women/ females/ orphans in Surah Nisa, 4:3
-
I remember reading in that other thread, that the preposition implied is AND and not OR in the third line of the Yusuf Ali one you posted.
Here's another by Ahmed and Samira.Headshot! You're right on that, i must have missed reading the "wa"s properly.
43 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 .
Samia also said something on that thread about the Arabic word as meaning either 'marry' or ' marry off'
It would make sense, I suppose, to marry off those women in twos, threes, and fours, to different men, like in a single ceremony?
Yes that would make sense to me too (not necessarily in a single event though), especially as 'kum' (plural) is used when it is said '...what (was) allowed/permitted for you from the women'.
A lot was discussed on that thread, but it can be hard to wade through all the digressions to get to a step by step breakdown of each verse.
As for your point about the orphan children, who are better able to provide? Married men who already have children and wives and already have the burden of maintaining a household, or unattached males?
I think the context is already clear from the first condition
43 If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (q-s-T) with the orphans,
So, who would fear such thing? The men who are better able to provide or the opposite? Maybe it doesn't have to be categoried into married or unmarried, but rather as you said yourself, "the ones who are better able to provide"? Those who have the excess of wealth and capacity/capability to take father's responsibility over (some of) the orphans? Thus he feared injustice if he didn't take the chance of which he is capable of fulfilling?
This makes this verse heavy on itself, and should not be taken lightly. As we know, one man (in polygamy) can never be fully just to all of their wives.
What d'you say?
Peace
-
This is a fantastic book by Muslim feminist Fatima Mernissi, which also shows women's great position pre Islam.
http//books.google.co.in/books?id=4F-xf-R9vNEC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=fatima+mernissi+hadramaut&source=bl&ots=peLfFvvwic&sig=iM7d8wlUKt5bywInkwoJl--6iwI&hl=en&ei=q2A6Ss7RDdCMkAX1i-iYDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2
Not only that, it speaks of the various rebellions of women against Islam-which were brutally suppressed by Muslims, including by a group of Hadramaut women rebels & another by a Prophetess called Sajah, imagine before Islam, a woman like Sajah, could even declare herself a Prophetess!
Hadramaut today is famous as the home of bin Laden btw! Women like Sajah are quite unthinkable in Saudi today!
All the information about female infanticide are stuff we get from Muslim sources, as we know, Islam having overthrown the previous order & determined to tarnish its image, would be keen to show only the bad, sometimes even exaggerate or invent bad!
We don't see any shortage of women in Arabia, rather we see Muhammad & his followers all indulging in polygamy.
Another very important think to rememer in sex ratios is that-women outnumber men in many nations in modernity only as improvements have been made in maternal mortality, before these improvements in maternal mortality, many women would also die in childbirth in their prime, so there wouldn't be more women than men(even nowadays, only old women outnumber old men & women outnumber men only by living longer), if women died young in childbirth, even in youth, there'd be more men.
We see no such shortage of women in Arabia.
Some claims might simply be exaggerated Islamic propaganda, like Western propaganda today.
-
So, who would fear such thing? The men who are better able to provide or the opposite? Maybe it doesn't have to be categoried into married or unmarried, but rather as you said yourself, "the ones who are better able to provide"? Those who have the excess of wealth and capacity/capability to take father's responsibility over (some of) the orphans? Thus he feared injustice if he didn't take the chance of which he is capable of fulfilling?
This makes this verse heavy on itself, and should not be taken lightly. As we know, one man (in polygamy) can never be fully just to all of their wives.
What d'you say?
Peace
I don't know about that. In tribal societies, even though you have strict power hierarchies, I am not sure if there is a similar concentration of wealth in the hands of a few. That seems to be more likely in settled communities, rather than nomadic ones, and more likely in agragarian communities, than in a desert one.
-
That's true for any time.
Yes, but its especially difficult given that the pre Islamic order was completely overthrown in a single generation!
If there are two groups alive, both can tell us their side of the story.
When we accuse the media of bias, in say the Israel Palestine conflict, at least both the Israelis & Palestinians are existing to tell their story.
Islam completely destroyed, utterly annihilated the pre Islamic society. The defeated people didn't simply get defeated, they ceased to exist.
No pre Islamic pagan existed to tell his or her side of the events! Thats' the difference.
-
Another very important think to rememer in sex ratios is that-women outnumber men in many nations in modernity only as improvements have been made in maternal mortality, before these improvements in maternal mortality, many women would also die in childbirth in their prime, so there wouldn't be more women than men(even nowadays, only old women outnumber old men & women outnumber men only by living longer), if women died young in childbirth, even in youth, there'd be more men.
We see no such shortage of women in Arabia.
Some claims might simply be exaggerated Islamic propaganda, like Western propaganda today.
this is hilarious, Fawzia. Haven't you even read the wiki article? men still outnumber women in each and every country.
Improvements in neonatal care have helped male infants more than female ones, since male infants were, formerly, most likely to die of complications. This is why the ratio falls from the primary(conception) to the secondary(birth) to the tertiary(maturity) levels at a less steep rate. But it is always greater than 1. This is for the present.
In the past, you had this abhorrent discrimination against female children from the time they were born, so fewer survived to maturity than they would have now. Your points about maternal mortality hold true.
That suggests that there wasn't a shortage of men, but possibly of women, with an excess of males at each and every time in history, even if for different reasons.
-
Yes, but its especially difficult given that the pre Islamic order was completely overthrown in a single generation!
If there are two groups alive, both can tell us their side of the story.
When we accuse the media of bias, in say the Israel Palestine conflict, at least both the Israelis & Palestinians are existing to tell their story.
Islam completely destroyed, utterly annihilated the pre Islamic society. The defeated people didn't simply get defeated, they ceased to exist.
No pre Islamic pagan existed to tell his or her side of the events! Thats' the difference.
evidence?
-
evidence?
Evedence? Ridiculous! How many pre Islamic pagans of Saudi Arabia or Yemen do you know? How many such pagans, worshipping allat, al Uzza, al Manat do you know existed from the 10th, 11th etc centuries, after Islam please?
As the Quran & if you're willing to accept hadiths, hadiths say,they existed before Islam. Are they existing in KSA or Yemen today?
-
this is hilarious, Fawzia. Haven't you even read the wiki article? men still outnumber women in each and every country.
Improvements in neonatal care have helped male infants more than female ones, since male infants were, formerly, most likely to die of complications. This is why the ratio falls from the primary(conception) to the secondary(birth) to the tertiary(maturity) levels at a less steep rate. But it is always greater than 1. This is for the present.
In the past, you had this abhorrent discrimination against female children from the time they were born, so fewer survived to maturity than they would have now. Your points about maternal mortality hold true.
That suggests that there wasn't a shortage of men, but possibly of women, with an excess of males at each and every time in history, even if for different reasons.
Really Sarah!
Its you who are hilarious!
There are more women than men in USA, UK, all Europe(except Albania & Turkey's) etc country's total population.
There are 96 men per 100 women in Germany etc.
Please google demographics of USA, UK etc & see.
There are 105 boys per 100 girls at birth, although naturally it varies between 102-107.
ALL places don't & never did discriminate against girls.
Only some societies do & did.
After Roman times, for eg, Europe didn't practice selective female infanticide. Nor does much of the world.
Women are more than men in a total population as they live 5-10 years more than men on avarage, yes baby boys do die more than girls-however in developed nations, that still doesn't bridge the gap in youth.
-
Read the demographics of USA Sarah, it might clear your mind, its also from Wikipedia.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
I will give you more demographics shortly.
The Wikipedia article was speaking of sex ratios at birth, not sex ratios in the total population.
Women outlive men in virtually every nation, however due to ill treatment, in your Bangladesh, men outlive women! D
Seriously Sarah! Aren't you a University student?
-
Evedence? Ridiculous! How many pre Islamic pagans of Saudi Arabia or Yemen do you know? How many such pagans, worshipping allat, al Uzza, al Manat do you know existed from the 10th, 11th etc centuries, after Islam please?
As the Quran & if you're willing to accept hadiths, hadiths say,they existed before Islam. Are they existing in KSA or Yemen today?
uh? they are long dead? if they lived in the 10th and 11th century? laugh
ok, in all seriousness, it's not like they were wiped out. They might have converted or migrated as far as I know. it's not like paganism was entrenched in their society. how many Africans and South Americans are there who only speak French and Spanish, and have lost their native tongues? -
Hi Sarah!
These are the demographics of some nations, specially for you
First my birthplace Iran, then Turkey, then Russia, then Norway. We can see that in non Muslim Russia & Norway, there are more women than men in the total population, however, in Muslim Iran & Turkey, there are more men than women, because as women aren't treated well enough, they can't outlive & outnumber men.http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Iran
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Turkey
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Norway
Although at birth men are more, that gap reduces through life, due to excess male mortality due to rash behavior, suicides, and women's natural better health.
Although at birth there are a few less female children, as women are healthier, if not ill treated, they can & do outliv men, leading to a sex ratio favoring women in the total population.
-
Read the demographics of USA Sarah, it might clear your mind, its also from Wikipedia.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
I will give you more demographics shortly.
The Wikipedia article was speaking of sex ratios at birth, not sex ratios in the total population.
the tertiary ratio is the ratio at sexual maturity. world average 1.1 at birth, 1.05 between 15-65years.
-
uh? they are long dead? if they lived in the 10th and 11th century? laugh
ok, in all seriousness, it's not like they were wiped out. They might have converted or migrated as far as I know. it's not like paganism was entrenched in their society. how many Africans and South Americans are there who only speak French and Spanish, and have lost their native tongues?Wiped out means that they are now dead or convered! If they accepted Islam, they'd surely now be pro Islam, rather than write from the point of view of the society which was destroyed by Muhammad & Co.
And thats' my point, Muslims being the winners, the other side being converted & killed, we can't get their point of view.
Btw, have you understood that demographics thingie Sarah? ???
Then I will try to explain this, however, if at your age you didn't know that women outlive men & most nations have more women, then its difficult to explain the biases of history to you.
-
Women outlive men in virtually every nation, however due to ill treatment, in your Bangladesh, men outlive women! D
South Asian bashing again. I am very much aware of the wrong things done in my country, and the few good things being done to overcome them. This comment of yours was entirely uncalled for, and only shows that you are a RACIST. There are plenty of other countries where men outlive women, the wiki article mentions Qatar.
I am done responding to you, since you clearly have no respect for people.
Most rational atheists I know are good people, and aren't racists, they most certainly wouldn't pick out my country of origin as a point to use in attacking me.
giveup
-
Why you don't you help us then, Fawzia?
Do you think we here approve all the injustice you're telling us about?
There were and there still are 'muslims' abusing the Quran and abusing women--thank you, we know that.
You know what? I'm very concerned about this matter too.
The Quran is abused so much that you should already begin to undrstand what's with all that terrible warnings in the Quran, if you would position such warnings against themselves--the abusers of the Quran.
So now some of us are here trying to find what is the true meaning of those verses which had been severely abused.
And would you help us against them instead of passing on to us your frustations--which we had enough ourselves??
Whose side do you think we are on? Their side? The women-abusing "muslims"? Say it.
Please consider your and our position again and please refrain from this discussion at this moment--unless you are trying to add any useful insight to the topic.
Thanks.
-
the tertiary ratio is the ratio at sexual maturity. world average 1.1 at birth, 1.05 between 15-65years.
World avarage is skewed due to the shortage of women in China, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, & much of the Muslim world which has more men, this is due to abortion, infanticide, ill treatment of women in all those societies etc.
In societies where women are treated well, although more men than women are born, somewhere between 102 to 107 men per 100 women, finally women outlive men & there are more women than men in those nation.
For example, in the Indian sub Continent, Buddhist Sri Lanka has 98 men per 100 women in the total population, as women are treated fine. India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, whether Hindu or Muslim have more men.
European women are treated well, so in all European nations, there are more women-except Muslim Turkey & Muslim Albania.
Turkey has 103 men per 100 women, Albania has 104 as women aren't treated well in these & so can't fulfill their biological advantages & outlive men.Rest of Europe is Christian.
Egypt has 102 men per 100 women in their total population, Algeria also has 102 etc.
In Buddhist Japan, Thailand, Burma, Mongolia, Cambodia, much of Christian Europe etc, there are more women.
As I said, although Sri Lanka is in the Indian sub Continent, it has more women than men, its also Buddhist majority.
You can google all these nations' demographics & see for yourself.
So in most nations, upto old age, men outnumber women. However, as women outlive men in most nations, in the total population of many nations, there're indeed more women.
However, as I said, in earlier times, due to high maternal mortality, women, even if they were treated well enough, lived shorter lives.
Got it?
And all the world never neglected or killed baby girls earlier, some patriarchal societies did, others raised all their children, like today all societies don't honor kill, some do.
-
South Asian bashing again. I am very much aware of the wrong things done in my country, and the few good things being done to overcome them. This comment of yours was entirely uncalled for, and only shows that you are a RACIST. There are plenty of other countries where men outlive women, the wiki article mentions Qatar.
I am done responding to you, since you clearly have no respect for people.
Most rational atheists I know are good people, and aren't racists, they most certainly wouldn't pick out my country of origin as a point to use in attacking me.
giveup
I know I know, first you didn't understand demographics, then you will ridicule me & then give up.
All I spoke of were facts.
Why you don't you help us then, Fawzia?
Do you think we here approve all the injustice you're telling us about?
There were and there still are 'muslims' abusing the Quran and abusing women--thank you, we know that.
You know what? I'm very concerned about this matter too.
The Quran is abused so much that you should already begin to undrstand what's with all that terrible warnings in the Quran, if you would position such warnings against themselves--the abusers of the Quran.
So now some of us are here trying to find what is the true meaning of those verses which had been severely abused.
And would you help us against them instead of passing on to us your frustations--which we had enough ourselves??
Whose side do you think we are on? Their side? The women-abusing "muslims"? Say it.
Please consider your and our position again and please refrain from this discussion at this moment--unless you are trying to add any useful insight to the topic.
Thanks.
Why such huge sizes? I too want to help women, I don't think the Quran does enough on that front.
I would like Muslims to be more like nations like Sweden or Norway, which promote women's rights,NOT from the Bible, but from modern ethics.
I think the best help for Muslims, like other people everywhere, isn't to turn back to what God says, but try to find their own meaningful lives, thinking out of the book.
-
http//www.ourstolenfuture.org/newscience/reproduction/sexratio/sexratio.htm
This is rather interesting.
Changes in human sex ratio
Usually, the sex ratio (numbers of boys born divided by the numbers of girls born) is slightly greater than one. In fact, world-wide about 106 boys are born for every 100 girls. This number is also reported as the male proportion of total births, or 106/206 = 0.514 = 51.4%.
Several researchers, however, have reported apparent recent declines in the proportion of male births, in the US, Canada, Denmark and the Netherlands. These declines have been very small but statistically significant. Fewer boys are being born than would be expected on the basis of the recent historical worldwide average.
In addition to these general declines, several specific cases have been reported involving sharp alterations in the sex ratio of people because of industrial accident, occupational exposure, or because of exposure to air pollution from incinerators. For example, in Russia pesticide workers exposed to elevated dioxin and dioxin-like compounds are less likely to father boys. A similar pattern is observed in men exposed to a mixture of PCBs in Taiwan. Both these studies report no effect on the sex ratio of infants born to exposed women. The Taiwanese study also suggests that exposure before the age of 20 is necessary for there to be an effect on sex ratio.
Most recently, public health scientists in Canada have reported a sharp drop in the sex ratio of a First Nation community (Chippewa) near Sarnia, Ontario, a heavily industrialized region with the province. Over fewer than 10 years, the ratio dropped from the norm, around 5050, to roughly one-third boys, two-thirds girls. The cause of this decline has not been identified, but the pattern is very strong.
Most of the discussions of the country-level changes noted above have treated it as small shifts in the individual probability of one sex vs the other over the population as a whole. Examples like Sarnia, however, propose another pattern that a small growing number of 'hot spots' where sex ratio changes are large pull down the population average.
If the former, then while it may be an interesting indicator of chemical contamination (or some other factor) it is difficult to see immediate public health consequences. But if the later, it raises acute questions about the consequences within those hot spots for public health.
Earlier studies include
Mocarelli, P, PM Gerthoux, E Ferrari, DG Petterson, SM Kieszak, P Brambilla, N Vincoli, S Signorini, P Tramacere, V Carreri, EJ Sampson, WE Turner and LL Needham. 2000. Paternal concentrations of dioxin and sex ratio of offspring. The Lancet 3551858-1863.
Mocarelli et al. revisit their data (see below for earlier paper) on the sex of children born to parents exposed to dioxin in the 1976 dioxin accident in Seveso, Italy, and carry the analysis farther. They find that the father's exposure level is the best predictor of sex of offspring. Higher dioxin exposure of the father decreased the likelihood of having sons compared to daughters.
Neither the father's nor the mother's age at conception was related to sex of children born controlling for dioxin exposure. But fathers exposed at a young age (younger than 19) were significantly more likely to have daughters than sons if their exposure to dioxin was relatively high.
"These experimental data and our observation of the lower sex ratio among the offspring of men who were exposed to dioxin during adulthood or before and during puberty support the hypothesis that dioxin permanently affects the human epididymus from the time of exposure."
M?ller, H. 1998. Trends in sex-ratio, testicular cancer and male reproductive hazards Are they connected? APMIS 106232-239.
M?ller presents data from a Danish case-control study showing a strong association between testicular cancer, low fertility and an excess of females compared to males among offspring. He hypothesizes that common causal factors may underlie these associations, specifically that agents acting prenatally to disrupt normal development may be involved. More...
Davis, DL, MG Gottlieb and JR Stampnitzky. 1998. Reduced ratio of male to female births in several industrial countries A sentinel health indicator? Journal of the American Medical Association 2791018-1023.
Davis et al. examine birth records on the proportion of males born in Denmark, the Netherlands, Canada and the United States. They find that the sex ratio has declined in each of these countries. As with M?ller's finding, above (and below), the percentage change is small but statistically significant. Davis et al. observe that the change observed in the US over a twenty year period amount to a cumulative decrease of 1 male birth per 1000 live births They go on to calculate that this corresponds, given actual birthrates, to an absence of 38,000 male births.
Davis et al. also summarize medical and scientific literature on known and hypothesized causes of changes in sex ratio They cite a series of studies of contamination that have resulted in declines in the proportion of males born. The examples include dibromochloropropane, exposures of fathers working in the aluminum industry, organochlorine pesticides and waste anesthetic gases.
They conclude by proposing that "reduced male proportion at birth be viewed as a sentinel health event that may be linked to environmental factors."
M?ller, H. 1996. Change in malefemale ratio among newborn infants in Denmark. The Lancet 348828-829.
M?ller reports that the proportion of boys among newborn infants decreased in Denmark from the 1960s to the present, after having risen from 1850 to 1950. According to M?ller, the initial increase is "mainly a consequence of decreasing stillbirth rates and the decreasing male excess among stillbirths." He cautiously proposes; "It is possible that environmental or other agents with toxic properties on the male reproductive system could lead to low malefemale ratios" and he cites the nematocide dibromochloropropane (DBCP) as one example among exposed men.
Mocarelli, P, P Brambilla, PM Gerthous, DG Patterson, Jr. and LI Needham. 1996. Change in sex ratio with exposure to dioxin. The Lancet 348409.
In Italy, stunning evidence of reproductive effects in humans has emerged from the ongoing investigation of the human health consequences of the explosion at a chemical factory in Seveso in 1976. This latest report raises more questions than it answers. The dioxin released in this accident contaminated thousand of people in the surrounding city and left some with the highest dioxin levels ever measured in humans. As reported in Our Stolen Future (Chapter 7), the follow-up studies had initially focused on cancer rates in the accident victims until the endocrine disruption theory recently raised new questions about possible effects on their children.
In examining the children born to to parents with high dioxin exposure from April 1977 (one year following the accident) to December 1984, the research team discovered a highly skewed sex ratio. Instead of the typical ratio in humans of 106 males to 100 females, these parents produced only 26 boys to 48 girls. The scientists have no explanation for such a shift, but they note evidence that normal sex ratios are maintained through the hormone concentrations in the parents.