Polygamy - Time to settle the issue
-
I just caught my mistake here
- Wa ma yutla fi al kitab fi actually means "It was recited/rehearsed" as opposed to the more traditional translation of "It was been recited/rehearsed"
- This part of the verse appears to be in the present tense. As a result, we cannot say that what was recited in regard to these women was revealed in the past?
**** Wa ma yutla fi al kitab fi actually means "It is recited/rehearsed" as opposed to the more traditional translation of "It was recited/rehearsed"
-
Peace Lena
Well, I think that in 43, 'yatama' can still be referred to as the 'orphan children'. The 'Al" exists before it within the verse, if I am looking at it correctly. However, we're are discussing in regard to where the "Al" is missing. At least, I think that's accurate.
-
Regarding the yatama an Nisaa'i or al yatama An-Nisaa'i, I have nothing against the explanation for the understanding exposed by Fallen Angel, but still I cannot see how that overrides or should override that genitive mood of the Nisaa'i. What is the explanation for overriding it? I feel that, unless there is a satisfactory explanation from the gramatical point of view, no matter how much the other understanding may make sense or I may find it suitable, it is arbitrary or not warranted and I do not feel that I have authority to override it to give my own interpretation of the Qur'an.
Regarding poligamy, masculine or feminine, I think aya 24.32 is very relevant.
24.32 Marry those among you who are single, or the virtuous ones among yourselves, male or female if they are in poverty, Allah will give them means out of His grace for Allah encompasseth all, and he knoweth all things.
It is a clear indication that the import of marriage is not that some people should have a plurality of consorts, but that every person should have one.
Which again supports the point of view that poligamy may be admissible when there is a shortage of people of one sex, but not otherwise. If there are not enough people to marry the single who would rather not be single, then those willing to marry more than one would have a reason for it, but not while there is no shortage, because that would mean that others are being condemned to celibacy, and the injunction to marry the sangle would not have been complied with.
See also this thread_
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=15958.msg157190#msg157190
Salaam
-
Peace Huruf,
I disagree with this interpretation. I don't see any verses that refer to men and women practicing polygamy due to shortages of either sex. The "shortages of the female sex" is an argument used by the Sunnis, yet it cannot be found in the Quran. In life, people are condemned to a lot of things for whatever reasons. You say that you do not have the authority to override or give your own interpretation, but I see this as nothing short of an interpretation.
If you are saying that "marry those among you who are single" could possibly pertain to polygamy, then it in fact encourages polygamy. After all, all who are married should then continue to marry those who are single, until we have have attained perfection. I see it as the verse that emphasizes monogamy. In the Quran, the verses in Chapter 4 are those that describe polygamy in greater detail than in anywhere else in the Quran, as He emphasizes the plight of orphans and what could done to benefit them. God does not mention anything about those who are condemned to celibacy or seek companionship.
"every person should have one"
You are speaking of entitlement. Every person is entitled to a spouse? I do not see it as so as per the Quran. Marry the single means to marry the single. You should marry the one who is single. This verse is not in any way encouraging that one should marry the 'married' among the population of males and females. If one wishes to marry the 'married', then God provides the appropriate rationale and protocol in detail in Chapter 4. Even in those circumstances, He warns of the potential inequities and injustices.
-
Peace All,
I am wondering how several verses I have recently explored fit into this discussion. Let's begin with 412 which speaks of inheritance. Regarding the men, the verse says; "...they get one fourth of what you leave behind, if you had no children. If they had children, they get one eighth.".
How would this work then if a man had four wives and many children? I guess a court would simply work it out? And if the man were poor and his wives were left with orphans, then another man could come along and even marry all four of them to protect the orphans. And what if he suddenly died.....
We can also look at 41, where it states " ...the One who created you from one being and created from it it's mate...". Surely this tells us straight away that God believes in one man one woman.
I feel that further on in the chapter when God speaks of the orphans, we have become confused. Perhaps, some of us unwilling to relinquish old ideas instead of seeking what is actually there.
A reminder Koran 4,82 "why do they not study the Koran carefully? If it were from other than God, they would have found in it numerous contradictions".
Regarding the case of one man one woman, there are too many contradictions and most of us on this thread believe the Koran is from God.
Peace,
-
If God created people from nafsin waahidatin(one soul? is this word a male gender?)and its zawjahaa (mate), (is this word a female gender?) how did the population increase? Did their children (brothers and sisters) marry each other? Did the father / mother marry their sons/daughters?
-
Peace Dawn,
I think you are looking at the situation with the perspective of "worst possible scenario" or as if every family that engages in polygamy is going to be "one walking fiasco". Ideally, the math should be left for the courts to decide. If a man is poor, does it make sense for him to marry more than one? What if the second husband dies? People get remarried all the time. Some children end up with step fathers and step mothers as a result. Those step fathers and mothers also end up dying at some point. This is a part of life. In that case, the inheritance continues to be divided.
The injustice primarily appears to be with the initial wife, in your opinion. However, do you not think the greater injustice is to ignore the the plight of the orphans? This has nothing to do with men indulging in their fantasies, this measure prescribed by God is meant to strengthen communities by providing a family structure and protection to the orphaned children. It is not meant to destroy existing marriages or wreck havoc on relationships. After all, it's based on mutual decision. How else are we to maintain the love and mercy between the heart of a husband and wife?
Also, if we were to marry off the mothers of the orphans, then why is it better to marry off only 1 if we fear inequity or injustice? This still does not make any sense to me.
Also, there is the issue of fankihu and ankihu that we need to address, if were to consider the translation of "marry off".
I feel so tired. I feel like everyone is only thinking of themselves and their personal welfare. These verses clearly revolve around the orphans, from my personal perspective and analysis.
-
Peace Huruf,
I disagree with this interpretation. I don't see any verses that refer to men and women practicing polygamy due to shortages of either sex. The "shortages of the female sex" is an argument used by the Sunnis, yet it cannot be found in the Quran. In life, people are condemned to a lot of things for whatever reasons. You say that you do not have the authority to override or give your own interpretation, but I see this as nothing short of an interpretation.
If you are saying that "marry those among you who are single" could possibly pertain to polygamy, then it in fact encourages polygamy. After all, all who are married should then continue to marry those who are single, until we have have attained perfection. I see it as the verse that emphasizes monogamy. In the Quran, the verses in Chapter 4 are those that describe polygamy in greater detail than in anywhere else in the Quran, as He emphasizes the plight of orphans and what could done to benefit them. God does not mention anything about those who are condemned to celibacy or seek companionship.
"every person should have one"
You are speaking of entitlement. Every person is entitled to a spouse? I do not see it as so as per the Quran. Marry the single means to marry the single. You should marry the one who is single. This verse is not in any way encouraging that one should marry the 'married' among the population of males and females. If one wishes to marry the 'married', then God provides the appropriate rationale and protocol in detail in Chapter 4. Even in those circumstances, He warns of the potential inequities and injustices.
I guess I have not made myself clear, because you have itnerpreted exactly tghe opposite of what I wanted to say.
Salaam
-
Woah, woah,...woah......
Everyone's having fun without me eh?
lol, ok my turn to jump in Answers to all posts in this one post
Peace
If we take it as isolated/jaded women, as in widows and divorcees,Sura 43 Very interesting to read your suggested translation and that it may not refer to child orphans at all but to adult women (who are orphans??) What about Sura 42 Wa 'aatul-yataamaaa Will that also refer to adult women who are widows or divorcees?
If yataamaa refers to isolated adult women, can you confirm if it's the feminine form of the noun? What is the male form. and what is the form if it is a mixed group of males & females? Is there a clear Qurayshi arabic (transliteration) word for orphan girls anywhere else in Quran?
Like I said, its just an interpretation, and due to the grammatical issue, I'm thinking about not opting for it, and going with the traditional one that it means 'Orphans belonging to women'. However, to answer your questions, for a full feminine plural form, its Yateemaat, full male plural form, its Yatama, but in Arabic, male includes female though.
Peace
Thank you for your well wishes! Oh, we?re concerned about that as well! We?re going to look hard for a tutor that does not have such inclinations. Nevertheless, I?ll probably sit in during the process just to be sure that he or she does not go off any sectarian tangents, God willing (Maybe I?ll learn thing or two).
4127
Consider/And what it is recited/rehearsed to you in the book concerning Yatamanisa
Wayastaftoonaka fee alnnisai quli Allahu yufteekum feehinna wama yutla AAalaykum fee alkitabi fee yatama alnnisai allatee la tutoonahunna ma kutiba lahunna watarghaboona an tankihoohunna waalmustadAAafeena mina alwildani waan taqoomoo lilyatama bialqisti wama tafAAaloo min khayrin fainna Allaha kana bihi AAaleeman
Now, what you are saying actually makes sense. Up until the part, ?to whom you don?t give what is preached for them? everything made sense. However, once the question of marriage comes up, ?yet you desire to marry them?, that?s when the traditional translation stops making sense to me. One cannot marry the orphans, and so clearly, the orphans are not the ones being addressed here.
There is something that is not being offered to these widowed or divorced women ?yatama an nisa? upon the proposal of marriage. Could God be referring to dowry? Perhaps, these women are refusing to give these women their dowries, though the men are keen in marrying them? Or, perhaps God is referring to the year?s maintenance that happened to be mentioned. Initially, I was thinking this verse may have something to do with dowry. Now, I?m pondering over the years? worth of maintenance.
- Yes, I think it makes sense. God begins the chapter with a full explanation along with proper protocol, and then readdresses the issue in 4127.
There is one thing that I am concerned about though. You mentioned that 'Yatama' is connected to An Nisa. I always thought the word Yatama was gender masculine.
Your welcome
I agree, its either the dowry, or the year's maintenance. And like I said in my reply to Lena above, Yatama happens to be a masculine word, but remember, masculine included feminine.
Peace Lena
Well, I think that in 43, 'yatama' can still be referred to as the 'orphan children'. The 'Al" exists before it within the verse, if I am looking at it correctly. However, we're are discussing in regard to where the "Al" is missing. At least, I think that's accurate.
I believe that Yatama everywhere else refers to 'The Yatama', or 'The Orphans' as it appears as 'Al Yatama' with no link to any other word whatsoever, only in it comes as a linked word, AND without an Al, thus I considered the other interpretation, that it is more like a phrase that refers to widows or divorcees.
Regarding the yatama an Nisaa'i or al yatama An-Nisaa'i, I have nothing against the explanation for the understanding exposed by Fallen Angel, but still I cannot see how that overrides or should override that genitive mood of the Nisaa'i. What is the explanation for overriding it? I feel that, unless there is a satisfactory explanation from the gramatical point of view, no matter how much the other understanding may make sense or I may find it suitable, it is arbitrary or not warranted and I do not feel that I have authority to override it to give my own interpretation of the Qur'an.
Regarding poligamy, masculine or feminine, I think aya 24.32 is very relevant.
24.32 Marry those among you who are single, or the virtuous ones among yourselves, male or female if they are in poverty, Allah will give them means out of His grace for Allah encompasseth all, and he knoweth all things.
It is a clear indication that the import of marriage is not that some people should have a plurality of consorts, but that every person should have one.
Which again supports the point of view that poligamy may be admissible when there is a shortage of people of one sex, but not otherwise. If there are not enough people to marry the single who would rather not be single, then those willing to marry more than one would have a reason for it, but not while there is no shortage, because that would mean that others are being condemned to celibacy, and the injunction to marry the sangle would not have been complied with.
See also this thread_
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=15958.msg157190#msg157190
Salaam
Huruf you're right, its the reason why we're not able to find strong grammatical evidence for Abdul Mannan Omar's opinion that I am not 100% agreeing with the interpretation.
As for 2432, please just wait a bit, cause I wanna address each point one by one, so first let's clear up , then come to this.
Peace All,
I am wondering how several verses I have recently explored fit into this discussion. Let's begin with 412 which speaks of inheritance. Regarding the men, the verse says; "...they get one fourth of what you leave behind, if you had no children. If they had children, they get one eighth.".
How would this work then if a man had four wives and many children? I guess a court would simply work it out? And if the man were poor and his wives were left with orphans, then another man could come along and even marry all four of them to protect the orphans. And what if he suddenly died.....
We can also look at 41, where it states " ...the One who created you from one being and created from it it's mate...". Surely this tells us straight away that God believes in one man one woman.
I feel that further on in the chapter when God speaks of the orphans, we have become confused. Perhaps, some of us unwilling to relinquish old ideas instead of seeking what is actually there.
A reminder Koran 4,82 "why do they not study the Koran carefully? If it were from other than God, they would have found in it numerous contradictions".
Regarding the case of one man one woman, there are too many contradictions and most of us on this thread believe the Koran is from God.
Peace,
Thanks for pointing out 482, it really is a powerful verse. Your post above is quite deep and profound in my eyes, I recommend people read it carefully. As for the inheritance issue, I think Released addressed it quite finely.
If God created people from nafsin waahidatin(one soul? is this word a male gender?)and its zawjahaa (mate), (is this word a female gender?) how did the population increase? Did their children (brothers and sisters) marry each other? Did the father / mother marry their sons/daughters?
Zawj is not feminine in nature. Its a noun that means husband, wife, or mate in general.
And guys as for the marrying or marry off, please check out my last post on the Adultery thread, I have provided my reason for opting for 'Marrying', and we'll discuss it further, but first lets settle ourselves on what is the true meaning of Yatamanisa
-
From the introduction of the Quran a Reformist Translation
Can One Marry Underage Orphans?
A passage of the Quran has persistently been interpreted as sanctioning marriage to young orphan girls
Disputed passage The traditional rendering suggests that the objects of marital intention are the orphans, not the mothers.
Yusuf Ali
?They ask thy instruction concerning the women say Allah doth instruct you about them And (remember) what hath been rehearsed unto you in the Book, concerning the orphans of women to whom ye give not the portions prescribed, and yet whom ye desire to marry, as also concerning the children who are weak and oppressed that ye stand firm for justice to orphans. There is not a good deed which ye do, but Allah is well-acquainted therewith.? (4127)
Pickthall
They consult thee concerning women. Say Allah giveth you decree concerning them, and the Scripture which hath been recited unto you (giveth decree), concerning female orphans and those unto whom ye give not that which is ordained for them though ye desire to marry them, and (concerning) the weak among children, and that ye should deal justly with orphans. Whatever good ye do, lo! Allah is ever Aware of it. (4127)
Shakir
And they ask you a decision about women. Say Allah makes known to you His decision concerning them, and that which is recited to you in the Book concerning female orphans whom you do not give what is appointed for them while you desire to marry them, and concerning the weak among children, and that you should deal towards orphans with equity; and whatever good you do, Allah surely knows it. (4127)
Reformist
They ask you for divine instruction concerning women. Say, ?God instructs you regarding them, as has been recited for you in the book about the rights of orphans whose mothers you want to marry without giving them their legal rights. You shall observe the rights of helpless children, and your duty to treat orphans with equity. Whatever good you do, God has full knowledge of it. (4127)
DISCUSSION OF 4127
Though the Quran permits polygamy for men (43), it severely discourages its actual practice by requiring certain significant preconditions men may marry more than one wife only if the later ones are widows with children, and they should treat each wife equally and fairly. (See 419-20; 127-129.). Unfortunately, verse 4127 has been traditionally misinterpreted and mistranslated in such a way as to suggest that God permits marriage with juvenile orphans. This is clearly not the case.
The Arabic expression yatama-l nisai-l lati in 4127 has been routinely mistranslated as ?women orphans, whom?? The expression is also sometimes translated as ?orphans of women whom?? This later translation, though accurate, makes the crucial reference of the objective pronoun ?whom? ambiguous Does the phrase after ?whom? describe orphans or women?
As it happens, the Arabic plural pronoun in this verse is the female form, allaty (not the male form allazyna), and it can only refer to the women just referenced, not to the orphans. This is because the Arabic word yatama (orphans) is male in gender!
All the English translations of the Quran that we have seen have mistranslated this passage. This is remarkable, because correct translation requires only an elementary knowledge of Arabic grammar. This error is thus much more than a simple grammatical slip; it is, we would argue, willful misrepresentation. The traditional interpretation of this passage offers an apparent justification for marriage with children, which flatly contradicts the Quran.
Like so many passages in the Quran, 4127s meaning was severely distorted in order to gain the favor of rich, dominant males. Over the centuries, male scholars with active libidos have used fabricated hadith to pervert the meaning of this and other Quranic verses relating to marriage and sexuality. (See the discussion of 665, below.)
-
Peace all )
Another thing I would like to reiterate is that one should take into the account the way in which verse 43 introduced
wa in khiftum alla tuqsitu fi' al-yatama
43 And if you fear that you cannot be just to the orphans, then you may marry those who are agreeable to you of the women two, and three, and four. But if you fear you will not be fair, then only one, or to whom you are committed to by oath. This is best that you do not face financial hardship.
For me, the words in bold give light to the primary condition that is required before engaging in polygamy. One must have the prerequisite of fear in regard to the welfare of the children.
Also, notice how God uses the word "And if you fear". This alone shows that there is a condition that must be met.
-
Peace Release,
As I endeavoured to point out in my post, I am not particularly interested in opinion. I am interested in what the Koran is aiming to say. If it is saying we share our husbands with 10 wives in order to help others, then I will do it - as long as there are no contradictions.
The point I am making is this regardless of how any of us on this board feels about polygamy, there exists contradictions on this subject and God clearly tells us there are NO contradictions in the Koran.
-
Peace Release,
Why would marrying the mothers of the orphans cause you to be more just?
-
Peace,
You do not care for opinions in this regard, as you have said. However, everyone's post here is an opinion. It is a perspective. However, they are opinions provided with some sort of research, so that the audience can also read and reflect.
Though, I find that there are many contradictions in your opinion, which is why I cannot accept "marry off". I am sorry, but I believe your opinion to be fueled by the unwillingness to see it any other way. Please correct me if I am wrong.
There are too many contradictions in regard to grammar and consistency in regard to this alternative interpretation. I've mentioned some of these things within both this thread and the previous one. Though, you did not address a single thing. I'm starting to feel tired because I feel like I am repeating myself.
Instead, you are very simply telling me that I am wrong, and that polygamy is a despicable institution regardless. Our discussions have been very circular. I have admitted to you that I do not like the idea of polygamy, but I will not deny what God has made permissible, as I truly believe He has made polygamy permissible within a specific context in order to benefit the most vulnerable in this world. As I've said before, I cited numerous contradictions in both threads, and you have been silent in most aspects.
You asked men this Why would marrying the mothers of the orphans cause one to be more just?
It's not a question of which is more just from the get go. It's a question as to which is the most accurate interpretation that we can arrive, while keeping in line with context, grammar, and using our cross-referencing skills. After having done thorough research, then one can conclude whether their findings have fulfilled the justice that has been sought. The "marry off" interpretation is not even plausible, from my analysis. So, I have to work with what I am left with. I'm trying really hard to be honest in my work.
You mentioned verse 482. We are doing just that. We are studying these verses carefully. The interpretation I hold happens to be the one without contradiction, in my very humble opinion. As I've said before, I find too many contradictions with "marry off", and so I will not accept it. Of course, I am still open to reading what others have found and written, as I am fully aware of the possibility that I could be wrong as I am not infallible. Fallenangel21098 has done a great job in breaking material down for me, and I've also tried to be clear in what I've deduced. We are all working on this. I may not find exactly what my heart desires, but I hope to find what God deems best for the orphans.
-
I am wondering how several verses I have recently explored fit into this discussion. Let's begin with 412 which speaks of inheritance. Regarding the men, the verse says; "...they get one fourth of what you leave behind, if you had no children. If they had children, they get one eighth.".
How would this work then if a man had four wives and many children? I guess a court would simply work it out
Peace, see inheritance thread...
Peace herbman,
Notice the switch " to them" with " to you" otherwise the math would not work.
Example 4 wives, no child, each wife would get 1/4, leaves nothing for the parents.412
and to you half what left your spouses if not was to them waladun/offspring/child
so if kana/is (masculine) to them walad (if to deceased/wife a male child/born) so to you the fourthand to them the fourth from what you left if not was to you waladun/offspring/child
so if kana/is (masculine) to you walad (if to deceased/husband a male child/born) so to them (feminine plural) the eightFew more examples...
wife-1 (son)
wife-2 (son)
wife-3 (no child)
wife-4 (no child)
if son = true
if no child = false
wives share = 1/8 fixed
parent share = 1/6 fixed
1 - 1/3 parents - 1/8 wives = 13/24 sonswife-1 (daughter)
wife-2 (no child)
wife-3 (no child)
wife-4 (no child)
if son = false
if no child = false
wives share = variable
1 - 1/2 daughter = 1/2 wives (1/8 each)wife-1 (son)
wife-2 (daughter)
wife-3 (no child)
wife-4 (no child)
if son = true
if no child = false
wives share = 1/8 fixed
1 - 1/8 wives = 7/8 children (7/24 daughter + 7/12 son) 21 ratio male to femaleMultiple wives permitted...
423
prohibited onto you ...
and that you gathered between the two sisters only what hence passedIF marrying multiple sisters = FALSE
THEN marrying non-sisters = TRUE -
Peace Release,
Thanks for your reply. I cannot join in with the grammatical discussion as I have no Arabic. In order to come to a conclusion on this matter, every aspect and verse ever mentioned relating to marriage, women etc., has to be explored. You didn't answer my question on 'just'.
Dawn