POLYGAMY NOT THERE IN QURAN?
-
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?
-
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 -
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
-
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
-
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", rather than "Waw" (meaning "and". 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.
-
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."
-
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
-
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
-
I need some time to regain the right mood to resume writing. Please excuse me.
Peace,
HJasan AkcaySalaam, Brook,
Don't get discountenanced. I think you brought a lot of aspects to enquire upon. Independently of what one may conclude on the subject of the thread -if one concludes something-, I think that your study and discussion of the ayas have indeed opened insights and possibilities to get a better understanding of the many lights of the Qur'an, which is finally what moves all of us forumers.
Salaam and good work
-
Fallacious logic again. Firstly, MMA is mentioned as a separate category in 3350. (tanveer)
The same verb covers all of the women who were made halal to the Prophet
Inna ahlalna laka
(1)azwaaj aka ?llaatee ?taina ujuur ahunna
(1)your wives to whom you paid their dowers(2)wa ma malakat yameen uka
(2)and those whom your oath has(3)wa banate amm aka? ?llaate h?jarna ma?ak
(3)and your cousins? who migrated with youThey are all of the same category in terms of the fact that the Prophet already married them and God made them halal to him.
If MMA were lawful to the Prophet after a certain time...
It is illogical to assume that they were allowed to him only after a certain time. They were allowed to him the moment he took his oath (yameen) in the presence of God and told the people around for their information and thus he married them just as he married the other women in the presence of human witnesses.
Please pay attention the second part of Al-Ahzaab 52 ...nor art thou allowed to substitude then by other wives.
It is clear that the Prophet is not allowed to exchange a wife with a woman from outside of his family even if the latter?s beauty pleases him greatly.
What he is forbidden to do is not to make one woman haram to himself so that he can make another halaal. The Prophet has no right to make anything haram to himself after God makes it halal to him (661).
The fact that he is not allowed to take wife upon wife is a clearcut end to polygyny because you can not have polygyny without taking wife upon wife.
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.
You stubbornly close your eyes to the truth that the Prophet?s wives who are described as ma malakat yameenuk are as halal to him as his other wives who are described as, say, his cousins who migrated with him.
Thank you huruf. I believe 100% that polygyny is haram according to Quran. I will continue exprerssing my belief, God willing.
Peace,
Hasan Akcay -
As Salaamu Alaikum all,
It is clear that the Prophet is not allowed to exchange a wife with a woman from outside of his family even if the latter?s beauty pleases him greatly.
Not even for beauty.....hmmmmmmmm hmm Could this be expressing the idea that the Prophet married all those women for beauty previously? Seems like Allah doesn't condemn men for marrying women, more than one, even for their beauty alone; not to mention whether or not they are widows or anything.
What he is forbidden to do is not to make one woman haram to himself so that he can make another halaal. The Prophet has no right to make anything haram to himself after God makes it halal to him (661).
The "Mothers of the Believers" can not be replaced because Allah has given them a special place of mention in Al Quran. But, he could take on more MMA, as is clear to those without blinders on.
The fact that he is not allowed to take wife upon wife is a clearcut end to polygyny because you can not have polygyny without taking wife upon wife.
You can't END polygyny by not allowing someone who is already a polygynist to not have MORE wives from certain groups of women. That means that you are only LIMITING how many wives that person can have IN POLYGYNY from those mentioned. That is the most basic observation that even a four year old should understand. To END POLYGYNY, Allah would have to say divorce the ALL wives and MMA that you have and keep only one, and no more are allowable after that, WHICH IS NEVER DONE IN AL QURAN!
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.
You stubbornly close your eyes to the truth that the Prophet?s wives who are described as ma malakat yameenuk are as halal to him as his other wives who are described as, say, his cousins who migrated with him.
Some people stubbornly close their eyes to see that they have NO argument and sound pretty ridiculous with making some claims. Of course the Prophet's wives are also considered those among the MMA, that is precisely why when it points out that he can't not marry more EXCEPT MMA, it is clearly not forbidding him to marry more MMA. The argument posed by the author fails to address the clear exception to the rule pointed out to him, and instead points out an obvious truth as what I guess is supposed to be proof of the error of the argument made by Tanveer;...go figure! nope
As Salaamu Alaikum, peace
-
Salaam all,
I don't know about others, but it seems to me that we are in some aspect back to square one. We are having mamalakataymanakums all over the place and everyone who uses the expression seems to have his own understanding of what it means. Fot
|
the sake of knowing what we are talking about, I will summarize and askMa malakat aymana(kum, hum,... ) is
A. 1. Always women
-
always women and men
-
Sometimes women, sometimes women and men
If it is about
In any of A cases
B.
-
ma malakat aymana (...) are believers come over from the unbelievers
-
Unbelievers or believers i the hands of the believers who are protecte by these.
-
Like 2 but also including prisoners.
C.
In the case where the possibility of the situation of marriage is contemplated with or for the malakat aymana(...)
-
MA are women or men and before they came over to the believers they were married to unbelievers, therefore their marriages are now null and therefore the can be married to believers.
-
They are women or men and they were married or unmarried previously to the unbelievers and therefore could now be married to believers.
-
They are always women in in any of c.1 or c.2 situations.
I will be grateful for any answer particularly for answers as much supported by quranic evidence and reasoning as possible
Thank you all.
Salaam
-
-
Huruf,
Ma malakat aymaan are sometimes males, sometimes females.
The ones in An-Noor 33 are males and if any of those whom your oaths posses desire to obtain a deed of freedom, write it out for them -wa?llazeena yabtaguuna?l ketaaba mim ma malakat aymman ukum fa kaateb uhum.
The pronoun UHUM grammatically stands for males but it covers females as well just like momenoon in "yaa ayyuha?l momenoon" (590). MOMENOON means believing men but stands for believing women too.
The ones in 43 are females to be married off by their guardians to other men. So are the females in 424 and 425 to be married off by their guardians to other men.
The ones in 2431 and 3355 are both males and females under the protection of their guardians. The females in this category can never be actual or potential wives of their guardians because their guardians are believing women in 2431 and the Prophet?s wives in 3355.
The ones 235-6 and 7029-30 are the actual wives of the men whose oaths posses them (ma malakat aymaan uhum). And the ones in 3350 and 3352 are the Prophet?s actual wives (ma malakat yameenuk).
Peace,
Hasan Akcay -
The ones in 424 are actually the refugees mentioned in 6010. The believers must first put them to test in order to make sure that they mean no harm to the believers by emigrating from the land of kufr. If they prove to be sincere and honest, the Muslim government grants them protection, which, in a way, gives them the status of those whom the government's oath possesses. After that it is halal for the believers to marry them because their earlier married status is null now. They are practically ayaama now like the single in 2432.
Peace,
Hasan Akcay -
Hassan, salam!
;D My brain is still dizzy hypno and o fuzzzzzzy.... , when it attempted to process sense out of your polygyne posts.
Now, Ma Malakat Amnakum ? pleaeaeaease,,,,,,,,,,, nope No,,, elektro
) Brother! How about taking some holidays in Hawai , eat or may be Bali?
I am certain,,,,, quite a few of us here, group would be willing to finnace that.
If you like to,,,, Sir ?? hail
siki
-
As Salaamu Alaikum
Me and my husband have read many posts wich violate forum rules with no action taken.
Salaam Farida
How do you know that no action was taken? Just because not everyone post their warning on a thread does not necessarily mean they did not get one. You of all should know better. I would also appreciate if your reactions to warnings for violation of rule 3 be consitent.
Back to the thread.
I would not be able to quote. There have been too many posts in the last day or two while I was not being active. The point that stuck to my memory was the usage of the verb "yankah" As I mentioned before, Arabic does not have this verb "marry off", but "marry to". In the qur'aan, a female is made to marry the male by the usage of the verb yunkih the male is the first object and the female is the second object. The problem arises when the verb is used in the imperative "ankih". There will be no difference between "yankah" and "yunkih". They will both be "ankih". So, as a rule, when the first direct object is male, it will be "marry to the male", and if the first object is female, the verb will be just "marry". (I know this will be confusing, but please remember that I am trying to explain a completely different grammar in English, so do not expect mirrored expressions)
28 27 I want to marry one of my two daughters to you (un unkihaka ihdaa ibnatayya), where the "ka" is the suffixed pronoun, first direct object , referring to Moses.
243 "and the adulteress no one marries her except an adulterer (...laa yankihuha marry her)", here it does not say laa tankihu, because a female does not "tankih".We can safely say that, when the verb is followed by masculine or mixed gender, this will be "marry to", and if it is followed by a feminine it will be "marry".
2432 ayaamaa and saaliheen are not feminine. They are either masculine or mixed gender. Therefore, it is either marry to the single and righteous men, or marry and marry to the single and righteous people.I have not touched any verb where the vocalization decides its nature.
-
....
We can safely say that, when the verb is followed by masculine or mixed gender, this will be "marry to", and if it is followed by a feminine it will be "marry".
2432 ayaamaa and saaliheen are not feminine. They are either masculine or mixed gender. Therefore, it is either marry to the single and righteous men, or marry and marry to the single and righteous people.I have not touched any verb where the vocalization decides its nature.
Sis. Samia,
Thanks for clarifying that issue. That is the understanding that I was getting from 2432. "Marry", not "Marry off".
Peace
-
Salaam Farida
How do you know that no action was taken? Just because not everyone post their warning on a thread does not necessarily mean they did not get one. You of all should know better. I would also appreciate if your reactions to warnings for violation of rule 3 be consitent.
Salaam Samia
Of course we are not aware of those who do not disclose their warning, however our reaction was simply to register our concern and if you notice I did say Brother IQO you are allowed to react but as Allah (swt) says its better if you forgive
Best regards
farida