The Case of Polyandry - 5

An important point to look at when studying the polyandry-related verses in the Quran is the meaning of the word mohsanat. This word is sometimes translated as "married women", and is offered as evidence against polyandry. Let's study this concept and see if it really involves or implies a prohibition of polyandry.

In the following verses from the Quran, the underlined parts are the ones that are translations of the word mohsanat. 

"And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess... And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these, [provided] that you seek them [in marriage] with [gifts from] your property, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse." (4/24)

"And whoever among you cannot [find] the means to marry free, believing women, then [he may marry] from those whom your right hands possess of believing slave girls.... [They should be] chaste, ... But once they are sheltered in marriage, if they should commit adultery, then for them is half the punishment for free [unmarried] women. " (4/25)

First, without any critical thinking, let's just look through the perspective of the classical understanding. So, by reading the first verse (4/24), where mohsanat is translated as married women, we see that men cannot marry the married women, hence a prohibition to polyandry. However, if those women fall captive after a war, then they can be married by men. Aside from the direct use of mohsanat, there is also a related usage, mohsinina, which is translated as chaste. 

In the next verse (4/25), mohsanat is used 3 times. In the first case, it is translated as free women, in the second as chaste women, and in the third, free unmarried women. Aside from these direct instances of mohsanat, there is still another form of it used in this verse, and that is translated as sheltered. In defense of these utter differences in meaning, the context is offered as the reason.

Virtually all remaining uses of mohsanat throughout the Quran are interpreted as chaste. One last piece of information that is noteworthy before we embark on an analysis is that mohsanat is derived from a root that means protected, guarded, shielded, which is reflected in one usage in 4/25. According to this original meaning, mohsanat literally refers to a female subject that is protected. Now let's do some critical thinking. 

I am going to start by pointing at some flaws and cultural artifacts that are hidden in the classical interpretations above.

1. In 4/24, it is claimed that mohsanat refers to married women, and that even if these women are already married, when they fall captive somehow, men can marry them. First of all, if these women are referred to by the Quran as married even after falling captive, that means the men who are marrying them are doing polyandry. If it is claimed that falling captive automatically abrogates marriage, then why are they referred to as married in the Quran? Plus, the original word in the Quran, which is translated as captive, does not say captive but is traditionally understood as such. It actually says "whom your right hand possess", and this can mean people who are slaves but not captive. Then, another question arises, if a man has a woman slave that is married, can that master marry her? Does that mean the lady can be married both to her master and to her husband at the same time, i.e. polyandry? Or does it mean her original marriage automatically drops upon marriage with the master? In the latter case, it has to be further established that the master has the right and authority to marry his female slave even if she is already married.
   
   You see, all these questions would not arise if you lived in a time and place where male centered culture is dominant and slavery is the norm. However, Quran is revealed for all times, and how things were interpreted in the distant past does not necessarily bind us. Therefore, either there is much and deep wisdom in the male centered applications and in the master-slave relationships so that we must force our minds to comprehend it, or there is something wrong with the classical interpretation of mohsanat.
   
   
   
   
   
2. It is claimed that the Quran is miraculous in its wording and in many literary ways. It is also known that in the Quran there are verses that explicitly state that its content is straightforward (18/1) and easy to understand (54/17) or at least explained in detail (41/3). Then, why are there 4 distinct uses of the exact same word in two consecutive verses, complicating the comprehension? According to the classical view, the word mohsanat is used in a total of four different meanings in 4/24 and 4/25: married women, free women, chaste women, free unmarried women. Plus, there is the extra usage of another form of the same word which means sheltered. In such a situation, an honest scholar would humbly and openly say "this is as good as we can see, but we are by no means claiming that this is the definitive approach", and would remain open to new understandings. However, this has not been the case throughout the history (I apologize if there were any exceptions). How do we know that scholars stuck with their questionnable interpretations and deemed them defintive? Because they permitted the killing of married women who had sex outside of marriage. As a scholar, if you had doubts about the veracity of your injunctions, you would prefer to err on the safe side when the time comes. For example, instead of risking "killing a believing lady unjustly", you would rather risk "not punishing an adulteress".
   
   So, either there is a problem with the miraculousness of the Quran and that it is not easy to understand and apply it, or there is a problem with the classical view.
   
   
   
   
   
3. As a remnant of the Jewish tradition, among the early Muslims, stoning to death was an accepted punishment for the people who committed adultery despite being married. However, the verse (4/16) that instructs the punishment for those people did not explicitly say "stone to death"; rather it said "give them pain or burden them". Still, the interpretations of the verses went with the norm, that is stoning to death for the adulterer and the adulteress. But the problem is, if you take mohsanat as married women, then you cannot apply the punishment to the married slave women mentioned at the end of 4/25. It says, whatever punishment you give to the mohsanat, give half of it to the married slave women if they commit adultery. If you take mohsanat as married free women, the penalty for adultery is stoning to death. Since one cannot divide the death penalty by two, the scholars changed the way they interpreted mohsanat, and they said it must mean free unmarried women. Note that this whole chain of logic starts with ascribing death penalty to married women that commit adultery, which is a cultural rule and which has no basis in the Quran. And instead of trying to develop a better understanding of the Quran, people chose to change the meaning of the word. By doing so, they made Quran become an instrument that is used to justify brutal actions. There can be no room for such merciless and irrational approach in understanding and interpreting the Quran, especially when it comes to producing injunctions that have irreversible consequences.

The above discussion shows that in order to use the verses from the chapter Al-Nur as evidence against polyandry, one has to first establish properly the meaning of the word mohsanat, and then make a case accordingly. As is, such a claim is a difficult stretch.