Ma malakat aymanukum - Whom your oaths possess
-
Are they
1 Slaves/Captives
2 The wives of slaves/captives
3 Servants/concubines
4 destitute women under your protection
5 feudal vassalsI understand there's been a lot of debate on this topic, but I'd like to approach it from the direction of not linguistics, but social history. The difficulty you get into when approaching it with linguistics alone is that your trying to hit a moving target - you're trying to find a meaning by looking at which words fit, but both the meaning and the descriptions vary with their contexts and the meaning of the contexts vary with the words, so all you can do is get confused.
First of, on the slavery point, the Prophet describes when captives can be taken - 867
"And it was not for any prophet to take prisoners unless it is in battle"
What do you call a captive taken in battle? Yes, that's right, a prisoner of war. And the Geneva Conventions allow forced labour of prisoners of war, so long as the work is not dangerous and not directly related to the war effort, i.e. not making munitions. In the First and Second World Wars, in Britain, German prisoners of war were mostly put to work as farm labour. Had Britain repealed its 1833 Slavery Abolition Act? Of course not, it's just taken for granted that if you're keeping prisoners of war, you might as well make them do some work. So we can guess that prisoners taken in battle in the 7th Century AD were most likely also put to work as farm labour. This was before the Geneva Conventions, but the principles are the same. Prisoners must not be mistreated, but they are an economic resource, especially needed in a time of war when your farmers are likely to be away on the battlefield. As 474 specifies, prisoners of war are released when the war ends, also in line with the Geneva Conventions.
Amazons aside, in the 7th Century prisoners of war would have been male. And since Ma Malakat Aymanukum talks alot about who a man can marry, it is obvious that they are not war captives, hence the whole slavery thing must be thrown out the window.
So who would be swearing oaths in the early medieval period? Social relations were different back then from today. There wasn't much normal employment. There was a class of people in early modern Europe, who lived in their Masters houses, who worked long hours without pay, and who would be beaten by their Master if they were disobedient, or if he was just in a bad mood. But these weren't slaves, often they would have paid good money for their positions. They were apprentices. They would have promised to obey their master, and in return their master promised to teach them their trade.
This example of apprenticeship does not fit perfectly into the "whom your oaths possess" model as an apprentice would traditionally be the same sex as the person training them. However, it is a good example of the relationships of "oaths", masters and servants were in the time period. You also have the concept of 'Vassals' - willing servants of a feudal lord who would promise obedience in return for protection and a right to a share of the spoils of war, be it land or plunder. Again, they're probably the same sex as their master.
So we have 2, 3 and 4 left - and of course, it could be all three. The Quran does not define 'right hands possess', so it makes sense that it must be a broad category. Whom your oaths/right hands possess seems to refer to protection - and the pragmatic, common sense approach taken to sex by the Quran seems to see it as a social security net for women, hence allowing both polygamy and sex between protector and protectee, even if either are already married - as 43 says for men, and 424 says for women. The logic is obvious, as the alternative is poverty/starvation/destitution. An extra live in partner - someone you protect or are protected by, isn't as bad as prostitution, so in 7th Century Arabia, it was the lesser of many evils, of which the Prophet himself seems to have made extensive use.
Of course, it doesn't mean it's a good idea today!
-
Of course, it doesn't mean it's a good idea today!
Which somewhat invalidates your whole interpretation?
...
-
Word "maa" cannot be who(m), cause it's used for objects and it should be "what" or "that". Eymaan is a plural potential (what can be) from the root yay-mim-nun ي م ن . This root is very similar to elif-mim-nun and it talks about safety. If eymaan is related to hands then it's one hand which can be more safe to handle with, and it's for the most people right hand, but since it's not (always) about hands than it's something else which can bring some sort of safety. This is why these words are used for oaths and other forms of talk or signals that a parson can have some safety. Another proof that this word is feminine and it should be for objects is in a verb used, which is feminine and perfect tense (not imperfect).
I would say that this phrase means "what your consciences instructed you" and this is something we thought we can do, by our conscience, ie. without knowledge.