Also (prohibited are) women already married 4:24

[Hamzeh]

Salamu Alykum

Dear brother Joseph

Can you help me out with understanding verse 4:24

Yusuf Ali
Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath Allah ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property,- desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.


I understand that "your right hand possess" can not be restricted to the same meaning through out the Quran and needs to be read within the context.

Verse 4:24 is a continuation of the prohibitions that believing men cannot marry. So women who are married are not to be married again to another man. Or a man cannot marry a women who is currently married or in other words a women cannot have more than 1 husband. Now the except part I am trying to look at it in many ways here. I can assume many situations. But some situations just seem to me out of the kilter.  Because Im not understanding it right. So the question is:

A man can marry which women who is already married ?
or in other words which women may marry while she is already married

And in which meaning is best to understand "your right hand posses" here which would probably explain the previous questions?

only way I can see it is that a non-believing married women who turned to be a believing women either after a war or she left or ran away from her previous life out of her own choice without declaring divorce and wanted to marry a believing man? which typically she is still married? Then are these are the exceptions?


Salam

[Joseph Islam]

Dear Hamzeh,

Wa alaikum assalam

Firstly, you are absolutely correct that from a Quran's perspective, a woman can only marry one husband at a time. [1]

Secondly, in the article [2] below, I shared the following with regards to the category of people known as 'what your right hands possesses'

"Firstly, the term ‘ma malakat aymanukum’ (Literally: What your right hands possesses) is not gender specific and as an idiomatic expression, applies to ‘those that one keeps in protection and honour’. This can include captives, slave girls, maidens, servants  (fatayatikum 4:25) etc. Please note that the ‘right hand’ has a somewhat glorified meaning in the Quran which is apparent from its usage in different contexts (e.g. those on the right hand in heaven; books of one’s deeds given to the right hand etc).

It is also apt to note that affluent women would have also most likely to have possessed men slaves. This is confirmed by the usage of the idiomatic expression 'ma malakat aymanuhunna' when used in reference to women's possession. It would be inconceivable to conclude on the basis of this expression, the permissibility of women to engage in ‘free sex’ with their male slaves or captives."

Now with regards your question as to who the 'right hand possess' would imply in the context of being part of the 'exception' of those women already married, then one example would be the one you have quoted:

"...a non-believing married women who turned to be a believing women either after a war or she left or ran away from her previous life out of her own choice without declaring divorce and wanted to marry a believing man?..."

This suggestion finds support in another verse where it is recognised that a situation had existed where women were leaving their idolatrous lives / partners and starting anew under the covenant of true Islam. Believers were encouraged to assist these women by not sending them back to their disbelieving partners and to give back to their previous partners whatever was due to them. This is explained in the verse below:

060:010
"O you who have believed, when the believing women come to you as emigrants, examine them. Allah is most knowing as to their faith. And if you know them to be believers, then do not return them to the disbelievers; they are not lawful [wives] for them, nor are they lawful [husbands] for them. But give the disbelievers what they have spent. And there is no blame upon you if you marry them when you have given them their due compensation. And hold not to marriage bonds with disbelieving women, but ask for what you have spent and let them ask for what they have spent. That is the judgement of Allah ; He judges between you. And Allah is Knowing and Wise." (Sahih International)

Therefore, any previous marriage contract that a woman had with disbelievers was not recognised in this context (and was effectively dissolved). They arguably consisted of women who had come forward to be kept in 'protection and honour' after fleeing as emigrants from their previous husbands and lives. Their answerability in marriage was also reduced.   

As I mentioned in the article [2] below, there is a different between 'free believing women' and those that enter marriage based on their dire circumstances and on compromises.

"There remains a crucial difference between a marriage based on complete freedom of choice exacted by a 'free believer' without circumstantial influence and one based on compromises, incentives such as freedom, status and financial stability gained through a compromise marriage.  These differences in choices based on free and non-free parties are clearly recognized. Hence the noted difference in answerability as well.
 
004:025
“And whoever is not able to afford to marry free, believing women, let them marry from the believing maids whom your right hands possess. God knows best (concerning) your faith. Ye (proceed) one from another; so wed them by permission of their folk, and give to them their portions in kindness, they being honest, not debauched nor of loose conduct. And if when they are honourably married they commit lewdness they shall incur the half of the punishment (prescribed) for free women (in that case). This is for him among you who fears to commit sin. But to have patience would be better for you. God is Forgiving, Merciful” [2]

I hope that helps, God willing
Joseph



REFERENCES:

[1] Can a Wife Have More than One Husband?
http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=795.0
[2] SEX WITH SLAVE GIRLS
http://quransmessage.com/articles/sex%20with%20slave%20girls%20FM3.htm

 

[Deliverance]

The Quran explain "what you right Hand posses" in the sura of Jusuf.
"But she in whose house he was, sought to seduce him from his (true) self: she fastened the doors, and said: "Now come, thou (dear one)!" He said: "Allah forbid! truly (thy husband) is my lord! He made my sojourn agreeable! Truly to no good come those who do wrong!" (23)"

She wanted to commit adultery with him but Joseph knew the law of God.

Sura 12:"There is, in their stories instruction for men endued with understanding. It is not a tale invented, but a confirmation of what went before it a detailed exposition of all things, and a Guide and a Mercy to any such as believe. (111) "
 

regards

[good logic]

Greetings Hamzeh.

60:10
O you who believe, when believing women (abandon the enemy and) ask for asylum with you, you shall test them. God is fully aware of their belief. Once you establish that they are believers, you shall not return them to the disbelievers. They are not lawful to remain married to them, nor shall the disbelievers be allowed to marry them. Give back the dowries that the disbelievers have paid. You commit no error by marrying them, so long as you pay them their due dowries. Do not keep disbelieving wives (if they wish to join the enemy). You may ask them for the dowry you had paid, and they may ask for what they paid. This is God's rule; He rules among you. God is Omniscient, Most Wise.
يٰأَيُّهَا الَّذينَ ءامَنوا إِذا جاءَكُمُ المُؤمِنٰتُ مُهٰجِرٰتٍ فَامتَحِنوهُنَّ اللَّهُ أَعلَمُ بِإيمٰنِهِنَّ فَإِن عَلِمتُموهُنَّ مُؤمِنٰتٍ فَلا تَرجِعوهُنَّ إِلَى الكُفّارِ لا هُنَّ حِلٌّ لَهُم وَلا هُم يَحِلّونَ لَهُنَّ وَءاتوهُم ما أَنفَقوا وَلا جُناحَ عَلَيكُم أَن تَنكِحوهُنَّ إِذا ءاتَيتُموهُنَّ أُجورَهُنَّ وَلا تُمسِكوا بِعِصَمِ الكَوافِرِ وَسـَٔلوا ما أَنفَقتُم وَليَسـَٔلوا ما أَنفَقوا ذٰلِكُم حُكمُ اللَّهِ يَحكُمُ بَينَكُم وَاللَّهُ عَليمٌ حَكيمٌ
[4;24]

وَالمُحصَنٰتُ مِنَ النِّساءِ إِلّا ما مَلَكَت أَيمٰنُكُم كِتٰبَ اللَّهِ عَلَيكُم وَأُحِلَّ لَكُم ما وَراءَ ذٰلِكُم أَن تَبتَغوا بِأَموٰلِكُم مُحصِنينَ غَيرَ مُسٰفِحينَ فَمَا استَمتَعتُم بِهِ مِنهُنَّ فَـٔاتوهُنَّ أُجورَهُنَّ فَريضَةً وَلا جُناحَ عَلَيكُم فيما تَرٰضَيتُم بِهِ مِن بَعدِ الفَريضَةِ إِنَّ اللَّهَ كانَ عَليمًا حَكيمًا
So 4:24 can read as follows:
4:24
Also prohibited are the women who are already married, unless they flee their disbelieving husbands who are at war with you.* These are God's commandments to you. All other categories are permitted for you in marriage, so long as you pay them their due dowries. You shall maintain your morality, by not committing adultery. Thus, whoever you like among them, you shall pay them the dowry decreed for them. You commit no error by mutually agreeing to any adjustments to the dowry. God is Omniscient, Most Wise.

*4:24 If believing women flee their disbelieving husbands who are at war with the believers, they do not have to obtain a divorce before remarriage.

GOD bless you.
Peace.

[Joseph Islam]

Dear Good Logic,

As-salam alaykum

4:24
Also prohibited are the women who are already married, unless they flee their disbelieving husbands who are at war with you.* These are God's commandments to you. All other categories are permitted for you in marriage, so long as you pay them their due dowries. You shall maintain your morality, by not committing adultery. Thus, whoever you like among them, you shall pay them the dowry decreed for them. You commit no error by mutually agreeing to any adjustments to the dowry. God is Omniscient, Most Wise.

*4:24 If believing women flee their disbelieving husbands who are at war with the believers, they do not have to obtain a divorce before remarriage.

There is no explicit mention of your underlined statement "unless they flee their disbelieving husbands who are at war with you." in the explicit Arabic text of the Quran. This is either a faulty translation or an interpolation.

If you are interpolating from verse 60:10, then this verse was already mentioned in a previous post and with respect, I am struggling to understand any new information in your post. Please can you kindly enlighten or kindly clarify.

Regards,
Joseph

[Joseph Islam]

Dear Good Logic

As-salam alaykum

Further to my previous post, I now understand that you have provided an alleged 'translation' that is used by the International Community of Submitters / Masjid Tucson, which I understand makes use of Rashad Khalifa's rendition.

http://www.masjidtucson.org/submission/perspectives/more/family/marriage/dowry.html
http://masjidtucson.org/quran/frames/

The only footnote that I could find was the one that you kindly shared but again, I could not see any clear indication from the translation that this was intended to be an interpolation by the submitters community.

The introduction on the submitter’s page clearly states it as a translation:

"Quran The Final Testament (Authorized English Version translated from the Original by Rashad Khalifa, PhD. Copyright © Rashad Khalifa) Two versions are available"

Therefore, I would have to strongly disagree that what you have shared of verse 4:24 is an appropriate 'translation'. In my humble view, the text in dispute is a clear 'addition' and at best, an interpolation.

Regards,
Joseph

[Hamzeh]

Salamu Alykum

Jazak Allah Khairun brothers Joseph and Good logic and Deliverance

Thank you brother Joseph for a clear explanation. Alhamdulila it helped very much. Especially with the providing the supporting verse 60:10. It not only shows the proof of the argument from the Qurans perspective. Subhan Allah it also makes a person realize the perfectness of the Quran by Allah(swt).

I do agree with brother Joseph that the translation provided by brother Good Logic is not accurate, and should be mentioned to readers by the community that its a interpolation. So people can actually have a chance at the real wording. Although this time the message was similar to what Joseph proved to mean by showing supporting verses from the Quran. But doing this often may lead to mis information. and there can be a chance at inconsistency because of peoples opinions in translations. Nothing wrong with giving opinions and of course they should be always kindly welcomed. But not to say its a translation of the Quran. Thanks for pointing this out brother Joseph. Thats something I can look out for in the future Ansha'Allah. And thanks brother Good Logic

Salam

[good logic]

Greetings Brother Joseph.

Thank you for your post.

You are right I provided a translation used by RK which I find it to make the more  sense in light of context of the verse.. I cannot see any other explanation fitting " Mamalakat aymanukum" in 4:24?

Do you disagree  because the words in English are different  ? i.e not word for word translation?

As far as I can see in Qoran, " Mamamalakat Aymanukum" can mean different things in different verses , according to the context,to  what fits best  and what gives  no contradiction elsewhere in other verses.
 
Hope that clarifies the " interpolation".

GOD bless you.
Peace.

[Joseph Islam]

Dear Good Logic,

As-salam alaykum

Do you disagree  because the words in English are different  ? i.e not word for word translation?

No, with respect, I strongly disagree with an interpolation which consists of numerous words being passed off to an audience as a 'translation'.

I find there is a distinction between the use of some interpretative licence (when translating words), and clear additions in the form of interpolation (especially numerous words) based on an author’s opinion. This can be deemed as misinformation to those that do not understand Arabic or a non-Arabic audience that relies on the translation. This in my humble view is unacceptable.

I do not disagree with the link with verse 66:10 to draw inferences. That is why I quoted and discussed it separately. However, my concern is use of this 'inference' and its inclusion as part of a 'translation' by way of 'interpolation'. This is in my view another matter and has the potential to lure the uninitiated with the Arabic text to think of the interpolation as 'part' of the original Quranic text.

With regards the term "ma malakat aymanukum", I have already shared my perspectives on this with the readership in article [1] below.

Regards,
Joseph


REFERENCE:

[1] SEX WITH SLAVE GIRLS
http://quransmessage.com/articles/sex%20with%20slave%20girls%20FM3.htm

[good logic]

Greetings Brother Joseph.

Thanks once again for your post.

I still think that "Mamlakat Aymanukum " can mean different things. The context must always be taken into consideration.

For example compare your take on [4:03] to the following:

وَإِن خِفتُم أَلّا تُقسِطوا فِى اليَتٰمىٰ فَانكِحوا ما طابَ لَكُم مِنَ النِّساءِ مَثنىٰ وَثُلٰثَ وَرُبٰعَ فَإِن خِفتُم أَلّا تَعدِلوا فَوٰحِدَةً أَو ما مَلَكَت أَيمٰنُكُم ذٰلِكَ أَدنىٰ أَلّا تَعولوا

If you deem it best for the orphans, you may marry their mothers - you may marry two, three, or four. If you fear lest you become unfair, then you shall be content with only one, or with what you already have, Additionally, you are thus more likely to avoid financial hardship


This explanation makes more sense to me( in the context of grounds for polygamy) even though it is not translated word for word..

GOD bless you.
Peace.

[Joseph Islam]

Dear Good Logic,

As-salam alaykum

I still think that "Mamlakat Aymanukum " can mean different things. The context must always be taken into consideration.

I do not disagree with this. As I shared in the article cited in my posts, this can mean a number of things based on context.

As I respectfully shared, my contention is not with the linkage with verse 60:10 and what is implied in the context under discussion. My contention is with a large interpolation in numerous words being passed off as a 'translation' of the Quranic text.

I feel that unfortunately, you are repeatedly missing this point.

Please kindly accept my response to you my last on this matter.

Regards,
Joseph