A refutation to Bro Yaseen - Polygamy is allowed in 4 23

arnoldyasin

Peace,

As for 243, i always doubted the original approach as God refers to forgiveness all the time, so the punishment cannot go on. This is not acceptable by the big picture of the Quran. Also nikaa has more meanings, so here it refers to that a fornicator only will commit with a fornicator, and not with a believer. So a fornicator only mingles(nikaa) with another fornicator, as it is only possible to commit this crime with somebody who is willing to commit the crime. So it refers to that they have similair attitudes to commit this.

Dr.Shabbir agrees with this approach

243 The adulterer couples with none but an adulteress who worships her desire. And with the adulteress none couples but the adulterer who worships his desire. And it is forbidden to the believers. (2426, 4523).
[Fornication and adultery are a form of idol worship for, such people submit to their desires. The word AW here is explanatory. AW = Or + That is + Namely + Call it + In other words. AW appears in this format instead of 'or' in many places in the Qur?an such as 236, 243, 2562. Nikah, in the lexicon, applies to genuine wedlock as well as to sexual relations between a man and a woman outside wedlock, depending on the context. The very common rendering of this verse to the effect that an adulterer is allowed to marry only an adulteress or idolatress, and vice versa, is absolutely erroneous and contrary to the Big Picture of the Qur?an which lays great emphasis on reform and forgiveness. And it defies all sense. Whereas many translators have
327
maintained that such men and women will end up marrying their like. This is obviously the result of not bearing in mind the meaning of AW and Nikah, and going against common sense. Finally, the Book of Allah does not downgrade people once they have repented or received penalty. Oh, yet another point! After painting an X-rated scenario of Madinah as if adultery/fornication was going on right and left and coming to public knowledge, in the very life-time of the exalted Prophet, the Imams of the old come up with a horrible joke. They insult Hazrat Ali that he decreed for an adulterer to receive a hundred stripes to fulfill the Command in the Qur'an, and then stoned him to death to fulfill the command of Hadith!

ayman

Peace Samia, all,

Although I translate muhSinat/ muhSiniin as protected women/men, yet this is not the meaning, because in my view, the question is what men and women could -equally - be protected from. In answering this question, we understand the meaning of the term. Otherwise, we keep the lable (prtected).

Look at all the verses where (protected) is used., especially verse 4 ch 24. If we say it means (self-protected or mature) as Arnoldyasin suggests, then it means that it is OK to slander the vulnerable. If it means (good women) as Warner suggests, then this very verse 4 of chapter 24 is what about all women are good unless you present four sound witnesses.

As you said, all women are "mohsanat" this is not just clear from 244 but also from 424. We can see from 424 that even "ma malakat aymanukum is a subset of "mohsanat".

As far as I know and until a better meaning is found, the word "mohsanat" means protected. Within this meaning there can be two ways of being "protected". Either by the family (this is for immature girls) or by oneself (this is what is meant by Arnold as "mature&quot. So all women are "mohsanat". A girl ("fata(t)&quot moves from being "family protected" to "self-protected" by declaring protection from arranged marriage (2433) or getting married (425).

Also think of (azwajukum OR ma malakat aymanukum). Whom would one marry but will not be a (zawj) according to the definition of the word?

The term "ma malakat aymanukum" literally means "what your oath controlled". They are distinguished from those who are related to us by blood. In this case, it is not a blood relationship but a relation simply based on an oath. When you think about it, there are fundamentally two types of human family relationships based on oaths

The oath of engagement.
The oath of adoption.

When we get engaged, we are essentially making an oath to be committed to the other person and to get married after a certain period had passed where we got to know each other.

When we adopt a young child, we are essemtially making an oath to care for him or her and support them emotionally, financially, etc.

Now depending on the context in each passage where the term occurs, you will be able to easily see which type of "ma malakat aymanukum" is talked about.

The following article may clarify things a little bit (notice the figure at the end)

http//www.free-minds.org/malak.htm

I hope this helps to clarify the meaning of this important but often misunderstood term.

Peace and all best wishes,

Ayman

ayman

Peace Tanveer, all,

If "mohsinaat" in 424 means "protected believers" then according to this verse they are forbidden for other believers to marry except the "ma malakat aymanukum" among the "mohsinaat".

I don't see anything in 424 about "marriage" or "to marry".

Is this what is forbidden here? Is it forbidden to marry those listed in 423 or is it forbidden to get romantically involved or even just have feelings of attraction towards them? 424 is telling us that only those that our oath (of engagement) controls are exempted.

Peace,

Ayman

TAJ

Peace Arnoldyasin, All

Peace,

As for 243, i always doubted the original approach as God refers to forgiveness all the time, so the punishment cannot go on. This is not acceptable by the big picture of the Quran. Also nikaa has more meanings, so here it refers to that a fornicator only will commit with a fornicator, and not with a believer. So a fornicator only mingles(nikaa) with another fornicator, as it is only possible to commit this crime with somebody who is willing to commit the crime. So it refers to that they have similair attitudes to commit this.

Dr.Shabbir agrees with this approach

243 The adulterer couples with none but an adulteress who worships her desire. And with the adulteress none couples but the adulterer who worships his desire. And it is forbidden to the believers. (2426, 4523).

(3

Al Zani (for the male) does not/ will not marry except a Zaniah (for the female).. The La is Nafiyah and not Nahiyah. Meaning, it is not about forbidding,, it is about setting a law of justice. It is only just and fair to marry someone who is likewise whether in Zina or Shirk.. regardless if both repented or not, as that is another story. But if one has been 3afeef (never been in a forbidden relationship) all his/her life, then they will certainly marry someone who is 3afeefah too. This is a guarantee from Allah.. because some Zina acts could take place sercretively and nobody would know anything about,, but it couldnot be hidden from Allah. and so it would be God who will protect those who maintained Al 3iffah all their lives to have them end up with people like them, that is the law that this ayah talks about.

On the other hand, people who have sinned in the past should be responsible for their acts and should expect and understand that their partner-to-be has sinned, or will sin, just the same, and that it is only just and fair to be joined with likewise partners. Because a 3afeef/3afeefah person will never understand why anybody would commit a zina, but a zani person would and should understand. Because he/she has been there and done that. That is part of the price they would pay for their past sinning, not that God does not accept the repent..of course Allah will accept any pure and honest Tawbah, but to be joined up with a likewise person is only part of the lesson one should learn from his/her mistakes. It could be a lesson for spiritual growth.

arnoldyasin

Peace,

TAJ, i highly disagree, firstly because it is naive, i have seen so many marriages and relationships were one partner was pure and the other not. So this claim is already proven non-true by experience and the last part also doesn't make sense that it is still part of the lesson? So later we have to make a dating site for fornicators only i presume?

TAJ

Peace Arnoldyasin,

TAJ, i highly disagree, firstly because it is naive, i have seen so many marriages and relationships were one partner was pure and the other not. So this claim is already proven non-true by experience

You have seen!? You can never know or see enough, no matter how much you know and see and experience. Besides, to know the hidden is the specialty of God. Or do you disagree with that too?

and the last part also doesn't make sense that it is still part of the lesson?
What is wrong with that? The ways and means how Allah teachs us lessons is the business of Allah. It could take a second, or it could take years.

So later we have to make a dating site for fornicators only i presume?

What about the Zunatt who will not admit or tell? The ayah, in my understanding, is talking to those.

arnoldyasin

Peace Arnoldyasin,

TAJ, i highly disagree, firstly because it is naive, i have seen so many marriages and relationships were one partner was pure and the other not. So this claim is already proven non-true by experience

You have seen!? You can never know or see enough, no matter how much you know and see and experience. Besides, to know the hidden is the specialty of God. Or do you disagree with that too?

and the last part also doesn't make sense that it is still part of the lesson?
What is wrong with that? The ways and means how Allah teachs us lessons is the business of Allah. It could take a second, or it could take years.

So later we have to make a dating site for fornicators only i presume?

What about the Zunatt who will not admit or tell? The ayah, in my understanding, is talking to those.

Yes, i have known couples were i knew one was a fornicator and the girl was not, or the other way around. So this idea is already disproven. And that the other partner wasn't pure was not known by the other partner, so for them it was 'unseen' like you say.

TAJ

Peace Arnoldyasin,

TAJ, i highly disagree, firstly because it is naive, i have seen so many marriages and relationships were one partner was pure and the other not. So this claim is already proven non-true by experience

You have seen!? You can never know or see enough, no matter how much you know and see and experience. Besides, to know the hidden is the specialty of God. Or do you disagree with that too?

and the last part also doesn't make sense that it is still part of the lesson?
What is wrong with that? The ways and means how Allah teachs us lessons is the business of Allah. It could take a second, or it could take years.

So later we have to make a dating site for fornicators only i presume?

What about the Zunatt who will not admit or tell? The ayah, in my understanding, is talking to those.

Yes, i have known couples were i knew one was a fornicator and the girl was not, or the other way around. So this idea is already disproven. And that the other partner wasn't pure was not known by the other partner, so for them it was 'unseen' like you say.

Again it is all about You!? Why is it all about you and what you have experienced? Have you never questioned the fact that your experience, no matter how huge, can be LIMITED? You have known couples? Sure you did. How many? Thousnads? You still have 6 billions!? You then go on and say "so this idea is disproven"! By what? Your limited experience in human psychology? What do you know of people's hidden lives? Do you think you can reach such depths? What did you leave for Allah then!?

arnoldyasin

Peace,

If by your standards fornicators only marry fornicators, then even one couple which shows the opposite disproves this theory or not?

TAJ

Peace Arnoldyasin,

Peace,

If by your standards fornicators only marry fornicators, then even one couple which shows the opposite disproves this theory or not?

The Question is HOW can you, or anyone esle, know for sure the whole truth about a person? You can only know the whole truth about yourself. Yes, that no one can argue about as this is the only time when you can speak with 100% certainty about your truth, but when it comes to other people you never can know,, and, imho, you should never even try to find the whole truth about others because not only you will never know the whole thing but also you will be interfering in others's privacy, things they would never want anybody to know about. They'd wish to hide that from Allah but they can't. Only from humans they many times can, and many time do succeed. Their secrets would be buried with them unbeknown to anyone but to Allah.

Al zani does not marry but a zaniyah. A mushrik does not marry but a mushrikah. And only the believers, was written in Allah's laws, to be away from that.

Edited to add
I would suggest to you to look into the meaning of the word
"7arrama" in
and "Mu7arramatun" in ,
and "7arramahuma" in ,
and "7arramna" in

In those ayat you will see the other usage of the word for things being not allowed to happen.

warner

Peace All

This thread was to discuss whether polygamy is allowed in the Quraan or not. Now I feel The thread is going totally off track and I am not free of blame either.

But, the sad thing is, it will be like so many other threads stopped half way without conclusions and without finding answers for the matter in question.

Lets argue and debate fairly and bring as much details from the Quraan and nature of things and try to find an answer to our original question.

Let Allah be our guide.

warner

Can this part of the verse 2187 be the reason for calling married men and women protected men and women.

2187

Yusuf Ali
Permitted to you on the night of the fasts is the approach to your wives. They are your garments. And ye are their garments. Allah knoweth what ye used to do secretly among yourselves; but He turned to you and forgave you; so now associate with them and seek what Allah hath ordained for you and eat and drink until the white thread of dawn appear to you distinct from its black thread; then complete your fast till the night appears; but do not associate with your wives while ye are in retreat in the mosques. Those are limits (set by) Allah; approach not nigh thereto. Thus doth Allah make clear His signs to men that they may learn self-restraint.

ayman

Peace Taj, Arnold, all,

The Question is HOW can you, or anyone esle, know for sure the whole truth about a person? You can only know the whole truth about yourself. Yes, that no one can argue about as this is the only time when you can speak with 100% certainty about your truth, but when it comes to other people you never can know,, and, imho, you should never even try to find the whole truth about others because not only you will never know the whole thing but also you will be interfering in others's privacy, things they would never want anybody to know about. They'd wish to hide that from Allah but they can't. Only from humans they many times can, and many time do succeed. Their secrets would be buried with them unbeknown to anyone but to Allah.
Al zani does not marry but a zaniyah. A mushrik does not marry but a mushrikah. And only the believers, was written in Allah's laws, to be away from that.

This discussion about "zani" and "zaniyah" is missing the most important element and this is why it is going nowhere. The most important element is the definition of "zani" and "zaniyah" according to the great reading. A key passage to understand what a "zani" and "zaniyah" are is 2413. In there we are told

Had only they came on it with four witnesses. So if they don't bring the witnesses, then those are the liars according to The God.

You have to remember that the great reading is a book of judgment so every word has to be examined very carefully, at least with the same level of due diligence with which you examine legal documents. According to 2413, a "zani" and "zaniyah" by definition have been witnessed by FOUR witnesses. So Taj's question of "how can you, or anyone else, know for sure the whole truth about a person?" is irrelevant because we DO KNOW from the four witnesses requirement.

Now due to the sanctity of the home in the great reading (see 2427-2 and the prohibition against spying (see 4912), the only way that a "zani" and "zaniyah" could be witnessed is in the case of pornography or public lewdness.

Whether two unmarried or even married people had intercourse or not is IRRELEVANT to being a "zani" and "zaniyah". What is relevant is that they were witnessed by at least FOUR witnesses.

So what if three people witnessed an unmarried man and woman having intercourse, then THEY ARE STILL LIARS ACCORDING TO THE GOD and the man and woman ARE NOT a "zani" and "zaniyah".

So what if four people witnessed a MARRIED man and woman having intercourse, then the man and woman ARE a "zani" and "zaniyah", even though they are MARRIED.

Another case for "zina" is adultery in the case of a married couple with no witnesses except the spouse (this counts as four witnesses as per 246) and the accused does not refute the accusation. So in the case, the accused ADMITTED to committing adultery. So again, the question of "how can you, or anyone else, know for sure the whole truth about a person?" is irrelevant because the accused willfuly ADMITTED guilt.

So now there is no question about who is a a "zani" and "zaniyah" in 243. What 243 is saying is that those who have faith are restricted from marrying those who have worked in the porno industry or have been guilty of public lewdness or willfully admitted to marital infidelity.

It is clear and simple with no room for guessing.

Peace,

Ayman

unknownuser

Peace brother Ayman,

I don't see anything in 424 about "marriage" or "to marry".

Is this what is forbidden here? Is it forbidden to marry those listed in 423 or is it forbidden to get romantically involved or even just have feelings of attraction towards them? 424 is telling us that only those that our oath (of engagement) controls are exempted.

The context of 423 and 424 is marriage. 422 starts with the category of people forbidden for one to marry and this forbidden category of people continues in 423 and 424. Even if we accept that those listed in 423 and 424 are forbidden to get romantically involved with or have feelings of attraction towards them, it will also be forbidden to marry them because we cannot even have feelings of attraction towards them.

The question then arises is that in 424 we are told that we are forbidden even to get romantically involved with "mohsanaat" except the "ma malakat aymanukum", then how come in 425 it says "if you cannot afford to get married to mohsanaat". Won't that be a contradiction ? This has been confusing me for a while. According to 424 we cannot even be romantically involved with mohsanaat, therefore we cannot even get married to them, and according to 425 we can marry them ? If mohsanaat is taken as protected women then how can we marry protected women (425) if 424 is forbidding us to even get romantically involved with them ?

Brother Ayman, In your article on "ma malakat aymanukum" I have some questions about your diagram at the end.

Your diagram classifies all believing women as "mohsanaat" which is then divided into "fatayaat" (parent protected) and "mohsanaat" (self-protected). How can you make "mohsanaat" a subset of "mohsanaat" ? The subset should be named differently. The whole category is named "mohsanaat" and is translated "protected women" and the subset is also named "mohsanaat" but is translated "self-protected" ?
According to 425 "al-muhsanaat al-muminaat" is contrasted with "fatayaat al-muminaat". From that it appears that all believing women are being addressed as "al-muminaat" (not muhsanaat as per your diagram), and al-muminaat are divided into two categories of "al-muhsanaat" and "fatayaat". Thus the heading of the diagram should be "muminaat". Then in the "fatayaat" category there should be two kinds "ma malakat aymanukum" and "non ma malakat aymanukum". The "muhsanaat" category will include all other protected women including married women and self-protected women who are financially independent.
Your diagram does not include the independent believing women who are not parent protected anymore and are neither married, widowed or divorced, and are protected by themselves because they are financially independent and have their own job/business/money and support themselves. What about these independent self-protected women ?
How can a widow or divorcee be self-protected and thus under the category of "muhsanaat" as per your diagram ? They don't have a husband anymore to protect them and they are not necessarily financially independent either. They will need a guardian/carer to be protected (protected by oath) and thus I think they should be classified under "ma malakat aymanukum".

Peace and regards,

Tanveer

warner

Peace Ayman
I thought the four witness requirement was to
deter people from wrongly accusing an innocent person /couple.
At the same time just because 4 people come forward and say
that they witnessed 2 people having sex , it doesnt make the
accused automatically guilty. Because 4 people can connive to accuse some one and give false evidence. Witnesses on behalf of the accused and circumstanitial evidence will be inquired in to by a just judge plus the trial. What if the accused has a convincing alibi.

Having said that , Gods laws are not only for the people of the old
it applies todate as we all know . What is your answer to people being proven beyond doubt of adultry based on evidence such as phone call records, hotel booking, DNA evidence, etc . Case in point President Clintons scandal.

ayman

Peace Warner,

I thought the four witness requirement was to deter people from wrongly accusing an innocent person /couple.

No, this is not what it is for because 2413 clearly says "if they don't bring four witnesses then they are liars". This is IRRESPECTIVE of whether the couple actually did anything or not. So the only way that this statement would always be true is if the requirement for at least four witnesses is BUILT INTO the definition of "zinah".

At the same time just because 4 people come forward and say that they witnessed 2 people having sex , it doesnt make the accused automatically guilty. Because 4 people can connive to accuse some one and give false evidence. Witnesses on behalf of the accused and circumstanitial evidence will be inquired in to by a just judge plus the trial. What if the accused has a convincing alibi.

Yes, so now one can investigate the accusation and move forward. On the other hand, if there was only three witnesses and even if the couple actually did it and maybe the woman is pregnant, then still those three people are liars because it is in fact not "zinah" according to 2413.

Having said that , Gods laws are not only for the people of the old it applies todate as we all know . What is your answer to people being proven beyond doubt of adultry based on evidence such as phone call records, hotel booking, DNA evidence, etc . Case in point President Clintons scandal.

You can't spy on people according to the great reading so evidence such as phone call records will be thrown out.

The issue is not about "reasonable doubt". When you have three witnesses that are reliable and truthful then this is also "beyond reasonable doubt". So the issue is that two unmarried couples having illicit relationship is not "zinah". It can be classified as violating passages such as 237 and 7031 but that is it. There is no punishment in this low life for violating 237 and 7031 no more than there is punishment for much graver sins such as setting up partners with The God. On the other hand, "zinah" (pornography/public lewdness in the case of unmarried or even married) is different. The person who is CONVICTED of such is a "zani"/"zaniah" and they must be punished in public so that they are made known and thus they cannot marry except a "zani"/"zaniah" like them or someone who sets up partners with The God and so doesn't care about what The God is telling us anyway.

Peace,

Ayman

ayman

Peace brother Tanveer,

The context of 423 and 424 is marriage. 422 starts with the category of people forbidden for one to marry and this forbidden category of people continues in 423 and 424. Even if we accept that those listed in 423 and 424 are forbidden to get romantically involved with or have feelings of attraction towards them, it will also be forbidden to marry them because we cannot even have feelings of attraction towards them.

Marriage is not mentioned in 424-24. It is forbidden to get romantically involved with those listed so you wouldn't even get to the point of marriage. You can only get involved with "al-mohsanat"/the protected (mature women) romantically once they become "what your oath controls", i.e. there is an oath involved. Once there is an oath involved then you can pretty much be a couple and be romantic with each other except for having intercourse (2235). In 425 we hear further clarification that if you can't get romantically involved with one of the "mohsanat" (mature women) then you may seek an arranged marriage (with their family's permission) from family protected women ("fatayat&quot.

The question then arises is that in 424 we are told that we are forbidden even to get romantically involved with "mohsanaat" except the "ma malakat aymanukum", then how come in 425 it says "if you cannot afford to get married to mohsanaat". Won't that be a contradiction ? This has been confusing me for a while. According to 424 we cannot even be romantically involved with mohsanaat, therefore we cannot even get married to them, and according to 425 we can marry them ? If mohsanaat is taken as protected women then how can we marry protected women (425) if 424 is forbidding us to even get romantically involved with them ?

Again, you can get romantically involved with the "mohsanat" once they become from "ma malakat aymanukum" through an oath of commitment. We need to forget that "mohsanat" and "ma malkat aymanukum" are two separate entities. The "ma malkat aymanukum" are a subset of "mohsanat" as clear from the very precise logical language in 424. This is the hurdle that is causing all the confusion.

Brother Ayman, In your article on "ma malakat aymanukum" I have some questions about your diagram at the end.

Your diagram classifies all believing women as "mohsanaat" which is then divided into "fatayaat" (parent protected) and "mohsanaat" (self-protected). How can you make "mohsanaat" a subset of "mohsanaat" ? The subset should be named differently. The whole category is named "mohsanaat" and is translated "protected women" and the subset is also named "mohsanaat" but is translated "self-protected" ?

It has been a few years since I drew this diagram so perhaps it needs to be revised to clarify things a little more. The "mohsanat" are "mature women". For example, those who don't live with their parents (because they are mature). On the other hand, "fatayat" are under the protection of their parents.

In the case of "mohsanat" (mature women), one can marry them right away without an oath (i.e., they don't have to become "ma malakat aymanukum" first). However, this might be tough because unless the person was already known or he is such a great guy ;D, a woman would usually require a period to know the person more and thus the oath becomes mandatory so that the couple can get romantically involved. This is why it is said in 425 "for that who can't reach to marry" the mature women.

Now notice that in the case of "fatayat" the marriage has to be with the permission of their parents, while there is no such requirement for the "mohsanat" (mature women).

According to 425 "al-muhsanaat al-muminaat" is contrasted with "fatayaat al-muminaat". From that it appears that all believing women are being addressed as "al-muminaat" (not muhsanaat as per your diagram), and al-muminaat are divided into two categories of "al-muhsanaat" and "fatayaat". Thus the heading of the diagram should be "muminaat". Then in the "fatayaat" category there should be two kinds "ma malakat aymanukum" and "non ma malakat aymanukum". The "muhsanaat" category will include all other protected women including married women and self-protected women who are financially independent.
Your diagram does not include the independent believing women who are not parent protected anymore and are neither married, widowed or divorced, and are protected by themselves because they are financially independent and have their own job/business/money and support themselves. What about these independent self-protected women ?
How can a widow or divorcee be self-protected and thus under the category of "muhsanaat" as per your diagram ? They don't have a husband anymore to protect them and they are not necessarily financially independent either. They will need a guardian/carer to be protected (protected by oath) and thus I think they should be classified under "ma malakat aymanukum".

I think that "protected" means "mature" as opposed to "financially independent". This has nothing to do with money. It has to do with the level of maturity. Hence, even if the woman is still living with her parents she can become a mature woman when she gets a marriage proposal and her parents try to coerce her into it but she refuses (see 2433). From that point on, she is mature.

So a widowed woman or a divorcee is still "mature" regardless of her financial situation. This means that she can get maaried without permission from her parents and she can get married right away with anyone without an oath (of engagement) first, if she so desires.

Peace,

Ayman

warner

Peace All

Some excellent points from Tanveer on Aymans Article on Mohsanat , Engagement and Ma Malakt Aymankum. As Tanveer pointed out there are contradictions and guesswork involved to form the theory and IF Aymans theory is correct it seems the Quran has left a big hole in an important law issue which can not be the case.

Eg

How do you apply Aymans definition of Ma Malakat Aymanakum to following verses,

16 71 And Allah hath favored some of you above others in provision. Now those who are more favored will by no means hand over their provision to those whom their right hands possess, so that they may be equal with them in respect thereof. Is it then the grace of Allah that they deny?
And

23 5 Who abstain from sex / And who guard their modesty
23 6 Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond or whom their right hands possess for (in their case) they are free from blame

In case of adopting is it an Orphan who he is being adopted or a child with parents going by Aymans example of Maryam being adopted/custody by Zakaria as told in the Quran. When you adopt under these circumstances the relationship is Guardian or stepfather? I just raised these issues since many questions can be raised. Please do not go looking for answers in this direction since the Quran is not pointing towards that.

There are many unanswered questions on most theories (traditional and new) on issues such as Ma Malakat Aymanakum. The Quraan does not say something in a confusing manner, which can be said plainly and clearly. It's just that we do not think deeply and reflect.

ayman

Peace Warner,

I totally agree that we need to think deeply and reflect. I would also like to add that we need to not let our social norms preconceive us and prevent us from understanding what is really being said.

Some excellent points from Tanveer on Aymans Article on Mohsanat , Engagement and Ma Malakt Aymankum. As Tanveer pointed out there are contradictions and guesswork involved to form the theory and IF Aymans theory is correct it seems the Quran has left a big hole in an important law issue which can not be the case.
Eg

How do you apply Aymans definition of Ma Malakat Aymanakum to following verses,
16 71 And Allah hath favored some of you above others in provision. Now those who are more favored will by no means hand over their provision to those whom their right hands possess, so that they may be equal with them in respect thereof. Is it then the grace of Allah that they deny?

It is clear from the context of 1671 that it is talking about those we made an oath to support (not engagement).

And
23 5 Who abstain from sex / And who guard their modesty
23 6 Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond or whom their right hands possess for (in their case) they are free from blame

There is no mention of intercourse in 235. What is mentioned is indeed guarding our modesty. What 236 is telling us is that there is no blame on us if we don't guard our modesty with our spouses and those engaged to us. So when a couple is engaged they can kiss and be romantic with each other and the only thing they can't do is intercourse (see 2235). For this, they have to wait until the predetermined time. Now this may go against social norms but we need to be careful in not letting our social norms block us from understanding what is being said.

In case of adopting is it an Orphan who he is being adopted or a child with parents going by Aymans example of Maryam being adopted/custody by Zakaria as told in the Quran. When you adopt under these circumstances the relationship is Guardian or stepfather? I just raised these issues since many questions can be raised. Please do not go looking for answers in this direction since the Quran is not pointing towards that.
There are many unanswered questions on most theories (traditional and new) on issues such as Ma Malakat Aymanakum. The Quraan does not say something in a confusing manner, which can be said plainly and clearly. It's just that we do not think deeply and reflect.

Zakaria adopted her, so he was her guardian. I don't see the issue here. There is no indication that he married her mother so there is no basis for him being her stepfather. We just don't know and it is not important to know for the issues at hand. The issue in the case of orphans is that one must be extermely equitable and fair with them in all matters.

Peace,

Ayman

Samia

Salaam to all

Many messages were posted while I was not feeling well. But I just read Ayman's definition of "zena" and I say that THIS IS the meaning of zena. Thanks Ayman.

Moreover, the pattern of the words "zani" = fa3el, indicates a profession as in kateb (writer, clerk) tajer = (trader); taleb (seeker; enquirer)..We should also include sareq (stealer) who makes stealing their profession, not anyone who steals something once or twice. So, the limits of Allah in punishment is for those who make sex or stealing a profession (pornography, corupt people or corporation specialized in stealing peoples money, efforts..etc).

I hope I can catch-up soon on messages related directly to the original thread.