Dr. Subhi Mansour on the term "muhsanat" in the Koran
-
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.
-
Hello Bigmo
You keep saying that MMA is a marriage without dowry, although I responded to your post on the first page on the 25th of August with a verse that clearly shows that MMA have the same rights as any wife, and that the only difference is the permission of the family.
Have you even read this post below?Says who?
Definitely not God4 24
And an already married man cannot marry a MMA. Polygamy is very restricted. Taking a MMA is not mentioned as a condition for polygamy. The qur'aan always speak of "your/their spouses OR your/their MMA". Never both of them. It's a marriage albeit for a specific people, those who are unable to consummate marriage (425). They enter into a MMA marriage and they and their spouses are milku yameen each other. That's why only in this case is the family's permission mentioned. They have to know what their son/ daughter is up to and that they are going to marry some one who cannot consummate marriage.
The muhsan, is therefore, the opposite immune of this disability. (muhsan means immune).
-
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.
You don't need to look far. Verse 425 suggests that there are two different status of women Muslim man can choose to marry.
425 And whoever among you has not within his power ampleness of means to marry free believing women, then (he may marry) of those whom your right hands possess from among your believing maidens; and Allah knows best your faith you are (sprung) the one from the other; so marry them with the permission of their masters, and give them their dowries justly, they being chaste, not fornicating, nor receiving paramours; and when they are taken in marriage, then if they are guilty of indecency, they shall suffer half the punishment which is (inflicted) upon free women. This is for him among you who fears falling into evil; and that you abstain is better for you, and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
A man who can afford, can choose to marry free-believing women, else he can marry MMA. If the former classified as ?free? then what is the status of MMA in this verse?
-
Hello Bigmo
You keep saying that MMA is a marriage without dowry, although I responded to your post on the first page on the 25th of August with a verse that clearly shows that MMA have the same rights as any wife, and that the only difference is the permission of the family.
Have you even read this post below?I think what the verse is saying is that if you can not marry due to finances or whatever reason, then you can have an MMA or then you can make her your MMA. But try to establish some form of financial arrangment. I think this is what its saying.
-
I think what the verse is saying is that if you can not marry due to finances or whatever reason, then you can have an MMA or then you can make her your MMA. But try to establish some form of financial arrangment. I think this is what its saying.
"Establish some form of financial arrangement" is your own wordings, not what the verse says. There is no difference in the "ajr" paid to MMA or to a spouse in the usual marriage in the wordings of all verses on any kind of marriage
....Lawful unto you in marriage) are (not only) chaste women who are believers, but chaste women among the People of the Book, revealed before your time,- when ye pay them their due "ajr", ....(55)
O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their "ajr"; ....(3350)
.... if ye ascertain that they are Believers, then send them not back to the Unbelievers. They are not lawful for the Unbelievers, nor are the (Unbelievers) lawful for them. But pay the Unbelievers what they have spent; and there will be no blame on you if ye marry them on paying them their "ajr" . .....(6010)
As for financial difficulties, verse 2432 does not mention MMA. It clearly says if they are poor
Marry those among you who are single, or the virtuous ones among yourselves, male or female if they are in poverty, Allah will give them means out of His grace for Allah encompasseth all, and he knoweth all things
Besides, if they are mainly poor, why ask them to pay "any form of financial payment" in the first place? Is there any specific amount of "ajr" so as to understand that the amount here is reduced, for example?
So we can eliminate poverty as a condition for a MMA kind of marriage.