POLYGAMY NOT THERE IN QURAN?
-
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 -
Salaam brook,
Okay, so if I understand your explanation correctly, you believe that 42 through 46 are talking about marrying off the orphans and as you put it "those whom your oath have", that are poor. I find some problems with your logic though, so lets see if you can clear some of it up
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.
I agree that 43 is about orphans that have amwaal, as I have stated in the refutation to the article posted as a link earlier. But I see them as they are referred to in 46, after reaching the age of marriage. I will review your point of view that they are too little to look after themselves. Of course they were at one point, but the question is how they are being referred to regarding marriage now.
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.
I agree with this. The possessions of orphans shouldn't be eaten up before they reach the age of maturity to give it to their control. But I don't see "marrying them off" to some man as a way to avoid taking advantage of their wealth. If you have raised them to the point of maturity and not taken advantage of their wealth, why is it necessary for YOU to marry them off to someone now that they have reached the age of maturity in not to do so? Did you all of a sudden become a bad person when they reach the age of maturity? What is the reason or logic behind this timing?
Let's also remember that you said "this way you will have no possessions of orphans left under your care to eat with your own possessions by mistake"; for later on.
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.
Agreed that if you fear fairness, then only one. Agreed that "taooloo" is regarding this fairness. You concept of marry off is not agreed to here though.
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.
Now you are using "orphan women". Who are the orphan women that are spoke off in 43? Or are you referencing 46 now? and if so, how does 46 relate to 43 to you?
I agree that 46 is speaking about orphans when they reach the age of maturity, hence they would be women then if a man were to speak about marrying them. And clearly they have "amwaal" that is supposed to be released to them at this point.
But under your concept of "taooloo", how does marrying off only one nisaa or the ones whom your oaths have, help you in this? Because if it is to keep you from being poor, then wouldn't that mean you are "eating" from the now grown orphan woman's "amwaal"?
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.
Remember when I said to remember this "this way you will have no possessions of orphans left under your care to eat with your own possessions by mistake"? It seems that now you are suggesting that the person will eat the amwaal knowingly, and not mistakingly. How is that better? Why would a believer want to not marry off more than one orphan woman in order to keep her possessions so that he will not become poor? How is that justice? So he should marry off the poor under his oath so that his burdens are removed and he no longer has to pay for them? How does this make sense to you?
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 AkcayFirst you quote the end of 43 as
...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.
now you are using
.... 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.
Which of the parts in bold are you prompting as your understanding? They are quite different.
As Salaamu Alaikum,
-
IQO salam
on a side note, what is your opinion regarding the command here in 4-3 for MMa?
is it being suggested that one should marry the MMA or it is being highlighted, "That one may stay satisfied with one (wife) or/and The MMA" ? (because she is already yours, for all practical purposes)
siki
-
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
I already said that though the primary subject/emphasis is on dealing with spouse kinda women but i still maintain, "The word Nissa has been used deliberately to enlarge the scope for the purpose of encompasssing your dealing with other women, who do not qualify as such, but still are "your women".
My thinking is due to
-
I agree that the subject must be understood as a whole by reading in continuity, but the commandment in 4-129 has been separated as an ayah , so it should also be understood as a separate unit, disregarding what is said before and after .
-
if you look at the previous verse the Arabic word Amrrat" has been used for the women, giving a clear indication that issue is restricted to the women in regard to their spouses, (noshooz) where as in the next aya the nissa has been used, which enlarges the scope when it comes to men dealing in reverse, because a plenty of women may qualify to be "nissa" of a particular individual.
siki
-
-
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,
Salaam
I believe that POLYGYNY is allowed in order to give status and rights to all women. Many men have extra marital relationships and the poor other woman has no status or rights even though she is often the source of much happiness to the man she knowingly shares. To redress this injustice English legal system has acknowledged a mistress?s rights but still her status is not respectable.I wonder how many married men would able to cheat on their wives if all women refused to have a relationship outside Nikah?
Who is taking care of orphans nowadays?
Whenever rights are given to humans they always find ways to abuse it, oil rich Arabs are doing that, yet there are so many (Kosovan etc) Muslim women begging on the street.
There is lot of wisdom in the Qur?an, which we can?t always understand, but ultimately it is for our benefit.
Best regards
farida -
I wonder whether his could help throw more light on the subject.
4.4. Wa 'atu nnisaa'a saduqatihinna...
This word "saduqa" occurs only in this aya
then in 4.24 it says,
...fa 'atuhunna 'ujurahunna
then in 4.25
... wa 'atuhunna ujurahunna
there are other ayas where the 'ujur happen in the context of the marrying man ginving 'ujurahunna to the bride. I will not quote them all.
So it might be useful to know what the difference between this saduqa, which in Yusuf Ali is translated as dower, and the 'ujur in 4.24 and 4.25 that are also translated as dower.
Salaam
-
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.
What is in brown is one instance of what I find annoying in your posts. You do not content yourself with giving your arguments, you go and tell people what "may be" they are thinking and of course mostly, in what concerns me, you are wide off the mark" and myself saying to myself "What is this?? How on earth can this chap come up with thing like this??
I must say again, that at least I, I find it difficult getting your reasonings when you accompany them with things out of the blue, which besides are not abstract thoughts, which I mostly appreciate, but thoughts on people's thoughts, as if you were burrowing into their brain. Believe, I won't speak about other people, but this does nothing for me understanding what you want to communicate. I think you want to communciate something, at least.
Salaam