Peace
I have some questions about this...
We all know humans, male or female have a soul right? So we're all souls in either male/ female bodies. The bodies aren't really us, it's the soul. The body is just the outer shell.
We know we shouldn't just view someone as their body because that's objectification. Also, men do not 'possess' women and neither do women 'possess' men. Humans do not OWN/ POSSESS other humans. We belong to God, right?
So why are women talked about here in terms of possession? Some websites even state that it also refers to men...
Quote from: Sarah on May 20, 2019, 03:36:03 AM
Peace
I have some questions about this...
We all know humans, male or female have a soul right? So we're all souls in either male/ female bodies. The bodies aren't really us, it's the soul. The body is just the outer shell.
We know we shouldn't just view someone as their body because that's objectification. Also, men do not 'possess' women and neither do women 'possess' men. Humans do not OWN/ POSSESS other humans. We belong to God, right?
So why are women talked about here in terms of possession? Some websites even state that it also refers to men...
Peace Sarah. I would like to make 2 points:
1.
Men also seem to be talked about in terms of
possession. Please refer to كَاتِبُوهُمْ in 24:33.
2.As a matter of fact the possessor is one person's oath like in 33:50 or several people's oaths like in 24:33.
Your oath makes you resposible rather than possessor.
My understanding of the Quran as a book is that it had a purpose, not to abolish slavery directly or create some sort of cultural reform in Arabia but to remind people of what is essential in life. And to do that in a manner that they could understand best and fits their norms. Though their norms when you look at them from today's perspective seem ridiculous because we have evolved.
Therefore Quran in my opinion does contain elements of the culture of Arabia of the 7th century. Including patriarchal elements and violent elements.
It addresses things that were once the norm of the people the quran was revealed to, so nothing surprising here. But the core of the message can still be grasped if we abstract it away from these details. With philosophy.
As for the first part of your post I agree, I do believe we are divine beings, the sexes are for the bodies that is going to decompose in this earth, like every other creature.
This possession things seems indeed to be a demoniacal possession in deed.
If the Qur'an meant possession, why bother to Go into the trouble and tangle of right hands or left hands, why not leave at malaka, that would be sufficient possession all right.
Those who see in the expression ma malakat ayman... seem to be the ones possessed by demons, their own demons.
Right hands, right hands... Who is somebody related to the right hand as opposed to mere mulk or left hand?
Mamalakat aymanukum is those to whom you are a benefactor, mamalakat aymanuhum it is those to hum they are a benefactor.
Devil possession is an evil condition and I doubt that the devil has any right hand which could be of benefit for anyone.
Beware of the obssession wiht possession.
Salaam
Besides , if GOD wanted to talk about our possession the Arabic expression is "Ma Malaktum" not "Ma Malakat Aymanukum"!!
I DO NOT SEE WHERE OUR "POSSESSION" COMES INTO IT?
So, Aymanukum, the one who has the possession is not us. It is a social duty i.e "What we are responsible for".
In simpler term, What you are responsible for is a duty towards others that serve your cause and you serve their cause as guardian or spouse or workers or ?.
I would call them "rules" of helping people to coexist/live in harmony.
For example, are we saying our children are our possession?
GOD bless.
Peace.
Just something to point out, dear good logic: "ma malaktum" would be what you possess, not whom you possess. Ma has got absolutely necessarily be a thing, it cannot be a person, a person would be man. Therefore nobody is possessed, save the obssessed with possession. Now, what could be possessed by the right hands of somebody? The most sure hting would be good deeds, meritorious actions to which you bind yourself.
The whole thing really is off track and once again one has to be shocked by the contrived destruction of Qura'nic grammatical logic and moral logic. Anything goes, making things into persons, making hand dissappear... It is dismal... And the fault is not fo some seventh century
weakness, about which we mostly know absolutely nothing about, whereas we talk as if had leaved for years in a place called seventh century. Could we not become more normal, even if it more boring than this phantastic runaround with dissappearing hands, persons turned into things, and all the beautiful adornments made to Qur'an so that it is more fun than just moral and spiritual things which really do not make for much excitement.
Yes I am being sarcastic and I think there are good reasons for it.
Salaam
I agree sister with your analysis.
We do not even possess ourselves. Look at our bodies, have we any control/possession of any of the organs?
We try to gain control/possession by using artificial things like drugs....etc to control our muscles /aches ...But in the end we have absolutely no control!
GOD bless you sister.
Peace.
Try reading this https://thefatalfeminist.com/2017/12/20/the-oath-possesses-your-right-hand/
Quote from: huruf on May 24, 2019, 06:06:34 PM
Just something to point out, dear good logic: "ma malaktum" would be what you possess, not whom you possess. Ma has got absolutely necessarily be a thing, it cannot be a person, a person would be man. Therefore nobody is possessed, save the obssessed with possession. Now, what could be possessed by the right hands of somebody? The most sure hting would be good deeds, meritorious actions to which you bind yourself.
Salaam sister huruf
I think you need to reassess it in the light of 70:29-30
وَٱلَّذِينَ هُمۡ لِفُرُوجِهِمۡ حَـٰفِظُونَ (٢٩) إِلَّا عَلَىٰٓ أَزۡوَٲجِهِمۡ أَوۡ مَا مَلَكَتۡ أَيۡمَـٰنُہُمۡ فَإِنَّہُمۡ غَيۡرُ مَلُومِينَ
And those who guard their private parts
except for their spouses who are under their oaths so they are not blamed ones.
QuoteQuote from: huruf on May 24, 2019, 03:06:34 PM
Just something to point out, dear good logic: "ma malaktum" would be what you possess, not whom you possess. Ma has got absolutely necessarily be a thing, it cannot be a person, a person would be man. Therefore nobody is possessed, save the obssessed with possession. Now, what could be possessed by the right hands of somebody? The most sure hting would be good deeds, meritorious actions to which you bind yourself.
Quote from: Novice on June 08, 2019, 05:57:18 PM
Salaam sister huruf
I think you need to reassess it in the light of 70:29-30
وَٱلَّذِينَ هُمۡ لِفُرُوجِهِمۡ حَـٰفِظُونَ (٢٩) إِلَّا عَلَىٰٓ أَزۡوَٲجِهِمۡ أَوۡ مَا مَلَكَتۡ أَيۡمَـٰنُہُمۡ فَإِنَّہُمۡ غَيۡرُ مَلُومِينَ
And those who guard their private parts
except for their spouses who are under their oaths so they are not blamed ones.
(http://haqeeqat.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/024.%20An%20Noor/24.61TT.gif)
Or those houses the keys of which are possessed by you people, [Refer 24:61]
The verb is Transitive Perfect. At most of the places the object is elided being otherwise explicit in the context and by the collocates.
مَا مَلَـكَـتْ أَيْمَٟنُـهُـمْ
(http://file:///G:/public-html/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.%20Tabweeb/0001.%20Pronouns%20and%20Prepositions/01.%20Mimma/02.%20Ma/3.gif) : It is found in Arabic text as Particle and a Noun. The noun is found as [ما الموصولة] General Relative Pronoun; or an Indefinite Noun modified by an adjective. General Relative Pronoun means that relative noun which is used for Being and inanimate; masculine and feminine; singular, dual, and plural. A Relative Pronoun is followed by a sentence which relates back to it, most often with a Pronoun named as [الْعَائِدُ] that links back to it. Here, in the above sentences, it is General Relative Pronoun as it is followed by a Relative Clause comprising a complete Verbal Sentence.
Quote from: Novice on June 08, 2019, 05:57:18 PM
Salaam sister huruf
I think you need to reassess it in the light of 70:29-30
وَٱلَّذِينَ هُمۡ لِفُرُوجِهِمۡ حَـٰفِظُونَ (٢٩) إِلَّا عَلَىٰٓ أَزۡوَٲجِهِمۡ أَوۡ مَا مَلَكَتۡ أَيۡمَـٰنُہُمۡ فَإِنَّہُمۡ غَيۡرُ مَلُومِينَ
And those who guard their private parts
except for their spouses who are under their oaths so they are not blamed ones.
No, it refers still to a thing, which is elided because it is known to the hearer. It is like when we call some person or pehrnomenen oin certain contextes by an acronym, we interpret what is left out, because the context and the concept is understood. In spanish I can think of some of those things spoken of today as objects because to relate the whole thing everytime would be boring and unnecessary since it is something that is in everybody's minds.
That some marriages were of the kind where an empowered and capable person had a spouse who was under his or her protection and guarantee was a well known fact, so you do not need to go into saying:
save from their spouses or from those with whom you have a marriage tie by which you are protecting and guaranteeing or you are being protected and guaranteed by the other spouse.
We kn ow that king of language economy today and <<i think it has always been known.
Salaam
Quote from: huruf on June 09, 2019, 12:38:25 PM
That some marriages were of the kind where an empowered and capable person had a spouse who was under his or her protection and guarantee was a well known fact, so you do not need to go into saying:
save from their spouses or from those with whom you have a marriage tie by which you are protecting and guaranteeing or you are being protected and guaranteed by the other spouse.
Sister my translation used "who are" instead of "or" for أَوۡ
In 70:30 مَا مَلَكَتۡ أَيۡمَـٰنُہُمۡ is explaining أَزۡوَٲجِهِمۡ
OK, I understand.
Could you give some other instance in Qur'an where you would translate "aw" as "who are" or as "who is"?
Salaam
Quote from: huruf on June 10, 2019, 04:39:35 PM
OK, I understand.
Could you give some other instance in Qur'an where you would translate "aw" as "who are" or as "who is"?
Salaam
Sorry sister for late reply. Life is really busy these days for me.
2:221
وَلَا تَنكِحُواْ ٱلۡمُشۡرِكَـٰتِ حَتَّىٰ يُؤۡمِنَّۚ وَلَأَمَةٌ۬ مُّؤۡمِنَةٌ خَيۡرٌ۬ مِّن مُّشۡرِكَةٍ۬ وَلَوۡ أَعۡجَبَتۡكُمۡۗ وَلَا تُنكِحُواْ ٱلۡمُشۡرِكِينَ حَتَّىٰ يُؤۡمِنُواْۚ وَلَعَبۡدٌ۬ مُّؤۡمِنٌ خَيۡرٌ۬ مِّن مُّشۡرِكٍ۬ وَلَوۡ أَعۡجَبَكُمۡۗ
DO not marry Mushrikaat until they believe, a believing slave women is better than a Mushrika, even though she attracts you and do not give in marriage to the Mushrikeen, a believing slave man is better than a Mushrik even though he attracts you........
24:3
ٱلزَّانِى لَا يَنكِحُ إِلَّا زَانِيَةً أَوۡ مُشۡرِكَةً۬ وَٱلزَّانِيَةُ لَا يَنكِحُهَآ إِلَّا زَانٍ أَوۡ مُشۡرِكٌ۬ۚ وَحُرِّمَ ذَٲلِكَ عَلَى ٱلۡمُؤۡمِنِينَ
A Zani, do not marry except for a Zania who is a Mushrika
A Zania, do not marry except for a Zani who is a Mushrik and it is made unlawful for believers.
2:221 commands us not to marry a Mushrik. If we take "AW" as "OR" in 24:3 then it contradicts 2:221
If we take it as "who is" then there is no contradiction. A zani and a Zania both become Mushrik by making their desires their god and there is no restriction on marriage between two Mushrikeen.
A Mushrik is one who obeys commands of other than Allah.
25:43
أَرَءَيۡتَ مَنِ ٱتَّخَذَ إِلَـٰهَهُ ۥ هَوَٮٰهُ أَفَأَنتَ تَكُونُ عَلَيۡهِ وَڪِيلاً Have you seen one who takes his desires as god ....
Salaam.
I do not think I agree with that, because then that could apply to any vice, like a slanderer, or a gambler or a lier and then there would not be any point in singling out the zaniyin as a specimen of mushrik and I think that forbidding marriage to a zany in the context of the ayas in sura an-noor has its proper meaning, in fact defeating a man can be a philanderer all is life and then when it comes to marriage wants a pure woman even virgin, but a woman who is not a virgin or known as absolutely irreproachable cannot get a marriage.
The aya means a philanderer or brothel visitor, should marry a woman like himself, and not seek a "good", sexually spotless woman. It is telling men that and telling women that marrying an unchaste man, no matter how much it may be socially approved, God does not approve. Many women ignore that provision.
That said, of course, anybody can sincerely repent and mend his or her ways.
Salaam
Quote from: Novice on June 10, 2019, 02:43:23 AM
Sister my translation used "who are" instead of "or" for أَوۡ
In 70:30 مَا مَلَكَتۡ أَيۡمَـٰنُہُمۡ is explaining أَزۡوَٲجِهِمۡ
Salam/Peace dear brother. Good to see you. Now you stated that AW would mean "who is" in 24:3, i wonder if there is any Classical Arabic grammar or dictionary that can confirm this meaning?
I checked in Lughat Al-Quran and i found this:
(https://i.imgur.com/O6l7QJK.png)
Quote from: Novice on June 10, 2019, 02:43:23 AM
my translation used "who are" instead of "or" for أَوۡ
peace novice,
its an interesting observation although what WORD arabic used for english word "OR"
or you are saying this "Coordinating Conjunction" used for both
"or" and
"who is" ..?
Quote from: imrankhawaja on June 17, 2019, 10:58:11 PM
peace novice,
its an interesting observation although what WORD arabic used for english word "OR"
or you are saying this "Coordinating Conjunction" used for both "or" and "who is" ..?
Salaam Imran and The sadar
Yes brother it means both depending on the context. Dr. Shabbir has explained it in QXP at 24:3 and to me it makes sense.
Quote from: huruf on June 16, 2019, 01:38:00 PM
I do not think I agree with that, because then that could apply to any vice, like a slanderer, or a gambler or a lier and then there would not be any point in singling out the zaniyin as a specimen of mushrik and I think that forbidding marriage to a zany in the context of the ayas in sura an-noor has its proper meaning, in fact defeating a man can be a philanderer all is life and then when it comes to marriage wants a pure woman even virgin, but a woman who is not a virgin or known as absolutely irreproachable cannot get a marriage.
The aya means a philanderer or brothel visitor, should marry a woman like himself, and not seek a "good", sexually spotless woman. It is telling men that and telling women that marrying an unchaste man, no matter how much it may be socially approved, God does not approve. Many women ignore that provision.
That said, of course, anybody can sincerely repent and mend his or her ways.
Salaam
We can apply it to only that which is in the Quran.
If Aw is "or" then looks like it contradict 2:221.
Can a believer marry a mushrik?
Salaam
I can't see how it ontradicts it. It is two different things. If it were something like "who is" I would expect it to be much more common than just that mention which it does not convince me that for just that case or those two you mention has that meaning. And it only does the Qur'an say that if you yourself do give that mening to "or" only in precisely those passages.
On the other hand you would be saying that marrying zani provided he or she is not a mushrik would be all right which would defeat the aleya itself because anyway you cannot marry a mushrik, therefore you can marry a zani. It turns the aleya into nonsense. You cannot marry mushriks if you are not one, and you cannot marry zanis if you are not one. But if you are a zani you can marry mushriks or zanis, included zanis who also are mushriks, but still you cannot marry a zani if you yourself are neither zani nor mushrik.
If you say it is equating zina and shirk, yes it seems so but they are two different concepts. It may be that if you marry a zani and you yourself are not one, you are turning yourself into a mushrik since you value s worldly idea of marriage over what God makes it to be.
Salaam
Quote from: huruf on June 19, 2019, 02:58:49 AM
But if you are a zani you can marry mushriks or zanis, included zanis who also are mushriks, but still you cannot marry a zani if you yourself are neither zani nor mushrik.
So as you said above "a zani can marry a mushrik". But it contradicts 2:221 which commands not to marry a mushrik.
Or are you saying that a zani is a mushrik so he can marry a mushrik. If so then that is what I said already.
Quote from: huruf on June 19, 2019, 02:58:49 AM
If you say it is equating zina and shirk, yes it seems so but they are two different concepts. It may be that if you marry a zani and you yourself are not one, you are turning yourself into a mushrik since you value s worldly idea of marriage over what God makes it to be.
Same what I already said that zani=mushrik
Sister please re-read your reply and see the confusion.
No, it is clear tht the Qur'an is pointing to something, making us think. It is not "who is", it may be saying that if you commit zina, you are doing what you do not think you are doing but in fact you are doing, which is commit shirk, but it is not expressing it as you say. "Aw", outside those cases where you make it so, does not mean "who is", you may say that it amounts to that in that aya, but it is not saying that and I do not see how I can make it into that, even if it amounts to that in that case.
And no, I do not see any contradiction at all, merely it is making something clear and making it clear in such a way that nobody can use social mores and as an escape from God's laws.
Salaam
Quote from: huruf on June 23, 2019, 03:08:40 AM
No, it is clear tht the Qur'an is pointing to something, making us think. It is not "who is", it may be saying that if you commit zina, you are doing what you do not think you are doing but in fact you are doing, which is commit shirk, but it is not expressing it as you say. "Aw", outside those cases where you make it so, does not mean "who is", you may say that it amounts to that in that aya, but it is not saying that and I do not see how I can make it into that, even if it amounts to that in that case.
And no, I do not see any contradiction at all, merely it is making something clear and making it clear in such a way that nobody can use social mores and as an escape from God's laws.
Salaam
So a zani can marry a mushrik?
24:3 The adulterer will only marry an adulteress or she who is a polytheist. And the adulteress, she will only be married to an adulterer or he who is a polytheist. And such has been made forbidden for the believers.
This verse begs a lot of questions;
How does one earn the label of adulterer ? By engaging in adultery now ? In the past ?
And if such thing is forbidden for the believers, then what's an adulterer, a non-believer ?
QuoteSo a zani can marry a mushrik?
You may say so, I do not say so nor the Qur'an says so. Nothing is contradictory, simply makes something clear, not against something else but just by itself.
The most you can say is that by the fact of becoming a zani somebody also becomes a mushrik or something that amounts to it. Obviously, yes a zani can marry a mushrik in fact it is the only thing besides another zani that he or she can marry.
What a zani cannot do is marry a chaste person. You may say, a mushrik can be chaste...
Yes you may say that. The, what is really a mushrik? A person who says I am a mushrik? And what is a non mushrik? A person who says I am not a mushrik?
God speaks truth and very cleverly, how faithful is a person by the mere fact of declaring himself mushrik or non mushrik. It is what is in his behaivour and his heart which God knows and people may not know. Because God is not saying marry a person who declares himself mushrik, does not say that... and declaring oneself something, or being called something by somebody else is not the same thing as being something in his inner conviction and self submission and in the knowledge of God.
¿Can there be anybody who automatically by becoming voluntarily a zani, does not automatically commit shirk?
God gives us to think and to scrutinize our own motives. God is not saying in that aya to proclaim anything officially and prohibit people anything to be applied over the spectre and to everybody, He is setting a principle for is each of us, who must speak with our conscience and see that we honestly realise what every one of our acts or ommissions entails. It is not a matter of searching people's lives to find who they can marry and cannot marry according to official law, but whether one oneself is legitimized to marry a person without respect for any commitment to God or to other persons because one physically likes that person very much, because one has fallen in love with her or because one thinks that it is a good match conveniencewise. The latter instance has ruled marriage behaviour in the better off classes of the western world, and I suspect in others also, for a long time, those times where the double-morals were the usual behaviour and also made into written law.
The aya is not for any ulema to make a ruling but for each of us to examine ourselves and our motives. That is the most fruitful application of the Qur'an, in my view. The ulema and fuqaha may play their part well or wrong but the ultimate conscience is not them but the conscience of each person. On the reverse if most people have honest conscience, laws may turn out also to be more honest. If people are corrupt, forget it, anything will go. But of course we all know this.
Salaam
Quote from: Cerberus on June 24, 2019, 06:51:01 AM
24:3 The adulterer will only marry an adulteress or she who is a polytheist. And the adulteress, she will only be married to an adulterer or he who is a polytheist. And such has been made forbidden for the believers.
This verse begs a lot of questions;
How does one earn the label of adulterer ? By engaging in adultery now ? In the past ?
And if such thing is forbidden for the believers, then what's an adulterer, a non-believer ?
After the adulterer admits his sin and is punished, may he be considered to be a believer again because of his honesty under the quranic jurisdiction? Because logically speaking Qur'an prohibits adultery, when you go against it you have violated the decree which only a disbeliever could do. Or the temptation was so strong that a pious would instantly demand a punishment under the quranic jurisdiction. And to be fair, there are pious types of human beings which know that atonement is relieving, otherwise you live with that burden the whole life.
Greetings and Peace, all :group:
Is it not possible that "right hands possess" is a metaphor for those engaged to be married?
May the Almighty see fit to Guide all seekers.
:peace:
~Abdul-Hadi
It is possible but...
How can you possess something you haven't got yet.
I think it's referring to indentured servants personally. Temporary possession.
No, nobody possesses anybody else. Grammatically impossible of all impossibility. Read previous messages or threads.
Salaam
Quote from: huruf on June 10, 2019, 04:39:35 PM
OK, I understand.
Could you give some other instance in Qur'an where you would translate "aw" as "who are" or as "who is"?
Salaam
Salaam sister huruf
25:62 وَهُوَ ٱلَّذِى جَعَلَ ٱلَّيۡلَ وَٱلنَّهَارَ خِلۡفَةً۬ لِّمَنۡ أَرَادَ أَن يَذَّڪَّرَ أَوۡ أَرَادَ شُڪُورً۬اHow would you translate "AW" in this ayat? Does it mean "or" or it is explanatory "Aw"?
No, I do not see it as explanatory, even though both things can happen at the same time and circumstance, but they are two different things, even if they may be together more often than not. It is like saying that somebody likes the company of a person who is gentle or pleasant. The person may be those things at the same time but it is two different things, that is the point. Two different concepts, even if they may go together in many most or even all circumstances, still it is two different concepts, separable concepts.
Salaam
Salaam
Quote from: huruf on July 07, 2019, 02:58:47 AM
No, I do not see it as explanatory, even though both things can happen at the same time and circumstance, but they are two different things, even if they may be together more often than not. It is like saying that somebody likes the company of a person who is gentle or pleasant. The person may be those things at the same time but it is two different things, that is the point. Two different concepts, even if they may go together in many most or even all circumstances, still it is two different concepts, separable concepts.
Salaam
Salaam
25:62 وَهُوَ ٱلَّذِى جَعَلَ ٱلَّيۡلَ وَٱلنَّهَارَ خِلۡفَةً۬ لِّمَنۡ أَرَادَ أَن يَذَّڪَّرَ أَوۡ أَرَادَ شُڪُورً۬ا
Is there a choice between "yazzakara" and "shukura" in this ayat?
Salaam
Quote from: Novice on July 08, 2019, 04:06:45 AM
25:62 وَهُوَ ٱلَّذِى جَعَلَ ٱلَّيۡلَ وَٱلنَّهَارَ خِلۡفَةً۬ لِّمَنۡ أَرَادَ أَن يَذَّڪَّرَ أَوۡ أَرَادَ شُڪُورً۬ا
Is there a choice between "yazzakara" and "shukura" in this ayat?
Salaam
It is not a matter of choice or not choice, two different things, are two different things, whether you choose or not choose or whether it is possible for any parituclar individual to choose or it is not possible to choose or it occurs to him or her even that you have or can choose.
Salaam