A refutation to Bro Yaseen - Polygamy is allowed in 4 23
-
Peace Samia,
Before I comment again on your response, I would like to know how you understand verse 425. If it categorically forbidden to ALL men to marry the self protected women, why does this verse say "and those among you who do not have the means to marry the self protected mu'min, then "marry" ma malakat aymanukum..."
Despite my multiple posts you still have a wrong understanding of what my understanding of 424 is.
I never said it is categorically forbidden to all men to marry ALL the self protected women per 424. They are forbidden to marry only those self-protected women who they are not engaged to. They are allowed to marry those muhsanat that are the "ma malakat aymanukum" i.e. those whom they have an oath of engagement with.
Thus when 425 talks about those who do not have the means to marry mumin muhsanat, it is talking about those mumin muhsanat that are the "ma malakat aymanukum" as per 424. So what it is saying is that if you do not have the means to marry the "ma malakat aymanukum" from the mumin muhsanat, then marry the "ma malakat aymanukum" from the mumin "fatayat".
It is clear here that, according to your understanding, that after mamalakat aymanukum are married, they become muhsanat min al-nisaa'.
Again you have a wrong understanding of my understanding.
The "ma malakat aymanukum" mentioned in 424 are ALREADY MUHSANAT MIN AL-NISA, even before they are married. They are already muhsanat because they are self-protected by oath of engagement. I have said this multiple times and you still have misunderstanding about what I said.
So, why do they receive half the punishmnt of the "muhsanaat"?
The ones who receive half the punishment are not the "ma malakat aymanukum" from the muhsanat, but the "ma malakat aymanukum" from the "fatayat".
Brother Ayman gave you a detailed answer to this same question of yours earlier, and I don't know why you still cannot understand such a clear explanation by him. I will repost his answer here
"Receiving 50% of the punishment has nothing to do with being from "ma malakat aymanukum". It has to do with the further classification of "ma malakat aymanukum min fatayatimum" (those your oath controls from your immature women). Those were married ONLY with their parents permission (in other words it was an arranged marriage). So in this case perhaps the marriage was not out of love and maybe the girl was not experienced enough to properly evaluate the man. Thus, if she commits adultery and faces later on the situation in 246-9 and she admits guilt then she would only receive half the punishment.
Now here is an interesting observation. In 249 she can avoid punishment alltogether if she simply claims that he is a liar and The God's wrath be on her if he was truthful. So if she doesn't have faith in The God she would simply utter those words without a problem even if she did it. In all likelihood, the only way she would not refute the accusation and admit it and get half the punishment is if she was really from the "mu'minin" and thus really feared The God's wrath. I find it amazing that in 425 we are told that this half punishment would be for the immature women who have faith. I hope that you can see what I am talking about."
The above quoted from brother Ayman's post at the following link
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=5843.msg90060#msg90060
Another question where did you get the term "marry off" from?
I don't understand your question. The term "marry off" is a known term in English language, so I got this term from the English language.
Peace
-
Salaam Tanveer
I do appreciate your patience. If I ask a question you have previously dealt with, this is because I really can't understand how the verse goes when another muhsanaat appears elsewhere, or because I still do not understand what exactly is muhsanaat according to you.
I never said it is categorically forbidden to all men to marry ALL the self protected women per 424
Neither have I said you did, nor have I said as per verse 24. I will rephrase
According to verse 423, and since the address is to men (as you say), "forbidden are the muhsanaat min alnisaa'". Then verse 425 says "and those among you who do not have the means to marry the mu'min muhsanaat". This shows that verse 424 does not address ALL men; and that some do have the means to marry the muhsanaat.You also say
those mumin muhsanat that are the "ma malakat aymanukum"
.
Wouldn't you excuse my confusion now? Why would some one not be able to marry a believing one committed by oath to him, but can marry an immature mu'mina?And how did you, and Aymen, come up with this translation of "fataat" as "immature"? Poor this "immature" girl who cannot decide about her life and a man can just marry her from her parents!! What if she refuses (which will most probably happen)? Or, does she have the right to refuse? fataat is simply a young woman. How do you define maturity? Would an -18 yr- old girl, for example, be mature or not? Would she be "fataat" or not? Or maybe you can roughly give us an age-range for "fataat".The ones who receive half the punishment are not the "ma malakat aymanukum" from the muhsanat, but the "ma malakat aymanukum" from the "fatayat".
but the verse says fa idha uhsinna, (so if they become muhsanaat), fa atayna bi fahishatin (and then they committed adultry), fa 3alaihinna nisfu ma 3ala al-muhsanati minal 3athaab ( they will then receive half the punishment of the muhsanaat.
This shows that (ma malakat aymanukunna), when married, will still not be muhsanaat, as per this verse (4;25). If I do a substitution in these two verses according to your terminology, it will be
(24) (25
(24)Forbidden to you are the self protected women except the self protected women with whom you have an oath of engagement. All others are lawful to you, provided that you seek with your money to be self protected, not committing illegal sexual intercourse, so pay them what you both agreed mutually. And whoever of you who has not the means to marry "those committed to you by oath of engagement" from the mumin self protected women, then marry "those committed to you by oath of engagement" from the mumin immature girls, Allah has full knowledge about your faith; you are one from another. Wed them with the permission of their own folk and give them their mahr. They (those committed to you by oath of engagment from the mumin immature girls)should be chaste, not adulterous, nor taking boyfriends. And after they had been taken in wedlock, (i.e they became self protected mu'min immature girls) if they commit adultry, their punishment is half that of the self protected women.......
Are you satisfied with that?
-
Peace Samia,
I do appreciate your patience. If I ask a question you have previously dealt with, this is because I really can't understand how the verse goes when another muhsanaat appears elsewhere, or because I still do not understand what exactly is muhsanaat according to you.
Thank you for sharing your understanding in your post rather than just trying to guess my understanding and making erroneous conclusions about my understanding. I think that is a better way to discuss because then it lets me know your point of view also and helps us improve and refine our understanding more efficiently and make faster progress.
According to verse 423, and since the address is to men (as you say), "forbidden are the muhsanaat min alnisaa'". Then verse 425 says "and those among you who do not have the means to marry the mu'min muhsanaat". This shows that verse 424 does not address ALL men; and that some do have the means to marry the muhsanaat.
I disagree with the underlined portion of your quote above. That is a logically erroneous conclusion. 424 does not say "those who have the means to marry, forbidden for them are.............". It just talks about one of the forbidden categories of women in continuation from 423 and thus addressed to all men, including those that have the means and those that do not have the means. This is clear from the wordings ".............and permitted for YOU is what is beyond this.........." in 424 which leaves no doubt that all men are being addressed. 425, subsequently, addresses only those men who do not have the means.
Wouldn't you excuse my confusion now? Why would some one not be able to marry a believing one committed by oath to him, but can marry an immature mu'mina?And how did you, and Aymen, come up with this translation of "fataat" as "immature"? Poor this "immature" girl who cannot decide about her life and a man can just marry her from her parents!! What if she refuses (which will most probably happen)? Or, does she have the right to refuse? fataat is simply a young woman. How do you define maturity? Would an -18 yr- old girl, for example, be mature or not? Would she be "fataat" or not? Or maybe you can roughly give us an age-range for "fataat".
I am sorry if I confused you. I was just quoting Ayman's explanation and my intention was to stress only on the point that the 50 % punishment is for the "ma malakat aymanukum" from the fatayat, and not for the "ma malakat aymanukum" from the muhsanat. I however disagree with the translation of "fatayat" as "immature" by Ayman, and that is evident from my previous posts, which you appear to have overlooked in order to determine my understanding. It is my fault, however, and I should have clarified this when I quoted from Ayman.
My understanding of "fatayat" is "parent/guardian-dependent young girls", as opposed to muhsanat being "women self-protected by commitment". Of course they have to be mature enough to be married, and because it is their parents/guardians who are giving the permission per 425, it is their parents/guardians responsibility to determine when and if they are mature enough to be married.
I think that because there is a possibility that she might be forced or coerced into marriage by her parents/guardians, because of the fact that she is parent/guardian-dependent, her punishment is 50 % that of the muhsanat.
but the verse says fa idha uhsinna, (so if they become muhsanaat), fa atayna bi fahishatin (and then they committed adultry), fa 3alaihinna nisfu ma 3ala al-muhsanati minal 3athaab ( they will then receive half the punishment of the muhsanaat.
The "ma malakat aymanukum" from the "fatayat" referred to in 425 become "uhsinna"/protected AFTER marriage. The "ma malakat aymanukum" from the "muhsanat" referred to in 424 are already muhsanat BEFORE marriage. Whether "ma malakat aymanukum"/"those whom you have made an oath of engagement with" refer to parent/guardian-dependent or self-protected by commitment is determined by the context.
If I do a substitution in these two verses according to your terminology, it will be
Forbidden to you are the self protected women except the self protected women with whom you have an oath of engagement. All others are lawful to you, provided that you seek with your money to be self protected, not committing illegal sexual intercourse, so pay them what you both agreed mutually. And whoever of you who has not the means to marry "those committed to you by oath of engagement" from the mumin self protected women, then marry "those committed to you by oath of engagement" from the mumin immature girls, Allah has full knowledge about your faith; you are one from another. Wed them with the permission of their own folk and give them their mahr. They (those committed to you by oath of engagment from the mumin immature girls)should be chaste, not adulterous, nor taking boyfriends. And after they had been taken in wedlock, (i.e they became self protected mu'min immature girls) if they commit adultry, their punishment is half that of the self protected women.......
Are you satisfied with that?
No I am not satisfied . All the underlined words above are not my terminology.
I will replace the above with my understanding as follows, which is my current understanding, and then we can discuss from there. This is not a literal translation but my interpretation/understanding of the pertinent verses, and "my terminology" is in bold letters
Forbidden to you are the women self-protected by commitment except women self-protected by commitment to you by oath of engagement. All others are lawful to you, provided that you seek with your money to be self-protected by commitment of marriage, not committing illegal sexual intercourse, so pay them what you both agreed mutually. And whoever of you who has not the means to marry "those self-protected by commitment to you by oath of engagement" from the mumin women self-protected by commitment, then marry "those with whom you have an oath of engagement" from the mumin parent/guardian-dependent young girls, Allah has full knowledge about your faith; you are one from another. Wed them with the permission of their own folk and give them their mahr. They (those self-protected by commitment of marriage from the mumin parent/guardian-dependent young girls) should be self-protected by commitment of marriage, not adulterous, nor taking boyfriends. And after they had been taken in wedlock, (i.e they became self-protected by commitment of marriage mu'min parent/guardian-dependent young girls) if they commit adultery, their punishment is half that of the self-protected women.......
Peace.
-
Peace sister Samia,
I just came across this verse which beautifully illustrates a point I was trying to make to you
2221 And do not marry the females who set up partners until they believe. For a believing servant is better than one who sets up partners even if she attracts you. And do not marry the males who set up partners until they believe. For a believing servant is better than one who sets up partners even if he attracts you.
Why did Allah not stop in this verse after mentioning just the females ? Why did he also mention the males ? That is because if only females were mentioned, IT WOULD NOT INDIRECTLY ALSO INCLUDE MALES as you keep insisting for example in 424. Please note that this verse has the same structure as 424. It says "the mushrikat" just like it says "the muhsanat" in 424.
Peace.
-
There is no verse that forbids polygyny with non-sisters. In 423 it says " it is forbidden to have 2 sisters together" and not "it is forbidden to have 2 women together". (tanveer)
You are mistaken, tanveer.
In 423 the deciding factor of prohibition is the plurality of sisters as co-wives at one and the same time, which is polygamy. The deciding factor is not their sisterhood; otherwise, it would be forbidden to marry sisters at separate times.
Therefore what is forbidden in 423 is polygamy, sisterhood of the co-wives being cited only as a side issue.
What is more, prohibition of having two or more sisters as co-wives makes it definite that in God?s religion plurality of co-wives is unacceptable. God does not accept it; that is why He forbids it in 423. God does not forbid things for fun, does He?
Now what we understand from 423 is that polygamy is definitely unacceptably unjust; it is torture.
And God never commits torture (4376). The people who claim that God spares only sisters from torture but allows torture for other women in 423 are terribly mistaken about God. They had better correct their mistaken concept of God by asking themselves
Is not God the most just of judges? (95eight)
Please do not attribute something to Allah what He never said in al-qur'aan.
I tried to explain how He says it in 423. Now will you please explain how He says "it is allowed to have 2 women together".
Please tanveer, do not attribute something to Allah what He never said in 423.
Peace,
Hasan Akcay -
Firstly, only those can be "married off" who are still dependent. How can someone "marry off" an independant or self-protected man? The wording "marry off" implies marrying off DEPENDENT singles. So this does not apply to independent or self-protected men who may be married. (tanveer)
Interesting question How can someone "marry off" an independant or self-protected man?
The answer is that wedding is a social event. The procedures are carried out with the contributory participation of a registrar, witnesses, and the people who attend the event. They marry him off.
The registrar knows that in 2432 God said, "Marry off the singles!" and is aware that marrying off the already married is against God?s approval. So she will refuse to do the registering as soon as she learns that the bridegroom is not single. Neither will the witnesses stand witness.
It can be likened to to the remembrance of God on the day of congregation, which is a social event fulfilled by a cogregation led by an imam. If somebody happens to intend the remembrance of a false god like Uzza, the imam will refuse to serve him as soon as he learns the ill intention. Neither will the congregation allow him to join them.
Just as "Hasten to the remembrance of God!" invalidates "Hasten to the remembrance of Uzza!", so does "Marry off the single from among you!" invalidate "Marry off the married from among you!"
Peace,
Hasan Akcay -
Peace Hasan,
The answer is that wedding is a social event. The procedures are carried out with the contributory participation of a registrar, witnesses, and the people who attend the event. They marry him off.
The registrar knows that in 2432 God said, "Marry off the singles!" and is aware that marrying off the already married is against God?s approval. So she will refuse to do the registering as soon as she learns that the bridegroom is not single. Neither will the witnesses stand witness.
Nowhere does Allah say in al-qur'aan that a registrar, witnesses, and the people who attend the event ALL are requisites of a marriage. A marriage can take place only with witness/witnesses who also record the marriage contract. Thus an independent/self-protected married man can marry a woman without being married off by a priest/imam/registrar.
In addition to that, the phrase "marry off" implies that a dependent man is being married off by his guardian/parents. Even if it implies a registrar marrying him off, an independent/self-protected married man can marry a woman without being married off, just in presence of witness/witnesses who also record the marriage contract.
In addition to that, "marry off the single among you" is a social advice. It cannot be taken to mean a command, otherwise then it would mean that every single person has to be married off, and that being single all one's life will not be acceptable by Allah. You mean to say that a person cannot remain single in an islamic community ? and if a person remains single all one's life, he/she is violating a command and therefore not being muslim to Allah ? What if the single person cannot find a suitable partner ? He/she still has to be married off forcibly ? That is ridiculous, and therefore this phrase cannot be taken as an obligatory command, but just as a social advice.
Also, "marry off the single among you" DOES NOT mean "do not marry a married man". It just means to marry off the single people in a community as a social advice. Thus it still allows an independent/self-protected married man to marry a woman without being married off, as I explained above, and also allows one to remain single all one's life if one wishes to. Why make only "the single" portion of the phrase a command, without making the "marry off" portion a command also ?
It can be likened to to the remembrance of God on the day of congregation, which is a social event fulfilled by a cogregation led by an imam. If somebody happens to intend the remembrance of a false god like Uzza, the imam will refuse to serve him as soon as he learns the ill intention. Neither will the congregation allow him to join them.
Just as "Hasten to the remembrance of God!" invalidates "Hasten to the remembrance of Uzza!", so does "Marry off the single from among you!" invalidate "Marry off the married from among you!"
You are using a bad/wrong analogy. An independent/self-protected married man can still marry a woman without being married off as explained above, and a person can remain single all one's life if one wishes to.
Your false inference and wrong deduction will hold true only if the phrase had said "marry/marry off ONLY the single among you". I dont see the "only" in the actual phrase. "Marry off the single among you" DOES NOT mean "you cannot marry off the married among you" or "do not marry a married man"; that is wrong and invalid logic, just like "marry off the single among you" cannot mean "no one can remain single all their life" by putting the stress on the "marry off" part.
Peace
-
Salaam Tanveer
2221 And do not marry the females who set up partners until they believe. For a believing servant is better than one who sets up partners even if she attracts you. And do not marry the males who set up partners until they believe. For a believing servant is better than one who sets up partners even if he attracts you.
The addressee in this verse is the generic male, not males and females, as you hint.. The underlined sentence is wrongly translated that is why you assumed that "women" were addressed in the same verse as men. It should be do not marry off (your women) to males...(wa la tunki7hu al mushrikeen), in opposition to (wa la tanki7u almushrikaat)
Do you remember when I asked you where you got this "marry off" from?
The usage of "marry off" in Arabic is the opposite of the way it is used in English. The pattern of the verb "marry off" is different from the one which means "to marry" when in the imperfect (yanki7 form 1 to marry; yunki7 form 4to marry off); but the pattern does not change in the imperative (anki7hu, for both patterns). But since we understand the rules that determine when to use eithern pattern, we should understand that anki7u if follwed by female it means marry; if followed by male it means marry off.
I hope you revise all your understandings built on "marry off" and "marry".
-
Salam all
There are only two verses with the imperfect (yunkih) which are
2827 "I want to marry off one of my two daughters to you"; and
2221 "and do not marry off your women/daughters to the idolators"Since the two verbs "yunkih" and "yankah" have the same imperative "ankih/u", I believe that it should be understood as related to the verb "yankih to marry" unless there is a strong reason to understand otherwise, not just to accommodate a specific understanding.
In verse 2221, the usage of the verb is a necessity, since the verse is addressing a generic male audience (males and females). If it was (wa la tankihu almushrekeen), it would be that the only restriction (for the male audience) in marrying men is if they were idolators.
Verse 2827 should be our control verse only fathers (or specific guardians) may marry off their daughters. Such a command of (marry off) would not be given in an address to the general audience or to the community.
-
Nowhere does Allah say in al-qur'aan that a registrar, witnesses, and the people who attend the event ALL are requisites of a marriage. (tanveer)
I understand.
A marriage can take place only with witness/witnesses who also record the marriage contract.
So the "witnesses who also record the marriage contract" are actually registrars. The marriage contract will materialize only if they ratify it. Their consent is a must.
...only fathers (or specific guardians) may marry off their daughters. Such a command of (marry off) would not be given in an address to the general audience or to the community. (samia)
This means that witnesses/registrars practically have no say in the materialization of the marriage contract.
Are you sure that God leaves witnesses/regisrars out of the generic male audience, as you put it, and thus renders their consent nul and void, and that the only consent needed is the consent of fathers (or specific guardians)?
Peace,
Hasan Akcay -
Are you sure that God leaves witnesses/regisrars out of the generic male audience, as you put it, and thus renders their consent nul and void, and that the only consent needed is the consent of fathers (or specific guardians)?
Are you posing this question to me?
I do not see that's what I wrote. I am not talking about witnesses, who have nothing to do with the marriage itself except to "witness" it, and they are there irrespective of who are getting married. They testify the occurance of a wedding. I do not see that witnesses "marry off" anybody.Nor have I said that the consent is only that of the fathers. I said, and I rephrase, if a woman is to be "married off", it's only her father (or guardian) who would do that, and that such a command (of marrying off) won't be addressed to all the public. But since the address of all these verses with the imperative (ankihu) is to the generic male, this verb should be translated as (marry) and not (marry off).
Is it clearer, or is messed up more -
Or even that the question is not meant to be to me??? -
Peace samia.
I believe that polygamy is forbidden in God's religion and cite certain verses as proof like 2432. Tanveer disagrees because according to him the divine command which 2432 conveys does not cover the independent women since they have no parents or guardians to marry them off. And you support him, claiming that only farthers and guardians in certain cases can marry off the women dependent on them; independent women are left out of God's command to be married off.
To me this is playing with God's words by exaggerating the difference in meaning between marrying off a woman and registering her marriage contract. The ensuing argument is that polygamy is permitted although God says in 423 that polygamy is unacceptably unjust; it is torture.
I am disappointed.
Peace,
Hasan Akcay -
Another thing is if people want, they can easily object to dependent women's being married off too. Why won't parents and guardians wait till the women dependent on them grow up and become independent so that they can marry rather than be married off? Guardinas of orphans are required to do that according 46 anyway
And test the orphans (in your charge) until they reach a marriageable age; then, if you find them to be mature of mind, hand over to them their possessions...
So when God said, "Marry off the single from among you..." He really did not mean it. He said it for fun.
Peace,
Hasan Akcay -
Salaam Hasan
Tanveer disagrees because according to him the divine command which 2432 conveys does not cover the independent women ... And you support him, claiming that only farthers and guardians in certain cases can marry off the women dependent on them; independent women are left out of God's command to be married off.
No no no, I think you either miunderstood me or I did not express myself clearly. This is what I said
Since the two verbs "yunkih" and "yankah" have the same imperative "ankih/u", I believe that it should be understood as related to the verb "yankih to marry" unless there is a strong reason to understand otherwise, not just to accommodate a specific understanding.
To my understanding, this is the rule. But when I wrote
Verse 2827 should be our control verse only fathers (or specific guardians) may marry off their daughters. Such a command of (marry off) would not be given in an address to the general audience or to the community.
I should have said "our cotrol verse for the usage of "yunkih marry off".I referred to this verse only as one of only two verses using the verb (to marry off). I thought I made it clear that the verb marry off) is very strictly used and should not be used if the addressee is not the father/guardian. Since there is no verse addressing fathers or guardians, such verb is not applicable. Therefore, verse 2427 is not (marry off) but (marry).
I do not agree at all with Tanveer's definition of women either dependent or independent, nor with his opinion about polygamy. My approach is more linguistic by analysing first whom the verse is addressing. I believe that all verses are addressing both genders, and that's how I am trying to refute this concept of dependent/independent women (since the concept of dependent/independent male was not brought up)
-
Salaam Tanveer
The addressee in this verse is the generic male, not males and females, as you hint.. The underlined sentence is wrongly translated that is why you assumed that "women" were addressed in the same verse as men. It should be do not marry off (your women) to males...(wa la tunki7hu al mushrikeen), in opposition to (wa la tanki7u almushrikaat)
Do you remember when I asked you where you got this "marry off" from?
The usage of "marry off" in Arabic is the opposite of the way it is used in English. The pattern of the verb "marry off" is different from the one which means "to marry" when in the imperfect (yanki7 form 1 to marry; yunki7 form 4to marry off); but the pattern does not change in the imperative (anki7hu, for both patterns). But since we understand the rules that determine when to use eithern pattern, we should understand that anki7u if follwed by female it means marry; if followed by male it means marry off.
Really? How does this work?
I know it is a really old thread (It's also rather confusing for me since so many Arabic words are used), but could you please explain this? Is it a typical form of usage?
Secondly, in both cases, what does 'marry off' really mean in context. I assumed that it meant a public ceremony and a legal contract. Is it not?
I did read through all the posts on this thread, but it's fairly confusing.
Thirdly, I have to wonder, as to what happens in the cases when you are talking about a young girl orphan (17-19 years old, let's suppose), who can be considered to be 'dependent' in the sense that she can't work for herself, but she can support herself with her inheritance. Let's also suppose that she doesn't have a fixed legal guardian, does the question of 'dependent/ independent' come into play here? Does it even apply?
Or is this just not relevant? ???
-
I also have one more question, where in the verse 43, does it say "Mothers' of the orphans? I have been through the thread, but I have not seen a word by word breakdown of the Arabic. Could someone please provide it? Do you know of any good websites that have word by word translations?
The translation by Ahmed and Samira goes as follows
3 And if you feared that you not be just/equitable in the orphans , so marry what (was) allowed/permitted for you from the women two twos/twos, and threes, and fours, so if you feared that you not be just/equitable, so (marry) one or what your rights owned/possessed, that (is) nearer that you not side away from justice .
I don't see how the word women becomes mothers in the free-minds translation.
It seems to me that in the Arabic language, there is a word that means 'orphan' when the child is fatherless. what if the child has lost both parents, or is just motherless? Are there different words for that?
-
I also have one more question, where in the verse 43, does it say "Mothers' of the orphans? I have been through the thread, but I have not seen a word by word breakdown of the Arabic. Could someone please provide it? Do you know of any good websites that have word by word translations?
http//quran.uk.net/Corpus.aspx
-
Dear Sarah
Good questions. An orphan has to be a person without both mother and father. In the Quran the legal implications with regard to orphans is always connected to their property and the guardian. If the mother is living why should anyone worry about a guardian for the fartherless child. Is not the mother fit to be a guardian for the childs property that a third person needed to be appointed.
I believe 4127 is revealed to further explain 43. As you correctly said there is no "mother" anywhere. This has to be orphan girls even if some of us like it or not.
The Quran is giving men a precaution in the case of marrying an orphan girl since they are more vulnerable with regard to their property than a girl with a mother or father living.
This is my opinion...let me know what you think.
-
The Quran is giving men a precaution in the case of marrying an orphan girl since they are more vulnerable with regard to their property than a girl with a mother or father living.
This is my opinion...let me know what you think.
I put most of it on this thread.
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599421.0
My main question is. Are those men already married (i.e. allowing polygamy) or is the injunction 'twos, threes, and fours' applied to the guardians. Hence the men are single.