POLYGAMY NOT THERE IN QURAN?
-
Third, your point is invalidated because you don't understand that even if what you said existed did in fact exist, the plural masculine form "can include the feminine" as well, but doesn't HAVE TO. The context is what determines whether or not it does. Since women obviously can't marry women, 43 has to be addressing MEN only. (ImamQuranonly)
I did not respond to this before because it is only a false excuse the context you abuse is only your context. My God does not shift His adressees to the polygyny-hungry men in 43 out of the blue despite the fact that He addresses all believers including momenaat in 41, 42, ???, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 410. This may be your false god, all right; but you have no right to impose him on me. My true God is not frivulous like that.
And please watch your words when you speak about me. This is my second warning to you. I won't warn you any more. Iwill simply ignore your posts if you do not behave yourself.
Peace,
Hasan Akcay -
Listen sick man with a big ego and false books to sell, stop warning me and take me off of your radar. Stop reading my posts and stop responding to them. I already told you that I will not ignore yours. I will not stand by while you post your filth and lies to mislead the less knowledgable. And btw, you still didn't answer the questions Mr. let me repost a portion of what you said so that hopefully everyone forgets the points that were made. The only false god on here is you and your own ego that you worship.
Third, your point is invalidated because you don't understand that even if what you said existed did in fact exist, the plural masculine form "can include the feminine" as well, but doesn't HAVE TO. The context is what determines whether or not it does. Since women obviously can't marry women, 43 has to be addressing MEN only. (ImamQuranonly)
I did not respond to this before because it is only a false excuse the context you abuse is only your context. My God does not shift His adressees to the polygyny-hungry men in 43 out of the blue despite the fact that He addresses all believers including momenaat in 41, 42, ???, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 410. This may be your false god, all right; but you have no right to impose him on me. My true God is not frivulous like that.
And please watch your words when you speak about me. This is my second warning to you. I won't warn you any more. Iwill simply ignore your posts if you do not behave yourself.
Peace,
Hasan Akcay -
3352 contains an exception to the general rule given in the first part, and thus CANNOT be construed as a prohibition of polygyny. (tanveer)
This exception covers only Muhammad?s ma malakat yameen, who have been made halal to him (3350). In other words, they are his wives. So it does not mean that Muhammad is allowed to marry women other than his present wives. If it meant that, God?s decision would become meaningless. It is not an exception in the sense you see it.
Secondly, even if we go along the fallacious logic of brother Hassan, that it forbids any more regular marriages by the Prophet, and therefore polygyny is prohibited to all subsequent believers (which is fallacious logic by itself), then not only will polygyny be prohibited, but ANY regular marriage will be prohibited too, because 3352 says NO WOMEN are lawful to you after this .............
What does no women are lawful to you mean? If he is allowed to keep on marrying women other than his present wives, what is the use telling him that no women are lawful to him after this????..?
If 2432 is a command to "get married to", then we have the following two problems?
I am afraid you are splitting hairs. The command is marry off the single, which means you marry them to other people.You don?t marry them yourself; you don?t make them your wives.
It is like in the following commands
Unkih ibnatak marry off your daughter.
Unkih ma taba lekum mina?n nisaa? marry off the women.That is the correct reading of NKH in 43 because only when the NKH is read as unkih, all the momeneen and momenaat can safely obey God?s order. Momenaat can not marry the nisaa mentioned in the verse but they can marry them off.
Hassan says that the registrar at the marriage ceremony of the independents is "marrying them off", but that is fallacious logic. The registrar is not "marrying them off" but just witnessing their marriage ceremony.
Witnessing the marriage is what makes it valid. It doesn?t even have to be the registrar; anybody who is capable of serving as witness will do. And it is the duty of the witnesses to make sure that the bride or the groom are single. Otherwise the witnesses fail to fulfill their duty; which means the marriage is null and void.
Witnessing or registering the marriage is different from watchig football. It goes with the duty of seeing to it that the marriage is in accordance with God?s laws and orders.
Peace,
Hasan Akcay -
Brs. Tanveer and IQO,
.....
Brother SharpAnkihoo in 2432 can logically mean only "marry off" and not "get married to".
If 2432 is a command to "get married to", then we have the following two problems
-
All believers are then obligated to get married to not only the single among them but also their servants (3ibaad" means servants, not slaves). Then as soon as you have a servant, you are obligated to marry that servant.
-
Then, a male believer will be obligated to get married to male and/or a female servant. Is The God condoning or promoting homosexuality here ?
The only logical meaning of "ankihoo" in 2432 would thus be "marry off". This meaning of "marry off" may prevent polygyny by the DEPENDENT believers, but does not contradict polygyny by INDEPENDENT believers because of the reason I gave in my earlier post
"Marry off" indicates that the ones being married off are dependents, and that this sign is directed to parents/guardians of those dependent ones. The independents do not get "married off" but they "get married to". Hassan says that the registrar at the marriage ceremony of the independents is "marrying them off", but that is fallacious logic. The registrar is not "marrying them off" but just witnessing their marriage ceremony. "Marry off" implies dependency, and implies parents or guardians, and not a registrar, and thus does not forbid polygyny by independent believers.
I apologize if what I am about to say is offensive to you, but I was expecting a more convincing argument than what you have asserted above. Apparently, and correct me if I am wrong, you are basing your understanding of the word "Waankihoo" on one of the usages of the word "Waw" throughout the book, which is a little constricting for me. You have translated "Waw" here as "and" (which I have no qualms about) but the meaning that you have attributed to this "and" is along the lines of "also" or "plus". I think that it might be unreasonable to justify the uses of "Waw" using English rules, and that we should check out how, and in what sense, has "Waw" been used throughout the Book, but just to argue along the parameters you have set above, let consider the following
You are implying that for the word "get married to" to make sense, God would (or should)have used "Aww" (meaning "or", rather than "Waw" (meaning "and". In the traditional usage of the word "or", it would imply exclusivity of options, and considering alternatives. Considering this, let's see in what sense the word "or" is used in, say, 2431. What is implies for women is that they can show their Zeenat to (their husbands + their fathers + their husband's fathers + their sons + their husband's sons + their brothers + their brother's sons + their sisters' sons + their women + what their right (hands) owned/possessed + the servants free of physical needs + the children who have no sense or shame of sex)
"or" has been used in the same sense as how you primarily use "and", i.e. plus/also. So to say that "Waw" used in 2432 means plus based on it's primary usage is convoluted, to say the least. There was a reason I asked what people of this thread thought about the applicability of the verse 2432, i.e. whether it is for both men and women, because if that is the case, it can very easily be understood as
2432 - "And marry off those among you that are single, and the good from among your male servants (for female believers) and female servants (for male believers). If they are poor, then God will grant them from His grace. And God is Encompassing, Knowledgeable."
I mean I don't need to force that understanding upon myself. It is one that came naturally to me, without any preconceptions. However, if the word "Aw"/"or" had been used, then it would have been a problem, because that would give each believer (men and women both) a choice, i.e. they can marry either the male servant or the female servant. That would have promoted or condoned homosexuality, as you put it.
Similarly the usage of "Waw" or "and" in the Book has included a sense of choice. Take 54 for instance.
54 - "They ask/question you what became permitted (allowed) for them, say "Permitted/allowed for you (are) things good/pure, and what the trained dogs and birds catch, from what God taught/instructed you, so eat from what they (F) held/grasped/seized on (for) you, and mention/remember God's name on it, and fear and obey God, that God (is) quick/fast (in) the counting/calculating." (Literal)
Using the logic that you have for 2432, does this mean that one can eat only those good and pure things that are caught by trained dogs and birds? No. The "Waw" used here is not used in it's primary usage of "plus"/"also". It plainly means that we can eat good and pure things which obtain ourselves or we can eat the good and pure things that our trained animals have caught for us. I hope you are able to see the weakness in the logic that you base your understanding on.
Br. IQO
I read in someone's post in some other thread that they thought that you were the voice of reason and maturity in this forum. But considering your posts directed to Br. Hasan, I am inclined to disagree. Now you can refute what my opinion is on that matter, but I am sure that you, being a man of the Book, can probably take a reminder from this verse
3159 - "So with what mercy from God you became lenient/softened to them, and if you were rough/rude/crude, hard/strong the heart/mind, they would have scattered/separated from around you, so forgive/pardon on them, and ask for forgiveness for them, and discuss/consult with them in the matter/affair, so if you decided/determined, so rely/depend on God, that God loves/likes the reliant/dependent." (Literal)
I am sorry but I did not see this attribute in your posts. I again apologize if I have offended you but I suppose it is my duty to remind and warn with the Book.
Br. Hasan
....
Since the verses do not follow a chronological order in the mushaf, I don't insist that they convey a perfectly cosequential sense.
...
I am not exactly sure what "Mushaf" is, but are you saying that the Book isn't in the order that it should be? I am sure that you can't be. I must be mistaken, because otherwise one can't put forward any argument based on the context of individual verses, i.e. understanding the meaning of a verse by considering the verses before and after it as well, because since the order of the verses is not correct, then how can we say if the verses before and after even relate to the verse in the middle. When I said, "consequential sense", I did not intend to imply that the order was chronological. If it came out that way, then I apologize. But what I was trying to convery was that the flow that I described made more contextual sense to me.
Peace
-
-
As Salaamu Alaika Sharp001,
Br. IQO
I read in someone's post in some other thread that they thought that you were the voice of reason and maturity in this forum. But considering your posts directed to Br. Hasan, I am inclined to disagree. Now you can refute what my opinion is on that matter, but I am sure that you, being a man of the Book, can probably take a reminder from this verse
3159 - "So with what mercy from God you became lenient/softened to them, and if you were rough/rude/crude, hard/strong the heart/mind, they would have scattered/separated from around you, so forgive/pardon on them, and ask for forgiveness for them, and discuss/consult with them in the matter/affair, so if you decided/determined, so rely/depend on God, that God loves/likes the reliant/dependent." (Literal)
I am sorry but I did not see this attribute in your posts. I again apologize if I have offended you but I suppose it is my duty to remind and warn with the Book.
I am not offended by your remarks here. I hope you read my response to that comment so that you understand how I approach certain things at times. Also, as a matter of fact, here is what I got from Samia in a message
Please consider this a formal warning due to repeated breach of Rule number 3
3] Respect other users of the forum. Language and/or material of vulgarity, obscenity, harassment, profanity or insulting nature, whether it is direct or suggested, will NOT be tolerated. Any messages containing such language or material will be moved to the trash section or deleted, without notice and may result in disciplinary action being taken against the offending member.
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=15958.msg157275#msg157275
While my words may have been very harsh to Mr. Hasan, when you call my god a FALSE GOD, then I take that as the biggest insult and threat that you can make to me as a person. I respond with like force or stronger when presented with a force to repell what I consider wrong doing. In this case, his were words and so were mine. I guess that violates the forum rules, but in that sense, this is done daily to a degree on here anyway. I don't mind being singled out or threatened with disciplinary action. My life doesn't revolved around my participation on this forum. It is a tool to use, and if the time comes that the tool is no longer available, I will move on with no complaints. I have much bigger things to accomplish in this life, Allah willing.
Allah made some of even His believers harsh, as is evidence in Al Quran. While I would prefer to be like the Prophet in the ayaat that you present, it will take more time for me to grow to that level, Allah willing. If I offended any of the members here with what I wrote to Mr. Hasan, I apologize to them for the offense. Maybe it didn't bother others. But I am not offering an apology to Mr. Hasan because I only offered him an offense for the offense that he gave. If that doesn't sit well with the moderators or anyone else, so be it.
As Salaamu Alaikum, peace
-
As Salaamu Alaika Sharp001,
....
While my words may have been very harsh to Mr. Hasan, when you call my god a FALSE GOD, then I take that as the biggest insult and threat that you can make to me as a person. I respond with like force or stronger when presented with a force to repell what I consider wrong doing. In this case, his were words and so were mine.
....
WAS, Br. IQO
I suppose, then, this is the verse that both you and Br. Hasan should be pondering over, if either of you feel that the other has false gods
6108 - "And do not insult those who call on other than God, lest they insult God without knowledge. And We have similarly adorned for every nation their works; then to their Lord is their return and He will inform them of what they had done."
But anyway, what are your views on the rest of my post?
-
As Salaamu Alaika Sharp001,
I am not offended by your remarks here. I hope you read my response to that comment so that you understand how I approach certain things at times. Also, as a matter of fact, here is what I got from Samia in a message
While my words may have been very harsh to Mr. Hasan, when you call my god a FALSE GOD, then I take that as the biggest insult and threat that you can make to me as a person. I respond with like force or stronger when presented with a force to repell what I consider wrong doing. In this case, his were words and so were mine. I guess that violates the forum rules, but in that sense, this is done daily to a degree on here anyway. I don't mind being singled out or threatened with disciplinary action. My life doesn't revolved around my participation on this forum. It is a tool to use, and if the time comes that the tool is no longer available, I will move on with no complaints. I have much bigger things to accomplish in this life, Allah willing.
Allah made some of even His believers harsh, as is evidence in Al Quran. While I would prefer to be like the Prophet in the ayaat that you present, it will take more time for me to grow to that level, Allah willing. If I offended any of the members here with what I wrote to Mr. Hasan, I apologize to them for the offense. Maybe it didn't bother others. But I am not offering an apology to Mr. Hasan because I only offered him an offense for the offense that he gave. If that doesn't sit well with the moderators or anyone else, so be it.
As Salaamu Alaikum, peace
As Salaamu Alaikum
Me and my husband have read many posts wich violate forum rules with no action taken. We feel it would be most unfair to all of us to stop IQO from contributing to this site. Too many on this site are trying to change the meaning of the Qur'an by superimposing their "enlightenened view" on the words of God .
Brother IQO you are allowed to react but as Allah (swt) says its better if you forgive. )
I have posted another thread "support the mistress as well as the wife" . I would appreciate all those not in favour of polygyny to give their views based on reality not idealism.
Best regards
farida -
Sis. farida,
Respectfully speaking, I think you have misunderstood the intent behind the advisory posts. They are most probably not an indication of any ill-feelings towards one another but moreso a reminder of how a discussion should be conducted amongst believing men and women. If we are reduced to not accomodating other people's views and resultingly insultive remarks towards one another, then rest assured, it is a sign that the entities from whom we seek refuge of God under Chapter 114, have succeeded in their goals.
1141 to 6 - "Say "I seek refuge with the Lord of mankind, the King of mankind, the god of mankind,from the evil of the sneaking whisperer,who whispers into the chests of mankind,f rom among the Jinn and mankind."
All post to IQO and all others are just reminders that we should avoid falling into that trap and harbour friendship amongst the believers because it is in the interest of the Accursed One that there be dissention and animosity amongst ourselves.
Peace
-
Salaams to Sharp001 and farida,
Thanks for both of your posts and may Allah continue to guide us all and make us better.
As Salaamu Alaikum, angel
-
Salaam bro Sharp,
You are implying that for the word "get married to" to make sense, God would (or should)have used "Aww" (meaning "or", rather than "Waw" (meaning "and". In the traditional usage of the word "or", it would imply exclusivity of options, and considering alternatives. Considering this, let's see in what sense the word "or" is used in, say, 2431. What is implies for women is that they can show their Zeenat to (their husbands + their fathers + their husband's fathers + their sons + their husband's sons + their brothers + their brother's sons + their sisters' sons + their women + what their right (hands) owned/possessed + the servants free of physical needs + the children who have no sense or shame of sex)
"or" has been used in the same sense as how you primarily use "and", i.e. plus/also. So to say that "Waw" used in 2432 means plus based on it's primary usage is convoluted, to say the least. There was a reason I asked what people of this thread thought about the applicability of the verse 2432, i.e. whether it is for both men and women, because if that is the case, it can very easily be understood as
2432 - "And marry off those among you that are single, and the good from among your male servants (for female believers) and female servants (for male believers). If they are poor, then God will grant them from His grace. And God is Encompassing, Knowledgeable."
There is no ambiguity of homosexuality if 2432 is correctly translated as "marry off" as you have done above, and then there is no need to insert within brackets what you have inserted. If, however, it is translated as "get married to", then there is definitely an ambiguity. What you inserted in brackets would then be problematic because then you are adding to the words of The God. The addressees are the believers and the command in 2432 is applicable to both male and female believers, thus the command of "get married to the good from among your male and female servants" would be applicable to male believers as well as female believers, permitting homosexuality in either case.
Translating as "marry off" avoids this ambiguity and is also correct grammatically as pointed out in some of the above posts, and when translated in such manner, the sign cannot be construed as prohibition of polygyny as already explained in the earlier post.
-
Salaam bro Hasan,
This exception covers only Muhammad?s ma malakat yameen, who have been made halal to him (3350). In other words, they are his wives. So it does not mean that Muhammad is allowed to marry women other than his present wives. If it meant that, God?s decision would become meaningless. It is not an exception in the sense you see it.
Fallacious logic again. Firstly, MMA is mentioned as a separate category in 3350. According to what you are saying, if only MMA were lawful to the Prophet after a certain time then he would have to divorce the other regular wives or stop having marital relationships with them because they are not lawful to him anymore. Do you see the absurdity of what you are proposing ?
Secondly, If MMA were lawful to the Prophet after a certain time, then that obviously means he could marry them and thus there is no prohibition of polygyny.
What does no women are lawful to you mean? If he is allowed to keep on marrying women other than his present wives, what is the use telling him that no women are lawful to him after this????..?
It is not "no women are lawful to you after this", but it is "no women are lawful to you after this ........ EXCEPT MMA", which allows him to marry MMA henceforth as explained above, thus no prohibition of polygyny.
"Min ba3do" can also be interpreted as "after the category of women already mentioned in 3350". My understanding of 3352 is as follows
- The God is telling the Prophet that no women are lawful to him for the purpose of marriage beyond the category of women mentioned in 3350.
- In addition to that, The God is prohibiting him from replacing a wife from the other categories except the category of MMA, i.e. he was still allowed to replace MMA wife with another wife, but was not allowed to replace a non-MMA wife with another wife.
I am afraid you are splitting hairs. The command is marry off the single, which means you marry them to other people.You don?t marry them yourself; you don?t make them your wives.
It is like in the following commands
Unkih ibnatak marry off your daughter.
Unkih ma taba lekum mina?n nisaa? marry off the women.This was not directed to you but to bro Sharp. I agree that 2432 can only be translated as "marry off", and with this correct translation, there is no prohibition of polygyny for INDEPENDENT people as already explained above in multiple posts.
Witnessing the marriage is what makes it valid. It doesn?t even have to be the registrar; anybody who is capable of serving as witness will do. And it is the duty of the witnesses to make sure that the bride or the groom are single. Otherwise the witnesses fail to fulfill their duty; which means the marriage is null and void.
Witnessing or registering the marriage is different from watchig football. It goes with the duty of seeing to it that the marriage is in accordance with God?s laws and orders.
Witnessing does not mean "marrying off", and a witness does not "marry off" people. Witnessing is just that .... witnessing.
That is the correct reading of NKH in 43 because only when the NKH is read as unkih, all the momeneen and momenaat can safely obey God?s order. Momenaat can not marry the nisaa mentioned in the verse but they can marry them off.
Firstly, the addressees are not just believers but HUMANKIND. Please read 41 again with open eyes. Does it say "ya ayyuhalladheena aamanoo" or does it say "yaa ayyuhannaas" ?
Secondly, according to the context of 43, it is obvious that only MEN are the addressees in 43 as bro IQO explained earlier
"your point is invalidated because you don't understand that even if what you said existed did in fact exist, the plural masculine form "can include the feminine" as well, but doesn't HAVE TO. The context is what determines whether or not it does. Since women obviously can't marry women, 43 has to be addressing MEN only."
-
Salaam bro Sharp,
There is no ambiguity of homosexuality if 2432 is correctly translated as "marry off" as you have done above, and then there is no need to insert within brackets what you have inserted. If, however, it is translated as "get married to", then there is definitely an ambiguity. What you inserted in brackets would then be problematic because then you are adding to the words of The God. The addressees are the believers and the command in 2432 is applicable to both male and female believers, thus the command of "get married to the good from among your male and female servants" would be applicable to male believers as well as female believers, permitting homosexuality in either case.
Translating as "marry off" avoids this ambiguity and is also correct grammatically as pointed out in some of the above posts, and when translated in such manner, the sign cannot be construed as prohibition of polygyny as already explained in the earlier post.
Br. Tanveer,
I find it strange that for someone who starts off with a basic premise that homosexuality is not allowed in the Book (something that I gathered from you posts to Br. Hasan with regards to 43) would even consider the possibility of an ambiguity in 2432 to that effect. Strange. It's like you want the ambiguity to be there so you can apparently remove it by adopting an alternative meaning to "Waankihoo".
As for grammar, I think Sis. Samia put it best when she said, "Who came first, the Book or the grammarians?". If you believe that you will be able to convince me that the only people who are well versed in Arabic can understand the Message in the true sense, then I will surely disappoint you. I believe that the explanation of His message is His responsibility and I trust Him, not the grammarians.
I suppose, for the moment, since I could not see anything new in your argument, my current understanding holds true for me. All I can do is be devoted to what I have been taught and studied of the Book (379).
Peace
-
Firstly, the addressees are not just believers but HUMANKIND. Please read 41 again with open eyes. Does it say "ya ayyuhalladheena aamanoo" or does it say "yaa ayyuhannaas" ?
Secondly, according to the context of 43, it is obvious that only MEN are the addressees in 43 as bro IQO explained earlier
"your point is invalidated because you don't understand that even if what you said existed did in fact exist, the plural masculine form "can include the feminine" as well, but doesn't HAVE TO. The context is what determines whether or not it does. Since women obviously can't marry women, 43 has to be addressing MEN only."
The addressee is ayuhannas till aya 19 where it changes to ayuhaalladhina amanu. 4.3 is still addressed to ayuhannas, there has been no change of addressee.
Salaam
-
I need some time to regain the right mood to resume writing. Please excuse me.
Peace,
HJasan AkcaySalaam, Brook,
Don't get discountenanced. I think you brought a lot of aspects to enquire upon. Independently of what one may conclude on the subject of the thread -if one concludes something-, I think that your study and discussion of the ayas have indeed opened insights and possibilities to get a better understanding of the many lights of the Qur'an, which is finally what moves all of us forumers.
Salaam and good work
-
Fallacious logic again. Firstly, MMA is mentioned as a separate category in 3350. (tanveer)
The same verb covers all of the women who were made halal to the Prophet
Inna ahlalna laka
(1)azwaaj aka ?llaatee ?taina ujuur ahunna
(1)your wives to whom you paid their dowers(2)wa ma malakat yameen uka
(2)and those whom your oath has(3)wa banate amm aka? ?llaate h?jarna ma?ak
(3)and your cousins? who migrated with youThey are all of the same category in terms of the fact that the Prophet already married them and God made them halal to him.
If MMA were lawful to the Prophet after a certain time...
It is illogical to assume that they were allowed to him only after a certain time. They were allowed to him the moment he took his oath (yameen) in the presence of God and told the people around for their information and thus he married them just as he married the other women in the presence of human witnesses.
Please pay attention the second part of Al-Ahzaab 52 ...nor art thou allowed to substitude then by other wives.
It is clear that the Prophet is not allowed to exchange a wife with a woman from outside of his family even if the latter?s beauty pleases him greatly.
What he is forbidden to do is not to make one woman haram to himself so that he can make another halaal. The Prophet has no right to make anything haram to himself after God makes it halal to him (661).
The fact that he is not allowed to take wife upon wife is a clearcut end to polygyny because you can not have polygyny without taking wife upon wife.
It is not "no women are lawful to you after this", but it is "no women are lawful to you after this ........ EXCEPT MMA", which allows him to marry MMA henceforth as explained above, thus no prohibition of polygyny.
You stubbornly close your eyes to the truth that the Prophet?s wives who are described as ma malakat yameenuk are as halal to him as his other wives who are described as, say, his cousins who migrated with him.
Thank you huruf. I believe 100% that polygyny is haram according to Quran. I will continue exprerssing my belief, God willing.
Peace,
Hasan Akcay -
As Salaamu Alaikum all,
It is clear that the Prophet is not allowed to exchange a wife with a woman from outside of his family even if the latter?s beauty pleases him greatly.
Not even for beauty.....hmmmmmmmm hmm Could this be expressing the idea that the Prophet married all those women for beauty previously? Seems like Allah doesn't condemn men for marrying women, more than one, even for their beauty alone; not to mention whether or not they are widows or anything.
What he is forbidden to do is not to make one woman haram to himself so that he can make another halaal. The Prophet has no right to make anything haram to himself after God makes it halal to him (661).
The "Mothers of the Believers" can not be replaced because Allah has given them a special place of mention in Al Quran. But, he could take on more MMA, as is clear to those without blinders on.
The fact that he is not allowed to take wife upon wife is a clearcut end to polygyny because you can not have polygyny without taking wife upon wife.
You can't END polygyny by not allowing someone who is already a polygynist to not have MORE wives from certain groups of women. That means that you are only LIMITING how many wives that person can have IN POLYGYNY from those mentioned. That is the most basic observation that even a four year old should understand. To END POLYGYNY, Allah would have to say divorce the ALL wives and MMA that you have and keep only one, and no more are allowable after that, WHICH IS NEVER DONE IN AL QURAN!
It is not "no women are lawful to you after this", but it is "no women are lawful to you after this ........ EXCEPT MMA", which allows him to marry MMA henceforth as explained above, thus no prohibition of polygyny.
You stubbornly close your eyes to the truth that the Prophet?s wives who are described as ma malakat yameenuk are as halal to him as his other wives who are described as, say, his cousins who migrated with him.
Some people stubbornly close their eyes to see that they have NO argument and sound pretty ridiculous with making some claims. Of course the Prophet's wives are also considered those among the MMA, that is precisely why when it points out that he can't not marry more EXCEPT MMA, it is clearly not forbidding him to marry more MMA. The argument posed by the author fails to address the clear exception to the rule pointed out to him, and instead points out an obvious truth as what I guess is supposed to be proof of the error of the argument made by Tanveer;...go figure! nope
As Salaamu Alaikum, peace
-
Salaam all,
I don't know about others, but it seems to me that we are in some aspect back to square one. We are having mamalakataymanakums all over the place and everyone who uses the expression seems to have his own understanding of what it means. Fot
|
the sake of knowing what we are talking about, I will summarize and askMa malakat aymana(kum, hum,... ) is
A. 1. Always women
-
always women and men
-
Sometimes women, sometimes women and men
If it is about
In any of A cases
B.
-
ma malakat aymana (...) are believers come over from the unbelievers
-
Unbelievers or believers i the hands of the believers who are protecte by these.
-
Like 2 but also including prisoners.
C.
In the case where the possibility of the situation of marriage is contemplated with or for the malakat aymana(...)
-
MA are women or men and before they came over to the believers they were married to unbelievers, therefore their marriages are now null and therefore the can be married to believers.
-
They are women or men and they were married or unmarried previously to the unbelievers and therefore could now be married to believers.
-
They are always women in in any of c.1 or c.2 situations.
I will be grateful for any answer particularly for answers as much supported by quranic evidence and reasoning as possible
Thank you all.
Salaam
-
-
Huruf,
Ma malakat aymaan are sometimes males, sometimes females.
The ones in An-Noor 33 are males and if any of those whom your oaths posses desire to obtain a deed of freedom, write it out for them -wa?llazeena yabtaguuna?l ketaaba mim ma malakat aymman ukum fa kaateb uhum.
The pronoun UHUM grammatically stands for males but it covers females as well just like momenoon in "yaa ayyuha?l momenoon" (590). MOMENOON means believing men but stands for believing women too.
The ones in 43 are females to be married off by their guardians to other men. So are the females in 424 and 425 to be married off by their guardians to other men.
The ones in 2431 and 3355 are both males and females under the protection of their guardians. The females in this category can never be actual or potential wives of their guardians because their guardians are believing women in 2431 and the Prophet?s wives in 3355.
The ones 235-6 and 7029-30 are the actual wives of the men whose oaths posses them (ma malakat aymaan uhum). And the ones in 3350 and 3352 are the Prophet?s actual wives (ma malakat yameenuk).
Peace,
Hasan Akcay