Verse 47:4-- A Question for Br. Joseph

[QM Moderators Team]

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!

[wanderer]

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.

[QM Moderators Team]

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.

[wanderer]

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

[QM Moderators Team]

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!

[Amira]

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.

[Duster]

I'm afraid I fail to see what's so confusing.

Totally agree ...

[wanderer]

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!

[Joseph Islam]

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

[wanderer]

Thank you for your response sir.

[Wakas]

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 done of the terms in question.

[Hamzeh]

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
 

[Amira]

Just wanted to remark, Wakas--that analysis you shared was fascinating.