POLYGAMY NOT THERE IN QURAN?
-
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.
Human beings are great at making up excuses for polygamy. One of them is this orphans' sake business. Please be reasonable are the mothers of orphans second class women so that they deserve the torture of being co-wives while other women are saved from it? Aren't there any other ways out of the orphans' dilemma than condemning their mothers to the torture of polygamy?
The way you are "he he he he"ing the Progressive translation
"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)
Yes. O poor poor polygamous male subjects of Mine! If you correct this situation; that is, if you just refrain from being biased as to leave any one of your wives hanging, I will FORGIVE you. As simple as that. Don?t worry.
Another thing. What is 4129 about, divorce or men?s right to marry "more than one wife"?
4128 deals with nushuuz of the husbands, which will result etiher in their setting things peacefully to rights between themselves or divorce. In 4129 there is no reference to men?s right to polygamy but there is a reference of divorce as the inevitable alternative to setting things to rights.
4130 begins with these words if they do separate (Wa in yatafarraqaa). Definite reference to divorce again.
Isn?t this proof enough that 4129 is about divorce too?
Between who is bias to be avoided; between co-wives during polygamous togetherness or between the husband and wife during divorce?
Peace,
Hasan Akcay -
As Salaamu Alaikum,
You promote arabic grammer rules when they suit a case of yours, even if it makes no sense still, but when it does not, you point out that grammarians made the rules and tried to fit Al Quran into their rules and therefore not everything will seem to suit the grammerians rules since they are humans and falliable.
Salaam IQO
If you do not understand what I say, don't start throwing meaningless accusations. It is not that it "suits" me that adjectives follow the described noun in its gender, even in colloquial/spoken Arabic. This is a FACT, whether you like it or not. But when I see grammarian say something and the qur'aan shows another, no way would I be on the side of the grammarians.
The paragraph you are quoting me in in from another thread is a further explanation of why I chose "mothers" when you asked where I got this "mother" from, instead of saying "yatamaa alummahaat". Two completely different themes. The last two lines of this quote is what I put in the post of today. Where is the contradiction or the change of opinion?
In what context have I opposed grammarians, if you remember?
Can you please answer this successfully if you are correct.
Who are the the "two" in "yatafarraqaa the two seperate" mentioned in verse 130? They are the two about whom the verse 4128 is talking
Verse 4128 is about a seperated couple because of nushuz of husband . 4128 reconciliate between them; 4130 and if they choose to divorce, God will provide each of them from His bounty. Ido not see "many" wives here.How do you see verse 129 relates exclusively to this incident? It is a reminder to be just to women in general /or to treat the vulnerable each case as it stands. . So what is the contradiction? Verse 129 is not about 128 /130, since the latter is on a specific case (seperation because of nushuz).
-
Human beings are great at making up excuses for polygamy. One of them is this orphans' sake business. Please be reasonable are the mothers of orphans second class women so that they deserve the torture of being co-wives while other women are saved from it? Aren't there any other ways out of the orphans' dilemma than condemning their mothers to the torture of polygamy?
It is not an excuse, but an explanation. And it is not about widows. And not all widows or any widow (not all widows have poor children and some one is spending on them) and most of all it is not a command.
The way you are "he he he he"ing the Progressive translation
What about it?
You like the PT? Well, I don't
So, what's your understanding of verse 43?
-
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.
It is obvious that I reacted rashly to your words my first impression is that it is indeed ONLY about orphans because I misunderstood "orphans" for mothers of orphans; so I thought you were saying 43 is about God?s permission for polygyny ONLY when mothers of orphans are involved. It is the Progressive claim, you know, and has no support from the Quran. So I said personal impressions don?t make divine laws (4221).
I apologize for my misunderstanding and overreaction.
Peace,
Hasan Akcay -
4-129 And you will not be able to be fair regarding the women even if you make every effort; so do not sway too greatly and leave her as one hanging in a void. And if you reconcile and do right, then God is Forgiving, Merciful.
The nissa in 4-129 is not wives only, but it includes all the women that you deal with.
Though the primary address/concern here is your wives/MMA etc, but it does include every women that you take care in some way . They could be your sisters, mothers as well {we have recently concluded (with the help of samia ;D) that Nissa , or even the nissa o kum is a term not exclusive for wives/spouses only}
This aya is telling Men that , God knows/accepts that One can not be absolutely just in dealing with the women (under your guardian ship), but going to an extreme by abandoning one (completely) is wrong. And further advises Men to make a positive effort/endeavor to correct/improve upon such a situation , if it exists, and he will be forgiving merciful (for minor differentiation which he knows that it can not be in your control)
IN joint families where one's sisters , or / and mother is residing , and if one is family head, I have seen Men mistreating their own mothers /sisters , because they are under the influence of their wives, and offcourse generally the reverse situation is more prevalent.
siki -
Salaam all,
Samia, my encouragement, seems that you get them from both sides.
Now, coming to the meaning of nisaa' I asked in some other thread about this word. I would very much like to get to the bottom of it. I see that it is classified as root n-s-w and I also see my dictionnaries that it is practically the only word belonging to n-s-w. My questions
-
Is it sure its root is n-s-w and not n-s-' or n-s-y?
-
Whatever its root, is there historical record of usage outside qur'an with values diferent from "women".
-
Is there some historical record of the usage of some other word as plural of imra' like imra'at or inaath or any other.
Could nisaa' be one of those cases of metaphore where the word for the whole has come to mean one part of the whole?
Talking about parallels we see for instance in Spanish how the word "hombre" has come to mean "human male", where not very long ago it meant "human being of either sex". The word "var?n", meaning "human male" and in wide usage at other times, today is if not obsolete, quite restricted. I find this fact very illustrative of how ideological concepts can undo language and other concepts, because on the other hand "Hombre" continues to be a preferred word to speak of abstract humanity, so that the evolution of speech has come to throw "women" out of Humanity. In this case the word for the whole has also come to mean one part of the whole.
I leave it at that for now, and in case that is of any encouragement, Samia, I say that it is very important to deal with this aspect very thoroughly. There is merit to your contention that the thread of the nisaa' sura is precisely about what we see the just protection and arrangements for those who cannot procure them for themselves by themselves.
Thanks and salaam
-
-
Salaam hasan, huruf and all
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".
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 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.
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.
Samia, you are my ideal expert in Arabic grammar. I feel indebted to you because I have learnt so much from you. But please be realistic enough to accept that you are fallible like us all human beings.
Remember? You made explications and explanations about the grammar in and the composition of the inheritance verses. You held so fast to your assertions until Nun de Plume dropped in and suggested that all we needed was basic algebra derived from Al-Kitab al-Jabr wa-l-Muqabala by mathematician Muhammad bin Ms al-Khwrizm.
Then you said I think I found the problem. If it is one daughter, why give her half if there are no siblings? Forget about all my calculations. I was mislead by this "half".
My admiration grew all the more of you after that. You were not only knowledgeable but also wise. I could communicate with you.
Now you are making explications and explanations about 43. They are great, seemingly unchallengeable. But please be ready to give them up when we study the verses which forbid polygyny. It is impossible that God forbids polygyny in 423, 420, 2432, 3352 and allows it in 43.
I will respond to the red assertions some other time if God wills.
Peace,
Hasan Ak?ay -
Salaam huruf
Thank you huruf for the kind words and the encouragement.
1 and 2 The root (Nun Seen Wau) gives us other plurals for imra'atun, which are niawa (or nuswa) and niswaan (or nuswaan). The root for nisaa' is Nuun Seen Hamza. The dictionary of quraanic terms put it under Nuun Seen Wau, but that is not to be taken as a linguistic dictionary. All classical Arabic dictionaries put it under Nuun Seen Hamza, which is quite logical.3 Words of the same root are used, meaning to delay. I do not have any knowledge of a historical record of this word being used other than woman. But I would like to mention that I did not even think of looking it up in a dictionary, in spite of my problem understanding it as "women" specially in verse 434. Until I read a book by the late Sudanese thinker Mahmoud Mohammad Taha suggesting that "nunsiha" in verse 2106 is also reported to be "nunsi'uha". That's when I started having hope it could be something else. I then read a small book by someone vcaled Islamboly, where he put it in this meaning (left behind). Maybe there are other ecords but I do not know of them. It seems that the qur'aan derived it from already existing roots, like many other Arabic words, for the first time.
Could nisaa' be one of those cases of metaphore where the word for the whole has come to mean one part of the whole?
I believe the existence of other words for "women" stands as a strong proof for this
-
Salaam Hasan
Thank you for your words of encouragement.
My way of understanding is different from yours and many others, but I do not claim that mine is the best. And yes, I do not shy from changing my opinion if I find it faulty or illogical. The best proof is my subscription to this forum at a time when I held many understandings that I wonder I ever harboured. Decades of brainwashing cannot be descarded in weeks or months. And I still have a lot to learn, and change a lot I understand now.
But grammar is a completely different issue. Yes, it's also here that I realized how much grammarians manipulate the language of the qur'aan to make it fit into the classical Arabic grammar. But my issue with grammarians is not about some fundamental grammatical rules that are the basis of the language such as the gender issue. If someone, however eloquent he might be, gives a feminine word a masculine adjective or vise vesa, you can conclude with a very high probabilty that the person is not a native speaker. This is the most recognized aspect of people alien to Arabic.
-
Arabic is different from English in using "marry off". It is set as "marry to a man", but never "marry off a female". unkih followed by a female is marry; followed by a male marry to. (Samia)
What is meant by marry off in the discussions of the topic is marry a woman to a man, like in an-Nuur 32
Wa ankehoo?l ayaama?
Marry off the unmarried.
(Marry them each to a man)There is no use making fuss over which NKH is the one in 43 and which one is the one in 2432 because they were originally the same before the diacritical marks were added to them in the early 8th century AD. The fact that it is now read in one way to mean marry them yourselves in 43 and in another way to mean marry them off to other men in 2432 is simply a matter of the choices the people made while inserting the alifs and diacritical marks in the Quranic text; that is, these choices were not divine; they were human. And it is human to err.
As years went by, the correct reading of the Koran became less clear, he says. People made changes to make sense of the text. Puin gives as example Hajjaj bin Yusuf, governor of Iraq from 694-714 AD, who "was proud of inserting more than 1,000 alifs in the Koranic text".
Professor Allen Jones, lecturer in Koranic Studies at Oxford University, agrees.
"Hajjaj is also responsible for putting the diacritical marks in the Koran. His changes are a defining moment in the history of the Koran". (QUERYING THE QURAN, the Guardian, Augus 8 2000)
Peace,
Hasan Akcay -
Arabic is different from English in using "marry off". It is set as "marry to a man", but never "marry off a female". unkih followed by a female is marry; followed by a male marry to. (Samia)
What is meant by marry off in the discussions of the topic is marry a woman to a man, like in an-Nuur 32
Wa ankehoo?l ayaama?
Marry off the unmarried.
(Marry them each to a man)There is no use making fuss over which NKH is the one in 43 and which one is the one in 2432 because they were originally the same before the diacritical marks were added to them in the early 8th century AD. The fact that it is now read in one way to mean marry them yourselves in 43 and in another way to mean marry them off to other men in 2432 is simply a matter of the choices the people made while inserting the alifs and diacritical marks in the Quranic text; that is, these choices were not divine; they were human. And it is human to err.
As years went by, the correct reading of the Koran became less clear, he says. People made changes to make sense of the text. Puin gives as example Hajjaj bin Yusuf, governor of Iraq from 694-714 AD, who "was proud of inserting more than 1,000 alifs in the Koranic text".
Professor Allen Jones, lecturer in Koranic Studies at Oxford University, agrees.
"Hajjaj is also responsible for putting the diacritical marks in the Koran. His changes are a defining moment in the history of the Koran". (QUERYING THE QURAN, the Guardian, Augus 8 2000)
Peace,
Hasan AkcaySalaam Hasan
There is no need to tell me about the history of the diacritical marks or to even mention them. It is not a question of these marks. What I meant by the difference of usage is that the English (marry off) needs a preposition to make it transitional. The Arabic verb only changes from to become transitional. This is also a fundamental principle in Arabic morphology and is, again, shared between classical AND spoken Arabic. The intransitional form (nakaha Form I) takes one direct object, which is the female. The derived form (unkaha Form IV) takes two direct objects, the first of which is the male. So, when we have the verb followed by a female, this is the direst object; followed by male, this is the direct object ( This is in case the addressee is a male/masculine).
Another important point is to be considered. If the address is to the female (we do not have this example in the quraan), the verb will still be form I, followed by the male who is the direct object here.
So in summary, the preposition (off) in the verb (marry off) does not exist in the Arabic verb. Instead, the Arabic has the notion of two direct objects, the first of which is the male.
I am still waiting to read your understanding of th verse 43, so that I understand "marry off" in context. Maybe I am missing something. Remember, I am explaining the principles of language without your context.
As for verse 2423, "wan kihul ayaamaa minkum wassaaliheen marry the single and the righteous amongst you ...", since the address is to both genders, the verb is impossible to decide its form, the verb accommodates both meaning. I do not see a problem here.
-
As for verse 2432, "wan kihul ayaamaa minkum wassaaliheen marry the single and the righteous amongst you ...", since the address is to both genders, the verb is impossible to decide its form, the verb accommodates both meaning.
If you examplify the rules; I will understand better. Take the NKH in al-Kasas 27 for example
Innee uriduu an uNKiH aka ihdabnatayyah?
I will marry you one of my two dauhters
or
I will marry one of my two daughters to youDirect Object
ihdabnatayyah?
one of my two daughtersIndirect Object
aka
youWhat would the NKH (uNKiH) mean in 2827 if you had only the Direct Object?
Please write the transcription of the Arabic sentence which means "Marry (off) your daughter!"
What form of the NKH should we have in order to make 43 mean "Marry (off) the women!"?
Peace,
Hasan Akcay -
I am still waiting to read your understanding of th verse 43, so that I understand "marry off" in context.
This is what I understand
The verse is about the orphans who have some possessions. They are too litle to look after themselves. So they are under the custody of some benevolent momeneen and momenaat, who are such sincere believers that God's warning in 42 frighten them too much. They ask God in their heart "How can I get rid of the possibility of eating the possessions of my orphans and committing the big crime?" They mean the hooban kabeera mentioned in 43.
God shows them the way out
Hand over the possessions of the orphans who have reached mental and phisical maturity (46). Plus, if they ask you to marry them (off), marry them each to a man and send them away to their new homes. Thus you will have no orphan's possessions left under your care to eat with your own possesions by mistake.
This much enough for now?
Peace,
Hasan Akcay -
Innee uriduu an uNKiH aka ihdabnatayyah?
I will marry you one of my two dauhtersThe form is correct (form IV), since it is clear that we have two direct objects. The English sentence is the literal translation of the verse. The other one (I will marry one of my daughters to you) is the same meaning, but not as literally as the first one. The Arabic sentence has both objects direct (no preposition).
(NB I think I made an error in my last post
The intransitional form (nakaha Form I) takes one direct object, which is the female
It should be read the transitional, not the intransitional. Nakaha is transitional with one direct object; unkaha is transitional with two direct objects)
What would the NKH (uNKiH) mean in 2827 if you had only the Direct Object?
Please write the transcription of the Arabic sentence which means "Marry (off) your daughter!"
What form of the NKH should we have in order to make 43 mean "Marry (off) the women!"?
From these questions I feel that I did not explain myself well. Let's say that we have three people Zaid, Obaid and Fatima
Zaid nakaha Fatima (Zaid married Fatima) Fatima first and only direct object.
Obaid unkaha Zaidan Fatima (Obaid married Fatima off to Obaid) Zaid first drect object; Fatima second direct object (no prepositions n the Arabic sentence; just change of the verb form). -
Salaam Samia.
Please be sure that I will understand the English garammar. Don?t worry. I taught it, and to teach it I had to learn it first. I am almost perfect at English garammar. This explains the to in red in the sentence "I will marry one of my two daughters to you." The rule is the Indirect Object changes into a prepositional phrase if the Direct Object is placed before it. The Indirect Object is you in this sentence; and the Direct Object is one of my two daughters.
The question is, don?t you have a verb in your language corresponding to marry, which can have only one Object, which is Direct? Can?t you say "Marry your daughter!" in Arabic? Do you have to say "Marry somebody your daughter!" even if you do not want to mention that somebody, which is not worth mentioning anyway because it is an insignificant somebody?
So please write the transcription of the Arabic sentence which means "Marry your daughter!"
Peqace,
Hasan Akcay -
Salaam Samia,
Salaam IQO
If you do not understand what I say, don't start throwing meaningless accusations. It is not that it "suits" me that adjectives follow the described noun in its gender, even in colloquial/spoken Arabic. This is a FACT, whether you like it or not. But when I see grammarian say something and the qur'aan shows another, no way would I be on the side of the grammarians.
The paragraph you are quoting me in in from another thread is a further explanation of why I chose "mothers" when you asked where I got this "mother" from, instead of saying "yatamaa alummahaat". Two completely different themes. The last two lines of this quote is what I put in the post of today. Where is the contradiction or the change of opinion?
In what context have I opposed grammarians, if you remember?
I have no problem understanding what you are saying Samia. I do understand much of the grammar of Al Quran, whether I understand more or less than you is debatable considering how arabic is your native language, but yet you still continue to prove errorneous on many arabic grammatical issues on this forum.
You chose to follow grammar when it suits you and not when it doesn't. In ayat 4129, you make "nisaa" equal to "mothers" because of your "grammatical analysis", yet in 4129 "nisaa" can not be "wives" because it only means according to you "women/left behind/etc.", or whatever else you make "nisaa" to mean.
You said
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.
So according to you the ayat would read
Transliteration Wayastaftoonaka fee alnnisa-i quli Allahu yufteekum feehinna wama yutla AAalaykum fee alkitabi fee yatama alnnisa-i allatee la tu/toonahunna ma kutiba lahunna watarghaboona an tankihoohunna waalmustadAAafeena mina alwildani waan taqoomoo lilyatama bialqisti wama tafAAaloo min khayrin fa-inna Allaha kana bihi AAaleeman
Literal And they ask for your opinion/clarification in the women, say "God decreed/clarifies in them (F), and what is read/recited on you in The Book in the ORPHANS OF WOMEN, those who (F) you did not give them (F) what was written/dictated to them (F), and you desire that you marry them (F), and the weakened from the children/new borns, and that you take care of to the orphans/minors that61lose their father with the just/equitable; and what you make/do from goodness, so that God was/is with it knowledgeable."In your sentence construction, "ORPHANS" (not women) is the subject, masculine still, that are being referred to as "those who you did not give them (F) what was written/dictacted to them (F), and you desire that you marry them (F)..."
Can you please explain how this makes sense to you grammatically? How can they (M) ask concerning the "women" and Allah tells you(M) about what is recited about the "(male) orphans(the subject) of women", those who (F) you (M) did not give them (F) what was written to them (F)? Are men concerned here with marrying male orphans of women? o
Please give your grammatical analysis of why "yataamaa an nisaai" (orphans of women according to your quote above) are being referred to in the feminine throughout the other parts of the ayat.
Who are the the "two" in "yatafarraqaa the two seperate" mentioned in verse 130? They are the two about whom the verse 4128 is talking
Verse 4128 is about a seperated couple because of nushuz of husband . 4128 reconciliate between them; 4130 and if they choose to divorce, God will provide each of them from His bounty. Ido not see "many" wives here.How do you see verse 129 relates exclusively to this incident? It is a reminder to be just to women in general /or to treat the vulnerable each case as it stands. . So what is the contradiction? Verse 129 is not about 128 /130, since the latter is on a specific case (seperation because of nushuz).
So you agree that ayat 4128 is about a couple separating and 4130 is about them them divorcing. I don't recall using "many" wives, just "women" referring to wives of "men"; which could represent either one; more than one wife to each man, and/or each man and his wife (covering all scenarios). To say that 4129 doesn't have anything to do with the context of both 4128 and 4130, when those two clearly deal with the same subject, is to try to take 4129 out of it's clear context and give it only a literal meaning. Many people do this with Al Quran; like the ayat about "take what the Prophet gives you and refuse what he withholds from you". People try to make that a general statement without considering the context that it is given in. You are doing the same thing with 4129 because based on its context, it clearly is dealing with the "women" who are wives of men who are in "nushooz" and separating and divorce are the issues of context.
As Salaamu Alaikum, peace
-
As Salaamu Alaika siki,
4-129 And you will not be able to be fair regarding the women even if you make every effort; so do not sway too greatly and leave her as one hanging in a void. And if you reconcile and do right, then God is Forgiving, Merciful.
The nissa in 4-129 is not wives only, but it includes all the women that you deal with.
Though the primary address/concern here is your wives/MMA etc, but it does include every women that you take care in some way . They could be your sisters, mothers as well {we have recently concluded (with the help of samia ;D) that Nissa , or even the nissa o kum is a term not exclusive for wives/spouses only}
This aya is telling Men that , God knows/accepts that One can not be absolutely just in dealing with the women (under your guardian ship), but going to an extreme by abandoning one (completely) is wrong. And further advises Men to make a positive effort/endeavor to correct/improve upon such a situation , if it exists, and he will be forgiving merciful (for minor differentiation which he knows that it can not be in your control)
IN joint families where one's sisters , or / and mother is residing , and if one is family head, I have seen Men mistreating their own mothers /sisters , because they are under the influence of their wives, and offcourse generally the reverse situation is more prevalent.
sikiYour post pointed out two additional things to me regarding these ayaat.
First, fatatharooha kaalmuAAallaqati "and leave her as one hanging in a void"; clearly here, this shows that "nisaa" here are referring to "her" that was referred to in 4128 (Wa-ini imraatun khafat min baAAliha nushooza). So unlike Samia suggests, this further proves that the three ayaat are to be taken together and not 4129 out of its current context.
Second, the reason "nisaa" may have been used instead of wives is that wives or MMA are those whom could be included as those having a problem with their "husband". Therefore, using the context and the word "nisaa" makes it to cover all those possibly contained in the context of the ayaat. Mothers, daughers and other women would not be included in the term "nisaa" in these ayaat because they can not fulfill the criteria of the complaint contained in the context; i.e. separating, being left handing and divorce.
As Salaamu Alaikum, peace
-
Salaam Samia.
Please be sure that I will understand the English garammar. Don?t worry. I taught it, and to teach it I had to learn it first. I am almost perfect at English garammar. This explains the to in red in the sentence "I will marry one of my two daughters to you." The rule is the Indirect Object changes into a prepositional phrase if the Direct Object is placed before it. The Indirect Object is you in this sentence; and the Direct Object is one of my two daughters.
Salaam Hasan
I neither doubted that nor did I claim to be explaining English grammar. All my explanation is about Arabic grammar, and was trying to answer your question. If you notice the correction I made to my post, you will understand that I am not talking about indirect object, because in this Arabic sentence there is no indirect object. It is either one direct object or two direct objects. No preposition.
So please write the transcription of the Arabic sentence which means "Marry your daughter!"
The sentence will be unkih ibnatak!