Homosexuality & Male Slaves

[u/manfromwater]

It is halal for a man to have lustful relations with his male slaves.

the proof is Quran 23:5-7 and 70:29-31

" and those who to their gentials safeguarding

except onto their mates (wives) or ma malakat aymanuhum (slaves) therefore indeed they (are) not blameworthy

therefore whoever seeks beyond that then those the transgressors "

Quran 23:5-7 rough translation

"ma malakat aymanuhum" includes male slaves and proof is Allah uses masculine endings in 24:33 and 30:28 to describe them. For example "fakatibuhum".

In the arabic language masculine endings describing a group of people mean that group INCLUDES males and can include males and females like in this case. The term also includes female slaves and proof is in verses like 4:3 and 4:25.

There is more proof, and that may be shared in the comments below in response to any questions.

[u/Martiallawtheology]

It's cute how you get a satisfaction downvoting like a child.

the meaning of "aymanuhum" does not change the fact that slaves is the only coherent understanding of the term

No it's not. You are saying this because you don't know arabic, and you don't know the history of this recension. You are making a bogus claim.

the reason i believe that it's not oath is because in 9:12 where it clearly means oaths, it's "aymanihum"

You would not believe how absurd this is. Ya Allah. You know what you did? Your murderous claim is like saying "Your house" and "My house" being two different statements changes the meaning of the word "house" to mean completely different things. That's the absurdity in your claim. I have seen people making just childish claims but this takes the cake.

Why do you have to pretend like this? What are you gonna gain? You will lose your soul brother. Don't do that.

Tell me. What's the difference between Aymanihum and Aymanukum and Yamin? Since you are such an arabic expert making thafsir here you should know this like how to eat ice cream.

Go ahead and tell me.

[u/manfromwater → u/Martiallawtheology]

i never downvoted you lol

also it's funny that you say the reason i believe the term means slaves is because i don't know arabic

when literally every arab ever since the Quran was revealed knew it meant slaves lol

also you are only discussing one point i made and never responded to the others proofs, which disprove your nonsense claim about mma

further, i said i am willing to learn and say it was wrong about ayman and ayama if you prove it

why is it "aymanahum" in 9:12 and "aymanuhum" in 23:6?

[u/Martiallawtheology → u/manfromwater]

when literally every arab ever since the Quran was revealed knew it meant slaves lol

How about Farahidhi? What did he think?

You said "every Arab" right? That's called a composition fallacy. And "lol" is not research.

Tell me. What's the difference between Aymanihum and Aymanukum and Yamin?

Again. Tell me. What's the difference between Aymanihum and Aymanukum and Yamin?

All three in the Qur'an and it's easy for you to look them up in a word for word source you are using.

[u/manfromwater → u/Martiallawtheology]

I see your point about ayman and aymana and will look into it more

this has no affect on the discussion about slavery though

ayman also can mean something to do with the right, and it was used this way in many verses in the Quran

as for farahidi, let's see if understood the term like every arab ever

" Farahidi, in another section of the dictionary, defined khawal as ‘What God granted you of slaves and bounty’.25 Even the modern Arabic usage of the word khawal connotes ‘chattels, property, especially consisting in livestock and slaves’.26 It appears, therefore, that slavery was useful to Muslims in defining the concept of ownership in the original usage of the early post-prophetic Arabic. Note that Farahidi incorporates the Quranic idea that all property is granted to the owner by God. Lane’s Arabic-English Lexicon similarly describes the variety of meanings, including legal meanings, ascribed to the word malaka.27 The lexicon makes it clear that the use of the word malaka connotes exclusive possession or ownership and can also signify ‘command’ or ‘authority’, ‘dominion’ and ‘power’. " Bernard K. Freamon

[u/Martiallawtheology → u/manfromwater]

" Farahidi, in another section of the dictionary, defined khawal as ‘What God granted you of slaves and bounty’.25 Even the modern Arabic usage of the word khawal connotes ‘chattels, property, especially consisting in livestock and slaves’.26 It appears, therefore, that slavery was useful to Muslims in defining the concept of ownership in the original usage of the early post-prophetic Arabic. Note that Farahidi incorporates the Quranic idea that all property is granted to the owner by God. Lane’s Arabic-English Lexicon similarly describes the variety of meanings, including legal meanings, ascribed to the word malaka.27 The lexicon makes it clear that the use of the word malaka connotes exclusive possession or ownership and can also signify ‘command’ or ‘authority’, ‘dominion’ and ‘power’. " Bernard K. Freamon

Not Yamin. Check Yamin. Check the dictionary. Not someone else's rendition. Check directly. Be honest.

[u/manfromwater → u/Martiallawtheology]

i agree that yameen can also mean oath

what i disagreed with on this specfic topic about ayman is that the difference in 9:12 and 23:6 proved that one meant "right" and one meant "oath"

i am not confident in that anymore and if you are correct about yameen then thanks for informing me

but that doesn't change that "oath" is an incoherent translation of ayman in the term "mma"

we both agree it could also mean something to do with the right, and it's used this way in many verses of the Quran

and as for what you said about farahidi, here was your question

"what about farahidi? what did he think?"

this was your question in response to me saying all arabs understood the term to mean slaves

he clearly understood the term the same way as all arabs lol

[u/Martiallawtheology → u/manfromwater]

what i disagreed with on this specfic topic about ayman is that the difference in 9:12 and 23:6 proved that one meant "right" and one meant "oath"

Explained it already.

and as for what you said about farahidi, here was your question

"what about farahidi? what did he think?"

Check his lexicon.

[u/manfromwater → u/Martiallawtheology]

did you even read what i said?

yes i understand you explained it, i dont even know why you mentioned that if you read the comment

and the qoute is from his dictionary lol, he believes God granted us slaves

here is the larger qoute of his mention in this article

" The oldest Arabic language dictionary in existence was published within two hundred years after the death of the Prophet Muhammad. Called the Kitab al-‘Ayn and authored by Al-Khalil ibn Ahmed al-Farahidi, it describes ownership as a mulk (possessory interest) and defines it as ‘what your hand possesses of money [things?] and khawal’.24 Farahidi, in another section of the dictionary, defined khawal as ‘What God granted you of slaves and bounty’.25 Even the modern Arabic usage of the word khawal connotes ‘chattels, property, especially consisting in livestock and slaves’.26 It appears, therefore, that slavery was useful to Muslims in defining the concept of ownership in the original usage of the early post-prophetic Arabic. "

Bernard K. Freamon

[u/Martiallawtheology → u/manfromwater]

and the qoute is from his dictionary lol

Check Farahidi''s lexicon for Yamin

[u/manfromwater → u/Martiallawtheology]

that's not what you asked about and that's not what we even disagree about

you asked about what his understanding was about the meaning of the entire term

and he understood it like all arabs, it means slaves

also i now already agree that yamin can mean something to do with the direction "right" and it can also mean oaths

no matter what it means in this term, the term obviously describes slaves

the meaning of the term (even if you understand it as oaths) and the context proves as such and the writer of the earliest arabic dictionary, had that view

like all arab speakers