POLYGAMY NOT THERE IN QURAN?

brook

Peace Br. Hasan & IQO,

I apologize for my ignorance regarding this matter, but how did you translate "Waankihoo" to "and marry off"?

This is the literal translation of that verse that I got from www.openburhan.net

2432 - "And marry the widows/widowers from you, and the correct/righteous from your slaves/servants and your owned (F) slaves, if they be poor/needy God enriches/suffices them from His grace/favour/blessing, and God (is) rich/spread , knowledgeable."

The verb in 2432 is ANKAHA, which means marry off. However, there appears this problem in the English translations The verb marry means marry off as well. For example, when a mother says to her husband "Honey, marry our daughters!" it means marry them off. But if she says, "Let's relive our wedding. Honey, marry me!" it means make me your wife.

NAKAHA means marry

An-Nisaa 22
Wa la tankehoo ma nakaha abaa ekum mine?n nisaa?
Do not marry women whom your fathers have married.

Al-Ahzaab 53
Wa ma kaana lakum an tankehoo azwaaj aho min ba3dehee
It would not behove you to marry the Prophet?s widows

Al-Momtaheena 10
Wa la jonaaha alaikom an tankeh oohonna
It will not be sinful of you to marry them

ANKAHA means marry off

Al-Noor 32
Wa ankeho?l ayaama minkom
Marry off the single from among you

Al-Kasas 27
Innee oreedo an yonkeh aka ihtabnatayya
I intend to marry one of my two daughters off to you.

Peace,
Hasan Akcay

Sharp001

Br. Hassan,

What about 425?

425 - "And whoever of you cannot afford to marry the believing independent women, then from the still dependant believing young women. God is more aware of your faith, some of you to each other. You shall marry them (fainkihoohun) with the permission of their parents and give them their wage in kindness; to be protected, not for illicit sex or taking lovers. If they become protected, then any of them who comes with lewdness shall have half the punishment of what is for the independent women of the retribution. This is for those who fear hardship from among you. But if you are patient it is better for you, and God is Forgiver, Merciful." (Free Minds)

I really am sorry if I am being difficult but something just doesn't seem to be flowing "smoothly" as one would expect. I mean consider the surrounding verses of 2432

2430 - Talks about believing men about lowering their gaze and guarding their modesty.
2431 - Talks about believing women about lowering their gaze, guarding their modesty and not displaying their non-apparent "Zeenat" to anyone except those allowed by God.
2432 - ??Talks about guardians duties for marrying those under their guardianship??
2433 - Starts off with those unable to marry and then addresses the guardians about those in their guardianship.
2434 - A confirmation that the verses are clear with examples of those gone before us.

I may be wrong about it, but it would made more consequential sense, if it starts of with the advise for believing men and women to guard their chastity (2430 & 2431), before marrying single people (2432) and if they are unable to do so, then remain chaste and patient (2433). The guardians, who feel that their dependents are unable to get married by themselves, should help and support them in every way, financially if need be, but in any case, should not force them into a decision which they are not agreeable to (2433). Examples are present of people gone by (2434) like Moses' Father-in-law who tested and assessed Moses after his daughter told him about his deed (her bashfulness indicates that she had developed a liking for Moses) and married off his daughter to Moses (2823 to 2829).

I hope that I made some sense there. If I didn't, please do point out any disagreeables.

Peace

farida

I think the problem arises when we think that the addressee in "aatuul nisaa"" are the same ones who are paying the sadaqaat. They are not. It means The sadaqaat already paid by others to the nisaa' "the poor, the needy, and those who are employed to deal with the sadaqaat" should be handed to them in full and willingly, unless they want to forfeit part of it for the community.

Salaam Samia, Hasan Akcay and everyone

This discussion had been going on between some very well versed people and I feel like the blind man in surah 80 interrupting, but then I may have a point.

We have been advised to spend from our property for the sake of Allah and Sadaqat is what we give with sincerity, expecting nothing in return; therefore surah 44 could be addressed to married women to persuade them to give the vulnerable women their due charity (sadaqah) by being taken into protection as wives by their men? In times of emergency it becomes a duty on everyone to give from what they possess. ?.and if they remit any of it to you of their own will, then you may take it with good feelings

Hasan Akcay with reference to your argument,
In 3352 God prohibits Mohammed (pbuh) from taking any more wives. If we interpret this as a prohibition of polygyny one wonders, why would Allah(swt) first allow polygyny, telling us its details and then, suddenly prohibit it, without even stating clearly that it is forbidden.

Perhaps this injunction was because social order had now reached a level where there was no longer an urgent need for taking more than one wife.

I believe that only in a state of emergency (like the one in Iraq) is polygyny encouraged and once there are no longer large numbers of exposed women, who need to be taken care of, then one wife must suffice as indicated in 2432.

Best regards

unknownuser

Peace all,

In addition to the logical fallacies of brother Hassan pointed out by brother IQO, there is one more logical fallacy I would like to draw attention to

Firstly, as brother IQO correctly pointed out, 3352 contains an exception to the general rule given in the first part, and thus CANNOT be construed as a prohibition of polygyny.

Secondly, even if we go along the fallacious logic of brother Hassan, that it forbids any more regular marriages by the Prophet, and therefore polygyny is prohibited to all subsequent believers (which is fallacious logic by itself), then not only will polygyny be prohibited, but ANY regular marriage will be prohibited too, because 3352 says NO WOMEN are lawful to you after this .............

Thus NO WOMEN, NADA, ZILCH, ZERO are lawful for any believers, following brother Hassan's fallacious logic. brickwall

Brother Sharp

Ankihoo in 2432 can logically mean only "marry off" and not "get married to".

If 2432 is a command to "get married to", then we have the following two problems

All believers are then obligated to get married to not only the single among them but also their servants (3ibaad" means servants, not slaves). Then as soon as you have a servant, you are obligated to marry that servant.
Then, a male believer will be obligated to get married to male and/or a female servant. Is The God condoning or promoting homosexuality here ?

The only logical meaning of "ankihoo" in 2432 would thus be "marry off". This meaning of "marry off" may prevent polygyny by the DEPENDENT believers, but does not contradict polygyny by INDEPENDENT believers because of the reason I gave in my earlier post

"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 "get married to". Hassan says 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, and thus does not forbid polygyny by independent believers.

brook

Peace all.

Sharp001 says I may be wrong about it, but it would made more consequential sense, if it starts of with the advise for believing men and women to guard their chastity (2430 & 2431), before marrying single people (2432) and if they are unable to do so, then remain chaste and patient (2433).

Since the verses do not follow a chronological order in the mushaf, I don?t insist that they convey a perfectly cosequential sense.

Farida says In 3352 God prohibits Mohammed (pbuh) from taking any more wives. If we interpret this as a prohibition of polygyny one wonders, why would Allah(swt) first allow polygyny, telling us its details and then, suddenly prohibit it, without even stating clearly that it is forbidden..

In 423 God makes it clear that polygyny is an unbearable wrong; and that God does not do the least wrong, it is men who wrong themselves (1044). So He does not allow it, just asd He does not allow other wrongs such zehaar (334), which He prohibits in due time.

If, by telling us its details, you mean 3350 and 51, I do not object to their contents either.

3350 is a statement of the fact that the Prophet has many wives, and all of them are halaal to him.

3351 indicates that duty comes before the family for the prophet. So just in case his family of many wives (that is polygyny) gets in the way, God tells His Prophet in 3328 that his wives should either let him divorce them in a becoming manner or collaborate with him. That is what God reinforces in 3351 by saying, this will make it more likely... that all of them may find contentment in whatever thou hast to give them. This solution which is provided in 351 is only temporary.

3352 provides the permanent solution an end to polygyny for good.

I will try to reply to tanveer?s arguments separately, God willing. In the meantime will he please explain the discrepancies which the classic and tanveer's way of understaning of 43 causes in God's Book, such as the command that momeneen and momeneaat NKH the nisaa mentioned in the verse.

Peace,
Hasan Akcay

ImamQuranonly

As Salaamu Alaikum Tanveer and all,

Along with what is said here in the quote, I also see that when marrying off dependants, it makes since to mention the single among them so that no previous unliked marriages are annulled and new ones forced by the guardians. But also, it means marry off the single among the dependants; it never says marry them "TO SINGLE" people. Therefore, a dependant could be single and have a need to be married off (with their consent still), to a married man, since 43 allows polygyny. There is no need to tell the believers to marry off the married; saying single is the common sense need for the ayat, not promoting the prohibition against polygyny.

I see this command as Allah telling the believers that human beings have a natural instinct to get married. So do not forbid those that are "considered" young, when in fact they have reached the age of maturity; and those that are not financially sound, from getting married, but instead marry them off. We see the opposite of this happening a lot today with people wanting to retard the growth of the human being and making them think that they are not grown enough to even consider marriage until they are a minimum of 18; an arbitrary number created by western institutionalized schooling to dumb down the population. We also see this in many countries where the amount of money needed to get married makes it almost impossible for those men and women to get married many times. We also see it with families not wanting their children to get married until they have finished their "education", meaning having finished a college degree or higher.

All of this retards the natural developement of the human being and their needs as given to them by Allah. To me Allah is giving guidance to those who have faith and can understand, that this is against His natural law and that we should encourage marriage at the age of maturity and help those who have not finished their "education" or are not financially stable to still be able to marry. After all, Allah says that He himself will help them with His riches, although that may be more in spirit than money, or both and could just take time and patience to be realized.

As Salaamu Alaikum,

Peace all,

In addition to the logical fallacies of brother Hassan pointed out by brother IQO, there is one more logical fallacy I would like to draw attention to

Firstly, as brother IQO correctly pointed out, 3352 contains an exception to the general rule given in the first part, and thus CANNOT be construed as a prohibition of polygyny.

Secondly, even if we go along the fallacious logic of brother Hassan, that it forbids any more regular marriages by the Prophet, and therefore polygyny is prohibited to all subsequent believers (which is fallacious logic by itself), then not only will polygyny be prohibited, but ANY regular marriage will be prohibited too, because 3352 says NO WOMEN are lawful to you after this .............

Thus NO WOMEN, NADA, ZILCH, ZERO are lawful for any believers, following brother Hassan's fallacious logic. brickwall

Brother Sharp

Ankihoo in 2432 can logically mean only "marry off" and not "get married to".

If 2432 is a command to "get married to", then we have the following two problems

All believers are then obligated to get married to not only the single among them but also their servants (3ibaad" means servants, not slaves). Then as soon as you have a servant, you are obligated to marry that servant.
Then, a male believer will be obligated to get married to male and/or a female servant. Is The God condoning or promoting homosexuality here ?

The only logical meaning of "ankihoo" in 2432 would thus be "marry off". This meaning of "marry off" may prevent polygyny by the DEPENDENT believers, but does not contradict polygyny by INDEPENDENT believers because of the reason I gave in my earlier post

"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 "get married to". Hassan says 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, and thus does not forbid polygyny by independent believers.

ImamQuranonly

I will try to reply to tanveer?s arguments separately, God willing. In the meantime will he please explain the discrepancies which the classic and tanveer's way of understaning of 43 causes in God's Book, such as the command that momeneen and momeneaat NKH the nisaa mentioned in the verse.

Peace,
Hasan Akcay

The rest of what you wrote is not even worth addressing because you can't get simple points that prove you wrong, understood in your head.

But why have you ignored answering these in relationship to your question to Tanveer

What kind of question is that?

First, please post ayat 410 and show where, as you said "In 410 God warns all momeneen and momenaat"

Second, post ayat 42 and show where, as you said "In 42 He addresses all momeneen and momenaat"

Third, your point is invalidated because you don't understand that even if what you said existed did in fact exist, the plural masculine form "can include the feminine" as well, but doesn't HAVE TO. The context is what determines whether or not it does. Since women obviously can't marry women, 43 has to be addressing MEN only.

As Salaamu Alaikum, peace

brook

Third, your point is invalidated because you don't understand that even if what you said existed did in fact exist, the plural masculine form "can include the feminine" as well, but doesn't HAVE TO. The context is what determines whether or not it does. Since women obviously can't marry women, 43 has to be addressing MEN only. (ImamQuranonly)

I did not respond to this before because it is only a false excuse the context you abuse is only your context. My God does not shift His adressees to the polygyny-hungry men in 43 out of the blue despite the fact that He addresses all believers including momenaat in 41, 42, ???, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 410. This may be your false god, all right; but you have no right to impose him on me. My true God is not frivulous like that.

And please watch your words when you speak about me. This is my second warning to you. I won't warn you any more. Iwill simply ignore your posts if you do not behave yourself.

Peace,
Hasan Akcay

ImamQuranonly

Listen sick man with a big ego and false books to sell, stop warning me and take me off of your radar. Stop reading my posts and stop responding to them. I already told you that I will not ignore yours. I will not stand by while you post your filth and lies to mislead the less knowledgable. And btw, you still didn't answer the questions Mr. let me repost a portion of what you said so that hopefully everyone forgets the points that were made. The only false god on here is you and your own ego that you worship.

Third, your point is invalidated because you don't understand that even if what you said existed did in fact exist, the plural masculine form "can include the feminine" as well, but doesn't HAVE TO. The context is what determines whether or not it does. Since women obviously can't marry women, 43 has to be addressing MEN only. (ImamQuranonly)

I did not respond to this before because it is only a false excuse the context you abuse is only your context. My God does not shift His adressees to the polygyny-hungry men in 43 out of the blue despite the fact that He addresses all believers including momenaat in 41, 42, ???, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 410. This may be your false god, all right; but you have no right to impose him on me. My true God is not frivulous like that.

And please watch your words when you speak about me. This is my second warning to you. I won't warn you any more. Iwill simply ignore your posts if you do not behave yourself.

Peace,
Hasan Akcay

brook

3352 contains an exception to the general rule given in the first part, and thus CANNOT be construed as a prohibition of polygyny. (tanveer)

This exception covers only Muhammad?s ma malakat yameen, who have been made halal to him (3350). In other words, they are his wives. So it does not mean that Muhammad is allowed to marry women other than his present wives. If it meant that, God?s decision would become meaningless. It is not an exception in the sense you see it.

Secondly, even if we go along the fallacious logic of brother Hassan, that it forbids any more regular marriages by the Prophet, and therefore polygyny is prohibited to all subsequent believers (which is fallacious logic by itself), then not only will polygyny be prohibited, but ANY regular marriage will be prohibited too, because 3352 says NO WOMEN are lawful to you after this .............

What does no women are lawful to you mean? If he is allowed to keep on marrying women other than his present wives, what is the use telling him that no women are lawful to him after this????..?

If 2432 is a command to "get married to", then we have the following two problems?

I am afraid you are splitting hairs. The command is marry off the single, which means you marry them to other people.You don?t marry them yourself; you don?t make them your wives.

It is like in the following commands

Unkih ibnatak marry off your daughter.
Unkih ma taba lekum mina?n nisaa? marry off the women.

That is the correct reading of NKH in 43 because only when the NKH is read as unkih, all the momeneen and momenaat can safely obey God?s order. Momenaat can not marry the nisaa mentioned in the verse but they can marry them off.

Hassan says 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.

Witnessing the marriage is what makes it valid. It doesn?t even have to be the registrar; anybody who is capable of serving as witness will do. And it is the duty of the witnesses to make sure that the bride or the groom are single. Otherwise the witnesses fail to fulfill their duty; which means the marriage is null and void.

Witnessing or registering the marriage is different from watchig football. It goes with the duty of seeing to it that the marriage is in accordance with God?s laws and orders.

Peace,
Hasan Akcay

Sharp001

Brs. Tanveer and IQO,

.....
Brother Sharp

Ankihoo in 2432 can logically mean only "marry off" and not "get married to".

If 2432 is a command to "get married to", then we have the following two problems

All believers are then obligated to get married to not only the single among them but also their servants (3ibaad" means servants, not slaves). Then as soon as you have a servant, you are obligated to marry that servant.
Then, a male believer will be obligated to get married to male and/or a female servant. Is The God condoning or promoting homosexuality here ?

The only logical meaning of "ankihoo" in 2432 would thus be "marry off". This meaning of "marry off" may prevent polygyny by the DEPENDENT believers, but does not contradict polygyny by INDEPENDENT believers because of the reason I gave in my earlier post

"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 "get married to". Hassan says 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, and thus does not forbid polygyny by independent believers.

I apologize if what I am about to say is offensive to you, but I was expecting a more convincing argument than what you have asserted above. Apparently, and correct me if I am wrong, you are basing your understanding of the word "Waankihoo" on one of the usages of the word "Waw" throughout the book, which is a little constricting for me. You have translated "Waw" here as "and" (which I have no qualms about) but the meaning that you have attributed to this "and" is along the lines of "also" or "plus". I think that it might be unreasonable to justify the uses of "Waw" using English rules, and that we should check out how, and in what sense, has "Waw" been used throughout the Book, but just to argue along the parameters you have set above, let consider the following

You are implying that for the word "get married to" to make sense, God would (or should)have used "Aww" (meaning "or&quot, rather than "Waw" (meaning "and&quot. In the traditional usage of the word "or", it would imply exclusivity of options, and considering alternatives. Considering this, let's see in what sense the word "or" is used in, say, 2431. What is implies for women is that they can show their Zeenat to (their husbands + their fathers + their husband's fathers + their sons + their husband's sons + their brothers + their brother's sons + their sisters' sons + their women + what their right (hands) owned/possessed + the servants free of physical needs + the children who have no sense or shame of sex)

"or" has been used in the same sense as how you primarily use "and", i.e. plus/also. So to say that "Waw" used in 2432 means plus based on it's primary usage is convoluted, to say the least. There was a reason I asked what people of this thread thought about the applicability of the verse 2432, i.e. whether it is for both men and women, because if that is the case, it can very easily be understood as

2432 - "And marry off those among you that are single, and the good from among your male servants (for female believers) and female servants (for male believers). If they are poor, then God will grant them from His grace. And God is Encompassing, Knowledgeable."

I mean I don't need to force that understanding upon myself. It is one that came naturally to me, without any preconceptions. However, if the word "Aw"/"or" had been used, then it would have been a problem, because that would give each believer (men and women both) a choice, i.e. they can marry either the male servant or the female servant. That would have promoted or condoned homosexuality, as you put it.

Similarly the usage of "Waw" or "and" in the Book has included a sense of choice. Take 54 for instance.

54 - "They ask/question you what became permitted (allowed) for them, say "Permitted/allowed for you (are) things good/pure, and what the trained dogs and birds catch, from what God taught/instructed you, so eat from what they (F) held/grasped/seized on (for) you, and mention/remember God's name on it, and fear and obey God, that God (is) quick/fast (in) the counting/calculating." (Literal)

Using the logic that you have for 2432, does this mean that one can eat only those good and pure things that are caught by trained dogs and birds? No. The "Waw" used here is not used in it's primary usage of "plus"/"also". It plainly means that we can eat good and pure things which obtain ourselves or we can eat the good and pure things that our trained animals have caught for us. I hope you are able to see the weakness in the logic that you base your understanding on.

Br. IQO

I read in someone's post in some other thread that they thought that you were the voice of reason and maturity in this forum. But considering your posts directed to Br. Hasan, I am inclined to disagree. Now you can refute what my opinion is on that matter, but I am sure that you, being a man of the Book, can probably take a reminder from this verse

3159 - "So with what mercy from God you became lenient/softened to them, and if you were rough/rude/crude, hard/strong the heart/mind, they would have scattered/separated from around you, so forgive/pardon on them, and ask for forgiveness for them, and discuss/consult with them in the matter/affair, so if you decided/determined, so rely/depend on God, that God loves/likes the reliant/dependent." (Literal)

I am sorry but I did not see this attribute in your posts. I again apologize if I have offended you but I suppose it is my duty to remind and warn with the Book.

Br. Hasan

....

Since the verses do not follow a chronological order in the mushaf, I don't insist that they convey a perfectly cosequential sense.

...

I am not exactly sure what "Mushaf" is, but are you saying that the Book isn't in the order that it should be? I am sure that you can't be. I must be mistaken, because otherwise one can't put forward any argument based on the context of individual verses, i.e. understanding the meaning of a verse by considering the verses before and after it as well, because since the order of the verses is not correct, then how can we say if the verses before and after even relate to the verse in the middle. When I said, "consequential sense", I did not intend to imply that the order was chronological. If it came out that way, then I apologize. But what I was trying to convery was that the flow that I described made more contextual sense to me.

Peace

ImamQuranonly

As Salaamu Alaika Sharp001,

Br. IQO

I read in someone's post in some other thread that they thought that you were the voice of reason and maturity in this forum. But considering your posts directed to Br. Hasan, I am inclined to disagree. Now you can refute what my opinion is on that matter, but I am sure that you, being a man of the Book, can probably take a reminder from this verse

3159 - "So with what mercy from God you became lenient/softened to them, and if you were rough/rude/crude, hard/strong the heart/mind, they would have scattered/separated from around you, so forgive/pardon on them, and ask for forgiveness for them, and discuss/consult with them in the matter/affair, so if you decided/determined, so rely/depend on God, that God loves/likes the reliant/dependent." (Literal)

I am sorry but I did not see this attribute in your posts. I again apologize if I have offended you but I suppose it is my duty to remind and warn with the Book.

I am not offended by your remarks here. I hope you read my response to that comment so that you understand how I approach certain things at times. Also, as a matter of fact, here is what I got from Samia in a message

Please consider this a formal warning due to repeated breach of Rule number 3

3] Respect other users of the forum. Language and/or material of vulgarity, obscenity, harassment, profanity or insulting nature, whether it is direct or suggested, will NOT be tolerated. Any messages containing such language or material will be moved to the trash section or deleted, without notice and may result in disciplinary action being taken against the offending member.

http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=15958.msg157275#msg157275

While my words may have been very harsh to Mr. Hasan, when you call my god a FALSE GOD, then I take that as the biggest insult and threat that you can make to me as a person. I respond with like force or stronger when presented with a force to repell what I consider wrong doing. In this case, his were words and so were mine. I guess that violates the forum rules, but in that sense, this is done daily to a degree on here anyway. I don't mind being singled out or threatened with disciplinary action. My life doesn't revolved around my participation on this forum. It is a tool to use, and if the time comes that the tool is no longer available, I will move on with no complaints. I have much bigger things to accomplish in this life, Allah willing.

Allah made some of even His believers harsh, as is evidence in Al Quran. While I would prefer to be like the Prophet in the ayaat that you present, it will take more time for me to grow to that level, Allah willing. If I offended any of the members here with what I wrote to Mr. Hasan, I apologize to them for the offense. Maybe it didn't bother others. But I am not offering an apology to Mr. Hasan because I only offered him an offense for the offense that he gave. If that doesn't sit well with the moderators or anyone else, so be it.

As Salaamu Alaikum, peace

Sharp001

As Salaamu Alaika Sharp001,

....

While my words may have been very harsh to Mr. Hasan, when you call my god a FALSE GOD, then I take that as the biggest insult and threat that you can make to me as a person. I respond with like force or stronger when presented with a force to repell what I consider wrong doing. In this case, his were words and so were mine.

....

WAS, Br. IQO

I suppose, then, this is the verse that both you and Br. Hasan should be pondering over, if either of you feel that the other has false gods

6108 - "And do not insult those who call on other than God, lest they insult God without knowledge. And We have similarly adorned for every nation their works; then to their Lord is their return and He will inform them of what they had done."

But anyway, what are your views on the rest of my post?

farida

As Salaamu Alaika Sharp001,

I am not offended by your remarks here. I hope you read my response to that comment so that you understand how I approach certain things at times. Also, as a matter of fact, here is what I got from Samia in a message

While my words may have been very harsh to Mr. Hasan, when you call my god a FALSE GOD, then I take that as the biggest insult and threat that you can make to me as a person. I respond with like force or stronger when presented with a force to repell what I consider wrong doing. In this case, his were words and so were mine. I guess that violates the forum rules, but in that sense, this is done daily to a degree on here anyway. I don't mind being singled out or threatened with disciplinary action. My life doesn't revolved around my participation on this forum. It is a tool to use, and if the time comes that the tool is no longer available, I will move on with no complaints. I have much bigger things to accomplish in this life, Allah willing.

Allah made some of even His believers harsh, as is evidence in Al Quran. While I would prefer to be like the Prophet in the ayaat that you present, it will take more time for me to grow to that level, Allah willing. If I offended any of the members here with what I wrote to Mr. Hasan, I apologize to them for the offense. Maybe it didn't bother others. But I am not offering an apology to Mr. Hasan because I only offered him an offense for the offense that he gave. If that doesn't sit well with the moderators or anyone else, so be it.

As Salaamu Alaikum, peace

As Salaamu Alaikum

Me and my husband have read many posts wich violate forum rules with no action taken. We feel it would be most unfair to all of us to stop IQO from contributing to this site. Too many on this site are trying to change the meaning of the Qur'an by superimposing their "enlightenened view" on the words of God .

Brother IQO you are allowed to react but as Allah (swt) says its better if you forgive. )

I have posted another thread "support the mistress as well as the wife" . I would appreciate all those not in favour of polygyny to give their views based on reality not idealism.

Best regards
farida

Sharp001

Sis. farida,

Respectfully speaking, I think you have misunderstood the intent behind the advisory posts. They are most probably not an indication of any ill-feelings towards one another but moreso a reminder of how a discussion should be conducted amongst believing men and women. If we are reduced to not accomodating other people's views and resultingly insultive remarks towards one another, then rest assured, it is a sign that the entities from whom we seek refuge of God under Chapter 114, have succeeded in their goals.

1141 to 6 - "Say "I seek refuge with the Lord of mankind, the King of mankind, the god of mankind,from the evil of the sneaking whisperer,who whispers into the chests of mankind,f rom among the Jinn and mankind."

All post to IQO and all others are just reminders that we should avoid falling into that trap and harbour friendship amongst the believers because it is in the interest of the Accursed One that there be dissention and animosity amongst ourselves.

Peace

ImamQuranonly

Salaams to Sharp001 and farida,

Thanks for both of your posts and may Allah continue to guide us all and make us better.

As Salaamu Alaikum, angel

unknownuser

Salaam bro Sharp,

You are implying that for the word "get married to" to make sense, God would (or should)have used "Aww" (meaning "or&quot, rather than "Waw" (meaning "and&quot. In the traditional usage of the word "or", it would imply exclusivity of options, and considering alternatives. Considering this, let's see in what sense the word "or" is used in, say, 2431. What is implies for women is that they can show their Zeenat to (their husbands + their fathers + their husband's fathers + their sons + their husband's sons + their brothers + their brother's sons + their sisters' sons + their women + what their right (hands) owned/possessed + the servants free of physical needs + the children who have no sense or shame of sex)

"or" has been used in the same sense as how you primarily use "and", i.e. plus/also. So to say that "Waw" used in 2432 means plus based on it's primary usage is convoluted, to say the least. There was a reason I asked what people of this thread thought about the applicability of the verse 2432, i.e. whether it is for both men and women, because if that is the case, it can very easily be understood as

2432 - "And marry off those among you that are single, and the good from among your male servants (for female believers) and female servants (for male believers). If they are poor, then God will grant them from His grace. And God is Encompassing, Knowledgeable."

There is no ambiguity of homosexuality if 2432 is correctly translated as "marry off" as you have done above, and then there is no need to insert within brackets what you have inserted. If, however, it is translated as "get married to", then there is definitely an ambiguity. What you inserted in brackets would then be problematic because then you are adding to the words of The God. The addressees are the believers and the command in 2432 is applicable to both male and female believers, thus the command of "get married to the good from among your male and female servants" would be applicable to male believers as well as female believers, permitting homosexuality in either case.

Translating as "marry off" avoids this ambiguity and is also correct grammatically as pointed out in some of the above posts, and when translated in such manner, the sign cannot be construed as prohibition of polygyny as already explained in the earlier post.

unknownuser

Salaam bro Hasan,

This exception covers only Muhammad?s ma malakat yameen, who have been made halal to him (3350). In other words, they are his wives. So it does not mean that Muhammad is allowed to marry women other than his present wives. If it meant that, God?s decision would become meaningless. It is not an exception in the sense you see it.

Fallacious logic again. Firstly, MMA is mentioned as a separate category in 3350. According to what you are saying, if only MMA were lawful to the Prophet after a certain time then he would have to divorce the other regular wives or stop having marital relationships with them because they are not lawful to him anymore. Do you see the absurdity of what you are proposing ?

Secondly, If MMA were lawful to the Prophet after a certain time, then that obviously means he could marry them and thus there is no prohibition of polygyny.

What does no women are lawful to you mean? If he is allowed to keep on marrying women other than his present wives, what is the use telling him that no women are lawful to him after this????..?

It is not "no women are lawful to you after this", but it is "no women are lawful to you after this ........ EXCEPT MMA", which allows him to marry MMA henceforth as explained above, thus no prohibition of polygyny.

"Min ba3do" can also be interpreted as "after the category of women already mentioned in 3350". My understanding of 3352 is as follows

The God is telling the Prophet that no women are lawful to him for the purpose of marriage beyond the category of women mentioned in 3350.
In addition to that, The God is prohibiting him from replacing a wife from the other categories except the category of MMA, i.e. he was still allowed to replace MMA wife with another wife, but was not allowed to replace a non-MMA wife with another wife.

I am afraid you are splitting hairs. The command is marry off the single, which means you marry them to other people.You don?t marry them yourself; you don?t make them your wives.

It is like in the following commands

Unkih ibnatak marry off your daughter.
Unkih ma taba lekum mina?n nisaa? marry off the women.

This was not directed to you but to bro Sharp. I agree that 2432 can only be translated as "marry off", and with this correct translation, there is no prohibition of polygyny for INDEPENDENT people as already explained above in multiple posts.

Witnessing the marriage is what makes it valid. It doesn?t even have to be the registrar; anybody who is capable of serving as witness will do. And it is the duty of the witnesses to make sure that the bride or the groom are single. Otherwise the witnesses fail to fulfill their duty; which means the marriage is null and void.

Witnessing or registering the marriage is different from watchig football. It goes with the duty of seeing to it that the marriage is in accordance with God?s laws and orders.

Witnessing does not mean "marrying off", and a witness does not "marry off" people. Witnessing is just that .... witnessing.

That is the correct reading of NKH in 43 because only when the NKH is read as unkih, all the momeneen and momenaat can safely obey God?s order. Momenaat can not marry the nisaa mentioned in the verse but they can marry them off.

Firstly, the addressees are not just believers but HUMANKIND. Please read 41 again with open eyes. Does it say "ya ayyuhalladheena aamanoo" or does it say "yaa ayyuhannaas" ?

Secondly, according to the context of 43, it is obvious that only MEN are the addressees in 43 as bro IQO explained earlier

"your point is invalidated because you don't understand that even if what you said existed did in fact exist, the plural masculine form "can include the feminine" as well, but doesn't HAVE TO. The context is what determines whether or not it does. Since women obviously can't marry women, 43 has to be addressing MEN only."

Sharp001

Salaam bro Sharp,

There is no ambiguity of homosexuality if 2432 is correctly translated as "marry off" as you have done above, and then there is no need to insert within brackets what you have inserted. If, however, it is translated as "get married to", then there is definitely an ambiguity. What you inserted in brackets would then be problematic because then you are adding to the words of The God. The addressees are the believers and the command in 2432 is applicable to both male and female believers, thus the command of "get married to the good from among your male and female servants" would be applicable to male believers as well as female believers, permitting homosexuality in either case.

Translating as "marry off" avoids this ambiguity and is also correct grammatically as pointed out in some of the above posts, and when translated in such manner, the sign cannot be construed as prohibition of polygyny as already explained in the earlier post.

Br. Tanveer,

I find it strange that for someone who starts off with a basic premise that homosexuality is not allowed in the Book (something that I gathered from you posts to Br. Hasan with regards to 43) would even consider the possibility of an ambiguity in 2432 to that effect. Strange. It's like you want the ambiguity to be there so you can apparently remove it by adopting an alternative meaning to "Waankihoo".

As for grammar, I think Sis. Samia put it best when she said, "Who came first, the Book or the grammarians?". If you believe that you will be able to convince me that the only people who are well versed in Arabic can understand the Message in the true sense, then I will surely disappoint you. I believe that the explanation of His message is His responsibility and I trust Him, not the grammarians.

I suppose, for the moment, since I could not see anything new in your argument, my current understanding holds true for me. All I can do is be devoted to what I have been taught and studied of the Book (379).

Peace

huruf

Firstly, the addressees are not just believers but HUMANKIND. Please read 41 again with open eyes. Does it say "ya ayyuhalladheena aamanoo" or does it say "yaa ayyuhannaas" ?

Secondly, according to the context of 43, it is obvious that only MEN are the addressees in 43 as bro IQO explained earlier

"your point is invalidated because you don't understand that even if what you said existed did in fact exist, the plural masculine form "can include the feminine" as well, but doesn't HAVE TO. The context is what determines whether or not it does. Since women obviously can't marry women, 43 has to be addressing MEN only."

The addressee is ayuhannas till aya 19 where it changes to ayuhaalladhina amanu. 4.3 is still addressed to ayuhannas, there has been no change of addressee.

Salaam