Dr. Subhi Mansour on the term "muhsanat" in the Koran

Bigmo

http//www.ahl-alquran.com/arabic/document.php?page_id=309

So he thinks it means either chaste, married or free women. And he thinks that the verse that says you can not marry a married women except the muhsanat meaning the one that has been taken as a slave and her ties with her former husband is now broken. He also thinks that the Koran says you can marry a slave if you get the permission of her owners and pay her dowry.

Samia

{ } 24.

This is verse 424. He says (...and it means that a man should not marry a married woman except if her marriage is annulled by being a cptive...)

First question Why would a woman be taken by a muslim warrier as captive?
Second question Why would her marriage be unnulled by captivity?
Third question Why do we have laws for " women in captivity" but not for "men in captivity"?
And a comment After all, according to him, she is not married. This is not what the verse is supposed to be saying (for those who believe muhsana=married). It's like saying ...except if her marriage is annulled by divorce/death of husband/desertaion/husband turned non-believer....

This husband-to-be is supposed to go to her people and propose, and pay her dowry (425). Hardly a woman in captivity.

I find this explanation very weak.

Bigmo

This is verse 424. He says (...and it means that a man should not marry a married woman except if her marriage is annulled by being a cptive...)

First question Why would a woman be taken by a muslim warrier as captive?
Second question Why would her marriage be unnulled by captivity?
Third question Why do we have laws for " women in captivity" but not for "men in captivity"?
And a comment After all, according to him, she is not married. This is not what the verse is supposed to be saying (for those who believe muhsana=married). It's like saying ...except if her marriage is annulled by divorce/death of husband/desertaion/husband turned non-believer....

This husband-to-be is supposed to go to her people and propose, and pay her dowry (425). Hardly a woman in captivity.

I find this explanation very weak.

I find the captive also as weak since its not clear if women were involved in any of these battles. But I was just considering the slave part. I also do not understand the part he said you can get permission from her owners. The Koran actually used the term "ahlihim" meaning their families. Usually a slave has a single owner and so why is it in the plural? Of course families are plural like father, mother and brothers and sisters.

Oh well, back to square one on this. brickwall

Jack

http//free-minds.org/articles/quranic/malakat.htm

Samia

http//free-minds.org/articles/quranic/malakat.htm

I agree with the article up to this point

This talks about a MARRIAGE with its rules and regulations...

I strongly disagree on

. The term 'Ma Malakat Aymanukum' refers to females only (424);

And find the following just like the Arabic proverb that says that the "mountain went into labour and gave birth to a mouse"

Our understanding is that 'Ma Malakat Aymanukum' are widowed women who may be living under the roof and financial support of a man

And find this off topic

Marriage to such women is allowed in the Quran under slightly different terms & conditions than other women

since such conditions of marrying these women are coverd in verse 43

insanca

Please read this academic article on this subject in Turkish. It was prepared well. And the muhsanat aren't married. Those muhsanat Allah ordered with them. 425 waw is beginning letter. Kitaballah aleykum means Allah orders on you. Lawful women are al-muhsanat, not ma meleket aymanukum. If ma meleket aymanukum are salih, or ihsan (no furnication and free) you can get married.
Regards,

insanca

http//www.islamhukuku.com/Uploads/Sayilar/IHAD11__(p11-3860.PDF

WhereIsTheTruth

confused ahmed subhy mansour is apparently very heavy influenced by his hadither past. Its so disgusting how these men are so keen on seeing women in a slave role every time quran mentions something about women. It properly tells more about these men's perception of women than anything else.

SeekingYou

http//www.ahl-alquran.com/arabic/document.php?page_id=309

So he thinks it means either chaste, married or free women. And he thinks that the verse that says you can not marry a married women except the muhsanat meaning the one that has been taken as a slave and her ties with her former husband is now broken. He also thinks that the Koran says you can marry a slave if you get the permission of her owners and pay her dowry.

And he calls himself a free thinker?

Bigmo

And he calls himself a free thinker?

LOl! To be fair its not easy understanding every verse and term in Koran.

However I believe that Ma Malakat Aymanukum means concubine as understood in semitic tradition. Concubines are like Hagar and Queen Sheeba in the Bible. A marriage without dowry.

In the BibleAmong the Israelites, men commonly acknowledged their concubines, and such women enjoyed the same rights in the house as legitimate wives. The principal difference in the Bible between a wife and a concubine is that wives had dowries, while concubines did not.

The concubine commanded the same respect and inviolability as the wife. The man to whom she belonged was dishonoured if other men lay hands on her. For instance, David is portrayed as having been dishonoured when his concubines had a sexual relationship with his son Absalom. However, this instance is as likely dishonoring to David because it involves a form of incest. Although the word used in the Levitical ban is commonly translated "wife," on at least one other occasion it is used to refer a woman who is not a wife - specifically, the handmaid of Jacob's wife.

Since it was regarded as the highest blessing to have many children, legitimate wives often gave their maids to their husbands to atone, at least in part, if they were barren, as in the cases of Sarah and Hagar, Rachel and Bilhah. The children of the concubine had equal rights with those of the legitimate wife; for example, King Abimelech was the son of Gideon and his concubine. Later biblical figures such as Gideon, David, and Solomon had concubines in addition to many childbearing wives. For example, the Books of Kings says that Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.

In JudaismIn Judaism, concubines are referred to by the Hebrew term pilegesh. The term is a non-Hebrew, non-Semitic loanword deriving from the Greek word pallakis, Greek , meaning a mistress staying in house. Or the Aramaic phrase palga isha, meaning half-wife.

According to the Babylonian Talmud, the difference between a concubine and a full wife was that the latter received a marriage contract (Hebrewketubah) and her marriage (nissu'in) was preceded by a formal betrothal (erusin), neither being the case for a concubine. But, one opinion in the Jerusalem Talmud argues that the concubine should also receive a marriage contract, but without including a clause specifying a divorce settlement.

Certain Jewish thinkers, such as Maimonides, believed that concubines are strictly reserved for kings, and thus that a commoner may not have a concubine; indeed, such thinkers argued that commoners may not engage in any type of sexual relations outside of a marriage. Before Maimonides concluded this, Sunni Muslims officially prohibited mutah (i.e. temporary marriage) relationships; some commentators' suggest that Maimonides changed his view in response to this development, similar to Gershom ben Judah's ban on polygamy being made after Christians had prohibited it.

Maimonides was not the first Jewish thinker to criticise concubinage; for example, it is severely condemned in Leviticus Rabbah. Other Jewish thinkers, such as Nahmanides, Samuel ben Uri Shraga Phoebus, and Jacob Emden, strongly object to the idea that concubines should be forbidden.

In the Hebrew of the contemporary State of Israel, the word pilegesh is often used as the equivalent of the English word mistress - i.e. the female partner in extramarital relations, even when these relations have no legal recognition. There are attempts to popularise pilegesh as a form of premarital, non-marital and extramarital relationships which (in their view) would be permitted by Jewish religious law.

http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concubinage

Nothing to do with slavery. Slavery is banned in the Koran anyways.

WhereIsTheTruth

bigmo okay so men according to you can fuck around as they want and have their penis everywhete they want and commit adultery and furnication and you jusify it with the bible stories of Solomon?????? First of all Solomon got huge problems because of all his sex friends whom you call concubines. So you say that ma malakat aymanakom means sex friends which is the same as concubines. And of course you think that its only men who can have sex friends while women shall remain 'chaste' with no male concubine? Well my question is if ma malakat aymanakom is female sex friend then why does god not call them concubines or sex friends ?why does he say MMA and not concubines/sex friends if that what it means ?

Bigmo

bigmo okay so men according to you can fuck around as they want and have their penis everywhete they want and commit adultery and furnication and you jusify it with the bible stories of Solomon?????? First of all Solomon got huge problems because of all his sex friends whom you call concubines. So you say that ma malakat aymanakom means sex friends which is the same as concubines. And of course you think that its only men who can have sex friends while women shall remain 'chaste' with no male concubine? Well my question is if ma malakat aymanakom is female sex friend then why does god not call them concubines or sex friends ?why does he say MMA and not concubines/sex friends if that what it means ?

MMA means a wife. There is nothing called sex friend. AS far as whether women can have MMA. That depends on whether women can have more than one husbands. Anyways MMA works both ways.

MMA to me means a marriage established by oath only without dowry and formalities. Usually this is done not only due to low status such as Hagar and Abraham but also high status such as Solomon and Queen Sheeba.

As far as why the Koran choses to be vague sometimes, maybe its to see what the later generations of Muslims will do. A trial and a test. The Koran however gives us enough information for us to deduce based on taking the Koran as a whole.

Why would the Koran repeatedly encourage emanicipating slaves and yet allow it at the same time? And why would the Koran quote Moses when he said

22.18. (Pharaoh) said "Did we not cherish thee as a child among us, and didst thou not stay in our midst many years of thy life?

"And thou didst a deed of thine which (thou knowest) thou didst, and thou art an ungrateful (wretch)!"
Moses said "I did it then, when I was in error.
"So I fled from you (all) when I feared you; but my Lord has (since) invested me with judgment (and wisdom) and appointed me as one of the apostles.
"And this is the favour with which thou dost reproach me,- that thou hast enslaved the Children of Israel!"

The Koran says we should feed the poor. Would the Koran then tell us to starve people at the same time? So how can the Koran tell us to emanicpate sales and yet tell us its OK to own slaves?

It just don't get. confused

WhereIsTheTruth

bigmo okay so you mean that MMA is marriage. I thought you ment 'friends' or slaves so I misunderstood you, I am sorry for that. Listen slavery in it self is a disgusting crime and shirk on the highest level since its only God who can own people and no one else. So of course Slavery is totally banned in the quran since God says himself that he never forgives Shirk.
And sex with women throughout their enslavement is sex slavery and that is RAPE and Abbuse OF POWER and every Man who does that shall just have his penis cut off whether he does it in the name of Mohammed or in the name of quran or in the name of his penis voodoo voodoo

But can you please explain why there should be some wives without dowry and some with dowry? And hagar was the WIFE of Abraham. They were married. But do you really rely on the bible? Are bible not just a hadith fabrication ? And bigmo finally can you see anywhere on the quran where women are prohibited to marry more then one ? Because it can decide whether women can have MMA (husbands)also as you said. However, I personally cannot see any difference between a male having wives and a female having husbands. Isnt that basically the same?

Peace )

Bigmo

bigmo okay so you mean that MMA is marriage. I thought you ment 'friends' or slaves so I misunderstood you, I am sorry for that. Listen slavery in it self is a disgusting crime and shirk on the highest level since its only God who can own people and no one else. So of course Slavery is totally banned in the quran since God says himself that he never forgives Shirk.
And sex with women throughout their enslavement is sex slavery and that is RAPE and Abbuse OF POWER and every Man who does that shall just have his penis cut off whether he does it in the name of Mohammed or in the name of quran or in the name of his penis voodoo voodoo

But can you please explain why there should be some wives without dowry and some with dowry? And hagar was the WIFE of Abraham. They were married. But do you really rely on the bible? Are bible not just a hadith fabrication ? And bigmo finally can you see anywhere on the quran where women are prohibited to marry more then one ? Because it can decide whether women can have MMA (husbands)also as you said. However, I personally cannot see any difference between a male having wives and a female having husbands. Isnt that basically the same?

Peace

I don't think that a women having more than one husband is the same as a man having more than one wives because of the problem of identifying who the father of the child is. Thats kind of hard to do if a woman is with more than one man. You see?

However theoretically speaking there is no Quranic reason to prohibit a women from having more than one husband.

As far as slavery, I agree with you. As far as Bible is concerned, the OT is a collection of words and chapters written by men. So it is not the "word of God" but its the "Book of God". As far as Gospel, Jesus is the word of God. Jesus was the Koran. Moses of course communicated with God through the bush. But no Koran like scriptures came to anyone than Muhammad and Jesus did not need a Koranic like scripture because he was given the holy spirit.

Every scripture has its uniqueness and every prophet has his own biography. But the religion is one.

Yes Hagar was his wife. Concubines was a practice that eastern societies practiced. But its wrong to associate it with slavery. There is no real difference between a concubine and a regular wife. Eastern societies have many formalities for weddings. But the essence is two partners commiting to one another to be a family.

Anyways if any verse in the Koran is somewhat hard to interpret, we simply leave it as it is and deal with the verses that are more easier to interpret. Sunnis and Shias follow speculation and spin.

'He it is who has sent down to thee the Book in it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the book others are allegorical, that is those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except God and those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say "We believe in the book; the whole of it is from our Lord;" and none will grasp the message except men of understanding' (Al-Qur'an 3 7).

So there is a Divine plan here.

5.48. To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety so judge between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If Allah had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allah. it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute;

At least thats how I see it but of course I could be wrong. Nobody in the world will figure everything in the Koran, Gospel and OT. Not even the prophets or angels. The Books of God and the Words of God are not any literature.

I rely on the previous scriptures heavily when I want to understand the Koran or any religious issue. But I do not read each scriptures the same. But they all lead to the same tree.

WhereIsTheTruth

I don't think that a women having more than one husband is the same as a man having more than one wives because of the problem of identifying who the father of the child is. Thats kind of hard to do if a woman is with more than one man. You see?

However theoretically speaking there is no Quranic reason to prohibit a women from having more than one husband.

As far as slavery, I agree with you. As far as Bible is concerned, the OT is a collection of words and chapters written by men. So it is not the "word of God" but its the "Book of God". As far as Gospel, Jesus is the word of God. Jesus was the Koran. Moses of course communicated with God through the bush. But no Koran like scriptures came to anyone than Muhammad and Jesus did not need a Koranic like scripture because he was given the holy spirit.

Every scripture has its uniqueness and every prophet has his own biography. But the religion is one.

Yes Hagar was his wife. Concubines was a practice that eastern societies practiced. But its wrong to associate it with slavery. There is no real difference between a concubine and a regular wife. Eastern societies have many formalities for weddings. But the essence is two partners commiting to one another to be a family.

Anyways if any verse in the Koran is somewhat hard to interpret, we simply leave it as it is and deal with the verses that are more easier to interpret. Sunnis and Shias follow speculation and spin.

'He it is who has sent down to thee the Book in it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the book others are allegorical, that is those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except God and those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say "We believe in the book; the whole of it is from our Lord;" and none will grasp the message except men of understanding' (Al-Qur'an 3 7).

So there is a Divine plan here.

5.48. To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety so judge between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If Allah had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allah. it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute;

At least thats how I see it but of course I could be wrong. Nobody in the world will figure everything in the Koran, Gospel and OT. Not even the prophets or angels. The Books of God and the Words of God are not any literature.

I rely on the previous scriptures heavily when I want to understand the Koran or any religious issue. But I do not read each scriptures the same. But they all lead to the same tree.

You seems to be a much more reasonable muslim than most muslims who I met. You obviously dont take anything for granted and try to discover some of the secrets of the Quran unlike the sunni sect who consider the Quran as being a dead book only hold artificially alive by their hateful traditions.
I study History in the University so I know that the eastern people had some different kinds of marriage as you mention. I like the way that you consider the bible in understanding some elements in islam, its basically also what Quran also tells us to do many times And if you Dont know or have any doubt about it then ask the ones who received the book before you. But of course that requires that you are aware of the inconsistencies in the bible and you are appearently very aware of them.

Regarding a woman having more than one husband, I can still not see why she cannot. You mentions the problem with knowing the father of the children? Well, if you read the history you will know that in some parts of Africa it was quiete normal that a woman married several husbands at once, but they still knew the paternity of the children(the resemblence of the children, how to be sexual activs with the husbands in ways that can make her know the father in cases of pregnancy etc.) but today in 2011 we have - Thank God - DNA test. A deity is all-knowing as described in the Quran - it knows the past, present and future which means that God could never forbid a woman to have several husbands based on paternity matters since God already knew that there would come a time where the father of the child would be identified even if the mother had 700 husbands as Solomon. And Quran is for all times right? So whether a man is married to more than one wife or a woman is married to more than one husband, thats basically the same thing since both parents can be identified in both cases.

However, my humble understanding is that its best for people - whether they are females or males - to be satisfied with one spouse. God created Adam and Eve to each other, he did not created Adam with several wives or Eve with several husbands. So it means that from the beginning the intention was to make us satisfied with one spouse which is the best way to build a healthy relationship. I dont think that any spouse deserves to be cheated on even if its in a 'legal' way. As its written in the bible 'And therefore a man leaves his father and mother in order to become one flesh with his wife'. So a marriage is basically a union between TWO people who becomes one.

Peace

Bigmo

You seems to be a much more reasonable muslim than most muslims who I met. You obviously dont take anything for granted and try to discover some of the secrets of the Quran unlike the sunni sect who consider the Quran as being a dead book only hold artificially alive by their hateful traditions.
I study History in the University so I know that the eastern people had some different kinds of marriage as you mention. I like the way that you consider the bible in understanding some elements in islam, its basically also what Quran also tells us to do many times And if you Dont know or have any doubt about it then ask the ones who received the book before you. But of course that requires that you are aware of the inconsistencies in the bible and you are appearently very aware of them.

Regarding a woman having more than one husband, I can still not see why she cannot. You mentions the problem with knowing the father of the children? Well, if you read the history you will know that in some parts of Africa it was quiete normal that a woman married several husbands at once, but they still knew the paternity of the children(the resemblence of the children, how to be sexual activs with the husbands in ways that can make her know the father in cases of pregnancy etc.) but today in 2011 we have - Thank God - DNA test. A deity is all-knowing as described in the Quran - it knows the past, present and future which means that God could never forbid a woman to have several husbands based on paternity matters since God already knew that there would come a time where the father of the child would be identified even if the mother had 700 husbands as Solomon. And Quran is for all times right? So whether a man is married to more than one wife or a woman is married to more than one husband, thats basically the same thing since both parents can be identified in both cases.

However, my humble understanding is that its best for people - whether they are females or males - to be satisfied with one spouse. God created Adam and Eve to each other, he did not created Adam with several wives or Eve with several husbands. So it means that from the beginning the intention was to make us satisfied with one spouse which is the best way to build a healthy relationship. I dont think that any spouse deserves to be cheated on even if its in a 'legal' way. As its written in the bible 'And therefore a man leaves his father and mother in order to become one flesh with his wife'. So a marriage is basically a union between TWO people who becomes one.

Peace

Good point.

huruf

See 24.31

And tell the believing females to lower their gaze and keep covered their private parts, and that they should not reveal their beauty except what is apparent, and let them put forth their shawls over their cleavage. And let them not reveal their beauty except to their husbands, or their fathers, or fathers of their husbands, or their sons, or the sons of their husbands, or their brothers, or the sons of their brothers, or the sons of their sisters, or their women, or those maintained by their oaths, or the male servants who are without need, or the child who has not yet understood the composition of women. And let them not strike with their feet in a manner that reveals what they are keeping hidden of their beauty. And repent to God, all of you believers, that you may succeed.

Women do have MMA see text highlighted en red it refers to women's MMA

Salaam

WhereIsTheTruth

See 24.31

And tell the believing females to lower their gaze and keep covered their private parts, and that they should not reveal their beauty except what is apparent, and let them put forth their shawls over their cleavage. And let them not reveal their beauty except to their husbands, or their fathers, or fathers of their husbands, or their sons, or the sons of their husbands, or their brothers, or the sons of their brothers, or the sons of their sisters, or their women, or those maintained by their oaths, or the male servants who are without need, or the child who has not yet understood the composition of women. And let them not strike with their feet in a manner that reveals what they are keeping hidden of their beauty. And repent to God, all of you believers, that you may succeed.

Women do have MMA see text highlighted en red it refers to women's MMA

Salaam

Excately. So now its proven that women also actually have Ma malakat aymanahon. And if ma malakat aymanahona are actually slaves (as some horney muslim men insist upon) then Quran tells us that women also own slaves. And if sex with slaves are permitted in islam (as horney muslim men insist upon) then it means that muslim women can have sex with their slave boys as well

now this one is of course hard for muslim men to swallow because they have been used to have monopoly on sex eat But alhamdulillah Gods word tell us something else. Otherwise MMA does not means slaves at all anywhere.

The_Dreamer

Excately. So now its proven that women also actually have Ma malakat aymanahon. And if ma malakat aymanahona are actually slaves (as some horney muslim men insist upon) then Quran tells us that women also own slaves. And if sex with slaves are permitted in islam (as horney muslim men insist upon) then it means that muslim women can have sex with their slave boys as well )

It is not "horney Muslim men" who "insist" that they can have intercourse with ma malakat aymanahona. The Qur'an allows it.

now this one is of course hard for muslim men to swallow because they have been used to have monopoly on sex eat

Bravo!
bravo

Your post is beautifully bigoted!

Anders Behring Breivik sends his regards! ;D

WhereIsTheTruth

It is not "horney Muslim men" who "insist" that they can have intercourse with ma malakat aymanahona. The Qur'an allows it.

Bravo!
bravo

Your post is beautifully bigoted!

Anders Behring Breivik sends his regards! ;D

Thank you for exposing your stupidity. If you need any help to pay the expenses for your mental treatment, please let me know. I love to help the needy as quran orders us.

Peace