POLYGAMY NOT THERE IN QURAN?
-
Salaam Samia,
Salaam IQO
Quote from ImamQuranonly on Yesterday at 102907 AM
There are women who are perfectly fine with polygyny in this world, muslim and non-muslim. They neither find it a wrong or unbearable. In fact, many of them find it a blessing and rewarding.Just to quote your own words Opinions of right and wrong don't really matter for much against the commands of Allah
Remember that we still haven't agreed on what the command of Allah is, regarding this issue.
I didn't use the quote of mine above to try to prove the ayaat from Al Quran. I used it as an example against it's opposite used by the person to whom I addressed it. I hope you can understand the difference.
And yes, we haven't agreed to what the command of Allah is in Al Quran regarding Polygyny as a whole, because we have SOME different views from each other. But correct me if I am wrong, you DO believe that polygyny is allowed; correct?
Because some here don't believe that polygyny even exists in Al Quran, despite the ayaat referenced and the example of the Prophet given in Al Quran.
As Salaamu Alaikum,
-
Well, I believe this Verse is allowing polygamy only when it is in the interest of taking care of orphans - not a licence to marry 4 wives for personal interest. So I agree with Sr. Samia. But why does "embaressment" have to be the sinlge most important reason Sr Samia (the same could be said about a woman taking care of the man's children who lost their mother)? Did I miss something?
I would leave it at that - that it is only allowed to believing men when it is EXCLUSIVELY for the sake of taking care of orphaned children and no other reaons what so ever. In fact, I think the authorities who carry out marriages should ensure that any 2nd marriages is based solely on this criteria. They must try to ensure the man's intention is thus, and ensure that he has the necessary means and provisions to carry out the additional duties in looking afer and taking care of the orphaned children as well as their mother.
This is an example of the exact reason why discussion is necessary, not to mention that people who want to IMPOSE their will on others is not to be accepted. This kind of thinking is what lead to "sunnism/shiaism/etc.". This person hasn't provided one shred of evidence to prove their claim of what is "EXCLUSIVELY", other than saying that they agree with parts of what another person has said; in other words, whoever writes something that my moral compass agrees to, I will label them as correct! Now time to legislate! elektro
As Salaamu Alaikum, )
-
As Salaamu Alaika brook,
As Samia has indicated in her last post, can you please give your understanding at this point of Sura Nisaa' ayaat 1-6 and 127-130. Up to now, I can only understand minor positions of what you are saying because you seem to go from one side to the other. Maybe this is not the case, so I am asking you to clarify your position and understandings.
As Salaamu Alaikum,
This is what I have written already
43 is about the orphans who have possessions (amwaal). They are too little to look after themselves. So they are under the protection of some benevolent momeneen and momenaat, who are such sincere believers that God's warning in 42 frightens them too much. They ask God in their hearts "How can I avoid the possibility of consuming the possessions of my orphans unwittingly and thus committing the big crime?" They mean the hooban kabeera mentioned in 42.
God shows them the way out
Hand over the possessions of the orphans who have reached their mental and phisical maturity (46); and if they ask you to marry them (off), marry them each to a man and send them away with their possessions to their new homes. This way you will have no possessions of orphans left under your care to eat with your own possesions by mistake.
VAAHEDATAN means one. Hence if you fear about fairness, one; that is, marry off only one nisaa. The reason why you must fear about fairness is understood from the word TAOOLOO in the end of the verse.
MA MALAKAT AYMAAN UKUM means those whom your oaths have. In 43 they are the poor women under your protection. The difference between the orphan women and the ones whom your oaths have is that the former have possessions (amwaal) but the latter do not. So the verse goes like this now
...if you fear about fairness, marry off only one nisaa or the ones whom your oaths have to do good in order to win God?s favour.
TAOOLOO in 43 conveys the meaning of poverty. So the verse ends with reference to likelihood of poverty if you marry off several orphan women together because you have to hand over the possessions of all of them at once. You can avoid the ensuing poverty by marrying off your poor ma malakat aymaan, who do not have possessions; therefore, in whose case you will not have to hand over any possessions to put you to economic hardship.
And if you fear that you will be unjust with the orphans, mary them (off) in two, and in three, and in four. But if you fear that you may be unfair again, marry off only one of them or those whom your oaths have. This is the way you can avoid the ensuing poverty.
Peace,
Hasdan Akcay -
Salaam brook,
Okay, so if I understand your explanation correctly, you believe that 42 through 46 are talking about marrying off the orphans and as you put it "those whom your oath have", that are poor. I find some problems with your logic though, so lets see if you can clear some of it up
This is what I have written already
43 is about the orphans who have possessions (amwaal). They are too little to look after themselves. So they are under the protection of some benevolent momeneen and momenaat, who are such sincere believers that God's warning in 42 frightens them too much. They ask God in their hearts "How can I avoid the possibility of consuming the possessions of my orphans unwittingly and thus committing the big crime?" They mean the hooban kabeera mentioned in 42.
I agree that 43 is about orphans that have amwaal, as I have stated in the refutation to the article posted as a link earlier. But I see them as they are referred to in 46, after reaching the age of marriage. I will review your point of view that they are too little to look after themselves. Of course they were at one point, but the question is how they are being referred to regarding marriage now.
God shows them the way out
Hand over the possessions of the orphans who have reached their mental and phisical maturity (46); and if they ask you to marry them (off), marry them each to a man and send them away with their possessions to their new homes. This way you will have no possessions of orphans left under your care to eat with your own possesions by mistake.
I agree with this. The possessions of orphans shouldn't be eaten up before they reach the age of maturity to give it to their control. But I don't see "marrying them off" to some man as a way to avoid taking advantage of their wealth. If you have raised them to the point of maturity and not taken advantage of their wealth, why is it necessary for YOU to marry them off to someone now that they have reached the age of maturity in not to do so? Did you all of a sudden become a bad person when they reach the age of maturity? What is the reason or logic behind this timing?
Let's also remember that you said "this way you will have no possessions of orphans left under your care to eat with your own possessions by mistake"; for later on.
VAAHEDATAN means one. Hence if you fear about fairness, one; that is, marry off only one nisaa. The reason why you must fear about fairness is understood from the word TAOOLOO in the end of the verse.
Agreed that if you fear fairness, then only one. Agreed that "taooloo" is regarding this fairness. You concept of marry off is not agreed to here though.
MA MALAKAT AYMAAN UKUM means those whom your oaths have. In 43 they are the poor women under your protection. The difference between the orphan women and the ones whom your oaths have is that the former have possessions (amwaal) but the latter do not. So the verse goes like this now
...if you fear about fairness, marry off only one nisaa or the ones whom your oaths have to do good in order to win God?s favour.
Now you are using "orphan women". Who are the orphan women that are spoke off in 43? Or are you referencing 46 now? and if so, how does 46 relate to 43 to you?
I agree that 46 is speaking about orphans when they reach the age of maturity, hence they would be women then if a man were to speak about marrying them. And clearly they have "amwaal" that is supposed to be released to them at this point.
But under your concept of "taooloo", how does marrying off only one nisaa or the ones whom your oaths have, help you in this? Because if it is to keep you from being poor, then wouldn't that mean you are "eating" from the now grown orphan woman's "amwaal"?
TAOOLOO in 43 conveys the meaning of poverty. So the verse ends with reference to likelihood of poverty if you marry off several orphan women together because you have to hand over the possessions of all of them at once. You can avoid the ensuing poverty by marrying off your poor ma malakat aymaan, who do not have possessions; therefore, in whose case you will not have to hand over any possessions to put you to economic hardship.
Remember when I said to remember this "this way you will have no possessions of orphans left under your care to eat with your own possessions by mistake"? It seems that now you are suggesting that the person will eat the amwaal knowingly, and not mistakingly. How is that better? Why would a believer want to not marry off more than one orphan woman in order to keep her possessions so that he will not become poor? How is that justice? So he should marry off the poor under his oath so that his burdens are removed and he no longer has to pay for them? How does this make sense to you?
And if you fear that you will be unjust with the orphans, mary them (off) in two, and in three, and in four. But if you fear that you may be unfair again, marry off only one of them or those whom your oaths have. This is the way you can avoid the ensuing poverty.
Peace,
Hasdan AkcayFirst you quote the end of 43 as
...if you fear about fairness, marry off only one nisaa or the ones whom your oaths have to do good in order to win God?s favour.
now you are using
.... But if you fear that you may be unfair again, marry off only one of them or those whom your oaths have. This is the way you can avoid the ensuing poverty.
Which of the parts in bold are you prompting as your understanding? They are quite different.
As Salaamu Alaikum,
-
IQO salam
on a side note, what is your opinion regarding the command here in 4-3 for MMa?
is it being suggested that one should marry the MMA or it is being highlighted, "That one may stay satisfied with one (wife) or/and The MMA" ? (because she is already yours, for all practical purposes)
siki
-
As Salaamu Alaika siki,
Your 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
I already said that though the primary subject/emphasis is on dealing with spouse kinda women but i still maintain, "The word Nissa has been used deliberately to enlarge the scope for the purpose of encompasssing your dealing with other women, who do not qualify as such, but still are "your women".
My thinking is due to
-
I agree that the subject must be understood as a whole by reading in continuity, but the commandment in 4-129 has been separated as an ayah , so it should also be understood as a separate unit, disregarding what is said before and after .
-
if you look at the previous verse the Arabic word Amrrat" has been used for the women, giving a clear indication that issue is restricted to the women in regard to their spouses, (noshooz) where as in the next aya the nissa has been used, which enlarges the scope when it comes to men dealing in reverse, because a plenty of women may qualify to be "nissa" of a particular individual.
siki
-
-
This is an example of the exact reason why discussion is necessary, not to mention that people who want to IMPOSE their will on others is not to be accepted. This kind of thinking is what lead to "sunnism/shiaism/etc.". This person hasn't provided one shred of evidence to prove their claim of what is "EXCLUSIVELY", other than saying that they agree with parts of what another person has said; in other words, whoever writes something that my moral compass agrees to, I will label them as correct! Now time to legislate! elektro
As Salaamu Alaikum,
Salaam
I believe that POLYGYNY is allowed in order to give status and rights to all women. Many men have extra marital relationships and the poor other woman has no status or rights even though she is often the source of much happiness to the man she knowingly shares. To redress this injustice English legal system has acknowledged a mistress?s rights but still her status is not respectable.I wonder how many married men would able to cheat on their wives if all women refused to have a relationship outside Nikah?
Who is taking care of orphans nowadays?
Whenever rights are given to humans they always find ways to abuse it, oil rich Arabs are doing that, yet there are so many (Kosovan etc) Muslim women begging on the street.
There is lot of wisdom in the Qur?an, which we can?t always understand, but ultimately it is for our benefit.
Best regards
farida -
I wonder whether his could help throw more light on the subject.
4.4. Wa 'atu nnisaa'a saduqatihinna...
This word "saduqa" occurs only in this aya
then in 4.24 it says,
...fa 'atuhunna 'ujurahunna
then in 4.25
... wa 'atuhunna ujurahunna
there are other ayas where the 'ujur happen in the context of the marrying man ginving 'ujurahunna to the bride. I will not quote them all.
So it might be useful to know what the difference between this saduqa, which in Yusuf Ali is translated as dower, and the 'ujur in 4.24 and 4.25 that are also translated as dower.
Salaam
-
If you have an aversion to priest and associate it with me, maybe it is because you have an aversion to my name "ImamQuranOnly" because of the word "Imam", and your traditional understanding of this word and how it is used.
What is in brown is one instance of what I find annoying in your posts. You do not content yourself with giving your arguments, you go and tell people what "may be" they are thinking and of course mostly, in what concerns me, you are wide off the mark" and myself saying to myself "What is this?? How on earth can this chap come up with thing like this??
I must say again, that at least I, I find it difficult getting your reasonings when you accompany them with things out of the blue, which besides are not abstract thoughts, which I mostly appreciate, but thoughts on people's thoughts, as if you were burrowing into their brain. Believe, I won't speak about other people, but this does nothing for me understanding what you want to communicate. I think you want to communciate something, at least.
Salaam
-
Salaam huruf,
Im not really interested in what annoys you, or whether or not you like my posts. If you don't like them, or are annoyed by them; them simply save yourself the headache and STOP READING THEM. I gave a valid analysis of "maybe" why you were connecting my posts to priests tirads, or whatever you called it. If you don't want to be analysed on here, stop posting. Otherwise it will happen. No need to get your underwear in a bind.
You don't have to like me. Im not here for that. I actually like some people on here (based on posts only) and some I don't. Either way, I don't let it keep me from learning or not learning something based on who gave it. Nor do I take a position of agreement with something because I like who posted it. That is childish and immature. True seekers of knowledge, IMHO, accept truth and wisdom from where ever it comes.
What is in brown is one instance of what I find annoying in your posts. You do not content yourself with giving your arguments, you go and tell people what "may be" they are thinking and of course mostly, in what concerns me, you are wide off the mark" and myself saying to myself "What is this?? How on earth can this chap come up with thing like this??
I must say again, that at least I, I find it difficult getting your reasonings when you accompany them with things out of the blue, which besides are not abstract thoughts, which I mostly appreciate, but thoughts on people's thoughts, as if you were burrowing into their brain. Believe, I won't speak about other people, but this does nothing for me understanding what you want to communicate. I think you want to communciate something, at least.
Salaam
Quoting you maybe have an aversion to the term "IMAM" is not out of the blue when you speak about your problems with the way preachers speak. Who knows, maybe I am reading your brain and you just don't like it. Either way, if it isn't true, what do you care? Just move on and make a post that has something to do with the topic instead of diverting it to how you think I should be posting; like this one. And when you say believe you, "I won't speak about other people"; then what exactly do you call this post about my posting? ???
Enough said. I think I have communicated what I wanted to say.
As Salaamu Alaikum, )
-
As Salaamu Alaika siki,
IQO salam
on a side note, what is your opinion regarding the command here in 4-3 for MMa?
is it being suggested that one should marry the MMA or it is being highlighted, "That one may stay satisfied with one (wife) or/and The MMA" ? (because she is already yours, for all practical purposes)
siki
I don't have a fully accepted understanding yet of MMA. I have been researching it due to someone else having asked me about the same issue. I am reading as many posts about it as possible and studying all of the ayaat from Al Quran on it whenever I get the chance. What I do understand or accept right now, is that it doesn't mean that men can have slaves to have sex with if they can't get married, or along side their wives. I think when it says "then one AW MMA", that this means that if not what was already mentioned, then one OR the other, of the last two suggestions; not both of the last two suggestions in addition to what was already given in the command. I hope I am making sense to you.
In reading some of the posts, taking "aw" to mean "that is" (or something like that they used), instead of "or", is something that I have not considered in detail, so I am exploring it's viability. I hope to have some more to say about it over this weekend, Allah willing.
As Salaamu Alaikum,
-
As Salaamu Alaika siki,
I already said that though the primary subject/emphasis is on dealing with spouse kinda women but i still maintain, "The word Nissa has been used deliberately to enlarge the scope for the purpose of encompasssing your dealing with other women, who do not qualify as such, but still are "your women".
What type of women would qualify "as such", but are not wives or MMA?
My thinking is due to
- I agree that the subject must be understood as a whole by reading in continuity, but the commandment in 4-129 has been separated as an ayah , so it should also be understood as a separate unit, disregarding what is said before and after .
I don't agree with the logic that this ayat has been separated just because the word "nisaa" is used instead of "amrrat". I do think there is a reason for it, but not because it doesn't deal with the same subject. Why? Because " fatatharooha kaalmuAAallaqati "and leave her as one hanging in a void"; is saying that it is dealing with the same subject matter.
- if you look at the previous verse the Arabic word Amrrat" has been used for the women, giving a clear indication that issue is restricted to the women in regard to their spouses, (noshooz) where as in the next aya the nissa has been used, which enlarges the scope when it comes to men dealing in reverse, because a plenty of women may qualify to be "nissa" of a particular individual.
siki
I understand your point to a degree, and it sounds like you are saying that this is a general statement that Allah warns men about not being able to be fair with "women" in general, maybe because of a male superiority complex or something. Correct me if I am wrong as to what you are saying here siki.
Nevertheless, I think that while this could be true if the ayat is taken out of context, that it could certainly mean that, I think because of the ayaat before and after it that it is precisely not saying that. But I do get how you are coming to that conclusion because of the change of the term going from wife to women.
As Salaamu Alaikum,
-
As Salaamu Alaika farida,
Salaam
I believe that POLYGYNY is allowed in order to give status and rights to all women. Many men have extra marital relationships and the poor other woman has no status or rights even though she is often the source of much happiness to the man she knowingly shares. To redress this injustice English legal system has acknowledged a mistress?s rights but still her status is not respectable.I think all in a family relationship where sex is exchanged which continues the stream of life going; that marriage is the bond required by Allah to maintain the status, rights and dignity of all involved. Unfortunately today, both men and women are having sexual relationships outside of the marriage bond; and both get hurt on either side due to it. Im surprised to here about the English legal system acknowledging the rights of mistresses. Do they acknowlege the rights of men who sleep with married women? (Now that would be something )
I wonder how many married men would able to cheat on their wives if all women refused to have a relationship outside Nikah?
Men should also refuse to have sexual relationships outside of marriage; whether they are the one who is married, or the women is the one who is married. But I get your point.
I fully believe that it is actually MARRIED MEN, who primarily made laws to outlaw polygyny in most countries. Prior to 100 or 200 years ago, polygyny was legal in most countries, while polyandry has barely ever been legal in most of the world. Married men, that we not to godly, probably realized that they could have a lot more fun without the responsibility if they could outlaw polygyny. Plus it really helps those who want to control global population. How many women would be willing to sleep with married men if the society openly accepted polygyny? Not many in my estimations. Rather they would be trying to marry those men. Many women agree to sleep with men they know are married because their selection just isn't that great out in the world today (or they just fall in love elektro that hurts). My thinking says that if polygyny was the norm, very few women would be willing to be a mistress. Maybe Im wrong.
Who is taking care of orphans nowadays?
Whenever rights are given to humans they always find ways to abuse it, oil rich Arabs are doing that, yet there are so many (Kosovan etc) Muslim women begging on the street.
There is lot of wisdom in the Qur?an, which we can?t always understand, but ultimately it is for our benefit.
Best regards
faridaWell, depends on if you mean arabic orphans or english orphans! Arabic orphans still have their mother according to many arabs. So I guess in America we just call that single parent homes. No orphans involved. Moms just look to get another husband when she can.
Im not sure what's going on in arab countries, or "muslim" countries. I would expect that their families are helping them out with the orphans. I don't think that a woman with kids losing her husband is automatically put on the market to be a co-wife (anymore than any single woman would). But I wouldn't be surprised that if some "orphans" were very wealthy with an inheritance, that someone close to them might be trying to spend their wealth before they are of marriageable age; or to marry them to take advantage of their wealth if they could. Allah knows best.
As Salaamu Alaikum, )
-
Salaam huruf,
Im not really interested in what annoys you, or whether or not you like my posts. If you don't like them, or are annoyed by them; them simply save yourself the headache and STOP READING THEM. I gave a valid analysis of "maybe" why you were connecting my posts to priests tirads, or whatever you called it. If you don't want to be analysed on here, stop posting. Otherwise it will happen. No need to get your underwear in a bind.
You don't have to like me. Im not here for that. I actually like some people on here (based on posts only) and some I don't. Either way, I don't let it keep me from learning or not learning something based on who gave it. Nor do I take a position of agreement with something because I like who posted it. That is childish and immature. True seekers of knowledge, IMHO, accept truth and wisdom from where ever it comes.
Quoting you maybe have an aversion to the term "IMAM" is not out of the blue when you speak about your problems with the way preachers speak. Who knows, maybe I am reading your brain and you just don't like it. Either way, if it isn't true, what do you care? Just move on and make a post that has something to do with the topic instead of diverting it to how you think I should be posting; like this one. And when you say believe you, "I won't speak about other people"; then what exactly do you call this post about my posting? ???
Enough said. I think I have communicated what I wanted to say.
As Salaamu Alaikum, )
OK, I got it you like to make speeches. And you are right too, I don't need to read them. I suppose I was entertaining the utopia that I could get the corn without having to muddle through the rest. Never mind.
Salaam
-
OK, I got it you like to make speeches. And you are right too, I don't need to read them. I suppose I was entertaining the utopia that I could get the corn without having to muddle through the rest. Never mind.
Salaam
If you think that was a speech, then you should have heard me in the past to give a khutbah! rotfl rotfl rotfl
Live long and prosper! O0
As salaamu Alaikum, angel
-
4.4. Wa 'atu nnisaa'a saduqatihinna... This word "saduqa" occurs only in this aya? So it might be useful to know what the difference between this saduqa, which in Yusuf Ali is translated as dower, and the 'ujur in 4.24 and 4.25 that are also translated as dower. (huruf)
Thank you, Sister huruf, for reminding us of the difference between "sadokaat" which appears only in 43 and "ojoor" in all the other verses. It is so important that I couldn?t help getting excited when I read your reminder. I will begin with it.
Yusuf Ali and his likes presume that sadookaat and ojoor are the same because according to them 44 too is about men?s marrying women like the other verses. According to them, 44 is not about marrying the women off.
The translators are so prejudiced (or rather bloked as you once said?) that they contradict themselves so easily. Take for example Muhammad Asad?s translation
And give unto women their marriage portions in the spirit of a gift*; but if they, of their own accord, give up unto you aught thereof, then enjoy it with pleasure and good cheer.
In the footnote he explains
*The expression nihlah signifies the giving of something willingly, without expecting a return for it (Zamakhshari)
See the contradiction? Do men pay the dowers without expecting a return from the women they marry? God?s truth is that bride?s dower, or marriage portion as Asad puts it, is given by the groom, expecting a return for it. He gives it to her so that she will keep house for him and raise him children.
I said God?s truth because God explains it Himself in Al-Baqarah 223 Your wives are your tilth? You make a pay and expect a return for it, which is your tilth.
So sadoqaat can not be dowers.
An Arabic speaker defined nihla like this (Will Samia pleasde tell us whether it is true) Nehl is honeybee. Nehla is a gift similar to the gift of honey that honebees freely provide to others (bears, humans etc.) without expectation of reward.
To sum up, in 44 the women?s sadoqaat are their own possessions.When men marry them off, they hand the possessions over to the women, without expecting a return.
Men have no right to expect a return because they are not giving anything from themselves. However if the women, of their own accord, give up unto you aught thereof, then?
*I will try to answer ImamQuranonly?s questions separately, God willing.
Peace,
Hasan Akcay -
See the contradiction? Do men pay the dowers without expecting a return from the women they marry? God?s truth is that bride?s dower, or marriage portion as Asad puts it, is given by the groom, expecting a return for it. He gives it to her so that she will keep house for him and raise him children.
correction, primarily , sex and enjoyment.
siki
-
IQO salam
on a side note, what is your opinion regarding the command here in 4-3 for MMa?
is it being suggested that one should marry the MMA or it is being highlighted, "That one may stay satisfied with one (wife) or/and The MMA" ? (because she is already yours, for all practical purposes)
siki
samia ! i direct my above question to you. kindly give your opinion.
siki
-
The possessions of orphans shouldn't be eaten up before they reach the age of maturity to give it to their control. But I don't see "marrying them off" to some man as a way to avoid taking advantage of their wealth. If you have raised them to the point of maturity and not taken advantage of their wealth, why is it necessary for YOU to marry them off to someone now that they have reached the age of maturity in not to do so? Did you all of a sudden become a bad person when they reach the age of maturity? What is the reason or logic behind this timing?
The reason behind it is the opportunity which now comes up the female orphans are finally mature enough to marry. The protecting momeneen and momenaat can take it, as a way out their fear, if they want.
Now you are using "orphan women". Who are the orphan women that are spoke off in 43? Or are you referencing 46 now? and if so, how does 46 relate to 43 to you?
They are the female yatamaa who have reached their physical and mental maturity. In 46 God orders the possessions te be handed over to the yataamaa, who actually are the women in 43.
I agree that 46 is speaking about orphans when they reach the age of maturity, hence they would be women then if a man were to speak about marrying them. And clearly they have "amwaal" that is supposed to be released to them at this point.
But under your concept of "taooloo", how does marrying off only one of the nisaa or the ones whom your oaths have, help you in this?
The possessions are not taboos never to be touched. On the contrary, in 46 God tells you that they are your possesions (amwaal akum) which means if you are really poor, you can eat in a fair manner (fa?l ya3kul bi?l ma3ruuf); plus, you are assigned to invest them, on your yataamaa?s behalf, in economic endeavours.
Supposing you have bought some sheep so that you shall feed them and when the time is ripe you shall sell them at a profitable price. Then several of your yetaamaa prove to have matured enough to receive their money and all of them authorize you (maa taaba lakum) to marry them off. However, the sheep are not good enough to sell yet. If you sell them you will lose lots of money.
In this case you can choose to marry off only one of the yataamaa and keep the others waiting for the proper time. Or if even one orphan?s wedding is definite to put you to economic hardship, you can ask all of them to wait until you sell the sheep at a reasonable price.
As for those whom your oaths have, their wedding never puts you to financial hardship because they don?t have any possessions you have to return. So if you really want to do good works (amal-e saaleh), you can marry them off. God loves His ebaad who do good works.
... remember "this way you will have no possessions of orphans left under your care to eat with your own possessions by mistake" It seems that now you are suggesting that the person will eat the amwaal knowingly, and not mistakingly. How is that better?
I am not suggesting that the person will eat the amwaal knowingly. I said unwittingly, which means unintentionally or unkowingly.
So he should marry off the poor under his oath so that his burdens are removed and he no longer has to pay for them? How does this make sense to you?
For whom?
Peace,
Hasan Akcay