POLYGAMY NOT THERE IN QURAN?
-
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.
-
As Salaamu alaika Tanveer,
Not to argue, but can you give any other ayaat of Al Quran where "rijaal" is used in a way that would make it clear that it means or can be women, and "nisaa" is used in a way that it clearly could be men. In order for those meanings that you give to have validity, they would have to be used in some other places since the words are used often in Al Quran. I am not saying that they aren't, because I have not checked all occurances to see that they don't. But if you want to give these meanings in additions to what is already understood, then maybe you have found occurances in Al Quran that support these meanings on numerous occasions. If so, can you please post them.
Some nice points in the previous post, I won't address them as it is not necessary for the points that I am making.
As Salaamu Alaikum,
Salaam 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".
-
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 (tanveer)
Tanveer gives two links here. I looked at them to see if they contained any one of my posts. They do not. How can Hasan?s arguments have been shot down without their being expressed?
Let me remember tanveer that one of my arguments concerns the people addressed in al-Noor 3 all believing people including momenaat. It is natural for them to marry off the nisaa mentioned in the verse, but can they marry them themselves. Can women marry women in Islam?
As for Tanveer?s own arguments, they are simply baseless. Take the one he places at the very top of the list here under the title 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?
There is also mention, in al-quran, of Prophet Muhammad's having an adopted son, who was called Son of Muhammad, just as everybody else's adopted children were called by the names of their adopting fathers. Does Islam allow you to give your name to your adopted children now? If there is such a permission in Islam, there can be permission for polygyny too.
Muhammad had married wife upon wife until it was forbidden (420, 423, 2432, 3352) just as he had called his adopted child Son of Muhammad until it was forbidden (34-5).
Peace,
Hasan Akcay -
There is also mention, in al-quran, of Prophet Muhammad's having an adopted son, who was called Son of Muhammad, just as everybody else's adopted children were called by the names of their adopting fathers. Does Islam allow you to give your name to your adopted children now? If there is such a permission in Islam, there can be permission for polygyny too.
3340
Transliteration Ma kana muhammadun aba ahadin min rijalikum walakin rasoola Allahi wakhatama alnnabiyyeena wakana Allahu bikulli shay-in AAaleeman
Literal Mohammad was not a father (to) anyone from your men, and but God's messenger, and the prophets' end/conclusion/final , and God was/is with every thing knowledgeable.Where again in Al Quran was he called "Son of Muhammad"?
3337
Transliteration Wa-ith taqoolu lillathee anAAama Allahu AAalayhi waanAAamta AAalayhi amsik AAalayka zawjaka waittaqi Allaha watukhfee fee nafsika ma Allahu mubdeehi watakhsha alnnasa waAllahu ahaqqu an takhshahu falamma qada zaydun minha wataran zawwajnakaha likay la yakoona AAala almu/mineena harajun fee azwaji adAAiya-ihim itha qadaw minhunna wataran wakana amru Allahi mafAAoolan
Literal And when you say to who God blessed/comforted and eased on (to) him, and you blessed/comforted and eased on (to) him "Hold/grasp on (to) you your wife, and fear and obey God." And you hide in your self what God (is) showing it (E), and you fear the people, and God (is) more worthy/deserving that (E)301you fear Him, so when Zeyd carried out/ended from her a need/desire (divorced) We made you marry her, so that (there) not be on the believers hardship/blame in wives/spouses (of their adopted) ones called after them, if they carried out/ended from them (F) a need/desire (divorced), and God's order/command was/is made/done.And don't forget
334
Transliteration Ma jaAAala Allahu lirajulin min qalbayni fee jawfihi wama jaAAala azwajakumu alla-ee tuthahiroona minhunna ommahatikum wama jaAAala adAAiyaakum abnaakum thalikum qawlukum bi-afwahikum waAllahu yaqoolu alhaqqa wahuwa yahdee alssabeela
Literal God did not make/put to a man from two hearts in his interior/inside, and He did not make/create your wives which (F) you declare them as forbidden for you (Pre-Islamic form of divorce in which the husband declares his wife as forbidden to him as his mother) from them (F) (as) your mothers, and He did not make/create those named after you but not your children by birth/your adopted children your sons, that (is) your word/opinion and belief with your mouths, and God says the truth and He guides (to) the path/way .335
Transliteration OdAAoohum li-aba-ihim huwa aqsatu AAinda Allahi fa-in lam taAAlamoo abaahum fa-ikhwanukum fee alddeeni wamawaleekum walaysa AAalaykum junahun feema akhta/tum bihi walakin ma taAAammadat quloobukum wakana Allahu ghafooran raheeman
Literal Call them to their fathers, it is more just/equitable at God, so if you did not/do not know their fathers so (they are) your brothers in the religion, and your allies/friends , and an offense/guilt/sin is not on you in what you mistook/erred with it, and but what your hearts/minds made intentionally/purposely, and God was/is a forgiver , merciful.Again, what does adopted sons have to do with forbidding polygyny?
Muhammad had married wife upon wife until it was forbidden (420, 423, 2432, 3352) just as he had called his adopted child Son of Muhammad until it was forbidden (34-5).
Peace,
Hasan AkcayProve any of these claims from Al Quran. The ayaat you quoted don't say that he did those things until they were forbidden.
As Salaamu Alaikum, peace
-
Again, what does adopted sons have to do with forbidding polygyny? (ImamQuranonly)
One could justify adoption for the same reason Tanveer justifies polygyny (1)Muhammad had married the second and the third and the fourth... wives of his, as a result of which he was involved in polygny; so polygyny is allowed in Islam. (2)Muhammad had adopted a son (337) who was called by Muhammad?s name as was customary when he lived (334-5 and 37), as a result of which he was involved in adoption; so giving your name to your adopted son is allowed in Islam.
That is why I said If there is permission in Islam for adopting children and giving them your name, there can be permission in Islam for polygyny.
Peace,
Hasan Akcay -
Again, what does adopted sons have to do with forbidding polygyny? (ImamQuranonly)
One could justify adoption for the same reason Tanveer justifies polygyny (1)Muhammad had married the second and the third and the fourth... wives of his, as a result of which he was involved in polygny; so polygyny is allowed in Islam. (2)Muhammad had adopted a son (337) who was called by Muhammad?s name as was customary when he lived (334-5 and 37), as a result of which he was involved in adoption; so giving your name to your adopted son is allowed in Islam.
That is why I said If there is permission in Islam for adopting children and giving them your name, there can be permission in Islam for polygyny.
Peace,
Hasan AkcayQuite plainly, Al Quran doesn't name Zaid the "Son of Muhammad", regardless of what you think the customs were back then. Did you even read the ayaat that I posted that you keep quoting? Your logic is flawed as usual. Read those ayaat again slowly.
As Salaamu Alaikum, peace
-
ImanQuranonly, please! There is no need for such bickering here. I read the verses, translated them, commented on them; and my work is included now in the E-Books section of a site.
Peace,
Hasan AkcayWhat does your work being included in the E-Books section of a site have to do with this thread? It just proves that anyone can make a book these days with technology. Cause you can't even understand the simple concept that Zaid is NOT called the "Son of Muhummad" in Al Quran.
Is there a money back policy for innocent people that buy your books and then become knowledgable?
As Salaamu Alaikum, peace
-
I am referring to a fact here, a rule that Muhammad too was bound by earlier involvement in a thing until it was forbidden such as polygyny does not justify it.
Another example is Muhammad's fear of the people around him more than his fear of God at certain times wa tahshaa'n naas; wallahu ahaqqu an tahshaah (3337). Is it allowed for the followers of Muhammad to fear the people around them more than they fear God?
I don't like the way you mention money making through my E-Book. If you go on forcing me to be involved in this kind of bickering I will have to simply ignore your posts.
Peace,
Hasan Akcay -
Peace Hasan Akcay,
I am referring to a fact here, a rule that Muhammad too was bound by earlier involvement in a thing until it was forbidden such as polygyny does not justify it.
The fact that any people who engaged in any activity until it was given as haraam by Allah, did so, does not have anything to do with polygyny.
THE FACT IS THAT YOU CAN'T PROVE WHEN MUHAMMAD MARRIED ANY OF HIS WIVES; WHETHER IT WAS BEFORE OR AFTER QURANIC REVELATION.
THE FACT IS THAT AL QURAN DOESN'T FORBID POLYGYNY ANYWHERE EXCEPT BETWEEN TWO SISTERS AT THE SAME TIME, OR BEING MARRIED TO THOSE FORBIDDEN ALL TOGETHER.
THE FACT IS THAT YOU FALSLY THROUGH MISLEADING STATEMENTS REPRESENTED THAT AL QURAN CALLED ZAID THE SON OF MUHAMMAD TO TRY AND SUPPORT ANOTHER OF YOUR FALSE PREMISES WITH BAD LOGIC.
Another example is Muhammad's fear of the people around him more than his fear of God at certain times wa tahshaa'n naas; wallahu ahaqqu an tahshaah (3337). Is it allowed for the followers of Muhammad to fear the people around them more than they fear God?
Do you think people that try to follow the guidance given by Allah in Al Quran never fear people around them more than they fear Allah? If you do, you are disillusioned and unrealistic. It happens, but the guidance is there to remind you not to do it to get you back on the right track. The human being is forgetful and that is why the guidance in contained in a Book that you can read over and over again to remind you. Did you miss that lesson from Al Quran?
I don't like the way you mention money making through my E-Book. If you go on forcing me to be involved in this kind of bickering I will have to simply ignore your posts.
Peace,
Hasan AkcayIf you are making money promoting your Hislam with the knowledge that you have, then you may not have enough fear of Allah as you are supposed to if you claim to be a believer. You barely know what you are talking about, have read a lot of what others have written, and then go about writing books as if you have studied Al Quran in great detail and have been guided to the truth enough to promote your books online in the E-Book section of a website. What will you do when your knowledge grows, (if it does), and you realize that what you sold to people in those E-Books are lies and distortions of the truth that Allah has revealed in Al Quran? Will you refund their money then? Or just continue to eat the fire into your belly?
IMHO, you don't know enough to write books and be selling them to people; if that is what you are doing. If you want to write your opinions and tell people that for free, fine. But if you are charging people for you lack of knowledge and misguiding them by doing so, may Allah have mercy on you.
Feel free to ignore me and my posts if it gives you peace. But don't expect me to ignore you on here when you promote incorrectness about Al Quran, especially without proof or with falsehood and/or poor/bad logic.
As Salaamu Alaikum, peace
-
Salam eleikum All
First of all i will remined that inspite of to look to the question of woman globaly ,the modern onrientalists stay regurgitating the same points of view of their preceeders in the middel era ,Polygamy ,hijab ,men dominance.
I want to mention her some numbers to those who killed us by their noisy shouding about Polygamy among muslims
The annual number of trafficated humans in USA ( most of them are kidnapped women ,girls ) are about 800 000.
The global annual number is more dramatic about 10 - 15 milions of humans trafficating annualy most of them women , girls( see the UN resources ) ,and the main marked to those is EU ,USA and some of their allians in the oil states in the Golf .Then come and tell me about the rights of muslim women ...........
Yes the polygamy is mentioned in Quran but is it obligatory ,or its an alternative ( solution ) which can resolve sosial problem which is more dangerous and injirious than polygamy it self ( her f.eks the lack of life resources ) .
By another side i want to ask is Islam the only religion which permit this ,of course not .
Iam in Work now so inshalla i will provide you with the suitable translation and occasions of the aya of what you call it polygamy in the next future -
Salam eleikum All
First of all i will remined that inspite of to look to the question of woman globaly ,the modern onrientalists stay regurgitating the same points of view of their preceeders in the middel era ,Polygamy ,hijab ,men dominance.
I want to mention her some numbers to those who killed us by their noisy shouding about Polygamy among muslims
The annual number of trafficated humans in USA ( most of them are kidnapped women ,girls ) are about 800 000.
The global annual number is more dramatic about 10 - 15 milions of humans trafficating annualy most of them women , girls( see the UN resources ) ,and the main marked to those is EU ,USA and some of their allians in the oil states in the Golf .Then come and tell me about the rights of muslim women ...........
Yes the polygamy is mentioned in Quran but is it obligatory ,or its an alternative ( solution ) which can resolve sosial problem which is more dangerous and injirious than polygamy it self ( her f.eks the lack of life resources ) .
By another side i want to ask is Islam the only religion which permit this ,of course not .
Iam in Work now so inshalla i will provide you with the suitable translation and occasions of the aya of what you call it polygamy in the next futureWa aleikum Salam
Well said brother,
In this monogamous society where women are so independent, still global studies have shown that more married men than women have affairs and, I can recall I wives saying ?What he does behind my back is OK? as long as I don?t know about it, such hypocrisy.
The global annual number is more dramatic about 10 - 15 milions of humans trafficating annualy most of them women , girls( see the UN resources ) ,and the main marked to those is EU ,USA and some of their allians in the oil states in the Golf
I am a woman but lucky one and so are those vulnerable Kosovan women who have been tricked into human trafficking. I see them forced into prostitution or begging on the streets of London and that?s when I think ?If only these Muslims knew why polygamy was allowed, no man would joke about it or view it as a privilege to take another wife, but rather would realise that it is in fact a duty to shelter the vulnerable in society.
Through the ages very few have understood the reasons behind polygyny and only a true believer would have the depth in their hearts to see is as a solution to a social evil.is Islam the only religion which permit this ,of course not
Jews have a very tough law where a man can leave his wife yet refuse to divorce her. Should he remarry his deserted wife is still not allowed in religion to marry another man. If she does anyway her children are considered illegitimate.
A Jewish man can go on like this until he has taken three wives. In other words a Jewish man can shackle his wife by not allowing her a divorce, himself free to take one after the other. At least Quran has given a women right to divorce if she prefers not to live in a polygynous marriage.
May we become a tolerant society in true sense.
Best regard