Problems with the Reformist Translation
-
Dear brother kshad99
Thank you very much for your time trying to improve the translation.
I found your lengthy exposition mostly irrelevant for the main point you are trying to make. First, I think it is obvious that a divorce done with the participation of two parties is different than the divorce done without the participation of both party.
As for the meaning of the "Ma malakat aymanUkum" or "Ma malakat aymanAkum" I disagree with you that we should rely on the traditional meaning ascribed to the expression. Interestingly, you ignored he references I gave in my short discussion on the translation of this verse
" The word YaMYN means "right hand" or metaphorically "right," "power" or "control." However, its plural form aYMaN is consistently mentioned in the Quran to mean not "right hands" but to mean "oaths" or "promises," implying the mutual nature of the relationship (See 433 589; 912; 1691-94; 2224-225; 3028; 662; 553; 6109). This unique Quranic usage is similar to the semantic difference between the singular and plural forms of the word Ayat (signs) (see 2106).
I do not think that "ma malakat ayman!kum" is an expression like "beat around the bush", which cannot be analyzed to its components linguistically. Your evidence is the very sources that I have no trust in; especially when the issue is about slavery, wars, freedom, women's rights, etc.
Peace,
Edip -
Dear brother kshad99
Thank you very much for your time trying to improve the translation.
I found your lengthy exposition mostly irrelevant for the main point you are trying to make. First, I think it is obvious that a divorce done with the participation of two parties is different than the divorce done without the participation of both party.
As for the meaning of the "Ma malakat aymanUkum" or "Ma malakat aymanAkum" I disagree with you that we should rely on the traditional meaning ascribed to the expression. Interestingly, you ignored he references I gave in my short discussion on the translation of this verse
I do not think that "ma malakat ayman!kum" is an expression like "beat around the bush", which cannot be analyzed to its components linguistically. Your evidence is the very sources that I have no trust in; especially when the issue is about slavery, wars, freedom, women's rights, etc.
Peace,
Edip"I do not believe " expression can be put anywhere.Poeple have rejected Prophets.Who could stop them.
As far as classical Arabic is concerned authority is not Edip but those persons who have spent there lives in this field.
Taj ul Aroos and Lisaan ul arab such references which no one has ever dared to contradict them.
you are saying so because it clearly rebutted your translation.
As far as my example of "beat about the bush " is concerned ,that is true.Probably you did not know that "Maa malakat Aymaanukum" is an arabic phrase.
As far divorce is concerned ,again you are not aware if any court declares a divorce ,that is implemented and considered to be as valid as that lady has been formally divorced.You have circumvented my question about "exceptional contract' If a married non-muslim lady becomes muslim now.What "exceptional contract " as prosposed by you she has to undergo to get into nikaah of a muslim.
By putting such type of unusual behaviour to those neo - muslim lady you are in fact degrading her when Islam (Quran) does not discriminate her from rest of muslim ladies.
I am waiting for explanation of "Exceptional contract" -
Dear kshad99
I pulled your attention to the usage of a word that consistently used to mean OATH rather than POWER or HANDS, as a response you pulled my attention to two dictionaries, albeit good ones, that were written centuries later after hadith and sectarian jurisprudence contaminated the meaning of some Quranic words. You criticize me for daring to question the authority of fallible humans and their work which was influenced by hadith and sunnah. But you dare not to pay attention to the usage of the Quran.
For instance, if we trust those books with our eyes and noses closed, we would still believe the absurd stories about Muhammad being an illeterate man, since they render the meaning of Ummi to be Illiterate.
Not only the consistent usage of the word AYMAN in the Quran supports our position, also Quran's categorical rejection of slavery leaves no doubt about its meaning in the QURANIC (not in the Lisan-ul Arab or Tac-ul Arus). According to the Quran a muslim cannot possess a slave. Period. Anyone who finds the right to posses another human being is no different than Pharaoh; they all arrogate themselves to be the RABB (master) of others.
Peace,
Edip -
Dear kshad99
I pulled your attention to the usage of a word that consistently used to mean OATH rather than POWER or HANDS, as a response you pulled my attention to two dictionaries, albeit good ones, that were written centuries later after hadith and sectarian jurisprudence contaminated the meaning of some Quranic words. You criticize me for daring to question the authority of fallible humans and their work which was influenced by hadith and sunnah. But you dare not to pay attention to the usage of the Quran.
For instance, if we trust those books with our eyes and noses closed, we would still believe the absurd stories about Muhammad being an illeterate man, since they render the meaning of Ummi to be Illiterate.
Not only the consistent usage of the word AYMAN in the Quran supports our position, also Quran's categorical rejection of slavery leaves no doubt about its meaning in the QURANIC (not in the Lisan-ul Arab or Tac-ul Arus). According to the Quran a muslim cannot possess a slave. Period. Anyone who finds the right to posses another human being is no different than Pharaoh; they all arrogate themselves to be the RABB (master) of others.
Peace,
EdipDear Edip
You have a mind set and that is "traditionalist phobia' .If a traditionalist says that "God is one" probably you may oppose this because it was said by a traditionalist.
you have yourself admitted that the word " "
1Hands
2Oaths
I admit that Quran has used this word in the meaning of oaths also.
How does this imply the word used in the phrase ' '
also means "oaths"?
Secondly,I have given you two most authenticated references regarding this Phrase which clearly show that " " in this phrase means = hands.you give me only one reference from any book from Classical Arabic which clearly says that this word in this phrase means "Oath".This is my OPEN CHALLANGE TO YOU.
So much so this phrase is being used in modern Arabic also.
"Arabic English Dictionary by Hans Wehr " has discussed " " twice
One for the meaning of "right hand " and one for the meaning of "oath"
This phrase " (ك "=his possessions ,has been discussed by him under the meaning of Right hand .As far as your emotional description of slavery is concerned that is absolutely a different discussion.Here I am only concerned about its meanings.
From your writing I get the impression you do not even understand the correct status of "' ".If you are putting it equivalent to "slavery " then you need to revise your Islamic knowledge.AGAIN YOU HAVE EVADED AND CIRCUMVENTED MY QUESTION ABOUT THE NATURE OF "EXCEPTIONAL CONTRACT " WHICH ANY NEO-MUSLIM LADY HAS TO PASS THROUGH BEFORE NIKAH.
Still waiting for reply of these two requirements.
-
Dear kshad99
Now the problem has become clear. You are responding me by just browsing my answers, without reading and understanding them. Please go back and read my ARGUMENTS for why I chose OATH not HANDS for aYMaN, the PLURAL of YaMyN. I also gave another example the difference between the meaning of singular and plural forms of the word Aya. The Quran has its own usage of words that creates extra details, and your best dictionaries are blind to them.
Again, you conveniently ignored one of the examples of distortion in the meaning of a Quranic word. What is your comment on those so-called "authenticated references" regarding the meaning of UMMY?
If you will not be able to listen the party you are debating an issue, then it is a monologue. I do not have time to aid you in continuing your monologue while pretending that it is a dialogue.
Peace,
Edip -
Dear kshad99
Now the problem has become clear. You are responding me by just browsing my answers, without reading and understanding them. Please go back and read my ARGUMENTS for why I chose OATH not HANDS for aYMaN, the PLURAL of YaMyN. I also gave another example the difference between the meaning of singular and plural forms of the word Aya. The Quran has its own usage of words that creates extra details, and your best dictionaries are blind to them.
Again, you conveniently ignored one of the examples of distortion in the meaning of a Quranic word. What is your comment on those so-called "authenticated references" regarding the meaning of UMMY?
If you will not be able to listen the party you are debating an issue, then it is a monologue. I do not have time to aid you in continuing your monologue while pretending that it is a dialogue.
Peace,
EdipDear Edip
I agree it has become a "monologue" because in spite of repeatedly asking questions you are persistently evading them which is very common modus operandi of the people of your mind set.
Honestly speaking initially my impression was that you may be knowing something about Quran and classical Arabic i.e why you have presented yourself as a potential candidate for debate to Dr Zakir Naik. But I have realized I was absolutely at fault.A person who cannot interpret the meaning of this simple verseas Judicial divorce decreed by Almighty Allah ,how can he interpret other verses of the Holy Quran.
Again I challange you
1To bring a SINGLE evidence for the meaning of "aymaan= oaths" from any classical work in this particular phrase of "maa malakat aymaanukum".Even from the Holy Quran bring up a single verse which clearly indicates that the word "Aymaan" used in this phrase means "oaths".
2lease do explain the nature of your "EXCEPTIONAL CONTRACT" which you are forcing neo-muslim ladies to pass through before getting into nikaah of muslisms. -
A person who cannot interpret the meaning of this simple verse
as Judicial divorce decreed by Almighty Allah
I never disagreed with this. But, this divorce is obviously different than the normal divorce procedure that involves both parties. This difference (statutory versus ad-hoc) warrants different treatment.
As for your challenge; I care less. To me, the usage of the Quran has precedence over dictionaries written centuries after its revelation by people who were raised in sectarian culture.
If the word AYMAN in the Quran ALLWAYS mean OATHS, (with the exception of the one in the phrase we are discussing), then I must have very good reason to translate the AYMAN in this verse differently. However, with the Quranic position against slavery being negative, I have no choice but to follow the usage of the Quran.
Your "authoritative dictionaries" are for you, my "dictionaries + critical mind + appreciating the Quranic details in its usage of words + rejecting slavery" for me.
Peace,
Edip -
I never disagreed with this. But, this divorce is obviously different than the normal divorce procedure that involves both parties. This difference (statutory versus ad-hoc) warrants different treatment.
As for your challenge; I care less. To me, the usage of the Quran has precedence over dictionaries written centuries after its revelation by people who were raised in sectarian culture.
If the word AYMAN in the Quran ALLWAYS mean OATHS, (with the exception of the one in the phrase we are discussing), then I must have very good reason to translate the AYMAN in this verse differently. However, with the Quranic position against slavery being negative, I have no choice but to follow the usage of the Quran.
Your "authoritative dictionaries" are for you, my "dictionaries + critical mind + appreciating the Quranic details in its usage of words + rejecting slavery" for me.
Peace,
EdipSo it is obvious
1You have never been to bring any proof from the Holy Quran or Classical Arabic that word 'aymaan" in "maa malakat aymaanukum' means oaths.
2You have persistently avoided to explain the nature of "exceptional contract " which is concocted by you.
I feel no need to prolong this discussion any more. -
Brother Edip!
Of the modern day scholars , i respect you the most, indeed you are a class above all. However, few times when i have been dissappointed, includes this one.
This is an important unsolved puzzle, i am reopening this thread , lets have a detailed scrutiny of this issue. All knowledgable are invited to participate.
peace
siki
-
Siki
This is an important unsolved puzzle, i am reopening this thread , lets have a detailed scrutiny of this issue. All knowledgable are invited to participate.
peace
siki
Since the new thread is restricted to all knowldgeables, therefore I contain my self with this thread.
Edip has pointed out in his different posts that Quran or Allah rejects Slavery, let us see is this true?
"It is not for a believer to kill a believer unless by mistake. He who hath killed a believer by mistake must set free a believing slave, and pay the blood- money to the family of the slain, unless they remit it as a charity. If he be of a people hostile unto you, and he is a believer, then (the penance is) to set free a believing slave."
If slavery has been rejected then why this Ayat.
"Allah repulsed the disbelievers in their wrath; they gained no good. Allah averted their attack from the believers. Allah is ever Strong, Mighty. And He brought those of the People of the Scripture who supported them down from their strongholds, and cast panic into their hearts. Some ye slew, and ye made captive some.
again this Ayat needs to be read carefully.
So once we arrive at the conclusion, that Slavery was existing at the time of Prophet, and Allah did not rejected it right away, though also not endorsed it.
It will become easier for us to arrive at the meaning of "what right hand pocess".What is the big deal in accepting that Slavery existed at the time of prophet??
or the Prophet did not took the education existing at that time?
-
Siki opened a thread on "ma malakat aymanakum" I posted something there, but I see the the debate continues here, so I post again what I posted in the other thread
""
Quote from Bigmo on October 30, 2007, 103853 PM
If any of you have not the means wherewith to wed free believing women, they may wed believing girls from among those whom your right hands possess And Allah hath full knowledge about your faith. Ye are one from another Wed them with the leave of their owners, and give them their dowers, according to what is reasonable They should be chaste, not lustful, nor taking paramours when they are taken in wedlock, if they fall into shame, their punishment is half that for free women. This (permission) is for those among you who fear sin; but it is better for you that ye practise self-restraint. And Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
On seeing this part, and if I understand that we are talking about women captives, I wonder whether the use of aymanakum (plural) refers to all the muslims that keep captives and means that any muslim can marry any of those captives regardless of in whose hands she is, that is, a muslim can marry not only those he has as captives, but any captive any muslim may hold, provided the other requisites are met.
I think that a difficulty in interpretation on using translations is that some times they talk about slaves and some other about "your right hands possess, other as captives. It is very confusing.
Further, ?could it be that which your right hand possess is neither slaves, of course ?, neither captives, but rather "protected persons" who left their people to join muslims and were therefore alone and which muslims placed amonst themselves so as to given a home and who could be married or unmarried ? That would make sense, at least in some of the ayas.
Salaam
""""
-
I'd like to revive this thread...I see where Edip is going here, but I am not entirely sure. Even if slavery was not completely abolished there was still a class of people who were POWs or had previously engaged in marriages that were later banned by the Quran. These marriages would then be legitimated by contract. This makes sense, but for those who do not agree, better points need to be made as to why this is not a proper interpretation.
