Discussion on 4:3 and meaning of nisa
-
Polite reminder Before posting comments can we please try to moderate our own selves by asking ourselves whether what we are about to write serves any productive purpose, or whether it is an exercise in massaging our own egoes. Let's please apply the same standard of behaviour to ourselves which we expect from others. Thank you.
-
Peace dawngorgeous,
Like I said, polygamy is discouraged and only under certain conditions. Most men cannot be fair to more than one wife (and sometimes not even that). And the polygamy in Quranic sense is not to fulfill a man's ego and lusts, but to protect and provide for a family and be a role-model for the children.
You are right, women can take care of themselves, but yet a helpful man can make it easier for her, especially if she has children.
7th century women were probably tough, but the world was way more primitive and life was harder, probably even more with children.
Getting a man who can provide for her is then somewhat logical.
Hope you get my point.
-
Peace Man of Faith,
I do get your point and I appreciate it. I have heard others speak of polygamy being allowed under certain conditions. I have to say that I cannot find these conditions in the Koran anywhere. What I do see is God reminding us constantly to look after those less well- off than ourselves. God uses a lot of words to describe marriage as a very important institution. In my opinion then, He would not then switch direction and tell men they can have 4 wives. To me it would follow God's pattern more logically to tell society to look after those folk who are needy. A woman does not have to sleep with men to be looked after. Besides, the Koran tells us that your wife is your 'tilth' and that you 'keep each others secrets'. How does this fit with having four wives?
I feel we need to stand back from the traditional translation and look at the issue in the light of he whole Koran. We must remember the Koran has no contradictions.
-
-
Peace dawngorgeous,
The Quran allows polygamy (43), but only because the woman's children become fatherless and men have their community's responsibility toward the women as providers.
The thought is good from God, instead of feeling fatherless they get
a father as the mother marries the man. It is to give the orphaned children a father the Quran accepts polygamy, nothing else.In the 21st century this thought feels distasteful to most, but I can understand the verse. It is not to sexually please the man and fulfil his ego, but to save the children from harm.
Also during the period of Muhammad many men died because of wars and left many widows, which may have been the reason for this. It was not like they had a social security
system back then.Trying to put myself into the discourse I think can justify this verse, even if polygamy feels a bit distasteful and strange these days.
Who knows, maybe the world will come into a great collapse soon and situation is like I mentioned above, making this polygamy rule viable?
May God enlighten us
-
Polite reminder Before posting comments can we please try to moderate our own selves by asking ourselves whether what we are about to write serves any productive purpose, or whether it is an exercise in massaging our own egoes. Let's please apply the same standard of behaviour to ourselves which we expect from others. Thank you.
I do not think it is a matter of egos, but a matter of trolls.
Obviously, brother Bender has not attempted to let his ego take over, but to let the troll know that we know.
Salaam
-
Salaam Guys,
Please forgive me as I do not wish to sound condescending or rude but I think the ideas that Polygamy is "Allowed" in certain situations are not based upon reading the Arabic Text and I am wondering if the people espousing this idea have read this thread in it's entirety.
Again, please forgive my forthright tone if one is detected.
Basically what Dr. QZ and the Aastana members are doing is something I realized must be done even when I was still a sunni, and that is we are Starting All Over From Scratch!! The people who altered and defaced the message did so by starting from scratch and they were very methodical about it. WE have to do the same thing IF we want to perform the correct surgery in order to repair The Quran's message and image.
"The Quran is NOT a Religious book geared towards men alone. It is a book of Social Justice geared towards women and men equally.The Quran is a document outlining the implementation of JUSTICE. It is NOT only upon males to implement justice it is upon males and females alike. Because of this, a document concerned with JUSTICE FOR ALL must also ADDRESS ALL!! That is why you find 41 - 43 being addressed to ALL PEOPLE (An-Nas). It is addressing all people and the system of justice it recommends is for the benefit all people - 6/90, 12/104, 38/87, 43/44.
I hope I live long enough to see the day when The Quran is no longer viewed as a sexist, chauvinist, male centric religious book."
-
"The Quran is NOT a Religious book geared towards men alone. It is a book of Social Justice geared towards women and men equally.
Don't you think the Quran addresses men primarily?
Let me quote an example.
424 And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess. It is a decree of Allah for you. Lawful unto you are all beyond those mentioned, so that ye seek them with your wealth in honest wedlock, not debauchery. And those of whom ye seek content (by marrying them), give unto them their portions as a duty. And there is no sin for you in what ye do by mutual agreement after the duty (hath been done). Lo! Allah is ever Knower, Wise.
Notice how the Quran addresses MEN as to who is allowed or forbidden. There are numerous examples like this. This is normal because the receivers of Quran (Muhammad) was a man. And it was men who led the tribe and households back then.
-
Don't you think the Quran addresses men primarily?
No I do not. I think The Quran is addressing Women and Men equally.
Let me quote an example.
424 And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess. It is a decree of Allah for you. Lawful unto you are all beyond those mentioned, so that ye seek them with your wealth in honest wedlock, not debauchery. And those of whom ye seek content (by marrying them), give unto them their portions as a duty. And there is no sin for you in what ye do by mutual agreement after the duty (hath been done). Lo! Allah is ever Knower, Wise.
Notice how the Quran addresses MEN as to who is allowed or forbidden. There are numerous examples like this. This is normal because the receivers of Quran (Muhammad) was a man. And it was men who led the tribe and households back then.
I DO NOT notice this verse addressing MEN at all nor do I recognize the subject/concept of marriage in that verse either. Please explore The Arabic of the text and point out to me WHEN and WHERE this verse addresses men or marriage/matrimony is mentioned.
-
Peace Solomon,
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.
Where's your proof of that? Upper class women didn't tolerate a lot of what they deemed nonsense through their wealth and lineage within the community. Accepting male superiority may have been a given, but sex slaves weren't owned by most people. Many of the people in these societies were dirt poor with little power. The Quran highlights this economic disparity and the plight of orphans along with other societal problems. From classical literature and those gosh darn hadith stories, it is conveyed that it was Khadija's position within the society that afforded Muhammed protection and political power. Marriage contracts were also used within Jewish and Christian communities, and there may have been women who stipulated all sorts of things. So, to say that women were PERFECTLY happy and secure within polygamous society is a gross assumption on your part.
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
Well, of course. That logic could be applied to anything. There is a verse in the text that is as follows
18109 Say, "If the sea were an inkwell for the words of my Lord, then the sea would run out before the words of my Lord run out;" even if We were to bring another like it for its aid.
What does this mean to me when I read it? It means that the message never runs out. Time will change, place will change, people will change, but the text will remain relevant and travel with them through each evolution. The words are rich in multiple meanings for a reason. Many of the verses serve multiple purposes and speak to different people in different ways. This is a concept I have derived and have become extremely tolerant towards.
This is why I could care less what Saudi or anyone else thinks. Apart from that, nobody's interpretation is 100% accurate. We're all just doing our very best. The true wisdom behind the Quran lies with its creator. So, perhaps the word meaning that past generations found most favorable (due to the male chauvinism that was so blatant in their culture---and still is), were the meanings they decided to choose and utilize. Today, we're diving into the text again, and deriving something very different yet totally relevant and applicable. It's also removed the cruelty factor. All it takes is for a bunch of people to be critical and inquisitive, and reject b.s when they hear it. That doesn't happen very often though.
Quranic study within traditional circles is similar to Bible Study in that it is often conducted in a very "one way or the highway approach", and does not leave much room for critical thought let alone reform in the present era. There is the facade of free thinking, but apart from the forum and internet forums, I have yet to find such an outlet. I hope you understand what I'm saying.
I don't claim to have a monopoly over the truth. I don't claim perfection, nor do I suffer from the chosen people syndrome and think that I am going to automatically receive the truth on a silver platter just people I professed belief.
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.
There's nothing to "admit". We're not twisting anything. We're using proper resources to derive meaning. We're using the text in itself to CROSS REFERENCE. Look at the verses in and around 434, and you'll see how "beat" just doesn't make any sense. Read the entire text, and you'll see how "beat" looks absolutely out of place.
Have you seen the analysis that is done by some of our free thinking members? They bring forth arguments that could shut up any random traditional "scholar" out there, IF people finally decide that enough is enough and decide to broaden their scope. Some of the stuff I read is absolutely brilliant. So, where are the lies? Who exactly is lying?
It's not about feminism or male chauvinism. It's about finding the best possible meanings so that we can be good role models and productive citizens of this world.
5679 None can grasp it except those pure.
The verse above refers to people who are pure or of sincere intentions. It's all about grasping the best possible meaning. The test is in its implementation. If the interpretation leads to counter productiveness, injustice, and chaos, then perhaps we need to revisit the text.
Dr. Khalifa has and Edip continues to do a lot of good work. However, they aren't our only sources. I read what everyone has to say and I'm open.
-
I think the purpose of this thread, started by brother damon was to determine the meaning of the words nisaa' and rijaal'. It was not to discuss poligamy or otherwise, since there are already a few threads and some very recent to deal with that.
I hope sincerely that the thread is not derailed. And particularly not derailed in order to help trolls along in their mission.
Salaam
-
Salaam Huruf,
I do not think it is a matter of egos, but a matter of trolls.
Obviously, brother Bender has not attempted to let his ego take over, but to let the troll know that we know.
Salaam
No, I don't think "Bender" did either. I think it is apparent for all to see who allows their ego to take control apart from those who wilfully choose to be ignorant.
I see this term "troll" and "trolling" et cetera a great deal these days. What does it refer to?
Thanks.
-
FYI Brother Damon did talk about polygamy and otherwise. While engaging in Fallen Angel's thread, Brother Damon notified us of the existence of this particular thread, which is relevant to our discussion. We've all showed up here, only to be told later that this thread has nothing to do with polygamy? This does not appear to be accurate.
-
I think the purpose of this thread, started by brother damon was to determine the meaning of the words nisaa' and rijaal'. It was not to discuss poligamy or otherwise, since there are already a few threads and some very recent to deal with that.
I hope sincerely that the thread is not derailed. And particularly not derailed in order to help trolls along in their mission.
Salaam
Salaam Huruf,
I too see this thread being derailed. But I started this thread to show two things
1). Nisaa' does not (and cannot) mean women.
2). 4/3 DOES NOT offer polygamy as a solution to a social problem.
I wanted to examine this word (Nisaa' in just this ONE VERSE alone because I feel if it can be demonstrated that it does not mean women in this verse, then it does not mean women at all in any of the other verses. But by demonstrating that this word does not mean women, I think I have also successfully pointed out that the understanding of Polygamy in 4/3 is terribly incorrect.
Something else I need to mention is that NO ONE involved in this thread who defend the Nisaa=Women and 4/3=Polygamy Status Quo have attempted to answer any of the questions I asked about HOW or WHY polygamy would be a solution or necessity to the social problem 4/2 and 4/3 speak of. Common Sense questions such as WHY I would need to marry a woman just to give her a helping hand??????
-
Thanks Damon for setting right your purpose. I worte from memory and the memory wasn't that good. I hope though that the course can be set anew though.
Going back to 4.3,as I pointed out repeatedly in another thread or threads it does not dela with poligamy at all neither to commend it nor to prohibit it.
I think that the word nisaa' and rajul, which in their roots have absolutely nothing to do with sex, and as has previously suggested by many people, Samia amongst them, could be something along the line, person who takes responsiblity for him or herself and for others, and persons who cannot or are unable or choose not to take responsibility for themselves nor for anybody else and fro whom other are responsible.
Salaam
-
Peace Damon,
Peace Released.
Do you think polygamy in itself (let's forget 4.3 for a moment) is permissible? Or do you think there is something in the Quran that may forbid it?
I personally do not believe (according to my present understanding) that The Quran does not address at all the issue of polygamy. I don't see where it makes polygamy permissible or forbids it. I just don't think polygamy is a subject at all in The Quran.
-
Peace,
So technically, polygamy and polyandry are both neither encouraged or discouraged in the Quran, that's what you're implying right? Also, if you don't mind, can you point out based on this new understanding of Nisa', Nikah etc., which verses DO deal with marriage?