POLYGAMY NOT THERE IN QURAN?
-
samia! regarding the Nissa issue i still have the above mentioned question pending.
siki
Sorry siki. I was away most of the time yesterday and the day before, and the thread grew enormously!
Of course it contains women! Why not?
I am sure you have read how I explained my nderstanding in a thread you participated in. -
Sorry siki. I was away most of the time yesterday and the day before, and the thread grew enormously!
Of course it contains women! Why not?
I am sure you have read how I explained my nderstanding in a thread you participated in.i am sorry i am unable to understand how? when two genders are exclusively being addressed, and one is being made Qawam of other?
siki
-
The qur'aan never mentioned any other "money" to be paid to "wives" beside the dowry (Samia).
(1)Soqaat in 44 is not any money in general sense but charity in particular.
(2)The nisaa in 44 are the adult female orphans. They sure are vulnerable in the sense you use the word; so benevolent believers must have given them sadoqaat in the past.
(3)The nisaa in 44 are not some women whom God tells men to make into their wives. No verb conveying the meaning of marry exists in the verse. The verbs in it are ?tu, tabna, and kuluu
Wa ?tu?n nisaa?a saduqaat ihinna nihlatan. Fa in tabna lakum an shai3in minhu nafsan fakuluuhu haneean wa maree?a.
As for verse 43, I tried to think of Hasan's understanding, but I found many flaws which you addressed in your reply to him. (Samia)
In a separate post I argued against the so-called flaws which IQO adressed. You must have read it and you must have foud my explanations not convincing enough; otherwise, you would not be speaking about the flaws any more. In what terms do you still label them as flaws?
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? (fartida)
Yes, I do.
I believe it is more appropriate to link protector.
I believe protector can be reconciled with utilizer here. Would you like me to make a more detailed explanation?
Peace,
Hasan Akcay -
Peace Hasan Akcay,
I would like to know what arguments you made against the flaws in the article that I pointed out. I definitely have not read anything remotely convincing from you. As a matter of fact, you are so all over the place with your views and positions, that it becomes tedious to even try to make or understand a point with you. Maybe it is because Enlish is not your native language and your expressions come across differently, in which case I am not holding that against you. But if you think that you have some good points, you will have to find some help in expressing them with better clarity in English on this forum, for them to be understood or accepting as anything close to convincing. I find most of your posts incoherrant to say the least.
As Salaamu Alaikum, )
In a separate post I argued against the so-called flaws which IQO adressed. You must have read it and you must have foud my explanations not convincing enough; otherwise, you would not be speaking about the flaws any more. In what terms do you still label them as flaws?
Peace,
Hasan Akcay -
Maybe you missed the first sentence in that post I made and failed to realize that I am trying to give the poster the benefit of the doubt as to why many of his posts make no sense to me. It's very comfortable where I am sitting, so what does to hot for comfort have to do with this thread? If you have something to had to the discussion, please feel free to add some knowledge to it.
How did we get from a discussion on the topic at hand to a criticism of English language skills? confused
Was it getting a bit too hot for comfort???
-
Nevermind, I understand why it is hot and uncomfortable to you in this thread! brickwall
o
Wow! I haven't delved too much into this topic. But this is so 'right'! I could never 'swallow' the idea of polygamy, no matter how they tried to justify it. It's just so against human nature and I was puzzled at the prospect of how God could allow such a thing. Now, I see why....He didn't!!!
yay
-
Salaam Hasan
(1)Soqaat in 44 is not any money in general sense but charity in particular.
I know. Sadaqaa is a kind of charity. I was contesting the meaning of "wives" given to "nisaa'".
(2)The nisaa in 44 are the adult female orphans. They sure are vulnerable in the sense you use the word; so benevolent believers must have given them sadoqaat in the past.
What do you mean by (an orphaned woman)? Orphans are children. Why would a woman who lost her parent be vulnerable?
Moreover, if they were exclusively females, the appropriate plural would have been used, not the "masculine" one.
Why "in the past"? They were given the sadaqaat when they are "nisaa'".(3)The nisaa in 44 are not some women whom God tells men to make into their wives. No verb conveying the meaning of marry exists in the verse. The verbs in it are ?tu, tabna, and kuluu
I did not say they are wives. See above.
In a separate post I argued against the so-called flaws which IQO adressed. You must have read it and you must have foud my explanations not convincing enough; otherwise, you would not be speaking about the flaws any more. In what terms do you still label them as flaws?
Your reply is based on "yataamaa al-nisaa' = female orphans". Arabic there is one word for female orphans yateemaat. Yataamaa is either exclusively masculine or a collective plural.
-
I say that if financially stable men married 2,3, or 4 of the orphaned, homeless and widdowed women from Africa, Iraq etc. we would have solved half the world's problems. bravo
and don't forget all the women working in unlawful places and doing indecent jobs (even hollywood actresses) . Pick them all up and marry them and put them away from corrupting the earth more and more.
hehehe .. I don't know where I come up with such ideas sometimes P
Bring Beyonce', Hally and Alicia Keys to my office for nikah and Islamic indoctrination so that I can take them off of society's hand as a burden! O0 rotfl yay rotfl yay rotfl
Okay, Im just joking. Just wanted to add a lighter post in here. I wouldn't marry these women because they all have some serious issues. (Okay, I may make exceptions for Beyonce' if I can get her to act and dress Quranically. ) sun ;D
-
Have you not been averting your gaze??? nope Naughty! Naughty!
Nevermind, I understand why it is hot and uncomfortable to you in this thread! brickwall
Okay. But there's no use in beating yourself up over it! confused
(As for 'adding knowledge' to the discussion -- what little I had to offer, I did. I have already written 'I haven't delved much into this topic'...I'm simply a spectator on this thread!)
-
Salaam ImamQuranonly.
In the beginning of this thread I said Probably I am the only participant in this forum definitely convinced that polygamy is forbidden in Islam. I must constantly keep this in mind and do my best to avoid disturbing the other participants who fully or partly support it.
It is important for me I keep my promise. So if I disturb you in any way, please let me know..
From my previous post
ImamQuranonly
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?Hasan Akcay
The early momeneen and momenaat with orphans under their protection have always been afraid to commit the hooban kabeera mentioned in 42. Therefore the reason behind it is the opportunity which now comes up the female orphans are finally mature enough to marry. The momeneen and momenaat can take take the opportunity as a way out of their fear, if they want.IQO
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?HA
They are the female orphans who have reached their physical and mental maturity. The orphans whose possessions the believers fear to consume unintentionally in 42, the nisaa whom the believers fear to be unjust with in 43, and the orphans whose possessions God orders the believers to return in 46 are the same people.ImamQuranonly
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 of the nisaa or the ones whom your oaths have, help you in this?Hasan Akcay
The possessions are not taboos never to be touched. On the contrary, in 46 God tells you that they are your possesions (amwaal akum) which you can eat in a fair manner (fa?l ya3kul bi?l ma3ruuf) if you are really poor. Plus, you are to invest them in economic endeavours on behalf of your yatamaa.Supposing you have bought some sheep with their money so that you will feed them and sell them at a profitable price later on. But several of your yataamaa prove to have grown matured enough for you to return their money and all of them authorize you (maa taaba lakum) to marry them off. However, the sheep are not good enough to sell yet. If you sell them now you will lose lots of money.
In this case you can choose to marry off only one of the orphan nisaa and ask the others to wait. Or, if even one orphan woman?s wedding is sure to put you to economic hardship, you can ask all of them to wait until you sell the sheep at a reasonable price.
As for those whom your oaths have, your marrying them off never causes financial hardship because they don?t have possessions to be returned. So if you really want to do good deeds (amal-e saaleh), you can marry them off. God loves His ebaad who do good works.
Salaam Samia.
I know. Sadaqaa is a kind of charity. I was contesting the meaning of "wives" given to "nisaa'".
I didn?t say they are wives. I said they are the nisaa whose sadoqaat you must return to. It is Yusuf Ali, Muhammad Asad and their likes who claim that the sadoqaat are dowries and the nisaa are wives to receive them. I suppose you are objecting to Yusuf Ali and Muhammad Asad rather than to me.
What do you mean by (an orphaned woman)? Orphans are children.
I mean the orphans who have reached their physical and mental maturity; that is the reason why God orders you to give back their possessions to them (46).
Why would a woman who lost her parent be vulnerable?
You say that orphans are vulnerabla. The nisaa who are mentioned in 43 and 44 were little orphans in the past; they are orphan nisaa with possessions now.
Moreover, if they were exclusively females, the appropriate plural would have been used, not the "masculine" one.
You and I discussed this before. You asked how the male orphans could be married off. I referred you to 2432.
Why "in the past"? They were given the sadaqaat when they are "nisaa'".
You are not giving the nisaa sadoqaat as charity from yourself but returning the sadoqaat which are their own possessions. Please consider the difference between charity and dowry.
Yataamaa is either exclusively masculine or a collective plural.
You know tese things; I don't. So it is collective plural.
Peace,
Hasan Akcay -
"Sadaqats" are certainly "chairties" , its combination with Nihalatan solidfies the meaning as something to be given away without expecting a benifit in return, but the problem comes up when the sentence culminates with , "If they forfeit something willingly" brickwall This is a real problem .
we may have to adop a voodoo non conformal but creative and logical approach to solve the above. hmm So let us do some out of the Box thinking. group
siki
-
"Sadaqats" are certainly "chairties" , its combination with Nihalatan solidfies the meaning as something to be given away without expecting a benifit in return, but the problem comes up when the sentence culminates with , "If they forfeit something willingly" brickwall This is a real problem .
we may have to adop a voodoo non conformal but creative and logical approach to solve the above. hmm So let us do some out of the Box thinking. group
siki
From that post, all I could say is that sadaqat would be something given away without consent, without expecting a benefit in return.
What's wrong with understanding 44 as a dowry? That satisfies everything.
-
From that post, all I could say is that sadaqat would be something given away without consent, without expecting a benefit in return.
What's wrong with understanding 44 as a dowry? That satisfies everything.
What do you mean by dowry
dowry as given by parents to the daughter when she marries?
dowry as trasnlation as done by some of the word 'ujoor in the Qur'an?
Salaam
-
Peace all,
Interesting discussion going on. I used to think that The God does not allow polygyny according to al-qur'aan and that according to 43 the women are supposed to be married off instead of married to, but all the arguments in favor of that understanding as proposed by brothers Yaseen and Hasan were shot down one by one in extensive discussions in the past, for example
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=12031.0
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=13534.0
My current understanding is that polygyny is allowed by The God, and that does not create any contradiction with any of the qur'aanic signs, and that 43 is not a special situation or exception where polygyny is allowed, but addresses a problem of how to be fair with the orphans and proposes a solution based on polygyny.
If polygyny was forbidden, The God would have clearly said so and then given an exception to the rule if any. For example "Having more than one wife is forbidden except if you fear that you cannot be just to the orphans". 43 does not say that. There is no "except/illa" in that sign, and there is no general sign elsewhere in al-qur'aan forbidding polygyny, except with two blood sisters. This is undisputable.
SOME MORE COMMENTS
-
There is mention of Prophet Muhammad having multiple wives in al-qur'aan. If polygyny was forbidden, how did the Prophet have multiple wives ? How come nowhere it says that no one can have multiple wives except the Prophet, or except if you fear you cannot be just to orphans ?
-
The so called contradictions that brother Hasan alludes to are not contradictions at all, as has been extensively explained in past discussions at the links quoted above. Let's see those signs again one by one
420 And if you wish to replace one wife instead of another, and you have given one of them a large amount, then do not take anything from it. Would you take it by falsehood while it is clearly a sin?
One can have multiple wives, and then replace one of those wives instead of another by divorcing that wife and marrying another. For example, one has 4 wives, and one divorces wife #4 and then marries another woman, and still has 4 wives at the same time. How does that contradict 420 ?
423 Forbidden for you are your mothers, and your daughters, and your sisters, and your fathers' sisters, and your mothers' sisters, and the daughters of your brother, and the daughters of your sister, and your foster mothers who suckled you, and your sisters from suckling, and the mothers of your wives, and your step-daughters residing in your homes from your wives which you have already consummated the marriage with; if you have not consummated the marriage then there is no sin upon you; and the wives of your sons that are from your seed, and that you join between two sisters except what has already been done. God is Forgiving, Merciful.
The word "sisters" occurs in this sign multiple times and everywhere it means sisters by blood and not women in general. Then how come one can suddenly twist the "sisters" mentioned at the end into "women in general" ?
Actually 423 and 43 when put together make it clear that one can marry more than one widow. This is for the simple reason that the only objection raised in 423 is the combining of the two sisters (of course combining any number greater than 2 would also involve combining 2 and therefore is covered by 423). Therefore implicit in the restriction against combining 2 sisters is the indication that combining NON-SISTERS is OK when the situation in 43 arises.
2432 And marry off those among you that are single, and the good from among your male and female servants. If they are poor, then God will grant them from His grace. And God is Encompassing, Knowledgeable.
"Marry off" indicates that the ones being married off are dependents, and that this sign is directed to parents/guardians of those dependent ones. The independents do not get "married off" but they "marry". In the past, brother Hasan said that the registrar at the marriage ceremony of the independents is "marrying them off", but that is fallacious logic. The registrar is not "marrying them off" but just witnessing their marriage ceremony. "Marry off" implies dependency, and implies parents or guardians, and not a registrar.
Hence one can say that this sign alludes to the dependents not getting into a polygynous marriage, but does not prohibit polygynous marriages among the independent ones, and does not contradict allowance of polygyny to the independent people.
3352 No women are lawful to you beyond this, nor that you change them for other wives, even though you may be attracted by their beauty, except those to whom you are committed by oath. And God is watchful over all things.
This sign is prohibiting the Prophet to marry any categories of women OTHER THAN those mentioned in 3350, and also prohibiting him to change them for other wives, but is not prohibiting him to marry more wives WITHIN those categories. Thus this sign does not contradict polygyny.
- As far as 44 is concerned
SADUQAATIHINNA + NIHLATAN = UJOOR
Most fail to realize that the word "saduqaatihinna" is not used here by itself but in conjunction with "nihlatan", which makes it the same as "ujoor", because one cannot take the "ujoor" back once the marriage is consummated. Those people would have had a point only if the word "saduqaatihinna" was used in this sign by itself, which it is obviously not.
The word "saduqaatihinna" doesn't carry the meaning of "inheritance", or "property of the orphans". If you look at all the occurences of the word "sadaqaat" in the great reading, then you will see that it has the meaning of giving charity/aid out of one's OWN money (for example see 9103). The 'inheritence" of the orphans is described as "amwalahum" (their money) in 42. The word "nihlatan" used in conjunction with this "saduqaatihinna" makes it the same as "ujoor", because then it is ONE'S OWN MONEY given to the widow single parents, WITHOUT EXPECTING IT BACK, once one marries them and consummates the marriage with them.
Moreover, in 42 we are clearly told NOT TO CONSUME the moneys of the orphans to make it your money. On the other hand, in 44 we are told to consume what the women share with us of the "sadaqaat". This is more in line with the "nisaa" being widows who we give aid/charity to as opposed to orphans who we give their OWN rightful inheritance money to.
- Yataama al-nisaa means ORPHANS OF WOMEN, and not female orphans. 43 and 4127 are not about marrying the now mature female orphans (as it violates grammatical rules as repeatedly pointed out by Samia), but about marrying those women who are either mothers or female guardians of the orphans.
-
-
Salaam Siki,
i am sorry i am unable to understand how? when two genders are exclusively being addressed, and one is being made Qawam of other?
siki
In the sign referenced by you, "rijaal" would mean "those who travel on foot to earn livelihood" or "breadwinners", which could be male or female, and "nisaa" would mean "those left behind", which again could be male or female.
For example, the wife could be the one with the job and be the bread winner and the husband stays at home to take care of the kids due to some sort of disability. In that case, the breadwinner wife would be counted among the "rijaal", and the "left behind husband" would be counted among the "nisaa".
-
What do you mean by dowry
dowry as given by parents to the daughter when she marries?
dowry as trasnlation as done by some of the word 'ujoor in the Qur'an?
Salaam
From husband to wife.