QM Forum
The Quran => Q&As with Joseph Islam - Information Only => Topic started by: wanderer on April 27, 2017, 11:21:53 AM
-
Salaam Br. Joseph--
Does verse 47:4 mandate that prisoners of war be either released or ransomed? I've seen many differing positions on this, so it would be great if I could get your perspective on this, since I haven't seen you speak about this explicitly before. Your thoughts would be very much appreciated.
Regards
wanderer
-
Does verse 47:4 mandate that prisoners of war be either released or ransomed?
Wa alaikum assalam Wanderer,
Yes.
The Quran is quite explicit in what it states.
"...Then either grant them a favour / show grace / be generous / gratuitous / reasonable (Arabic: mannan) or ransom (fidaan) them..."
Regards,
Joseph
-
Thank you very much for response brother! The reason I ask this question is because, in my mind, this creates a seeming conflict with the verses instructing the believers to marry of the believing 'right hand possesses', which as you state in your article, includes captives of war. My question is, how is this possible if the captives are all set free after the war?
Regards
wanderer
-
Dear Wanderer,
As-salamu alaykum
I humbly feel that your statement 'instructing the believers to marry of the believing 'right hand possesses' is respectfully, devoid of necessary context and possibly why you sense a conflict.
Firstly, as you have rightly stated 'right hands possess' does not simply consist of 'captives'. Secondly, if a marriage is to take place with a woman from the category of 'right hands possess', permission has to be sought and only if marriage is not possible with a free believing women (4:25). There is no such implication that one can force marriage upon a captive. If anything, another verse 24:33 negates this.
Furthermore, I purposely provided a nuanced translation of ‘mannan’ of a part of verse 47:4. "Then either grant them a favour / show grace / be generous / gratuitous / reasonable" This can certainly include setting them free, but favours / grace can be conferred in a number of ways given the circumstances.
I trust that clarifies the matter,
Regards,
Joseph
RELATED ARTICLE:
[1] SEX WITH SLAVE GIRLS
http://quransmessage.com/articles/sex%20with%20slave%20girls%20FM3.htm
-
Salaam Joseph--
Thank you once again for endeavoring to share your thoughts. Here is my current understanding, please inform me if I am right or wrong: If one cannot afford to marry free women, they can marry from their believing slave-girls. Marriage with captives would not generally be possible, given their circumstances.
"Furthermore, I purposely provided a nuanced translation of ‘mannan’ of a part of verse 47:4. "Then either grant them a favour / show grace / be generous / gratuitous / reasonable" This can certainly include setting them free, but favours / grace can be conferred in a number of ways given the circumstances."
What other ways can 'favor' be conferred upon captives, and what are the circumstances that necessitate them? Many of the traditional tasfir I've read say that captives shouldn't be released, because they may pose a security risk to the Islamic state. Do you agree with this?
(My apologies from clogging up your time by the way. I do not take your responses for granted, and I am very grateful you chose to respond to my inquiries. I am not trying to spam you with useless questions, but rather, trying to expand my knowledge on a subject I am having a difficult time understanding. Thank you once more.)
-
Here is my view: Prisoners of war should generally be released or ransomed, however, if it is believed that a prisoner/s may pose a threat to the community if released, he should be kept in captivity. Would you agree or disagree with this perspective? I am certainly open to changing my mind if you disagree.
Regards
wanderer
-
Salaam Joseph--
Your last answer was a little confusing to me. I understand that you are very busy, but I would really very much appreciate another response to settle my inquiries below.
Apologies for disturbing you & thank you once again
Regards
wanderer
-
Asalamu Alykum Br. Wanderer
In the mean time I hope you don't mind me giving my thoughts or to add to them comments.
Concerning the word "mannan" and the nuances it implies shows that setting them free would possibly be only if the circumstances was that they impose no threat and everything is at peace. I dont see how setting one free would be imposed on prisoners of war in a time of conflict or one nation fighting another or spying on one another.
However in the circumstances of war and not necessarily ground military war, some favors or generosity can be imposed on prisons who have a aim to harm ones country or nation is to feed them, imprison them or make a gain from them while being very nice and kind with them. To make sure no harm is done to them and keep them safe and in shelter. Maybe let them do service and then once they have completed and showed some kind of repentance you may set them free. The other option is to make a gain from them by ransom.
Insha'Allah that clears up some thoughts of your.
Salam
-
peace all,
wanderer wrote:
instructing the believers to marry of the believing 'right hand possesses', which as you state in your article, includes captives of war.
I assume above is taken from:
http://quransmessage.com/articles/sex%20with%20slave%20girls%20FM3.htm
But where is the Quranic evidence for it? Perhaps brother Joseph can clarify.
Translation of verse in question:
So, when you encounter those who have rejected/concealed, then put forth /bring about the captives; until when you have subdued/overcome them, then strengthen the bind. Then after either grace/favour or ransom, until the war lays down its burdens. That, and had God willed, surely He would have gained victory Himself from them, but He tests some of you with others. And those who get killed in the cause of God, He will never let their deeds be put to waste. [47:4]
-
Peace Br. Wakas
Again sorry for intruding on a question that is for brother Joseph, but I think if you take a look at verse 60:10 and take inconsideration verse 4:24, you can easily figure out Insha'Allah that there is definitely the right for believing men to marry women who have a current married status, but have emigrated and will be under examination also meaning they are not free women. They are being examined so they would be taken in as captives.
The married women in verse 4:24 which are lawful for believing men are only from what the "right hands posses(ma malakat aymanukum)." There would be no other than married women that would be lawful in married other than what is stated in verse 60:10 or any other wisdom that can be extracted from the verse which would be considered captives.
4:24
Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath Allah ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property,- desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.
60:10
"O you who have believed, when the believing women come to you as emigrants, examine them. Allah is most knowing as to their faith. And if you know them to be believers, then do not return them to the disbelievers; they are not lawful [wives] for them, nor are they lawful [husbands] for them. But give the disbelievers what they have spent. And there is no blame upon you if you marry them when you have given them their due compensation. And hold not to marriage bonds with disbelieving women, but ask for what you have spent and let them ask for what they have spent. That is the judgement of Allah ; He judges between you. And Allah is Knowing and Wise."
Peace
-
Salaam, and thank you for your response Hamzeh. However, I must admit, I am confused as to what you're saying. You say at the beginning that you can't set them free at the beginning, which is obvious. But then you say that the captives should all be freed at the end of the war, which is what Joseph seemed to say in his first response, but then changed in his second response, in which he says that favors can be conferred in other ways given the circumstances. This is the focal point of my confusion.
Regards
wanderer
-
Wa alykum asalam Wanderer
Well what I should of stated was that in a time of conflict and fighting which the verse shows is present, a nation would not be setting free prisoners of war. Which the Quran also does not seem to give that suggestion in my humble opinion.
What the Quran does command is that prisoners of war which are the soldiers that are met in battle should be treated with generosity, goodness, and in reasonable manner if they are captured. They are at this point what the right hand possess or captives.
Depending on the situation also they maybe able to be ransomed if its possible. Seems to imply some sort of gain whether if one was to hold them in captivity or ransom them.
After the war there seems to be a suggestion from 60:10 that possibly there will be women leaving there previous torn apart lives and accepted Islam. These were not to be sent back. They are not lawful for the idolaters. At this stage also they would need to be treated in goodness and generously. Also no blame if believers marry them. They are also from the right hand possess.
After the war lays down it burden then I believe setting the opposing soldiers free is permissible and advisable. Which shows "grace (mannan).
Thats what I can grasp.
Insha'Allah brother Joseph will give a better explanation soon.
Salam
-
Yes, the Quran commands grace or ransom to POWS after the war is over. I understand that. My question is : Does grace (mannan) EXCLUSIVELY mean freedom? That is, after the war is over, do captives HAVE to be freed or ransomed? Br. Joseph's replies were a bit ambiguous on the matter, and sadly he does not seem to be responding anymore.
Regards
wanderer
-
Peace Wanderer
From my understanding the Quran commands grace or ransom to POWS during the war UNTIL the war lays down its burdens. (Hatta tadaAAa alharbu awzaraha).
Hope I'm not making things more complicated. Insha'Allah ill wait for br. Joseph to see what his perspective is.
Peace
-
Thank you for taking the time to help me understand this. But my question is does 'mannan' exclusively mean freedom, or a's Br. Joseph seemed to say during his last post, are there circumstances that necessitate keeping the captives after the war. If so, what are those circumstances? I'm not biased towards one viewpoint or the other, I just want an honest understanding.
Regards
wanderer
-
Br. Joseph's replies were a bit ambiguous on the matter, and sadly he does not seem to be responding anymore.
Regards
wanderer
Wanderer,
Do you think that brother Joseph should respond just because you demand or expect it? Please just state your question and wait for an answer. It is possible that he may feel that he has said all that is required on the topic or allow others to contribute before sharing more. Comments like the above are not necessary. Please take note.
Thanks!
-
I meant absolutely no offence to Br. Joseph by the comment. I was responding to Hamzeh''s comment that he was waiting for Br. Joseph''s clarification, so I pointed out that it seemed he had shared all he had on the matter, and had left the conversation. I frankly do not see how such a comment could have been interpreted as me begging Br. Joseph for a response as you seem to have interpreted it, as it was quite clearly a simple observation, not a request. Therefore, I feel your allegation about me is simply incorrect, especially since as my previous replies clearly show, I have tried hard to be as courteous and respectful as possible to the contributing forum members here, particularly Br. Joseph.
Thank you.
-
Wanderer,
Please don't argue. We shared what we feel was correct. It was you that appeared to make the allegation against brother Joseph not responding anymore. How do you know? On what timescales? Why does a response have to be made according to when you expect it or even at all?
No one is forced to write on this forum. If you feel aggrieved uneccesarily you are free to post elsewhere.
Please don't post any further on this matter. We don't want a debate!
Thanks.
-
Dear Moderators:
This thread feels very cluttered. I still have some points of confusion that I would like to clarify, so is it okay if I start a new, more orderly thread?
Regards
wanderer
-
Dear Wanderer,
If the subject is the same, please keep to the same thread. Just bullet point your questions that you require clarification on and leave it open for members to answer if they want to in their own time.
Thanks!
-
Salam, I think the verse just says this:
If you have captives, either free them or ransom them off. If they pose a security risk, wait until the war is over to free them, but treat them graciously while they're with you.
I'm afraid I fail to see what's so confusing.
-
I'm afraid I fail to see what's so confusing.
Totally agree ...
-
Here is my question:
Does the term 'mannan' in verse 47:4 exclusively mean freedom? If not, what other meanings does it imply? And in what circumstances should these various situations implied by the term 'mannan' be employed? I just want to gain an honest understanding.
My question is primarily aimed at Br. Joseph, since he is the one who raised it with his original answers, and because he is far and away the most knowledgeable person on the forum, but if anyone else has an answer, please share it as well.
Thank you!
-
Dear Wanderer,
As-salamu alaykum
The verbal noun 'mann' comes from the main verb 'manna' which means in the main, to be gracious to or to show favour / generosity to.
As I stated as a clarification earlier in my post 'This can certainly include setting them free, but favours / grace can be conferred in a number of ways given the circumstances.'
With utmost respect, I simply cannot provide you every possible type of favour / amnesty / pardon that can be possibly granted given the numerous considerations / variables that a particular counsel of a state may proffer during peace time, in a particular situation, amongst different nations / people.
This is left to the states / leaders to best consider who to grant pardon / amnesty and how.
The main point of the verse is to safeguard the dignity, honour, respect and basic human rights of those captured whilst allowing for the vested interests of the state / powers in whose care the prisoners of war have fallen in to.
For example, the detaining state may consider to impose some obligations against certain elements of the detained for a period of time (given the risks they may impose) but still allowing them overarching freedoms in society with a view to allow them to become contributing members of the state whilst being recompensed financially and treated with justice. Hopefully, you will kindly see that I simply cannot cover every single scenario as it will almost mean that one attempts to rewrite a version akin to the Geneva Convention or arguably, beyond.
The verse is quite simple and I will provide my humble translation again.
"...Then either grant them a favour / show grace / be generous / gratuitous / reasonable (Arabic: mannan) or ransom (fidaan) them..." (47:4 - Part)
I hope this helps and that you kindly accept my response as the last to you on this matter.
Regards,
Joseph
-
Thank you for your response sir.
-
Peace Br. Hamzeh,
emigrated and will be under examination also meaning they are not free women. They are being examined so they would be taken in as captives.
That's one mighty leap.
I disagree.
For further reading, here was a reasonable analysis (https://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9600888.msg253237#msg253237) done of the terms in question.
-
Wa 3alykum assalam Br. Wakas
What I was suggesting is that not all people were treated equally in the society. For example it is clear from the Quran that the belivers were made to inherit other peoples properties and bounties. Even the believers seem to have gained even more land and were victorious over other dwellings(Medina, Mekka).
The believers had a duty on how to deal with the people who came to them and wanted to become part of the community.
Although everyone should be treated with grace and peace, those who emigrated from a previous way or land would of been questioned and not of been able to roam free as free citizens of the land for at least a time being. Those would be considered captives for a time being or even possibly some peoples status would always be that of what the right hands possess.
I didn't mean because they are questioned only they are to be captives. The captives would be primarily during the war and later on they would be assigned a special status with certain advantages and disadvantages compared to those who are free.
There also seems to be powerful countries today who do not give the same rights and status to all the people who live in the land.
Hope that clarifies my thoughts.
Salam
-
Just wanted to remark, Wakas--that analysis you shared was fascinating.