Polygamy - Time to settle the issue

unknownuser

Peace Dawn,

If you are referring to , well here is my take on it

Allah doesn't simple end the verse when He says 'You cannot deal equitably between women', He provides a solution by saying that due to this men shouldn't sway on one side too greatly and leave a woman hanging in suspense. This is similar to how Allah says in I think that 'Indeed Man is created impatient/haste', does this mean that we should just stop trying and go on committing sin and being impatient and unwise? No, we should use this verse to help us in our hard times, and a motivation to strive for patience. Thus, when Allah says that we can't be just between women, it doesn't mean that we lose all hope and never try.

If you are referring to where Allah says He hasn't given men two hearts, well if you read on, He mentions a few more things, and then says 'these are the words of your mouths'. What I mean is, that we men might claim to have two hearts, and act philosophical and romantic and stuff, but in reality, we only have one, and we should utilize that.

I think I have stated quite a lot of times and so has Released that unjust here may refer to emotional injustice, or financial/in matters of property injustice. Read my fourth ">" in my last post to understand it.

I hope the same, Inshallah we will find the truth.

Released

Peace to both FallenAngel21098 and Dawn )

People are asking questions concerning women to the Prophet, to which Allah reveals that HE is the one who'll answer them, and then says to consider all those verses etc. that deal with oppressed children, being just with orphans, and concerning orphans of women who they want to marry but won't give what is prescribed for them. Although I still have that 'Missing' feeling, like, there's something we're not grasping regarding this verse, like, if it truly does mean 'as has been recited for you in the book', then where have these orphans of women who they want to marry yet won't give what is prescribed for them mentioned?. But anyway, we'll stick to this until we find a better translation with strong evidence to support it, and one more thing I want to say is that obviously those people who were present at that time knew what was the meaning, and were obviously able to understand it, and they were also asking concerning a specific type of women at that particular situation. I don't know if I'm rambling but thought this is something we should always consider when interpreting verses.

Agreed

Now let's actually talk about polygamy.

First we'll see . We already did have some discussions regarding it, and here is what I think closest to the literal translation with my comments in ]'s and notes in ()'s

And if you fear you won't be able to do justice/deal with fairness within/concerning orphans , so marry (We'll discuss whether it's marry or marry off in a bit) who have agreed with/to you from the women, in twos and threes and fours, consequently/but if you fear you won't be able to deal equitably, so one, or who are possessed by your oaths/right hand (I'll brief up my opinion on this), This is the best way to avoid doing injustice/to avoid deviating from the right course

So here is how I break down this verse

Society is being addressed
indicates that giving orphans their property is a command (Obviously when they'll reach the marriageable age as indicated in ) and not do any mishap with them

Now before I move on the next point, note that the whole society was not responsible for orphans, it were the guardians of orphans, though the rest of the people could get involved for the betterment for them, as this verse does address the whole society, but the ones who are giving them their property were guardians. This is similar to how in says 'Forbidden to you are your mothers', now here God is also addressing the whole society, but it'll of course apply only to those who have a mother, or in it says 'Say to the believing men to lower their gaze', now of course it applies only to those believers who can lower their gaze, not to those who are blind, or consider where Allah says to be kind to your parents and kinsmen and neighbors and your MMA, only those who have MMA will be able to be kind to them, if they don't, then this verse is not applicable for them, or only those who have neighbors will be able to be kind to them, for those who don't, this verse is not applicable to them. See what I mean? So, though I like how Huruf pointed out that it is the society being addressed, the orders being given regarding orphans would apply only to those who have the responsibility of orphans, not literally each and every person, and as we know, in that era, it were the guardians, and I'm sure there are thousands of books regarding Arab culture that would say this.

Agreed. This is the point as to where I agreed with Huruf, after reading from the beginning of the chapter over and over again. I see that although the verses are addressed to the entire community, it is the guardians who have the option of marrying these women, given that they fear some type of injustice to the orphans. I'd like to add that I think the society's cultural norms may have played a role in this. They have not had proper banking systems and financial institutions as we have now. As a result, it may have been very easy to manipulate the vulnerable members of the society and grab their wealth. Perhaps, a male caregiver or guardian would help prevent this from happening, as wealthy and powerful males always had the upper hand in this type of society. Of course, things have not changed so much, in this regard. We face similar corruption within the finance sectors in the Western countries as well. Though, the law of the land has allowed for stringent checks and balances, and the rights of all are at least maintained constitutionally. I think the societal context is something to consider here as well. These are just my thoughts. Thank you for bringing up Huruf's perspective again as it brings new light to the issue.

If, and only IF there are chances of injustice to orphans, where injustice may be directly linked to and mean injustice in matters of property, or may generally means injustice including emotional injustice,, Nikah may take place. Before I move on, let me share my opinion on whether its marry or marry off. The Arabic word is Fankihu, Fa is a particle, and the word itself is Inkihu as per corpus.quran.com, with a suffix that is an attached subject pronoun, as per Abdul Mannan Omar's dictionary, Inkihu with a subject pronoun like means 'Marry', and if it were Inkihu without that, then it would be 'Marry off', in this verse, it is the former case, or according to another dictionary, 'Arabic-English Dictionary of Quranic usage', it would be 'Marry off' if it were 'Unkihu' with a subject pronoun. Though it doesn't mention , it cites , where a similar word 'Tankihu' comes with the same subject pronoun as Fankihu, and says that it means 'Marry'. So technically, I have two dictionaries, and Corpus.Quran.Com to back me up when I say it means 'Marry'. While studying this, I also came across a very interesting point regarding , but I won't mention it now, as I want to focus on .

Agreed

So, the ones who fear injustice with orphans are ordered to marry those women who have agreed with them. Agreed for what? Obviously for the justice of orphans. Like I said way up in this post, people to whom these verses were being revealed, knew what circumstances were taking place and were obviously able to interpret them properly. If it means justice as in justice in matters of property, then I'm sure that it refers to those women who are the mothers of these orphans, as marrying them would decrease the chances of the guardian being unjust with the property of the orphan. Note that it is the 'Fear' of being unjust, as man has been created weak, and liable to sin, even if the guardian feels that in some time in his life he might commit sin regarding orphan's property, he is ordered to marry women who have agreed with him, where the best option would be the orphan's mother. If justice here refers to emotional justice, then things become much more sensible, orphans have been given extra care and attention in the Quran, this is quite similar to how out of all the animals, Allah focuses more on An'aam, or Ankabut, or Naml etc. So, obviously to reduce their chances of feeling deprived, or being void of motherly love, the guardian may marry women who agreed with them regarding the orphan. Nice!

Agreed

The guardian is single at this time, this is proven by the usage of 'If you fear that you won't be able to deal equitably, then only one', obviously, 'Then only one' is part of the command, 'Marry', thus, it means 'Marry only one'. Like I said in another post, the marriages take place at one instance, in other words, the guardian has to decide how many women he's marrying, he can marry a pair of two, group of three, or four, but if not, then only one, and one it is.

Agreed

As for the term 'Or who are possessed by your oaths/right hand', I believe, as pointed out by Muhammad Asad in his commentary, that the 'Or' is not linked with 'If you fear you won't be able to deal equitably then', but with the term 'Marry those who have agreed with you from the women'. Maybe if I copy paste his words you'll understand it better

It is obvious that the phrase "two, or three, or four but if you have reason to fear...", etc. is
a parenthetic clause relating to both the free women mentioned in the first part of the
sentence and to female slaves - for both these nouns are governed by the imperative verb
"marry". Thus, the whole sentence has this meaning "Marry from among women such as
are lawful to you, or those whom you rightfully possess - two, or three,
or four but if you have reason to fear that you might not be able to treat them with equal
fairness, then one" - implying that, irrespective of whether they are free women or,
originally, slaves, the number of wives must not exceed four. It was in this sense that
Muhammad 'Abduh understood the above verse (see Manar IV, 350).

I've read this commentary as well, back when I was trying to understand MMA. It is what makes the most sense to me, though I open to reading the interpretations of others.

Released

Peace

I apologize for the new method in which I am typing responses. It's how I remain organized in ensuring that I do not overlook any aspect of a post. It's similar to quoting the entire message.

FallenAngel21098 said

Peace Dawn,

If you are referring to , well here is my take on it

Allah doesn't simple end the verse when He says 'You cannot deal equitably between women', He provides a solution by saying that due to this men shouldn't sway on one side too greatly and leave a woman hanging in suspense. This is similar to how Allah says in I think that 'Indeed Man is created impatient/haste', does this mean that we should just stop trying and go on committing sin and being impatient and unwise? No, we should use this verse to help us in our hard times, and a motivation to strive for patience. Thus, when Allah says that we can't be just between women, it doesn't mean that we lose all hope and never try.

This is how I see it as well. I see it both as a warning and a guidance. Based on these words, individuals have to decide as to how they doing to make their decisions in life. I've mentioned previously, that men cannot be just between the women in any circumstance. How many of us have heard of problems between mother in laws and daughter in laws? Or how about one sister versus another? Or what about mother vs daughter conflict? Often, husbands, fathers, and brothers are caught in between. Though, it is not always the case, but in many families, it is. Though, I have a feeling, that the wife vs. wife conflict would be akin to a world war. We've all got choices to make, and God gives us the guidance.

If you are referring to where Allah says He hasn't given men two hearts, well if you read on, He mentions a few more things, and then says 'these are the words of your mouths'. What I mean is, that we men might claim to have two hearts, and act philosophical and romantic and stuff, but in reality, we only have one, and we should utilize that.

Yes, I agree

I think I have stated quite a lot of times and so has Released that unjust here may refer to emotional injustice, or financial/in matters of property injustice. Read my fourth ">" in my last post to understand it.

I hope the same, Inshallah we will find the truth.

Inshallah

huruf

If, and only IF there are chances of injustice to orphans, where injustice may be directly linked to and mean injustice in matters of property, or may generally means injustice including emotional injustice,, Nikah may take place. Before I move on, let me share my opinion on whether its marry or marry off. The Arabic word is Fankihu, Fa is a particle, and the word itself is Inkihu as per corpus.quran.com, with a suffix that is an attached subject pronoun, as per Abdul Mannan Omar's dictionary, Inkihu with a subject pronoun like means 'Marry', and if it were Inkihu without that, then it would be 'Marry off', in this verse, it is the former case, or according to another dictionary, 'Arabic-English Dictionary of Quranic usage', it would be 'Marry off' if it were 'Unkihu' with a subject pronoun. Though it doesn't mention , it cites , where a similar word 'Tankihu' comes with the same subject pronoun as Fankihu, and says that it means 'Marry'. So technically, I have two dictionaries, and Corpus.Quran.Com to back me up when I say it means 'Marry'. While studying this, I also came across a very interesting point regarding , but I won't mention it now, as I want to focus on .

Salaam, Fallen Angel,

I think the waw you are referring to has nothing to do with the meaning of the verb, whether it is marry or marry off, but rather with the number of subjects that carry out the action of the verb. The waw is the mark of the masculine or mixed plural, since the same form would be used in both cases. In that it would be using the same pronoun that is used all along since the first aya of the sura. That men are meant is given by the fact that the are to marry women.

The difference between marry and marry off is given the f'ankihu in one, which would be the imperative of a form I verb (nakaha), and the faunkihu , which would be an imperative of a form IV verb (ankaha). So, yes in this case it would be marry.

Where I do not see where you conclude from that it should be the same man who marries one, or two, or three or four, because the verb is still plural, it is a group and they, the group, is the subject that is marrying one or two or three or four. That is it may be four men that marry four women, they same formula applies, it is not saying each of you marry one or two or foutr or three.

?Is there a record that the Prophet at any time married more than one woman at a time?

On the other hand, and I know that that is extra coranical, thraditional fiqh has not admitted marrying more than one woman at the same time. It has to be at different times. And that is surprising, because they could have favoured the male privileges more by making it possible to marry more than one at the same time. If they have used the formulation to uphold a male priviledge, they would have upheld it better guaranteeing the possibility of having multiple marriages from the start.

I still am of the opinion and I cannot see any indication of the opposite that this formulation is not saying either that one man should marry more than one at a time nor it is saying that he shouldn't. It is not an indication whether negative or affirmative of poligamy. I do not think it is touching the subject. The same as the verse concerning the two sisters. It is not giving any indication that poligamy is good or bad or acceptable or not, simply that if there is poligamy, what as not to be done is to be married at the same time to two sisters.

I think I pointed out previously, not very long ago, a news was circulated in islamophobes sites in internet and mailed ad nauseam where collective marriages of "girls-childs" with men were celebrated in Ghaza under the sponsorship of the authorities of Ghaza. Of course the photos circulated, purported as being of the brides, were not of the brides but of the orphan girls whose mothers were being married. That is an example of at least one case of a marriage for the sake of the orphans and has nothing to do with poligamy or monogamy. It also illustrates how that kind of marriage may becollective undertaking of the society in which it takes place, since the sponsorship of those marriages means that the collectivity contributos financially also to setting up the homes for the new families apart from may be other privileges or help. ? prospective husband may be hard working and able to make ends meet barely, but may lack the means to start a new home, so society may help.

That is not the only case I have known of collective sponsored marriages, not only in a muslim society, but in others, specially when circumstances are difficult.

Salaam

Released

Peace

I think the verse are showing whether they are "affirmative" or "negative" in regard to the type of polygamy practice, how it is practiced, and when it is practiced. The verses provide guidance of a variety in order for one to make the most sound decision. I disagree with the idea of "collective marriage". The verses are of course addressing the community, but verse 43 leaves the ultimate decision to the individual. While sponsored marriage sounds like a fantastic idea (and I am all for it), I do not believe that these particular verses have anything to do with sponsorship of collective marriages.

dawngorgeous

Peace All,

Is there another understanding for marry? Perhaps we are thinking too literally? No one has explained to me exactly how it would be fair to the orphans to marry their mothers? For example, just supposing a friend of mine male has two separate sets of orphans to look after. He is a good fair man and does what he is supposed to do regarding the orphans. He clothes them well, feeds them, etc. how would marrying both their mothers make it more just.

Before anyone suggests I'm trying to disprove polygamy, I am not. Like all of you, I am looking for a fair, happy society, as per the Koran. Unfortunately, I cannot engage in this discussion on a linguistic level so I am engaging on an ideas/intellectual level, which I believe is halal as the Koran invites us to ponder?!

Released

Peace Dawn,

I am not a native Arabic speaker, either. Actually, I had opened up a thread earlier in regard to this issue. I speak several languages, but Arabic just isn't one of them. I am cross-referencing translations and relying on Corpus Quran. Also, I am revisiting old threads where those who are knowledgeable in Arabic grammar, have made some very good points. Of course, it takes me a long time to read through their discussions, but I'm able to learn a lot.

How is it more just to marry the orphans?

Through marriage, the orphans are provided with a mother and father who are married. The guardian's authority and protection over the orphans is 100% legitimate as they are now officially a family.
Their mother's status is elevated to that of a wife; she isn't just a charity case anymore.
The orphans are no longer considered a charity case, their family is whole and all of the children are now siblings to one another.
It is through marriage, that the guardian can now safeguard the inheritance the orphans' wealth, and will provide them with adequate shelter, food, clothing, education, education, and most importantly; the love and security of being a part of a family.

I ask you to reflect on the last point, especially. Do you know how difficult it is to grow up without both a mother and father? Do you know how difficult it is to raise children as a single mother? Life becomes a million times easier when you have both mother and father taking an active role in raising the children. Mothers and fathers are unique in their own ways, they nurture in different ways. Having both can often provide a nice balance in a child's life. Growing up without one or the other...well..it's difficult.

So, why is it more fair to marry the mothers? All the points I discussed above give you many reasons. It's fair because it provides the orphans with what they don't have, that other kids do have in the community A loving family with both a mother and father present. I've taught in schools where the majority of the children did not have their fathers in their life. I've also taught in schools with more typical families. Trust me, there are huge differences in the way in which these children behave and perceive the world. There are also huge differences in their overall grades, high school graduation rates, college enrollment rates, potential for incarceration, and teenage pregnancy.

However, if you look at this interpretation from only your own context, then you will not understand my point. I grew up in a upper middle class neighborhood with two supportive parents, and I could not understand polygamy for the life of me. However, exploring different communities and in trying to understand people from different walks of life, made me understand this verse much better.

All in all, it's a huge responsibility to take on and not everyone is equipped for it. Though, if there are those who are able and willing, then I don't see how it cannot be of pure benefit.

I have deduced these points on the exchange of ideas within my intellectual capacity. When we look at the Quran, we need to reflect on the Quran itself, and also reflect on life itself. The Quran is about promoting justice within communities. We need to consider the human factor (as I've said before), when we look at these verses.

How does the above not promote a fair and happy society?

unknownuser

Released, I couldn't have said what you said better than the way you said it bravo

Released

Peace FallenAngel21098,

Thank you! Praise God!

Released

***Apologize for some of the grammatical errors. I sometimes get carried away and type too fast. Then, I submit the post before looking it over carefully -[

mmmm

Edip Yuksel you said "The traditional interpretation of this passage offers an apparent justification for marriage with children, which flatly contradicts the Quran." (in the 5th page of the discussion) could you please kindly point out which ayats are strictly forbidding this, since I got some info about the ayat 654 where one part of the ayat could be applied to the under-aged? This is making me very very uncomfortable and I would be very grateful if you could let me know the ayats - I am researching this day and night but I found nothing satisfying. Thanks.

Released

Peace mmmm,

The orphans do not receive their inheritance until after they are reached the age of maturity. (46)

Thus, one cannot marry the orphans, as they have not reached the age of maturity. At this point, they are no longer orphans, and can manage their own wealth or inheritance.

This verse is not referring to marrying the orphans, but marrying their widowed, divorced, abandoned, (and etc) mothers.

In order to better understand this, read this thread over again, and you will see why and how we reached this conclusion.

Released

Peace again,

I would read Edip's write up once again, and also e-mail him if you should have any questions.

Noon_waalqalami

?Is there a record that the Prophet at any time married more than one woman at a time?

Peace, yes many ...

3328 O you the prophet say to your spouses if you desire the life the world and its adornment so come I will provide for you and release you release beautiful

3350 O you the prophet indeed We made lawful to you your spouses the ones who you gave their rewards and what possess your right hand from what bestowed The God to you and girls/daughters your paternal uncles and girls/daughters your paternal aunts and girls/daughters your maternal uncles and girls/daughters your maternal aunts the ones who migrated with you and woman believing if she devotes her self to the prophet if intended the prophet that marry her exclusively to you from besides the believers hence we know what We made obligatory on them in their spouses and what possess their right hands not will be to you difficulty and is The God Forgiving Merciful

3359 O you the prophet say to your spouses and your girls/daughters and women the believers draw onto them from their garments that lowest lest/that they are known so not disturbed/harmed and is The God Forgiving Merciful

661 O you the prophet not deprive what permitted The God to you seeking pleasure your spouses and The God Forgiving Merciful

...could you please kindly point out which ayats are strictly forbidding this, since I got some info about the ayat 654 where one part of the ayat could be applied to the under-aged? This is making me very very uncomfortable and I would be very grateful if you could let me know the ayats - I am researching this day and night but I found nothing satisfying. Thanks.

Peace mmmm -- non-menstruation concerning women who are irregular/miss especially approaching menopause.

46 and test the orphans until when reached the marriage so if you perceive from them rational so deliver to them their wealth and not eat/consume it wastefully and hastily lest/that they grow up and from is rich so should refrain and from is in need for so let eat/consume in fair manner so when you deliver to them their wealth so take witnesses on them and sufficient in/with The God Reckoner

654 and those who have despaired from the menstruation from your women if you doubt so their waiting period three ashr/cycles (prefix alif denotes plural) and those who not menstruated and those the pregnant their term that they put aside their loads (i.e. give birth) and from fears The God He makes for him from His directive easy

Released

Peace Noon waalqalami,

Thank you for highlighting verse 654, especially.

unknownuser

My understanding of the whole issue is that the benefit lies in helping the women. It helps for women who are unable to work and have children, now they have one to provide. It keeps other women from having to perform certain types of work (prositution) to stay fed, and helps maintain their honour. A man can marry a woman without being sexual with her, and vice versa. It is a marriage of convenience.

When I stopped looking at it from a chauvinistic point of view, I saw something better. Unfortunately, most men that have more than one wife view it chavinistically, and that is where it becomes disgusting.

Peace,

Amina

huruf

My understanding of the whole issue is that the benefit lies in helping the women. It helps for women who are unable to work and have children, now they have one to provide. It keeps other women from having to perform certain types of work (prositution) to stay fed, and helps maintain their honour. A man can marry a woman without being sexual with her, and vice versa. It is a marriage of convenience.

When I stopped looking at it from a chauvinistic point of view, I saw something better. Unfortunately, most men that have more than one wife view it chavinistically, and that is where it becomes disgusting.

Peace,

Amina

That comes from considering poligamy a right and not a duty, which may fall on those able to accomplish it when the social, demographical or other circumstances which are deemed to justify it arise. That is what must be born in mind, that it is not a right, but a tool for social welfare which requires wisdom and taqwa to use.

Pandering to the sickness of mind of the males stating it as a right is a perversion of manliness.

That said, it is a pity that in some real scenarios, of which I know, in fact men who might be divorced, do not do it, because by staying legally married to a wife with whom they no longer have any married life, they afford her economical protection in the sense of medical and social insurance, pension, etc. which she would otherwise loose.

In those cases, the man obviously is not taking advantage of anybody and the present wife obviously does not oppose it, because she gains nothing by making the other woman destitute. When people are poor, that is a very serious matter. I have known some cases of that situation.

Salaam

unknownuser

Salamun Alaykum people,

You might be wondering, I haven't replied in quite some time, you see, education has me busy so its hard for me to reply in week days though I do check out this thread everyday and am quite happy by the points that have been raised. Hence, only on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday will I get enough to time to contribute to the thread. Till tomorrow, I have one question for huruf

As can be seen by your post at October 30, 2012, 051051 AM, you have only discussed/replied to only one paragraph from that extensive post of mine on 43, based on this, I "Assume" that you agree/have no issues with the rest of the points I raised in that post, is this assumption correct? If it is, then I have to congratulate all you guys that we are progressing.

And here is my reply to huruf's post I mentioned above

The reason why I pointed out the suffix was not because of the waw, but due to the waw followed by a hamzah, because in Abdul Mannan's Omar dictionary, there are two forms of 'Inkihu', one with just a waw, and the other with a waw and a hamzah. But anyway, this is just a minor thing, we agree that its 'Marry' in 43, its enough ) As for your opinion on 43, we'll discuss it this weekend, inshallah.

Here's the post in case you guys can't find it