POLYGAMY NOT THERE IN QURAN?
-
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.
-
Well, I believe this Verse is allowing polygamy only when it is in the interest of taking care of orphans - not a licence to marry 4 wives for personal interest. So I agree with Sr. Samia. But why does "embaressment" have to be the sinlge most important reason Sr Samia (the same could be said about a woman taking care of the man's children who lost their mother)? Did I miss something?
I would leave it at that - that it is only allowed to believing men when it is EXCLUSIVELY for the sake of taking care of orphaned children and no other reaons what so ever. In fact, I think the authorities who carry out marriages should ensure that any 2nd marriages is based solely on this criteria. They must try to ensure the man's intention is thus, and ensure that he has the necessary means and provisions to carry out the additional duties in looking afer and taking care of the orphaned children as well as their mother.
-
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.
Salaam Hasan
What possessions of poor orphans? They have no possessions. In the verse mentioning that, God did not advise them to marry, but to not take a wage for managing the orphans money unless they need to. I do not think it is difficult to set a fixed salary, if needed. Then when they reach the age of maturity, they should be given their money and that's it. They are now adults and no more considered orphans, otherwise most people are orphans.
Moreover, I do not understand how someone who fears consuming orphans money, is still trusted to marry them off?
How can they marry off kids who have not reached the age of maturity?
Why can't these orphans who reached the age of maturity get married by their own will?
What does the word "nisaa'" in "Fankihu maa taaba lakum minan nisaa'..." refer to? Who are they? And if they refer to orphans, these "orphans" include males. How can they be married off?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.
I do not know who Yaseen is; but he thinks in English. The ambiguity of the verb "marry/marry off" is English, not Arabic.
Ankihu alrijaal means marry the men women;
Unkihu alnisaa' means marry the women.
The verb "marry off" where you "marry off a woman to a man" does not exist in Arabic. -
Salaam, IQO
It looks very clearly as if you are fond of poligyny, usually called poligamy. That fondness doesn't bring any further light into the aya in question. I myself am not particularly perturbed by open and accepted by the interested parties poligamy, much less at any rate than by clandestine affairs, adultery and cheating. But on the other hand, you cannot impose anything on a society even if it was the best of best, and probably we are at a moment in which the discussion is purely academic. The demographical and social problems regarding the sexes today are not so much related to poligamy or monogamy, but to another order of considerations. It may change in the future -it always changes-, undoubtedly, but into what only God knows. However I do not agree that poligamy is a fundamental commandment, or even a commandment in the Qur'an. At most it is a means for and end in may be certain circumstances. But the important thing is the end not any means. Means may change depending on their availability and effectivity.Polygyny is only unbearable to those who are adversed to what Allah has commanded.
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.
You are not judging here people who do not agree with Allah, you are judging people who do not agree with you in your understanding of the text. You are not, as far as I can judge, a more authorised interpreter of the Qur'an than any of the persons you are judging so, and you are attributing to them the will to disobey God, something they could attribute to you too. I point it out, because I think it is not warranted and doesn't help. We are dealing with a text, either you convince or you don't convince.
Here is one part in your menssage that I don't find convincing
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.
I find questionable that because the verb is in the imperative that it is a command. I don't think it is necessarily so. There are many things in arabic, as in many other languages, that if not done very carefully, get twisted in the translation. One of them is the value of the imperative mode. I know that in Spanish for instance we use the imperative very often. But by no means at all is every imperative a command. Very far from it. It is a common (probably the commonest) way of saying you could do this, or this is what you should do in your circumstances or please do me this favour. That is what it is, and that is not a command by a long shot. I would have to take the time to look at it, but I have the impression that that is the case in the Qur'an too, that not every imperative represents a command at all. On the other hand there are real commands that are not conveyed with any imperative. And coming to the ayas in question, I say that you cannot command people to get married. Not with one, not with two not with n spouses. Marriage is voluntary, however commendable it may be and in conformity with the quranic ideals, it is voluntary. Even if we want to get married we may not decide to do it for n reasons.
But let us suppose we take it as a command, and a command for what you say, that is, poligamy. So what is it a universal command? A command restricted to certain circumstances in history or in society, dependent on social, economical, moral or demographical conditions? or must men all men for ever marry two, three or four, and only if they fear not being fair just one?
You also say that there has always been poligamy. At that time there had always been slavery too, the Qur'an did not invent it. The question is whether the Qur'an says that there must always be poligamy o that there can always be slavery. What we are trying to elucidate is what the qur'an says we should do or we may do. You seem to be very convinced of your opinion, but others are convinced of their own too which is not the same as yours. And then others are simply still trying to get a better insight and understanding without any preconception.
But be it as it may, please, do not bludgeon people all the time with the "you do not want to obey God" or something along that line. It reminds awfully of priest on pulpit nagging at the fidels. And of course, you wouldn't know that either (that they want to disobey).
Salaam
-
Remember that we still haven't agreed on what the command of Allah is, regarding this issue. (Samia)
I appreciate your objective intention to search for the truth. True, we have not agreed yet; but IMHO God has. Verses 2432, 3352, 420 are clear enough. In 2432, to mention just one for now, He says "Marry the single from among you." This command that God gives in 2432 is structurally the same as His commad in 629.
Fas3aw el? zikrillah (629)
Wa ankehu?l ayaama minkum (2432)Hasten to the remembrance of God (629).
Marry the single from among you (2432)He forbids us to hasten to the rememrance of, say, al-Lat on the Day of Cogregation. So does He forbid us to marry the married, esspecially when we take into account the fact that polygyny is a wrong to such an extent that it has to be forbidden (423)
You are forbidden to marry two sisters together.
Hurrimat alaikum? an tajma3uu baina?l uhtain.I do not know who Yaseen is; but he thinks in English.
The paragraph from his article on polygamy is as follows. I needed you to tell me whether I understood it correctly because his English is rather ambiguous
Although the verbs Nakaha and Ankaha have different conjugations (imperative and other forms) when the verb is taken on its own, when linked to a conjunction such as fa (then) as in 43, the expression ?fainkihoo? (This is the plural form) could either mean then marry off or Then marry. The context will determine the intended meaning. The first form of the verb Nakaha (to marry) can be found in many verses 2221, 2230, 422, 243, 3349, 3353, 6010. The second form of the verb (to marry off) can be found in 2432 and 2827.
The ambiguity of the verb "marry/marry off" is English, not Arabic.
This takes us back to my previous question and your reply to it? I asked How do you say "Daddy, marry your daughter!" in Arabic? You answered "Unkih ibnatak!" So you do have the pattern NKH (imperative) + nisaa (as the Direct Object). Are you going back on your reply?
And please consider this too
A mother of three daughters thinks that it is time they married but her husband does not care; he just takes it too easy. How does she say to him "Honey, marry our daughters!" in Arabic?
Peace,
Hasan Akcay -
Moreover, I do not understand how someone who fears consuming orphans money, is still trusted to marry them off?
They fear to commit the hooban kabeera (42) because they are sincerely Godfearing believers. So do they deserve being trusted.
How can they marry off kids who have not reached the age of maturity?
Please, Samia. Nobody said they could.
Why can't these orphans who reached the age of maturity get married by their own will?
Again nobody said that they could not. The point is, when it is time for an orphan to leave the protecting man?s home, she may still need his fatherly help with her marriage. The expression ma taaba lakum mina?n nisaa? indicates that. This word taaba is identical to tabna in 44, which denotes a concept of making the passage clean by lifting the barriers in the way. So if she authorizes him to marry her, he must fulfill the function.
What does the word "nisaa'" in "Fankihu maa taaba lakum minan nisaa'..." refer to? Who are they?
According to this explanation, they are the female orphans who have reached their physical and mental maturity.
?these "orphans" include males. How can they be married off?
Just like the ayaama minkum in 2432. And please consider this question too In 43 God is addressing both momeneen and momenaat. How can the momenaat marry the nisaa?
Peace,
Hasan Akcay -
This takes us back to my previous question and your reply to it? I asked How do you say "Daddy, marry your daughter!" in Arabic? You answered "Unkih ibnatak!" So you do have the pattern NKH (imperative) + nisaa (as the Direct Object). Are you going back on your reply?
Yes, you are right. Even the dictionary puts it as you say. I did not even notice I went back in my words.
But what I see in the language of the qur'aan is a different usage In verse 243, the qur'aan says "The adulterer yankihu but an adulteress and the adulteress yankihuha but an adulterer", where it is clear that the qur'aan does not use "tankih" for a woman.
Just like the ayaama minkum in 2432. And please consider this question too In 43 God is addressing both momeneen and momenaat. How can the momenaat marry the nisaa?
Ayamaa is a plural for both genders.
What does the word "nisaa'" in "Fankihu maa taaba lakum minan nisaa'..." refer to? Who are they?
According to this explanation, they are the female orphans who have reached their physical and mental maturity.
?these "orphans" include males. How can they be married off?
Just like the ayaama minkum in 2432. And please consider this question too In 43 God is addressing both momeneen and momenaat. How can the momenaat marry the nisaa?
I see. If we take the address to be to both genders, nisaa' should be of a meaning (including males). Please correct me if I am wrong. This is what you understand
And if you (people men and women) fear not to be just to orphans, marry off the vulnerable when they give their consent/ when they want to...
I am trying to look at this verse in another way as being linked to the verse before it. And to go back to the principle that the qur'aan is addressing both genders unless explicitly not. I am thinking of this verse as not explicitly addressing men only. But in this case, nisaa' should not be linked to the addressee AND be generic. The only way is to take its other meaning as (the vulnerable/the left behind).
Did you give me your understanding of this verse? I still don't know what you make of it.
-
As Salaamu Alaika brook,
As Samia has indicated in her last post, can you please give your understanding at this point of Sura Nisaa' ayaat 1-6 and 127-130. Up to now, I can only understand minor positions of what you are saying because you seem to go from one side to the other. Maybe this is not the case, so I am asking you to clarify your position and understandings.
As Salaamu Alaikum,
-
As Salaamu Alaika huruf,
Salaam, IQO
It looks very clearly as if you are fond of poligyny, usually called poligamy. That fondness doesn't bring any further light into the aya in question. I myself am not particularly perturbed by open and accepted by the interested parties poligamy, much less at any rate than by clandestine affairs, adultery and cheating. But on the other hand, you cannot impose anything on a society even if it was the best of best, and probably we are at a moment in which the discussion is purely academic. The demographical and social problems regarding the sexes today are not so much related to poligamy or monogamy, but to another order of considerations. It may change in the future -it always changes-, undoubtedly, but into what only God knows. However I do not agree that poligamy is a fundamental commandment, or even a commandment in the Qur'an. At most it is a means for and end in may be certain circumstances. But the important thing is the end not any means. Means may change depending on their availability and effectivity.huruf, I am fond of ALL that Allah has revealed in Al Quran, and yes that does include POLYGYNY. I try to use the ayaat of Al Quran themselves to prove why I accept them as Allah revealed them. I was not a polygynist before studying Al Quran. Nor did I know about it to use as a reason for accepting Al Islam through Al Quran as my guidance from Allah.
Allah doesn't impose anything on any human being, if you are not counting life and death and the laws of nature. All commandments from Allah are voluntary for the human being to accept and follow. Otherwise, people would not be stealing from and killing each other at the very least. If you think that monogamy is not a demographical and/or social problem regarding the sexes today, then you are not to well versed on the societies exploits into restricted sexual behavior according to the guidance given by Allah. The verb in 43 for marry is in the command form, although also in a conditional phrase. But as I already said, it is the human beings choice to follow this command or not. We are also commanded to follow the guidance sent down by Allah, but yet there is no compulsion to do so.
Your stating that poligyny is not a commandment in Al Quran and at most is a means for an end in maybe certain circumstances; is erroroneous and of course just your opinion not supported by any facts based on actual ayaat that you have tried to support it with.
You are not judging here people who do not agree with Allah, you are judging people who do not agree with you in your understanding of the text. You are not, as far as I can judge, a more authorised interpreter of the Qur'an than any of the persons you are judging so, and you are attributing to them the will to disobey God, something they could attribute to you too. I point it out, because I think it is not warranted and doesn't help. We are dealing with a text, either you convince or you don't convince.
Maybe you don't read as much of the forum or the same posts that I do, but clearly there are people here who clearly say that even if "this or that" is proven from Al Quran's ayaat, that they will not accept it because it doesn't stand up to their moral compass and values. Poligyny is clearly acceptable to Allah as evidenced by Al Quran's ayaat and the example of the Prophet given therein. So those who try to twist the ayaat to make it haraam, are only fighting against the "sunnahtillaah".
I am not judging people in the sense that they will go to paradise or hellfire because of how they understand a certain text from Al Quran. I may judge as to whether a person is saying something incorrect about Al Quran based off of the understanding of the message that I have. That is normal and not haram. That is why we all have a point of view on some things. Just because you have not come to a conclusion about your understanding on an issue, doesn't preclude others from doing so. Things that I am not convinced about, I ask about. Things I feel more confident about knowing, I comment about. Show me someone on here that doesn't do that and I will show you a really lost individual; althought that doesn't mean that they will not later find their way.
You can't convince people of what they don't want to accept. Don't believe me, go out and try to convince the majority of people that you know that Al Quran is the words of Allah. Let me know what percentage you convince. My purpose in presenting my points of view are to help those that are searching to not just accept what those who present material based on concepts or facts that I feel are wrong, so that the person studying will have both points of view to make up their own mind. I really don't care personally who accepts this or that, they don't affect my life. I care about those close to me that do affect my life and how they believe.
Here is one part in your menssage that I don't find convincing
Quote from ImamQuranonly on Yesterday at 102907 AM
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.All of this, minus the last sentence, are facts, indisputable. Your choice not to find it convincing is irrelevant to it being fact. I would have to add to the polygnous restriction that one can not have two sisters at one time, or any of the other marriage laws can not be violated.
I find questionable that because the verb is in the imperative that it is a command. I don't think it is necessarily so. There are many things in arabic, as in many other languages, that if not done very carefully, get twisted in the translation. One of them is the value of the imperative mode. I know that in Spanish for instance we use the imperative very often. But by no means at all is every imperative a command. Very far from it. It is a common (probably the commonest) way of saying you could do this, or this is what you should do in your circumstances or please do me this favour. That is what it is, and that is not a command by a long shot. I would have to take the time to look at it, but I have the impression that that is the case in the Qur'an too, that not every imperative represents a command at all. On the other hand there are real commands that are not conveyed with any imperative. And coming to the ayas in question, I say that you cannot command people to get married. Not with one, not with two not with n spouses. Marriage is voluntary, however commendable it may be and in conformity with the quranic ideals, it is voluntary. Even if we want to get married we may not decide to do it for n reasons.
If this, then DO that, is still a command. What so difficult about that to understand? I hope that you are not suggesting that Allah is asking us to do Him a favor in 43. Where is the command making polygyny haram in Al Quran?
Allah clearly commands "those who have trusting faith in Him" to get married if they can. It is not a command for those that don't have "iman". The command is voluntary to fulfill, yet it is still a COMMAND. If you decide as a person with "iman" in Allah and His revelation Al Quran to not get married because of your own reasoning, then do you really qualify as a person with iman? Allah knows best.
But let us suppose we take it as a command, and a command for what you say, that is, poligamy. So what is it a universal command? A command restricted to certain circumstances in history or in society, dependent on social, economical, moral or demographical conditions? or must men all men for ever marry two, three or four, and only if they fear not being fair just one?
The command is what it is. I think you stated it already.
You also say that there has always been poligamy. At that time there had always been slavery too, the Qur'an did not invent it. The question is whether the Qur'an says that there must always be poligamy o that there can always be slavery. What we are trying to elucidate is what the qur'an says we should do or we may do. You seem to be very convinced of your opinion, but others are convinced of their own too which is not the same as yours. And then others are simply still trying to get a better insight and understanding without any preconception.
The Quran says to free the bond man's neck. Where is the ayaat to forbid polygyny? Why does Allah refer to the Prophet's wives? I am convinced, but always try to keep in open mind to a certain degree. But for example, my mind is not open to not having faith in Allah.
But be it as it may, please, do not bludgeon people all the time with the "you do not want to obey God" or something along that line. It reminds awfully of priest on pulpit nagging at the fidels. And of course, you wouldn't know that either (that they want to disobey).
Salaam
Some people here bludgeon themselves with they don't want to obey Allah. Why do you feel that I am saying it to you if I didn't address you that way? You need to put ayat 3336 in the context that I used it to the person that I used it with. I don't recall addressing it to all people that don't agree with anything or everything that I say; that is your assumption. If you have an aversion to priest and associate it with me, maybe it is because you have an aversion to my name "ImamQuranOnly" because of the word "Imam", and your traditional understanding of this word and how it is used. I would suggest putting down this understanding and researching the word in Al Quran if you want to understand my usage of it. Then maybe you can put aside any aversion or prejudice you have against people who use this word.
People also tell you sometimes that they want to disobey something if that is the way it is, cause they don't have more faith in Allah than they have of their own judgement. That's a condition of the human psychy that Allah speaks of in Al Quran also.
As Salaamu Alaikum,
-
Salaam Samia,
Salaam IQO
Quote from ImamQuranonly on Yesterday at 102907 AM
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.
I didn't use the quote of mine above to try to prove the ayaat from Al Quran. I used it as an example against it's opposite used by the person to whom I addressed it. I hope you can understand the difference.
And yes, we haven't agreed to what the command of Allah is in Al Quran regarding Polygyny as a whole, because we have SOME different views from each other. But correct me if I am wrong, you DO believe that polygyny is allowed; correct?
Because some here don't believe that polygyny even exists in Al Quran, despite the ayaat referenced and the example of the Prophet given in Al Quran.
As Salaamu Alaikum,
-
Well, I believe this Verse is allowing polygamy only when it is in the interest of taking care of orphans - not a licence to marry 4 wives for personal interest. So I agree with Sr. Samia. But why does "embaressment" have to be the sinlge most important reason Sr Samia (the same could be said about a woman taking care of the man's children who lost their mother)? Did I miss something?
I would leave it at that - that it is only allowed to believing men when it is EXCLUSIVELY for the sake of taking care of orphaned children and no other reaons what so ever. In fact, I think the authorities who carry out marriages should ensure that any 2nd marriages is based solely on this criteria. They must try to ensure the man's intention is thus, and ensure that he has the necessary means and provisions to carry out the additional duties in looking afer and taking care of the orphaned children as well as their mother.
This is an example of the exact reason why discussion is necessary, not to mention that people who want to IMPOSE their will on others is not to be accepted. This kind of thinking is what lead to "sunnism/shiaism/etc.". This person hasn't provided one shred of evidence to prove their claim of what is "EXCLUSIVELY", other than saying that they agree with parts of what another person has said; in other words, whoever writes something that my moral compass agrees to, I will label them as correct! Now time to legislate! elektro
As Salaamu Alaikum, )
-
As Salaamu Alaika brook,
As Samia has indicated in her last post, can you please give your understanding at this point of Sura Nisaa' ayaat 1-6 and 127-130. Up to now, I can only understand minor positions of what you are saying because you seem to go from one side to the other. Maybe this is not the case, so I am asking you to clarify your position and understandings.
As Salaamu Alaikum,
This is what I have written already
43 is about the orphans who have possessions (amwaal). They are too little to look after themselves. So they are under the protection of some benevolent momeneen and momenaat, who are such sincere believers that God's warning in 42 frightens them too much. They ask God in their hearts "How can I avoid the possibility of consuming the possessions of my orphans unwittingly and thus committing the big crime?" They mean the hooban kabeera mentioned in 42.
God shows them the way out
Hand over the possessions of the orphans who have reached their mental and phisical maturity (46); and if they ask you to marry them (off), marry them each to a man and send them away with their possessions to their new homes. This way you will have no possessions of orphans left under your care to eat with your own possesions by mistake.
VAAHEDATAN means one. Hence if you fear about fairness, one; that is, marry off only one nisaa. The reason why you must fear about fairness is understood from the word TAOOLOO in the end of the verse.
MA MALAKAT AYMAAN UKUM means those whom your oaths have. In 43 they are the poor women under your protection. The difference between the orphan women and the ones whom your oaths have is that the former have possessions (amwaal) but the latter do not. So the verse goes like this now
...if you fear about fairness, marry off only one nisaa or the ones whom your oaths have to do good in order to win God?s favour.
TAOOLOO in 43 conveys the meaning of poverty. So the verse ends with reference to likelihood of poverty if you marry off several orphan women together because you have to hand over the possessions of all of them at once. You can avoid the ensuing poverty by marrying off your poor ma malakat aymaan, who do not have possessions; therefore, in whose case you will not have to hand over any possessions to put you to economic hardship.
And if you fear that you will be unjust with the orphans, mary them (off) in two, and in three, and in four. But if you fear that you may be unfair again, marry off only one of them or those whom your oaths have. This is the way you can avoid the ensuing poverty.
Peace,
Hasdan Akcay