Author Topic: Muhammad Asad's 70:30  (Read 7987 times)

zigazigha

  • Beginner/Inquirer
  • *
  • Posts: 62
  • Karma +0/-0
Re: Muhammad Asad's 70:30
« Reply #20 on: March 24, 2017, 10:08:16 AM »
early scholars translated the GF/partner relationship as slave, which is a poor defination of arabic word what gives a meanings of rightfully yours perfectly covers all that relationships which based on absence of marriage ceremony , like in africa jungles the couples who are not married but they have children together... and they love eachother ... same like that in europe one of my friend and his girl friend get married after 3 kids ... so its dosent mean before their wedding what they did was something wrong. becoz she was rightfully belong to him...

God knows best

Peace Man Of Faith.
You say,quote:
The more you reflect on that common interpretation the stupider it seems, does it not?

Let us then reflect on 23:5 and 70:30 together.

23:5 and 70:30 is saying one or the other...Altogether one. Your spouse( The one that comes with a ceremony and a marriage certificate as conformed by man s system) or your partner( The one that is rightfully/legally yours,you two have taken a contract to stay together as partners but not recognised/done the ceremony and certificate as so many couples are doing in many countries).
 GOD recognises both and calls it right in both verses.
Does it seem so stupid now? Your spouse or what is rightfully/legally yours.
Oh and,that is my understanding brother.
GOD bless you.
Peace.

Are you sure? I don't think this is the right interpretation given that premarital sex is impermissible.
"But let them who find not [the means for] marriage abstain [from sexual relations] until Allah enriches them from His bounty." [24:33]
Unless the verses about premarital sex are mistranslated. I don't know Arabic unfortunately.
I believe that marriage is not a ceremony, it's just signing a contract in the presence of a witness or more witnesses.
Also, the Qur'an says not to take secret lovers, so I don't think ma malakat aymanukum means girlfriend/boyfriend/partner.
But I don't know, I might wrong...

zigazigha

  • Beginner/Inquirer
  • *
  • Posts: 62
  • Karma +0/-0
Re: Muhammad Asad's 70:30
« Reply #21 on: March 24, 2017, 10:12:01 AM »



Peace,
Where does God permit such a thing?  :hypno:

As far as I understand, in verses 23:5 and 70:30.

imrankhawaja

  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 4336
  • Karma +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Muhammad Asad's 70:30
« Reply #22 on: March 24, 2017, 10:43:35 AM »
marriage /partnership is not a license of doing sex legally..

its actually a journey to walk together...  a starting of this journey can be open and prominent like traditional wedding.. in church, mosque , house, hall, registry office.. tribal tradition of wedding is also there...(husband & wife)

or who dnt afford to do a traditional ceremony they can also make an oath infront of God to walk together.. on this very same journey without doing any ceremony at all.... (ma malikat/gf/partner/rightfully yours)


good logic

  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 5553
  • Karma +7/-2
Re: Muhammad Asad's 70:30
« Reply #23 on: March 24, 2017, 11:42:20 AM »
Peace All.
GOD  in 23:5 or 70:30 is saying a "legally bound with a contract" partner. Whichever way you look at it. No contradiction. In fact God is aware of all the possibilities /traditions/ways in which any couples/partners can be contracted to live together as a unit.

Zigazigha ,There are those who decide to live together once they agree to start a family/live in the same home and hence bind with a contract. I agree with you that intimacy should not happen .
GOD bless you.
Peace.
TOTAL LOYALTY TO GOD ALONE.   IN GOD I TRUST
38:65″ Say:? I warn you; There is no other god beside GOD, the One, the Supreme.?
https://total-loyalty-to-god-alone.co.uk/

good logic

  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 5553
  • Karma +7/-2
Re: Muhammad Asad's 70:30
« Reply #24 on: March 24, 2017, 11:45:31 AM »
I meant to say intimacy should not happen before that.
Peace
TOTAL LOYALTY TO GOD ALONE.   IN GOD I TRUST
38:65″ Say:? I warn you; There is no other god beside GOD, the One, the Supreme.?
https://total-loyalty-to-god-alone.co.uk/

uq

  • Global Moderator
  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Posts: 407
  • Karma +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Muhammad Asad's 70:30
« Reply #25 on: March 24, 2017, 06:25:46 PM »
Peace all,

I second everything huruf said in his/her last post.

I am strongly of the belief that the meaning of the text of the Arabic Quran can be rendered into many languages perfectly.

I use the word perfectly very intentionally for two reasons: one is epistemological and the other is linguistic. I will not expound them here because I feel it would be beyond the remit of this thread.

However, the literary aspects of the Quran would almost certainly be lost in translation without affecting the meaning, such as rhyme, rhythm, register, metre, phoneme association, etc.

As regards Asad's translation of 70:29-30, there is a grammatical possibility that أَوۡ in this verse bears the meaning of And, however, in all cases where multiple meanings for one word are possible, one's only guide is the context of the clause, or proposition, or sentence, or passage, etc.

I personally lean towards Or not And. However, to explain my reasoning for my interpretation, I would have to expound the subject of مَا مَلَكَت أَيۡمَانُكُمۡ , which is, again, beyond the remit of this thread.
uq

Timotheus

  • Truth Seeker
  • ***
  • Posts: 852
  • Karma +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Muhammad Asad's 70:30
« Reply #26 on: March 24, 2017, 08:42:28 PM »
Peace,

The previous scriptures gave examples of marriage with servants, it's not some depraved sex slavery, it's in my understanding a legitamate relationship, though both scriptures encourage the freeing of servants.

And the primary purpose, in my understanding of servants, is that they serve, and as payment they are provided for with food and shelter, and opportunities.

It makes sense to me, so that those who otherwise would not be fed our housed are able to, and all marriage must be by free will, and following a contract regardless in my understanding.

Moses for example served for his father in law on the term that he was given a wife, home, food etc presumably.

Slavery is quite a degrading word, although it has understandably been degraded by those who abused what was otherwise a successful system of providing for those who could not provide for themselves
What could i say that is better than what God has already informed us of?
Follow God
Seek His guidance, the only guidance
Glory and Praise be to God, rabbil Aalameen

huruf

  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 6502
  • Karma +1/-1
Re: Muhammad Asad's 70:30
« Reply #27 on: March 25, 2017, 01:02:20 AM »
I think it has been undestood, but just in case we may be, once more misled in this question through old or fresh assumptions, I remind that both sexes can have mamalakat aymanuhum. A woman can have that and aman can have them.

If we take it that it would be licit for men to have a wive or wives and on top of it have also some mamalakat, then women could also... Nowhere in Qur'an such thing is encouraged on top of it without any warrant. One thing that the qur'a isists upon recurrently is that whoever a man marries, he should alsways pay what is due to the woman at the moment of marriage.

Reality also seconds that in the sense that only dirty rich people incurr into smething so antisocial. Common people usually do not get into that kind os choices simultaneously.

Salaam

Man of Faith

  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 7976
  • Karma +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Muhammad Asad's 70:30
« Reply #28 on: March 25, 2017, 10:46:13 AM »
Peace Man Of Faith.
You say,quote:
The more you reflect on that common interpretation the stupider it seems, does it not?

Let us then reflect on 23:5 and 70:30 together.

23:5 and 70:30 is saying one or the other...Altogether one. Your spouse( The one that comes with a ceremony and a marriage certificate as conformed by man s system) or your partner( The one that is rightfully/legally yours,you two have taken a contract to stay together as partners but not recognised/done the ceremony and certificate as so many couples are doing in many countries).
 GOD recognises both and calls it right in both verses.
Does it seem so stupid now? Your spouse or what is rightfully/legally yours.
Oh and,that is my understanding brother.
GOD bless you.
Peace.

It only makes it worse. Read such passages with an objective mind and it sounds horrible. "What your hands possess", how does one interpret that if not negatively? With a little more reading it is possible to extract such people are servants who are not free. On top of that, it does seem to approve of polygamy as long as the person can handle multiple wives.

I understand you use your wishful thinking into making the "or what your hands possess" into women you have not yet established an official marriage contract with, but this is clearly interpretation acrobatics due to how one wish for it to be. Unfortunately, you would have to neglect a big part of the sectarian interpretation for that to be consistent.

Furthermore, ayamankum indicates what you have in your possession basically saying you own the subject in question making this woman a trophy of yours.

So I stand my ground here. I could line up a multitude of points on why the common interpretation is primitive and retarded.

Be well
Qarael Amenuel
Website reference: http://iamthatiam.boards.net

huruf

  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 6502
  • Karma +1/-1
Re: Muhammad Asad's 70:30
« Reply #29 on: March 25, 2017, 11:05:04 AM »
Man of Faith
?Can you give straight and plain your interpretation of what the aya 70.30 says? That is a translation of the whole aya that you consider faithful to the original.

Salaam