Polygamy - Time to settle the issue

Released

Peace Maha

I am so proud of you. Congrats. I knew you would find it if you looked hard enough.

Release

I found some earlier posts of your regarding polyandry. Here they are
Quran is for all time hence it cannot prohibit polyandry on baes of paternity. We do have paternity testing, and yes its available even in Pakistan where I am orginally from. Moreover if a woman has a husband who cannot have kids, and if she takes one more husband and becomes pregnant it would be very obvious who the father is, no?

No, it would not be so obvious. Paternity testing is something that is done in labs. It's a luxury in many countries. Imagine, one man goes to his wife one night, the next night another man goes to the same woman, and the third night the third "husband" goes to this woman to engage in sexual relations. She falls pregnant. How do we find out who fathered this child? Keep in mind, this is a remote village or town where testing is largely unavailable and rather expensive in the city in closest proximity. You are speaking of a very rare hypothetical situation. Most men CAN have children. Even with those who are deemed impotent, sometimes miracles happen. Then, what? What a mess, that's what.

Oh, and paternity testing was not available in the Prophet's time. So, would polyandry have been permitted then? No. The Quran is a book for all time. The rules in regard to marriage remain the same throughout.

Already refuted above. Moreover who says that the lineage comes from the man alone? A child has half of his DNA from his mother as well, so his/her lineage comes from the mother as well..

In your own little dream world, this was refuted. The vast majority of us do not follow suit with your outlandishness. God asks us to call the children upon their father's name. I am a convert, yet I chose to keep my father's name. It is a part of my identity. Maha, again, you need to take this up with God, not me. I didn't create the rules.

Its like saying that there isnt a single verse that tells us that women should drive a car. Well do you see any prohibition in the quran of women maintain, protect and care for men in custody? If you dont see any prohibition then it must be allowed. You are imposing your sexist ideas on the quran, stop that. We arent living in the stone ages anymore. Women are today police officers, in the military and many other places where they have power over other men. It may sound bad to you, but thats the reality.

And why is that a problem for you?

Driving laws are bilaws. They are derived in accordance to a state's terrain, demographics, and socioeconomic status. Culture also plays a role as well, in many places. Women can definitely do all of those things. If my husband became paralyzed, I would become his protector and maintain tor. However, the initial preference is given to men as God specifically says that men are the protectors of women, and then He doesn't mention it vice versa. When God means to include "vice versa", then He is very specific. They are ideally the protectors of women as per the Quran.

It sounds bad to me that women are police offers and military personnel? Now, where would you get a strange idea like that? You should refrain from going unto inaccurate tangents as you'll lose focus in regard to the discussion.

.

Polygyny is also dying out the more modern a society gets, especially considering the past, just look at the West where its almost prohibited, its only small communities/sects who still practise that illegally. The more freedom women have, the less polygyny you see.

Of course, it's dying out. It was never mandated by God as the preferred lifestyle. Women are becoming more empowered and are able to put their foot down. Monogamy is the norm and is the encouraged form of marriage. However, certain circumstances make an allowance for polygyny, as per Verse 4.3. By the way, still waiting on your analysis of this verse, it can't just be a random statement after all.

Was that really your best arguments against polyandry ;D

No, actually verse 4.24 is what speaks to me the best. However, since you have a tendency of ignoring God when it suits your desires, I thought I would provide you with a rationale in scientific terms. However, even this wouldn't make sense to a person, who has a personal agenda.

I am awaiting two things of you

Why step fatherhood is not permissible? Please explain in relation to the previous posts.
Please provide me with an in depth analysis in regard to 4.3 - prior to you having graced us with your presence, Fallen Angel and I had worked through an analysis of very similar understanding.

There were other things that you did not address, but I'll let it slide. I just want your feedback in regard to the above two questions, as I've asked before as well.

Maha

Release

Frankly, talking to you is like talking to a wall. You would fight for polygyny to death as you have a fetish for married men, and you think you speak for God. In that process you make a lot of confused, silly arguments to support your outdated ideas and no matter how much they are refuted, you stubbornly ignores them and stick to your old-fashioned arguments. I have already corrected you several times, that a stepfather is NOT the father, but you keep confusing a step father with the biological father. I have given you also evidences that families with stepfathers are more likely to suffer from child abuses, and that doesnt concerns you at all which just proove to me that you are in reality not concerned with the well being of the children at all - you just use them as a lame excuse for getting people support polygyny.
Neither have I even claimed that stepfathers arent allowed in the quran nor do I see anywhere the quran saying that stepfathers should be there for the sake of the children.

In short, all your weak arguments can be used to justify polyandry which you surprisingly enough are against, just look at one example

We're talking about capable men marrying these women. Imagine a wealthy man in your country, married 3 of these women. He moves in all of the children into his home (or one of his homes), and becomes a father to these children. He provides shelter, good, clothing, education, etc. Nothing wrong in it if his first wife is okay with it.

Going by that logic wealthy women should marry 3 widow males as well and provide shelter, good, clothing education etc. for them and their children as well.

You also argue, that there arent any single men availble for widows which are is not only illogical but also a lie. According to CIA Factbook there are more men in this world in the marriagble age then women worldwide, so there are more single men in this world then single women. So there are PLENTY of single men available for widows. You also deny the fact that women aldo get killed in wartime, which is also an unlogical lie. You also keep calling fatherless children for orphans when they are not. An orphan is someone without both parents, which is not the case with fatherless children who still have their mother to lay back on.

All you have provided with is some articles. You speak half truth and half truth is nothing but a lie. One of your articles about some afghani widows suffering, only talks about these particular women, on the other side men are suffering as much as the women with high unemployment rates and male widows. Polygyny in these circumstances would be impossible since there are incredibly few wealthy men in that poor country and even that would be a distaster for afghanistan, 1. because according to CIA Factbook there are much more men then women in afghanistan which means that if all the widows gathered around the very few wealthy men there is in that poor country, there would be millions of ordinary unemployed men who would be forced to stay single for the rest of their lives 2. a man with 4 wives during war if he gets killed, he would leave behind 4 widows which would increase the amount of widows in the country.
The same goes for Iraq.

Regarding your article from women watch, you need to be more specifik, what is in there that you want to point out?

I think it gave my computer a virus or something coz my computer is getting quite weird since I downloaded it OH MY GOOODNESS

But sister, let me tell you a simple solution for getting rid of war widows who you pretend to care about so much Stop having war. Make love and peace instead of war, and then you wont have any war widows bravo

I have just read surah 4.3 , could you please tell me where it says that?

43 Wa-in khiftum alla tuqsitoo feealyatama fainkihoo ma tabalakum mina alnnisa-i mathna wathulathawarubaAAa fa-in khiftum alla taAAdiloo fawahidatanaw ma malakat aymanukum thalika adnaalla taAAooloo

43 And if you fear that you cannot be just to the orphans, then you may marry those who are agreeable to you of the women two, and three, and four. But if you fear you will not be fair, then only one, or to whom you are committed to by oath. This is best that you do not face financial hardship.

Now you came to the point. I will come back to my own interpretation later, but for argument sake lets stick to your interpretation. Could you please tell me where the verse says that marry these women at the same time? Two, three and four doesnt have to be in the same time right, it could logically also refer to one at a time? Marry only once in your lifetime if you cant be fair with your wife, otherwise you can marry another after the divorce.

See, its all about interpretations

Peace

Maha

release

No, it would not be so obvious. Paternity testing is something that is done in labs. It's a luxury in many countries. Imagine, one man goes to his wife one night, the next night another man goes to the same woman, and the third night the third "husband" goes to this woman to engage in sexual relations. She falls pregnant. How do we find out who fathered this child? Keep in mind, this is a remote village or town where testing is largely unavailable and rather expensive in the city in closest proximity. You are speaking of a very rare hypothetical situation. Most men CAN have children. Even with those who are deemed impotent, sometimes miracles happen. Then, what? What a mess, that's what.

Oh, and paternity testing was not available in the Prophet's time. So, would polyandry have been permitted then? No. The Quran is a book for all time. The rules in regard to marriage remain the same throughout

Paternity test is easily available in Pakistan. If a woman wants 4 husbands she would ensure that the test is available for her. So whats the problem? You are having dobbel standards, just right before you was arguing for how a stepfather esily can replace a biological father but now suddenly when it comes to polyandry you emphasize the biological father a lot, huh

If its medically prooven that a man cannot have children then he cannot have children just like its medically prooven that a woman cannot have a child if she is a virgin. Miracles arent prooven so it cannot be taken into consideration.

As I have told you quran is for all times, not only for the prophets time. SO you cannot prohibit polyandry based on 1400 years back. We live in the modern age now.

In your own little dream world, this was refuted. The vast majority of us do not follow suit with your outlandishness. God asks us to call the children upon their father's name. I am a convert, yet I chose to keep my father's name. It is a part of my identity. Maha, again, you need to take this up with God, not me. I didn't create the rules

I am from Pakistan but I have my mothers last name. Whats the problem in that? And where did God ask us to call our children by the name of the father? I dont see any problems in children having the name of their mother.

Driving laws are bilaws. They are derived in accordance to a state's terrain, demographics, and socioeconomic status. Culture also plays a role as well, in many places. Women can definitely do all of those things. If my husband became paralyzed, I would become his protector and maintain tor. However, the initial preference is given to men as God specifically says that men are the protectors of women, and then He doesn't mention it vice versa. When God means to include "vice versa", then He is very specific. They are ideally the protectors of women as per the Quran.

It sounds bad to me that women are police offers and military personnel? Now, where would you get a strange idea like that? You should refrain from going unto inaccurate tangents as you'll lose focus in regard to the discussion.

no he isnt, and stop talking on behalf of God since you arent God. Today millions of women have power over men, and no where does the Quran prohibits that, give me some quranic references where it says that its not allowed for a woman to hold power over a man if you are truthful.

Of course, it's dying out. It was never mandated by God as the preferred lifestyle. Women are becoming more empowered and are able to put their foot down. Monogamy is the norm and is the encouraged form of marriage. However, certain circumstances make an allowance for polygyny, as per Verse 4.3. By the way, still waiting on your analysis of this verse, it can't just be a random statement after all.

Other circumstances can also make an opportunity for polyandry as well. It doesnt change the fact that every circumstance today can be solved without opting for polygamy.

No, actually verse 4.24 is what speaks to me the best. However, since you have a tendency of ignoring God when it suits your desires, I thought I would provide you with a rationale in scientific terms. However, even this wouldn't make sense to a person, who has a personal agenda.

I request you once again to stop talking for behalf of God as you are not God. I have never ignored God, but I ignore silly ideas from people like you who misuse Gods instructions for their own close minded worldview. I have described in my earlier above post how you dont give a daim about childrens well being nor widows, all you have is a personal agenda relating to a fetish for married men.

Peace

Released

Peace Maha

Release

Frankly, talking to you is like talking to a wall. You would fight for polygyny to death as you have a fetish for married men, and you think you speak for God. In that process you make a lot of confused, silly arguments to support your outdated ideas and no matter how much they are refuted, you stubbornly ignores them and stick to your old-fashioned arguments. I have already corrected you several times, that a stepfather is NOT the father, but you keep confusing a step father with the biological father. I have given you also evidences that families with stepfathers are more likely to suffer from child abuses, and that doesnt concerns you at all which just proove to me that you are in reality not concerned with the well being of the children at all - you just use them as a lame excuse for getting people support polygyny.
Neither have I even claimed that stepfathers arent allowed in the quran nor do I see anywhere the quran saying that stepfathers should be there for the sake of the children.

A step father takes on the ROLE of a father. Obviously, we're not trying to change genetics here. duh.

Ah yes, it must be my fetish for married men. Yes, Maha, there we go off on wild tangents again. Have we been watching too many day time soap operas?

Again, you have not given me anything from the Quran that portrays the role of a stepfather in a negative light. The majority of step fathers do not abuse their step children. My arguments are silly to you only because you don't have any answers. Go figure. Keep talking to the wall, it will do you some good

In short, all your weak arguments can be used to justify polyandry which you surprisingly enough are against, just look at one example

Going by that logic wealthy women should marry 3 widow males as well and provide shelter, good, clothing education etc. for them and their children as well.

Yes, but then those males would be violating verse 4.24.

You also argue, that there arent any single men availble for widows which are is not only illogical but also a lie. According to CIA Factbook there are more men in this world in the marriagble age then women worldwide, so there are more single men in this world then single women. So there are PLENTY of single men available for widows. You also deny the fact that women aldo get killed in wartime, which is also an unlogical lie. You also keep calling fatherless children for orphans when they are not. An orphan is someone without both parents, which is not the case with fatherless children who still have their mother to lay back on.

Okay, I know you have difficulty with reading posts, so I will be patient with your shortcomings.

Worldwide, yes, there may be enough men to marry these widows. However, we are no longer living on Pangaea. The world is made up of continents, countries, states, etc. Most countries have immigration laws that prevent widows from crossing borders and marrying these single men. Also, the single men may not be believers. Another thing, the men may not have the income to sponsor a visa for the widow and her country. As a result, the widow must remain with her children in her village, and marry who is available. The CIA Handbook is of no use.

I never said that women don't get killed. Who's lying now?

Carpet bombing kills off women, men, children, elderly, animals, plants, and etc without discrimination. However, as I've said before, the majority of the world's armies are made up of men. Air, land, and sea combat will easily kill of most men despite carpet bombing. I've given you some (quite a few, actually) recent websites that refer to this. Though, I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't take a look.

All you have provided with is some articles. You speak half truth and half truth is nothing but a lie. One of your articles about some afghani widows suffering, only talks about these particular women, on the other side men are suffering as much as the women with high unemployment rates and male widows. Polygyny in these circumstances would be impossible since there are incredibly few wealthy men in that poor country and even that would be a distaster for afghanistan, 1. because according to CIA Factbook there are much more men then women in afghanistan which means that if all the widows gathered around the very few wealthy men there is in that poor country, there would be millions of ordinary unemployed men who would be forced to stay single for the rest of their lives 2. a man with 4 wives during war if he gets killed, he would leave behind 4 widows which would increase the amount of widows in the country.
The same goes for Iraq.

Actually, there are quite a few wealthy men in Afghanistan. You must be watching a lot of Western media hype. They like to portray all third world countries as holes in the ground. However, we know that there are quite a few wealthy people, in even those seemingly war torn poverty stricken countries. I've provided you with yet another website in this regard. Please take a look at your earliest convenience.

http//www.rawa.org/gap.htm

http//www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/world/middleeast/wealthy-afghans-snapping-up-properties-in-dubai.html?pagewanted=all

Now, if only some of these men married these widowed women and took care of their children? hmm

Look at these Somali pirates who are filthy rich http//www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/19/AR2009041902236.html

Perhaps, they could do some good in their lives, and take care of their community at the very least.

War always leaves the men poor? I think not.

Regarding your article from women watch, you need to be more specifik, what is in there that you want to point out? o

I think it gave my computer a virus or something coz my computer is getting quite weird since I downloaded it o o OH MY GOOODNESS o

You should install better anti virus programs. Please read the article over again, and you'll see what I mean. It's just like how you found my thread in relation to polyandry. It takes some time.

But sister, let me tell you a simple solution for getting rid of war widows who you pretend to care about so much Stop having war. Make love and peace instead of war, and then you wont have any war widows bravo

Ah, again, we're living in a dream world, aren't we? Well, since we're not all John Lennons' in this world, let's snap back to reality. Shall we?

Now you came to the point. I will come back to my own interpretation later, but for argument sake lets stick to your interpretation. Could you please tell me where the verse says that marry these women at the same time? Two, three and four doesnt have to be in the same time right, it could logically also refer to one at a time? Marry only once in your lifetime if you cant be fair with your wife, otherwise you can marry another after the divorce.

Well, here's the thing you'll need to read the thread in order to derive this information. Please open up the Quran alongside, as this will help. In regard to "marry these women at the same time" it relates to the literal arabic. We've addressed this as well. However, you'll have to read the thread in-depth. It's not an understanding that I believe to be an absolute..however it's a possibility in our minds. The overall understanding we hold is that 4.3 pertains to polygamy under strict parameters.

See, its all about interpretations

Yes, and I have yet to see yours, even though I've posted in regard to mine 5 million times within this thread. Also, reference Dawn's initial "adultery thread" as well.

Peace

Released

release

Paternity test is easily available in Pakistan. If a woman wants 4 husbands she would ensure that the test is available for her. So whats the problem? You are having dobbel standards, just right before you was arguing for how a stepfather esily can replace a biological father but now suddenly when it comes to polyandry you emphasize the biological father a lot, huh o

Yes, in the larger cities and towns it may be available. Last time I checked, most of these third world countries don't offer great medical coverage subsidized. Oh, and don't count on paternity testing in the villages.

I didn't say that the biological father is of importance. God says it. Again, you should take the "injustice" up with him.

If its medically prooven that a man cannot have children then he cannot have children just like its medically prooven that a woman cannot have a child if she is a virgin. Miracles arent prooven so it cannot be taken into consideration.

Nope, my cousin had a son after being told that the condition of his testicles would inhibit him. Now, they have a lovely 2 year old boy. mashallah.

As I have told you quran is for all times, not only for the prophets time. SO you cannot prohibit polyandry based on 1400 years back. We live in the modern age now.

God prohibits it for all time. So, that's that.

I am from Pakistan but I have my mothers last name. Whats the problem in that? And where did God ask us to call our children by the name of the father? I dont see any problems in children having the name of their mother.

You should tell your mom that you need to called upon by your father's name. Unless, she does not know his name. Really, you need to tell her that this important for you. God says that we will be called upon by our father's names. I'm sure she has a lovely name, but it's not the correct thing to do.

no he isnt, and stop talking on behalf of God since you arent God. Today millions of women have power over men, and no where does the Quran prohibits that, give me some quranic references where it says that its not allowed for a woman to hold power over a man if you are truthful.

Of course, they can hold power. Women can hold leadership roles, they can become the president, they can become religious scholars, why not? Nothing in the Quran prohibits this. However, in terms of family structure, men are ideally the protectors and maintainers of the women and children. This is a fact.

Other circumstances can also make an opportunity for polyandry as well. It doesnt change the fact that every circumstance today can be solved without opting for polygamy.

Well, if you read my posts, then I discussed the category of MMA. MMA is where you can help a destitute population or group through your oath. However, one does not need to engage in the act of marriage. This may be due to the fact that the man is either not capable of taking care of more children, or perhaps his wife is against the idea of marriage. There are many reasons as to why people would opt for MMA as opposed to marriage.

I request you once again to stop talking for behalf of God as you are not God. I have never ignored God, but I ignore silly ideas from people like you who misuse Gods instructions for their own close minded worldview. I have described in my earlier above post how you dont give a daim about childrens well being nor widows, all you have is a personal agenda relating to a fetish for married men.

am not speaking on behalf of God. However, He did give me the Quran. So, I read it, and formulate my stance using His words. There is nothing wrong in this.

Peace

Released

Peace Maha,

Well, I waited to hear back from you. I suppose you are working on a response. I have to sleep now. More later, God willing.

Noon_waalqalami

Going by that logic wealthy women should marry 3 widow males as well and provide shelter, good, clothing education etc. for them and their children as well. )

Peace brother. I respect your deep knowledge of the quran, and indeed you have helped me a lot to understand several quranic issues especially regarding inheritance. But The above verse you just mentioned, can you please highligh for me where the prohibition of polyandry is, since I cannot see it ?

Peace sister, OK we can use inheritance as proof...

412
and to you half what left your spouses if not was to them waladun/offspring/child
so if kana/is (masculine) to them walad/son (if to deceased/wife a male child/born) so to you the fourth

Example-A the wealthy woman above leaves $6 million inheritance, she has no child...
husband-1 = 1/2 (no child) = $3m
husband-2 = 1/2 (no child) = $3m
husband-3 = 1/2 (no child) = $3m

total to husbands = $9 million?
parents (no child) = variable?

Example-B; the wealthy woman above leaves $6 million inheritance, she has a son...
husband-1 = 1/4 (son=true) = $1.5m
husband-2 = 1/4 (son=true) = $1.5m
husband-3 = 1/4 (son=true) = $1.5m

total to husbands = $4.5m
parents (son=true) = $2.0m (1/6 or $1m each)?
total distribution = $6.5m?

Whereas the language and math works for a husband with multiple wives
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604035.msg311172#msg311172

Likewise, if you're already married another man cannot marry you without divorce...

2228 and the divorced women should wait by themselves three menstrual periods and not lawful for them that conceal what created The God in their wombs if they believing in The God and the day the last

2230 so if he divorces her so not lawful to him from after until tankiha/she marries zawjan/spouse other than him so if he divorces her so not blame on them that they return back if they think that they keep limits The God and those are limits The God He makes clear for people who know/teach

unknownuser

Peace Maha, you spend a lot of time - or so it seems - reading Released's replies, no its your turn to read mine laugh

Lemme just end this polyandry thing, the verse Noon provided does in fact quite directly speaks against polyandry. In 423, God starts by 'Prohibited upon you are..' and continues to list all women prohibited for me, note that it is the men being addressed, then, 424 continues it, due to it starting with a Waw, or 'And', and states, 'The Muhsanat except for Ma Malakat Ayamanukum'. As per 424, all Muhsanat are prohibited except Ma Malakat Aymanukum. Muhsanat in Arabic comes from HaSn, which means, 'Fort', and Muhsanat is the feminine plural which means, 'Fortified/Protected females', or in our case, 'Women'. There are only two possible interpretations, both of which are valid, for this term; Women protected by means of marriage and Women protected by means of remaining chaste. Not only are classical Arabic dictionaries involved in this, but even several instances where 'HaSn' has been used as a verb, show what it can possibly mean. The next part is 'Illa Ma Malakat Aymanukum', I'm sure you have come across this term, as there have been serious discussions on this in the past, and even I started a thread on this.

And Noon, thanks for the post above

Maha

Brother Noon

Peace sister, OK we can use inheritance as proof...

412
and to you half what left your spouses if not was to them waladun/offspring/child
so if kana/is (masculine) to them walad/son (if to deceased/wife a male child/born) so to you the fourth

Example-A the wealthy woman above leaves $6 million inheritance, she has no child...
husband-1 = 1/2 (no child) = $3m
husband-2 = 1/2 (no child) = $3m
husband-3 = 1/2 (no child) = $3m

total to husbands = $9 million?
parents (no child) = variable?

Example-B; the wealthy woman above leaves $6 million inheritance, she has a son...
husband-1 = 1/4 (son=true) = $1.5m
husband-2 = 1/4 (son=true) = $1.5m
husband-3 = 1/4 (son=true) = $1.5m

total to husbands = $4.5m
parents (son=true) = $2.0m (1/6 or $1m each)?
total distribution = $6.5m?

Whereas the language and math works for a husband with multiple wives
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604035.msg311172#msg311172

Peace brother. Thank you for the verse. That makes sense. However, would you like to explain to me if its the 'laHONa' in the verse which makes you think that we are talking about females who leave behind wealth? And why is the azwajkom in plural? If it so, it seems like a woman can only have 2 husbands as they have to divide her wealth half, but as I wrote to you in an early post as well in the inheritence topic, it seems like the inhertence in quran are only guidelines, and people are free to choose who they want to give their wealth to. I Mean, what if a wife wants to give all her wealth to her parents or daughter after her death, and doesnt want to give anything to her husbands? Is she FORCED to give half of her wealth to one of her husbands if she doesnt want?
Or parents who have 3 sons and 1 daughter and want their daughter to inherit all their wealth, whats wrong with that?
And what do women with 3 husbands in tibet do if they want to follow quranic guidlines for inheritence?

228 and the divorced women should wait by themselves three menstrual periods and not lawful for them that conceal what created The God in their wombs if they believing in The God and the day the last

2230 so if he divorces her so not lawful to him from after until tankiha/she marries zawjan/spouse other than him so if he divorces her so not blame on them that they return back if they think that they keep limits The God and those are limits The God He makes clear for people who know/teach

This cannot be seen as a prohibition of polyandry as a wife for instance in tibet (where polyandry is praticed) with 3 husbands, if she divorces one of her husbands she would have to wait three month before she could marry again and she cannot take the divorced husband back before she has taken one more husband.

The nearest I can come in the quran as directly prohibiting polyandry is the following verses

32 Marry off those among you who are single (someone already with an husband is not single)
33.3 God did not make any man with two hearts in his body (so if you marry on the bases of love you cannot commit polyandry)

Peace

dawngorgeous

Peace All,

This 'discussion' has become very unpleasant. The insults outnumber the substance.

Dawn

Maha

Fallen Angel

Lemme just end this polyandry thing, the verse Noon provided does in fact quite directly speaks against polyandry. In 423, God starts by 'Prohibited upon you are..' and continues to list all women prohibited for me, note that it is the men being addressed, then, 424 continues it, due to it starting with a Waw, or 'And', and states, 'The Muhsanat except for Ma Malakat Ayamanukum'. As per 424, all Muhsanat are prohibited except Ma Malakat Aymanukum. Muhsanat in Arabic comes from HaSn, which means, 'Fort', and Muhsanat is the feminine plural which means, 'Fortified/Protected females', or in our case, 'Women'. There are only two possible interpretations, both of which are valid, for this term; Women protected by means of marriage and Women protected by means of remaining chaste. Not only are classical Arabic dictionaries involved in this, but even several instances where 'HaSn' has been used as a verb, show what it can possibly mean. The next part is 'Illa Ma Malakat Aymanukum', I'm sure you have come across this term, as there have been serious discussions on this in the past, and even I started a thread on this.

Salam sister. Hope you are doing fine. Mohsenaat means chaste. What has that to do with marriage? o There are plenty of chaste single ladies out there

Yes I know MMA is interpreated by sunnis as being sex slaves. However, Quran tells us that women also have MMA.

I agree with you that MMA is a spouse. Thank you for sharing your understanding. Let me also give you my understanding of the verse 4.24 We al moh7senaat men al nisa2 ela ma malakat aymanakom kataba allah lakom we a7hal lakom... = And the chaste among the NISA (except for what you already has) has allah prescribed to you..

Peace

Maha

Release

You should tell your mom that you need to called upon by your father's name. Unless, she does not know his name. Really, you need to tell her that this important for you. God says that we will be called upon by our father's names. I'm sure she has a lovely name, but it's not the correct thing to do.

I stopped reading your post right there. I demand that you talk to me with respect.

Released

Peace )

Release

I stopped reading your post right there. I demand that you talk to me with respect.

I'm not sure how that was disrespectful? I thought you would be grateful to me. Some women who are victims of rape, do not know their assailants name. As a result, they must give their child their own family name. This is understandable. Respect is something that needs to be earned. If you don't feel that you're being respected, then perhaps that is something you need to reflect on. All the best with that.

Released

Peace Maha,

Chaste, eh? I'm not sure if you know this or not....drum roll...................................all women are expected to be chaste!! Another shocking aspect.......even married women! See, even married women are expected to be chaste. So, let's break it down now.

Married women must be chaste
Unmarried women are to be chaste
Elderly women who widows or divorcees are to be chaste

Let's go even further...

Married men are to be chaste
Unmarried men are to be chaste
Elderly men who are widows or divorcees are to be chaste

So, pretty much, everyone has to be chaste. Looks like the entire world is chaste.

Now, what does that leave to marry?

The unchaste?

This word is very obviously pertaining to either "protected women under an oath of another" or "married women".

Using a broad umbrella term such as "chaste" does no zero justice, nor does it answer any questions. If anything, all it does is put a weird twist on verses, so that one individual can achieve their agenda elsewhere in the Quran. God watches everything. Be careful, Maha.

Fallen Angel

Salam sister. Hope you are doing fine. Mohsenaat means chaste. What has that to do with marriage? There are plenty of chaste single ladies out there

Yes I know MMA is interpreated by sunnis as being sex slaves. However, Quran tells us that women also have MMA.

I agree with you that MMA is a spouse. Thank you for sharing your understanding. Let me also give you my understanding of the verse 4.24 We al moh7senaat men al nisa2 ela ma malakat aymanakom kataba allah lakom we a7hal lakom... = And the chaste among the NISA (except for what you already has) has allah prescribed to you..

Peace

unknownuser

Fallen Angel

Salam sister. Hope you are doing fine. Mohsenaat means chaste. What has that to do with marriage? o There are plenty of chaste single ladies out there

Yes I know MMA is interpreated by sunnis as being sex slaves. However, Quran tells us that women also have MMA.

I agree with you that MMA is a spouse. Thank you for sharing your understanding. Let me also give you my understanding of the verse 4.24 We al moh7senaat men al nisa2 ela ma malakat aymanakom kataba allah lakom we a7hal lakom... = And the chaste among the NISA (except for what you already has) has allah prescribed to you..

Peace

Um, don't want to sound rude or something, but, ahem, I'm a guy D, but I guess that's our nature, I've noticed that if you're a guy, automatically you'd assume any anonymous person to be a man, same happens if you're a girl. Hope you're doing fine too.

I'm glad you agree with my interpretation on MMA, this gives me a LOT of hope, you have no idea, thank you )

And as for the Muhsanat thing, I'm not sure if you read the whole of my post or not, but I explained that Muhsanat doesn't mean chaste, it means protected or fortified, big difference, and I explained what are the two possible interpretations of protected too. If you want, I can also give you references where HaSn, the root of Muhsanat, has been used as a verb, in the context of getting married.

As for your interpretation of 424, I am afraid I'll have to disagree with it for two reasons

The conjunction 'And' makes the verse a dependent clause of the previous verse which was an independent clause stating the prohibited women, hence, this must be a continuation of it, it has to be linked to it one or another.
Although the first point renders this interpretation inappropriate, even if we do take it the way you translate it, then can you give a reasonable interpretation of the 'Except for MMA', because the way I understand what you're saying is, that Allah says that He has prescribed for us chaste women, except for what we already have, I'm not able to comprehend this part, whats the need for saying 'Except for what you have'?

And I dunno what transliteration are you using, but that is a very very incorrect transliteration, the word to word breakdown of this verse is Wa AlMuhsanat min AnNisa Illa Ma Malakat Aymanukum kitab Allah Alaykum

Note I wrote in the second quote I provided, '...and Women protected by means of remaining chaste...', perhaps I used the wrong words, lemme rephrase it to express what I wanted to say, '..and Women who self protect themselves..'

unknownuser

Dawngorgeous

I agree with you, but we can't let this thread die, we just can't, it'll come as a great depression attack on me if this thread ends without mutual agreement and peace, we must control ourselves and be honest. And thank you for providing me with the reference, I'll reply to your points soon.

Released

Peace Dawn,

This is natural. Most heated debates become a little unpleasant. For example, it took an unpleasant turn when I was accused of being a hypocrite and having a fetish for married men. See, these are very unpleasant things. However, I've decided to overcome this, and stick to the discussion on hand.

Another thing, if you take notice, the sectarian forums are far worse. However, I appreciate that the majority of us here, have not stooped to that level of rudeness and hatred.

Maha

fallen angel

m, don't want to sound rude or something, but, ahem, I'm a guy , but I guess that's our nature, I've noticed that if you're a guy, automatically you'd assume any anonymous person to be a man, same happens if you're a girl. Hope you're doing fine too.

rotfl lol that is true!

And as for the Muhsanat thing, I'm not sure if you read the whole of my post or not, but I explained that Muhsanat doesn't mean chaste, it means protected or fortified, big difference, and I explained what are the two possible interpretations of protected too. If you want, I can also give you references where HaSn, the root of Muhsanat, has been used as a verb, in the context of getting married. If you missed that part of my post, here it is again

yes but thats the same thing. Chaste/protected from lewdness. So you shall get married to someone who doesnt commit lewdness.

The conjunction 'And' makes the verse a dependent clause of the previous verse which was an independent clause stating the prohibited women, hence, this must be a continuation of it, it has to be linked to it one or another.

Wrong. The verse before it was finished and a new sentence began. Its continues in the way that God has in the earlier verse just told you who not to marry and now he is telling you actually who you should actually marry.

Although the first point renders this interpretation inappropriate, even if we do take it the way you translate it, then can you give a reasonable interpretation of the 'Except for MMA', because the way I understand what you're saying is, that Allah says that He has prescribed for us chaste women, except for what we already have, I'm not able to comprehend this part, whats the need for saying 'Except for what you have'?

Yes if you already have a spouse then there is no need to run after chaste women Thats quite logical. Whats the problem in it?

And I dunno what transliteration are you using, but that is a very very incorrect transliteration,

I dont use any translation at all. I am an arabic speaker.

and can safely say that the word to word breakdown of this verse is Wa AlMuhsanat min AnNisa Illa Ma Malakat Aymanukum kitab Allah Alaykum

Yes that is the verse we are talking about as well.

Noon_waalqalami

Peace brother. Thank you for the verse. That makes sense. However, would you like to explain to me if its the 'laHONa' in the verse which makes you think that we are talking about females who leave behind wealth? And why is the azwajkom in plural?

Peace sister. Yes lahunna/for them (f. plural) use context and address is to whole community therefore plural.

If it so, ]it seems like a woman can only have 2 husbands as they have to divide her wealth half

It does not work with 2 husbands either; nothing left for parents.

Example woman leaves $6 inheritance, she has no child
husband-1 = 1/2 (no child) = $3
husband-2 = 1/2 (no child) = $3
distribution two husbands = $6
distribution to the parents = $0?

but as I wrote to you in an early post as well in the inheritence topic, it seems like the inhertence in quran are only guidelines, and people are free to choose who they want to give their wealth to. I Mean, what if a wife wants to give all her wealth to her parents or daughter after her death, and doesnt want to give anything to her husbands? Is she FORCED to give half of her wealth to one of her husbands if she doesnt want?
Or parents who have 3 sons and 1 daughter and want their daughter to inherit all their wealth, whats wrong with that?

Nothing wrong with that; not forced; distributions are "from" (subtract in math lingo) after a will.

412
and for you half what left azwajukum/your spouses...
from after a will they made in it or judgment

walahunna/and for them (feminine) the fourth from what you left ...
from after a will you made in it or judgment

If she leaves 100% to parents or daughter there is nothing left for the husband.
If she dies in an accident or leaves no will or a partial one then inheritance laws.

And what do women with 3 husbands in tibet do if they want to follow quranic guidlines for inheritence?

Qur'an is applied consistently regardless of location, $6 or 6 Tibetan shell money.

Released

fallen angel

rotfl lol that is true!
yes but thats the same thing. Chaste/protected from lewdness. So you shall get married to someone who doesnt commit lewdness.

How can someone marry from the unchaste? Which person in their right mind if going to purposely enact a proposal of commitment to a person who does not wish to be committed in a relationship? Again, the logic factor is missing here. God does not speak illogically.

Wrong. The verse before it was finished and a new sentence began. Its continues in the way that God has in the earlier verse just told you who not to marry and now he is telling you actually who you should actually marry.

Yes, and God is going to state the obvious, why exactly?

Yes if you already have a spouse then there is no need to run after chaste women Thats quite logical. Whats the problem in it?

Nobody is running after anyone. Verse 4.3 talks about taking drastic measures in desperate times to ensure the well-being of the children.

I dont use any translation at all. I am an arabic speaker.

The language of the Quran is not in standard modern Arabic. It's written in classical Arabic with a serious slant in the direction of the Hijaz region. I doubt you spent years in the Saudi and Jordanian desert learning their language, and even then, you wouldn't be able to master the language. That's why there is so much research being conducted.

How do you think the Quran was preserved? The book is to be recited, and it remained memorized within the hearts and minds of thousands of people. Not everyone back then walked around with a mini version of it in their shirt pocket. Its divine structure allows it to be memorized more easily than other scriptures. When you've memorized something, then you are able to keep a mental file of where certain verses are placed, and how to locate them. He is also here to learn and derive guidance. Otherwise, why would he bother bouncing ideas off us?

Oh, and here is a perfect example of how respect needs to be earned. You were nothing but condescending in your post. Learn to speak respectfully, and then that respect will be returned to you.

Yes that is the verse we are talking about as well.