Number of wives?
-
Simple
Salaam to you too...
To arrive at what i am trying to point out just read the part red of your post. During the process of pointing out I lost a would be friend Elke and made increased my enemies.
Before We discuss the Quranic Ayats with reference to Islamic History or without refrence to Islamic History just answer my simple question dear Simple.
Why do you think so that God would never allow such a thing as Slavery.
It doesn't seem a righteous thing to do.
I wouldn't want to own another human being.
How ever you mightn't mind.
Here is some help though;
With respects;
2431
And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, the fathers of their husband's , their sons, the sons of their husbands' ,their brothers, the sons of their brothers, the sons of their sisters, their women or their husbands, male servants free of physical needs, small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O ye Believers! turn ye all together towards Allah, that ye may attain Bliss.3355
There is no blame (on these ladies if they appear) before their fathers or their sons, their brothers, or their brother's sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women and whom they are married to (their husbands). And, (ladies), fear Allah; for Allah is Witness to all things.or their women and whom they are married to (their husbands)
The ladies sisters husband or her mothers new husband or her daughters husband e.t.c what catagory would you put them in br. ?
Who cares slavery doesn't exist any more.
God Bless All.
peace
-
liquiddharma
Some of them may be were amazon who realy fought the battle, but most of them were not. Trading of slaves was allowed and Quran did not put a ban on it. You should quote down the actual verse you are talking about making it easier to comment.I think following verse will further clarify my point
And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and parts meant to be hidden except what appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty of it except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden body parts. And O ye Believers! turn ye all together towards God, that ye may attain Bliss."
The verse is very clear that slaves are allowed and not all of them were offcourse amazons.
No, it really, really isn't and doesn't. The word "slaves" isn't there, that is just inserted by translators as an interpretation of the arabic. The free minds translation is thus
And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and keep covered their private parts, and that they should not reveal their beauty except what is apparent, and let them put forth their shawls over their cleavage. And let them not reveal their beauty except to their husbands, or their fathers, or fathers of their husbands, or their sons, or the sons of their husbands, or their brothers, or the sons of their brothers, or the sons of their sisters, or their women, or those committed to them by oath, or the male servants who are without need, or the child who has not yet understood the composition of women. And let them not strike with their feet in a manner that reveals what they are keeping hidden of their beauty. And repent to God, all of you believers, that you may succeed.
-
liquiddharma
No, it really, really isn't and doesn't. The word "slaves" isn't there, that is just inserted by translators as an interpretation of the arabic. The free minds translation is thusBrother freeminds translation is flawed and is done by keeping a specific purpose in mind as we will see, moreover to study and understand Quran please do not limit yourself to free-minds.
Free Minds 2431
And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and keep covered their private parts, and that they should not show-off their beauty except what is apparent, and let them place their covers over their chests. And let them not show-off their beauty except to their husbands, or their fathers, or fathers of their husbands, or their sons, or the sons of their husbands, or their brothers, or the sons of their brothers, or the sons of their sisters, or their children that come after them, or those who are still their dependants, or the male servants who are without need, or the child who has not yet understood the composition of women. And let them not move their hips in a manner that reveals what they are keeping hidden of their beauty. And repent to God all of you believers that you may succeed.Brother just read the translation with open mind, and is there any justification for the words used there.
Who are still their dependants?????Who might be? can you tell us? other than all the persons mentioned in the verse Who are dependents?
-
Simple
It doesn't seem a righteous thing to do.
I wouldn't want to own another human being.
How ever you mightn't mind.
Simple I don't want to start it all over again, you have to read the previous posts of mine, IT IS NOT YOU AND ME TO DECIDE IF WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THE QURAN.
you are against slavery fine. No one is arguing this but SLAVERY was a fact when Ayats came down and Slavery has been discussed in Quran, it has been discourged in Quran but not abolished.
Simple
Who cares slavery doesn't exist any more.
God Bless All.
Correct. But never try to change Quran according to one's own wish.
The transaltion of freeminds is flawed.
The purpose of ommitting the word slaves by progressivemuslims from quran is to present the Quran to west in acceptable form.
I donot agree to this logic nor does Quran.
-
Who cares slavery doesn't exist any more.
God Bless All.
peace
Salaam
You say slavery does not exist; nope Have you not heard about slaves who are kept in cocoa fields to produce chocolate and children in India who were kidnapped and enslaved to produce carpets. These are only a few cases diclosed and there are quite a few still needed to be exposed . Not to forget many immigrant workers who are working like slaves for pennies.
peace -
liquiddharma
No, it really, really isn't and doesn't. The word "slaves" isn't there, that is just inserted by translators as an interpretation of the arabic. The free minds translation is thusBrother freeminds translation is flawed and is done by keeping a specific purpose in mind as we will see, moreover to study and understand Quran please do not limit yourself to free-minds.
Free Minds 2431
And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and keep covered their private parts, and that they should not show-off their beauty except what is apparent, and let them place their covers over their chests. And let them not show-off their beauty except to their husbands, or their fathers, or fathers of their husbands, or their sons, or the sons of their husbands, or their brothers, or the sons of their brothers, or the sons of their sisters, or their children that come after them, or those who are still their dependants, or the male servants who are without need, or the child who has not yet understood the composition of women. And let them not move their hips in a manner that reveals what they are keeping hidden of their beauty. And repent to God all of you believers that you may succeed.Brother just read the translation with open mind, and is there any justification for the words used there.
Who are still their dependants?????Who might be? can you tell us? other than all the persons mentioned in the verse Who are dependents?
All human beings have an agenda. The only way you can be completely selfless is if God removes your soul from your body, because our physical body makes us inherently linked to this world and vulnerable to the temptations of Shaitan.
However, from my contact with the the free minds translators, I don't think they have an agenda that misleads them as to the true meaning of the passage. Which doesn't mean I agree with them about everything, I just don't think the cause of whatever errors they make is ideological bias.
As to the meaning of the passage - 'dependants' or 'right hands possess' or 'oaths possess'. Personally I think it means 'husband' - as in 236 and 7030 "guard your privates, except from your wives and your husbands". But people in medieval times wanted justification to rape slaves, so they twisted the meaning.
-
All human beings have an agenda. The only way you can be completely selfless is if God removes your soul from your body, because our physical body makes us inherently linked to this world and vulnerable to the temptations of Shaitan.
However, from my contact with the the free minds translators, I don't think they have an agenda that misleads them as to the true meaning of the passage. Which doesn't mean I agree with them about everything, I just don't think the cause of whatever errors they make is ideological bias.
agreed.
and of course there used to be legal slave trade at one time which thank God has finished, but people in some countries are made to work under some very harsh conditions stll - but that isn't same as slavery.
As to the meaning of the passage - 'dependants' or 'right hands possess' or 'oaths possess'. Personally I think it means 'husband' - as in 236 and 7030 "guard your privates, except from your wives and your husbands". But people in medieval times wanted justification to rape slaves, so they twisted the meaning.
with respects- i think you mean,
"except with their partners who comit to them by oath" or better still
"except with their partners who are married to them"
peace
-
Why not wives and husbands? It's obviously plural because the 'believers' who's spouces we are talking about are plural. "Whom your right hands/oaths possess" must be something different from 'wives' because of the language used to describe them in 425. So if it's not refering to 'wives' the next most logical thing is for it to be refering to husbands. Because wives and husbands go together, see?
-
Why not wives and husbands? It's obviously plural because the 'believers' who's spouces we are talking about are plural. "Whom your right hands/oaths possess" must be something different from 'wives' because of the language used to describe them in 425. So if it's not refering to 'wives' the next most logical thing is for it to be refering to husbands. Because wives and husbands go together, see?
Sorry i couldn't figure out what you meant, your referring to 425.
425 And whoever of you don?t have the means to marry the believing women who guard their chastity, then from those not guarding their chastity (or who commit by oath) of your girls/women the believing and Allah knows your faith and you are one from another then marry them with permission of their guardians and give them their bridal due in a fair manner????..
If you can?t earn the admiration of chaste ladies - to become willing contenders then go for those ready and willing??.just be careful ??.
i think.
or something.
Gods Blessings.
-
liquiddharma
All human beings have an agenda. The only way you can be completely selfless is if God removes your soul from your body, because our physical body makes us inherently linked to this world and vulnerable to the temptations of Shaitan.
Correct up to some extent. For example It is hard to know who is tempted by Shaitan? the sunni's killing Shia's or vice versa.
However, from my contact with the the free minds translators, I don't think they have an agenda that misleads them as to the true meaning of the passage. Which doesn't mean I agree with them about everything, I just don't think the cause of whatever errors they make is ideological bias.
their agenda is very clear they want Quran to be acceptable to westerners, offcourse with good intentions, but they are doing the same thing Rashad Khalifa did by removing two verses to arrive at something unique. However quran does not agree with this logic and warns Muhammad in an ayat.
liquiddharma
As to the meaning of the passage - 'dependants' or 'right hands possess' or 'oaths possess'. Personally I think it means 'husband' - as in 236 and 7030 "guard your privates, except from your wives and your husbands". But people in medieval times wanted justification to rape slaves, so they twisted the meaning
Replacing the word ?husband? with ?right hand possess? makes things funnier than by using the word ?their dependants?. Just try it.
-
liquiddharma
Correct up to some extent. For example It is hard to know who is tempted by Shaitan? the sunni's killing Shia's or vice versa.
Everyone, not just sunnis and shias, everyone. The quran says every prophet is tempted, but God nullifies their temptations.
their agenda is very clear they want Quran to be acceptable to westerners, offcourse with good intentions, but they are doing the same thing Rashad Khalifa did by removing two verses to arrive at something unique. However quran does not agree with this logic and warns Muhammad in an ayat.
I'm not too interested in Khalifa and his number games, but I think it is important not to just view the Quran through the eyes of medieval arabia, but instead to look for real logical, real principles of freedom justice, which permeate all the messages of all the prophets and everything else in creation.
liquiddharma
Replacing the word ?husband? with ?right hand possess? makes things funnier than by using the word ?their dependants?. Just try it.'Dependants' is pretty dodgy as it means being financially dependant on someone gives them the right to make you their f*** toy. I don't think the rich literally screwing the poor is divinely ordained. Husbands is much better as it equalises the relationship between men and women.
-
their agenda is very clear they want Quran to be acceptable to westerners,
Would it be Ok to want qur'aan be acceptable to easterners (arabia and asia, e.g)?
What about westerner muslims wanting quran to be acceptable to westerners?
What's the target population of the qur'aan anyway? Or are you just against easterners wanting qur'aan to be acceptable to westerners?Replacing the word husband with right hand possess makes things funnier than by using the word their dependants. Just try it.
How is it funny? Are MMA females only?
-
Salaam,
It uses twos, threes and fours because in the verse, God does not talk to one man only, but men in general.
Also, God says one is the best. Even though these are marriages between men and mothers of orphans, monogamy is still said 'the best' by God.
Regards,
Yuliana -
peace..
I believe Islam only allow one..
General Rule
One wife
"... only for you, excluding the believers..." (<a href="http//quran.com/33/50">3350</a>"..you will never be able to be equal between wives, even if you should strive.." (<a href="http//quran.com/4/129">4129</a>
"..do not approach unlawful sexual intercourse.." (<a href="http//quran.com/17/32">1732</a> (<a href="http//quran.com/24/3">243</a>
http//iconizer.net/files/IconSweets/orig/arrow_down.png
Exception
Requirement
"...fear that you will not deal justly with the orphan girls..."
(<a href="http//quran.com/4/3">43</a>
http//iconizer.net/files/IconSweets/orig/arrow_down.png
General Rule To Exception
The test
"..if you fear that you will not be just (to your wives)..."
(<a href="http//quran.com/4/3">43</a>
"fear" is the condition
if "fear", back to general rule, one wife.. (<a href="http//quran.com/33/50">3350</a>because Allah say it is unjust and this is against Islam
"..you will never be able to be equal between wives, even if you should strive.." (<a href="http//quran.com/4/129">4129</a>O Prophet, indeed We have made lawful to you your wives
to whom you have given their due compensation
and those your right hand possesses from what Allah has returned to you
and the daughters of your paternal uncles
and the daughters of your paternal aunts
and the daughters of your maternal uncles
and the daughters of your maternal aunts who emigrated with you
and a believing woman if she gives herself to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to marry heronly for you, excluding the believers.
We certainly know
what We have made obligatory upon them concerning their wives
and those their right hands possess,
in order that there will be upon you no discomfort.
And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful.
(<a href="http//quran.com/33/50">3350</a>http//corpus.quran.com/wordimage?id=54567 = wives http//corpus.quran.com/wordimage?id=54386 = wife
= more than 1 wife
= it doesn't matter whether Prophet Mohammad had 2, 3, 4 ... 11 or 100 wives,
what matter is the rule said more than 1 wife; ie. wives
= as long it is more than 1 wife, then the rule in (<a href="http//quran.com/33/50">3350</a> automatically apply;
ie. "... only for you, excluding the believers..."Therefore, the general rule is one wife, otherwise .. it is unlawful sexual intercourse (<a href="http//quran.com/17/32">1732</a> (<a href="http//quran.com/24/3">243</a>.
-
Peace muslims
Thanks for your explanation, but I still need to research.Actually your post reminds me with Edip Yuksel's explanation regarding word "yatama" in his Reformist Translation.
(QS 4127)
" They ask you for divine instruction concerning women. Say, "God instructs you regarding them, as has been recited for you in the book about the rights of orphans whose mothers you want to marry without giving them their legal rights. You shall observe the rights of powerless children, and your duty to treat orphans with equity. Whatever good you do, God has full knowledge of it."(Reformist Translation)
At the first I believe on him regarding this, but when I try to studied that red words, I got a problem.
In the Reformist Translation's appendix, Edip Yuksel claim if the word yatama in 4127 is male gender or masculine So thats why his translation of 4127 is different with the others. BUT.According to corpus quran the word yatama (ى is plurar.Yes this is true if yatama is plurar form of yatim.
The problem is according to me it's not a masculine instead feminime one.The proof is
-
In Arabic grammar rule, the jamak salem ( regular plurar) the word must end with nun, but this word doesn't.
-
If members in here understand wazan rules then by looking the shape of that word (singular) into (plurar), then the word yatama is irregular plurar (jamak takseer).
-
All the irregular plurar words included in feminime word category.
So according to me the word "yatama" is feminime word.
It's my own research and may still contains some faulthy.I will appreciate if members in here can help me
Peace
-
-
Salam Earthdom,
Sura (3350) is its Primary Rule and Sura (43) is just an Exception to the Primary Rule. It has no significance to the Primary Rule, and the main issue is not relating to an "orphan", but the word "wives" in Sura (3350); ie. a situation where marriage of "more than one" wife is made lawful only to the Prophet. You can understand from the structure of my post.
General Rule One wife - Sura (3350) (<a href="http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597268.msg335921#msg335921">Explanation</a>
Exception Sura (43) - Allow up to 4 wives for the benefits of an orphan.
On the condition, satisfy the following test, "fear test".General Rule to Exception "..if you fear that you will not be just (to your wives)..." (43)
If fear or worry, back to the general rule in (3350), one wife!
one wife, despite for the benefits of an orphan (4129)(43).Peace brother.
"...O Prophet, indeed We have made lawful to you your wives..." (3350)
wife = one wife
wives = more than one wife
(doesn't matter if 2, 3, 4 ... 11 or 100 wives, what matter is "more than one" -
Salaam muslims
Actually my post not answering your post, so that's why I said "your post reminds me with Edip Yuksel's explanation regarding word "yatama" in his Reformist Translation.".
Btw yes it's my fault for wrote that post in this thread, because it's off topic, btw I still in step in researching your "Exception".
Peace
-
Salaam muslims
Actually my post not answering your post, so that's why I said "your post reminds me with Edip Yuksel's explanation regarding word "yatama" in his Reformist Translation.".
Btw yes it's my fault for wrote that post in this thread, because it's off topic, btw I still in step in researching your "Exception".
Peace
Salam Earthdom,
Actually, the issue in my post and Edip Yuksel is different and that's what I've explained in my post. It is two separate and independent issues, the issue between "orphan" and "wives". It is about primary and subsidiary rules, i.e. legal exceptions. The Muslim world treated the "Exception" as the Primary Rule for marrying more than one wife, funny.
Peace brother.
-
The general trend in Islam is for men to have at least two wives, with the option of three or four wives as well. Being monogamous is the exception, in the case of a person whom it is feared that he cannot handle and be just to more than one wife as per instructions of the Pure Quran.
We Sunni Muslims are therefore encouraged to have multiple wives in following the example of the Prophet peace be upon him who had multiple wives.