verse 4:3 and polygamy
-
Dear samia
In my opinion , warner's point of view is more likely , however your explanation also does have some merit.
There is a fair probability that the verses cover both the situations.OK , at this stage, i take your opinion, so please go ahead with explanation of 4-127.
If i take your opinion that this concession of polygamy is only for widows with children, again such women would become a precious commodity, how about if a widow does not have children , how big is a chance for her to be married?
what about if the child/children are left with some guardian/uncle , etc ? is she still eligible for marriage? wouldn't such a rule be open to abuse?
I still insist that Prophet Mohammad's situation should be an example, yes i agree he had different set of rules , he could not divorce his wives , because those women were declared as mothers of believers and hence no one else could marry them, a divorced wife of the prophet would not have gotten married and that would have been a great injustice. But allowing him/letting him to marry multiple women in later stage of his life when most of the Quran was already delivered, does not make sense.
Your argument regarding "what has preceded" is correct but remember such orders are always preceded by clear commandments of prohibition, and in this case there is none, infact there is no hint of such a thing in the whole Quran.
Sis i understand ! most of the women are very sensitive on the issue and almost all of them exaggerate/blow up a minor evidence against polygamy,(understandable). But what we are doing here is very sensitive, so we must remain totally unbiased and neutral in assessing all the evidences on merit alone.
warner.
Brother ! considering the "Replacement phrase" would it be safe to assume at this stage, that we can apply 4-3's suggestion/limit of 4 for all situations till the time we find the limit from some other verse?
peace
siki -
Peace
To translate ?masna_ wa sula_sa wa ruba_? in 43 as ?two, three and four? is wrong and ?twos, threes, and fours? is not proper English. This wrong translation as ?twos, threes, fours? confuses an already controversial verse. You will not find twos, threes, fours in most English dictionaries other than the slang dictionaries and the use might not express the correct meaning and may also convey a different meaning than intended.
We try to understand 43 in light of 351 since the verse uses ?matsna_ wa sula_tsa wa ruba? (Malaika with wings; twos and threes and fours). But the problem is 351 has given rise to disputes making it difficult to understand what the verse conveys.
The following verse 3446 uses ?matsna_?.
3446 Pickthall
Say I exhort/preach/warn you unto one thing only that ye awake/stand, for Allah's sake, by twos and singly, and then reflect There is no madness in your comrade. He is naught else than a warner unto you in face of a terrific doom.Qul in nama_ aizukum biwa_hidah an taqu_mu_ lil la_hi matsna_ wa fura_da_ sum ma tatafak karu_ ma_ bisha_hibikum min jin nah in huwa il la_ nasirul lakum baina yadai aza_bin sadid
I have left the ?twos? used by the translator (Pickthall) for ?matsna_? unchanged in the verse. When we read 3446 with ?twos? in the verse it gives some sort of meaning but not the exact meaning and it is not the kind of English that you will find in a legal document or that will help you to get through your English test. Remember ?twos? is slang and we owe it to the Quran to translate it with the best of our ability. Especially if we are going to use the translated word to shed light on the same word used in another verse.
Therefore, I guess the better translation for 3446 to bring out the best meaning for ?matsna_? will be. (I will only deal with the relevant part of the verse)
?..That you stand for Allahs sake, two (of you) together or one (of you)/individually?.
The parenthesis ?of you? in both places in the sentence will make the sentence to look better but not necessary since it is understood that ?of you? in brackets refers to the ?you? in the beginning of the sentence. In Arabic this maybe not necessary at all since we have the relevant words to convey this meaning.
Using the above I believe the best way to translate ?masna_ wa sula_sa wa ruba_? in 43 will be "two together, three together, four together".
This translation will give better meaning to 351 as well.
Appreciate your comments.
-
Peace all,
This is what I have been saying all along that "mathna wa thulatha wa ruba3a" means "two at a time, and three at a time, and four at a time" (reference Lane Lexicon). Lane does not use the words twos, threes, fours. Thus this phrase sets an upper limit of four at a time in 43, but does not set the upper limit of TOTAL wives.
Replacement of one wife by another does not mean there is a limit for polygyny. It just means divorcing one wife for the sake of replacing her and marrying another. 420 does not say "you should replace one wife with another", but says "IF YOU WISH to replace one wife with another". For argument sake lets take a hypothetical example in which one person has 10 wives and he wants to marry one more, then he can either divorce one and marry another in her place (replacement), or he can marry another without divorcing any which will make 11 wives. "IF YOU WISH to replace" does not mean one HAS TO replace.
3350 gives all the lawful categories of women for the Prophet and 3352 merely tells him that no women other than these categories are lawful for him, and also tells him not to divorce any of his wives just for the sake of marrying another in her place (replacement). It does not mean that he cannot marry any more after the revelation of this verse, otherwise what is the use of giving him general categories of women that are lawful to him in 3350 ? "Min ba3d" in 3352 is not referring to after this time but beyond the mentioned categories of women.
2432 is a general advice to marry off the single and the male and female servants, and not a prohibition of polygyny.
WE SHOULD BE CAREFUL AND NOT USE THE WORD POLYGAMY because that also includes "polyandry" which is forbidden by 424 (wa almuhsanatu MIN AL-NISAI), instead we should use the word "POLYGYNY".
If "akhta" can be used to mean "bint" that still does not make it "akhta fee aldeen". When a brother in the system is mentioned, The God clearly uses the words "fee aldeen" implying no blood tie whatsoever as TBA herself admits.
Even if "nikah" implies "sexual intercourse" in some verses, "sexual intercourse" is not lawful without marriage according to al-qur'aan, thus "nikah" in those verses indirectly also implies marriage; this is undisputable. NOWHERE does "nikah" imply a social contract of financial protection only, for which al-qur'aan uses the words "ma malakat aymanukum".
Lastly, I agree that the context of 41-12 is guardianship, and "marriage" to "yatama al-nisa" in 43 ASSURES PROPER PROTECTION OF THE ORPHANS, and thus "marriage" in 43 is not a break from the general context of guardianship.
-
Peace bro warner,
Also in which verse does Nikah implies sex?
You might want to ask bro brook ! I was just responding to his understanding.
-
My Dear Brother Tanveer
There is an un-written rule here we do not accept anyone?s opinions without verifying, including Mr. Asads. You were one of the biggest proponents of this.
Also when you define marriage can you try to look beyond the wedding day and the ceremony or the day the two people will sign in front of the registrar with witnesses.
You know none of this is mentioned in the Quraan.Marriage is a process and a relationship and can not be tied to a day. Some people are married for 50 years. Every day of those years over 18000 days they are married; every hour, minute and second. So why do we cloud our minds with only the day they enter in to this relationship when we translate nikah as marriage or marry?
Although sex is a major part of marriage/nikah that does not mean Nikah is ?sex? even though in Islam there is no sex without marriage (Except with Ma Malakt Aymanakum, currently let?s not go there)
In the verses Brook quoted Nikah does not mean sex either.
243 says after the punishment the person who committed zina can get married to another person who committed zina (and probably received punishment as well). The marriage between a believer and the spouse, who was convicted of zina, will be cancelled since a believer can not stay in a relationship with a zani.
And as for,
2460, Which comes first ?No hope of marriage? or ?No hope of Sex??
Have you met any lady who has no hope/beyond the prospect of marriage but has hope of /within the prospect of sex? Me neither, but anyway it was just an analogy.
-
Peace warner,
Did I ever say that I accepted brook's opinion ? You keep directing your comments to me when you should direct them to brook. He is the one who claims "nikah" can mean sexual intercourse, not me.
Although sex is a major part of marriage/nikah that does not mean Nikah is ?sex? even though in Islam there is no sex without marriage (Except with Ma Malakt Aymanakum, currently let?s not go there)
Nowhere is sexual intercourse allowed without marriage, even with "ma malakat aymanukum" per 424-25. There is no mention of sexual intercourse in 7029-30 and 235-6.
-
Tanveer Even if "nikah" implies "sexual intercourse" in some verses, "sexual intercourse" is not lawful without marriage according to al-qur'aan, thus "nikah" in those verses indirectly also implies marriage; this is undisputable.
Peace Tanveer
In reply to brook in your above post you are saying nikah in those verses indirectly also implies marriage; if Nikah indirectly implies marriage what does it directly imply?
It was not my mistake; you were accepting nikah implies sexual intercourse in the above post
-
Peace warner,
I was trying to use his reasoning against him to show that nikah does not imply only sexual intercourse. Looks like you have completely ignored the "even if" at the beginning of my statement which makes the premise following those words hypothetical. I just do not understand what you are trying to achieve by these kind of posts. It looks like you do not wish to accept that in my understanding nikah always means marriage, even though I have explicitly stated that in my earlier posts in reply to TBA. I do not wish to indulge any further in this issue. Thanks.
-
2-236 There is no sin upon you if you divorce the women before having sexual intercourse with them, or before committing to what was agreed for them. Let them have recompense, the rich according to his means, and the poor according to his means. Recompense which is in goodness, a responsibility for those in kindness
? ? ???
peace
siki
-
Peace Tanveer
Sorry Tanveer I did not mean to offend you and I do not want any animosity among us in the quest for truth. But I said lets not go there because we have just concluded another heavy round on MMA with many of the heavyweights involved and with no final determination. I will try not getting in to that again unless I have some thing new to offer.
According to your analysis what is ?guarding private parts?
-
-
Peace be with you
Thanks for your comments related to ?masna_ wa sula_sa wa ruba_? in 43 and ?masna_ wa fura_da_? in 3464 which I explained above.
Since I haven?t got any refutations on this; ?masna? meaning two together, ?sula_sa? meaning three together, ?ruba? meaning four together seems to be correct in the light of the verses compared.....Has anyone seen Samia recently ?
But still there is a problem with the connecting wa/and between ?masna_ , sula_sa , ruba (43) and between masna_ , fura_da_(3446). You can see in 43 I have omitted AND between the words and in 3446 used OR instead of AND which is not correct. How will the use of ?wa/and? change the meaning or the construction of the verse and also the connection with the rest of the sentence.
An interesting point with 3446 the first part of the verse says ?Warn you with ONE THING? so the proper translation should bring out ONE THING and not TWO THINGS in the second part of the verse otherwise it will create a contradiction between the second part of the verse with the first part.
I request Aymans kind attention on this.
-
Salaam warner
There is no mother of orphans in 4127 but as you explained ?orphans of women?. When orphan girls reach marriageable age I think we can call them ?orphans of women?.
I do not understand what you mean by "there is no mother of orphans". Is it because the word "mother" does not appear? Would you have been satisfied if it were "yatamaal ummahaat"? Well, this expression exists, but it means (an orphan who lost his mother"! Definitely that's not what we want.
And when an orphan girl reaches marriagebeable age, we do not call them "orphans".
-
Salaam Samia
Thanks for coming back.
Been making lot of effort with my pre school Arabic knowledge. Will you please read the posts and give your assessment on them.
What will be the correct term for ?mother of Orphans?
I think from the following 3 verses (I only quote the relevant part) we can deduce a person can be called orphan until attaining the age of marriage and more precisely as ?orphans of women? as used in 4127. I agree with you on the fact, that we can not call someone an ?orphan? after the marriage.
4 6
Yusuf Ali Make trial of orphans until they reach the age of marriage; if then ye find sound judgment in them release their property to them ??4 127
Yusuf Ali ??concerning the orphans of women to whom ye give not the portions prescribed and yet whom ye desire to marry???6 152
Yusuf Ali And come not nigh to the orphan's property except to improve it until he attain the age of full strength??.Peace
-
"mathna wa thulatha wa ruba3a" means "two at a time, and three at a time, and four at a time" (tanveer)
This also proves that polygamy is practically forbidden in God?s religion because no man is ever sexually fit to sleep with two or three or more brides at a time, whom he marries at a time.
So in 43 God can not be telling the man to marry but marry off the women two or three or four at a time if he finds his means financially fit, which is quite likely.
For argument sake lets take a hypothetical example in which one person has 10 wives and he wants to marry one more,
Fine.
then he can either divorce one and marry another in her place (replacement),
In the prophet?s time that must have been out of the question because the prophet himself was forbidden to marry another woman in place of any one of his wives (3352).
If the prophet had allowed his polygamous contemporaries to divorce one wife to marry another in her place, which God had forbidden His prophet to do and which the prophet strictly obeyed, Islam would have lost its credibility and would have failed.
Islam succeeded in the prophet?s lifetime, which is proof enough that the prophet and his followers were unified; and that the prophet did not go one way and his followers another.
or he can marry another without divorcing any which will make 11 wives.
No way again due to the same reasons I tried to explain above.
It does not mean that he cannot marry any more after the revelation of this verse, otherwise what is the use of giving him general categories of women that are lawful to him in 3350?
The four categories of women cited in 3350 as lawful to the prophet were his wives already, as is made clear in the very beginning of the verse "O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives (aswaajakah)."
The verse is a statement of the fact that the prophet was polygamous, and his wives were all lawful to him because he had married them before the revelation of 3352, which said "No other women shall be lawful to thee min ba3d..."
"Min ba3d" in 3352 is not referring to after this time but beyond the mentioned categories of women.
Beyond the mentioned categories of women is the same as after this time because no women beyond the mentioned categories, that is his present wives, shall the prophet marry after this time. It never gave the prophet permission to marry other women than his present wives in the future; it meant that his present wives were lawful to him although polygamy was forbidden after this time.
I will try to continue, God willing.
Peace,
Hasan Akcay