verse 4:3 and polygamy

unknownuser

Peace Adley,

It should be the responsibility of the islamic government to enforce the will thing and should be made a requirement for any polygynous marriage. Thus this cannot be the proof of polygyny not being allowed in the Qur'aan. I had already discussed this point of inheritance in polygynous marriages with brother Ayman before and was refuted with the explanation I just gave you.

Do you have any other proof of prohibition of polygyny in the Qur'aan ?

Please go through my lengthy discussion on this issue in the past in which all my points against polygyny were refuted one by one, except for one point which I think has not been convincingly refuted (it was refuted by saying that my translation was not correct which I think I can counter refute), and I want to see your proof first before I divulge that point just so I do not make you biased and also to see if you come up with the same point or maybe a fresh one !

http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=12031.0

I edited to "polygyny" because polygamy also includes polyandry which is prohibited by the Qur'aan (see 424).

unknownuser

Peace Adley,

I would like to take this opportunity to welcome you back to the forum after a conspicuous absence welcome

Sorry for forgetting my manners !

We missed your posts here, and contrary to what you said elsewhere in another thread, you have contributed a lot and hope you keep those posts coming ! Keep up the good work !

adley

Peace Tanveer,

Thanks for the welcome again ;D
I'll read that link first and see what I come up with.
Actually, if this inheritance thingy can be refuted, then I will change my stand in poligamy issue -- meaning I'll agree that poligamy is indeed allowed

=adley=

palestina

peace all,

wouldnt it be that the estate would be divided equally (as per quran) among all the wives/daughters/sons/relatives, if there was no will?

and back to verse 43 - if indeed it does mean marry off the orphans mothers in groups... then we have no upper limit set for men and their multiple wives right?

althought that does make sense when you think about the prophet who had more than 4 - so he wouldnt have been going against Gods law.... i always wondered why he was an exception when he was meant to be the role model...

im still confused!!! lol

unknownuser

Peace ay,

wouldnt it be that the estate would be divided equally (as per quran) among all the wives/daughters/sons/relatives, if there was no will?

Reference from al-qur'aan please.

and back to verse 43 - if indeed it does mean marry off the orphans mothers in groups... then we have no upper limit set for men and their multiple wives right?

Marry off the orphans mothers in groups does not mean marry off all of them to one person but each to a different person in form of group wedding to save expenses.

palestina

peace tanveer,

i cant reference from the quran because i dont know .... i was asking if this was the case as it is what i assumed... sorry

also 43 - yeah ok so it means marry them off....so what does it mean when it says if you fear you will not be able to deal justly with them then just one - marry off just one at a time? why would a group wedding not allow u to be just?

also when i said about an upper limit - i meant in general - the quran does not prohibit polygamy right? so men can marry more than one wife right? so if this verse was the one that set the limit to 4 wives.... and now it turns out that it has been misunderstood - where is the limit for the number of wives a man can have? does that make sense? S sorry i feel im confusing the issue!

thanks for your input! much appreciated!

unknownuser

Peace ay,

i cant reference from the quran because i dont know .... i was asking if this was the case as it is what i assumed... sorry

To my knowledge, there is no verse in al-qur'aan that gives the kind of provision that you mentioned of dividing the assets equally among all wives/sons/daughters/relatives. Please study the inheritance verses for details.

also 43 - yeah ok so it means marry them off....so what does it mean when it says if you fear you will not be able to deal justly with them then just one - marry off just one at a time? why would a group wedding not allow u to be just?

also when i said about an upper limit - i meant in general - the quran does not prohibit polygamy right? so men can marry more than one wife right? so if this verse was the one that set the limit to 4 wives.... and now it turns out that it has been misunderstood - where is the limit for the number of wives a man can have? does that make sense? S sorry i feel im confusing the issue!

The verse 43 could still mean "marry" instead of "marry off", which is to be decided yet. If it means "marry" then it would mean marry the orphans mothers in groups of 2, groups of 3, or groups of 4, with the limit of maximum of 4 wives at the same time. Thus, only in case of orphans mothers, it is preferable to marry them in groups (upto 4 at a time) but if one cannot then only one.

Even if it is "marry off", maybe "twos, threes, fours" does not mean in groups with unlimited number, but only upto 4 at a time, and that is a number chosen by The God just like He chose 100 lashes for zina, and not 101 or 120 or 80.

If it is "marry off", then group wedding might be unjust to an orphan mother who does not wish to be married in a group wedding or has a potential partner available right now and does not want to wait until all other orphan mothers have found a suitable partner also and a group wedding is organised. Remember that per 43, we have to obtain their consent first according to the correct translation and not "whom you see fit".

Some people with Classical Arabic knowledge claim that in verse 43 it cannot mean "marry off" and some claim that it can mean that, so this issue has to be decided according to Classical Arabic grammar rules, and the way the word has been used in al-qur'aan elsewhere. We also need to find out if "twos, threes, fours" can mean only upto groups of four, or it allows the general meaning of "groups without any limit" according to Classical Arabic language and use elsewhere in al-qur'aan.

unknownuser

Peace ay,

The arguments given against 43 meaning "marry off" are in the following post by brother Ayman, who is an expert of the Arabic language

http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=12031.msg91024#msg91024

I think that the limit of wives in polygyny would be 4 not because of 43, but because of definition of zina according to the qur'aan. Please see the following posts for definition of zina

http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=12031.msg89825#msg89825

http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=11629.msg80746#msg80746

So if four people witnessed a MARRIED man and woman having intercourse, then the man and woman ARE a "zani" and "zaniyah", even though they are MARRIED.

Thus the limit in a polygynous relationship has to be 4 wives because if a man has 5 wives then it will become zina because then there will be 4 witnesses to the intercourse between the husband and the 5th wife.

palestina

doesnt a witness have to actually see the act and not just know it is happening?

siki

Brother tanveer.
Man ,, , you have started to disappoint me
siki

Samia

Salaam Tanweer and all

I do not think the verse says ""marry off". It is "marry". The verb is a bit problematic, because it could mean both, but in Arabic, you "marry off " the male, not the female. Look at verse 2221 where we have this verb. It says "do not marry the female mushriks...and do not marry off the male mushriks". The verb is different because it is in the present tense, hence the "tunki7 marry off; tanki7 marry. But when it is in the command (unki7u) it is the same for both meanings.

Marrying the mothers of the orphans is conditioned by the ability to provide for them, and not by being fair. (Being just is obligatory, not a condition, even if one has only one wife, or none). This marriage may not be consummated, so they will be "milkul yameen". That's why they do not show in the verses of inheritance (nor does milkul yameen). It is not a normal marriage, but a marriage to protect the pride and dignity of the orphans, least people would demand why this man is providing for them, and this would hurt the mother, and so the children.

Samia

Salaam all

The meaning of "muthna, thulath and ruba3" is "double, triple and quadriple". This is important to understand that before marrying a mother of orphans, the priority is to marry a normal marriage. So "double" is the real wife and one mother of orphans. This means the maximum is three mothers-of-orphans, if we stop at "ruba3"; or it might be understood as "and so on", then the number has no limit. This also is in favour of the marriage being just formal.

siki

So ! what about the polygamy? looks to me as if it is allowed with no limit, as it was already in practice and was not forbidden with a clear commandment. Allowing prophet to continue, could also be a supporting argument.(though not a very significant one) and of course brother Tanveer's understanding regarding two sisters,leads towards a definite YES
sikandar

palestina

peace sis samia,

i think bro tanveer has the correct meaning of muthna wa thulatha wa rubaa - 2s, 3s and 4s

if it was double, triple, and quadruple - it would read - thunathy wa thulathy wa rubaa'y

is that right?

Samia

Salaam siki

Polygamy is NOT allowed for no reason. There is ONE and only ONE condition for that. Even then, it is a "formal" marriage. This wife will not inherit, as the marriage was not for her to benefit, but mainly to protect the children IF there's harm to them from receiving provision from a strange man.

and ay

I do not know of thunathy ,; Muthna is the light form of the word muthanna (=double), ruba3 is the light form of ruba3i (=quadriple) and thulath is the lighter form of thulathi (triliteral). These are single nouns not plurals as in two's, three's four's...
Examples a ruba3i a geometrical form of four sides
thulathy a geometrical form of three sides.

I also do not understand the meaning of marrying them (or even marry them off) in two's, three's, four's...why not (in a crowd) simply?

unknownuser

Peace Samia, all,

Sis ay,

doesnt a witness have to actually see the act and not just know it is happening?

I don't see anywhere in al-qur'aan where there is prohibition of the husband being with more than one wife physically at the same time or prohibition of one wife on seeing her husband with the other wife physically. Thus the multiple wives can actually see and be witnesses of the act.

Bro Sikandar,

Man ,, , you have started to disappoint me

I don't know what that is supposed to mean especially when I am still confused about the issue.

So ! what about the polygamy? looks to me as if it is allowed with no limit, as it was already in practice and was not forbidden with a clear commandment. Allowing prophet to continue, could also be a supporting argument.(though not a very significant one) and of course brother Tanveer's understanding regarding two sisters,leads towards a definite YES

I agree with the above with two exceptions

Polygamy includes polyandry which is forbidden (see 424). I think only POLYGYNY is allowed, with the exception of sisters.
There is a limit of 4 wives at a time because of the definition of "zina" as mentioned in an earlier post.

Sis Samia,

The meaning of "muthna, thulath and ruba3" is "double, triple and quadriple".

I looked up in Lane Lexicon. It clearly says that "muthna" is "two at a time" and "thulath" is "three at a time", which is the same as "two's" or "three's", or "group of two", and "group of three". So one can "marry" maximum of 4 mothers of orphans at the same time, which would imply no wife beforehand.

or it might be understood as "and so on", then the number has no limit.

There would be a limit of maximum of 4 wives at same time because of the definition of "zina" as mentioned in an earlier post. That would explain The God stopping at "four at a time".

I also do not understand the meaning of marrying them (or even marry them off) in two's, three's, four's...why not (in a crowd) simply?

It would simply mean "marrying them" or "marrying them off" two at the same time, three at the same time, or four at the same time, with a limit of maximum of 4 wives at the same time because of the definition of "zina" as mentioned in an earlier post.

I think the guardian of the orhans is being advised to marry their mothers in group of two, three, or four at the same time to save wedding expenses and to be able to provide for multiple orphans and their mothers as soon as possible.

I do not think the verse says ""marry off". It is "marry". The verb is a bit problematic, because it could mean both, but in Arabic, you "marry off " the male, not the female. Look at verse 2221 where we have this verb. It says "do not marry the female mushriks...and do not marry off the male mushriks". The verb is different because it is in the present tense, hence the "tunki7 marry off; tanki7 marry. But when it is in the command (unki7u) it is the same for both meanings.

If that is true, then 43 can only mean "marry", which would not go against polygyny (with the exception of sisters) as per al-qur'aan. There is no verse that prohibits polygyny in general except with sisters.

What about 2432, how would you translate that verse ? Would it be "marry" or "marry off" and why ?

This marriage may not be consummated, so they will be "milkul yameen". That's why they do not show in the verses of inheritance (nor does milkul yameen). It is not a normal marriage, but a marriage to protect the pride and dignity of the orphans, least people would demand why this man is providing for them, and this would hurt the mother, and so the children.

Even then, it is a "formal" marriage. This wife will not inherit

ANY marriage may not be consummated. This marriage may not be consummated, but CAN BE CONSUMMATED TOO. Thus it is a normal marriage. There is no verse saying that this marriage with orphans mothers cannot be consummated so that allows consummation also.

This wife will inherit also otherwise eliminating such wives from inheritance will be a gross injustice. The islamic state should make it compulsory for the husband to make a will and make it a part of the marriage contract in case of multiple wives. If what you are saying is true, The God would have specifically mentioned this in the inheritance verses and would have made it clear that such marriages cannot be consummated.

There are other relations that do not show in the inheritance verses also, which does not mean those relations are not possible ! That is why there is a provision of making a will, which would cover any situation.

Quote from Ayman from http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=12031.msg91024#msg91024

There are so many possibilities left out of the inharitance signs. They are merely guidelines. This is why we are told that those guidelines only apply for whatever is remaining (if anything) after execution of a will or paying off debts. Therefore, things like how much does a grand daughter take if her grandfather died and her father was already dead are not spelled out. Would she take her father's complete share despite her being female or would she take half her uncles' share or nothing at all? This is why it is important to have a will.

Polygamy is NOT allowed for no reason. There is ONE and only ONE condition for that.

I did not see "illa" at the beginning of 43, so 43 is not an exception. Whenever The God makes exceptions to a general rule, He clearly states the general rule followed by "illa"/except to give exceptions. We should take the word of The God as it is and try not to impose our preconceived notions/desires. If what you are saying is true, then please quote the relevant verses which state that.

siki

Brother Tanveer !you have been "Bang on" except those 4 wives witnessing the Zina with fifth o-----------come on Dear------ you are much better than that.

samia ! i would give due weightage to Tanveer,s explanation regarding inheritance, this should hardly be an issue to make us think against polygamy, he is got a very valid argument. i would re-emphasise ,

Polygamy was being practiced at the time of revelation, and it was not stopped ,
i am with you, as for as marrying orphan,s mothers is concerned , it is not marrying off but marry them, and it is a marriage, a proper marriage(tanveer is right)

The only thing i am confused about is weather this limit of "4 orphan's mothers" thing is valid for Muhsinat as well? or there is no upper limit?

Brother tanveer!in my opinion, "taking inference from Zina ayat and using it to deduce the upper limit for wives,is probably the weekest argument you have ever posted" .

palestina

Brother Tanveer !you have been "Bang on" except those 4 wives witnessing the Zina with fifth -----------come on Dear------ you are much better than that.

samia ! i would give due weightage to Tanveer,s explanation regarding inheritance, this should hardly be an issue to make us think against polygamy, he is got a very valid argument. i would re-emphasise ,

Polygamy was being practiced at the time of revelation, and it was not stopped ,
i am with you, as for as marrying orphan,s mothers is concerned , it is not marrying off but marry them, and it is a marriage, a proper marriage(tanveer is right)

The only thing i am confused about is weather this limit of "4 orphan's mothers" thing is valid for Muhsinat as well? or there is no upper limit?

Brother tanveer!in my opinion, "taking inference from Zina ayat and using it to deduce the upper limit for wives,is probably the weekest argument you have ever posted" . elektro

peace all,
yes i agree siki - bro tanveer you have made some very good points but the idea of orgies going on in polyganous marriages - this zina explanation is weak...

mabye it does mean marry up to four and not marry off in groups of four? god knows best!

i think polygany is like the slavery issue - while it was not banned outright - it was given strict social guidelines to adhere to - and made so that eventually it would fade out perhaps?

but this verse is still very confusing to me!
thanks all for your input

ay

peace

siki

Tanveer and sis samia
you folks did an excellent job defining "Muhsinat"and Ma malakat "emnakum"

Now could you come to the Mutta thread and throw some light on 4-24? your experience and wisdom is badly needed,,
siki

unknownuser

Peace ay, Sikandar, all,

Sis ay,

mabye it does mean marry up to four and not marry off in groups of four? god knows best!

It seems from the posts of brother Ayman and sis Samia that it can only mean "marry" in 43.

Thus the correct translation of 43 in my understanding would be

43 And if you fear that you cannot be just to the orphans, then you may marry those who have consented with you of the women (orphans' mothers) two at a time, and three at a time, and four at a time. But if you fear you will not be fair, then only one, or to whom you are committed to by oath. This is best that you do not face financial hardship.

Bro Sikandar,

Brother tanveer!in my opinion, "taking inference from Zina ayat and using it to deduce the upper limit for wives,is probably the weekest argument you have ever posted" .

That is why I earlier accepted that I am still confused about some aspects of this issue ???

It seems that the limit of having a maximum of 4 wives at a time is limited to orphans' mothers (provided the phrase "mathna wathulatha waruba3a" cannot idiomatically mean "in groups with no upper limit" in Classical Arabic), and is not a general rule because of the following two reasons

In the verses where the Prophet's wives are mentioned The God does not mention any upper limit to the number of wives he can have.
To my knowledge, there is no verse in al-qur'aan that restricts the total number of wives in general to 4.

Even in 43, it talks about marrying group of two, three, or four at a time, and does not say upto 4. Thus theoretically, a male believer can marry a group of 4 orphans' mothers at one time, and then at another time can marry a group of 2 orphans' mothers at a time, thus having a total of six wives, provided he can be fair with all of them.

We also need to determine if the phrase "mathna wathulatha waruba3a" can idiomatically mean "in groups" without a specific upper limit in Classical Arabic.

Now could you come to the Mutta thread and throw some light on 4-24? your experience and wisdom is badly needed,,

Can you please elaborate what exactly is the question about 424, because there was extensive discussion on this verse in the thread I referenced before, and perhaps the relevant posts in that thread might have already answered your question

http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=12031.0