POLYGAMY NOT THERE IN QURAN?
-
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 AkcayAQO 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.
-
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
-
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 singleDoes 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 -
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,
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).
-
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
-
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. -
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
-
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.
-
I have a question for IMQ You have stated in a previous post that
po?lyg?a?my (p-lg-m)
- The condition or practice of having more than one spouse at one time. Also called plural marriage.
po?lyg?y?ny (p-lj-n)
- The condition or practice of having more than one wife at one time.
POLYGYNY IS CLEARLY IN AL QURAN, WHILE "POLYGAMY" DOES NOT EXIST.
My question According to the Quran, what is the difference between a "spouse" and a "wife"? Please cite the corresponding ayats to support your understanding.
-
Well...it has been a few days since I posted my question to IMO...I will assume that he is on vacation from the forum for a bit...
Anyway...I have been looking at two words in the Quran..."ujr" and "nihlah". Clearly these are two different words used by Allah in His Book. As we all know, He doesnt forget or make mistakes.
My understanding is that "nikah" means tie/knot/contract. Depending on the context of the ayat, you understand what type of "contract" the parties are engaged in. My understanding is that "marry" or "marry off" is what nikah has come to mean now. This same situation is applicable to salah. Salah has come to mean "ritual prayer" however when you look at the root meaning, it means commitment, to follow closely, etc.
When I look at the ayats that refer to "marriage" in particular, they use the word "ujr" as an obligatory dowry. However, God is clear in His usage of words and "ujr" and in Sura 4 this word (ujr) is not used there for dowry. Instead the word is "nihlah". This same word form (nihlah) can be found in the Sura "The Bee".
Has anyone researched these two words and their usage in the Book?
Your comments regarding the above is appreciated.
-
We can take this out of the Quraan altogether!
First off the Quraan only put this there to regulate the number of Women we may marry who already have CHILDREN thus "For the Sake of the Orphans you may marry them their mothers 2 3 and 4" so this is regulation on women with KIDS already
Quraan does not regulate the number of Wives from Women without children!
Multipul Marriage is a Cultural thing, none of us can say it is Evil or it is Good, it depends on the society and culture we are from! Being of West Afrikan blood i know that it is common in West Afrikan communities to have 2 or more wives! so it is not oppression! Really it is the Fist wife who encourages the man to select a HELP MATE ie CO WIFE!
It is just as incorrect to enforce an cultural view such as monogamy on the Whole of the WOrld as has been done by the European-Christian world!!! so now Muslims are doning the same to look good in FEMISIT EYES? keep it real FAMILY
-
We can take this out of the Quraan altogether!
First off the Quraan only put this there to regulate the number of Women we may marry who already have CHILDREN thus "For the Sake of the Orphans you may marry them their mothers 2 3 and 4" so this is regulation on women with KIDS already
Quraan does not regulate the number of Wives from Women without children!
Multipul Marriage is a Cultural thing, none of us can say it is Evil or it is Good, it depends on the society and culture we are from! Being of West Afrikan blood i know that it is common in West Afrikan communities to have 2 or more wives! so it is not oppression! Really it is the Fist wife who encourages the man to select a HELP MATE ie CO WIFE!
It is just as incorrect to enforce an cultural view such as monogamy on the Whole of the WOrld as has been done by the European-Christian world!!! so now Muslims are doning the same to look good in FEMISIT EYES? keep it real FAMILY
Why not polyandry?
-
Surely whether self respecting Afrikan's approve of it doesn't affect whether it's Quranically fobidden? You've stated that the Quran doesn't mention how many single women a man can marry. Well, neither does it mention how many men a women can marry. Does that mean there is no limit, and it's purely a cultural question?
-
if you down for it akhi!
AINT NO self respecting Afrikan gonna Join you in that madness!! ;D
Nice try Tho..sarcasm is no way for possitive discussion...... brickwall
been at this far to long lol...ask ya man Layth rotfl
I think OPF is also a self-respecting guy from Tibet.
-
Well, it been a few months since my last post. I wanted some time to pass in order for someone to give me some feedback regarding two words in the Quran, specifically "ujr" and "nihlah".
When I look at the ayats that refer to "marriage" in particular, the word "ujr" is used as the obligatory dowry.
God is clear in His usage of words and "ujr" and in Sura 4 this word ("ujr" is not used there. Instead the word is "nihlah". God is consistent with words. Can anyone shed some light on this issue?
Sister Samia, or some of our other Global Moderators...perhaps?
Has anyone researched these two words and their usage in the Book?
-
Well, it been a few months since my last post. I wanted some time to pass in order for someone to give me some feedback regarding two words in the Quran, specifically "ujr" and "nihlah".
When I look at the ayats that refer to "marriage" in particular, the word "ujr" is used as the obligatory dowry.
God is clear in His usage of words and "ujr" and in Sura 4 this word ("ujr" is not used there. Instead the word is "nihlah". God is consistent with words. Can anyone shed some light on this issue?
Sister Samia, or some of our other Global Moderators...perhaps?
Has anyone researched these two words and their usage in the Book?
Sorry for this unintended silence! I am away from home, somewhere where I am not always, or easily, online. I will surely reply to your question when I am back in two or three days God willing.