Maria the Copt and Ma Malakat Aymanakum
-
Peace ths,
I recommend this article.
Muhammad was not a polygamist
http//submission.org/friday_Muhammad_was_not_polygamous.html
I also recommend this article.
Koran and the Liberation of Women
http//rationalreality.50webs.com/women.htm
-
There is a whole world of difference between the Muhammad, the messenger mentioned in Quran and the Muhmmad portrayed from Hadith books and also from enemies of Islam to distort the image.
What ever people say , I believe that Allah chosen the best of human to convey his message to mankind and then HE would not let the messenger make a mockery of the same message by allowing him to commit severe crimes, because then the message soul will be corrupted. Prophets were humans and may make mistakes but not the point that the main teachings (in this case adultery) will be conducted and Allah would let go of such a crime. There have been verses in Quran for some error of judgment on their part(for example Jonah when he left his people..) but Allah also showed him the way to repent, similarly to Adam and Eve repentance.
Modesty Khuloq and amen are the basic qualities of a messenger and my faith will not accept such lies about Muhammad or any other messenger.
Cheers
-
Must have been a legend this about Maryam the egyptian.
The Qur'an doe snot mention anything, and anything that the Qur'an does not mention and which goes against its injonctions should be very suspect.
The quesiton about Muhammad and his "nisaa'" is dealt with in the Qur'an. There are not two kinds of nisaa' in that category. They are all in the same category. Were Maryam or any such person a de facto wife of muhammad, she would be included in thsoe mentionned in the Qur'an. If she was not one of those then she wasn't at all.
The ma malakat... are not slaves and least of all sex slaves. Women according to the Qur'an also had mamalakat... So if they are sex slaves... follow to conclusion.
Salaam
-
Must have been a legend this about Maryam the egyptian.
The Qur'an doe snot mention anything, and anything that the Qur'an does not mention and which goes against its injonctions should be very suspect.
The quesiton about Muhammad and his "nisaa'" is dealt with in the Qur'an. There are not two kinds of nisaa' in that category. They are all in the same category. Were Maryam or any such person a de facto wife of muhammad, she would be included in thsoe mentionned in the Qur'an. If she was not one of those then she wasn't at all.
The ma malakat... are not slaves and least of all sex slaves. Women according to the Qur'an also had mamalakat... So if they are sex slaves... follow to conclusion.
Salaam
I am with Huruf. If the woman is not mentioned in Quran there is no point in discussing her. But why is this Sunni person talking about sex slaves?
Check out the meanings of Ma malakat aymanukum here http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604281.0peace
-
peace,
Muhammad is listed as an uswatun-husna (best example/model).
Your translation is incorrect. The superlative of "husna" is "ahsan" which more correctly means "best" (see 3923 for example).
With regard to "slavery" this is a good thread
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9600888.0 -
Your translation is incorrect. The superlative of "husna" is "ahsan" which more correctly means "best" (see 3923 for example).
My translation is absolutely correct since I wrote exactly what you wrote. I said "best example" and you said it means "best".
As for the Arabic itself, you cannot say Ahsan Uswa because Uswa is feminine. I used husna, which is actually the feminine version of "ahsan". So ahsan is not the superlative of husna, they are both superlatives and different genders of the same word. So my usage was correct. Husna means best, beauty, prosperity. You would say "the Quran is ahsan" because it is a masculine noun, and "the uswa is husna", because it is a feminine noun. For example
5332
"and rewards those who do good with what is best "
"and to God are the best names"
Now, the Quran actually uses neither, but instead uses uswatun hasana, which is not a superlative. Hasana is actually not "the best", but "a good". As in
Or
So I thought that the Quran was saying that Muhammad is "the best example", and wrote it out here without double-checking the Quran. And in fact the Quran is not saying that he is the best example, it only says he is "a good/excellent example".
Anyway, regarding the thread you linked to, I was actually there at the time and exchanged private messages with david aitken. He didn't seem to find the arguments compelling and that seems to have driven him completely away from the site, and possibly Islam altogether. Either way, I may summarize the arguments I find best in that thread here, just as a form of summarizing the argument for my own understanding.
-
Ok thanks everyone for the responses. I've been through the links and want to summarize some of the arguments here. I'm still quite unconvinced by them, however. Taro Hiroshi, I found the polygamy article very useful, even though it is banned in the country I'm in currently!
First, let's establish what we can agree on
-
The Quran repeatedly asks us to free riqab. Not 3abeed. I take 3abd to mean a servant, and raqabah to mean a slave.
-
"Ma malakat aymanakum" does not refer to sex slaves. I have no hard evidence for this, but this is my belief because the notion of men and women (as is always forgotten by traditionalists) having indentured servants in their houses with whom they can have extramarital sex with - contradicts the spirit and context of the Quran completely. My interpretation is that it means some variation of "what you possess by your oaths".
Now, regarding slavery - the Quran has not explicitly banned slavery. However, the illegality of slavery may be implicit in other statements in the Quran. For example
In 4242, we are told (Yusuf Ali) that "The blame is only against those who oppress men".
And in 475 we are told (Yusuf Ali) "And why should ye not fight in the cause of God and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)?"
Similarly, when we are told that there is no compulsion in religion, it can be interpreted that the system of belief does not allow compulsion or force of any other person. Not just in terms of what religion one believes, but compulsion in general, be it forced servitude or something else. So there is a case to be made that the Quran has indeed banned slavery, but has called it 'oppression' rather than explicitly using the word 'slavery'.
Those are the only arguments I found useful from the other thread.
My problem is still with the concept of Maria the Copt, and the concept of Mohammad the Prophet having extramarital sex with a slave or servant. Several of you have dismissed the story of Maria as just more fabrications of traditionalists and hadithists. But I don't think this issue can be magicked away. I don't accept the hadiths as religiously legitimate, but I do think that many hadiths are historically true. Ie they are accurately telling us historical events or beliefs. I find it very hard to believe that there was an enormous conspiracy to change Maria the Copt from a wife of the Prophet to a slave. Lumping this issue with the hadiths just doesn't cut it.
So really, there are only 2 options here. Either the story of Maria is a fabrication and she was married to the Prophet or never had his child. Or the other option is that the Prophet had an extramarital affair with his servant/slave and fathered a son by her. I cannot believe the 2nd option given the importance and responsibility placed on Muhammad by God, as an extramarital affair would be one of the most grievous sins for a Prophet to commit. But I can't decide what to believe simply according to what I want or do not want to believe, and must go with the evidence. And currently there is overwhelming evidence that the Prophet of the God of the Quran indeed had a slave gifted to him by a foreign ruler that he then had sex with and fathered a child with. There is virtually no evidence to the contrary, except for our mutual belief that the Quran doesn't support sex slavery.
-
-
Oh, there is another proof from hte Qur'an, not because it is written but because it is not witten.The rophet in the qur'an has been rebuked by God for lesser things than that. To think that He would keep silent in front of something like this, would be like atributing to God to strain at gnats and swallow a camel. The Qur'an speaks freely about sex, about the "nisaa'" of the prophet and about shortcomings of him. Also there is the sura al kawthat where it is spoken of his progeny, no boy is mentionned. It is true that you nay attriute that to the child being later to that revelation, but God would know and provide for that.
If I believe the Qur'an the Maryam the egyptian thing is false. No matter how "present" is in "history". There are many thigns that are present in history and are false. Te Qur'an is consistent and is not afraid of mentionning anything at all. But once one, against the Qur'an, accepts the sex slave notion, then the door is wide open for anything.
Soe slave may have been gifted to Muhammad, but does that mean that he did with her or him what is purported, or rather it is somebody's wsihful or willful thinking?
Salaam
-
So really, there are only 2 options here. Either the story of Maria is a fabrication and she was married to the Prophet or never had his child. Or the other option is that the Prophet had an extramarital affair with his servant/slave and fathered a son by her.
I think there is another option, such as
Maria was a slave given to prophet, and after the prophet received Maria, he freed her. So then, her status was no longer a slave. But, perhaps because of certain conditions, she also could not become a free women completely (e.g. she was poor and alone/no family in foreign place) - thus she became ma malakat aymanukum* (MMA*) in which her living costs/necessities supported by someone else who made oath to finance her needs, perhaps someone wealthy or who had enough means to help her, and that person could be a female or a male (in this case, not the prophet).
And then, while her status was still MMA*, the prophet married her with the permission of the person who previously made oath to support her. So, after she married lawfully to the prophet, she still received the aid from that generous person (who made an oath).
Note I even think that... if MMA* married, it is possible that she could still live in the house of her supporter (who made oath), such as if the spouse of MMA* is also poor and they still not able to finance their needs, but if they (the couple) later could be financially capable, I think it could be that she then no longer MMA*.
*To my knowledge, ma malakat aymanukum (MMA) refers to plural, but because I don't know the singular version of it, so I still use MMA.
However, personally, I wish the story of Maria the Copt is only hoax.
Peace.
-
MMA as you refer is explained in the following by GA Pervez.
235-6
5-6) And they preserve their sexual
energies only for their wives or slave maids
(who were in their possession before the
Quranic injunctions prohibiting slavery
were revealed - 474; and who after being
duly married had been given a status equal to
that of other wives); there is no blame in
having sexual relations with them.Cheers
I think there is another option, such as
Maria was a slave given to prophet, and after the prophet received Maria, he freed her. So then, her status was no longer a slave. But, perhaps because of certain conditions, she also could not become a free women completely (e.g. she was poor and alone/no family in foreign place) - thus she became ma malakat aymanukum* (MMA*) in which her living costs/necessities supported by someone else who made oath to finance her needs, perhaps someone wealthy or who had enough means to help her, and that person could be a female or a male (in this case, not the prophet).
And then, while her status was still MMA*, the prophet married her with the permission of the person who previously made oath to support her. So, after she married lawfully to the prophet, she still received the aid from that generous person (who made an oath).
Note I even think that... if MMA* married, it is possible that she could still live in the house of her supporter (who made oath), such as if the spouse of MMA* is also poor and they still not able to finance their needs, but if they (the couple) later could be financially capable, I think it could be that she then no longer MMA*.
*To my knowledge, ma malakat aymanukum (MMA) refers to plural, but because I don't know the singular version of it, so I still use MMA.
However, personally, I wish the story of Maria the Copt is only hoax.
Peace.
-
Peace Taro Hiroshi
I recommend this article.
Muhammad was not a polygamist
http//submission.org/friday_Muhammad_was_not_polygamous.html
It seems that Muhammad definitely practiced polygamy.
663 And when the prophet confided a narrative to some of his wives, then one of them spread it, and allah revealed it to him, he recognized part of it and denied part. So when he informed her, she said "Who informed you of this?" He said "I was informed by the knowledgeable, the expert."
Some of the other "wives" verses you can explain by saying they were not necessarily at the same time but how will you explain 663 which indicates they were simultaneous?
Additionally 43 does allow polygamy in a certain situation even though it is not encouraged.
Another verse that has not made sense to me is
3350 O prophet, we have made lawful for you the wives to whom you have already given their dowries, and those who are maintained by your oath, ........................
The wives to whom you have already given their dowries are already lawful because he married them; that's why they are "wives"; they are already dowry granted wives. Then why say they are made lawful? Something is amiss here.
Also the wives are being made lawful by 3350 which indicates that those dowry given wives were in the past, so did he marry them again one by one? 3350 also seems to indicate the wives were simultaneous.
Peace
-
Yeah come on, he clearly had multiple wives, unless we decide to turn "wives" into some ridiculously convoluted esoteric meaning giveup
I'm waiting for the time someone posts an article here saying Muhammad didn't really preach in Arabia he actually preached in America, or better yet - the moon! rotfl
-
MMA as you refer is explained in the following by GA Pervez.
235-6
5-6) And they preserve their sexual
energies only for their wives or slave maids
(who were in their possession before the
Quranic injunctions prohibiting slavery
were revealed - 474; and who after being
duly married had been given a status equal to
that of other wives); there is no blame in
having sexual relations with them.NO.
I disagree with such interpretation - I dislike it!
That's not exactly same like my understanding.
Whether GA Pervez is another name of GA Parwez?
-
Peace all,
Ma malakat aymanukum (MMA) are those who you made an oath to. They are definitely NOT slave maids. This could be an oath of financial support or oath of engagement depending on the context of use in al-quran. So there is another possibility also That of oath of engagement made by the prophet to marry which makes them MMA of each other. Substitute MMA with "fianc?/fianc?e" and it makes total sense.
For details about meaning of MMA please see the following article by Dr. Ayman
http//free-minds.org/rules-engagement
Excerpt
?Ma malkat aymanukum? Those related to you by your oath. In the case of a single man this is the oath of engagement to marry. In the case of a custodian this is the oath of adoption or financial support. Following are the list of verses where this expression occurs and the context of each occurrence
Who you made an oath to marry (43,424, 425, 236, 3350, 3352, 7030)
Who you made an oath to adopt/take custody of (2431, 2433, 2458, 3355)
Who you made an oath to financially support in general (433, 436, 1671, 302Peace
-
Thank you for the links truthseeker,
I've always been of the opinion that the primary meaning of MMA is an oath of engagement.
But I'm still bothered by the fact that the Prophet seems to have had many wives, which is a direct violation of the Quranic concept of taking more than 1 wife only if she has children who need a father.
And I'm also bothered by the historicity of Maria the Copt and the stories about her. I feel that there should be evidence, or at least contradictory information regarding her if she was actually his wife, or not a slave at all. But there seems to be total consensus on the matter, which by hadith and traditional historical standards, is actually rare.
Peace Fusion,
That is the standard traditional explanation for MMA - that they are slaves you can have sex with.
-
Peace ths,
But I'm still bothered by the fact that the Prophet seems to have had many wives, which is a direct violation of the Quranic concept of taking more than 1 wife only if she has children who need a father.
Welcome to my world. This is only one of the many things that have always bothered me and which have led to my thought evolution as explained in this post
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9607839.msg376544#msg376544
By the way I am very open minded and not as literal as you might think! I think you are right. 17108 is just a guidance. All it advises is to glorify allah upon being presented with any sign of allah (scientific truth, revelation etc.). The exact wording is not important.
Peace
-
It is more or less the same as Ibrahim married the slave girl which was also the wish of his first wife sara.
I believe unless we are subjected to the same conditions, we won't know the full context of such incidents.
For example the concept of Muta also troubled me. However when you are a traveler in the old days and it takes days and nights before you come back from a long distance travel and being a man, what would you do to fulfill your lust, the desire of flesh.
Ibne bautua in his autobiography did exactly the same, married women along the path of his journey while he had a wife back in Syria.
Another case is when you are imprisoned for many years , what would you do? would you indulge in same gender sex with fellow mates?
The example of Prophet Yousef when he was put in prison for many years, but then not every one has the same character and patience?The point I guess is that GOD knows our nature and nature of person is not changed in general and HE will not make laws as if we live in utopian world so perhaps the rules and exceptions are there to address common men and their survival in that society.
Would you agree to chopping of hands in public these days while killing openly was common sight in those days.Cheers
Peace ths,
Welcome to my world. This is only one of the many things that have always bothered me and which have led to my thought evolution as explained in this post
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9607839.msg376544#msg376544
By the way I am very open minded and not as literal as you might think! I think you are right. 17108 is just a guidance. All it advises is to glorify allah upon being presented with any sign of allah (scientific truth, revelation etc.). The exact wording is not important.
Peace
-
Peace Fusion,
One of the problems with this view is being androcentric. Why can't women do the same to fulfill their lust and desire of flesh? Why not polyandry? This androcentricity, misogyny and polygyny is one of the things that bothers me in the current text of al-quran. Additionally inheritance share, testimony, only male prophethood etc. Monogamy is the only thing that makes sense, or if polygyny is allowed in exceptional circumstances then polyandry should also be allowed in exceptional circumstances. I can exercise control and practice abstinence when necessary, and even if I traveled to Mars and had a mate back on Earth, I won't commit "muta" with a fellow traveler to Mars.
A spiritually advanced prophet with no self control? Unable to tame the fleshly beast? ???
Peace
