The term "what your right hands possess" (ma malakat aymanukum) occurs 14 times in the Qur'an, in the following Arabic forms: * ما ملكت أيمانكم * ما ملكت أيمانهم * ما ملكت أيمانهن * ما ملكت يمينك * الذين ملكت أيمانكم It is most often used with reference to women, but is applied to both sexes. The term itself is normally considered to refer to prisoners of war, or more broadly to slaves in general, according to the usual tafsirs (eg Ibn Kathir); however, some (eg Muhammad Asad) have proposed alternative explanations, whereby it would mean "one's rightful spouse"[http://www.zawaj.com/articles/right_hands.html]. Be that as it may, the main points about "those whom one's right hands possess" in the Qur'an are: ==A believer may have sex with them (as may the Muhammad)== al-Mu'minun 6 and al-Maarij 30 both, in identical wording, draw a distinction between spouses and "those whom one's right hands possess", saying " أَزْوَاجِهِمْ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُمْ" (literally, "their spouses or what their right hands possess"), while clarifying that sex with either is permissible. Muhammad Asad explains this as a distinction between husband and wife, rather than between two categories of woman. an-Nisa 24 can be interpreted either as explaining that "those whom one's right hands possess" are the only category of women with whom one may have sex even if they are already married, or as using the term to refer to one's own wife as opposed to others' wives. The phrasing in the rest of that verse could be read in isolation either as excepting or as including "those whom one's right hands possess" among those to whom one must give a dowry "for the enjoyment you have of them." The following verse adds that a believer, if he cannot afford to marry a chaste believer and cannot restrain his desires, may marry a believing girl who is chaste (not a fornicator or an adulteress) from among "those whom your right hands possess", giving due dowry to her household (literally "household", but translated by some as "owner" or "master"); if the woman so married commits indecency, the punishment is half that for chaste women. (To keep this verse from contradicting itself, the translators understand "chaste" - محصنات ''muhsanat'' - as meaning "free" in the general case, but "chaste" when referring to the slave.) an-Nisa 3 also confirms that a believer may marry "that which your right hands possess", particularly if he fears that he will deal unjustly otherwise. al-Ahzab 50 confirms that, literally, "what your hand has taken from what God has assigned you" (understood by most translators as "from among the prisoners of war") are also halal for the Prophet just as are his wives, and female cousins who emigrated with him, and believing women who wish to marry him, a point emphasised by al-Ahzab 52, which says that no other women than those mentioned are allowed him, even if their beauty pleases him, except those "whom his right hand possesses". Critics claim these verses sanctions the rape of prisoners of war. In fact, while the traditional interpretations unquestionably take the term to refer to prisoners of war, these verses, in themselves, neither allow nor forbid such a practice, as they say nothing about the issue of consent. However, such critics regard it as implausible that permitting sex with prisoners of war could lead to anything but rape. ==A believing woman need not cover herself before them== An-Nur 30-33, in the course of laying down the familiar dress code of Islam, explains that women "should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty" except to various familiar people, including those "whom their right hands possess". Al-Ahzab 55 makes it explicit that the same liberty is given to the Prophet's wives. ==They should ask permission to see one if one is likely to be undressed== an-Nur 58 says that "those whom your right hands possess" and underage children should ask a believer's permission (before they come to their presence) at the three times of day when one is likely to be undressed. ==The behavior of the fortunate towards them is a metaphor for God's towards man== an-Nahl 71 and ar-Rum 28 both use the same metaphor: just as the fortunate among people do not share their wealth with "those whom their right hands possess" to the point of making them equals, nor fear them as they fear each other, so does God with people, bestowing more on some than others, but never making them equals, let alone fearing them. ==A believer should be good to them== An-Nisa 36 reminds us that a believer should do good to a variety of people, including "what your right hands possess", for the love of God. ==They should be freed and given something if they are good== an-Nur 33 states literally that "those who want a writing among those whom your right hands possess, if you know good in them, also give them of the property of God that He gave you". "Writing" is understood by most translators to refer to a deed of emancipation. This is followed by a verse forbidding the prostitution of slaves who desire chastity. ==See also== * Maria al-Qibtiyya ==External links== === Traditional Sunni viewpoints === * [http://www.islamonline.net/askaboutislam/display.asp?hquestionID=5123 IslamOnline fatwa] * [http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=20085&dgn=4 Fatwa: Intercourse with female prisoners of war] * [http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=12562&dgn=4 Fatwa: What is a right hand servant? Do you have to be married to have one? How can you finalize it and get one and state this person as your right hand servant?] === Traditional Shi'a viewpoints === * [http://al-islam.org/organizations/aalimnetwork/msg00224.html Slavery in islam] === Alternative viewpoints === *[http://www.free-minds.org/articles/quranic/malak.htm Rules of Engagement] *[http://www.free-minds.org/articles/quranic/malakat.htm Ma malakat amaynukum] Quran Islamic law
== Germen's edits == Germen, I see the point you are trying to make... and I do agree that many people have different views on this issue that should be mentioned, however, the way you went about it is not sound. I see no reason to believe that what Mustaafa put was definitely not the traditional view. It is your point that it is not traditional (and I don't believe he makes claims that it is traditional - not sure). Therefore, adding blank sections claiming that his view is different from the traditional view is just trying to discredit his work unjustly. Now, if you can find me a citation that Hanafi, Malik, Shaafi or Hanbali are markedly different then you will have a good leg to stand on, however you have not. As far as I can tell you believe that his interpretation is "Islamophilic", as you might use, and want to show the traditional view to show what Islam is more like... So, by all means research and show us good sources, I would have no problem with that... and we do need Shia / modern liberal / traditional / etc. views to make this article better, however, you didn't really further that goal with your edits. User:Grenavitar 12:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) * Gren, of course I welcome changes in harsh elements of islamic theology and I wish Mustafaa all the best in achieving this. As you can read in my comments and the fact that I do mention the source of Mustafaa's work. The fact is, nevertheless, that the vast majority of all Sunni and Shi'a scholars is following the traditional interpretation. This should change of course and the way is confronting the Muslims with their scholars stupidity and cruelty, e.g. by contrasting the Quran-only view by the traditional view. It should be clear that Mustafaa's view is the most rational interpretation, but that traditionalists do not follow it. --User:Germen 12:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) PS: quote from Malik: Maliks Muwatta, Book 31, Number 31.2.2: Yahya related to me from Malik from Nafi from Abdullah ibn Umar that Umar ibn al-Khattab said, "If a slave who has wealth is sold, that wealth belongs to the seller unless the buyer stipulates its inclusion." Malik said, "The generally agreed upon way of doing things among us is that if the buyer stipulates the inclusion of the slave's property whether it be cash, debts, or goods of known or unknown value, then they belong to the buyer, even if the slave possesses more than that for which he was purchased, whether he was bought for cash, as payment for a debt, or in exchange for goods. This is possible because a master is not asked to pay zakat on his slave's property. If a slave has a slave-girl, it is halal for him to have intercourse with her by his right of possession. If a slave is freed or put under contract (kitaba) to purchase his freedom, then his property goes with him. If he becomes bankrupt, his creditors take his property and his master is not liable for any of his debts." ::I'm not sure that makes the distinction between Ma malakat aymanukum and normal slave... [http://www.islamonline.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=54710 This] is a rather traditional (as opposed to historical) view as you have shown. Mustaafa's writing, is not like free-minds... it draws some parellels but... it is different and not a Qur'an view rejection of traditionalism as you make it out to be. My problem is there has been a plethora of viewpoints (and Malik is known to be strict interpretations, there are many other historical authors that should be explored) and you seem to make Mustaafa's content out to be complete revisionism which it isn't from my understanding... I am wary of your edits... but I'm sure Mustaafa will look at them and have his say. User:Grenavitar 13:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) : Fascinating quote - who'd have thought that slaves were allowed to have slaves themselves? However, it doesn't even use the term ''ma malakat aymanukum''. Any edits should be sourced (as all of mine are in this article), and a good start would be providing some sort of documentation for the claim that the rather unusual term ''ma malakat aymanukum'' was used in fiqh outside of Qur'anic quotes. I am aware that jurists and commentators traditionally equate the term to various commoner and shorter words like "captive" or "slave-girl", but that doesn't mean they use it themselves. This article is about the word and its usage, not about the general issue of slavery in Islam. - User:Mustafaa 19:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) :: OK, good point. I have added some fatwa's in which 'ma malakat amaynukum' both is interpreted and used. Please convince your pal Yuber to stop his endless unmotivated vandalistic reverts. User:Germen 09:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) To avoid constant reverting... To me it seems rather apparent that Germen wants to portray Islam as historically something the modern man would find detestable. Granted, there are definitely some aspects in some places that would, however I am not exactly sure I think the great emphasis on the difference between "traditional" and "objections to traditiona" that he adds is quite warranted. I do think that some of the external links he has placed should remain even if under different headings. I do agree with Mustaafa that the dichotomy of traditional / objections to traditional is not as much well cited as it is how he thinks the issue goes. So discuss what you think should be the version so maybe this page won't have to be protected as well. User:Grenavitar 12:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) : Gren and Mustafaa, this not true in general. Traditional islam as in its Sunni and Shi'a incarnations is quite detestible in my eyes but there exist reform movements such as Quran-only islam, Ahmadiyya and Sufi which have my warm sympathy. : I know especially the Ahmadiyya and Quran-only gruops such as the Submitters are fierce opponents from the slavery concept on Quranic grounds. In this article I saw that the same was held for mainstream Sunni and Shi'a islam. I wish this was true. Only by addressing this issue the reform movement within mainstream islam will increase in strength. --User:Germen 13:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) You finally got around to addressing the talk page, for which I congratulate you. However, all you did was add links which are certainly relevant, but don't actually corroborate your edits. - User:Mustafaa 19:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::Germen, I think there are a few problems with your view of traditional vs. reform. Firstly, Sufism was around from very very early period of Islam and has so many different incarnations (al-Ghazali was very traditionalist, as we think of the term, with strong ties to sufism) that I don't think we can really differentiate it from traditional in some aspects. There was a lot of exchange. Also, Sunnism and Shiism have great variations within them, and truly have throughout history. It's also hard to make the Sunni distinction in a non-pejorative manner. Muslims tend to call the Mu'tazlite a cult out of the realm of ordinary Islam, but, they were the main group during a point of time under the Abbassid court. There has also been much evolution in thought in Islam like there was in Christianity and because some Anglicans supported slavery (I assume some did) doesn't mean that the modern "traditional Anglican" supports slavery. Same goes for this issue. And, as Mustafaa said, you have not corroborated your edits with sources. So, try to find some sources and then bring them to the table so they can be looked at. User:Grenavitar 20:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) Let me just clarify a few points: * Traditional Islam (by which I mean the 5 madhhabs) does not "support" slavery; rather, it unanimously considers the liberation of slaves as a praiseworthy act, following many verses in the Qur'an. * Traditional Islam unanimously ''does'' recognize slavery as a legitimate practice in some circumstances. This has some limited Qur'anic precedent (insofar as the verses urging the voluntary liberation of slaves presume the prior existence of slavery.) * Traditional Islam interprets the term ''ma malakat aymanukum'' as referring to people captured in legitimate wars and enslaved. (This is the first of these points with specific relevance to ''this'' article, I should note.) * Based on this interpretation, they regard the verses in the Qur'an cited here as, among other things, legitimizing sex with slaves. They support this claim with precedents in the actions of Muhammad and of the earliest Muslims. They certainly do not regard these verses as contradicting their position, though others, as noted, disagree. * And finally, most Muslim scholars agree that slavery is legitimate in some circumstances, while claiming that it is not legitimitate in modern times, now that people are rich enough to afford such measures as POW camps. [http://www.islamonline.net/askaboutislam/display.asp?hquestionID=3207 IslamOnline] is representative of the modern traditionalists' view. - User:Mustafaa 22:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Ma_malakat_aymanukum:
Ma_malakat_aymanukum
Ma_malakat_aymanukum
Ma malakat aymanukum
The term "what your right hands possess" (ma malakat aymanukum) occurs 14 times in the Qur'an, in the following Arabic forms: * ما ملكت أيمانكم * ما ملكت أيمانهم * ما ملكت أيمانهن * ما ملكت يمينك * الذين ملكت أيمانكم It is most often used with reference to women, but is applied to both sexes. The term itself is normally considered to refer to prisoners of war, or more broadly to slaves in general, according to the usual tafsirs (eg Ibn Kathir); however, some (eg Muhammad Asad) have proposed alternative explanations, whereby it would mean "one's rightful spouse"[http://www.zawaj.com/articles/right_hands.html]. Be that as it may, the main points about "those whom one's right hands possess" in the Qur'an are: ==A believer may have sex with them (as may the Muhammad)== al-Mu'minun 6 and al-Maarij 30 both, in identical wording, draw a distinction between spouses and "those whom one's right hands possess", saying " أَزْوَاجِهِمْ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُمْ" (literally, "their spouses or what their right hands possess"), while clarifying that sex with either is permissible. Muhammad Asad explains this as a distinction between husband and wife, rather than between two categories of woman. an-Nisa 24 can be interpreted either as explaining that "those whom one's right hands possess" are the only category of women with whom one may have sex even if they are already married, or as using the term to refer to one's own wife as opposed to others' wives. The phrasing in the rest of that verse could be read in isolation either as excepting or as including "those whom one's right hands possess" among those to whom one must give a dowry "for the enjoyment you have of them." The following verse adds that a believer, if he cannot afford to marry a chaste believer and cannot restrain his desires, may marry a believing girl who is chaste (not a fornicator or an adulteress) from among "those whom your right hands possess", giving due dowry to her household (literally "household", but translated by some as "owner" or "master"); if the woman so married commits indecency, the punishment is half that for chaste women. (To keep this verse from contradicting itself, the translators understand "chaste" - محصنات ''muhsanat'' - as meaning "free" in the general case, but "chaste" when referring to the slave.) an-Nisa 3 also confirms that a believer may marry "that which your right hands possess", particularly if he fears that he will deal unjustly otherwise. al-Ahzab 50 confirms that, literally, "what your hand has taken from what God has assigned you" (understood by most translators as "from among the prisoners of war") are also halal for the Prophet just as are his wives, and female cousins who emigrated with him, and believing women who wish to marry him, a point emphasised by al-Ahzab 52, which says that no other women than those mentioned are allowed him, even if their beauty pleases him, except those "whom his right hand possesses". Critics claim these verses sanctions the rape of prisoners of war. In fact, while the traditional interpretations unquestionably take the term to refer to prisoners of war, these verses, in themselves, neither allow nor forbid such a practice, as they say nothing about the issue of consent. However, such critics regard it as implausible that permitting sex with prisoners of war could lead to anything but rape. ==A believing woman need not cover herself before them== An-Nur 30-33, in the course of laying down the familiar dress code of Islam, explains that women "should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty" except to various familiar people, including those "whom their right hands possess". Al-Ahzab 55 makes it explicit that the same liberty is given to the Prophet's wives. ==They should ask permission to see one if one is likely to be undressed== an-Nur 58 says that "those whom your right hands possess" and underage children should ask a believer's permission (before they come to their presence) at the three times of day when one is likely to be undressed. ==The behavior of the fortunate towards them is a metaphor for God's towards man== an-Nahl 71 and ar-Rum 28 both use the same metaphor: just as the fortunate among people do not share their wealth with "those whom their right hands possess" to the point of making them equals, nor fear them as they fear each other, so does God with people, bestowing more on some than others, but never making them equals, let alone fearing them. ==A believer should be good to them== An-Nisa 36 reminds us that a believer should do good to a variety of people, including "what your right hands possess", for the love of God. ==They should be freed and given something if they are good== an-Nur 33 states literally that "those who want a writing among those whom your right hands possess, if you know good in them, also give them of the property of God that He gave you". "Writing" is understood by most translators to refer to a deed of emancipation. This is followed by a verse forbidding the prostitution of slaves who desire chastity. ==See also== * Maria al-Qibtiyya ==External links== === Traditional Sunni viewpoints === * [http://www.islamonline.net/askaboutislam/display.asp?hquestionID=5123 IslamOnline fatwa] * [http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=20085&dgn=4 Fatwa: Intercourse with female prisoners of war] * [http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=12562&dgn=4 Fatwa: What is a right hand servant? Do you have to be married to have one? How can you finalize it and get one and state this person as your right hand servant?] === Traditional Shi'a viewpoints === * [http://al-islam.org/organizations/aalimnetwork/msg00224.html Slavery in islam] === Alternative viewpoints === *[http://www.free-minds.org/articles/quranic/malak.htm Rules of Engagement] *[http://www.free-minds.org/articles/quranic/malakat.htm Ma malakat amaynukum] Quran Islamic law
Ma malakat aymanukum
== Germen's edits == Germen, I see the point you are trying to make... and I do agree that many people have different views on this issue that should be mentioned, however, the way you went about it is not sound. I see no reason to believe that what Mustaafa put was definitely not the traditional view. It is your point that it is not traditional (and I don't believe he makes claims that it is traditional - not sure). Therefore, adding blank sections claiming that his view is different from the traditional view is just trying to discredit his work unjustly. Now, if you can find me a citation that Hanafi, Malik, Shaafi or Hanbali are markedly different then you will have a good leg to stand on, however you have not. As far as I can tell you believe that his interpretation is "Islamophilic", as you might use, and want to show the traditional view to show what Islam is more like... So, by all means research and show us good sources, I would have no problem with that... and we do need Shia / modern liberal / traditional / etc. views to make this article better, however, you didn't really further that goal with your edits. User:Grenavitar 12:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) * Gren, of course I welcome changes in harsh elements of islamic theology and I wish Mustafaa all the best in achieving this. As you can read in my comments and the fact that I do mention the source of Mustafaa's work. The fact is, nevertheless, that the vast majority of all Sunni and Shi'a scholars is following the traditional interpretation. This should change of course and the way is confronting the Muslims with their scholars stupidity and cruelty, e.g. by contrasting the Quran-only view by the traditional view. It should be clear that Mustafaa's view is the most rational interpretation, but that traditionalists do not follow it. --User:Germen 12:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) PS: quote from Malik: Maliks Muwatta, Book 31, Number 31.2.2: Yahya related to me from Malik from Nafi from Abdullah ibn Umar that Umar ibn al-Khattab said, "If a slave who has wealth is sold, that wealth belongs to the seller unless the buyer stipulates its inclusion." Malik said, "The generally agreed upon way of doing things among us is that if the buyer stipulates the inclusion of the slave's property whether it be cash, debts, or goods of known or unknown value, then they belong to the buyer, even if the slave possesses more than that for which he was purchased, whether he was bought for cash, as payment for a debt, or in exchange for goods. This is possible because a master is not asked to pay zakat on his slave's property. If a slave has a slave-girl, it is halal for him to have intercourse with her by his right of possession. If a slave is freed or put under contract (kitaba) to purchase his freedom, then his property goes with him. If he becomes bankrupt, his creditors take his property and his master is not liable for any of his debts." ::I'm not sure that makes the distinction between Ma malakat aymanukum and normal slave... [http://www.islamonline.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=54710 This] is a rather traditional (as opposed to historical) view as you have shown. Mustaafa's writing, is not like free-minds... it draws some parellels but... it is different and not a Qur'an view rejection of traditionalism as you make it out to be. My problem is there has been a plethora of viewpoints (and Malik is known to be strict interpretations, there are many other historical authors that should be explored) and you seem to make Mustaafa's content out to be complete revisionism which it isn't from my understanding... I am wary of your edits... but I'm sure Mustaafa will look at them and have his say. User:Grenavitar 13:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) : Fascinating quote - who'd have thought that slaves were allowed to have slaves themselves? However, it doesn't even use the term ''ma malakat aymanukum''. Any edits should be sourced (as all of mine are in this article), and a good start would be providing some sort of documentation for the claim that the rather unusual term ''ma malakat aymanukum'' was used in fiqh outside of Qur'anic quotes. I am aware that jurists and commentators traditionally equate the term to various commoner and shorter words like "captive" or "slave-girl", but that doesn't mean they use it themselves. This article is about the word and its usage, not about the general issue of slavery in Islam. - User:Mustafaa 19:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) :: OK, good point. I have added some fatwa's in which 'ma malakat amaynukum' both is interpreted and used. Please convince your pal Yuber to stop his endless unmotivated vandalistic reverts. User:Germen 09:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) To avoid constant reverting... To me it seems rather apparent that Germen wants to portray Islam as historically something the modern man would find detestable. Granted, there are definitely some aspects in some places that would, however I am not exactly sure I think the great emphasis on the difference between "traditional" and "objections to traditiona" that he adds is quite warranted. I do think that some of the external links he has placed should remain even if under different headings. I do agree with Mustaafa that the dichotomy of traditional / objections to traditional is not as much well cited as it is how he thinks the issue goes. So discuss what you think should be the version so maybe this page won't have to be protected as well. User:Grenavitar 12:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) : Gren and Mustafaa, this not true in general. Traditional islam as in its Sunni and Shi'a incarnations is quite detestible in my eyes but there exist reform movements such as Quran-only islam, Ahmadiyya and Sufi which have my warm sympathy. : I know especially the Ahmadiyya and Quran-only gruops such as the Submitters are fierce opponents from the slavery concept on Quranic grounds. In this article I saw that the same was held for mainstream Sunni and Shi'a islam. I wish this was true. Only by addressing this issue the reform movement within mainstream islam will increase in strength. --User:Germen 13:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) You finally got around to addressing the talk page, for which I congratulate you. However, all you did was add links which are certainly relevant, but don't actually corroborate your edits. - User:Mustafaa 19:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::Germen, I think there are a few problems with your view of traditional vs. reform. Firstly, Sufism was around from very very early period of Islam and has so many different incarnations (al-Ghazali was very traditionalist, as we think of the term, with strong ties to sufism) that I don't think we can really differentiate it from traditional in some aspects. There was a lot of exchange. Also, Sunnism and Shiism have great variations within them, and truly have throughout history. It's also hard to make the Sunni distinction in a non-pejorative manner. Muslims tend to call the Mu'tazlite a cult out of the realm of ordinary Islam, but, they were the main group during a point of time under the Abbassid court. There has also been much evolution in thought in Islam like there was in Christianity and because some Anglicans supported slavery (I assume some did) doesn't mean that the modern "traditional Anglican" supports slavery. Same goes for this issue. And, as Mustafaa said, you have not corroborated your edits with sources. So, try to find some sources and then bring them to the table so they can be looked at. User:Grenavitar 20:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) Let me just clarify a few points: * Traditional Islam (by which I mean the 5 madhhabs) does not "support" slavery; rather, it unanimously considers the liberation of slaves as a praiseworthy act, following many verses in the Qur'an. * Traditional Islam unanimously ''does'' recognize slavery as a legitimate practice in some circumstances. This has some limited Qur'anic precedent (insofar as the verses urging the voluntary liberation of slaves presume the prior existence of slavery.) * Traditional Islam interprets the term ''ma malakat aymanukum'' as referring to people captured in legitimate wars and enslaved. (This is the first of these points with specific relevance to ''this'' article, I should note.) * Based on this interpretation, they regard the verses in the Qur'an cited here as, among other things, legitimizing sex with slaves. They support this claim with precedents in the actions of Muhammad and of the earliest Muslims. They certainly do not regard these verses as contradicting their position, though others, as noted, disagree. * And finally, most Muslim scholars agree that slavery is legitimate in some circumstances, while claiming that it is not legitimitate in modern times, now that people are rich enough to afford such measures as POW camps. [http://www.islamonline.net/askaboutislam/display.asp?hquestionID=3207 IslamOnline] is representative of the modern traditionalists' view. - User:Mustafaa 22:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
M
MA | MB | MC | MD | ME | MF | MG | MH | MI | MJ | MK | ML | MN | MO | MP | MR | MS | MT | MU | MW | MX | MY | MZ |Words begining with Ma_malakat_aymanukum:
Ma_malakat_aymanukum
Ma_malakat_aymanukum
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
