Ma Malakat Emanakum" A Refutation to Brother Ayman;s understanding
-
Peace everyone,
I have gone through this thread recently and I think that "self-protected" would be the right translation of "mohsanat". I think MMA means "those whom you have given an oath of financial protection and support".
Samia has a valid point. If you translate "mohsanat" as "chaste" then how do we figure out according to Quranic law who is unchaste? Also in 425, "mohsanat" is used in opposition to "fatayaat", so if "mohsanat" are chaste that would mean that "fatayaat" are unchaste!
424 combined with 425 implies that if we want to marry (ankih) the "self-protected"/mohsanat we can marry only those whom we have given an oath of financial protection and support first. Therefore, such an oath is a pre-requisite to marry the "mohsanat"/self-protected.
MMA is anyone who has been given an oath of financial protection and support by someone. While such MMA are under the oath giver's protection and support, the oath giver is allowed to have sexual relations with them provided they are given a dowry first, thus becoming their "zawj". Therefore some MMA can become "zawj"
235 And they protect/guard their private parts.
236 Except before/near their mates, THAT IS those possessed by their oath, they are free from blame.Here the "aw" does not separate two categories but confirms that to become "zawj" you have to be MMA too.
For example, a man makes a legal contract to financially protect and support (oqdata al-aymaan) a mohsanat or fatat. She becomes his MMA. Then he makes another legal contract to marry her (oqdata al-nikah) and gives her dowry. In case of "mohsanat" (self-protected woman), no permission from guardian necessary. In case of "fatat" (young girl), permission from guardian necessary. She now becomes "zawj".
This oath of protection and support is a legal oath which requires a legal contract between the two parties as apparent from the words "'aqqadtumu al-aymaan" meaning "binding/contractual oaths" which also requires a "halaf"/swearing as per 589. This verse states the compensation of breaking such an oath of financial protection and support
589 God will not hold you for your unintentional oaths, but He will hold you for what oaths you have made binding ('aqqadtumu al-aymaan); its cancellation shall be the feeding of ten poor from the average of what you feed your family, or that you clothe them, or that you free a slave; whoever cannot find shall fast for three days; this is a cancellation for making your oaths (aymaanikum) when you swear (halaftum). And protect/guard your oaths (aymaanakum). It is such that God clarifies for you His revelations that you may be thankful.
This contract of financial protection and support can be terminated as given in 2433, by mutual consent of both parties, and by giving the former MMA out of one's wealth
2433 And let those who are not able to marry continue to be chaste until God enriches them of His Bounty. And if those who are possessed by your oath seek a decree/deed in writing, then give them the writing if you know any good in them, and give them from the wealth of God which He has bestowed upon you.
As everyone can see this is not just a casual oath but a serious legal one, associated with committment and responsibility and cannot be terminated or broken without compensation and proper legal proceedings.
This understanding is mine alone and I am open to any positive criticism and Quranic evidence that proves otherwise and helps me improve this understanding or reach a better one. May God guide us to the truth.
-
Peace Truthseeker11
424 combined with 425 implies that if we want to marry (ankih) the "self-protected"/mohsanat we can marry only those whom we have given an oath of financial protection and support first. Therefore, such an oath is a pre-requisite to marry the "mohsanat"/self-protected.
What does "self-protected" mean? and why do you think that god forbids marriage with them unless they are among the "ma malakat aymanukum?
Thanks,
Hadi
-
I think 'right hands protect/possess' refers to the claim a wife has on her husband, and matches up with the phrase "guard your privates" - reflecting how a husband and wife are guardians of one another's private parts. Hence "Your pairs and those whom your right hands possess/protect" refers to your spouses. No mystery, no exceptions or loopholes to marriage, no feudal class relations, no concubinage. Just normal marriage.
-
Peace Hadi,
"Mohsanat"/self-protected are those who have independently protected themselves. They will include
- Unmarried independent women who are not MMA. They are protected by a job, inheritance etc.
- Unmarried independent women who become MMA. They are protected by the oath giver.
- Married women. They are protected by their spouses.
The unmarried independent women who are not MMA can become MMA of a man by entering into a legal contract in which the man takes an oath to protect and support them, even if they are currently protected through a job etc. Then they can get married to that man.
Fatayat, on the other hand, are the young girls who are under care of their family. They will include
- Unmarried dependent young girls who are not MMA.
- Unmarried dependent young girls who become MMA.
I guess "independent" can be substituted for "self-protected" as a meaning for "mohsanat".
why do you think that god forbids marriage with them unless they are among the "ma malakat aymanukum?
Because 424 says
424 And the "mohsanat"/independent from the women, except "MMA"/those possessed by your oath;
"Except MMA" means that MMA is a subset of "mohsanat", i.e. these MMA are mohsanat too. Therefore all "mohsanat"/independent women are forbidden with the exception of those mohsanat that become MMA. This means that a mohsanat woman cannot have sexual relations with a man, unless she becomes his MMA first and then he marries her by giving dowry. So God allows marriage with only those mohsanat who become MMA first.
-
Peace Samia,
A wealthy or financially secure woman can take an oath to support and protect a male and such a male will be her male MMA, or she can similarly have a female MMA, but according to the context of 423-25, it has to be the opposite sex for marriage purposes.
-
Peace Samia,
A wealthy or financially secure woman can take an oath to support and protect a male and such a male will be her male MMA, or she can similarly have a female MMA, but according to the context of 423-25, it has to be the opposite sex for marriage purposes.
Salaam Truthseeker11
Thank you for your reply.
Then, why are the other financially secure unlawful to marry? (wal muhsanati illa MMA and the self protected "are unlawful" except your MMA). From this part of the verse, it's clear that MMA is part of the muhsanaat, so we have a pool of muhsans who are all unlawful except those of them that we (posses by oath, aka MMA).
And please go to the thread pumped up by siki and read what we have once discussed regarding muhsanat/MMA. These two terms are connected and are inter-dependent. Knowing the meaning of one will automatically give the meaning of the other IMO.
-
Peace Samia, Siki,
Then, why are the other financially secure unlawful to marry?
They are all lawful to marry once they are your MMA! To marry them you have to make them your MMA first.
First make an oath of protection and support with them, then marry them!
Siki, thanks for the link. I will go through it in detail.
-
You will also be wrongly translating it if you choose "chaste" for "muhsanat". Verse 424 will be "Also (prohibited are) chaste women (Mohsanat), except those whom your right hands possess
How can we know if someone is chaste or not? What about men? Are they included in this expression or not? Are we allowed to categorize people into chaste and not chaste without four witnesses?
Yes, just imagine how this world would become the most funniest place after.....
rotfl
-
Peace Samia,
A wealthy or financially secure woman can take an oath to support and protect a male and such a male will be her male MMA, or she can similarly have a female MMA, but according to the context of 423-25, it has to be the opposite sex for marriage purposes.
Like the Prophet's wealthy first wife taking him as her dependant husband? Was he MMA by this definition?
-
Peace Samia,
A wealthy or financially secure woman can take an oath to support and protect a male and such a male will be her male MMA, or she can similarly have a female MMA, but according to the context of 423-25, it has to be the opposite sex for marriage purposes.
Salaam Truthseeker 11
According to verse, and if we apply your understanding (wa man lam ystati3 minkumTawlan un yanki7 almuhasanatil mu'minat, famin ma malakat aymanukum min fatayatikum ul-mu'minaat And whoever of was unable to marry the believing mu7sanaat, then (marry) MMA amongst your believing women), muhsanaat means poor women. So, how is a poor man unable to marry a poor woman but can marry a rich one? Is it so important to have a rich husband/wife (if you are poor) that God prohibits a poor person from marrying a poor one? -
How can we know if someone is chaste or not? What about men? Are they included in this expression or not? Are we allowed to categorize people into chaste and not chaste without four witnesses?
As for as I remember, I had sorted this fundamental querry of yours in the Mohsinnat thread.
siki -
As for as I remember, I had sorted this fundamental querry of yours in the Mohsinnat thread.
sikiSay you gave your account, not sorted it out. everyone is holding firm to their guns. I did not change my mind that muhsanat is NOT chaste, because of the many contradictions that will arise if we substitue "chaste women" for "muhsanat" in any verse containing this word, for the simple reason that we have no mecanism of recognizing a chaste woman/man, and no authority to call someone unchaste without presenting our proof of 4 witnesses.
-
Peace Samia,
Salaam Truthseeker 11
According to verse, and if we apply your understanding (wa man lam ystati3 minkumTawlan un yanki7 almuhasanatil mu'minat, famin ma malakat aymanukum min fatayatikum ul-mu'minaat And whoever of was unable to marry the believing mu7sanaat, then (marry) MMA amongst your believing women), muhsanaat means poor women. So, how is a poor man unable to marry a poor woman but can marry a rich one? Is it so important to have a rich husband/wife (if you are poor) that God prohibits a poor person from marrying a poor one?I am sorry if I confused you about my understanding. Mohsanat does not mean "poor women" but "independent/self-protected women". By independent I mean not dependent on their biological families. It includes all of the following
- Unmarried independent, protected by being financially secure themselves.
- Unmarried independent, protected by oath of protection and support i.e. MMA (could be rich or poor).
- Married independent, protected by their spouse (could be rich or poor).
So mohsanat can include both rich or poor.
-
Peace Bro
Could you explain , how do you posses someone with this oath business which allowes you to have sex with them or even by your least standards, share your private body parts (which you only do with your Zauj)?
When God allowes you to have sex with them ,, then it is no more called Adultry, Fornication or illicit sex.
peace
sikandarPeace be unto you who read my post to a very old topic.
You see?!
This is the example why I made a thread Some people on here are...........................................
People like this exist.
They call themselves "quranist" but talk filth about islam by trying to justify slavery and saying that God allows slavery and having sex with slaves.
These kinda people better slam their own faces.Regards,
Yuliana -
One of the main differences between modern and ancient wars and conflicts is there were no rules of war back then. Islam brought some rules to war situations as we can see in the Quran.
In 1860s Swiss businessman Henry Dunants efforts initiated a movement which started todays Red Cross and Red Crescent (ICRC). Most of todays humanitarian laws and relief efforts connected to conflicts are related to this organization. Modern wars are watched and monitored by outside nations, media and organizations. Even with certain discrepancies and discriminations wars and conflicts are governed by Geneva conventions, Hague conventions etc. There are international rules for Prisoners of War and international pressure against war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, ethnic cleansing, etc.
Nuremberg principles and related war crime tribunals and criminal action against atrocities have been governing wars after the world witnessed the suffering of the civil population during the WW1 and prompted humanitarian relief efforts such as organization for refugees etc.
Even with all this efforts still there are crimes committed on the civilian population even in the recent past such as The Rape of Nan king, The Armenian Genocide, My Lai massacre and the modern day Bangladesh War and Bosnian war etc. Although the efforts are not perfect there is a probability that some one responsible may be convicted for crimes against civilians in a modern conflict whereas in ancient wars such things were not heard of even if the entire civilian population is wiped off and worst atrocities are committed.
In ancient wars it was a case of victor against the vanquished. After the victory almost all men are tortured and put to death or used as slaves in pitiful conditions and the women, some killed others sold as slaves or for prostitution. Cities burned, buildings pulled down wealth plundered women and children raped and killed or sold or used as slaves. It was a case of total brutal destruction
Once a cities defenses fall the helpless and the weak and the old have a choice to runaway in to the wilderness to die of hunger and thirst or to fall prey to other predators or be captured or killed.
The wars conducted by the Messenger of Allah were different. They were to avert the aggression of an enemy and also the war was against the combatants and not the women and children and the weak. But when retaliating in war Quraan instructs to retaliate fiercely against the enemy and drive them out. Once the enemy is defeated and a city or a town falls the women and children are left without provision or protection. Since men are gone trade will stop, agriculture, livestock will be neglected or destroyed, and other means of income and provisions will dwindle; the weak can even die of hunger. Sometimes siege of a city might last for months stocks will diminish and all resources and supply lines will be cut off. Priorities change during war and most of the resources go to meet the war efforts and the needs of the combatants and not needs of the women and children.
When a city falls men are either killed or run away and the women and children remain unprotected. Few men may surrender or will be captured but we are not dealing with that here since war captives are addressed separately in the Quran. If you leave the city intact and march off the enemy can easily regroup use the wealth and resources of the city build the citys defenses and start all over again .You can not leave the enemies possessions, wealth and resources and his ties intact it will give him reason and also assist him to start the aggression once more. At the same time you can not leave the women and children in a defenseless city without men since they will be sitting prey for human predators such as bandits or slave traders etc.
The Holy war is to teach a lesson and to send a strong message that although there is no compulsion in Islam and that there is no permission to fight unless under aggression but that the response will be fierce if some one chose to attack first. To serve as a message and drive fear to others who will want to start wars against the prophet and his followers. Also note that Islam leaves room for negotiations, peace initiatives, alliances and treatises.
As I explained above as an aftermath of any war arises a strategic and a humanitarian dilemma. I believe as a solution to this crisis, once the citys wealth is divided among the fighters, the women and children are assigned to guardians under an oath to protect them look after them and keep them in their houses.(2431) These are addressed as MMA in the Quraan. They live with the person assigned in that persons house. He or she has to provide for the MMA and give them security. You can not compel the MMA to change their religion and the Quraan identifies the believing among the MMA separately.(425) There is no compulsion for them to convert even though they are disbelievers. But maybe witnessing the good and just conduct and kindness of Muslims by living in their houses and learning their beliefs and practices they may chose to convert.
I believe they can not be from the People of the book since they are identified separately from people of the book. A believer can marry a woman from the People of the book becoming a believer but for MMA becoming a believer is a pre-requisite for marriage with a believer.(425)
They have rights (2433) and the Quraan instructs to give charity and be good (436) to them but it seems they will not get equal status (1671, 302 immediately, maybe till they legally marry a believer and bear children.
They are not definitely slaves but they are part of the house hold (2431). See how they have been addressed with the closest of the house hold in the Quraan.
They can not be seen as war captives, POWs or sex slaves they are a set of people rising out of war because of a strategic and a humanitarian issue. Meanwhile it provides the opportunity to promote Islam among the women and children among the disbelievers since women and children would not have had the opportunity to grasp the early message of Islam but influenced by the beliefs of their men. Once when they are brought in to the fold and treated with kindness they might start to believe. At the same time since they may convert due to advantages they are not treated at the equal level (1671, 302 possibly until they marry and bear children.
A MMA can be a previously married woman whose husbands whereabouts may not be known after the battle; he maybe killed or run away. If her original husband is living she is technically still married to him since no divorce has taken place. So with a MMA it is not necessary requirement whether she is still technically married to someone else. (424) It is not easy to trace people in ancient times when they are MIA.
A person who takes over a MMA may be allowed to have sex with her without compulsion and force and with her consent. (419, 2433) Since the verses above or any verse in the Quran does not promote casual sex and even MMA is governed by rules (2433) where she has to stay faithful to the person she is assigned to/guardian . If they are sex slaves there should be no reason for them to seek permission before entering a room at times of undress. (245
Even if MMA is to get married to someone else it has to be with the permission of the person/guardian who MMA has been assigned to (425). When we read the Quraan we can see clearly Islam promotes decency and forbids shameful acts and mischief. And cannot victimize someone for a crime they may not be directly or fully responsible. If someone has sex with another without the consent it is rape and Islam does not permit that. At the same time the punishment is half (425) if a MMA commit zina in line with their fragile status and beliefs. Also the verses suggest it is easier to get married to MMA since the payment of dowers maybe less than to a free believing woman. (425)
The Quraan could have easily used the word war captives, prisoners of war or even slaves (or as some like it, Sex slaves) but they are described as "your right hand posses or under oath, with reason. I believe that shows that they are not any of the above but a special set of people on whom Allah assigns a special set of rules which protects them and at the same time controls them.
According to my opinion I doubt whether many holy wars were fought 25-30 years after the Messenger. The corrupted thinking, fabrication and greed for power, wealth and territory led to many wars and the distortion of the term Ma Malakat Aymanakum as war captives or slaves lead to capture , imprisonment , rape and led to harems with many women, common among the later rulers.
But judging by the difficulty of understanding the term and the term itself shows it is not something applicable out side the holy wars and not in future conflicts.
This is a solid analysis - not like feminists and those who want to appease those who do not follow the reading, and it is more reasonable than the "sex slaves" argument. It is also clear that MMA refers only to women.
My working theory is that MMA refers to either one or a combination of
-
Female war captives - i.e. those whose husbands died or fled
-
Single mothers - i.e. widows with fatherless children. Thus they are the mothers of fatherless children in a man's care. "Yatam" is a fatherless, non-independent son/daughter of a single mom or is an outright orphan - i.e. they do not have a mother that has a "qawwam" (protecter, maintainer, provider, one who is responsible for her).
-
Female refugees that did not get a proper divorce - e.g. women who fled enemy territory before it was fully attacked, while they were still married or divorced but still in the waiting period.
2433 and 2458 are interesting. If marriage does not require a written contract even with MMA, then what was discussed makes sense. If it does, that would mean that sex with MMA is not permitted unless they are married. However, I do not fully understand how 2458 and 7030 work together.
See here
2433 Let those who are not able to marry continue to be chaste until God enriches them of His bounty. If MMA seek the contract/decree/law/written legal agreement, then contract/decree/write with them if you recognize in them goodness, and give them from the wealth of God which He has bestowed upon you. Do not force "fatayatikum AAala albigha-i" when they have desired "tahassunan," in order that you may make a gain in the goods of this worldly life. But if anyone has compelled them, then considering their compulsion, God is Forgiving, Compassionate.
If a contract is needed - which currently I do not think - then it would refer to marrying them. If a contract is not needed, then this refers to letting them go. To whom or why is the question.
-
-
Adding t my post If a contract is needed - which currently I do not think - then it would refer to marrying them. If a contract is not needed, then this refers to letting them go. To whom or why is the question. Perhaps marrying a poor believer? Also is a dowry required for marrying MMA? This is also relevant.