Author Topic: Muhammad Asad's 70:30  (Read 7988 times)

Wilson

  • Apprentice
  • **
  • Posts: 396
  • Karma +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Muhammad Asad's 70:30
« Reply #40 on: March 27, 2017, 12:22:56 PM »
Peace zigazigha,

In the comment he says the conjunction "aw" doesn't mean "or", but it has an explanatory function.
If this is the right translation does it mean that wives are possession of their husband? Isn't it degrading?

FREE-MINDS: Except around their spouses or those committed to by their oath, there is no blame.

Literally; "or what their oath possesses" (i.e. whom they made an oath to marry).

Hope this helps.

Wilson

  • Apprentice
  • **
  • Posts: 396
  • Karma +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Muhammad Asad's 70:30
« Reply #41 on: March 27, 2017, 01:10:37 PM »
Peace zigazigha,

I would also like to point out that premarital sex is not mentioned in 70:30. Guarding the private parts means that we shouldn't let our private parts be aroused (except by our wives and those that we made an oath of engagement to).

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...

Dating is allowed. Even secretly dating is allowed when the couple meet in secret to discuss good things (see 2:235).

Hope this helps.

Man of Faith

  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 7976
  • Karma +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Muhammad Asad's 70:30
« Reply #42 on: March 27, 2017, 02:09:00 PM »
Hello good logic,

I suspect that you misunderstood my rendition. It will not be possible to apply traditional linguistics and make a successful rendition of mine.

My rendition would be, including 70:29 and 70:31 and thus use a translation rendition of it:

<70:29> ...and the ones of those [who] guard private parts theirs / <70:30> are to be unto [who] be companion theirs or not handled {Subject} [by] hands theirs for there are those [who] bring {of} sin / <70:31> by/for a succumbing strength (alt. intoxicating), potent/igniting [to] subject you by [which] you are like them, turned away/astray/unto another direction / <70:32> and..."

Note: Bracketed words necessary for English fluency and are not necessary when communicating in Arabic. The curly brackets {} are used to mark grammatical features (affixes) not necessarily translated but marking their significance in the linguistics.

Note 2: I was not able to find a good English translation for ابتغى and hence you find "succumbing strength" in the rendition. Charm could perhaps be a good candidate too, but I suppose you understand what the Arabic tries to convey. Perhaps "flirt" or game would be plausible.

Note 3: Prefix Fe ف can vary in translation into English due to its resumption particle feature in order to create a subtle pause to add to the sentence. Through or forth are viable translations and thus maybe even "by" or "so by that" and even hence or thus. Hard to use one English word every time.

My rendition suggests that people who restrain their private parts are to be unto someone accompanying/bonded to them or is not to be handled by their hands. It is a typical elaboration on the "no promiscuity" commandment from Moses' Ten Directives. Apart from someone bonded to you, you should keep yours hands off.

Note that I have not yet found concrete evidence to support what I suggest about La and Ma and therefore I cannot prove by direct source even though I can by logical inference work out that La is "to be" and Ma "not" and my rendition of the famous "La elah ala allah" is hence "to be being is to be being-alike" or simply: "to exist is to be existent". Allah is the Being, the concept of being for all who become aware and they cease to exist as a human on Earth but are in Rabb as One, (Being in unity = Allahu ahad"). One could say God is Allah as that is the image (sunnatullah), but Rabb is the actual "title" and you can see multiple people addressing God by Ye Rabb in Quran. God is an absolute monotheism, nothing in existence but Him, so no duality of existence. One must confess God is in you and you in God and the you does not exist except as a mere expression of His even if you surely have great potential to serve and own independence of mind (i.e. you ARE allowed to be your unique person).

The world was made to test people, to see how they will fare on their own and by that I stand firm. Those who approach their Originator and shun what is not them but is just a contradiction/challenge placed in the world. The ones who follow the Beast are not unique but very stereotypical, just what God is NOT expecting even if it might seem otherwise deceptively.

This is what is in my heart and I have not claimed anything but just talked. It is not right or wrong and I do not make any claims and I admitted only linguistics research has verified that about La and Ma. If it happens to show something in greater clarity that might just be an indication of something for the witted.

To be like them in the rendition is implied those who chose the path of this world which is a different path than the one intended by the Originator and charming, flirting or testing one's bodily stature is instinctual. It is easy to unknowingly go by the opposite sex in a subconscious attempt to get a better standing with them due to their gender and then the temptation becomes too strong. And Jesus allegedly once said that "even looking upon a woman with desire is having already committed promiscuity with the mind". It basically talks about playing along in the games of this world and like Jesus said I would say promiscuity has already been done when the thought is conceived in the head, even when it is only being affected for special treatment of a person due to their gender". Everything has its roots somewhere and this drive has its root in the instinctual. You may also call it the "whispers of Satan" for whatever you make of the Satan in belief as some people shake it off as some other living person.

Be certain, be certain (amen amen), if you refrain from banning me I can be of help even if you do not agree with me.

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

Timotheus

  • Truth Seeker
  • ***
  • Posts: 852
  • Karma +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Muhammad Asad's 70:30
« Reply #43 on: March 27, 2017, 11:48:36 PM »
Peace,

Man of Faith some of your interpretations make no sense.

La in the context of the Quran clearly negates, and the grammar of classical Arabic has different cases for using la or ma, in my understanding.

An ilah in the Quran, and the previous scriptures clearly means a diety or god/object of worship/service, so I don't understand how you translate the creed. In arabic grammar, in my understanding, an alif, lam followed by an alif lam is assimilated, so al ilah becomes allah. However each to their own,

A few other points to note, on the prefix fa, originating from the mouth or lips pictograph, in my understanding often indicates an expression of something (hence the mouth, as it expresses) or a seperation/distinction of a matter.

Illa also is a combination of in la, I.e if not

La ilaha ila allah =
Not a god/power if not the God

That's the way I see it anyway
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

Man of Faith

  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 7976
  • Karma +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Muhammad Asad's 70:30
« Reply #44 on: March 28, 2017, 12:57:47 AM »
Peace,

Man of Faith some of your interpretations make no sense.

La in the context of the Quran clearly negates, and the grammar of classical Arabic has different cases for using la or ma, in my understanding.

An ilah in the Quran, and the previous scriptures clearly means a diety or god/object of worship/service, so I don't understand how you translate the creed. In arabic grammar, in my understanding, an alif, lam followed by an alif lam is assimilated, so al ilah becomes allah. However each to their own,

A few other points to note, on the prefix fa, originating from the mouth or lips pictograph, in my understanding often indicates an expression of something (hence the mouth, as it expresses) or a seperation/distinction of a matter.

Illa also is a combination of in la, I.e if not

La ilaha ila allah =
Not a god/power if not the God

That's the way I see it anyway

I wrote that I have no direct source to concretely prove my research on لا La, but my findings have clearly showed that it is true. My post was not a direct claim but more a revelation of my thoughts on the matter.

And اله could mean either "the who" (the he/she/it) or what you are claiming. I suppose traditional Quran scripts insert a diacritical marker to indicate that the latter is used. But originally it is only اله without anything else. And Alah is the AL particle and third person singular, but it seems I am just repeating myself constantly. I would not take اله for its own root, this is not the root but Alif-Lam-Lam, the short form of it (not full form).

Allah is a special construct of the full root Alif-Lam-Lam plus the same Heh as in Alah. It would mean "is being like who" and our purpose is to follow the Sunnat'allah so anyone who successfully does it "is being like Him" as is the proper meaning of the word Allah to my understanding.

In the traditional interpretation "La Alah ala Allah" would mean "no god except the God", it does not sound very intelligible in my opinion.

Fe is a resumption particle also in traditional grammar, working much like in my understanding but not entirely. It is to indicate the latter context result in continuity and one continues to speak on the matter as a result, i.e. "so" or "therefore".

The case of Ma and La is clearly one of my biggest obstacles since albeit I am convinced concerning it there remains to be able to prove it by some source. Ma does alternatively negate a sentence depending on context and this is the puzzle to me how the medieval clergymen and interpreters could convince people about that. In my understanding Ma does always negate a sentence, it is the language's no. How someone could make La into no/not is a mystery to me, it is like changing a yes into a no. Strange things surely happened 2000 years ago.

I must retain my opinion that Quran was only loosely interpreted ever, no one really has made any complete deciphering and by the time it was being interpreted in medieval times people lacked the skill in being up to the job.

To me it is difficult even with modern technology such as the computer and accompanying software to help decipher it. The rendition to 'good logic' took me a few hours to complete and it was only three verses and then I could use learned knowledge of the language in producing a rendition. Without any technological tools the work would take a lifetime and I had estimated to complete it in my 40's and I am 35 next month. My speed of rendering increases by putting the pieces together and when I began the project it would surely have taken 6 hours to decipher the same passage. In the final stages I anticipate the same length of passage may take me only a fraction of how long I spent with it now. This is because I decipher a scripture with no trustworthy accompanying sources but I have to crawl through masses of disinformation to find the pearls, i.e. the words' real definitions. A tricky part is to find evidence of Ma being an exclusive negation. I have tried to look in other languages. Regardless, I am working on the premise it is according to what my research has shown since it is most logical and fits the linguistics.

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

Timotheus

  • Truth Seeker
  • ***
  • Posts: 852
  • Karma +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Muhammad Asad's 70:30
« Reply #45 on: March 28, 2017, 02:11:39 AM »
Peace,

Interesting viewpoints. We also have the previous scriptures, which provides a great context as to the understanding of what a ilah is.

And more or less of you put together the Semitic pictographs in their earlier forms you can more or less in my understanding see the concept of what God means
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

Noon waalqalami

  • Advanced Truth Seeker
  • ****
  • Posts: 1849
  • Karma +2/-0
Re: Muhammad Asad's 70:30
« Reply #46 on: March 28, 2017, 06:21:16 AM »
FREE-MINDS: Except around their spouses or those committed to by their oath, there is no blame.

Literally; "or what their oath possesses" (i.e. whom they made an oath to marry).

Peace, it's a broad term depending on context and cannot mean above see example 33:55 those permitted to visit freely "spouses the prophet" in addition to their close relatives mentioned includes those under trust, care, employment etc., e.g. doctor perhaps.


Man of Faith

  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 7976
  • Karma +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Muhammad Asad's 70:30
« Reply #47 on: March 28, 2017, 07:02:10 AM »
Peace,

Interesting viewpoints. We also have the previous scriptures, which provides a great context as to the understanding of what a ilah is.

And more or less of you put together the Semitic pictographs in their earlier forms you can more or less in my understanding see the concept of what God means

There are some severe errors in how the Bible is translated, probably more due to linguistic ignorance than deliberately. YWEH God is used a lot in conjunction but same here I do find the word YWEH to be some kind of acronym. But the God-word is what I am proposing is incorrectly understood.

I am not denying the existence of God as a unique being and God encompasses everything and everyone which I do not, but it is absolutely One and anything in existence is part of that Oneness in origin. God according to me is Rabb in Semitic tradition even though the word seems to be "modern" within linguistics.

To paraphrase the Allah-word one could also say "the one who is-like". The purpose of our existence is "to be being" (in individual consciousness), or not be at all. Funnily one can say "to be or not to be is the question".

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

Wilson

  • Apprentice
  • **
  • Posts: 396
  • Karma +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Muhammad Asad's 70:30
« Reply #48 on: March 28, 2017, 09:36:15 AM »
Peace Noon waalqalami,

Peace, it's a broad term depending on context and cannot mean above see example 33:55 those permitted to visit freely "spouses the prophet" in addition to their close relatives mentioned includes those under trust, care, employment etc., e.g. doctor perhaps.

?Ma malkat aymanukum?: Those related to you by your oath. In the case of a single man this is the oath of engagement to marry. In the case of a custodian this is the oath of adoption or financial support. Following are the list of verses where this expression occurs and the context of each occurrence:

Who you made an oath to marry: (4:3,4:24, 4:25, 23:6, 33:50, 33:52, 70:30)
Who you made an oath to adopt/take custody of: (24:31, 24:33, 24:58, 33:55)
Who you made an oath to financially support in general: (4:33, 4:36, 16:71, 30:28)

Source: Rules Of Engagement

Hope this helps.

Aries

  • Apprentice
  • **
  • Posts: 296
  • Karma +0/-0
Re: Muhammad Asad's 70:30
« Reply #49 on: March 28, 2017, 10:22:21 AM »
Peace zigazigha,

FREE-MINDS: Except around their spouses or those committed to by their oath, there is no blame.

Literally; "or what their oath possesses" (i.e. whom they made an oath to marry).

Hope this helps.

Peace Abdelilah

Because I have a personal probem with ما being addressed to animated beings, i'd prefer something like "what your oath encompass" or something like that (not being the "what" human beings but the content of the oath itself including as, for example, also celibate, etc.)


Have a great day  :sun: