Whats your opinion on why is it ok to marry up to four women?
-
Peace,
I know it says that you can only sort of love one, so, why would it be ok to marry four? I know in wars you loose men, but the Qur'an should be from when it was revealed till the hour, so it should, according to Qur'an be fine today.
I can maybe imagene my self with two, but not more.
What's other brothers and sisters opinions?
Thanks
-
It doesn't. Quran was hijacked and interpreted by perverts, pedos and wife beaters to suit their agenda. Such lewd behaviour of "marrying" more than one woman would never ever be approved by the GOD. If it was, then surely the GOD would have given Adam four wives too.
-
Salam
Referring to the article
The Quran is very clear on this subject, that monogamy is the basis for normal relationships, while polygamy is only allowed in cases involving marrying the mothers of orphans so that the orphans are taken care of. A maximum of four wives are allowed in such cases. For example, in the aftermath of war, it is likely that many men would have lost their lives, resulting in many widows with fatherless children, thus The Quran allows an exception in these cases so that the needs of the wider community can be metGive the orphans* their money; do not replace the good with the bad, and do not consume their money to your money, for truly it is a great sin!
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.I cannot agree with all.
In my opinion,
the Quran does not prohibit marrying more than one as long as the man can afford it.
There is no direct prohibition of marrying more than 4 if the man can afford it.
There is no direct prohibition of marrying more than 1 single woman if the man can afford it.On fairness as a criterion
The Quran as popularly interpreted indicates "if you fear you will not being fair" - it is addressed to the man.
The Quran also states "man cannot be fair"
Despite stating "man cannot be fair" the Quran allows polygamy.
In some places, there are laws requiring the man to be fair before able to marry more than 1, since man cannot be fair, the criterion placed by the authorities is just silly.
Fairness is not man's attribute. Humans are not designed with 'fairness' being an attribute.In my conclusion, man is free to marry more than 1 if he can afford to do so, but the impact of the act must not cause oppression on himself, his earlier wife, his latest wife(s), his enlarged family unit and in fact should bring benefit to the enlarged unit. And if any authority wants to rule over this matter, they need to look from this angle - what benefits does the enlarged unit brings and does it outweigh the earlier circumstance? Or does it present a larger oppressive act by not marrying another wife? And of course, it goes without saying, no man can be fair, thus do not put this as a criterion for the decision.
Salam
-
peace hanslan,
Just so we are clear, is your argument we can ignore the conditional clause? In 43, it basically says
if X then Y
Your argument seems to be we can ignore the "if X" part.
Are you aware of how conditional clauses work?
http//linguapress.com/grammar/conditionals.htm -
4.3, like all the ayas around it, are addressed to the community of believers. It is not about ppoligamy at all, at all. Nobody is told to marry up to four women neither no to marry them, but it is telling to the community of believers to sponsor or arrange or take the necessary dispositions so that asmany marriages as possible can be arranged so as to take care of the orphans and give them a family to grow up with while respecting their rights and inheritance, and so on.
The Qur'aqn does not forbid poligmy anywhere, neither female polugamy nor male poligamy, but it does make abundantly clear that the regular or proper marriage is monogamous and tells the believers to marry those who do not have consort. So, in principle, it would only be if there were no singles of one sex that marriage to them in a poligamus marriage wuld be acceptable.
The wordig in 4.3, is not that you marry one, then another and then another, but that as many marriages as possible be undertaken at any given time, because clearey the words used, mathnaa, thulaazth, rubaa3, is not the numbers two, three, four, but two at a time, three at a time, four at a time. Now tell me how you marry more than one consort to another conort at a time. Since it is something tht is being commanded to all the believers, to the community, it is obvious that the command is good for all and any particular communities of believers, who must not turn their backs on their most unfortunate members and must look after them, may be paying certain expenses, may be giving them jobs, may be giving a good image to te fact of marrying unwedded mothers who otherwise would find no partners because of the common prejudices against them in many societies which. Mohters whoay times have to turn to rostitution to provide for their children.
Tbis is so clear that even in traditional jurisprudence, while condoning masculine poligamy, what they have ever allowed has been that poligamous marriges be contracted in one go. That is tomake a marriage (wedding) with more than one woma at a time.
May be a community can arrange such marriages once a year. May be twice a year.
In fact that kind of marriage is the one that was at a time very much talked about in internet, because somebody circulated a video saying that Hamas (the devil Hamas) was arranging arriages in Gaza of girl children. Later it was abundantly clear that no such marriages were arranged in Gaza but that the thing that was arranged nd sponsored by the authorities was the marriage of the mothers of those girl children and of other boy children at the expense of the govenrment. And none of those marriages consisted of any man marrying several mothers at a time, but of single man marrying a single mother, ad that is why they were photogrphed taking by the hand the children of said mothers.
That is a fair image of what 4.3 is talking about.
It does not touch poligamy neithr to approve it nnor to disapprove it. Poligamy does not enter into this question.
This is one ore case of ayas othe Qur'an, being natched from their context and purpose and misdirected to forward the malecentric conception of human society.
Teh Qur'an is human for all and gentle to women not an instrument at the service of males. Males are given abundant examles with the prophets of how not to turn everything i a source of pride and profit for them.
Salaam
-
Just so we are clear, is your argument we can ignore the conditional clause? In 43, it basically says
if X then Y
Your argument seems to be we can ignore the "if X" part.
Are you aware of how conditional clauses work?
http//linguapress.com/grammar/conditionals.htmAre you referring to "if you fear you will not be fair, then only one" ? If I don't fear, I can marry more.
Wakas, its my understanding of the Quran based on traditional translations, Im not forcing anyone to embrace it. My comments have nothing to support any evil doing that men do on women or on society. Polygamy is a solution for a situation which should bring more benefit to the parties impacted than oppression. If one is God fearing, logically he will try to avoid all kinds of oppression to do good to others - but fairness is not a quality residing in humans - we are limited in being - only God is fair.
As to Huruf's comments, I can agree to her understanding (which is more wholesome), although its not what is traditionally translated to.
There is a documentary on a society somewhere in South America where the female has more than 1 husband - very interesting arrangement where the husbands take turns and the youngest husband have to give way. Maybe there were too few females.
Peace.
-
The interpretation of the verse does not seem logical. I don't think Allah works that way.
If a person is capable of providing for multi women he does not require marrying them. He can simply pay them monthly so they may take care of themselves. He can build a house where all of them can live securely. He can even set up businesses for them so they can earn their own money. He can provide them servants. He can get them married to single men. The options are endless.
Involving multi marriages screams "I will provide for you if you let me bed you". That is leaned towards wicked self interest. Also the man would leave the wives in a state of competition for his affection.
Similarly, the children may eventually turn into enemies of each other for the property of the father. Sibling rivalry can get toxic even in nuclear families and here we are talking about children from different moms.
-
you are right, reel, that if it is a question of money, the marriage part is irrelevant. So it is something else. It is a social question. If we do not see he whole set up of the sura and try to milk niceties for the boys from every nook of the wording, no matter how illogical how ungrammatical, or how much it idisintegrates the text then we miss the whole lot.
What is sura dealig with? with social questions, with social morals. Is the marginalising of unwed mothers and their children a social purpose adopted by the Qur'an or enjoined by the Qur'an? obviously not. So if there are many children with unknown fathers or fathers that do not own their fathership, and nobody will marry the mothers because they are socially ostracised and it is socially demeaning to contract such alliances, what does the Qur'an say? Continue like that, that is healthful and nice society?
There you are, in the case of orphans, of known father, not that problem but the problem that the prospective husband might want to snatch his or her inheritance from the orphan, so wnings on that count.
The aya i itself is very clear, but the need to turn everything in the Qur'an which touches women into a discrimination against them or a profit for the males seems to spoil every aya in the Qur'an which concerns women.
Two many contributions along the centuries to uphold male privileges nd too much satisfaction today to accept that legacy without trying first to see if it matches justice, fairness, to see if it matches grammar, to see if it matches lai logic, to see if it matches the internallogic of the text and the context, and without trying either to study whether really there hs always been such uninimity concenring those questions as they want us to believe to day, because I know that that it is not so. There may have been a malist redominance but there has always been very much discrpancy and diversity of opinions. Those who have made long studies of it and are honest can vouch for it.
In this case of 4.3 it is too obvious that there has never been in islmic history a marriage in which a man takes more tha one wife on the same contract or ceremony, therefore the meaning of 4.3 as such poligamy is impossible.
Salaam
-
The interpretation of the verse does not seem logical. I don't think Allah works that way.
If a person is capable of providing for multi women he does not require marrying them. He can simply pay them monthly so they may take care of themselves. He can build a house where all of them can live securely. He can even set up businesses for them so they can earn their own money. He can provide them servants. He can get them married to single men. The options are endless.
Involving multi marriages screams "I will provide for you if you let me bed you". That is leaned towards wicked self interest. Also the man would leave the wives in a state of competition for his affection.
Similarly, the children may eventually turn into enemies of each other for the property of the father. Sibling rivalry can get toxic even in nuclear families and here we are talking about children from different moms.
If I choose to take take of a dozen orphans, do I need to marry their mothers? I can just build them a home, provide food and clothing for them. No need to marry and sleep with their mothers. It is quite clear that this is another false interpretation by perverted clerics who couldn't keep their equipment in their pants and wanted to bang a load of women.
-
Salam
Referring to the article
The Quran is very clear on this subject, that monogamy is the basis for normal relationships, while polygamy is only allowed in cases involving marrying the mothers of orphans so that the orphans are taken care of. A maximum of four wives are allowed in such cases. For example, in the aftermath of war, it is likely that many men would have lost their lives, resulting in many widows with fatherless children, thus The Quran allows an exception in these cases so that the needs of the wider community can be metGive the orphans* their money; do not replace the good with the bad, and do not consume their money to your money, for truly it is a great sin!
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.I cannot agree with all.
In my opinion,
the Quran does not prohibit marrying more than one as long as the man can afford it.
There is no direct prohibition of marrying more than 4 if the man can afford it.
There is no direct prohibition of marrying more than 1 single woman if the man can afford it.On fairness as a criterion
The Quran as popularly interpreted indicates "if you fear you will not being fair" - it is addressed to the man.
The Quran also states "man cannot be fair"
Despite stating "man cannot be fair" the Quran allows polygamy.
In some places, there are laws requiring the man to be fair before able to marry more than 1, since man cannot be fair, the criterion placed by the authorities is just silly.
Fairness is not man's attribute. Humans are not designed with 'fairness' being an attribute.In my conclusion, man is free to marry more than 1 if he can afford to do so, but the impact of the act must not cause oppression on himself, his earlier wife, his latest wife(s), his enlarged family unit and in fact should bring benefit to the enlarged unit. And if any authority wants to rule over this matter, they need to look from this angle - what benefits does the enlarged unit brings and does it outweigh the earlier circumstance? Or does it present a larger oppressive act by not marrying another wife? And of course, it goes without saying, no man can be fair, thus do not put this as a criterion for the decision.
Salam
Very well said Hanslan
-
you are right, reel, that if it is a question of money, the marriage part is irrelevant. So it is something else. It is a social question. If we do not see he whole set up of the sura and try to milk niceties for the boys from every nook of the wording, no matter how illogical how ungrammatical, or how much it idisintegrates the text then we miss the whole lot.
What is sura dealig with? with social questions, with social morals. Is the marginalising of unwed mothers and their children a social purpose adopted by the Qur'an or enjoined by the Qur'an? obviously not. So if there are many children with unknown fathers or fathers that do not own their fathership, and nobody will marry the mothers because they are socially ostracised and it is socially demeaning to contract such alliances, what does the Qur'an say? Continue like that, that is healthful and nice society?
There you are, in the case of orphans, of known father, not that problem but the problem that the prospective husband might want to snatch his or her inheritance from the orphan, so wnings on that count.
The aya i itself is very clear, but the need to turn everything in the Qur'an which touches women into a discrimination against them or a profit for the males seems to spoil every aya in the Qur'an which concerns women.
Two many contributions along the centuries to uphold male privileges nd too much satisfaction today to accept that legacy without trying first to see if it matches justice, fairness, to see if it matches grammar, to see if it matches lai logic, to see if it matches the internallogic of the text and the context, and without trying either to study whether really there hs always been such uninimity concenring those questions as they want us to believe to day, because I know that that it is not so. There may have been a malist redominance but there has always been very much discrpancy and diversity of opinions. Those who have made long studies of it and are honest can vouch for it.
In this case of 4.3 it is too obvious that there has never been in islmic history a marriage in which a man takes more tha one wife on the same contract or ceremony, therefore the meaning of 4.3 as such poligamy is impossible.
Salaam
I have a feeling that the aya is not about marriage at all. In fact, this "But if you fear that you will not be just, then one or those your right hand possesses. "
contradicts
4129 "And never will you be able to deal justly between women even if you desired, but (do) not incline (with) all the inclination and leave her (the other) like the suspended one. And if you reconcile and fear (Allah) then indeed, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful"
If I choose to take take of a dozen orphans, do I need to marry their mothers? I can just build them a home, provide food and clothing for them. No need to marry and sleep with their mothers. It is quite clear that this is another false interpretation by perverted clerics who couldn't keep their equipment in their pants and wanted to bang a load of women.
Yeah, the verse is a total mess.
-
Are you referring to "if you fear you will not be fair, then only one" ? If I don't fear, I can marry more.
I find it interesting you isolate one part of the verse, which is an obvious subclause. You will note that by itself the part you isolated makes no sense. It is part of a bigger conditional clause - which is proven by the Arabic itself.
43 basically says
if X then marry 2, 3, 4
so/then if Z then only oneBold = Arabic "fa" which is a resumption particle, i.e. it links two statements together (i.e. the one before with the one after)
Your approach seems to be ignore the first part, and select the second part, which by itself makes no sense. After considering the above, do you still hold such a view?
Wakas, its my understanding of the Quran based on traditional translations
Traditional translations are a poor source of knowledge. Study The Quran itself www.StudyQuran.org
-
I was thinking about it and there is no way I would have more than one. I mean imagine how would you feel as a male if there was another husband?
That's what I like about the New Testament of the Bible, just one wife. What concerns me though is that you can't divorce unless adultery has been committed. I mean what if a man bashes his wife? Would the Bible let her divorce?
Thanks
-
I have a feeling that the aya is not about marriage at all. In fact, this "But if you fear that you will not be just, then one or those your right hand possesses. "
contradicts
4129 "And never will you be able to deal justly between women even if you desired, but (do) not incline (with) all the inclination and leave her (the other) like the suspended one. And if you reconcile and fear (Allah) then indeed, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful"
Yeah, the verse is a total mess.
How does it contradict? 4.129 I is NOT about oligamy, nowhere appears the poligamy in te picture. If you go into the adjoining ayas, hat it is talking about it divorce. And it is bout that that it is talking. Do not mess up the former wife on account of a possible coming one or the other away around. Do not offend them making one of them feel like shit or come short in pecuniary services with one for the benefit of the other... No poligamy in the picture. It says do not leave one hanging, why hanging? the position of wife is not a hanging one, it is a clear osition, the position of a former or of a coming wife on the other hand can be dubious at some point.
Why do we always bring back the text of the Qur'an to suit purported conditions of past or purpored societies which had this or that hbit or uses and refuse to apply to the comonnest and obvious situations and hapennings in front of our eyes? Somties it deals with articular situations of a time, but not always and the formulation always indicates what time or circumstance it is referring to.In this aya 4.127 it is divorce it is refrring to.
Salaam
-
How does it contradict? 4.129 I is NOT about oligamy, nowhere appears the poligamy in te picture. If you go into the adjoining ayas, hat it is talking about it divorce.
Sorry I didn't explain the contradiction. In 4129 we come to know that a man will never be able to show fairness when it comes two women. But according to verse 43 "But if you fear that you will not be just".
In one place, Allah makes it clear that the man wont be able to be fair and in another he is saying if you fear that you may not be fair. This is contradicting. The interpretation of 43 is very much messy and I don't know why I feel it was intentionally done by the traditionalists.
One thing the traditionalists seem to always avoid is that marriage is not just about money. I had debate about it with them many times. They have truly erased the word "love" from their marriage vocab for some reason. When it comes to finance, we can know what we can afford. But same is not true for love. For a peaceful marriage, love is the most important element. Unfortunately, none of us can truly love anyone equally. Research shows that even parents play favoritism when it comes to their kids. This is not something they'll ever admit openly. But the point is that love is the only place where we cannot help showing discrimination. Allah knows this and thus, he won't ask a man to evaluate whether he can be just with love when it comes to multi women. Kids also want their mothers to be loved. So multi marriages would never bring justice.
And in a way, the verse does not flow well with 42And give to the orphans their properties and do not substitute the defective for the good . And do not consume their properties into your own. Indeed, that is ever a great sin.
Don't you think the marriage would somehow mix up the properties of the new father and his new children?
But now when I think about the marriage part the only way it makes sense is when we replace it with "tie their knot/to give in marriage". I would like all the participating members to review what I said so I can find out whether I am correct. http//islamawakened.com/quran/roots/Nun-Kaf-Haa.html
And I do agree with you that the instruction given in the Surah is for the community and not for just one man because 41 begins with "O mankind". The instruction seems to mean "dear community people, marry the women to single men". That's, one per woman. Doesn't matter if he is divorced, widowed or never married.
I was thinking about it and there is no way I would have more than one. I mean imagine how would you feel as a male if there was another husband?
Anything that does not make sense is not from Allah. They are just interpretation errors from humans. When I was sunni I had debates with traditionalists about the polygamy. It seems that for 43 they just like to override the notion of love. They want to believe that wives need nothing more than financial support.
-
but the Qur'an should be from when it was revealed till the hour, so it should, according to Qur'an be fine today.
Misinterpretation. Misinterpretation. Misinterpretation. Quran does not speak of such just like it does not speak of much else claimed by scholars and clerics of old.
Be safe
Amenuel -
24.32 Marry those among you who are single and the virtuous ones among yourselves, male or female if they are in poverty, Allah will give them means out of His grace for Allah encompasseth all, and he knoweth all things.
This again ties with 4.3, here it is clear that a social rule is being given, it is general and and addressed, as per preceding aya 24.21, tothe believers, "ya ayyuha-allathina amanu". The verb "marry" ankaha is form IV, that is all are instructed to procure the marriage of the single ones, the virtuous and the slaves, male or female.
What comes out from this aya is that marriage is a condition worth pursuing and that society as a whole should try to marry its singles.
So,if we go back to 4.3, and see the nisaa' and hte yatamaa and si again 4.127 where it is the question of the yatamaa an-nisaa', I think that the inkihu what we finf suitable of the women, these women are not the yatamaa, but the womenwho are in charge of those orphans, which are wo wit, those without a father be it because he did not acknowledge his fatherhood, be it, becuse he died, be it because he does not want anything with the mother or the child. The aya does not say marry the orphans (al yatamaa) but marry the women which seem suitable to you. And it is nnot addressed to a single man the task of marrying in twos, or threes, or fours, but to the collective marriageable males. It does not say any one of you marry in twos, or threes or fours, but youplural, second person plural, or ma malakat aymanukum, which can be understood in this aya as those sponsored by the addressees, that is, that is you may marry a woman in such circumstances that may be you are sponsoring inn some other way.
How you can be unfair with those orphans as a community is clear, you may osracise those people, marginalise as we say now. What the Qur'an strives to forwrd is what we would call now an inclusive society. No lost and women, no children who suffer beecause of their mothers lck of standing in society. These ar injonctions that are notimposed on particular persons but on the whole of society.
What this aya, as much as aya 24.32 as the whole of aya 4.127 is of the same purportsocial inclusion and improvement. A society to which all belong and all feel that they belong.
Salaam
-
24.32 Marry those among you who are single and the virtuous ones among yourselves, male or female if they are in poverty, Allah will give them means out of His grace for Allah encompasseth all, and he knoweth all things.
This again ties with 4.3, here it is clear that a social rule is being given, it is general and and addressed, as per preceding aya 24.21, tothe believers, "ya ayyuha-allathina amanu". The verb "marry" ankaha is form IV, that is all are instructed to procure the marriage of the single ones, the virtuous and the slaves, male or female.
What comes out from this aya is that marriage is a condition worth pursuing and that society as a whole should try to marry its singles.
So,if we go back to 4.3, and see the nisaa' and hte yatamaa and si again 4.127 where it is the question of the yatamaa an-nisaa', I think that the inkihu what we finf suitable of the women, these women are not the yatamaa, but the womenwho are in charge of those orphans, which are wo wit, those without a father be it because he did not acknowledge his fatherhood, be it, becuse he died, be it because he does not want anything with the mother or the child. The aya does not say marry the orphans (al yatamaa) but marry the women which seem suitable to you. And it is nnot addressed to a single man the task of marrying in twos, or threes, or fours, but to the collective marriageable males. It does not say any one of you marry in twos, or threes or fours, but youplural, second person plural, or ma malakat aymanukum, which can be understood in this aya as those sponsored by the addressees, that is, that is you may marry a woman in such circumstances that may be you are sponsoring inn some other way.
How you can be unfair with those orphans as a community is clear, you may osracise those people, marginalise as we say now. What the Qur'an strives to forwrd is what we would call now an inclusive society. No lost and women, no children who suffer beecause of their mothers lck of standing in society. These ar injonctions that are notimposed on particular persons but on the whole of society.
What this aya, as much as aya 24.32 as the whole of aya 4.127 is of the same purportsocial inclusion and improvement. A society to which all belong and all feel that they belong.
Salaam
bravo Congrats Huruf
Hahaha, you debunked the traditional interpretation with 2432
