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
    #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
                            • U Offline
                              U Offline
                              unknownuser
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #166

                              then why AND instead of OR

                              doesn't always mean AND, see for example
                              3112
                              They shall be smitten with abasement wherever they are found unless they are protected by a covenant with Allah or by a covenant with men.

                              1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • S Offline
                                S Offline
                                san
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #167

                                doesn't always mean AND, see for example
                                3112
                                They shall be smitten with abasement wherever they are found unless they are protected by a covenant with Allah or by a covenant with men.

                                That would create confusion. The proper conjunction OR in arabic is .

                                1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • S Offline
                                  S Offline
                                  sarah2505
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #168

                                  doesn't always mean AND, see for example
                                  3112
                                  They shall be smitten with abasement wherever they are found unless they are protected by a covenant with Allah or by a covenant with men.

                                  are you sure that it is OR and not AND in 3112?

                                  1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • A Offline
                                    A Offline
                                    afridi220
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #169

                                    then why AND instead of OR

                                    Salam Sara
                                    What [423} sys

                                    1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • W Offline
                                      W Offline
                                      warner
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #170

                                      I think ?AND? here is reasonable use to convey the message since just as in English language ?And? is used in Arabic to mean ?also/ as well as? as you can see the use in the following verses and also in few other places in the Quran.

                                      337 And when We took from the prophets their covenant, "wa"/and from you, "wa"/and from Noah, and Abraham, and Moses, and Jesus the son of Mary; We took from them a strong covenant.

                                      5568 In them are fruits "wa"/and date palms, "wa"/and pomegranate.
                                      "Fruits" includes "pomegranates" even though they are separated by "wa"/and.

                                      So possibly ?And? covers men in all 3 situations of having 2, 3 and 4 wives together.

                                      But with 423 and 4129 do you still think polygamy is not allowed ?

                                      1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • S Offline
                                        S Offline
                                        san
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #171

                                        Peace,

                                        But with 423 and 4129 do you still think polygamy is not allowed ?

                                        But with 4129 do you still think polygamy is encouraged ?

                                        1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • S Offline
                                          S Offline
                                          sarah2505
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #172

                                          What reason can there be to allow already married men to marry those women, when there are single men available?

                                          I would assume that there was an excess of available men compared to the number of available women considering the possible demographic of that region.

                                          Please see my other thread for details.

                                          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