Polygamy - Time to settle the issue
-
Peace brother.
As I earlier said, verses in quran confirm both multiple wives and multiple husbands.
By the way why do you keep translating azwaj with spouses when it means pairs?
Peace sister,
Multiple wives yes. You've not shown evidence many women can marry every man.
What you are suggesting is a form of an open sex community like the early hippies.In context spouses; in 3350 exactly means wives which you agree verses confirm.
What has the above to do with anything? I live in a modern western country so why should I care about tribes and tribel mentality ?
Qur'an was delivered to 6th century tribal society and you living in a "modern" western society e.g. shoe-box high rises with internet and indoor plumbing should be able to understand it's meaning and context.
You contradict yourself.
I dont think nisa means women. I have already given examples. I still study the issue but at this point it seems to me that qawam are maintainers (Rijaal qawameen 3la nisa) and nisa depend on others.
No, there are no contradictions in my posts rather it's your lack of careful study and nisa is always female/women.
This whole issue is put to rest; clear below verses confirm multiple wives. Again, if any disagree, then translate?
3350 O you the prophet indeed We made lawful to you your spouses/wives 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 over them in their spouses and what possess their right hands not will be to you harm in doing and is The God Forgiving Merciful
3352 not lawful to you the women from after and not that replace in them from spouses and if/had pleased you their beauty only what possess your right hand and is The God on each a thing Watchful
-
Brother Noon
What you are suggesting is a form of an open sex community like the early hippies
Peace bro. You suggest the same thing, so whats the problem?
. You've not shown evidence many women can marry every man.
You are right. I havent shown you that yet, I apologize for that. So let me show you the verse
Forbidden for you are your mothers, and your daughters, and your sisters, and the sisters of your father, and the sisters of your mother, and the daughters of your brother, and the daughters of your sister, and your foster mothers who suckled you, and your sisters from suckling, and the mothers of your women, and your step-daughters who are in your lodgings from your women with whom you have already consummated the marriage; if you have not consummated the marriage then there is no sin upon you; and those who are in wedlock with your sons who are from your seed, and that you join between two sisters except what has already been done. God is Forgiving, Merciful.
Qur'an was delivered to 6th century tribal society and you living in a "modern" western society e.g. shoe-box high rises with internet and indoor plumbing should be able to understand it's meaning and context
So you mean that quran is a book for tribal societies? Well then we cannot really use it anymore in our modern western gender-equal society anymore, right?
P.s Can you show me where the quran says that it was delivered in the 6th century?
3350 O you the prophet indeed We made lawful to you your spouses/wives 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 over them in their spouses and what possess their right hands not will be to you harm in doing and is The God Forgiving Merciful
His pairs is lawful for him. What has this to do with the nisa discussion?
3352 not lawful to you the women from after and not that replace in them from spouses and if/had pleased you their beauty only what possess your right hand and is The God on each a thing Watchful
Another translating could be No NISA are lawful to you after this, nor that you change them for pairs, even though you may be attracted by their goodness, except what is maintained by your oath. And God is Watcher over all things.
In other words, you cannot exchange NISA with Azwaj.
Let me give you the verses where NISA cannot mean women
314 Beautified for people {An-Nas} is the love of that which they desire ? of women {An-Nisa?} and sons, heaped-up sums of gold and silver, fine branded horses, and cattle and tilled land. That is the enjoyment of worldly life, but Allah has with Him the best return
Nisa here cannot mean women because Homosexuality would then be justified
I will come up with other verses soon as well..
Peace
-
Here are my replies to Noon, Dawngorgeous and Released respectively, along with some comments by me, all of you are welcome to read this.
My Reply to Noon
Peace Fallen Angel -- why wouldn't I keep it friendly?
4127 and they seek your ruling in/concerning the women say The God gives you a ruling in them and what is recited on/over you in the book in/concerning orphans the women the ones who not you give them what prescribed for them and you desire that you marry them and the oppressed from the children and that you stand up for orphans in justice and what you do from good so indeed The God is in it Knowing
- it is a general address inheritance not mentioned
- address is to any suitors who want to marry them
- includes their eligible guardians and non-guardians who have no authority to dispense their inheritance
Likewise it is stated clearly in beginning of chapter not to mess with inheritance...
42 and give the orphans their wealth and not exchange the bad with the good and not eat/consume their wealth to your wealth indeed it is sin great
43 and if you fear that not do justice in/concerning the orphans so for marrying what choice to you from the women paired/dual and three and four so if you fear that not do justice so one or what possess your right hands that minimum that not you oppress
44 and give the women their handouts/dower graciously so if they remit to you about a thing from it on their own so eat/consume it satisfaction ease46 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/over them and sufficient in The God Reckon-er
410 indeed the ones who ate wealth the orphans injustice surely ate in their bellies a fire and they will be burned a blaze
Ok, personally, I don't really have that much of an issue with this part, honestly speaking. I believe the Quran can have multiple interpretations, and it is possible that if there isn't contradiction, and much difference, more than one can be applied at the same time as well. This is similar to the phrases in the Quran like 'Guard your private parts', where guarding may refer to physically guarding them and figuratively guarding, there are numerous examples I can give, but that isn't the aim of this thread. So I don't disprove this interpretation that you provide, but I don't see anything wrong with Mazhar's either. And I don't see anything wrong with taking both interpretations as valid either. However, I would still answer your points, and ask you this one question that comes to my mind by taking your interpretation
My answers to your points
- Agreed
- Agreed
- Agreed
As for your statement on not messing with inheritance, I agree to quite some extent too
My questions
The only questions that come in my mind which require a good answer are
-
Like Mazhar said, 'Dowry/Wedding gift is a mutually agreed obligation between would be husband and wife. This liability can be modified with the consent of wife if she voluntary surrenders some part of it', so how exactly can a person take advantage of an orphan's dowry?
-
Why is Allah specifically mentioning "orphaned" women? Is it not true that if - as per your understanding - a man can take advantage of other women just the way he'd take advantage of orphaned women? This is something I mentioned in the previous reply of mine to, but you didn't address it.
My Reply to Dawn
Peace All,
There is another direction we can take. We could come from the point of view of does 43 contradict the Koran's message on adultery. In other words, is there a contradiction? I feel there is. There is a discrepancy. God cannot tell us not to commit adultery and to maintain our chastity then give men permission to have several wives. Islam is also a religion of Peace. Multiple wives does not deliver peace to each wife. I feel there is more to the word marry in 43. More of a caretaking, guardianship role, which would then match up with Mohammad's permission to marry several wives.
I have always wondered what those poor women who were 'married' to Mohammad would do after he had divorced them, because of course, no one is then allowed to 'marry' them.
Another possibility for 43 is that the man may marry up to 4 wives, one after the other? Similar to not being allowed to marry 2 sisters, one after the other?
Just food for thought.
Dawn.
Peace Dawn,
These are the main points I am able to extract from your reply, which I'll address one by one
-
Your saying 43 might be contradicting with the prohibition of adultery and multiple wives doesn't deliver peace
-
Your feeling that there is more to 'Marriage' than what we commonly take it to mean in this context
-
Your wondering what wives of Prophet did after his death
-
Your saying that 43 suggests that a man may marry up to four women in his life instead of marrying four women at a time
-
Look, no offense, but I don't see how this has any similarity to adultery. In adultery, the person is betraying his (We're assuming that the person is a 'He' wife, family, and even perhaps involving someone else to betray her husband and family. In polygamy as per this verse, there is an aim of justice to happen in the lawful relationship of marriage. And what's justice without permission of the current wife? Hence, everybody knows that that person is getting married to her. This also answers an objection which I'm quite sure was raised in this thread, though I don't remember when and by whom, that according to a verse in the Quran, a man may have a secret marriage with another woman. That situation is impossible, since the Quran asks for justice here, and justice means being equal, hence, if one is - obviously - asking permission to marry a woman, which is deduced by the part which says 'Marry who have agreed with you from the women' in 43, then he must also ask the permission from who is already his wife, only that way will he be just between them; asking permission from both sides. Also, please keep in mind that this verse has two conjunctions that denote that this act of marrying in twos threes and fours is highly confined to conditions. The first one is in the beginning of the verse, it says, 'Wa In', where 'In' means 'Given', 'If', and denotes a condition, then it after mentioning the condition of fear for injustice to orphans, the command of 'Marry' starts with an Arabic 'Fa', which again means, 'Consequently', 'Hence', 'Thus', and another condition of fear of not being just with women again adds up to the criteria. Hence, as you can see, this is strictly limited to the condition of justice with orphans, and justice with the women being married, while I'm at it, let me confess that I like all of you agree that monogamy is the general rule, however, just like Khinzir (Pork) becomes permitted in extreme conditions, polygamy becomes permitted as well. Secondly, I admit, many people fail to be just, but I'm telling you, I've seen many families who are perfectly happy, and I mean it, they ARE happy even with polygamy being practiced by the man of the house, although unfortunately, it gets practiced not for orphans, which is the only case according to the Quran. Also, remember that it is not us who define peace, just take a look at the permissibility of eating cattle, there are people who say its an unpleasant act, of slaughtering animals, but God has allowed it hasn't He? Or consider the verses of punishments, such as those of slandering protected women, and Zina/Adultery/Fornication in Ch 24, people might say its too much, but God doesn't think that, He did not hesitate when revealing these verses at all. Remember, God knows us better than we know ourselves, polygamy isn't a compulsion, its limited to very specific conditions. Then you might repeat your argument regarding the verse that states that men cannot be just with women, I already answered that, please see post #60 Also, read Muhammad Asad's footnote on that verse which says that men cannot be just with women
This refers to cases where a man has more than one wife - a permission which is conditional
upon his determination and ability to "treat them with equal fairness", as laid down in verse
3 of this surah. Since a man who is fully conscious of his moral responsibility might feel
that he is committing a sin if he loves one of his wives more than the other (or others),
the above verse provides a "judicial enlightenment" on this point by making it clear that
feelings are beyond a human being's control in other words, that the required equality of
treatment relates only to outward behavior towards and practical dealings with one's wives.
However, in view of the fact that a man's behavior towards another person is, in the long
run, almost inevitably influenced by what he feels about that person, the above passage -
read in conjunction with verse 3, and especially its concluding sentence - imposes a moral
restriction on plural marriages.-
I would love to agree with you, but there is no single other instance in the Quran where that meaning is possible, but the main reason for my disagreement is that 'Nikah' is confined to these meanings 'To tie, make a knot, contract cement, marry'. So just think about it yourself, apart from the very straightforward meaning of 'Marry', we can deduce the concept of the word Nikah by its other meanings, and I think the meaning 'Contract cement' and 'Make a knot' pretty much do give its general idea, that is, 'Coupling'. Where 'Coupling' in terms of humans may be a broad term, but keeping in mind the specific meanings of this word as per classical Arabic dictionaries, may only refer to 'S*x**l coupling' and 'Marriage'.
-
The wives of the Prophet were unlike you and me, as per 3332, where Allah says 'Ya Nisa An Nabi, Lastunna KaAhadim minanNisa' 'O women of the Prophet, you are unlike other women'. (Of course, Maha says that 'Nisa' doesn't mean women, while I do, and I think you do too. So if you do, continue reading) Then we have verses like 3328-30, which state that the Prophet is supposed to inform his wives that if the wives desire the worldly goods he will provide for them and divorce them, but if they desire Allah and His Apostle, then they have to obey Allah and they will have a double, mighty reward, but will also be twice punished for transgression as well. They're case was unlike the other women's case, so you need not worry about them
-
I don't really have an answer for that, as there is still some confusion on the phrase 'Mathna wa Thulatha wa Ruba'a', which can be translated as Twos and threes and fours, or in pairs of two and groups of three and groups of four, or two and three and four, or two at a time, and three at a time, and four at a time. So I really can't say anything about that at the moment. And Dawn, if you don't understand any Arabic term or anything in general don't hesitate to ask me to explain myself k ? I don't want to create confusions.
My Reply to Released
Peace
All of the posts have been very interesting and insightful in regard to inheritance, age of maturity, and etc.
However, can we very clearly state our stance in regard to 4.3 using all of the information from above posts? I feel like there are a lot of scattered thoughts and analysis' across the board. Yet, I think each poster needs to now bring the focus back to 4.3 exclusively, and provide a thorough analysis in regard to it using an organized format.
By the way, thank you for providing transliterations and translations! I appreciate it, and I am sure Dawn feels the same.
Thanks for agreeing with me, and I want to focus on 43 just as much as you, however, some of these side issues, which inshallah will be sooner solved, are kinda holding me back.
No problem for the transliterations, I'm glad to be a source of easiness for you guys, I too hope Dawn feels the same
My Comments
A lot of my points have been covered in my replies above, however, there is one more thing I want you guys to consider; In 46, Allah mentions in regards to the one who controls the orphans' properties, '... and if he is of the rich, let him abstain , and if he is of the poor, so let him consume with what is reasonable (Or 'Let him consume reasonably) ' I think it is evident what I'm trying to point out.
Excuse all mistakes. Sorry for the long, and late reply, was busy.
Stay calm, think cool, and be friendly D
-
Peace All,
There is another direction we can take. We could come from the point of view of does 43 contradict the Koran's message on adultery. In other words, is there a contradiction? I feel there is. There is a discrepancy. God cannot tell us not to commit adultery and to maintain our chastity then give men permission to have several wives. Islam is also a religion of Peace. Multiple wives does not deliver peace to each wife. I feel there is more to the word marry in 43. More of a caretaking, guardianship role, which would then match up with Mohammad's permission to marry several wives.
I have always wondered what those poor women who were 'married' to Mohammad would do after he had divorced them, because of course, no one is then allowed to 'marry' them.
Another possibility for 43 is that the man may marry up to 4 wives, one after the other? Similar to not being allowed to marry 2 sisters, one after the other?
Just food for thought.
Dawn.
Peace Dawn,
I am so glad you mentioned this. I always wondered how a man would decide on a wife without seeing her beauty or getting to know her. In order for them to get to know each other, there would have to be some time spent, and of course, a romance would ensue.
I like your thinking on the "no more than four consecutive wives." It makes total sense to me, especially if children are involved. If a man has to support each ex-wife and their children, he would eventually land in the poor house and unable to support himself.
Peace,
Amina
-
Guys as a new page has started, just note that the last reply of the previous page is by md and is very important Dawn, Noon, and Released, I'm mentioning this because it is unlikely that you'd check the previous page as well when you'd receive the notification that there are new replies in this thread and instead assume that the replies on this page are the only ones. Well, it does happen with me a lot ;D
-
Peace Fallen Angel. No offence taken - this is a discussion. In response to what you called Point 1, I would find it even more difficult as a woman to accept. At least if he went behind my back I woudn't be hurt. For my husband to tell me, or indeed, his second or third wife that he wants another wife, would break my heart and damage my self-esteem. I would be wondering all the time what they are doing together. Does he love her more than me? Does he do that 'little thing' with her/them?
At this juncture, let me point out 2187
...they are the keepers of your secrets and you are the keeper of their secrets...
So, how is the husband going to divide up the secrets. Is he going to share them with all the wives? What if he divorces one of the wives, what happens to their secrets then? And how does he decide what secret to share with what wife? Should he keep an account detailing to whom he said what?
Hmmm.
-
Quote from dawngorgeous on Yesterday at 020112 AM
Peace All,There is another direction we can take. We could come from the point of view of does 43 contradict the Koran's message on adultery. In other words, is there a contradiction? I feel there is. There is a discrepancy. God cannot tell us not to commit adultery and to maintain our chastity then give men permission to have several wives. Islam is also a religion of Peace. Multiple wives does not deliver peace to each wife. I feel there is more to the word marry in 43. More of a caretaking, guardianship role, which would then match up with Mohammad's permission to marry several wives.
I have always wondered what those poor women who were 'married' to Mohammad would do after he had divorced them, because of course, no one is then allowed to 'marry' them.
Another possibility for 43 is that the man may marry up to 4 wives, one after the other? Similar to not being allowed to marry 2 sisters, one after the other?
Just food for thought.
Dawn.
Your idea of a monogamous marriage is supported by several verses in the quran, som of them are following
334 God did not make any man with two hearts in his body
Surah Noor 32. "And marry those among you who are single''
4.1 '' O people, be aware of your Lord who has created you from one person and He created from it its mate ''
Peace
-
Peace All,
There is another direction we can take. We could come from the point of view of does 43 contradict the Koran's message on adultery. In other words, is there a contradiction? I feel there is. There is a discrepancy. God cannot tell us not to commit adultery and to maintain our chastity then give men permission to have several wives. Islam is also a religion of Peace. Multiple wives does not deliver peace to each wife. I feel there is more to the word marry in 43. More of a caretaking, guardianship role, which would then match up with Mohammad's permission to marry several wives.
I have always wondered what those poor women who were 'married' to Mohammad would do after he had divorced them, because of course, no one is then allowed to 'marry' them.
Another possibility for 43 is that the man may marry up to 4 wives, one after the other? Similar to not being allowed to marry 2 sisters, one after the other?
Just food for thought.
Dawn.
"Islam is also a religion of Peace. Multiple wives does not deliver peace to each wife".
The problem is divorce also brings many pain and suffering to families much more than polygamy. Are we to also say divorce is not allowed? This has to be backed with researcha nd not just personal opinions. Many here talk about this as if they are qualified about marriages and social issues that affect marriages and relationships between spouses. Reasearch is needed here.
Not all polygamous marriages are problematic just like many singular marriages are not all problem free.
-
Peace Bigmo,
The Koran allows Divorce. That is indisputable. Do you know of a scientific study to-date that has proven that Divorce causes more pain than Polygamy?
None of my opinions have been based on personal opinions. I may mention how I feel, but only in the light of the fact that we are discussing something from the Koran that is not clear. Given that it is not clear, then there is a problem. Given that the Koran is a "book to make us ponder" and that the Koran 'explains itself', then the research we need to do is in the Koran itself.
I think we are making excellent progress. Still no solution, but hey, Rome wasn't built in a day!
-
The Koran allows Divorce. That is indisputable. Do you know of a scientific study to-date that has proven that Divorce causes more pain than Polygamy?
divorced is allowed in order to stop pain not to cause pain. If you have an unhappy marriage of course divorce is going to solve that problem. But how is polygamy going to solve an unhappy marriage confused
Peace
-
Here are my replies to Bigmo and Dawn, respectively.
My Reply to Bigmo
"Islam is also a religion of Peace. Multiple wives does not deliver peace to each wife".
The problem is divorce also brings many pain and suffering to families much more than polygamy. Are we to also say divorce is not allowed? This has to be backed with researcha nd not just personal opinions. Many here talk about this as if they are qualified about marriages and social issues that affect marriages and relationships between spouses. Reasearch is needed here.
Not all polygamous marriages are problematic just like many singular marriages are not all problem free.
You said exactly what I wanted to say, but in a very efficient manner, thank you
My reply to Dawn
Peace Fallen Angel. No offence taken - this is a discussion. In response to what you called Point 1, I would find it even more difficult as a woman to accept. At least if he went behind my back I woudn't be hurt. For my husband to tell me, or indeed, his second or third wife that he wants another wife, would break my heart and damage my self-esteem. I would be wondering all the time what they are doing together. Does he love her more than me? Does he do that 'little thing' with her/them?
At this juncture, let me point out 2187
...they are the keepers of your secrets and you are the keeper of their secrets...
So, how is the husband going to divide up the secrets. Is he going to share them with all the wives? What if he divorces one of the wives, what happens to their secrets then? And how does he decide what secret to share with what wife? Should he keep an account detailing to whom he said what?
Hmmm.
Salamun Alayki
No offense again D but it seems you didn't really pay attention to what I wanted to deliver through my reply. I have re checked my reply, and nowhere have I stated that the husband has to 'Tell' his first wife. I said, the husband has to 'Ask permission' of first wife. Is there not a difference between asking and telling? The whole basis for that is the injunction of 'Justice'. If the person is 'Asking' the second wife before marrying her, then he automatically has to 'Ask' the first wife for marrying the second as well. You might say, where did I deduce that he's 'Asking'? That is from the part that says 'Marry who have agreed with you from the women', how can you 'Agree' without a mutual consent? Simple as that. So if you don't want your husband to marry another woman, then he can't. And like I said, I have seen cases where both women are perfectly happy.
As for 2187, I have no idea how did you come up with the translation that 'Libas' means 'Keepers of secrets'. The word used there is 'Libas', which means 'Raiment', 'Cloth', 'Covering', 'Garments'. Before I explain Libas, let me show you the complete translation of 2187 and ask you how odd the phrase 'Keepers of secrets' looks when reading the verse as a whole
Permitted to you nights fasts is the Rafath towards/to your women. They are your Libas and you are their Libas. Knows Allah that you used to deceive/betray/acted unfaithfully towards yourselves, so He turned towards you, and He has pardoned you. So now go into them/have relations with them/ touch or contact them and seek what has Allah ordained/prescribed for you
The word Rafath specifically means Sexual conduct, or to lie for sexual relations, sometimes it may have a broader meaning of immodesty , specifically in sexual matters. Hence the phrase would be '...The sexual conduct/Sexual relations towards your women..'. Next comes the Libas part, which I'd skip for the moment, then comes the part where Allah says that the addressee can Bashir with their wives. Bashir is broad term, which has meanings ranging from laying bare one's skin, to rejoicing, to good news, to the finery of a human body, or human being in general, to sexual relations, to going in a woman. Twice has this word been used the form of Bashir in the Quran, both times in this same verse. The verse continues '...And do not Bashir them when you are detaining/retreating yourselves in the Mosques..' In both these instances, at least according to me, dictionaries, corpus etc. It means its meaning of 'Laying one's skin bare' or to be precise 'Having sexual relations'. This is further reenforced by the part 'And seek what Allah has ordained for you', what can be something that He has ordained for us, which we 'Seek'? Especially when the first part of the verse suggests sexual relations (Rafath) and Bashir the verb has a meaning of 'Going in one's wife'? Children! What else can it be? But wait, it doesn't end there, now let me clear up what Libas means, then this verse will become crystal clear. These are two examples of where Libas has been used
O Children of Adam! We have sent down/revealed unto you Libas that conceal your body, and as plumage
Now lets see what your translation would suggest
O Children of Adam! We have sent down/revealed unto you keepers of secret which conceal your body, and as plumage
Here is another verse
And it is He who has made for you the night a Libas and the sleep a rest and Has made the day a rising
In both these instances, taking the true meanings of the word makes sense, that are approved by dictionaries; 'Covering' or 'Garment'. By looking at other instances of the word as well, it is clear that its basic meaning is 'Covering'. As a verb, it can not without further description by supporting words refer to any specific covering. In other words, the meaning of it as a verb is 'Cover', 'Covering' etc. But what is covered HAS to be mentioned in the words that precede it or follow it, as the word itself cannot mean anything except 'Covering'. Since no where in 2187 is there an explanation of 'Covering' as a verb, as it does not specify what it covers, we cannot take it to mean anything but its noun form - which again is also supported by the grammar, that is, that Libas in 2187 is used as a noun - of the meaning 'Cover', 'Garment', or 'Raiment' etc.
Basically what I'm saying is, if Libas was used as a verb, or a noun carrying out a verb, as your translation suggests, then before we deduce anything, an explanation of what is being covered was a must. However, since neither is there an explanation of what it covers, (There is no 'Secrets' in the verse), nor is the word used as verb in anyway, but as a noun, it is not appropriate to translate it as you did. Furthermore, 'Keepers' is not a translation, but 'Cover', 'Garment, 'Cloth', 'Raiment', 'Garb' are its meanings.
Also, please do tell me what you think about the rest of my long reply to you. You only addressed one part out of one of the four parts of my reply to you. Please don't do this, cause by default I get the impression
You didn't read the rest of it
You don't want to reply
You agree with meAs you can see, it leaves one quite confused
Salamun Alayki
-
Peace Fallen Angel,
If I don't respond to something it is because I agree with it or I am unable to respond to it. For example, I don't respond very much to the big discussions based on the Arabic language, because I have no Arabic. I basically read and get the gist of the arguments, then respond.
The translation of 2187 that I used is from Rashad Khalifa's translation of the Koran. That is the Koran I use and with no Arabic, I really cannot speak of the translation itself. I would love to go in search of the best translation but what do I know!?
Regarding telling your wife that you are going to look for another wife. Well, it is very thoughtful and considerate to tell your wife you need another wife in addition to her. So, when you get up off the floor (which is where you would be if you were my husband), what is your reason going to be to your wife? "Wife, as I am such a good man, I want to look after an orphan woman, poor thing. Of course, it will probably mean I am going to sleep with her...."
Did you have an answer to the question I asked Bigmo? Is there a study that shows that Polygamy causes less pain than Divorce?
-
Peace all
Well, different translations may render a difference in meaning leaving some confusion. Despite the differences in translations, I think we can all agree, it is not a good thing to be deliberately hurting one another when that 'hurt' can be easily avoided.
It's all very subjective in my opinion. Let me break it down
-
We're not trying to compare polygamy and divorce. Why does this feel like deja vu? Have we discussed this before on a different thread? I think we have.
-
Divorce and Polygamy are two separate issues
-
Divorce and Polygamy serve two different purposes
I think that we're going off on yet another tangent, if we discuss divorce here. There is nothing to compare between the two.
The level of pain, hurt, and resentment between the two cannot be compared as they are two very different things.
Monogamy is the standard of comparison for Polygamy. Both are types of marriages. Divorce is not a type of marriage, it is something completely different. Thus, it cannot be a standard unit for comparison for a type of marriage.
I would mention the examples of apples and oranges here, but they're both fruit. Comparing divorce to polygamy is like comparing space rockets to spinach. The two don't jive.
-
-
Peace again,
Let me break down once more what I think
-
Monogamy is the norm as per the Quran (please reference my prior posts to see where I got that from)
-
Polygamy is only sanctioned within very special circumstances (again, look at the beginning of Chapter 4, and our prior posts)
-
Nowhere in the Quran are women compelled to live a polygamous lifestyle. So, now, where's the issue?
-
I opened up a thread in regard to marriage contracts and no one answered the questions I had posed; a marriage contract secures your interests for life, God willing
-
If you're apprehensive in regard to marriage because of this issue, then please include the stipulation within your marriage contract, you are not obligated to accept polygamy!
I think the majority of us go into our marriages wanting things to work out. This goes for both men and women. We have hectic lives filled with worries about children, finances, other family members, and etc. The majority of us are not trying to sabotage our marriages. So, how many God fearing men, do you think are going to break that oath (marriage contract), and go off and marry again?
Oh, and if they manage to get themselves married again, do you know that you have the right to divorce in the same manner as men? How many women really want to continue living with a man who desires another woman?
We're not Sunnis or Shia or whatever, we exclusively look to the Quran for our divorce laws. Women have equal rights in regard to divorce, children, and property as per the Quran. If anything, God's position seem to slant in favor of the women more so.
-
-
Peace Release,
So, just suppose the husband is being genuine and really wants to help an orphaned woman. Surely his wife could not object to this. After all, he is only following the Koran. Should she leave him just because he is marrying someone else to be helpful. She may have a clause written into her marriage contract about this. But surely this is anti-Koran - writing clauses that will cancel out God's Words. So, if you have a pre-nup it in effect means your husband could not help out by marrying another woman in a time of need.
-
Peace Dawn,
This why I said that the whole thing is subjective. Some women may not object to this, while many will. Polygamy is not obligatory to the men, it's just permissible given certain circumstances. So, she's not forbidding or discouraging him from anything that he has an obligation to. For example, he is obligated to honor his parents or give charity from his excess wealth, but he is not obligated to marry again. It's a choice. This is why the clause does not cancel out God's words.
Also, the couple by mutual agreement have the choice to renew the contract, and add the polygamy allowance to the contract at a later time. This is the beauty of contracts, they can be amended at different times upon mutual consultation if necessary.
Another thing, keep in mind, that a single wealthy man may choose to marry up to four women within one setting given the circumstances. The four women may agree at the time to this marriage, due to their circumstances being the overriding reason. So, this is possible as well.
-
Peace Dawn,
Let me give you an example
I write a syllabus for a class in which I require 4 exams + 1 optional project that can replace a low score on an exam.
The 4 exams are of course required, and so the student must complete these exams. However, the project is optional. If the student's parents decide that they will leave for a holiday one week prior to school commencing, then the student will be unable to complete the project which is optional. As a result, the student will not be penalized for not completing the project, as it was not obligatory and bears no weight against the student.
Polygamy is similar in this aspect. If one is kept from practicing it due to a prior oath or commitment, then they will not be penalized from not practicing it. However, one cannot be kept from their contact prayers, charity, fasting, helping their parents, fighting oppression, and etc. These are obligatory acts (at least from my viewpoint).
-
Peace Dawn and Released,
Good to see we're 'Discussing' again )
Dawn
Peace Fallen Angel,
If I don't respond to something it is because I agree with it or I am unable to respond to it. For example, I don't respond very much to the big discussions based on the Arabic language, because I have no Arabic. I basically read and get the gist of the arguments, then respond.
The translation of 2187 that I used is from Rashad Khalifa's translation of the Koran. That is the Koran I use and with no Arabic, I really cannot speak of the translation itself. I would love to go in search of the best translation but what do I know!?
Regarding telling your wife that you are going to look for another wife. Well, it is very thoughtful and considerate to tell your wife you need another wife in addition to her. So, when you get up off the floor (which is where you would be if you were my husband), what is your reason going to be to your wife? "Wife, as I am such a good man, I want to look after an orphan woman, poor thing. Of course, it will probably mean I am going to sleep with her...."
Did you have an answer to the question I asked Bigmo? Is there a study that shows that Polygamy causes less pain than Divorce?
Thank you for clearing it up why you don't respond to literally 'Everything'. My bad, I didn't consider that perhaps its due to you not understanding Arabic. Anyway, regarding the translation your using; I suggest you consider the following sources for translation
Quran.Al-Islam.Org - There you can easily view a verse with Arabic text along with Yusuf Ali's, Shakir's, and Pikthal's translation
Corpus.Quran.Com - Here you can view a word to word translation of any verse you want, though keep in mind it just gives a basic idea of the translation, and it is possible that there are alternate translations to what it gives to the words.
Muhammad Asad's transaltion - This guy is one my favorite interpreters. Though there will be times when you'd disagree with what he writes in his footnotes, even I do, but his translation is quite good. But of course, relying solely upon him isn't the best thing to do. You can download his 'Message of the Quran' easily from the internet.
Quranix.com - This I think is what you should go with at the moment, along with Quran.Al-Islam.Org. This contains translations of Muhammad Asad, Rashad Khalifa, Monotheist Group, Edip-Layth, Shabbir Ahmed, Edip Yuksel and others. Along with the transliteration as well.Coming to your point on telling your wife. Well, I don't know what to say, I don't want to sound harsh, but for some reason, you aren't differentiating between 'Telling' and 'Asking'. This is the third time I'm mentioning this; your husband cannot marry another woman without your permission, or without your leave. If he does, then he's going against the Quran, when it says to do justice between wives. If you aren't happy with him marrying another woman, then he can't ever marry someone else. The Quran itself promotes monogamy, there are many verses like that. Only in such circumstances regarding orphans, is it allowed. And even then with the permission of the first wife. If your husband wants to marry another woman, and you don't allow it, and if he does, then you may beat him up D jk but seriously, he can't, ever, never, without your PERMISSION marry another woman.
As for my reply to Bigmo, well, it wasn't regarding research, my reply was to his part where he said that divorce also gives pain, but it doesn't mean we should forbid it. And believe me, it does give pain, one way or another, either to the husband, or wife, or the child if there is any.
Released
Thank you for your replies, you've explained what I'm trying to say in different words, which I think should make it clear what we're/I'm/you're trying to present here. One of the reasons I see why we (Here I'm referring to all of us) aren't able to comprehend what the other is saying is that we're communicating by means of text, perhaps if we were talking face to face, this issue would've been solved a long time ago.
-
Peace Fallen Angel,
I understand the points that everyone is making, I just don't necessarily agree with them.
Could either you or Release clear up for me where in the Koran it tells a man he cannot marry another woman without the permission of the first wife, or the previous wife. W
Dawn.
-
Peace Dawn,
Thanks again for understanding what we're saying. Coming to your question, I deduce this like this
43 Says that the man is supposed to decide whether he'll be able to do justice with wives or not, right? Now, of course, justice means being equal on both sides, hence, if he's asking permission of the woman he's marrying, who would become his second wife, then he must ask his first wife as well. Only then will he be acting equally between them. If he's forcibly marrying the second woman, then he may forcibly make his first wife accept that he's marrying another wife too. Only then is he doing justice on both sides. However, the latter case, in blue, of forcefully marrying a woman, cannot exist. This is due to two verses, the first one is a weaker argument, the second one is stronger
- 419 O you who believe, it is not lawful for you that you inherit/become heirs of women against their will....
This verse if read in context shows that it refers to marriage. It doesn't clearly state that whether its referring to forcibly keeping women under wedlock, or forcibly marrying women. Hence, it is possible that it refers to both. However, if you believe it refers to forcibly keeping women under wedlock, then see the next verse, which I'm sure is quite a strong argument
- 43 ...Marry who have agreed with you from the women....
This is part of the verse we're discussing, in case you didn't realize that. The Arabic states those women who 'Taaba lakum'. 'Taaba' comes from 'Tayyib', which means, 'Agreeable', 'Lawful', and 'Pure'. The word 'Taaba' used in this verse is in the past tense, and since it is the purpose of doing justice to orphans, it is translated as 'Agreed to/with you'. The reason for not choosing 'Lawful' is because the verses that state which women are not lawful to marry come after this verse, hence it is unlikely that this be translated as 'Lawful'. The reason for not choosing 'Pure' is pretty much the same.
Since this verse suggests that these women have 'Agreed' with the man, it can be concluded that the man asked their permission before marrying them right? Agreement comes from a mutual consent, and each others' leave. Hence, if he's taking the permission of the woman he's marrying, then he must also take the permission of who he has already married. Only then will he be doing justice between both sides.
Make sense?