Studying Islam

Post Reply

Username

Invalid Username or Password

Password

Format

Message Icon

Message

- Forum Code is ON
- HTML is OFF

Smilies

[quote]There are three different points (perhaps, independent) that I'd like to put here for everyone's consideration:

1) Verses 33:50-52 (which are three of those that talk on slavery, aside from others) use the words, "Ma Malakat Aymanukum".
[b]
Bro Layth at Free-Minds:
[blue]
"Ma Malakat Aymanukum" is literally = 'what your oaths have commited/ and or/ those whom you are responsible for'.

Prisoners is 'asra' in Arabic and this does not exist in the entire wording
or context mentioned...

Slaves/servants (abd) and Captives (asra) never occur in any of these verses but are a fact if wishful thinking and preverted imagination...[/blue][/b]

I am obviously not an Arab or an Arabic genius, so your comments on the above are welcome.

2) Even if you do not accept this, why would you not accept an understanding of the Qur'anic verses on slavery being made temporarily permissible for the general public (till such time that abolishment was practical), and not for the Prophet (sws). Was he allowed consumption of alcohol? Or, did he consume alcohol prior to its complete ban under Islam?

3) Yusuf Ali's translation of verse 33:50 follows:

[b]O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess;- in order that there should be no difficulty for thee. And Allah is Oft- Forgiving, Most Merciful.[/b]

Couldn't this suggest that marriage with 'those whom the right hand possesses' is permissible? Since their mention is followed by the mention of daughters of paternal/maternal uncles and aunts, and preceded by the mentioned of 'those who dowers have been paid', why can't we assume marriage for those mentioned in between too?[/quote]

Mode

Check here to be notified by email whenever someone replies to your topic

Show Preview