Discussion on 4:3 and meaning of nisa
-
(males) and (females) are all inclusive gender terms. They encompass men and women as well as young men and women, boys and girls, teenagers, etc. It would be an absolute redundancy to mention males and females and then men and women. By mentioning (males) and (females) it covers everyone; boys, young men, old men, girls, young women, old women, etc.
Then simply translate and distribute 9 gold coins of widow in prior example?
She married a man who took her in and now after many years leaves behind3 daughters and husband
411 directs you The God in your children
lildhakari/to the male like share al-unthayayni/the two (feminine)
so if they are (feminine plural) nisa above two (feminine)
falahunna/so for them (feminine plural) third dual (2/3) what left412 and for you half what left spouses yours if not was for them waladun (child/born)
so if kana/he is for them walad (i.e. if male child) so for you the fourth from what they leftEverything needed is exactly stated. It?s open book; ask a friend or feel free to ask Asana whatever site.
Peace
-
The thread...I guess, I believe to 'Bump' figuratively in internet language means to bring attention back to something which is losing or has lost attention, or so it seems.
-
Peace Fallen Angel,
I think this thread is losing its wind.
I think we've reached five possible conclusions with absolutely NO consensus (the same five we started off with, plus and minus a few things)
- Polygamy is not permissible--Quran does not support it
- Polygamy is permissible and mandated under certain circumstances
- Polygamy is permissible and allowed under certain circumstances
- Polygamy is permissible is allowed under certain circumstances given that all parties are in consent of it
- Polygamy is allowed but 4.3 has nothing to do with polygamy
Oh well. This is the beauty of our little community we rarely agree on anything. brickwall
-
Peace Released,
lol, agreed.
-
Peace Fallen Angel,
I think this thread is losing its wind.
I think we've reached five possible conclusions with absolutely NO consensus (the same five we started off with, plus and minus a few things)
- Polygamy is not permissible--Quran does not support it
- Polygamy is permissible and mandated under certain circumstances
- Polygamy is permissible and allowed under certain circumstances
- Polygamy is permissible is allowed under certain circumstances given that all parties are in consent of it
- Polygamy is allowed but 4.3 has nothing to do with polygamy
Oh well. This is the beauty of our little community we rarely agree on anything. brickwall
Salaam
You have beautifully summed up how we all see the problem, from our own perspectives. Yes this is the beauty of individuality, and to unite all individuals, as one Ummah, instead of agreeing to disagree we need to get our minds focused on finding out what the exact and true meaning is; what is the truth Al Haqq. Only then wil the light of ALLAAH shine upon us all insha allaah.
Salaam
-
Peace Fallen Angel,
I think this thread is losing its wind.
I think we've reached five possible conclusions with absolutely NO consensus (the same five we started off with, plus and minus a few things)
- Polygamy is not permissible--Quran does not support it
- Polygamy is permissible and mandated under certain circumstances
- Polygamy is permissible and allowed under certain circumstances
- Polygamy is permissible is allowed under certain circumstances given that all parties are in consent of it
- Polygamy is allowed but 4.3 has nothing to do with polygamy
Oh well. This is the beauty of our little community we rarely agree on anything. brickwall
Only one cause. Not reading and accepting the text, but reading one's own mind. Arabs use Nisaa for women, we say no it means this and that. And still insist we are reading Arabic text.
-
Nisa has been translated as 'woman'/wives according to ALL the translators http//www.islamawakened.com/quran/4/3/default.htm
Even quranist translators such as Rashad and Edip translated it as woman/wives.
While a feminist translation of the Quran may translate nisa as "weaker members of society", this is nothing but whimsical imagination to support their feminist agenda.
Expecting a 7th century book to reflect ideas developed after a feminist revolution more than 1000 years later does no justice to the book.
-
Peace Solomon,
The book is for all time. Its interpretations HAVE evolved with time and this forum is living proof of that. Some people think that they can attach the infamous word 'feminism' to a debated topic, and thus write it off.
This is an important topic regardless of what 'nisa' means. Women have the basic right to feel happy and secure within their marriages, and that has nothing to do with feminism, we're talking about basic human rights. The status quo WILL change. God willing.
By the way, there will be other Quranist translators apart from Khalifa and Yuksel, in the future. God willing. Dr. Khalifa also translated 434 with the word "beat". Even he did that. Shall we take his word for it? I wouldn't do it if I were you.
Imposing 7th century ideas on a Book that's meant for all time, does no justice to the Book.
-
In the name of God.
Peace,
My understanding is that polygamy is discouraged but allowed, if the woman is a widow, to prevent her children to be without a father and caretaker and protector. With our modern civilization I doubt it is necessary, but may have been different in the 7th century.
According to the book it is discouraged because it is difficult to satisfy more than one wife and treat them equally. Personally I feel one is hard enough!
That is my understanding regarding polygamy.
So conclusion is, polygamy is advocated to protect women, and children, thus not to please greedy men.
May God settle our disputes
-
Peace Solomon,
The book is for all time. Its interpretations HAVE evolved with time and this forum is living proof of that. Some people think that they can attach the infamous word 'feminism' to a debated topic, and thus write it off.
In 7th Century, women would be perfectly happy and secure in a polygamous society. They would have no problem with sex slaves and accepting male superiority.
By the way, there will be other Quranist translators apart from Khalifa and Yuksel, in the future. God willing. Dr. Khalifa also translated 434 with the word "beat". Even he did that. Shall we take his word for it? I wouldn't do it if I were you.
If it means beating, it's natural he will translate it as "beat". http//www.islamawakened.com/quran/4/34/default.htm
In the 7th century, wife beating would be a normal phenomenon.
Today it may be considered an abuse in some societies. Still, in Saudi Arabia, middle east and south asia, it is perfectly acceptable to beat wives if something goes wrong. Just because it seems cruel to you, doesn't mean it's cruel to everybody
Imposing 7th century ideas on a Book that's meant for all time, does no justice to the Book.
After all this, you claim Quran is for all ages? And that there is no "feminism" involved?
If you don't like polygamy and wife beating, just admit that the Quran doesn't make sense in these issues when 21st century matters are involved. Muslims need to face the reality that legislative matters in their holy book is not suited to 21st century rather than desperately trying to twist word meanings to suit modernity.
-
In 7th Century, women would be perfectly happy and secure in a polygamous society. They would have no problem with sex slaves and accepting male superiority.If it means beating, it's natural he will translate it as "beat". http//www.islamawakened.com/quran/4/34/default.htm
In the 7th century, wife beating would be a normal phenomenon.
Today it may be considered an abuse in some societies. Still, in Saudi Arabia, middle east and south asia, it is perfectly acceptable to beat wives if something goes wrong. Just because it seems cruel to you, doesn't mean it's cruel to everybody
After all this, you claim Quran is for all ages? And that there is no "feminism" involved?
If you don't like polygamy and wife beating, just admit that the Quran doesn't make sense in these issues when 21st century matters are involved. Muslims need to face the reality that legislative matters in their holy book is not suited to 21st century rather than desperately trying to twist word meanings to suit modernity.
Salaam,
RED How do you know? Are you a woman who got to share her husband with 3 other wives in the 7th Century?
GREEN acceptable for who? For the one who beats or the one who gets a beating?
BLUE yes
BROWN You make no sense not The Quran. You mix The Quran with the hadiths and you conclude The Quran make no sense.
ORANGE So you are not a muslim hmm
And we are not searching for modern meanings but for THE ORIGINAL meanings of the words, that is because people like you twisted The Words of The Quran.Salaam,
Benderps I know your post was not adressed to me.
-
Good that you know. Now act on it, be civilized and don't interject rudely when other people are talking.
Salaam,
When other people are talking then I indeed don't interject but 1 of them was not talking but spouting nonsense, and then I act civilized by interjecting jedi
Salaam,
Bender -
Woah, lemme get my popcorn
-
Peace,
I wonder if it is not right to interfere when someone seeks to spread corruption in the name of God. Do not twist the words of God.
May God have mercy upon us
-
Peace all,
Some interesting conclusions. We have a choice between a men marrying up to four wives or b looking after the less fortunate in society.
In the light of the whole Koran some of us are still happy to believe that men being allowed to have sexual relations with up to four women will help less fortunate women and their children. This is, in effect, prostitution. Some things do not change. Women from the 7 th century were capable of looking after themselves, just as in the 7th century there were folk in society who would need looking after. These are the people whom a just, peaceful, fair society would take care of.
A peaceful society does not ask one man to attempt to support several families and have intimate relations with several women. Nothing else in the Koran supports this, whereas throughout the Koran God concentrates on peaceful actions.
There is no point in anyone suggesting that polygamy works, because on an emotionl level, women almost always report hurt. Of course, as they benefit from it, men will report otherwise.
-
Polite reminder Before posting comments can we please try to moderate our own selves by asking ourselves whether what we are about to write serves any productive purpose, or whether it is an exercise in massaging our own egoes. Let's please apply the same standard of behaviour to ourselves which we expect from others. Thank you.