women/ females/ orphans in Surah Nisa, 4:3
-
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597268.msg181548#msg181548
First
The Quran , in the original Arabic text, does NOT use the word "female" . There is no "female" anywhere in the text of verse 4127.Here is the text in Arabic
The word . (Nisa'a). This word means "WOMEN", not "females". For your info, the Arabic word for "female" is . "Untha".
The opposite of "untha" is "zhakar"
Hence
"untah" = female
"zhakar" = male.While
"nisa'a" = women
"rijal" = menNow you will ask of course So what? What is the diference between "untha" and "nisa'a"? Are they not synonymous?
NO, they are NOT synonymous. Anyone who claims they are synonymous is
1- Ignorant in Arabic.
2- Unaware of the Quran's precision
3- Corrupting the message.Even in English, FEMALE and WOMAN are not necessarily the same. To rephrase that Every woman is a female. But not every female is a woman.
A female could be a dog, sheep, horse, plant, or a three-year old child.
A woman is a grown adult human, passed the age of orphanageIf you can't see this difference, and stubbornly insist on ignoring it, then stop reading further. God is precise in using His words. Your scholars are apparently incapable of grasping this accuracy.
When Mr. Shakir and Mr. Pickthal used the word "females" in their translation of verse 4127, they ended up corrupting the text. (Wether intentionally or unintentionally, only God can tell, and I' not in a position to judge).
They should have used the word "WOMEN".
Second
A WOMAN, ( ة is a grown-up adult. There is no such thing as an ORPHAN WOMAN.
Have you ever heard of an ORPHAN MAN...?
When Pickthal translated the verse as such { Say Allah makes known to you His decision concerning them, and that which is recited to you in the Book concerning female orphans whom you do not give what is appointed for them while you desire to marry them}
He not only corrupted the text (which mentions WOMEN not females), but also condoned pedophilia.
How in God's name do you marry an orphan?! Open your eyes man, for God's sake!!! An orphan is a child!
How can you be so blind?In Arabic, an orphan = a child who has lost his father.
The Quran is talking about marrying the WOMEN WHO ARE THE MOTHERS OF THE ORPHANS!!!! not the orphans themselves!!.
The phrase (The orphans OF women meaning the orphans belonging to the women) does NOT mean (orphan women). There's no such thing as an "orphan women" to begin with (woman = grown up past the age of orphanage).
The correct translation of 4127 is
{And they seek a ruling regarding the women, say ?God will give you a ruling regarding them and what is being recited to you in the Scripture regarding the orphans of women whom you wish to marry, but have not given them (the women) what was decreed for them; as well as the weak from the children That you stand for the orphans in equality.? Whatever good you do, then God is aware of it.}.
It is giving a license to men to marry the mothers of orphans (meaning marry the widows, in order to properly take care of their orphan children). God is exempting these men from paying the dowry.
-
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597268.msg181629#msg181629
yatama sole, unmatched, single, lonely, jaded, one without parents; Root word atamm means more complete, more perfect, perfectly prepared, totally ready; Root word Tamm meaning consummate, of full value, self contained, needing no completion; Root word Tamma means to or become complete, completed, finished, done, to be performed, be accomplished, to come to an end;
Hans Wehr Arabic English Dictionary 4th Ed. page 117-118 (tamma)The context of the ayah is 'Marriage' to Women......who are independent, prepared and ready for marriage
Wain khiftum alla tuqsitoo fee alyatama fa VERBAL SENTENCE >>> inkihoo ADVERBAL MODIFIERS >>> MA TABA lakum minna <<< GENITIVE >>> alnnisai ADJECTIVES >>> mathna wathulatha warubaAAa <<< fain khiftum alla taAAdiloo fa ADJECTIVE Subject (Al Nisa) >>>> wahidatan <<< aw ma malakat aymanukum thalika adna alla taAAooloo
Secondly the ayah is indicating to Men....NOT to violate the blessing of marriage by marrying 2,3 & 4 Times NOT wives
It is Ma = NOT Taba = good/lawful Lakum =TO/For YOU to be given the Minna = favor/gift/blessing/benefit of Al Nisai = (get married to) Women Mathna = 2, Thulatha = 3, and Rubaa = 4 TIMES
Then the ayah continues......
Fain = Therefore Khiftum = If you fear Alla = that you will fall short of your duty and obligation in marriage taAAdiloo = to act justly Fa = conjunctive particle ADJECTIVE of Subject (An-Nisa) wahidatan = Then Marry ONE TIME indefinitely (NOT 2, 3 and 4 TIMES)
Lastly....
Aw (denotes time & transition) = wait UNTIL Malakat = you can take a wife Aymanukum = You are faithful, You feel trustworthy & You are secure
-
Gender imbalance
Gender imbalance is a demographic effect that may arise either as a consequence of warfare (excess of females, notably in the wake of WWI in western Europe, and WWII, particularly in the Soviet Union) or of sex-selective abortion and infanticide (excess of males, notably in mainland China as a result of the one-child policy, or in India), or of large-scale immigration, such as that of male labourers unable to bring their families with them (as in Qatar and other Gulf countries). Gender imbalance may result in the threat of social unrest, especially in the case of an excess of low-status young males unable to find a spouse, and being recruited into the service of militaristic political factions.
One study found that the male to female sex ratio in the German state of Bavaria fell as low as 0.60 after the end of World War II for the most severely affected age cohort (those between 21 and 23 years old in 1946). This same study found that out-of-wedlock births spiked from approximately 10-15% during the inter-war years up to 22% at the end of the war. This increase in out-of-wedlock births was attributed to a change in the marriage market caused by the decline in the sex-ratio.
The Northern Mariana Islands have the highest female ratio with 0.77 males/female. Qatar has the highest male ratio, with 2.87 males/female. For the group aged below 15, Sierra Leone has the highest female ratio with 0.96 males/female, and the Republic of Georgia and the People's Republic of China are tied for the highest male ratio with 1.13 males/female (according to the 2006 CIA World factbook).
The value for the entire world population is 1.01 males/female, with 1.07 at birth, 1.06 for those under 15, 1.02 for those between 15 and 64, and 0.78 for those over 65.
The "First World" G7 members all have a gender ratio in the range of 0.95?0.98 for the total population, of 1.05?1.07 at birth, of 1.05?1.06 for the group below 15, of 1.00?1.04 for the group aged 15?64, and of 0.70?0.75 for those over 65.
Countries on the Arabian peninsula tend to have a 'natural' ratio of ca. 1.05 at birth but a very high ratio of males for those over 65 (Saudi Arabia 1.13, Arab Emirates 2.73, Qatar 2.84), indicating either an above average mortality rate for females or a below average mortality for males, or, more likely in this case, a large population of aging male guest workers. Conversely, countries of Eastern Europe (the Baltic states, Belarus, Ukraine, Russia) tend to have a 'normal' ratio at birth but a very low ratio of males for those over 65 (Russia 0.46, Latvia 0.48, Ukraine 0.52); similarly, Armenia has a far above average male ratio at birth (1.17), and a below average male ratio above 65 (0.67). This effect may be caused by emigration and higher male mortality as result of higher Soviet era deaths.
-
Natural ratio
The natural sex ratio at birth is estimated to be close to 1.1 males/female. Due to the generally higher life expectancy of females, sex ratio tends to even out in adult population, and result in an excess of females among the elderly (e.g., the male to female ratio falls from 1.05 for the group aged 15 to 65 to 0.70 for the group over 65 in Germany, from 1.00 to 0.72 in the USA, from 1.06 to 0.91 in mainland China and from 1.07 to 1.02 in India).
Even in the absence of sex selection practices, a range of "normal" sex ratios at birth of between 103 to 107 boys per 100 girls has been observed in different societies, and among different ethnic and racial groups within a given society. Darwin, in his The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, cites a sex ratio of 120 boys to 100 girls for Jewish communities in 19th century Livonia, where infanticide is not historically documented, and the means for pre-natal sex determination did not exist, though this may be apocryphal.
In the United States, the sex ratios at birth over the period 1970-2002 were 105 for the white non-Hispanic population, 104 for Mexican Americans, 103 for African Americans and Indians, and 107 for mothers of Chinese or Filipino ethnicity. Among Western European countries ca. 2001, the ratios ranged between 104 in Belgium and 107 in Portugal. In the aggregated results of 56 Demographic and Health Surveys in African countries, the ratio is 103, though there is also considerable country-to-country variation.
-
Thanks for your incite sarah. recently I've become confused by the earlier verses in this chapter. I wonder what your thoughts are concerning them too
4.2 Give the orphans their money; do not replace the good with the bad, and do not consume their money to your money, for truly it is a great sin!
Do you think this refers to orphans with no parents or orphans without a father? orphaned because their fathers died in battle defending Islam perhaps? or doesn't it matter which kind of orphan?
4.3 If you fear that you cannot be just to fatherless orphans, then marry those whom you see fit from the women, two, and three, and four. But if you fear you will not be fair then only one, or whom you already have contract with. So that you do not commit injustice and suffer hardship.
I don't know how much 'fatherless' is understood here using the E/L translation, but the understanding here is that the 'women' are the mothers of the orphans. What do you think this means - 'If you fear you cannot be just to orphans' ? In what way could they fear that they were not able to be just. What would prevent them from being 'just' to children who have lost their father that marrying their mothers would allow them to be. I guess I don't understand what 'just' is inferring here. Maybe I'm not aware of the customs of the early arabs.
But then it says 'But if you fear you will not be fair then only one, or whom you already have contract with'. Other translations use 'whom you rightfully possess'. I know a similar term is used in 425 where is is advised that 'those whom your right hand possesses' (meaning slaves under your control) commit adultery, they are to be given half the punishment, ie 50 lashes. Is the same term in arabic used to describe these people in both instances, do you know? This bit confuses me completely. Is it saying to be content with what you have if you fear you cannot be fair to more than one wife or is it saying be content with marrying a slave as a second wife but don't marry a mother of orphans?
4.4 Give the women their property willingly, and if they remit any of it to you of their own will, then you may take it with good feelings.
So the 'women' here are the 'mothers of orphans' or just females in general?
4.5 Do not give the immature ones your money, which God has entrusted to you. Spend on them from it and clothe them, and speak to them nicely.
Why hasn't God entrusted this money to their mothers, or is this talking about completely parent-less orphans? But in 42, it said 'Give the orphans their money'. Do we understand that as meaning 'Keep it kind, then give it to them' as the next verses advises that it should wait until they are mature.
4.6 Test the orphans until they reach the age of marriage, then if you determine in them sound judgment, then give them their wealth, and do not deliberately consume it wastefully or quickly before they grow up. Whoever is rich, then let him not claim anything, and if he is poor then let him consume only properly. If you give to them their wealth, then make a witness for them, and God is enough for Reckoning.
These orphans that are to be tested in order to give them independence - are their mothers married to believers or are these completely parent-less ones? Their wealth has been kept in kind by the men who married their mothers? Why aren't their mothers minding their affairs?
Sorry for the long hodge-podge post and reading back on it I don't think I explained my confusion very well, but it was good to write it out anyway. I would like to read a summary of what other people think these verses mean.
-
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sex_ratio
out of curiosity, might I ask how polygyny would even arise? It seems that everywhere around the world, with the exception of wartime in earlier times, there is always an excess of males over females. If according to 2432, the single women AND men are encouraged to get married, how is there even scope for polygyny? Won't there always be an excess of males over females?
I have read that female infanticide was fairly common during Arabia of that time. Wouldn't that further reduce the number of available women of marriageable age, compared to the number of men of marriageable age of that time? Weren't all single males expected to marry then? Or did you have a situation where you had a similar problem to the Lost Boys, where lower- ranking (read, less wealthy and powerful) younger men were forced out of the marriage market?
http//www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jun/14/usa.julianborgerI don't mean something extreme like that, but perhaps something like the younger men being drafted into some form of fighting group/army?
This is rather confusing.
Some of this is from the old thread titled 'Number of wives', which I am currently reading.
-
Do you think this refers to orphans with no parents or orphans without a father? orphaned because their fathers died in battle defending Islam perhaps? or doesn't it matter which kind of orphan?
I don't know how much 'fatherless' is understood here using the E/L translation, but the understanding here is that the 'women' are the mothers of the orphans. What do you think this means - 'If you fear you cannot be just to orphans' ? In what way could they fear that they were not able to be just. What would prevent them from being 'just' to children who have lost their father that marrying their mothers would allow them to be. I guess I don't understand what 'just' is inferring here. Maybe I'm not aware of the customs of the early arabs.
But then it says 'But if you fear you will not be fair then only one, or whom you already have contract with'. Other translations use 'whom you rightfully possess'. I know a similar term is used in 425 where is is advised that 'those whom your right hand possesses' (meaning slaves under your control) commit adultery, they are to be given half the punishment, ie 50 lashes. Is the same term in arabic used to describe these people in both instances, do you know? This bit confuses me completely. Is it saying to be content with what you have if you fear you cannot be fair to more than one wife or is it saying be content with marring a slave as a second wife but don't marry a mother of orphans?
So the 'women' here are the 'mothers of orphans' or just females in general?
Why hasn't God entrusted this money to their mothers, or is this talking about completely parent-less orphans?
These orphans that are to be tested in order to give them independence - are their mothers married to believers or are these completely parent-less ones? Their wealth has been kept in kind by the men who married their mothers? Why aren't their mothers minding their affairs?
Sorry for the long hodge-podge post and reading back on it I don't think I explained my confusion very well, but it was good to write it out anyway.
Yes, and it also leads me to wonder one more thing, which is why I am curious about the historical situation in Arabia.
Most motherless orphans and widows, would, I presume, in a country with no social security or welfare benefits, go to the homes of their male relatives. If they are already related, these male relatives would, I suppose not want to take the burden of supporting her and her children, but at the same time would not be able to marry these women. (I am talking about close male relatives, like a brother, or an uncle, ).Of course, this is just part of a thought experiment on my part, and I just wanted to put my thoughts out there.
To continue it, less consider this society to be one where female infanticide was common. So there would be fewer mature women, why wouldn't these women then marry bachelors among the community when there should be plenty available, even after wartime?
Wars were much shorter then, I believe, and they didn't have poison gas or other forms of mass killing instruments. Isn't it reasonable to think that their male-female ratio wouldn't fall as drastically as they did for the Germans in World War II?
Dc2, you do bring up some very interesting questions that have made me start thinking.
What's actually funny is that it seems polygyny ought to be even less likely considering that there should actually be an excess of marriageable single men, rather than of women of marriageable age, unlike what proponents of polygyny claim...
???
Anyone has some input on this?
-
I know this will seem weird, but supposing that there were motherless orphans, and men were to marry them, were they supposed to marry younger, single men? Since fewer single, previously unmarried women would be available thanks to the female infanticide at that time and the fact that there is a natural 105100 ratio (approx) at the tertiary level, without female foeticide/infanticide, indicating an excess of 5 adult males for every 100 females of the same age?
Is the historical account of Muhammad's marriage to Khadijah, a widow 15 years older than him, supposed to set a precedent?
It's just something I have been thinking about, the historical context, so please correct me if I am wrong about some historical fact. But if this is true, it definitely paints a very different picture...
-
Interesting points sarah. Glad I'm not the only one confused. If they are fatherless orphans, why can't they just stay in their own homes with their mothers who looks after them with money that has been left for them. If they don't have any money, then charity should be given to them. Are the mothers to be married as a kind of recompense for charity given perhaps?
-
Interesting points sarah. Glad I'm not the only one confused. If they are fatherless orphans, why can't they just stay in their own homes with their mothers who looks after them with money that has been left for them. If they don't have any money, then charity should be given to them. Are the mothers to be married as a kind of recompense for charity given perhaps?
Perhaps, and the question is, who is marrying them? Are they men who are already married, and are already burdened with their first families, or are they younger, single men?
-
Peace,
Very interesting topic, this verse need clarification indeed. Some translations are heavily prejudiced on this, adding "-girls" after the word "orphan"
Muhsin Khan And if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphan-girls,
Sahih International And if you fear that you will not deal justly with the orphan girls,While others have been more true to the letter
Pickthall And if ye fear that ye will not deal fairly by the orphans,
Yusuf Ali If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans,
Shakir And if you fear that you cannot act equitably towards orphans,
Dr. Ghali And, in case you fear that you will not act equitably towards the orphans,However, they're not necessarily free from other errors in the other verse as you pointed out, sarah_bd_gemini.
Now, how should i begin to join this discussion.. confused
I'm using Yusuf Ali translation here, without the parentheses
41 O mankind! reverence your Guardian-Lord,
who created you from a single person, created, of like nature, His mate,
and from them twain scattered countless men and women;-
reverence Allah, through whom ye demand your mutual, and the wombs
for Allah ever watches over you.42 To orphans restore their property, nor substitute worthless things for good ones;
and devour not their substance with your own. For this is indeed a great sin.43 If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (q-s-T) with the orphans,
(then) Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four;
but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly ("a-d-l),
then only one, or that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice.God 'scattered' mankind from the wombs of women--of which some are orphaned (either fatherless or both fatherless and motherless)
We have responsibilities over the orphans (through the Book it is explicit that the orphans are the collective responsibility of the believers)
some orphans inherited wealth from their parents (father), and it is our obligation to keep it safe for them until they're grown up
some orphans are left without wealth or even parents to support their growth, and it is our obligation to feed them and to raise themTherefore, the third verse, in my opinion, should also be seen from this point of view (responsibility over the orphans)
So, what is justice towards the orphan?
From the view of an adult man
Is it "just" to leave them grow up without father/parents, while his own children grow up with father/parents?
Is it "just" enough to only send them food and money?Some men might see this as unjust, and therefore God give those men a chance to bring some of the orphans to their home.
As for fatherless but mothered-orphans, this means marrying their mother(s) (is it sensible to separate the children from their mother?)However, then the issue would be,
Is it "just/fair" for the women, if her husband would not be able to dedicate his husband-ship (;D sounds funny) to her only?note This is my early observation. I haven't observed the difference between the roots q-s-T and "a-d-l, which might give us a better insight on the true meaning. I also haven't observed the phrase "ma malakat aymanukum" properly, so i will hold my comments on it.
As for "who" the adult man is, a "married man" or a "single man", i think the verse could be applied to any of the two.
Thus from my view, this Sura is started with a strong concern over the orphans, which precedes concern over the marriage itself (and the women).
Does it make sense to you? Children first, then the women (from the viewpoint of men). With this viewpoint, let's see the next verses, where we will see what is God's concern over the women, and then over the orphans again when they reach maturity (which is obviously not the same age for everyone D, hence the test).44 And give the women their dower as a free gift; but if they, of their own good pleasure, remit any part of it to you, Take it and enjoy it with right good cheer.
45 To those weak of understanding Make not over your property, which Allah hath made a means of support for you, but feed and clothe them therewith, and speak to them words of kindness and justice.
46 Make trial of orphans until they reach the age of marriage; if then ye find sound judgment in them, release their property to them; but consume it not wastefully, nor in haste against their growing up. If the guardian is well-off, Let him claim no remuneration, but if he is poor, let him have for himself what is just and reasonable. When ye release their property to them, take witnesses in their presence But all-sufficient is Allah in taking account.
Oh, and there is God's concern over the men (middle part of 46).
And, surprise to me, it is then related to the oft-questioned shares about inheritance. No, we have not yet come to the men's bigger share--but so far the responsibilities of the previous verses seems to be directed to men. CMIIW.
47 For men is a share of what the parents and close relatives leave, and for women is a share of what the parents and close relatives leave, be it little or much - an obligatory share.
note i switched to Sahih International for this verse, which i think is most literal here. The expression "For men" ("li Alrijaali" started the verse. Back to Yusuf Ali's for the next verse.
48 But if at the time of division, other relatives, or orphans or poor, are present, feed them out of the (property), and speak to them words of kindness and justice.
note This is what i'm seeking for! Regarding justification/obligation for the wealthier ones to pass on their share to the needier ones at the inheritance process! Not only that, but there is strong warning against those who would not take heed to God's command on 48.
49 Let those have the same fear in their minds as they would have for their own
if they had left a helpless family behind Let them fear Allah, and speak words of appropriate.410 Those who unjustly eat up the property of orphans, eat up a Fire into their own bodies They will soon be enduring a Blazing Fire!
And then what would you expect for the next verses? Verses 411-12 is about the details of inheritance itself, the exact verses so often questioned from some of those concerned about justice regarding inheritance. Obviously we have often read those verses in exclusion without paying attention to the beginning of the Sura. I'm afraid that is the reason why the 411-12 is often abused. Those who abuse couldn't understand the warnings in 49-10, simply because they didn't take time to observe the preceding verses 41-8 properly. Glorious God.
So, it is God's concern over the children (orphans) first, then women, then men. Among those, the orphans and the poor ones of the family are explicitly prioritized by God.
Right, this is news to me--or at least this is my preliminary observation on the beginning of Sura AlnisaA'.
As always, 1736 ...
Peace,
P.S., i think we should ask our dear Fawzia to read this. It is one of the matters she really concerned about, it seems.
-
I know this will seem weird, but supposing that there were motherless orphans, and men were to marry them, were they supposed to marry younger, single men? Since fewer single, previously unmarried women would be available thanks to the female infanticide at that time and the fact that there is a natural 105100 ratio (approx) at the tertiary level, without female foeticide/infanticide, indicating an excess of 5 adult males for every 100 females of the same age?
Is the historical account of Muhammad's marriage to Khadijah, a widow 15 years older than him, supposed to set a precedent?
It's just something I have been thinking about, the historical context, so please correct me if I am wrong about some historical fact. But if this is true, it definitely paints a very different picture...
Where are you getting Muhammad's marriage to Khadija who's older than him from Sarah, if you claim to be a Quranist? ???
Where is the 15 year age difference mentioned in the Quran please?
AND, since you're now dealing with issues outside of the Quran, namely 15 year age difference, Muhammad married other of women from the hadiths who were not war widows, even from the Quran we see he married his adopted son's wife, not to mention that he married a little girl named Ayesha as well, as we see in hadiths.
Most of his followers had multiple wives.
Many scholars speculate that other than the Tamim tribe, which practiced selective female infanticide, other tribes never selectively targetted only their female children, but either didn't practice infanticide, or killed both male & female babies at times.
Thats' why the Quran also once mentions that "women who don't kill their children," & in the hadiths, when Muhammad tells Hind to promise that she won't kill her children, she retaliates, "Have you left us any children whom you did not kill in battle?"
I'm just bringing all these up as you can't simply pick & choose from hadiths Sarah.
You can't simply pick Muhammad being 15 years younger than Khadija, but ignore the sordid stuff like little Ayesha.
Either you accept all hadiths, or you reject all, or you're simply cherry picking to salvage your faith.
Of course, if we go by hadiths, the position of women went down in many ways due to Islam. Compare pre Islamic Khadija with post Islamic Ayesha. This is also the opinion of scholars like Fatima Mernissi.
-
43 If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (q-s-T) with the orphans,
(then) Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four;
but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly ("a-d-l),
then only one, or that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice.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.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?
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?
The historical situation would seem to suggest an excess of young men, and I think this is important (if true) especially since that leads to a question of whether or not polygyny is allowed, or whether the verse is merely referring to marrying off the widows with children, with no reference to polygyny?
-
Where are you getting Muhammad's marriage to Khadija who's older than him from Sarah, if you claim to be a Quranist? ???
Where is the 15 year age difference mentioned in the Quran please?
AND, since you're now dealing with issues outside of the Quran, namely 15 year age difference, Muhammad married other of women from the hadiths who were not war widows, even from the Quran we see he married his adopted son's wife, not to mention that he married a little girl named Ayesha as well, as we see in hadiths.
Unfair accusation again. I made it clear in that post that I don't know much about the history of that place, and yes, I don't know what is historical and what is fiction, and that I would like to be corrected if I am wrong. You accused me of being a hadithi, (ad hominem attack, tsk tsk laugh)
I was just putting out ideas, I never said that I was right.
At any rate, if you read my posts, I am concerned about the sex ratio at that time, because it might have some bearing to our understanding of 43.
Most people who claim it supports polygyny say that there were few men, and an excess of women, so it made sense. If the reverse were true, this would make little sense practically, even in backward 7th century Arabia.
-
Unfair accusation again. I made it clear in that post that I don't know much about the history of that place, and yes, I don't know what is historical and what is fiction, and that I would like to be corrected if I am wrong. You accused me of being a hadithi, (ad hominem attack, tsk tsk laugh
I was just putting out ideas, I never said that I was right.
At any rate, if you read my posts, I am concerned about the sex ratio at that time, because it might have some bearing to our understanding of 43.
Most people who claim it supports polygyny say that there were few men, and an excess of women, so it made sense. If the reverse were true, this would make little sense practically, even in backward 7th century Arabia.
Sarah, its not your or my fault that we don't know enough about the history of that place, no body can know very much unless we're capable of travelling backwards in a time machine to check, for two very good reasons
-
Arabia wasn't a very advanced place of the world, it didn't have that many literate people, it didn't influence many nations before Islam, so people systematically writing down its history would be few & far between.
-
Also, we must remember that Islam put an absolute & abrupt end to the civilization which existed before, Islam inaugerated a whole new civilization, the time before Islam was blackened as a time of ignorance or "jahiliyyah". Thus, every practice & attitude would naturally be spoken of in a derogatory manner, Islamic attitudes would be exalted, pre Islamic behavior tarnished.
Have you heard of the phrase, "History is written by the winners,,"? Well, the winners were Muslims, pre Islamic Arabs being losers, would have no opportunity of telling their side of the story.
So I, like many other historians, take whatever they say about pre Islamic times, with a pinch of salt.
This is a fantastic article, by an ex Muslim, about the situation of women under Islam & before Islam, its very well researched, you might like to read it. It too says,that both aby girls & boys were killed.
http//www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=3987.msg102399#msg102399
Practically, all information we can get about the era are from hadiths, the Sira etc, all of which will probably have an Islamic twist, being written by Muslims after Islam.
Its difficult to get a neutral, objective historian of the times.
-
-
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.