POLYGAMY NOT THERE IN QURAN?

ImamQuranonly

As Salaamu Alaika Mazhar,

It might be wise for you to read all the other posts, because your post can not even be addressed. It would be like starting over and forgetting the first 15 pages. Not to mention that your translations is Wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy off base in taking privilege to define words incorrectly and ignore meanings or importance of other words. Good luck to you and your understanding.

As Salaamu Alaikum, peace

Assalamo Alaikum,
Except for the first page I have not gone through remaining 15 pages, therefore, excuse me if it is a repetition.
The corrected translation of the verses are as follows

Translation of 401 is not of the words of Quran.

This is the situation, cause, problem
And the solution is this, effect, action desirable to be taken to meet the situation, problem, apprehension, possibility, eventuality

As a solution, sequel,make/arrange marriage {here it is not that "marry"}

which is {one thing/decision/solution} desirable for you people {society}. Particle "Fa" and word "taba lakum" needs to be taken into consideration.
Marriages of widow will reduce the possibility of abuse of the rights of orphans in the society because it will create a relationship of "arhaam" through the mother of the orphans.

Jack

Peace IQO,

Not to mention that your translations is Wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy off base in taking privilege to define words incorrectly and ignore meanings or importance of other words

Perhaps you want to tell us why his translation is way off etc...

ImamQuranonly

Peace IQO,

Perhaps you want to tell us why his translation is way off etc...

Salaams House M.D.,

Perhap I don't care to bother with such a lengthy explanation that has been covered too many times already in this thread and others. yes

I think it is self evident for those who have read the threads.

As Salaamu Alaikum, peace

brook

Verb NKH has two forms. Their imperatives are ?nkihu which means marry (to other men) like in An-Noor 32 and inkihu which means marry like in An-Nisaa 3.

An-Noor 32
Wa ?nkihu?l ayaama
And marry the unmarried (to other men)

An-Nisaa 3
Fainkihu ma taaba lakum mine?n nisaa
Then marry the women who allow you

The conjunction wa is sometimes written as fa by mistake, like in Ash-Shams 15.

Wa la yahaafu ?And they had no fear (Warsh)
Fa la yahaafu ? Then they had no fear (Hafs)

In 43 too the same spelling mistake seems to have been made. If it had been written correctly, it would be Wa NKH ma taaba lakum mine?n nisaa just like in An-Norr 32, and the divine command would be as follows

Wa ?nkihu ma taaba lakum mine?n nisaa
And marry the women who allow you (to other men)

There is NO POLYGYNY in the Quran

My arguments in this post are based on the article Is There "Polygamy" in the Quran? by yaseen http//www.geocities.com/yaseen_q/polygamy.html?20072

He says his criteria are

-linguistic (rules in the related verses)
-usage of specific words (consistency throughout the Quran)
-logic and common sense,
-topics covered,
-audience addressed.

An explanation

The difference between the two verbs "unkaha" and "nakaha" is the hamza (the glottal stop) in the beginning. When they are in the imperative, they have the same form (unkih/unkihuu), both beginning with the glottal stop. The difference between the two glottal stops is that one is original (imperative of unkaha) and the other is not (imperative of nakaha). When not preceded by any word, i.e when both verbs are in the beginning of a senence, there's no difference between them. Only when they are preceded by a word or a preposition such as wa or fa, will they have different pronunciation and writing

(imperative of the verb nakaha and is pronounced fankihuu)
(imperative of the verb unkaha and is pronounced fa unkihuu)

According to this explanation, when the imperative NKH is preceded by fa like the fankihu in 43, it only means marry. However, according to yaseen it could mean either marry or marry off; in which case the context will determine the intended meaning.

I would rather give the benefit of doubt to yaseen's explanation because it saves the verse from a lot of contradictions which the other one causes.

The context undoubtedly plays a big role in the interpretation of 43 so that it invalidates the choice of marry because if this meaning is imposed on the message, the verse gets loaded with contradictions despite the fact that there can be no contradictions in God?s revelation (482).

Take the fear mentioned in the beginning of the verse. Let?s assume that it stands for the worries of the believers that they will probably consume the possessions of the orphans and this way they will commit the hooban kabeera mentioned in 42.

If the NKH means marry, they will marry the mothers of the orphans. Will their fear disappear then? Never. Because they will still have the possessions under their care, which they will consume as before and this way they will go on committing the big crime. That is a contradiction.

Another contradiction concerns mathna wa thulatha wa rubaa. These numbers can not be used in counting the women mentioned in the verse although the classical commentators pretend that they do.

These numbers are used in sharing the women. Al-Faatir 1 is proof enough, where God says

All praise is due to God, Originator of the heavens and the earth, who makes the angels messengers with two wings or three wings or four wings (ajnehatin mathna wa thulathaa wa rubaa ) .

God did not give an angel one wing first, another wing some time later, and a third one still some more time later. He gave each angel its fixed number of wings at one and the same time.

So when a man is told to NKH the women thulatha, he is required to NKH all of the three women at one and the same time.

If NKH means marry the women (to other men), the command does make sense because anybody with enough financial means can marry three or more women each to a man at one and the same time.

But if it means marry them (yourself), does it make sense? Can one man marry three women at one and the same time?

Objection One man can simultaneously get married to three women. Why can't he?

If he never sleeps with them, yes. But in that case the three women will not be his wives; they will only be some refugees in his house, which is an orphanage rather than a home of a family made up of a husband and wife. Neither is it polygyny because polygyny never exists without a husband and wives.

On the other hand, if the three women are his actual wives, the man?s marrying and sleeping with them at one and the same time is immoral.

And illegal because in 3352 God prohibits marriage upon marriage, (which I will explain). Therefore in God?s religion no man can indulge in polygyny by taking wife upon wife even if the co-wives are mothers of orphans.

A believing man can have only one wife; otherwise he defies God?s command in 3352, commits the big crime, and indulges in immoral sex.

That is why it is so crucial to understand 43 correctly. I will continue to sum up my views, God willing.

Peace,
Hasan Akcay

farida

There is NO POLYGYNY in the Quran

My arguments in this post are based on the article Is There "Polygamy" in the Quran? by yaseen http//www.geocities.com/yaseen_q/polygamy.html?20072

He says his criteria are

-linguistic (rules in the related verses)
-usage of specific words (consistency throughout the Quran)
-logic and common sense,
-topics covered,
-audience addressed.

Peace,
Hasan Akcay

Salaam Hasan Akcay,

I have read the above link and I noticed that in conclusion Yassen writes We can?t talk about polygamy in the Quran anymore in an apologetic way because it is not there.

My openion is that rather than trying to understand the wisdom behind Allah's commandements, many feel guilty about certain subjects, which are exploited by non beleivers and so, writhing in all sorts of twists and turns, try to wring out a "version", that appeals to the world.

Best regards
farida

brook

Salaam Hasan Akcay,

I have read the above link and I noticed that in conclusion Yassen writes We can?t talk about polygamy in the Quran anymore in an apologetic way because it is not there.

My openion is that rather than trying to understand the wisdom behind Allah's commandements, many feel guilty about certain subjects, which are exploited by non beleivers and so, writhing in all sorts of twists and turns, try to wring out a "version", that appeals to the world.

Best regards
farida

Salaam farida. In some instances a mere apology is not enough. For instance, Muslims acting in accordance with the following translations of 424 become criminals and deserve the punsihments international courts of justice sentence them to

Let?s assume that Muhammad the Hamas militant agrees with these translations.

He is in Jarusalem, where Muslims and Jews are engaged in street fights. Muhammad takes Golda and her husband captive and marries his captive in accordance with these translations, which make God say that a Muslim is allowed to marry his captive even if she is married.

Golda?s family appeal to the international court of justice. What happens?

004.024
YUSUFALI Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess Thus hath Allah ordained (Prohibitions) against you Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property,- desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.

PICKTHAL And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess. It is a decree of Allah for you. Lawful unto you are all beyond those mentioned, so that ye seek them with your wealth in honest wedlock, not debauchery. And those of whom ye seek content (by marrying them), give unto them their portions as a duty. And there is no sin for you in what ye do by mutual agreement after the duty (hath been done). Lo! Allah is ever Knower, Wise.

SHAKIR And all married women except those whom your right hands possess (this is) Allah's ordinance to you, and lawful for you are (all women) besides those, provided that you seek (them) with your property, taking (them) in marriage not committing fornication. Then as to those whom you profit by, give them their dowries as appointed; and there is no blame on you about what you mutually agree after what is appointed; surely Allah is Knowing, Wise.

unknownuser

I have to agree here, absolutely no place for any interpretation where there is no mutual consent. One word for that - rape.

huruf

I have just read the link to Yaseen. In the way of condoning or not condoning poligamy, I have to say that we have talked so much about all this and about this and that other aya, that one is already numbed, so that in fact what has most impressed me in that article is an oblique indication the one about inheritance, where no mention is made if there is more than one survivor wife. If poligamy is foreseen, it seems not to have been foreseen in dealing with this aspect. I find this fact as being quite significant. But I look forward to comments.

Another thing about Yaseen article is about 4.127. Counter to what he says, grmatically, of course, yataamaa an nisaa', as Samia pointed out, cannot be women orphans, but orphans of the nisaa'. What I wonder is whether this nisaa' is talking not about sex but about condition that is, the vulnerable and not necessarily the women, and again also in 4.3.

My humble opinion is that we shouldn't get fixed on fixed and perpetually upholdable situations, but look at what there really is and think consistently in a quranic spirit. We are not bound to reproduce anything, but to reflect and struggle to create whatever our lights and the Light with the Qur'an guidance we may divise as most appropriate and beneficial conditions right where we are, which may pose quite different challenges from those met previosuly and which, at any rate, since we didn't live at any other time, for us are new, and where we live is what we may know best and where we can act.

In another thread, OPF, spoke of poliandry, I put forward the case of the male excess due to selective abortions. That is real and a real problem. I am most certainly no propounding poliandry, but just to indicate that we don't have to be so uptight as to what goes on and what can be done to improve societies. I will open a thread.

Salaam

farida

Salaam farida. In some instances a mere apology is not enough. For instance, Muslims acting in accordance with the following translations of 424 become criminals and deserve the punsihments international courts of justice sentence them to

Let?s assume that Muhammad the Hamas militant agrees with these translations.

He is in Jarusalem, where Muslims and Jews are engaged in street fights. Muhammad takes Golda and her husband captive and marries his captive in accordance with these translations, which make God say that a Muslim is allowed to marry his captive even if she is married.

Golda?s family appeal to the international court of justice. What happens?

Salaam brook,

If I was representing Golda's family I would first ask if Golda consented to that marriage and was not willing to go back to her husband. According to the Qur'an you clearly can not inherit women against their will.

IMHO we are not to limit our arguments to one verse; we need to base our decisions on the body of Ayat concerning the rights of mankind.

Those who think that men have some sort of superior status because they are allowed to take more wives should carefully consider the burden associated with taking responsibility of a wife/wives. In the Quran men are given greater responsibility rather than greater position.

3372 We have offered the trust to the heavens and the Earth, and the mountains, but they refused to bear it, and were fearful of it. But the human being accepted it; he was transgressing, ignorant.

Best regards
farida

TheBookAlone

I have been following this very long thread and I would like to pose the following question to anyone that would like to answer it

Since The Reading is clear, complete and fully explained, can you point me to the ayats that outline the details for polygamy? If polygamy is sanctioned by The God, then all the details MUST be in His Book. We should not have to speculate or conjecture.

ImamQuranonly

I have been following this very long thread and I would like to pose the following question to anyone that would like to answer it

Since The Reading is clear, complete and fully explained, can you point me to the ayats that outline the details for polygamy? If polygamy is sanctioned by The God, then all the details MUST be in His Book. We should not have to speculate or conjecture.

I was going to leave this thread alone...but posts like this encourage me to answer. O0

Since the Reading is clear, complete and fully explained, can you point me to the ayats that outline the details for forbidding polygyny? (Im assuming that is what you meant unless you want polandry included also?) Also, can you show me the ayaat that detail how we are supposed to eat also? And don't forget how we are to walk in the house...I mean which foot first? etc. etc. etc. brickwall

TheBookAlone

Well, your assumption is wrong...and we all know what happens when you assume...

I was very clear as to what I am asking for, that is, if The God has sanctioned polygamy, can anyone quote the ayats that deal with setting forth the details for polygamy?

ImamQuranonly

Salaams TBA,

Al Quran doesn't sanction polygamy anywhere. So the details of it certainly would not be found therein. Al Quran does allow POLYGYNY. All the details necessary for it are contained within the book.

Are you able to answer my previous questions though?

As Salaamu Alaikum, peace

Well, your assumption is wrong...and we all know what happens when you assume...

I was very clear as to what I am asking for, that is, if The God has sanctioned polygamy, can anyone quote the ayats that deal with setting forth the details for polygamy?

TheBookAlone

Since you are the teacher and I am the student I want to be clear in my understanding, so please be patience with me as I ask these two questions

Since Al Quran doesnt sanction polygamy anywhere

Can you tell me the difference between polygamy and polygyny; and
If you say all the details necessary for polygyny are contained within the Book, can you point me to these details?

ImamQuranonly

Salaams TBA,

Since you are the teacher and I am the student I want to be clear in my understanding, so please be patience with me as I ask these two questions

First, I am not your teacher and you are not my student. We are all here on this forum to learn from each other.

Second, I am being patient just by participating in this dialogue. If I was not, I would not respond.

Since Al Quran doesnt sanction polygamy anywhere

Can you tell me the difference between polygamy and polygyny; and

If you had followed all of the posts in this thread and their links as you had stated, then you would have run across the following

po?lyg?a?my(p-lg-m)
n.

The condition or practice of having more than one spouse at one time. Also called plural marriage.

po?lyg?y?ny(p-lj-n)
n.

The condition or practice of having more than one wife at one time.

pol?y?an?dry(pl-ndr)
n.

The condition or practice of having more than one husband at one time.

If you say all the details necessary for polygyny are contained within the Book, can you point me to these details?

These points are also covered in detail in this thread. Polygyny is not very different from monogamy with the exception that you apply it to more than one. What you are asking is equivalent to asking "show in the book the details of how you are to deal with having more than one child (or one brother, sister, aunt, etc.)?" Do you understand how this question makes little sense?

As Salaamu Alaikum, peace

TheBookAlone

First, the teacher/student thing was said in jest...

Second, let me get this straight..."polygamy, more than one spouse at one time, plural marriage. polygyny, more than one wife at one time."

Therefore, polygyny is NOT considered a plural marriage. Correct or not?
Therefore, is it correct to say that polygamy can be more than one wife at one time, plural marriage and polygyny can be more than one spouse at one time?

Third, there you go assuming again about what I am asking...what did I just tell you about your assuming...? Could you please just give me two ayats that point to the details concerning polygyny (since we are speaking about more than one wife).

Fourth, since polygyny is not very different from monogamy (whatever that means) with the exception that you apply it to more than one, what exactly is the application process that you "apply"?

ImamQuranonly

Salaams TBA,

Are you serious with these questions? You have to either be joking or completely lost on this issue and what you read in this thread. I not gonna do flips around basic things. If you want to play gymnastics, I suggest using a trampoline and not me in this forum.

As Salaamu Alaikum, jedi

First, the teacher/student thing was said in jest...

Second, let me get this straight..."polygamy, more than one spouse at one time, plural marriage. polygyny, more than one wife at one time."

Therefore, polygyny is NOT considered a plural marriage. Correct or not?
Therefore, is it correct to say that polygamy can be more than one wife at one time, plural marriage and polygyny can be more than one spouse at one time?

Third, there you go assuming again about what I am asking...what did I just tell you about your assuming...? Could you please just give me two ayats that point to the details concerning polygyny (since we are speaking about more than one wife).

Fourth, since polygyny is not very different from monogamy (whatever that means) with the exception that you apply it to more than one, what exactly is the application process that you "apply"?

TheBookAlone

I keep asking a simple question...just say you don't know any ayats that point to the details concerning polygyny! I don't need all the other fluff you write that attempts to disguise your inability to answer my question.

TheBookAlone

To All Participants of the Forum

For the record, this is my understanding of Q.41-14 are saying.

First, let me say that my understanding of the root N-K-H is not "marry". The reason for this understanding is because based on the etymology of this root word, my understanding is that the root word "NKH" originally meant "tie" or "knot" or "contract" or "cement". This word has come to mean "marry" over time.

Second, therefore using the method of "tasrif" and looking in the Quran for similar usages and substituting them for "contract", i have come to the understanding that N-K-H could mean "contract", any contract. However, looking at the context of the ayats when read together, will determine whether the subject is referring to a marriage tie/knot/contract or a social tie/knot/contract.

Therefore, using the above premises, the ayats 41-14, are taken out of context and it is my understanding that if you look at the context, (41-14)

Verse 1 is the opening of a warning to fear the God in all matter for which persons nominated as guardians over orphaned children and women are responsible, for which they will be called to questions and give accounts.

Verse 2 makes it clear what is forbidden to practice with regard to the property of their wards.

Verse 3 has nothing to do with marriage. It refers to the guardianship of these orphans and how to manage and protect their financial affairs. This ayat speaks to social guidance with respect to guardianship. Given the context, nikah means contract in this verse, a social contract and not a marriage contract. The guardian could enter into a contract to take care of groups of orphans, if the guardian is financially able to do so, however, if they fear that they could not financially manage these groups of orphans, which would mean that there would be some inequity and as a result, injustices, then they are to take care of only one.

Specifically, the guardian could enter into a social tie/knot/contract to distribute/dispersed ("tuqsitoo&quot (when appropriate) to the groups of orphans their property, however, if they feared that they will deviate/decline/turned aside ("taAAdiloo&quot from the right course, then only one. This is better so that the guardian does not "tuqloo".

Verse 4 has nothing to do with dower, a marriage gift, (ujr, in Arabic, see 3350), which is an obligatory marriage gift (see Q.2 236-237 & 3350 ? Fa-Ra-Dha). As a result of the above contractual arrangement, these truthful women are to be given a "nihlah", a free gift, and if they choose, they could give back a portion, or keep the entire gift.

Verse 5 instructs the guardian not to hand over the properties to the ward(s) in their custodial care, but feed and clothe them out of it and give them a good education.

Verse 6 instructs the guardian to supervise the orphan children until they reach the age of marriage, then, if they find them sound of judgment, they are to hand over their properties to them. They are not to spend it extravagantly before the orphans grow up. A guardian who is rich should abstain from taking fees, but a poor one may consume some reasonable fees. When properties are handed over by a guardian to orphans it should be done in the presence of witnesses and let the fear of the God be enough to keep their accounts properly.

Verse 7 instructs how the shares in the property should be apportioned.

Verse 8 instructs the guardian, when the time came for the distribution of the property, whoever was present at the division, at that time, even if they were not entitled to a share, the guardian were to give them something out of it and they should be treated kindly.

Verse 9 instructs those who were concerned about the future of their offspring, to make a will in clear words with the fear of the God.

Verse 10 gives clear warning about those guardians, at that time, who abused their responsibility.

Verses 11-12 begins instructions on how WE are to divide our estates.

Verses 13-14 informs us that this is the God?s guidance and whomever disobeys His guidance will be punished severely.

It is also important to note that Verse 8 is important because when you to look at the verb "HaDhaRa" (the verb is past perfect - "was present&quot. This might mean that when the God refers to "O people" ("nas&quot in the beginning verse, He is speaking to "those people who were present during the time of the Messenger addressing a specific issue" not necessarily all of mankind ("insan&quot.

What I was taught in the past was that this Book speaks to all of mankind and everything pertains to us now. However, I understand that NOT to be the case now. For example, the God uses different words to address different groups of people, for example, referring to all of "mankind "(insan 29 ", referring to "the people" (nas 342", those who trust (amanu 3353). The God also refers to the "Bani Israel" and the Messenger's "kaum" (his nationality of people), the Arabs at that time, and to the "ummah" nation of all peoples, etc.

For example, in 3353, when the God says "O you who trust" enter not the houses of the Prophet..." This is an example of the God speaking to a specific group of individuals who trust DURING THE TIME OF THE MESSENGER. Not us, even though we are trusting with the Book today. How are we going to enter not the houses of the Prophet? There are many verses that provide a lesson for those who trust and give us a glimpse of what occurred in the past.

In Verse 8 the verb "HaDhaRa" is in the past perfect tense. It is specific to those people at that time to address an issue at that time. It has nothing to do with the traditional "marriage" with an obligatory marriage gift.

Moreover, since this Quran is perfect and complete, I cannot find where we are told to repeat this behavior and to continue the same practice now. It is important to read the verses and see WHO is being addressed in the different ayats and about WHAT issue.

I would appreciate all comments.

I trust in the God Alone. Salaamun,

TheBookAlone

unknownuser

Peace all,

The above understanding seems plausible at a cursory glance, but on deeper study, it has many irreconcilable problems.

First, let me say that my understanding of the root N-K-H is not "marry". The reason for this understanding is because based on the etymology of this root word, my understanding is that the root word "NKH" originally meant "tie" or "knot" or "contract" or "cement". This word has come to mean "marry" over time.

This understanding contradicts al-qur'aan. The root N-K-H has been used to mean "marry" in al-qur'aan, according to the context, thus it did have a meaning of "marry" at the time of revelation of al-qur'aan, and did not come to mean "marry" over time.

Second, therefore using the method of "tasrif" and looking in the Quran for similar usages and substituting them for "contract", i have come to the understanding that N-K-H could mean "contract", any contract. However, looking at the context of the ayats when read together, will determine whether the subject is referring to a marriage tie/knot/contract or a social tie/knot/contract.

How did one know that N-K-H could mean "contract" to start with ? Did it occur to one in a dream ? Of course one found out from Classical Arabic dictionaries that N-K-H could mean "contract". The same Classical Arabic dictionaries also say that it could mean "marry", especially when mentioned in the context of a person.

In fact, according to Lane Lexicon, N-K-H can only signify "marriage" or "coitus" when mentioned in context of a human. (reference Lane Lexicon, Volume 8, page 102 at PRL under the root Nun-Kaf-Ha http//www.studyquran.co.uk/PRLonline.htm)

Thus, even though it could mean "contract" alone, in the qur'aanic context N-K-H always occurs in the context of a human and can only mean "marriage" in ALL occurrences. From PRL

Nun-Kaf-Ha = to tie, make a knot, contract, to marry, marriage.

nakaha vb. (1)
perf. act. 422, 3349
impf. act. 2221, 2230, 2232, 422, 425, 4127, 243, 243, 3353, 6010
impv. 43, 425
n.vb. 2235, 2237, 46, 2433, 2460

ankaha vb. (4)
impf. act. 2221, 2827
impv. 2432

istankaha vb. (10) impf. act. 3350

Lane's Lexicon, Volume 8, pages 101, 102

The root used to signify "contract" in al-qur'aan is 3-Q-D (see under the root Ayn-Qaf-Dal in PRL http//www.studyquran.co.uk/PRLonline.htm). From PRL

Ayn-Qaf-Dal = to tie in a knot, make a knot, strike a bargain, contract, make a compact, enter into an obligation, bind, judgement, consideration of one's affairs, management, promise of obedience or vow of allegiance.

aqada vb. (1) perf. act. 433, 589

aqd n.m. (pl. uqud) 51

uqdah n.f. (pl. uqad) 2235, 2237, 2027, 1134

Lane's Lexicon, Volume 5, pages 389, 390, 391, 392

In 2235 and 2237, 3-Q-D occurs right next to N-K-H, thus meaning "contract/knot of marriage".

Verse 3 has nothing to do with marriage. It refers to the guardianship of these orphans and how to manage and protect their financial affairs. This ayat speaks to social guidance with respect to guardianship. Given the context, nikah means contract in this verse, a social contract and not a marriage contract. The guardian could enter into a contract to take care of groups of orphans, if the guardian is financially able to do so, however, if they fear that they could not financially manage these groups of orphans, which would mean that there would be some inequity and as a result, injustices, then they are to take care of only one.

The disbursement of inheritance is normally done by the judicial branch of the government, which follows the will of the deceased and/or the qur'aanic injunctions of inheritance, which does not require entering into a "social contract" with the orphans or their mothers. What if everyone elected the 3rd possibility in 43, which the author of the quote conveniently forgets in the entire post, i.e. AW MA MALAKAT AYMAANUKUM. This category obviously does not include the orphans in the context of 43, so in that situation when everyone elects this 3rd possibility, then who is going to take care of the orphans and the widows ? Of course this renders the understanding of the author of the quote nonsensical.

Please focus on the words in red in the quote above. The word "guardian" itself means "the one who entered into a legal social contract to take care of another", thus "guardian" itself signifies a kind of "social contract".

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
guard?i?an /grdin/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
?noun

a person who guards, protects, or preserves.
Law. a person who is entrusted by law with the care of the person or property, or both, of another, as a minor or someone legally incapable of managing his or her own affairs.

The phrase highlighted in red in the quote above would thus mean "the one who entered into a social contract to take care of another, could enter into a contract to take care of....." according to the understanding of the author of the quote, which would be nonsensical.

It is also important to note that Verse 8 is important because when you to look at the verb "HaDhaRa" (the verb is past perfect - "was present&quot. This might mean that when the God refers to "O people" ("nas&quot in the beginning verse, He is speaking to "those people who were present during the time of the Messenger addressing a specific issue" not necessarily all of mankind ("insan&quot.

48 And if the distribution is attended by the relatives and the orphans and the needy, then you shall give them part of it and say to them a kind saying.

What we hear in 48 is that IF the relatives, orphans, and needy, are present at the time of the distribution, then give them part of it, and has nothing to do with who is being addressed in 41 onwards. From this how can one jump to the conclusion that "yaa ayyuhannaas" in 41 are only the ones who were present ? ???