Polygamy - Time to settle the issue
-
Brother Noon
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?It does not work with one husband, 4 wives and many children either. Just take a look And to them is one quarter of what you leave behind if you have no child; but if you have a child then to them is one eighth of what you leave behind. 412
If he has no child and his parents are the heirs, then to his mother is one third;
One husband, 4 wives, and he has a mother. How can all four wives get one quarter, then there will be left nothing for his mother?
Now one husband, 4 wives, 13 children. Can you tell me how much these wives will get?
And do you think its fair that a man with a single wife only gets one quarter of what her husbands leaves behind?
Nothing wrong with that; not forced; distributions are "from" (subtract in math lingo) after a will.
I totally agree with this as I have seen examples of this in real life. Back in Pakistan my wealthy neighbour had two sons and one daughter but he wrote in his will that all the wealth shall be inherit by his only daughter only as she was a very responsible lady. The sons on the other hand were spoiled and used to waste their money on alcohol and parties etc. so their father didnt seemed them fit to handle his wealth after him. So yes, the father didnt followed the inheritence in the quran but taking his circumstances into consideration I believe he was in all his right to transfer his wealth to the daughter alone.
So we agree that Quranic inheritence should be applied in cases where another will isnt written.
Peace
-
Brother Noon
It does not work with one husband, 4 wives and many children either. Just take a look And to them is one quarter of what you leave behind if you have no child; but if you have a child then to them is one eighth of what you leave behind. 412
If he has no child and his parents are the heirs, then to his mother is one third;
One husband, 4 wives, and he has a mother. How can all four wives get one quarter, then there will be left nothing for his mother?
Peace sister. Yes it does work. I've explained this in the inheritance thread here
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604035.msg311172#msg311172
case 4 wives, mother
411...
and to their parents to each one from them the sixth from what left if kana/is (masculine) to person walad/son (i.e. if to person male child)
so if not was to person waladun/offspring/child born and heirs person?s parents (if only parents) so to his mother the thirdif son = false; if only parents = false; mother's share unstated/variable
412 ... and to them (f. plural) the fourth from what you left if not was to you waladun/child/born
no child = true; wives = 1/4
1 - 1/4 wives (1/16 each) = 3/4 mother (mother's share variable)Now one husband, 4 wives, 13 children. Can you tell me how much these wives will get?
I'll take it that at least 1 child is male; therefore...
412 so if kana/is (masculine) to you walad/son (male child/born) so to them (feminine plural) the eight
1 - 1/8 wives (1/32 each) = 3/8 children (21 ratio male to female)
And do you think its fair that a man with a single wife only gets one quarter of what her husbands leaves behind?
What I or you think is fair is irrelevant and not always the single wife gets 1/4 fixed amount.
1 daughter 1/2 + 1/2 wife = 1
3 daughters 2/3 + 1/3 wife = 1
3/4 mother/father + 1/4 wife = 1
1/6 mother/father + 1/8 wife + 17/24 son/s = 1I totally agree with this as I have seen examples of this in real life. Back in Pakistan my wealthy neighbour had two sons and one daughter but he wrote in his will that all the wealth shall be inherit by his only daughter only as she was a very responsible lady. The sons on the other hand were spoiled and used to waste their money on alcohol and parties etc. so their father didnt seemed them fit to handle his wealth after him. So yes, the father didnt followed the inheritence in the quran but taking his circumstances into consideration I believe he was in all his right to transfer his wealth to the daughter alone.
So we agree that Quranic inheritence should be applied in cases where another will isnt written.
Yes if no will or a partial will; inheritance are to arbitrate arguments.
411
... from after a will have made in it or judgment412
... from after a will they made in it or judgment
... from after a will you made in it or judgment
... from after a will is recommended in it or judgment
not harmful a will from The God and The God Knowing ForbearingPeace
-
Noon
Correct me if I am wrong, brother.
Peace sister. Yes it does work. I've explained this in the inheritance thread here
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604035.msg311172#msg311172
case 4 wives, mother
411...
and to their parents to each one from them the sixth from what left if kana/is (masculine) to person walad/son (i.e. if to person male child)
so if not was to person waladun/offspring/child born and heirs person?s parents (if only parents) so to his mother the thirdif son = false; if only parents = false; mother's share unstated/variable
412 ... and to them (f. plural) the fourth from what you left if not was to you waladun/child/born
no child = true; wives = 1/4
1 - 1/4 wives (1/16 each) = 3/4 mother (mother's share variable)A husband with 4 wives and one mother leaves 10 million dollars.
wife 1 2.5 million
wife 2 2.5 million
wife 3. 2.5 million
wife 4 2.5 million
Mother 0Yes if no will or a partial will; inheritance are to arbitrate arguments.
A wife with 4 husbands would leave her will according to her wishes.
Peace
-
Correct me if I am wrong, brother.
A husband with 4 wives and one mother leaves 10 million dollars.wife 1 2.5 million
wife 2 2.5 million
wife 3. 2.5 million
wife 4 2.5 million
Mother 0Peace Maha, should be thus...
412 and to them the fourth from what you left if not was to you waladun/offspring/child
1/4 wives = $2.5m ($625k each wife)
3/4 mother = $7.5mA wife with 4 husbands would leave her will according to her wishes.
Language of Qur'an doesn't allow it to work with more than 1 husband and it needs to work with a will, a partial will, or no will otherwise it's pointless to have inheritances verses.
Lastly, what you are proposing is that 4 men can all simultaneously be married to the same 4 women or even unlimited the whole community married to each other!
Peace
-
Brother noon
412 and to them the fourth from what you left if not was to you waladun/offspring/child
1/4 wives = $2.5m ($625k each wife)
3/4 mother = $7.5mIf each wife gets 625K then they arent getting the fourth of what he left. Then its one wife who can get the fourth (2.5 million) and she has to share what she has with the other wives.
Language of Qur'an doesn't allow it to work with more than 1 husband and it needs to work with a will, a partial will, or no will otherwise it's pointless to have inheritances verses.
explain this please
Lastly, what you are proposing is that 4 men can all simultaneously be married to the same 4 women or even unlimited the whole community married to each other!
If 4 is the limit for husbands and wives, then the whole comminity wont be able to marry each other. And if a bunch of women can share the same man then why is it a problem if a bunch of people share each other? After all 4 women sharing one man is also a group-marriage.
Peace
-
Sister Maha,
If each wife gets 625K then they arent getting the fourth of what he left. Then its one wife who can get the fourth (2.5 million) and she has to share what she has with the other wives.
explain this please
412
and for you (each individual; 2nd person) half what left your spouses
and for them (i.e. all wives; 3rd person) the fourth from what you leftIf 4 is the limit for husbands and wives, then the whole comminity wont be able to marry each other. And if a bunch of women can share the same man then why is it a problem if a bunch of people share each other? After all 4 women sharing one man is also a group-marriage.
Show where 4 is a limit?
Perhaps think through all possibilities e.g. woman is married and how would next guy marry her?
There is no problem; none are forced; similar to how some have a problem with cousin marriage.
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 over them in their spouses and what possess their right hands not will be to you harm in doing and is The God Forgiving Merciful
3352 not lawful to you the women from after and not that replace in them from spouses and if/had pleased you their beauty only what possess your right hand and is The God on each a thing Watchful
Peace
-
Noon
412
and for you (each individual; 2nd person) half what left your spouses
and for them (i.e. all wives; 3rd person) the fourth from what you leftWrong. is plural. So the verse says and for you all(plural) is half of what is left from your pairs.
And for them is the fourth what you (plural you) left.Show where 4 is a limit
You said that the limit of spouses were four right?
g.
woman is married and how would next guy marry her?Just like a woman would marry a married man. What's the problem here bro?
Peace
-
Wrong. is plural. So the verse says and for you all(plural) is half of what is left from your pairs.
And for them is the fourth what you (plural you) left.You said that the limit of spouses were four right?
g.
Just like a woman would marry a married man. What's the problem here bro?Peace
Peace Maha,
?And for you? ? address is to every individual not ?and for you all collectively.?
Otherwise the entire male community would get 1/2 if no child and 1/4 if son.412 and for you (all individually not collectively) half what left your spouse?s
Whereas for wives it is collectively if more than one and we know verses point to multiple wives.
412 and for them (collectively not each individually) the fourth from what you left
Again, what you promote is unlimited women and men all married to each other.
Hence renders verses pointless on marriage, divorce, waiting, inheritance, etc...Peace
-
Peace Noon waalqalami,
The biggest indicator for me besides 4.24, is that an interim period cannot be fulfilled at the advent of divorce, if a woman is married to other men at that time. She will continue to engage in sexual relations with other men, and this could defeat the purpose of that waiting time.
Oh, and here is some FYI for all who are interested Paternity tests aren't always reliable.
http//www.dna-geneticconnections.com/dna_accuracy.html
http//www.truthaboutdeception.com/community-features/ask-an-expert/questions-by-topic/relationship-issues/867-how-accurate-is-paternity-testing.html
No test out there is 100% accurate. I suppose we'll just go ahead and mess up a child's life anyway, by utilizing a test, that has the potential of being wrong. Oh, and this test is not cheap by any means. Wonder where all that money for the test is going to come from... hmm
-
'The vulnerable/isolated/jaded'. According to context, at all those instances, it only makes sense if the meaning is taken as 'The fatherless children', or 'The orphans'. However, in 's first half, it doesn't use 'Yatama' as a noun, but a descriptive word, like, it describes what follows it, and what follows it is 'An Nisa', this, has been used as a definite noun, as it has 'Al' in the beginning. Like in a phrase has been used 'Azab Al Khizy', where 'Al Khizy' means 'The disgrace' or the concept of disgrace, while 'Azab' means 'Punishment', which means 'Punishment of the disgrace', in other words, 'The disgrace' in the form of torture. Similarly. here it means 'Isolated/Vulnerable of the women', or in other words, women who are vulnerable/jaded, or at least that's what I think Abdul Mannan Omar is trying to say. If it was 'Al Yatama An Nisa', then I'm sure neither he, nor I would have thought about interpreting it this way, since then Yatama would itself be a noun, rendering this interpretation illogical. I've also taken a look at what Mazhar has done at Haqeeqat.org.pk, and even he has translated it as 'Orphan lonely women', which seems like he is also agreeing that 'Orphan lonely' is an adjective that describes a type of women (Though I'd like it if he'd pay us a visit and clear up what he thinks).
I am sorry I had not studied this thread earlier.
It is a Possessive Phrase. First Noun of Possessive Phrase never takes definite article nor is ever in abslute state, i.e. tanween at the end. The reason being that it derives its definiteness from the second Possessive Noun. So the First Noun is Definite, denoting "The Orphan". Since the second Noun is definite it means "the women". A woman is orphan so long she is lonely-unmarried-the moment she is married after having attained marriagable maturity, she is no more an orphan. Her identity changes. She becomes a "mohisna"; protected lady by bond of Nikah.
A Yateem is one whose father has died while he/she has not attained strengthen maturity-marriagable age. Vulnerability might be its effect, but not its meanings. -
I am sorry I had not studied this thread earlier.
It is a Possessive Phrase. First Noun of Possessive Phrase never takes definite article nor is ever in abslute state, i.e. tanween at the end. The reason being that it derives its definiteness from the second Possessive Noun. So the First Noun is Definite, denoting "The Orphan". Since the second Noun is definite it means "the women". A woman is orphan so long she is lonely-unmarried-the moment she is married after having attained marriagable maturity, she is no more an orphan. Her identity changes. She becomes a "mohisna"; protected lady by bond of Nikah.
A Yateem is one whose father has died while he/she has not attained strengthen maturity-marriagable age. Vulnerability might be its effect, but not its meanings.Thanks Mazhar for taking part in this thread, though this issue was resolved, no need to apologize btw. I'm sorry but can you explain what you mean by 'The First Noun is Definite'? Cause I don't see any Al with Yatama, while you say its translated as 'The Orphans' ??? And can you slightly simplify your answer, I mean, is it 'Orphans belonging to women' or 'Orphan women' as in a woman who is lonely/unmarried?
-
Possessive Phrase-"the Construct"
Annexed, attached, or possessed And second Noun is termed as "Annexer", or "Possessor"
We are familiar with the Possessives in English like "my, their, etc" and possessive clitic "-'s". in Arabic represents primarily the association of one Noun with another Noun.
- The noun that is possessed comes first, and is called meaning "additive", "attached", "annexed", "appendix";
** The noun that is the possessor comes second/after, and is called ;
*** The first and the second noun worry about their own gender and plurality.
**** If the second noun is definite, the first noun derives its definiteness from the second noun.
***** Since the first noun derives its definiteness from the second definite noun, therefore, in possessive phrase the first noun will never have definite article and nor "nunation/ .
****** The that is the suffix for duality and masculine sound plurality will also drop.******* The first noun, whatever its grammatical state may be, which is determined by external factors, it will always render the second noun in the genitive case.
- The noun that is possessed comes first, and is called meaning "additive", "attached", "annexed", "appendix";
-
Possessive Phrase-"the Construct"
Annexed, attached, or possessed And second Noun is termed as "Annexer", or "Possessor"
We are familiar with the Possessives in English like "my, their, etc" and possessive clitic "-'s". in Arabic represents primarily the association of one Noun with another Noun.
- The noun that is possessed comes first, and is called meaning "additive", "attached", "annexed", "appendix";
** The noun that is the possessor comes second/after, and is called ;
*** The first and the second noun worry about their own gender and plurality.
**** If the second noun is definite, the first noun derives its definiteness from the second noun.
***** Since the first noun derives its definiteness from the second definite noun, therefore, in possessive phrase the first noun will never have definite article and nor "nunation/ .
****** The that is the suffix for duality and masculine sound plurality will also drop.******* The first noun, whatever its grammatical state may be, which is determined by external factors, it will always render the second noun in the genitive case.
ah...........I see...thanks a lot
- The noun that is possessed comes first, and is called meaning "additive", "attached", "annexed", "appendix";
-
Peace Fallen Angel and Mazhar,
Can you please break this down into simpler terms for me? I don't understand the Arabic that you have typed.
What I have understood is this the first noun is possessed by the second noun? As in the orphans belong to the women?
Have I understood this correctly?
What is the final consensus that the two of you hold in regard to this?
-
Peace Fallen Angel and Mazhar,
Can you please break this down into simpler terms for me? I don't understand the Arabic that you have typed.
What I have understood is this the first noun is possessed by the second noun? As in the orphans belong to the women?
Have I understood this correctly?
What is the final consensus that the two of you hold in regard to this?
You have understood correctly, basically Mazhar has quite efficiently answered my objections to the interpretation, I said that Yatama didn't come in a definite form, and he cleared it up, that it can't come in the definite noun form due to being possessed. The final consensus between us is I guess that the well known interpretation, that it means, 'Orphans belonging to women' is correct.
-
Noon
Peace Maha,
?And for you? ? address is to every individual not ?and for you all collectively.?
Otherwise the entire male community would get 1/2 if no child and 1/4 if son.is plural. is to an individual.
It doesnt even adress any specifik gender. is plural and can be used to both males and females.
Yes the entire community would get 1/2 from their pairs.
Whereas for wives it is collectively if more than one and we know verses point to multiple wives
No we dont know that these verses point to multiple wives, its something you assume .
Again, what you promote is unlimited women and men all married to each other.
Hence renders verses pointless on marriage, divorce, waiting, inheritance, etcYou also promote group marriages, so its the same thing.
Peace
-
You have understood correctly, basically Mazhar has quite efficiently answered my objections to the interpretation, I said that Yatama didn't come in a definite form, and he cleared it up, that it can't come in the definite noun form due to being possessed. The final consensus between us is I guess that the well known interpretation, that it means, 'Orphans belonging to women' is correct.
Sorry, it is not like that. The red shows as if they are two entities. Possessive Phrase does not necessarily mean literal "possession" but as I indicated "relationship-association" also. It denotes "the women whose father has died". After it is the adjectival clause about these women by a plural relative pronoun.
-
Sorry, it is not like that. The red shows as if they are two entities. Possessive Phrase does not necessarily mean literal "possession" but as I indicated "relationship-association" also. It denotes "the women whose father has died". After it is the adjectival clause about these women by a plural relative pronoun.
lol, I knew something like this was coming, that's why I added 'I guess' in my reply. Anyway, now its clear, though in your site, you cite 411 as a link to this part, as this verse in the beginning does mention that its contents have been recited prior to its revelation, however, all 411 discusses are the inheritance laws, what does that have anything to do with this part?
-
lol, I knew something like this was coming, that's why I added 'I guess' in my reply. Anyway, now its clear, though in your site, you cite 411 as a link to this part, as this verse in the beginning does mention that its contents have been recited prior to its revelation, however, all 411 discusses are the inheritance laws, what does that have anything to do with this part?
Perhaps you are referring to this mention "". It is against the last sentence of Ayah 424, not for all.