POLYGAMY NOT THERE IN QURAN?

[Samia]

Salaam hasan, huruf and all

Whether it is na-ka-ha or an-ka-ha does not make an actual difference in the imperative form because the initial alif is dropped from the imperative inkihu; so it is fankihu in the verse. What counts here is the fact that in the mushaf without diacritical marks the verb is the same NKH both in 2432 and 43. So it was human choice to write it as enkihu in 2432 and as inkihu in 43. It is clear that those who made the choices made a terrible mistake.

I, too, don't stick to diacritical marks too much. Huruf's question is, as I understand, the reason why you chose "marry off", which is "ankaha". Arabic is different from English in using "marry off". It is set as "marry to a man ", but never "marry off a female". This is clear in verse 2221, where we have the verb in both forms la tankihu almushrikaat don't marry the idolater (females), and la tunkihu almushrikeen don't marry (your women) to the idolators (males). So we can comfortably say that unkih followed by a female ismarry; followed by a male marry to.

Accordingly, this verse is ankihu "marry" and not "marry off".

TAOOLOO is a derivative of ailan (93eight) which means poor

Why did you decide that "3aa'ilan" means poor? Refering to 938, an attribute of God (al- ghani) is not (the rich), but who is in need of nothing. Aghnaa does not mean make you rich, but make you in no need of anything. In fact, ya3ool is derived from 3awl (Ain Wau Laam) originally means to tilt, and used basically for the balance. The verse starts by (if you fear not to be fair to orphans); the logical understanding would be marry their mothers, provided that you don't tilt the balance (a further emphasis on justice and fairness).

It is not a counting number. It is a number which means two by two.

It also means two at a time. It means you can have two wives at a time, three at a time or four at a time.

Realistically, what I understand is that there are times when men are killed off in wars and there are many orphans and women left without care or money.

It may happen the other way around too, like in Halabja, Iraq, whose female inhabitants were massacred while their male relatives remained alive because they were away on the regular war front.

This means people don't understand why men only can marry widowed women with children, but not the other way round. It is not about men and women. It's about children. If a woman supports a widower and his children, socially this will not harm his reputation (and consequently the kid's,). But if a man supports a woman and her kids, there is more possibility that her reputation will be harmed, and that's unfair to the kids.

[huruf]

This may be beside the point, but I still will mention it. Demographically the reproduction rate may not necessarily be limited by the number of males,
but it is necessarily limited by the number of females. Demographers know all these things very well. The number of children is necessarily conditioned by the number of females in reproductive age, but not necessarily by the number of males. So in global terms to look for the welfare of women is a way of looking for the welfare of children. This in demographical terms. At individual level it would of course be individual. Coming to the quranic aya, even if the child is not affected directly, if you give comfort and standing to the mother, she will be in better condictions and even mood or disposition to bring up her children satisfactorily, apart of course from the benefit of having a surrogate father in lieu of none, for whatever he is able to contribute. Hereby the injuction to be fairness and justice which is itself the main point of the whole set of ayas and which under no circumstance must be forgotten.

Salaam

[peace4life]

I say that if financially stable men married 2,3, or 4 of the orphaned, homeless and widdowed women from Africa, Iraq etc. we would have solved half the world's problems. bravo

and don't forget all the women working in unlawful places and doing indecent jobs (even hollywood actresses) . Pick them all up and marry them and put them away from corrupting the earth more and more.

hehehe .. I don't know where I come up with such ideas sometimes

[huruf]

I appreciate your optimism and amire your good spirit, peace4life, but in fact there is some trade in brides from poorer to rich countries, but it is the nicest and single (virginity presumed) that are contracted, not the most in need. Also, I am sure you didn't mean it, but I say it anyway (one must do something to earn the reputation of being brainwashed by feminism bla, bla, bla...) it is where you say

Pick them all up and marry them and put them away from corrupting the earth more and more.

hehehe .. I don't know where I come up with such ideas sometimes

I think that indeed corruption picked them up while other were corrupting the earth more and more. And careful, I was not thinking specifically of men but of "businessmen" ooops I mean "businespeople".

Well it is really not funny and it is also beyond what the usual need or aspirations of decent people in distress. This in in fact thick fasad. May God have mercy.

Salaam

[ImamQuranonly]

As Salaamu Alaikum all,

POLYGYNY IS CLEARLY IN AL QURAN, WHILE "POLYGAMY" DOES NOT EXIST. Since someone started a new thread about it, I will just post the link of where I already refuted the article on Free-minds that promote that it doesn't exist in Al Quran; with similar if not the same arguments used by the author quoted here. I welcome any Quranic discussion, reason and logic to refute my points of view that can be read in the 5th post on the following page

http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=15900.0

If all you have to offer is how you internally knew all your life that polygyny is "wrong"; then don't bother to tell us. We already know that most women feel that way; and some men too. But if you have some Quranic points to refute what I have written to refute the arguments made by those who say that POLYGYNY doesn't exist in Al Quran, then please post them here or in the other thread.

As Salaamu Alaikum, peace

[brook]

Before responding to Samia's post, I have some questions to be answered about YATAAMAN NISAA in An-Nisaa 127 and the word BAIN in An-Nisaa 129.

First, a translation of An-Nisaa 127 (based on Muhammad Asad) with the transliteration

And they will ask thee concerning women.
Wa yastaftuunaka fi?n nisaa.

Say "God enlightens you about them (Qul ellahu yufteekum feehenna)

?for in what is being conveyed to you through this divine writ about orphan women (wa maa yutlaa alaikum fi?l kitaabe fee yataama?n nisaa)

to whom you do not give that which has been ordained for them (allaate laa tu?tuun ahunna maa kuteba lahunna)

because you yourselves may be desirous of marrying them
wa targabuuna an tankeh uuhunna-

and about the helpless children
(wa?l mustad?afeena mina?l vildaan)

and about your duty to treat orphans with equity
(wa an taquumuu li?l yataama bi?l kist)

Now the Progressive translation

"They consult you concerning women say, "GOD enlightens you regarding them, as recited for you in the scripture. The mothers of ORPHANS* that you wish to marry but do not give them their due dowries, you shall be just. The rights of young boys must also be protected. You shall treat the orphans equitably..."

According to Asad, YATAAMAN NISAA are orphan women; according to the Progressive, they are the mothers of ORPHANS. Which is correct?

According to Muhammad Asad, you are warned against marrying the orphan women under your care; according to the Progressive, you are warned against marrying their mothers. Which is rtight?

---

The Progressive translation of An-Nisaa 129

"You can NEVER be equitable in dealing with more than one wife, no matter how hard you try. Therefore, do not be so biased as to leave one of them hanging. If you correct this situation and maintain righteousness, GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful." (4/129)

You can NEVER be equitable in dealing with more than one wife...
Wa lan yastatee'uu an ta'deluu bain an-nisaa.

(1)Does BAIN mean in dealing with? May there be expressions in which BAIN means CONCERNING rather than BETWEEN or AMONG?

(2)Is God addressing only polygamous husbands in 4129? If He is addressing all husbands, including monogamous ones, which wives of his is a monogamous husband supposed to treat equitably?

Peace,
Hasan Akcay

[Samia]

According to Asad, YATAAMAN NISAA are orphan women; according to the Progressive, they are the mothers of ORPHANS. Which is correct?

The rule of the arabic sentence construction (whether classical or colloquial) is that the adjective should conform to the gender of the noun it describes. Yataama is a masculine plural, therefore the construction cannot be that of noun-adjective. We are left with the only other relation between the two nouns possessiveness (X of Y) orphans of women.

And they will ask thee concerning women.
Wa yastaftuunaka fi?n nisaa.

Say "God enlightens you about them (Qul ellahu yufteekum feehenna)

?for in what is being conveyed to you through this divine writ about orphan women (wa maa yutlaa alaikum fi?l kitaabe fee yataama?n nisaa)

to whom you do not give that which has been ordained for them (allaate laa tu?tuun ahunna maa kuteba lahunna)

because you yourselves may be desirous of marrying them
wa targabuuna an tankeh uuhunna-

and about the helpless children
(wa?l mustad?afeena mina?l vildaan)

and about your duty to treat orphans with equity
(wa an taquumuu li?l yataama bi?l kist)

It's good that you put the translation in this way
"nisaa'" are

1. orphans of mothers whose mothers you want to marry
2. helpless children
3. orphans in general

Since these categories are NOT women, we should look into the other meaning of women the left behind; the vulnerable. In fact, the whole chapter is about different categories of these people. It is the chapter on "The vulnerable" not "Women".

You can NEVER be equitable in dealing with more than one wife...
Wa lan yastatee'uu an ta'deluu bain an-nisaa.

(1)Does BAIN mean in dealing with? May there be expressions in which BAIN means CONCERNING rather than BETWEEN or AMONG?

"ya3del bain" means to equate something to another, the meaning extends to equate their rights, to be just. You can choose the direct meaning (equate between) or the derived meaning.

I do not take "nisaa'" here to mean wives. It means wives when it is in the construction of "wives of" or "imra'atu of...", otherwise it means just women/vulnerable/left behind or woman.

If I take it to mean women I will understand it as "you cannot be fair to women (not wives)". (I understand from the qur'aan that one has to be fair to everyone, not just women).
If I take it to mean the vulnerable I will understand it as "You cannot equate them to each other. Each one is a case of its own and its treatment is different" (which I am inclined more to adopt, since the chapter is about them)..

The address is to ALL people, males and females alike. It has nothing to do with husbands, whether poly or monogamous.

[brook]

So you don't believe that in 43 God first expresses His opposition to polygamy, then next He softens it in 4129, as is claimed by the Progressive commentators, in order to console the poor poor polygamous men who are too sorry to treat their wives unjustly? So you don't believe that 4129 is related to 43 for that purpose?

Peace
Hasan Akcay

[Samia]

So you don't believe that in 43 God first expresses His opposition to polygamy, then next He softens it in 4129, as is claimed by the Progressive commentators, in order to console the poor poor polygamous men who are too sorry to treat their wives unjustly? So you don't believe that 4129 is related to 43 for that purpose?

Peace
Hasan Akcay

Hehehehe
No. I do not see that 4129 is addressing polygamous men or even men in general. Polygamy is not about the welfare of men or women. It's about putting the interest of orphans first, to the extent of giving a very special exception in the form of allowing polygamy for that purpose.

Moreover, we are orderd to be just to everyone.

[ImamQuranonly]

As salaamu Alaikum,

Before responding to Samia's post, I have some questions to be answered about YATAAMAN NISAA in An-Nisaa 127 and the word BAIN in An-Nisaa 129.

First, a translation of An-Nisaa 127 (based on Muhammad Asad) with the transliteration

And they will ask thee concerning women.
Wa yastaftuunaka fi?n nisaa.

Say "God enlightens you about them (Qul ellahu yufteekum feehenna)

?for in what is being conveyed to you through this divine writ about orphan women (wa maa yutlaa alaikum fi?l kitaabe fee yataama?n nisaa)

to whom you do not give that which has been ordained for them (allaate laa tu?tuun ahunna maa kuteba lahunna)

because you yourselves may be desirous of marrying them
wa targabuuna an tankeh uuhunna-

and about the helpless children
(wa?l mustad?afeena mina?l vildaan)

and about your duty to treat orphans with equity
(wa an taquumuu li?l yataama bi?l kist)

Now the Progressive translation

"They consult you concerning women say, "GOD enlightens you regarding them, as recited for you in the scripture. The mothers of ORPHANS* that you wish to marry but do not give them their due dowries, you shall be just. The rights of young boys must also be protected. You shall treat the orphans equitably..."

According to Asad, YATAAMAN NISAA are orphan women; according to the Progressive, they are the mothers of ORPHANS. Which is correct?

Every one already knows that "nisaa" does not mean mother. So the progressive translation is only using "mothers" to justify their position that only the mother's of orphans can be married into polygyny. This is false and misleading according to the clear evidence given in Al Quran.

First, as ayat 42 though 46 point out to the reader who pays attention, the orphans being spoke of are being talked about at a time when they have reach marriagable age and the issue of their property being restored to them properly is the focus of the ayaat. Before they have attained this age of discretion and being able to marry, there is not an issue of restoring their property to them; but just not to waste it up hastely before they reach the age to manage it themselves. The ayaat are warning the men who may then want to marry, these previous young girls that have wealth, to not marry them in order to gain control of their wealth. Polygyny did not need to be instituted in these ayaat by Allah because polygyny had already been a practice of mankind for thousands of years before Al Quran was revealed. Allah did not instute a new practice of polygyny with this ayaat, rather He pointed out what was already available to the men (with some new restrictions on limits) instead of doing something that was displeasing to Allah by taking advantage of young women who were orphans but have now reach the age of marriage and have wealth.

So the ayat is more proper when translated as "orphan women" because it points out the fact that these men desired to marry them without giving them their due marital gifts; because these previously orphaned girls who are now women have wealth that is being restored to them now. So the men would thus be chosing them based from financial conditions of benefits to themselves, more than they would be marrying them for true care or love of these women. Allah is protecting these young vunerable women by warning sincere believing men in Him, not to do this; as otherwise the men may think it is perfectly legitimate for them to do so since they were already practising polygyny before these ayaat were revealed.

According to Muhammad Asad, you are warned against marrying the orphan women under your care; according to the Progressive, you are warned against marrying their mothers. Which is rtight?

You are warned against marrying orphan women if you will take advantage of their wealth by mixing it with your own. Otherwise, you are perfectly free to marry the orphan women if you treat them the same as you would other women of your choice, i.e. by giving them their proper marriage gifts and not marrying them just to take advantage of their wealth and mix it into your own. Nothing here or in the beginning ayaat to this sura are the "MOTHERS" of orphans being discussed. That is an assumption of those who tend to the belief that "orphans" in arabic are those who have lost their fathers; and that those mentioned in Al Quran still have their mothers. (As if no orphans during the time of the Prophet could have lost their mother; i.e. no women were ever killed or died while having young children)

The Progressive translation of An-Nisaa 129

"You can NEVER be equitable in dealing with more than one wife, no matter how hard you try. Therefore, do not be so biased as to leave one of them hanging. If you correct this situation and maintain righteousness, GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful." (4/129)

You can NEVER be equitable in dealing with more than one wife...
Wa lan yastatee'uu an ta'deluu bain an-nisaa.

(1)Does BAIN mean in dealing with? May there be expressions in which BAIN means CONCERNING rather than BETWEEN or AMONG?

The first point to understand is the 4128 changes subject matter and begins talking about divorce, not marriage. Therefore the issue of being just with "women" in 4129 is talking about during a separation/divorce situation; not during the marriage itself.

What "BAIN" means here is really irrelevant because the most obvious gross translation is "more than one wife"; IT JUST SIMPLY DOESN'T SAY THAT! MORE is not there, THAN is not there, ONE is not there, WIFE is not technically there, although it is what NISAA is referring to here. BAYNA here means between, but can be interpreted in changing language to be "in dealing with, among, etc.". That doesn't change the point that it is talking about being fair to women during separation/divorce situations. And as you say below

(2)Is God addressing only polygamous husbands in 4129? If He is addressing all husbands, including monogamous ones, which wives of his is a monogamous husband supposed to treat equitably?

Peace,
Hasan Akcay

Both the "YOU" and the "WOMEN" here are plural. So no where does it state that this ayaat is only dealing with polygynous husbands. Men in general can have a problem being fair in separation/divorce proceedings, so Allah is warning ALL men about this issue; monogamous or polygynous.

As Salaamu Alaikum, peace

[ImamQuranonly]

As Salaamu Alaikum,

The rule of the arabic sentence construction (whether classical or colloquial) is that the adjective should conform to the gender of the noun it describes. Yataama is a masculine plural, therefore the construction cannot be that of noun-adjective. We are left with the only other relation between the two nouns possessiveness (X of Y) orphans of women.

It's good that you put the translation in this way
"nisaa'" are

1. orphans of mothers whose mothers you want to marry
2. helpless children
3. orphans in general

Since these categories are NOT women, we should look into the other meaning of women the left behind; the vulnerable. In fact, the whole chapter is about different categories of these people. It is the chapter on "The vulnerable" not "Women".

You promote arabic grammer rules when they suit a case of yours, even if it makes no sense still, but when it does not, you point out that grammarians made the rules and tried to fit Al Quran into their rules and therefore not everything will seem to suit the grammerians rules since they are humans and falliable.

I have already pointed out and asked you this regarding this issue (which you have not answered successfully)

Quote from Samia on June 10, 2007, 023838 AM

1. Yataamaa alnisaa' Orphans of mothers orphans whose mother/s are alive. I know the word "mother" per se is not there,. But if it is " mother of orphans " the subject will be the "mother" of the orphan, not the the orphans themselves. The construction of the kind "orphans' mother" where you start the phrase with the the main subject and make it "mudaaf ilaihi" at the same time does not exist in Arabic, such as " yataamaa alummahaat" , because this means those who are orphaned from the side of the mother. The only expression left to mention the mothers of the orphans without making the mother the subject of the verse is what God chose yataamaa al nisaa'.

Some people think that it means "women orphans", and I believe you are one of them. This is wrong, because yataamaa is a masculine plural and cannot be used as an adjective for females. It should be "yateemaat al- nisaa'", or "alnisaa' alyateemaat", or simply "alyateemaat" as opposed to "alyataamaa"

Quote from ImamQuranonly on June 10, 2007, 103247 AM
As Salaamu Alaika Samia,

..................

Seriously Samia..now you want me to accept al nisaa' as "mothers"? How many definitions of "nisaa'" do you make to fit all of the definitions that you desire in Al Quran? You reject the meaning of nisaa' as "women" in all the ayaat that it is not convenient for your understandings, but then you change it to mean mother or one that is responsible or whatever, in order to suit your understandings. If, as you admit to, "mother" is not in the verse, why are you trying to make it fit to suit your own interpretation? I don't think that is good scholarship.

This ayat wasn't part of the discussion, but any ayat that is revelant is suitable to bring to the discussion to support a point as the Quran can elaborate on a concept in other ayaat that are not directly connected. Now let me see if I understand you correctly, if I am wrong, then please correct me.

By you saying "The only expression left to mention the mothers of the orphans without making the mother the subject of the verse is what God chose yataamaa al nisaa'.", you are saying that "the mothers" are not the subject of the sentence and the "yataamaa" are.....correct? And you are also said "This is wrong, because yataamaa is a masculine plural and cannot be used as an adjective for females." So if this is correct, please explain your understanding of the feminine use here

Transliteration Wayastaftoonaka fee alnnisa-i quli Allahu yufteekum feehinna wama yutla AAalaykum fee alkitabi fee yatama alnnisa-i allatee la tu/toonahunna ma kutiba lahunna watarghaboona an tankihoohunna waalmustadAAafeena mina alwildani waan taqoomoo lilyatama bialqisti wama tafAAaloo min khayrin fa-inna Allaha kana bihi AAaleeman
Literal And they ask for your opinion/clarification in the women, say "God decreed/clarifies in them (F), and what is read/recited on you in The Book in the women orphans/minors that lose their father, those who (F) you did not give them (F) what was written/dictated to them (F), and you desire that you marry them (F), and the weakened from the children/new borns, and that you take care of to the orphans/minors that61lose their father with the just/equitable; and what you make/do from goodness, so that God was/is with it knowledgeable."

Why are the subject as you say "yataamaa" referred to as feminine in the rest of the ayaat?

Can you please answer this successfully if you are correct.

"ya3del bain" means to equate something to another, the meaning extends to equate their rights, to be just. You can choose the direct meaning (equate between) or the derived meaning.

I do not take "nisaa'" here to mean wives. It means wives when it is in the construction of "wives of" or "imra'atu of...", otherwise it means just women/vulnerable/left behind or woman.

If I take it to mean women I will understand it as "you cannot be fair to women (not wives)". (I understand from the qur'aan that one has to be fair to everyone, not just women).
If I take it to mean the vulnerable I will understand it as "You cannot equate them to each other. Each one is a case of its own and its treatment is different" (which I am inclined more to adopt, since the chapter is about them)..

The address is to ALL people, males and females alike. It has nothing to do with husbands, whether poly or monogamous.

If you read 4128-130 together, one can clearly see that it is talking to married people, and therefore "nisaa" in 4129 can and should be understood to be "wives", be context, although not literally. The ayaat again are dealing with divorce.

4128
Transliteration Wa-ini imraatun khafat min baAAliha nushoozan aw iAAradan fala junaha AAalayhima an yusliha baynahuma sulhan waalssulhu khayrun waohdirati al-anfusu alshshuhha wa-in tuhsinoo watattaqoo fa-inna Allaha kana bima taAAmaloona khabeeran
Literal And if a woman feared from her husband quarrel/despise or objection/opposition/turning away, so no offense/guilt (is) on them (B) that they (B) correct/reconciliate between them (B) correction/reconciliation, and the correction/reconciliation (is) best ; and the selves the miser/careful were brought/made to be present/made to attend , and if you do good and you fear and obey, so then God was/is with what you make/do an expert/experienced.
Free-Minds And if a woman fears from her husband desertion, or ill-treatment, then there is no sin for them to reconcile between themselves; and reconciliation is good. And the souls are brought by need. And if you are kind and do right, then God is expert over what you do.
Rashad Khalifa If a woman senses oppression or desertion from her husband, the couple shall try to reconcile their differences, for conciliation is best for them. Selfishness is a human trait, and if you do good and lead a righteous life, GOD is fully Cognizant of everything you do.
Yusuf Ali If a wife fears cruelty or desertion on her husband's part, there is no blame on them if they arrange an amicable settlement between themselves; and such settlement is best; even though men's souls are swayed by greed. But if ye do good and practise self-restraint, Allah is well-acquainted with all that ye do.

4129
Transliteration Walan tastateeAAoo an taAAdiloo bayna alnnisa-i walaw harastum fala tameeloo kulla almayli fatatharooha kaalmuAAallaqati wa-in tuslihoo watattaqoo fa-inna Allaha kana ghafooran raheeman
Literal And you will never be able that you be just/equitable between the women, and (even) if you held onto stingily and desired strongly (were very careful), so do not bend/sway all the bend/inclination, so you leave her as/like the suspended neither properly married nor divorced and free to remarry (abused, abandoned and neglected), and if you reconciliate, and you fear and obey (God), so then God was/is a forgiving, merciful.
Free-Minds And you will not be able to be fair regarding the women even if you make every effort; so do not sway too greatly and leave her as one hanging in a void. And if you reconcile and do right, then God is Forgiving, Merciful.
Rashad Khalifa You can never be equitable in dealing with more than one wife, no matter how hard you try. Therefore, do not be so biased as to leave one of them hanging (neither enjoying marriage, nor left to marry someone else). If you correct this situation and maintain righteousness, GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.
Yusuf Ali Ye are never able to be fair and just as between women, even if it is your ardent desire But turn not away (from a woman) altogether, so as to leave her (as it were) hanging (in the air). If ye come to a friendly understanding, and practise self-restraint, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

4130
Transliteration Wa-in yatafarraqa yughni Allahu kullan min saAAatihi wakana Allahu wasiAAan hakeeman
Literal If they (B) separate, God enriches/suffices each from his wealth/abundance, and God was/is rich/extended , wise/judicious.
Free-Minds And if they separate, then God will provide for each of them from His bounty. God is Vast, Wise.
Rashad Khalifa If the couple must decide to part, GOD will provide for each of them from His bounties. GOD is Bounteous, Most Wise.
Yusuf Ali But if they disagree (and must part), Allah will provide abundance for all from His all-reaching bounty for Allah is He that careth for all and is Wise.

As Salaamu Alaikum, peace

[brook]

It's about putting the interest of orphans first, to the extent of giving a very special exception in the form of allowing polygamy for that purpose.

Moreover, we are orderd to be just to everyone.

Human beings are great at making up excuses for polygamy. One of them is this orphans' sake business. Please be reasonable are the mothers of orphans second class women so that they deserve the torture of being co-wives while other women are saved from it? Aren't there any other ways out of the orphans' dilemma than condemning their mothers to the torture of polygamy?

The way you are "he he he he"ing the Progressive translation

"You can NEVER be equitable in dealing with more than one wife, no matter how hard you try. Therefore, do not be so biased as to leave one of them hanging. If you correct this situation and maintain righteousness, GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful." (4/129)

Yes. O poor poor polygamous male subjects of Mine! If you correct this situation; that is, if you just refrain from being biased as to leave any one of your wives hanging, I will FORGIVE you. As simple as that. Don?t worry.

Another thing. What is 4129 about, divorce or men?s right to marry "more than one wife"?

4128 deals with nushuuz of the husbands, which will result etiher in their setting things peacefully to rights between themselves or divorce. In 4129 there is no reference to men?s right to polygamy but there is a reference of divorce as the inevitable alternative to setting things to rights.

4130 begins with these words if they do separate (Wa in yatafarraqaa). Definite reference to divorce again.

Isn?t this proof enough that 4129 is about divorce too?

Between who is bias to be avoided; between co-wives during polygamous togetherness or between the husband and wife during divorce?

Peace,
Hasan Akcay

[Samia]

As Salaamu Alaikum,

You promote arabic grammer rules when they suit a case of yours, even if it makes no sense still, but when it does not, you point out that grammarians made the rules and tried to fit Al Quran into their rules and therefore not everything will seem to suit the grammerians rules since they are humans and falliable.

Salaam IQO

If you do not understand what I say, don't start throwing meaningless accusations. It is not that it "suits" me that adjectives follow the described noun in its gender, even in colloquial/spoken Arabic. This is a FACT, whether you like it or not. But when I see grammarian say something and the qur'aan shows another, no way would I be on the side of the grammarians.

The paragraph you are quoting me in in from another thread is a further explanation of why I chose "mothers" when you asked where I got this "mother" from, instead of saying "yatamaa alummahaat". Two completely different themes. The last two lines of this quote is what I put in the post of today. Where is the contradiction or the change of opinion?

In what context have I opposed grammarians, if you remember?

Can you please answer this successfully if you are correct.

Who are the the "two" in "yatafarraqaa the two seperate" mentioned in verse 130? They are the two about whom the verse 4128 is talking
Verse 4128 is about a seperated couple because of nushuz of husband . 4128 reconciliate between them; 4130 and if they choose to divorce, God will provide each of them from His bounty. Ido not see "many" wives here.

How do you see verse 129 relates exclusively to this incident? It is a reminder to be just to women in general /or to treat the vulnerable each case as it stands. . So what is the contradiction? Verse 129 is not about 128 /130, since the latter is on a specific case (seperation because of nushuz).

[Samia]

Human beings are great at making up excuses for polygamy. One of them is this orphans' sake business. Please be reasonable are the mothers of orphans second class women so that they deserve the torture of being co-wives while other women are saved from it? Aren't there any other ways out of the orphans' dilemma than condemning their mothers to the torture of polygamy?

It is not an excuse, but an explanation. And it is not about widows. And not all widows or any widow (not all widows have poor children and some one is spending on them) and most of all it is not a command.

The way you are "he he he he"ing the Progressive translation

What about it?

You like the PT? Well, I don't

So, what's your understanding of verse 43?

[brook]

Don't worry Brook, I have impressions, which is a good thing but, as you see, I try to get to the bottom of it.

It is obvious that I reacted rashly to your words my first impression is that it is indeed ONLY about orphans because I misunderstood "orphans" for mothers of orphans; so I thought you were saying 43 is about God?s permission for polygyny ONLY when mothers of orphans are involved. It is the Progressive claim, you know, and has no support from the Quran. So I said personal impressions don?t make divine laws (4221).

I apologize for my misunderstanding and overreaction.

Peace,
Hasan Akcay

[siki]

4-129 And you will not be able to be fair regarding the women even if you make every effort; so do not sway too greatly and leave her as one hanging in a void. And if you reconcile and do right, then God is Forgiving, Merciful.

The nissa in 4-129 is not wives only, but it includes all the women that you deal with.

Though the primary address/concern here is your wives/MMA etc, but it does include every women that you take care in some way . They could be your sisters, mothers as well {we have recently concluded (with the help of samia ;D) that Nissa , or even the nissa o kum is a term not exclusive for wives/spouses only}

This aya is telling Men that , God knows/accepts that One can not be absolutely just in dealing with the women (under your guardian ship), but going to an extreme by abandoning one (completely) is wrong. And further advises Men to make a positive effort/endeavor to correct/improve upon such a situation , if it exists, and he will be forgiving merciful (for minor differentiation which he knows that it can not be in your control)

IN joint families where one's sisters , or / and mother is residing , and if one is family head, I have seen Men mistreating their own mothers /sisters , because they are under the influence of their wives, and offcourse generally the reverse situation is more prevalent.
siki

[siki]

And moreover ,,, there are overwhelming evidences in Great reading that Polygynous relationships are allowed

siki

[huruf]

Salaam all,

Samia, my encouragement, seems that you get them from both sides.

Now, coming to the meaning of nisaa' I asked in some other thread about this word. I would very much like to get to the bottom of it. I see that it is classified as root n-s-w and I also see my dictionnaries that it is practically the only word belonging to n-s-w. My questions

1. Is it sure its root is n-s-w and not n-s-' or n-s-y?

2. Whatever its root, is there historical record of usage outside qur'an with values diferent from "women".

3. Is there some historical record of the usage of some other word as plural of imra' like imra'at or inaath or any other.

Could nisaa' be one of those cases of metaphore where the word for the whole has come to mean one part of the whole?

Talking about parallels we see for instance in Spanish how the word "hombre" has come to mean "human male", where not very long ago it meant "human being of either sex". The word "var?n", meaning "human male" and in wide usage at other times, today is if not obsolete, quite restricted. I find this fact very illustrative of how ideological concepts can undo language and other concepts, because on the other hand "Hombre" continues to be a preferred word to speak of abstract humanity, so that the evolution of speech has come to throw "women" out of Humanity. In this case the word for the whole has also come to mean one part of the whole.

I leave it at that for now, and in case that is of any encouragement, Samia, I say that it is very important to deal with this aspect very thoroughly. There is merit to your contention that the thread of the nisaa' sura is precisely about what we see the just protection and arrangements for those who cannot procure them for themselves by themselves.

Thanks and salaam

[brook]

Salaam hasan, huruf and all

I, too, don't stick to diacritical marks too much. Huruf's question is, as I understand, the reason why you chose "marry off", which is "ankaha". Arabic is different from English in using "marry off". It is set as "marry to a man ", but never "marry off a female". This is clear in verse 2221, where we have the verb in both forms la tankihu almushrikaat don't marry the idolater (females), and la tunkihu almushrikeen don't marry (your women) to the idolators (males). So we can comfortably say that unkih followed by a female ismarry; followed by a male marry to.

Accordingly, this verse is ankihu "marry" and not "marry off".

Why did you decide that "3aa'ilan" means poor? Refering to 938, an attribute of God (al- ghani) is not (the rich), but who is in need of nothing. Aghnaa does not mean make you rich, but make you in no need of anything. In fact, ya3ool is derived from 3awl (Ain Wau Laam) originally means to tilt, and used basically for the balance. The verse starts by (if you fear not to be fair to orphans); the logical understanding would be marry their mothers, provided that you don't tilt the balance (a further emphasis on justice and fairness).

It also means two at a time. It means you can have two wives at a time, three at a time or four at a time.

This means people don't understand why men only can marry widowed women with children, but not the other way round. It is not about men and women. It's about children. If a woman supports a widower and his children, socially this will not harm his reputation (and consequently the kid's,). But if a man supports a woman and her kids, there is more possibility that her reputation will be harmed, and that's unfair to the kids.

Samia, you are my ideal expert in Arabic grammar. I feel indebted to you because I have learnt so much from you. But please be realistic enough to accept that you are fallible like us all human beings.

Remember? You made explications and explanations about the grammar in and the composition of the inheritance verses. You held so fast to your assertions until Nun de Plume dropped in and suggested that all we needed was basic algebra derived from Al-Kitab al-Jabr wa-l-Muqabala by mathematician Muhammad bin Ms al-Khwrizm.

Then you said I think I found the problem. If it is one daughter, why give her half if there are no siblings? Forget about all my calculations. I was mislead by this "half".

My admiration grew all the more of you after that. You were not only knowledgeable but also wise. I could communicate with you.

Now you are making explications and explanations about 43. They are great, seemingly unchallengeable. But please be ready to give them up when we study the verses which forbid polygyny. It is impossible that God forbids polygyny in 423, 420, 2432, 3352 and allows it in 43.

I will respond to the red assertions some other time if God wills.

Peace,
Hasan Ak?ay

[Samia]

Salaam huruf

Thank you huruf for the kind words and the encouragement.
1 and 2 The root (Nun Seen Wau) gives us other plurals for imra'atun, which are niawa (or nuswa) and niswaan (or nuswaan). The root for nisaa' is Nuun Seen Hamza. The dictionary of quraanic terms put it under Nuun Seen Wau, but that is not to be taken as a linguistic dictionary. All classical Arabic dictionaries put it under Nuun Seen Hamza, which is quite logical.

3 Words of the same root are used, meaning to delay. I do not have any knowledge of a historical record of this word being used other than woman. But I would like to mention that I did not even think of looking it up in a dictionary, in spite of my problem understanding it as "women" specially in verse 434. Until I read a book by the late Sudanese thinker Mahmoud Mohammad Taha suggesting that "nunsiha" in verse 2106 is also reported to be "nunsi'uha". That's when I started having hope it could be something else. I then read a small book by someone vcaled Islamboly, where he put it in this meaning (left behind). Maybe there are other ecords but I do not know of them. It seems that the qur'aan derived it from already existing roots, like many other Arabic words, for the first time.

Could nisaa' be one of those cases of metaphore where the word for the whole has come to mean one part of the whole?

I believe the existence of other words for "women" stands as a strong proof for this