women/ females/ orphans in Surah Nisa, 4:3
-
Interesting points sarah. Glad I'm not the only one confused. If they are fatherless orphans, why can't they just stay in their own homes with their mothers who looks after them with money that has been left for them. If they don't have any money, then charity should be given to them. Are the mothers to be married as a kind of recompense for charity given perhaps?
-
Interesting points sarah. Glad I'm not the only one confused. If they are fatherless orphans, why can't they just stay in their own homes with their mothers who looks after them with money that has been left for them. If they don't have any money, then charity should be given to them. Are the mothers to be married as a kind of recompense for charity given perhaps?
Perhaps, and the question is, who is marrying them? Are they men who are already married, and are already burdened with their first families, or are they younger, single men?
-
Peace,
Very interesting topic, this verse need clarification indeed. Some translations are heavily prejudiced on this, adding "-girls" after the word "orphan"
Muhsin Khan And if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphan-girls,
Sahih International And if you fear that you will not deal justly with the orphan girls,While others have been more true to the letter
Pickthall And if ye fear that ye will not deal fairly by the orphans,
Yusuf Ali If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans,
Shakir And if you fear that you cannot act equitably towards orphans,
Dr. Ghali And, in case you fear that you will not act equitably towards the orphans,However, they're not necessarily free from other errors in the other verse as you pointed out, sarah_bd_gemini.
Now, how should i begin to join this discussion.. confused
I'm using Yusuf Ali translation here, without the parentheses
41 O mankind! reverence your Guardian-Lord,
who created you from a single person, created, of like nature, His mate,
and from them twain scattered countless men and women;-
reverence Allah, through whom ye demand your mutual, and the wombs
for Allah ever watches over you.42 To orphans restore their property, nor substitute worthless things for good ones;
and devour not their substance with your own. For this is indeed a great sin.43 If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (q-s-T) with the orphans,
(then) Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four;
but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly ("a-d-l),
then only one, or that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice.God 'scattered' mankind from the wombs of women--of which some are orphaned (either fatherless or both fatherless and motherless)
We have responsibilities over the orphans (through the Book it is explicit that the orphans are the collective responsibility of the believers)
some orphans inherited wealth from their parents (father), and it is our obligation to keep it safe for them until they're grown up
some orphans are left without wealth or even parents to support their growth, and it is our obligation to feed them and to raise themTherefore, the third verse, in my opinion, should also be seen from this point of view (responsibility over the orphans)
So, what is justice towards the orphan?
From the view of an adult man
Is it "just" to leave them grow up without father/parents, while his own children grow up with father/parents?
Is it "just" enough to only send them food and money?Some men might see this as unjust, and therefore God give those men a chance to bring some of the orphans to their home.
As for fatherless but mothered-orphans, this means marrying their mother(s) (is it sensible to separate the children from their mother?)However, then the issue would be,
Is it "just/fair" for the women, if her husband would not be able to dedicate his husband-ship (;D sounds funny) to her only?note This is my early observation. I haven't observed the difference between the roots q-s-T and "a-d-l, which might give us a better insight on the true meaning. I also haven't observed the phrase "ma malakat aymanukum" properly, so i will hold my comments on it.
As for "who" the adult man is, a "married man" or a "single man", i think the verse could be applied to any of the two.
Thus from my view, this Sura is started with a strong concern over the orphans, which precedes concern over the marriage itself (and the women).
Does it make sense to you? Children first, then the women (from the viewpoint of men). With this viewpoint, let's see the next verses, where we will see what is God's concern over the women, and then over the orphans again when they reach maturity (which is obviously not the same age for everyone D, hence the test).44 And give the women their dower as a free gift; but if they, of their own good pleasure, remit any part of it to you, Take it and enjoy it with right good cheer.
45 To those weak of understanding Make not over your property, which Allah hath made a means of support for you, but feed and clothe them therewith, and speak to them words of kindness and justice.
46 Make trial of orphans until they reach the age of marriage; if then ye find sound judgment in them, release their property to them; but consume it not wastefully, nor in haste against their growing up. If the guardian is well-off, Let him claim no remuneration, but if he is poor, let him have for himself what is just and reasonable. When ye release their property to them, take witnesses in their presence But all-sufficient is Allah in taking account.
Oh, and there is God's concern over the men (middle part of 46).
And, surprise to me, it is then related to the oft-questioned shares about inheritance. No, we have not yet come to the men's bigger share--but so far the responsibilities of the previous verses seems to be directed to men. CMIIW.
47 For men is a share of what the parents and close relatives leave, and for women is a share of what the parents and close relatives leave, be it little or much - an obligatory share.
note i switched to Sahih International for this verse, which i think is most literal here. The expression "For men" ("li Alrijaali" started the verse. Back to Yusuf Ali's for the next verse.
48 But if at the time of division, other relatives, or orphans or poor, are present, feed them out of the (property), and speak to them words of kindness and justice.
note This is what i'm seeking for! Regarding justification/obligation for the wealthier ones to pass on their share to the needier ones at the inheritance process! Not only that, but there is strong warning against those who would not take heed to God's command on 48.
49 Let those have the same fear in their minds as they would have for their own
if they had left a helpless family behind Let them fear Allah, and speak words of appropriate.410 Those who unjustly eat up the property of orphans, eat up a Fire into their own bodies They will soon be enduring a Blazing Fire!
And then what would you expect for the next verses? Verses 411-12 is about the details of inheritance itself, the exact verses so often questioned from some of those concerned about justice regarding inheritance. Obviously we have often read those verses in exclusion without paying attention to the beginning of the Sura. I'm afraid that is the reason why the 411-12 is often abused. Those who abuse couldn't understand the warnings in 49-10, simply because they didn't take time to observe the preceding verses 41-8 properly. Glorious God.
So, it is God's concern over the children (orphans) first, then women, then men. Among those, the orphans and the poor ones of the family are explicitly prioritized by God.
Right, this is news to me--or at least this is my preliminary observation on the beginning of Sura AlnisaA'.
As always, 1736 ...
Peace,
P.S., i think we should ask our dear Fawzia to read this. It is one of the matters she really concerned about, it seems.
-
I know this will seem weird, but supposing that there were motherless orphans, and men were to marry them, were they supposed to marry younger, single men? Since fewer single, previously unmarried women would be available thanks to the female infanticide at that time and the fact that there is a natural 105100 ratio (approx) at the tertiary level, without female foeticide/infanticide, indicating an excess of 5 adult males for every 100 females of the same age?
Is the historical account of Muhammad's marriage to Khadijah, a widow 15 years older than him, supposed to set a precedent?
It's just something I have been thinking about, the historical context, so please correct me if I am wrong about some historical fact. But if this is true, it definitely paints a very different picture...
Where are you getting Muhammad's marriage to Khadija who's older than him from Sarah, if you claim to be a Quranist? ???
Where is the 15 year age difference mentioned in the Quran please?
AND, since you're now dealing with issues outside of the Quran, namely 15 year age difference, Muhammad married other of women from the hadiths who were not war widows, even from the Quran we see he married his adopted son's wife, not to mention that he married a little girl named Ayesha as well, as we see in hadiths.
Most of his followers had multiple wives.
Many scholars speculate that other than the Tamim tribe, which practiced selective female infanticide, other tribes never selectively targetted only their female children, but either didn't practice infanticide, or killed both male & female babies at times.
Thats' why the Quran also once mentions that "women who don't kill their children," & in the hadiths, when Muhammad tells Hind to promise that she won't kill her children, she retaliates, "Have you left us any children whom you did not kill in battle?"
I'm just bringing all these up as you can't simply pick & choose from hadiths Sarah.
You can't simply pick Muhammad being 15 years younger than Khadija, but ignore the sordid stuff like little Ayesha.
Either you accept all hadiths, or you reject all, or you're simply cherry picking to salvage your faith.
Of course, if we go by hadiths, the position of women went down in many ways due to Islam. Compare pre Islamic Khadija with post Islamic Ayesha. This is also the opinion of scholars like Fatima Mernissi.
-
43 If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (q-s-T) with the orphans,
(then) Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four;
but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly ("a-d-l),
then only one, or that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice.I remember reading in that other thread, that the preposition implied is AND and not OR in the third line of the Yusuf Ali one you posted.
Here's another by Ahmed and Samira.43 And if you feared that you not be just/equitable in the orphans , so marry what (was) allowed/permitted for you from the women two twos/twos, and threes, and fours, so if you feared that you not be just/equitable, so (marry) one or what your rights owned/possessed, that (is) nearer that you not side away from justice .
Samia also said something on that thread about the Arabic word as meaning either 'marry' or ' marry off'
It would make sense, I suppose, to marry off those women in twos, threes, and fours, to different men, like in a single ceremony?
A lot was discussed on that thread, but it can be hard to wade through all the digressions to get to a step by step breakdown of each verse.
As for your point about the orphan children, who are better able to provide? Married men who already have children and wives and already have the burden of maintaining a household, or unattached males?
The historical situation would seem to suggest an excess of young men, and I think this is important (if true) especially since that leads to a question of whether or not polygyny is allowed, or whether the verse is merely referring to marrying off the widows with children, with no reference to polygyny?
-
Where are you getting Muhammad's marriage to Khadija who's older than him from Sarah, if you claim to be a Quranist? ???
Where is the 15 year age difference mentioned in the Quran please?
AND, since you're now dealing with issues outside of the Quran, namely 15 year age difference, Muhammad married other of women from the hadiths who were not war widows, even from the Quran we see he married his adopted son's wife, not to mention that he married a little girl named Ayesha as well, as we see in hadiths.
Unfair accusation again. I made it clear in that post that I don't know much about the history of that place, and yes, I don't know what is historical and what is fiction, and that I would like to be corrected if I am wrong. You accused me of being a hadithi, (ad hominem attack, tsk tsk laugh)
I was just putting out ideas, I never said that I was right.
At any rate, if you read my posts, I am concerned about the sex ratio at that time, because it might have some bearing to our understanding of 43.
Most people who claim it supports polygyny say that there were few men, and an excess of women, so it made sense. If the reverse were true, this would make little sense practically, even in backward 7th century Arabia.
-
Unfair accusation again. I made it clear in that post that I don't know much about the history of that place, and yes, I don't know what is historical and what is fiction, and that I would like to be corrected if I am wrong. You accused me of being a hadithi, (ad hominem attack, tsk tsk laugh
I was just putting out ideas, I never said that I was right.
At any rate, if you read my posts, I am concerned about the sex ratio at that time, because it might have some bearing to our understanding of 43.
Most people who claim it supports polygyny say that there were few men, and an excess of women, so it made sense. If the reverse were true, this would make little sense practically, even in backward 7th century Arabia.
Sarah, its not your or my fault that we don't know enough about the history of that place, no body can know very much unless we're capable of travelling backwards in a time machine to check, for two very good reasons
-
Arabia wasn't a very advanced place of the world, it didn't have that many literate people, it didn't influence many nations before Islam, so people systematically writing down its history would be few & far between.
-
Also, we must remember that Islam put an absolute & abrupt end to the civilization which existed before, Islam inaugerated a whole new civilization, the time before Islam was blackened as a time of ignorance or "jahiliyyah". Thus, every practice & attitude would naturally be spoken of in a derogatory manner, Islamic attitudes would be exalted, pre Islamic behavior tarnished.
Have you heard of the phrase, "History is written by the winners,,"? Well, the winners were Muslims, pre Islamic Arabs being losers, would have no opportunity of telling their side of the story.
So I, like many other historians, take whatever they say about pre Islamic times, with a pinch of salt.
This is a fantastic article, by an ex Muslim, about the situation of women under Islam & before Islam, its very well researched, you might like to read it. It too says,that both aby girls & boys were killed.
http//www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=3987.msg102399#msg102399
Practically, all information we can get about the era are from hadiths, the Sira etc, all of which will probably have an Islamic twist, being written by Muslims after Islam.
Its difficult to get a neutral, objective historian of the times.
-
-
I remember reading in that other thread, that the preposition implied is AND and not OR in the third line of the Yusuf Ali one you posted.
Here's another by Ahmed and Samira.Headshot! You're right on that, i must have missed reading the "wa"s properly.
43 And if you feared that you not be just/equitable in the orphans , so marry what (was) allowed/permitted for you from the women two twos/twos, and threes, and fours, so if you feared that you not be just/equitable, so (marry) one or what your rights owned/possessed, that (is) nearer that you not side away from justice .
Samia also said something on that thread about the Arabic word as meaning either 'marry' or ' marry off'
It would make sense, I suppose, to marry off those women in twos, threes, and fours, to different men, like in a single ceremony?
Yes that would make sense to me too (not necessarily in a single event though), especially as 'kum' (plural) is used when it is said '...what (was) allowed/permitted for you from the women'.
A lot was discussed on that thread, but it can be hard to wade through all the digressions to get to a step by step breakdown of each verse.
As for your point about the orphan children, who are better able to provide? Married men who already have children and wives and already have the burden of maintaining a household, or unattached males?
I think the context is already clear from the first condition
43 If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (q-s-T) with the orphans,
So, who would fear such thing? The men who are better able to provide or the opposite? Maybe it doesn't have to be categoried into married or unmarried, but rather as you said yourself, "the ones who are better able to provide"? Those who have the excess of wealth and capacity/capability to take father's responsibility over (some of) the orphans? Thus he feared injustice if he didn't take the chance of which he is capable of fulfilling?
This makes this verse heavy on itself, and should not be taken lightly. As we know, one man (in polygamy) can never be fully just to all of their wives.
What d'you say?
Peace
-
This is a fantastic book by Muslim feminist Fatima Mernissi, which also shows women's great position pre Islam.
http//books.google.co.in/books?id=4F-xf-R9vNEC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=fatima+mernissi+hadramaut&source=bl&ots=peLfFvvwic&sig=iM7d8wlUKt5bywInkwoJl--6iwI&hl=en&ei=q2A6Ss7RDdCMkAX1i-iYDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2
Not only that, it speaks of the various rebellions of women against Islam-which were brutally suppressed by Muslims, including by a group of Hadramaut women rebels & another by a Prophetess called Sajah, imagine before Islam, a woman like Sajah, could even declare herself a Prophetess!
Hadramaut today is famous as the home of bin Laden btw! Women like Sajah are quite unthinkable in Saudi today!
All the information about female infanticide are stuff we get from Muslim sources, as we know, Islam having overthrown the previous order & determined to tarnish its image, would be keen to show only the bad, sometimes even exaggerate or invent bad!
We don't see any shortage of women in Arabia, rather we see Muhammad & his followers all indulging in polygamy.
Another very important think to rememer in sex ratios is that-women outnumber men in many nations in modernity only as improvements have been made in maternal mortality, before these improvements in maternal mortality, many women would also die in childbirth in their prime, so there wouldn't be more women than men(even nowadays, only old women outnumber old men & women outnumber men only by living longer), if women died young in childbirth, even in youth, there'd be more men.
We see no such shortage of women in Arabia.
Some claims might simply be exaggerated Islamic propaganda, like Western propaganda today.
-
So, who would fear such thing? The men who are better able to provide or the opposite? Maybe it doesn't have to be categoried into married or unmarried, but rather as you said yourself, "the ones who are better able to provide"? Those who have the excess of wealth and capacity/capability to take father's responsibility over (some of) the orphans? Thus he feared injustice if he didn't take the chance of which he is capable of fulfilling?
This makes this verse heavy on itself, and should not be taken lightly. As we know, one man (in polygamy) can never be fully just to all of their wives.
What d'you say?
Peace
I don't know about that. In tribal societies, even though you have strict power hierarchies, I am not sure if there is a similar concentration of wealth in the hands of a few. That seems to be more likely in settled communities, rather than nomadic ones, and more likely in agragarian communities, than in a desert one.
-
That's true for any time.
Yes, but its especially difficult given that the pre Islamic order was completely overthrown in a single generation!
If there are two groups alive, both can tell us their side of the story.
When we accuse the media of bias, in say the Israel Palestine conflict, at least both the Israelis & Palestinians are existing to tell their story.
Islam completely destroyed, utterly annihilated the pre Islamic society. The defeated people didn't simply get defeated, they ceased to exist.
No pre Islamic pagan existed to tell his or her side of the events! Thats' the difference.
-
Another very important think to rememer in sex ratios is that-women outnumber men in many nations in modernity only as improvements have been made in maternal mortality, before these improvements in maternal mortality, many women would also die in childbirth in their prime, so there wouldn't be more women than men(even nowadays, only old women outnumber old men & women outnumber men only by living longer), if women died young in childbirth, even in youth, there'd be more men.
We see no such shortage of women in Arabia.
Some claims might simply be exaggerated Islamic propaganda, like Western propaganda today.
this is hilarious, Fawzia. Haven't you even read the wiki article? men still outnumber women in each and every country.
Improvements in neonatal care have helped male infants more than female ones, since male infants were, formerly, most likely to die of complications. This is why the ratio falls from the primary(conception) to the secondary(birth) to the tertiary(maturity) levels at a less steep rate. But it is always greater than 1. This is for the present.
In the past, you had this abhorrent discrimination against female children from the time they were born, so fewer survived to maturity than they would have now. Your points about maternal mortality hold true.
That suggests that there wasn't a shortage of men, but possibly of women, with an excess of males at each and every time in history, even if for different reasons.
-
Yes, but its especially difficult given that the pre Islamic order was completely overthrown in a single generation!
If there are two groups alive, both can tell us their side of the story.
When we accuse the media of bias, in say the Israel Palestine conflict, at least both the Israelis & Palestinians are existing to tell their story.
Islam completely destroyed, utterly annihilated the pre Islamic society. The defeated people didn't simply get defeated, they ceased to exist.
No pre Islamic pagan existed to tell his or her side of the events! Thats' the difference.
evidence?
-
evidence?
Evedence? Ridiculous! How many pre Islamic pagans of Saudi Arabia or Yemen do you know? How many such pagans, worshipping allat, al Uzza, al Manat do you know existed from the 10th, 11th etc centuries, after Islam please?
As the Quran & if you're willing to accept hadiths, hadiths say,they existed before Islam. Are they existing in KSA or Yemen today?
-
this is hilarious, Fawzia. Haven't you even read the wiki article? men still outnumber women in each and every country.
Improvements in neonatal care have helped male infants more than female ones, since male infants were, formerly, most likely to die of complications. This is why the ratio falls from the primary(conception) to the secondary(birth) to the tertiary(maturity) levels at a less steep rate. But it is always greater than 1. This is for the present.
In the past, you had this abhorrent discrimination against female children from the time they were born, so fewer survived to maturity than they would have now. Your points about maternal mortality hold true.
That suggests that there wasn't a shortage of men, but possibly of women, with an excess of males at each and every time in history, even if for different reasons.
Really Sarah!
Its you who are hilarious!
There are more women than men in USA, UK, all Europe(except Albania & Turkey's) etc country's total population.
There are 96 men per 100 women in Germany etc.
Please google demographics of USA, UK etc & see.
There are 105 boys per 100 girls at birth, although naturally it varies between 102-107.
ALL places don't & never did discriminate against girls.
Only some societies do & did.
After Roman times, for eg, Europe didn't practice selective female infanticide. Nor does much of the world.
Women are more than men in a total population as they live 5-10 years more than men on avarage, yes baby boys do die more than girls-however in developed nations, that still doesn't bridge the gap in youth.
-
Read the demographics of USA Sarah, it might clear your mind, its also from Wikipedia.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
I will give you more demographics shortly.
The Wikipedia article was speaking of sex ratios at birth, not sex ratios in the total population.
Women outlive men in virtually every nation, however due to ill treatment, in your Bangladesh, men outlive women! D
Seriously Sarah! Aren't you a University student?
-
Evedence? Ridiculous! How many pre Islamic pagans of Saudi Arabia or Yemen do you know? How many such pagans, worshipping allat, al Uzza, al Manat do you know existed from the 10th, 11th etc centuries, after Islam please?
As the Quran & if you're willing to accept hadiths, hadiths say,they existed before Islam. Are they existing in KSA or Yemen today?
uh? they are long dead? if they lived in the 10th and 11th century? laugh
ok, in all seriousness, it's not like they were wiped out. They might have converted or migrated as far as I know. it's not like paganism was entrenched in their society. how many Africans and South Americans are there who only speak French and Spanish, and have lost their native tongues? -
Hi Sarah!
These are the demographics of some nations, specially for you
First my birthplace Iran, then Turkey, then Russia, then Norway. We can see that in non Muslim Russia & Norway, there are more women than men in the total population, however, in Muslim Iran & Turkey, there are more men than women, because as women aren't treated well enough, they can't outlive & outnumber men.http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Iran
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Turkey
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Norway
Although at birth men are more, that gap reduces through life, due to excess male mortality due to rash behavior, suicides, and women's natural better health.
Although at birth there are a few less female children, as women are healthier, if not ill treated, they can & do outliv men, leading to a sex ratio favoring women in the total population.