Polygamy - Time to settle the issue

Released

Peace Huruf,

You forgot to include this icon brickwall

One has to forgo these things when they are simply not within reach. As I've said before, celibacy and lack of children are very minor things. They are simply wants and desires. They are not necessities.

No woman has the right to cling to any man out of the need for sex and children. Especially, not when that man happens to be a married man. It's just selfish and greedy. Now, I am truly understanding what your argument is about. It is a terrible thing to cling to a man who is married and impose one's self on someone else's marriage bed. A terrible thing. How dare a woman ruin another's marriage, out of sheer desire. It's not food, water, and shelter, mind you. It's about sex and children. I'm sorry, but that's just terrible.

I would accept a life of celibacy and childlessness as God's will. I would get on with my life and do other things. I would never think of imposing on someone's marriage. May God curse my soul to the deepest pits of Hell, if I were to ever wreck havoc on someone's marriage, regardless of context.

dawngorgeous

Peace All,

I have to say marrying a woman to look after her children sounds a lot like benefactors with benefits. We must remember all this is for the good of the orphans. And we want this to be clear to readers. So far, it sounds like if a bloke has a bit of dosh then he can look after a few women and have lots of sex into the bargain. Sorry, it just does not hang together, unless we have all misunderstand God's view on sex. Perhaps he is a permissive God?

Released

Peace Huruf

Please release use the quote feature en the message for every part, because after if somebody wants to answer you cannot do so in turn.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Can you clarify?

You keep hammering on the 4.3 that it alks about the orphans oncerning poligamy. Give that argument to those who accept that assertion. I have told you that I do not see any permission or injuunction or anything to do with poligame in that aya. It does not touch the subject. It says nothing concerning poligamy whether to allow it or to disallow it. So all the arguments you give me founded on that assupmtion on me fall flat. As far as I can see the aya does not say that.

So the argument that poligamy is only for the sake of the orphans it is useless that you repeat it to me. I abondoned it. It does not wash.

As to poliandry, well I won't go into that with you. I have repeated to many things to many times to no avail. I do not have time to involve myself on the poliandry issue iin those terms.

But however much you may deny it, it is not forbidden, exactly like poliginy. And you should know that not all women are fertile and that all women at one point in their life stop being fertile, apart of course from all those things you mention to determine fatherhood, and the possibility of keeping track of it by simply organising sessions, so that there is no confusion.

There is nothing in the Quran that says that man cannot approach his wife at any time. He has not addressed infertile women or organizing one's sex schedule. How do you schedule such a thing? Have you ever been married? How do you schedule sex? By default, the pregnant woman would also have to schedule sex with all of her husbands as well. The whole set up looks and sounds weird.

Of course nobody wants such a situation where there will be much fewer women than men. But God is very, very foreseeing and if he has not forbiden poliandry he knows better than any lady of the beginning of the xxi century.

And of course nobody is under the obligation whether of poliandry or of poliginy.

And I think that I am closing my participation in this thread.

The issue is that you have yet to convince me that 4.3 has nothing to do with polygamy, when it has polygamy written all over it and on both sides of it. Yet, you have arrived at some far fetched conclusion, that makes zero sense to me. I've read all of your responses, and have tried very hard to understand where you are coming from. Yet, it's not making sense to me at all. So, I'll just keep hammering on and on, because I have every right to do so. Yes, I am aware of the fact my interpretation does not resonate with you. I don't expect it to, at this point. Nevertheless, what needs to said has to said.

I know it's your choice, but I do want you to continue in this thread.

Released

Peace All,

I have been watching the discussion and I find the arguments being put forward extremely laudable. I am particularly impressed with Released's insistence on the idea that 43 allows polygamy. Indeed, I believe Edip also believes this.

Yup

My own personal view still remains that if we accept that polygamy is allowed, then we cancel out some important verses in the Koran that appear to teach us the importance of monogamy. I do believe that we still have not understood 43, because contradictions exist.

You are entitled to your view, as Huruf is entitled to her viewpoint. However, you cannot expect anyone else to accept your view. This was the point I was trying to make in your thread. In the end, you set the precedent for your marriage. What do you want in your marriage? What don't you want in your marriage? That's up to you.

So, as I pointed out before, surah 4 actually begins with God telling us He made a mate for us.
Surah 2235 reminds the men that they can keep the engagement secret. Does that mean his new marriage will come as a surprise to his current wives/wife?
Surah 2187...they are the keepers of your secrets and you the keepers of their secrets... Really? Are secrets really going to be kept between 1 man and 4 women?

As I've said before, polygamy is allowable within very strict parameters and it is monogamy that is encouraged. The verses that you bring forth highlight that monogamy is what is encouraged, and is the norm. However, 4.3 still pertains to polygamy, from my readings and analysis. If you disagree then that is perfectly fine with me.

Released

Peace All,

I have to say marrying a woman to look after her children sounds a lot like benefactors with benefits. We must remember all this is for the good of the orphans. And we want this to be clear to readers. So far, it sounds like if a bloke has a bit of dosh then he can look after a few women and have lots of sex into the bargain. Sorry, it just does not hang together, unless we have all misunderstand God's view on sex. Perhaps he is a permissive God?

Permissive God? Please elaborate as I have no idea what this means. It's not all about the money, Dawn. Money isn't everything, though you are going to need it if you plan on providing shelter, food, clothing, education, and etc to these children. Dawn, honestly, did you read my post? It's about being a father to these children. Do you know it is like to be an orphan in the world, without a father? I gave you an example of the kids I work with.

huruf

Peace Huruf,

You forgot to include this icon brickwall

One has to forgo these things when they are simply not within reach. As I've said before, celibacy and lack of children are very minor things. They are simply wants and desires. They are not necessities.

No woman has the right to cling to any man out of the need for sex and children. Especially, not when that man happens to be a married man. It's just selfish and greedy. Now, I am truly understanding what your argument is about. It is a terrible thing to cling to a man who is married and impose one's self on someone else's marriage bed. A terrible thing. How dare a woman ruin another's marriage, out of sheer desire. It's not food, water, and shelter, mind you. It's about sex and children. I'm sorry, but that's just terrible.

I would accept a life of celibacy and childlessness as God's will. I would get on with my life and do other things. I would never think of imposing on someone's marriage. May God curse my soul to the deepest pits of Hell, if I were to ever wreck havoc on someone's marriage, regardless of context.

Do as you will and have the convictions you wish, but because you have such and such conviction you cannot impose on ALL women that you may leave millions of other women childless because you are ever so moral. All women are not like you. Many women would understand that need and the need for good will towards other women who may not be as virtuous and hardy as you are.

So forbid whatever you want to forbid to yourself, but do not pretend that you are upholding sublime morals, because that is not the case. To other people it is far more moral to share and help each other along under difficult circumstances. They are not obliging you to anything. But have the generosity to let them decide for themselves, and in case it is not clear, because there seems to be such a big block in this, I say VERY DIFFICULT, UNUSUAL, SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES, SUCH AS MAY BE SIMILAR TO THE PARAGUAYAN EXPERIENCE. Glory be to God the Paraguayan women did not have such a picky disposition, there would be no Paraguay today. ?Alhamdulillah and may God have in His intimacy those heroic women and men who fought and resurrected from a certain grave that brave and beautiful people and nation! Today they are monogamous, but they were greater than their plight and gave all it took to continue being a people for God's glory.

See
brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall

there you have some more to practice, I won't need them, I quit.

Salaam

dawngorgeous

Peace All,

Can I humbly point out that this is a discussion. By dint of this fact, we are not always going to agree. I don't know where you all went to school, but I was taught that you remain polite whatever. Also, please remember we are all entitled to our own points of view and that no-one needs to tell us that. I thought that was a natural given. I must say I was surprised when this was pointed out a couple of times. If we are going to fall out then attempting to have a discussion is pointless - especially on such an emotive and controversial topic as polygamy.

Released

Peace Huruf,

Do as you will and have the convictions you wish, but because you have such and such conviction you cannot impose on ALL women that you may leave millions of other women childless because you are ever so moral. All women are not like you. Many women would understand that need and the need for good will towards other women who may not be as virtuous and hardy as you are.

Yes, I will leave the women as childless, so that my own marriage doesn't go down the drain, and so my children do not grow up within yet another broken family. Yes, being virtuous and chaste are good things that are encouraged in the Quran, let's all make an effort.

So forbid whatever you want to forbid to yourself, but do not pretend that you are upholding sublime morals, because that is not the case. To other people it is far more moral to share and help each other along under difficult circumstances. They are not obliging you to anything. But have the generosity to let them decide for themselves, and in case it is not clear, because there seems to be such a big block in this, I say VERY DIFFICULT, UNUSUAL, SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES, SUCH AS MAY BE SIMILAR TO THE PARAGUAYAN EXPERIENCE. Glory be to God the Paraguayan women did not have such a picky disposition, there would be no Paraguay today. ?Alhamdulillah and may God have in His intimacy those heroic women and men who fought and resurrected from a certain grave that brave and beautiful people and nation! Today they are monogamous, but they were greater than their plight and gave all it took to continue being a people for God's glory.

I am very interested in the Paraguayan experience. Actually, I've been reading up on it. I understand that they lost 70-90% of their male population? Now, I'm not saying that polygamy under such circumstances is permissible merely because women want to have sex and babies, but perhaps to repopulate the community? In such circumstances, a state of emergency could be announced, and polygamy be made lawful to those who are okay with it? (I'm sure the men will be more than okay with is). I don't think 4.3 pertains this reasoning those. Some things become permissible when we are left without a choice, such as eating pork becomes permissible when there is nothing else to hunt and eat? I need to think about it, Huruf, but you've got some points. Though, I did read that many Paraguayans married Brazilians as a result. Interesting, how people speak Guarani along with Spanish. Do you know how long it took for people to go back in the direction of monogamy?

See
brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall

there you have some more to practice, I won't need them, I quit.

I know, I feel the same sometimes.

Salaam

Released

Peace All,

Can I humbly point out that this is a discussion. By dint of this fact, we are not always going to agree. I don't know where you all went to school, but I was taught that you remain polite whatever. Also, please remember we are all entitled to our own points of view and that no-one needs to tell us that. I thought that was a natural given. I must say I was surprised when this was pointed out a couple of times. If we are going to fall out then attempting to have a discussion is pointless - especially on such an emotive and controversial topic as polygamy.

Where was I not polite? Let me know so that I can catch myself next time, God willing.

dawngorgeous

Peace Released,

By permissive I meant in the sense of a permissive society - anything goes!

The last little boy I worked with, he had sat in a dis-used railway tunnel all night while he waited for his single mum to get home from the pub.

Released

Peace Dawn,

Yes, I do not believe that we have a "permissive" God. However, I suppose some things become permissible given dire circumstances, though not to fulfill individual desires.

That's really sad. What is his mother doing at the pub? Does she work there? Or is she just partying?

Released

Peace all,

Please excuse me ladies. I have to feed my 6 month old, and then have to get dinner ready. I'll check back later, God willing.

unknownuser

Salamun Alaykunn,

I guess its my time to write one of those extensive, lengthy, and detailed posts lol

What I've noticed is that we - By "We", I'm including Dawngorgeous, Released, Huruf, and of course, ME - only happen to disagree with the purpose, addressee, reason, and concept of 'Marry' in . Released and I share similar views, huruf disagrees with Released, and dawngorgeous is trying to look deeper in the verse, and is looking for a convincing explanation for the reason why its polygamy, which Released has given many times.

First, I'll share my view on the differences between Released and huruf. I and Released say that by the command of 'Marry', Allah is ordering the individuals of who have the responsibility for orphans, which by virtue of the command of marrying women, are men, while huruf says, wait, lemme just quote her

Reply #26 of this thread

And I do not see yet how this 4.3 aya has anything to do with poligamy or not poligamy. It is a collective injuction. It is not telling every man to marry this or that woman, it is telling the community that those in a position to do so, should marry two, three, four of a go, I does not necessarily mean the same man marries those numbers but the collective of men marry at the same time one or two or three, and if they cannot even assure that, then just Mamalakar aymanuhum. That is, if there are needy who could be helped through marriage, then they should do it in any number they can offord. Do not forget that men should pay the ujur. Those who are in position to do so or if tghe community can help with the ujur, the community may afford to have one, or two or three, or whatever married, but if not even one, then one MMA, which since the MMA is still being discussed I won't venture to state categorically that, but the MMA would mean that they do not need to pay ujur, which would make it possible to marry a woman, which is always better than none.

What I learn from above is that huruf says that 43 generally commands the society's men to marry women in a go up to four for the betterment of the community. And if they cannot afford to marry women in large numbers, than one or marry the MMA, for there is no restriction of number for marrying them. Then she concludes that since marrying normal women would require the payment of ujur, and marrying MMA is an alternative to marrying normal women, MMA marriages would probably then involve no payment of ujur.

Then in her later posts, she says that both polygamy and polyandry are not prohibited, nor encouraged, though monogamy is encouraged, in tough/harsh situations e.g. lack of men/women etc. this would be a solution.

To huruf Is my summary of your views correct? If not, do tell me

Now here is my take on the issue, but before I directly address huruf's points, lemme share with you a little piece of information that - to me at least - plays a vital role in the interpretation and deduction of the meaning of the Quran.

You see people, the Quran is crystal clear. All it requires, is honesty, patience, logic, and knowledge regarding it, in my eyes. When we end up with conflicting interpretations, we ask Allah. When the first witnesses of the Quran got confused, or simply didn't comprehend an injunction or sign of Allah, they asked, and He cleared them up, this is mentioned in . As you can see, there are several verses in the Quran which begin with 'They ask you concerning', or 'They ask your decision' etc. and then there are verses which have 'Thus do We explain the signs' with usually 'That they may reflect' or 'They they may understand'. What's the reason why Allah does this? Its because He promised to explain the Quran for example in , and mainly, in . Now, in our era, we have the complete Quran, with no Prophet as per a verse in Ch. 33, and no more room for revelation as Allah in said to the believers of that time, 'I have perfected your Deen for you, completed my blessings, and chosen submission/peace making (Whatever the correct translation of 'Islam' is), as your Deen'. Thus, when we find a problem, we must - in my eyes - do the following

i) Look at it the way the first community saw it
ii) Study the grammar and context, and do cross referencing
iii) Compare with other verses
iv) Look to extract the best meaning, ask for Allah's help, guidance, and be patient
v) Check for any contradictions in our interpretation

That above was the way I see things, may Allah forgive if I attributed a lie to Him. Do ponder upon it.

Now I'll address huruf's points. Also huruf, no offense to you whatsoever, you might as well mentally prepare yourself for disagreement on my behalf Ready? Ok, like I said in the paragraph above, the Quran explains the Quran, as it is all we have from Allah at the moment, our first difference is regarding the addressee of 'Marry'.

We both agree that it is 'Marry' and not 'Marry off', that the verse's initial context was referring to the whole society, however, this particular one by virtue of its context addresses men, correct? The place where we disagree is whether it refers to men as a group and individual men of the society where it uses the plural pronoun, 'You', right?

To understand this, we must back our opinions with the Quran, the one with the stronger evidence would be right, in other words 'Compare with other verses'. The reason why I do this, is that the Quran cannot contain inconsistencies be virtue of being from Allah, thus, if in one verse it orders the community to do something, and means that the community as a whole do it, then it must be the case in like-structured verses as well. Thus, I bring verses with a similar structure to understand this

Forbidden for you are your mothers, your daughters, your sisters Here, if we interpret this verse the way you interpret , then this verse wouldn't make logical sense. It would only make sense if we take it to refer to the individuals themselves rather than the society as a whole

And tell the believing women to lower their gaze, and guard their genitals Here too, it only makes sense when you take the word 'Their' to refer to each woman's rather than collectively women's.

Allah has set a seal at their hearts Again, it is impossible that 'Their hearts' refers to a single heart that is collectively owned by the addressee, though, interpreting it to mean 'Each individual's heart among the addressee' makes perfect sens.

These are just three examples out of thousands of examples, though I admit, there are verses in which taking the plural pronoun as referring to the addressee as a group seems preferable, however, even in those instances, taking them as referring to the individuals makes sense as well. Of course, I haven't checked all verses with plural pronouns, so I can be wrong. That's the reason why my argument doesn't end here I have a lot of points to make in this post.

Even if we do agree that orders men as a collective group, and addresses the society as a whole, and that it refers to increasing the marriage rate (i.e. men increase the numbers of marriages up to four marriages in a go), what does this 'Collective injunction' have anything to do with 'Fear of being unjust with orphans'? If you say that this refers to marriages with their mothers, then I'm afraid, this verse doesn't use the term 'Their mothers', it says, 'Nisa', though they can be included within 'Nisa', 'Nisa' itself is not restricted to their mothers. You said 'If there are needy and can be helped through marriage', however, the concept of 'Needy' or being 'Miskin'/'Faqir' was never stated in , but regarding 'Qisd' with orphans.

If you are able to give me a reasonable answer for the point raised above, then wait, there's another point , you said that this verse implies that MMA don't require 'Ujur' (Which is not a direct claim of the verse, but a deduction made by you), lemme tell you, that says (From my memory) Wa man lam yatati'a minkum taulan an yankiha al muhsanat ilmominat, fa min ma malakat aymanukum min fatayatikum ul mominat .... fankihuhunna biidhni ahlihinna wa aatuhunna ujurahunna bi almaruf And he who doesn't have the means that he marries a the believing protected women, so from MMA from your believing young/servant/dependant women ... marry them by their people's/families' leave/permission and give them Ujur with/as something what/that is acceptable/common As per this verse, marrying MMA requires payment of ujur, thus cannot imply otherwise, not only because of this, but mainly because of it not directly/straight forwardly stating that either.

These three ^ are the main points I have/had to raise against your interpretation of . Regarding your stance on polygamy and polyandry, I have points to raise as well, but I won't, as I want us to divert back to and settle it first. I have no intention of sounding rude, offensive, ill mannered or sarcastic in any sentence of this post, that's the reason why I throw in some emoticons to keep the atmosphere light So don't think that I'm taunting you, or am being sarcastic regarding your views or anything similar to them ok? Take your time, though I'd prefer it if you'd reply during this weekend. Excuse grammatical and spelling mistakes.

May God help us, forgive us, guide us, and lead us/keep us at the Sirat al Mustiqim

Released

Peace FallenAngel21098,

I look forward to reading your post in greater depth soon, God willing. Knowing me, I will need some time to go through each point, study it, and then respond.

Your are correct in that you and I generally agree with another, and what we have deduced is very much in line with the current understanding of polygamy within Quran only circles.

Huruf and I disagree on a number of things

I do not agree that polyandry is permissible under any circumstances as per the Quran
I do not think that polygamy can be practiced unchecked or unregulated; monogamy is the norm and the gold standard unless one's aim is to provide guardianship to the orphans in the form of fatherhood, as per the Quran
Verse 4.3 has everything to do with polygamy, and cross referencing will establish this
Polygamy is not meant for people as a means out of a celibate lifestyle; women are not expected to share their spouse as a form of charity to the celibate women. It is meant as an act of charity to the orphaned children; as Verse 4.3 specifically discusses

Huruf gave me the example of Paraguay under the Triple Alliance. The majority of Paraguay's male population was killed off during the conflict. Paraguay repopulated it's male population through the use of rampant polygamy. I consider this to a state of emergency within a country. However, I also read that many people in Paraguay married Brazilians, and other people of neighboring countries in order to repopulate the land. This type of polygamy has nothing to do with verse 4.3, however, and is a rare type. Today, most Paraguayans opt for monogamy naturally (though the Catholic Church may have something to do with it).

Dawn says that polygamy is not permissible because of verses that indicate a monogamous relationship between husband and wife. I agree with her that it is monogamy that is encouraged, and God warns against polygamy in certain verses. However, I have tried to explain that a special allowance is given for very specific reasons, having to do with charity, care, and protection for young children.

I will post again as soon as I can, God willing.

unknownuser

Guys don't let this thread end without a conclusion especially when its coming to its climax like every other thread

dawngorgeous

Peace Fallen Angel,

There is so much more to this topic. I suggest we divert our attention from chapter four and look to the rest of the Koran. For example, I have recently read the chapter entitled, 'The Debate'. In this chapter, God talks about remarrying the same woman. He gives certain stipulations, including a time delay. Now, were polygamy allowed, this time delay would not have the desired effect on the man, because he could have all his needs met by his other wives. Using our intelligence, as the Koran tells us to, we know that there is therefore some sort of discrepancy going on.

Maha

Peace Fallen Angel,

There is so much more to this topic. I suggest we divert our attention from chapter four and look to the rest of the Koran. For example, I have recently read the chapter entitled, 'The Debate'. In this chapter, God talks about remarrying the same woman. He gives certain stipulations, including a time delay. Now, were polygamy allowed, this time delay would not have the desired effect on the man, because he could have all his needs met by his other wives. Using our intelligence, as the Koran tells us to, we know that there is therefore some sort of discrepancy going on.

very good point.

Maha

Do you know it is like to be an orphan in the world, without a father? I gave you an example of the kids I work with.

yes its like being an orphan in the world without a mother. )

You have the concept of adoption to deal with that.

Maha

What marriage in Islam is, is another discussion and what is romance in Islam and what is sex in Islam again are separate discussions. I can understand your anger at the thought of sharing your husband, but I honestly believe these ayat were intended for a situation like the we currently have in Iraq for instance an.
Salaam

what has iraq to do with anything. Most men in Iraq live in poverty without employment then how the heck are they going to provide for another family? confused

Stop making excused for why men shall cheat on women. What if you had the opposite scenario where women married 4 men ? confused now what do you think about that?

Maha

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

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

Dear sister. 'Azwaj' means 'pairs' and therefore isnt limited to the one you are married to.

Peace