POLYGAMY NOT THERE IN QURAN?
-
Salaams huruf,
Where are you from by the way? Considering that English is most probably not your first language (not to mention that you are a woman too angel ), I find it hard to even understand what you are trying to say sometimes! wow
The question is que the pending problems may become more numerous and more serious if we refuse to diagnose and try to mould them to our own preconceptions. Things will not go back the way they were. We may get wilder and more brute and savages, but things are not going to go back to the older partterns, if we refuse to think hard and try to find new ways to establish useful and fair patterns, what awaits us is most probably unbridled savagery. There may be some similitude between that and previous ages, but we will not go back to a dreamed established mould which may be even never existed except in our conception before we knew the world better.
Diagnosing and accepting may take some time but blind trial will never arrange things.
In fact I would like you to state clearly exactly what you are calling for in this thread Whether it is some solution so that men do not divorce or that women do not pretend married men... I am confused about what you are looking for exactly.
For mi children should come first and their parents according to capacity should look after them with the burden distributed in equity. I don't know when you ask for injunctions from the Qur'an where you want to apply them. Because wht is evident is that you cannot apply something where the premises for application do not exist. Adn muy must also bear in mind that the purpose of any system is justice, not injustice, because of blindly following a recipe, be it the proper one or not.
So please, explain.
Salaam
-
I beg your pardon IQO
MY post was not directed to you but a light hearted response to the onset of 2008, as in other threads people have been calling huruf brother ...do we have to be sarcastic all the time???And could you explain what do you mean by this?
Farida-
See that 'Ignore' button.. it works sooooo well.....
-
Point taken Daud peace
Quote from Daud-19 on Today at 031750 PM
Farida-See that 'Ignore' button.. it works sooooo well.....
And I will be perfectly happy to ignore the both of you two as well since I haven't seen any Quranic discussion of benefit from either of you on any posts as of yet! nope wow
All that the two of you do is jump in with your opinions and feelings with no Quranic evidence either way. Maybe you both should consider just reading and studying until you have some Quranic based points of value to offer. hmm
-
Why would you submit to such a arrogant point of view?
Your ideas come from God, we can help show you where in the Quran
they can be validated...That guy is into POWER ignore him...
d-
Salaam Daud
What makes you think that I submitted to anyone except Allah(swt); his suggestion was reasonable and I would never say I have enough knowledge and until I die I will continue to study and learn.Arrogant are those who just want to have the last say; they reject those with good knowledge as well as those who seek knowledge, They do not want to admit their faults and Allah does not love arrogance.
Relex No one overpower me.
Best regards
farida -
Before I write Part Two of my post to sum up the points I have made in this forum, I need to reconsider Samia?s arguments, which she basis on grammar. She says
The verse starts with "yataamaa", which is a mixed-gender or masculine plural. (He ?yaseen- acknowledges that). Why not use the proper word for female orphans "yateemaat"?
In my opinion that is because the masculine nouns and pronouns stand for the feminine too, as in An-Nisaa 6 And test the orphans until they reach a marriageable age -Wa?btalu?l yataama hattaa iza balagu?n nikah.
God wants you to test both the male and female orphans in your charge, doesn?t He. And right afterwards He warns you then if you find them to be mature of mind, give them their possessions ?fa in ?nastum minhum rushdan fa?dfa3uu ilayhim amwaal ahum.
And what about the male orphans? Marry them off?
In my opinion they are implicitly included in God's command to marry the yataama like the ibaad ikum in 2432. What is more, they are only a side issue here. God?s command still stands no matter whether the male orphans are included or not you have to obey God by
-testing the yataama to see if they are mature enough
-handing over amwaal ahum to them
-marrying off the mature female orphans; that is, the nisaa in 43 like the imaa in 2432.I just wanted to make sure that I understand Samia?s argument correctly. If I am still mistaken I would like her to please tell me.
Peace,
Hasan Ak?ay -
Before I write Part Two of my post to sum up the points I have made in this forum, I need to reconsider Samia?s arguments, which she basis on grammar. She says
The verse starts with "yataamaa", which is a mixed-gender or masculine plural. (He ?yaseen- acknowledges that). Why not use the proper word for female orphans "yateemaat"?
In my opinion that is because the masculine nouns and pronouns stand for the feminine too, as in An-Nisaa 6 And test the orphans until they reach a marriageable age -Wa?btalu?l yataama hattaa iza balagu?n nikah.
I agree with you the word 'yataamaa" is plural of both 'yateemun " and "yateematun".
Evidence( 770ـ
( ) -
I agree with you the word 'yataamaa" is plural of both 'yateemun " and "yateematun".
Evidence( 770ـ
( )Thank you for the answer. Bu I still have questions.
According to Samia, when the imperative NKH is preceded by fa like the fankihu in 43, it only means marry. But according to yaseen, the initial fainkihu in 43 could mean either marry or marry off, in which case THE CONTEXT WILL DETERMINE THE INTENDED MEANING.
I said I would rather give the benefit of the doubt to yaseen's explanation because it saves the verse from a lot of contradictions which the other one causes.
For example
(1)In 46 God orders you to hand over the possessions of the orphans as soon as they reach their physical and mental maturity. You have to obey God if you are a sincere Muslim. However, you disobey Him by marrying the mothers of the orpans, which ends in the orphans still staying in your family with their possessions.
Which is obligatory; obeying God about who there is no doubt or obeying grammar about which there is doubt?
(2)Let?s assume that you are a sincere Muslim; so you obey God and give the orphans their possessions as soon as they are mature enough, which proves that now they are economically independent of their mothers and of you.
What has your polygamy got to do with the orphans who are economically independent of you? What is it to them? What is it to Islam?
(3)In 42 God warns you that if you eat the possessions of the orphans, you will commit the huuban kabbeera. So, as a sincere Muslim, you are afraid to commit it.
In 43 God goes on talking about your fear if you fear to be unjust to the orphans in your care?
However, you choose to marry the mothers of the orphan babies and keep their possessions in your care. Willingly or unwillingly you may still eat their possessions and commit the huuban kabeera.
Why should you marry the mothers of the orphan babies although it does not do away with your fear that you will probably eat the possessions of the orphans and commit the big crime?
Peace,
Hasan Akcay -
Thank you for the answer. Bu I still have questions.
According to Samia, when the imperative NKH is preceded by fa like the fankihu in 43, it only means marry.
This what you understood, not what I said. I did not say that.
The differentiation i understood between marry and marry off is the existance of hamza, not fa. Here are two of my posts on this thread
The difference between the two verbs "unkaha" and "nakaha" is the hamza (the glottal stop) in the beginning. When they are in the imperative, they have the same form (unkih/unkihuu), both beginning with the glottal stop. The difference between the two glottal stops is that one is original (imperative of unkaha) and the other is not (imperative of nakaha). When not preceded by any word, i.e when both verbs are in the beginning of a senence, there's no difference between them. Only when they are preceded by a word or a preposition such as wa or fa, will they have different pronunciation and writing
(imperative of the verb nakaha and is pronounced fankihuu)
(imperative of the verb unkaha and is pronounced fa unkihuu)
You have to first decide what verb it is before you decide how it is written. Were the hamzas written before the diacritical signs?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 see that yaseen and you assign different functions to conjunction fa; so there is doubt about grammar.
Yaseen says the fainkihoo in 43 may mean either marry or marry off because the imperative form of verb NKH is linked to conjuction fa.
In his own words
Although the verbs Nakaha and Ankaha have different conjugations (imperative and other forms) when the verb is taken on its own, when linked to a conjunction such as fa (then) as in 43, the expression ?fainkihoo? (This is the plural form) could either mean Then marry or Then marry off. The context will carry the intended meaning.
According to him, it does not matter whether fankihu is with or without a hamza. What matters is that the imperative form of NKH is linked to conjuction fa; so IF THE CONTEXT NECESSITATES IT, fainkihoo in 43 means marry off.
The context in 43 does necessitate the meaning of marry off, as I began to explain in my previous post. I wish you responded to it too, rather than explaining only grammar.
Verse 43 fankihuu does not carry a hamza. Therefore it is from the verb "nakaha". Here 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 am not sure why yaseen sees the same word as fainkihuu although you see it as fankihuu. But I can guess
The i in fainkihuu is actually a hamza alif, with a hyphen-like sign below the alif (I don?t know the Arabic term); so the imperative form of nakaha is read inkihuu and this hamza alif is dropped from fainkihuu, so the verb is fankihuu in 43.
But it seems that you do not count the i in inkihu as a hamza. So you think fankihuu does not carry a hamza.
In 2432 the hypen-like sign is above the alif; so the imperative form of nakaha is read ?nkihuu and the ? is not dropped from wa ?nkihuu.
Were the hamzas written before the diacritical signs?
Yes, they were because you need the hyphen-like diacritical marks to write them.
Peace,
Hasan Akcay -
Hasan
It doesn't matter where the hamza is written, above or below the alif, or how it is translaiterated (u;A;a;e;i). The point is is there a hamza or not. From the cut-and-paste Arabic verses I provided before, the hamza was above the alif (not that it matters where it appears, what matters is it is there = marry off ), or not there = marry.The "fa" is NOT part of the verb; so don't waste your time analysing its effect on the meaning of the verb that follows it. It can be followed by almost any verb. It simply means "if" (in this and similar contexts.)
-
When (NKH is) linked to a conjunction such as fa (then) as in 43, the expression ?fainkihoo? could mean either Then marry or Then marry off. THE CONTEXT WILL CARRY THE INTENDED MEANING. (yaseen)
don't waste your time analysing the effect of conjuction fa on the meaning of the verb that follows it. It does not matter. The only thing that matter is the fact that the verb is ankaha, which means marry; so in 43 God is saying "Men! Marry two of the women and three of the women and four of the women." (samia)
Samia,
Are you sure that you do not deserve the advice not to waste your time trying to prove that the ankaha in 43 is God?s word? Are you sure that the humans who made the NKH into ankaha instead of nakaha by means of their manmade diacritical signs and hamzas were infallible?
(1)In 46 God orders you to hand over the possessions of the orphans as soon as they reach their physical and mental maturity. You have to obey God if you are a sincere Muslim. However, you disobey Him by marrying the mothers of the orpans, which results in the orphans still staying in your family with their possessions.
Which one really matters; obeying God about whom there is no doubt or obeying manmade grammar about which there is doubt?
(2)Let?s assume that you are a sincere Muslim; so you obey God and give the orphans their possessions as soon as they are mature enough, which proves that now they are economically independent of their mothers and of you.
What has your polygyny got to do with the orphans who are economically independent of you? What good is it to them? What good is it to Islam? Are you sure that that does not matter?
(3)In 42 God warns you that if you eat the possessions of the orphans, you will commit the huuban kabbeera. So, as a sincere Muslim, you are afraid to commit it.
In 43 God goes on talking about your fear if you fear to be unjust to the orphans in your care?
However, you choose to marry the mothers of the orphan babies and keep their possessions in your care, which you may still eat and thus commit the big crime.
Why should you marry the mothers of the orphan babies although it does not do away with your fear that you will probably eat the possessions of the orphans and commit the big crime? Are you sure that that does not matter either?
Peace,
Hasan Akcay -
Hasan
It doesn't matter where the hamza is written, above or below the alif, or how it is translaiterated (u;A;a;e;i). The point is is there a hamza or not. From the cut-and-paste Arabic verses I provided before, the hamza was above the alif (not that it matters where it appears, what matters is it is there = marry off ), or not there = marry.The "fa" is NOT part of the verb; so don't waste your time analysing its effect on the meaning of the verb that follows it. It can be followed by almost any verb. It simply means "if" (in this and similar contexts.)
Dear Samia
I did not want to interfere but unfortunately there are so many points against the facts ,that I have to.
You sayIt doesn't matter where the hamza is written, above or below the alif, or how it is translaiterated (u;A;a;e;i).
Who told you this principle?The meanings are drastically changed.If you do not know the difference between
-ankih =
-inkih =
then it is another thing.You said
The "fa" is NOT part of the verb; so don't waste your time analysing its effect on the meaning of the verb that follows it. It can be followed by almost any verb. It simply means "if" (in this and similar contexts
It is true that "fa" is not a part of the verb.But it does not mean "if "either.
"If "is a conditional word."fa" is not included in "conditional particle" which are attached to "Protasis" .Yes it does come with "apodosis"
For This use of "fa" I will appreciate if you could provide some source.(which I think you may not be having as usual).In one of your post you described IV form and different imperitives
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 ANKiHuuWhere did you get that
- imperitive of "nakaha" is "ankih"
-IV form is "unkaha"
{Is this some new "grammar" written by you?}
Initially my impression was it might be typo but you repeated it
The difference between the two verbs "unkaha" and "nakaha" is the hamza (the glottal stop) in the beginning. When they are in the imperative, they have the same form (unkih/unkihuu), both beginning with the glottal stop. The difference between the two glottal stops is that one is original (imperative of unkaha) and the other is not (imperative of nakaha). When not preceded by any word, i.e when both verbs are in the beginning of a senence, there's no difference between them. Only when they are preceded by a word or a preposition such as wa or fa, will they have different pronunciation and writing
(imperative of the verb nakaha and is pronounced fankihuu)
(imperative of the verb unkaha and is pronounced fa unkihuu)
You have to first decide what verb it is before you decide how it is written. Were the hamzas written before the diacritical signs?Here you repeated IV form wrongly again and gave another wrong statement that imperitives of both ie nakaha and ankaha ,when not preceded by any word in the beginning ,there is no difference.
Honestly ,you knowledge of arabic grammar disappointed me a lot.
It is the reason you have been finding fault with "Seebaweh". - imperitive of "nakaha" is "ankih"
-
I am not sure why yaseen sees the same word as fainkihuu although you see it as fankihuu. But I can guess
The i in fainkihuu is actually a hamza alif, with a hyphen-like sign below the alif (I don?t know the Arabic term); so the imperative form of nakaha is read inkihuu and this hamza alif is dropped from fainkihuu, so the verb is fankihuu in 43.
But it seems that you do not count the i in inkihu as a hamza. So you think fankihuu does not carry a hamza.
In 2432 the hyphen-like sign is above the alif; so the imperative form of nakaha is read ?nkihuu and the ? is not dropped from wa ?nkihuu. (Hasan Akcay)
It doesn?t matter where the hamza is written, above or below the alif, or how it is transliterated a, A, a, e, i. (Samia)
Dear Samia
I did not want to interfere but unfortunately there are so many points against the facts that I have to.
You say
Who told you this principle?The meanings are drastically changed.If you do not know the difference between
-ankih =
-inkih =
then it is another thing.Dear Al-Quran only,
Thank you for confirming what I had learned about the two types of hamza. I don't know Arabic, so I needed the opinion of somebody who knew.
Peace,
Hasan Akcay -
When (NKH is) linked to a conjunction such as fa (then) as in 43, the expression ?fainkihoo? could mean either Then marry or Then marry off. THE CONTEXT WILL CARRY THE INTENDED MEANING. (yaseen)
[
Dear Brook
If above above words are really from Yaseen ,I feel extremely disgusted.Because it is such a blunder which you cannot expect from a KG class arabic students.
I assure you ,so many are ready to put the ideas without any authority or reference.
"fa' has never been used to convert intransitive verbs into transitive ones.If it is there then he should provide some evidence/proof.I pretty positive that you will never get it. -
Dear Samia
I did not want to interfere but unfortunately there are so many points against the facts ,that I have to.
You sayWho told you this principle?The meanings are drastically changed.If you do not know the difference between
-ankih =
-inkih =
then it is another thing.DearAQO
What principle? When I said it doesn't matter, I did not mean (the meaning is the same). It's rediculous to understand it in this manner, especially if you continue reading"the point is is there a hamza or not". Besides, we were discussing a specific verb in the plural, not the singular as you are citing as examples. Why don't you "interfer" within the context?I surely do not know the meaning of "inkih". What's it?
Please explain the forms of these two verbs. If one of them is form I, then it's wrong, since the imperative of this form carries "hamzat wasl" and not the ordinary hamza. You sure know the difference between the two.I see that you do not accept that form IV is "ankaha/yunkihu ). Please tell me why you think it's wrong.
Where did you get that
- imperitive of "nakaha" is "ankih"
From here
(chapter 4) -
DearAQO
What principle? When I said it doesn't matter, I did not mean (the meaning is the same). It's rediculous to understand it in this manner, especially if you continue reading"the point is is there a hamza or not". Besides, we were discussing a specific verb in the plural, not the singular as you are citing as examples. Why don't you "interfer" within the context?I surely do not know the meaning of "inkih". What's it?
Please explain the forms of these two verbs. If one of them is form I, then it's wrong, since the imperative of this form carries "hamzat wasl" and not the ordinary hamza. You sure know the difference between the two.I see that you do not accept that form IV is "ankaha/yunkihu ). Please tell me why you think it's wrong.From here
(chapter 4)My dear sister
I am really further surprised that I have to explain KG class arabic to an Arabic speaking person.My first impression that you are kidding.But anyhow let me explain.First of all you should know in triliteral verbs there are two types
1=
2=
Both of them have different methods of making imperatives.
For ,the imperfect form is taken ,sign of imperfect removed ,the last alphabet is made "saakin" and "hamza" is added at the beginning.The "tashkeel" of this hamza depends upon the "tashkeel" of the middle alphabet (which is technical called as "kalimatul ain).If it is- Mazmoom ,then hamaza (placed) at the beginning is also mazmoom.
-maftooh/maksoor then hamaza at the beginning is maksoor
So in imperative of this group initial hamza is
-Either mazmoom
-or Maksoor
-1
"" "" "" " "".
-2
( { } "32" . "" "" "" ب.
-3
.
(أ " " "".
(ب " ".
(ـ " ".
(د "". . .
-4
"" "" "" "" "" ""
Note This initial hamza of imperative of the is from the category of "hamzatul wasal " which is written but not prounced in case there some preceding word /particles likely to join it as in (fankihoo).Now coming to the word NKH.
Since Quran has used this word with ain kalima ie. kaaf is maksoor,so it will take it "hamza maksoor " at the beginning.It will become "Inkih"
.1- ( ر
2- ( ث
3- ( ث
4- ( ر
5- ( ث
For form IV
Imperative comes on the scale of "Af3il" When NKH will go into IV it will become "ankaha" (past) and its imperative will be "ankih" (single masculine) and "ankihoo" (PLURAL MASCULINE)
Since its first hamza is not "hamazatul wasal"so it will retain both writing and reading.
So as in your second aya; (wa-ankihoo)
This description is not very detailed.But it does serve the purpose of this discussion.
Best of luck - Mazmoom ,then hamaza (placed) at the beginning is also mazmoom.