Discussion on 4:3 and meaning of nisa
-
Peace Noon,
I like the example you gave because it was very very easy to understand. One thing I don't agree with is, that it would be considered inappropriate for a woman (and her children) to live with a family that she is not related to. I think it is society that has conditioned us to think this way. It is true that she would have to take more caution in her dress and behavior, but I think it could work out rather well given that the couple own a large house. Some people here own duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes (great investment idea, by the way----depending on the market and location) where the widow (s) could possibly have her own living quarters.
I think ma malakat ayamukum refers to those who are cared for under an oath, but that oath doesn't need to translate to marriage. This is all coming from someone who doesn't believe that polygamy is mandated in any case, but simply allowable given that we've got the appropriate circumstances and context, cooperating parties, enough resources, and adequate shelter for all. This is my present view, but I am still investigating "nisa" and open to possibilities.
I'm not averse to alternative lifestyles (and I do believe polygamy to be an alternative lifestyle, because I tend to think most people prefer monogamy, but I am averse to ONE spouse making a decision all by HIMSELF, without any regard to his partner's preference. Now when I say that most people prefer monogamy, I mean to say that most people don't want to have to stretch themselves out so thin financially, emotionally, and whatever else. Of course, men will be men, and fantasize over having a thousand wives, but reality would consist of short-lived pleasure and a zillion responsibilities accompanied with family drama amplified 2X, 3X, and/or 4X.
My thoughts in the end are whether we believe in strictly monogamy, polygyny allowable, polyandry allowable, homosexuality, whatever else that I missed, let's just respect one another's preferences. Before you enter into a marriage, make it clear what you want. If you prefer polygamy, make it clear. If you prefer monogamy, get it in writing. After that, let's respect one another and honor that oath regardless of circumstances. That's my spiel.
-
(males) and (females) are all inclusive gender terms. They encompass men and women as well as young men and women, boys and girls, teenagers, etc. It would be an absolute redundancy to mention males and females and then men and women. By mentioning (males) and (females) it covers everyone; boys, young men, old men, girls, young women, old women, etc.
-
(males) and (females) are all inclusive gender terms. They encompass men and women as well as young men and women, boys and girls, teenagers, etc. It would be an absolute redundancy to mention males and females and then men and women. By mentioning (males) and (females) it covers everyone; boys, young men, old men, girls, young women, old women, etc.
Then simply translate and distribute 9 gold coins of widow in prior example?
She married a man who took her in and now after many years leaves behind3 daughters and husband
411 directs you The God in your children
lildhakari/to the male like share al-unthayayni/the two (feminine)
so if they are (feminine plural) nisa above two (feminine)
falahunna/so for them (feminine plural) third dual (2/3) what left412 and for you half what left spouses yours if not was for them waladun (child/born)
so if kana/he is for them walad (i.e. if male child) so for you the fourth from what they leftEverything needed is exactly stated. It?s open book; ask a friend or feel free to ask Asana whatever site.
Peace
-
The thread...I guess, I believe to 'Bump' figuratively in internet language means to bring attention back to something which is losing or has lost attention, or so it seems.
-
Peace Fallen Angel,
I think this thread is losing its wind.
I think we've reached five possible conclusions with absolutely NO consensus (the same five we started off with, plus and minus a few things)
- Polygamy is not permissible--Quran does not support it
- Polygamy is permissible and mandated under certain circumstances
- Polygamy is permissible and allowed under certain circumstances
- Polygamy is permissible is allowed under certain circumstances given that all parties are in consent of it
- Polygamy is allowed but 4.3 has nothing to do with polygamy
Oh well. This is the beauty of our little community we rarely agree on anything. brickwall
-
Peace Released,
lol, agreed.
-
Peace Fallen Angel,
I think this thread is losing its wind.
I think we've reached five possible conclusions with absolutely NO consensus (the same five we started off with, plus and minus a few things)
- Polygamy is not permissible--Quran does not support it
- Polygamy is permissible and mandated under certain circumstances
- Polygamy is permissible and allowed under certain circumstances
- Polygamy is permissible is allowed under certain circumstances given that all parties are in consent of it
- Polygamy is allowed but 4.3 has nothing to do with polygamy
Oh well. This is the beauty of our little community we rarely agree on anything. brickwall
Salaam
You have beautifully summed up how we all see the problem, from our own perspectives. Yes this is the beauty of individuality, and to unite all individuals, as one Ummah, instead of agreeing to disagree we need to get our minds focused on finding out what the exact and true meaning is; what is the truth Al Haqq. Only then wil the light of ALLAAH shine upon us all insha allaah.
Salaam
-
Peace Fallen Angel,
I think this thread is losing its wind.
I think we've reached five possible conclusions with absolutely NO consensus (the same five we started off with, plus and minus a few things)
- Polygamy is not permissible--Quran does not support it
- Polygamy is permissible and mandated under certain circumstances
- Polygamy is permissible and allowed under certain circumstances
- Polygamy is permissible is allowed under certain circumstances given that all parties are in consent of it
- Polygamy is allowed but 4.3 has nothing to do with polygamy
Oh well. This is the beauty of our little community we rarely agree on anything. brickwall
Only one cause. Not reading and accepting the text, but reading one's own mind. Arabs use Nisaa for women, we say no it means this and that. And still insist we are reading Arabic text.
-
Nisa has been translated as 'woman'/wives according to ALL the translators http//www.islamawakened.com/quran/4/3/default.htm
Even quranist translators such as Rashad and Edip translated it as woman/wives.
While a feminist translation of the Quran may translate nisa as "weaker members of society", this is nothing but whimsical imagination to support their feminist agenda.
Expecting a 7th century book to reflect ideas developed after a feminist revolution more than 1000 years later does no justice to the book.
-
Peace Solomon,
The book is for all time. Its interpretations HAVE evolved with time and this forum is living proof of that. Some people think that they can attach the infamous word 'feminism' to a debated topic, and thus write it off.
This is an important topic regardless of what 'nisa' means. Women have the basic right to feel happy and secure within their marriages, and that has nothing to do with feminism, we're talking about basic human rights. The status quo WILL change. God willing.
By the way, there will be other Quranist translators apart from Khalifa and Yuksel, in the future. God willing. Dr. Khalifa also translated 434 with the word "beat". Even he did that. Shall we take his word for it? I wouldn't do it if I were you.
Imposing 7th century ideas on a Book that's meant for all time, does no justice to the Book.
-
In the name of God.
Peace,
My understanding is that polygamy is discouraged but allowed, if the woman is a widow, to prevent her children to be without a father and caretaker and protector. With our modern civilization I doubt it is necessary, but may have been different in the 7th century.
According to the book it is discouraged because it is difficult to satisfy more than one wife and treat them equally. Personally I feel one is hard enough!
That is my understanding regarding polygamy.
So conclusion is, polygamy is advocated to protect women, and children, thus not to please greedy men.
May God settle our disputes
-
Peace Solomon,
The book is for all time. Its interpretations HAVE evolved with time and this forum is living proof of that. Some people think that they can attach the infamous word 'feminism' to a debated topic, and thus write it off.
In 7th Century, women would be perfectly happy and secure in a polygamous society. They would have no problem with sex slaves and accepting male superiority.
By the way, there will be other Quranist translators apart from Khalifa and Yuksel, in the future. God willing. Dr. Khalifa also translated 434 with the word "beat". Even he did that. Shall we take his word for it? I wouldn't do it if I were you.
If it means beating, it's natural he will translate it as "beat". http//www.islamawakened.com/quran/4/34/default.htm
In the 7th century, wife beating would be a normal phenomenon.
Today it may be considered an abuse in some societies. Still, in Saudi Arabia, middle east and south asia, it is perfectly acceptable to beat wives if something goes wrong. Just because it seems cruel to you, doesn't mean it's cruel to everybody
Imposing 7th century ideas on a Book that's meant for all time, does no justice to the Book.
After all this, you claim Quran is for all ages? And that there is no "feminism" involved?
If you don't like polygamy and wife beating, just admit that the Quran doesn't make sense in these issues when 21st century matters are involved. Muslims need to face the reality that legislative matters in their holy book is not suited to 21st century rather than desperately trying to twist word meanings to suit modernity.
-
In 7th Century, women would be perfectly happy and secure in a polygamous society. They would have no problem with sex slaves and accepting male superiority.If it means beating, it's natural he will translate it as "beat". http//www.islamawakened.com/quran/4/34/default.htm
In the 7th century, wife beating would be a normal phenomenon.
Today it may be considered an abuse in some societies. Still, in Saudi Arabia, middle east and south asia, it is perfectly acceptable to beat wives if something goes wrong. Just because it seems cruel to you, doesn't mean it's cruel to everybody
After all this, you claim Quran is for all ages? And that there is no "feminism" involved?
If you don't like polygamy and wife beating, just admit that the Quran doesn't make sense in these issues when 21st century matters are involved. Muslims need to face the reality that legislative matters in their holy book is not suited to 21st century rather than desperately trying to twist word meanings to suit modernity.
Salaam,
RED How do you know? Are you a woman who got to share her husband with 3 other wives in the 7th Century?
GREEN acceptable for who? For the one who beats or the one who gets a beating?
BLUE yes
BROWN You make no sense not The Quran. You mix The Quran with the hadiths and you conclude The Quran make no sense.
ORANGE So you are not a muslim hmm
And we are not searching for modern meanings but for THE ORIGINAL meanings of the words, that is because people like you twisted The Words of The Quran.Salaam,
Benderps I know your post was not adressed to me.
-
Good that you know. Now act on it, be civilized and don't interject rudely when other people are talking.
Salaam,
When other people are talking then I indeed don't interject but 1 of them was not talking but spouting nonsense, and then I act civilized by interjecting jedi
Salaam,
Bender -
Woah, lemme get my popcorn
-
Peace,
I wonder if it is not right to interfere when someone seeks to spread corruption in the name of God. Do not twist the words of God.
May God have mercy upon us