Discussion on 4:3 and meaning of nisa
-
Peace Noon,
For those who have studied it's 100% clear without doubt every word that nisaa are females and only females...
Perhaps...or maybe not. Regardless of what you think, the discussion revolving "nisa" will continue. You've merely shared with us your personal conviction provided by your proof. That's great and all, but what others have to say has merit as well.
It depends on what you think believe "marry off" to be. In my culture, "marry off" does not mean to marry someone off without their consent. It means to guide them into the marriage process with social protection, shoulder the expenses, and investigate prospective suitors. Even though I found my husband on my own, they guided me through the process and absorbed the logistics of it. Really, that's what my parents did when they "married me off". I would think this would be a very noble thing for a stranger to do.
My own aunt has married off two of her female servants. She married them off to men who were in a better socio-economic standing, and then also took on some of the wedding expenses. We would consider what she's done a very kind and charitable act. So, "marrying off" has different connotations to it, it depends on what it means to you.
-
Peace Released,
I doubt any righteous man would marry an extra woman against his wife's will, even if it was well-intended as in the context of orphaned children.
According to traditional understanding it is just under those conditions this kind of marriage is allowed, but the sectarians twisted the meaning (maybe further?) into under all conditions.
I can see this dilemma from your point of view, since I can fathom myself in your place, and I would not want to share the love of my life with another person. Yet I think this verse might mean simply marry as to let the woman into your household (as mahram) to provide for her and her children, and not as an intimate love relationship. Anyway, this is how I want to understand the traditional interpretation.
Your alternative translation of the verse I shall look into and give it some thought. It would make it emotionally (empathy) easier if it was correct.
Currently I live in Iran and even if polygamy is accepted here you require your wife's consent to be able to marry an additional wife. Shia islam interpret the Quran in the stereotypical sectarian way, but at least they give the wife right refuse polygamy (although I am afraid the legal system may be flawed and biased at times)
So for your questions 1 and 2 the answer is simple, let your wife be allowed to refuse.
Forcing her by putting pressure on her I suppose is a potential problem though. A secure legal system is thus a must I guess.
The Quran does not explicitly mention that the wife has a say in this, but it is safe to say that the wife in a righteous marriage is allowed to participate in the decision. After all, the marriage is meant to be a tranquility and contentment for us, and how would that be if the wife was unhappily involved in this?
I hope you understand I tried to see it all through your eyes too and remain rational. The meaning with islam is peace and prosperity, not oppression and injustice.
We must be rational, right sister?
May God bless you
Peace Man of Faith,
Thank you for your post. I appreciate the fact that you are discussing the underlying issue with us.
It's fair to say that the Quran does not explicitly have permission stipulated, but I think that there are many things that are not explicitly said in the Quran. I do know that God wants us to have happy and healthy marriages. He dislikes divorce. That's why I can deduce that He would want us to come to mutual decisions, where the dignity and emotional well-being of both husband and wife is respected.
You are absolutely correct. We need more rational minded thinking. On this thread, I've seen everyone's grammatical output, and of course there is arguing back and forth. While the grammatical analysis is very important, it's also important for us to really think about one another. If we're truly brothers and sisters, then we can't allow for one another to hurt like this. Polygamy is often felt as a betrayal to the human psyche, and we must consider this, or we may fall into injustice.
I found it very interesting to hear that in Iran, consent is required by law! I once read an article by a Shia imam in that he understood consent to be obligatory. I was very impressed with his logic.
You are correct, the legal system should address these matters. I mentioned something about marriage contracts and honoring set stipulations prior.
By the way, I am very happy to hear perspectives from brothers and sisters of different nationalities. Please tell us more about your experiences in Iran in the forum (if you feel safe in doing so).
God never commits evil, I know one verse says that.
Yes, I believe it's 479.
-
Peace,
I live in Iran with my Iranian wife, but I am a Swede. I could share my personal experience from an outsider's point of view.
Anyway, I hope you can come up to some fair answer to the question of this thread eventually. I tried to be open-minded and give some rational suggestions. Conclusion is God would always have the Quran interpreted in the best possible light.
And no matter if it is "legal" under those conditions or not, it cannot hurt anyone or it would be haraam. So a mutual agreement must be reached.
But honesty I think we can just ignore this verse in this modern world. It still seems to be a remnant from a tougher era in history, not utterly relevant today.
If we follow the Quran literally in all cases we would still ride around on camels and some other silly things.
Hope my contribution helped somehow.
May God guide us into the light
-
But honesty I think we can just ignore this verse in this modern world. It still seems to be a remnant from a tougher era in history, not utterly relevant today.
If we follow the Quran literally in all cases we would still ride around on camels and some other silly things.
Hope my contribution helped somehow.
May God guide us into the light
Let me disagree with you on this. We cannot ignore this aya simply on the ground that we have a certain conception of it. copnception which in fact is being put into questi?n. This aya has been taken as the "poligamy" aya, but the thing is that there are many people who do not see that poligamy at all in the aya, I one of them. This aya, and those before and after are about something else, completely different. Is about justice and the way to go about it. This is one of those ayas, like 4.34, upon which all kinds of confusion and presumptions have been unloaded. And those loads will weigh on muslims unless the initial uploading is undone. WE CANNOT IGNORE IT. We must retrieve it in letter and spirit.
I do not think that there is a single aya in the whole of Qur'an that is wrong in the letter. One interpretation of the letter may be wrong, but no aya is dead.
The thing is that the human mind is NEVER empty. There is no such a thing as reading something without preconception. Everybody always has preconceptions. It is those that are superimposed on the text read. The task of every generation and every person is studying him or hersel first to see where his or her own preconceptions stumble with something. A sacred, revealed text cannot be changed because of peoples conditioning, it is the conditioning that must be changed.
What we stumble with is not the aya, it is what has been heaped on the aya and which no longer is understandable for us.
The task is to clean ourselves, dismantle carefully what we have built up and which now it is not a help but an obstacle. With care not throw the baby with the water. Human reason is wonderful and a magnificent tool, human heart is divine light. We must show patience and perseverance in the quest. I feel and think that we are at a crossroads of human society and that what we do and strive has plenty of significance for us and for those after us. We cannot disregard our duty to be thorough, to be persistent and to be 100% honest in our quest. Honest means not to delude ourselves because we like this best or that or because of political correctness or the wish to be liked by others. Prophets and visionaries were not liked by others, but finally down history they win out. Rats, human rats also win out, but we must be sure of whom we wish to emulate, lights or rats.
Of course, Man of faith, I am sure you are a light, like most posters here, and do your best. This is not addressed to anbyody in particular, or rather I am addressing myself and sharing it with you.
And I do it because I think that it is these ayas that pose so many problems wherein there is a treasure for us to find. It is not by chance, they are a gift and we must carefully unwrap it. They are lights. Let us not fear what we may find, it will be divine light.
Salaam all
-
Peace huruf,
Thanks for your input, although this reply should be read in the context of the recent chain of posts, which clarify that I seek a reasonable interpretation of this verse.
I merely said it is better to ignore a questionable interpretation than enforcing it, like 434 and beating your wife. But searching for a logical conclusion of this verse is better than pretending it does not exist, which I never meant either.
Sorry if my previous post was not clear enough, but it was intended for sister Released who was already involved in the discussion.
God bless you
-
Peace Huruf,
I agree entirely. The most important thing to remember is that what God says does not go out of fashion. It is for all time. The Koran is a guidance for man. It is based in and cemented in Peace, hence its name. It does not matter about the century. Hence, this argument that the verse does not fit this century is, frankly, a non argument and if anything, is proof that the established translation must be wrong!
-
Peace,
But like you say, the underlying message of the Quran is never obsolete but timeless, I admit I formulated myself clumsily. I agree with it of course, as I am one of the defenders of the Quran, unlike some other people who deny its infallibility.
However I still stand by my word that the Quran should not always be taken literally since it was written for an audience 1400 years ago, but its moral lessons should be followed. The underlying message lasts until the end of days.
May God bless you all
-
Peace Man of Faith,
Yes, the Koran was written 1400 years ago, but it was written for an audience at any given time. You are right, we must not take it literally (and if we did, we would not be using our intelligence!), indeed, God tells us there are many allegories. The Book also needs to be read as a whole unit, as ideas are linked throughout it.
Many of the references to animals, fruit and vegetables are desert-based. This does not mean that people in Sweden, for example, cannot understand the basic point God is making!
-
Peace,
It is directed towards a crowd 1400 years ago proved by its grammatical use and choice of words. But they are stories meant for people of all generations until the end of days. And rules for them are rules for us. We just have to apply them according to our technological advancement, without twisting the original meaning. For example getting a scribe to write down a will could be replaced by a lawyer etc.
Like I said, we need to be rational.
But let us not argue over this irrelevant issue anyway. The Quran is authentic and valid, at least for those who believe it to be infallible.
To be honest, I basically buy your saying the Quran is for audiences of all ages, because it is, I only meant the direct receivers of commands was this people 1400 years ago.
May God give us peace and prosperity
-
Noon waalqalami
For those who have studied it's 100% clear without doubt every word that nisaa are females and only females...
So nesa does not mean 'women' according to you either ? ;D
-
@Man of Faith,
Peace, I agree with you. May we continue to search, in order to find the truth.
-
Let us see if we formulate this right. Qur'an is spiritual and wisdom book. It is not a book of magic or rituals or recipes.
Some people reed or take Qur'an as a magic book let alone the hadith. That would be taking things literal the way they are never taken in real life. It is not some licence we take with Qur'an in order to fit todays world or to be politically correct. What was nto correct is to take things out of the real use of language. Language uses a lot of figured speeech of symbolic speech. Proverbs are a sample of it. It would be senseless to pretend that Arabic is devoid of that now or ever. Common sense is not out of place in the Qur'an, but for it is just as usuful as for everything else. To push it aside on the pretext of being God's orders is to turn the Qur'an into a book of magic where the ritual precision is sine qua non to obtain results, if such thing results in anything apart from filling the magician's pocket.
Another thing is that the Qur'an usually gives context and that we are nto authorized to apply things where the context given is not there and we cannot reason out that there is an analogy with another situation that warrants its taking it into consideration.
One example is aya 33.59, which is usually given as an argument for the obligation of hiyab, abusing its text and abusing its meaning and of course, ignoring context. The context is given for some reason, while the context usually given by propounders for its obligatoriness is completely alien to the Qur'an. So the Qur'an is turned into a cow which one can milk for his or her own purpose at will by simply taking everything out ot its context and abusing its words making them say what is not there.
Since this has been done for a very long time, sometimes it is hard to escape the spell of given intepretations. So there must be some daring also in puting forward ideas, provided there is honesty and sincerity in the endeavour.
Going back to the quest which is the subject of this thread. I still think that nisaa' and riyal are sociological and not sexual signifiers, which depending on the context may be applied to a sex or not depending precisely on the social context and conditions. ?Could it be a question of liability? Riyal are 'liable" persons and nisaa' are "non liable" persons?
Salaam
-
One example is aya 33.59, which is usually given as an argument for the obligation of hiyab, abusing its text and abusing its meaning and of course, ignoring context. The context is given for some reason, while the context usually given by propounders for its obligatoriness is completely alien to the Qur'an. So the Qur'an is turned into a cow which one can milk for his or her own purpose at will by simply taking everything out ot its context and abusing its words making them say what is not there.
Since this has been done for a very long time, sometimes it is hard to escape the spell of given intepretations. So there must be some daring also in puting forward ideas, provided there is honesty and sincerity in the endeavour.
Going back to the quest which is the subject of this thread. I still think that nisaa' and riyal are sociological and not sexual signifiers, which depending on the context may be applied to a sex or not depending precisely on the social context and conditions. ?Could it be a question of liability? Riyal are 'liable" persons and nisaa' are "non liable" persons?
Peace huruf,
Simply plug into verses see if liable/non-liable whatever that means in context makes sense?
3359 O you the prophet say to spouses yours and girls/daughters yours and non-liable the believers draw onto them (f/p) from garments theirs (f/p) that lowest that they are known (f/p) so not disturbed/harmed (f/p) and He is The God Forgiving Merciful
41 O you al-nas/the humankind fear/be mindful your Lord the One Who created you from soul whidatan/one (f/s) and created from her/it its spouse and dispersed from them two rijalan/liable much wanisan/and non-liable and fear/be mindful The God the One Who you ask with it and the wombs (blood relations) indeed The God He is over you Watchful 42 and give the orphans their wealth and not exchange the bad with the good and not eat/consume their wealth to your wealth indeed it it is sin great 43 and if you fear that not do justice in the orphans so marry what taba (lawful or agree) to you from the non-liable paired/dual/twos and three and quadruplet/group of four so if you fear that not do justice fawhidatan/so one (f/s) or what possess right hands/trust yours that minimum that not you oppress 44 and give the non-liable handouts theirs (f/p) graciously so if tib'na/they remit for you about a thing from it of soul/their own so eat/consume it satisfaction ease 45 and not give the foolish your wealth the one made The God for you standing/support and provide them in it and clothe them and speak to them a word appropriate 46 and test the orphans until when attained the marriage so if you perceive from them rational so deliver to them their wealth and not eat/consume it wastefully and hastily lest/that they grow up and from he is rich so should refrain and from he is in need for so let eat/consume in the fair manner so when you deliver to them their wealth so take witnesses on/over them and sufficient in The God Reckoner 47 lilrrijal/to the liable a share from what left the parents and the close relatives and for the non-liable a share from what left the parents and the close relatives from what small from it or large portion obligatory 48 and when comes the division those the relatives/near and the orphans and the needy so provide them from it and speak for them a word appropriate 49 and let fear/be mindful the those who if they left from behind them offspring weak concerned over them so let them fear/be mindful The God and let them speak a word right 410 indeed the those who ate wealth the orphans injustice surely ate in their bellies of a fire and they will be burned a blaze 411 directs you The God in your children lildhakari/to the male like share al-unthayayni/the two (f) so if kunna/they are (f/p) nisan/non-liable above two (f) falahunna/so for them (f/p) third dual (2/3) what left and if kanat/she is (f/s) whidatan/one (f/s) so for her the half ?
4176 they seek your ruling say The God gives you a ruling in al-kalalah (the fatherless spouseless; the no head of household/crown) if person died is not to person waladun (child/born) and has sister so for her half (1/2) what left and he inherits it if not was to her waladun (child/born) so if kanata/they were (f) two (f) so for them two the two thirds (2/3) from what left and if kanu/they were ikh'watun brethren/siblings rijlan/liable wanisan/and non-liable falildhakari/so to the male like share al-unthayayni/the two (f) clarifies The God for you lest you stray and The God in every a thing Knowing
Now try to distribute inheritance 2 brothers and 3 sisters, one sister liable and the others non-liable?
-
Peace Noon,
You keep plugging things in. I did that and it didn't always make sense. Well, it didn't make sense most of the time, to be perfectly honest.
So, what I've realized, is that they are actually reexamining the entire text word by word. Let's just wait for their English translation, and then we'll all meet back here sometime in the future.