POLYGAMY NOT THERE IN QURAN?
-
Arabic is different from English in using "marry off". It is set as "marry to a man", but never "marry off a female". unkih followed by a female is marry; followed by a male marry to. (Samia)
What is meant by marry off in the discussions of the topic is marry a woman to a man, like in an-Nuur 32
Wa ankehoo?l ayaama?
Marry off the unmarried.
(Marry them each to a man)There is no use making fuss over which NKH is the one in 43 and which one is the one in 2432 because they were originally the same before the diacritical marks were added to them in the early 8th century AD. The fact that it is now read in one way to mean marry them yourselves in 43 and in another way to mean marry them off to other men in 2432 is simply a matter of the choices the people made while inserting the alifs and diacritical marks in the Quranic text; that is, these choices were not divine; they were human. And it is human to err.
As years went by, the correct reading of the Koran became less clear, he says. People made changes to make sense of the text. Puin gives as example Hajjaj bin Yusuf, governor of Iraq from 694-714 AD, who "was proud of inserting more than 1,000 alifs in the Koranic text".
Professor Allen Jones, lecturer in Koranic Studies at Oxford University, agrees.
"Hajjaj is also responsible for putting the diacritical marks in the Koran. His changes are a defining moment in the history of the Koran". (QUERYING THE QURAN, the Guardian, Augus 8 2000)
Peace,
Hasan AkcaySalaam Hasan
There is no need to tell me about the history of the diacritical marks or to even mention them. It is not a question of these marks. What I meant by the difference of usage is that the English (marry off) needs a preposition to make it transitional. The Arabic verb only changes from to become transitional. This is also a fundamental principle in Arabic morphology and is, again, shared between classical AND spoken Arabic. The intransitional form (nakaha Form I) takes one direct object, which is the female. The derived form (unkaha Form IV) takes two direct objects, the first of which is the male. So, when we have the verb followed by a female, this is the direst object; followed by male, this is the direct object ( This is in case the addressee is a male/masculine).
Another important point is to be considered. If the address is to the female (we do not have this example in the quraan), the verb will still be form I, followed by the male who is the direct object here.
So in summary, the preposition (off) in the verb (marry off) does not exist in the Arabic verb. Instead, the Arabic has the notion of two direct objects, the first of which is the male.
I am still waiting to read your understanding of th verse 43, so that I understand "marry off" in context. Maybe I am missing something. Remember, I am explaining the principles of language without your context.
As for verse 2423, "wan kihul ayaamaa minkum wassaaliheen marry the single and the righteous amongst you ...", since the address is to both genders, the verb is impossible to decide its form, the verb accommodates both meaning. I do not see a problem here.
-
As for verse 2432, "wan kihul ayaamaa minkum wassaaliheen marry the single and the righteous amongst you ...", since the address is to both genders, the verb is impossible to decide its form, the verb accommodates both meaning.
If you examplify the rules; I will understand better. Take the NKH in al-Kasas 27 for example
Innee uriduu an uNKiH aka ihdabnatayyah?
I will marry you one of my two dauhters
or
I will marry one of my two daughters to youDirect Object
ihdabnatayyah?
one of my two daughtersIndirect Object
aka
youWhat would the NKH (uNKiH) mean in 2827 if you had only the Direct Object?
Please write the transcription of the Arabic sentence which means "Marry (off) your daughter!"
What form of the NKH should we have in order to make 43 mean "Marry (off) the women!"?
Peace,
Hasan Akcay -
I am still waiting to read your understanding of th verse 43, so that I understand "marry off" in context.
This is what I understand
The verse is about the orphans who have some possessions. They are too litle to look after themselves. So they are under the custody of some benevolent momeneen and momenaat, who are such sincere believers that God's warning in 42 frighten them too much. They ask God in their heart "How can I get rid of the possibility of eating the possessions of my orphans and committing the big crime?" They mean the hooban kabeera mentioned in 43.
God shows them the way out
Hand over the possessions of the orphans who have reached mental and phisical maturity (46). Plus, if they ask you to marry them (off), marry them each to a man and send them away to their new homes. Thus you will have no orphan's possessions left under your care to eat with your own possesions by mistake.
This much enough for now?
Peace,
Hasan Akcay -
Innee uriduu an uNKiH aka ihdabnatayyah?
I will marry you one of my two dauhtersThe form is correct (form IV), since it is clear that we have two direct objects. The English sentence is the literal translation of the verse. The other one (I will marry one of my daughters to you) is the same meaning, but not as literally as the first one. The Arabic sentence has both objects direct (no preposition).
(NB I think I made an error in my last post
The intransitional form (nakaha Form I) takes one direct object, which is the female
It should be read the transitional, not the intransitional. Nakaha is transitional with one direct object; unkaha is transitional with two direct objects)
What would the NKH (uNKiH) mean in 2827 if you had only the Direct Object?
Please write the transcription of the Arabic sentence which means "Marry (off) your daughter!"
What form of the NKH should we have in order to make 43 mean "Marry (off) the women!"?
From these questions I feel that I did not explain myself well. Let's say that we have three people Zaid, Obaid and Fatima
Zaid nakaha Fatima (Zaid married Fatima) Fatima first and only direct object.
Obaid unkaha Zaidan Fatima (Obaid married Fatima off to Obaid) Zaid first drect object; Fatima second direct object (no prepositions n the Arabic sentence; just change of the verb form). -
Salaam Samia.
Please be sure that I will understand the English garammar. Don?t worry. I taught it, and to teach it I had to learn it first. I am almost perfect at English garammar. This explains the to in red in the sentence "I will marry one of my two daughters to you." The rule is the Indirect Object changes into a prepositional phrase if the Direct Object is placed before it. The Indirect Object is you in this sentence; and the Direct Object is one of my two daughters.
The question is, don?t you have a verb in your language corresponding to marry, which can have only one Object, which is Direct? Can?t you say "Marry your daughter!" in Arabic? Do you have to say "Marry somebody your daughter!" even if you do not want to mention that somebody, which is not worth mentioning anyway because it is an insignificant somebody?
So please write the transcription of the Arabic sentence which means "Marry your daughter!"
Peqace,
Hasan Akcay -
Salaam Samia,
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?
I have no problem understanding what you are saying Samia. I do understand much of the grammar of Al Quran, whether I understand more or less than you is debatable considering how arabic is your native language, but yet you still continue to prove errorneous on many arabic grammatical issues on this forum.
You chose to follow grammar when it suits you and not when it doesn't. In ayat 4129, you make "nisaa" equal to "mothers" because of your "grammatical analysis", yet in 4129 "nisaa" can not be "wives" because it only means according to you "women/left behind/etc.", or whatever else you make "nisaa" to mean.
You said
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.
So according to you the ayat would read
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 ORPHANS OF WOMEN, 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."In your sentence construction, "ORPHANS" (not women) is the subject, masculine still, that are being referred to as "those who you did not give them (F) what was written/dictacted to them (F), and you desire that you marry them (F)..."
Can you please explain how this makes sense to you grammatically? How can they (M) ask concerning the "women" and Allah tells you(M) about what is recited about the "(male) orphans(the subject) of women", those who (F) you (M) did not give them (F) what was written to them (F)? Are men concerned here with marrying male orphans of women? o
Please give your grammatical analysis of why "yataamaa an nisaai" (orphans of women according to your quote above) are being referred to in the feminine throughout the other parts of the ayat.
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).
So you agree that ayat 4128 is about a couple separating and 4130 is about them them divorcing. I don't recall using "many" wives, just "women" referring to wives of "men"; which could represent either one; more than one wife to each man, and/or each man and his wife (covering all scenarios). To say that 4129 doesn't have anything to do with the context of both 4128 and 4130, when those two clearly deal with the same subject, is to try to take 4129 out of it's clear context and give it only a literal meaning. Many people do this with Al Quran; like the ayat about "take what the Prophet gives you and refuse what he withholds from you". People try to make that a general statement without considering the context that it is given in. You are doing the same thing with 4129 because based on its context, it clearly is dealing with the "women" who are wives of men who are in "nushooz" and separating and divorce are the issues of context.
As Salaamu Alaikum, peace
-
As Salaamu Alaika 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.
sikiYour post pointed out two additional things to me regarding these ayaat.
First, fatatharooha kaalmuAAallaqati "and leave her as one hanging in a void"; clearly here, this shows that "nisaa" here are referring to "her" that was referred to in 4128 (Wa-ini imraatun khafat min baAAliha nushooza). So unlike Samia suggests, this further proves that the three ayaat are to be taken together and not 4129 out of its current context.
Second, the reason "nisaa" may have been used instead of wives is that wives or MMA are those whom could be included as those having a problem with their "husband". Therefore, using the context and the word "nisaa" makes it to cover all those possibly contained in the context of the ayaat. Mothers, daughers and other women would not be included in the term "nisaa" in these ayaat because they can not fulfill the criteria of the complaint contained in the context; i.e. separating, being left handing and divorce.
As Salaamu Alaikum, peace
-
Salaam Samia.
Please be sure that I will understand the English garammar. Don?t worry. I taught it, and to teach it I had to learn it first. I am almost perfect at English garammar. This explains the to in red in the sentence "I will marry one of my two daughters to you." The rule is the Indirect Object changes into a prepositional phrase if the Direct Object is placed before it. The Indirect Object is you in this sentence; and the Direct Object is one of my two daughters.
Salaam Hasan
I neither doubted that nor did I claim to be explaining English grammar. All my explanation is about Arabic grammar, and was trying to answer your question. If you notice the correction I made to my post, you will understand that I am not talking about indirect object, because in this Arabic sentence there is no indirect object. It is either one direct object or two direct objects. No preposition.
So please write the transcription of the Arabic sentence which means "Marry your daughter!"
The sentence will be unkih ibnatak!
-
Salaam IQO
You chose to follow grammar when it suits you and not when it doesn't. In ayat 4129, you make "nisaa" equal to "mothers" because of your "grammatical analysis", yet in 4129 "nisaa" can not be "wives" because it only means according to you "women/left behind/etc.", or whatever else you make "nisaa" to mean.
This is a big accusation. I do not choose grammar. I choose the more suitable meaning. With words having multiple meaning, what else can you do? Stick to one meaning throughout the qur'aan? Does the qur'aan stick to only one meaning? If so, we would not be debating for months and years. It's all about choosing the appropriate meaning.
The choice of nisaa' meaning mothers is hardly a grammatical thing. The noun-adjective conformity based on gender is a universal rule of all gendered languages. French speakers will easily understand what I say even if they know nothing about Arabic grammar.
My understanding of nisaa' when they mean wives can be proven by the verses in the qur'aan. Find me any instance where nisaa'/imra'a is in the construction (nisaa' of X or your/his wives/wife), but does not mean wife/wives.
The construction of "yataamal nisaa'" is different. It is (X of nisaa'. We have (khutbatun nisaa' 2235; and 3awratun nisaa' 2431; ummahatu nisaa'ikum 423 where none of them means wives). Therefore it is not wives. It is not a noun/adjective either, because of lack of conformity in gender. It is (orphans of women/mothers of orphans).
I know your (and others' question will be why not say ummahatul yatamaa? This will move the emphasis from orphans to their mothers. See this usage in verse 423 ummahaatu nisaa'ikum. The empahsis is on "your mothers' in law" not "your wives".
Transliteration Wayastaftoonaka fee alnnisa-i quli Allahu yufteekum feehinna wama yutla AAalaykum fee alkitabi fee yatama alnnisa-i allatee la tu/toonahunna ma kutiba lahunnaIn
your sentence construction, "ORPHANS" (not women) is the subjec... Can you please explain how this makes sense to you grammatically?
yatamaal nisaa' is an idaafa construction, that's of the form (X of Y). This construction is unbreakable (except in one instance which is off topic here). If you want to add anything (like an adjective or a relative pronoun relating to either parts of the idafa, as in this case here) it has to be add AFTER this construction. For example, if you want to say the young orphans of the nisaa' or the orphans of the young nisaa', "the young" will have to come at the end (yataamal nisaa' alsighaar/alsagheeraat) This is different from English. The gender (if different) will decide who is young. If both parts of the construction are of the same gender, we will have an ambiguous sentence, unless broken up and rephrased.
In this verse, we have the relative pronoun "allaati" which is feminine. It has to refer to nisaa'. The correct literal translation will be (orphans whose mothers you want to wed). The English translation (mothers of orphans whom you want to wed) will again be ambiguous, where the Arabic is not because "whom" in English is neutral; in Arabic it is gendered.
So you agree that ayat 4128 is about a couple separating and 4130 is about them them divorcing. I don't recall using "many" wives, just "women" referring to wives of "men"; which could represent either one; more than one wife to each man, and/or each man and his wife (covering all scenarios). To say that 4129 doesn't have anything to do with the context of both 4128 and 4130, when those two clearly deal with the same subject, is to try to take 4129 out of it's clear context and give it only a literal meaning. Many people do this with Al Quran; like the ayat about "take what the Prophet gives you and refuse what he withholds from you". People try to make that a general statement without considering the context that it is given in. You are doing the same thing with 4129 because based on its context, it clearly is dealing with the "women" who are wives of men who are in "nushooz" and separating and divorce are the issues of context.
The whole chapter is about "nisaa'". There is no cherry picking here. verses 128 and 130 are clear to be one unbroken subject about two in aproblematic marriage, 128 about a solution of keeping them together; 130 if they want to separate. A verse in between is a parenthetical verse. This is quite familiar in the qur'aan.
I hope I have clarified the matter.
-
As Salaamu Alaika Samia,
This is a big accusation. I do not choose grammar. I choose the more suitable meaning. With words having multiple meaning, what else can you do? Stick to one meaning throughout the qur'aan? Does the qur'aan stick to only one meaning? If so, we would not be debating for months and years. It's all about choosing the appropriate meaning.
Ignore this statement Samia, and accept my apologies regarding this ayat, 4127. In fact, after reviewing your whole post slowly and reviewing my notes on muDaafun 'ilayhi, you are right. "Al laatee" is the key here that puts the focus back on "nisaa", which when understood from that point, can be understood as "mothers" (obviously of the orphans), just as "nisaa" in 4129 can be understood as "wives". I stand corrected!
Of course words have many meanings in Al Quran, no one said that they don't. All words in every language have many meanings, that's why there are dictionaries to explain all that the words mean.
The choice of nisaa' meaning mothers is hardly a grammatical thing. The noun-adjective conformity based on gender is a universal rule of all gendered languages. French speakers will easily understand what I say even if they know nothing about Arabic grammar.
While my logic here made sense to me, clearly it was partially in error based on the observation and correction that I noted above.
My understanding of nisaa' when they mean wives can be proven by the verses in the qur'aan. Find me any instance where nisaa'/imra'a is in the construction (nisaa' of X or your/his wives/wife), but does not mean wife/wives.
I already gave you 4129 where nisaa refers to wives. Your challenge to prove your example where nisaa doesn't mean wife/wives would not have any effect on the issue we are discussing because I am saying that it can be used to refer to wives based on the context; not that it can't be wives (errr). Here is how I responded to a post by siki in case you didn't read it
As Salaamu Alaika siki,
Your post pointed out two additional things to me regarding these ayaat.
First, fatatharooha kaalmuAAallaqati "and leave her as one hanging in a void"; clearly here, this shows that "nisaa" here are referring to "her" that was referred to in 4128 (Wa-ini imraatun khafat min baAAliha nushooza). So unlike Samia suggests, this further proves that the three ayaat are to be taken together and not 4129 out of its current context.
Second, the reason "nisaa" may have been used instead of wives is that wives or MMA are those whom could be included as those having a problem with their "husband". Therefore, using the context and the word "nisaa" makes it to cover all those possibly contained in the context of the ayaat. Mothers, daughers and other women would not be included in the term "nisaa" in these ayaat because they can not fulfill the criteria of the complaint contained in the context; i.e. separating, being left handing and divorce.
As Salaamu Alaikum, peace
The construction of "yataamal nisaa'" is different. It is (X of nisaa'. We have (khutbatun nisaa' 2235; and 3awratun nisaa' 2431; ummahatu nisaa'ikum 423 where none of them means wives). Therefore it is not wives. It is not a noun/adjective either, because of lack of conformity in gender. It is (orphans of women/mothers of orphans).
First, I never said that in "yataamal nisaa" that nisaa stood for wives. Where did you get that idea? Are you getting confused?
Again, I stand somewhat corrected here. While mothers of orphans is not the correct phrase to use because the construction is still "orphans of women", the women are then referred to by the term "al laatee", which changes the focus of the ayat to the mothers, or women caretakers of those orphans by context. I stand corrected.
I know your (and others' question will be why not say ummahatul yatamaa? This will move the emphasis from orphans to their mothers. See this usage in verse 423 ummahaatu nisaa'ikum. The empahsis is on "your mothers' in law" not "your wives".
After reviewing this grammactical miss on my part, I had totally ignored the significance of "al laatee" in the muDaafun 'ilayhi; so this puts the emphasis back on "nisaa". Unfortunately, althought I know better, I was basing this error from english grammer and understanding of context, when clearly it is dealing with "nisaa" and not "yataamaa". Nevertheless, while it could be understood as mothers and that is acceptable, also it could be other women that are taking care of orphans as well; although a minor point.
yatamaal nisaa' is an idaafa construction, that's of the form (X of Y). This construction is unbreakable (except in one instance which is off topic here). If you want to add anything (like an adjective or a relative pronoun relating to either parts of the idafa, as in this case here) it has to be add AFTER this construction. For example, if you want to say the young orphans of the nisaa' or the orphans of the young nisaa', "the young" will have to come at the end (yataamal nisaa' alsighaar/alsagheeraat) This is different from English. The gender (if different) will decide who is young. If both parts of the construction are of the same gender, we will have an ambiguous sentence, unless broken up and rephrased.
So again, I left all of this here since it had already been posted once. I put the posted parts in red and my revisions after it. When I got to the next stage of analysing your points dealing with "al laatee", I realized what I had overlooked and am now making the corrections.
In this verse, we have the relative pronoun "allaati" which is feminine. It has to refer to nisaa'. The correct literal translation will be (orphans whose mothers you want to wed). The English translation (mothers of orphans whom you want to wed) will again be ambiguous, where the Arabic is not because "whom" in English is neutral; in Arabic it is gendered.
So again, at this point, unless there is something else that I am overlooking; I will agree with you that a better/correct "literal" translation would be "orphans whose mothers you want to wed".
The whole chapter is about "nisaa'". There is no cherry picking here. verses 128 and 130 are clear to be one unbroken subject about two in aproblematic marriage, 128 about a solution of keeping them together; 130 if they want to separate. A verse in between is a parenthetical verse. This is quite familiar in the qur'aan.
Yet I still don't agree with you here in that 4129 is not referring to the wives because of the response that I referenced to you that I made to siki. That is not a grammatical issue, but a context issue just like "mothers" is not in this 4127; but due to context it can be taken that way (most likely), or could also include other women that are taking care of orphans and unmarried.
I hope I have clarified the matter.
The matter of 4127 is further clarified. But that doesn't change the issue of 43 being that men can still marry other women if they fear that they will not be able to deal justly with the "women" (mothers or others) of orphans that they wish to wed. 43 clearly state that if you fear you can't be just with them, then to marry others.
If you care to refute that fact again, I will be more than happy to analyize it with great care, Allah willing.
As Salaamu Alaikum, peace
-
Sorry, accidentally hit the post button before finishing the previous response....I will finish it and continue below...
Modified above!
-
43 clearly state that if you fear you can't be just with them, then to marry others.
Questions
(1)Any verses to support the claim that the men who can't be just with the orphans can be just with other women?
(2)When the orphans reach their physical and mental maturity, their custodians will have to hand over the possesions of the orphans to them (46), which means the orphans are economically self-sufficient and independent now.
(2.1)What call do the custodians have to be unjust to their old ophans?
(2.2)Since the old custodians have no call to exploit the fear mentioned in the verse any more, what excuse do they have now to marry two, three, four women?
(2.3)Why should the orphans need the polygyny of their old custodians?
(2.4)Why should Islam need it?
Peace,
Hasdan Akcay -
Let me say, just in order to serve as a useful comparison, that I have found obssessive the need of hatdeethists that everything said 1400 years ago must have an application today by hook or crook (I won't enter in whether it was said or not) Aren't we doing it unsuspectedly with the Qur'an. The Qur'an is forever and complete guidance, but humanity is never complete nor forever. And I am not saying either that we shold not study and try the utmost to understand every single aya. What I say in this case of the orphans and may be in others is that we may be blocked, because we are just unable to place ourselves in the precise situation in which the people to whom this was addressed found themselves. May be if we get an insight of it, the explanation would be so straightforward that we would be astonished. I may be stating the obvious, but something is escaping us and if we relaxed a bit and let it rest it may come.
-
What I say in this case of the orphans and may be in others is that we may be blocked, because we are just unable to place ourselves in the precise situation in which the people to whom this was addressed found themselves. (huruf)
Yes, most of us are blocked, probably because we are afraid that if we question the human mushaf, we may take a wrong step into the divine revelation itself.
That must be the reason why most of us are blind, deaf and dumb to this truth
The fact that the NKH is now read in one way to mean marry them yourselves in 43 and in another way to mean marry them (off) to other men in 2432 is simply a matter of the choices the people made while inserting the alifs and diacritical marks in the Quranic text; that is, these choices are not divine; they are human. And it is human to err.
And that must be the reason why I had had to press so hard to extract from Samia the Arabic sentence corrresponding to "Daddy, marry your daughter!" -Unkih ibnatak! I couln?t help feeling kind of disappointed.
Now these questions I ask? From the discussions so far I have learnt that they will go unanswered. Just like some other questions of mine
Isn?t it a shame for a woman to share her husband with some co-wives although it certainly is a shame for a man to share his wife with some co-husbands? Do women have no sense of selfrespect in Islam?
Polygyny may an unbearable wrong done unto the women (nisaa) mentioned in the first part of 43. You accept that. Then you assume that God is saying, "If you fear to be unjust to the nisaa, marry the ma malakat aymaan..."
Aren?t they really the momenaat created by the same God; are they only second class momenaats just because some humans have made them into ma malakat aymaan?
Can this really be what God is saying in 43 despite the fact that God never does the least wrong unto men; it is men who wrong themselves (1044)?
Peace,
Hasan Akcay -
Let me say, just in order to serve as a useful comparison, that I have found obssessive the need of hatdeethists that everything said 1400 years ago must have an application today by hook or crook (I won't enter in whether it was said or not) Aren't we doing it unsuspectedly with the Qur'an. The Qur'an is forever and complete guidance, but humanity is never complete nor forever. And I am not saying either that we shold not study and try the utmost to understand every single aya. What I say in this case of the orphans and may be in others is that we may be blocked, because we are just unable to place ourselves in the precise situation in which the people to whom this was addressed found themselves. May be if we get an insight of it, the explanation would be so straightforward that we would be astonished. I may be stating the obvious, but something is escaping us and if we relaxed a bit and let it rest it may come.
I totally agree with huruf. I find this verse of polygamy more of a restriction than an open permission. The circumstances of this permission might have occured before, and may unlikely happen or rarely happen today, but neverstheless they stand. So let's say that there is no polygamy except one "ifs and buts" If someone is supporting a poor widow and her orphans, and the orphans felt uneasy about this man assuming the role of the dead father and questioning his intentions, or being mocked for that, and at the same time they need his help, then to make them feel safe and not harm their pride, this man is permitted under these very specific circumstances to marry the woman, and stop the embarrassment.
-
As Salaamu Alaikum,
I totally agree with huruf. I find this verse of polygamy more of a restriction than an open permission. The circumstances of this permission might have occured before, and may unlikely happen or rarely happen today, but neverstheless they stand. So let's say that there is no polygamy except one "ifs and buts" If someone is supporting a poor widow and her orphans, and the orphans felt uneasy about this man assuming the role of the dead father and questioning his intentions, or being mocked for that, and at the same time they need his help, then to make them feel safe and not harm their pride, this man is permitted under these very specific circumstances to marry the woman, and stop the embarrassment.
I find this argument doesn't stand up to reason. To say that someone who is supporting a poor widow and her orphans, and the orphans feeling uneasy about it is the SOLE reason that Allah allowed polygyny in ayat 43, is really not logical or reasonable; not to mention that it is in no way supported by the actual scripture. When so many of you women (and some men too) today feel embarassed about polygyny being permitted in Al Quran, then how can you now say that it's sole purpose was to stop the embarassment of orphans whom someone was taking care of? That has no reason or logic to it.
Secondly, no where in the ayaat does it speak about these orphans being POOR. It is the exact opposite. The warning is to not mix their WEALTH with your own so as to take advantage of them before they reach the age of maturity to receive their inheritance and spend it in their own way. It is totally an assumption by anyone to want to make them poor; in order to fit their idea of WHY polygyny is commanded in Al Quran.
Again, Al Quran didn't institue POLYGYNY, polygyny was already being practised by arabs and all of mankind when Al Quran was revealed. Ayat 43 didn't start off saying that if you fear that you may deal unjustly with the orphans, then to marry women of your choice "ONE"; no, it started off with "two, etc., etc.". The verb used to stress marrying more than one is in the command form. So it's actually a command from Allah. The stories about the Prophet having one wife only for 25 years is only from hadeeth. We have no evidence of that from Al Quran. The only example we have of the Messenger from Al Quran is having multiple wives. The only restriction on polygyny in Al Quran is the number of wives that one can have at one time.
As Salaamu Alaikum,
-
The fact that the NKH is now read in one way to mean marry them yourselves in 43 and in another way to mean marry them (off) to other men in 2432 is simply a matter of the choices the people made while inserting the alifs and diacritical marks in the Quranic text; that is, these choices are not divine; they are human. And it is human to err.
Marry or marry off from an english standpoint is irrelevant and can mean the same thing. Can you tell me where in 2432 the words are in arabic that say "to other men"? To me the ayat simple says to marry (off) them, that could be yourself or someone else.
Now these questions I ask? From the discussions so far I have learnt that they will go unanswered. Just like some other questions of mine
Isn?t it a shame for a woman to share her husband with some co-wives although it certainly is a shame for a man to share his wife with some co-husbands? Do women have no sense of selfrespect in Islam?
Opinions of right and wrong don't really matter for much against the commands of Allah
3336
Transliteration Wama kana limu/minin wala mu/minatin itha qada Allahu warasooluhu amran an yakoona lahumu alkhiyaratu min amrihim waman yaAAsi Allaha warasoolahu faqad dalla dalalan mubeenan
Literal And (it) was not to a believer (M) and nor a believer (F), if God and His messenger ordered/passed judgment an order/command/matter/affair that to be for them the choice from their matter/affair, and who disobeys God and His messenger, so he had misguided a clear/evident misguidance.
Free-Minds It is not for a believing man or believing woman, if God and His messenger issue any command, that they have any choice in their decision. And anyone who disobeys God and His messenger, he has gone far astray.
Rashad Khalifa No believing man or believing woman, if GOD and His messenger issue any command, has any choice regarding that command. Anyone who disobeys GOD and His messenger has gone far astray.
Yusuf Ali It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision if any one disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path.Polygyny may an unbearable wrong done unto the women (nisaa) mentioned in the first part of 43. You accept that. Then you assume that God is saying, "If you fear to be unjust to the nisaa, marry the ma malakat aymaan..."
Polygyny is only unbearable to those who are adversed to what Allah has commanded. There are women who are perfectly fine with polygyny in this world, muslim and non-muslim. They neither find it a wrong or unbearable. In fact, many of them find it a blessing and rewarding. All marriages, monogamous and/or polygynous, experience problems. That is the natural order of things. So problems in polygyny are similar to the problems in monogamy. It is simply a matter of different free-will beings trying to live together in harmony that produces disagreements sometimes.
Anyone that considers polygyny a wrong done to women, are only questioning whether they know human beings better or does Allah? Many people have feelings that they consider their own about what is right and wrong, when in fact it is only their disposition based off of the environment and stimuli that they have encountered during their lifetime; which is very limited when compared to the eternal wisdom of Allah and what He commands.
Allah says if you fear to be unjust to more than one, then only one "aw maa malikat aymaanukum". There is no permission to be unjust to anyone.
Aren?t they really the momenaat created by the same God; are they only second class momenaats just because some humans have made them into ma malakat aymaan?
Can this really be what God is saying in 43 despite the fact that God never does the least wrong unto men; it is men who wrong themselves (1044)?
Peace,
Hasan AkcayAllah doesn't do wrong to mankind, we do it to ourselves by trying impose our sense of morality on what Allah as ordered; as if we created human emotions and know what laws best govern our lives. This is a problem of EGO for the human being. Those who "submit" their egos, or wills, to Allah don't try to judge whether or not Allah's decrees are moral, because it is His decrees that define what is really moral to a believer. That is where "Iman" comes into play. You can't reason and logic yourself to have "trusting faith in Allah". Having "iman" is a blessing and mercy that He blesses you with when you hear and obey Him. If you only question every single thing that He gives you as guidance because it doesn't fit your idea, reason, logic, or morals of what is right and wrong; then don't expect to have faith in what Allah has given.
As Salaamu Alaikum, )
-
Salaam Hasan
This verse does not concern orphans with money. Think of the poor ones (my post above).Salaam Saima.
Just because there are poor orphans in the world, you can not ignore the sincere believers? fear that they will probably consume the possessions of their orphans by mixing them up with their own possessions and thus by committing the big crime, hooban kabeera, which God warns them with in 42 and mentions again in 43.
The verse before it concerns orphans with amwaal; the verses after it concern women with sadokaat (44) and orphans with amwaal again (45, 46); and the very verse just in between, 43, says "If you fear that you can not be fair with the orphans..." You still think that it does not concern orphans with money??? Let's be reasonable.
And let's try to see the contradictions which this attitude causes in God?s words. Remember His challenge "Will they not, then, try to understand this Quran? Had it issued from any but God, they would surely have found many contradictions in it. (482).
Another thing. Yaseen is also a native speaker like you. This is what I understand from his explication of NKH
NKH means knot the marriage tie. The two forms of it are nakaha and ankaha. NAKAHA means marry (422, 3353, 6010) and ANKAHA means marry off (2432, 2827). However, when the verb is linked to conjunction fa like in fainkihoo in 43, it could mean either marry off or marry. The context will determine the intended meaning.
Do I understand it wrong?
Peace,
Hasan Akcay -
As Salaamu Alaikum,
I find this argument doesn't stand up to reason. To say that someone who is supporting a poor widow and her orphans, and the orphans feeling uneasy about it is the SOLE reason that Allah allowed polygyny in ayat 43, is really not logical or reasonable;
Salaam IQO
Nowhere did I say this is the SOLE reason or even a reason for sure. I said "let's say" meaning this is an example which could be correct or not, but nevertheless it's what I could think of. I also said before that that the circumstances for this permission might have happened before and might unlikely or rarely happen today. I do not know what might call for a polygamy, but I know what wouldn't.
There are women who are perfectly fine with polygyny in this world, muslim and non-muslim. They neither find it a wrong or unbearable. In fact, many of them find it a blessing and rewarding.
Just to quote your own words Opinions of right and wrong don't really matter for much against the commands of Allah
Remember that we still haven't agreed on what the command of Allah is, regarding this issue.