Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Users
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Free Minds Forum Icon
  1. Home
  2. General Issues / Questions
  3. Questions/Comments on the Quran
  4. A refutation to Bro Yaseen - Polygamy is allowed in 4 23

A refutation to Bro Yaseen - Polygamy is allowed in 4 23

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Questions/Comments on the Quran
202 Posts 20 Posters 13.1k Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • S Offline
    S Offline
    sarah2505
    wrote on last edited by
    #146

    Salaam Tanveer

    The addressee in this verse is the generic male, not males and females, as you hint.. The underlined sentence is wrongly translated that is why you assumed that "women" were addressed in the same verse as men. It should be do not marry off (your women) to males...(wa la tunki7hu al mushrikeen), in opposition to (wa la tanki7u almushrikaat)

    Do you remember when I asked you where you got this "marry off" from?

    The usage of "marry off" in Arabic is the opposite of the way it is used in English. The pattern of the verb "marry off" is different from the one which means "to marry" when in the imperfect (yanki7 form 1 to marry; yunki7 form 4to marry off); but the pattern does not change in the imperative (anki7hu, for both patterns). But since we understand the rules that determine when to use eithern pattern, we should understand that anki7u if follwed by female it means marry; if followed by male it means marry off.

    Really? How does this work?

    I know it is a really old thread (It's also rather confusing for me since so many Arabic words are used), but could you please explain this? Is it a typical form of usage?

    Secondly, in both cases, what does 'marry off' really mean in context. I assumed that it meant a public ceremony and a legal contract. Is it not?

    I did read through all the posts on this thread, but it's fairly confusing.

    Thirdly, I have to wonder, as to what happens in the cases when you are talking about a young girl orphan (17-19 years old, let's suppose), who can be considered to be 'dependent' in the sense that she can't work for herself, but she can support herself with her inheritance. Let's also suppose that she doesn't have a fixed legal guardian, does the question of 'dependent/ independent' come into play here? Does it even apply?

    Or is this just not relevant? ???

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • S Offline
      S Offline
      sarah2505
      wrote on last edited by
      #147

      I also have one more question, where in the verse 43, does it say "Mothers' of the orphans? I have been through the thread, but I have not seen a word by word breakdown of the Arabic. Could someone please provide it? Do you know of any good websites that have word by word translations?

      The translation by Ahmed and Samira goes as follows

      3 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 .

      I don't see how the word women becomes mothers in the free-minds translation.

      It seems to me that in the Arabic language, there is a word that means 'orphan' when the child is fatherless. what if the child has lost both parents, or is just motherless? Are there different words for that?

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • M Offline
        M Offline
        Mazhar
        wrote on last edited by
        #148

        I also have one more question, where in the verse 43, does it say "Mothers' of the orphans? I have been through the thread, but I have not seen a word by word breakdown of the Arabic. Could someone please provide it? Do you know of any good websites that have word by word translations?

        http//quran.uk.net/Corpus.aspx

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • S Offline
          S Offline
          sarah2505
          wrote on last edited by
          #149

          http//quran.uk.net/Corpus.aspx

          Thank you Mazhar, it's a very easy to use site, and the Arabic print is easy to read too.
          )

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • W Offline
            W Offline
            warner
            wrote on last edited by
            #150

            Dear Sarah

            Good questions. An orphan has to be a person without both mother and father. In the Quran the legal implications with regard to orphans is always connected to their property and the guardian. If the mother is living why should anyone worry about a guardian for the fartherless child. Is not the mother fit to be a guardian for the childs property that a third person needed to be appointed.

            I believe 4127 is revealed to further explain 43. As you correctly said there is no "mother" anywhere. This has to be orphan girls even if some of us like it or not.

            The Quran is giving men a precaution in the case of marrying an orphan girl since they are more vulnerable with regard to their property than a girl with a mother or father living.

            This is my opinion...let me know what you think.

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • S Offline
              S Offline
              sarah2505
              wrote on last edited by
              #151

              The Quran is giving men a precaution in the case of marrying an orphan girl since they are more vulnerable with regard to their property than a girl with a mother or father living.

              This is my opinion...let me know what you think.

              I put most of it on this thread.

              http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599421.0

              My main question is. Are those men already married (i.e. allowing polygamy) or is the injunction 'twos, threes, and fours' applied to the guardians. Hence the men are single.

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • W Offline
                W Offline
                warner
                wrote on last edited by
                #152

                Can there be mother of the orphan if yatama means parentless ?

                If marrying a yatama may imply marrying an underage girl doe not yatama- woman or woman-yatama i.e. a female orphan who has come to marriageable age convey the meaning which the verse tries to communicate ?

                Why do you think it refers to guardians ?

                It is two at the same time, three at the same time and four at the same time or meanings in these lines. If twos, threes and fours imply this then there is no problem.

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • S Offline
                  S Offline
                  sarah2505
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #153

                  Can there be mother of the orphan if yatama means parentless ?

                  If marrying a yatama may imply marrying an underage girl doe not yatama- woman or woman-yatama i.e. a female orphan who has come to marriageable age convey the meaning which the verse tries to communicate ?

                  Why do you think it refers to guardians ?

                  It is two at the same time, three at the same time and four at the same time or meanings in these lines. If twos, threes and fours imply this then there is no problem.

                  I am actually most interested in knowing if this verse supports polygamy at all.

                  The verse you quoted at the beginning of your thread (the other one) seems to imply polygamy before the revelation, and not after. Who are being addressed in it?

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • W Offline
                    W Offline
                    warner
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #154

                    Salam Sara

                    Which verse are you referring to when you say "verse supports polygamy at all" ?

                    "polygamy before the revelation" did you mean 423 ?

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • S Offline
                      S Offline
                      sarah2505
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #155

                      Salam Sara

                      Which verse are you referring to when you say "verse supports polygamy at all" ?

                      "polygamy before the revelation" did you mean 423 ?

                      Yes, I was referring to 423.

                      43 doesn't seem to indicate polygamy at all.

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • W Offline
                        W Offline
                        warner
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #156

                        If I understood you right then the following categories in 423 starting from "Your mothers, daughters, sisters; father's sisters"....to......"wives of your sons proceeding from your loins;" also should be included for the same exception before the revelation.

                        I see 43 as allowing polygamy, can you explain why not ?

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • S Offline
                          S Offline
                          sarah2505
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #157

                          I think it might be easier for me to explain if you can tell me what part of 43 implies that the men the orphan women are married off are already married themselves

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • W Offline
                            W Offline
                            warner
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #158

                            I think it might be easier for me to explain if you can tell me what part of 43 implies that the men the orphan women are married off are already married themselves

                            We probably see this verse in totally different ways. The men does not have to be already married here ( and it does not seem to be a command only for men already married or unmarried but a general command to all men) and sets the upper limit for the number of wives a person can have at a given time.

                            And I don't see 43 talking about orphan women being married off.

                            I know there was much discussion on this but are you certain that fankihu means " marry off" ?

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • S Offline
                              S Offline
                              sarah2505
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #159

                              if it is setting an upper limit, then why does the word word translation mean 'twos AND threes AND fours'
                              instead of 'twos OR threes OR fours'?

                              Secondly, like I discussed in the other thread, if there (probably) was an excess of men over women even after losses due to war, then how can polygamy come about? Unless some men are left single?

                              It seems that a lot of traditional muslims seem to believe that polygamy was common in Arabia since there were more women than men, due to losses in wars, but that seems unlikely.

                              as for fankihu, does it only mean 'marry', or can it mean 'marry off'?

                              One of Samia's post seems to suggest that it depends on context, and as to whether the person referred to is a man or a woman.

                              1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • S Offline
                                S Offline
                                sarah2505
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #160

                                The men does not have to be already married here ( and it does not seem to be a command only for men already married or unmarried but a general command to all men)

                                Can it not be said that it's a general command to all men, and that, from Surah 24, the single should marry, hence, the general command only applies to SINGLE men?

                                (all capitalisation is for emphasis)

                                1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • U Offline
                                  U Offline
                                  unknownuser
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #161

                                  Can it not be said that it's a general command to all men, and that, from Surah 24, the single should marry, hence, the general command only applies to SINGLE men?

                                  (all capitalisation is for emphasis)

                                  if you are referring to 2432, that verse encourages Muslim men to marry the widows in the society

                                  http//www.submission.org/efarsi/arabic/Surat24_files/24_32.gif
                                  And arrange marriages for widows from among you, and for your male slaves and female slaves who are fit for marriage. If they be poor, Allah will grant them means out of HIS bounty; and Allah is Bountiful, All-Knowing.

                                  1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • S Offline
                                    S Offline
                                    sarah2505
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #162

                                    We probably see this verse in totally different ways. The men does not have to be already married here ( and it does not seem to be a command only for men already married or unmarried but a general command to all men) and sets the upper limit for the number of wives a person can have at a given time.

                                    And I don't see 43 talking about orphan women being married off.

                                    I know there was much discussion on this but are you certain that fankihu means " marry off" ?

                                    http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597268.msg181629#msg181629

                                    1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • S Offline
                                      S Offline
                                      sarah2505
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #163

                                      if you are referring to 2432, that verse encourages Muslim men to marry the widows in the society

                                      http//www.submission.org/efarsi/arabic/Surat24_files/24_32.gif
                                      And arrange marriages for widows from among you, and for your male slaves and female slaves who are fit for marriage. If they be poor, Allah will grant them means out of HIS bounty; and Allah is Bountiful, All-Knowing.

                                      question is, are these men either single or married, or are those men referred to are single (or widowers, or divorcees)
                                      http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599421.msg230767#msg230767

                                      1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • U Offline
                                        U Offline
                                        unknownuser
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #164

                                        question is, are these men either single or married, or are those men referred to are single (or widowers, or divorcees)
                                        http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599421.msg230767#msg230767

                                        both single and already married but the condition is "if you can be just" but again recommendation is that you stay married to one to avoid any injustice .

                                        polygamy is neither prohibited nor encouraged.

                                        1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • S Offline
                                          S Offline
                                          sarah2505
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #165

                                          both single and already married but the condition is "if you can be just" but again recommendation is that you stay married to one to avoid any injustice .

                                          polygamy is neither prohibited nor encouraged.

                                          then why AND instead of OR

                                          1 Reply Last reply
                                          0
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Login

                                          • Don't have an account? Register

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Users