verse 4:3 and polygamy
-
Thanks for the messages, guys. What you said makes sense, but it still seems to me that if there are so many meanings for each (or almost each) word of the Qur'an, how do we know which of the meanings is the right one? Everyone will come up with what s/he thinks is the best meaning, but there'll be no agreement on what the right meaning is in the context.
Just as an aside, I have Muhammad Asad's translation of the Qur'an (it's the only one I've read actually) (I don't know Arabic) and it makes a lot of sense to me. I was at peace with it. I'm beginning to get confused now, when I read other interpretations on the Free-minds website. It's beginning to seem to me (and maybe it's just me) that all the words in the Quran have all kinds of meanings and we cannot be sure what they mean in the context. Look at this thread on polygamy! -\ I don't know what to think! confused Oh, and one more thing, ALL the meanings of the Quran over the past thousand and some years can't have been wrong! What makes us so sure we're on the right track?
Sorry. Just needed to vent...
-
To Siki
Thank you for your response. However, what I understand is that you did not answer two of my questions.
Question 1 just so that we are both on the same page...what do you mean when you say "closer to reality"?
Question 2 could you please provide the references to the available data that you examined which caused you "to think..."
Am I to understand that the reason you use the phrases, ?in my opinion?, ?I think?, ?should be? etc. because it affords you the opportunity to leave room for an ?improved understanding??
You say ?Quran is an amazing jigsaw puzzle??This Book is a ?living book? for all times which facilitates our understanding of it by its cohesiveness through repetition. Would you agree? If so, then we are on the same page on that point.
Up to this point, in a nutshell, what is your understanding regarding polygamy and please explain what about Warner?s question caused you to ?re-think? your understanding on this issue?
TheBookAlone
Dear TBA
ANS 1.. when i progress to a higer/better understanding due to clear evidence from the book , but the new understanding still has some loose ends to mend, i use the term closer to reality.
Ans 2.. polygamy allowed due to the following reasons.
prophet Mohammad practiced polygamy (proven from Quran)
all of his marriages except khadija, were after the revelations, had this not been allowed , he would have been clearly instructed, not to do so4-23.. clearly states that you can not collect two sisters at a time, from this we can indirectly deduce that ,except two sisters , one can collect more than one woman.
i have not been able to find any upper limit in quran except to deduce from 4-3 , but the verse is about orphans, and 4 is a suggestion , it does not set the limit.
prophet Mohammad's example of more than 4 wives proven through history is irrefutable.The All mighty, probably won't set a wrong example through his last prophet.However brother warner's point regarding replacement of a wife with another is very pertinent, because the verse suggests some kind of limit, what is that? lets find out.
when i am short of a sure understanding , i use such words which leave room for an improved understanding,
Peace
siki -
Peace Samia
yata_man nisa
I honestly thought it's grammatically wrong.The construction is grammatically correct, if it is used for what it means. It does not mean orphaned women. If you want to say (orphaned women) and use this construction, it will be grammatically and semantically wrong. Yatamaa here cannot be an adjective for a feminine noun. This construction means (orphans of women).
Verse 46 tells us what to do when orphans reach adulthood (does not say marry them, though).
When a female orphan is not a child anymore but in marriageable age, since we are dealing with marriage.
In this case she is no more an orphan. They can manage their on affairs as per 46, they do not need a guardian anymore, and they can hence marry themselves if they want.
Can you comment on what you think on 4127 and its relationship (rather clarification of) 43-5?
I think verse 127 prohibits exploiting mothers of orphans by refraining to pay what's due to them if someone wants to marry them; and the exploitation of oppressed and weak children (whether orphaned or not); and commands us to be fair to the orphans.
Thus it discusses three vulnerable categories
*Mothers of the orphans
*weak and oppressed children (other than orphans)
*Orphans.Verses 2,3 and 5 are clear. Verse 4 is what makes me think
- What's the meaning of "sudagaatihinna"?
- The usage of "alnisaa'" instead of "nisaa'akum" makes me feel that it is not about "wives" but "women" in general, or
- that "nisaa" does not mean women.
I would like to hear other points of view in respect of this verse.
-
Salaam Siki
4-23.. clearly states that you can not collect two sisters at a time, from this we can indirectly deduce that ,except two sisters , one can collect more than one woman.
As I think that polygamy is restricted to mothers of orphans, I understand that in this case, a man cannot marry his mother-of-orphans sister-in law.
So the verse as I see will be understood as (and to collect two sisters in case you meet the conditions of polygamy)
-
peace samia
Did prophet Mohammad marry only orphaned girls/orphan's mothers?
Moreover i think ,4-3 and 4-127 suggest orphaned girls , ( or may be both ), but if we take it as orphaned girls, then any girl who does not have parent/parents is a potential target for men, who are looking forward to practice polygamy, i guess in such a situation these "Yatamm un nissa" become a precious and sought after commodity?
I think this argument (yours) against polygamy is week.
peace
sikandar -
Salaam Siki
First of all, nisaa' is not girls. When God commands us to take care of orphans, He uses the generic masculine plural, yatamaa (verse 43), which is the same we find in the construction (yatamaal nisaa'. This is not orphaned women (wrong, plus meaningless) and definitely not orphaned girls. It only means orphans of women.
yatmaa orphans (consisting of the 2 genders, or just males, definitely not females alone)
If we get this straight, then we can discuss how I understand verse 4127
As for the case of the prophet, I can't put him as an example for all. His wives were told that they were not like any other woman, and they had their exclusive laws, in this world and the hereafter. Maybe, or most probably, the prophet has his own exclusive laws too.
-
To Brook
Is it your understanding that the believing men are instructed to be monogamous and the prophet is allowed to be polygamous? If so, could you please provide the references to support your understanding from the Book?
TheBookAlone
The prophet was allowed to be polygamous becuse he had built his polygamous family before its prohibition. The expression from now on (min ba?du) in 3352 means that, just like the expression what is past is past (illa ma kad salaf) in 423 concerning a man?s marrying two sisters at one and the same time.
According to 423 believing men were forbidden to marry two sisters at one and the same time because it was polygamy rather than because the women married to one man were sisters, for a man is always allowed to marry his wife?s sister after his wife dies or divorces and thus he becomes single.
It was not only the peophet who was polygamous when 3352 was revealed, was it? There were other polygamous believers as well. They too, just like the prophet, were forbidden to exchange any one of their wives with a woman outside of the family. Othewise, Islam would have lost its crebility, which the prophet can?t have tolerated.
And we have to understand that 3352 prohibited the prophet on behalf of all believers to take wife upon wife, and the prophet must have seen to it that nobody took wife upon wife after the revelation of the verse.
420 also would apply to all the polygamous men at the time, including the prophet, on condition that all their wives divorced or died except only one, and this way they became monogamous.
There is also 2432 which forbids the registrar to marry off people who are already married. One cannot marry unless the registrar marries him off; so it definitely prohibits polygamy for all believers.
Peace,
Hasan Akcay -
Peace Samia
There is no mother of orphans in 4127 but as you explained ?orphans of women?. When orphan girls reach marriageable age I think we can call them ?orphans of women?.
I think this part of the verse ?Allah doth instruct you about them and (remember) what hath been rehearsed unto you in the Book? is connecting 4127 to 43. Where else ?Allah doth instruct about them (women)? other than 43 onwards and there is no other place in the Quran Marriage, Orphans and children are mentioned (?that has been rehearsed unto us in the book?) other than 43-6. Possibly because people had or will have problems understanding 43 (as we do even now) I believe 4127 was revealed later as a clarification.
I agree with you that 46 does ?tell us what to do when orphans reach adulthood? and also agree that verse does not say to marry them. 46 is for both male and female of orphans but I guess since the Chapter starts and continues with main emphasis on women/girls the verse might relate more to women.
4127 is also about men trying to marry orphans of women without giving their ujoor or most probably about the guardian trying to marry the orphan girl (who has grown up into a woman of marriageable age and she has become orphan/s of women) without returning the property of the orphan. Because if the guardian marries the orphan he will be in a position to mix her property with his. See 42 also.
I probably be able to tell you what ?sadaqaatihinna" means if you can tell us what ?nihlah(tan)? means.
Samia ?that "nisaa" does not mean women.
I did not quite get you ?.
Although Yataama can be both genders can we make an educated guess depending on the context and rest of the verse as in 43 to which gender it may be more inclined to given the fact feminine of orphan is not mentioned in the Quraan.
-
Dear samia
In my opinion , warner's point of view is more likely , however your explanation also does have some merit.
There is a fair probability that the verses cover both the situations.OK , at this stage, i take your opinion, so please go ahead with explanation of 4-127.
If i take your opinion that this concession of polygamy is only for widows with children, again such women would become a precious commodity, how about if a widow does not have children , how big is a chance for her to be married?
what about if the child/children are left with some guardian/uncle , etc ? is she still eligible for marriage? wouldn't such a rule be open to abuse?
I still insist that Prophet Mohammad's situation should be an example, yes i agree he had different set of rules , he could not divorce his wives , because those women were declared as mothers of believers and hence no one else could marry them, a divorced wife of the prophet would not have gotten married and that would have been a great injustice. But allowing him/letting him to marry multiple women in later stage of his life when most of the Quran was already delivered, does not make sense.
Your argument regarding "what has preceded" is correct but remember such orders are always preceded by clear commandments of prohibition, and in this case there is none, infact there is no hint of such a thing in the whole Quran.
Sis i understand ! most of the women are very sensitive on the issue and almost all of them exaggerate/blow up a minor evidence against polygamy,(understandable). But what we are doing here is very sensitive, so we must remain totally unbiased and neutral in assessing all the evidences on merit alone.
warner.
Brother ! considering the "Replacement phrase" would it be safe to assume at this stage, that we can apply 4-3's suggestion/limit of 4 for all situations till the time we find the limit from some other verse?
peace
siki -
Peace
To translate ?masna_ wa sula_sa wa ruba_? in 43 as ?two, three and four? is wrong and ?twos, threes, and fours? is not proper English. This wrong translation as ?twos, threes, fours? confuses an already controversial verse. You will not find twos, threes, fours in most English dictionaries other than the slang dictionaries and the use might not express the correct meaning and may also convey a different meaning than intended.
We try to understand 43 in light of 351 since the verse uses ?matsna_ wa sula_tsa wa ruba? (Malaika with wings; twos and threes and fours). But the problem is 351 has given rise to disputes making it difficult to understand what the verse conveys.
The following verse 3446 uses ?matsna_?.
3446 Pickthall
Say I exhort/preach/warn you unto one thing only that ye awake/stand, for Allah's sake, by twos and singly, and then reflect There is no madness in your comrade. He is naught else than a warner unto you in face of a terrific doom.Qul in nama_ aizukum biwa_hidah an taqu_mu_ lil la_hi matsna_ wa fura_da_ sum ma tatafak karu_ ma_ bisha_hibikum min jin nah in huwa il la_ nasirul lakum baina yadai aza_bin sadid
I have left the ?twos? used by the translator (Pickthall) for ?matsna_? unchanged in the verse. When we read 3446 with ?twos? in the verse it gives some sort of meaning but not the exact meaning and it is not the kind of English that you will find in a legal document or that will help you to get through your English test. Remember ?twos? is slang and we owe it to the Quran to translate it with the best of our ability. Especially if we are going to use the translated word to shed light on the same word used in another verse.
Therefore, I guess the better translation for 3446 to bring out the best meaning for ?matsna_? will be. (I will only deal with the relevant part of the verse)
?..That you stand for Allahs sake, two (of you) together or one (of you)/individually?.
The parenthesis ?of you? in both places in the sentence will make the sentence to look better but not necessary since it is understood that ?of you? in brackets refers to the ?you? in the beginning of the sentence. In Arabic this maybe not necessary at all since we have the relevant words to convey this meaning.
Using the above I believe the best way to translate ?masna_ wa sula_sa wa ruba_? in 43 will be "two together, three together, four together".
This translation will give better meaning to 351 as well.
Appreciate your comments.
-
Peace all,
This is what I have been saying all along that "mathna wa thulatha wa ruba3a" means "two at a time, and three at a time, and four at a time" (reference Lane Lexicon). Lane does not use the words twos, threes, fours. Thus this phrase sets an upper limit of four at a time in 43, but does not set the upper limit of TOTAL wives.
Replacement of one wife by another does not mean there is a limit for polygyny. It just means divorcing one wife for the sake of replacing her and marrying another. 420 does not say "you should replace one wife with another", but says "IF YOU WISH to replace one wife with another". For argument sake lets take a hypothetical example in which one person has 10 wives and he wants to marry one more, then he can either divorce one and marry another in her place (replacement), or he can marry another without divorcing any which will make 11 wives. "IF YOU WISH to replace" does not mean one HAS TO replace.
3350 gives all the lawful categories of women for the Prophet and 3352 merely tells him that no women other than these categories are lawful for him, and also tells him not to divorce any of his wives just for the sake of marrying another in her place (replacement). It does not mean that he cannot marry any more after the revelation of this verse, otherwise what is the use of giving him general categories of women that are lawful to him in 3350 ? "Min ba3d" in 3352 is not referring to after this time but beyond the mentioned categories of women.
2432 is a general advice to marry off the single and the male and female servants, and not a prohibition of polygyny.
WE SHOULD BE CAREFUL AND NOT USE THE WORD POLYGAMY because that also includes "polyandry" which is forbidden by 424 (wa almuhsanatu MIN AL-NISAI), instead we should use the word "POLYGYNY".
If "akhta" can be used to mean "bint" that still does not make it "akhta fee aldeen". When a brother in the system is mentioned, The God clearly uses the words "fee aldeen" implying no blood tie whatsoever as TBA herself admits.
Even if "nikah" implies "sexual intercourse" in some verses, "sexual intercourse" is not lawful without marriage according to al-qur'aan, thus "nikah" in those verses indirectly also implies marriage; this is undisputable. NOWHERE does "nikah" imply a social contract of financial protection only, for which al-qur'aan uses the words "ma malakat aymanukum".
Lastly, I agree that the context of 41-12 is guardianship, and "marriage" to "yatama al-nisa" in 43 ASSURES PROPER PROTECTION OF THE ORPHANS, and thus "marriage" in 43 is not a break from the general context of guardianship.
-
Peace bro warner,
Also in which verse does Nikah implies sex?
You might want to ask bro brook ! I was just responding to his understanding.
-
My Dear Brother Tanveer
There is an un-written rule here we do not accept anyone?s opinions without verifying, including Mr. Asads. You were one of the biggest proponents of this.
Also when you define marriage can you try to look beyond the wedding day and the ceremony or the day the two people will sign in front of the registrar with witnesses.
You know none of this is mentioned in the Quraan.Marriage is a process and a relationship and can not be tied to a day. Some people are married for 50 years. Every day of those years over 18000 days they are married; every hour, minute and second. So why do we cloud our minds with only the day they enter in to this relationship when we translate nikah as marriage or marry?
Although sex is a major part of marriage/nikah that does not mean Nikah is ?sex? even though in Islam there is no sex without marriage (Except with Ma Malakt Aymanakum, currently let?s not go there)
In the verses Brook quoted Nikah does not mean sex either.
243 says after the punishment the person who committed zina can get married to another person who committed zina (and probably received punishment as well). The marriage between a believer and the spouse, who was convicted of zina, will be cancelled since a believer can not stay in a relationship with a zani.
And as for,
2460, Which comes first ?No hope of marriage? or ?No hope of Sex??
Have you met any lady who has no hope/beyond the prospect of marriage but has hope of /within the prospect of sex? Me neither, but anyway it was just an analogy.
-
Peace warner,
Did I ever say that I accepted brook's opinion ? You keep directing your comments to me when you should direct them to brook. He is the one who claims "nikah" can mean sexual intercourse, not me.
Although sex is a major part of marriage/nikah that does not mean Nikah is ?sex? even though in Islam there is no sex without marriage (Except with Ma Malakt Aymanakum, currently let?s not go there)
Nowhere is sexual intercourse allowed without marriage, even with "ma malakat aymanukum" per 424-25. There is no mention of sexual intercourse in 7029-30 and 235-6.
-
Tanveer Even if "nikah" implies "sexual intercourse" in some verses, "sexual intercourse" is not lawful without marriage according to al-qur'aan, thus "nikah" in those verses indirectly also implies marriage; this is undisputable.
Peace Tanveer
In reply to brook in your above post you are saying nikah in those verses indirectly also implies marriage; if Nikah indirectly implies marriage what does it directly imply?
It was not my mistake; you were accepting nikah implies sexual intercourse in the above post