women/ females/ orphans in Surah Nisa, 4:3
-
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.
-
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.
the tertiary ratio is the ratio at sexual maturity. world average 1.1 at birth, 1.05 between 15-65years.
-
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?Wiped out means that they are now dead or convered! If they accepted Islam, they'd surely now be pro Islam, rather than write from the point of view of the society which was destroyed by Muhammad & Co.
And thats' my point, Muslims being the winners, the other side being converted & killed, we can't get their point of view.
Btw, have you understood that demographics thingie Sarah? ???
Then I will try to explain this, however, if at your age you didn't know that women outlive men & most nations have more women, then its difficult to explain the biases of history to you.
-
Women outlive men in virtually every nation, however due to ill treatment, in your Bangladesh, men outlive women! D
South Asian bashing again. I am very much aware of the wrong things done in my country, and the few good things being done to overcome them. This comment of yours was entirely uncalled for, and only shows that you are a RACIST. There are plenty of other countries where men outlive women, the wiki article mentions Qatar.
I am done responding to you, since you clearly have no respect for people.
Most rational atheists I know are good people, and aren't racists, they most certainly wouldn't pick out my country of origin as a point to use in attacking me.
giveup
-
Why you don't you help us then, Fawzia?
Do you think we here approve all the injustice you're telling us about?
There were and there still are 'muslims' abusing the Quran and abusing women--thank you, we know that.
You know what? I'm very concerned about this matter too.
The Quran is abused so much that you should already begin to undrstand what's with all that terrible warnings in the Quran, if you would position such warnings against themselves--the abusers of the Quran.
So now some of us are here trying to find what is the true meaning of those verses which had been severely abused.
And would you help us against them instead of passing on to us your frustations--which we had enough ourselves??
Whose side do you think we are on? Their side? The women-abusing "muslims"? Say it.
Please consider your and our position again and please refrain from this discussion at this moment--unless you are trying to add any useful insight to the topic.
Thanks.