POLYGAMY NOT THERE IN QURAN?

sister

HI,

I was wondering if someone could help me out. I have been researching aidid safa's website - where he seems to be making some thought provoking points.I am ofcourse not familiar with the arabic language (besides being able to read the quran) - if someone could give me their thoughts on one of the topics posted on his site - I would really appreciate it. I'll post what he has written regarding polygamy here as well as provide the link.

Following is his post regarding POLYGAMY as well as the LINK"

http//www.aididsafar.com/polygamy.html

"Polygamy In The Quran?

In the Arab religion thinking, man is supreme over woman. He is king of the house, king of the jungle, and king on earth ultimately. How they derive to this is anybody's guess. A woman practically has no rights whatsoever to anything, and in fact not even any rights to her own well being.

A woman is nothing more than a servant, to serve man's lusts both, sexually and gastronomically. She is to perform everything at his behest, otherwise she's doomed on earth and the hereafter eternally. This, the Arabs say is the order of the God (at least their god), and marrying more than one up to four simultaneously, is reckoned coming from the Quran in chapter Annisaa (4) verse 3. Thus, polygamy symbolises the male supremacy, and in their delight (the males) they marvel in this way of life and truly believe that the God has favored them over the fairer sex.

Upon studying the relevant verses in the Quran, what is revealed (not surprisingly) is NOT about polygamy, but rather, a guidance pertaining to the care and administration of the orphans and their inheritance, especially focussing on the female orphans. As females have been mistreated along the twisted male chauvinistic belief, a chapter is dedicated to women to bring back the Order^The Arabic word 'addeen' has been mistranslated as religion by all translators. Its real meaning is the Order (of things) (Deen). The corrected translation of the verses are as follows

1. O people, observe your Lord who created a person. And another he created of his spouse and He expands from both, more males and females. And observe the God who you constantly request to for the family. Indeed, the God, He cares for you.
1. And hand over the orphans their inheritance, and you shall not exchange the bad for the good, and you shall not deposit their assets into your assets, for indeed that will be a great injustice.
1. And if you fear that you are unable to mete out justness amongst the orphans, therefore mary them off from you. Of the females pairing in two, and in three, and in four. Hence if you fear about fairness, thus once and for all, your decision. That is to ensure you avoiding any misappropriation.
1. And hand over the females their inheritance sincerely. Hence, if they are kind towards you, a personal portion from it, thus except it graciously.
1. And you shall not hand to the immatured the inheritance, which the God entrusted you with. Spend it on them from it, and clothed them, and communicate with them properly. ..

What we see in the above corrected translation, is another corruption done to yet another subject in the Quran that have been mistranslated for their (the conspirators) own gains in producing false religious doctrines. Is there any line describing, or supporting polygamy anywhere there?

Its pertinent to note that all the subjects in the Quran address the people, both man and woman. When a particular subject begins with "Ya aiyuhan nas" (O people) as in the beginning of this chapter, the following "you's" in the chapter in context with the given subject are addressing the plural third-party 'all people - men and women'. So if they insist that this is a subject on polygamy, then it applies to both man and woman, i.e. polygamy is open to all. Now, how would the men like that?

Subjugation is the name of the game. Religion is one of two effective methods (the other is political) to enslave the people by putting fear in the hearts and minds of the people and applying God as the thrump card.

Moses was sent to deliver the Israelites^The Arabic word 'Israel' means people who are in captivity, or bondage. from the Pharoah^The Pharoah was a High Priest, and he was one of the most prolific pioneers of religion. who held them in religious bondage, and in fact the Pharoah even proclaimed himself god to the people. Jesus was sent to the Israelites for the same purpose to free them from the same religious bondage they were in. What is clear is that the people are either addicted to religious bondage, or they have actually learned to like religion and turned away each time a messenger comes to them.

The Quran's main purpose is to do exactly that, as it acts as the Criterion to discern the truth from false, but the conspirators soon suppressed the truth within by twisting every word contained therein in all available translations. In this case, the Quran specifically in chapter Annisaa, frees woman from her male bondage, which is being perpetuated in their sickened religious teachings. This essay will not delve into linguistic rules, and or semantics, but suffice to expose the conspiratorial nature of mistranslations, which perhaps would invoke the interest and desire in people to find out the truth when they find anything that seems amissed, and to verify everything they hear, or read for themselves...yes, only for oneself.
Polygamy

Men will be men, so they say. Its nothing unusual for a man to be chasing women, as in fact its a natural animalistic instinct for them to do so, and I think women find that rather amusing. However, no person (man or woman) likes the idea of sharing a beloved one with another, because it is totally unnatural and unacceptable to our basic instincts. To the Romeos, Valentinos, and playboys of the earth, conduct yourselves properly and gentlemanly, and above all...maintain responsibility.
Polygamy

However socially unacceptable the idea of polygamy is, its perpetration is rampant and is being practised everywhere and all over the world by every race through the ages, and its simply a social disorder which needs to be corrected through thorough proper education.

Equality between man and woman is a missing feature in every religion, and in the game of subjugation, females (constitutes about half the numbers in a given society) who are easy preys are unawaringly and automatically subjugated, and made the game pretty much easier for the conspirators.

All said, women themselves should buck up and stand up for their rights. Those who find themselves entrapped in this predicament, have only themselves to blame. The maxim "It takes two to tango" is very apt, and for many of them they walked through it with their eyes open, and only when it falls apart that they see the light, which by then is often too late.

Polygamy is a dirty word. It should not be condoned in any way. It is a violation of the natural social order and it does more harm than good to be of any good to society. One should not be swayed by justifications by people who promote it. It's fine to do anything one finds fanciful, and then finds another who agrees to participate, and then one be responsible for it. One does not need justifications, it could be out of lust, fun, or whatever as long as it is one's choice. But its not acceptable when one impose it on others, especially on religious grounds, when its not.

What the Arab religion advocates is totally reprihensible, and to say it is done in the name of God... is evil indeed."

THANKS

brook

My two cents

And if you fear that you are unable to mete out justness amongst the orphans, therefore mary them off from you. Of the females pairing in two, and in three, and in four. Hence if you fear about fairness, thus once and for all, your decision. That is to ensure you avoiding any misappropriation.

Aidid Safa is right in general terms. However he also misinterprets some expressions like vaahedatan (once for all), ma malakat aymaan ukum (your decision), and taooloo (misappropriation) in 43.

VAAHEDATAN means one. Hence if you fear about fairness, one. That is, marry off only one woman. The reason why you must fear about fairness is understood from the word TAOOLOO in the en of the verse.

MA MALAKAT BAYMAAN UKUM means those whom your oaths have. In this verse they are women under your protection. The difference between the orphan women ant the ones whom your oaths have is that the former have possessions (amwaal) but the latter do not. So the translation goes like this now

if you fear about fairness, marry off only one or the ones whom your oaths have or...

TAOOLOO is a derivative of ailan (93eight) which means poor; so TAOOLOO means poverty. So the translation ends with reference to likelihood of poverty if you marry off several orphan women of yours because you have to hand over their possessions at once. You can avoid it by marrying off the poor women under your protection who do not have possessions; therefore, in whose case you will not have to hand over any possessions.

And if you fear that you are unable to mete out justness amongst the orphans, mary them off in two, and in three, and in four. But if you fear about fairness again, marry off only one or those whom your oaths haven. That is to ensure you avoiding any poverty.

Peace,
Hasan Akcay

ILisa

o

Wow! I haven't delved too much into this topic. But this is so 'right'! I could never 'swallow' the idea of polygamy, no matter how they tried to justify it. It's just so against human nature and I was puzzled at the prospect of how God could allow such a thing. Now, I see why....He didn't!!!

yay

peace4life

Salam,

Most of us here know that the verse does not say men can have 4 wives - just plainly like that!

I didn't understand the translation given above. Could you please provide it as a practical example?

what I do understand is this http//submission.org/women/care.html

Realistically, what I understand is that there are times when men are killed off in wars and there are many orphans and women left without care or money. (E.g. it's happening now in Iraq). They might rightfully be part of your household (Ma malakat aymanukum), and may even work for you as servants. They don't have to be orphans , they can be potentially neglected women, homeless women, or women who ran away from disbelieving husbands during war.

Marrying such women (with the permission of the first wife) would allow them to have a home, be looked after, be comfortable in their home and have sexual rights. Thus protecting society from such problems as brothels, prostitution etc. (such as what's happening in some African countries where women have no means of being looked after).

The verse is however clearly about orphans and NOT about women. I hope we can develop a good discussion out of all the issues involved and get a better understanding of this verse and how it works in society.

does the verse refer to orphans and then the second part talks about marrying women (as in .. their mothers)? Or is the verse about female orphans? what about other homeless women, widows and women who run away from disbelieving husbands?

Put it in a practical sense, how does this verse work for socitey??? and countries like Iraq , African countries? We are not discussing male domination/fantasier or female jealousy/possession of own husband... we need to be objective and see Allah's mercy in the verse.

Salam

huruf

I am not very taken by the principle of polygamy, or polygyny to be exact, not being natural. I think everything is natural, even murder. The question is whether it is moraly right, advisable on any ground. Also poliandry is natural and legal, just look at prostitution and how in fact it is socially so well established. Again the question is whether it is good for persons, society and spiritual life. If the number of males in a society, or even if the number of "available" or "capable" men in a society is much smaller than the number of women, to impose monoginy may in fact cause more problems than those it solves. Historically also, even in christian countries poliginy may not have been sanctified by church ceremony but has been recognized. It was in the 18th 19th centuries when it became a stigma for women to be non married mothers, an age when society became disgustingly hypocritical. Previous to that, those unmarried relations were in fact respectable, the fathers being public, the relationship bieng public and respected and the ladies also respected. At any rate and from any point of view, if society cannot come up with a better arrangement, I would say responsible polygamy with emancipated women and duly drawn contracts setting clearly the terms will always be preferable to hypocritical monogamy with prostitution, fatherless children and reneged and excluded women and sordid affairs.

That said and coming to the orphans aya, as far as I can judge, to start with it comes down to the correct gramatical reading and I would kindly ask those who are knowledgeable in any degree in the language to come up with may be a piecemeal gramatical analysis of the aya. And sorry to be such a beggar, but to do this is really charity at its best and I for one would be thankful.

For instance

in

fa-nkihw ,, I take it the verb is an imperative, but is it of verb form I or IV, that is, na-ka-ha or an-ka-ha?

What kind of word gramatically is mathnaa?

From the whole set of ayas my first impression is that it is indeed ONLY about orphans all right, but a thorough analysis would help some of us to gain more clarity and peace of mind.

Salaam and thank you.

peace4life

From another perspective we can also consider having more than one wife as a burden on men. I.e. if society has too many orphans/widows they are obligated by society to do the right thing and marry them in order to provide them with shelter, financial support or to be a father figure to their children. So the men may do this for God's sake even though they do not wish to. Just like people offer prayers and charity even if they don't wish to.

I hope we can understand this verse more and more.

brook

I hope we can develop a good discussion out of all the issues involved and get a better understanding of this verse and how it works in society. (peace4life)

I hope so too. In this forum probably I am the only participant definitely convinced that polygamy is forbidden in Islam. I must constantly keep this in mind and do my best to avoid disturbing the other participants who fully or partly support it.

Realistically, what I understand is that there are times when men are killed off in wars and there are many orphans and women left without care or money.

It may happen the other way around too, like in Halabja, Iraq, whose female inhabitants were massacred while their male relatives remained alive because they were away on the regular war front.

Does that justify polyandry; that is, one woman with several husbands? Manmade excuses of this sort have no weight in God's religion, whose sole lawmaker is God.

does the verse refer to orphans and then the second part talks about marrying women (as in .. their mothers)?

No. Because there are other verses which definitely prohibit polygamy namely 423, 420, 2432, and 3352. If polygamy were allowed in 43, it would contradict the verses which prohibit it. Remember, contradiction is against the very nature of the Quran. An-Nisaa 82 Will they not, then , try to understand this Quran? Had it issued from any but God, they would surely have found in it many an inner contradiction! (Muhammad Asad)

Consider the fathers of motherless children of Halabja too instead of only their mothers. May I repeat for emphasis Manmade excuses of this sort have no weight in God's religion, whose sole lawmaker is God.

Peace,
Hasan Akcay

brook

I would kindly ask those who are knowledgeable in any degree in the language to come up with may be a piecemeal gramatical analysis of the aya. (huruf)

Although I do not know Arabic, let alone its grammar, I understand the Arabic Quran without having to resort to its translations; plus, I studied the question of polygamy from the Quran's perspective and discussed it with quite a lot of people in the forums. I wonder whether I can be of any help?

fa-nkihw ,, I take it the verb is an imperative, but is it of verb form I or IV, that is, na-ka-ha or an-ka-ha?

Whether it is na-ka-ha or an-ka-ha does not make an actual difference in the imperative form because the initial alif is dropped from the imperative inkihu; so it is fankihu in the verse. What counts here is the fact that in the mushaf without diacritical marks the verb is the same NKH both in 2432 and 43. So it was human choice to write it as enkihu in 2432 and as inkihu in 43. It is clear that those who made the choices made a terrible mistake.

What kind of word gramatically is mathnaa?

It is not a counting number. It is a number which means two by two. You use it when sharing things; so you understand that the person who is entitled to a share of, say, two or three or four wives is to marry them all at one and the same time.

my first impression is that it is indeed ONLY about orphans all right

Please don't! Human impressions don't make the rule in God's religion. God is the sole lawmaker in Islam (4221).

Peace,
Hasan Akcay

huruf

Don't worry Brook, I have impressions, which is a good thing but, as you see, I try to get to the bottom of it.

As to the impression in this case, it stands to reason. The ayas are about orphans and if we are to interpret it the traditional way, we get out of the blue an injunction to marry several women, and then it gets again right down to orphans without any enlightment as to what the poligyny thing is doing there. That should push us to investigate at least. I have no reason to think that God revealer is like some boss who tries to drive his subordinates crazy, bur rather one Who commands them to think and reflect. So an impression must be followed to see wherefrom it springs, I think.

Samia

Salaam hasan, huruf and all

Whether it is na-ka-ha or an-ka-ha does not make an actual difference in the imperative form because the initial alif is dropped from the imperative inkihu; so it is fankihu in the verse. What counts here is the fact that in the mushaf without diacritical marks the verb is the same NKH both in 2432 and 43. So it was human choice to write it as enkihu in 2432 and as inkihu in 43. It is clear that those who made the choices made a terrible mistake.

I, too, don't stick to diacritical marks too much. Huruf's question is, as I understand, the reason why you chose "marry off", which is "ankaha". Arabic is different from English in using "marry off". It is set as "marry to a man ", but never "marry off a female". This is clear in verse 2221, where we have the verb in both forms la tankihu almushrikaat don't marry the idolater (females), and la tunkihu almushrikeen don't marry (your women) to the idolators (males). So we can comfortably say that unkih followed by a female ismarry; followed by a male marry to.

Accordingly, this verse is ankihu "marry" and not "marry off".

TAOOLOO is a derivative of ailan (93eight) which means poor

Why did you decide that "3aa'ilan" means poor? Refering to 938, an attribute of God (al- ghani) is not (the rich), but who is in need of nothing. Aghnaa does not mean make you rich, but make you in no need of anything. In fact, ya3ool is derived from 3awl (Ain Wau Laam) originally means to tilt, and used basically for the balance. The verse starts by (if you fear not to be fair to orphans); the logical understanding would be marry their mothers, provided that you don't tilt the balance (a further emphasis on justice and fairness).

It is not a counting number. It is a number which means two by two.

It also means two at a time. It means you can have two wives at a time, three at a time or four at a time.

Realistically, what I understand is that there are times when men are killed off in wars and there are many orphans and women left without care or money.

It may happen the other way around too, like in Halabja, Iraq, whose female inhabitants were massacred while their male relatives remained alive because they were away on the regular war front.

This means people don't understand why men only can marry widowed women with children, but not the other way round. It is not about men and women. It's about children. If a woman supports a widower and his children, socially this will not harm his reputation (and consequently the kid's,). But if a man supports a woman and her kids, there is more possibility that her reputation will be harmed, and that's unfair to the kids.

huruf

This may be beside the point, but I still will mention it. Demographically the reproduction rate may not necessarily be limited by the number of males,
but it is necessarily limited by the number of females. Demographers know all these things very well. The number of children is necessarily conditioned by the number of females in reproductive age, but not necessarily by the number of males. So in global terms to look for the welfare of women is a way of looking for the welfare of children. This in demographical terms. At individual level it would of course be individual. Coming to the quranic aya, even if the child is not affected directly, if you give comfort and standing to the mother, she will be in better condictions and even mood or disposition to bring up her children satisfactorily, apart of course from the benefit of having a surrogate father in lieu of none, for whatever he is able to contribute. Hereby the injuction to be fairness and justice which is itself the main point of the whole set of ayas and which under no circumstance must be forgotten.

Salaam

peace4life

I say that if financially stable men married 2,3, or 4 of the orphaned, homeless and widdowed women from Africa, Iraq etc. we would have solved half the world's problems. bravo

and don't forget all the women working in unlawful places and doing indecent jobs (even hollywood actresses) . Pick them all up and marry them and put them away from corrupting the earth more and more.

hehehe .. I don't know where I come up with such ideas sometimes

huruf

I appreciate your optimism and amire your good spirit, peace4life, but in fact there is some trade in brides from poorer to rich countries, but it is the nicest and single (virginity presumed) that are contracted, not the most in need. Also, I am sure you didn't mean it, but I say it anyway (one must do something to earn the reputation of being brainwashed by feminism bla, bla, bla...) it is where you say

Pick them all up and marry them and put them away from corrupting the earth more and more.

hehehe .. I don't know where I come up with such ideas sometimes

I think that indeed corruption picked them up while other were corrupting the earth more and more. And careful, I was not thinking specifically of men but of "businessmen" ooops I mean "businespeople".

Well it is really not funny and it is also beyond what the usual need or aspirations of decent people in distress. This in in fact thick fasad. May God have mercy.

Salaam

ImamQuranonly

As Salaamu Alaikum all,

POLYGYNY IS CLEARLY IN AL QURAN, WHILE "POLYGAMY" DOES NOT EXIST. Since someone started a new thread about it, I will just post the link of where I already refuted the article on Free-minds that promote that it doesn't exist in Al Quran; with similar if not the same arguments used by the author quoted here. I welcome any Quranic discussion, reason and logic to refute my points of view that can be read in the 5th post on the following page

http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=15900.0

If all you have to offer is how you internally knew all your life that polygyny is "wrong"; then don't bother to tell us. We already know that most women feel that way; and some men too. But if you have some Quranic points to refute what I have written to refute the arguments made by those who say that POLYGYNY doesn't exist in Al Quran, then please post them here or in the other thread.

As Salaamu Alaikum, peace

brook

Before responding to Samia's post, I have some questions to be answered about YATAAMAN NISAA in An-Nisaa 127 and the word BAIN in An-Nisaa 129.

First, a translation of An-Nisaa 127 (based on Muhammad Asad) with the transliteration

And they will ask thee concerning women.
Wa yastaftuunaka fi?n nisaa.

Say "God enlightens you about them (Qul ellahu yufteekum feehenna)

?for in what is being conveyed to you through this divine writ about orphan women (wa maa yutlaa alaikum fi?l kitaabe fee yataama?n nisaa)

to whom you do not give that which has been ordained for them (allaate laa tu?tuun ahunna maa kuteba lahunna)

because you yourselves may be desirous of marrying them
wa targabuuna an tankeh uuhunna-

and about the helpless children
(wa?l mustad?afeena mina?l vildaan)

and about your duty to treat orphans with equity
(wa an taquumuu li?l yataama bi?l kist)

Now the Progressive translation

"They consult you concerning women say, "GOD enlightens you regarding them, as recited for you in the scripture. The mothers of ORPHANS* that you wish to marry but do not give them their due dowries, you shall be just. The rights of young boys must also be protected. You shall treat the orphans equitably..."

According to Asad, YATAAMAN NISAA are orphan women; according to the Progressive, they are the mothers of ORPHANS. Which is correct?

According to Muhammad Asad, you are warned against marrying the orphan women under your care; according to the Progressive, you are warned against marrying their mothers. Which is rtight?

The Progressive translation of An-Nisaa 129

"You can NEVER be equitable in dealing with more than one wife, no matter how hard you try. Therefore, do not be so biased as to leave one of them hanging. If you correct this situation and maintain righteousness, GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful." (4/129)

You can NEVER be equitable in dealing with more than one wife...
Wa lan yastatee'uu an ta'deluu bain an-nisaa.

(1)Does BAIN mean in dealing with? May there be expressions in which BAIN means CONCERNING rather than BETWEEN or AMONG?

(2)Is God addressing only polygamous husbands in 4129? If He is addressing all husbands, including monogamous ones, which wives of his is a monogamous husband supposed to treat equitably?

Peace,
Hasan Akcay

Samia

According to Asad, YATAAMAN NISAA are orphan women; according to the Progressive, they are the mothers of ORPHANS. Which is correct?

The rule of the arabic sentence construction (whether classical or colloquial) is that the adjective should conform to the gender of the noun it describes. Yataama is a masculine plural, therefore the construction cannot be that of noun-adjective. We are left with the only other relation between the two nouns possessiveness (X of Y) orphans of women.

And they will ask thee concerning women.
Wa yastaftuunaka fi?n nisaa.

Say "God enlightens you about them (Qul ellahu yufteekum feehenna)

?for in what is being conveyed to you through this divine writ about orphan women (wa maa yutlaa alaikum fi?l kitaabe fee yataama?n nisaa)

to whom you do not give that which has been ordained for them (allaate laa tu?tuun ahunna maa kuteba lahunna)

because you yourselves may be desirous of marrying them
wa targabuuna an tankeh uuhunna-

and about the helpless children
(wa?l mustad?afeena mina?l vildaan)

and about your duty to treat orphans with equity
(wa an taquumuu li?l yataama bi?l kist)

It's good that you put the translation in this way
"nisaa'" are

orphans of mothers whose mothers you want to marry
helpless children
orphans in general

Since these categories are NOT women, we should look into the other meaning of women the left behind; the vulnerable. In fact, the whole chapter is about different categories of these people. It is the chapter on "The vulnerable" not "Women".

You can NEVER be equitable in dealing with more than one wife...
Wa lan yastatee'uu an ta'deluu bain an-nisaa.

(1)Does BAIN mean in dealing with? May there be expressions in which BAIN means CONCERNING rather than BETWEEN or AMONG?

"ya3del bain" means to equate something to another, the meaning extends to equate their rights, to be just. You can choose the direct meaning (equate between) or the derived meaning.

I do not take "nisaa'" here to mean wives. It means wives when it is in the construction of "wives of" or "imra'atu of...", otherwise it means just women/vulnerable/left behind or woman.

If I take it to mean women I will understand it as "you cannot be fair to women (not wives)". (I understand from the qur'aan that one has to be fair to everyone, not just women).
If I take it to mean the vulnerable I will understand it as "You cannot equate them to each other. Each one is a case of its own and its treatment is different" (which I am inclined more to adopt, since the chapter is about them)..

The address is to ALL people, males and females alike. It has nothing to do with husbands, whether poly or monogamous.

brook

So you don't believe that in 43 God first expresses His opposition to polygamy, then next He softens it in 4129, as is claimed by the Progressive commentators, in order to console the poor poor polygamous men who are too sorry to treat their wives unjustly? So you don't believe that 4129 is related to 43 for that purpose?

Peace
Hasan Akcay

Samia

So you don't believe that in 43 God first expresses His opposition to polygamy, then next He softens it in 4129, as is claimed by the Progressive commentators, in order to console the poor poor polygamous men who are too sorry to treat their wives unjustly? So you don't believe that 4129 is related to 43 for that purpose?

Peace
Hasan Akcay

Hehehehe
No. I do not see that 4129 is addressing polygamous men or even men in general. Polygamy is not about the welfare of men or women. It's about putting the interest of orphans first, to the extent of giving a very special exception in the form of allowing polygamy for that purpose.

Moreover, we are orderd to be just to everyone.

ImamQuranonly

As salaamu Alaikum,