A refutation to Bro Yaseen - Polygamy is allowed in 4 23
-
Firstly, only those can be "married off" who are still dependent. How can someone "marry off" an independant or self-protected man? The wording "marry off" implies marrying off DEPENDENT singles. So this does not apply to independent or self-protected men who may be married. (tanveer)
Interesting question How can someone "marry off" an independant or self-protected man?
The answer is that wedding is a social event. The procedures are carried out with the contributory participation of a registrar, witnesses, and the people who attend the event. They marry him off.
The registrar knows that in 2432 God said, "Marry off the singles!" and is aware that marrying off the already married is against God?s approval. So she will refuse to do the registering as soon as she learns that the bridegroom is not single. Neither will the witnesses stand witness.
It can be likened to to the remembrance of God on the day of congregation, which is a social event fulfilled by a cogregation led by an imam. If somebody happens to intend the remembrance of a false god like Uzza, the imam will refuse to serve him as soon as he learns the ill intention. Neither will the congregation allow him to join them.
Just as "Hasten to the remembrance of God!" invalidates "Hasten to the remembrance of Uzza!", so does "Marry off the single from among you!" invalidate "Marry off the married from among you!"
Peace,
Hasan Akcay -
Peace Hasan,
The answer is that wedding is a social event. The procedures are carried out with the contributory participation of a registrar, witnesses, and the people who attend the event. They marry him off.
The registrar knows that in 2432 God said, "Marry off the singles!" and is aware that marrying off the already married is against God?s approval. So she will refuse to do the registering as soon as she learns that the bridegroom is not single. Neither will the witnesses stand witness.
Nowhere does Allah say in al-qur'aan that a registrar, witnesses, and the people who attend the event ALL are requisites of a marriage. A marriage can take place only with witness/witnesses who also record the marriage contract. Thus an independent/self-protected married man can marry a woman without being married off by a priest/imam/registrar.
In addition to that, the phrase "marry off" implies that a dependent man is being married off by his guardian/parents. Even if it implies a registrar marrying him off, an independent/self-protected married man can marry a woman without being married off, just in presence of witness/witnesses who also record the marriage contract.
In addition to that, "marry off the single among you" is a social advice. It cannot be taken to mean a command, otherwise then it would mean that every single person has to be married off, and that being single all one's life will not be acceptable by Allah. You mean to say that a person cannot remain single in an islamic community ? and if a person remains single all one's life, he/she is violating a command and therefore not being muslim to Allah ? What if the single person cannot find a suitable partner ? He/she still has to be married off forcibly ? That is ridiculous, and therefore this phrase cannot be taken as an obligatory command, but just as a social advice.
Also, "marry off the single among you" DOES NOT mean "do not marry a married man". It just means to marry off the single people in a community as a social advice. Thus it still allows an independent/self-protected married man to marry a woman without being married off, as I explained above, and also allows one to remain single all one's life if one wishes to. Why make only "the single" portion of the phrase a command, without making the "marry off" portion a command also ?
It can be likened to to the remembrance of God on the day of congregation, which is a social event fulfilled by a cogregation led by an imam. If somebody happens to intend the remembrance of a false god like Uzza, the imam will refuse to serve him as soon as he learns the ill intention. Neither will the congregation allow him to join them.
Just as "Hasten to the remembrance of God!" invalidates "Hasten to the remembrance of Uzza!", so does "Marry off the single from among you!" invalidate "Marry off the married from among you!"
You are using a bad/wrong analogy. An independent/self-protected married man can still marry a woman without being married off as explained above, and a person can remain single all one's life if one wishes to.
Your false inference and wrong deduction will hold true only if the phrase had said "marry/marry off ONLY the single among you". I dont see the "only" in the actual phrase. "Marry off the single among you" DOES NOT mean "you cannot marry off the married among you" or "do not marry a married man"; that is wrong and invalid logic, just like "marry off the single among you" cannot mean "no one can remain single all their life" by putting the stress on the "marry off" part.
Peace
-
Salaam Tanveer
2221 And do not marry the females who set up partners until they believe. For a believing servant is better than one who sets up partners even if she attracts you. And do not marry the males who set up partners until they believe. For a believing servant is better than one who sets up partners even if he attracts you.
The addressee in this verse is the generic male, not males and females, as you hint.. The underlined sentence is wrongly translated that is why you assumed that "women" were addressed in the same verse as men. It should be do not marry off (your women) to males...(wa la tunki7hu al mushrikeen), in opposition to (wa la tanki7u almushrikaat)
Do you remember when I asked you where you got this "marry off" from?
The usage of "marry off" in Arabic is the opposite of the way it is used in English. The pattern of the verb "marry off" is different from the one which means "to marry" when in the imperfect (yanki7 form 1 to marry; yunki7 form 4to marry off); but the pattern does not change in the imperative (anki7hu, for both patterns). But since we understand the rules that determine when to use eithern pattern, we should understand that anki7u if follwed by female it means marry; if followed by male it means marry off.
I hope you revise all your understandings built on "marry off" and "marry".
-
Salam all
There are only two verses with the imperfect (yunkih) which are
2827 "I want to marry off one of my two daughters to you"; and
2221 "and do not marry off your women/daughters to the idolators"Since the two verbs "yunkih" and "yankah" have the same imperative "ankih/u", I believe that it should be understood as related to the verb "yankih to marry" unless there is a strong reason to understand otherwise, not just to accommodate a specific understanding.
In verse 2221, the usage of the verb is a necessity, since the verse is addressing a generic male audience (males and females). If it was (wa la tankihu almushrekeen), it would be that the only restriction (for the male audience) in marrying men is if they were idolators.
Verse 2827 should be our control verse only fathers (or specific guardians) may marry off their daughters. Such a command of (marry off) would not be given in an address to the general audience or to the community.
-
Nowhere does Allah say in al-qur'aan that a registrar, witnesses, and the people who attend the event ALL are requisites of a marriage. (tanveer)
I understand.
A marriage can take place only with witness/witnesses who also record the marriage contract.
So the "witnesses who also record the marriage contract" are actually registrars. The marriage contract will materialize only if they ratify it. Their consent is a must.
...only fathers (or specific guardians) may marry off their daughters. Such a command of (marry off) would not be given in an address to the general audience or to the community. (samia)
This means that witnesses/registrars practically have no say in the materialization of the marriage contract.
Are you sure that God leaves witnesses/regisrars out of the generic male audience, as you put it, and thus renders their consent nul and void, and that the only consent needed is the consent of fathers (or specific guardians)?
Peace,
Hasan Akcay -
Are you sure that God leaves witnesses/regisrars out of the generic male audience, as you put it, and thus renders their consent nul and void, and that the only consent needed is the consent of fathers (or specific guardians)?
Are you posing this question to me?
I do not see that's what I wrote. I am not talking about witnesses, who have nothing to do with the marriage itself except to "witness" it, and they are there irrespective of who are getting married. They testify the occurance of a wedding. I do not see that witnesses "marry off" anybody.Nor have I said that the consent is only that of the fathers. I said, and I rephrase, if a woman is to be "married off", it's only her father (or guardian) who would do that, and that such a command (of marrying off) won't be addressed to all the public. But since the address of all these verses with the imperative (ankihu) is to the generic male, this verb should be translated as (marry) and not (marry off).
Is it clearer, or is messed up more -
Or even that the question is not meant to be to me??? -
Peace samia.
I believe that polygamy is forbidden in God's religion and cite certain verses as proof like 2432. Tanveer disagrees because according to him the divine command which 2432 conveys does not cover the independent women since they have no parents or guardians to marry them off. And you support him, claiming that only farthers and guardians in certain cases can marry off the women dependent on them; independent women are left out of God's command to be married off.
To me this is playing with God's words by exaggerating the difference in meaning between marrying off a woman and registering her marriage contract. The ensuing argument is that polygamy is permitted although God says in 423 that polygamy is unacceptably unjust; it is torture.
I am disappointed.
Peace,
Hasan Akcay -
Another thing is if people want, they can easily object to dependent women's being married off too. Why won't parents and guardians wait till the women dependent on them grow up and become independent so that they can marry rather than be married off? Guardinas of orphans are required to do that according 46 anyway
And test the orphans (in your charge) until they reach a marriageable age; then, if you find them to be mature of mind, hand over to them their possessions...
So when God said, "Marry off the single from among you..." He really did not mean it. He said it for fun.
Peace,
Hasan Akcay -
Salaam Hasan
Tanveer disagrees because according to him the divine command which 2432 conveys does not cover the independent women ... And you support him, claiming that only farthers and guardians in certain cases can marry off the women dependent on them; independent women are left out of God's command to be married off.
No no no, I think you either miunderstood me or I did not express myself clearly. This is what I said
Since the two verbs "yunkih" and "yankah" have the same imperative "ankih/u", I believe that it should be understood as related to the verb "yankih to marry" unless there is a strong reason to understand otherwise, not just to accommodate a specific understanding.
To my understanding, this is the rule. But when I wrote
Verse 2827 should be our control verse only fathers (or specific guardians) may marry off their daughters. Such a command of (marry off) would not be given in an address to the general audience or to the community.
I should have said "our cotrol verse for the usage of "yunkih marry off".I referred to this verse only as one of only two verses using the verb (to marry off). I thought I made it clear that the verb marry off) is very strictly used and should not be used if the addressee is not the father/guardian. Since there is no verse addressing fathers or guardians, such verb is not applicable. Therefore, verse 2427 is not (marry off) but (marry).
I do not agree at all with Tanveer's definition of women either dependent or independent, nor with his opinion about polygamy. My approach is more linguistic by analysing first whom the verse is addressing. I believe that all verses are addressing both genders, and that's how I am trying to refute this concept of dependent/independent women (since the concept of dependent/independent male was not brought up)
-
Salaam Tanveer
The addressee in this verse is the generic male, not males and females, as you hint.. The underlined sentence is wrongly translated that is why you assumed that "women" were addressed in the same verse as men. It should be do not marry off (your women) to males...(wa la tunki7hu al mushrikeen), in opposition to (wa la tanki7u almushrikaat)
Do you remember when I asked you where you got this "marry off" from?
The usage of "marry off" in Arabic is the opposite of the way it is used in English. The pattern of the verb "marry off" is different from the one which means "to marry" when in the imperfect (yanki7 form 1 to marry; yunki7 form 4to marry off); but the pattern does not change in the imperative (anki7hu, for both patterns). But since we understand the rules that determine when to use eithern pattern, we should understand that anki7u if follwed by female it means marry; if followed by male it means marry off.
Really? How does this work?
I know it is a really old thread (It's also rather confusing for me since so many Arabic words are used), but could you please explain this? Is it a typical form of usage?
Secondly, in both cases, what does 'marry off' really mean in context. I assumed that it meant a public ceremony and a legal contract. Is it not?
I did read through all the posts on this thread, but it's fairly confusing.
Thirdly, I have to wonder, as to what happens in the cases when you are talking about a young girl orphan (17-19 years old, let's suppose), who can be considered to be 'dependent' in the sense that she can't work for herself, but she can support herself with her inheritance. Let's also suppose that she doesn't have a fixed legal guardian, does the question of 'dependent/ independent' come into play here? Does it even apply?
Or is this just not relevant? ???
-
I also have one more question, where in the verse 43, does it say "Mothers' of the orphans? I have been through the thread, but I have not seen a word by word breakdown of the Arabic. Could someone please provide it? Do you know of any good websites that have word by word translations?
The translation by Ahmed and Samira goes as follows
3 And if you feared that you not be just/equitable in the orphans , so marry what (was) allowed/permitted for you from the women two twos/twos, and threes, and fours, so if you feared that you not be just/equitable, so (marry) one or what your rights owned/possessed, that (is) nearer that you not side away from justice .
I don't see how the word women becomes mothers in the free-minds translation.
It seems to me that in the Arabic language, there is a word that means 'orphan' when the child is fatherless. what if the child has lost both parents, or is just motherless? Are there different words for that?
-
I also have one more question, where in the verse 43, does it say "Mothers' of the orphans? I have been through the thread, but I have not seen a word by word breakdown of the Arabic. Could someone please provide it? Do you know of any good websites that have word by word translations?
http//quran.uk.net/Corpus.aspx
-
Dear Sarah
Good questions. An orphan has to be a person without both mother and father. In the Quran the legal implications with regard to orphans is always connected to their property and the guardian. If the mother is living why should anyone worry about a guardian for the fartherless child. Is not the mother fit to be a guardian for the childs property that a third person needed to be appointed.
I believe 4127 is revealed to further explain 43. As you correctly said there is no "mother" anywhere. This has to be orphan girls even if some of us like it or not.
The Quran is giving men a precaution in the case of marrying an orphan girl since they are more vulnerable with regard to their property than a girl with a mother or father living.
This is my opinion...let me know what you think.
-
The Quran is giving men a precaution in the case of marrying an orphan girl since they are more vulnerable with regard to their property than a girl with a mother or father living.
This is my opinion...let me know what you think.
I put most of it on this thread.
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599421.0
My main question is. Are those men already married (i.e. allowing polygamy) or is the injunction 'twos, threes, and fours' applied to the guardians. Hence the men are single.
-
Can there be mother of the orphan if yatama means parentless ?
If marrying a yatama may imply marrying an underage girl doe not yatama- woman or woman-yatama i.e. a female orphan who has come to marriageable age convey the meaning which the verse tries to communicate ?
Why do you think it refers to guardians ?
It is two at the same time, three at the same time and four at the same time or meanings in these lines. If twos, threes and fours imply this then there is no problem.
-
Can there be mother of the orphan if yatama means parentless ?
If marrying a yatama may imply marrying an underage girl doe not yatama- woman or woman-yatama i.e. a female orphan who has come to marriageable age convey the meaning which the verse tries to communicate ?
Why do you think it refers to guardians ?
It is two at the same time, three at the same time and four at the same time or meanings in these lines. If twos, threes and fours imply this then there is no problem.
I am actually most interested in knowing if this verse supports polygamy at all.
The verse you quoted at the beginning of your thread (the other one) seems to imply polygamy before the revelation, and not after. Who are being addressed in it?
-
If I understood you right then the following categories in 423 starting from "Your mothers, daughters, sisters; father's sisters"....to......"wives of your sons proceeding from your loins;" also should be included for the same exception before the revelation.
I see 43 as allowing polygamy, can you explain why not ?