Polygamy - Time to settle the issue
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Salaamwhat 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?
-
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
-
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?
why would someone need to marry and have sex with a woman in return for looking after her children? Thats sounds like prostitution to me!
Moreover, If I was a woman with children why shall I need someone to look after my children? I can look after my children my self!Solution If a woman is not capable of looking after her children, then Make the mothers family get up from their as* and help her with the children or/and Open a kindergarten near her.
Peace
-
Dear sister. 'Azwaj' means 'pairs' and therefore isnt limited to the one you are married to.
Peace
Dear -- please refer to me as brother.
Qur'an azwjan in context of people refers to spouse (i.e. person one marries or pairs with).
2230 so if he divorces her so not lawful to him from after until tankiha/she marries zawjan/spouse other than him so if he divorces her so not blame on them that they return back if they think that they keep limits The God and those are limits The God He makes clear for people who know
why would someone need to marry and have sex with a woman in return for looking after her children? Thats sounds like prostitution to me!
The issue is settled; Qur'an is absolutely clear multiple wives are allowed.
Prohibition is non-existent. All are free to marry or not marry and divorce.Lastly, not all women with children are glamorous lookers; even if one marries models that too quickly fades and little difference sexually being with one woman or multiple women which is greater burden on the man.
Peace
-
Peace Dawngorgeous,
Firstly please give me the reference to the verse you are talking about, I can't find it. Secondly, here is my reply to your deduction by that verse you are talking about
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.
I know there is so much on 43, but I really want a good reply to my post ? on November 02, 2012, 105933 AM ? I mean, it really requires attention, I worked so hard on it, and I want to do this slowly and steadily. Coming to your point, it is a very epic, I must say, thought provoking, and convincing deduction, but I have something to say regarding it, you may say that the Lord gives a time delay, ok, no doubt He does (All though I haven't read the verse, I trust you that you aren't lying), but from where do you conclude what is the purpose of the time delay? Can't it very well be a time for rethinking, or a time to determine whether the woman is pregnant? Why limit the extension period's purpose to only giving the husband a sense of deprivation? And even then, if you say that it is limited to give the desired affect of feeling of deprivation to the husband, from where do you conclude that getting 'Needs' from one wife is the same as other? Agreed, sx is something he will be able to get from another wife, but is sx everything? What about other feelings of care, love, help, comfort, attitude etc.? These things vary from person to person, the way one wife expresses her feelings of love is not necessarily the way another does, you see what I'm trying to say? Who limited the feeling of deprivation of a wife to lack of s*x?
-
Peace all.
Alright, I'm back. It's been crazy busy for me as I had many things to attend to. I'm glad to be back. Now, I read through Fallen Angel's post and will answer accordingly.
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
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
Honestly, I was very confused in regard to this as well.
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 interpretationThat above was the way I see things, may Allah forgive if I attributed a lie to Him. Do ponder upon it.
Agreed
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.
Interesting points
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.
See, this is where the disagreement lies though. Huruf does not believe that 4.3 has anything to do with polygamy. As a result, fearing injustice wouldn't matter in her interpretation.
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.
Agreed.
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.
I don't think we're being ill mannered or sarcastic. I think sometimes we're very passionate about our perspective, and that's perfectly okay in my opinion.
May God help us, forgive us, guide us, and lead us/keep us at the Sirat al Mustiqim
Inshallah
-
Peace Maha,
How does a mother part with her child like that? If I were widowed or divorced, am I supposed to just part with my child? Wouldn't it be better to keep the family unit together? We're not talking about orphans without the mother AND father in the picture. We're talking about orphans without FATHERS. If you've read my other posts, then you'll understand the negative impacts on entire communities that suffer as result of absentee fathers.
By the way, I found your post sarcastic. I suppose you've never been an orphan before, that you can make so light of it?
As if adoption was a cure all for such a situation.
yes its like being an orphan in the world without a mother. )
You have the concept of adoption to deal with that.
-
Peace Maha,
Prostitution? Wow.
Perhaps, in the end, it's all about how you feel. Some generous women would gladly put aside their feelings in this one case, in order to provide a COMPLETE family to the orphans. A complete family entails a mother and father who are married, and the orphans are legitimate children to their caretaker (the father). Not only that, but they are also heirs to the inheritance. Some would be okay with that, believe it or not. It wouldn't be prostitution. It's called because selflessly charitable. Amazing how charitable some people are, no?
Others may not be, and that's where the category of MMA comes in. No need to feel guilty about it though. God warns against the possible injustices, and nobody is compelled to take part in polygamy.
why would someone need to marry and have sex with a woman in return for looking after her children? Thats sounds like prostitution to me!
Moreover, If I was a woman with children why shall I need someone to look after my children? I can look after my children my self!Solution If a woman is not capable of looking after her children, then Make the mothers family get up from their as* and help her with the children or/and Open a kindergarten near her.
Peace
-
See, this is where the disagreement lies though. Huruf does not believe that 4.3 has anything to do with polygamy. As a result, fearing injustice wouldn't matter in her interpretation.
Exactly, unless Huruf clears up her stance, but she won't, and that's fine, we still have dawngorgeous, Maha, and Noon Walqalami participating, and around like 1000 views to this thread, so I'm sure there are people thinking about this, and I invite all those interested to share something/some interpretation/some deduction/some discovery in the Quran to not hesitate at all. The next objectives I want to achieve in this thread are
Get a reply from dawngorgeous for the points I raised in reply #118
Clear up my stance on polyandry
Try to further clear up 43 by any further required discussions and move on to 2432 -
I agree with Released's posts above
-
Peace Fallen Angel,
I shall respond to you as soon as I am near a Koran. That could be sooner rather than later. Bear with me.
Dawn.
-
Dear -- please refer to me as brother.
Qur'an azwjan in context of people refers to spouse (i.e. person one marries or pairs with).
2230 so if he divorces her so not lawful to him from after until tankiha/she marries zawjan/spouse other than him so if he divorces her so not blame on them that they return back if they think that they keep limits The God and those are limits The God He makes clear for people who know
The issue is settled; Qur'an is absolutely clear multiple wives are allowed.
Prohibition is non-existent. All are free to marry or not marry and divorce.Lastly, not all women with children are glamorous lookers; even if one marries models that too quickly fades and little difference sexually being with one woman or multiple women which is greater burden on the man.
Peace
Peace brother . I will come back to the zawj issue later. Firstly tell me since you believe multiple wives are allowed .. Does the Quran according to your understanding allows multiple husbands as well?
Peace
-
Peace Fallen Angel,
I believe the chapter is 58 and the verses are 4 and 5.
Also, I would add to this argument the verse about seeing each other before you are married for the first time. Once again, I am afraid I do not have the chapter and verse to hand. In this verse, God talks about the couple not being intimate and maintaining their chastity. If chastity means being chaste, then the expectation is that both man and woman are not indulging in sex. If the husband is already married and this is his second, third or fourth wife, then chastity cannot be maintained.
You speak of the love etc., a husband might expect from his wives. What of the love a woman might expect from her husband. How on earth can he show this to four women. God tells us it is impossible to be fair to more than one woman. Which means that something is not adding up in the Koran??!!
Dawn.
Dawn.
-
Peace Maha,
How does a mother part with her child like that? If I were widowed or divorced, am I supposed to just part with my child? Wouldn't it be better to keep the family unit together? We're not talking about orphans without the mother AND father in the picture. We're talking about orphans without FATHERS. If you've read my other posts, then you'll understand the negative impacts on entire communities that suffer as result of absentee fathers.
By the way, I found your post sarcastic. I suppose you've never been an orphan before, that you can make so light of it?
As if adoption was a cure all for such a situation.
Peace . You are talking about absentee fathers, but a man who PRACTISE polygamy is actually a absent father, since he would have to divide his time. How funny is it to see your father only once in a while ?
Secondly, that you are willing to sleep with a married man for the sake of your children is a totally different issue . Personally if I was divorced or widowed my children would for sure not be orphans as I would be there for them .
A widow woman can always marry a widow man . Do you think it's only women who became widows ? What about the widow males ? Now would you suggest polyandry for the widow males as well?You are talking about widow females as they are handicap incapable of taking care of their own children. And thus need a married stranger to look after the children every second/third day. That's an insult on motherhood!
If a widow woman wants to marry for herself she can marry a single man or a widow man or a divorcee. Why would she degrade herself by running after married men ?
And you are talking about a family unit . A widow woman running after married men for the sake of "family unit" cannot be morally justified and she would be disrespectful towards her children and the wives of the married men if she did that. Nor can a married stepfather who the children would see every second day replace a biological father.
Peace
-
Peace Maha,
Prostitution? Wow.
Perhaps, in the end, it's all about how you feel. Some generous women would gladly put aside their feelings in this one case, in order to provide a COMPLETE family to the orphans. A complete family entails a mother and father who are married, and the orphans are legitimate children to their caretaker (the father). Not only that, but they are also heirs to the inheritance. Some would be okay with that, believe it or not. It wouldn't be prostitution. It's called because selflessly charitable. Amazing how charitable some people are, no? o
Others may not be, and that's where the category of MMA comes in. No need to feel guilty about it though. God warns against the possible injustices, and nobody is compelled to take part in polygamy.
You are out of touch with reality. A Stepfather is not the legitimate caretaker of the children neither can he take the place of the biological father. In the case of a mother and stepfather it's the Mother who is the caretaker and It's her responsibility to ensure that the stepfather isn't abusing the children . As we know from surveys, most incidence of incest and child abuse is commited by a stepfather.
Secondly if a widow really wants a man in the house for the children she would logically go after a single man who could be there for the children all the time. Not a married man who would be absent at least half of his time since he would have many other wives and children as well.
Peace
-
Peace Maha )
Peace . You are talking about absentee fathers, but a man who PRACTISE polygamy is actually a absent father, since he would have to divide his time. How funny is it to see your father only once in a while ?
How is he an absent father when the entire family lives together under one roof? Are all fathers of large families absent fathers? There is nothing in the Quran that points in the direction of families having to live separately or apart from one another.
Secondly, that you are willing to sleep with a married man for the sake of your children is a totally different issue . Personally if I was divorced or widowed my children would for sure not be orphans as I would be there for them .
A widow woman can always marry a widow man . Do you think it's only women who became widows ? What about the widow males ? Now would you suggest polyandry for the widow males as well?If you had actually read the contents of this thread properly, you would have actually seen my arguments against polyandry and why it is not sanctioned within the Quran. In many third world countries ravaged by war, it is mainly women that are destitute and become vulnerable within the society. Their children of course suffer alongside them. The men rarely become widowers in large numbers from wars (I'd like to see an example of this from somewhere in our history on Planet Earth), and they are not taken advantage of as easily. Unless, of course we're talking about some mythological creatures from the Amazon.
It's definitely acceptable to sleep with a married man if you are married to him. I see polygamy under the circumstances I have highlighted as perfectly permissible. She isn't just some woman who is sleeping with them. She is his wife. Her children are now his step children, and will stand in line for the inheritance as well. Perfectly permissible and no need to slander the poor woman. Whether I'd do it or not? It depends on my circumstances and the actual environment. Again, there is nothing in the Quran that compels me or my husband to take on this challenge. God warns against polygamy even within these specific situations, as He is well aware of the many domestic problems that could follow. However, the allowance is made for the most charitable in the society. If they can make it work, then why deny knock it? Why deny a group of orphans the chance of a real family life? I'm not going to be the one to do it.
You are talking about widow females as they are handicap incapable of taking care of their owto bolder. And thus need a married stranger to look after the children every second/third day. That's an insult on motherhood!
An insult to motherhood? Yes, I'm sure the poor, destitute woman is going to be concerned with that so called insult, at the time that they are in dire need of proper family structure. Obviously, you really can't relate to the issue at all. God forbid you live in some land ravaged by war and anarchy.
If a widow woman wants to marry for herself she can marry a single man or a widow man or a divorcee. Why would she degrade herself by running after married men ?
Because the single, capable men are not available in large numbers. This is the entire point of the discussion. The war or whatever the phenomenon was ,has obviously devastated the population, to the point of where such men cannot be found easily. She's not running after him, you make this woman to sound like a whore. She's not some home wrecker as you are trying to paint the picture. It's her God given right in 4.3 to seek out a man who is willing to assimilate her kids into his family. The majority of men wouldn't take such a huge financial and emotionally taxing situation on. The men and women who agree to this arrangement are of the most charitable, no matter how much your words seek to slander them.
And you are talking about a family unit . A widow woman running after married men for the sake of "family unit" cannot be morally justified and she would be disrespectful towards her children and the wives of the married men if she did that. Nor can a married stepfather who the children would see every second day replace a biological father.
Chapter 4 justifies it. I have yet to see a justifiable explanation for 4.3 from any of the posters in regard to these three things context, grammar, and whether or not the "solution" even makes sense or not. People just want to disregard 4.3 has a bunch of allegorical, fancy schmancy set of words, though it is has clear as day.
So far, the argument is as follows
- Polygamy is an insult to motherhood even though it's meant to help the orphans and their mothers
- The women are just running after these married men for no rhyme or reason, even though the parameters are clearly given in verse 4.3
- Step fathers cannot be good replacements for biological fathers. Of course, this is the one that makes the least sense to me. I've seen plenty of people raised by step fathers and they've blossomed into fine, productive citizens with a healthy appetite for life.
Peace
-
Peace again,
You are out of touch with reality. A Stepfather is not the legitimate caretaker of the children neither can he take the place of the biological father. In the case of a mother and stepfather it's the Mother who is the caretaker and It's her responsibility to ensure that the stepfather isn't abusing the children . As we know from surveys, most incidence of incest and child abuse is commited by a stepfather.
Says who? You? He is perfectly legitimate and adoption is 100% permissible in light of the Quran. I live in the United States, and I've seen tons and tons of step fathers step up to the plate just fine. If rape and child abuse were such an issue, than this practice would have been outlawed a really long time ago. Obviously, such cases are not the NORM according to research. In most cases, the family adjusts to one another, and having a father figure is a very positive influence on the children. They don't have to forget their biological father, but they can respect and love this stepfather who has decided to love and protect them in this messed up world of ours. Not all men are perverts.
Oh, and out of touch with reality? My parents are from a third world country where such practices would probably take millions of children off the streets, and provide these women with some normalcy in their lives. If you're from a decent Western country or wealthy Arab country, there is no way you are going to be able to relate with realities of this world.
Secondly if a widow really wants a man in the house for the children she would logically go after a single man who could be there for the children all the time. Not a married man who would be absent at least half of his time since he would have many other wives and children as well.
The single, capable men are obviously not available. This is the whole point of the discussion. 4.3 exists because these men are not in abundance due to a drastic phenomenon that literally wiped them off the face of the earth (probably war)
Peace