verse 4:3 and polygamy
-
INKIHOO can mean both "marry" and "marry off", and the context in 43 is clearly women so it can only mean "marry" there and not "marry off".
Yes. INKIHOO means marry in 43, and ANKIHOO means marry off in 2432. However the question is not what they mean but why the NKH in 43 was made to read inkihoo although the NKH in 2432 was made to read ankehoo.
Please show the verse in al-qur'aan that mentions requirement of a "registrar" for "nikah".
2282 orders even a monetary contract to be registered because money changes hands, and money is important. But isn?t human life important? Is the wedding contract called nikah concerning a human couple too trival to be registered although it changes their lives?
There is no "registrar" being addressed in 2432. According to the context of 2430-32, it is "the believers" that are being addressed in general.
In order for the nikah of a human couple to be legal you have to get an authority to announce the couple legally married and to note their new status in writing or, if you insist marriage is not worth registering, to verbally note their new status. That is what registrar means here.
That authority may be the parents who marry off (wa ankehoo in 2432) their daughter to a man. And if you claim that their approval is sufficient for the nikah to be legally valid, then the parents are the registrar. God addresses the parents in 2432 and orders them to marry off their unmarried ones (ayaama minkum).
Now please do a comparative reading of 2432 and 629 again.
Hasten to the remembrance of God (629)
Marry off your single ones (2432)In 629 God adresses mosque-goers.
In 2432 He adreesses parents.In 629 mosque-goers are ordered to remember God.
In 2432 parents are ordered to marry off their single ones.God forbids the believers to remember al-Lat
because it is a wrong done to God. God does not share His sovereignty (1826).God forbids parents to marry off their married ones.
because it is a wrong done to women (423). God doesnot do the least wrong unto humans but it is humans who wrong themselves (1044)If 2432 were not a prohibition of polygyny, neither would 629 be a prohibition of idolworship.
Peace,
Hasan Akcay -
Dear hasan
I have failed to find any similarity between 62-9 and 24-32 , and also cant understand the way you have drawn parallel between the two verses
Moreover there is no married women in 4-23 and no prohibition as well , please do not rely on translators and recheck the Arabic, also read the next verse 4-24 in Arabic.
For detailed study of this issue please go through the thread
"Mohsinnat a new understanding"
peacesiki
-
there is no married women in 4-23 and no prohibition as well (siki)
In my post on March 20 I referred to the expression (hurrimat alaikum) an tajma3uu bainal ukhtain in 423, which means (you are forbbidden) to have two sisters as wives at one and the same time.
Please note that this does not mean you are forbidden to marry sisters. No. You can marry biological sisters each one at a time; for instance you can marry your wife?s sister after your wife dies or after you divorce her.
What you are forbidden to do here is to have two sisters as co-wives, because it is polygamy. Stress here is not on sisters but co-wives, which is polygamy. God forbids polygamy because it is a wrong done to sisters in particular and women in general because sisters are women.
To sum it up, polygamy is a wrong done to women. And God does not do the least wrong unto humans but it is humans who wrong themselves (1044)
For detailed study of this issue please go through the thread
"Mohsinnat a new understanding"I did. And I came to the conclusion that the word mohsinat in 423 and 424 means protected independent women such as widows. But this is only a side issue here.
I have failed to find any similarity between 62-9 and 24-32 , and also cant understand the way you have drawn parallel between the two verses
Sorry but I can?t help any more. Please read my post more carefully.
Peace,
Hasan Akcay -
the word mohsinat in 423 and 424
I meant an-Nisa 24 and 25. Muhammad Asad's translation
"(And forbidden to you are) all married women..." (424)
"And as for those of you, owing to circumstances, are not in a position to marry free believing women..." (425)So according to verse 24 mohsinat are married women, whom according to verse 25 you are allowed to marry?
Peace,
Hasan Akcay -
the word mohsinat in 423 and 424
I meant an-Nisa 24 and 25. Muhammad Asad's translation
"(And forbidden to you are) all married women..." (424)
"And as for those of you, owing to circumstances, are not in a position to marry free believing women..." (425)So according to verse 24 mohsinat are married women, whom according to verse 25 you are allowed to marry?
Peace,
Hasan AkcayDear hasan
My apologies , when i wrote 4-23 and 4-24 , i actually meant 4-24 and 4-25
what/ where is the word for prohibited in 4-24? Mohd Asad has added forbidden in brackets from his own side. I had asked you not to take translations but recheck the Arabic.
There is a single word ,Mohsinnat used in both the verses 4-24 and 4-25, how could translators and you take this word in one verse as married and right in the next you are translating Mohsinnat as free(unmarried) believing women? and then again , you are marrying these married women,considering them to be widows? but widows are widows , not married.
I suggest, you spend a little time, and do a detailed study of the threads,( mohsinnat, polygamy, and ma malakat emnakum) and then come back and discuss if required.
peace
siki
-
what/ where is the word for prohibited in 4-24?
There is no such word in 424.Mohd Asad has added forbidden in brackets from his own side.
You are definitely right.I had asked you not to take translations but recheck the Arabic
And I told you I did.There is a single word, Mohsinnat used in both the verses 4-24 and 4-25,
how could translators and you take this word in one verse as married?
Please count me out. I told you that the word mohsanat in 424 and 425 means PROTECTED INDEPENDENT WOMEN SUCH AS WIDOWS. But this is only a side issue here.you are marrying these married women,considering them to be widows? but widows are widows , not married.
I did NOT say marrying. The verb is missing from 424. I said this is only a side issue here and this way asked you to let me say what the implied verb is afterwards.I suggest, you spend a little time, and do a detailed study of the threads
And may I suggest thisRead my posts carefully or do not read them at all.
Peace,
Hasan Akcay -
Peace Siki
It was a manner of speech , I do not know the exact meaning. What I meant was if we know what Nihlatan means it will possibly be a step closer to understand Sadaqat e henna. Samia has not replied on these word meanings.
What I was trying to explain from the earlier post was the ?orphans? mentioned in 43 are ?female orphans?. Since 43 was difficult to understand it looks like 4127 was later revealed explaining it is "female orphans/yataaman nisa" which is referred to in 43. When a minor orphan girl attains age of marriage she is being called a female orphan since the Quraan wants to distinguish her from other women keeping in line with the importance Quraan places on orphans and also since the position of the female orphan is more vulnerable than a male orphan.
Two together, three together, four together should mean someone can be married to two women at one time, three women at one time or four women at one time and the theory on group weddings to save cost is absurd. Why not 5 or 50 together if we are talking about economies of scale and are they saying 4 is the point of diminishing returns. Anyway there is no wedding ceremony mentioned in the Quraan and it is such a trivial thing even to be involved in a verses of this legal significance.
-
Dear warner
I agree with you , yatamma -un -nisa probably are orphaned girls, 127 is cautioning that you should not marry these girls to eat up their properties or, so that you can marry them free(without ujoor) .
4-3 is most definitely marry , not marry off, because of the financial hardship argument and further elaboration of being content with MMA. Marry off argument does not stand a chance , because any such thing just can not make sense with "remaining satisfied with MMA".
Yatamma covers both the genders, and then God is further clarifying , "out of these yatamma , one may marry the women, four together",,,,,etc but if you don't want to be burdened, then only one, or remain satisfied with MMA only.
Sadaqat e hinna is definitely neither dower(ojoor) nor their property or inheritance ( Amwalukm) , it could be a free dower or gift from the guardian or???? any suggestions?
peace
siki -
Salam bro Hasan,
One must accept that nobody marries two three or four wives at the same time! But that?s exactly what it means if we take ?ankuhu? as Marry instead of Marry off.
-
Marrying two, three, or four wives at the same time can be done. Just because it is not generally done does not mean it cannot be done.
-
Even if you marry off two, three, or four women at the same time, it can still mean marrying them off to ONE MAN at the same time ! So this point cannot be taken as an argument that "inkihoo" in 43 means "marry off".
That authority may be the parents who marry off (wa ankehoo in 2432) their daughter to a man. And if you claim that their approval is sufficient for the nikah to be legally valid, then the parents are the registrar. God addresses the parents in 2432 and orders them to marry off their unmarried ones (ayaama minkum).
Thank you for finally accepting that the adressees of 2432 are the believing parents/guardians, if "ankihoo" here is translated as "marry off".
The words "marry off" imply that the "unmarried ones" being mentioned are PARENT/GUARDIAN DEPENDENTS and thus even if 2432 is a commandment and not general advice, it is applicable only to the PARENT/GUARDIAN DEPENDENT SINGLES, and not applicable to INDEPENDENT SINGLES. One can marry independent singles, but one cannot marry off independent singles.
Thus, according to your reasoning, polygyny will not be permitted to parent/guardian dependent singles only, but will be allowed to independent singles.
In my post on March 20 I referred to the expression (hurrimat alaikum) an tajma3uu bainal ukhtain in 423, which means (you are forbbidden) to have two sisters as wives at one and the same time.
Please note that this does not mean you are forbidden to marry sisters. No. You can marry biological sisters each one at a time; for instance you can marry your wife?s sister after your wife dies or after you divorce her.
What you are forbidden to do here is to have two sisters as co-wives, because it is polygamy. Stress here is not on sisters but co-wives, which is polygamy. God forbids polygamy because it is a wrong done to sisters in particular and women in general because sisters are women.
Please do not invent words which are not there. 423 talks about two "sisters (biological)", and not two "co-wives" or two "women", otherwise you are changing the word of The God. The word "akht" does not mean "co-wives" or "women".
-
-
Peace bro Warner,
We know the Quraan was revealed in parts and over a number of years. It may be that two successive verses can be years apart. They are successive because of the compilation.
Your words in red clearly show that you are CONJECTURING. Please give concrete/solid/100 % proof that 3350 and 3352 were years apart.
If 3350 and 3352 were reveled at once the time gap would have been few seconds. What is the point in allowing the Messenger to marry a broad set of women and immediately banning it within a few seconds. So naturally it is understood there is substantial time between the revelation of these 2 verses.
The part in red of your quote is a CONJECTURE as I already mentioned above. You are CONJECTURING and then twisting "min ba3d" to mean "beyond this time", based on your CONJECTURE.
That is why I had said in an earlier post that "min ba3d" in 3352 does not mean "beyond this time" (there is no word for "time" in that verse), but according to the context of 3350-52, means beyond the categories of women mentioned in 3350, i.e. no women were permitted to the Prophet beyond the lawful categories of women mentioned in 3350.
Replace is take away/remove/discard something which is already there and place another in its place (substitute). If you do not remove you can not replace. When you replace the car battery or wheel you do not have the earlier one fixed there. But if you take an additional one removal is not necessary. So taking additional is not replacing.The verses do not talk about taking additional they talk about replacing.
The word is used in 3352, 420 and 665 meaning exchanging/replacing wife/wives to take another. The same word is used in other places in the Quraan with the meaning replace or exchange.
In 33.52 the prophet is commanded by God not to take any more women and also not to replace the existing ones. This part of the verse has been misunderstood by many. Let me try to explain this with an example. Lets say the IRS (Inland Revenue) informs the people they can not own any more houses from today. A person owning 4 houses when this law is announced can sell any of the houses and take other houses instead of the ones sold as long as the number of houses do not exceed the upper limit of 4. But if the IRS says you can not own any more houses and also you can not replace your existing houses, then you are fixed with the 4 houses you owned when the law was announced. (Here the figure 4 is just an example the same will apply even for 1)
The analogy is similar to what is said to the Messenger in 3352 with regard to future marriage. He can not take any more women from now neither can he change/replace the existing wives even though he might be attracted to beauty/good of any other woman/women. So the number of wives at the time and the persons become fixed. No additions, No removals, No replacements.
In 3352 God is setting the limit for the Prophet since 3350 he was allowed to marry many categories including any believing woman who offers herself to the prophet . So with this verse he is asked to stop marrying more women or to replace the existing ones.
3352 No women are lawful to you beyond this, nor that you change them for other wives, even though you may be attracted by their beauty, EXCEPT ma malakat yameenuka. And God is watchful over all things.
The first part of 3352 (blue) prohibited any women beyond the categories of women mentioned in 3350, and the second part (green) prohibited him from exchanging/replacing one wife with another WITH AN EXCEPTION (red), thus this prohibition of replacement was not an absolute prohibition. Looks like you overlooked the EXCEPTION in that verse just like brook did. Thus even after 3352, the Prophet was allowed to replace one wife with another provided the replacement was from "ma malakat yameenuka".
The above posts show there is an upper limit for the believers with regard to the number of wives at any given time.
There is no upper limit because the prohibition of replacement was not absolute, in view of the exception of "ma malakat yameenuka" in 3352 as I have already mentioned above.
-
Peace Warner,
EVEN IF you take "min ba3d" in 3352 to mean "beyond this time", thus prohibiting any more wives after a certain time, the EXCEPTION in that verse which still allowed the Prophet to replace wives with "ma malakat yameenuka", makes that prohibition not an absolute prohibition due to the exception, proving once again that there is no upper limit, even according to YOUR understanding.
-
Salam bro Sikandar,
Sadaqat e hinna is definitely neither dower(ojoor) nor their property or inheritance ( Amwalukm) , it could be a free dower or gift from the guardian or? any suggestions?
An excerpt from a post by bro Ayman, which sheds light on what "saduqatihinna" in 44 is referring to
"The word "saduqatihinna" doesn't carry the meaning of "inheritance". If you look at all the occurences of the word "sadaqat" in the great reading, then you will see that it has the meaning of giving charity/aid out of one's OWN money (for example see 9103). The 'inheritence" of the orphans is described as "amwalahum" (their money) in 42. Moreover, in 42 we are clearly told NOT TO CONSUME the moneys of the orphans no matter what. On the other hand, in 44 we are told to consume what the women share with us of the "sadaqat". This is more in line with the "nisaa" being widows who we give aid/charity too as opposed to orphans who we give their OWN rightful inheritance money to."
The above is from the following post
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=12031.msg91024#msg91024
-
Salam bro Sikandar,
An excerpt from a post by bro Ayman, which sheds light on what "saduqatihinna" in 44 is referring to
"The word "saduqatihinna" doesn't carry the meaning of "inheritance". If you look at all the occurences of the word "sadaqat" in the great reading, then you will see that it has the meaning of giving charity/aid out of one's OWN money (for example see 9103). The 'inheritence" of the orphans is described as "amwalahum" (their money) in 42. Moreover, in 42 we are clearly told NOT TO CONSUME the moneys of the orphans no matter what. On the other hand, in 44 we are told to consume what the women share with us of the "sadaqat". This is more in line with the "nisaa" being widows who we give aid/charity too as opposed to orphans who we give their OWN rightful inheritance money to."
The above is from the following post
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=12031.msg91024#msg91024
I agree , this is my understanding too.... but what is this NIhlatan?
Nahal is bee , how do we relate nihlatan with something which a bee does or gives ? probably some thing nice , free , as gift . Honey by a bee is good and given free. peace
siki
-
Salam Siki, Warner, all,
From Lane's Lexicon
NIHLAT = FAREEDHAT
FAREEDHAT = a portion or share made obligatory or binding.
Thus, in my opinion
SADUQATIHINNA NIHLATAN = UJOOR, because ujoor is given out of one's wealth (sadaqat) and is made obligatory or binding on one (nihlat) to give to one's wife.
-
Salaam Tanveer
None of us can know for certain the time periods between verses but sometimes we may be able to assume time gaps depending on the context.
For your explanation to become credible you must explain ?replace/exchange? in 3352 and 420.
From what I know ?min ba?d? should mean ?from after? and I do not understand how you got ?beyond these categories? for min ba?d. Any way since we are both not capable of really analyzing the term and its use in this context we must wait till someone who knows explain. I suggest that you make a nine one one to Samia or whoever might respond to an emergency call.
Our understanding of Ma Malakat Aymanakum is different. It is a different relationship than a wife.
In 3352 the Messenger is told not to take any more women as wives. The verse does not tell the Messenger to stop taking any woman as Ma Malakat Aymankum. After the revelation of 3352 although he can not take any other woman as a wife he is allowed to take women as Ma Malakat Aynmankum.
-
Salaam Warner,
Our understanding of Ma Malakat Aymanakum is different. It is a different relationship than a wife.
In 3352 the Messenger is told not to take any more women as wives. The verse does not tell the Messenger to stop taking any woman as Ma Malakat Aymankum. After the revelation of 3352 although he can not take any other woman as a wife he is allowed to take women as Ma Malakat Aynmankum.
It does not matter what the understanding is of "ma malakat yameenuka" in 3352. "Ma malakat yameenuka" (whatever the understanding), is one of the categories of women that was made lawful to the Prophet in 3350. 3352 commanded the Prophet not to replace one wife with another except "ma malakat yameenuka", meaning he can divorce a wife and marry a "ma malakat yameenuka" in her place, but cannot marry any woman other than "ma malakat yameenuka" in the divorced wife's place.
-
Peace Tanveer, Warner
You could be right about "fareedhaat ", but sadaqat nihlatan being ujoor is a speculation. specially when there is no wife in the ayat, it is only a general word NISSA, and you would agree with me that ujoorhinna is consistently being used with nikah and Azwaj,
I feel that brother warner's idea regarding timing of the verses has definitely some standing, as he is very right that the correct word for after this is being used, not beyond these categories,
if we see prohibition of khimer , there is ayat which only said "do not salat when you are intoxicated" , A tacit permission- minus the salat time,and yet another prohibits it totally which people unanimously agree that it was a later revelation.
Brother tanveer ! i shall try and improve your understanding regarding prophet's(Mohammad pbuh) exception for MMA.
The verse says that you can not add or replace a wife from now except MMA. That means prophet could add or replace a MMA but not a legally wedded wife(nikahed),
From this you can once more deduce the status of MMA,This further reinforces, what i, samia and warner are pressing for a long time , Akhi! , proves are too many to ignore or contest.Friends, we may have to think out of the box to solve this riddle.
Ok i have an idea !, which i will post soon , let's see the relevent verses from that angel.
peace
siki
-
Peace Tanveer
We really need outside help brother. I feel this is wrong grammar. Did you make that call to Samia? Let me try to explain with my minute grammar knowledge until some expert comes in to help.
My understanding is in 3352 ?except MMA? is connected to the first clause of the verse.
?More women are not permitted to you beyond this except Ma Malakat Aymanakum?
Let?s try connecting the MMA to the second clause as you suggest.
?Nor can you replace your wives with them, even if you like them except MMA.?
Since the second clause does not mention ?women? and since there should be someone to make the exemption with I guess the MMA is connected to the first clause.
Also
?Nor can you replace your wives with them, even if you like them except WITH MMA.?
You replace a thing ?with? something else. If we go by your version ?replace the wives except with MMA? we can see in the Arabic verse ?with? is not there before MMA. It just says ?except MMA? So the exemption must be connected to the women in the first clause.
I may be wrong in both counts above, but unless proven otherwise by someone good in Arabic grammar I will keep thinking your version is incorrect.