Polygamy - Time to settle the issue
-
?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
-
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 will have to agree. I have never been in a society where women do not have rights, nor where polygamy is permitted. You make very valid points here, and I think that is why other countries have outlawed polygamy, because they know the unfairness that it will more than likely cause.
-Amina
-
It all depends on the circumstances that befall a society.
If there is no shortage of either sex, the reasons for poligamy, masculine or feminine would be due to very particular circumstances, and in that case, there should not be a reason to make a law that allowed poligmy as a universal right, but may be for those very particular circumstances, allow exceptions to be validated through the courts.
If there is shortage acute shortage of either sex, unless there is a very conscientious campaign for celibacy among the more numerous sex, it is very likely that there will be poligamy, whether legal or ilegal. Depending on the extent of the excess of one sex, it may be well advised to authorise and regulate peoligamy. The greater the excess the more difficult it will be to absorb it through celibacy, that is, voluntary celibacy. Involuntary celibacy would result in ilegal poligamy without any regulation and open to abuses.
Masculine poligamy, ilegal mostly, with the lovers, or "the other" has existed pretty everywhere, even without shortage of males. For that it took that it was socially tolerated for males. The position of the ilegal wife in those cases not always was good. At certain times it was nothing degrading at others made outcasts of those women.
To propose celibacy in case of shortage is very well and good, but to impose it will result in wild poligamy, which will still be poligamy, but which may be made to feel good, by not calling it that, but which may be detrimental for those who are ignored in the legal set up.
Tehre seems to be some sort of mindblocks whend ealing with aspects such as these, since some people seem to interpret that to allow this or that means that it will be forced on anybody. When the law allows something that does not mean that anybody is forced to do it, but that those who for whatever reason are willing to do it, can do it legally. To allow poligamy of either sex does not mean that anybody can impose poligamy on anybody else, but that those who want to contract it are free to do so.
The same with collective or simultaneous marriages, it does not mean that anybody is forced to marry it means, simply, that those marriages are arranged and celebrated at the same time.
In today wars, specially those of the first world against the others, since women and children are killed alike, like when bombing cities, we get the "blessing" that the sex proportion is kept stable. But history is not finished no matter what the guy Francis Fukuyama may have said in the title of his book and we do not know what awaits us in the future. They may invent the sex intelligent bomb, like they were also traying to invent the race intelligent bomb.
Salaam
-
Peace All,
Just out of interest. In Nottingham, we have 4 women to one man. Perhaps a good situation for polygamy? Unfortunately, given the economic climate, I fear the men could not afford to look after 1 wife let alone 4!
Women do go further afield though, in the search for a husband. Oftentimes via the Internet. Just an interesting little interlude.
Dawn.
-
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
Peace Dawn,
However, there is a difference between marriage and MMA, and the reasons for both are what I highlighted. One is for exclusively the protection and care of women, and one being for protection and care for both women and children.
Let me show you what I mean
-
MMA status does not equate to marriage; it is for those interested in assisting destitute men, children, and women without the need to marry any of them, due to whatever reasons. This is akin to mentor ship/fostering program, where these groups receive both guidance and care for probably a definite amount of time.
-
Marriage status is exclusively for men who are willing and able to marry destitute women WITH children (the orphans). This status is per the Quran, "if you fear". There needs to be legitimate fear here for the welfare of the orphans and their finances. I posted a very long post for you where I addressed "the more fair and why" part.
We've already discussed why it is more fair to marry the orphan's mother. I am not pushing this interpretation on you, however due to cross referencing, grammar, and context; we have deduced that "marry" can only be "marry" within the context. You can look through the thread from the beginning to see where this point has been made.
I know that you are not a native Arabic speaker (and neither are the majority of us; albeit those who are and have contributed plenty), but correct grammar and usage is very important to the book; and so I advise that you go through various threads (including this one), and try to understand why the "marry" option is opted.
-
-
Peace,
It all depends on the circumstances that befall a society.
I feel that the circumstances are clear within the text. "If you fear for the orphans"
If there is no shortage of either sex, the reasons for poligamy, masculine or feminine would be due to very particular circumstances, and in that case, there should not be a reason to make a law that allowed poligmy as a universal right, but may be for those very particular circumstances, allow exceptions to be validated through the courts.
If there is shortage acute shortage of either sex, unless there is a very conscientious campaign for celibacy among the more numerous sex, it is very likely that there will be poligamy, whether legal or ilegal. Depending on the extent of the excess of one sex, it may be well advised to authorise and regulate peoligamy. The greater the excess the more difficult it will be to absorb it through celibacy, that is, voluntary celibacy. Involuntary celibacy would result in ilegal poligamy without any regulation and open to abuses.
How can polygamy for females be sanctioned in the Quran? This is the part that I am really not understanding. What a mess that would in regard to the children. Honestly, for me, "marry the single among" is directed toward males and female. We are asked to marry the single, though one such circumstance gives allowance for polygamy. I don't believe polygamy has anything to do with tackling shortages of either sex. I just don't see that in the Quran. Can you please highlight for me as to where shortages of one particular sex, could make polygamy encouraged?
Masculine poligamy, ilegal mostly, with the lovers, or "the other" has existed pretty everywhere, even without shortage of males. For that it took that it was socially tolerated for males. The position of the ilegal wife in those cases not always was good. At certain times it was nothing degrading at others made outcasts of those women.
I understand, but what is wrong is wrong. This is why we have a law for adultery in the Quran, and such a serious one! We need to utilize if the existence of "lovers" outside of marriage can be proven by those 4 witnesses. It has never been socially tolerated, most women (and men) do not put up with that situation even in western society. Unfortunately, they do not utilize the Quranic prescribed punishment for such activities, and such a punishment in fact acts as a deterrence.
To propose celibacy in case of shortage is very well and good, but to impose it will result in wild poligamy, which will still be poligamy, but which may be made to feel good, by not calling it that, but which may be detrimental for those who are ignored in the legal set up.
Those who cannot marry, are encouraged to remain chaste. People are encouraged to marry among different groups in the Quran, if one cannot marry among those who within their socio-economic status, then they are encouraged to marry among the MMA. One can broaden their horizons and marry outside of their community. The world is a big place! We do not have to resort to rampant polygamy just to tackle shortages in either sex. Nowadays, with internet and matchmaking sites, it is almost impossible not to meet someone. Polygamy may help marry off the doomed celibate for life population, but it may also increase the divorce rate, with no proper checks within the system. Also, again, I don't see anything but monogamy encouraged and prescribed, except for an allowance in Chapter 4 for what I know are very genuine reasons
Tehre seems to be some sort of mindblocks whend ealing with aspects such as these, since some people seem to interpret that to allow this or that means that it will be forced on anybody. When the law allows something that does not mean that anybody is forced to do it, but that those who for whatever reason are willing to do it, can do it legally. To allow poligamy of either sex does not mean that anybody can impose poligamy on anybody else, but that those who want to contract it are free to do so.
I understand that everyone will not forced to do it, but the allowance itself will encourage inequalities, by compelling one spouse to accepting the situation, because it is made permissible by law. Polygamy goes beyond sex, I am going to address that in a separate paragraph.
The same with collective or simultaneous marriages, it does not mean that anybody is forced to marry it means, simply, that those marriages are arranged and celebrated at the same time.
I do not have a problem with collective marriages, nor see anything in the Quran discouraging them. However, I do see an issue with the polygamous type. Collective marriages are something that I would put money into ( no lie), as I would like to see people get married (those who wish to)
In today wars, specially those of the first world against the others, since women and children are killed alike, like when bombing cities, we get the "blessing" that the sex proportion is kept stable. But history is not finished no matter what the guy Francis Fukuyama may have said in the title of his book and we do not know what awaits us in the future. They may invent the sex intelligent bomb, like they were also traying to invent the race intelligent bomb.
These are some interesting ideas. Again, in a situation where women (men too, as the MMA category can include men) and children survive in great numbers, we have two options the MMA category as well as polygamy. If the government has enough funds and has not been completely destabilized, then they may also have a role in allocating both money and overseeing the welfare of the women and children. In the case that the government is left in shambles, then it is up to the remaining members of the community, to decide how they want to work things out. Some couples may decide on the MMA option, while others may opt for polygamy for reasons having to do with finance.
Polygamy goes beyond sex. I don't mean to be crude, but sex does not make up the bulk of our time. Polygamy means to spend adequate (and equal) time, money, and resources on all of the families that you are involved with. Who can get hurt the most, if polygamy is practiced with unhappy and neglected family members? The children. Yes, the women as well, we cannot not ignore the psychological impact on women. In can go both ways, and this is why even in the case of caring and protecting the orphans, still God warns the believing men in regard to it.
Salaam
-
Peace All,
Just out of interest. In Nottingham, we have 4 women to one man. Perhaps a good situation for polygamy? Unfortunately, given the economic climate, I fear the men could not afford to look after 1 wife let alone 4!
Women do go further afield though, in the search for a husband. Oftentimes via the Internet. Just an interesting little interlude.
Dawn.
Peace Dawn,
No, not a good situation. If you have read what I wrote, I wrote in regard to the orphans. You are correct, most men cannot master this impossible feat. Even with an desirable economic climate, how does 1 man run from woman to woman, there must be other things he has to do in life? The outcome would be good enough to put into a soap opera.
-
Peace,
I will have to agree. I have never been in a society where women do not have rights, nor where polygamy is permitted. You make very valid points here, and I think that is why other countries have outlawed polygamy, because they know the unfairness that it will more than likely cause.
-Amina
Peace Amina,
I will write to you more (through PM) in this regard, God willing.
-
In 4.3 some of you see an injunction to poligamy. I do not see that there is such injuction to poligamy. I have said it several times. So I am not going to answer anything that is founded on that aya as the sole reason for admitting poligamy in Qur'an. I also said I do not know how many times already that neither poligamy masculine nor femine is prohibited, but that it is clear from the content of the whole Qur'an that the marriage, the standard marriage is the monogamous marriage and that any other must respond to some very serious circumstances which warrant it.
This argument that you give for 4.3 to be justified because of the orphans would in reverse justify poliandry for the orphans. Some lady in the forum wrote something about that, I can't remember the thread. But before that I thought that th Qur'an did put a "no" to poliandry, but after looking at the whole thing carefully I came to the conclusion that there is no prohibition of poliandry as there is no prohibition of poligamy, although, I repeat, it is abundandly clear from the whole of Qur'an that the normal or standard marriage is the monogamous one.
So no, again, no, 4.3 as far as I can see does not speak of poligamy or not poligamy. I have not yet seen a single reason or indication to take it as commanding poligamy.
As to shortage of men or women. Well I did mention, I think also several times, the case of Paraguay after the war against it of the Triple alliance 28 women to 4 men, and almost all of those men tenagers and very old men. If you do not have poligamy, you do not have a country, and please, tell me all the hapilly married women by virtue of what you condemn hundreds of thousand of other women to eternal virginity against their will or not to know motherhood against their will.
Without getting as far as 28 to 4, when the disparity becomes significant, I can't see why women who want to know a man or be mothers should rennounce to it forever so that other women do not have to undergo de pains of poligamy or divorce. In such circumstance, I, no matter how happily married I were, I would certainly not wish for other women what I do not wish for myself. They would also be human beings. If they would prefer to stay single and not become mothers, that is up to them, but I most certainly, in that circumstance, cannot expect them to respect a "monopoly" just because I would not be happy with sharing a very scarce kind of person. As far as I can see, and since the Qur'an does not forbid it, that would be a reason to regulate poligamy legally, so that in fact you do not get a society where singles mothers with children without a legal father would bring about that situation on which some of you seem to be so keen, which is the one depicted in 4.3, that "marry the mothers of the orphans". That is marry the mothers of those children their real fathers have not wanted, or have not wanted to have legally. That is since before there were no orphans, why should you have to share a husband, but after they through illegitimate sex do have orphans, then it is ok and act of charity. I find that very contradictory. And yes, of course, when there is one sex in great minority it bears a very strenuous burden, but that is so more the reason to share that burden as evenly as possible.
Salaam
-
Peace Huruf,
In 4.3 some of you see an injunction to poligamy. I do not see that there is such injuction to poligamy. I have said it several times. So I am not going to answer anything that is founded on that aya as the sole reason for admitting poligamy in Qur'an. I also said I do not know how many times already that neither poligamy masculine nor femine is prohibited, but that it is clear from the content of the whole Qur'an that the marriage, the standard marriage is the monogamous marriage and that any other must respond to some very serious circumstances which warrant it.
I guess this is where we disagree, Huruf. I see 4.3 as the sole verse in the entire Quran that provides the parameters for polygamy. I wouldn't use the word injunction though, as God does also give warnings in this regard as well. I also disagree with you, in that I believe that polyandry is not permitted. It is very important for children to know who their father is. With polyandry, this makes it almost impossible. How are we to know who it was that impregnated the woman?
335 Name them by retaining their fathers names. That is more just with God. But if you do not know their fathers, then, name them as your brothers in the system and your patrons. There is no sin upon you if you make a mistake in this respect; but you will be responsible for what your hearts deliberately intend. God is Forgiver, Merciful.
How do we call them by their father's name, if we do not know exactly is the father? Back in the day, we did not have the science and technology to do paternity tests. However, now we do. Still, in some areas of the world, it is difficult to attain paternity testing. If a child was left at an orphanage, and we do not know who his or her father is, then this unintentional and there is no sin on us. However, if we deliberately make it so, that we do not know who the father is, then there is sin on us. We could have avoided the situation by simply not allowing for polyandry. It appears that the God requires us to preserve the lineage of an individual.
Also, God tell us that men are the maintainers of women. It's not the other way around. Though, if we empower women, they usually are able to take care of themselves just fine. There isn't a single verse that tells us that women will maintain, protect, and care for men in her custody. I know that in remote parts of India and Nepal, polyandry still continues to this day. However, these people are not very concerned with lineage and requiring that the women maintain the men. Today, the practice is dying out even within their communities due to advancements in technology, and younger people moving into the cities.
This argument that you give for 4.3 to be justified because of the orphans would in reverse justify poliandry for the orphans. Some lady in the forum wrote something about that, I can't remember the thread. But before that I thought that th Qur'an did put a "no" to poliandry, but after looking at the whole thing carefully I came to the conclusion that there is no prohibition of poliandry as there is no prohibition of poligamy, although, I repeat, it is abundandly clear from the whole of Qur'an that the normal or standard marriage is the monogamous one.
So no, again, no, 4.3 as far as I can see does not speak of poligamy or not poligamy. I have not yet seen a single reason or indication to take it as commanding poligamy.
It's not really an injunction per say. It's that it becomes permissible within this context. I've written an entire post on the rationale. God speaks speaks of polygamy because the men are marrying the women, it's not the other way around. As a result, polygamy is made permissible.
As to shortage of men or women. Well I did mention, I think also several times, the case of Paraguay after the war against it of the Triple alliance 28 women to 4 men, and almost all of those men tenagers and very old men. If you do not have poligamy, you do not have a country, and please, tell me all the hapilly married women by virtue of what you condemn hundreds of thousand of other women to eternal virginity against their will or not to know motherhood against their will.
I have yet to see hundreds of thousands of women committed to eternal virginity anywhere in the world. Your example on Paraguay is thought provoking, but it still does not give allowance for polygamy unless there are orphans in the picture, and the entire thing is consensual between the initial married couple. Otherwise, it turns into an injustice regardless of who we're saving from "eternal virginity". By the way, there is nothing in the Quran in regard to marrying women so one can save them from having to live celibate lifestyles.
Without getting as far as 28 to 4, when the disparity becomes significant, I can't see why women who want to know a man or be mothers should rennounce to it forever so that other women do not have to undergo de pains of poligamy or divorce. In such circumstance, I, no matter how happily married I were, I would certainly not wish for other women what I do not wish for myself. They would also be human beings. If they would prefer to stay single and not become mothers, that is up to them, but I most certainly, in that circumstance, cannot expect them to respect a "monopoly" just because I would not be happy with sharing a very scarce kind of person. As far as I can see, and since the Qur'an does not forbid it, that would be a reason to regulate poligamy legally, so that in fact you do not get a society where singles mothers with children without a legal father would bring about that situation on which some of you seem to be so keen, which is the one depicted in 4.3, that "marry the mothers of the orphans". That is marry the mothers of those children their real fathers have not wanted, or have not wanted to have legally. That is since before there were no orphans, why should you have to share a husband, but after they through illegitimate sex do have orphans, then it is ok and act of charity. I find that very contradictory. And yes, of course, when there is one sex in great minority it bears a very strenuous burden, but that is so more the reason to share that burden as evenly as possible.
I see what you saying here. Of course, I want for others what I want for myself. However, there are limits to this Huruf. I cannot want for someone else what I want for myself, and then in turn, completely ruin the quality of my own personal life. If you look at the peer reviewed scholar journals I provided in the other thread, you will see that polygamy is often disastrous. I am glad to hear that you would happily accept a polygamous lifestyle, if you felt that there was need for it. However, according to research, most women can't even bear to think of such a lifestyle. Sometimes, in life, things don't go exactly how we wanted them to. I could end up divorced or widowed tomorrow or in the next 5 minutes. However, I wouldn't dream of burdening another family in that way. I would happily become someone's MMA (though I have earning power, so I may not have to), but I wouldn't dare encroach on someone's marriage bed. How selfish of me to want something so badly, that I would compel others to cater to my own needs?
Polygamy without regulation is a slap on the face to women. It allows for men to do as they please, and we have all seen the repercussions of this in sectarian countries around the world. It is an example of a lawless society with little regard for its female citizenry.
Yes, we're human beings. Human beings with feelings. Many of us go into marriages thinking that we have found our soul mate (not always the case), we have found our best friend, our confidante, and the bond is very sacred. It's not something that can be shared as easily as you say. Do you to want to compel women to share this? To give up their rights to a monogamous marriage, no matter what they feel or want? That's an injustice to those women who are and were happily married. How do you keep love and tranquility in a marriage where one spouse feels cheated and betrayed. I wouldn't allow for my husband to marry another, just as I would not give my child to another. These bonds go beyond charity. My husband isn't some scarce material that I can pass on to someone else. He is a human being as well, and that particular aspect of our relationship is beyond special.
Also, who says that the children were born from illegitimate sex? Don't we have adultery and fornication laws to take care of that mess? In a country with these strict laws, such incidents will be rare in the first place. These are widowed and divorced women, and we're taking care of their children either as categorizing them as MMA or through marriage.
Salaam
I'd like to add that there are far worse things in this world, then living a celibate lifestyle. If celibacy were such an issue, then God would not ask us to remain chaste until marriage. Some people get married very late, while others get married rather young. I got married rather late (for my culture's standards), because I wanted to do other things. Also, I never thought I would find anyone with my views.
-
Peace,
One point I forgot to make
You said
I find that very contradictory.
It isn't contradictory. We're talking about orphans here. Children. With the marriage comes more responsibility than just sexual relations. This is the marriage that is truly of convenience. Convenience to the orphans.