POLYGAMY NOT THERE IN QURAN?

brook

I am saying "an unwritten hamza"; you are hearing "a written hamza". It seems that I must make a more detailed study. I will try, God willing. Thanks all the same.

Peace,
Hasan Akcay

Samia

Sallam Samia. Pleaase remember what I have told you before I looked up the term hamzalif. I learned that it is dropped when it is uttered as (i) like in the fankihu in 43.

The fankihu is actually fainkihu. In 43 there sure is a hamza in this sense.

Peace,
Hasan Akcay

I explained when the hamza is dropped in the case of verbs. It is not dropped in the verb of form IV (e.g UnKaHa) because it is part of it. It does not matter how it is pronounced, because how it is pronounced has nothing to do with the hamza itself, but with the vowel that accompanies it. And anyway, this is not how these verbs are differentiated when they are conjugated to the plural. There might be some differences in the vocalization, but these differences are due to the different conjugations, not to the pattern of the verb.

Here is how the two verbs are conjugated to the singular

past present imperative
NaKaHa yaNKiH aNKiH
UnKaHa yuNKiH ANKiH
(where the "A" is the hamza on the alif)

and to the plural

NaKaHuu yaNKiHuun aNKiHuu
ANKaHuu YuNKiHuun ANKiHuu

brook

Firts, let me explain what I meant when I said that the verbs in 43 and 2432 have to be in the beginning because they are imperatives.

Impertatives are always in the beginning of the main clause rather than before the subordinate clause of a complex sentence like the ones in 43 and 2432.

I am aware that you know what is meant by the main clause and the subordinate clause in a complex sentence. But I have to tell about them in terms of 43 and 2432 in order to express myslef. So please allow me

In the sentence wa in hiftum... NKH ma taaba mine?n nisasa? wa in hiftum does only a subordination whereas NKH ma taaba lekum mine?n nisaa? conveys the message; so it is the main clause.

Please note that the imperative NKH is before the main clause because the main clause is actually the sentence itself you can not do without it. So the imperative form of the NKH is before the sentence in 43.

As for 2432, there is no need to explain its word order as the sentence begins with the imperative wa ankehu. So the imperative form of the NKH is before the sentence in 2432.

past present imperative
NaKaHa yaNKiH aNKiH
UnKaHa yuNKiH ANKiH
(where the "A" is the hamza on the alif)

As far as I know, beore the verb NKh was vocalized in te 8th Century AD; that is, before the diacritical signs were added to it, the imperative forms of the NKH in 43 and 2432 were the same. The people who did the adding of the signs to the words decided that the NKH in 2432 be ?nkehu with hamza on the A; and the NKH in 43 be inkihu with the hamza below the A. Then the hamzalif (the alif with the hamza below it) was dropped, so the verb in 43 became fankihu.

It was those people?s personal choice rather than a divine decision that caused polygyny to appear in God?s religion.

Peace,
Hasan Akcay

siki

Sharp , Samia and House M.D !

Salam.

I am sorry to have busted my patience capsule.

This is a learning forum and every one is a learner (including me). I do not take an offence to anybody having a different opinion on an issue, provided he has acceptable reasons to justify that, we can always debate, and have a reasonable chance to take the conversation to some conclusion (and sometimes may be not)

Sharp! I have absolutely no problem with, you having a different understanding on polygyne , and i see that you have made some valid observations, regarding the interpretation of some relevent ayahs.

The problem with brother hassan is, that logic is totally missing from his responses, and hence a discussion can not progress with him on an issue. He Bogs down the thread by talking Greek and then everyone is trying to correct/teach him the very basics, and the irony is that he continues doing so with great confidence. Not only that, but when one makes an honest effort to correct/improve his knowledge/understanding, he vanishes, by saying that i don't want to converse with you anymore ??? If you, or any one else is interested , i can compile such a collection of his fallacious statements/arguments.

To cut it short, If he is a learner, then he must behave like one.

As for as my position regarding polygyne, I shall post that soon , and sincerely hope that we can build up a logical discussion , based on sound reasonning , in the light of the relevent commandments in the BOOK.

peace

siki

Samia

Firts, let me explain what I meant when I said that the verbs in 43 and 2432 have to be in the beginning because they are imperatives.

I understood what you meant. I hope you understood what I said As long as there is a "wa" or a "fa" before the verb, the verb is not the first word.

As far as I know, beore the verb NKh was vocalized in te 8th Century AD; that is, before the diacritical signs were added to it, the imperative forms of the NKH in 43 and 2432 were the same. The people who did the adding of the signs to the words decided that the NKH in 2432 be ?nkehu with hamza on the A; and the NKH in 43 be inkihu with the hamza below the A. Then the hamzalif (the alif with the hamza below it) was dropped, so the verb in 43 became fankihu.

It was those people?s personal choice rather than a divine decision that caused polygyny to appear in God?s religion.

Then there was no need at all to discuss the hamza or to quote Yassein, since we both (you and me) are skeptical about vocalization. I did not care about it anyway since the result is the same No marrying women off in 43, since it does not fit with the rest of the verse, and I do not see how it will solve the problem of fearing to be unfair to orphans. This does not mean polygamy is not forbidden without justification. Just like eating pork or even eating a dead person they are forbidden, but you can eat them if you have nothing else to eat. Polygamy is allowed in one and only one condition that might not arise in a just and fair society where there is no fear of being unfair to the orphans.

brook

May be it could help if you read Yaseen?s article* and saw what makes him say the things which you reject. Here is his translation of the two verses of An-Nisaa

And if you fear that you can?t do justice to the orphans, then marry off the women (orphans) who have agreed with you, by two or by three or by four. But if you fear that you will be unfair in that too then only by one or what your right hand possessed, as this is better than getting into hardship (43).

And give the women their inheritance willingly but if they, of their own accord, remit any part to you, take it and enjoy it with right good cheer (44).

Peace,
Hasan Akcay

http//www.geocities.com/yaseen_q/polygamy.html?20072

Samia

May be it could help if you read Yaseen?s article* and saw what makes him say the things which you reject. Here is his translation of the two verses of An-Nisaa

And if you fear that you can?t do justice to the orphans, then marry off the women (orphans) who have agreed with you, by two or by three or by four. But if you fear that you will be unfair in that too then only by one or what your right hand possessed, as this is better than getting into hardship (43).

And give the women their inheritance willingly but if they, of their own accord, remit any part to you, take it and enjoy it with right good cheer (44).

Peace,
Hasan Akcay

http//www.geocities.com/yaseen_q/polygamy.html?20072

I read the article. Still it does not answer my questions. I also believe that his problem is he did not render other meanings to "nisaa'".

The verse starts with "yataamaa", which is a mixed-gender or masculine plural. (He acknowledges that). Why not use the proper word for female orphans "yateemaat"? And what about the male orphans? Marry them off?

In another verse after this one, it says to give them their money when they reach the age of wisdom/maturity. Why would the community be asked to marry them off? Is it before giving them their monnies or after? They are no more kids or vulnerable since they now have money which they are managing, and wisdom.

How would marrigae save them from being manipulated or treated unfairly if they are still the "vulnerable orphans"? It is just the opposite!

I see this explanation as a further control over the orphans they received their money after waiting for it for years, then comes a husband...Leave them alone to enjoy their money for heaven's sake

This understanding is as bad as open polygamy.

As for the verb (NKH) I do not see he makes a problem about it, but he wants to prove that what is written AND understood is wrong, and it should have been (marry off). This is quite subjective. I do not see in the qur'aan any other verse where it says (marry off the females).

unknownuser

Salaam all,

No, they do not have to. If there is a "fa" or a "wa" before them, they are not in the beginning of the sentence.
Verse 43 fankihuu does not carry a hamza. Therefore it is from the verb "nakaha". HHere the verse says Marry whomever accepts of women...
Verse 2432 fa unkihu carries a hamza. Therefore it is from verb "ankaha". The verse says Have the single and the righteous married (to your females).

I think that now it has become clear that grammatically, 43 can only mean "marry" (i.e. get married to), and 2432 can only mean "marry off".

This does not mean polygamy is not forbidden without justification. Just like eating pork or even eating a dead person they are forbidden, but you can eat them if you have nothing else to eat. Polygamy is allowed in one and only one condition that might not arise in a just and fair society where there is no fear of being unfair to the orphans.

The words highlighted in red above are baseless assumptions, without any support from al-qur'aan. Eating meat of pork or already dead are expressly forbidden in al-qur'aan and a clear exception to the general rule is then given. In case of polygyny, there is no prohibition in al-qur'aan, and 43 is not of the form of an exception. There is no "except/illa" or "only" in that sign. It mentions a problem and then suggests a solution based on polygyny, and in no way can it be construed that polygyny is allowed in one and only one condition.

(1)Marry women of your choice... Women are human beings like you. They also have feelings like you such as love, hate, need... And they have the right to make their choice just as you do. So if it just happens that you are not their choice and refuse to marry you, what becomes of the command "Marry the women of your choice"?

There he goes again !! This has already been discussed many many times in the links given in my first post in this thread.

In 43, "ma taaba lakum" does not mean "of your choice", but "who agree/consent with you" or "who allow you".

(2)women of your choice, Two or three or four... These are counting numbers, which do not correespond to the numbers God uses in the verse. He says masna aw sulaasa aw rubaa'a, as He does in Al-Faatir 1

All praise is due to God, Originator of the heavens and the earth, who makes the angels messengers with two wings or three wings or four wings -ajne3ate masnaa aw sulaasa aw rubaa'a.

God did not give an angel one wing first, another wing some units of time later, a third one still some time later... He gave each angel the set number of wings at one and the same time. That is what masnaa aw sulaasa aw rubaa'a mean. So a man who is told to NKH the nisaa', say, sulaasa is supposed to NKH all three of them at one and the same time. Can he do that?

Yes, he can do that. One man can simultaneously get married to three women. Why can't he ?

My understanding is that 43 is allowing one man to get married to 2, 3, 4 widowed mothers at the same time, if he fears he cannot be just to their orphans.

(3)but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them)... The them is obviously other women than the orphans. In 46 God orders you to return the orphans' possessions to them. You have to obey God. After that the orphans are economically independent of you. It is none of their concern how many other women you marry. Neither is it your business what your old orphans do with their possessions and with their lives. So what is the fuss for?

Yes, I agree that they are the women other than the orphans. They are the widowed mothers of the orphans.

The correct interpretation of 43 would be as follows, in my understanding

43 If you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry (i.e. get married to) the women (i.e. the widowed mothers of the orphans), who allow you, twos/two at a time and threes/three at a time and fours/four at a time; but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly, then one, or what your oaths possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from economic hardship.

Samia

Saaam Tanweer

and 43 is not of the form of an exception. There is no "except/illa" or "only" in that sign. It mentions a problem and then suggests a solution based on polygyny, and in no way can it be construed that polygyny is allowed in one and only one condition.

There is not only one way to express an exception, and it does not have to be in the same style. Why would God give an excuse for marrying multiple mothers of orphans if polygamy is open anyway? Does the qur'aan give us an excuse to marry at all?

If you travel to your work every morning by tube, wouldn't it be meaningless if I say to you If you fear to be late, travel by the tube?

brook

Salaam tanveer.

I think I said almost everything I need to say in this thread. All I need to do now is write a final post to sum up what I said. So I would appreciate it very much if you did not force me to reply as you do in the following

There he goes again !! This has already been discussed many many times in the links given in my first post in this thread. In 43, "ma taaba lakum" does not mean "of your choice", but "who agree/consent with you" or "who allow you".

In this thread you probably read my translation of ma taaba lakum as who allow you. So we are of the same opinion.

I objected to Yusuf Ali, who says of your choice in his translation. So too should you object to him and his likes instead of blaiming me for objecting to them, for the sake of honesty.

One man can simultaneously get married to three women. Why can't he?

Sure he can if marrying three or four women is like buying three or four kilos of fruit just in case? just in case he may need and deal with them some time in the future. Women are not fruit, tanveer; women are human beings just like men.

Justifying one man?s marrying three or four women at one and the same time and his going to bed with the three or four brides at one at the same time is beyond my moral values.

I do not feel like replying to your other logical assertions. Please excuse me.

Hasan Akcay

huruf

Salaam Samia

I quote my message 203 and your answer

Samia, this is for you, if you kindly give your opinion

?Could it that part of aya 4.3, if understood as n-k-h, and someboy is marrying the women, in view of the general address and the plural throughout be taken to mean that one or several males could marry at one and the same time, one, two or three or four females without necessarily implying that any one of the male would marry more than one woman.

As I think we know, traditional law has not admitted the simultaneous marriage of more than one wife, only succesive addition of marriages. So is this so that here it is said that those who have a wife may add another, those who have two may add another, etc. or rather what I say in my previous paragraph, that it is not a matter of just one man marrying several, but of several males marrying one each, or could both possibilities be included?

I myself find that after a while of turning all this things in one's mind the mind becomes boggled. So please, no hurry, if it is not clear, just giver your honest relaxed opinion, unless of course you know straight away. Thanks

Salaam

Your answer

"Salaam huruf

If the verse stops at two, three or four, of course it can imply that many would marry at the same time. The problem is that it continues to say immediately after "fa'in khiftum alla ta3diluu fawaahida if you fear not to be fair then one (feminine)", showing explicitly that the numbering is meant for the feminine gender.

""

My answer (message 205, which I have now corrected and made clearer)*

"
That is clear, that it says one (feminine), but we are taking it also that it is n-k-h we are hipothesizing, so anyway the numbers (so I hve understood it) would have to be feminine, also two and three and four. But what I mean is from where do we get that when it talks about one, two, three or four, it must be only one man who marries all of them, that is, two or three or four. Aren't we taking for granted that this ta3diluu is between several wives that are married to the same man, when that is precisely what we are trying to determine? Are we sure it is not ta3diluu between several orphans or women in general, in the general context in which it is dealing with the situation. Because there is also this question of simultaneity, which agreed is not in the Qur'an, but still must have originated in something, because finally it is a restriction on poligamy and somehow it is not in character.

In economical terms, if you feel that you cannot give their entitlement to the orphans, how can marrying them or their mother yourself help you economically? First youhave to settle the 'ujur, then youhave to give to every orphan their dues. If you could not do that without marrying them, less still you can do it marrying them, since you would assume all the payments to the orphan or to the mother and on top of it you would have to support them and pay 'ujur (for one, for two, for three, for four?) (If you (the bridegrooms) marry more it is advantageous for the guardians, because heir burden is reduced. If it is the male guardian himself who marries, and not one, but several, his burden becomes heavier). Also if I understand the "ayuhannas" as a collective, which must be, I may take it that if some of you (males) marry some of them (orphans or mothers), in any number convenient, some other of you (guardians) may be better able to afford looking after the other orphans, because the burden would be better distributed. We must bear in mind that nothing is telling us that in this aya the "ayuhannas" has stopped including women.

In general I had no quarrel with regulating actual poligamy when the social situation was such that it would be an improvement for the general and particular welfare, but this particular aya, which I, like most people, took before for granted that it meant having several wives, seems to me now after considering it more intently not so clear that it means so. And if taken in that sense seems to me to not flow with the other ayas before and after.

""

I would really apreciate your consideration of the possibility and reasons I have put forward and your opinion, particularly from the linguistic point of view.

Salaam and thanks, Samia.

unknownuser

Peace all --

I view polygamy similar as it?s OK to marry your cousin; it?s not forbidden although you don?t have to.

No charities organizations then; left alone without a provider they?ll starve or be forced to do whatever to survive. Imagine all the widows and orphans from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and having responsibility and being encouraged to marry and equally care for two and three and four wives and their kids.

Not about sex; really more of a burden and duty on the man to care for fellow believers and NOT all women are great lookers.

Obviously, people will read/interpret verses and abuse them to fit their desires.

Samia

Salaam huruf

I appreciate your pointing to "yaa aiyyuhan naas" as an introduction to the whole chapter. But the temporary shifting of the address is also witnessed in the qur'aan. The theme in this chapter is the vulnerable. Since the first verse also mentioned "many men and women", or "workers and vulnerable" as ILisa put it, then everyone has a role, and not necessarily all together play all the roles concerning the orphans.

I do not lean towards "economic factor" as a justfication for uncontrolled polygamy. Men and women are able, and allowed to work. Marriage is not a means to live an economically sustainable life. It could be just the opposite with children needs. It is only so in societies that crippled women and locked them up and made them good for nothing except parasiting other marriages.

In economical terms, if you feel that you cannot give their entitlement to the orphans, how can marrying them or their mother yourself help you economically?

Who says the verse is about helping the "husband"? Am I reading this correctly?

(If you (the bridegrooms) marry more it is advantageous for the guardians, because heir burden is reduced.

The guardian is allowed to take a salary for managing their money if he is in need. Again it is not about the guardian. Managing their property is not an obligation on everyone. Only those who can do it may do it. And what's the burden of the guardian, if I may ask?

may be better able to afford looking after the other orphans, because the burden would be better distributed. We must bear in mind that nothing is telling us that in this aya the "ayuhannas" has stopped including women.

The verse addresses only those who are already, and willingly, supporting poor orphans. In my understanding, it is allowing them to marry the mother/s if their help would put the orphans in an uncomfortable situation, e.g. if they felt it was like a charity, or if this man is too much into their lives and would put their mother/s in an unpleasant situation vis-a-vis their community.

As for addressing the community, how marrying off many mothers might be unfair and therefore the whole community, in this case, may marry off only one?

In my opinion, the shifting here is not just about the address (to the males) but also about the subject mothers of orphans, and mainly the poor ones. The rich orphans have been dealt with in other verses, and their mothers were not explicitly mentioned . Just look at it as solving, or litigating a problem of pride for the orphans and has nothing to do with solving a widow's or a man's problem. Widows without orphans are not dealt with in this chapter. They are not more vulnerable than divorcees or single ones.

In general I had no quarrel with regulating actual poligamy when the social situation was such that it would be an improvement for the general and particular welfare, but this particular aya, which I, like most people, took before for granted that it meant having several wives, seems to me now after considering it more intently not so clear that it means so. And if taken in that sense seems to me to not flow with the other ayas before and after.

Again it is not about having several wives. It's a very special and critical situation that calls for critical measures. It is about orphans and that flows well with the rest of the verses. Protecting wealthy orphans is dealt with. This verse is about protecting poor orphans. If the man is supporting them and it is taken well by the community and the orphans, then there is no need for this marriage. That is the condition of polygamy according to my understanding.

ImamQuranonly

As Salaamu Alaikum all,

It's really amazing how everyone has a different view of whether polygyny is forbidden, permissible, encouraged, etc.; and under what circumstances, etc. The arguments of "proof" are all over the place. Ayaat taken out of context, quotes taken out of context, trying to make arabic words have new meanings, and the list goes on and on. It's obvious that most want everyone else to believe as they do, instead of everyone trying to reach a better understanding of what Allah has revealed as guidance.

Just wanted to say that! jedi

As Salaamu Alaikum, peace

huruf

Salaam huruf

I appreciate your pointing to "yaa aiyyuhan naas" as an introduction to the whole chapter. But the temporary shifting of the address is also witnessed in the qur'aan. The theme in this chapter is the vulnerable. Since the first verse also mentioned "many men and women", or "workers and vulnerable" as ILisa put it, then everyone has a role, and not necessarily all together play all the roles concerning the orphans.

That is what I am saying, that not necessarily a single person plays all the roles.

The temporary shifting of the address... fine, but how do we determine when it shifts? How do we determine in 4.3 that it shifts? From what to what does it shift?

"I do not lean towards "economic factor" as a justfication for uncontrolled polygamy. Men and women are able, and allowed to work. Marriage is not a means to live an economically sustainable life. It could be just the opposite with children needs. It is only so in societies that crippled women and locked them up and made them good for nothing except parasiting other marriages."

If you marry the mothers of orphans, which I think you and others says is meant in this aya, then certainly they bring burdens in terms of taking care of the children and of providing for them and whether the need is economical or not, as far as I can see, it is not stated in the aya one way or the other. So then I assume you understand this aya in the sense that it is the mothers of the orphans that are married, and not the orphans themselves. Fine. In that case these widows mothers of the orphans and the orphans themselves, unless they were rich, and other things being equal, would be in a worse situation than when the father and husband was alive, because assuming, as you say, that the mother earned a living, it is fair to think that the father may have also earned a living possibly more profitably than the mother, and that would be a loss. The prospective husband of the widow would have to pay 'ujur too. So, with or without means to bear it, marriage for the prospective husband would entail greater burden, and when you add to that the not too fantastic possibility that if he marries the woman he may have more children from her, even if the mother is hard working and childbearing doesn't affect her too heavily, it would be fair to assume that the father would be deemed to also provide for his own children.

"Who says the verse is about helping the "husband"? Am I reading this correctly?"

No, I don't think I have said that. What I said (I think) and meant was the one looking after the orphans and who feared not being just in the aya might be alleviated of some of his duties by the marriage of the pupils or their mothers. That is, if he did not marry the orphans or their mother himself. If he does so himself then of course there is no alleviation, as I point out in previous comment.

"The guardian is allowed to take a salary for managing their money if he is in need. Again it is not about the guardian. Managing their property is not an obligation on everyone. Only those who can do it may do it. And what's the burden of the guardian, if I may ask?"

So in what way the guardians in 4.3 may fear they they are not going to be just? Most of what I have seen discussed in the thread of fearing not being just with the orphans up till now seemed to revolve about their administration of the the affairs of orphans. If not, in what way may they deal with inequity (tuqsitu) with the orphans?

"The verse addresses only those who are already, and willingly, supporting poor orphans. In my understanding, it is allowing them to marry the mother/s if their help would put the orphans in an uncomfortable situation, e.g. if they felt it was like a charity, or if this man is too much into their lives and would put their mother/s in an unpleasant situation vis-a-vis their community. "

Is there a way to get certainty that it is indeed that what is meant in the aya?

"As for addressing the community, how marrying off many mothers might be unfair and therefore the whole community, in this case, may marry off only one?"

I don't take it that it is just one or two or three or four for the whole community of believers, but rather for whatever grouping the orphans and mothers were integrated in, could be clans, could be blocks could be families (clans) I don't know, and in fact I would like to know. As to how it might be unfair, I suppose there could be many reason. One, that comes to mind might be that there were not enough equally suitable husbands for wathever reason, character, disposition, disponibility, means, health...

I want to once again state that when I express the possibility that it might not be the same husband for the one the two the three and the four, I am not saying either that it couldn't be. I am merely asking why should be interpreted exclusively to mean that only one man is going to do all that. An when it comes to the possibility of doing it simultaneously that is four in one go, it seems to me more unlikely. People may be needy and reasonably in a hurry in whatever way, but not necessarily hard pressed t that point, may be for food, yes, but not for marriage.

"In my opinion, the shifting here is not just about the address (to the males) but also about the subject mothers of orphans, and mainly the poor ones. The rich orphans have been dealt with in other verses, and their mothers were not explicitly mentioned . Just look at it as solving, or litigating a problem of pride for the orphans and has nothing to do with solving a widow's or a man's problem. Widows without orphans are not dealt with in this chapter. They are not more vulnerable than divorcees or single ones."

So in 4.3 we are assuming that we are talking about the mothers of the orphans, mainly the poor ones... But in that case that is what I have been writing about in previous comments in this and other messages. Or am I getting confused? At any rate I havebeen going along with what seems to be the prevalent interpretations of this aya 4.3 marrying the orphans or marrying their mothers. I am not picking any because for the mment I am traying to make sense of it all in a way that is satisfactory.

Thanks for your answers, Samia, I appreciate your generosity in answers without being susceptible if they are discussed in turn. Also, in general, not everything I discuss or dispute has to be because I disagree or agree for that matter. I mostly do it for the sake of thoroughness and getting as complete and clear a picture as possible. I am afraid in many cases it is not easy or feasible, because we lack the elements that would make past situations appear plain and unambiguous as they must have been in actuality.

Salaam

siki

Peace all --

I view polygamy similar as its OK to marry your cousin; its not forbidden although you dont have to.

No charities organizations then; left alone without a provider theyll starve or be forced to do whatever to survive. Imagine all the widows and orphans from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and having responsibility and being encouraged to marry and equally care for two and three and four wives and their kids.

Not about sex; really more of a burden and duty on the man to care for fellow believers and NOT all women are great lookers.

Obviously, people will read/interpret verses and abuse them to fit their desires.

Exactly my thoughts, which i wanted to convey for a long time , but couldn't. To add

The women think it to be a privilege , where as it is a great burden and responsibility. Marrying one, two , three or four , after a while the attraction wears out. For men, excitement and fun is newness, conqurence and seduction, marrying , one or multiple, there is hardly any Fun in his sex life, but in the bargain, It is one hell of a Mess that he gets into.

Handling/supporting multiple families is a nightmare, most of the time these women, or/and their kids, would be at war with each other, making his life miserable, It is really a very big disadvantage to have more than one wife.

Come on Gals, try and visualize, it is a great advantage to women Folk. You don't have to agree to such an arrangement , if you don't feel like, but if there is no option , and the difference is between not having a marriage/family at all , I think it is well worth it.

The choice is totally yours, even the wife number one has a choice to leave if such a situation exists, and/or if she has better options.

The so called western/Christian men were very wise , they understood the problem and correctly opted out of it , they now Have a lot of fun, but marriage is prohibited, where as, GOD FEARING MEN? who desire to stay within the limits of Allah, are labeled as beasts/ Pariahs by these societies and the ones influenced by it.

And the Irony is , that in most cases a wife , as a last resort , accepts a mistress, or closes her eyes on her husband's sleeping around with other women, but creates hell, and would never accept another woman becoming his legally wedded wife.

peace

siki

unknownuser

Salaam Samia,

Saaam Tanweer

There is not only one way to express an exception, and it does not have to be in the same style. Why would God give an excuse for marrying multiple mothers of orphans if polygamy is open anyway? Does the qur'aan give us an excuse to marry at all?

If you travel to your work every morning by tube, wouldn't it be meaningless if I say to you If you fear to be late, travel by the tube?

Firstly, It is not an excuse but a solution based on one of the already known methods.

Secondly, your analogy is completely off. You are comparing one thing with the same exact thing. A better analogy (nonetheless still a poor one) would be if you travel to your work every morning sometime on foot, sometime on bicycle, sometime on bus and sometime on tube, then it would not be meaningless if I say to you if you fear to be late, travel by the tube ! but if you fear that the tube is too expensive then by foot or by bicycle !!

unknownuser

Salaam Siki, Nun,