women/ females/ orphans in Surah Nisa, 4:3
-
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/004.%20An%20Nisa/temp%2014%20%204.03d.gif
therefore/in such circumstances the best option for you people/the believing society is to arrange the marriage/nikah from the women in twos and threes and fours.my question is, who are the men these women are marrying? Are they single men, or already married men? This has an immediate impact on the legitimacy of polygamy
-
my question is, who are the men these women are marrying? Are they single men, or already married men? This has an immediate impact on the legitimacy of polygamy
All men are included, a "virgin" man, a married man, an earlier married man but now without a wife. Legitimacy is only in observing the conditions laid down for the permission/solution given. "Polygamy" in the perception of enjoying "variety" is nowhere permitted or exists in Qur'aan.
-
Legitimacy is only in observing the conditions laid down for the permission/solution given.
I have for some time realized the 'algorithmic' nature of some verses of the Quran.
It is called conditional statement in programming, where the statement will not be executed unless the condition occurs (i.e., become "true".
If ...
then ...in Arabic, the equivalence would be
in ...
fa ...(this is not always the case.)
The case with Alnisaa', imo, is that the verses in question (43 and inheritance in 411-12) are often evaluated in exclusion, apart from the context--especially the preceding verses! And to make things worse, some poor translations changed the original condition (and also its statement) into another entirely different thing--false polygamy.
I just had an idea some moments ago, that this Sura deserves special attention from the public, with so many issues related to this sura.
Orphans, women, inheritance, adultery, ...
What about we develop a website dedicated to explaining the Sura, visually?
-
All men are included, a "virgin" man, a married man, an earlier married man but now without a wife. Legitimacy is only in observing the conditions laid down for the permission/solution given. "Polygamy" in the perception of enjoying "variety" is nowhere permitted or exists in Qur'aan.
Is there any other verse in the Quran, with the exception of 43 that could possibly be interpreted as allowing a second marriage to an already married man? The one about not being married to two sisters refers to a past event, not a new marriage after the revelation of the Quran.
If there isn't, that would suggest that polygamy was never allowed for the believing man.
-
What about we develop a website dedicated to explaining the Sura, visually?
a lot of people would benefit from that.
Wherever there is a need to let people see the "visuals", Qur'aan narrates that in such a manner that the reader could also see/visualize the incident/episode/incident.
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/006.%20Al%20Anaam/temp%2002%206.104b.gif
You, the Messenger pronounce, "Indeed to you people has been brought from your Sustainer Lord the "Visualizer"http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/006.%20Al%20Anaam/temp%2002%206.104e.gif
Therefore whoever focused/visualized then it is indeed for his own person.
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/006.%20Al%20Anaam/temp%2002%206.104f.gif
And whoever remained blind to it then the effect is upon that self.
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/006.%20Al%20Anaam/temp%2002%206.104d.gif
And I am not upon you people, certainly, the Guard/onlooker .http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/006.%20Al%20Anaam/6.105a.gif
And this is how We rotate/centrifuge the Aa'ya'at so that people may say, " you threshed, examined/explained exhaustively", and so that We may make it distinct/apparent/manifest from all angles for the people to comprehensively know/understand it.http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/006.%20Al%20Anaam/006.%20Al%20Anaam%20B.htm
-
Is there any other verse in the Quran, with the exception of 43 that could possibly be interpreted as allowing a second marriage to an already married man? The one about not being married to two sisters refers to a past event, not a new marriage after the revelation of the Quran.
If there isn't, that would suggest that polygamy was never allowed for the believing man.
This is declaring the prohibition that you might gather two sisters in your marriage fold, NOT second marriage, and is clarified that this injunction is not to be applied retrospectively but prospectively. An act done in the past cannot be undone, it had to be overlooked to avoid legal complications/problems for people.
For another quote please refer to 4129.
-
as in you can't marry a woman's sister after divorcing her?
you can marry with your ex wife's sister, and incase you divorce your ex wife's sister too, then you can remarry your first ex wife the sister of your latest ex wife.
-
you can marry with your ex wife's sister, and incase you divorce your ex wife's sister too, then you can remarry your first ex wife the sister of your latest ex wife.
I know that's technical, but do you have any example of this? That would be "plin-plan" in my language--a term for an undecided man (you know, sort of like 'ping-pong'
OK. no one have to answer this one.
offtopic
Peace ;D
-
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.
Hardly. Just look at 'undivided India.' Almost every 'Muslim person in present day Bangladesh or India has Hindu ancestors. They weren't wiped out, they converted. A lot of people convert because it is convenient. For instance, there are many people in Bangladesh and in India who converted to Christianity to benefit from missionary organisations and in order to overcome low/untouchable caste restrictions placed on them.
Your argument doesn't really hold. You have no proof that they were killed
-
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?
What proof do you have that they were 'annihilated' as opposed to conversion?
-
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.
This isn't about present day society. I am asking about demographics in 7th century Arabia. So, I think we can reasonably imagine the reverse. i.e. women are less healthy, they suffer ill treatment, and maybe they are outlived by men. Wouldn't that lead to a sex ratio favouring men in the total population, even without taking into consideration female infanticide?
-
Women outlive men in virtually every nation, however due to ill treatment, in your Bangladesh, men outlive women!
Seriously Sarah! Aren't you a University student?Well, if you weren't making a personal attack, you wouldn't have brought up Bangladesh when it doesn't come at the top of some list concerning ill treatment, harassment, of women. You picked out Bangladesh only because it happens to be the country I come from.
Your second statement is also a personal attack
-
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.
I guess? It is well known that in the past (Mughal times) a lot of Hindus in Bangladesh converted to Islam. A lot of lower caste Hindus were also coerced into converting to Christianity by missionaries in exchange for food, schooling and other forms of help. I am quite sure these people are pro-'Muslim' and pro-'Christian' respectively. Why shouldn't the same apply?
People aren't too concerned with the religion of their ancestors, but tend to believe in the religion they were born and brought up with.
Why does it matter what the point of view of their ancestors was?
-
So in most nations, upto old age, men outnumber women. However, as women outlive men in most nations, in the total population of many nations, there're indeed more women.
I think we are more concerned not with the overall ratio, but the ratio at and around the 'marriageable age' or when the woman might have children.
-
I know I know, first you didn't understand demographics, then you will ridicule me & then give up.
All I spoke of were facts.
I would like Muslims to be more like nations like Sweden or Norway, which promote women's rights,NOT from the Bible, but from modern ethics.
Well obviously Muslim countries should be more like Sweden or Norway, where women's, LGBT, human rights are better protected. I don't disagree with you on that. Why would I?
I just disagree that women's rights, and what the Quran says, are contradictory.
Just think of the book and what it says in the light of the time it was first applied, i.e. 7th century Arabia.