POLYGAMY NOT THERE IN QURAN?

[Al-Quran_only]

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 say

It 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 ANKiHuu

Where 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".

[brook]

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

[Al-Quran_only]

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.

[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.

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)

[Al-Quran_only]

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" . "" "" "" &#1576.

-3

.

(&#1571 " " "".

(&#1576 " ".

(&#1600 " ".

(&#1583 "". . .

-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- ( &#1585

2- ( &#1579

3- ( &#1579

4- ( &#1585

5- ( &#1579

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

[Samia]

Dear AQO

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- ( &#1585

2- ( &#1579
3- ( &#1579
4- ( &#1585
5- ( &#1579For form IV

You are bringing examples from the singular conjugation whereas we are discussing a verb conjugated to the plural, yet you are right that it is inkih not ankih (there is a kasra under the alif (first letter), but wrong about the existence of a hamza I can't see any hamza in your examples.
In the plural conjugation which we are disacussing, there's no difference in the imperative between both forms other than the hamza. If you have any constructive criticism to shed further light on the meaning of this verb in chapter 4, please bring it; otherwise I think we are wasting time.

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

But earlier you said

Where did you get that

• imperitive of "nakaha" is "ankih"
  -IV form is "unkaha"
  {Is this some new "grammar" written by you?}

Now I understand why you are confused (or trying to confuse people). While discussing this verb, I kept the "u" for the alif with hamza (as pronounced in up; utter) and the "a" for the alif with hamzat wasl (as in apple)

(imperative of the verb nakaha and is pronounced fankihuu)
(imperative of the verb unkaha and is pronounced fa unkihuu)

And you know that very well.

[Al-Quran_only]

Dear AQO
You are bringing examples from the singular conjugation whereas we are discussing a verb conjugated to the plural, yet you are right that it is inkih not ankih (there is a kasra under the alif (first letter), but wrong about the existence of a hamza I can't see any hamza in your examples.
In the plural conjugation which we are disacussing, there's no difference in the imperative between both forms other than the hamza. If you have any constructive criticism to shed further light on the meaning of this verb in chapter 4, please bring it; otherwise I think we are wasting time.But earlier you saidNow I understand why you are confused (or trying to confuse people). While discussing this verb, I kept the "u" for the alif with hamza (as pronounced in up; utter) and the "a" for the alif with hamzat wasl (as in apple)And you know that very well.

Dear Samia
In this post and previous post of you it is obvious ,you do not know what do alif and hamza mean ??
May I have some input from you regarding them ?

In transliteration "u" is used for "zamma" "a" is used for "fatah" i is used for "kasra".
You comitted the same blunder in the following post.

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.

You said

There will be no difference between "yankah" and "yunkih". They will both be "ankih"

There is a lot of difference between meanings and then of course in their imperatives;
Yankah = he marries
Yunkih = he marries off

Here again you do not know the imperative of
Imperfect "yankah" is "inkah" not "ankih" and that of "yunkih "is "ankih"

You said

here it does not say laa tankihu, because a female does not "tankih".

Again wrong information Look at this Qurani Aya

(230)
(2230)

[Samia]

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"

Here again you do not know the imperative of
Imperfect "yankah" is "inkah" not "ankih" and that of "yunkih "is "ankih"

Make up your mind Is it "inkah" or "inkih"?

In transliteration "u" is used for "zamma" "a" is used for "fatah" i is used for "kasra".
You comitted the same blunder in the following post.

Official/academic transliteration has different symbols which are no available on the software used by this forum (e.g hamza and the sign for hamzat wasl). I was not concerned about how to transliterate in as much as how to differentiate between two diferent words when the tools I have do not give me much choice. I left "unkih/u" for form IV and ankih/u for fom I. The point is I made myself understood to my interlocutor. If you were concerened then, you could have asked at that time and we might have come to a mutual choice. But to come now just to criticize when no problem resulted from my invented transliteration is just an attempt to discredit not to construct

This takes us back to my previous question and your reply to it? I asked How do you say "Daddy, marry your daughter!" in Arabic? You answered "Unkih ibnatak!" So you do have the pattern NKH (imperative) + nisaa (as the Direct Object). Are you going back on your reply?

Yes, you are right. Even the dictionary puts it as you say. I did not even notice I went back in my words.

But what I see in the language of the qur'aan is a different usage In verse 243, the qur'aan says "The adulterer yankihu but an adulteress and the adulteress yankihuha but an adulterer", where it is clear that the qur'aan does not use "tankih" for a woman

Which brings me to your last point

"You say" here it does not say laa tankihu, because a female does not "tankih".

Again wrong information Look at this Qurani Aya

(230)
(2230)

It's up to you to respect the "tashkeel" more than the usage of the word as proven from verse 243 above in quote. Verse 2230 could have simply been wrongly vocalized instead of "tunkaha" in the passive, it is written "tankiha" in the active. After all, the meaning is not changed.
From all your post so far on this thread, I find this last point the only constructive one. So I hope you excuse me if I do not respond to anymore posts from you if it's about technicalities and not about meaning/information. If the way I explain something twisted the meaning or sent wrong information, I do not shy from apologizing and correcting my error. After all, I am not error free as you wrongly think I think of myself and hence this following of me by you from thread to thread in minute details that do not benefit anyone, and always not on the spot, but after days and weeks, which really consumes my time to return back and look at the context of my posts. Move on and start to contribute instead of waiting for a prey to attack.

[brook]

I see the imperative form of nakaha in 2432, which is ?nkihuu

Wa ?nkihuu?l ayaama
Marry off the single

This hamza; that is, the ? is formed by putting the hyphen-like diacritical sign above the alif. This hamza is not wasl; so it is not dropped wa ?nkihuu.

I see the the imperative from of ankaha in 43, which is inkihuu

Fankihuu ma taaba lakum mine?n nisaai
Marry the women who allow you

This hamza is formed by putting the hyphen-like diacritical sign below the alif. However, it is dropped when inkihuu is linked to fa like in An-Nisaa 3 fankihuu.

According to Al-Quran only, fa has never been used to convert intransitive verbs into transitive ones. If yaseen claims it has, he should provide some evidence/proof.

Dear Al-Quran only,

Yaseen does not look at the question from the viewpoint of grammar as Samia and you seem to do. He looks at it from the viewpoint of context. Isn?t it obvious from his argument that THE CONTEXT WILL CARRY THE INTENDED MEANING? So his proof is the context of 43.

I wish you saved yourselves from being obsessed with grammar for a moment and paid attention to the questions I asked. The moment you did that, you would see the contradictions fankihuu causes in 43 and object to it.

Take only this one for example

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 as a sincere Muslim. And you can do that only if you marry off the orphan women and send them away to their new homes .

You either obey God or allow polygyny. You can not do both and be a sincere Muslim.

Peace,
Hasan Akcay

[Samia]

Dear Al-Quran only,
I wish you saved yourselves from being obsessed with grammar for a moment and paid attention to the questions I asked. The moment you did that, you would see the contradictions fankihuu causes in 43 and object to it.

Take only this one for example

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 as a sincere Muslim. And you can do that only if you marry off the orphan women and send them away to their new homes .

You either obey God or allow polygyny. You can not do both and be a sincere Muslim.

Peace,
Hasan Akcay

AQO is not obsessed with grammar but with finding faults with people and challenging them without significant contribution from his part, that's why he digs in trivials and details, and points that have no bearing on understanding verses. AQO has been around the forum for quite a time, changing his screen name quite often but not his ways.

[SwedenMajidah]

And what's this "decent" solution, for an undecent situation, I wonder? To legalize this unlawful relationship between A and C?
What if it was B who met a "highly intelligent and attractive" colleague and fell in love with him? Anyway to work out a "decent" solution?

If it was made crystal clear, to men and women alike, that married men are not available, such absurd situations calling for "unfair" solutions would not arise.

Peace,

very good point sis Samia.

yes, if all would respect people who was married then no situation like this would occur.

I guess in The Bible one of the 10 commandments of Moses is To not have lust for your fellows wives.

Maria

[brook]

If it was made crystal clear, to men and women alike, that married men are not available, such absurd situations calling for "unfair" solutions would not arise.

Married people have already been married with. Dry and cut like mathematics? Well, the truth is dry and cut. It is final. Once more married people belong to their spouses. This is God's truth. Now keep this in mind and read An-Noor 32

Wa ?nkihu'l ayaama
And marry off the single

Does this divine order allow you to marry off the married, who belong to their spouses? This verse is the same in structure and connotations as Al-Jumu'a 9

Hasten to the remembrance of God (629)
Marry off the single (2432)

Does 629 allow you to hasten to the remembrance of other Gods? If it does, 2432 will allow you to marry off the married.

Plus, even the people who claim that polygyny is allowed accept that it is such an unbearable wrong done to co-wives that it has to be given up. That is why in 43, according to them, God says "If you fear to be unjust when you marry two women and three women and four women, marry only one."

Unjust = torturing

Is it becoming to God to allow torture under this pretext of this and that, to a God who in 1044 announces that God does not do least wrong to men; it is men who wrong themselves?

No, this is not Islam because we are not Muslim.

Peace,
Hasan Akcay

[huruf]

Salaam,

Samia, I have tried to find one of the posts where you went into detail explaining that women were never the subject of n-k-h-, but the object. Is that right? By now I think I am numbed. Anyway, please look at 2.232 where it says

an yankihna azwajahunna

I am not sure how it may matter in the question of poligamy, but since it has been dealt with in this thread, I would like your input and that of any other interested.

Salaam

[Samia]

Salaam,

Samia, I have tried to find one of the posts where you went into detail explaining that women were never the subject of n-k-h-, but the object. Is that right? By now I think I am numbed. Anyway, please look at 2.232 where it says

an yankihna azwajahunna

I am not sure how it may matter in the question of poligamy, but since it has been dealt with in this thread, I would like your input and that of any other interested.

Salaam

Salaam huruf

I depended on my belief that women are the object of NKH on verse 243 (I might be wrong about the verse number. I do not have my Book with me. It could be verse 3 or 4) where it says ..."The adulterer yankihu but a mushrika and the adulteress "yankihua" but a mushrik" instead of "tankihu". As for the verse you cite, it could have simply been wrongly vocalized instead of "tunkaha" in the passive, it is written "tankiha" in the active. After all, the meaning is not changed.

Of course I might be wrong if you can find a verse where changing the active into passive will not work. Then we may have to wonder why verse 243 did not use the verb with the female as its subject (i.e tankihu).

[huruf]

It says

an yankihna

Doesn't look to me as a mistake in vocalisation.

[Samia]

It says

an yankihna

Doesn't look to me as a mistake in vocalisation.

What if it was "an yunkahna"? Different vocalization, same letters.

[huruf]

I don't know whether youhave the Qur'an with you now, but read the whole aya.

"da la ta3dulwhunna an yankihna azwayahunna"

That for one thing. For another, that is two vowels and not just one, and therefore, I think, much harder to change or mistake. And then if it is the Arabic usage always to have the man yankih, I can understand that any yankihna in the revelation would have turned out to be yunkahna by mistake when copied because of habit. However I find it very unlikely that if it is not the usual usage in Arabic that someone would have made two mistakes to put it into "unusual" Arabic, and again, the whole formulation reolves about not keeping the women from doing something, and therefore the passive would be much less suited that the active.

Salaam

[Samia]

I don't know whether youhave the Qur'an with you now, but read the whole aya.

"da la ta3dulwhunna an yankihna azwayahunna"

That for one thing. For another, that is two vowels and not just one, and therefore, I think, much harder to change or mistake. And then if it is the Arabic usage always to have the man yankih, I can understand that any yankihna in the revelation would have turned out to be yunkahna by mistake when copied because of habit. However I find it very unlikely that if it is not the usual usage in Arabic that someone would have made two mistakes to put it into "unusual" Arabic, and again, the whole formulation reolves about not keeping the women from doing something, and therefore the passive would be much less suited that the active.

Salaam

It's not three or four vowels. It is passive verb made active. There are some verbs which are disputed before whether they are active or passive.
Also, as I said, verse 243 puts it very explicitly that even a zania is (yankihuha) and not (tankih).
As for females not (yankihna), they do not (yutalliqna divorce) either.

[huruf]

Yes, I am aware that the vocalisation, the two vowels, are for either a passive or an active.

As to 34.3 I do not see why that must necessarily be a grammatical rather than an stilistical statement, or may be it has some other reason to put it that way and it might be interesting to look at it from that point of view. The point is that in 2.232 it says yankihna, which is what I can see and verify, so why should I think that it didn't want to say exactly that? And surely it is not shocking, since nobady seems to have found anything wrong with there being a yankihna and seems more appropriate also within the aya.

Salaam

[Samia]

Yes, I am aware that the vocalisation, the two vowels, are for either a passive or an active.

As to 34.3 I do not see why that must necessarily be a grammatical rather than an stilistical statement, or may be it has some other reason to put it that way and it might be interesting to look at it from that point of view. The point is that in 2.232 it says yankihna, which is what I can see and verify, so why should I think that it didn't want to say exactly that? And surely it is not shocking, since nobady seems to have found anything wrong with there being a yankihna and seems more appropriate also within the aya.

Salaam

I never said it was inappropriate or wrong

Salaam huruf

As for the verse you cite, it could have simply been wrongly vocalized instead of "tunkaha" in the passive, it is written "tankiha" in the active. After all, the meaning is not changed.

The whole thing might be a linguistic characteristic of that very verb, just lik the verb (yutal-liq to divorce). We have a male (yutalliq) but not for a female. It does not mean that women do not "divorce" men according to the qur'aan.