Dr. Subhi Mansour on the term "muhsanat" in the Koran
-
Should we not repace it with "your sons". "your fathers" would go with "your daughters".
When read in Arabic, the address is to the masculine do not marry your mother.
If we split the address and make it just to the female, it has to be do not marry your fathers.
There is also do not marry your daughters, which will then be do not marry your sons.This will become like the following to the female
-
235-6 Implies sex with MMA is fine.
423-24 Limits marriage to only with MMAs thus making the Muhsinat women forbidden for marriage
2433 Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage abstain, until Allah gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which Allah has given to you. But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is Allah, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful2433 either implies let those who don't have the means to get married abstain either from a)sex b) Marriage
I think it's marriage in this case since in 235-6 sex with MMA is ok and the verse says if you don't have the means to get married abstain but would it make more sense to abstain from getting married or to abstain from having sex (if it is a case that you don't have sufficient wealth to start a marriage)Here is a part from another thread. O stands for objection A stands for answer
O Why then are there guidelines in marriage such as the waiting period and not for MMA?
A A marriage oath is different to an MMA oath. Thus if they are not the same things then they will not have the same guidelines.O That would then mean that if a child that is born outside of pregnancy, then the father has no responsibility as opposed to the guideline for marriage where the father is responsible.
A This was the best objection (IMO)
Let?s look at 2233 And the mothers are allowed to suckle their children two full years, if they wish to complete the suckling. And the man for whom the child is born is responsible for both their provisions and clothing equitably. A soul is not burdened except with what it can bear. No mother shall be harmed because of her child, nor shall a father be harmed because of his child. And for the guardian is the same requirement. So if they wish to separate out of mutual agreement and counsel, then there is no sin upon them. And if you want to hire nursing mothers, then there is no sin upon you if you return what you have been given equitably. And be aware of God, and know that God is watching over what you do.This verse applies to ALL mothers and ALL fathers. This is not about marriage alone. This is clear by the fact that there is no mention of married mothers or married husbands but more importantly it is made clearer by the fact that separation used in this verse is not the word talagh (divorce) where as in cases related to marriages the word talagh is used. This means that this verse encompasses cases of marriages as well outside of marriage.
O This verse occurs in a place where guidelines are set for marriages thus this verse is for marriages alone.
A The words of the verse convey otherwise. It makes clear that this verse is about ALL mothers and ALL fathers whether within marriage or outside it.IMO, the most sensible option is that sex before marriage is ok so long as it is within an oath that is relevant like in a sexual relationship. How strong this oath should be is kinda controversial but assuming a good character, it would be a very strong oath before they consider sex. There are problems with this understanding but they can be resolved if we don't narrow the meaning of MMA to just one thing. Given that we don't narrow it down, the implications for sex outside of marriage are pretty strong IMO.
A question of possbile interest How can we expose our private parts to a doctor without going against the Quran? The only way i can think of is if we gave the doctor consent and thus they would be an MMA. But this MMA is different to the one discussed earlier since the nature of the oath is different.
Peace
-
235-6 Implies sex with MMA is fine.
423-24 Limits marriage to only with MMAs thus making the Muhsinat women forbidden for marriage
2433 Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage abstain, until Allah gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which Allah has given to you. But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is Allah, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful2433 either implies let those who don't have the means to get married abstain either from a)sex b) Marriage
I think it's marriage in this case since in 235-6 sex with MMA is ok and the verse says if you don't have the means to get married abstain but would it make more sense to abstain from getting married or to abstain from having sex (if it is a case that you don't have sufficient wealth to start a marriage)Here is a part from another thread. O stands for objection A stands for answer
IMO, the most sensible option is that sex before marriage is ok so long as it is within an oath that is relevant like in a sexual relationship. How strong this oath should be is kinda controversial but assuming a good character, it would be a very strong oath before they consider sex. There are problems with this understanding but they can be resolved if we don't narrow the meaning of MMA to just one thing. Given that we don't narrow it down, the implications for sex outside of marriage are pretty strong IMO.A question of possbile interest How can we expose our private parts to a doctor without going against the Quran? The only way i can think of is if we gave the doctor consent and thus they would be an MMA. But this MMA is different to the one discussed earlier since the nature of the oath is different.
Peace
I see MMA as a concubine. Which is the same as a legal wife but without the dowry or formalities.
Hagar was a concubine.
In ancient times, a concubine was a woman living in a lawful marriage arrangement with a man, but whose status was regarded as being less than a wife. Concubines were respected, had legal rights, and their children were regarded as legitimate, although the children of the wife (or wives) were most often given preference in matters of inheritance. While the inability of a wife to have children was a practical reason for the presence of a concubine in the family (e.g. Sarah suggested that her husband Abraham take Hagar as a concubine i.e. Genesis 161-3), the situation also sometimes reached absurd proportions, such as with Solomon who had 300 concubines along with his 700 wives (1 Kings 113).
Examples of concubines in Bible History"Abraham gave all he had to Isaac. But to the sons of his concubines Abraham gave gifts, and while he was still living he sent them away from his son Isaac, eastward to the east country." (Genesis 255-6 RSV)
"Now Gideon had seventy sons, his own offspring, for he had many wives. And his concubine who was in Shechem also bore him a son, and he called his name Abimelech." (Judges 830-31 RSV)
Four of the tribes of Israel (Dan and Naphtali, and Gad and Asher) originated from Jacob's concubines Bilhah and Zilpah. See Children of Jacob
"Now Saul had a concubine, whose name was Rizpah, the daughter of Aiah." (2 Samuel 37 RSV)
"And David took more concubines and wives from Jerusalem, after he came from Hebron; and more sons and daughters were born to David." (2 Samuel 513 RSV)
"Ahithophel said to Absalom, "Go in to your father's concubines, whom he has left to keep the house; and all Israel will hear that you have made yourself odious to your father, and the hands of all who are with you will be strengthened." So they pitched a tent for Absalom upon the roof; and Absalom went in to his father's concubines in the sight of all Israel." (2 Samuel 1621-22 RSV)
"King Belshazzar made a great feast for a thousand of his lords, and drank wine in front of the thousand. Belshazzar, when he tasted the wine, commanded that the vessels of gold and of silver which Nebuchadnezzar his father had taken out of the temple in Jerusalem be brought, that the king and his lords, his wives, and his concubines might drink from them." (Daniel 51-2 RSV) (see The Writing On The Wall)
http//www.keyway.ca/htm2001/20010114.htm
Its a marriage established by oath only hence "right hand possesed".
-
I see MMA as a concubine. Which is the same as a legal wife but without the dowry or formalities.
What is your understanding for MMA in verse 3355?
033.055
La junaha AAalayhinna fee aba-ihinna wala abna-ihinna wala ikhwanihinna wala abna-i ikhwanihinna wala abna-i akhawatihinna wala nisa-ihinna wala ma malakat aymanuhunna waittaqeena Allaha inna Allaha kana AAala kulli shay-in shaheedan
YUSUFALI There is no blame (on these ladies if they appear) before their fathers or their sons, their brothers, or their brother's sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or the (slaves) whom their right hands possess. And, (ladies), fear Allah; for Allah is Witness to all things.
PICKTHAL It is no sin for them (thy wives) to converse freely) with their fathers, or their sons, or their brothers, or their brothers' sons, or the sons of their sisters or of their own women, or their slaves. O women! Keep your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is ever Witness over all things.
SHAKIR There is no blame on them in respect of their fathers, nor their brothers, nor their brothers' sons, nor their sisters' sons nor their own women, nor of what their right hands possess; and be careful of (your duty to) Allah; surely Allah is a witness of all things.
KHALIFA The women may relax (their dress code) around their fathers, their sons, their brothers, the sons of their brothers, the sons of their sisters, the other women, and their (female) servants. They shall reverence GOD. GOD witnesses all things. -
What is your understanding for MMA in verse 3355?
033.055
La junaha AAalayhinna fee aba-ihinna wala abna-ihinna wala ikhwanihinna wala abna-i ikhwanihinna wala abna-i akhawatihinna wala nisa-ihinna wala ma malakat aymanuhunna waittaqeena Allaha inna Allaha kana AAala kulli shay-in shaheedan
YUSUFALI There is no blame (on these ladies if they appear) before their fathers or their sons, their brothers, or their brother's sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or the (slaves) whom their right hands possess. And, (ladies), fear Allah; for Allah is Witness to all things.
PICKTHAL It is no sin for them (thy wives) to converse freely) with their fathers, or their sons, or their brothers, or their brothers' sons, or the sons of their sisters or of their own women, or their slaves. O women! Keep your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is ever Witness over all things.
SHAKIR There is no blame on them in respect of their fathers, nor their brothers, nor their brothers' sons, nor their sisters' sons nor their own women, nor of what their right hands possess; and be careful of (your duty to) Allah; surely Allah is a witness of all things.
KHALIFA The women may relax (their dress code) around their fathers, their sons, their brothers, the sons of their brothers, the sons of their sisters, the other women, and their (female) servants. They shall reverence GOD. GOD witnesses all things.MMA is an arrangement between two people. So both are part of the MMA. Its a relationship established mainly by oath only. So both are MMA of each other. Notice this translation had to add the term "female". Why does the "slave" has to be female? Because it is inconceivable that a women bares herself to her male slave. So they had to add "female".
All the rest of the charachters in the verse are family members except for the slave. The reality is slaves are bought and sold and are not necessarily attached to a family.
-
All the rest of the charachters in the verse are family members except for the slave. The reality is slaves are bought and sold and are not necessarily attached to a family.
If I understand you correctly, the MMA in verse 3355 is referring to slave or servant. Please confirm.
-
MMA is an arrangement between two people. So both are part of the MMA. Its a relationship established mainly by oath only. So both are MMA of each other. Notice this translation had to add the term "female". Why does the "slave" has to be female? Because it is inconceivable that a women bares herself to her male slave. So they had to add "female".
Only the translation by Khalifa has the "female" inserted before "servant", without any justification.
Isn't this "Rashad Khalifa"?!The others inserted "female" before the main verb of address, and that's correct, since the address is explicitly directed to females.
-
Only the translation by Khalifa has the "female" inserted before "servant", without any justification.
Isn't this "Rashad Khalifa"?!The others inserted "female" before the main verb of address, and that's correct, since the address is explicitly directed to females.
Maybe then that is why the Arabs use to castrate their slaves so the women can expose herself to them. Quite insane.
-
If I understand you correctly, the MMA in verse 3355 is referring to slave or servant. Please confirm.
I don't see MMA as slaves or servants. I see it as a wife. A concubine. She could have been a slave before or something else. But MMA (at least to me) is a concubine and not a slave.
-
I don't see MMA as slaves or servants. I see it as a wife. A concubine. She could have been a slave before or something else. But MMA (at least to me) is a concubine and not a slave.
I don't think the MMA in verse 3355 is referring to concubine because the word "AAalayhinna" is referring to female. Please refer to the link provided.
033.055
La junaha AAalayhinna fee aba-ihinna wala abna-ihinna wala ikhwanihinna wala abna-i ikhwanihinna wala abna-i akhawatihinna wala nisa-ihinna wala ma malakat aymanuhunna waittaqeena Allaha inna Allaha kana AAala kulli shay-in shaheedanhttp//corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=33&verse=55#(33551)
A concubine is a woman who cohabits with a man to whom she is not legally married, especially one regarded as socially or sexually subservient; mistress. Refer below URL.
http//dictionary.reference.com/browse/concubine
Thus, it is not possible for the women referred in Arabic word 'Aaalayhinna' to keep concubine unless they are lesbians.
-
I don't think the MMA in verse 3355 is referring to concubine because the word "AAalayhinna" is referring to female. Please refer to the link provided.
033.055
La junaha AAalayhinna fee aba-ihinna wala abna-ihinna wala ikhwanihinna wala abna-i ikhwanihinna wala abna-i akhawatihinna wala nisa-ihinna wala ma malakat aymanuhunna waittaqeena Allaha inna Allaha kana AAala kulli shay-in shaheedanhttp//corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=33&verse=55#(33551)
A concubine is a woman who cohabits with a man to whom she is not legally married, especially one regarded as socially or sexually subservient; mistress. Refer below URL.
http//dictionary.reference.com/browse/concubine
Thus, it is not possible for the women referred in Arabic word 'Aaalayhinna' to keep concubine unless they are lesbians.
I was talking about concubine as understood in biblical language. In a society where polygamy was practiced as is the case with the Bible and the Koran. However the definition you used is a European one where people had mistresses which they call concubines. This term was used in societies where polygamy was not practiced so people just had mistresses.
As far as the female term in the verse, its talking about whom females can expose themselves in private. However the MMA in the verse simply states "their MMA". It does not indicate male or female MMA.
What Rashad did was he tried to find a way out of this uncomfortable interpretation by indicating the MMA is a female. While the Arabs seem to have solved this problem (since a male MMA can be trouble) by castrating the male slaves. This is what the devil does, he makes people do things like that. Not only did they legalize slavery, they now want to castrate the male slaves so their women can be alone with them. &
Rashad seemed to have accepted the slave thing so he wanted to find a way out. Since MMA in the verse can also mean a male MMA. Big trouble there. So he added "female" there to indicate it only means female MMA. The Arabs did worse. All because of a wrong understanding of MMA. MMA is a husband and wife. Its just eastern societies had formalities regarding marriage. MMA marriages did not meet those standards, but they are mostly formalities. We should not concern ourselves with these formalities.
If you look at the wording in the Old Testament it says "wives and concubines". Its the same with the Koran it says "wives and MMA". Same thing.
-
Maybe then that is why the Arabs use to castrate their slaves so the women can expose herself to them. Quite insane.
So they know that MMA male or female have the same rights!!
And it seems that you do not see a difference between wife and concubine; so not much different from those Arabs who see (correctly) that MMA can be male or female, and like you they believe they can be husbands or lovers, too, so the castrate them to stop them from neither husbands or lovers!! -
I was talking about concubine as understood in biblical language. In a society where polygamy was practiced as is the case with the Bible and the Koran. However the definition you used is a European one where people had mistresses which they call concubines. This term was used in societies where polygamy was not practiced so people just had mistresses.
As far as the female term in the verse, its talking about whom females can expose themselves in private. However the MMA in the verse simply states "their MMA". It does not indicate male or female MMA.
What Rashad did was he tried to find a way out of this uncomfortable interpretation by indicating the MMA is a female. While the Arabs seem to have solved this problem (since a male MMA can be trouble) by castrating the male slaves. This is what the devil does, he makes people do things like that. Not only did they legalize slavery, they now want to castrate the male slaves so their women can be alone with them. &
Rashad seemed to have accepted the slave thing so he wanted to find a way out. Since MMA in the verse can also mean a male MMA. Big trouble there. So he added "female" there to indicate it only means female MMA. The Arabs did worse. All because of a wrong understanding of MMA. MMA is a husband and wife. Its just eastern societies had formalities regarding marriage. MMA marriages did not meet those standards, but they are mostly formalities. We should not concern ourselves with these formalities.
If you look at the wording in the Old Testament it says "wives and concubines". Its the same with the Koran it says "wives and MMA". Same thing.
Very intresting. The old arabs have definately made a mockery out of Quran. They disagreed with the quran so much, that they invented many loopholes to impose their own criminal lifestyles on th quran.
Quran mentions very clearly that BOTH men AND women can have MMA. But for an arab man, its unthinkable to let a woman have sex-slaves. So the solution was to castrate the male slaves, so the woman could be alone with her slaves as quran permits (if you interpret MMA to be sex-slaves) but that it was impossible for her to have intercourse with them. rotfl rotfl
Just like this, they also made another trick. Quran 33.55 tells us who a believing woman can be alone with etc which is including her MMA. The problem is just that the word 'master' is not mentioned, hence a believing woman can not have sex with her master. SO they went out and began to kidnap the non-muslim women only and kept them as their sex-slaves, since the verse 33.55 is not to them, according to the sunnis.
Well, I hope we both can agree that slavery is a terrible thing and is totally haram. A human can only be the slave of God and NOBODY else.
Your defination for MMA is very reasonable. Samias defination is also very logical. Looking forward to read where this discussion goes.
However, I wanted to ask you one thing regarding your defination of MMA. I live in a western country. Now according to the quran, can a person still have a MMA even if it goes against the law, since in the West one can only be married with one?
-
I do not think that MMA is conditional to poligamy. That is, whether poligamy is allowed or not, one can have MMA, if it is monogamous, just one MMA and no ther consort and if poligamy is allowed, then whatever it allows. They are two separate things, as I see it.
Salaam
-
I do not think that MMA is conditional to poligamy. That is, whether poligamy is allowed or not, one can have MMA, if it is monogamous, just one MMA and no ther consort and if poligamy is allowed, then whatever it allows. They are two separate things, as I see it.
Salaam
and what is MMA according to you dear huruf. Is it a sex-slave, a fiancee, or is it what you have rightfully(like someone you are not married with in the papers but married to in an islamic court etc).
-
So they know that MMA male or female have the same rights!!
And it seems that you do not see a difference between wife and concubine; so not much different from those Arabs who see (correctly) that MMA can be male or female, and like you they believe they can be husbands or lovers, too, so the castrate them to stop them from neither husbands or lovers!!I think the sects see MMA as a slave. This means its a rape. I don't even accept slavery. I believe the Koran banned slavery outright. The Koran would not talk about emanicpating slaves if its Ok with it. Slavery is one of the things Moses accused the pharoah of doing. Moses would not have accused the pharoah of such if it was OK.
Concubines are not lovers. Their children are legitimate children and inherit their fathers like other children. They have the same right, only thing is no dowry is set and no engagement takes place (khutuba). Most marriages around the world are like that anyways. Its just eastern societies have a lot of formalities like engagement, dowry. But somehere there will be an oath. In islam they call that (katb al kitab). Usually performed in mosques where there is an oath and an agreement based on oath. In Christianity this is usually done in churches where there is an oath. Thats what concubinage is all about. Its not lovers. As said before, Hagar, Ismael,s mother, was a concubine.
Among the Israelites, men commonly acknowledged their concubines, and such women enjoyed the same rights in the house as legitimate wives. The principal difference in the Bible between a wife and a concubine is that wives had dowries, while concubines did not
In Judaism, concubines are referred to by the Hebrew term pilegesh. The term is a non-Hebrew, non-Semitic loanword deriving from the Greek word pallakis, Greek , meaning a mistress staying in house. Or the Aramaic phrase palga isha, meaning half-wife.
According to the Babylonian Talmud, the difference between a concubine and a full wife was that the latter received a marriage contract (Hebrewketubah) and her marriage (nissu'in) was preceded by a formal betrothal (erusin), neither being the case for a concubine. But, one opinion in the Jerusalem Talmud argues that the concubine should also receive a marriage contract, but without including a clause specifying a divorce settlement.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concubinage
Notice they are talking about khutuba(engagement) and dukhla, where the couple have sex for the first time. This pratice is very common in Muslim countries. The dukhla is usually when the marriage is considered done by people. But if you ask a cleric he will tell you the marriage is done only when there is a (katb al kitab), the oath where the parent or guardian of the couple shake hand a swear and procalim the couple married with witnesses. This isnusually done in a mosque. It is then when the couple are legally married. But most people do not know this and think katb al kitab is just a ceremony. Its actually the marriage itself.
My sister did her katb al kitab months before the actual marriage ceremony. She was actually married before the marriage ceremony. My father is very conservative and did not want them to hang out without the katb al kitab. This way people won't talk. But they never had sex till the marriage ceremony took place. but they were legally binding even before that since the oath(vows) took place between their parents. We must not concern ourselves with such formalities.
Each religious faith has nuptial traditions and practices -- including standard wedding vows -- that have been passed down through generations. Exact phrases vary slightly from place to place and among different clergy; here are some popular wordings you can adopt or alter to suit your tastes.
Catholic Wedding Vows
"I, ___, take you, ___, for my lawful wife/husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and health, until death do us part."
Or
"I, ___, take you, ___, to be my husband/wife. I promise to be true to you in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health. I will love and honor you all the days of my life."
Episcopal Wedding Vows
"In the name of God, I, ___, take you, ___, to be my husband/wife, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and health, to love and to cherish, until we are parted by death -- this is my solemn vow."
Hindu Wedding Vows
Traditional Hindu wedding ceremonies are elaborate and complex. The bride and groom recite many beautiful words to each other, often including the vow-like phrases "Let us take the fourth step, to acquire knowledge, happiness, and harmony by mutual love and trust. Finally, let us take the seventh step and become true companions and remain lifelong partners by this wedlock."
Jewish Wedding Vows
In a traditional Jewish wedding -- Orthodox and sometimes Conservative -- only the groom speaks his vows, which can be recited in both Hebrew and English. The original vow is (in English transliteration), "Haray at mekudeshet lee beh-taba'at zo keh-dat Moshe veh-Yisrael," which translates into, "Behold, you are consecrated to me with this ring according to the laws of Moses and Israel."
In Reform, some Conservative, and other contemporary Jewish ceremonies, the man and woman both recite vows, slightly altered from the traditional Hebrew version "Haray ata mekudash lee beh-taba'at zo keh-dat Moshe veh-Israel." Another version of non-traditional vows is a phrase from the Song of Songs "Ani leh-dodee veh-dodee lee," which means, "I am my beloved's, and my beloved is mine."
Muslim Wedding Vows
Most Muslim couples do not recite vows, but rather heed the words of the imam (cleric), who speaks about the meaning of marriage and the couple's responsibilities to each other and to Allah during the nikah, or ceremony. At the end of this ritual, the couple consents to become husband and wife, and they are blessed by the congregation. However, some Muslim brides and grooms do recite vows -- here is a common recitation
Bride "I, ___, offer you myself in marriage in accordance with the instructions of the Holy Quran and the Holy Prophet, peace and blessing be upon him. I pledge, in honesty and with sincerity, to be for you an obedient and faithful wife."
Groom "I pledge, in honesty and sincerity, to be for you a faithful and helpful husband."Protestant Wedding Vows
"I, ___, take thee, ___, to be my wedded husband/wife, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death do us part, according to God's holy ordinance; and thereto I pledge thee my faith/myself to you."
Quaker Wedding Vows
"In the presence of God and these our friends I take thee to be my husband/wife, promising with Divine assistance to be unto thee a loving and faithful husband/wife so long as we both shall live."
Russian Orthodox Wedding Vows
Many branches of the Orthodox church use silent vows during the ceremony -- an introspective prayer in which the couple promises to be loyal and loving to each other. In the Russian tradition, however, vows are spoken out loud "I, ___, take you, ___, as my wedded wife/husband and I promise you love, honor, and respect; to be faithful to you, and not to forsake you until death do us part. So help me God, one in the Holy Trinity, and all the Saints."
http//wedding.theknot.com/wedding-planning/wedding-ceremony/articles/traditional-wedding-vows-from-various-religions.aspx?MsdVisit=1
Concubinage is based on these oaths and vows. Its a marriage but society saw it different, but neither the Rabbis or the Muslim clerics can say concubines are not wives since they fulfilled the main requirement which is the oath (vows) between the two. These oaths are made to God. Hence adultery is breaking that oath someone made to God.
-
I tend to accept as good Samia's suggestion of a marriage without sex or that of Bigmo and others of a different kind of marriage in which the usual considerations are not followed. But the name itself to me depicts is as a pact with some rules, which makes equivalent to a marriage but with a rebate in the requirements. Which requirements are going to be rebated, could be a matter of circumstances, usage, somehting adaptable. May be God has wanted to give a leeway for people always to have an honorable way of living under any circumstances. It might be like today even de facto unions, which may or may not include sex, which are not wrong in themselves, but for which some requirements are done away with. But the pint being that the relationship is acknowledged, honoured as well as the obligations that come with it.
I guess this "lesser requirements" factor might cover all the occurrences of MMA in the Qur'an, but I am not sure, because every time somebody thins to have nailed, there crops up one or more instances which fail to fit, so it is just one more try. What seems interesting is that the the name itself seems to allow for plenty of conditions that would fit.
Salaam
-
I do not think that MMA is conditional to poligamy. That is, whether poligamy is allowed or not, one can have MMA, if it is monogamous, just one MMA and no ther consort and if poligamy is allowed, then whatever it allows. They are two separate things, as I see it.
Salaam
I did not say polygamy was a condition for MMA. i said the term "concubine" as understood in European society is different how the Bible and Koran understood it. Concubine in European society was a mistress, but in the Bible and Koran its a legal wife who inherites her husband like any other wife and her children also inherit their parents.