fudgy wrote:Cassie wrote:Phew! Aussie girls rejoice!
Aussie and Brits gals are yuck. Easily owned by Iranian, Turkish, Lebenese.
And this opinion of yours proves what about your religion?
fudgy wrote:Cassie wrote:Phew! Aussie girls rejoice!
Aussie and Brits gals are yuck. Easily owned by Iranian, Turkish, Lebenese.
fudgy wrote:Cassie wrote:I just told you I got the wrong verse. Try 33-50 which uses "and" while 23-6 uses "or". It busts Asad's argument. If you had integrity, you'd admit when you make a mistake - just like I did - when I apologized for getting the verse number wrong. Unfortunately, for you and your loser buddy Masterbater, my proposition still holds.
Thats a complete different verse. And no it does not bust his argument. He explained 33:50 very well too.
fudgy wrote:Cassie wrote:I just told you I got the wrong verse. Try 33-50 which uses "and" while 23-6 uses "or". It busts Asad's argument. If you had integrity, you'd admit when you make a mistake - just like I did - when I apologized for getting the verse number wrong. Unfortunately, for you and your loser buddy Masterbater, my proposition still holds.
Thats a complete different verse. And no it does not bust his argument. He explained 33:50 very well too.
KhaliL FarieL wrote:
Your glorious Islamic scholar Muhammad Asad translated the "وَمَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُمْ " in 33:50 as "Those whom their right hands may possess".
fudgy wrote:Cassie wrote:Phew! Aussie girls rejoice!
Aussie and Brits gals are yuck.
fudgy wrote:Lol Asad did not omit it. he made an excellent case out of what it really means. See below:[Lit., “or those whom their right hands possess” (aw ma malakat aymanuhum). Many of the commentators assume unquestioningly that this relates to female slaves, and that the particle aw (“or”) denotes a permissible alternative. This interpretation is, in my opinion, inadmissible inasmuch as it is based on the assumption that sexual intercourse with ones female slave is permitted without marriage: an assumption, which is contradicted by the Quran itself (see 4: 3, 24, 25 and 24: 32, with the corresponding notes). Nor is this the only objection to the above-mentioned interpretation. Since the Quran applies the term ‘‘believers” to men and women alike, and since the term azwaj (“spouses”), too, denotes both the male and the female partners in marriage, there is no reason for attributing to the phrase ma malakat aymanuhum the meaning of “their female slaves’’; and since, on the other hand, it is out of the question that female and male slaves could have been referred to here it is obvious that this phrase does not relate to slaves at all, but has the same meaning as in 4: 24 - namely, “those whom they rightfully possess through wedlock (see note on 4: 24) - with the significant difference that in the present context this expression relates to both husbands and wives, who “rightfully possess” one another by virtue of marriage. On the basis of this interpretation, the particle aw which precedes this clause does not denote an alternative (“or”) but is, rather, in the nature of an explanatory amplification, more or less analogous to the phrase “in other words” or “that is”, thus giving to the whole sentence the meaning, “save with their spouses - that is, those whom they rightfully possess [through wedlock]”, etc. (Cf. a similar construction 25: 62 - ‘‘for him who has the will to take thought -that is [lit., “or”], has the will to be grateful”.)]
You are forbidden to marry your mothers, daughters, sisters, paternal aunts, maternal aunts, nieces, your foster-mothers, your foster-sisters, your mothers-in-law, your step-daughters whom you have brought up and with whose mothers you have had carnal relations. It would not be a sin to marry her if you did not have carnal relations with her mother. You are forbidden to marry the wives of your own sons and to marry two sisters at the same time without any adverse affect to the such relations of the past. God is All-forgiving and All-merciful.
You are forbidden to marry married women except your slave-girls. This is the decree of God. Besides these, it is lawful for you to marry other women if you pay their dower, maintain chastity and do not commit indecency. If you marry them for the appointed time you must pay their dowries. There is no harm if you reach an understanding among yourselves about the dowry, God is All-knowing and All-wise.
skynightblaze wrote:You said you dated with a woman named Cassandra who was Swedish .Honestly tell me didnt she dump you
You mustn't have met many Aussie and Brit gals, is all I can say.
Aksel Ankersen wrote:KhaliL FarieL wrote:
Your glorious Islamic scholar Muhammad Asad translated the "وَمَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُمْ " in 33:50 as "Those whom their right hands may possess".
Sorry to correct you on such a minor point but the text you post actually says: "and those whom their right hands may possess"
Also, the rasm in 33:50 is وما ملكت يمينك which is singular 2nd person rather than plural as in 23:6, which I guess is the verse you meant.
debunker wrote:@ Masta
do you know that fornication is one of Islam's greatest sins? It has been warned against numerous many times in the Quran... and you question my faith, huh?
Aksel Ankersen wrote:fudgy wrote:Lol Asad did not omit it. he made an excellent case out of what it really means. See below:[Lit., “or those whom their right hands possess” (aw ma malakat aymanuhum). Many of the commentators assume unquestioningly that this relates to female slaves, and that the particle aw (“or”) denotes a permissible alternative. This interpretation is, in my opinion, inadmissible inasmuch as it is based on the assumption that sexual intercourse with ones female slave is permitted without marriage: an assumption, which is contradicted by the Quran itself (see 4: 3, 24, 25 and 24: 32, with the corresponding notes). Nor is this the only objection to the above-mentioned interpretation. Since the Quran applies the term ‘‘believers” to men and women alike, and since the term azwaj (“spouses”), too, denotes both the male and the female partners in marriage, there is no reason for attributing to the phrase ma malakat aymanuhum the meaning of “their female slaves’’; and since, on the other hand, it is out of the question that female and male slaves could have been referred to here it is obvious that this phrase does not relate to slaves at all, but has the same meaning as in 4: 24 - namely, “those whom they rightfully possess through wedlock (see note on 4: 24) - with the significant difference that in the present context this expression relates to both husbands and wives, who “rightfully possess” one another by virtue of marriage. On the basis of this interpretation, the particle aw which precedes this clause does not denote an alternative (“or”) but is, rather, in the nature of an explanatory amplification, more or less analogous to the phrase “in other words” or “that is”, thus giving to the whole sentence the meaning, “save with their spouses - that is, those whom they rightfully possess [through wedlock]”, etc. (Cf. a similar construction 25: 62 - ‘‘for him who has the will to take thought -that is [lit., “or”], has the will to be grateful”.)]
Muhammad Asad's explanation relies also on his translation of 4:24, but his interpretation is silly and empty of sense. This is what Sura an-Nisa ayah 23 & 24 actually say:You are forbidden to marry your mothers, daughters, sisters, paternal aunts, maternal aunts, nieces, your foster-mothers, your foster-sisters, your mothers-in-law, your step-daughters whom you have brought up and with whose mothers you have had carnal relations. It would not be a sin to marry her if you did not have carnal relations with her mother. You are forbidden to marry the wives of your own sons and to marry two sisters at the same time without any adverse affect to the such relations of the past. God is All-forgiving and All-merciful.
You are forbidden to marry married women except your slave-girls. This is the decree of God. Besides these, it is lawful for you to marry other women if you pay their dower, maintain chastity and do not commit indecency. If you marry them for the appointed time you must pay their dowries. There is no harm if you reach an understanding among yourselves about the dowry, God is All-knowing and All-wise.
Muhammad Asad want's to translate the underlined text (الا ماملكت ايمانكم ) as "other than those whom you rightfully possess [through wedlock]" essentially he is saying "you can't be married except to those women you are lawfully married with". Duh! It's not hard to see that he mistranslated this and he uses his own mistranslation to prove his point about ma malakat aymanukum.
Aksel Ankersen wrote:fudgy wrote:Cassie wrote:Phew! Aussie girls rejoice!
Aussie and Brits gals are yuck.
You mustn't have met many Aussie and Brit gals, is all I can say.
debunker wrote:Well, here's one gorgeous brit girl
debunker wrote:do you know that fornication is one of Islam's greatest sins?
MB wrote:Hello,
I do not see anything wrong with his translations. 4:24 simply says that right hand possessions are only lawful given that you take them in honest wedlock and not fornication(ie sex outside of marriage) ergo sex outside of marriage is not there and prohibited.
MastaBlaster wrote:debunker wrote:Well, here's one gorgeous brit girl
lol mr jehovah witness muslim. so you even gonna dispute us muslims when we compare our women to western girls.debunker wrote:do you know that fornication is one of Islam's greatest sins?
but mr jehovah witness muslim, you've been disputing us muslims and distorting our quran to promote the idea that islam condones fornication and rape all through this thread, and to no avail.
also how come you stfu after i brought the topic of the unitarians vs JW in the other thread? unitarians are like JW repellent hahaha
I always thought Haifa was Christian. Anyway, she is not that pretty. Lol yes debunker would dispute on our women too.
Return to The Quran and Hadith
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests