POLYGAMY NOT THERE IN QURAN?
-
Wa Salaam Samia,
All words have other meanings that are included with the meaning used in the context. If "nisaa" is understood to be "women", there is nothing that says that these women are not also classified as "vunerable". It makes perfect sense to address these issues because the women are exactly vunerable.
So until otherwise proven, I still think women is the primary meaning and "vunerable" can be a secondary meaning. Context is everything in any language.
Salaam IQO
Women should not be vulnerable by nature, or without a reason, just because they are women. When they are, they are a sub category of the vulnerable.
Why would you not want to translate his article and post it on this forum?
Of course I want to. I said one day I will. Ah, about this phrase (I am not sure about this forum) was my response to your question if someone in this forum understood nisaa' the way I did. Sorry for the ambiguity.
Can you then tell me what "rijall" (or it's derivative) means (if it is not "MAN/MEN" in the following ayaat
2228, 2282, 41, 47, 412, 432, 475, 498, 4176, 69, 781, 2325, 2338, 2755, 2929, (there are more, but these should be sufficient.)
I really don't know how I wrote that sentence ;D. I do not know what I was thinking about. You're right, of course.
According to you, doesn't orphans and vulnerable children all have to do with "women";
What do you mean by "according to me the orphans, vulnerable children and all have to do with women"? No. Not necessarily. A child abused by his father or anyother member of the family, or being made to work to support the family does not necessrily have to do with women.
I said these people, including poor widows being vulnerable for raising up orphans, are all under the umbrella of "the vulnerable= nisaa'" not "women=nisaa'".Many, if not most men, not only give a dowry to prospective wives, but they give them "gifts" of charity as well. So why couldn't ayat 44 be considered exemplifying that?
The verse in question is a command. It's not telling us about some good men.
If the women (whom you just recently said were not women, but the "vunerable" in 4127 don't refer to those in 43, then where in Al Quran is Allah referring us to when He says that He has already instructed us concerning them?
Search in the Straight Path
Is verse 4127 addressing all widows, or just widows with orphaned children?
Widows are only vunrelable if they are poor and raising orphans. These are the ones addressed "yataamaal nisaa allaati..."
Which ayaat again do you say make clear to us that the widows and their orphans are poor?
4127 and maybe 43, and anywhere there's mention of "yataamal nisaa'".
If you don't mind, can you find the time to post the detailed evidence for all of your statements/conclusions that you have made here?
You can search any classical dictionary for root (nuun seen hamza). Don't expect to find "vulnerable", but you will find "late/left behind", and its plural "nasaa'" or "nisaa'". Ah, and the sciatic nerf is called (nisa)
-
Salaams Samia,
You are a professinal at being ambigous and not answering questions completely. So I will leave it at that. I know you are still trying to make the points that you promote to others to also make sense to your self completely. Enough said.
As Salaamu Alaikum,
Salaam IQO
Women should not be vulnerable by nature, or without a reason, just because they are women. When they are, they are a sub category of the vulnerable.Of course I want to. I said one day I will. Ah, about this phrase (I am not sure about this forum) was my response to your question if someone in this forum understood nisaa' the way I did. Sorry for the ambiguity.I really don't know how I wrote that sentence ;D. I do not know what I was thinking about. You're right, of course. What do you mean by "according to me the orphans, vulnerable children and all have to do with women"? No. Not necessarily. A child abused by his father or anyother member of the family, or being made to work to support the family does not necessrily have to do with women.
I said these people, including poor widows being vulnerable for raising up orphans, are all under the umbrella of "the vulnerable= nisaa'" not "women=nisaa'".The verse in question is a command. It's not telling us about some good men.Search in the Straight PathWidows are only vunrelable if they are poor and raising orphans. These are the ones addressed "yataamaal nisaa allaati..."4127 and maybe 43, and anywhere there's mention of "yataamal nisaa'".You can search any classical dictionary for root (nuun seen hamza). Don't expect to find "vulnerable", but you will find "late/left behind", and its plural "nasaa'" or "nisaa'". Ah, and the sciatic nerf is called (nisa) -
In terms of matrimonial law I see the marriage portion as a security for women. Women often move from their homes in order to become someone?s wife and it?s 99% women who have to cut short their careers. (farida)
I agree. Women do give up these things, which marriage portion ('ujuur) is supposed to make up for. As a result ?ujuur is, in in huruf?s words, something paid as a cosideration for something in return.
What I understand from your words is that the something in return is women?s keeping men?s houses instead of living in other houses where they were accustomed to living with a feeling of security and raising men?s children instead of carrying on their previous careers. Although they are also women?s houses and women?s children, the rule still stands women do give up things from their lives in order to contribute positive things to men?s lives; so they deserve the dowers in return.
Sadoqaat are different. They are women?s own possessions.
Peace,
Hasan AkcaySalaam
I have no objection to dower I see it as woman?s right based on the role woman plays in the society and as I said marriage portion is in consideration of situation faced by women. I do not see it as a pay or wage. Islamic marriage is exactly like law of contract, which has all three elements, offer, acceptance and consideration ( ujuur/ Dower ). Its based on reality notThe rule still stands; women do give up things from their lives in order to contribute positive things to men?s lives; I hope you realise that women make a mature choice when they decide to give up their parent?s home to move to new home and start a relationship based on mutual gain. No one is doing anyone else a favour there. If we look at life as exchanging favours with each other it becomes very mean ? think not of what you give but of what you receive and in giving you receive.You have not commented on my understanding of the use of tilth in surah 4 I would like to know if you still see it as linking to dower? I believe it is more appropriate to link protector. I would appreciate your view on that.
Best regards
farida -
Salaams siki,
I understand how this ayat can seem to indicate to someone that MMA are not married to a man, but my current understanding is leaning towards the MMA as being one whom a man has married but wasn't able to provide a normal dower for because of his lack of finances and the MMA's own personal financial situation being poor. Therefore a man can't have more than one MMA in order to not be unjust; which is why it is "ONE AW MMA". I hope to add to or correct my understanding soon on this issue, Allah willing.
As Salaamu Alaikum, )
ya. could be , seems like a step in positive direction.
In nut shell , seems like a contract lesser than Nikah , with less strings attached and lesser obligations.
Try studying mutta which shias think was in practice in Mohammad's (phuh) time . We may have a link, and hence truth in there.
siki
-
ujoors are not dowers, but compulsory wages (Mahar) which must be paid to the women before getting physical and it is non returnable , because once you have benifited and enjoyed/explored her body it can not be undone.
in 60 -10. when mohjirrat al mominnat's marriage is being nullified, The ujoors are not being returned but a different word has been used , which is Nafaq (anfaqqo).
siki
-
samia! regarding the Nissa issue i still have the above mentioned question pending.
siki
Sorry siki. I was away most of the time yesterday and the day before, and the thread grew enormously!
Of course it contains women! Why not?
I am sure you have read how I explained my nderstanding in a thread you participated in. -
Sorry siki. I was away most of the time yesterday and the day before, and the thread grew enormously!
Of course it contains women! Why not?
I am sure you have read how I explained my nderstanding in a thread you participated in.i am sorry i am unable to understand how? when two genders are exclusively being addressed, and one is being made Qawam of other?
siki
-
The qur'aan never mentioned any other "money" to be paid to "wives" beside the dowry (Samia).
(1)Soqaat in 44 is not any money in general sense but charity in particular.
(2)The nisaa in 44 are the adult female orphans. They sure are vulnerable in the sense you use the word; so benevolent believers must have given them sadoqaat in the past.
(3)The nisaa in 44 are not some women whom God tells men to make into their wives. No verb conveying the meaning of marry exists in the verse. The verbs in it are ?tu, tabna, and kuluu
Wa ?tu?n nisaa?a saduqaat ihinna nihlatan. Fa in tabna lakum an shai3in minhu nafsan fakuluuhu haneean wa maree?a.
As for verse 43, I tried to think of Hasan's understanding, but I found many flaws which you addressed in your reply to him. (Samia)
In a separate post I argued against the so-called flaws which IQO adressed. You must have read it and you must have foud my explanations not convincing enough; otherwise, you would not be speaking about the flaws any more. In what terms do you still label them as flaws?
You have not commented on my understanding of the use of tilth in surah 4. I would like to know if you still see it as linking to dower? (fartida)
Yes, I do.
I believe it is more appropriate to link protector.
I believe protector can be reconciled with utilizer here. Would you like me to make a more detailed explanation?
Peace,
Hasan Akcay -
Peace Hasan Akcay,
I would like to know what arguments you made against the flaws in the article that I pointed out. I definitely have not read anything remotely convincing from you. As a matter of fact, you are so all over the place with your views and positions, that it becomes tedious to even try to make or understand a point with you. Maybe it is because Enlish is not your native language and your expressions come across differently, in which case I am not holding that against you. But if you think that you have some good points, you will have to find some help in expressing them with better clarity in English on this forum, for them to be understood or accepting as anything close to convincing. I find most of your posts incoherrant to say the least.
As Salaamu Alaikum, )
In a separate post I argued against the so-called flaws which IQO adressed. You must have read it and you must have foud my explanations not convincing enough; otherwise, you would not be speaking about the flaws any more. In what terms do you still label them as flaws?
Peace,
Hasan Akcay -
Maybe you missed the first sentence in that post I made and failed to realize that I am trying to give the poster the benefit of the doubt as to why many of his posts make no sense to me. It's very comfortable where I am sitting, so what does to hot for comfort have to do with this thread? If you have something to had to the discussion, please feel free to add some knowledge to it.
How did we get from a discussion on the topic at hand to a criticism of English language skills? confused
Was it getting a bit too hot for comfort???
-
Nevermind, I understand why it is hot and uncomfortable to you in this thread! brickwall
o
Wow! I haven't delved too much into this topic. But this is so 'right'! I could never 'swallow' the idea of polygamy, no matter how they tried to justify it. It's just so against human nature and I was puzzled at the prospect of how God could allow such a thing. Now, I see why....He didn't!!!
yay
-
Salaam Hasan
(1)Soqaat in 44 is not any money in general sense but charity in particular.
I know. Sadaqaa is a kind of charity. I was contesting the meaning of "wives" given to "nisaa'".
(2)The nisaa in 44 are the adult female orphans. They sure are vulnerable in the sense you use the word; so benevolent believers must have given them sadoqaat in the past.
What do you mean by (an orphaned woman)? Orphans are children. Why would a woman who lost her parent be vulnerable?
Moreover, if they were exclusively females, the appropriate plural would have been used, not the "masculine" one.
Why "in the past"? They were given the sadaqaat when they are "nisaa'".(3)The nisaa in 44 are not some women whom God tells men to make into their wives. No verb conveying the meaning of marry exists in the verse. The verbs in it are ?tu, tabna, and kuluu
I did not say they are wives. See above.
In a separate post I argued against the so-called flaws which IQO adressed. You must have read it and you must have foud my explanations not convincing enough; otherwise, you would not be speaking about the flaws any more. In what terms do you still label them as flaws?
Your reply is based on "yataamaa al-nisaa' = female orphans". Arabic there is one word for female orphans yateemaat. Yataamaa is either exclusively masculine or a collective plural.
-
I say that if financially stable men married 2,3, or 4 of the orphaned, homeless and widdowed women from Africa, Iraq etc. we would have solved half the world's problems. bravo
and don't forget all the women working in unlawful places and doing indecent jobs (even hollywood actresses) . Pick them all up and marry them and put them away from corrupting the earth more and more.
hehehe .. I don't know where I come up with such ideas sometimes P
Bring Beyonce', Hally and Alicia Keys to my office for nikah and Islamic indoctrination so that I can take them off of society's hand as a burden! O0 rotfl yay rotfl yay rotfl
Okay, Im just joking. Just wanted to add a lighter post in here. I wouldn't marry these women because they all have some serious issues. (Okay, I may make exceptions for Beyonce' if I can get her to act and dress Quranically. ) sun ;D
-
Have you not been averting your gaze??? nope Naughty! Naughty!
Nevermind, I understand why it is hot and uncomfortable to you in this thread! brickwall
Okay. But there's no use in beating yourself up over it! confused
(As for 'adding knowledge' to the discussion -- what little I had to offer, I did. I have already written 'I haven't delved much into this topic'...I'm simply a spectator on this thread!)
-
Salaam ImamQuranonly.
In the beginning of this thread I said Probably I am the only participant in this forum definitely convinced that polygamy is forbidden in Islam. I must constantly keep this in mind and do my best to avoid disturbing the other participants who fully or partly support it.
It is important for me I keep my promise. So if I disturb you in any way, please let me know..
From my previous post
ImamQuranonly
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?Hasan Akcay
The early momeneen and momenaat with orphans under their protection have always been afraid to commit the hooban kabeera mentioned in 42. Therefore the reason behind it is the opportunity which now comes up the female orphans are finally mature enough to marry. The momeneen and momenaat can take take the opportunity as a way out of their fear, if they want.IQO
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?HA
They are the female orphans who have reached their physical and mental maturity. The orphans whose possessions the believers fear to consume unintentionally in 42, the nisaa whom the believers fear to be unjust with in 43, and the orphans whose possessions God orders the believers to return in 46 are the same people.ImamQuranonly
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?Hasan Akcay
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 you can eat in a fair manner (fa?l ya3kul bi?l ma3ruuf) if you are really poor. Plus, you are to invest them in economic endeavours on behalf of your yatamaa.Supposing you have bought some sheep with their money so that you will feed them and sell them at a profitable price later on. But several of your yataamaa prove to have grown matured enough for you to return 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 now you will lose lots of money.
In this case you can choose to marry off only one of the orphan nisaa and ask the others to wait. Or, if even one orphan woman?s wedding is sure 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, your marrying them off never causes financial hardship because they don?t have possessions to be returned. So if you really want to do good deeds (amal-e saaleh), you can marry them off. God loves His ebaad who do good works.
Salaam Samia.
I know. Sadaqaa is a kind of charity. I was contesting the meaning of "wives" given to "nisaa'".
I didn?t say they are wives. I said they are the nisaa whose sadoqaat you must return to. It is Yusuf Ali, Muhammad Asad and their likes who claim that the sadoqaat are dowries and the nisaa are wives to receive them. I suppose you are objecting to Yusuf Ali and Muhammad Asad rather than to me.
What do you mean by (an orphaned woman)? Orphans are children.
I mean the orphans who have reached their physical and mental maturity; that is the reason why God orders you to give back their possessions to them (46).
Why would a woman who lost her parent be vulnerable?
You say that orphans are vulnerabla. The nisaa who are mentioned in 43 and 44 were little orphans in the past; they are orphan nisaa with possessions now.
Moreover, if they were exclusively females, the appropriate plural would have been used, not the "masculine" one.
You and I discussed this before. You asked how the male orphans could be married off. I referred you to 2432.
Why "in the past"? They were given the sadaqaat when they are "nisaa'".
You are not giving the nisaa sadoqaat as charity from yourself but returning the sadoqaat which are their own possessions. Please consider the difference between charity and dowry.
Yataamaa is either exclusively masculine or a collective plural.
You know tese things; I don't. So it is collective plural.
Peace,
Hasan Akcay -
"Sadaqats" are certainly "chairties" , its combination with Nihalatan solidfies the meaning as something to be given away without expecting a benifit in return, but the problem comes up when the sentence culminates with , "If they forfeit something willingly" brickwall This is a real problem .
we may have to adop a voodoo non conformal but creative and logical approach to solve the above. hmm So let us do some out of the Box thinking. group
siki