POLYGAMY NOT THERE IN QURAN?
-
The ones in 424 are actually the refugees mentioned in 6010. The believers must first put them to test in order to make sure that they mean no harm to the believers by emigrating from the land of kufr. If they prove to be sincere and honest, the Muslim government grants them protection, which, in a way, gives them the status of those whom the government's oath possesses. After that it is halal for the believers to marry them because their earlier married status is null now. They are practically ayaama now like the single in 2432.
Peace,
Hasan Akcay -
Hassan, salam!
;D My brain is still dizzy hypno and o fuzzzzzzy.... , when it attempted to process sense out of your polygyne posts.
Now, Ma Malakat Amnakum ? pleaeaeaease,,,,,,,,,,, nope No,,, elektro
) Brother! How about taking some holidays in Hawai , eat or may be Bali?
I am certain,,,,, quite a few of us here, group would be willing to finnace that.
If you like to,,,, Sir ?? hail
siki
-
As Salaamu Alaikum
Me and my husband have read many posts wich violate forum rules with no action taken.
Salaam Farida
How do you know that no action was taken? Just because not everyone post their warning on a thread does not necessarily mean they did not get one. You of all should know better. I would also appreciate if your reactions to warnings for violation of rule 3 be consitent.
Back to the thread.
I would not be able to quote. There have been too many posts in the last day or two while I was not being active. The point that stuck to my memory was the usage of the verb "yankah" As I mentioned before, Arabic does not have this verb "marry off", but "marry to". In the qur'aan, a female is made to marry the male by the usage of the verb yunkih the male is the first object and the female is the second object. The problem arises when the verb is used in the imperative "ankih". There will be no difference between "yankah" and "yunkih". They will both be "ankih". So, as a rule, when the first direct object is male, it will be "marry to the male", and if the first object is female, the verb will be just "marry". (I know this will be confusing, but please remember that I am trying to explain a completely different grammar in English, so do not expect mirrored expressions)
28 27 I want to marry one of my two daughters to you (un unkihaka ihdaa ibnatayya), where the "ka" is the suffixed pronoun, first direct object , referring to Moses.
243 "and the adulteress no one marries her except an adulterer (...laa yankihuha marry her)", here it does not say laa tankihu, because a female does not "tankih".We can safely say that, when the verb is followed by masculine or mixed gender, this will be "marry to", and if it is followed by a feminine it will be "marry".
2432 ayaamaa and saaliheen are not feminine. They are either masculine or mixed gender. Therefore, it is either marry to the single and righteous men, or marry and marry to the single and righteous people.I have not touched any verb where the vocalization decides its nature.
-
....
We can safely say that, when the verb is followed by masculine or mixed gender, this will be "marry to", and if it is followed by a feminine it will be "marry".
2432 ayaamaa and saaliheen are not feminine. They are either masculine or mixed gender. Therefore, it is either marry to the single and righteous men, or marry and marry to the single and righteous people.I have not touched any verb where the vocalization decides its nature.
Sis. Samia,
Thanks for clarifying that issue. That is the understanding that I was getting from 2432. "Marry", not "Marry off".
Peace
-
Salaam Farida
How do you know that no action was taken? Just because not everyone post their warning on a thread does not necessarily mean they did not get one. You of all should know better. I would also appreciate if your reactions to warnings for violation of rule 3 be consitent.
Salaam Samia
Of course we are not aware of those who do not disclose their warning, however our reaction was simply to register our concern and if you notice I did say Brother IQO you are allowed to react but as Allah (swt) says its better if you forgive
Best regards
farida -
Salaam Samia.
I don?t understand the Arabic grammar concerning the forms of NKH in 43 and 2432, but that does not matter I acknowledge the rules you explain.
However, I believe that fainkihoo in fankihoo ma taaba lekum mine?n nisaa in 43 must mean "marry the nisaa to other men" rather than "marry the nisaa yourselves" so that we will not have to put up with the contradictions which polygyny pours into God's Book.
So I need to make sure whether the following explication by yaseen is correct. Please comment
Although the verbs Nakaha and Ankaha have different conjugations (imperative and other forms) when the verb is taken on its own, when linked to a conjunction such as fa (then) as in 43, the expression ?fainkihoo? (This is the plural form) could either mean then marry off (to? HA) or Then marry. The context will determine the intended meaning. The first form of the verb Nakaha (to marry) can be found in many verses 2221, 2230, 422, 243, 3349, 3353, 6010. The second form of the verb (to marry off) can be found in 2432 and 2827. Ahmed Ali translation reads (verse 2432)?
Salaam tanveer. You say
420 And if you wish to replace one wife instead of another, and you have given one of them a large amount, then do not take anything from it. Would you take it by falsehood while it is clearly a sin?
One can have multiple wives, and then replace one of those wives instead of another by divorcing that wife and marrying another. For example, one has 4 wives, and one divorces wife #4 and then marries another woman, and still has 4 wives at the same time. How does that contradict 420?
This is the contradiction
You claim that polygyny is halaal; which means even if you have multiple wives such as 4 or 3 or 2, you can still have an additional wife without having to divorce one of your present wives. However, God says you have to the prerequisite of exchanging wives (istibdaala zawjin makaana zawj) is making room for the additional wife by divorcing one of your present wives.
You say you don?t have to; but God says you have to. That is the contradiction.
Another point is that in 3352 God forbids Muhammed to replace his wives (an tabaddala bihinna) but in 420 He allows you to (istibdaala zawjin). If you have only one wife, no contradiction you first divorce your wife, become single, and then marry the new woman. However, if you have 4 or 3 or 2 wives as the Prophet did, God seems to be contradicting Himself by allowing you to do the very thing that He forbids Muhammed to do.
You know that God never contradicts Himself (482). It is humans like you and me who err and fall into contradictions.
Peace,
Hasan Akcay -
Hassan, salam!
;D My brain is still dizzy hypno and o fuzzzzzzy.... , when it attempted to process sense out of your polygyne posts.
Now, Ma Malakat Amnakum ? pleaeaeaease,,,,,,,,,,, nope No,,, elektro
) Brother! How about taking some holidays in Hawai , eat or may be Bali?
I am certain,,,,, quite a few of us here, group would be willing to finnace that.
If you like to,,,, Sir ?? hail
siki
Salaam siki. Instead of resorting to personal bickering like this, please explain your own views and prove the following explanation wrong, referring to the relevant verses from the Quran to support your arguments.
Ma malakat aymaan are sometimes males, sometimes females.
The ones in An-Noor 33 are males and if any of those whom your oaths posses desire to obtain a deed of freedom, write it out for them -wa?llazeena yabtaguuna?l ketaaba mim ma malakat aymman ukum fa kaateb uhum.
The pronoun UHUM grammatically stands for males but it covers females as well just like momenoon in "yaa ayyuha?l momenoon" (590, 629). MOMENOON means believing men but stands for believing women too.
The ones in 43 and 2425 are females to be married by their guardians to other men.
The ones in 2431 are male and female dependents of the believing women, who can marry them. On the other hand, although the ones in 3355 are dependents too, they can not be potential wives of their guardians because their guardians are the Prophet's wives.
The ones 235-6 and 7029-30 are the actual wives of the men whose oaths posses them (ma malakat aymaan uhum). And the ones in 3350 and 3352 are the Prophet?s actual wives. If you claim that they were not actually wives, you object to God's making them halaal (Inna ahlalna laka...ma malakat yameen uk) and accuse the Prophet of adultery.
Peace,
Hasan Akcay -
As salaamu alaikum forum,
420 And if you wish to replace one wife instead of another, and you have given one of them a large amount, then do not take anything from it. Would you take it by falsehood while it is clearly a sin?
Transliteration Wa-in aradtumu istibdala zawjin makana zawjin waataytum ihdahunna qintaran fala ta/khuthoo minhu shay-an ata/khuthoonahu buhtanan wa-ithman mubeenan
Literal And if you wanted exchanging (to exchange) a spouse (in) place (of a) spouse, and you (P) gave one of them (F) a ton , so do not take from it a thing, do you take it wrongfully/slanderfully, and an evident sin/crime?
Free-Minds And if you wish to replace one wife instead of another, and you have given one of them a large amount, then do not take anything from it. Would you take it by falsehood while it is clearly a sin?This is the contradiction
You claim that polygyny is halaal; which means even if you have multiple wives such as 4 or 3 or 2, you can still have an additional wife without having to divorce one of your present wives. However, God says you have to the prerequisite of exchanging wives (istibdaala zawjin makaana zawj) is making room for the additional wife by divorcing one of your present wives.
First, if one has 1, 2, 3, 4 or how ever many wives, if one "wish to replace one wife instead of another", the clarity says that you do this by divorcing one and marrying the other. The issue here is not about if you want to divorce one wife to marry another, but about NOT TAKING ANYTHING BACK FROM THE DIVORCED WIFE IN THE PROCESS. It is clear that one can exchange a wife for another if they feel that it is necessary to do so.
Second, "GAVE ONE OF THEM" suggests clearly that you must have MORE than one wife, or who are "THEM"? Also if a man has reached the maximun number of wives according to Al Quran, then he could not marry more unless he divorced one of his present wives.
Even the author of this errorneous post has said "by divorcing one of your present WIVES". rotfl I guess people expose their own falsehoods when trying to go against the words of Allah.
You say you don?t have to; but God says you have to. That is the contradiction.
I think one thought has definitely proved a contradiction, and it is the one of this poster quoted!
Another point is that in 3352 God forbids Muhammed to replace his wives (an tabaddala bihinna) but in 420 He allows you to (istibdaala zawjin). If you have only one wife, no contradiction you first divorce your wife, become single, and then marry the new woman. However, if you have 4 or 3 or 2 wives as the Prophet did, God seems to be contradicting Himself by allowing you to do the very thing that He forbids Muhammed to do.
There is no contradiction in Allah not allowing the Prophet to exchange the "Mothers of the Believers" for other women. Allah has specially blessed them by giving them this title and honor, so no other women are allowed to have this status just because they have married the Prophet.
That ayat is address directly to the Prophet, so it does not contradict what Allah has given as instruction to the rest of the believers, as is said here
3350
Transliteration Ya ayyuha alnnabiyyu inna ahlalna laka azwajaka allatee atayta ojoorahunna wama malakat yameenuka mimma afaa Allahu AAalayka wabanati AAammika wabanati AAammatika wabanati khalika wabanati khalatika allatee hajarna maAAaka waimraatan mu/minatan in wahabat nafsaha lilnnabiyyi in arada alnnabiyyu an yastankihaha khalisatan laka min dooni almu/mineena qad AAalimna ma faradna AAalayhim fee azwajihim wama malakat aymanuhum likayla yakoona AAalayka harajun wakana Allahu ghafooran raheeman
Literal You, you the prophet, that We, We permitted/allowed for you your wives/spouses those who you gave their rewards (dowries), and what your right (hand) owned/possessed from what God bestowed upon you, and your paternal uncles' daughters, and your paternal aunts' daughters, and your maternal uncles' daughters, and your maternal aunts' daughters, who (F) emigrated with you, and a believing woman if she presented herself to the prophet, if the prophet wanted that He marries her, clearly/purely for you from other than the believers, We had known what We had commanded/imposed/stipulated on them in their wives and what their right (hands) owned/possessed, so that strain/blame/sin not be on you, and God was/is forgiving, merciful.Again the poster does NOT understand Al Quran and continues to prove it, while refusing to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence against their errorneous conclusions.
You know that God never contradicts Himself (482). It is humans like you and me who err and fall into contradictions.
Peace,
Hasan AkcayClearly in this case, it is the poster, "ME", that is falling into error and contradictions!
As Salaamu Alaikum, peace
-
Salaam ImamQuranonly.
I appreciate the proper language you use in your posts now but would like it better if you did not misinterpret my words.
Even the author of this errorneous post has said "by divorcing one of your present WIVES". I guess people expose their own falsehoods when trying to go against the words of Allah.
"The author" is only referring to tanveer?s assumption that the man who is mentioned as you in 420 has "multy wives".
"The author" still holds to his conviction that polygyny is haraam. 43 is the only verse claimed to allow polygyny, but even in this forum we have not agreed on it yet. So Tanveer?s claim is nothing but an assumption, which does not guarantee the truth (1036).
It is clear that one can exchange a wife for another if they feel that it is necessary to do so.
Please cite the cases which necessitate it. Can they be necessary enough to ignore God?s warning in the very same verse that you remember a most solemn pledge the bride received from you.
Remember in Al-Ahzaab 7 God says He received the same kind of pledge from all the prophets, misaaqan galleeza. It is that solemn.
Does it look right to you that you can take another wife upon a woman who received that misaaqan galeeza from you on the day you married? What would God do if one of His prophets violated that misaaqan galeeza?
I will try to answer your other arguments later, God willing.
Peace,
Hasan Akcay -
Salaam all,
We can safely say that, when the verb is followed by masculine or mixed gender, this will be "marry to", and if it is followed by a feminine it will be "marry".
As is clear by this rule, in 4127 we hear about "marrying" the women (getting married to the women), and not "marrying them off"
4127 And they seek a ruling regarding the women, say "God will give you a ruling regarding them and what is being recited to you in the Scripture regarding the orphan's mothers whom you wish to marry (i.e. get married to), but have not given them what was decreed for them; as well as the weak from the children That you stand for the orphans in equality." Whatever good you do, then God is aware of it.
Hence 43 can only be about "marrying" the women (i.e. getting married to the women), and not "marrying them off", because 4127 directly refers to the women in 43 by "what is being recited to you in the Scripture regarding the orphan's mothers".
-
Salaam Samia.
I don?t understand the Arabic grammar concerning the forms of NKH in 43 and 2432, but that does not matter I acknowledge the rules you explain.
Salaam Hasan
Yes, the grammar does not solve it, but their usage in the qur'aanAlthough the verbs Nakaha and Ankaha have different conjugations (imperative and other forms) when the verb is taken on its own, when linked to a conjunction such as fa (then) as in 43, the expression ?fainkihoo? (This is the plural form) could either mean then marry off (to? HA) or Then marry. The context will determine the intended meaning. The first form of the verb Nakaha (to marry) can be found in many verses 2221, 2230, 422, 243, 3349, 3353, 6010. The second form of the verb (to marry off) can be found in 2432 and 2827. Ahmed Ali translation reads (verse 2432)?
Although the verbs Nakaha and Ankaha have different conjugations (imperative and other forms)
Actually in the imperative these verbs do not have a different form, and this is the problem here!
when linked to a conjunction such as fa (then)
Fa is not a conjugation. It's a particle/preposition. "fa" has nothing to do whatsoever with the conjugation. It's a prefixed particle that either means "then, as in a succession", or "then as in therefore. In this case it's called "the conditional fa". Depending on its meaning (according to the context) it may or may not have a GRAMMATICAL effect on the verb.
All this does not help in determining the meaning of "inkahuu/fankihuu". Nor would the context determine the meaning, except in very explicit context like Marry your dughter!
Frankly I do not understand this "marry off" as a command to be applied by the public. Yes, the language of the qur'aan does not show that a woman "marries" the man, but this is a linguistic issue, not a practical one as if women have no say. I mean in christian weddings, father of the bride, e.g., "gives off/marry off" his daughter. We have to take it as strictly as possible in individual context (just like the father of the bride marrying her off) and not in a public context (like the judge/community marrying off the women of the community).
-
Salaam Hasan
Yes, the grammar does not solve it, but their usage in the qur'aan
Actually in the imperative these verbs do not have a different form, and this is the problem here!Fa is not a conjugation. It's a particle/preposition. "fa" has nothing to do whatsoever with the conjugation. It's a prefixed particle that either means "then, as in a succession", or "then as in therefore. In this case it's called "the conditional fa". Depending on its meaning (according to the context) it may or may not have a GRAMMATICAL effect on the verb.
All this does not help in determining the meaning of "inkahuu/fankihuu". Nor would the context determine the meaning, except in very explicit context like Marry your dughter!
Frankly I do not understand this "marry off" as a command to be applied by the public. Yes, the language of the qur'aan does not show that a woman "marries" the man, but this is a linguistic issue, not a practical one as if women have no say. I mean in christian weddings, father of the bride, e.g., "gives off/marry off" his daughter. We have to take it as strictly as possible in individual context (just like the father of the bride marrying her off) and not in a public context (like the judge/community marrying off the women of the community).
My understanding of this aya 4.3 had been the traditional, but I hadn't considered carefully before seeing it discussed in this forum. However, when I read the succession of ayas from the yaayuhannas on, everything seems to flow smoothly with injuctions for the welfare of the "nisaa'" addressed to the collectivity. However the interpretation of 4.3 as abruptly addressing males to then carry on addressing the "ayuhannas" just as before and in the same tone, seems to me to be disonnant and interrupting the line it is following. On the other hand the fact that a collectivity could be enjoined to marry its pupils for the general welfare does make sense, so much if the pupils are interpreted as nisaa'-vulnerable or as nisaa'-women. Even, taken in that way, you could even particularize and understand that some males of the "ayuhannas" marry some nisaa' of the ayuhannas.
Salaam
-
Salaam all,
As is clear by this rule, in 4127 we hear about "marrying" the women (getting married to the women), and not "marrying them off"
4127 And they seek a ruling regarding the women, say "God will give you a ruling regarding them and what is being recited to you in the Scripture regarding the orphan's mothers whom you wish to marry (i.e. get married to), but have not given them what was decreed for them; as well as the weak from the children That you stand for the orphans in equality." Whatever good you do, then God is aware of it.
Hence 43 can only be about "marrying" the women (i.e. getting married to the women), and not "marrying them off", because 4127 directly refers to the women in 43 by "what is being recited to you in the Scripture regarding the orphan's mothers".
Salaam,
?How do you identify those mentioned in 4.127 with those in 4.3? Where in 4.3 or in its sequence to we find those
"whom you wish to marry (i.e. get married to), but have not given them what was decreed for them" ?How does that achieve the instruction which is
"That you stand for the orphans in equality"?
-
Salaam ImamQuranonly.
Salaam brook.
I appreciate the proper language you use in your posts now but would like it better if you did not misinterpret my words.
I have always used "proper language" in my posts, with a few grammatical mistakes here and there, that don't represented my knowledge of grammar, but rather are a result of posting and not taking enough time to proof read. Although that may not be what you are referring to, that is how I will take it because even things I say that you don't like are proper and necessary to me when dealing with certain types of minds.
Trust me, I didn't misunderstand or misinterpret your words, as I will prove below....
Even the author of this errorneous post has said "by divorcing one of your present WIVES". I guess people expose their own falsehoods when trying to go against the words of Allah.
"The author" is only referring to tanveer?s assumption that the man who is mentioned as you in 420 has "multy wives".
First, you are NOT referring to Tanveer's assumption there, but rather your own words in describing what YOU said to support your errorneous theories
This is the contradiction
You claim that polygyny is halaal; which means even if you have multiple wives such as 4 or 3 or 2, you can still have an additional wife without having to divorce one of your present wives. However, God says you have to the prerequisite of exchanging wives (istibdaala zawjin makaana zawj) is making room for the additional wife by divorcing one of your present wives.
Peace,
Hasan AkcayAs you can see, if you understand your own sentence, YOU used that phrase as part of your explanation as to what the prerequisite of exchanging wives is; i.e. "is making room for the additional wife by divorcing one of your present wives". When you start with "However", you are now stating your own conclusions and proofs, not Tanveer's.
Or don't you even understand what you said yourself?
"The author" still holds to his conviction that polygyny is haraam.
A claim that is evident that the author held before studying the issue from Al Quran because of what "the author" considers "an obvious wrong" done to women. So everyone can clearly see that you don't have open eyes when studying these ayaat, but that you have blinders on trying to prove what you consider to be a wrong. Maybe the problem for you is that if you have to accept that Allah allows polygyny in Al Quran, and even ENCOURAGES IT, that you may then lose some of your faith because Allah doesn't conform to your preconceived notions of what is right and wrong. hmm
43 is the only verse claimed to allow polygyny, but even in this forum we have not agreed on it yet. So Tanveer?s claim is nothing but an assumption, which does not guarantee the truth (1036).
43 is not the only verse claimed to allow polygyny. Haven't you see all the ayaat quoted here as further evidence? Or are you blinded to that fact as well? It's not Tanveer's claim. Tanveer, like myself is only pointing out the obvious truth which is Allah's FACT in Al Quran.
It is clear that one can exchange a wife for another if they feel that it is necessary to do so.
Please cite the cases which necessitate it. Can they be necessary enough to ignore God?s warning in the very same verse that you remember a most solemn pledge the bride received from you.
3352
Transliteration La yahillu laka alnnisao min baAAdu wala an tabaddala bihinna min azwajin walaw aAAjabaka husnuhunna illa ma malakat yameenuka wakana Allahu AAala kulli shay-in raqeeban
Literal The women are not permitted/allowed to you from after, and nor that you exchange/replace with them (F) from wives , and even if their goodness/beauty pleased/marveled you, except what your right (hand) owned/possessed, and God was/is on every thing observing/watching .Even though this is clearly addressed to the Prophet, it is clear that to Allah, men can exchange/replace women because of goodness/beauty; and Allah does not condemn this act in itself for ALL believers. What Allah condemns is
419
Transliteration Ya ayyuha allatheena amanoo la yahillu lakum an tarithoo alnnisaa karhan wala taAAduloohunna litathhaboo bibaAAdi ma ataytumoohunna illa an ya/teena bifahishatin mubayyinatin waAAashiroohunna bialmaAAroofi fa-in karihtumoohunna faAAasa an takrahoo shay-an wayajAAala Allahu feehi khayran katheeran
Literal You, you those who believed, (it) is not permitted/allowed for you that you (P) inherit the women compellingly/forcefully , and do not limit/confine/oppress them (F) to go/take away with some (of) what you gave them (F), except that they (F) come/do/commit with an enormous/atrocious deed evident, and mix/associate/befriend them (F) with the kindness , so if you (P) hated them (F), so maybe/perhaps that you hate a thing and God makes in it much good .and
420
Transliteration Wa-in aradtumu istibdala zawjin makana zawjin waataytum ihdahunna qintaran fala ta/khuthoo minhu shay-an ata/khuthoonahu buhtanan wa-ithman mubeenan
Literal And if you wanted exchanging (to exchange) a spouse (in) place (of a) spouse, and you (P) gave one of them (F) a ton , so do not take from it a thing, do you take it wrongfully/slanderfully, and an evident sin/crime?So while Allah acknowledges that one may divorce a wife to take another, what He says is FORBIDDEN is to take back some of their gifts that you gave them, not exchanging one for another for whatever reason, be it even only for BEAUTY/GOODNESS.
Remember in Al-Ahzaab 7 God says He received the same kind of pledge from all the prophets, misaaqan galleeza. It is that solemn.
If you understand how you are using a pledge here, what you are actually saying is that DIVORCE would then be haraam, not polygyny! o ???
Do you even understand what your assertions really mean?
Does it look right to you that you can take another wife upon a woman who received that misaaqan galeeza from you on the day you married? What would God do if one of His prophets violated that misaaqan galeeza?
Yes it does. Because Allah does allow divorce in Al Quran. He even states all the requirements and procedures for it according to His will, in Al Quran. What you can not do, is to take back some of what you gave the wife unlawfully, that is what Allah FORBIDS. While marrying can be ended by divorce, being a Prophet can not.
Are you accusing Allah of forbidding divorce now in Al Quran according to your understanding here? nope wow
Your use of "misaaqan galeeza" has NOTHING to do with POLYGYNY.
I will try to answer your other arguments later, God willing.
Peace,
Hasan AkcayPlease try harder, because I know that it takes lots of time to come up with arguments to combat the truth. But at least try harder if you want to argue against the truths of Allah in Al Quran. I understand that many truths have been presented that you can't reconcile with your current beliefs. So please continue to confer with your hidden advisor to whom I am sure that you go back and forth with to try to answer these questions. Tell them that they are smart to stay in the background and allow you to continue to bring forth their arguments; they want to maintain their credibility while they test out their errorneous arguments through you.
That being said, I wonder what type of twisting they will send you here with next to combat these obvious truths.
As Salaamu Alaikum, peace jedi
-
Salaam Huruf,
?How do you identify those mentioned in 4.127 with those in 4.3? Where in 4.3 or in its sequence to we find those
"whom you wish to marry (i.e. get married to), but have not given them what was decreed for them" ?How does that achieve the instruction which is
"That you stand for the orphans in equality"?
I think that 42-3 provide the explanation of 4127. In 4127, the word "tanki7oo" cannot mean marry-off, hence in 43, the word "fainki7oo" cannot mean "marry-off" either, but can only mean "marry" (i.e. get married to). The people in 4127 don't want to give the orphans of the widowed women what was written for them (i.e. their inheritance). An example of this would be a relative of the deceased who doesn't want to give the orphans their dues. In such a case, why would that relative of the deceased desire to or even have any say whatsoever in "marrying-off" the widow of his relative? On the contrary, it seems that he would desire to marry her in order to try to keep the money in the family and attempt to consume the orphan's inheritance (his original motivation in 4127).
"That you stand for the orphans in equality" is referring to 42, 45-6.
If you disagree that 4127 is referring to 43 (in addition to 42, 45-6), then can you please tell us what signs 4127 is referring to when it says "wama yutla 3alaykum fee alkitabi fee yataama alnnisaa-i allatee la tu/toonahunna ma kutiba lahunna watarghaboona an tanki7oohunna" ?
-
Salaam Tanveer,
In my first question I thought I had highlighted in colour the part that I particularly wanted to check, but now I realise that it wasn't highlighted. That for me was a preliminary to continue examining. So now I will highlight the part that to start with interested me.
"whom you wish to marry (i.e. get married to), but have not given them what was decreed for them"
As far as I can see "those you wish to marry but have not given them what was decreed for them" is the description of the persons it is referring to, but where are those you wish to marry but have not given them what was decreed for them in 4.3? At first sight I don't see in 4.3 or the following ayas any mention of persons to whom what was decreed for them was not given, unless the fear of not being just is considered as "not having given what was decreed". So that is not so clear to me. I would have to look to find a better fit if it exists.
Concerning my understanding of 4.3 for the moment it is as stated in message 191. In fact I think that so much 4.3 as 4.127 is always collective being also always expressed in the plural, when it is meaning females as when it means males (except when it speaks of the imra' who fears the nushuz of her husband). It is addressing a collectivity. In the series of 4.3 it is doing so directly (ayuhannas) and in 4.127 a collectivity is also addressed by the intermediary of the Prophet.
Salaam
-
First, you are NOT referring to Tanveer's assumption there, but rather your own words in describing what YOU said to support your errorneous theories?
Please ImamQuranonly! Allow me the right to know what I said. You can not know what I said better than I can! I did not mean it the way you think. But you can take it as a failure on my part to express myself clearly enouh if that will please you.
Even though this is clearly addressed to the Prophet, it is clear that to Allah, men can exchange/replace women because of goodness/beauty; and Allah does not condemn this act in itself for ALL believers.
The same blind eye turned to the truth that those whom the Propeht?s oath had were his legal wives. Let me try to reason with you and tanveer once more
The MMA in 236, 7030, 3350, and 3352 are no doubt the legal spouses of those whose oaths own them. The fact that in 3350 God says "We have made halal to you... ma malakat yameenuk" is proof enough. If, in spite of this divine decision, they are not accepted as legally married, God forbid, the Prophet is blamed to be an adulterer.
Yaseen
Although the verbs Nakaha and Ankaha have different conjugations (imperative and other forms) when the verb is taken on its own, when linked to a conjunction such as fa (then) as in 43, the expression ?fainkihoo? (This is the plural form) could either mean then marry off (to? HA) or Then marry. The context will determine the intended meaning. The first form of the verb Nakaha (to marry) can be found in many verses 2221, 2230, 422, 243, 3349, 3353, 6010. The second form of the verb (to marry off) can be found in 2432 and 2827. Ahmed Ali translation reads (verse 2432)?Samia
Fa is not a conjugation. It's a particle/preposition. "fa" has nothing to do whatsoever with the conjugation. It's a prefixed particle that either means "then, as in a succession", or "then as in therefore. In this case it's called "the conditional fa". Depending on its meaning (according to the context) it may or may not have a GRAMMATICAL effect on the verb.
Salaam Samia.
According to yaseen fa is a conjuction; it is not a matter of conjugation. And he seems to be right because you also say it means then, so, consequently?
I looked up the term hamz?alif (it may be written differerently in Arabic). I learned that the alif is dropped when it is uttered as (i) like in the fankihu in 43. Is that the reason why yaseen writes it as fainkihu in order to stress the rule?
Depending on its meaning (according to the context) it may or may not have a GRAMMATICAL effect on the verb.
I would rather learn its effect in meaning than in GRAMMAR. Will you please explain the vocalization of the NKH in 2432 and 43? Would it be correct if the NKH in 43 were vocalized like the NKH in 2432 (Wa ankehu) instead of fainkihu?
Peace,
Hasan Akcay -
Salaams all,
First, you are NOT referring to Tanveer's assumption there, but rather your own words in describing what YOU said to support your errorneous theories?
Please ImamQuranonly! Allow me the right to know what I said. You can not know what I said better than I can! I did not mean it the way you think. But you can take it as a failure on my part to express myself clearly enouh if that will please you.
Don't beg. It's not necessary. You have a right to know what you said, but no right to make those try to believe that what you said means something different than what you expressed. There was no ambiguity in the words that you wrote as I pointed out in my last post. I am sure it won't be the first failure by you to express yourself clearly, as I have pointed out before, and as siki has pointed out. It doesn't please me, and I have asked you to be careful to express yourself clearly and given you the benefit of the doubt, to no avail.
Also noted is the fact that you did not offer to CLARIFY what you meant if you expressed yourself unclearly. Are you just lying now to avoid the clear point that you made in your own posts? I notice that you don't address the clear issues that I present to you and only comment on one or two items that you can make a pitiful attempt to answer. Why do you just admit that you were wrong and submit to the guidance of Allah in Al Quran? It is not me or my views that you will be submitting to, but to Allah. Don't let your ego hold you back from guidance.
Even though this is clearly addressed to the Prophet, it is clear that to Allah, men can exchange/replace women because of goodness/beauty; and Allah does not condemn this act in itself for ALL believers.
The same blind eye turned to the truth that those whom the Propeht?s oath had were his legal wives. Let me try to reason with you and tanveer once more
The MMA in 236, 7030, 3350, and 3352 are no doubt the legal spouses of those whose oaths own them. The fact that in 3350 God says "We have made halal to you... ma malakat yameenuk" is proof enough. If, in spite of this divine decision, they are not accepted as legally married, God forbid, the Prophet is blamed to be an adulterer.
Peace,
Hasan AkcayWho said that those MMA were NOT the Prophet's wives? Not me for sure. Cause they are. The Prophet is told that he can not take any more WOMEN EXCEPT MMA. He was not told he could not take any more WIVES. What are you going on about adulterer for now? What does that have to do with any of this Quranic discussion?
The point you are tyring to make here is not even addressing what you quoted me as saying in italics. So what is your point since I never said that MMA are not the Prophet's wives? Do you even know at this point? Or is this just stuff to have some type of answer? Do you ever submit to what Allah has given as guidance if it doesn't suit your preconceived notions?
Maybe I should just do a post with all the proven points that you have not address which clearly destroy your theory of what you believe these ayaat mean. hmm
As Salaamu Alaikum, peace
-
Salaam siki. Instead of resorting to personal bickering like this, please explain your own views and prove the following explanation wrong, referring to the relevant verses from the Quran to support your arguments.
Brother Hassan !
peace be upon you.
I had stopped reasoning with you after realizing that you are too immature and illogical to have any conversation with , but was polite enough not to tell you, thinking that you might realize it yourself, but Imam is right, you can not be allowed a free ride. Because the erroneous theories produced by your faulty logic may mislead some beginners.
Now, let me be very straight with you, Your reasoning is consistently the poorest that I have ever come across in this forum, and your posts are a big distraction in a discussion, specially in this thread, which is about a very serious and delicate issue.
So , once again, I would request you to, please take a break and do some serious studies for a few years, before you want to interpret God's law for Mankind.
peace
siki