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

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.

Samia

Ayman wrote
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

What is the meaning of (7afithoun furuujahum)? Whatever this may mean, one thing is sure even our own children do not have access to. I strongly believe that it is to do with protecting the private parts or sexual organs, not merely (not kiss).

Also, all those who gave an interpretation to (mu7Sanat/niin) gave a positive one. But even zani and zania are muhSaniin as per verse 425. Which leads to a question why do ma malakat aymanukum receive 50% of the punishment of the mu7saniin when they are zanis? This proves that ma malakat aymanukum ARE NOT a sub category of mu7Saniin.

I asked a question on the thread earlier, but got no answer when we say they are protected what are they protected from?

warner

Peace Samia

I tried twice to answer your questions or at least to point in a direction to find an answer . Can you read the past thread for my answers and comment.

warner

Peace All

Why do you think in 425 its specifically mentioned " belieiving
among the Ma malakat Aymanakum" . Does that mean there are
non believers among the Ma Malakat Aymanakum.

If that is the case , can Aymans engagement theory apply ?

Please assist me to understand .

Samia

Yes Warner, I read your replies , and you also wonder what ma malakat aymanukum is. My question is What are mu7Saniin and mu7Sanaat protected from, if the zani is also a mu7San/a?

We should also remember three things

There are male and female ma malakat aymanukum.
The quraan addresses both genders, unless it is explicitly addressing one gender only.
The quraan has its own sociolinguistics where the female may mean the male (she contains he).

Mother of the Orphans, you can not have both, I hope you see the contradictions.
If the orphans is a person without both parents how can there be a "mother of the orphan"?

I said an orphan with at most one parent, which means I know they could have both parents dead. We are ordered to provide for orphans, but the quraan talks here about orphans with a living mother. When a man is providing for them, people might start to ask what the "price" is, and that is unfair for the orphans. In such a case, God permits the man to marry this mother, or more women in the same situation so as to put an end to rumours, which proves that polygamy is restricted to such a situation. Otherwise, there is no meaning for this verse.

Samia

Why do you think in 425 its specifically mentioned " belieiving
among the Ma malakat Aymanakum" . Does that mean there are
non believers among the Ma Malakat Aymanakum

verse 4914
"The bedouins said We believed. Say You did not believe but say we surrendered/ became muslims, because faith has not yet entered your hearts ...."

According to sha7rour, those who believed in Mohammad (Muslims in todays language) are referred to in the quraan as believers.

Could this be another definition to be added to ma malakat aymanukum thay should be believers in Mohammad? (not from ahlul kitaab)

ayman

Salaam Samia,

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.

Thank you Samia for checking and validating this meaning. Your contribution helps all of us greatly improve our understanding.

Ayman

ayman

Peace Samia,

What is the meaning of (7afithoun furuujahum)? Whatever this may mean, one thing is sure even our own children do not have access to. I strongly believe that it is to do with protecting the private parts or sexual organs, not merely (not kiss).

I think that the meaning is "guarding their private parts". This would include arousing those parts so with this understanding passionate kissing would fall under that. So 235-6 is giving us a license to be intimate (but no intercourse as per 2235) with those we are engaged to (ma malakat aymanukum).

Also, all those who gave an interpretation to (mu7Sanat/niin) gave a positive one. But even zani and zania are muhSaniin as per verse 425. Which leads to a question why do ma malakat aymanukum receive 50% of the punishment of the mu7saniin when they are zanis? This proves that ma malakat aymanukum ARE NOT a sub category of mu7Saniin.

This is exactly why in 425 the "mohsanat" are further qualified as "mu'minat" (those who have faith). Remember that in 243, we are told that this is restricted on the "mu'minim" so a "zani" and "zaniah" cannot be from the "mu'minim" (at least at the time they commit that crime).

Receiving 50% of the punishment has nothing to do with being from "ma malakat aymanukum". It has to do with the further classification of "ma malakat aymanukum min fatayatimum" (those your oath controls from your immature women). Those were married ONLY with their parents permission (in other words it was an arranged marriage). So in this case perhaps the marriage was not out of love and maybe the girl was not experienced enough to properly evaluate the man. Thus, if she commits adultery and faces later on the situation in 246-9 and she admits guilt then she would only receive half the punishment.

Now here is an interesting observation. In 249 she can avoid punishment alltogether if she simply claims that he is a liar and The God's wrath be on her if he was truthful. So if she doesn't have faith in The God she would simply utter those words without a problem even if she did it. In all likelihood, the only way she would not refute the accusation and admit it and get half the punishment is if she was really from the "mu'minin" and thus really feared The God's wrath. I find it amazing that in 425 we are told that this half punishment would be for the immature women who have faith. I hope that you can see what I am talking about.

I asked a question on the thread earlier, but got no answer when we say they are protected what are they protected from?

It is the same thing that the "mohasanin" men are protected from. What are people protected from when they become mature? Being naive, being taken advantage of, etc. Those are also the same things that parents try to protect their children from. But when we mature, we can protect ourselves. I hope this may answer your question.

Peace,

Ayman

ayman

Peace Samia,

I said an orphan with at most one parent, which means I know they could have both parents dead. We are ordered to provide for orphans, but the quraan talks here about orphans with a living mother. When a man is providing for them, people might start to ask what the "price" is, and that is unfair for the orphans. In such a case, God permits the man to marry this mother, or more women in the same situation so as to put an end to rumours, which proves that polygamy is restricted to such a situation. Otherwise, there is no meaning for this verse.

I think that if you look at societies in general, you are more likely to find widowed women with children than widowed men with children. This is for the simple fact that it is men have a shorter life expectancy in general and it is they who more likely end up getting killed in mass killings such as during wars. This is even true in normal times in some inner cities in countries such as the US where due to gang violence and the high rate of teen pregnancy, you have many women widows with children. It is often the case that due to the absence of a father figure those kids end up being in trouble themselves. Now keep in mind that 43 puts the marriage of up to four widows conditional on the fear of the orphans not being treated justly. So if you have a social system that takes care of the orphans and supports them (not just financial support but also guidance, etc.) then the condition is not met for this to occur.

In any society that has too many women that are widowed and have orphans, there is a grave imbalance and this results in social problems. For example, read what happened to widows in Germany after WWII and how initially allied soldiers were taking advantage of them until the Department of Defense interfered.

Peace,

Ayman

unknownuser

Peace brother Ayman,

Thank you for your clarifications and explanations. I still have some more questions

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 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).

The two quotes above seem to be contradictory. According to the first quote, it seems that one can be romantically involved with or have feelings of attraction towards the "mohsanaat" only once they become "what your oath controls" i.e. the oath of engagement, so one wouldn't even get to the point of marriage without an oath of engagement first. According to the second quote, however, one can marry the "mohsanaat" right away without them becoming "what your oath controls" i.e. the oath of engagement. But that will be contradicting the first quote how can one marry the "mohsanaat" right away without an oath of engagement when one cannot even get romantically involved with them or have feelings of attraction towards them without an oath of engagement first ?

Can you please clear up the seeming contradiction ? Do you mean to say that one can marry "mohsanaat" without having feelings of attraction towards them or getting romantically involved with them ? If that is the case then one can marry all the categories of women mentioned in 423, including one's widowed/divorced mother and mature daughter, without getting romantically involved with them, if the forbidding is not about marriage but just about getting romantically involved.

Also the 422 is the forbidden to marry context and 423 and 424 is a continuation of that, so would that not make 423 and 424 the forbidden to marry categories too ?

When you say the following

It is forbidden to get romantically involved with those listed so you wouldn't even get to the point of marriage.

Wouldn't that make those listed forbidden to marry too, as one wouldn't even get to the point of marriage ?

I think that if you change your understanding from

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)

to

"In the case of "mohsanaat" (mature women), one can marry them only after oath of engagement (i.e. they have to become "ma malakat aymanukum" first)"

then everything will make sense, in my humble opinion.

Peace and regards,

Tanveer

ayman

Peace brother Tanveer,

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 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).

The two quotes above seem to be contradictory. According to the first quote, it seems that one can be romantically involved with or have feelings of attraction towards the "mohsanaat" only once they become "what your oath controls" i.e. the oath of engagement, so one wouldn't even get to the point of marriage without an oath of engagement first. According to the second quote, however, one can marry the "mohsanaat" right away without them becoming "what your oath controls" i.e. the oath of engagement. But that will be contradicting the first quote how can one marry the "mohsanaat" right away without an oath of engagement when one cannot even get romantically involved with them or have feelings of attraction towards them without an oath of engagement first ?

Can you please clear up the seeming contradiction ? Do you mean to say that one can marry "mohsanaat" without having feelings of attraction towards them or getting romantically involved with them ? If that is the case then one can marry all the categories of women mentioned in 423, including one's widowed/divorced mother and mature daughter, without getting romantically involved with them, if the forbidding is not about marriage but just about getting romantically involved.

Also the 422 is the forbidden to marry context and 423 and 424 is a continuation of that, so would that not make 423 and 424 the forbidden to marry categories too ?

To clarify, let me say that one can still have an engagement with the "mohsanat". However, optionally one can marry them right away without an oath of engagement. But in this case one wouldn't be able to have any romantic relationship with one another before marriage. For example, if a widow and an adult man say we are going to get married right away without getting to know each other romantically first, then there is nothing wrong with that. They are both mature adults. On the other hand, the oath of engagement is mandatory in the case of "fatayat" (immature women) who can only get married with their parents' permission.

It is forbidden to get romantically involved with those listed so you wouldn't even get to the point of marriage.

Wouldn't that make those listed forbidden to marry too, as one wouldn't even get to the point of marriage ?
I think that if you change your understanding from

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)

to
"In the case of "mohsanaat" (mature women), one can marry them only after oath of engagement (i.e. they have to become "ma malakat aymanukum" first)"
then everything will make sense, in my humble opinion.

I agree that what you are saying makes good sense. The only issue as far as I remember is in 43.

We are told that in case there is a danger of orphans being treated unjustly we can marry 2, 3, or 4 widows or "1 widow" OR "ma malakat aymanukum". This means that we can either marry a widow right away without getting to romantically know each other or after an oath of engagement. So this is why I said that the oath of engagement is optional in the case of mature women. Now notice that in the case of maryying more than one YOU CAN"T GET TO KNOW THEM ROMANTICALLY FIRST. This is of course because the marriage is primarily for the benefit of the orphans. It is only when you are set on marrying ONE that you can optionally get to know each other romantically first through an oath of engagement.

I appreciate your continued input and help on this so that hopefully if you can see how to resolve this issue in another way we can all get to a better understanding.

Peace,

Ayman

unknownuser

Peace brother Ayman,

I agree that what you are saying makes good sense. The only issue as far as I remember is in 43.

We are told that in case there is a danger of orphans being treated unjustly we can marry 2, 3, or 4 widows or "1 widow" OR "ma malakat aymanukum". This means that we can either marry a widow right away without getting to romantically know each other or after an oath of engagement. So this is why I said that the oath of engagement is optional in the case of mature women. Now notice that in the case of maryying more than one YOU CAN"T GET TO KNOW THEM ROMANTICALLY FIRST. This is of course because the marriage is primarily for the benefit of the orphans. It is only when you are set on marrying ONE that you can optionally get to know each other romantically first through an oath of engagement.

I appreciate your continued input and help on this so that hopefully if you can see how to resolve this issue in another way we can all get to a better understanding.

Thank you for your thought provoking reply. It appears that the discussion has taken an interesting turn bringing us to a crossroad ! I do think this issue can be resolved with an alternative understanding.

The aim is to arrive at the proper understanding of Allah's revelations, WHATEVER that may be. A general rule of thumb is that if any sign of al-qur'aan is incorrectly interpreted that will result in contradiction/inconsistency. If there is an apparent contradiction/inconsistency it is not because Allah's words are contradictory but because our interpretation is incorrect.

Now coming back to 43. Let us be very open-minded and analyze all the possibilities for the sake of arriving at the proper understanding, whatever that may be.

If 43 is talking about "marrying" the mothers of the orphans then because of "or ma malakat aymanukum" in that sign, I agree that it will mean one can marry the mothers of the orphans directly without an oath of engagement. The mothers of the orphans are mohsanaat because they are widows. This will, however, create contradiction with 424 in which Allah has clearly forbidden not even getting romantically involved or have feelings of attraction towards all mohsanaat, therefore not even getting to the point of marriage, EXCEPT "ma malakat aymanukum" i.e. those who one has made the oath of engagement with.

Now something is wrong here with our understanding. It could be how we have interpreted "mohsanaat" or "ma malakat aymanukum" OR MAYBE WE HAVE MISINTERPRETED "ANKIHOO" IN 43 !!

Brother Ayman, just for the sake of arriving at the best understanding, please bear with me and I request you to remain very open-minded, which so far I have seen that you always are, and let us analyze some of the possibilities. I do not have an excellent grasp of the Arabic language so I will request you to correct any of my mistakes in that regard and also to point out any flaws in my logic that you can see.

The word "ankihoo" can mean either "marry" or "marry off" depending on the context of the usage. Now let us first translate it as "marry" in 43 and see if the meaning fits without creating any inconsistencies or contradictions. As far as my limited and imperfect logic is concerned, I see at least 4 apparent inconsistencies/contradictions when "ankihoo" is translated as "marry" instead of "marry off" in 43.

As I mentioned earlier, if 43 is talking about "marrying" the mothers of the orphans then that marriage will be without a preceding oath of engagement and that would contradict 424 in which we are forbidden even to be romantically involved with or have feelings of attraction towards mohsanaat, thereby not even getting to the point of marriage with them, unless we have an oath of engagement with them. Please note that there is no "illa" or except preceding 43 making it an exception to the general rule in 424. If, however, Allah had said "Forbidden are the mohsanaat among the women except "ma malakat aymanukum", EXCEPT if you fear you cannot be just to the orphans......................" then you will have a point.
If 43 is talking about "marrying", then the marriage has to be in groups of 2, 3, or 4 which is evident from the words used in 43 meaning two's, three's and four's rather than 2,3,4. That means we can marry only in groups i.e. 2 widows at the same time, or 3 widows at the same time or 4 widows at the same time. That will create another interesting logical contradiction with 423. According to 423 it is forbidden to be romantically involved with 2 sisters at the same time. However, according to 43, theoretically one will be able to marry 3 or 4 sisters at the same time in a group which will contradict 423. I discussed this with brother mquran who had an excellent refutation by saying that one cannot get to the stage of marrying 3 sisters without first marrying 2 sisters, and as soon as one marries 2 sisters at the same time one will be in violation of 423. What if one marries all 3 sisters at the same exact time ? Then one will not be violating 423. One can sign the three marriage contracts in front of 3 witnesses without the sisters having signed them yet. Then the 3 sisters can sign their respective marriage contracts at the same time followed by the 3 witnesses signing the respective contracts at the same time. What then ? But that will contradict with 423 where Allah does not even want romantic involvement with 2 sisters at the same time.
The word used for DOWRY/WAGES in al-qur'aan, implying that one has to marry, is always "UJURAHUNNA" and not "SADUQATIHINNA" which is used in 44 meaning INHERITANCE and not dowry/wages, therefore if it means "marry" in 43 that will create a contradiction/inconsistency with the rest of al-qur'aan where always "ujurahunna" is used for dowry/wages, implying "marry" rather than "marry off". Thus in 43 "marry off" will be the best understanding in view of the context of "saduqatihinna".

44 And give the women their INHERITANCE (saduqatihinna) willingly, and if they remit any of it to you of their own will, then you may take it with good feelings.

If Allah meant in 43 for us to marry the widows He would have used the word "UJURAHUNNA" in 44 meaning give them their dowry/wages. However Allah uses the word "SADUQATIHINNA" for what we are supposed to give to the widows clearly meaning we are to MARRY THEM OFF and give them their INHERITANCE. Wherever Allah is talking about MARRY He uses the word "UJURAHUNNA" meaning dowry/wages as in the following ayat

426 And whoever of you cannot afford to marry the believing independent women, then from the still dependant believing young women. God is more aware of your faith, some of you to each other. You shall marry them with the permission of their parents and give them their DOWRY/WAGES (ujurahuuna) in kindness; to be protected, not for illicit sex or taking lovers.

57 Today, the good things have been made lawful to you, and the food of those who have been given the Scripture is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them; and the independent from the believing women, and the independent from the people of the Scripture before you, if you have given them their DOWRY/WAGES (ujurahunna), protected, chaste, and not seeking to take lovers.

3351 O prophet, We have made lawful for you the wives to whom you have already given their DOWRY/WAGES (ujurahunna)

6011 And there is no sin upon you to marry them, if you have paid their DOWRY/WAGES (ujurahunna) to them

"Ujurahunna" meaning "their dowers/wages" is consistently and exclusively used in the Quran for what a man gives a woman as a marriage portion in a normal marriage. This textual consistency leave one in no doubt that "saduqatihina" in verse 44 does not carry the meaning "their dowers/wages" but means "their inheritance". This is proved when we look at the context from 41 to 413, In this whole first part of chapter 4, Allah is talking about "inheritance".

In the inheritance signs, there is a mysterious absence of the possibility of two or more wives' share of inheritance when their husband dies, after carrying out the will. Allah mentioned the possibility of two or more daughters and two or more sisters but not two or more wives, after carrying out the will. Why did Allah leave out such an important possibility ? I agree that the situation would not be common but still it is important, unless a wife is not as important as a sister or a daughter !

If "ankihoo" in 43 is translated to "marry off" instead, then the meaning fits PLUS then I do not see any inconsistencies or contradictions anywhere else. For it to be "marry off", "orphans" and "women" in 43 do not have to be the same entities, for Allah is telling the guardian/carer to "marry off" the mothers of the orphans. Then 4127 will also be translated as talking about "marrying them off" and then everything fits in harmony. Even though the mothers of the orphans are mohsanaat (mature women), they can still be "married off" by the guardian/carer WITH THEIR CONSENT, which is exactly what 43 is saying. "With their consent/permission" is the key here.

Then 424 will have no contradiction with 43, because then 43 will be talking about ONE man marrying ONE widow, because 2,3, or 4 widows will be married off to 2,3 or 4 men respectively in a group wedding, and the men will marry the widows AFTER an oath of engagement first as per 424.

It is like solving a puzzle or mathematical problem; if one makes even a small mistake in one of the steps, the puzzle or the problem never gets solved like the Rubik's Cube !

I would appreciate if you can point out any flaws in the logic I presented above, for after all, we have limited and imperfect capabilities and can always err. We should always fit our understanding to what Allah says in al-qur'aan rather than the other way around.

Peace and regards,

Tanveer

ayman

Peace brother Tanveer,

I would gladly accept the interpretation that you proposed, if you can resolve the issues that I note below.

If 43 is talking about "marrying", then the marriage has to be in groups of 2, 3, or 4 which is evident from the words used in 43 meaning two's, three's and four's rather than 2,3,4. That means we can marry only in groups i.e. 2 widows at the same time, or 3 widows at the same time or 4 widows at the same time. That will create another interesting logical contradiction with 423. According to 423 it is forbidden to be romantically involved with 2 sisters at the same time. However, according to 43, theoretically one will be able to marry 3 or 4 sisters at the same time in a group which will contradict 423. I discussed this with brother mquran who had an excellent refutation by saying that one cannot get to the stage of marrying 3 sisters without first marrying 2 sisters, and as soon as one marries 2 sisters at the same time one will be in violation of 423. What if one marries all 3 sisters at the same exact time ? Then one will not be violating 423. One can sign the three marriage contracts in front of 3 witnesses without the sisters having signed them yet. Then the 3 sisters can sign their respective marriage contracts at the same time followed by the 3 witnesses signing the respective contracts at the same time. What then ? But that will contradict with 423 where Allah does not even want romantic involvement with 2 sisters at the same time.

Actually 423 and 43 when put together make it clear that one can marry more than one widow. This is for the simple reason that the only objection raised in 423 is the combining of the two sisters (of course combining any number greater than 2 would also involve combining 2 and therefore is covered by 423). Therefore implicit in the restriction against combining 2 sisters is the indication that combining NON-SISTERS is OK when the situation in 43 arises.

The word used for DOWRY/WAGES in al-qur'aan, implying that one has to marry, is always "UJURAHUNNA" and not "SADUQATIHINNA" which is used in 44 meaning INHERITANCE and not dowry/wages, therefore if it means "marry" in 43 that will create a contradiction/inconsistency with the rest of al-qur'aan where always "ujurahunna" is used for dowry/wages, implying "marry" rather than "marry off". Thus in 43 "marry off" will be the best understanding in view of the context of "saduqatihinna".
44 And give the women their INHERITANCE (saduqatihinna) willingly, and if they remit any of it to you of their own will, then you may take it with good feelings.
If Allah meant in 43 for us to marry the widows He would have used the word "UJURAHUNNA" in 44 meaning give them their dowry/wages. However Allah uses the word "SADUQATIHINNA" for what we are supposed to give to the widows clearly meaning we are to MARRY THEM OFF and give them their INHERITANCE. Wherever Allah is talking about MARRY He uses the word "UJURAHUNNA" meaning dowry/wages as in the following ayat
426 And whoever of you cannot afford to marry the believing independent women, then from the still dependant believing young women. God is more aware of your faith, some of you to each other. You shall marry them with the permission of their parents and give them their DOWRY/WAGES (ujurahuuna) in kindness; to be protected, not for illicit sex or taking lovers.
57 Today, the good things have been made lawful to you, and the food of those who have been given the Scripture is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them; and the independent from the believing women, and the independent from the people of the Scripture before you, if you have given them their DOWRY/WAGES (ujurahunna), protected, chaste, and not seeking to take lovers.
3351 O prophet, We have made lawful for you the wives to whom you have already given their DOWRY/WAGES (ujurahunna)
6011 And there is no sin upon you to marry them, if you have paid their DOWRY/WAGES (ujurahunna) to them
"Ujurahunna" meaning "their dowers/wages" is consistently and exclusively used in the Quran for what a man gives a woman as a marriage portion in a normal marriage. This textual consistency leave one in no doubt that "saduqatihina" in verse 44 does not carry the meaning "their dowers/wages" but means "their inheritance". This is proved when we look at the context from 41 to 413, In this whole first part of chapter 4, Allah is talking about "inheritance".

The word "saduqatihinna" doesn't carry the meaning of "inheritance". If you look at all the occurences of the word "sadaqat" in the great reading, then you will see that it has the meaning of giving charity/aid out of one's OWN money (for example see 9103). The 'inheritence" of the orphans is described as "amwalahum" (their money) in 42. Moreover, in 42 we are clearly told NOT TO CONSUME the moneys of the orphans no matter what. On the other hand, in 44 we are told to consume what the women share with us of the "sadaqat". This is more in line with the "nisaa" being widows who we give aid/charity too as opposed to orphans who we give their OWN rightful inheritance money to.

In the inheritance signs, there is a mysterious absence of the possibility of two or more wives' share of inheritance when their husband dies, after carrying out the will. Allah mentioned the possibility of two or more daughters and two or more sisters but not two or more wives, after carrying out the will. Why did Allah leave out such an important possibility ? I agree that the situation would not be common but still it is important, unless a wife is not as important as a sister or a daughter !

There are so many possibilities left out of the inharitance signs. They are merely guidelines. This is why we are told that those guidelines only apply for whatever is remaining (if anything) after execution of a will or paying off debts. Therefore, things like how much does a grand daughter take if her grandfather died and her father was already dead are not spelled out. Would she take her father's complete share despite her being female or would she take half her uncles' share or nothing at all? This is why it is important to have a will.

If "ankihoo" in 43 is translated to "marry off" instead, then the meaning fits PLUS then I do not see any inconsistencies or contradictions anywhere else. For it to be "marry off", "orphans" and "women" in 43 do not have to be the same entities, for Allah is telling the guardian/carer to "marry off" the mothers of the orphans. Then 4127 will also be translated as talking about "marrying them off" and then everything fits in harmony. Even though the mothers of the orphans are mohsanaat (mature women), they can still be "married off" by the guardian/carer WITH THEIR CONSENT, which is exactly what 43 is saying. "With their consent/permission" is the key here.

Why would fully mature widows need a guardian to "marry them off"? There is no indication that mature women (whether widows or not) even need their parent's permission. Also, who is that guardian who guards mutiple widows?

I think that 42-3 provide the explanation of 4127. In 4127, the word "tanki7oo" cannot mean marry-off. The people in 4127 don't want to give the orphans of the widowed women what was written for them (i.e. their inheritance). An example of this would be a relative of the deceased who doesn't want to give the orphans their dues. In such a case, why would that relative of the deceased desire to or even have any say whatsoever in "marrying-off" the widow of his relative? On the contrary, it seems that he would desire to marry her in order to try to keep the money in the family and attempt to consume the orphan's inheritance (his original motivation in 4127).

It was a Jewish custom for a widow to marry a male relative (usually the brother) of her late husband. Thus, traditionally the widow herself was considered a kind of "inheritance". This is what 4127 and 42-3 are putting an end to.

I totally agree that we should always fit our understanding to what The God says in the great reading rather than the other way around. We should also use the great reading as an actual guide in our lives and not as a theoretical book. So our understanding of it should help us be guided in real-life scenarios. I hope that you can appreciate why I still see that there are some logical problems with the "marry-off' interpretation.

Peace and best wishes,

Ayman