Quote from: Bigmo on May 21, 2012, 09:16:11 PM
The asking for permisiion is concerning the MMA which is understandable since MMA marriages usual are done by oath only. WE know in many countries parents of the girls and boys do not even know about the arrangement. There is also no dowry there. So the Koran wants to elevate that arrangement with a proper marriage. You can have sex with MMA since its done by oath between two parties but it does not fulfil the marriage arrangement commonly understood. I think MMA is very similar to grilfriend boyfriend arrangements that often lead to marriages.
Muhsanat to me I think means women who are not married.The Koran seems to see MMA as legitimate sexual relation but not a marriage. Marriage requires financial arrangement.
The verses 4.23 - 25 are very difficult to understand. Its like a puzzle.
The verse starts by saying for those who can not marry the fatiyat. So the rest of the verse must be talking about the alternative, which is MMA.
As far as whether there shall be a solution, this I believe is not Koranic. Because the Koran makes clear what it wants and is vague when it wants. Insisting that there must be a solution is giving the Sunnis and Shias a stick to hit us with. They will say only hadiths can make us understand these verses and Koran alone can't. The Koran tells us that there are verses that only God can understand. Maybe these verses are a test to see what people after Muhammad will do. We are also warned in the Koran not to speculate on these vague verses but to accept them as the Koran and leave their interpretation for God.
If we take the previous scriptures, then we have concubines along side wives. For me its a best way to understand these verses althought not perfect. I could be wrong of course.
Among the Israelites, men commonly acknowledged their concubines, and such women enjoyed the same rights in the house as legitimate wives.[8] The principal difference in the Bible between a wife and a concubine is that wives had dowries, while concubines did not.
The concubine may have commanded the same respect and inviolability as the wife. The Hebrew word used in the Levitical rules on sexual relations, which is commonly translated as "wife", is distinct from the Hebrew word that means "concubine". (However, on at least one other occasion it is used to refer a woman who is not a wife - specifically, the handmaid of Jacob's wife.[9]) In the Levitical code, sexual intercourse between a man and a wife of a different man was forbidden and punishable by death for both persons involved.[10][11] The Bible notes several incidents of intercourse between a man and another man's concubine, and none of them result in capital punishment for either party,[12][13][14] although the man to whom the concubine belonged was dishonored by such a relationship.[8] For instance, David is portrayed as having been dishonoured when his concubines had a sexual relationship with his son Absalom.[15] However, this instance is as likely dishonoring to David because it involves a form of incest, as David's concubines would have been somewhat like step-mothers to David's children.[16]
Since it was regarded as the highest blessing to have many children, legitimate wives often gave their maids to their husbands to atone, at least in part, if they were barren, as in the cases of Sarah and Hagar, Rachel and Bilhah.[8] The children of the concubine had equal rights with those of the legitimate wife;[8] for example, King Abimelech was the son of Gideon and his concubine.[17] Later[8] biblical figures such as Gideon, David, and Solomon had concubines in addition to many childbearing wives. For example, the Books of Kings says that Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.[18]
[edit] In Judaism
In Judaism, concubines are referred to by the Hebrew term pilegesh. The term is a non-Hebrew, non-Semitic loanword deriving from the Greek word pallakis, Greek παλλακίς,[19][20][21] meaning a mistress staying in house. Or the Aramaic phrase palga isha, meaning half-wife.[citation needed]
According to the Babylonian Talmud,[22] the difference between a concubine and a full wife was that the latter received a marriage contract (Hebrew:ketubah) and her marriage (nissu'in) was preceded by a formal betrothal (erusin), neither being the case for a concubine. But, one opinion in the Jerusalem Talmud argues that the concubine should also receive a marriage contract, but without including a clause specifying a divorce settlement.[8]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ConcubinageSo in this sense, asking for permisiion from the families and giving them dowries makes since this is what seperates a wife from a concubine. Many prophets we know had concubines but in the end both are legitimate partner with equal rights. One has more financial protection than the other.
