Salaam alaikum,
If we pay close attention to the context of 24/2(the verse ordaining punishment for the az-zina), we realize that for az-zina to occur, az-zaani can be any man, "married" or not, but az-zaaniya must be a "married" woman:
Verse 24/4 talks about those who accuse al-muhsanaat of committing az-zina:
Then again, in 24/6 it talks about husbands accusing their wives(i.e. women "married" to them):
I think this is why verse 24/2 mentions the zaainya first and the zaani second, as it could not have been az-zina without the polyandrous woman. Everywhere else that I can remember, the man is always mentioned first, and the woman second.(Except in the case of al-fahisha in 4/15-16 where the women are also mentioned first)
Even in the story of Yusuf, the woman who tried to force herself on him was married. Zina therefore, being a polyandrous act, betrays the trust of the husband, (which of course she was unsuccessful at):
Therefore the punishment of az-zina is for the act of committing and assisting polyandry, i.e. for the woman betraying her husband, and for the man "accessing" the woman reserved for her husband.
---
Fahad Ali Khan
If we pay close attention to the context of 24/2(the verse ordaining punishment for the az-zina), we realize that for az-zina to occur, az-zaani can be any man, "married" or not, but az-zaaniya must be a "married" woman:
Verse 24/4 talks about those who accuse al-muhsanaat of committing az-zina:
24/4: And those who accuse al-muhsanaat, then do not bring four witnesses, therefore you shall lash them eighty lashes,....Al-muhsanaat is a category of women, coming from the root Ha-Saad-Nun, meaning secured, reserved, immune, fortified/impenetrable, inaccessible etc. According to verse 4/25, a woman is made muhsana through nikah/"marriage". That is, a Muhsana is a "married" woman.
Then again, in 24/6 it talks about husbands accusing their wives(i.e. women "married" to them):
24/6: And those who accuse their azwaaj, and have no witnesses for them except themselves,....Both verses are about the accusation of women, and more importantly married women, and not about men. Why not about men? Because the man's role was secondary; the act could not have been az-zina, had the woman not been "married". Az-zina, therefore, is a polyandrous act.
I think this is why verse 24/2 mentions the zaainya first and the zaani second, as it could not have been az-zina without the polyandrous woman. Everywhere else that I can remember, the man is always mentioned first, and the woman second.(Except in the case of al-fahisha in 4/15-16 where the women are also mentioned first)
Even in the story of Yusuf, the woman who tried to force herself on him was married. Zina therefore, being a polyandrous act, betrays the trust of the husband, (which of course she was unsuccessful at):
12/52, "...I have not akhnu-hu/betrayed him in the absence",(...she said referring to her husband.)
Therefore the punishment of az-zina is for the act of committing and assisting polyandry, i.e. for the woman betraying her husband, and for the man "accessing" the woman reserved for her husband.
---
Fahad Ali Khan
Salaamun aleikum.
ReplyDelete[You:]
According to verse 4/25, a woman is made muhsana through nikah/"marriage". That is, a Muhsana is a "married" woman.
[Me:]
I'm not sure this is correct. You appear to be asserting here that tahseen (fortification) is a CONSEQUENCE of marriage (nikah); however, I understand (4:25) as stating that tahseen (fortification) is a (pre-)CONDITION (i.e. shart) for marriage (nikah).
Please look at this ayat again in the light of (5:5) and (21:80).
(21:80) links tahseen to libaas (protective clothing/armour) while (7:26) links libaas to taqwa (self-preservation). Thus, there is a link between tahseen and taqwa. Given the link between taqwa and tawheed, I would argue that there is a link between tahseen and tawheed and THIS is a (pre-)CONDITION (shart) for marriage which explains why it is a (pre-)condition for marriage with women from those who received the law/scripture (kitaab) previously in (5:5).
Of course, I could be wrong.
Brother Mustafa.
ReplyDeleteWa alaikum salaam and welcome :) .
1. [You:]
I'm not sure this is correct. You appear to be asserting here that tahseen (fortification) is a CONSEQUENCE of marriage (nikah); however, I understand (4:25) as stating that tahseen (fortification) is a (pre-)CONDITION (i.e. shart) for marriage (nikah).
[Me:]
I am sorry I fail to see how tahseen can be a (PRE-)CONDITION/shart for marriage, because al-muhsanaat are actually a category FORBIDDEN for marriage, EXCEPT ONLY if they are from the Milk-e-ayman/"MMA":
4/24: Also(prohibited are) al-muhsanaat from the women except ma malakat aymanukum...
So instead of tahseen being a PRE-CONDITION for marriage, al-muhsanaat are an forbidden category and the ONLY CONDITION for marriage with a Muhsana is that she should from the milk-e-ayman.
This verse has laid down the rule for the rest of the Quran. So wherever the Quran talks about marrying al-muhsanaat, they have to be from the MMA.
2. Now why do I say that a woman becomes al-muhsana after nikah?
4/25 says if you cannot marry al-muhsanaat al-mominaat(who will be from the "MMA" of course, 4/24), so anyone from the "MMA" from your fatayaat al-mominaat. This makes al-muhsanaat and fatayaat two distinct categories of women.
Afterwards it says to do nikah with the fatayat(who are NOT al-muhsanaat [yet]). But then it goes on to say "fa iza uhsinna(the same root as al-muhsanaat, for those who don't know)/THEREFORE when they have been secured/made immune/fortified", which tells that NOW they have become al-muhsanaat, i.e. AFTER NIKAH.
We understand from this that:
The women who were referred to as fatayaat BEFORE NIKAH, AFTER NIKAH they became immune/fortified/("fa iz uhsina"). AFTER NIKAH they are al-muhsanaat.
3. Furthermore, it will be problematic to take tahseen as a pre-condition for marriage because 4/25 actually allows marriage with fatayaat(who are not al-muhsanaat).
4. [You:]
(21:80) links tahseen to libaas (protective clothing/armour) while (7:26) links libaas to taqwa (self-preservation). Thus, there is a link between tahseen and taqwa. Given the link between taqwa and tawheed, I would argue that there is a link between tahseen and tawheed...
[Me:]
To take the meaning of al-muhsanaat as women of tawheed will also be problematic because al-muhsanaat are contrasted with fatayaat. It would mean that fatayaat are not women of tawheed.
5. [You:]
...and THIS is a (pre-)CONDITION (shart) for marriage which explains why it is a (pre-)condition for marriage with women from those who received the law/scripture (kitaab) previously in (5:5).
[Me:]
Again I don't see tahseen as a pre-condition because the fatayaat who are not yet al-muhsanaat are also allowed for marriage. I see it as a special permission to marry the women already married. For example, 60/10 tells us that the migrated al-mominaat who have come to the momineen, are not lawful for the kuffar anymore and vice versa. To keep these women, the momineen only have to pay the kuffar whatever they had spent on these women. If a momin man then intends to marry any of these women, the divorce procedure is not required:
60/10: ...There is no blame upon you if you marry them when you have given them their wages...
The 'al-mominaatu muhaajiraat' among these who were already married are al-muhsanaat, and they are lawful for the momineen. Therefore there are conditions under which a man can marry an already married woman. And since al-muhsanaat are allowed to be married only from the MMA, this verse is about the MMA.
Of course I could be wrong too in much of the above.
A small addition I have made to the original post:
ReplyDeleteI wrote:
>>>
"I think this is why verse 24/2 mentions the zaainya first and the zaani second, as it could not have been az-zina without the polyandrous woman. Everywhere else that I can remember, the man is always mentioned first, and the woman second."
<<<
I forgot to mention the case of al-fahisha("lewdness") in 4/15-16, the only other place in my knowledge where the women are also mentioned first.
Salaam alaikum.
ReplyDelete[Mustafa:]
Okay. However, it does not make sense to interpret the term 'Muhsana' as a married woman, since both (4:25) and (5:5) refer to marrying (i.e. performing nikaah) with such women, and it does not make any sense for a believer to marry someone who is already married (who is a mu'min). Or do you understand (4:25) to refer to believing women who are married to al-kuffaar as in (60:10)? But then (5:5) must also refer to such women and I am not sure the text indicates this.
[Fahad:]
Why do you think 5/5 cannot be referring to such women?
[Mustafa:]
Okay, but what are the MMA?
[Fahad:]
I am not exactly sure. I need to do more study about the MMA.
[Mustafa:]
Okay, but again the problem here is that al-muhsanaat al-mominaat refers to mominaat who are ALREADY muhsanaat, so nikaah (marriage) does not make them muhsanaat.
[Fahad:]
They were already al-muhsanaat because they were already married/nikah-ed. So it WAS nikah that made them al-muhsanaat.
[Mustafa:]
Where is this text? I can't find it in (4:24) or (4:25).
[Fahad:]
Shakir 4/25: 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/FA IZA 'UHSINNA(therefore when they are fortified), 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.
[Mustafa:]
Unfortunately, I don't think this works since, as stated previously, nikaah is to be done with people who are ALREADY muhsanaat.
[Fahad:]
But nikah is a FORBIDDEN category. If a Muhsana is not from the milk-e-yameen, then she is forbidden for marriage(4/24). How do you reconcile your view with this?
[Mustafa:]
ReplyDeleteAgreed. But what if the mention of fatayaat in (4:25) is a concession because such women fall under the category of MMA (as do the muhsanaat) and eventually become muhsanaat? On this reading, the power-relation associated with MMA and the fact that the fatayaat are young (impressionable/mouldable?) womenimplies that such women will (eventually) become muhsanaat.
[Fahad:]
That they will eventually become women of tawheed? but they are ALREADY women of tawheed; they are referred to as fatayaat AL-MOMINAAT.
[Mustafa:]
On this basis, it might be argued that (5:5) and (4:25) indicate the PREFERABILITY of tahseen.
[Fahad:]
Since it is a forbidden category, it cannot indicate preference. The ONLY CONDITION under which marriage with a Muhsana is PERMITTED is that she should be from the MMA(4/25). On this basis, IMHO, it can ONLY be argued that 5/5 and 4/25 indicate the ONLY PERMISSION (i.e. permission of marrying al-muhsanaat ONLY from the MMA [4/24]).
[Mustafa:]
Okay, but see my previous comment regarding possibly interpreting the fatayaat as a concession category. (I think there is indication of support for concession in (49:14).)
[Fahad:]
I don't think so because the fatayaat are referred to as al-mominaat. In the case of 49/14, they would have been referred to as muslimaat. ( "...Say: You have not believed. But what you should say is that "we have surrendered...")
[Mustafa:]
As stated previously, I can accept this interpretation. However, I'm not sure that al-muhsanaat in (5:5) MUST be understood as referring to mominaat married to kuffaar as in (60:10). This seems somewhat of a restriction.
[Fahad:]
It IS restricted to marry al-muhsanaat, EXCEPT if they are from the MMA.(4/24)
4/24: Also(prohibited are) al-muhsanaat from the women except ma malakat aymanukum...
[Mustafa:]
In addition, you have not addressed the fact that (21:80) links tahseen to libaas (protective clothing/armour) while (7:26) links libaas to taqwa (self-preservation). Thus, there is a link between tahseen and taqwa.
[Fahad:]
I am kind of OK with the link between libaas and tahseen, but not with libaas and taqwa. Link is created by the mention of the logic or relation between A and B, not by the mere mention of A and B together.
21/80 says that the making of luboos taught to Sulaiman by Allah is for your tahseen from 'ba'sukum'.
Even then the link is between the making of luboostaught TO SULAIMAN and tahseen FROM BA'SUKUM, and not ANY libaas and ANY tahseen.
While 7/26 mentions the 'libaas of at-taqwa'. It does not mention the relation between libaas and taqwa. To say that there is a link between libaas and taqwa is like saying there is a link between, for example, bayt and Allah just because the Quran mentions the two together in "baytullah". It is like saying that wherever bayt is mentioned, it is linked with Allah, which is not true.
IMHO.
Salaamun aleikum.
ReplyDeleteI am persuaded by your comprehensive rebuttal of the various arguments in my last response.
May Allah (swt) reward you for your efforts.
Fi amaan illah
Salaamun aleikum.
ReplyDeleteDo you believe that (5:5) grants permission to those securely committed to God/Allah to marry women who are
[1] already married from among those who received Al-Kitaab previously,
[2] subject to them being among the MMA (4:24). and
[3] subject to them not being mushrik (2:221)?
>>>
ReplyDeleteSalaamun aleikum.
I am persuaded by your comprehensive rebuttal of the various arguments in my last response.
May Allah (swt) reward you for your efforts.
Fi amaan illah
<<<
Wa alaikum salaam.
May Allah reward you too.
Thanks.
>>>
ReplyDeleteDo you believe that (5:5) grants permission to those securely committed to God/Allah to marry women who are
[1] already married from among those who received Al-Kitaab previously,
[2] subject to them being among the MMA (4:24). and
[3] subject to them not being mushrik (2:221)?
<<<
1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.
Salaamun aleikum.
ReplyDeleteWho are these non-mushrik [=muwaahid] MMA already married women from among those who received Al-Kitaab previously?
Are they war captives? Is this why it is permissible to marry them? I can understand the rationale for marrying muhaajiraat in (60:10) because these are women who come over to the Muslim camp; however, do non-mushrik [=muwaahid] MMA already married women from among those who received Al-Kitaab previously come over to the Muslim camp as muhaajiraat, i.e.voluntarily, or by compulsion, viz. as captives?
What are your thoughts about this?
Salaam.
ReplyDeleteI don't see why they would be war captives/prisoners if they are al-mominaat. Why would a Momin imprison a Momina?
I think the hijrat of al-mominaat is voluntary. The only and slightest hint, if at all, of milke-yameen being war captives, comes from 59/7 and 33/50:
59/7: Whatever Allah has bestowed upon His messenger from the people of the towns, it is for Allah and for the messenger, and for the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer,...
The above verse is about spoils of war, and it uses the word "ma AFAA' allahu ala rasoolihi", "whatever Allah has "BESTOWED" upon his rasool"
Now I'll need to look up the exact meaning of AFAA' in the dictionary and, for confirmation, in Mufahris or Openburhan,(I'll do that later due to time shortage. You can look it up if you can, in the meantime) but the same word is used with milke-yameen in 33/50:
33/50: O Prophet! surely We have made lawful to you your wives whom you have given their dowries, and those whom your right hand possesses out of those whom Allah has "BESTOWED" upon you....
"Wa ma malakat yameenuka mimma AFAA allahu alaika"
That is, it could be referring to war captives. Even then I don't think it can refer to a Momina. Maybe the fact that 4/25 only allows nikah SPECIFICALLY with al-muhsnaat AL-MOMINAAT and fatayaat AL-MOMINAAT from the milke-yameen hints that there are also milke-yameen who are NOT MOMINAAT and hence not permissable for nikah. Just a thought.
Salaamun aleikum.
ReplyDelete[You:]
Maybe the fact that 4/25 only allows nikah SPECIFICALLY with al-muhsnaat AL-MOMINAAT and fatayaat AL-MOMINAAT from the milke-yameen hints that there are also milke-yameen who are NOT MOMINAAT and hence not permissable for nikah. Just a thought.
[Me:]
But (5:5) allows marriage with milke-yameen who are min al-mominaat and also min alladheena u-tul-kitaabi min qablikum.
Thus, al-mominaat is a distinct category from alladheena u-tul-kitaabi min qablikum, and yet, it is permissible to marry such (married) women.
This is why I have argued that the criteria for marrying already married women is that they must be from MMA (4:24), muwaahid (2:221) and from one of the two muhsanaat groups mentioned in (5:5), i.e. al-mominaat or alladheena u-tul-kitaabi min qablikum.
However, I think you are on to something in linking the previous research to (33:50) and then to (59:7).
If alladheena u-tul-kitaabi min qablikum mentioned in (5:5) are not "war captives", perhaps they are "war widows" from the enemy camp whose husbands have been killed and who are non-mushrik MMA?
I'm trying to understand the underlying rationale for marrying THIS category of non-mushrik, MMA, muhsanaat women, NOT al-mominaat.
Wa alaikum salaam.
ReplyDelete>>>
But (5:5) allows marriage with milke-yameen who are min al-mominaat and also min alladheena u-tul-kitaabi min qablikum.
Thus, al-mominaat is a distinct category from alladheena u-tul-kitaabi min qablikum, and yet, it is permissible to marry such (married) women.
<<<
Alright, good.
>>>
This is why I have argued that the criteria for marrying already married women is that they must be from MMA (4:24), muwaahid (2:221) and from one of the two muhsanaat groups mentioned in (5:5), i.e. al-mominaat or alladheena u-tul-kitaabi min qablikum.
<<<
Ok, now I get it: Muwaahid are not necessarily al-mominaat.
>>>
However, I think you are on to something in linking the previous research to (33:50) and then to (59:7).
<<<
I'll have to look up "AFAA'. Have you got Mufahris? Can you find it in there? I couldn't.
>>>
If alladheena u-tul-kitaabi min qablikum mentioned in (5:5) are not "war captives", perhaps they are "war widows" from the enemy camp whose husbands have been killed and who are non-mushrik MMA?
<<<
That's possible.
>>>
I'm trying to understand the underlying rationale for marrying THIS category of non-mushrik, MMA, muhsanaat women, NOT al-mominaat.
<<<
Hmmm. One rationale could be that they are war-widows as you have proposed. What other other reasons could there be? Lets see.
As for the connection between BAY'A and MULK in relation to understanding the phrase "ma malakat aymankum":
ReplyDeleteVerse 2/282 mentions two types of transactions:
1. Tijaara
2. Baya'
Both types of transactions can be made with women, as we will see in this post.
Now it should be noted that the payment of AJAR/WAGE has been mentioned specifically ONLY WITH TIJAARA, and NOT WITH BAY'A:
35/29: Surely they who recite the Book of Allah and keep up prayer and spend out of what We have given them secretly and openly, are engaged for a TIJAARATAN which will not perish.
35/30: That He may pay them their UJOOR in full and give them more out of His grace: surely He is Forgiving, Multiplier of rewards.
28/25-26 detail the meaning of tijarat, i.e. HIRING or engaging on AJAR/WAGE.
28/25: Therefore one of the two women came to him, walking shyly. She said, `My father invites you to reward you a AJRA/wage (for)what you watered for us….
28/26: One of the two women said, `O my father, ASTAJIR hu/hire him; for the best man that ASTAJARTA/you can hire is the one who is strong and trustworthy.'
And in context of nikah, 4/24 says:
...And permitted for you are all beyond those(forbidden categories of women), that you seek with your amwaal/wealth/money, muhsineen without being musafiheen, therefore those that you have enjoyed with it(i.e. your wealth/money) from them, give them their UJOOR/WAGES as a fareeza...
Therefore nikah is a TIJAARAT, a transaction involving AJAR.
On the other hand I find no mention of AJAR with BAY'A' and I have reason to believe that women with whom this type of transaction is made are the milke-yameen:
Verse 33/50 distinguishes between azwaaj to whom AJAR/WAGE is paid AND the milke-yameen bestowed upon by Allah:
33/50: O Prophet! surely We have made lawful to you your wives whom you have given their UJOOR, and those whom your right hand possesses out of those whom Allah has "BESTOWED" upon you.
That is, milke-yameen do not receive the ajar/wage. Hence I believe the women in 60/12 with whom a BAY'A is made are also the milke-yameen.
I would also like to clarify for the readers a confusion that I have often come across among students of The Quran. For an example, I am quoting from http://www.quranicteachings.co.uk/ma-malakat.htm :
ReplyDelete>>>
Before we move further, another important word [which is used as conjunction] must also be explained. The word is “AW”, used in the phrase “aw ma malakat aymanukum”.“AW” is usually translated as “OR”. There is no doubt that “OR” is one of the meanings of “AW” but as a matter of fact, this word is used in no less than 12 different ways [also explained in Lane’s Arabic-English Lexicon]. One of the uses of this word is TAFSEEL, [i.e. elaborative or explanatory]. In other words, “aw” is also used to add some meaning to the previous word or to explain a previous word or to give some attribute or characteristics of the previous word.
Please refer to 17:110. In this verse, there is a phrase “odAAoo Allaha awi odAAoo alrrahmana”. Note carefully how “Allah” and “Rahman” are separated by the word “aw”. Now here “aw” does not imply that “Allah” and “Rahman” are two different Beings. Without doubt, “Allah” and “Rahman” is one and the same Being. “Rahman” is an attribute of “Allah”.
Now refer to verses 23:6 and 70:30.
23:6 Illa AAala azwajihim aw ma malakat aymanuhum fainnahum ghayru maloomeena
70:30 Illa AAala azwajihim aw ma malakat aymanuhum fainnahum ghayru maloomeena
In both the above verses, “azwajihim” and “ma malakat aymanuhum” are separated by “aw”. Here it does not mean that “azwajihim” and “ma malakat aymanuhum” are two different objects. Actually, they refer to one and the same object. “azwajihim” ARE “ma malakat aymanuhum” i.e. “their spouses” are “what they rightfully possess”.
<<<
The problem with this understanding is that the "AW"/"OR" is used in these verses regarding momineen because a person in general may NOT necessarily have both a zawj AND a milk-yameen. But in case of the Nabi, i.e. a specific case, in 33/50, the Quran uses the word "WA"/"AND" because the nabi had BOTH wives AND milk-e-yameen. If it was as the quoted article suggests that ajwaaj and milk-e-yameen are the same, then it would have used "OR" here as well:
33/50: O Prophet! surely We have made lawful to you your wives whom you have given their wages, AND those whom your right hand possesses out of those whom Allah has bestowed upon you.