A refutation to Bro Yaseen - Polygamy is allowed in 4 23
-
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 ?
-
I think it might be easier for me to explain if you can tell me what part of 43 implies that the men the orphan women are married off are already married themselves
We probably see this verse in totally different ways. The men does not have to be already married here ( and it does not seem to be a command only for men already married or unmarried but a general command to all men) and sets the upper limit for the number of wives a person can have at a given time.
And I don't see 43 talking about orphan women being married off.
I know there was much discussion on this but are you certain that fankihu means " marry off" ?
-
if it is setting an upper limit, then why does the word word translation mean 'twos AND threes AND fours'
instead of 'twos OR threes OR fours'?Secondly, like I discussed in the other thread, if there (probably) was an excess of men over women even after losses due to war, then how can polygamy come about? Unless some men are left single?
It seems that a lot of traditional muslims seem to believe that polygamy was common in Arabia since there were more women than men, due to losses in wars, but that seems unlikely.
as for fankihu, does it only mean 'marry', or can it mean 'marry off'?
One of Samia's post seems to suggest that it depends on context, and as to whether the person referred to is a man or a woman.
-
The men does not have to be already married here ( and it does not seem to be a command only for men already married or unmarried but a general command to all men)
Can it not be said that it's a general command to all men, and that, from Surah 24, the single should marry, hence, the general command only applies to SINGLE men?
(all capitalisation is for emphasis)