POLYGAMY NOT THERE IN QURAN?
-
4.4. Wa 'atu nnisaa'a saduqatihinna nihlatan...
The possessive "saduqatihinna" makes me think that this saduqa is something that belongs to them, or something they are entitled to. Then comes the "nihlatan...", which means something is being given free. One explanation that occurs to me and seems to fit in the aya is that what is being said os to give the women their money that their parents left, without taking any wages or commissions for the administration or guardianship or whatever, that is, having done all that graciously, which would make what comes after about the women giving freely, quite logical. This reading fits in the series of ayas dealing with this.
Coming to the 'ujur, I agree that this seems to be something paid as a cosideration for something in return. I do not think that it is for taking care or the home, because it is not specifically something that a woman does or should do because of being a woman, and in fact not so long ago many of the household chores were in the hands of men and besides nobody needs to marry the person that does the household chores. Why should a woman marry the butler or a man the housekeeper. No. they pay them wages with fairness and that is it.
I do not think it is for sex and enjoyment either, thoug I can very well understand that everybody would be ready to pay for that. It doesn't need any commendation. But the reason why I think that the 'ujur are not for that is that, that I know, the woman also has sex and enjoys, so even if it would be fun to pay each other reciprocally, I do not think that is the answer. So what I think is evident that the woman contributes to the man she marries is the possibility of being a father and being part of a human family. The burden of having children biologically imposed to the male is non existent, on the female it is enormous. Even if the female doesn't bear a child or even gets ever pregnant, the possibility and expectation of it by itself from herself, the environment and society, represents for her an allpervading constraint. As to the more punctual fact of pregnancy and birth it varies with every woman, it can be quite bearable on the one end and on the other can mean death, and in between everything can happen and does happen. So there is no balance at all in the respective burdens of the male and the female in reproduction. Among most mammals, the males are on their own, and the offspring remains with the females. A male of the human species becomes a man when he consciously wills to live in a human family an consciouslly assumes his burden on it, taking the duties and responsibilities that balance out the burden on the woman in the production and rearing of the common offspring. The very Generous Qur'an points continuously to the fact that our being constituted in sexes is a source of spiritual improvement if we are well guided, it is a school, and a source of blessings. But it exacts too the conscious assumption of our burdens and duties, which on the other hand will not fail also to bring enormous satisfactions in this life and in sha Allah in the next.
Concerning the "women's liberation" I have said many times, simplifying it a lot, that in fact it wasn't women that had to come to the level of men, but men who had to come to the level of women. Before that there was the double moral, now all are equally inmoral apparently, because it would be politcally incorrect to say that many more males than females are pigs, but anyway, we should not be depressed. In spite of all the brainwashing that we get to become the kings and queens of the planetary pigstay, as it happens, there are very good men and very good women in a world that, as it always has been, is full of temptation. Talking about which and pointing out the difference between males and females, I think that there is a clear explanation why statistically there may be more disolute men than women. For women, being disolute, even with today's means, brings automatic burdens and penalties. For men, apart from disease, but even that to a lesser extent than women, there is no inmediate loss. Men do not have to put in iuds, get abortions, have illegitimate children, get kicked out a jobs because of it... Yes, that is the difference. For men to get derailed brings no inmediate bodily or social prejudice. Therefore it takes more determination to be righteous. But to be good out of necessity is not a marvel either, so conscioussness is necessary for all, and that is why the honest Qur'an says that nobody es better than anybody else except by the consciousness of his, her Creator and Sustainer.
May He bless us all and his universes.
Salaam
-
As Salaamu Alaika farida,
I don't have a negative view of women only, I have one of men too. No really, I LOVE WOMEN! yes Can't you tell by my polygynous nature? ! Okay, on a serious note, what I am really saying sister is that wrong is wrong and it goes both ways. I was not defending men, I was pointing out that it happens on both sides; since you mentioned the wrong that men do often. As I said, each situation is different and it's circumstances and opportunities has to be looked at individually. Men and women can be both equally right or equally wrong.
I agree with you about the definition of orphans. It never meant to me only those kids whom their father had died. But this is what many arabs or others on this forum have promoted as the correct understanding as it is used in Al Quran. I haven't agreed with them, but was rather just pointing out what those who have said so, believe.
As Salaamu Alaikum,
Wa alaikum Salaam,
First of all let me thank your for correcting me regarding amwaal I overlooked the whole context in this surah.
However I see you have quite a negative view about women? who run away with kids?. I?ve got lots of exposure to messy divorces where I have seen the worst of both sexes.Sometimes after separation or divorce many women run off with the kids
At other times it?s the father who disappears and takes no care of his kids. This is worse than having a father who died, as the thought that ?my father is alive, yet not bothered? is very painful for children their position at times is worst than orphans.Many women think the kids BELONG to them since they carried them in their bellies for nine months and gave birth
It?s true that many women think this way but there are cases where Dad ran away when mother said she wants access to the children (without responsibility), but wants to be free to remarry for her own self instead of looking for a father for her children.
This is a complex situation which is why we are reminded in the Qur?an not to use the children to manipulate the situation as parents when a divorce happens.Orphans that have no mother or father, and go from foster home to foster home or live in orphanages,
There are many, with both their parents, who end up in an orphanage. Sometime these are illegitimate children and at other times their parents are unable to look after them so they are taken into care.
I dont want to take this thread to a different topic, but don?t we need to expand the definition of orphans?
Best regards
farida -
In terms of matrimonial law I see the marriage portion as a security for women. Women often move from their homes in order to become someone?s wife and it?s 99% women who have to cut short their careers. (farida)
I agree. Women do give up these things, which marriage portion ('ujuur) is supposed to make up for. As a result ?ujuur is, in in huruf?s words, something paid as a cosideration for something in return.
What I understand from your words is that the something in return is women?s keeping men?s houses instead of living in other houses where they were accustomed to living with a feeling of security and raising men?s children instead of carrying on their previous careers. Although they are also women?s houses and women?s children, the rule still stands women do give up things from their lives in order to contribute positive things to men?s lives; so they deserve the dowers in return.
Sadoqaat are different. They are women?s own possessions.
Peace,
Hasan Akcay -
I do not think it is for sex and enjoyment either, thoug I can very well understand that everybody would be ready to pay for that. It doesn't need any commendation. But the reason why I think that the 'ujur are not for that is that, that I know, the woman also has sex and enjoys, so even if it would be fun to pay each other reciprocally, I do not think that is the answer. So what I think is evident that the woman contributes to the man she marries is the possibility of being a father and being part of a human family. The burden of having children biologically imposed to the male is non existent, on the female it is enormous. Even if the female doesn't bear a child or even gets ever pregnant, the possibility and expectation of it by itself from herself, the environment and society, represents for her an allpervading constraint. As to the more punctual fact of pregnancy and birth it varies with every woman, it can be quite bearable on the one end and on the other can mean death, and in between everything can happen and does happen. So there is no balance at all in the respective burdens of the male and the female in reproduction. Among most mammals, the males are on their own, and the offspring remains with the females. A male of the human species becomes a man when he consciously wills to live in a human family an consciouslly assumes his burden on it, taking the duties and responsibilities that balance out the burden on the woman in the production and rearing of the common offspring. The very Generous Qur'an points continuously to the fact that our being constituted in sexes is a source of spiritual improvement if we are well guided, it is a school, and a source of blessings. But it exacts too the conscious assumption of our burdens and duties, which on the other hand will not fail also to bring enormous satisfactions in this life and in sha Allah in the next.
4-24......if you are seeking with your money to be protected and not for illicit sex. As for those whom you have already had joy with them, then you shall give them their wage as an obligation. There is no sin upon you for what you agree to after the obligation. God is Knowledgeable, Wise.
5-5 ...... and the chaste from among the believing women and the chaste from among those who have been given the Book before you (are lawful for you); when you have given them their dowries, taking (them) in marriage, not fornicating nor taking them for paramours in secret; and whoever denies faith, his work indeed is of no account, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers.
MIN qablikum iza atatumhunna, oo ojurihinna.
The woman's wages, (Mahar) is to be paid before one derives sexual benifit from her, and it has been specifically mentioned that these wages are not for out pouring or legalising fornication, nor should be used as a licence for prostituion. BUt to get the woman in an honest relationship with an aim to maintain chaistity.
siki
-
70-29'30 And those who guard their private parts -Except in the case of their wives or those whom their right hands possess -- for these surely are not to be blamed.
The conjunction or in this verse is a choice word. It indicates that a believing man is allowed to display the private parts of his body to either his wife or one of his ma malakat aymaan. He has to choose and he has to do do with only one wife, which proves once more that polygyny is forbidden in God's religion.
As for the status of the ma malakat aymaan, they are the legal wives of the men whose oaths possess them. 3350 is proof enough.
In 3350 God says to His messenger, Mohammad We have made legal for you your wives whose dowers you paid and those whom thy oaths have -Innaa ahlalnaa laka azwaajaka'l 'l?tee ?taina ujuur ahunna wa ma malakat yameenuk.
That is, those whom Mohammad's oaths had were legally married with him. The other believing men are also bound by this divine decision (235-6, 7029-30).
Peace,
Hasan Akcay -
4-24......if you are seeking with your money to be protected and not for illicit sex. As for those whom you have already had joy with them, then you shall give them their wage as an obligation. There is no sin upon you for what you agree to after the obligation. God is Knowledgeable, Wise.
5-5 ...... and the chaste from among the believing women and the chaste from among those who have been given the Book before you (are lawful for you); when you have given them their dowries, taking (them) in marriage, not fornicating nor taking them for paramours in secret; and whoever denies faith, his work indeed is of no account, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers.
MIN qablikum iza atatumhunna, oo ojurihinna.
The woman's wages, (Mahar) is to be paid before one derives sexual benifit from her, and it has been specifically mentioned that these wages are not for out pouring or legalising fornication, nor should be used as a licence for prostituion. BUt to get the woman in an honest relationship with an aim to maintain chaistity.
siki
siki, I don't get whether you are trying to say something in particular in this message or just laying down the ayas for relfection.
Salaam
-
-
Salaams siki,
I understand how this ayat can seem to indicate to someone that MMA are not married to a man, but my current understanding is leaning towards the MMA as being one whom a man has married but wasn't able to provide a normal dower for because of his lack of finances and the MMA's own personal financial situation being poor. Therefore a man can't have more than one MMA in order to not be unjust; which is why it is "ONE AW MMA". I hope to add to or correct my understanding soon on this issue, Allah willing.
As Salaamu Alaikum,
Correction,
70-29'30 And those who guard their private parts -Except in the case of their wives or those whom their right hands possess -- for these surely are not to be blamed,
siki
-
960 "The sadaqaat are but for the poor and the needy, and those who are employed to for them". The verse here does not mention women or wives. I think hat , again, nisaa' in verse 44 is NOT women, but those vulnerable people the poor and the needy.
Im just curious, is there anyone else in this forum that believes "nisaa" doesn't mean women, but instead means "those vulnerable people, the poor and the needy"? hmm Please respond if you believe this also.
And Samia, how do you reconcile "nisaa" in 4127? Is it "those vulnerable, poor and needy MOTHERS of ORPHANS"? Is 4127 referring back to 43 to you? Are the orphans in 43 also poor and needy to you?
As Salaamu Alaikum, )
-
Im just curious, is there anyone else in this forum that believes "nisaa" doesn't mean women, but instead means "those vulnerable people, the poor and the needy"? hmm Please respond if you believe this also.
I had never thought of it till I read Samia, for the first time on 4.34, as to the exact meaning you quote, I don't know, but I think there is something to it. I still do not know what, I am studying it and probably will take me a long time, but I certainly will not dismiss it if I am not satisfied that there is nothing to it.
-
Im just curious, is there anyone else in this forum that believes "nisaa" doesn't mean women, but instead means "those vulnerable people, the poor and the needy"? hmm Please respond if you believe this also.
And Samia, how do you reconcile "nisaa" in 4127? Is it "those vulnerable, poor and needy MOTHERS of ORPHANS"? Is 4127 referring back to 43 to you? Are the orphans in 43 also poor and needy to you?
As Salaamu Alaikum,
Salaam IQO
Other people came up wiht this meaning. It's ANOTHER meaning, not the only one. But I would also think that this is the original meaning, and women is secondary, just like rijaal.
As I metioned, I read a book explaining verse 434 with this meaning. Dr Sha7rour in an article on verse 434 referred to this meaning and adopted it, although he did not have this meaning in his book (published years before) when he dealt with this verse. One day I will translate his article. I am not sure about this forum.
First of all I would like to point out that since "nisaa'" is not the natural plural of imra'a, and since its root exists as an independent word with its natural plural as nisaa', and since we find the derivatives of this word in usage of the qur'aan, I do not see why I should not consider this meaning, especially that "rijaal" is used in the qur'aan to cover both genders and not to mean (men). In fact "rijaal" is not used at all as "men" (not counting 434).
And Samia, how do you reconcile "nisaa" in 4127?
Secondly, verse 4127 is the most explicit verse for the meaning of "nisaa'" as the vulnerable. It even classifies the "nisaa'". Why do you think people ask the prophet of "nisaa'", and that God refers him (i.e the prophet) to Him and to the law, and then He classifies the widows with children, the orphans and the vulnerable children, all under the question about nisaa'? Isn't this clear that "nisaa'" covers all these? It's this verse that made me more sure that the qur'aan used both meanings of the word. And it's the verse that made me believe that this chapter is about (the vulnerable) not (the women).
Moeover, it is these kinds of debates that make me study the word "nisaa'" and cross-reference the meaning of nisaa'. I read all the posts in ths thread on verse 44, and there was always something missing. The qur'aan never mentioned any other "money" to be paid to "wives" beside the dowry ; but it mentioned the "sadaqaat" many times, each time as gift or donation to those who are in need. Here we have this "sadaqa" as a donation too. Verse 960 is very clear as to whom the sadaqa should be paid.
Is it "those vulnerable, poor and needy MOTHERS of ORPHANS? Is 4127 referring back to 43 to you?
The women in verse 127 do not necessarily refer to those mentioned in verse 43. One can marry a widow as his sole wife and verse 127 may address this person.
Are the orphans in 43 also poor and needy to you?
As for verse 43, I tried to think of Hasan's understanding, but I found many flows which you addressed in your reply to him. So far, I am sticking to my understanding as widows whose kids are poor (and they are poor too) until I read/find a better understanding that also has no flows.
-
Salaam IQO
Wa Salaam Samia,
Other people came up wiht this meaning. It's ANOTHER meaning, not the only one. But I would also think that this is the original meaning, and women is secondary, just like rijaal.
All words have other meanings that are included with the meaning used in the context. If "nisaa" is understood to be "women", there is nothing that says that these women are not also classified as "vunerable". It makes perfect sense to address these issues because the women are exactly vunerable.
So until otherwise proven, I still think women is the primary meaning and "vunerable" can be a secondary meaning. Context is everything in any language.
As I metioned, I read a book explaining verse 434 with this meaning. Dr Sha7rour in an article on verse 434 referred to this meaning and adopted it, although he did not have this meaning in his book (published years before) when he dealt with this verse. One day I will translate his article. I am not sure about this forum.
Why would you not want to translate his article and post it on this forum?
First of all I would like to point out that since "nisaa'" is not the natural plural of imra'a, and since its root exists as an independent word with its natural plural as nisaa', and since we find the derivatives of this word in usage of the qur'aan, I do not see why I should not consider this meaning, especially that "rijaal" is used in the qur'aan to cover both genders and not to mean (men).
If you don't mind, can you find the time to post the detailed evidence for all of your statements/conclusions that you have made here?
...In fact "rijaal" is not used at all as "men" (not counting 434).
Can you then tell me what "rijall" (or it's derivative) means (if it is not "MAN/MEN" in the following ayaat
2228, 2282, 41, 47, 412, 432, 475, 498, 4176, 69, 781, 2325, 2338, 2755, 2929, (there are more, but these should be sufficient.)
....Secondly, verse 4127 is the most explicit verse for the meaning of "nisaa'" as the vulnerable. It even classifies the "nisaa'". Why do you think people ask the prophet of "nisaa'", and that God refers him (i.e the prophet) to Him and to the law, and then He classifies the widows with children, the orphans and the vulnerable children, all under the question about nisaa'? Isn't this clear that "nisaa'" covers all these? It's this verse that made me more sure that the qur'aan used both meanings of the word. And it's the verse that made me believe that this chapter is about (the vulnerable) not (the women).
According to you, doesn't orphans and vulnerable children all have to do with "women"; whether widowed, divorced, single or have not reached maturity yet? How can the ayaat not be about the women? If you say the Sura and ayaat are about vunerable women, that still includes women. But if you say that "nisaa" doesn't mean women, then that excludes women.
Moeover, it is these kinds of debates that make me study the word "nisaa'" and cross-reference the meaning of nisaa'. I read all the posts in ths thread on verse 44, and there was always something missing. The qur'aan never mentioned any other "money" to be paid to "wives" beside the dowry ; but it mentioned the "sadaqaat" many times, each time as gift or donation to those who are in need. Here we have this "sadaqa" as a donation too. Verse 960 is very clear as to whom the sadaqa should be paid.
Many, if not most men, not only give a dowry to prospective wives, but they give them "gifts" of charity as well. So why couldn't ayat 44 be considered exemplifying that?
....The women in verse 127 do not necessarily refer to those mentioned in verse 43. One can marry a widow as his sole wife and verse 127 may address this person.As for verse 43, I tried to think of Hasan's understanding, but I found many flows which you addressed in your reply to him. So far, I am sticking to my understanding as widows whose kids are poor (and they are poor too) until I read/find a better understanding that also has no flows.
If the women (whom you just recently said were not women, but the "vunerable" in 4127 don't refer to those in 43, then where in Al Quran is Allah referring us to when He says that He has already instructed us concerning them?
Is verse 4127 addressing all widows, or just widows with orphaned children?
Which ayaat again do you say make clear to us that the widows and their orphans are poor? (42 and 46 make clear that those orphans referenced there have "amwaal" and thus can not be poor).
As Salaamu Alaikum, )
-
Wa Salaam Samia,
All words have other meanings that are included with the meaning used in the context. If "nisaa" is understood to be "women", there is nothing that says that these women are not also classified as "vunerable". It makes perfect sense to address these issues because the women are exactly vunerable.
So until otherwise proven, I still think women is the primary meaning and "vunerable" can be a secondary meaning. Context is everything in any language.
Salaam IQO
Women should not be vulnerable by nature, or without a reason, just because they are women. When they are, they are a sub category of the vulnerable.
Why would you not want to translate his article and post it on this forum?
Of course I want to. I said one day I will. Ah, about this phrase (I am not sure about this forum) was my response to your question if someone in this forum understood nisaa' the way I did. Sorry for the ambiguity.
Can you then tell me what "rijall" (or it's derivative) means (if it is not "MAN/MEN" in the following ayaat
2228, 2282, 41, 47, 412, 432, 475, 498, 4176, 69, 781, 2325, 2338, 2755, 2929, (there are more, but these should be sufficient.)
I really don't know how I wrote that sentence ;D. I do not know what I was thinking about. You're right, of course.
According to you, doesn't orphans and vulnerable children all have to do with "women";
What do you mean by "according to me the orphans, vulnerable children and all have to do with women"? No. Not necessarily. A child abused by his father or anyother member of the family, or being made to work to support the family does not necessrily have to do with women.
I said these people, including poor widows being vulnerable for raising up orphans, are all under the umbrella of "the vulnerable= nisaa'" not "women=nisaa'".Many, if not most men, not only give a dowry to prospective wives, but they give them "gifts" of charity as well. So why couldn't ayat 44 be considered exemplifying that?
The verse in question is a command. It's not telling us about some good men.
If the women (whom you just recently said were not women, but the "vunerable" in 4127 don't refer to those in 43, then where in Al Quran is Allah referring us to when He says that He has already instructed us concerning them?
Search in the Straight Path
Is verse 4127 addressing all widows, or just widows with orphaned children?
Widows are only vunrelable if they are poor and raising orphans. These are the ones addressed "yataamaal nisaa allaati..."
Which ayaat again do you say make clear to us that the widows and their orphans are poor?
4127 and maybe 43, and anywhere there's mention of "yataamal nisaa'".
If you don't mind, can you find the time to post the detailed evidence for all of your statements/conclusions that you have made here?
You can search any classical dictionary for root (nuun seen hamza). Don't expect to find "vulnerable", but you will find "late/left behind", and its plural "nasaa'" or "nisaa'". Ah, and the sciatic nerf is called (nisa)
-
Salaams Samia,
You are a professinal at being ambigous and not answering questions completely. So I will leave it at that. I know you are still trying to make the points that you promote to others to also make sense to your self completely. Enough said.
As Salaamu Alaikum,
Salaam IQO
Women should not be vulnerable by nature, or without a reason, just because they are women. When they are, they are a sub category of the vulnerable.Of course I want to. I said one day I will. Ah, about this phrase (I am not sure about this forum) was my response to your question if someone in this forum understood nisaa' the way I did. Sorry for the ambiguity.I really don't know how I wrote that sentence ;D. I do not know what I was thinking about. You're right, of course. What do you mean by "according to me the orphans, vulnerable children and all have to do with women"? No. Not necessarily. A child abused by his father or anyother member of the family, or being made to work to support the family does not necessrily have to do with women.
I said these people, including poor widows being vulnerable for raising up orphans, are all under the umbrella of "the vulnerable= nisaa'" not "women=nisaa'".The verse in question is a command. It's not telling us about some good men.Search in the Straight PathWidows are only vunrelable if they are poor and raising orphans. These are the ones addressed "yataamaal nisaa allaati..."4127 and maybe 43, and anywhere there's mention of "yataamal nisaa'".You can search any classical dictionary for root (nuun seen hamza). Don't expect to find "vulnerable", but you will find "late/left behind", and its plural "nasaa'" or "nisaa'". Ah, and the sciatic nerf is called (nisa) -
In terms of matrimonial law I see the marriage portion as a security for women. Women often move from their homes in order to become someone?s wife and it?s 99% women who have to cut short their careers. (farida)
I agree. Women do give up these things, which marriage portion ('ujuur) is supposed to make up for. As a result ?ujuur is, in in huruf?s words, something paid as a cosideration for something in return.
What I understand from your words is that the something in return is women?s keeping men?s houses instead of living in other houses where they were accustomed to living with a feeling of security and raising men?s children instead of carrying on their previous careers. Although they are also women?s houses and women?s children, the rule still stands women do give up things from their lives in order to contribute positive things to men?s lives; so they deserve the dowers in return.
Sadoqaat are different. They are women?s own possessions.
Peace,
Hasan AkcaySalaam
I have no objection to dower I see it as woman?s right based on the role woman plays in the society and as I said marriage portion is in consideration of situation faced by women. I do not see it as a pay or wage. Islamic marriage is exactly like law of contract, which has all three elements, offer, acceptance and consideration ( ujuur/ Dower ). Its based on reality notThe rule still stands; women do give up things from their lives in order to contribute positive things to men?s lives; I hope you realise that women make a mature choice when they decide to give up their parent?s home to move to new home and start a relationship based on mutual gain. No one is doing anyone else a favour there. If we look at life as exchanging favours with each other it becomes very mean ? think not of what you give but of what you receive and in giving you receive.You have not commented on my understanding of the use of tilth in surah 4 I would like to know if you still see it as linking to dower? I believe it is more appropriate to link protector. I would appreciate your view on that.
Best regards
farida -
Salaams siki,
I understand how this ayat can seem to indicate to someone that MMA are not married to a man, but my current understanding is leaning towards the MMA as being one whom a man has married but wasn't able to provide a normal dower for because of his lack of finances and the MMA's own personal financial situation being poor. Therefore a man can't have more than one MMA in order to not be unjust; which is why it is "ONE AW MMA". I hope to add to or correct my understanding soon on this issue, Allah willing.
As Salaamu Alaikum, )
ya. could be , seems like a step in positive direction.
In nut shell , seems like a contract lesser than Nikah , with less strings attached and lesser obligations.
Try studying mutta which shias think was in practice in Mohammad's (phuh) time . We may have a link, and hence truth in there.
siki
-
ujoors are not dowers, but compulsory wages (Mahar) which must be paid to the women before getting physical and it is non returnable , because once you have benifited and enjoyed/explored her body it can not be undone.
in 60 -10. when mohjirrat al mominnat's marriage is being nullified, The ujoors are not being returned but a different word has been used , which is Nafaq (anfaqqo).
siki