Defenition of marriage suggests sex before marriage permitted?!

Samia

Basically when you propose or promise something serious in which i think a proposal to a relationship will count, then it is a form of Ba-Ya-Ayn (Making a covenant, an engagement)

As verse 2282 says "except if it is a trade to be done on the spot between you" and trade here has the root Ba-Ya-Ayn (if i'm not mistaken)
Then i understand this to mean that serious promises or proposals must have at least two people who know this.

Does trade come frome Ba-Ya-Ayn?? I currently can't tell.

Salaam

I think you are mixing between two different verbs related to the same root baya3a/ , verb form III (only the verb is used in the qur'aan) to promise allegence to an authority/ plight one's fealty; and bay3 / , noun/verbal noun from verb form I (only the noun is used) sale/trade.

Verse 6010 does not contain any of these two words, but has (they spent) and their (ajr)

O ye who believe! When there come to you believing women refugees, examine (and test) them Allah knows best as to their Faith if ye ascertain that they are Believers, then send them not back to the Unbelievers. They are not lawful (wives) for the Unbelievers, nor are the (Unbelievers) lawful (husbands) for them. But pay the Unbelievers what they have spent, and there will be no blame on you if ye marry them on payment of their ajr to them. But hold not to the guardianship of unbelieving women ask for what ye have spent, and let the (Unbelievers) ask for what they have spent . Such is the command of Allah He judges between you. And Allah is Full of Knowledge and Wisdom.

Well sometimes people get rewarded by praise for their works. By non physical i meant something like that.

This is called being thankful and/ or grateful.

nimnimak_11

peace

I think you are mixing between two different verbs related to the same root baya3a/ , verb form III (only the verb is used in the qur'aan) to promise allegence to an authority/ plight one's fealty; and bay3 / , noun/verbal noun from verb form I (only the noun is used) sale/trade.

So there's no way it can mean making a covenant or an engagement?

Verse 6010 does not contain any of these two words, but has (they spent) and their (ajr)

O ye who believe! When there come to you believing women refugees, examine (and test) them Allah knows best as to their Faith if ye ascertain that they are Believers, then send them not back to the Unbelievers. They are not lawful (wives) for the Unbelievers, nor are the (Unbelievers) lawful (husbands) for them. But pay the Unbelievers what they have spent, and there will be no blame on you if ye marry them on payment of their ajr to them. But hold not to the guardianship of unbelieving women ask for what ye have spent, and let the (Unbelievers) ask for what they have spent . Such is the command of Allah He judges between you. And Allah is Full of Knowledge and Wisdom

Thank you for responding to my request.
This does not mean that ajr has to be physical then if that's the only occurence of ajr in that verse.

What do you mean by "physical"? How can someone pay you a "non physical" reward/wage?

to award someone, it could be saying nice things to them (which would be praising someone) or buying them flowers (which is buying something) One is physical the other is not. The purpose of both however is to give happiness.

The thing which could prevent ajr from being non physical is when part of the translation of 6010 comes out as "payment of their ajr" In english it is payment which implies money or something of financial value is it similar in arabic? Does the arabic of the word payment imply in arabic that the ajr is money?

Thanks

Samia

So there's no way it can mean making a covenant or an engagement?

If you mean ajr, no. It follows this agreement. Even when it's by God, it's not unconditional.

Thank you for responding to my request.
This does not mean that ajr has to be physical then if that's the only occurence of ajr in that verse.
to award someone, it could be saying nice things to them (which would be praising someone) or buying them flowers (which is buying something) One is physical the other is not. The purpose of both however is to give happiness.

The verse is speaking of paying back the expenses paid by their previous husbands. How can they payback thanks and gratitude?
And if my husband keeps thanking me and sending me fllwers, and that's all he "pays", would I be happy? nope

The thing which could prevent ajr from being non physical is when part of the translation of 6010 comes out as "payment of their ajr" In english it is payment which implies money or something of financial value is it similar in arabic? Does the arabic of the word payment imply in arabic that the ajr is money?

The word "ajr" intself means reward/wage. Yes, there's of a course a verb, which is ( aatuuhunna give them), but the verb itself can be used to give non physical things, just as in English where it does not necessarily mean give physical/financial thing or even has a positive meaning. Yet, it's not used for "giving" thanks! (Thanksgiving, when translated, omits the verb because it's not used in Arabic with thanking)

nimnimak_11

peace

The verse is speaking of paying back the expenses paid by their previous husbands. How can they payback thanks and gratitude?

They cannot, but when you translated the verse for me, the place where you made clear that the word ajr actually appeared

O ye who believe! When there come to you believing women refugees, examine (and test) them Allah knows best as to their Faith if ye ascertain that they are Believers, then send them not back to the Unbelievers. They are not lawful (wives) for the Unbelievers, nor are the (Unbelievers) lawful (husbands) for them. But pay the Unbelievers what they have spent (No ajr here right?), and there will be no blame on you if ye marry them on payment of their ajr(This ajr is addressed to the women only) to them. But hold not to the guardianship of unbelieving women ask for what ye have spent(Again no ajr), and let the (Unbelievers) ask for what they have spent(No ajr) . Such is the command of Allah He judges between you. And Allah is Full of Knowledge and Wisdom

The places where it is said to pay them what they have spent means it is physical but the word ajr does not occure in these places. Where ajr does occure is when it is addressed to the believer giving the women

"there will be no blame on you if ye marry them on payment of their ajr"

And if my husband keeps thanking me and sending me fllwers, and that's all he "pays", would I be happy?

fair enough. What I'm trying to convey is that where it says there will be no blame on you if ye marry them on payment of their ajr It might also mean There is no blame upon you to marry these women once you make them happy. I think this because ajr means reward and the purpose of reward in this context is to make the person being rewarded happy.

Do you think this is possible?

You said

"The word "ajr" intself means reward/wage. Yes, there's of a course a verb, which is ( aatuuhunna give them), but the verb itself can be used to give non physical things, just as in English where it does not necessarily mean give physical/financial thing or even has a positive meaning. Yet, it's not used for "giving" thanks! (Thanksgiving, when translated, omits the verb because it's not used in Arabic with thanking)"

aatuuhunna. Thank you for explaining this. Now that this means that it can be used in a non physical manner would happiness apply to it?
You can't give "thanks" as you say. But what kind of things can you give that's not physical?

Samia

Salaam

They cannot, but when you translated the verse for me, the place where you made clear that the word ajr actually appeared

O ye who believe! When there come to you believing women refugees, examine (and test) them Allah knows best as to their Faith if ye ascertain that they are Believers, then send them not back to the Unbelievers. They are not lawful (wives) for the Unbelievers, nor are the (Unbelievers) lawful (husbands) for them. But pay the Unbelievers what they have spent (No ajr here right?), and there will be no blame on you if ye marry them on payment of their ajr(This ajr is addressed to the women only) to them. But hold not to the guardianship of unbelieving women ask for what ye have spent(Again no ajr), and let the (Unbelievers) ask for what they have spent(No ajr) . Such is the command of Allah He judges between you. And Allah is Full of Knowledge and Wisdom

The places where it is said to pay them what they have spent means it is physical but the word ajr does not occure in these places. Where ajr does occure is when it is addressed to the believer giving the women

"there will be no blame on you if ye marry them on payment of their ajr"

fair enough. What I'm trying to convey is that where it says there will be no blame on you if ye marry them on payment of their ajr It might also mean There is no blame upon you to marry these women once you make them happy. I think this because ajr means reward and the purpose of reward in this context is to make the person being rewarded happy.

Do you think this is possible?

Do you understand this verse? What's this that the believers, or the non believers, spent and should have it back? Thanks? Does the verse tell us anything else but ajr?
Making someone happy or elevating their sorrow and sadness is a trait of a believer to anybody, even if they do not know them personally.

"there will be no blame on you if ye marry them on payment of their ajr"

According to you "there's no blame on you if ye marry them on the promise of making them happy". A promise, of course, you cannot equally make to your parents or family, because you are not obliged to pay them "ajr".

aatuuhunna. Thank you for explaining this. Now that this means that it can be used in a non physical manner would happiness apply to it?
You can't give "thanks" as you say. But what kind of things can you give that's not physical?

A few examples
Wisdom 454; 3112; 4516; 3820 reasoning/guidance 2151; knowledge 2174;

4127
They ask thy instruction concerning the women say Allah doth instruct you about them And (remember) what hath been rehearsed unto you in the Book, concerning the orphans of women to whom ye give not the portions prescribed, and yet whom ye desire to marry,

Here you have the verb "aata" with a description of "ajr" as "what is prescribed to them".

nimnimak_11

peace

Do you understand this verse? What's this that the believers, or the non believers, spent and should have it back? Thanks? Does the verse tell us anything else but ajr?

I think i understand the translations. If i understand correctly, then i may have a good point !.
I went on islamawakened.com to look at the literal translation but i cannot copy and paste it here so i will have to try and write key parts as best as i can

6010 Give them what they spent (disblievers).....No sin if you marry them if you gave them their ajr....and ask for what you spent and they should ask for what they spend....

Ok. What i'm suggesting is that in all the parts that ajr does not occure, that COULD mean that it is not ajr. Instead of ajr it could be something like "fareeda" as you pointed out in 2237

I tried thinking about this logicaly. How can you pay back someone's wages/reward if you don't know the exact amount? The exact amount of wage/reward would not be known unless if it was kept account of. Sort of like what truthseeker was suggesting Ajr to be a lump sum or something that is paid over a fixed period.

Instead, if it was something like fareeda, then the amount would be obvious and can be paid back. Hence they are paying back what they spent on them when they pay back something like the fareeda. Then they don't HAVE to pay fareeda to these women to marry them but they HAVE to give Ajr.

This might possibly be why the word "ajr" in the verse only occured at that place.

According to you "there's no blame on you if ye marry them on the promise of making them happy". A promise, of course, you cannot equally make to your parents or family, because you are not obliged to pay them "ajr".

Not making the promise but making them happy. You are hence giving happiness and not giving the promise to happiness.
With regards to parents, you do not seek them to become your parents. They are already your parents. Even if you don't give them ajr, they are still your parents. Making them happy is righteouse. But if you seek a partner then you have to give them ajr (happiness) in order to achieve that status of married one possible reason for this is so that you are close and intimate enough to have sex which would possibly further strengthen your bond.

A few examples
Wisdom 454; 3112; 4516; 3820 reasoning/guidance 2151; knowledge 2174;

4127
They ask thy instruction concerning the women say Allah doth instruct you about them And (remember) what hath been rehearsed unto you in the Book, concerning the orphans of women to whom ye give not the portions prescribed, and yet whom ye desire to marry,

Here you have the verb "aata" with a description of "ajr" as "what is prescribed to them".

Thank you for the examples.

On verse 4127 I have two issues

How do we know that the portions prescribed is ajr and not something else.
Who prescribed what?

If there was a verse where in which the word ajr was used such that it said something like "half of" or "payback" the ajr then that would make clear that this ajr is physical. But as i have not come across such verse though admitively i have not yet looked properly, i currently believe that ajr can be something nonphysical such as happiness as this also agrees with my reason and logic.

peace

Samia

6010 Give them what they spent (disblievers).....No sin if you marry them if you gave them their ajr....and ask for what you spent and they should ask for what they spend....

Ok. What i'm suggesting is that in all the parts that ajr does not occure, that COULD mean that it is not ajr. Instead of ajr it could be something like "fareeda" as you pointed out in 2237

I tried thinking about this logicaly. How can you pay back someone's wages/reward if you don't know the exact amount? The exact amount of wage/reward would not be known unless if it was kept account of. Sort of like what truthseeker was suggesting Ajr to be a lump sum or something that is paid over a fixed period.

Instead, if it was something like fareeda, then the amount would be obvious and can be paid back. Hence they are paying back what they spent on them when they pay back something like the fareeda. Then they don't HAVE to pay fareeda to these women to marry them but they HAVE to give Ajr.

This might possibly be why the word "ajr" in the verse only occured at that place.

The "fareeDa" is paid to the woman when she is divorced. The kafirs did not pay them a fareeDa because they did not divorce them. It's the believers who kept these believng women from returning to the kafirs. So until these women came to the believing community they were still married and not yet paid their fareeDa. So "what they spent" cannot be "fareeDa"
And why not keep account of what ajr has been paid? Is this a problem? If it's not kept, how about an approximate amount according to the custom? The verse is addressing the community. These matters are not decided by individuals. Like any law, it's the community. The quraan gives the guidelines and every community sets its laws and how to apply them, basd on these guidelines.

if you seek a partner then you have to give them ajr (happiness) in order to achieve that status of married one possible reason for this is so that you are close and intimate enough to have sex which would possibly further strengthen your bond.

If they are your partner they are already close enough to have sex....what "happiness" that's exclusive to the partner? Aren't you also happy? Is she asked to pay you ajr? No, but nevertheless you are automatically "paid ajr"!

Thank you for the examples.

On verse 4127 I have two issues

How do we know that the portions prescribed is ajr and not something else.
Who prescribed what?

If there was a verse where in which the word ajr was used such that it said something like "half of" or "payback" the ajr then that would make clear that this ajr is physical. But as i have not come across such verse though admitively i have not yet looked properly, i currently believe that ajr can be something nonphysical such as happiness as this also agrees with my reason and logic.

The part is about nikah marriage. What's prescribed for marriage? Use your logic. This question can be valid if we have more than a thing prescribed. But if it's one thing, why look further?
God. When the law of employment, for example, says that employees should be paid "ajr", it does not go into details.

If you believe that ajr can be happiness, then why do you debate and argue a word that has no meaning other than reward, and that "happiness" cannot be awarded?

nimnimak_11

peace

If you believe that ajr can be happiness, then why do you debate and argue a word that has no meaning other than reward, and that "happiness" cannot be awarded?

I agree on the meaning of ajr being reward. But i believe that the reward can be understood as happiness. If God rewards happiness and humans are capable at times of making others happy, then as an ajr happiness can be applicable.

The part is about nikah marriage. What's prescribed for marriage? Use your logic. This question can be valid if we have more than a thing prescribed. But if it's one thing, why look further?

I thought about this. Mutual agreement and Ajr are amongst the things prescribed for marriage BUT

434 "The men are to support the women by what God has gifted them over one another and for what they spend of their money...." IF this is not ajr, then this is prescribed also BUT if it is ajr then i agree with your point on Ajr being physical
I don't want to sound like i'm just rejecting but the thing is, i'm confused on this verse. In some of the translations, there is no mention of the mother of the orphans. It just talks of the orphans.

Rashad khalifa They consult you concerning women say, "GOD enlightens you regarding them, as recited for you in the scripture. You shall restore the rights of orphaned girls whom you cheat out of their due dowries when you wish to marry them you shall not take advantage of them. The rights of orphaned boys must also be protected as well. You shall treat the orphans equitably. Whatever good you do, GOD is fully aware thereof."

Why is this? Is this translation acceptable in terms of arabic?

God. When the law of employment, for example, says that employees should be paid "ajr", it does not go into details.

Do you mean God's reward to the servants?
If so then ultimately could God's reward in this life be anything better then happiness? Is there anything better than happiness in this life? As you say, it does not go into details this is similar to the ajr we are required to provide our partners with in which i see no wrong in the understanding of happiness as ajr. Unless 434 refers to Ajr.

If they are your partner they are already close enough to have sex....

They aren't your proper partner (spouse) untill you give them ajr. How can you be close enough to have sex when you are failing to make each other happy?

what "happiness" that's exclusive to the partner? Aren't you also happy? Is she asked to pay you ajr? No, but nevertheless you are automatically "paid ajr"!

Good point. I'll get back to you on this one.

And why not keep account of what ajr has been paid? Is this a problem? If it's not kept, how about an approximate amount according to the custom?

Sounds ok.

The "fareeDa" is paid to the woman when she is divorced

When they are abandoning their former husbands, couldn't this be divorce? Why is "fareeda" exclusive to divorce?

I'll get back to you on that other point i said either tonight or tomorow.

peace

savage_carrot

After reading most of the thread, I have to agree with Samia on this one as she makes valid points. Happiness as ajr is kinda iffy.

Samia

Salaam

I agree on the meaning of ajr being reward. But i believe that the reward can be understood as happiness. If God rewards happiness and humans are capable at times of making others happy, then as an ajr happiness can be applicable.

Why do you put "human are capable of making others happy" en par with "God rewards happiness"? Who says people are capable of making others happy? You make yourself happy. My children make me happy, but they do not do any specific thing other than being my children. The go away and I feel sad. Are they responsible for this "unhappiness"? God tells us how to be happy, not how to make others happy.

Mutual agreement and Ajr are amongst the things prescribed for marriage BUT

434 "The men are to support the women by what God has gifted them over one another and for what they spend of their money...." IF this is not ajr, then this is prescribed also BUT if it is ajr then i agree with your point on Ajr being physical

This is neither ajr, nor is it between "men" and "women". And definitely not couples. What's the relation between these "men" and "women"? Does the verse tell you that they are married to each other?

Rashad khalifa They consult you concerning women say, "GOD enlightens you regarding them, as recited for you in the scripture. You shall restore the rights of orphaned girls whom you cheat out of their due dowries when you wish to marry them you shall not take advantage of them. The rights of orphaned boys must also be protected as well. You shall treat the orphans equitably. Whatever good you do, GOD is fully aware thereof."

Why is this? Is this translation acceptable in terms of arabic?

What do you think? Do you find it ethical, logical or in line with the spirit of the qur'aan? What about non orphaned girls? It sounds from this translation that it's OK to cheat them of their dowries!
The funny thing is that the same word "yataamaa" is used twice, and linguistically it's a masculine plural. It's used for males only or for a mixed group of both genders. There's another plural for females, which is "yateemaat". Why a native speaker would twist the translation in this way must be out of preconception. He is definitely not thinking. Secondly, where did he get "girls" in "orphaned girls" from? The phrase is "yataamaa al-nisaa'". In Arabic the adjective follows the noun, except in cases which this is not one of them. If the translator translates "yataamaa" as orphaned boys (there's nothing to show that they are specifically boys only, as we can use this plural with mixed gender too) then he should have expected to have "yateemaat" instead of "orphaned girls",.
In short, this translation is logically and linguistically wrong.

Do you mean God's reward to the servants?

This was in response to this part of your post

Who prescribed what?

If there was a verse where in which the word ajr was used such that it said something like "half of" or "payback" the ajr then that would make clear that this ajr is physical.

I was explaining that existence or lack of details has no bearing on ajr being physcal or not.

They aren't your proper partner (spouse) untill you give them ajr. How can you be close enough to have sex when you are failing to make each other happy?

Then when do you intend to make them happy? If you are not yet intimate with them, how do you know what makes them happy? So it's a promise as I first said, and you said not a promise, but make them happy! Now make your mind is it a promise (no intimate knowledge required) or actually making them happy (you have to know them very intimately to know what makes them happy)?

When they are abandoning their former husbands, couldn't this be divorce? Why is "fareeda" exclusive to divorce?

Consider it a "redundancy package" since we are talking "ajr" ;D

Fahad1

delete.

Fahad1

No, accusation is not of zina, but of committing fornication, which when proven , becomes zina. And if not proven (less than 4 witnesses) would remain an accusation, and that is precisely being discouraged with dire consequences of 80 lashes.

I cannot agree, you have shown me no evidence for that.

I would agree with you here, there is no direct verse stating so, We have deduced this by interpolating different verses on the subject,

Which verses?

and this deduction is not 100% but is most likely, we do need to work and fill up this gap.

But you have not shown me a single verse that even indicates that zina is public sex. How then can your deduction be any more than 0% correct?

But so far, any other explanation, specially yours, is no where close, and till the time we come up with such deductions, which improve upon the %tage , I would stick with the Most likely scenario.

But have you refuted my explanation or cited any evidence against it? Why is my understanding erroneous? Where does it contradict the Quran? What is the evidence for your deduction being the most likely scenario? You said 4/25 disproves my understanding, but you haven't shown me how.

Fahad1

Again in 24-6 ,the issue can not be categorised as zina due to absence 4 witnesses, but as the matter is extremely important/sensitive for the witnessing spouse, as such he can not keep his mouth shut and go on living, just because he can't produce 4 witnesses , and if he bursts out with it, 80 lashes are waiting for him, so to avoid false accusation charge , a special procedure has been formulated.

Bro, the Quran does not tell us this reason.

I agree, but the Quran does not stop us to contemplate the divine wisdom in its commandments.

The Quran discourages zann/conjecture/guesswork. Therefore it should not be put forward as evidence.

For example...

If we have come up with a number of (extra-Quranic)reasons then...

a. maybe the reason is only one of them,
b. maybe some of them,
c. maybe all of them,
d. or maybe none of them, maybe the reason is something else.

We can never know for sure. We can only guess/conjecture about it.

Fahad1

I have been trying for a long time to convey this to all my sisters on this forum,

What you so often forget is that God has honored the woman by giving her value in relation to God not in relation to men. But as western feminism erases God from the scene, there are no standard left but men. As a result the western feminist is forced to find her value in relation to a man. And in so doing you have accepted a faulty assumption. You have accepted that man is the standard, and thus a woman can never be a full human being until she becomes just like a man.

Only a woman can be a mother. And God has given special privilege to a mother. So why is that not unfair? And yet even when God honors you with something uniquely feminine, you are too busy trying to find your worth in reference to men, to value it-or even notice, and have accepted men as the standard; so anything uniquely feminine is, by definition, inferior, being sensitive is an insult, becoming a mother-a degradation.

In fact, in your effort to follow men, you, as women, never even stopped to examine the possibility that what you have is better for you. In some cases you even gave up what was higher, only to be like men.

Given your privilege as a woman, you only degrade yourself by trying to be something you are not. As women, you will never reach true liberation until you stop trying to mimic men, and value the beauty in your own God-given distinctiveness.

peace

siki

That's very well said.

Both men and women should find their karam/worth/value/honour in their relation to God(49/13), as He is al-akram/the most valuable/honorable(96/3).

nimnimak_11

Samia peace

what "happiness" that's exclusive to the partner? Aren't you also happy? Is she asked to pay you ajr? No, but nevertheless you are automatically "paid ajr"

I think your right. It's not the husband's exclusive duty to make his wife happy. But what do you mean by you are automatically paid ajr? Also in general, why is it that the husband has to give ajr to the wife and not the other way round. In terms of arabic, is it 100% certain that ajr is only the male's duty? Could it not be the duty of the person who is providing?

Why do you put "human are capable of making others happy" en par with "God rewards happiness"? Who says people are capable of making others happy? You make yourself happy. My children make me happy, but they do not do any specific thing other than being my children. The go away and I feel sad. Are they responsible for this "unhappiness"? God tells us how to be happy, not how to make others happy

I did not mean to put it en par with God's ajr. Though i think we are responsible in making ourselves happy, there are many scenarios i can think of in which one person can make another happy.

For example Person Z's heavy debt is the cause of their unhappiness. Person X pays this debt off. Technically, the reason Z is happy is because his debt has been removed. The cause of this was X. Thus X gave cause for Z to be happy. You can almost say that X made Z happy.

What do you think? Do you find it ethical, logical or in line with the spirit of the qur'aan? What about non orphaned girls? It sounds from this translation that it's OK to cheat them of their dowries!
The funny thing is that the same word "yataamaa" is used twice, and linguistically it's a masculine plural. It's used for males only or for a mixed group of both genders. There's another plural for females, which is "yateemaat". Why a native speaker would twist the translation in this way must be out of preconception. He is definitely not thinking. Secondly, where did he get "girls" in "orphaned girls" from? The phrase is "yataamaa al-nisaa'". In Arabic the adjective follows the noun, except in cases which this is not one of them. If the translator translates "yataamaa" as orphaned boys (there's nothing to show that they are specifically boys only, as we can use this plural with mixed gender too) then he should have expected to have "yateemaat" instead of "orphaned girls",.
In short, this translation is logically and linguistically wrong.

I was unsure of what was classified as an orphan in the Quran. I was just considering the possibility that this verse talks of those who have lost both their parents and have prescribed rights from this loss (what the parents have legally left them). Not dowry or Ajr. I was thinking that perhaps non orphaned girls have not got any prescribed rights as their parents are alive. Thus no will has been prescribed to them unlike orphans.

This is neither ajr, nor is it between "men" and "women". And definitely not couples. What's the relation between these "men" and "women"? Does the verse tell you that they are married to each other?

What do you mean by "nor is it between men and women"?
There is no relation given. Would this then not mean that overall, the men are to support the women? Why not the women support the men. Is this strictly a finance issue hence the part "and for what they spend of their money"?

Then when do you intend to make them happy? If you are not yet intimate with them, how do you know what makes them happy? So it's a promise as I first said, and you said not a promise, but make them happy! Now make your mind is it a promise (no intimate knowledge required) or actually making them happy (you have to know them very intimately to know what makes them happy)?

I was explaining that existence or lack of details has no bearing on ajr being physcal or not.

If we are to just take ajr as what it is (reward) then this would mean that I propose to a girl (Not just for sex) she accepts then as her reward(ajr) i take her to the cinemas and thus we are married hence we are permitted to have sex after we get back from the cinema (Would you see this as acceptable??) I actually do if the intention of the proposal is right.
There is no mention of the reason for why the women are given ajr. Or a guideline of the value of their ajr. This could mean that almost anything can be classified as ajr.

Then when do you intend to make them happy? If you are not yet intimate with them, how do you know what makes them happy? So it's a promise as I first said, and you said not a promise, but make them happy! Now make your mind is it a promise (no intimate knowledge required) or actually making them happy (you have to know them very intimately to know what makes them happy)?

This is why i'm thinking that after the proposal you can't just go and have sex. You have to know them enough to be able to know what makes them happy after this stage is reached in the relationship, then would you be able to give ajr and thus be classified as married. Then would sexual relations be acceptable.

Thus if you propose to them and you don't know them that well, then you wait untill you reach that stage (no promises unless this is automatically understood between the couples). But if you know them that well and then propose to them, then you might be already at that stage where you can give ajr.

Actually your right because when you propose, the promise of the attempt to make them happy is already there.

I'm starting to think ajr in the context of marriage is not happiness -\

Savage Carrot peace

After reading most of the thread, I have to agree with Samia on this one as she makes valid points. Happiness as ajr is kinda iffy.

After discussing this with Samia, i'm starting to think so too as some of the questions she raised, i could not find a reasonable answer to. I am starting to think that Ajr should be understood in the literal sense (reward) !
But that would mean that in the example that i have given (cinema) there is no fornication or sin commited. Although in my mind and heart, i don't think there's anything wrong with that example.

Can you two provide any reasons to disagree?

peace

nsws1988

If we are to just take ajr as what it is (reward) then this would mean that I propose to a girl (Not just for sex) she accepts then as her reward(ajr) i take her to the cinemas and thus we are married hence we are permitted to have sex after we get back from the cinema (Would you see this as acceptable??) I actually do if the intention of the proposal is right.

What happened to the witnesses?
Any one can promise a girl that he will commit to her, take her to the cinema, buy her some popcorn and take advantage of her.
A marriage protects both individuals from this.

nimnimak_11

nsws peace

What happened to the witnesses?
Any one can promise a girl that he will commit to her, take her to the cinema, buy her some popcorn and take advantage of her.
A marriage protects both individuals from this.

Because verse 2282 is no longer applicable to this, witnesses are not required as far as i know.
True anyone can lie and then take advantage but this does not mean that the Quran forbids it. Same can be said for traditional marriages. Anyone can lie and take advantage of things like wealth.

I think it is up to the believer's judgement to make sure that they have found a believing partner. A believer would not take advantage. Also a person who tries to take advantage of a believer is IMO likely to fail as a believer would probabely know if she/he is being rushed into sex. I think advantage would be taken of when the believer goes against their insticts and agrees to being rushed. Should a person lie and pretend to be on the lines of a believer, then we are told to seperate from them 6010 as far as i know.

nsws1988

nsws peace

Because verse 2282 is no longer applicable to this, witnesses are not required as far as i know.
True anyone can lie and then take advantage but this does not mean that the Quran forbids it. Same can be said for traditional marriages. Anyone can lie and take advantage of things like wealth.

Peace

Why doesn't it apply anymore? Because you are not giving ajr in material form? Don't you still need ajr when you make the oath of commitment?
I understand what you mean about taking advantage, but if someone makes an oath in front of God it isn't the same as making one to a girlfriend that they might not care about.

savage_carrot

After discussing this with Samia, i'm starting to think so too as some of the questions she raised, i could not find a reasonable answer to. I am starting to think that Ajr should be understood in the literal sense (reward) idea

Agreed.

But that would mean that in the example that i have given (cinema) there is no fornication or sin commited. Although in my mind and heart, i don't think there's anything wrong with that example.

Can you two provide any reasons to disagree?

One is taking it slightly into the subjective category here so might disagree a bit. interesting discussion btw, keep it going...I might not be posting regularly (thus sorry I couldn't really get into the discussion) but will certainly try to keep up whenever I'm around.

nimnimak_11

nsnw peace

Why doesn't it apply anymore? Because you are not giving ajr in material form? Don't you still need ajr when you make the oath of commitment?

No. I think this because the marriage commitment or the oath or the contract does not apply to the root Ba-Ya-Ayn

Samia
I think you are mixing between two different verbs related to the same root baya3a/ , verb form III (only the verb is used in the qur'aan) to promise allegence to an authority/ plight one's fealty; and bay3 / , noun/verbal noun from verb form I (only the noun is used) sale/trade.

As far as i know, you don't need ajr to make the proposal. Ajr is after the proposal in order to classed as "married". Also threre is no specification on what ajr is other then reward. Thus in my example after the proposal, if i take my wife to be to the cinemas as an act of ajr (reward), we become married and nothing needs to be written down about my ajr to her in this scenario.

I understand what you mean about taking advantage, but if someone makes an oath in front of God it isn't the same as making one to a girlfriend that they might not care about

If i propose to a girl, i have commited myself to her and God is witness to all things.
I think your point would be valied if i was to propose to a girl with sex or something wrong as my primary motive for the relationship.