecting herself from such acts.
peace
siki
-
Thanks sister Samia,
"Lamastum" is an act. If we think that Annissa (443, 56) includes husbands (men), then Lamastum will be taken to refer to Wives (women). It is not a proper proposition. "Haya" alos does not permit us to say like that. Lamastum cannot and should never be used for women/wives. Since after this act something is being asked to be done, by implication wives have also to do that. But it does not mean that Annissa includes men. My respects to you.
-
Salaam Mazhar
"Lamastum" is an act. If we think that Annissa (443, 56) includes husbands (men), then Lamastum will be taken to refer to Wives (women).
Why "refer" to wives? Includes is enough. Doesn't it include wives? Unless the verse is addressing husbands/men only.
-
Sister,
My point is that Lamastum cannot be used for wives. Adress is to all believers. no doubt You who believe. And before saying Lamastum nissa, Junoban has been used which applies both to men and women, singular and plural. Therefore I correct my self that it is not by implication that wives are also required to take bath, rather it is clearly and plainly directed by Junoban. If jonoban Fattahroo, thereefore take bath. Therefore the word An-nissa does not include men, particularly because of the fact that Nissa is preceded by "Al" which restricts it to women alone.
When the adress it to both men and women, the words would be masculine. But when feminine word is used, it cant be said that An nissa include men. Some linguistic expert may come to our rescue. -
Sister,
My point is that Lamastum cannot be used for wives. Adress is to all believers.Salaam mazhar
I am very careful with my words here. I did not say lamastum can be used for wives. I say it contains wives, since it is addressing both genders. If the addressee are only males, then it does not contain females.
Since we agree that it is addressing both genders, try to split the verse as if you are addressing the females only. What will you say when you come to "aw laamastum al-nisaa'"?
Please be patient before calling for rescue.
-
Sister Samia,
I was expecting this stand. You are giving way to assert that the later part is address only to men. I had thought that but existence of ?Wow-And? there made me reluctant. That is why I wished some expert on Language and grammar may enter. Brother siki is also keeping silent. Another problem has emerged by scanning the Qurane Majeed, and that is 583-4. There ?Mass? is dual, before they touch each other. Wives seldom indicate that desire. And even if they do so, the most naked style is also like very thin aroma, which just passes away. Help me out to resolve it. -
Address in the qur'aan is , in general, to all people, both genders. This does not rule out that some verses are addressing males. We can easily know them if it is explicitly so indicated, or implicitly by logic. Verse 583 definitely addresses men only just by going to the beginning of the chapter where a woman is complaining to the prophet of his behaviour, which, as you mentioned , not practiced by women.
Back to our verses 443; 56
The address will not change suddenly from "all" to "one gender" or a different category in the same verse. If we take any of the two verses to women, we will have to say "or laamastunna alrijaal/ or if you have intercourse with men", right? That's what I meant be "nisaa' contains rijaal".
BTW, this is contrary to the universal rules of sociolinguistics. But who says qur'aan is subject to human rules of sociolinguistics or grammar? That's how its language is very special , simple but unattainable. Such a simple verse cannot be made by someone without having to elaborate to make it understandable.
There are many other similar verses, but we do not pay attention to this characteristic of the language of the qur'aan.
-
Peace Mazhar,
The root explains the concept. The basic thought in this particular root is to exceed moderate limits. Therefore whenever any word made from this root will be used in relation to a particular matter, action, and situation the word shall be construed to mean and translated accordingly in other languages. When it is used with reference to two business partners one of whom is exceeding moderate behavior, it will mean ?Wronged?. But when certain people are forcing (Takrehoo) their female servants towards ?Al Baghiya? for the purpose of earning worldly gains, it will have no other meaning but forcing them for prostitution.
There are many things that people can force young females to do. For example, the most common thing that many so-called Islamic families do for worldly gain is that they force their young females to marry someone rich that they don't love and they just marry for money. So both practically and linguistically prostitution is certainly not the meaning of "baghaa" so why is it the first thing that comes into the mind of some people? Again, I think that it says more about the mentality of those people and their fantasies towards females than about what the passage is actually saying.
The work "baghaa" means doing something wrong, exceeding the limits, or doing something to someone without the consent of the other person.
Also, unless you want to suggest that the people of the cave in 1813 were male servants, linguistically and logically "fatayat" doesn't mean "female servants" it simply means "young females". Who are typically the young females in a family? They are your young sister, your young daughters, and young adopted female orphans.
In 2433 and 3822 the difference of ?Al? needs also to be looked into. It has made the meanings specific/restricted.
The "al" definite article makes something definite but it doesn't create a new meaning of the word. In "al-rajul" and "rajul" both mean "the man" and "man". The "al" doesn't suddenly change the meaning of "al-rajul" to "the pimp".
Moreover, the word in 3822 is a verb not a noun so your argument is completely false to begin with because the definite article doesn't apply to verbs. The verb is in the past tense form "bagha" (feminine past tense form is "baghat". The noun form of this past tense form is "baghaa"/"al-baghaa", same exact form in 2433.
Even if we remove the word ?prostitution? here, we will have to say ?do not force your female servants upon wrong?, but the perception will remain the same ?prostitution?.
The word "fatayat" means young females. If we substitute the type of "young females" in your family and address you "do not force your young sister, your young daughter, or your young adopted female orphan upon wrong or non-consentual action", is prostitution the first thing that comes into your mind? Of course not!! You seem like a reasonable and civilized person who doesn't have a sick mind or complexes with respect to females. It is only bigoted medieval Hadith fanatics who think like that. On the other hand, a typical example is that for worldly gains, you may want your daughter to marry a rich man of a high status. Of course, you may be tempted to force your young daughter to marry him despite her not loving him. Practically and linguistically, prostitution is certainly not the meaning.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Ayman
I do not agree with you regrading interpretation of Bagha in context to 24-33, even if you consider this to be a product of my sick mind.
"Bagha", in general means wrong and i am in agreement with you on this. But the meanings become "specific" in relation to the subject of a sentense.
I am not an Arabic expert or a linguist but i do push my common sense to limits, for making up these deficiencies . So here is what it says regarding the use of word "Baghaa" in specific to verse 24-33.
Let me start with an example,
HSN or HASSAna means , protected ,fortified , locked, etc but when the subject is womens sexuality , it becomes protected sexuality,(4-24-25) or we can say "Chastity", the same word when used for a building, becomes a "Fortress", (59,2and14) and the same, when used along/in context to private parts, depicts virginity(19-20).
You could have been right if this sentense had finished at,---- "And do not compel your Young females to commit wrong.......... it would have opened its application in "general "to all aspects of "wrongs" in life.
But Brother! what follows after this sentense is, ----"If they are desirous of being chaste"
this particular phrase , puts precision back into the first sentense, of "wrong" and locks the meanings of Bagha in specific to sexuality.what all can be committed wrong in sexual terms of a young female? Fornication , may be , but then we have to further modify it , because a certain sentense has been inserted here, AARZUL--HAYATUL--DUNIYA, SEEKING THE MATERIAL GAINS OF THIS WORLD
Meaning, " you are forcing her to commit a wrong, which is in sexual contest, (fornication) to gain the materials in this world",
what else can we call the above ? other than " Prostitution"
peace
siki
-
Peace Siki,
I do not agree with you regrading interpretation of Bagha in context to 24-33, even if you consider this to be a product of my sick mind.
Perhaps. But perhaps it could be a product of you thinking that the god is addressing some pimps in 2433 and not people like you and I. You have to read 2433 as if it is addressing you personally.
"Bagha", in general means wrong and i am in agreement with you on this. But the meanings become "specific" in relation to the subject of a sentense.
I am not an Arabic expert or a linguist but i do push my common sense to limits, for making up these deficiencies . So here is what it says regarding the use of word "Baghaa" in specific to verse 24-33.
Let me start with an example,
HSN or HASSAna means , protected ,fortified , locked, etc but when the subject is womens sexuality , it becomes protected sexuality,(4-24-25) or we can say "Chastity", the same word when used for a building, becomes a "Fortress", (59,2and14) and the same, when used along/in context to private parts, depicts virginity(19-20).No. It has nothing to do with virginity. So according to you in relation to private parts, it is OK to have oral sex since it doesn't effect virginity!!
When it is used in relation to private parts then it implies chastity. When it is used on its own then it just means "protected". The word "tahasunan" simply means "protection".
You could have been right if this sentense had finished at,---- "And do not compel your Young females to commit wrong.......... it would have opened its application in "general "to all aspects of "wrongs" in life.
But Brother! what follows after this sentense is, ----"If they are desirous of being chaste"
this particular phrase , puts precision back into the first sentense, of "wrong" and locks the meanings of Bagha in specific to sexuality.No private parts are mentioned in 2433 so the meaning has nothing to do with chastity.
what all can be committed wrong in sexual terms of a young female? Fornication , may be , but then we have to further modify it , because a certain sentense has been inserted here, AARZUL--HAYATUL--DUNIYA, SEEKING THE MATERIAL GAINS OF THIS WORLD
Meaning, " you are forcing her to commit a wrong, which is in sexual contest, (fornication) to gain the materials in this world",
what else can we call the above ? other than " Prostitution"The sexual private parts are not mentioned in the passage. There is no sexual context as you imagine in order to distance yourself from the passage. You just have to listen to what the god is saying as if he is addressing you personally in order to understand it. You do not listen and say to yourself the god is only addressing pimps and I have nothing to do with it. So how do you expect to understand and apply 2433 in your life?
I think that Islamic families want to be able to force their young sisters, young daughters, or young adopted female orphans to marry a rich man when the opportunity arises. Hence, the meaning was changed to "prostitution" to make it appear that the passage is addressing pimps and not them. This allows them to ignore the god's command and reduce 2433 to a theoretical perverted passage so that they can use the excuse "look we are not pimps and we are not prostituting them so 2433 doesn't apply to anyone we know".
Peace,
Ayman