Polygamy - Time to settle the issue
-
If, and only IF there are chances of injustice to orphans, where injustice may be directly linked to and mean injustice in matters of property, or may generally means injustice including emotional injustice,, Nikah may take place. Before I move on, let me share my opinion on whether its marry or marry off. The Arabic word is Fankihu, Fa is a particle, and the word itself is Inkihu as per corpus.quran.com, with a suffix that is an attached subject pronoun, as per Abdul Mannan Omar's dictionary, Inkihu with a subject pronoun like means 'Marry', and if it were Inkihu without that, then it would be 'Marry off', in this verse, it is the former case, or according to another dictionary, 'Arabic-English Dictionary of Quranic usage', it would be 'Marry off' if it were 'Unkihu' with a subject pronoun. Though it doesn't mention , it cites , where a similar word 'Tankihu' comes with the same subject pronoun as Fankihu, and says that it means 'Marry'. So technically, I have two dictionaries, and Corpus.Quran.Com to back me up when I say it means 'Marry'. While studying this, I also came across a very interesting point regarding , but I won't mention it now, as I want to focus on .
Salaam, Fallen Angel,
I think the waw you are referring to has nothing to do with the meaning of the verb, whether it is marry or marry off, but rather with the number of subjects that carry out the action of the verb. The waw is the mark of the masculine or mixed plural, since the same form would be used in both cases. In that it would be using the same pronoun that is used all along since the first aya of the sura. That men are meant is given by the fact that the are to marry women.
The difference between marry and marry off is given the f'ankihu in one, which would be the imperative of a form I verb (nakaha), and the faunkihu , which would be an imperative of a form IV verb (ankaha). So, yes in this case it would be marry.
Where I do not see where you conclude from that it should be the same man who marries one, or two, or three or four, because the verb is still plural, it is a group and they, the group, is the subject that is marrying one or two or three or four. That is it may be four men that marry four women, they same formula applies, it is not saying each of you marry one or two or foutr or three.
?Is there a record that the Prophet at any time married more than one woman at a time?
On the other hand, and I know that that is extra coranical, thraditional fiqh has not admitted marrying more than one woman at the same time. It has to be at different times. And that is surprising, because they could have favoured the male privileges more by making it possible to marry more than one at the same time. If they have used the formulation to uphold a male priviledge, they would have upheld it better guaranteeing the possibility of having multiple marriages from the start.
I still am of the opinion and I cannot see any indication of the opposite that this formulation is not saying either that one man should marry more than one at a time nor it is saying that he shouldn't. It is not an indication whether negative or affirmative of poligamy. I do not think it is touching the subject. The same as the verse concerning the two sisters. It is not giving any indication that poligamy is good or bad or acceptable or not, simply that if there is poligamy, what as not to be done is to be married at the same time to two sisters.
I think I pointed out previously, not very long ago, a news was circulated in islamophobes sites in internet and mailed ad nauseam where collective marriages of "girls-childs" with men were celebrated in Ghaza under the sponsorship of the authorities of Ghaza. Of course the photos circulated, purported as being of the brides, were not of the brides but of the orphan girls whose mothers were being married. That is an example of at least one case of a marriage for the sake of the orphans and has nothing to do with poligamy or monogamy. It also illustrates how that kind of marriage may becollective undertaking of the society in which it takes place, since the sponsorship of those marriages means that the collectivity contributos financially also to setting up the homes for the new families apart from may be other privileges or help. ? prospective husband may be hard working and able to make ends meet barely, but may lack the means to start a new home, so society may help.
That is not the only case I have known of collective sponsored marriages, not only in a muslim society, but in others, specially when circumstances are difficult.
Salaam
-
Peace
I think the verse are showing whether they are "affirmative" or "negative" in regard to the type of polygamy practice, how it is practiced, and when it is practiced. The verses provide guidance of a variety in order for one to make the most sound decision. I disagree with the idea of "collective marriage". The verses are of course addressing the community, but verse 43 leaves the ultimate decision to the individual. While sponsored marriage sounds like a fantastic idea (and I am all for it), I do not believe that these particular verses have anything to do with sponsorship of collective marriages.
-
Peace All,
Is there another understanding for marry? Perhaps we are thinking too literally? No one has explained to me exactly how it would be fair to the orphans to marry their mothers? For example, just supposing a friend of mine male has two separate sets of orphans to look after. He is a good fair man and does what he is supposed to do regarding the orphans. He clothes them well, feeds them, etc. how would marrying both their mothers make it more just.
Before anyone suggests I'm trying to disprove polygamy, I am not. Like all of you, I am looking for a fair, happy society, as per the Koran. Unfortunately, I cannot engage in this discussion on a linguistic level so I am engaging on an ideas/intellectual level, which I believe is halal as the Koran invites us to ponder?!
-
Peace Dawn,
I am not a native Arabic speaker, either. Actually, I had opened up a thread earlier in regard to this issue. I speak several languages, but Arabic just isn't one of them. I am cross-referencing translations and relying on Corpus Quran. Also, I am revisiting old threads where those who are knowledgeable in Arabic grammar, have made some very good points. Of course, it takes me a long time to read through their discussions, but I'm able to learn a lot.
How is it more just to marry the orphans?
- Through marriage, the orphans are provided with a mother and father who are married. The guardian's authority and protection over the orphans is 100% legitimate as they are now officially a family.
- Their mother's status is elevated to that of a wife; she isn't just a charity case anymore.
- The orphans are no longer considered a charity case, their family is whole and all of the children are now siblings to one another.
- It is through marriage, that the guardian can now safeguard the inheritance the orphans' wealth, and will provide them with adequate shelter, food, clothing, education, education, and most importantly; the love and security of being a part of a family.
I ask you to reflect on the last point, especially. Do you know how difficult it is to grow up without both a mother and father? Do you know how difficult it is to raise children as a single mother? Life becomes a million times easier when you have both mother and father taking an active role in raising the children. Mothers and fathers are unique in their own ways, they nurture in different ways. Having both can often provide a nice balance in a child's life. Growing up without one or the other...well..it's difficult.
So, why is it more fair to marry the mothers? All the points I discussed above give you many reasons. It's fair because it provides the orphans with what they don't have, that other kids do have in the community A loving family with both a mother and father present. I've taught in schools where the majority of the children did not have their fathers in their life. I've also taught in schools with more typical families. Trust me, there are huge differences in the way in which these children behave and perceive the world. There are also huge differences in their overall grades, high school graduation rates, college enrollment rates, potential for incarceration, and teenage pregnancy.
However, if you look at this interpretation from only your own context, then you will not understand my point. I grew up in a upper middle class neighborhood with two supportive parents, and I could not understand polygamy for the life of me. However, exploring different communities and in trying to understand people from different walks of life, made me understand this verse much better.
All in all, it's a huge responsibility to take on and not everyone is equipped for it. Though, if there are those who are able and willing, then I don't see how it cannot be of pure benefit.
I have deduced these points on the exchange of ideas within my intellectual capacity. When we look at the Quran, we need to reflect on the Quran itself, and also reflect on life itself. The Quran is about promoting justice within communities. We need to consider the human factor (as I've said before), when we look at these verses.
How does the above not promote a fair and happy society?
-
Released, I couldn't have said what you said better than the way you said it bravo
-
Edip Yuksel you said "The traditional interpretation of this passage offers an apparent justification for marriage with children, which flatly contradicts the Quran." (in the 5th page of the discussion) could you please kindly point out which ayats are strictly forbidding this, since I got some info about the ayat 654 where one part of the ayat could be applied to the under-aged? This is making me very very uncomfortable and I would be very grateful if you could let me know the ayats - I am researching this day and night but I found nothing satisfying. Thanks.
-
Peace mmmm,
The orphans do not receive their inheritance until after they are reached the age of maturity. (46)
Thus, one cannot marry the orphans, as they have not reached the age of maturity. At this point, they are no longer orphans, and can manage their own wealth or inheritance.
This verse is not referring to marrying the orphans, but marrying their widowed, divorced, abandoned, (and etc) mothers.
In order to better understand this, read this thread over again, and you will see why and how we reached this conclusion.
-
?Is there a record that the Prophet at any time married more than one woman at a time?
Peace, yes many ...
3328 O you the prophet say to your spouses if you desire the life the world and its adornment so come I will provide for you and release you release beautiful
3350 O you the prophet indeed We made lawful to you your spouses the ones who you gave their rewards and what possess your right hand from what bestowed The God to you and girls/daughters your paternal uncles and girls/daughters your paternal aunts and girls/daughters your maternal uncles and girls/daughters your maternal aunts the ones who migrated with you and woman believing if she devotes her self to the prophet if intended the prophet that marry her exclusively to you from besides the believers hence we know what We made obligatory on them in their spouses and what possess their right hands not will be to you difficulty and is The God Forgiving Merciful
3359 O you the prophet say to your spouses and your girls/daughters and women the believers draw onto them from their garments that lowest lest/that they are known so not disturbed/harmed and is The God Forgiving Merciful
661 O you the prophet not deprive what permitted The God to you seeking pleasure your spouses and The God Forgiving Merciful
...could you please kindly point out which ayats are strictly forbidding this, since I got some info about the ayat 654 where one part of the ayat could be applied to the under-aged? This is making me very very uncomfortable and I would be very grateful if you could let me know the ayats - I am researching this day and night but I found nothing satisfying. Thanks.
Peace mmmm -- non-menstruation concerning women who are irregular/miss especially approaching menopause.
46 and test the orphans until when reached the marriage so if you perceive from them rational so deliver to them their wealth and not eat/consume it wastefully and hastily lest/that they grow up and from is rich so should refrain and from is in need for so let eat/consume in fair manner so when you deliver to them their wealth so take witnesses on them and sufficient in/with The God Reckoner
654 and those who have despaired from the menstruation from your women if you doubt so their waiting period three ashr/cycles (prefix alif denotes plural) and those who not menstruated and those the pregnant their term that they put aside their loads (i.e. give birth) and from fears The God He makes for him from His directive easy
-
My understanding of the whole issue is that the benefit lies in helping the women. It helps for women who are unable to work and have children, now they have one to provide. It keeps other women from having to perform certain types of work (prositution) to stay fed, and helps maintain their honour. A man can marry a woman without being sexual with her, and vice versa. It is a marriage of convenience.
When I stopped looking at it from a chauvinistic point of view, I saw something better. Unfortunately, most men that have more than one wife view it chavinistically, and that is where it becomes disgusting.
Peace,
Amina
-
My understanding of the whole issue is that the benefit lies in helping the women. It helps for women who are unable to work and have children, now they have one to provide. It keeps other women from having to perform certain types of work (prositution) to stay fed, and helps maintain their honour. A man can marry a woman without being sexual with her, and vice versa. It is a marriage of convenience.
When I stopped looking at it from a chauvinistic point of view, I saw something better. Unfortunately, most men that have more than one wife view it chavinistically, and that is where it becomes disgusting.
Peace,
Amina
That comes from considering poligamy a right and not a duty, which may fall on those able to accomplish it when the social, demographical or other circumstances which are deemed to justify it arise. That is what must be born in mind, that it is not a right, but a tool for social welfare which requires wisdom and taqwa to use.
Pandering to the sickness of mind of the males stating it as a right is a perversion of manliness.
That said, it is a pity that in some real scenarios, of which I know, in fact men who might be divorced, do not do it, because by staying legally married to a wife with whom they no longer have any married life, they afford her economical protection in the sense of medical and social insurance, pension, etc. which she would otherwise loose.
In those cases, the man obviously is not taking advantage of anybody and the present wife obviously does not oppose it, because she gains nothing by making the other woman destitute. When people are poor, that is a very serious matter. I have known some cases of that situation.
Salaam
-
Salamun Alaykum people,
You might be wondering, I haven't replied in quite some time, you see, education has me busy so its hard for me to reply in week days though I do check out this thread everyday and am quite happy by the points that have been raised. Hence, only on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday will I get enough to time to contribute to the thread. Till tomorrow, I have one question for huruf
As can be seen by your post at October 30, 2012, 051051 AM, you have only discussed/replied to only one paragraph from that extensive post of mine on 43, based on this, I "Assume" that you agree/have no issues with the rest of the points I raised in that post, is this assumption correct? If it is, then I have to congratulate all you guys that we are progressing.
And here is my reply to huruf's post I mentioned above
The reason why I pointed out the suffix was not because of the waw, but due to the waw followed by a hamzah, because in Abdul Mannan's Omar dictionary, there are two forms of 'Inkihu', one with just a waw, and the other with a waw and a hamzah. But anyway, this is just a minor thing, we agree that its 'Marry' in 43, its enough ) As for your opinion on 43, we'll discuss it this weekend, inshallah.
Here's the post in case you guys can't find it
Salaam, Fallen Angel,
I think the waw you are referring to has nothing to do with the meaning of the verb, whether it is marry or marry off, but rather with the number of subjects that carry out the action of the verb. The waw is the mark of the masculine or mixed plural, since the same form would be used in both cases. In that it would be using the same pronoun that is used all along since the first aya of the sura. That men are meant is given by the fact that the are to marry women.
The difference between marry and marry off is given the f'ankihu in one, which would be the imperative of a form I verb (nakaha), and the faunkihu , which would be an imperative of a form IV verb (ankaha). So, yes in this case it would be marry.
Where I do not see where you conclude from that it should be the same man who marries one, or two, or three or four, because the verb is still plural, it is a group and they, the group, is the subject that is marrying one or two or three or four. That is it may be four men that marry four women, they same formula applies, it is not saying each of you marry one or two or foutr or three.
?Is there a record that the Prophet at any time married more than one woman at a time?
On the other hand, and I know that that is extra coranical, thraditional fiqh has not admitted marrying more than one woman at the same time. It has to be at different times. And that is surprising, because they could have favoured the male privileges more by making it possible to marry more than one at the same time. If they have used the formulation to uphold a male priviledge, they would have upheld it better guaranteeing the possibility of having multiple marriages from the start.
I still am of the opinion and I cannot see any indication of the opposite that this formulation is not saying either that one man should marry more than one at a time nor it is saying that he shouldn't. It is not an indication whether negative or affirmative of poligamy. I do not think it is touching the subject. The same as the verse concerning the two sisters. It is not giving any indication that poligamy is good or bad or acceptable or not, simply that if there is poligamy, what as not to be done is to be married at the same time to two sisters.
I think I pointed out previously, not very long ago, a news was circulated in islamophobes sites in internet and mailed ad nauseam where collective marriages of "girls-childs" with men were celebrated in Ghaza under the sponsorship of the authorities of Ghaza. Of course the photos circulated, purported as being of the brides, were not of the brides but of the orphan girls whose mothers were being married. That is an example of at least one case of a marriage for the sake of the orphans and has nothing to do with poligamy or monogamy. It also illustrates how that kind of marriage may becollective undertaking of the society in which it takes place, since the sponsorship of those marriages means that the collectivity contributos financially also to setting up the homes for the new families apart from may be other privileges or help. ? prospective husband may be hard working and able to make ends meet barely, but may lack the means to start a new home, so society may help.
That is not the only case I have known of collective sponsored marriages, not only in a muslim society, but in others, specially when circumstances are difficult.
Salaam
-
Peace,
Perhaps, those women who are in need help, could be categorized as "MMA" as opposed to being given the status of a "wife". The couple could give an oath to a particular woman or a group of women, that they will help in assisting with finances and other such matters. I've come across different translations, and MMA has been translated in a variety of ways.
I think that there is honor in being married as there is honor in being single. Both statuses are honorable given that neither male nor female are doing anything that would bring shame on them.
The problem is that most men will abuse this, even if we make it a marriage of convenience. Unless, of course, the law intervenes and sets the precedent. In our legal system, we would have to redefine marriage, and then create two types of marriage one being of the sexual kind, and one being of convenience. If we leave it up to people (and especially men), it could prove to be disastrous. We would need some serious checks and balances, before the divorce rate shoots up higher than ever, due to unhappy marriages resulting from men having taken advantage of the situation. The issue we see in many sectarian countries is that the legal system, is seriously lacking in being thorough, fair, and in following through with what their constitutions make claims to. There is a lot of anarchy in the system, and the rights of women often get trampled on. In these countries, governments often do not do a very good job in monitoring, regulating, and penalizing. Also, their stance is more than likely biased toward the inclinations of men, as leadership positions are usually dominated by males.
I keep thinking back to Ma Malakat Aymanukum. One can only have sexual relations with their wives, but they cannot have sex with their Ma Malakat Aymanukum. However, Ma Malakat Aymanukum, usually refers to those who are in the care and protection of those who are capable.
This is where I see the category of "MMA" coming into play. This allows for individual couple to oversee the welfare of women (or men, rather anyone who is destitute). It makes the need for marriage unnecessary, as an oath associated with care giving and protection can be given, covering the essentials of marriage minus sex.
The issue is that, most traditional translations have attached a very negative connotation to the words MMA. They have correlated MMA to slavery, and perhaps even sexual slavery. We know that God would never advocate such a thing. If one were to look at the more progressive translations, they would find that MMA means something very different, and perhaps it is the answer in many aspects.
Having said all of this, I still believe in a strong welfare system overseen by both the public and the government, and one which is supported by our tax dollars (or whichever currency). In combination with this safety net and MMA, I think we would see a much more empowered society, overall.
From the context of those verses, I still do not see polygamy sanctioned under any other circumstances apart from the welfare of children. I think women can be helped financially and be provided the guidance to get back on their feet, without attaching marriage or sex to the equation.
-
Peace,
I don't mean for my post to be an attack on ALL men. However, I come from a society where everything was/is male dominated, and the men have done a real disservice to the women, children and elderly. I just think that as women, we need to be more careful. We need to speak up and make our rights known.
I believe I'd seen Huruf's post.
-
That comes from considering poligamy a right and not a duty, which may fall on those able to accomplish it when the social, demographical or other circumstances which are deemed to justify it arise. That is what must be born in mind, that it is not a right, but a tool for social welfare which requires wisdom and taqwa to use.
Pandering to the sickness of mind of the males stating it as a right is a perversion of manliness.
That said, it is a pity that in some real scenarios, of which I know, in fact men who might be divorced, do not do it, because by staying legally married to a wife with whom they no longer have any married life, they afford her economical protection in the sense of medical and social insurance, pension, etc. which she would otherwise loose.
In those cases, the man obviously is not taking advantage of anybody and the present wife obviously does not oppose it, because she gains nothing by making the other woman destitute. When people are poor, that is a very serious matter. I have known some cases of that situation.
Salaam
I never said I agreed with it...I just said I understood it differently and where there could be benefits in it. I refuse to be wife # 2, 3, or 4 for anyone. Trust me...I require whatever extra time a man is not putting toward his worship of Allah, as that is what I can give also.
I personally think that the way polygamy has been presented to the masses is an insult to men...saying that they cannot manage to keep their desires under control. I know many men that do not fall under this category at all.
-Amina
-
Peace Release,
This is exactly why I asked if perhaps there is another translation of 'marry' in Arabic and are we being too literal? So for example, a romantic, love liaison is a marriage and a guardianship liaison might be called, for example, a protectorship. The women, up to four of them, would quite happily speak of their protector, because that is what he is. It would also be a given that this protectorship does not involve any intimate connection of any sort.
Just an idea.
I am impressed with the progress being made. Also, I am inspired in what little free time I have to start learning Arabic.
Dawn