POLYGAMY NOT THERE IN QURAN?

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,