There are two examples that come quickly to my mind:
1) When Allah says that He sent down the book AND the wisdom
Both words mean Quran
yes this makes me think of
3:48
And He will teach him the Book and the wisdom and the Tavrat and the Injeel
the verse is saying that jesus will be taught the book of the Torah, the Wisdom of the Injeel.
book= torah
wisdom = injeel (since the injeel was jesus' oral teachings, not a book like the Quran or torah)
if you come across a verse using specifically the particle AW for something else than an exclusion (like the few verse i showed) then please add it here, it will add more arguments.
And say to the believing women that they lower their visions and guard their private parts and do not show their adornment except what appears thereof, and let them draw their scarfs over their bosoms, and not show their adornment except to their husbands or their fathers, or the fathers if their husbands, or their sons, or the sons of their husbands, or their brothers, or the sons of their brothers, or the sons of their sister, or their women, or those whom their oaths possess, or the attendants of men who do not have need (for women), or the children who are not aware of the private parts of women; and let them (the believing women) not strike their legs so that what they conceal of their adornment may be known; and repent to Allah all of you , O believers! That you might succeed. [Al Quran ; 24:31]
-> See how is the message is directed at the believing women to not to show their adornment except to: their husbands or their fathers, or the fathers if their husbands, or their sons, or the sons of their husbands, or their brothers, or the sons of their brothers, or the sons of their sister, or their women, or those whom their oaths possess, or the attendants of men who do not have need (for women), or the children who are not aware of the private parts of women;
Salam
this is the verse i had in mind, but im not sure it conclusively says ma malakat ayman are males.
even if the verse addresses the believing women why would ma malakat ayman HAVE to be males? it cannot be because the verse is allowing believing women to uncover in front of them because the verse is also telling the believing women that they can uncover in front of females.
another reason why i think ma malakat ayman are not males in that verse is that right next to it, when the verse mentions non-relative males to whom the believing women can uncover, the verse specifies that these males servants "do not have need (for women)". so if the verse meant ma malakat ayman as males (who are not their relatives) then why doesnt it specify the same condition?
finally, could you explain who are the women in front of whom the believing women are allowed to uncover, whose wives are they?
Posted:
Sun 12 Jul, 2009 9:34 am
AhmedBahgat Site Admin
Status: Age: 59 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 16, 2006
Posts: 3236 Location: Australia
Post subject:
shindeiru wrote:
if you come across a verse using specifically the particle AW for something else than an exclusion (like the few verse i showed) then please add it here, it will add more arguments.
I may reply to this for now
We actually do not need to show that, I will keep searching though for AW that does not mean exclusion
the reason it was said in the verses of what is lawful for the believers, Azagahum AW Ma Malakat Aymanihum, is simply because the believers can marry one OR the other according to verse 4:3
See logically speaking, this is valid:
Azwagahum WA Ma Malakat Aymanahum
However AW was used because according to 4:3, they can only marry one or the other from these two groups
Last edited by AhmedBahgat on Sun 12 Jul, 2009 10:53 am; edited 1 time in total
Posted:
Sun 12 Jul, 2009 10:22 am
shindeiru Knight
Status:
Faith:
Joined: Mar 29, 2009
Posts: 41
Post subject:
while going through 24:33 again, i just thought of yet another very compelling argument forbidding sex with ma malakat ayman outside wedlock.
as we already said, the verse explains the important point that if a believer does not have the means to marry then he must keep chaste at all costs, until Allah frees him from his financial needs out of His grace, so that the believer may sustain a wife and children.
What the advocates of concubinage need to explain to me is the following:
if ma malakat ayman are allowed outside wedlock then how come the verse does not propose to those believing men incapable of sustaining a wife and family the alternative of having recourse to concubinage, why does the verse tell them to keep chaste at all costs until they find the means to marry?
the answer is clear: because those women are simply not allowed outside wedlock, like any other women and in conformity with the morals of the quran. this also demolishes by the way the interpreatation of AW in 70:30,23:6 as an alternative for the wives.
this is further reinforced by the fact that the same verse DOES propose an alternative to those poor believing men; it tells them to MARRY those ma malakat ayman who ask for the writing because they are easier to sustain, as confirmed through 4:25, and further prohibits them from forcing the women under their guardianship to prostitution.
Posted:
Sun 12 Jul, 2009 10:49 am
AhmedBahgat Site Admin
Status: Age: 59 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 16, 2006
And say to the believing women that they lower their visions and guard their private parts and do not show their adornment except what appears thereof, and let them draw their scarfs over their bosoms, and not show their adornment except to their husbands or their fathers, or the fathers if their husbands, or their sons, or the sons of their husbands, or their brothers, or the sons of their brothers, or the sons of their sisters, or their women,or those whom their oaths possess, or the attendants of men who do not have need (for women), or the children who are not aware of the private parts of women; and let them (the believing women) not strike their legs so that what they conceal of their adornment may be known; and repent to Allah all of you , O believers! That you might succeed. [Al Quran ; 24:31]
-> See how is the message is directed at the believing women to not to show their adornment except to: their husbands or their fathers, or the fathers if their husbands, or their sons, or the sons of their husbands, or their brothers, or the sons of their brothers, or the sons of their sister, or their women, or those whom their oaths possess, or the attendants of men who do not have need (for women), or the children who are not aware of the private parts of women;
Salam
shindeiru wrote:
this is the verse i had in mind, but im not sure it conclusively says ma malakat ayman are males.
even if the verse addresses the believing women why would ma malakat ayman HAVE to be males? it cannot be because the verse is allowing believing women to uncover in front of them because the verse is also telling the believing women that they can uncover in front of females.
What you say is logically valid, so let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s isolate the categories and see for each one if it indicates males or females:
-> لِبُعُولَتِهِنَّ , i.e. their husbands , Males
-> آبَائِهِنَّ , i.e. their fathers , Males
-> آبَاءِ بُعُولَتِهِنَّ , i.e. the fathers of their husbands , Males
-> أَبْنَائِهِنَّ , i.e. their sons , Males
-> أَبْنَاءِ بُعُولَتِهِنَّ , i.e. the sons of their husbands , Males
-> إِخْوَانِهِنَّ , i.e. their brothers , Males
-> بَنِي إِخْوَانِهِنَّ , i.e. the sons of their brothers , Males
-> بَنِي أَخَوَاتِهِنَّ , i.e. the sons of their sisters, Males
-> نِسَائِهِنَّ , i.e. their women , Females
-> مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُنَّ , i.e. whom their oaths possess , ??
-> التَّابِعِينَ غَيْرِ أُولِي الْإِرْبَةِ مِنَ الرِّجَالِ , i.e. the attendants of men who do not have need (for women) , Males
-> الطِّفْلِ الَّذِينَ لَمْ يَظْهَرُوا عَلَىٰ عَوْرَاتِ النِّسَاءِ , i.e. the children who are not aware of the private parts of women , Males
As you can see, we have 12 categories. In 10 of them, we managed to conclusively confirm that they are Males
Then we have 1 category where we conclusively confirmed that they are Females
And finally 1 category of Ma Malakat Ayman as unknown, for now
If you look at the order, you should notice that from category 1 to category 8, all males and all are relatives
Starting from category 9 till category 12, all are not relatives
Now category 9, -> نِسَائِهِنَّ , i.e. their women , Females, is a general one and should mean THE MUSLIM WOMEN, which I believe should be the only one to mean Females to cover any arising question for the believing women concerning: If they should show their adornment to any believing women (being slave or not)?
I say possibly after seeing that 10 out of 12 categories only mean Males
See how category 11, explicitly identified مِنَ الرِّجَالِ , FROM AMONG MEN who donÃ??????Ã?????Ã????Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??t desire sex with women any more, mostly very old men. Now, such category of not desiring sex any more should also cover the women who do not desire sex any more, but the women were already included in category 9 (as general for all believing women being slave or not, or desiring sex or not), that is why the words مِنَ الرِّجَالِ , FROM AMONG MEN were added to the category
Also if you look at category 12, you see that it was referred to as Children, and we know that Chidlren should cover Males and Females, however in such category we have additional words that conclusively imply boys, الَّذِينَ لَمْ يَظْهَرُوا عَلَىٰ عَوْرَاتِ النِّسَاءِ , i.e. who are not aware of the private parts of women , certainly it must mean boys only, because the girls should be aware of their private parts.
Yet I am happy to change my position and agree with you that it cannot be conclusive that the words Ma Malakat Ayman in verse 24:3, mean the males from among them
But you also must agree that the same words Ma Malakat Ayman in 24:31 cannot be conclusive either to take it as Females, therefore it must at least imply Males & Females which I believe should be the right context because a capable male may take an oath to care for some weak humans from among both sexes, likewise with a capable women, she can care for both sexes from among the weak and deprived.
It is not like capable males can only care for weak women, you know.
Finally, while I changed my position and agree with you now that 24:31 cannot be conclusive, I still believe that it is more likely too mean from among the MALES, because the Ma Malakat Ayman from among the women may be covered under category 9, Their women
One more thing, if you read the tafsir (just for curiosity) you should see that they stated that category Their women covers all believing women being slave or not, it does not cover the women from the Kafirs or Mushriks. Also if you read the following verses, you may notice that the words Ma Malakat Ayman cannot mean Females only, rather Males & Females :
4:36
16:71
24:33 is a very strong evidence, let me bring it in here:
And let those who do not find the means to marry keep chaste until Allah makes them rich out of His grace. And those who ask for the book (of marriage) from among those whom your oaths possess, give them the writing if you know in them good, and give them from the money of Allah which He has given you; and do not compel your girls to prostitution if they desire protection (of their private parts), in order to seek the span of the life of this world; and whoever compels them, then indeed, Allah after their compulsion is Forgiving, Merciful. [Al Quran ; 24:33]
-> See these words وَالَّذِينَ يَبْتَغُونَ الْكِتَابَ مِمَّا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ فَكَاتِبُوهُمْ , i.e. And those who ask for the book (of marriage) from among those whom your oaths possess, give them the writing
Now these words must cover Males & Females:
وَالَّذِينَ , Wa Alzeen, if it means females only then it should be: واللاتي , Wa Alati, or واللائي , Wa Alaai
يَبْتَغُونَ , Yantaghoon , if it means females only then it should be: يَبْتَغُنَ , Yantaghn
فَكَاتِبُوهُمْ , Fa Katibuhum , if it means females only then it should be: فَكَاتِبُوهُنَ , Fa Katibuhun
But look bro, if I am wrong in such issue and Ma Malakat Ayman only means females, I will be delighted to be proven wrong, even if I do it to myself so I will continue reading the verses that talk about them, ironically I believe that any male who is physically fit should have no reason to be Ma Malakat Ayman
shindeiru wrote:
another reason why i think ma malakat ayman are not males in that verse is that right next to it, when the verse mentions non-relative males to whom the believing women can uncover, the verse specifies that these males servants "do not have need (for women)". so if the verse meant ma malakat ayman as males (who are not their relatives) then why doesnt it specify the same condition?
I think we may end up confusing ourselves if we look at the same verse, I guess better that we read all the verses talking about them to try and reach a conclusion, Access Quran software should be very good in finding these verses then reading them one after the other which I am currently doing while I am writing this reply
shindeiru wrote:
finally, could you explain who are the women in front of whom the believing women are allowed to uncover, whose wives are they?
I believe it should mean any believing woman (being slave or not, being free or ma malakat ayman), all believing women in general regardless of their social level
Last edited by AhmedBahgat on Fri 17 Jul, 2009 4:37 pm; edited 1 time in total
Posted:
Sun 12 Jul, 2009 6:12 pm
shindeiru Knight
Status:
Faith:
Joined: Mar 29, 2009
Posts: 41
Post subject:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
Finally, while I changed my position and agree with you now that 24:31 cannot be conclusive, I still believe that it is more likely too mean from among the MALES, because the Ma Malakat Ayman from among the women may be covered under category 9, Their women
salaam bro
my position is Ma Malakat Ayman in 24:31 could include both males and females ONLY if it wasnt for the conditional clause "or the male servants not having need (of women)". if we say that Ma Malakat Ayman can be males then the verse would be allowing the women to uncover in front of any males Ma Malakat Ayman, which is obviously not correct.
so i would say that in 24:31, Ma Malakat Ayman must only be females.
AhmedBahgat wrote:
Also if you read the following verses, you may notice that the words Ma Malakat Ayman cannot mean Females only, rather Males & Females: 24:33 is a very strong evidence
Now these words must cover Males & Females:
وَالَّذِينَ , Wa Alzeen, if it means females only then it should be: واللاتي , Wa Alati, or واللائي , Wa Alaai
يَبْتَغُونَ , Yantaghoon , if it means females only then it should be: يَبْتَغُنَ , Yantaghn
فَكَاتِبُوهُمْ , Fa Katibuhum , if it means females only then it should be: فَكَاتِبُوهُنَ , Fa Katibuhun
i agree with you, here the arabic allows that Ma Malakat Ayman can be both males and females. just a question regarding yabtaghuuna. do you mean, if it meant females only then it should be yabtaghuna without the waw?
but at the end whether Ma Malakat Ayman are only females or could be both males and females changes nothing to the strong case against concubinage.
Posted:
Sun 12 Jul, 2009 8:56 pm
AhmedBahgat Site Admin
Status: Age: 59 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 16, 2006
Posts: 3236 Location: Australia
Post subject:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
Finally, while I changed my position and agree with you now that 24:31 cannot be conclusive, I still believe that it is more likely too mean from among the MALES, because the Ma Malakat Ayman from among the women may be covered under category 9, Their women
shindeiru wrote:
salaam bro
my position is Ma Malakat Ayman in 24:31 could include both males and females ONLY if it wasnt for the conditional clause "or the male servants not having need (of women)". if we say that Ma Malakat Ayman can be males then the verse would be allowing the women to uncover in front of any males Ma Malakat Ayman, which is obviously not correct.
so i would say that in 24:31, Ma Malakat Ayman must only be females.
Salam mate
I agree with you regarding such bit about allowing the women to uncover in front of Ma Malakat Ayman, however the context may be taken that only if Ma Malakat Ayman are husbands, that is why AW was used
Ila Ala Azwagihum AW Ma Malakat Aymanihum
If Waw was used between the husbands and Ma Malakat Ayman, then we have serious problem
AhmedBahgat wrote:
Also if you read the following verses, you may notice that the words Ma Malakat Ayman cannot mean Females only, rather Males & Females: 24:33 is a very strong evidence
Now these words must cover Males & Females:
وَالَّذِينَ , Wa Alzeen, if it means females only then it should be: واللاتي , Wa Alati, or واللائي , Wa Alaai
يَبْتَغُونَ , Yantaghoon , if it means females only then it should be: يَبْتَغُنَ , Yantaghn
فَكَاتِبُوهُمْ , Fa Katibuhum , if it means females only then it should be: فَكَاتِبُوهُنَ , Fa Katibuhun
shindeiru wrote:
i agree with you, here the arabic allows that Ma Malakat Ayman can be both males and females. just a question regarding yabtaghuuna. do you mean, if it meant females only then it should be yabtaghuna without the waw?
Yes it has to be without the WAW if we are talking about women only, it is called Gama Muanath Salem
shindeiru wrote:
but at the end whether Ma Malakat Ayman are only females or could be both males and females changes nothing to the strong case against concubinage.
Status: Age: 59 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 16, 2006
Posts: 3236 Location: Australia
Post subject:
Salam all
I wanted to write this comment for 48 hours now but been busy lately. This comment is going to be very important in explaining my current understanding to the following 2 lots of verses:
وَالَّذِينَ هُمْ لِفُرُوجِهِمْ حَافِظُونَ (5)
And those who are concerning their private parts guarding. [Al Quran ; 23:5]
Except for their spouses or those whom their oaths possess, for they indeed are not blamed. [Al Quran ; 70:30]
I now believe firmly (with the help Allah through brother shindeiru) that the two groups mentioned in 23:6 & 70:30 أَزْوَاجِهِمْ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُمْ , Azajihim AW Ma Malakat Aymanuhum, i.e. their spouses OR those whom their oaths possess , are one group which is those under legal marriage, letÃ??????Ã?????Ã????Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??s refer to it as Azwaj i.e. Spouses
The first evidence is the use of the word AW in between them, i.e. this OR that, some may say, if it is this or that, how come we say that both are this?
4:3 has the answer, let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s have a look:
And if you fear that you cannot act justly with the orphans, then marry whoever pleased you from the women, two and three and four; but if you fear that you shall not act equitably (between them), then (marry) one or what your oaths possess; this is more proper, that you may not deviate. [Al Quran ; 4:3]
See, in 4:3 Allah is commanding the believers (in the case of not being fair with more than one wife) to: فَوَاحِدَةً أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ , Fa Wahidah AW Ma Malakat Aymanukum, i.e. then (marry) one OR what your oaths possess
i.e a legal wife is one OR the other, NOT BOTH OF THEM at the same time
i.e. a legal wife may be:
1) A woman who is protected and supported (Muhasanah)
OR
2) A woman who has neither protection nor support (Ma Malakat Ayman)
That is why both 23:6 & 70:30 used the OR device between the two groups, because we are talking about not guarding the private parts in front of a legal wife, and a man can have one OR the other as a legal wife, but not the TWO together.
The above was discussed briefly in earlier comments between brother shinderiu and myself, but after that I kept asking myself:
If Ma Malakat Ayman has become legal wives i.e. Spouses, why 23:6 & 70:30 still referring to them as such and not as Azwajihum[.b], i.e. [b]Spouses?
The question above is very hard indeed, and at the same time is a valid question, I felt that the answer is in the Quran, and indeed all of a sudden something clicked which I believe has the answer to such tough question, the answer is found in 4:25, let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s have a look:
And whoever among you who cannot afford to marry the protected and believing women, then (marry) of those whom your oaths possess from among your believing young women; and Allah knows best your oaths between some of you and others; so marry them with the permission of their families, and give them their dowries in kindness if they are seeking protection, not fornicating, nor receiving paramours. And when they have protected themselves and thereafter commit an indecency, then upon them is half the torture which should be upon the protected women. This is for him who fears the sin from among you; and if you are patient is better for you, and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. [Al Quran ; 4:25]
See, even though the two groups make up one group of Spouses, 4:25 is telling us that they are not really equal spouses, in fact Ma Malakat Ayman have advantage over Muhasanat women, so let me walk you through bit by bit:
-> The verse is talking about those who cannot afford marrying well protected and supported women: وَمَن لَّمْ يَسْتَطِعْ مِنكُمْ طَوْلاً أَن يَنكِحَ الْمُحْصَنَاتِ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ , i.e. And whoever among you who cannot afford to marry the protected and believing women . The solution for them is to seek marrying of those whom their oath possess: فَمِن مِّا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُم مِّن فَتَيَاتِكُمُ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ وَاللّهُ أَعْلَمُ بِإِيمَانِكُمْ بَعْضُكُم مِّن بَعْضٍ , i.e. then (marry) of those whom your oaths possess from among your believing young women; and Allah knows best your oaths between some of you and others , this actually confirms again that men can marry one OR the other as stated in 4:3 and confirmed in 23:6 & 70:30, now to marry from those weak women who have no support (even their own family cannot support them), the permission of their family must be taken: فَانكِحُوهُنَّ بِإِذْنِ أَهْلِهِنَّ , i.e. so marry them with the permission of their families , not just that, but their dowries must be paid to them after confirming that those weak women seek protection through marriage: وَآتُوهُنَّ أُجُورَهُنَّ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ مُحْصَنَاتٍ غَيْرَ مُسَافِحَاتٍ وَلاَ مُتَّخِذَاتِ أَخْدَانٍ , i.e. and give them their dowries in kindness if they are seeking protection, not fornicating, nor receiving paramours.. Now imagine those Ma Malakat Ayman committed an indecency after some men married them to protect them through legal marriage, will they be punished like any wife who was already protected and supported prior to marriage? The Quran is telling us, NO, see: فَإِذَا أُحْصِنَّ فَإِنْ أَتَيْنَ بِفَاحِشَةٍ فَعَلَيْهِنَّ نِصْفُ مَا عَلَى الْمُحْصَنَاتِ مِنَ الْعَذَابِ, i.e. And when they have protected themselves and thereafter commit an indecency, then upon them is half the torture which should be upon the protected women
I.E. even after they became legal wives, their previous status of being Ma Malakat Ayman, must be kept at least to refer to them, so in the case of them committing a Fahishah, then upon them is half of the punishment that should be upon the other type of wives
The above is clear cut and compelling Quran evidence to why Allah refers to them as Ma Malakat Ayman even after they became legal wives.
Last edited by AhmedBahgat on Wed 15 Jul, 2009 4:38 pm; edited 2 times in total
Posted:
Wed 15 Jul, 2009 8:36 am
shindeiru Knight
Status:
Faith:
Joined: Mar 29, 2009
Posts: 41
Post subject:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
samson wrote:
Hello AhmedBahgat i have a question on the following point
AhmedBahgat wrote:
2) See if the prophet was really favored by Allah regarding his martial/sex life:
Ironically Mohammed as well was not favored over a an ordinary Muslim man, an ordinary Muslim can marry as many women as he wishes as long as he does not combine more than 4 wives at any moment of time, even marrying a 1000 wives by an ordinary Muslim will bear no sin, on the other hand the Quran told us that prophet Mohammed was restricted at one point of time by Allah not to marry further wives nor divorce anyone from the wives he already had:, let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s look at the following verse which is from the same sura again:
It is not lawful for you (to marry more) women after this, nor to change them for (other) wives, even if you admired their goodness, except any of whom your oath possess and Allah is over everything a Watcher. [The Quran ; 33:52]
لَا يَحِلُّ لَكَ النِّسَاءُ مِنْ بَعْدُ وَلَا أَنْ تَبَدَّلَ بِهِنَّ مِنْ أَزْوَاجٍ وَلَوْ أَعْجَبَكَ حُسْنُهُنَّ إِلَّا مَا مَلَكَتْ يَمِينُكَ ۗ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ رَقِيبًا (52)
-> See the restrictions that were enforced upon Mohammed regarding further marriages and divorces: It is not lawful for you (to marry more) women after this, nor to change them for (other) wives, even if you admired their goodness,, therefore an ordinary Muslim who may marry as many as he wishes as long as not combining more than 4 wives at the same time at any point of time by divorcing as many as he wishes to be able to always make it 4 at a time, has indeed higher privilege than prophet Mohammed because Mohammed was ordered not to marry any more at a certain point in time nor divorce any of the ones he already had
If Mohammed was lusting for women after faking the Quran, why he includes such verse (33:52) in it, restricting himself to marry or divorce any more women? Only the dumb bums won�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??t get it.
The first part of 33:52 forbids Mohammed from marrying more wives but further puts an exception on ma malakat yaminuka. Since he is forbidden from marrying more wives, does it mean that he can still have sex (outside of marriage) with as many ma malakat yaminuka as he wishes? or does ma malakat yaminuka actually refer to the wives he already has.
thanks
Hello
Not really sex with them, rather marrying them
See, women back then were offering themselves to the prophet as wives in masses, the prophet too felt shy to reject many of their offering of marrying him, so I believe that is why the divine command in that verse was revealed, on the other hand I understand why Ma Malkat Aymanikum were excluded, this is because the prophet took an oath on himself What your oaths possess, to take care of such weak and unprotected women, therefore if any of those whom are already possessed by his oath, is qualified to be a wife for him, then he can marry her without violating such command of not marrying any more women except from those whose oath possess
salaam brother, how are you
i was just pondering on 33:52 actually
"It is not allowed to you to take women afterwards, nor that you should change them for other wives, though their beauty be pleasing to you, except what your right hand possesses and Allah is Watchful over all things."
according to your understanding, the verse is telling the prophet he cannot marry/divorce (with the aim of remarrying) any other woman than those he already has (mothers of the believers), except for ma malakat yaminuka whom he is still allowed to marry/divorce (with the aim of remarrying another ma malakat yaminuka).
the problem is, after marrying them, ma malakat yaminuka become mothers of the believers and therefore he cannot divorce them anymore with the aim of remarrying another ma malakat yaminuka. its like a contradicting cercle, do you understand what i mean?
i have a different understanding of the verse, but i would first like to hear your opinion on my objection.
about another verse, how can we be 100% sure the kitaab mentionned in 24:33 is the kitaab of marriage
salaam
Posted:
Wed 15 Jul, 2009 8:44 am
AhmedBahgat Site Admin
Status: Age: 59 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 16, 2006
Posts: 3236 Location: Australia
Post subject:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
samson wrote:
Hello AhmedBahgat i have a question on the following point
AhmedBahgat wrote:
2) See if the prophet was really favored by Allah regarding his martial/sex life:
Ironically Mohammed as well was not favored over a an ordinary Muslim man, an ordinary Muslim can marry as many women as he wishes as long as he does not combine more than 4 wives at any moment of time, even marrying a 1000 wives by an ordinary Muslim will bear no sin, on the other hand the Quran told us that prophet Mohammed was restricted at one point of time by Allah not to marry further wives nor divorce anyone from the wives he already had:, let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s look at the following verse which is from the same sura again:
It is not lawful for you (to marry more) women after this, nor to change them for (other) wives, even if you admired their goodness, except any of whom your oath possess and Allah is over everything a Watcher. [The Quran ; 33:52]
لَا يَحِلُّ لَكَ النِّسَاءُ مِنْ بَعْدُ وَلَا أَنْ تَبَدَّلَ بِهِنَّ مِنْ أَزْوَاجٍ وَلَوْ أَعْجَبَكَ حُسْنُهُنَّ إِلَّا مَا مَلَكَتْ يَمِينُكَ ۗ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ رَقِيبًا (52)
-> See the restrictions that were enforced upon Mohammed regarding further marriages and divorces: It is not lawful for you (to marry more) women after this, nor to change them for (other) wives, even if you admired their goodness,, therefore an ordinary Muslim who may marry as many as he wishes as long as not combining more than 4 wives at the same time at any point of time by divorcing as many as he wishes to be able to always make it 4 at a time, has indeed higher privilege than prophet Mohammed because Mohammed was ordered not to marry any more at a certain point in time nor divorce any of the ones he already had
If Mohammed was lusting for women after faking the Quran, why he includes such verse (33:52) in it, restricting himself to marry or divorce any more women? Only the dumb bums won�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??t get it.
The first part of 33:52 forbids Mohammed from marrying more wives but further puts an exception on ma malakat yaminuka. Since he is forbidden from marrying more wives, does it mean that he can still have sex (outside of marriage) with as many ma malakat yaminuka as he wishes? or does ma malakat yaminuka actually refer to the wives he already has.
thanks
Hello
Not really sex with them, rather marrying them
See, women back then were offering themselves to the prophet as wives in masses, the prophet too felt shy to reject many of their offering of marrying him, so I believe that is why the divine command in that verse was revealed, on the other hand I understand why Ma Malkat Aymanikum were excluded, this is because the prophet took an oath on himself What your oaths possess, to take care of such weak and unprotected women, therefore if any of those whom are already possessed by his oath, is qualified to be a wife for him, then he can marry her without violating such command of not marrying any more women except from those whose oath possess
shindeiru wrote:
salaam brother, how are you
Salam mate
I am good mate, alhamdullelah, just had a tough job interview yesterday, will know in about 10 days how it went. How about you/
shindeiru wrote:
i was just pondering on 33:52 actually
Good to always ponder upon the Quran verses, that is what we are commanded to do, not bloody ponder upon their man made crap books of hadith.
shindeiru wrote:
"It is not allowed to you to take women afterwards, nor that you should change them for other wives, though their beauty be pleasing to you, except what your right hand possesses and Allah is Watchful over all things."
shindeiru wrote:
according to your understanding, the verse is telling the prophet he cannot marry/divorce (with the aim of remarrying) any other woman than those he already has (mothers of the believers), except for ma malakat yaminuka whom he is still allowed to marry/divorce (with the aim of remarrying another ma malakat yaminuka).
Your point is certainly valid, and of course my current understanding will be changed to the fact you said that the prophet was still allowed to marry and divorce from Ma Malakat Ayman. However, I am nt the type of person to question what Allah has allowed His messnegers and prophets to do, I know for certain that any action that was allowed to be done was for the Khair, i.e. for the good.
Now if the objective of Marrying Ma Malakat Ayman is to protect them and give them right to inherit, right to have dowery, sort of right to have a life that they never had, then I see the wisdom of Allah clearly in exclusing them from His new rule that was enforced upon His messneger, if you ponder upon the verse before it you should notice that the women were throwing themselves upon the prophet asking him to accept them as wives, it seems that some were even begging him, I believe he was a annoyed under such situation of course, therefore Allah gave him the right to judge it by himself to whom he should accept as wife from those wanting to marry him
However the disadavantage of not marrying or divorcing any other woman is still there upon him, of course
shindeiru wrote:
the problem is, after marrying them, ma malakat yaminuka become mothers of the believers and therefore he cannot divorce them anymore with the aim of remarrying another ma malakat yaminuka. its like a contradicting cercle, do you understand what i mean?
I believe the title of mothers of the believers is not just automatic for any one even those who do not act like ones, in sura 66 Allah given us an example of some of them who conspired against the prophet (their husband) to humiliate him, sure if they continued to do that, they would have beed shown the highway, as the verses stated in the start of sura 66, now if assuming that the title of the mothers of the believers is automatically gained by marrying him, then the assumption should also include, instant loss of such title if he divorced them
The prevention of remarrying that was enfocred upon his wives, I believe was after his death, not after a divorce.
I believe if the prophet ever divorced one, then she must have been a bad woman, however I am not interested in these Jerry Springer stories of hadith to see if he divorced any or not, these stories mean nothing to me and to my faith.
shindeiru wrote:
i have a different understanding of the verse, but i would first like to hear your opinion on my objection.
Sure, please take the stand, possibly you are the right one, my mind is always open to enahnce my Quran understanding to a degree that it is going to be damn tough for my enemy from the kafirs and the hadith worshippers to argue with me. My aim is to slam dunk in the shotest possible way. No mock around, they already watsed 1200 fukin years, so I am not going to add my 44 years of life to their tally of confusion.
shindeiru wrote:
about another verse, how can we be 100% sure the kitaab mentionned in 24:33 is the kitaab of marriage
salaam
This is an easy one, firstly this is how it is known within the Arabs even till this very moment, for example
when Arabs marry, they first specify a day that is called Katb Al-Kitab, i.e. The writing of the book, on that day, there will be a very smal party, normally in the house of the pride, where the Maazoon will come and write in his book of marriage all the data, etc etc, and perform the known cermony of the groom holding the hand of the man in charge of the bride, while both hands coverd with a small towel or something, etc etc, from that point forward the two are legally married, despite that the real wedding party may be a few days after that day, in my case, my Katb Al-Kitab was 30-8-1991 and my wedding party was 1-9-1991
But forget the above Jerry Springer stories, let's talk truth as stated in the Quran, see this verse:
And there should be no blame on you concerning that which you talk publicly about the engagement of women or concealed within yourselves; Allah knows that you will mention them, but do not meet them in secret unless you say that which is lawful, and do not intend the marriage knot until the book (of marriage) reaches its appointed time, and know that Allah knows what is in yourselves, therefore beware of Him, and know that Allah is Forgiving, Forbearing. [Al Quran ; 2:235]
-> See, it is talking about engagement, and see what it said later: وَلاَ تَعْزِمُواْ عُقْدَةَ النِّكَاحِ حَتَّىَ يَبْلُغَ الْكِتَابُ أَجَلَهُ, i.e. and do not intend the marriage knot until the book (of marriage) reaches its appointed time, in my case, the appointed time of my book of matrriage was sometime on 30-8-1991
salaam bro, everything ok with me too. i've been busy too recently, travelling for work but wherever i am the book of Allah is always on my mind, with the hope that He will guide me.
i just saw your interesting post, and concerning the following point:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
See, in 4:3 Allah is commanding the believers (in the case of not being fair with more than one wife) to: فَوَاحِدَةً أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ , Fa Wahidah AW Ma Malakat Aymanukum, i.e. then (marry) one OR what your oaths possess
i.e a legal wife is one OR the other, NOT BOTH OF THEM at the same time
i.e. a legal wife may be:
1) A woman who is protected and supported (Muhasanah)
OR
2) A woman who has neither protection nor support (Ma Malakat Ayman)
in 33:50,52 a legal wife covers Ma Malakat Ayman as well as regular women and both are allowed at the same time. but since these verses address the prophet, we can conclude it only applies to him. your thoughts?
and concerning my previous post, your clarification that Ma Malakat Ayman still preserve a special status even after marrying (according to 4:25) answers the question as to why in 33:52 the prophet is still allowed to marry/divorce and then remarry from Ma Malakat Ayman only, it gives this category of weak women a great chance of improving their lives.
Posted:
Wed 15 Jul, 2009 7:28 pm
AhmedBahgat Site Admin
Status: Age: 59 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 16, 2006
Posts: 3236 Location: Australia
Post subject:
shindeiru wrote:
salaam bro, everything ok with me too. i've been busy too recently, travelling for work but wherever i am the book of Allah is always on my mind, with the hope that He will guide me.
Great to hear
shindeiru wrote:
i just saw your interesting post,
It is interesting, isn't it.
shindeiru wrote:
and concerning the following point:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
See, in 4:3 Allah is commanding the believers (in the case of not being fair with more than one wife) to: فَوَاحِدَةً أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ , Fa Wahidah AW Ma Malakat Aymanukum, i.e. then (marry) one OR what your oaths possess
i.e a legal wife is one OR the other, NOT BOTH OF THEM at the same time
i.e. a legal wife may be:
1) A woman who is protected and supported (Muhasanah)
OR
2) A woman who has neither protection nor support (Ma Malakat Ayman)
shindeiru wrote:
in 33:50,52 a legal wife covers Ma Malakat Ayman as well as regular women and both are allowed at the same time. but since these verses address the prophet, we can conclude it only applies to him. your thoughts?
Of course both are allowed at the same time, however when I talk one wife, I consider what 4:3 and 4:127 stated that for those who fear not to be fair between more than one wife, then marry only one OR what you oath possess, and btw I am in favour of marrying only one, due the fact I decided not to be the one who judge if I will be fair or not with the wives, I took what He said for granted that no man will ever be in this life.
shindeiru wrote:
and concerning my previous post, your clarification that Ma Malakat Ayman still preserve a special status even after marrying (according to 4:25) answers the question as to why in 33:52 the prophet is still allowed to marry/divorce and then remarry from Ma Malakat Ayman only, it gives this category of weak women a great chance of improving their lives.
Of course both are allowed at the same time, however when I talk one wife, I consider what 4:3 and 4:127 stated that for those who fear not to be fair between more than one wife, then marry only one OR what you oath possess
im sorry to insist, just want to make the matter very clear to me and all others who may read this:
if both are allowed at the same time, then who are 70:30,23:6 addressing? is it only the men who fear not to be fair between more than one wife therefore they are told to marry a muhsana or a malakat ayman
Posted:
Wed 15 Jul, 2009 10:12 pm
AhmedBahgat Site Admin
Status: Age: 59 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 16, 2006
Posts: 3236 Location: Australia
Post subject:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
Of course both are allowed at the same time, however when I talk one wife, I consider what 4:3 and 4:127 stated that for those who fear not to be fair between more than one wife, then marry only one OR what you oath possess
shindeiru wrote:
im sorry to insist, just want to make the matter very clear to me and all others who may read this:
if both are allowed at the same time, then who are 70:30,23:6 addressing? is it only the men who fear not to be fair between more than one wife therefore they are told to marry a muhsana or a malakat ayman
I believe it must be addressing all including men and woman who can marry from their Ma Malakat Ayman or else, however I believe the AW is used because at least the capable women can only marry one OR the other, while for the men, it is better for them to marry one or the other if they fear not to be fair between them, but for the sake of caring for orphans they can marry both at the same time as long as whom they marry being ma malakt ayman or not, have orphaned children with them. I believe it will be logically hard to find a woman who is considered Ma Malakat Ayman while she has children but it is possible of course.
The point is as understood from 4:3 that little harm is allowed as long as it prevents the bigger harm, therefore the little harm of not being fair with multiple wives is allowed to prevent the bigger harm of not raising the orphans in healthy environment under the care of a man and a woman.
Now 4:3 end is not about orphans anymore, as for those who don't want to even commit the less harm of not being fair with multiple wives then they have one option which is marry one or the other, it has nothing to do with caring for the orphans any more, and I tell you that I am a type of person who will not go for the less harm to prevent the bigger harm, I rather be safe as I will never be certain that the less harm now will not be bigger harm with far more worse consequenses than the bigger harm I was trying to initialy prevent
while for the men, it is better for them to marry one or the other if they fear not to be fair between them, but for the sake of caring for orphans they can marry both at the same time
to marry a regular woman and malakat ayman at the same time would be contradicting 70:30,23:6 that give the option of marrying one or the other, wouldnt it?
to solve this i would say 70:30,23:6 and 4:3,25 should be read together to understand that the believers can marry a muhsana OR a malakat ayman but in extreme cases is allowed to marry both as declared in 4:3.
therefore 70:30,23:6 cover:
-a man who fears not to act equitably to more than a wife and according to God can never act equitably 4:129. He can have one OR the other as a legal wife but not the 2 together. This is statistically the vastest majority of cases.
-Because there is nothing in 70:30,23:6 suggesting that it is exclusively the males who are told to "guard their private parts" from females, because the Quran applies the terms believers (mu'minuun) 4:124, mates (azwaaj) 2:232,234 and ma malakat ayman 24:33 to men and women alike so 70:30,23:6 are addressing also women telling them to marry only one mate or ma malakat ayman.
70:30,23:6 do not cover the extreme cases as described through 4:3 where a man who, for the fear of not acting equitably towards orphans decides to opt for the extreme measure of marrying more than one wife and may mix a muhsana AND a malakat ayman since it is for a noble social cause
Finally as you correctly observed, Ma Malakat Ayman still enjoyn a special status of clemency for their wrong-doings even after marrying because of their past hardships, which is why 70:30,23:6 still refer to them as such next to regular mates.
let me know what you think
Posted:
Thu 16 Jul, 2009 2:40 am
AhmedBahgat Site Admin
Status: Age: 59 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 16, 2006
Posts: 3236 Location: Australia
Post subject:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
while for the men, it is better for them to marry one or the other if they fear not to be fair between them, but for the sake of caring for orphans they can marry both at the same time
shindeiru wrote:
to marry a regular woman and malakat ayman at the same time would be contradicting 70:30,23:6 that give the option of marrying one or the other, wouldnt it?
I believe so, however I may consider it something that the Quran called Lumam, i.e. small sins, we will never know the motive behind a man marrying more than one, I assume it is sexually motivated and has nothing to with orphans or being fair with more than one wife, in fact they marry the second and the third and they know in advance that they are going to be not fair because they must favour the newly wed wife over the older one.
I am a man who will never marry more than one wife regardless how horney I will get, this is how I prove to myself that I am sticking to the teachings of Allah in His Quran.
shindeiru wrote:
to solve this i would say 70:30,23:6 and 4:3,25 should be read together to understand that the believers can marry a muhsana OR a malakat ayman but in extreme cases is allowed to marry both as declared in 4:3.
This is not a suggestion, this is a must, the whole Quran must be read while cross referencing all other verses talking about the same subject, THIS IS THE MEANING OF THE VERSE WHERE ALLAH SAID:
75:19 ثم ان علينا بيانه , i.e. Then indeed, upon Us is explaining it.
See, it is not like Allah will come down and explain the Quran to us, rather logically, He will use His own words in the same book in some verses to explain other verses, there is no other logical way but this as far as I am concerned, even when humans like you and me bring verses to support some arguments, what we brought is His words from the same book, so it is like Allah Himself is making the argument, not us.
shindeiru wrote:
therefore 70:30,23:6 cover:
-a man who fears not to act equitably to more than a wife and according to God can never act equitably 4:129. He can have one OR the other as a legal wife but not the 2 together. This is statistically the vastest majority of cases.
Indeed, and I belong to that majority
shindeiru wrote:
-Because there is nothing in 70:30,23:6 suggesting that it is exclusively the males who are told to "guard their private parts" from females, because the Quran applies the terms believers (mu'minuun) 4:124, mates (azwaaj) 2:232,234 and ma malakat ayman 24:33 to men and women alike so 70:30,23:6 are addressing also women telling them to marry only one mate or ma malakat ayman.
Exactly, and also as you know, in Arabic the verbs follow the sex of the one doing the verb, i.e.
1) For a group of men only, we must have a masculine verb with (WAW + NOON) or (YA + NOON) at the end
2) For a group of women only, we must have a feminine verb with a NOON (NO WAW or YA) at the end
3) for a group of both men and women, we must use a masculine verb with (WAW + NOON) or (YA + NOON) at the end, i.e. it must be treated as case 1 above, as if all are males while not ignoring the fact that it apply to both as a mix
shinderiu wrote:
70:30,23:6 do not cover the extreme cases as described through 4:3 where a man who, for the fear of not acting equitably towards orphans decides to opt for the extreme measure of marrying more than one wife and may mix a muhsana AND a malakat ayman since it is for a noble social cause
Indeed, however you should also cosider the logic that you made me take note of, when you said that most of the believers marry only one according to the statistics (highlighted in red above), therefore 70:30 & 23:6 is directed at them (the majority), while yet the two verses apply for those who combine both wives, becuase if I tell you the following:
You must be good with A or with B
which must mean, that you must be good with both A and B if you have both.
shinderiu wrote:
Finally as you correctly observed, Ma Malakat Ayman still enjoyn a special status of clemency for their wrong-doings even after marrying because of their past hardships, which is why 70:30,23:6 still refer to them as such next to regular mates.
Yes and don't forget that the Quran honours Ma Malakat Ayman, so it is not degrading to them by the Quran to refer to them as such
This is going to be really hard for the kafirs to refute
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
All times are GMT + 10 Hours Ported for PHP-Nuke by nukemods.com
